Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1518 April 2007.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.


Abstract

This work shows the main considerations adopted and proved
successful for oilfield reactivation and production increase
through the handling of very high gross production flow rate
with high water/oil ratio. The execution strategy is focused on
maximizing the production anticipation in the short-term by
taking maximum advantage of the existing facilities and, in the
mid- term, by developing facilities with new systems sized
with flexibility and supplying them timely. All of these
allowing to take advantage of the most suitable technologies
existing in the market for handling, separation, treatment and
disposition of high produced water flow rates, during the
lifetime contract for each oilfield.
Examples of this approach are the study cases presented
related to water injection for secondary recovery and disposal
purposes. The knowledge obtained during the development
and operation of a given mature field, has been adapted for its
application in another field, and so on, considering particular
features and different contractual terms, allowing PESA to
success in very mature oilfields with apparently very restricted
development opportunities.


Introduction

The development and operation of mature oilfields in many
cases demand handling high volumes of gross production,
obsolete and under rated facilities that require huge
investments, and tight returns making mandatory the
optimization of operating expenses.
In order to plan and develop the surface facilities required to
reach the objectives for reactivation and production increase in
specific mature oilfields, main adopted considerations have
been focused on three basic aspects:
- Increasing both oil production, and recovery factor, as well
as advancing oil production when possible (Fig. 1).
- Optimization of capital expenses (Capex) in new
equipment and facilities, considering the convenience of
keeping existing equipment and the duration of operative
contracts.
- Reduction of the operating expenses (Opex) during the
cycle of life of each projected facility.

The advantage of the obtained knowledge during the
development and operation of mature fields, and the
adaptation for extending its application to a different field,
considering its particularities, including different contractual
terms, allowed us to develop a high capacity in making fine
adjustments to find opportunities in oilfields with high level of
maturity.


Facilities Design. Criteria

The key factors applied in designing facilities in mature
oilfields under revitalization are:
- Handling very high flow rates of gross production, with
high water / oil ratios (WOR of 50 to 90, or higher).
- Applying a multidisciplinary approach (Reservoirs, Wells
Construction, Production Engineering, and Surface
Facilities) from the feasibility phase of each development.
In this way, its possible to reach production objectives
while optimizing Capex, making the most of the existing
and proposed surface facilities.
- Permanently valuating the impact of the facilities design
on the operating expenses for each oilfield.

All of these factors are considered within the terms and
duration of the specific operative contract for each oilfield,
which is a real constraint in the planning of each development
and a very important element for the project development
analysis.
A significant common factor in these projects has been the
decision to centralize the oil treatment in one facility, having
satellites facilities for oil partial dehydration, from where the
separated produced water is sent to water treatment plants.
These plants are located in order to handle and pump the
treated produced water into injection wells for secondary
recovery or disposal purpose. (Fig. 2).
This approach allows reducing energy requirement for the
movement of fluids in the field, to take advantage of the
dimensions and size of the equipment, and to have more

SPE 107740
Surface Facilities Development for Mature Fields
Rafael Morales and J orge Navarro, Petrobras Energa S.A.
2 SPE 107740
reliable systems reducing maintenance requirements. Thus,
avoiding distributing operations in different zones, and
simplifying operations, with the consequent reduction of both
capital investments and operating expenses.

During the phase of opportunity identification, Capex and
Opex evaluations are made for each scenario, in order to
identify the best option for the oilfield development, always
focusing the bottom line. Sometimes the higher value of
reserves or oil rate or advancing peak production, may not be
the most convenient or economical option, when gross
production, Capex and Opex for the lifetime of the oilfield are
taken into account. So that, it appears an interesting game
between different factors: reserves, oil rate, gross rate, and size
of facilities impacting on both, capital expenses and operating
costs. These factors show the importance of selecting the right
dimension of the operation during the remaining time of the
operative contract for the oilfield.

