Specification For Welding of Duplex Stainless Steel Piping

SIEP Report December 1999
SIEP 99-5806
Best Practice in Produced Water Treatment,
1999 - WGM03
by
Jane Pedersen (NAM TSC/4)
Allan Lawrence and Zara Khatib (SEPTAR EPT-ASF)
Sponsor: BAA-WGM Club Members
Period of Work: January 1999 - December 1999

American Content: Not Applicable
Summary
Appnedices: See Hardcopy
SIEP 99-5806 -I- Restricted

Summary
SUMMARY
This report is a follow up of the "Best Practice in Produced Water Treatment - WGM03" SIEP 99-5229
report.
It expands on the work carried out in 1998, but also includes new subjects such as produced water re-
injection.
The first part of the report concentrates on describing three matrices which have been developed to give
easy access to equipment information and gives a good overview of where and when to use specific water
treatment equipment. Setting up such a matrix is a major job and will still take time to complete. This
year's work is providing a good basis for further development and will need to be expanded and up-dated
to become a really useful and practical tool. This first selection methodology, however, provides a good
overview of what is available and what treatment equipment is used in Shell.
The general observation and conclusions for the matrices are:

 It was found that it is better to have several matrices for a number of situations, rather than to have
one single matrix including all situations.
 The three matrices are a first pass selection methodology to select systems treating produced water.
 The matrices are not an absolute tool, but should be used in combination with knowing and
understanding the water quality and possible local restrictions.
 It is envisaged to further up-date and expand the matrices and technology information in the year
2000.
A substantial part of "Best Practice" in the WGM03 project has been to identify how water treatment
equipment operates best, but also highlighting what new technology has been tested and how it
performed. Furthermore CAPEX and OPEX data have been collected for several pieces of equipment.
This information has been obtained from four workshops held in various OUs, a meeting with other
Operators in Aberdeen, attending conferences and meetings on water treatment issues, talking to vendors,
searching the web and especially by keeping in close contact with the OUs, who are executing the trials.
Best Practice has been identified for flotation units, hydrocyclones, plate interceptors, centrifuges and
filtration units:
Best Practice for Flotation Units:

 Gas blanketted units are preferable to atmospheric units to avoid FeS and corrosion products.
 Automatic level control will improve skimming performance under varying flow conditions.
 Skimmers need to be adjustable in order to optimise the skimming of oil at the water surface.
 Eductors in hydraulically induced units can scale and require regular cleaning.
 Anti-motion baffles can be installed to improve performance on floaters.
 Performance can be very sensitive to chemicals injected and to presence of solids.
Best Practice for Hydrocyclones:

 Use hydrocyclones for removal of oil droplets larger than 10 µm.
 Have a constant minimum flow to the hydrocyclones otherwise they will not separate the oil and
water well.
 Avoid flow fluctuations in order to optimise separation performance.
 Conserve temperature, wherever possible.
This document is restricted. The copyright of this document is vested in Shell International Exploration and
Production B.V., The Hague, the Netherlands. All rights reserved.
Neither the whole nor any part of this document may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, reprographic, recording or otherwise)
without the prior written consent of the copyright owner.
SIEP B.V. 1999
SHELL TECHNOLOGY EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION, RIJSWIJK

Further copies can be obtained from the STEP Library.
SIEP 99-5806 - II - Restricted

Summary
 Solids will reduce performance of hydrocyclones.

 Exclude as much gas as possible as it will interfere with oil migration to the core.
 Regular cleaning of hydrocyclones has been found to improve the performance significantly.
 Regular backflush the hydrocyclones to remove solids from reject ports.
 Increase reject port size to prevent blocking with solids.
Best Practice for Plate Interceptors:

 Regular cleaning to remove solids.
 Routine maintenance to remove solids and wax and replace broken plates.
 Even distribution of flow where multiple units are required.
 Minimise flow fluctuations (which can flush out coalesced oil with the water).
 Gas blanketing to exclude air.
 Do not mix 'surface run off' and 'produced water' streams and recycles.
Best Practice for Centrifuges:

 Presence of solids in incoming fluids requires a solids discharge system (lifting bowl).
 Be aware of potential scale formation within the disc stack.
 High maintenance requirement demands a spare centrifuge to be considered.
 Consider (but usually difficult to justify) installing a centrifuge on dewatering of hydrocyclone and
other deoiling technology reject streams, to minimise recycles to the process.
Best Practice for Filtration:

 Do not exceed 100 mg/l dispersed oil into sand or dual media filters and 200 mg/l into crushed
nutshell filter.
 Make sure that there is a valve fitted to the outlet where the media has to be exchanged from, so that
a pipe easily can be fitted (Schoonebeek water treatment plant experience).
 Conduct comparative on-site performance testing with small scale pilot filters and the water of
interest.
Beside these Best Practices it has been found that by developing technology fact sheets it will be easier to
capture Best Practice and upgrade when new Best Practice is discovered. The technology fact sheets are
intended as a series of 2-6 page capsule summaries of technologies and processes used by the E&P
Industry for the treatment of produced water for surface disposal or re-injection. In these sheets,
information on equipment in terms of known Best Practices, application ranges, limitations, development
plans etc. is collated. The data contained on the Fact Sheets is intended to provide summary-type data and
key highlights needed to determine the applicability and status of the technology for a specific
application.
In 1999 the WGM03 project aspects of produced water re-injection (PWRI) were also included.
Especially concentrating on what needs to be done on the surface facilities in order to achieve optimal
injectivity. To establish the experiences within Shell, questionnaires were send out to OUs and
information was also gathered during the workshops. Furthermore some experience from outside Shell
has also been captured.
The main Best Practice found for existing PWRI installations are:
 Consider total injection system design from surface facilities to downhole injection.
 For detailed fracture opening pressures sub-surface data is essential to compensate for frictional
losses in the tubings and/or flowlines
 Maintenance and cleaning of surface treatment facilities is essential for reducing facilities upsets and
the subsequent deterioration of the injection water quality.
 To improve seawater quality use plastic lined injection pipelines to avoid corrosion products.
 To improve water quality use coated injection pipelines to avoid corrosion products.
Offshore PWRI
 Produced water treatment facilities should be designed to provide a water quality meeting the
overboard discharge specification. This is particularly important to accommodate injection system
downtime and avoid production shut-in due to poor water quality (particularly during PWRI ramp-
up).
SIEP 99-5806 - III - Restricted

Summary
 If seawater is required to sustain voidage replacement, the following procedures are recommended:
- Routinely cleaning of water treatment facility to maintain/improve performance.
- Exclude oxygen in the system to avoid FeS.
- Test alternative chemicals to optimise system performance.
 For PWRI following a seawater flood and before seawater breakthrough, seawater should not be
mixed with the produced water to prevent potential BaSo 4 scale precipitation. Produced water should
either be disposed of overboard or injected in a separate zone or reservoir. Following seawater
breakthrough, blending on the surface upstream of filters will be a possibility.
SIEP 99-5806 - IV - Restricted

Summary
Onshore PWRI
 Shallow produced water injection requires better water quality than deepwater injection to maintain
injectivity. Due to uncertainty in the potential fracture growth out of injection zone, injection under
matrix conditions has been a good practice.
 Segregation of water streams and then blending just before injection has contributed to better water
quality
 Mixing of waters should be avoided to minimise scaling and corrosion potential.
 It is not a best practice to inject sour water into a sweet reservoir. System integrity under corrosion
conditions should be thoroughly checked.
As part of evolutionary research novel and promising techniques for treatment of produced water have
been identified and evaluated.
For better removal of dispersed hydrocarbons the following has been concluded:
 The majority of research in the area of dispersed oil removal has been focusing on finding a suitable
coalescing device to improve performance of existing systems.
 Generally coalesers are prone to blockage of solids.
 Mare's Tail and Pect-F looks promising for higher volumes of water.
 Pall Ammonia coalescer works well on low volumes, low solids and on oily water with low
interfacial tension.
 Screen coalescer did not work well on water with corrosion inhibitor, but could look promising for
other applications.
 Axiflow hydrocyclones may offer an opportunity to treat higher flow and work on lower pressure
drops, but it still needs further development.
 With the next generation membranes, which are a combination of the anti-fouling characteristics of
vibrations (acoustics) and the "filter" characteristics of a conventional cross flow membrane, it is
possible to cost effectively use membranes in the oil industry.
For removal of dissolved (and to a lesser extend dispersed) hydrocarbons three techniques have
especially been focussed on: (see Chapter 5)
MPPE, bioreactors and C-tour . The MPPE worked very well on a 2,5 m3/h flow offshore in NAM and is
seen as a proven technique for removal of dissolved hydrocarbons. Bio-treatment techniques have been
tested and compared and it was found that:
- a fixed bed bioreactor should be used for low contaminated water (COD approx. 100 mg/l).
- A membrane bioreactor for medium contaminated water (COD approximate 1000 mg/l) and relative
low flow (<50m3/day).
- Biofilm airlift reactor for medium to high loading (1000-2000 mg/l) and higher flow (up to
100m3/day).
A field test with the C-Tour was carried out on one of Statoil's oil platforms, but was not successful.
Further improvements need to be implemented.
Last year's work on continuous on-line oil in water (OIW) monitors has been developed further this year,
with the main focus on developing a database that contains information on the various monitors and is
also searchable, so that criteria can be set and possible monitors suggested for field testing. Furthermore
field experience and developments of OIW monitors have been reported.
The main conclusions on OIW monitors are:

 OIW monitors are successfully being used to monitor trend/upsets in the water treatment process.
 A database with 64 on-line oil-in-water monitors has been developed.
 An updated method and data presented in chapter 6 and in chapter 5 in SIEP 99-5229, may assist in
carrying out a proper evaluation of the OIW monitor. The vendor should be involved in the initial set
up (installation and calibration) and start up. A "troubleshot" agreement with the vendor is always
recommended.
 The Environment & Resource Technology database and guidelines are a good starting point for
developing a tool to choose an oil-in-water monitor. The information in the database still needs to be
expanded to include more monitors.
SIEP 99-5806 -V- Restricted

Summary
 The weighting factor that ERT has recommended is not adequate and should be used with
carefulness, it is recommend to develop a 'go' / 'no go' principle instead.
 Using the generic type UV-fluorescent monitor is not advisable on a gas/condensate platform,
especially if comparison with laboratory IR-analysis is required. This is because the level of
dissolved hydrocarbon (which is what UV-fluorescent is measuring) is much higher than the
dispersed (approximately 200 mg/l compared to 10 mg/l). In that case a correlation between the UV-
fluorescent and IR was not possible.
Finally “Best Practice” was defined by the 1998 project as "not only application of best available
technology but also as a way of working and sharing information, good and bad experiences that comes
together and form the best way to deal with a problem".
From last years work it was concluded that to share best practice not one single method should be
applied, but by combining several communicating methods more people can been reached and contribute
to sharing their best practice in water treatment. This year a major improvement compared to the work
carried out in 1998 is that a link between Shell and other Operators has been established. To obtain more
"Best Practice" on various subjects it is important to keep this outside link alive and improve the
relationship between operators. Also not only local OU workshops have been carried out but a specialist
workshop on biotreatment in the E&P industry helped identifying Best Practice. AVF has proven a good
way of communication through the Shell Group. Furthermore a web-based knowledge centre on water
treatment has also been established during the past year.
Best Practice is a continuous and evolutionary process that should be constantly refined and developed.
KEYWORDS
Produced water, water treatment, deoiling, water re-injection, best practice, WGM03
workshop, dissolved oil, dispersed oil, monitor, new technology.
SIEP 99-5806 - VI - Restricted

Introduction
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY II
TABLE OF CONTENTS VI
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT MATRIX 4
2.1 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 4
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE MATRICES 4
2.2.1. Introduction 4
2.2.2 Fluid Separability Chart 5
2.2.3 Selection Matrices 7
2.2.4 Water Treatment Schematics 9
2.2.5 Further Development of Matrices 10
2.3 CAPEX AND OPEX FOR EQUIPMENT 11
2.3.1 Removal of Dispersed Hydrocarbons 11
2.3.2 Removal of Dissolved Hydrocarbons 13
3 BEST PRACTICE FOR PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS 13
3.1 TECHNOLOGY FACT SHEETS 13
3.2 FLOTATION 14
3.3 HYDROCYCLONES 14
3.4 PLATE INTERCEPTORS 15
3.5 CENTRIFUGES 16
3.6 FILTRATION 17
3.7 FIELD EXPERIENCES IN 1999 17
3.7.1 NAM, L9-FF-1 Water Overboard Problem 17
3.7.2 Elf Piper Bravo Experience with H2S Scavenger 18
3.7.3 PDO Pipeline Bottom Water Draw Off 18
3.7.4 PDO Reed Bed Trials 19
4 PRODUCED WATER RE-INJECTION 21
4.1 OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 21
4.2 BEST PRACTICE 22
4.3 PWRI APPLICATION 23
4.3.1 Characterisation of Produced Water for Re-injection 23
4.3.2 Effect of Oil and solids on Injectivity 25
4.3.3 Effect of Temperature 25
4.3.4 Effect of Sour Produced Water on Injection Water Quality and System Integrity 26
RESERVOIR SOURING EXPERIENCE 26
INJECTION SYSTEM INTEGRITY 26
4.4 WATER QUALITY SPECIFICATIONS AND MATRICES FOR PWRI 27
4.5 COST ESTIMATES FOR RE-INJECTION COMPARED TO SURFACE DISPOSAL 28
4.6 EVALUATION OF EXISTING PRODUCED WATER RE-INJECTION FACILITIES 29
4.6.1 Introduction 29
4.6.2 Field Experiences From Shell 30
4.6.3 Other Operators Experience 43
5 GAPS AND PROMISING TECHNOLOGIES 48
5.1 REMOVAL OF DISPERSED HYDROCARBONS 48
5.1.1 Conclusions 48
5.1.2 Mare's Tail (JIP) 49
5.1.3 PECT-F 49
5.1.4 Pall Coalescer 50
5.1.5 Screen Coalescer 51
5.1.6 Development of an Ultrasonic Emulsion Coalescence Technology (JIP) 52
5.1.7 Labyrinth Chokes 53
5.1.8 Axiflow Hydrocyclone 53
5.1.8 Antifouling Membrane 54
5.2 REMOVAL OF DISSOLVED (AND DISPERSED) HYDROCARBONS 54
5.2.1 Conclusions 55
5.2.2 Pilot test of MPPE 55
SIEP 99-5806 - VII - Restricted

