Kupe Flow Assurance

Stephen Henzell
12 April 2006

HYDROCARBONS | MINERALS, METALS & CHEMICALS | INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE | POWER WATER & DEVELOPMENTS

Acknowledgments
This SPE presentation is being given with the kind consent of the Origin on behalf of the Kupe Joint Venture partners:

Origin Energy – Operator (50%) Genesis Energy (31%) NZ Oil & Gas (15%) Mitsui (4%)

Agenda
Project Description and Background Flow Assurance Challenges for the Kupe Field CO2 and Corrosion Hydrates Wax Asphaltenes Multiphase Pipeline Operation Summary

Taranaki Region

Source: Google Earth

Kupe Field
Kupe 1 drilled in 1975 by Shell

Interpreted residual oil column

Discovered by NZOG in 1986 with Kupe South 1 Rich gas column with an underlying oil leg Field was proved up with Kupe South 3B well in 1988

Most recent well drilled in the field

Central Field Area is contracted KS4 and KS5 drilled different accumulations to the south

Reserves and Production
Kupe Field Proved and Probable (2P) reserves of: Product Sales Gas LPG Condensate TOTAL 2P Recovery 281 PJ 627 ktonnes 14.7 million bbls PJe 281 31 82 394

The final development will likely produce around 20 PJ per annum of sales gas

Development Concept

Wellhead Platform
Normally unmanned installation Primary access by helicopter Jack-up installable 6 slots + 3 future risers Wireline workover Minimum facilities (no processing) Metering, multi-pig launcher, chemical injection, crane, HPU, HPPS, F&G and ESD Power, comms and chemical by umbilical from shore

Raw Gas Pipeline

Pipeline Shore Crossing

Shore Crossing and Production Station

Onshore Facilities - Description

HYDROCARBONS

Greenfield Production Station Site

Kupe’s Long History
Kupe was NZ’s third largest gas field when discovered in 1986. behind Maui and Kapuni
• Pohokura was subsequently discovered in 2000

Maui gas dominated the market, maintaining a low gas price
• Maui is now substantially depleted and the market price for gas is

increasing

WMC was the initial operator for the Kupe field development Initial concepts by WMC concentrated on oil production but the difficult fluid properties discouraged development WMC divested their petroleum portfolio in late 1996 and their share of Kupe was sold to Fletcher Challenge Fletcher Challenge looked at gas development concepts several times in the late 1990’s In 2001 Shell acquired Fletcher Challenge Energy’s assets

Kupe’s Long History
Due to Shell’s dominant position in the New Zealand market it was required to divest part of the Fletcher Challenge portfolio Kupe was sold to Genesis Energy, who were keen to secure gas supply to their Huntly Power Station Genesis performed a number of engineering studies to firm up the development concept and costs
• Genesis’s intent was to sell part of its holding to an experienced

oil and gas operator

Origin acquired 50% of Kupe in February 2004 and immediately commenced field development plans
• Leaving Genesis with 31%

All onshore regulatory approvals were granted by the Taranaki Regional Council and the South Taranaki District Council in October 2005

Flow Assurance Challenges
Kupe’s long gestation was in large part due to the fluid characteristics of the field CO2 at 11 mol% Wet gas and low temps Produced water Wax Asphaltenes Corrosion, exotic materials Hydrates Hydrates, scale Blockage of pipeline Gelling of pipeline liquids Blockage of pipeline Fouling of production equipment

Flow Assurance Challenges
CO2 and Corrosion Hydrates Wax Asphaltenes Slugging

CO2 Corrosion
Designed for 12.5% CO2 Wet gas production at elevated pressures Wells, Flowlines, Production Header, Service Header specified in duplex stainless steel Export pipeline specified in carbon steel
• Continuous glycol injection • Continuous corrosion inhibitor injection

CO2 Corrosion Predictions
20 18

Corrosion Rate (mm/yr)

16

Liquid Without Glycol
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Liquid with Glycol

Condensing Gas Phase without Glycol Condensing Gas Phase with Glycol

Distance from Inlet (km)

CO2 Corrosion
High integrity corrosion control required Corrosion inhibitor injection from onshore and piped to offshore – blended with glycol
• Very high availability specified • Dedicated injection pipeline

Corrosion monitoring tools installed both onshore and offshore
• Field signature method corrosion monitoring tool at platform • Monitoring of pigging products onshore

Top of Line Corrosion
When water condenses rapidly from the gas phase and liquid based corrosion inhibitor does not mix with the water

Controlled by routine pigging required for wax management
• The pig will distribute liquids to top of pipeline

Flow Assurance Challenges
CO2 and Corrosion Hydrates Wax Asphaltenes Slugging

Hydrates
Raw gas production to shore Water of condensation in raw gas pipeline
• 50 b/d

Potential for produced water in raw gas pipeline
• 1200 b/d

Hydrate prevention by continuous glycol injection
• High availability required • Glycol injected from shore • Low flow alarms offshore • Alternative injection routes provided

