A Case History of Heavy-Oil Separation in
Northern Alberta: A Singular Challenge of
Demulsifier Optimization and Application
Jonathan J. Wylde and Steven Coscio, SPE, and Victor Barbu, Clariant Oil Services
Summary
This case history tracks the continual improvement cycle for the
fluid-separation process of a heavy-oil/oil-sands production facility
in northern Alberta over a period of 3 years. The major challenge
posed by the operator of this 13 to 16°API crude oil was to move
away from injection of two separate demulsifier formulations to
injection of a single product. This was not an easy task because of
the very different conditions that existed at the two injection loca-
tions. The first location was at a series of injection points upstream
of the gathering stations before separation where temperatures
could reach subzero conditions, and the second was at the battery
receiving facility where heating increased temperatures to 100°C.
Water cut and shear were also very different, and the operator
required a very strict 0.2% basic sediments and water (BS&W) on
the crude exiting any of the four treater tanks. To complicate issues
further, crude-oil viscosity ranged from 500 to 5,000 cp.
A unique bottle testing method was developed and used to
simulate the field conditions as accurately as possible. Details
are given on the chemistry of the individual components of the
demulsifier determined to be so crucial to adequate performance
and how this was optimized in the field after being identified from
the bottle tests.
Results show how careful consideration was given to the
concentration of the demulsifier bases in the blends, and show
the curious observation that dilution of the final product made a
big difference to the final performance in the field. Elaboration is
given on potential mechanisms explaining the dilution effect, and
this paper will conclude with observations on how careful design
of field testing followed by field implementation can indeed solve
complex separation issues and address individual well, battery, and
field requirements.
Introduction
Emulsion Background and Theory. Oil and gas are rarely pro-
duced from a reservoir alone, often being associated with produced
water. This mixed production creates many issues, one of which
is the formation of emulsions. Separation of the crude oil from
the water is one of the most critical and fundamental process
challenges in production operations. Emulsions can be difficult to
treat and can cause operational issues such as production of off-
specification (wet) crude and (oily) water, high pressure drops in
pipelines, and tripping of separators (Schramm 1992).
Emulsions can be encountered through the entire production and
processing cycle of crude oil: in the reservoir, wellbore, production
tubing and wellheads, process vessels, export pipelines, and during
petroleum processing. The process of separating water from crude
is called demulsification or dewatering. In refineries, the process of
removing washwater from crude oil is called desalting.
Crude-oil emulsions are a dispersion of water in oil and can be
classified into three categories:
1. Water-in-oil emulsions
2. Oil-in-water emulsions
3. Multiple or complex emulsions
Copyright © 2010 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 117177) was accepted for presentation at the International Thermal
Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, 20–23 October 2008, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 31 July 2008. Revised manuscript
received for review 01 December 2008. Paper peer approved 20 December 2008.
February 2010 SPE Production & Operations
In the oil industry, water-in-oil emulsions are by far the most
commonly encountered. As a rule of thumb, the type of emulsion
that forms is determined by the relative abundance of the two
phases. When a phase is in excess, the phase that has the smaller
fraction is dispersed in the other. However, there are a number of
factors that will also influence this rule of thumb (Schramm 1992;
Schubert and Armbroster 1992).
Emulsions are stabilized by a surface-active agent or surfactants,
which are termed emulsifiers. These species concentrate at the oil/
water interface and form interfacial films that reduce the interfacial
tension and promote emulsification and dispersion of droplets. Many
naturally occurring emulsifiers are present in crude oil and include
asphaltenes, resins, organic acids, and bases (Eley et al. 1988). All
these emulsifiers tend to concentrate in the higher-boiling-point
fractions and therefore in heavier crude oils. It is understood that
these emulsifying components are major constituents of interfacial
films, and numerous laboratory studies have been performed looking
at various emulsifying components and their ratios to one another
(Verutto and Kilpatrick 2008; Spiecker and Kilpatrick 2004; Kumar
et al. 2002; Baydak et al. 2008; Zaki et al. 2000). Other production
chemicals can also act as emulsifiers, such as corrosion inhibitors,
scale inhibitors, and drilling fluids. Fine solids can act as mechanical
stabilizers. These solid particles have to be much smaller than emul-
sion droplets and concentrate at the oil/water interface wetted by
both the oil and water. The efficacy of solids in stabilizing emulsions
depends on particle size, interactions, and the relative wettability of
