SPE 164512

Tool for Troubleshooting Emulsion Problems in Producing Oilfields

Adekunle Opawale*, African University of Science and Technology, Abuja, Nigeria.
Samuel Osisanya, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, USA.
*Main author, and currently with FMC Technologies (Separation systems - Innovation & technology group), The netherlands.

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 2326 March 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of th e paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
Emulsion formation is a very costly operational problem encountered during petroleum production. It occurs when reservoir
fluids (i.e. hydrocarbon and formation water) are extremely mixed under shear/turbulence, and in the presence of surface
active agents. Several conventional methods already exist to treat crude oil emulsions. These include mechanical vessels,
heat applications, electrostatic treatment and chemical methods. Emulsion treatment facilities and demulsifier injection rates
are usually designed based on the total production volume of commingled wells leading to specific flow stations or
processing terminals.

In principle, all produced emulsions are not intractable. While some wells produce tight emulsions that require sophisticated
treatment mechanisms, others could produce highly unstable emulsions that would easily separate into bulk free water and
oil phase by gravity actions. Selection and treatment of only the problematic wells would greatly reduce the capital
expenditure and operating costs associated with emulsion treatment, especially in large multi-well oilfields. Classifying
producing oil wells according to their emulsion tightness requires fundamental knowledge of emulsionbehaviours and their
formation kinetics.

This paper presents an experimental procedure for studying the physical behaviours of crude oil - water emulsions. Series of
laboratory tests were carried out to study the effects of shear and emulsifiers on the stability of oilfield emulsions at various
watercuts. Asphaltenes, reservoir fines and inorganic solids were used as emulsifiers to produce emulsions. A novel method
that simulates shearing environment in the laboratory was developed during this research.

Separation rate of the emulsified water from these samples was used as an indicator to measure their tightness. Unique
trends describing emulsion tightness at several production conditions were observed and presented as Emuls-Ks Emulsion
Diagnostic Plots and Equations, EDP and EDE in this paper. These generic empirical models incorporate the 3 main
conditions responsible for emulsion formation in an oilfield. They encompass a wide range of watercuts, emulsifier
concentrations and shearing energy levels. The diagnostic equations developed were further written in java codes and
integrated into an executable oilfield tool designated as EMULS-K APPLICATION. It characterizes the tightness of
produced emulsions and helps in the diagnosis of emulsion problems. Its result displays an index of emulsion tightness, ET of
the wells analysed.

The technology developed in this study was used to address a real oilfield emulsion problem, with 21 producing oil wells.
Emuls-K technology spotted out the wells with relatively high ET values as those producing intractable emulsions. The results
obtained from this study strongly correlates with those gotten by a chemical service company using the conventional bottle
test approach.

Concept of the Emuls-K innovation will be further validated with more field applications. A digitalized hardware design of
the technology will be developed and subjected to operators technology maturation process
2 SPE 164512-MS

Introduction
Crude oil is usually produced as a complex mixture of hydrocarbons and formation water 1. These mixtures flow from the
reservoir through the production system i.e. through the casing perforations, tubing length, Christmas tree chokes and the
surface production facilities. In these regions, they undergo extreme mixing under high turbulence and consequently, the
water phase tends to be dispersed and stabilized as fine droplets in the bulk oil phase. This forms an emulsion. Fig. 1 is a
schematic describing the regions where high shear can be experienced in the petroleum production system. The stability and
tightness of the produced emulsion depend on a number of factors, including the water/oil ratio, emulsifiers present, degree
of turbulence, temperature, pH and brine composition, and water/oil ratio2. As the producing field matures, characteristics of
the produced emulsion may also change continuously due to changes in some of these factors3. They can be water-in-oil
(W/O), oil-in-water (O/W) or multiple (W/O/W).

Fig.1: Different stages during crude oil production 1.

Most produced oilfield emulsions are of the W/O kinds, and this is the subject addressed in this paper. The control and
resolution of produced oilfield emulsion is among the major challenges encountered in both onshore and offshore production
facilities.

Conventional methods of emulsion handling treatment

To prevent operational problems during oil production and also meet up with sales target, crude oil is always treated to an
acceptable basic sediment and water (BS&W) specification. The term BS&W describes the remnant water and solids
contained in the oil. The water is usually contained either as free or emulsified. The former forms an unstable emulsion and
the latter, a tight emulsion.

