Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Flow Assurance
Volume II
Edited by
Qiwei Wang
Saudi Aramco, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Gulf Professional Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further
information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such
as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website:
www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the
Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).
Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience
broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical
treatment may become necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating
and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such
information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including
parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume
any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability,
negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas
contained in the material herein.
ISBN: 978-0-12-822010-8
v
vi Contents
Nomenclature............................................................................. 273
Acknowledgments ..................................................................... 274
References.................................................................................. 274
Index ......................................................................................................................775
This page intentionally left blank
List of contributors
Gaurav Bhatnagar
Shell International Exploration and Production, Houston, TX, United States
Mashhad Fahes
The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, United States
Dario Marcello Frigo
Scaled Solutions Ltd., Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Shawn Gao
Shell International Exploration and Production, Houston, TX, United States
Gordon Michael Graham
Scaled Solutions Ltd., Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Fenfen Huang
CandV Consulting and Services, Sugar Land, TX, United States
David W. Jennings
Baker Hughes, Sugar Land, TX, United States
Priyanka Juyal
ChampionX LLC, Sugar Land, TX, United States
Dharmendr Kumar
TCS Research, Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Pune, Maharashtra, India
Jeremy Moloney
ChampionX, Sugar Land, TX, United States
Venkata Muralidhar K
TCS Research, Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Pune, Maharashtra, India
Mike Newberry
Baker Hughes, Sugar Land, TX, United States
Philip Nguyen
Halliburton, Houston, TX, United States
Thunyaluk Pojtanabuntoeng
Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia
Mike Sanders
Halliburton, Houston, TX, United States
Kees C.A.M. Veeken
Mature Gas Well Consultancy, Gieten, Drenthe, The Netherlands
xv
xvi List of contributors
Jonathan J. Wylde
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom; Clariant Oil
Services, Clariant Corporation, Houston, TX, United States
Andrew T Yen
ENNOVA LLC, Stafford, TX, United States
Xiangyang Zhu
Saudi Aramco, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
CHAPTER
Chapter outline
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Fundamentals of hydrate ................................................................................. 3
1.2.1 Definition .....................................................................................3
1.2.2 Structures ....................................................................................3
1.2.3 Phase behavior .............................................................................6
1.2.4 Properties .....................................................................................8
1.3 Hydrate formation ......................................................................................... 10
1.3.1 Hydrate formation scenarios .........................................................10
1.3.2 Hydrate formation mechanism ......................................................10
1.4 Hydrate management in production systems ................................................... 11
1.4.1 Risk assessment .........................................................................12
1.4.2 Hydrate modeling ........................................................................12
1.5 Temperature control ..................................................................................... 27
1.5.1 Thermal insulation ......................................................................27
1.5.2 Active heating .............................................................................32
1.6 Chemical inhibition ...................................................................................... 36
1.6.1 Thermodynamic hydrate inhibitors ................................................36
1.6.2 Low-dosage hydrate inhibitors ......................................................40
1.7 Dehydration .................................................................................................. 64
1.8 Hydrate remediation ..................................................................................... 66
1.8.1 Depressurization .........................................................................66
1.8.2 Heating ......................................................................................67
1.8.3 Chemical dissociation ..................................................................68
1.8.4 Model predictions for remediation ................................................69
1.9 Case studies ................................................................................................ 69
1.9.1 Hydrate management in dry tree facility facilities ...........................69
1.9.2 Low-dosage hydrate inhibitor field application ...............................72
1.9.3 Tommeliten-gamma field .............................................................73
1.1 Introduction
First discovered in 1810, gas hydrates are nonstoichiometric crystalline ice-
like compounds composed of cooperative hydrogen-bonded water molecules
forming nano-scale clathrate cage structures that trap smaller guest molecules.