Suppression of Hydrates
30000

25000

40% Glycol in Aqueous Phase

Pressure (kPag)

20000

30% Glycol in Aqueous Phase

15000

20% Glycol in Aqueous Phase Hydrate Curve 10% Glycol in Aqueous Phase Design Point Hydrate Formation Curve

10000

5000

Pipeline Operating Conditions

0 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70

Temperature (˚C)

Flow Assurance Challenges
CO2 and Corrosion Hydrates Wax Asphaltenes Slugging

Waxy Crude and Condensate

Key Parameters – Fluid Properties
Condensate Wax Appearance Temp Pour Point Hard Wax Content (C30+) 56°C 25°C 2.5 wt% Crude Oil 81°C 34°C 3.9 wt%

Source: Ondeo Nalco Flow Assurance Report Dec 03

Pour Point

Pour point for crude/cond mixes

Viscosity mPa.s

Second Wax Appearance Temp

Temperature °C

First Wax Appearance Temp

Source: Ondeo Nalco Flow Assurance Report Dec 03

Taranaki Experience
Waxy crude oils are common in Taranaki The wax management strategies are all different Kapuni Waihapa Maui Pohokura

Kapuni
Gas wells experienced significant wax problems early in life Steam injection required at well pad separators for start-up Wax issues disappeared after a number of years due to retrograde condensation

Waihapa
Waxy crude exported to Omata Tank Farm at New Plymouth Continuous injection of PPD required Intermediate valve stations provided to allow pipeline to be restarted High pipeline design pressure to allow restart

Maui B
Oil discovered at Maui B platform STOS agonised over waxy oil export through the gas pipeline to Maui A platform and Oaonui Production Station FPSO Whakaaropai installed at site in 1996 to process all oil

Pohokura
Pohokura has onshore and offshore wells Insulated flowline to shore Minimum flow specified for pipeline (swing to onshore production) PPD injection from shore through umbilical Zero intervention platform (2 year visit frequency)

Other Wax Experience – SPE as a resource

Wax Management Strategy
Wellhead Platform Wax Deposition Pipeline Wax Deposition Pipeline Restart Production Station

Wax Management Strategy
Wellhead Platform Wax Deposition
• Continuous downhole injection of WCM/PPD chemical • Dead-legs minimised • Heat tracing of small bore fittings • Provision for batch solvent injection for removal of

accumulated wax • Provision for heat tracing of production flowlines

Pipeline Wax Deposition Pipeline Restart Production Station

Wax Management Strategy
Wellhead Platform Wax Deposition Pipeline Wax Deposition
• Continuous downhole injection of WCM/PPD chemical • Regular scraper pigging (likely 3-7 day interval)

Pipeline Restart Production Station

Thermal Profile for Pipeline

Source: AWT Flow Assurance Review

Pipeline Wax Deposition Modelling

7 days

MDQ gas rates 80% oil trapped in wax 3 days

1 day

Source: AWT Flow Assurance Review Rev 2 Dec 04

Automatic Pig Launcher
Platform visit frequency driven by pig launching Automatic pig launchers investigated Automatic sphere launchers are common Automatic scraper launchers are rarer
• Gabon • Subsea equipment

Pig Launcher Loading

Launcher Door Pressure Testing

Pig Launching

Wax Management Strategy
Wellhead Platform Wax Deposition Pipeline Wax Deposition Pipeline Restart
• PPD injection to reduce pour point temperature and gel

strength • Adequate differential pressure to restart “gelled” pipeline sections if chemical injection fails

Production Station

Pipeline Restart
Operation below WAT and Pour Point Unplanned shutdown leaves operating liquid inventory to settle-out into pipeline low points Concern regarding gel strength and differential pressures required for restart Available differential pressure for restart is:
• Normal • “Emergency”

4,500 kPa 12,000 kPa 1,000 kPa

Normal pipeline differential pressure:
• MDQ

Pipeline Liquid Holdup

Operating Condition

Shutdown Condition

Pipeline Elevation Profile

50 40

Pipeline Elevation (m)

30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

HDD Shore Crossing

Pipeline Length (km)

Liquid Holdup at Operating Conditions
50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 40 60 80 100

Elevation
-20 -30 -40 -50 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 0 30,000 20

Pipeline Length (m)

Liquid % Hold-Up

Elevation (m)

Liquid Holdup at Shutdown Conditions
50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 2900m 201m³ 0 30,000 40 60 80 100

Elevation
20

Pipeline Length (m)

Liquid % Hold-Up

Elevation (m)

Shear Stress for Restart

25 Pa Worst Case

Source: Ondeo Nalco Flow Assurance Report Dec 03

Restart Pressures
Conservative Case Shear required to break gel
• 25 Pa • For crude/condensate mix • Untreated with PPD

Max slug length
• 4000 metres (at min DCQ)

Restart pressure

∆P = 4 ⋅τ ⋅ L / D
=1300 kPa

Restart Pressures

Worst case conditions
• Condensate has lower shear stress required to break

gel • As low as 10 Pa

Unknowns
• Effect of MEG / Water / Condensate emulsions • Effect of PPD on gel strength

Restart Pressures

“More Likely” Case
Shear required to break gel
• 10 Pa • For condensate • Untreated with PPD

Max slug length
• 2500 metres

Restart pressure

∆P = 4 ⋅τ ⋅ L / D
=350 kPa
With PPD addition (4 times reduction?)

