Understanding wax problems leads

to deepwater ow assurance solutions

Interpretation of lab measurements provides pigging and treating rules of thumb.
Thomas S. Golczynski and Elijah C. Kempton, Multiphase Solutions, Inc.
Increased exploration and production
activity from the worlds deepwater fields
have brought flow assurance issues to the
forefront. Concerns about wax deposi-
tion, wax gelation and hydrate formation
play a significant role in concept selec-
tion for deepwater and ultra-deepwater
development projects. Water depth, long
distances from the reservoir to the host
facility via subsea tiebacks, dry tree ris-
ers and extended export pipelines in cold
ambient water temperatures all pose risks
for operators to consider when planning
their development scenarios. Under
these adverse conditions, it is important
to understand multiphase fluid proper-
ties and the design options to prevent or
mitigate deepwater flow assurance chal-
lenges. This article focuses on wax-re-
lated problems.
WAX DEPOSITION
AND GELATION
Wax deposition and wax gelation are
two potentially catastrophic issues in
crude oil and gas/condensate systems that
can render a pipeline unusable. While
typically confined to oils, gas/condensate
discoveries in Southeast Asia have shown
waxing and/or gel formation.
The deposition of n-paraffin will
commonly occur along the pipe walls
when the temperature of produced fluids
falls below the Wax Appearance Temper-
ature (WAT) or cloud point, the point
at which the first wax crystals start to
precipitate out of solution. Deposition
rates can be attributed to many factors
including paraffin content, fluid viscos-
ity, flowrates, gas/oil ratio and the heat
transfer coefficient (U-value).
Wax gelation is less common in
steady-state than is wax deposition, but
it can have even greater impact if, dur-
ing production system shutdowns, fluid
temperatures cool below the fluid pour
point, allowing the formation of a can-
dle or solid wax column. This condi-
tion can completely block the pipeline.
During restart operations, there might
not be sufficient pressure available at the
pipeline inlet to break the gel and al-
low the pipeline to flow. The pipeline, at
that point, may be rendered useless.
LABORATORY MEASUREMENTS
Laboratory measurements are impor-
tant in establishing predictive models to
determine wax deposition rate and degree
of wax gelation. In both instances, inter-
pretation of the data and understanding
of the testing procedures are critical.
Wax deposition. The WAT is perhaps
the most important laboratory measure-
ment for determining the extent of the
wax deposition problem in the subsea sys-
tem. It is essential to understand the dif-
ference in test results that can be obtained
by using live oil versus stock tank oil.
Typically, stock tank measurements
are conducted (with a redundancy rec-
ommended to ensure consistency in the
results) to evaluate the severity of the
problem. For most systems, the stock
tank oil WAT is the design point that
is commonly used, but it is inherently
conservative. Stock tank oil samples are
typically much more readily available
than live oil samples. Under normal
(live) production conditions, the actual
WAT may be some 10C (50F) lower,
as light-ends dissolve into solution with
increased pressure, effectively reducing
the WAT.
When designing a production system,
consideration must also be given to the
temperature required to re-dissolve any
wax that forms. Because of the kinetic
effects of deposition, wax doesnt always
return to solution once temperatures are
elevated above the WAT. Instead, produc-
tion fluid temperatures might need to be
elevated 20C (68F) or more above the
WAT to melt any wax that has deposited.
Viscosity has a major impact on the
wax deposition rate. As viscosity increas-
es, wax deposition rates decrease because
wax particles diffuse less easily to the pipe
wall. Therefore, care needs to be taken if
chemicals are injected to reduce viscos-
ity for hydraulic performance improve-

