Predicting When and Where Hydrate

Plugs Form in Oil-Dominated Flowlines

John Boxall, Simon Davies, Carolyn A. Koh, and E. Dendy Sloan, Center for Hydrate Research,
Colorado School of Mines

Summary where mgas is the mass of gas consumed to form hydrate, kB is the
This work provides a means to predict when and where hydrate reaction rate constant, As is the surface area of the interface of the
plugs will form in oil-dominated flowlines. The method was fund- aqueous phase, and ΔT is the subcooling.
ed by the DeepStar Consortium of Energy Companies and is based The current model assumes that hydrate particles convert di-
on a Colorado School of Mines hydrate kinetic (CSMHyK) model rectly from emulsified water droplets. Nucleation is assumed to
developed over the last six years, which is currently an addition to occur at a subcooling of 6.5°F, a default parameter proposed by
the transient multiphase program OLGA by SPT Group Inc. The Matthews et al. (2000), but also a user-adjustable parameter. Once
predictions show good agreement to data for hydrate formation in hydrate is formed, the model assumes that these particles remain
three flow loops with five oils. in the oil phase. The change in relative viscosity of this phase is
Recent CSMHyK-OLGA workshops have been held in Hous- then found from the Camargo and Palermo (2002) correlation for
ton (March and April 2007) and Oslo (May 2007), and major steady-state slurry flow. A more detailed overview of the current
companies are beginning to use the program in flow assurance to CSMHyK module and its integration into OLGA can be found in
predict where and when hydrate plugs will form in flowlines. previous reports (Boxall et al. 2007; 2005). When comparing the
model with the flow loop experiments, two adjustable parameters
Introduction are used: (1) the hydrate nucleation subcooling, and (2) the fitted
Gas and oil subsea production and transportation are moving to multiplier of the kinetic constant, u, given in Eq. 2.
deeper developments where the temperature and pressure condi-
tions are well within the hydrate stability region. The subsequent k ' f = u k B , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2).
increased risk of hydrate formation requires new strategies in
flow assurance. Traditional methods of thermodynamic avoidance where u = the fitting parameter, and kB = the intrinsic kinetic rate
are impractical or uneconomic because of the large amounts of constant fitted to Bishnoi’s data (Sloan 2000).
thermodynamic inhibitor (e.g., methanol or monoethylene glycol) The CSMHyK plugging model has the following character-
required to prevent hydrates from forming under these conditions istics:
(Sloan and Koh 2008; Sloan 2000). Transient operations are partic- 1. Water is assumed to be dispersed in the oil phase.
ularly problematic because of the temporary extreme subcoolings 2. Hydrate growth rate depends on the interfacial area between
under these conditions. The prediction of hydrate formation rates water and oil. Surface area is calculated from OLGA.
in these conditions is a major challenge requiring knowledge of 3. The size of the water droplets is fixed to one single value
the kinetics of hydrate formation, rather than only hydrate ther- that can be modified by the user (default 40 µm).
modynamics. The ability to predict the rate of hydrate formation 4. The primary hydrate particles agglomerate in the oil phase.
