SPE/PS/CHOA 117177

PS2008-300

A Case History of Heavy Oil Separation in Northern Alberta: A Singular

Challenge of Demulsifier Optimization and Application
Jonathan J Wylde SPE, Steven Coscio, SPE, and Victor Barbu (Clariant Oil Services)

Copyright 2008, SPE/PS/CHOA International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 20–23 October 2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/PS/CHOA Program Committee following review of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers, the Petroleum Society of Canada, or the Canadian Heavy Oil Association and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE/PS/CHOA, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE, PS, and CHOA meetings are
subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and PS. Electronic reproduction, distribution or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the SPE or PS is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain
conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435 and
Editor, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Petroleum Society of Canada, Suite 425, 500 - 5th Avenue S.W., Calgary, AB, Canada T2P 3L5, fax 01-403-262-4792.

Abstract

This case history tracks the continual improvement cycle for the fluid separation process of a heavy oil / oil sands production
facility in Northern Alberta over a period of three years. The major challenge posed by the operator of this 13 – 16° API
crude oil was to move away from injection of two separate demulsifier formulations to a single product. This was not an easy
task due to the very different conditions that existed at the two injection locations. The first location was at a series of
injection points upstream of the gathering stations, prior to separation, where temperatures could reach sub-zero conditions
and the second was at the battery receiving facility where heating increased temperatures to 100°C. Water cut and shear were
also very different and the operator required a very strict 0.2% BS&W on the crude exiting any of the four treater tanks; to
further complicate issues crude oil viscosity ranged from 500 – 5000 cP.

A unique bottle testing method was developed and used to simulate the field conditions as accurately as possible. Details are
given on the chemistry of the individual components of the demulsifier determined to be so crucial to adequate performance
and how this was optimized in the field after being identified from the bottle tests.

Results show how careful consideration needed to be given to the concentration of the demulsifier bases in the blends and the
curious observation that dilution of the final product made a big difference to the final performance in the field. Elaboration is
given on potential mechanisms explaining the dilution effect and the paper goes on to conclude how careful design of field
testing followed by field implementation can indeed solve complex separation issues and address individual well, battery and
field requirements.

Introduction

Emulsion Background and Theory.

Oil and gas are rarely produced from a reservoir alone, often being associated with produced water. This mixed production
creates a plethora of issues, one of which is the formation of emulsions. It is the separation of the crude oil from the water
that is one of the most critical, and fundamental, process challenges in production operations. Emulsions can be difficult to
treat and can cause operational issues such as production of off-specification (wet) crude and (oily) water, high pressure
drops in pipelines, tripping of separators etc.1

Emulsions can be encountered through the whole of the production and processing cycle of crude oil: in the reservoir,
wellbore, production tubing and wellheads, process vessels, export pipelines and during petroleum processing. The process of
separating water from crude is called demulsification or dewatering – in refineries, the process of removing washwater from
crude oil is called desalting.
2 SPE/PS/CHOA 117177

Crude-oil emulsions are a dispersion of water in oil and can be classified into three categories:
1. Water-in-oil emulsions
2. Oil-in-water emulsions
3. Multiple or complex emulsions

In the oil industry water-in-oil emulsions are by far the most commonly encountered. As a rule of thumb the type of emulsion
that forms is determined by the relative abundance of the two phases. Where a phase is in excess then the phase that has the
smaller fraction is dispersed in the other. There are however a number of factors that will also influence this rule of thumb1, 2.

Emulsions are stabilized by surface active agent or surfactants – termed emulsifiers. These species concentrate themselves at
the oil-water interface and form interfacial films which reduce the interfacial tension and promote emulsification and
dispersion of droplets. Many naturally occurring emulsifiers are present in crude oil and include: asphaltenes, resins, organic
acids and bases – all these emulsifiers tend to be concentrated in the higher boiling-point fractions and therefore tend to be
higher in concentration in heavier crude oils. Other production chemicals can also act as emulsifiers (such as corrosion
inhibitors, scale inhibitors, drilling fluids etc.) Fine solids can act as mechanical stabilizers; these solid particles have to be
much smaller than emulsion droplets and concentrate at the oil-water interface being wetted by both the oil and water. The
efficacy of solids in stabilizing emulsions depends on particle size, interactions and the relative wettability of the particles.
Some studies have proposed that solids are by far one of the most influential parameters on emulsion stability3. Solids can
include sand, asphaltenes, waxes, clays, silts, corrosion products, mineral scales, drilling mud and drilling loss control media.

Emulsions are an unstable system because there is a thermodynamic drive for a liquid / liquid system to separate and reduce
the interfacial area and energy. Many emulsions can be stable over a long period of time because they possess a kinetic
stability and this leads to another classification system of emulsions based on stability:
1. Loose emulsions: separate in a few minutes
2. Medium emulsions: separate in 10 minutes or more
3. Tight emulsions: can be stable for hours or days and in some instances may never resolve

Generally a tight emulsion has a much smaller dispersed phase droplet size (< 1 μm) and a high degree of stabilizing
surfactants or solids present, a loose emulsion has a larger dispersed phase droplet size (> 1 – 10 μm) and a low degree of
stabilizing surfactants or solids.

Many factors affect the stability of emulsions and have been exhaustively reviewed in the literature4 – 7:
1. Temperature: as well as affecting the physical properties of the crude oil, namely viscosity, temperature also affects
the properties of the produced water, interfacial films, and emulsifier solubilities in the crude oil and water. The
viscosity of the emulsion decreases with increasing temperature because increasing the temperature decreases the
viscosity of the crude oil. This can especially be prevalent when a crude oil contains paraffinic components and
application of heat can eliminate an emulsion problem by re-dissolving paraffins into the crude oil. Temperature also
serves to increase the energy of a fluid thereby increasing the number of droplet collisions and coagulation.
2. pH: many emulsifying agents are affected by pH – organic acids and bases, asphaltenes and solids – therefore
changing the pH affects the ionization of these components in the interfacial films, thus changing their properties5.
pH also affects the type of emulsion, for example low pH generally produces water-in-oil emulsions whereas high
pH produced oil-in-water emulsions.

3. Heavy fraction in crude oil: naturally occurring emulsifying agents are found in the higher boiling point, polar
fraction of crude oil7–9. These components include resins, asphaltenes, naphthenic and carboxylic acids and bases.
The heavier a crude oil or the richer in these high boiling point polar fractions the more stable an emulsion will form
as these compounds are major constituents of the interfacial films.

4. Solids: fine solid particles can stabilize a crude oil emulsion but the exact mechanism depends upon several factors
such as particle size, material and wettability3, 9. These solid particles diffuse to the oil-water interface where they
form a film and sterically hinder the coalescence of droplets. Critical to the stabilization of emulsions is the nature of
the charge on the particle as well as their size – they must be much smaller than the emulsion droplets they are
stabilizing.

5. Droplet size: generally an emulsion that has a smaller average droplet size is more stable – this is in part explained
by Stoke’s Law which describes the settling of particles in an ideal situation. According to Stoke’s Law, the rate of
settling of a droplet is proportional to the droplet radius squared, the density difference between the phases and the
inverse of viscosity.
SPE/PS/CHOA 117177 3

Emulsion Control Background and Theory.

Emulsions are not thermodynamically stable and given sufficient time will separate into their component phases.
Destabilization of water in oil emulsions occurs in stages and occurs via:
1. Flocculation / Aggregation: droplets of water clump together forming aggregates. Droplets may touch but not
actually coalesce due to the presence of the interfacial film surrounding the water droplet. This is strongly affected
by water cut, temperature, viscosity and the oil-water density contrast.
2. Creaming / water drop: there must be a difference in density for creaming to occur and the result of this process is a
concentration of dispersed droplets that will drop towards the bottom of a vessel.
3. Coalescence / free water breaking: this is where the water droplets fuse to form a larger droplet in an irreversible
process. Coalescence is fast if there is a high interfacial tensions, low viscosity, high water cut and high temperature.

Both physical and chemical methods are employed in the separation of water from crude oil. Enhancement of the
demulsification process can be achieved in a number of ways – the most common include: increased temperature,
centrifugation, electrical methods, increased residence time, and chemical demulsifier treatment.

Non-Chemical Emulsion Control.

Increasing temperature encourages the dispersed phase droplets to strike each other more often and with greater force – this is
because they are in continuous Brownian motion. This in turn leads to a greater likelihood of coalescence. Heat also serves to
reduce the viscosity of the continuous phase resulting in higher film drainage. Heating can however create other operational
issues such as increased energy consumption, increased corrosion risks, asphaltene precipitation etc.

Centrifuge methods are used to increase the concentration of the dispersed phase in the creamed layer as well as increase the
breaking of interfacial films. Centrifuges can be used for primary emulsion treatment but are more common for oil-in-water
treatment, e.g. hydrocyclones.

The use of electricity has been long used in the oil industry to enhance emulsion resolution. Electrostatic coalescers or
separators are widely used to treat water in oil emulsions. A dipole is formed in the water droplets, which causes them to be
attracted to one another and become elongated11.

Given sufficient time crude oil emulsions will become resolved. Therefore separator vessels need to be appropriately sized to
get the best residence time for the fluids being processed. Sometimes retrofitting of vessels can occur to make, for example,
two-phase separators into three-phase separators to improve residence time12.

Chemical Demulsification.
Addition of chemicals is by far the most common method of treating emulsions. Chemical demulsifiers are used ubiquitously
all over the world to improve the emulsion breaking processes. Demulsifier formulations are prepared from cationic, anionic
or non-ionic surfactants of varying degrees of hydrophilic / lypophilic balance (HLB) values and a wide range of molecular
weights. Demulsifiers are surface active compounds that migrate to the oil-water interface and rupture or weaken the rigid
film thereby enhancing coalescence of water droplets. Demulsifiers can alter the wettability of solids to enhance coalescence.
Typical demulsifier chemistries include polymeric chains of ethylene oxides and propylene oxides of alcohol, ethoxylated
alcohols, ethoxylated phenols, ethoxylated amines, ethoxylated resins, sulfonic acid salts, diepoxides, ethoxylated
nonylphenols, polyhydric alcohols and then a plethora of surfactant chemistries.

A demulsifier can operate by one or more of several mechanisms13, 14:

1. Preferential adsorption onto the oil-water interface and displacement of pre-existing stabilizing emulsifying agents
thus removing the steric barrier. This has been confirmed from interfacial tension measurements and rheology
studies.
2. Due to a demulsifier base having a limited solubility in crude oil they only coat a small portion of water droplets.
Spreading of the demulsifier can then occur via hetero-droplet interaction and can help to explain why some
demulsifiers act immediately to cause rapid coalescence of water droplets.
3. Good demulsifiers adsorb to the interface as the interfacial film is stretched. Strong partitioning and mobility to the
interface are important demulsifier characteristics and the demulsifier causes rupture of the film and coalescence of
water droplets.
4. Solids wetting characteristics are preferentially changed by effective demulsifiers to either totally oil wet or totally
water wet thus encouraging solids off the interface and into one discreet phase. It is generally more desirable to
move solids to the water phase. If wax or asphaltene was the entrained solid then it is generally more desirable to
move these solids back into the oil phase.
4 SPE/PS/CHOA 117177

It is hardly surprising that any given demulsifier formulation is highly specific to an individual field or process system
because they are sensitive to crude oil type, pH, salt content and temperature. To ensure good treatment of the crude oil a
demulsifier should generally dissolve in the continuous oil phase and diffuse to the oil-water interface in the correct
concentration. A good demulsifier will also partition into the water phase and possess a high rate of adsorption at the
interface. Finally they should suppress the interfacial tension gradient and accelerate film drainage promoting coalescence.

The bottle test is the standard technique employed in the field to initially select demulsifiers. The bottle test will provide data
on water drop, oil dryness and interface quality. There is no standard method for the bottle test and indeed there should not be
because every system is different4. A bottle test is more of a method than a procedure and variables in the test include (but are
not limited to) demulsifier chemistry, dosage rate, test length, temperature, and degree of agitation. Good experimental
design is key to mimic the field conditions and make the tests more representative15 – 18.

Field Background and Fluid Separation Challenge

This case history tracks the continual improvement cycle for the fluid separation process of a heavy oil / oil sands production
facility in Northern Alberta over a period of three years. One of the major challenges posed by the operator of this 13 – 16°
API crude oil was to move away from injection of two separate demulsifier formulations to a single product. This was not an
easy task due to the very different conditions that existed at the two injection locations. The first location was at a series of
injection points upstream of the gathering stations out in the field, prior to separation, where ambient temperatures could
reach sub zero conditions (>-40°C) and the second was at the battery receiving facility where heating increased temperatures
to approximately 100°C. Water cut and shear were also very different and the operator required a very strict 0.2% BS&W on
the crude exiting any of the four treater tanks. To further complicate issues crude oil viscosity ranged from 500 – 5000 cP and
the crude oil came from a relatively shallow play resulting in wellhead temperatures barely reaching 20°C.

A schematic of the battery plant has been given in Figure 1. Fluids arrive from the field to the SCUD (and inclined two phase
separator) and from there passed through a heat exchanger to a free water knockout vessel. Fluids then passed through 4
parallel heater treaters to sales. Various recycle and skimming operations can be in operation and have been indicated in
Figure 1.

Injection of two different demulsifier products in the field and at the battery occurred for several years (both were mixtures of
EO/PO block polymers and alkoxylated resins) with relatively trouble free operation – the LACT BS&W was below the
0.5% specification. However, in mid-2007 it was a requirement to not only move to a single demulsifier products for
application in the field and the battery but also to decrease the BS&W to 0.2%. The reasons for these changes were to ease
logistical and operational issues by moving to one product and the BS&W specification was to have more of a buffer between
the actual BS&W of the LACT and the sales specification of 0.5%.

In order to enable a move to use of a single product used in both the field injection locations and at the battery, a redesign of
the bottle tests was required in order to simulate the real field conditions and passage of a single demulsifier product. Some
subtle changes were to initially perform the bottle tests on cold fluids mimicking application in the field and then after an
appropriate residence time increase the temperature and dose in additional chemical to mimic application at the battery.
Based on the results a new single demulsifier product was identified that was a blend of EO/PO block polymers and an
alkoxylated amine. The changover was completed by Q3 2007. The new product was very good for fast water drop and the
BS&W of the SCUD and FWKO were much improved compared to previous trends, however BS&W was not as low as
0.2%. During this time there were significant operation issues with the functionality of the heater treaters and nearly in all
cases at least one of the treaters ran colder than 100°C. As an example the Treater 1 trends have been plotted in Figure 2 and
it can be seen that when the temperature decreases the BS&W increases, especially notable in the last quarter of 2007 where
the treater temperature decreased from 115 – 100°C and the BS&W coming out the treater increased from an average of 0.2%
– 0.35%. In order for a single demulsifier product to be as effective as possible, the temperature and operation of the treaters
needed to be as smooth and constant as possible.

It was found that using the same chemistries but using a dilution of the product made some improvements to the BS&W and
treatments. Just after application of a diluted product (30% active instead of 50% active) BS&W results became significantly
better and it was proposed that better penetration into the oil was occurring via the increased solvent content of the
demulsifier. However, even with this improved penetration and dehydration of the oil, after several months of trying to
optimize on a single product in the field (at a variety of concentrations) and at the battery it was acknowledged that this was
just too challenging a task to perform alongside decreasing the BS&W of the LACT to below 0.2%. Therefore further
optimization of demulsifier products occurred which brought a new product to be applied at the battery, whilst keeping the
same product out in the field.
SPE/PS/CHOA 117177 5

Some general plant trends have been plotted in Figures 3 and 4 which show the evolution of the LACT BS&W with total oil
and water flow rates (Figure 3) and then the LACT BS&W with the overall (total) demulsifier injection rate (Figure 4). It can
be seen from Figure 3 that there is a direct relationship between the LACT BS&W and the volume of water the field
produced and handled at the battery. It can be seen that as the produced water rates increased the LACT BS&W too has
increased. This would suggest that the water handling limitations of the battery are being exceeded and that the plant has
become more challenging to operate with the increased volume of water. Residence times would also be significantly
decreased as the produced water rates have increased from 8,000 to 16,000 m3/day (50,500 – 101,000 bbl/day) – another
potential issue is that the emulsion could in some locations have actually passed the inversion point as this increase in
produced water is an approximate water cut change of 64 – 80%, although experimentation to confirm this has not been
performed. It can be seen from Figure 4 that optimization of the original demulsifier combination injection rate had occurred
from 2005 – 2007 and it was possible to reduce the overall demulsifier consumption from 150 – 90 ppm (based on oil).
During this time the BS&W trends remained constant at approximately 0.3%. The big increase in demulsifier injection rate in
the second half of 2007 was because of a change to a more dilute product, in an attempt to gain better penetration into the
crude oil of demulsifier to enable cold treating. Returning to Figure 3, it can be seen that a slow increasing trend in the LACT
BS&W occurred from early 2005 to the end of 2006 (A) and this could be explained by increasing water production rates and
generally decreasing demulsifier injection rates. At the beginning of 2007 an increasing trend was experienced in the LACT
BS&W (B) and this was commensurate with a marked increase in the produced water rate. By June of 2007 the new single
demulsifier product was introduced and it can be seen that even though further increases in produced water rates occurred,
the increasing trend in BS&W was halted where it has maintained at an average of 0.4% (C). Therefore arguably, whilst on
face value the change in demulsifier did not decrease the BS&W to the target of 0.2% the change was positive because it
ensured faster water drop and more efficient separation at the plant even with massive increases in gross fluid throughput,
and resulted in maintaining a constant BS&W. It can be seen that optimization continues with the new product combination
to reduce the injection rate to the most economical concentration.

A corrosion inhibitor was injected in the field at a rate of approximately 1000 liters per day, equivalent to about 60 ppm
based on total fluids. It was a water soluble / oil dispersible product applied to all the main areas coming in from the field.
Bottle testing showed that this corrosion inhibitor significantly interfered with the speed of water separation and resulted in a
baggy interface in the bottle. The field separation equipment also shows higher efficacy of fluid separation during periods
where the corrosion inhibitor if offline, especially the water quality outlet to the skimmings tanks. Furthermore, the crude oil
itself being produced on this lease had a relatively low asphaltene content for the weight of the crude. This resulted in the
crude being relatively non-viscous and therefore cold treatment of the crude was a viable option. The crude also contained a
lot of entrained gas because it was difficult for the gas to separate from the crude at low temperatures in the field. Only after
heating at the battery did large scale gas breakout occur. Therefore the produced fluids and gases displayed very different
physical forms in the field and at the plant which alluded to the fact that two demulsifier products were likely to be required
to treat the overall lease. The large scale gas breakout in the battery created a lot of foam in the process vessels, in particular
the SCUD and FWKO, which in turn led to poor interface control and excursions of water into the sales crude. This continual
disturbance created wide swings in the composition of fluids flowing to the FWKO thus leading to large deviations from the
set point in the operating temperature of the FWKO. Application of an antifoam is anticipated quite soon in order to try and
improve LACT BS&W even further.

To even further complicate treatment, the main in field pipelines are pigged twice weekly and production fluids and solids are
pushed to the battery and received by the SCUD vessel. When this happened the SCUD received a large slug of wet oil
emulsion followed by an even larger slug of free water. This added even further to the difficulty of operating the SCUD in
terms of interface control and correct water levels as well as loading the FWKO with oil emulsion and starving it of water.
The solids would also cause a pad build up in both the SCUD and FWKO.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The following conclusions can be made from the field testing, sampling and demulsifier optimization exercise:

• Injection of two separate demulsifier products prior to mid-2007 gave relatively trouble free operation. A change to
the BS&W requirement and a desire to move to a single demulsifier product applied in the field and at the battery
gave some significant treatment challenges.
• A redesign of the bottle test procedure was required in order to more accurately mimic the field application of a
single demulsifier product.
• The general increase in BS&W seen at the LACT is most likely attributable to the large increase in gross fluid
throughput – mostly water. Residence times would be much reduced, plant operability would have been constantly
changing and the emulsion may have passed through its inversion point.
6 SPE/PS/CHOA 117177

• The change in demulsifier chemistry was positive because it halted the increasing trend in BS&W commensurate
with large scale water rate increases.
• The corrosion inhibitor injected in the field was shown to significantly interfere with the speed of water separation
and resulted in a baggy interface in the bottle test.
• Lots of entrained gas in the crude resulted in large scale foaming in the battery and application of an antifoam was
required to help maintain a clear and discrete interface.
• Pigging operations of the in-field pipelines brought slugs of solids, emulsions and free water into the battery adding
further to the difficultly of operating the plant.

References

1. Emulsions: Fundamentals and Applications in the Petroleum Industry. Schramm L.L (ed.). (1992) Advanced
Chemical Service Monograph Series, American Chemical Society, Washington DC.

2. Schubert H. and Armbroster H. (1992) Principles of formation and Stability of Emulsions. International Chemical
Engineering, 32 (1), 14 – 28.

3. Poindexter M.K., Chuai S., Marble R.A., and Marsh S.C. (2006) The Key to Predicting Emulsion Stability: Solid Content. SPE
93008, SPE Production & Operations, Volume 21, Number 3, 357-364.

4. Kokal S. (2005) Crude Oil Emulsions: A State-Of-The-Art Review. SPE 77497, SPE Production & Operations, Volume 20,
Number 1, 5-13.

5. Strassner J.E. (1968) Effect of pH on Interfacial Films and Stability of Crude Oil/Water Emulsions. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, SPE 1939, 303 – 312.

6. Kokal S. and Al-Ghamdi A. (2006) Oil/Water Separation Experience From a Large Oil Field. SPE 93386, SPE Production &
Operations, Volume 21, Number 3, 365-371.

7. Yarronton H.W., Hussein H., and Masliyah J.H. (2000) Water-in-Hydrocarbon Emulsions Stabilized by Asphaltenes at Low
Concentrations. Journal of Colloid Interface Science, 228, 52 – 63.

8. Kilpatrick P.K. and Spiecker P.M. (2001) Asphaltene Emulsions in Encyclopedic Handbook of Emulsion Technology. Sjoblom J.
(Ed.), Marcel Dekker, New York, 707.

9. Levine S. and Sandford E. (1985) Stabilization of Emulsion Droplets by Fine Powders. Canadian journal of Chemical
Engineering, 62, 258 – 268.

10. Eley D.D., Hey M.J. and Symonds J.D. (1988) Emulsions of Water in Asphaltene Containing Oils. Colloids and Surfaces, 32, 87
– 103.

11. Fjeldly T.A, Hansen E.B, and Nilsen P.J. (2008) Novel Coalescer Technology in First-Stage Separator Enables Single-Stage
Separation and Heavy-Oil Separation. SPE 118891, SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction, Volume 3, Number 2, 1-5.

12. Kokal S. and Al-Ghamdi A. (2008) Performance Appraisals of Gas/Oil Separation Plants. SPE 102854, SPE Production &
Operations, Volume 23, Number 2, 287 – 296.

13. Bhardwaj A. And Hartland S. (1993) Study of Demulsification of Water-in-Crude Oil Emulsions. J. Dispersion Science and
Technology, 14, 541.

14. Salager J.L. (1990) The Fundamental Basis for the Action of a Chemical Dehydrant: Influence of Physical and Chemical
Formulation on the Stability of an Emulsion. International Chemical Engineering, 30 (1), 103 – 116.

15. Bowman R.W., Burton W.D. and Pryor J.A. (1977) Statistically Designed Oil Dehydration Tests. SPE 6529, SPE California
regional Meeting, Bakersfield, CA, April 13 – 15.

16. Kokal S.L. (2005) Crude Oil Emulsions. Petroleum Engineers Handbook, SPE, Richardson, TX.

17. Tang Y. and Wong S. (2005) A Flow Assurance Study for a Satellite Crude-Oil System With Severe Emulsion. SPE 96836, SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 9-12 October 2005, Dallas, Texas.

18. Al-Bastaki N., Abbas A., and Zubari H. (2003) Improving the Production of Heavy Emulsion Crudes in the Bahrain Field:
Experimental and Field Investigations. SPE 81450. Middle East Oil Show, 9-12 June 2003, Bahrain.
SPE/PS/CHOA 117177 7

Figure 1: Plant Battery schematic.

0.50 130

0.45
120
0.40

0.35 110

Temperature (C)
0.30
BS&W %

100
0.25
90
0.20

0.15 80

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

Figure 2: Treater 1 BS&W versus Temperature.

8 SPE/PS/CHOA 117177

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

14000
0.5
3

12000

LACT BS&W %
C
10000 0.4

B
8000 0.3
A
6000
0.2
4000

0.1
2000

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

Figure 3: Crude oil and water rates versus the LACT BS&W, arrow indicates change in demulsifier chemistry.

300 0.7

0.6
250
Demulsifier usage ppmv (oil)

0.5
200 BS&W %

0.4
150
0.3

100
0.2

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

Figure 4: Demulsifier usage versus the LACT BS&W, arrow indicates change in demulsifier chemistry.