Exchange Flow of Oil and Seawater in Leaking Subsea Pipelines http://www.ep-consult.com/exchange_flow_ruptured_oil_pipelines...

White Paper

Exchange Flow of Oil and Seawater in

Leaking Subsea Pipelines
by Peter Carr, EPConsult LLC, Houston

Risk analyses for subsea oil pipelines invariably include an evaluation of the Peter Carr
likelihood of oil spills of different sizes. The resulting relationship between oil spill
Acknowledgments
frequency and oil spill volume forms the basis for the assessment of environmental
and ecological risks, for regulatory approval, for oil spill contingency planning, and This White Paper is based
for the establishment of insurance premiums. This EPConsult White Paper focuses on on the article
one of the challenges involved in accurately calculating the oil spill volume for a Understanding Oil and
given leak scenario. Water, by Peter Carr,
EPConsult LLC, Houston,
published in World
Accurate Calculation of Oil Spill Volumes Pipelines, Vol. 9, No. 9,
Sept. 2009, pp 53-58.
There are several mechanisms that will drive oil out of a leaking subsea crude oil
pipeline. For pipelines that operate at a pressure above the hydrostatic pressure of For questions and
the sea (the most usual case and the only one that will be considered in this White comments on this White
Paper), the discharge is driven initially by the excess of the internal pressure over Paper, please email
the external pressure. On detecting the leak, the operator will shut down the enquiries@ep-consult.com.
pipeline by stopping pumps and closing isolation valves. Residual pressure will then
drive out a further quantity of oil (the pipeline contracts and the oil expands as the
residual pressure dissipates). The pipeline then arrives at a condition where the
internal pressure at the leak orifice equilibrates with the hydrostatic pressure of the
sea. At this stage, the pipeline is still oil-filled. It is often erroneously assumed that
the oil stops leaking out at this time. The reality is that leakage continues due to the
density difference between seawater and oil. The heavier seawater intrudes into the
pipeline via the lower part of the leak orifice, and the lighter oil is displaced from the
pipeline via the upper part of the leak orifice. Since the discharge of oil from an
isolated pipeline is from a closed volume, the outflow of oil is matched by an equal
inflow of water.

The intruding water flows

along the bottom of the
pipeline as a gravity
current, as shown
schematically in Figure 1,
until the moving water
front encounters either the
end of the pipeline or a
natural trap – a location
where there is sufficient
local increase in pipeline
Figure 1: Exchange flow in a ruptured oil pipeline
elevation to prevent the
water front traveling further. At the end of the pipeline, or at a trap, the water front
is reflected. The oil leakage then continues until the entire pipeline segment is full of
water, and all the oil has been displaced from the segment, apart from any small

1 of 6 11/12/18, 4:19 PM
Exchange Flow of Oil and Seawater in Leaking Subsea Pipelines http://www.ep-consult.com/exchange_flow_ruptured_oil_pipelines...

quantity that may be left behind clinging to the pipe walls.

Many risk assessments of oil pipelines fail to recognize that the oil/water exchange
flow process exists. This lack of recognition extends to current US government
guidance. The US Minerals Management Service (MMS) has published a guideline
(Ref. 1) on how to calculate the worst case discharge from an oil pipeline that takes
no account of gravity driven exchange flow. A computer program published by the
MMS (Ref. 2, 3) for evaluating oil discharge volumes also takes no account of the
phenomenon.

The first phase of oil spillage, when discharge is due to differential pressure,
involves high rates of discharge but usually only for a short duration (i.e. until the
pipeline is shut down and for a short time subsequently while the residual pressure
dissipates).

The second phase of spillage, when discharge is due to gravity-driven oil/seawater

exchange flow, involves lower rates of oil discharge but (typically) much longer
durations. The oil volume discharged may be much larger in the second phase than
in the first, so accurate analysis of the second phase (the oil/seawater exchange
phase) is important.

Little research appears to have been done on this second phase of spillage, i.e. on
the oil/seawater exchange process. The most relevant work dates from the 1970’s
and 1980’s (Ref. 4-7). There is an enormous volume of work on other density-driven
processes (opening of lock gates, mixing of saltwater and fresh water in estuaries,
gravity currents in the atmosphere, lakes, rivers, and oceans, etc.) but the results
cannot be directly applied to subsea pipeline leakage problems. An excellent general
description of gravity currents has been provided by Simpson (Ref. 8).

