Hydrate bedding modeling in oil-dominated systems

Hydrate Risk Management in Gas Transmission Lines

“…First, estimation of interparticle cohesive forces must incorporate unconverted water, as first proposed by Fidel-Dufour, to correctly inform the dynamic force balance on a fractal aggregate. , Introducing both water–hydrocarbon and hydrate–hydrocarbon surface free energies in the simulation environment, in preference to using a hydrate contact angle that can be challenging to interrogate in the laboratory, further provides the ability to directly capture the effect of hydrate-active surfactants in the system. , Second, the refinement and application of a fit-for-purpose slurry viscosity model to describe hydrate-in-hydrocarbon systems was critical to correctly representing frictional pressure loss, with approaches proposed by both Majid et al , and Qin et al − that significantly improve upon the original basis from Mills . Third, the consideration of both moving and stationary bed phases, as originally hypothesized by Hernandez, is critical to correctly estimating the magnitude of frictional pressure loss observed for systems with either partial dispersion of water in the liquid hydrocarbon phase ,− or comparatively low flowing shear stress, as reported by Srivastava and co-workers − and recently demonstrated by Qin et al and Wang and co-workers. ,, Fourth, improving the accuracy of hydrodynamic slug flow behavior, both without and during hydrate formation, has been demonstrated by Zerpa et al to be a critical development path for the continued improvement of the mechanistic description of hydrate blockage formation.…”

“…97 Third, the consideration of both moving and stationary bed phases, as originally hypothesized by Hernandez, 127 135 and Wang and co-workers. 128,136,137 Fourth, improving the accuracy of hydrodynamic slug flow behavior, both without and during hydrate formation, has been demonstrated by Zerpa et al 138 to be a critical development path for the continued improvement of the mechanistic description of hydrate blockage formation. Importantly, the above four insights are contextualized as being the outcomes of comparing the first numerical implementation of a mechanistic model with pilot-scale flowloop data, and are critical steps in the continued improvement and risk mitigation of hydrocarbon transmission lines.…”

Rheology of Methane-Hydrate-Slurry Flow in 100% Water Cut System and Influence of Turbulent–Laminar Transition

“…For instance, the concepts described by the classical bedding models, such as Turian and Yuan and Doron and Barnea, appear to conflict the uniformity whereas these classical models do not consider the cohesive force. Bedding models that consider the cohesive force − were proposed for oil-dominant systems, but these models still require assumptions, correlations, and adjustable parameters for the sizes of aggregates and individual particles, the fractal dimension of aggregates, and the cohesive force, including uncertainties, particularly for water-dominant systems.…”

Methane Hydrate Blockage in Gas–Water–Sand Systems: Insights from FBRM and PVM Analysis

“…Water entrainment, hydrate shell development, hydrate particle accumulation, and pipe blocking were the four basic stages of the plugging process in oil-dominated systems. 14,21 Grasso 22 thought that the hydrate deposition process in a rock cell was greatly impacted by the flow velocity and the temperature differential between the solution and pipeline wall. Investigations in water-dominated systems revealed that the generation of a moving bed near the gas−water interface in flow loops or autoclaves was a hint that a blockage was about to form.…”