Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 88 (2021) 103798

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jngse

Review Article

Thermal methods in flow assurance: A review

Elijah Bell a, Yingda Lu b, Nagu Daraboina a, b, *, Cem Sarica b
a
Russell School of Chemical Engineering, The University of Tulsa, USA
b
Tulsa University Paraffin Deposition Projects, The University of Tulsa, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Solid deposition in flow-lines is a significant challenge for offshore operations. Flow blockage can lead to reduced
Flow assurance production and increased costs. A variety of technologies have been developed and implemented to assure that
Thermal methods flow during production. Of these, thermal management methods have become common. Thermal management
Wax
methods can be both passive and active. Passive methods include the use of insulation and pipeline burial to
Hydrate
maintain the temperature of the fluid. The majority of flowlines that have flow assurance issues caused by
temperature makes use of some form of insulation, due to its ease of installation and relatively low cost. In
contrast, active methods require the application of heating techniques to maintain/raise the temperature of the
fluid. Active heating methods are widely used and can be done either electrically or via circulation of hot fluid. A
thermal management system describes the use of either one or more of these technologies to mitigate or
remediate deposition of solids and ensure flow. This paper reviews the thermal methods implemented in offshore
operations and discusses the features.

1. Introduction
Flow assurance has always been a significant concern for the oper­
ation of offshore systems. Flow assurance is described as the creation of a
reliable, safe, and profitable flow of production fluids from their origin
to the point of sale (Brown, 2002). The relatively low temperatures in
subsea conditions can lead to the formation of wax deposits, hydrates,
and other solids, which, over time, increase costs and inhibit production
(Rahimpour et al., 2013; Chaudhari et al., 2018; Cameirao et al., 2018;
Soedarmo et al., 2016).
Wax precipitation occurs in pipelines when the production fluid is at
and below the wax appearance temperature (WAT). This, over time,
inhibits flow and causes significant non-Newtonian behavior. In situa­
tions where only the pipeline wall falls below the WAT, a radial tem­
perature gradient will form and wax deposition will occur in cooler
regions nearest to the wall. As temperature decreases so does wax sol­
ubility, which will lead to a concentration gradient of wax in the liquid
phase established by said temperature gradient. This deposition layer of
wax can form, grow, and over time constrict flow (Aiyejina et al., 2011;
Jeirani et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2020).
Hydrate formation in natural gas pipelines is a complex phenome­
non. Oil and gas pipelines have some amount of moisture content. Under
certain thermodynamic conditions, low temperature and moderate/high
pressure, the temperature of gas in the pipeline can fall below the
saturation temperature and water vapor can start to condensate (Zhou
et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2018). This can lead to hydrate nucleation and
growth, and over time constrict flow in the pipeline (Naseer and
Brandstätter, 2011; Bishnoi and Natarajan, 1996).
Asphaltene precipitation involves solid asphaltene particles coming
out of solution and becoming suspended in the oil. This occurs when
they become unstable. Stability can be affected by many factors,
including the composition of the production fluid, temperature, pres­
sure, and oil viscosity (Bai et al., 2019; Al-Hosani and Daraboina, 2020).
Pressure is considered to be the biggest factor when considering the
stabilization of asphaltenes. As the pressure decreases, the aliphatic
components in the oil increases leading to precipitation. If this precip­
itation is not immediately dealt with it will lead to deposition and
buildup. This pressure is known as the asphaltene onset pressure and is
dependent on many factors one of which being temperature. As the
temperature increases, the asphaltene onset pressure decreases (Fakher
et al., 2019). Temperature affects mainly become an issue at the reser­
voir, as this is where there is typically the most drastic change of tem­
perature and pressure affects between the and the production pipeline
(Guo et al., 2014). Problems with flow assurance only become harder to
solve the further, and deeper a system goes.
Several techniques have been used to ensure efficient flow in the oil