Three main steps are involved in separating an emulsion into bulk oil and water phases 4; Destabilization, Coalescence and
Gravity separation. They can be achieved with any of or combination of the following methods.
1. Mechanical methods,
2. Heat application,
3. Electrostatic technology and,
4. Chemical treatment methods.
Tool for Troubleshooting Emulsion Problems in Producing Oilfields A.O Opawale, S. O Osisanya 3

Mechanical method is a very common approach for treating weak and unstable stable emulsions. The free water is usually
removed in mechanical vessels fitted with high technology internals that promotes water droplet coalescence. Examples of
such vessels are free water knock out vessels, wash tanks, separators, gun barrel, settling tank, etc. A common example of an
internal fitted in vessels is the coalescing plate packs shown in Fig.2. They enhance equal distribution of the emulsion in the
vessel, hence causing gentle agitation that aid coalescence of the dispersd water. The vessel simply provides enough retention
time for coalesced dispersed water droplets to separate.

Coalescing plate pack

Fig.2: Picture of a production vessel showing coalescing plate pack (Picture courtesy FMC Technologies Sep systems, Netherlands)

Heat application has also been a method of treating emulsion. Heater-treaters are used in most applications for this purpose.
As illustrated in Fig.3, they are vessels designed to provide an indirect source of heat to the emulsions. Applying heat
reduces the viscosity of the oil. According to Stokes law5, the settling rate of the dispersed water increases with reduction in
the viscosity of the continuous phase. Another effect of heat is to destabilize the interfacial films surrounding the dispersed
water droplet. This promotes droplet movement and collision, consequently improving coalescence and demulsification.

Fig.3: Heater-treater design (Picture extracted from galley website)

However, heating has some drawbacks. It makes the oil shrink due to loss of the light ends. This could consequently lead to a
reduction in API. In some applications heating causes scale problems as well posing risk of scaling facilities. There is an
upper limit of approximately 3000F for most dehydration process6. Above all, heat energy is an expensive utility so might not
really be considered by many operators except when its so unavoidable.

High voltage electricity is also often used for breaking emulsion7. It is generally theorized that water droplets move more
rapidly when induced with an electric field, and hence collide with each other, and coalesce. The electric field generates
electrostatic forces that initiate the droplet movement and collision. This further improves the condition for coalescence and
hence improves the separation of water from crude oil. In theory, there are majorly three types of electrostatic forces; Dipolar
attraction, Electrophoresis and Di-electrophoresis. Refer to paper SPE 156299 for further reading8.
4 SPE 164512-MS

The attraction between water droplets in an electric field is given by4:

( )
(1)
Where:
F = Attraction force between droplets, Ks = Constant for system
= Voltage gradient, dm = droplets diameter, S = distance between droplets.

Application of electricity for emulsion treatment includes conventional vessel based electrostatic coalescers, vessel internal
electrostatic coalescer and compact electrostatic coalescers. Recent advancement in these applications is the Inline electro-
coalescer schematically shown in Fig. 4.

Fig.4: Illustration of the Iinline electro coalescer innovation (Picture courtesy FMC Technologies Sep
systems, Netherlands)
It is designed to be fitted into pipe spool upstream of the separator. New high voltage power system and process design
results in higher efficiency, more compact design and lower high voltage power consumption compared to previous
applications described. It allows for less residence times and reduces facilities footprint and weight.

Demulsifier chemicals are also applied for treating emulsions. They are surface active agents and migrate to the water/oil
interface once added to the emulsion. Their main activity is to rupture the rigid interfacial films caused by the stabilizing
agents; emulsifiers. These constitute a barrier to coalescence of the dispersed water. Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 illustrate an
imagination of the steric barrier on crude oil water interfaces.

Water droplet

Continuous oil phase

Water droplet

Fig.5: Emulsifying agents at w/o interface Fig. 6: Interfacial film preventing coalescence

Demulsifier chemicals are designed to neutralize the effect of the emulsifying agents at the w/o interface and hence promotes
coalescence of water droplets. Their principles of operation is categorised in two main stages9:

Adsorption: Effective demulsifiers overcome the stabilizing effect by adsorbing at positions vacant on the water-oil interface
as the interfacial film is stretched. Mobility and strong partitioning behavior of the demulsifier to the interface are important
factors for this effect.
Tool for Troubleshooting Emulsion Problems in Producing Oilfields A.O Opawale, S. O Osisanya 5

Displacement: By preferentially adsorbing, they displace the pre-existing stabilizing emulsifiers from the interface and this
removes the steric barrier. Interfacial tension and rheology studies confirm this theory. Once the steric barrier is overcome,
then an attraction between the dispersed water droplets is promoted. Demulsifiers also poses other properties such as
solubility and wettability. They are usually soluble in the organic phase (oil) to allow interaction with the oil/water interface.
The wetting of dispersed solids by demulsifiers will cause them to be moved into the appropriate phase. That is, either the oil
or the water phases.

