TECHNOLOGY UPDATE
Preventing Emulsions by Mitigating Solids
Bob Long, SPE, U.S. Water
There are many oilfield applications to
treat oil emulsions and water (reverse)
emulsions. Root cause determination
with full solutions to emulsion issues
can be more efficient and cost-effective
than bandage-type downstream appli-
cations such as acid treatments, demul-
sifiers, and water clarifiers. Improving
flow assurance or preventing under-
deposit corrosion issues are addition-
al benefits of finding and eliminating
problems at their source.
The Impact of Emulsions
The development of an oilfield emul-
sion requires four key components: oil,
water, an emulsifying agent (solids, sur-
factants, or chemicals), and agitation
(or shear). Solids, such as scale parti-
cles, corrosion byproducts, or waxes,
tie the oil and water together. Agitation
mixes the two, resulting in an emul-
sion. Removing or preventing any one
of these four components will break or
prevent emulsions.
Stable emulsions can have damaging
effects on lines and result in increased
costs for handling solids (through
mechanical removal), heat energy, and
chemical programs. They can also result
in capital expenses, such as purchas-
ing the filtration equipment needed to
remove solids. In addition to the oper-
ating costs associated with emulsions,
operators may experience unexpected
downtime and lost production.
Water that is separated out in pro-
duction facilities contains residual oil
that is trapped in reverse emulsions—
oil droplets dispersed in the water phase
vs. a standard emulsion where water
is trapped in the oil phase. The con-
centration of this residual oil is usually
too high for permitted discharge to the
JPT • JANUARY 2017
environment and may result in operator
fines. Any oil that is not captured and is
lost to disposal is a loss of profit.
Current Industry Practices
A typical industry practice is to use a
demulsifier to treat standard emulsions.
Choosing an effective demulsifier is
often viewed as a “black art,” frequently
done by conducting a “bottle test” with
a kit of demulsifiers or blends. There are
three main processes by which demulsi-
fiers “unlock” emulsions: flocculation,
coalescence, and solids wetting.
Another industry method for treating
solids is to batch treat with acid. Acid
can effectively treat calcium carbon-
ate, the most common carbonate scale,
and iron sulfide, a corrosion byprod-
uct. When acid is added to iron sulfide,
it creates a byproduct of hydrogen sul-
fide, a poisonous gas. Acid treatments
are temporary, lasting no more than a
couple of days. Although they success-
fully put the solids into the solution, as
soon as the water pH rises back during
dilution, the solids typically precipitate
back out from solution.
Identifying the Root Cause
These common industry practices for
treating emulsions act as bandages that
often require additional spending. A dif-
ferent approach has been introduced to
the market that goes deeper than the
customary treatment practices to iden-
tify the root cause of the emulsion and
solids. By starting upstream, producers
can proactively focus on preventing sol-
ids and emulsions formation.
When analyzing the emulsifying
agents that prevent these emulsions
from separating with standard sepa-
ration equipment, we typically find
they contain mostly treatable compo-
nents, outside of formation sands and
clays. These treatable components
include paraffin and asphaltene, min-
eral scales (i.e., calcite and barite), and
corrosion byproducts (i.e., iron sulfide,
iron carbonate, and iron oxides). Hav-
ing a detailed process for identifying,
collecting, and analyzing the generat-
ing source can allow for more effective
treatment programs.
If solids are prevented from forming
upstream, oil and water easily separate
out on their own. With the exception of
formation fines, most of the oilfield sol-
ids precipitate out of the gas and liquids
as pressure and temperature changes
occur in a well. These phase changes
continue through the separation and
compression equipment, to midstream
and downstream for final processing.
Using phase monitoring, sampling,
and a variety of investigative testing can
help determine when solids precipitate,
causing an emulsion to form. Sampling
from the wellhead through the entire
process to water disposal allows the
determination of which solids will stay
in solution, precipitate out, stay sus-
pended in the flow, or deposit out on the
piping and vessels.
Further deposit analysis and char-
acterization will determine the break-
down of the solids to help identify the
root cause of the deposits. To determine
total dissolved solids (TDS), water and
oil should be collected from one point in
the system and analyzed. A filter analy-
sis at the same time and location can be
used to identify and measure total sus-
pended solids (TSS).
A deposition coupon can be used to
measure the precipitated solids that
are depositing in the production equip-
19
 is the proper identification. Any solids
1000 that are collected can be sent to a lab for
Oil and Grease (ppm) testing to further identify the emulsify-
ing agent.
Oil in Water (parts per million)

Control Range (ppm)

800 During the analytical testing of non-
crystalline (also called amorphous)
deposits, energy dispersion X-ray meth-
600 ods can be used to identify the elemental
breakdown. The ideal deposit analysis
method for crystalline deposits is X-ray
400 diffraction, as it has the advantage of
producing a molecular determination.
When X-rays interact with a crystalline
200 substance, a diffraction pattern is cre-
ated, along with the percentage of each
phase of the sample.
0 The use of a scanning electron micro-
scope and the determination of parti-
12

12

12

13

13

13

14

14

14

15

15

15

16
1/

1/

1/

1/

1/

1/

1/

1/

1/

1/

1/

1/

1/
cle size distribution, clay content, and
/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0
01

05

09

01

05

09

01

05

09

01

05

09

01
general and pitting corrosion rates are
Fig. 1—Average oil and grease in water (in parts per million [ppm]). An
other helpful tools for determining the
integrated approach was implemented in 2013, which resulted in an average system’s problems and the best method
of 400 ppm less oil in the disposal water. Source: U.S. Water. for prevention.

