Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 44 (2016) 62e72

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jlp

Determination of hydrate inhibitor injection rate for flowlines based

on Monte Carlo method
Juneyoung Kim a, Yeelyong Noh a, Kwangpil Chang b, Daejun Chang a, *
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305-701, Republic of
Korea
b
Hyundai Heavy Industries, 17-10, Mabuk-ro 240 Beon-gil, Giheung-gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, 446-912, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present study proposes a new methodology that estimates the acceptable injection rate of a hydrate
Received 6 May 2015 inhibitor considering the random failure and subsequent maintenance of the topside system followed by
Received in revised form the cooldown of the flowlines and risers where hydrate can potentially form. The proposed methodology
17 August 2016
consists of four steps: system description, topside system simulation, subsea system simulation, and
Accepted 17 August 2016
Available online 30 August 2016
construction of the exceedance curve for the inhibitor injection. As the system is defined in the first step,
Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) is performed in the topside system simulation step to predict the system
failure frequency and subsequent downtime that leads to the exceedance curve of the downtime. With
Keywords:
Hydrate injection rate
the exceedance curve of the downtime, the longest downtime, equivalently the longest cooldown time,
Monte Carlo simulation tLC, is estimated. In the subsea system simulation step, the cooldown path of the inventory is obtained by
Realistic operation scenario multiphase simulation and tTD, the time that the inventory touch down the hydrate formation region is
Multiphase simulation defined. The last step combines the MCS with multiphase simulation to yield the frequency of the
Risk-based design required MEG injection to avoid the hydrate formation. The exceedance curve provides risk-based in-
formation for determining the required MEG injection rate based on risk acceptance criteria, which may
vary with different points of view. Four case studies are performed for several installations that have
different extent of process configurations and insulation.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction MEG is used as the hydrate inhibitor, an MEG regeneration system

Gas hydrate formation is a serious concern in developing
offshore gas wells. Gas hydrate is a nonstoichiometric crystalline
solid that forms under high pressures and low temperatures. The
industrial practice to reduce hydrate formation risks is injecting
thermodynamics hydrate inhibitors (THIs), commonly methanol or
mono ethylene glycol, (MEG) to shift the hydrate equilibrium curve
toward higher pressure and lower temperature so that the oper-
ating conditions stays outside the hydrate formation region
(Kondapi and Randi, 2013).
MEG is generally used in offshore gas wells due to volatility
concerns. Methanol is more volatile than water. Vaporized meth-
anol degrades the quality of the gas products, which reduces the
hydrocarbon sales value; conversely, MEG is less volatile than water
and does not affect the hydrocarbon value (Kristian, 2006). When
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: djchang@kaist.edu (D. Chang).
is strongly recommended due to the significant considerable price
of MEG. The total cost, including capital expenditures (CAPEX) and
operating expenditures (OPEX), of the MEG regeneration system is
highly sensitive to the MEG injection rate. The conventional design
practice of the MEG injection rate is based on the worst operation
conditions, such as the shut-in pressure and surrounding seawater
temperature.
As offshore petroleum production has gradually moved from
shallow water to deepwater and ultra-deepwater, the required
amount of MEG has increased due to the long distance and cold
seawater. Many studies (Creek et al., 2011; Keijo et al., 2015; Seo
et al., 2014; Xiaoyun et al., 2011) proposed a method called “un-
der-inhibition” to decrease the MEG injection without the risk of
hydrate formation. The kinetic hydrate performance of MEG in an
under-inhibition system (Creek et al., 2011) allows the injection of
MEG for offshore gas field developments to be reduced. The MEG
injection rate was also optimized using simulations and experi-
ments (Seo et al., 2014).
These studies have been performed without considering

