STUDY OF EMULSION PROBLEM DUE TO GASLIFT AND CHOOSE

OPTIMUM GAS RATE AND SUITABLE TYPE AND RATE OF

DEMULSIFIER

H. MAHMOODIAN – M. FASIH – M.H. MOOSAVI – M. NALCHI – R. GHALYAGIZADEH – D.

FARKHANI – E. HASSANI ZIABARI – A. ARZPAYMA
R.I.P.I. – E&P - P.V.T. DEPARTMENT

ABSTRACT
In many oil reservoirs for more oil production “gaslift” technique is used. In this method, gas
is added to oil column to light it so the well needs less pressure to flow.
In some wells after “gaslift”, “emulsion” problem is observed, where oil and water can not
be separated by ordinary “demulsifier” in suitable time. In this study, this problem which has
happened in an Iranian oil reservoir has been studied. The important factors that affect this
problem have been predicted and optimum gas rate of injected gas and type and rate of
demulsifier adding to the system has been proposed.

INTRODUCTION
For the first time “airlift” technique was used by an American (Cockford) to aerate the fluid
column and increase oil production [1]. In “gaslift” technique, there are two methods; gas
injection in tubing and production from casing (casing flow), and gas injection in casing and
production from tubing (tubing flow). Injected gas aerates the oil column so that less pressure
for production is required the U.S.A. there are about 25000 to 30000 wells that are produced
by “gaslift” technique. Continuos-flow gas lift is one of the most common forms of artificial
lift used in oil production [2].
In the petroleum industry, emulsion of oil and water is one of many problems encountered.
These emulsions have wide spread occurrence in petroleum recovery. The evaluation of
stability of emulsion systems and selection of optimal conditions for oil recovery process
must be closely scrutinized.
Sobocinski and Hontington experienced that in a special injected gas to oil ratio, stable
emulsion is formed and called “critical mixture” [1].
It is important that in viscouse crude oil wells that have super saturated brine in emulsion,
“gaslift” increase their problem frequently [3].

IMPORTANT FACTORS IN EMULSION FORMATION

Emulsion is an unstable mixture that tends to separate to two phases but when a fluid disperse
to very small drops in another fluid (like water in crude), then because of interactive
molecules forces and surface tension, some small drops remain stable. In some mixtures there
are “natural stabilizing agents’ that causes a more “stable emulsion” [4]. In oil field

1
 “crystalline wax”, “asphalten particles” and “solid particles” cause emulsion problem since it
forms a strong film between oil and gas interface and water droplets surrounded by
“asphalten” and “resin” of oil. This film that causes emulsion, depends on type of oil and gas,
type and pH of water, temperature, none polar molecules in water, polar molecules in oil,
pressure and retension time [4].
Experiments show that pH of water has an important effect on film formation between oil
and water at oil-water contact. The more acidic the PH is, the more stable the emulsion will
be, since it causes stable polar molecules of “asphalten” and “resin’ [4].

CASE STUDY
In an Iranian oil field after “gaslift” with a special gas injection rate, the “stable emulsion”
was observed and demulsifier was added. After changing gas injection rate, the problem was
disappeared. In this study, the reason of “stable emulsion” is considered.
Since the field condition was missed, the reservoir oil and water and injected gas were
sampled on well site and also some demulsifier and corrosion inhibitor that were used in field
were brought to P.V.T. lab. The emulsion was physically simulated in lab and the following
experiments were performed.
1 - Effect of gas injection rate on oil-water mixture for 6 different rates.
2- Effect of quality and quality of demvlsifier.
3- Effect of corrosion inhibitor
1- Suitable demulsifier suggestion.

EXPERIMENTS
1- Separator test was performed at high-pressure oil and physical properties were measured:
oil density at 60 oF is equal to 0.8515 gr/cm3 and gas oil ratio is equal to 109 SCF/STB.
2- The percent of oil-water mixture in sample bottle was measured: 30.9% water in mixture.
3- Type of oil was: paraffin and naphtenic 68%, aromatic 25%, resine 3%, asphaltene 1.87%
and others 2.13%, pH of water also measured (4.5) which is acidity one.
4- Injected gas was analyzed by chromatography and H2S content measured by Tutwailer
method:

Table 1 – Injected gas analysis

Components H2S N2 CO2 C1 C2 C3 i-C4 n-C4 i-C5 n-C5 C6 C7 C8+
Mol% 1.50 3.40 2.98 85.40 4.15 1.37 0.29 0.40 0.16 0.12 0.11 0.06 0.06

5- The XRF experiments on oil and water showed S, Cl in oil and Cl, K, Br, Sr, Ca and Na in
water.
6- A system as shown in Figure 1 was designed for mixing oil-water mixture with different
gas rates to simulate physical emulsion in lab:
Water and oil were charged to P.V.T. cell at the same percent in sample bottle (30.9%
water). Then in first step, 5 SCF gas for 1000 cc oil (or 0.5 SCF gas for 100 cc oil)were
charged through mixture and the cell was controlled at 55 oC and 185 psi, and shaked for
10 minutes (retension time). Finally the P.V.T. cell was discharged. This experiment was
repeated 6 with 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 SCF gas for 1000 cc oil, without corrosion
inhibitor presence. Experiments showed that emulsion was not stable and after almost 5
minutes water and oil were separated completely.