The Integrated Approach

500
The basic process of developing root
cause solutions begins by mapping the
450 process flow and measuring tempera-
TSS (mg/L)
Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

tures and pressures at each stage to cre-

400 Hydrocarbons
ate a monitoring and survey plan. Expe-
Acid Soluble
350 rienced operators should walk the pipe
Acid Insoluble
and process flow to compile historical
Treatable
300 data, such as prior testing, corrosion,
and flow assurance failures.
250
It is important to follow this by
200 methodically collecting a baseline of
statistically valid data. After reviewing
150 the survey and lab data, the integrity
team should be engaged to help devel-
100
op root cause solutions for trial. These
50 trials should be implemented, one solu-
tion at a time, keeping production and
0 process changes to a minimum during
2012 2013 2014 2015
evaluation. The baseline data that were
Fig. 2—Annual average total suspended solids (TSS) composition (in mg/L). collected should be referenced during
The new integrated approach implemented in 2013 resulted in a more than solution evaluation for clear compari-
90% reduction in TSS. Source: U.S. Water. son and to evaluate if improvements are
being made.
ment, which would not be present in rate on its own throughout the system Finally, if a trial solution is proven to
the TDS or in the TSS. Solids on the or if additional treatment, such as heat be more effective, that solution should
filter or coupon can then be sent to or chemicals, will be needed to resolve be implemented permanently, opti-
a laboratory to identify a component the emulsion. Centrifuging the emul- mized with continued data collection,
breakdown and determine if they are sion also indicates how tight the emul- and key performance indicators should
chemically treatable. sion is and if the solid will separate be set.
Centrifuging fluids is a way to deter- on its own. The next step after collect- Using this integrated approach,
mine visually if the emulsion will sepa- ing, cleaning, and preserving the solids alternative root cause solutions can be

20 JPT • JANUARY 2017

 applied upstream to prevent scale and
corrosion. For example, if there is car-
bon dioxide present in a system, high
pitting corrosion rates and a depos-
it analysis would show iron carbonate
solids. Applying a nonemulsifying cor-
rosion or iron inhibitor upstream of
the reaction or precipitation could be a
more cost-effective solution.
Proven Results
In 2013, an offshore field operator used
this integrated approach. The opera-
tor was experiencing scale buildup in
flowlines and separators, which result-
ed in corrosion issues on a handful of
wells. The issues were compounded by
an ineffective biocide program applied
at the water plant, and dissolved oxy-
gen intrusion that further precipitated
iron oxides, which were oil coated and
plugged the disposal wells. No corro-
sion program was in place, and scale
inhibitors were applied downstream
of precipitation.
A multifunctional product contain-
ing inhibitors for iron, scale, and cor-
rosion was developed for this field and
was applied upstream of separation.
The operator was able to discontinue
a surfactant program on the injection
wells, the summer emulsion-breaker
program, and winter emulsion-breaker
injection into some producing wells.
This resulted in the oil meeting pipeline
specifications for sales, and an average
400 ppm oil reduction in the disposal
water (Fig. 1).
Ongoing monitoring in 2015 showed
very low corrosion rates and a more
than 90% reduction in TSS from
2013 (Fig.  2). The return on invest-
ment included cost savings from fewer
coiled tubing cleanouts, reduced
injection well pump maintenance,
and a USD-100,000 reduction in
chemical expenses, compared with the
bandage-type programs used previous-
ly. The measures taken also resulted in
additional revenue from 2,920  bbl of
oil that were previously held in a re-
verse emulsion.
While traditional solids mitigation
methods may provide immediate ben-
efits, they typically result in addition-
al expenditures and treatment mea-
sures further down the line. Using
investigative testing enables oper-
ators to determine the root cause of
their issues and develop customized,
proactive solutions.
Once implemented, these solutions
can prevent emulsion stabilization and
result in more efficient operations and
long-term asset integrity. Although
individual systems suffer from partic-
ular issues, entire fields can be opti-
mized through the use of a holistic,
integrated approach. JPT

Sponsored Content Webinar

Lifting Your Unconventional Production Potential

Improve ROI with Production Life-Cycle Planning
Live and Free | 17 January | 0900 (CDT, GMT-6)
Bill Lane
Join us 17 January as Weatherford production experts Artificial Lift Consultant
discuss innovative solutions to address the unique
challenges of unconventional assets.
Topics will include:
• Decreasing decline rates Scott Campbell
• Reducing operating expenses VP Sales & Marketing –
• Managing wellbore solids and fluids Artificial Lift Systems,
Weatherford
Content Provided by

Register today www.spe.org/go/Jan17Webinar