SPE-193531-MS

Self-Lift and Gas-Lift Slug Mitigation Techniques Combined: A New

Approach to Severe Slug Mitigation in Deepwater Scenario

Ndubuisi U. Okereke, Shadrach O. Ogiriki, and Anselm I. Igbafe, Professor, Afe Babalola University

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 6–8 August 2018.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
In recent times, studies on slugging have focused on the development of new and optimal slug mitigation
techniques. This study focused on investigating a new proposed severe slug mitigation technique which
involves combining self-lift and gas-lift. The self-lift slug mitigation technique is a unique approach that
involves in-situ gas being tapped-off via a by-pass pipe along a pipeline upstream of a riser. The in-situ gas
is then re-injected into the riser column via an injection point on the riser, to break liquid slugs within the
riser column and mitigate severe slugging. This study adopted a methodology which involved validating
the field data by comparing field pressure data with OLGA simulation based on input data from the field.
The field case involved a deepwater oil field, consisting of well X1 and well X2 comingled along a 2712m
pipeline section and a 1513m riser section. The pipeline-riser system in consideration in the case-study
experienced hydrodynamic slugging, during the early life of the field; when the two wells comingled on the
pipeline-riser system were operating at 3000 bbl/d. The 3000 bbl/d scenario (well X1 – 8.745 kg/s and well
X2 – 25.13 kg/s) was initially modelled via OLGA. Furthermore, the 3000 bbl/d scenario was modified by
moderating the flow rates at well X1 to 3.25 kg/s and well X2 to 12.13 kg/s until severe slugging scenario
was observed, which was verified via pressure and holdup trend plots. Self-lift technique alone was able
to moderate holdup within the riser column, however pressure trend at the riser column was observed to
be over 20 bara (290.075 psi) which is the design pressure for the inlets of the separator. Further analysis
of results obtained via the combination of self-lift and gas-lift at 2 inches by-pass diameter and 8kg/s gas-
lift showed that pressure at the riser column was stabilized to approximately 20 bara (290.075 psi). This
study showed that a by-pass internal diameter to pipeline-riser internal diameter ratio of (1 : 2) or less is
crucial to the effectiveness of self-lift and gas-lift slug mitigation techniques combined. The new approach
proposed in this study also has the potential of moderating the high compressive cost associated with gas-
lift in deepwater scenario.

Introduction
The current global trend in the energy market as shown in Figure 1, highlights a trend of increasing oil
demand in the yellow trend plot until fourth quarter of 2018 with oil demand increasing to over 100 mb/d.
Although demand for oil is increasing, oil price is currently moderate at an average of about $60/barrel, with
2 SPE-193531-MS

output from US shale oil increasing. Hence, there is need for production from deepwater oil fields to occur
at a competitive price. Severe slugging which involves flow rate and pressure fluctuations at the riser-base
and topsides is a key production challenge for deepwater oil fields, with potentials of reducing production
by 50%, causing very poor oil and water separation at the topsides separator and also leading to potential
structural failures on offshore pipeline-riser systems (Yocum, 1973); (Pedersen, 2015). In order to optimize
production from depwater oil fields, there is an urgent need to develop innovative and cost-effective slug
mitigation techniques to manage severe slugging challenges in deepwater oil field scenarios. This paper
focused on adapting the Self-lift slug mitigation strategy to deepwater oil field scenario by combining Self-
lift and Gas-lift severe slugging mitigation techniques, with potentials of reducing typical gas volumes
compressed in deploying gas-lift severe slugging mitigation technique.

