Subsea Processing as the Gamer Changer Technology for the future of subsea oil and gas production

Name : Piravin P. Ganesan Matric : U096084M Date of submission : 11/10/2011

ME4105 : Offshore Specialization Module

NUS

CONTENT PAGE Nomenclature 1) Introduction 2) Subsea Processing 3) Technologies in Subsea Processing A) B) C) D) Subsea boosting Subsea Separation Subsea Gas compression Subsea Raw Sea water injection 19 - 23 i 1 2-6 7-19

4) Auxilary Technologies Being Employed

A) Multiphase Flow Metering B) Umbilicals C) Direct Electrical Heating

5) Challenges in Subsea Processing

23 - 24

6) Case Study: Pazlor field & Tordis Field 7) Conclusion Bibliography Appendix

25 - 26 27

Nomenclature bbl: barrels boed: barrels of oil equivalent per day bopd: barrels of oil per day bpd: barrels per day gp: gravel pack kV: kilo volts kVA: kilo volt-ampre millsm3: millions of cubic metres in standard conditions mmstb: millions of stock barrels MW: megawatts ppm: parts per million rpm: rotations per minute

1) Introduction : Past, Present, and future of Oil and Gas Industry

The oil and gas industry has evolved by leaps and bounds over the decades, if not centuries. From recovering oil in offshore using simple technologies, most operators are now moving into subsea exploration to recover oil and gas from wells below the seabed. In line with this, the demand for the energy derived from the oil and gas industry has been growing ever and ever. With the increase in human population, more energy is required, and hence, more recovery rate of oil. Besides, natural disasters such as the Japan earthquake recently also influenced major countries in the world, as the nuclear technology is unsafe as compared to oil and gas energy. This is potrayed in Germans move to phase out nuclear reactor by 2020 and substituting it with energy from the oil and gas industry. However, the number of wells are running out at a fast rate.

This is because the oil and gas wells are limited, and operators in the past have been exploring and recovering oil without much emphasis on the efficiency in recovering. Hence, as operators realize this, they are taking a different move by increasing the efficiency of oil recovery. As the current trend of il exploration is moving deeper and deeper into the sea, more sophisticated technology has to be designed and tested to overcome the ultradeepwater challenged in oil recovery. For this, the subsea processing is the best solution in maximizing oil recovery.

2) Subsea processing
Introduction
Subsea processing has the potential to massively reduce expenditure on offshore platforms by placing much of the hardware required to separate the well products on the seabed. The logical extension of the concept is that in some situations, subsea processing could remove completely the requirement for the offshore platform. For that reason, subsea processing is a true "game-changer" technology. Offshore wells rarely produce merely oil and/or gas. The product is most often a cocktail of crude oil, gas, gas condensates, water, and sand. Produced water is a particular problem, especially in the latter years of a field's life, when it can account for up to 90% of the wellstream. Subsea processing encompasses a number of technologies designed to optimize the production of hydrocarbons from offshore wells. Technologies include techniques such as subsea separation of the various well products, subsea pumping or compression to boost the flow of well products to the surface, and subsea power distribution to drive these processes. Operators continue to initiate and to fund studies into boosting, separation, compression, and power delivery and distribution when developing new fields. In an attempt to capture the full value of subsea processings technical and economic advantages, operators are taking the lead in field development. An increase in overall confidence towards subsea processing packages is the result of ongoing development and the success of current systems. Operators appear more open to investigation and development of project-specific equipment, and now ask more questions about economics and application details rather than voicing previous concerns about risk and reliability.

Market drivers Subsea processing is still in its infancy, and its applicability depends on individual field characteristics, including reservoir depth and pressure, gas-oil ratios, water cut, and distance from host platform facilities. Perceived benefits that have driven market interest include: Increased productivity Increased recovery Improved flow assurance Longer tie-back distances Reduced topsides processing requirements.

In fields with early and significant water production, subsea separation and disposal can be a major benefit because it reduces back pressure on the wells and allows a freer flow of hydrocarbons. It can also play a significant role in the latter years of a field's life in dealing with the problems and associated costs of produced water. Increasing well productivity enables reservoirs to be drained through fewer wells. Since wells account for a major part of project capex, any reduction in their numbers creates considerable positive impact on field economics.

Increased recovery results from the reduced back pressure on the wells consequent on the pressure boosting and/or separation of water from the wellstream. Reservoir drive is maximized, and more reserves can be produced when the hydrostatic head is reduced. This is a particularly important consideration in deepwater, where significant back pressure can be generated by the long risers required. Improved flow assurance is derived from adding pressure via single or multiphase pumps and/or from the separation of wellstream components, either by removing water or by separating gaseous and liquid fractions. Removing water from the production stream reduces the risk of hydrate formation. Liquid/gas separation eliminates the troublesome phenomenon of liquid "slugging" in flowlines. This problem is particularly severe in multiphase flowlines laid on an undulating seabed because the oil component of the wellstream tends to collect in the dips along the line. When sufficient pressure has built up downstream of oil accumulations, they are driven onward in sporadic surges known as slugs, which complicate the smooth operation of process equipment on the host facility. Longer tie-back distances can be achieved thanks to improvements in flow assurance and the addition of energy (pumping) to the wellstream, enabling it to flow over longer distances. Subsea systems have produced using reservoir pressure over flowline distances of up to 50 km in length; however, this is most unusual, and in practice, few flowlines exceed 20 km. The attractions of increasing tie-back distance are considerable and could lead to the exploitation of many reservoirs that are currently too small or too isolated for economic development. Reduced topside processing requirements result from the fact that once partial (two-phase) or total (three- or even four-phase) separation has been completed subsea, there is no need for bulky topside separators, with consequent space, weight, and cost benefits for the host platform. Of course, gains need to be evaluated against the cost of the processing system and the possible requirement for dual pipelines to transport the separated gas and liquids. Subsea processing could extend the economic life of existing platforms by reducing topsides additions associated with adding satellite development. Operator survey A survey of offshore oil and gas operators constituted a major input into market analysis. Results of this year's survey were compared with those of a similar survey carried out in 2000. The outcome of the survey indicates that the short-term future for subsea processing is most likely to involve equipment being installed on fields to de-bottleneck topsides facilities. These fields are less likely to be long-distance tie-backs or low-pressure reservoirs and more likely to be deepwater fields or fields with high water content. This marks a change in the expected role for subsea processing in 2003 and is likely to be due to the reluctance of operators to trust the equipment as a critical part in a development. The initial benefits originally considered by operators to be possible from subsea processing have been revised over the last three years. Now, while the range of areas where subsea processing is likely to be used has decreased, the likelihood of operators using the technology has increased, with nearly all of them expecting to install some subsea processing equipment within the next five years.

