IBP1340_12 THE MULTIPIPE GAS-LIQUID SUBSEA SEPARATION SYSTEM: DEVELOPMENT AND QUALIFICATION OF A NOVEL SOLUTION FOR DEEPWATER FIELD

PRODUCTION Stephanie Abrand1, Nicolas Butin2, Sadia Shaiek3, Raymond Hallot4

Copyright 2012, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute - IBP

This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012, held between September, 1720, 2012, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was selected for presentation by the Technical Committee of the event according to the information contained in the final paper submitted by the author(s). The organizers are not supposed to translate or correct the submitted papers. The material as it is presented, does not necessarily represent Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute opinion, or that of its Members or Representatives. Authors consent to the publication of this Technical Paper in the Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 Proceedings.

Abstract
Subsea processing is more and more considered as a viable solution for the development of deep and ultradeepwater fields. SAIPEM has developed a deepwater gas separation and liquid boosting system, based on its proprietary "Multipipe" separator concept, providing a good flexibility in handling a wide range of steady and un-steady multiphase input streams using a relatively simple mechanical arrangement. The Multipipe Concept features an array of vertical pipes for gas/liquid separation by gravity and adequate liquid hold up volumes. The operating principle is the same as standard gravity vessels. Specific inlet pipe arrangements have been worked out to enhance the separation efficiency and internals can be implemented to further optimize the performances. The limited diameter and wall thickness of the vertical pipes make the Multipipe Concept particularly suited for deep and ultra-deepwater applications and/or high pressure conditions where the selection of a single separator vessel could lead to unpractical wall thicknesses. In most cases, standard API or ASME pipes can be utilized for the Multipipe Separator, thus enabling conventional fabrication methods, and in turn reducing cost and delivery time and opening opportunities for local content. The qualification testing program has seen two subsequent phases. The first qualification phase aimed at the confirmation of the hydrodynamic behavior of the system. In particular, the homogeneous distribution of the multiphase stream into the pipes and the stability of the liquid levels under un-steady inlet conditions were continuously assessed during the tests. This first qualification phase gave confidence in the viability of the Multipipe and in its good hydrodynamic behavior under the different inlet conditions that can be encountered during field production. It proved that, having the same liquid level in all the separator pipes, whatever the inlet conditions are, the Multipipe separator can be controlled as a single pressure vessel. It also gave confidence in the geometry for the second qualification phase. A second qualification phase has been performed under a JIP supported by Total and BP to prove the effective separation performance of the separator, in terms of Gas Void Fraction in liquid outlet and Liquid Fraction at the gas outlet. The test campaign for this second phase has been completed in a multiphase test loop handling real crude, salted water and natural gas flowing under pressure to be representative of field production conditions. The main conclusions of this test campaign have been very positive, demonstrating separation efficiency in line with the design parameters, i.e. less than 10% of GVF in the liquid outlet and less than 0.1% of LCO in the gas outlet as per the criteria set for this application. These tests also confirmed the symmetry of flows and levels in the separation pipes. After this successful second testing campaign, a second JIP has been started in 2011 with Petrobras, Total and ENI to develop the final qualification and detailed design of the whole subsea gas/liquid separation station, defining all the sub-systems and addressing their maturity for field application. One of the study cases addresses a specific application deep offshore Brazil. Upon completion of this second JIP, the subsea gas-liquid separation stations design will be ready for fabrication and field implementation.

______________________________ 1 Subsea Systems Engineer - SAIPEM 2 Subsea Process Engineer - SAIPEM 3 Subsea Process Engineer - SAIPEM 4 Subsea Technology Engineer - SAIPEM

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

1. Introduction
The subsea gas separation and boosting of the produced liquids is recognized to be an efficient way to enhance oil production for deepwater fields through the significant reduction of the backpressure at wellheads operated by the liquid pumps, and to address flow assurance challenges of long tie backs or difficult oils. Traditionally, gas/liquid separators are made of large diameter pressure vessels providing the required volume for gravity separation. However, the wall thickness of the vessel may grow beyond the technological limit or to a level that makes un-practical the separation system configuration for deep and ultra-deep water application and or for high pressure reservoirs. As an alternative to the traditional single vessel separator, SAIPEM has developed a gas/liquid separation system based on the principle of the gravity separation where the separation volume is split in an array of parallel vertical pipes. The wall thickness of the separator pipes is then reduced compared to the equivalent single pressure vessel. This paper will provide an overview of the design and operating mode of the Multipipe Separator, a summary of results of the two qualification testing campaigns and will give an insight of the work on going in the current JIP.