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2016.08.012
0950-4230/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J. Kim et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 44 (2016) 62e72
realistic topside system conditions, such as the incidence of failure
and equipment repair events. The conventional methodology for
determining the MEG injection rate depends only on the environ-
mental conditions of the field, the shut-in pressure and the sur-
rounding seawater temperature. The likelihood that the subsea
fluid meets the worst condition, shut-in pressure and surrounding
seawater temperature, can be infinitesimal or significant depend-
ing on the reliability and maintainability of the topside. To achieve
the next major advancement in managing hydrate formation acci-
dents, an integrated approach (Faisal and Amyotte, 2004; Genserik
and Amyotte, 2012; Pasman et al., 2009; Samith et al., 2014) that is
based on risk management should be practiced. In consequence,
the operational scenario of the topside system should be consid-
ered in determining the MEG injection rate.
A realistic approach to determining the MEG injection rate
should consider the operational interruption followed by mainte-
nance duration when the hydrate can be formed. Topside operation
is interrupted mainly by the random failure of process components.
Although immediate maintenance action is taken, stoppage of
production is inevitable. In addition to the production loss, the
facility is subject to risk of hydrate formation in the riser that is
cooled by the surrounding sea water. Because the failure is random,
the timing of its occurrence and the duration of the maintenance
are also indiscriminate, as are the degree of the cooldown of the
riser and the risk of hydration formation. For example, a simple
failure is accompanied by short maintenance without the risk of
hydrate formation. However, a serious failure leads to shutdown of
the system for several days during which the riser is sufficiently
cooled to initiate hazardous hydrate formation. In order to elimi-
nate the risk of hydrate formation, a hydrate inhibitor or MEG in
this study should be injected. In consequence, it is important to
predict the occurrence of random failures and the duration of their
maintenance in determining the inhibitor injection rate and the
capacity of the regeneration facility.
This study proposes a new methodology in which a realistic
operation scenario of the topside system is obtained by MCS and
the transient cooldown path of the riser is simulated by a multi-
phase simulator to estimate the MEG injection rate. It considers the
reliability and maintainability of the topside system and the char-
acteristics of the subsea system.
Monte Carlo simulation is employed to estimate the realistic
operation of the topside system and evaluate its availability (Aven,
1993; Chang et al., 2010; Crespo Marquez et al., 2005; Dubi, 1999;
Khakzad et al., 2012, 2013; Labeau and Zio, 2002; Lisnianski and
Levitin, 2003; Marseguerra and Zio, 2002; Noh et al., 2014;
Ramirez-Marquez and Coit, 2005; Zio et al., 2006, 2007). The
realistic operation scenario is generated by certain random and
discrete events (i.e., equipment failure and subsequent mainte-
nance) in the simulation (Dubi, 1999; Marseguerra and Zio, 2002).
The simulation provides information about when and where
equipment failure and repair will occur (Crespo Marquez et al.,
2005). From the repeated simulation for the lifetime of the sys-
tem, the frequency of equipment failure and repair is estimated to
determine the availability of the system.
In the multiphase simulator, the transient operation of the
subsea pipe depends on the lifetime scenario. After simulating the
lifetime scenario, dynamic profiles of the temperature and pressure
are projected. The results of the long-term simulation provide risk-
based information for determining the MEG inhibition rate.
2. Proposed methodology
The proposed methodology consists of four steps: system
description, topside system simulation, subsea system simulation,
and construction of the exceedance curve for inhibitor injection.
63
Fig. 1 shows the work process proposed in this study.
2.1. Step 0 e system description
The first step is to precisely describe the system including the
topside and subsea subsystems. The field layout should be defined
in terms of the length, depth, and insulation thickness of flowlines
and risers. The environmental conditions, especially the sea water
temperature, are important to affect the hydrate formation. The
composition, pressure, and temperature of the well fluid should be
also defined since they strongly affects the thermodynamics of the
hydrate formation.
The topside unit accounts for the majority of the failures and
downtimes. The complexity of the topside is a governing factor for
the injection rate. The components that may cause failure and
downtime should be identified carefully at this step.
2.2. Step 1 etopside system simulation
Step 1 is to predict the timing of the occurrence of failure and
the duration of maintenance. MCS provides information about
when the failure occurs and when the repair is performed for the
topside system.
The first task to perform MCS is defining the system configu-
ration precisely. For example, the simple platform that separates
hydrocarbon into condensate and gas consists of comparatively
little equipment. However, for a complex platform, such as LNG
FPSO, which contains several processes including well fluid pro-
cessing and liquefaction, is made of a considerable number of
components. After a system configuration is defined, the next is to
construct the reliability block diagram (RBD), which is a success-
oriented logical presentation of the system.
Then, reliability data are collected to analyze the reliability or
availability of the system. The reliability data can be divided into
failure and maintenance data. Failure data are the information
about all accidents/incidents rates, and maintenance data are about
corrective and preventive maintenance. The failure data are rep-
resented as a failure rate, and the maintenance data are represented
as down time.
The failure rate is the number of failures per unit time. Down
time includes the calendar time from the moment when the
equipment is stopped to the moment when it is recovered properly
for the intended service. It is defined in terms of active repair time
and man hours. Active repair time does not include time for fault
realization, spare parts or crew mobilization or the impact of any
applied maintenance strategy or delays. In this study, only active
repair time is considered for down time.
The MIL-HDBK 217F, EPRD, NPRD, EIReDA (European Industry
Reliability Data) and OREDA Handbooks are used to collect the
reliability data sources. The MIL-HDBK-217 handbook provides
failure rate models for the various part types used in electronic
systems, such as integrated circuits, transistors, diodes, resistors,
capacitors, replays, switches, and connectors. The EPRD-97 data-
base presents failure rate data for electronic components, namely,
capacitors, diodes, integrated circuits, optoelectronic devices, re-
sistors, transformers and transistors. The NPRD95 database in-
cludes failure rate data on a wide variety of electrical,
electromechanical and mechanical components. EIReDA shows
data for electrical, mechanical and electromechanical equipment of
thermal power plants. OREDA Handbooks are the best known
reliability data source for offshore oil and gas production facilities.
It has established a comprehensive databank with reliability and
maintenance data for exploration and production equipment from
a wide variety of geographic areas, installations, equipment types
and operating conditions.
64 J. Kim et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 44 (2016) 62e72

Fig. 1. Work process for proposed methodology.

With the reliability data, the failure rate and the active repair
time of equipment, MCS is performed by the established computer
code to provide provides a realistic lifetime scenario for the oper-
ation and maintenance of the topside. As a result of Step 1, ex-
ceedance curve of downtime is constructed to estimate the longest
downtime, equivalently the longest cooldown time, tLC, which
represents the worst conditions all over the lifetime for the target
topside.

2.3. Step 2 esubsea system simulation

The next step is performing transient simulations for the subsea

flowline to estimate the degree of cooldown of the riser and the risk
of hydration formation. The subsea flowline transfers hydrocarbon
from the offshore gas well to the topside facilities. In steady-state
operation, the fluid temperature is considerably higher than the
hydrate formation temperature due to the continuous supply of hot
source from the upstream. When there is an unplanned shut down,
the fluid is stuck in the flowline and the fluid temperature cools to
the hydrate formation temperature over time.
Fig. 2. Required MEG injection rate corresponding to cooldown time.
To conduct simulations for the subsea system, the first task is
defining the field conditions, including the fluid composition, water
cut, thermal insulation and flowline. Each field can be classified Consider the two cases of Cases a and b. In the former case tLC is
depending on how rapidly the fluid temperature reaches the smaller than tTD, while tLC is larger than tTD in the latter.
ambient temperature. For example, the subsea flowline, which is In Case a, the maintenance of the topside is always finished
located in the cold sea water and has no insulation, has a high risk within tTD, and inhibitor injection is not necessary. To the contrary,
of hydrate formation. In contrast, the subsea flowline, which is inhibitor injection is required for Case b. Further consideration in-
located in the warm sea water or well-insulated, has a low hydrate dicates that the right-hand side region of tLC should mean non-
formation risk. existing operational scenario whose cooldown time is longer than
After defining the field conditions, transient simulations corre- tLC. In consequence, the left-hand side of tLC is the potential hydrate
sponding to the realistic operation scenario of the topside system risk region where hydrate formation could occur. The frequency of
are performed. Simulating all-time operation with the lifetime hydrate formation is estimated in Step 3.
scenario can provide more accurate data, but it takes an enormous
amount of time. Hence, the cooldown simulation corresponding to
the duration of the maintenance is performed. With this simula- 2.4. Step 3 e exceedance curve for MEG injection
tion, the required MEG injection rate corresponding to the duration
of the maintenance is obtained. Step 3 is constructing the exceedance curve for the required
Fig. 2 shows an example of the required MEG injection rate MEG injection rate based on the results from Steps 1 and 2. The
corresponding to the cooldown time. The time that the fluid just exceedance curve for MEG injection gives the exceedance fre-
enters the hydrate formation region is defined by the touch-down, quency of being exposed to the hydrate formation region corre-
tTD. tTD represents the tolerance of hydrate risk in the subsea sys- sponding to the MEG injection.
tem. When the injection rate increases, the subsea system becomes The selection of the MEG injection rate depends on the risk
more robust against the hydrate risk, and tTD increases as a results. acceptance criteria. An acceptable hydrate formation risk can be
 J. Kim et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 44 (2016) 62e72 65

determined by the hydrate management philosophy of each field,

or the economic evaluation between RISEX and CAPEX and OPEX
depending on the MEG injection can provide the pertinent criteria.