* Corresponding author. Russell School of Chemical Engineering, The University of Tulsa, USA.
E-mail address: nagu-daraboina@utulsa.edu (N. Daraboina).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2021.103798
Received 10 July 2020; Received in revised form 24 November 2020; Accepted 2 January 2021
Available online 7 January 2021
1875-5100/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
E. Bell et al.
and gas industry, either by preventing solids from depositing or reme­
diating solids that have already been deposited. Examples of preventa­
tive techniques include using chemicals and the circulation of hot oil.
Examples of remediation techniques include active heating and pigging.
Each method presents its own challenges related to implementation,
effectiveness, and costs (Brown, 2002; Al-Yaari, 2011; Chi et al., 2019).
The use of chemical inhibitors to prevent or delay deposition of solids,
while useful, can prove to be overly expensive due to the large amount
needed in long flowlines and pipelines. There are different varieties of
chemical methods to prevent solids deposition, including solvents,
crystal modifiers, dispersants, and detergents (Farhadian et al., 2020;
Al-Hosani and Daraboina, 2020). Solvents dissolve the solid, but many
of the more effective variety has a low flashpoint, which brings up safety
concerns. Crystal modifiers interfere with crystal growth and agglom­
eration, minimizing deposition. Crystal modifiers are not universally
effective and are highly dependent on the deposit composition, which
requires trial and error to find the right one (Al-Yaari, 2011). Dispersants
and detergents affect solids ability to bind to the pipe wall and each
other. Environmental concerns also come into effect and need to be
considered in the case of a leak or spill (Lenes et al., 2005). Pigging refers
to pushing a projectile through the pipe, where it scrapes the sides of the
pipe, clearing any deposition that has occurred so that normal flow
operations can resume (Wang et al., 2015; Jamshidi and Sarkari, 2016).
While considered to be the simplest and potentially cheapest technique
to remove deposited wax, pigging still has its downsides. Certain design
considerations must be considered in order to launch and receive the
pig, and not every pipeline can have pigging as an option due to vari­
ations in pipe diameters or difficult to navigate angles (Chen et al.,
2018). There is also the potential for a stuck pig, potentially resulting in
extended production shutdowns while waiting for the pigging system to
be repaired (Fung et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2001).
Thermal management describes managing the temperature of the
hydrocarbon fluids to prevent the deposition of any solids on the pipe
wall. Even though thermal approaches are widely used to manage flow
assurance issues in industry practices, in particular, wax deposition and
hydrate plugging, review articles on this topic are scarce in available
literature with limited scope and depth. This gap in the literature
motivated our work presented herein. We reviewed different types of
thermal management techniques and provided an analysis of their effi­
cacy on the prevention or removal of solids during flow.
Thermal techniques typically describe the use of the insulation as
well as active heating. A typical thermal management system will often
use two of these methods in conjunction with one another to increase the
overall efficiency. Insulation describes the use of surrounding the pipe
with a low thermal conductivity material to reduce heat transfer be­
tween the environment and the hydrocarbon. There are two types of
insulation, wet and dry. Wet insulation surrounds the pipe and is in
direct contact with the environment. In contrast, dry insulation uses a
pipe in pipe set up in order to keep the insulation material from coming
in contact with the environment. Active heating technology involves
using an external heating source to either keep the hydrocarbon hot
enough to prevent deposition or remove already deposited solids. Active
heating can either be done via electric heating or hot fluid circulation.
Each technique is discussed in more detail below.
2. Insulation
Insulation is a passive method in thermal management technologies
because, once installed, it requires no outside energy or work input for it
to work (Dixon, 2013). Materials with low thermal conductivity are used
to reduce heat, leaving the pipe to keep the fluid temperature high
enough so that solid deposition will not occur. Thermal insulation alone
is rarely sufficient to prevent the formation of hydrates or wax deposits
during temporary shut-ins; therefore, passive insulation methods are
usually used in conjunction with other preventative techniques, i.e.,
chemical methods or active heating. Whether alone or in conjunction
2
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 88 (2021) 103798
with other mitigation techniques, insulation is a popular technique used
to increase the potential distance of operation and prevent deposition of
solids (Rubel and Broussard, 1994; Chin and Bomba, 1999; Kang et al.,
2014). There are three primary methods of insulation: dry insulation,
wet insulation, and pipeline burial. Fig. 1 shows various types of insu­
lation setups that can be found in the industry use.
2.1. Wet insulation
Wet insulation, often called conventional or traditional insulation,
describes the use of insulation material applied externally to the pipe. It
is known as wet insulation due to its direct contact with the water sur­
rounding the pipeline, though a layer of corrosion coating is usually
applied to provide some protection for the material. Materials that are
common with this type of insulation are polyurethane, polypropylene,
rubber, or glass-reinforced plastic (Lee, 2002). These materials are
chosen because of their ability to remain effective and keep their
integrity in water.
They have approximate thermal transmittance values, or U values, of
2 W/m2⋅K. This insulation technique allows the installation of an outer
jacket to be avoided, or can add additional installation to a pipe-in-pipe
system. Thermal conductivity, water resistance, and suitability for
application to the pipe are just some elements to be considered when
choosing an insulation material (Ruschau et al., 2010).
2.2. Dry insulation
Dry insulation describes insulation materials being encased in a
protective layering to avoid direct contact with water. Dry insulation
materials have lower U values than those used in wet insulation, typi­
cally around 1 W/m2⋅K. This means that heat transfers less readily into
dry insulation materials than wet insulation materials, which makes dry
insulation desirable for systems where a longer shutdown time may be
necessary (Lee, 2002). The materials employed in dry insulation,
including polyurethane foam, mineral wool, or rock wool, are less
effective in the presence of water, which makes a pipe-in-pipe system
necessary if these materials are to be used (Woodyard, 1978; Thant
et al., 2011). A typical pipe-in-pipe insulated flow line would have the
carrier pipe be surrounded by the chosen insulation material, which
itself is surrounded by an outer jacket to protect the insulation layer
(Harrison et al., 1997; Price and Laws, 2007).
2.3. Pipeline burial
Pipeline burial is a way to offer insulation for a pipeline system while
avoiding the costs associated with the installation of a pipe-in-pipe