2. Multi-pipe Gas/Liquid separator concept

The Multi-pipe gas/liquid separator distributes the separation volume that is normally allocated to a single vessel into an array of parallel vertical pipes whose relatively reduced diameter allows a more efficient mechanical design to sustain the external hydrostatic pressure and the internal shut-in pressures that are typically associated to the deep and ultra-deep water developments. Each separation pipe is designed in the same way as a conventional gravity separator and specific inlet arrangements have been worked out to enhance the separation efficiency. The multiphase flow is vertically raised through a central vertical pipe and is distributed into each separator pipe where the gas/liquid separation takes place (Figure 1). Slug handling capacity is performed through an appropriate selection of the pipe height. The separated liquid and gas phases are finally commingled in two single outlets respectively at the bottom and at the top of the pipe bundle.

Gas outlet

Multiphase inlet Liquid outlet

Figure 1: Multi-pipe separator principle and integration in a subsea station While the gas phase is flowed to the surface by natural drive through dedicated flowlines and risers, the liquid phase is boosted by gas tolerant liquid pumps into the liquid export system. Similarly to the single vessel design, the liquid level is continuously measured by subsea level sensors and transmitters and regulated by the liquid pumps speed (or valve). The whole separation system and the associated piping network are conceived to provide a continuous flow path with a self-draining design to prevent the accumulation of solid particles and sand.

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 The Multi-pipe Separator is configured to be integrated into a single subsea station that also incorporates the pump and the manifold retrievable modules. Different pump technologies can be offered such as Electrical Submersible Pumps in vertical configuration or any other modular liquid pumps. Several design cases have been selected in anticipation of the next phase of deep and ultra-deep water developments. The following typical production data have been retained as the Reference Case for the qualification program.

Table 1: Design data The selected Reference Case is associated with a water depth of 2,500 m and a design pressure of 690 bar (10,000 psi) while the normal internal operating pressure of the separator is set at 30 bar. Furthermore, a built in slug handling volume of 4 m3 has been defined. For this specific Design Case, four parallel 11 m high separator pipes were sized with an internal diameter of 30 and a wall thickness of 77 mm. Such a wall thickness would require the use of forged pipes and would immediately disqualify a more traditional design based on a single pressure vessel with a diameter of 1.5 m.

System
Number of pipes: Size Height Wall thickness Insulation Bundle Weight 4 30 in 11 m 76.8 mm @ 10 000 psi 20 mm GSPU 120 t

Figure 2: Multi-pipe design This example illustrates the flexibility of the Multi-pipe design that can extend the use of gravity separation to extreme pressure conditions or to ultra deepwater applications (Ref. [1], [2]). Although the design of some critical elements of the separation system and, in particular, the multiphase distribution, were executed on the basis of the results of the Computational Fluid Dynamic, extensive tests and qualification campaign have been undertaken in order to prove the effectiveness of the proposed design and to confirm the predictions of numerical models.

3. Qualification Plan
The qualification plan has been set up to validate the hydrodynamic behavior and the separation performances of the Multi-pipe separator under conditions similar to a field application. In particular, a passive separation system such as the Multi-pipe shall be able to perform under the wide range of inlet flow conditions that may be experienced during the field life as the consequence of the reservoir depletion. Therefore, the test plan has been conceived to simulate several flowrates, inlet GVF, flow regimes, water cut, separation pressures and viscosities. The qualification program has been structured in two subsequent phases: 3

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 Phase 1: validation of the hydrodynamic behavior of the system to confirm that the Multi-pipe can operate under all the inlet flow conditions that can be encountered on a real application. In particular, the homogeneous distribution of the multiphase stream into the separation pipes and the stability of the liquid levels under un-steady inlet conditions were assessed during the tests. Phase2: demonstration of the effective separation performances, in terms of Gas Volume Fraction in the liquid phase outlet and Liquid Carry Over at the gas outlet. For this second qualification phase, the test campaign was carried out during the first quarter of 2010 through a JIP involving Total and BP, at the IFP multiphase test loop in Solaize, handling real oil, salted water and natural gas under pressure. Phase 1 and Phase 2 tests have been executed using a 1 to 4 scale model of the above defined Design Case, with 4 pipes of about 3m high and 8in diameter.

