Sunteți pe pagina 1din 88

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228688545

State-of-the-Art Overview of CO 2 Pipeline


Transport with Relevance to Offshore Pipelines

Article February 2008

CITATIONS READS

28 875

2 authors, including:

Antonie Oosterkamp
Uni Research Polytec
13 PUBLICATIONS 115 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Antonie Oosterkamp on 11 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
State-of-the-Art Overview
of
CO2 Pipeline Transport with relevance to offshore
pipelines

Antonie Oosterkamp

Joakim Ramsen

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 2 of 87

Title:
State-of-the-Art Overview of CO2 Pipeline Transport
with relevance to offshore pipelines
Stoltenberggt. 1
5527 Haugesund
Tlf: 52 70 04 70
Fax: 52 70 04 71
www.polytec.no

Project number: Report number: Number of pages:


E-0751 POL-O-2007-138-A 87
Principal investigator: Security level: Date:
Antonie Oosterkamp Open 8th of January 2008
Client: Authors:
Research Council of Norway, Gassco Antonie Oosterkamp
and Shell Technology Norway Joakim Ramsen
Client reference:
182603/I30
Summary:
This report provides the results of a study of the existing experience regarding the design
and operational aspects of CO2 transport by pipeline with relevance to future application
on the Norwegian Continental Shelf. The effect of expected new conditions like higher
pressures, offshore environment and impurities present in the CO2 mixture are taken into
account. The report concludes by summarizing the remaining uncertainties and R&D
needs that were identified in this study. In addition, an overview of competence holders is
given.

Principal Investigator Quality Assurance Responsible


ANTONIE OOSTERKAMP GUNN SPIKKELAND HANSEN

Chief Executive Polytec


TORLEIF LOTHE

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 3 of 87

Table of Contents

1 List of abbreviations ........................................................................................................... 5


Summary .................................................................................................................................... 6
2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 12
3 Existing CO2-pipelines ..................................................................................................... 13
4 Properties of Pure CO2 ..................................................................................................... 15
5 Expected Mixtures from Different Sources ..................................................................... 20
6 Effect of Impurities .......................................................................................................... 22
6.1 Density, Viscosity and Vapor Pressure ..................................................................... 22
6.2 Available Measurement Data .................................................................................... 26
6.3 Effects on design and operation................................................................................. 27
7 Standards/Pipeline Code .................................................................................................. 30
8 Fluid Specifications for Pipeline Transport of CO2 ......................................................... 31
9 Material Aspects ............................................................................................................... 33
9.1 Elastomers ................................................................................................................ 33
9.2 Lubricants and Sealants ............................................................................................ 34
9.3 Coatings (internal) .................................................................................................... 34
9.4 Valve Seats ............................................................................................................... 34
9.5 Gaskets....................................................................................................................... 35
9.6 Metals ....................................................................................................................... 35
9.7 Engineering Plastics ................................................................................................. 35
10 The Free Water Issue........................................................................................................ 36
10.1 Corrosion ............................................................................................................... 36
10.2 Hydrates ................................................................................................................ 40
10.4 Water Solubility .................................................................................................... 43
11 Fracture Propagation in CO2 Pipelines............................................................................. 45
12 Flow Assurance ................................................................................................................ 47
13 Viscosity Relations and Equations of State...................................................................... 50
14 Metering and measurement .............................................................................................. 54
15 Monitoring and control ..................................................................................................... 56
16 Operational issues ............................................................................................................ 59
16.1 Ready for operation (RFO): .................................................................................. 59
16.2 Packing/depacking the pipeline ............................................................................ 59
16.3 Blowdown/depressurization .................................................................................. 60
16.4 Dynamic effects ..................................................................................................... 62

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 4 of 87

17 Maintenance Aspects ........................................................................................................ 63


18 Risk Assessment, Health Environment and Safety .......................................................... 64
19 USA CO2 Pipeline Transport Experience ........................................................................ 66
19.1 Sheep Mountain Facilities..................................................................................... 66
19.2 Cortez pipeline ...................................................................................................... 67
19.3 Weyburn Pipeline.................................................................................................. 68
19.4 NJED Pipeline ....................................................................................................... 69
20 Conclusion; remaining uncertainties and R&D needs ..................................................... 72
20.1 Material Aspects ................................................................................................... 72
20.2 Available measurement data ................................................................................. 73
20.3 Water Content ....................................................................................................... 74
20.4 Smart Pigging of long offshore CO2 pipeline ....................................................... 74
20.5 Modeling ............................................................................................................... 75
20.6 Fluid Specification ................................................................................................ 76
20.7 Most critical short term needs ............................................................................... 77
21 References ........................................................................................................................ 78
22 Appendix 1 Details about existing CO2 pipelines ........................................................... 82
23 Appendix 2 Overview of Identified Competence Holders .............................................. 86

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 5 of 87

1 List of abbreviations

BWRS Benedict-Webb-Rubin-Starling
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage
C-Mn Steel Carbon Manganese Steel
DCG Dakota Gasification Company
DEG Diethylene Glycol
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
EoS Equation of State
ERW Electro Resistance Welding
HES Health, Environment and Safety
MAOP Mean Allowable Operating Pressure
MEG Monoethylene Glycol
MMP Minimum Miscibility Pressure
LBC Lohrenz-Bray-Clark
LDS Leak Detection System
LK Lee-Kessler
LNG Liquified Natural Gas
NIST National Institute of Standards
PA Polyamide
PCTFE Polychlorotrifluoroethylene
PMS Pipeline Modelling System
PP Polypropylene
PPS Pressure Protection System
PR Peng-Robinson
PT Patel-Teja
PTFE Polytetrafluoroethylene
PTV Patel-Teja-Valderama
PVDF Polyvinylidene fluoride
PvT Pressure, volume , temperature
R&D Research and Development
RK Redlich-Kwong
RKS Redlich-Kwong- Soave
SCADA Supervision, Control and Data Acquisition
SSC Sulphide Stress Cracking
STEL Short Term Exposure Levels
TEG Triethylene Glycol
VLE Vapour Liquid Equilibrium

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 6 of 87

Summary

Transport of CO2 by pipeline will be necessary if large volumes of captured CO2 are to be
stored in geological formations at short to medium distance from the capture location. For a
number of countries, including Norway, the preferred storage locations will be offshore,
necessitating offshore pipelines between the capture and storage facilities. This report gives
an overview of the state-of-the-art of pipeline transport of CO2 of relevance for offshore
conditions. It provides an assessment what will be novel in an offshore context. The
implications of new capture sources on CO2 pipeline transmission systems are looked into.
The remaining uncertainties identified in this study concerning offshore transmission of CO2
with impurities present in the CO2 fluid stream are provided. The report concludes with
suggestions for the research and development needs to address these uncertainties.

CO2 transport by pipeline is routinely done in the USA for over 30 years. The existing
pipelines in the USA are land based and divided into relatively short sections; this reduces the
blow down and refilling times and limits the risk to the public in case of leaks. For offshore
pipelines this is expected to be different. The main block valves and metering will be located
at the inlet and outlet only; sectioning of offshore parts of the pipeline may not be a viable
option.

To transport CO2 efficiently by pipeline, the pressure is kept over the critical point and the
fluid is transported in dense phase.

Important properties of CO2 at typical operating conditions (dense phase) are:


Density is relatively high and sensitive to temperature.
Low viscosity.
Non-linearly varying compressibility factor.
Acts as a solvent.

The fluid composition of the CO2 to be transported depends on the source. Typically the CO2
originates from natural deposits and the fluid stream is relatively pure; few other components
are present. A pipeline will be designed for a long life time. Thus it can be expected that the
fluid composition in the pipeline will change when different capture sources are connected to
the pipeline infrastructure. The new capture methodologies can give lead to new compounds
in the captured stream for which there is little or no experience within CO2 transport.
Currently, no CO2 quality requirements have been decided upon that take into account these
new compounds.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 7 of 87

Impurities in the CO2 have an effect upon:


Design of equipment like pumps and compressors: specifically setting of suction
pressure and compression strategy to avoid the two phase region.
Toxicity: it can be impurity concentrations that determine the safe exposure limits for
the fluid instead of CO2 concentration.
Transport capacity; impurities reduce the transport capacity of the pipeline.
Vapor pressure: raising of the vapor pressure means that higher minimum entrance
pressure or shorter recompression/booster station intervals are needed to keep the fluid
in dense phase.
Pipeline integrity: The vapor pressure sets the decompression pressure at a pipeline
break. Thus a high decompression pressure can facilitate further propagation of a
fracture. Presence of atomic hydrogen can lead to hydrogen embrittlement of the
pipeline steel or hydrogen induced cracking. Sulphide Stress Cracking (SSC) has to be
taken into account with presence of H2S (requirement for sour service).
Corrosion.
The water solubility and hydrate formation conditions.

For pure CO2 there are developed reference equations of state (EoS) providing highly accurate
calculations. For the relevant CO2 mixtures, there is generally very limited data published
about the applicability of existing EoSs and the applicable mixing rules and parameters.
There is no real consensus which EoS should be used in flow modeling of CO2 pipeline
transport when the CO2 contains impurities. With respect to viscosity calculations, accurate
correlations have been developed for pure CO2. Within the course of this study not many
references were found to viscosity measurement data for the relevant CO2 mixtures. A search
and review of available thermodynamic data for the relevant CO2 mixtures concluded with
that measurements of PvT and VLE data at conditions relevant for CO2 pipeline transport are
few. This was found to be the case for binary mixture data for CO2 with components like H2,
SO2, NO, O2, CO, COS and Ar as well as multi component mixtures.

To transport CO2 in the dense phase has its effect upon the material selection process during
design. Care has to be taken when selecting materials and compounds for gaskets, valve seats,
sealants, coatings and lubricants. CO2 gives rise to higher susceptibility for explosive
decompression of elastomers in seals and gaskets.

When liquid water is present, CO2 will partially dissolve and form carbonic acid. This will
give rise to corrosion problems with the steel alloys commonly used in pipelines. Carbon steel
(C-Mn) can be used in the absence of free water. No corrosion problems have been reported

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 8 of 87

where the CO2 is suitably dry or when stainless steel alloys are used. At high partial pressures
the existing models tend to overestimate the corrosion rates. In addition, the concentrations
and types of other impurities present in the CO2 mixture may influence the corrosion rates.
The mechanism of CO2 corrosion in the presence of impurities is not understood entirely.

There are different practices regarding the allowable water contents specifications used for the
existing CO2 pipeline systems. There are remaining uncertainties how to set the maximum
allowable water contents for a CO2 pipeline. The minimum water solubility limit at
operational conditions might be a non-conservative limit. The water contents in the CO2 may
also lead to the formation of hydrates. An offshore pipeline on the Norwegian Continental
Shelf will along most of its length transport CO2 within the hydrate stable region. Hydrates
will form when free water is present but might also form when the water contents is under the
saturation limit. What the effect is of impurities on both water solubility and hydrate
formation is another area of uncertainty.

CO2 pipelines are considered to be more susceptible to fast propagating ductile fractures than
gas pipelines. The first CO2 pipelines in the USA were designed with relatively short distance
between fracture arrestors. Alternatives to address the risk of running ductile fractures are to
increase the wall thickness or through use of material with higher fracture arrest properties.
The existing models for assessing fracture arrest are based upon tests with hydrocarbon
gasses. They are not necessarily directly applicable for use with CO2 pipelines without
additional experimental assessment.

Heat loss and elevation terms must be included in the energy balance calculations underlying
pressure drop estimation.
With respect to flow modeling, the sensitivity of density to temperature will make it more
difficult to predict flow for an offshore CO2 pipeline. Generally, offshore pipelines will have
less measurement points along the way to tune the thermal model used in simulating the flow
conditions. This means that accuracy of capacity calculations and leak detection for long
offshore pipelines will be more reduced compared to a sectored land based system.

Measurement and instrumentation is in principle similar to that used for natural gas pipelines.
For any instrumentation used on CO2 pipelines, the special requirements regarding material
choice of sealants and gaskets for dense phase CO2 have to be taken into account. For a CO2
pipeline made from carbon steel, measurement of actual water contents at the pipeline
entrance is a necessity.
Integrity monitoring of land based CO2 pipelines is typically done by visual inspection and
use of corrosion coupons. Integrity assessment of the pipeline with a smart pig is also viable,
but very few inspections runs with smart pigs are reported. Inspection pigging of CO2
pipelines is not routinely done and regarded as more difficult than natural gas pipeline
pigging. The big concern is the friction wear through the line. Two pipelines with

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 9 of 87

computational leak detection systems have been identified within this study that use real time
transient modeling. CO2 is considered as a challenging fluid for computational leak detection.
Most important for leak detection of CO2 is the thermal modelling capability. Uncertainties
remain regarding the interaction of the escaping CO2 from a leak in a subsea pipeline with the
surrounding seawater.

A number of relevant issues regarding the operation of CO2 pipelines were identified:

RFO (Ready For Operation)


Dewatering and drying is even more critical than is the case with a natural gas
pipeline. It is advised to have a dewatering/drying strategy for all components of the
pipeline.
Care has to be taken during initial filling up of the pipeline to avoid rapid cooling
down of the expanding CO2 fluid behind the inlet valve.
Pressurizing with nitrogen after hydrostatic testing will allow for the detection of
remaining leaks that do not show up during hydrostatic testing with water.

Blow down/depressurization
The blow down facility must be specifically designed for CO2.
A blow down should be controlled through slow depressurization and sufficient heat
transfer from the ambience. For offshore pipelines we can expect that this is more
challenging as they are not likely to be sectored as land based pipelines.
The danger exists that low temperatures can cause instability of the pipeline due to the
freezing of the surrounding medium.

Stop and Start procedures


Dynamic effects should be considered.
Care must be taken to avoid large temperature drops over valves.

Health, environmental and safety risks are mostly associated to the release of CO2 to the
ambience. CO2 is an asphyxiant: it has an effect upon the respiratory system already at low
ambient concentrations. It is important to notice that CO2 is heavier than air so it will collect
in low laying terrain. Exposure to a stream of expanding CO2 can cause cold burn of the skin.
The expansion of the gas during the phase transition will also give a thrust, potentially
displacing a pipeline in case of a leak. When leaks occur, toxic impurities can be setting the
safe limits rather than the CO2 itself. This is specifically the case with H2S and SO2.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 10 of 87

Conclusions, remaining uncertainties and identified R&D eeds

Within the scope of this study, no real show stoppers for offshore pipeline transport of CO2
were identified. The identified R&D needs are mostly due to uncertainties that arise when the
operating conditions go beyond existing experience or related to the effect of impurities and
that offshore pipelines typically will not be sectored.
New capture technologies are under development that can give CO2 mixtures with several
new compounds. The impact of these impurities on the pipeline transport system should be
evaluated. There are some studies made public that look into the impact of impurities in the
CO2 but these are typically not backed up by experimental data.

The following R&D needs are identified:

Corrosion with use of Carbon (C-Mn) steel.


o Assess the consequences and develop the counter measures (e.g. adding
corrosion inhibitors) on incidences of free water in offshore CO2 pipelines.
o Evaluate the need to perform further studies on corrosion with high partial
pressure CO2 with impurities, and the need to develop suitable corrosion
models.
Non-steel materials (seals and gaskets).
o The need for additional material compatibility testing has to be evaluated in
cases where CO2 transport incorporates higher pressures or pressure variations
than currently employed or in the presence of new impurities.
Available experimental data on thermodynamic and transport properties of CO2 with
impurities.
o There is a need for a more extensive data search and assessment which
additional data should be generated in a follow up measurement campaign.
Review which level of uncertainties in the fluid properties (e.g. density) can be
accepted, followed up by an experimental program addressing the remaining
gap.
Water content.
o Further investigation in to the effect of the impurities on water solubility, the
availability of experimental data and possibly further development of the
thermodynamic models to calculate the solubilities for actual CO2 mixtures.
This with the objective to be able to set safe water specifications.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 11 of 87

Inspection Pigging of long offshore CO2 pipelines


o Testing and potentially development of smart pigs suitable for CO2 pipelines
that can operate at high pressure and can travel longer distances. Test on land
based pipelines first if possible.
Blow down/Depressurization
o Modelling combined with experimental verification to set safe regimes for
depressurization of long offshore pipelines. If possible, link this to ongoing
work regarding this theme at StatoilHydro and SINTEF.
Fracture Propagation
o An assessment has to be made if fracture propagation is a real threat to CO2
pipelines and if the existing requirements from the design code are enough to
arrest a fracture. This assessment should include the applicability of existing
propagation models for CO2 pipelines and what work should be done to update
the models and the existing requirements.
Equations of State for CO2 with impurities.
o A further assessment should be made which EoS is valid under what
conditions for the relevant mixtures within the applicable temperature and
pressure range for offshore pipelines. The accuracy of the EoS of choice
should be checked against and were necessary EoS and mixing rules be
modified to match the data.
Fluid Specification
o The potential chemical reactions between the impurities under relevant time,
pressures and temperatures and the potential negative effects of the products
need to be mapped. A specification should be made and agreed upon that
specifies for allowable levels of impurities in the CO2 for pipeline transport.
This is currently addressed in the EU Dynamis project. A link between this
project and the governmental projects for CCS from Krst and Mongstad
regarding setting of transport specifications in relation to the end use of the
CO2 would be advisable.

Correspondence to: A.Oosterkamp, Polytec R&D Foundation, Stoltenberggt.1, N-5527, Haugesund, Norway.
E-mail: oosterkamp@polytec.no
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible. The authors and Polytec
disclaim any liability to the client and to third parties in respect of the publication, reference, quoting, or
distribution of this report or any of its contents to and reliance thereon by any third party.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 12 of 87

2 Introduction

A better understanding of the relationship between CO2 emission and climate change has been
gained in the last decades. Therefore several projects around the world investigate the
possibility of capturing the CO2 resulting from burning fossil fuels and injecting it for storage
into geological formations. This can be one of the possible measures to avoid global warming.
The storage location will not necessary be located near the source. Thus an extensive transport
system must be applied. For large volume and short to medium distances, pipeline transport is
usually more cost effective than the other alternative, ship transport. For several countries the
actual storage locations will be located offshore e.g. Norway and the U.K.

Norway has a long experience with offshore pipeline transport of natural gas. In pipeline
transport, CO2 as a fluid shows behavior and properties that differ from natural gas. During
the last three decades, a lot of experience has been gained with land based transport in the
USA. Unfortunately, it is not easy to get a complete overview of design and operational
issues. The available literature describes either only some of the relevant aspects and/or is
relatively old. The only existing offshore pipeline for transporting CO2 is the Snhvit pipeline
which is due for operation. The relatively short timeline in capture projects at Krst and
Mongstad make it necessary to gain more knowledge about CO2 transport before operational
experience from Snhvit becomes available. In this report, the existing knowledge from land
based CO2 transport has therefore been included where relevant.