system. Pipelines are generally buried via trenching and backfilling to
take advantage of the insulating properties of the soil. Pipelines may also
be buried by merely covering with rock or soil. Pipeline burial is often
considered as an alternative to avoid the high material costs and
increased installation time that comes with a pipe-in-pipe system: eco­
nomic comparisons between both methods have found that pipeline
burial tends to be around 35% cheaper than pipe-in-pipe insulation
(Young et al., 2001; Bai, 2005).
The thermal conductivity of the soil plays a significant impact on the
effectiveness of pipeline burial. The thermal conductivity of soil is a
function of dry density, saturation, moisture content, temperature, and
several other factors (Newson and Brunning, 2004). While data is
limited on thermal conductivity of specific deepwater soils, there have
been studies that provide estimates based on soil conditions (Kersten,
1949), as well as studies evaluating offshore deposits (Power et al.,
1994).
Young et al., outlines three features of deep-sea clays that make them
attractive for insulation (Young et al., 2001). Young et al., outlines three
features of deep-sea clays that make them attractive for insulation
(Thant et al., 2011; Finch and Machin, 2001). Pipeline burial does
E. Bell et al.
Fig. 1. Diagrams of various insulation setups, including single pipe with wet insulation material (right), pipe-in-pipe with dry insulation material (middle), and pipe-
in-pipe with an additional layer of wet insulation for multiple layers of insulation (right).
introduce well-documented engineering difficulties that need to be
considered (Morrow and Larkin, 2007), but if these can be overcome,
then the advantages are clear.
3. Active heating
Active heating describes the act of applying either constant or spo­
radic heat to the pipe.
This can be used in deepwater systems to avoid the deposition of
solids or to remove already deposited solids. Active heating methods
have been proven to prevent the need for pigging or chemical injections
(Kang et al., 2014; Esaklul, 2004). Electrical heating or hot fluid circu­
lation are two principle methods of active heating. Active heating is
typically applied in conjunction with passive heating methods described
above. There are three modes of operation when using an active heating
system: continuous heating to prevent deposition, maintaining temper­
ature during a shutdown to prevent deposition, and raising temperature
after a shutdown to remediate deposition. There are some concerns with
using active heating in the case of a plug forming, due to fears that
pressure buildup will cause the plug to launch like a projectile within the
pipe and cause damage (Al-Yaari, 2011; McDermott and Sathananthan,
2014; Tzotzi et al., 2016).
3.1. Electrical heating
Electrical heating supplies a pipe wall with electrical current and
raises the temperature of the wall through resistance heating. This heat
transfers to the bulk fluid via thermal conduction. The heating system
must be able to provide as much heat as is lost to the surroundings to
maintain temperature, and even more if the temperature is to be raised.
Electrical heating can be done in either a direct or indirect fashion
(Abney, 2010; Lervik et al., 2013). Due to high capital and operating
costs associated with electric heating, it is typically reserved for longer
flow line situations where other thermal techniques are less effective
(Lenes et al., 2005; Lervik et al., 1998; Mares, 1959).
Direct electrical heating (DEH) describes the electrical current
flowing along the pipe wall to heat the pipe. Open Loop and Pipe-in-Pipe
are two primary types of DEH. Open-loop DEH describes a single electric
cable being used to carry the entire current and is attached to the outside
of the pipe. The pipeline is connected electrically at both ends and is
exposed to the seawater. The cable functions as a forward conductor
with the seawater and flow line functioning as the return conductor.
This set up allows for losses from the power cable to the seawater and the
return current is divided between the pipe and the seawater (Lervik
et al., 2008, 2012; Delebecque et al., 2009). A typical example of an
3
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 88 (2021) 103798
open-loop DEH system is shown in Fig. 2. Statoil’s Huldra pipeline was
the first to use DEH as the primary system for hydrate management
(Urdahl et al., 2003). The system is designed to avoid the formation of
hydrate plugs, as it is unable to remediate a plug through heating. The
8-in ID pipeline and 16 km long is thermally insulated with 50 mm
polypropylene coating. The overall U Value of the pipeline is 3.6
W/m2K. Electricity is provided via a cable piggybacked to the pipe to
provide enough heat to keep the fluid temperature above 25 ◦ C during
the shutdown. The temperature at arrival is kept at 30 ◦ C in order to
prevent wax deposition. This system has proven effective, with electrical
heating being able to prevent hydrate plug formation even in the event
of an unplanned shutdown. Another such system was previously used in
Statoil’s Asgard field for hydrate remediation (Dretvik and Bornes,
2001; Knudsen et al., 2001). This heating system was designed to
maintain the temperature of the bulk fluid above the hydrate formation
temperature during a shutdown to prevent hydrate formation. Statoil
also has installed other open-loop DEH systems in their Kristin, Urd, and
Tyrihans fields (Hansen, 1999).
In pipe-in-pipe systems, the inner and outer pipes are used as con­
ductors (Roth, 2011; Gainville et al., 2014). The pipes are connected via
a conduction bulkhead. Current flows down one pipe and returns in the
other, going between the inner surface of the outer pipe and the outer
surface of the inner pipe.
This allows for the use of dry insulation along with less heat loss to
the environment that would be had by piggybacking the cable to the
outside of the pipe. Pipe-in-pipe systems can be fed at the end or in the
center of the flowline. Fig. 3 displays end-fed and center-fed examples.
In an end-fed pipe-in-pipe system, the power is supplied at one end, and
in the other end, the pipes are connected by a conducting bulkhead. An
isolating joint is used at part of the flowline at the power supply end,
preventing a short circuit from being created. In a center-fed system,
steel bulkheads are connected at both ends, and midline assembly is
used to connect the power supply at the midpoint. Center-fed systems
are ideal if continuous heating of the bulk fluid is desired.
Shell has installed PiP systems at its Serano/Oregano, Habenero and
Nakika fields for hydrate remediation purposes, showing success in each
case of a shutdown (Ansart et al., 2014; Candelier et al., 2015).
Another type of DEH that is being shown to be an attractive and
viable option is electrical heating through a flexible pipe or integrated
production bundle (IPB). These flexible pipes are composed of the core
flexible pipe, which is then surrounded by a heating bundle consisting of
heat tracing cables and other tubes and hoses, which is then surrounded
by external insulation and protective layers. The electrical current is
passed through the pipe and returned within the armor layers. This al­
lows for very high electrical efficiency, with very little of the power used
E. Bell et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 88 (2021) 103798

Fig. 2. A diagram of the open-loop setup with both cross-section view (top) and side view (bottom). A cable carrying an electric current runs across the length of the
pipe and is connected at both ends of the pipe. This directly heats the flowline via resistance heating. Around half of the current is lost to seawater using this
technique. Anodes help to avoid corrosion and high current density in the pipeline.

Fig. 3. Pipe-in-Pipe Direct Electrical Heating – Cross Section (top), End-fed (middle), and center-fed (bottom). The inner and outer pipes operate as conductors, with
the current flowing down one pipe and returning in the other.

4
E. Bell et al.
is lost to the ambient (HolstA. Glejbol and Olsen, 2016). Thermal effi­
ciency is still similar to that of a wet insulated system (Ansart et al.,
2014). These bundles have been used on two major developments in
West Africa. The papa-Terra project, near Brazil has also made use of this
technology (Santos Junior et al., 2009).
Indirect electrical heating describes a system in which an electrical
current used to heat the surface of the inner pipe. While direct heating
involves electric current going directly into the pipe wall, indirect
heating allows the current to flow through a heating element attached to
the pipe. Thermal conduction then transfers said heat to the production
fluid. This type of heating system leads to more of the power being
“useful,” meaning that less of the current is lost to the surrounding
environment when compared to direct electric heating methods. How­
ever, because the heat has to travel through more layers via conduction,
indirect methods are typically less effective at raising the temperature of
the fluid when compared with direct methods. There are three primary
types of indirect electrical heating: Induction Tube Heating, Conduction
Tube Heating, and Cable Heating (Roth, 2011).
In Induction Tube Heating, heating elements are assembled from
three power cables insulated in a steel tube (Ahlen et al., 1992). The
cables are connected at the remote end to the ground. An alternating
current passes through the cable running through the center of the tube,
producing circulating current in the tube was, which gives off heat that
is transferred to the fluid through conduction. In conduction tube
heating, heating elements are assembled from an insulated cable in a
steel tube. This setup is similar to induction tube heating, with the
exception being the end connection, which is connected at the remote
end to form an electrical circuit. AC current is run through the cable, and
the return current flows through the inside surface of the tube. Heat is
transferred via thermal conduction. Cable heating, also known as elec­
trical trace heating (ETH), describes electrical cables installed in mul­
tiples of three, being attached in the annulus of the pipe-in-pipe system.
When the current is run through the cables, the pipe is heated via
resistance heating. Total was first to find success using this technology in
their Islay field for hydrate remediation (De Naurois et al., 2011; Fisher
et al., 2012). Fig. 4 shows cross-sections of induction/conduction tube
heating and cable heating.
A full-scale test using an electrically trace heated PiP setup was used
to test the impact of electrical heating in safe hydrate plug removal.
Large hydrate plugs are formed in an 18 m long ETH-PiP setup with a 6”
outer diameter. These plugs are then heated under conditions with dif­
ferential pressure across the plug of 30 bar. The differential was tracked
throughout the experiment to track the channel creation process. The
objectives were to assess the risk of plug detachment, determine the time
required for a channel to open between the two sides of the plug, esti­
mate time to get a differential pressure of zero across the plug and track
possible local overpressures. In these experiments, it was found that
dissociation of large hydrate plugs is not only possible but safe using
electrical heating (Tzotzi et al., 2016).
3.2. Hot fluid circulation
The hot fluid circulation method involves the production fluid being
Fig. 4. Induction/Conduction Tube Heating (left) and able heating (right) – Indirect electrical heating methods house the electrical cables in the annulus of the pipe-
in-pipe system. This ensures less electricity is lost to the environment.
5
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 88 (2021) 103798
heated via conduction and convection by external liquids, typically
water or glycol. Much like electrical heating, hot fluid circulation can be
performed either directly or indirectly. Typical geometries of hot fluid
circulation methods are shown in Fig. 5. Hot fluid circulation systems
typically operate either with the heating medium flowing in the annular
space of a pipe-in-pipe system or a particularly dedicated line within a
bundle (Ansart et al., 2014). The direct system is shown with the pro­
duction line being surrounded by the heating medium. The indirect
heating system is shown with the heating medium not being in imme­
diate contact with the walls of the production line, but having its
separate line within a larger bundle casing.
ConocoPhillips’ implemented a hot water heated bundle to prevent
to formation of hydrates and paraffin in Britannia field (Brown et al.,
1999). The pipeline was 15 km long with a 37-in ID carrier pipe housing
a 14-in production line, a 12-in heated water line, and a 3-in methanol
supply line. The water was circulated in the annulus, carrier pipe, and
platform at a rate of 13,200 m3/d. This water was heated between 30
and 100 ◦ C to ensure the production line stays above 21 ◦ C. This system
was similar to another system implemented in Statoil’s Gullfaks field, in
that they were both opted for chemically treated water for their heating
medium. Seawater, freshwater, and glycol/water mixtures are common
heating media in hot fluid circulation. Seawater is desirable because of
its apparent ease of access but suffers from a high risk of corrosion.
Corrosion rates for seawater range from 0.5 to 1.0 mm/year. Freshwater
is able to be chemically treated to prevent such high rates of corrosion.
These chemicals are less effective in seawater due to sulfate ions inter­
fering with inhibition. Glycol/water mixtures are often chosen due to
their natural biocidal properties, as well as their resistance to freezing.
Glycol corrosion rates have been reported to be around 0.02 mm/year
when an additional inhibitor is used and around 15 mm/year when
uninhibited (Esaklul, 2004).
Fleyfel et al., compared different heating and bundle conditions to be
used on a pipeline in Africa (Fleyfel et al., 2004). The oil used had a high
WAT of 105 ◦ F. They compared an 8-in flow line with 3- in insulation
coating (U value of 0.5 BTU/hr⋅ft2⋅◦ F), an 8-in insulated pipe-in-pipe (U
value of 0.2 BTU/hr⋅ft2⋅◦ F), an 8-in flowline within a 12-in carrier line
with hot water flowing in the annulus, and an 8-in flow line clad with
two auxiliary hot water lines for indirect heating. The oil being tested
had a WAT of 105 ◦ F. The inlet temperature of 170 ◦ F is used in each
case. It was found that insulation coating alone was not enough to
prevent wax deposition in the worst-case scenario. The wax deposition
was expected even in normal operation, with no feasible shutdown time
