Flow Assurance in Oil and Gas Pipelines

The most pragmatic hydrate technologies concern new methods of obtaining safe flow assurance
in flow channels and drillstrings. The prevention of hydrate-plug formation and safe removal of
hydrate plugs represent 70% of deepwater flow-assurance challenges; the remaining 30% deal
with waxes, scale, corrosion, and asphaltenes. Before considering prevention of hydrate plugs, it
is important to consider safety problems involving hydrate-plug removal.
Safety in Hydrate-Plug Removal
In addition to the more immediate operating safety hazards, such as plugging blowout preventers,
blocking drillstrings, and collapsing casing and drilling annuli, there are less obvious but very
important safety hazards for removing hydrate plugs from flow channels. Frequently, improper
removal of hydrate plugs results in damage to equipment and threats to safety of personnel.
Hydrates cause safety problems for two reasons (both of which are shown schematically in Figs.
11.1a and 11.1b): upon removal, when hydrate plugs are depressurized improperly, with large
pressure gradients across the plug, hydrate projectiles frequently erupt from pipes; and when
hydrates are heated, large confined pressure increases cause pipe ruptures.



Fig. 11.1aHydrate safety(hydrate projectiles frequently erupt through pipes)(after
King et al.




Fig. 11.1bHydrate safety(hydrates dissociate rapidly upon heating, and large
pressure increases cause pipe ruptures).
The most common way to remove a hydrate plug from a flow channel is by depressurization.
Flow is stopped, and the line is slowly depressurized from both ends of the plug. At atmospheric
pressure, the hydrate stability temperature is invariably less than that of the surroundings, so heat
flows from the environment into the hydrate plug. The plug melts radially inward, detaching first
at the pipe wall.

Any pressure gradient across the detached plug causes it to act like a projectile, as shown in Fig.
11.1a, with measured plug velocities up to 180 miles/hr for short distances. The hydrate has the
density of ice, almost twice that of the surrounding fluid, so at the line velocity, the plug
momentum is twice that of the surrounding fluids. When the hydrate projectile encounters an
obstruction or change in flow direction, such as a pipe elbow, bend, or valve, the resulting impact
or pressure increase frequently causes line rupture, equipment damage, fire, and potential injury
or loss of life.
Example 11.1: A Common Plug-Removal Hazard
A Siberian incident, in February 2000, illustrates the second common plug-removal hazard,
shown in Fig. 11.1b. A pipe fitter was attempting to remove a hydrate plug by heating an
exposed pipeline with a torch. The gas pressure from a dissociated mid-hydrate plug rose rapidly,
perhaps being confined by the plug ends. The pipeline exploded, and, in the resulting fire, one
man died; four others were badly injured.

Hydrate-plug dissociation should always be done slowly and with great care. Rules-of thumb for
safe hydrate-plug removal may be summarized as:
Always assume multiple hydrate plugs; there may be pressure between the plugs.
Attempting to move hydrate (or ice) plugs can cause ruptures in pipes and vessels.
While heating a plug is not normally an option for a buried or submerged pipeline,
heating should always be done with great care from the ends of the plug. Heating should
be done only with assurance that the plug ends will not contain the pressure.
Depressurizing a plug gradually from both ends is recommended as a safer alternative to
single-sided depressurization. However, it may be impossible to depressurize from both
sides, as when only one plug end is accessible or when a very long time is are required to
depressurize a large upstream volume. In such cases, very careful single-sided
dissociation may be done by experienced personnel.

Recommended remediation procedures are discussed further in Subsection 11.2.3.
Prevention of Hydrate-Plug Formation
What is a typical pressure at which hydrates will form? Hydrate-formation data, at a typical deep
seafloor temperature of 39F, were averaged for 20 natural gases (listed in Chap. 6 of Sloan)
with an average formation pressure of 181 psia. Of the 20 gases, the lowest hydrate-formation
pressure was 100 psig for a gas with 7 mol% propane, while the highest value was 300 psig for a
gas with 1.8 mol% propane. Because systems usually operate at much higher pressures than 181
psia to obtain an economic energy density, hydrates are a possibility whenever small (n-butane
or smaller) hydrocarbons come into contact with water.

