Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The present study proposes a new methodology that estimates the acceptable injection rate of a hydrate
Received 6 May 2015 inhibitor considering the random failure and subsequent maintenance of the topside system followed by
Received in revised form the cooldown of the flowlines and risers where hydrate can potentially form. The proposed methodology
17 August 2016
consists of four steps: system description, topside system simulation, subsea system simulation, and
Accepted 17 August 2016
Available online 30 August 2016
construction of the exceedance curve for the inhibitor injection. As the system is defined in the first step,
Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) is performed in the topside system simulation step to predict the system
failure frequency and subsequent downtime that leads to the exceedance curve of the downtime. With
Keywords:
Hydrate injection rate
the exceedance curve of the downtime, the longest downtime, equivalently the longest cooldown time,
Monte Carlo simulation tLC, is estimated. In the subsea system simulation step, the cooldown path of the inventory is obtained by
Realistic operation scenario multiphase simulation and tTD, the time that the inventory touch down the hydrate formation region is
Multiphase simulation defined. The last step combines the MCS with multiphase simulation to yield the frequency of the
Risk-based design required MEG injection to avoid the hydrate formation. The exceedance curve provides risk-based in-
formation for determining the required MEG injection rate based on risk acceptance criteria, which may
vary with different points of view. Four case studies are performed for several installations that have
different extent of process configurations and insulation.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2016.08.012
0950-4230/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Kim et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 44 (2016) 62e72 63
realistic topside system conditions, such as the incidence of failure Fig. 1 shows the work process proposed in this study.
and equipment repair events. The conventional methodology for
determining the MEG injection rate depends only on the environ- 2.1. Step 0 e system description
mental conditions of the field, the shut-in pressure and the sur-
rounding seawater temperature. The likelihood that the subsea The first step is to precisely describe the system including the
fluid meets the worst condition, shut-in pressure and surrounding topside and subsea subsystems. The field layout should be defined
seawater temperature, can be infinitesimal or significant depend- in terms of the length, depth, and insulation thickness of flowlines
ing on the reliability and maintainability of the topside. To achieve and risers. The environmental conditions, especially the sea water
the next major advancement in managing hydrate formation acci- temperature, are important to affect the hydrate formation. The
dents, an integrated approach (Faisal and Amyotte, 2004; Genserik composition, pressure, and temperature of the well fluid should be
and Amyotte, 2012; Pasman et al., 2009; Samith et al., 2014) that is also defined since they strongly affects the thermodynamics of the
based on risk management should be practiced. In consequence, hydrate formation.
the operational scenario of the topside system should be consid- The topside unit accounts for the majority of the failures and
ered in determining the MEG injection rate. downtimes. The complexity of the topside is a governing factor for
A realistic approach to determining the MEG injection rate the injection rate. The components that may cause failure and
should consider the operational interruption followed by mainte- downtime should be identified carefully at this step.
nance duration when the hydrate can be formed. Topside operation
is interrupted mainly by the random failure of process components. 2.2. Step 1 etopside system simulation
Although immediate maintenance action is taken, stoppage of
production is inevitable. In addition to the production loss, the Step 1 is to predict the timing of the occurrence of failure and
facility is subject to risk of hydrate formation in the riser that is the duration of maintenance. MCS provides information about
cooled by the surrounding sea water. Because the failure is random, when the failure occurs and when the repair is performed for the
the timing of its occurrence and the duration of the maintenance topside system.
are also indiscriminate, as are the degree of the cooldown of the The first task to perform MCS is defining the system configu-
riser and the risk of hydration formation. For example, a simple ration precisely. For example, the simple platform that separates
failure is accompanied by short maintenance without the risk of hydrocarbon into condensate and gas consists of comparatively
hydrate formation. However, a serious failure leads to shutdown of little equipment. However, for a complex platform, such as LNG
the system for several days during which the riser is sufficiently FPSO, which contains several processes including well fluid pro-
cooled to initiate hazardous hydrate formation. In order to elimi- cessing and liquefaction, is made of a considerable number of
nate the risk of hydrate formation, a hydrate inhibitor or MEG in components. After a system configuration is defined, the next is to
this study should be injected. In consequence, it is important to construct the reliability block diagram (RBD), which is a success-
predict the occurrence of random failures and the duration of their oriented logical presentation of the system.
