OTC 21641

SS: Flow Assurance: Validation of Wax Deposition Models Using Field Data
from a Subsea Pipeline
A. Singh, SPE, the University of Tulsa; H. Lee, SPE, and P. Singh, SPE, ConocoPhillips Company: and C. Sarica,
SPE, the University of Tulsa
Copyright 2011, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 25 May 2011.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
This paper describes an offshore production system with a subsea pipeline (12-inch diameter 23-km long) where wax
deposition has been the primary flow assurance challenge. This subsea pipeline has been transporting nearly 55,000 BOPD
from a central processing platform (CPP) to a Floating Production Storage Offloading (FPSO). The crude oil has been
characterized for wax potential by performing several laboratory analyses which have been entered into available wax
deposition models to predict the wax deposition rate inside the pipeline under various operating conditions. The transient
flow rate and pressure drop data from the field have been analyzed to estimate the average wax deposit growth rate. This
paper will share the findings from the field validation and application of the available wax deposition models. The results will
help pipeline design engineers to accurately estimate the required insulation level for wax deposition control and will also
assist in operating the pipelines with the optimum pigging frequency.
This study has confirmed that Film Mass Transfer (FMT) model gives higher wax deposition rate than Equilibrium
model (EM). The predicted deposition rates from both of the models have been much lower than the field data. Using
default viscosity, both EM and FMT models gave reasonable predictions of the wax deposition rate as compared to
deposition rate obtained from the field data. The field deposition rate is higher than the predictions by the EM model without
any shear removal. By incorporating aging process to the FMT model, it was found that the value of Ka parameter (as
defined in the aging model by Singh et al., 2000) of 1 matches the deposit wax content observed in the field. Matzain shear
removal model (2001) over-predicts the impact of shear on the rate of wax deposition; however, Venkatesan's shear removal
model (2003) shows a very small impact of the shear.
The deepwater project development and engineering design needs an accurate prediction of the wax precipitation and
deposition in subsea pipelines. A number of wax deposition simulators have been developed to predict the wax deposition
rate. Although there have been several attempts made to validate the wax deposition prediction models with laboratory data,
no reliable field verification study could be found prior to this study.
Introduction
Paraffin deposition takes whenever paraffinic oil gets in contact with a cold pipe wall or ambience below the Wax
Appearance Temperature (WAT) of the oil, solid paraffin crystals can precipitate and deposit on the pipe surface. Deposition
of wax from oil leads to a gradual decrement in production due to plugging of wells and/or pipelines and, in an extreme case,
can render a pipeline or production facility abandoned. Various measures including chemical and mechanical have routinely
been applied. Mechanical methods include pigging and wireline cutting to remove the deposited wax. Chemical methods
include paraffin inhibitors/dispersants to inhibit the formation of deposit and hot solvents to remediate the deposit already
formed. These methods to prevent and remediate wax deposit add significant operating cost to the production operation. .
Successful development of the offshore deep-water projects requires engineering designs of the facilities that can handle
the flow assurance challenges such as wax deposit problems. A robust design can only be obtained with an accurate
prediction of the wax precipitation and deposition. Therefore, an accurate modeling of wax precipitation and deposition is
imperative to facilitate a successful engineering design, development, and operation of deep-water offshore projects.
Researchers have already made significant progress in understanding the thermodynamic equilibrium and deposition
mechanisms of wax. Thermodynamic models have been developed based on precipitation of wax as multi-phase solids
solution to successfully describe the formation of solids wax as a function of temperature (Lira-Galeana et al., 1996,
Coutinho and Ruffier-Meray, 1997). The overall consensus is that the dominant mechanism of wax deposition is molecular

OTC 21641

diffusion in laminar boundary sub-layer driven by the radial Fickian diffusion of n-paraffins, the primary wax formers
(Brown et al., 1993 and Singh et al., 2000). Precipitation kinetics in laminar boundary sub-layer is included to describe the
turbulent flow wax deposition behavior (Lee, 2008). Several researchers also expressed that in turbulent flow, the shear
stress acting on a wax gel layer may slough off wax from the deposition layer. This effect has been considered as one of the
major mechanisms to reduce the deposit thickness in cases with high turbulent flow (Venkatesan, 2003).
Various simulators like TUWAX, OLGAs wax deposition module; PVTsims Depowax, etc. include some of the
progress made in our understanding of the thermodynamic equilibrium and deposition mechanisms of wax. These software
packages cannot be completely relied on because the models used in the software has their own assumptions and limitations.
For example, Singh et al. (2000) model works very well within laminar flow but for turbulent region it needs to be modified
(Venkatesan 2003). Since the complexity of the wax deposition phenomenon, these simulators do not capture all of the
physics and tend to ignore some of the critical aspects while simplifying the modeling parameters.
Validation of wax deposition models have been the focus of several research projects published in the literature. Model
systems comprised of food grade waxes dissolved in model oils (a blend of mineral oil and Kerosene) were used by several
researchers (Singh et al., 2000, Venkatesan, 2003, and Lee 2008) to perform the laboratory deposition experiments utilizing a
flow loop system. These researchers were able to fit the modeling parameters to match their experimental data. However,
limited attempts were made to validate the wax deposition models for real crudes using laboratory data. Tulsa University
Paraffin Deposition (TUPDP) consortium has extensively utilized South Pelto crude and Garden Bank condensate (Lund,
1998, Matzain, 1998, Apte et al., 2001, Hernandez, 2003, Couto et al., 2006, Espinoza, 2006, Bruno et al., 2008,) to obtain
experimental data to further study to predict wax deposition. Recently, a detailed experimental study was presented on a
North Sea waxy condensate (43API) using a laboratory flow loop system by Hoffmann and Amundsen (2010). In another
study, a west African waxy crude (36API) was tested in a flow loop deposition setup by Alboudwarej et al. (2006). With
these studies, significant progress made on wax deposition prediction, but scaleup of the data to the real field cases still
remains as a problem.
Very few attempts have been made to validate the wax deposition models using field data (Hsu et al., 1998, Klienhans et
al., 2000). Instead of true field scale systems, these studies utilized side streams and loops at the well site to generate data
using fresh produced fluids. Labes-Carrier et al. (2002) and Bagatin et al. (2008) utilized some of the operational experience
and qualitative information to validate wax deposition predictions.
This paper studies an offshore production system with a subsea pipeline where wax deposition has been the primary flow
assurance challenge. The crude oil has been characterized for wax potential by performing several laboratory analyses.
These data have been entered into available wax deposition models to predict the wax deposition rate inside the pipeline
under various operating conditions. The transient flow rate and pressure drop data from the field have been analyzed to
estimate the average wax deposit growth rate. Pipeline inlet and exit temperatures have also been analyzed to estimate the
overall heat transfer coefficient.
Field Description
The field layout of the offshore case studied is given in Fig. 1. A subsea pipeline transports waxy crude oil from a central
processing platform (CPP) to a Floating Production Storage Offloading (FPSO). The single phase crude oil pipeline has a 12
in. diameter and is 23-km long. A separate 16 in. gas pipeline transports the gas from the CPP to the FPSO. Flow rate of the
export oil is 55,000 BPD with a pipeline inlet temperature of 165F. The subsea water temperature is nearly 77F. Wax
appearance temperature of the crude is measured to be 136F by a cross-polarized microscope. The pipeline is un-insulated
and partially buried. Wax deposition inside the pipeline is managed by a routine pigging operation.

Subsea
PLEM
Gas - 16" x 23 km
Oil - 12" x 23 km

FPSO

Central
Processing
Platform

Export Oil Rate = 55,000 BPD

Export Temp = 170oF
Figure1. Field Layout of the Case Study

A sample field data of the pipeline operation for a 32-day production period is summarized in Fig. 2. Temperature of the
export crude at the pipeline inlet is maintained at ~165F. Crude oil flow rate stays around 55,000 BOPD during this period.

OTC 21641

The pressure drop data clearly shows the effectiveness of the weekly pigging operation. Due to the wax deposition, pressure
drop of the pipeline gradually increases from ~200 psi to ~300 psi in a week of continuous production. Pigging operation
clearly decreases the pressure drop back to ~200 psi just after the pig run. The deposition continues even after a week as
indicated by the gradual increase in the pressure drop between the two consecutive pig runs with no indication of a plateau
behavior in the pressure drop. A detailed set of crude properties has been discussed in the next section to accurately model
the wax deposition behavior of the crude oil using several models in TUWAX simulator.

Hydraulic Change Due to Pigging

450

8/1/2008 00:00:00

200

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Pressure Drop (psig)

Flow Rate (MBOPD)

70

Inlet Crude Temperature (F)

80

7/1/2008 00:00:00

350

150

250

100

150

50

50

12
16
20
Time (days)

24

28

0
32

Figure 2. A Sample of Pipeline Operation Conditions

Fluid Properties
A summary of the results of fluids analyses of the stock tank crude sample is presented in Table 1. The crude sample has
high normal paraffin content.
Table 1: Summary of Results of Crude Properties
Crude Property

Measurement Technique

Values

API @ 60 F

Anton Paar DMA 5000

45

Density (g/cc)

Anton Paar DMA 5000

0.8

Cloud Point (WAT)

Cross-Polarized Microscopy

58C (136F)

Anton Paar DMA 5000

57C (135F)

TU MSI Model

55.5C (132F)

WAT in Pipeline

Live Oil TU MSI Model

55C (131F)

STO Pour Point (PPT)

ASTM D5853-95 Beneficiated

Method

29C (85F)

Wax Content (% wt)

HTGC n-C19+

17

Asphaltene Content (%)

IP 143

0.03

Wax Content
High Temperature Gas Chromatography (HTGC) has been used to characterize the molecular weight distribution of both the
n-alkane and the all hydrocarbons as a function of the carbon number present in the stock tank sample. The results are
presented as the weight percent of all hydrocarbons containing a given carbon number and the weight percent of n-paraffin
(Fig. 3). Because the normal n-alkanes precipitate at higher temperatures than the iso-alkanes of the same carbon number,
they are responsible for higher cloud points and wax deposition issues.
Wax Appearance Temperature (WAT) and Pour Point Temperature (PPT)
WAT has been measured using cross polar microscopy. The sample has been preheated to 82C (180F) to remove any
thermal history and introduced inside a microscope capillary that has been placed on the stage at 80C (176F). PPT of the
stock tank sample has been measured using ASTM D5853-95 procedure with the beneficiated method that requires
preheating the crude to 82C to remove the thermal history and then gradually cooling the sample until it no longer pours.
The beneficiated method is usually the most applicable for crude production situations where the crude is flowing hot and
then allowed to cool when flow is stopped.