2
7-In an other experimeut, oil and water with the same percent in mixture were mixed in a
glass

(a) (b)
Figure 1- System for simulating physical emulsion in lab.

cylinder and shaked for 60 times. The maximum separation time for this mixture was 6
minutes and when it was placed in a 55oC bath, separation time decreased to 3 minutes
(effect of temperature on separation time). In the next experiment, one to six droplets of
corrosion inhibitor were added to the mixture. Table 2 shows the effect of corrosion
inhibitor:

Table 2: Effect of corrosion inhibitor on separation time

Corrosion inhibitor (droplets) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Separation time (minutes) 3 4 5.5 8 11.5 14.5 25

As more corrosion inhibitor was added to mixture, more time was needed to separate the
oil-water emulsion. It was concloded that the corrosion inhibitor did like an emulsifier and
increased the separation time from 3 to 25 minutes.
8- Experiments in step 6 were repeated by adding 30 PPM “NALCO” corrosion inhibitor
(that is used in field) to the system and 5 SCF gas for 1000 cc oil. After 10 minutes the
P.V.T. cell was discharged to a glass cylinder. At the beginning the cylinder showed the
homogeneous emulsion but retort experiment showed no water at the top the of cylinder
and 38% water at the bottom. Until 20 minutes no contact was observed but gradually oil-
water interface appeared and after 60 minutes oil and water were completely separated.

H2O
H2O
H2O

Emulsion After 20 minutes After 30 minutes After 40 minutes After 60 minutes

Figure 2- Results of simulated experiments with corrosion inhibitor

9- Step 8 was repeated for other gas injection rates. The results are illustrated in Table 3.

3
 RESULTS OF SIMULATED EXPERIMENTS
Much of the world wide oil production is accompanied by water in an emulsion form that
requires threading.
It is necessary to use enhanced engineering techniques to decrease emulsion contents and
Table 3 – Effect of gas rates on emulsion with corrosion inhibitor
Residual oil Oil in water emulsion Separation
Injected gas for 1000
No. density time
cc oil SCF Oil % Water %
gr/cm3 (minute)
1 5 0.8658 38.6 61.4 60
2 10 0.8680 21.6 78.4 32
3 15 0.8688 20.4 79.6 12
4 20 0.8701 19.5 80.5 9
5 25 0.8704 19 81 8
6 30 0.8694 19.5 80.5 8

apply suitable demulsifier to separate oil and water at least time. There are many important
factors in emulsion formation that are mentioned in references:
1- Oil type: paraffinic and asphaltene particles oil causes emulsion formation and solid
particles and resine help to it’s stability [3]. In this study as mentioned in Table 1, there are
much of paraffinic and asphalten and resin particle present and also XRF experiments
showed sulfur and chlorine in oil.
2- pH of water: pH of water has an important effect on film formation around droplets, the
more acidic pH is, the more stable the emulsion will be In this study pH of water was 4.5
and XRF showed Na, K, Ca, Cl, Br and Sr in water.
3- Injected acid gas: type and rate of gas injection are very important in gas lift efficiency.
Acid gases like H2S and CO2 (in this study, H2S =1.5% and CO2 = 2,98%) cause a suitable
acid condition for stable emulsion. Rate of gas lift as mentioned before is very important.
Lab studies show that suitable Reynolds number for injected gas is between 50000 to
100,000 [3].
4- Emulsifier agent: These agents decrease IFT between oil and water. Some natural particles,
such as sand, silt, shale particle, crystallized paraffin, iron, zinc, aluminum sulfate, calcium
carbonate, iron sulfate and some others that exist in oil water contact act like a emulsifier
[3]. Experiments showed that corrosion inhibitor (like NALCO corrosion inhibitor in this
study) act like emulsifier. Table 3 shows that when injected gas increase from 5 SCF to 20
SCF, oil in water emulsion decreases from 38.6% to 19.5% and time of separation
decreases from 60 to 9 minutes, and more than 20 SCF of gas will only increase the cost.