maintenance in determining the inhibitor injection rate and the Then, reliability data are collected to analyze the reliability or
capacity of the regeneration facility. availability of the system. The reliability data can be divided into
This study proposes a new methodology in which a realistic failure and maintenance data. Failure data are the information
operation scenario of the topside system is obtained by MCS and about all accidents/incidents rates, and maintenance data are about
the transient cooldown path of the riser is simulated by a multi- corrective and preventive maintenance. The failure data are rep-
phase simulator to estimate the MEG injection rate. It considers the resented as a failure rate, and the maintenance data are represented
reliability and maintainability of the topside system and the char- as down time.
acteristics of the subsea system. The failure rate is the number of failures per unit time. Down
Monte Carlo simulation is employed to estimate the realistic time includes the calendar time from the moment when the
operation of the topside system and evaluate its availability (Aven, equipment is stopped to the moment when it is recovered properly
1993; Chang et al., 2010; Crespo Marquez et al., 2005; Dubi, 1999; for the intended service. It is defined in terms of active repair time
Khakzad et al., 2012, 2013; Labeau and Zio, 2002; Lisnianski and and man hours. Active repair time does not include time for fault
Levitin, 2003; Marseguerra and Zio, 2002; Noh et al., 2014; realization, spare parts or crew mobilization or the impact of any
Ramirez-Marquez and Coit, 2005; Zio et al., 2006, 2007). The applied maintenance strategy or delays. In this study, only active
realistic operation scenario is generated by certain random and repair time is considered for down time.
discrete events (i.e., equipment failure and subsequent mainte- The MIL-HDBK 217F, EPRD, NPRD, EIReDA (European Industry
nance) in the simulation (Dubi, 1999; Marseguerra and Zio, 2002). Reliability Data) and OREDA Handbooks are used to collect the
The simulation provides information about when and where reliability data sources. The MIL-HDBK-217 handbook provides
equipment failure and repair will occur (Crespo Marquez et al., failure rate models for the various part types used in electronic
2005). From the repeated simulation for the lifetime of the sys- systems, such as integrated circuits, transistors, diodes, resistors,
tem, the frequency of equipment failure and repair is estimated to capacitors, replays, switches, and connectors. The EPRD-97 data-
determine the availability of the system. base presents failure rate data for electronic components, namely,
In the multiphase simulator, the transient operation of the capacitors, diodes, integrated circuits, optoelectronic devices, re-
subsea pipe depends on the lifetime scenario. After simulating the sistors, transformers and transistors. The NPRD95 database in-
lifetime scenario, dynamic profiles of the temperature and pressure cludes failure rate data on a wide variety of electrical,
are projected. The results of the long-term simulation provide risk- electromechanical and mechanical components. EIReDA shows
based information for determining the MEG inhibition rate. data for electrical, mechanical and electromechanical equipment of
thermal power plants. OREDA Handbooks are the best known
2. Proposed methodology reliability data source for offshore oil and gas production facilities.
It has established a comprehensive databank with reliability and
The proposed methodology consists of four steps: system maintenance data for exploration and production equipment from
description, topside system simulation, subsea system simulation, a wide variety of geographic areas, installations, equipment types
and construction of the exceedance curve for inhibitor injection. and operating conditions.
64 J. Kim et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 44 (2016) 62e72
With the reliability data, the failure rate and the active repair
time of equipment, MCS is performed by the established computer
code to provide provides a realistic lifetime scenario for the oper-
ation and maintenance of the topside. As a result of Step 1, ex-
ceedance curve of downtime is constructed to estimate the longest
downtime, equivalently the longest cooldown time, tLC, which
represents the worst conditions all over the lifetime for the target
topside.