the particles. Some studies have proposed that solids are by far one
of the most influential parameters on emulsion stability (Poindexter
et al. 2006). Solids can include sand, asphaltenes, waxes, clays,
silts, corrosion products, mineral scales, drilling mud, and drilling
loss control media.
Emulsions are unstable systems because there is a thermody-
namic drive for a liquid/liquid system to separate and reduce the
interfacial area and energy. Many emulsions can be stable over
a long period of time because they possess a kinetic stability.
This leads to another classification system of emulsions based on
stability:
1. Loose emulsions separate in a few minutes.
2. Medium emulsions separate in 10 minutes or more.
3. Tight emulsions can be stable for hours or days and in some
instances may never resolve.
Generally a tight emulsion has a much smaller dispersed-phase
droplet size (< 1 ␮m) and a high degree of stabilizing surfactants
or solids present. A loose emulsion has a larger dispersed-phase
droplet size (> 1 to 10 ␮m) and a low degree of stabilizing sur-
factants or solids.
Many factors affect the stability of emulsions, and these have
been reviewed exhaustively in the literature (Kokal 2005; Strassner
1968; Kokal and Al-Ghamdi 2006; Yarranton et al. 2000):
1. Temperature. As well as affecting the physical properties
of the crude oil, namely viscosity, temperature also affects the
properties of the produced water, interfacial films, and emulsi-
fier solubilities in the crude oil and water. The viscosity of the
emulsion decreases with increasing temperature because increas-
ing the temperature decreases the viscosity of the crude oil. This
can especially be prevalent when a crude oil contains paraffinic
components, and application of heat can eliminate an emulsion
problem by redissolving paraffins into the crude oil. Temperature
also serves to increase the energy of a fluid, thereby increasing the
number of droplet collisions and promoting coalescence.
19
 2. pH. Many emulsifying agents are affected by pH, such
as organic acids and bases, asphaltenes, and solids. Therefore,
changing the pH affects the ionization of these components in the
interfacial films, thus changing their properties (Strassner 1968).
pH also affects the type of emulsion. For example, low pH gener-
ally produces water-in-oil emulsions, whereas high pH produces
oil-in-water emulsions.
3. Heavy fraction in crude oil. Naturally occurring emulsify-
ing agents are found in the higher-boiling-point, polar fraction of
crude oil (Yarranton et al. 2000; Kilpatrick and Spiecker 2001;
Levine and Sandford 1985). These components include resins,
asphaltenes, naphthenic compounds, and carboxylic acids and
bases. The heavier a crude oil or the richer in high-boiling-point
polar fractions, the more stable the emulsion that will form because
these compounds are major constituents of the interfacial films.
4. Solids. Fine solid particles can stabilize a crude-oil emul-
sion, but the exact mechanism depends upon several factors, such
as particle size, material, and wettability (Poindexter et al. 2006;
Levine and Sandford 1985). These solid particles diffuse to the
oil/water interface where they form a film and sterically hinder
the coalescence of droplets. Critical to the stabilization of emul-
sions is the nature of the charge on the particle, as well as particle
size. They must be much smaller than the emulsion droplets they
are stabilizing.
5. Droplet size. Generally an emulsion that has a smaller
average droplet size is more stable. This is in part explained by
Stoke’s law, which describes the settling of particles in an ideal
situation. According to Stoke’s law, the rate of settling of a droplet
is proportional to the droplet radius squared, the density difference
between the phases, and the inverse of viscosity.
Emulsion-Control Background and Theory. Classic emulsion
theory states that fundamentally, a two-phase emulsion is not ther-
modynamically stable and given sufficient time will separate into the
component phases. However, this is complicated in the oilfield envi-
ronment because additional phases, such as solids and aggregates,
can also be present and act as physical barriers, thus introducing an
entirely new phase into the mixture. This leads to stabilization of
emulsions, the result of which is that some oilfield emulsions are
stabilized for much longer than would be expected. Destabilization
of water-in-oil emulsions occurs in stages through:
1. Flocculation/aggregation. Droplets of water clump together
forming aggregates. Droplets may touch but not actually coalesce
because of the presence of the interfacial film surrounding the
water droplet. This is strongly affected by water cut, temperature,
viscosity, and the oil/water density contrast.
2. Creaming/water drop. There must be a difference in density
for creaming to occur, and the result of this process is a concen-
tration of dispersed droplets that will drop toward the bottom of
a vessel.
3. Coalescence/free-water breaking. This is where the water
droplets fuse to form a larger droplet in an irreversible process.
Coalescence is fast if a high interfacial tension, low viscosity, high
water cut, and high temperature are present.
Both physical and chemical methods are employed in the sepa-
ration of water from crude oil. Enhancement of the demulsification
