The SPE Foundation through member donations Primary funding is provided by The SPE Foundation through member donations and a contribution from Offshore Europe The Society is grateful to those companies that allow their professionals to serve as lecturers Additional support provided by AIME Society of Petroleum Engineers Distinguished Lecturer Program www.spe.org/dl

Verifying Performance and Capability of New Technology for Surface and Subsea Facilities Ed Grave Society of Petroleum Engineers Distinguished Lecturer Program www.spe.org/dl

Presentation Outline Technology Qualifying Program (TQP) Why Qualify? Technical Readiness Level (TRL) TQP Pitfalls Subsea Separation Qualification Example Summary

Why Qualify? Enables new technology implementation Reduces capital costs Increases production/efficiency Improves reliability Identifies and reduces risks that can be managed Confirmation that a technology will function with confidence

Qualification Program Is a process that identifies & reduces uncertainties that are manageable Two very useful documents for subsea: Det Norske Veritas (DNV-RP-A203) American Petroleum Institute (API-RP-17N) Most companies have their own customized qualification programs

Qualification Program Technology qualification steps Steps Description 1 Qualification Basis Facts & objective identified 2 Technology Assessment Novelty, challenges, gaps 3 Threat Assessment Identifies failure modes & risks 4 Technology Qualification Plan (TQP) Strategy to manage risks 5 Execution Plan Execution of TQP (tests, analysis) 6 Performance Assessment Review of collected evidence Reference: Horpestad, Eirik; “Technology Qualification of Equipment in Subsea Production Systems”, Master Thesis, NTNU University 2012

API17N TRL Interpretation Specific for Subsea Production System TRL Stage Description Unproven Concept No Analysis 1 Analytically Proven Experimental Research 2 Physically Proven Lab Tested 3 Prototype Tested Pilot Test-Robust & Reliable 4 Environment Tested Commercial Demonstration 5 System Tested System Integration 6 System Installed Full Scale System Test 7 Field Proven Proving Operation Over Time 1 2 3 Gate Reviews – assessment at different phases…

API17N TRC/TRL Interpretation Reducing Risk/Increasing Reliability

TQP Pit Falls Too much focus on engineering and little on the process Many teams do not understand what they are trying to do Too much focus on component tests and not on the system More analytical models are needed TQP should not be an addendum Reference: Markussen, Christian; “Experience with Technology Qualification and Subsea Processing”, SPE Subsea Processing Workshop, Stresa Italy 2012

TQP Pit Falls One member is driving the show No representation by either research, project or operations No involvement from supplier Insufficient stakeholders support Short cuts due to project pressure Insufficient expertise and experience Leads to incorrect assumptions Poor Execution Plan

Pit Fall Example High Pressure Separation – Not testing device/system at expected operating conditions Verlaan Demisting Cyclones Performance Difference between N2 and NG Reference: Austrheim, Trond; “Re-entrainment Correlations for Demisting Cyclones at Elevated Pressures on a Range of Fluids”, Energy & Fuels, May 2009

Example – Subsea Separation Qualifying subsea separation for shallow water applications <1500m of water depth Flexible to a wide range of fluid and operating conditions Inlet nozzles with Inlet Vane Diffusers Perforated baffles Sand removal devices Dome with demisting cyclones Reference: “Qualification of a Subsea Separator…”, M.R. Anderson & E.J. Grave, OTC 25367-MS, May 2014

Compact Separation for Deep Water (<1500m) 2009 From Concept to Deployment 2014 Define Technical Feasibility Component & Full System Test Confirm Technical Readiness TRL 0-1 TRL 2-3 TRL 4-5 TRL 6-7 Conceptual Design Robust, flexible design Wide API Gravity Sand handling system Integrated Degassing Proof of Concept CFD analysis, Dynamic modeling Low pressure testing w/ model oils, brine, sand High Pressure System Testing Half scale testing Real crudes, natural gas Simulated operating conditions 13

Example – Subsea Separation CFD Simulations – screened a number of designs, improved feed inlet, flow profile, etc. Model Fluid Tests – validate CFD models Test Matrix cover range of fluid properties Appropriate scale to minimize geometry effects Attention to sampling points, repeatability… High Pressure Tests Crude oil, synthesized water, methane gas Similar test matrix & fluid properties Same scale with the same internals

Model Fluid Testing Data & visual observations used to validate CFD models Provides ability to see fluid flow patterns Further improvements made and tested prior to high pressure test 15

CFD & Models Validation CFD models correctly predicted biased flow patterns in the inlet and settling sections CFD does not predict effect on emulsion and foam due to pressure drop across baffles Splashing through baffles 16

High Pressure Testing With Crude Oil and Natural Gas Separator is the same diameter, length and with the same internals as tested with model oils Tests are most representative of field applications Tests performed at different flow rates, temperatures, & water cuts using three different crudes, saline water & methane gas at 45 bar-g 17

High Pressure Testing With Crude Oil and Natural Gas Oil in Water (OIW) vs Total Flow Rate; API 35⁰ Model Oil 50⁰C Total Flowrate, (m3/hr) Crude Oil at Pressure 50⁰C Oil in Water (OIW) vs Total Flow Rate; API 35⁰ 10000 8000 2000 6000 4000 20%WC 40%WC 70%WC Although the physical properties (density, viscosity, surface tension) are similar, chemical interactions and emulsion stability are not the same For this case, model oil performed poorly 18

High Pressure Testing With Crude Oil and Natural Gas Water in Oil (WiO) vs Total Flow Rate; API35⁰ Model Oil 50⁰C Total Flowrate, (m3/hr) Crude Oil 50⁰C Water in Oil (WiO) vs Total Flow Rate; API35⁰ 35% 30% 20%WC 25% 40%WC 20% WIO Out 15% 70%WC 10% 5% 0% Total Flowrate, (m3/hr) …but the oil quality was worse during the high pressure tests compared to the model oil at the same interface level 19

Summary Technology Qualification is an enabler!! Mitigates risks Implements technology Existing industry standards are a good starting point Not all TQPs are equal…leads to confusion Careful selection of the Qualification team Standardized tests will lead to savings Don’t cheat!!

Your Feedback is Important Enter your section in the DL Evaluation Contest by completing the evaluation form for this presentation Visit SPE.org/dl Society of Petroleum Engineers Distinguished Lecturer Program www.spe.org/dl 21

Back-up

Example – Subsea Separation COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS (CFD) Evaluate original separator design Optimized inlet piping, feed arrangement, and perforated baffle design Comparison between full and small-scale geometries Fixed separator design used during model fluid tests and high-pressure, “live” crude tests Original Design Improved 23

Summary Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is a good tool to inexpensively vet or improve technology CFDs must be validated with model fluids resembling expected field conditions Model fluids emulsion and foaming tendencies do not reflect real crudes For the examples presented model oil testing alone would have resulted in an incorrect design

Technical Readiness Level Developed by NASA (1970’s) Risk management tool Communication tool between technologists & managers Keeps track of technology development stage Reinforces the Qualification Process $ Reference: Warwick, Alistair; “Meeting The Challenge of Deepwater Development”, Offshore Magazine, Feb 2011