Case 1-A. Well insulated flowline, U value ¼ 3.9 w/m2-C 3.1.3. Step 2 e subsea system simulation
Case 1-B. Less insulated flowline, U value ¼ 10 w/m2-C Fig. 7 shows how the addition of MEG can achieve hydrate
Table 1
Failure rate and MTTR for Case 1.
Fig. 6. Exceedance curve of downtime for Case 1. Fig. 7. Hydrate equilibrium curves in presence of MEG and shut-in condition.
J. Kim et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 44 (2016) 62e72 67
3.2. Case 1-A subsea system with fine insulation (U value ¼ 3.9 w/
m2-C)
Fig. 8. Pressure and temperature profile with distance during steady-state for Case
1-A. Fig. 11. Required MEG injection rate corresponding to cooldown time for Case 1-A.
68 J. Kim et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 44 (2016) 62e72
Fig. 14. Pressure and temperature at end of a less-insulated flowline during cooldown
for Case 1-B.
Fig. 13. Pressure and temperature profile along distance during steady-state for Case Fig. 15. Hydrate equilibrium curves in presence of MEG and cooldown path of fluid for
1-B. Case 1-B.
J. Kim et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 44 (2016) 62e72 69
3.6. Case 2-B subsea system with less insulation (U value ¼ 10 w/m2-
C). This case represents a complex topside and less insulated
flowline. Fig. 21 shows the annual frequency of the exceedance
Fig. 17. Exceedance curve for required MEG injection rate for Case 1-B. curve for the required MEG injection rate. The annual frequency of
exposure to the hydrate region is higher than 20 times per year,
even when injecting over 30 wt% MEG. From a practical standpoint,
formation is defined as Mmax. As shown in Figs. 16 and 17, Mmax is this would be unacceptable for field operation.
determined by the worst condition of topside, tLC. Therefore, the MEG injection rate should be set to the worst case
The selection of the MEG injection rate depends on the risk to avoid hydrate formation, which is 38 wt% and it is less than the
acceptance criteria and economic analysis. The cost of increasing conventional injection rate, 41.5 wt% due to the pressure decrease
the MEG injection rate should be less than the cost of the preven- caused by condensing, as stated above, are considered.
tive actions to avoid hydrate formation. For example, the increase in
the MEG injection rate from 30 wt% to 35 wt% results in a decrease 4. Economic evaluation between RISEX and CAPEX and OPEX
in the frequency of preventive actions to avoid hydrate formation depending on the MEG injection
from 1.5/year to 0.74/year. In addition, from a logical standpoint,
increasing the MEG injection rate from 0 wt% to 20 wt% does not When determining the MEG injection rate, an economic evalu-
decrease the hydrate formation risk. Therefore, it is not useful to ation can provide certain criteria. From the perspective of the
increase the MEG injection rate in that region. operator, the cost of decreasing CAPEX and OPEX should be less
than the cost of increasing RISEX. When the MEG injection rate is
3.4. Case 2. complex platform - LNG FPSO decreased, the required amount of MEG and the cost of MEG
regeneration units will be reduced. The cost of inhibition for a
3.4.1. Step 0 e system description typical deep water production of 50,000 BPD with 40% water cut
An LNG FPSO that contains treatment and liquefaction processes (20,000 BWPD) would be as much as $800,000 per day for meth-
is considered in this case. It is generally divided into 13 modules anol (Jefferson et al., 2011).
70 J. Kim et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 44 (2016) 62e72
Conflicts of interest
Acknowledgements
References
Adam, S., Markowski, M., Sam, M., Agata, K., Dorota, S., 2010. Uncertainty aspects in
process safety analysis. J. Loss Prev. Proc. Ind. 23, 446e454. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jlp.2010.02.005.
Aven, T., 1993. On performance measures for multistate monotone systems. Reliab.