In the chapter on phase behavior of water + hydrocarbon systems in the General Engineering
volume of this Handbook, a hand calculation method, accurate to 75%, is given for hydrate
formation. For more-accurate stability estimates using hand and computer calculation methods,
see Chaps. 4 and 5 of Clathrate Hydrates of Natural Gases and Chap. 2 of Hydrate Engineering.

There are four techniques to prevent hydrate formation: remove the free and dissolved water
from the system with separators, glycol dehydrators, molecular sieves, or other methods;
maintain high temperatures so that hydrates do not form; maintain low pressures to keep all
phases fluid; and inject some inhibitor to prevent hydrate formation.

The first of these methods of prevention is the most reliable; however, it may not be viable to
remove water because of remote locations, submersion, or other factors, so flow channels are
frequently operated with inhibitor injection at the well, followed by dehydration at a downstream
point. The prediction accuracy of hydrate formation (for the second and third prevention
techniques) is acceptable for the energy industry, within 10% pressure for well-defined fluids at
temperatures greater than 32F and pressures below 5,000 psig. In the fourth method, predictions
can also indicate the free-water concentration of thermodynamic inhibitors, such as methanol
(MeOH), monoethylene glycol (MEG), or salts (in drilling fluids), which are injected to compete
with the hydrate structure for water molecules.

A hand calculation method for inhibitor concentration in the free-water phase is discussed later
in the chapter. Remember that inhibitors are also in small, but significant, concentrations in
vapor and
are so lar
phases.

Inhibitor
Example
Notz pro
pipeline f
fluid (hyd
line mark


F
N
Pipeline
such as O
superimp
from the
forms. Th
associate
the uninh
residence
were not

In Fig. 1
ocean-flo
d liquid hyd
rge, much of
partitioning
e 11.2: Hydr
vided a case
fluid. To the
drocarbon an
ked "Hydrate
Fig. 11.2C
Notz et al.
pressure and
OLGA or P
posed on the
subsea well
he ocean coo
ed water ente
hibited hydra
e time for the
taken.
1.2, by 25 m
oor temperat
drocarbon ph
f the injected
g is also sum
rate Formati
e study of hy
e right of the
nd water) re
e-Formation
Case study o
d temperatur
PIPEPHASE
hydrate con
head, the flo
ols the flowi
ers the hydra
ate area until
e water phas
miles, the tem
ture, so that
hases. Becaus
d inhibitor is
mmarized wit
ion in a Pipe
ydrate format
e diagram, hy
gion. Howev
n Curve," and
f hydrate fo
re conditions
E, and thos
nditions in F
owing stream
ing stream, a
ate region to
l 45 miles. S
se, so that hy
mperature of
approximate
se the total-f
s consumed i
th hydrate in
eline
tion, shown
ydrates will
ver, hydrates
d hydrate-pr
ormation in
s were predic
se conditions
ig. 11.2. At
m still retains
and, at about
the left of th
Such a distan
ydrates woul
the pipeline
ely 23 wt% m
flow fraction
in the vapor
nhibition in E
in Fig. 11.2
not form, an
s will form i
revention me
a gulf of M
cted using a
s are shown
small pipelin
s some reser
t 9 miles, a u
he hydrate-fo
nce may repr
ld undoubted
e system is w
methanol is r
ns of these la
and liquid h
Example 11.2
, for a Gulf o
nd the system
in the region
easures shou
Mexico pipeli
pipeline pre
as the almos
ne distances
rvoir heat so
unit mass of
formation cur
resent severa
dly form, if i
within a few
required in t
atter two pha
hydrocarbon
2.
of Mexico
m will exist i
n at the left o
uld be taken.

ine fluid(aft
ediction prog
st horizontal
s (e.g., 7 mile
that no hydr
flowing gas
rve, remaini
al days of
inhibition ste
degrees of th
the freewater
ases
in the
of the
ter
gram
line,
es)
rate
and
ing in
eps
he
r
phase to prevent hydrate formation and pipeline blockage. Methanol-injection facilities are not
available at the needed points (9 through 45 miles) along the pipeline. Instead, methanol is
injected into the pipeline at the subsea wellhead. In the case of the pipeline, shown in Fig. 11.2,
sufficient methanol is injected at the wellhead so that an excess of 23 wt% methanol will be
present in the free-water phase over the entire pipeline length.