in subsea flowlines under restart and shutdown conditions is ex- The size is determined from the Camargo and Palermo force bal-
tremely valuable in establishing new operating procedures during ance (2002) of adhesive and shear forces. In practice, this gives a
transient operations and in flowline design. single agglomerate size for a given hydrate particle concentration
The need for a comprehensive hydrate plugging model is dis- in the slurry at a given shear rate.
cussed in two papers presented at the July 2008 International Gas 5. Plugging is caused by the viscosity increase of the hydrate
Hydrate Conference in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. In the slurry from increasing hydrate volume fractions. Plugging is defined
first paper (Kinnari et al. 2008), StatoilHydro presented their view by the attainment of a preset maximum allowable viscosity value.
on the industrial requirements for a hydrate plug formation model. 6. The model does not account for hydrate deposition on the
Kinnari et al. (2008) described different operational scenarios where wall, and all hydrate growth occurs in the liquid phase. Deposition
hydrate plugging might occur and how a hydrate plug formation can, however, be simulated by imposing a low slip value between
prediction tool would be beneficial. In the second paper (Estanga the hydrate and oil. In this case, the hydrate particles will have a
et al. 2008), Chevron suggested that new operating strategies based low velocity and accumulate where they initially form.
on risk assessment may evolve from model predictions. 7. The model accounts for the exothermic heat generated from
CSMHyK is a subroutine module for the OLGA (SPT Group) hydrate formation.
multiphase flow simulator. Researchers at CSM have been devel- The key challenge was to devise a strategy for testing the kinetic
oping the module in cooperation with SPT Group since 2003. The model, CSMHyK-OLGA, in the absence of oil-dominated flowline
model predicts the rate of hydrate formation using a first-order rate data. The model was successfully tested against experimental flow
equation based on the thermal driving force. The rate equation for loop data in two different flow loop facilities [ExxonMobil (XoM),
the intrinsic kinetics (Eq. 1) was originally proposed by Vysniaus- and the University of Tulsa (Boxall et al. 2007; 2005)].
kas and Bishnoi (1983), where the intrinsic kinetics refers to hydrate
formation in the absence of mass and/or heat transfer limitations. Model Verification by Comparison With Flow
Loop Experiments Using CSMHyK-OLGA
dmgas
− = k B AS ( ⌬T ), . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) The updated CSMHyK model has been shown to successfully
dt predict hydrate formation in the ExxonMobil flow loop with the
intrinsic kinetic rate decreased by a factor of 500. This fitted rate
constant was then used to correctly predict hydrate formation in
Copyright © 2009 Society of Petroleum Engineers
the University of Tulsa flow loop for four additional oils without
This paper (SPE 129538) was revised for publication from paper OTC 19514, first presented adjustment. The value of the adjustable parameter depends on the
at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 5 – 8 May 2008. Original manuscript
received for review 31 January 2008. Revised manuscript received for review 26 January
way the surface area for hydrate formation is calculated. In this
2009. Paper peer approved 3 February 2009. case, the surface area was calculated based on the droplet surface

