Doc. No: BDE-QF- 09 Rev. 3.6 Page i of6 2 Issue Date: August 23, 20 11 BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING Hydraulic Design Proposal - Mainline Company Confidential Pipeline Hydraulic Design Proposal Northern Gateway Pipeline - 36" Crude Oil / 20" Condensate Project Code : <459.01> Charge Code: 4032800002 Prepared by : Maury Porter, P. Eng I Yuntong She I Gary Carmichael Revisio n: 3.6 Issue Date: August 23 , 201 1 Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Note: This is a prelimimuy DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23,2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups. (A39833)
62
Embed
Pipeline Hydraulic Design Proposal - · PDF filePipeline Hydraulic Design Proposal ... Project Code: Charge Code: 4032800002 ... Hydraulic Design Proposal which identifies the
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Doc. No: BDE-QF- 09 Rev. 3.6 Page i of62 Issue Date: August 23 , 20 11
Project Code: <459.01> Charge Code: 4032800002 Prepared by: Maury Porter, P. Eng I Yuntong She I Gary Carmichael Revision: 3.6 Issue Date: August 23, 201 1
Enbridge Pipelines Inc.
Note: This is a prelimimuy DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23,2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
(A39833)
Doc. No: BDE-QF- 09 Rev. 3.6 Page 2 of 62 Issue Date: August 23 , 2011
Table of Contents
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
Hydraulic Design Proposal -Mainline
Company Confidential
DGE
1 Executive Summary ................................................................................... .........................•................ 3 2 Project Background & Scope of Work ................................................................................................ 4
Pump Design Limit Basis ..................... .................................................................... .................... 59 Maximum Temperature Design Limit Basis ................................................................................. 61
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for infomlation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by intemal stakeholder groups.
(A39833)
Doc. No: BDE-QF- 09 Rev. 3.6
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
Hydraulic Design Proposal -Mainline
Page 3 of62 Issue Date: August 23,2011
Company Confidential
1 Executive Summary Business 0 evelopment (BO) has requested th at Business Oevelopme nt Engineering (BOE) Hydraulic Oesig n Group prepare a Hy draulic Design Proposal for the En bridge Gateway Pi pelines Proj ect (the Project). The Project will consist of a crude oil pip eline system to transport oil f rom the Bruderheim Terminal, locat ed near Bru derheim, Alberta to the Kitimat Terminal located near Kitimat, British Colombia. The Project also includes a condensa te pipeline system to unload cond ensate (Oilu ent) from ship at the K itimat Terminal and transport it to the Bruderheim Terminal for distribution to markets in Alberta.
The proposed system consists of:
Crude Oil Pipeline
• From Bruderheim Terminal to Kitimat Terminal - 731.274 miles (1 176.869 km) of NPS 36, X70 grade pipe with an average wall thickness of 0.665"
• Total Pump Facilities Required at Phase I (525 kbpd ann ual) - 7 stat ions, 28 x 5,750 hp pump and motor units, 7 x 6,000 hp VFOs
• Total Pump Facil ities Required at Phase IV (850 kbpd annual) -1 2 stations, 80 x 5,750 hp pump and motor units , 12 x 6,000 hp VFDs
• 38°C maximum inlet temperature
Condensate Pipeline
• From Kitimat Terminal to Bruderheim Terminal -731 .274 miles (1176.869 km) o f NPS 20, X70 grade pipe with an average wall thickness of 0.273"
• Total Pump Facilities Required at Phase I (193 kbpd ann ual) - 9 stat ions, 18 x 5,750 hp pump and motor units, 9 x 6,000 hp VFOs
• Total Pump Facilities Required at Phase III (275 kbpd annual) - 15 stations, 31 x 5,750 hp pump and motor units, 15 x 6,000 hp VFOs
This report also contain s preliminary design information for future exp ansion phases. Northern Gateway notes that the se expansion facilities are not part of the applied for Project; the information provided has been primarily developed from a hydraulics perspective and to assist in syste m design and pipe wall thickne ss selection. Further work would be done during detailed engineering to finalize th e hydraulic design and the locations of any potential future pump stations. Any futu re expansion scenario and associated facilities beyond the applied for Project would be the subject of a future design review and optimization.
The following report pro vides the a ssumptions and inputs, as well as t he details of the hydraulic studies for the proposed design.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 20 II) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous rev iew by internal stakeholder groups.
