1st ISODC05-Ufrj Team

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering Department
International Student Offshore Design Competition 2005
Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil
Tiago Pace Estefen

Daniel Santos Werneck
Diogo do Amaral Macedo Amante
João Paulo Carrijo Jorge
Leandro Cerqueira Trovoado
Faculty Advisor: Prof. Segen F. Estefen
Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil -1-

CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES 05
LIST OF TABLE 07
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 08
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 14
1. INTRODUCTION 15
1.1 Team Organization 16
2. SYSTEM DESIGN 18
2.1. Sub-systems, Equipments and Components 18
2.1.1. Pipes 18
2.1.2. Umbilical Cable 18
2.1.3. Control System 19
2.1.4. Wet Christmas Tree (X-Tree) 19
2.1.5. Manifold 19
2.1.6. Pipe Line End Manifold - PLEM 20
2.1.7. Pipe Line End Termination – PLET 20
2.1.8. Jumper 20
2.2. Layout of the System 21
2.2.1. Semi-submersible 22
2.2.2. Jacket 23
2.2.3. Subsea to Beach 24
3. SUBSEA PROCESSING 26
3.1. Hydrates 26
3.2. Types of Thermal Insulation 27
3.2.1. Thermal Insulation Adopted 27
3.3. Gas State Properties 28
3.4. Temperature and Pressure Profile Determination 29
3.4.1. Temperature Profile 29
3.4.2. Pressure Profile 31
3.4.3. Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible 31
3.4.4. Scenario 2: Jacket 33
3.4.5. Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach 36
3.5.Transient Regime 39
3.6. Mono Ethylene Glycol 40
3.6.1. Recycle 41
3.6.2. MEG Calculation 43
3.7. Concluding Remarks 43
4. FLOWLINES AND RISERS 44
4.1. Design of Flowlines and Rigid Risers 44
4.1.1. Local Buckling Due to Longitudinal Strain and External Overpressure 45
4.1.2. Propagation Buckling 47
4.1.3. Local Buckling Due to Bending Moment, Effective Axial Force and Internal
Overpressure 47
4.1.4. Material Properties 49
4.1.5. Results 49
4.2 Riser Analyzes Considering Top Motions 50
4.2.1. Semi-submersible Platform Gas - Production Riser 50
4.2.1.1. System Configuration 50
4.2.1.2. Relevant Parameters 51
4.2.1.3. Soil Data 51
4.2.1.4. Structural Properties 51
4.2.1.5. Environmental Data 52
4.2.1.6. Extreme Offset 52

4.2.1.7. Numerical Model 52
4.2.1.8. Global Analysis Results – Import Riser 53
4.2.1.9. Considerations about the Results for Import Flexible Risers 55
4.2.2. Semi-Submersible Platform Gas Export Riser 55
4.2.2.1. System Configuration 56
4.2.2.2. Relevant Analysis Parameters 57
4.2.2.3. Structural Properties 57
4.2.2.4. Numerical Model 58
4.2.2.5. Global Analysis Results – Export Riser 60
4.2.2.6. Considerations about the Results for Export Hybrid Risers 62
4.3. Pipe installation 62
4.3.1. S-Lay Method 63
4.3.2. J-Lay method 63
4.3.3. Reel Method 63
4.3.4. Definition of the Installation Method 64
4.4 Pipe Maintenance - Inspection and Cleaning 64
4.4.1 Geometric Pig 65
4.4.2 Corrosion Pig 66
5. SUBSEA SYSTEM DESIGN 67
5.1. Wet Christmas Tree (X-Tree) 67
5.1.2. X-Tree installation Method 67
5.1.3. X-Tree Arrangement and Operation 68
5.1.4. Description of selected X-Tree Components 70
5.1.4.1. Choke 70
5.1.4.2. Base for the Flowlines 70
5.1.4.3. Tubing Hanger 70
5.1.4.4. Vertical Connection Module (VCM) 70
5.1.5.5. Tree Cap 70
5.2. Manifold 70
5.2.1. Manifold Installation 71
5.2.2. Manifold Arrangement and Operation 71
5.3. PLEM 73
5.3.1. PLEM Definition 73
5.3.2. PLEM Arrangement, Operability and Installation 73
5.4. PLET 74
5.4.1. PLET Definition 74
5.4.2. PLET Arrangement, Operation and Installation 74
5.5. Control Systems 74
5.5.1. Hydraulic Direct 74
5.5.2. Multiplex Electro Hydraulic 75
5.6 Equipment General Arrangement 75
5.7. Subsea Compression and Separation 77
5.7.1. Subsea Separation 77
5.7.2. Subsea Compression 77
5.7.3. Process Description 77
6. RISK ASSESSMENT 79
6.1. Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible 79
6.2. Scenario 2: Jacket 80
6.3. Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach 82
6.4.1. Total Production Loss 84
6.4.2. Partial Production Loss 85
6.4.3. The Best Scenario 85
7. COSTS 86
7.1. Net Present Value (NPV) 86

7.2. Master Schedule 86
7.3. MEG/Insulation Analysis 90
7.4. Cost Analysis for the Three Scenarios 91
8. CONCLUSIONS 98
9. REFERENCES 100
APPENDIX A 101
APPENDIX B 109
APPENDIX C 111

List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Gantt Chart for UFRJ Team 17
Figure 2.1: Rigid and Flexible Pipes 18
Figure 2.2: Umbilical Cable 19
Figure 2.3: Pipe Line End Manifold 20
Figure 2.4: Pipe Line End Termination 20
Figure 2.5: Jumper 21
Figure 2.6: Wells Layout for Tucunaré Gas Field 22
Figure 2.7: Semi-Submersible Platform Arrangement 23
Figure 2.8: Jacket Platform Arrangement 24
Figure 2.9: Subsea to Beach Arrangement 25
Figure 3.1: Hydrate Plug Removed from a Gas Pipeline 26
Figure 3.2: Phase Diagram Showing the Conditions under which Hydrates will Form 28
Figure 3.3: Temperature Profile with Flow Rate of 10 million m3 / day, Scenario 1:
Semi-Submersible 31
Figure 3.4: Basic Diagram of a Collection System, Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible 32
Figure 3.5: Pressure Profile with Flow Rate of 10 million m3 / day, for Scenario 1:
Semi-Submersible 32
Figure 3.6: Thermodynamic State (pressure, temperature) in the Phase Equilibrium
Diagram of Gas Hydrate, Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible 33
Figure 3.7: Temperature Profile with Flow Rate of 10 million m3 / day, Scenario 2: Jacket 34
Figure 3.8: Basic Diagram of a Collection System, Scenario 2: Jacket 34
Figure 3.9: Pressure Profile for Scenario 2 with Flow rate of 10 million m3 / day,
Scenario 2: Jacket 35
Diagram of Gas Hydrate, Scenario 2: Jackets 35
Figure 3.11: Temperature Profile with Flow Rate of 10 million m3 / day, Scenario 3:
Subsea to Beach 36
Figure 3.12: Basic Diagram of a Collection System, Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach 37
Figure 3.13: Pressure Profile with Flow Rate of 10 million m3 / day, Scenario 3:
Subsea to Beach 37
Diagram of Gas Hydrate, scenario 3: Subsea to Beach 38
Figure 3.15: OLGA Results for Scenario 3 with Flow Rate of 20 million m3/day 38
Figure 3.16: Temperature and Pressure Profile for Scenario 3 with Flow Rate of 20
million m3/day. 39
Figure 3.17: OLGA Results for Transient Analysis at Production Shut Down 39
Figure 3.18: Time Required for Pressure Drop, Scenario 3. 40
Figure 3.19: Full Reclamation MEG Process 41
Figure 3.20: Photo of MEG Process 42
Figure 3.21: MEG Concentration 43
Figure 4.1: System Configuration 50
Figure 4.2: Numerical Model 53
Figure 4.3: Offset Near and Far 54
Figure 4.4: Single Line Offset Riser 56
Figure 4.5: System Configuration 57
Figure 4.6: Numerical Model 59
Figure 4.7: Offset Near and Far 60
Figure 4.8: Von Mises Stresses Acting on Rigid Riser 61
Figure 4.9: Tensile Forces Acting on the Rigid Riser 61
Figure 4.10: Tensile Forces Acting on the Flexible Riser 61
Figure 4.11: S-Lay Method 63
Figure 4.12: J-Lay Method 63
Figure 4.13: Reel Method 64

Figure 4.14: PIG Prototype 65
Figure 4.15: Geometrical Pig 66
Figure 4.16: Corrosion Pig 66
Figure 5.1: Connection with One VCM 67
Figure 5.2: Vertical X-Tree 68
Figure 5.3: Schematic Representation of X-Tree GLL/DLL 69
Figure 5.4: Manifold Submarine for 4 wells 72
Figure 5.5: Manifold Recoverable Module 73
Figure 5.6: PLEM Arrangement 73
Figure 5.7: PLET Arrangement 74
Figure 5.8: Equipment General Arrangement 76
Figure 6.1: Fault Tree for the Semi-submersible Scenario 80
Figure 6.2: Fault Tree for Jacket Scenario 82
Figure 6.3: Fault Tree for Subsea to Beach Scenario 84
Figure 7.1: Semi-Submersible Master Schedule 87
Figure 7.2: Jacket Master Schedule 88
Figure 7.3: Subsea to Beach Master Schedule 89
Figure 7.4: Semi-Submersible Probability NPV Analysis 95
Figure 7.5: Jacket Probability NPV Analysis 96
Figure 7.6: Subsea to Beach Probability NPV Analysis 96

List of Tables
Table 1.1: Team Assignments 16

Table 4.1: Safety Class Resistance Factor 45
Table 4.2: Pressure Load Effect Factor 45
Table 4.3: Fabrication Factor 46
Table 4.4: Load Effect Factors and Load Combinations 48
Table 4.5: Semi-submersible Platform 49
Table 4.6: Jacket Platform 49
Table 4.7: Subsea to Beach 49
Table 4.8: Data for Static and Dynamic Analyzes 51
Table 4.9: Soil Data 51
Table 4.10: Flexible pipe Data 51
Table 4.11: Flexjoint Data 52
Table 4.12: Model Mesh 53
Table 4.13: Results for Centenary Wave Combined with Decenary Current 54
Table 4.14: Results for Decenary Wave with Centenary Current 54
Table 4.15: Ratios Between Obtained Results and Limitations for CW/DC 55
Table 4.16: Ratios Between Obtained Results and Limitations for DW/CC 55
Table 4.17: Data for Static and Dynamic Analyzes 57
Table 4.18: Rigid Pipe Data 57
Table 4.19: Flexible Pipe Data 58
Table 4.20: Buoy Data 58
Table 4.21: Flexjoint data 58
Table 4.22: Model Mesh 59
Table 4.23: Curvature Radius 62
Table 7.1: MEG/Insulation Analysis for Scenario 2 90
Table 7.2: MEG/Insulation Analysis for Scenario 3 91
Table 7.3: Loan Data 92
Table 7.4: Semi-Submersible Cost Analysis 92
Table 7.5: Jacket Platform Cost Analysis 93
Table 7.6: Subsea to Beach Cost Analys 94

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SUBSEA PRODUCTION SYSTEM FOR GAS FIELD OFFSHORE BRAZIL
The increase of natural gas in the energy matrix all over the world has posed a strong
demand on offshore exploration and production. Although some new concepts for floating gas
storage have been proposed, options associated with subsea production system and pipeline
export to shore should be better investigated in order to improve performance for the field
proven concepts and to propose innovative unmanned subsea design.
Subsea production systems for gas field offshore Brazil are studied. The project consists
of a layout for submarine production of a gas condensate field called Tucunaré supposed to
enter in operation in four years time. The field is located at a distance of 160 km from the
Brazilian coast at a water depth of 500 m. Water depths decrease reaching 180 m at 140 km
from the coast and then progressively up to the beach. Reservoir data indicate pressure of 530
bar and average temperature of 140 oC. Production is based on eight subsea wells with initial
flow rate of 20 million m3 per day of gas and 2,000 m3 per day of condensate.
Three different options of subsea production systems are studied:
• Scenario 1: Semi-submersible distant 160 km from the coast at water depth of 500 m;
• Scenario 2: Jacket platform distant 140 km from the coast at water depth of 180 m;
• Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach system (without platform).
The methodology used to define and develop the design was based on field proven
technology and new concepts introduced into the design with the support of both computer
simulations and code recommendations for structural integrity, heat transfer and risk
assessment.
The report has been organized in order to cover the 8 declared competencies in specific
chapters, except for Construction, Fabrication and Installation which are treated in chapters 3,
-8-
4 and 5 (Subsea Processing, Pipelines and Flowlines; Subsea System Design). Strength and
Structural Design as well as Riser Design are included in chapter 4 (Pipelines and Flowlines).
Risers and pipelines have been design in accordance with DnV recommendations (OS-
F101 and OS-F201). Risk assessment of the designed subsea systems followed the ABS
Guide (Risk Evaluation for the Classification of Marine-Related Facilities).
In this Summary, the main results associated with the 8 declared competencies are
outlined below.
System Design
In order to better present the respective system design, general subsea arrangements were
developed. The semi-submersible was initially considered due to the water depth of 500
meters and its field proven concept, suitable for Brazilian offshore environmental conditions.
The subsea arrangement is constituted of 8 satellite wells with 8” flowline/risers for
production and a hybrid riser configuration (single line offset riser tower - SLOR) for
exportation to shore.
Since the water depth decreases significantly along 20 km into shore direction, reaching
180 meters, the Jacket platform came out as an option. This system presents some advantages
in relation to the Semi-submersible, as the deck motions are not sensitive to waves and
currents. Due to the well distance from the platform, two parallel manifolds capable of
receiving 4 wells each are employed. The manifold headers are connected to Pipe Line End
Manifold (PLEM) by rigid jumpers. Another two similar jumpers connect the PLEM to two
independent Pipe Line End Terminate (PLET). From those equipments, two rigid 18”
flowlines are used as production lines. From the platform, a 22” rigid pipe is responsible for
exportation to shore.
An innovative technological solution represented by an association of subsea production
and direct export to the beach, Subsea to Beach, appeared to be another interesting alternative.
-9-
Without a stationary production unit, crew and continuous support vessels are not necessary,
reducing both operational expenditures and human risk. Similar subsea arrangement as
employed for the Jacket scenario is used up to the PLEM. Then, two 22” rigid jumpers are
connected to the PLETs and two pipelines with same diameters export the gas to the onshore
terminal.
Subsea System Design
The subsea system is associated with the overall process and all the equipments involved
in the arrangement. It is designed in a way that safety, environment protection, flow assurance
and reliability are considered for the gas exploitation. Operational and maintenance aspects
were taken into account for the design of the equipments. X-Tree, manifold, PLEM and PLET
were developed to guarantee the safety barriers and operational flexibility in emergency
situations.
Subsea Processing
As gas wells are being developed, hydrate formation in the production system has become
a major concern. Several options are available to manage hydrate formation. Two solutions
were analyzed, thermal insulation and continuous injection of Mono Ethylene Glicol (MEG).
For the three scenarios a series of analyzes have been carried out to determine the
thermodynamic state (pressure and temperature) in the phase equilibrium diagram of gas
hydrate to assure that the flow are out of the hydrate envelope. Analyzing Subsea to Beach,
which represents the most challenging scenario for flow assurance, with flow rate of 10
million m3 per day (by the end of the design life), it has been estimated the U value of 1.05
W/m2 °C for the two export pipelines (22” diameter). For these pipelines, the thermal
insulation proposed was the polypropylene, with solid outer layer of 0.25” and foam inner
layer of 1”. That was enough to insulate the pipeline with an arrival temperature to the
onshore terminal of 14 °C. Finally, using the computer program OLGA for production shut
- 10 -
down and consequent pressure drop, it has been confirmed the insulation adequacy.
Alternatively, continuous injection of MEG was also considered as a tool to prevent the gas
hydrate formation. The necessary quantity of MEG was estimated so that a comparative
economic analysis with the pipe insulation can be made.
Strength and Structural Design / Riser Design
The structural design of rigid pipes (flowlines and rigid pipes) for each of the scenarios
proposed was accomplished using the ultimate limit state, based on criteria related to rigid
pipe local buckling. The DNV recommendations were adopted for the three failure modes,
local buckling due to bending moment, effective axial force and internal overpressure, local
buckling due to longitudinal compressive strain and external overpressure and propagation
buckling. An Excel spread sheet was developed according with DnV criteria and standard
thickness selected as in API Specification for Line Pipe.
The semi-submersible arrangement is the only one subjected to environmental loads
(waves and currents) induced motions. This dynamic behavior affects the riser structural
response, therefore riser structural analyzes under extreme loading were conducted for the
semi-submersible scenario.
Static and dynamic global analyzes for production and export risers were accomplished,
taking into consideration wave and current extreme loading conditions with two return period
combinations, centenary wave with decenary current and decenary wave with centenary
current. Offset directions considered were near, far and transverse. The ANFLEX, especial
purpose program, was used for these riser analyzes. Results for the risers were checked
against the correspondent limit values provided by manufacturer in the cases of flexibles and
verified using API-RP 2RD for steel pipes. Parameters of interest for design verification are
curvature radius, axial forces and Von Mises stresses. The proposed pipes are in compliance
with the both code and manufacturer limitations.
- 11 -
Construction, Fabrication and Installation
Installation methods have been evaluated for flexible and rigid pipes. The reel method is
recommended for the flexible pipes. Due to the large diameter of the rigid riser it is
recommended the installation by the J-lay method. Same approach has been adopted for rigid
flowlines with diameters of 18” and 22”, i.e. installation by J-lay method. All rigid pipes are
API X-65 steel grade and with diameter to thickness ratios of 39 for 18” and 35 for 22”.
X-Tree installation is performed using the guidelineless procedure with vertical
connection module, contributing to optimize the costs due to independent installations of X-
Tree and flowline. Manifolds are installed diverless due to water depth beyond 300 m.
Risk Assessment
Risk assessment for the proposed subsea production systems are performed using fault
tree analyzes to better understand the respective system weakness and to propose safety
improvement measures. Production loss has been assumed as the top failure event.
Total production loss has an associated failure probability substantially smaller than that
for the partial production loss. Therefore, the most reliable scenario should take into
consideration small production losses during the project life cycle. In this case, the satellite
wells with dynamic risers (scenario 1) are the less attractive alternative.
Although equivalent in terms of partial production loss, scenario 3 is more reliable than
scenario 2 for total production loss. Therefore, based on the qualitative risk assessment for
production loss, the scenario 3 can be indicated as the best option for the offshore gas field
considered in this project. The possibility of gas/water subsea separation and subsea gas
compression, before export to onshore terminal, could mean an outstanding advantage for
Subsea to Beach scenario in relation to both Semi-submersible and Jacket scenarios.
- 12 -
Costs
Costs are treated considering the system life cycle, including both capital (CAPEX) and
operational (OPEX) expenditures as well as the investment return due to the gas production
during the field proposed design life of 20 years.
Using prices raised in the market, Gantt charts were created to better evaluate each
scenario, including the schedule of the activities involved. Utilizing a loan, the Net Present
Value (NPV) and the total cost were calculated for each scenario, considering two
possibilities of income, oil barrel as 45 and 20 US dollars. Both considerations resulted in
positive NPVs for all scenarios. The best return of US$643.21 million was obtained for
Subsea to Beach. In addition, a cost analysis has been performed about the continuous use of
MEG injection or thermal insulation to prevent hydrate formation for scenarios 2 and 3.
Thermal insulation turn out as the winner for both exploitation systems with at least 10% less
expenditure.
Closing Remarks
Subsea to Beach scenario is the best option according to the main results from the project.
However, additional technological developments associated with subsea gas/water separation
and subsea gas compression are strongly recommended in order to improve the system
reliability and consequently have this option commercially available in the near future.
Aspects related to subsea equipment reliability and remote control are also of paramount
importance for the unmanned Subsea to Beach concept.
- 13 -
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The UFRJ Team acknowledge the project industrial tutor Edson Luiz Labanca, from Petrobras, for his
strong support and experience in Subsea Engineering.
Special thanks to:

• Francisco Quaranta, COPPE/UFRJ
• Su Jian, COPPE/UFRJ
• José Antonio Figueiredo, Petrobras
The UFRJ Team would like to thank the following individuals and companies:
• Ana Paula, CBO
• Cassiano Marins, COPPE/UFRJ
• Cezar Paulo, Petrobras
• Celso Noronha, Petrobras
• Elisio Caetano, Petrobras
• Igor Victorino, Petrobras
• Ivan Noville, Petrobras
• Luiz Felipe Assis, EP/UFRJ
• M.T.R. Camargo, Petrobras
• Marcos Arcifa, Petrobras
• Roberto de Souza Albernaz, Petrobras
• Paulo Couto, FMC
• Paulo Olinto, FMC
Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil - 14 -

1. INTRODUCTION
Subsea production systems for gas field offshore Brazil are proposed. The project consists of layouts
for submarine production of a gas condensate field called Tucunaré supposed to enter in operation in
four years time. The field is located at a distance of 160 km from the Brazilian coast at a water depth
of 500 m. Water depths decrease reaching 180 m at 140 km from the coast and then progressively up
to the beach. Reservoir data indicated pressure of 530 bar and average temperature of 140oC.
Production will be based on 8 subsea wells with an initial flow rate of 20 million m3 per day of gas
and 2,000 m3 per day of condensate.
The main objective of this project is to indicate the best alternative for the subsea production system
to be implemented in the described gas field, considering technical feasibility, operational reliability
and the best financial return for the investment.
Three different scenarios for the subsea production systems are proposed:
• Scenario 1: Semi-submersible distant 160 km from the coast at water depth of 500 m;
• Scenario 2: Jacket platform distant 140 km from the coast at water depth of 180 m;
• Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach system (no platform).
Initially, general arrangements for the subsea production systems are implemented to obtain the
respective positions of the equipments, i.e. christmas trees (X-Trees), manifolds, jumpers, flowlines,
production and export risers, gas process plant, control umbilicals and long distance pipelines. The
general arrangements aim at operational flexibility and system redundancy. Possibility of flow
maneuver and maintenance procedures in emergency situations are also analyzed for each scenario.
As gas wells are being developed flow assurance is also taken in account in order to avoid hydrate
formation which could block the lines and stop production. Two solutions are analyzed, thermal
insulation and continuous injection of Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG). A series of analyzes are
performed using commercial software, such as OLGA, PIPESIM and PVTSIM, and analytical
solution to describe the thermodynamic state (pressure and temperature) in the phase equilibrium
diagram of gas hydrate. Based on these results it is possible to assure that the gas flow is out of the
hydrate envelope.
Flowlines and risers are designed according to DnV recommendations for rigid pipes, including
installation, operational and accidental loads (propagation buckling). Due to the movements induced
on the semi-submersible platform by the environmental loads, numerical analyzes are performed using
the special purpose software ANFLEX. Extreme loading conditions associated with waves and
currents are considered to estimate the structural response of the production catenary flexible riser and
the export hybrid riser configuration (SLOR). Aspects related to the installation methods are discussed
in order to define the most appropriate ones. Maintenance is also discussed in the context of data
acquisition using instrumented pig, including geometric defects, corrosion and hydrate removal.
The equipments are selected according to three proposed scenarios. Based on these equipments the
respective subsea arrangements are proposed. The subsea arrangement for scenario 1, semi-
submersible, is established by eight satellite wells. Differently, scenarios 2 and 3 have subsea
arrangements including manifolds, PLEM and PLETS. Vertical X-Tree is employed in all scenarios.
Risk assessment is performed based on fault tree analyzes for the three scenarios. The selected top
event is defined as the partial production loss. Cara Fault Tree commercial software is employed to
describe all the three subsea scenarios. Due to the lack of a reliable data base to perform a quantitative
risk analyzes to evaluate the respective failure probabilities, qualitative risk assessment is then carried
out. The three scenarios are studied in terms of operational reliability in order to recommend the best
option and possible improvements for the overall performance.

Costs play an important role in the definition of the most attractive option for the proposed subsea
arrangements. Cost analysis is based on both capital and operational expenditures, production rate, gas
price and loan interest rates. Net present value approach is used to estimate the respective scenario
profit. Uncertainties associated with the prices raised from the market are accounted for by utilizing
the software @Risk.
Finally, conclusions derived from the above described chapters are presented with focus on different
aspects of subsea system design in order to highlight the main features of the considered scenarios and
to propose future developments to improve the overall performance.
1.1 Team Organization
The group of students responsible for the project is constituted of five undergraduate students from the
Course in Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. The
group was organized in order to cover the eight areas of competencies proposed for the ISODC
project. Tasks were distributed according to the student ability and availability, shown in Table 1.1.
The process was flexible and everyone has participated in all areas with a continuous exchange of
information. The members are introduced below:
Tiago Pace Estefen - Team Leader

Daniel Santos Werneck
Diogo do Amaral Macedo Amante
João Paulo Carrijo Jorge
Leandro Cerqueira Trovoado
The team leader role was to coordinate the team activities and participate in technical discussions with
the other members. He also lead most of the industry contacts.
The project was conducted in the Submarine Technology Lab – COPPE/Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro.
Table 1.1: Team Assignments
Area Member(s)
System Design Daniel Werneck

Tiago Estefen
Subsea Processing João Paulo Jorge

Tiago Estefen
Risers and Flowlines Diogo do Amaral
Subsea System Design João Paulo Jorge

Leandro Trovoado
Tiago Estefen.
Costs Daniel Werneck
Risk Assessment Leandro Trovoado
The Figure 1.1 represents the Gantt Charts for the Team organization.

Figure 1.1: Gantt Chart for UFRJ Team

2. SYSTEM DESIGN
Arrangement optimization, operational availability and flow assurance of transported fluid during
project lifetime are decisive factors to guarantee success and expected financial return from a huge
investment characterized by an offshore system for oil&gas exploitation. Thus, the submarine system
design comprises highly reliable sub-systems, equipments and related components.
2.1. Sub-systems, Equipments and Components
2.1.1. Pipes
Pipes are widely employed for the transportation of the produced fluid. The pipes can be classified as
rigid and flexible. Flowlines are those pipes subjected to static loading, since they are rested on the
seabed, responding to installation, operation and pressure loads. Risers are used to connect the
stationary production unit (SPU) to the flowlines along the water depth, therefore being subjected to
dynamic loads induced by waves and currents as well as installation and operational loads. Risers and
flowlines may have either rigid or flexible pipes depending on the respective bending rigidity, as
shown in the Figure 1.1. Flexible pipes comprise several layers with polymeric and metal components
and bending rigidity much smaller than that for rigid steel pipes.
(a) rigid (b) Flexible
Figure 2.1: Rigid and Flexible Pipes
2.1.2. Umbilical Cable
Umbical cables are employed to control the subsea equipments remotely. They are able to transfer
hydraulic pressure and electrical power to operate submerged equipments and valves as well as to
retrieve data through electrical and/or optical fiber cables. Umbicals can also be used associated with
additional hoses for well chemical injection. An example of umbilical is shown in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: Umbilical Cable
2.1.3. Control System
The control system is employed to control wells by opening and closing the valves installed on the x-
trees and other subsea equipments. The hydraulic pressure generated at either the platform or the
onshore terminal is sent through umbilical hoses to activate submarine valves. Hydraulic control
system can be direct controlled or hydro-electric multiplex.
2.1.4. Wet Christmas Tree (X-Tree)
It is the equipment installed at the wellhead to guarantee security barriers in case flow interruption is
necessary, which assures reservoir natural pressure blockage. It comprises basically a set of valves,
fail safe close, hydraulically operated through spring return to assure closing in case of hydraulic
system depressurization. The valves operate through both direct and multiplex hydraulic control
systems.
2.1.5. Manifold
Subsea manifold is a set of tubes, valves and monitoring instruments assembled on a metal structure,
interconnecting the drainage/flow of several wells to the production unit, thus reducing the number of
lines that would be necessary.
Manifold is not a well safety equipment as the x-tree, because it is considered as part of the pipe
system it is connected, favoring the production flow in case of control system failure. Thus, the
production blockage valves, operated hydraulically, are fail safe open. While the test blockage valves,
operated hydraulically, are fail safe close.

2.1.6. Pipe Line End Manifold - PLEM
The PLEM is a collector / distributor equipment, which is characterized by the incoming or outgoing
of more than two pipes. When used in the arrangement, it allows pipe sharing without operational
flexibility.
Figure 2.3: Pipe Line End Manifold
2.1.7. Pipe Line End Termination – PLET
The PLET makes it possible to connect, without divers, a rigid pipe and an equipment to another pipe.
It features a flange connection to be interconnected to the extremity of the rigid pipe, a blockage valve
operated by ROV to allow pipe hydrostatic test, a HUB/MCV for future connection to flexible riser or
jumper.
Figure 2.4: Pipe Line End Termination

2.1.8. Jumper
Jumpers are used to accomplish connections between X-Trees, manifolds, PLEM and PLET. They can
be presented as rigid or flexible pipes.
Figure 2.5: Jumper
2.2. Layout of the System
In order to exploit the Tucunaré gas field, three scenarios associated to Semi-submersible (SS), Jacket
(J) and a new innovative system, Subsea to Beach (SB), were considered.
The SS arrangement was considered due to the wells water depth of 500 meters, and also because it
has been successfully used offshore Brazil for decades. Also, it has showed to be adequate to the
motion constraints for production in typical Brazilian environmental conditions.
Jacket platform became an option when water depths decreased from 500 to 180 meters after only
20km away from the wells into shore direction. As a fixed system it presents advantages in relation to
SS motions induced by waves and currents, allowing the use of rigid static risers.
The third scenario, Subsea to Beach, was proposed as an alternative without a processing plant on the
platform deck. Therefore, it is practically unmanned offshore, reducing costs related to sea crew and
supply vessels. Safety aspects related to the risk to human activities are also substantially reduced.
However, it should be emphasized that the process plant and workers are based onshore with
associated risks.

Wells layout for the Tucunaré gas field is shown in Figure 2.6
495 m 500 m
W-1
W-2
SHORE
DIRECTION
W-3 505 m
W-4
W-7
W-5
SCALE (Meter)
W-8 W-6
0 500 1000
Figure 2.6: Wells Layout for Tucunaré Gas Field
Preliminary studies have been performed to define respective layouts for the three scenarios.
Equipments and their distribution on the seabed as well as flowlines and riser have been considered.
The subsea system design for each scenario is presented below.
2.2.1. Semi-submersible
The subsea production system comprises eight satellite wells connected to the floating platform by
flowlines and flexible risers with 8” diameter, thermally insulated. The gas is dehydrated on the
process plant, compressed and then exported together with condensed gas through a hybrid riser
configuration. Water from the separation process is treated and then disposed into the sea. The hybrid
riser comprises three flexible risers, 8” diameter, which connect the platform to the vertical rigid riser
with 22” diameter.
The control system adopted was the direct hydraulic due to the number of wells and their short
distances from the SS.
The hybrid riser is connected to a pipeline to export the gas directly to shore. The eight pairs of
production and export risers as well as the umbilicals have been equally distributed along the deck
rectangular edge to avoid concentration loads at a few points. Deck house is located far from the riser
connections to minimize the risk of accidents affecting the workers. The semi-submersible platform
arrangement is shown in Figure 2.7.

Figure 2.7: Semi-Submersible Platform Arrangement
2.2.2. Jacket
The fixed platform subsea production system presents two parallel manifolds, each one connected to
four x-trees through flexible flowlines with 8” diameter. Each manifold has two production headers
(10”) interconnected to a PLEM in order to allow gas flow through two rigid pipes with 18” diameter
each, up to the platform. Two PLETs are used for rigid pipe connection to the platform. The
connections among manifolds, PLEMs and PLETs are made by using rigid jumpers.
One of the manifolds receives an umbilical while the other receives a service flexible pipe (8”) and
another umbilical. The service and umbilical lines are directly interconnected to the manifolds through
flowlines. The second umbilical passes through the PLEM, considering that there is a valve used to
maneuver the PIG by hydraulic activation.
For this scenario, it was decided to use thermal insulation for the production pipes. Due to the need of
a MEG injection in case of shut down, one of the umbilicals has an internal hose for chemical
injection.

The multiplex electro-hydraulic control system was used due to the distance between the platform and
the wells, 20 km, enabling faster valve activation in comparison to a hydraulic direct system. Another
advantage of this system is the reduced number of umbilicals attached to the platform.
In the process plant, water associated to the natural gas is removed before the gas is compressed and
exported together with the condensed gas through a rigid riser (22”).
Figure 2.8 shows the Jacket arrangement.
Figure 2.8: Jacket Platform Arrangement
2.2.3. Subsea to Beach
Subsea to beach arrangement presents the same configuration of equipments, x-trees, manifolds and
PLET connections as in scenario 2 (Jacket), but without using the platform. The exportation to the
onshore terminal will be accomplished throughout two rigid pipes with 22” diameter each.

In this scenario, it was also decided to use thermal insulation for the production pipes. Due to the need
of MEG injection in case of shut down, once again one of the umbilicals has an internal hose for
chemical injection.
Due to the distance from the wells to shore, about 160km, the multiplex hydraulic control system was
chosen.
As reservoir pressure falls both as time goes by and also with the increase of accumulated production,
it may be necessary to install subsea separator and gas compressor to guarantee the field production
during the project. Figure 2.9 shows the proposed arrangement for Subsea to Beach scenario.
Figure 2.9: Subsea to Beach Arrangement

3. SUBSEA PROCESSING
This chapter describes the technical challenges and solutions of flow assurance for gas production in
accordance to the environmental conditions of the analyzed field. The biggest problem when studying
a gas field is to avoid the formation of hydrates. Two solutions were analyzed, thermal insulation and
continuous injection of Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG).
In order to obtain thermal insulation that complies with project specifications, temperature profiles in
steady-state production conditions for the three different scenarios will be initially calculated based on
a theoretical approach. The pressure profile, in steady-state, will be determined using the computer
program PIPESIM.
The analyses of the transient regime will be carried out using the computer program OLGA. Shut
down production and line depressurization will be simulated.
After that, the continuous injection of thermodynamic inhibitor, MEG, and its volume needed to avoid
the hydrate formation will be analyzed.
3.1. Hydrates
Hydrates are ice-like solid crystalline normally formed at high pressure and low temperatures in the
presence of water. They are the result of the combination of natural gas light component molecules
with water molecules. These gather around the gas molecules, forming a sort of cavity that capsules
the gas. Figure 3.1 illustrates a hydrate removed from a pipe.
Figure 3.1: Hydrate Plug Removed from a Gas Pipeline.
Once defined gas composition, flow assurance study is summarized in three fundamental analyses:
thermodynamic, fluid dynamic and heat transfer. The thermodynamic analysis defines state properties
such as specific heat for constant pressure and constant volume (Cp and Cv) and specific mass (ρ).
These will be used to determine pressure and temperature profile along the line. Therefore, with
temperature and pressure data along the line, it is possible to determine hydrate formation points. In
case there is hydrate formation, prevention and dissociation methods should be proposed.
The most adopted methods to avoid hydrate formation are:

• Water removal;
• Line heating;
• Line depressurization;
• Line thermal insulation;
• Use of thermodynamic inhibitors.
3.2. Types of Thermal Insulation
Pipeline thermal insulation is one of the means currently adopted to keep production free of hydrate
formation and assure production flow. The definition of the thermal insulation is extremely peculiar to
the particular submarine system in analysis (distances to be covered, well outflow, pressure and
temperature data).
Currently, several thermal insulation systems are known that vary according to the material used for
assembly and insulation. Among them, the following can be highlighted:
i. Fully external insulation – insulation is placed directly on insulated surface and solid,
synthetic and synthetic-composed materials are used. It is particularly appropriate for
equipment with a more complex geometry.
ii. Multi-layer insulation – it is a kind of fully external insulation, generally composed by a

solid layer and a foam layer, where each layer performs a specific function. The advantage of
the multi-layer system is that the thickness and density of each layer can be customized to
both project’s thermal and structural requirements.
iii. Module insulation – it consists of pre-manufactured insulation sections mounted on the

structure to be insulated without being directly attached to it. Synthetic and synthetic-
composed materials are generally used for it. One of the advantages of this type of insulation
is that it can be removed during its useful life. However, it has the disadvantage of possible
presence of clearances due to faulty fit between the attached parts, which causes heat transfer
through convection in these clearances, thus decreasing the insulation capacity.
iv. Pipe-in-Pipe – it involves two tubes concentrically positioned, where empty space
between them is filled up with insulating material. The main advantage of this scheme is the
capacity to deal with high insulating capacity materials that cannot be used if they were not
protected with an external pipeline. The main disadvantage is in set-up and manufacture costs
in comparison with single wall pipes.
3.2.1. Thermal Insulation Adopted
The thermal insulation proposed, polypropylene foam, for rigid pipes consists in a multi-layer anti-
rusty protection applied to pipe surface. The surface has to be previously cleaned and prepared
according to pre-set standards. This system is appropriate to offshore installations, due to its good
mechanic and thermal resistance features, and it is generally used for water depths up to 600 meters.
After a previous visual inspection of pipes and of pre-heating/ jetting of pipe external surface, the
system is applied as description below.
• Primer (1st layer)

The function of primer is to form a barrier thin layer closely bonded to the metal surface and
with excellent chemical resistance properties. Pipe surface fully coating with primer layer
provides both high resistance to the cathodic unbounded and a perfect chemical adherence
between subsequent layers, providing the pipe with high resistance to coating peeling. It is
applied by electrostatic guns.