OTC 21641
10
All Hydrocarbons
n-Alkanes

Wt %

0.1

0.01
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Carbon #

Figure 3. Weight Percent Distribution of n-Alkanes and All Hydrocarbons

Viscosity of the Stock Tank Oil

Haake RS 150 Rheometer with a rotational pressure cell has been used to measure the viscosity of the crude saturated with
separator gas at 150 psig to simulate the pipeline operating conditions. Figure 4 shows the measured viscosity data for the
live crude with some gas dissolved at different shear rates ranging from 30 and 1,000 1/sec. It can be noted that the viscosity
of the crude begins to rapidly increase when the crude cools below 60C and even more rapidly below 35C. The fluid
behaves almost Newtonian at temperatures above 60C. However, the fluid turns non-Newtonian below WAT due to the
presence of the wax crystals. The default viscosity predicted by the TUWAX program matches very well with the single
phase viscosity of the crude above 60C. Below 60C, the presence of wax crystals changes the rheology of the slurry by
making it highly viscous non-Newtonian fluid. The viscosity of the continuous medium of the slurry is expected to follow
the default viscosity predictions below 60C.

Figure 4. Viscosity vs. Temperature of Live Crude

Figure 4 shows the viscosity predictions by TUWAX using default viscosity option as a function of temperature along with
the measured viscosity. The predicted viscosity values match well with the measured data above 60C. The program is not
taking into consideration the effect of the wax crystals on the bulk viscosity of the slurry.
Trapped Oil Content of Deposit
Several samples of the wax deposit collected from the pig trap were analyzed using HTGC for the wax content and the
trapped oil content of the deposit. The deposit seems to have the consistency of a shoe polish and melts at temperature well
above the WAT of the crude. Melting points of the deposit samples range from 95-100C. Figure 5 shows the percent wax
content of the deposit.

OTC 21641

35

Wax Content in Pig Samples

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1

# of Samples

Figure 5. Percent Wax Content of the Deposits

TUWAX Thermodynamic Modeling

TUWAX uses HTGC analysis results of the sample as input to develop a thermodynamic model of the waxy crude oil and
identify which carbon number n-alkanes will precipitate at a given temperature and pressure if gas is dissolved in solution.
The WAT is defined as the temperature and pressure at which 0.02 mole% of the crude precipitate out as the solid state. The
WAT results between the thermodynamic and cross-polarized microscopy technique agree within 2 C (Table 1).
Live Oil Composition
In order to study the behavior of the crude in the subsea pipeline, the composition of the live oil has been estimated.
Depending on the pipeline operating conditions, the liquid phase may contain some light ends that are not present in the stock
tank sample. It is important to estimate the additional light ends that will be present in the pipeline fluid relative to the stock
tank sample since they may have some effect on the wax deposition rate. The general procedure used was to develop a good
thermodynamic model of the reservoir fluid and then flash it to the separator pressure and temperature conditions to estimate
the composition of the pipeline fluid. Figure 6 shows the analysis of the separator oil composition obtained at 150 psig and
60F from TUWAX program. This live oil is expected to contain 2.3% of light C1-C4 components that are missing in the
stock tank analysis.
10

Wt Fraction (%)

Live Oil (PVT EOS Prediction)

Dead Oil (HTGC Analysis)

0
C1

C3

C5

C7

C9

C11

C13

C15

C17

C19

C21

C23

C25

C27

C29

Carbon Number

Figure 6. Live and Dead Oil Compositions

Wax Precipitation vs. Temperature

Figure 7 shows the TUWAX predictions of solid weight fractions as a function of temperature. Note that the precipitated
solid fraction of 0.02 mol% was predicted at the WAT of 55C. The curve increases rapidly below 35C. The fraction of
solids at the pipeline exit temperature of 29C is predicted to be ~6 wt%. The presence of 6 wt% solid crystals results in an
increase in the bulk viscosity of the slurry by one to two orders of magnitude.

OTC 21641

SOLID WEIGHT FRACTION IN TOTAL FLUID

0.2

Wax Content

0.18

WAT = 57oC (by DMA)

WAT = 58-59oC (by CPM)

Solids wt fraction

0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06

Pour Point

0.04

WAT = 55oC

0.02
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Temperature (deg.C)

Figure 7. Solid Weight Fraction vs. Temperature

Model Sensitivity Study

TUWAX simulator has both EM and FMT models available for predicting wax deposition. In this section, a sensitivity study
is performed to understand the impact of various variables on the wax deposition results in the two models. Figure 6 shows
various options available in the TUWAX for user to set up a wax deposition model. A user can select either EM or FMT
model. The simulator allows user to enter the experimental viscosity data as well as let the user use default viscosity from
the lookup table generated by the thermodynamic model. Oil fraction in the deposit can be entered by the user or can be
calculated using Singh et al. Aging Model (2000). Singhs model requires user to enter a fitting parameter Ka, which depends
on the aspect ratio of the wax crystal. For shear stripping, two separate options are provided based on Venkatesan (2003) and
Matzain (1998) models.

Figure 8. Input Options Available in TUWAX Simulator

Equilibrium Model (EM)

A base case wax deposition model within TUWAX has been run for viscosities of 1, 10, 100 cP. Figure 9 shows the wax
deposit thickness results after 10 days for the three viscosity cases. There is a significant reduction in the deposit thickness as
the viscosity of the crude is increased. In order to further quantify the effect of the viscosity, peak deposit thickness after 10
days is plotted as a function of the viscosity in Fig. 10.
A trend line with a power law describes the predicted results. Both the temperature gradient dT dr interface and solubility
slope dCweqm dT T at the 10km location have been found to be a weak function of the viscosity (Fig. 11). Thus, the impact of
i

viscosity is primarily coming from the diffusivity.

OTC 21641

Equilibrium Model Prediction after 10 days

12
Viscosity = 1cP
Viscosity = 10cP
Viscosity = 100cP

Deposit thickness (mm)

10

0
0

10

15

20

25

Pipeline Location (km)

Figure 9. Wax Thickness vs. Distance as Function of Viscosity using EM

12

Deposit Thickness (mm)

10

-0.7773

y = 10.134x
2
R = 0.9997

0
1

10

100

Viscosity (cP)

Figure 10. Peak Deposit Thickness vs. Viscosity after 10 days of Deposition Using EM

Variables computed at 10km location

2500

0.005

y = 1837.8x0.0425
R2 = 0.9864

0.0045
0.004

Radial temp gradient at the interface

0.0035

dC/dT at the interface

1500

0.003

Power (dC/dT at the interface)

0.0025

Power (Radial temp gradient at the

interface)
1000

0.002

y = 0.0022x-0.1219
R2 = 0.8186

0.0015

500

0.001
0.0005

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

0
120

Viscosity (cP)

Figure 11. Radial Temperature and Concentration Gradients vs. Viscosity

dC/dT (1/F)

Radial Temp Gradient (F/m)

2000

OTC 21641

Film Mass Transfer Model (FMT)

TUWAX has been run for viscosities of 1, 10, 100 cP. Figure 12 shows the wax deposit thickness results after 2 days for the
three viscosity cases. There is a significant reduction in the deposit thickness as the viscosity of the crude is increased.
FMT Model Prediction after 2 days
12
Viscosity = 1cP
Viscosity = 10cP
Viscosity = 100cP

Deposit thickness (mm)

10

0
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Pipeline Location (km)

Figure 12. Wax Thickness vs. Distance as Function of Viscosity using FMT.

In order to further quantify the effect of the viscosity, peak deposit thickness after 2 days is plotted as a function of the
viscosity in Fig. 13. A trend line with a power law perfectly describes the predicted results. The concentration driving force
varies significantly as a function of the viscosity (Fig. 14). Thus, in FMT model also, the impact of the viscosity is primarily
coming from the diffusivity.
Diffusivity Independent of Bulk Viscosity
As seen in the measured viscosity data, bulk viscosity of the waxy oil slurry below the WAT can be orders of magnitude
higher than the viscosity of oil in the continuous medium. The diffusion of wax occurs through the continuous media and is
slightly hindered by the presence of wax crystals because only 4-6% of the crystal volume fraction is occupied by the wax
crystals. Therefore, diffusivity of the wax molecules should depend on the viscosity of the continuous medium and should
not decrease orders of magnitude when the bulk viscosity of the waxy oil slurry increases by orders of magnitude.
14

Deposit Thickness (mm)

12

10

6
y = 11.586x-0.5082
R2 = 0.9962

0
1

10

100

Viscosity (cP)

Figure13. Peak Deposit Thickness vs. Viscosity after 2 days of Deposition Using FMT

OTC 21641

Concentration Driving Force Calculated at a Bulk Temp of 92oF

Condentration Difference (bulk - wall)

0.012

0.01
y = 0.0011x0.4702
R2 = 0.9976
0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Viscosity (cP)

Figure 14. Concentration difference vs. Viscosity using FMT.

Oil Content of Deposit:

Wax deposits contain a certain amount of trapped oil inside the network of wax crystals. The fraction of trapped oil depends
on the flow regime and it can range from 20 to 90% (Lund, 1998). Turbulent flow with high shear stress at the wall tends to
produce the deposit with lower trapped oil fraction. The fraction of trapped oil also decreases with time (also known as aging
of the deposit).
Equilibrium Model (EM).
TUWAX was run with varying the trapped oil fraction of the deposit. Figure 15 shows the wax deposit thickness results after
10 days for the three trapped oil fraction cases. There is a significant reduction in the deposit thickness as the trapped oil
fraction of the crude is reduced. In order to further quantify the effect of the trapped oil fraction, peak deposit thickness after
10 days is plotted as a function of the trapped oil fraction in Fig. 16.
Film Mass Transfer Model (FMT)
TUWAX was run with varying the trapped oil fractions. Figure 17 shows the wax deposit thickness results for the three
trapped oil fraction cases. There is a significant reduction in the deposit thickness as the trapped oil fraction is decreased. In
order to further quantify the effect of the trapped oil fraction, peak deposit thickness after 2 days is plotted as a function of
the oil fraction in Fig. 18.
Equilibrium Model Prediction after 10 days
12