being possible. Insulated pipe-in-pipe proved to be able to prevent
deposition of wax during normal operation. It also could allow for short
shutdown periods without significant deposition. After 6 h of shutdown,
the oil would end up dropping below WAT, so for long shutdown pe­
riods, the line would need to be flushed for this option to be used
effectively. The hot water circulation pipe-in-pipe bundle was found to
be effective during normal operations, and prevent wax buildup even
under long shutdown conditions if co-current conditions are used.
Countercurrent flow proved to be unsatisfactory at keeping tempera­
tures above to WAT across the pipeline. The second bundle was found to
work if the return line was placed outside the bundle, but the
E. Bell et al.
Fig. 5. Hot Fluid Circulation: Direct (Left) and Indirect (Right) – Examples of simple hot fluid circulation set ups. Direct hot fluid circulation featuring immediate
contact with the flowline and additional wet insulation outside of the outer casing. Indirect hot fluid circulation showing a dedicated line for the heating medium
housed in the annular space of the pipe-in-pipe system, using dry insulation.
pipe-in-pipe option allowed for a faster restart after shutdown, so that
option was chosen for this system.
The King flow lines use a pipe-in-pipe system with glycol as the
heating medium (Harrison et al., 2003). The prevention of wax and
hydrate deposition was a top priority during design. Insulation, electric
heating, hot fluid circulation, and chemical injection were all considered
as options. Hot fluid circulation was chosen due to its economic
advantage over electric heating and its compatibility with the host
platform. A glycol-water mixture was chosen as the heating medium as it
has been found to have good heat transfer efficiency, low corrosively,
and natural biocidal properties (Esaklul, 2004). The fluid being trans­
ported had a wax content of 3.8% and a WAT of 100 ◦ F. A pipe-in-pipe
setup is used, wherein an 8-in production line is inside a 12-in jacket
pipe. The flowline is 27 km long, and the glycol is heated to around
180 ◦ F in order to keep the production fluid above the WAT. In addition
to the implementation of active heating, passive wet insulation (glass-­
syntactic polyurethane) was added to the outside of the external jacket.
This arrangement ensured that even when the fluid drops below WAT,
very little heat was lost to the environment, and ensured that expected
wax deposition was kept to minimal amounts.
3.3. Thermal modeling
Thermal analysis of various active heating techniques and bundle
configurations is essential, as an accurate prediction of rates of heat
transfer rates and temperatures along flowlines can help guide produc­
tion for proper temperature controls. Bai discusses thermal behavior and
management of flowline systems, in particular the heat transfer dy­
namics occurring in steady state and transient conditions (Bai, 2005).
Thant provides a summary of various thermal modeling of both PiP and
bundle configurations for hot fluid circulation (Woodyard, 1978; Thant
et al., 2011).
Chin et al. developed a model for analyzing the steady state behavior
of a multiphase flow line in a bundle configuration (Chin et al., 2000).
The OLGA simulator is used to solve the model and the thermal per­
formance of the multiphase line, as well as two single-phase lines are
analyzed by varying variables such as flowrate, injection temperature,
and product arrival temperature. The model is based on and compared
to data from the Garden Banks 216 field pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico.
The pipeline is 3 miles long, consisting of 3 4.5-in flowlines surrounded
by 2.5-in fiberglass insulation and incased in an 18-in casing. When the
simulation is analyzed with actual field data, it was found that the model
is accurate for steady state conditions. This model, like many of the
available modeling data available in literature, is limited by its appli­
cability due to its analysis only being relevant to this specific
configuration.
A case study comparing direct and indirect heating using hot fluid
circulation was conducted (Zhang et al., 2002). The goal was to test both
heating systems using a thermal analysis program to determine their
effectiveness at keeping the production fluid above WAT during shut­
down and raising the temperature of the fluid to above WAT in the even
6
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 88 (2021) 103798
that active heating was not used in shutdown. Both the direct and in­
direct models were designed with 12-in production lines. The direct
model uses a 16-in hot water pipe to surround the production fluid,
while the indirect model uses a 3-in diameter hot water line to provide
heating. The models were validated using data from West Africa offshore
developments, and a few conclusions are drawn. The bundle design for
direct heating was found to be more expensive since a larger pipe is
required to carry the hot water, and more insulation material is needed.
Direct heating has a more efficient heat exchange between the water and
the fluid, which reduces warm-up time after a shutdown. Also, since
direct heating bundles tend to require larger pipes, a higher flow rate is
possible. Indirect heating is a less expensive design, but the high thermal
resistance between the two pipes lead to less efficient heat transfer be­
tween the hot water and the production fluid. This causes longer
warm-up time in long-distance tiebacks after a shutdown. A Warm-up
time for each system increases with tieback distance, and warm-up
time for both are comparable up to about 16 km. For indirect methods
to keep a short warm-up time at a longer distance, a larger diameter
water line would be required than what was tested in this analysis. This
was all determined using a thermal analysis model, which accounted for
fluid and material thermal properties to simulate the time it would take
for heat transfer to occur under each condition. (Zhang et al., 2002).
Ovuworie provides analytical models of the thermal processes of
partially and fully buried pipelines (Ovuworie, 2010). Equation (1)
shows the expression found for the temperature field in a fully buried
pipe:
B
− Bp abur α + Bpg (1 + cosβ)
T≈( ) (1)
B
cosh a0 + cos β − Bp abur α0 + Bpg (1 + cos β)
where B represents the Biot number of the pipe or ground, and α and β
are bipolar cylindrical coordinates. The expression for a partially buried
pipe is shown in Equation (2):
B
Bp apar (π + β) + Bpg (cosh α − 1)
T≈( ) (2)
B
cosh α + cos β0 − Bp abur (π + β0 ) + Bpg (cosh α − 1)
The fully buried pipe date was validated using numerical solutions in
the literature, and was found to be within 2.5% of this data. Due to a lack
of available date with partially buried pipes no such validation was
completed. Zakarian et al. determined four analytical formulae of the
overall heat transfer coefficient for partially and fully buried pipelines
(Zakarian et al., 2012). Equation (3) shows their formula for overall heat
transfer coefficient of an unburied pipe:
( )− 1
Dref Dref Dref
Uunburied = + + (3)
Din hin Dsteel Uwall Dext hext
where U is the overall heat transfer coefficient, D is the diameter, h is the
E. Bell et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 88 (2021) 103798