This report is the result of a 7 month study. The information gathering process comprised a
literature study, personal communication to experts and visits to CO2 pipeline operators in the
USA. The report gives an overview of the state-of-the-art, references to relevant literature,
overview of relevant competence holders and discussion of issues that need to be adressed.
The main focus has been to identify critical issues related to offshore pipeline transport, the
effect of expected impurities in the CO2 and the remaining R&D needs. References to
literature are given in the text. An overview of the relevant competence holders identified in
the course of this study is included in Appendix 1.

Acknowledgements are hereby given to the Norwegian Research Council, Gassco and Shell
Technology Norway for funding this study. We like to thank everybody who has contributed
to this study through interview, personal communication and sharing of their professional
opinion.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 13 of 87

3 Existing CO2-pipelines

An overview of the majority of the existing long CO2 pipelines is given in Table 3-1 below.

Table 3-1: Overview of some existing long CO2 pipelines


Name of pipeline Operator Length Diameter Capacity Country
(km) (in) (MT/year)
NEJD Pipeline* Denbury Resources 295 20 USA
Cortez Pipeline* Kinder Morgan 808 30 19.3 USA
Bravo Pipeline BP 350 20 7.3 USA
Transpetco Bravo Pipeline Transpetco 193 12 3.3 USA
Sheep Mountain part 1* BP 296 20 6.3 USA
Sheep Mountain part 2 * BP 360 24 9.2 USA
Central Basin Pipeline* Kinder Morgan - 26 and 16 11.5 USA
Este Pipeline Exxon Mobil 191 12 and 14 4.8 USA
West Texas Pipeline Trinity 204 8 to 12 1.9 USA
SACROC pipeline 354 16 4.2 USA
Dakota Gasification USA
Weyburn Pipeline* 330 12 to 14 4.6
Company
Canyon Reef Carriers Kinder Morgan 225 16 4.6 USA
Bati Raman Turkish Petroleum 90 1.1 Turkey
Snhvit* StatoilHydro 153 8 0.7 Norway
*A more detailed description of these pipelines is provided in Appendix 1

All the pipelines shown in Table 3-1 are land based pipelines except Snhvit, which is the
first offshore CO2 pipeline. The Snhvit pipeline is planned to start-up in the fourth quarter of
2007.

The CO2 transported in the Snhvit pipeline is captured from natural gas from the Snhvit
field. The high CO2-contents from this gas is reduced before it is processed to Liquified
Natural Gas (LNG) at Melkya. One of the first pipelines designed and installed is the
Canyon Reef Carriers which started operation in 1972. The land based pipelines are typically
divided in sections by several valve or compressor stations where instruments are installed to
monitor, pressure and temperature. The CO2 typically originates from natural deposits and is
used for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). The fluid consists of minimum 95% CO2, see
Chapter 8 for quality requirements. The pipelines are designed to operate above the critical
pressure so that two-phase flow is avoided. The pressure is typically below 200 bara. The
short distance (< 30 km) between main block valves, reduces the time for blow
down/depressurization and refilling operations. This also reduces the environmental
consequences of a pipeline rupture.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 14 of 87

Figure 3-1: Laying of 8 CO2 pipeline at Snhvit [http://www.caithness.org]

Figure 3-2: Ground entry of a land based CO2 pipeline, Jackson Dome operated
by Denbury Onshore LLC.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 15 of 87

4 Properties of Pure CO2

Properties of pure CO2 are well known and have been extensively studied. In this section, the
relevant properties for pipeline transport will be shown.

The phase diagram for pure CO2 is shown in Figure 4-1 below.

Critical point

Triple point

Figure 4-1: Phase diagram for pure CO2 (1)

It is important to note that pure CO2 has a triple point at -56.6 C and 5.18 bara. It has its
critical point at 30.9782 C and 73.773 bara. This has its implications for both compression
and transport conditions. Note that above the critical point CO2 will not be able to separate in
two phases (except at very low temperature or high pressure where solid CO2 can form).

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 16 of 87

The pressure-enthalphy diagram is shown in Figure 5.2 below.

Dense phase
Liquid

Gas
Two phase

Figure 4-2 Pressure-Enthalpy diagram for pure CO2 (2)

This diagram can be used to estimate how the temperature changes during de-pressurization,
e.g. over a valve. Note the isotherms are almost vertical at low temperatures. This means that
a throttling in this region (liquid) will not alter the temperature significantly as long as the
CO2 is kept in one phase. The Pressure-Enthalpy diagram is also used to visualize the
thermodynamic path for compression and pumping. It can be seen from the diagram that in
the liquid region relatively low energy input is necessary to increase the pressure, compared to
compression of the gas (isentropic lines are steeper).

For all the relevant thermodynamic properties and its viscosity the reference is the NIST
chemistry webbook (3).

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 17 of 87

Figure 4-3 below shows the density as function of temperature and pressure.

Density
1100

1000

900

800

700
Density [kg/m3]

600 200 bara


500 150 bara
400 100 bara
300 80 bara

200

100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Temperature [C]

Figure 4-3: Density of CO2 as function of temperature and pressure (3)

As can be seen from Figure 4-3 above, the density of CO2 has a stronger dependency on
temperature than pressure at lower temperatures.
It can also be seen that the density is very sensitive to small temperature changes near the
critical point. Density is an important factor in flow calculations. This means that accurate
knowledge of inlet temperature, ambient temperature and heat transfer is necessary to model
the flow correct, especially if conditions are close to the critical point.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 18 of 87

It is the combination of high molecular weight and low compressibility factor (Z-factor) that
makes CO2 density so temperature dependent. The compressibility factor at different
temperatures and pressures is shown in Figure 4-4 below. Figure 4-4 shows that ideal gas
assumption for CO2 is not applicable. The compressibility factor is used to alter the ideal gas
equation to account for the real gas behaviour. For an ideal gas, the Z-factor will be one,
independent of pressure and temperature. The compressibility factor needs to be taken into
account to give correct density in flow calculations.

Z-factor
0.7

0.6

0.5
Z-factor [-]

0.4
80 bara
0.3 100 bara

0.2 150 bara


200 bara
0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Temperature [C]

Figure 4-4: Compressibility factor (z-factor) at different pressures and temperatures (3)

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 19 of 87

Viscosity
0.14

0.12

0.1
Viscosity [cP]

0.08
200 bara

0.06 150 bara


100 bara
0.04 80 bara

0.02

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Temperature [C]

Figure 4-5: Viscosity of CO2 as function of temperature and pressure (3).

CO2 has a low viscosity compared to some other high density fluids; e.g. olive oil (80 cP),
water (0.89 cP). Viscosity of CO2 versus temperature at different pressures is shown in Figure
4-5. As can be seen from the figure above, also the viscosity of CO2 shows a strong
temperature dependency, especially near the critical point.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 20 of 87

5 Expected Mixtures from Different Sources

The fluid composition of the CO2 mixture to be transported will depend on the source. CO2
transported in USA is typically taken from natural sources. The mixtures from these sources
contain, apart from CO2 ,typically also: water, hydrogen sulphide, nitrogen and hydrocarbons,
see Table 5-1.

Table 5-1: CO2 composition transported in existing pipelines (given as vol% if not stated otherwise)
Canyon Central Sheep Bravo Cortez Weyburn Jackson
Reef Basin Mountain Dome Pipeline (11) Dome,
Carriers (4) Pipeline (5) (6) (7; 8) Source (9) (10) NEJD

CO2 85-98 98.5 96.8-97.4 99.7 95 96 98.7-


99.4
CH4 2-15 0.2 1.7 - 1-5 0.7 Trace
C6H14
N2 <0.5 1.3 0.6-0.9 0.3 4 <300 Trace
ppm
H2S <200 ppm < 20 ppm -- - 0.002 0.9 Trace
(spec)
C2+ - 0.3-0.6 - Trace 2.3 -
CO - - - - - 0.1 -
O2 - <10 ppm wt - - - <50 ppm -
(spec) wt
NOx - - - - - -
SOx - - - - - -
H2 - - - - - Trace? -
Ar - - - - - -
H2O 50 ppm wt 257 ppm wt 129 ppm wt - 257 ppm wt 20 ppm -
vol

Different methods are under development to mitigate anthropogenic emissions of CO2. The
R&D focus is mainly on power production with CO2 capture since this industry is a large
emitter. The three main methods for power production with CO2 capture are:

Post-Combustion (CO2 captured from flue gas)


Pre-Combustion (CO2 captured before combustion. Combustion with H2)
Oxyfuel (almost pure O2 used in combustion)

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 21 of 87

Within these methods different capture technologies can be used which will produce CO2 with
different levels of impurities. For Post-Combustion, the absorption technology using amines
is considered to be a technology that will be used in near future, which provide very pure
CO2. The impurity levels present in the CO2 mixture resulting from Pre-combustion or
Oxyfuel will vary with the capture technologies employed.

Table 5-2 below shows typically compounds that can be present from different technologies.
Their exact concentration will depend on several factors, but without purification and co-
capture of other compounds, the maximum level indicated here can be reached. Especially
SO2 and H2S will normally be present in the final CO2 mixture in much lower concentration
than the maximum levels indicated in this table.

Table 5-2: Compounds from different power production methods with CO2 capture. :ote these are
indicative maximum values and not most likely values.
Post-Combustion1 (12) Pre-Combustion [ Oxyfuel
(13) (12) (12), (13) (14)
CO2 >99 vol% >95.6 vol% >90 vol%
CH4 <100 ppmv <350 ppmv --
N2 <0.17 vol% <0.6 vol% <7 vol%
H2S Trace <3.4 vol% trace
C2+ <100 ppmv <0.01 vol% --
CO <10 ppmv <0.4 vol% Trace
O2 < 0.01 vol% Trace <3 vol%
NOx < 50 ppmv -- <0.25 vol%
SOx <10 ppmv -- <2.5 vol%
H2 Trace <3 vol% Trace
Ar Trace <0.05 vol% <5 vol%
COS ?

A pipeline will be designed for a long life time (~50 years). Thus it can be expected that the
fluid composition in the pipeline will change when different capture sources are connected to
the pipeline infrastructure. By comparing Table 5-1 and Table 5-2 it is clear that Ar, H2, SOx
and NOx will be new compounds in the CO2 mixture for which there is little or no experience
within CO2 transport. O2 and H2S are to some extent transported today but at much lower
concentrations. Currently, no CO2 quality requirements have been decided upon that take into
account these new compounds and their effect upon the pipeline transport system. This will be
further discussed in Chapter 8.

1
Amine absorption

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 22 of 87

6 Effect of Impurities
mpurities

Impurities in the CO2 affect the design of the pipeline and the compression facilities.
Impurities affect the phase behavior,
behavior, the thermodynamic properties and the viscosity. For
example small amounts of hydrogen
ydrogen in the CO2 will increase the vapor pressure significantly.
The relationships between the source,
source, the requirements, the pretreatment and their effect upon
pipeline design and operation are shown schematically in Figure 6-1.

Figure 6-1:: Schematically description of how impurities


impuri affect
ffect the pipeline design and operation

6.1 Density, Viscosity and Vapor


Vapo Pressure

The effects on density, viscosity and vapor


vapo pressure of the main impurities identified in
Chapter 5 are shown in Figure 6-2, Figure 6-3 and Figure 6-4.. These figures have been made
using the REFPROP program am from NIST. At their website (15) NIST states that the t program
uses the most accurate
urate equations of state and models currently available.
available The composition,
used to produce the diagrams, is 98 mole% CO2 with 2 mole% % of the other component. It
should also be noted that the diagrams given in this section are for illustrational purposes only
onl
and that they have not been verified
verifi by the authors against actual measurement data.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O
O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 23 of 87

Density at 100 bara


1000

900

800 CO2 (100%)


Density [kg/m]

CO2-CH4
700
CO2-H2
600 CO2-N2
CO2-Ar
500
CO2-SO2
400 CO2-H2S

300 CO2-O2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Temperature [C]

Figure 6-2: Density at 100 bara with different temperatures for CO2 with 2 mole% of another component.

SO2 is the only component that increases the density compared to pure CO2. The estimated
density for this mixture is very uncertain since no mixture parameters were available. From
this figure it can be seen that H2S has minimal impact on the fluid density while H2 has a
significant impact.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 24 of 87

In Figure 6-3 below the viscosity are shown for different mixtures of CO2 at 100 bara.

Viscosity at 100 bara


0.12
0.11
0.1
0.09 CO2 (100%)
Viscosity [cP]

0.08 CO2-CH4
0.07 CO2-H2
0.06 CO2-N2
0.05 CO2-Ar
0.04 CO2-H2S
0.03
CO2-O2
0.02
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Temperature [C]

Figure 6-3: Viscosity at 100 bara with different temperatures for CO2 with 2 mole % of another
component.

Note that the SO2 is not included in the diagram since REFPROP did not calculate viscosity
for this mixture.
The figure indicates that impurities typically will reduce the viscosity.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 25 of 87

Figure 6-4 below shows the vapor pressure for the different mixtures. Again, CO2 is mixed
with 2 mole% of another component.

Vapour Pressure
90

80
CO2 (100%)
70
Pressure [bara]

CO2-CH4
CO2-H2
60
CO2-N2
50 CO2-Ar
CO2-SO2
40
CO2-H2S

30 CO2-O2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Temperature [C]

Figure 6-4: Vapor pressure for different mixtures (98 mole% CO2)

It can be seen that the presence of impurities have a significant effect on the vapour pressure.
Exceptions are H2S and SO2. As with the other properties, the values for CO2-SO2 mixture are
very uncertain since the mixing parameters were estimated and not based on any actual
measurement data (16). The presence of impurities implies that a two phase region will be
present.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 26 of 87

6.2 Available Measurement Data

A literature search combined with communication with relevant experts was part of this
investigation. Only a limited amount of experimental data was identified for high content CO2
mixtures (95 mole% +) and within the typical offshore pipeline operating conditions (100-300
bar and 0-50 C).

Below in Table 6-1 presents the available pressure, volume and temperature (PvT) and vapor-
liquid-equilibrium (VLE) measurement data, as reported by Kunz et al. (17). Only the
measurement data sets where CO2 is present at 95 mole% or higher are included here. For a
total overview we refer to Kunz et al (17).

Table 6-1: Overview of available PvT and VLE data for some binary CO2 mixtures (17)
Y+X Data Number of Temperature Pressure Mole
data points (C) (Bar) Fractiona
CH4 + PvT 7 15 55-145 0.96
CO2 PvT 91 -48 - 127 21-358 0.98
VLE 6 28 70-77 0.97-0.99
VLE 21 15-20 56-82 0.83-0.99

N2 + CO2 PvT 64 27-57 23-331 0.98


PvT 39 0-200 4-88 0.98
VLE 13 28-30 72-81 0.96-1.00
VLE 22 -40 - 25 37-127 0.63-0.97
VLE 22 15-30 61-103 0.81-0.99
VLE 18 15-20 60-97 0.85-1.00
VLE 15 0 41-118 0.70-0.99

CO2 + H2 PvT 42 5-20 48-193 0.01-0.16


VLE 58 -53 - 17 11-203 0.00-0.14
VLE 42 5-20 48-193 0.01-0.16

CO2 + O2 VLE 72 -50 - 10 10-132 0.01-0.78


VLE 72 -50 - 10 10-132 0.00-0.39

CO2 + Ar PvT 5 15 83-145 0.06


PvT 12 15 57-98 0.06-0.021
VLE 12 15 57-98 0.06-0.17

a
Mole fractions of component X in the saturated liquid phase for VLE data.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 27 of 87

Below are described data sets for other mixtures obtained and/or found reference to in the
course of the investigation:

CO2-O2
In information received from NIST (16), 33 PvT data points from Muirbrook (18) were found,
but only one data point was below 5 mole% O2; at 0 C and 52 bar.

CO2-H2S
In information received from NIST 169 PvT data points from Stouffer (19) were found for the
lowest concentration of H2S ( 6.07%). The data includes pressure from 1 to 236 bar and
temperatures from 16 to 177 C.

CO2-CO
Kunz et al (17) reports 75 data points but only for 43 mole% CO and low pressure from 1 to
65 bara.

No reference to measurement data for CO2 mixed with SO2, NO or COS were identified.
Some multi-component data for CH4-N2-CO2 and N2-CO2-H2 exist but only at low CO2
content (<80%) and low pressure (<83 bar) (17).

It seems that experimental PvT and VLE data at conditions relevant for CO2 transport are few.
This is the case for binary mixture data for CO2 with components like H2, SO2, NO, O2, CO,
COS and Ar as well as for multi-component mixtures.
Technische Universitt Hamburg-Harburg, TUHH, conducts a research project looking into
the thermodynamics of CO2 mixtures that are typical for the oxyfuel process. Unfortunately,
more detailed information was not received about this project within the course of our
investigations.

6.3 Effects on design and operation

Impurities affect the design of equipment like pumps and compressors. For example; if the
suction pressure is lower than the vapor pressure, unwanted cavitation will occur in the pump.
The compression strategy will also be affected by impurities. For example one can choose to
pressurize the CO2 by compression and condense the CO2 to liquid prior to further
pressurization by pump. The pressure at which CO2 can be liquefied will be set by available
cooling water temperature. When impurities are present the vapor pressure will be higher.
Thus at a given cooling water temperature higher compression pressure (power) will be
needed to liquefy the CO2. In addition higher pipeline operating pressures will be needed to
maintain dense phase.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 28 of 87

Some of the impurities, like NOX, CO and especially H2S and SOx are highly toxic. When a
leak occurs, a cloud of CO2 will disperse. The safe concentration of the dispersed CO2
mixture can be driven by the allowable concentration of these impurities from occupational
and environmental values (12). An example of this is in case of H2S. An assumed STEL
(Short Term Exposure Levels) of 30,000 ppm. for CO2 (20) and 15 ppm. for H2S, means that
for H2S concentrations over 2000 ppm. in the CO2 compositional mixture, H2S will be the
limiting factor.

Impurities have also an effect upon the design and operation of blow down facilities. If a
combustible compound is present which is not allowed to be vented to atmosphere (e.g. H2S)
a possible solution is to connect the blow down facility to a flare (It should also be noted here
that combusting H2S produces SO2 which is also highly toxic). This again implies that a fuel
gas system needs to be incorporated in the design. In such a case, the CO2 needs to be
mingled with enough fuel so combustion can take place.