Trapped Oil Fraction = 0.8

Trapped Oil Fraction = 0.5
Trapped Oil Fraction = 0.2

Deposit thickness (mm)

10

0
0

10

15

20

25

Pipeline Location (km)

Figure 15. Wax Deposit Thicknesses after 10 Days for Three Trapped Oil Fractions Using EM

10

OTC 21641
14

Deposit Thickness (mm)

12

10

8
y = 2.1038x(1-)-1
6

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Figure 16. Peak Wax Deposit Thicknesses after 10 Days vs. Oil Fractions Using EM
Equilibrium Model Prediction after 2 days
14

Trapped Oil Fraction = 0.8

Trapped Oil Fraction = 0.5
Trapped Oil Fraction = 0.2

12

Deposit thickness (mm)

10

0
0

10

15

20

25

Pipeline Location (km)

Figure 17. Wax Deposit Thicknesses after 2 Days for Three Trapped Oil Fractions Using FMT
14

Deposit Thickness (mm)

12

10

8
y = 2.2848x(1-)-1
6

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Figure 18. Peak Wax Deposit Thicknesses after 2 Days vs. Oil Fractions Using FMT

OTC 21641

11

Thermal Conductivity of Deposit

Since wax deposits contain trapped oil/water and other solids including reservoir fines, scale and corrosion products, thermal
conductivity of the deposits are usually higher than the calculated value. Previously, it was assumed the deposit thermal
conductivity to be equal to the oil thermal conductivity (Svendsen (1993), Niesen et al. (1993)). Lund (1998) showed that
the thermal conductivity of the deposit can range from the oil thermal conductivity to 6 times the oil thermal conductivity.
Apte (1999) showed that the assumption made by the previous researchers (Svendsen (1993), Niesen et al. (1993)) may be
valid for initial soft deposits, however, the thermal conductivity of aged deposits could be as high as 2 times that of the oil. A
sensitivity analysis has been performed using both the EM and FMT models by varying the thermal conductivity from the
default value to user defined values of 1, 2, and 3. Figures 19 and 20 show the results obtained from the EM and FMT
models, respectively. The deposit thickness predictions seem to be not a strong function of the thermal conductivity.
12
Wax Thickness (mm)

10
8
6
Default (Maxwell Corr.)
User defined = 1
User defined = 2
User defined = 3

4
2
0
0

10
15
Distance (km)

20

25

Figure 19. EM Predictions After 10 Days

14

Wax Thickness (mm)

12
10
8
6

Default (Maxwell Corr.)

User defined = 1
User defined = 2
User defined = 3

4
2
0
0

10
15
Distance (km)

20

25

Figure 20. FMT Predictions after 2 days

Aging Model by Singh et al., 2000

TUWAX was run with the Singhs aging model by varying Ka for wax aspect ratio. Figures 21-22 show the results of wax
thickness and wax content after 10 days using EM model. As Ka is increased, the wax content of the deposit decreases
resulting in lower deposit thickness. The wax content from the field deposit sample collected from the pig trap ranges from
25-30 wt%. This means that the tuned value of Ka should be close to 25 for the EM model.
Figures 23 and 24 show the results of thickness and wax content after 10 days using the FMT model. It is clear as the Ka
is increased, the wax content of the deposit decreases resulting in lower deposit thickness. The wax content from the field
deposit sample collected from the pig trap ranges from 25-30 wt% indicating that the tuned value of Ka should be close to 1
for the FMT model.
Shear Removal.
TUWAX has been run with the shear removal options by selecting Matzain and Venkatesan models. Figure 25 summarizes
the results for the three cases: no shear removal, Matzains model, and Venkatesans model (a=2e-10 and b=1.9). Matzains

12

OTC 21641

model has very high shear removal rate resulting in a significant lower deposit thickness. The value of parameter a needed
to be increased to 2.0e-10 (from the default value of 0.8e-12) to bring the shear removal rate to about 50%.

Deposit Thickness (mm)

Ka = 1
Ka = 5
Ka = 10
Ka = 25

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0

10
15
Distance (km)

20

25

Figure 21. EM Predictions after 10 Days

Ka
Ka
Ka
Ka

=
=
=
=

1
5
10
25

Figure 22. EM Predictions After 10 Days

Deposit Thickness (mm)

30

Ka = 1
Ka = 5
Ka = 10
Ka = 25

25
20
15
10
5
0
0

10
15
Distance (km)

Figure 23. FMT Predictions after 10 Days

20

25

OTC 21641

13

Ka
Ka
Ka
Ka

=
=
=
=

1
5
10
25

Figure 24. FMT Predictions After 10 Days

16

No Shear Removal
Matzain Model
Venkatesan Model (a=2.0e-10, b =1.9)

Deposit Thickness (mm)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

Location (km)

Figure 25. Shear Effect Predictions from EM model

Figures 26 and 27 show the results of a parametric study to analyze how the values of parameter a and b affect the
shear removal rate in the field pipeline.
120

Venkatesan's Model b = 3.0

Venkatesan's Model b = 1.9
Venkatesan's Model b = 1.0

Shear Removal (%)

100
80
60
40
20
0
1.0E-13

1.0E-12

1.0E-11

1.0E-10

1.0E-09

Value of Parameter 'a'

Figure 26. Venkatesan Model Parameter a Sensitivity.

