Rheology of Heavy-Oil Emulsions
Hussein Alboudwarej, Moin Muhammad, and Ardi Shahraki, Schlumberger; Sheila Dubey and Loek Vreenegoor,
Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc.; and Jamal Saleh, Shell International E&P
Summary
Water is invariably produced with crude oil. If there is enough
shear force when crude oil and produced water flow through the
production path, stable emulsions may be formed. This scenario
may particularly be present during the production of heavy oils,
where steam is used to reduce the viscosity of heavy oil, or in cases
in which submersible pumps are used to artificially lift the pro-
duced fluids. To efficiently design and operate heavy-oil produc-
tion systems, knowledge of the realistic viscosities of the emulsi-
fied heavy oil, under the actual production conditions, is necessary.
This study is an attempt to investigate the effect of water content,
pressure, and temperature (i.e., operating conditions on the viscos-
ity of live heavy-oil emulsions).
Two heavy oil samples from South America were used for this
study. The stock tank oil (STO) samples were recombined with the
corresponding flash gases to reconstitute the original reservoir oil
compositions. Live oil/water emulsions were prepared in a con-
centric cylinder shear cell using synthetic formation water, under
predetermined pressure, temperature, and shear conditions. The
stability of live emulsions was investigated using a fully visual
pressure/volume/temperature (PVT) cell, while viscosities were
measured using a precalibrated, high-pressure capillary viscom-
eter. Viscosities were measured at least in three different flow rates
at the testing conditions. In addition to live-oil emulsion studies,
the stability and droplet size distribution of STO emulsions were
also determined.
Experimental results indicated that the inversion point for the
STO emulsions was approximately 60% water cut (volume), and
the average droplet size was increasing with water content. For all
measured cases, viscosities varied with temperature according to
an Arrhenius relation, while viscosities did not indicate any varia-
tion with flow rate (shear) within the range of tested flow rates.
Measured viscosities also increased as pressure decreased below
the bubblepoint of the sample as lighter hydrocarbon components
evolved. The measured viscosities increased as much as 500%
because of the presence of emulsions before a sharp drop in vis-
cosity beyond the inversion point. The variation of viscosity with
water content for live emulsion samples indicated that the inver-
sion point for live emulsions is similar to that of STO samples.
The experimental results are also used to analyze and evaluate
the performance of an ESP system when water cut increases and
causes emulsion in a well.
Introduction
As an oilfield ages, the rate of water production increases. With
enough shear force (e.g., flow through a downhole pump or a flow
restriction such as a choke valve or orifice), a stable emulsion can
be formed. Presence of inorganic solids such as sand, clay, and
corrosion products, together with surface-active materials such as
asphaltenes and naphthenic acids, also enhance the stability of
emulsions (Kokal 2005). Because of the presence of these ele-
ments, the occurrence of tight emulsions in the production facili-
ties is quite common. In some cases, emulsions may also form in
the near-wellbore region, leading to emulsion blockage of porous
media (Kokal et al. 2002).
Copyright © 2007 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 97886) was accepted for presentation at the 2005 SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA
International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Alberta, 1–3 November. Origi-
nal manuscript received for review 26 August 2005. Revised manuscript received 3 January
2007. Paper peer approved 8 February 2007.
August 2007 SPE Production & Operations
In addition to formation blockage and general difficulty in the
separation of oil and water in production facilities, one of the main
drawbacks of emulsion formation is an increase in the apparent
viscosity of the oil. Viscosity of water-in-oil emulsions increases
as the water cut increases before the so-called emulsion inversion
point, beyond which the continuous phase changes to water (i.e.,
water-in-oil emulsion switches to oil-in-water emulsion). It has
been shown that the viscosity of the water-in-oil emulsion may
increase as much as one order of magnitude or even higher over
the viscosity of the dry oil (Singh et al. 2004). In oil-in-water
emulsions, viscosity decreases with an increase in water content.
Therefore, the maximum apparent viscosity of emulsions occurs at
the emulsion inversion point (Szelag and Pauzder 2003).
One of the field implications of emulsion inversion and emul-
sion viscosity is the transportation of heavy oil-in-water emulsions.
It has been shown that under certain conditions, the viscosity of
the heavy oil-in-water emulsion is considerably lower than the
heavy oil (Nunez et al. 2000). Because water production is gen-
erally increasing with the life span of the oil production field, it
is also very important to have an accurate measure of the emul-
sion inversion point and viscosity for optimum pipeline and facil-
ity design.
The majority of experimental work on the emulsion stability
and viscosity measurements is performed for STO samples. How-
ever, dissolved gases affect the viscosity of oil and the correspond-
ing emulsions. For optimum design and operation of the oilfield
production facilities, knowledge of live-oil emulsion properties is
required. In the present work, stability and viscosity of two South
American live heavy-oil emulsions were studied. Live-oil emul-
sions were prepared in a shear cell and analyzed in a visual PVT
cell for stability and in a capillary viscometer for viscosity mea-
surement. The information from this study may be used for both
facility-pipeline and artificial lift system design.
The study of the performance of ESP systems indicates that
under these conditions, a given system will not be able to provide
optimum performance if the water cut increases from 0 to 50%.
For a system operating on unchanging parameters, the rate of
production will decrease drastically because of the scale of in-
crease in emulsion viscosity with water cut.
Experimental
Two South American live-oil samples were used for this study.
The STO samples were recombined with 5-component synthetic
gas mixtures to reconstitute the reservoir fluid compositions. The
recombined samples were conditioned at reservoir pressure and
temperature for a period of 5 days. The recombined samples were
then analyzed for composition and physical properties, as shown in
Tables 1 and 2 for Oil A and Oil B, respectively.
To prepare emulsions, water samples with similar compositions
to reservoir waters were used. Compositions of formation water
samples are provided in Table 3. Note that Water A and B cor-
respond to Oil A and Oil B, respectively. A high-pressure shear
cell was used to prepare live emulsions. The device is a Taylor-
Couette flow device in which the annulus between the two con-
centric cylinders is used to provide the shear environment for the
fluid. It is rated to pressures up to 7,000 psia, temperatures up to
390°F, and rotational frequencies (through a magnetic coupling)
up to 100 Hz. The operation of the shear cell is controlled auto-
matically to maintain operating conditions. To form emulsions, the
shear cell is first filled with a water sample, and then pressurized
and heated up to the desired set points. Water is then displaced
under live conditions with the oil sample until desired water/oil
volume ratio is achieved. The rotational speed in the cell then
285
emulsifies the water under provided shear condition. After shear-
ing the mixture for the desired period of time, the cell content is
displaced with an inert gas isothermally and isobarically to a
sample cylinder equipped with an internal mixing ring. The emul-
sion cylinder is maintained under the same pressure and tempera-
ture and a continuous rocking condition. Emulsion samples are
transferred to a visual PVT cell for stability analysis and to a
capillary viscometer for viscosity measurement as needed. Table 4
summarizes the conditions under which different emulsions were
prepared. Note that the water cut (%vol) is defined as the volume
of water over the total volume expressed as percentage.
Stability analyses for STO samples were performed using
bottle tests; however, for live emulsion samples, a fully visual PVT
cell was used. Live emulsion samples were transferred from a
sample cylinder (with mixing ring) to the PVT cell. The magnetic
coupling in the PVT cell was turned off to eliminate any further
shearing of the sample. For live emulsion samples, only stability of
85% water-cut samples were tested.
A capillary viscometer rated to 10,000 psia and 374°F was used
for viscosity measurements. The capillary viscometer consists of
two, high-pressure cylinders (32 ml each) connected to a 10-ft-
long and 0.03-in. diameter capillary coil. A differential pressure
transducer is used to monitor the pressure drop across the capillary
coil. The fluid sample is pumped from one cylinder to the other
through the capillary coil by an opposed pump. From the measured
fluid-flow rate and pressure drop, the viscosity can be determined
using the Hagen-Poiseuille relationship for laminar flow in tubes,
namely

