900 Production Separators: Chevron Corporation 900-1 March 1990
900 Production Separators: Chevron Corporation 900-1 March 1990
Abstract
This section presents design principles, process considerations, and sizing for
production separators, including common oilfield separators and separator internal
components and their functions. It discusses flash calculations, separation theory,
fluid properties, and liquid/liquid separation. Also included is a discussion of the
input data needed for the PC “Bookware” programs for sizing separators.
Contents Page
996 Emulsions
997 Flow Rate Surge or “Slugs”
998 Turbulence
999 Sour Service
910 Introduction
This section presents general guidelines for the selection of oil/gas/water separation
systems. In upstream oilfield operations, separators are the primary process
elements in production systems. They separate the components of reservoir fluid
into segregated gas, crude oil, and water streams for further processing. A review of
the factors affecting production separation efficiency is presented along with sizing
procedures for primary production separators. This does not include detailed
process simulation procedures, economic evaluations, sizing methods for equip-
ment other than separators, or mechanical design of separators. The information in
this section is not intended to be used for final separator design, although it will
allow reasonable verifications of vendor's quotations.
911 Objectives
The objectives of this section are:
1. To acquaint the engineer with the factors that go into planning a crude oil sepa-
ration system.
2. To simplify recognition and selection of the correct vessel configuration for
any particular duty.
3. To provide procedures for selecting overall dimensions for two- and three-
phase separators.
921 Introduction
This section discusses several methods for sizing horizontal and vertical separators.
considered essential. This method uses a conservative design approach that gener-
ally accommodates variations in either process fluctuations or nominal flowrate
increases. It is recommended that this design method be used first when comparing
vessel sizes with other design approaches.
941 Scrubbers
A scrubber is a separator used on very high gas/oil ratio (GOR) flow streams to
“scrub” small amounts of liquid from a gas stream. (See Figure 900-2.) Scrubbers
are usually two-phase, vertical vessels, although in larger applications horizontal
scrubbers are not uncommon.
Suction and discharge scrubbers are placed upstream and downstream of gas
compressors. Fuel gas scrubbers remove residual liquid from gas just prior to its
use as a fuel. Pipeline scrubbers remove condensate from gas streams flowing
through long pipelines.
Sand Traps
A sand trap is a device for removing sand from a produced well-stream. Sand traps
are typically used on high pressure gas wells, where sand production is common.
3. Further refine the separation by removal of entrained bubbles from the liquid
phase so that, ideally, the liquid contains no more gas than would exist at equi-
librium at the pressure and temperature within the vessel.
4. Assure proper control by devices which will provide for the removal of the
separated gas and separated liquid phases from the vessel without allowing an
opportunity for reentrainment of one into the other.
The physical properties used to achieve these processes are gravity, centrifugal
force, and impingement. The effective combination of these properties, and their
governing principles, leads to efficient separator design. A description and explana-
tion of a horizontal two-phase separator illustrates how these physical properties
and principles are employed. (See Figure 900-6.)
The separator consists of three basic sections plus the controls, which correspond
with the four processes noted above. These are:
1. A primary separation section which controls or dissipates the energy of the
fluids as they leave the flow line and enter the vessel.
2. A secondary separation section (mist extraction or coalescing section) which
minimizes turbulence in the gas section.
3. A liquid collecting and removal section which prevents reentrainment of the
separated phases.
separation under lower velocity conditions can occur. To accomplish this, a care-
fully designed and compact device is required for producing controlled deceleration
of the incoming fluids. This device is usually referred to as a “momentum absorber.”
Downstream of the momentum absorber, liquid material with much entrained gas
separates generally downward. Above the liquid layer is a predominantly gaseous
material with much entrained liquid, moving either upward in a vertical separating
vessel or longitudinally in a horizontal vessel.
The configuration of the inlet device can take many shapes and should be given
careful consideration. Structural channel iron usually provides optimum results, but
angle iron, flat plates or dished heads have been considered optimum for certain
applications. Vertical vessels often employ a centrifugal inlet device. See Figure
900-7 for typical configurations of inlet devices.
Gas velocities entering a mist extractor usually are in the turbulent flow range, so
Newton's Law is applicable. Figure 900-9 shows various particle sizes found in
nature and the ease with which they are separated. A well-designed mist extractor
has no difficulty catching 10 micron particles. Mist extractors of poor design are on
the market that allow even 1000 micron particles to pass. Most arrangements of
angle iron pieces make poor mist extractors.
ρ L – ρ G 0.5
V G = K -------------------
ρG
(Eq. 900-1)
where:
K = C ( 1.74 gd )
(Eq. 900-2)
C = Drag Coefficient
g = Gravitational constant, ft/sec2
d = Average particle diameter, ft
Equation 900-2 is used to avoid reentrainment from the mist extractor. The K factor
is proportional to the drag force on a film of particle. If the K factor is too high in a
mist extractor, the film will not drain. A large amount of liquid is torn off the outlet
edge and, due to the high K factor, the particles created are smaller than normal and
are carried out.
Laboratory tests yield K factor curves such as shown in Figure 900-10. In ideal
circumstances, the K factor is not dependent on pressure or inlet liquid load;
however, this is rarely the case in actual field conditions. The curves are very steep
and one can easily choose a K factor value that is below all the reentrainment
curves. To illustrate, select a K factor of 0.35 on the curve in Figure 900-10. Most
separators have K factor values between 0.2 and 0.8.
The gas flow of a separator is usually limited to the K factor of the mist extractor.
Reentrainment is usually the biggest problem, not entrainment. Increasing velocity
increases centrifugal and impingement catching ability, but not gravity catching
ability.
A wire demister pad should not be used if wax will be present at the operating
temperature. If the crude is waxy and operates at a temperature near the cloud
point, wax may appear.
Fig. 900-10 Example: Carryover vs K-Factor Fig. 900-11 Serpentine Vane Mist Extractor
In the normal horizontal flow configuration, very high K factors can be used if suffi-
cient volume is available upstream for bulk liquid separation, and downstream to
allow for settling of liquid fly-off. Fly-off is liquid which has coalesced in the mist
extractor, then is blown off the trailing edge by the gas velocity. These droplets
must be large enough to settle rapidly, and this limitation determines the allowable
velocity, and therefore the K factor. Too high velocity of gas will prevent even these
relatively large coalesced droplets from settling, and they will become reentrained
in the gas stream.
If the process volume is not available upstream and downstream of the vanes, then
restrictions such as lower K factor and small allowable liquid loading are necessary.
This is the case in some cross-flow separator designs, both vertical and horizontal.
Wire mesh collects paraffin, hydrates, sand, and other solid particles, causing it to
plug rather easily; therefore, it is not generally recommended for primary wellhead
application, but is preferred for clean relatively high GOR applications. It can be
used in either vertical upflow or small horizontal configurations. Its allowable K
factor in horizontal flow is lower than for serpentine vanes because of its relatively
poor ability to drain itself of liquids. However, when conditions permit its use, wire
mesh can catch smaller particles than can the serpentine vane mist extractor.
decay. Relative to other mist extractors now available, Dixon plates are inferior in
performance and are heavier and more expensive.
A useful guideline is to have a minimum of two times the nozzle diameter in liquid
depth if the interface is gas/liquid, and three times the nozzle diameter if the inter-
face is liquid/liquid, assuming the nozzles are sized for typical liquid velocities. If
these minimum dimensions are maintained and vortex breakers are installed over
the outlet nozzles, the problem of outlet reentrainment can be minimized. Figure
900-13 shows some common designs for vortex breakers. When the separator is
three-phase, additional considerations are necessary to control levels.
flow. Placing a horizontal pipe on top of the outlet as shown in Figure 900-14c will
help; the bottom of the pipe is slotted, allowing the oil level to drop within a few
inches of the slots without a problem. However, weir arrangements still give a
greater safety margin. When foam is present, a greater safety margin is essential
because the weight of foam distorts liquid level gage indications. A pad of emul-
sion and dirt may build up at the oil-water interface over a period of time distorting
liquid level gage readings and controller outputs. Therefore, a drain at this interface
may be specified. A toadstool interface collector is one of the better draining
devices.
Fig. 900-15 Approximate Flash Calculation Chart. Use for approximation only
specifications are important decision points that, in many cases, will be paramount
in selecting the total separation system. Examples of criteria to be established are:
1. Gas gross heating value (Btu/ft3)
2. Gas inert components such as N2, CO2 (volume %)
3. Gas dew points for water and hydrocarbon (°F)
4. Moisture content (volume % for oil and lb/MMSCFD for gas)
5. Delivery pressure of export gas or oil (psig)
6. Oil BS&W content (%)
7. Gas sulfur content (grains/100 scf)
8. Oil vapor pressure (psia or Reid Vapor Pressure in psia)
9. Dissolved salts in crude oil (lb/1000 BBL)
10. Oil-in-water. Although it is not a product for export, the residual hydrocarbon
content in the final produced water stream must be known and should be
expressed in parts per million (ppm or mg/l).
Typical export specifications might be:
1. Oil
– 1% to 3% BS&W
– 20 lb salt/1000 BBL oil
– 11 to 13 psia Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)
2. Gas
– 7 lb/MMSCF, water
– 0.25 grains/MMSCF, H2S
– 900 to 1300 Btu/1000 ft3, lower heating value (LHV)
Obviously, however, these specifications will be site and contract specific.
Future Conditions
The majority of production conditions can, with proper planning, be accommodated
to an acceptable level over the life of the facility. A common pattern for well
production shows, during the early stages, a larger gas/oil ratio (GOR) and smaller
amount of produced water and, in the later stages, a reversal of that condition. This
trend will not be experienced in the application of gas lift or water-flood programs,
where the requirement of those programs can usually be predicted and accounted
for in the design.
System Selection
The purpose of this section is to provide the user with a method to make initial
general decisions regarding the overall separation system. The discussion is general
in nature and emphasizes separator plans. Final system selection should be based
upon a weighted combination of field experience, process simulation, engineering
judgment, and an economic evaluation.
Selection of oil and gas treating systems generally results from optimization of
facility costs, product recovery, and operational considerations. Typically, the
process engineer utilizes the defined inlet stream and performs a preliminary mol-
balance for the system to establish: (1) the basic number of stages required to
achieve mandatory product specifications, and (2) system optimization to maximize
operational requirements while minimizing utility and facility costs. Preliminary
equipment sizes for process vessels can be obtained in some cases. However, for
detailed analysis, process equipment vendors should be contacted for the propri-
etary design aspects of such items as crude oil dehydrators or desalters. Correct and
careful input to the process conditions supplied to equipment vendors is essential,
especially when a “process guarantee” is part of the purchase contract. Use the
selection guidelines outlined in this section to establish the preliminary system.
• 10—for crude oil separation where the stock tank oil gravity is less than
40° API
Select the number of stages so as not to exceed the pressure ratios above. The
following equations are used to determine the optimum operating pressures of the
intermediate stages:
1
---
P1n
R = ------
Ps
(Eq. 900-3)
P m = Pm + 1 R ( P1 = P2 R )
(Eq. 900-4)
n – (m – 1)
P m = Ps R
(Eq. 900-5)
where:
n = Number of interstages = (number of stages -1)
R = Pressure ratio
P1 = First-stage pressure, psia
P2 = Second-stage pressure, psia
m = Arbitrary stage number
Pm = Pressure of stage m, psia
Ps = Stock tank pressure, psia
Application of the above equations to a three-stage separation problem where P1 =
400 psia and Ps = 14.2 psia gives:
400 0.5
R = ---------- = 5.3
14.2
(Eq. 900-6)
As might be expected, there are many instances where the use of flash calculations
will not agree with the results of the above equations. These equations assume that
the ratio per stage should be constant, but a complete analysis of a separation
problem often shows that the ratio between the last stage and the stock tank or final
pressure is considerably smaller than between the other stages.
When accurate oil and gas analyses are available, computer simulations can predict
values very close to the optimum; field experimentation can provide further
refinement.
Number of Reservoirs
The number of separation trains is also influenced by the number of production
reservoirs. If more than one reservoir is being produced, and the available flowing
wellhead pressure cannot match the other reservoir, a second separation train may
be needed. See Figure 900-17.
Fig. 900-17 Typical Production System for Two Reservoirs of Different Pressures
If the available FWHP from the second reservoir is sufficient to match the second
stage of separation of the first reservoir, then the second reservoir production can be
separated in the second stage of a single train of production separators.
Wax Content
The wax content may influence the number of separation trains. Production could
be interrupted by shutdown of the separation train if wax buildup occurs and the
separation train vessels need to be steamed or cleaned in some other manner. Thus,
if wax content is high and processing conditions require heating, upsets in the
heating system could occur and more than one train of crude separation would be
favored.
A bucket-type liquid weir should be used when waxy crudes are expected. The
bucket weir eliminates buoyancy problems of level control when there is a small
difference in the specific gravity between the crude oil and water. Internal level
devices should be used. Wax could set up in the instrument bridle and prevent floats
and controls from working properly. If a vessel with external controls is to be used
for a waxy crude, the bridle should be heat traced to prevent waxy solids formation.
(See Figure 900-18.)
Sand Content
If the sand content of the reservoir fluid is severe and not controllable by gravel
packing at the reservoir face, cleanout of the crude separators may be required.
Under these maintenance conditions, more than one separation train would be
favored to avoid interrupting crude production.
Turndown
The turndown ability of a large single train of crude separation is a concern.
Although separation improves as the flow rate is reduced, control valves and associ-
ated instrumentation have a limited turndown. This problem can be overcome by
Fig. 900-18 Typical Horizontal Three-Phase Separator, Bucket and Weir Design
use of dual control valves on the liquid and gas outlets sized to accommodate the
full flow range. Another method to accommodate low flow rates is to use the test
separator as a startup separation vessel until full crude production permits the larger
single train operation.
Availability
Equipment components can be evaluated to determine statistical reliability, a factor
which may support the case for more than one train of separation. In the past,
however, this evaluation has not been an overwhelming reason to decide for two or
more trains. Other considerations, as discussed herein, will affect this decision.
Usually, redundancy of vessels does not in itself improve availability of the process
unless the characteristics of the fluid being processed force frequent cleanouts (e.g.,
sand, scale clogging). However, redundancy of instruments, such as valves, filters,
and pumps, can improve availability, since these items have relatively high failure
rates.
Space/Weight Considerations
Multiple train concepts usually are not as space or weight efficient as single train
concepts. However, “piggy backing” of vessels minimizes this difference in
restricted space applications, such as retrofit systems offshore.
Vertical vs Horizontal
There is relatively little difference between the total system cost of horizontal and
vertical configurations because of savings in plot area or structural loadings. The
list below compares advantages for each of these two types of separators.
• Vertical separators
– Have large liquid capacities.
– Are less susceptible to malfunction due to dirt, mud, wax, etc.
– Are much easier to clean out than horizontal vessels.
– Liquid level is easier to control.
– Are more efficient in liquid removal.
– Are very versatile in operation. A properly sized vertical separator can be
easily modified to almost any possible operational problem.
• Horizontal separators
– Have a much higher allowable gas velocity for the same cross-sectional
area.
– Are less costly per unit volume of gas capacity.
– Are easier to ship mounted on skid assemblies than vertical vessels.
– Have more area available for settling when oil and water are being
separated.
– Are easier to pipe up than vertical separators.
– Allow more surface area for the coalescence of very unstable foam.
– Have good flexibility.
– Series stages can often be stacked to minimize plot area.
– Have greater liquid/vapor interface area.
– Economic ratio of length to diameter (L/D) is usually 3.5 to 1 to 4.0 to 1
but may be 5 or more to 1 if liquid viscosity is a controlling factor.
Two-Phase vs Three-Phase
Two-phase units are used for very high gas/liquid ratios: e.g., early production units
with a “gas cap”; compressor suction and discharge scrubbers; gas/liquid applica-
tions for final Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) control.
Three-phase units are often operated as two-phase units when high gas/oil ratios
and/or sanding problems are encountered in the early production stages. Significant
advantages may be gained from designing all primary separation units for three-
phase operation, because this approach provides significant flexibility for the
predictable changes in gas/oil/water ratios that will be encountered during the
facility life. Provided that all other technical parameters are equal, three-phase sepa-
rators are larger than two-phase separators.
0.5
4gD p ( ρ 1 – ρ g )
V t = -------------------------------------------
3 ( ρ g )C
(Eq. 900-7)
where:
C = Drag coefficient, dimensionless
Dp = Average particle diameter, ft
g = Acceleration due to gravity, 32 ft/sec2
Vt = Particle terminal velocity, ft/sec
ρ = Fluid density, lb/ft3
ρl = Density of liquid, lb/ft3
ρg = Density of gas, lb/ft3
Newton's Law defines the drag force resisting the motion of the particle during
turbulent flow as the drag coefficient, C. In the turbulent flow region (500 < Re
< 200,000), C has an average value of 0.44 for spheres.
2
gD p ( ρ 1 – ρ g )
V t = ------------------------------------
18µ
(Eq. 900-8)
where:
µ = Viscosity of gas, lb/ft • sec
impingement surface, such as a fiber, it curves around, but the momentum of the
entrained droplet tends to move it straight ahead to collide with the fiber.
The term entrainment refers to the small particles carried by the gas which require a
mist extractor to remove. Reentrainment is liquid which has been separated from
the gas, then picked up again and carried out.
The process of impingement of liquid droplets in a gas stream onto a solid surface
is used in a number of mist extractor designs (see Section 950 above). The liquid
droplets, being denser than the continuous gas phase, tend to continue to travel in
their direction of motion when the continuous gas phase is diverted by a solid
surface. This momentum of the entrained droplets causes impingement of the liquid
particles onto the solid surface.
After the particles have impinged on the solid surface, surface tension holds the
liquid particles onto the surface and prevents reentrainment; other particles
impinging on the surface cause coalescence, with subsequent gravity separation of
the liquid. See Figure 900-2.
but that shape, being less stable than the spherical shape, does not continue to exist.
The ratio of volume to surface area is, therefore, an indication of relative stability.
This stability is explained by defining the term “free energy.” A droplet which is
other than spherical in shape is said to possess free energy which tends to dissipate
and force the droplet into a spherical shape. The coalesced state is more stable
because it has a smaller surface area for the same volume, and therefore less free
energy. Two uncoalesced droplets are said to have higher “free energy.”
cause the flow to be intermittent. In very long, large lines, slug cycles of many
seconds are common. This can create problems in process equipment if not
accounted for in their design. On the other hand, in streams with high water
content, of medium or high gravity oil, and very low flow stream velocities with
little gas, water separation may occur in the line. The water may flow along the
bottom of the line causing a high rate of corrosion there.
Gas affects the formation of oil-water emulsions. As gas is flashed, agitation
occurs, beginning in the formation and continuing through producing and
processing. This agitation can be severe, adding a great deal of energy to the emulsi-
fying process.
Gas also affects the separation of oil and water. If gas bubbles are rising through an
oil-water mixture, turbulence is created which interferes with the settling of water
droplets. For that reason gas is usually separated first, then water. If the gas sepa-
rator is designed as a three-phase vessel to also remove water, that water removal is
usually of secondary importance and is expected to be very incomplete. A typical
process train has successive reductions in pressure and with each reduction a separa-
tion of gas. However, the amount of gas removed typically decreases at the lower
pressures so that at the last step, very little free gas is present. Corresponding sepa-
ration of water will be least efficient in the first stage of gas separation. The emul-
sion treater or oil dehydrator is usually the end process. The actual dehydration
must occur in as near to gas-free oil as possible. This process is not only necessary
for performance, but is also the most economical. Because water separation typi-
cally requires the largest process vessels, it is least expensive if the vessels are of
low pressure, which is the condition that exists at the end of the process train.
994 Viscosity
To properly size a separator, the viscosities of the oil and water phases must be
known. The oil phase viscosity will typically have a much larger influence on
vessel size than the water phase viscosity because oil viscosity is usually several
times greater than water viscosity. Oil viscosities also vary over a much wider range
and usually vary more with temperature. Due to these factors it is important to have
good oil viscosity data.
The best condition is to have oil viscosity versus temperature data for the particular
oil to be separated. Alternately, data from other wells in the same field can usually
be used without significant error. The viscosity versus temperature data may be
plotted as a straight line on special ASTM graph paper. Then the viscosity may be
predicted at any other temperature.
If two data points are known, the Walther equation may also be used instead of
ASTM graph paper. This equation plots as a straight line on ASTM graph paper.
The advantage of the Walther equation is that any calculator may be used to predict
oil viscosities without the special graph paper. To determine the oil viscosity at a
third temperature from two data points, the following three equations should be
solved in order:
ln [ ln ( µ 1 + 0.7 ) ] – ln [ ln ( µ 2 + 0.7 ) ]
M = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lnT 1 – lnT 2
(Eq. 900-10)
T(°C) = (5/9)(T°F-32)
(Eq. 900-13)
µ = υ(SG)
(Eq. 900-14)
where:
T(°C) = Temperature, °C
υ = Kinematic viscosity, centistokes, cs
The Beggs and Robinson correlation may also be used to predict oil viscosity. This
correlation predicts oil viscosity based on the temperature and the oil gravity. The
data set used to develop this correlation included 460 oil systems with gravities
between 16° and 58° API at temperatures between 70°F and 295°F.
µo = 10x - 1
(Eq. 900-15)
where:
µo = Viscosity of oil phase, cp
T = Temperature, °F
x = yT -1.163
y = 10z
z = 3.0324 - 0.02023G
G = Oil gravity, °API
1 2 0.5
--- = 0.021482 [ D + ( 8078.4 + D ) ] – 1.2
µ
(Eq. 900-16)
where:
D = 0.5556 T - 26.21
T = Temperature, °F
This equation does not apply if the heavy phase in the separator is not water. For
example, in a glycol dehydration system, the heavy phase is a glycol-water mixture,
and the viscosity must be obtained from charts based on the mixture composition.
995 Foam
Foam is a mixture of gas dispersed in a liquid and has a density less than the liquid
but greater than the gas. One type of foam is called bubble foam. A foaming crude
oil requires a greater interface area and longer retention time to remove the gas
from the liquid.
Bubble foam may be caused by a pressure reduction which causes the lighter liquid
components of the crude oil to flash and escape from the liquid as a gas. Bubble
foam may also be formed by aeration of the liquid in the flowline. Bubble foam can
be dispersed by the use of impingement baffles and residence time.
A second type of foam is chemical foam, a phenomenon of surface tension. The
surface tension of the bubble is so strong that the bubble will not break. This type
of foam is caused by iron sulfide particles, asphaltenes, and resins in the crude oil.
As a general rule, all oil foams. However, oil is seldom considered to be foamy
unless a separator is designed too small and carryover results. Oil producers,
however, generally insist on the smallest vessel possible, and thus the space avail-
able for natural foam decay is reduced. Generally, foam is a more serious problem
when oil viscosity is high. Therefore low and medium gravity applications, espe-
cially in relatively low temperature service, can be expected to foam. If foam is a
significant factor, then vertical vessels may not be advisable. Horizontal vessels are
preferred in order to spread the foam layer out, decreasing foam height and giving
more exposure to the free gas phase.
Sizing separators to accommodate foam is an inexact process that depends largely
on experience and field data. Foam may occupy a large portion of the vessel
volume; in extreme cases perhaps over half the volume may be taken by foam. It is
best to size foamy oil separators by drawing from field test results and, interpreting
them for the application.
Special types of internals are often used to help break down foam. Particular atten-
tion must be given to the inlet momentum absorber and to the defoaming elements.
996 Emulsions
An emulsified oil/water mixture consists of very tiny droplets of one phase
dispersed throughout the other in a manner that makes separation difficult. The
droplets are called the discontinuous phase and the surrounding fluid is referred to
as the continuous phase. In crude oil/water mixtures the oil may be either the contin-
uous or the discontinuous phase. The oil phase depends on the volume ratio of the
two fluids and the interface chemistry. The more common emulsion produced is a
water-in-oil emulsion; that is, the oil is the continuous phase. An oil-in-water emul-
sion is referred to as a reverse emulsion. This discussion is concerned only with
normal water-in-oil emulsions.
Formation of an Emulsion
When oil and water exist in the same producing formation they are stratified and
the water is essentially “free.” Yet when a produced oil-water mixture is examined,
it is often found that the water droplets are very small; and further, they seem to
remain that way and can thus be defined as an emulsion.
The coalesced state of an oil-water mixture is the most stable state. Additional
energy is required for an emulsion to form. Any mechanical energy input device,
such as a pump, can therefore produce the needed energy to create an emulsion,
although the necessary energy may already be present in the fluid in the form of
hydraulic energy. A flow restriction, such as a valve, orifice, a bend in a pipe, or
simple viscous friction can convert some of the energy in the flow to formation
energy. Forcing the fluids through the porous formation can shear the two phases
together, create new interface surfaces, and produce an emulsion even before the
mixture enters the well bore.
Emulsion Stability
As mechanical energy breaks the water into increasingly smaller droplets in the oil,
the free energy of the mixture is raised. The resulting dispersion may consist of
droplet sizes as small as a few microns in diameter (1 micron = 10-6 meter). It is
obvious that the surface-area to volume ratio of this dispersion is very large; there-
fore, it would appear that immediate and rapid coalescence would take place. In
other words, it would appear that this very “tight” emulsion would be unstable. On
the contrary, however, experience has demonstrated that crude oil emulsions can
sometimes be very stable. Several factors contribute to this stability and hinder
coalescence and separation by the gravitational pull on the heavier water droplets.
The interface between the phases (the surface of the water droplet) is complicated
and exhibits a peculiar localization of chemical, electrostatic, and physical activity.
This activity is not entirely understood. When a small water droplet is torn from a
large one, a new interface surface is created. Initially this surface is “clean” and is
actually no more than the meeting of two phases. Soon, however, certain substances
present in the continuous oil phase become attracted to it. These substances collect
on the droplet surface and build a tough, leathery film around it, similar to a plastic
bag filled with water. The substances that form the film around the droplet are
referred to as “stabilizing” agents because they block the ability of the water drop-
lets to return to their coalesced state. See Figure 900-21.
The ratio of the dispersed phase to the whole affects the mixture's stability. If the
water content is high, initial coalescence will be more easily achieved. As more of
the water is removed from the field, coalescence becomes more difficult.
When an emulsion is first formed it is relatively unstable. Its stability increases with
time as the film around each droplet of water grows thicker and tougher. When such
an emulsion remains untreated for a relatively long period of time, it becomes
“aged” and is much more difficult to resolve than when it was first formed.
Droplet size is a very important factor. When droplets are very small they offer a
greater total surface area for the collection of stabilizing agents. The separating
force of gravity is also less effective. A very “tight” emulsion is much more stable
than one made up of larger droplets.
To summarize, the factors primarily affecting the stability of an emulsion can be
categorized as follows:
• Stabilizing agents
• Electrostatic charge
• Water ratio
• Viscosity of continuous phase
• Specific gravity difference of phases
• Age of emulsion
• Droplet size
These factors vary in relative importance, but the presence of the stabilizing agent
is always required.
Stabilizing Agents
The common stabilizing agents responsible for an emulsion and attendant problems
are:
• Heavy paraffinic compounds
• Heavy napthenic acids
• Petroleum acids
• Asphaltic compounds
• Organic solids
• Inorganic solids
The single most significant characteristic of all stabilizing agents, in relation to
emulsion formation, is their strong attraction to the oil/water interface. Some of the
most stable emulsions are created by the intrusion of a foreign substance in the
production rather than by a naturally occurring stabilizer. An example is the tempo-
rary “problem” emulsion produced immediately after a well is acidized for scale
removal, or the tough emulsion produced from a newly drilled well which is stabi-
lized by the drilling mud.
998 Turbulence
Theoretically, good water-oil separation efficiency depends on the presence of
smooth, laminar flow in the liquid region of the vessel. Excessive turbulence
promotes mixing of the two liquid phases, reducing or negating the effect of settling
velocity of the water droplets in the oil. Proper configuration of vessel internals
helps to promote stable flow. The degree of turbulence in the flowing stream within
the separator is of considerable importance. The action of excess turbulence results
in carrying potentially separate liquid particles in the eddy currents. A normal
measure of turbulence in any flowing stream is the dimensionless Reynolds
Number, R.
Unless the Reynolds Number is controlled, there will be an ever wider divergence
from reasonably “calm” flow as vessel size increases. Normally, the larger the
hydraulic radius of the flow path at constant velocity the greater the magnitude of
the eddy current effect. This means that as vessel size increases, the allowable
maximum superficial velocity that would produce good separation under given
conditions in a small vessel would have to be reduced, thus offsetting the increase
in separation capacity expected from increased size. This circumstance highlights
the importance of controlling turbulence, especially in larger vessels.