As vaporized methanol flows along the pipeline in Fig. 11.2, it dissolves into any produced water
or water condensed from the gas. Hydrate inhibition occurs in the free water, usually at
accumulations where there is a change in flow geometry (e.g., a bend or pipeline dip along an
ocean-floor depression) or some nucleation site (e.g., sand or weld slag).

Hydrate inhibition occurs in the aqueous liquid, rather than in the bulk vapor or oil/condensate.
While most of the methanol dissolves in the water, a significant amount of methanol either
remains with the vapor or dissolves into the liquid hydrocarbon phase. Even though the
concentration of methanol in the vapor or liquid hydrocarbon is small, with low water amounts,
the majority of methanol may be consumed by the vapor or liquid hydrocarbons because the
hydrocarbon-phase fractions are much larger than the water-phase fraction.

In Fig. 11.2, Notz showed that the gas temperature increases from 30 to 45 miles with warmer
(shallower) water conditions. From 45 to 50 miles, however, a second cooling trend is observed
because of the Joule-Thomson gas-expansion effect. Methanol exiting the pipeline in the vapor,
aqueous, and condensate phases is usually counted as a loss because of the expense of
regeneration. However, a few companies are considering methanol recovery from the aqueous
phase.
Drilling Fluids and Drillstrings.Hydrates can plug drillstrings, blowout preventers, chokes, and
other equipment, sometimes requiring the abandonment of drilling operations because of safety
constraints. Water-based drilling fluids are particularly susceptible to hydrate formation. The
most important variable affecting hydrate formation is the activity of the water, which is
decreased by chemicals that dissolve by bonding to water molecules. Water hydrogen bonds with
alcohols or glycols or forms coulombic bonds with salt ions, which are very strong. These bonds
effectively compete with water hydrate bonds and prevent hydrate formation until much lower
temperatures are reached, in the same way that, in winter, ice is prevented by the addition of
antifreeze (glycol) to a car radiator.

It is important to recognize that other nonsoluble drilling-fluid components (e.g., mud solid
particles or fluidizers) may affect the kinetics or rate of hydrate formation to determine how
rapidly hydrates will form or decompose. However, the hydrate-formation temperature and
pressure conditions are determined by water-molecule availability, as impacted by the water-
soluble components. An interesting example of a kinetically inhibited drilling fluid was recently
proposed by the use of lecithin, which prevented hydrate dissociation in an Arctic hydrate well
application. See the discussion on kinetic inhibition.

Technologies for Hydrate-Plug Prevention.With the state-of-the-art methods of hydrate
prevention, we turn to hydrate-plug prevention technology. In addition to the conventional
inhibitors MeOH and MEG, there are three new types of hydrate inhibitors, sometimes called
low-dosage hydrate inhibitors, which were tested in the field during the 1990s. However, even
with the low inhibitor concentrations, for long tiebacks between wellheads and platforms,
chemicals typically represent the most expensive flow-assurance solution. Slurry flow and
heating/insulation represent, respectively, the fourth and fifth methods of hydrate prevention. A
discussion of each method follows.

Deep ocean temperatures are fairly uniform at about 39F, except for some anomalous deepwater
current environments. Gulf of Mexico deepwater wellhead pressures represent some of the
highest in the world, at 15,000 psia. Such a combination of low temperatures and high pressures
provides high driving forces for hydrate formation. Hydrate-plug prevention requires a system
that can withstand a substantial subcooling (T = hydrate equilibrium temperature minus typical
deepwater temperature of 40F) of up to 35F; high-pressure pipelines have high hydrate-
equilibrium temperatures.