Introduction
5.2.3 Bioreactors 56
5.2.4 C-Tour 63
5.2.4 Petroleum Environment Research Forum (PERF) 64
6 CONTINUOUS ON-LINE OIL IN WATER MONITORS 66
6.1 CONCLUSIONS 66
6.2 BEST PRACTICE IN CONTINUOUS ON-LINE OIL IN WATER MONITORS 66
6.3 INTRODUCTION 66
6.4 STEPWISE APPROACH AND SELECTION DATABASE 67
6.4.1 Practical Example of Choosing an OIW Monitor 67
6.5 ON-LINE OIL-IN-WATER MONITORS DEVELOPMENTS IN 1999. 71
6.6 OIL-IN-WATER MONITORING OUTSIDE SHELL 74
6.6.1 OIW monitoring workshop 74
6.6.2 OIW monitors in the field 75
7 BEST PRACTICE SHARING 76
7.1 CONCLUSIONS 76
7.2 WATER TREATMENT NETWORK 76
7.3 WATER TREATMENT WEB SITE 77
7.4 WORKSHOPS 78
7.4.1 WGM03 Workshops 78
7.4.2 Specialist Workshop 81
7.5 OPERATOR EXPERIENCE MEETING 86
7.6 LITERATURE SORTED INTO SUBJECTS 90
8 THE OTHER WGM PROJECTS IN 1999 91
8.1 WGM01 WATER AND GAS SHUT OFF 91
8.2 WGM02 DOWNHOLE PROCESSING 92
8.3 WGM04 PRODUCED WATER RE-INJECTION 92
9 CTR FOR WGM03 IN YEAR 2000+ 94
9.1 WGM 3.1 BEST PRACTICE IN WATER TREATMENT, DISCHARGE AND DISPOSAL 94
9.2 WGM 3.2 INTEGRATION OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE WATER TREATMENT
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PRODUCED WATER RE-INJECTION. 96
9.3 WGM 3.3 PRODUCED WATER INJECTION TECHNOLOGY FOR RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT 99
DISTRIBUTION LIST 101
REFERENCES 102
APPENDICES
Appendix A Abbreviations.
Appendix B Typical water treatment schemes.
Appendix C Technology Fact Sheet.
Appendix D Questionnaires.
Appendix E List of people in the water treatment network.
Appendix F Guide to use Alta Vista Forum and to register in the forum.
Appendix G Literature sorted into subjects.
SIEP 99-5806 - VIII - Restricted

Produced Water Treatment Matrix
1 INTRODUCTION
The Water and Gas Management project 03 (WGM03) was initiated by the BAA Workshop in 1997, to
identify Best Practice in Cost Effective Water Treatment, both within the Shell Group and outside, and to
disseminate Best Practice to the OUs. The work carried out in 1998 is reported in SIEP 99-5229 ‘Best
Practice in Produced Water Treatment – WGM03’ [1] which contains the following topics:
 Overview of current and anticipated future criteria for disposal of water to surface and sewage
systems both on- and offshore. Chapter 3.
 Overview of water treatment technology currently in use and its performance in various gas/oil
production areas on- and offshore. Chapter 6.
 Deficiencies and problem areas related to current water treatment processes. Chapters 4, 6 and 7.
 Identification of promising technology for water treatment. Chapters 6, 7 and 10.
 Advances in continuous on-line oil-in-water monitors. Chapter 5.
 Best Practice sharing. Chapter 8.
 The 1999 CTR.
This report is a continuation and expansion of the work carried out in 1998.
The 1999 project has the following key elements:
1. Set up a matrix for recommended produced water treatment methods, taking into account the
specific water quality requirements for surface disposal, as well as the various produced water
re-injection (PWRI) scenarios.
2. Provide cost estimates of the identified and recommended water treatment technologies.
3. Encourage field testing and further trials and evaluation of identified best oil-in-water monitors.
4. Mature and further expand the water treatment network on the Alta Vista Forum to both provide
an active discussion area and create/maintain a solid expertise/knowledge centre.
5. Investigate the need for and organise (regional) workshops on “Best Practice in Water
Treatment” and disseminate the learning of those workshops throughout the Shell group.
6. Identify gaps in technology and report on relevant development/research programmes.
7. Evaluate new technologies, and assess their potential for application in produced water treatment
for both surface disposal as well as re-injection.
The scope for 1999 has focussed on documenting produced water technology performance, developing a
matrix of technologies for treatment, and support to OUs, particularly with Workshops targeted to specific
needs.
This final report includes:
 Matrices for proven and recommended treatment methods for treatment of produced water.
Chapter 2 and 4.
 Cost estimates for some water treatment equipment. Chapter 2 and 4.
 Best Practice for produced water treatment systems. Chapter 3.
 Overview of water treatment technologies currently in use for PWRI. Chapter 4.
SIEP 99-5806 -1- Restricted

 Gaps and promising technologies, including field trials. Chapter 5.

 Advances in continuous on-line oil-in-water monitors. Chapter 6.
 Best Practice sharing in the water treatment network, on Alta Vista Forum and by workshops.
Chapter 7.
 The 2000+ CTR and a description of the other WGM projects in 1999. Chapter 8 and 9.
It should be emphasised that these reports are not intended to provide a fixed set of rules or methods for
treating produced water in the E&P industry. It is intended to provide experience which should help to
achieve cost-effective management of produced water.
The project has been carried out by NAM on behalf of SEPTAR.
This project would not have been successful if it had not been for the help from staff in Shell's Operating
Units who filled in questionnaires, attended workshops and meetings, provided guided inspections of OU
water treatment facilities, have been active in the water treatment network team, and in use of the Alta
Vista Forum web site.
Produced Water in Shell
Following information has mainly been obtained from the HSE department in SEPTAR and is an up-date
of Chapter 3 in the 1998 report [1]:
Total produced water increased to 298 million m 3 in 1998 reflecting the maturing of fields. From figure
1.1 it can be seen that the increasing amounts were injected to reservoirs, potentially potable and non-
potable aquifers, as well as discharged to sea and evaporation ponds. The increase to potentially potable
aquifers was a result of activities in PD Oman, whilst the discharges to evaporation ponds were entirely
due to discharges by Badr Petroleum (Egypt). Reduced amounts were discharged to fresh and brackish
surface water.
350,000
Sea
300,000
Fresh/brackish
250,000 water
Volume ('000 m3)
Evaporation
200,000
ponds/pits
150,000 Potentially
potable
100,000 aquifers
Non-potable
aquifers
50,000
Reservoirs
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Figure 1.1 Shell's produced water destinations from 1994 to 1998
Out of the approximately 300 million m 3 water that Shell produced in 1998 approximately 120 million
was discharged to surface environment. The average content of the oil in produced water discharged to
surface environment was 19.8 mg/l in 1998, just below the EP target of 20 mg/l. See figure 1.2

140,000 35.00
120,000 30.00
volume ('000 m )
3
100,000
oil conc. (mg/l)

25.00
80,000 20.00
60,000 15.00
40,000 10.00
20,000 5.00
0 0.00
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Produced water Oil in water
Figure 1.2 Shell's produced water discharge to surface environment and oil concentration
After a decreasing trend in ‘oil discharged with produced water to surface environment’ since 1994 a
slight increase occurred in 1998 to 2490 tonnes of oil. This is a consequence of an increased volume of
produced water, whereas the oil concentration stayed constant at around 19.9-19.8 mg/l, see figure 1.3.
35.00 3,500
30.00 3,000
25.00 2,500
20.00 2,000 tonne

mg/l
15.00 1,500
10.00 1,000
5.00 500
0.00 0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2003
Concentration oil Target concentration

Quantity oil in produced w ater
Figure 1.3 Oil in produced water to surface environment

2 PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT MATRIX
The idea of making a matrix for produced water treatment methods is to give easy access to equipment
information and give a good overview of where and when to use specific water treatment equipment.
Setting up such a matrix is a major job and will take several years to complete. This year's work is
providing a good basis for further development and will need to be expanded and up-dated to be real
useful tool. This first simple selection methodology however, gives already a good overview of what is
available and what water treatment equipment is used in Shell.
To be cost effective in the project we teamed up with the Zero Impact Facility group and developed a
web-site version.
2.1 General Observations and Conclusions
 It was found that it is more suitable to have a matrix for a range of situations.
 These matrices is a first pass simple selection methodology.
 The matrix is not an absolute tool, but should be used in combination with good understanding of the
whole water treatment system.
 It is envisaged to further up-date and expand the matrix and technology information in year 2000.
2.2 Description of the Matrices
2.2.1. Introduction
The choice of the components for a cost effective treatment system will depend on the characteristics of
the produced water to be treated, and the discharge specifications. The user makes a first choice as to
whether it is an oil (onshore or offshore) or a gas/condensate development. Then basic choices regarding
fluid separability and residual oil level is required to arrive at a typical (or a number of typical) water
treatment scheme(s) which could be suitable for the project.
A number of charts are included in this section, purely to illustrate the procedure. All typical water
treatment schemes are given in the Appendix B
The matrices were developed in conjunction with the Surface BAA Zero Impact Facilities (ZIF) initiative,
and the complete interactive system can be found at the ZIF website, which can be located through the
Surface Global Network, Innovative Surface Facilities ISF-03, Safeguard Licence to Operate or insert this
url address:
http://swwrij.siep.shell.com/cc/df/zif/zif_home.htm
 'Enter', On left hand menu, select ‘Process design Guidelines’, 'Enter'

 Select ‘Water Treatment’
 The matrix is found under ‘Technology Selection’
The first web-page shows the Selection Procedure Chart which is shown in below in figure 2.1:

P
roc
essG
uid
elin
es S
ELE
CTIO
NPR
OCE
DUR
ECH
ART
W
ate
rTre
atm
en
t
In
tro
duc
tio
n
U
pstre
am D
ownstre
am O
pera
bility T
echnolo
gy Use
r
Is
s ues Is
sue s Is
s u
es Sele
ctio
n In
fo
rmatio
n
S
amp lin
g &
Mo
nito r
ing
Dispe
rsed Oth
e r D
isso
lve
d
H
ydro
carb
ons C
onta
m in
a n
ts H
ydro
carb
ons
Sele
c tio n
Ch a
rts& In
nov
ativ
e
S
chem a tic
s Te
chn
ology
In
nov
ativ
e
Te
chn
ology
S
ettlin
g S
trip
pin
g A
dso
rptio
n B
io
tre
atm
en
t
S
epa
rato
rs F
iltra
tio
n F
lo
tatio
n C
entr
ifu
ges H
yd
roc
yclo
nes
Tan ks
C
ost C
os
t C
ost C
ost C
os
t C
os
t C
os
t C
ost C
os
t
S
che
m a
tic S
che
matic
Figure 2.1 'Selection Procedure Chart' page in the Water Treatment web-site
 Select ‘Next’ until you come to the last page which contains three boxes, select ‘Dispersed
Hydrocarbons’
Dispersed Dissolved Other

Hydrocarbons Hydrocarbons Contaminants
 You have arrived at the ‘Fluid Separability’ chart, see Section 2.2.2 below.
 Choose your application, which take you to the Selection Matrices, see Section 2.2.3 below.
 Selecting a scheme leads to a water treatment flow scheme.
 Selecting an equipment item on a water treatment flow scheme leads to information on that
equipment.
2.2.2 Fluid Separability Chart

The characteristics of produced water which most significantly affect fluid separability are highlighted in
figure 2.2 below:

Easy Difficult
High GOR
Gas lift
Oil Droplet Size No condition of high shear »»» ESP
High choke pressure drop
Gas/condensate facility
Oil Density Light oil >37 °API »»» Heavy oil <20 °API
Temperature High temperature >80 °C »»» Low temperature <50 °C
Water Cut Water cut >50% »»» Water cut <30%
Significant solid presence

Solids Negligible solids »»»
especially fine particles.
Greater use of chemicals,
Minimum use of chemicals
particularly corrosion
Chemicals which can interfere with »»»
inhibitors, which can interfere
water treatment
with water treatment.
Figure 2.2 'Fluid Separability Chart' page in the Water Treatment web-site
The factors which affect fluid separability are:
Oil droplet size
For new facilities, it is difficult to predict the oil droplet size distribution but if conditions for high shear
are present, it can be assumed that the distribution will be shifted to smaller sizes and produced water
treatment will be consequently more difficult.
Small oil droplets can be caused by the action of high shear forces on the production fluids. Examples of
high shear are pumps (especially high speed pumps e.g. ESP) and control/choke valves with high pressure
drops. The use of gas lift or a naturally high Gas Oil Ratio (GOR) tubing flow also tends to generate small
oil droplets.
Oil density
The greater the density difference between the oil and water phases, the easier it is to separate. Heavy
crude has a high density and this is one of the reasons why it is more difficult to remove from water.
The readiness of oil droplets to coalesce is increased by high interfacial surface tension of the droplets.
Coalescence enhances separation performance by increasing the size of the oil droplets. However, the
prediction of interfacial tension is not simple as it is affected by the presence of contaminants in the water
such as chemicals and solids.
Temperature
At higher temperatures, the viscosity of the water decreases allowing the oil droplets to pass more easily
through the water and thus aiding removal. As reservoirs age, wellhead temperatures tend to rise. It is not
usually economic to install heaters primarily for improved water treatment, but it is an added benefit if the
production fluids are heated for other reasons such as to achieve oil BS&W (Base Sediment & Water) or
vapour pressure specifications.
Water cut
The proportion of water in the production fluids affects the ease of produced water treatment. In general,
separation performance improves significantly above a water cut of 50-60% when water becomes the
continuous phase in the well tubing and production manifold. The higher temperatures which accompany
increased water cuts also help.
Solids
Solids are often present in produced water. Possible sources of solids are the formation, scale, corrosion
products and wax. Fine solids can hinder produced water treatment. The particles adhere to the surface of
the oil droplets and form a strong interface layer which prevents coalescence of the oil droplets.
Furthermore the solid coated oil droplets will normally also observe a reduction in buoyancy and
therefore will be more difficult to separate from the water.

Chemicals
Chemicals are used in production facilities for various purposes such as, the control of scale, corrosion,
defoaming and bacterial growth. Also used for service wells and dehydration of oil and gas.
Coalescence of dispersed hydrocarbon droplets should be promoted wherever possible.

Many chemicals can stabilise small hydrocarbon droplets which then become more difficult to remove.
Overdosing of demulsifiers for example can create oil-in-water emulsions which are stable even when the
fluid is later diluted to the correct chemical dose . Corrosion inhibitors can also be very effective
emulsifiers.
Other characteristics
A number of other significant characteristics have not been built into the fluid separability chart, but
should be considered in a final check list:
 Oil content in produced water to be treated - The majority of deoiling equipment cannot achieve a
fixed hydrocarbon concentration in the treated water, independent of the feed hydrocarbon
concentration. The performance of most deoiling equipment is measured in terms of a hydrocarbon
removal efficiency, which is a ratio between the hydrocarbon content in the feed and the outlet
streams. Thus, even for equipment with very high hydrocarbon removal efficiencies, a high
hydrocarbon content in the feed stream will result in a high hydrocarbon concentration in the outlet
stream. The matrices are based on typical upstream process production separator and dehydration
tank performance.
 Stable feed streams - Process equipment operates most efficiently when supplied with a constant,
stable feed stream. However many water treatment systems are located at the end of the process and
are subject to wide variations in process conditions from upstream operations.
 Recycle streams - The effect of recycle streams on process integration should be carefully
considered. Recycle streams may often be contaminated with solids, chemicals or bacteria and
recycling these streams may result in accumulation in the process. In particular, sludges or tight
emulsions which accumulate at hydrocarbon/water interfaces should not be recycled to the process
without appropriate treatment to break down the inherent stability of the sludge or emulsion.
 Mixing of water streams - Most hydrocarbon facilities will produce a number of waste water streams
from different sources. Mixing of these streams for treatment in common water treatment facilities
may lead to problems such as fluctuating feed rates and contaminant concentrations, undesirable
compounds or precipitates, oxygenated waters (corrosion problems) and the precipitation of oxides
from the water. Therefore if at all possible do not mix water streams.
More detail is given in the ZIF Water Treatment Guidelines on the web in the Section ‘UPSTREAM
ISSUES’ and ‘OPERABILITY ISSUES’.
2.2.3 Selection Matrices
The Process Selection Matrices have been developed for three areas of application, onshore oil
developments, offshore oil developments, and gas/condensate developments. For each area a matrix is
developed with required effluent specification versus fluid separability and is based on proven
technology.
As the oil content in water decreases, water treatment can become more difficult and additional deoiling
steps or higher performance equipment may be needed. Requirements vary with location, but 40 mg/l is a
typical legislated specification, and now in 1999 less than 18 mg/l is a Group target. The matrix targets
three ranges, over 40 mg/l, 25-40 mg/l and less than 25 mg/l. Treatment to suitable OIW standards is also
important for produced water injection in order to maintain reasonable well injectivity. Two matrices have
been developed for re-injection of produced water in Chapter 4.
For each of the above specifications, schemes are provided for easy, average and difficult separations. The
options listed are by no means definitive, but aim to provide an indication of the applications for which
certain equipment may be selected. The actual equipment selected should be determined by a case
specific analysis.