Fig. 1. Two uids with similar wax appearance temperatures can have different wax
contents and deposition rates.
Originally March 2006 issue, pgs D -7D-10.
appreared in: Posted with permission.
MARCH 2006 World Oil

ment, as these chemicals might increase

the wax deposition rate.
Determining the deposition rate is
perhaps the most complicated of the par-
affin-related laboratory tests, with multi-
ple ways of quantifying the rate. The goal
of each method, however, is to determine
the deposition rate to the pipe walls. Be-
cause the wax deposition rate is governed
to a large degree by the temperature gra-
dient between the production fluid and
the ambient surroundings, there must be
a positive heat flux across the pipe. If the
fluid temperature reaches ambient condi-
tions, or falls below ambient conditions,
no wax deposition will occur.
Analog data, based on known fluid
properties, can also be used to estimate
wax deposition rates. Using this key infor-
mation and comparing it with the depo-
sition properties of similar fluids within
geographic proximity can provide a close
match against the fluid in question. It can
also be used to infer the deposition rate
in lieu of laboratory testing. To utilize
this approach, however, it is imperative
that all key parametersincluding WAT,
viscosity, API gravity, molecular weight
and wax contentbe considered to accu-
rately determine the deposition rate. As
Fig. 1 illustrates, two fluids with similar
WATs can have different wax contents
and deposition rates because of varying
viscosities and other factors. It is, there-
fore, necessary not to rely solely on only
one fluid property for fluid matching.
Once the wax deposition rate is mea-
sured and interpreted, the results can be
entered into a fully integrated, thermal
model for predicting the location of any
deposit, the deposit thickness as a func-
tion of time, the net pressure drop in-
crease and the total volume of wax need-
ing removal during pigging operations.
The modeling will assist operators
in determining the pigging frequency
needed for a specific field configuration.
In general, wax deposition models are
conservative, over-predicting wax depo-
sition rates. The results from the mod-
els should be used as a guide to pigging
frequency, with operations fine-tuning
the actual pigging program as the field
comes onstream.
Pigging frequency can be determined
by using the deposition rate prediction
and various rules of thumb, including:
Limiting pressure drop across the
pig to 50100 psi
Limiting total wax volume in front
of the pig to 50 bbl
Limiting total wax thickness to
~10% of the cross-sectional area
Limiting total wax thickness to
~14 mm, depending on the deposition
rate.
The last rule of thumb depends to a
large extent on pipeline U-values. A fast
deposition rate with high U-values (i.e.,
bare pipe) is often softer and easier to re-
move, with higher concentrations of oil.
This condition can permit the operator
to pig when the thickness reaches 4 mm.
Conversely, slow deposition rates with
low U-values (i.e., pipe-in-pipe) produce
deposits that are usually harder (because
they are more highly concentrated with
high carbon number paraffins) and re-
quire pigging at 12 mm thickness to
prevent the pig from becoming stuck in
the pipe.
Wax gelation. Pour point is a princi-
pal factor in gel formation, as it defines
the temperature gels form. For example,
during a long shutdown after the produc-
tion fluid has cooled to ambient temper-
atures, a pipeline can become completely
blocked or present significant difficulties
when being restarted.
In laboratory measurements, the
pour point is the temperature at which
the fluid no longer moves once inverted
in a sample container. The pour point
measurement is highly susceptible to
cooling rate, with fast rates predicting
higher pour points than slow cooling
rates. Therefore, the cooling rate used in
the laboratory should match closely with
the anticipated cooling rate in the field,
based on the insulation expected.
Laboratory tests are usually conduct-
ed on a tank stock or, preferably, a live oil
sample cooled at a given rate and tested
periodically at certain temperatures to
determine whether or not it will flow.
The pour point measurement, as with
the WAT measurement, is pressure re-
lated and, as gas is added to the fluid, the
pour point decreases.
If the fluid has a pour point below
ambient seabed temperatures, typically
no additional testing is recommended. If
this is not the case, the cooling rate and
pressure effects are more important and
need to be evaluated further.
While pour point testing helps iden-
tify the risk of restart problems, yield (or
gel) strength tests are useful in determin-
ing the pressure required to break the gel
during restart. The wax candle need not
yield in its entirety for restart to occur, as
generally a domino effect will occur at
significantly lower restart pressures.
Pour Point Depressant (PPD) might
be required for continuous system treat-
ment when the pour point is above sea-
bed ambient temperatures and restart
pressures are excessive. PPD may be se-
lected to either reduce the pour point
below ambient temperature or, in cases
of very high dosages or high pour points,
to reduce the restart pressure below ac-
ceptable levels.
In these cases, a gel may still form, but
it would be weak enough to break easily.
Additionally, PPD might have an adverse
impact on wax deposition rates. There-