Excellent application of demulsifier requires that the right demulsifier chemical for the given emulsion is selected, adequate
quantity of the chemical is applied and adequate mixing condition of the chemical with the emulsion is allowed. Emulsion
property is strongly dependent on the field and time and will vary as an oilfield matures. A regular update in the handling and
treatment method of oilfield emulsions is highly required.

Challenges with emulsion treatment

Emulsion control in a large field with multi-wells system can pose lots of challenges with regards to the treating facilities
footprint and utilities required for their operation. The emulsion treatment equipments described previously are usually sized
for the overall bulk oil production volume in an oilfield. Also demulsifier chemical injection rates are always calculated
based on the total bulk oil production. Meanwhile, in principle only one demulsifier base would not be efficient enough to
treat the emulsions produced from various well streams.

Typically, the bulk production volume is always a result of the production from several oil wells being commingled at the
manifold as seen in Fig 7. Main manifold production header combines flowlines from several wellheads into a larger trunk
line proceeding to the central processing facilities (CPF) for treatment.

Fig.7: Well headers commingled into a single manifold

Individual wells often exhibit unique emulsion properties and hence treating challenges even though they are being produced
from the same reservoir. Some wells could produce very simple emulsions while others produce extremely tight emulsions.
This is because of the variations in magnitude of the factors responsible for emulsion formation. Some of these factors are
also a function of the thermodynamic conditions in each production well. Some field operators had reported that certain wells
appeared to cause plant upsets due to emulsion problem; while others do not. 9

No technology currently exist to troubleshoot emulsion problems, in an attempt to detect which of the respective commingled
well is responsible for plant upsets. Troubleshooting will help to identify and isolate only the problematic wells. The
appropriate treatment means can then be devised to handle them. Also demulsifiers will only be injected based on their
respective volumes. This would have lots of economical impacts.

Current daily field practice shows that there are really no models or correlations that describe the kinetics of emulsion
formation in the oilfield and helps in the troubleshooting. This is a subject area that needs to be properly researched.

This paper presents an experimental approach to model the process and kinetics of water-in-oil emulsion formation. The
effect of water-oil ratio, agitation energy and emulsifiers on emulsion tightness was studied in systematically designed
6 SPE 164512-MS

experiments. An emulsion tightness testing tool is finally developed based on the experimental result developed from this
study. It classifies each producing well with a parameter E T.

Experimental studies

Several sets of experiments were conducted in the laboratory. Crude oil sample and separated effluent water were collected
from an operators terminal in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria for this experiment. See Table A.1 and A.2 for the properties
of oil and water samples used.

The first set involves ranking the effect of various emulsifiers (organic and inorganic) and watercut on emulsion stability.
Asphaltenes, reservoir fines and calcium carbonate precipitate were evaluated. Several other forms of combination of these
factors were also observed. E.g. asphaltene + fines, asphaltene + calcite, calcite + fine, and (asphaltene + calcite + fine), and
their effects on emulsion tightness studied. For each parameter studied (except water oil ratio, 10 90 %), 8 sets of bottle
sample were prepared with different concentration of the parameter under investigation. These concentrations are 0.05wt%,
0.5wt%, 1.3wt%, 2.9wt%, 4.8wt%, 9.4wt%, 14.80wt%, and 21.1wt%.

A second set and more comprehensive series of experiments were performed to study the combined effect of emulsifier
concentration and shearing energy on emulsion tightness at various watercuts. The asphaltene concentration was varied as
0.5wt%, 2.1wt%, 5.4wt%, 14.80wt%, and 21.1wt%. Asphaltene samples used in this experiment were precipitated from the
live crude oil and Reservoir fines were simulated with some sodium bentonite clay. A demulsifier product from a chemical
vendor was used throughout the testing in this study.

Each test involves the creation of an emulsion and then properly demulsifying it to measure its tightness as a function of the
tested parameter. The emulsified water in all the samples were given equal time to separate. Fig. 4 shows some set of
emulsions created and resolved in a water bath to simulate the process temperature.

Fig.8: Samples of emulsions formed and after resolved in the lab during study

The steps below describe the procedure involved in the creation and resolution of the emulsion used for this study. It forms
the basis for developing the experimental correlations presented in this paper.