80 September 2009 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction

 Conroe - 550 rpm - 35% water cut Troika - 750 rpm - 25% water cut - 5 F/hr
0.25
Run 1(c): k'f = 0.002 kB 2000 k'f = 0.002 kB

Loop Pressure (psia)

Hydrate Fraction 0.20
Experiment
0.15 1800

0.10
CSMHyK-OLGA 1600
Experiment
0.05
CSMHyK-OLGA

0.00 1400
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0 5 10 15
Time (hour) Time (hours)
(a) (b)

Caratinga - 750rpm - 25% water cut - 5 F/hr Buttermilk - 750rpm - 25% water cut - 5 F/hr
6 6

5 5
Experiment Experiment
Gas Addition (kg)

Gas Addition (kg)

4 4
CSMHyK-OLGA CSMHyK-OLGA
3 3

2 2
k'f = 0.002 kB
1 k'f = 0.002 kB 1

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Time (hours) Time (hours)
(c) (d)

Fig. 1— Graphs showing rate constant fit to (a) XoM flow loop and (b, c, d) predicted formation in TU flow loop.

area (log-normal distribution with a mean size of 40 μm), assuming 1. K1SCALINGFACTOR: Adjustment of the intrinsic kinetic
full dispersion of the water phase in the oil. The reduced formation formation constant [0-1, default = 1 (formation rate = laboratory-
rate constant (0.002 times the laboratory-measured rate constant) measured rate constant)].
suggests that hydrate formation (in the flow loop) is not limited 2. SUBCOOLING: Adjustment of the subcooling temperature
by intrinsic kinetics, but instead that mass transfer or heat transfer (hydrate equilibrium T – system T) before hydrate formation initi-
limitations exist. ates [0+, default = 6.5°F].
Fig. 1 shows examples of the comparison between the 3. COIL: Adjustment of the velocity difference (slip) between
CSMHyK-OLGA model and the flow loop data for experiments the hydrate and the oil [0-1, default = 1 (Vhyd = Voil)].
in the XoM flow loop and three of the University of Tulsa flow loop 4. SIZESCALING: Adjustment of the individual hydrate
results. The fit for the XoM flow loop (Fig. 1a) is an example of (monomer) particle size used in the aggregation model [0+, de-
one out of 22 experiments with a single oil (Conroe crude) varying fault = 1, hydrate particle size = 40 μm].
water cut, pump speed, and liquid loading. The University of Tulsa The keyword K1SCALINGFACTOR refers to a multiplier for
examples (Figs. 1b thorough 1d) are examples from approximately the intrinsic kinetic rate. A value of 0.01 refers to slowing the
12 experiments with four different oils. Further information on the intrinsic kinetic rate by a factor of 100.
CSMHyK-OLGA simulations of flow loop experiments can be
found in Boxall et al. (2007; 2005). P = 300 psia
T = 80°F Separator
Application Example 1—Determining the
Hydrate Blockage Potential for a Deepwater
Area of Hydrate Risk Riser 5000 ft
Tieback
In this example, a fictional subsea tieback is simulated, and the Wellhead T = 39.2°F
effect of adjusting four key parameters is investigated. The deep- U = 4 BTU/Ft2 F Hr
water tieback for the simulation is a 30-mile long pipeline in 5,000 30 miles, 10-in. diameter
ft of water. The flowline barely enters the hydrate domain. Fig. 2 Flow Line
illustrates some of the basic inputs for the OLGA model generated
in this example.
P = 15,000 psia
Adjustable Parameter Description. This example 1 demonstrates Well
T = 220°F
how the adjustable parameters can be used to evaluate the blockage Water cut = 35%
potential of a fictional tieback. The four main adjustable parameters
in the CSMHyK-OLGA model are as follows (OLGA keyword in
block capitals and applicable adjustment range in square brackets): Fig. 2 — Schematic of the tieback in the simulation.

September 2009 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction 81

 220 0.18 220 0.18
Flowline Temperature Flowline Temperature
200 0.16 200 0.16

Hydrate Volume fraction

Hydrate Volume fraction

180 0.14 180 0.14

Temperature (°F)
Temperature (°F)

K1SCALINGFACTOR=1
160 0.12 160 0.12

140 0.10 140 0.10

120 0.08 120 0.08

K1SCALINGFACTOR=0.01
100 0.06 100 0.06

80 0.04 80 0.04

60 0.02 60 0.02
Hydrate Equilibrium Temperature Hydrate Equilibrium Temperature
40 0.00 40 0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Flowline Distance (Miles) Flowline Distance (Miles)

Fig. 3 — Simulation results using base-case values. 220 0.18

Flowline Temperature
200 0.16
The keyword SUBCOOLING is the extent that the system 180 0.14

Hydrate Volume fraction

temperature must fall below the hydrate equilibrium temperature

Temperature (°F)
K1SCALINGFACTOR=1
for hydrates to start forming (i.e., SUBCOOLING = Teqm – Tsystem). 160 0.12
Once hydrates are present, they can continue to form as long as the 140 0.10
system temperature is below the hydrate equilibrium temperature.
This metastability is almost always seen in hydrate nucleation 120
K1SCALINGFACTOR=0.001
0.08

