调试前的决定:是否对柔性管线进行脱水

Marlycia Banks, W. Meng, Julio Jover Azpurua
{"title":"调试前的决定:是否对柔性管线进行脱水","authors":"Marlycia Banks, W. Meng, Julio Jover Azpurua","doi":"10.4043/29520-MS","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper presents the drivers used to determine the preferred method for pre-commissioning the flexible flowlines for a shallow water gas development project in Trinidad by BP.\n Upon mechanical completion, the flexible flowlines are required to be hydrotested to ensure the system is leak-free. After the hydrostatic pressure test, the industry norm is to dewater and dry the flowlines. However, the system architecture (one flexible flowline per well) requires subsea maneuvers around the subsea trees, which brings about significant risk of damaging the trees.\n Several alternatives (shown below) were proposed:Base Case – The original plan was to remove the tree choke insert, then insert the newly developed temporary subsea pig receiver into the choke body. Nitrogen (N2) and gel pigs are used to push water from the topsides to the subsea tree. The specification is to reduce the flowline water content to 5% or less.Alternative 1 – Involved not using the gel pigs and only using N2 gas to push the water out from the topside to the subsea tree. This alternative would not require a temporary pig receiver, which reduces the chance of damaging the choke insert profile.Alternative 2 – Involves dewatering the flowline using the umbilical tubes (methanol lines). This has an advantage in that there is no need to pull the subsea tree choke insert, which reduces the risk of damaging the trees.Alternative 3 – Do nothing and leave the seawater in the flowlines. The production stream would be used to push the water into the production system during first gas production (well offloading).\n The study concluded that all three alternatives were technically feasible. For Alternative 3, an additional assessment was conducted to determine the impact of seawater on the flexible pipe when exposed for an extended time. Ultimately, the decision was made to not dewater the flowlines. The corresponding well offloading (flow back) procedure and a contingency plan were then developed.\n The Juniper development had first gas in September 2017. The first well offloading with integrated de-watering went as planned. The decision of not-dewatering the flowlines was proven to be a good decision by reducing risks, costs and simplifying the schedule during the commissioning period.","PeriodicalId":10948,"journal":{"name":"Day 2 Tue, May 07, 2019","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Pre-Commissioning Decision: Dewater the Flexible Flowlines or Not\",\"authors\":\"Marlycia Banks, W. Meng, Julio Jover Azpurua\",\"doi\":\"10.4043/29520-MS\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This paper presents the drivers used to determine the preferred method for pre-commissioning the flexible flowlines for a shallow water gas development project in Trinidad by BP.\\n Upon mechanical completion, the flexible flowlines are required to be hydrotested to ensure the system is leak-free. After the hydrostatic pressure test, the industry norm is to dewater and dry the flowlines. However, the system architecture (one flexible flowline per well) requires subsea maneuvers around the subsea trees, which brings about significant risk of damaging the trees.\\n Several alternatives (shown below) were proposed:Base Case – The original plan was to remove the tree choke insert, then insert the newly developed temporary subsea pig receiver into the choke body. Nitrogen (N2) and gel pigs are used to push water from the topsides to the subsea tree. The specification is to reduce the flowline water content to 5% or less.Alternative 1 – Involved not using the gel pigs and only using N2 gas to push the water out from the topside to the subsea tree. This alternative would not require a temporary pig receiver, which reduces the chance of damaging the choke insert profile.Alternative 2 – Involves dewatering the flowline using the umbilical tubes (methanol lines). This has an advantage in that there is no need to pull the subsea tree choke insert, which reduces the risk of damaging the trees.Alternative 3 – Do nothing and leave the seawater in the flowlines. The production stream would be used to push the water into the production system during first gas production (well offloading).