process can be achieved in a number of ways. The most common
include increased temperature, centrifugation, electrical methods,
increased residence time, and chemical-demulsifier treatment.
Nonchemical Emulsion Control. Increasing temperature
encourages the dispersed-phase droplets to strike each other more
often and with greater force. This is because they are in continuous
Brownian motion. This leads to a greater likelihood of coalescence.
Heat also serves to reduce the viscosity of the continuous phase,
resulting in higher film drainage. However, heating can create
other operational issues such as increased energy consumption,
increased corrosion risks, and asphaltene precipitation.
Centrifuge methods are used to increase the concentration of
the dispersed phase in the creamed layer, as well as increase the
breaking of interfacial films. Centrifuges can be used for primary
emulsion treatment, but are more common for oil-in-water treat-
ment (e.g., hydrocyclones).
20
The use of electricity has been long used in the oil industry to
enhance emulsion resolution. Electrostatic coalescers or separators
are widely used to treat water-in-oil emulsions. A dipole is formed
in the water droplets, which causes them to be attracted to one
another and become elongated (Fjeldly et al. 2008).
Given sufficient residence time and the correct physical condi-
tions, crude-oil emulsions can become partially or fully resolved.
Therefore, separator vessels need to be sized appropriately to get
the best residence time for the fluids being processed. Sometimes
retrofitting of vessels can occur to make, for example, two-phase
separators into three-phase separators to improve residence time
(Kokal and Al-Ghamdi 2008).
Chemical Demulsification. The addition of chemicals is by
far the most common method of treating emulsions. Chemical
demulsifiers are used all over the world to improve the emulsion-
breaking processes. Demulsifier formulations are prepared from
cationic, anionic, or nonionic surfactants of varying degrees of
hydrophilic/lypophilic balance (HLB) values and a wide range of
molecular weights. Demulsifiers are surface-active compounds
that migrate to the oil/water interface and rupture or weaken
the rigid film, thereby enhancing coalescence of water drop-
lets. Demulsifiers can alter the wettability of solids to enhance
coalescence.
Typical demulsifier chemistries include polymeric chains of
ethylene oxides (EO) and propylene oxides (PO) of alcohol,
ethoxylated alcohols, ethoxylated phenols, ethoxylated amines,
ethoxylated resins, sulfonic acid salts, diepoxides, ethoxylated
nonylphenols, polyhydric alcohols, and then a great many of sur-
factant chemistries.
A demulsifier can operate by one or more of several mecha-
nisms (Bhardwaj and Hartland 1993; Salager 1990):
1. Preferential adsorption onto the oil/water interface and dis-
placement of pre-existing stabilizing emulsifying agents, thus
removing the steric barrier. This has been confirmed from interfa-
cial tension measurements and rheology studies.
2. Because a demulsifier base has a limited solubility in crude
oil, it coats only a small portion of water droplets. Spreading of the
demulsifier can occur by hetero-droplet interaction and can help
to explain why some demulsifiers act immediately to cause rapid
coalescence of water droplets.
3. Good demulsifiers adsorb to the interface as the interfacial
film is stretched. Strong partitioning and mobility to the inter-
face are important demulsifier characteristics, and the demulsifier
causes rupture of the film and coalescence of water droplets.
4. Solids wetting characteristics are preferentially changed by
effective demulsifiers to either totally oil-wet or totally water-wet,
thus encouraging solids off the interface and into one discrete
phase. It is generally more desirable to move solids to the water
phase. If wax or asphaltene was the entrained solid, then it is gener-
ally more desirable to move these solids back into the oil phase.
It is hardly surprising that any given demulsifier formulation
is highly specific to an individual field or process system because
formulations are sensitive to crude oil type, pH, salt content, and
temperature. To ensure good treatment of the crude oil, a demul-
sifier should generally dissolve in the continuous oil phase and
diffuse to the oil/water interface in the correct concentration. A
good demulsifier will also partition into the water phase and pos-
sess a high rate of adsorption at the interface. Finally they should
suppress the interfacial-tension gradient and accelerate film drain-
age, promoting coalescence (Baydak et al. 2008; Xia et al.; Nour
et al. 2007).
The bottle test is the standard technique employed in the field
to initially select demulsifiers. The bottle test will provide data on
water drop, oil dryness, and interface quality. There is no stan-
dard method for the bottle test, and there should not be because
every system is different (Kokal 2005). A bottle test is more of
a method than a procedure, and variables in the test include (but
are not limited to) demulsifier chemistry, dosage rate, test length,
temperature, and degree of agitation. Good experimental design is
key to mimic the field conditions and make the tests more repre-
sentative (Bowman et al. 1977; Kokal 2006; Tang and Wong 2005;
Al-Bastaki et al. 2003).
February 2010 SPE Production & Operations