Impurities have a high impact on the transport capacity. Studies on the qualitative and
quantitative effect of the impurities on the pressure drop and transport capacity are reported in
(8) (21). For example, CO2 plus 5 % methane decreases the flow by 16 % (flow adjusted to
have an 82.7 Pa/m pressure drop at 10 341 kPa and 16 C in 406 mm pipeline) (8). In
addition, impurities take up space in the pipeline that otherwise is utilzed for transporting
CO2. Compared to transporting pure CO2, 5 vol% impurities will reduce the volume of CO2
transported by 5%.

Since CO2 is transported as a dense fluid it will be relatively easy to compensate for losses of
capacity by boosting the pressure using a pump, as long as the pipeline is not already
operating close to Mean Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP). An investigation into the
effect of impurities on the minimum distance between recompression/boosting stations is
presented in (21).
Especially hydrogen is shown here to have a large effect. A CO2 mixture containing 3 mole%
of hydrogen halves the minimum distance between recompression stations compared to pure
CO2. When recompression is not an option, with a given pressure loss along the pipeline
route, the minimum entrance pressure will have to be raised when the vapor pressure of the
fluid is higher due to the presence of impurities. This in turn can necessitate to design the
pipeline for higher operating pressures leading to for example large pipe wall thickness or
stronger materials.

The impurities can also have an effect upon the pipeline integrity. The vapor pressure sets the
decompression pressure at a pipeline break. Thus a high decompression pressure can facilitate
further propagation of a fracture: This is further described in detail in Chapter 11.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 29 of 87

Presence of atomic hydrogen can lead to hydrogen embrittlement of the pipeline steel or
hydrogen induced cracking. For atomic hydrogen to occur, free water needs to be present. The
underlying mechanism is that atomic hydrogen diffuses into the metal matrix and combines
again to hydrogen molecules. This creates local internal pressure which reduces the ductility
and tensile strength of the steel. The atomic hydrogen may also embrittle the steel through its
interference with the plastic flow during deformation.
Carbon steels used for pipelines can be specified with additional requirements to remediate
this potential problem. Measures can include lower sulphur contents of the steel, limiting the
hardness and alloying of the steel.
Presence of H2S is another issue of concern. Even without the presence of free water H2S
poses a potential problem (with free water also atomic hydrogen is produced). A reaction
between iron and H2S will occur at the pipe inner surface, creating a thin surface of iron
sulphide and atomic hydrogen. This is called Sulphide Stress Cracking (SSC). The sensitivity
for this can be reduced by for example adding nickel to the steel alloy composition. For
pipeline operations, the presence of H2S implicates that the steel has to be specified for so-
called sour service
The presence of Oxygen is considered problematic from a corrosion point of view, especially
when free water is present.

Finally, impurities can affect the water solubility and hydrate formation conditions. This will
be further discussed in Chapter 10.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 30 of 87

7 Standards/Pipeline Code

In the USA, CO2 pipelines fall under the Department of Transport 49-CFR 195 as they are
considered hazardous liquid pipelines and the ANSI/ASME B31.4 pipeline code. For Canada
the Canadian Standard Association Z662 applies. Department of Transport 49-CFR 195 puts
requirements on issues like material compatibility, pipeline integrity, monitoring, reporting of
accidents, etc.
For offshore pipelines the most widely used code is DNV-OS-F101. This code does not
provide special considerations for the transport of CO2. It is described in this code as a non-
flammable, non-toxic gas at ambient temperature and atmospheric conditions. This means it
falls under the codes fluid classification C. With this classification, CO2 pipelines fall under
design criteria for safety class Low or Normal (when in areas with human activity). However
it is questionable if large releases of CO2 (due to pipeline rupture) are as harmless as this
classification would indicate. In addition, there are differences between natural gas pipeline
transport and transport of CO2. On top of this, future parts of the existing hydrocarbon pipeline
infrastructure might be considered to be used for CO2 transport. In order to address this, DNV
is currently conducting a gap analysis and is assessing how to update the DNV-OS-F101 code
for offshore transport of CO2 (22).

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 31 of 87

8 Fluid Specifications for Pipeline Transport of CO2

The pipelines described in Table 5-1 are differing with respect to the actual CO2 mixture
transported in it and its specified requirements on purity and water contents.
The pipeline specification Kinder Morgan uses in the USA is shown in Table 8-1. (23)

Table 8-1: Specification for Kinder Morgan operated pipelines


Compound Specification Issue/Remark
CO2 95% Min. MMP concern
Nitrogen 4% Max. MMP concern
Hydrocarbons 5% Max. MMP concern
Water 257 ppm wt. Max Corrosion (Specified as 30lbs/MMscf)
Oxygen 10 ppm wt Max Corrosion
Glycol 4*10-5 l/m3 Max Operations (Specified as 0.3 gal/MMscf)

Temperature 50 C Max Material limit (Specified as 120 F)

For some of the other pipelines, details about the CO2 mixture are given in Appendix 2.
No internationally accepted standard for the specification of CO2 mixtures exists for pipeline
transmission systems. The fluid specification will largely depend upon an assessment
performed during the design phase including flow assurance, pipeline integrity and safety, and
the requirements put upon the CO2 purity by the end user/destination.In (24), a very recent
Dutch study of possible barriers of the CCS chain components with respect to coal fired
power plants the impact of impurities upon the transport system was assessed. The study
proposes the following transport conditions (see Table 8-2):

Table 8-2: Proposed transport conditions from Ecofys study (24)


Compound Specification Issue/Remark
CO2 95% Min.
Nitrogen <4% Max. Total non condensable < 4 %
CH4 < 4% (vol) Max. Total non condensable < 4 %
Water <500 ppm Max Lower level recommended

Oxygen <4 % (vol) Max Total non condensable < 4 %


SO2 - - Not critical
NO - - Not critical
H2S - - Not critical
Hydrogen < 4% (vol) Max Total non condensable < 4 %
Ar < 4% (vol) Max Total non condensable < 4 %
Temperature 30 C Max

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 32 of 87

The requirements to be put upon the CO2 purity are further addressed in the EU Dynamis
project (25) and the ENCAP project (26). In (12), an initial investigation of the effect of
impurities in the CO2 stream on the transport systems is presented. This work concludes that
strict requirements on CO2 quality should be avoided to reduce the cost of the capture process
Knowledge gaps are identified regarding the effect of the impurities upon the pipeline
transmission system. The initially proposed quality recommendation of the Dynamis project is
shown in Table 8-3.

Table 8-3 Dynamis proposed specifications (25)


Compound Concentration limit Remarks
H2S 200 ppm Health and safety
considerations
CO 2000 ppm Health and safety
considerations
SOx 100 ppm Health and safety
considerations
NOx 100 ppm Health and safety
considerations
H2O 500 ppm Technical limit
O2 Aquifer <4 vol% (all non Technical limit; storage issue
cond. gases), EOR >100 ppm
CH4 Aquifer < 4 vol%, EOR <2 Like ENCAP
vol% (all non cond. gases)
N2 , Ar, H2 <4 vol% (all non cond. Like ENCAP
gases)
CO2 > 95% Result of other compounds in
CO2

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 33 of 87

9 Material Aspects

Transporting CO2 by pipeline has an effect upon the material choice of the pipeline and
pipeline components during the design process.

Firstly, supercritical CO2 is used as an industrial solvent; for example in the production of
medication and decaffeinated coffee. This solving ability must be taken into account in the
materials selection process.

Secondly, when liquid water is present, CO2 will partially dissolve and form carbonic acid.
This will give rise to corrosion problems with the steel alloys commonly used for long
pipelines. This will be discussed in detail in Chapter 10.

Thirdly, in transient situations involving rapid depressurization of parts of the pipeline the
material can be exposed to temperature drops below the triple point (-56.6 C).

Fourthly, CO2 pipelines are considered to be more susceptible to fast propagating ductile
fractures compared to gas pipelines. This can put additional requirements on the fracture
properties of the material. This will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 11.

When transporting dense CO2, care has to be taken when selecting materials and compounds
for gaskets, valve seats, sealants, coatings and lubricants. In (27) an overview of tests
regarding the effect of supercritical CO2 on materials is provided. Another overview based
upon several sources is provided in (28). Information regarding compatibility of materials
with supercritical CO2 can also be found in (29). In (30) a best practice for injection well
technology for CO2 as used in EOR is given. This includes the material selection process. In
general the following can be said regarding the material selection for use with dense phase
CO2.

9.1 Elastomers

Generally, elastomers do not respond well to exposure to supercritical CO2. Problems have
been reported with the use of standard Nitrile, Polyethylene, some fluorelastomers,
chloroprene and to some extent ethylene-propylene compounds. Swelling of the elastomer is
attributed to the solubility/diffusion of the pressurized CO2 into the bulk material. With dense
phase CO2 explosive decompression of the elastomer can occur. This phenomenon occurs
when system pressure is rapidly decreased and the gases that have permeated or dissolved into
the elastomer expand. In a mild case, the elastomer will only show blistering (due to the

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 34 of 87

expansion of the diffused CO2), but potentially rupture may occur. These issues may be more
severe with higher operating pressures and larger pressure differentials.
Ethylene-propylene co-polymers are reported to be a better option. For high pressure gas
filling connectors as used in CO2 tanks and cylinders, EPDM seals are used. These are
reported to show significant swelling during use. Problems can be alleviated by choosing the
right shore hardness for a specific application. Silicon is reported to be suitable but shows a
high rate of permeability for dense phase CO2.

9.2 Lubricants and Sealants

Petroleum based products will dissolve when in contact with supercritical CO2. Some grease
will decompose and create gum like deposits or harden when in contact with CO2; the main
constituents will dissolve leaving behind the hard gum and wax additives of the grease. This
can seize valves and compressor shafts. Special lubricants and greases for use with dense
phase CO2 are available from a number of suppliers.

9.3 Coatings (internal)

Experimental work reported in (27) on epoxy (both force cured and fused), phenolic (both
baked and fused), nylon-epoxy-amide (force cured), glass (fused) and vinyl (cemented)
coatings/linings showed that only force cured epoxy gave rise to de-bonding after long term
exposure testing to supercritical CO2. Fused epoxy was reported to show no adverse affect.
We did not come across sources referring to the use of pipeline coatings in existing CO2
pipeline. At the SACROC unit, powder applied phenolic epoxy and glass fiber reinforced
epoxy has successfully be used to coat carbon steel pipe (30).

9.4 Valve Seats

There is some uncertainty in the literature about the use of nitrile and teflon in valve seats.
Recommended is EPDM, but only in the absence of hydrocarbons. For hard valve seats
chrome plating is recommended. When the valve seats are in contact with CO2 one can use
anodized aluminum. There exist considerable experience regarding the use of valves with
dense phase/supercritical CO2; it is a matter of specifying the use with dense phase CO2 to the
valve supplier. For example Cooper Cameron supplies a whole range of ball valves for use
with CO2 to the pipeline industry. In (31) the observation is made that ball valve seats should

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 35 of 87

be made to seal by injecting sealant into the seating area. This is related to the problems
observed with leaking of mechanical connections with gaskets or seals.

9.5 Gaskets

In (31) the use of stainless/asbestos spiral wound gaskets in combination with standard raised
face flanges is advocated.

9.6 Metals

Carbon steel (C-Mn steel) can be used under the provision that there will be no free water
inside the pipeline. When free water is present, stainless steel has to be used. Experience
shows that S316L functions well. There is mixed experience with S304L. In (30) the use of
S410L is reported to have given pitting corrosion problems at the SACROC unit. Regarding
other metals; dry CO2 functions well with aluminum, brass and copper.

9.7 Engineering Plastics

The following engineering plastics are reported to perform satisfactory with CO2 in dense
phase:

PTFE, PCTFE, PVDF, KYNAR , PA, NYLON, PP

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 36 of 87

10 The Free Water Issue

The CO2 mixture coming from most sources contains a certain amount of water. The actual
amount is varying with the source. For example, CO2 scrubbed from flue gas by an amine
process has a water content that can easily exceed 5% vol. The water is to a large extent
knocked out during compression and in subsequent dewatering stages (usually TEG).
On the other end of the scale, CO2 originating from coal gasification, separated by the
Rectisol process can have as little as 2 ppm. vol. water.
Water has a limited solubility in CO2, both in the gaseous as well as in the dense liquid phase.
The solubility of water in CO2 will be in effect a function of pressure and temperature, and
will also be influenced by the purity of the CO2. When during transport the solubility limits of
water are exceeded, free water will precipitate inside the pipeline and give rise to problems.
The occurrence of free water has two negative effects upon the design and operation of CO2
pipelines; corrosion and hydrate formation.

10.1 Corrosion

Occurrence of free water will lead to dissolution of CO2. This will form carbonic acid, H2CO3.
The free water will thus in effect be present as a weak acid. This gives rise to corrosion
problems for the carbon steels of choice for pipelines. CO2 corrosion has been studied
extensively and forms a serious problem for pipeline operations where the chosen material is
carbon steel. For longer pipelines, carbon steel is about the only economically feasible
material choice for dense phase transport of CO2, balancing material cost with the mechanical
strength needed to withstand the internal high pressures and the external loads. Dry CO2 (all
water is dissolved in the CO2) has both in laboratory experiments and from pipeline operating
experience shown to give very low corrosion rates for C-Mn steel. For example, in a study
conducted in connection with the design and engineering of the SACROC pipeline, the
experimental corrosion testing program reported corrosion rates of less than 0.0005 mm/yr on
X-60 ERW steel when there is no liquid water present (27). When liquid free water is
present, corrosion of carbon steel will definitely occur. Corrosion reactions are
electrochemical in nature. For the CO2 - Fe corrosion system there are several anodic and
cathodic reactions, because in presence of liquid water as electrolyte, CO2 will partially
dissolve and forms carbonic acid. These components participate in the reaction chemistry as
well. The basics of this are well described in (32). The possible electrochemical reactions
occurring with CO2 corrosion of carbon steel are shown in Figure 10-1 and the resulting
corrosion in Figure 10-2.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 37 of 87

10-1: Corrosion reactions of water saturated CO2 with carbon steel (32)

10-2: Example of CO2 corrosion attack on a carbon steel pipeline segment (32)

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 38 of 87

When free, liquid, water is present, corrosion will occur and at very high rates. Rates up to
and beyond 10 mm/year are reported (33). Furthermore, the corrosion mechanism is an on/off
process somewhat complicating prediction of corrosion rates. Corrosion attacks will be
typically localized at initial initiation sites, this is attributed to the galvanic effect, leading to
high local corrosion rates that may lead to weaknesses or leaks in the pipe wall within short
periods of time.

CO2 corrosion has been researched extensively and is relatively well understood. Major
studies have been conducted regarding CO2 corrosion in oil and gas pipelines for
hydrocarbons containing several mole% CO2. However, very little experimental work has
been carried out regarding CO2 corrosion in pipelines at the high partial pressures encountered
when transporting high purity CO2. A multitude of corrosion models have been developed for
hydrocarbons containing CO2, but it has been registered by (32) (34) that the results can vary
by a factor 100. This is attributed to corrosion, and the corrosion effect of CO2, to be linked to
a multiple of mechanisms. Several CO2 dependent chemical, electrochemical and mass
transport processes occur simultaneously. These are depending on a variety of parameters,
including CO2 partial pressure and temperature. All this will have to be accounted for in the
models. At high partial pressures the existing models tend to overestimate the corrosion rates.
All this makes it a challenging task to specify a corrosion allowance based upon incidental
occurrence of free water in a CO2 pipeline. In addition, the concentrations and types of other
impurities present in the CO2 mixture will influence the corrosion rates. The presence of O2,
H2S, SO2 and NOx all have an influence towards higher corrosion rates. In (34) it is
underlined that the mechanism of CO2 corrosion in the presence of impurities is not entirely
understood. Setting a corrosion allowance is therefore probably not a suitable way to deal
with the danger of CO2 corrosion in a carbon steel CO2 pipeline.

There are however several other ways to mitigate this for natural gas transmission pipelines:

Reduce the contents of acidic gasses (which is not an option here).


Avoid liquid water to wet the pipeline surface, for example with a coating or build up
of an oil or wax layer.
Glycol addition, this reduces the solubility of acid gasses and reduces water
concentration; this has proven to reduce corrosion rates on bare steel surfaces
Inhibition
pH stabilization: can be done by adding a base to glycol, raising the pH and thus
reducing the solubility of FeCO3.
Avoid presence of free liquid water.
Material choice.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 39 of 87

The reported experiences with CO2 corrosion with likely pipeline alloy candidates are shown
inFigure 10-3.

10-3: overview of corrosion rates and experiences reported in the literature for candidate steels for CO2
pipelines (34)

The state of the art approach to this problem is to set and maintain a specification on
maximum water contents of the CO2 in the pipeline. The objective is to avoid forming of free
water within the operational window (pressure and temperature) of the pipeline.
This will still leave open the question what measures should be taken in case there is
incidental free water ingress into the pipeline. This can for example happen when the capture
plant delivers moisture saturated CO2 to the pipeline (for example due to dehydration
equipment failure). In (35) MEG or use of a commercial corrosion inhibitor is suggested. In
(34) the recommendation is given that for transportation of CO2 in C-Mn pipelines the risks of
corrosion at actual flow conditions should be investigated. The consequence of impurities and
an evaluation of inhibitors should be included. Impurities in the CO2 will both affect the water
solubility and the corrosion mechanisms.

Another source of free water can be the reactions between impurities; during this study we did
not encounter any work that describes potential chemical reactions between impurities at
pipeline operating conditions. For example; impurities containing molecular hydrogen (like
for example H2S) might under certain conditions react with O2 creating additional water.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 40 of 87

10.2 Hydrates

Forming of hydrates (clathrate hydrates) during CO2 transport is similar to that occurring in
natural gas transport. Clathrate hydrates are solids in which gas molecules occupy a vacancy
in a cage made up of hydrogen bonded water molecules. CO2 is just one of the light molecular
gas weight molecules that can form hydrates together with water. Some of the impurities that
can be present in the CO2 can also form hydrates, like CH4, H2S, N2, Ar as well as some
higher hydrocarbons (like C2H6 and C3H8). These hydrates are actually not chemical
compounds; their formation and decomposition are actual phase transitions. In appearance
hydrates remind of ice. Contrary to ice, it should be noted that hydrates can form at
temperatures above 0 C. This phase transition point is also highly pressure dependent.
Hydrates become more stable with increasing pressure. Hydrates can form plugs in pipelines,
either blocking valves, fouling up instrumentation or in the extreme case block the entire bore
of the pipeline at a certain location. During depressurization the acceleration of a hydrate plug
can cause structural damage to the pipeline wall in small radius bends. Hydrates have been
observed to have an affinity for building up at the pipeline walls. When they occur they can
be decomposed by either lowering the pressure, increasing the temperature or reduce the
water content.