(A39833)
Doc. No: BDE-QF- 09 Rev. 3.6
Page 4 of62 Issue Date: August 23,2011
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
Hydraulic Design Proposal -Mainline
Company Confidential
2 Project Background & Scope of Work
2.1 Background
'&INB I
Business Development Engineering (BDE) Hydraulic Design Group prepared an
GE
unclassified Hydraulic Design Proposal for th e construction of a Greenfield pip eline system to transport liq uid hydrocarbons between central Alberta and western British Colombia in Canada. The proposed system consists of:
• A Crude Oil Pipeline which will ca rry crude oil from Bruderheim Terminal to Kitimat Terminal.
• A Condensate Pipelin e which will carry condensate (Diluent) from Kitimat Terminal to Bruderheim Terminal.
The followin g pipeline capacities were identif ied for use in the design of the Crud e Oil Line:
Capacity Summary (bpd)
Phase Annual Operating Design (90% of Design) (95 % of Design)
I 525,000 554,167 583,333 II 600,000633,333 666,667 III 750,000 791,667 833,333 IV 850,000897,222 944,444
The following pipeline capacities were identified for use in the design of the Condensate Line:
Capacity Summary (bpd)
Phase Annual Operating Design (90% of Design) (95 % of Design)
I 193,000203,722 214,444 II 250,000 263,889 277,778 III 275,000 290,278 305,556
Note: the Annual Capacity is the capacity required by the business and is provided by the Business Development sponsor. Flow rates for all ph ases are co nsidered in wall thickness design, but only the hydraulic resu Its of Phase I (initia I) and Ultimate are presented in this report.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for infollllatioll only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
(A39833)
Doc. No: BDE-QF- 09 Rev. 3.6
Page 5 of62 Issue Date: August 23,201 1
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
Hydraulic Design Proposal -Mainline
Company Confidential
A significant amount of hydraulics related work has been d one on this project and this effort should be recognized. Some but not all areas carried out were:
oJ-curve analysis
• Steady State Hydraulics - heavy and light wall thickness designs, station locating considering electrical infrastructure issues
• Preliminary pump selection
• Transient Analysis by Tau Engineering - NPS 30 - 10 st ation parallel an d series configurations for crude oil and series for condensate line
An attempt to compile this information and updated information in d carried out as this project was re-initiated.
2.1.1 Revision History
etail has been
August 23, 2011 - Unclassified Hydraul ic Design Proposal v3.6 - Issued for Information
- updated and revised for final NEB IR Submission
August 23, 2011 - Unclassified Hydraulic Design Proposal v3.5 - Issued for Information
- updated and revised for final NEB IR Submission
August 18, 2011 - Unclassified Hydraul ic Design Proposal v3.4 - Issued for Information
- updated and revised for final NEB IR Submission
August 16,2011 - Unclassified Hydraulic Design Proposal v3.3 -Issued for Information
- updated and revised for final NEB IR Submission
August 16, 2011 - Unclassified Hydraul ic Design Proposal v3.2 - Issued for Information
- updated and revised for final NEB IR Submission
August 10,2011 - Unclassified Hydraulic Design Proposal v3.1 -Issued for Information
- updated and revised for final NEB IR Submission
August 5, 2011 - Unclassified Hydraulic Design Proposal v3.0 - Issued for Information
- updated with route revision T and updated manufacturer's pump curves
Note: This is a preliminaIY DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23,2011) and has been issued for infom1ation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by intemal stakeholder groups.
October 20, 2009 - Un classified Hydraulic Design Proposal v2.0 - is sued for internal stakeholder review
- updated with route revision R
July 22, 2009 - Unclassified Hydraulic Design Proposal v1.1
- updated with operating limits
- updated with thermal study results
April 29, 2009 - Unclassified Hydraulic Design Proposal v1.0
- to be cir culated in t he project team for the purpose assumptions
2.2 Scope of Work
of confirmin g scope a nd
2.2.1 Business Development Engineering - Hydraulics Design
The following scope of work has been identified:
2.2.1.1 Task 1: Pipeline, Pump Station and DRA Facilities
BDE Hydraulics will identify the pump and pipeline facilities required to meet the desired throughputs. Pipeline wall thickne ss, pump station facilit ies, and exp ansion plan s to meet the required annual capacities have been identified in this proposal.
2.2.1.2 Task 2: Tank and Terminal Facilities
• A review will be conducted upon receipt of the tank and ter minal facility design from consultants
• BDE Hydraulics will provide power requirement for booster pumps. It is assumed that others will select and size the booster pumps.