ITPS FWKO
Skimmed oil
Produced
water tank
Fig. 1—Plant battery schematic.
Field Background and Fluid-Separation
Challenge
This case history tracks the continual improvement cycle for the
fluid-separation process of a heavy-oil/oil-sands production facil-
ity in northern Alberta over a period of 3 years. One of the major
challenges posed by the operator of this 13 to 16°API crude oil
was to move away from injection of two separate demulsifier for-
mulations to injection of a single product. This was not an easy
task because of the very different conditions that existed at the two
injection locations. The first location was at a series of injection
points upstream of the gathering stations out in the field, before
separation, where ambient temperatures could reach subzero con-
ditions (> −40°C). The ambient conditions affected the in-line
temperature of the flowlines, decreasing arrival temperatures at the
battery from approximately 15 to 20°C to as low as 7 to 12°C. The
second injection location was at the battery receiving facility where
heating increased temperatures to approximately 100°C. Water cut
and shear were also very different, and the operator required a very
strict 0.2% BS&W on the crude exiting any of the four treater
tanks. To complicate issues further, crude-oil viscosity ranged from
500 to 5,000 cp, and the crude oil came from a relatively shallow
play resulting in wellhead temperatures barely reaching 20°C.
A schematic of the plant battery is given in Fig. 1. Fluids arrive
from the field to an inclined two-phase separator (ITPS). From
there they pass through a heat exchanger to a free-water knockout
vessel (FWKO). Fluids then passed through four parallel heater
treaters to sales. Various recycling and skimming operations can
be in operation (Fig. 1).
Injection of two different demulsifier products in the field and at
the battery occurred for several years (both were mixtures of EO/
PO block polymers and alkoxylated resins) with relatively trouble-
free operation. The lease automatic custody transfer (LACT) base
sediment and water (BS&W) was below the 0.5% specification.
However, in mid-2007 it was a requirement to not only move to
a single demulsifier product for application in the field and the
battery, but also to decrease the BS&W to 0.2%. The reasons for
these changes were to ease logistical and operational issues by
moving to one product, and the BS&W specification was to have
more of a buffer between the actual BS&W of the LACT and the
sales specification of 0.5%.
In order to enable use of a single product in both the field injec-
tion locations and at the battery, a redesign of the bottle tests was
required in order to simulate the real field conditions and passage
of a single demulsifier product through the system. Some subtle
changes were to initially perform the bottle tests on cold fluids
February 2010 SPE Production & Operations
Treater 1
Treater 2 Sales
tank
Treater 3
Treater 4
Off spec oil
Recycle
tanks
mimicking application in the field, and then after an appropriate
residence time, increase the temperature and dose in additional
chemical to mimic application at the battery. On the basis of the
results, a new single demulsifier product was identified that was
a blend of EO/PO block polymers and an alkoxylated amine. The
changeover was completed by the end of June 2007. The new prod-
uct was very good for fast water drop, and the BS&W of the ITPS
and FWKO were much improved compared to previous trends.
However, BS&W was not as low as 0.2%. During this time, there
were significant operational issues with the functionality of the
heater treaters, and in nearly all cases, at least one of the treaters
ran cooler than 100°C. As an example, the Treater 1 trends have
been plotted in Fig. 2, and it can be seen that when the temperature
decreases, the BS&W increases, especially in the last quarter of
2007 where the treater temperature decreased from 115 to 100°C
and the BS&W coming out the treater increased from an average of
between 0.2% and 0.35%. In order for a single demulsifier product
to be as effective as possible, the temperature and operation of the
treaters needed to be as smooth and constant as possible.
The change in chemistry had not given the necessary impact
to the overall export BS&W that the operator had anticipated.
Therefore, further attempts at optimization were made, and it was
found that using a dilution of the same chemistries, especially in
the field, but also at the battery, made significant improvements to
the BS&W and treatments. This change to a diluted product came
only 1 week after the change to a single chemistry and after appli-
cation of a diluted product (30% active instead of 50% active). The
improvements were proposed when better penetration occurred
in the oil with the increased solvent content of the demulsifier.
However, even with this improved penetration and dehydration of
the oil, it was acknowledged that this was just too challenging a
task to perform alongside decreasing the BS&W of the LACT to
below 0.2% after several months of trying to optimize on a single
product in the field (at a variety of concentrations) and at the
battery. Therefore, further optimization of demulsifier products
occurred, which brought a new product to be applied at the battery
while keeping the same product out in the field.
Some general plant trends have been plotted in Figs. 3 and 4
that show the evolution of the LACT BS&W with total oil- and
water-flow rates (Fig. 3) and then the LACT BS&W with the
overall (total) demulsifier-injection rate (Fig. 4). In Fig. 3, there
is a direct relationship between the LACT BS&W and the vol-
ume of water the field produced and handled at the battery. As
the produced-water rates increased, the LACT BS&W increased,
too. This would suggest that the water-handling limitations of
21
 0.50 130

