Abstract
Petroleum companies are familiar with the problems caused by
the formation of water-in-crude oil emulsions, especially with
those related to the increment of the crude oil apparent
viscosity and their impact on the oil production. Many studies
have been conducted to establish the existing relationship
between the crude oil emulsions apparent viscosity and their
water content. However, there is a lack of information in the
literature concerning the actual impact of the emulsions on the
pressure drop trough pipelines and on its consequence, the
reduction of crude oil production.
The thermo-hydraulic calculation of a producing oil stream
is usually based on black-oil models for PVT properties and
on multiphase flow correlations or models suitable for
pressure drop prediction. These models and correlations
demand the knowledge, amongst other parameters, of the
viscosity of the liquid phase as an input data. Usually, the
values of this property are measured with rheometers using
standardized procedures. However the thermo-hydraulic
calculation becomes more complex in the case of water-in-oil
emulsions. The question is how to get a correct viscosity to
use for the pressure drop calculation and thus, how to prepare
a synthetic fluid that represents the actual emulsion. The
objective of this study was to understand the state of the art
relative to the emulsion formation and rheology. The main
rheological models that are applicable to emulsions are
presented, as well as the methodologies for the determination
of its parameters in the laboratory. This paper also investigates
the usual correlations applied for the flow of gas and water-inoil emulsions through pipelines. Actual data from field were
used to allow the evaluation of the results obtained through the
simulations using the proposed procedure. This information is
relevant to establish how the presence of water-in-crude oil
emulsions can interfere with the technical and economical
viability studies.
Introduction
Water-in-oil (W/O) emulsions are very common in the
petroleum industry in particular at the upstream operations.
They form naturally during the crude oil production and the
water content can be as high as 60% by volume.
The presence of W/O emulsions may have a strong impact
on the crude oil production, especially in offshore conditions.
In such kind of systems the temperature of the crude oil varies
widely along the flow from the reservoir to the platform
storage tanks. For example in Campos basin, where most of
the Brazilian crude oil is produced, typically the temperature
of the oil gradually decreases from 80 C at the bottom of the
well-bore, located 3,000 m below the seabed, to about 60 C at
the top of the well-bore, located 1,000 m below the sea level,
where the sea water temperature may vary from 4 C to 10 C.
In order to reach the storage tank, the crude oil has to flow for
several hundreds meters through a pipeline in a cold
environment. The contact with the cold seawater imposes a
major decrease in the crude oil temperature; hence crude oil
arrival temperatures below 30 C have been frequently
reported at Campos Basin.
In general, those water-in-oil emulsions are stable and
form spontaneously due to the presence of natural surfactants
existing in the crude oil phase. It is known that the viscosity of
a W/O emulsion is strongly augmented by increasing its water
volume fraction and by decreasing the temperature. It is also
dependent on the water droplet size distribution and therefore
on the shear stress that acts thru the production process.
Correlations can be found in the literature [1, 2] between the
relative viscosity (r) of the water-in-crude oil emulsions and
their water volume content and oil phase density, most of them
based on the well-known ASTM equation [3]. Nevertheless,
there is a lack of experimental data available in the literature
as far as the effect of the droplet size distribution on the crude
oil viscosity is concerned. The aim of the present study was to
determine how the water-in-crude oil emulsions rheology is
affect by the shearing conditions imposed during the
emulsions generation step. The main rheological models that
are applicable to emulsions are presented, as well as the
methodologies for the determination of its parameters in the
laboratory. This paper also investigates the usual correlations
applied for the flow of gas and water-in-oil emulsions through
pipelines. Actual data from field were used to allow the
evaluation of the results obtained through the simulations
using the proposed procedure. This information is relevant to
establish the W/O emulsions influence on the well
productivity.
OTC 17386
OTC 17386
P12 = P1 P2 = 2. .(
1
1
) ................. (14)
R1 R2
OTC 17386
U
ci i
ki
i
................................................... (15)
OTC 17386
applied to the well bore and the riser is more critical than that
applied to the horizontal flow section.
The fact that most of the pressure drop is due to vertical
sections explains the large importance found for the
formations Gas-Oil Ratio (GOR) and for the water cut in the
uncertainty analysis carried on earlier in this paper, since that
gravitational forces are by far the most relevant parameter for
vertical flow.
Analyzing the literature information one can notice that
there are quite a few published correlations suitable for gasemulsion flow in large diameter pipelines. In fact, the different
correlations provide a wide range of results that is broader
than that provided by adopting different models for the
emulsion viscosity. From a literature survey it was found that
only the Orkiszewsky [15] correlation comprises a similar
range of parameters to the field under analysis but
unfortunately this correlation was developed only for vertical
flow and does not apply to inclined pipes. When comparing
these different correlations it can be noted that they usually
tend to overpredict the pressure drop of viscous emulsions.
