Mitigation of Slug Formation in Pipeline-Riser Systems Using Bypass Lines: A Simulation-Based Approach

Authors

  • Bright Bariakpoa Kinate Department of Petroleum Engineering, Rivers State University, Port Harcourt, Nigeria
  • Seth Uba Wadike Department of Petroleum Engineering, Rivers State University, Port Harcourt, Nigeria
  • Robin Nyemenim Abu Department of Petroleum Engineering, Rivers State University, Port Harcourt, Nigeria

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70112/ajeat-2024.13.1.4231

Keywords:

Slug Formation, Pipeline-Riser System, Bypass Line, Simulation-Based Approach, Pressure Build-Up

Abstract

Slug formation in pipeline-riser systems has constituted a serious flow challenge that requires frequent evaluation to eliminate where possible. This work evaluates the volume flow at the riser top, fluid pressure at the outlet, accumulated and surge liquid volume flow, and riser base pressure for different bypass line sizes to attenuate slugging. A simulation-based approach was adopted, and a pipeline-riser model was developed, with a fluid characterization and property generation tool utilized for the fluid properties. A base case pipeline-riser model was created with a self-lift bypass line of internal diameter 6 inches for the pipeline to transport gas to the riser at a location above the riser base, connected to the start point at 2141.8186 ft. The bypass line transmits the pipeline gas to the riser at approximately 1/3 (90 ft) of the riser's total height from the base. A phase splitter node (start-up point) was placed at a distance of 2141.8186 ft along the pipeline between an internal node and a separator network. The phase splitter node was configured to allow only gas to pass through the “bypass line” and liquid through the “Subsea Tieback.” Results show a stable liquid production of approximately 2861.35 bbl/day at the top side when an auxiliary bypass line of size 4 inches was used as a gas re-injection line into the riser column, whereas for the 2-inch, 6-inch, and 8-inch bypass lines, the total liquid flow was changing with time. There was a pressure build-up at the riser base, causing severe slugs to form and accumulate at the riser base, reaching the highest for the 2-inch bypass line size and the lowest for the 4-inch bypass line. An auxiliary self-lift bypass line of 4-inch size was the most effective in mitigating slugging in the pipeline system for the line sizes evaluated.

References

B. Ehinmowo, E. T. Evwierhoma, A. M. Aliyu, and Y. D. Baba, “Areliable strategy for slug flow attenuation in pipeline-riser systems,”J. Phys.: Conf. Series, vol. 1378, no. 3, 2009.

A. H. Al-Kandari and V. S. Koleshwar, “Overcoming slugging problems in a long-distance multiphase crude pipeline,” in Proc. Soc. Petroleum Eng. (SPE) Annu. Techn. Conf., Houston, TX, USA, 3-6 Oct. 1999.

O. P. Oseyande, “Feasibility study on hydrodynamic slug control,” M.S. thesis, Cranfield Univ., 2010.

S. Pedersen, P. Durdevic, and Yang, “Challenges in slug modeling and control for offshore oil and gas productions: A review study,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, vol. 88, pp. 270-284, 2017.

R. P. Chhabra and J. F. Richardson, Non-Newtonian Flow in theProcess Industry: Fundamentals and Engineering Applications. Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999.

R. N. Hassanlouei, H. Firouzfar, N. Kasiri, and M. H. Khanof, “Asimple mathematical model for slug liquid holdup in horizontal pipes,” Scientia Iranica, vol. 19, pp. 1653-1660, 2012.

E. T. Hurlburt and T. J. Hanratty, “Prediction of the transition fromstratified to slug and plug flow for long pipes,” Int. J. MultiphaseFlow, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 707-729, 2002.

P. M. Ujang, C. J. Lawrence, C. P. Hale, and G. F. Hewitt, “Slug initiation and evolution in two-phase horizontal flow,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 527-552, 2006.

P. Valluri, P. D. M. Spelt, C. J. Lawrence, and G. F. Hewitt,“Numerical simulation of the onset of slug initiation in laminarhorizontal channel flow,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 206-225, 2008.

Z. Schmidt, J. P. Brill, and H. D. Beggs, “Choking can eliminate severe pipeline slugging,” Oil & Gas J., vol. 77, no. 46, pp. 230-233, 1979.

M. A. Farghaly, “Study of severe slugging in real offshore pipelineriser-pipe system,” SPE 15726, presented at the SPE Middle East Oil Technol. Conf., Manama, Bahrain, 1987.

A. B. Ehinmowo and Y. Cao, “Stabilizing slug flow at large valveopening using active feedback control,” in Proc. 21st Int. Conf. Automation & Computing, Univ. Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK, 2015.

Ø. Kaasa, “A subsea slug catcher to prevent severe slugging,” in 6th Underwater Technology Int. Conf., Bergen, Norway, 1990.

J. Hollenberg, S. DeWolf, and W. Meiring, “A method to suppress severe slugging in flow-line riser systems,” in 7th BHRG Int. Conf. Proc., Cannes, France, pp. 88-103, 1995.

A. B. Ehinmowo, O. O. Ogunleye, and O. D. Orodu, “Experimental investigation of hydrodynamic slug mitigation potential of an intermittent absorber,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des., vol. 113, pp. 50-60, 2016.

J. Tengesdal, C. Sarica, and L. G. Thompson, “Severe slugging attenuation for deepwater multiphase pipeline and riser systems,”SPE Prod. & Facil., vol. 18, pp. 269-279, 2003.

J. O. Tengesdal, “Investigation of self-lifting concept for severe slugging elimination in deep-water pipeline/riser systems,” Ph.D. dissertation, Penn. State Univ., 2002.

B. B. Kinate, E. A. Temple, and A. A. Loveday, “Investigation of self-lifting approach for slug attenuation in inclined pipeline-riser system,” Amer. J. Appl. Sci. Eng., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1-11, 2023.

Downloads

Published

21-04-2024

How to Cite

Kinate, B. B., Wadike, S. U., & Abu, R. N. (2024). Mitigation of Slug Formation in Pipeline-Riser Systems Using Bypass Lines: A Simulation-Based Approach. Asian Journal of Engineering and Applied Technology, 13(1), 30–36. https://doi.org/10.70112/ajeat-2024.13.1.4231