Measures that can be taken to avoid hydrates:

Use of thermodynamic inhibitors; MEG and DEG to lower the hydrate forming
temperature (effectively an antifreeze). This works for natural gas hydrates, but no
references were found how well this will function with CO2.
Use of kinetic inhibitors; they slow down the kinetics of formation.
Use of anti-conglomerants; they allow hydrates to form but not to stick together
Raising the operational temperature window of the pipeline (maintaining the pressures and
temperatures outside the hydrate formation conditions)
Lowering the water dew-point in the hydrate forming regime (dehydration)
Research addresses the development of so-called low dosage gas hydrate inhibitors that
either act to delay nucleation or prevent growth while being present at low concentrations
(typically less than 1% of the water contents) (36).

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 41 of 87

The Phase equilibrium diagram for the system CO2/H2O is shown in Figure 10-4.

10-4: Phase equilibrium diagram CO2/H20 (37)

The CO2-H2O hydrate system has been studied by for example (37), (38).
As Figure 10-4 illustrates, within the operating window for offshore CO2 pipelines, hydrates
will be stable when the temperature is below 283 K (9.85C). It should be noted that the
experimental work behind this figure is based upon water saturated mixtures of CO2. The
presence of free water will definitely enhance hydrate formation. There are indications that
hydrates also can form under conditions above the water dew point of the actual CO2-H2O
system. These are reported to be difficult to create under laboratory conditions. The following
conditions are necessary to get hydrates (39).

The right combination of temperature and pressure (low temperature, high pressure)
Presence of hydrate forming molecules
A suitable amount of water.

Furthermore, hydrate forming is enhanced by turbulence (especially in connection with choke


valves, presence of nucleation sites like welding spots and pipe fittings and the presence of
free water.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 42 of 87

The equilibrium in the hydrate region depends on the amount of water present:

For a large amount of water, the equilibrium is between water and the hydrate
For a small amount of water, the equilibrium is between a gas and the hydrate
If the mixture is very lean on water, no hydrate will form.

As the figure shows, water saturated CO2 will form hydrates below 283 K (9.85 C).
The water saturation condition can occur when there is a temperature drop of the CO2 in
relation to pressure reduction. This is encountered for example during the blow down of a
pipeline or downstream a valve during part filling of the pipeline. Dehydrating the mixture is
likely to reduce the hydrate forming temperature. We did not find reports of occurrence of
hydrates for the existing land based CO2 pipelines in the USA. This can be due to the fact
some of them operate most of the time above the hydrate temperature (although winter
temperatures in the USA can be low enough to get into the hydrate stable region) or due to the
low water contents (much lower than theoretically needed to avoid free water.

The Weyburn pipeline is expected to encounter low enough temperatures during winter, but
due to the separation process, the CO2 here has a very low water contents. When sufficient
water is present as is the case in injection of CO2 for EOR in oil wells, hydrate formation is
taken into account and dealt with. An offshore pipeline on the Norwegian Continental Shelf
will along most of its length transport CO2 within the hydrate stable region.

Within the scope of this study we found very little information about hydrate forming
conditions in both pure CO2 and CO2 with impurities when there is an absence of free water.
The question remains if the water solubility limit is a non-conservative limit for the allowable
water contents of the CO2. When taking into account that CO2 hydrates are likely to form
below 283 K rather than free water (although we can expect equilibrium between these two as
well), the question remains what the maximum allowable water content is to avoid formation
of stable hydrates.

We can at this stage not rule out that these water levels are below the limit needed to avoid
liquid water drop out. As the fluid is exposed to turbulent flow, possibly more factors are
governing hydrate formation than the thermodynamic equilibrium alone. This is an area that
should be further investigated, including how the impurities affect the formation of hydrates
in unsaturated (dry) CO2.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 43 of 87

10.4 Water Solubility

The water solubility in dense phase CO2 increases with pressure and temperature. This is
different from supercritical natural gas which has a decreasing water content with increasing
pressure. It is therefore not safe to set a dew point requirement at the highest operating
pressure.
Available measurement data for the CO2-H2O system are mostly at higher temperatures; only
a small amount of experimental data can be found within the pressure-temperature range of
interest for offshore pipeline transport of CO2. An overview of available experimental data on
water solubility of H2O in pure CO2 is provided in (40).
Figure 10-5 below shows the relation between pressure and maximum water contents based
upon data from (38) (41) within the temperature and pressure regions applicable for an
offshore pipeline. The water content is in mole%. The graph shows that the water solubility
decreases with pressure and temperature.
0,4
62.1 bar
0,35
82.8 bar
0,3 103.4 bar
Mole % water

0,25 137.9bar

0,2

0,15

0,1

0,05

0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Degrees Celcius

10-5: maximum water solubility in CO2 (38).

It must also be noted that the water solubility of CO2 shows a minimum value within the gas
phase at pressures directly under the vapor pressure (35). The solubility of water in gaseous
CO2 at a given temperature will decrease to a minimum with increasing pressure. Further
increasing the pressure will lead to the phase transition to dense phase/liquid CO2 and the
water solubility increases again. This can be used to remove water during compression, but
can also lead to free water when pressure releasing CO2 in the dense liquid phase. The
presence of impurities in the CO2 will also influence the water solubility. Some of the
impurities will lower the water solubility. This is for example the case with H2S and CH4. In
(35) experiments and calculations for the solubility of water in pure CO2 are compared with

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 44 of 87

that of a mixture containing methane. The water solubility in the dense phase is shown to be
significantly lower. Measurements presented in (42) show that in the dense phase the
solubility can be as much as 30% lower for a mixture containing 5.3% CH4 compared to pure
CO2. In (43) the results of a literature investigation indicate that for low concentrations (up to
200 ppm) the effect of H2S on water solubility is not significant, while CH4 decreases water
solubility significantly. The same publication also reports that it did not find evidence of
cross-effects of O2 and N2 on water solubility. In (44) a water saturation prediction model is
described for CO2 mixtures with up to 5 mole% in total of CH4 and N2 in the pressure range
0.1-27.7 MPa. The model predicts water saturation values in the non-hydrate region only.
This work concludes with that at constant temperature and pressure, dilution of the CO2 by
CH4 and/or N2 will reduce the water saturation value.

To predict the solubility of H2O in CO2 it is important to note that the original form of the
Redlich-Kwong-Soave (RKS) nor the Peng-Robinson (PR) equation of state accurately
reproduces the vapor pressure of water (45). Therefore modifications of these equations must
be used, which are available (45) (35).
In (45), the results from a commercial tool using a two fluid approach are compared to
existing measurement data for pure CO2 and show reasonable agreement. A recent study (40)
from Sintef and StatoilHydro compared the calculated results for water solubility using RKS
EoS with both the Van der Waals and Huron Vidal mixing rules and the CPA (Cubic Plus
Association) with literature collected experimental data for CO2 mixtures containing CH4.
The conclusions from this study were that SRK model with Huron Vidal mixing rule is able to
calculate the solubility of H2O in these mixtures most accurate (from 3 to 9.3% average
deviation). The RKS model with Van der Waals mixing rule was found not to be able to
calculate the mutual solubilities correctly. The CPA model was found to be able to calculate
the solubilities but with less accuracy (from 9 to 35% deviation).
For the different carbon dioxide pipelines in operation, different practices for maximum
allowable water contents are used (Table 5-1). It is therefore not clear what the optimum
water contents specification is, especially with the presence of impurities. Further
investigation in to the effect of the impurities on water solubility, the availability of
experimental data and possibly further development of the thermodynamic models to
calculate the solubilities for actual CO2 mixtures will be needed to set safe water
specifications.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 45 of 87

11 Fracture Propagation in CO2 Pipelines

CO2 pipelines are considered to be more susceptible to fast propagating ductile fractures
compared to gas pipelines. Fast propagating ductile fractures are fractures that, once initiated,
travel for a long distance along the pipeline. In pipeline design, obviously the probability of
the occurrence of fracture has to be addressed and minimized through material selection and
dimensioning. However, once a fracture occurs, it is necessary that arrest of the fracture also
has been built into the design. This means that fast propagating ductile fractures must be
avoided through material selection and dimensioning during the design phase. In (22) a good
description of the basic mechanisms in play during fast propagating ductile fractures is
provided. The mechanisms are described as follows:

It starts with the initiation of a fracture (for example through external force)
When the driving force (internal pipeline pressure) is above a certain level, the crack
will propagate in one or both directions along the pipeline.
As long as the driving force in the region of the crack tip is above this threshold level,
the crack tip will continue to propagate. The propagation velocity is close to the speed
of sound in the pipeline steel.
As soon as the crack opens, and the fluid medium starts to leak, a pressure relief front
starts propagating in both directions.
If the pressure relief front moves faster than the crack propagates, at some point in
time the driving force at the crack tip disappears and the crack arrests
It is thus a race between these two velocities; the speed of crack propagation versus
the speed of the pressure relief front. When the pressure relief front catches up with
the crack tip, the fracture might arrest. Otherwise the fracture will keep on running
until some other barrier arrest it.

The fracture arrest properties at a given temperature and pressure depend on the wall
thickness and the material properties, particularly fracture arrest toughness. In some of the
existing CO2 pipelines the risk of fast running ductile fractures is addressed through the use of
fracture arresters. These are normally rings of metal, tightly bonded to the outer surface of the
pipeline. They function as a local increase of the wall thickness. In addition, on segmented
lines the housings of the inline block valves can double as fracture arrestors.

As mentioned above, a ductile fracture will not propagate if there is insufficient driving force
in the system to overcome the resistance to propagation of the fracture. The Batelle Two
Curve Methodology is a model of the fracture process, expressing this balance in terms of the
fracture velocity and decompression velocity curve. Supercritical CO2 decompresses as an

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 46 of 87

elastic liquid first and then as a two phase fluid (this differs from natural gas dense phase
which will decompress as a gas only, while rich gas will decompress as a gas first and then as
a two phase fluid). The implication of this is that CO2 decompresses first rapidly down to the
saturation pressure (as a liquid) and then maintains the saturation pressure during
decompression as a two phase fluid (for quite some time; there is no rapid depressurization as
with a natural gas pipeline). The risk is that the high, sustained, vapor pressure maintains the
driving force for fracture propagation. The implication of this decompression characteristic is
that the necessary toughness to arrest a fracture can be estimated by using saturation and
arrest pressure (the arrest pressure is the pressure in the pipe below which a running ductile
fracture cannot occur: it is a function of the strength and toughness of the pipeline steel, and
the diameter and wall thickness of the pipe). This approach is in reality a simplification,
ignoring the decompression of the two-phase fluid and leads to a conservative estimate. This
is further described in (46) (47).

In order to stop a fast running ductile fracture, the saturation pressure must be less than the
arrest pressure. The initial temperature and pressure at fracture initiation as well as the
presence of impurities will all have an influence on the pressure at which the decompression
path crosses the vapor liquid equilibrium in the phase diagram. This sets the saturation
pressure. The worst case here is a situation where the initial pressure is low and temperature
high. It is therefore not the design pressure that defines the worst case.

Cosham (46) reports the existence of gas decompression models with the capability to model
the decompression of mixtures that contain CO2. These are not optimized for high proportions
or pure CO2, especially with the expected impurities present in captured CO2. In (22) the
recommendation is given to full scale test the applicability of the existing models for CO2
pipelines. The motivation is that fast fracture propagation and arrest mechanisms are not
completely understood and that the existing models for assessing fracture arrest are based
upon tests with hydrocarbon gasses. For offshore pipelines the prediction is more complicated
because of the interaction of the escaping fluid with the water. In (48) it is mentioned that the
methods for calculating fracture arrest conditions are conservative when applied for offshore
pipelines, however this is not confirmed for CO2 pipelines.
Another potential dangerous effect is that the leakage of CO2 through the fracture may cool
down the pipeline steel locally due to the phase transition and consecutive expansion of the
gas. Local thermal stresses might occur that can add to the driving force at the crack tip. In
addition, carbon steels can be considered to be more brittle at low temperatures. To which
extent this is a risk for offshore pipelines, with heat transfer to the surrounding seawater is
questionable and could be further evaluated.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 47 of 87

12 Flow Assurance

Flow assurance in the wider sense of the word means the measures that have to be taken to
guarantee the flow of a fluid from the source to the delivery location. The following needs to
be calculated/modeled along the pipeline route:

mixture composition
fluid temperature
fluid pressure
flow

This is required to ensure that conditions for corrosion, hydrate formation and/or phase
changes do not occur anywhere along the pipeline.

Important for flow calculations in CO2 pipelines operating in the dense phase region are:

Choosing an appropriate flow equation.


Using as correct as possible thermodynamic and transport properties; the models
used must be compositional.
Heat transfer with the environment must be included as changes in temperature
have a larger effect on density than changes in pressure.
Special care should be taken to determine the flowing fluid temperatures.
The elevation profile along the route has to be incorporated.
CO2 is a low viscous, high density, compressible fluid when in the supercritical
state; the pressure gain or pressure loss due to changes in the elevation profile can
be equivalent or higher than the frictional pressure drop. The calculation model
must allow for rapid variation of PVT properties with pressure.
Within the operating window for offshore pipelines the density is much higher and
much more sensitive to temperature variations than natural gas. This can be seen in
Figure 4-4.
Thus the complete energy and momentum balance must be included in the
calculation model (rigorous).

Principally these requirements can be addressed with several of the available flow pipeline
modeling software available today to model steady state flow. Care however should be taken
that the way the algorithms are implemented in the software will allow for these requirements.

As with any other fluid flowing through a pipeline, its pressure and temperature are subject to
continuous change. The pressure of the fluid in the supercritical state is mainly depending on
three factors:

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 48 of 87

The effective pressure gain/loss due to the changes in elevation.


The value of the frictional pressure loss.
Kinetic effects that contribute to the total pressure loss/gain.

The effective pressure gain in its most simple way can be calculated by the accumulated effect
of the elevation differences between the start and end points multiplied with averaged
densities. This can be refined by applying several discretized pipe lengths thus minimizing the
introduced error.
As with other fluids, the calculation of the frictional pressure loss can be accomplished by
using the Darcy-Weisbach relationship, but only when dense (single) phase conditions are met
along the entire pipeline.
For calculation of the Darcy friction factor, the Colebrook White relationship (or one of the
approximations) can be used. Within the friction factor calculation, usually a pipe roughness
is defined. For design of pipelines, values around 50 microns are often used (21). This friction
factor is used to tune the pipeline model to the actual measured flow conditions, and often
established during a capacity test. Alternatively, a pipeline efficiency factor can be tuned.
Since the density is an important factor in both the calculation of friction loss and static head
it is recommended to have frequent calculations along the pipeline (detailed model
configuration).

The temperature of the fluid in the pipeline is depending on:

Its initial temperature.


Heat capacity (pressure and temperature dependent).
Compressive heating.
Joule Thomson effect related to pressure differentials (most important in gas
region or when two phase region is reached).
Heat exchange with the environment (heat transfer coefficients, ambient
temperatures).
Residence time.

Choosing the correct values for ambient temperatures and the heat exchange to the ambient
through the pipe wall is of significance as pressure and temperatures are affected by it. As
mentioned, this is especially important for modeling flow in CO2 pipelines as the density is
highly sensitive to the fluid temperature. Heat transfer is thus important for both steady state
and transient conditions. Estimating the heat transfer can be challenging for offshore pipeline
where direct readings of ambient temperature are not available and the total heat transfer
coefficient is dependent on several uncontrolled transient factors like sea water current, burial
depth, thermal conductivity in soil etc. StatoilHydro is currently studying the exterior heat
transfer coefficient for their Snhvit pipeline (49) (50)

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 49 of 87

There are limited reports regarding the suitability of the different flow equations when used
for one dimensional fluid flow for single phase transport of CO2. In (8), the AGA equation is
reported to give good results on CO2 as it also includes the compressibility of the fluid. As a
minimum the key properties of the fluid have to be considered (compressibility factor,
density, temperature, elevation and friction factor).

In the design phase one should try to avoid occurrence of two phase flow whenever possible.
This is due to the reduced transmission efficiency and related problems like slugging.
When two phase flow is expected/needed to be accounted for, the Beggs and Brill equation
with Moody friction factor has been recommended (51) (52). This is a hybrid method with a
number of advantages:

It can accommodate simultaneous gas/liquid dropout when the equation of state


predicts two phase conditions.
It is known for accuracy in predicting small liquid/gas amounts.
It functions well with all inclination angles.
It works for both single and multiphase fluids and the transition between the two
regimes is continuous.
It reduces to the standard single phase gas flow equation with Moody friction factor
outside the two phase region. All the two phase fluid properties reduce to their single
phase counter parts.
The equation uses the no-slip two phase density and viscosity and the total mixture
fluid velocity for determining the friction factor. The no-slip friction factor is the
Moody friction factor.
The equation can account for liquid hold-up (in hilly terrain) and be used to determine
flow patterns when two phase flow is encountered. The slip hold up is a function of
the non-slip hold up, which is obtained from the flash calculations with the chosen
equation of state. This is also used for the weighing factor for the two phase density,
underlining the importance of the accuracy of the equation of state in predicting the
properties in the two phase regime for the pressure drop calculation.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 50 of 87

13 Viscosity Relations and Equations of State

To be able to model the physical flow in a pipeline system, the pipeline modeling system is
dependent upon as accurate as possible point to point calculations of the transport and thermo-
dynamical fluid properties.

Often a correlation is applied for both viscosity and thermal conductivity, relating the
transport properties to the density and temperature. The alternative is to use fixed or tabulated
values. For pure CO2 a number of highly accurate viscosity relations have been developed.
As measurement data usually is available only as pressure and temperature dependent data,
the derived equations are highly dependent upon the use of a suitable EoS for the
determination of the density, as the correlations are typically expressed as functions of density
and temperature.

A recent viscosity correlation for pure CO2 is described in (53), and modified in (54) after
observation of large differences between old and new data on viscosity of CO2 in the liquid
phase. For the pressures and temperatures encountered in dense phase pipeline transport of
CO2 this correlation shows a 2.0 % uncertainty. In connection to this, another, simplified,
correlation for the thermal conductivity is given in (53), with an estimated 5.0 % uncertainty
within the pipeline transport regime. This correlation is used in the program REFPROP for
pure CO2.