(Sloan and Koh 2008). The default value for the SUBCOOLING 100 0.06
is 6.5°F, which is taken from Matthews et al. (2000).
The keyword COIL is the term given to the slip factor between 80 0.04

the oil velocity and the hydrate velocity. Alternatively, the keyword 60 0.02
CWAT can be used, which adjusts the slip between the water ve- Hydrate Equilibrium Temperature
locity and the hydrate velocity. The default is 1 for COIL and 0 40 0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
for CWAT. The calculation of the hydrate velocity is based on the
Flowline Distance (Miles)
following equation, where V refers to the superficial velocity of
the phase (in the subscript): Fig. 4 — The K1 scaling factor must be reduced by 100 to move
the system from heat-transfer control.
VHydrate = COIL × Voil + SWAT × Vwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)

The keyword SIZESCALING refers to the multiplication factor to the equilibrium. The slope of the hydrate fraction line after this
of the monomer hydrate particle size; the default value is 40 µm. initial spike is thus the amount of additional hydrate that is able
to form as a result of the heat removed from the pipeline. Figs. 4
Simulation Results. Fig. 3 shows the simulated temperature pro- through 7 show the effect of changing each of the parameters, the
file and hydrate formed using the default values (i.e., 6.5°F sub- most sensitive of which is the oil slip.
cooling, intrinsic kinetics, oil slip factor of 1 (no deposition), and Fig. 4 shows the effect of adjusting the hydrate formation rate
40 µm droplet/hydrate particle size). Hydrate formation in this case constant in the first order rate equation (Eq. 1). Fig. 4a shows that
is heat-transfer limited (i.e., limited by the ability of the pipeline the formation rate is heat-transfer controlled until the formation
to loose heat to the surroundings because of the exothermic heat rate constant is reduced by a factor of 100, shown by the slight
of hydrate formation). This is seen by the pipeline temperature deviation from the default case in both the hydrate fraction and
quickly rising to the hydrate equilibrium temperature after the flowline temperature. Fig. 4b shows that decreasing the formation
6.5°F nucleation criteria is met. The initial hydrate fraction spike rate constant by a factor of 1000 the formation is no longer heat-
represents the amount of hydrate required to raise the temperature transfer controlled. This result suggests that the intrinsic kinetic
rate represents a worst-case scenario for hydrate formation.
220 0.18 Fig. 5 shows the effect of adjusting the subcooling below the
Flowline Temperature equilibrium temperature before hydrate nucleation. This result
200 0.16
shows that the subcooling does not affect the overall amount of
hydrate formation significantly, only the location at which hydrates
Hydrate Volume fraction

180 0.14
are first observed. A suitable hydrate nucleation criterion, such as
Temperature (°F)

Subcooling = 0.5, 4, 6.5, 9 °F

160 0.12
subcooling before hydrate formation, however, does come into
140 0.10 significance when the question arises of if hydrates will form
in a system that only slightly enters the stable hydrate pressure/
120 0.08
temperature region.
100 0.06 Fig. 6 shows a plugging case when the slip factor is very low
Subcooling = 0.5, 4, 6.5, 9 °F (0.01), or in other words, the hydrate is essentially remaining
80 0.04
where it forms in the pipeline. The two greatest indicators that the
60 0.02 flowline plugs in this case are the pressure and the hydrate frac-
Hydrate Equilibrium Temperature tion given in Fig. 6a. The pressure in the flowline before the plug
40 0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
reaches the wellhead pressure and the hydrate fraction is 60% of
Flowline Distance (Miles)
the total volume. This high volume fraction of hydrate leads to an
extremely high relative viscosity, which in this case reaches the
Fig. 5 — Changing the subcooling affects the point of onset built-in maximum (capped hydrate volume fraction is used in the
of hydrate formation, but it has little effect on the amount of CSMHyK subroutine to prevent errors caused by values going to
hydrate formed. infinity).

82 September 2009 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction

 10000 0.70 8 4800
Plugged Plugged
9000
0.60 7 4200

Relative Viscosity of Slurrry

8000

Hydrate Volume fraction

6 3600

Liquid Velocity (ft/s)

0.50
Pressure (psia)
7000
5 3000
6000
0.40 COIL=0.01
5000 4 2400
0.30
4000 3 1800
COIL=0.01
3000 0.20
2 1200
2000
0.10 1 600
1000

0 0.00 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Flowline Distance (Miles) Flowline Distance (Miles)

Fig. 6 — The oil slip is the most sensitive parameter; a low value for COIL leads to hydrate accumulation (solid line represents
the default case).