0.45
120
0.40

0.35 110

Temperature (C)
0.30
BS&W %

100
0.25
90
0.20

0.15 80

0.10
70
0.05 Treater 1 BS%W
Treater 1 temperature
0.00 60
12/04 03/05 06/05 09/05 12/05 03/06 06/06 09/06 12/06 03/07 06/07 09/07 12/07 03/08 06/08 08/08

Fig. 2—Treater 1 BS&W vs. temperature.

the battery were being exceeded and that the plant had become
more challenging to operate with the increased volume of water.
Residence times also significantly decreased as the produced-water
rates increased from 8000 to 16000 m3/day (50,500 to 101,000
B/D). Another potential issue is that the emulsion could actually
pass the inversion point in some locations because this increase in
produced water is a water-cut change of approximately 64 to 80%,
although experimentation to confirm this has not been performed.
It can be seen from Fig. 4 that optimization of the original demul-
sifier combination injection rate had occurred from 2005 to 2007,
and it was possible to reduce the overall demulsifier consumption
from 150 to 90 ppm (based on oil). During this time, the BS&W
trends remained constant at approximately 0.2 to 0.3%. During
this optimization, the demulsifier usage was altered for both the
upstream and downstream applications. During the last 6 months
of this demulsifier optimization (the first half of 2007), the LACT
BS&W noticeably increased to 0.4%, and further demulsifier
optimization ceased in order to try to control the rising BS&W.
The big increase in demulsifier-injection rate in the second half
of 2007 was because of a change to a more dilute product in an
attempt to gain better demulsifier penetration into the crude oil to
enable cold treating. Returning to Fig. 3, a slow increasing trend
in the LACT BS&W occurred from early 2005 to the end of 2006
(A), explained by increasing water-production rates and generally