1. Mixture of crude oil, formation water and emulsifiers were prepared in a 100ml test bottle.
2. Samples were heated using the water bath to a temperature of about 176 oF (80oC), to allow all emulsifiers dissolve
properly and enhance homogenous mixing.
3. Samples were agitated in the rotary arm agitator.
4. After emulsion is formed, samples were cooled back to room temperature in the water bath.
5. After 30 minutes of cooling, samples are heated up again, now to a temperature of 140 oF (60oC) to simulate the oilfield
production condition.
6. Demulsifier chemical is injected in the right proportion to enhance separation
7. Samples were uniformly agitated and left for separation
8. Amount of water separated are observed after 20 mins.
Tool for Troubleshooting Emulsion Problems in Producing Oilfields A.O Opawale, S. O Osisanya 7

The stability of the emulsion for all the produced emulsion samples was measured and presented as emulsion tightness index
(ETI).10

[ ]
[ ] (2)

ETI would give values ranging from 0 to 100 percent. Zero means emulsion is very loose i.e. almost all emulsified water
separated while 100 means a tight emulsion, which would not drop any water after the allowed time. Note values of ETI
written with the time of separation and demulsifier used for each test run. For example ETI [10 minutes, ABC/3ppm] = 23.3%.

The rotary arm agitator mentioned above was used to homogenize the mixture of the oil, water and emulsifiers. The
rotational rate of the equipment over time dictates the amount of energy it dissipates for mixing. As presented in some
previous studies11, this energy is assumed to shear the oil and water phases, hence forming the emulsion. The total kinetic
energy generated by this set up is imagined as the energy transferred to the samples for shearing, assuming no energy is lost
elsewhere.

Equation (3) describes the KE correlation derived for this system. Appendix B provides the derivation.

K.E = (1.01999E-4) (N)2 J (3)

During this study, the machine speed was varied from 0 to 1000 rpm, and an equivalent energy of approximately 0 to 100-J
was obtained.

Results from experiments

Experimental Set 1: Investigation of Factors Affecting Emulsion Tightness

1. Effect of water cut:

The water cut is a key parameter for emulsion stability and increases progressively as an oilfield field matures. The results of
emulsion resolution after 20 minutes at various water cuts are presented in Fig. 9. Experiments were conducted with
watercuts from 10% to 90%. Increase in the fraction of the dispersed water phase in an oil-water mixture, led to formation of
tight emulsions. This relationship existed until the point of inversion from water/oil emulsion to oil/water emulsion was
reached, thereafter loose emulsions started forming. ET, increased significantly from about 4% to 40% until a water cut of
approximately 60% was reached. At higher watercuts, the emulsions became very loose. This phenomenon has been
demonstrated in lots of other studies.12, 13, 14

2. Effect of Emulsifiers
Emulsifiers are very important factors in emulsion formation. They are surface active agents and stabilize the interface of oil
and water. The effects of several types and combinations of emulsifiers on emulsion tightness are presented in Fig.10.
Asphaltene, reservoir fines (simulated with sodium bentonite), calcite scales, blend of asphaltene and inorganic solids were
experimented in this study. At small asphaltene concentration of 0.05%, amount of emulsified water separated was
substantially high. About 29.3 ml out of the entire 30ml blended were separated. The emulsion tightness was calculated to be
2.3 %. At 0.5% concentration of asphaltene the emulsion becomes more difficult to treat, with a tightness of 8.2 %. In
theory, there is a critical asphaltene concentration beyond which further increase in asphaltene forms extremely tight
emulsions. In this test, this phenomenon was experienced at asphaltene concentration of 2.9%. Subsequently asphaltene
content was increased to 4.8 %, 9.4%, 14.8 to 21.1 %, and produced very tight emulsions of ET 43.2%. 76.3%, 80% and even
90.3% respectively. In theory15 asphaltene forms mobile solid interfacial films around the O/W interface. These films are
initially weak, but become very strong and difficult to break when a certain threshold concentration is reached.

