UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Concept analysis of
Gas Field
Marine Special Topic 1 OENA 8588
Krisitan Odland 21180174
5/24/2013

CONTENTS
Contents ................................................................................................................................................................................ II
Figures ................................................................................................................................................................................... II
Table ....................................................................................................................................................................................... II
Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................1
1 Sketch of two options ...................................................................................................................................................1
Option A - Tieback from wellhead to topsides facilities................................................................................1
Option B - Subsea-to-shore tieback to LNG processing onshore ...............................................................2
2 Advantages & Disadvantages ....................................................................................................................................2
Option A Platform ......................................................................................................................................................2
Option B Subsea to Shore tie-in ...........................................................................................................................3
3 Basic Carbon Steel vs Corrosion Resistant Materials ......................................................................................4
4 Cost estimate for option B ..........................................................................................................................................2
Input data for corrosion calculations....................................................................................................................2
Carbon steel .....................................................................................................................................................................2
Carbon steel + Chemical Corrosion Control .......................................................................................................2
Cost estimate for option B ..............................................................................................................................................2
References .............................................................................................................................................................................3
APPENDIX 1........................................................................................................................................................................... i
Cost estimate - Carbon steel pipe with anti-corrosive inhibitor ................................................................ i
Cost estimate - Corrosion resistant alloy (CRA) ................................................................................................ i

FIGURES
Figure 1 - Sketch of tieback from wellhead to topsides facilities ...................................................................1
Figure 2 - Subsea-to-shore tieback to LNG processing facilities onshore ..... Error! Bookmark not
defined.

TABLE
Table 1 - Platform advantages & disadvantages ...................................................................................................3
Table 2 - subsea-to-tie in.................................................................................................................................................3
Table 3 input data for corrosion calculations ........................................................................................................2
Table 4 calculation of corrosion allowance .........................................................................................................2
Table 5 - Corrosion resistant inhibitor......................................................................................................................2
Table 6 Cost estimate for option b ..............................................................................................................................2
TABLE 7 - DETAILED COST ESTIMATE FOR CARBON STEEL PIPE INHIBITOR ......................... i

II

INTRODUCTION
Two development options are explored for a new gas field:
Option A - Tieback from wellhead to topsides facilities
Option B - Subsea-to-shore tieback with LNG processing onshore
In addition a cost estimate is performed for Option B, and through-life- factors regarding
material selection for pipeline are discussed. There has been some uncertainty regarding
dissimilar information given in lecture 4 and the assessment description. However, following the
initial project description no calculations of corrosion rates & costs are done under section 3.

1 SKETCH OF TWO OPTIONS

Speaking for both concept developments factors regarding route length, technical feasibility,
environmental impact, safety and economy have been important.
The following main aspects have been considered in pipeline route selection:

Seek level, smooth and stable seabed

Avoid steepest area around the scarp
Minimize total pipeline length (straight lines when possible).
Minimize exposure-length of pipeline in shipping channel due to risk of dropped objects.
Avoid mobile sand wave, even if pipeline needs to go in a steep area east of it.
Use horizontal drilling or tunneling near shore due to cyclonic storms, low shelter along
shore and to obtain low environmental impact for people in the town using the beach.
Select an area for shore approach which is favorable regarding depth and distance needed
for horizontal drilling (at a depth of circa 20 meters, erosion becomes little)
Trench the entire length and reinforce pipe protection (if needed) over shipping channel.
Maintain sufficient stability for the entire pipeline route.

OPTION A - TIEBACK FROM WELLHEAD TO TOPSIDES FACILITIES

FIGURE 1 - SKETCH OF TIEBACK FROM WELLHEAD TO TOPSIDES FACILITIES

The platform is suggested to be located roughly 40 50 km southeast from gas field in a depth of
approximately 450 meters (fig.1) for the following main reasons:
1. A safe distance to the gas field in occasion of a gas field blow out.
2. Avoid strong currents up the scarp and rough seabed
3. Be within an economically feasible distance from manifold to platform, regarding
cost of dual flow lines for multiphase gas, electricity supply etc.
4. Avoid having platform in shallow waters where cyclonic storms occurs(< 200m)
Because the location is in a deepwater area, floating production facilities are preferred. A TLP,
SPAR or Semi-submersible could be used. Limiting the complexity of the platforms mooring
system regarding water depth has been considered. The steep slope down slide (50-60 m depth)
may be a challenge for pipelaying and intervention work due to high current velocities and
should be carefully studied.

OPTION B - SUBSEA-TO-SHORE TIEBACK TO LNG PROCESSING ONSHORE

The pipeline route selection for OPTION B is suggested roughly the same as for OPTION A. Some
short cuts may be made as there is no need to consider the platform location.

2 ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES

OPTION A PLATFORM
Advantages
Facilities Location
Economics
Materials selection
& Corrosion

Hydrate Inhibition

Ease of Inspection

Controls
Route Selection

Disadvantages

Floating production facility offers mobility and

possibility for re-use.
Lower CAPEX compared to CAPEX of subsea
solution, in general.
Processed gas offers lower corrosion risk &
less hydrate formation, thus
lower material costs, compared to a subseato-shore tie-in.

