Demulsifiers Selection Techniques

International Journal of Innovative Mathematics, Statistics & Energy Policies
9(3):1-21, July-Sept., 2021
© SEAHI PUBLICATIONS, 2021 www.seahipaj.org ISSN: 2467-852X
Demulsifiers Selection Techniques

For Optimum Oil Field Emulsion Resolution In Niger Delta
Operations
1
Akpoturi Peters & 2Ejelonu Oby Catherine
1
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Federal University of Petroleum Resources, Effurun,
Nigeria
2
Department of Petroleum Marketing, Petroleum Training Institute, Effurun, Delta State, Nigeria
ABSTRACT
The bottle test method of selecting the best demulsifiers out of a wide variety of demulsifiers to resolve
oil field water in oil emulsion is time wasting and consuming. To minimize this, a set of new Criteria is
proposed. The applicability of these criteria has been investigated for over three years; testing a wide
variety of demulsifiers on different oil field emulsion samples. The results consistently match the trend of
ranking using the bottle test. Since the tests from which these criteria are derived are easier to perform in
the field, it is suggested that these criteria be used to screen and rank demulsifiers while the bottle test is
conducted on the best few to confirm the optimum demulsifier. However, final selection will be based on
the cost efficiency of the demulsifiers which is based on the predicted technical efficiency, unit cost of
demulsifiers and optimum volumetric or dosage. On the basis of these, a simple time efficient, stage by
stage procedure for screening, ranking and selection of demulsifiers is suggested.
Keywords ; Emulsion, demulsifier, samples, oil field water, bottle test, ranking, selection , optimum ,
immiscible liquids, and crude oil production.
INTRODUCTION
Emulsion, which is an intimate mixture of two immiscible liquids (in this case oil and water) stabilized by
an emulsifiers is one of the major problems of crude oil production. Emulsion treatment is expensive
Chemical demulsification is the most widely used oil field technique for resolving emulsion (Monson
1999).
Demulsifiers are expensive and large quantities are required Mkpadi and Okonkwo (2016) estimated that
over $500,000 worth of chemicals are used daily in the Nigeria oil industry alone. There is no universal
demulsifier suitable for all kinds of emulsion. The optimum demulsifier is that which effects maximum
emulsion resolution at minimum dosage, minimum residence time and minimum treatment temperature.
The stability of an emulsion depends on the nature of the emulsifier. Hausler (2008) reported that there
are basically two kinds of stabilizers:
(a) finely divided solids such as drilling mud (colloidal clay), produced sand, fine particles from
corrosion and scale formation and asphaltenes in the crude oil.
(b) surfactants such as naphthenic acids found in crude oil, injected inhibitors for corrosion, scale and
wax deposition control.
1
Akpoturi & Ejelonu ……Int Inno. Maths, Statistics & Energy Policies 9(3):1-21, 2021
The emulsifiers concentrate at the oil water interfaces skin, increase the interfacial tension and prevent the
coalescence of the dispersed droplets of the internal phase. Emulsifiers can also induce electrostatic
charges on the droplet smoking them to repel one another. Emulsions gel more stable with the age of the
field as a result of the complexity of the emulsifier.
Emulsifiers are partly soluble in both immiscible liquids. The water soluble pail is called hydrophile
while the oil soluble part is called lipophile. The relative proportion of hydrophile to lipophile is called
the Hydrophile-Lipophile Balance (HLB). Kirk Othmer (2009) reported that the stability of an emulsion
depends on this balance. The liquid phase in which the stabilizer has the greatest solubility forms the
continuous phase while the other form is the dispersed phase. Thus low HLB emulsifiers stabilize water
in oil (W/O) emulsion while high HLB emulsifiers stabilize oil in water (O/W) or inverse emulsion. This
of course depends also on the relative proportion of the liquids. Since in primary crude oil production W/0
emulsion is predominant as a result of formation water production. it can be argued that the emulsifiers
are of the low HLB kind. The corollary of this theory is that demulsifiers of known HLS, high HLB for
W/O emulsion and low RLB for 0/W emulsion can be selected to destabilize and resolve the emulsion
(Kirk Othmer,2009, Mkpadi and Okonkwo. 1986). A recent study by Ajienka et al (l992a) showed that,
this method of demulsifier selection is conditional upon whether or not the dielectric constant of the
demulsifier is lower than that of the O/W emulsion.
A major problem in chemical treatment is the uncertain nature of emulsifiers and their HLB’s. Thus, the
time consuming, tedious bottle test method (ref:l8) of selecting the optimum demulsifiers out of a wide
range of demulsifiers marketed by chemical vendors. Any error in demulsifier selection could be costly
and wasteful. Besides, the effectiveness of a chosen demulsifier changes in the life of the field requiring
periodic evaluation. Graham and Stock well (2010) and Graham (2014) also discussed the pitfall in the
bottle test procedure commonly ignored in the field. The pitfall is that the performance of demulsifiers
which are insoluble in crude oil can be inhibited or enhanced when diluted in organic solvents.
Graham et al (2013) and Thompson et al (1985) also highlighted the effects of crude oil waxes on
emulsion stability. Thus crude oil samples received in the laboratory should be heated to destroy the
production transport thermal history which the crude oil remembers through its crystalline wax
morphology.
The main purpose of the following studies is to come up with easily measurable new criteria for screening
and ranking demulsifiers at minimum time while the bottle test is performed on a few demulsifiers to
confirm optimum efficiency and volumetric requirement. To achieve this objective, Ajienka et al (199l)
proposed a new approach based on the dielectric permittivity of emulsions and demulsifiers The basis for
this approach is that since the dielectric constant of hydrocarbons (between 2 and 6) is quite different
from the dielectric constant of water (78.5 - 80) (Allen and Roberts, 1998), the dielectric constant of an
emulsion of oil and water must lie (depending on the stabilizer) between these limits and must be a
characteristic measure of emulsion stability. Compared with the bottle test it was discovered that
emulsion was resolved only if the dielectric constant of the demulsifier was lower than the dielectric
constant of the emulsion being treated. However, the magnitude of the dielectric difference is not an
absolute measure of efficiency (Figures I and 2). Besides it does not indicate the dosage for optimum
efficiency. On the basis of this a screening guide was proposed. This method has been tested for three
years by different investigators (among the authors) using different demulsifiers and emulsions. From the
dielectric measurements, an efficiency is defined as:
K
Ek  *100% (1)
K m
Where K   K cm  K D .......................................... (2)
and .K  K cm  K o ................................................... (3)
2
Equation 3 is normalized difference in dielectric constant, the maximum possible reduction in dielectric
permittivity.
Since the lowest dielectric constant of water - free oil reported by Allen and Roberts (1998) is 2, k0 is
assumed to be 2. this makes AK a theoretical maximum. The implication of this is that E k can only be l%
if is equal to 2.
Recently Mmaji et al (1992) KD suggested a new criterion for screening demulsifiers called AMA Ratio
defined by Equation .4 below:
HLBcm
AMA Ratio  (4)
KD
The AMA Ratio is a fraction if KD> HLB otherwise it is greater than unity. It was observed that the same
emulsion, the trend of the magnitude of the ratio closely matched the efficiencies predicted from the
bottle test .The HLB can be measured directly or predicted using empirical HLB- dielecthc constant
correlations (Ajienka et al, 1992b).
HLBcm  1.77641 0.64025K cm (5)
After the bottle test which defines a technical efficiency Em (defined in the experimental section), a new
parameter called cost efficiency. CE is defined from the unit cost of demulsifiers,C, and optimum number
of drops or dosage N to attain the maximum technical efficiency at treating conditions (Ajienka, et al
1992).
C*N
CE  cos t / volume (6)
E m / 100
The lower the value of XE the better the DEMULSIFIER is. This enables final selection.
Experimental Procedure
Representative samples of water - in - oil emulsion were obtained from various well heads of different oil
fields in the Niger Delta. The samples are from light, medium and heavy crude oils. Sampling points were
upstream of chemical injection facilities and so samples are considered demulsifier free. Each emulsion
sample was allowed to stand at atmospheric condition for at least four days before experimental study.
This allows time for degassing and settling out of free water and sediments. Chemical compositions of
commercial demulsifiers obtained from chemical marketing companies were not known. Tables A , B and
C give details of emulsions and demulsifiers used.
Dielectric Measurement
The dielectric constants of emulsions, demulsifiers and resolved oil/water were measured using a
capacitance meter. This meter is an electrical device in which the positive and negative terminals of the
meter were connected to two parallel plates with cross sectional area 6cm2 each. The plates were
separated 3 cm apart. These plates were dipped into a beaker containing the sample to be measured. The
meter was switched on, and the capacitance of the sample was read off on the meter calibration. The
dielectric constant is then calculated using
Equation7 defined by Frank (l997)
Capacitance Sample
Capaci tan ce of Sample
K  (7)
Capaci tan ce of volum (or air)
Capacitance is a measure of the ability of a substance to slate electrical energy. Thus non polar substances
with low capacitance (and low dielectric constant) such as oil are insulators while polar substances with
high capacitance (high dielectric constant) such as water are conductors. Vacuum is arbitrarily given a
dielectric constant of one.
3
HLB Measurement
Okonkwo (l996) observed that HLB values of most demulsifiers can be calculated from either theoretical
composition or analytical data. The former are prone to considerable errors since most demulsifiers are
known only by their code names. In the case of emulsifiers, the compositions are seldom known. Thus
data obtained from actual analysis are usually better for determining HLB. Table I gives HLB from
solubility characteristics in water (Kirk Othmer, 2009). This gives bands of values which cannot be very
useful for specific samples.
In this study the experimental procedure of Foster and Leslie (1999) was used to determine HLB given by
Equation 8
HLB = 20* (1 SV/AV) .........................(8)
where the values of saponification value, SV, and Acid Value, AV are determined experimentally as
described below
Saponification Value Determination
Foster and Leslie (1999) defined saponification value of an oil or fat as the number of milligrams of
potassium hydroxide (KOH) required to neutralize the fatty acids resulting from complete hydrolysis of I
gm of sample. Prior to the determination of saponification value, 37.5 grams of KOH were dissolved in
20 ml of water and diluted to I liter with 95 ml of ethanol. The solution was allowed to stand overnight.
METHOD
Weigh 5 gm of the sample into a conical flask and add 25 ml of the alcoholic potassium hydroxide
solution. Attach a reflux condense, and heat the flask in boiling water for 60minutes, shaking frequently.
Then add 1 ml of phenolphthalein indicator (1%) solution and titrate hot with 0.5 M hydrochloric acid
(HCL).
Carry out a blank titrating hot boiled alcoholic KOH solution without a sample.
Saponification value (SV) is calculated as follows:
(b  c) * M A * (56.1)
SV   (9)
W
where:
a = mls of HCL required in the case of sample
b = mls of HCL required for blank titration.
Acid Value Determination
Foster and Leslie (1999) also defined Acid value (AV) of an oil or fat as the number of milligrams of
Potassium hydroxide (KOH) required to neutralize the free axid in I gram of sample
Method
Mix 25 ml of diethyl ether with 25 ml of ethanol or isopropyl alcohol and I ml of phenolphthalein
indicator (1%) solution in flat bottom flask, and carefully neutralize with 0.5 M Sodium hydroxide
(NaOH). Dissolve 2.0 grams of the sample in a mixed neutral solvent and titrate with aqueous 0.5M
NaOH shaking constantly until a pink colour which persists for 15 seconds is obtained. The acid value is
calculated using
Equation 10.
56.1*VB * M B
AV   (10)
W
It is not expected that these measurements be made in the field rather as indicated earlier can be
predicated using the empirical correlation developed (Eq.5.)
Basic sediments and Water (BS&W) determination to ascertain that the field sample is an emulsion
containing water, is made. This indicates the total amount of water which most must be resolved out.
Measurement was done according to API standard procedure D2542 using an electric centrifuge. The
centrifuge tube was filled to the 50m1 mark with standard solvent (water free toluene). Then the well
4
shaken sample was poured into the tube until the total volume as 100mI. The tube was stopped and
shaken until the contents were thoroughly mixed. The sample was then heated to 120°F in thermostatic
water bath and centrifuged for 10 minutes in heated centrifuge to ensure that the temperature does not fall
below 115 o F. After centrifuging, the BS&W was read off and multiplied by 2 to give percentage BS&W
emulsion sample.
EMULSION RESOLUTION EXPERIMENTS

These experiments were performed after preparing 10% demulsifier solutions. The dilution of test
demulsifers was done as follows Mix 45 ml of solvent (75% xylene and25% methanol) in a 50ml
graduated cylinder, with 5m1 of the test demulsifier and shake vigorously. This gives a 10% of solution
of demulsifier. Put each of these in perception bottles and label properly. Assuming that solvent effect on
the demulsifiers is the same the following experiments were performed to determine the optimum
emulsifier for a given w/o emulsion.
Materials:
(1) 25m1 graduated test tubes with korks;
(2) Graduated pipette and dropper,
(3) A water bath with thermostatic control
(4) A known demulsifier and
(5) w/o emulsion sample
Procedure:
Six labeled 25m1 graduated test tubes were filled with w/o emulsion samples up to the 20ml mark. One
drop of a 10 percent Solution of the demulsifiers was added to the first test tube. Then 2,3,4,5, and 6
drops were added into the remaining five test tubes respectively, The test tubes were corked and shaken
vigorously for some time before placing them in the water bath that has been heated up to 25°C, the
average heating temperature of the fields from which samples were collected. The corks were removed
occasionally to avoid pressure build up due to shaking and heating. The test tubes were allowed to settle
for 90 minutes after which readings of water settling out were taken at intervals 30 minutes. After 90
minutes the PH of the treated emulsion samples were taken while a syringe was used to collect samples
for dielectric constant measurement. The tests repeated with each of the demulsifiers on the different w/o
emulsion samples. If klear separation into clean clear oil and Water appears more pronounced in one of
the six test tubes than the others then that demulsifier and that concentration is the optimum for the given
emulsion. The emulsion resolution efficiency is quantitatively expressed as:
Vd
E *100%(11)
Vt
This is for a given number of drops. The optimum efficiency at N number of drops is denoted E m. In this
study of drop 0.016m1 If BSXW is 30% and 20cc of emulsion was used for the test then V t is20x0.3=6cc.
if 2cc of water breaks out, then Vd= 2cc and efficiency is 33.33% .
The results are presented in Tables A to Figures 3 to 6 illustrate the plots of efficiency versus number of
drops for emulsion sample C6 for demulsifiers CA, CC, CD and CG.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Results presented in Tables A to C show that in all cases where the dielectric constant of the demulsifier
was lower than the dielectric constant of the emulsion, that is where K ( K em  K D ) is positive, emulsion
resolution was effected.
However, the magnitude of K is not directly proportional to Em, and. thus it is not absolute indicator of
efficiency (see Fig.2). Besides K does not indicate optimum dosage.
Therefore it is recommended that K as a screening parameter such that only those demulsifiers that
passed this test be screened and ranked further.
5
Since within the limits of experimental error Ek and AMA ratio closely matched the efficiencies from the
bottle test, these parameters can used to rank the demulsifiers after the initial screening. The bottle test
can then be performed on the best to finally select the very best. The values of K ro also indicated that for a
given emulsion the demulsifier that gave the lowest Kro proved to be the best. However there are cases
where even after 6 drops Kro is still greater than Kro indicating that further separation can be effected with
more drops.
Where cost data are available, final selection can then be done ensuring cost efficiency using Equation. 6
CONCLUSION
A new approach is hereby presented with which can be quickly screened and ranked the oil field. The
measurements leading to the new criteria can be made easily in the field. These criteria can be used with
confidence as the predicted efficiencies closely matched the actual efficiencies from the bottle test. The
bottle test can now be performed on the best ranked the basis of the observations of this study and
emulsifiers to confirm optimum efficiency. On improved screening guide is presented in Appendix A.
The application of this procedure will save valuable time and money to the petroleum industry.
REFERENCES
1 Ajienka, J.A., Ogbe, N.O. and Ezeaniekwe, B.C. (1991). "Measurement of Dielectric Constant of
Oil field Emulsions and its Application to Emulsion Resolution”, J. of Pet Science and Energy.
2. Ajienka, J.A. Mmaji, J.O and Airuehia, O.I. (1992h) 1-lydrophile Lipophile (HLB) Dielectric
constant correlation for Oil field Emulsions and Demulsifier.
3. Allen, T.O. and Roberts, A. P. (1998): Production Operations, Vol. 2 Well Completions. Work
over and Stimulation, OGCI Tulsa, p.22.
4. Foster, D.S. and Leslie, SE (1999): Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemical Analysis Vol. 18, John
Wiley Inter-science P. 477 479P. 22.
5. Frank, L.P. (1997):Chemistry the Universal Science. Addison Wesley Publishing Co., California.
6. Graham, D.E. (2014)’Chemical Resolution of crude oil Emulsions, Emulsion and Colloid
Science, The Requirements for successful industrial Application, Proceedings of the Symposium
by Inst. of Chem. Engrs., Chester (Feb. 2223, 2014).
7. Graham, D.E and Stock well, A. (2014),‘Selection of Demulsifiers for Produced Crude Oil
Emulsions’, Proceedings of European Offshore Petroleum Conference London, Oct.,21 24, 2014.
8. Graham D.E, Stock well, A. and Thompson. D.G., “Chemical Demulsification of Produced Crude
Oil Emulsions’, Proceedings of Chemicals in the Oil Industry Symposium, March 22 3, 2014, p.73;
Published by RSC Special Publication No.45, 2014.
9. Hausler (2008), Oil and Gas Journal, Sept.4, P. 112.
10. Kirk Othmer (2009), Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol.8, P. 900-928, 3rd. Ed. Wiley
Inter sciences.
13. Mkpadi, M.C and Okonkwo, Treating Chemicals for Emulsions,0 Paper SPEN 8605,P.N..Oil
14. Proceeding 10th Intl. Conference of the SPE Nigeria Section, Lagos (Aug.) p. 6365.
15. Monston, T.L. (1999): Chemical Resolution of Emulsions0 in Surface Operation in Petroleum
Production by Chillinger and Beeson, (ed.) p. 46, American Elsevier Publishing Co., NY.
16. Mmaji, J.O, Agienka, J.A and Airuehia, GJ. ( ) “A New Parameter for Screening and
Ranking Demulsifiers for Oil field Emulsion Resolution”, NJCHE (under Review).
17. Okonkwo, P.N. (1986); Crude Oil Emulsion Treating Chemical, B.Eng Thesis, department of
Petroleum Engineering. University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria. p 55.
18. Thompson. D.G. Taylor, A.S. and Graham, S.E. (1985): Emulsification and Demulsification
Related to Crude Oil Production.
19. Proceeding of The Formation of Liquid Dispersion, Chemicals and Engineering Aspects
Symposium by Institution of Chemical Engineer and Society of Chemical Industry, London (Feb.22.
6
1984); also published in Colloids and Surfaces, 15. p. 175 (1985). 18. “Treating Oil Field Emulsion, 3rd
Edition Petroleum Extension Service, The Univ. of Texas at Austin and American Petroleum Institute,
1974.
NOMENCLATURE
AMA Ratio = HLBem/KD. dimensionless
AV = Acid value
a = Acid Value titre point, ml.
b = Base volume titre point,.ml.
BS&W = Basic sediments and water, cc, percent
C = unit cost of demulsifier, N1. vol..
CE = Cost efficiency N
Ek = Emulsion resolution efficiency, percent based on dielectric constant, Percent
Em = Optimum efficiency, percent
HLB = Hydrophile- lipophile Balance
HLBD = HLB of demulsifier
HLBem = HLB of emulsion
K = Dielectric constant
KD = Dielectric constant of demulsifier
Kem = Dielectric constant of emulsion
Kro = Dielectric constant of remaining optimum emulsion approximately k of resolved oil at
efficiency
Krw = Dielectric constant of resolved water
K = Difference in dielectric constant = kem kD
Km = Kem – Ko = kem -2
MA = Molarity of Acid
MB = Molarity of Base
N = Optimum number of drops to reach Em
PH = Measure of acidity of basicity
S.G = Specific gravity (water = 1.0)
S.V. = Saponification value
VB = Volume of base, ml
Vd = Quantity of water in test tube, cc
V = Total quantity of water from BS & W test
W = Weight of sample, gmsSubscript
D = Demulsifier
em = Emulsion
7
APPENDIX A
Modified Procedures for Screening, Ranking and Selection of Demulsifiers for Resolving Oil field Water in Oil Emulsions.
STAGE CONSIDERATION REASON
Primary Measure Kem, Kd at room temperature To Screen,
accept demulsifiers with Kn  Kem
Secondary Measure or Predict HLBem Calculate To Rank

Determine Kro or Krw
The Higher The Positive ^K And Ek,
The Better But Not Absolute Indicator.
The Higher Krw Is Close 80 Or The

Lower Km Close 2 The Better. These are
The Limits Of K for water and oil
respectively.
Tertiary Perform Bottle Test on best four To Further Rank

demulsifier
The higher the Em and the lower N the
better.
Determine optimum efficiency, Em The less significant the change of pH the

emulsion and pH at Em better. The higher
the pH of demulsifier the better, to avoid
risk of handling and corrosion.
Note pH of demulsifiers
Final Selection Note cost of demulsifiers per drum To Select
Calculate cost efficiency CE The lower the CE the better.
NOTE
Other factors to consider are shelf life and availability. It is believed demulsifier must have been screened for toxicity and
possible damage to refinery catalysts.
8
TABLE A1 SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

EMULSION SAMPLE : A1, Kem = 45, HLBem = 30.6, pHem = 7.5, S.G. = 0.8
DEMULSIFIER PARAMETERS 1 2 3
P or F Ek AMA Kro Ranking Em CE Overall Final Remarks

S/N Demu C KD HLBD pHD dK 5 (%) Ratio or 9 (%) N/Vol pHTE Ranking Selection 16
l- 1 2 3 4 6 7 Krw 10 11 12 13 15
sifier 8
1 AA 15.90 11.96 29.10 P 67.67 1.925 15.0 2nd 80 4 8.0 1st
2 AB 3.95 4.31 41.05 P 95.47 7.750 5.0 1st 83 6 7.0 2nd
3 AC 65.00 43.39 -20.00 F
4 AD 12.00 9.46 -23.00 P 53.49 2.550 13.9 3rd 75 4 8.9 3rd
5 AE 109.00 71.56 -64.00 F
FOOT NOTE
P = PASS, F = FAIL, C = cost per Drum, PHTE = PH at Em

S/N Demul- C KD HLBD pHD dK P or F Ek (%) AMA Kro Ranking Em (%) CE pHTE Overall Final Rearks
sifier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ratio or 9 10 N/Vol 12 Ranking Selection 16
7 Krw 11 13 15
8
1 AA 15.90 11.96 9.10 P 39.56 1.118 15.0 3rd 80 4 8.0 2nd
2 AB 3.95 4.31 21.05 P 91.52 4.500 4.0 1st 80 4 7.5 1st
3 AC 65.00 43.39 -40.00 F
4 AD 12.00 9.46 -13.00 P 56.52 1.482 13.9 2nd 60 4 8 3rd
5 AE 109.00 71.56 -84.00 F
FOOT NOTE
9

EMULSION SAMPLE : A3, Kem = 15.5, HLBem = 11.7, pHem = 7.0, S.G. = 0.81
S/ Demul- C KD HLBD pHD dK P or F Ek (%) AMA Kro or Ranking Em (%) C E pHTE Overall Final Remarks
N sifier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ratio Krw 9 10 N/Vol 12 Ranking Selection 16
7 8 11 13 15
1 AA 15.90 11.96 -0.40 P 2.960
2 AB 3.95 4.31 11.55 P 85.5 4 1st 60 6 7.5 2nd
6
3 AC 65.00 43.39 -49.50 F 0.975 1st
4 AD 12.00 9.46 3.50 P 25.9 12 2nd 60 4 8.5
3
5 AE 109.00 71.56 -93.50 F
FOOT NOTE

S/ Demul- C KD HLBD pHD dK P or F Ek AMA Kro Rankin Em (%) CE pHTE Overall Final Remarks
N sifier 1 2 3 4 5 (%) Ratio or g 10 N/Vol 12 Ranking Selection 16
6 7 Krw 9 11 13 15
8
1 AA 15.90 11.96 0.60 P 4.14 0.776 16.8 3rd 70 4 2nd
2 AB 3.95 4.31 12.55 P 85.56 3.124 4.5 1st 71 6 7.5 3rd
3 AC 65.00 43.39 -40.50 F
4 AD 12.00 9.46 4.50 P 31.04 1.028 19.0 2nd 80 4 8.5 1st
5 AE 109.00 71.56 -92.50 F
FOOT NOTE
10

S/N Demul- C KD HLB pHD dK P or F Ek (%) AMA Kro or Ranking Em (%) C E pHTE Overall Final Remarks
sifier 1 D 3 4 5 6 Ratio Krw 9 10 N/Vol 12 Ranking Selection 16
2 7 8 11 13 15
1 AA 15.90 11.96 5.90 F
2 AB 3.95 4.31 6.05 P 75.6 2.07 9 1st 8 3 9 None
3 AC 65.00 43.39 -55.00 F
4 AD 12.00 9.46 -2.00 F
5 AE 109.00 71.56 -99.00 F
FOOT NOTE

EMULSION SAMPLE : A6, Kem = 4, HLBem = 4.34, pHem = 6, S.G. = 0.90
2 7 8 11 13 15
1 AA 15.90 11.96 -15.5 F

2 AB 3.95 4.31 0.1 P 40 1.1 4 1st 70 4 8 1st
3 AC 65.00 43.39 -61.0 F
4 AD 12.00 9.46 -8.0 F
5 AE 109.00 71.56 -105.0 F
FOOT NOTE
11

S/ Demul- C KD HLB pHD dK P or F Ek (%) AMA Kro or Ranking Em (%) C E pHTE Overall Final Remarks
N sifier 1 D 3 4 5 6 Ratio Krw 9 10 N/Vol 12 Ranking Selection 16
2 7 8 11 13 15
1 AA 15.90 11.96 37.10 P 72.75 2.246 20 3rd 81 6 6 1st
2 AB 3.95 4.31 49.05 P 96.18 9.041 23 1st 30 5 7 3rd
3 AC 65.00 43.39 -12.00 F - - - - - - -
4 AD 12.00 9.46 41.00 P 80.39 2.960 5 2nd 60 6 6 2nd
5 AE 109.00 71.56 -56.00 F - -
FOOT NOTE

EMULSION SAMPLE : A7, Kem = 53, HLBem = 35.71, pHem = 5, S.G. = 0.69
2 7 8 11 13 15
1 AA 15.90 11.96 34.10 P 71.04 2.125 15.90 3rd 80 5 8.9 1st
2 AB 3.95 4.31 46.05 P 95.94 8.554 3.59 1st 60 3 8.5 2nd
3 AC 65.00 43.39 -15.00 F - - - - - -
4 AD 12.00 9.46 38.00 P 79.17 2.816 10.00 2nd 25 6 9 F
5 AE 109.00 71.56 -59.00 F - - - - -
FOOT NOTE
12
TABLE B.1 SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

EMULSION SAMPLE : B.1, Kem = 50, HLBem = 35.79, pHem = 8.5, S.G. = 0.95
2 7 8 11 13 15
1 BA 5.4 5.23 44.6 P 92.92 6.257 11 1st 91 5 3rd
2 BB 12.8 9.97 37.2 P 77.5 2.64 14 2nd 88 4 1st
3 BC 40 27.39 10 P 20.83 0.845 44 4th 83 4 2nd
4 BD 28 19.7 22 P 45.83 1.207 30 3rd 60.5 5 4th
FOOT NOTE

EMULSION SAMPLE : B.2, Kem = 4.7, HLBem = 4.79, pHem = 6.0, S.G. = 0.82
2 7 8 11 13 15
1 BA 5.4 5.23 -0.7 F
2 BB 12.8 9.97 -0.81 F None
3 BC 40 27.39 -35.3 F
4 BD 28 19.7 -23.3 F
FOOT NOTE
13

EMULSION SAMPLE : B.4, Kem = 50, HLBem = 35.79, pHem = 8.5, S.G. = 0.95
2 7 8 11 13 15
1 BA 5.4 5.23 29.6 P 89.7 4.48 13.5 1st 90 4 1st
2 BB 12.8 9.97 22.2 P 67.27 1.89 13 2nd 89 6 3rd
3 BC 40 27.39 -5 F - - - - - - -
4 BD 28 19.7 7 P 21.21 0.864 27 3rd 95.5 6 2nd
FOOT NOTE

EMULSION SAMPLE : B.4, Kem = 4.5, HLBem = 4.66, pHem = 6, S.G. = 0.87
2 7 8 11 13 15
1 BA 5.4 5.23 -0.9 F 0
2 BB 12.8 9.97 -8.3 F 0 None
3 BC 40 27.39 -35.5 F 0
4 BD 28 19.70 -23.5 F 0
FOOT NOTE
14
TABLE C.1 SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

EMULSION SAMPLE : C.1, Kem = 12.6, HLBem = 1.1; pHem = 5.5
2 7 8 11 13 15
1 CA 1000 6.60 8.60 7.00 6.00 P 56.60 0.167 5.00 4th 73 4 7.50 4th 4th
2 CB 900 14.80 13.60 7.50 -2.20 F - 0.074 - - - - - -
3 CC 1200 4.80 3.20 8.00 7.80 P 73.60 0.229 5.30 1st 90 3 7.00 1st 1st
4 CD 1100 5.60 2.50 7.00 7.00 P 66.04 0.196 6.00 3rd 75 3 8.50 3rd 2nd
5 CE 950 12.40 1.00 8.00 0.20 P 1.89 0.089 12.00 6th 50 2 7.00 -
6 CF 950 11.60 19.40 3.00 1.00 P 9.43 0.095 11.80 5th 44 3 6.00 -
7 CG 1150 5.00 16.50 3.50 7.60 P 71.70 0.22 8.00 2nd 90 4 8.00 2nd 3rd
8 CH 900 14.00 17.00 8.50 -1.40 F - 0.079 - - - - -
9 CI 920 17.60 18.00 8.50 -5.00 F - 0.063 - - - - -
10 CJ 915 13.50 19.60 3.00 -0.00 F - 0.81 - - - - -
HLB measured BS&W=5.5%
FOOT NOTE
TABLE C 2: SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

EMULSION SAMPLE : C.2, Kem = 11.8, HLBem = 2:3; pHem = 5.0
2 7 8 11 13 15
1 CA 1000 6.60 8.60 7.00 5.20 P 53.10 0.349 5.00 4th 50 3 7.50 4th 3rd
2 CB 900 14.80 13.60 7.50 -3.00 F - 0.155 - - - - - - -
3 CC 1200 4.80 3.20 8.00 7.00 P 71.40 0.479 5.30 1st 71 6 8.00 1st 4th
4 CD 1100 5.60 2.50 7.00 6.20 P 63.30 0.411 6.00 3rd 53 2 8.00 3rd 2nd
5 CE 950 12.40 1.00 8.00 -0.60 F - 0.186 - - - - - - -
6 CF 950 11.60 19.40 3.00 0.20 P 2.00 0.198 11.80 5th - - - - -
7 CG 1150 5.00 16.50 3.50 6.80 P 69.40 0.46 8.00 2nd 60 4 7.00 2nd 1st
8 CH 900 14.00 17.00 8.50 -2.20 F - 0.164 - - - - - - -
9 CI 920 17.60 18.00 8.50 -5.80 F - 0.131 - - - - - - -
10 CJ 915 13.50 19.60 3.00 -1.70 F - 0.17 - - - - - - -
HLB measured BS&W=7%
FOOT NOTE
15

EMULSION SAMPLE : C 3, Kem = 7.6, HLBem =4.2; pHem = 4.5
2 7 8 11 13 15
1 CA 1000 6.60 8.60 7.00 1.00 P 17.86 0.636 7.50 4th 46 4 6.00 4th 1st
2 CB 900 14.80 13.60 7.50 -7.20 F - - - - - - - - -
3 CC 1200 4.80 3.20 8.00 2.80 P 50.00 0.875 7.40 1st 52 6 7.50 1st 4th
4 CD 1100 5.60 2.50 7.00 2.00 P 35,71 0.75 7.50 3rd 48 6 7.50 3rd 3rd
5 CE 950 12.40 1.00 8.00 -4.80 F - - - - - - - - -
6 CF 950 11.60 19.40 3.00 -4.00 F - - - - - - - - -
7 CG 1150 5.00 16.50 3.50 2.60 P 46.43 0.84 7.00 2nd 52 6 7.00 2nd 2nd
8 CH 900 14.00 17.00 8.50 -60.50 F - - - - - - - - -
9 CI 920 17.60 18.00 8.50 -10.00 F - - - - - - - - -
10 CJ 915 13.50 19.60 3.00 -5.90 F - - - - - - - - -
HLB measured BS&W=5%
FOOT NOTE

EMULSION SAMPLE : C 4, Kem = 12.0; HLBem =2.2; pHem = 5.5
2 7 8 11 13 15
1 CA 1000 6.60 8.60 7.00 5.40 P 54 0.333 7.00 4th 73 3 7.50 1st 2nd
2 CB 900 14.80 13.60 7.50 -2.80 F - - - - - - - - -
3 CC 1200 4.80 3.20 8.00 7.20 P 72 0.458 6.50 1st 69 6 7.80 3rd 4th
4 CD 1100 5.60 2.50 7.00 6.40 P 64 0.393 7.00 3rd 62 2 7.00 4th 1st
5 CE 950 12.40 1.00 8.00 -0.40 F - - - - - - - - -
6 CF 950 11.60 19.40 3.00 0.40 P
7 CG 1150 5.00 16.50 3.50 7.00 P
8 CH 900 14.00 17.00 8.50 -2.00 F - - - - - - - - -
9 CI 920 17.60 18.00 8.50 -5.60 F - - - - - - - - -
10 CJ 915 13.50 19.60 3.00 -1.50 F - - - - - - - - -
HLB measured BS&W= 6.5%
FOOT NOTE
16

2 7 8 11 13 15
1 CA 1000 6.60 8.60 7.00 -9.90 F - - - - - - - - -
2 CB 900 14.80 13.60 7.50 -10.10 F - - - - - - - - -
3 CC 1200 4.80 3.20 8.00 -0.10 F - - - - - - - - -
4 CD 1100 5.60 2.50 7.00 -0.90 F - - - - - - - - -
5 CE 950 12.40 1.00 8.00 -7.70 F - - - - - - - - -
6 CF 950 11.60 19.40 3.00 -6.90 F - - - - - - - - -
7 CG 1150 5.00 16.50 3.50 -0.30 F - - - - - - - - -
8 CH 900 14.00 17.00 8.50 -9.30 F - - - - - - - - -
9 CI 920 17.60 18.00 8.50 -12.90 F - - - - - - - - -
10 CJ 915 13.50 19.60 3.00 -8.80 F - - - - - - - - -
HLB measured BS&W= 21%
FOOT NOTE

2 7 8 11 13 15
1 CA 1000 6.60 8.60 7.00 6.20 P 57.41 0.455 6.70 4th 90 3 7.00 3rd 2nd -
2 CB 900 14.80 13.60 7.50 -2.00 P - - - - - - - - - -
3 CC 1200 4.80 3.20 8.00 8.00 P 74.07 0.625 4.80 1st 90 5 8.00 4th - -
4 CD 1100 5.60 2.50 7.00 7.20 P 66.66 0.536 6.00 3rd 90 3 7.00 2nd 3rd -
5 CE 950 12.40 1.00 8.00 0.40 P 3.70 0.242 12.40 6th 83 4 7.50 - - -
6 CF 950 11.60 19.40 3.00 1.20 P 11.11 0.259 10.00 5th 88 2 7.00 - - *Possible
7 CG 1150 5.00 16.50 3.50 7.80 P 72.22 0.6 5.00 2nd 98 3 7.80 1at 1st use
8 CH 900 14.00 17.00 8.50 -1.20 F - - - - - - - -
9 CI 920 17.60 18.00 8.50 -4.80 F - - - - - - - -
10 CJ 915 13.50 19.60 3.00 -0.70 F - - - - - - - -
HLB measured BS&W= 24%
FOOT NOTE
17
Figure 3: % Efficiency Versus No. of Drops of CA on Emulsion Sample 6
18
Figure 4: % Efficiency Versus No. of Drops of Cc on Emulsion Sample 6
19
Figure 5: % Efficiency Versus No. of Drops of CD on Emulsion Sample 6
20
Figure 6: % Efficiency Versus No. of Drops of CG on Emulsion Sample 6
21

Demulsifiers Selection Techniques

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Demulsifiers Selection Techniques

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Innovative Mathematics, Statistics & Energy Policies

9(3):1-21, July-Sept., 2021

© SEAHI PUBLICATIONS, 2021 www.seahipaj.org ISSN: 2467-852X

Demulsifiers Selection Techniques

and .K  K cm  K o ................................................... (3)

EMULSION RESOLUTION EXPERIMENTS

Primary Measure Kem, Kd at room temperature To Screen,

accept demulsifiers with Kn  Kem

Secondary Measure or Predict HLBem Calculate To Rank

The Higher Krw Is Close 80 Or The

Tertiary Perform Bottle Test on best four To Further Rank

Determine optimum efficiency, Em The less significant the change of pH the

Final Selection Note cost of demulsifiers per drum To Select

Calculate cost efficiency CE The lower the CE the better.

TABLE A1 SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

P or F Ek AMA Kro Ranking Em CE Overall Final Remarks

TABLE A2 SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

TABLE A3 SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

TABLE A4 SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

TABLE A5 SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

TABLE A6 SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

1 AA 15.90 11.96 -15.5 F

TABLE A7 SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

TABLE A8 SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

TABLE B.1 SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

TABLE B.2 SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

TABLE B.3 SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

TABLE B.4 SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

TABLE C.1 SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

TABLE C 2: SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

TABLE C 3: SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

TABLE C 4: SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

TABLE C 5: SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

TABLE C 6: SCREENING AND RANKING OF DEMULSIFIERS

Figure 3: % Efficiency Versus No. of Drops of CA on Emulsion Sample 6

Figure 4: % Efficiency Versus No. of Drops of Cc on Emulsion Sample 6

Figure 5: % Efficiency Versus No. of Drops of CD on Emulsion Sample 6

Figure 6: % Efficiency Versus No. of Drops of CG on Emulsion Sample 6

You might also like