As a result, some of the old benefits of subsea processing, such as reduced field capex, are no longer as great because the equipment will not replace topsides equipment, but will work alongside, making the business case for the technology harder to justify. Operators, while acknowledging that some pieces of equipment are available for installation, are not purchasing equipment because of its high cost. Operators also have a general aversion to using new technologies because of reliability concerns. Qualifying subsea processing technology will be a major step toward its adoption. Power supply is perceived as the key enabling technology for subsea processing and is expected by the operators to be developed in the next 10 years. Development of a subsea power and distribution system will play an important role in the uptake of subsea processing because operators are likely to prefer flow boosting to separation, and the former has higher power requirements. Companies with a structured approach to evaluating and vetting subsea processing are making more rapid progress toward deploying separation or boosting. Unfortunately, survey results do not indicate whether this structured approach has facilitated the progression of subsea processing or if it is the desire within companies to adopt subsea processing that has prompted the development of the structured approach. The current state of play The earliest subsea processing came in the form of seabed separators, the first of which was installed in 1970 on BP's Lower Zakum field off the United Arab Emirates. This installation was followed in the 1980s by the Highlander and Argyll fields in the North Sea. More recent applications include the ABB/Framo Troll Pilot subsea separator off Norway on Norsk Hydro's Troll C field and multi-phase pumps on the Ceiba, ETAP, Lufeng, and Topacio fields.

There are fewer than 15 examples of installations worldwide, but res-earch leads to a number of conclusions, the first of which is that a tipping point has been reached. From this point, the number of subsea processing units installed will begin to increase rapidly. This assessment is based on two

research findings the forecasts for installation of subsea processing units derived from the operator survey and the complete change in oper-ators' plans for subsea processing compared to three years ago. The 2000 survey showed less than 10% of the companies interviewed expected to install any subsea processing technology within a five-year timescale. In 2003, the number had grown to 75%. More than 91% expect installations within 10 years. Major oil companies are beginning to collaborate seriously with suppliers to develop subsea processing. Examples include the seafloor processing collaboration of BP, ChevronTexaco, ABB and Aker Kvrner, the Shell-Alpha Thames cooperation, and the Petrobras initiative.

There is now a narrower interpretation of subsea processing's benefits. Two years ago, it was considered a panacea for problems associated with deepwater, long tie-backs, and restricted topsides. Now, subsea processing is mainly popular for topside support. Operators have developed a realistic approach to where they want to use subsea processing. This means suppliers can begin to more accurately target the resulting markets the "topsides buster" or "little helper" applications. Topsides busters replace platforms/FPSOs and can be expensive because they save the cost of an FPSO or platform. Little helpers assist with topsides and might be used closer to a facility. They are not essential for production and operate in addition to the topsides. Suppliers need to identify which sector their systems fall into and market appropriately.

In the last few years there has been a global uptake of subsea processing, and the technology is being considered now for a number of projects, including Ormen Lange, West of Shetlands, and Norne. The installed subsea pumps appear to be performing well and reliably. For the next few years, subsea processing will consist mostly of subsea pumping. While subsea pumping and separation equipment has moved onto the second generation, power systems have yet to do so. The subsea processing market Activity forecasts in the subsea processing sector over the 2003-2007 period are driven by currently identified prospects for subsea processing applications. Operators' reports for installation plans are also taken into account in terms of the time lag expected between initial application and follow-up deployments Under the base-case scenario, the forecast is that global capex in the subsea processing sector over the 10-year period to 2012 will amount to just under $1.6 billion, with the bulk of this ($1.2 billion) occurring over the 2008-2012 period. A total of 86 seabed boosting applications are expected to account for 65% of this 10-year total, with the 28 forecast separation systems accounting for the remaining $560 million. The overall conclusion to the 1970 Zakum subsea processing project is that it will be some time before subsea separation systems are used, and the introduction will be gradual. This has indeed been the case. But the players are now all in place, and the game is set to change.

Subsea processing system in general

3) SUBSEA PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES A) Subsea Boosting It is always best to install the artificial lift pumping system as close to the reservoir as possible to maximize overall reserve recovery, but in very deep waters in-well systems are extremely expensive to install and replace when they wear out. The seabed booster concept is a compromise that provides some boost without the enormous capital costs of in-well installation and intervention. Most subsea wells will flow naturally to the production facility for a period of time; however, as the reservoir pressure declines to a point where the well can no longer produce to the host platform, the well will completely shut down even though the reservoir may still have sufficient pressure to produce to the seafloor. This situation leaves significant oil in place that can be captured with seabed booster systems. Even when the reservoir pressure further declines and requires in-well systems, the seabed booster equipment allows operators to install smaller horsepower electrical submersible pumps (ESP) in the well, which generally enhances system run life in recent years, a number of attempts have been made to deploy traditional surface multi-phase pump systems, which have been marinized onto the seafloor. However, these systems are complex and costly, often requiring constant lubrication oil feed and have experienced some early technical problems with the sealing systems. Seabed boosting includes seabed multi-phase and downhole boosting, raw seawater injection, and gas compression. Our analysis focuses on seabed multi-phase pumps, which is a "field proven" type of subsea technology compared to seabed separation and gas compression, and they were first installed in 1994 at Eni's Prezioso field. This project was only used as a testing subsea experience for the multi-phase twin-screw pump developed by GE Oil & Gas in the 1980s; it does, however, underline the industry's historical involvement with this technology. Subsea boosting is not just about the pump knowledge, but also about the total system engineering and supply. Understanding the operational process regimes from start-up and continuous flow, through to managing operational upsets such as emergency shutdowns and the process dynamics is key to ensuring a successful system.