Another model based upon polynomial regression of viscosity to the NIST data for pure CO2
is presented in (55). This model is valid from -1.1 to 82.2 C and 7.6 to 24.8 MPa. This
correlation is reported to show little deviation from measurement data (less than 1%) except
around the critical point, where errors can be as high as 18%.

Not many references were found for viscosity data of CO2 mixtures with the range of
impurities discussed in Chapter 5. It is therefore difficult to give an estimation of the effect
upon the calculated viscosity when the pure model is used, as this is not backed up by actual
measurement data. Most publications deal with CO2 mixtures containing hydrocarbons, for
use in reservoir simulation in connection with enhanced oil recovery. Also the CO2-ethane
system is well studied. Reference to corresponding state viscosity models like Pedersen and
Lohrenz-Bray-Clark (LBC) as used for gas and liquid density are given in (56). In this
publication it is noted that for temperatures under and pressures over the critical point, these
viscosity models do not fit so well the experimental data. Especially LBC can give up to 20%
underestimation of the viscosity. From simple sensitivity calculations performed in

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 51 of 87

connection to this study indicate that variation in viscosity may not affect the pressure drop as
much as an equivalent variation in density.

Regarding the use of equations of state to predict the properties of both pure CO2 and its
mixtures: early literature refers to the use of the Benedict-Webb-Rubin-Starling (BWRS)
equation of state (8) (47) for both purposes. It is noted here that the compressibility factor Z,
which is an output value from an EoS, varies a lot more as function of temperature and
pressure within the pipeline transport regime than is the case with natural gas. In addition it
changes non-linearly with pressure for both pure CO2 and high purity CO2 mixtures. To use a
linear approximation would most likely give rise to too high velocity and pressure drop
predictions (8). For this reason it is recommended to use an EoS for accurate point-to point
calculations of the relevant properties. This is further compounded with the presence of
impurities in the CO2.

A reference equation of state for pure CO2 has been proposed by Span and Wagner (57)
showing differences between predicted and measured values for density in the range of
0.05%. This EoS is a fundamental equation of state expressed as function of the Helmholtz
energy. Data generated with this EoS is available at the NIST webbook (15).

One can find in the literature other equations of state reported as suitable for CO2 as a pure
fluid. One of these is the Patel-Teja-Valderama (58). This adaption from the Patel-Teja (PT)
EoS reduces the mathematical complexity through eliminating the need to solve the third
cubic equation (additional compared to the basic cubic equations of state) of the P-T EoS.
This is accomplished through using the critical compressibility factor as generalizing
parameter. Another option is the generalized cubic EOS for pure fluids from Kiselev and Fly
(59). This is an EoS with 10 adjustable parameters. According to (59) this EOS is able of
reproducing the thermodynamic and transport properties of CO2 within 0.5-2% accuracy.

Some reviews of the applicability of EoS for determining the thermodynamical properties of
CO2 have been published in recent years. In (60) the ability of common cubic equations of
state; Redlich-Kwong-Soave (RKS), Peng-Robinson (PR) and PT to predict density of pure
CO2 and binary mixtures were reviewed. In addition the effect of volume shifting of PR and
RKS was examined. The results for pure CO2 were that RKS showed absolute average errors
from 6.31% in the supercritical region upto 13.38% in the liquid region. With Peneloux
volume correction these errors became respectively 2.49% and 2.83%. Using the PR EoS
showed absolute average errors from 2.11% in the supercritical region up to 2.20 % in the
liquid region. With Peneloux volume correction these errors became respectively 2.32% and
1.81%. The PT-Mathias EoS gave the following results: absolute average errors from 2.12%
in the supercritical region upto 3.06% in the liquid region. With the original PT EoS these

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 52 of 87

errors became respectively 7.14% and 2.83%. For the mixtures, a comparison was made with
existing data on CO2-H2S mixtures. The general observations here were similar to that of the
pure component results.

Another recent review of the suitability of different EoSs (35) compared density data from
NIST for pure CO2 with predictions from Lee-Kesler (LK), BWRS and RKS equations of
state. The LK EoS was found to be the most accurate, falling within 4.7% within the
considered temperature range from 0 to 37 C and pressure range from 20 to 100 bar.
The RKS model showed the largest deviation of 26% while the BWRS model shows 12%.
The deviations are largest in the dense fluid phase, especially at temperatures close to the
critical point. However, RKS under predicted density consistently in the fluid phase over the
entire pressure and temperature range. In (61) a comparative study of EoS for pipeline
transport of CO2 is presented. In this study BWRS, RK, PR, PRBM (PR with Boston-Mathias
alpha function) and RKS simulations were compared quantitatively for CO2 and mixtures.
The simulations were performed with the Aspen simulation tool and were not verified against
experimental data. Mixtures that were considered were binary CO2 with respectively N2, Ar,
H2S and SO2. Critical temperature, bubble point pressure and density were considered. The
conclusions from this work are that RK is least suitable to predict critical temperature and
density while RKS is not suitable for predicting density. The work also shows simulation
results of a 320 km 32 pipeline transporting two different CO2 compositions. The predicted
outlet temperature and pressure were compared for the five EoSes. The results showed that
the BWRS results were inconsistent with the others.

For the relevant CO2 mixtures as presented in Chapter 5, there is generally very limited data
published about the applicability of existing EoS and the applicable mixing rules and
parameters. Most of the EoS mentioned here are developed for hydrocarbons with a low
partial pressure of CO2. In (17), the GERG2004 EoS is described. This wide-range EoS, for
natural gases and other mixtures, is based upon largest experimental set of data for relevant
CO2 mixtures that we could find within the scope of this study. There is at least a partial
overlap with the expected compositions presented in Chapter 11. This EoS has a calculated
error of 0.1% in density and 0.5-1% in speed of sound for pure CO2. In addition it is based
upon measurement data on a number of binary mixtures of high purity CO2.

There is no real consensus which EoS should be used in flow modeling of CO2 pipeline
transport, especially when impurities are present. RKS is reported from several sources to
give large errors while PR is deemed more applicable due to its higher accuracy for near pure
CO2. The GERG2004 is probably today the most suitable within the range of the actual high
purity CO2 mixtures it is based upon. For different CO2 mixtures different EoSes might be
the preferred choice; not one EoS may cover all possible mixtures to the same degree of

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 53 of 87

accuracy. In addition, the complexity of the EoSes varies a lot, which will have an effect
upon the choice for use in flow simulation.
It is therefore still advisable to check the accuracy and consecutively tune the EoS of choice
against experimental data for the actual CO2 mixture to be transported.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 54 of 87

14 Metering and measurement

Measurement and instrumentation is in principle similar to natural gas pipelines.


Instrumentation is located at metering stations at the pipeline inlet and outlet, and in case of
some land based pipelines, at the block valves dividing the pipeline into segments.

Metering stations can contain instruments for flow, pressure, temperature, density, moisture
contents and composition. Included can be inlet and outlet shutoff valves, pressure relief
valves and blow down pipe stacks.

For compositional analysis of the CO2, gas chromatography is used. This is same technology
that is used in natural gas transport. Flow is typically measured with orifice meters (10),
turbine meters or Coriolis meters. An orifice meter calculates the pressure differential over a
calibrated orifice opening at (near) adiabatic conditions. A so called flow computer is used to
calculate the actual flow from this in combination with determination of the density, either by
using a density meter or calculated from CO2 composition together with pressure and
temperature measurement data. The accuracy of such measurement is thus very dependent
upon getting the density right (which depends upon the calculation using an EoS and accurate
pressure and temperature measurement). In (10) it is reported that orifice meters can achieve
accuracies on mass flow measurement for custody transfer around 0.75%. Turbine meters
can achieve accuracy ranging from 0.25%-1.0%. Coriolis meters can achieve accuracies of
0.1 % in single phase flow. Coriolis methods measures mass flow directly and are therefore
not affected by changes in temperature, pressure, density, viscosity and flow profile. They are
also today able to deal with two phase flow in a more accurate way than earlier. It is however
uncertain if the mentioned accuracy can be achieved in practice when measuring dense phase
CO2.

For any instrumentation used on CO2 pipelines, the special requirements regarding material
choice of sealants and gaskets for dense phase CO2 have to be taken care of.

Measurement of water contents is a necessity at the entrance of a CO2 pipeline made from
carbon steel. Instead of a dew point measurement, it is more suitable to use a moisture
analyzer. There are several choices of moisture analyzers on the market that can be used with
CO2.

Early experience with measurement systems are reported in (62). Experience shows that
pipeline measurement stations have to be located some distance from compressor stations to
avoid pulsation effects. On turbine meters, debris (originating from solids in the fluid stream)

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 55 of 87

collects on blades and accumulates in bearings. This gives extra drag, affecting thus the
accuracy. Problems were reported regarding seals on measuring equipment. Best experience
was with EPDM seals that have 85 durometer hardness. This can handle explosive
decompression during a blow down. Problems with seals become more severe with wider
variations in operating conditions. For provers (sample taking) seals were a real challenge
as they must be both wear resistant and be able to deal with CO2. The worst combination
reported was teflon on a chrome plated surface. Contamination of meter tubes and meters by
lubricants that gets into the CO2 stream from compressors was observed as a problem for
measurement accuracy.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 56 of 87

15 Monitoring and control

This chapter discusses the monitoring and control aspects of CO2 pipelines. This includes
integrity assessment, monitoring and control systems as well as leak detection.

Integrity assessment of land based CO2 pipelines is typically done through visual inspection.
Integrity assessment of the pipeline with a smart pig is also viable, but very few inspections
runs with pigs are reported. Additional monitoring of internal corrosion is typically done by
using corrosion coupons that are checked periodically (63).

The inspection pigging operations identified in this project are the pigging of the 14 part of
the (189 km) Weyburn pipeline in 2004 by BJ Pipeline Inspection Services. A Kinder Morgan
pipeline was also recently pigged, but details of this were not available for this study. A
project with the objective to do an inspection run on a CO2 pipeline is now being planned
according to Inline Services Inc. The results will be presented in a paper at the Pipeline
Pigging & Integrity Management Conference in Houston, during February 2008. Inline
Services uses a special urethane on the pig when they pig CO2 pipelines. Inspection pigging
of CO2 pipelines is not routinely done and regarded as more difficult than natural gas pipeline
pigging. The big concern is the friction wear through the line. If the cups on the pig get worn
down too much the pig can stop in the pipeline since the CO2 will bypass the pig instead of
pushing it. Supercritical carbon dioxide permeates in or dissolves all the elastomers present in
the pig, like in the cups and the wiring and causes them to deteriorate rapidly.

The combination of the permeation and the extremely dry (low lubricity) environment
existing in carbon dioxide pipelines also causes rapid cup wear. Insufficient preparation prior
to in-line inspection can result in inspection tools being damaged or destroyed, and may result
in the necessity of an expensive pipeline shutdown to recover the tool (64). A possible
practice is to purge the pig sluice with nitrogen prior to launching the pig. This will avoid the
ingress of oxygen into the pipeline. When elastomers are used there are controversial opinions
about the need of a pre-cursor lubricant, but the elastomers have to be replaced after pigging
(similar as is the case with pigging of a natural gas pipelines; but the associated problems are
more severe when pigging CO2, as the elastomers are not only destroyed due to mechanical
wear but also through the interaction with the fluid). CO2 both diffuses into elastomers and
acts as a solvent. During depressurization, the diffused CO2 expands and destroys the internal
structure of the elastomer (explosive decompression). Subsea pigging with the pipeline
terminating at a template implies a subsea pig receiving facility.

There are still uncertainties related to how pigging can be done with longer pipelines and
higher pressures. Questions arising are if large elevation differences will not give rise to
problems with elastomers due to the experienced sudden pressure differential along the way
causing explosive decompression and if the elastomers will last over the entire distance from

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 57 of 87

a wear perspective. Long offshore pipelines will give larger distances over which the pig
needs to travel from launcher to receiver. The distance travelled can be a lot longer than is the
case for land based pipelines, where additional pig receivers and launchers are easily included
along the route.

SCADA (Supervision, Control and Data Acquisition) systems for CO2 pipelines are in
principal similar to that used to control other gas and liquid pipelines. A SCADA system
monitors, processes, transmits and displays pipeline data for the controller/operator. At its
basic level the SCADA system collects real time data from the field instruments, settings of
valves etc. Advanced SCADA systems can include predictive modelling to deal with what
if-scenarios and handle automatic start-up and shutdown. SCADA systems can be used
directly for leak detection, they might provide support for the Leak Detection System (LDS)
or the LDS operates independent from it. The LDS relies on data from the field instruments.

Both the Snhvit and Weyburn pipeline have advanced computational leak detection systems.
These systems use real time transient modeling. Real time transient modelling involves real
time modelling/computer simulation of the pipeline. It predicts the size and location of the
leak through comparing the measured data for a segment of the pipeline with the predicted
model conditions.

A 3 step process is followed in order to detect the presence of a leak:

1. The pressure flow profile is calculated based upon the measurements at the
pipeline segment entrance.
2. The pressure flow profile is calculated based upon the measurements at the
pipeline segment exit.
3. The two profiles are overlapped and a leak is located there where the two profiles
intersect (and exceeding a set tolerance).

The model can be tuned to distinguish between instrument errors, normal transients and leaks
The system used on the Weyburn pipeline uses input from two Coriolis mass flow meters at
each end of the pipeline. The pressure and temperature measurements at the 12 intermediate
valve stations are used within the model for adaptive tuning of the thermal conditions along
the pipeline route. A potential leak location can be detected within three kilometres and the
total volume lost is reported by the system. The system is based upon the use of proprietary
flow modeling software and the system was developed and installed by Advantica in Houston.
It uses real time transient modelling to detect leaks. The Snhvit pipeline uses a system
supplied by Kongsberg.

CO2 is considered as a challenging liquid, partially due to its compressibility, and is therefore
challenging for computational leak detection. Most important for leak detection of CO2 is the

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 58 of 87

thermal modelling capability and the choice of heat transfer coefficients and ambient
temperatures (due to temperature dependency of density). This is much more important than
the accuracy of pressure prediction. This poses particularly a challenge for long offshore
pipelines, where pressure and fluid temperature measurement will be limited to inlet and
outlet.

In connection to this there is uncertainty about the interaction of the escaping CO2 from a leak
in a subsea pipeline with the surrounding seawater. There is a potential that hydrates and dry
ice are formed around the leak. This can potentially interfere with leak detection.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 59 of 87

16 Operational issues

The issues related to the operation of CO2 pipelines are discussed in this Chapter.

16.1 Ready for operation (RFO):

After a pipeline has been installed, a procedure for commissioning the pipeline is carried out.
This procedure involves at least testing of the integrity of the pipeline, dewatering, drying,
cleaning and initial filling. Integrity testing of CO2 pipelines can be done through hydrostatic
testing, similar to that with natural gas pipelines. After hydrostatic testing has been conducted
successfully, the pipeline needs to be dewatered and dried. For CO2 pipelines this is even
more critical than is the case with a natural gas pipeline due to the corrosive effect of wet CO2
(and potential problems with hydrate formation).

One possible procedure is to us a combination of dry air and pigs followed by filling with dry
CO2. Another reported way of drying and initial filling is to use nitrogen with a dew point of
-34 C. Pressurizing up with nitrogen will also allow the detection of leaks. As CO2 has a
lower viscosity than water, minor leaks might not be detected during hydrostatic testing.
Subsequently the nitrogen is exchanged with dry CO2 during initial filling of the pipeline.
Special care has to be taken that cavities in valve bodies and measurement stations do not
retain/trap water. It is advisable to have a dewatering/drying strategy for all components of the
pipeline. Care has to be taken during initial filling up of the pipeline to avoid rapid cooling
down of the expanding CO2 fluid behind the inlet valve. Heating of the CO2 to counter
cooling effects on the pipeline during filling can be considered.

16.2 Packing/depacking the pipeline

Packing or de-packing a pipeline typically occurs when there is a shutdown at respectively the
downstream or upstream side of the pipeline. With a natural gas pipeline, the high
compressibility of the gas means that with an upstream shutdown, pipeline production
downstream can continue for relatively long times through depacking the pipeline (line pack
survival). As CO2 is transported as a dense phase liquid, the compressibility is less and
therefore survival times on the line pack must be expected to be a lot shorter.

When a pipeline is packed up from pressure below the dense phase, care needs to be taken
that behind the main valve the expansion of the dense phase CO2 does not result in locally
very low temperatures. This can potentially freeze the valve. Having a phase transition from
fluid to gas in the valve body (throttling) is undesired as experience has shown that this leads

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 60 of 87

to erosive wear of the valve seats. The reason for this is that the phase transition leads to a
high volumetric expansion causing very high gas velocities.

16.3 Blowdown/depressurization

Land based pipelines in the USA are often segmented by block valves. The pipeline can then
be isolated in shorter sections. This gives the possibility to depressurize one segment at a
time. Blow down facilities must be specifically designed for CO2 and account for the phase
transition from dense phase liquid to gas when emitting to the atmosphere. A typical blow
down arrangement for a sectored land based pipeline is described in (65). A blow down test
with such equipment is also described in this publication. A blow down of a 12 km long, 16
pipeline section from 138 bara to atmospheric pressure was conducted within 5 hrs. During
this test the ground CO2 concentrations and the temperature of the exiting carbon dioxide
were measured. The maximum concentration of CO2 measured was 0.2 % occurring after 40
minutes, downwind of the pipeline in a depression in the terrain. The pressure/temperature
profile of the test showed that the temperature does not drop significantly until the saturation
pressure is reached. From saturation pressure down to 20 bara, the temperature did drop
significantly, reaching -2 C. From 20 bara down to atmospheric pressure the temperature
went up again. Theoretical calculations in the same publication of blow down of a 16 km
long 16 pipeline indicated a minimum temperature reached of -47 C. A typical blow down
configuration for a land based CO2 pipeline is shown in Figure 16-1.

Figure 16-1: Blow down facility at the Jackson Dome, operated by Denbury Onshore LLC.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 61 of 87

Figure 16-1 shows the blow down equipment at the Jackson Dome, operated by Denbury
Onshore LLC. The blow down equipment consists of two 8 stack pipes at either side of the
20 ball valve separating the pipeline from the processing equipment. Between the two 8
stacks there is a 3 bypass. This is used to equalize pressure during opening and closing of the
main ball valve. The blow down stack itself is isolated from the pipeline by an 8 ball valve.
At the end of the 8 stack pipe there is a 4 stack pipe ending in a cheaper globe valve. The
pressure is equalized during closure of the 20 ball valve. After the main valve is closed, the
bypass valve is also closed and the 8 ball valve opened. Subsequently the 4 globe valve at
the end of the blow down stack is opened and blow down commences. The system is
regulated manually and phase transition from liquid to gas occurs in the 4 globe valve. The
4 valve is sacrificial as expansion of CO2 in the valve body causes high gas velocities. This
can cut the valve seats. Reported blow down times for a 20 km long section of the 20
pipeline is 8 hours.