On the ZIF site, Blue text and underlining in the matrix provides access to water treatment schematics.
The matrices are shown below in figures 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5:
P
R OC
ESSSE
LEC
TIO
NCHAR
T
P
roc
essG
uid
elin
es
W
ate
rTr
e a
tme
nt DIS
PERS
EDHYD
ROCAR
BON
O
ff
s h
oreOilP
rov
enT
ech
nolo
gy
E
asy A
ve
rag
e D
if
fic
ult
B
as
icOf
fsh
oreOilS
che
m e Ba
sicOffsh
oreOilSchem e F
ig
u r
e 6
>4
0pp
mHy
droc
yclo
ne+d
ega
sse
r Hy
drocy
clon
e +d
eg a
sser C
oalesc
er,h
ydr
o c
yclo
ne,de ga
s s
er
F
igur
e 2 F
ig
u r
e 4
Hy
drocy
clon
e,de
ga s
ser
,cais
son H
ydrocy
clon
e,(
d e
gasser
),flo
ta
tion
B
as
icOf
fsh
oreOilS
che
m e Ba
sicOffsho
re OilSchem e F
igur
e 5
Hy
drocy
clo
ne,d
ega
sse
r,c e n
tr
ifu
ge
2
5-40pmH
p y
droc
yclo
ne+d
ega
sse
r Hy
drocy
clone+deg ass
e r
F
igur
e 8
F
igur
e 6
Co
alesc
er,h
ydr
o c
yc lo
ne,deg
ass
er Hy
drocy
clo
ne,d
ega
sse
r,filte
r
B
as
icOffsh
oreOilSc
heme F
igur
e 4 F
ig
ure 1
2
H
yd
roc
yclon
e+ d
eg a
sse
r Hy
drocy
clon
e,(d
egasse
r),flo
tatio
n D
egasser
,centrifuge
<2
5 ppm F
igur
e 7 F
ig
ure 1
1
Not
e (
1 ) Co
alesc
er,hy
droc
yclo
ne,(d e
ga sse
r)
,flo
ta
tio
n H
ydr
o c
yclon
e,flo ta
tio
n,filte
r
N
ot
e s
: (
1 )<1
8 ppm mayalsobeachie
ved PageDow
ntoA cc
ess
(
2 )B
luetex
tint
h ec h
ar
tp r
ovid
esa c
c e
s st
o pr
ocesssch
ematic
s.T
ech
nolo
gySe
lect
ionCh
art
B
ac
k (
3 )S
yst
e msid
entif
iedar
e t
y p
ic
al-thisisnotade
fin
it
ives
et
Next
Figure 2.3 Offshore Oil Production Proven Technology Matrix
P
R OC
ESSSE
LEC
TIO
NCHAR
T
P
roc
essG
uid
elin
es
W
ate
rTr
e a
tme
nt DIS
PERS
EDHYD
ROCAR
BON
O
ns
hor
e O
ilP
ro
venT
ech
nolo
gy
E
asy A
ve
rag
e D
if
fic
ult
F
ig
ure3 F
igu r
e 3 Bas icO n
shor
e OilS che me
>4
0pp
mSe
ttlin
gta
nk,s
epa
rato
r, S
ettlingta
nk,s
epa
rato
r,flo
ta
tio
n, S
e ttlin
gta
nk,s
e p
a r
a to
r,flo
ta
tio
n,
h
old
in
gba
sin h
old ingbas
in h
old ingbas
in
B
as
icOn
sho
reOilS
che
m e Basic Onshor
e OilSche me F
ig
ure9
2
5-40pmS
p e
ttlin
gta
nk,s
epa
rato
r,flo
ta
tio
n, S
ettlin
g ta
nk,s
e p
arato
r,flo
ta
tio
n, S
epa
rato
r,flo
ta
tio
n,filte
r
h
old
in
gba
sin h
old in
gb as
in
B
as ic On
shor
e O
ilSche me B
as icO n
shor
e OilSche me F
ig
ure12
S
ettlin
gta
nk,s
epa
rato
r,flo
ta
tio
n, S
ettlin
gta
nk,s
e p
arato
r,flo
ta
tio
n,h
old
in
gba
sin D
ega
ss e
r,centrifu
ge
<2
5 ppmh o
ld
in
gba
sin F
ig
ure9
Not
e (
1 ) S
epa
rato
r,flo
tation,filte
r
N
ot
e s
: (
1 )<1
ved PageDow
ntoA cc
ess
(
2 )B
luetex
tint
h ec h
ar
tp r
ovid
esa c
c e
s st
o pr
ocesssch
ematic
s.T
ech
nolo
gySe
lect
ionCh
art
B
ac
k (
3 )S
yst
e msid
entif
iedar
e t
y p
ic
al-thisisnotade
fin
it
ives
et
Next

Figure 2.4 Onshore Oil Production Proven Technology Matrix
P
R OC
ESSSE
LEC
TIO
NCHAR
T
P
roc
essG
uid
elin
es
W
ate
rTr
e a
tme
nt DIS
PERS
EDHYD
ROCAR
BON
G
as/C
ond
ens
atePr
o v
enT
ech
nolo
gy
E
asy D
if
fic
ult
F
ig
ure1 F
ig
ure1
2
>4
0pp
mCo
rr
u g
ate
dpla
tein
te
rc
epto
r D
ega
sser
,ce
ntr
ifu
ge
F
ig
ure1
0
2
5-40pmF
p ig
ure1
D
ega
sser
,ce
ntr
ifu
ge,c
oale
sce
r
C
or
rug
ate
dpla
tein
te
rc
epto
r
F
ig
ure1
2 F
ig
ure1
0
<2
5 ppmD e
gas
ser
,ce
ntr
ifu
ge D
ega
sser
,ce
ntr
ifu
ge,c
oale
sce
r
Not
e (
1 )
N
ot
e s
: (
1 )<1
ved PageDow
ntoA cc
ess
(
2 )B
luetex
tint
h ec h
ar
tp r
ovid
esa c
c e
s st
o pr
ocesssch
ematic
s.T
ech
nolo
gySe
lect
ionCh
art
B
ac
k (
3 )S
yst
e msid
entif
iedar
e t
y p
ic
al-thisisnotade
fin
it
ives
et
Next
Figure 2.5 Gas/Condensate Production Proven Technology Matrix
2.2.4 Water Treatment Schematics
Fourteen water treatment schematics have been developed to cover the range of options. All schematics
appear in Appendix B, and as an example, two schemes are shown in figure 2.6 and 2.7:
PRODUCTION
FLUIDS HP SEPARATOR
MP SEPARATOR
OIL
LP SEPARATOR EXPORT
REJECT OIL
TO OIL
EXPORT
REJECT OIL
TO CENTRIFUGE
REJECT OIL
HYDROCYCLONES TO LP SEPARATOR
LP FLARE
CENTRIFUGE
DEGASSER
SKIMMED OIL
COMBINED WITH
Page Down to Notes HYDROCYCLONE
on This Schematic REJECT STREAM
Figure 2.6 'Basic Offshore Scheme for Oil Production Facilities'

CONTINUOUS
DEHYDRATION
TANK
FROM CRUDE TOFINAL

WELLS SETTLING AND
EXPORT TANKS
CORRUGATED
PLATE INTERCEPTOR
BLANKET GAS LP FLARE
GAS
SKIMMED FLOTATION VESSEL
OIL TO
EXPORT TANKS
HOLDING BASIN
TO PWRI SKIMMED
OIL TO
EXPORT TANKS
Page Down to Notes CLEAN

on This Schematic WATER
DISPOSAL
Figure 2.7 'Basic Onshore Scheme for Oil Production Facilities'
In these schemes some equipment text is highlighted in blue, which indicate that further information is
available. At this moment the information provides details on individual separation equipment and in
some cases equipment drawing, costs and weight are also available. It is envisaged total in fact sheets (see
Chapter 3), including details on each equipment will be added on a later stage.
2.2.5 Further Development of Matrices
The three matrices have been developed for dispersed oil removal and primarily for establishing options
for new developments. Some costs have been collected at the technology level, but have not been rolled
up to the total system. Some of the schemes are well proven, whilst others are not widely applied,
although still built up with proven technologies.
Further development of the matrices could be in the following areas:
 Incorporate field experience and best practice for the schemes.

 Upgrade the ZIF technology sheets to more detailed fact sheets, see Chapter 3.
 Develop costs for water treatment schemes.
 Develop schemes including solids removal steps.
 Develop schemes for removal of dissolved hydrocarbons and other contaminants.
SIEP 99-5806 - 10 - Restricted

2.3 CAPEX and OPEX for Equipment
CAPEX and OPEX are notoriously difficult to compare, because different factors are incorporated in the
costs.
The following information has been collected from different sources and as many parameters as possible
have been included.
2.3.1 Removal of Dispersed Hydrocarbons
Separator
Typical costs and weights for separators are shown below. They are for a 2-phase separator with a
coalescing pad, designed to the following parameters:
Design Pressure = 5 barg

Design Temperature = 70ºC
Inlet Oil Content = 5 vol%
Outlet Oil Content = 400 ppm
The costs include the vessel, internals, instruments, piping and skid.
Gross PW Flowrate [m3/d] Dimensions Dia x L [m] Dry Weight [T] Total Costs [k$US]
6000 1.7 x 5.7 1.7 28,0
14000 2.2 x 7.3 3.0 45,8
34000 3.0 x 10.0 7.9 78,7
Table 2.1 Dry Weights and Total Cost 2-phase Separator
Settling Tank
Typical costs and weights for settling tanks are shown below. They are for an onshore oil skimming tank
with feed distributor, that is designed to the following parameters:
Operating Pressure = Atmospheric

Feed Temperature = 40ºC
Inlet Oil Content = 5 vol%
Residence Time = 6hrs
The costs include the tank, oil skimmer, degassing boot, instruments and piping.
Gross PW Flowrate [m3/d] Dimensions Dia x H [m] Dry Weight [T] Total Costs [k$US]
7000 17.5 x 10 76 249,5
16000 25 x 10 140 330,5
Table 2.2 Dry Weights and Total Cost for Settling Tanks
Hydrocyclone
The equipment considered is a hydrocyclone package and a degasser drum based on the following design
criteria:
Design pressure equivalent to ANSI 600 lb. Rating

The hydrocyclone package will achieve an oil in water specification of 25 ppm
Produced water residence time of 2 minutes for degasser
Design pressure equal to 3.5 barg for degasser
The costs are for normal hydrocyclones and not rotary hydrocyclones.
Gross PW Flowrate Degasser Drum Dry Hydrocyclone Total Dry Total Costs
[m3/d] Weight [T] Dry Weight [T] Weight [T] [k$US]
5000 2.2 4.8 6.9 238,1
10000 3.6 9.0 12.6 436,8
25000 6.5 24.8 31.2 1081,7
Table 2.3 Dry Weights and Total Cost for Hydrocyclones and a Degasser Drum

Gas Flotation Unit

Typical costs and weights for induced gas flotation (GFU) units are shown below. They apply to the
latest offshore flotation units and are designed to the following parameters:
Feed Pressure = 5 bara

Inlet Oil Content = 40 ppm
The costs are for a hydraulically induced unit. They include the vessel, recirculation pump, instruments,
piping and skid.
Gross Produced Water Flowrate [m3/d] Dry Weight [T] Total Costs [k$US] Info. Source
1600 10 162 Skimovex
1600 6.6 348,3 Baker-Hughes
Table 2.4 Dry Weights and Total Cost for an Induced Gas Flotation Unit
From PDO report [2] the overall estimate of the cost of treating a m3 of water in a GFU is 0.0126 to
0.0286 US$.
Centrifuge
Typical costs for centrifuge units are shown below. They represent a centrifuge that is designed to the
following parameters:
Feed Pressure = 5 barg

The costs include, the centrifuge, driver, instrumentation, piping and the skid.
Gross Produced Water Flowrate [m3/d] Total Costs [k$US] Information Source
1600 874,8 Alfa Laval
1600 1458 Westfalia
Table 2.5 Total Cost for Centrifuges
Coalescer
Typical costs for a coalescer unit areshown below. It is for a cartridge filter type coalescer that is
designed to the following parameters:

The costs include a pre-filter and the coalescer’s cartridges, vessel, instruments, piping and skid.
Gross Produced Water Flowrate [m3/d] Total Costs [k$US] Information Source
1600 36,5 Pall
Table 2.6 Total Cost Cartridge filter type coalescer
Nutshell Filter
Typical cost and weight data for a nutshell filter unit are shown below. They are for a filter, back-flushed
with clean water, and designed to the following parameters:


The cost includes the bed, vessel, instruments, piping and skid, but not the back-flush water tank nor
pump.
Gross Produced Water Dry Weight Arrangement Total Costs Information

Flowrate [m3/d] [T] [k$US] Source
1600 26 1 x 100% 388,8 Axsia-Serck-Baker
Table 2.7 Dry Weights and Total Cost for a Nutshell Filter Unit
2.3.2 Removal of Dissolved Hydrocarbons
The CAPEX and OPEX in Table 2.8 are from a BSP report [3] and are on equipment designed for
removal of dissolved hydrocarbons.
CAPEX OPEX Power in HC Source Comments

Process US$ x 106 US$ x 106 kW outlet
Air stripping 8,4 0.40 (no air 112 <10 ppm De-oil manual Not in
purification) [4] produced water
treatment
Nitrogen stripping 36,6 ** 1,8 37+ N2 <10 ppm De-oil manual High cost
prodn. [4]
Gas stripping 34,8 ** 1,8 1520 <10 ppm De-oil manual High cost
[4]
Open Steam 19,2 1,2 7,780 <5 ppm De-oil manual Pilot scale
stripping [4] study
Closed steam 22,2 1,2 7,550 <5 ppm De-oil manual Pilot scale
stripping [4] study
Pervaporation 94,8 ** 8,4 7,550 <5 ppm De-oil manual KSLA
[4]
Nanofiltration 75,0 ** 7,8 112 <5 ppm De-oil manual SDI
[4] membranes
Airlift Biofilm 119,4 ** 6,0 6 <10 ppm De-oil manual KSLA – not for
[4] onshore facility
Solvent stripping 22,8 1,2 542 <10 ppm De-oil manual Under trials by
[4] KSLA
Activated carbon 7,2 2,2 + <10 ppm
regeneration
Peroxide oxidation 7,2 0,78 + H2O2 Low API DR351 O2, Ozone,
cost KMnO4
UV – Ozone 13,8 2,4 3,375 API DR 351 90%
oxidation destruction of
BTX
Peroxide/UV 7,2 0.78 + H2O2 API DR 351 Pre-treatment
Oxidation cost costs included
Biological 36 2,4 <5ppm Decremont Site test
treatment Netherlands required
Clerify cellulose 2,4 4,8 Cellulose High opex
filter
Table 2.8 Costs for the equipment are based on 27,000 m3/d through put. Exchange rate 1B$
= 0,60 $US
** Scaled proportionately from 100 m3/d to 27,000 m3/d. the equipment cost only available from source.
Three times of equipment cost is considered for total equipment cost. Actual cost for large-scale plants
may be much less than that of the given.