Figure 1—IEA Oil Demand and Supply Balance until 4Q18, ((IEA), 2018)

Severe Slugging Phenomenon Description

Severe slugging is a phenomenon which occurs typically at low mass flow rate. The configuration of the
pipeline-riser system, with low points around the riser-base, leading to liquid accumulation at such low mass
flow rate, is also another key factor influencing the occurrence of severe slugging. Citing (Taitel, 1986);
(Ogazi, 2011); (Okereke, 2018), severe slugging consists of four stages as shown in Figure 2. At stage 1,
severe slugging begins with accumulation of liquid phase at the base of the riser, until the riser-base is
blocked as a result of increased liquid accumulation (liquid holdup) during the low mass flow rate period.
At stage 2, the gas pressure behind the liquid accumulation builds up; giving rise to slug growth along the
riser column. This slug growth continues until the liquid is pushed off to the inlets of the separator at high
velocity as captured in stage 3, often leading to trips of the valves at the inlet of the separator. Furthermore,
as gas pressure drops with the elimination of the liquid accumulation at the riser-base, the gas blow down
stage (stage 4) commences with fall back of liquid as the gas pressure drops. The four stages of severe
slugging are clearly illustrated in Figure 2.
SPE-193531-MS 3

Figure 2—Severe Slugging Cycle (Okereke, 2018)

Assessment of Existing Severe Slugging Mitigation Strategies

Industry currently deploys mainly topsides choking and gas-lift severe slug mitigation techniques. However,
based on studies by (Sarica, 2000) topsides choking for instance has the draw-backs of excessive back-
pressure issues associated with it and the limitation of small valve opening which affects volume of
production, for multiphase fluid flow stabilization to be achieved at the topsides. Also, citing (Sarica, 2000);
(Pedersen, 2015), gas-lift has the draw-back of the huge volume of gas required and the associated high
power requirement for gas to be compressed to the riser-base, to stabilize pressure fluctuation within the
pipeline-riser system and enable the multiphase fluid flow to arrive the inlets of the topsides separator at
a stable condition. Although research study such as (Ogazi, 2011) has proposed strategies for operating
topsides choking at large valve opening, these strategies are not yet robust for industry application. The
study by (Jones, 2014) also considered a few passive slug mitigation strategies such as:

• Altering the pipeline geometry to reduce or eliminate severe slugging. However, this approach is
not cost-effectibe for existing subsea pipelines in deepwater scenario.
• The use of slug catchers. This approach can be comparatively cheap, however space and weight
of installation constraint on the topsides is a crucial issue.
Self-lift severe slug mitigation has the potential to mitigate severe slugging as highlighted in the study
conducted by (Sarica, 2000), hence the focus of this work on understanding the behaviour of the in-situ
gas tapped-off via the by-pass diameter, when self-lift severe slug mitigation technique is adapted to typical
deepwater pipeline-riser scenario by combining Self-lift technique with gas-lift technique.
4 SPE-193531-MS

Review on Self-lift Severe Slug Mitigation Technique

In the Self-lift Severe Slug Mitigation Technique, in-situ gas is tapped-off from the multiphase (oil/water/
gas) flow stream flowing from the wellhead along the pipeline from a point A (take-off point) along the
pipeline, upstream of the riser-base and subsequently injected into the riser column at a point B (injection
point), to break the liquid slug building-up from the riser-base. The Self-lift technique is captured in Figure
3. The by-pass pipe is a major component of the Self-lift Technique and its primary function is to create a
pressure differential between the take-off point and the injection point and to subsequently compress the in-
situ gas that has been tapped-off from the pipeline section and then enable the arrival of the in-situ gas at a
relatively high pressure at the riser column section; in order to break the liquid slug within the riser column.
The Self-lift technique was proposed by Barbuto (United States of America Patent No. 5478504A, 1995).
Research work done by Fabre, J. in (Fabre, 1990) tested the Self-lift approach via experimental studies
and the method was verified to be relevant in mitigating severe slugging on a 25.5m × 13.2m pipeline-
riser experimental set-up. Further work by (Tangesdal, 2003), captured suggestions on how Self-lift
Technique can be adapted to deepwater scenario via optimisation of the by-pass valve opening. Adefemi
et al. (Adefemi, 2017) verified the experimental results obtained by Fabre, J. via OLGA (OiL and GAs)
simulation and attempted adapting self-lift technique to deepwater scenario; however the results indicated
minor stabilization of slugflow, with riser-base and riser-top pressure still indicating a relatively unstable
behaviour. Recent studies by Okereke, N.U. and Omotara, O.O. (Okereke, 2018); proposed an approach of
combining self-lift and gas-lift, however there is still need for a clearer understanding of how this approach
works; which forms a core part of this paper. This study focussed on carrying out in-depth investigation on
the Self-lift and Gas-lift Slug Mitigation Techniques Combined in-order understand the behaviour of the in-
situ gas tapped-off from the by-pass pipe at various conditions and to observe the best scenario that leads
to the stabilization of riser-base and topsides arrival pressure in typical deepwater oil field scenario.