[ ( )]−
∑1
1 temperature at the interface would remain constant since a phase
Dsteel Di+1
heat transfer coefficient and Uwall = 2 ki ln Di where k is the change would occur. This allowed them to create a wax melting rate
i
dependent on the difference between the heat flux from the oil to the
thermal conductivity of the layer. Equation (4) is their formula overall deposit and the heat flux from the deposit to the external environment.
heat transfer coefficient of a fully buried pipe: This is shown in Equation (7) below:
( )− 1 ( ⃒
Dref Dref Dref 1 − 1 kw ∂T ​ ⃒⃒
Uburied = + + + (4) drd
= −
h0
(T∞ − ​ Tcloud )
Din hin Dsteel Uwall Dext hsoil hamb dt Fw pw Lw ∂r ⃒interface,convective Lw
⃒ )
Finally Equation (5) is their formula for the overall heat transfer ∂C⃒
+ Deff ⃒⃒ (7)
coefficient of partially buried pipes was modeled as an average, ∂r interface,dif ​ fusive
weighted in the exposed area of the pipe:
( where ρw is the specific mass of the solid wax, D is the diffusion coef­
θb θb )
Upartially buried = Uexposed + 1 − Uground (5) ficient, C is the concentration of dissolved wax, r is the radial coordinate
π π
of the pipeline Fw is the wax growth fraction, T is temperature, h0 is the
where Uexposed = Uunburied . For validation of the model, high fidelity overall heat transfer coefficient. This equation is used in the model to
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CDF) simulations are compared with estimate the time of removal of a wax deposit during electrical heating.
results from the model. These formulae are intended to provide easier to The deposition wax validated using experimental data available from
implement and less time consuming data for subsea pipelines than other other researches available and was found to have good qualitative
more rigorous numerical solutions while remaining accurate. agreement. The removal has not yet been validated similarly, due to a
An et al. proposed approximations for integrals for analysis based on lack in experimental data available. This model may be used in the
transient heat conduction in multilayered composite pipelines in active making of electrical heating systems in order to determine the minimum
heating (An and Su, 2015). These models focus on heat conduction in the necessary electrical power in order to remove deposited wax.
pipeline and energy transport within the fluid. A discretized energy A comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of different in­
equation for the bulk temperature of the produced fluid is introduced in dustrial active heating systems is summarized in Table 1. Table 2 pro­
Equation (6): vides the reported applications of these techniques in industrial flow
assurance practices.
dTfj (t) Tfj (t) − Tfj− 1 (t) h1 Pw ( ( )⃒ )
ρf cpf + ρf cpf Uf = T1 r1, zj , t ⃒r=r1 − Tfj (t) , for t
dt Δz Af 4. Future work
> 0, i = 1, 2, …, N, j = 1, 2, …, Nz
(6) Most of the previous literature focused on active heating involves
discussing specific operation systems in the industry. These works rarely
where Nz is the total number of grid points in the axial direction, N is the describe the composition of the solids being deposited, making com­
lumber of layers, P is the perimeter of the pipeline, A is the cross parisons of removal efficiency of different systems difficult. Future
sectional area, and U is the average velocity of the fluid, cp is the specific research could focus on specific threshold requirements necessary for
heat, and ρ is density. The proposed modeling approach should be used removal based on properties of deposited solids. More systematic labo­
in estimating the overall heat transfer of offshore buried pipelines. ratory investigations of active heating systems could also lead to clarity
Oliveira et al. modeled the process of deposition and removal of wax on ideal conditions of removal. Wax content, WAT, WDT, flow condi­
on the inner walls of a pipe during flow (Albuquerque et al., 2019). Their tions, hydrate dissociation temperature, and pressure are just some
work focused on the removal of wax via heating before a blockage conditions that have impact on deposition, their impact on solids
occurring. It was estimated that at the moment the temperature at the removal should be investigated more experimentally. Advancements in
wax-oil temperature reached the wax appearance temperature, the active heating technology will likely come in the realm of improvements