Fig. 2. Fluid temperatures can drop precipitously in a short period during a dry tree
riser shutdown.
MARCH 2006 World Oil

fore, if PPD is utilized, labora-

tory testing should be complet-
ed to verify that PPD will also
reduce wax deposition rates.
FIELD CONDITIONS
Once there is a basic un-
derstanding of the challenges
associated with wax deposi-
tion and wax gelation risks and
how they can be identified in
the laboratory, it is necessary to
apply this information to par-
affin-related issues in the field.
Dry tree risers. It is generally
assumed that dry tree risers have
fewer flow assurance issues than
subsea tiebacks, as they provide
easier access (direct vertical) to
the reservoir and production
system. In deepwater and ultra-
deepwater projects, however,
insulating dry tree risers to pre-
vent wax and hydrate problems
can be a challenge.
Wax deposition. Under
steady-state conditions, where
the fluid arrival temperature
is below the WAT, wax depo-
sition can occur in the tub-
ing string. The problem then
becomes how to remove the
deposit. Remediation options
include insulation to maintain fluid
temperatures above WAT, chemical inhi-
bition and physical/mechanical means,
such as scraping the tubing.
External insulation, low-pressure an-
nulus gas and/or gelled fluids in the an-
nulus can be used to maintain tempera-
ture. With single-casing risers, care needs
to be taken when gas and liquids are used
as insulation, as natural convection with-
in the fluids can greatly degrade the dry
tree risers thermal performance.
Wax deposition rates can be reduced
by continuously injecting a paraffin in-
hibitor. However, to be effective, a par-
affin inhibitor should be injected at a
temperature of 10C (50F) above the
WAT. This may require deep-set injec-
tion mandrels in the well. Active heat
may also be used to maintain a temper-
ature above WAT. For these cases, it is
advisable to consider the temperature re-
quired to melt the deposited wax, when
designing the active heat system.
Wax gelation. Maintaining fluids
above the pour point is critical. The
cooldown time to the pour point might
be very short, as little as four to six hours.
With multiple well configurations, the
scenario is complicated, as the operator
must treat all wells. For large, multi-well
developments, this may require simulta-
neous operations.
Operating procedures must be initi-
ated to shut in wells once the flow rate
drops below the rate needed to maintain
cooldown time. As the profile in Fig. 2
shows, fluid temperatures can drop pre-
cipitously in a short period during a dry
tree riser shutdown.
PPD injection, if used continuously,
will help retard gel formation. As with
a typical paraffin inhibitor, the PPD
should be injected at some margin above
the WAT/pour point. Active heat could
be used during a shutdown to maintain
temperature and re-melt the gel prior to
restart. Lastly, displacement of produced
fluids back in to the formation using an
inert fluid (other than dead oil) is also a
possible solution to gelation.
Subsea tiebacks/export pipelines.
Typical wax-related control practices in
deepwater subsea developments are insu-
lating the flowlines, providing a looped
system for round-trip pigging
or utilizing continuous paraf-
fin inhibitor to reduce the rate
of wax deposition.
The economic impact of
a subsea flowline blockage is
considerably greater than with
dry tree risers. While the lower
achievable heat transfer coef-
ficients (U-value) of subsea tie-
backs might suggest improved
thermal performance, this alter-
native might be cost-prohibi-
tive with lengthy tiebacks. As
with dry tree risers, any paraf-
fin inhibitor must be injected
at 10C (50F) above the WAT,
which may require downhole
injection. Thus, the subsurface/
completion design of the tub-
ing will be impacted by the wax
management strategy.
Wax deposition. Looped
flowlines allow for pigging op-
tions; however, the cost of lost
production time for round-
trip pigging, as well as the cost
of a second line to create the
piggable loop, may outweigh
insulation and chemical in-
hibition costs. Variables that
must be considered are tieback
length, pig velocity and nomi-
nal production rate. The insu-
lation costs to lower the U-value (with
a pipe-in-pipe solution, for instance), or
inhibitor costs, must be analyzed against
the savings of less-frequent pigging.
Wax deposition modeling is valuable
in determining the likely location of wax
buildup and in recommending a suitable
insulation and pigging frequency pro-
gram. Fig. 3 depicts the impact of par-
affin buildup in a subsea tieback on its
temperature profile and wax thickness,
respectively. Fig. 3, top, shows the tem-
perature of an uninsulated pipeline over
time (as wax deposition occurs). The pro-
file quickly drops toward ambient, but
wax buildup actually provides insulating
properties, thus extending the tempera-
ture profile. Fig. 3, bottom, shows a high
wax buildup rate near the pipeline inlet.
As the wax deposits and the insulating
properties of wax make the temperatures
warmer, the wax deposit location moves
further down the pipeline. Once ambi-
ent temperatures are reached, there is no
wax buildup.
Wax gelation. The plugging of a
subsea pipeline with gelled paraffin
could be catastrophic. A looped flowline

