4.3 Article

Effects of waxes and asphaltenes on CO2 hydrate nucleation and decomposition in oil-dominated systems

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jngse.2021.103799

Keywords

Gas hydrate; Wax; Asphaltene; Induction time; Hydrate decomposition; Flow assurance

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51534007]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates and compares the effects of waxes and asphaltenes on CO2 hydrate nucleation and decomposition, finding that asphaltenes have a more pronounced effect in retarding hydrate nucleation compared to waxes. Waxes mainly restrict gas diffusion during hydrate nucleation, while asphaltenes enhance nucleation by being more effectively adsorbed on the surface of water droplets and hydrate nuclei.
Hydrate formation is a major flow assurance issue for underwater multiphase pipelines. The heavy fractions in crude oil make it more complicated. However, the impact of a single fraction in oil on hydrate behaviors is still poorly understood. In response, this paper aims to investigate and compare the effects of waxes and asphaltenes on CO2 hydrate nucleation and decomposition, using a self-designed high-pressure autoclave. The results show that both waxes and asphaltenes retard hydrate nucleation, wherein asphaltenes have a more pronounced effect than waxes. Waxes mainly restrict gas diffusion in the bulk phase during hydrate nucleation. Asphaltenes are more effectively adsorbed on the surface of the water droplet and hydrate nucleus to retard the nucleation. In addition, the decomposition rate of hydrate particles is lowered when trapped in the wax gel-like structure, whereas it is enhanced by the increased hydrate surface area with asphaltenes. This work provides insights into the effects of crude oil components on the behaviors of hydrate, which can facilitate flow assurance applications in subsea multiphase pipelines.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available