Dispersants or Antiagglomerants.The object of these chemicals is to convert water into finely
dispersed hydrate particles that can be transported in a hydrocarbon liquid. These chemicals are
typified as long-chain quaternary ammonium salts, which easily form hydrates, replacing part of
both the water and guest frameworks. While three of the four branches of a quaternary nitrogen
salt form as a part of the hydrate structure, the fourth acts as a long tail that protrudes from the
hydrate structure and prevents agglomeration of the hydrates into a larger mass. There must be
substantial hydrocarbon liquid to disperse the hydrates; the maximum water volume is 40% of
the total liquid phase.

The commercial use of dispersants began in the Gulf of Mexico in 2001, after laboratory studies
showing T = 45F subcooling. These dispersants are particularly effective in hydrate-plug
protection upon line shut-ins and restarts. However, more-extensive field testing should be done.
As these inhibitors come into commercial use, environmental concerns for water purity will have
to be resolved.

Kinetic Inhibitors.These chemicals are polymers with carbon backbones and pendant groups,
which adsorb into partially formed hydrate cages to keep the polymer anchored along the
hydrate-crystal surface. Growing hydrate crystals are forced to grow around the polymer,
stabilizing the hydrates as small particles in the aqueous phase. No liquid hydrocarbon need be
present. Field tests have shown these chemicals to be effective at subcoolings up to T = 20F, at
dosages from 550 to 3,000 ppm in the water phase. There is concern about these chemicals with
respect to performance on shut-in and restart; also, a substantial amount of hydrate normally
forms upon inhibitor failure.

Emulsifiers.These chemicals work by stabilizing small hydrate particles in an oil phase. Some
oils contain natural emulsifiers such that, even with favorable hydrate formation conditions, the
water, which might convert to hydrates, is stabilized within the oil phase. To date, efforts to
identify the stabilizing components, remove them, and re-insert them in a noninhibited oil have
been unsuccessful. Artificial emulsifiers have been shown to be effective, preventing hydrate
plugs in flow loops. There are concerns about these chemicals regarding the expense of tailoring
them for each oil application and the cost associated with emulsion breaking.

Slurry Flow.This method uses the concept from Austvik: hydrates that form in the fluid phases
will not adhere to the pipe wall. The ideal slurry system has the use of a subsea separator to
remove the majority of produced water and subsequent rapid heat exchange to seafloor
temperatures in the hydrate region, causing rapid hydrate formation as a liquid-phase slurry. It
should be noted that subsea/downhole separation will help every hydrate-prevention scheme, by
removal of most of the free-water fraction that forms hydrates.

A substantial industrial research effort is being spent on development of rapid techniques for
hydrate-slurry formation in the fluid. Slurry tests of several proprietary systems have been
sponsored by a consortium of energy companies. While this method is the most economical of
the hydrate-inhibition techniques, it is also the most ambiguous, in terms of likelihood of success.
In particular, there is a concern about agglomeration of hydrate particles during shut-ins.

Insulation and Heating.Because fluids come from the reservoir at high temperatures, a lowcost
solution is to preserve the reservoir temperature (or add heat to the line) to keep the system out of
the hydrate region. There are three types of insulation listed in ascending order of cost: coatings
applied to pipes; pipe-in-pipe (PIP) or bundling; and vacuum-insulated pipes or pipes with
insulating gases. Of the three types, the last is so expensive that it is not in commercial use, and
with the PIP method, the repair of leaks is a concern. If a bare pipe is considered as the baseline
cost, insulation can easily double to quadruple the installed-pipe cost. At the 2000 SPE Flow
Assurance Forum, it was estimated that insulation was less efficient than expected approximately
50% of the time. For example, a recent Gulf of Mexico flowline experienced an overall-heat-
transfer coefficient of 2 Btu/(hr-ft
2
-F), while the design coefficient was 0.176 Btu/(hr-ft
2
-F),
the latter being a typical value for such applications.