␮=
⌬p
Q
冉 冊␲ r4
8L
=
⌬p
Q
k, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)

where ␮ is the fluid apparent viscosity; ⌬p is the pressure drop

across the capillary tube of length, L, and an internal radius r; and
Q is the volumetric flow rate. The tube constant k is determined by
calibrating the viscometer using standards of known viscosity at
test pressures and temperature. Note that the maximum Reynolds
number for this study corresponding to the highest flow rate and
the lowest viscosity was approximately 25, indicating a fully lami-
nar flow. Shear stress at the wall can be calculated as
⌬p D
␶= , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
4L
in which D is the internal diameter of the capillary tube, L is the
length of capillary tube, and ⌬p is the pressure drop across the
capillary tube. Shear rate at the wall may be calculated as
␶
␥= , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
␮
in which ␶ and ␮ are wall shear stress and fluid apparent viscosity.

Results and Discussion

STO Emulsion Preparation and Stability Analysis. STO emul-
sions were prepared for both Oil A and Oil B samples to determine
the emulsion inversion points. The significance of the inversion
point is that generally, emulsions show the maximum viscosity at
or near the inversion point. Also, the STO inversion points may
give an idea about the corresponding live-oil emulsion inversion

286 August 2007 SPE Production & Operations

points. STO emulsions were prepared by simply adding proper
volume ratio of oil and formation water, and hand-shaking the
mixture intermittently for at least half an hour. In all cases, both oil
and water had been equilibrated at 130 °F before mixing. No
estimate of applied shear rate is available. The samples were kept
at the same temperature for at least 18 to 20 hours before any
photomicrographs were taken. For the cases of 85% volume water
cuts, both Oil A and Oil B sample emulsions were unstable, and oil
and water started segregating instantaneously.
Fig. 1 shows the results of stability bottle tests for STO Oil A
emulsion samples with water cuts of 10, 50, 62, and 85% volume,
respectively. The 50% water-cut emulsion was stable at least for
18 to 24 hours, whereas the 62% volume water-cut emulsion
showed signs of oil/water segregation after a few hours. The in-
version point for STO Oil A emulsions samples is estimated to be
60±5% volume water cut. Fig. 2 shows the stability results for
STO Oil B emulsion samples with water cuts of 50, 70, and 85%
volume, respectively. Both 70 and 85% volume water cuts showed
instantaneous segregation of oil and water, indicating unstable
emulsions. The inversion point for STO Oil B emulsion samples is
estimated to be 65±5% volume water cut.
Live Emulsion Preparation and Stability Analysis. Table 4
shows the conditions at which live emulsions were prepared in the
shear cell. The difference in the applied shear rates for the Oil A
emulsion samples is caused by the viscosity of the samples and the
rotational speed. For 10 and 85% volume water contents, viscosity
is lower than the case of 50% volume water content, and rotational
Fig. 1—Stability of Oil A (STO) at 130°F.
August 2007 SPE Production & Operations
speed is higher. A combination of lower rotational speed (i.e.,
decoupling at higher rotational speed than 70 Hz) and higher vis-
cosity leads to a lower shear rate environment for the case of 50%
volume water content emulsion sample. Stability analysis was only
performed on 85% water cut emulsions for both Oil A and Oil B
samples. Water separation could be observed as soon as the emul-
sion sample was transferred from shear cell to the visual PVT cell
(in less than 15 minutes). Fig. 3 shows the segregated water and oil
in a visual PVT cell under the same conditions. Note that for the
case of Oil B, oil is partially adhered to the glass surface and does
not allow clear observation. The 85% water-cut emulsions were
unstable even in the presence of shear from PVT cell magnetic
stirrer. No image analysis was performed on the 85% water-cut
emulsions, because both STO and live emulsions were unstable
and could not be used for viscosity testing. No stability analysis
was performed on other live emulsions.
To investigate water droplet size distribution in emulsions, a
subsample of the live emulsions was flashed from the correspond-
ing emulsion cylinders to ambient conditions. The samples were
then analyzed under a microscope, and photomicrographs for each
emulsion were analyzed using image analysis software. Figs. 4
and 6 show the photomicrographs of emulsions for the Oil A and
Oil B samples, respectively. Figs. 5 and 7 depict the correspond-
ing droplet size distribution for the same images. Note that the
resolution of the images is approximately 1 micron, and number
frequency for droplets smaller than 1 micron is merely a calculated
number and may not represent the actual droplets. For Oil A emul-
sions, the droplet size distribution for both 10 and 50% water cut
Fig. 2—Stability of Oil B (STO) at 130°F.
287
Fig. 3—Stability of live 85% water-cut live emulsions of Oil A
and Oil B.

