THE UNIVERSITY OF TULSA

INVESTIGATION OF WAX DEPOSITION UNDER DIFFERENT WATER CUTS

by
Rohit Imandi

A report submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of Master of Engineering
in the Discipline of Petroleum Engineering

The University of Tulsa

2016

THE UNIVERSITY OF TULSA

INVESTIGATION OF WAX DEPOSITION UNDER DIFFERENT WATER CUTS

by
Rohit Imandi

A PROJECT
APPROVED FOR THE DISCIPLINE OF
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

Supervised By
Cem Sarica
Nagu Daraboina

ii

ABSTRACT

Rohit Imandi (Master of Engineering in Petroleum Engineering)

Investigation of Wax Deposition Under Different Water Cuts
Supervised by Dr. Cem Sarica and Dr. Nagu Daraboina

(216 words)
Wax deposition under two-phase (water-in-oil) dispersed flow was investigated to
elucidate the effect of water content on wax deposition. Emulsions with different water
cuts (0-60%) were prepared and deposition experiments were performed with cold finger
apparatus with an inner wall temperature of 35oC and test fluid temperature of 40.5oC.
Cross polar microscope with a temperature control stage has been employed to investigate
the emulsion characteristics of the deposit before and after each experiment. The
microscopic tests revealed that the change in water cut affects the droplet diameter in the
dispersed phase and polydispersity was observed. Cold finger deposition tests concluded
that the deposit mass and deposit thickness increased initially until 40% water cut and then
decreased with increase in water cut. This conclusion had been further investigated
concomitantly with microscopic studies and it was found that the decline in deposit mass
ensued with the manifestation of the phase inversion point. The calculated inversion point
and the inversion point observed through microscopic visualization validated. The
calorimetric tests revealed that the wax content in the deposits is decreasing with increase
in water cut while water content was only observed in 40% to 60% sample deposits varying
monotonically, highest water content being observed for 50% water cut deposit which is
closest to the phase inversion point of the emulsion.
iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to take this opportunity to extend my gratitude to Dr. Cem Sarica for
approving this project and my study. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to,
Dr. Nagu Daraboina, for giving me support, guidance, and encouragement throughout my
research study.
I would like to say special thanks to our resourceful TUPDP technicians and staff:
Craig Waldron, Kelley Friedberg. I appreciate Auzan Soedarmo for offering
encouragement, knowledge and experience. I would also like to extend my sincere thanks
to Sriram Ravichandran, Yuandao Chi, Anshul Dubey, Anita Pravitasari and Bhagyalaxmi
Varakantham for their assistance in running experiments and completing this project.
Finally, I would like to thank my beloved family; my parents and grandparents for
their continuous support and encouragement. With them, I could overcome all hindrances
on the road to finishing this work and my graduation.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS .....................................................................................................v
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................5
2.1 Emulsion Characteristics ....................................................................................5
2.1.1 Effect of Temperature ......................................................................5
2.1.2 Effect of Mixing ...............................................................................6
2.1.3 Effect of Water Cut ..........................................................................6
2.1.4 Influence of HydrophileLipophile Balance (HLB .........................7
2.2 Wax Deposition in Two phase with Cold Finger ...............................................8
CHAPTER 3: EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM .................................................................12
3.1 Experimental Equipment ..................................................................................12
3.1.1 Cold Finger Apparatus ...................................................................12
3.1.2 Cross Polar Microscopy .................................................................14
3.1.3 Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) .....................................14
3.1.4 Mixer for Emulsion Preparation ....................................................14
3.2 Fluid Characterization ......................................................................................16
3.2.1 Compositional Information ............................................................16
3.2.2 Emulsion Preparation .....................................................................19
3.3 Data Processing ................................................................................................20
3.3.1 Deposit Analysis ............................................................................20
3.3.2 Calorimetric Analysis ....................................................................20
3.3.3 Droplet Measurement Analysis......................................................21
CHAPTER 4: EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................23
4.1 Cold Finger Experiments .................................................................................23
4.1.1 Test Condition Determination........................................................23
4.1.2 Cold Finger Experiments ...............................................................24
4.1.3 Cold Finger Experiment Results ....................................................24
4.2 DSC Experiments .............................................................................................26
4.3 Apparent Viscosity and Inversion Point Calculations .....................................28
4.4 Microscopic Tests ............................................................................................31
v

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............36

5.1 Summary and Conclusions ...............................................................................36
5.1.1 Cold Finger Wax Deposition Experiments ....................................36
5.1.2 DSC Experiments...........................................................................37
5.1.3 Viscosity and Phase Inversion Point Calculations .........................37
5.1.4 Microscopic Experiments ..............................................................38
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..............................................................................................................40
APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................44
ADDITIONAL COLD FINGER TEST RESULTS ...............................................44
APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................................46
ADDITIONAL APPARENT VISCOSITY RESULTS .........................................46
APPENDIX C ....................................................................................................................48
ADDITIONAL MICROSCOPIC TEST RESULTS ..............................................48

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Cold Finger Apparatus .................................................................................... 13

Figure 3.2 IKA RW 20 mixer ........................................................................................... 15
Figure 3.3 Model Oil Viscosity Curve (Agarwal 2014) ................................................... 16
Figure 3.4 Model Oil Solubility Curve from DSC ........................................................... 19
Figure 3.5 Integration of the peak area of the Model Oil ................................................. 21
Figure 3.6 Measurement of Droplet Diameter .................................................................. 22
Figure 4.1 Low Gel Strength Wax deposition (Preliminary Tests) .................................. 23
Figure 4.2 Water Content vs. Deposit Mass ..................................................................... 25
Figure 4.3 Wax Content in the deposit vs. Water Cut ...................................................... 27
Figure 4.4 Relative Viscosity vs. Water Cut using different models................................ 30

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Correlation between HLB Range and Use (The HLB System 1980) ................. 7
Table 2.2 HLB Requirement for various Oils (Tharwat 2013) ........................................... 8
Table 3.1 Operating ranges of Cold Finger Apparatus ..................................................... 13
Table 3.2 Model Oil Fluid Properties (Agarwal 2014) ..................................................... 17
Table 3.3 Microscopic Images for Identifying Wax Crystal Formation ........................... 18
Table 3.4 Calibration of microscope at 100x .................................................................... 21
Table 3.5 Calibration of microscope at 200x .................................................................... 22
Table 4.1 Cold Finger Test Matrix ................................................................................... 24
Table 4.2 Cold Finger Results .......................................................................................... 25
Table 4.3 Wax content in the Deposits ............................................................................. 27
Table 4.4 Water Content in the Deposits .......................................................................... 28
Table 4.5 Comparison of Cold Finger and Microscopic tests for 10% and 20% ............. 33
Table 4.6 Comparison of Cold Finger and Microscopic tests for 30% and 40% ............. 34
Table 4.7 Comparison of Cold Finger and Microscopic tests for 50% and 60% ............. 35