In combination with insulation, line heating may be done through resistance or induction heating,
with practice favoring the former. Heating costs are very high, second only to chemical treatment,
and the power for heating is generated on platforms, where typically only 5 to 10 MW may be
available. There is evidence that short lines (< 20 miles) can be handled with heat management;
however, heating solutions may not be practical at line lengths greater than 50 miles.
Hydrate-Plug Removal
Several recommendations regarding hydrate-plug removal are summarized next:
Monitor the system from early hydrate warnings, such as slush in pigging returns;
changes in water rates and fluid compositions at the separator; pressure-drop increases;
and acoustic signals (pinging) of hydrates hitting the pipelines. Before the line plugs
inject methanol or glycol to prevent full flow blockage.
Pigging partially plugged lines and backpressuring plugged lines should be used with
care because plug compaction or "snowplow" accumulation may occur.
Locate the hydrate-plug midpoint through pressure cycles, monitoring the rate of change
of upstream pressures upon reduction or increase of the downstream pressure, as shown
on pages 46 and 47 of Sloan.
Slow depressurization from both sides of hydrate plugs is the preferred method of
removal. One-sided depressurization should be done very slowly and cautiously and, then,
only if two-sided depressurization is not an option. See the safety cautions in Subsection
11.2.1. In some cases, the fluid hydrostatic pressure must be removed from the face of a
plug to enable depressurization; this may be done using coiled tubing as indicated in the
following subsection.
Hydrate plugs melt radially upon slow, two-sided depressurization. It is possible to
predict the time for two-sided hydrate dissociation, to determine the size of the annulus
between the plug and the pipe, for both dissociation and inhibitor injection past the plug.
Unlike some cases with wax plugs, hydrate-plugged lines have always been freed from
obstruction. However, safety concerns, time, and patience to wait days or weeks are
required for hydrate dissociation after depressurization. Attempts to make hourly changes
are ineffective. Some solutions, such as attempting to "blow the plug out of the line," can
make the situation worse with a larger, compacted hydrate plug.
Methanol or glycol injection is usually ineffective because of the necessity of having the
inhibitor contact the hydrate-plug face. When hydrates form in a vertical portion of a
channel, such as a riser or well string, it may be possible to inject glycol or to place a
heater at the plug face to promote hydrate dissociation.

Hydrate-plug-removal case studies are detailed in Appendix C of Sloan. With the above state-of-
the-art summary for hydrate-plug removal, we turn to emerging hydrate-plug-detection and -
removal technology.

Emerging Technology for Hydrate-Plug Detection and Removal.The emerging methods are
divided into plug detection and plug removal.

Plug Detection.There are several methods of determining the temperature and pressure along
various points in a flow line. These involve sophisticated methods using fiber optics, Raman
spectroscopy, Brillouin backscattering, Bragg grating pressure sensors, and acoustic
hydrophones. To date, these methods have been demonstrated only under research conditions.
For hydrates in lines above the water, it is possible to locate the hydrate plug on depressurization,
using infrared sensors to determine the low temperature caused by the endothermic heat of
dissociation. (See Fig. 3.7 on page 44 of Sloan.)

Plug Removal.Coiled tubing represents the primary mechanical means of freeing the hydrate
plug, but the maximum coiled-tubing distance is currently approximately 5 miles. Coiled tubing
may be used to remove a substantial liquid hydrostatic head at the hydrate face to enable
depressurization. Coiled tubing may also be used to inject methanol or glycol at the face of a
hydrate plug, when density is insufficient to drive the inhibitor to the plug face.

In order of industrial significance, flow-assurance and flow-channel safety concerns surpass all
other concerns by several orders of magnitude. The second (transporting stranded gas) and third
(seafloor stability and environment) concerns are more eminent than the fourth (energy recovery).
Because none of the three are in current industrial practice, they have no state-of-the-art
expositionthey are all considered emerging technologies.