Acs Energyfuels 8b03239

Subscriber access provided by University of Winnipeg Library
Fossil Fuels
Systematic Investigation of Asphaltene Deposition in Wellbore and Near-
Wellbore Region of a Deepwater Oil Reservoir under Gas Injection. Part
2: Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling of Asphaltene Deposition.
Narmadha Rajan Babu, Pei-Hsuan Lin, Mohammed I. L.
Abutaqiya, Caleb J. Sisco, Jianxin Wang, and Francisco M. Vargas
Energy Fuels, Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b03239 • Publication Date (Web): 04 Dec 2018
Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on December 5, 2018
Just Accepted
“Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted
online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical
Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination
of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in
full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully
peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the
Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore,
the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After
a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web
site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes
to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and
ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or
consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W.,

Washington, DC 20036
Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society.
However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works
produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course
of their duties.
Page 1 of 50 Energy & Fuels
1
2
Systematic Investigation of Asphaltene Deposition in Wellbore and Near-Wellbore Region
3 of a Deepwater Oil Reservoir under Gas Injection. Part 2: Computational Fluid Dynamics
4
5 Modeling of Asphaltene Deposition.
6
7
8
Narmadha Rajan Babu1, Pei-Hsuan Lin1, Mohammed I. L. Abutaqiya1, Caleb J. Sisco1,
9 Jianxin Wang2, Francisco M. Vargas1*
10
11
1
12 Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Rice University, Houston,
13
14
Texas-77005, USA
15 2
16 Chevron Energy Technology Company, Houston, Texas, 77002, USA
17
18 Authors Email Address: narmadha.rajan.babu@rice.edu, pei-hsuan.lin@rice.edu,
19
20 abutaqiya@rice.edu, caleb.sisco@rice.edu, jianxin.wang@chevron.com,
21
22 fvargas@rice.edu
23
24 *
Corresponding Author: email- fvargas@rice.edu, Phone- +1 (713) 348-2384
25
26
27 Abstract
28
29
30 Asphaltene deposition during oil production is a major flow assurance problem. Asphaltene
31
32 deposit layer reduces the pipe cross-section leading to a significant reduction in flow rate and
33
34
eventually plugging the pipeline. This flow assurance problem caused during oil production has
35
36
37 motivated the development of several experimental and modeling techniques to investigate the
38
39 asphaltene behavior. This study proposes an integrated approach to simultaneously model
40
41 asphaltene precipitation, aggregation, and deposition on a single platform. It focuses on the
42
43
44 development of a deposition simulator that performs thermodynamic modeling using the
45
46 Perturbed Chain version of the Statistical Associating Fluid Theory Equation of State (PC-SAFT
47
48 EOS) and depicts the deposition profile by means of a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
49
50
51
model based on finite element method. In this work, asphaltene deposition risk was assessed in
52
53 the near-wellbore region and the production tubing as a result of gas-breakthrough. To achieve
54
55 this goal, a sample of crude C2 was analyzed to determine its properties, and also the tendency of
56
57
the asphaltenes contained in this sample to precipitate and deposit under various conditions.
58
59
60 ACS Paragon Plus Environment 1
Energy & Fuels Page 2 of 50
1
2
Laboratory scale experiments were performed to analyze the rates of asphaltene precipitation,
3
4 aggregation, and deposition. With the results obtained from the various experiments, advanced
5
6 modeling methods based on PC-SAFT EOS and CFD models were calibrated and used to predict
7
8
asphaltene precipitation and deposition under field conditions. Simulation methods for oil flow
9
10
11 and asphaltene precipitation in the near-wellbore region of the reservoir and inside the
12
13 production tubing were coupled to provide the most rigorous modeling approach ever developed
14
15 to understand and predict this complex flow assurance problem. The results show low to
16
17
18 moderate asphaltene deposition rate produced by crude C2 as the gas breaks through.
19
20 Nevertheless, further investigation is recommended to analyze the effect of other fluids that may
21
22 be co-produced to enhance our ability to understand and predict asphaltene deposition under
23
24
25
different conditions.
26
27
28 Graphical Abstract
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55 Keywords: CFD Modeling, Wellbore simulation, Near-wellbore region simulation, Finite
56
57 Element Method, Surface Deposition Mechanism, PC-SAFT EOS, Friction Theory.
58
59
1
2
1. Introduction
3
4
5 The potential for asphaltene to precipitate and deposit in wellbore and flowlines is a major
6
7 concern for the oil and gas industry. Asphaltene precipitation and subsequent deposition can
8
9 occur as a result of changes in pressure, temperature and composition of crude oil during its
10
11
12
production from the reservoir to the wellhead. Asphaltene deposit removal from onshore and
13
14 offshore facilities is an expensive operation which can lead to extended shutdown time for oil
15
16 producing wells. In order to properly assess the risk of asphaltene deposition, experimental and
17
18
modeling techniques have been developed to predict the asphaltene deposition profile and rate.
19
20
21 There have been only a few established works on modeling asphaltene deposition in wellbores
22
23 and pipelines as well as in porous media compared to the number of work dedicated to the
24
25 development of thermodynamic models to investigate asphaltene phase behavior. The phase
26
27
28 stability of asphaltenes can be well described by thermodynamic models. Although the
29
30 prediction and analyses of possible asphaltene precipitation is extremely critical, it is equally
31
32 important to predict the transport of precipitated asphaltenes and identify their deposition
33
34
35
tendencies. Therefore, a predictive tool to estimate the amount and profile of asphaltene
36
37 deposited along the wellbore is required. It is important to establish an efficient and reliable
38
39 modeling technique to validate the mechanism of asphaltene deposition in the oil field based on
40
41
the various laboratory-scale experimental results. Hence, a reliable simulator that can model and
42
43
44 predict precipitation, aggregation, and deposition of asphaltene, along with an understanding of
45
46 the mechanisms and tendencies of asphaltene deposition can prove to be extremely helpful for
47
48 the oil and gas industry.
49
50
51
52
Perturbed Chain version of the Statistical Associating Fluid Theory Equation of State (PC-SAFT
53
54 EOS) has been successfully applied to model asphaltene phase behavior under both ambient and
55
56 reservoir conditions.1–3 There are a few studies published in the literature focusing on the
57
58
59
1
2
prediction of asphaltene deposition in pipelines, clearly illustrating the importance of this
3
4 problem in the oil industry.4–8 The model developed by Vargas et al.6 had sub-models describing
5
6 particle precipitation, aggregation, transport and deposition on the wall. The aggregation and
7
8
deposition phenomena were modeled using pseudo-first-order reactions. The model contained
9
10
11 three parameters which were estimated from capillary tube deposition experiments. The work
12
13 done by Kurup et al.7 was a continuation of the deposition simulator developed by Vargas et al.6
14
15 It involved the development of an Asphaltene Deposition Tool (ADEPT) that can predict the
16
17
18 occurrence and calculate the magnitude and profile of asphaltene deposition in a wellbore.
19
20 Similar to the model developed by Vargas et al.6, this deposition model also consisted of three
21
22 tuning parameters. Instead of a two-dimensional convection-diffusion transport equation as in
23
24
25
Vargas et al.6, this model was simplified to a one-dimensional axial dispersion equation. The
26
27 model was validated by comparing the simulation results against the experimentally measured
28
29 asphaltene deposition flux in a capillary deposition experiment. 9,10
A proper choice of the
30
31
kinetic parameters helped the deposition simulator in predicting the deposition profile. Since
32
33
34 there is a lack of understanding of the rich physics involved in the deposition process, the
35
36 transport model is frequently of a mechanistic nature and it relies heavily on experimental data. 11
37
38 A more rigorous analysis of the asphaltene deposition model can be done using a Computational
39
40
41 Fluid Dynamics (CFD) approach. Ge et al.12 presented a general framework for modeling the
42
43 asphaltene deposition process which focuses on a CFD based transport model with an evolving
44
45 depositing front coupled to the associated fluid, mass, and energy transport. Along similar lines,
46
47
48
a one-dimensional model for asphaltene deposition in wellbores or pipelines was presented by
49
50 Guan et al.13 This model consisted of a Thermodynamic Module and a Transport Module. The
51
52 Thermodynamic Module focused on the modeling of asphaltene precipitation using the Peng-
53
54
Robinson (PR) EOS. The Transport Module included the modeling of fluid transport, particle
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
transport, and asphaltene deposition while tracking the deposition front as well. The numerical
3
4 model was one-dimensional in nature.
5
6
7 In this work, the risk of asphaltene deposition problems in the near-wellbore region and the
8
9 production tubing as a result of gas-breakthrough has been assessed. This project required the
10
11
12
development and implementation of advanced experimental methods and simulation tools to
13
14 forecast the occurrence and the magnitude of asphaltene deposition in porous media and
15
16 production tubing at high temperatures and under dynamic conditions. The study illuminates the
17
18
development of a simple, yet comprehensive, CFD model that depicts the precipitation,
19
20
21 aggregation, and deposition of asphaltenes, along with their transport with oil as oil flows up the
22
23 wellbore and encounters varying conditions of temperature, pressure and flow regimes. The
24
25 deposition model is based on convection-diffusion-reaction equations. Enhanced performance of
26
27
28 the thermodynamic modeling of asphaltene phase behavior is attained by incorporating the PC-
29
30 SAFT EOS. Furthermore, this work illustrates the development and implementation of a model
31
32 to simulate the oil flow in porous media including the potential permeability reduction caused by
33
34
35
asphaltene deposition and hence its integration with the wellbore deposition tool. The model
36
37 developed in this work has the scope to be sufficiently sophisticated to capture the physics of the
38
39 system, yet simple enough to allow implementation in a programming environment, utilizing
40
41
thermodynamic principles and state-of-the-art algorithms and heuristics to increase the speed,
42
43
44 accuracy, and reliability of results generated. Systematic modeling of asphaltene deposition has
45
46 been performed, by making sure that the model relies only on as few tunable parameters as
47
48 possible.
49
50
51
52
The significance of this work is that transient simulations have been performed using the CFD
53
54 model based on Finite Element Method (FEM). An indigenous CFD model has been developed
55
56 in MATLAB platform for this work. A two-dimensional FEM is used to numerically solve the
57
58
59
1
2
momentum and mass transfer equations for the asphaltene precipitation, aggregation and
3
4 deposition phenomena taking place in the wellbore. Turbulent fluid flow simulations have been
5
6 performed, while simultaneously considering the change of density and viscosity of the oil
7
8
flowing up the wellbore as a function of pressure and temperature. A surface deposition
9
10
11 mechanism for asphaltenes has been introduced in this work, which is different from the pseudo-
12
13 first order or first order reaction mechanisms used in previous models found in the literature.6,7,13
14
15 Although the deposition model is based on convection-diffusion-reaction mechanism, unlike the
16
17
18 previous models, the asphaltene precipitation and deposition kinetic parameters are no longer a
19
20 single value that is obtained from experiments and used along the entire length of the wellbore.
21
22 Rather the kinetic parameters obtained from the experiments are scaled as a function of
23
24
25
temperature, pressure, flow field and driving force for precipitation. They vary along the length
26
27 of the wellbore. Generating a finite element mesh facilitates in incorporating the different values
28
29 of kinetic parameters, oil density, and viscosity at different lengths of the wellbore, as oil flows
30
31
up and encounters different conditions of pressure, temperature, and composition. The unique
32
33
34 contribution of this work is that asphaltene deposition simulations have also been performed for
35
36 the near-wellbore region and then the wellbore and near-wellbore asphaltene deposition models
37
38 have been integrated, making this modeling technique a very rigorous approach in understanding
39
40
41 this complex flow assurance problem.
42
43
44 2. Asphaltene Deposition Simulator
45
46
47 To accurately capture the process of asphaltene deposition that takes place in the wellbore and
48
49 near-wellbore region, a comprehensive Asphaltene Deposition Simulator has been developed.
50
51
52
The structure of the simulator will be discussed in detail in this section.
53
54
55 At reservoir conditions, the asphaltenes are mostly stable and soluble in oil. However, a change
56
57 in pressure, temperature, and composition may destabilize the asphaltenes that were originally
58
59
1
2
dissolved in the oil, leading to phase separation of asphaltenes from the oil. The precipitated
3
4 asphaltenes are known as primary particles. These primary particles then combine with each
5
6 other to form aggregates. It is proposed that these aggregates are susceptible to deposit on the
7
8
walls of the wellbore. Hence, the three steps that take place in the wellbore, namely,
9
10
11 precipitation, aggregation and deposition of asphaltenes can be modeled using a transport
12
13 (convection-diffusion) equation. The developed simulator is based on the notion proposed by
14
15 Vargas et al.6 model. The following are the assumptions involved in the development of the
16
17
18 simulator:
19
20
21  Asphaltene precipitation is dominated by dispersion forces and, therefore, PC-SAFT is
22
23 used without the association term to represent the thermodynamics of precipitation.
24
25
26
 Oil flow in the wellbore is modeled by assuming that the fluid is a single-phase multi-
27
28 component mixture.
29
30  Oil density and viscosity depend only on given temperature and pressure conditions.
31
32
33
 It is assumed that only precipitated asphaltene particles can deposit at the given
34
35 temperature and pressure conditions and once deposited, these asphaltenes do not re-
36
37 dissolve in oil.
38
39
40
 Only the asphaltene aggregates, which are smaller than the critical particle size,
41
42 participate in the deposition process. The large aggregated particles are considered to be
43
44 carried with the flow because of inertia and do not tend to deposit. In this work, 0.2 μm is
45
46
assumed as the critical particle size. This concept of critical particle size is in agreement
47
48
49 with the model proposed by Vargas et al.6
50
51  The deposition process is not dominated by transport occurring in the core flow but
52
53 dominated by transport and kinetics occurring in the laminar boundary layer adjacent to
54
55
56 the wall of the wellbore or pipeline. The laminar flow inside a packed bed column
57
58 mimics the laminar boundary layer of the turbulent flow in a wellbore. Hence, the
59
1
2
deposition kinetic constant is obtained from deposition experiments using a packed bed
3
4 column and scaled to wellbore conditions.
5
6  It is assumed that the asphaltene deposited is solid in nature, with constant density. Shear
7
8
9
removal of deposit, erosion of deposit from location and its deposition on another
10
11 location further down the flow, have not been considered.
12
13
14 The structure of the developed simulator is shown in Figure 1. The simulator consists of a
15
16 thermodynamic module and a deposition module. The thermodynamic module describes the
17
18
19
phase behavior of the oil at the varying temperature and pressure conditions. PC-SAFT EOS has
20
21 been used to model asphaltene phase behavior. The Friction Theory for viscosity modeling is
22
23 used to account for the variation of viscosity with temperature and pressure. The deposition
24
25
module uses an integrated approach and performs asphaltene deposition simulations for both the
26
27
28 wellbore and near-wellbore region. The turbulent flow of fluid in the wellbore is modeled and
29
30 the spatial distribution of free-flowing and deposited asphaltenes have been determined using a
31
32 CFD model based on transient FEM simulations. The simulation results of the near-wellbore
33
34
35 region deposition model are used as a starting point for the asphaltene deposition simulations in
36
37 the wellbore. The deposition module receives inputs from the thermodynamic module, which
38
39 include, asphaltene solubility in the oil phase (𝐶𝑒𝑞 ), density (𝜌), viscosity (𝜇), solubility
40
41
42 parameter of asphaltenes (𝛿𝑎𝑠𝑝ℎ ) and the solubility parameter of solution (𝛿𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ) as a function
43
44 of temperature and pressure along the length of the wellbore. Both these modules require
45
46
information from field data, if available, and experimental data.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2 Oil and Asphaltene
3 characterization
4 Field data
5 Pressure and Temperature
6 Experimental data
7 • PVT properties of oil
• Asphaltene precipitation
8 • Precipitation and aggregation
Pipeline Profile and
9 production rate
kinetics
10 • Packed bed column
• Microfluidics
11 Precipitation, Aggregation
and Deposition Rates
12
13
14
15
16
17 Asphaltene Deposition in
18 Wellbore
19 (Fluid and Particle Transport)
20 CFD Model (FEM)
21 Thermodynamics & Viscosity Asphaltene deposition rate,
deposit profile and thickness
22
PC-SAFT EOS 𝐶𝑒𝑞 , 𝜌 along length of wellbore and
23 across near-wellbore region
24 Friction Theory 𝜇 Asphaltene Deposition in
25 Near-wellbore Region
26 (Fluid and Particle Transport)
27 CFD Model (LBM)
28
29
30
31 Figure 1. Structure of Asphaltene Deposition Simulator
32
33 The kinetic parameters for precipitation and aggregation are obtained by performing a series of
34
35 asphaltene precipitation kinetic experiments. The deposition parameters for modeling asphaltene
36
37
38 deposition in wellbore and near-wellbore are obtained based on packed bed column and
39
40 microfluidic experiments respectively. The thermodynamic module is integrated with the
41
42 deposition module using a look-up table approach. 𝐶𝑒𝑞 , 𝜇 and 𝜌 are generated for specific
43
44
45 pressure and temperature conditions using the thermodynamic module and the deposition module
46
47 linearly interpolates them for the intermediate pressure and temperature conditions along the
48
49
length of the wellbore, if and when required.
50
51
52
53
Section 3 describes the modeling of asphaltene deposition in the wellbore, calibration of required
54
55 model parameters based on laboratory scale experiments and their scale up to field conditions. In
56
57 Section 4, the modeling of asphaltene deposition in the near-wellbore region based on model
58
59
1
2
parameters obtained from microfluidic experiments, have been presented Finally, Section 5
3
4 demonstrates the integration of both these approaches to obtain a comprehensive technique to
5
6 model asphaltene deposition in the wellbore and the near-wellbore region.
7
8
9 3. Modeling of Asphaltene Deposition in Wellbore
10
11
12
3.1. Thermodynamic Module
13
14
15 3.1.1. Modeling asphaltene phase behavior using PC-SAFT EOS
16
17
18 The thermodynamics of asphaltene precipitation is modeled using the PC-SAFT EOS. In this
19
20 work, crude C2 is considered. The crude oil is characterized based on the Saturates-Aromatics-
21
22
Resins-Asphaltenes (SARA) analysis. Simulation parameters are optimized to match asphaltene
23
24
25 precipitation data on dead oil sample from Indirect Method experiment.14 The characterization
26
27 and thermodynamic modeling of crude C2, including details such as crude C2 composition, API
28
29 gravity, GOR, SARA and composition of the injected gas, can be found in the first part of this
30
31
32 series of publications.3 Figure 2 shows the asphaltene phase envelope for crude C2 with different
33
34 amounts of gas injection along with the P-T trace for oil production from bottomhole to
35
36 wellhead.
37
38
39
40000
40 UAOP PC-SAFT
41 BP PC-SAFT
42
30000 P-T Trace
43
44
Pressure (psi)
45
20000
46
47 +60%
48 +55%
10000 +50%
49
50
51
0
52
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
53
Temperature ( F)
54
55
56
57 Figure 2. Asphaltene phase envelope predicted from PC-SAFT for crude C2 with 50, 55, and
58 60% gas injection
59
1
2
The thermodynamic properties required for the deposition model are:
3
4
5 1. Equilibrium concentration (𝐶𝑒𝑞 ) of asphaltenes in the continuous phase (𝐿1 ) expressed as
6
7 weight of asphaltenes in the continuous phase (𝐿1 ) per total weight of asphaltenes in the
8
9
system.
10
11
12 2. Weight fraction of asphaltenes in the precipitated phase (𝐿2 ) expressed as weight of
13
14 asphaltenes in the precipitated phase (𝐿2 ) per total weight of precipitated phase.
15
16
3. Density of asphaltenes in g/cm3.
17
18
19 4. Difference between solubility parameter of asphaltenes (𝛿𝑎𝑠𝑝ℎ ) and solubility parameter
20
21 of solution (𝛿𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ).
22
23
24
The solubility parameter 𝛿 of a substance was introduced by Hildebrand15 and is defined as:
25
26
27 ⁄2
28 −𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 1
𝛿=( ) (1)
29 𝑣
30
31 where 𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 is the residual internal energy and 𝑣 is the molar volume. The solubility parameter is
32
33
34 a measure of the intermolecular interactions of a given substance and is a function of pressure,
35
36 temperature, and composition. Substances with similar solubility parameters are likely to be
37
38 miscible in each other whereas substances with vastly different solubility parameters are likely to
39
40
41 be immiscible. In this study, we quantify the driving force for asphaltene precipitation as the
42
43 difference of solubility parameters between the asphaltenes and the oil phase. The difference of
44
45 solubility parameters between the asphaltenes and the oil phase is maximum at the bubble point,
46
47
48
which is consistent with known notion that the maximum driving force for asphaltene
49
50 precipitation occurs at the bubble pressure.16 In this work, solubility parameters are calculated
51
52 using PC-SAFT EOS.
53
54
55 Plots of the properties, required for deposition modeling, as predicted by PC-SAFT along the P-T
56
57
58
trace are shown in Figure 3.
59
1 Pressure (psi) Pressure (psi)

2 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Asph in precipitated phase (wt)

3 1.00
(a)
60%
(b)
4 Ceq (gAsph-L1 / gAsph-Sys) 0.80 50%
5 40%
0.60
6 30%
7 0.40
20%
8 0.20
9 10%
10 0.00 0%
140 160 180 200 220 240 260 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
11 Temperature ( F) Temperature ( F)
12
13
14 Pressure (psi) Pressure (psi)
15 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Density of Asphaltenes (g/cm3)
1.14 6.60
16 (c) (d)
dAsph - dSolution (MPa0.5)

17
18 6.20
19 1.13
20 5.80
21
22
23 1.12
140 160 180 200 220 240 260
5.40
140 160 180 200 220 240 260
24 Temperature ( F) Temperature ( F)
25
26
27 Figure 3. Predictions of thermodynamic properties along the P-T trace for crude C2 with 60%
28 injection using PC-SAFT: (a) equilibrium asphaltenes concentration, (b) concentration of
29
asphaltenes in the precipitated phase, (c) density of asphaltenes, and (d) difference of solubility
30
31 parameters of asphaltenes and the solution
32
33 3.1.2. Viscosity modeling using Friction Theory
34
35
36 Viscosity is a key element in modeling fluid transport and asphaltene deposition during oil
37
38 production. Oil viscosity changes due to changes in temperature and pressure as oil flows from
39
40 the reservoir to wellhead. If the production conditions are such that the pressure is below the
41
42
43 asphaltene onset pressure (AOP) or the bubble point (BP), the composition of the bulk phase
44
45 changes which causes a variation in viscosity. In order to capture the effect of temperature,
46
47 pressure, and composition on oil viscosity in the deposition simulator developed in this work, a
48
49
50
compositional viscosity model is needed. Amongst the several viscosity models available in the
51
52 literature, the Friction Theory17,18 has shown promising capability in modeling the viscosity of
53
54 hydrocarbon systems.19–24
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
In Friction Theory (FT), the viscosity is modeled as a summation of a dilute gas contribution
3
4 (𝜇0 ) and a friction contribution (𝜇𝑓 ). The dilute gas contribution is generally negligible as
5
6 compared to the friction contribution for liquids. The friction contribution is correlated to
7
8
9 repulsive and attractive pressures which can be obtained from an equation of state. The general
10
11 expression for the friction viscosity contribution is18:
12
13
14 𝜇𝑓 2
15
𝜇̂ 𝑓 = = 𝑘̂𝑟 𝑃̂𝑟 + 𝑘̂𝑎 𝑃̂𝑎 + 𝑘̂𝑟𝑟 𝑃̂𝑟 (2)
𝜇𝑐
16
17
18 where 𝜇̂ 𝑓 is the dimensionless friction viscosity contribution, 𝜇𝑐 is the characteristic critical
19
20
viscosity, 𝑃̂𝑟 is the reduced repulsive pressure, 𝑃̂𝑎 is the reduced attractive pressure, 𝑘̂ is the
21
22
23 reduced viscous friction coefficient whose subscript 𝑟 means repulsive, subscript 𝑎 means
24
25 attractive, and 𝑟𝑟 means second order repulsive. Abutaqiya et al.23 modeled the viscosity of 10
26
27
oil samples from the Middle East and showed that using Peng-Robinson (PR) EOS to calculate
28
29
30 repulsive and attractive pressures in the Friction Theory is sufficient to reproduce experimental
31
32 data. The authors concluded that although PC-SAFT yields improved predictions of the phase
33
34 behavior of the petroleum fluid, it does not have a significant advantage as compared to PR when
35
36
37 used to calculate repulsive and attractive pressures for viscosity modeling using the Friction
38
39 Theory. Therefore, in this work the PR EOS is used, to calculated repulsive and attractive
40
41 pressures.
42
43
44
45 The viscous friction coefficients 𝑘̂𝑟 , 𝑘̂𝑎 , 𝑘̂𝑟𝑟 are functions of critical temperature (𝑇𝑐 ), critical
46
47 pressure (𝑃𝑐 ), and acentric factor (𝜔) for each component in the mixture, in addition to
48
49 temperature (𝑇) and 16 universal constants that are dependent on the EOS used.18 The critical
50
51
52 properties for the non-asphaltenic pseudo-components (i.e. Heavy Gas, Saturates, and
53
54 Aromatics) are calculated using the critical property correlations developed from the One-Third
55
56 rule25,26:
57
58
59
1 2
2 0.1674𝑀𝑊
0.613 (𝑀𝑊 + ) + 24.85
3 𝑇𝑐 = 𝑇𝑏 ( 𝑆𝐺 ) (3)
4 0.1674𝑀𝑊
0.577 (𝑀𝑊 + ) + 11.12
5 𝑆𝐺
6 2
7
0.1674𝑀𝑊
(0.613 (𝑀𝑊 + ) + 24.85)
8 𝑃𝑐 = 𝑇𝑏2 𝑆𝐺 (4)
4
9 0.1674𝑀𝑊
(0.577 (𝑀𝑊 + ) + 11.12)
10 𝑆𝐺
11
12
13
where 𝑇𝑐 and 𝑃𝑐 are in units of K and bar, respectively, 𝑇𝑏 is the normal boiling point in K, 𝑆𝐺 is
14
15 liquid specific gravity at 20 °C. The normal boiling point and density of each pseudo-fraction are
16
17 calculated from PC-SAFT. The acentric factor is calculated using Lee-Kesler27 correlation:
18
19
20 𝑠 6.09649 6
ln(𝑃𝑏𝑟 ) − 5.92714 + )
21 𝑇𝑏𝑟 + 1.28862 ln(𝑇𝑏𝑟 − 0.169347𝑇𝑏𝑟
22 𝜔=
23
15.6875 6
15.2518 − 𝑇 − 13.4721 ln(𝑇𝑏𝑟 ) + 0.43577𝑇𝑏𝑟 (5)
24 𝑏𝑟
25
26 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑇𝑏𝑟 < 0.8
27
28 0.01063𝐾𝑤
29 𝜔 = −7.904 + 0.1352 ∗ 𝐾𝑤 − 0.007465𝐾𝑤2 + 8.359𝑇𝑏𝑟 + 1.408 −
30 𝑇𝑏𝑟 (6)
31
32 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑇𝑏𝑟 ≥ 0.8
33
34
35 𝑠
where 𝑃𝑏𝑟 is the ratio of atmospheric pressure to 𝑃𝑐 , 𝑇𝑏𝑟 is the ratio of 𝑇𝑏 to 𝑇𝑐 , and 𝐾𝑤 is the
36
37
38 Watson characterization factor defined by:
39
40 1
41 (1.8𝑇𝑏 )3
42 𝐾𝑤 = (7)
43 𝑆𝐺
44
45
46 It is found that when equations (3) and (4) are used to calculate critical properties for Resins and
47
48 Asphaltenes, the predictions of viscosity from the Friction Theory show unusual trends. The
49
50
51
repulsive friction coefficients 𝑘̂𝑟 and 𝑘̂𝑟𝑟 become very high when the critical pressure of a
52
53 component in the system is too low (i.e. < 4 bar), leading to very high values of viscosity and
54
55 unrealistic optimized values of 𝐾𝑐 for the pseudo-fractions. Therefore, for Resins and
56
57
58
Asphaltenes, the Lee-Kesler correlations for 𝑇𝑐 and 𝑃𝑐 are used:
59
1
2 105
3 𝑇𝑐 = 189.9 + 450.6𝑆𝐺 + (0.4244 + 0.1174𝑆𝐺)𝑇𝑏 + (0.1441 − 1.0069𝑆𝐺) (8)
4
𝑇𝑏
5
6 0.0566 4.1216 0.21343
7 𝑃𝑐 = exp [5.689 − − (0.43639 + + ) 10−3 𝑇𝑏
8 𝑆𝐺 𝑆𝐺 𝑆𝐺 2
9 (9)
10 1.182 0.15302 9.9099
+ (0.47579 + + ) 10 −6 2
𝑇𝑏 − (2.4505 + ) 10−10 𝑇𝑏3 ]
11 𝑆𝐺 𝑆𝐺 2 𝑆𝐺 2
12
13
14 with true boiling points (𝑇𝑏 ) for the heavy fractions calculated from the Soreide Correlation28
15
16
17 similar to the approach used by Johnston et al.29:
18
19
20 𝑇𝑏 = 1928.3 − (1.69
21 (10)
22 × 10 5 )𝑀𝑊 −0.03522
𝑆𝐺 3.266 [−0.004922∗𝑀𝑊−4.7685∗𝑆𝐺+0.003462∗𝑀𝑊∗𝑆𝐺]
𝑒
23
24
25
The characteristic viscosities (𝜇𝑐 ) for pure components are reported can be found elsewhere.18
26
27
28 For pseudo-components, Quiñones-Cisneros et al.18 suggested to estimate 𝜇𝑐 using:
29
30
31 2/3
√𝑀𝑊𝑖 𝑃𝑐,𝑖
32 𝜇𝑐,𝑖 = 𝐾𝑐 (11)
1/6
33 𝑇𝑐,𝑖
34
35
36
37
where the constant 𝐾𝑐 is 7.95 for n-alkanes. For the pseudo-components, 𝐾𝑐 can be treated as a
38
39 tuning parameter to match available experimental viscosity data.23,24 In this work, Heavy Gas
40
41 and Saturates pseudo-components are assumed to consist of n-alkanes and a value of 7.95 is used
42
43
for 𝐾𝑐 . For Aromatics, Resins, and the four Asphaltene fractions, a single value of 𝐾𝑐 is tuned to
44
45
46 match experimental live oil viscosity data at temperatures of 259, 160, and 90 °F. The optimized
47
48 value of 𝐾𝑐 is found to be 7.97. Figure 4 shows a comparison between Friction Theory model
49
50
and experimental data. The set of critical properties for crude C2 used in this work is shown in
51
52
53 Table 1. The variation of oil viscosity along the P-T trace for crude C2 with 60% gas injection is
54
55 shown in Figure 5. These viscosity modeling results, along with the thermodynamic properties
56
57
58
59
1
2
shown in Figure 3 are used to generate lookup tables which are used in the deposition simulator
3
4 to provide necessary information to construct the deposition profile.
5
6
7 15.0 40.0
Experimental T = 259 °F T = 160 °F
8
PR_FT
9 30.0
10 10.0
Viscosity / cP
Viscosity / cP
11 20.0
12
13 5.0
10.0
14
15
0.0 0.0
16 0 10000 20000 30000 0 10000 20000 30000
17 Pressure / psi Pressure / psi
18
19 120.0
T = 90 °F
20 100.0
21
22 80.0
Viscosity / cP
23 60.0
24
40.0
25
26 20.0
27
0.0
28 0 10000 20000 30000
29 Pressure / psi
30
31
32 Figure 4. Comparison between experimental data and modeling results for viscosity of live
33 crude C2 at different temperatures.
34
35 Table 1. Critical properties for different components in Crude C2.
36
37 𝑴𝑾 𝝁𝒄 𝑻𝒄 𝑷𝒄 𝝎
38 Component
[g/mol] [cP] [K] [bar] [-]
39
40 H 2S 34.1 300.0 373.2 89.4 0.081
41 N2 28.0 174.2 126.2 34.0 0.037
42 CO2 44.0 376.9 304.1 73.8 0.223
43 C1 16.0 152.9 190.6 46.0 0.010
44
45 C2 30.1 217.6 305.3 48.7 0.099
46 C3 44.1 249.7 369.9 42.5 0.152
47 Heavy Gas 69.5 269.6 491.6 38.6 0.096
48 Saturates 202.6 237.4 697.7 15.7 0.647
49
50 Aromatics 322.9 286.7 1028.0 16.2 1.119
51 Resins 649.6 354.1 1008.0 13.1 1.202
52 Asphaltenes1 999.0 378.2 1077.3 10.6 1.292
53 Asphaltenes2 1026.7 379.8 1081.3 10.5 1.296
54
55 Asphaltenes3 1085.7 383.3 1089.5 10.2 1.305
56 Asphaltenes4 1708.1 416.8 1147.9 8.4 1.359
57
58
59
1 Pressure (psi)
2 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
3 2.50
4 2.00
5
Oil Viscosity (cP)

6 1.50
7
1.00
8
9 0.50
10
11 0.00
140 160 180 200 220 240 260
12
Temperature ( F)
13
14
15
16
Figure 5. Variation of oil viscosity along the P-T trace for crude C2 with 60% injection.
17
18
3.2. Deposition Module
19
20
21 Transport of asphaltenes in the wellbore follows a multistep process, including precipitation,
22
23 aggregation, advection, diffusion, and deposition. The rate of asphaltene precipitation is assumed
24
25 to be proportional to the supersaturation degree of asphaltenes, which is defined as the difference
26
27
28
between the actual concentration of asphaltenes dissolved in the oil and the concentration of
29
30 asphaltene at equilibrium. In other words, the precipitation rate is determined by the degree of
31
32 supersaturation. The higher the supersaturation degree of asphaltenes in the oil phase, the greater
33
34
is the precipitation rate. The precipitated asphaltenes further aggregate with each other, tend to
35
36
37 diffuse either along the radial or axial directions and deposit on the pipe walls or get carried
38
39 away along with the flow of the fluid. The kinetics of aggregation is assumed to be a second-
40
41 order kinetic process. Deposition of asphaltene is modeled using a surface deposition
42
43
44 mechanism. This is schematically demonstrated in Figure 6.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Figure 6. Schematic of asphaltene deposition mechanism in the wellbore
19
20 Taking into account the assumptions already stated in Section 2 and the mechanism shown in
21
22 Figure 6, a mass balance is performed for a control volume of the wellbore. A two-dimensional
23
24 deposition model that accounts for asphaltene precipitation, aggregation and deposition has been
25
26
27
developed to predict asphaltene deposition in the wellbore. The mass balance for asphaltene in
28
29 the transient state can, therefore, be written as,
30
31
32 𝜕𝐶 ′ ′ ′
33 (𝒖. 𝜵)𝐶 ′ = 𝐷
+⏟ ⏟𝑒 𝛻 2 𝐶 ′ + 𝑘
⏟𝑝 (𝐶𝑓 − 𝐶𝑒𝑞 ) − 𝑘⏟
𝑎𝑔 𝐶
′2
⏟𝑑 (𝒏𝒏𝑻 : 𝜵. 𝒖)𝐶 ′
−𝑘 (12)
⏟
𝜕𝑡
34 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝐴𝑑𝑣𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐴𝑔𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
35
36
where, 𝐶 ′ is the dimensional concentration of the primary particles, 𝐶𝑓 ′ is the dimensional
37
38
39 concentration of dissolved asphaltene in the oil phase at that particular time 𝑡, and 𝐶𝑒𝑞 ′ is the
40
41 dimensional thermodynamic equilibrium concentration of asphaltene, which can be regarded as
42
43
44 the solubility of asphaltene at the given pressure, temperature and composition. 𝑘𝑝 is the
45
46 precipitation kinetic parameter, 𝑘𝑎𝑔 is the aggregation kinetic parameter and 𝑘𝑑 is the deposition
47
48
49 kinetic parameter for wellbore. 𝒖 refers to the velocity field and 𝒏 refers to a unit normal vector.
50
51 𝒏𝑻 is the transpose of the unit normal vector. For a two-dimensional system, with coordinates 𝑟
52
53 𝜕𝑢𝑟 𝜕𝑢𝑧 𝜕𝑢𝑟 𝜕𝑢𝑧
54 and 𝑧 as in Figure 6, (𝒏𝒏𝑻 : 𝜵𝒖) = + + + . Let us denote (𝒏𝒏𝑻 : 𝜵𝒖) = 𝐺𝑢 for
𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝑧 𝜕𝑧
55
56 simplicity from here on.
57
58
59
1
𝐶′ 𝐶𝑓 ′ 𝐶𝑒𝑞 ′
2 Introducing, 𝐶 = 𝐶 , 𝐶𝑓 = , 𝐶𝑒𝑞 = , with 𝐶𝑜 as the concentration of asphaltene in solution
𝐶0 𝐶0
3 0
4
5 at bottomhole conditions, equation (11) becomes,
6
7
8 𝜕𝐶
9 + (𝒖. 𝜵)𝐶 = 𝐷𝑒 𝛻 2 𝐶 + 𝑘𝑝 (𝐶𝑓 − 𝐶𝑒𝑞 ) − 𝐾𝑎𝑔 𝐶 2 − 𝑘𝑑 𝐺𝑢 𝐶 (13)
𝜕𝑡
10
11
where, 𝐾𝑎𝑔 = 𝑘ag 𝐶𝑜 , is the aggregation kinetic parameter in our asphaltene deposition model.
12
13
14 𝐶𝑒𝑞 is obtained as a function of temperature and pressure using the thermodynamic module. The
15
16 initial and boundary conditions are given as follows:
17
18
19
20 Initial condition : 𝐶(𝑡 = 0) = 0, ∀ 𝑟, 𝑧
21
22 Boundary conditions: for all 𝑡 > 0
23
24 𝒏. 𝜵𝐶(𝑟 = 𝑅) = 0, ∀ 𝑧 (14)
25
26
27 𝐶(𝑧 = 0) = 𝐶𝑖𝑛 , ∀ 𝑟
28
29 −𝒏. 𝐷𝑒 𝜵𝐶(𝑧 = 𝐿) = 0, ∀ 𝑟
30
31
32 where, 𝐶𝑖𝑛 is the dimensionless concentration of available asphaltene primary particles at inlet
33
34 conditions, 𝒏 refers to a unit normal vector, 𝑅 is the radius of the wellbore, 𝐿 is the length of the
35
36 wellbore and 𝐷𝑒 is the diffusivity of asphaltene particles.
37
38
39
40
We need the velocity field 𝒖, before we proceed to evaluate the amount of asphaltene deposited.
41
42 When Reynolds number is very high, the inertial forces are much larger than the viscous
43
44 forces. Performing such simulations using the Navier-Stokes equations is computationally
45
46
intensive. Instead Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) formulation of the Navier-
47
48
49 Stokes equations can be used. RANS equations are time-averaged equations of motion for fluid
50
51 ̅ ) and
flow, where an instantaneous quantity (𝒖) is decomposed into its time-averaged (𝒖
52
53
fluctuating quantities (𝒖′ ), to simulate turbulent flows. RANS equations are as follows,
54
55
56
̅ = 𝛁. (−𝑝̅ 𝐼 + 𝜇(𝛁𝒖
̅ . 𝛁)𝒖
𝜌(𝒖 ̅ + (𝛁𝒖 ̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅ )𝑇 ) − 𝜌𝒖 ′ 𝒖′ ) + 𝜌𝒈 (15)
57
58
59
1
2
̅ and 𝑝̅ are the time-averaged velocity and pressure, respectively. The left hand side of
Here, 𝒖
3
4 this equation represents the convection by the mean flow. This change is balanced by the mean
5
6 body force, the isotropic stress owing to the mean pressure field, the viscous stresses, and
7
8 ̅̅̅̅̅̅
′ 𝒖′ ) owing to the fluctuating velocity field, generally referred to as
9
apparent stress (−𝜌𝒖
10
11 ̅̅̅̅̅̅
the Reynolds stress which is given as, −𝜌𝒖 ′ 𝒖′ = 2𝜇 𝜀(𝒖) = 𝜇 (𝛁𝒖
𝑇 𝑇 ̅ )𝑇 ), where 𝜀(𝒖) is
̅ + (𝛁𝒖
12
13 the strain rate tensor and the term 𝜇 𝑇 represents the turbulent viscosity, that is, the effects of the
14
15
16 small-scale time-dependent velocity fluctuations. 𝜇 𝑇 requires additional modeling to solve the
17
18 RANS equations, which is evaluated using the k-ε turbulence model in this work. This model is
19
20 often used in industrial applications because it is both robust and computationally inexpensive. It
21
22
23
is a two equation model which gives a general description of turbulence by means of two
24
25 transport equations (partial differential equations), which are, for the transport of turbulent
26
27 kinetic energy k and turbulent dissipation rate ε. The equations used for modeling turbulent
28
29 flow in the wellbore and hence, discretized using finite element method are shown in equations
30
31
32 (16).
33
34
35 ̅ = 𝛁. (−𝑝̅ 𝐼 + (𝜇 + 𝜇 𝑇 )(𝛁𝒖
̅ . 𝛁)𝒖
𝜌(𝒖 ̅ )𝑇 )) + 𝜌𝒈
̅ + (𝛁𝒖 (16a)
36
37
38 𝜕𝑘 𝜇𝑇
𝜌 ̅ . 𝛁)𝑘 = 𝛁. ((𝜇 + ) 𝛁𝑘) + 𝑃𝑘 − 𝜌𝜀
+ ρ(𝒖 (16b)
39 𝜕𝑡 𝜎𝑘
40
41
42 𝜕𝜀 𝜇𝑇 𝜀 𝜀2
43 𝜌 ̅ . 𝛁)𝜀 = 𝛁. ((𝜇 + ) 𝛁𝜀) + 𝐶𝜀1 𝑃𝑘 − 𝐶𝜀2 𝜌
+ ρ(𝒖 (16c)
𝜕𝑡 𝜎𝜀 𝑘 𝑘
44
45
46 𝑘2
47 𝜇 𝑇 = 𝜌𝐶𝜇 (16d)
𝜀
48
49
50 ̅ : (𝛁𝒖
𝑃𝑘 = 𝜇 𝑇 (𝛁𝒖 ̅ )𝑇 ))
̅ + (𝛁𝒖 (16e)
51
52 The turbulence model parameters have been obtained by numerous iterations of data fitting for a
53
54 wide range of turbulent flows and are given as: 𝐶𝜀1 = 1.44, 𝐶𝜀2 = 1.92, 𝐶𝜇 = 0.09, 𝜎𝑘 = 1.00,
55
56
57 and 𝜎𝜀 = 1.3.
58
59
1
2
For turbulent flows, the eddy diffusion due to the fluctuating velocity components governs the
3
4 deposition of aggregated asphaltene on the pipeline wall surface. Thus, the particle diffusivity 𝐷𝑒
5
6 in a turbulent flow can be calculated as: 𝐷𝑒 = 𝐷𝑇 + 𝐷𝐵 where 𝐷𝑇 is the turbulent particle
7
8
9
diffusivity and 𝐷𝐵 is the Brownian diffusivity.8 Since, the particles are small the particle
10
11 diffusivity is approximately equal to the eddy diffusivity (𝐷𝑒 = 𝐷𝑇 ), and the Brownian
12
13 diffusivity is neglected. The eddy diffusivity at the laminar sub-layer surface is given as, 𝐷𝑇 =
14
15
16 𝜈𝑇 /𝑆𝑐𝑇 , where 𝜈𝑇 = 𝜇 𝑇 /𝜌 is the eddy diffusivity (m2/s) and 𝑆𝑐𝑇 is the turbulent Schmidt
17
18 number. It is taken as 0.8 for this work.8,30 𝜇 𝑇 is calculated using the k-ε turbulence model. 𝜌 and
19
20 𝜇 are the density and viscosity of the fluid respectively. They are obtained from the
21
22
23 thermodynamic module as a function of pressure and temperature along the length of the
24
25 wellbore. No slip boundary conditions are applied on the wellbore wall surface in order to obtain
26
27 the velocity field for the given oil production rate.
28
29
30 The in-house CFD model (using FEM) has been developed in MATLAB to simulate the fluid
31
32
33 flow and predict asphaltene precipitation, aggregation and deposition in the production tubing.
34
35 Fluid flow simulation is performed for the wellbore. The velocity profile thus obtained, along
36
37 with the initial and boundary conditions specified in equation (14), are used to solve equation
38
39
40
(13) and obtain the amount of asphaltene deposited and the asphaltene deposit profile along the
41
42 length of the wellbore.
43
44
45 3.3. Calibration of model parameters
46
47
48 3.3.1. Asphaltene Precipitation and Aggregation Kinetics
49
50
51 Kinetics of asphaltene precipitation and aggregation of crude C2 were investigated using a direct
52
53
54
kinetics spectroscopy method. In this method, mixtures of crude oil and heptane with different
55
56 concentrations were prepared in a quartz cuvette. A stir bar made of PTFE
57
58 (Polytetrafluoroethylene) was added to the mixture. To avoid evaporation of the volatile
59
1
2
components of the mixture, a PTFE cap was used to seal the cuvette. The light intensity of the
3
4 sample is measured over time using a Shimadzu UV-Vis-NIR spectrophotometer Model UV-
5
6 3600, in which the stirring rate and the temperature of the sample inside the cell can be
7
8
controlled. Overall, thirteen experiments using crude C2 were conducted to investigate the
9
10
11 kinetics of asphaltene precipitation at various precipitation driving forces, using n-heptane and n-
12
13 pentane as the precipitants, at two different temperatures (20 °C and 70 °C).31 The rate of
14
15 asphaltene precipitation and aggregation are modeled as per the mechanism described in Section
16
17
18 3.2 and shown as follows:
19
20
21 𝑑𝐶
22 = 𝑘𝑝 (𝐶𝑓 − 𝐶𝑒𝑞 ) − 𝐾𝑎𝑔 𝐶 2 (17)
𝑑𝑡
23
24
25
𝐶𝑒𝑞 is the solubility of asphaltene at the given pressure, temperature and composition, which is
26
27 obtained using the PC-SAFT EOS. 𝑘𝑝 (Precipitation kinetic parameter) and 𝐾𝑎𝑔 = 𝑘ag 𝐶𝑜
28
29
(Aggregation kinetic parameter) are the two tuning parameters. The value of the precipitation
30
31
32 and aggregation kinetic parameter are obtained by solving the equation (17) by minimizing the
33
34 difference between the experimental data and the modeling results, with the initial condition as
35
36 the initial concentration of asphaltene particles solubilized in the oil phase. A few examples of
37
38
39 the modeling of asphaltene precipitation and aggregation kinetics are shown in Figure 7.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Figure 7. Determination of Precipitation and Aggregation kinetic constants
26
27
28 In order to estimate the value of 𝑘𝑝 (Precipitation kinetic parameter) for the crude oil at reservoir
29
30
31 conditions (High Temperature and High Pressure), it was required to investigate the relationship
32
33 between 𝑘𝑝 (Precipitation kinetic parameter) and the driving force for precipitation, (𝛿𝑎𝑠𝑝ℎ −
34
35 𝛿𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ), where 𝛿 is the solubility parameter. Linear regression was performed between
36
37 2
38 − log(𝑘𝑝 ) and 1⁄(𝛿𝑎𝑠𝑝ℎ − 𝛿𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ) values for different experiments performed at a
39
40
41
particular temperature (20oC or 70oC in this case) and the corresponding dependence of 𝑘𝑝 on
42
43 the driving force for precipitation, (𝛿𝑎𝑠𝑝ℎ − 𝛿𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ) was obtained. An Arrhenius type of
44
45
equation has been used to understand the effect of temperature. Hence, 𝑘𝑝 (Precipitation kinetic
46
47
48 parameter) is given as,
49
50
51 𝑏𝑜 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−𝑏1 /𝑇)
52 𝑘𝑝 = 𝑒𝑥𝑝 (𝑎𝑜 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−𝑎1 /𝑇) − 2) (18)
53 (𝛿𝑎𝑠𝑝ℎ − 𝛿𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 )
54
55
where 𝑎𝑜 , 𝑎1 , 𝑏𝑜 and 𝑏1 are constants for a particular crude. For crude C2, based on the several
56
57
58 precipitation and aggregation experiments performed, the values of the constants are, 𝑎𝑜 = 30.5,
59
1
2 𝑎1 = 21.0, 𝑏𝑜 = 1049.4 and 𝑏1 = 27.7. The 𝑘𝑝 (Precipitation kinetic parameter) value for the
3
4 crude oil at reservoir and wellbore conditions can be estimated, provided, the values of the
5
6 solubility parameters of the solution gas and pure asphaltene are known at those corresponding
7
8
9 high temperature and high pressure conditions. The thermodynamic module is used to generate
10
11 these solubility parameter values as a function of temperature and pressure. The value of
12
13 𝐾𝑎𝑔 was obtained equivalent to 5x10-6 s-1 for all the experiments performed using the crude C2.
14
15
16
17
3.3.2. Asphaltene deposition using packed bed column
18
19
20 In order to investigate the deposition of asphaltenes at high temperature and under dynamic
21
22 conditions, a stainless-steel packed bed column deposition setup with carbon steel spheres was
23
24 designed and constructed.32,33 Experiments were performed in the packed bed column setup with
25
26
27
different inlet flow rates, driving forces and run time.31
28
29
30 CFD modeling has been performed to simulate the asphaltene deposition phenomena taking
31
32 place in a packed bed column.34 The three-dimensional geometry of the packed bed column, with
33
34 uniform packing arrangement, was constructed. The flow in the packed bed column is laminar.
35
36
37
Fluid flow simulation was performed for the constructed geometry by solving the three-
38
39 dimensional Navier-Stokes equations, with boundary conditions such that the fluid does not slip
40
41 at the surface of the spheres and the cylinder. A change in the composition of the oil, due to the
42
43
addition of a precipitant, can make the asphaltenes that are originally dissolved in the oil
44
45
46 unstable, causing phase separation of asphaltenes and hence, precipitation of asphaltenes. These
47
48 precipitated particles are then susceptible to further aggregate with each other to form larger-
49
50 sized aggregates and deposit on the surface of the spheres in the packed bed column. The
51
52
53 mathematical model for this process can be written as the material balance of the primary
54
55 particles in the transient state over a control volume of the packed bed column.
56
57
58
59
1
𝜕𝐶
2 + (𝒖. 𝜵)𝐶 = 𝐷𝑒 𝛻 2 𝐶 − 𝐾𝑎𝑔 𝐶 2 − (𝑘𝑑 )𝑝𝑏 (𝐺𝑢 )𝑝𝑏 𝐶 (19)
3 𝜕𝑡
4
5 where 𝐶 is the dimensionless concentration of asphaltene primary particles, 𝐷𝑒 is the diffusivity
6
7 of depositing asphaltene particles, the velocity field 𝒖 is obtained by solving the Navier-Stokes
8
9
10 equation for flow in the required packed bed column geometry and (𝐺𝑢 )𝑝𝑏 = (𝒏𝒏𝑻 : 𝜵𝒖)𝑝𝑏 for
11
12 the packed bed column. Asphaltene precipitation is considered to happen instantaneously, when
13
14
the precipitant is added to the oil sample. Aggregation is modeled as a second order reaction.
15
16
17 Deposition of asphaltene is modeled using the surface deposition mechanism. 𝐾𝑎𝑔 = 𝑘ag 𝐶𝑜
18
19 (Aggregation kinetic parameter) is obtained by modeling asphaltene precipitation and
20
21
22 aggregation kinetics as shown in Section 3.3.1. Hence, (𝑘𝑑 )𝑝𝑏 (Deposition kinetic parameter for
23
24 packed bed) is the only tuning parameter of this asphaltene deposition model for packed bed
25
26 column. It is tuned such that the difference between the mass of asphaltenes deposited on the
27
28
29 surface of the spheres, obtained from the experiment and the simulation is a minimum. The
30
31 concentration of the available asphaltene primary particles is specified at the inlet and the
32
33 concentration flux on the surface of the column and the spheres is considered to be zero.
34
35
36 In order to model asphaltene deposition in the wellbore for crude C2 with gas injection, the
37
38
39 deposition kinetic parameter has been calibrated with respect to the deposition tests in packed
40
41 bed column for crude C2 using n-pentane (60 vol%) as the precipitant. Figure 8 shows the
42
43 cumulative mass of asphaltenes deposited on the surface of the spheres along the length of the
44
45
46
packed bed column. Results from two tests are shown in this figure. Both the tests have been
47
48 performed at the same temperature (176 °F), flow rate (9 mL/h), driving force (crude C2+60
49
50 vol% n-pentane) and for the same runtime (6 hours), but the size of the spheres (3/32 inches and
51
52
53
5/32 inches) used in each of these experiments were different. It was found that the (𝑘𝑑 )𝑝𝑏 =
54
55 1.5x10-4 yields CFD modeling results which represent the available experimental data the best.
56
57
58
59
1
2 The calibrated deposition kinetic parameter from packed bed column deposition tests ((𝑘𝑑 )𝑝𝑏 )
3
4 can be further scaled to that of asphaltene deposition in the wellbore (𝑘𝑑 ).
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Figure 8. Mass of asphaltene deposited along the length of the packed bed column
28
29 Two competing processes occur in the boundary layer, which includes, transport of asphaltene
30
31
32 particles into the boundary layer and depletion of asphaltene because of deposition kinetics. The
33
34 𝐷𝑒
rate of mass transfer of particles to the wellbore boundary layer is given as (𝐶 − 𝐶𝑏𝑙 ),
35 𝛿𝑚𝑜𝑚 2
36
37 where 𝛿𝑚𝑜𝑚 is the momentum boundary layer thickness, 𝐶 is the dimensionless concentration of
38
39 asphaltenes in the bulk and 𝐶𝑏𝑙 is the dimensionless concentration in the wellbore boundary
40
41 10
42 layer. The rate of deposition in a packed bed column is known from equation (17). The
43
44 required scaling factor is obtained by establishing a correlation such that the fluid flow in a
45
46 packed bed column is similar to that of boundary layer flow in the wellbore. Hence, by equating
47
48
49 the rate of mass transfer of asphaltenes to the boundary layer in the wellbore to the rate of
50
51 deposition we see in packed bed column (similar to boundary layer flow in wellbore), the
52
53 asphaltene deposition simulation predictions are extended to wellbore with the help of equation
54
55
56
(20).
57
58
59
1
2𝛿𝑚𝑜𝑚 𝜙
2 𝑘𝑑 = (𝑘𝑑 )𝑝𝑏 = (𝑘𝑑 )𝑝𝑏 𝑆𝑐𝐹
3 𝑅 𝜙+1
4
5 𝐷𝑒
6 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒, 𝜙 = (20)
7 𝛿𝑚𝑜𝑚 2 (𝑘𝑑 )𝑝𝑏 (𝐺𝑢 )𝑝𝑏
8
9 2𝛿𝑚𝑜𝑚 𝜙
10 𝑺𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓: 𝑆𝑐𝐹 =
𝑅 𝜙+1
11
12
13 where 𝑅 is the radius of the wellbore. The thickness of the momentum boundary layer can be
14
15 calculated using the Prandtl boundary layer theory, 𝛿𝑚𝑜𝑚 = 62.7 𝐷 𝑅𝑒 −7/8 , where 𝐷 is the
16
17
18
diameter of the wellbore and 𝑅𝑒 (= 𝑢𝐷𝜌/𝜇) is the Reynolds number.
19
20
21 3.4. Wellbore Simulation Results
22
23
24 The results from precipitation and aggregation kinetics experiments and deposition results from
25
26 the packed bed column were used to calibrate our asphaltene deposition model for wellbore,
27
28 which is shown in equation (13). The precipitation kinetic parameter is scaled to the wellbore
29
30
31 conditions using equation (18) and the deposition kinetic parameter is scaled using equation (20).
32
33 The P-T trace along which the simulations are performed is shown in Figure 2. The
34
35 thermodynamic properties required for the deposition model are calculated along this P-T trace.
36
37
38 CFD modeling using FEM has been performed in order to obtain the asphaltene deposit profile
39
40 along the length of wellbore.
41
42
43 The current asphaltene deposition model developed for wellbore has the sophistication to predict
44
45 asphaltene deposit thickness as well as total deposited material along the length of the wellbore.
46
47
48 The asphaltene deposit profile is obtained by solving equation (13) using FEM. The fraction of
49
50 asphaltene in the asphaltene-rich phase (precipitated phase) is used to obtain the thickness of
51
52 total deposited material, which can be obtained from the thermodynamic module as a function of
53
54
55
pressure and temperature along the length of the wellbore.
56
57
58
59
1
2
The effect of time on the asphaltene deposit thickness in the wellbore and the corresponding
3
4 asphaltene deposition flux have been analyzed. Figure 9 shows the growth of asphaltene deposit
5
6 thickness over time, assuming no removal of deposits during that time period. The simulations
7
8
are performed for a Gas-Oil Ratio (GOR) of 60 mol % (1.6 MSCF/STB) and oil production rate
9
10
11 of 7500 STB/Day. 𝛿𝑑𝑚 refers to the maximum thickness of the total deposited material and its
12
13 value for each case is also indicated in Figure 9. Asphaltene deposition starts at a length where
14
15 the pressure is less than the Asphaltene Onset Pressure (AOP). For the given P-T trace, the
16
17
18 pressure does not fall below the bubble pressure, hence, a decrease in the asphaltene deposit
19
20 profile is not seen. It should be noted that the precipitation kinetic parameter is a function of
21
22 pressure, temperature and the driving force. And, the deposition kinetic parameter is a function
23
24
25
of the fluid flow field, viscosity, density and hence, the pressure and temperature conditions. As
26
27 the pressure and temperature varies along the wellbore, the values of 𝑘𝑝 and 𝑘𝑑 are different at
28
29 different nodes of the finite element mesh generated. Hence, the CFD model gives a more
30
31
32 realistic deposit thickness profile. This is a unique feature of the developed asphaltene deposition
33
34 simulator which is not seen in earlier models described in the literature.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Figure 9. CFD Results - Total deposited material thickness as a function of time
30
31
32
33
The deposition flux of total deposited material in the wellbore during a particular period of time,
34
35 corresponding to the results shown in Figure 9, have also been calculated and shown in Figure
36
37 10. It is seen that the deposition flux decreases with increase in the time period, indicating that
38
39
the amount by which asphaltene deposit thickness increases is not linear with respect to time.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Figure 10. Deposition flux (corresponding to maximum thickness of total deposited material) as
19
a function of time
20
21 Generally, it is extremely difficult to measure the deposit profile along the wellbore using a
22
23
24 caliper. However, pressure drop measurements are usually made available. Hence, with the
25
26 deposition thickness profile predicted by the asphaltene deposition model for wellbore, the
27
28 frictional pressure drop values can be calculated and compared with the field data. The
29
30
31 Darcy−Weisbach formula is used to calculate the frictional pressure drop, which is given as,
32
33
34 𝐿 𝑈2
∆𝑃𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 =𝑓 𝜌 (21)
35 𝐷 2
36
37 where, 𝐿 is the length of the wellbore, 𝐷 is the diameter of the wellbore, 𝑈 is the average velocity
38
39
40 of the fluid, 𝜌 is the density of the fluid and 𝑓 is the friction factor, which can be calculated using
41
42 the Colebrook-White equation for a given Reynolds number. It was found that, for a GOR of 60
43
44 mol % (1.6 MSCF/STB), oil production rate of 7500 STB/Day and a time period of 25 days, the
45
46
47 frictional pressure drop is 815 psi for a smooth deposit. Pressure drop calculations have been
48
49 performed based on the results shown in Figure 9.
50
51
52 In order to understand the effect of different parameters on asphaltene deposition, several
53
54 sensitivity analyses were performed. Deposition simulations were also performed for different
55
56
57 GOR. The simulations are performed for a time period of one year and oil production rate of
58
59
1
2
7500 STB/Day. It was seen that with an increase in GOR the deposit thickness increases. When
3
4 the GOR increases, the amount of primary particles available for precipitation and consequent
5
6 deposition increases, hence, the deposit thickness also proportionately increases. This
7
8
phenomenon is seen very clearly in Figure 11. Higher the GOR, higher is the driving force for
9
10
11 precipitation. Hence, asphaltene deposition is most likely to occur, due to the high GOR.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 Figure 11. CFD Results - Effect of GOR on the total deposited material thickness
43
44
45 Figure 12 shows the sensitivity analysis for the effect of the kinetic constant for asphaltene
46
47 deposition, (𝑘𝑑 )𝑝𝑏 , on the location and the magnitude of asphaltene deposition. (𝑘𝑑 )𝑝𝑏 is scaled
48
49
50 to 𝑘𝑑 using the scaling factor shown in equation (20). The value of 𝑘𝑑 varies along the length of
51
52 the wellbore, as it is a function of velocity, density and viscosity of oil which vary due to
53
54 changes in pressure and temperature conditions. The results show the predictions of the
55
56
57 asphaltene deposition profile in the wellbore after three years, assuming that the asphaltene
58
59
1
2
deposits are never removed in those three years. The simulations are performed for a GOR of 60
3
4 mol% (1.6 MSCF/STB) and oil production rate of 7500 STB/Day.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Figure 12. CFD Results - Effect of (𝑘𝑑 )𝑝𝑏 on the total deposited material thickness
35
36
37 Wellbore simulations have been performed with the precipitation kinetic parameter, 𝑘𝑝 being a
38
39 function of temperature and the driving force for asphaltene precipitation (𝛿𝑎𝑠𝑝ℎ − 𝛿𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ), as
40
41
42 shown in equation (18). 𝑘𝑝 values have been scaled to wellbore conditions based on the selected
43
44 P-T trace and applied to wellbore simulations. Hence, 𝑘𝑝 varies along the length of the wellbore.
45
46
47 Figure 13 shows the comparison between total deposited material thicknesses simulated without
48
49 and with scaling 𝑘𝑝 as a function of temperature and driving force for asphaltene precipitation,
50
51 using equation (18). The simulations are performed for a GOR of 60 mol % (1.6 MSCF/STB),
52
53
54 oil production rate of 7500 STB/Day and a time period of one year. The value of 𝑘𝑝 increases as
55
56 we move up the wellbore, as the driving force for asphaltene precipitation (𝛿𝑎𝑠𝑝ℎ − 𝛿𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 )
57
58
59
1
2
increases and the temperature decreases. Hence, for a given production rate, the rate of
3
4 asphaltene precipitation increases as we move towards the wellhead and hence, the
5
6 corresponding amount of asphaltene deposition increases as well.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38 Figure 13. CFD Results - Asphaltene deposition thickness without and with scaling of k p as a
39
40 function of temperature and the driving force for asphaltene precipitation
41
42
43 4. Modeling of Asphaltene Deposition in the Near-Wellbore Region
44
45
46
4.1. Deposition Module
47
48
49 The velocity field in the near-wellbore region has been calculated by using Darcy’s law for a
50
51 given pressure gradient in that region. The corresponding velocity gradient is calculated by using
52
53 equation (22).35
54
55
56 (1 − 𝜀𝑝 )𝑢
𝐺 = 13.4 (22)
57 𝜀𝑝 𝑑𝑝
58
59
1
2 where 𝐺 is the velocity gradient in porous media, 𝜀𝑝 is the average porosity, 𝑑𝑝 is the average
3
4 particle size, 𝑢 is the velocity.
5
6 For a given pressure and temperature condition, thermodynamic module facilitates in the
7
8
9 calculation of the 𝐶𝑒𝑞 , which is the solubility of asphaltenes at the given conditions. Further,
10
11 using equation (17), the concentration of asphaltenes dissolved in the oil phase and the
12
13 concentration of precipitated asphaltenes can be calculated. The precipitated asphaltenes tend to
14
15
16 deposit in the porous media. The rate of asphaltene deposition is given as;
17
18 𝜕𝑚𝐷
19 𝑅𝑑 = − = 𝑎𝑚𝐺 + 𝑏𝑢 (23)
𝜕𝑡
20
21
where 𝑚 and 𝑚𝐷 represent the mass fraction of the precipitated and deposited asphaltene in the
22
23
24 crude oil, respectively. 𝑎 is called the surface deposition coefficient and 𝑏 is the entrainment
25
26 coefficient. The results of velocity and velocity gradient are coupled into the developed
27
28
asphaltene deposition model for the near-wellbore region to obtain the profile of deposited
29
30
31 asphaltenes in the near-wellbore region. A continuous mass balance is performed as oil proceeds
32
33 from the near-wellbore region to the wellbore and encounters varying pressure conditions.
34
35 Permeability reduction is correlated to the amount of deposited asphaltene using the equation
36
37
38 proposed by Gruesbeck and Collins (1982)36:
39
40 𝐾
41 = 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−ϒ𝜎 4 ) (24)
𝐾0
42
43
44 where, 𝐾 represents the permeability when there is asphaltene deposition, 𝐾0 represents the
45
46 permeability when there is no asphaltene deposition, 𝜎 is the volume of the deposited asphaltene
47
48 with respect to the pore volume and ϒ is a non-dimensional characteristic constant for a given
49
50
51
porous medium.
52
53
54 4.2. Calibration of Model Parameters
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
Microfluidic experiments were performed in order to analyze the asphaltene deposition in porous
3
4 media. Experiments were performed by injecting the crude C2 with 75 vol% n-heptane, at room
5
6 temperature and ambient pressure, in a microchannel with clay. A modeling method for the
7
8
transport and deposition of asphaltenes in porous media based on the Lattice-Boltzmann Method
9
10
11 (LBM) was adapted to reproduce the results obtained using microfluidic experiments. The fluid
12
13 flow simulation in the microchannel geometry is performed by solving the two-dimensional
14
15 Navier-Stokes equations. Equation (23) facilitates in the calculation of the deposited asphaltene
16
17
18 mass fraction. The detailed description of performing asphaltene deposition simulation in a
19
20 microchannel by applying LBM can be found elsewhere.11,37,38 The deposition model parameters
21
22 have been calibrated with respect to the microfluidic experiments and the calibrated surface
23
24
25
deposition coefficient is 1.7×10-4, the entrainment coefficient is 3.7×10-3 and porous medium
26
27 non-dimensional characteristic constant is 22. Figure 14 shows the permeability reduction versus
28
29 time. The blue line represents the data from micthe rochannel, and the simulation result is shown
30
31
in orange.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
Figure 14. Comparison of permeability reduction obtained in the microfluidic experiments and
3
4 simulation results using LBM
5
6
7 4.3. Near-Wellbore Region Simulation Results
8
9
10 The simulation parameters obtained by modeling asphaltene deposition in a microchannel, as
11
12 shown in Section 4.2, can be used to model asphaltene deposition in the near-wellbore region.
13
14
15 The pressure variation in the near-wellbore region is shown in Figure 15. The temperature of the
16
17 near-wellbore region is assumed to be constant and equal to 248oF.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39 Figure 15. Pressure profile in near wellbore region
40
41
42 PC-SAFT EOS is used to estimate the amount of asphaltene dissolved in the oil for different
43
44 pressure and temperature conditions. The amount of deposited asphaltene is modeled using
45
46
47 equation (23). Figure 16 shows profiles of (a) dissolved (b) precipitated (c) deposited
48
49 asphaltenes, assuming that the near-wellbore region extends up to 400 feet away from the
50
51 wellbore and oil flows only towards the wellbore. The results are reported as the mass of the
52
53
54
asphaltene in their different states, with respect to the total amount of asphaltenes initially
55
56 present in the oil.
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Figure 16. Profiles in the near-wellbore region of (a) dissolved, (b) precipitated (c) deposited
18
19 asphaltenes with respect to the total amount of asphaltenes initially present in the oil
20
21
22 The deposited asphaltene based on the pore volumes of the porous medium is also calculated and
23
24
25
shown in Figure 17. The permeability reduction is calculated using Gruesbeck and Collins36
26
27 model and the results are shown in Figure 17. From the simulation results, it is seen that the
28
29 asphaltene deposition does not cause serious permeability reduction for the given conditions.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49 Figure 17. (a) Variation of deposited asphaltene (with respect to pore volume) along the distance
50
51
52 from the wellbore, (b) Permeability reduction along the distance from the wellbore
53
54
55 5. Integration of Wellbore and Near-Wellbore Region Deposition Modeling
56
57
58
59
1
2
In Section 3 and 4, the modeling of asphaltene deposition in the wellbore and near-wellbore
3
4 region were discussed respectively. It is of prime interest to integrate these two simulations so
5
6 that a comprehensive idea of the asphaltene deposition flow assurance problem can be obtained.
7
8
9 The simulations for the near-wellbore region facilitated in the calculation of the amount of
10
11
12
asphaltene deposited in that region. The amount of asphaltene precipitated and the amount of
13
14 asphaltene still soluble in the oil were also calculated. The amount of precipitated asphaltene thus
15
16 obtained can then be used as the initial amount of available asphaltene primary particles for the
17
18
wellbore asphaltene deposition simulations. With this initial condition, following the simulation
19
20
21 technique illustrated in Section 3, asphaltene deposition profile in the wellbore can be predicted.
22
23 The P-T trace selected for this simulation in the near wellbore region and in the wellbore are
24
25 shown in Figure 18. For the selected P-T trace, the pressure at the wellbore inlet is below the
26
27
28 asphaltene onset pressure and hence, there is asphaltene precipitation and consequent deposition.
29
30 The corresponding total deposited material thickness profile has been shown in Figure 19. The
31
32
simulations have been performed for a GOR = 1.6 MSCF/STB (60 mol%), production rate =
33
34
35 7500 STB/day and for a time period of one year, with the assumption that deposits were not
36
37 cleaned from the wellbore in that time period.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Figure 18. (a) Pressure profile in the near-wellbore region, and (b) P-T trace for wellbore
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53 Figure 19. CFD Results - Asphaltene deposition prediction in the wellbore (a) without
54
55 integrating with the near-wellbore region simulation, (b) on integration with the near-wellbore
56
57
region simulation
58
59
1
2
Figure 19 (a) shows the asphaltene deposition predictions in the wellbore, with the assumption
3
4 that no asphaltene is deposited in the near-wellbore region and asphaltene precipitation and
5
6 deposition start only at the inlet of the wellbore. Whereas, Figure 19 (b) is obtained as a result of
7
8
the integration of near-wellbore simulations with the wellbore simulations. Here, a certain
9
10
11 amount of asphaltene has already been deposited in the near-wellbore region and there are
12
13 asphaltene primary particles available at the inlet of the wellbore which further undergo
14
15 aggregation and deposition as they move up the wellbore under varying conditions of pressure
16
17
18 and temperature. It is seen from the simulation results that there is not much change in the
19
20 maximum thickness of the total deposited material. But, at the wellbore inlet, it is seen that there
21
22 is an increase in the deposit thickness, indicating the fact that, the available asphaltene primary
23
24
25
particles at the wellbore inlet have undergone aggregation and hence deposited on wellbore
26
27 surface. Further upstream, asphaltene deposition is caused due to changes in pressure,
28
29 temperature, and composition of the oil.
30
31
32 6. Conclusions
33
34
35 In this work, a deposition simulator has been developed to conduct a systematic investigation of
36
37
38 the asphaltene deposition in the wellbore and near-wellbore region. The simulator makes use of
39
40 PC-SAFT EOS to generate thermodynamic properties such as the onset of asphaltene
41
42 precipitation, the amount of precipitated asphaltenes, the density of oil, and the equilibrium
43
44
45 asphaltene concentration in the bulk phase under different gas injection scenarios and as a
46
47 function of temperature and pressure. The variation of viscosity as a function of temperature and
48
49 pressure is accounted for using the Friction Theory. The rate of asphaltene deposition has been
50
51
52
predicted using a CFD model which aids in investigating the occurrence and the magnitude of
53
54 asphaltene deposition and the deposit profile along the production tubing after gas breakthrough.
55
56 The CFD model developed performs transient simulation in order to calculate the asphaltene
57
58
59
1
2
deposition rate as a function of time. Also, the model captures the turbulence effects, by
3
4 rigorously modeling the turbulent flow of oil in the wellbore. In contrast to conventional
5
6 modeling techniques based on experimental data from capillary deposition tests, modeling of
7
8
deposition of asphaltenes has been performed based on experimental results from deposition tests
9
10
11 in a packed bed column. The unique contribution of this work is to develop a new model for
12
13 asphaltene deposition in the wellbore and near-wellbore region by using CFD simulation. There
14
15 are models in the available in the literature to simulate the asphaltene deposition in the wellbore,
16
17
18 and there are a few models to describe the process of asphaltene deposition in the near-wellbore
19
20 region. However, the integration of the two models has not been developed yet. We have
21
22 developed a novel integrated asphaltene deposition model for wellbore and near-wellbore region.
23
24
25
This has been achieved by combining an in-house wellbore deposition model with an in-house
26
27 near-wellbore region deposition model. It should be noted that the overall emphasis of this study
28
29 is to develop computationally efficient deposition simulator that can be integrated with the
30
31
thermodynamic model, such that a single comprehensive platform is available to model, simulate
32
33
34 and predict asphaltene precipitation, aggregation and deposition.
35
36
37 According to the extensive experimental and modeling investigation conducted on crude C2,
38
39 there is a relatively low risk of asphaltene deposition as the gas breaks through. However, it
40
41
should be noted that the investigation only included crude C2. For this reason, it is recommended
42
43
44 that the investigation is extended to include fluids from other sands, and enhance the capabilities
45
46 of the model and the risk assessment methods by incorporating other important effects, such
47
48 water-oil interactions, corrosion and its effect on asphaltene deposition.
49
50
51
52
Acknowledgments
53
54
55 The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by Chevron Energy Technology
56
57 Company.
58
59
1
2
Narmadha Rajan Babu acknowledges the Ken Kennedy Institute for Information Technology for
3
4 the 2017/18 ExxonMobil Graduate Fellowship.
5
6
7 Nomenclature
8
9
10 Symbols
11
12
13 𝑎 = surface deposition coefficient
14
15
16
𝑏 = entrainment coefficient
17
18
19
20 𝐶 ′ = dimensional concentration of the primary particles
21
22
23 𝐶𝑓 ′ = dimensional concentration of dissolved asphaltene in the oil phase at a particular time
24
25
26 𝐶𝑒𝑞 ′ = dimensional thermodynamic equilibrium concentration of asphaltene
27
28
29
𝐶0 = initial concentration of asphaltene primary particles solubilized in the oil phase
30
31
32
33 𝐶 = dimensionless concentration of the precipitated asphaltene particle
34
35
36 𝐶𝑒𝑞 = dimensionless thermodynamic equilibrium concentration of asphaltene
37
38
39 𝐶𝑓 = dimensionless concentration of asphaltene in the oil−precipitant mixture
40
41
42 𝐶𝑖𝑛 = dimensionless concentration of asphaltene primary particles at wellbore inlet
43
44
45
46
𝐶𝑏𝑙 = dimensionless concentration in the wellbore boundary layer
47
48
49 𝐷𝐵 = Brownian particle diffusivity
50
51
52 𝐷𝑇 = turbulent particle diffusivity
53
54
55 𝐷𝑒 = asphaltene particle diffusivity/diffusion coefficient
56
57
58 𝐷 = diameter of the wellbore
59
1
2 𝑑𝑝 = average particle size
3
4
5 𝑓 = friction factor
6
7
8 𝐺 = velocity gradient in porous media
9
10
11 𝒈 = acceleration due to gravity
12
13
14 𝐾𝑤 = Watson characterization factor
15
16
17
18 𝑘̂𝑎 = reduced viscous friction coefficient due to attraction
19
20
21 𝑘̂𝑟 = reduced viscous friction coefficient due to repulsion
22
23
24 𝑘̂𝑟𝑟 = reduced viscous friction coefficient due to repulsion (2nd order)
25
26
27 𝑘𝑝 = precipitation kinetic parameter
28
29
30
31 𝐾𝑎𝑔 = 𝑘ag 𝐶𝑜 = aggregation kinetic parameter
32
33
34 𝑘𝑑 = deposition kinetic parameter
35
36
37 (𝑘𝑑 )𝑝𝑏 = deposition kinetic parameter for packed bed column
38
39
40
𝑘 = turbulent kinetic energy
41
42
43
44 𝐾 = permeability of porous media when there is asphaltene deposition
45
46
47 𝐾0 = permeability of porous media when there is no asphaltene deposition
48
49
50 𝐿 = axial length of the wellbore
51
52
53 𝑚𝐷 = mass fraction of the deposited asphaltene
54
55
56 𝒏 = unit normal vector
57
58
59
1
2
𝑃 = pressure
3
4
5 𝑃𝑐 = critical pressure
6
7
8 𝑃̂𝑎 = reduced attractive pressure
9
10
11 𝑃̂𝑟 = reduced repulsive pressure
12
13
14 𝑝̅ = time-averaged pressure
15
16
17
18 ∆𝑃𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = frictional pressure drop
19
20
21 𝑈 = average velocity of the fluid
22
23
24 𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 = residual internal energy
25
26
27 𝒖 = velocity field
28
29
30 ̅ = time-averaged velocity
𝒖
31
32
33
34 𝒖′ = fluctuating velocity
35
36
37 𝑣 = molar volume
38
39
40 𝑅 = radius of wellbore
41
42
43 𝑅𝑑 = rate of asphaltene deposition
44
45
46 𝑢𝐷𝜌
47 𝑅𝑒 = Reynolds number (𝑅𝑒 = )
𝜇
48
49
50 𝜈
51
𝑆𝑐𝑇 = turbulent Schmidt number (𝑆𝑐𝑇 = 𝐷𝑇 )
𝑇
52
53
54 𝑇 = temperature
55
56
57 𝑇𝑏 = boiling point
58
59
1
2
𝑇𝑐 = critical temperature
3
4
5 𝑉 = volume
6
7
8 Greek symbols
9
10
11 𝜇 = viscosity of the medium
12
13
14 𝜇0 = dilute gas viscosity contribution
15
16
17
𝜇 𝑇 = turbulent viscosity
18
19
20
21 𝜇𝑐 = characteristic critical viscosity
22
23
24 𝜇𝑓 = friction viscosity contribution
25
26
27 𝜈𝑇 = eddy diffusivity
28
29
30 𝜀 = turbulent dissipation rate
31
32
33
𝜀𝑝 = average porosity of porous media
34
35
36
37 𝛿𝑎𝑠𝑝ℎ = solubility parameter of asphaltenes
38
39
40 𝛿𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = solubility parameter of solution
41
42
43 𝛿𝑚𝑜𝑚 = momentum boundary layer thickness
44
45
46 𝛿𝑑𝑚 = maximum thickness of total deposited material
47
48
49
50
𝜌 = mass density (mass / volume)
51
52
53 𝜎 = volume of the deposited asphaltene with respect to the pore volume
54
55
56 ϒ = non-dimensional characteristic constant for a given porous medium
57
58
59
1
2
𝜔 = acentric factor
3
4
5 Acronyms
6
7
8 AOP = asphaltene onset pressure
9
10
11 BP = bubble point
12
13
14 CFD = Computational Fluid Dynamics
15
16
17 EOS = Equation of State
18
19
20 FEM = Finite Element Method
21
22
23
24
FT = Friction Theory
25
26
27 GOR = Gas-Oil Ratio
28
29
30 LBM = Lattice Boltzmann Modeling
31
32
33 MSCF = Thousand Standard Cubic Feet
34
35
36 𝑀𝑊 = molecular weight
37
38
39 PC-SAFT = Perturbed Chain version of the Statistical Associating Fluid Theory
40
41
42 PR = Peng Robinson
43
44
45
46
𝑆𝑐𝐹 = Scaling Factor
47
48
49 𝑆𝐺 = specific gravity
50
51
52 STB = Stock Tank Barrel
53
54
55 𝑆𝑐𝐹 = Scaling Factor
56
57
58
59
1
2
References
3
4
5 (1) Vargas, F. M.; Gonzalez, D. L.; Creek, J. L.; Wang, J.; Buckley, J.; Hirasaki, G. J.;
6 Chapman, W. G. Development of a General Method for Modeling Asphaltene Stability.
7 Energy Fuels 2009, 23 (3), 1147–1154. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef800666j.
8 (2) Vargas, F. M.; Gonzalez, D. L.; Hirasaki, G. J.; Chapman, W. G. Modeling Asphaltene
9 Phase Behavior in Crude Oil Systems Using the Perturbed Chain Form of the Statistical
10
Associating Fluid Theory (PC-SAFT) Equation of State. Energy Fuels 2009, 23 (3), 1140–
11
12
1146. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef8006678.
13 (3) Abutaqiya, M. I. L.; Sisco, C. J.; Vargas, F. M. Systematic Investigation of Asphaltene
14 Deposition in Wellbore and Near-Wellbore Region of a Deepwater Oil Reservoir under
15 Gas Injection. Part 1: Thermodynamic Modeling of the Phase Behavior of Polydisperse
16 Asphaltenes. Energy & Fuels 2018 (Submitted).
17 (4) Ramirez-Jaramillo, E.; Lira-Galeana, C.; Manero, O. Modeling Asphaltene Deposition in
18
Production Pipelines. Energy Fuels 2006, 20 (3), 1184–1196.
19
20 https://doi.org/10.1021/ef050262s.
21 (5) Soulgani, B. S.; Rashtchian, D.; Tohidi, B.; Jamialahmadi, M. Integrated Modelling
22 Methods for Asphaltene Deposition in Wellstring. J. Jpn. Pet. Inst. 2009, 52 (6), 322–331.
23 https://doi.org/10.1627/jpi.52.322.
24 (6) Vargas, F. M.; Creek, J. L.; Chapman, W. G. On the Development of an Asphaltene
25 Deposition Simulator. Energy Fuels 2010, 24 (4), 2294–2299.
26
27
https://doi.org/10.1021/ef900951n.
28 (7) Kurup, A. S.; Vargas, F. M.; Wang, J.; Buckley, J. S.; Creek, J. L.; Subramani, J.;
29 Chapman, W. G. Development and Application of an Asphaltene Deposition Tool
30 (ADEPT) for Well Bores. Energy Fuels 2011, 25 (10), 4506–4516.
31 (8) Eskin, D.; Ratulowski, J.; Akbarzadeh, K.; Pan, S. Modelling Asphaltene Deposition in
32 Turbulent Pipeline Flows. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 2011, 89 (3), 421–441.
33
(9) Wang, J.; Buckley, J. S.; Creek, J. L. Asphaltene Deposition on Metallic Surfaces. Journal
34
35
of Dispersion Science and Technology 2004, 25 (3), 287–298.
36 https://doi.org/10.1081/DIS-120037697.
37 (10) Kurup, A. S.; Wang, J.; Subramani, H. J.; Buckley, J. S.; Creek, J. L.; Chapman, W. G.
38 Revisiting Asphaltene Deposition Tool (ADEPT): Field Application. Energy & Fuels
39 2012, 26 (9), 5702–5710.
40 (11) Rajan Babu, N.; Lin, P.-H.; Zhang, J.; Tavakkoli, M.; Vargas, F. M. Modeling Methods
41
for Prediction of Asphaltene Deposition. In Asphaltene Deposition: Fundamentals,
42
43 Prediction, Prevention, and Remediation; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2018; p 382.
44 (12) Ge, Q.; Yap, Y. F.; Vargas, F. M.; Zhang, M.; Chai, J. C. Numerical Modeling of
45 Asphaltene Deposition. Comput. Therm. Sci. 2013, 5 (2), 153–163.
46 https://doi.org/10.1615/ComputThermalScien.2013006316.
47 (13) Guan, Q.; Yap, Y. F.; Goharzadeh, A.; Chai, J.; Vargas, F. M.; Chapman, W.; Zhang, M.
48 Integrated One-Dimensional Modeling of Asphaltene Deposition in Wellbores/Pipelines.
49
50
2017.
51 (14) Tavakkoli, M.; Grimes, M. R.; Liu, X.; Garcia, C. K.; Correa, S. C.; Cox, Q. J.; Vargas, F.
52 M. Indirect Method: A Novel Technique for Experimental Determination of Asphaltene
53 Precipitation. Energy Fuels 2015, 29 (5), 2890–2900. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef502188u.
54 (15) Hildebrand, J. H.; Scott, R. L. The Solubility of Nonelectrolytes; New York : Dover
55 Publications, 1964.
56
57
58
59
1
2
(16) Panuganti, S. R.; Tavakkoli, M.; Vargas, F. M.; Gonzalez, D. L.; Chapman, W. G. SAFT
3 Model for Upstream Asphaltene Applications. Fluid Phase Equilibria 2013, 359, 2–16.
4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2013.05.010.
5 (17) Quiñones-Cisneros, S. E.; Zéberg-Mikkelsen, C. K.; Stenby, E. H. The Friction Theory (f-
6 Theory) for Viscosity Modeling. Fluid Phase Equilibria 2000, 169 (2), 249–276.
7 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3812(00)00310-1.
8
(18) Quiñones-Cisneros, S. E.; Zéberg-Mikkelsen, C. K.; Stenby, E. H. One Parameter Friction
9
10 Theory Models for Viscosity. Fluid Phase Equilibria 2001, 178 (1–2), 1–16.
11 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3812(00)00474-X.
12 (19) Zeberg-Mikkelsen, C. K. er; Quiñones-Cisneros, S. E.; Stenby, E. H. Viscosity Prediction
13 of Natural Gas Using the Friction Theory. International journal of thermophysics 2002, 23
14 (2), 437–454.
15 (20) Quiñones-Cisneros, S. E.; Zéberg-Mikkelsen, C. K.; Baylaucq, A.; Boned, C. Viscosity
16
Modeling and Prediction of Reservoir Fluids: From Natural Gas to Heavy Oils.
17
18 International Journal of Thermophysics 2004, 25 (5), 1353–1366.
19 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-004-5743-z.
20 (21) Quiñones-Cisneros, S. E.; Andersen, S. I. Density and Viscosity Modeling and
21 Characterization of Heavy Oils. Energy & Fuels 2005, 19 (4), 1314–1318.
22 (22) Schmidt, K. A. G.; Quiñones-Cisneros, S. E.; Kvamme, B. Density and Viscosity
23 Behavior of a North Sea Crude Oil, Natural Gas Liquid, and Their Mixtures †. Energy &
24
25
Fuels 2005, 19 (4), 1303–1313. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef049774h.
26 (23) Abutaqiya, M.; Zhang, J.; Vargas, F. M. Viscosity Modeling of Reservoir Fluids Using the
27 Friction Theory with PC-SAFT Crude Oil Characterization. Fuel 2017, 235, 113–129.
28 (24) Quiñones-Cisneros, S. E.; Zéberg-Mikkelsen, C. K.; Stenby, E. H. The Friction Theory for
29 Viscosity Modeling: Extension to Crude Oil Systems. Chemical Engineering Science
30 2001, 56 (24), 7007–7015. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509(01)00335-9.
31
(25) Vargas, F. M.; Chapman, W. G. Application of the One-Third Rule in Hydrocarbon and
32
33 Crude Oil Systems. Fluid Phase Equilibria 2010, 290 (1–2), 103–108.
34 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2009.12.004.
35 (26) Panuganti, S. R.; Vargas, F. M.; Chapman, W. G. Property Scaling Relations for Nonpolar
36 Hydrocarbons. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52 (23), 8009–8020.
37 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie303012n.
38 (27) Kesler, M. G.; Lee, B. I. Improve Prediction of Enthalpy of Fractions. Hydrocarbon
39
processing 1976, 55 (3), 153–158.
40
41 (28) Søreide, I. Improved Phase Behavior Predictions of Petroleum Reservoir Fluids from a
42 Cubic Equation of State, Norwegian Institute of Technology and Applied Geophysics:
43 Trondheim, Norway, 1989.
44 (29) Johnston, K. A.; Satyro, M. A.; Taylor, S. D.; Yarranton, H. W. Can a Cubic Equation of
45 State Model Bitumen–Solvent Phase Behavior? Energy Fuels 2017, 31 (8), 7967–7981.
46 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b01104.
47
48
(30) Johnk, R. E.; Hanratty, T. J. Temperature Profiles for Turbulent Flow of Air in a Pipe—
49 I:The Fully Developed Heat-Transfer Region. Chemical Engineering Science 1962, 17
50 (11). https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2509(62)87019-5.
51 (31) Enayat, S.; Kuang, J.; Rezaee, S.; Lu, H.; Tavakkoli, M.; Wang, J.; Vargas, F. M. On the
52 Development of Experimental Methods to Determine the Rates of Asphaltene
53 Precipitation, Aggregation and Deposition. In preparation 2019.
54
(32) Vilas Boas Favero, C.; Hanpan, A.; Phichphimok, P.; Binabdullah, K.; Fogler, H. S.
55
56 Mechanistic Investigation of Asphaltene Deposition. Energy Fuels 2016, 30 (11), 8915–
57 8921. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01289.
58
59
1
2
(33) Kuang, J.; Rajan Babu, N.; Hu, J.; Chen, A.; Tavakkoli, M.; Vargas, F. M. Experimental
3 Determination of Asphaltene Deposition. In Asphaltene Deposition: Fundamentals,
4 Prediction, Prevention, and Remediation; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2018; p 382.
5 (34) Rajan Babu, N.; Vargas, F. M. Modeling of Asphaltene Deposition in Packed Bed
6 Column. In preparation 2019.
7 (35) Graham, N. J. D. Orthokinetic Flocculation in Rapid Filtration. Water Research 1986, 20
8
(6), 715–724. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(86)90095-3.
9
10 (36) Gruesbeck, C.; Collins, R. E. Entrainment and Deposition of Fine Particles in Porous
11 Media. SPE J. 1982, 22 (06), 847–856. https://doi.org/10.2118/8430-PA.
12 (37) Abutaqiya, M. I. L.; Sisco, C. J.; Kuang, J.; Lin, P.-H.; Wang, F.; Tavakkoli, M.; Vargas,
13 F. M. Case Studies and Field Applications. In Asphaltene Deposition: Fundamentals,
14 Prediction, Prevention, and Remediation; CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group: Boca
15 Raton, FL, 2018; pp 283–325.
16
(38) Tavakkoli, M.; He, P.; Lin, P.-H.; Rezaee, S.; Puerto, M.; Doherty, R.; Creek, J.; Wang, J.;
17
18 Kusinski, G.; Gomes, J.; et al. Asphaltene Deposition and Fouling in Reservoirs. In
19 Offshore Technology Conference; Offshore Technology Conference: Houston, Texas,
20 USA, 2017. https://doi.org/10.4043/27933-MS.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
43
44

Acs Energyfuels 8b03239

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acs Energyfuels 8b03239

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subscriber access provided by University of Winnipeg Library

is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W.,

1 Pressure (psi) Pressure (psi)

Asph in precipitated phase (wt)

dAsph - dSolution (MPa0.5)

Oil Viscosity (cP)

You might also like