Hydrate can easily form and cause plugging in offshore
oil and
gas pipelines. As the managing strategy moves from full avoidance
to dynamic control, antiagglomerants (AAs) could be an economical
and efficient option for hydrate management. Searching for new efficient
hydrate AAs is always needed. In this work, the antiagglomerating
performances of 57 commercial chemicals, including cationic surfactants,
zwitterionic surfactants, nonionic surfactants, and polymers, to methane
hydrate in an oil–gas–water system were evaluated by
using a rocking-cell apparatus. The slider-moving trajectories were
recorded during hydrate formation. The performances of AAs were evaluated
based on the slider-moving profiles at various hydrate fractions.
It was found that cocamidopropyl dimethylamine, a nonionic surfactant
that is labeled as an A class AA, could fully avoid hydrate plugging
when the hydrate fraction was under 18.76%. The slider-moving trajectory
in the full range of the cell indicated that the hydrate was well-dispersed
in the liquid phase. Besides, 23 chemicals mainly from cationic and
zwitterionic surfactants, which are labeled as B class AAs, could
partially avoid hydrate plugging at various hydrate fractions (10.96–19.92%).
The slider could move in a partial range of the cell, indicating that
the hydrate may agglomerate and accumulate at the end of the cell.
The rest of the chemicals were labeled as class C AAs, with which
the slider was fully stuck. The working mechanism is discussed for
an insightful understanding on the antiagglomerating performances
of the screened AAs. Chemicals with a combined presence of an amide
group and an amine group exhibit great potential for hydrate antiagglomeration,
while the hydrogen-bonding ability of the hydrophilic amine headgroup
may be adversely affected by the incorporation of anions.