are very similar, and only the number frequency in the 50% water
cut is slightly higher. For Oil B, there is a slight shift in the droplet
size distribution of 50 and 60% emulsions compared to the 15%
emulsion. Comparing the 50 and 60% emulsions of Oil B, it seems
that 50% emulsion has a higher-number frequency of smaller drop-
lets, while the 60% emulsion has a higher number of larger drop-
lets. Note also that for 60% water cut, droplet size distribution
suggests the existence of another size mode, thus a near bimodal
distribution [e.g., partially unstable emulsions (Salager et al.
2000)]. The viscosity measurements for the same oil at 60% water
cut also shows a partially unstable system. Fig. 4—Photomicrographs of Oil A live emulsions (sample
flashed to ambient conditions).
Viscosity Measurements. The viscosities of the neat Oil A and
Oil B samples, together with their corresponding emulsions, were
determined using a capillary viscometer. Measured viscosities for
both dry Oil A and Oil B samples, at various pressures, are shown
in Fig. 8. Data follow an Arrhenius-type temperature trend, at least
for the measured range of temperature. Also, the neat oil viscosi-
ties decrease as the amount of solution gas increases with increas-
ing pressure. The viscosity of each sample was measured at least
at three different volumetric flow rates (shear rates), and the re-
ported viscosity values are the arithmetic average of measured
viscosities for each sample. There was no significant variation of
viscosity with shear rate. Tables 5 and 6 show the range of applied
shear rates (s−1) for each measured viscosity point. The standard
deviation of viscosity with shear rate varied between 0.1 and 1.4%
for Oil A and between 0.02 and 1.4% for Oil B. The overall
average standard deviations of measured viscosities over the range
of shear rate were 0.5 and 0.4% for Oil A and Oil B, respectively.
In all cases, reducing pressure below the bubblepoint (and sepa-
ration of lighter hydrocarbon components) increased the measured
viscosities for both neat oils and emulsions, as expected. At the
same time, an increase in water content of emulsions (up to and
near inversion point) increased the viscosities (Fig. 9). For the case

Fig. 5—Droplet size distribution of Oil A live emulsions (sample Fig. 6—Photomicrographs of Oil B live emulsions (sample
flashed to ambient conditions). flashed to ambient conditions).