2.2.2 Facilities Management
Initial power costs estimation has been performed by Enbridge's Fa cilities Management Group (FACMAN) base d on the tot al horsepower of the hydraulic design. Operational feasibility assessments are to be performed by Facilities Management upon completion of the final hydraulic design.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3 .6 dated August 23, 20ll) and has been issued for infonnation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
(A39833)
Doc. No: BDE-QF- 09 Rev. 3.6
Page 7 of62 Issue Date: August 23, 2011
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
Hydraulic Design Proposal -Mainline
Company Confidential
2.2.3 Deliverables
The Business Development Engin eering Hydraulic Desig n group has developed this Hydraulic Design Proposal which identifies the new facilities required to meet the scope as defined above. A design review meeting wi th the relevant internal stakeholders will also be conducted.
2.2.4 Assumptions
2.2.4.1 Model Files
There are no base files for th is project as it is a Greenfield project. The following names represent the current hydraulic model files in use:
Crude Oil Line Model File:
Phase I: E28-N00310-REVT-v1A-PH1-Ann
Phase IV: E28-N0031 O-REVT -v2A-U L T -Ann
Condensate Line Base File:
Phase I: E29-N00310-REVT-v1A-PH1-Ann
Phase III: E29-N00310-REVT-v2A-ULT-Ann
2.2.4.2 Pressure Boundary Conditions
Condition Pressure
psig Injection Pressure @Bruderheim 75
Injection Pressure @Kitimat 75 Station Suction (Minimum) 50
Terminal Holding (Minimum) 100
2.2.4.3 Allowable Design Limits Flow Rate (bpd)
Minimum Flow I TBD I Maximum Flow Temperature (0C)
I
Minimum Temp I TBD I Maximum Inlet Temp I Velocity (ttls)
Minimum Velocity I TBD I Maximum Velocity I
944 kbpd
38°C
20 ftIs (stn)
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23,2011) and has been issued for information oniy. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
11-Note: Soil properties are based on the AMEC 2005 report on thermal conditions for the Northern Gateway route. Therefore, some uncertainties can be expected and a sen sitivity analysis has been conducted around these soil properties. According to the comments of an industry recognized ex pert in the field of pipe line heat tra nsfer modeling, it is recommended that additional soil sample to be taken during the detailed engineering phase of the project.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by intemal stakeholder groups.
HVB.Q3B 35.3 17.5 350.0 -Light Oi l 21E 829.2 4.0 9.7 -Diluent 7 )E 731.0 7.5 1.24 34.2
NBRIDGE
T2 Viscosity @ T2 TVP@ RVP
T2 °C cSt kPa kPa
21.2 177.1 36.1 64.3
26.8 177.1 - -18.3 6.2 - 31.7
21.0 1.07 56.9 80.6
Note: Single product was assumed in this proposed desig n. There are possibilities of shipping multiple products in the Northern Gateway Delivery System. The OX1 is used in the model t 0 determine the system design requirements of the oil pipeline. HVB.Q3B is the diluted bitumen blended to a summer reference temperature. This fluid specification will be used in model runs to determin e the worst case (summer) te mperature profile only. The 21 E is light crude and will be used to generate the worst case scenario in the operating limits study.
2.2.4.6 Fluid Injection Temperatures Injection Temperature
Condensate line Kitimat 214 40 4.4 45 7.27D 21.1 50 9.8 487.3 I
Condensate line Kitimat 306 40 4.4 45 7.27D 21.1 50 9.8 487.3 I
Note: As suggested by Facilities Management. For the maximum in-line temperature studies, a summer injection temperature of 38.0°C (1 OOA OF) was used as decided by the project team.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3 .6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
(A39833)
Doc. No: BDE-QF- 09 Rev. 3.6
Page 11 of62 Issue Date: August 23,2011
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
Hydraulic Design ProposalMainline
Company Confidential
2.2.5 Scope Not Included
The following scope has not been considered a s part of the baseline estimates for cost and schedule in this proposal:
o Tankage requirement at injection and delivery locations
o Terminal facilities
Note: This is a preliminruy DRAFT (v3 .6 dated August 23,2011) and has been issued for infoTl1lation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
(A39833)
Doc. No: BDE-QF- 09 Rev. 3.6
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
Hydraulic Design Proposal -Mainline
Page 12 of62 Issue Date: August 23, 2011
IDGE Company Confidential
3 Hydraulic Design The followin g sectio ns describe th e detailed pipeline and related facilities require d to achieve the desired th roughput for the pipelines describ ed above in Section 2.1 : Background.