Inorganic solids were introduced into the petroleum system either through precipitation and migration of reservoir fines,
scales or as products of corrosion and fouling in tubing and flowlines 16. Results from this study shows that sodium bentonite
and calcite scales had little effects on emulsion stability. At the highest concentration of 21wt%, the tightest emulsion
produced was about 7.18 % for Bentonite clay and 23% for calcite solids. Hence it can be said that inorganic solids do not
really have a strong effect on emulsion tightness as observed in this study. However, some other researchers1, 16who had
worked on this subject matter reported that very small inorganic particles would contribute to water-in-oil emulsion stability
if they are small enough to become interracially active. They called these types of emulsions Pickering emulsions.
 8 SPE 164512-MS

Tests were also done with combination of asphaltene and the inorganic solids. Sufficient amount of Bentonite and calcite
solids were suspended in toluene solutions of asphaltene separately for 24hrs. The solids were then filtered and added to the
oil/water mixture prepared, and the experiment repeated. Fig.10 presents a comparison of the effect of asphaltene coated and
uncoated inorganic solids on emulsion tightness. Tightness as high as 21.0 % and 19.0 % were observed when only 2.9% of
coated Bentonite and Clay were tested respectively and became even tighter at higher concentrations. Asphaltene were
concluded to be responsible for this behaviour of the inorganic solids. They adsorbed on the hydrophilic inorganic solids.
This made them intermediately wet and became very active emulsifying agents.

Experimental Set 2: Combined Effects of Asphaltene Concentration, Shearing Energy and Water Cut on Emulsion
Tightness

The combined effect of asphaltene concentration and shearing energy on emulsion tightness was studied for different
percentages of watercut. The results obtained (Fig. 11-16) demonstrate some unique trends relating shearing energy and
asphaltene concentration to emulsion tightness. It was observed that shearing energy and the concentration of asphaltene
determines the degree of emulsion tightness. However, a particular threshold value of shearing energy was to be needed to
form emulsion for a specific water oil ratio, regardless of the asphaltene concentration present. This energy varied for all the
watercut studied.

Shearing energy threshold (SET) values was observed for the 3 water cut studied i.e. 5 %, 30 % and 55%. This energy
increases as the water increases until the emulsion reaches it inversion point, where loose emulsions started forming. Samples
with 5% water cut had a SET value of about 0.25J. SET value for 30% water is about 0.37 J and finally 0.5 J for 55%
watercut. Furthermore, the tightness of the emulsion increases with asphaltene content as already demonstrated in
experiment 1. With the 30% WC samples, very tight emulsions were observed at high shearing energy values and asphaltene
concentration. At energy of 82.6 joules emulsions as tight as 89.2% and 97% E T were formed with asphaltene concentrations
of 14.8wt% and 21wt% respectively. A very complex emulsion that was almost 100% tight was produced with shearing
energy of 102 Joules and asphaltene concentration of 21wt%.

The trends observed in experiment 2 are presented as Emuls-Ks Emulsion Diagnostic Plots and Equations, EDP and EDE,
and forms the basis for the EMULS-K APPLICATION.

Fig.9: Effect of watercut on emulsion tightness. Fig.10: Effect of emulsifiers on emulsion tightness
 Tool for Troubleshooting Emulsion Problems in Producing Oilfields A.O Opawale, S. O Osisanya 9

Fig.11: EDP before SET for 5% water cut Fig.12: EDP after SET for 5% water cut

Fig.13: EDP before SET for 30% water cut Fig.14: EDP after SET for 30% water cut

Fig.15: EDP before SET for 55% water cut Fig.16: EDP after SET for 55% water cut
10 SPE 164512-MS

Computer Modelling of Results

The Emulsion diagnostic plots were digitized using Regression analysis. Best line of fit for each of the data series plotted was
analysed and the corresponding Equations generated. Five concentrations of asphaltene were studied over three water cuts,
and hence yielding fifteen different equations. The EDEs were polynomial of 4th, 5th and 6th orders with the shearing energy
term as the independent variable. Their ranges of applicability have been provided alongside according to the threshold value
of energy responsible for emulsion formation for each watercut. The polynomial emulsion diagnostic equations are shown in
Appendix C.

The generated equations have been written with JAVA programming Language and integrated into an executable application
file. This program first estimates the shearing energy associated with individual well heads as illustrated in our previous
study11. The programmed equations of the Emulsion Diagnostic Plots, EDP are then solved once the asphaltene content,
water cut of the well and shearing energy at the wellhead choke of the particular stream to be analysed is inputted.

Note that this study was made only for precipitated asphaltene concentrations (wt. %) of 0.5, 2.1, 5.4, 14.8 and 21.1 over
watercuts of 5%, 30% and 55%. All other values of asphaltene and watercut inputted to this programme are approximated to
the nearest value of these parameters as written in the programme.

Oilfield application of EMULS-K model

The idea developed in this study was used to address an emulsion problem in a Nigerian onshore oilfield, with 21 producing
wells. The emulsion samples produced from the field were classified according to the ET values calculated for each of the
fields producing well. Problematic wells commingling at the manifold were easily spotted out without any further bottle test.
Recommendations on how such wells could be handled were also made.