Eng. Syst. Saf. 41, 259e266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(93)90078-D.
Chang, K.P., Chang, D., Zio, E., 2010. Application of Monte Carlo simulation for the
estimation of production availability in offshore installations. In: Faulin, J.,
Juan, A., Martorell, S., Ramírez-M arquez, J.E. (Eds.), Simulation Methods for
Fig. 21. Exceedance curve for the exposure to hydrate formation region for Case 2-B. Reliability and Availability of Complex Systems. Springer Verlag, Berlin Hei-
delberg, pp. 233e252.
Creek, J.L., Subramanian, S., Estanga, D., 2011. New method for managing hydrates in
deepwater tiebacks. In: OTC 22017, Offshore Technology Conference. Houston,
failure, the insulation prevents the hydrocarbon from reaching the USA.
hydrate formation region. When the system has reliable topside Crespo Marquez, A., S anchez Heguedas, A., Iung, B., 2005. Monte Carlo-based
assessment of system availability. A case study for cogeneration plants.
and less-insulated flowline (Fig. 17) or has complex topside and
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 88, 273e289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2004.07.018.
well-insulated flowline (Fig. 20), many MEG injection rate points Dubi, A.M., 1999. Carlo Applications in Systems Engineering. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
have emerged as candidates. Optimal solution can be selected by Dykhno, L.A., Jayawardena, S.S., Schoppa, W., 2003. Blowdown feasibility for
economic evaluation between RISEX and CAPEX and OPEX. When downhill flowlines. In: Offshore Technology Conference, 15256. Houston, TX.
Erich, Z., James, H., Julie, M., 2012. A holistic approach to steady-state heat transfer
the system has complex topside and less-insulated flowline from partially and fully buried pipelines. In: Offshore Technology Conference,
(Fig. 21), the MEG injection rate should be set to the worst case to 23033. Houston, TX.
avoid hydrate formation due to the unacceptable annual frequency Faisal, K., Amyotte, P., 2004. Integrated inherent safety index (I2SI): a tool for
inherent safety evaluation. Proc. Saf. Prog. 23, 136e148. http://dx.doi.org/
of exposure to the hydrate region. Moreover, the MEG injection rate 10.1002/prs.10015.
set to the worst case is less than the conventional injection rate due Genserik, R., Amyotte, P., 2012. Prevention in the chemical and process industries:
to the pressure decrease caused by condensing, as stated above, are future directions. J. Loss Prev. Proc. Ind. 25, 227e231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jlp.2011.06.016.
considered. Jefferson, C., Douglas, E., Sivakumar, S., Kristian, K., 2011. Project design hydrate
Further challenge is to optimize the MEG injection rate through management by application of multiphase flow simulations tools with hydrate
economic evaluation. If the system is fixed in terms of flowline formation and transport. In: International Conference on Gas Hydrate (ICGH
2011). Edinburgh, Scotland.
insulation and topside redundancy philosophy, the optimal MEG
Keijo, K., Jan, H., Xiaoyun, L., Kjell, M.A., 2015. Hydrate management in practice.
injection rate is decided by the comparison between the increased J. Chem. Eng. Data 60, 437e446.
cost in RISEX and decreased cost in CAPEX and OPEX. However, the Khakzad, N., Faisal, K., Amyotte, P., 2012. Dynamic safety analysis of process system
using bow-tie approach. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 104, 36e44.
system is in the early design stage, there are several factors to
Khakzad, N., Faisal, K., Amyotte, P., 2013. Dynamic safety analysis of process system
consider. For example, with increased the insulation rate, tTD be- by mapping bow-tie into Bayeian network. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 91,
comes longer and with adding the topside redundancy, tLC becomes 46e53.
shorter. Both affect the frequency of hydrate formation risk and it Kondapi, P., Randi, M., 2013. Today's top 30 flow assurance technologies: where do
they stand?. In: Proceedings of the OTC24250 Offshore Technology Conference.
leads to reducing MEG injection rate. Therefore, the system should Houston, Texas.
be optimized considering the whole aspects including the topside Kristian, S., 2006. Prediction of Mineral Scale Formation in Wet Gas Condensate
and the subsea. Pipelines and in MEG (Mono Ethylene Glycol) Regeneration Plant. Norwegian
University of Science and Technology (Ph.D. thesis).