Dry ice can be seen during blow down, but blockage of the passages does normally not occur.
For blow down the atmospheric conditions are considered important. On overcast, rainy days
without wind, experience tells that the CO2 will collect at ground level without dispersing. At
sunny, windy conditions no problems are reported. The experience thus says that for short
pipeline sections the temperature during blow down can be controlled by slow
depressurization and sufficient heat transfer from the ambience.

For offshore pipelines it will be impossible to blow down in segments as the blow down stack
will be located onshore. Experience with blow down of CO2 pipelines on land might therefore
not be directly transferrable. For very long offshore pipelines, especially with large elevation
differences, problems might arise. Dry ice and hydrate formation might be an issue due to the
cooling down of the expanding medium, if the blow down has to be performed within a
reasonably short time interval. For subsea pipelines cooling of the pipe wall below the
freezing point of the ambient seawater might lead to build up of ice on the outside of the
pipeline. This can cause instability of the pipeline due to positive buoyancy of the external
ice layer. For a trenched pipeline, freezing of liquefied masses surrounding the pipeline can
cause instability in a similar manner.

StatoilHydro has constructed a test rig that can be used to study the blow down of a long,
offshore pipeline amongst other transient operational phenomena. The test rig was constructed
to establish the operation window and specifications of subsea CO2 pipelines and to train the
operators of the Snhvit pipeline. The rig and some of the work conducted are described in
(49), (50). Test results from this rig are used to verify a depressurization model. Initial test
and modeling results show that during depressurization the flow regime changes from single
phase to two phase flow. A transition front moves through the pipeline starting at the blow
down location and propagating further along the pipelines as the pressure at each location

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 62 of 87

drops below the boiling point. With dropping pressure, the temperature also drops. When the
liquid is completely vaporized, the flow becomes single phase. During depressurization tests
conducted with this test rig, temperatures as low as -30 C were encountered.
During a controlled blow down of a long offshore pipeline, one possible solution is to first
replace the fluid CO2 by nitrogen gas and then depressurizing the nitrogen filled pipeline. This
would be a costly option and might not be feasible in case of an emergency blow down (when
there is for example a leak).

16.4 Dynamic effects

CO2, when transported as a fluid, has roughly the same density as water. It is therefore
showing a more severe dynamic response on abrupt closure or opening of valves compared to
transport of natural gas. So-called water hammer might occur when the fluid is abruptly
stopped or forced to change direction. The resulting pressure wave can cause local over
pressurization of the pipeline, leading to breakage. The phenomena can be mitigated through
maintaining low fluid velocities, and avoiding abrupt closures of valves. For dense CO2 this
effect is expected to be of less magnitude than with water due to the higher compressibility of
the fluid. In case a valve is opened rapidly, an isenthalpic pressure reduction might be
initiated through the valve body. When the pressure drop is high enough, the temperature of
the CO2 will drop and there is a risk of freezing the valve or creating dry ice or hydrates (there
is a large enthalpy change from liquid to gas phase). Using a bypass on valves during
opening/closing will assist pressure equalization between the upstream and downstream side
of the valve and to avoid destruction of valve seats due to expansion of the CO2. Proper start
and stop procedures are thus important for CO2 pipelines.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 63 of 87

17 Maintenance Aspects

Some special considerations have to be taken with regard to the maintenance of CO2
pipelines. The following special requirements apply (28) (63) (66) :

Maintenance of valves
Ball valves that use grease for sealing need to be repacked periodically. At Dakota
Gasification Company the interval is every three months. The reason for this is that even
when dedicated lubricants are used, CO2 will slowly dissolve it over time.

Inspection pigging
Inspection pigging is performed to check for external corrosion and external damage to buried
CO2 pipelines. Internal corrosion checks, dimensional checks and structural integrity checks
can also be performed during pigging. Intelligent pigging is further described in Chapter 16.

Scraper pigging
After commissioning very little moisture drop-out (free water) is witnessed. A number of
sources from the USA report that the need for scraper pigging is more or less redundant (28).

Internal Corrosion Monitoring


The established method is the use of corrosion coupons. Intervals differ from site to site.

Hop tap welding


Hottap procedures for CO2 pipelines have been developed and been successfully carried out
for land based pipelines (66).

Pipeline Intervention
Within this study it did not become clear if there are differences for pipeline intervention of
an offshore CO2 pipeline compared to other offshore pipelines.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 64 of 87

18 Risk Assessment, Health Environment and Safety

Although CO2 itself not a poisonous gas, there are health risks related to the exposure to CO2.
Firstly, at accidental release through a leak or pipeline rupture, it replaces air and can thus be
life threatening. Over 10 volume % CO2 is immediately hazardous to life (67) (68).
Secondly, exposure to decompressing CO2 can lead to very low temperatures with the
associated risk of frost burn.

Figure 18-1: Footage of a CO2 pipeline leak caused by nearby digging operations.

Figure 18-1 shows a leak in an 8 CO2 pipeline after nearby digging activities accidentally
damaged the pipeline. The digger operator suffered non-life threatening injuries. The
resulting leak was sealed off shortly after the accident and later a new piece was welded into
the pipeline.

In (68) (67) risk reviews of CO2 transport are presented. Statistics of pipeline incidents from
the Office of Pipeline Safety from the US Department of Transportation show that during the
period from 1990 to 2001 10 incidents were reported in the USA for CO2 pipelines. There will
thus be incidents with CO2 pipelines and these therefore must be designed, constructed,
operated and maintained to mitigate the adverse effects of incidents.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 65 of 87

Incidents can results from outside force, corrosion, pipe material or weld failure, operational
mistakes etc. The density of CO2 is higher than that of air and will collect in lower areas,
displacing air and thus potentially acting as an asphyxiant.

The USA EPA reported that during the period from 1948-1999, there were 62 incidents with
CO2 leading to 119 deaths and 152 injuries, most related to accidents with fire extinguishing
systems. In 1986, a cloud of natural CO2 erupted from Lake Nyos in Cameron, sweeping
down surrounding valleys leading to the death of more than 1700 people.

An overview of the acute toxicity of CO2 is given in (67). In itself CO2 has a low toxicity, but
when levels rise above 2% it has a physiological effect, raising breathing rate and causing
dizziness, headache, higher blood pressure and heart beat rates. Above concentrations of 4%,
CO2 exposure may give rise to health problems. Above 7% unconsciousness occurs and
subsequent death may occur when levels exceed 10%. The actual effect of CO2 exposure on
individuals however differs from person to person.

It is important to notice that CO2 is heavier than air so it will collect in low laying terrain.
Liquid CO2 has a very high expansion factor as it changes phase when decompressing. It is
recommended to depressurize a CO2 pipeline prior to any repair (28).

When leaks occur, toxic impurities can be setting the safe limits rather than the CO2 itself.
This is specifically the case with H2S and SO2. The original level of the impurities might
actually set the necessary dilution factor of the CO2 with the ambience to fall within safe
limits for human exposure. This has been further discussed in (13), (24), (43) and in Chapter
6. Some of the impurities are highly flammable, like hydrogen and methane. The venting
system of CO2 stream containing components that are poisonous should be considered to be
flared (63). With a release of CO2 from a leak, vent or depressurization stack, low
temperatures might be reached for both the CO2 stream and the local pipeline material.
Exposure to a stream of expanding CO2 can cause cold burn of the skin. The expansion of the
gas during the phase transition will also give a thrust, potentially displacing a pipeline in case
of a leak.

Dispersion of a CO2 pipeline rupture has been modeled (69). This work concludes that the
risk associated with an accidental release from a CO2 pipeline cannot be dismissed. They will
likely endanger workers and surrounding population. At Gexcon, work is ongoing to develop
CFD based dispersion models that also account for underwater dispersion of CO2 in case of a
leak. There is currently no reference available about the effect of a subsea accidental release
of CO2 through a pipeline rupture upon marine life. In such a case there can also be an
associated risk for nearby vessels through the loss of buoyancy when a CO2 gas cloud
surfaces.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 66 of 87

19 USA CO2 Pipeline Transport Experience

Experience in the USA both based upon literature reports and site visits are included in this
chapter.

19.1 Sheep Mountain Facilities


A sum up of the early experience with sheep mountain pipeline is provided in (6) (7).

Dehydration specification:
The engineers involved in the design of the Sheep Mountain facilities noted that when better
CO2-H2O equilibrium data became available, they could have designed the dehydration
facilities to allow for a higher water contents in the pipeline. Reported is that 500 ppm (wt)
would meet the maximum allowable water content criteria. The dewatering unit could then
have been designed, taking into account a safety factor 2, for 250 ppm (wt). This would have
reduced the size and cost of the dewatering system.

Dewatering after hydrostatic testing:


After hydrostatic testing, the pipeline had to be dried out to a minimum dew point of -40 C.
Hot dehydrated air was used for the pipeline while dry nitrogen gas was used for drying the
stations. The air was used to propel about 300 poly- and swab pigs through each drying
segment. It became apparent that the construction specification should include requirements
detailing exactly what parts of the system should be dehydrated (valve bodies, station piping
etc.) and to what specification. After completion of drying the pipeline was pressure tested
with dry air to 10 bar and the stations to a higher pressure using dry nitrogen. The reason for
this is that carbon dioxide has a lower viscosity and will leak severely where water will not.
Problems encountered with initial filling were limited as extra care was taken to fill the
pipeline segment for segment and heating the CO2 entering the pipeline. During start up
small leaks and failure of sealing materials were encountered.
The lessons learnt from the first two years of operation are:

Questionable if all the pig launchers and receivers are necessary. The motivation was
to be able to pig for sweeping out free water. In the first two years of operation there
were no incidents of free water.
The sizing of relief and blow down systems must account for the amount of thrust
generated with the expansion of the gas to the atmosphere.
Include sacrificial valves in the blow down system due to the erosion of the valve seats
and valve body due to the high velocity of the expanding fluid.
Internal corrosion has not occurred during the first two years of operations. Therefore
the necessity of corrosion resistant valve trim should be reevaluated.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 67 of 87

Problems with elastomeric sealing materials do occur; best results were achieved with
high purity EPDM. The biggest problems occur with seals in dynamic situations (large
pressure differentials within short time periods).
Mechanical connections should be restricted to locations that can be isolated from the
mainline pressure in order for repairs to be made without depressurizing the main line.
Flanged end valves should be restricted to stations and isolated from the main line by a
welded end type valve.
The sizing of the blow down system must take into account the thrust associated with the
expansion of the CO2 from liquid to gas.
Moisture monitoring equipment experienced fouling of the probes with glycol (from
the dehydration unit).
Densitometers were not accurate enough, changing to a different supplier solved this
problem.
Actual pipeline temperatures turned out to be higher than produced by the pipeline
model.

19.2 Cortez pipeline

A sum up of the early experience with Cortez pipeline is provided in (70)

Transient behavior
Several hours are required to shift the pipeline operating conditions from one steady state to
the other due to the high compressibility of the fluid. This leads to frequent unbalanced flow
between inlet and outlet. The pipeline upstream of the active pressure reduction stations
effectively must absorb all the inventory changes. To shut down the line, first deliveries are
halted and pressures along the line are permitted to rise up to the automatic shutdown limits of
the pressure reducing stations. After all pressure reducing stations are closed, the inlet valves
from the gathering lines into the pipeline are closed.

Commissioning
During commissioning the pipeline was dried with dry air with a dew point of less than -40
C. Filling and pressurizing was done by filling with dry CO2. This whole operation took
about 6 months. After normal operation commenced, no operational problems have been
reported.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 68 of 87

19.3 Weyburn Pipeline

The summary here is the result of a site visit at Dakota Gasification Company (63). The
Dakota Gasification Company operates the Weyburn pipeline. This pipeline started operation
in the fall of 2000. DCG has thus 7 years of experience with transporting CO2 containing a
significant amount of H2S.

Pipeline design considerations


The pipeline was engineered by Gulf Interstate. No special considerations were taken with
respect to H2S; no sour service was specified. The pipeline material is X 65, ERW seamed
pipe. Additional material requirements were not deemed necessary as long as the CO2 is dry.
The pipeline does not have an internal coating. The thicker pipeline sections (under roadways
etc.) function as crack arrestors, no other measures were taken for crack arrest. For the flow
assurance in the construction phase the expected fluid mixture was considered to be close
enough to pure CO2 for the purpose of designing the pipeline. Valves are double seal metal
seat ball valves; the grease does the sealing and has to be repacked every three months as part
of a corrective maintenance program. Bypasses are used around the valves to equalize
pressure during opening/shutting. The pipeline is sectored by valve stations every 20 miles.
This sectioning is to minimize risk for the public and is based on cloud dispersion modelling
(by ENSR). H2S is the main concern here.

Pipeline Measurement and Control


Pipeline measurement and control is done with a PMS and LDS supplied by Advantica. The
pipeline is reported to be the first CO2 pipeline with a state of the art computational leak
detection system. A lot of development work went into this system, with challenges
encountered relating to flow meter accuracy and tuning of the model. It is an adaptive
system, tuning/calibrating the model when a leak warning is deemed false. The pipeline has
an online water analyser at the entrance. It is not linked to an automatic shutdown system.
The temperature and pressure transmitters are normal technology similar to those used on
natural gas pipelines filling the regulatory requirements. The pipeline has a PPS (Pressure
Protection System). There is no online gas chromatograph to continuously monitor CO2
composition. Samples are taken every shift to check actual composition.

Pigging
To our knowledge this is the first CO2 pipeline that is smart pigged. BJ-Technical in Canada
developed a smart pig capable of withstanding dense phase CO2 at pressures up to 186 barg.
The pig incorporates inspection equipment for monitoring both damage and external corrosion
of the pipeline steel. The elastomers were damaged after pigging and needed to be replaced
No precursor lubricant was applied. They use Nitrogen to initially fill and pressurize the pig
launcher and to drive the pig into the pipeline in order to avoid dry ice. During RFO, when
running the geo-tool, presence of iron sulphide (due to interaction with H2S) was witnessed.
This was not the case after the first smart pigging in 2005.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 69 of 87

Operational Philosophy
Typically, the pipeline is run in steady state operation. If a stop occurs at DCG the pipeline is
packed down to a minimum pressure. If a stop occurs at Weyburn the pipeline is packed up to
MAOP. After that, the valves are shut or the compressors are run in cycling.

Because of the toxicity of H2S, blow down of the pipeline is done through the flare at the
Gasification Plant, in order to combust the H2S. The CO2 flow is mixed with combustible
gasses from the plant and the mixture is ensured to have at least 17 MJ/Sm3.

Blow down is a manual operation, controlled by pressure, using constant enthalpy lines in the
enthalpy diagram as a guide to avoid that pipeline steel and fluid temperatures are not getting
too low.

Experience during 7 years of operation


Water hammer effects have not been witnessed: This might be attributed to the care that is
taken during initial filling. This is done slowly to avoid acceleration of a liquid slug of CO2.

No significant Joule Thomson effects are witnessed, even though the pipeline is lying in hilly
terrain. This is attributed to the pipeline being buried and the soil being a large heat sink.

During operation there were not witnessed any hydrates. Corrosion checking with both
pigging and coupons show that there has not been any measurable corrosion. DCG has not
vented a section of the line entirely down to atmospheric pressure without filling it first with
pressurized nitrogen. Thus the issues related to vaporising liquid CO2 inside the pipeline were
not relevant.

Few operational problems occurred. There is no evidence that free water has ever occurred
during operation. If it would occur it is not perceived as a problem as it will dissolve in the
dense phase of subsequent batches of dry CO2. Some minor problems were encountered with
seal design and o-ring compatibility for the compressors, but none are reported regarding
seals and gaskets in valves, flanges etc.

19.4 NJED Pipeline

The summary here is the result of a site visit at the Jackson Dome (63). Denbury Onshore
LLC operates the Jackson Dome and the NJED pipeline. This 20 pipeline has been
operational for 22 years. During 2006, Denbury Onshore LLC build and commissioned a 20,
140 km long CO2 pipeline. In addition a 20 extension of the NJED line and a 24 pipeline

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 70 of 87

were installed during 2007. A short, 8 natural gas pipeline was recently converted to be
used for CO2 transport. Another natural gas pipeline will be converted for CO2 service in the
course of 2007. A new, nearly 500 km long pipeline is currently under study with a goal of
having it installed and operational in 2009. The experience of Denbury Onshore with CO2 -
pipelines is thus extensive.

Pipeline design considerations


Pipeline material used for the main lines is ERW API85-5XPL60, specified for sweet service.
The pipeline does not have an internal coating or a corrosion allowance. The outside coating
is fusion bonded epoxy. Cathodic protection is applied. The pipeline is buried to 36 top of
pipe depth. Although the existing pipeline was installed with crack arrestors the new pipelines
will not need them. For valves valve trims special materials are used; trims and seats have to
be specified to be CO2 compatible. Normal gas valves will give problems as the CO2 will
permeate through the seals. Normally, no dimensional/tolerance changes from natural gas
valves are needed. Pipe, flanges and fittings are standard except seats and seals in valves.
Both gate valves and ball valves are used. The pipelines are segmented in shorter sections.
The main reason for having short sections is to be able to refill quickly after depressurization
due to a maintenance activity.

Pipeline Measurement and Control


Supervision of the pipelines is from the control centre which receives and collects SCADA
data into a database. Moisture, Composition, Pressures, Temperatures and flow are
monitored. The LDS is based on a volume balance check, including a once a month interval to
detect small leaks. Automatic leak detection is considered difficult because of the medium
densities dependence on the temperature; the density prediction can be 5% wrong and then
affect the volume balance and pressure predictions. Leak detection is also warranted through
aerial inspection; flying once a week over the pipelines. This is a visual detection, looking for
patches and dry ice.

Pigging
Pigging facilities are included but the main pipeline has never been pigged. The smaller CO2
pipelines are pigged when contaminated with water. The procedure for this is as follows: first
displace the CO2 with nitrogen (totally) and then run pigs; once 15 gallons of water were thus
removed by pigging from a 15 miles long 8 pipeline caused by heater failure in a dewatering
unit. Inspection (smart) pigging has not been conducted yet.