In the procedure for estimating emulsion tightness, E T using EMULS-K application, the asphaltene content, water cut for
each producing oil well and shearing energy at the wellhead choke is required. The shearing energy of the 21 wells was
determined using an approach described in our previous studies.10 In this approach shearing energy is related to the pressure
drop across the choke at a particular production choke size, along a characteristics choke length. Wells with relatively high
production rate and small choke size have a relatively high pressure drop and hence higher values of shearing energy.
Appendix D shows the shearing energy of all the 21 wells as calculated by the spreadsheet developed and the emulsion
tightness estimated. As earlier explained, simulating exactly the intensity of turbulence experience on the field to that in the
laboratory might be quite challenging. Hence a multiplication factor of was used to scale down the shearing energy
values calculated to suite the range of values obtained in the lab.

Conclusions & Lessons learnt from field application

Based on the theoretical studies and experimental work in this paper, the following conclusions are made:
1. The effects of water cut, asphaltene, and inorganic solids on emulsion tightness were demonstrated. Increase in the
fraction of the dispersed water phase in an oil-water mixture, leads to formation of tight emulsions until the point of
inversion from water/oil emulsion to oil/water emulsion is reached. Loose emulsions will start forming. The inversion
point for the crude oils considered in this study was found to be approximately 60%.

2. Increase in the concentration of asphaltene significantly increases the tightness of an emulsion. Reservoir fines and other
inorganic solid tested are not good emulsifiers. However, in the presence of asphaltene, increasing the concentration of
inorganic solids also contributes to emulsion stability. Hence asphaltene concentration is the major factor contributing to
the formation of tight emulsion in the field examined.

3. Shearing energy and asphaltene concentrations dictates to large extent the tightness of the produced emulsion samples
for all the water cuts studied. However, a threshold shearing energy must be reached for emulsions to start forming, after
which further increase in shear makes the emulsion tighter. The required energy threshold increase with the watercut.

4. An Emuls-K generic application for troubleshooting emulsion problem in the field studied is developed. The application
incorporates a Java written program, to solve the experimental emulsion diagnostic equations developed in this study.
This program inputs shearing energy at the wellhead, watercut and asphaltene contents for n-different number of wells
and compares their tightness of emulsion. It automatically spots out the problematic well without any laboratory bottle
test. The result obtained from this model, correlates very well with those obtained by a service company that worked on
the same field in previous time during their bottle trials.
Tool for Troubleshooting Emulsion Problems in Producing Oilfields A.O Opawale, S. O Osisanya 11

Further studies

On-going research on the idea presented in this paper is to develop a hardware tool (imagined prototypes shown in Fig. 17)
based on the principles of emulsion tightness measurement. The tool will be designed to have a sensing probe. When applied
in the oilfield, the emulsion testing probe should automatically sense and measure the water-oil-ratio, Asphaltenes
concentrations and shearing energy. Furthermore, emulsion tightness will be computed by solving the Emulsion diagnostic
equations programmed into the tool.

This idea will be a technological breakthrough in the practice of troubleshooting emulsion problems in multi-wells system in
the oilfield. It will assist surface facilities and production engineers to monitor emulsion problems during production
operations, in an effortless manner.

Fig.17: Imagination of simple prototypes of digital Emuls-k testing tool

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the Nelson Mandela Institution (NMI) and the African University of Science and Technology
(AUST), Abuja-Nigeria for their relentless educational and financial support during the course of this study. Adekunle
specially thanks NMI and AUST for the prestigious Research fellow award, presented to him in recognition of this research.

Nomenclature
A Represents shearing energy in EDE, J
CPF Central Processing Facilities
EDP Emulsion Diagnostic Plots
EDE Emulsion Diagnostic Equations
ET Emulsion tightness
FTHP Flow Tubing head pressure, psi
FLP Flowline pressure, psi
GLR Gas Liquid Ratio, scf/bbl
K.E Kinetic energy, J
Ms Mass of rotating setup of the rotary agitator, g
N Number of revolutions per minute
Ra Radius of rotating arm, cm
p Pressure drop, psi
T Temperature, oC
WC Watercut, %
WCHF Wet crude Handling Facility
W/O Water/oil
W/O/W Water in oil, and oil itself already dispersed in water (Multiple dispersion)
Angular velocity, m/s2
12 SPE 164512-MS

References

1. Kokal, S. Crude Oil Emulsions: A state-of-the-art Review,SPE paper 77497 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, 29 September 2 October 2002.

