1. 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

2. Verifying Performance and Capability of New Technology for Surface and Subsea Facilities
Ed Grave
Society of Petroleum Engineers Distinguished Lecturer Program

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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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…

8. API17N TRC/TRL Interpretation
Reducing Risk/Increasing Reliability

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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 MS, May 2014

13. Compact Separation for Deep Water (<1500m)
From Concept to Deployment
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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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!!

21. 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 21

22. Back-up

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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