Figure 3—Self-Lift Schematic CITATION (De Almeida Barbuto, 1995)

Highlight on OLGA (OiL and GAs) Modelling Tool

OLGA (OiL and GAs) modelling tool is a one dimensional two-fluid equation based multiphase flow
transient tool. OLGA can be used to model various multiphase flow technical challenges such as slugging,
hydrates and wax on a transient bases (In time and space). OLGA is a widely used multiphase flow simulator
that was developed by IFE and SINTEF in the 1980s and continuous improvement on the tool has been on
SPE-193531-MS 5

till date via the OVIP (OLGA Verification and Improvement Project) (Ali, 2009). This research study was
based on OLGA 7.00 version.
OLGA transient simulator solves seven (7) key equations including: three (3) separate continuity
equations for bulk liquid, gas and liquid droplets in gas, two (2) momentum equations with one for liquid
and one for combined gas and liquid droplets in gas, finally one (1) combined mixture energy conservation
equation. All seven (7) equations are related to each other with closure relationship to friction factors and/
or wetted parameter depending on the flow regime (Bendiksen, 1991); (Okereke, 2018). The main OLGA
equations are as highlighted below:
Continuity:

• Gas phase equation:

(1)

• Bulk liquid phase equation:

(2)

• Liquid droplet within gas phase:

(3)

Momentum:

• Gas phase equation:

(4)

Liquid droplets equation:

(5)

Liquid at wall equation:

(6)
6 SPE-193531-MS

(7)

Combination of liquid within gas phase and gas phase equation:

(8)

The key parameters in the equations are: Vg, Vl and VD representing volume fractions of gas, liquid and
liquid droplets. A is the pipe cross-sectional area, ψg is the mass transfer between phases ψe and ψD are
entrainment deposition rates and ρl is the density of liquid phase. G is the mass source. ϴ is the angle of
inclination, P reflects the pressure, ρg refers to the density of gas phase and d is the droplet deposition and
S is the wetted perimeter, Vr is the relative velocity and λ is the friction coefficient for gas (g), liquid (l)
and finally interface (i). In closing the system of equations in OLGA, it is required that the fluid properties,
boundary and initial conditions are clearly defined (Schlumberger, 2014).

Severe Slugging Mitigation – Deepwater Oil Field Case-Study

The emergence of deepwater oil fields have created a need to gain better understanding of the flow behaviour
of key parameters such as liquid holdup and pressure fluctuation at the riser-base and topsides during the
occurrence of slugging and more importanly, to assess new and optimal techniques for slug mitigation in
deepwater scenario.
In this section of the paper, focus was on applying the Self-Lift slug mitigation approach to a sample deep-
water oil field off the coast of West Africa by considering a simulation study involving the combination of
Self-lift and Gas-lift slug mitigation strategies. The deepwater field case-study in focus is shown in Figure 4.
The field is located in a water depth of about 1463.04m below mean sea level. The field being investigated
is an oil field located in Nigeria (Okereke, 2018). It currently has over 12 subsea production wells producing
via 4-slot subsea production manifolds and is tied back to the FPSO via 8 (eight) production risers. This study
is focused on Pipeline-Riser (X1 - X2) which consists of two production wells (X1 and X2) comingled via
a subsea manifold (MF) and tied back to the topsides via an 8″ (inches) riser. MF (The manifold comingling
X1 and X2) also connects a subsea water injection christmas tree and subsea gas injection christmas tree,
for pressure maintenance; however these trees are not yet in operational and were not captured in the OLGA
simulation model.
SPE-193531-MS 7