Floating topsides facilities have limitations on

payload/storage.
Offshore crew, accommodation facilities and
transport needed
Complex deepwater mooring system & flexible
risers. Riser prone to external sheath damage
during installation.

Less exposed to hydrate accumulation in

export pipeline.

Flowline -distance is 40-50 km, thus still exposed

to hydrate formation in area of HP/LT.

Physical Inspection is easier.

Still requires inspection at seabed with ROV/AUV.

Wet Trees may also be favorable.

Dry trees may be used with TLPs & Spars,

giving well access at surface
Easy access to flowlines with surface
processing
Most control facilities are located at topside.
Power supply may be provided from platform.
In some cases route selection is quite similar
to a subsea-to-shore tie-in solution.

Need to consider depth for mooring system on

platform.

Emerging riser technology trends

Extra step due to vertical fluid transportation to

platform
Vulnerability regarding platform motion&
operability and production riser system exposed
heave motion and VIV

Environmental
considerations

Interference with shipping traffic, fisheries etc.

Construction

Reliability

Less complex installations at seabed required

with platform facilities
Low downtime during maintenance

Platform installation & transportation is complex.

Specialized vessels needed
Production can be limited by weather conditions

Better flow assurance in pipeline due to

processing offshore
TABLE 1 - PLATFORM ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES

OPTION B SUBSEA TO SHORE TIE-IN

Advantages
Facilities Location

Economics

Materials selection
& Corrosion
Hydrate Inhibition

Ease of Inspection

Disadvantages

No need for permanent offshore surface facility

& optimal location of wells & manifolds can be
achieved
The 10 n rule:
Num of Wells (6)*10 < Depth (1200m) suggests > Subsea Solution
Large production capacity
New technology and industrial research today
provides new alternatives

Increased knowledge on how to prevent hydrate

accumulation
New technology and deepwater equipment
makes it possible/feasible with deepwater
intervention.

High CAPEX
Multiphase flows has higher pressure drop than
single phase
Equipment at seabed needs to resist HP/LT, thus
higher material costs
May need: 1) thermal insulation to avoid hydrate
formation & 2) thicker wall to allow corrosion
MEG injection required & multiphase may need to
be heated up to avoid hydrate formation
High maintenance - and repair costs & low
availability
Difficult to access flowlines for intervention and
inspection.
Complex control assembly and is dependant on the
use of wet-mate high-power and/or optical
connectors

Controls

Route Selection

Distance may create difficulties regarding power

supply and electrical communication

Little or no interference with offshore

constructions/ship traffic (flexible alternatives).

Route still needs to be protected against fish

trawlers, dropped objects etc.

Pipelines may be used for other projects(tie-in).

Environmental
considerations

Less exposed to environmental forces than a

platform.

Big subsea modules at seabed may be exposed to

high currents and loads.

Construction

Installation of large subsea modules possible

with a specialized vessel & good weather
conditions.

Uncertainty of regulations regarding abandonment

of subsea pipelines.

Tree and well access at the seabed

isolated from people

Installation of large subsea modules complex and

may need heavy lift vessels.
Additional pressure to reservoir likely to be needed
and electric submersible pumps (ESPs) currently
has a lifetime of around 2 years from installation.

Wet Trees gives simplified riser/vessel

interfaces
Reliability

Hydrate formation may plug production lines, stop

production and is difficult to remove.
Must incorporate inaccessibility & design for high
redundancy in system
Liquid slugs may damage onshore facilities

TABLE 2 SUBSEA TO SHORE TIE-IN

3 BASIC CARBON STEEL VS CORROSION RESISTANT MATERIALS

Basic Carbon Steel
Positive

Few hazards that cant be addressed

CRA
Positive

No corrosion (generally), thus

more reliable and may have higher safety

Good standards (DNVs ALARP)

Safety, reliability
and security of
production

Cost of safety grossly disproportionate to

increased safety

Easier to predict maintenance expenses

Negative

Environment

Less experience with CRAs

Availability of injection system < 100%

leading to downtime in operation and high
cost

Fabrication Defects (Selection based on

published corrosion/cracking resistance
envelopes)

Exposed to many types of corrosion:

Bottom line corrosion
Sulphide corrosion
Top of the line corrosion,
Internal oxygen corrosion
Galvanic corrosion
Microbial induced corrosion

Negative

Chemical Injection storage & disposal

Negative

High initial cost of injection system

(tanks, pumps, umbilical)

Maintenance &
Inspectability

Negative

Inspection, transport and use of inhibitor

gives increased risk of failure

Negative

Hazards

Less complex system

(no inhibitor system needed)

Cost of chemicals for maintenance

(in addition shipping/ handling costs)
Compatibility problems regarding other
pipeline chemicals
Operator & Operation costs of injection
system
Regular inspection & repair due to
corrosion. intelligent pigging, change of
anodes etc.