=100 kPa

Wax Management Strategy
Topsides Wax Deposition Pipeline Wax Deposition Pipeline Restart Production Station

Production Station Wax Considerations
Pig receiver
• Specified to manage wax scraped from the wall of the

pipeline

Slugcatcher
• Warm condensate recycle to melt wax deposits and to

maintain process temperatures

Liquids handling and storage
• Steady increase in operating temperatures for processing • Warm recycle for start-up

Export
• Provision for additional PPD injection

Heat tracing of all instrumentation and stagnant lines

Wax Removal from Scraper Receiver

Flow Assurance Challenges
CO2 and Corrosion Hydrates Wax Asphaltenes Slugging

Asphaltenes
Asphaltenes – “heavy components of crude oil not soluble in heptane” Exist as solids that are dispersed by resins Asphaltenes were detected in the original oil samples from Kupe South 3B
• 0.03 wt%

But resins are only 1.8 wt% SARA (Saturates, Aromatics, Resins, Asphaltenes) analysis indicates that Kupe crude oil is unstable Reduction of resins or mixing with paraffin compounds can de-stabilise the asphaltene
• By mixing with condensate

Experience at Port Bonython is invaluable

Moomba - Port Bonython

Port Bonython
Gas CO2 Removal Stabiliser Cryogenic Plant DeEthaniser Sales Gas

Oil

Ethane NGLs

Moomba
Ethane DeEthaniser Asphaltene Deposits Propane DePropaniser Butane DeButaniser Naphtha Naphtha Splitter Crude

Port Bonython

Port Bonython Experience
0.05 wt% asphaltene in blend of crude and NGLs Plant shutdown after six months
• 30 tonnes of solids removed from de-ethaniser • Mixture of asphaltenes and waxes

Plant runtimes extended to 18 months by
• Asphaltene dispersant injection • Careful control of feedstock

Kupe Asphaltenes
Asphaltene production with crude oil could seriously affect gas deliverability Decision taken to avoid targeted crude oil production However there is potential for crude oil to commingle with gas production Precautions:
• Provision for asphaltene dispersant injection • Provision to install stand-by equipment (mostly heat exchangers) • Equipment specified to allow cleaning/removal (trayed columns,

vessel inlet devices)

Flow Assurance Challenges
CO2 and Corrosion Hydrates Wax Asphaltenes Slugging

Liquid Inlet Flow to Slugcatcher at 50% DCQ

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

30000 25000

Pig Launched

20000 15000 10000 5000 0

Time (hrs)

Pig Position in Pipeline (m)

3000

35000

Liquid Flowrate (m³/hr)

Slugcatcher Inventory at 50% DCQ
3000 2500
Liquid Flowrate (m³/hr)

300 250
Inventory (m³)

2000

200

Slugcatcher Inventory
1500 1000 500 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Time (hrs)

150 100 50 0

Slugcatcher Inventory at 50% DCQ
3000 2500
Liquid Flow (m³/hr)

300 250 Liquid Draw-Down at 50% DCQ Rate Liquid Draw-Down at DCQ Rate
Inventory (m³)

2000 1500 1000 500 0 5 6 7

200 150 100

Liquid Draw-Down at MDQ Rate

50 0

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Time (hrs)

Terrain Induced Slugging

200

200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Liquid Flow (m³/hr)

175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0

Time (hrs)

Slugcatcher Inventory (m³)

Slugcatcher Size
Slug Size Pigging Slug Terrain Slugging Contingency Working Capacity 215 m3 5 m3 30 m3 250 m3 15% to cover the unknowns Comment Gas: 50% DCQ

Liquids: DCQ

Summary
Synergies Development concept based on ALL flow assurance issues

Synergies
Hydrate and corrosion management require very high availability
• Glycol and corrosion inhibitor mixed onshore • Transferred to shore via dedicated pipeline • High integrity monitoring systems both onshore and offshore

Routine pipeline pigging
• Wax build-up control • Top of line corrosion control

Chemical injection
• Required for pour point depressant injection • Can be augmented to provide asphaltene dispersant injection if

required

Flow Assurance Input to Development Concept
Umbilical from shore to platform
• Power for heat tracing of platform • Power for heat tracing of future satellite developments • High bandwidth communications for monitoring critical platform

operating parameters • Chemical transfer from onshore – high availability • Provision for future chemicals

Design provisions for wax and asphaltene
• Affects project design from wells through to export • Consistent approach required in all facilities

Kupe Flow Assurance
Thank you Questions?

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful