O

OTC 2298
88
O
Oil/water Flow Exp
periments with a Real,
R
Visc
cous Cru
ude: The Influence
e of
E
ESP on Flow
F
Beha
aviour
Z
Zhilin Yang, Bente
B
H. Sann
ns, George W. Johnson, Merethe Sjvvoll, Ruben S
Schulkes
S
Statoil ASA, Norway
N

C
Copyright 2012, Offshore Technology Confere
ence
T
This paper was prepare
ed for presentation at the Offshore Technolog
gy Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA , 30 April3 May 2012 .
T
This paper was selected for presentation by an
a OTC program comm
mittee following review
w of information containned in an abstract subm
mitted by the author(s)). Contents of the pape
er have not been
re
eviewed by the Offshore Technology Confere
ence and are subject to
o correction by the autthor(s). The material dooes not necessarily re
eflect any position of the Offshore Technologyy Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic
E
reproduction
n, distribution, or stora
age of any part of this paper without the wriitten consent of the O
Offshore Technology C
Conference is prohibite
ed. Permission to
re
eproduce in print is res
stricted to an abstract of
o not more than 300 words;
w
illustrations mayy not be copied. The abbstract must contain co
onspicuous acknowled
dgment of OTC copyrig
ght.

A
Abstract
S
Statoil recently upgraded itts multiphase flow facility in
n Porsgrunn, Norway to acccommodate live viscous
ccrudes. This facility,
f
which
h has been op
perational sinc
ce 1995, enab
bles simultan
neous flow and separation tests to
b
be conducted with real hyd
drocarbon fluid
ds at realistic
c temperature and pressure
e levels. As p
part of the upg
grade, an
E
ESP was insta
alled to study
y the influence
e of the ESP on
o flow and sseparation und
der controlled
d conditions.
In this paper selected
s
results are presen
nted of experiiments perforrmed with oil/w
water mixture
es with live viscous
ccrude.The oil viscosity in th
he tests varies
s from 30 to 500
5 cP. The experimental results show
w that the wate
er cut for
the water conttinuous flow boundary
b
inc
creases with decreasing
d
oill viscosity. Be
elow this value of water cut, the
E
ESP generate
es either oil co
ontinuous flow
w or stratified flow. For the
e dispersed flow both O/W
W and W/O em
mulsions
w
were generate
ed by the ESP
P; the classical model on emulsion
e
visccosity gives a good predictiion of the data
a.
Introduction
V
Viscous crudes
s account for a large fraction
n of the world''s potentially re
recoverable oill reserves. Ho
owever, the visscous
ccrude oils have
e a small fraction of the world's oil produc
ction due to the
eir high viscossities which ca
ause problemss in both
w
well and produ
uction transporrt flowline, parrticularly in offs
shore viscous oil fields. Sevveral unconven
ntional method
ds for
vviscous crude production in multiphase flo
owlines have been
b
proposed
d: preheating of the crude o
oil with subseq
quent
h
heating of the pipeline (Layrisse, 1998; Sa
aniere et al., 2004); dilution with lighter cru
ude oils (Iona, 1978); partia
al
u
upgrading (Ma
acWilliams and
d Eadie, 1993)), core annularr flow with watter wetting the
e wall (Oliemans and Ooms,, 1986);
a
and water conttinuous flow (o
oil-in-water em
mulsions) (Lappin and Saur, 1989; Gregoliet al., 2006). All the above
em
mentioned methods experience logistic, te
echnical, and/o
or economic d
disadvantagess.
T
The implementation of ESP (Electrical Sub
bmersible Pum
mp) in the wel l makes it feassible to producce and transpo
ort crude
o
oil in offshore viscous
v
oil fields. In the case
e of water con
ntinuous flow ((oil-in water em
mulsion), it can
n be very effective to
transport crude
e oils with visc
cosity higher th
han 1000 cP even
e
in cold re
egions over lo
ong distances. One of the ke
ey issues
o
of water contin
nuous flow in a long distance
e transport is the
t stability off the emulsion. The oil droplets can sedim
ment and
fo
orm an oil film
m at the top of the
t pipe due to gravity, whic
ch may lead to
o a significant increase in friictional pressu
ure drop.
In terms of hyd
drodynamics of
o oil-water two
o-phase flow, the
t stability off the emulsion is closely rela
ated to the form
mation of
the emulsion, and
a depends on
o the flowrate
e, droplet size
e and physical properties of the fluids in th
he flowline.
T
The emulsion formation
f
of oil-water flow with
w viscous oil has been stu
udied mainly in
n pipe flow or a stirred tank, from
w
which the emu
ulsion viscosity
y and phase in
nversion are qu
uantified. The application off these resultss for the emulssion
fo
ormation from
m an ESP has received
r
little attention and is uncertain. L
Little work can
n be found on tthe emulsion fformation
o
of viscous oil-w
water flow by ESP
E
in the ope
en literature.

e
results
r
for the formation
f
of emulsions
e
by a
an ESP are pre
esented. Published correlattions for
In this paper, experimental
e
emulsion visco
osity for conve
entional crudes
s are compare
ed with the exp
perimental ressults. These co
orrelations pro
ovided a

OTC 22988

famework to classify the experimental data into specific flow regimes. Better insight into influence of the ESP on
emulsion formation, emulsion stability and flow regimes was achieved for viscous crude in multiphase transport.

Experimental Facility
The Multiphase flow loop at Statoils Research Center in Porsgrunn, Norway is designed to cover a wide range of test
scenarios, from well conditions via subsea and topside separation, to long distance transport of heavy oil. The base
cases are: basic flow and separation test; subsea loop processing system (SLPS); subsea transport of oil phase after
separation; and long distance transport of crude oil. Test rig specifications are given in Table 1.

Table 1 Test facility specifications (design basis)

Number of phases
Water flow rate
Oil flow rate
Liquid flow rate
Gas flow rate
Maximum pressure (except ESP)
Maximum pressure ESP
Temperature range (except high
temp separation)
Maximum temperature high temp
separation
Material
Fluids
Total liquid volume
Pipe internal diameter
Pipe length of test section
Pipe inclination

3 (gas, oil, water)

0-10 m3/h
0-15 m3/h
0-25 m3/h
Normal: GOR = 25
High: GOR = 100
100 bar
175 bar
4-110 C
170 C
Duplex Stainless steel 22Cr ( S31803)
Artificial produced water, crude oil,
Hydrocarbongas
Ca 8.3 m3 (this test configuration)
0.05248 or 0.079m
200 m

-/+ 5 degrees

The schematic of the multiphase flow loop is showed in Figure 1. Oil and water are fed into the cooling section from the
main separator. Water is added before or after the coolers and the ESP. There are three gas injection points: 1)
between coolers, 2) before ESP or 3) after ESP. After reaching the desired temperature, the fluid mixture enters the
ESP where the absolute pressure is increased. The fluid then enters the 2 flow loop test section for flow and transport
studies. The flow loop is 200 m long and has standard instrumentation, such as differential pressure measurements
(PDI), temperature sensors and densitometers.
Separators are located after the 2 test section which consist of: 1) cold (subsea) separation in the pipe separator and
2) hot (topside) separation in the high temperature test separator. The separated phases are re-mixed and returned to
the main separator via the 3 flow loop. The main separator separates and prepares the fluids for a new run in the loop.
A large volume of the main separator enables good separation of phases and homogenization of oil and gas.
The main separator performs a critical task in the flow loop. It is a horizontal three-phase separator with length 5 m and
volume 2.1 m3. The separator internals consist of two VIECs (Vertical Internal Electrostatic Coalescer), two LOWACCs
and weir plate. The pressure in the separator is maintained by a gas circulator. Temperature and pressure limits for the
separator are 110oC and 125 barg.
The separated phases leave the separator through individual oil, gas and water outlets. The oil quality (water content),
density, mass flow and temperature are measured before entering the oil circulation pump. The water density, mass
flow and temperature are measured before entering the water circulation pump. The gas density, mass flow and
temperature are measured before entering the gas circulator (compressor).
The ESP (Electrical Submersible Pump) is a multistage horizontal centrifugal pump (84 stages). The pump is a 538-P75
SXD from Baker Hughes, and is equipped with a VSD (variable speed drive) for pump speed control. The pump is
located downstream the oil cooling containers and water cooler. All three phases can be mixed upstream of the pump in
order to study the characteristics of the pump under varying conditions.
Both the 3 and 2 flow loops can be used to study transport properties of the fluids used in the test facility, each of
which is 200 m long. The 2 loop is used for testing of multiphase flows using viscous oil. Eighty meters of both the 3
and 2 flow loops can be inclined from the horizontal at angles up to -+ 5 degrees.

OTC 22988

The separation test section has two separators, a pipe separator and a conventional gravity horizontal separator. The
configuration enables a two stage separation train, where the pipe separator is the first stage (cold separation) and the
gravity separator can act as a second stage separator (hot separator). The pipe separator can be bypassed to let the
gravity separator become the first stage separator (hot or cold separation).

a
g
c
b

water
mixture

oil
gas

h
d

Figure 1. Schematic of the test facility at Porsgrunn, Statoil Research Center. a the main separator; b oil feeding
pump; c water feeding pump; d heat exchanger for cooling oil; e heat exchanger for cooling water; f ESP; g
test section of piping; h the first stage test separator; i the second stage test separator; j feeding pump for gas. In
figure, red pipe represents oil line; blue pipe represents water line; green pipe reperesents gas line; yellow pipe
represents the mixture flowline.

Fluid physical properties

Based on measurements, the physical properties for the viscous oil were found to vary with absolute pressure and
temperature. The oil density varied only with temperature while the molecular dynamic viscosity varied both with
temperature and pressure. The physical properties of viscous crude were derived from experimental measurements and
can be approximated by the following formulas:

o = 988 0.464T 0.00151T 2

(1)

1600

o = 6.1106 e T +92.15 + 3.8 104 ( P 35 )

where T is the temperature in C, P is the pressure in bar,

o , o are water density in kg/m

(2)
and viscosity in Pa.s,

respectively.
The experiments were performed with tap-water with 5 wt% NaCl added. The density of water was derived from the
experimental measurement, and the water viscosity data comes from Tables of Physical & Chemical Constants (16th
edition 1995). 2.1.4 Hygrometry. Kaye & Laby Online. Version 1.0 (2005), they can be estimated by the following
formula as a function of temperature:

w = 0.0033T 2 0.08T + 1038

(3)

w = 106 w 0.208077 + 0.000143 (100 T )

where T is the temperature in C,

w , w are water density in kg/m3 and viscosity

in Pa.s, respectively.

(4)

OTC 22988

Methodology of data analysis

Assuming the flow is fully homogeneous, the frictional pressure gradient can be calculated using the single phase
expression from pressure gradient vis:

dp 1
1
= f u2
dx 2
D
in which

dp
dx

m/s; D is the pipe diameter, m; and

is pressure gradient, Pa/m;

(5)

is fluid density or density of mixture, kg/m3;

is the mean mixture velocity,

f is the friction factor, which is calculated by:

For a laminar flow:

f =

64
Re

(6)

For a turbulent flow, Hland formula is used (Hland, 1983):

6.9 1.11
= 1.8 log10
+

Re 3.7D
f

1
in which

(7)

is the absolute wall surface roughness, m; Re is the Reynolds number:

Re =

uD

(8)

From Equations (5)-(8), we can estimate the viscosity of the fluid mixture by reformulating Equation (5):

f =

dp 2 D
dx u 2

(9)

For a laminar flow (oil contionuous flow), from equations (6) and (8), we have:

e e =
e =
where

e e

dp D 2
dx e 32u

(10)

e e
c

(11)

is the emulsion viscosity estimated from the data,

dp
dx e

is the measured pressure gradient,

is the

relative viscosity estimated from the data.

For a turbulent flow, the same procedure is used. The emulsion viscosity is a complex function of pressure gradient,
mixture velocity, density, diameter, and wall surface roughness which were obtained from the experimental
measurements.
The estimated emulsion viscosity or relative viscosity of the data by Equation (10) and (11) were compared with a
formula proposed by Brinkman(1952) given by

= (1 )
(12)
where is the theoretical relative viscosity and is the volume fraction of dispersed phase. In the current work, the
2.5

volume fraction is estimated from the flowrate measurements by assuming no slip between oil and water for a dispersed
flow regime.
The comparison of the relative viscosity between the experimental data (Equation (11)) and the existing model
(Equation (12)) can provide us the information to judge the flow regime in the pipe.

Experimental results and discussion

The major objectives of these experiments for multiphase flow transport are to investigate:
Emulsion formation by ESP
Emulsion stability and development in a pipe flow

OTC 22988

Multiphase flow flow regime, inversion, emulsion viscosity, and pressure gradient.

To address these issues, different tests were performed by:

Varying the oil-water injection location: upstream and downstream ESP
Differering choking schemes downstream the ESP
Varying the ESP frequency
Varying the oil viscosity by using different temperatures or different oil-water mixtures.
In order to reach the desired oil viscosity upstream the ESP (70, 200 and 500 cP), the pressure before the ESP was
specified as 25 bar and three different temperatures: 85, 65 and 50 oC were chosen respectively.. The fluid temperature
increased when flowing through ESP, the increase in fluid temperature depended on: 1) the fluid viscosity, 2) fluid
physical properties, 3) flowrate,4) ESP frequency. Therefore, different tests gave different fluid temperature
measurements in the flowline downstream ESP, which gives different oil viscosity based on Eq. 2. Each test required
quite a long time to have stable measurements of flowrate, temperature, pressure at all relevant locations, such that a
fully-developed flow in the flowline was reached both hydrodynamically and thermal-dynamically.
Flow regime identification
In total 55 tests were performed, in which the water cut varied from 5% to 70%. The experimental results of the
emulsion viscosity of the flow in the test loop are shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4. Figure 2 shows that the relative viscosity
of oil continuous flow is well predicted by the Brinkmans model. Based on this comparison, data which coincided with
Brinkmans model were determined to be oil continuous flow. Any cases in Figure 2 that show the relative viscosity less
than 1 will therefore not be considered oil continuous flow. These data can be either water continuous or stratified flow.
In Figure 2 our attention is drawn to two data points whose relative viscosity are over-predicted by the model, but are
still larger than 1. The water cut of these two cases is around 20%, if the flow is water-in-oil emulsion, the Brinkmans
model on relative viscosity should predict the data reasonably well given the good correlation between the model and
data for oil continuous flow. Given that these two data points do not coincide with Eq. 12, they will not be treated as oil
continuous flow or water-in-oil emulsion.
Emulsion viscosity against oil
6.0
5.0

Brinkman Model

Relative viscosity

data

4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

water cut

Figure 2. Relative viscosity of the fluid mixture against the oil viscosity: assuming laminar oil continuous flow
Figure 3 and 4 present the relative viscosity of the flow against water viscosity for all data points which were not
deemed to be oil continuous flow. Therefore Figures 3 and 4 represent either water continuous flow or stratified flow.
The relative viscosity against water viscosity in these two figures is obtained by assuming turbulent water continuous
flow. It can be seen that for the cases with oil cut (the ratio of oil flowrate against total mixture flow rate) less than 60%
(see Figure 3), the data is relatively close to the model prediction for the relative viscosity in comparison to some of the
data with oil cut larger than 60% (see Figure 4). The reason for this may be that the frictional pressure gradient of a
turbulent flow with large Re is a weak function of fluid viscosity (rough region), the estimation of emulsion viscosity of
water continuous flow with large Re from the method of Equations (5)-(9) will have large uncertainties. The results in
Figures 3 and 4 can not be used to identify the flow regime between water continuous and stratified flow.
One approach to identifying whether the flow is a water continuous flow is to calculate the frictional pressure gradient
of single phase water flow and water continuous flow, and then compare the predicted results with the experimental
data. If the predicted results are close to the experimental data when comparing with the model of water continuous flow

OTC 22988

together with Brinkmans model Eq. 12, then water continuous flow can be confirmed. If the model for water continuous
flow significantly underpredicts the data, then the data can be classified as stratified flow. In the prediction of water
continuous flow model for frictional pressure gradient, different models for emulsion viscosity may give different results,
however, as mentioned above the difference will be very small if the Reynolds number of the flow is relatively large (in
the current experiment, Re>105 for a water continuous flow). Note that the main purpose of the current work is not to
verify the accuracy of the existing model of relative viscosity for water continuous flow but to use these models as a
means of classifying the flow regimes.
Emulsion viscosity against water
25
Brinkman Model
data

Relative viscosity

20

15

10

0
0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

Oil cut

Figure 3. Relative viscosity of the fluid mixture against the water viscosity: assuming turbulent water continuous flow for
the volume fraction of oil droplet less than 60%
Emulsion viscosity against water
1400
1200

Brinkman Model
data

Relative viscosity

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

Oil cut

Figure 4. Relative viscosity of thefluid mixture against the water viscosity: assuming turbulent water continuous flow for
the volume fraction of oil droplet larger than 60%

The results of the measured frictional pressure gradients together with the theoretical predictions using different models
are shown in Figure 5. It can be seen that the most of the data are well predicted by the model of water continuous
flow, in which the Brinkmans model of relative viscosity (Equation (12)) is used. Some of the data points are
significantly under-predicted by the model. The only possible flow regime of these data points is stratified flow.
Unfortunately, there are no detailed measurements of the phase distribution in the test facility. There are several dP
measurements along the test loop, which provided additional information to allow the determination of non-oil
continuous flow. The detailed analysis of the experimental data will be performed in the following section.

OTC 22988

2000
1800

Single phase water flow model

water continuous flow model
Experimental data

1600

dP/dx, Pa/m

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Us_mixture, m/s

Figure 5. Frictional pressure gradient of either water continuous flow or stratified flow as a function of mixture superficial
velocity: a comparison between the model predictions and data

Water continuous flow

The measured frictional pressure gradients of water continuous flow (oil-in-water emulsion) are shown in Figure 6. The
prediction by the model for dispersed oil-in-water flow (water continuous flow) is also shown in this figure. It can be seen
from this figure that frictional pressure gradient of some cases are well predicted by the dispersed oil-in-water flow
model.

1800
1600

dP/dx_predict, Pa/m

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

dp/dx_data, Pa/m

Figure 6. Frictional pressure gradient for water continuous flow

Figures 7 9 give the details of frictional pressure gradient of the flow with relation to superficial mixture velocity, water
cut, oil viscosity, ESP frequency, etc. From these figures, the following observations can be made:

For large water cut (60%), the flow is clearly water continuous flow, the impact of ESP on the emulsion
viscosity is marginal (Figure 8). The model for dispersed oil-in-water flow over-predicted the frictional pressure
gradient (<10%).
For the flow with 45% WC, the model for dispersed-oil-in-water under-predicts most of the data within 20% of
relative error, but two points, were over-predicted: one is the case with oil-water mixing downstream of the
ESP, one is upstream of the ESP.
Normally, one can expect that the ESP can generate emulsions having smaller droplets due to the intense
shear of the pump blades and housing, which may lead to larger emulsion viscosity. This can be seen from the
results from the cases with 45% WC. However, the results from the case with 60% WC show a different
tendency. The flowrates, oil viscosity and ESP frequency do not show any effect in this picture.

OTC 22988

1800
1600
1400

dP/dx_predict, Pa/m

For the flow with 35% WC (Figure 9), the model for dispersed oil-in-water flow predicts the data with oil-water
mixing after ESP. The model under-predicts all other data with oil-water mixing before ESP. The underprediction is larger for larger ESP frequency and choking after ESP will also contribute to the under-prediction.
It may be that the larger ESP frequency also leads to larger discrepancy between the data and the model
prediction.
There is no information on the possible stratification of the flow in the pipe. Any stratification of oil will form an
oil film, which will lead to an increase in the frictional pressure gradient. Normally, the mixing of oil-water
downstream ESP is less intensive than that upstream ESP, so if there is any stratification of oil from oil-water
mixture, the case with oil-water mixing downstream ESP without choking should be a possible case. Under this
scenario, the physical model for dispersed oil-in-water flow should significantly under-predict the data. It is quite
reasonable to rule out the possible stratification of oil and water in the flow of all cases of water continuous
flow.

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

dp/dx_data, Pa/m

Figure 7. Frictional pressure gradient for the water continuous flow with umix = 2.4 m/s

1600
1400
1200

dP/dx_predict, Pa/m

1000
800
600
oil&water mixing
downstream ESP

oil&water mixing
downstream ESP

400
200
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

dp/dx_data, Pa/m

Figure 8. Frictional pressure gradient for water continuous flow with umix = 1.9 m/s and 35 % WC

OTC 22988

700

dP/dx_predict, Pa/m

600
500
400
35%
WC

300
200
45% WC

100
0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

dp/dx_data, Pa/m

Figure 9. Frictional pressure gradient for the water continuous flow with umix <= 1.25 m/s, with choke downstream ESP.

Oil continuous flow

The frictional pressure gradients of oil continuous flow flow are shown in Fig. 10. It can be seen that some of the data
are well predicted by the physical model for oil continuous flow. Those data are determined to be water in oil emulsion.
As shown in Fig.11, the classical model for water in oil emulsion predicts the data very well. Experiments showed that
the ESP tends to generate oil continuous flow for the same flow condition upstream ESP for less viscous oil and large
ESP frequencies. The number of experimental data points is too small to get clear picture on the influence of ESP
frequency on the emulsion viscosity of water-in-oil emulsion.

7000

dP/dx_predict, Pa/m

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

dp/dx_data, Pa/m

Figure 10. Frictional pressure gradient for oil continuous flow

7000

10

OTC 22988

Emulsion viscosity against oil

6.0
5.0

Brinkman Model

Relative viscosity

data

4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

water cut

Figure 11. Measured relative viscosity for oil continuous flow compared with Eq. 12.
Stratified flow
Some of the data exhibits stratified flow in the test flowline. The frictional pressure gradient of these data in the pipe is
significantly overpredicted by the physical model of oil-continuous flow, and significantly underpredicted by the physical
model of water continuous flow as shown in Figure 12.
For the cases that the model of dispersed water in oil flow significantly over-predicts the measured frictional pressure
gradient, these data are determined to be stratified flow. In addition It is found that the flow is not fully developed as
shown in Figure 13. This also means that the mixing of oil and water is not intense enough to generate fully-dispersed
flow, or there is stratification process in the flow line.
For the case 1 and 2 in Figure 13, the frictional pressure gradient increases along the pipe. According to the phase
fraction measurements using the Gamma densitometer in the flow line, these two cases suffered gas breakout from the
oil. The free gas in the oil expands in the flow line due to the reduced absolute pressure along the flowline increasing
the mixture velocity along the flowline which in turn leads to the increased pressure gradients.
Other cases in Figure 13 (cases 3, 4, 5 and 6) experience decreases in pressure gradient over the flowline. The first two
cases represent mixing of oil and water downstream ESP, and the remaining cases are oil and water mixing upstream
the ESP with a frequency of 35 Hz. It is believed that when pressure gradient decreases over the length of the test
section that the water is separating from the oil-water mixture in the flowline. Therefore fully developed stratified flow did
not exist in cases 1-6.

12000
DoINw_model

10000

DwINo_model

dP/dx_predict, Pa/m

Experimental data

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

dp/dx_data, Pa/m

Figure 12. Frictional pressure gradient for stratified flow

OTC 22988

11

35

dP/dx, mBar/m

30
25
at inlet

20

upstream
15

test section

10

downstream
outlet

5
0
1

Test cases

Figure 13. Frictional pressure gradient evolution over the flowline for stratified flow. Different colours represent the
location of pressure gradient measurement. The distance between the two consecutive dP measurement is about 30 40 m in the test flowline.

Summary
On the basis of the analysis of experimental data, the following observarions are made:
Different oil-water mixing schemes (before and after ESP, with and without choking) did not change the
inversion behaviour within the current experimental setup.
For the flow with water cut larger than inversion point, the flow with stronger mixing (larger ESP frequency)
exhibits larger frictional pressure gradient. The classical theory of frictional pressure gradient for water
continuous flow under-predicts those cases with strong oil-water mixing. The flow is turbulent. It is still too early
to judge the validity of the classical theory of emulsion viscosity for turbulent flow. However, it is likely that the
stronger mixing of oil and water generates larger emulsion viscosity (relative viscosity against water). Another
possible reason is the gas breakout in the flowline which leads to larger mixture velocity in the flowline than is
indicated by upstream flowrate measurements.
For stratified oil-water flow, there is no information on the volume fraction distribution of the dispersed phase, it
is therefore a challenge to predict these data points correctly by physical models. The data show that the flow is
still developing.
For a dispersed flow (both water-in-oil and oil-in-water emulsions), the classical model for frictional pressure
gradient predicts the data very well.

References
Brinkman H.C. (1952) The Viscosity of Concentrated Solutions and suspension. J Chem Physics 20, 571.
Gregoli, A.A., Hamshar, J.A., Olah, A.M., Riley, C.J., Rimmer, D.P. (2006) Preparation of stable crude oil transport
emulsions, Us Patent No 4,725,287.
Haaland S.E. (1983) Simple and explicit formulas for the friction factor in turbulent pipe flow. J Fluid Engineering 105
8990.
Iona, M., (1978) Process for producing low-density low sulfur crude oil, US Patent No 4,092,238.
Lappin, G.R., Saur, J.D. (1989) Alpha Olefins Applications Handbook. CRC Press, New York.
Layrisse,R. (1998) Viscous hydrocarbon-in-water emulsions, US Patent No 4,795,478.
Lidietta, G., Li, N., Drioli, E. (2003) Reparation of oil-in-water emulsions using polyamide 10 kDa hollow fiber
membrane. J. Membr. Sci. 217, 173180.
MacWilliams, M.A., Eadie, W. (1993) Process and apparatus for partial upgrading, Canadian Patent No 1313639.
Oliemans, R.V.A., Ooms, G.,(1986) Core-annular flowof oil andwater through a pipeline. In: Hewitt, G.F., Delhaye, J.M.,
Zuber, N. (Eds.), Multiphase Science and Technology, p. 2
Saniere, A., Hnaut, I., Argillier, J.F. (2004) Pipeline transportation of heavy oils, a strategic, economic and
technological challenge. Oil Gas Sci. Tech. Rev. IFP 59 (5), 455466.