2000 0.16 8 8

1800
SIZESCALINGFACTOR=0.5 0.14 7 7
1600

Hydrate Volume fraction

Relative Viscosity of Slurrry

0.12 6 6

Liquid Velocity (ft/s)

1400
Pressure (psia)

0.10 5 5
1200 SIZESCALINGFACTOR=0.5
1000 0.08 4 4
SIZESCALINGFACTOR=2
800
0.06 3 3
600
0.04 2 2
400
0.02 1 1
200
SIZESCALINGFACTOR=2
0 0.00 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Flowline Distance (Miles) Flowline Distance (Miles)

Fig. 7— The droplet size has little effect on the amount of hydrate formed or on the pressure drop; increasing the droplet size
reduces the relative viscosity (solid line represents the default case).

Fig. 7 shows that the hydrate monomer size does not have a representation of the well is shown in Fig. 8. The water depth was
significant effect on the plugging tendency of the flowline. The 1,700 ft, and the base of the well was located 5,000 ft below the
relative viscosity of the hydrate slurry is only slightly altered; mudline. The reservoir conditions in the simulation were 240°F
however, the pressure profile and the liquid flow are insignificantly and 5,000 psig. The simulation was performed in four parts:
affected. • Part A: Establish steady-state operation for 5 days.
Application of the CSMHyK-OLGA model to a typical tieback • Part B: Shut in for 5 days.
model resulted in the following conclusions, with regards to the • Part C: Add the CSMHyK module to the OLGA model. Re-
sensitivity of the model to the four main adjustable parameters. start the well. Assess the plugging potential.
1. Hydrate/oil velocity slip factor (keyword: COIL) has the • Part D: Repeat with methanol injection.
greatest effect on the plugging tendency of a pipeline. Parts A and B are critical to ensure that a representative fluid dis-
2. Hydrate formation in an oil-dominated pipeline system is tribution and temperature profile are obtained before the restart.
generally heat-transfer limited (rather than limited by intrinsic
kinetics).
The kinetic rate constant must be reduced by more than 100
times for the system to not be limited by heat transfer through the
pipe wall. This is shown by the system temperature being equal
to the hydrate equilibrium temperature with smaller adjustments
to the kinetic rate equation.
3. Subcooling before initial hydrate nucleation has little effect
on the overall hydrate formation (only has an effect on the onset
location).
4. Hydrate particle monomer size has little effect on hydrate
formation or plugging.

Application Example 2—Assessing

Proposed Procedures for the Cold Restart
of an Oil Well
The second example problem involved the simulation of the restart
of a vertical well that had been shut in for five days. A schematic Fig. 8 —A schematic representation of the well to be simulated.

September 2009 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction 83

 4000
Mudline
Restart Results for Various Methanol Concentrations. The
CSMHyK model was incorporated into the restart model. An
3500
Reservoir oil-slip ratio of zero was used, which forced hydrate particles to
3000 Wellhead accumulate where they initially formed rather than being trans-
ported out of the well by the oil phase. A subcooling criterion for
Pressure (psi)