Operational Philosophy
The operational philosophy is to run in steady state but the experience shows that the
pipelines are highly transient systems. When there are shutdowns at the delivery site the
pipeline will be packed up to the maximum pressure available from the dehydration units.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 71 of 87

If there is a shutdown at the supply site, the other end also shuts down. The lowest level to
which the pipeline ever was de-packed is 55 barg.

Blow-down is a manual operation; the operator therefore has to carry a CO2 monitor to
warrant his safety. At the plant the only CO2 monitoring equipment is included at areas where
CO2 can accumulate

Experience during 22 years of operation


No significant problems occurred during operation. There has been no indication of low
temperatures due to Joule Thomson effect. No hydrates have been witnessed. There once was
a leak in a transverse weld due to improper post weld treatment, but otherwise no failures
except for external intervention. No plugging of blow down valves experienced. Orifice plates
can wear out/bend which will give incorrect flow. Experience is that one can get steel
temperatures as low as -73 C during depressurization/filling without this leading to
noticeable problems with the steel. During 22 years of operation, no significant internal
corrosion of the pipeline material was witnessed (analyzing corrosion coupons and line pipe
taken out from tie-ins in 22 years of operation). The entire pipeline has never been
depressurized, but some sections have. The reasons can be a leak (seldom) or to install tie inns
for branch lines to new wells or customers for the CO2. The pipeline is sectioned in up to 24
km long lengths (branch/trunk lines to customers and EOR fields). A typical blow down time
of a 20 pipeline, 24 km long section from 97 barg to ambient pressure takes 8 hours.

During blow down, the plugging of valves is not considered a problem, but the high
expansion rate of dense phase CO2 to gas gives high thrust and velocity through the throttled
valve. This can erode the valve seats. Experience with blow down is that temperature is
locally decreased in the blow down stack. Dry ice formation is witnessed during blow down
but is not leading to blockage of the passage.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 72 of 87

20 Conclusion; remaining uncertainties and R&D needs

Within the scope of this study, no real show stoppers for offshore pipeline transport of CO2
were identified. The identified uncertainties and the following R&D needs focused towards
offshore pipeline transport of CO2 are listed in this chapter. Uncertainties arise when the
operating conditions go beyond existing experience or are related to the effect of impurities
upon the transmission system and that offshore pipelines typically are not sectored and have
longer distances between measurement stations. The current experience can very shortly be
summarized to be limited to land based pipelines, with relative short distance between main
block valves and metering stations. The pressure is above critical pressure and below 200
bara. The impurities are typically limited to low contents of CH4, N2 and some H2S.

For CO2 originating from capture processes, a CO2 mixture from e.g. amine absorption will be
very pure. However, new capture technologies are under development that can give CO2
mixtures with several new compounds at much higher concentrations. In addition offshore
pipelines may be designed for higher operating pressures than is the state- of- the- art today
(not as easy to incorporate pressure boosting stations along the pipeline route). Most of the
identified R&D issues are suitable to be included in a common R&D program. To address the
identified R&D needs is potentially of interest for several parties involved in developing the
solutions for CO2-capture and storage. Some of the R&D needs are also partially addressed in
ongoing projects or are planned to be addressed. It is therefore worthwhile to explore the
possibility if a common project can be defined with all the interested parties and/or interfaces
with already planned or ongoing R&D activities can be established

20.1 Material Aspects

Corrosion
Corrosion can be controlled through material choice and/or through avoidance of free water.
Uncertainties remain with the use of C-Mn steel regarding:
1. Prediction of corrosion rates in presence of free water: Corrosion models developed
for predicting corrosion rates of water saturated high CO2 content natural gas are
deemed not to be suitable for high purity CO2.
2. The effect of impurities on the corrosion rate in the presence of free water; the
mechanisms of CO2 corrosion in the presence of impurities is not understood entirely.
3. The incidental occurrence of free water; what can be allowed and which measures can
and should be taken to mitigate adverse effects when there is an incidence of ingress
of free water into the pipeline.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 73 of 87

R&D needs:
For applications of C-Mn steel where there is a risk of free water, further studies on
corrosion with high partial pressure CO2 with impurities, and development of suitable
corrosion models are needed.
Assessment of consequences and potential counter measures to take (e.g. corrosion
inhibitors) on incidences of free water in offshore CO2 pipelines.

on-steel material compatibility


All materials (elastomers, grease, lubricant etc) that come in contact with dense phase CO2
must be selected to be compatible. The following uncertainties remain:
1. Additional material degrading effects of impurities.
2. Functioning of seals and gaskets with higher pressures and operational pressure
variations beyond the existing experience, specially linked to explosive
decompression.
R&D needs:
Evaluate the need for additional material compatibility testing in cases where CO2
transport incorporates higher pressures and/or in the presence of new impurities.

20.2 Available measurement data

Our study indicates that experimental data for thermodynamic and transport properties at
conditions relevant for CO2 transport are few. Experimental data for binary mixtures of CO2
with compounds like H2, SO2, NO, O2, CO, COS and Ar and multi-component mixtures is
scarce. This leads to the following uncertainties:
1. To what extent the accuracy of flow modeling and pipeline control and monitoring
relies on accurate experimental data.
2. Uncertainty about the two phase region due to impurities increases the uncertainties to
be accounted for in the design process, like for example compression strategy and
setting of the minimum pressure to remain in single phase.
3. Viscosity data for CO2 mixed with other components seems to be few, especially in
the range of temperature and pressure experienced in pipeline transportation.

R&D needs:
The CO2 stream from an amine capture plant is of high purity; for transport of CO2
from this source this R&D need is not critical. With other capture technologies,
impurities are expected to be present in and this R&D need must be addressed. A more
extensive data search needs to be conducted to verify the extent of the gap in
experimental data with respect to the expected CO2 mixtures. In addition sensitivity

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 74 of 87

studies should be conducted to determine what level of uncertainties in the fluid


properties can be accepted. A follow up experimental program to fill the remaining
critical thermodynamic and transport data gap could then be defined and carried out.

20.3 Water Content

There are different opinions and practices regarding the maximum water contents. Maximum
water content depends on pressure, temperature and composition. Experimental data exist for
pure CO2. Few experimental studies consider the impact of impurities on water solubility.
Uncertainties therefore remain regarding:
1. Effect of impurities on water solubility.
2. Possible reactions between impurities increasing the water content of the mixture.
3. How conservative the currently applied limits for water contents really are.
4. If the acceptable water limit should be set to avoid free water or hydrate formation.
R&D needs:
A theoretical assessment should be made if the maximum water content specification
should be set to avoid hydrate formation or corrosion or both. This should be followed
by further investigation in to the effect of the impurities on water solubility, the
availability of experimental data and possibly further development of the
thermodynamic models to calculate the solubilities for actual CO2 mixtures. This with
the objective to be able to set safe water specifications.

20.4 Smart Pigging of long offshore CO2 pipeline

Natural gas pipelines are routinely pigged to inspect the integrity (identify deformations,
corrosion etc) of the pipelines.
Issues of concern for CO2 pigging are the wear/damage observed with cups/disks of the pig.
For long offshore pipelines there is a danger that on the way from launcher to receiver, the
cups wear out to the extent that the pressurized stream of CO2 bypasses the pig rather than
pushing it forward through the pipeline. Uncertainties remain regarding
1. Pigging of long offshore pipelines with respect to getting the pig through before the
cups/disks wear out.
2. Pigging at higher pressures than used today (over 200 barg).

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 75 of 87

R&D Needs:
The testing and possibly further development of smart CO2 pipeline pigging at
higher operational pressures and for longer travel distances. Initial testing on land
based pipelines would be desirable (easier to retrieve the pig).

20.5 Modeling

Depressurization
When the pipeline termination is subsea, as will be the case with storage in subsea aquifers,
the only blow down location is at landfall of the pipeline or at the capture plant. With the
need to control the temperature of pipeline components during a blow down, the
depressurization times can become rather large. Development of accurate modeling methods
are needed in order to understand temperature development of fluid and pipeline components.
The developed methods are then used to set safe regimes for depressurization of long offshore
pipelines.
Uncertainties remain regarding:
1. Temperature development of pipeline components during blow down of a long
offshore pipeline.
2. To establish safe depressurization procedures for long offshore CO2 pipelines, accurate
modeling is required. This necessitates accurate descriptions of the heat transfer
processes and the thermodynamic and transport properties of the actual CO2 mixture.

R&D Needs:
SINTEF and StatoilHydro are currently developing a model for depressurization of the
Snhvit CO2 pipeline. It is uncertain if commercial software for two-phase flow is
available for this purpose. It is currently not clear to what extent the results of this
work will be available for other interests. Assess the need for an additional or parallel
activity based on applicability of available modeling tools. This work should result in
the setting of safe regimes for depressurization of long offshore pipelines through
modeling combined with verificiation through experimental work.

Fracture Propagation
Dense phase CO2 has different decompression characteristics than natural gas, showing a
holding pressure during a pipeline rupture that potentially drives a running fracture. The
possibility of long running fractures has to be addressed in the design stage.
Uncertainties that are remaining:
1. Current gas decompression models are not optimized for high proportions or pure
CO2, especially with the impurities present in the captured CO2.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 76 of 87

2. The hydrostatic pressure from the sea water acting on the pipe wall might contribute to
lowering the risk of a running fracture.
3. The contribution from the interaction of the escaping CO2 with the ambient seawater
during a pipeline rupture.
4. Actual experience with CO2 pipeline fracture is reported to be scarce: no report of an
actual occurrence of a running fracture, nor test data were identified within this
investigation.

R&D Needs:
An assessment has to be made if fracture propagation is a real threat to CO2 pipelines
and if the existing requirements from the design code are enough to arrest a fracture.
This assessment should include the applicability of existing propagation models for
CO2 pipelines and what work should be done to update the models and existing
requirements if deemed necessary.

Equation of State
Equations of State are used to calculate fluid properties that are used in flow modeling: for
pure CO2 accurate EoS are available. Uncertainties remain regarding:
1. which EoS should be used for CO2 with impurities; no single recommendation has
been found which EoS to use with which composition.
2. Large variations in critical fluid properties like density when applying different
commonly used EoSes are reported.

R&D Needs:
A further assessment should be made on which EoS is valid under what conditions for
the relevant mixtures within the applicable temperature and pressure range for
offshore pipelines. When more experimental data becomes available, the accuracy of
the EoS of choice should be checked and were necessary EoS and mixing rules be
modified to match the data.

20.6 Fluid Specification

Currently, no agreed specification of allowable concentrations of impurities exists. Most of


the impurities can be transported together with the CO2 in the pipeline when their effect has
been taken into account during design and operation.
Uncertainties with respect to setting the fluid specification in a pipeline context are:
1. Chemical reactions between impurities: care should be taken that chemical
reactions do not lead to unwanted reaction products; toxic components, additional
water or atomic hydrogen.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 77 of 87

2. For natural gas pipelines the maximum allowable O2 level is set very low. It is not
clear what the safe O2 levels can be in a CO2 pipeline (Oxyfuel capturing may give
higher Oxygen levels).
3. The specification due to HES can be different for an offshore pipeline since the
toxic components may dissolve into the water.
4. The most important component that needs to be limited is the water. See above
about Water Content.

R&D Needs:
The potential chemical reactions between the impurities under relevant time, pressures
and temperatures and the potential negative effects of the reactions products need to be
mapped.
A specification should be made and agreed upon that specifies for allowable levels of
impurities in the CO2 for pipeline transport. This is currently addressed in the EU
Dynamis project. It is advisable that a link between this project and the governmental
projects for CCS from Krst and Mongstad regarding setting of transport
specifications is made.

20.7 Most critical short term needs

The ongoing CO2 capture projects in Norway will provide relatively pure CO2 to the intended
transport network. Thus, many of the R&D needs above will not be critical on the short term.
The issues that should be addressed with priority when pure CO2 is transported at high
pressure are:
Assessment of the compatibility of non-steel materials for seals and gaskets if higher
pressures and larger pressure variations are expected than commonly employed.
smart pigging of long offshore pipeline.
Setting safe regimes for blow down of a long offshore pipeline.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 78 of 87

21 References

1. Jacobs, M A. Measurement and modelling of thermodynamic properties for the processing


of polymers in supercritical fluids. Eindhoven : Eindhoven University of Technology, 2005.
2. www.chemalogic.com. [Online]
3. http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/. [Online]
4. Canyon Reef Carriers, incl CO2 pipeline description and 12 years of operation. Gill.
Dallas : ASME, 1985. ASME Pipeline Engineering Symposium.
5. The Central Basin Pipeline: a CO2 system in West Texas. McCollough. 4, December 1986,
Energy Progress, Vol. 6.
6. Sheep Mountain CO2 project Development and Operation. Watson, K and Siekkinen, D.
New Orleans : AICHE, 1986. AICHE Spring National Meeting.
7. Sheep Mountain CO2 pipeline design, operation and special studies. Wilkerson, C.W.
New Orleans : AICHE, 1986. AICHE Spring National Meeting.
8. Unusual Design Factors for Supercritical CO2 pipeline. Farris, C. 3, September 1983,
Energy Progress, Vol. 3, pp. 150-158.
9. Design and operating experience of Amocos Bravo Dome facility. George. 4, 1986, Energy
Progress, Vol. 6.
10. Marsden. Pipeline Rules of Thumb; Pipeline Measurement of Supercritical CO2. [ed.]
E.W. McAllister. Houston : Gulf Publishing Company, 1998. pp. 413-419.
11. www.dakotagas.com. [Online]
12. CO2 quality requirement for a system with CO2 capture, transport and storage.
Anheden, M, et al. 2004. GHGT7.
13. Lavalin, S:C. Impact of Impurities on CO2 Capture, Transport and Storage. s.l. : IEA
Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, 2004. PH4/32.
14. Purification of Oxyfuel derived CO2 for sequestration or EOR. White, V, Allam, R and
Miller, E. 2006. GHGT8.
15. http://www.nist.gov/data/nist23.htm. [Online]
16. Lemon, E. personal communication.
17. Kunz, O, et al. The GERG-2004 Wide-Range Equation of State for atural Gases and
Other Mixtures. Dusseldorf : VDI Vorlag, 2007.
18. Muirbrook, :.K. Experimental and thermodynamic study of the high-pressure vapor-
liquid equilibria for the nitrogen-oxygen-carbon dioxide system. Berkeley : University of
California, 1964. p. 115, PhD dissertation.
19. Densities of carbon dioxide + hydrogen sulfide mixtures from 220 K to 450 K at pressures
up to 25 MPa. Stouffer, C.E., et al. 5, 2001, J.J. Chem.Eng. Data, Vol. 46, pp. 1309-1318.
20. http://www.cdc.gov/iosh/pel88/124-38.html. [Online]
21. Carbon dioxide pipelines for sequestration in the UK: engineering gap analysis. Seevam,
P.:., Race, J.M. and Downie, M.J. Amsterdam : Pipeline Global Monthly, 2007.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 79 of 87

22. Challenges to pipeline transport of dense CO2. Bratfos, H.A.; et al. Amsterdam : Global
Pipeline Monthly, 2007. Transmission of CO2,H2,and biogas: exploring new uses for natural
gas pipelines.
23. KinderMorgan. CAPP Investment symposium presentation. [Online] 2006.
24. Hendriks, C., Hagedoorn, S. and Warmenhoven, H. Transportation of Carbon Dioxide
and Organisational issues of CCS in the etherlands. Utrecht : Ecofys, 2007.
25. www.dynamis-hypogen.com. [Online]
26. http://www.encapco2.org/index.htm. [Online]
27. Effect of Supercritical Carbon Dioxide on Construction Materials. Schremp, F.W. and
Roberson, G.R. June 1975, Journal of the Soceity of Petroleum Engineers.
28. M.Mohitpour, Golshan, H and Murray, A. Pipeline Design and Construction A
Practical Approach. New York : ASME, 2003.
29.http://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/encyclopedia.asp?LanguageID=11&CountryID=19&F
ormula=&GasID=26&Uumber=&btnMolecule.x=8&btnMolecule.y=15#MaterialCompat
ibility. [Online]
30. Meyers, J.P. Summary of carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery injection well technology.
: API.
31. CO2 pipeline design, construction and operation. L.C., Decker. 1985. 41st petroleum
mechanical engineering workshop and conference. pp. 88-107.
32. Introduction to corrosion- CO2 corrosion in pipelines. Dugstad, A. Haugesund : s.n.,
2007. USA-Norway Summerschool on Carbon Capture, Transport and Storage.
33. Corrosion at high CO2 pressure. Hesjevik, S M. Houston, 2003. Corrosion 2003.
34. Seiersten, S.M. and Kongshaug, K.O. Materials Selection for Capture , Compression ,
Transport and Injection of CO2. [book auth.] D.C. Thomas and S.M. Benson. Carbon Dioxide
Capture for Storage in Deep Geologic Formations. : Elsevier, 2005.
35. Heggum, G, et al. CO2 conditioning and transportation. [book auth.] D.C. Thomas and
S.M. Benson. Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep Geologic Formations. : Elsevier,
2005.
36. http://www.pet.hw.ac.uk/research/hydrate/publications.htm. [Online]
37. The effect of hydrate formation upon the pressure release of wet carbon dioxide.
Fredenhagen, A and Eggers, R. 8, s.l., 2001, Chem.Eng.Techn., Vol. 24.
38. Water Content of CO2 in equilibrium with Liquid Water and/or Hydrates. Song, K.Y.
and Kobayashi, R. : SPE, 1987. SPE Formation Evaluation.
39. Problem is the result of industries move to higher pressures. Carrol, J. Pipeline and Gas
Journal.
40. Thermodynamic Models for Calculating Mutual Solubilities in H2O-CO2-CH4
MIXTURES. Austegard, A, et al. A9, : IChemE, 2006, Vol. 84.
41. The Mutal Solubilities of water with Supercritical and Liquid Carbon Dioxide. King, B, et
al. 1992, Journ. of Supercritical Fluids, Vol. 5, pp. 296-302.
42. The water content of a CO2-rich gas mixture containing 5.31 mol% methane along three
phase and super critical conditions. Song, K.Y. and Kobayashi, R. 3, s.l., 1990,
J.Chem.Eng.Data, Vol. 35.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 80 of 87