3. Results of representative case studies

3.1. Case 1. simple platform

3.1.1. Step 0 e system description

This case considers a simple platform, which catches the slug
and separates the produced water, condensate and feed gas. The
process configuration, as shown in Fig. 3, mainly consists of a slug
catcher, inlet separator and feed gas cooler. The slug catcher han-
dles the slug generated in a flowline by providing sufficient volume
to absorb the slug. The slug is the gas and liquid that is not evenly
distributed through the flowline under the specific conditions. The
slug should be removed to protect the equipment from unpredicted
impact. The inlet separator roughly separates the feed gas into
hydrocarbon, condensate and produced water. The feed gas cooler Fig. 4. Flowline and riser profile.

decreases the temperature of the feed gas using sea water to

facilitate the separation. When the feed gas is cooled, additional
3.1.2. Step 1 e topside system simulation
fluid can be separated from the feed gas. The formation water
The main equipment of the simple platform is a slug catcher,
separator disjoins the condensate and hydrocarbon off gas from the
feed gas cooler, feed gas separator, formation water separator and
produced water. The condensate entrainment pump increases the
condensate entrainment pump. Data on the failure rate and mean
pressure of the condensate to transport to the downstream
time for repairs for the main equipment are listed in Table 1.
facilities.
The availability of the simple platform system is 99.77%. Each
The topside is connected to offshore gas wells that produce gas
simulation is performed over the 20 year and it iterates 50 times.
with 1200 MMscfd. The composition mainly consists of C1 67 mol%,
Fig. 5 shows the availability profile estimated by the MCS over the
C2 10 mol% and C3 3 mol%. The distance from the wellhead to the
platform life of 20 years and Fig. 6 shows the annual frequency of
topside is approximately 5.5 km, connected via 16 inch flowlines
the exceedance downtime with the downtime over the analysis
(4.8 km) and 12 inch risers. The flowline and riser profile is shown
period of 10,000 years. The longest downtime, equivalently the
in Fig. 4. The inlet pressure and temperature into the flowline are
longest cooldown time, tLC, is estimated to be 18 h.
100 bar and 105
C, respectively. The ambient sea water tempera-
An exceedance downtime longer than 8 h occurs 0.7399 times
ture is assumed to be 5
C.
per year, and no exceedance downtime, longer than 18 h (tLC)
This case divided into two sub-cases depending on the level of
occurs.
insulation.

Case 1-A. Well insulated flowline, U value ¼ 3.9 w/m2-C 3.1.3. Step 2 e subsea system simulation
Case 1-B. Less insulated flowline, U value ¼ 10 w/m2-C Fig. 7 shows how the addition of MEG can achieve hydrate

Fig. 3. Process configuration of Case 1.

66 J. Kim et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 44 (2016) 62e72

Table 1
Failure rate and MTTR for Case 1.

Equipment Failure rate, per 106 h MTTR, h Data source

Slug catcher 28.93 8.5 OREDA (general)

Feed gas cooler 13.98 4.2 OREDA (general)
Feed gas separator 35.92 5.1 OREDA (separator)
Formation water separator 35.92 5.1 OREDA (separator)
Condensate entrainment pump 85.51 18 OREDA (general)

Fig. 5. Availability profile under realistic system operation.

Fig. 6. Exceedance curve of downtime for Case 1. Fig. 7. Hydrate equilibrium curves in presence of MEG and shut-in condition.
 J. Kim et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 44 (2016) 62e72 67

inhibition. If the shut-in condition of the flowline is assumed to be

5
C and 100 bar, at least 41.5 wt% of MEG is required to completely
avoid hydrate formation.

3.2. Case 1-A subsea system with fine insulation (U value ¼ 3.9 w/
m2-C)

The subsea flowline transporting hydrocarbon fluids from

offshore gas-condensate to the riser is assumed to be well-
insulated. The U-value is assumed to be 3.9 W/m2-C, which is a
typical value for pipe-in-pipe systems, well-insulated pipelines and
flexible flowlines (Erich et al., 2012). Fig. 8 shows the temperature
and pressure profile along the distance during steady-state oper-
ation. Because the hydrate equilibrium temperature is approxi-
mately 20
C at 95 bar, as shown in Fig. 8, the fluid operates far
from the hydrate formation region.
The results of the transient simulation (Using OLGA) for
Fig. 9. Pressure and temperature at end of well insulated flowline during cooldown for
unplanned-shutdown are shown in Figs. 9 and 10. Fig. 9 shows the
Case 1-A.
pressure and temperature at end of the flowline during cooldown
operation. The temperature decreases from 50
C to 8
C within
50 h. When the system is cooled, the pressure decreases to the
condensation of the gas, which is one of the reasons supporting the
belief that the current methodology for determining the MEG in-
jection rate is over-estimated.
The cooling path of the fluid and the hydrate equilibrium curves
in the presence of MEG are shown in Fig. 10. When the failed
equipment of the topside cannot be repaired in 23.2 h (tTD, time to
touch down) after shutdown, the fluid enters the hydrate formation
region, and 5 wt% MEG injection is required to avoid 25 h cooldown.
The required MEG injection rates corresponding to the cool-
down time for Case 1-A are shown in Fig. 11. As shown in Fig. 11 tTD,
time to touch down, is longer than the longest cooldown time, tLC. It
means that during the simulation time, 10,000 years, the failed
equipment of the topside be always repaired in tTD, so the Case 1-A
does not need MEG injection.