For design purposes, the following capacity definitions are required:
• Design Capacity - Maximum theoretical capacity of the pipeline assuming ideal operating conditions, which mayor may not be achievable in actual operation.
• Operating Capacity - Sustainable average capacity re suIting from ta king into account un -planned e vents such as un- scheduled maintenance, operating problems, leaks, varia tions from forecast, an d schedulin g proble ms (95% 0 f Design Capacity).
• Annual Average Capacity - Sustainable average capacity on an annu al basis taking into account planned eve nts such a s schedu led maintenance and construction (90% of Design Capacity).
The following design philosophy represents Enbridge's typical appr oach for pipeline design. Thermal effects can playa large role in determining the achievable capacity of a pipeline, especially in heavy crud e lines where frictional heating ca n contribute to a significant increase of in-line crude temperat ures. With a n increase in temperatu res there is a decrease in fluid visco sity resultin g in lower pressure dr ops and highe r predicted capacities. Therefore, these effect s must be taken into account when completing a hydraulic design.
Enbridge's design philo sophy invol ves two steps. The first step involves solving an energy balance where the frictional heating generated by the annual average capa city, and the flu id heat tran sferred to th e soil durin g annual average conditions, deter mines the resulting in-line fluid temperature profile.
Secondly, the temperature profile created at the annual average capacity is force don the pressure drop calculations at t he design rates, resulting in a conservative pressure drop calculation at the design capacity due to the realistic th ermal profile created at t he annual average capacit y. Impleme nting this philosophy reduces the possibility of over estimating the design capacity of the pipeline.
For the detailed ste ady state hydraulic design r temperatures, and power) please refer to Appendix E.
esults ( capacity, pressures,
Note: This is a preliminruy DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 20 II) and has been issued for infonnation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
BDE Hydraulics conducted the J-Curve and diameter selection study for the oil line . The diameter 36" was selected for this pipeline design based 0 n the econo mic results as shown in the following figure.
BDE Hydraulics conducted the J-Curve and diam eter selection study for the conden sate line. The d iameter 20" was select ed for th is pipeline design based 0 n the econo mic results as shown in the following figure.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23,201 1) and has been issued for infonnation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Pipe From To Length Proposed Wall MOP Segment KP KP km in psig kPag
1 0.000 24.551 24.551 0.781 2,430 16,753
2 24.551 231.522 206.971 0.719 2,237 15,423
3 231.522 286.769 55.247 0.656 2,041 14,071
4 286.769 295.500 8.731 0.719 2,237 15,423
5 295.500 324.500 29.000 0.656 2,041 14,071
6 324.500 331.200 6.700 0.625 1,944 13,406
7 331.200 347.150 15.950 0.656 2,041 14,071
8 347.150 361.850 14.700 0.625 1,944 13,406
9 361.850 364.249 2.400 0.656 2,041 14,071
10 364.249 373.849 9.600 0.625 1,944 13,406
11 373.849 387.749 13.900 0.656 2,041 14,071
12 387.749 418.999 31.250 0.719 2,237 15,423
13 418.999 427.001 8.002 0.781 2,430 16,753
14 427.001 493.499 66.498 0.719 2,237 15,423
15 493.499 496.149 2.651 0.781 2,430 16,753
16 496.149 502.149 6.000 0.719 2,237 15,423
17 502.149 522.599 20.450 0.656 2,041 14,071
18 522.599 564.498 41.899 0.563 1,752 12,077
19 564.498 570.099 5.601 0.594 1,848 12,742
20 570.099 586.348 16.250 0.625 1,944 13,406
21 586.348 594.348 8.000 0.656 2,041 14,071
22 594.348 602.498 8.150 0.719 2,237 15,423
23 602.498 605.149 2.651 0.656 2,041 14,071
24 605.149 612.899 7.751 0.594 1,848 12,742
25 612.899 619.948 7.049 0.563 1,752 12,077
26 619.948 635.998 16.050 0.469 1,459 10,OGO -
27 635.998 642.249 6.251 0.594 1,848 12,742
28 642.249 647.399 5.150 0.656 2,041 14,071
29 647.399 . 681.499 34.100 0.719 2,237 15,423
30 681.499 687.549 6.050 0.625 1,944 13,406
31 687.549 712.349 24.800 0.656 2,041 14,071
32 712.349 725.098 12.749 0.719 2,237 15,423
33 725.098 739.299 14.201 0.656 2,041 14,071
34 739.299 779.199 39.900 0.719 2,237 15,423
35 779.199 809.548 30.349 0.656 2,041 14,071
36 809.548 836.798 27.249 0.719 2,237 15,423
37 836.798 842.899 6.101 0.625 1,944 13,406
Steel Tonnage
Tons (Imperial)
11,831
91,983
22,442
3,880
11,780
2,595
6,479
5,694
975
3,718
5,646
13,888
3,856
29,553
1,277
2,666
8,307
14,645
2,064
6,294
3,250
3,622
1,077
2,856
2,464
4,686
2,303
2,092
15,155
2,343
10,074
5,666
5,768
17,733
12,328
12,110
2,363
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for infonnation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Note: SM YS MAOP i s the Maximum Allowable 0 perating Pres sure based on t he prel iminary desi gned wall thickness and the Barlow Equation. No considerations for actual planned hydro-test pressW"es, which may be lower, are included.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23,2011) and has been issued for infol1nation only. It has not undergone a rigorous rev iew by internal stakeholder groups.