Multiphase phase pump (Framo Engineering) Seabed multi-phase pumps are separated into two main categories: positive displacement and rotodynamic. Category Positive displacement Rotodynamic Helico-axial Centrifugal Electrical submersible (ESP) Hybrid (centrifugal and helicoaxial)

Pump

Twin-screw

Subsea boosting reduces or eliminates backpressure on the wells from the riser hydrostatic head, and, secondarily, the riser and flowline viscous pressure drop. Despite the associated cost and technical challenges, boosting is planned in deepwater and ultra deepwater projects well beyond the water depth ratings of existing seafloor boosting applications.

Mechanism of operation : Positive choking Subsea multiphase pumps can increase the pressure from low pressure wells to match high pressure wells. This can be defined as positive choking, as the alternative to boosting is choking the strong producers to reduced pressure in the first stage separator. This is relevant in many fields as the oil flow is often commingled in the first stage production facilities. This sometimes creates unbalanced production pressures from the different wells that are tied together. Helico-axial multiphase pumps can avoid well intervention which usually is required for conventional artificial lift methods such as gas lift and electric submersible pumps (ESPs). By use of multiphase pumps, well intervention may be delayed or postponed until the well is no longer able to flow to surface. The multiphase pumps may be operated in series with alternative artificial lift methods to provide overall lift capabilities and redundancy. Furthermore, if the multiphase pump has high capacity, one pump may serve several wells.

Advantages I) Production advantages

Production system curve.

The effect of a subsea multiphase booster pump on the oil recovery is significant. The pressure from the well is used to drive the oil to the first stage separator. The resistance is made up of a static and dynamic flow resistance that together represents the system resistance curve. The well production is found from the intersection of the two curves. Installation of a subsea multiphase booster pump will increase the pressure in the well fluid, i.e. adding kinetic energy directly to the flow. The effect is as if the flowing wellhead pressure is increased. The flow from the wells increases until a new balance between fluid pressure and system resistance is achieved. The effect is a net increase in oil production by reducing flowing wellhead pressure. Besides, this technology reduces operational expenditure (OPEX) by reducing recovery time (shorten life of field), while offset high-friction pressure losses in flowline due to fluid viscosity and elevation head pressure loss. II) Facilities advantage

Tie in of marginal or satellite fields normally involve significant pipeline resistance as tieback distances increase. These applications increase as oil companies seek to increase production. The subsea multiphase pump system is an ideal candidate for satellite field developments, eliminating the need for remote process facilities in marginal fields that otherwise would not justify such investments. By introducing a subsea pump station, production may be boosted to the central processing facility. III) Reservoir advantages

With seabed boosters, operators can increase ultimate recovery by lowering abandonment pressure of the reservoirs. Besides, it enables oil recovery from low-pressure reservoirs, which are once thought to be economically unprofitable. It also enables oil recovery of lowquality fluids.

Advancement over the years High-boost multiphase pump A high-boost multiphase pump development program was initiated mid-2007, and a fullscale prototype was verified in 2008. The development has been carried out as a Joint Industry Project with Shell, Total, BP, and Statoil as partners, and the test program is currently ongoing. Differential pressure (DP) in excess of 150 bar has been demonstrated for GVFs up to 50% and DP of 100 bar for GVFs up to 80%.

The high-boost pump is based on the same design principle as the conventional helico-axial (Hx) pumps when it comes to hydraulic, mechanical, and electrical components. The upgraded multiphase pump represents a breakthrough for enabling developments with water depths in the range of 2,000 - 3,000 m (6,562 - 9,842 ft).

The combination with a novel thrust balancing technology is the key for this significant boost in performance. Multiphase pumps normally are installed in dedicated subsea modules designed and customized for the application. Different pump station designs have been installed over the years, and today there is a range of standardized modules. Framo single- and dual-pump stations enable both operation in parallel and/or in series for flexibility in terms of overall turndown and differential pressure capabilities. Subsea Multiphase Pump Station The subsea pump stations, including auxiliary systems, may comprise the following main components and sub-systems:

Multi-port selector manifold (MSM) Multi-phase flow meter (PWVx) Sand detector Multi-phase pump Control system Power and control umbilical Power and control module.

The table above shows various multiphase pumps, the configuration and applications. The criteria for implementation and challenges faced by a pump will be discussed here. For this purpose, the ESP, which is widely used by subsea operators nowadays, will be studied.

Study on the ESP A) Criterias The primary technical considerations are intake fluid conditions, including intake pressure, free gas, declining reservoir pressures, increased water cut and flow assurance. The capacity to produce free gas is, in part, a function of pressure. The higher the pressure, the more gas the pump can handle. If intake pressure is above 1,000 psi (68.9 bar), multi-phase ESP systems can handle up to 70% free gas; at 500 psi (34.5 bar) the systems may only be able to produce 50% free gas; and if pressures drop to 200 psi (13.8 bar) more than 30% free gas can be an issue. Free gas percentages are typically higher at the seabed vs. downhole because pressures are lower. Another critical concern when considering a seabed ESP boosting system is reservoir pressure decline and increasing water cut. Accurate reservoir pressure decline curves over the life of the well are critical. If the reservoir pressure declines too quickly, the well will not flow naturally to the seafloor long enough to justify the economics of the booster system. Water cut also factors into this decision. Increasing water cut requires more pressure to flowto the seabed,