3.2.1. Step 3 e exceedance curve for MEG injection

The exceedance curve for the required MEG injection rate
(Fig. 12) is obtained from the combination of the exceedance curve
Fig. 10. Hydrate equilibrium curves in presence of MEG and cooldown path of fluid for
for the downtime (Fig. 6) and the cooldown time corresponding to
Case 1-A.
the required MEG injection rate (Fig. 11). The annual frequency of
exposure to the hydrate formation region with the required MEG
injection rate over the analysis period of 10,000 years is shown.
This case represents a simple or highly reliable topside and a
well-insulated flowline. As shown in the above figure, this case

Fig. 8. Pressure and temperature profile with distance during steady-state for Case
1-A. Fig. 11. Required MEG injection rate corresponding to cooldown time for Case 1-A.
68 J. Kim et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 44 (2016) 62e72
Fig. 12. Exceedance curve for required MEG injection rate for Case 1-A.
does not require MEG injection because the frequency of topside
failure is low, and even if there is a topside failure, the insulation
prevents the hydrocarbon from reaching the hydrate formation
region.
According to the current methodology for determining the MEG
injection rate, a 41.5 wt% MEG injection rate is required. However,
MEG injection is unnecessary considering the realistic topside
system operation scenario obtained by MCS and the characteristics
of the subsea system with the proposed methodology.
3.3. Case 1-B subsea system with less insulation (U value ¼ 10 w/
m2-C)
Assume the case that the topside system is the same as for the
simple platform but the insulation of the subsea flowline is reduced
to the limit that only prevents the hydrate formation region during
the steady-state. This case represents a simple or highly reliable
topside and a less-insulated flowline. Step 1 is the same as above,
and Step 2 is performed. Fig. 13 shows the temperature and pres-
sure profiles along the distance during steady-state operation.
Fig. 13. Pressure and temperature profile along distance during steady-state for Case
1-B.
Fig. 14. Pressure and temperature at end of a less-insulated flowline during cooldown
for Case 1-B.
Because the hydrate equilibrium temperature is approximately
20
C at 96 bar, as shown in Fig. 7, the fluid operates close to the
hydrate formation region. However, MEG injection is still not
required during steady-state operation.
Fig. 14 shows the pressure and temperature at end of the
flowline during cooldown operation. The temperature decreases
from 25
C to 5
C within 25 h. The pressure also decreases due to
the condensation of the gas.
The cooling path of the fluid and the hydrate equilibrium curves
in the presence of MEG are shown in Fig. 15, and the cooldown
times corresponding to the required MEG injection rates are shown
in Fig. 16.
Fig. 17 shows the annual frequency of the exceedance curve for
the required MEG injection rate over the analysis period of 10,000
years. An exceedance requiring an MEG injection rate above 0 wt%
occurs 1.62 times per year, an exceedance requiring an MEG in-
jection rate above 30 wt% occurs 1.5 times per year and an ex-
ceedance requiring an MEG injection rate above 35 wt% occurs 0.74
times per year. The frequency of the exceedance requiring MEG is
regarded as the preventive action requiring frequency to avoid
hydrate formation, such as blow-down and bull-heading. The
maximum required MEG injection rate to totally avoid hydrate
Fig. 15. Hydrate equilibrium curves in presence of MEG and cooldown path of fluid for
Case 1-B.
 J. Kim et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 44 (2016) 62e72
Fig. 16. Required MEG injection rates corresponding to cooldown times for Case 1-B.
Fig. 17. Exceedance curve for required MEG injection rate for Case 1-B.
formation is defined as Mmax. As shown in Figs. 16 and 17, Mmax is
determined by the worst condition of topside, tLC.
The selection of the MEG injection rate depends on the risk
acceptance criteria and economic analysis. The cost of increasing
the MEG injection rate should be less than the cost of the preven-
tive actions to avoid hydrate formation. For example, the increase in
the MEG injection rate from 30 wt% to 35 wt% results in a decrease
in the frequency of preventive actions to avoid hydrate formation
from 1.5/year to 0.74/year. In addition, from a logical standpoint,
increasing the MEG injection rate from 0 wt% to 20 wt% does not
decrease the hydrate formation risk. Therefore, it is not useful to
increase the MEG injection rate in that region.
3.4. Case 2. complex platform - LNG FPSO
3.4.1. Step 0 e system description
An LNG FPSO that contains treatment and liquefaction processes
is considered in this case. It is generally divided into 13 modules
69
depending on the function, as shown in Fig. 18. The non-process
modules, such as a loading arm, a turret, and an accommodation,
are not considered in this study. The main function of the inlet
facility is to catch the slug and separate the produced water,
condensate and feed gas, and the main purpose of the pre-
treatment system is to remove the carbon dioxide, water,
hydrogen sulfide, and mercury in the feed gas stream. The lique-
faction system liquefies the natural gas to LNG using refrigerant at a
heat exchanger, and the refrigeration system continuously supplies
the circulated refrigerant to the liquefaction system to liquefy the
natural gas. The fractionation is the process to remove the valuable
heavier liquids, such as NGL or LPG, from LNG. The flare system is
designed to collect and safely dispose any gaseous releases that
must be routed to the atmosphere for safety or operational reasons.
Condensate stabilization is the process of decreasing the amount of
lighter components (C1 to C3) in the liquid phase. The fuel gas
system performs compressing and heating to supply fuel gas with
suitable conditions into the gas turbine or power generation.
3.4.2. Step 1 e topside system simulation
The availability of the LNG-FPSO is evaluated to be 90.66%.