• Adhesive (2nd layer)
The function of the adhesive in coating is to optimize adhesion between the subsequent layer
of polypropylene foam and the primer layer, through the combination of reactive effects,
providing a perfect chemical adherence. It is applied by lateral extrusion.
• Polypropylene Foam (3rd. Layer)

Polypropylene foam provides excellent thermal resistance properties. The thickness of this
layer depends on project’s requirements (function of global heat transfer coefficient, U
value). It is applied by lateral extrusion.
• Polypropylene Solid (4th. Layer)

Polypropylene solid is the outer layer of this system. It provides system with protection
against ultra-violet rays. It is applied by lateral extrusion.
For flexible pipe configuration synthetic foam tapes with glass micro spheres are used. The U value,
determined by design requirements, is provided to the manufacturer, so that the insulating tape layers
can be determined and incorporated to the pipe before the outer layer is applied in the final
manufacture stage.
3.3. Gas State Properties
The first step to verify whether flow complies with project specifications is to obtain thermodynamic
properties and phase diagram. To do that the PVTSIM computer program was used. Based on a gas
typical composition the following phase diagram was obtained, as illustrated in Figure 3.2. Hydrate
formation occurs on the left side of the curve.
500
400
Hydrates
Pressure (Bar)
300
200
100
No Hydrates
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature (°C)
Figure 3.2: Phase Diagram Showing the Conditions under which Hydrates will Form

3.4. Temperature and Pressure Profile Determination
3.4.1. Temperature Profile
Temperature profiles, in steady-state, were determined for the three scenarios. The theoretical analysis
of the problem [1] considered some simplifying hypotheses.
• Flow steady-state and heat exchange (that is, no problem variable is dependent on time);
• Unidimensional heat transfer (radial);
• Mixture is idealized homogeneous, that is, monophase flow;
• Only mixture temperature variation in the longitudinal direction is considered;
• Physical properties for the mixture and the structure are independent on temperature and
pressure.
Thus, the equation of heat in cylinder coordinates ( r ,θ , z ) for each pipe layer is given by:
1 ∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞
⎜r ⎟=0 (3.1)
r ∂r ⎝ ∂r ⎠
Heat transfer rate in radial direction (Fourier’s Law) is expressed by:
∂T
Q = −kA (3.2)
∂r
where k is material thermal conductivity and A is the area normal to thermal flow.
The analytical solution of the equation (3.1) allows the determination of temperature radial
distribution T (r) on the pipe, in function of temperatures on inner and outer surface. It can also be
proved that the heat transfer rate Q is constant, independent on r.
The global heat transfer coefficient U of the composite structure is related to total thermal resistance.
This can be defined as heat transfer rate per unit of inner surface area, Ai , by temperature variation
between internal fluids (mixture, T f ) and external (sea water, Tw ), as in the equation below.
Q
U= (3.3)
Ai (T f − Tw )
From the solution of equation (3.1), considering only heat flow per convection between the mixture
and pipe inner wall and disregarding thermal resistance of contact and of the steel, the following
expression for global heat transfer coefficient based on Ai is written in the following equation.
1
U= (3.4)
1 R ⎛ t ⎞ R ⎛ ⎞ t foam ⎛ ⎞
+ i ln⎜⎜1 + steel ⎟⎟ + i ln⎜1 + ⎟ + Ri ln⎜1 + t solid ⎟
hi k steel ⎝ Ri ⎠ k foam ⎜⎝ Ri + t foam ⎟⎠ k solid ⎜⎝ R1 + t steel + t foam ⎟⎠
where
hi = convection heat transfer coefficient between mixture and pipe inner wall;

k steel = steel thermal conductivity (inner layer)
k foam = PP foam thermal conductivity (intermediary layer)
k solid = PP solid thermal conductivity (outer layer);
Ri = inner radius;
t steel = steel thickness;
t foam = PP foam thickness;
t solid = PP solid thickness;
The equation of mixture energy transportation, idealized as a homogeneous mixture, with one-
dimensional flow in steady-state, can be written as:
dT f
m& f c pf = −U (2πRi )(T f − Tw ) (3.5)
ds
where
m& f = mass flow rate of the mixture;
c pf = specific heat of the mixture;
T f = mixture temperature in a determined position along the pipeline;
Tw = sea water temperature in a determined position along the pipeline;
U = global heat transfer coefficient.
For the problem being studied, was chosen s = 0 at well head.
The equation (3.5) is an first order ordinary differential equation with constant coefficients that has a
simple analytical solution, which can be obtained from initial condition T f = T0 in s = 0 . The
solution is as follow:
−2πRUs
T = Tm + (T0 − Tm )e
m f c pf
(3.6)
With a desired exit temperature Tend at s = L the value of U can be estimate by rearranging
algebraically the solution (3.6).
⎛ T − Tm ⎞ m f c pf
U = − ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⋅ (3.7)
⎝ T0 − Tm ⎠ 2πRi L
U values and temperature profiles for the three scenarios will be calculated. To obtain U and
temperature profile, the program MATLAB 6.5, whose calculations are presented in the Appendix A.

3.4.2. Pressure Profile
The analyses were carried out using the computer program PIPESIM [2]. Pressure profiles, in steady-
state, were determined for the three scenarios. The fluid modeling was obtained by appling the state
equations in multi-component systems.
3.4.3. Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible
Through an iterative process, U equals to 17.79 W / m2 °C was obtained, which was enough to
insulate the most critical part (longest pipe and flow rate of 10 million m3/day) with an arrival
temperature to the platform of 24 °C.
Under these conditions it can be assured that the flow (temperature and pressure) will be out of
hydrate formation region. Figure 3.3 represents temperature profile corresponding to the calculated U.
120
110
100
90
Temperature (°C)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Total distance (m)
Figure 3.3: Temperature Profile with Flow Rate of 10 million m3 / day, Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible

Through a modeling of the collection system using the program PIPESIM, as illustrated in Figure 3.4,
the pressure profile was determined.
Figure 3.4: Basic Diagram of a Collection System, Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible
For the obtained pressure profile it was considered an arrival pressure to the platform of 60 Bar.
Figure 3.5 illustrates pressure profile.
70
69
68
Pressure (Bar)
67
66
65
64
63
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Total distance (m)
Figure 3.5: Pressure Profile with Flow Rate of 10 million m3 / day, for Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible

With temperature and pressure data conditions it is concluded from Figure 3.6 that all the line is at the
right of the curve, not forming hydrate.
140
120
Pressure (Bar) 100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Temperature (°C)
Hydrate Curve 10 million m3/day
Figure 3.6: Thermodynamic State (pressure, temperature) in the Phase Equilibrium Diagram of Gas
Hydrate, Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible
3.4.4. Scenario 2: Jacket
All pipes were considered rigid. Thermal exchange global coefficient was calculated based on the
properties and thickness of the insulation material layer. Although X-tree/manifold links are flexible
flowlines, the same U found for rigid configuration will be provided to manufacturer.
For polypropylene solid outer layer the thickness 0.25” was adopted. Through an interactive process,
thickness of 0.25” for polypropylene foam inner layer was obtained, which was enough to insulate the
most critical part with an arrival temperature to platform of 33.71 °C.
The values adopted for steel, polypropylene foam and solid thermal conductivity were respectively 45
W / m °C, 0.025 W / m °C and 0.22 W / m °C.
Introducing in the equation (3.4) the values of thermal conductivity, inner diameter and material layer
thickness, U equals to 3.84 W / m2 °C was obtained for flexible pipes (well-manifold) and U equals to
3.78 W / m2 °C for the two import rigid pipes (inner diameter equal to 18”).

Figure 3.7 shows temperature profile, PLEM- JACKET, corresponding to the insulation adopted.
90
80
70
Temperature (°C)
60
50
40
30
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Total Distance (m)
Figure 3.7: Temperature Profile with Flow Rate of 10 million m3 / day, Scenario 2: Jacket
Again, considering an arrival pressure to platform of 60 Bar, pressure profile was obtained throughout
a modeling of the importation system. Figure 3.8 represents the modeling of the system.
Figure 3.8: Basic Diagram of a Collection System, Scenario 2: Jacket

Figure 3.9 represents the pressure profile.
70
69
68
67
66
Pressure (Bar)
65
64
63
62
61
60
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Total Distance (m)
Figure 3.9: Pressure Profile for Scenario 2 with Flow rate of 10 million m3 / day, Scenario 2: Jacket
With the results obtained for the most critical condition, longest pipe and flow rate of 10 million
m3/day, it is guaranteed that the hydrate will not form, as indicated in Figure 3.10.
75
65
55
Pressure (Bar)
45
35
25
15
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Temperature (°C)
Hydrate Curve 10 million m3/day
Hydrate, Scenario 2: Jacket

3.4.5. Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach
The same procedure used for scenario 2 was considered. For polypropylene solid outer layer the
thickness 0.25” was adopted. Throughout an interactive process, thickness of 1” of polypropylene
foam inner layer was obtained, which was enough to insulate the most critical part with an arrival
temperature to the onshore terminal of 13.97 °C.
The values adopted for steel, polypropylene foam and solid thermal conductivity were respectively 45
W / m °C, 0.025 W / m °C and 0.22 W / m °C.
Introducing in the equation (3.4) the values of thermal conductivity, inner diameter and material layer
thickness, U equals to 1.3 W / m2 °C was obtained for flexible pipes (well-manifold) and U equals to
1.05 W / m2 °C for the two import rigid pipes (inner diameter equal to 22”). Figure 3.11 represents
temperature profile, PLEM-TERMINAL (beach), corresponding to the insulation adopted.
120
100
80
Temperature (°C)
60
40
20
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000
Total Distance (m)
Figure 3.11: Temperature Profile with Flow Rate of 10 million m3 / day, Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach

Considering an arrival pressure to terminal (beach) of 25 Bar, the pressure profile was obtained
through a modeling of the system design. Figure 3.12 represents the modeling of the system.
Figure 3.12: Basic Diagram of a Collection System, Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach
Figure 3.13 represents the pressure profile.
60
55
50
45
Pressure (Bar)
40
35
30
25
20
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000
Total Distance (m)
Figure 3.13: Pressure Profile with Flow Rate of 10 million m3 / day, Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach

Again, with the results calculated for the most critical condition, hydrates will not form, as indicated
in Figure 3.14
100
90
80
70
P ressure (Bar)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Temperature (°C)
Hydrate Curve 10 million me/day
Hydrate, Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach
To validate the results, one simple analysis was carried out utilizing the program OLGA in steady-
state for scenario 3 in the beginning of operations, with flow rate of 20 million m3/day. The results are
presented in Figure 3.15.
Figure 3.15: OLGA Results for Scenario 3 with Flow Rate of 20 million m3/day

The results obtained from theoretical analysis and PIPESIM for temperature and pressure profiles,
respectively, are similar to those obtained from OLGA, as illustrated in Figure 3.16.
120 120
100 100
80 80
Temperature °C
Pressure (Bar)
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
60 1
20 3
79 5
39 8
98 8
57 3
17 4
78 139
88 .51
95 8
75 6
11 .93
67 .3
63 7
59 4
55 2
9
97 2.8
11 674
21 .09
30 .58
40 07
49 .41
59 .09
69 .46
10 .55
13 0 .9
14 5 .3
15 0 .0
.3
12 46
8
51
24
6.
4.
76
36
71
7
3
.
01
36
Total Distance (m)
Pressure Temperature
Figure 3.16: Temperature and Pressure Profile for Scenario 3 with Flow Rate of 20 million m3/day.
3.5. Transient Regime
To analyze the transient regime, a study on operations shut down was made using program OLGA
with the entry data being the PVTSIM results. This study was made only for the worst case scenario
for hydrate formation, which is the Subsea to Beach, and the results are shown in Figure 3.17:
Figure 3.17: OLGA Results for Transient Analysis at Production Shut Down
The simulation considers the situation where the manifold’s and the terminal’s production valves will
be closed. The green and black curves refer to fluid temperature and pressure at the manifold

respectively. The blue and red ones are also for temperature and pressure, in that order, but this time
for the terminal.
This graphic is used to estimate the shutdown period that insulation provides without hydrate
formation. Analyzing the hydrate curve previously obtained with the coldest temperature together and
the higher pressure, it is possible to conclude that there will be no hydrate formation for at least 60
hours.
If the hydrate block is formed, it can be dissociated by depressurizing the line. Using again the
computer program OLGA it has been evaluated the time needed to decrease the pressure. Figure 3.18
indicates that it is necessary about 8 hours to the pressure decrease to 25 bar (pressure at the onshore
terminal). The analysis considered only the distance between manifold and onshore terminal.
Figure 3.18: Time Required for Pressure Drop, Scenario 3.
3.6. Mono Ethylene Glycol
Another alternative to prevent hydrates formation is the use of chemical inhibitors. Today, Mono
Ethylene Glycol is the state of the art hydrate control method. Besides preventing hydrates, MEG
reduces the corrosion rate in the carbon steel pipelines normally used and is well suited as carrier of
corrosion inhibitors and pH-stabilizers. Glycol is also to regenerate and considered being
environmentally friendly, because of its chemical properties and the use within a closed loop system
where the losses are relatively small.
The main benefits of a MEG solution are:
• Reliable solution;
• Closed loop;
• Corrosion protective;
• No gas plant or refinery contamination;
• Environmentally friendly, non toxic, non flammable;
• Qualified technology.

In a closed loop system, Rich MEG arriving at the production unit must be regenerated to Lean MEG
quality, 90-95 wt% MEG, before being re-injected at the subsea producers. There are two ways to do
that:
I-Regeneration by evaporating water only. The MEG is returned to 90-95 wt% by boiling off
the water at temperatures around 150°C. All salts and non-volatile chemicals remain in the
MEG and are accumulated, if there is a continuous supply;
II-Full reclamation, which is an alternative if there is a “significant” formation water

production. This is a low-pressure (100 to 150 mbar) that runs about 110°C. Both MEG and
water are evaporated in a boiler and distilled to give 90-95 wt% Lean MEG and pure water.
All salts and non-volatile components remain in the boiler and can be handle in different
ways. Salts that precipitate in the boiler can be separated out, while small particles and
soluble chemicals are more difficult to remove.
Figure 3.19 shows a full reclamation MEG process.
SEPARATOR
HEATER
FROM WELLS
SLUG CATCHER RICH MEG

FLASH DRUM
GAS
MEG HEATER RICH MEG TANK MEG

REGENERATION
WATER
MEG RECLAMATION/
DESALTER
MEG INJECTION
PUMP MEG BOOSTER LEAN MEG TANK
PUMP
SUBSEA WELLS
Figure 3.19: Full Reclamation MEG Process, after [3]
3.6.1. Recycle
There are some obstacles that may create operational problems in a closed loop MEG system. Such
challenges are related to the well fluid being produced creating pipeline corrosion, the behavior of
added chemicals and production of formation water.
For this study case, condensed water is the only water source initially. Accordingly, the aim is to
utilize only pH-stabilized MEG in the early production phase. Introducing pH-stabilizer increases the
pH of the system and reduces the corrosion rate and solubility of FeCO3 tremendously. The most
important factors determining the corrosion rate of the carbon steel pipeline is the amount of CO2 in
the fluid, pH and temperature.
At arrival on shore, carbonate will be in the form of ions, Fe2+ and CO32-, and it will probably be
saturated or supersaturated in respect to FeCO3. When pressure is reduced and temperature is
increased, the solubility of FeCO3 will decrease and iron carbonate will precipitate. To minimize
problems related to the iron coming into the on-shore plant is necessary to design the MEG process in
a way that handles the formation and deposition of particles, like a recycle solution.
The idea is to provoke precipitation in the fluid itself at a location where cold supersaturated Rich
MEG meets hot recycled Rich MEG containing FeCO3 particles. The volumetric flow rates is in favor

of the recycle stream, and heating takes place in the recycle loop itself to avoid high temperature
difference across the heater.
To avoid accumulation of particle in the system, one or more solutions can be used. Some particle
removal alternatives are mentioned below:
• Use of filters;
• Settling by gravity using the long retention times in large glycol storage tanks;
• Use of centrifugal forces.
A photo of a simplified on-shore MEG process with the recycle heating solution is illustrated in
Figure 3.20.
Figure 3.20: Photo of MEG Process Plant [3]

3.6.2. MEG Calculation
A high-concentration (5% to 50%) of these chemical in the water phase is required to avoid hydrate
formation. The methodology used to calculate the necessary amount of MEG in the system is based on
the hydrate curves. Using the properties of the gas, different concentrations of MEG in the system are
determined and then new hydrate curves are generated, which was made with the program PVTSIM.
Results are shown in Figure 3.21.
550
500
450
400
350
Pressure (Bar)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-12 -7 -2 3 8 13 18 23 28
Temperature (ºC)
0% 10% 30% 40% 50%
Figure 3.21: MEG Concentration
Taking the 9ºC sea temperature into the graphic, the working pressures are obtained for each one of
the different MEG percentage curves. By doing that, it is possible to conclude that a 30% MEG
concentration is acceptable since the pressure given is approximately 150 bar, and the real working
pressure used is around 110 bar. This difference has a good impact to the project because it serves as a
safety factor.
MEG delivery requirements for each well will be individually determined based on predictions of
water production from each well, given by the multiphasic measurer device installed on each ANM as
a part of the control system. For the design MEG net, it is assumed that for each 100 Kg of produced
fluid, 1 Kg is of water. Being the production 20 million m3/day, the necessary amount of MEG is 0.52
kg/s. The calculations are at the appendix A.2.
3.7. Concluding Remarks
A series of analyses using different tools, such as OLGA, PIPESIM and analytical solution have been
carried out for the three scenarios. Based on these results it is possible to be out of the hydrate
envelope by using pipe insulation. Analyzing Subsea to Beach for the worst case, the longest pipe
with flow rate of 10 million m3/day (by the end of the design life), U value equal to 1.05 W / m2 °C
was obtained for the two export pipelines(22”diameter).
In the chapter related to cost analyzes it will be discussed the selection of either pipe insulation or
continuous MEG injection.

4. FLOWLINES AND RISERS
This chapter covers the design of flowlines and rigid risers for each of the scenarios. The diameters
have been established considering flow and pressure values obtained from the reservoir data as
previously discussed.
The only scenario involving riser top movements is that associated with the semi-submersible
platform, due to the action of waves and currents. Therefore, the riser response to these movements
under extreme loading has been determined for this scenario.
Pipes for both fixed platform and subsea to beach concepts are under static loading. Movements on
the jacket main deck are neglected and subsea to beach has no riser.
In this chapter was also accomplished a study for the pipe installation and description of the
installation methods to be used.
Pipelines need especial planning program for inspection and maintenance. In this context some
equipments to detect geometric defects and corrosion as well as for hydrate removal are presented.
4.1. Design of Flowlines and Rigid Risers
The design was accomplished using the ultimate limit state method, which is the main criterion related
to rigid pipe local buckling (pipe wall bucking). DNV [5] recommendations were adopted for three
different failures mode: local buckling due to bending moment, effective axial force and internal
overpressure; local buckling due to longitudinal compressive strain and external overpressure; and
propagation buckling. Limit states and design equations for this criterion were development based on
experimental tests and structural reliability technique.
The following nomenclature is used to define the criteria:
• Pc = collapse pressure
• Pi = internal pressure
• Pe = external pressure
• Pp = plastic collapse pressure
• Pel = elastic collapse pressure
• t = nominal wall thickness of pipe
• D = nominal outside diameter
• E = Young`s modulus
• ν = Poisson coefficient
• σy = yield stress
• f0 = ovality
• ε = design compressive strain
• εc = collapse compressive strain
• γε = resistance factor, strain resistance
• pld = local design pressure
• Md = design bending moment
• σu = tensile strength to be used in design
• Sd = design effective axial force
• ∆pd = design differential overpressure
• Mp = plastic moment resistance
• Sp = characteristic plastic axial force resistance
• Pb(t) = burst pressure
• αc = flow stress parameter

4.1.1. Local Buckling Due to Longitudinal Strain and External Overpressure
Pipe members subjected to longitudinal compressive strain and external overpressure shall be
designed to satisfy the following condition:
0.8
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ε ⎟ Pe
⎜ ⎟ + ≤1 D t ≤ 45 and Pi < Pe (4.1)
⎜⎜ ε C ⎟⎟ PC
⎝ γε ⎠ (γ SC ⋅ γ m )
In the analyzed scenarios, the effect of longitudinal deformation due to the bending can be neglected.
Therefore, the equation is simplified as:
Pc
Pe ≤ (4.2)
γ mγ SC
where:
γm is the material resistance factor, γm = 1.15

γSC is the safety class resistance factor shown in the Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Safety Class Resistance Factor, γ sc
Safety Class Low Normal High