Best Practice for Produced Water Treatment Systems
3 BEST PRACTICE FOR PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT

SYSTEMS
In summary 'Best Practice' can be described as a systematic approach that first emphasises identifying
problems, then understanding them, and after that solving them. Even though this might sound like an
obvious approach it is often very tempting to jump to the wrong conclusions. The real cause of the
problem is usually not identified, as everyone concerned has an opinion on what actually happened and
why. The real cause of the problem needs to be arrived at by a factual analysis of data. It is therefore
important to get a good characterisation of the water, and operating conditions, and this can involve a
substantial amount of effort and analysis. When everything has been reviewed by experts, then a proper
solution can be applied.
'Best Practice' for produced water treatment systems is quite application specific, as the E&P industry
deal with a wide variety of projects over their life cycle. 'Best Practice' for a greenfield development can
be very different from what would be appropriate on an existing facility, and offshore constraints can
result in quite different optimum solutions to those considered for onshore.
To give a single 'Best Practice' guideline is therefore not possible. More appropriate is a common
approach to design, and to identify and diagnose problems in a system. Such an approach has been
developed by the Unocal water treatment team. This team comprises experts from different disciplines
with a broad knowledge base, brought together as required to jointly solve water treatment problems.
Their stepwise approach is as follows [5]:
1. Review all aspects of the facility's mechanical operations; fix mechanical problems first, add
chemicals second
2. Correlate appearance of separation problems with operational factors.
3. Conduct mechanical and chemical diagnostic field testing.
4. Take fluid samples for laboratory characterisation and analysis.
5. Review data with operators, field engineers and chemical experts.
6. Provide data to equipment and chemical suppliers; work with them to select candidate
solutions; remain involved.
7. Pilot test; contribute to design, engineering and implementation of proposed solution(s).
This approach is very similar to the approach which is described in the Deoiling Manual [4] section 7.
To help in Step 6 "Provide data to equipment and chemical suppliers”, work with them to select candidate
solutions; remain involved" a series of Fact Sheets have been developed and included in Appendix C.
3.1 Technology Fact Sheets
The Technology Fact Sheets are intended as a series of 2-6 page capsule summaries of technologies and
processes used by the E&P Industry for the treatment of produced water for surface disposal or re-
injection. In these sheets, information of equipment in terms of known best practices, application ranges,
limitations, development plans, etc. is collated. The Fact Sheets are being written to provide a broad
based overview and general understanding of the state-of-the-art of the technology. The data contained on
the Fact Sheets is not intended to provide the user with sufficient information necessary to design a
facility. Rather, their purpose is to provide summary-type data and key highlights needed to determine the
applicability and status of the technology for a specific application. References are given to more detailed
information.

The Fact Sheets are intended to be live documents which will be up-dated as new information and
experience becomes available. This new information will come from vendors, OUs and other operators. A
significant source of information will be the discussions on the WGM03 AVF site, and it is important that
this shared knowledge is captured and made available to OUs. At this point in time, we have developed a
structure and made a start on the Fact Sheets, incorporated some of the information available, and
requested equipment vendors to provide information, particularly of emerging technologies and test
results.
3.2 Flotation
Flotation is used extensively onshore for water polishing. Offshore, in the Gulf of Mexico, preference is
still shown for flotation units over hydrocyclones, probably due to the relatively low flowrates of
produced water at present, and the considerable experience that operators have with these flotation units.
In other offshore locations, flotation units are now being considered as a polishing unit to be installed
downstream of hydrocyclones when hydrocyclones are unable to achieve the required discharge
specifications. The successful trial of a flotation unit downstream of a hydrocyclone on Gannet platform
in 1998, has now led Shell Expro to order a unit.
Best Practice (which have been reported on in more detail earlier) remain:
 Gas blanketted units are preferable to atmospheric units to avoid FeS and corrosion products
 Automatic level control will improve skimming performance under varying flow conditions
 Skimmers need to be adjustable
 Eductors in hydraulically induced units can scale and require regular cleaning
 Anti-motion baffles can be installed to improve performance on floaters
 Performance can be very sensitive to chemicals injected and of solids
Shell Oil investigated vertical single cell flotation units in a desk study at ERT in 1998 to assess the
suitability for floater application, and the potential performance capability of a single cell versus the
traditional four cell design. Four units were identified (Blue Water Environmental – Envirolink, Cominco
Engineering – VOSCell, Separation Specialists Inc – Turbojet, Unicell – Unicell), but no tests have been
carried out since then.
3.3 Hydrocyclones
Hydrocyclones are regarded as ‘standard technology' for offshore oil production operations by Shell and
other operators. Hydrocyclones consume a pressure drop of several bar and may not be as cost effective
for low pressure water streams when a pump must be utilised to boost feed pressure. Furthermore,
pumping will shear oil droplets. A degassing vessel must be incorporated downstream of hydrocyclones
to safely release gas arising from the pressure drop through the hydrocyclone. Experience is that the flash
drum can contribute significantly to the deoiling, and therefore it is Best Practice to install oil skim
facilities in the flash drum.
Solids can accumulate and block the reject orifice. A backflush system is recommended to clear the
solids. Statoil (Statfjord) experience fine solids such as FeS, asphaltenes, oil wet sand, accumulating
inside the reject chamber. To maintain performance, the hydrocyclones are backflushed daily and cleaned
weekly using steam. The reject port can be increased in size to minimise blockage, but this will result in
having to handle a higher reject volume.
The orientation of the hydrocyclone does not appear to affect performance or solids accumulation, but
horizontal units are easier to maintain. Also for ease of maintenance, removable end covers are
recommended on both ends of the hydrocyclone vessel.

There have been a number of hydrocyclone developments since the original Vortoil 60 mm units. A higher
performance, but lower capacity 35 mm throat hydrocyclone was known as the ‘k’ liner. The ‘Gm’ liner is
a better performance than the ‘G’ liner and more ‘Gm’ liners can fit in the same space ‘G’ liners due to a
more compact configuration of the inlet swirl chamber. On Shell Expro Eider platform, 22 ‘G’ type liners
were changed to 37 of the ‘Gm’ type in the same vessel in August 1998. This has resulted in increased
water handling capacity, and improved deoiling performance. It has not been necessary to clean the ‘Gm’
liners since they were put on line so the feeling is that this would tend to support the manufacturers
claims that the ‘Gm’ type liner is more robust to clogging and blocking of the oil reject.
Mozley Ceramic Hydrocyclones - Shell Expro carried out trials with a portable test hydrocyclone vessel
on Gannet and the Anasuria. The unit contained seven ceramic, dual-inlet liners. The Mozley
hydrocyclone performed well, and achieved better oil in water levels than the existing hydrocyclones on
both installations. The average oil removal efficiencies achieved were 88.9% on Gannet, and 84.1% on
the Anasuria. It also proved to be robust and relatively insensitive to process upsets and changes in feed
quality or chemical injection rates.
Solids deposition can also be minimised by the installation of solids removal cyclones (e.g. from Richard
Mozley, Lakos, etc) upstream of the deoiling hydrocyclones. Amerada Hess have also reduced the oil and
solids content fed to the hydrocyclones by changing the demulsifier chemical to the Production Separator.
Hydrocyclones require a steady feed at near design capacity for best performance. There has
understandably been poor performance in applications which subject the hydrocyclones to on/off flow
rates, e.g. as occurs in the GoM at low flowrates. A solution at low flowrates is to bypass the
hydrocyclones to a gravity separation tank, or to a flotation unit.
Several operators have reported significant improvements to deoiling performance with new
hydrocyclones, and after having cleaned the hydrocyclones. This suggests that some of the apparent
performance improvement seen with the new hydrocyclones may simply be due to the fact that they are
clean. This observation, has however, not been documented in any trials.
Kvaerner recently entered the hydrocyclone market with a design utilising 4 inlet ports rather than one
aiming for less turbulence and oil droplet break-up at the inlet. There are also other new suppliers
including Cyclosep and ESI.
Best Practice:
 Use hydrocyclones for removal of oil droplets larger than 10 um.

 Have a constant minimum flow to the hydrocyclones.
 Avoid flow fluctuations.
 Conserve temperature , wherever possible.
 Solids will reduce performance of hydrocyclones.
 Exclude as much gas as possible as too much gas will interfere with oil migration to the core.
 Regular cleaning of hydrocyclones has been found to improve performance significantly.
 Regular Backflush facilities to remove solids from reject ports.
 Increase reject port size so it does not block with solids.
3.4 Plate Interceptors
Plate pack interceptors find most application onshore due to their relatively large size. Often, the deoiling
performance is adequate for produced water which is to be re-injected, but there is now increasing
application upstream of flotation units to achieve surface discharge limits. The main advantages of plate
packs are that they relatively simple and require little maintenance or attention. Plate interceptors are
often used for treating surface runoff water. Any recovered oil (and water) should not be recycled to the

process as oxygen contamination and scaling/precipitates can occur. A relatively small volume of
‘recovered oil’ can cause high levels of oil in the discharged produced water. Older installations have
been open to the atmosphere and corrosion products FeS and bacteria can develop.
In theory, a closer plate spacing will yield improved performance. Information may be available from
Woodside’s modification of the condensate/water separator on Goodwyn A platform. Here, closer plate
spacing has reduced water-in-condensate levels, but there is no conclusion yet on condensate-in-water
changes.
Developments include oleophilic and hydrophilic plate material, but we have not found any reports on
performance of these plates. A literature article [6] has suggested mechanically vibrating the plates to
maintain cleanliness, but again, no proven application or data has been located. As ultrasonic technology
develops, piezoelectric crystals could be embedded in the plates, and improvements may be possible by
maintaining clean plates and potentially coalescing droplets, see Section 5.1.6.
Best Practice:
 Regular cleaning to remove solids.

 Routine maintenance to remove solids and wax and replace broken plates (usually fabricated in fibre
glass).
 Even distribution of flow where multiple units are required.
 Minimise flow fluctuations (which can flush out coalesced oil with the water).
 Gas blanket to exclude air.
 Do not mix 'surface run off 'and 'produced water' streams and recycles.
3.5 Centrifuges
Centrifuges remove oil droplets down to 5 microns from produced water, although vendor literature
suggests removal down to 2 microns or less. Such performance is usually only necessary for produced
water from gas production facilities where corrosion inhibitor is used. It appears that the corrosion
inhibitor is more a governing factor than the pressure drop in stabilising small droplets. NAM has needed
to apply this technology on several platforms. On NAM K81, the presence of a high level of (oil wet)
solids has prevented the centrifuge from achieving 40 mg/l dispersed oil-in-water, and a Pall Coalescer
will be installed (see Section 5.14) downstream of the centrifuge. In this case, the centrifuge acts as a
good pre-treatment for the coalescer by the removal of solids. Centrifuges are currently being considered
for treatment of produced water on Woodside’s Goodwyn A platform.
Centrifuges also find application in deep dehydration of crude oil. Most recently, a LEO (Alfa Laval
15,000 bpd unit) was in use on a Shell Oil GoM platform for over a year. This centrifuge will now be
relocated to dewater slop oil (including flotation unit reject) on Auger Platform. A smaller centrifuge is
also in use to dewater similar slop oil on Shell Oil’s GoM Mars Platform. A very simple centrifuge
developed by CINC for the nuclear industry is now being proposed for oilfield application. A unit has
been installed by Pectin (Shell Oil) for dewatering slop oil. There has been limited success to date.
Best Practice:
 Presence of solids in incoming fluids requires a solids discharge system (lifting bowl).
 Be aware of potential scale formation within the disc stack.
 High maintenance requirement demands a spare centrifuge to be considered.
 Consider (but difficult usually to justify) a centrifuge on dewatering of hydrocyclone and other
deoiling technology reject streams to minimise recycles to the process.

3.6 Filtration
Media filters can utilise sand, multi media, oleophilic media or hydrophilic media (crushed nut shells).
Coagulants/flocculants can be used upstream to improve filtration performance, but often both free and
emulsified oil can be removed without the use of chemicals. During the backflushing, a relatively large
backflush stream is generated, and as this stream contains the solids removed from the system, it cannot
be recycled back into the process, as they will only build up in time. Crushed nut shell filters require
lower backflush volumes, and unfiltered water may be used for back-washing. Attrition of the nutshell
medias requires a 10 – 15% makeup each year. Major concerns are that high levels of oil, particularly
heavier oils, and waxes, may bind the media and the bed plug. Produced water filters at lower flux rates
than seawater or river water as typically used for water injection schemes. They are also susceptible to
surface active chemicals such as corrosion inhibitors. For media filters, flux rates can be 20-40 m 3/h/m2,
accumulated oil can be 40 kg/m 3, and accumulated solids can be 20 kg/m 3. Flux rates for nutshell filters
can be 25-30 m3/h/m2.
It is practically impossible to theoretically predict filter performance. The only rational way to select a
filter is to conduct comparative on-site performance testing with small scale pilot filters and the water of
interest.
Best Practices:
 Do not exceed 100 mg/l dispersed oil into sand or dual media filters and 200 mg/l into crushed
nutshell filter.
 Make sure that there is a valve fitted to the outlet where the media has to be exchanged from, so that
a pipe easily can be fitted (Schoonebeek water treatment plant experience).
 Conduct comparative on-site performance testing with small scale pilot filters and the water of
interest.
3.7 Field Experiences in 1999
This section is a collection of some field experiences that has been carried out in 1999 and has been
included to show how some OU's are dealing with their water.
3.7.1 NAM, L9-FF-1 Water Overboard Problem
Reference: "Close out report L9-FF-1 water overboard problem" [7]:
During start up of L9-FF-1, in June 1998, the quality of the overboard water from the process system was
not in line with design criteria. At first it was thought that the barytes settling out from the oil based mud,
left in the wells after drilling, was causing the problem. Cleaning of the production water skimmer in
December 1998 showed practically no signs of solids in the skimmer. The curing of the WOB problem
started with the injection of demulsifier into the gas stream up stream the production separator, to
establish the best possible separation in the water/condensate separator. Still the quality decreased to
values above 40 mg/l with the rise in gas production.
All individual pieces of installed equipment were checked for proper sizing and layout but no significant
engineering mistakes were discovered.
Oil droplet sizing measurements on the stream from the production skimmer and the flash vessel revealed
unexplainable results, droplet sizing far in excess of the systems capabilities for separation. Injection of
deoiler was started in the water stream to the water compartment of the water/condensate separator,
giving no or nearly no results. After this observation, close investigation and alternative sample methods
on the platform revealed that the flow from the glycol scrubber was consisting of nearly pure condensate,

