BP Experience of Produced Water Re­Injection

LR Murray
BP Exploration Op. Co. Ltd..
SPR Well Intervention
Sunbury

Summary

In   recent   years,   major   advances   have   been   made   in   understanding   the   impact   of
fracturing,   thermal   stress   effects   and   water   quality   on   seawater   injection   well
performance. However, environmental pressure in many areas, particularly offshore, is
forcing operators to investigate produced water re­injection as a means of water disposal
instead of overboard discharge, and serious concerns still exist over the risks of injectivity
loss during produced water re­injection.

This  document   reviews   our  current   understanding   of  the  processes  which  control  the
performance of injection wells during produced water re­injection, taking examples from
the Prudhoe Bay, Wytch Farm, Ula and Forties  oil fields. The  long term  impacts  on
injection performance of produced water quality, fluid temperature, fracture growth, and
other factors are quantified. 

Introduction

Maximising oil production and recovery from water flooded oil fields requires that the
desired volumes of water are injected into the appropriate regions of the reservoirs in a
cost efficient manner.  However, the solids and oil content or 'quality' of injected water
has been a matter of concern in the industry on the grounds that poor water quality, i.e.
high solids and oil, could lead to formation damage and injectivity reduction.  Core flood
experiments [1,2] performed for seawater solids treatment specification usually indicated
rapid plugging, implying that state­of­the­art fine filtration was required [3]. Work on
North Sea and Alaskan fields [4,5] showed that in reality water quality effects may be
offset to some degree by waterflood induced (thermal) fracturing [6].

The   primary   advantages   of   injection   at   above   fracturing   pressures   are   dramatically

improved   injectivities   i.e.   strongly   negative   skins   are   achieved,   and   a   fundamentally
greater tolerance to poor water quality. The large leak­off area of thermal fractures and
their   ability   to   propagate   suggested   that   at   typical   seawater   solids   levels   injectivity
impairment  should be  negligible  [7].   In the absence  of fractures,  many wells  would
indeed become damaged by contaminants in the injection water [8].

Water quality measurements made on a number of BP operated platforms in the North
sea, such as those for Forties Charlie in Figure 1, showed that fine filters performed to the
design specification, but solids loadings increased downhole owing to the generation of
corrosion products. Significantly lower quality water than that specified was therefore
being injected. This finding resulted in a review of the need for fine filtration during
seawater injection.

A trial was performed on Forties Charlie in which well performance was compared with
and without fine filtration.  
However,   produced   water   for   re­injection   is   normally   of   much   lower   quality   than
seawater,   and   consequently   re­injection   schemes   are   regarded   as   high   risk.   It   is
important, therefore, to determine the important factors governing produced water re­
injection well performance in order to quantify and reduce this risk.

The Prudhoe Bay field on the North Slope of Alaska has injected produced water for up
to 10 years.  BP has also injected produced water on the Forties and Wytch Farm fields
with   varying   results,   and   mixtures   of   produced   water   and   seawater   on   the   Ula   and
Endicott fields. This document reviews our current understanding of the processes which
control the performance of injection wells during produced water re­injection based on
observations in some of these fields. 

Produced Water Treatment Options

Apart from specialist instances, for example, where downstream process equipment must
be protected, operators are increasingly coming to the conclusion than fine filtration of
seawater is unnecessary where injection is above the formation fracture pressure. The
question still remains, however, as to what level of filtration is required for successful re­
injection   of   produced   water.   In   this   respect,   it   is   informative   to   compare   the   typical
characteristics of seawater and produced water, as show in Table 1.

As expected from coreflood tests, field experience, such as that indicated in Figure 2,
shows that the injection of produced water at acceptable rates below fracture pressure is
usually unsuccessful, with wells plugging rapidly. Some mitigating steps can be taken to
stem the injectivity decline rate, such as improving water quality, chemical stimulation
(especially in carbonate formations), backflowing, or placing propped fractures, but these
tend to be temporary rather than permanent solutions.  A more permanent solution is to
inject   above   fracture   pressure,   so   the   problem   now   becomes   one   of   determining   the
required specification and cost implications for low risk produced water injection into
wells with unpropped, waterflood induced fractures.