They can form naturally under certain conditions of pressure and temperature
within a gas/water mixture. Gas hydrates attract interest from many different
fields of study since naturally occurring gas hydrates have been found in
diverse conditions and locations, such as arctic permafrost, under the ocean
floor, and even suspected on some other bodies in the solar system. Gas
hydrates can also form during extraction/transport/process of oil/gas under cer-
tain pressure/temperature conditions in presence of water, which can cause
production interruption, asset integrity, and safety issues. This type of hydrates
will be the focus of this chapter, which covers the fundamentals of gas
hydrates and hydrate management strategies in oil/gas industry. Hydrates in
nature play a big role in the global carbon and climate cycles and are also con-
sidered an alternative source of energy.
Once a hydrate plug is formed in the oil/gas production system, it can be
very challenging to remediate, especially in deepwater, and can bear signifi-
cant implications in terms of deferred production, asset integrity, and safety.
The formation of hydrate can result in significant production loss. Depending
on the options available, remediating hydrate can take a long time, during
which the production can be either compromised or completely stopped. For
example, a hydrate plug in a deepwater flowline took a year to dissociate and
the production was lost during the entire time. In case the hydrate plug is
formed in gas export line, the entire production of a platform will be shut
down in that scenario.
Formation of hydrate is also integrity and safety concern. The risks are mainly
related to the remediation process. Due to the large amount of gas release when
dissociated, adding heat to dissociate hydrate in confined volume can create
extremely high pressure that can burst the containment barrier, which have
resulted in fatalities. A recent study even indicated that gas hydrate may be one
of the root causes for the Deepwater Horizon explosion [1]. When depressuriza-
tion is applied to dissociate a hydrate plug, the hydrate plug can be suddenly dis-
lodged and pushed toward to the low-pressure end at high speed. The resulting
hydrate projectile has caused asset damage in the past.
1.2 Fundamentals of hydrate 3
1.2.2 Structures
In hydrate structures, water molecules are hydrogen bonded, while gaseous mole-
cules are bonded to those only via van der Waals forces. Though the energy
required to dissociate one hydrogen bond is about 5 kcal/mol, only 0.3 kcal/mol is
needed to break one van der Walls bond, suggesting that gaseous molecules are
only considered physically but not chemically entrapped into crystalline water
cages [2]. Depending on the sizes of the guest molecules included in the gas
hydrates, three hydrate structures are traditionally found, which are structure I, II,
and H (Table 1.1, Figs. 1.1 and 1.2). The basic repeating unit in structure I is a
primitive cubic lattice consisting of two pentagonal dodecahedra (512) (5 is the
number of edges in a face and 12 is the total number of this type of faces in a
cage) and six tetra-decahedra (51262) clathrate cages with a total number of 48
water molecules and a dimension of 1.2 nm. The average cavity radius of each
type of cage is 3.95 and 4.33 Å, respectively. Methane, ethane, CO2 and Xenon
are typical structure I hydrate formers. While methane and Xenon occupy both
small (512) and large (51262) cages, CO2 and ethane are only small enough to
dwell in large cages.
4 CHAPTER 1 Gas hydrate management
FIGURE 1.1
Different types of cavities found in hydrates and respective unit structures of sI, sII and sH
structures [3].
Reproduced with permission from E.D. Sloan, C.A. Koh, Clathrate Hydrates of Natural Gases, third ed., CRC
Press, New York, 2008.
The repeating unit of structure II hydrate also contains two types of cavities 16
pentagonal dodecahedra 512 (3.91 Å) and 8 hexadecahedra 51262 (4.37 Å) composed
of 136 water molecules. Its lattice type is face-centered cubic and its unit dimension
is 1.7 nm. Most hydrates in the oil/gas industry are expected to be structure II
hydrates. In structure H, a layer of 512 (3.91 Å) cavities connects a layer of 51268
(4.06 Å) and 435663 (5.71 Å) cavities. In its hexagonal unit cell (a 5 1.21 nm,
c 5 1.01 nm), 34 water molecules form three 512, two 51268, and one 435663. One
unique feature of structure H is that both small and large sizes of molecules are
required to stabilize the structure. For example, neohexene and cycloheptane, which
cannot form hydrates alone, form structure H hydrates with the help of methane.
These three hydrate structures are important for the oil/gas industry because the types
of hydrocarbons encountered in the field can form all these three types of hydrates.