1.0E-08

14

OTC 21641

140
Venkatesan's Model a = 1.0e-9
Venkatesan's Model a = 2.0e-10
Venkatesan's Model a = 2.0e-11

Shear Removal (%)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Value of Parameter 'b'

Figure 27. Venkatesan Model Parameter b Sensitivity.

To get some reasonable rate of the shear removal, the value of a should be at least two orders of magnitude greater than
the default value of 0.8e-12.
Analysis of the Field Data
Export pressure and temperatures and crude oil flow rates were monitored at CPP while the arrival pressure was measured at
the FPSO. The pipeline operating data obtained from the field has been summarized in Fig. 2. The export temperature at the
CPP was maintained near 165F. The arrival pressure at the CPP was maintained around 350 psig. The temperature of the
pipeline fluid arriving at the FPSO ranged between 80 and 85F. Table 3 provides some of the pipeline design parameters.
Average seabed temperature is 77F. Temperature of crude oil entering the pipeline has been around 165F. Thermal
conductivity of the steel pipeline is 44 W/m/K with a clean pipe roughness of 50 m.
Table 3. External Heat Transfer Coefficient (EHTC) Used in Simulations for Non Insulated Half Burried
Pipeline
Pipeline Segment
Segment Length (m) Segment ID (mm)
Segment OD (mm)
EHTC* (W/m2/K)
(CPP Seafloor to base
22 (50 mm concrete over
23,000
305
324 (12.75 in.)
of Flexible Riser)
steel)
* Computed for Heat Flux at Steel Pipe OD
Pressure Drop Study
To quantify the effect of wax deposition on the pressure drop of the pipeline, Blasius (1913) friction factor correlation is
selected based on the range of the Reynolds number (104<Re<105) as calculated for the steady state pipeline flow conditions.
(1)
f = 0.079 Re 0.25 .
The pressure drop of the pipeline can be given as

4 L 1 2 0.158 L 0.25 0.75 v o

P =
f v =

(2 Rio )2
1.25
2
2 Ri 2
(2 Ri )
(2 Ri )

1.75

(2)

where Ri is the effective radius of the pipeline with the deposition and Rio is the clean pipeline radius.
P 0.158 L 0.25 0.75
3.5
= 1.75 =
(2 Rio ) .
(3)
vo
(2 Ri )4.75
Equation 3 shows that the term should increase as the deposit thickness increases, and it must be a constant for a clean
pipeline (just after the pigging run when there is no wax deposit on the pipe wall) as shown in Fig. 28. The minimum value
of this term is nearly 107 psi/(m/s)1.75. For a length of 23-km with 12 in. diameter, 800 kg/m3 density, and 10cP average
viscosity, the theoretical value of the term with no wax deposit is calculated to be 110.6 psi/(m/s)1.75. Thus, the Blasius
correlation can be used to estimate the frictional losses.
To understand roughness effects on the deposit, the data is analyzed as shown in Fig. 29. It was observed that the term
increases very slightly (~5%) even when the flow rate reduced significantly (~40%) for a short period (as shown by one of
the ellipses in Fig. 29 during the second week of November). If there would be additional roughness due to the wax deposit,
the term should change more dramatically with this much reduction in the flow rate. Thus, the assumption of smooth wax
deposit is reasonable for this field case and Blasius correlation can be applied for calculating the frictional pressure drop.

OTC 21641

15

70000

500
450

60000
400
350
300

40000

250
30000

200

DP/vo^1.75

Liquid Rate (BPD)

50000

150

20000

100
10000
50
0
1-Jul-08

31-Jul-08

30-Aug-08

29-Sep-08

29-Oct-08

28-Nov-08

0
28-Dec-08

Date
Figure 28. and Liquid Flow Rate History Plot
500

70000

450
60000
400
350
300

40000

250
30000

200

DP/vo^1.75

Liquid Rate (BPD)

50000

150

20000

100
10000
50
0
1-Oct-08

16-Oct-08

31-Oct-08

15-Nov-08

0
30-Nov-08

Date
Figure 29. Deposit Roughness Effect

Average Deposit Thickness Calculation

The term is plotted in Fig. 30 for seven pig runs and there is a reasonable reproducibility from run to run. The run 7 shows a
slight decrease in the average deposit thickness after day 14th and 17th. This could be due to some changes in the production
rate and/or pipeline operating conditions.
The average thickness of the wax deposit can be calculated from Eq. 23 as follows;
o 4.75
o 1 / 4.75
(2 Rio )4.75
(2 Ri )
o

(4)
R
1

=
=

=
i

o (2 Ri )4.75 (2 Rio 2t )4.75

Using the above analysis, average thickness of the wax deposit has been calculated and shown in Fig. 31. The average
thickness increases rapidly initially at 3-4 mm/day and then the deposit growth rate significantly slows down.

16

OTC 21641
300
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Run 5
Run 6
Run 7

280

Kappa (psi/(m/s)^1.75)

260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
0

10

15

20

25

20

25

Time (days)

Figure 30. Reproducibility between Pig Runs.