Figure 4—Geometry of Pipeline-Riser (X1 - X2) Showing the Profile from Seabed to Topside (Okereke, 2018)

With reference to Figure 4, Well X1, the well at the inlet point of Pipeline-Riser (X1 – X2) in consideration
is located on the seabed at a water depth of 1447.8 m below mean sea level and is located at about 2712.72
m from the base of the riser. Also, Well X2, is located at a water depth of 1447.8m and 1645.92m upstream
of the riser-base. The topsides vessel (FPSO) stands in water with its production deck located at about 49 m
above sea level. The vertical riser connected to the production vessel is at water-depth 1513.03 m, with I.D
(internal diameter) of 8 inches and pipe roughness of 0.002m. Table 1, shows the pipeline-riser co-ordinates
and section lengths for the numerical modelling of Pipeline-Riser (X1 – X2).

Table 1—Co-Ordinates and Section Lengths for Pipeline-Riser (X1 – X2) (Okereke, 2018)
8 SPE-193531-MS

Table 2—Fluid Properties of Field Data (Okereke, 2018)

The fluid composition of the fluid flowing through Pipeline-Riser (X1 - X2) is as shown in Table 2. The
fluid composition was defined in PVTsim20. The water-cut was modelled as 3% on PVTsim20 based on the
field data. The GOR was confirmed as 385.91 Sm3/Sm3 via PT flash carried out on PVTsim20. The PT flash
was carried out at a minimum pressure of 1 bar and maximum pressure of 300 bar; as well as minimum
temperature of -20°C and maximum temperature of 120°C. The fluid in consideration is a relatively light oil
of API 47 degree. It consists of relatively high molar composition of methane (43.3 Mol. %). The Heptane
plus composition of the fluid is also relatively high (28.83 Mol. %). The composition of the field fluid as
well as the pipe configuration with over 2000m pipeline length makes it a bit difficult for stable fluid flow
to the riser at relatively low mass flowrate.
The design pressure at the topsides separator is constant and given as 20 bara (290.075 psi). Assumption
was made on the minimum arrival temperature at the production vessel is 78.2°C. The maximum allowable
pipeline inlet pressure was set at 150 bara (2175.57 psi) for a flowrate of 6722 bbl/d (oil flowrate), 4 MMScf/
d (gas flow rate), 0 STB/d (water flowrate) in well X1 modelled as (13.15kg/s) and a flowrate of 22,157 bbl/d
(oil flowrate), 23 MMScf/d (gas flowrate) and 6 STB/d (water flowrate) in well X2 modelled as (56.128 kg/
s). The field wellhead pressure is 115 Bara (1678.69 psi). The minimum ambient temperature of the seabed
was set to 5°C, to mimic the subsea environment, while the ambient heat transfer coefficient is assumed to
be 2.3W/m2/K for the pipeline-riser system. The simulation was subsequently set to run to an endtime of
SPE-193531-MS 9

24 hrs, before comparison of pressure result. In Figure 5, a comparison of the field pressure profile with
the simulation pressure profile was done for validation purpose. Comparison of pressure trend showed a
variation within +/- 15% which was within a similar range as the comparison of Ledaflow and OLGA with
experimental results captured in Belt et al. (Belt, 2011).

Figure 5—Field Data Vs Simulation Result Comparison (Pressure)

Similarity in the declining pressure trend of both the field data and OLGA simulation data shown in
Figure 5 is also another basis for confidence in further simulation results of the field case study.