288 August 2007 SPE Production & Operations

Fig. 7—Droplet size distribution of Oil B live emulsions (sample
flashed to ambient conditions).
of the Oil A sample, viscosities increased up to 30% for 50%
water-cut emulsions at 40°F, and viscosity variation was more
sensitive to pressure than to water content. In comparison, the
viscosity of Oil B emulsions showed higher variation with water
content than with pressure. For the case of Oil B emulsions, vis-
cosities increased more than 5 times at 50% water cut and 40°F.
For Oil B at 60% water cut, the viscosity dropped drastically
compared to the 50% water cut. This behavior might be an indi-
cation that the emulsions were beyond the inversion point.
Comparison of Emulsion Viscosity Correlations. Four single-
parameter correlations were chosen for the comparison. Taylor’s
(1932) and Vand’s (1948) correlations were used as the pioneer
and most commonly referred correlations. The correlations of Ron-
ningsen (1995) and Yaron and Gal-Or (1972) were chosen based
on two separate performance studies (Johnsen and Ronningsen
2003; Pal 2001). Although multiple-parameter correlations are
available for more accurate prediction of emulsion viscosities, the
single-parameter equations were chosen for the sake of simplicity.
Multiple-parameter viscosity correlations need experimental data
for tuning purposes. The emulsion viscosity data may not be avail-
able a priori. Details of the correlations are provided in the Ap-
pendix.
Figs. 10 and 11 depict the results of such a comparison for Oil
A and Oil B, respectively. The emulsion viscosities for Oil A were
best predicted with Taylor’s correlation with an absolute average
error of 13%; Oil B emulsion viscosities were best predicted by the
correlation of Yaron and Gal-Or with an average absolute error of
21%. Note that only emulsion viscosity data were considered in the
error analysis. For Oil A, single-parameter correlations tend to
overpredict the viscosity of emulsions, while for Oil B, no par-
ticular trend could be distinguished. This comparison between the
selected correlations, although limited to single-parameter corre-
lations, shows that the predicted viscosity of emulsions with no a
priori measurement may be largely inaccurate.
August 2007 SPE Production & Operations
Fig. 8—Viscosities of Oil A and Oil B (no water). Triangles for
100 psia, circles for 1,000 psia, diamonds for 2,000 psia, and
squares for 3,000 psia.
Case Study
An ESP system performance analysis under these experimental
results was conducted. For this analysis, the measured data for Oil
B at 2,000 psia and 70°F is used. The measured data under the
conditions was used to calibrate the calculated viscosity. The in-
formation and data for the reservoir and the well are presented in
Table 7 and Fig. 12.
Fig. 13 displays the well performance curves for oil (with no
emulsion). For this case, the flowing bottomhole pressure (FBHP)
was 511 psia. For the flow rate, a pressure of 1,076 psia is required
to lift the fluid to the surface. This difference in pressure clearly
indicates that the well requires artificial lift to produce 950 B/D of
liquid, and an ESP system is the most suitable candidate for this
situation. To achieve this flow rate, an additional 565 psi of pres-
sure is required. The pressure profile (pressure gradient) plot, seen
in Fig. 14, summarizes the available and required lift pressures.
The change in water cut that changes the viscosity affects the
whole system twofold.
First, increase in viscosity drastically changes the tubing per-
formance. Achieving the same rate requires much higher pressure
to lift the fluid to the surface when water cut is increased. The
change in profile is shown in Fig. 14, and the friction component
that bears the effect of the viscosity is shown in Fig. 15.
Second, the viscosity affects the performance of the pump. As
the viscosity increases, the efficiency of the pump decreases and
requires more stages to produce the same flow rate. Table 8 shows
that the number of stages, and required power increases drastically
as water cut increases. The table also shows that the head factor for
each stage decreases and the power factor increases. The lower the
head correction factor, the less head or lift will be provided. On the
other hand, the higher the power factor, the more power will be
required by the pump to operate and lift the same rate (these
factors are 1.0 for water). Therefore, the pump provides less head
or lift and requires more power (e.g., a larger motor) as emulsion