1.2 Fundamentals of hydrate 5
FIGURE 1.2
Comparison of guest molecule sizes and cavities occupied as simple hydrates.
FIGURE 1.3
Packing and schematic view of the space-filling polyhedron.
Reproduced with permission from A. Kurnosov, V. Komarov, V. Voronin, et al., New clathrate hydrate structure:
high-pressure tetrahydrofuran hydrate with one type of cavity, Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 43
(2004): 29222924.
FIGURE 1.4
General view of the structure T hydrate as determined by single crystal.
Reproduced with permission from K. Udachin, C. Ratcliffe, J. Ripmeester, A dense and efficient clathrate
hydrate, Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 40(2001): 13031305.
FIGURE 1.5
View of the cages in the str. T hydrate.
Reproduced with permission from K. Udachin, C. Ratcliffe, J. Ripmeester, A dense and efficient clathrate
hydrate, Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 40(2001): 13031305.
Most hydrocarbons found in the oil/gas industry require high pressure to form
hydrate. At the same temperature, lighter hydrocarbon hydrate formers typically
require higher pressure to form hydrate than heavier hydrocarbon hydrate formers.
For example, at 10 C (50 F) with fresh water, methane hydrate’s equilibrium pres-
sure is about 1000 psia while it would only require about 250 psia to form ethane
hydrate. In addition, the salinity of water plays a key factor in the hydrate phase
diagram. From a molecular level, the presence of ions in the water can cause dis-
ruption in the formation process of hydrogen bonding structure of clathrate cages.
The higher the salinity, the higher the pressure required to form hydrate. Since the
hydrate structure itself is salt free, the hydrate formation process in saltwater would
extract water in the solution and convert them to hydrate while causing the salinity
of the remaining water to increase. For this reason, the hydrate formation in salty
8 CHAPTER 1 Gas hydrate management
9000
6000
5000
4000
3000
0
30 40 50 60 70 80
Temperature (°F)
FIGURE 1.6
Typical hydrate phase diagram of a black oil system.
water will become self-inhibiting at a certain point of the conversion process. The
addition of water-soluble compounds such as methanol (MeOH) or glycol into the
water will require higher pressure to form a hydrate, a similar effect is observed
with higher salinity. This is the foundation to manage hydrate risk with thermody-
namic inhibitors (mostly MeOH, glycol, and to a lesser extent ethanol). Fig. 1.6 is
a typical hydrate phase diagram of a black oil system with different salinities. The
hydrate phase diagrams for natural gas are similar but without the inflection points
along the curve where the black oil system typically goes through the bubble point.
Obtaining accurate hydrate phase diagrams is a key step in proper hydrate risk
assessment and risk management and will be discussed in more details later.
1.2.4 Properties
All the hydrates implications and applications are rooted in their unique properties
under various conditions of temperature and pressure. The following are a few
properties that are particularly important to energy industry.
formation process can also contribute to the measurement reliability. Therefore there
are considerable uncertainties associated with all the hydrate mechanical property mea-
surements. The following are a few general conclusions about the mechanical proper-
ties of gas hydrates based on experimental/theoretical studies and field observations.
• Generally speaking, the hydrate mechanical properties are similar to that of ice.
Once formed, they can be hard to remove mechanically and cannot be scrapped
off by sending down a pig like removing wax deposit. Doing so will only make
matters worse. Therefore the main hydrate management strategy is focused on
hydrate prevention in the first place and hydrate dissociation once formed.
• The elastic properties of gas hydrate depend on temperature, pressure, and
hydrate composition, including structure, guest molecule, and cage occupancy.
Lower temperature and higher pressure both contribute to an increased bulk
modulus and consequently make the hydrate harder.
• When well within the stability zone, the compressive strength of hydrates is
higher than that of ice however, the strengths become closer in value when
hydrate is less supercooled. This difference is attributed to the special hydrate
lattice structure and the host, guest and hostguest interactions.