2500 nucleation of 6.5°F was used, based on Matthews et al. (2000)

observations. Intrinsic growth kinetics was used for the simulations
2000
(i.e., no mass or heat-transfer limitations).
Shut-in/Restart
1500 The results from the restart simulations are shown in Fig. 10
No MeOH for methanol concentrations of 0, 10, and 30 wt%. In each case,
1000 10 wt % the pressure/temperature profile started off partially inside the
20 wt % hydrate stability region. In the uninhibited case, the accumulation
500
30 wt % of hydrate in the well caused a significant reduction in the oil and
0
gas flow rates. This meant that warm reservoir fluids took longer
30 40 50 60 70 80 to reach the hydrate and dissociate it. After 30 minutes, the well
Temperature (°F) was still deep inside the hydrate formation region. With 30 wt% of
methanol, the well was less than 5 minutes in the hydrate formation
Fig. 9 —A pressure /temperature plot showing the hydrate equi- region, and the maximum subcooling was just 5°F, which did not
librium line for various methanol concentrations and the well satisfy the nucleation criterion.
pressure-temperature profile after five days shut-in. Profile plots for the well in the four simulations are shown in
Figs. 11 through 13. The most severe flow impedance occurred
Results From the Steady-State and Shut-in Simulations. The in the uninhibited case, as indicated by the low flow rate of the
simulated temperature/pressure profile of the well at the end of the gas phase. No hydrate plug formed in the simulation with 30 wt%
five day shut-in is shown in Fig. 9. The hydrate equilibrium curves of methanol.
for various concentrations of methanol are plotted on the same figure. The most sensitive parameter in the simulations is shown to
Fig. 9 shows that even 30 wt% of methanol is insufficient to fully be the oil-slip ratio; a slip ratio of zero represents the worst case
thermodynamically inhibit the well, because hydrates are still stable and is recommended for most industrial applications. With a slip
at the pressure and temperature conditions in the well at the mudline. factor of zero, CSMHyK-OLGA can predict hydrate plug forma-
However, it is possible that the line will be kinetically inhibited (i.e., tion in industrial systems; a plug is indicated by a spike in the
there will be insufficient time and/or subcooling to form enough hy- viscosity ratio (the slurry viscosity/the oil viscosity). The model
drate to plug the well). This is the main advantage of a time-dependent predicts that under certain conditions, the plugging of a well may
hydrate formation model incorporated into a transient multiphase flow not occur during restart even though hydrates would be thermo-
simulator compared to steady-state thermodynamic models. dynamically stable.
4000 4000
0 minutes
3500 3500
5 minutes
0 minutes
3000 10 minutes 3000
15 minutes
Pressure (psi)

Pressure (psi)

5 minutes
2500 2500
30 minutes 10 minutes 15 minutes
2000 2000
30 minutes

1500 1500

1000 Equilibrium Curve for No MeOH 1000 Equilibrium Curve for 10 wt% MeOH
500 500

0 0
30 40 50 60 70 80 30 40 50 60 70 80
Temperature (°F) Temperature (°F)
(a) (b)
4000

3500
0 minutes
3000
Pressure (psi)

2500
5 minutes 10 minutes
2000

1500

1000

500 Equilibrium Curve for 30 wt% MeOH

0
30 40 50 60 70 80
Temperature (°F)
(c)

Fig. 10 — Pressure /temperature plots showing the hydrate equilibrium line and the well conditions at various times after restart
for (a) 0, (b) 10, and (c) 30 wt% methanol.

84 September 2009 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction

 5000 16 5000 16

Pressure (psia) OR Viscosity Ratio

Pressure (psia) OR Viscosity Ratio
4500 4500
14 14

4000 4000
12 12
3500 3500
10

Velocity (ft/s)

Velocity (ft/s)
10
3000 Pressure 3000
8
2500 Viscosity Ratio 2500 8
6 Pressure
2000 Gas Velocity 2000
6
4
1500
Viscosity Ratio
1500 Liquid Velocity
4
2 1000
Gas Velocity
1000

0 500
Liquid Velocity 2
500

0 –2 0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Distance from Reservoir (ft) Distance from Reservoir (ft)

Fig. 11—A profile plot from the CSMHyK-OLGA simulation Fig. 12 —A profile plot from the CSMHyK-OLGA simulation
showing a hydrate plug forming in the uninhibited well (indi- showing a hydrate plug forming in the well with 10 wt% metha-
cated by a viscosity spike and a drop in flow rate). nol (indicated by a viscosity spike and a drop in flow rate).