Pipeline-Riser (X1 – X2): Slugging Scenario (Field Data). The field case-study captured highlights of the
initial hydrodynamic slugging experienced in Pipeline-Riser (X1 - X2) as shown in Figure 6. Hydrodynamic
slugging is basically developed from stratified flow as a result of growth in hydrodynamic wave instabilities
between gas-liquid interface and gravitational force imbalance between gas and liquid phase developed
by change in geometry (Issa, 2003). Hydrodynamic slugging behaviour was observed via the riser-base
pressure fluctuation along Pipeline-Riser (X1 - X2), when Pipeline-Riser (X1 – X2) was operating at about
3,000 bbl/d and low reservoir pressure within the vicinity of Well X1. The 3000 bbl/d, 4 MMScf/d and
3% water-cut condition (well X1 – 8.745 kg/s and well X2 – 25.13 kg/s) was initially modelled and the
reported hydrodynamic slugging was observed with fluctuation in pressure between 58.7 Bara and 59.3
Bara as highlighted Figure 6.
10 SPE-193531-MS

Figure 6—Pipeline-Riser (X1 – X2): Hydrodynamic Slugging Scenario at 3000 bbl/d (Okereke, 2018)

OLGA 7.00 was used for the modelling of the deepwater oil field case. In the base case as highlighted
in Figure 7, the field hydrodynamic scenario at 3000 bbl/d was modified by reducing the mass flow rate at
well X1 to 3.25kg/s and well X2 was set at 12.13 kg/s. Well X1 is at the on-set of the pipeline-riser section
denoted as the starting point (0m) in the geometry shown in Figure 4. Well X2 is located at the manifold
pipe section 35 position as also highlighted in Figure 4. In the base case-study, well X1 was modeled as
flowing at 3.25 kg/s and temperature at well X1 operating at 70°C. Well X2 was modelled as flowing at
12.13 kg/s. Well X2 temperature was set at 70.5°C. The arrival temperature at the topsides was modelled
as 65.5°C and the arrival pressure was modelled as 20 bara. The base case model was set to run to an end
time of 8 hours at a time step of 10s as key part of the definition of the integration in the modelling tool.

Figure 7—Base Case Pipeline-Riser (X1 - X2) GUI

The results of the base case, highlights a liquid holdup trend from the modified simulation run to 8hrs
endtime with a liquid holdup fluctuation as high as over 0.8 [-] as shown in the blue spikes in Figure 8
arriving at the inlets of the separator, indicating the presence of severe slugging scenario with possibilities
of trips on the topsides.
SPE-193531-MS 11

Figure 8—Base Case HOL at RB and SEP inlet

In Figure 9, high level of pressure fluctuation was also observed around the riser-base region (Pipe 2 MF
– RB) pipe section with pressure fluctuating predominantly between 28 bara and 92 bara in blue fluctuation
trend. This high level of pressure fluctuation is associated with the low mass flow rate at well X1 (3.25 kg/
s), with tendency of liquid accumulation around the riser-base. Pressure fluctuation between about 25 bara
and 20 bara was also observed at the topsides section, as shown in the brown pressure trend in Figure 9; with
tendency of trips at the control valves located at the inlets of the separator as the design separator arrival
pressure was exceeded at some intervals during the simulation from the observed pressure behaviour.

Figure 9—Base Case Pressure Trend

Highlight on (Case 1 – 5) Case Studies. As key part of this study, further work was done, capturing self-lift
case-study (Case 1) and (Case 2), self-lift combined with gas-lift (Case 3) at 4 inches by-pass pipe internal
diameter and (Case 4) at 2 inches by-pass pipe internal diameter as well as the gas-lift alone case (Case 5)
12 SPE-193531-MS

at 12 Kg/s gas-lift. In the Self-lift case-study, the by-pass pipe referred to in the model as Self-lift loop was
integrated into the base case model and Valve-1 (take-off point) for control of the opening of the take-off
point and Valve-2 for control of the injection point as shown in Figure 10. Also, Valve-1 was connected to
the pipeline section at 2438.05 m along the pipeline, while Valve-2 was connected to the riser column via
the injection point at (-609m) along the riser column as highlighted in Table 3. In the purely gas-lift case
(Case 5), Valve 1 was removed from the self-lift model to prevent tapping-off of the pipeline-riser system
in-situ gas, while Valve 2 was set at fully open (1) to allow for the gas being injected via the self-lift loop
to arrive at the injection point on the riser column as captured in the model GUI (Graphical User Interface)
shown in Figure 10. Summary of the key input parameters for all the case-studies were captured in Table 4.

