4.7 Article

Asphaltene Deposition during Bitumen Extraction with Natural Gas Condensate and Naphtha

Journal

ENERGY & FUELS
Volume 32, Issue 2, Pages 1433-1439

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b03495

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Suncor Energy Inc.
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  3. Canada Research Chair Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Solvent bitumen extraction processes are alternatives to thermal processes with potential for improved economic and environmental performance. However, solvent interaction with bitumen commonly results in in situ asphaltene precipitation and deposition, which can hinder flow and reduce the process efficiency. Successful implementation requires one to select a solvent that improves recovery with minimal flow assurance problems. The majority of candidate industrial solvents are in the form of mixtures containing a wide range of hydrocarbon fractions, further complicating the selection process. In this study, we quantify the pore-scale asphaltene deposition using two commonly available solvent mixtures, natural gas condensate and naphtha, using a microfluidic platform. The results are also compared with those of two typical pure solvents, n-pentane and n-heptane, with all cases evaluated with both 50 and 100 mu m pore-throat spacing. The condensate produced more asphaltenes and pore-space damage than the naphtha and exhibited deposition dynamics similar to that of pentane and heptane. This similarity is due to the presence of a large amount of light hydrocarbon fractions in condensate (similar to 85 wt % of C(5)s-C(7)s) dictating the overall deposition dynamics. Naphtha, which contains heavier fractions (similar to 70 wt % of C(8)s-C(11)s) and aromatic/naphthenic components, generated less asphaltenes and exhibited a slower deposition rate, resulting in less pore damage and overall better performance.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available