3.2 Phase 1 Prototype and test loop description The whole model is made of PMMA (Plexiglas) material to allow the visualization of the flow regime within the piping system. It has been manufactured with the shapes defined through CFD studies to minimize the turbulences and shear effect, thus improving the separation performances. The inlet has a tangential shape on each separator pipe to avoid the additional turbulences and particles break up generated by the inlet stream spraying onto the separator pipe wall. The main components of the test flow loop are shown in the figure below: it is a water closed loop with air injected before the vertical part of the separator. After the air/water separation, the water is pumped through a centrifugal pump to a storage tank. The separated air is routed to an air tank were any possible carried over water would be finally recovered. As planned for the real application, the speed of the centrifugal pump is adjusted to maintain the normal liquid level in the separator pipes. The loop has been designed for a maximum water flow rate of 25m3/h and a maximum air flow rate of 75m3/h to simulate high GVF conditions.

Figure 3: Separator prototype

Figure 4: Phase 1 Test flow loop

The control logic and data acquisition were performed via a LabView software. A total of 22 gauges and transmitters are installed in the flow loop: One pressure and temperature transmitter and one flow meter (electromagnetic for water and vortex for air) are installed on each of the multiphase injection line upstream the separator For each separator pipes, one liquid flow meter and one differential pressure transmitter for liquid level monitoring are provided. A sampling device on the liquid outlet has been installed to have an indication of the outlet GVF.

3.3 Phase 1 Definition of tests conditions The validity of the reduced scale model is ensured by the suitable definition of test flow regimes that shall be representative of real (not scaled) conditions. The target of this phase 1 being to validate the hydrodynamic behavior of 4

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 the Multi-pipe under all the inlet flow conditions that can be encountered during the whole field life, the test conditions have been defined from the operating full scale inlet conditions, keeping the Froude number constant for gas and liquid at the inlet of the separator (before distributor).

Figure 5: Two-phase flow map for vertical feed pipes (up flow) As shown on the previous flow map, the expected flow regimes in the inlet pipe are close to boundaries separating different flow regimes: bubbly flow, intermittent flow and annular dispersed flow. The transitions from one flow regime to another being rather gradual, the boundaries should not be interpreted as sharp changes in flow pattern. Thereby, within the air/water flow loop limits, the Multi-pipe separator behavior have been characterized under several flow regimes in the feed pipe, each one defined by a specific Test Point (couple qair/qwater). The test flow rates obtained with the conservation of the Froude number in the vertical multiphase inlet pipe flow are presented in the Table 2 below.
MODEL SCALE REAL CONDITIONS Minimum operative pressure 30 bara NominalFlowrates Operative temperature 93C Case1 Case2 Case3 Case4 Gas Liquid Gas Liquid Gas Liquid Gas Liquid (Am /s) 0.0980 0.0787 0.0735 0.0782 0.0490 0.0776 0.1299 0.0766
3

FluidProperties (kg/m )
3

D1=229 mm GVFin(%) 55.5 48.5 38.7 62.9 vs (m/s) 2.4 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.2 1.9 3.2 1.9 FrgFrl () 0.26 1.30 0.19 1.29 0.13 1.28 0.31 1.26

(Am /h) 352.8 283.3 264.6 281.5 176.4 279.4 467.6 275.8

(cP) 0.0137 5.6 0.0137 13.5 0.0137 33 0.0137 0.51

(mN/m) 21.2 50.7 30.7 40.5

22.5 873.3 22.5 895.5 22.5 918.4 19.3 943.9

SCALED CONDITIONS Minimum operative pressure 1.013 bara Operative temperature Flowrates (Am3/h) Air 57.7 Case1 Water 10.1 Air 42.8 Case2 Water 10.0 Air 28.1 Case3 Water 10.0 Air 68.0 Case4 Water 9.8