viii

CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Crude oils are very complex mixtures containing different components like
paraffins, aromatics, naphthenes and asphaltenes. The higher molecular weight paraffins
with carbon number ranging from 20 to 70 or higher are generally called as waxes
(paraffins). Below wax appearance temperature (WAT), these waxes are crystallized from
the solution, paraffin deposition occurs and the originated flow restriction increases the
pressure drop while making the fluid non-Newtonian.
Paraffin deposition inside the flow lines is one of the significant problems for the
energy sector which results in reducing flow efficiency and blockage of pipelines
(Venkatesan 2004). In extreme cases, it may also lead to the shutdown of the production
depending on the severity of the blockage and increase cost of remediation enormously
(Nguyen, Fogler and Chavadej 2001, Singh et al. 2000)
Considering the aftermath, operators have turned to prevention and remediation
techniques to handle the wax deposition. Preventive methods include insulation, active
heating, use of paraffin inhibitors, pour point depressants and removal and remediation
methods include pigging, heating (hot injections) and usage of solvents. However, all the
techniques mentioned above have their own limitations and surge the operating costs
substantially. For optimal use of these remediation and preventive techniques, a good
prediction model offers us perceptive on different flow conditions by incorporating physics
and with extrapolation we can predict the deposition in field conditions.

There are different available models for both single phase and two phase flow
(Singh et al. 2000, Lee 2008, Couto et al. 2006, Bruno et al. 2008, Liu et al. 2012, Apte et
al. 2001). However, most of the two phase flow models assume the deposition mechanism
to be the same as single phase and neglect the heat and momentum transfer of the water
phase because both water and oil are considered as liquid phase. It should also be noted
that the complication of presence of water might lead to significant errors in these model
predictions. To avoid these extrapolating errors from the models, up scaling those using
experimental data is one of the viable solutions right now. But, the data that is accessible
from the literature is still not ample to develop a reliable predictive model and wax
deposition experiments are known for their adversity in imitating the field conditions and
their tedious nature. So, a surrogate approach to this problem could be through microscopic
visualization studies (Soedarmo 2015) that could reduce the number of large-scale
experiments.
The presence of water is inevitable with the produced hydrocarbons and it typically
increases with the life of a producing well which makes the wax deposition an
unestablished process for two-phase conditions. Consequently, many studies have reported
discrepant results on the effect of water cut on deposition process (Wang et al. 2013, Zhang
et al. 2009, Panacharoensawad and Sarica 2013, Bruno et al. 2008, Couto et al. 2006,
Kasumu 2014). To resolve these discrepancies, microscopic visualization studies before
and after the deposition tests could address this gray area. Therefore, analysis techniques
in this study inclined towards microscopic methods in this project to resolve these issues.
Briefly, the objective of this study is to fundamentally understand the two-phase
(water-in-oil) wax deposition phenomenon and its association with emulsion

characteristics. To accomplish this, understanding the emulsions and their dependencies

that affect their characteristics like droplet size, bulk and interfacial viscosities and BSW
(bottom solids and water) is a critical step towards a fundamental understanding of the
deposition phenomenon.
Basically, emulsions consist of two immiscible liquids, one being the dispersed
phase and the other being the continuous phase. The phase which is present in the form of
droplets is called the dispersed phase and the phase where the droplets are suspended is the
continuous phase. In the oilfields, when the water and oil come in contact with each other,
a sufficient mixing speed and the presence of naturally occurring emulsifying agent
contributes to the formation of stable emulsions. The naturally occurring emulsifiers in the
crude oil could be asphaltenes, resins, while organic acids and bases which too act as
emulsifying agents could be from the chemical injections like drilling fluids, stimulation
chemicals, and corrosion, scale or wax inhibitors. All these characters govern whether the
emulsion formed is a water-in-oil, oil-in-water or complex emulsion. Many factors
determine which phase settles to be the dispersed phase or continuous phase but normally,
the phase with the small volume faction always tend to be the dispersed phase. The other
criteria for classifying the emulsions is by their size of the droplets, where the droplets
larger than 0.1m are considered as macro emulsions and the rest are taken to be micro
emulsions. All the emulsions that we deal with in this project could be classified as macro
emulsions based on the above criteria.
This project is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 describes the objectives and
scope of the study, Chapter 2 describes the literature review, Chapter 3 includes the
experimental design and operating procedures, Chapter 4 explains the experimental results

and discussion. Chapter 5 describes the summary and conclusions with suggestions to
future studies in this research area.

CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1

Emulsion Characteristics

Wax Deposition is considered to be a very complex phenomenon. Most reservoirs

produce water and or gas along with oil and with the presence of water and gas; formation
of oil and water emulsions is very common. Due to the complexity in modelling and
identifying the wax deposition phenomenon in emulsions, the research in this area is still
in its infancy and lacks a reliable model to predict the outcomes. Considering the deep
water oil fields, the risk of paraffin deposition is at its extreme because of the cold
environments the pipelines had to encounter during its transportation in the subsea
pipelines. Occurrence of wax deposition may lead to blockage of flow pipelines and
pigging operations are needed to be carried to prevent it. This is associated with huge
operational costs and it sometimes led to field abandonment in the past (Singh et al. 2000
and Lee 2008). Despite such major problems associated with wax deposition, the studies
on two phase flow and multiphase flow are limited. But there is a necessity to understand
the deposition phenomenon in multiphase phase and two phase conditions, since the real
scenarios in actual oil fields operate similar to those conditions.

2.1.1

Effect of Temperature

The stability of emulsions and its characteristics are widely dependent on the
temperature at which they are prepared (referred as emulsification temperature) and stored.
It was previously reported (Binks and Rocher 2009) that there is an influence of the
emulsification temperature and the amount of water fraction that is being precipitated out

with no observable trend. However, when the stable emulsions with particular wax content
are heated, they were stable until a particular temperature and destabilized abruptly above
that emulsification temperature. It was also indicated that the average droplet diameter
increased with temperature which is attributed to coalescence.

2.1.2

Effect of Mixing
Previously, many researchers had experimented with variations in degree of

agitation (Wang et al. 2013, Zhang et al. 2009, Kasumu 2014, Couto et al. 2006) and found
that the different droplet sizes and distributions are generated effecting the wax deposition
rate. But, theoretically, with the increase in mixing speeds, wax deposition rate should
decrease as the droplet diameter decreases with increasing mixing speeds and this is not
the only observation with the experimental studies. The variations in the deposition tests
in previous studies had been explained in detail in the future sections of this chapter.

2.1.3

Effect of Water Cut

Water cut in the emulsion has a significant effect on the stability and it was believed

to deteriorate with increase in water cut (Wang et al. 2013). The water cuts effect on
emulsion pour point and viscosity was studied previously and it was reported that the
increase in water cut actually increases the emulsion pour point and viscosity which in turn
increases the risk of gelation. On the other hand, when the water cut is lower, the diffusion
laws contributes to the formation of the deposit. There are different prediction models to
calculate the viscosity of the emulsions (Dan and Jing 2006).