so even if reservoir pressure remains static the well can stop flowing. These scenarios may require operators to consider in-well ESP systems to provide artificial lift. B) Challenges I) Flow Assurance Issues Flow assurance is a concern in virtually any seafloor installation and ESP booster systems are no exception. Fluid viscosity, hydrates and gas slugs are the primary flow inhibitors in ESP seabed systems. Under stable conditions, the intake temperature on the seabed is close to the reservoir temperature and flow assurance issues are minimal. However, if the ESP equipment is shut down for any period of time the fluid in the seabed system will cool to the seawater temperature. This situation can be detrimental to the ESP if the system design does not account for fluctuating fluid volumes created by temperature expansion and contractions due to increasing fluid viscosity and possible hydrate formation at lower temperatures. Hydrate formation is another issue for ESP seabed booster systems. Hydrates can plug flow lines and damage production equipment. Techniques to control or avoid formation of hydrates fall in two categories: physical or chemical. Physical methods are heated flow lines and/or ESP systems and insulated flow lines. Chemical inhibitors include thermodynamic inhibitors (the most common solution) and anti-agglomerate and kinetic low dose hydrate inhibitors. Antiagglomerants are recommended for ESP shut down periods. This chemical option does not eliminate the formation of hydrates, but will not allow build up. Kinetic hydrate inhibitors do not allow formation of hydrates, but their efficiency is reduced over time. These inhibitors are not recommended for ESP shut downs.

II) Fluid Viscosity Issues Temperature issues are exacerbated in long stepouts where fluid cools as it moves through the extended flow line. Higher fluid viscosity negatively impacts ESP efficiency due to the friction loss of the fluid acting on the cross sectional area of the pump stages. Pump performance is degraded because of viscous shear and, consequently, the sizes of the stage hydraulic passages are diminished. It then becomes necessary to oversize the hydraulic capacity of the pump stage for a specified flow rate to compensate for the reduced capacity. If the viscosity of the fluid is high enough due to seabed temperature after a system shut down, there are increasing chances of a hard start or even the pump shaft locking. Lab analysis has demonstrated that the shaft can be locked with viscosities above 5,000 to 8,000 centipoises (cP). To eliminate this concern, methods to displace the viscous slug from the pump or reduce viscosity before start up is necessary. Implementations The helico-axial pump was developed by the Poseidon Group (French Institute of Oil, Total, and Statoil) and manufactured by Framo and Sulzer. Helico-axial pumps are more prone to stresses associated with slugging. However, installation of a buffer tank upstream of the pump is generally sufficient to dampen slugging, so that this no longer poses a problem.

Another technology is the electrical submersible pump (ESP), which is used on the seabed instead of downhole. Seabed and downhole ESPs are manufactured mainly by Baker HughesCentrilift and Schlumberger-Reda. This technology is being used in two Shell projects Perdido Host and Brazil BC-10 and three Petrobras projects Jubarte, Golfinho, and Cascade/Chinook. These pumps are used normally when the pumped fluid is mainly liquid. The most important region for subsea pumps is offshore West Africa where eight subsea helicoaxial pumps are installed since 2000.

B) Subsea Separation While the development of pumping technology allows for a sufficient high pressure differential over the pump for many deepwater applications, the gas/liquid separation enables even more energy- efficient boosting because of the higher hydraulic efficiency of single-phase pumping. Furthermore, subsea gas/liquid separation and liquid pumping is also a valuable tool to develop a field more economically because of the resulting flow assurance improvements. There are three types of separations system, which are the gravity separation, caisson separation and the compact/dynamic separation systems.

GRAVITY SEPARATION SYSTEMS

CAISSON SEPARATION SYSTEMS

COMPACT / DYNAMIC SEPARATION SYSTEMS

Oil/Water Separation The Tordis project uses a semi-compact, gravity-based separator concept that has been specially developed for subsea applications. The semi-compact design removes gas in a cyclonic inlet such that the main settling portion of the separator operates flooded. The Tordis semi-compact separator vessel is 17 meters long, with a diameter of 2.1 meters. With a design capacity of 100,000 barrels of water and 50,000 barrels of oil a day, it offers a total liquid retention time down to three minutes. While there was no strict quality requirement for the hydrocarbon stream, the produced water stream was designed to meetmaximum 1,000 parts per million oil-inwater. Interestingly, the actual operating performance as measured by remotely operated vehicle sampling exceeded this target by a factor of two. That is, the water contained an average of 500 ppm residual oil. The Tordis separator was successfully operated in the field to demonstrate the separation performance, which exceeded the operators performance expectations. To avoid risk of clogging or damage, the vessel was qualified with a minimum of performance-enhancing separator internals. The separator is equipped with a sand handling system and solutions qualified for sand slurry transportation and gravity-based sand separation. The sand is disposed into an injection well along with the water. The sand handling system was qualified for continuous operation with 1,100 pounds of sand a day.

Gas/Liquid Separation Even though gas/liquid separation eases operational challenges and increases the efficiency of the subsea processing system, there is substantial potential in improving the design for new applications. Current systems have been deliberately limited in efficiency as the pumps are designed to handle a fairly high gas fraction. This gives a special requirement to the pumps that can be used, since they need to be gas tolerant. More efficient separation would enable simpler and more effective pumping. The design philosophy is a conservative one. Instead of designing the separator to produce two clean streams, the separator system is designed to ensure that the gas stream is always high quality, while the liquid stream is designed to accommodate up to 15 percent free gas. Totals Pazflor project utilizes vertical separator vessels to separate gas from liquid in the production stream. These separator vessels have a height of about nine meters, with a diameter of 3.5 meters. Another issue is that the gravity separator for subsea use and possibly also designed for high pressure needs a largediameter vessel with thick walls. Such pressure vessels have manufacturing limitations as well as challenges for offshore installation because of their large size and weight. Consequently, further development of the separation technology is a key component for future projects. Gas/liquid separation is a key enabler of flow assurance. Issues related to flow instabilities, such as slugging, can be designed out of the system. This allows the size of the primary separator on the host to be reduced and mitigates associated vibration of the multiphase risers and pipe work. Another benefit is improved hydrate management. Having a gas line to the surface allows venting of the system (multiphaseand liquid lines) to very low pressure to a pressure at which hydrates cannot exist, for example. Hydrates do not form in the liquid line since the oil has already undergone a low-pressure flash in the separator, thereby

