The document discusses the importance of technology qualification for subsea facilities, highlighting the process and steps involved to ensure new technology reduces risks and enhances efficiency. It emphasizes the role of industry standards, common pitfalls in qualification programs, and the application of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for optimizing designs. Overall, it advocates for a diligent approach to technology qualification to achieve better reliability and cost savings.

1. Primary funding is provided by
The SPE Foundation through member donations
and a contribution from Offshore Europe
The Society is grateful to those companies that allow their
professionals to serve as lecturers
Additional support provided by AIME
Society of Petroleum Engineers
Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl

2. Society of Petroleum Engineers
Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl
2
Ed Grave
Verifying Performance and Capability
of New Technology for Surface and
Subsea Facilities

3. Presentation Outline
• Why Qualify?
• Technology Qualifying Program (TQP)
• Technical Readiness Level (TRL)
• TQP Pitfalls
• Subsea Separation Qualification Example
• Summary
3

4. Why Qualify?
• Enables new technology implementation
– Reduces capital costs
– Increases production/efficiency
– Improves reliability
• Identifies and reduces risks that can be
managed
• Confirmation that a technology will
function with confidence
4

5. Qualification Program
• Is a process that identifies & reduces
uncertainties that are manageable
• Two very useful documents for subsea:
– Det Norske Veritas (DNV-RP-A203)
– American Petroleum Institute (API-RP-17N)
• Most companies have their own
customized qualification programs
5

6. Qualification Program
Technology qualification
steps
6
Steps Description
1 Qualification Basis Facts & objective identified
2 Technology Assessment Novelty, challenges, gaps
3 Threat Assessment Identifies failure modes & risks
4 Technology Qualification
Plan (TQP)
Strategy to manage risks
5 Execution Plan Execution of TQP (tests, analysis)
6 Performance Assessment Review of collected evidence
Reference: Horpestad, Eirik; “Technology Qualification of
Equipment in Subsea Production Systems”, Master Thesis,
NTNU University 2012

7. API17N TRL Interpretation
Specific for Subsea Production System
7
TRL Stage Description
0 Unproven Concept No Analysis
1 Analytically Proven Experimental Research
2 Physically Proven Lab Tested
3 Prototype Tested Pilot Test-Robust & Reliable
4 Environment Tested Commercial Demonstration
5 System Tested System Integration
6 System Installed Full Scale System Test
7 Field Proven Proving Operation Over Time
1
2
3
Gate Reviews – assessment at different phases…

8. API17N TRC/TRL
Interpretation
8
Significant development required/unachievable during project timeline
Work required before the next stage of the project
Ready for use
Some additional required- achievable during project
TRL
Field
Proven
System
Installed
System
Tested
Environment
Tested
Prototype
Tested
Physically
Proven
Proven
Concept
Unproven
Concept
Technical Risk Category (TRC) TRC 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Very High Technical Risk/
Unacceptable Reliability
A
<20%
High Technical Risk/
Low Reliability
B
20-80%
Medium Technical Risk/
Moderate Reliability
C
80-95%
Low Technical Risk/
Acceptable Reliability
D
>95%
Reducing Risk/Increasing Reliability

9. TQP Pit Falls
• Too much focus on engineering
and little on the process
• Many teams do not understand
what they are trying to do
• Too much focus on component
tests and not on the system
• More analytical models are needed
• TQP should not be an addendum
9
Reference: Markussen, Christian; “Experience with Technology
Qualification and Subsea Processing”, SPE Subsea Processing
Workshop, Stresa Italy 2012

10. TQP Pit Falls
• One member is driving the show
• No representation by either research,
project or operations
• No involvement from supplier
• Insufficient stakeholders support
• Short cuts due to project pressure
• Insufficient expertise and experience
– Leads to incorrect assumptions
– Poor Execution Plan
10

11. Pit Fall Example
11
Performance
Difference
between N2
and NG
Reference: Austrheim, Trond; “Re-entrainment Correlations for
Demisting Cyclones at Elevated Pressures on a Range of Fluids”,
Energy & Fuels, May 2009
Verlaan Demisting Cyclones
High Pressure Separation – Not testing device/system at
expected operating conditions