A study was performed to compare the costs of treatment of produced water for discharge
and   re­injection   for   a   nominal   100,000   bbl/day   produced   water   treatment   system,   to
determine the implications of both technology and legislation changes for produced water
management   [11].   The   operating   and   installation   costs   were   derived   from   equipment
manufacturers' information and recent BP experience.

The   study   found   that   the   capital   cost   of   the   equipment   minor   compared   to   the   full
installation cost, so those technologies that minimise size and weight provide a significant
advantage. Incorporating operating costs did not alter this conclusion. The lowest cost
treatment option in most circumstances was found to be hydrocyclones.

The costs of re­injection are usually specific to the individual field or facility operation.
Three   case   studies   were   therefore   examined   and   the   best   available   costs   applied,
assuming that any injectivity loss would be overcome by using additional wells. Other
assumptions were that where produced water is used for pressure maintenance additional
workovers/reperforations   are   expected,   but   only   minimum   pre­treatment   is   usually
required i.e. skim or holding tanks, although considerable pre­treatment may be necessary
i.e. flotation or hydrocyclones in low permeability formations. In addition, the amount of
deoxygenated sea water for injection is reduced since produced water contains virtually
no oxygen, hence the size of deoxygenation plant is reduced.  However, where produced
water is injected into a disposal zone, additional disposal wells must be drilled and the
deoxygenated sea water requirement is the same as for produced water discharge. The
costs of re­injection were found to be dominated by the capital requirements of drilling
additional wells and sea water deoxygenation.

When the costs of both re­injection and treatment for discharge at the current 40ppm limit
were compared, as shown in Figure 3, it was found that re­injection  could offer cost
benefits over the best available technology for discharge, but the range of uncertainty was
large enough to make it considerably more expensive, for example, if pre­treatment was
required. If tighter discharge limits are applied, so that hydrocyclones and flotation in
series, centrifuges or membranes are required, the costing for discharge increase and the
upper cost estimate for re­injection becomes comparable with discharge, and lower cost
re­injection schemes may offer considerable benefits.  

The potential for produced water re­injection is clear, but the uncertainty over the risks
involved   is   large.   The   key   to   minimising   this   uncertainty   is   the   development   of   an
increased   understanding   of   the   important   processes   controlling   produced   water   re­
injection, such as thermal effects (stress change and viscosity), water quality and fracture
growth, together with the technology required to achieve a suitable  re­injection  water
quality.     The impact  of injecting  cold water into a hot reservoir on formation  stress
reduction   and   fracturing,   together   with   the   stress   increase   caused   by   repressurisation
around the injector are generally understood [6,12].   Investigation of the effect of the
remaining factors is the subject of the remainder of this paper.

Field Performance of Fractured Injection Wells

In the absence of such an understanding, the initial guidelines for produced water re­
injection into moderate permeability reservoirs were for solids levels less than 10ppm,
based on seawater  injection  experience,  and oil­in­water levels  less  than  50ppm,   i.e.
almost as low as discharge limits.  In most situations this specification meant that it was
significantly more expensive to re­inject than to discharge, and the environmental benefit
provided by re­injection had therefore to be paramount due to the extra cost involved.
This situation was not the norm in the North Sea, but it was in Alaska, where surface
discharge was forbidden and re­injection for pressure maintenance or disposal was the
only option. 

Data were therefore available from BP produced water field operations in the Prudhoe
Bay and Endicott fields. On Endicott, seawater and produced water were being mixed
prior to injection with no apparent problems, whilst on Prudhoe Bay wells injected either
100%   seawater,   produced   water,   or   miscible   gas,   sometimes   alternating   between   the
three.   An   opportunity   therefore   existed   for   using   field   data   from   Prudhoe   Bay   to
determine just what levels of solids and oil constituted acceptable water quality. Recently,
field data has also become available from other BP operated fields as produced water re­
injection trials were undertaken.  

This   section   examines   produced   water   re­experience   from   the   Prudhoe   Bay,   Forties,
Wytch Farm and Ula fields to determine magnitude of water quality and thermal effects
and their implications for fracture growth.

Prudhoe Bay Field 

A   detailed   review   of   the   well   performance   and   reservoir   management   impacts   of

produced   water   re­injection   at   Prudhoe   Bay   has   been   reported   [13].   This   study   has
significantly increased our understanding of the processes controlling produced water re­
injection, so its main findings will be re­stated here.