Modeling Exchange Flow

The maximum possible oil
spill due to exchange flow
can easily be calculated
based on hydrostatics and
pipeline geometry. Figure
2 shows a typical situation.
A rupture is postulated in a
sloping section of pipeline.
In the final stable
equilibrium configuration,
after all flow processes
Figure 2: Typical stable equilibrium configuration in a
have subsided, the
ruptured oil pipeline after all flow processes have subsided
seawater will reach to the
top of the leak orifice. This means that water will reach point A on the uphill section.
Figure 2 is of course drawn to an exaggerated vertical scale. The horizontal distance
between the leak orifice and point A may be large. Turning attention to the downhill
slope shown in the figure, the intruding water will not be stopped by minor upwards
undulations such as at point B. However, at a significant upwards undulation as
occurs between points C and D, the water inflow will be trapped. It can be seen by
inspection that the requirement for an effective intrusion trap is a local increase in
elevation of one pipe diameter or more.

Intrusion traps may arise naturally due to seabed undulations or they may be
created by design as shown in Figure 3. To create a trap for a pipeline on a
horizontal seabed, the pipeline should be lowered (dimension H in the figure) by one

2 of 6 11/12/18, 4:19 PM
Exchange Flow of Oil and Seawater in Leaking Subsea Pipelines http://www.ep-consult.com/exchange_flow_ruptured_oil_pipelines...

pipe diameter plus an

allowance for construction
tolerances. On a sloping
seabed, the same
geometry may be used but
H should be further
increased to compensate
for the slope.

Spill volumes based on

hydrostatics and pipeline
geometry take no account Figure 3: Design for a seawater intrusion trap
of the possibility of operator intervention. For a small leak, it may take years for the
maximum possible spill volume to be realized and it is unrealistic to assume that the
operator would take no action over such a long time scale. For large leaks and
steeply inclined pipelines, the time to total oil displacement may be measured in
hours or days and it may be a difficult challenge for the operator to mount an
effective response. Therefore, it is important not only to be able to calculate the
maximum possible spill volume, but also the speed of the exchange process, so that
intervention measures can be properly planned.

Methods for modeling the time-dependent characteristics of exchange flow in subsea

pipelines have been developed by Kranenburg and Vegt (Ref. 4, 5), and Fannelöp
(Ref. 6, 7). Experimental corroboration of the analytical methods has been limited.
Fannelöp’s approach is entirely theoretical while Kranenburg and Vegt verified their
methodology only for 2-inch pipelines. In 2-inch pipelines, oil and water flows are
mainly laminar, while in larger pipelines turbulence plays an important role.

EPConsult has tentatively extended Kranenburg and Vegt’s approach to account for
turbulent flow in larger diameter pipelines. There is a need for experimental work on
exchange flow in pipelines of larger diameter in order to confirm and refine the
analytical methods. The two available models (Kranenburg and Vegt, and Fannelöp)
both contain “early time” and “late time” solutions for the exchange process. The
early time solution assumes the fluids have zero viscosity. Both models adopt the
same early time solution apart from a small difference in a multiplying coefficient.
Both early time solutions also coincide with a formula originally developed by
Benjamin (Ref. 9). The early time solution gives an upper bound to the discharge
rate. The late time solutions consider viscous effects (friction and mixing) as the
seawater gravity flow intrudes deeper into the pipeline, displacing the oil.

A detailed description of the models is outside the scope of this paper. Briefly,
Fannelöp treats the outflow of oil as a standard pipe flow problem with a constant
pressure gradient and a specified Fanning friction factor. Kranenburg and Vegt, on
the other hand, provided a system of differential equations based on conservation of
mass and momentum. Kranenburg and Vegt presented a solution of these equations
by means of a transformation of variables, called a “similarity transform”. This
solution was limited to laminar flow conditions. Finding it difficult to extend
Kranenburg and Vegt’s similarity transform solution to include turbulence, EPConsult
developed a direct solution to the underlying system of equations based on the
method of finite differences. This required dividing both the pipeline length
coordinate and the time coordinate into small intervals and marching in both
directions in the finite difference scheme. Within this solution, it was possible to
make adjustments to account for flow in the laminar, critical, transitional, and
turbulent regimes.