removing methane and ethane to insignificant levels. In many cases, the gas line and liquid line can have very similar internal diameters.This allows the system to accommodate round-trip pigging through the gas line, returning through the liquid line. Another important benefit of having a gas/liquid separator is that subsea wells can be readily unloaded. Venting the separator provides very low backpressure on the well and can be used for restarting wells that have loaded after a shutdown. Another benefit is that gas lift in the production wells can be accomplished with lower gas supply pressure, requiring a fraction of the lift gas volume versus conventional gas lift methods. Gas lift improves the recovery from reservoirs located at significant depths from the mud line, while the separator improves the system efficiency for applications with long stepout distances and/or in deepwater environments. Current challenges & solutions Subsea separation contributes to reduced wellhead pressure and facilitates faster oil and gas production from the reservoir (especially when combined with liquid boosting). However, some host facilities have production bottlenecks that need to be addressed. Increasing oil production rates generally results in increased production of water and gas as well. Limitations in existing water and gas processing on the host facility could limit the potential for full utilization of a subsea processing project. Using a high-pressure subsea pump may enable the operator to route production to a higher-pressure separator, thereby avoiding limitations of a low-pressure compressor or produced water bottleneck. Similarly, gas separated subsea can be routed to a higher-pressure separator (gas frictional pressure drop and gradient are both a fraction of the pressure drop in the liquid flowline/riser.) A host facility with limited water processing facilities could benefit from a subsea processing system that separates the produced water. This helps the fluid gradient and reduces the friction drop in the multiphase pipeline, enabling increased production. Todays state-of-the-art subsea separation projects use large, gravitybased separators horizontal for oil/water separation and vertical for gas/liquid separation. The operating principle is adapted from traditional topside processes. Although efforts have been made to reduce the size and weight of the separator vessels, they are still rather bulky and heavy, which drives cost and installation challenges. In fact, the size of separation equipment manufactured to date has not been a function of performance needs, but rather is based on the heavy lift crane capacity available in the geographic location where they are to be installed. A significant challenge to subsea produced water separation lies in the disposal of the separated water. Statoils Troll C Pilot and Tordis projects both injected the water into a highquality, underpressured and relatively shallow disposal zone. But an equivalent aquifer is not always available, meaning alternate solutions are needed to enable reinjecting water into the reservoir in a safe manner. Another option for produced water disposal is to pump the water into the local environment. While not specifically prohibited, the regulatory authorities will likely ask that, at a minimum, the current overboard discharge oil-in-water targets of 20-40 milligrams per liter are met. It will be a significant challenge to process the water to reliably meet these targets,

including under process upset and transient conditions. Reliable monitoring and surveillance to ensure that this target is met is another challenge. Offshore platforms usually process water through hydrocyclones and/or flotation cells, as well as through degassers operated at atmospheric pressures. The long-term goal for a subsea solution will require equivalent building blocks that achieve similar process functionality as those used today in surface processing facilities. Sand Handling Challenges An important challenge when processing fluids at the seabed is how to handle the sand. Sand may cause degradation of pumps as a result of wear or clogging of separation equipment. Another challenge is determining where to route the sand from a subsea separation system once it has been separated from the well stream. Problems associated with sand always will be one of the main concerns to address when selecting and designing a subsea separation system. At present, a number of uncertainties around sand handling plague equipment design and selection. One example is the uncertainty regarding the actual sand production rate, and how the sand production rate can be estimated in the basis of design. Optimal modeling tools to quantify sand production are not available, often resulting in a very conservative assumption of the quantity of sand a subsea processing system must handle. This can result in a more costly and complex processing system. This makes it is difficult to develop an operational procedure that protects the system from high sand production rates. Another example is uncertainty regarding how sand will impact the longterm performance of the processing equipment, such as pumps and separators. This is a fundamental design parameter for a subsea separation system. In addition, no ideal flow streams exist to route the separated sand that is being processed in the subsea station. Especially in applications with water separation and reinjection, it would be beneficial if the sand always could be reinjected with the water. This is a simple process which also removes a problem for the topside facility However, reservoir experts disagree on the feasibility of how much sand could be reinjected in a given reservoir or disposal zone. Better knowledge in this area is necessary to develop optimal subsea separation systems. A final example is uncertainty regarding how sand can be transported in pipes downstream in the separation process. For a subsea separator where water has been removed from the oil and gas stream, there may not be sufficient liquid to enable sand transportation in a long pipeline to the topside facilityespecially at turndown rates in late-life scenarios. Therefore, a better understanding of sand behavior in multiphase flow in pipes is essential when designing such a sand handling system. Based on these challenges, it is obvious that sand handling is an important factor to consider when designing a subsea separation system. This topic will continue to receive considerable focus as the industry seeks more advanced separation equipment for new subsea processing applications.

C) Subsea Gas compression

A Subsea Gas Compression System (SGCS) increases the pressure of the produced gas for pressure boosting or re-injection into the well so as to increase overall gas production Seabed gas compression involves gas compression at the seabed level instead of gas compression on a topside facility. Key factors driving the implementation of subsea gas compression technology are the discovery of distant offshore gas fields, increased water depths, long step-outs from the host facility, harsh environmental conditions, and low reservoir pressure and temperature. Compared to subsea separation and booster pumps, however, this technology is still embryonic. Infield believe that this is because operators still question the reliability of the system since controlling and monitoring subsea gas compression units over long distances is not as proven a technology as topside gas compression. For instance, power supply to the postulated

system on the Ormen Lange field would have to travel by a series of cables over 120 km (75 mi) from the shore to the field. At present there are no seabed gas compression projects. However, Aker Solutions' pilot program for Statoil's Ormen Lange field is under development. In its later stages, from about 2015, Ormen Lange will require offshore compression to boost gas back to shore to maintain desired production levels as the reservoir's natural pressure declines.