2.1.4

Influence of HydrophileLipophile Balance (HLB

A systematic scheme was introduced by ICI in the late 1940s called the HLB

system that stands for hydrophilelipophile balance. This system guides us with the HLB
number of an emulsifying agent that should be used to form a desired emulsion. Each
emulsifier is assigned with a HLB number and the segment of the HLB range reflects the
structure of the chemical. Typically, an emulsifier that has low HLB number (below 9) are
lipophilic in character and the ones with higher than 11 are hydrophilic in character where
as the ones in 9-11 range are considered as intermediate. The table below shows a
correlation between the HLB range and its application.
Table 2.1 Correlation between HLB Range and Use (The HLB System 1980)
HLB Range

Application

4-6

W/O Emulsifiers

7-9

Wetting Agents

8-18

O/W Emulsifiers

13-15

Detergents

10-18

Solubilizers

Two or more emulsifiers can also be blended for a desired resulting HLB value
calculating the combination HLB value of the two emulsifiers. The selection of an
emulsifier in preparing the oil-in-water or water-in-oil emulsion is a crucial step because
emulsion properties like interfacial tension droplet size and emulsion stability is dependent
on the HLB number of the proportionated emulsifier. The given table below illustrates the
HLB values to emulsify various oils for a desired water-in-oil or oil-in-water emulsion.

Table 2.2 HLB Requirement for various Oils (Tharwat 2013)

Oil

W/O Emulsion

O/W Emulsion

Paraffin Oil

10

Beeswax

Linolin, anhydrous

12

Cyclohexane

15

Toluene

15

Since, we will be dealing with the paraffin oils and our desirable emulsion type is
water-in-oil, an emulsifier with HLB value around 4 is the most suitable emulsifier.

2.2

Wax Deposition in Two phase with Cold Finger

One of the main criteria for wax molecules in oils to crystallize and form solid wax
particles is, if the pipe wall goes below WAT. In other words, when the flow pipelines are
in ambient temperatures that are below the WAT, the fluids in the pipeline cools down as
heat transfer occurs with the surroundings. There should be negative radial temperature
gradient exists inside the pipeline. If these conditions satisfy, there is a risk of paraffin
deposition inside the pipelines.
The amount of water in oil in most production systems is varies from less than 1 %
to 60 %. Specifically, 5 - 20 vol. % in light crudes and from 10 35 vol. % in heavy oils.
There were several oil-water wax deposition studies using cold finger apparatus (Wang et
al. 2013, Zhang et al. 2009, Couto et al. 2006, Panacharoensawad 2012, Kasumu 2014) and
flow loop (Keleolu, Pettersen and Sjblom 2012, Visintin et al. 2008, de Oliveira et al.

2009) in the recent past, but there was a lot of discrepancy in the conclusions made by the
researchers.
Water cut was varied from 10% to 40% and found that the deposit mass first
decreased with increasing water cut till 25 % and then started decreasing till 40% water cut
(Wang et al. 2013). In addition, the wax content increased till 25% and started decreasing
till 40%. The major conclusions of the study were that if the water cut increases, the droplet
distribution becomes more homogenous and the total area of oil-water interface is going to
be large and lowers the deposition of wax. Other important conclusions made were that
viscosity of the emulsion increased with water cut with increasing stirring speeds and the
pour point of the emulsion increases with the water cut leading to a high risk of gelling.
Kasumu (Kasumu 2014) also reported that when water cut was varied from 0% to
30%, the deposit mass first increased till 10% and then decreased till 30%. Similarly, with
the wax content, when the water cut was varied, it increased till 10% and then kept
decreasing till 25%. Other important result from this study is that water content in the
emulsion had no effect on WAT and the water content in the deposit was found not to be
related to water content in the emulsions. It was also mentioned that the stirring rate in the
cold finger test had an effect on the deposition mass, but only two stirring rates were
considered 250 rpm and 500 rpm where 250 rpm had higher deposit mass per unit area
when compared to the one performed with 500 rpm. This varying behavior of wax content
and deposition mass in the above mentioned studies (Kasumu 2014, Wang et al. 2013) can
be explained based on a threshold value of water content (de Oliveira et al. 2009). The
initial increase in the wax content in both the cases must be within the threshold value for

these emulsions and when the emulsions reached the threshold value, both wax content and
deposit mass started declining because of the change in emulsion characteristics.
Another research (Couto et al. 2006) relating to Two- Phase Oil/Water paraffin
deposition was carried out using a cold finger apparatus but showed a different behavior of
the deposition phenomenon. The deposition mass increased exponentially with increase in
water cut and stirring speeds, while the wax content in the deposits increased and plateau
with 50% and 60% water cuts which conflicts the literature (Wang et al. 2013). This could
be because, of the use of different stirring speeds, as it was found that properties like
apparent viscosity and droplet distribution changes with stirring speeds under the same
water cuts and may affect wax deposition. It should also be noted that in the study (Couto
et al. 2006) there were only two mixing speeds and the mixing time only lasted 2 minutes
in contrast to 15 minutes in the above investigation (Wang et al. 2013) which may lead to
lacking of thorough characterization of the emulsions and apart from that, one being oil- in
water emulsion and other one being water-in oil emulsion may also be the reason for these
contrasting results. Other conclusions made were relating to the deposit mass and mixing
speeds, where there was no significant change in deposition mass with change in mixing
speed at a particular water cut. It was also found that the presence of salt did not affect the
deposition of wax in emulsions since water was never a medium to facilitate wax
formation. (Panacharoensawad 2012, Panacharoensawad and Sarica 2013). They also
concludes that the water gets trapped inside the deposit at high concentrations of wax when
it is more than 22% w/w of wax in oil. It was also observed a discontinuous deposition
pattern during the cold finger tests on the probe which was attributed to collision deposition
mechanism and it was specified that more wax deposition is allowed by the single phase

10

wax deposition mechanism rather than the deposition in the two phase dispersion flow,
when the top part of the cold finger was found to have more wax deposition compared to
the bottom part of the probe during his tests.
The deposit rate in W/O emulsions is found to be decreased as the stirring speed
increased (Zhang et al. 2009). It was also found that wax deposition rate increased almost
linearly with the increase in water cut and the distribution of the dispersed phase and
diameter of the droplet have a negligible effect on the total wax content in the deposits. It
is still uncertain why the cumulative mass fraction of wax in the deposits did not change
with different water cuts or stirring speeds which conflicts other previous study (Wang et
al. 2013, Couto et al. 2006, Kasumu 2014, Panacharoensawad 2012) results, so, further
study needs to be done to clarify these discrepancies in literature.

11

CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 3: EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

In this chapter 3, detailed description of experimental equipment, fluid

characterization, operating procedures and data analysis has been provided.

3.1

Experimental Equipment

Cold finger apparatus, Cross polar microscopy and Differential Scanning

calorimeter has been used in this study.

