## 3 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sequence Number** & **Water Cut \(n_{v}\), \%** & **Mineralization M, g/L** & **SSF, \%** & **SSO, \%** \\ \hline  & & **\(\bullet\)X\(\circ\) Oil** & & \\  
\hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Results of laboratory research. At the maximum water cut, the coefficient of SSF for oil <<X>> is 0.28% (Figure 3a); for oil <<Y>>--0.24% (Figure 3b). The SSO coefficient for oil <<X>>, as the WOE water cut increases, grows from 0.36 to 1.37-1.77% (Figure 4a); for oil <<Y>>--from 0.33 to 1.49-2.19% (Figure 4b). Theoretical values of SSO were derived from expression 4:  
\[SSO=\frac{m_{ARPD}\cdot[\rho_{v}\cdot(1-n_{v})+\rho_{n}\cdot n_{v}]}{\rho_{n} \cdot\rho_{v}\cdot(1-n_{v})\cdot V_{zh}}\cdot 100\% \tag{4}\]  
Figure 4: Changes in the SSO coefficient: (**a**) <<X>> oil; (**b**) <<Y>> il. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sequence Number** & **Water Cut \(n_{v}\), \%** & **Mineralization M, g/L** & **SSF, \%** & **SSO, \%** \\ \hline
5 & 57 & 34 & 0.26 & 0.62 \\
6 & 57 & 34 & 0.25 & 0.58 \\
7 & 46 & 103 & 0.37 & 0.69 \\
8 & 84 & 103 & 0.37 & 2.33 \\
9 & 50 & 118 & 0.37 & 0.73 \\
10 & 84 & 118 & 0.24 & 1.49 \\
11 & 24 & 169 & 0.26 & 0.34 \\
12 & 46 & 169 & 0.32 & 0.60 \\
13 & 68 & 169 & 0.23 & 0.73 \\
14 & 85 & 169 & 0.33 & 2.19 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._The trend lines shown in these charts were obtained from the analysis of all laboratory test results. In the case of the SSO value, the dynamics of its changes for all oil and water samples correlate with the direction of the trend line. Moreover, it is worth noting a significant increase in the value under consideration that appears, most likely, during the formation of an oil-in-water emulsion. Such a significant increase in the value of oil dehydration for the studied oils must be associated firstly with the inclusion of the aqueous phase in the sediments. That process, combined with a decrease in the proportion of the oil phase, caused a significant increase in the indicator under consideration. The figures of sludging remain practically the same until the water cut reaches 60%, at which point the mineralization of the associated water included in WOE increased (Figure 5a,b).These figures also show trend lines, which are averaged values for water samples of a certain salinity. These trend lines slightly deviate from horizontal linearity, which confirms the lack of correlation between the parameters of sedimentation and salinity of the water phase. Noticeable or even significant variations of sludging values resulting from changes in the water cut are most probably connected with the technological error of tests (incomplete high-viscous emulsion running off the fingers before weighting). The rates of sludging in our investigation were evaluated by oil (RSO) and fluid (RSF) coefficients:  
\[\text{RSF}=\frac{m_{ARPD}}{2\cdot V_{zh}}=\frac{5\cdot 10^{-3}\cdot\rho_{n} \cdot\rho_{v}\cdot\text{SSF}}{\rho_{v}\cdot(1-n_{v})+\rho_{n}\cdot n_{v}} \tag{5}\]  
\[\text{RSO}=\frac{m_{ARPD}}{2\cdot V_{n}}=\frac{m_{ARPD}\cdot[\rho_{v}\cdot(1-n _{v})+\rho_{n}\cdot n_{v}]}{2\cdot\rho_{v}\cdot(1-n_{v})\cdot V_{zh}}=5\cdot 10 ^{-3}\cdot\rho_{n}\cdot\text{SSO} \tag{6}\]  
As seen in Table 4, the rate of sludging for fluid reduced by about 7% upon every 20% increase in the water cut. In other words, the reduction in the rate was not proportional to the increase in the water cut. Thus, the rate of sludging for oil increased with increasing water cut in WOE (Table 5). This effect obviously happened due to the intensive \"capturing\" of globules from the water-oil emulsion by the forming deposits.