2. Kokal, S.L. Crude-Oil Emulsions, Petroleum Engineering Handbook, SPE, Richardson, Texas, 2005.

3. Opawale, A.O., Oilfield Emulsion Control: A major issue during; A major issue during heavy crude oil production,
SPE paper 128352 presented at the SPE annual conference and Exhibition, Abuja, August, 2009.

4. Arnold, k., Stewart, M. Surface production operations. Third edition; Gulf professional publishing, Burlington, USA

5. Batchelor, G.K. (1967). An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-66396-2.

6. Boschee, P., Advances in Electrostatic Treatment of Crude oil, Oil and Gas facilities, Vol.1 No. 5, Pg.17-21.

7. Gary, W.S., Moshen. Z. The practiced art of Emulsion Resolution in Electrostatic Processes presented at Spring
Meeting, Houston, 1999.

8. Sellman, E., Sams, G.W., and Mandewalkar, B.P.; Benefits of Using Advanced Electrostatic Fields in Crude Oil
Dehydrators and Desalters, SPE paper 156299 presented at the SPE International Production and Operations
Conference & Exhibition, 14-16 May 2012, Doha, Qatar.

9. Becker, J.R., Crude Oil Waxes, Emulsions, and Asphaltenes. 4 th edition; PennWell publishing company: Oklahoma,
1997.

10. Opawale, A.O., An experimental Model to Predict and Control Oilfield Emulsion Tightness: A Novel Approach
Masters degree dissertation, African University of Technology, Abuja, Nigeria. 2010.

11. Opawale, A.O., Osisanya, S., Dulu, A., and Otakoro, S., An integrated approach to selecting and optimizing
demulsifier chemical injection points using shearing energy analysis: A justification for downhole injection in high
pressured well, OTC 21151-pp presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, May, 2011.

12. El-Gamel, M., Mohamed, A.O., and Zekri, A.Y., Effect of Asphaltene, Carbonates and clay mineral contents on
water cut determination in water-in-oil Emulsions, Journal of Petroleum science and Engineering., 46,209-234, 2005

13. Benayonne, M., Khezzar, L., Al-Rumhy, M., Viscosity of Water in oil emulsions, Journal of petroleum Science
Technology, 767-784, 1998.

14. Elsharkawy, A.M., Al-sahhaf, T.A., Fahim, M., Effect of Inorganic solids, Wax to asphaltene ratio, and water cut on
the stability of Water-in-Crude Oil Emulsions, Journal of Petroleum science and Engineering., 46,623-2634, 2008.

15. http://baervan.nmt.edu/Petrophysics/group/intro-2-asphaltenes.pdf

16. Michael, B., Senergy, S., Waggoner, S., Hess, C., Fines Migration in a High Temperature Gas Reservoir- Laboratory
Simulation and Implications for Completion Design, SPE paper 121897 presented at the SPE European Formation
damage conference , Scheveningen, May 27-29, 2009.
Tool for Troubleshooting Emulsion Problems in Producing Oilfields A.O Opawale, S. O Osisanya 13

APPENDIX

Appendix A: Properties of crude oil and formation water sample

Table A.1: Average values of the Properties of the crude oil emulsion samples

Properties Ranges for all the wells Stock tank Properties

o
API 21 - 39 28

Water cut (%) 5 - 52 NIL

Viscosity @ 40 deg C (cp) 2.6 13.6 5.6

Specific Gravity 0.856 0.916 0.845

Asphaltene Content (wt %) 0.54 9.53 9.43

Solid Content (wt %) 5.9 34.6 12.3

Sulfur content (wt. %) 0.01 0.18 0.13

Pour Point oF 21 40 36

Nickel (ppm) 05 0.5

Vanadium (ppm) 0-3 0.5

Table A.2: Properties of the formation water sample

Composition K+ + Na + Mg 2+ Ca 2+ Cl- SO4 2- HCO3- CO32-

Concentration
( mg/l) 1452.2 5.6 16.8 425.5 20.2 2927.7 121.1

Appendix B: Description of the procedure used to quantify shearing energy in the laboratory

The kinetic energy of the rotational device is estimated as:

K.E = Ms( ) (4.4)

Where:
Mass of entire top bottle arm system, Ma = 198 g
Mass of each test bottle (100ml, filled 1:1), M b = 94 g, ( 4 bottle set) = 376 g
Mass of system, Ms = (198 + 376) g = 574 g
Radius of arm, Ra = 18 cm
K.E = (0.574) ( ) ( ) = (1.01999E-4) (N)2 J (4.5)