Negative

More susceptible to failure modes like:

cracking, embrittlement, fatigue and
poor welds
Stainless steel impacts: break in film due to
chloride concentration, oxidizing species etc.
gives pits, narrow mouthed and deep.

Positive

Low environmental impact

Positive

No corrosion in general
(low maintenance)

Negative

Inspection of failure modes like cracking

embrittlement and fatigue needed.

Negative

Negative

Corrosive material

Easy to weld

Expensive and limited materials available for

pipelines by welding

Positive

Material is cheap compared to CRA

Special weld procedures. Lower yield

strength in heat affected zone, regaining
strength by cold working, aging etc. cannot
be applied. Have to increase thickness
Single alloying minimizes material costs,
but chromium has poor weldability.
Need a blend of chromium, nickel & iron

Fabrication &
materials

Positive

New alloys intermediate in price between

carbon steel and duplex steels. Weldable and
suitable for HT sweet & sour service,
limited by chloride content of product
AISI 316 Stainless Steel immune to CO2corrosion

4 COST ESTIMATE FOR OPTION B

In order to give a cost estimate for Option B, a material selection has to be executed. Material
selection is based on corrosion numbers and economical feasibility. Carbon steel without a
corrosion resistant inhibitor is found unfeasible due to a high corrosion number (see tab 4).
A cost estimate is then executed for two material alternatives:
1. Carbon Steel with corrosion inhibitor
2. Corrosion Resistant Alloy

INPUT DATA FOR CORROSION CALCULATIONS

Temperature
Pressure
Amount of CO2
f CO2
pH actual

393,15
300
0,06
18
6

kelvin
bar
bar
-

TABLE 3 INPUT DATA FOR CORROSION CALCULATIONS

CARBON STEEL
The results presented, using deWaard and Lotz equation shows that carbon steel is not a feasible
solution without an anti-corrosion inhibitor. Over a 20 year design life we need a corrosion
allowance equal to 30, 4 mm. All hazards except bottom line corrosion are ignored.
deWaar and Lotz Equation for
F scale
0,045
pH saturated
3,583
pH actual
6
F pH
0,169
Uncorrected V - corrosion
201,42 mm/yr
Uninhibited Corrosion Rate V un
1,52
mm/yr
20 yr lifetime
30,4
mm
TABLE 4 CALCULATION OF NEEDED CORROSION ALLOWANCE

CARBON STEEL + CHEMICAL CORROSION CONTROL

By using a corrosion resistant inhibitor, corrosion allowance is reduced to 3, 4 mm for the design
period of 20 year. This is within a feasible corrosion allowance of 10 mm.
Reliability of injection
V inhibited (lab tested)
V unhibited corrosion rate
V average
Corrosion allowance 20 year

95
0,1
1,52
0,171
3,4

%
mm/yr
mm/yr
mm/yr
mm

TABLE 5 - CORROSION RESISTANT INHIBITOR

COST ESTIMATE FOR OPTION B

From the cost estimate (tab 6) it is clear that material costs and installation cost related to CRA
pipes overrules the fact that you dont need chemical injection and inspection during operation.
The following assumptions are made:

Survey time of 3 months (Lecture 2)

10 km onshore pipe installed (from map)
Corrosion inhibitor skid (5 mill) included in injection system & installation costs (50 mill )
Carbon Steel + Inhibitor needs intelligent pigging every 10 years (Lecture 4)

Total cost estimates for the two materials are as followed:

Materials & Fabrication
Survey & Installation
Maintenance & Inspection
Chemical Injection
Total Cost

Carbon Steel + Inhibitor

$154,2 mill
$291,0 mill
$1 mill
$77,3 mill
$523,5 mill

TABLE 6 COST ESTIMATE FOR OPTION B

A more detailed cost estimate is presented in the next in Appendix 1.

2

CRA
$700,0 mill
$591,0 mill
$1291,0 mill

REFERENCES
Woodgroup Kenny (2013) Lecture slides in the unit Special Topic 1 (OENA8588) at UWA
Lee (2009) - Introduction to Offshore Pipelines and Risers
Owe (2011) - Slide presentation - SUBSEA COMPRESSION - APPLICATION ON ORMEN LANGE
Shell Exploration & Production (2012) - Overview of Ormen Lange Project
http://www.ipt.ntnu.no/~jsg/undervisning/naturgass/lysark/LysarkGupta2012.pdf [22.05.13]

peter osmundsen

APPENDIX 1
COST ESTIMATE - CARBON STEEL PIPE WITH ANTI-CORROSIVE INHIBITOR

TABLE 7 - DETAILED COST ESTIMATE FOR CARBON STEEL PIPE INHIBITOR

COST ESTIMATE - CORROSION RESISTANT ALLOY (CRA)

TABLE 8 - DETAILED COST ESTIMATE FOR CRA