4
 50 70

Oil pecent in emulsion

Separation time (min

45 60
40 50
35
40
30
30
25
20
20
15 10
10 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Injected gas (SCF) Injected gas (SCF)

Figure 1 – Effect of injected gas vs. Figure 2 – Effect of injected gas

oil percent in emulsion vs. separation time
Table 3 shows that oil density increases from 0.8515 to 0.87 g/cm3 with increasing injected
gas , due to the removal of intermediate components from oil by gas.

WELL SITE DEMULSIFIER IDENTIFICATION

In well site TROSTB 4602 was used as demulsifier. It is distillated to it’s fractions in
vacuume and at intermediate temperatures. Three fractions were identified, Light solvents
(40 - 42 wt %), heavy solvents (24 - 25 wt %) and residual (35 wt %).
Light solvent NMR spectrum shows hydrocarbons composition and Xilans. Heavy solvent
NMR shows paraffin composition and residual NMR shows a EO-PO composition (ethylene
and propylene oxide): RO- (CH2-CH2O)-(CH-CH2O-)

DEMULSIFIER MOLECULAR WEIGHT

Demulsifier’s molecular weight is an important factor in emulsion separation. Well site
demulsifier’s (TROS TB4602) molecular weight was measured by Gel permeation
chromatography (GPC). The light fraction molecular weight is 998 and heavy fraction is
2736.

COMPARISON OF TROS WITH OTHER DEMULSIFIERS

Comparing the composition of TROS with the other demulsifiers which are is used in well
site (EO-PO copolymer) and knowing their molecular weight, some other demulsifier were
used to comparie their effects on emulsion.
As mentioned, the emulsion sample was physically simulated in P.V.T. lab and transferred to
graduated glass cylinders and placed in 55oC water bath.
The demulsifier such as : Separol 5394 – Separol 5269 – Travis Baker, Servo and TROS STB
4602 were added to emulsion samples in equal amants and shaked 60 times simultaneously.
Baker and Servo were out so they were not mentioned in table 4:

5
 Table 4 – Comparison of valid demulsifiers on emulsion separation
Demulsifier trade mark
TROS Separol Separol
Travis
STB 4602 5394 5269
Separated water cc 10 15 18 20
In 2 minutes
Separation steps 4 3 2 1
Separated. Water cc 15 20 22 25
In 5 minutes
Separation steps 4 3 2 1
In 10 Separated Water cc 16 24 26 27
minutes Separation steps 4 3 2 1
In 15 Separated. water cc 17 25 27 28
minutes Separation steps 4 3 2 1
In 20 Separated. Water cc 17 25 27 29
minutes Separation steps 4 3 2 1
After 24 Separated. water cc 25 25 28 29
hours Separated steps 4 3 2 1
Average Molecular Weight 2736 2606 1897 1432
Separation steps: 1 = best separation, 4 = weakest separation

As are shown in Table 4, Separol 5269 has the best efficiency. In other experiments the
repeatability was checked and the Travis was put aside. The results are shown in Table 5:

Table 5 – Repeat ability experiments on various emulsifiers

In 5 minutes In 10 minutes In 15 minutes

Sep. water Sep. Sep. water Sep. Sep. water Sep.
(cc) Steps (cc) Steps (cc) Steps
Emulsion
Colloidal Colloidal 20 cc water
without 4 4 4
Water phase Water phase and colloidal
demulsifier
Emulsion with
TROS STB 22 3 23 3 23 3
4602
Emulsion with
27 – 28 2 27 – 28 2 27 – 28 2
Separol 5394
Emulsion with
28 – 29 1 28 - 29 1 28 – 29 1
Separol 5269

Repeatability experiments also show that Separol 5269 has the best separation effect in
five minutes.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A suitable demulsifier is a chemical that can separate water-oil and others at least time. In this
study the emulsion was physically simulated at field condition and then some demulsifiers
were tested. The results show that a demulsifier called Separol 5269 has the best separation on
ability this emulsion. This chemical agent has the best efficiency and could separate most of

6
 the water in maximum 5 minutes. This was recommended to production management also
substitute of other demulsifiers which were used previously.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
The authors would like to thanks Miss Angaji for oil type determination, Mr. Keshmiry for oil
and water XRF experiments, gas chromatography and oil section for gas and oil analysis and
Mr. Din Mohammad for editing and typing of paper.

References:
1- “Gas lift theory and practice”, by: Kermit E. Brown, 1967
2- “A new approach to gas lift optimization” by: Kunal Dutta-Roy, J.P.T., July 1997
3- “Petroleum Eng. Handbook”, by Bradly, SPE, Richardson TX, 1987, Chap. 6
4- P.R.I. (Petroleum Recovery Institute) “Oil field emulsion” ,Report 1988-98, Gokhan
Coskuner, Nov. 1988