viscosity increases. This increase indicates that if the increase in
water cut is expected, the system should be designed for approxi-
mately the inversion point that causes the highest viscosity. As
emulsion viscosity increases with the water cut, more lift is re-
quired to move the fluid to the surface, and also the increase in
viscosity reduces the efficiency of the pump. In Table 9, the best
efficiency rate of the pump decreases as the viscosity increases.
In this analysis, the number of stages required to continue
producing the same rate was determined. In actual practice, if the
number of stages is set, then the production rate will decrease as
water cut increases, as expected.
289
Conclusions
Viscosities of live recombined Oil A and Oil B samples and their
different water-cut emulsions were measured using a capillary vis-
cometer. Experimental results indicated that for all measured
cases, viscosities varied with temperature according to an Arrhe-
nius relation, while viscosities did not indicate any variation within
the range of tested flow rates, suggesting that fluids are Newto-
nian. Measured viscosities also increased as pressure decreased
below the bubblepoint of the sample, inline with the amount of
dissolved gases. Viscosity measurements for dry oil and emulsions
of Oil A samples indicated that emulsion viscosities have in-
creased by 30%, while for the case of Oil B samples, the increase
in the emulsion viscosities was as high as 500%.
Regarding emulsion stabilities, the bench top bottle tests indi-
cated that the inversion point for STO Oil A emulsions was ap-
proximately 60±5% volume water cut, and, for STO Oil B emul-
sions, was approximately 65±5% volume water cut. For live-oil
samples, the stability of only 85% volume water cut for both Oil
A and Oil B samples was tested, and both emulsion samples were
unstable. A systematic study to determine the inversion point of
live-oil emulsions was not performed. However, the viscosity mea-
surements for the Oil A sample suggest that the inversion point
may be approximately 55±5% volume water cut at the tested con-
ditions (10% volume water cut lower than that of the STO sample).
A more definitive experimental scope of work is required to de-
termine the inversion point for the live emulsion samples.
Comparison between four emulsion viscosity single-parameter
correlations and measured viscosities indicated that the absolute
average error in the predicted emulsions viscosities could be as
high as 200% for the tested fluids, as shown in Table 9. Single-
parameter emulsion viscosity correlations should only be used
with an expectation of large errors.
If higher water cut is expected during the lifespan of the ESP
system operation, the performance of the ESP should be consid-
ered very carefully. As the results show, either the system should
be designed for the worst-case scenario, which is the inversion
point, or change in the ESP system should be considered at dif-
ferent stages of the well’s life as water cut increases. But these
evaluations require reliable data for the emulsion viscosity of the
fluid.
290
Nomenclature
D ⳱ internal diameter of capillary tube
k1–k4 ⳱ constants in Eq. A-4
K ⳱ dispersed-phase viscosity/continuous-phase viscosity
L ⳱ length of capillary tube
Q ⳱ volumetric flow rate
r ⳱ internal radius of capillary tube
T ⳱ temperature
␥ ⳱ shear rate
⌬p ⳱ differential pressure
␪ ⳱ volume% water cut in Eq. A-4
␮ ⳱ apparent emulsion viscosity
␮c ⳱ continuous phase viscosity
␮r ⳱ relative viscosity defined in Eq. A-1
␶ ⳱ shear stress
␾ ⳱ volume fraction of dispersed phase
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank Schlumberger and Shell Global Solu-
tions (U.S.) Inc. for permission to publish this work. The authors
would also like to thank Craig Borman, Trevor Lockyer, Rob
Fisher, and Abdulai Dawodu for performing experimental work.
References
Johnsen, E.E. and Ronningsen, H.P. 2003. Viscosity of ‘Live’ Water-in-Oil
Emulsions: Experimental Work and Validation of Correlations. Jour-
nal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38: 23–36.
Kokal, S. 2005. Crude-Oil Emulsions: A State-of-the-Art Review. SPEPF
20 (1): 5–13. SPE-77497-PA. DOI: 10.2118/77497-PA.
Fig. 9—Viscosities of Oil A and Oil B and correspond-
ing emulsions.
August 2007 SPE Production & Operations
Fig. 10—Comparison between measured and calculated emul- Fig. 11—Comparison between measured and calculated emul-
sion viscosities for Oil A. sion viscosities for Oil B.

Kokal, S. et al. 2002. Productivity Decline in Oil Wells Related to As- Appendix
phaltene Precipitation and Emulsion Blocks. Paper SPE 77767 pre- In the following equations, the relative viscosity is defined as:
sented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, 29 September–2 October. DOI: 10.2118/77767-MS. ␮
␮r = , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-1)
Nunez, G.A., Sanchez, G., Gutierrez, X., Silva, F., Dalas, C., and Rivas, H. ␮c
2000. Rheological behavior of concentrated bitumen in water emul-
sions. Langmuir 16 (16): 6497–6502. in which ␮r is the relative viscosity, ␮ is the emulsion apparent
viscosity, and ␮c is the continuous-phase viscosity.
Pal, R. 2001. Single-Parameter and Two-Parameter Rheological Equations
The celebrated Taylor equation for the relative viscosity of very
of State for Nondilute Emulsions. Industrial and Engineering Chem-
dilute emulsions of nearly spherical noncolloidal droplets is:
istry Research 40: 5666–5674.
Ronningsen, H.P. 1995. Correlations for Predicting Viscosity of W/O
Emulsions Based on North Sea Crude Oils. Paper SPE 28968 presented
at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, San An-
␮r = 1 + 冉 5K + 2
2K + 2 冊
␾, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-2)