However, the shearing energy experienced on the field is very greater than what the mixing equipment could produce in the
lab; hence a form of scale to reduce them to lab scale will be used during the field application.
14 SPE 164512-MS

Appendix C: Trendline and regression analysis of EDP

WC -5%, ASP -0.5 WT%

7

5
Emulsion Tightness, ET

4
WC-5%, ASP-0.5 WT%
3

2 Poly. (WC-5%, ASP-0.5

WT%)
1

0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
-1
Shearing Energy, J

WC-5%, ASP - 2.1 WT%

9

7
Emulsion Tightness, ET

5
WC-5%, ASP-2.1WT%
4

3 Poly. (WC-5%, ASP-

2.1WT%)
2

0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
-1
Shearing Energy, J
Tool for Troubleshooting Emulsion Problems in Producing Oilfields A.O Opawale, S. O Osisanya 15

WC-5%, ASP-5.4WT%
16

14

12
Emulsion Tightness, ET

10

8 WC-5%, ASP-5.4WT%

6
Poly. (WC-5%, ASP-
4 5.4WT%)

0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
-2
Shearing Energy, J

WC-5%, ASP-14.8WT%
25

20
Emulsion Tightness, ET

15

WC-5%, ASP-14.8WT%
10
Poly. (WC-5%, ASP-
14.8WT%)
5

0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00

-5
Shearing Energy, J
16 SPE 164512-MS

WC-5%, ASP- 21.1WT%

25

20
Emulsion Tightness, ET

15

10 WC-5%, ASP-21.1WT%
Poly. (WC-5%, ASP-21.1WT%)

0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00

-5
Shearing Ebergy, J

WC-30%, ASP-0.5WT%
30

25
Emulsion Tightness

20

15
WC-30%, ASP-0.5WT%

10 Poly. (WC-30%, ASP-0.5WT%)

0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
Shearing Energy
Tool for Troubleshooting Emulsion Problems in Producing Oilfields A.O Opawale, S. O Osisanya 17

WC-30%, ASP-2.1WT%
45

40

35

30
Emulsion Tightness

25

20 WC-30%, ASP-2.1WT%
Poly. (WC-30%, ASP-2.1WT%)
15

10

0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
Shearing Energy

WC-30%, ASP-5.5WT%
80

70

60
EMulsion Tightness

50

40
WC-30%, ASP-5.5WT%
30 Poly. (WC-30%, ASP-5.5WT%)

20

10

0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
Shearing Eenrgy
18 SPE 164512-MS

WC-30%, ASP-14.8WT%
100

90

80

70
Emulsion Tighhtness

60

50
WC-30%, ASP-14.8WT%
40
Poly. (WC-30%, ASP-14.8WT%)
30

20

10

0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
Shearing Energy

WC-30%, ASP-21.1WT%
120

100

80
Emulsion Tightness

60
WC-30%, ASP-21.1WT%
Poly. (WC-30%, ASP-21.1WT%)
40

20

0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
Shearing Energy
Tool for Troubleshooting Emulsion Problems in Producing Oilfields A.O Opawale, S. O Osisanya 19

WC-55%, ASP-0.5WT%
30

25
Emulsion Tightness

20

15
WC-55%, ASP-0.5WT%
10 Poly. (WC-55%, ASP-0.5WT%)

0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
Shearing EnergyTitle

WC-55%,ASP-2.1WT%
45

40

35
Emulsion Tightness

30

25

20 WC-55%,ASP-2.1WT%

15 Poly. (WC-55%,ASP-2.1WT%)

10

0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
Shearing Energy
20 SPE 164512-MS

WC-55%, ASP-5.4WT%
80

70

60
EMulsion Tightness

50

40
WC-55%, ASP-5.4WT%
30
Poly. (WC-55%, ASP-5.4WT%)
20

10

0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
Shearing Energy

WC-55%, ASP14.8WT%
100

90

80

70
Emulsion Tightness

60

50
WC-55%, ASP14.8WT%
40
Poly. (WC-55%, ASP14.8WT%)
30

20

10

0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
Shearing Energy
Tool for Troubleshooting Emulsion Problems in Producing Oilfields A.O Opawale, S. O Osisanya 21

WC-55%, ASP-21.1WT%
120

100
Emulsion Tightness

80

60
WC-55%, ASP-21.1WT%

40 Poly. (WC-55%, ASP-21.1WT%)

20

0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00

Shearing Energy

Table 1D: Shearing energy analysis from production data