3.8 d1=60 mm GVFin (%) 85.1 81.0 73.8 87.4 FrairFrw () 0.26 1.30 0.19 1.29 0.13 1.28 0.31 1.26

Table 2 : Representative GoM flowrates

The main test objectives are the confirmation of the fluid distribution symmetry and the system stability (i.e. liquid level stability and balance into the separator pipes) under different inlet flow conditions, including slugging and un-steady regimes. The verification of the Multipipe behavior was monitored through the measurements of the flow rates in each liquid outlets and the liquid level (differential pressure) within each separator pipe. A measure was also performed on the outlet GVF through the sampling device. During the test program, the fluid viscosity and the verticality of the separator were modified for each inlet flow regime to assess the influence of these parameters on the system performance. Tests with sand injection were also performed.

3.4 Phase 1 Tests and results As mentioned above, the test loop can adjust the water and the air flow rates within the following ranges: o for water: from 3 to 25 m3/h o for air: from 15 to 75 m3/h 5

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 The maximum operating pressure considered for the design is 1500 mbar gage, which leads to the operating envelope for the test set up as shown in the following figure. Further to the originally selected four Design Case flow-rates (nominal points), six Test Points have been selected within the limits of the flow loop. These six Test Points represent all the possible flow regimes that can be experienced in a real application. For these Tests Points, the corresponding full scale liquid flow rates range between 13,000 and 71,000 bl/d and the GVF from 17 to 83%. For each of the Test Point, the observed flow regimes were in accordance with flow pattern predictions.

Tests points 1 2 3 4 5 6

Flow regime in feed pipe Slug Flow Churn to Annular Flow Transition Churn Flow Churn Flow Churn to Bubbly Flow Transition Bubbly Flow

Q air Q water GVF in Fr air Fr water (m3/h) (m3/h) (-) (-) (-) 15.1 72 45.4 35.3 28.2 15 3.1 3.3 8.2 10.1 14.4 16.7 0.83 0.96 0.85 0.78 0.66 0.47 0.07 0.43 0.28 0.21 0.17 0.09 0.4 0.43 1.06 1.29 1.85 2.15

Figure 6 : Test points and their corresponding flow regimes Symmetry of the liquid levels

As shown on the Figure 7, the liquid levels measured in the four pipes remain very close, whatever the inlet flow conditions. This has been verified with tests under slugging conditions (graph on the right) with at the bottom, water and air flowrates, and at the top liquid levels. Representative slugs of 1m3 of water were generated regularly, representing the 4m3 for which the system has been sized for at scale one. During these transient conditions, the 4 liquid levels remain the same and change simultaneously, confirming the control philosophy of the liquid level through a single value. These results, similar with liquid at a higher viscosity, demonstrate that the Multi-pipe separator can be controlled and operated as a single pressure vessel, with a single liquid level whatever the inlet conditions are.

Figure 7: Liquid levels for several inlet flow conditions

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 Fluid distribution symmetry

To evaluate the fluid distribution within each pipe of the separator, the water flow rate is measured on each liquid outlet for all the previously defined Test Points. The results can be summarized as on the following chart, where the outlet flow are shown for each pipe and compared to the target (perfect distribution symmetry) of 25% of the inlet flow:

Figure 8: Flow distribution comparison inside each separator pipe For intermittent flow, the dispersion is higher than for homogeneous flow. The maximum gap between a perfect symmetry and what was measured is in the range of 7%. It is expected to have no impact on the separation performance as a gap of 10% of the flow as only an impact of 5% on the cut off diameter. On top of that, all the liquid outlets are gathered in a single one, knowing that if one pipe is more fed, so with a slightly downgraded separation, another one will be less fed, so with an improved separation. Then, the total liquid outlet should have a separation performance in line with the initial target. All this has been confirmed by the GVF measured during these tests (always lower than 10%) and then during the phase 2 of the qualification program with crude oil. A part of the misdistribution here is linked to the limited manufacturing accuracy of the Plexiglas distributor. Steel pieces are expected to have a much better manufacturing accuracy and so a better symmetry. Another part of the misdistribution results from the dissymmetry of the inlet flow itself, especially under intermittent flow regime, such as churn flow, where air pockets are of different sizes and shapes and not centered in the middle of the pipe. Having a dissymmetric flow, and avoiding as much as possible any turbulence on this flow (the distributor has been size to limit the shear), the flow after split cannot be perfectly symmetric. Another distributor shape has been tested, creating more homogeneous flow by adding shear to break the air pockets and create smaller bubbles. The distribution symmetry was better but while no droplet of water was observed in the gas outlet with the previous distributor, water appeared with this one, indicating downgraded separation performances as the Liquid Carry Over increased. These tests with the alternate distributor confirmed the design of the first shape which reduces the flow shear and then optimizes the gas/liquid separation performance which is the main purpose of the system. The first distributor shape was then selected for the second qualification phase with real crude. Complementary tests with the model inclined up to 4 were performed. The results show that such a misalignment has a very limited impact on the distribution symmetry. The inlet speed being quite important compared to the inertia, the flow split is not impacted.

Additional tests

Additional tests were performed with a helix inserted in one pipe and with two sizes of sand particles injected by batch (taken from typical production data as shown in Table 3). The helix showed an improvement in term of liquid level stability (no water fall effect) and the foam formation when tested with foamy liquid was decreased in this pipe (less shear on the liquid level). This helix internal can improve the behavior of the Multi-pipe separator, and its performance. The sand tests demonstrated that no sand remained in the separator after injection, confirming the self-draining behavior of the separator. 7

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

NL

Table 3: Sand tested characteristics Figure 9: Helix internal

Separation performance tendencies

Although the Phase 1 of the qualification program was not focused on the separation performances of the system, some interesting observations were made during this phase. For each of the tested conditions: no droplets have been seen on the gas outlet with the first distributor the GVF in the liquid outlet remained lower than 10% even with higher liquid viscosity These results are in line with the predicted performances for which the separator has been designed (10% max of outlet GVF) and anticipate on the results of the Phase 2.

3.5 Phase 2 Tests with real crude As already mentioned, the phase two campaign was executed within the framework of a JIP with Total and BP at IFP facilities in Solaize (Lyon). The tests were performed during the first quarter of 2010. The objectives were the demonstration of the separation performances (GVF and LCO) of the separator handling a multiphase fluid composed of crude oil, salted water and natural gas under pressure and the assessment of the system capabilities of delivering the predicted performances when operating under a wide range of operating parameters. The tested prototype was made of steel, maintaining the same geometric scale employed for the phase 1 test. The IFP loop is a closed loop. The principle is shown on the following figure:

Figure 10 : IFP test loop with Multipipe prototype Salted water and crude oil are injected with independent pumps from the retention tank (top of the figure) then mixed with gas to generate the multiphase flow entering the tested Multipipe. After separation, the GVF in the liquid outlet is measured and the liquid is sent back to the tank. Gas is routed to a second separator to collect the liquid and measure the LCO. During these tests, the performances were monitored under the following range of conditions: Flowrates : 0.5 x nominal to 1.25 nominal 8

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 Inlet GVF : 20 % to 75% Inlet pressure drop (shear effect) : 0 bar to 5 bar Inlet water cut : 5% to 80% Viscosity : 1 cP to 40 cP Pressure : 22 bar to 37 bar (320 psi to 537 psi) Liquid levels : low, normal and high level

The data recovered during the tests are in line with the predicted performances in terms of GVF (<10%) and LCO (<0.1%) as shown in the following figures. For all of the tested conditions corresponding to the design basis, the GVF remains below the initial target of 10%. In particular, GVF lower than 5% were observed for the large majority of the tested conditions with few peaks between 5% and 8%. The same considerations apply also to extreme test conditions with large flowrates (1.25% of the design) and/or with a high levels of inlet shear. These results prove the effectiveness, the flexibility and the robustness of the Multipipe separator concept. Furthermore, they also confirm the adequacy of the distributor design and inlet geometries which are able to cope with a wide range of inlet flow conditions without amplifying the turbulences or shear effects. The liquid levels were also monitored inside each separator pipe through P sensors (Figure 12) and confirmed the symmetry demonstrated during the previous testing phase as they all remain always equal and superposed whatever the testing conditions.