3 of 6 11/12/18, 4:19 PM
Exchange Flow of Oil and Seawater in Leaking Subsea Pipelines http://www.ep-consult.com/exchange_flow_ruptured_oil_pipelines...

Examples
The following examples are based on the model by Kranenburg and Vegt, as
modified by EPConsult to account for non-laminar flow regimes.

Figure 4 shows the volume of oil predicted to be discharged versus time for a full
bore rupture of a pipeline of 1.0-m internal diameter on a horizontal seabed. Figure
5 presents similar information for a pipeline of 0.5-m internal diameter. In both
examples, the oil is assumed to be Arab medium with a density of 873 kg/m3 and a
viscosity of 13.8 x 10-6 m2/s. Comparing the graphs, it may be seen that the
volume of oil discharged at a given time is not proportional to the pipe cross-
sectional areas but disproportionately larger for the larger pipe. This is because an
intruding water front travels faster in larger diameter pipelines. For the 1.0-m
diameter pipe, the water front is predicted to travel 32-km in 10 days and, for the
0.5-m pipe, 15 km in 10 days. Ruptures of large diameter pipelines are very rare.
For a 50-mm leak in either of the example pipelines, the discharge rate due to
exchange flow is calculated as only 55 bbl/day.

Calculations such as these may be useful when developing oil spill contingency plans
and operator intervention measures.

Figure 4: Volume of oil released versus time for rupture of 1.0 m diameter
pipeline on horizontal seabed

4 of 6 11/12/18, 4:19 PM
Exchange Flow of Oil and Seawater in Leaking Subsea Pipelines http://www.ep-consult.com/exchange_flow_ruptured_oil_pipelines...

Figure 5: Volume of oil released versus time for rupture of 0.5 m diameter
pipeline on horizontal seabed

Conclusions
Exchange flow of oil and seawater must be taken into account when calculating
potential oil spill volumes from leaking subsea pipelines, if accurate results are to be
achieved.

The maximum possible leak volume due to exchange flow can be predicted easily
from hydrostatics and knowledge of the pipeline profile. However, knowledge of the
speed of the exchange flow process is also important because it allows an operator
to plan and design intervention measures to suppress the discharge before the
maximum possible leak volume has been realized.

Analytical methods have been developed for predicting the speed of the exchange
flow process, however, there is a need for further experimental research to validate
these methods.

The potential spill volume due to exchange flow can be reduced by creating intrusion
traps (low points) at intervals along a pipeline route. On an undulating seabed, traps
may occur naturally.

Well-planned operator interventions following a leak can also reduce the spill volume
by interrupting the exchange flow process. Operators should consider including
intrusion traps in the pipeline design and intervention measures in the spill response
plan.

References
1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. Pipeline oil
spill volume estimator. Available at: http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects
/390/PocketGuidejune_19.pdf accessed on November 27, 2008.
2. Computer program. MMS Worst Case Discharge v. 1.0 (beta). SINTEF Applied
Chemistry/Well Flow, 2002. Available from U.S. Department of the Interior,
Minerals Management Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals
Management Service.
3. Pipeline oil spill volume estimation model (POSVEM). Available at:
http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/390.htm, accessed on November 27, 2008.

5 of 6 11/12/18, 4:19 PM
Exchange Flow of Oil and Seawater in Leaking Subsea Pipelines http://www.ep-consult.com/exchange_flow_ruptured_oil_pipelines...

4. Kranenburg, C. Exchange flow of oil and seawater in a ruptured submarine

pipeline. Applied Ocean Research, 1984, Vol. 6, No. 1.
5. Kranenburg C and Vegt E. Leakage from ruptured submarine oil pipeline.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 5, ASCE, Sept. 1985.
6. Fannelöp TK. Flow processes and leak rates associated with broken
underwater oil pipelines. Norwegian Maritime Research, 1977; 5:6-13.
7. Fannelöp TK. Fluid mechanics for industrial safety and environmental
protection. Vol. 3. Elsevier, 1993.
8. Simpson, JE. Gravity currents in the environment and the laboratory.
Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed., 1997.
9. Benjamin TB. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1968; 31, part 2:209-248.

enquiries@ep-consult.com

6 of 6 11/12/18, 4:19 PM