30
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Run 5
Run 6
Run 7

Average Thickness (mm)

25

20

15

10

0
0

10

15
Time (days)

Figure 31. Average Deposit Thickness vs. Time Based on Pressure Drop Measurements

Result and Discussion Comparison of Model Predictions with the Field Data
Predictions were made using several options available in the TUWAX simulator (Fig. 32). It can be seen that the predictions
from both the EM and FMT models with the experimental viscosities of the crude are significantly lower as compared to the
deposit thickness obtained from the field data. The average trapped oil fraction of 0.72 is used as found in the field deposits
collected from the pig. Using default viscosities, the predictions from both of the models increased significantly with the
FMT model predictions closer to the field data. Singh aging model was run with the FMT model and the parameter Ka was
varied to match the wax content data measured from the pig trap solids. Figure 33 shows the wax content data as a function
of time. It was found that Ka=1 gave a realistic predictions of the wax content of the deposit during the aging process.
The deposit thickness trend calculated by the FMT model with Singhs aging model was shown in Fig. 34. There is no
significant difference between the wax deposition results obtained from either the constant assumption or the Singh aging
model assumption. Thus, the value of Ka=1 gave a realistic predictions of both the deposition rate and wax content of the
deposit during the aging process.

OTC 21641

17
30
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Run 5
Run 6
Run 7

Average Thickness (mm)

25

20

FMT Model, =0.72

default, No aging

15

10

FMT Model, =0.72

exp, No aging

EM Model, =0.72
default, No aging
EM Model, =0.72
exp, No aging

0
0

10

15

20

25

Time (days)

Figure 32. Comparison of Model Predictions with Field Data

Figure 33. Aging Predictions Using Singh et al. (2000) Model

30
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Run 5
Run 6
Run 7

Average Thickness (mm)

25

20

FMT Model, =0.72

default, No aging

15

FMT Model, default,

Singh aging Ka=1

10

0
0

10

15

20

Time (days)

Figure 34. Aging vs. No Aging Predictions Using Singh et al. (2000) Model

25

18

OTC 21641

Summary and Conclusions

In this study, field data from an Indonesian offshore production and crude oil pipeline system have been utilized to
investigate the wax deposition buildup. The performance of the existing models available in the TUWAX has been assessed
and recommended practices and improvements have been proposed. Table 4 provides a summary of the results.
The specific conclusions are provided below:
Using measured data of the bulk crude oil viscosity below its WAT, the predicted deposition rates from both the
Equilibrium EM model and Film Heat Transfer FMT model with no shear removal have been found much lower than
deposition rates obtained from the field data.
Using default viscosity, both EM and FMT models gave reasonable predictions of the wax deposition rate as compared
to deposition rate obtained from the field data.
The field deposition rate is higher than the predictions by the EM model without any shear removal.
By incorporating aging process to the FMT model, it was found that the value of Ka parameter of 1 matches the deposit
wax content observed in the field.
Predictions by the FMT model using the default viscosity with Singh aging model (Ka=1) and no shear removal showed
a reasonable match to the field data including both deposit thickness and wax content of the deposit.
Matzain shear removal model significantly over-predicts the impact of shear on the rate of wax deposition; however,
Venkatesans shear removal model (with the published values of parameters a and b) shows an insignificant impact of
the shear on the deposition rate.
Table 4: Validation of Wax Deposition Models / Options in TUWAX
Deposition
Model

Viscosity

Aging

Shear
Removal

Comparison to field
data

EM

Measured

No

no

significantly lower

FMT

Measured

No

no

significantly lower

EM

Default

No

no

somewhat lower

FMT

Default

No

no

reasonable Match

FMT

Default

Singh

no

reasonable match

Learning from this Study

Based on the results obtained from this study, several learning items have been captured for a possible future study.
1. Diffusivity of Wax Molecules
The experimental measured viscosity of the crude is orders of magnitude higher as the temperature decreases below the wax
appearance temperature as a result of the formation of oil-wax crystals slurry. TUWAX assumes that this bulk viscosity
should be entered into the molecular diffusivity equation. However, since the wax molecules diffuse through the continuous
medium of de-waxed oil, the viscosity of the continuous medium should be considered for the diffusivity calculations
(Hayduk and Minhas, 1982). Thus, the dependence of diffusivity of wax molecules on crude viscosity below its wax
appearance temperature needs to be revised. For a crude oil with low pour point, the difference between the viscosity of bulk
fluid and viscosity of the continuous liquid medium of the slurry may not significantly impact the deposition rate. A
recommendation is made to consider diffusion inside wax slurry as diffusion through the continuous (de-waxed) liquid phase
with a slight hindrance from the precipitated crystals.
2. Shear Stripping/Removal Models
The prediction of wax deposition rate has been reasonable without considering any shear stripping removal. Matzains shear
removal model showed a much significant reduction in the deposit thickness. Additionally, the parametric studies show that
a and b parameters of Venkatesans shear removal model needs to be verified for the field scale production pipelines. It is
not appropriate to use the default values of a and b parameters developed based on the lab results (Venkatesan, 2003).
3. Field Validation of More Oil Fields
There is a need for more field data to generalize wax prediction characteristics. An effort is being made to analyze other field
systems with wax deposition challenges and compare the field data with the model predictions.
Nomenclature
a
exponent in shear removal correlation with default value of 0.8 e-12
b
exponent in shear removal correlation with default value of 1.9
C weqm
concentration of wax in the liquid phase at a temperature under thermodynamic equilibrium

dC w dr interface radial concentration gradient

C wEqm
D

interface

thermodynamic equilibrium concentration of wax in the liquid phase at deposit interface temperature
molecular diffusivity of wax in the oil

OTC 21641

f
k
L
r
Re
Ri
Rio
T
Ti
v
Ka

19

friction factor
thermal conductivity of the oil
length of the pipeline
radial location near the deposit interface
Reynolds number
effective radius of the pipeline with the deposition
clean pipeline radius
temperature of the fluid at a radial location r
temperature at the deposit interface
fluid velocity in the pipeline
fitting parameter in aging model

Greek symbol

deposit thickness
oil content of the deposit
viscosity of the crude oil
density of the oil
parameter defined in Eq. 3

References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

Alboudwarej, H., Hou, Z., and Kempton, E.: Flow-Assurance Aspects of Subsea Systems Design for Production of Waxy Crude
Oils, SPE 103242 (2006)
Apte, M.: Investigation of Paraffin Deposition during Multiphase Flow in Pipelines and Wellbores,, MS Thesis, University of
Tulsa, (1999)
Bagatin, R., Busto, C., Correra, S., Margarone, M., and Carniani, C.: "Wax Modeling: There is Need for Alternatives," SPE
115184 (2008)
Blasius, P. R. H.: Das Aehnlichkeitsgesetz bei Reibungsvorgangen in Flssigkeiten, Forschungsheft 131, (1913), 1-41
Brown, T. S., Niesen, V. G. and Erickson, D. D.: Measurement and Prediction of the Kinetics of Paraffin Deposition, Proc.
SPE Technical Conf. and Exhib., Houston, (1993) p. 353.
Bruno, A., Sarica, C., Chen, M., and Volk, M.: Paraffin Deposition during the Flow of Water-in-Oil and Oil-in-Water
Dispersions in Pipes, SPE ATCE held in Denver, Colorado, USA, SPE -114747-PP (2008)
Coutinho, J. A. P. and Ruffier-Meray, V.: Experimental Measurements and Thermodynamic Modeling of Paraffinic Wax
Formation in Undercooled Solutions, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 36, (1997) 49774983
Couto, G. H., Chen, H., Delle-Case, E., Sarica, C., and Volk, M.: An Investigation of Two-Phase Oil-Water Paraffin
Deposition, OTC-17963-PP (2006)
Espinoza, G. M. S.: Investigation of Single-phase Paraffin Deposition, MS Thesis, The University of Tulsa (2006)
Hayduk, W., and Minhas, B. S.: Correlations for Prediction of Molecular Diffusivities in Liquids, Can. J. Chem. Eng., 60
(1982), 295
Hernandez-Perez, O. C.: Investigation of Single Phase Paraffin Deposition Characteristics, MS Thesis, The University of Tulsa
(2002)
Hoffmann, R. and Amundsen, L.: Single-Phase Wax Deposition Experiments, Energy and Fuels, 24 (2010), 10691080
Hsu, J. J. C., Lian, S. J., Liu, M., Bi, H. X. and Guo, C. Z.: "Validation of Wax Deposition Model by a Field Test", SPE 48867
(1998)
Labes-Carrier, C., Rnningsen, H. P., and Kolnes, J.: Wax Deposition in North Sea Gas Condensate and Oil Systems:
Comparison Between Operational Experience and Model Prediction, SPE 77573 (2002)
Lee, H. S.: Computational and Rheological Study of Wax Deposition and Gelation in Subsea Pipelines, Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (2008)
Lira-Galeana, C., Firoozabadi, A., and Prausnitz, J. M.: Thermodynamics of Wax Precipitation in Petroleum Mixtures, AIChE
J., 42 (1996), 239248
Lund, H. J.: Investigation of Paraffin Deposition during Single-Phase Liquid Flow in Pipelines, MS Thesis, University of
Tulsa, (1998)
Matzain, A., Apte, M. S., Zhang, H. Q., Volk, M., Redus, C. L., Brill, J. P., and Creek, J. L.: Multiphase Flow Wax Deposition
Modeling, Proceedings of ETCE2001, Houston, Texas, February 5-7 (2001) 927
Matzain, A., Apte, M., Delle-Case, E., Brill, J.P., M. Volk, M. and Wilson, J. Creek, J. and Chen, X. T.: Design and Operation
of a High Pressure Paraffin Deposition Flow Loop, NACMT, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 10-11 June (1998)
Niesen, V.G., Brown, T. S., and Erickson, D. D.: Thermodynamic Measurement and Prediction of Paraffin Precipitation in
Crude Oil, SPE 26604 (1993)
Singh, P., Venkatesan, R., Fogler, H.S. and Nagarajan, N.: Formation and Aging of Incipient Thin Film Wax-oil Gels, AIChE
J., 46(5), (2000), 1059-1074
Svendsen, J. A.: Mathematical Modeling of Wax Deposition in Oil Pipeline Systems, AIChE Journal, 39, Issue 8 (1993) 13771388
Venkatesan, R.: The Deposition and Rheology of Organic Gels, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
(2003)