Advantages With subsea gas compression, drawdown of wellhead pressure is possible, besides increased production rates and reservoir recovery Field development with gas transportation directly to shore without surface facility all through the field lifetime will save cost of major surface-based production and enable utilization of existing infrastructure. Subsea gas compression will also be a significant value driver for gas fields with long step-out distance, besides having a high tolerance for liquid droplets. Many manufacturers are developing these for the utilization in arctic region dueto harsh conditions for surface facilities.

Gas Lift Limitations Where gas is in abundant supply, gas lift has traditionally been the preferred artificial lift method in subsea applications with relatively short stepouts. However, gas lift poses certain technical and economic challenges for new discoveries in deeper waters where high fluid volumes per well are required to justify the costly development infrastructure. Also, in situations where several small deepwater fields are produced to a single host production platform, longer stepouts are required, which makes gas lift an inefficient artificial lift option beyond 10 to 15 km (6.2 to 9.3 mi.). In addition, gas lift systems require large surface facilities to compress the gas. The space and weight requirements of these compression facilities are often just not feasible on deepwater floating production platforms.

Implementation in the future The field is in an area of the North Sea where environmental conditions challenge offshore hydrocarbons projects. In the short- to medium-term, other proposed seabed gas compression projects include Statoil's Norwegian Midgard, Gullfaks South, and Troll Olje fields. From 2018 onwards, we could see seabed gas compressors at Chevron and ExxonMobil's Gorgon project offshore northwest Australia and at Statoil's Snohvit and Gazprom's Shtokman fields.

On Gullfaks South, Framo is expected to use its newly developed seabed wet gas compression technology as part of a two-year development contract the company has signed with Statoil. Framo's technique is different from more established subsea gas compressors and its units are expected to be able to handle an increasing amount of heavier crude oil grades. Infield views that over the longer term the North Sea and Arctic regions are most likely to use seabed gas compression, in addition to, Russia, Australia, and Egypt.

D) Subsea Raw Sea Water Injection

Injection Pump

Raw sea water injection involves the pumping of untreated sea water back into the well. As the separation of well fluids is a requirement, this technology is used in conjunction with multiphase separation technology. Water is an undesired component of well fluids. Currently, all topside installations have to treat the raw water at their processing facilities according to strict regulations before injecting it back into the well. This requires substantial power and energy to be consumed at topside. Furthermore, the seawater treating facility also takes up valuable space and uses significant quantities of chemicals harmful to health and environment. With SRSWI, sea water separation can be done at the seabed by the subsea separators and subsequently injected back into the well. In addition, the injection of sea water back into the well will help to maintain the local well pressure, so that oil production and recovery is kept at an optimum.

The biggest and most powerful SRSWI system online to date is being employed in the Tyrihans Field in the Norwegian Sea, which went online in 2009. Installed in 885 feet of water, the SRSWI system is expected to boost oil production from the field 10% over current recoverable reserves, equaling approximately 19 million bbl of oil The pumps of the SRSWI system will suck in 89,700 bbl of untreated seawater (after separation) daily and inject it back into the well.

4) Auxiliary Technologies.

Apart from subsea processing technologies mentioned, there is the need of these auxiliary technologies for complete operation of the offshore system, as listed in the picture above. Some of these technologies will be discussed.

Multiphase Flow Metering

A multiphase flow meter is a device that can register individual fluid flow rates of oil, gas and water accurately even when more than one fluid is flowing through a pipeline. Multiphase meters offer a number of benefits, not least the elimination of the test separator, leading to substantial space, weight and cost savings. In a subsea application they remove the need for a separate test line and associated equipment. They also provide a cost-efficient method for continuous well monitoring, enabling incr-eased productivity to be achieved through close well control. Multiphase flow meters are highly sought after as they can accurately measure different flow regimes and wet gas, or natural gas that contains water. Flow is affected due to depth, temperature, pressure and the type of multiphase fluid. The most common flow regimes for gas-liquid mixtures are bubble flow, dispersed bubble flow, plug flow, slug flow, froth flow, mist flow, churn flow and annular flow. For oil-water mixtures, the most common regimes are bubble flow, slug flow and emulsion flow. As such, wide range of flow rates at gas-volume-fractions from 5 to 95% and water-liquid-ratio from 0 to 95% can be calculated. Multiphase flow meters are also capable of salinity measurement. This allows for early formation water detection. New-age flowmeters provide real time information via umbilicals . This ensures operators can take repeated measurements of the well at different production times so that they are constantly updated. This also reduces the need for expensive test lines which are run for conventional wells.

Direct Electrical Heating Direct Electrical Heating (DEH) rods are increasingly popular as they are an alternative to chemical means to prevent hydrate formation. Currently, thermal insulation and continuous injection of chemicals such as monoethylene glycol do the job. The chemicals are then removed topside. As flowlines get longer, the amount of chemicals needed to be used increases dramatically and the capacity of the topside removal facility increases. This results in high OPEX and CAPEX costs. These chemicals also pose risks to the environment in the event of leakage. DEH rods use electricity to heat the flowlines to prevent hydrate formation. No chemical usage is involved. The electricity needed is supplied by electrical umbilicals. The worlds first DEH installation was performed in 2000 for Statoils Aasgard oil and gas field in the Norwegian Sea, where it serves to heat the flowlines from 6C to 27C in order to prevent hydrate formation Umbilicals

The use of umbilicals has become synonymous with subsea processing. They transfer power, chemicals, communications and more to and from subsea systems . Umbilicals connect from the surface facility to the subsea systems through an Umbilical Termination Structure. In case of subsea processing, the surface facility is usually a storage vessel. Various subsea equipment located on the seafloor are then connected via various umbilicals. Umbilicals that contain multiple connections bundled together and encased in a single line are called as integrated umbilicals. They can include hydraulic lines to activate the wells, chemical injection tubes to pump chemicals into the production stream to prevent hydrate formation, telecommunications cables like fibre optic cables to instantaneously relay information to the surface about the well conditions and electrical cables to connect control systems and deliver power. Advances in umbilical technology have allowed companies to offer umbilicals that are integrated with flowlines as well. This would further reduce OPEX costs.