tonio, Texas, 14–17 February. DOI: 10.2118/28968-MS. in which K is the viscosity ratio of dispersed phase to continuous
Salager, J-L., Marquez, L., Pena, A.A., Rondon, M., Silva, F., and Tyrode, phase, and ␾ is the dispersed-phase volume fraction.
E. 2000. Current Phenomenological Know-How and Modeling of Vand’s correlation is a theoretically based exponential function
Emulsion Inversion. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research in the form of

冉 冊
39: 2665–2676.
2.5␾
Singh, P., Thomason, W.H., Gharfeh, S., Nathanson, L.D., and Blumer, ␮r = exp , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-3)
D.J. 2004. Flow Properties of Alaskan Heavy-Oil Emulsions. Paper 1 − 0.609␾
SPE 90627 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
in which ␾ is the volumetric concentration of dispersed phase.
Exhibition, Houston, 26–29 September. DOI: 10.2118/90627-MS.
Variations of Vand’s equation have been used. The most common
Szelag, H. and Pauzder, B. 2003. Rheological properties of emulsions modification is to replace 0.609 with a constant that can be deter-
stabilized by acylglycerol emulsifiers modified with sodium carboxy- mined by fitting experimental data.
lates. Colloids And Surfaces A—Physicochemical And Engineering As- Ronningsen correlation is represented as
pects 219 (1–3): 87–95.
Taylor, G.I. 1932. The Viscosity of Fluid Containing Small Drops of ln ␮r = k1 + k2T + k3␾ + k4T␾, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-4)
Another Fluid. Proceedings of Royal Society A 138: 41–48.
Vand, V. 1948. Journal of Physics and Colloidal Chemistry 52: 217.
Yaron, I. and Gal-Or, B. 1972. On Viscous Flow and Effective Viscosity
of Concentrated Suspensions and Emulsions. Rheologica Acta 11:
241–252.

Fig. 12—Well trajectory.

