SPE-174102-MS

Dispersion of Relief and Leaked Hazardous Gases on Offshore Facilities

J. Lu, A. Filippov, F. Marcancola, and V. Rosales, Halliburton

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Health, Safety, Environment and Sustainability Conference held in Bogotá,
Colombia, 7– 8 July 2015.

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

Abstract
Hazardous gases, such as H2S and CO2, present high risks for health, safety, and environment on and near
offshore facilities. In recent years, it has become more important to evaluate the pollution and process
safety for dispersion of the leaked and relieved hazardous gases during an offshore operation. The primary
focus of this work is to estimate the dispersed gas concentration levels around the potential release sources
on offshore facilities. Computational fluid-dynamics (CFD) simulations were performed to study H2S/
CO2 dispersion behavior. In the simulations, the Realizable k- model for turbulence was used for the
multicomponent gas flow, and the species-diffusion equation was solved for the gas-dispersion calcula-
tion. Parallel simulations were used to accelerate the computing time because system meshing generally
has 1 to 2 million nodes. A series of scenarios was designed for the potential leak and relief locations, such
as surface well testing (SWT) areas, relief lines (overboard), and flare boom, and with different wind
directions, speeds, and gas-leak rates. The worst case scenarios were further studied. The results yielded
3D gas concentration distributions, including critical safety-concentration level profiles, pollution cover-
age area, and height.

Introduction
It is increasingly important to monitor and control pollution during offshore operations, such as drilling
or production. Many of the recently discovered wells in deepwater fields contain high levels of gaseous
contaminants, such as CO2 and H2S. These contaminants are transported from the formation to the surface
operating platforms and can cause potential environmental and safety issues and health hazards for the
workers on the platform.
There are several traditional approaches for estimating plume profiles. However, they use either 2D
models (Fontaine and Hall 1991) or even a rough 1D approach (such as the EPA model (Gillani and
Godowitch 1999). For a better understanding of how the wind directions, wind speeds, and local facility
layout affect the distribution of pollutants, full computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations were
performed. A CFD simulation is a widely applied method used to study the fluid behavior in many
engineering fields. For different fluids and conditions, the fluid dynamics model must be selected
precisely to yield the solution with the desired level of detail and accuracy. For the gas dispersion study
discussed in this paper, the turbulent model for gas dynamics and convective species transport model are
2 SPE-174102-MS

used. The CFD simulations enabled the flow field information to be obtained, such as pressure,
temperature, velocity, and gas concentration.

Method

This section provides information about the geometry of the facility layout, simulaton models,
boundary conditions, and simulation scenarios used in this study.

The Geometry
In a typical workflow for a gas dispersion analysis, the facility layout data are first provided by the
operator. Fig. 1 shows the drillship design considered in this study; Fig. 1 (a), (b), and (c) show an
isometric view, side view, and top view of the ship structure, respectively. The CAD file is generated in
1:1 scale as the actual geometry. The areas of interest are marked in the figures and include the drill floor,
where all gases originally enter from underwater, SWT equipment, relief lines, and flare booms. The SWT
area contains many facilities, such as the pressure gas tanks, steam heat exchanger, separator, and gas
dryer. Gas leaks most likely occur on the inlet and outlet of each unit, as well as at the connections of the
gas pipelines.

Figure 1—3D drillship structure: (a) isometric view; (b) side view; (c) top view.

Simulation Model
The ANSYS Fluent software tool is used for the CFD simulations, The “Realizable k- model” option
is selected to describe the turbulent air flow. The k- model is one of the most commonly used turbulence
models. The continuity and momentum balance equations for the flow include the following (ANSYS
2015):
SPE-174102-MS 3

(1)

where ␳ is the air density, V is the air the velocity vector, veff is the effective kinematic viscosity, v is
the molecular viscosity of air, k is the turbulent kinetic energy, and  is the turbulent dissipation rate.
The two transport equations for k and  in the Realizable k- model include the following (ANSYS
2015):
(2)

(3)

In these equations, Gk represents the generation of turbulence kinetic energy resulting from the mean
velocity gradients, and Gb is the generation of turbulence kinetic energy resulting from buoyancy.
The gas phase can include air, CO2, H2S, SO2, methane, and other gases. The equation of the
convective diffusion model selected to simulate the transport of gas components includes the following
(ANSYS 2015):
(4)