Table 1
Comparison summary of thermal methods.
Thermal Methods Pros Cons

Insulation Wet Insulation • Easy to mold insulation material directly around pipe • Can be insufficient at preventing solids deposition on longer
• Avoids need for outer jacket pipelines or during a shutdown
• In event of a leak the product goes into the environment
Dry Insulation • In the event of a leak the product is contained within the outer • More complex and expensive construction than wet
pipe, lowering environmental risks insulation
• Higher thermal efficiency than wet insulation • Higher repair costs than wet insulation
Pipeline Burial • Simple construction and low costs • In event of a leak the product goes into the environment
• High thermal efficiency • Limited to fairly shallow water
Electrical DEH Open Loop • Remains effective across long pipelines • Approx. 50% of electricity lost to the ambient
Heating • More effective than indirect heating at putting heat into the fluid • Low thermal performance from wet insulation
• Flexible Installation Options • High operating costs
• Capable of continuous heating • Continuous heating limited by water depth
DEH Pipe-in-Pipe • Remains effective across long pipelines • No continuous operation
• Dry insulation, high thermal efficiency • Approx. 50% of electricity lost to ambient
Indirect Electrical • More heating energy goes into the fluid • Limited inner pipeline diameter, may not be suitable for
Heating • Remains effective across long pipelines larger production pipes
• Low power consumption and high electrical efficiency
Integrated Production • Remains effective across long pipelines • Low thermal performance
Bundle • High electrical efficiency
Hot Fluid Pipe-in-Pipe • More efficient at putting heat into the fluid than bundle • Wet insulation, higher U-value
Circulation configurations • More heat is lost to the ambient
• Capable of continuous heating
Bundle • Dry insulation, low U-value • Loses less heat to the ambient
• Less heat is lost to the ambient

7
E. Bell et al. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 88 (2021) 103798

Table 2
Examples of thermal management systems used in flow assurance (Thant et al., 2011; Roth, 2011; Aja and Ramasamy, 2016; Kondapi et al., 2019).
Field Wax Hydrate Insulation Direct or Indirect Electrical Heating Hot Fluid Circulation

King (BP) Yes Yes Wet Direct, Pipe-in-Pipe No Yes

Britannia (ConocoPhillips) Yes Yes Wet Indirect, Bundle No Yes
Gullfaks (Statoil) – Yes Wet Indirect, Bundle No Yes
Asgard (Statoil) – Yes Wet Direct, Open Loop Yes No
Bacchus (Apache) – – – Indirect, Bundle No Yes
Skene (ExxonMobil) – – – Indirect No Yes
Huldra (Statoil) – – Wet Direct, Open Loop Yes No
Kristin (Statoil) – – Wet Direct, Open Loop Yes No
Urd (Statoil) – – Wet Direct, Open Loop Yes No
Tyrihans (Statoil) – – Wet Direct, Open Loop Yes No
Olowi (Canadian National Resources) – – Wet Direct, Open Loop Yes No
Serrano and Oregano (Shell) – Yes Dry Direct, Pipe-in-Pipe End-Fed Yes No
Na Kika (Shell/BP) Yes Yes Dry Direct, Pipe-in-Pipe Center-Fed Yes No
Habanero (Shell) – Yes Dry Direct, Pipe-in-Pipe Center-Fed Yes No

to electric heating technology.
Among these the progress of electrical trace heating, or cable heat­
ing, should be observed. The benefits in electrical efficiency, as well as
its high redundancy potential makes it an attractive option that can
resolve some of the issues with operating cost that often plagues electric
heating. Operational limits, such as the qualification of power cables
with more capacity could allow for longer tieback distances to be ach­
ieved with this technology.
5. Conclusions
A thermal management system is a valid method for flow assurance,
which has been industry tested. Passive thermal methods are cost-
effective to increase the thermal efficiency of a pipeline. These, how­
ever, may prove insufficient in longer pipelines to keep the production
fluid above hydrate or wax appearance temperatures. Active heating
methods are not feasibly viable without the support of passive methods
due to the excessive heat loss that would be incurred. For this reason,
active heating should always be paired with some form of insulation.
Direct heating methods can tend to have higher operating costs than
indirect methods but are capable of effectively heating the production
fluid. Indirect methods are more energy-efficient than direct methods.
Hot fluid circulation is generally more cost-effective than electric
heating methods but has a limited viable range. Electrical heating can
heat reliably at long distances that hot fluid circulation may not be
viable. Thermal methods are a viable alternative to other flow assurance
techniques, with proven effectiveness throughout the industry.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the Tulsa University Paraffin Deposition
Project (TUPDP) for the sponsorship of this work.
References
Abney, L., 2010. A new approach to flowline active heating. In: SPE Asia Pacific Oil and
Gas Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia, p. 16.
Ahlen, C.H., Torkildsen, B., Klevjer, G., Lauvdal, T., Lervik, J.K., Ronningen, K., 1992.
Electrical induction heating system of subsea pipelines. In: The Second International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. International Society of Offshore and
Polar Engineers, San Francisco, California, USA, p. 8.
Aiyejina, A., Chakrabarti, D.P., Pilgrim, A., Sastry, M.K.S., 2011. Wax formation in oil
pipelines: a critical review. Int. J. Multiphas. Flow 37, 671–694.
Aja, O., Ramasamy, M., 2016. Thermal Management of Flow Assurance Challenges in
Offshore Fields-A Review, vol. 11, pp. 6415–6422.
Al-Hosani, A., Daraboina, N., 2020. Unified model to predict asphaltene deposition in
production pipelines. Energy Fuel. 34 (2), 1720–1727. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
energyfuels.9b04287.
Al-Yaari, M., 2011. Paraffin wax deposition: mitigation and removal techniques. In: SPE
Saudi Arabia Section Young Professionals Technical Symposium. Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, p. 10.
Albuquerque, D., Oliveira, T., Fortaleza, E., 2019. MODELLING OF WAX DEPOSITION
AND REMOVAL BY ELECTRICAL HEATING IN SUB-SEA OIL PIPELINES.
An, C., Su, J., 2015. Lumped models for transient thermal analysis of multilayered
composite pipeline with active heating. Appl. Therm. Eng. 87, 749–759.
Ansart, B., Marret, A., Parenteau, T., Rageot, O., 2014. Technical and economical
comparison of subsea active heating technologies. In: Offshore Technology
Conference-Asia, Offshore Technology Conference. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, p. 14.
Bai, Y.a.B., 2005. Qiang, Subsea Pipelines and Risers. Elsevier.
Bai, Y., Bai, Q., 2019. 16 - wax and asphaltenes. In: Bai, Y., Bai, Q. (Eds.), Subsea
Engineering Handbook, second ed. Gulf Professional Publishing, Boston,
pp. 435–453.
Bishnoi, P.R., Natarajan, V., 1996. Formation and decomposition of gas hydrates. Fluid
Phase Equil. 117, 168–177.
Brown, L.D., 2002. Flow assurance: a ? discipline. In: Offshore Technology Conference,
Offshore Technology Conference, p. 7. Houston, Texas.
Brown, L.D., Clapham, J., Belmear, C., Harris, R., Loudon, A., Maxwell, S., Stott, J., 1999.
Design of britannia’s subsea heated bundle for a 25 Year service life. In: Offshore
Technology Conference. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, p. 17.
Cameirao, A., Serris, E., Melchuna, A., Herri, J.M., Glenat, P., 2018. Monitoring gas
hydrate formation and transport in a flow loop with acoustic emission. J. Nat. Gas
Sci. Eng. 55, 331–336.
Candelier, C., Durica, S., Beys, F., 2015. Subsea pipeline electrical heat trace (EHT) –
“active” heating – application for a deep water Brown field development. In:
Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition, Offshore Mediterranean
Conference. Ravenna, Italy, p. 16.
Chaudhari, P., Zerpa, L.E., Sum, A.K., 2018. A correlation to quantify hydrate plugging
risk in oil and gas production pipelines based on hydrate transportability
parameters. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 58, 152–161.
Chen, J., Luo, X., Zhang, H., He, L., Chen, J., Shi, K., 2018. Experimental study on
movement characteristics of bypass pig. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 59, 212–223.
Chi, Y., Yang, J., Sarica, C., Daraboina, N., 2019. A critical review of controlling paraffin
deposition in production lines using chemicals. Energy Fuel. 33 (4), 2797–2809.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b00316.
Chin, Y.D., Bomba, J.G., 1999. Structural and thermal optimization of cased insulated
flowlines. In: Offshore Technology Conference, Offshore Technology Conference,
p. 9. Houston, Texas.
Chin, Y.D., Perera, R., Prescott, C.N., Cain, R.E., 2000. Thermal performance of an
insulated multiple flowline bundle using active heating. In: SPE International
Petroleum Conference and Exhibition in Mexico. Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Villahermosa, Mexico, p. 11.
De Naurois, H.J., Delaporte, D., Helingoe, M.A., Greder, h., 2011. Evaluation
qualification of electrical heat trace pipe in pipe for a SS flow line and selection for
an application on a subsea field in UK, ISLAY. In: Offshore Technology Conference,
Offshore Technology Conference, p. 11. Houston, Texas, USA.
Delebecque, L., Sibaud, E., Scocard, M., Rueda, C., Delbene, P., 2009. Active heating
technologies for flowlines in deep water field developments. In: Offshore
Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition, Offshore Mediterranean Conference.
Ravenna, Italy, p. 14.
Dixon, M., 2013. Pipe-in-Pipe: thermal management for effective flow assurance. In:
Offshore Technology Conference, Offshore Technology Conference, p. 9. Houston,
Texas, USA.
Dretvik, S., Bornes, A.H., 2001. Direct heated flowlines in the asgard field. In: The
Eleventh International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. International
Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Stavanger, Norway, p. 6.
Esaklul, K., 2004. Active Heating for Flow-Assurance Control in Deepwater Flowlines,
vol. 56, pp. 45–46. SPE-0899-0061-JPT.