\\n The study concluded that all three alternatives were technically feasible. For Alternative 3, an additional assessment was conducted to determine the impact of seawater on the flexible pipe when exposed for an extended time. Ultimately, the decision was made to not dewater the flowlines. The corresponding well offloading (flow back) procedure and a contingency plan were then developed.\\n The Juniper development had first gas in September 2017. The first well offloading with integrated de-watering went as planned. The decision of not-dewatering the flowlines was proven to be a good decision by reducing risks, costs and simplifying the schedule during the commissioning period.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10948,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Day 2 Tue, May 07, 2019\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Day 2 Tue, May 07, 2019\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4043/29520-MS\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 2 Tue, May 07, 2019","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4043/29520-MS","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文介绍了BP在特立尼达的一个浅水天然气开发项目中用于确定柔性管线预调试优选方法的驱动因素。机械完井后,需要对柔性管线进行水压测试,以确保系统无泄漏。静水压试验后,行业规范是对管线进行脱水和干燥。然而,该系统架构(每口井有一条灵活的管线)需要在海底采油树周围进行水下操作,这带来了破坏采油树的重大风险。基本方案:最初的计划是移除采油树节流阀,然后将新开发的临时水下清管器接收器插入节流阀体内。氮气(N2)和凝胶清管器用于将水从上部推至海底采油树。该规格是将流线含水量降低到5%或更低。备选方案1:不使用凝胶清管器,只使用氮气将水从上部推至海底采油树。这种替代方案不需要临时清管器接收器,从而减少了损坏节流阀插入物轮廓的可能性。方案2 -包括使用脐带管(甲醇管)对流水线进行脱水。这样做的优势在于不需要拉下水下采油树节流阀,从而降低了损坏采油树的风险。选择3 -什么都不做,让海水留在管道中。在第一次产气(井卸载)期间,生产流将用于将水推入生产系统。该研究的结论是,这三种替代方案在技术上都是可行的。对于替代方案3,进行了额外的评估,以确定海水在长时间暴露时对柔性管的影响。最终,公司决定不对管线进行脱水处理。随后制定了相应的卸载(返流)程序和应急计划。Juniper开发项目于2017年9月首次获得天然气。第一口井的卸载与综合脱水按计划进行。事实证明,在调试期间,不脱水是一个很好的决定,可以降低风险、成本并简化进度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Pre-Commissioning Decision: Dewater the Flexible Flowlines or Not
This paper presents the drivers used to determine the preferred method for pre-commissioning the flexible flowlines for a shallow water gas development project in Trinidad by BP. Upon mechanical completion, the flexible flowlines are required to be hydrotested to ensure the system is leak-free. After the hydrostatic pressure test, the industry norm is to dewater and dry the flowlines. However, the system architecture (one flexible flowline per well) requires subsea maneuvers around the subsea trees, which brings about significant risk of damaging the trees. Several alternatives (shown below) were proposed:Base Case – The original plan was to remove the tree choke insert, then insert the newly developed temporary subsea pig receiver into the choke body. Nitrogen (N2) and gel pigs are used to push water from the topsides to the subsea tree. The specification is to reduce the flowline water content to 5% or less.Alternative 1 – Involved not using the gel pigs and only using N2 gas to push the water out from the topside to the subsea tree. This alternative would not require a temporary pig receiver, which reduces the chance of damaging the choke insert profile.Alternative 2 – Involves dewatering the flowline using the umbilical tubes (methanol lines). This has an advantage in that there is no need to pull the subsea tree choke insert, which reduces the risk of damaging the trees.Alternative 3 – Do nothing and leave the seawater in the flowlines. The production stream would be used to push the water into the production system during first gas production (well offloading). The study concluded that all three alternatives were technically feasible. For Alternative 3, an additional assessment was conducted to determine the impact of seawater on the flexible pipe when exposed for an extended time. Ultimately, the decision was made to not dewater the flowlines. The corresponding well offloading (flow back) procedure and a contingency plan were then developed. The Juniper development had first gas in September 2017. The first well offloading with integrated de-watering went as planned. The decision of not-dewatering the flowlines was proven to be a good decision by reducing risks, costs and simplifying the schedule during the commissioning period.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信