Comparison of Leak-Detection Technologies for Continuous Monitoring of Subsea-Production Templates
- Torbjørn Vrålstad (SINTEF) | Alf G. Melbye (SINTEF) | Inge M. Carlsen (SINTEF) | David Llewelyn (Norwegian Oil Industry Association)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction
- Publication Date
- June 2011
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 96 - 103
- 2011. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 4.5 Offshore Facilities and Subsea Systems, 4.5.10 Remotely Operated Vehicles, 4.2 Pipelines, Flowlines and Risers
- Subsea Leak Detection
- 2 in the last 30 days
- 477 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 10.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 30.00|
Subsea leakages from underwater production facilities may have significant environmental and economical consequences. There is a wide range of different technologies available for detection of subsea leakages, depending on the type of application and approach to leak detection. The two most common approaches to direct subsea-leak detection are inspection/surveying, where sensors are attached to mobile units such as remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), and continuous monitoring, where the sensors are permanently installed at the seabed. For the latter case, there are several different types of leak-detection technologies, depending on whether templates or pipelines are to be monitored. While most subsea facilities are monitored by flow-measurement devices that can typically detect leaks that are greater than a few percent of overall flow, this paper addresses direct methods of leak detection suitable for smaller leaks.
The Norwegian Oil Industry Association (OLF) has initiated a series of projects on subsea-leak detection to obtain an overview of the different types of leak-detection systems available and to determine the practical applicability and functionality of these systems. An important issue in this regard is to test the leak-detection systems experimentally with both gas and oil leakages under realistic conditions. This paper presents results from comparative, experimental tests of five different leak-detection systems that are suitable for continuous monitoring of subsea templates with the goal of elucidating the strengths and limitations of the different detection principles.
|File Size||617 KB||Number of Pages||8|
Abrahamsen, J., Haugen, S., Bertmand, T.B., and Lie, G.H. 2007. Ormen LangeSubsea Condition and Leakage Monitoring. Paper SPE 108970 presented at OffshoreEurope, Aberdeen, 4-7 September. doi: 10.2118/108970-MS.
Carlsen, I.M. and Mjaaland, S. 2007. Subsea Leak Detection--Screening ofSystems. Technical Report 29.6215.00/01/05, SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway.
DNV-RP-F302, Selection and Use of Subsea Leak Detection Systems.2010. Høvik, Norway: Det Norsk Veritas (DNV).
Geiger, G. 2006. State-of-the-Art in leak Detection and Localization. OILGAS European Magazine 32 (4): 193-198.
OG21. 2006. Technology Strategy for the Arctic: Extract from the OG21Strategy. Strategy Report, Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, Oslo,Norway (September 2006).
Turner, N.C. 1991. Hardware and Software Techniques for Pipeline Integrityand Leak Detection Monitoring. Paper SPE 23044 presented at Offshore Europe,Aberdeen, 3-6 September. doi:10.2118/23044-MS.