fouling the water side of the flash vessel and causing the separation problem in the production skimmer.
Rerouting of this minor stream to the condensate side of the flash vessel cured the separation problem and
brought the WOB values back to an average laboratory level of 10 ppm for the aliphatic.
The injection of demulsifier and deoiler was stopped, which had no impact on the water quality.
Conclusion and learning points:
 The layout of the water and condensate flows on L9-FF-1 was copied from the earlier L block
platforms resulting in coping in a latent problem in the system.
 Separate the very dirty water from the cleaner water.
In World Oil July 1999 page 53 there is an article from Unocal discussing "Solving problems with
overboard water handling systems" [5]. This article gives a good overview about the steps to be taken in
case of water problems. The L9 improvement was done according to the same approach.
3.7.2 Elf Piper Bravo Experience with H2S Scavenger
From the AVF, Stephen Northwood:
H2S scavengers can have an adverse effect on the removal of dispersed oil from produced water streams.
I'm aware of only one North Sea operator who has claimed that a H 2S scavenger has created oil/water
separation problems. Elf carried out some trials using Exxon's Sulfacheck 6139 H 2S scavenger on the
Piper Bravo platform. This particular scavenger is somewhat different to those offered by other vendors.
With this scavenger the H2S reaction products are preferentially soluble in the oil phase whereas with the
other scavengers the reaction products are preferentially soluble in the water phase. Elf claim that the
scavenger made their demulsifier chemical virtually ineffective and both the crude oil water content and
the produced water oil content deteriorated. Unfortunately they didn't try any other demulsifier chemicals.
I have heard that oil/water separation on this platform has always been problematical.
3.7.3 PDO Pipeline Bottom Water Draw Off
Reference: Qassim Al-Kitany, PDO, ONE/14
Field observations suggested that water could be drained from the pipelines which bring the produced
liquids from the fields into the main production stations. Theoretical calculations were not able to predict
separation in flowing lines, and an experimental rig was built in Shell Laboratories Amsterdam to
investigate the concept if applied to the Nimr Field. Upscaling the experimental results suggested that
75,000 bpd of water could be drawn off a 30” pipeline. SGS Amsterdam has now developed sizing
routines for such applications.
The Nimr A 30" pipeline was provided with ten numbers of 10" tappings, each at a distance of 15m from
each other. The first eight tappings (see sketch below) were used to draw off water from the pipeline
whilst the remaining two tappings were used for returning the pumped fluid back into the same pipeline.
Later on, the scope was extended to send BWDO water to downstream processing facilities to check the
effect on interface levels, quality of drawn-off water and performance of downstream processing facility.
The pipeline also consists of six numbers 3" sample connections, which are used to determine the
interface level between water, and oil/water emulsion using SIEP supplied sample probes.

Nimr A pipeline
To FWKO tanks
T-4817/18
Bottom tappings x8
BWDO pumps x2
Figure 3.1 Schematic of the BWDO set-up in PDO
The results obtained from BWDO trial has been encouraging in terms of overall flowrates, quality of
water and stability of interface level. The interface levels in the pipe (between free water and oil/water
emulsion) have been found to be at approximately 25cm from the bottom of the pipe, with oil in water
(OIW) content of less than 2000ppm. This represents about 40% of the water in the pipeline that is pre-
separated already and is available to be removed. However, the interface level is not consistent between
winter and summer. In summer, a much higher interface level is seen, showing that more pre-separation is
occurring in the pipeline due to increased temperature. The quality of water in the mornings is poorer than
those observed in the afternoons. Even with this phenomena occurring in the pipeline, it is still observed
that the water withdrawn from BWDO has less than 2000 ppm oil in water content. The other observation
is that at infrequent times, instability in the interface is noticed with ripples of oil occurring at around
20cm from the bottom of the pipe.
The overall flowrates obtained up to now are above 20,000m³/d (expected only 17,445m³/d which is 40%
of Nimr A production with an average oiw content in the discharge line of approx. 1200ppm (cut-off is at
2000ppm, for current CPI's operation). These results have been observed over a period of time. Effect on
the interface level as the water is drawn-off was monitored during the trial and investigation of individual
tapping was also carried out. Both of these investigations have shown that the interface level drops by
approximately 8-10 cm. Investigation of individual tappings has also shown that a flowrate of up to
10,000m³/d could be obtained from single tapping with less than 2000ppm OIW content for a pumped
option.
Downstream processing facilities were also tested extensively with northern bank CPI's for about four
weeks. The objective of this testing was to monitor the performance of the CPI's under normal operations
(without BWDO) and the performance with BWDO. The results of this test have been encouraging with
no adverse effects observed on the CPI's when BWDO water was being processed. CPI's performance
with BWDO was observed to be same as under normal operations and sometimes even better than when
water comes from the dehydration tanks.
3.7.4 PDO Reed Bed Trials
Reference: Catherine Gurden, PDO ONE/12
During 1998, and with input from Shell Research Thornton, a new technology to the oil field industry,
termed reed bed technology, was identified as an attractive produced water clean-up technology. Reed bed
technology is a phytoremediatation process, which promotes degradation of hydrocarbons and sorption
of heavy metals whilst consuming some of the produced water. An experimental facility, 800 m 2 capable
of treating 20 m3/day of produced water, was commissioned at the Desert Agricultural Project in January
1999. The results, to date, have been encouraging with > 98% removal of hydrocarbons from the Marmul
production water. Heavy metal sorption is still under investigation. Evapotranspiration rates are in line
with predictions with a 50% water volume reduction across the bed.
Based on the success of this experimental facility, a larger pilot – 6 hectares treating 3 000 m 3/day, will be
constructed and commissioned in December 1999 in Nimr. Based on the pilot costs, a life cycle cost
estimate for Reed Bed technology is estimated at PV US$ 0.07/m 3. The next challenge will be to find a

value crop that can be grown with the reed bed effluent to offset the capital investment and provide
opportunities for the local community.
Figure 3.2 Reed Bed trail in PDO, Oman

Produced Water Re-injection
4 PRODUCED WATER RE-INJECTION
Produced water can be injected for pressure maintenance or for sub-surface disposal. Produced Water Re-
Injection (PWRI) may be carried out under two injection conditions; injection under matrix rates and/or
injection at pressure which may cause formation fracturing. Produced water re-injection is widely
perceived as a technology which causes formation damage relative to seawater injection application.
PWRI often requires significant water treatment to reduce OIW concentration and solids when injected
for pressure maintenance. If the produced water is not treated, significant decrease in injectivity occurs .
Industry’s experience indicate that injectivity due to PWRI could be reduced by 20 - 40% as compared to
seawater injectivity while injectivity in other wells remains the same irrespective of the type of injected
water. Injectivity decline is generally attributed to poor water quality. This results in costly workovers,
stimulation jobs or re-completion. Investigations, however, have shown that the actual injectivity of a
well is a complex interaction of temperature effects on injection zone, injection water oil and solids
content and downhole and reservoir conditions.
4.1 Observations and Conclusions
The following observations and conclusions are based on the information that was collected from the
questionnaires, field visits, personal communication, literature and workshops.
General Observations/ Conclusions for PWRI Application

 Produced water is characterised by suspended oily coated solids, dissolved acid gases and higher
total dissolved solids at higher water temperature than the specifications for water to be injected,
therefore it is often has to be treated before it is re-injected.
 Water quality required for prolonged produced water injection depends on the volumes injected, the
type of injection (for pressure maintenance or for disposal) and the injection conditions of the well
and reservoir.
 High water quality (strict filtering requirement) and surface monitoring does not necessarily represent
the actual downhole injection water conditions. The injected water could contain suspended solids
due to deposits of scale and corrosion products downstream of a filtration process.
 The increase in injectivity of produced water with a decrease in injection water temperature
emphasises the strong relationship between injection temperature and injectivity and the subsequent
formation of thermally induced fractures .
 Continuos injection of produced water at a low temperature is possible without significant decrease
in injectivity into the reservoir. Prolonged injection of produced water however, decreases the
injectivity index of the well indicating damage caused by build-up of oil coated solids in the near
wellbore area affecting the permeability. The extent of decrease in injectivity depends on the water
quality and on the fracturing conditions of the formation rock.
 Poor water quality due to process facilities transient (upset) conditions, often resulting from routine
well treatments such as scale inhibitor squeezes, batch chemical treatments (production wells and
process plant), well cleanup (e.g. after workover, drilling or stimulation) or even bringing on a cold
sub-sea satellite well, can cause substantial excursion in oil and solids concentration. This could
result in accelerating the decline in injectivity even in thermally fractured wells.
 In some cases downhole water quality is found to be substantially worse than surface water quality
with respect to suspended solids and biofilm. This was due to scale and/or corrosion products
generated downstream of the injection pump.
 Industry's experience in PWRI is very similar to Shell's experience. Fractured formation appears to
be more tolerant to the poor water quality. Less data are available for use of PWRI for pressure
maintenance.

 The cost (CAPEX and OPEX) of PWRI depends on location (offshore vs onshore), on the level of
treatment ( for disposal vs pressure maintenance) and on the field location in the world. Limited data
suggests that injection in offshore wells are more expensive than on-shore wells. More data are
needed to provide a matrix of cost estimates. This would be the scope of WGM03 for year 2000.
Offshore Production Facilities

 Produced water injection is a feasible alternative to the produced water overboard discharge. A
successful implementation requires (1) induction of thermal fractures by cooling the injection water,
(2) produced water clean-up to discharge quality to increase platform uptime, (3)mixing of produced
water and seawater will provide higher water quality following water breakthrough and at mixing
ratios less than 20% of produced water, (4) No significant detrimental effect on the injectivity of the
formation water due to long term injection of produced water have to be observed when seawater
injection is resumed.
 A direct link between the production stream and the injection stream poses an increased risk to
platform uptime if the produced water is not treated to overboard discharge specifications.
 If produced water is to be blended with seawater before injection, the integrity of the injection system
for sour service must be investigated and corrosion control and management should be implemented.
 Generally corrosion inhibitor is injected at constant flowrate, and therefore its concentration varies
with varying hydrocarbon production rates. Oil-in-water concentration is then seen to vary with the
corrosion inhibitor concentration.
 Limited experience with produced water cooling has resulted in fouling and loss of efficiency of the
heat exchangers even on a relatively clean flow stream. It may not be feasible to cool the produced
water without committing to equipment with a significant maintenance and intervention requirement
Onshore Production Facilities

 Conventional treatment equipment such as skim tanks, CPI's and filters are often used in onshore
facilities to produce the required water quality.
 injector’s impairment is a combination of shallow invasion of formation and filter cake build-up of
suspended solids on the formation face.
 Batch biocide treatment is only effective through the slug duration in the system.
 Injectivity decline appears to be mainly due to the accumulation of sulphate reducing bacteria biofilm
that is coated with iron sulfide particulates.
 An increase in injection pressure increased the injection rate, as expected, but also increased the
impairment rate.
 DE filters produce better water quality than media filters.
 Organic acid content should always be measured to determine actual HCO 3- content rather than
assume the HCO3- is equivalent to the alkalinity. This may leads to incorrect prediction of CaCO 3
scaling potential
4.2 Best Practice
Several best practices are recommended for existing installations.
General
 Consider total injection system design from surface facilities to downhole injection.
 For detailed fracture opening pressures sub-surface data is essential to compensate for frictional
losses in the tubings and/or flowlines

 Maintenance and cleaning of surface treatment facilities is essential for reducing facilities upsets and
the subsequent deterioration of the injection water quality.
 To improve seawater quality use plastic lined injection pipelines to avoid corrosion products.
 To improve water quality use coated injection pipelines to avoid corrosion products.
Offshore PWRI
 Produced water treatment facilities should be designed to provide water quality for overboard
discharge. This is particularly important to accommodate injection system downtime and avoid
production shut-in due to poor water quality (particularly during PWRI ramp-up).
 If seawater is required to sustain voidage replacement, the following procedures are recommended:
- Routine cleaning of water treatment facility to maintain/improve performance.
- Exclude oxygen in the system to avoid FeS.
- Test alternative chemicals to optimise system performance.
 For PWRI following a seawater flood and before seawater breakthrough, operation should not mix
seawater with the produced water. Produced water should either be disposed of overboard or injected
in a separate zone injection water. Following seawater breakthrough, blending on the surface
upstream of filters will be a possibility. Note that in these scenarios, one should not forget that the
barium sulfate solids might be radioactive due to the co-precipitation of Radium and could create
equipment and filter cartridge disposal issue in addition to the safety concerns. It is recommended to
add a scale inhibitor to the produced water before mixing with seawater, particularly at low %.
Onshore PWRI
 Shallow produced water injection requires better water quality than deepwater injection to maintain
injectivity. Due to uncertainty in the potential fracture growth out of injection zone, injection under
matrix conditions has been a good practice
 Segregation of water streams and blending just before injection has contributed to better water
quality
 Mixing of waters should be avoided to minimize scaling and corrosion potential.
 It is not a best practice to inject sour water into a sweet reservoir. System integrity under corrosion
conditions should be thoroughly checked.
4.3 PWRI Application
The application of produced water re-injection is common in Shell’s fields in USA (California and West
Texas), in NAM, in PDO and Syria. PWRI in the North Sea fields is not common but has been increasing
in the past few years. Many operators such as BPAmoco are becoming more comfortable with the
technology as they gain a better understanding of the differences between sea water and produced water
injection behaviour. A number of reservoir specific issues are currently being considered prior to the
selection of PWRI for pressure maintenance or disposal. Industry speculates based on few experiences
that PWRI may become a single, moderate cost solution to effluent disposal issues particularly in a
progressively more stringent regulatory environment. This solution has the potential to improve
environmental compliance by reducing discharge of dispersed hydrocarbon, soluble hydrocarbons,
biologically available heavy metals, radionuclides, and production chemicals.
4.3.1 Characterisation of Produced Water for Re-injection

Injection decline rate in a well depends on the injected water quality, compatibility of the water with the
formation water and clays, well completion, injection rates and pressures, near well-bore in-situ velocities
and reservoir constraints. Although in many field-cases it is difficult to determine which is the dominant
factor(s), there are predictive tools and simulators that can be used to provide general guidelines for
minimising impact and/or mitigation. In the following sections, each of the factors will be discussed
briefly. However, there is vast list of references that addresses the same factors in detail and is highly
recommended to read, see literature in Appendix G.
General Characteristics of Injected Produced Water

Produced water is composed not only of formation waters that could vary considerably from field to field,
zone to zone and with time due to pressure changes and fluid movements, but may also contain a
combination of other sources such as seawater, aquifer water and other aqueous waste streams (e.g. run-
off water, crude desalting wash waters, miscellaneous recycled and drainage waters, etc.).
Treated seawater, aquifer or fresh river water is commonly used for pressure maintenance. The injection
water quality is generally good. However, when using PW one should realise that there are several
differences between these treated water quality and the produced water quality. These differences include:
 Produced water contains higher amounts of solids (oil coated solids), oil and production chemicals.
 Produced water is generally at or slightly below reservoir temperature before injected.
 Produced water has a higher potential for scale and corrosion product formation due to change in
temperature, pressure and pH of the water from production to injection and/or due to mixing with
other source waters.
 Produced water injection has been demonstrated to accelerate the reservoir souring and potential H 2S
production particularly when mixed with water with high sulfate content or injected following a
seawater flood.
 Produced water sometimes contains dissolved gases such as H2S and CO2 that contributes to various
corrosion mechanisms of the injection system and results in generating suspended solids that may be
carried with the injected water.
 Produced water may contain occasionally elevated oil and solids content due to process facilities
upset conditions
Suspended solids coated with oil is a key factor in the reduction in injectivity of the well due to plugging
the formation face or near wellbore region. This effect will be addressed in section 4.3.2.
Compatibility of Produced Water with Formation Rock

Geochemistry of injected produced water and its compatibility with connate/formation waters, its
compatibility with the lithology of the injection and confining zones is also an important factor to
consider. The analysis of the PW is generally used to predict and/or determine the potential for scale
formation near wellbore and to assess the potential permeability degradation due to fines and clays
dispersion and mobilisations. Such permeability degradation can plug the formation around the injection
well can reduce the effectiveness of the injection scheme.
The compatibility with injection zone clays can be assessed using Generalised Flocculation Salinity
Criteria diagrams that were developed by R. Scherman and implemented in a program “Water Advisor”
[22]. In this program, the potential dispersion and mobilisation of the clays is calculated. Coreflood tests
are also sometimes used to determine the compatibility of PW and its impact on permeability for
specific clays.
If the in-situ velocity of the fluids is sufficiently high near wellbore is could mobilise fines such as
Feldspar and fine sand. Fines due to their sizes are negatively charged and could bridge the pore opening
of the sand grains and plug these pores thereby reducing the formation permeability. This may occur due
to the high in-situ velocities that occur during start-up or shut-down. Fines migration may occur during
shut-in of wells due to lag time between pump shut-in and sub-surface safety valve and/or due to the sub-
sea manifold set-up causing back flow into the well. Injectivity may recover slightly if these fines

rearrange but it is highly unlikely that original injectivity will be restored with acid stimulation unless a
mud acid stimulation is implemented. Corefloods can be conducted to determine the critical in-situ
velocity that would mobilise the fines near wellbore and potentially cause the injectivity to decline.
Finely dispersed scale particles may also occur downhole due a poor scale control treatment and can lead
to considerable quantities of finely dispersed scale particles which may cause formation plugging and
stabilising emulsions.
Compatibility of Produced Water with Formation Water

The potential for scale precipitation in produced water or in a blend of PW and different source waters is
a function of the saturation index, the dissolved gases, pH, temperature and pressure of the injected
water. The location where the scale deposits depends on the scale characteristics, conditions of internal
tubings, injection facilities and on the velocities of the water. Precipitation can occur on surface facilities,
in the injection tubing, and near wellbore of the injection zone. There are several common scales that are
encountered in water injection operations. These include CaSO 4, CaCO3 and BaSO4. Other deposits or
scales that are associated with corrosion [22].
Scale inhibition is administrated however, may not be 100% effective. In some cases, scale can be
controlled or minimised by the modification of the water blend ratios or even elimination of the problem
stream. The extent of scale precipitation depends on the characteristics of the blended waters. For
example, there are several scenarios by which produced water can be mixed with seawater before re-
injection. This depends on the time it is mixed; before or after seawater breakthrough. For example if
produced water is mixed with seawater; before seawater breakthrough, BaSO 4 will precipitate and
contribute to the suspended solids. After seawater breakthrough, BaSO 4 that has already precipitated
downhole could be diluted by the presence of seawater, thereby reducing the suspended solids
concentration. In either case, the solids should be reduced before injection to same quality as the current
seawater. If these solids are carried over to the perforations and/or to near wellbore zone, the injection
rate may decline rapidly if the zone is not fractured. See section 4.3.2.
4.3.2 Effect of Oil and solids on Injectivity
The effect of oil-in-water concentration is important though the cause and relationship may be less
straightforward than perceived. Typical produced water that has been treated for disposal may have an
OIW concentration of 10 - 40mg/l. Some authors have argued that water for injection should be cleaned
to at least the same standards as treated filtered seawater to maintain the same injectivity under matrix
[11]. However, the real effect on injectivity is not due to oil but due to oil coated solids. Long term
PWRI field experience at OIW content of 200 - 500 mg/l has indicated that some damage but in-
significant to the reservoir.
Poor water quality due to process facilities transient (upset) conditions can occur very frequently. These
transient conditions would often result from routine well treatments such as scale inhibitor squeezes,
batch chemical treatments (production wells and process plant), well cleanup (e.g. after workover, drilling
or stimulation) or even bringing on a cold sub-sea satellite well. These conditions can cause a substantial
excursion in oil and solids concentration which may contain mineral fines, finely dispersed BaSO 4 scale
or CaCO3 scale, wax, asphaltenes, emulsions partly spent production chemicals and treatment chemicals
(e.g. acids). The cumulative damage effect can cause a significant reduction in injectivity and potentially
a total loss of injection on some wells (even in thermally fractured wells due to fracture tip death). This
effect has been demonstrated by field experience where PWRI is the only permitted disposal method for
production effluent. Phillips Petroleum operating the Maureen Field produced water injection system
reported frequent excursions to 3,000 mg/l (i.e. 0.3%), Arco at Prudhoe Bay report "intermittent spikes to
500 mg/l and higher". Other companies have suggested that 2 - 5% OIW could occur but only for a few
minutes and almost certainly for less than an hour [11].
4.3.3 Effect of Temperature
The temperature of the injection water is an important parameter when considering injectivity. Thermally
induced downhole fracturing due to cold water injection has been shown to significantly increase
injectivity and reduce the detected damage to the reservoir due to poor water quality. Cold water

injection reduces the compressive stress in the rock surrounding the wellbore, thereby increasing the
potential for fracturing at a bottom hole injection pressure that is less than the in-situ stress. This process
has been demonstrated through pilot tests and full scale injection of seawater in unconsolidated sand and
in carbonate formation [24]. For example: with a decrease in injection water temperature from 55ºC to
25ºC, injectivity in the Eider field (EXPRO’s North Business Unit, see section 4.6) was shown to increase
by about 47%. For an injection pressure of 120 bar, this was attributed to opening the fracture at 25ºC as
compared to closing the fracture at the higher injection temperatures (45ºC). Field experience also has
demonstrated that full injectivity recovers quite rapidly when SWI resumes.
Injection of produced water causes the fracture(s) to grow over time and if not contained within the
injection zone, may affect reservoir sweep and ultimate recovery. The mechanism causing this to happen
is the continuous plugging of the fracture face increasing tip pressure that leads to propagation of the
fracture. Another concern is the distribution of injected water over the various layers particularly when
not all the layers are fractured. The PWRI-Frac 3D fracture model developed by RTS can be used to
predict the fracture growth and containment. Details and procedures of this model are included in the
scope of WGM04.
In unconsolidated sand, there is little to no experience in industry that suggests that thermal fracturing can
occur. research into this area is underway through a Joint Industry Project JIP [23]. A pilot study has been
recommended for PWRI at the Draugen field in Norway and may be initiated in year 2000. The
objective is to determine feasibility of PWRI above fracture pressure in the un-consolidated sand layers.
Limited experience with produced water cooling has resulted in fouling and loss of efficiency of the heat
exchangers even on a relatively clean flow stream. It may not be feasible to cool the produced water
without committing to equipment with a significant maintenance and intervention requirement.
4.3.4 Effect of Sour Produced Water on Injection Water Quality and System
Integrity
H2S/FeS Formation due to Sulfate Reducing Bacteria

Sulfate reducing bacteria flourishes in an environment where produced water is injected and particularly
when blended with water containing sulfate. Biocide generally, does not sterilise the system. The sulfate
reducing bacteria utilises sulfate and hydrocarbon in the produced water in its growth metabolism. The
bacteria convert the sulfate into sulfide thereby producing H 2S. The H2S reacts with carbon steal due to
a cathodic reaction producing FeS. FeS together with biofilm and oil in the water generates sticky solids
that deposit along the lines and bends causing plugging of equipment, particularly filters. These solids if
transported by injection water downhole can plug the perforations and cause rapid injectivity decline
during injection below fracture pressure.
Reservoir Souring Experience

The application of produced water reinjection has not been shown to contribute to reservoir souring. Field
experience shows that whilst H 2S may form in the reservoir due to seawater flood, levels are generally
very low except for short periods following intervention (e.g. acid stimulation or re-completion of wells)
or change in reservoir conditions (e.g. de-pressurization of reservoir). In addition, certain practices such
as blending produced water with seawater before injection, may lead to increase in H 2S levels [25].
Monitoring programmes should be in place to determine the numbers of viable sulphate reducing bacteria
(SRBs) in the produced waters as well as measurement of H 2S in the gas and liquid phase of the
producers.
Injection System Integrity

High H2S production could affect integrity not only of the production facilities but also of the injection
facilities. Injection facilities generally are not designed for sour service. Introduction of H 2S with
produced water would affect the water injection flowline and risers and the downhole sub-sea safety
valves. Also there may be a galvanic risk in the water injection riser. Galvanic corrosion between 625
clad and bare carbon steel sections is highly likely.

If produced water is to be blended with seawater, the compatibility of the injection system must be
investigated and corrosion control and management should be implemented. To mitigate the effect of H 2S
increase of blending waters, several preliminary options can be considered:
 Polymer lining in flow lines and 625 cladding in risers.

 Protection against galvanic corrosion.
 Internal coating of looped pipe.
4.4 Water Quality Specifications and Matrices for PWRI
To give an overview of what kind of technology is being used to treat water before it gets re-injected into
the reservoir two matrices have been developed, one for below fracture injection (table 4.2) and one for
above fracture injection (table 4.3). This information is based on the limited field experience. More
detailed studies are planned for year 2000 program (WGM03.2, Integration of Surface and Subsurface
Water Treatment; Water Quality Specifications for Produced Water Re-injection) to develop water quality
specifications that incorporate reservoir effects.
The definitions in table 4.1 used for treatment technologies [4] are also used in table 4.2 and 4.3. The
selection of treatment method(s) depends very much on where it is going to be applied, whether there is a
space and weight constrain, whether there is sufficient pressure, and on the characteristics of the water.
Primary Treatment
 Skim tanks Primary treatment is usually designed for the
removal of large hydrocarbon droplets, large solid
 API separators
particles and hydrocarbon slugs. The primary stage
 Plate pack interceptors will often be designed to absorb flow surges to
provide a stable feed to subsequent water treatment
 Shell standard CPI plate pack
stages.
 Coarse coalescers
Secondary Treatment
 Induced gas flotation Secondary treatment encompasses the bulk of
deoiling equipment used in E & P operations.
 Dissolved gas flotation
Secondary treatment is usually sufficient to reduce
 Static hydrocyclones the dispersed hydrocarbon content below typical
offshore discharge levels of 40 mg/l (provided the
 Rotary hydrocyclones
droplet size and other water characteristics are
 Centrifuges within the operating envelope of the equipment).
 Fine coalescers
Solids removal or Polishing Treatment
 Crushed nut shell filters Polishing stages are used for the further removal of
dispersed hydrocarbons to levels typically below 10
 Dual media filters
mg/l. Various filters are the most common methods
 Cartridge filters used for polishing stage treatment. Polishing stages
are often required where water is to be re-injected,
 Pre-coat filtration
for disposal from inshore or onshore based
 Membranes installations, or where feed is to pass to a tertiary
treatment stage.
Table 4.1 Typical water treatment stages and associated equipment [4].

Injection Below Fracture
Solids loading of the water to be injected [mg/l]

Dispersed hydrocarbons [mg/l]
0 – 0,5 0,5-2 2-100

0-15 Primary treatment Primary treatment Primary treatment
Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment
Coarse filters Coarse filtration
Fine filters (10-25um)
15+ Primary treatment Primary treatment Primary treatment

Coarse filters Coarse filtration
Fine filters (10-25um)
Table 4.2 Matrix for produced water re-injection into a reservoir below it's fracture
conditions.
Above Fracture Injection
Solids loading of the water to be injected [mg/l]

Dispersed hydrocarbons [mg/l]
10-100 100+
<40 Primary treatment Primary treatment
Secondary Secondary
treatment treatment
Coarse filtration
40-2000 Primary treatment Primary treatment
Coarse filtration
Table 4.3 Matrix for produced water re-injection into a fractured reservoir.
4.5 Cost estimates for Re-injection Compared to Surface Disposal
There are limited data to provide cost estimates for PWRI. The information is summarised in table 4.4.
Although these costs may not incorporate all the associated costs of chemical and maintenance , several
observations can be made. These observations are:
 OPEX of shallow water disposal can be 20 times less than deep well disposal, due to pump capacity.
 OPEX is extremely high when water has to be transported to injection location.

 CAPEX and OPEX depends on location(offshore vs onshore), on the level of produced water
treatment and its use (for pressure maintenance vs disposal) and on the fracturing conditions of the
formation rock.
Field/OU Re-injection Surface Disposal Reference

Shell Group 1US$/m3 0,1 US$/m3 SIEP 99-5247
Rotterdam (NAM) 1 Horizontal well at ~ 5,5, Questionnaire,
On-Shore, Matrix million US$ (12 million Nfl) Appendix D
3 vertical wells at ~ 4 million
US$ (9 million Nfl)
Berkel (NAM) 2 million Nfl each well Questionnaire,
On-shore, Matrix (~0,9 million US$) + surface Appendix D
treatment cost
Pernis West (NAM) 3 million Nfl for 1 well (~1,4 Questionnaire,
On-Shore (matrix) million US$) + surface Appendix D
treatment cost
Borgsweer (NAM) OPEX = Roughly 0,5 Jan Bohm, NAM
On-Shore, Fractured US$/m3
Schoonebeek (NAM) OPEX = 6,5 US$/m3 (13 Rob Eylander,
On-Shore, Fractured Nfl/m3 for collect, transport, NAM
re-inject.
Shallow Water disposal OPEX = 0,0076 US$/m3 PDO report [2]
(PDO) On-Shore (matrix)
Deep Water disposal (PDO) OPEX = 0,133 US$/m3 PDO report [2]
On-Shore, fractured
Omar (Syria)On-Shore OPEX = 0,63 US$/m3 SIEP 99-5247 [23]
Offshore (NAM) 40 ppm TOTAL (incl. analysis, SIEP 99-5247 [23]
facilities a.s.o.) 10 million
Nfl/year = ~30 US$/m3
Table 4.4 Overview of rough cost estimates in the Shell Group
4.6 Evaluation of Existing Produced Water Re-injection Facilities
4.6.1 Introduction
In 1999 a questionnaire was send out to OUs with the purpose of gathering information on best practice in
produced water treatment for re-injection.
The completed questionnaires are in Appendix D, besides the questionnaires field visit has also helped in
gathering information and best practice. Due to limited and insufficient data provided in the
questionnaires, only few of the PWRI applications are presented in the next sections to provide a better
understanding of the factors that affect the injectivity decline and to summarise the general and
observations and conclusions that are presented in the beginning of this chapter.
An overview of the field experiences in Shell is given in table 4.5. A detailed description and analysis
with highlight on the learning points are presented in two sections offshore and onshore experiences.