Conclusions measured in our laboratory in a novel micromechanical apparatus

The hydrate kinetic model, CSMHyK-OLGA has been developed. (Yang et al. 2004; Taylor et al. 2008; Nicholas et al. 2009). Current
This model provides the flow assurance engineer with a valuable work is underway to consider jamming and cold or stabilized flow
tool to predict the timescale of hydrate formation and the tendency phenomena. The current model is best suited for oil-dominated
to form hydrate plugs. This kinetic model will have applications systems; however, work on extending the model to predict block-
in developing new flow assurance strategies, including establish- age formation in gas-dominated systems (Nicholas et al. 2008) and
ing operating procedures from transient flow predictions, such as for systems with free water present is underway.
restart and shut-in, and in flowline design.
The CSMHyK-OLGA kinetic model successfully predicted Acknowledgments
the hydrate formation rate in two flow loops (ExxonMobil, and The authors would like to first thank all DeepStar participants for
University of Tulsa flow loops) for five different oils using the funding this work in part. We would also like to recognize the
same kinetic parameter (1/500 of intrinsic rate constant). The re- generous donation of flow loop time by Dr. Talley and Exxon-
duced rate constant suggests that mass or heat-transfer limitations Mobil, and Drs. Volk and DelleCase for the flowloop experiments
limit hydrate formation in the flow loops, rather than intrinsic performed at the University of Tulsa. Thanks are also given to Dr.
kinetics. Xu from the SPT Group for his help with the OLGA developments,
Industrial application of the model has been implemented by and Dr. Montesi of Chevron for his work in applying the model to
Chevron to major capital projects. CSMHyK-OLGA provides a flow lines and flow assurance design.
worst-case scenario of hydrate formation. Sensitivity analysis of
the model demonstrated: (a) hydrate plugging can be predicted on References
restart, (b) the rate of heat removal from the pipeline often limits Boxall, J., Davies, S., Miller, K.T., Koh, C.A., Sloan, E.D., and Creek, J.
hydrate growth, and (c) reducing slip factors causes hydrate ac- 2007. Hydrate Plug Formation Model. Final report, CTR 8201, Deep-
cumulation, which poses the greatest risk for plug formation. Star, Houston, Texas.
Boxall, J., Miller, K.T., Rensing, P., Taylor, C., Koh, C.A., and Sloan, E.D.
Future Work 2005. Hydrate Plug Formation Model on Flow-Line Start-Up. Final
The sensitivity analysis showed that the slip factor between the Report, CTR 7201, DeepStar, Houston, Texas.
hydrate and the oil was the most important factor in determining Camargo, R. and Palermo, T. 2002. Flow Properties of Hydrate Suspen-
whether a system will plug. Physical measurements on the ten- sions in Asphaltenic Crude Oil. Proc., 4th International Conference on
dency for hydrate particles to agglomerate and deposit have been Gas Hydrates, Yokohama, Japan, 19–23 May, 880–885.
Estanga, D., Kini, R., Subramanian, S., and Creek, J. 2008. Last 20 Years
of Gas Hydrates in the Oil Industry: Challenges and Achievements in
5000 16
Predicting Pipeline Blockage. Oral presentation given at the 6th Inter-
Pressure (psia) OR Viscosity Ratio

4500
14
national Conference on Gas Hydrates (ICGH 2008), Vancouver, British
4000
Columbia, Canada, 6–10 July.
12 Kinnari, K., Labes-Carrier, C., Lunde, K., Fossum, T., Hemmingsen, P.,
3500
Davies, S., Boxall, J., Koh, C.A., and Sloan, E.D. 2008. Hydrate Plug
10
Velocity (ft/s)