5) Expected challenges in subsea processing systems

As offset distances increase, a number of technical and cost challenges also will increase. Some of the key issues related to offset distance and potential mitigation options are flow assurance, longdistance controls and communications, and long distance subsea high-voltage transmission and power delivery. Many of the mitigating solutions to overcome these challenges are either already field proven or under development. As offset distance increases beyond 30 miles, an important technical challenge is flow management in hydrocarbon export hydrate management, wax deposition and the cost of dual flowlines for round-trip pigging becomes very expensive. Potential mitigation options include improved oil polishing to achieve a very low basic sediment and water content, direct electrically- heated flowlines, pipe-in-pipe flowlines with special insulation gels, exothermic chemical reactions, tube tracing under wet insulation, and other solutions. Industry research also is beginning to investigate cold flow techniques, especially for costeffective hydrate management without insulation or heat. Mitigation of wax buildup is often achieved through regular pigging operations. Single-pipeline operations with subsea pigging have been tested. With respect to long-distance controls and communications, communication signals on low-voltage power are available for up to 50 miles offset. The signal on fiber is available for up to 160 miles. Both technologies are field proven. The industry is headed toward all-electric subsea systems to perform all actuation functions, which eliminates the need for hydraulics, reduces the number of tubes (therefore the cost of umbilicals), and improves the overall reliability and availability of the system. In regard to long-distance, highvoltage subsea transmission and power delivery, most subsea processing and boosting projects use surface or onshore variable speed drives with a dedicated power triad in the umbilical for each power consumer (subsea electric motor). For projects in the 10-50 mile region, high-voltage power will be transmitted at high voltage (~120 kilovolts) and step-down transformers on the seabed will convert the power to the required voltage. For very long offset distances and multiple motors, the cost of the power umbilical becomes prohibitive and makes it uneconomical to develop the field. These projects will consider the use of subsea variable speed drives combined with a subsea step-down transformer and subsea switch gears. An alternative might be using a floating mini tension leg platform or spar for dry topsides location of highvoltage switchgear, transformers and variable speed drives located directly above the pumps. Besides, environmental concerns are the biggest drawback to subsea operations. During operation, there might be considerable time lapses between leak detection and intervention. This results in the contamination of the sea or ocean by oil, sand and other chemicals. This can result in catastrophic environmental damage to the surrounding ecosystem. This can cause the operator to be fined heavily by the authorities or even be forced to shut down the well permanently. Even though the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010 was not from a subsea system, it showed the severe impact spills and leaks have on the environment. Furthermore, the spill has cost the operator, British Petroleum (BP) up to US$32.2 billion. The costs involving a leak or spill of a subsea system will definitely be higher.

6) Case study
Pazflor

The subsea development includes 25 production wells, 22 water injecting wells and two gas injecting wells, as well as the West Africa's first-ever subsea gas/liquid separation system. Targeting two different reservoirs, the field development will recover heavier oil from Miocene reservoirs at a water depth of 1,969 to 2,953 feet (600 to 900 meters) and a lighter oil from Oligocene reservoirs at a water depth of 3,281 to 3,937 feet (1,000 to 1,200 meters).

The need to apply artificial lift to Pazflors Miocene production was critical because of the low reservoir energy and potential for high-friction pressure drops in flowlines, as a result of fluid viscosity. Surveying its options, Total looked at combining a bottom-riser-gas-lift (BRGL) system with the use of multiphase pumps, but noted the limited efficiency of BRGL methods in relatively shallow water, as well as potential problems handling viscous fluids and a number of well-operating issues involving gas lift. Furthermore, no multiphase pump had been qualified to a differential-pressure (delta P) attainment of more than 50 bar, and higher delta P levels would be needed to produce Pazflors Miocene fluids. Indeed, the demanding pump specifications at Pazflor went well beyond ordinary requirements, whether subsea or topside. Pumps would need to generate a delta P of 105 bar for a suction pressure of 23 bar, while producing a flow rate of 15,900 ft3/h with fluids at 185-cp viscosity, and be capable of handling viscosities of up to 4,500 cp during startups. In January 2008, FMC was awarded the $980 million contract to supply the subsea processing and production systems for Pazflor. The supply scope includes three gas-liquid separation systems, 49

subsea trees and wellhead systems, three four-slot production manifolds, production control and umbilical distribution systems, and gas export and flowline connection systems.

FMC Technologies subcontracted to Tracerco in August 2008, awarding the company the contract for the subsea separation boosting and injection systems. FMC also tapped Oceaneering to supply and install 7.3 miles (11,800 meters) of umbilicals to provide electrical power to the subsea pumps and separation systems. In October, FMC subcontracted to Grenland Group to deliver subsea structures, including 12 utility distribution modules and the materials for the three production manifolds and foundation structures.

Tordis Field

The Tordis Field is located on the Tampen block 34/7 of Norways North. The Tordis Field has been in operation since 1994. Run by StatoilHydro, it houses the first commercial subsea system that includes subsea oil/water separation, water injection, sand handling, and multiphase metering and boosting. It was brought online in 2007. It is installed at a depth of 650 feet and is being operated remotely by the Statoil-operated Gullfaks C platform, located 12 km away from the Tordis oil field. The field currently has nine producing wells, originally producing 24,000bpd. The three-phase separation, boosting and injection module was designed by FMC Technologies. Gas is separated temporarily by means of an inlet cyclone to allow the use of a smaller separator vessel and facilitate the oil/water separation. It is then remixed later with the oil, before boosting. This allows for lesser flowlines (2 currently) to the platform, saving OPEX costs. To complete sand removal, high pressure water from the water injection pump is used to drive an ejector which reduces the pressure in the de-sander vessel. Sand is then sucked from the separator (high pressure) to the desander (low pressure). The separated water and sand are subsequently injected into a disposal well, the Utsira well via a water injection tree.