Pressure drop behavior related to emulsion water
cut
As the amount of produced water rises, one can expect a
corresponding increase of the emulsion viscosity, and as a
consequence the pressure drop through the producing system
should increase as well. The graphs presented in Figure 10,
obtained in three wells of the Campos Basin, however, show a
different behavior from the expected one.
In the case of Well X, for example, there is a slight
decrease in the pressure drop from zero to 30% water cut.
Above this value of water cut the pressure drop starts to
increase as expected. For the Well Y, one evidences that there
is a significant reduction of the pressure drop as the water cut
rises slowly, indicating the influence of other parameters not
presented in the graph. Finally, the Well Z presents a similar
behavior of that of the Well X, but with small changes on the
pressure drop as the water cut increases.
It must be stressed that the pressure drop data itself is
subjected to measurement errors. However, they strongly
suggest that parameters other than emulsion viscosity may be
having a decisive role in the flow.
According to the theory of single-phase flow, for high
values of Reynolds numbers - turbulent pattern - the increase
of viscosity does not impact significantly the friction factor.
The Table 4 below presents the flow patterns for three wells
from Figure 10, considering their different sections of the sub
sea production system and properties along the flow path. It
was observed the predominance of the turbulent flow, with
only one exception that presents laminar and transition
patterns. In part, this fact explains the low impact of the
emulsion viscosity on the pressure drop of most production
systems.
Conclusions
This work presented a comprehensive study involving
experimental and analytical-numerical parts, aiming to
determine the influence of the occurrence of W/O emulsions
on the production stream.
OTC 17386
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14
15.
OTC 17386
6.0
60
Low Shear
Intermediate Shear
High Shear
= 0.3
40
% in Volume
5.5
Droplet Mean Diameter (m)
50
30
20
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
10
2.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
9
Water Volume Fraction
45
35
Low Shear
High Shear
30
= 0.3
Relative Viscosity
7.0
40
T = 50C
25
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
20
2.0
15
1.0
10
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Temperature (C)
8.5
8.0
60
Relative Viscosity
Intermediate Shear
% in Volume
50
Water
Volume
Fraction
40
0.3
0.4
0.5
30
7.5
WAT
7.0
6.5
= 0.5
20
6.0
10
5.5
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Temperature (C)
0
0
10
11
OTC 17386
1.05
60
Well X
50
1.00
0.95
0.90
30
20
10
Water
Volume
Fraction
0.85
40
0
180
190
200
0.2
0.5
0.80
220
230
Well Y
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Temperature (C)
50
0.70
0
240
60
WAT
0.75
210
40
30
20
10
0
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
10000
Well Z
50
60
R = 0,9913
40
30
20
10
1000
0
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
Figure 10: Pressure drop of three sub sea wells related to their
water cut evolution.
100
100
1000
10000
Emulsion Sample
Density (API)
BS&W (% v/v)
Viscosity (mPa.s)
Well A
19
20
520
Well B
19
44
1373
Sample
Actual
Value
(mPa.s)
Dead Oil
Loose
Emulsion
Medium
Emulsion
Tight
Emulsion
Ronningsen
Well A
28,00
7,82
15,40
14,54
16,00
33,16
Well B
75,00
8,52
54,18
65,40
82,04
74,18
OTC 17386
Well
WELL A
Model
Live Oil
Loose Emulsion
Medium Emulsion
Tight Emulsion
Farah Model
Ronningsen
OLGA / PVTSim
No emulsion
OLGA / PVTSim
emulsion
Viscosity (mPa.s)
50C
70C
21,53
3,71
44,36
6,77
42,06
6,39
46,21
6,95
28,46
4,73
37,71
5,76
BHFP
(Kgf/cm2)
243,31
253,12
252,29
253,66
246,18
249,18
32,72
9.84
234,41
68,77
16,93
240,2
WELL B
Model
Live Oil
Loose Emulsion
Medium Emulsion
Tight Emulsion
Farah Model
Ronningsen
OLGA / PVTSim
No emulsion
OLGA / PVTSim
emulsion
Viscosity (mPa.s)
50C
70C
16,46
5,26
104,30
33,26
124,55
39,54
207,51
50,86
87,93
16,00
87,82
27,34
20,48
194,62
6,05
55,45
BHFP
(Kgf/cm2)
235,83
254,19
255,80
257,52
252,29
252,48
Postion
Reynolds
Pattern
Bottom hole
4.761
Transition
Well head
3.756
Transition
Pipe end
4.680
Transition
Pipe start
2.241
Laminar
Riser base
2.142
Laminar
Riser top
1.880
Laminar
Bottom hole
65.677
Turbulent
Well head
46.047
Turbulent
Pipe end
47.030
Turbulent
Pipe start
15.932
Turbulent
Riser base
17.834
Turbulent
Riser top
15.188
Turbulent
Bottom hole
38.522
Turbulent
Well head
30.776
Turbulent
Pipe end
18.053
Turbulent
Pipe start
10.187
Turbulent
Riser base
11.415
Turbulent
Riser top
9.615
Turbulent
189,72
237,96