Wells at Prudhoe Bay have alternated between seawater and produced water injection
for many years.   Injectivity declines from the seawater base level had been observed
when   changing   to   produced   water   injection,   as   shown   in   Figure   4,   but   the   wells
recovered their base performance when returned to seawater injection, indicating that no
permanent   damage   had   occurred   as   a   result   of   produced   water   injection.   Most   of
injectivity decline on produced water was explained by thermal effects (up to 13 psi/ oF),
with   the   injectivity   loss   from   the   increase   in   fracture   opening   pressure   and   the
consequent reduction in fracture size during the hotter produced water injection period
exceeding the increased injectivity resulting from the reduction in water viscosity.

The   large   variation   in  performance   of   a   given   well   on  different   produced   water   re­
injection cycles, however, suggested that some of the injectivity decline is also water
quality related.  Analysis of this variation in performance indicated that for Prudhoe Bay
wells, increasing the oil­in­water concentration from 0 to 400ppm at low solids levels
resulted in the need for an additional 200 psi injection pressure to maintain the injection
rate, equivalent to a 20% loss of injectivity. The effect of increasing solids levels is
coupled with the oil­in water concentration. At oil­in­water levels less than 100ppm, an
increase in solids levels from 0­5 to 5­10ppm requires only 30 psi additional pressure to
maintain rate, whilst at oil­in­water levels of 400ppm, the same increase in solids levels
requires an extra 100 psi.  This finding suggests that oil assists solid particles to adhere,
giving more damage than expected from the sum of their individual effects.  The results
also indicate that solids appear to cause more damage than oil.

Significantly, no permanent damage was observed during produced water injection except
where slugs  of sludge which coat  the  tubulars  were detached  from  the pipe  walls  or
material   removed   from   surface   flowlines   during   pigging   operations   were   injected,   in
which case well cleanouts are required.   More interesting still, it was observed that the
injectivity loss during produced water injection could be reversed by improving water
quality, as shown in Figure 5. In the Western Operating Area of Prudhoe Bay which BP
operates, it is now believed  that the desired voidage replacement can be achieved  by
injecting only produced water and miscible gas, and all seawater injection has therefore
ceased since August 1996. 

The Forties Field 

The Forties field in the UK sector of the North Sea has been of plateau since the early
1980's, and its production profile indicated increasing levels of produced water to the
point that, unless action was taken, some of the five production platforms would become
water handling constrained by the late 1980's or early 1990's. 

A short produced water re­injection trial was therefore conducted on Forties Delta 5­1 in
1985. Water was taken from the separators, through a degassing tank, settling and mud
pits, then injected via the mud pumps.  An on­site coreflood test indicated rapid plugging
of the well should occur, principally due to solids, but despite solids levels varying from
5­50   ppm   and   oil­in­water   levels   between   50­1200   ppm,   no   significant   reduction   in
performance was observed after 6 weeks [7].  Such good results were not expected, since
waterflood  induced  fracturing  was  little  recognised at  the  time.  In addition,  the  short
duration   of   the   trial   was   recognised   as   offering   limited   information   on   long   term
performance. 

In  comparison   with  Prudhoe  Bay,   Forties   is   considered   to  be  a   weakly  consolidated,
friable   sandstone,   hence   smaller   thermal   stress   effects   are   expected,   as   shown   in   the
simulation   of   the   change   in   fracture   extent   resulting   from   the   changeover   at   fixed
injection   pressure   from   cold   seawater   to   hot   seawater   with   a   temperature   equal   to
produced water shown in Figure 6.  Thermal stress effects were set at 2 psi/ oF in this case,
hence   water   quality   and   viscosity   effects   may   therefore   play   a   more   important   role.
Indeed, if produced water could be injected  with the same water quality as seawater,
increased  injection  rates  were expected,  as shown in Figure 7, since viscosity  effects
exceed thermal effects; this, however, is unlikely to be the case.

An extended produced water re­injection trial was finally conducted on Forties Delta in
1989, in which an extra produced water treatment train was added to allow injection or
discharge. The water received minimal treatment, being taken from the separators via a
degassing drum then straight to the injection pumps. The injectivity was initially higher
on PW but less than expected due to the increased contaminant levels of the produced
water, which averaged 4.5ppm solids and 220ppm oil­in­water.  Over the first year of the
trial a 20% decline in injectivity was seen, however this loss was found to be treatable by
acid   stimulation,   restoring   injectivity   significantly   above   that   level   seen   on   seawater
injection, as shown in Figure 8. The acid soluble material was identified as carry over of
carbonate scale from the production wells into the injection water. Further evidence of
this was obtained when the installation of shallow gas lift increased carry over of solids,
identified as carbonate scale, sand and loss control material, raising solids levels to 9 ppm
but reducing oil­in­water levels to 185ppm. Injectivity declined by a further 10% as a
result   of   injection   of   this   material,   but   again   some   this   damage   could   be   treated
temporarily   with   acid,   indicating   that   the   damage   was   near­wellbore   and   primarily
carbonate scaling.
The results of the initial and extended trials of Forties Delta were good enough to support
PWRI expansion to Forties Alpha in late 1991.   It was recognised that scale formation
could cause injectivity loss, but it was expected that this loss could be maintained within
acceptable limits by acidising and inhibition.  An example of the produced water injection
performance of one well, FA6­3, is shown in Figure 9.   Initially the well showed good
performance, with injectivity even slightly better than on seawater, but then significant
injectivity declines were observed after about 3 months, much sooner than on the Delta
trials and of greater magnitude. At the same time, rapid erosion of the injection valve
seals began to be observed.  Acid stimulation produced a short lived (less than one week)
benefit. Figure 10 compares the injection water quality of the Delta and Alpha trials.
FA6­3   experienced   higher   solids   &   oil   than   FD   5­1   from   the   start,   but   of   particular
importance is the significant reduction in water quality experienced by FA 6­3 after 3
months of injection, indicating that this was the cause of the injectivity loss in this well.
Well tests conducted on FA 6­3 before and after conversion to produced water indicated a
reduction  in   storage  i.e.   fracture   volume   on  produced  water,   but  an   increase   in  skin,
indicating damage had occurred.  

Forties Alpha produced water at this time was a 50:50 mixture of formation water and
seawater,   and   was   known   to   have   a   high   potential   for   barium   sulphate   (barite)   and
strontium   sulphate   scale   formation.   At   such   a   mixture   scaling   is   difficult   to   inhibit
effectively, and lapses in inhibition efficiency can result in significant scale production.
The increase in solids loadings to FA 6­3 after 3 months was later tied to a reduction in
scale inhibition.  Confirmation that scale build up was the major problem in FA 6­3 can
be seen by comparing the gamma ray logs from PLTs before and after conversion to
produced water.  Basol treatments have shown some success in restoring injectivity but
not to original levels.  However, increasing injection pressure has been shown to restore
rates back to seawater levels, and when wells are converted back to seawater injection
they regain their original seawater performance. 

Not all wells on Forties Alpha responded to conversion from seawater to produced water
in the same way.  An example of the response of well FA5­3 is shown in Figure 11, in
which a rapid decrease in injectivity followed by stable performance can be seen.  Control
of scale had been regained and wellhead pressure pre­ and post­conversion was similar,
hence the decrease in injectivity was not due to scaling or fracture closure following a
reduction in wellhead pressure at changeover.  The response of the well is more similar to
that   seen   in   Prudhoe   Bay   wells   as   shown,   for   example,   in   Figure   4,   suggesting   that
thermal   effects   are   more   significant   for   this   well   and   that   formation   properties   vary
around within the Forties field.  A similar response was seen for well FA5­6, which lies
within the same channel system.

The costs involved in controlling scale formation in the injectors were such that Forties
decided   to   halt   produced   water   re­injection,   upgrade   the   produced   water   treatment
facilities by installing hydrocyclones and discharge overboard.

The Wytch Farm Field 
The Wytch Farm field in the UK is the largest onshore field in Europe. The produced
water treatment facilities, shown in Figure 12, were designed using the initial guidelines.
Water was therefore treated to a fine specification, with solids levels usually below 5ppm
and oil­in­water levels below 15ppm. No loss of injectivity was observed, as shown in
Figure 13, but trials  indicated  that, at a throughput of more than 38,000 bbl/day,  the
filtration equipment was ineffective at reducing the oil­in­water level below its average
inlet concentration of 76ppm. Since the water quality level without filtration was only
slightly worse than the original design specification, a trial bypass of the produced water
filters was performed.

Significant thermal effects are observed at Wytch Farm, but since the injection system
tubing head limit pressure limit is relatively small, and formation permeability is good,
well tests on seawater injection indicated that only small fractures are formed. Further
well tests performed a year after filter removal again showed that small fractures were
present,   but   also   indicated   no   increased   damage.     No   noticeable   change   in   well
performance  was observed, as  shown in Figure 14, and consequently  the injection  of
unfiltered produced water has been extended indefinitely.

The Ula Field 

Increasing levels of produced water on the Ula field in the Norwegian sector of the North
Sea   would   have   meant   increasing   overall   discharge   levels   to   sea   with   existing   gas
floatation units.  A study was therefore undertaken by BP Norway and Aquateam to find
the best solution to produced water disposal based on the environmental benefit to cost
ratio,   using   the   CHARM   (Chemical   Hazard   Assessment     and   Risk   Management)
approach [14]. The study compared the environmental benefit to cost ratio of upgrading
the   existing   treatment   equipment   to   re­injection.     As   has   been   previously   stated,
hydrocyclones   are   typically   the   lowest   cost   treatment   option   but   re­injection   could
compete if the injectivity decline risks could be minimised.

It was known from previous work on Ula that the injection wells were thermally fractured
[12]. The decision was taken to adopt the re­injection option since the environmental
benefit was greater, but since the produced water would need to be cooled to prevent
cavitation in the injection pumps, and the cooler operation was not always smooth due to
scaling of the cooler plates, flexibility to discharge during cooler upsets was retained.  A
dual system was therefore fitted, with hydrocyclones to improve water quality, in order to
reduce the risk of injectivity loss when injecting and discharge levels when the wells were
bypassed   during   cooler   upsets,   which   typically   meant   when   the   injection   water
temperature exceeded 55oC [15]. To further reduce the risk of injectivity loss, produced
water, which actually contains about 85% seawater, was further diluted with seawater on
35:65 basis. No obvious reduction in injectivity was reported, but as with Forties, some
problems due to erosion of  valve seals were encountered.

The produced water proportion was later increased to a 50:50 basis, then to 70:30, again
with no problems, even during oil treatment upsets. Interestingly, decreased corrosion
rates,   evidenced   by   corrosion   coupons,   were   seen   in   all   wells   seen   due   to   corrosion
inhibitor carryover.  Produced water re­injection on Ula and the treatment system upgrade
has   reduced   the   environmental   impact   of   overboard   discharging.   The   installation   of
hydrocyclones gave a reduction in oil­in­water levels to 20­30ppm. As at the 1st May
1996,  approximately 75% of all produced water was being injected, including 169 tonnes
of oil and 90 tonnes of production chemicals.  Future plans for BP Norway are to increase
the cost effectiveness of the Ula system in order to raise the produced water re­injection
target to 90% of all produced water. The implementation of a produced water re­injection
system on Gyda is also being investigated.

Conclusions

Experience of produced water re­injection projects on BP operated fields indicate that
produced water can be injected successfully provided certain important factors controlling
the process are understood:

Injection   above   formation   fracture   pressure   is   usually   necessary   to   prevent   rapid

injectivity decline and well plugging.

Waterflood  induced fracturing  allows  high injectivity,  and relaxation  of water quality

specifications due to the greater tolerance of the fracture to poor water quality.

Previous  studies have shown that  produced water re­injection  can  offer a method for

produced  water  disposal at  comparable  cost to  treatment  and discharge  under current
regulations, but that the uncertainty in the risk of injectivity loss made investment in this
option unattractive.  However, if oil­in­water discharge limits are reduced, for example,
below   20ppm,   or   other   discharge   limits   tightened,   produced   water   re­injection   could
become the most favoured option even if injectivity losses reached 50% and significant
wellwork and additional wells were required to restore injection capacity.

Subsequent studies have indicated that the risk of injectivity loss during produced water
re­injection   can   be   quantified   and   controlled.   Oil   and   solids   in   produced   water,   and
particularly   solids,   can   lead   to   injectivity   reduction   but   this   loss   is   not   normally
permanent   and  can  be   reversed  by  improving  water   quality  or  using  higher   injection
pressures.   Injectivity   loss   tends   to   be   fully   regained   on   conversion   back   to   seawater
injection.

Downhole   scale   formation   in   produced   water   wells   can   lead   to   permanent   loss   of
injectivity if this scale, for example barium sulphate or strontium sulphate, cannot be
completely removed by chemical treatments or overcome by reperforating and improved
inhibition.  Carbonate scaling, however, can be treated by acid stimulation if inhibition is
not practical.
References

1. McCune,   C.C.,   1977.   'On­Site   Testing   to   Define   Injection­Water   Quality   Requirements.'   JPT,
January, 17­24.

2. Mitchell,   R.W.   and   Finch,   E.M.,   1978.   'Water   Quality   Aspects   of   North   Sea   Injection   Water.'
European Offshore Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, 263­271.

3. Todd, A.C., Brown, J., Noorkami, M and Tweedie, J.A., 1979. 'Review of permeability damage
studies and related North Sea water injection.' SPE 7883.

4. Clifford,   P.J.,   Mellor,   D.W.   and   Jones,   T.J.,   1991.   'Water   Quality   Requirements   for   Fractured
Injection   Wells.'   SPE   21439,   presented   at   the   SPE   Middle   East   Oil   Show,   Bahrain,   16­19
November.

5. Williams, D.B., Sherrard, D.W., and Lin, C.Y., 1989.   'Impact of Inducing Fractures at Prudhoe
Bay.'  JPT, Oct, 1096­1101. 

6. Perkins, T.K., and Gonzalez, J.A., 1985. 'The Effect of Thermoelastic Stresses on Injection Well
Fracturing.' SPEJ, February, 78­88.

7. Simpson,  A.J.  and  Paige,  R.W.,  1991.  'Advances   in  Forties  Field  Water  Injection.'   SPE 23140,
presented at the Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, 3­6 September.

8. Morgenthaler,   L.,   1996.   'Bullwinkle   Injection   Project.'   SPE   Applied   Technology   Workshop   on
Water Management, Amsterdam, 28 October ­ 1 November.

9. Taylor,   M.,   1989.   'Unfiltered   Injection   Water   ­   Beryl   Field   Experience.'   Water   Management
Offshore, Aberdeen, November.

10. Georgie, W.J., 1990. 'Problems Associated with Re­Injection of Produced Water.' Water Injection
Seminar, London, October. 

11. Paige, R.W. and Ferguson, M., 1993. 'Water Injection. Practical Experiences and Future Potential.'
Offshore Water and Environmental Management Conference, London, March 29­30.

12. Svendsen A.P., Wright M.S., Clifford P.J. and Berry P.J., 1991. 'Thermally Induced Fracturing in
Ula Water Injectors.'  SPE Production Engineering, November, 384­390.

13. Martins   J.P.,   Murray   L.R.,   Clifford   P.J.,   McLelland   G.,   Hanna   M.F.   and   Sharp   J.W.,   1995.
'Produced Water Reinjection and Fracturing in Prudhoe Bay.'  SPE Reservoir Engineering, August,
176­182.

14. Bakke,   S.,   Øfjord,   G.D,   Vik,   E.A.   and   Sande,   A.,   1996.   'Environmental   Risk   Management   of
Produced Water ­ A Demonstration of the CHARM Model Used for the Ula Field in the NOrth Sea.
SPE 35821, presented at the International Conference on Health, Safety and the Environment, New
Orleans, Louisiana, 9­12 June.

15. Hjelmås, T.A., Bakke, S., Hilde, T. Vik, E.A. and Grüner, H., 1996. 'Produced Water Re­Injection:
Experiences from Performance Measurements on Ula in the North Sea.' SPE 35874, presented at the
International  Conference  on Health, Safety  and  the Environment,  New  Orleans, Louisiana,  9­12
June.
mg/kg
3

2.5

1.5

0.5

Sea winning Upstream Downstream Downhole Downhole

pump fine filters fine filters FC4-1 FC1-2

Fig. 1  Comparison of surface and downhole water quality samples from Forties Charlie.

SEA WATER PRODUCED WATER
 Cold e.g. 15C Hot e.g. 65C
 Low Solids Loading e.g. 2mg/kg High Solids Loading e.g. 10mg/kg
 No Oil in Water High Oil Content e.g. 200mg/kg
 Low Bacterial Activity Greater Potential for Bacterial Activity
Particularly in Surface Equipment.
 High Oxygen Content                            Oxygen Content System Dependent

Table 1  Comparison of seawater and produced water properties.
 2500.0 2500.0

Rate
2000.0 2000.0 Pressure
(bwpd)
(psi)
1500.0 1500.0
Rate Pressure

1000.0 1000.0

500.0 500.0

0.0 0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (days)
Fig. 2  Example of the injection of produced water below fracture pressure.

Total Cost $MM/yr

7

6
Membranes
5
Centrifuge
4
Filt/Coalescer Flotation
3

2 Reinjection
1
Hydrocyclones
Novel Technology
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Discharged Oil Content ppm

Figure 3  Comparison of costs for treatment and discharge vs re­injection.
Injection Wellhead
Rate SW Rate PW Rate WHIP Pressure
(bwpd) (psi)
16000 2500

15000
2000
14000

13000
1500
12000

11000 1000

10000
500
9000

8000 0

21 MAY 5 JUN 20 JUN 5 JUL 20 JUL 4 AUG 19 AUG 5 SEP 20 SEP 5 OCT 20 OCT 4 NOV

Fig. 4  Example of conversion from seawater to produced water injection.

Water Injectivity
Quality Index
25

Water Quality

High Injectivity Index 20

Medium 15

Low 10

5
1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161
Time (days)

Fig. 5   Improvement in well performance with improving water quality.
 Height
SW Injection
(ft)
60 10 days PW Injection

40 100 days PW Injection

1000 days PW Injection
20
0
10 20 30 40 50 Length (ft)
-20
-40
-60

Fig. 6  Simulated change in Forties well fracture shape on  clean produced water.

16000
Rate
(bwpd) 14000

12000
10000
8000
SW Injection
6000 10 days PW Injection

4000 100 days PW Injection

1000 days PW Injection
2000
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time (days)

Fig. 7  Simulated change in Forties well rate on conversion to clean produced water.
 3.0
Acid
Stimulations
2.5

2.0

1.5 Transient FirstAcid

Data Stimulation

1.0

0.5

0.0
MAR '89 JUN '89 SEP '89 DEC '89 MAR '90 JUN '90 SEP '90 DEC '90 MAR '91

Fig. 8  Performance of Forties well FD5­1 and response to acid stimulation.

Seawater Produced Water

45

40

35

30

Injectivity 25
Index
20

15

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Time (days)

Fig. 9  Injectivity Index of Forties Alpha well FA6­3 on conversion to produced water.
a 50
PWRI FD 5-1
40
PWRI FA 6-3
30

20

10

0 600

500

400

300
200

100
0
Jan - 91 Apr - 91 Jul - 91 Oct - 91 Jan - 92 Apr - 92

Fig. 10  Comparison of Forties Delta 5­1 and Forties Alpha 6­3 produced water qualities.

50
Injectivity (barrels per day / psi)

45
40
35
Sea Water
30
25
20 Produced Water
15
10
5
0
23-Dec-92
20-Aug-92

3-Nov-92

28-Nov-92

17-Jan-93
9-Oct-92
1-Jul-92

26-Jul-92

14-Sep-92
Fig. 11 Injectivity Index of Forties Alpha well FA5­3 on conversion to produced water.
Not all Forties wells behave the same! 

Treated Backwash Oil

Backwash Treatment Coalescers
Coarse
Filters
Oil
Solids
W ell head
Oil
Other Filters
Separator & Coalescers

Oil Collection
Tank
Bridport Test Other
Fine Filters Injection
Desalter Effluent Filters
Sherwood Test Pump
2nd Stage Separ ator
1st Stage Separator Feed
Other PW Sources Pump

Key Oil
Un-treated flow Backwash Storage Booster
Treated flow Fluid Tank Pump
Oil
Solids
Backwash

Fig. 12  The Wytch Farm produced water treatment system.
 25,000 200
180
20,000
160
15,000 140

10,000 120
100
5,000
80
0 60
1 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Time (days)
Flow
l Oil < 15 mg/l
Pressure l Solids < 5 mg/l

Fig. 13  Performance of Wytch Farm produced water re­injection well.

120

100

80
Well Head
Pressure
(bar) 60

40

20
1 Jun 94 - 30 Nov 94 - With Filters
1 Dec 94 - 1 Jun 95 - Filters Removed
0
0 5000 10000 15000
Flow Rate (bpd)

Fig. 14  Comparison of Wytch Farm produced water injection well performance
following produced water filter bypass.