Produced Water Re-injection (PWRI)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.6.2 Field Experiences From Shell
Field / Operator Well Type Reservoir Number Water Injected Injection Injection Injection Reservoir OIW Solids Fracture/ Injectivity Major Water Comments
of WI Rate Rate per Water Temp (TSS) Matrix Index Treatment System
Wells well Temp Decline
Vertical Rock Type Permea- Type Start m3/day m3/day C C Mg/l mg/l % (Upstream of WI)
Deviated bility P S S/P Average
Horizontal or A/P
mD A
ROTTERDAM Vertical Sandstone 1000- 1 D 92 800- 800- 50 68 25-100 0,1-2 Matrix ~25% per
(NAM) CS 2000 1400 1400 year
BERKEL Vertical Sandstone 1000- 2 D ~90 1800 ~900 25 55 50-150 Not Matrix O/W separator
(NAM) CS 2000 measured (?) with skimming
PERNIS WEST Vertical Sandstone 1000 1 D 04/9 400-500 400-500 55 65 50-300 Not Matrix No treatment
(NAM) CS 8 measured
NIMR Vertical Sandstone 50-300 6 D 97- 138 000 ~23 000 55-60 200, up 60 Fracture CPIs
(PDO) CS 98 to 2000
MARMUL Vertical Layered 100-500 R/D 94 37 000 50 Fracture none Skimtank, CPIs Sand
(PDO) Sandstone production
CS
EIDER Deviated Sandstone 500 - 1 R R R 01/9 10 500 10 500 30-65 100 10 - 200 0,4-8 Thermal 17 Hyd.cyclones, Trial, Report:
(Shell Expro) CS 4000 6 fracture PWFD & filters UEDN/71/122
0/99.010
Re*A Layered 3 D 79 900 300 5-10 1 Matrix DGF,
(BSP) Sandstone anthracite,granite
CS filters, deaeration
VENTURA Vertical UCS 10-12 170 R 74 ~ 19400 1150 30 1-2 0,5-2 Matrix 5% per Multimedia/ Report No:
(USA) year DE BRC 44-88
Filtration
QARN ALAM Carbonat D 26500 40 100 Low (?) Fracture Dehydration tanks
(PDO) e
SCHOONEBEEK Vertical Carbonate 1 D 98 ~500 ~500 10-20 110 400, up ~ 100 Fracture Separation tanks Sub-surface &
(NAM) to 2000 with skimming corrosion issue
Table 4.5 Summary of the field experiences from Shell Group.
R = Water Injection into Reservoir Zone (Pressure maintenance control)
D = Water Injection into Disposal Zone
P = Produced water (that could be mixed with surface water, before injection)
A = Aquifer Water
S = Sea Water
CS = Consolidated sand
UCS = Unconsolidated sand
C = Carbonate

Shell Expro, Eider Alpha Offshore platform
A produced water injection trial on Eider Alpha platform (well EA-02) was conducted from December
1995 to December 1996 to determine the minimum/optimum treatment level required to allow continuous
and sustained produced water injection rates. The aim of the trial was to assess the long term effect of
produced water injection on reservoir injectivity and to investigate the effects of produced water on
reservoir souring and on surface equipment. Through carefully executed programme, the trial investigated
the effects of :
(1) Injection water temperature

(2) Water quality (oil content, solids content and concentration, chemicals, etc.) and
(3) Mixed sea water and produced water ratios.
Produced water in this trial consisted mainly of seawater (70%). The base line injectivity of produced
water was determined using filtered (10 microns cartridges) and cooled produced water with
characteristics as close as possible to the current seawater quality and temperature.
A schematic diagram of the facilities is given in Figure 4.1 and in the Eider report [8].
Produced water injection is currently being considered for other fields in the North Sea.
Eider - Shell Expro,

Expro, full scale PWRI trail
PWRI Flowrate=base: 70 m3/hr @ 110 barg & 20-30o C

max: 140 m3/hr @ 190 barg & 20-30o C
Production Separator
Kill Wing Valve
Pressure/Flow
Control Valve
Injection Pump(s)
Sand Cyclones
Drain
 T = 60oC min
Cooler
CW out
PWRI Branch #2
Hydrocyclones
Filters CW in
PWFD
90o C
PWRI Branch #1
Boost Pump
Dosing Point-
existing if available
OVERBOARD
TSC/4-NR.067-071299-PPT
Figure 4. 1 Shell Expro, offshore oil platform Eider produced water overview.
Learning Points
Surface facilities Effects

 When filtration requirements were reduced, fouling of heat exchanger plates due to scale (LSA)
and oil film on the cold side of the system reduced the cooling efficiency. This resulted in
increased OPEX cost due to cleaning activities.

 The quality downstream of a 10 micron cartridge filter was similar to the quality downstream of
a 30 micron filter.
 The dry gland seals on the booster pump was not suitable for produced water containing high oil
coated solids and was modified to include a seal flush arrangement.
 Disposable element type filters are not cost effective for a permanent facility in terms of
frequency.
 Injection of produced water with high oil coated solids was observed to have a more direct and
severe effect on injectivity. The injectivity, however, was recovered when clean produced water
was injected.
 By-passing the hydrocyclone/flash drum to simulate poor water quality (increased solids (8
mg/l) and oil content 150-200 mg/l in produced water) led to a gas build up in the filter housing
and to a lower produced water pH (6.5) thereby increasing the risk of corrosion.
 Injection of poor water quality resulted in a 25-30% reduction in injectivity.
 Introduction of a new type of corrosion inhibitor apparently loosened the iron sulfide deposits on
the pipe wall leading to a significant increase of the iron sulfide concentration in produced water.
 No major changes in injection rate were observed by mixing 10-20% produced water with
seawater and injecting in an open fracture. A slight increase in temperature (3ºC), however, was
measured. With 40% produced water the injectivity was reduced by 11% and with 100%
injection of produced water at the same injection water temperature, injectivity was decreased by
25%. The increase in temperature from 32ºC to 38ºC may have allowed the fracture to close
slightly thereby reducing the near wellbore permeability and causing the injectivity decline.
 Mixing of produced water with seawater was possible and scale formation was controlled by
adding a scale inhibitor.
 Significant amount of iron sulfide was recovered from the seawater side of the cooling system.
 Seawater quality increased significantly after the commissioning of the new plastic lined
injection pipeline. This was attributed to the significant reduction of the content corrosion
products mainly iron sulfide .
 Effect of oil in water with hardly any solids did not cause any injectivity decline.
Sub-surface Effects
 For high water quality (0.4 –1.4 mg/l solids and ~ 5-10 mg/l oil) and at 120 bar ITHP , the base lines
for seawater injectivity was 10.5 bbl/d/psi at ~ 20º C and for produced water was about 9.5 bbl/d/psi
at 35ºC. The 10% decrease in injectivity compared to seawater was attributed to lower injection
temperature of seawater.
 Fracture tests confirmed that the fracture was open at the baseline conditions.
 An increase in injection PW temperature from 35ºC to 45ºC resulted in 26% decline in injectivity
whereas an increase to 65ºC resulted in 47% decline in injectivity. Fracture tests indicated that
fracture was closed at 45ºC and at 65ºC and that the loss of injectivity was due to build-up of solids
in the near well-bore area.
 The decrease in injection pressure caused the fracture to close and the subsequent increase in
pressure to 5700 psi at 45ºC was not sufficient to re-open the fracture resulting in loss of injectivity

 Stabilisation of injection rate after a minor shutdown with an open fracture @ 35ºC took 3 days but
with a closed fracture @ 45ºC only took 10-15 hours. This is attributed to the rate of pressure build-
up near wellbore depending on the fracture condition.
 A decrease in injection water temperature to 25ºC contributed to the gradual increase in injectivity to
the base line rate with in 14 days. Fracture tests indicated that the fracture was re-open at this low
temperature thereby reducing the impact of the near wellbore damage. The total regain of injectivity
indicated that there is no in-depth damage but rather a near wellbore damage only.
 Backflowed water from the injector (6 tubing volumes) showed initial high solids loading ( 94-1874
mg/l mainly FeS coated quartz with some carbonate particles) and H 2S levels close to 2 mg/l. This
indicated the presence of SRB’s. High water quality (strict filtering requirement) and surface
monitoring does not necessarily represent the actual downhole injection water conditions. The
injected water could contain solids after tight filtration from scale and corrosion products.
 No significant detrimental effect on the injectivity of the formation water due to long term injection
of produced water was observed as seawater injection was resumed.
 The viscosity of the injection water will change with temperature thereby affecting the fluid mobility
in the reservoir and may lead to mis-interpreted tests.
Possible Improvements
 The study was very comprehensive and provided information that was never published before,
particularly on the water quality specifications and interpretation of the surface and sub-surface
effects on injectivity.
 The upset conditions were, however, frequent and made it hard to de-couple the various effects. As
presented above, mitigation of the injection system problems provided several learning points.
 One possible improvement would be to review the facilities performance and the associated chemical
treatment before the full-scale trial and put forward a surveillance and equipment maintenance plan
that would assist operation in reducing upsets and subsequent downtime.
Shell Expro, Brent Offshore Oil Field
Description
The following is an overview of water injection on the Brent field, which has been provided by Keith
Marriott from Shell Expro. Until recently, reservoir pressure was maintained by seawater injection.
However, three of the four Brent platforms have now been converted for low pressure operation. As a
result, water injection has been switched off to allow the reservoir to depressurise. The depressurising
process releases gas from the residual oil in the reservoir and this allows us to sustain high gas
nominations, although oil production will inevitably decline. Currently seawater is only injected on
Alpha which has not been converted for low pressure operation. Alpha is likely to be decommissioned
within the next couple of years. The Alpha water injection facilities comprise a De-aerator Tower, Oxygen
scavenger dosing, water booster and injection pumps. The seawater supply is taken from the warm service
water discharge (this helps with de-aeration and reduces the sea water lift requirements). Filters have now
been removed. During the bloom period (May and August) water injection is switched off if the Coulter
Counter readings are high.
All Brent produced water is discharged to sea (this has always been the case). On Alpha one of the two
trains has a three phase separator and the separated water is treated via a hydrocyclone and degasser
before being dumped locally. However, the bulk of the water from Alpha is exported to Bravo along with
the crude. On Bravo, Charlie and Delta oil and water is separated by gravity in the concrete storage cells
before being disposed of to sea.
Learning Points

 Shell Expro has considered the re-injection of produced water as an environmental project. Since re-
injection into the producing formation is not feasible due to the development plan that requires
depressurisation of the reservoir.
 Injection into a disposal formation, the Hutton Sands is, however still an option. But the cost of
drilling the required injection wells is expensive. Consequently, the project has not ranked favourably
in the corporate listing of environmental projects and is currently on hold.
Norske Shell, Draugen Offshore Platform
Description
Although the wells on Draugen currently produce little or no water (less than 2%), the forecast indicates
that water production will increase rapidly over the next 5 years to 35,000 m 3/d. The increase in produced
water volumes has been identified by the Draugen Water Management Team as one of the main threats to
continued successful production from the Draugen field. This was due to several issues including capacity
constraints on platform facilities, performance of the current water treating facilities and the
conformation with the latest Zero Discharge Policy direction. To comply with this policy all Norwegian
operators are required to develop produced water handling plans by the end of 1999. These plans should
show that best available technology (BAT) and environmental practices are being used for the disposal of
produced water.
The total produced water treatment plant, see figure 4.2 consists of nine parallel hydrocyclone units,
seven larger and two smaller, in one package. Two lagers and two smaller have been installed to date. The
remaining five units will be phased in as required. The Test Separator (A25V01) is connected only to the
two larger and one smaller installed hydrocyclones. The First Stage Separator (A21V01) is currently
connected to four and will be connected to all nine units when they are available. Treated water from the
hydrocyclones flows through pressure reducing valves into a Produced Water Flash Vessel (A41V01) and
then to sea via a dump line in the concrete gravity base structure shaft. The recovered oil stream from the
hydrocyclone units is routed to the Second Stage Separator (A22V01). The gas from the Produced Water
Flash Drum (A41V01) is routed to the LP flare system. Polyelectrolyte coagulant is injected upstream of
the hydrocyclone package in the lines from First Stage and Test Separators. There is no corrosion
inhibitor injected upon them.
NORSKE SHELL, DRAUGEN PRODUCED WATER OVERVIEW
wells 55o C 63o C

7,5 barg 1,7 barg
1st stage test oil 2nd stage
Separator Separator Oil with water to storage tanks
A21V01 V22V01
Heater
water oil
Deoiler
Backflush LP Flare
OIW ~500mg/l facilities
NS 9803
OIW ~100mg/l Flash IR-method
Vessel OIW ~30mg/l at three
A41V01 wave lengths
OVERBOARD
Hydrocyclores
water
oil
gas
TS
- NAM
DSC
TSC/4-NR.040-110399-PPT © Technical Services
Figure 4.2 Norske Shell, Offshore oil platform Draugen produced water overview.

A study was conducted by SEPTAR at RTS in conjunction with NORSKE Shell to assess the feasibility of
re-injecting produced water from the Draugen platform into the Rogn formation under matrix and
fracture conditions [10]. The study consisted of two phases and included the following subjects:
 Scaling and formation rock compatibility issues.

 Matrix injection and impact of solids on injectivity decline.
 Impact of reservoir souring on produced water quality and injection system integrity.
 Feasibility of injecting above fracture gradient.
 Water Quality requirements for matrix and above fracture gradient injection.
 Equipment and monitoring requirement for PWRI.
 Workshop to review the results of the study with partners and to put forward plans for year 2000.
Recommended Practices
For Matrix Injection:

 The water specification requirements should be similar to seawater specs with very low solids
content (<0.1 mg/l). The oil content could be as high as the discharge limit as long as the solids limit
remains below 0.1 mg/l.
 The most cost effective solution for matrix injection is to keep the overboard discharge option and
attempt to inject a percent of the produced water every year to reduce the overall discharge of oil
content into surface water but ensure 100% voidage replacement. This can be done by mixing less
than 20% of the produced water with seawater upstream of the injection pumps and injection into one
of the manifolds.
 Sequential injection of seawater and produced water with a spacer fluid in between. The water
specifications would remain the same for seawater injection and for overboard discharge. The
advantage is that injectivity would be improved with seawater injection due to cooling of reservoir
and potential thermal fracturing.
 The alternative but costly solution is to add more injection wells dedicated for produced water
injection either for pressure maintenance or for disposal in a separate zone.
For Fractured Water Injection:

 Water specifications are relaxed; minimum treatment with respect to solids and oil content is required
for fractured water injection above discharge water specifications. See table 4.3.
 Injection into well appears to be above fracturing conditions and it is recommended to ascertain the
specific conditions are all injection wells with step rate tests and additional fall off tests.
 The overall most cost effective solution would be injection of the produced water at fracturing
conditions in the existing water injectors. This can be assessed by conducting a pilot injection test
above fracturing conditions to ascertain the technical and economical feasibility due to the limited
experience in the industry with respect to soft sand injection above fracturing conditions.
 Sequential injection seawater and produced water above fracture pressure for pressure maintenance.
 If the results of the pilot test indicates that the produced water injection into the existing injection
wells is not feasible or not sufficient, the injection of the produced water into dedicated disposal
wells is a second option. In this case the disposal zone could be also the Rogn formation or a
different formation with the right characteristic to inject the water without negative effects.
NAM, Schoonebeek Onshore Water Treatment Plant (Gas and Surface Water)
Description