18000 0.7
Oil rate
Water rate
16000 LACT BS&W 0.6
Crude oil and water rate (m /day)

14000
0.5
3

12000
LACT BS&W %

C
10000 0.4

B
8000 0.3
A
6000
0.2
4000

0.1
2000

0 0
12/04 03/05 06/05 09/05 12/05 03/06 06/06 09/06 12/06 03/07 06/07 09/07 12/07 03/08 06/08 08/08

Fig. 3—Crude-oil and water rates vs. the LACT BS&W (arrow indicates change in demulsifier chemistry).

22 February 2010 SPE Production & Operations

 300 0.7

0.6
250

Demulsifier usage ppmv (oil)

0.5
200

BS&W %
0.4
150
0.3

100
0.2

50
0.1
Demulsifier usage
LACT BS&W
0 0
12/04 03/05 06/05 09/05 12/05 03/06 06/06 09/06 12/06 03/07 06/07 09/07 12/07 03/08 06/08 08/08

Fig. 4—Demulsifier usage vs. the LACT BS&W (arrow indicates change in demulsifier chemistry).

decreasing demulsifier-injection rates. At the beginning of 2007, an the battery and received by the ITPS vessel. When this happened,
increasing trend was experienced in the LACT BS&W (B), and this the ITPS received a large slug of wet-oil emulsion followed by
was commensurate with a marked increase in the produced-water an even larger slug of free water. This added to the difficulty of
rate. By the end of June of 2007, the new single demulsifier product operating the ITPS in terms of interface control and correct water
was introduced. Even though further increases in produced-water levels, as well as loading the FWKO with oil emulsion and starv-
rates occurred, the increasing trend in BS&W was halted where it ing it of water. The solids would also cause a pad buildup in both
has maintained an average of 0.4% (C). While on face value the the ITPS and FWKO.
change in demulsifier did not decrease the BS&W to the target
of 0.2%, the change was positive because it ensured faster water Conclusions
drop and more efficient separation at the plant even with massive
The following conclusions can be made from the field testing,
increases in gross fluid throughput. It resulted in maintaining a
sampling, and demulsifier optimization exercise:
less severely increased BS&W. It can be seen that optimization
• Injection of two separate demulsifier products before mid-2007
continues with the new product combination to reduce the injection
gave relatively trouble-free operation. A change to the BS&W
rate to the most economical concentration.
requirement and a desire to move to a single demulsifier prod-
A corrosion inhibitor was injected in the field at a rate of
uct applied in the field and at the battery gave some significant
approximately 1000 L/d, equivalent to approximately 60 ppm
treatment challenges.
based on total fluids. It was a water-soluble/oil-dispersible product
• A redesign of the bottle-test procedure was required in order to
applied to all the main areas coming in from the field. Bottle testing
more accurately mimic the field application of a single demulsi-
showed that this corrosion inhibitor significantly interfered with
fier product.
the speed of water separation and resulted in a baggy interface in
• The general increase in BS&W seen at the LACT was most
the bottle. The field separation equipment also shows higher effi-
likely attributable to the large increase in gross fluid through-
cacy of fluid separation during periods where the corrosion inhibi-
put—mostly water. Residence times would be much reduced,
tor is offline, especially the water quality outlet to the skimmings
plant operability would have been constantly changing, and the
tanks. Furthermore, the crude oil itself being produced on this lease
emulsion may have passed through its inversion point.
had relatively low asphaltene content for the weight of the crude.
• The change in demulsifier chemistry was positive because it
This resulted in the crude being relatively nonviscous. Therefore,
halted the increasing trend in BS&W commensurate with large-
cold treatment of the crude was a viable option. The crude also
scale water-rate increases.
contained a significant amount of entrained gas because it was
• The corrosion inhibitor injected in the field was shown to inter-
difficult for the gas to separate from the crude at low temperatures
fere significantly with the speed of water separation and resulted
in the field. Only after heating at the battery did large-scale gas
in a baggy interface in the bottle test.
breakout occur. Therefore, the produced fluids and gases displayed
• Large quantities of entrained gas in the crude resulted in large-
very different physical forms in the field and at the plant, which
scale foaming in the battery, and application of an antifoaming
indicated that two demulsifier products were likely to be required
agent was recommended to help maintain a clear and discrete
to treat the overall lease. The large-scale gas breakout in the battery
interface.
created a lot of foam in the process vessels, particularly the ITPS
• Pigging operations of the infield pipelines brought slugs of solids,
and FWKO, which led to poor interface control and excursions
emulsions, and free water into the battery adding further to the
of water into the sales crude. This continual disturbance created
difficultly of operating the plant.
wide swings in the composition of fluids flowing to the FWKO,
thus leading to large deviations from the set point in the operating
temperature of the FWKO. Application of an antifoaming agent References
is anticipated quite soon in order to try to improve LACT BS&W Al-Bastaki, N., Abbas, A., and Zubari, H. 2003. Improving the Production
even further. of Heavy Emulsion Crudes in the Bahrain Field: Experimental and
To complicate treatment further, the main infield pipelines were Field Investigations. Paper SPE 81450 presented at the Middle East
pigged twice weekly and production fluids and solids pushed to Oil Show, Bahrain, 9–12 June. doi: 10.2118/81450-MS.