Another challenge is to estimate uncertainty (Adam et al., 2010; Labeau, P.E., Zio, E., 2002. Procedures of Monte Carlo transport simulation for ap-
Refaul et al., 2013) of the injection rate determined by the meth- plications in system engineering. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 77, 217e228. http://
odology. Obviously, the results of the study are mainly affected by dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(02)00055-8.
Lisnianski, A., Levitin, G., 2003. Multi-state System Reliability: Assessment, Opti-
the reliability data used in the Monte Carlo simulation. The reli- mization and Applications (No. 6). World Scientific, Singapore.
ability data include failure rates and active repair times. The OREDA Marseguerra, M., Zio, E., 2002. Basics of the Monte Carlo Method with Application
handbooks, which are the well-known reliability data source for to System Reliability. LiLoLe-Verlag, Hagen, Germany.
Noh, Y., Chang, K., Seo, Y., Chang, D., 2014. Risk-based determination of design
offshore oil and gas production facilities, provide the minimum, pressure of LNG Fuel Storage tanks based on dynamic process simulation
mean, and maximum values of the failure rate. The minimum and combined with Monte Carlo method. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 129, 76e82. http://
maximum values cover 90% of the variation. The repair times are dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2014.04.018.
Pasman, H.J., Jung, S., Prem, K., Rogers, W.J., Yang, X., 2009. Is risk analysis a useful
tabulated in two categories, the mean and maximum. If the pro-
tool for improving process safety? J. Loss Prev. Proc. Ind. 22, 769e777. http://
posed methodology employs the maximum values of failure rate dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2009.08.001.
and repair time, the results would be more conservative. As the oil Ramirez-Marquez, J.E., Coit, D.W., 2005. A Monte-Carlo simulation approach for
and gas industry prefers conservative designs, the variation of the approximating multi-state two-terminal reliability. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 87,
253e264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2004.05.002.
required injection rate increases with the uncertainty of the reli- Refaul, F., Faisal, K., Rehan, S., Amyotte, P., Brian, V., 2013. Analyzing system safety
ability data. Obviously, the quality of the data is a prerequisite to the and risks under uncertainty using a bow-tie diagram: an innovative approach.
72 J. Kim et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 44 (2016) 62e72
Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 91, 1e18. Zio, E., Baraldi, P., Patelli, E., 2006. Assessment of the availability of an offshore
Samith, R., Faisal, K., Amyotte, P., 2014. Risk-based process plant design considering installation by Monte Carlo simulation. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 83, 312e320.
inherent safety. Saf. Sci. 70, 438e464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2006.02.010.
Seo, Y.T., Kim, J.K., Shin, S.K., Chae, H.M., Ko, M.S., 2014. Optimization of MEG in- Zio, E., Marella, M., Podofillini, L., 2007. A Monte Carlo simulation approach to the
jection and regeneration system for offshore gas fields using multiphase availability assessment of multi-state systems with operational dependencies.
simulation and synergistic inhibition strategies. In: ASME 2014 33rd Interna- Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 92, 871e882. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
tional Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. American Society j.ress.2006.04.024Zio. E., Marella, M., & Podofillini, L. (2007). A Monte Carlo
of Mechanical Engineers. V005T11A012eV005T11A012. simulation approach to the availability assessment of multi-state systems with
Xiaoyun, L., Pal, V., Keijo, K., 2011. Use of under-inhibition in hydrate control stra- operational dependencies. Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety, 92, 871-
tegies, international conference on gas hydrate. In: Proceedings of the 7th In- 882.
ternational Conference on Gas Hydrates (ICGH 2011). Edinburgh, Scotland.