Pipe From To length Proposed Wall Segment KP KP km in psig
1 0.000 47.500 47.500 0.297 1,663
2 47.500 92.149 44.649 0.312 1,747
3 92.149 347.719 255.570 0.250 1,400
4 347.719 503.725 156.006 0.297 1,663
5 503.725 667.949 164.224 0.250 1,400
6 667.949 885.677 217.728 0.297 1,663
7 885.677 969.212 83.535 0.250 1,400
8 969.212 1066.590 97.378 0.297 1,663
9 1066.590 1126.541 59.951 0.250 1,400
10 1126.541 1176.871 50.331 0.250 1,400
01 ENS IDGE
MOP Steel Tonnage
kPag Tons (Imperial)
11,467 4,870
12,047 4,805
9,653 22,108
11,467 15,994
9,653 14,206
11,467 22,322
9,653 7,226
11,467 9,983
9,653 5,186
9,653 4,354
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for infornlation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
BDE Hydra ulics h as pr oposed a pump selection and pu mp plan for each of th e flow stages with the appropriate number of pumps, pump/motor sizes, and minimum required VFD sizes. The pump plans for th e future flo w phases h ave not und ergone extensive reviews with Engineering Services or the pum p manufacturer. Therefore, BDE Hydraulics recommends a detailed review of the proposed future pump plans at the appropriate time during detailed engineering.
3.2.1 Station Locations
3.2.1.1 Crude Oil Pump Stations
The Gateway Delivery System crude oil pipeline will start at Phase I with seven (7) pump stations, and will expand to encompass twelve (12) pump stations in total at Phase IV.
The proposed station locations for the oil pipeline are summarized in the table below:
Station (HAINAGE (m) (HAINAGE (km) ELEVATION (m) UTME UTMN ZONE
Kitimat Te rmi nal 1,176,870.7 1176.9 158.0 518,460 5,977,762 9
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for infonnation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
(A39833)
Doc. No: BDE-QF- 09 Rev. 3.6
Page 18 of62 Issue Date: August 23,2011
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
Hydraulic Design Proposal -Mainline
Company Confidential
3.2.1.2 Condensate Pump Stations
GE
The Gateway Delivery System con densate pip eline will start at Phase I with nin e (9) pump stations, and will expand to encompass fifteen (15) stations in total at Phase III.
The proposed station locations for the condensate pipeline are summarized in the table below:
Station CHAINAGE (m) CHAINAGE (km) ELEVATION (m) UTME UTMN ZONE
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 20 II) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
(A39833)
Doc. No: BDE-QF- 09 Rev. 3.6
Page 19 of 62 Issue Date: August 23, 2011
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
Hydraulic Design Proposal -Mainline
Company Confidential
3.2.2 Pump Plan
3.2.2.1 Crude Oil Pipeline
Phase I - Appl ication 525,000 bpd
Station Brake Horsepower
@ Design Rate
bh_ r--" I - - I
Pump Typ~ Pump Minimum Speed VFD
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23,2011) and has been issued for infomlation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by intemal stakeholder groups.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23,2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3 .6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
(A39833)
Doc. No: BDE-QF- 09 Rev. 3.6
Page 22 of62 Issue Date: August 23,2011
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
Hydraulic Design ProposalMainline
Company Confidential
Phase III - Ultimate 275,000 bpd
Station
--• -• -• -• -• -• -• -• -• • • -- I - • -
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23,2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
The followin g table pro vides a su mmary of the pressure and power requirements of the oil pipeline at the init ial design capacity of 583 kbpd and the ultimate design capacity of 944 kbpd.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23,2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by intemal stakeholder groups.