1.3.1.1 Shut-in
Fluid temperature typically drops after production is shut-in and the flow has
stopped in cases where the environmental temperature is lower than the produc-
tion fluid temperature, e.g., deepwater, winter time. The pressure can also start
building up after shut-in. Both these changes can eventually push the system into
the hydrate formation conditions in either wells or flowlines.
FIGURE 1.7
Labile-cluster model of hydrate nucleation: (A) labile clusters, (B) agglomeration of
clusters, (C) primary nucleolus, and (D) hydrate crystal [7].
Reproduced with permission from A. Hassanpouryouzband, E. Joonaki, M. Farahani, et al., Gas hydrates in
sustainable chemistry, Chemical Society Reviews, 49(2020): 52255309.
FIGURE 1.8
A series of back-illuminated optical images showing the evolution from a levitated water
droplet to a hydrate particle. (A) Initial water droplet. (B) Hydrate formation onset detected
via change in optical transmission relative to previous panel. (C) Shell thickening [2050 s
after panel (B)]. (D) Initial outward growth (14650 seconds after panel (B)). (E) and (F)
Hydrate propagation with a major roughness increase (respectively 25320 and 49410 s
after panel B).
Reproduced with permission from K. Jeong, P. Metaxas, A. Helberg, et al., Gas hydrate nucleation in
acoustically levitated water droplets, Chemical Engineering Journal, 433 (2021) 133494.
and then exploit them to optimize system design and operating strategies where the
risk is demonstrated to be low and manageable. The following sections discuss
some of these key risk factors involved. The strategies for prevention, mitigation,
and remediation will be presented in Sections 1.51.8.
PLATE I
PLATE II
Fig. 1.—Section of Lung of
Animal exposed to
Inhalation of White Lead
Dust, showing Mass of Lead
in the Lung Substance.
(Stained Hæmatoxylin and
Eosin, and treated with
H2S.) × 250.
PLATE III
Fig. 1.—Kidney of Animal
poisoned with White Lead
(Inhalation), showing
Microscopical
Hæmorrhages. (Stained
Hæmatoxylin and Eosin.) ×
250.
Date of
No. of Total Compound used Number of First
Animal. Weight. and Quantity. Inoculations. Symptoms. Duratio
Kgs.
16 3·200 0·91 grm. lead 3 Forty-fifth day 47 days
acetate: (1) 0·16; encephalopathy
(2) 0·5; (3) 0·25
25 3·350 Fritted lead: (1) 0·6; 2 Twenty-sixth day 26 days
(2) 2·0 = 2·6 grms. slight paralysis
of left hind-limb
28 3·050 2 grms. white lead 1 Fourth day 23 days
aborted
Total
Duration
No. of Compound of Other First Appearance of of
Animal. Weight. Pb used. Substance. Poisoning Symptoms. Experiment.
Kgs.
2 2·750 0·5 to 0·1 None Vomited fifth day; no 2 months
grm. flue other symptoms
dust (55
per cent.
PbO) from
blast-
furnace
flue
9a 3·500 0·5 grm. dry None Vomited fifth day; no 2 months —
white lead other symptoms
11a 3·850 0·8 grm. None None 8 months —
3·900 After 8 50 c.c. 1 month 2 months
months alcohol
given (port
alcohol wine)
12 3·800 0·8 grm. dry 50 c.c. port 1 month slight 38 days
white lead wine paralysis
13 3·400 0·8 grm. dry None None 18 months
white lead
14 3·650 0·4 grm. low- None None 8 months G
solubility
frit
3·730 0·4 grm. low- 50 c.c. port 6 months 1 year
solubility wine encephalopathy
frit and
alcohol
23 4·100 1 grm. high- None None 1 year
solubility
glaze
4·600 Given lead None None 5 months
nitrate,
0·01 to 0·1
grm.
24 2·900 1 grm. high- None None 6 months
solubility
glaze
46 2·150 0·1 grm. lead None 4 months 4 months
nitrate in opisthotonus
water
47 2·100 0·1 grm. lead None None 4 months
nitrate in
milk
49 2·500 2 grs. None None 3 months
acetate in
keratin pill
15 2·950 Control no None None 1 year
lead