SPE 88751
South-Pars Phases 2 and 3: The Kinetic Hydrate Inhibitor (KHI) Experience Applied at
Field Start-up
Philippe Glénat, SPE, Jean-Louis Peytavy, Total, Nick Holland-Jones, SPE, Martin Grainger, Clariant
Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
th
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 11 Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 10-13 October 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
South-Pars Phases 2&3 development in Iran is a “wet scheme”
base design: no process is performed offshore, all the
produced fluids (sour gas + condensate + water) are directly
sent to shore through two 32” 109 km long sea lines.
Corrosion and hydrate protection is based on buffered glycol
(MEG+MDEA) which is regenerated onshore and sent back to
the platforms through two 4½” piggyback lines.
The concomitant injection of a Kinetic Hydrate Inhibitor
(KHI) and a Corrosion Inhibitor (CI) was initially considered
as a back-up solution. This paper presents the field experience
with KHI and CI injection which had to be applied for the
field start-up during respectively 125 days and 80 days for
each sea line.
This case represents the first large field application of KHI
in the Middle-East and the potential of such Low Dose
Hydrate Inhibitor (LDHI) is underlined.
Introduction
The conventional chemical treatments for the prevention of
hydrate formation in wet gas applications include methanol
and glycol (mono ethylene glycol – MEG) for thermodynamic
inhibition and tri ethylene glycol for gas dehydration. It is
however recognised, when only hydrate prevention is
considered, that the cost of such technique can be
prohibitively expensive for new developments. Replacement
of the traditional thermodynamic inhibitors is highly desirable
from both commercial and Health & Safety considerations.
This seems achievable by using alternative Low Dose Hydrate
Inhibitors (LDHI) whose interest is undoubtedly growing
within the oil and gas production industry. These inhibitors
can be divided into two groups, kinetic hydrate inhibitors
(KHI) and anti-agglomerate (AA) agents.
Kinetic Hydrate Inhibitors have been field trialled with
limited success, due to operational conditions, in the USA,
Canada, the Middle East and Europe. More successfully KHIs
have been applied in the UK sector of the North Sea, Refs- 1-4.
Although anti agglomerate chemistry is not yet as
commercially developed as kinetic inhibition, there are a
growing number of AA applications in the Gulf of Mexico
(USA) and the North Sea (UK and Dutch sectors) and the
chemistry is showing great potential in deep water
developments, Ref- 5. However there remain some concerns
about the ecotox rating, as determined using the ecotox test
regime used to assess the impact of chemicals in all sectors of
the North Sea.
Regarding TOTAL Group experience with LDHI, some
field tests with both KHI and AA had been performed in
France in 1997, Ref-6, and in Argentina in 1999.
When sour gas is considered, corrosion concerns are
strengthened. One solution to prevent both corrosion and
hydrate problems in wet gas applications is the pH
stabilisation: buffered MEG is continuously injected offshore
and remains at pH>7 throughout the sea line, Ref- 7-8. This
solution presents the advantage to avoid any gas/liquid
separation offshore, i.e. minimise the installations on the
platforms. This is the basis design solution retained against
hydrate and corrosion for the South Pars Phases 2 & 3 project.
The South Pars Phases 2 & 3 development scheme is based
on the multiphase production and transport of all fluids from
the wells (liquid hydrocarbons, gas and water). At time of
writing, this field represents one of the longest multiphase
developments in the world.
Field overview
TOTAL SOUTH PARS is developing the SOUTH PARS
Phase 2 & 3 Project for National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC)
in Iran. This project includes offshore facilities (wells,
platform and undersea pipelines) and onshore facilities for the
processing of the reservoir fluid.
The Phase 2 & 3 complex is located on the Iranian coast of
the Persian Gulf near ASSALUYEH village (approximately
270 km South East of Bandar Busher).
The total capacity of the Phase 2 & 3 onshore facilities is
2,000 MMSCFD of reservoir fluid. They include all
processing units, utilities, off sites and infrastructure necessary
to produce sales gas and stabilised condensate from the
reservoir fluid delivered to the onshore plant via two
multiphase sea lines.
South Pars reservoir is located in the Khuff carbonates
formation at 3000 m depth below sea level. The Phase 2 & 3
2 SPE 88751

reservoir fluid is a gas condensate moderately sour. The Elevation

(m)
average contents of acid gases are 1.8 % mole of CO2 and
0.54 % mole of H2S. The Condensate Gas Ratio (CGR) is
49.5 bbl/MMSCF (at sea line outlet conditions) and the Water
Gas Ratio (WGR) is 0.88 bbl/ MMSCF. No reservoir water
production is expected for many years possibly decades. The sea level
produced water is only condensed water.
Per phase, the production is 1,000 MMSCF of dry gas and
40,000 bpd of condensate coming from 10 deviated wells
grouped in one not normally manned platform. No fluids
separation occurs offshore, the production is directly sent to
shore through one 32” multiphase sea line 109 km long. In
order to highlight the size of the project, the total production
of the two phases represents ca. 420,000 boepd.
The protection of the system against hydrate and corrosion
Distance
is assured from the shore by the continuous injection of Mono (km)
Ethylene Glycol (MEG) pH-controlled by MDEA (methyl di-
Figure 2: Sea line 1 profile.
ethanolamine) through one 41/2” piggy back-line per phase.
On shore the two sea lines are connected to one slug-
Thermodynamic Models
catcher each, formed of five 46” “fingers” 366 m long and one 300
“liquid bottle” at the lowest part. The total volume of the two PRO2 - SIMSCI

slug-catchers is 3100 m3 (2900 m3 for liquid). The Figure 1 250

PENELOUX

illustrates one slug catcher. HYSYS - HYPROTECH

OLGA
200
Pressure (bar)

Hydrates Zone
1 slug-catcher per phase
150
Uncertainty on
sea water temperature - 1°C
5 fingers each (46”) 366 m long Operating Range
100
Winter
Summer
1550 m3 slug capacity - 8°C
50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature (°C)

Figure 3: Operating range within the hydrate zone.

It can be seen that the operating range is outside the

hydrate region in summer, while it enters the region in winter.
Figure 1: one slug-catcher. According to the design basis, the maximum sub-cooling
which can be faced is 8°C in winter.
Flow assurance issues
In such environment, three main flow assurance matters are Corrosion and hydrate prevention:
faced: corrosion, hydrates and multiphase management. Base case: the retained basic design to prevent both corrosion
and hydrate risk is the “pH stabilisation mode” based on the
Corrosion: the presence of 1.8% mole of CO2 and 0.54% continuous injection of 70% wt. of Mono Ethylene Glycol
mole of H2S with free water will lead to a corrosion rate of (MEG) buffered at pH>7.0 with 4% wt. of Methyl Di-Ethanol
0.7 to 0.8 mm/y in non-inhibited conditions. Amine (MDEA). This injection is performed from shore
through one 41/2” piggy back-line per phase. The design allows
Hydrates: two seasonal cases are considered. The basic recovering at the sea lines outlet a 50% MEG solution. In such
design for the sea bed temperatures is mentioned in Table 1. pH stabilisation mode, lab tests have shown that the expected
The sea line 1 profile is represented in Figure 2. The operating corrosion rate is less than 0.1 mm/y.
range within the hydrate region is represented in Figure 3. The Figure 4 represents a schematic of the liquids
management as per design. The buffered 70% MEG is sent
sea w ater tem peratures sum m er w inter through two 41/2” piggy back-line to offshore where it is mixed
f rom top to -20 m 26°C 16°C with the raw production from the wells. After transit through
f rom -20 m to -60 m 26°C 15°C the two 32” sea lines, the fluids are recovered in the slug
below -60 m 20°C 13°C catcher where gas/liquid separation is achieved. Gas is sent to
the downstream processes. Liquids (condensate + glycolated
Table 1: Basic design sea bed temperatures. water) are routed to the condensate stabilisation units where
SPE 88751 3

glycolated water is separated and further sent to the MEG design basis. Investigations rapidly led to the selection of a
regeneration units (via rich MEG tanks). The MEG is Kinetic Hydrate Inhibitor (KHI). The protection time required
regenerated from 50% to 70% wt., stored in lean MEG tanks was: 48 hours flowing, 96 hours shut-down and 12 hours
before being pumped to offshore. The MDEA is regulated restart at the maximum possible sub-cooling i.e. 8°C.
through a continuous injection downstream the lean MEG
tanks. The total volume of MEG in the loop is ca. 4,000 m3. Additive selection: contacts were made with TR Oil Services
(now Clariant) in Aberdeen (UK) to select one of their
HP Separation Gas Trains
32” sea
Slug catcher
(2 half slug Condensate
Threshold Inhibitor suitable for the South-Pars Phases 2 & 3
Well-head D
stabilisation
units
conditions. Tests were made in static cells under pressure (115
Platforms
bar) with real condensate, reconstituted gas and distilled
D
water, in presence of a corrosion inhibitor previously selected
by TOTAL.
MEG return
lines (4 ½"
Uninhibited tests were found to fail at between 21/2 and 71/2
piggy back) hours. Clariant identified HYTREAT 55-038 which at 2% wt.
vs. water prevented hydrate formation for more than 67 hours
2
Pump
Lean MEG
Storage Tanks
MEG Regeneration
Unit
Rich MEG
Storage Tanks
at flowing conditions, 96 hours at shut-in and 12 hours on
start-up. The additive was also thermally stable: 60 days at
55°C, no degradation after exposure to 200°C.
Figure 4: the liquids treatment process.

Dynamic tests: this additive was further tested at TOTAL

Back-up: short term back-up solutions consisted in the
Scientific Technical Centre in Pau (France) using a dynamic
possibility to inject from offshore a corrosion inhibitor (0.5
loop.
L/mmscft) and/or MEG+MDEA with proper storage tanks.
For long term, the possibility to inject concomitantly a
Loop description: in Figure 6 is presented a simplified scheme
corrosion inhibitor and a Low Dose Hydrate Inhibitor was
of the loop. The pipe has a 1” inner diameter and is 22 m long,
investigated.
arranged in two vertical rings. The maximum operating
pressure is 80 bar. Its temperature is controlled from 60°C to
Hydrodynamics: because there is no fluids separation
0°C, by circulation of refrigerated ethanol in its external
offshore, hydrodynamics play a very important role in this
jacket. A Moineau type pump gives a fluid velocity from 0.5
project. The Figure 5 illustrates the amount of liquids
to 3 m/s. Its maximum allowed pressure drop is 15 bar. The
accumulation in the sea line according to flow rate. It can be
adequate amounts of oil and water are stored in a 90 litres tank
seen that below 450 MMSCF, the liquid hold-up increases
under gas pressure.
rapidly and is predominantly water (with MEG or with KHI).
12000

total liquid hold-up

Flow-meter N2 To vent
10000 Vacuum
MEG mode
Pressure
control Pressure
Gas
make-up sensor
8000 KHI mode
liquid hold-up (m3)

To vent
PT sensor

6000
90 L
condensate
Loop 1”
KHI mode
4000 Length 22m
MEG mode
Cooling fluid P
Drain gas N2
water
2000 MEG mode
(glycolated water)
KHI mode 1 KW Drain Coriolis
(condensation water) Cooling fluid Flow-meter
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
“M oineau” pump P
Gas flowrate (MMSCF) Drain

Figure 1 : HYDRATE LOOP

Figure 5: Liquid contents according to flow rates: MEG mode
versus KHI mode.
Figure 6: simplified scheme of the Total hydrate loop.
Moreover, at low flow rates, the high liquids accumulation
General procedure of a flowing test: gas/liquid equilibrium
leads to flow instability. In order to prevent this slugging
and stabilised operating conditions are reached by circulation
regime and especially to allow a good liquid management, it is
of the liquid blend through the loop and the tank during
compulsory to regularly pig the sea line at low flow rates: one
several hours. Additives and/or water and/or oil can be
pigging every 12 hours was necessary.
injected in line through a metering pump.
The tank is then set off-stream, so that the flow through the
KHI selection
loop (pipe + pump) is liquid saturated with gas. Liquid
The possibility to use a Low Dosage Hydrate Inhibitor with a
velocity is set at a value between 1 and 2 m/s compatible with
Corrosion Inhibitor was addressed as a back-up solution to the
a maximum pressure drop of 1 bar.
4 SPE 88751
The temperature of the loop is then decreased from 20°C
to the chosen temperature at a cooling rate of 10°C/hour, and
then maintained constant during the whole test period.
Make-up gas is added to the loop in order to keep constant the
static pressure during the temperature decrease, and when
hydrates form.
At the end of each test, the loop is heated up to 25/30°C
until total hydrate dissociation.
Data acquisition: all parameters (pressure, temperature, flow
rate, pressure drop and make-up gas) are controlled and
recorded over time by means of a computer system.
Two parameters are specially followed during a test:
• The pressure drop between the inlet and the outlet
of the pump, which reflects the hydrodynamic
conditions of the flow and indicate the plugging
in the loop.
• The cumulative make-up gas volume, which is a
way to follow the saturation of the liquid, the
hydrate growth kinetics and the amount of hydrate
formed.
The pressure and the temperature in the loop are limited to
80 bar and 60°C respectively. When the pressure limit is
reached, the flare opens and a part of the gas is evacuated.
When the temperature limit is reached, the current strength is
switched off and the pump is stopped.
Appraisal criterion for a “fail” test result when testing a
kinetic inhibitor: at constant pressure and for a given sub-
cooling, a kinetic inhibitor is supposed to avoid hydrate
formation during a certain time, which is usually called the
“induction time”. So, the test is considered as a “fail” as soon
as the hydrates form.
Results: results are gathered in Figure 7. Single points
represent the time when hydrates were observed in the loop
according to the sub-cooling (“fail”). Points with arrows
correspond to experiments stopped when no hydrates were yet
observed: hydrates are then expected later.
These loop tests concluded that, when dosed at 2 % wt.
(total dose based on water production), the HYTREAT 55-038
would prevent hydrate formation for more than 80 hours at
flowing conditions, with 10°C sub-cooling.
Compared to the required performance (more than
48 hours with 8°C sub-cooling), this conclusion indicates that
there is certainly room for lowering the dosage of the KHI.
16
15
North Field condensate, deionised water,
14
liquid velocity = 2 m/s, cooling rate = 10°C/h
subcooling (°C)
13
12
11
10
8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
induction time (hours)
Figure 7: Results of dynamic loop tests with KHI.
These results clearly show that the KHI selected by
Clariant for the South Pars Phases 2 & 3 allows, in dynamic
conditions, prevention of hydrate formation for longer than
was required by design. This additive has been found to be
one of the best tested so far in the Total hydrate loop.
Compatibility between KHI and CI: additional tests have
shown that the two additives KHI and Corrosion Inhibitor
were chemically compatible. Their mixture was not resulting
in particular emulsion forming tendency. And it has been
demonstrated that each product was not affected in its
efficiency by the presence of the second one.
Field case history
A few weeks before the Field start-up, i.e. December 2001, it
was found that one MEG piggy back line had been
accidentally ruptured. The deployment of the MEG + MDEA
base case was then postponed and the decision to start the field
using concomitant injection of KHI & CI was taken.
At that time the production wells had been acidified and
back-production of salty waters was expected from the wells
at their start-up. The produced waters from the wells were
containing high amounts of salts up to 100 g/L. The presence
of salt is known to decrease the hydrate risk: the rule of thumb
is 20 g/L of salts allows releasing one degree sub-cooling. For
this reason it has been decided to start the KHI injection at a
dose of 1% wt. versus water. Concomitantly, the injection of a
corrosion inhibitor (CI) was performed at a rate of 0.5
L/mmscf.
The rapid deployment of this KHI + CI mode has allowed
field start-up at the planned date in January 2003 and to assure
production for 69 days.
During this period, the MEG piggy-back line was repaired
and it was decided to start the planned MEG + MDEA mode.
Unfortunately, the availability of some new wells was
delayed and operation at low flow rate was then compulsory
for much longer than anticipated. The pigging of the line every
12 hours led to numerous operating problems and the decision
was taken to switch back to the KHI + CI mode until enough
wells were available to achieve a high enough flow rate to be
able to operate in a steady-state mode without pigging.
The injection of KHI was then resumed and in total
occurred in the field for 208 days in sea line 1 and for 80 days
in sea line 2.
After this period, the basic design MEG+MDEA was
permanently restored.
The Figures 8 and 9 shows the history of injection rates of
KHI in both sea lines. It can be seen that the KHI injection
gas : 98% C1 + 2% C3,
rate was even decreased down to 0.75% wt. vs. water, as the
P= 75 bara, watercut = 15%,
risk of hydrate was estimated less important at that period.
2 wt% Hytreat 55038 + 500 ppm CI
conservative curve
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
SPE 88751 5

KHI content (% wt.)

(at sea line outlet)
MEG content (% wt.)
(at sea line outlet) The two types of expected temperature profiles in summer
4.0 80
and in winter are represented. From this curve, it can be seen
70
3.5
that the expected temperature of the fluid at the sea line outlet
3.0 60
was around +20°C in summer and around +13°C in winter.
2.5 50

2.0 40
This parameter has been recorded at the plant level and is
1.5 30
represented in Figure 11.
1.0 20

0.5 10

0 0 25
March April May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.
2003

KHI mode MEG mode 20

Temperature (°C)
Figure 8: Sea line 1 chemicals injection history at start-up. 15

KHI content (% wt.) MEG content (% wt.) 10

(at sea line outlet) (at sea line outlet)
4.0 80

3.5 70 5
3.0 60

2.5 50
0

01/01/03
31/01/03
02/03/03
01/04/03
01/05/03
31/05/03
30/06/03
30/07/03
29/08/03
28/09/03
28/10/03
27/11/03
27/12/03
26/01/04
25/02/04
26/03/04
25/04/04
25/05/04
2.0 40

1.5 30

1.0 20

0.5 10
Figure 11: History of temperatures recorded at the sea line 1
0
July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.
0 outlet.
2002 2003

KHI mode MEG mode

It clearly shows that the seasonal difference of temperature
Figure 9: Sea line 2 chemicals injection history at start-up.
is much lower than expected and that the lowest temperature
measured is around +18°C.
Operational aspects of the KHI + CI mode This observation tends to indicate that the hydrate risk is
The KHI + CI mode was finally deployed for almost 10 much lower than what was initially considered at the design
months. No specific problems of hydrate formation were basis. Nevertheless, no temperature survey along the 109 km
encountered. Moreover, during this period no specific long sea line is available. And it is still possible that fluids
drawbacks have been operationally observed. No emulsion enter the hydrate zone along the pipeline and that the
problems were found in the separators or in the condensate temperature increases again when reaching the shore.
stabilisation units. No specific defects were observed on the To illustrate this point, some simulations have been done
gas trains process units. No bad effects have been detected on with the OLGA software by considering milder winter
the water treatment unit. This injection mode turned to be conditions than design (Table 1): such case considers same
operationally easy as no important liquid hold-up management summer conditions for shallow waters but a 13°C cold current
was necessary. prevailing at the deepest part along the pipe profile, i.e. at
depth lower than 80 m below the sea level. In such conditions,
Hydrate risk the temperature profile obtained is represented in Figure 12.
The hydrate risk considered in the basic design was classically
based on some average oceanographic data of the region. Temperature
(°C)
Figure 3 shows the expected operating range within the 30
hydrate region. Figure 10 represents the expected temperature
profile along one sea line from the platform to the shore.
25
70 12 24.4°C
Temperature 0 0
m 1 0 22.6°C
(°C) m0 m
s 0 ms
c 0 c 21.0°C
30 f m fd
d m
20 sc
19.3°C f 18.3°C
d Hydrate curve 17.7°C

25
80 15.4°C
0m 15
50 ms 14.7°C
0m c
mscfd fd summer case
13.7°C
20 19.3°C
800 mmscfd 19.6°C
18.9°C 18.7°C17.1°C
5 500 mmscfd 10 Distance
17.3°C 0 Hydrate curves 17.0°C
0m 80 300 mmscfd 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 (km)
15 0m 16.7°C
ms ms 52 km 57 km 60 km 70 km
cfd cfd
12.8°C winter Distance where temperature enters hydrate zone
300 mmscfd 12.5°C case
11.7°C
10 Figure 12: Cold current case temperature profile along the sea
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 line.
Distance (km)

Figure 10: Basic design temperature profile along the sea line.
6 SPE 88751
These simulations results show that even with an outlet sea
line temperature of ca. 20°C, the hydrate zone may be entered
along the 109 km long pipe.
It is not sure whether such relatively short production into
the hydrate zone may lead to any operational problems,
especially with such low liquid hold-up in the South-Pars
Phases 2 & 3 conditions. Anyhow, in order to assure the
production no risks have been taken by stopping the hydrate
prevention treatment.
In any case, it can be said that the hydrate risk is lower
than what was initially expected, and that the worst case of
production in winter times at 8°C sub-cooling into the hydrate
zone used in the basic design was particularly pessimistic.
It has to be highlighted that it is usually these pessimistic
temperature profiles which are used for the selection of the
LDHIs.
Conclusions
The concomitant use of a Kinetic Hydrate Inhibitor (KHI) and
a Corrosion Inhibitor (CI) had initially been studied for South-
Pars Phases 2 & 3, as a back-up to the base case design for
hydrate control and corrosion inhibition: pH stabilisation using
MEG + MDEA.
Nevertheless, as a result of a number of operational
problems during the initial phase of production, the injection
of KHI + CI was required for 10 months. This was the first
application of this type in the TOTAL group and is probably
the first one of this size in the Middle East region. It turned
out to be completely successful.
Field data has shown that the hydrate risk is certainly
lower than that initially expected.
The success of this application is a strong indication that
the concomitant use of KHI + CI will be used in the future in
the Middle-East region in preference to some conventional
hydrate and corrosion control strategies.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank TOTAL and CLARIANT for
their permission to publish this paper.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
in x 2.54 E - 02 = m
MMSCF x 2.831 685 E + 04 = m3
bbl x 1.589 882 E – 01 = m3
References
1. Bloys, B., and Lacey, C.: “Laboratory Testing and Field Trial of a
New Kinetic Hydrate Inhibitor”, 27’”Annual Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas, May I-4, 69 I-700, 1995.
2. Corrigan, A., Duncan, S.N., Edwards, A.R., and Osboume, C.G.:
“Trials of Kinetic Hydmte Inhibitors in the Ravenspum to Cleeton
Line”, paper SPE 30696 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical
Conference, Dallas, Oct. 22-25.
3. Argo, C.B, Blain, R.A, Osboume, C.G., and Priestly, I.D.:
“Commercial Deployment of Low Dosage Hydrate Inhibition in a
Southern North Sea 69 Kilometer Wet Gas Subsea Pipeline”, paper
SPE 37255 presented at the 1997 SPE international Symposium on
Oil Field Chemistry, Houston, Feb. 18-21.
4. Phillips, N,J, and Grainger, M.: “Development and Application of
Kinetic Hydrate Inhibitors in the North Sea”, paper SPE 40030
presented at the 1998 SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, Mar. 15-18.
5. Mehta, A.P., Hebert, P.B., Cadena, E.R., and Weatherman, J.P.:
“Fulfilling the Promise of Low Dosage Hydrate Inhibitors: Journey
from Academic Curiosity to Successful Field Implementation”, paper
OTC 14057 presented at the 2002 Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas, U.S.A, May 6-9.
6. Leporcher, E.M., Fourest, J.P., Labes-Carrier, C., and Lompre, M.:
“Multiphase transportation: a kinetic inhibitor replaces methanol to
prevent hydrates in a 12-inc. pipeline”, paper SPE 50683 presented at
the 1998 SPE European Petroleum Conference, The Hague, The
Netherlands, Oct. 20-22.
7. Crolet, J.L., and Samaran, J.P.: "The use of the anti-hydrate
treatment for the prevention of CO2 corrosion in long crude gas
pipelines", NACE Corrosion 93, paper 102.
8. Olsen, S., Lunde, O., and Dugstad, A.: “pH stabilisation in the
Troll gas-condensate pipelines”, NACE Corrosion 99, paper 19.