γSC 1.046 1.138 1.308
High safety class has been assumed in the design.
The external pressure is given by:
Pe = ρ.g.h.γ p (4.3)
The pressure load effect factor, γp, is obtained from the Table 4.2 according to the limit state.
Table 4.2: Pressure Load Effect Factor
Limit States γP
Serviceability (SLS) &
1.05
Ultimate (ULS)
Fatigue (FLS) 1.00
Accidental (ALS) 1.00
In this design γp = 1.00 was assumed.
The characteristic collapse pressure (Pc) must be calculated by the following expression:
(Pc − Pel ) (Pc2 − Pp2 ) = Pc Pel Pp f o

D
(4.4)
t
where the elastic collapse pressure and plastic collapse pressure are given by:

3
⎛ t ⎞
2E⎜ ⎟
Pel = ⎝D⎠ (4.5)
1 −ν 2
t
Pp = 2.σ y .α fab . (4.6)
D
where αfab is the fabrication factor, obtained from the Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Fabrication Factor, αfab
Fabrication Type Seamless Pipe UO & TRB UOE

α fab 1.00 0.93 0.85
UO = pipe fabrication process for welded pipes
TRB = three roll bending
UOE = pipe fabrication process for welded pipes expanded
Fabrication factor for UO & TRB was adopted.
The ovality factor is calculated from the following equation:
Dmax − Dmin , f ≥ 0,5% (4.7)

fo = o
D
The solution for the collapse pressure equation is obtained calculating the equations below:
b = − Pel ⎤
⎥
⎥
1 ⎛ − b2 ⎞ ⎥
u = ⎜⎜ + c ⎟⎟ ⎥
3⎝ 3 ⎠ ⎥
⎥
⎛ D ⎞⎥
c = − ⎜ PP2 + PP Pel f 0 ⎟⎥
⎝ t ⎠⎥
⎥
⎥
d = Pel PP2 ⎥
⎥
⎥ (4.8)
1 ⎛ 2b 3 bc ⎞ ⎥
υ = ⎜⎜ − + d ⎟⎟ ⎥
2 ⎝ 27 3 ⎠ ⎥
⎥
⎥
⎛ −υ ⎞ ⎥
φ = a cos⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎜ − u3 ⎟ ⎥
⎝ ⎠
⎥
⎥
⎛ φ + π ⎞⎥
y = − 2 − u cos⎜ ⎟⎥
⎝ 3 ⎠ ⎥⎦

It can be simplified as:
b
PC = y − (4.9)
3
4.1.2. Propagation Buckling
To satisfy the local buckling verification, the projected pipe must obey the following equation below:
Pc > Ppr (4.10)
where the propagation collapse pressure is calculated as:
σy * α fab ⎛ t ⎞ 2,5
Ppr = 35 ⎜ ⎟ (4.11)
γ m * γ SC ⎝ D ⎠
4.1.3. Local Buckling Due to Bending Moment, Effective Axial Force and Internal Overpressure
Pipe members subjected to bending moment, effective axial force and internal overpressure shall be
design to satisfy the following conditions:
⎛ Sd ⎞
2 ⎛ 2⎞ 2
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ Md ⎛ ∆p d ⎞ ⎟ ⎛ ∆p d ⎞ (4.12)
γ sc.γ m + γ sc.γ m ⎜ 1 − ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎟ + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ≤ 1
⎜ α c Sp ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎜ αc M p ⎝ α c p b (t ) ⎠ ⎟ ⎝ α c p b (t ) ⎠
⎝ ⎠
D t ≤ 45 and Pi < Pe
where
γm is a material resistance factor, γm = 1.15;
the safety class resistance factor, γ sc , was selected in the section 4.1.1;
the characteristic plastic axial force resistance and the plastic moment resistance are given by:
S p = σ y π (D − t ) t (4.13)
M p = σ y π (D − t ) t
2
(4.14)
The burst pressure is calculated as:
pb (t ) = Min( pb ,s (t ), pb ,u (t ))
2t 2
pb,s (t ) = σy (4.15)
D −t 3
2 t σu 2
p b, u (t ) =
D − t 1.15 3

and the flow stress parameter as:
σu
α c = (1 − β ) + β
σy
⎧(0.4 + qh ) , for D / t < 15

⎪
β = ⎨(0.4 + qh )(60 − D / t ) / 45 , for 15 < D / t < 60
(4.16)
⎪0 , for D / t > 60
⎩
⎧ ( pld − pe ) 2
⎪ , for pld > pe
qh = ⎨ pp 3
⎪⎩0 , for pld ≤ pe
Elastic collapse pressure and the plastic collapse pressure were calculated using equations (4.5) and
(4.6).
The design differential overpressure is calculated as:
∆p d = γ p ( pld − pe ) (4.17)
and the design loads as
M d = M F γ F .γC + M E γ E + M A γ A .γC (4.18)
S d = S F γ F .γC + S E γ E + S A γ A .γC (4.19)
where E, F and A represent the type of the design loads as indicated in Table 4.4.
The load effect factors and load combinations are obtained from the Table 4.4 according to limit state.
Table 4.4: Load Effect Factors and Load Combinations
Functional Environmental Accidental Pressure

Limit states
loads (γF) loads (γE) loads (γA) loads (γP)
SLS a 1.20 0.7 - 1.05
&
ULS b 1.10 1.30 - 1.05
FLS 1.00 1.00 - 1.00
ALS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
If one of the above verifications is not validated, the pipe thickness must be increased. An Excel
spread sheet to check the proposed DnV [5] criteria was developed and presented in the Appendix C.
Selected commercial thickness has been adopted according to API-Specification for Line Pipes [6].

4.1.4. Material Properties
API X-65 steel with the properties below has been assumed.
• Longitudinal Young’s Modulus (E): 208000 MPa
• Transversal Young’s Modulus (G): 79900 MPa
• Poisson coefficient (υ): 0.3
• Yield stress (σo): 448.28 MPa
• Rupture stress (σu): 531.0 MPa
• Proportionality stress (σp): 331.0 MPa
Pipe tensile yield can be estimated as:
T0 = σ 0πDt (4.20)
4.1.5. Results
Using the above material properties and the developed spread sheet, the results for flowlines and rigid
pipes design were obtained as indicated in Tables 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 for scenarios 1, 2 and 3,
respectively.
Table 4.5: Semi-Submersible Platform
Export Pipes Diameter Thickness

Rigid riser 22” 0.625”
Flowline 22” 0.625”
Table 4.6: Jacket Platform
Pipes Diameter Thickness

Production Flowline 18” 0.562”
Production Rigid Riser 18” 0.562”
Export Rigid Riser 22” 0.438”
Export Flowline 22” 0.438”
Table 4.7: Subsea to Beach
Export Pipe Diameter Thickness

Flowline 22” 0,625”

4.2 Riser Analyzes Considering Top Motions
Analysis related to SS export and import (production) riser extreme loading conditions will be
presented in the following sections. Extreme loadings from environmental conditions generate
platform movements called offset.
Static and dynamic global analyses for export and production risers were accomplished, taking into
consideration wave and current extreme loadings with two return period combinations: centenary
wave with decenary current and decenary wave with centenary current. The offset directions
considered were near, far and transverse. ANFLEX computer program [7] developed jointly by
COPPE and PETROBRAS was used for these analyses.
4.2.1. Semi-submersible Platform Gas – Production Riser
Subsea arrangement incorporating flexible risers and satellite wells was defined chosen for gas import
to the semi-submersible platform. This is a configuration already established and widely used in
Brazil.
Riser structural response due to both environmental conditions and top displacements induced by the
platform motions are considered. Flexible riser preliminary global analysis associated with semi-
submersible installed in a water depth of 500m is performed.
4.2.1.1. System Configuration
The subsea system uses an 8” diameter flexible riser to link the wellhead to the platform in catenary
configuration with total length of 1100m. The analyzed system is shown in Figure 4.1, where D
represents the distance between the semi-submersible platform and the PLET, and Φ is vertical axis
top angle in the connection with the floating unit.
Φ 500m
Figure 4.1: System Configuration

4.2.1.2. Relevant Parameters
Relevant parameters considered in the analysis are listed in Table 4.8. The adopted scenario was for
500m water depth. RAO´s and offsets used in the analysis are similar to those obtained from a similar
platform to be installed in Campos Basin, offshore Brazil.
Table 4.8: Data for Static and Dynamic Analysis
Top angle 12º *

Morrison coefficient 2.0
Drag coefficient 1.2
Riser total length (m) 1100
* Top angle value for the cases analyzed complies with technical specification [8].
4.2.1.3. Soil Data
Table 4.9 refers to soil data and presents the reaction coefficients used for superficial supporting
condition, in compliance with Petrobras technical specifications [8].
Table 4.9: Soil Data
Soil Modeling Horizontal

Axial friction coefficient 0.35
Lateral friction coefficient 0.5
Axial elastic deflection limit (m) 0.35
Lateral elastic deflection limit (m) 0.2597
Vertical spring stiffness (kN/m/m) 5.86
4.2.1.4. Structural Properties
Flexible riser and flex joint data are listed in Tables 4.10 and 4.11
Table 4.10: Flexible Pipe Data
Length (m) 1100

Internal diameter (m) 0.2032
External diameter (m) 0.2896
Weigth in air (empty, kN/m) 1.031
Weigth in water (empty, kN/m) 0.3679
Axial stiffness (EA, kN) 625500
2
Bending stiffness (EI, kN.m ) 93.415

Table 4.11: Flexjoint Data
X stiffness (KN/m) 2.08x108

Y stiffness (KN/m) 2.08x108
Z stiffness (KN/m) 2.08x108
RX stiffness (KN.m/deg) 4.5
RY stiffness (KN.m/deg) 4.5
RZ stiffness (KN.m/deg) 4.5
4.2.1.5. Environmental Data
Environmental data related to Campos Basin Intermediary Central (IC) region were used in
compliance to technical specifications [9] for two extreme condition combinations corresponding to
centenary wave with decenary current (CW/DC) and to decenary wave with centenary current
(DW/CC). Both in collinear configuration.
4.2.1.6. Extreme Offset
Offset value used for global analysis takes the following errors into account:
• Platform positioning error, equal to 10 meters;

• Submarine equipment positioning error (well, manifold) equal to 7.5 meters;
• Static offset corresponding to 10% of the water depth.
4.2.1.7. Numerical Model
The numerical model adopted for analysis, as shown in Figure 4.2, has the following features:
• Top angle: 12 degrees
• Number of segments: 3
• Flexible riser 1st segment length: 600m
• Flexible riser 2nd segment length: 500m
• Total length: 1100m
• Boundary condition at platform interface: Flexjoint
Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil 52

Figure 4.2: Numerical Model
A non-linear beam element mesh was adopted. The model mesh is described in Table 4.12.
Table 4.12: Model Mesh
Element L (m) L (m) – L (m) number of nodes

i f
1 600 1–1 600
2 500 1–1 500
Being L the initial length of first segment, and L the final length of last element.
i f
A 5% structural damping related to harmonic movement periods was considered in the analysis.
4.2.1.8. Global Analysis Results – Import Riser
Static and dynamic analyses were accomplished for near, far and transverse offsets. Figure 4.3
illustrates how displacements are considered for the near and far offsets.

Figure 4.3: Offset Near and Far
Obtained results for this configuration are provided as axial compressive forces, axial tensile forces
and curvature radius due to the applied environmental loads. The results in Tables 4.13 and 4.14
include maximum tensile forces and curvature radius for each loading condition.
For loading cases with static offset in the transverse direction, axial compressive forces were
observed. The worst case was verified for loading condition corresponding to centenary wave and
decenary current, where the compressive force reached 21.2 KN.
Table 4.13: Results for Centenary Wave combined with Decenary Current
Offset Static Analysis Dynamic Analysis

Tensile Force Curvature Radius Tensile Force Curvature Radius
(KN) (m) (KN) (m)
Near 256.60 21.80 227.72 16.54
Far 332.00 9.49 380.42 6.58
Transverse 262.96 7.71 339.10 4.33
Table 4.14: Results for Decenary Wave with Centenary Current

Tensile Force Curvature Radius Tensile Force Curvature Radius
(KN) (m) (KN) (m)
Near 256.60 17.30 221.00 14.20
Far 333.60 10.69 376.40 7.60
Transverse 265.00 5.43 328.30 3.69

According to data provided by the manufacturer (Technip/Coflexip) for flexible risers (8”), minimum
acceptable bending radius is 1.92m and maximum acceptable tensile force (damaging pull) is
4171.37KN. The Tables 4.15 and 4.16 show the ratios between obtained results and the limitations
provided by the manufacturer.
Table 4.15: Ratios Between Obtained Results and Limitations for CW/DC

Obtained Force/ Obtained CR/ Obtained Force/ Obtained CR/
Limit CR Limit CR
Limit Force Limit Force
Near 0.06 7.57 0.05 5.75
Far 0.08 3.30 0.09 2.28
Transverse 0.06 2.68 0.08 1.50
Table 4.16: Ratios Between Obtained Results and Limitations for DW/CC

Obtained Force/ Obtained CR / Obtained Force/ Obtained CR/
Limit CR
Limit Force Limit Force Limit CR
Near 0.06 6.00 0.05 4.92
Far 0.08 3.71 0.09 2.64
Transverse 0.06 1.89 0.08 1.28
4.2.1.9. Considerations about the Results for Import Flexible Risers
The obtained tensile forces are considerably smaller than those from damaging pull. The greatest
value obtained occurs at the interface with the platform, as expected, and it is less than 19% of
maximum value indicated by the manufacturer.
Numerical results for curvature radius also comply with the limits set by manufacturer. The worst case
is still 28% above the limit.
For loading cases with static offset in the transverse direction (movement from the connection point
off the catenary plan), axial compressive forces were observed. These values are relatively small
(smaller than 1 % of the damaging pull force), but it indicates the need for local buckling check.
Compression occurs in TDP (touch down point) region and it occurs only under dynamical loads due
to platform motions induced by environmental conditions.
For some analyzed cases, minimum curvature radius at the connection point with the platform
indicates the need of a more detailed study of this region and, also, a flexjoint particular design for the
relief of stress concentration.
Finally, for a more relevant indication of the riser design adequacy, it is recommended a more
comprehensive study to assure system serviceability regarding to structural life cycle.
4.2.2. Semi-Submersible Platform Gas Export Riser
Hybrid riser configuration system called Single Line Offset Riser (SLOR) was chosen for this
scenario, as illustrated in Figure 4.4. The associated technology has been developed lately and it has
been considered as a much cheaper alternative in relation to the total costs involved for riser system

construction and installation in such scenarios. In addition to cost reduction, the hybrid riser transfers
only a small amount of the self-weight to the platform. Another important feature is the possibility of
easy disconnection of the flexible lines reaching the deck from the top of the rigid vertical pipe of
SLOR configuration.
Figure 4.4: Single Line Offset Riser
4.2.2.1. System Configuration
SLOR system comprises a 22” rigid riser in the vertical position, whose length is 400m, connected to
an 8” flexible jumper. The suggested length for the flexible jumper ranges from 2 to 5 times the offset
value, being adopted 300m in the present design. System stability is assured through the buoyancy
generated by a buoy installed at the top of rigid riser.
The analyzed system is indicated in Figure 4.5, where D represents distance between semi-
submersible platform and PLET, and H corresponds to riser tower height and Φ is vertical axis top
angle, in the connection of flexible jumper with floating unit. Environmental, soil and extreme offset
data are the same adopted for the collect riser analysis.

Φ
500 m
Figure 4.5: System Configuration
4.2.2.2. Relevant Analysis Parameters
RAO´s and offsets were the same adopted for the collect riser analysis. Other relevant parameters are
indicated in Table 4.17.
Table 4.17: Data for Static and Dynamic Analyzes
Top angle 12º *

Morrison coefficient 2.0
Drag coefficient 1.2
Riser total length (m) 700
* Top angle value for the analyzed cases complies with Petrobras technical specifications [9].
4.2.2.3. Structural Properties
Tables 4.18 to 4.21 list the main structural data associated with rigid pipe, flexible pipe, buoy and
flexjoint, respectively.
Table 4.18: Rigid Pipe Data
Length (m) 400

2
Elastic modulus (E, kN/m ) 204000000
Hydrodynamic diameter (m) 0.5588

Table 4.19: Flexible Pipe Data
Length (m) 300

Weight in air (empty, kN/m) 1.031
Weight in water (empty, kN/m) 0.3679
Axial stiffness (EA, kN) 625500
2
Bending stiffness (EI, kN.m ) 93.415
Table 4.20: Buoy Data
Buoyancy force (kN) * 3230

Weight (kN) 386
2
Area X (m ) 95.4
2
Area Y (m ) 95.4
2
Area Z (m ) 22.1
Morison inertia coefficient 2.0
Morison drag coefficient 1.88
* The buoyance force was calculated as:
Buoyance force (T) = 2 Psub (4.12)
Psub = Psteel + Pfluid– Psubvol (4.13)

where:
Psub= submerse weight (obtained from ANFLEX program)
Psteel= steel weight
Pfluid = internal fluid weight
Psubvol = submerse volume weight
Table 4.21: Flexjoint data
X stiffness (KN/m) 2.08.108

Y stiffness (KN/m) 2.08.108
Z stiffness (KN/m) 2.08.108
RX stiffness (KN.m/deg) 4.5
RY stiffness (KN.m/deg) 4.5
RZ stiffness (KN.m/deg) 4.5
4.2.2.4. Numerical Model
The numerical model adopted for analysis, as shown in Figure 4.6, has the following features:
• Top angle: 12º

• Number of segments: 3
• Rigid pipe segment length: 400m
• Flexible pipe segment length: 300m
• Total length: 700m
• Boundary condition at platform interface: Flexjoint
Figure 4.6: Numerical Model
A non-linear beam element mesh was adopted. The model mesh is described in Table 4.22.
Table 4.22: Model Mesh
Element L (m) L (m) – L (m) number of nodes

i f
1 400 1–1 400
2 300 1–1 300
L is the initial length of first segment, and L the final length of last element.
i f
As in the previous analysis, 5% structural damping related to harmonic movement periods was
considered.

4.2.2.5. Global Analysis Results – Export Riser
Static and dynamic analyses were accomplished for near, far and transverse offsets. Figure 4.7
illustrates how displacements are considered for near and far offsets.
Figure 4.7: Offset Near and Far
For this type of configuration, results were analyzed in terms of curvature radius, axial force and Von
Mises stresses due to applied environmental loads.
In the graphs below are presented the main results for rigid and flexible pipes. Extreme conditions
corresponding to centenary waves combined with decenary currents and to decenary waves combined
with centenary currents, the obtained results were similar. Thus, for clarity, only the results from
centenary waves combined with decenary currents are presented in Figures 4.8 to 4.10 and in Table
4.23.