Figure 11 : Measured outlet LCO and outlet GVF during Phase 2 tests

Figure 12: Measured liquid levels during Phase 2 tests

4. On going work
After this successful second testing campaign, a second JIP has been organized in 2011 with Petrobras, Total and ENI to develop the final qualification and detailed design of the whole subsea gas/liquid separation station, defining all the sub-systems and addressing their maturity for field application. This includes, for two design cases, the complete separator mechanical design, the definition of sensors, controls, boosting units, during start-up, normal operation and shutdown procedures, and the definition of the whole subsea station architecture. 9

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 For this purpose, two very different design and operating cases have been selected and engineered to detailed design level. One of the cases addresses a specific application deep offshore Brazil. The two design cases are similar in terms of flowrate, but are very different regarding other parameters, and exploring challenging operating conditions, with high operating pressure, very viscous oil, very large slug volume, etc., providing an overview of the future operating conditions for which subsea gas/liquid separation will be considered. This work has investigated the range of available designs with this separation principle which can be adapted to very different operating cases (with choices in the size and number of pipes, height, ) keeping the same level control principle. The two design cases lead to two different subsea stations, with different modules, different layout and separator designs, but the studies show that either in terms of process and flow assurance or in terms of operation and maintenance, each of the subsea station copes with the design requirements and offers reliable solutions for these challenging cases. Other studies have been performed on manufacturing and local content optimization, confirming the capacity offered by this design to optimize the fabrication in country, either in Brazil or in West Africa. Additional tests will also be performed in the frame of this JIP on the first flow loop (Plexiglas model) to compare several internals arrangement and their associated performances under different operating conditions, screening a large range of inlet parameters (viscosity, GVF, flowrate ). Tests with sand will also be performed. This additional scope will be performed during Q3-2012.

5. Conclusion
As step-out distances become longer and fluids more challenging, the limitations of conventional tie-back technologies become greater and the costs (both CAPEX and OPEX) higher. The distances are limited by constraints on the fluid properties. Subsea processing and other innovative subsea configurations considerably extend the potential step-out length (up to 100 km in favorable cases) with simpler subsea architecture and cost effective solutions. One of the most promising solutions is the subsea gas/liquid separation. To this purpose, an innovative architecture has been developed in order to tackle the challenges of the deployment in deep and ultra-deep fields. The required separation volume is split in an array of parallel pipes as opposed to a large heavy wall single vessel. Such Multipipe design eases the procurement, sourcing and fabrication of the materials and the subcomponents of the separator unit, with a positive effect on the costs and lead time of the separation system. Furthermore, for application in ultra-deep water (>1500 m) associated to high shut in pressure (> 10,000 psi) the Multi-pipe configuration stands as a viable design compared to the single separator. The process sizing methodology is based on the conventional gravity separation principle. The separation is also effective in turn down conditions and can handle very large and frequent slug volumes. The system can be equipped with different types of level sensors relying on several technologies and providing the required redundancy for the process control. The qualification program was successfully completed and demonstrated the effectiveness, the flexibility and the robustness of the vertical Multipipe separator to deliver the specified separation performances under a wide range of operating conditions. Today a second JIP phase is ongoing and extends the qualification work to the whole subsea station.

6. References
o o o o o New way to use pipes for subsea separation in deepwater, Development and qualification of a novel gas/liquid separator, R. Di Silvestro, S. Abrand, T. Mevel, X. Riou, S. Shaiek; OMC Ravenna, Italy, March 25-27, 2009. Modeling Gas-Liquid flow in pipes: flow pattern transitions and drift-flux modeling, Yuguang Chen, June, 2001 DEP Shell Gas/Liquid separators- type selection and design rules, DEP 31.22.05.11-Gen., September 2002 Multiphase loop tests for subsea-Unit development, P.Pagnier & al., 2008. SPE 115963 The flow of complex mixtures in pipes 2nd edition, G.W. Govier, K. Aziz, SPE

7. Acknowledgements
Saipem would like to thank TOTAL and BP for authorizing the release of this information and for their support during the first JIP tests campaign.

10