(A39833)
Doc. No: BDE-QF- 09 Rev. 3.6
Page 24 of62 Issue Date: August 23, 2011
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
Hydraulic Design Proposal Mainline
Company Confidential
Conf igurat ion Name:E28-N00310-REVT-v1A-PH 1-Ann C:lse N:lme:525_TA_EA_FC
PR E SSUR E {P S I)
Rate OfoTime %Time Hold Suet Case Diso Station PUnlP rm'\ 3/dav) SIn PumD} Pres Pres Pres P res
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for info rmation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Note: This is a preliminruy DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23,2011) ruld has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
(A39833)
Doc. No: BDE-QF- 09 Rev. 3.6
Page 26 of 62 Issue Date: August 23, 2011
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
Hydraulic Design Proposal Mainline
Company Confidential
Configuration Name:E28-N00310-REVT-v2A-UL T-Ann Case Name:850_TA_EA_FD
P R E S SUR E (P S I) Rate %Time %Time Hold Suet Case Disc
Station Pump I (m '3Iday) (Stn) (Pump) Pres Pres Pres Pres
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3 .6 dated August 23, 201 1) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3 .6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
(A39833)
Doc. No: BDE-QF- 09 BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING Rev. 3.6
The followin g table provides a summary of the pressure a nd power requirements of the cond ensate pipeline at the initial design capacity of 214 kbpd and the ultimate design capacity of 306 kbpd.
Configuration Name:E29-N0031 O-REVT -v1 A-PH 1-Ann PH 204: Hydraulic Horsepower Report Case Name:193_TA_EA]D Page 24 of 34
PRE S SUR E (P S I) P OWER(H P}
m"'3/~:~; '!.I~~n} (~J~) Hold Suet Case Disc RMD Avg Avg Peak Puk Avg yJ Station Pump Pres Prl!S PreS Pres Pres BHP HHP BHP HHP Eft RPM
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3 .6 dated Angust 23, 2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Since both the oil and the diluent pipelines are large diameter pipelin es with relatively large motor sizes, BDE Hydra ulics recommends the use of a Variable Frequency Drive (VFO) to enhance operability and reduce pressure throttling.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3 .6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
For crude oil pipeline pump stations, all the st ation piping will be designed to PN 150 (ANSI 900) class resulting in a case pressure limit of 2160 psig for all pump stations. To maintain maximum operational flexibility, it is recommended that all the station piping be hydro-tested to the full ANSI 900 (2160 psig) rating
3.2.5.2 Condensate Pipeline
For condensate pipelin e pump stat ions, Clearwater, Fort St. James, Be ar Lake, Smoky River, and Whitecourt will be designed to PN 150 (ANSI 900) cia ss resulting in a case pressure limit of 2160 psig for these 5 stations. All the other stations will be designed to PN 100 (ANSI 600) class resulting in a case pressure limit of 1440 psig.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for infonnation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
The current Enbridge standby philosophy is to ensure that when the largest unit at a pump station is out of service, the pipeline can still achieve operating capacity (95 % of design capacity). A sta ndby analysis was com pleted to en sure the pro posed desig n for the NGP meets the above criteria. The results are summarized in this section.
3.2.6.1 Crude Oil Pipeline
Note: This is a preliminalY DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for infollllation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Note: This is a preliminruy DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for infonnation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
3.3.1 Petroleum Quality and Batching The oil and condensate pipelines were hydraulically designed based on a single product for each pipeline. During detailed engineerin g, the final hydraulic design for t he oil pipeline will incorporate the additional lighter oil products anticipated to be transported in batches, a nd this will re suit in revis ions to the design pressures and wa II th icknesses at some specific locations along the pipel ine.
3.3.2 Minimum Reynolds Number
The table below summarizes the range of the Reynolds number in any crude oil pipeline and condensate pipeline at in itial and ultimate flow rates. It can be seen that the flow regime is fully turbulent in both system at the target flow rates.
Pipeline Phase Design Flow Rate (bpd) Reynold's Number
I 583,333 4,531 - 5,395 Oil
IV 944,444 9,763 - 25,082
I 214,111 803,725 - 824,213 Condensate
III 305, 556 1,179,335 - 1,240,192
3.3.3 Maximum Mainline Fluid Velocities
The maxi mum fluid velocity in the crude oil pipel ine is 9.5 ftlsec ba sed on the ultimate phase targe t design ca pacity of 944,444 bpd. The ma ximum fluid velocity in the condensate pipeline is 9 .7 ftlsec based on the ultimate phase target design capacity of 305,556 bpd. These values are within the typical flu id velocities found acceptable on the Enbridge System.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for infonnation only. It has not undergone a rigorous rev iew by internal stakeholder groups.