February 2010 SPE Production & Operations 23

Baydak, E.N., Yarranton, H.W., Ortiz, D.P., and Moran, K. 2008. Effect
of Demulsifiers on Interfacial Films and Stability of Water-in-Oil
Emulsions Stabilized by Asphaltenes. 9th International Conference on
Petroleum Phase Behavior and Fouling, Victoria, British Columbia,
Canada, 15–19 June.
Bhardwaj, A. and Hartland, S. 1993. Study of Demulsification of Water-in-
Crude Oil Emulsions. Journal of Dispersion Science and Technology
14 (5): 541–557. doi: 10.1080/01932699308943426.
Bowman, R.W., Burton, W.D., and Pryor, J.A. 1977. Statistically Designed
Oil Dehydration Tests. Paper SPE 6529 presented at the SPE California
Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California, USA, 13–15 April. doi:
10.2118/6529-MS.
Eley, D.D., Hey, M.J., and Symonds, J.D. 1988. Emulsions of water in
asphaltene containing oils 1. Droplet size distribution and emulsifi-
cation rates. Colloids and Surfaces 32: 87–103. doi: 10.1016/0166-
6622(88)80006-4.
Fjeldly, T.A, Hansen, E.B., and Nilsen, P.J. 2008. Novel Coalescer Tech-
nology in First-Stage Separator Enables Single-Stage Separation and
Heavy-Oil Separation. SPE Proj Fac & Const 3 (2): 1–5. SPE-118891-
PA. doi: 10.2118/118891-PA.
Kilpatrick, P.K. and Spiecker, P.M. 2001. Asphaltene Emulsions. In Ency-
clopedic Handbook of Emulsion Technology, ed. J. Sjoblom, Chap. 30,
707. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Kokal, S. 2005. Crude Oil Emulsions: A State-Of-The-Art Review. SPE
Prod & Fac 20 (1): 5–13. SPE-77497-PA. doi: 10.2118/77497-PA.
Kokal, S. and Al-Ghamdi, A. 2006. Oil/Water Separation Experience From
a Large Oil Field. SPE Prod & Oper 21 (3): 365–371. SPE-93386-PA.
doi: 10.2118/93386-PA.
Kokal, S. and Al-Ghamdi, A. 2008. Performance Appraisals of Gas Oil
Separation Plants. SPE Prod & Oper 23 (2): 287–296. SPE-102854-PA.
doi: 10.2118/102854-PA.
Kokal, S.L. 2006. Crude Oil Emulsions. In Petroleum Engineering Hand-
book, Vol. 1—General Engineering, ed. J.R. Fanchi. Richardson, Texas:
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Kumar, K., Nikolov, A.D., and Wasan, D.T. 2002. Effect of Film Curvature
on Drainage of Thin Liquid Films. J. Colloid Int. Sci. 256 (1): 194–200.
doi: 10.1006/jcis.2001.8096.
Levine, S. and Sandford, E. 1985. Stabilisation of emulsion droplets by
fine powders. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 63 (2):
258–268. doi: 10.1002/cjce.5450630211.
Nour, A.H., Yunus, R.M., and Anwaruddin, H. 2007. Water-in-Crude Oil
Emulsions: Its Stabilization and Demulsification. Journal of Applied
Sciences 7 (22): 3512–3517.
Poindexter, M.K., Chuai, S., Marble, R.A., and Marsh, S.C. 2006. The Key
to Predicting Emulsion Stability: Solid Content. SPE Prod & Oper 21
(3): 357–364. SPE-93008-PA. doi: 10.2118/93008-PA.
Salager, J.L. 1990. The fundamental basis for the action of a chemical