Fig. 19 shows the annual frequency of the exceedance downtime
with the downtime over the analysis period of 10,000 years. An
exceedance downtime longer than 9 h occurs 22.3547 times per
year, and an exceedance downtime longer than 18 h occurs 15.47
times per year.
3.4.3. Step 2 e subsea system simulation
The case is performed same as above case 1.
3.4.4. Step 3 e exceedance curve for MEG injection
3.5. Case 2-A subsea system with fine insulation (U value ¼ 3.9 w/
m2-C). This case represents a complex topside and well-insulated
flowline. Fig. 20 shows the annual frequency of the exceedance
curve for the required MEG injection rate. According to the results,
a 10 wt% MEG injection has no effect on the frequency of the
exposed hydrate formation region. From the perspective of the field
owner, a 25 wt% MEG injection should be considered because the
frequency of the exposed hydrate formation region is sufficiently
low, and adding more MEG wt% is not effective until 30 wt%.
3.6. Case 2-B subsea system with less insulation (U value ¼ 10 w/m2-
C). This case represents a complex topside and less insulated
flowline. Fig. 21 shows the annual frequency of the exceedance
curve for the required MEG injection rate. The annual frequency of
exposure to the hydrate region is higher than 20 times per year,
even when injecting over 30 wt% MEG. From a practical standpoint,
this would be unacceptable for field operation.
Therefore, the MEG injection rate should be set to the worst case
to avoid hydrate formation, which is 38 wt% and it is less than the
conventional injection rate, 41.5 wt% due to the pressure decrease
caused by condensing, as stated above, are considered.
4. Economic evaluation between RISEX and CAPEX and OPEX
depending on the MEG injection
When determining the MEG injection rate, an economic evalu-
ation can provide certain criteria. From the perspective of the
operator, the cost of decreasing CAPEX and OPEX should be less
than the cost of increasing RISEX. When the MEG injection rate is
decreased, the required amount of MEG and the cost of MEG
regeneration units will be reduced. The cost of inhibition for a
typical deep water production of 50,000 BPD with 40% water cut
(20,000 BWPD) would be as much as $800,000 per day for meth-
anol (Jefferson et al., 2011).
70 J. Kim et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 44 (2016) 62e72
Fig. 18. Modules of LNG-FPSO.
Fig. 19. Exceedance curve for downtime e Case 2.
Decreasing the MEG injection rate increases the frequency of
being exposed to the hydrate formation region. When the fluids
remaining inside the flowline cool and reach the hydrate region, a
common hydrate prevention method is to reduce the flowline
pressure to below the hydrate formation pressure, called blow-
down (Dykhno et al., 2003). Then, RISEX costs are calculated as the
frequency of being exposed to the hydrate formation region times
the cost of blowdown.
5. Conclusions and discussions
This study proposes a new methodology that combines MCS and
multiphase simulation to estimate realistic operation conditions
and provide risk-based information for determining the MEG in-
jection rate of the gas well field. MCS is employed to predict the
timing of failure occurrence and the duration of maintenance.
Multiphase simulation provides a temperature and pressure profile
according to the maintenance operation.
Fig. 20. Exceedance curve for the exposure to hydrate formation region for Case 2-A.
This approach provides a realistic limit of the MEG injection rate,
which the conventional methodology cannot provide. The con-
ventional methodology does not account for the reliability of the
system and predicts that the MEG injection rate will always be
equal to the worst case, corresponding to the ambient temperature
and shut-in pressure. This new approach provides an exceedance
curve that shows the exceedance frequency of being exposed to the
hydrate formation region corresponding to the MEG injection rate.
This exceedance curve provides the basis for determining the MEG
injection rate using risk acceptance criteria and economic
evaluation.
Four case studies are performed by proposed methodology.
When the system has simple or highly reliable topside and well-
insulated flowline (Fig. 12), MEG injection is not required due to
the low frequency of topside failure and even if there is a topside
 J. Kim et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 44 (2016) 62e72
Fig. 21. Exceedance curve for the exposure to hydrate formation region for Case 2-B.
failure, the insulation prevents the hydrocarbon from reaching the
hydrate formation region. When the system has reliable topside
and less-insulated flowline (Fig. 17) or has complex topside and
well-insulated flowline (Fig. 20), many MEG injection rate points
have emerged as candidates. Optimal solution can be selected by
economic evaluation between RISEX and CAPEX and OPEX. When
the system has complex topside and less-insulated flowline
(Fig. 21), the MEG injection rate should be set to the worst case to
avoid hydrate formation due to the unacceptable annual frequency
of exposure to the hydrate region. Moreover, the MEG injection rate
set to the worst case is less than the conventional injection rate due
to the pressure decrease caused by condensing, as stated above, are
considered.
Further challenge is to optimize the MEG injection rate through
economic evaluation. If the system is fixed in terms of flowline
insulation and topside redundancy philosophy, the optimal MEG
injection rate is decided by the comparison between the increased
cost in RISEX and decreased cost in CAPEX and OPEX. However, the
system is in the early design stage, there are several factors to
consider. For example, with increased the insulation rate, tTD be-
comes longer and with adding the topside redundancy, tLC becomes
shorter. Both affect the frequency of hydrate formation risk and it
leads to reducing MEG injection rate. Therefore, the system should
be optimized considering the whole aspects including the topside
and the subsea.
Another challenge is to estimate uncertainty (Adam et al., 2010;