Figure 10—Pipeline-Riser (X1 – X2) Self-Lift Case GUI

Figure 11—Pipeline-Riser (X1 – X2) Gas-Lift Case

SPE-193531-MS 13

Table 3—Co-Ordinates and Section Lengths for Self-Lift Adapted to Pipeline-Riser (X1 – X2) (Okereke, 2018)

Table 4—In-put Parameters for Base Case – Case 5

In the Self-lift case, focus was on controlling the by-pass valve openings and moderation of the internal
diameter of the by-pass pipe, in order to optimise the stabilization of pressure fluctuation within the riser
column and thereby reduce slugging formation. It is important to note that a negligible default gas of 2kg/s
was integrated into the Self-lift case, as simulation initially failed at 0 kg/s gas supply via the by-pass valve.
14 SPE-193531-MS

Results and Discussion. The major parameters (Liquid Holdup, Riser-Base and Riser Column Pressure
and Flow regime indicator (ID)) for the case studies considered (Base Case – Case 5) were compared on
a parameter basis for all the case-studies and the results discussed in this section. As captured in Figure
12, the dark blue fluctuation trend between 28 bara to over 90 bara indicates the fluctuation in riser-base
pressure during the severe slugging scenario with tendency of an unsteady fluid arrival at the topsides. The
topsides pressure trend brown also confirms pressure fluctuation at the region of the inlets of the separator
with potentials of trips. With the application of Self-lift slug mitigation strategy, riser-base pressure was
moderated as noticed with the light blue long dash-dot pressure trend for Case 2 (TKP – RB) stable at
about 55 bara in Figure 12. However at the riser column, pressure trend exceeded the 20 bara design arrival
pressure with riser column pressure for Case 1 and 2 at Pipe 4.1 existing at about 31 bara as highlighted in
the light green overlapped pressure trend and dash-dot purple pressure trend for Case 1 and 2 respectively
as captured in Figure 12. Case 4 and 5 showed good riser column pressure trend behaviour with arrival
pressures of 20.08 bara, and 20.1 bara respectively as highlighted in dark green square dot pressure trend
and black round dot pressure trends at riser pipe 5.8 also shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12—Pressure Trend Comparison for Base Case – Case 5

As shown in Figure 13, holdup behaviour for the base case and other cases 1 – 5 was done. The dark blue
fluctuation indicates the high degree of fluctuation that was prevalent in the pipeline-riser system, at the
topsides during the severe slugging scenario. Case 4 and Case 5 indicated a good behaviour in moderation
of the liquid hold-up fluctuation with HOL (liquid holdup) performance dropping to 0.12 [-] for case 4 along
the riser column (riser pipe 5.8), reflected in the long red dash-dot trend, liquid holdup performance also
dropping to about 0.07 [-] for case 5 reflected in the blue round dot pressure trend captured in Figure 13.
The good behaviour experienced in Case 4 is associated with the reduction in the internal diameter by-pass
SPE-193531-MS 15

size of the self-lift approach as well as the 8kg/s gas lift being compressed to support the self-lift approach
in breaking the liquid slug within the riser column.

Figure 13—Comparison of Holdup Trend for (Base Case – Case 5)