3000 Formation Prediction Tool—An Increasing Need for Flow Assurance

in the Oil Industry. Oral presentation given at the 6th International Con-
2500 8
ference on Gas Hydrates (ICGH 2008), Vancouver, British Columbia,
2000 Pressure Canada, 6–10 July.
6
1500 Viscosity Ratio
Matthews, P.N., Notz, P.K., Widener, M.W., and Prukop, G. 2000. Flow
4 loop experiments determine hydrate plugging tendencies in the field.
1000 Gas Velocity In Gas Hydrates: Challenges for the Future, ed. G.D. Holder and
2
500 Liquid Velocity P.R. Bishnoi, Vol. 912, 330–338. New York: Annals of the New York
0 0
Academy of Sciences.
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Nicholas, J.W., Dieker, L.E., Nuebling, L., Horn, B., He, H., Koh, C.A., and
Distance from Reservoir (ft) Sloan, E.D. 2008. Experimental Investigation of Deposition and Wall
Growth in Water Saturated Hydrocarbon Pipelines in the Absence of
Fig. 13 —A profile plot from the CSMHyK-OLGA simulation show- Free Water. Proc., 6th International Conference on Gas Hydrates (ICGH
ing no hydrate plug forms in the well with 30 wt% methanol. 2008), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 6–10 July.

September 2009 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction 85

Nicholas, J.W., Dieker, L.E., Sloan, E.D., and Koh, C.A. 2009. Assessing John Boxall is a post doctoral fellow at the Colorado School
the feasibility of hydrate deposition on pipeline walls—Adhesion force of Mines working on hydrate flow assurance issues. He
measurements of clathrate hydrate particles on carbon steel. J. Colloid graduated with his PhD from the Colorado School of Mines
Interface Sci. 331 (2): 322–328. doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2008.11.070. in 2009 having previously obtained his BS degree from the
Sloan, E.D. Jr. 2000. Hydrate Engineering, Vol. 21. Richardson, Texas: University of Canterbury. Simon Davies is a PhD candidate at
the Colorado School of Mines studying the role of transport
Monograph Series, SPE.
resistances in hydrate plug formation and remediation. He
Sloan, E.D. Jr. and Koh, C.A. 2008. Clathrate Hydrates of Natural Gases, third graduated from Loughborough University in 2005 with an
edition, Vol. 119. Boca Raton, Florida: Chemical Industries, CRC Press. ME in chemical engineering. Carolyn Koh is an associate
Taylor, C.J., Dieker, L.E., Miller, K.T., Koh, C.A., and Sloan, E.D. 2008. professor at the Colorado School of Mines and co-director
Hydrate Particles Adhesion Force Measurements: Effects Of Tem- of the Center for Hydrate Research. She obtained her BS and
perature, Low Dosage Inhibitors, and Interfacial Energy. Proc., 6th PhD from the University of West London and later worked
International Conference on Gas Hydrates (ICGH 2008), Vancouver, as a post doctoral fellow at Cornell University. Before joining
British Columbia, Canada, 6–10 July. the Center for Hydrate Research in 2004, Koh was a reader
Vysniauskas, A. and Bishnoi, P.R. 1983. A kinetic study of methane hydrate at King’s College, University of London. Dendy Sloan is the
Weaver Distinguished Professor at the Colorado School of
formation. Chem. Eng. Sci. 38 (7): 1061–1072. doi: 10.1016/0009-
Mines and the founder and director of the Center for Hydrate
2509(83)80027-X. Research. He has worked with hydrates for over 30 years since
Yang, S-O, Kleehammer, D.M, Huo, Z, Sloan, E.D., and Miller, K.T. 2004. his post doctoral research at Rice University. Before his work
Temperature dependence of particle-particle adherence forces in ice with hydrates, Sloan worked for DuPont for a number of years.
and clathrate hydrates. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 277 (2): 335–341. doi: He originally obtained his Bachelor’s and PhD from Clemson
10.1016/j.jcis.2004.04.049. University.

86 September 2009 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction