SPE-192741-MS

Wax Deposition and Hydrate Transport Dynamic Simulations on an

Oil Pipeline - Experiences Applying Novel Models for Flow Assurance
Assessment

Patricio Puente and Victor Martinez, Kongsberg Digital; Vanessa Richon, TOTAL; John Morud, SINTEF Industry
AS; Neeraj Zambare, Kongsberg Digital

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 12-15 November 2018.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
To minimize capital costs, operating companies are choosing to produce oil and gas through longer and
longer subsea tie-backs. Transportation of multiphase gas, oil and aqueous mixture over long pipelines under
high pressure and low subsea temperatures present some unique challenges. One of the most important
challenges in flow assurance for such more common long pipeline designs is the possibility of blockage
due to hydrate formation and/or wax deposition.
This paper discusses results using the newly developed wax deposition and hydrate transport models
for a pre-FEED study. The models demonstrated are integrated into a generic and well proven multiphase
dynamic simulator framework designed to be used for pre-FEED and FEED studies for a green oil field as
well as to trouble shoot production challenges and simulate production of an already producing field.
LedaFlow™ is the multiphase, transient simulator that was used during the study. It contains a framework
which easily allowed implementation of the new modules for wax and hydrate.
Wax deposition and hydrate transport are two important challenges for pipeline design and operations
with waxy oil fluids that are prone to hydrate formation. An accurate model for quantifying the wax
deposition and hydrate transport processes is essential to assure secure and safe transportation of these
hydrocarbons. In addition, providing accurate predictions of not only the pressure drop along the pipeline
but also of the flow behavior during the transport will help to optimize the development schemes, avoiding
over-design. There are several options for modeling both processes, however, for the evaluation reported
here not only the process itself is important, but to model dynamic operational scenarios is also important.
For this study a waxy and hydrate forming stream was selected. This stream comes from a single stage
separator in an offshore facility.
The new wax model includes some key features, such as the non-Newtonian nature of the waxy oil, the
growth of the wax layer and the effect on heat transfer throughout the pipeline. It is based on a known model
from the literature, however, it brings a fundamental new framework for simulating the effect of wax on
multiphase flow as it benefits from all the functionalities of the multiphase flow simulator like transient
operations, accurate thermal modeling including use of heat tracing. All of this has been considered in our
2 SPE-192741-MS

study of normal operations. In the hydrate transport model, mass transfer during hydrate formation, the
hydrate former/water depletion in the pipeline and the slurry viscosity with hydrate particles have all been
considered.

INTRODUCTION
To minimize capital and operating costs, new developments schemes are aiming at producing oil and gas
through longer and longer subsea tie-backs. Transportation of multiphase gas, oil and aqueous mixture over
long pipelines under high pressure and low subsea temperatures present some unique challenges. One of
the most important challenges in flow assurance for such more common long pipeline designs is the risk of
blockage due to hydrate formation and/or wax deposition.
This paper will describe and apply two new models developed to get a better understanding of hydrate
transport and wax deposition in a pipeline. The next section will briefly describe the models and the
challenges that could be solved using the new wax and hydrate models as implemented in LedaFlow™. In
the subsequent section, the results obtained from a pre-FEED study where the new models were applied to
a subsea liquid export pipeline will be presented.
From a general point of view, accurate models for wax deposition and hydrate transport would represent
a valuable advancement in the oil and gas industry. Results from these models are important during the
design of oil and gas fields and for the proper scheduling of mitigation actions to assure continuous flow
in production systems.

Hydrate formation
Hydrate formation is one of the most commonly encountered flow assurance problem for subsea pipelines.
Hydrates are crystalline solids that resemble ice. In a structural point of view, hydrates are clathrates, or
compounds in which the basic structure consist of a cage-like crystal of water molecules containing a hydrate
former molecule, called a guest. Hydrates form when there exists enough water and hydrate former and the
right combination of temperature and pressure [1].
Continuous chemical inhibitors injection, insulation or heating are usually used to mitigate hydrate risk;
however, all these options are expensive. An innovative solution is to accept formation of hydrate particles
if they can be transported safely in a suspended form without sticking to the pipe wall. This is possible
with usage of low dosage hydrate inhibiting anti-agglomerates (LDHI-AA) which can be injected in the
production stream or due to naturally existing anti-agglomerating properties of the produced crude oil. This
is an attractive and economical option; however, it requires a deep understanding of the hydrate formation
phenomena specifically applied to the field under consideration. In this approach, it could be possible
to transport cold streams from subsea fields on ultra-long pipelines with low chemical use but without
insulation or heating, if we are able to model the hydrate formation process accurately.

Wax deposition
Wax deposition occurs when paraffinic components in the crude oil, alkanes with carbon numbers greater
than 20, precipitate in the liquid phase and deposit on the pipeline. It occurs when the temperature of the
inner pipeline wall is below the wax appearance temperature (WAT). Below this temperature the precipitated
oil forms wax crystallites. The flocculated wax crystallites could deposit on the inner pipe wall creating a
wax layer which could lead to increased pressure drop in a pipeline [2].
Wax deposition can be mitigated by flowline heating, better insulation, chemical injection (pour point
depressant) or regular pigging of the pipeline to scrape off the wax deposit. However, all those approaches
are conservative and could be expensive if not optimized. Pigging a flowline to remove deposited wax is
an economical option. Thorough understanding of the wax formation and deposition process is required
to determine the lowest necessary frequency of pigging such that the pressure drop in the flowline never
SPE-192741-MS 3

increases beyond an acceptable limit and/or the quantity of wax buildup in the flowline below an acceptable
limit.

WAX DEPOSITION AND HYDRATE TRANSPORT MODELING

WAX DEPOSITION MODELING
Basic theory of wax deposition modeling. Traditionally, due to lack of reliable prediction models,
conservative approaches are used in design to maintain the fluid temperature higher than the WAT (Heated
pipeline, insulation…). When avoiding wax deposition completely is not possible, pigging operations are
performed regularly to scrape off the wax. An accurate definition of the pigging frequency is then crucial
to optimize the operations and to avoid production losses.
Wax molecules are usually dissolved in crude oils at reservoir conditions (high temperatures). As the oil
is produced and transported within a flowline, the ambient environment gradually cools the fluid, and when
the fluid temperature becomes lower than the WAT, dissolved wax molecules will precipitate from the crude
oil. The wax-in-oil suspension usually possesses non-Newtonian fluid characteristics, such as plasticity and
shear-thinning properties, which complicate the hydrodynamic analysis of pipe flow. It is imperative to
incorporate non-Newtonian constitutive equations in the wax deposition models [3] to allow modeling of
the flow correctly. In addition to precipitated wax in the bulk flow, wax tends to deposit on the pipe wall,
leading to reduced effective pipe diameter, reduced production and possible blockage of the pipeline.
Different mechanisms for wall deposition are known: molecular diffusion, shear dispersion, Brownian
diffusion and gravity settling. Among these, molecular diffusion of paraffin has been identified as the
dominant mechanism leading to deposit growth. Wax deposition is due to the diffusion of the dissolved
molecules of the waxy components towards the pipe wall.
The wax deposition module. The main objectives of the wax deposition module are to determine the
required pigging frequency to keep the production flowing and to assess the impact of the precipitated wax
particles on the viscosity of the oil. Consequently, the pressure drop along the pipeline can be estimated.
The following assumptions have been made to build the model:

• Cell volume and cross-sectional surface area changes caused by wall deposit are neglected.
However, the effect of reduced cross-sectional area on pressure drop is accounted for.
• The wax deposit on the pipe wall can be removed by pigging. 100% pigging efficiency is assumed
and the wax that is scraped off is not accounted for in the simulation (it disappears instantly).
Methodology implemented in modeling software
The wax deposition module is based on the thesis of Lee [2]. Lee's model considers coupled transport of
heat and wax in the turbulent boundary layer at the pipe wall, including the kinetics of the wax precipitation.
His model is a 2D model that resolves the profiles of temperature and wax concentration as a function of
the distance from the pipe wall. Experiments have validated the model, as described in the thesis.
Solving a rigorous 2D-model could be computationally expensive; hence, the 2D model has been reduced
to a 1D-model by using the film theory (see e.g. Danckwerts [4]). The 1D wax model accurately reproduces
the wax deposition predictions of Lee's model at a fraction of the computational cost. To illustrate the
accuracy of the approximation, Figure 1 shows a comparison between the two models based on Figure 4.8
in Lee's thesis. The plot shows dimensionless wax deposition rate measured as the ratio of Sherwood and
Nusselt numbers versus the rate constant, kr, of the precipitation process. When the rate constant is small
(towards left hand side in the figure), the wall deposition follows the Colburn analogy for turbulent mass
transfer ("Colburn limit"). On the other hand, for a very large rate constant (towards right hand side in the
figure) the temperature and wax concentrations are locked together by equilibrium and the deposition rate is
much smaller ("solubility limit"). As can be seen, the present 1D model accurately captures Lees 2D-model.
4 SPE-192741-MS

Figure 1—Dimensionless wall deposition rate, Sh/Nu, as function of the precipitation rate
constant, kr (Lee's figure 4.8). The present 1D model accurately reproduces Lee's 2D model.

The wax deposition process captured by the model is illustrated in Figure 2. The different phenomena
captured include gradients of wax concentration C(y), and temperature, T, near the wall, formation of wax
particles in the fluid by precipitation, r, heat transfer, q, and a deposition flux of wax at the wall, J. By
solving the coupled system, the interaction effects between the phenomena are accounted for (Lee [2]). In
particular, the strong interaction between the rate of precipitation of wax particles in the bulk, r, and the wall
deposition rate, J, has been properly accounted for. The interaction is thoroughly discussed in Lee's thesis.
Both equilibrium and non-equilibrium (super saturation) conditions are handled.
Existing custom fluid framework in the software has been used to track wax former and formed wax in
the fluid. Two different mass transfer terms have been implemented:

• Wax crystallization, forming wax particles in oil (wax slurry)

• Wax deposition on the inner pipe wall (wall deposit)

Figure 2—Wax deposition scheme. Variables: Concentration of dissolved wax, C(y) [kg/m3], as
function of distance from wall, y [m]. Rate of precipitation, r [kg/m3-s], as function of dissolved wax
concentration, C, and its equilibrium concentration, Csat(T) at local temperature, T [K]. Kinetic rate
constant, kr [1/s]. Deposition flux of wax onto wall, J [kg/m2-s]. Heat flux towards wall, q [W/m2].
SPE-192741-MS 5

The following parameters that can impact the rate of wall deposition, J, are available:

• A user-given wax precipitation curve

• Diffusion coefficient of wax former in oil [5].

• Surface area of wax particles in oil.

• Wall surface area wetted by oil. (In multiphase conditions, the wax deposit will occur on the oil-
wetted surface)
• Temperature gradient between the oil and the inner pipe wall.

These reactions are fully reversible. Pipeline heating for example will dissolve the wax when the
temperature of the fluid and of the inner wall increase beyond wax dissolution temperature (user input).
Moreover, the exothermicity of the wax formation reaction is also accounted for, which could lead to local
heating in the fluid.
Wax deposition growth is a very slow process. It can take months before the deposit impacts the flow.
To limit the simulation time, a user input time acceleration factor for wax deposition can be used to speed
up the wall deposition rate.
Effect of wax particles in oil slurry
The physical properties of the solid wax (density, heat capacity, thermal conductivity) will affect the
properties of the oil phase through the normal mixing rules for custom fluids. The viscosity increase due to
the resulting wax slurry in the oil phase is calculated using one of three different viscosity models. In all
three models the viscosity of the wax slurry in the oil phase,, depend on the wax particle volume fraction
in oil, wax. These models have been implemented to capture the specificity of the wax slurry which contains
dispersed solid particles that can eventually agglomerate into larger ones.
1. Newtonian Thomas model [6]

where μ0 is the base oil fluid viscosity without wax (e.g. from PVT table) and A, B and C are user-given
model parameters.
2. Non-Newtonian Pedersen model [7]

where the viscosity is depending on the shear rate, du/dy, in addition to the wax volume fraction in oil. The
yield stress (the stress at which the Non-Newtonian fluid begins to flow) is given by . The
user-given model parameters D, E and F can be found by characterizing the waxy fluid.
3. Non-Newtonian SoFA (Suspension of Fractal Aggregates) model [8]

where the waxy oil is considered as a suspension of wax crystals that form fractal aggregates whose size is
limited by the shear stress, τ. The yield stress, τ0 is the critical shear stress below which aggregates can form.
αwax, max is the maximal packing fraction (αwax, max = 4/7). The user-given model constants A and X relates to
the structure and breakage mechanism of the aggregates.
6 SPE-192741-MS

Impact of wax deposit on the inner pipe wall

The diameter reduction by wax deposition on the pipe wall leads to increased pressure drop. The wall friction
of all 3 phases is tuned to match the diameter effect in the Darcy-Weisbach equation:

Another effect of the wax deposit is to add an insulation layer to the inner pipe wall, reducing the heat
flux through the wall. This effect can be significant for uninsulated pipelines.

HYDRATE TRANSPORT MODELING

Basic theory on hydrate transport modeling. Plugging of pipelines due to gas hydrates are among the
most severe risks deep water pipeline networks where the pressure is usually high and the temperature low,
are subject to. The traditional conservative approach is to avoid hydrate forming conditions completely, but
that is associated with a high cost.
The aim of a transient gas hydrate model is to predict if, where and when hydrates will form and
evaluate the risk of plugging. Such a model needs to predict the hydrates formation and their transportability,
especially for oil dominated system where the natural anti-agglomerant properties can be accounted for or
for gas/condensate systems where anti-agglomerants are injected.
The model needs to include a kinetic model that calculates the hydrate growth considering a specified
subcooling time, and a transport model that accounts for the viscosity increase of the liquid phases due to
the presence of the hydrate particles in the oil / water phases. A hydrate plug can then be identified when
the viscosity increase is so large that it prevents the fluid from flowing.
The hydrate transport module. The hydrate module enables hydrate particles to form and be transported
in the oil and/or water phase. The main objective is to find out if the pipeline can be operated with some
hydrate formation, rather than avoiding hydrate risk completely.
Two main assumptions are that the agglomeration of the hydrate particles is captured through the
parameters of the viscosity law and that hydrate particles do not stick to the wall.
The model for hydrate formation is not based on any existing correlation, but has been specially developed
by the software partners using internal research and knowledge as well as experimental data from the Tiller
hydrate loop, which are available in the SINTEF database. The model is based on a kinetic expression for
the reaction rate, but testing has shown that for most cases the thermodynamic equilibrium (not the kinetics)
limit the reaction rate.
Hydrate reaction and kinetic model
As for the wax deposition module, the formation and transport of hydrate particles along the pipeline are
handled by the custom fluid framework. This framework uses an additional mass transfer term for the
hydrate formation process. The stoichiometry is the conversion of hydrate former in the hydrocarbon phases
(light hydrocarbons and CO2) together with water, forming hydrates.

The stoichiometric coefficient γ can be modified, to adjust for different molecular structures of hydrates
(type I, II or H). When the hydrate former or the water is depleted, the conversion stops. The hydrate former
mass fraction in the feed is a user input.
The kinetic model for hydrate conversion assumes that the conversion rate is proportional to the
subcooling (degrees C below the hydrate formation curve). Hydrate formation is exothermic, and the latent
heat is taken as a constant value (default 477.4 kJ/kg). Effects of thermodynamic inhibitors are considered by
allowing modification of the hydrate formation curves. The module also supports the hydrate dissociation.
Hydrate distribution coefficient
SPE-192741-MS 7

Hydrates tend to be water-wetted typically, however, some crude oil can contain natural components that
act as anti-agglomerants and increase the tendency of the hydrates to be oil-wetted [9] [2].
In that case, a hydrate wetting index (plug index) can be measured in the laboratory. This is a normalized
measure of the phase inversion point of water-oil emulsions. The wetting index ranges from 1 corresponding
to water-wet agglomerating hydrates to +1 corresponding to oil-wet non-agglomerating hydrates. A
distribution coefficient has been implemented to capture the oil-wetting or water-wetting tendency of the
hydrates. The mass fraction of hydrate formed in the oil and water phase depends on the distribution
coefficient, y, and the mass fraction of oil and water, mhydrate, oil and mhydrate, water:

By default, hydrates will form in both the oil and water phases (0.5 distribution coefficient). This can be
adjusted in the hydrate transport module settings.
Effect of hydrates on the flow
After hydrates are formed they end up in the oil and/or water phase changing the physical properties of these
phases. The main effect on the flow is a higher pressure drop, due to increased viscosity of the resulting
hydrate slurry. There are two different viscosity models available in the hydrate transport module, where
the viscosity of the hydrate slurry, μ, depend on the hydrate particle volume fraction in oil or water, αhydrate:
1. Newtonian model - Thomas [6]

2. Non-Newtonian SoFA model [8], [10]

Both models are also used for wax viscosity and thus further described in section 3.1.2.2.
Ongoing developments
Some recent research works performed by TOTAL [11] have shown that some crude oils, in addition to their
natural anti-agglomerant properties, can also contain kinetic hydrate inhibitors which could delay hydrate
formation significantly. In gas/condensate systems, when anti-agglomerants are injected in the pipeline, the
same phenomena can be observed. The effect of these anti-agglomerants is quite often not considered in the
traditional approach leading to very conservative approach to avoid hydrate formation in the pipeline.
A paper [11] has presented the wide-spread ability among crude oils to delay hydrate formation. The
results of experimental tests have shown that a hold time in hydrate formation can be considered. This hold
time depends on the magnitude of subcooling. This is illustrated in the following graph (Figure 3). The
larger the subcooling, the faster the hydrates will form. For smaller subcooling, the hold time can be quite
significant. The impact of anti-agglomerants (hydrate dispersants) is also illustrated in the following figure.
They affect the hydrate formation by further increasing the holdup time.
8 SPE-192741-MS

Figure 3—Hold Time tendency vs subcooling with a real fluid.

This innovative approach will be implemented in the modeling software. The hold time being crude
dependent, the user will be able to specify the parameters obtained by lab analysis for each specific crude
or each specific hydrate dispersant (anti-agglomerant).

STUDY CASE
This paper presents wax deposition and hydrate transport studies performed on a 10-inch liquid offshore
pipeline (120 km) from a separation platform to the processing facilities located onshore. The onshore
section of the pipeline is 3 kilometers’ in length. Four producing wells are routed to this offshore gas/liquid
separation platform. The gas is then exported through a gas export pipeline whereas the liquid is pumped
to a liquid export pipeline which is the line this study addresses. At each wellhead, LDHI-AA is injected to
manage hydrates. After the gas/liquid separation, the LDHI-AA stays with the oil and water, which is routed
into the liquids pipeline transporting to the onshore facilities. This uninsulated liquid pipeline is exposed to
the sea water temperature at around 3°C. Such cold temperatures may lead to wax and hydrate formation.
The liquid pipeline schematic is presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4—Liquid pipeline schematic.

SPE-192741-MS 9

The liquid phase is expected to consist waxy oil and formation water. The water cut is 0.03 [-]. The
oil density is 816 kg/m3. Air ambient temperature for the winter season is assumed at −12 °C (worst case
scenario) and it is presented here as the most conservative value for addressing wax deposition and hydrate
transportation scenarios.
Under normal production conditions, the estimated amount of liquid pumped from the separation facilities
is 46,000 bbl/d. The delivery pressure at the onshore facilities is 80 barg. Since the arrival pressure is below
the expected liquid bubble point, some sections in the pipeline towards the end may have multiphase flow.
The fluid inlet temperature at the platform is 58 °C.
Separate and independent simulations were used to study wax deposition and hydrate transportation since
both models cannot be activated at the same time. This is done purposely because understanding these
phenomena together would pose a high level of complexity.

WAX DEPOSITION STUDY

Objectives. Main objectives for the wax deposition study are to:

• Determine the wax deposition rate and wax layer thickness along the pipeline to estimate the
required pigging frequency.
• Determine the fluid viscosity of the oil phase and the wax deposit layer along the pipeline to
estimate the pressure drop along the pipeline.
Wax deposition simulation inputs. The following basic parameters are required as input:
1. Wax formation heat of reaction: Wax formation is an exothermic process and the heat released during
this reaction is important to estimate because the resulting temperature increase resists wax formation
to some extent. If this is not available from lab analysis, a typical default value is provided.
2. Wax precipitation curve (which includes WAT) (Figure 5)
3. Viscosity of the wax slurry can be modeled either as Newtonian fluid (using Thomas viscosity model)
or as non-Newtonian fluid (using Pedersen or SoFA viscosity models). For this study, the coefficients
in Pedersen (D, E, F) and SoFA (A, X) models were calculated based on experimental data.

Figure 5—Wax precipitation curve.

10 SPE-192741-MS

Wax deposition process can be very long. Since it is difficult for the user to know how long it will take
to build a pre-specified amount of wax (equivalent to an allowable increase in flowline pressure drop), it
is difficult to estimate the simulation time. To alleviate this concern, a simulation stop criterion of either
maximum wax thickness or total mass of wax deposited is available. For this study, the stop criterion is
set to a maximum wax thickness of 5 mm. Typically, one simulation can be run initially to determine this
maximum wax thickness based on the maximum allowable pressure drop in the flowline.
There are advanced parameters available to incorporate more detailed lab analysis data, if available. For
the purposes of this study, default values were used for the advanced parameters.
Results. After around 5.6 days of simulation, the maximum wax layer thickness set at 5 mm is reached at
a location 5.9 km from the platform and the simulation stops automatically according to the stop criterion.
Effectively, indicating that pigging would be required every 5.6 days, if the maximum acceptable wax layer
thickness is 5 mm.
Figure 6 presents the profiles of pipeline elevation, bulk fluid temperature, difference between the fluid
temperature and pipeline inner wall temperature at day 1 and at the end of the simulation and a constant
temperature line representing the WAT.

Figure 6—Profiles of pipe elevation, oil temperature and the difference between oil and inner wall temperatures.

Figure 7 presents the wax layer thickness evolution over the 5.6 days of simulation. For the first 1.8 km,
there is no wax deposition because the fluid temperature and consequently the wall temperature is above
the WAT temperature. As the fluid temperature drops below WAT, the wax starts to form and to deposit.
The wall deposition rate and the wax precipitation increases. However, as the fluid temperature levels out
at approximately 30 km, the solid and the dissolved wax approach equilibrium at this temperature and the
wax deposition process almost stops. Thus, the majority of the wax deposition takes place at the first 30 km
of the pipeline. There is another section towards the end of the pipeline where wax deposition is observed.
This is due to this last section of the pipeline being onshore and in contact with much cooler air at −12 °C
causing the temperature to fall further, leading to further precipitation and deposition. The total amount of
precipitation and deposition can be predicted from the precipitation curve, which dictate how much solid
wax will form at equilibrium (after a sufficiently long section of pipe).
SPE-192741-MS 11

Figure 7—Evolution of wax thickness during 5.6 days of simulation.

Figure 8 presents the evolution of wax deposition rate during the simulation. It is important to note how
the maximum deposition rate reduces with time. This is mainly due to the increased insulation provided
by the already built wax layer on the wall. This is also why the maximum deposition rate location shifts
slowly away from the inlet over time. The maximum wax deposition rate is located around 8 km from the
platform at the end of the simulation.

Figure 8—Evolution of wax deposition rate during 5.6 days of simulation.

12 SPE-192741-MS

As explained earlier in the modeling methodology, most of the wax particles will not deposit on the
inner pipeline wall. They will be suspended as solid particles in the oil phase creating a slurry that will be
transported with the oil phase. These particles will impact the viscosity of the oil phase, which is known to
behave as a non-Newtonian fluid. Figure 9 shows the profile of the oil viscosity along the pipeline estimated
by the SoFA and Pedersen models. Additionally, this figure includes the viscosity of the oil phase itself
(base oil viscosity) without any wax particles as a reference. With the values of the coefficients in Pedersen
(D, E, F) and SoFA (A, X) models used in this study, more conservative results are obtained from the SoFA
model estimating a maximum viscosity of 4.5 cP and an average viscosity of 3.2 cP along the pipeline. The
Pedersen model estimated a maximum viscosity of 3.3 cP and average viscosity of 2.7 cP. For reference,
the base oil viscosity was estimated at a maximum of 1.1 cP and an average of 1.0 cP.
Wax deposits on the inner wall and the increased oil viscosity due to suspended wax particles will increase
the pressure drop in the pipeline. Figure 9 also shows the final pressure profiles along the pipeline using
the SoFA and the Pedersen models (including predictions of base oil viscosity). As expected, the more
conservative SoFA model predicts the largest increase in pressure drop.
Figure 10 shows the evolution of oil viscosity, wax volume fraction and oil temperature in the wax
deposition region (~5-40 km). It is interesting to note that the oil viscosity at day 5.6 is estimated to be lower
than the oil viscosity at day 1. This is mainly due to the lower wax volume fraction due to overall higher
oil temperature caused by the insulating effect of the deposited wax layer.

Figure 9—Profiles of oil viscosity and pressure using different viscosity models.
SPE-192741-MS 13

Figure 10—Evolution of oil viscosity (SoFA), wax volume fraction and temperature.

Figure 11 presents the pressure at the pipeline inlet for the SoFA and the Pedersen models with respect
to the base oil viscosity. As expected, the SoFA model which predicts the highest viscosity also predicts
the largest increase in pressure drop. The inlet pressure estimated at the end of simulation for the different
models is presented in Table 2. This estimation and its accuracy is very important to estimate required
pumping capacity for design purposes.

Figure 11—Inlet pressure trend using different viscosity models.

14 SPE-192741-MS

The pressure trend in Figure 11 continues to increase because the wax layer will continue to grow if the
simulation is continued further.
Table 1 below provides the values for the wax deposition key results, Table 2 shows the summary for the
pressure drop using SoFA, Pedersen models and for the case where the wax deposition module is not used.

Table 1—Summary of wax deposition key results.

Parameter Units Value

Maximum wax layer thickness (pre-specified) mm 5.0

Location of maximum wax layer km 5.9

Time required to reach the max wax layer thickness days 5.6

Maximum wax deposition rate @ 5.6 days mm/yr 249.0

Location of maximum deposition rate km 8.5

Maximum wax mass fraction @ 5.6 days – 0.032

Location of maximum wax mass fraction km Outlet

Table 2—Summary of pressure drop results.

Viscosity model
Value @ 5.6 days Units
Base oil Pedersen SoFA

Average oil viscosity cP 0.97 2.70 3.18

Inlet pressure Bara 243 267 273

Pressure drop Bar 162 186 191

HYDRATE TRANSPORTATION STUDY

Objectives. Main objective for the hydrate transportation study is to determine the hydrate mass fraction
in the oil phase and hence the oil viscosity along the pipeline to understand the effect on pipeline pressure
drop. This will help in understanding whether transportation of hydrate slurry is possible, which will be
identified as not possible if the fluid viscosity due to presence of hydrate particles rises beyond an acceptable
pre-specified value.
Hydrate transportation simulation inputs. The following basic parameters are required as input:

• Hydrate curve: Hydrate formation curve presented in Figure 12.

• Hydrate former phase: Phase in which hydrate former is located. In this study, the fluid is mainly
oil, so oil phase is used.
• Stoichiometric coefficient: Water to hydrate former ratio in the hydrate formation reaction. This
will depend on the type of hydrate structure expected to form in the system.
• Sauter mean diameter of hydrate particles: This provides the particle surface area; the hydrate
formation reaction rate depends on this surface area.
• Minimum velocity: This represents the minimum fluid mixing required to form hydrate particles.
Below this velocity (typically shut-in scenario), it can be assumed that there is no turbulence and
that the phases do not mix. Thus, it can also be assumed that water does not come into direct contact
with hydrate former which limits hydrate formation.
• Hydrate distribution coefficient: This parameter is used to decide how much of the hydrate is
formed in the oil phase vs aqueous phase. With a dominant oil phase fluid, this coefficient is
assumed to be 1 meaning all hydrates will form in oil phase.
SPE-192741-MS 15

• Viscosity of the hydrate slurry can be modeled either as Newtonian fluid (using Thomas viscosity
model) or as non-Newtonian fluid (using SoFA viscosity model).
All of the above inputs could be obtained from lab analysis of the production fluid sample. In case lab
analysis is not available, most typical default values are available for early design use, which is the case
for this study.

• Hydrate former mass fraction: In the inlet flow source, this defines the mass fraction of the light
hydrocarbon components in the total fluid that can form hydrates.

Figure 12—Hydrate formation curve.

Similar to the wax deposition model, there is a stop criterion setting available for the hydrate transport
model based on the volume fraction of hydrate particles or overall fluid viscosity to help stop the simulation
at a pre-specified setting which may represent a hydrate blockage situation or just an acceptable fluid
viscosity level to support hydrate transport. However, for this study, hydrate particle volume fraction is
limited by low amount of water present in the system, so this criterion is not used.
Results. The liquid pipeline is un-buried, completely un-insulated and exposed to sea water temperature of
3 °C. Simulation results show that the temperature in the pipeline reaches steady state at around 21 hours.
Conservatively, the final simulation was run for a duration of 5 days to ensure steady state has been achieved.
Figure 13 shows the temperature hydrate margin along the pipeline and the hydrate safety margin of 3 °C.
From this it can be implied that apart from initial 4.1 km section, the pipeline is operated in hydrate formation
condition. Thus, starting at 4.1 km, water and hydrocarbon hydrate formers can form hydrate particles.
16 SPE-192741-MS

Figure 13—Profiles of pipe elevation and hydrate temperature margin.

Figure 14 shows the total water volume fraction, the hydrate volume fraction and the hydrate temperature
margin over the first 20 km of the pipeline. Positive temperature margin indicates that the fluid has entered
the hydrate formation region (thermodynamic conditions). The hydrate formation region in the pipeline
is marked by the red shaded area. Some amount of sub cooling is necessary before hydrate particles start
forming because the kinetic model assumes that the reaction rate is proportional to the degree of sub cooling.
Also, there is a delay, as the hydrate conversion rate depends on the hydrate concentration itself, with a very
low conversion rate when there are no hydrates. This explains why the hydrates appear at 6.4 km; more
than 2 km downstream of where the hydrate condition is first satisfied. For the specified conditions, after
approximately 7.5 km from the platform, all available water is consumed by the hydrate formation process,
after which, no new hydrates can form due to lack of one of the key ingredients (water). Thus, hydrates
can only form in this section between 4 km and 7.5 km from the platform. It is assumed that all the formed
hydrate particles will be transported along the pipeline in a suspended form. In this case, this assumption
is well founded due to planned injection of LDHI-AA to avoid agglomeration of the hydrate particles as
well as deposition on the wall.

Figure 14—Profiles of hydrate volume fraction, water volume fraction and hydrate margin (zoomed-in first 20 km).
SPE-192741-MS 17

The suspended hydrate particles will have an impact on the oil viscosity which can increase pressure drop
along the pipeline. Since the hydrate slurry (hydrate particles suspended in oil) is known to demonstrate
non-Newtonian behavior [10], [12], the viscosity along the pipeline is calculated using the non-Newtonian
SoFA model and presented in Figure 15 and Table 3; the base oil viscosity (without hydrate particles) is
also presented as a reference. As expected, until the point of hydrate formation (6.4 km), the oil viscosity
estimated by both models is identical (since hydrate particles have not formed yet). After this point, the
SoFA model predicts oil viscosity almost twice as high as base oil viscosity. This viscosity behavior of the
hydrate slurry agrees with the measurement reported by E. B. Webb [12], where the relative viscosity is
between 1 and 2 at low hydrate volume fractions (up to 0.1 [-]).

Figure 15—Profiles of pressure and viscosities for base oil and SoFA model.

Figure 15 also shows the pressure profiles using the SoFA model and base oil viscosity. The inlet pressures
and pressure drop calculated for both cases are presented in Table 3. As expected, the SoFA model gives
higher pressure drop.
Table 3 shows the summary results for the pressure drop in the hydrate transport simulation.

Table 3—Summary of hydrate transportation key results.

Viscosity model
Value @ 5 days Units
Base oil SoFA

Maximum hydrate mass fraction – – 0.049

Location of maximum hydrate fraction km – Outlet

Average oil viscosity cP 0.97 1.97

Inlet pressure @ 3 days bara 242.8 249.8

Pressure drop @ 3 days bar 161.8 168.7

18 SPE-192741-MS

CONCLUSIONS
This paper describes the newly developed models for wax deposition and hydrate transport and demonstrates
their application to simulate a non-insulated oil pipeline in an offshore environment at low temperature.
In current implementation, it is only possible to study the effects of wax deposition and hydrate transport
individually. However, for field design where both these problems co-exist, it will be important to model
and understand the effects of these phenomena together. Hence, further enhancement of this modeling
framework to allow activating wax deposition and hydrate transport models at the same time can be
undertaken.
The wax deposition and hydrate transport models can use non-Newtonian viscosity models to estimate
effect of wax/hydrate slurry on the fluid viscosity and consequently on the pressure drop in the pipeline.
The models’ input parameters allow the user to input parametric information that can be obtained from lab
analysis data, but also provide reasonable default input values for early design work. Wax deposition layer
thickness estimates from the wax deposition model may be used to estimate required pigging frequency
more accurately. Pressure drop increase estimated by both wax and hydrate models can be used to more
accurately estimate design pressures of the pipeline and inlet facilities and size the pumping requirements
to ensure transport of liquids in the pipeline. In addition, the viscosity estimates obtained from the models
can be used to better understand the possibility of wax or hydrate blockage formation.
The simulation results obtained by applying these newly models will allow deeper understanding of the
wax deposition and hydrate transport process in general and help improve the design and operation of long
subsea pipelines.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge TOTAL, SINTEF, Kongsberg Digital and the DEMO2000 program from the
Research Council of Norway for their support in this work. Also, the authors would like thank Dr. Thierry
Palermo for his assistance with our understanding of the SoFA model.

NOMENCLATURE

Latin symbols
A SoFA model viscosity constant
C Concentration
Csat Equilibrium concentration
c Constant in hydrate formation rate equation
D Pedersen model viscosity constant
E Pedersen model viscosity constant
F Pedersen model viscosity constant
kr Reaction rate constant
m Mass fraction
p Pressure
q Heat flux
Q Flow rate
r Reaction rate
T Temperature
u Velocity
X SoFA model viscosity constant
y Coordinate
SPE-192741-MS 19

Greek symbols
αhydrate Hydrate volume fraction
αhydrate, max Maximum hydrate volume fraction
αwax Wax volume fraction
αwax, ax Maximum wax volume fraction
γ Stoichiometric coefficient
μ Slurry viscosity
μ0 Oil viscosity
τ Shear stress

REFERENCES
1. R. Birchwood, J. Dai, D. Shelander and T. Saeki, "Development in Gas Hydrates," Oilfield
Review, no. Spring, pp. 18–33, 2010.
2. H. S. Lee, "Computational and Rheological Study of Wax Deposition and Gelation in Subsea
Pipelines," The University of Michigan, 2008.
3. S. Zheng, M. Saidoun, K. Mateen, T. Palermo, Y. Ren and H. S. Fogler, "Wax Deposition
Modeling with Considerations of Non-Newtonian Fluid Characteristics," 2016.
4. P. Dankwerts, Gas-liquid reactions, McGraw-Hill, 1970.
5. W. Hayduk and B. Minhas, "Correlations for prediction of molecular diffusivities in liquids," The
Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 60, pp. 295–299, 1982.
6. D. Thomas, "Transport characteristics of suspension: VIII. A note on the viscosity of newtonian
suspensions of uniform spherical particles," Journal of Colloid Science, vol. 20, pp. 267 - 277,
1965.
7. K. Pedersen and H. P. Rønningsen, "Effect of Precipitated Wax on Viscosity – A Model for
Predicting Non-Newtonian Viscosity of Crude Oils," Energy Fuels, pp. 43–51, 2000.
8. T. Palermo and E. Tournis, "Viscosity Prediction of Waxy Oils: Suspension of Fractal Aggregates
(SoFA) Model," Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 54, pp. 4526–4534, 2015.
9. S. Høiland, K. M. Askvik, P. Fotland, E. Alagic, T. Barth and F. Fadnes, "Wettability of Freon
hydrates in crude oil/brine emulsions," Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 287, no. 1,
pp. 217–225, 2005.
10. E. Colombel, P. Gateau, L. Barré, F. Gruy and T. Palermo, "Discussion of Agglomeration
Mechanisms between Hydrate Particles in Water in Oil Emulsions," Oil & Gas Science and
Technology – Rev. IFP, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 629–636, 2009.
11. P. Glenat, R. Devoisselle, L. Pagezy, P. Bourg, M. Pere and R. Arnault, "Natural Kinetic Hydrates
Inhibitors of Crude Oils," 2017.
12. E. B. Webb, "Rheology Of Methane Hydrate Slurries Formed From Water-In-Oil Emulsions,"
Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, 2014.