Figure 14 shows a comparison of ID (Flow regime indicator) trends for all the cases (Base Case – Case 5).
In Figure 14, the base case was captured as dark blue ID trend fluctuating through slugging regime, annular,
stratified and bubble flow regime, which was also reflected on the fluctuation of the liquid hold-up trend for
the base case captured in Figure 8. Case 1, 2 and 3 were not able to effectively eliminate the severe slugging
scenario as they indicated a flow regime ID of 3 consistently as captured in the overlapping (dark brown ID
trend) of case 1, (light green ID trend) of Case 2 and (purple dash-dot trend) of Case 3 especially at the riser
column, as captured in Figure 14. Case 4 and 5 showed a better performance with Case 4 indicating stratified
flow regime after the initial 2600 s showed slugging regime as captured in the black square dash trend and
Case 5 indicating stratified (1) with light blue dash dot trend as captured in Figure 14. In Case 4, a peculiar
behaviour of initial slug flow within the first 2600 s, before the slugflow was subsequently stabilized to
stratified flow was observed. Similar observation was also noticed in an earlier work by (Okereke, 2018).
The ID (flow regime trend) behaviour of Case 4 is attributed to the effect of reduction in by-pass diameter to
2 inches and the by-pass internal diameter to pipeline-riser internal diameter ratio of (1 : 2); which created
a higher arrival pressure at the injection point of the by-pass pipe (Self-lift loop) which then caused some
initial perturbation on the gas-liquid interface within the injection point before the liquid slug within the
riser column was subsequently dissociated to allow for a more stable (stratified flow regime) towards the
inlet of the separator at the topsides.
16 SPE-193531-MS

Figure 14—ID Trend Comparison (Base Case – Case 5)

Results and Discussion – Summary

Results analysis, showed that low flowrate of the multiphase stream of the base case was the background
for the severe slugging experienced, especially in deepwater scenario with well X1 and well X2 modelled
as 3.25 kg/s and 12.13 kg/s flow rates respectively. Self-lift slug mitigation was adapted to the base case
and the effect of self-lift investigated in terms of manual valve opening optimization and by-pass internal
diameter optimization. Comparison of pressure trends indicated that self-lift slug mitigation strategy alone
was not quite effective in reducing the riser column pressure and better results were only observed when
self-lift was combined with gas-lift strategy as highlighted in Case 4 with self-lift combined with gas-lift
at 2 inches by-pass diameter and 8kg/s gas-lift. Gas-lift alone at 12kg/s also showed a good result in terms
of riser column pressure fluctuation stabilization; however, the downside of Case 5 is the larger volume of
gas deployed to achieve pressure fluctuation stabilization.
Further analysis of the results of this study suggests that the By-pass internal diameter : Pipeline- Riser
diameter ratio (ØBp : Øpr) is critical in influencing the efficiency of the Self-lift and Gas-lift combined strategy
and a (ØBp : Øpr) ratio of less than or equal to 1:2 is recommended, as this will enable supply of feed-gas to
the injection point at high pressure, which is suitable for breaking of the liquid slug within the riser column
section.
Another key factor that could influence the efficiency of the Self-lift and Gas-lift combined strategy
include high GOR (Gas/Oil Ratio) of the in-situ multiphase flow stream, as a relatively high GOR will mean
that there will be significant gas volume that can be easily tapped-off from the multiphase stream upstream
of the take-off point.
Input parameters for the case-studies analysed are highlighted in Table 4.

Conclusion
In this study, the initial 3000 bbl/d scenario was modified by modelling well X1as 3.25 kg/s and well X2
as 12.13kg/s, until a severe slug flow scenario was observed. Subsequently, self-lift strategy was adapted
SPE-193531-MS 17