43. DYAMIS CO2 quality recommendations. de Visser, E. Trondheim : Ecofys, 2007. 4thh
CCS Conference Trondheim.
44. Water saturation prediction of CO2 rich mixtures containing traces of CH4 and 2.
Dewan, A.K.R. Houston : AICHE, 1985. National Spring Meeting of AICHE.
45. Phase equilibria relevant to acid gas injection: part 2- aqeuous phase behaviour. Carrol,
J. 7, 2002, Jour. of Canadian Petroleum Tech., Vol. 41.
46. Fracture Control in CO2 pipelines. Cosham, A and Eiber, R. Amsterdam : Global
Pipeline Monthly, 2007. Transmission of CO2,H2,and biogas: exploring new uses for natural
gas pipelines.
47. Design Considerations for carbon dioxide pipeline. King, G.G. : Pipeline Industry, 1981.
48. Challenges for offshore trasnport of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Race, J M, Seevam,
P : and Downie, J D. San Diego : OMAE, 2007. Proceedings of OMAE2007.
49. Constructon of a CO2 pipeline test rig for R&D and operator training. de Koeijer, G., et
al. Amsterdam : Global Pipeline Monthly, 2007. Transmission of CO2,H2,and biogas:
exploring new uses for natural gas pipelines.
50. Experiments and modelling of CO2 pipeline de-pressurisation Multi-phase transient flow.
de Koeijer, G., et al. Trondheim, 2007. The 4th Trondheim Conference on CO2 Capture,
Transport and Storage.
51. Hein, M. Rigourous and approximate methods for CO2 pipeline analysis. [book auth.]
G.F. Brooks and J. Martinez. Facilities, Pipelines and Measurement A workbook for
Engineers. New York : ASME, pp. 123-142.
52. Pipeline design model adresses CO2 challenging behaviour. Hein, M. June 1986, Oil and
Gas Journal, Vol. 71.
53. The transport properties of carbon dioxide. Vesovic, V. and Wakeham, W.A. 3, 1990,
J.Chem.Eng. Data, Vol. 19, pp. 763-808.
54. The viscosity of carbon dioxide. Fenghour, A. et al. 1, 1998, Journal of
Phys.Chem.Ref.Data, Vol. 27.
55. McCollum, D.L. and Ogden, J.M. Correlations for estimating carbon dioxide density
and viscosity. : Univ. of California, 2006.
56. Investigation of physical properties for CO2/H2O mxitures for use in semi-closed
O2/CO2 gas turbine cycle with co capture. Ulfsness, R.E., et al.
57. A new equation of state for carbon-dioxide covering the fluid region from the triple point
temperature to 1100 K at pressures upto 800 MPa. Span, R. and Wagner, W. 6, 1996,
Journal of Phys.Chem.Ref.Data, Vol. 25.
58. A generalized Patel-Teja equation of state for polar and non-polar fluids and their
mixtures. Valderama, J.O. 1, 1990, Journal of Chem.Eng. of Japan, Vol. 23.
59. Generalized crossover description of the thermodynamic and transport properties in pure
fluids. Kiselev, S.B. and Fly, J.F. 2004, Fluid Phase Equilbria, pp. 222-223.
60. Calculation of acid gas density in the vapor, liquid and dense phase regions. Boyle, T.
and Carroll, J.J. 2001.
61. Impact of impurities in CO2 fluids on CO2 transport process. Li, H. and Yan, J. 2006.
ASME Turbo EXPO 2006 .

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 81 of 87

62. Summary of Measuring and Metering CO2 for Enhanced Oil recovery methods and
Problems. DeBusk, F. New Mexico, 1984. Measuring and Metering CO2 for Enhanced Oil
recovery methods and Problems.
63. [personal communication with DGC and Denbury Resources]. 2007.
64. http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!EE3CE5E6AEE6F452!422.entry. [Online]
65. Transportation of carbon dioxide by pipeline. Eagleton, H.:. Houston, 1980. 8th
International Pipeline Technology Exhibition and Conference.
66. Maintenance Techniques proven on CO2 line. :ajera, G. 46, 1986, Oil and Gas Journal,
Vol. 84.
67. Hooper, B. et al. Latrobe Valley CO2 storage assessment. : CO2CRC, 2005. RPT05-
0108.
68. Carbon Dioxide Pipelines: a preliminary review. Barrie, J. Trondheim, 2006. GHGT8.
69. Transport Systems for Ocean Disposal of CO2 and their environmental effect. Golomb,
D. Suppl, 1997, Energy Convers. Mgmt., Vol. 38, pp. 279-286.
70. Design of Cortez CO2 system detailled. Barry, W. July 1985, Oil and Gas Journal.
71. CO2 recovery and sequestration at Dakota Gasification Company. Perry, M and
Eliason, D. 2004. Gasification Technology Conference.
72. http://www.offshore-technology.com/contractors/project/kongsberg/press5.html. [Online]
73. http://www.km.kongsberg.com/KS/WEB/OKBG0240.nsf/AllWeb/1AC30CD49FE1.
[Online]
74. http://www.co2.no/default.asp?UID=119&CID=56. [Online]
75. Svandal, A. Modelling hydrate phase transitions using mean-field approaches. Bergen :
University of Bergen, 2006.
76. Measurement and Modelling of Gas Solubility and Literature Review of the Properties of
the Carbon Dioxide-Water System. Chapoy, A, et al. 2004, Ind.Eng.Chem.Res, Vol. 43, pp.
1794-1802.
77. Sass, B, et al. Impact of SOx and NOx in flue gas on CO2 separation, compression, and
pipeline transmission. [book auth.] D.C. Thomas and S.M. Benson. Carbon Dioxide Capture
for Storage in Deep Geologic Formations. : Elsevier, 2005.
78. Campbel, J. Gas conditioning and processing. : John M Campbell and company, 2004.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 82 of 87

22 Appendix 1 Details about existing CO2 pipelines

This Chapter contains a more detailed description of a number of long distance CO2 pipelines.

The Sheep Mountain Pipeline (7) (6) (31)

This is the first large scale transportation system for CO2 by pipeline, completed in 1983. The
pipeline is 656 km long. The first 296 km of the pipeline has a 20 outside diameter. The next
360 km has a 24 outside diameter. The design flowrate for the 20 pipeline is 6.3 MT/yr. The
24 pipeline is designed for a flowrate of 9.2 MT/yr. The pipeline begins at Sheep Mountain
(Gardner Colorado) and ends in Seminole. The diameter increase occurs at the Bravo Dome
where extra CO2 can be added to the pipeline. At the Bravo Dome there are pig launching and
receiver facilities as well as an injection station. The inlet pressure of the pipeline is between
83 and 97 MPa. The pipeline starts at an elevation of 2500 m.s.l. and ends at an elevation of
900 m.s.l. This in practice means that pressure reduction is needed at the injection facilities to
avoid over-pressurization of the pipeline. Therefore no booster pumps are used, but a pressure
reducing station at Gladstone (reduction to 83 bara). Apart from the Bravo Dome, five
additional pig launching and receiving stations are included
The pipeline steel employed is API Grade 5LX-70 with a maximum wall thickness of 19.1
mm, giving a maximum pressure rating of 195 bara. The choice of this steel is based upon its
high impact toughness, providing resistance to crack propagation. To address this issue also
crack arrestors are employed along the pipeline. The external pipe coating is a 2.4 mm coal tar
enamel reinforced with fiberglass.
There are 21 main line block valves, dividing the pipeline in shorter segments (19-32 km).
At each side of the block valve an 8 riser with valve is included for blow down purposes.
Each pair of blow down risers is connected through a 6 bypass to aid closing of the main
block valve by equalizing the pressure during closing.
Valve trim is stainless steel or use of nickel coatings on internal surfaces.
ANSI1500 ratings are applied for the flanges. Stainless steel/asbestos spiral wound gaskets
are used in all flanged connections.
Gas composition ranges from 95-98% purity. Nominal composition (mole%) is 96.8 % CO2,
0.9% N2, 1.7% CH4 and 0.6 % C2+. The CO2 is produced from the Sheep Mountain natural
CO2 reservoir. The produced CO2 is water saturated. The production lines holding water
saturated CO2 are constructed from 316L stainless steel. TEG contactors are used to dehydrate
the CO2 to 60% of saturation at the most critical conditions encountered along the pipeline.
Chosen as critical condition was the winter ground temperature at the lowest possible pipeline
pressure, 1.7 C and 82.7 bara. This lead to an allowable water contents of 171 ppm (wt) of
water. For safety reasons the specification was set at 85 ppm (wt). Measurement and
metering of the pipeline contains a turbine meter for mass flow measurement and an insertion
type densitometer. Control valves are standard available equipment. At each station (8)
pressure and temperature measurement equipment is used. Automatic sampling and moisture

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 83 of 87

analyzing equipment is installed at the receipt and delivery stations of the pipeline. All signals
are sent by remote transmission to the SCADA system.

Cortez Pipeline (70)

The Cortez pipeline transports CO2 from the McElmo Dome natural source to the Wasson oil
field. The 808 km, 30 pipeline originates at the Cortez station and runs via two metering
stations, three pressure reducing stations, a pump station to end at the Denver City meter
station. Capacity is 28 MSm3/d (19.3 MT/yr). The pipeline is designed to operate from 96 to
186 bara at a maximum temperature of 43 C. The pipeline material is API-5LX-65. The
pipeline could not be designed with sufficient fracture toughness to arrest a propagating
ductile fracture, so crack arrestor rings are installed. These are made from 17.5 mm thick 32
line pipe in the same material, bonded with epoxy to the pipeline at 300 meter intervals. The
wall thickness of the pipeline has five spec. breaks varying from 17.5 to 25.4 mm to handle
the pressure changes due to the elevation differences.
The fluid composition is 95% minimum purity CO2 with a 4 mole % limit on N2 and a 5
mole% limit on hydrocarbons. The limit on H2S is 0.002 mole%. The maximum allowable
water contents is 257 ppm wt.
The entrance of the pipeline is separated from the gathering lines by block valves. In
connection with each block valve are moisture analyzers. Moisture concentration in the line is
monitored with an alarm value set at 171 ppm wt. These are not linked to automatic closure of
the block valves. Pressure and temperature measurement are also included at the block valves.
At the end of each gathering line there is a metering station. The metering stations have 10
orifice runs. The fluid quality at the pipeline entrance is checked with three analyzers: a water
content analyzer, a H2S contents analyzer and a gas chromatograph for measuring nitrogen,
carbon dioxide and other hydro carbons.
There is over 900 meter height difference between the originating and delivery point. This
represents a static pressure gain of about 83 bara. To keep the pressure down, pressure
reduction stations are incorporated to keep the pipeline pressure below 148 bara downstream
the Sandia Mountains. The pressure reducing stations are designed to keep the pipeline above
the critical pressure for CO2. Their basic design contains two sets of three parallel 3 meter
long runs of small diameter pipe. The runs include a 3.5 diameter run, a 4.5 diameter run
and a 6,5 diameter run with control valves. Only one of the runs is active at any one time.
At the pumping station, a 3000 hp centrifugal pump is installed. The adaption of the pump for
pumping CO2 includes a high pressure seal oil lubricating system. This is necessary as CO2 is
essentially a non-lubricating fluid. .

Central Basin Pipeline (5)

The Central Basin pipeline receives carbon dioxide from the Bravo, Cortez and Sheep
Mountain pipelines. The 278 km long pipeline runs from Denver City to McCamey in Texas.
Capacity of the pipeline is 11.5 MT/yr. The pipeline has a number of spec breaks along the

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 84 of 87

route on both diameter and wall thickness as CO2 is delivered to oilfields along the route. The
first 7 kilometers are 20 with a pressure rating of 151 bara. The next 120 km is 26 and also
pressure rated to 151 bara. The next 31 km is 24 and pressure rated to 158 bara. The next 25
km is 20 and pressure rated to 165 bara. The final 41 km is 16 and pressure rated to 172
bara. The pipeline has crack arrestors every 400 meters. Cathodic protection is employed.
The fluid composition is 95% minimum purity CO2 with a 4 mole % limit on H2 and a 5
mole% limit on hydrocarbons. The limits on H2S is 20 ppm, 10 ppm on O2 and 10 ppm on
sulphur. The maximum allowable water contents is 257 ppm wt. The pipeline has pigging
facilities located at each diameter change. Meter stations contain flow, pressure and
temperature measurement and are collected in a SCADA system. Mass flow is measured by a
single run orifice meter in combination with a densitometer

Weyburn CO2 Pipeline (71) (11)

The Weyburn pipeline runs from the Dakota Gasification Plant in Buelah in North Dakota to
Weyburn in Saskatchewan in Canada. The pipeline is 330 km long and contains a 14
upstream and 12 downstream section. The specification break is at Tioga, approximately
halfway downstream the pipeline. Pipe wall thickness is 9.5 mm except at road, railroad and
water crossings were both 12.7 mm and 15.9 mm are used. The capacity is 4.6 MT/year. The
pipeline is made from SMLS-X65 ERW. The MAOP (maximum allowable operating
pressure) is 186 barg for the upstream part of the pipeline and 204 barg for the remainder.
Entrance pressure is around 150 barg. There are no booster stations .The pipeline is buried
most of the way but simply laid along the bottom of the river or lakebed at water crossings.
All buried pipe is coated with bonded epoxy. To protect the pipeline from external corrosion,
an impressed current protection system is used. Test posts are included at 1.6 km intervals
along the length of the pipeline. The pipeline is sectored, incorporating 12 intermediate valve
stations with remotely operated mainline valves. These are all onshore. In connection with
each valve station there are blow down stacks at each site of the main valve, connected with a
bypass. Also temperature and pressure measurements are included at the valve stations. The
pipeline is in operation since the autumn of 2000. The CO2 is the by product of coal
gasification and separated using the Rectisol process. This gives a CO2 stream with a very
low water contents, about 2 ppm by volume. The average purity of the CO2 is 96 vol% with
the remainder being 1 vol% H2S, 0.3 vol% CH4, 2 vol% C2+, 0.6 vol% N2 0.01 vol% O2 and
0.03 vol% mercaptans and other sulfides .
Currently, upto 1.8 MT/yr is transported through the pipeline for EOR at the Weyburn
oilfields.
Special for this pipeline is that it had to follow both USA and Canadian regulations for
hazardous liquid pipelines. Where the regulations overlapped, the most stringent requirements
were adhered to. The Canadian National Energy Board requires for operation of hazardous
liquid pipelines that there must be a computational leak detection system. Therefore leak
detection is included in a pipeline monitoring and control system based upon a computer

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 85 of 87

model of the pipeline. This system was made by Advantica in Houston for the Dakota
Gasification Company who operates the pipeline. This system is claimed to the first of its
kind for a CO2 pipeline. In connection with this pipeline also a smart pig was developed,
capable of functioning with CO2 at 186 barg. BJ Pipeline Inspection Services has developed
this together with DCG and in 2004 the 14 part of the pipeline was successfully pigged using
this technology, monitoring the pipeline for internal and external corrosion as well as external
damage.

:EJD Pipeline (earlier called Choctaw Pipeline)

The NEJD pipeline, operated by Denbury Onshore LLC, runs from the Jackson Dome to the
oil fields in Louisiana. The pipeline is 20 and 295 km long. The pipeline has been operating
for the last 22 years. The Jackson Dome provides CO2 with a purity of 99.3% CO2, 0.3% CH4
, 0.3% N2 and the remainder hydrocarbons. H2S is present at ppm levels. The CO2 is
dehydrated to 171 ppm wt by using both a glycol and glycerol based drying process. The
pipeline is made from carbon steel, ERW API85-5XPL60, specified for sweet service. The
pipeline is buried most of the way (0.9 meters from top of pipe). All buried pipe is coated
with bonded epoxy. The pipeline has crack arrestors. To protect the pipeline cathodic current
protection is used. Test posts are included at 1.6 km intervals. The pipeline is divided in at
least 24 km long sections or at locations of trunk lines. Each section incorporates a valve
station with blow down facilities as well as temperature and pressure measurement. The
pipeline has metering facilities at the entrance of the pipeline. These included temperature and
pressure measurements, flow measurement through an orifice tube, gas composition sampling
(especially for H2S) and measurement of water contents.

Snhvit CO2 Pipeline (49) (72) (73)

The Snhvit CO2 pipeline transports CO2 from the Snhvit Liquified Natural Gas plant at
Melkya to an offshore storage site, the Tuben formation . This pipeline is the first offshore
CO2 pipeline. The transported CO2 originates from the natural gas from the Snhvit field that
contains 4-9 mole% CO2. The 8 pipeline has a length of 153 km from the onshore
compressor facilities to the 300 meter subsea injection template. The high purity CO2 enters
the pipeline at 150 bara and 25 C. At the end of the pipeline the temperature and pressure are
around 5 C and 150 bara. The pipeline is not sectored. There is an onshore blow down
facility. The pipeline is intended to transport around 0.7 MT/year. The CO2 is dried with
molecular sieves to 50 ppm water contents. The pipeline is supervised by a so-called dynamic
production model, which gives the possibility to incorporate a real time mode and look ahead
simulation of the pipeline, leak detection, pig tracking and automatic model tuning. The
system is based upon D-Spice simulation software and delivered by Kongsberg.
The pipeline is expected to commence operating during the fourth quarter of 2007.

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 86 of 87

23 Appendix 2 Overview of Identified Competence Holders

This overview is not to be considered as a complete and final overview; therefore omission of
other relevant companies and organizations is purely unintentional.

Operators of CO2 pipelines

Kinder Morgan Houston TX USA


Denbury Resources Plano TX USA
Dakota Gasification Company Beulah ND USA
Trinity CO2 Midland TX USA
StatoilHydro Stavanger Norway
Turkish Petroleum Ankara Turkey
BP London Great Britain
Oxy Permian Los Angeles USA
PetroSource Energy Midland TX USA

Pipeline Engineering Firms

Babcock Eagleton Houston TX USA


Reinertsen Engineering Trondheim Norway
IKM Ocean Engineering Stavanger Norway
Gulf Interstate Houston USA

Pipeline Monitoring and Control Systems

Advantica Houston TX USA


Kongsberg Kongsberg Norway

R&D Organisations

National Institute of Standards Boulder USA


Sintef Energy Processes Trondheim Norway
Centre for Pipeline Engineering Newcastle Great Britain
StatoilHydro R&D Trondheim USA
IFE Kjeller Norway
Gexcon Bergen Norway
Los Alamos National Lab Los Alamos USA
GERG Brussels Belgium
ENSR Worldwide

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open
Page 87 of 87

Universities

Bergen University Bergen Norway


University Ruhr/Bochum Bochum Germany
University of Newcastle Newcastle Great Britain
Technische Universitt Hamburg-Harburg Hamburg Germany

Classification and regulatory bodies

Det Norske Veritas Oslo Norway


USA Department of Transport Washington USA

Pipeline services

BJ Services Calgary Canada


Inline Services Inc Houston Texas

Report number Date Security level


POL-O-2007-138-A 8 January 2008 Open

S-ar putea să vă placă și