3.1.1

Cold Finger Apparatus

Cold Finger apparatus is one of the widely used apparatus in the research relating

to paraffin deposition studies (Figure 3.1). The table below is the operational range of the
cold finger apparatus used in this study.

12

Table 3.1 Operating ranges of Cold Finger Apparatus

Parameter

Operating Ranges

Operating Temperature

40 150 F

Rotational Speed

60-1000 RPM

Cold Finger Probe Length

1.77 in.

Cold Finger Probe Diameters

0.67 in

Stirrer Length

1.49 in.

Stirrer Diameter

0.30 in.

Tank Size

0.13 gallons

Figure 3.1 Cold Finger Apparatus

For the deposition tests, the samples were prepared 2 h prior to each test with the same
mixing speed, amount of emulsifier, and temperature to obtain consistent results
throughout the study. A total of 7 deposition tests has been conducted with six different
water cuts and a base case with no water cut and then all the tests were repeated to check
for consistency.

13

3.1.2

Cross Polar Microscopy

The cross polarized microscope (CPM) that had been employed in this study is from

Amscope and the TS 62 thermal microscope stage from Instec is used for the microscopic
tests in this study. It is equipped with 4 levels of magnifying objective lenses namely, 50X,
100X, 200X, and 500X including the 10MP camera (MU 1000). TS 62 provides controlled
temperature environments, and the images that are taken are raw images for analysis from
the AmScopeX software. The samples are placed on the microscopic slides and each
sample is prepared 2 min prior to analysis right after the deposition tests are completed.
These simultaneous microscopic tests right after the deposition tests should help minimize
errors during the tests.

3.1.3

Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC)

The DSC used in this study is Perkin Elmer Pyris 1. This was utilized to validate

the obtained WAT of the sample from CPM tests, measure the wax content and also to
measure the water content in the deposits. This DSC has accurate control of heating and
cooling rates for isothermal analysis and the PyrisTM software helps analyze the obtained
data. This helps to detect the heat released during the crystallization process in the deposit
samples obtained collected from cold finger tests.
3.1.4

Mixer for Emulsion Preparation

The stirrer used for the preparation of the emulsions is IKA RW 20, which has a

wide range of rpm from 60 to 2000. It has a brushless motor with 0.04 horsepower with a
maximum torque of 259 in-oz. (Figure 3.1Figure 3.2).

14

Figure 3.2 IKA RW 20 mixer

The mixing speeds that are used in this study is only one speed for preparing
emulsions which is 250 rpm. This speed allows to obtain the maximum possible dispersed
phase diameter in the samples that are used in cold finger tests.

15

3.2

3.2.1

Fluid Characterization

Compositional Information
Model oil was prepared using mineral oil (Exxsol D60) and food grade wax (CSP

165). Details of this model oil given elsewhere in literature (Agarwal 2014). Selecting
model oil over crude oil gives us the advantage having a clear visual observations during
the microscopic tests.

Figure 3.3 Model Oil Viscosity Curve (Agarwal 2014)

The selected testing fluid had 5% wax content and 95% oil by weight. The Fluid
property analysis was conducted by Agarwal (2014) the change in viscosity of the model
oil with temperature was represented in Figure 3.3. The Table 3.1 fluid properties of the
sample model oil prepared.

16

Table 3.2 Model Oil Fluid Properties (Agarwal 2014)

Fluid Properties

Value

Measurement Method/ Device

Density (g/cc) @ 900F

0.788

Coriolis Flow Meter

Viscosity (cp) @ 900F

3.6

Anton Parr MCR 301

Pour Point (F)

35.6

Temperature Bath

Heat Capacity (J/Kg/K)

1919.3

PVTSim Calculations

Thermal Conductivity(W/m/K)

0.12

PVTSim Calculations

An additional test was conducted in this study to measure the wax appearance
temperature of the sample model oil. The cross polar microscope is used to analyze the
crystallization process while varying temperature in the thermal stage. It was observed that
the temperature at which the first crystal was observed is 41 0C and it was believed that it
is the WAT for this particular sample. The Table 3.3 below are the microscopic pictographs
of the sample which helps reveal the wax appearance temperature. We can observe that the
number of wax crystals increased as the temperature kept decreasing and first wax crystal
was observed at 410C.

17

Table 3.3 Microscopic Images for Identifying Wax Crystal Formation

Temperature 41.5oC

Temperature 41oC

Temperature 39oC

Temperature 33oC

DSC tests were also carried out in this study to find the solubility curve of the model
oil and it is represented in the Figure 3.4 below.

18

Figure 3.4 Model Oil Solubility Curve from DSC

3.2.2

Emulsion Preparation

The model oil prepared was treated at 60oC for the purpose of emulsion preparation
to make sure that the wax crystals were dissolved thoroughly. Then, calculated amounts of
oil sample were taken in a beaker and mixed with tap water to attain 500ml of total
emulsion volume. An emulsifying agent was also used to maintain the stability of the
emulsions. Since the desired type of emulsion was a water-in-oil emulsion, the emulsifier
used was SPAN 80 and the quantity of emulsifier used depended on the total amount of
water present in the sample emulsion. An initial guess was taken using the previous studies
(Koerner et al. 1983) for quantity of emulsifier needed which states at most of 50% of
quantity of water cut in the emulsion is needed for a stable solution.
Initially, many samples were prepared with different water cuts and varying emulsifier
proportions to attain a stable emulsion and remain stable throughout the given residence
time which is typically more than the total time associated with the cold finger deposition
tests. It was determined that when the emulsifier quantity is approximately equal to 10%

19

of the total amount of water present by volume in the sample, stable emulsions have been
observed though out the residence time.
After the addition of the emulsifying agent to the prepared emulsion sample, stirrer
IKA RW 20 was used to mix the samples and the stirring speed was set 250 rpm. The
stirring time was about 30 minutes and the impeller depth was varied while mixing to attain
homogeneous mixing throughout the emulsion sample. A total of six different emulsion
samples were prepared with water cuts 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60%.

3.3

3.3.1

Data Processing

Deposit Analysis
The deposition tests produce measurable amounts of deposits after each cold

finger test with different water cut. The deposit was first measured for its thickness on the
top and the bottom and then scraped from the cold finger carefully and collected to find its
mass. After that the cold finger is wiped with a paper towel and the difference in its mass
is noted and added to the actual weight of the deposit for accuracy. Then the collected
deposits are stored at room temperature for further analysis.

3.3.2

Calorimetric Analysis
The DSC of TUPDP was used to determine the wax content and water content in

the deposits and PyrisTM software is used to calculate the peak area under the curve to
measure the contents of the deposits. A total of 7 DSC tests has been conducted in total for
all the initial deposition tests. The Figure 3.5 below shows an example of the integration
of the peak areas obtained from the PyrisTM software.

20

Figure 3.5 Integration of the peak area of the Model Oil

3.3.3

Droplet Measurement Analysis

In order to find the bubble diameter of the dispersed phase in the emulsions,

cross polar microscope had been utilized. First, the micrometer has been calibrated using a
micrometer stage for 100X and 200X as shown in Table below.
Table 3.4 Calibration of microscope at 100x
CPM Calibration: 100X
Pixel

Millimeters

30

0.01

150

0.05

300

0.1

21

Table 3.5 Calibration of microscope at 200x

CPM Calibration: 200X
Pixel

Millimeters

65

0.01

325

0.05

650

0.1

The available Amscope software had been utilized to measure the droplet diameters
by selecting few stable droplets in the emulsions from the raw images captured. Then the
mean diameters with changing water cuts have been calculated and the frequency
distribution of the droplet diameters was also observed. This analysis was done before and
after the cold finger tests to provide a clear understanding on the effects of wax deposition.
The above Figure 3.6 shows an example of the measurement of the droplet diameter in the
emulsions.

Figure 3.6 Measurement of Droplet Diameter

22

CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 4: EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1

Cold Finger Experiments

Cold finger tests were conducted to understand the effects of water content on wax
deposition. A total of 14 cold finger tests was conducted.

4.1.1

Test Condition Determination

Initially, 24 hour tests were conducted and a bulk temperature of 40.50C is

maintained and a cold finger temperature of 260C is maintained. It was observed that these
conditions were optimum for wax deposition but not suitable for collecting the deposition
samples. The formed deposit would not properly adhere to the cold finger and slip into the
vessel in 2-3 seconds right after the cold finger was lifted up. The Figure 4.1 below show
the low gel strength at these conditions.

Figure 4.1 Low Gel Strength Wax deposition (Preliminary Tests)

23

The reason behind this could be because of the formation of softer deposits and the
gel strength is believed to depend on time (Venkatesan et al. 2005), so the deposition testing
time was now decreased to 12 hours and the temperature gradient was decreased by
decreasing the cold finger temperature to 350C to eliminate this slough-off of the deposits.
After a few preliminary tests with these conditions, promising deposits were obtained and
were taken as the test conditions for this study.
4.1.2

Cold Finger Experiments

The cold finger experiments were performed and experimental test matrix was

presented in Table. The emulsions were prepared prior to every cold finger test with
appropriate proportions of emulsifier quantity.
Table 4.1 Cold Finger Test Matrix
Test
Name
CF-00
CF-10
CF-20
CF-30
CF-40
CF-50
CF-60

4.1.3

Amount Amount
Initial
Water
Amount of
Emulsion
of oil
of
Emulsion
Coolant Stirring Speed
Cut
Surfactant
Temp.
Needed Water
Temp.
Temp. [C]
[rpm]
(%)
(ml)
[C]
(ml)
(ml)
[C]
0
500
0
0
51
40.5
35
750
10
450
50
5
51
40.5
35
750
20
400
100
10
51
40.5
35
750
30
350
150
15
51
40.5
35
750
40
300
200
20
51
40.5
35
750
50
250
250
25
51
40.5
35
750
60
200
300
30
51
40.5
35
750

Cold Finger Experiment Results

The results obtained from cold finger experiments were presented in Table.

24

Table 4.2 Cold Finger Results

Deposit Mass [g] Deposit Mass [g]Test 1
Test 2

Test Name

CF-00

6.45

6.84

CF-10

7.08

7.23

CF-20

7.43

6.98

CF-30
CF-40

13.53
13.94

14.06
13.53

CF-50

7.83

7.92

CF-60

7.44

7.23

The deposition results are graphically represented below with respect to the water
content in the emulsions.
16

Deposit Mass (g)

14

12
10

Test 1
Test 2

8
6
4
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Water Content (Vol %)

Figure 4.2 Water Content vs. Deposit Mass

Good repeatability of the tests was observed (Figure 4.2). It has been observed
that an increase in deposit mass until 40% and then followed by declining trend. This may
be because of the occurrence of phase inversion point around 50% water cut which was

25

visually observed in the microscopic tests. The wax deposit thickness was also measured
after the deposition tests and are represented below graphically for the two tests.
On Contrary, molecular diffusion is commonly believed to be the deposition
mechanism in paraffinic oils. Previous studies (Zheng and Fogler 2014) have indicated an
inversely proportional relation between diffusivity and viscosity of the emulsions in waterin-oil emulsions. Our viscosity calculations have showed an increasing tendency in
viscosity values until the phase inversion point, which should lead to declining diffusivity
with increasing viscosity until phase inversion point and inclining diffusivity with
decreasing viscosity which is contrary to the results observed in of our experimental data.
Since, the diffusivity is not the only factor governing the deposit mass, concentration
gradient is believed to drastically effect the deposition phenomenon in water-in-oil
emulsions.
In order to further investigate this behavior of the deposit mass with increasing
water content, the wax content of the deposits was measured using calorimetric techniques
which was described in the further sections.

4.2

DSC Experiments

The collected deposits from the cold finger tests were analyzed using differential
scanning calorimeter and the endothermic graphs generated from the DSC were integrated
to find the wax content in the deposits. It was observed that the trend line was declining
with the increase in water cut for the deposits. The table and the graph below represents
the association between water cut and wax content in the deposits more precisely.
The trend line in the wax content with increasing water cut is understood to have a
declining tendency. Even though, the deposition mass increased with certain water cuts,

26

the wax content had a constant decline which could be because of the simple reason that,
with the increase in water cuts, the total amount of oil in the whole sample in every test is
decreasing in turn decreasing the availability of wax for deposition.
Table 4.3 Wax content in the Deposits
Water Cut (Vol. %) Wax Content (Wt. %)
0
19.05
10
18.39
20
18
30
11.31
40
5.38
50
4.19
60
5.96

Wax Content in the deposit vs. Water Cut

25
19.05

Wax Content (Wt. %)

20

18.39

18

15
11.31
10
5.38
5

5.96

4.19

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Water Cut (Vol. %)

Figure 4.3 Wax Content in the deposit vs. Water Cut

From a pour point perspective, a previous research study (Wang et al. 2013) suggested
that the pour point of the emulsions increases with increasing water cut. This directly

27

effects the gelation which is a main factor in wax deposition. If the pour point is increasing,
the gelated amounts in the emulsion is varying and with the presence of an emulsifier in
our tests, traces of trapped water in the gelated amounts can be imagined. The amount of
water available to be trapped during the gelation is increasing with increasing water cut
and this could be the reason behind the declining wax content with increasing water cut.
This comportment of wax content with increasing water cut showed a comparable
trend with the above deposition test results until 40% water cut and inverse relationship
was observed in the variables after this water cut. Phase inversion was believed to be the
reason behind this behavior and the phase inversion was calculated with the available
models and presented in the next sections.
The water content in the deposits was also measured and depicted in the Table 4.4
below. No water content was detected for the deposit samples for 10%, 20% and 30% water
cuts, whereas 40%, 50% and 60% water cut samples have substantial amounts of water
present in their deposits. The 50% water cut sample being the closest to phase inversion
point is observed to have the highest water content in the deposit.
Water Content in the Collected Deposit
after Cold Finger Tests
10%
20%
30%
40%
14.7%
50%
28.98%
60%
20.04%
Table 4.4 Water Content in the Deposits

Water Cut in the Sample

4.3

Apparent Viscosity and Inversion Point Calculations

In this study only few (Taylor 1932, Brinkman 1952, Phan-Thien and Pham 1997)
models have been considered due to the lack of experimentally obtained coefficients for

28

computation. Apparent viscosity is determined for all the emulsions with different water
cuts using these three models. The apparent viscosity of emulsions was calculated using
different models presented in Equations (1-3). The water and oil viscosity were taken at
250C for computation, 0.00089 Pa.s and 0.00143 Pa.s respectively. The relative viscosity
is calculated as the ratio of the emulsion viscosity to continuous phase viscosity.
(Brinkman 1952) model:

= [1 ]2.5

(1)

Where c is the viscosity of continuous phase, and e is the viscosity of emulsion. is the
volume fraction of the dispersed phase.
(Taylor 1932) model:

= [1 + 2.5 (

+0.4
+

)]

(2)

Where c is the viscosity of continuous phase, d is the viscosity of dispersed Phase and

e is the viscosity of emulsion. is the volume fraction of the dispersed phase.

(Phan-Thien and Pham 1997) model:
2
5

2 +5 3/5
2+5

= (1 )1

(3)

Where r is the relative emulsion viscosity, K is the ratio of dispersed phase viscosity to
continuous phase viscosity. is the volume fraction of the dispersed phase. For solving
this equation bisection method has been employed to solve for the relative viscosity. The
other results relating to emulsion viscosity are presented in the Appendix B.
A widely used model to predict the phase inversion point was used as shown in
Equation 4 (Brauner and Ullmann 2002).

29

(4)

0.6 0.4
1+( ) ( )

Where WcINV is the water cut at the inversion point, o and w are the densities of oil and
water respectively, o and w are the densities of oil and water respectively. The results of
these computations are tabulated below in Appendix B. Phase inversion point was
calculated to occur at 48.73% and is considered during the determination of viscosity
calculations.
This finding justifies the trend in the behavior of the previous deposition and
calorimetric results presented above. It can also be inferred that the stability of the emulsion
drastically dictates the relative emulsion viscosity and has uninterrupted effect on the mass
and wax content of the deposits formed in the deposition tests. A motivation towards
microscopic study is that it was believed to provide us with a more insight into this and
microscopic obtained results were explained in the next section.

Relative Emulsion Viscosity

Relative Emulsion Viscosity

6
Brinkman
(1952)

5
4

Taylor (1932)

3
2

Phan-Thien
and Pham
(1997)

1
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Water Cut (Vol%)

Figure 4.4 Relative Viscosity vs. Water Cut using different models

30

4.4

Microscopic Tests

The droplet diameters were measured from the captured sample images. For a
single water cut almost 10-15 images each for 100X and 200X have been captured and all
the stable droplets have been measured using the software. Mean droplet diameter and
frequency distribution was calculated and represented graphically in the Appendix C at the
end. A trend in mean droplet diameters and the most frequent bin of a particular diameter
range was observed in the analysis.
Previous research studies have shown that the droplet diameter in emulsions is
critically dependent on the degree of agitation (Wang et al. 2013) the emulsion undergoes
and the temperature at which the emulsion is present (Binks and Rocher 2009).
Microscopic tests have been conducted after the cold finger tests and the mean droplet
diameter is reported in the table below. Due to the presence of a stirrer and emulsions
interaction with different temperature in the cold finger apparatus, the emulsion
characteristics are expected to vary. Droplet diameter measurements after the cold finger
test is believed to reveal the characteristic history of the emulsions behavior during the
deposition tests. Unlike before cold finger results, the mean droplet diameter is decreased
for every water cut. This might be because of the continuous agitation provided by the
stirrer for a time period of almost 12 hours might disperse the bigger droplets into smaller
ones decreasing the mean diameter of the droplets. Adjacent to that an increase in ambient
temperature from the room temperature to bulk temperature is also one of the reason behind
the diminishing mean droplet diameter in the emulsions. More details about the droplet
diameter and frequency distribution is presented in the Appendix C.

31

Since the occurrence of phase inversion point occurred around 50% water cut, the
dispersed phase droplets were no longer distinct from the continuous phase and could not
be measured. When the cold finger test results were analyzed with respect to the
microscopic after cold finger results, it would be clear why there wasnt an increasing trend
in the deposit mass throughout the tests. The table below shows a clear visualization.

32

Table 4.5 Comparison of Cold Finger and Microscopic tests for 10% and 20%
Water
Cut

10%

20%

Cold
Finger

CPM

Initially, with the increase in water cut, the deposit mass increased only until 40%
water cut and then declined till 60% water cut which could be explained as follows after
the microscopic analysis. When the droplet distribution is even, there will be clear path for
the precipitated crystals in the oil to affine towards the cold finger wall avoiding the water
droplets resulting in increase of deposit mass. But, with the occurrence of the phase
inversion point, hindrance to this clear path had been originated stopping the crystals to

33

travel toward the cold finger wall resulting in decreasing the deposit mass. This
phenomenon can be clearly observed in tables below visually.
Table 4.6 Comparison of Cold Finger and Microscopic tests for 30% and 40%

Water
Cut

30%

40%

Cold
Finger

CPM

34

Table 4.7 Comparison of Cold Finger and Microscopic tests for 50% and 60%
Water
Cut

50%

60%

Cold
Finger

CPM

These microscopic results justify the calculated phase inversion point and visually
provides us with the insight that explains the trend in wax content and deposition mass with
changing water cut in the emulsions.

35

CHAPTER 5
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1

Summary and Conclusions

As described in chapter 4, the cold finger, microscopic and calorimetric tests were
conducted to determine the effect of water cut on the wax deposition. The results of
deposition tests, viscosity calculations using models, wax fraction in deposits, droplet
diameter sizes and frequency distribution in emulsions before and after cold finger tests
were reported.

5.1.1

Cold Finger Wax Deposition Experiments

The cold finger apparatus is the widely used technique to evaluate the paraffin

deposition behavior in the industry. Cold finger tests with water cuts varying from 10% to
60% are conducted and once again repeated for accuracy. The following are the
observations made from the results obtained:
1. The test conditions (Tbulk=40.50C and Twall=350C) are determined based on the
preliminary test results which gave a measurable collectable deposits.
2. The deposit mass was observed to increase with water cut until 40% and declined
till 60% and the microscopic tests after the cold finger tests revealed the occurrence
of phase inversion point near 50% water cut which validated the calculated phase
inversion point.

36

3. The thickness of the deposit was observed to be higher at the top when compared
to the bottom of the cold finger and similar trend to deposit mass, was observed in
the thickness of the deposits.
4. The repeated test results show an error band around 0.5 g for the deposit mass
which shows the accuracy of the cold finger tests.

5.1.2

DSC Experiments
The DSC test were conducted for all the deposit samples obtained from the

cold finger tests to obtain the wax content in the deposits. The experimental results from
the DSC tests are observed and the trend line suggests that the wax content decreased with
the increase in water cut. The highest wax content in the samples was the base case with
no water cut at 19.05% followed by 18.39% for the 10% water cut sample and decreasing
with further water cuts. A small increase was found in the 60% water cut however it is not
a significant difference, when compared to the difference between the base case and 60%
water cut case. The water content was observed in the deposits only for 40,50 and 60%
water cut tests. Maximum amount was found for deposits collected from 50% water cut
which is closest to the phase inversion point.

5.1.3

Viscosity and Phase Inversion Point Calculations

The models proposed by Taylor (1932), Brinkman (1952) and Phan-Thien and

Pham (1977) was applied in this study to calculate the apparent viscosity and relative
viscosity of the emulsions prepared. The model proposed by Brauner and Ullmann (2002)
was applied for calculating the phase inversion point for the prepared emulsions with model
oil. The following observations were made based on the results from these calculations:

37

1. The phase inversion point was determined to be 48.73% for the prepared model oil
with 5% wax content and found to be in visual agreement with the captured
microscopic images.
2. For the calculation of relative viscosity, a VBA code had been developed using
bisection method for Phan-Thien and Pham (1977) model.
3. Although Taylor (1932) and Phan-Thien and Pham (1977) seemed to be reasonably
matching, Brinkman (1952) model seemed to over predict the apparent viscosity
when compared.
5.1.4

Microscopic Experiments

Droplet diameter is one of the emulsion characteristics that was believed to

significantly determine the wax deposition phenomenon. Droplet diameters were measured
for all the six water cut samples before and after the cold finger tests. Based on the
experimental results, droplet diameter measurements and other microscopic tests, the
following observations were made:
1. The WAT of the model oil was observed at 41 0C. This is the temperature where
first crystal was observed microscopically in the model oil.
2. Almost 200 to 300 droplets were measured for every sample and a mean droplet

diameter was calculated and the there was no particular trend to be found in the
droplet diameters before and after the cold finger tests, however, before the cold
finger tests the mean droplet diameter for 10% to 40% was found to be around
50m and increasing with water cut at 60% water cut being 72.17m. In contrary,
the mean droplet diameter for the after cold finger tests was found to be around 30
m to 40 m for all the water cuts, highest to be 40.66 m for the 10% water cut.
38

3. In the frequency distributions, for before cold finger tests, it was found that the
most frequent bin until 30% water cut was found to be 2550 m and 50-75 m
until 50% water cut and 75-100 m for 60% water cut. However, this trend was not
observed in the after cold finger tests as all the water cuts had 2550 m as the most
frequent bin.

39

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agarwal, J.: "Single-Phase Wax Deposition Characteristics Under Turbulent Flow
Conditions: The University of Tulsa Paraffin Deposition Project (TUPDP), 27th
Advisory Board Meeting Brochure and Presentation Slide Copy, (2013).
Agarwal, J.: "Single-Phase Wax Deposition Characteristics Under Turbulent Flow
Conditions: The University of Tulsa Paraffin Deposition Project (TUPDP), 29th
Advisory Board Meeting Brochure and Presentation Slide Copy, (2014).
Apte, M. S., A. Matzain, H.-Q. Zhang, M. Volk, J. P. Brill & J. L. Creek (2001)
Investigation of paraffin deposition during multiphase flow in pipelines and
wellboresPart 2: Modeling. Journal of energy resources technology, 123, 150157.
Binks, B. P. & A. Rocher (2009) Effects of temperature on water-in-oil emulsions
stabilised solely by wax microparticles. Journal of colloid and interface science,
335, 94-104.
Brauner, N. & A. Ullmann (2002) Modeling of phase inversion phenomenon in two-phase
pipe flows. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 28, 1177-1204.
Brinkman, H. (1952) The viscosity of concentrated suspensions and solutions. The Journal
of Chemical Physics, 20, 571-571.
Bruno, A., C. Sarica, H. Chen & M. Volk. 2008. Paraffin deposition during the flow of
water-in-oil and oil-in-water dispersions in pipes. In SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.

40

Couto, G. H., H. Chen, E. Dellecase, C. Sarica & M. Volk. 2006. An investigation of twophase oil/water paraffin deposition. In Offshore Technology Conference. Offshore
Technology Conference.
Dan, D. & G. Jing (2006) Apparent viscosity prediction of non-Newtonian water-in-crude
oil emulsions. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 53, 113-122.
de Oliveira, M. C. K., R. M. Carvalho, A. B. Carvalho, B. C. Couto, F. R. Faria & R. L.
Cardoso (2009) Waxy Crude Oil Emulsion Gel: Impact on Flow Assurance.
Energy & Fuels, 24, 2287-2293.
Kasumu, A. S. 2014. An Investigation of Solids Deposition from Two-Phase Wax
SolventWater Mixtures. University of Calgary.
Keleolu, S., B. H. Pettersen & J. Sjblom (2012) Flow properties of water-in-North Sea
heavy crude oil emulsions. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 100,
14-23.
Koerner, G., G. Sanger, H.-F. Fink & F. Grassmann. 1983. Process for preparing oil-inwater emulsion. Google Patents.
Lee, H. S. 2008. Computational and rheological study of wax deposition and gelation in
subsea pipelines. ProQuest.
Liu, Y., Z. H. Wang, X. Zhuge, S. Zhao & R. Pang (2012) Study of deposition behavior in
small-diameter gathering pipelines for water-cut oil. Chemistry and Technology of
Fuels and Oils, 48, 386-392.
Nguyen, D. A., H. S. Fogler & S. Chavadej (2001) Fused chemical reactions. 2.
Encapsulation: Application to remediation of paraffin plugged pipelines. Industrial
& engineering chemistry research, 40, 5058-5065.

41

Panacharoensawad, E. 2012. Wax deposition under two-phase oil-water flowing

conditions.
Panacharoensawad, E. & C. Sarica (2013) Experimental study of single-phase and twophase water-in-crude-oil dispersed flow wax deposition in a mini pilot-scale flow
loop. Energy & Fuels, 27, 5036-5053.
Phan-Thien, N. & D. Pham (1997) Differential multiphase models for polydispersed
suspensions and particulate solids. Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, 72,
305-318.
PetroWiki. 2015. Oil Emulsions.
http://petrowiki.org/index.php?title=Oil_emulsions&oldid=48394
Singh, P., R. Venkatesan, H. S. Fogler & N. Nagarajan (2000) Formation and aging of
incipient thin film waxoil gels. AIChE Journal, 46, 1059-1074.
Soedarmo, A. A. 2015. Mechanistic Study of Wax Deposition: Boundary Layer and
Deposit Morphology.
Taylor, G. I. (1932) The viscosity of a fluid containing small drops of another fluid.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a
Mathematical and Physical Character, 138, 41-48.
Tharwat F. Tadros: Emulsion Formation, Stability and Rheology: Wiley VCH Verlag Gmbh
and Co. KGaA (2013).
Venkatesan, R. 2004. The deposition and rheology of organic gels. University of Michigan.
Venkatesan, R., N. Nagarajan, K. Paso, Y.-B. Yi, A. Sastry & H. Fogler (2005) The
strength of paraffin gels formed under static and flow conditions. Chemical
Engineering Science, 60, 3587-3598.

42

Visintin, R. F., T. P. Lockhart, R. Lapasin & P. DAntona (2008) Structure of waxy crude
oil emulsion gels. Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, 149, 34-39.
Wang, P., W. Wang, J. Gong, Y. Zhou & W. Yang (2013) Effects of the Dispersed Phase
on Oil/Water Wax Deposition. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 135,
042902.
Zhang, Y., J. Gong, Y. Ren & P. Wang (2009) Effect of emulsion characteristics on wax
deposition from water-in-waxy crude oil emulsions under static cooling conditions.
Energy & Fuels, 24, 1146-1155.
Zheng, S. & H. S. Fogler (2014) Fundamental investigation of wax diffusion characteristics
in water-in-oil emulsion. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 54, 44204428.

43

APPENDIX A
ADDITIONAL COLD FINGER TEST RESULTS

Water Content Vs Deposit Thickness (Top and Bottom)

Deposit Thickness(in)

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.2
1
0.8

Top

0.6
0.2

Bottom

0.06

0.4
0.08

0.07

0.06

0.07

0.05

0.08

0.08

0.04

0.04

30

40

50

60

0
0

10

20

Water Content (Vol %)

Appendix Figure 1 Water Cut vs. Deposit Thickness (Test 1)

Water Content Vs Deposit Thickness (Bottom)

1.6

1.4

1.4

Deposit Thickness(in)

1.4
1.2
1
0.8

Top

0.6
0.4

Bottom
0.06

0.2 0.08

0.05

0.05

0.08

0.07

0.07

0.08

0.04

0.04

30

40

50

60

0
0

10

20

Water Content (Vol %)

Appendix Figure 2 Water Cut vs. Deposit Thickness (Test 2)

44

Appendix Table 1 Cold Finger Thickness Results

Test Name

Thickness of the Thickness of the Thickness of the Thickness of the

deposit - Top [in]- deposit- Bottom deposit - Top [in]- deposit- Bottom
Test 1
[in]-Test 1
Test 2
[in]-Test 2

CF-00
CF-10

0.08
0.07

0.06
0.06

0.08
0.07

0.06
0.05

CF-20
CF-30
CF-40
CF-50
CF-60

0.07
1.4
1.5
0.04
0.04

0.05
0.08
0.08
0.04
0.04

0.08
1.4
1.4
0.04
0.04

0.05
0.07
0.08
0.04
0.04

45

APPENDIX B
ADDITIONAL APPARENT VISCOSITY RESULTS

Appendix Table 2 Apparent Viscosity Calculations with Different Models

Prediction Model Used
Water Cut (Vol%)
Volume Fraction of dispersed
phase
Calculated Emulsion Viscosity
(Pa.s)
Calculated Emulsion Viscosity
(mPa.s)
Relative Emulsion Viscosity
Prediction Model Used
Water Cut (Vol%)
Volume Fraction of dispersed
phase
Calculated Emulsion Viscosity
(Pa.s)
Calculated Emulsion Viscosity
(mPa.s)
Relative Emulsion Viscosity

Prediction Model Used

Water Cut (Vol. %)
Volume Fraction of dispersed
phase
Relative Emulsion Viscosity
Calculated Emulsion Viscosity
(Pa.s)
Calculated Emulsion Viscosity
(mPa.s)

Brinkman
(1952)
10

20

30

40

50

60

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.4

0.0019

0.0025 0.0035

0.0051 0.0050 0.0031

1.8609

2.4981 3.4881

5.1281 5.0346 3.1916

1.3013

1.7469 2.4392

3.5861 5.6568 3.5860

Taylor
(1932)
10

20

30

40

50

60

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.4

0.0017

0.0019 0.0021

0.0023 0.0017 0.0023

1.6553

1.8806 2.1059

2.3311 1.7464 1.5751

1.1575

1.3151 1.4726

1.6302 1.9622 1.7698

Phan-Thien
and Pham K Factor 0.622
(1997)
10
20
30
0.1

0.2

0.3

40

50

60

0.4

0.5

0.4

1.1770

1.4027 1.6981

2.0980 2.6653 2.0980

0.0017

0.0020 0.0024

0.0030 0.0024 0.0019

1.6831

2.0059 2.4282

3.0001 2.3721 1.8672

46

Calculated Emulsion Viscosity

6
Brinkman
(1952)

Emulsion Viscosity (mPa.s)

5
4

Taylor
(1932)

3
2

Phan-Thien
and Pham
(1997)

1
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Water Cut (Vol%)

Appendix Figure 3 Emulsion Viscosity vs. Water Cut using different models

47

APPENDIX C
ADDITIONAL MICROSCOPIC TEST RESULTS

Appendix Figure 4 Droplet Diameter Frequency Distribution before Cold Finger Tests
The frequency distribution shows polydispersity with the most frequent bin
being 25-50 m for 10% 20% and 30% water cuts while 40% and 50% have the most
frequent bin of 50-75 m. The 60% water cut has 75-100 m as the most frequent bin. In
all, most of the frequency distribution is concentrated in the range 25-100 m for all the
emulsions in this study. We can observe that the 60% water cut had the highest droplet
diameter of them all. This is attributed to the availability of abundance of water content
with increasing water cut to coalesce and form bigger droplet diameters. With increase in

48

water cut increase in diameter of the droplets is expected. The mean droplet diameter varied
from 40-72 m for all the emulsions in this study. The frequency distribution of the droplet
diameters with changing water cut is represented in the Appendix Figures 4 and 5.
Appendix Table 3 Mean Droplet Diameter before Cold Finger
Mean Droplet
Water Cut (Vol. %)
Diameter (m)
10

52.63

20

54.91

30

49.73

40

58.37

50

53.88

60

72.17

49

Appendix Table 4 Mean Droplet Diameter after Cold Finger

Mean Droplet
Water Cut (Vol. %)
Diameter (m)
10

40.66

20

36.84

30

29.64

40

37.84

Appendix Figure 5 Droplet Diameter Frequency Distribution after Cold Finger Tests

When the cold finger test results were analyzed with respect to the microscopic
after cold finger results, it would be clear why there wasnt an increasing trend in the
deposit mass throughout the tests. The table below shows a clear visualization.

50