Facilities Design. Considerations

The execution strategy to be applied is based on several
aspects, such as:
- Considering existing equipment. Maximizing short-term
production by getting the most of the existing facilities,
meaning the use and cap of the existing capacity, while
gross production is increased. Sometimes, there is not
need to incorporate new equipment for early
developments but to change the service of existing ones
(like converting an existing storage tank into wash tank to
make initial partial oil dehydration, in scenarios of high
water / oil ratio).
- High capacity new equipment. By the mid-term,
production increase is handled by developing new
facilities including new high capacity equipment and
systems sized with flexibility for the development (as
relocation in the field, etc.).
- Quality, in due time and form. New equipment and
facilities must be supplied and built with required quality
and timely.
- Modular expansion design, with final tie-ins. The
planning and design of the facilities should consider
modular expansions with final dimensions of piping and
tie-ins defined from the beginning of the development.
Additionally, the design must be flexible to manage
reservoir uncertainties and a better use of remaining
capacities, to deal with eventual changes in production
and injection criteria, as exploitation of the reservoir
occurs.
- New technologies, adopted if proved successful from
previous experiences. This is, taking advantage of the
most suitable technologies in the market and previously
experienced by other operators, specially to avoid high
level of exposure when defining new high capacity
equipment for handling, separation, treatment and
disposition of high gross production and produced water
flow rates. Usually we do not have enough time in our
projects to test or develop new technologies considering
our oilfield contracts, and the cost of opportunity if
production increase would be delayed waiting for
technology testing. That is the reason for looking at
proved technologies in the market, which has shown good
results.
- Regional and national laws. In each case it is necessary to
review existing and previously experienced designs to
adapt them to the specific conditions and regulations, at
both regional and national levels, for fields development
in different areas or countries. Sometimes, this involves
high impact decisions about the feasibility of project
development: approval of commingled production, roads
vs. heli, etc.
- Environmental impact. Given PESAs strong commitment
with the environment (PESAs operations are ISO-14001
and OHSAS- 18001 certified), it is paramount to take into
account the environmental impact of the proposed
facilities because sometime good equipment experiences
for a specific oilfield may not be suitable for another one
with different environmental conditions.

Common factors in the development strategy for oilfields with
high produced water flow rate have been the following ones:
- Partial oil dehydration in satellite facilities. Gross
production is received in facilities, like flow stations,
adapted to make an initial separation of the high flow rate
of produced water.
- Centralize crude oil treatment. The crude oil partially
dehydrated (up to 50% BS&W) at several satellite
facilities is sent to a central production facility, for crude
oil treatment where delivery specifications are met
(typically 0.5% BS&W).
- Centralize water treatment and injection. The produced
water separated from satellite flow stations and central
production facilities, is sent to treatment plants, in order to
met injection specifications prior to be pumped to the
injection wells. These specifications usually vary between
10 and 50 ppm for both TSS (total suspended solids) and
OIW (oil in water), depending on reservoir properties.
These water plants are specifically located depending on
the oilfield geometry for secondary recovery goals or
disposal purposes, and the equipment has been
standardized in order to have easy exchange or stand by.

This development strategy allows us to:
- Reduce the energy requirements for the movement of
fluids in the field.
- Take advantage of scale economy by the dimensions and
size of the equipment and piping.
- Make the systems more reliable, reducing maintenance
requirements and operational crew needs, avoiding works
in distributed zones, and simplifying operations, with the
consequent reduction of both capital investments and
operating expenses.

Field Examples

As examples of the all previously mentioned, three (3) study
cases will be presented:

SPE 107740 3
Example 1 (Fig. 3):

The first one is an oilfield where we have massive water
injection for secondary recovery requirements.
During the last 15 years the water injection flow rate raised
significantly, from 68,000 bpd (11,000 m3/d) to 597,000 bpd
(95,000 m3/d) as well as the gross production, from 72,000
bpd (12,000 m3/d) to 510,000 bpd (81,000 m3/d). In this case,
we have one centralized oil treatment plant and two
independent produced water treatment and injection plants, the
first one located close to the oil treatment plant, and the
second one placed to the north of the oilfield. This oilfield has
another water plant since the beginning of the operations that
treats and pumps fresh water in order to meet water injection
requirements. The decision of using a three-phase separator or
wash tank is made according to an economical analysis, taking
maximum advantage of existing equipment. Additionally,
sometimes the size of equipment needs to be reviewed for
constructability and transportation limits criteria for different
locations.
The development of the field was designed to have partial
production dehydration in existing flow stations and in a new
satellite station, located close to the second water plant, in
order to separate the produced free water from the stream.
Combinations of two-phase separators and wash tanks or
three-phase separators have been installed in the existing flow
stations, while a battery of Free Water Knock Out were
installed in the satellite station. The size of each FWKO was
defined and standardized in order to meet the production
requirements that satisfy the development plan of the field.
In this way it has been possible to handle the incremental
gross production with minimum increase of the capacity in
surface facilities, taking the incremental produced water out of
the circuit before arriving to the existing facilities.
Additionally, it was a very simple way of increasing capacity
in this field without affecting the normal operation of the
facility. The produced water separated is sent to the water
injection plants for treatment, and the oil partially dehydrated
is sent to the main oil treatment plant.
In the oil treatment plant (Central Production Facility) this
approach allowed us to handle the incremental production with
no needs to replace or increase the size of the main wash tank.
Besides, we could postpone investments optimizing Capex
(and development cost) and reduce future operating costs of
the facility.
The main wash tank with 69,000 bls (11,000 m
3
) of capacity,
was designed to handle up to 90,000 bpd (15,000 m3/d) of oil
to delivery specifications of 0.5% BS&W.
The water treatment plants were designed to use new high
capacity equipment of about 77,000 bpd (12,264 m3/d) each
one, and were installed between 1996 and 1998. The selected
water injection pumps were multistage centrifugal, delivering
30,000 bpd (5,000 m3/d) @ 1700 psig (115 Kg/cm
2
), with
electrical driver (1550 HP). For both systems, it was also the
most appropriate technology at the moment of the design.

Example 2 (Fig 4):
The second example shows the experience of handling very
high gross production flow rate with a water cut of around
90%, and disposal of produced water. In this case the
challenge was not only the very high gross production and
water flow rate, but the crude oil, heavy and extra heavy of 20
to 12 API.
At the starting of the contract, the fields oil production was
8,000 bpd (1,300 m3/d), after several decades of operation,
being the average gross production during the last 10 years of
about 10,000 bpd (1,600 m3/d). In this case, the oil production
was increased to a level of 50,000 bpd (8,000 m3/d), handling
a gross production higher than 500,000 bpd (80,000 m3/d),
which means more than 450,000 bpd (72,000 m3/d) of
produced water.
The oilfield was developed to have one centralized oil
treatment plant and three independent produced water
treatment and injection plants, the first one located close to the
oil treatment plant, and the others located north and south of
the oilfield.
The development of the field was designed to allow a partial
separation of the free produced water in one new facility and
two existing and renovated flow stations. In these flow stations
three-phase separators have been installed with heating
(heater-treaters) to handle the extra heavy crude. Existing flow
stations had to be renewed, including high capacity three-
phase separators (heater-treaters). For this application, just
one 50,000 bpd three-phase separator (heater-treater) was able
to substitute six two-phase separators, two heaters, two wash
tanks, and two transfer pumps. Nevertheless, the existing
equipment has been left as stand by during maintenance
activities for each of the three-phase separators (heater
treaters).
An additional advantage is the smaller footprint of the
equipment, requiring a reduced area and less piping for the
treatment process. Each of the 50,000 bpd three-phase
separators is 14 feet in diameter and 70 feet in length, the
operating pressure is 100 psig, and the heating capacity is 14
MMBTU/hr to increase the entering oil temperature from 90
to 140 F.
A modular expansion criteria was applied to this development
and final piping, tie ins, and future equipment foundations
were completed from the beginning, giving additional
advantages during future equipment installation,
commissioning, and start up.
In the Central Production Facility the oil treatment process is
carried out by four washing tanks of 20,000 bbls. each. The
total design capacity of the plant is 60,000 bpd of 16 API oil
treated to 0.5% BS&W for export specifications. This plant
was commissioned by the year 1997.
The original water treatment plants process was built using
existing skimming tanks, but since 2001, two high capacity
Induced Gas Flotation (IGF) cells were commissioned, about
75,000 bpd each, for water treatment process. The water
injection pumps were selected to be the same multistage
centrifugal delivering 30,000 bpd (5,000 m3/d) as in the first
example, but operating at 1700 psig (115 Kg/cm
2
), with a
driver of about 2700 HP. For both systems it was also the
best-proved technology at the moment of the design and
standardization.

Example 3:
The experiences of the two previous field cases and new
technologies are being used in a current development of a
4 SPE 107740
mature oilfield that has been in production since the beginning
of the 20
th
century, having, as expected, very low productivity
per well. The oilfield is currently producing 14,000 bpd (2250
m3/d), of 35 API oil and the projected re-development is
expected to increase the oil production up to 28,000 bpd
(4,500 m3/d). Water injection for secondary recovery of about
200,000 bpd (32,000 m3/d) is an important part of the project,
and other enhanced oil recovery methods, as natural gas or
nitrogen injection depending on further evaluations, are also
under consideration. For the entire project, high efficiency in
the Opex is required, specially taking into account the increase
in costs associated to the new secondary recovery projects, as
well as the high flow rates and operational problems usually
related to water handling (corrosion, scale, bacteria, oxygen
removal, etc.).
The general conditions of this project forces us to go deeply
with the concepts applied in previous examples to permit
making this project a reality.

Conclusions

The advantage of the obtained knowledge (know-how) during
the development and operation of mature fields, and the
adaptation for its application in future developments
considering its particular characteristics and different
contractual terms, has allowed PESA to develop:
- High sensitivity and capacity in making fine adjustments
to find opportunities in oilfields with apparently very
restricted development opportunities due to its high level
of maturity.
- Improvements in existing oilfields in order to reduce
operative expenses.
- Adjustments for specific strategies.
- Business improving through an active game between
facilities and other disciplines.
Also, it is important to mention the interaction between
Facilities and other disciplines (for example, Reservoirs,
Production) plays an active game, evaluating several scenarios
to find the best one to improve the business.

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge PESA for permission to publish this
paper.
















SPE 107740 5