12. Qualifying subsea separation for shallow
water applications <1500m of water depth
12
• Flexible to a wide range of fluid
and operating conditions
Example – Subsea Separation
Inlet nozzles with Inlet Vane Diffusers
Perforated
baffles
Sand removal devices
Dome with
demisting cyclones
Reference: “Qualification of a Subsea Separator…”, M.R. Anderson
& E.J. Grave, OTC 25367-MS, May 2014

13. Compact Separation for Deep
Water (<1500m)
2009 From Concept to Deployment 2014
Conceptual Design
• Robust, flexible design
• Wide API Gravity
• Sand handling system
• Integrated Degassing
High Pressure
System Testing
• Half scale testing
• Real crudes, natural
gas
• Simulated operating
conditions
Proof of Concept
• CFD analysis, Dynamic
modeling
• Low pressure testing w/
model oils, brine, sand
13
TRL 0-1 TRL 2-3 TRL 4-5 TRL 6-7

14. Example – Subsea Separation
• CFD Simulations – screened a number of
designs, improved feed inlet, flow profile, etc.
• Model Fluid Tests – validate CFD models
– Test Matrix cover range of fluid properties
– Appropriate scale to minimize geometry effects
– Attention to sampling points, repeatability…
• High Pressure Tests
– Crude oil, synthesized water, methane gas
– Similar test matrix & fluid properties
– Same scale with the same internals
14

15. • Data & visual observations used to validate CFD models
• Provides ability to see fluid flow patterns
• Further improvements made and tested prior to high pressure test
15
Model Fluid Testing

16. • CFD models correctly predicted biased flow
patterns in the inlet and settling sections
• CFD does not predict effect on emulsion and
foam due to pressure drop across baffles
Splashing
through baffles
16
CFD & Models Validation

17. • Tests are most representative of field applications
• Tests performed at different flow rates,
temperatures, & water cuts using three different
crudes, saline water & methane gas at 45 bar-g
17
Separator is the same
diameter, length and
with the same
internals as tested
with model oils
High Pressure Testing With
Crude Oil and Natural Gas

18. • Although the physical properties (density, viscosity,
surface tension) are similar, chemical interactions
and emulsion stability are not the same
• For this case, model oil performed poorly
18
High Pressure Testing With Crude Oil
and Natural Gas
Model Oil 50 C⁰
Total Flowrate, (m3/hr)
Crude Oil at
Pressure 50 C⁰
Oil in Water (OIW) vs Total Flow Rate; API 35⁰
10000
8000
2000
6000
4000
0
Oil in Water (OIW) vs Total Flow Rate; API 35⁰
20%WC
40%WC
70%WC

19. • …but the oil quality was worse during the high pressure
tests compared to the model oil at the same interface
level
19
High Pressure Testing With Crude Oil
and Natural Gas
Model Oil 50⁰C
Total Flowrate, (m3/hr)
Crude Oil 50⁰C
Water in Oil (WiO) vs Total Flow Rate; API35⁰Water in Oil (WiO) vs Total Flow Rate;
API35⁰
Total Flowrate, (m3/hr)
20%WC
40%WC
70%WC
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
WIOOut

20. Summary
• Technology Qualification is an enabler!!
– Mitigates risks
– Implements technology
• Existing industry standards are a good
starting point
• Not all TQPs are equal…leads to confusion
• Careful selection of the Qualification team
• Standardized tests will lead to savings
• Don’t cheat!!
20

21. Society of Petroleum Engineers
Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl 21
Your Feedback is Important
Enter your section in the DL Evaluation Contest by
completing the evaluation form for this presentation
Visit SPE.org/dl

22. Back-up
22

23. COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS (CFD)
• Evaluate original separator design
• Optimized inlet piping, feed
arrangement, and perforated baffle
design
• Comparison between full and
small-scale geometries
• Fixed separator design used
during model fluid tests and high-
pressure, “live” crude tests
23
Original
Design
Improved
Example – Subsea Separation

24. • Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is a
good tool to inexpensively vet or improve
technology
• CFDs must be validated with model fluids
resembling expected field conditions
• Model fluids emulsion and foaming tendencies
do not reflect real crudes
• For the examples presented model oil testing
alone would have resulted in an incorrect
design
24
Summary

25. Technical Readiness Level
• Developed by NASA (1970’s)
– Risk management tool
– Communication tool between
technologists & managers
– Keeps track of technology
development stage
– Reinforces the Qualification
Process
25
Reference: Warwick, Alistair; “Meeting The Challenge of
Deepwater Development”, Offshore Magazine, Feb 2011
$