In addition to the energy savings achieved by not having to transport the water to the platform, the project is expected to improve oil recovery to 55%, from 49%, or around 35 million bbl of oil, because of the reduced backpressure exerted toward the producing reservoir.

7)Conclusion
The future still depends on the energy derived from the oil and gas industry. It is well known to operators that wells are limited and running out, operators will have to dig deeper to recover more oil. Time has changed, where exploring more wells to increase net production is unsustainable. For operators to maximize the recovery from each well in subsea, the subsea processing is the best solution. Hence, the future looks bright to the subsea processing manufacturers such as FMC Technologies, Cameron and so on. The subsea processing has to be developed to encounter the challenged that will arise in the Arctic, where most operators are heading to now.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boman, K (2011, May 13), JIP Explores Arctix Subsea processing Solutions. Retrieved September 29, 2011 from http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=107081 FMC Technologies. (n.d), StatoilHydro Tordis. Retrieved September 23, 2011 from http://www.fmctechnologies.com/SubseaSystems/GlobalProjects/Europe/Norway/StatoilTordis.aspx Grieb T M, Donn E T, Collins J, Radde J, Perez C, Smith J B, Rowe G, Scott S, Ririe G T (2008, May), Effects of Subsea Processing on Deepwater Environments in the Gulf of Mexico. Retrieved September 15, 2011 from http://publicintelligence.net/effects-of-subsea-processing-on-deepwater-environments-in-the-gulf-ofmexico/ Infield Systems. (2010, May), Global Perspectives Subsea Market Report to 2015. Retrieved September 29, 2011 from http://www.infield.com/market-forecast-reports/subsea-market-report?JScript=1 Janardhanan, K. (2011, April 12), Offshore Magazine: Subsea processing advances to meet industry needs. Retrieved September 29, 2011 from http://www.german-oilgas-expo.com/e-news-subseaprocessing.htm Knight, J & Karra, I (2010, May 1), Subsea boosting and processing developments. Retrieved September 29, 2011 from http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/5608218267/articles/offshore/volume70/issue-50/subsea/subsea-boosting_and.html Knight, J and Semple, R. (2011, April 20), Deepwater Production Technology Gets A Boost. Retrieved September 29, 2011 from http://www.epmag.com/Magazine/2011/4/item80778.php Lang, K (2002, Dec 1) Solving the subsea processing puzzle. Retrieved October 3, 2011 from http://www.epmag.com/archives/features/3057.htm Offshore-Technology (2007, October 25), The Subsea Processing Promise. Retrieved October 5, 2011 from http://www.offshore-technology.com/features/feature1412/ Offshore-technology.com. (2010), Tordis IOR Project , Norway. Offshore Technology. Retrieved September 29, 2010 from http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/tordis/ Olsen, A.B. (2010, February 2010), Multi-phase pumps are critical part of subsea system. Retrieved September 29, 2011 from http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/articledisplay/6423664435/articles/offshore/volume-70/issue-2/subsea/multi-phase-pumps.html

Padilla, M. (2009, March 1), Subsea boosting, processing sustain momentum. Retrieved September 29, 2011 from http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/357312/articles/offshore/volume-69/issue3/subsea/subsea-boosting-processing-sustain-momentum.html

Padilla, M. (2010, March 1), Subsea separation, boosting reach record depths. Retrieved September 15, 2011 from http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/6728457033/articles/offshore/volume70/Issue_3/subsea/Subsea_separation_boosting_reach_record_depths.html

Padilla M, Choate T, Turner T, & McKee M (2008, March 1), Subsea processing ready for deepwater, long tiebacks. Retrieved September 15, 2011 from http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/articledisplay/324181/articles/offshore/volume-68/issue-3/subsea/subsea-processing-ready-for-deepwaterlong-tiebacks.html PennWell. (2008, May 1), Subsea gas compression technology nears reality. Offshore. Retrieved September 23, 2010 from http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/articledisplay/329217/articles/offshore/volume-68/issue-5/subsea/subsea-gas-compression-technologynears-reality.html Perdue, J. M. (2011) Subsea processing technology makes big strides. Retrieved September 23, 2011 from http://208.88.130.69/Article.aspx?id=65810 Rigzone. (2011), How Do Umbilicals Work?. Rigzone. Retrieved September 23, 2011 from http://www.rigzone.com/training/insight.asp?insight_id=309&c_id=17 Robertson, S & Trowbridge, G. (2003, Nov 1), Subsea processing the gamechanger. Retrieved September 29, 2011 from http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/192038/articles/offshore/volume63/issue-11/technology/subsea-processing-ndash-the-gamechanger.html Total (2011), A world debut for subsea gas/liquids separation. Retrieved September 29, 2011 from http://www.total.com/en/our-energies/oil/exploration-and-production/our-skills-and-expertise/thedeep-offshore/innovation/subsea-processing-technologies-201895.html

Appendix
Electric submersible pump (ESP) Electric submersible pump systems employ a centrifugal pump below the level of the reservoir fluids. Connected to a long electric motor, the pump is composed of several impellers, or blades, that move the fluids within the well. The whole system is installed at the bottom of the tubing string. An electric cable runs the length of the well, connecting the pump to a surface source of electricity.

Electric Submersible PumpSource: Schlumberger

The electric submersible pump applies artificial lift by spinning the impellers on the pump shaft, putting pressure on the surrounding fluids and forcing them to the surface. A mass producer, electric submersible pumps can lift more than 25,000 barrels of fluids per day