dehydrant: Influence of physical and chemical formulation on the
24
stability of an emulsion. International Chemical Engineering 30 (1):
103–116.
Schramm, L. ed. 1992. Emulsions: Fundamentals and Applications in the
Petroleum Industry, No. 231. Washington, DC: Advances in Chemistry
Series, ACS.
Schubert, H. and Armbroster, H. 1992. Principles of Formation and Stabil-
ity of Emulsions. International Chemical Engineering 32 (1): 14–28.
Spiecker, P.M. and Kilpatrick, P.K. 2004. Interfacial Rheology of Petroleum
Asphaltenes at the Oil-Water Interface. Langmuir 20 (10): 4022–4032.
doi: 10.1021/la0356351.
Strassner, J.E. 1968. Effect of pH on Interfacial Films and Stability of
Crude Oil-Water Emulsions. J. Pet Tech 20 (3): 303–312; Trans., AIME,
243. SPE-1939-PA. doi: 10.2118/1939-PA.
Tang, Y. and Wong, S. 2005. A Flow Assurance Study for a Satellite
Crude-Oil System With Severe Emulsion. Paper SPE 96836 presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 9–12
October. doi: 10.2118/96836-MS.
Verutto, V.J. and Kilpatrick, P.K. 2008. Water-in-Model Oil Emulsions
Studied by Small-Angle Neutron Scattering: Interfacial Film Thickness
and Composition. Langmuir 24 (22): 12807–12822. doi: 10.1021/
la802095m.
Xia, L., Lu, S., and Cao, G. 2003. Stability and demulsification of emul-
sions stabilized by asphaltenes or resins. J. Colloid. Int. Sci. 271 (2):
504–506. doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2003.11.027.
Yarranton, H.W., Hussein, H., and Masliyah, J.H. 2000. Water-in-Hydro-
carbon Emulsions Stabilized by Asphaltenes at Low Concentrations.
Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 228 (1): 52–63. doi: 10.1006/
jcis.2000.6938.
Zaki, N., Schoriing, P.C., and Rahimian, I. 2000. Effect of Asphaltene and
Resins on the Stability of Water-in-Waxy Oil Emulsions. Petroleum
Science and Technology 18 (7–8): 945–963. doi: 10.1080/10916460
008949884.
Jonathan Wylde is the Canadian business manager for Clariant
Oil Services, which he joined in 2002. He holds a BSc degree in
geology and a PhD degree in physical chemistry, both from
the University of Bristol. Wylde serves as a technical reviewer
for SPE journal submissions and is an eMentor. Victor Barbu is
the technical service representative for Clariant Oil Services,
which he joined in 2007. He holds a BSc in chemistry from the
University of Montreal. Steven Coscio supports Gulf of Mexico
operations for Clariant Oil Services, which he joined in 2003.
His experience includes demulsifier development and applica-
tion, corrosion inhibitor evaluation, and deoiler application. He
worked for eight years on production chemicals application
for a major oilfield chemicals service company and four years
in a supervisory position at an environmental protection com-
pany. He holds a BSc in agricultural systems management from
the University of Texas A&M.
February 2010 SPE Production & Operations