where Yi is the local mass fraction of the i-th species, Ri is the net rate of production of species i by
chemical reaction, and Si is the source term. Equations of this form are solved for all species present in
the system.
Boundary Conditions
In the simulations, the flow field parameters are calculated in a cuboid domain containing the ship. The
boundary conditions at four sides of the domain are defined as either the velocity inlets or pressure outlets,
depending on the wind direction with respect to the ship. The boundary condition at the top side is defined
as the symmetry boundary condition, and the top side is set sufficiently high so that the boundary effect
does not affect the wind pattern on the ship.
To account for the ground effect on the flow in this study, the wind velocity magnitude is assumed to
vary with height, according to the following equation:
(5)

where V0 is the velocity at the elevation y0, corresponding to the deck on the ship.
The potential leak points are set as mass inlet sources with defined mass flow rates of the different
gaseous contaminants. In this study, the leaked gas was assumed to contain 43% CO2; the remainder
consisted of air and methane, which represented all other gaseous components.
Simulation Scenarios
Wind directions and speeds are the major parameters that characterize various simulation scenarios.
The annual average wind speeds and directions are obtained from weather statistics. Table 1 lists eight
4 SPE-174102-MS

typical wind directions used in the study and includes three wind velocities: annual average velocity,
maximum velocity, and minimum velocity.

Table 1—SCENARIO MATRIX BASED ON WIND DIRECTIONS AND VELOCITIES.

Wind Direction Wind Velocity No. 1 (m/s) Wind Velocity No. 2 (m/s) Wind Velocity No. 3 (m/s)

SW 0.5 5.37 6.52

W 0.5 5.37 6.52
S 0.5 5.37 6.52
NE 0.5 5.37 6.52
N 0.5 5.37 6.52
E 0.5 5.37 6.52
E-NE 0.5 5.37 6.52
NW 0.5 5.37 6.52

Results and Discussions

This section provides information about leaks on the on-board facilities and gas lines, gas release from
relief lines and flare booms, and major effects associated with gas release.

Leaks on the On-Board Facilities and Gas Lines

In the simulations, the wind patterns around the ship were studied. For example, Fig. 2 shows a wind
pattern when the wind speed is 0.5 m/s in the north direction. The ship is oriented with the flare booms
eastward. The velocity field shown in the figure is on the horizontal plane, which is 0.5 m above the deck.
The colors represent different magnitudes of the velocity. Air flow changes direction and speed near the
ship structures, forming various stagnation and recirculation zones. The surface facilities on the ship act
as multiple barriers, with different dimensions and locations. Vortices around the leak points will enhance
the dispersion of the gases, and in some cases, the pollutant can propagate, even in the upwind direction.
Because the flow field strongly depends on the geometry of the ship, simulations must be performed
separately to account for individual ship designs.
SPE-174102-MS 5

Figure 2—Wind velocity distribution on deck level. In this scenario, the wind is coming from north at a speed of 0.5 m/s.

Fig. 3 shows isosurfaces of CO2 concentration when the wind is coming from the north. The leak point
location is on the outlet of a pressurized gas tank, which is marked by the red dot. The leak mass flow
rate is 0.5 kg/s.
6 SPE-174102-MS

Figure 3—Isosurface of CO2 concentration at 3,900 ppm. The wind is from the north and speed is 0.5 m/s. The leak location is on the
outlet of a pressurized gas tank: (a) top view of the isosurface; (b) isometric view.

Gas Release from the Relief Lines

Relief lines are used for the scheduled gas disposals. Two relief lines are located on the considered
drillship, located separately on each side; each line has an inner diameter of 4 in. The corresponding gas
relief rate was approximately 15,000 sm3/day. Fig. 4 (a) and (b) show the CO2 dispersion from relief
lines-01 and -02, respectively, with wind coming from the north at a speed of 0.5 m/s. The locations of
the relief lines are marked by red dots. Relief line-02 is exposed toward the wind, and relief line-01 is on
the downwind side.
SPE-174102-MS 7

Figure 4 —CO2 dispersion from relief lines. In this scenario, the wind is from the north at a speed of 0.5 m/s: (a) isosurface of CO2 at
3,900 ppm from relief line-01; (b) isosurface of CO2 at 3,900 ppm from relief line-02.

There are several threshold levels for CO2 concentration in the air. The normal background concen-
tration in outdoor ambient air is 300 to 400 ppm. When the CO2 concentration increases, personnel can
experience several symptoms, including headache, dyspnea, dizziness, and increased blood pressure. With
very high levels of CO2 concentration, people will have increased heart rate, shortness of breath, and loss
of controlled and purposeful activity within 15 minutes of exposure (Environmental Protection Agency
2000). The critical values that define each level can vary from different regularities. In this work, a critical
value of 3,900 ppm is used, as required by the operator.