(A39833)
Doc. No: BDE-QF- 09 Rev. 3.6
Page 36 of62 Issue Date: August 23, 2011
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
Hydraulic Design Proposal -Mainline
Company Confidential
3.3.4 Operating Limits
-etNBRIDGE
Operating limits were critical due to the significant elevation changes along the route.
3.3.4.1 Crude Oil Pipeline
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23,2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23,2011) and has been issued for infomlation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by intemal stakeholder groups.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
The followin g profiles contain a summary of the average station in let and outlet in-line temperature under annual average conditions. These are the thermal conditions used in the hydraulic design capacity and pressure loss calculations.
Note: This is a preliminruy DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23,2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3 .6 dated August 23,2011) and has been issued for infonnation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3 .6 dated August 23,2011) and has been issued for infon11ation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Conflg: E28-SE2109-REVRLF-38Clnj case: max_temp_Q3 Thermal Profi Ie
Profile of temperalLre vs Milepost
iii ~ !! 0
r.uepost(mles)
Note: This is a preliminruy DRAFT (v3 .6 dated August 23,2011) and has been issued for infonnation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
(A39833)
Doc. No: BDE-QF- 09 Rev. 3.6 Page 43 of 62 Issue Date: August 23 , 20 11
The temperature profi le shown above indicates that the maximu m in-line temperatures between Bruderheim and Kitimat range from between 19.3°C (66.8°F) and 39.SoC (103.1°F) at the Pha se I flow rate; 38.1 °C (100.S0F) and 40.9°C (1 os. rF) at the ultimate flow rate. These in-line temperatures are well within the desig n limitation of the pipeline SO.O°C (122.0°F).
3.4.2.2 Sensitivity Study
There is so me uncertainty in some of the thermal assumptions u sed in determinin g the baseline thermal profile shown above, specifica lIy soil prop erties (ther mal conduct ivity and temperature). Th erefore a sensitivity analysis was conducted around th ese parameters to determine the range of potential maximum in-line temperatures that could be seen.
Sensitivity Assumptions:
• Summer soil thermal conductivity -lower by 30% from the values in AMEC report (200S) based on previous project experience.
• Summer soil temperatures - 10°C (SO°F) based on preliminary reCD mmendations provided by Derick Nixon (2008).
The in-line temperature profiles of the above two sensitivity runs are presented in the graph below, together with the baseline profile for the purpose of comparison.
Note: This is a preliminaIY DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 20 II) aIld has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
The results show that th e maximu m temperatures are arou nd 40.0°C (1 04.0°F) in most cases. However, it can get close to 50.0°C (122.0°F) when the soil co nductivity is 30 % lower than the AMEC re port values, It is recom mended that an addition al soil sampling program be conducted at the commencement of detailed engineering.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
4 Transient Analysis A preliminary transient analysis ha s been conducted for both the crude oil pipelin e and the condensate pipeline systems
4.1 Crude Oil Pipeline System Thirty-eight (38) scenarios in tota I were ex ami ned for the oil pipeline system at the ultimate flo w rate. The transient scenarios examined include sudde n and unplanned pressure co ntrol valve (peV) closure (95% at intermediate stations, 1 00% at delivery locations), station suction valve closing, and station lockout.
The transie nt study resulted maxi mum pressure profiles of all scenario s, as well as the steady-state pressure profile are sho wn in the figure below. I t can be seen that the wall thickness design is adequate as the maxi mum pressure profile of all scenarios is under the 110% MOP limit.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23,2011) and has been issued for infomlation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for information only_ It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
4.2 Condensate Pipeline System Thirty (30) scenarios in total were examined for the condensate pipel in e system at the ultimate flo w rate. The transient scenarios examined include sudde n and unplanned pressure co ntrol valve (peV) closure (95% at intermediate stations, 1 00% at del ivery locations) and station lockout.
The transient study resulted maxi mum pressure profi les of all scenario s, as well as the steady-state pressure profile are shown in the figure below. I t can be seen that the wall thickness design is adequate as the maxi mum pressure profi le of all scenarios is under the 110% MOP limit.
Note: This is a prel iminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 201 1) and has been issued for infomlation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by intemal stakeholder groups.