400 400
300 300
Length (m )
Length (m )
200 200
100 100
0 0
290 310 330 350 370 290 310 330 350 370
Von Mises Stress (MPa) Von Mises Stress (MPa)
offset near offset far transversal API offset near offset far offset transverse API
(a) Rigid Riser Static Analysis (b) Rigid Riser Dynamic Analysis
Figure 4.8 – Von Mises Stresses Acting on Rigid Riser
400 400
300 300
Length (m )
Length (m )
200 200
100 100
0 0
2770 2780 2790 2800 2790 2840 2890 2940
Tensile (KN) Tensile (KN)
offset near offset far offset transverse offset near offset far transversal
Figure 4.9 – Tensile Forces Acting on the Rigid Riser
700 700
650 650
600 600
Length (m)
Length (m)
550 550
500 500
450 450
400 400
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Tensile (KN) Tensile (KN)
offset near offset far offset transverse offset near offset far offset transverse
Figure 4.10 – Tensile Forces Acting on the Flexible Riser

Table 4.23: Curvature Radius
Offset Static Analysis (m) Dynamic Analysis (m)

Near 7.7 6.97
Far 6.8 6.94
Transverse 5.56 3.36
4.2.2.6. Considerations about the Results for Export Hybrid Risers
Rigid riser behavior in terms of Von Mises stresses and tensile forces was as expected. This segment
of SLOR is submitted predominantly to tensile forces, assuming that the external/internal pressure has
been used for preliminary pipe design as indicated at the beginning of this chapter. Tensile force
varied linearly, presenting maximum values for each offset less than 25% of yield tensile force (12493
KN). Von Mises stress values are also inferior in relation to the yield stress for X-65 steel. According
to API-RP 2RD [10], the maximum allowed value for Von Mises stress, considering extreme
condition, is 80% of respective steel yield. Considering the yield stress of 447.87MPa for X-65 steel,
the maximum acceptable stress is 358,53MPa. The maximum value obtained from the analysis
indicated a Von Mises stress of 350 MPa for the rigid riser, therefore attending API recommendation.
For the SLOR flexible jumper segment, the obtained tensile forces along the line indicated a non-
linear behavior. Values decrease towards the buoy up to approximately half length and, from this
point on, present a growth tendency until the connection with the platform, where tensile force
presents the maximum value. This maxim force is inferior to the damaging pull force recommended
by the manufacturer (4171.37 KN). For some of the analyzed cases, the maximum Von Mises Stress
values occur at the connection point with the platform. Therefore, it is recommended a more detailed
study to investigate this behavior and the design of an appropriate flexjoint/bend stiffener to overcome
possible stress concentrations at flexible riser/platform connection.
4.3. Pipe installation
For the installation of the pipes (risers and flowlines) it is necessary to use special purpose ships. The
most common installation technique consisted of fabricating the line pipe on board, welding and
inspecting the pipe, then installing the line at the pre-established spot. The fabrication goes on during
installation and usually the S-lay or J-lay methods are employed. In an attempt to reduce installation
costs, especially in deep water, the alternative is to fabricate the complete line pipe onshore, storage it
on large diameter reels at installation ships and then transport and launch the line at the offshore site.
4.3.1. S-Lay Method
In this method, pipes are welded horizontally and released through a ramp (stinger). The S-form is
form by pipe configuration along the water depth between the ship stinger and the bottom sea touch
down point (TDP), Figure 4.11. Pipe bending on the stinger end is called overbend and reverse
bending in TDP region is called sagbend. The tension system maintains the suspended pipe and the
ship installation capacity depends therefore on the line pipe suspended length, submerged weight and
the local depth to maintain acceptable pipe bending curvature during the installation process.

Figure 4.11: S-Lay Method
4.3.2. J-Lay method
In this method, the vessel uses a central tower, usually converted from drilling vessels, to perform
welding in the vertical position and launch the line progressively from the tower. The pipe is released
in a way that only the sagbending curvature is formed, avoiding the overbending, as shown in Figure
4.12. The greatest difficulty in this method is to perform the vertical welding, although it brings
advantages in relation to the S-lay method for deep water.
Figure 4.12: J-Lay Method
4.3.3. Reel Method
This is the most used method for the installation of pipes with up to 16” diameter. Depending on
pipe’s diameter, many kilometers can be storage in one or more reels onshore and then unreeled
relatively quick at installation spot by a special vessel. It is the fastest way of pipe installation
reducing considerably the number of days at the sea [11].
The connections between the flowline and christmas tree can be made by divers using flanges or
especial connections when in shallow waters or by hydraulic systems remotely operated in deep water.

Pipes can be fully built onshore, becoming much easier the welding and inspection activities.
However, pipes will be submitted to few bending cycles, which should be analyzed in a more
elaborated and careful design project in order to avoid future operational problems. Once pipes are
wounded on the reel, they are rectified afterwards to compensate plastic deformations. Reeling and
unreeling operations may increase pipe ovality and magnify possible weld defects, therefore reducing
ultimate strength and fatigue life, respectively. Installation process for the Reel method is shown in
Figure 4.13.
Figure 4.13: Reel Method
4.3.4. Definition of the Installation Method
For defining installation method to be used, cost and especially frequent use in national offshore
activities were taken into account.
For flexible risers the reel method was chosen due to its time and cost advantages in comparison to
other methods. For rigid pipes due to restriction for diameters above 16", this method was not
considered. Thus, the J-lay method, broadly used in Campos Basin, was selected as the best option.
4.4 Pipe Maintenance - Inspection and Cleaning
Pipelines need especial planning for maintenance, in particular cleaning and inspection techniques to
assure both equipment integrity and optimal flow. Recently, there has been an increase of
instrumented pig passages to measure wall thickness along the pipe and identify points with reduced
thickness, caused by local corrosive process. Pigs aimed at removing hydrates are more related to flow
assurance.
The pigs resemble to a cylinder of diameter slightly inferior to that of the pipeline and go throughout
the line, removing substances accumulated on the walls. The conventional ones just clean; the
intelligent ones, instrumented, make a diagnosis of the pipeline. The intelligent pigs carry a cylindrical
vessel with computers and sensors to measure the pipe wall thickness and indicate corrosion and dent
points. Figure 4.14 display a picture of a pig prototype, being prepared for tests in a pipeline closed
loop, at PETROBRAS Research Center.

Figure 4.14: PIG Prototype
4.4.1 Geometric Pig
This tool is equipped with multiple sensors with digital data acquisition and high-capacity compact
memory. Using the most advanced technology available they are designed to accurately and quickly
identify the position and extension of any geometric anomalies, welds, valves, tees, dents,
ovalizations, buckles, bends, derivations and diameter reductions along pipelines.
Geometric pig is designed to be used during pipeline construction, operation and maintenance. The
equipment sensors provide much more information in less time thus enabling immediate repairs and
reducing labor costs. Digital systems allow for the generation of field reports a few hours after
inspection. Final reports contain a full identification of defects as well as its longitudinal and
transversal location in the pipeline. Pigs high performance allow them to be used in most adverse
conditions mainly those common during pipeline construction, such as compressed air pumping,
extreme speed variations, debris and poor launching and receiving facilities.
The Geometrical Pig is showed in Figure 4.15.

Figure 4.15: Geometrical Pig
4.4.2 Corrosion Pig
The Corrosion Pig is based on the Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) technology. Magnetic pigs are
designed to detect metal loss defects which are generally caused by the natural corrosion of pipeline
walls interacting with the environment and/or with in-line products. Such defects may risk pipeline
operation since its structure may be damaged by normal operating pressure. Moreover such defects
may cause product leakage which may be harmful to the operator and to the environment without
mentioning the possibility of ecological disasters and/or personal injure in case of severe rupture.
The high-resolution pig multiple sensors and digital systems verify metal loss in pipeline wall caused
by corrosion, providing accurate and quick information required for pipeline maintenance. Final
reports indicate anomalies and its severity as well as its longitudinal and transversal location helping
its identification for repairs.
The Corrosion Pig is shown in Figure 4.16.
Figure 4.16: Corrosion Pig

5. SUBSEA SYSTEM DESIGN
In this chapter a more detailed description of the subsea equipment and its selection are accomplished
for the proposed gas field exploitation. The reliability of the subsea system design is strongly
dependent on the specific equipment design. In case of complex equipments, like X-Tree and
manifold, especial studies are necessary to optimize the equipment design and to take advantage of its
flexibility in benefit of the subsea system design [12].
In order to subsidize the Subsea to Beach concept to improve its performance a brief discussion about
subsea gas separation and subsea gas compression are presented.
5.1. Wet Christmas Tree (X-Tree)
X-Tree can be classified according to control valve layout [13] as:
• Horizontal Wet Christmas Tree

• Conventional Wet Christmas Tree (vertical)
Horizontal X-Tree can be described as a production adapted base with valves mounted on the lateral
sides, allowing well intervention and production column replacement without its removal. This
characteristic does not present an advantage for the gas fields, considering that rare interventions are
needed.
Vertical X-Tree provides increased installation and operational flexibility over the horizontal tree. The
vertical tree comprises separate modules that can be installed independently. The vertical X-Tree set
comprises production adapted base (PAB), tubing hanger, flowline connectors, valves and tree cap.
5.1.2. X-Tree installation Method
Vertical X-Tree uses a PAB which enables the installation of the lines independently. This feature was
taken into account for choosing the Vertical X-Tree to be included in the proposed subsea
arrangements for the three scenarios. Due to the 500 meter water depth, all methods of installation
using divers were discarded.
The latest concept for guidelineless X-Tree uses the vertical connection module (VCM). The
possibility of independent installations of X-Tree and flowlines contributes to optimize the installation
costs. Another important point is the use of only one vessel for the X-Tree installation.
Figure 5.1 shows the installation with one VCM.
Figure 5.1: Connection with One VCM [14]

For the three scenarios considered the same X-Tree are adopted because it depends only on the
reservoir characteristics. For the considered gas field, 500 m water depth and 7691 psi reservoir
pressure, the selected X-Tree is the guidelineless, with one VCM and work pressure 10,000 psi.
The Figure 5.2 shows the Vertical X-Tree.
Figure 5.2: Vertical X-Tree
5.1.3. X-Tree Arrangement and Operation
The set of valves from the X-Tree is presented in Figure 5.3 is constituted of:.
• Production master valve: M1 (master 1);

• Production lateral valve: W1 (wing 1);
• Annulus master valve: M2 (master 2);
• Annulus access lateral valve: W2 (wing 2);
• Crossover valve: XO;
• Production intervention valve: S1 (swab1);
• Annulus intervection valve: S2 (swab 2);
• Pressure regulation: choke;
• MEG valve (normal operation): MV1;
• MEG valve to flood (shut-down): MV2;
• Down hole safety valve: DHSV.

Legend
X-Tree
PAB
Figure 5.3: Schematic Representation of X-Tree GLL/DLL
The gas flow passes through a DSHV valve, located in the production column, whose function is to
hold the flow of the well in case of accident with the X-Tree or external leaks. It also close if a high
gradient pressure is detected. The flow goes on M1 and W1 valves, which are other two safety
barriers. These valves are kept open during normal production operation and can be closed at any time
if needed. After that, the gas passes through the choke responsible for controlling the flow rate and
reducing the pressure in the production line connected to the manifold. For production optimization it
is necessary to control the well pressure. The choke installation is a good option because it makes
possible the MEG injection from the X-Tree, decreasing the operational pressure and reducing the
possibility of hydrate formation. In addition it can improve safety acting as a barrier in relation to the
high pressure reservoir (500 bar).
Annulus valve network is used to equalized the pressure when DHSV is opened. M2 and W2 valves
are two additional safety barriers.

The Crossover valve is interconnected between the annulus line and the production line, being used,
for example, to overcome an obstruction caused by hydrate formation.
MEG network is used to inject this hydrate inhibitor. During the normal operation of the system, the
MEG is injected right after the Choke through a MV1 valve, where the line pressure is smaller.
Another way of doing it, is to inject through MV2 valve, usually to flood the X-Tree lines during shut
down.
Finally, S1 and S2 valves, located in the production and annulus lines respectively. These are
intervention valves which are kept closed, being opened only when an intervention in the well is
necessary.
5.1.4. Description of selected X-Tree Components
5.1.4.1. Choke
Chokes are used to obtain flow and pressure control aiming at optimizing production and safety. The
performance principle is based on the pressure drop by choking the section.
5.1.4.2. Base for the Flowlines
This equipment supports the flowlines and control lines, leveling them in relation to the Xmas Tree.
5.1.4.3. Tubing Hanger
It is responsible for the interface between the production tubing and the X-Tree. It supports the weight
of the production tubing and it is anchored and locked at the production adapted base. It has also the
function of sealing the annulus formed between the well coating and the production tubing.
5.1.4.4. Vertical Connection Module (VCM)
The vertical connection module (VCM) has a similar function as the MLF (mandril line flow) used in
CVD. The BAP optimizes the intervention resources because the X-tree installation can be performed
by a drill barge and pipes and umbilicals by independent installation vessel.
5.1.5.5. Tree Cap
Tree cap makes the interconnection between the stationary production unit or onshore terminal and the
X-tree functions. As it is an important control equipment, it was decided to use a recoverable tree cap
for easy maintenance.
5.2. Manifold
Manifolds can be classified according to their function and way of installation. Regarding its function,
in general, they can be classified as:
• Collecting Manifold – It collects the flow from several pipes into a single pipe;
• Distribution Manifold – It distributes the flow from a single pipe to several pipes;

• Mixed Manifold– It has both characteristics above mentioned.
The main advantages in its application are:
• Reducing the number of pipes (risers) in the platform minimizing both the space and the load
applied on stationary production unit, thus reducing the pipes costs;
• Installing in advance, i.e. subsea system awaiting platform arrival;
• Optimizing subsea arrangement (clearing the ground next to the platform and its anchor
system).
5.2.1. Manifold Installation
Regarding the way of installation and intervention, the manifolds are of two types: DA (diver assisted)
or DL (diverless). The DA manifolds can only be installed in water depths of up to 300 m. In the
proposed scenarios DL manifolds are employed.
The manifold comprises the following parts:
• Sub-base structure;
• Pipes and valves;
• Recoverable valve modules;
• Recoverable control modules (subsea part of the control system);
• Pipe connecting modules.
5.2.2. Manifold Arrangement and Operation
For scenarios 2 and 3 two manifolds in parallel are employed. Figure 5.4 illustrates the manifold with
capacity for four wells as adapted in the project.

Figure 5.4: Manifold Submarine for 4 wells
For MEG distribution, four chokes are used in the manifold for each X-Tree for separate flow control,
considering that product injection needs may differ for each production line.
Production pipe linked to each X-Tree can be lined up for the three headers. One, through the
T1valve, that goes to service pipe in order to test well production. The other two, P1 and P2, go to
their respective production headers. This configuration assures operational flexibility, because it is
possible through a maneuver of valves to select the well production for the desired export pipeline.
The two production headers coming out of the manifold arrive at a PLEM and then the production is
exported through two pipelines.
It was installed in each manifold one electric hydraulic distribution module (EHDM) for the umbilical
vertical connection. And also two Subsea Control Module (SCM) responsible each one for the control
of two X-Trees. Thus, in case of one SCM failure only two production wells are lost.
In this project, it has been decided the use of six recoverable modules, four for production and two for
the SCM. Components that needed maintenance were installed in the production, such as hydraulic
valves, flow meters, pressure and temperature transducers. Size and weight of the manifold are
increased by using recoverable modules. However, they allow the repair of important components
without being necessary to recover the manifold.

Figure 5.5 presents the manifold production recoverable module.
Figure 5.5: Manifold Recoverable Module
5.3. PLEM
5.3.1. PLEM Definition
PLEM is basically a collector or distributor for the subsea flowlines.
5.3.2. PLEM Arrangement, Operability and Installation
According to the subsea arrangement for scenarios 2 and 3, PLEM is employed as shown in
Figure 5.6.
Figure 5.6: PLEM Arrangement

In order to easy installation, rigid jumpers are employed to connect manifold to PLEM. The system
has the capacity to collect the production from two manifolds and to send through two lines to the
production unit.
Except for the Valve Pig (VP) of hydraulic activation, all the other valves are manually operated by
ROV. After manifold installation, the jumpers are positioned, locked and then the valves are open.
The VP valve stays closed during normal operation, being only used for PIG maneuver.
5.4. PLET
5.4.1. PLET Definition
This equipment is used to enable line connection without using divers and it depends on the diameters
and pipe types (rigid or flexible) used in the project. It is employed to link PLEM to the production
line.
5.4.2. PLET Arrangement, Operation and Installation
According to subsea arrangement for scenarios 2 and 3, PLET was defined as shown in Figure 5.7.
Figure 5.7: PLET Arrangement
This equipment has a flange used for the connection with the rigid pip. Then a jumper is used to
connect PLET to PLEM. After locking the jumper, the only present valve is open by ROV.
5.5. Control Systems
5.5.1. Hydraulic Direct
This is the simplest, cheapest and most reliable system, therefore the favorite for satellite well control.
It was adopted for scenario 1 due to the number of wells and the small distance between them and the
SS. Each X-Tree receives one umbilical from platform containing the necessary electric cables to
acquire data and hydraulic hoses to activate valves.

5.5.2. Multiplex Electro Hydraulic
The multiplex control is usually employed in systems with a manifold with a great number of
hydraulic functions. This system multiplex the hydraulic functions and the data acquisition from
manifold and wells through a central station installed on the platform / onshore terminal and, also,
from subsea control modules installed in the manifold. The interconnection of the subsystems is done
through only four hydraulic hoses and four pairs of electric cables mounted on the umbilical. The
cables have double-function, they transfer power from the processing unit to sensors installed on the
manifold and X-Tree, and they bring to the operational and supervision central station the signals from
these sensors. The main actions executed by this system are:
• Operation of hydraulic valves of the manifold, X-Tree, PLEM and of those installed in the
wells downhole;
• Operation of hydraulic chokes;
• Pressure and temperature monitoring of the import and export fluids and position of the
chokes;
• Pressure and temperature monitoring at X-Tree;
• Pressure and temperature monitoring at the well.
The main components of this system are:
• Electro-hydraulic distribution module (EHDM) - installed in the manifold;

• Subsea control modules (SCM) - installed in the manifold;
• Electronic surface unit (ESU) - installed in the production terminal unit.
This system was employed in scenarios 2 and 3 due to both manifold use and the long distance
between unit production and the wells.
5.6 Equipment General Arrangement
In manifold 2 arrives from the platform or onshore terminal one umbilical with a MEG injection hose
included, while in the manifold 1 arrives an umbilical and a flexible service pipe. Two umbilicals
were used in order to give more reliability to the system by giving operational redundancy in case of
failure. Since there is no need for service and MEG lines to pass through the PLEM, they are
connected to the other manifold by rigid jumpers. One of the umbilicals is also connect in that same
way, while the other one goes through the PLEM in other to actuate the VP valve on that equipment.
Figure 5.8 illustrates the general arrangement of subsea equipments.

Figure 5.8: Equipment General Arrangement

5.7. Subsea Compression and Separation
Reservoir pressure drops throughout the field production lifetime. This will impact production rate
and profitability, especially for the Subsea to Beach case due to the 160km of production pipelines.
Because of that, the use of a subsea compressor was considered.
Before compression can be made, it is necessary to separate the water associated with de gas and the
condensate. For that, it is essential to also install a subsea separator. This system is focused on the
following process [15]:
• Separation of water, gas and condensate;

• Re-injection of the separated water into the reservoir;
• Compression of the dehydrated gas;
• Mixture the compressed gas with the condensate;
• Export the gas and condensate mixture.
The installation of this two equipments, subsea separator and subsea compressor, would solve the
pressure drop problem, conferring profitability and a series of advantages to the Subsea to Beach
scenario:
• Draw out of the field production;

• Better field management. The separation of water would help on hydrate prevention;
• Reduced environment impact. The separated water can be re-injected into the reservoir.
5.7.1. Subsea Separation
The economic potential of subsea separation has been known for some time. Yet, while there are a
substantial number of subsea pump systems in operation, there are only two subsea separation stations
installed. One is the Troll Pilot for water separation and reinjection, operated by Norsk Hydro in the
North Sea. The second installation is the VASP system for gas-liquid separation and boosting
operated by Petrobras in Brazil.
There are interrelated reasons why the development of subsea separation applications has lagged.
First, some components of such a system would have to be newly designed and qualified. Second, a
system incorporating new technology carries a higher potential risk. In addition to undemonstrated
performance, both durability and ease of maintenance would need to be addressed to reduce the
unknown aspect of the risk. Accordingly, plans for any new design must include qualification to
minimize the risk of a new technology.
5.7.2. Subsea Compression
The subsea compression equipment is the biggest challenge for the proposed implementation. Because
it is a totally new technology, the potential risk is high, as said before. Accordingly to the site
gepower.com, GE and KOP are working to develop a 12.5 MW compression unit with market
expectation for 2008, so the possibility on using such equipment is set to 2020, after approximately 10
years research.
5.7.3. Process Description
All production is directed to de subsea separator, which will be responsible for separating the water,
the condensate and the gas. The gas is then compressed and put together with the condensate. At this
point the mixture is exported through production pipelines to the terminal. The separated water is then
re-injected in the field.