Refaul et al., 2013) of the injection rate determined by the meth-
odology. Obviously, the results of the study are mainly affected by
the reliability data used in the Monte Carlo simulation. The reli-
ability data include failure rates and active repair times. The OREDA
handbooks, which are the well-known reliability data source for
offshore oil and gas production facilities, provide the minimum,
mean, and maximum values of the failure rate. The minimum and
maximum values cover 90% of the variation. The repair times are
tabulated in two categories, the mean and maximum. If the pro-
posed methodology employs the maximum values of failure rate
and repair time, the results would be more conservative. As the oil
and gas industry prefers conservative designs, the variation of the
required injection rate increases with the uncertainty of the reli-
ability data. Obviously, the quality of the data is a prerequisite to the
71
determination of the optimal injection rate based on the present
methodology.
Conflicts of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Industrial Strategic Technology
Development Program (10045012, The design core technology
development of LNG Ship-to-Ship Bunkering Shuttle), which was
funded by the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MI, Korea).
References
Adam, S., Markowski, M., Sam, M., Agata, K., Dorota, S., 2010. Uncertainty aspects in
process safety analysis. J. Loss Prev. Proc. Ind. 23, 446e454. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jlp.2010.02.005.
Aven, T., 1993. On performance measures for multistate monotone systems. Reliab.
Eng. Syst. Saf. 41, 259e266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(93)90078-D.
Chang, K.P., Chang, D., Zio, E., 2010. Application of Monte Carlo simulation for the
estimation of production availability in offshore installations. In: Faulin, J.,
Juan, A., Martorell, S., Ramírez-M arquez, J.E. (Eds.), Simulation Methods for
Reliability and Availability of Complex Systems. Springer Verlag, Berlin Hei-
delberg, pp. 233e252.
Creek, J.L., Subramanian, S., Estanga, D., 2011. New method for managing hydrates in
deepwater tiebacks. In: OTC 22017, Offshore Technology Conference. Houston,
USA.
Crespo Marquez, A., S anchez Heguedas, A., Iung, B., 2005. Monte Carlo-based
assessment of system availability. A case study for cogeneration plants.
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 88, 273e289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2004.07.018.
Dubi, A.M., 1999. Carlo Applications in Systems Engineering. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Dykhno, L.A., Jayawardena, S.S., Schoppa, W., 2003. Blowdown feasibility for
downhill flowlines. In: Offshore Technology Conference, 15256. Houston, TX.
Erich, Z., James, H., Julie, M., 2012. A holistic approach to steady-state heat transfer
from partially and fully buried pipelines. In: Offshore Technology Conference,
23033. Houston, TX.
Faisal, K., Amyotte, P., 2004. Integrated inherent safety index (I2SI): a tool for
inherent safety evaluation. Proc. Saf. Prog. 23, 136e148. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/prs.10015.
Genserik, R., Amyotte, P., 2012. Prevention in the chemical and process industries:
future directions. J. Loss Prev. Proc. Ind. 25, 227e231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jlp.2011.06.016.
Jefferson, C., Douglas, E., Sivakumar, S., Kristian, K., 2011. Project design hydrate
management by application of multiphase flow simulations tools with hydrate
formation and transport. In: International Conference on Gas Hydrate (ICGH
2011). Edinburgh, Scotland.
Keijo, K., Jan, H., Xiaoyun, L., Kjell, M.A., 2015. Hydrate management in practice.
J. Chem. Eng. Data 60, 437e446.
Khakzad, N., Faisal, K., Amyotte, P., 2012. Dynamic safety analysis of process system
using bow-tie approach. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 104, 36e44.
Khakzad, N., Faisal, K., Amyotte, P., 2013. Dynamic safety analysis of process system
by mapping bow-tie into Bayeian network. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 91,
46e53.
Kondapi, P., Randi, M., 2013. Today's top 30 flow assurance technologies: where do
they stand?. In: Proceedings of the OTC24250 Offshore Technology Conference.
Houston, Texas.
Kristian, S., 2006. Prediction of Mineral Scale Formation in Wet Gas Condensate
Pipelines and in MEG (Mono Ethylene Glycol) Regeneration Plant. Norwegian
University of Science and Technology (Ph.D. thesis).
Labeau, P.E., Zio, E., 2002. Procedures of Monte Carlo transport simulation for ap-
plications in system engineering. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 77, 217e228. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(02)00055-8.
Lisnianski, A., Levitin, G., 2003. Multi-state System Reliability: Assessment, Opti-
mization and Applications (No. 6). World Scientific, Singapore.
Marseguerra, M., Zio, E., 2002. Basics of the Monte Carlo Method with Application
to System Reliability. LiLoLe-Verlag, Hagen, Germany.
Noh, Y., Chang, K., Seo, Y., Chang, D., 2014. Risk-based determination of design
pressure of LNG Fuel Storage tanks based on dynamic process simulation
combined with Monte Carlo method. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 129, 76e82. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2014.04.018.
Pasman, H.J., Jung, S., Prem, K., Rogers, W.J., Yang, X., 2009. Is risk analysis a useful
tool for improving process safety? J. Loss Prev. Proc. Ind. 22, 769e777. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2009.08.001.
Ramirez-Marquez, J.E., Coit, D.W., 2005. A Monte-Carlo simulation approach for
approximating multi-state two-terminal reliability. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 87,
253e264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2004.05.002.
Refaul, F., Faisal, K., Rehan, S., Amyotte, P., Brian, V., 2013. Analyzing system safety
and risks under uncertainty using a bow-tie diagram: an innovative approach.
72 J. Kim et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 44 (2016) 62e72

Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 91, 1e18. Zio, E., Baraldi, P., Patelli, E., 2006. Assessment of the availability of an offshore
Samith, R., Faisal, K., Amyotte, P., 2014. Risk-based process plant design considering installation by Monte Carlo simulation. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 83, 312e320.
inherent safety. Saf. Sci. 70, 438e464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2006.02.010.
Seo, Y.T., Kim, J.K., Shin, S.K., Chae, H.M., Ko, M.S., 2014. Optimization of MEG in- Zio, E., Marella, M., Podofillini, L., 2007. A Monte Carlo simulation approach to the
jection and regeneration system for offshore gas fields using multiphase availability assessment of multi-state systems with operational dependencies.
simulation and synergistic inhibition strategies. In: ASME 2014 33rd Interna- Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 92, 871e882. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
tional Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. American Society j.ress.2006.04.024Zio. E., Marella, M., & Podofillini, L. (2007). A Monte Carlo
of Mechanical Engineers. V005T11A012eV005T11A012. simulation approach to the availability assessment of multi-state systems with
Xiaoyun, L., Pal, V., Keijo, K., 2011. Use of under-inhibition in hydrate control stra- operational dependencies. Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety, 92, 871-
tegies, international conference on gas hydrate. In: Proceedings of the 7th In- 882.
ternational Conference on Gas Hydrates (ICGH 2011). Edinburgh, Scotland.