METHODOLOGY ANALYSIS AND INSTALLATION SEQUENCE FOR 8” FLEXIBLE FLOWLINE

• Main Author: Farhana, Hasya
• Format: Final Project
• Language: Indonesia
• Online Access: https://digilib.itb.ac.id/gdl/view/84975
• Institution: Institut Teknologi Bandung

The target for oil and gas production in Indonesia is driving the development and application of various new strategies and technologies in the oil and gas industry. The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources is promoting the re-use of idle wells and the development of new deepsea wells to meet annual oil and gas production targets. In the development of oil and gas wells in deep waters, one potential solution is the use of subsea facilities, which offer advantages in terms of their functions and cost efficiency. One key component of subsea facilities is the flowline pipe that connects the wells to manifolds or other subsea structures. Nowadays, flowline pipe not only use rigid pipes but also increasingly utilize flexible pipes, which offer greater flexibility and simpler installation processes. The installation of flexible pipes is generally faster compared to rigid pipes. In this final project, a methodology and installation sequence were established for an 8-inch flexible flowline installation at a depth of 1,253 meters, under a current velocity of 0.2359 m/s, with variations in current direction (90? and 180?), wave direction (90?±15? and 180?±15?), significant wave heights (0.5 – 2.5 m), and wave peak periods (5 – 15 seconds). A static and dynamic analysis was performed on the designed installation sequence to ensure that installation limits are met. All analysis processes refer to DNV RP H-103 and API 17J standards. The results of the dynamic analysis were used to determine the allowable environmental conditions (seastate) during the installation process. The static analysis showed that all configuration sequences meet the installation limitations. On the other hand, the dynamic analysis revealed some seastate limitations and critical conditions that could lead to failures, such as a wave direction of 75?, which experienced many failures. In contrast, wave directions of 90? and 180? were within the limits for most of the installation sequences.