For system optimization, it is better to position the equipments as near to the field as possible. For
scenario 3 the appropriated place is near the PLEM.

6. RISK ASSESSMENT
In order to estimate the reliability of the three proposed subsea arrangements for gas exploitation, fault
tree analyzes [16,17,18] are performed assuming as the top event the production loss in relation to
total production output. The fault tree construction does not consider the processing plant.
The subsea equipments taken into account have a limited number of components to make possible the
overall reliability analyzes in the present design stage, when the concepts should be better understood
and the risks identified.
Although the respective fault trees for the considered scenarios could be employed in a latter stage to
generate quantitative estimates of the failure probability for the top event, in this study only
qualitative reliability analyzes are performed. It is important to emphasize that the access to reliable
data base is necessary for a consequent quantitative risk analysis. Otherwise the results could lead to
wrong conclusions and mistaken decisions.
6.1. Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible
The subsea arrangement based on satellite wells implies that each independent well system (X-Tree/
flowline/riser) is responsible for 1/8 of the total production. Each well system is independent and in
case of one main component/process failure the respective production is interrupted.
It can be observed that the satellite arrangement prevents the total production interruption because of
the direct link between well head and processing unit. Total production loss is only possible if:
a) all eigth independent import systems (X-Tree/ flowline/riser) present simultaneously
failure, or
b) the export riser system presents failure either in the SLOR or in the export pipeline.
The fault tree associated with production loss for the semi-submersible scenario is presented in the
Figure 6.1.
cence - Not for commercial use

PARTIAL
PRODUCTION LOSS
Or 1
WELL PRODUCTION EXPORT

LOSS RISER/FLOWLINE
FAILURE
Basic 12
Or 2
WELL 1 WELL 2 WELL 3 WELL 4 WELL 5 WELL 6 WELL 7 WELL 8

PRODUCTION PRODUCTION PRODUCTION PRODUCTION PRODUCTION PRODUCTION PRODUCTION PRODUCTION
INTERRUPTION INTERRUPTION INTERRUPTION INTERRUPTION INTERRUPTION INTERRUPTION INTERRUPTION INTERRUPTION
P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2

P2
WELL PRODUCTION
INTERRUPTION
Or 2
UMBILICAL FAILURE X-TREE FAILURE 8" FLOWLINE/RISER

FAILURE
Basic 1 Or 2 Or 15
AILURE IN THE VALVES FAILURE HYDRATE BLOCK STRUCTURAL

CONNECTIONS FAILURE
Basic 6 Or 13 Basic 4 Basic 5
MASTER 1 FAILURE WING 1 FAILURE DHSV FAILURE CHOKE FAILURE
Basic 7 Basic 8 Basic 9 Basic 10
Figure 6.1: Fault Tree for the Semi-submersible Scenario
6.2. Scenario 2: Jacket
Subsea arrangement for this scenario presents some tolerances to failure, i.e. failure in the flowline
linking manifold to process plant does not cause partial production loss.
In relation to total production interruption, it can be observed that this scenario seems to be less
reliable than the previous one. In the present scenario there are more equipments prone to cause
complete production shut down in case of failure, such as:
• 22" export riser/flowline;
• 2 x 18" flowline/riser from PLEM to jacket – equipments installed in parallel, the total
production interruption depends on failure of both parallel lines;
• Umbilicals from jacket to manifold – also installed in parallel with the same redundancy as
the lines above mentioned;
• Subsea Control Module (SCM) responsible for two X-Trees each – only the simultaneous
failure of the four SCM could fully stop production.
A particular well shut down seems to have a smaller failure probability for this scenario than for the
previous one. It is mainly due to the more reliable link X-Tree / manifold / Jacket than X-Tree / Riser /
Semi-submersible, due to the riser dynamic behavior and associated uncertainties.
The fault tree for the jacket scenario is presented below.

PARTIAL
PRODUCTION LOSS
Or 1
UMBILICAL (JACKET WELL PRODUCTION 18" RISER/ 22" EXPORT RISER/

TO MANIFOLD) LOSS FLOWLINE FLOWLINE FAILURE
(MANIFOLD TO
JACKET)
And 1 P2 End 2 Basic 3
UMBILICAL 1 UMBILICAL 2 18"RISER / 18"RISER /

FAILURE FAILURE FLOWLINE 1 FLOWLINE2
FAILURE FAILURE
Basic 2 Basic 20
Or 3 Or 3
HYDRATE BLOCK STRUCTURAL HYDRATE BLOCK STRUCTURAL

FAILURE FAILURE
P2
WELL PRODUCTION
LOSS
Or 17
SUBSEA CONTROL SUBSEA CONTROL SUBSEA CONTROL SUBSEA CONTROL

MODULE 1 MODULE 2 MODULE 3 MODULE 4
Or 18 Or 18 Or 18 Or 18
SCM 1 FAILURE WELLS 1-2 SCM 2 FAILURE WELLS 3-4 SCM 3 FAILURE WELLS 5-6 SCM 4 FAILURE WELLS 7-8
PRODUCTION LOSS PRODUCTION LOSS PRODUCTION LOSS PRODUCTION LOSS
Basic 12 Or 7 Basic 13 Or 7 Basic 14 Or 7 Basic 15 Or 7

P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3

P3
WELL PRODUCTION
INTERRUPTION
Or 2

FAILURE
Basic 1 Or 2 Or 15
FAILURE IN THE VALVES FAILURE HYDRATE BLOCK STRUCTURAL

CONNECTIONS FAILURE
Figure 6.2: Fault Tree for Jacket Scenario
6.3. Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach
Subsea arrangement for this scenario is very similar to that for jacket scenario. Therefore the fault
trees are also similar. The main advantage of this arrangement in relation to the jacket scenario is the
possibility of not using risers, although dynamic considerations for jacket risers can be neglected. All
the lines in the Subsea to Beach scenario are subjected to design static loads. Exception could be
considered for eventual pipeline free span but it could occur also in the other two scenarios with
similar probabilities.
An additional advantage is associated with the use of two export 22” pipelines instead of one
employed in the jacket subsea arrangement. The dual pipe system introduces operational redundancy
to the arrangement. In the case of a pipe interruption, flow assurance could be maintained without
affecting the production. The main disadvantage is associated with the gas transportation without
water separation, which represents a considerable higher probability of hydrate formation and
consequent pipeline block as compared with dehydrated gas obtained from the offshore process plant
available in both scenarios 1 and 2.
The fault tree for Subsea to Beach scenario is presented in Figure 6.3.

PARTIAL
PRODUCTION LOSS
Or 1
UMBILICAL WELL PRODUCTION 22" LONG DISTANCE

(MANIFOLD TO LOSS PIPELINES FAILURE
ONSHORE
TERMINAL)
And 1 P2 End 2
UMBILICAL 1 UMBILICAL 2 22" PIPELINE 1 22" PIPELINE 2

FAILURE FAILURE FAILURE FAILURE
Basic 2 Basic 20
Or 3 Or 3
hYDRATE BLOCK STRUCTURAL hYDRATE BLOCK STRUCTURAL

FAILURE FAILURE
P2
WELL PRODUCTION
LOSS
Or 17
SUBSEA CONTROL SUBSEA CONTROL SUBSEA CONTROL SUBSEA CONTROL

MODULE 1 MODULE 2 MODULE 3 MODULE 4
Or 18 Or 18 Or 18 Or 18
SCM 1 FAILURE WELLS 1-2 SCM 2 FAILURE WELLS 3-4 SCM 3 FAILURE WELLS 5-6 SCM 4 FAILURE WELLS 7-8
PRODUCTION LOSS PRODUCTION LOSS PRODUCTION LOSS PRODUCTION LOSS
Basic 12 Or 7 Basic 13 Or 7 Basic 14 Or 7 Basic 15 Or 7

P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3

P3
WELL PRODUCTION
INTERRUPTION
Or 2

FAILURE
Basic 1 Or 2 Or 15
CONNECTIONS VALVES FAILURE hYDRATE BLOCK STRUCTURAL

EMPTYING FAILURE
Figure 6.3: Fault Tree for Subsea to Beach Scenario
Based on the above fault trees two different situations in relation to production loss are analyzed: total
production loss and partial production loss.
6.4.1. Total Production Loss
The conceptual probability of failure for the total production loss indicates that scenario 1 presents the
best result. The satellite wells contribute to decrease the probability of a complete shut down. The
possibility of a shut down depends on export pipe system failure. For scenarios 2 and 3, there are
additional possibilities of failure associated with subsea multiplexed control and manifold.
Scenario 3 presents advantage in relation to the scenario 2. Dynamic riser systems for production and
export are subjected to environmental loads increasing uncertainties and, consequently, failure
probability. Another advantage for scenario 3 is the redundant export pipelines adding operational
flexibility to the subsea arrangement, since the failure of one pipeline does not imply in production
loss. However, due to the transportation of the gas/water mixture, scenario 3 presents higher
probability of hydrate formation than scenarios 1 and 2, which have separation process to dehydrate
the gas.
In relation to the total production loss it can be concluded that the most reliable subsea arrangement
system is that represented by scenario 1, followed by scenarios 3 and 2.

6.4.2. Partial Production Loss
The partial production loss considers only one well interruption. Analyzing the subsea arrangements
and respective fault trees it can be observed that scenarios 2 and 3 are more reliable than scenario 1.
As already mentioned the advantage of on-bottom import system using manifolds and electro-
hydraulic multiplex control reflects on smaller failure probability if compared with the import and
export dynamic risers in scenario 1. In general, it can be concluded that scenarios 2 and 3 are more
reliable than scenario 1 for partial production loss. In this case it is difficult to distinguish scenarios 2
and 3. Although scenario 3 has two redundant export pipelines, the transport of water/gas mixture
increases the probability of hydrate formation if compared with scenario 2, although in this scenario
there is no pipeline redundancy.
6.4.3. The Best Scenario
Considering that the total production loss is associated with a failure probability substantially smaller
than for the partial production loss, the indication of the most reliable scenario should take into
consideration small production losses during the project life cycle. The satellite wells associated with
dynamic risers again put the scenario 1 as the less attractive alternative.
Although equivalent in terms of partial production loss, scenario 3 is more reliable than scenario 2 for
total production loss. Therefore, based on the qualitative risk assessment for production loss, the
scenario 3 can be indicated as the best option for the offshore gas field considered in this project.
However, the possibility of gas/water subsea separation and subsea gas compression, before export to
onshore terminal, could mean an outstanding advantage for Subsea to Beach scenario in relation to
both Semi-submersible and Jacket scenarios. In addition, the possibility of only one export pipeline
could be considered for the Subsea to Beach scenario for dehydrated gas.

7. COSTS
When determining the best subsea system design, the costs always play an important role. Profitability
is one of main objectives of an investment, so the capability of generating profit is of paramount
importance.
The total cost when developing a subsea exploitation field is a function of several income and expense
factors such as capital expenditures (CAPEX), operational expenditures (OPEX), production rate,
product price, frequency of component failures and intervention vessels [19].
Because the value of a project is based on its capability to generate future cash flow, the investment
alternatives can only be compared if measured at the same time. To do that, economists use a well
know method called Net Present Value (NPV), which will be considered in this chapter.
Cost analysis to implement each scenario and all the other costs associated with operation and
maintenance aspects are treated.
7.1. Net Present Value (NPV)
This method measures the present value of all future income or expense during the project’s life cycle.
Projects with positive NPV values mean the investment worth more than it costs.
n
CFt
NPV = − I + ∑
t =1 (1 + K ) t
where
I = inicial investment
CFt = cash flow at time t
K = discount rate
t = time (period)
7.2. Master Schedule
In order to organize the cost study, the team felt it was necessary to create a construction Master
Schedule of each scenario, which helped determining the payments period for use of the NPV method.
To do that, a market research was made to find out delivery and installation times for the subsea
equipments, pipelines and platforms.
To better resume the information that was gathered, Gantt charts were used. Marine related industries
commonly use Gantt charts to organize a project by breaking down its complexity. With that in mind,
the group developed each scenario Master Schedule, and assumed a bid process to take place in order
to get the best combination of price and time delivery in the market. By doing this, competition was
assured since the winner for each project area (platform construction, equipments and pipelines)
would be the one with the best prices. Also, the delivery times would be guaranteed.
The next pages show the preliminary Master Schedule in Figures 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 respectively for
scenarios 1, 2 and 3.

Figure 7.1: Semi-Submersible Master Schedule
Figure 7.2: Jacket Master Schedule

Figure 7.3: Subsea to Beach Master Schedule

7.3. MEG/Insulation Analysis
In order to prevent hydrate formation, two possibilities were considered, the continuous injection of
MEG and the thermal insulation of the production pipelines. These two methods have different
impacts on the project cost. The insulation requires more initial expenditure, increasing the CAPEX.
On the other hand the continuous injection of MEG requires much less CAPEX but its maintenance
adds to the OPEX.
For scenario 1 the insulation concept was readily adopted because of the short distance from the wells
to the SS. The analysis were made only for scenarios 2 and 3 due to the long distances from the wells
to the Jacket platform or to the onshore terminal, respectively. If using continuous MEG injection, a
flexible 6” flowline is required for MEG transportation. Even though the flexible line is more
expensive then the rigid one, the fact that it is possible to install this line together with the umbilicals
makes the overall installation expenditure better. If it were a rigid pipe, another vessel would have to
be contracted. When using insulation, the cost of the pipes increase because of the insulation layer
itself, but installation costs are the same.
Tables 7.1 and 7.2 show the performed study to compare the alternatives for each scenario.
Table 7.1: MEG/Insulation Analysis for Scenario 2
Jacket
With Insulation Without Insulation

Item Cost Item Cost
Umbilical (20 km) 6,000,000.00 Umbilical (40 km) 12,000,000.00
Umbilical with MEG (20 Flexible 6" MEG riser (200
km) 10,000,000.00 km) 12,000,000.00
Pipeline 18" (40 km) 33,750,000.00 Pipeline 18" (40 km) 27,000,000.00
Umbilical and MEG
Umbilical instalation 2,000,000.00 installation 2,000,000.00
Pipeline instalation 38,800,000.00 Pipeline installation 38,800,000.00
MEG inicial cost 111,419.13 MEG inicial cost 4,017,126.96
MEG process plant 4,000,000.00
MEG monthly cost 466,800.00

MEG annual cost 5,601,600.00
Discount rate 10.00%

Total cost 90,661,419.13 Total cost 147,506,705.49

Table 7.2: MEG/Insulation Analysis for Scenario 3
SubSea to Beach
With Insulation Without Insulation

Item Cost Item Custo
Umbilical (160 km) 48,000,000.00 Umbilical (320 km) 96,000,000.00
Umbilical with MEG (160 Flexible 6" MEG riser (160
km) 80,000,000.00 km) 96,000,000.00
Pipeline 22" (320 km) 360,000,000.00 Pipeline 22" (320 km) 288,000,000.00
Umbilical and MEG
Umbilical instalation 12,000,000.00 installation 17,000,000.00
Pipeline instalation 310,400,000.00 Pipeline installation 310,400,000.00
MEG inicial cost 891,353.06 MEG inicial cost 32,165,792.45
MEG process plant 4,000,000.00
MEG monthly cost 466,800.00

MEG annual cost 5,601,600.00
Discount rate 10.00%

Total cost 811,291,353.06 Total cost 891,255,370.98
In the continuous MEG injection option, the initial MEG cost refers to the initial volume necessary to
fill up the 6” MEG line plus 10% of that volume to be store at the production unit. The monthly MEG
cost was calculated based on the 0.5 kg/s MEG injection rate determined in the previous flow
assurance study. The NVP method was used when calculating the total MEG OPEX cost for a 20 year
field operation.
For the insulation option, the initial MEG cost refers to the volume of a 1” hose inside the umbilical
plus 10% of that calculated value to be stored at the production unit. The other difference is the fact
that there is no MEG process, since there will be no recycling due to minimal injection. Like
discussed before, pipe prices increase but installation remains the same.
Analyzing the results, it is possible to see that the use of insulation is the best option for both
scenarios.
7.4. Cost Analysis for the Three Scenarios
Having all subsea designs defined, industry prices were raised to specify each system component and
installation costs. Table C.1 in Appendix C summarizes all costs.
Striving for a more realistic study, the cost analysis was made considering the use of loans based on
Price method, which determines constant payments. According to Brazilian market, it is possible to
get an 80% loan for a 20 years pay period with a 6% year interest rate. Doing that, the initial
investments are greatly reduced since only 20% of CAPEX is paid at the end of each semester. The
loan debt increases till operations begin and payments start. Tables C.2, C.3 and C.4, in Appendix C
show the calculated loans for each scenario. Table 7.3 summarizes the main loan characteristics.