Gas Release from the Flare Booms

Flare booms are used to burn the flammable gases on the drillships and are located on the end of the
drillship. In general, flare booms have a much greater gas flow rate than the expected leak rates from
accidental leak points. There are two major concerns about gas contaminants: (1) pollution on the drillship
deck, which can cause a health hazard for field workers and (2) pollution in the atmosphere, in which case
the gas contaminants may reach the land or other offshore facilities.
Fig. 5 shows the gas concentration above the ship generated by the gases from one of the flare booms.
The wind direction is parallel to the flare boom and toward the ship at a speed of 0.5 m/s. The deck
location is marked by the red line. The concentration on the deck level is 500 to 1,000 ppm, which is
acceptable for a safety requirement but greater than the atmospheric condition. Fig. 6 illustrates the
definition of pollution radius as the maximum distance from a ship where the gas concentration can exceed
the threshold level. In this scenario, the gas release rate is 10 times greater than that in Fig. 5 as the worst
case concen. The isosurface length is approximately 450 m long, which means that pollution to facilities
within 450 m of the ship must be evaluated.
8 SPE-174102-MS

Figure 5—Side view of CO2 isosurfaces from one of the flare booms. The wind direction is toward the ship at a speed of 0.5 m/s.
CO2 concentrations, from inner to outer isosurfaces, are 3,900, 3,000, 2,000, 1,000, and 500 ppm.

Figure 6 —Isosurface of CO2 concentration at 3,900 ppm from the flare boom. The gas release rate is approximately 609,000 sm3/day.
The wind direction is parallel to the flare boom and toward the sea at a speed of 0.5 m/s.

Major Effects
Major effects associated with the release of hazardous gas include the effect of high wind speed conditions
on the size of the pollution area and the effect of flow circulation on the direction of the pollution.
High Wind Speed Effects High wind speed conditions create a smaller pollution area. This effect is
connected with increase of the turbulent diffusion coefficient, resulting in better mixing and more efficient
dilution of the contaminant by air. As an example, Fig. 7 shows the gas concentration above the ship
generated by the gases from one of the leaks with north wind direction. The area with threshold level
contamination decreases by approximately a factor of 10 when the wind spead increases from 0.5 m/s
(left) to 5.37 m/s (right). The details of the distributions are strongly affected by the local layout of the
ship.
SPE-174102-MS 9

Figure 7—Isosurfaces with a CO2 concentration of 3900 ppm under three different wind conditions, with north wind directions and wind
speeds of 0.5 m/s and 5.37 m/s, as taken from weather statistics.

Flow Recirculation Effects The flow recirculation can drive the pollution in different directions other
than the wind direction. For example, Fig. 8 shows a scenario in which the wind is from west, and the
plume is toward east. Recirculation occurs when the wind hits the tower. The leak point is at the center
of the drill floor. Fig. 9 shows another example in which the local facility layout altered the air flow
direction, and recirculation drives the pollutant to all directions.

Figure 8 —Wind pattern with west direction and speed 0.5 m/s. The leak point is in the center of the drill floor. The yellow isosurface
with CO2 3,900 ppm has its tail toward the opposite direction of the wind.
10 SPE-174102-MS

Figure 9 —Isosurface of CO2 concentration of 3,900 ppm with northwest wind direction and wind speeds of 0.5 m/s.Gas released in the
middle of the deck spreads in the upwind direction

Conclusions
CFD simulations were successfully applied to study gas dispersion on and around an offshore drillship.
Although many traditional field tests and simulation studies have been conducted on the evaluation of gas
dispersion, this work describes a systemic approach to dispersion prediction and analysis. It offers better
guidance for future testing and evaluation of hazardous gas pollution necessary to meet the strict
requirements of the current world safety regulations.
Based on the simulation results, it is possible to (1) determine the risk of moderate and non-tolerable
gas level profiles; (2) optimize the location and quantity of gas sensors in the SWT plant and drill floor,
accordingly; and (3) assess the risks of gas disposal by the flare boom and the relief line overboard. The
CFD simulations generated on this drillship can be used to estimate and monitor the gas leakage on
offshore and onshore rigs, where health, safety, and environment are crucial for the operations.

References
ANSYS. 2015. ANSYS Fluent User Guide.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Acute Health Effects of Carbon Dioxide. http://www.
epa.gov/ozone/snap/fire/co2/appendixb.pdf. Accessed January 19, 2015
Fontaine, D.J. and Hall, M.E. 1991. Dispersion Modeling of Gas Releases on Offshore Platforms.
Paper SPE SPE-23288-MS presented at the SPE Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas
Exploration and Production Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 11-14 November. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/23288-MS.
Gillani, N.V. and Godowitch, J.M. 1999. Plume-in-Grid Treatment of Major Point Source Emissions.
http://www.epa.gov/amad/CMAQ/Documents/ch09.pdf. Accessed January 18, 2015.