8
E. Bell et al.
Fakher, S., Ahdaya, M., Elturki, M., Imqam, A., 2019. Critical review of asphaltene
properties and factors impacting its stability in crude oil. J. Petrol. Explor. Prod.
Technol. 10, 1183–1200.
Farhadian, A., Varfolomeev, M.A., Kudbanov, A., Rezaeisadat, M., Nurgaliev, D.K., 2020.
Waterborne polymers as kinetic/anti-agglomerant methane hydrate and corrosion
inhibitors: a new and promising strategy for flow assurance. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 77,
103235.
Finch, M., Machin, J.B., 2001. Meeting the challenges of deepwater cable and pipeline
burial. In: Offshore Technology Conference, Offshore Technology Conference, p. 9.
Houston, Texas.
Fisher, R., Hall, S.J., Cam, J.-F., De La Porte, D., 2012. Field deployment of the world’s
first electrically trace heated pipe in pipe. In: Offshore Technology Conference,
Offshore Technology Conference, p. 12. Houston, Texas, USA.
Fleyfel, F., Hernandez, O., Sturgis, R., Meng, W., 2004. Evaluation of pipeline
configurations with active heating for export of waxy crude oil. SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston,
Texas, p. 6.
Fung, G., Backhaus, W.P., McDaniel, S., Erdogmus, M., 2006. To pig or not to pig: the
marlin experience with stuck pig. In: Offshore Technology Conference, Offshore
Technology Conference, p. 7. Houston, Texas, USA.
Gainville, M., Cassar, C., Sinquin, A., Tzotzi, C., Parenteau, T., Turner, D., Greaves, D.,
Bass, R., Decrin, M.K., Glenat, P., Gerard, F., Morgan, J.E.P., Zakarian, E., 2014.
Hydrate plug management using electrically trace heating pipe in pipe: a full scale
experimental study. In: 9th North American Conference on Multiphase Technology.
BHR Group, Banff, Canada, p. 20.
Guo, B., Song, S., Ghalambor, A., Lin, T.R., 2014. Chapter 15 - flow assurance. In:
Guo, B., Song, S., Ghalambor, A., Lin, T.R. (Eds.), Offshore Pipelines, second ed. Gulf
Professional Publishing, Boston, pp. 179–231.
Hansen, A.B., 1999. Direct impedance heating of deepwater flowlines, 51, 61–62. SPE-
0899-0061-JPT.
Harrison, G.E., Kershenbaum, N.Y., Choi, H.S., 1997. Expansion analysis of subsea pipe-
in-pipe flowline. The Seventh International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Honolulu,
Hawaii, USA, p. 6.
Harrison, G.E., Harrison, M.S., Bruton, D.A.S., 2003. King flowlines - thermal expansion
design and implementation. In: Offshore Technology Conference. Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, p. 11.
Holst, T.L.T.S., Glejbol, K.A., Olsen, K.S., 2016. Direct electrical heating of a flexible pipe,
68, 76–78. SPE-0899-0061-JPT.
Jamshidi, B., Sarkari, M., 2016. Simulation of pigging dynamics in gas-liquid two-phase
flow pipelines. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 32, 407–414.
Jeirani, Z., Lashanizadegan, A., Ayatollahi, S., Javanmardi, J., 2007. The possibility of
wax formation in gas fields: a case study. J. Nat. Gas Chem. 16, 293–300.
Kang, P.-S., Lee, D.-G., Lim, J.-S., 2014. Status of wax mitigation technologies in offshore
oil production. In: The Twenty-Fourth International Ocean and Polar Engineering
Conference. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Busan, Korea,
p. 8.
Kersten, M.S., 1949. Thermal Properties of Soil. University of Minnesota Engineering
Experiment Station, p. 52.
Knudsen, B., Leite, B.A., Mjoen, S.A., 2001. Turret operations in the North sea:
experience from Norne and Åsgard A. In: The Eleventh International Offshore and
Polar Engineering Conference. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers,
Stavanger, Norway, p. 9.
Kondapi, P., Creek, J., Chin, Y.D., Moe, R., 2019. Effective strategies for flow assurance
process design and execution. In: Offshore Technology Conference. Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, p. 19.
Lee, J., 2002. Design and Installation of Deepwater Petroleum Pipelines.
Lenes, A., Lervik, J.K., Kulbotten, H., Nysveen, A., Børnes, A.H., 2005. Hydrate
prevention on long pipelines by direct electrical heating. In: The Fifteenth
International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. International Society of
Offshore and Polar Engineers, Seoul, Korea, p. 7.
Lervik, J.K., Ahlbeck, M., Raphael, H., Lauvdal, T., Holen, P., 1998. Direct electrical
heating of pipelines as a method of preventing hydrate and wax plugs. In: The Eighth
International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. International Society of
Offshore and Polar Engineers, Montreal, Canada, p. 7.
Lervik, J.K., Kulbotten, H., Heggdal, O., 2008. Direct electrical heating for shallow water
installations during continuous operation. In: The Eighteenth International Offshore
and Polar Engineering Conference. International Society of Offshore and Polar
Engineers, Vancouver, Canada, p. 5.
Lervik, J.K., Hoyer-Hansen, M., Iversen, Ø., Nilsson, S., 2012. New developments of
direct electrical heating for flow assurance. In: The Twenty-Second International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. International Society of Offshore and
Polar Engineers, Rhodes, Greece, p. 6.
Lervik, J.K., Kulbotten, H., Nysveen, A., 2013. Flow assurance by electrical heating of
long pipelines. In: The Twenty-Third International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Anchorage,
Alaska, p. 5.
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 88 (2021) 103798
Mares, C.F., 1959. Electrical heating of pipelines carrying viscous products. In: 5th World
Petroleum Congress. World Petroleum Congress, New York, USA, p. 14.
McDermott, P., Sathananthan, R., 2014. Active heating for life of field flow assurance. In:
Offshore Technology Conference. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas,
p. 15.
Morrow, D.R., Larkin, P.D., 2007. The challenges of pipeline burial. In: The Seventeenth
International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. International Society of
Offshore and Polar Engineers, Lisbon, Portugal, p. 8.
Naseer, M., Brandstätter, W., 2011. Hydrate Formation in Natural Gas Pipelines.
Newson, T.A., Brunning, P., 2004. Thermal Conductivity of Deepwater Offshore
Sediments, vol. 5, p. 14. ISOPE-04-14-4-310.
Ovuworie, C., 2010. Steady-state heat transfer models for fully and partially buried
pipelines. In: International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China. Society
of Petroleum Engineers, Beijing, China, p. 27.
Power, P.T., Hawkins, R.A., Christophersen, H.P., McKenzie, I., 1994. Rov assisted
geotechnical investigation of trench backfill material aids design of the tordis to
Gullfaks flowlines. In: Aspect ’94: Advances in Subsea Pipeline Engineering and
Technology. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 129–141.
Price, J.C., Laws, P., 2007. Coating and insulation selection for corrosion protection and
flow assurance of offshore pipelines and risers. In: The Seventeenth International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. International Society of Offshore and
Polar Engineers, Lisbon, Portugal, p. 8.
Rahimpour, M.R., Davoudi, M., Jokar, S.M., Khoramdel, I., Shariati, A., Dehnavi, M.R.,
2013. Wax formation assessment of condensate in South Pars gas processing plant
sea pipeline (a case study). J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 10, 25–40.
Roth, R., 2011. Direct electrical heating of flowlines - a guide to uses and benefits. In:
OTC Brasil, Offshore Technology Conference, p. 16. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Rubel, M.T., Broussard, D.H., 1994. Flowline insulation thermal requirements for
deepwater subsea pipelines. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana, p. 9.
Ruschau, G., Rogers, R.H., Woodley, S., Wright, E.J., 2010. Evaluation and qualification
of materials for subsea insulation systems. In: International Oil and Gas Conference
and Exhibition in China. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Beijing, China, p. 8.
Santos Junior, J., Paternost, G., Condessa, D., 2009. SS-FA - flow assurance challenges in
the papa-terra project. In: Offshore Technology Conference, Offshore Technology
Conference, p. 8. Houston, Texas.
Soedarmo, A.A., Daraboina, N., Sarica, C., 2016. Microscopic study of wax deposition:
mass transfer boundary layer and deposit morphology. Energy Fuel. 30 (4),
2674–2686. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b02887.
Thant, M.M.M., Sallehud-Din, M.T.M., Hewitt, G., Hale, C., Quarini, J., 2011. Mitigating
flow assurance challenges in deepwater fields using active heating methods. In: SPE
Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Manama, Bahrain, p. 10.
Tzotzi, C., Parenteau, T., Kaye, D., Turner, D.J., Bass, R., Morgan, J.E.P., Zakarian, E.,
Rolland, J., Decrin, M.-K., 2016. Safe hydrate plug dissociation in active heating
flowlines and risers - full scale test. In: Offshore Technology Conference. Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, p. 16.
Urdahl, O., Børnes, A.H., Kinnari, K.J., Holme, R., 2003. Operational experience by
applying direct electrical heating for hydrate prevention. In: Offshore Technology
Conference. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, p. 7.
Wang, Q., Sarica, C., Chen, T.X., 2001. An experimental study on mechanics of wax
removal in pipeline. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of
Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana, p. 8.
Wang, W., Huang, Q., Liu, Y., Sepehrnoori, K., 2015. Experimental study on mechanisms
of wax removal during pipeline pigging. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston, Texas, USA, p. 25.
Wang, Y., Koh, C.A., Dapena, J.A., Zerpa, L.E., 2018. A transient simulation model to
predict hydrate formation rate in both oil- and water-dominated systems in
pipelines. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 58, 126–134.
Woodyard, A.H., 1978. An insulated offshore oil pipeline for deep water. In: Offshore
Technology Conference. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, p. 8.
Yang, J., Lu, Y., Daraboina, N., Sarica, C., 2020. Wax deposition mechanisms: Is the
current description sufficient? Fuel 275, 117937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2020.117937.
Young, A.G., Osborne, R.S., Frazer, I., 2001. Utilizing thermal properties of seabed soils
as cost-effective insulation for subsea flowlines. In: Offshore Technology Conference,
Offshore Technology Conference, p. 6. Houston, Texas.
Zakarian, E., Holbeach, J., Morgan, J.E.P., 2012. A holistic approach to steady-state heat
transfer from partially and fully buried pipelines. In: Offshore Technology
Conference. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, p. 15.
Zhang, J.J., Chen, M.J., Wang, X., Chacko, J., 2002. Thermal analysis and design of hot
water heated production flowline bundles. In: Offshore Technology Conference,
Offshore Technology Conference, p. 11. Houston, Texas.
Zhou, S., Yan, H., Su, D., Navaneethakannan, S., Chi, Y., 2018. Investigation on the
kinetics of carbon dioxide hydrate formation using flow loop testing. J. Nat. Gas Sci.
Eng. 49, 385–392.