Table 7.3: Loan Data
year semester
Financial interest 6,00% 2,96%
Own expenditure 20,00%

Financed expenditure 80,00%
Project Life 40
Utilizing the Gantt charts for each scenario implementation, the payments were distributed in semester
periods accordingly to its payments estimated date. With that in mind, Tables 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 were
created, all costs are in US$ million.
Table 7.4: Semi-Submersible Cost Analysis
Item Cost Period Year

Platform 1st payment 100,00
1
X-Tree1st payment 5,00
0
Platform 2nd payment 100,00
2
X-Tree 2nd payment 5,00
Platform 3rd payment 100,00
X-Tree 3rd payment 5,00
Umbilical 5,36
3
Hybrid riser 30,00
1
8" flexible riser 14,29
22" rigid riser 144,00
Platform 4th payment 100,00
4
X-Tree 4th payment 5,00
Plataform installation 3,69
X-Tree installation + 2 tool kits 6,00
Flexible risers + umbilicals 5
8,00 2 – 22
installation
Rigid riser installation 155,20
OPEX 12,72 6 - 45
Semestral income 60,00

for US$25,00/petroleum
NPV (US$ million) 147,96 barrel


Table 7.5: Jacket Platform Cost Analysis
Item Cost Period Year

Platform 1st payment 120,00
1
X-Tree 1st payment 5,00
Platform 2nd payment 110,00 0
Manifold 1st payment 20,00 2
Platform 3rd payment 110,00
Manifold 2nd payment 15,00
PLEM 5,00
PLET 2,50 3
Umbilicals 22,59
1
Flexible 8" flowlines 26,55
Rigid 18" riser 27,00
Rigid 22" riser (t=0.438) 113,70
Platform 4th payment 110,00
Manifold 3rd payment 15,00 4
Manifold installation 5,00
X-Tree installation + 2 toll kits 6,00
X-Tree-Manifold lines installation 8,00
PLEM installation 1,00
PLET installation 0,25 5
2 – 22
Jumpers installation 1,20
Flexible flowlines installation 2,20
18" Risers installation 38,80
OPEX 12,72 6 - 45



Table 7.6: Subsea to Beach Cost Analysis
US$
Period Year
Item million
X-Tree 1st payment 5,00 1
Manifold 1st payment 20,00 0
1
Manifold 2nd payment 15,00
PLEM 5,00
PLET 2,50 2
Umbilicals 132,02 1
Flexible 8" flowlines 138,55
Rigid 22" riser ( t=0.625) 360,00
Manifold 3rd payment 15,00
4
Manifold installation 5,00
X-Tree installation + 2 toll kits 6,00
X-Tree-Manifold lines installation 8,00
PLEM installation 1,00
5
PLET installation 0,25 2 – 22
Jumpers installation 1,20
Flexible flowlines installation 17,00
OPEX 0,08 6 - 45


All equipments and installations till beginning of operations are treated as CAPEX. The OPEX was
calculated for a six month operation.
Two NPV values were calculated for each scenario because of two possible income considerations. In
order to estimate income, the 20 million m3 / day were converted to equivalent number of oil barrels.
Then the total amount of barrels were multiplied by 30 days and then 6 months in order to acquire the
total semester income. The two income considerations were made when two oil barrel prices were
used, one is the market price nowadays, approximately US$45,00, the other one is US$25,00, which is
much lower than the present one, but it gives more reliability to the project capital return.
Another variable that plays an important role on assuring investment return is the adopted discount
rate of 15%. If instead it were used 12%, projects NPV values would be even greater.
Finally, to better understand the NPV return value behavior, a risk study for the cost study was
performed. This was particularly necessary due to the fact that the prices obtained for each component
can fluctuate. To run the analysis, first it was necessary to know which components have a higher
impact on the NPV. For that a sensibility study was made. This study consists of varying the value of
one component, the platform or the OPEX for example, and analyzing the impact on the calculated

NPV. The outcome of the study is that the most important components are the platforms, the OPEX
and semester income valor, and all pipeline costs for buying and installing them.
The next step was to run the risk cost analysis. This was made using a plug-in for Microsoft Excell
called @Risk. Basically, triangular functions were determined for each of the selected components of
the three scenarios, and their prices were defined with a minimum value (10% less), the mean value
and the maximum value (10% more). Then 10,000 iterations were assumed in the analysis, where the
program randomizes the component values with costs inside the determined periods.
Figures 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 show the probability graphics obtained for scenarios 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
The analysis was made for the NPV considering the oil price per barrel as US$20.00.
0,14
0,12
0,1
Probability
0,08
0,06
0,04
0,02
0
80
94
6
10
12
13
15
16
17
19
20
NPV (US$ million)
Figure 7.4: Semi-Submersible Probability NPV Analysis

0,14
0,12
0,1
Probability
0,08
0,06
0,04
0,02
0
40
56
72
88
4
10
12
13
15
16
18
NPV (US$ million)
Figure 7.5: Jacket Probability NPV Analysis
0,12
0,1
0,08
Probability
0,06
0,04
0,02
0
0
6
10
11
12
14
15
17
18
19
21
22
NPV (US$ million)
Figure 7.6: Subsea to Beach Probability NPV Analysis
It is possible to conclude that the Subsea to Beach has the higher NPV values probability, ranging
from 114 million to 233 million, with the higher 11% chance of returning 177 million . The Semi-
Submersible has a lower returning range values, but it shows the higher probability of 12%, the

biggest one over the three scenarios. The Jacket platform shows the lowest values, with a range of 64
to 192 million.
After calculating the capital return for each scenario, the most obvious aspect is the proximity of the
obtained results. Even though the Subsea to Beach has the best NPV, US$172.41 millions for the
barrel oil price of US$20.00, and US$643.21 millions for US$45.00, these are only 10% greater than
the lowest ones of US$125.20 millions and US$596.00 millions for the Jacket platform scenario.
Because of that and the fact that there are uncertainties for the component costs, it is not possible to
guarantee the Subsea to Beach scenario as the most profitable investment.
To better decide about the most profitable scenario, a more detailed study about installation and
operation costs are recommended. A step forward in this direction was the probability analysis, from
which it is possible to evaluate the economic behavior of the scenarios. Again, the results indicate
Subsea to Beach scenario as the best economical option.

8. CONCLUSIONS
Three subsea production systems have been proposed for a gas field offshore Brazil. The considered
scenarios considered Semi-submersible platform (SS), Jacket platform (J) and Subsea to Beach (SB).
Aspects related to structural integrity, subsea processing, risk assessment and costs have been
considered to provide the necessary support for the development of the subsea production systems.
In order to analyze the subsea processing different tools, such as OLGA, PIPESIM and analytical
solution have been employed for the three scenarios. Based on these results it is realized that the gas
mixture can be maintained out of the hydrate envelope by using appropriate pipe insulation.
Analyzing Subsea to Beach for the worst case, the longest pipe with flow rate of 10 million m3 per day
(by the end of the design life), U value equal to 1.05 W / m2 °C was obtained for the two 22”
pipelines. Flow assurance are feasible for all scenarios. The most critical scenario is the SB because it
needs either pipeline insulation or MEG continuous injection.
Structural and strength analyzes have been performed for the flowlines and risers in order to
determine thickness requirements for the rigid steel pipes and to verify the structural response of
flexible pipes in relation to the limit values provided by the manufacturer. The critical structural check
is related with the dynamic risers in the SS scenario. Extreme loading represented by wave and current
loads were considered in the analyzes. The results indicated both tensile forces and curvature radius
within the safety margins.
Installation procedures have been discussed in relation to flowlines/risers, X-trees and manifolds. Due
to the pipeline diameters (18” and 22”) J-lay method is recommended. For the flexible pipes (8”) the
conventional reel installation is indicated. X-trees and manifolds are to be installed diverless due to
the water depth of 500 m. In the case of the X-trees the guidelineless procedure associated with
vertical control module is recommended to allow independency between flowline and X-Tree
installations, reducing costs with additional vessel mobilization.
Risk assessment has been conducted for production loss. Fault trees constructed for each scenario
have been analyzed in terms of qualitative risk approach. The conceptual probability of failure for the
total production loss indicates that scenario 1 presents the best result. The satellite wells contribute to
decrease the probability of a shut down. The possibility of a shut down depends on export pipe system
failure. For scenarios 2 and 3, there are additional possibilities of failure associated with subsea
multiplexed control and manifold. In relation to the total production loss it was concluded that the
most reliable subsea arrangement system is that represented by scenario 1, followed by scenarios 3
and 2.
The partial production loss considers only one well interruption. Analyzing the subsea arrangements
and respective fault trees it can be observed that scenarios 2 and 3 are more reliable than scenario 1.
As already mentioned the advantage of on-bottom import system using manifolds and electro-
hydraulic multiplex control reflects on smaller failure probability if compared with the import and
export dynamic risers in scenario 1. In general, it can be concluded that scenarios 2 and 3 are more
reliable than scenario 1 for partial production loss. In this case it is difficult to distinguish scenarios 2
and 3. Although scenario 3 has two redundant export pipelines, the transport of water/gas mixture
increases the probability of hydrate formation if compared with scenario 2, although in this scenario
there is no pipeline redundancy.
Considering that the total production loss is associated with a failure probability substantially smaller
than for the partial production loss, the indication of the most reliable scenario should take into
consideration small production losses during the project life cycle. The satellite wells associated with
dynamic risers put the scenario 1 as the less attractive alternative. Although equivalent in terms of
partial production loss, scenario 3 is more reliable than scenario 2 for total production loss. Therefore,

based on the qualitative risk assessment for production loss, the scenario 3 can be indicated as the best
option for the offshore gas field considered in this project. However, the possibility of gas/water
subsea separation and subsea gas compression, before export to onshore terminal, could mean an
outstanding advantage for Subsea to Beach scenario in relation to both Semi-submersible and Jacket
scenarios.
Cost analysis indicates close capital returns for the three scenarios. Subsea to Beach has the best NPV,
US$172.41 millions for the oil barrel oil of US$20.00, and US$643.21 millions for US$45.00. These
are only 10% greater than the lowest ones for the Jacket scenario.
As general conclusion the Subsea to Beach scenario is the best option according to the main results
from the project. However, additional technological developments associated with subsea gas/water
separation and subsea gas compression are strongly recommended in order to have this option
commercially available in the near future. Aspects related to subsea equipment reliability and remote
control are also of paramount importance for the unmanned Subsea to Beach concept.

9. REFERENCES
[1] Su J., Regis, C. R. and Botto A. Thermal analysis of combined active heating and passive
insulation of deepwater pipelines. OMAE 02/ Pipe-28491,2002.
[2] PIPESIM User Guide , Baker Jardine Petroleum & Software,2000.
[3] Borrehaug, A., Loken, K-P, Raghavendra, K. and Waalmann, J.G. – Deepwater subsea to beach
gas developments- Flow Assurance Challenges and Solutions, DOT, New Orleans, 2004
[4] Wilson, A., Holm, H. Ormen Lange – Flow assurance challenges, OTC 16555, 2004.
[5] Det Norske Veritas. Submarine pipeline systems. Offshore Standard, Norway, 2000.
[6] American Petroleum Institute (API 5L) – Specification for Line Pipe – 2000.
[7] ANFLEX4914/ User’s Manual – Version 5.7, CENPES/PDEP/MC, December, 2001.
[8] Petrobras`s Technical Specification ET-3549.00-6500-291-PPC-001- Rev A, 2001.
[9] Petrobras`s Technical Specification ET-3010.00-1500-960-PPC-003- Rev 0, 2000.
[10] American Petroleum Institute – Design of Risers for Floating Production Systems (FPSs) –
Recommended Practice 2RD – First Edition, 1998.
[11] Castello, X. – Effects of the Installation Process on the Structural Strength of Sandwich Pipes,
M.Sc. Thesis, COPPE/UFRJ, 2005 (In Portuguese).
[12] Labanca, E.L. – Methodology to Select Subsea Layout Based on Operational Efficiency, M.Sc.
Thesis, COPPE/UFRJ, 2005 (In Portuguese).
[13] Albernaz, R.S. – Data Bank Proposition for Wet Christmas Tree Reliability Study, M.Sc. Thesis,
COPPE/UFRJ, 2005 (In Portuguese).
[14] Garcia, J.E.L. and Figueiredo, M.W. – Wet Christmas Tree, Petrobras Notes, 1999.
[15] Fantoft, R. and Hendriks, T. – Deepwater subsea separation – Technical challenges and solutions,
DOT, New Orleans, 2004.
[16] Rausand, M. – Risk and Reliability in Subsea Engineering, Technical Notes, NTNU, August
1999.
[17] Kuo, C. – Managing Ship Safety, LLP ed., London, 1998.
[18] American Bureau of Shipping – Guide for Risk Evaluation for the Classification of Marine-
Related Facilities, June 2003.
[19] Gustavsson, F., Eriksen, R. and Anthonsen, H. – Developing an offshore inspection, maintenance
and repair strategy for Ormen Lange, DOT, New Orleans, 2004.

APPENDIX A: FLOW ASSURANCE
A.1 - Determination of the Temperature Profile

Fluid Produced Properties
• Gas specific heat : cp g = 2111.2 J
kg ⋅ K
• Condensated specific heat: cp c = 1960 J
kg ⋅ K
• Mixture mean density: ρ m = 0.5 ⋅ (54.7 + 16) = 35.35 kg
m3
• Prandtl number: Pr = 0.79
• Mixture thermal conductivity: K m = 0.1W
m⋅K
2
• Mixture mean viscosuty: ν m = 0.0001m s
Gas Flow Rate

6 3
• Flow rate: Q = 10.10 m
dia
• Air density: ρ = 1.21 kg
air m3
• Air molecular weight: Mwair = 28.89 g
mol
• Gas molecular weight: Mwgás = 17.81 g
mol
Mw gás
• Gas relative gravity: γ gas = = 0.6165
Mw gás
Q ⋅ ρ air
• Air mass Flow rate: Mg air = = 140.05 kg
24 ⋅ 3600 s
• Gas mass flow rate: Mg = Mg air ⋅ γ gas = 86.34

kg
s
Mg
• Mass flow rate for each well: Mg w = = 10.79 kg
8 s
Condensed Flow Rate

3
• Flow rate: Q = 1000 m
c dia
• Condensed density: ρ c = 772.5 kg
m3
Qc ⋅ ρ c
• Mass flow rate: Mc = = 8.94 kg
24 ⋅ 3600 s
Mc
• Mass flow rate for each well: Mc w = = 1.12 kg
8 s

SCENARIO 1: SEMI - SUBMERSIBLE
Characteristics Problems of the Pipe (WELL-PLATFORM)
• Inner diameter: Di = 8 ⋅ 0.0254 = 0.2032 m

• Lenght of the biggest pipe: L = 4300 m
• Well head temperature: To = 115°C
• Sea water temperature: Tw = 9°C
• Arrival temperature at the platform: T p = 24°C
U calculation
o
⎛ T f − Tm ⎞ m f c pf
U = − ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⋅
⎝ T0 − Tm ⎠ 2 ⋅ π ⋅ Ri ⋅ x
o
→ m f c pf = Mg w ⋅ cp g + Mc w ⋅ cp c = 2.49 ⋅10 4
⎛ 26.4 − 9 ⎞ 2.49 ⋅ 10 4
→ U = − ln⎜ ⎟⋅ = 17.79 W 2 0
⎝ 115 − 9 ⎠ 2 ⋅ π ⋅ (8 ⋅ 0 . 0254 ) ⋅ 4300 m ⋅ C
SCENARIO 2, JACKET
Characteristics Problems of the Pipe (WELL-MANIFOLD)

• Lenght of the biggest pipe: L = 3600m
Forced convection coefficient calculating (WELL-MANIFOLD)
Nu ⋅ Km
• h=
Di
where the Nusselt number is calculated by using the Petukhov-Kirilov-Popov

correlation:
f
⋅ Re⋅ Pr
• Nu = 2
⎛f⎞ ⎛ ⎞
0.5 2
X + 12.7 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜⎜ Pr 3 − 1⎟⎟
⎝2⎠ ⎝ ⎠

the friction fator, f, of fully develop turbulent flow is:
1
• 1/ 2
= 1.7372 ⋅ ln(Re⋅ f 1 / 2 ) − 0.3946 → f = 0.0031
f
and
900 0.63
• X = 1.07 + − =1
Re 1 + 10 ⋅ Pr
the Reynolds number and the Prandtl number of the flow of the produced
fluid in the flowline are defined by:
υ f ⋅ v f ⋅ Di
• Re =
µf
⎛ Mg w Mc w ⎞
⎜ + ⎟
2 ⎜ ρ ρ ⎟
⎛ Di ⎞ ⎝ c ⎠
→ S = π ⋅⎜ ⎟ = m →υ f =
f
2
= 9.45 m
⎝ 2 ⎠ S s
→ Re = 6.79 ⋅ 10 5
• Pr = 0.79
then:
• Nu = 901.44 → h = 443.62
U Calculation (WELL-MANIFOLD)
• steel thickness: t steel = 0.562' '

• PP foam thickness: t foam = 0.25' '
• PP solid thickness: t solid = 0.25' '
• Steel thermal conductivity : K steel = 45W
m⋅K
• PP foam thermal conductivity: K foam = 0.025W
m⋅K
• PP solid thermal conductivity: K solid = 0.2W
m⋅K
1
U=
1 (Di / 2 ) ⎛ t aço ⎞ (Di / 2 ) ⎛ t espuma ⎞ (Di / 2 ) ⎛ t solido ⎞
+ ln⎜⎜1 + ⎟⎟ + ln⎜1 + ⎟+ ln⎜1 + ⎟
⎝ (Di / 2 ) ⎠ k espuma ⎝ (Di / 2 ) + t aço
h k aço ⎜ ⎟ k ⎜ (Di / 2 ) + t + t ⎟
⎠ solido ⎝ aço espuma ⎠

U = 3.84 W
m2 ⋅ K
Determination of the Temperature Profile (WELL-MANIFOLD)
⎛ ⎞
⎜ π ⋅ D ⋅U ⋅ x ⎟
• T = Tm + (T0 − Tm ) ⋅ exp⎜ − o i ⎟
⎜ m f c pf ⎟
⎝ ⎠
⎛ π ⋅ (8 ⋅ 0.0254) ⋅ U ⋅ 3600 ⎞
→ T (3600) = 9 + (115 − 9 ) ⋅ exp⎜ − ⎟ = 83.44 C
0
⎝ 24975.2 ⎠
Characteristics problems of the pipe (PLEM-JACKET)
• Inner diameter: Di = 18 ⋅ 0.0254 = 0.4572m

• Exit PLEM temperature: To = T (3600) − 1 = 103.53°C
• Sea water temperature: Tm = 9°C
Convection Coefficient Calculating (PLEM - JACKET)
• Pr = 0.79
⎛ Mg w Mc w ⎞
⎜ + ⎟
2 ⎜ ρ ρ ⎟
⎛ Di ⎞
→ S = π ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ = m2 → υ f = ⎝
f c ⎠
= 14.93 m
⎝ 2 ⎠ S s
• Re = 2.41 ⋅ 10 6
900 0.63
• X = 1.07 + − = 0.999
Re 1 + 10 ⋅ Pr
1
• = 1.7372 ⋅ ln(Re⋅ f 1 / 2 ) − 0.3946 → f = 0.99
f 1/ 2
f
⋅ Re⋅ Pr
• Nu = 2 = 3181
⎛ f ⎞ ⎛⎜ 3 ⎞⎟
0.5 2
X + 12.7 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜ Pr − 1⎟
⎝2⎠ ⎝ ⎠
• h = 695.74

U calculation (PLEM- JACKET)
1
U=
+ ln⎜⎜1 + ⎟⎟ + ln⎜1 + ⎟+ ln⎜1 + ⎟
h k aço ⎝ ( Di / 2 ) ⎠ k espuma
⎜ (Di / 2 ) + t
⎝ aço
⎟ k
⎠ solido
⎜ (Di / 2 ) + t + t
⎝ aço espuma
⎟
⎠
U = 3.78W
m2 ⋅ K
Determination of the Temperature Profile (PLEM-JACKET)
⎛ ⎞
⎜ π ⋅ D ⋅U ⋅ x ⎟
• T = Tm + (T0 − Tm ) ⋅ exp⎜ − o i ⎟
⎜ m f c pf ⎟⎠
⎝
⎛ π ⋅ (18 ⋅ 0.0254) ⋅ U ⋅ 20000 ⎞
→ T (20000) = 9 + (103.53 − 9) ⋅ exp⎜ − ⎟ = 33.71 C
0
⎝ 99900.6 ⎠
Scenario 3: SUBSEA TO BEACH
Characteristics problems of the pipe (WELL-MANIFOLD)

Forced Convection Coefficient Calculating (WELL - MANIFOLD)
• Pr = 0.79
⎛ Mg w Mc w ⎞
⎜ + ⎟
2 ⎜ ρ ρ ⎟
⎛ Di ⎞ ⎝ c ⎠
→ S = π ⋅⎜ ⎟ = m →υ f =
f
2
= 9.45 m
⎝ 2 ⎠ S s
• Re = 6.79 ⋅ 10 5
900 0.63
• X = 1.07 + − =
Re 1 + 10 ⋅ Pr
1
• = 1.7372 ⋅ ln(Re⋅ f 1 / 2 ) − 0.3946 → f = 0.0031
f 1/ 2

f
⋅ Re⋅ Pr
• Nu = 2 = 901.44
⎛ f ⎞ ⎛⎜ 3 ⎞⎟
0.5 2
X + 12.7 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜ Pr − 1⎟
⎝2⎠ ⎝ ⎠
• h = 443 .62
U Calculation (WELL - MANIFOLD)
1
U=
+ ln⎜⎜1 + ⎟⎟ + ln⎜1 + ⎟+ ln⎜1 + ⎟
h k aço ⎝ ( Di / 2 ) ⎠ k espuma
⎜ (Di / 2 ) + t
⎝ aço
⎟ k
⎠ solido
⎜ (Di / 2 ) + t + t
⎝ aço espuma
⎟
⎠
U = 1.299W
m2 ⋅ K
Determination of the Temperature Profile (WELL-MANIFOLD):
⎛ ⎞
⎜ π ⋅ Di ⋅ U ⋅ x ⎟
• T = Tm + (T0 − Tm ) ⋅ exp⎜ − o ⎟
⎜ m f c pf ⎟
⎝ ⎠
⎛ ⎞
⎜ π ⋅ (8 ⋅ 0.0254) ⋅ U ⋅ 3600 ⎟
→ T (3600) = 9 + (115 − 9 ) ⋅ exp⎜ − o ⎟ = 104.53 C
0
⎜ m f c pf ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Characteristics Problems of the Pipe (PLEM-TERMINAL):
• Inner diameter: Di = 22 ⋅ 0.0254 = 0.5588m