to the Pipeline-Riser (X1 – X2) severe slugging scenario case study. Various scenarios of valve opening for
the by-pass pipe were considered, with a gradual reduction in the valve opening of valve 1 (by-pass take-off
point), while setting valve 2 (by-pass injection point) at valve opening – 1 (fully open). The pressure trend,
liquid holdup trend and ID trend were then observed at the riser-base region and along the riser column
top section to verify the possibility of stable flow within the riser column. It is important to note that the
results with self-lift alone showed some level of fluctuation even at the riser top section, with the arrival
pressure at the inlets of the separator exceeding the designed separator arrival pressure of 20 bara. Self-lift
slug mitigation strategy in combination with gas lift at 8 kg/s via the 2 inches by-pass pipe section (Case
4), indicated that the flow along the riser column was stabilized with the arrival pressure at the inlet of the
separator at 20.1 bara (approximately 20 bara) and with stratified flow regime ID experienced at Riser pipe
section 5.8 (riser top section) after the initial 2600 seconds upon stabilization of the perturbation at the gas-
liquid interphase within the riser column.
Analysis of Case 5 (Gas-lift) only case indicated that the larger volume of gas was responsible for the
better effect of Case 5. In-depth analysis of Case 4 (Self-lift and Gas-lift Combined at 2 inches internal by-
pass diameter and 8kg/s gas-lift) showed some initial slug flow regime within the first 2600 seconds, at the
riser pipe 5.8 section, it is important to note that it stabilized to stratified flow regime for the remainder
of the period observed until about 28,800 seconds. In view of the potential savings from Case 4 (8 Kg/
s) of about 50% extra gas that was not compressed as compared to Case 5 (12 Kg/s) to give rise to riser-
top pressure stabilization to approximately 20 bara, this study recommends combining Self-lift and Gas-lift
Slug Mitigation strategy for mitigating severe slugging in deepwater scenario at a by-pass internal diameter :
pipeline-riser diameter ratio (ØBp : Øpr) of less than or equal to 1:2.

References
(IEA), I. E. (2018, February 13). Oil Market Report. Retrieved March 15, 2018, from International Energy Agency :
https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/omrpublic/currentreport/
Adefemi, I. O. (2017). Investigation of slug mitigation: self-lifting approach in a deepwater oil field. Underwater
Technology, 34 (4), 157–169.
Ali, S. (2009). Two-phase flow in a large diameter vertical riser. Cranfield University. Cranfield, UK. : Cranfield CERES.
Belt, R. D. (2011). Comparison of Commercial Multiphase Flow Simulators with Experimental and Field Databases.
International Conference on Multiphase Production (pp. 1 - 15). Cannes, France: BHR Group.
Bendiksen, K. M. (1991). The Dynamic Two-Fluid Model OLGA: Theory and Application. SPE Production Engineering,
6 (02), 1 - 10.
De Almeida Barbuto, F. (1995). Patent No. 5478504A. United States of America.
Fabre, J. P. (1990). Severe Slugging in Pipeline/Riser Systems. SPE Production Engineering, 5 (03), 1 - 7.
Issa, R. a. (2003). Simulation of slug flow in horizontal and nearly horizontal pipes with the two-fluid model. International
Journal of Multiphaseflow, 29 (1), 69 - 95.
Jones, R. C. (2014). The Severe Slugging Mitigation Capability of a Compact Cyclonic Gas/Liquid Separator. (pp. 1 -
11). Banff, Canada: BHR Group.
Ogazi, A. I. (2011). production Potential of Severe Slugging Control Systems. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 44 (1),
10869–10874.
Okereke, N. U. (2018). Combining self-lift and gas-lift: A new approach to slug mitigation in deepwater pipeline-riser
systems. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 168, 59–71.
Pedersen, S. D. (2015). Review of Slug Detection, Modeling and Control Techniques for Offshore Oil & Gas Production
Processes. IFAC-PapersOnline, 48 (6), 89 - 96.
Sarica, C. a. (2000). A New Technique to Eliminate Severe Slugging in Pipeline/Riser Systems. SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition (pp. 1 - 9). Dallas, Texas: SPE.
Schlumberger. (2014). OLGA Manual Version 7.00. Schlumberger.
Taitel, Y. (1986). Stability of severe slugging. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 12 (2), 203 - 217.
Tangesdal, J. T. (2003). A Design Approach for "Self-Lifting" Method to Eliminate Severe Slugging in Offshore
Production Systems. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (pp. 1 - 6). Denver, Colorado: SPE.
Yocum, B. (1973). Offshore riser slug flow avoidance: Mathematical models for design and optimization. SPE European
Meeting (pp. 1 - 16). London: SPE.
18 SPE-193531-MS

Appendix 1
Well X1 Volumetric flow rate conversion
Volumetric flow conversion to mass flow:
Well X1:
SPE-193531-MS 19

Appendix 2
Well X2 (Volumetric flow conversion to mass flow) resulted in;