Note: Tllis is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
5 Risk Management The followin 9 section 0 utlines the risks identified by the hydraul ics gro up that wi ll need to be addressed prior to project execution.
5.1 Risk Register
Assumption/ Risk Probability Impact Mitigati n Strategy Description
(High/ Low/Medium)
The proposed desig n of the High Operating limit and h ydrau lic Conduct ope rating limit and hydraulic crude oil pipelin e is based on results w ill change. Batch modeling for Linefill w ith heavy an d single product (a II heavy). The pigging w ill need to be lights. Incorporate light products in line w ould be ver y likely considered. hydraulic design s and adjust pipeline shipping multiple products design pressures and wall thickness (heavy and light) in batches. where required. Model batch pig .
Parallel pump alignment Medium Re-selection of new pump and Work with Eng ineering Services to motor units optimize pump plan. To be reviewed
by affected groups.
ORA ma y be u sed to reduce Medium Number of stati ons w ill reduce. Should ORA usage be considered, a the number of stations on the Pressu re profile along the line review of the h ydraulic design w ould condensate line at Phase III. will change. necessary.
Initial oil pipe line th roug hput High Low fluid vela city and small Conduct hydraulic analysis on low flow may be low. Reynolds num ber. Ma y be rate. Identif y th e flow pattern a nd the
operating in laminar flo w, requirements of batch pigging. causing quality problem.
Soil properties a long the right- High If actual soil conductivity is A sensitiv ity analysis in ter ms of the of-way a re based on AMEC higher than pred icted, there will soi l conduct ivity was conducted. It is desktop report. Discrepancies be risk of not making the target recommended t hat an addition al soi l with actual values ar e capacity; if the actual is lower sampling program be conducted at the expected. than predicted value, in-line commencement of detailed
temperature will increase. engineering.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3 .6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for inforn1ation only. It has not undergone a rigorous rev iew by internal stakeholder groups.
The tables below present the specification of crude oi l and condensate products.
Configuration Name: E28-7F 5-S E 1808-REVPLFTR Case Name:58J_kbpd_deslgn_w_BU_AT_AMEC
Temperature 1
Descri tion T e Fahr. Cel.
Configuration Name:E29-4A-AUG2108-DL Case Name:214_khpd
Descri tion
COND
40 F (4.44 C) Visco cSt
1.276
T e
Conv. Factor
silfi 0.321 4
Temperature 1
'Fahr. Cel. 50.0 "10.0
Visco cSt
350.000
Temperature 2
Fahr. Cel.
70.0 21.'1
T empemture 2
Fahr. Cel. 64.9 18.3
Visco cSt
'177 .. 100
PH 102: Fluid Report Page 5 of 67
Vapor Pressure
S .Grav. si
PH 102: Fluid Output Report
PH 102: Fluid Report Poge 5 0150
PH 102: Fluid Output Report
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 20 II) and has been issued for infomlation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by intemal stakeholder groups.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23,20 II) and has been issued for infonllation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
(A39833)
Doc. No: BDE-QF- 09 Rev. 3.6
Page 52 of62 Issue Date: August 23 , 2011
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
Hydraulic Design Proposal -Mainline
Company Confidential
Appendix C: Pump Curves
DGE
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23 , 2011) and has been issued for infornlation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
(A39833)
Doc. No: BDE-QF- 09 Rev. 3.6
Page 53 of62 Issue Date: August 23,2011
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
. Hydraulic Design Proposal -Mainline
Company Confidential
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23 , 2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
(A39833)
Doc. No: BDE-QF- 09 Rev. 3.6
Page 54 of62 Issue Date: August 23,2011
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
Hydraulic Design Proposal -Mainline
Company Confidential
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23 , 2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Profile of max head + elevation, head + elevation, elevation vs Milepost
Iilev&t1on-Z110 ( tt)
Milepost (mSes)
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23 , 2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Profile of max head + elevation, head + elevation, elevation vs Mi lepost
f~ilepost (miles)
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23,2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Profile of max head + elevation) head + elevation) elevation vs Milepo51:
Blevat:ion-Z343 (ft)
Milepo5t(miles)
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Prone of max head + elevation, head + ele .... ation, elevation 'IS Milepost
Elevation" Z370 C tt)
Milepost (miles)
Note: Tllis is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23,2011) and has been issued for information only, It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23,2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23,2011) and has been issued for information only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for infonnation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.
Note: This is a preliminary DRAFT (v3.6 dated August 23, 2011) and has been issued for infonnation only. It has not undergone a rigorous review by internal stakeholder groups.