• Exit PLEM temperature: To = T (3600) − 1 = 103.53°C
• Sea water temperature: Tm = 9°C
Forced Convection Coefficient Calculating (PLEM - TERMINAL)
• Pr = 0.79
⎛ Mg w Mc w ⎞
⎜ + ⎟
2 ⎜ ρ ρ ⎟
⎛ ⎞
→ S = π ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ = m2 → υ f = ⎝ ⎠ = 10 m
Di f c
⎝ 2 ⎠ S s
• Re = 1.97 ⋅ 10 6

900 0.63
• X = 1.07 + − = 0.999
Re 1 + 10 ⋅ Pr
1
• 1/ 2
= 1.7372 ⋅ ln(Re⋅ f 1 / 2 ) − 0.3946 → f = 0.0026
f
f
⋅ Re⋅ Pr
• Nu = 2 = 747.7
⎛ f ⎞ ⎛⎜ 3 ⎞⎟
0.5 2
X + 12.7 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜ Pr − 1⎟
⎝2⎠ ⎝ ⎠
• h = 133 .
U Calculation (PLEM - TERMINAL)
1
U=
+ ln⎜⎜1 + ⎟⎟ + ln⎜1 + ⎟+ ln⎜1 + ⎟
⎝ (Di / 2 ) ⎠ k espuma ⎝ (Di / 2 ) + t aço
h k aço ⎜ ⎟ k ⎜ (Di / 2 ) + t + t ⎟
⎠ solido ⎝ aço espuma ⎠
U = 1.047 W
m2 ⋅ K
Determination of the Temperature Profile (PLEM - TERMINAL)
⎛ ⎞
⎜ π ⋅ Di ⋅ U ⋅ x ⎟
• T = Tm + (T0 − Tm ) ⋅ exp⎜ − o ⎟
⎜ m f c pf ⎟
⎝ ⎠
⎛ π ⋅ (22 ⋅ 0.0254) ⋅ U ⋅ 20000 ⎞
→ T (160000) = 9 + (103.53 − 9) ⋅ exp⎜ − ⎟ = 13.9 C
0
⎝ 99900.6 ⎠

A.2 - MEG Calculation
3
Mixture flow rate: Q = 20 ⋅ 10 m
6
day
Air density in normal conditions of temperature and pressure: ρ air = 1.21

Kg
m3
ρ air ⋅ Q 1.21 ⋅ 20 ⋅ 10 6
Air mass flow rate: Qair = = = 280.09 Kg
24 ⋅ 3600 24 ⋅ 3600 s
Air molecular weight: Wair = 28.89

g
mol
Mixture molecular weight: W f = 17.81

g
mol
Wf 17.81
Mixture density relative: γ f = = = 0.6164
Wair 28.89
Mixture mass flow rate: Q f = γ ⋅ Qair = 0.6168 ⋅ 280.09 = 172.67 Kg

f s
Considered water percentage in the reservoir : 1%
Water mass flow rate: Qw = Q f ⋅ 0.01 = 1.73

Kg
s
Amount of MEG enough to assure that it will not have hydrate formation for P= 150bar and T=9 °C:
30%
MEG flow rate required: QMEG = Q w ⋅ 0.3 = 0.52

Kg
s

APPENDIX B - BUCKLING VERIFICATION
Submarine pipeline systems(DNV) - Pipe design

Local Buckling Verification due to External Pressure
t (in) thickness
(nominal) (API 5L) 0,226 0,406 0,438 0,469 0,500 0,562 0,625 0,688
t (m) thickness
(nominal) (API 5L) 0,00574 0,01031 0,01113 0,01191 0,01270 0,01427 0,01588 0,01748
t (m) t-t*tolmin-tcor
(reduzida) 0,0057 0,0103 0,0111 0,0119 0,0127 0,0143 0,0159 0,0175
alpha_gw
Welding factor 0,2265 0,6581 0,6977 0,7309 0,7600 0,8085 0,8480 0,8802
P_el (N/m2) Elastic Collapse
Pressure 4,95E+05 2,87E+06 3,60E+06 4,42E+06 5,36E+06 7,61E+06 1,05E+07 1,40E+07
P_p (N/m2) Plastic Collapse
b - - - - -
4,95E+05 2,87E+06 3,60E+06 4,42E+06 5,36E+06 -7,61E+06 -1,05E+07 -1,40E+07
c - - - - -
8,16E+13 2,85E+14 3,36E+14 3,90E+14 4,49E+14 -5,81E+14 -7,36E+14 -9,13E+14
d
3,63E+19 6,80E+20 9,93E+20 1,40E+21 1,93E+21 3,45E+21 5,88E+21 9,50E+21
u - - - - -
2,72E+13 9,58E+13 1,13E+14 1,32E+14 1,53E+14 -2,00E+14 -2,57E+14 -3,26E+14
ν
1,14E+19 2,03E+20 2,93E+20 4,08E+20 5,56E+20 9,74E+20 1,61E+21 2,52E+21
Ф
1,6512 1,7888 1,8163 1,8432 1,8700 1,9224 1,9715 2,0138
y
2,80E+05 1,42E+06 1,74E+06 2,08E+06 2,46E+06 3,31E+06 4,27E+06 5,31E+06
Ec
6,21E-05 5,60E-03 6,95E-03 8,32E-03 9,73E-03 1,26E-02 1,57E-02 1,88E-02
Pc (N/m2) Collapse
H(Eps)
Depth 5,00E+02 5,00E+02 5,00E+02 5,00E+02 5,00E+02 5,00E+02 5,00E+02 5,00E+02
P (N/m2)
5,03E+06 5,03E+06 5,03E+06 5,03E+06 5,03E+06 5,03E+06 5,03E+06 5,03E+06
P*Gsc*Gm / Pc
16,9980 3,1802 2,5708 2,1249 1,7803 1,2939 0,9740 0,7586
Possible
thicknes (in) 0,0159 0,0175
D/t 35,2 32,0
Propagation Buckling Verification

thickness
t (in) (API 5L) 0,226 0,406 0,438 0,469 0,500 0,562 0,625 0,688
Propagation
Ppr Pressure 103755 448800,3 542529,5 643680,2 755375,8 1011763 1319587 1677680
Collapse
Pc Pressure 444896,4 2377919 2941658 3558877 4247833 5844591 7764238 9968376
Possible
thickness (in) 0,226 0,406 0,438 0,469 0,5 0,562 0,625 0,688

Submarine pipeline systems(DNV) - Pipe design
Local Buckling due to Bending Moment, Effective Axial Force and Internal Overpressure
t (in) Thickness (nominal)
(nominal) (API 5L) 0,375 0,406 0,438 0,469 0,500 0,562 0,625 0,688
t (in) Thickness (nominal)
(nominal) (API 5L) 0,00953 0,01031 0,01113 0,01191 0,01270 0,01427 0,01588 0,01748
t (m) t-t*tolmin-tcor
(reduzida) 0,0095 0,0103 0,0111 0,0119 0,0127 0,0143 0,0159 0,0175
Plastic Collapse
Pp (N/m2)
qh
1,20E-01 1,10E-01 1,02E-01 9,57E-02 8,97E-02 7,98E-02 7,18E-02 6,52E-02
D/t
58,7 54,2 50,2 46,9 44,0 39,1 35,2 32,0
beta
1,54E-02 6,59E-02 1,09E-01 1,44E-01 1,74E-01 2,22E-01 2,60E-01 2,90E-01
Flow Stress
alpha_c
Parameter 1,0028 1,0122 1,0201 1,0266 1,0321 1,0410 1,0480 1,0535
pb,s Yielding Limit State
1,80E+07 1,95E+07 2,10E+07 2,26E+07 2,41E+07 2,71E+07 3,03E+07 3,34E+07
pb,u Bursting Limit State
1,85E+07 2,00E+07 2,17E+07 2,32E+07 2,48E+07 2,80E+07 3,12E+07 3,44E+07
pb Burst Pressure
1,80E+07 1,95E+07 2,10E+07 2,26E+07 2,41E+07 2,71E+07 3,03E+07 3,34E+07
(Dpd/(alpha_c*pb))^2 0,0067 0,0056 0,0047 0,0040 0,0035 0,0027 0,0022 0,0017

Characteristic Plastic
Sp Axial Force
Resistance 4,05E+06 4,37E+06 4,70E+06 5,02E+06 5,33E+06 5,96E+06 6,59E+06 7,21E+06
gsc.gm(Sd/(alphac*Sp))^2 0,7159 0,6030 0,5131 0,4444 0,3891 0,3063 0,2472 0,2043

Possible Thickness (m)
0,3750 0,4060 0,4380 0,4690 0,5000 0,5620 0,6250 0,6880
Not Greater than
D/t 45 58,7 54,2 50,2 46,9 44,0 39,1 35,2 32,0

APPENDIX C: COSTS
C.1: Price Estimates
Platforms millions
Semi Submersible 400
Jacket 450
PS: 6 months of preparations plus 2 years for construction
of base and processing plant in
parallel.
millions Days
Equipments Hardware Installation Delivery
PLEM 5 1 300
PLET (2) 2,5 0,25 300
Manifold 50 5 450
X-Tree (8) 20 - 420 + 30 each
2 tool kits 6 - -
Hybrid riser 30 - -
MEG processing plant 4 - -
PIPES: (Ship price per day = U$100.000,00)

U$/m
Material Service Cost Unit
6" rigid 200 500 M
6" flexible 600 1 km/day
U$/m
8" rigid 267 667 M
8" flexible 800 1 km/day
U$/m
Umbilical with MEG 300 0,75 km/day
Umbilical without MEG 500 0,75 km/day
U$/m m
Material Service Thickness Water Depth
18" rigid without isolation 675 970 0,562 500
18" rigid with isolation 843,75 970 0,562 500
U$/m m
Material Service Thickness Water Depth
22" rigid without insulation 650 400 0,438 180
22" rigid without insulation 900 970 0,625 500
22" rigid with insulation 812,5 400 0,438 180
22" rigid with insulation 1125 970 0,625 500
Time for pipes delivery:

flexible 210 days
rigid 180 + 180 days (fabrication + preparation)
OPEX:
Quantity U$/crew/month
Crew 200 10.000,00
U$/month
Embarcações de Apoio 80.000,00 20.000,00
RSV Others
U$/barril equivalente
SS and J Sub to S
Manuntenção Planta 1,00 0,70
PS: Equivalent barrel = 1000 m3
Time for subsea equipment connections installation: (Ship price per day = U$100.000,00)
Days
X-Tree - Manifold (flowlines) 10 each
Manifold - PLEM (jumpers) 2 each
PLEM - PLET (jumpers) 2 each

C.2: Semi-Submersible Loan Calculation
Total financed valor 664,10

Interests (year) 6%
Number of payments 40
Installment Debt
n° Amortization Interests Payment Ballance
1 15,039 3,321 18,359 649,061
2 15,114 3,245 18,359 633,947
3 15,190 3,170 18,359 618,757
4 15,266 3,094 18,359 603,492
5 15,342 3,017 18,359 588,150
6 15,419 2,941 18,359 572,731
7 15,496 2,864 18,359 557,235
8 15,573 2,786 18,359 541,662
9 15,651 2,708 18,359 526,011
10 15,729 2,630 18,359 510,282
11 15,808 2,551 18,359 494,474
12 15,887 2,472 18,359 478,587
13 15,966 2,393 18,359 462,620
14 16,046 2,313 18,359 446,574
15 16,127 2,233 18,359 430,448
16 16,207 2,152 18,359 414,240
17 16,288 2,071 18,359 397,952
18 16,370 1,990 18,359 381,583
19 16,451 1,908 18,359 365,131
20 16,534 1,826 18,359 348,597
21 16,616 1,743 18,359 331,981
22 16,699 1,660 18,359 315,282
23 16,783 1,576 18,359 298,499
24 16,867 1,492 18,359 281,632
25 16,951 1,408 18,359 264,680
26 17,036 1,323 18,359 247,644
27 17,121 1,238 18,359 230,523
28 17,207 1,153 18,359 213,316
29 17,293 1,067 18,359 196,024
30 17,379 0,980 18,359 178,644
31 17,466 0,893 18,359 161,178
32 17,553 0,806 18,359 143,625
33 17,641 0,718 18,359 125,983
34 17,729 0,630 18,359 108,254
35 17,818 0,541 18,359 90,436
36 17,907 0,452 18,359 72,529
37 17,997 0,363 18,359 54,532
38 18,087 0,273 18,359 36,445
39 18,177 0,182 18,359 18,268
40 18,268 0,091 18,359 0,000

C.3: Jacket Platform Loan Calculation

Interests (year) 6%
Installment Debt
1 16,070 3,548 19,618 693,570
2 16,151 3,468 19,618 677,419
3 16,231 3,387 19,618 661,188
4 16,312 3,306 19,618 644,876
5 16,394 3,224 19,618 628,482
6 16,476 3,142 19,618 612,006
7 16,558 3,060 19,618 595,447
8 16,641 2,977 19,618 578,806
9 16,724 2,894 19,618 562,082
10 16,808 2,810 19,618 545,274
11 16,892 2,726 19,618 528,382
12 16,976 2,642 19,618 511,405
13 17,061 2,557 19,618 494,344
14 17,147 2,472 19,618 477,197
15 17,232 2,386 19,618 459,965
16 17,319 2,300 19,618 442,647
17 17,405 2,213 19,618 425,241
18 17,492 2,126 19,618 407,749
19 17,580 2,039 19,618 390,170
20 17,668 1,951 19,618 372,502
21 17,756 1,863 19,618 354,746
22 17,845 1,774 19,618 336,902
23 17,934 1,685 19,618 318,968
24 18,024 1,595 19,618 300,944
25 18,114 1,505 19,618 282,831
26 18,204 1,414 19,618 264,626
27 18,295 1,323 19,618 246,331
28 18,387 1,232 19,618 227,944
29 18,479 1,140 19,618 209,466
30 18,571 1,047 19,618 190,895
31 18,664 0,954 19,618 172,231
32 18,757 0,861 19,618 153,474
33 18,851 0,767 19,618 134,623
34 18,945 0,673 19,618 115,677
35 19,040 0,578 19,618 96,637
36 19,135 0,483 19,618 77,502
37 19,231 0,388 19,618 58,271
38 19,327 0,291 19,618 38,944
39 19,424 0,195 19,618 19,521
40 19,521 0,098 19,618 0,000

C.4: Subsea to Beach Loan Calculation

Interests (year) 6%
Installment Debt
1 19,976 4,411 24,386 862,124
2 20,075 4,311 24,386 842,049
3 20,176 4,210 24,386 821,873
4 20,277 4,109 24,386 801,596
5 20,378 4,008 24,386 781,218
6 20,480 3,906 24,386 760,738
7 20,582 3,804 24,386 740,156
8 20,685 3,701 24,386 719,470
9 20,789 3,597 24,386 698,682
10 20,893 3,493 24,386 677,789
11 20,997 3,389 24,386 656,792
12 21,102 3,284 24,386 635,690
13 21,208 3,178 24,386 614,482
14 21,314 3,072 24,386 593,168
15 21,420 2,966 24,386 571,748
16 21,527 2,859 24,386 550,221
17 21,635 2,751 24,386 528,586
18 21,743 2,643 24,386 506,842
19 21,852 2,534 24,386 484,990
20 21,961 2,425 24,386 463,029
21 22,071 2,315 24,386 440,958
22 22,181 2,205 24,386 418,777
23 22,292 2,094 24,386 396,485
24 22,404 1,982 24,386 374,081
25 22,516 1,870 24,386 351,565
26 22,628 1,758 24,386 328,937
27 22,741 1,645 24,386 306,196
28 22,855 1,531 24,386 283,341
29 22,969 1,417 24,386 260,371
30 23,084 1,302 24,386 237,287
31 23,200 1,186 24,386 214,087
32 23,316 1,070 24,386 190,772
33 23,432 0,954 24,386 167,339
34 23,549 0,837 24,386 143,790
35 23,667 0,719 24,386 120,123
36 23,785 0,601 24,386 96,337
37 23,904 0,482 24,386 72,433
38 24,024 0,362 24,386 48,409
39 24,144 0,242 24,386 24,265
40 24,265 0,121 24,386 0,000

1st ISODC05-Ufrj Team

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1st ISODC05-Ufrj Team

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro

Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering Department

International Student Offshore Design Competition 2005

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil

Tiago Pace Estefen

Faculty Advisor: Prof. Segen F. Estefen

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil -1-

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil -2-

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil -3-

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil -4-

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil -5-

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil -6-

Table 1.1: Team Assignments 16

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil -7-

SUBSEA PRODUCTION SYSTEM FOR GAS FIELD OFFSHORE BRAZIL

proven concepts and to propose innovative unmanned subsea design.

Three different options of subsea production systems are studied:

• Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach system (without platform).

Guide (Risk Evaluation for the Classification of Marine-Related Facilities).

The subsea arrangement is constituted of 8 satellite wells with 8” flowline/risers for

An innovative technological solution represented by an association of subsea production

Subsea System Design

economic analysis with the pipe insulation can be made.

Strength and Structural Design / Riser Design

thickness selected as in API Specification for Line Pipe.

The semi-submersible arrangement is the only one subjected to environmental loads

with the both code and manufacturer limitations.

X-Tree installation is performed using the guidelineless procedure with vertical

connection module, contributing to optimize the costs due to independent installations of X-

Subsea to Beach scenario in relation to both Semi-submersible and Jacket scenarios.

during the field proposed design life of 20 years.

possibilities of income, oil barrel as 45 and 20 US dollars. Both considerations resulted in

However, additional technological developments associated with subsea gas/water separation

importance for the unmanned Subsea to Beach concept.

Special thanks to:

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil - 14 -

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil - 15 -

1.1 Team Organization

Tiago Pace Estefen - Team Leader

Table 1.1: Team Assignments

System Design Daniel Werneck

Subsea Processing João Paulo Jorge

Risers and Flowlines Diogo do Amaral

Subsea System Design João Paulo Jorge

Costs Daniel Werneck

Risk Assessment Leandro Trovoado

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil - 16 -

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil - 17 -

2.1. Sub-systems, Equipments and Components

(a) rigid (b) Flexible

Figure 2.1: Rigid and Flexible Pipes

2.1.2. Umbilical Cable

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil - 18 -

2.1.3. Control System

2.1.4. Wet Christmas Tree (X-Tree)

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil - 19 -

Figure 2.3: Pipe Line End Manifold

2.1.7. Pipe Line End Termination – PLET

Figure 2.4: Pipe Line End Termination

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil - 20 -

Figure 2.5: Jumper

2.2. Layout of the System

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil - 21 -