Fig. 3. (Top) An uninsulated pipelines temperature drops
toward ambient, wax buildup insulates, extending the
temperature prole. (Bottom) As wax is deposited, its
insulating properties make the temperatures warmer and
move the deposit further down the pipeline.
MARCH 2006 World Oil
might be required to allow produced
fluid displacement to remove all of the
in-situ production fluid prior to gel for-
mation. The insulation selected should
provide sufficient cooldown time for
non-problematic system restart and
fluid circulation through the flowlines,
as well as sufficient storage volume for
the displaced and circulation fluids.
These can be complicated for minimal
facility system designs. Pipelines should
be preheated prior to restart to retard
wax gelation until the production fluid
warms above the pour point. Whichever
heat medium is usedhot water, heated
diesel or treated hot production fluid
each has its own challenges.
CONCLUSION
Wax deposition and wax gelation
problems can cause serious flow assur-
ance concerns for operators in deepwater
installations. To help combat these issues,
laboratory measurements are required
to develop an understanding of fluid
characteristics and temperature require-
ments. Intelligent data interpretation of
these measurements can provide rules of
thumb and accurate models for establish-
ing pigging and treating programs.
Modeling can also provide key indi-
cators for profiling pipeline temperatures
and wax buildup. These tools can greatly
assist the operator in making economic
decisions and exploring multiple design
options. Current modeling technology
includes real-time, online pipeline moni-
toring and advisory systems that help
manage a myriad of flow assurance is-
sues. A number of operators worldwide
have deployed such systems. WO
THE AUTHORS
Thomas S. Golczynski is general manager,
Services, with Multiphase Solutions, Inc. (MSi)
in Houston. He is technical lead for all ow
assurance studies carried out within MSi and
provides ow assurance analysis for deepwater
and ultra-deepwater developments. Golczynski
earned a BS degree in chemical engineering
from the University of Michigan.
Elijah C. Kempton is a staff ow assurance
consultant with Multiphase Solutions, Inc.
(MSi) in Houston. He previously served as
MSis parafn deposition laboratory manager,
supervising all laboratory procedures and per-
forming extensive parafn-related analyses,
including diffusion coefcient determinations,
wax deposition predictions and gel formation
measurements. Kempton earned a BS degree
in chemical engineering and petroleum rening
from the Colorado School of Mines.

Article copyright 2006 by Gulf Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A.