ARTICLE pubs.acs.

org/EF

Asphaltene Deposition Measurement and Modeling for Flow Assurance of Tubings and Flow Lines
Kamran Akbarzadeh,* Dmitry Eskin, John Ratulowski, and Shawn Taylor
DBR Technology Center, Schlumberger, 9450, 17 Avenue, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6N 1M9 ABSTRACT: A recently developed asphaltene deposition model is tuned with some experimental data obtained in RealView, a high pressure deposition cell. The tuned model is validated with further experimental data. The lab-scale model is then extended to eldscale tubings and ow lines, and the predicted deposition prole is qualitatively compared with eld observations. Finally, an experimental protocol is developed for asphaltene deposition measurement and modeling for ow assurance of tubings and ow lines. The successful applications of RealView in investigating the impacts of shear, run time, residence time, pressure, chemical inhibitor, and surface roughness on the deposition of asphaltenes from ve uids from the Gulf of Mexico are also discussed.

INTRODUCTION The deposition of asphaltenes in well bores and transportation pipelines as a result of reduction in pressure or change in composition of the reservoir uid has been a ow assurance concern for the oil and gas industry. The large capital and operating costs associated with prevention and remediation of deposits have created the need for improved methods of measuring and modeling for the optimization of system design and operations while minimizing the risk of deposition. Asphaltenes in crude oils that exhibit asphaltene precipitation and deposition behavior during primary depletion are typically undersaturated (saturation pressure < reservoir pressure).1 During reservoir production at a constant temperature, once pressure decreases to the asphaltene precipitation onset pressure, dissolved asphaltenes start to precipitate and potentially deposit in the wellbore region and ow lines. Typically, the amount of precipitated asphaltenes increases as the pressure decreases and reaches a maximum at the bubble-point pressure. Asphaltene precipitation is a thermodynamic process which is mainly a function of pressure, temperature, and uid composition. Asphaltene deposition, on the other hand, is a much more complex process and also depends on ow shear rate, surface type and characteristics, particle size, and particlesurface interactions. Therefore, although asphaltene precipitation is a necessary condition for the formation of obstructions, it is not a sucient condition for deposition. After precipitation, asphaltene particles must deposit and stick to a surface before they can become a ow assurance problem in straight ow lines. Where bends, valves, other restrictions, and large changes in ow rates occur, they may sediment without sticking in separators and heat exchangers in surface facilities. RealView, a high-pressure deposition cell based on the Taylor Couette ow principles, is a laboratory tool for generating organic solid deposits under a wide variety of operating conditions. This equipment has been used to measure the deposition rate of waxes and asphaltenes from live uids under laminar and turbulent ow conditions.26 Although the high-pressure deposition cell is a capable tool in generating asphaltene deposits under a wide variety of operating conditions, the deposition rates obtained by this laboratory-scale
r 2011 American Chemical Society

equipment cannot be directly applied to the eld. A deposition model can, however, ll this gap and link the laboratory data to the eld environment. Typically, the data are used to ne-tune and validate deposition models and thereby identify their parameters. The rened models are then used to predict deposition in the eld. Recently, an asphaltene deposition model was developed by Eskin et al.79 The developed model has six parameters that need to be determined using experimental data. In this paper, an overview of the deposition model and RealView cell is provided. Then, the results of asphaltene deposition experiments with various oils for investigating the impacts of shear, run time, residence time, pressure, chemical inhibitor, and surface roughness on the deposition of asphaltenes are presented and discussed. Some of the lab-scale data are then used to tune and validate Eskin et al.s deposition model for the Couette device (e.g., RealView). The identied parameters then become inputs to the asphaltene deposition pipe model in order to predict deposit thickness along wellbore tubing and transportation ow lines in the eld. The deposition prole prediction is qualitatively compared with the eld observations. Sensitivity analyses are performed to indicate the impacts of changes in model parameters on the deposit predictions. Through this exercise, the number of model parameters is reduced, and an experimental protocol is developed for conducting deposition experiments for modeling and simulation purposes.

DEPOSITION MODEL The asphaltene deposition model developed by Eskin et al.79 consists of three major modules: (1) particle precipitation module providing asphaltene particle concentration as a function of pressure, (2) particle size distribution module, and (3) particle transport module. A shear removal term is included in the particle transport module.
Received: June 28, 2011 Revised: November 7, 2011 Published: November 07, 2011
495
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef2009474 | Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 495510

Energy & Fuels

ARTICLE

Figure 1. Schematic of the high-pressure deposition cell.

An equation of state approach was employed for modeling particle precipitation/formation.10 The particle size distribution evolution in time was modeled using the population balance technique. In this model, particle aggregates were considered as fractal objects, and the population balance equations were solved for a wide range of particle sizes. The primary size of asphaltene particles was evaluated as several nanometers, while the biggest agglomerates reach sizes of tens of micrometers. The major empirical parameters used for the population balance model are the fractal dimension of particle aggregates and the particle particle collision eciency, which determines the probability of an agglomerate formation at a single collision. The reported fractal dimension for asphaltene aggregates is between 1.5 and 1.9. In the current model, a xed value of 1.6 was selected for all cases. It has been found that the collision eciency strongly depends on the oil chemical composition and has very small values.7,8 The module for particle transport to the wall is based on a calculation of the particle ux to the wall, caused by the Brownian motion. The boundary condition is a zero particle concentration gradient at the wall that is explained by the very low probability of particle deposition at a single collision with the wall (the particlewall collision eciency). Thus, the physics of particle transport is dierent from that modeled in the recent investigations on particle deposition where the diusion caused by the particle concentration gradient in the wall vicinity was considered as the major transport phenomenon.7 Eskin et al. introduced the particlewall collision eciency as a model parameter to determine the actual deposition rate. Note that the deposition rate is a function of particle size. To take into account the assumption that the relatively large particles do not deposit on the wall, a critical particle size was introduced as a model parameter, a rst approximation of which is evaluated on the basis of the balance of a drag force and the van der Waals attraction force acting on a particle near the wall.7 A shear removal term was also considered as part of the transport module. Under highly turbulent ow conditions, the shear stress applied on the deposit layer may cause some of the already deposited asphaltenes to be removed. A practical application of the developed deposition model consists of two stages: (1) identication of the model parameters for a given oil composition in the range of expected pipe ow regimes on the basis of Couette device (e.g., RealView) experimental data and (2) calculation of the deposit layer thickness along

the tubing or pipeline. The proposed modeling technique demonstrates an accuracy sucient for engineering purposes. Details about the model equations and parameters can be found elsewhere.8,9

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
RealView Deposition Cell. The RealView deposition cell16 is a
device capable of generating individual and/or combined wax and asphaltene deposit buildup under field conditions. The cell, which is based on TaylorCouette flow principles, was designed to simulate the hydrodynamic and thermal characteristics encountered in typical oilproduction lines. The rapid rotational movement of a spindle at the center of the device produces a fluid movement that in a regime of developed turbulence creates a flow field similar to that within a pipe.5,7 The RealView cell can operate in both batch and flow-through modes. A schematic of the deposition cell is shown in Figure 1. To initiate a test in the batch or closed system, the cell is initially lled with the parent stock tank oil (STO) of the sample. The STO is then displaced with live uid, initially placed in a 1 L storage bottle, at reservoir temperature and at a pressure above its asphaltene onset pressure. The displacement continues until all STO (150 cm3) and some of the live oil that has made contact with it are removed. This step minimizes the compositional change of any uid that was in the cell prior to the test. Next, the spindle is turned on and its rotational speed is set in such a way that the desired wall shear stress is achieved. The initially high pressure (above the asphaltene onset pressure) in this device is then reduced either abruptly or gradually to the desired test pressure, which is typically 100 psi above the bubble point of uid where the maximum amount of precipitated asphaltenes exists in the uid. Then, the batch test is run for a set time. When the run is completed, the oil inside the device is drained at the test pressure, and the generated deposit that formed on the cell wall is recovered with dichloromethane. After the solvent is evaporated, the residue is weighed. Its weight represents the total amount of deposit including occluded oil. The residue is then analyzed for asphaltene content using a modied IP-143 with n-heptane to determine the separate amounts of the asphaltene deposit and oil. The ow-through setup eliminates the batch systems limitations for generating enough deposit from low-asphaltene-content samples. However, compared to the approximate 150 cm3 of oil needed for a batch test, a 4 h ow-through test with an oil ow rate of 3 cm3/min (50 min average residence time for uid in the cell) will require approximately 900 cm3 of live uid. Similar to the batch system, the rst step in a ow-through test is to ll the cell with STO. The STO is then displaced with live uid, initially
496
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef2009474 |Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 495510

Energy & Fuels Table 1. Characteristics of Asphaltenic GoM Crudes

sample information reservoir temperature (C) reservoir pressure (MPa) GOR (m3/m3) saturation pressure at Tres (MPa) API asphaltene content (wt %) asphaltene onset pressure @ Tres (MPa) precipitated amount of asphaltenes in reference to live oil mass @ Tres and slightly above bubble point (wt %) viscosity (Pa s) density (kg/m3) 7.1e4 700 6.6e4 714 1.2e3 742 1.0e3 780 oil A 69 71.7 154 20.0 33 1.6 51.7 0.69 oil B 126 103.4 93 13.8 33 1.7 34.5 0.26 oil C 93 103.4 112 19.0 29 4.5 34.5 0.49 oil D 98 103.4 129 27.6 26 4.7 41.3 0.72

ARTICLE

oil E 98 103.4 101 16.3 24 13.3 37.9 3.28

2.5e3 800

Table 2. Test Matrix and Results of Deposit Analysis for RealView Batch Experiments
corrected mass of Tuid test # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 oil A A A A A A B B B B B B C C C C C D D D E E E E (C) 69 69 69 69 69 69 82 82 82 82 126 126 93 93 93 93 93 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 pressure (MPaa) 20.68 20.68 20.68 20.68 20.68 20.68 12.27 12.27 12.27 12.27 14.48 14.48 20.34 20.34 20.34 20.34 20.34 29.65 29.65 35.85 17.03 17.03 17.03 17.03 rotational speed (rpm) 720 720 3360 720 3360 3360 780 780 780 780 780 780 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 780 780 780 2100 2100 2100 2100 Re 16500 16500 77000 16500 77000 77000 13100 13100 13100 13100 18100 18100 13500 13500 13500 13500 13500 13360 13360 13360 14100 14100 14100 14100 wall shear stress (Pa) 0.56 0.56 6.8 0.56 6.8 6.8 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.56 0.56 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 0.69 0.69 0.69 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 run time (hr) 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 4 8 2 6 1 1 2 4 8 2 6 2 1 2 2 6 de posi ted asphaltenes(mg) 12.4 16.8 9.5 16.9 5.9 9.9 12.3 9.6 15.2 19.0 8.4 13.4 9.3 6.7 14.1 12.1 20.6 29.4 59.5 21.3 51.2 56.8 53 55.6 asphaltene deposition rate (g/m2/day) 11.8 16.0 9.1 16.1 5.6 9.4 23.5 9.1 7.3 4.5 8.0 4.3 17.7 12.8 13.5 5.8 4.9 28.0 18.9 20.3 97.7 54.2 50.6 17.7 purpose abrupt pressure drop gradual pressure drop shear eect chemical eect150 ppm repeat of test #3 repeat of test #3 run time eect base run run time eect run time eect run time and temperature run time eect abrupt pressure drop gradual pressure drop run time eect run time eect run time eect base run run time eect pressure eect run time eect abrupt pressure drop gradual pressure drop run time eect

placed in a 1 L storage bottle, at reservoir temperature and at a pressure above its asphaltene onset pressure. The displacement continues until all STO (150 cm3) and some of the live oil that has made contact with it are removed. Fresh uid is then owed at a set rate into the top of the cell, forcing the live uid to exit the cell through the drilled hole in the bottom cap. An empty bottle receives the live uid at high pressure once it exits the cell. The spindle is then turned on at a specied rotational speed, and the pressure of the system is reduced to that of the test pressure, which is normally 100 psi above the bubble point of the uid. The pressure, temperature, rotational speed, and ow rate are controlled throughout
497

the test. Two pumps are used to control the ow in and out of the cell and thereby regulate the pressure. The ow-through rate is low; therefore the mean uid residence time in the RealView cell is long enough to treat this device as an ideal mixer. After completion of each test, the remaining uid in the cell is pushed out by helium while the spindle is still rotating. This minimizes the settlement of asphaltenes on the bottom cap. The deposited material is removed and analyzed as explained earlier. The ow-through system provides valuable information about the deposition process because the collected deposit mass is usually much higher than that in the batch system. This is because during the
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef2009474 |Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 495510

Table 3. Test Matrix and Results of Deposit Analysis for RealView Flow-Through Experiments
rotational average residence corrected mass of asphaltene deposition rate (g/m2/day) purpose shear, run time shear, residence time shear shear residence time residence time residence time residence time, shear 24.7 92.4 21.6 1.1 7.0 26.1 25.0 76.0 22.0 50 56.9 27.2 27.1 12.7 11.9 33.5 10.5 14.5 27.1 run time run time residence time, shear pressure, shear pressure, shear chemical inhibitor eect, 150 ppm 20.68 20.68 20.68 20.68 780 18100 0.56 4.0 50 3360 71000 6.76 3.6 720 1800 16500 38000 0.56 2.34 4.3 4.0 50 50 720 16500 0.56 4.0 50 chemical inhibitor eect, 500 ppm repeat of test #31 repeat of test #33 repeat of test #34 shear, residence time, run time, pressure 14.48 14.48 14.48 14.48 14.48 27.58 14.48 20.34 20.34 20.34 20.34 20.34 20.34 2100 3000 6000 1500 1020 13500 19900 27800 39700 79500 720 9550 780 18100 780 18100 780 18100 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.69 1.09 2.09 3.71 6.80 22.09 3600 780 83300 18100 7.80 0.56 2100 48600 3.02 1500 34700 1.70 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.3 2.0 4.0 1.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.4 4.0 4.0 50 50 50 15 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 41.3 38.3 37.7 24.6 30.6 36.1 30.7 62.0 36.7 31.5 143 37.1 26.8 19.7 18.3 18.0 36.7 29.2 17.2 32.5 29.6 17.5 15.0 6.2 17.7 12.8 shear shear shear residence time run time pressure repeat of test #55 shear base run shear, residence time, pressure shear shear shear 35.5 18.5 11.0 16.7 30.9 26.9 42.2 50.4 deposited asphaltenes (mg) 80.0 34.9 23.0 35.0 37.2 22.6 17.7 35.2 32.3 426.0 18.1 2.6 14.4 wall shear time in the cell, min 50 50 50 50 25 15 10 15 50 50 15 50 50 50 Re stress (Pa) 0.56 1.17 2.34 6.76 1.17 1.17 1.17 0.56 0.56 0.56 6.76 6.76 0.56 0.56 3.9 3.9 4.3 8.8 1.6 2.5 1.3 0.8 1.6 2.3 4.0 3.6 4.0 4.3 (hr) 16500 25300 38000 71000 25300 25300 25300 16500 16500 16500 71000 71000 16500 16500 run time pressure speed (rpm) 720 1200 1800 3360 1200 1200 1200 720 720 720 3360 3360 720 720 (MPaa) 20.68 20.68 20.68 20.68 20.68 20.68 20.68 20.68 20.68 20.68 20.68 55.16 55.16 20.68

Tuid

ow rate

Energy & Fuels

test #

oil

(C)

(cm3/min)

25

69

26 27

A A

69 69

3 3

28

69

29

69

30

69

10

31

69

15

32

69

10

33

69

34 35

A A

69 69

3 10

36

69

37

69

38

69

39

69

498

40 41

A A

69 69

3 3

42

69

43

126

44

126

45

126

46 47

B B

126 126

3 10

48

126

49

126

50

126

51

93

52

93

53

93

54

93

ARTICLE

55

93

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef2009474 |Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 495510

56

93

Energy & Fuels

Table 3. Continued
rotational average residence corrected mass of asphaltene deposition rate (g/m2/day) 51.4 36.1 28.4 11.5 57.9 75 95.5 29.8 50 50 50 50 56.0 109.6 144.9 113.0 3.6 67.0 13.9 26.3 52.3 69.1 53.9 run time run time pressure surface roughness30 m 20.34 20.34 20.34 20.34 29.65 29.65 29.65 3120 53500 7.25 4.0 1560 26700 2.23 4.0 780 13400 0.69 4.0 1020 13500 1.09 4.1 1020 13500 1.09 4.1 50 1020 13500 1.29 2.7 50 1020 13500 1.29 4.0 50 surface roughnesssmooth surface roughness30 m, run time chemical inhibitor, 200 ppm repeat of test #60 simdist analysis shear shear shear purpose residence time deposited asphaltenes (mg) 34.2 37.8 89.4 24.1 121.4 wall shear time in the cell, min 15 50 50 50 50 Re stress (Pa) 2.09 1.09 1.09 2.20 1.29 4.0 4.0 2.0 6.0 1.3 (hr) 19900 13500 13500 17600 13500 run time pressure speed (rpm) 1020 1020 1020 1500 1020 (MPaa) 20.34 20.34 20.34 27.58 20.34

Tuid

ow rate

test #

oil

(C)

(cm3/min)

57

93

10

58 59

C C

93 93

3 3

60

93

61

93

62

93

63

93

499

64a

93

65a

93

66

98

67

98

68

98

The reported deposited masses in tests 64 and 65 are based on the improved deposit analysis methodology discussed in the Appendix.

ARTICLE

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef2009474 |Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 495510

Energy & Fuels

constant inux of a fresh uid no or minimal depletion occurs in the ow-through system. To condently employ RealView for deposition studies, it was important to show that the deposition conditions in a pipeline can be imitated in the RealView device. A detailed description of the similitude between the two systems from both uid dynamics and particle transport points of views can be found elsewhere.79 Deposition Experiments. Precipitation and deposition experiments were carried out in such a way that the results could be used for asphaltene deposition modeling purposes. Some experiments were designed to help in model tuning, while others were designed on the basis of the deposition model output to validate model predictions. The designed experiments are explained in three steps as follows. Step 1: Batch Runs. As the first step, it was decided to conduct some deposition tests in the RealView batch system to study how deposit grows over time and if depletion takes place at a certain run time. It should be noted that the amount of deposit obtained in the batch system needs to be more than 20 mg to be acceptable. On the basis of some simple calculations, if the amount of deposited asphaltenes is less than 20 mg, the deposit is still limited to the first layer of asphaltenes adsorbed on the metal. In such a case, it is recommended that the data not be interpreted for practical purposes. Nevertheless, the data may be used for modeling purposes to estimate the particleparticle collision efficiency as well as the critical particle size. Step 2: Gradual versus Sudden Pressure Decrease. In a typical batch run, the pressure of the system is reduced abruptly from reservoir pressure to the test pressure (e.g., slightly above the bubble-point pressure). This quick pressure drop usually takes approximately 10 min. But what if the system pressure is reduced gradually from asphaltene onset pressure to the test pressure over a certain period of time (e.g., test run time), which normally happens in actual pipelines? Would this impact the kinetics of asphaltenes formation and growth and eventually their deposition rate? This question guided us to design some tests with a gradual pressure decrease in the RealView batch system and later compare the results with the abrupt pressure decrease tests under the same running conditions. Step 3: Flow-Through Runs. As will be discussed later, the batch deposition tests provided inconclusive results, and therefore we decided to switch to flow-through deposition experiments. As mentioned earlier, the flow-through system provides valuable information about the deposition process because the collected deposit amount is usually higher than that in the batch system. Therefore, deposited asphaltenes are not limited to the adsorbed layer anymore; that is, asphaltene asphaltene layers are formed. The ow-through experiments were designed to cover shear, residence time, pressure, run time, asphaltene inhibitor, and surface roughness eects. A combination of batch tests and ow-through tests was selected for tuning the asphaltene deposition model, which will be discussed in the Experimental Protocol section Oil Samples. Five STO samples, A to E, all from the Gulf of Mexico (GoM) were used for the deposition studies in this work. All five samples were asphaltenic crudes with low to high asphaltene contents. The STO samples were recombined with synthetic gases to make live oil samples representative of their bottomhole fluids from the composition and gas to oil ratio (GOR) perspectives, although the asphaltene contents of the supplied STOs might be less than the asphaltene contents of the bottomhole fluids originally sampled under reservoir conditions. Table 1 summarizes some characteristics of the recombined fluid samples. Test Matrix. Overall, 68 RealView deposition experiments were carried out for the purposes of this work. Out of these 68 runs, 24 were run in the batch system and the rest in the flow-through system. Tables 2 and 3 show the running conditions as well as the purpose of each test in the batch and flow-through systems, respectively.

ARTICLE

Figure 2. Results of batch deposition experiments for samples A to E.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Tables 2 and 3 show the results of deposition experiments for batch and ow-through runs, respectively. The deposition rate was dened as follows:
depositionrate mad Ac t 1

where mad is the corrected mass of deposited asphaltenes, Ac is the surface area of the cell, and t is the total run time. The procedure for calculating the corrected mass of deposited asphaltenes is explained in the Appendix. Batch Runs. Figure 2 shows the amounts of deposited asphaltenes over time for samples A to E. As shown, except for samples D and E, the amounts of deposited asphaltenes were 20 mg or less; that is, their deposition was limited to adsorption on the metal. For samples D and E, however, sufficient amounts of deposit were obtained mainly due to high asphaltene contents of the oils and the presence of numerous depositing asphaltene particles in the fluids. The second observation from batch runs for samples B, C, and E was the growth of deposit at the beginning and then attening at longer run times. The main reason was due to depletion of depositing asphaltenes. However, depletion here is not compositional-based but mechanical; that is, over time the particles in the uid grow to a critical size above which they do not tend to deposit.8,9 For sample D, an increase in deposition over time is expected to continue until depletion starts to overcome the deposition, at which point attening of the deposition prole takes place. The third observation was that the gradual pressure decrease did not have a big impact on the deposition of asphaltene particles compared to the sudden pressure decrease. This is possibly due to the fast kinetics of asphaltene formation and growth independent of depressurization rate under shear. Flow-Through Runs. Shear Effect. Shear-effect studies represent the changes in either production rate or pipe inner diameter for design purposes. Generally, the higher the Reynolds number, the higher the shear stress on the deposit and the lower the deposition rate. Average fluid velocity, pipe inner diameter, fluid density, and fluid viscosity impact the Reynolds number and therefore the wall shear stress.
500
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef2009474 |Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 495510

Energy & Fuels

ARTICLE

Figure 4. Eect of residence time of the uid in the cell on the asphaltene deposition rate from samples A, B, and C.

Figure 3. Eect of shear on the mass of asphaltenes deposited from samples (a) A and B and (b) C and D.

Figure 3a and b show the eect of shear on the deposited mass of asphaltenes from oils A to D. For oil A, the experiments were performed at 69 C, 20.68 MPa, and a ow-through rate of 3 cm3/ min. As shown, the amount of deposited asphaltenes dropped from approximately 80 mg at low shear (i.e., 0.56 Pa representing 318 m3/day eld production) to approximately 35 mg at high shear (i.e., 6.8 Pa representing 1272 m3/day eld production). Similar trends were observed for samples B and C. Shear experiments were run at 126 C, 14.48 MPa, and a ow-through rate of 3 cm3/min for sample B and at 93 C, 20.3 MPa, and a ow-through rate of 3 cm3/min for sample C. The total run time was approximately 4 h for all runs. The slope of deposit reduction from low shear to mid shear was sharper for samples A and C compared to sample B. This may represent the strength of the deposit in resisting against shear removal in regards to sample B. Unlike the other three samples discussed above, the amount of deposited asphaltenes from sample D at low shear was less than that at higher shears. Typically, it is expected to have more deposit at lower shears. However, if the occulation tendency is high, the particles may get big enough under a low shear environment and therefore lose their tendency for deposition. This is speculation only, and no conclusion can be made
501

regarding the deposit amount at low shear for sample D until this run is repeated. In sum, shear has a signicant impact on the deposition rate of asphaltenes, and controlling the production rate in the eld can help in controlling asphaltene deposition. A eld that normally produces oil at high production rates with little or no asphaltene deposition cannot be guaranteed against asphaltene deposition issues when the production rate declines. Residence Time Effect. As a result of limited fluid volume and arbitrary testing duration, a calculated deposition rate based on testing time and total deposit amount may not reflect the true deposition rate in the field. In production systems, since the tubing is in contact with fresh fluid at all times, contact time between tubing and a fluid at a given pressuretemperature condition can be seen as zero.2 On the basis of this understanding, a series of deposition tests at dierent residence times were performed to evaluate apparent deposition rate. Residence time is dened as the ratio of the RealView cell volume (i.e., 150 cm3) to the ow rate of the uid passing through the cell. As shown in Figure 4, the shorter the residence time, the higher the apparent deposition rate. Such test results were extrapolated to zero residence time, and the estimated deposition rates under production conditions for oils A, B, and C were approximately 50, 40, and 70 g/m2/day at their prescribed pressure, temperature, and ow rate. It should be noted that a shorter residence time corresponds to a faster ow of uid in the cell and therefore a shorter test run time for the same volume of uid used. That is why, despite the lower deposit mass obtained at shorter residence times, the deposition rate is higher due to a shorter run time compared to the longer residence time test. The residence time tests can also help in investigating the kinetics of asphaltenes deposition. The bigger the dierence between the deposition rate at a short residence time and that at a longer residence time, the faster the kinetic of deposition. As such, according to Figure 4, the kinetics of deposition for oil C is faster than that for oil A. The kinetics of deposition for oil B on the other hand is slower than that for oil A. The faster the kinetics of deposition, the quicker the depletion of uid of depositing asphaltenes might be at longer residence times. However, depletion in deposition is not exclusively a compositional
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef2009474 |Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 495510

Energy & Fuels

ARTICLE

Figure 5. Eect of run time on the amount of deposited asphaltenes from sample A to C.

Figure 6. Eect of pressure on the amount of deposited asphaltenes from samples B and C.

phenomenon; it is mainly caused by the particles growing so large that they are not capable of sticking to the wall. Our experiments have shown that when the oil, which has deposited part of its asphaltenes in a ow-through test, is collected at high pressure and high temperature, reconditioned at reservoir conditions for ve days, and then reused for a deposition experiment, a deposition rate close to the deposition rate obtained by fresh original uid would be obtained. This indicates that depletion of the asphaltene particle deposition is not necessarily due to a scarcity of depositing asphaltenes but mainly due to growing to a critical size, above which asphaltene particles no longer tend to deposit. The residence time tests are useful in validating the predicting capability of the RealView asphaltene deposition model. Run Time Effect. The effect of run time in a batch system was discussed earlier. It was concluded that over time the deposit growth reduces and eventually stops mainly due to the growth of asphaltene particles to a critical size, above which they do not tend to deposit any more. This is what we call depletion. In the flow-through system, however, depletion is expected to be minimized due to a continuous flow of fresh oil through the cell over a period of time. Therefore, a linear increase in the deposit mass would be expected. Figure 5 compares the growth of asphaltene deposited mass with time for samples A to C. In all three cases, the asphaltene deposit mass increased with time. In the case of oil C, the amount of deposited asphaltenes obtained for a 4 h run seems o-trend. The results of conducting ow-through runs at dierent run times can also be used for both tuning and validation of the RealView deposition model as discussed later. Pressure Effect. The quantity (concentration) of precipitated asphaltenes increases when the pressure is reduced from the asphaltene onset pressure to the bubble point. On the other hand, smaller particles that have a higher tendency for deposition appear at pressures close to the asphaltene onset pressure. Therefore, it is important to investigate the impact of pressure on the deposition of asphaltenes in live fluids. Figure 6 shows approximately a 16% reduction in the amount of deposited asphaltenes from sample B and a 23% reduction from sample C by running the tests at 6.9 MPa below their detected onset pressures rather than running them at slightly
502

above their bubble points. This expected outcome can be explained as follows. Despite a smaller mean size for asphaltene particles at higher pressure, their concentration in the uid and their residence time in the cell would play more important roles in the deposition process. As such, the closer the pressure to the asphaltene onset pressure, the less the amount of deposited asphaltenes would be. The tests run for sample A above its detected onset pressure at 69 C showed a negligible amount of asphaltene deposition (see tests #36 and 37 in Table 3). Chemical Inhibitor Effect. Asphaltene inhibitors are polymeric dispersants that have been developed to prevent asphaltene flocculation. It is believed that inhibitors interact with asphaltenes and do not let them come together and form bigger aggregates. Despite a reduction in the size of asphaltene aggregates, the injection of asphaltene inhibitors does not guarantee a reduction in the asphaltene deposition rate. In fact, if an asphaltene inhibitor shows a better interaction with the surface (e.g., metal, sand), deposition may not reduce. Rather, it may even increase due to the smaller size of the asphaltene particles and more frequent particle interactions with the surface. Therefore, conventional tests such as ADT or flocculation tests may not be helpful in identifying the most effective inhibitor. Representative deposition experiments, on the other hand, may show the real impact of inhibitors. It is worth noting that for deposition experiments with inhibitors, the desired inhibitor was added to the sample at a reservoir temperature and pressure, and the treated sample was conditioned prior to the deposition experiments. Figure 7 shows that the amount of deposited asphaltenes from sample A in the ow-through system reduced from approximately 80 mg (deposition rate of 35.2 g/m2 day) to approximately 26 mg (deposition rate of 12.7 g/m2 day) when using 150 ppm of inhibitor. This means an inhibitor eciency of 67%. Increasing the concentration of the inhibitor in oil from 150 ppm to 500 ppm, however, did not improve the eciency of the inhibitor. In contrast, the inhibitor did not show any improvement in the batch system. The main reason is that the amount of deposited asphaltenes in the batch system is typically very low and limited to the adsorbed layer on the metal surface, and therefore the
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef2009474 |Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 495510

Energy & Fuels

ARTICLE

Figure 7. Eect of asphaltene inhibitor on the amount of deposited asphaltenes from sample A in both batch and ow-through systems.

injection of inhibitor would not make much dierence and would be limited to the error range. Another asphaltene inhibitor was tested on sample C. The results showed that the amount of deposited asphaltenes reduced from 56 mg with the blank oil to 30 mg with the sample treated with 200 ppm of inhibitor. This indicates approximately a 50% eciency. Surface Roughness Effect. The RealView cell wall has an average roughness of 8 m. In order to investigate the effect of surface roughness on the deposition tendency of asphaltenes, two metal inserts that fit the cell were manufactured: one with an average roughness of 30 m and the other with a smooth surface. Figure 8 shows the amounts of asphaltenes deposited on the regular cell, rough surface, and smooth surface with time. Approximately 50% more deposit was generated with the rough insert compared to the regular cell. In contrast, a negligible amount of asphaltene deposit was formed on the smooth surface. This may indicate the importance of surface roughness in the deposition process. The rougher the surface, the higher the sticking eciency of particles with the metal surface. For eld applications, however, with the deposit buildup over time, the roughness of the surface is determined by the asphaltene deposit layer formed on the wall, and therefore after production for some time, it would not be important any more.

Figure 8. Eect of surface roughness on the deposition tendency of asphaltenes from sample C (T = 93 C, P = 20.3 MPaa, shear stress 1.2 Pa, ow rate = 3 cm3/min).

The net or actual deposition mass ux, qa, is then calculated as7 qa ksr q0 3

MODEL TUNING AND VALIDATION As explained earlier, an engineering asphaltene deposition model was developed to link the RealView experimental data, obtained in the lab, to production tubings on the eld scale. In the absence of shear removal, the developed deposition model by Eskin et al.8,9 has three parameters: particleparticle collision eciency,; particle-wall collision eciency, ; and critical particle size, dcr. For details regarding the development of the model and the equations involved, please refer to Eskin et al.79 The shear removal term, ksr, in this report is an empirical equation with three parameters:   b n ksr a 2 w
where a, b, and n are the parameters and w is wall shear stress.
503

where q0 is the overall deposition mass ux in the absence of shear removal. All six parameters are determined using the experimental data. Our main purpose is to reduce the number of parameters from six to two by xing four parameters using the available experimental data for various oils. The following is our approach to doing so: Determine all six parameters by tuning the RealView deposition model with one set of experimental data for one of the uids. Perform a sensitivity analysis to nd out less sensitive parameters. Reduce the number of parameters by xing less sensitive parameters and tune the model with experimental data for other uids. Assess the validity of model predictions with fewer parameters (preferably two) using the experimental data that were not used for tuning purposes It should be noted that, due to a lack of enough oil sample, no repeatability testing was performed. As such, the error range of RealView asphaltene deposition experiments is not known at this stage. Model tunings and calculations in this work have been performed with the assumption that all of the experimental data are representative unless otherwise noted in the text or indicated on the plots. Whether model predictions are in the range of error or not is not known, and therefore it will not be discussed. Determine Model Parameters. The experimental data for oil C were used to tune the model and determine all six parameters. A two-step process was used for this purpose. First, the results of batch experiments (see Figure 2) and flow-through experiments (see Figure 5) were used to estimate particleparticle collision efficiency, particle-wall collision efficiency, and particle critical size. Figures 9 and 10 show the outcome of model tuning in the absence of the shear removal term. The average absolute deviation (AAD) of model calculations from experimental data points is 14% in Figure 9 and 28% in Figure 10. In the second step, the model was tuned with shear removal data. For this purpose, a ksr was determined for matching each
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef2009474 |Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 495510

Energy & Fuels

ARTICLE

Figure 9. Model tuning with batch deposition data for sample C. Figure 11. Estimated ksr vs wall shear stress for sample C.

Table 4. Estimated Model Parameters for Sample C

deposition model parameter particleparticle collision eciency, particle-wall collision eciency, particle critical size, dcr shear removal parameter, a shear removal parameter, b shear removal parameter, n estimated value for sample C 7.0 105 3.7 106 100 nm 0.4625 0.2764 1.1

Figure 10. Model tuning with ow-through deposition data for sample C.

deposition point for oil C shown in Figure 3. A plot of ksr vs wall shear stress was then plotted as shown in Figure 11. The shear removal term in eq 2 was then tted with the points in Figure 11, and its parameters were estimated. Table 4 summarizes all six model parameters for oil C. Figure 12 shows modeling results with the tuned model for the eect of shear on the deposition of asphaltenes from oil C. The calculated AAD for this case was 32% mainly because one of the experimental data points seems to be o. Perform Sensitivity Analysis. Once the model parameters for sample C were estimated by tuning the model with some experimental data, a sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the sensitivity of each parameter on performance of the model. Figures 1315 show the impact of changing one parameter at a time on the calculated amount of deposited asphaltenes in batch and ow-through systems for sample C. As shown, the model is not that sensitive to changes in critical size especially in regard to the ow-through system. Therefore, we decided to keep this parameter xed at 100 nm for deposition calculations for other samples. Changes in particlewall collision eciency, however, make a dierence. The model is sensitive to changes in particleparticle
504

Figure 12. Modeling results for the eect of shear on deposition from sample C.

collision eciency as well but to a lesser extent compared to particlewall collision eciency. Since the model is more sensitive to particlewall collision eciency and since this parameter is more controlling in the deposition process, we decided to x the particleparticle collision eciency at 8 105 for other oil samples and only consider the particlewall collision eciency as the tuning parameter. Finally, changes in the power of the shear removal term (parameter n in eq 2) indicated that this parameter could also be used as a tuning parameter for modeling shear removal eects.
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef2009474 |Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 495510

Energy & Fuels

ARTICLE

Table 5. Estimated parameters for samples A, B, D, and E

oil sample parameter particlewall collision eciency, power n in shear removal term 1.1 0.55 1.0 1.0 A 4.9 10
6

B 6.7 10
6

D 1.33 10
5

E 1.02 105

Figure 13. Sensitivity analysis for modeling of sample C in the batch system.

Figure 16. Model predictions for sample A: shear eect at 3 cm3/min ow rate; AAD = 21%. Figure 14. Sensitivity analysis for modeling of sample C in the owthrough system.

Figure 15. Sensitivity analysis for modeling of sample C in regard to shear eect.

The other two parameters (i.e., a and b) in the shear removal term were xed. Reduce Number of Parameters. In the previous step, four out of six parameters were suggested to be fixed. The two tuning parameters are particlewall collision efficiency, , and the power n in the shear removal term (eq 2). In order to determine these two parameters for a specic oil sample, at least two experimental deposition data points are
505

required. One experiment is recommended to be performed at low shear (lower limit of turbulent ow regime in RealView) where the shear removal term is not in eect. This way the particlewall collision eciency can be estimated by matching the data point at low shear. The second experiment is recommended to be performed at mid shear or high shear (or the shear that is representative of the maximum production rate in the eld). By matching this data point, the parameter n in the shear removal term can be estimated. Table 5 summarizes the two estimated parameters for samples A, B, and D. For sample E, only parameter was determined from available batch data. No ow-through experiments at high shear were available to determine parameter n for this oil. As such, n was assumed to be unity. The results of calculations will be demonstrated in the next section. Validate. Once the two parameters were identified for each oil sample, the rest of the measured data points were predicted using the tuned model. Figures 1618 compare experimental data with predicted values for sample A in regard to shear eect (T = 69 C, P = 20.68 MPa, run time 4 h, and ow-through rate = 3 cm3/min), residence time eect (T = 69 C, P = 20.68 MPa, and rotational speed = 1200 rpm), and shear eect with a dierent ow-through rate (T = 69 C, P = MPa, run time 1.3 h, and ow-through rate = 10 cm3/min), respectively. As shown, the predicted values were in good agreement with experimental values. The AAD between calculated values and experimental values in Figures 1618 are 21%, 10%, and 20%, respectively.
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef2009474 |Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 495510

Energy & Fuels

ARTICLE

Figure 17. Model predictions for sample A: residence time eect at 1200 rpm rotational speed; AAD = 10%.

Figure 19. Model predictions for sample B: shear eect at 3 cm3/min ow rate; AAD = 3%.

Figure 18. Model predictions for sample A: shear eect at 10 cm3/min ow rate; AAD = 20%.

Figure 20. Model predictions for sample B: run time eect; AAD = 4%.

Figures 19 and 20 compare experimental data with model predictions for sample B in regard to shear eect and run time eect, respectively. Again, predicted values are in good agreement with measured values in spite of xing four parameters and tuning the model with only two parameters. The AADs between calculated and experimental values in Figures 19 and 20 are 3% and 4%, respectively Figure 21 compares the results of the model for sample C with the measured values. For this case, the tuned model underpredicted the experimental data for 15 min residence time (or 10 cm3/min ow-through rate). The calculated AAD is 19%. Figure 22 compares experimental data with model calculations for sample D in regard to shear eect. As explained earlier, for sample D, the parameter n was considered unity and the model was tuned with the experimental point at 7.25 Pa shear only. The reason for this was a low amount of deposited asphaltenes at low shear. As shown, the model predicted the mid shear point very well. The calculated AAD was 33%. Figure 23 compares experimental data with model predictions for sample D in the batch system. The model prediction was in
506

Figure 21. Model predictions for sample C for 15 min residence time, AAD = 19%.

very good agreement with the 6 h data point but overpredicted the 2 h data point. The calculated AAD was 23%.
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef2009474 |Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 495510

Energy & Fuels

ARTICLE

Figure 22. Model results for sample D- shear eect at 3 cm3/min ow rate, AAD = 33%.

Figure 24. Model results for sample E: batch system, AAD = 3%.

Figure 23. Model results for sample D: batch system, AAD = 23%.

Figure 24 compares experimental data with model predictions for sample E in the batch system. Due to a lack of ow-through data, parameter n was assumed unity, and only the particle surface interaction parameter was used as a tuning parameter. As shown, the model results are in good agreement with the rest of the experimental data. The calculated AAD was 3%. In sum, the deposition model once tuned with two experimental data points can be used to predict the deposited amount of asphaltenes under other operating conditions at least for the oil samples in this study. Since all ve samples in this study were from GoM, it is believed that the two-parameter model can be used for predicting asphaltene deposition from other GoM oil samples. For oils outside of GoM, some experimental data may be required to validate the predictability of the model once it is tuned with two data points.

Figure 25. Computed deposit thickness distributions along vertical tubing.

FROM REALVIEW TO FLOW LINE Once model parameters are determined using the RealView experimental data, the deposition model for the ow line can be employed to predict asphaltene deposit formation in vertical production tubings and transportation pipelines. In this section,
507

we illustrate a deposition model performance in a depleting reservoir producing oil A through vertical 2.500 -diameter tubing. Details of the deposition model for the ow line and related examples can be found elsewhere.15 The ow line model parameters are the ones obtained for sample A and presented in Tables 1 and 5. For the sake of simplicity, the bottomhole pressure was assumed to drop linearly by 1000 psi during one year of production. A change in the bottomhole pressure results in a shift of the asphaltene onset location in the tubing during production. The initial mean ow velocity was assumed to be 0.7 m/s. Figure 25 shows the deposit layer proles, computed for the dierent operation times of three months, six months, and one year. A qualitative agreement of the modeled deposit proles with those reported by Haskett and Tartera16 is obvious. Note that this comparison is justied only for the tubing region, where the pressure exceeds the bubble point pressure during the entire operation time. The abrupt decrease in the deposition prole takes place when the bubble point pressure is reached in the tubing.
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef2009474 |Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 495510

Energy & Fuels No deposition calculation was performed in the two-phase region (i.e., below bubble point).

ARTICLE

EXPERIMENTAL PROTOCOL
Previously, we could reduce the number of model parameters from six to two for the oil samples under this study. As such, only two experimental data points would be required to tune the asphaltene deposition model. The following is the proposed experimental protocol for conducting asphaltene deposition experiments and simulation. 1. Regardless of the eld operating conditions, the rst ow-through experimental data point should be designed in such a way that the calculated Reynolds number in RealView is a number between 10 000 and 13 000. This is called the low shear point, where the shear removal eect is usually zero. Particlewall collision eciency can be estimated by tuning the model with this experimental point. 2. The second ow-through experimental point is designed in such a way that the maximum production rate in the eld is mimicked. This point is used to tune the model for parameter n. 3. A third experiment is recommended to validate model predictions. It could be running the ow-through experiment for a longer period of time, at a dierent shear, or with a dierent ow-through rate. It could also be a batch run, if preferred. 4. The estimated model parameters are then used to simulate deposition in the wellbore, tubing, or transportation pipeline under eld conditions using the ow line model. It should be noted that the suggested experimental protocol is based on the assumption that the two-parameter model can be used for various oils. If an oil outside of GoM is used, more experiments may be necessary in case the two-parameter model cannot be validated. In such a case, all six parameters may need to be determined using sucient experimental data. For conducting any deposition study, the following experiments are necessary prior to the design of deposition experiments: 1. Asphaltene content of the oil 2. Saturation pressure of the uid at the temperature at which deposition tests will be performed (typically reservoir temperature) 3. Asphaltene onset pressure of the uid at the same temperature as in step 2 4. Postltration of precipitated asphaltenes at the desired pressure (typically 100 psi above the saturation pressure) and temperature to determine the amount of precipitated asphaltenes for modeling purposes 5. Special care should be taken to make recombined uids as representative as possible of the bottomhole uid sample (in case enough bottomhole uid does not exist to cover all of the owthrough experiments)

uid due to pressure reduction, grow to a critical size, above which they do not tend to deposit. Shear has a signicant impact on the deposition rate of asphaltenes. Controlling the production rate in the eld can help in controlling the asphaltene deposition. Unlike batch experiments, in ow-through experiments, the amount of deposit grew continuously over time, mainly due to fresh oil passing through the deposition cell. The deposition rate of asphaltenes at pressures closer to the asphaltene onset pressure is smaller than that at pressures closer to the bubble point pressure. Chemical inhibitors eectiveness on reducing the deposition of asphaltenes could be observed with the ow-through system. Surface roughness impacts the rate of asphaltene deposition in the RealView system. More deposit was generated using the rough surface compared to the smooth surface. Through a three-step process, a recently developed asphaltene deposition model was tuned with experimental data, and the number of parameters was reduced from six to two for the oils under study. The two variable parameters are particle surface collision eciency and parameter n in the shear removal term. On the basis of the experimental data and modeling results, an asphaltene deposition experimental protocol was therefore developed. The proposed experimental protocol consists of a minimum of three deposition experiments: two for tuning the model and one for validation. The simulation results for deposition of asphaltenes in vertical production tubings were qualitatively compared with eld observations reported by Haskett and Tartera.16 The results of simulations based on the tuned model with representative experimental data can help in better design of production tubings and transportation pipelines in the eld and therefore saving capital and operating expenses.

CONVERSION FACTORS
API bbl/d C cm3 cm3/min cP g/cm3 g/m2/d h min mg ppm psi MPa scf/bbl 141,500/(131.5 + API) 1.84 106 273.15 + C 106 1.6 108 103 103 1.1 108 3600 60 106 106 6.894757 103 0.1781071 = kg/m3 = m3/s =K = m3 = m3/s = Pa.s = kg/m3 = kg/m2/s =s =s = kg = m3/m3 = kPa = kPa = m3/m3

CONCLUSIONS A total of 68 deposition experiments on ve uids from GoM were carried out. Through these experiments, the eects of shear, run time, residence time, pressure, chemical inhibitor, and surface roughness on the deposition of asphaltenes were investigated. The following main conclusions were drawn from the available experimental data: Most of batch experiments resulted in asphaltene deposit amounts of less than 20 mg. Although the deposit amount increased over time, the deposit growth rate slowed down at longer running times due to the depletion of depositing asphaltenes. The depletion of depositing asphaltenes occurs over time because asphaltene nanoparticles, originally formed in the

APPENDIX
Asphaltene Deposit Analysis Methodology. Once the deposited material is rinsed with dichloromethane, the solution is submitted for analysis. Figure A.1 shows the deposit analysis methodology applied for this report. First, dichloromethane is
508
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef2009474 |Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 495510

Energy & Fuels removed from the rinse using rotavap. The residue is then weighed. This residue is called the whole deposit, and its mass is represented by mt. The asphaltene content of the whole deposit is then obtained using a modied IP-143 technique. Briey, 40-fold high-purity nheptane was added to the residue, and the mixture was heated to reux at approximately 75C and an atmospheric pressure for 2 h. The precipitated asphaltenes are then ltered while the mixture is still hot. The lter is then washed using a Soxhlet extractor to remove the non-asphaltenic materials absorbed on the asphaltenes and on the lter. The washing is performed at approximately 75C and atmospheric pressure until the solvent is clear. Asphaltenes are then extracted from the lter and weighed. The asphaltene content is then calculated. The total asphaltene mass from the whole deposit is represented by mat. The total asphaltene mass is composed of asphaltene mass related to the occluded oil and the deposited asphaltene mass. Therefore, the total asphaltene mass needs to be corrected. For this purpose, rst the mass of maltenes, mm, is determined: mm mt mat Then, the mass of occluded oil, mo, is determined: mm mo 1 xa =100 where xa is the asphaltene content of the production oil (the dead oil drained at the end of the run) in wt %. Next, the mass of asphaltenes related to the occluded oil, mao, is calculated: mao mo xa 100

ARTICLE

Finally, the corrected asphaltene deposit mass, mad, is determined: mad mat mao With this method, typically over 85% of occluded oil is obtained. However, the eld deposits normally show approximately 50% occluded oil and 50% solid deposit. In order to get more representative results, the asphaltene deposit methodology was improved using a neutral solvent as pre-rinse and simulated distillation analysis.

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author

*Phone: 1-780-577-1341. Fax: 1-780-450-1668. E-mail: kakbarzadeh@slb.com.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their contributions: Jose Zacharia and Abdel Kharrat for the development of the asphaltene deposit analysis methodology, Sajjad Hussain and Camila Vega for determining the asphaltene contents of the deposits, and Paul Church and Jessica Saulnier for performing RealView experiments. NOMENCLATURE a = Parameter in the shear removal term Ac = Surface area of the cell 0.0107 m2 b = Parameter in the shear removal term ksr = Shear removal coecient mm = Mass of maltenes mat = Total mass of c7-asphaltenes in the deposit mo = Mass of occluded oil mao = Mass of asphaltenes related to occluded oil mad = Corrected mass of deposited asphaltenes mt = Total mass of deposit n = Parameter in the shear removal term P = Pressure qa = Reynolds number = 2rsFo(ri rs)/o t = Total run time T = Temperature xa = Asphaltene content of drained oil, wt % = Particleparticle collision eciency = Particlewall collision eciency w = Wall shear stress AAD% = Average absolute deviation = 100 (ABS(experimental calculated)/experimental) REFERENCES
(1) Akbarzadeh, K.; Hammami, A.; Kharrat, A.; Zhang, D.; Allenson, S.; Creek, J.; Kabir, S.; Jamaluddin, A.; Marshall, A. G.; Rodgers, R. P.; Mullins, O. C.; Solbakken, T. Asphaltenes- Problematic But Rich in Potential. Oileld Review, Summer 2007. (2) Akbarzadeh, K.; Ratulowski, J.; Lindvig, T.; Davies, T.; Huo, Z.; Broze, G.; Howe, R.; Lagers, K. The Importance of Asphaltene Deposition Testing in the Design and Operation of Subsea Pipelines. SPE 124956-PP. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, October 47, 2009. (3) Akbarzadeh, K.; Ratulowski, J.; Eskin, D.; Davies, T. The Importance of Wax Deposition Measurement in the Simulation and Design of Subsea Pipelines. SPE 115131. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, September 2124, 2008.
509
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef2009474 |Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 495510

Figure A.1. Deposit analysis methodology.

Energy & Fuels

(4) Akbarzadeh, K.; Zougari, M. A New Approach in Single-Phase Wax Deposition Modeling; Part 1: Taylor-Couette System. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47 (3), 953. (5) Zougari, M.; Jacobs, S.; Ratulowski, J.; Hammami, A.; Broze, G.; Flannery, M.; Stankiewicz, A.; Karan, K. Organic Solids Deposition and Control: Design and Application. Energy Fuels 2006, 20, 1656. (6) Akbarzadeh, K.; Ratulowski, J.; Lindvig, T.; Davies, T.; Huo, Z.; Broze, G.; Howe, R.; Lagers, K. Asphaltene Deposition Measurements using a Flow-through High Pressure Deposition Cell. 10th International Conference on Petroleum Phase Behavior and Fouling, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 1418, 2009. (7) Eskin, D.; Ratulowski, J.; Akbarzadeh, K.; Pan, S. Modeling Asphaltene Deposition In Turbulent Pipeline Flows. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 2011, 89 (3), 421. (8) Eskin, D.; Ratulowski, J.; Akbarzadeh, K.; Pan, S.; Lindvig, T. On Approach to Modeling Asphaltene Deposition in a Turbulent Pipe Flow on the Basis of Couette Device Experimental Data. Seventh International Conference on CFD in the Minerals and Process Industries CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia, December 911, 2009. (9) Eskin, D.; Ratulowski, J.; Akbarzadeh, K.; Lindvig, T. Modeling of asphaltene deposition in a pipeline on the basis of Couette device experiments. The 8th World Congress of Chemical Engineering, Montreal, Canada, 2009. (10) Escobedo, J.; Mansoori, G. A. Solid Particle Deposition During Turbulent Flow Production Operations. SPE 29488. Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, April 24, 1995. (11) Ramirez-Jaramillo, E.; Lira-Galeana, C.; Manero, O. Modeling asphaltene deposition in production pipelines. Energy Fuels 2006, 20, 1184. (12) Johansen, S. T. The Deposition of Particles on Vertical Walls. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 1991, 17, 355. (13) Guha, A. Transport and Deposition of Particles in Turbulent and Laminar Flow. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2008, 40, 311. (14) Du, J. L.; Zhang, D. A Thermodynamic Model for the Prediction of Asphaltene Precipitation. Pet. Sci. Technol. 2004, 22 (7 & 8), 1023. (15) Eskin, D.; Ratulowski, J.; Akbarzadeh, K.; Andersen, S., Modeling of Asphaltene Deposition in a Production Tubing. Accepted, AIChE J. 2011. (16) Haskett, C. E.; Tartera, M. A practical solution of the problem to the asphaltene deposits Hassi Messaoud Field, Algeria. J. Pet. Technol. 1965, April, 387.

ARTICLE

510

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef2009474 |Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 495510