August 2007 SPE Production & Operations 291


Fig. 13—Inflow and outflow curves for 0% water cut.
in which k1 to k4 are constants that have been determined at dif-
ferent shear rates (30, 100, and 500 s−1) and based on a set of North
Sea oil database, T is temperature (°C), and ␪ is the volume per-
cent water cut. The constants for 500 s−1 are: k1⳱−0.06671,
k2⳱−0.000775, k3⳱0.03484, k4⳱0.00005. At constant tempera-
ture, Eq. A-3 reduces to a single-parameter equation.
Yaron and Gal-Or’s analysis gives the following correlation for
the relative viscosity of concentrated emulsions:
␮r = 1
+ 再 5.5关4␾7 Ⲑ 3 + 10 − 共84 Ⲑ 11兲␾2 Ⲑ 3 + 共4 Ⲑ K兲共1 − ␾7 Ⲑ 3兲兴
10共1 − ␾10 Ⲑ 3兲 − 25␾共1 − ␾4 Ⲑ 3兲 + 共10 Ⲑ K兲共1 − ␾兲共1 − ␾7 Ⲑ 3兲
冎 ␾,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-5)
in which K is the viscosity ratio of dispersed phase to continuous
phase, and ␾ is the dispersed-phase volume fraction.
Hussein Alboudwarej is a senior research project engineer with
Schlumberger at DBR Technology Center, Edmonton. The fo-
cus of his research is on wax and asphaltene flow assurance
and the rheology of waxy and heavy crude oils. His research
interests also include development of experimental tech-
niques and tools for complex phase behavior and flow assur-
ance studies. Before his graduate studies, he worked for the
Fig. 15—Friction component of pressure profile for 15 and 50%
water cut and 950 B/D.
292
Fig. 14—Pressure profile for different water cuts, at 950 B/D.
National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) at both onshore and
offshore production fields as a process/production engineer.
He holds PhD and an MSc degrees from the University of Cal-
gary, and a BS degree from the Abadan Institute of Technol-
ogy, all in chemical engineering. Moin Muhammad is Manager
of the DBR Technology Center with Schlumberger in Edmon-
ton, Canada. He has more than 12 years of operational, re-
search, and management experience in reservoir fluid prop-
erties, flow assurance, and business development-related po-
sitions (Canada and U.S.). Moin holds an MS degree from the
University of Alberta, Canada and a BS degree from Punjab
University, Pakistan, both in chemical engineering. Ardeshir
(Ardi) Shahraki is a senior production engineer with Schlum-
berger in the Artificial Lift segment at Schlumberger Reservoir
Completions campus in Rosharon, Texas. He has been with
Schlumberger since 2002. He previously worked for IHS Energy
as a principal engineer/project manager. His interests include
multiphase fluid flow, well-system analysis, and modeling and
predicting the performance of artificial lift systems for the de-
sign and diagnostics of systems. He holds BS and MS degrees in
petroleum engineering from the University of Louisiana at
Lafayette, and a PhD degree in petroleum engineering from
New Mexico Tech. Sheila Dubey is a senior staff research en-
gineer at Shell Global Solutions (U.S.) Inc. at the Westhollow
Technology Center in Houston and has been with Shell Oil
Company for 27 years. She is currently the U.S. team lead for
Scale Emulsions Rheology Foam (SERF) in Flow Assurance. She
brings significant experience to these areas of flow assurance
because of her background in physical organic chemistry,
analytical chemistry, chemical engineering, and strong prac-
tical laboratory skills in the areas of E&P, chemicals, and refin-
ing. Her interests also include EOR and asphaltenes. She holds
an MS degree from MUN in Newfoundland and a PhD degree
from the University of Calgary, both in chemistry, as well as an
MS degree in chemical engineering from the University of Tulsa.
Loek Vreenegoor joined Shell in 1990, working at the Shell Re-
search and Technology Center Amsterdam (SRTCA) in The
Netherlands with a focus on R&D and Technical Services. He
started in the area of polymer processing, then becoming in-
volved in modeling and computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
of viscoelastic flows. After a 1-year assignment at Westhollow
Technology Center (WTC) in Houston, where he worked on 3D
CFD of degrading polymers and multiphase flow, he returned
to SRTCA as the team leader in multiphase flow and became
August 2007 SPE Production & Operations
involved in three-phase flow modeling and slug mitigation. He
then joined the Flow Assurance group, working out of Amster-
dam and Houston. Managerial responsibilities were combined
with providing technical support, both in the design and op-
erational phase of upstream projects, varying from the Ormen
Lange deepwater gas/condensate development in Norway
to plugged flow lines in the Gulf of Mexico to heavy oil devel-
opments off the coast of Brazil. Vreenegoor holds a cum laude
degree obtained at the Applied Mathematics Faculty of the
August 2007 SPE Production & Operations
Delft University of Technology, and he completed his PhD thesis
on the mathematical modeling of two-phase bubbly flows on
the same faculty. Jamal Saleh has been a senior process/flow
assurance engineer with Shell International Exploration & Pro-
duction since 2002. Before joining Shell, Jamal worked as a
senior flow assurance engineer at Intec Engineering for 2 years
and a process simulation engineer at Epcon International for 4
years. He holds a PhD degree in chemical engineering from
Lamar University.
293