In Schoonebeek, produced water is trucked in from various locations and blended with other water
streams before injection. About 500 m3/d is injected in the fractured carbonate formation. The injected
produced water is composed of sweet produced water, sour produced water and aerated surface water.
The individual water streams are treated separately in skim tanks before blended upstream of injection
pumps. The injected produced water can contain up to 100 ppm solids and up to 2000 ppm in oil during
upset conditions. Since the injection zone is fractured, injectivity decline has not been observed in the
past 1-2 years.
S c h o o n e b e e k -3 1 3 - w a te r tre a tm e n t p la n t, N A M
S c a le in h ib it o r
S w e e t P r o d u c e d W a te r T -1 7
400m 3
T -1 5
B y passed
S c a le in h ib ito r
S o u r P r o d u c e d W a te r T -1 8
3
T -1 2 IS F
600m f ilte r
S o u r p ro d u c e d
W a te r
(V -1 0 2 ) 8 km
In je c tio n
W e ll in
D a le n -8
A e ra te d W a te r
V -1 9 -1
O 2 H eat
S c a v e n g e r B io c id e 40o C
(T H P S )
T S C /4 - N R .0 6 6 -0 7 1 2 9 9 -P P T
Figure 4.3 NAM, Schonebeek produced water reinjection overview.
Learning Points
 Segregation and separate treatment of the various water streams have significantly improved the
injected water quality, particularly segregating the sour from sweet produced.
 The application and monitoring of the scale inhibitors, biocide and oxygen scavenger chemicals was
essential in maintaining the good water quality and reducing plant upsets.
 The dissolved gas flotation and the filters were by-passed in the treatment of the sour system without
any observed impact on the required water quality specification.
 Modification of tank inlet and outlet prevented a short circuit for the oil and thereby obtain an
improved water quality.
Aera (Formally Shell West Coast Production inc.), Ventura Onshore Oil Field
Description
Ventura field has been producing 10,000 bbl oil/day and injects about 100,000 bbl water/day into 170
injectors in 13 active waterflood zones. All produced water and about 20,000 bbl water/day of fresh
water make-up are filtered through multi-media or DE filters before injection. A schematic diagram of
the treating facilities is shown in Figure 4.4. Water quality at the plant outlet is generally high under
normal operating conditions with average total suspended solids ranging from ½ to 2 ppm. Typical

injection wells are completed over intervals ranging from 500 ft to over 2500 ft with either slotted (or
shop perforated) liners or selective perforations. Although surface water quality is exceptional for a
waterflood, injectivity has been declining at a 5% annual rate. The injectivity decline was suspected to be
related to wellbore impairment rather than any reservoir phenomenon (such as relative permeability
changes over time). Over US$1million is spent annually in injector stimulation work, most commonly by
pressure washing with acid. Stimulation is usually successful in restoring injectivity as a whole, but
many zones remain permanently impaired, lessening volumetric sweep efficiency and ultimate oil
recovery.
In 1988, the quality of the injection water at the Ventura waterflood was surveyed on surface facilities and
downhole [9]. The field tests were divided into two parts:
(1) Water quality surveillance on surface facilities and downhole.

(2) Coreflood tests with injection water from several locations to evaluate the effect of water quality on
injectivity.
The effect of different filtration types, treatments, and operating policies on the impairment rate was also
studied during the corefloods.
Ventura Field, AERA - US
Plant 1
Injection
Wells
4300 m3/day
10 Media Filters
Filtered
Produced Blend Plant 3 water
Water tank
4390 m3/day tank
Injection
795m3 318m3 Wells
8 Diatomareous Earth, DE Filters

8600 m3/day
Filtered
Plant 4 water
tank
Injection
Wells
318m3
7 DE Filters
TSC/4-NR.065-091299-PPT
Figure 4.4 Shell Oil, offshore oil platform Ventura produced water overview.
Learning Points
 Injectivity decline appears to be mainly due to the downhole accumulation of sulphate reducing
bacteria (SRB) biofilm that is coated with iron sulfide particulates. The downhole water samples
contained a high suspended solids concentration and were loaded with SRB's.
 Daily batch biocide treatment was only effective in halting bacteria growth after the initiation and
throughout the slug duration (2 hours from waterplant 1, P1 and 4 hours from waterplant 4, P4). As a
result, untreated water was frequently being injected.

 Water downstream of the blend tank had a high oxygen content (0.80-1.22 ppm). The oxygen
concentration varied with the amount of freshwater makeup.
 Permeability reduction in the cores using water directly downstream from waterplant P4 was
approximately 3% less than when using water directly downstream of waterplant P1. This
difference, although slight, appeared to be repeatable.
 Water quality several thousand feet downstream from waterplant P4 appeared to deteriorate. The
permeability reduction in the cores flooded with water from injector wellhead occurred at a higher
rate than those flooded with water directly downstream of filters at waterplant P4. This indicates
solids accumulation (corrosion products and bacteria biofilm) on pipe walls with periodic release into
the flowing water.
 Use of a two micron (absolute) filtration unit at injector wellhead improved the water quality of the
water flowing through the cores as demonstrated by nearly constant permeability throughout a 250
pore volume flow test.
 Initial permeability in most corefloods was restored after a combined backflow/flow across the core
face. This indicated that the solids did not penetrate into the core and would probably be removed by
circulating mild acid.
 Increase in injection pressure increased the injection rate as expected but also increased the
permeability decline rate. The initial permeability was not restored with a combined backflow/flow
across the face. This indicates that the filter cake was compressed and the finer solids had been
pushed further into the formations. As a result, the formation could become permanently impaired.
 Injection water has a potential for CaCO 3 scale at reservoir conditions, as determined by the
SCALECHEM program. As a result, CaCO3 could be another source of damaging solids.
 Flow of 7.5% HCl into one core caused an initial 89% reduction in permeability. The cause of this
damage could be due to the production of both H 2S gas within the pores and spent acid products such
as iron sulfide and dead bacteria bodies. An acid wash (7.5% HC1) across the face of another core
followed by backflow with filtered injection water restored the initial permeability.
 Downhole samples collected at bottom hole pressure showed that SRB’s grow downhole and are not
hindered by high pressure (5000 psi) conditions.
 Injection water quality, downstream of waterplant P4, deteriorated during back washes of the DE
filters due to filter aid leakage and with a drop in the level of the filtered water tank. The
concentration of suspended solids was as high as 16 mg/liter.
 The downhole water samples collected from injectors contained high concentrations of suspended
solids (up to 400 mg/l). XRD analysis showed that these solids were mainly corrosion products
(hematite, magnetite, iron sulfide) and formation material (illite and quartz). Cristobalite, a type of
amorphous silica, was found in the samples which indicates that filter aid leakage is contributing to
the solids concentrations.
 The injection water has about 1-2 mg/l oil and about 600 mg/l of organic acids (68% acetic, 25%
propianic, 3.5% butaric, and 3.5% lactic acids). These organic acids may provide the source of food
for the bacteria.
 Organic acid content should always be measured to determine actual HCO 3- content rather than
assume the HCO3- is equivalent to the alkalinity. This may leads to incorrect prediction of CaCO 3
scaling potential
 DE filters produce better water quality than Media filters (lower solids and oil in the outlet) but due
to storage of DE and subsequent disposal, they are only cost effective on-land.

The quality of injection water was improved significantly when the following was implemented:
 Continuous contact of acrolein (biocide) with the injection water to control the growth of bacteria in
the flowing water and minimise the biofilm accumulation in the injectors. The biocide treatment, if
batch, was pumped periodically upstream of the blend tank (every 1 to 2 hours) in the central
facilities and upstream of the filtered water tanks at waterplants P1 and P4 (every 2 to 3 hours). The
amount of biocide pumped should ensure a minimum of 50 mg/l of acrolein residual, not only in
surface facilities but also in downhole tubulars, particularly for low rate injectors. Periodically (once
every month), higher doses (500 mg/l) may be necessary to control attached biomass growth in pipes
and tanks. The higher dose penetrate the biofilm and reduce the population of bacteria close to the
pipe surface.
 Oxygen in fresh water makeup is reduced by an oxygen stripping tower to less than 100 ppm prior to
blending with produced water. An oxygen scavenger is also added downstream of the tower to reduce
oxygen content below 20 ppb. The media filters in waterplant P1 is backwashed with filtered
produced water rather than fresh water. This procedure minimises the source of:
- Corrosion products that contribute to short filtration cycles in the waterplants. Eliminating these
solids resulting in greater volumes of filtered water available for injection.
- Soluble iron that are used in the formation of FeS porous structure where the SRB's grow.
- Oxygen that is utilised during the growth of aerobic bacteria.
 Use of other methods for disposing of workover and sump fluids is carried out rather than pumping
these fluids into the relatively clean produced water. The pit fluids, when pumped into the central
facilities, are known to increase the source of solids and bacteria that have to be removed. Under
these circumstances, the biocide treatment may not be sufficient. Also, in some cases, the pH
decrease of the fluids, resulting from partially spent acid treatment returns, may disturb the oil/water
separation in the skim tanks and create upset conditions in the filtration water plants.
 Injectivity in the wells were improved by designing a stimulation procedure that circulates acid rather
than pressure washing with acid or backsurging injectors. This procedure minimises the introduction
of the spent acid products and dead bacteria cells into the formation.
PDO, Marmul Onshore Field (Oil Field Water)
Description
In Marmul, almost all crude dehydration is centralised in the Marmul Main Production Station (MMPS).
The watercut of the crude is around 75% The dehydration process consists of concentric washtanks for
FWKO followed by heaters and final dehydration (to 0.5% BS&W) in concentric wash tanks operating at
60ºC.
Produced water from the tanks is treated in CPIs, which reduce the OIW content from an average of 280
ppm to 180 ppm. Demulsifier and corrosion inhibitors are used. The capacity of the produced water
treatment facilities (presently CPIs) needs to be expanded at a rate of 8000 m 3/d every year. At present,
the total amount of produced water is 37,000 m3/d. The disposal route is:
(1) Produced water re-injection (for reservoir pressure maintenance): 5000 m3/d
(2) Deep Water Disposal 17,500 m3/d
(3) Shallow Water Disposal 14,500 m3/d
The produced water quantity is forecast to increase by about 8000 m 3/d every year for the next 20 years.
Also, shallow water disposal will be phased out by the end of 2000. This will be achieved by increasing
of the Deep Water Disposal Capacity to 34,000 m3/d. There is one main production station with 12
different gathering stations.

Learning Points
 Currently, deep water disposal is performed under fracturing conditions and shallow water disposal is
into high permeable sands.
 There are several issues that needs to be addressed. These include:
(1) Allowable OIW content for produced water re-injection. Until recently all produced water
was going into deep water disposal and shallow water disposal. Therefore produced water
quality has not been very critical. In future, with all the produced water re-injection being
performed under non-fracturing conditions, produced water quality will be more critical.
(2) Measurement of OIW droplet size distribution. PDO is using a method developed by
SRTCA, based on computer image processing. The results of measurements in MMPS
indicate that all droplets are < 10 micron, and that the average droplet size is 3-4 micron. If
this were true, then CPIs should be totally ineffective. The same is true for many alternative
means of produced water treatment. In reality the CPIs are moderately effective.
 By end of year 2000 shallow water re-injection will be phased out. Marmul is moving toward
produced water reinjection for waterflood. At the moment there are two Deep Water Disposal pumps
with a capacity of 20000 m 3/d, disposal capacity is limited to 17,000 m 3/d based on disposal well
performance. New wells are being drilled so that the increased amount of water can be re-injected.
The issues are:
(1) How to clean the extra water that is going to be injected? The plan is to install new CPI’s,
but this may not be the best solution and other alternatives are possible.
(2) At the moment there are five CPIs, with downflow and tilted plate interceptors. Marmul are
in the process of ordering two new CPIs but the issue is still whether removal of the small
oil droplets will be achieved is questionable.
(3) The problem could be solids build-up and unequal distribution of the flow in the CPIs, (Note
the cross flow CPIs are working better in Nimr but the temperature is higher). In Nimr the
specification is that the plates should be hydrophilic i.e. attract water, so that the plates do
not become fouled up by the oil/sludge and cleaning frequency is reduced.
 For oil droplet analysis the comparison should be on a volumetric basis rather than number of
droplets of a particular size, CPIs are normally specified for droplets above 40 um. If smaller droplets
occur then a flocculant can be added to increase droplet sizes so that they can be separated in the
CPIs.
 There is no fall of in injectivity of the disposal wells which have been injecting for 5-6 years .
However, there is limited data available correlating decline of injectivity to water quality. PDO has
been injecting into the Al Khlata and Haima formation for 5 years at pressures below 50 bar without
noticeable effect on injectivity. The produced water contains around 200 ppm of oil and therefore
fracture conditions would be expected to ensure no impact on injectivity.
Possible Enhancement to the Injection System
 Check the total system.
 The oil droplet tests were repeated a numbers of times (3 times) to confirm the small droplet size
with the SRTCA method. It is suggested that oil droplet size analysis should be used for qualitative
results - upstream and downstream of equipment to test performance, rather than using the date for
absolute results on the inlet to equipment.
 It is important to know the amount and type of solids. If the solids are mainly fine particles such as
clay, scale, etc., flotation unit could be a better technology for separation.

PDO, Lekhwair Waterflood
Description
The full scale Lekhwair water flood pilot was initially converted to an inverted 9 spot pattern. Injection
water is a mixture of both produced water and shallow aquifer water taken from the Fars aquifer. In this
field, high pressure (fractured) injection into naturally fractured carbonate was implemented to increase
injection rates and thereby reduce the demand for injectors. The 9-spot pattern then was subsequently
converted to a line drive to further improve sweep, thus accelerating tail end production and improving
UR. As in Yibal field, in Lekhwair, PDO found that, in general, the fractures enhance injectivity
particularly when the line drive is aligned with the main fault/fracture. In these applications, fractures
tend not compromise sweep efficiency. However due to some uncertainty in long term injection on
communication between injectors and producers and the concern that fractured injection could
compromise the integrity of the cap rock, injection is currently carried out below the fracture gradient
This information has been obtained from Dave Chappell in PDO.
Learning Points
 There has been no injectivity problem and no noticeable declines in the injectivity index with time
due to injection of blended waters.
 The two waters are thermodynamically incompatible (calcium carbonate precipitation) but no scale
deposition have been observed.
 Oxygen removal from the shallow Fars aquifer water is performed to prevent corrosion in the
blended water.
PDO, Qarn Alam
Description
Qarn Alam is in Central Oman and produce 13 300m3 oil /day and 26 500 m3 water /day. The water
production is increasing and there is not enough capacity in the appropriate places to deal with the
forecasted amounts. The Qarn Alam area produces a mixture of sweet and sour water.
The OIW figures averages 100 ppm and a low solids loading - there is no other treatment than the
dehydration tanks. Electrical chemical injection pumps are to be installed to improve the chemical
injection uptime which has an immediate impact on water quality. The challenge for Qarn Alam is
balancing installed capacity with production.
The water disposal pumps at Qarn Alam are going to be replaced to improve the integrity of the disposal
system - frequent leaks and breakdowns. The options are to add newer larger pumps, surface ESPs,
treatment and export to Saih Rawl or reuse the disposal pumps at Saih Rawl.
Learning Points
 Sour water, Saih Rawl water injection limited by water transfer – corrosion and pipe material
selection, sweet and sour system separation.
 Mixing will not work because of scaling potential.
 It is not a best practice to inject sour water into a sweet reservoir.
 Polyethylene line tubing, could be expensive, but would reduce the corrosion rate.
 There is 40 km 4” line from Qarn Alam to Siah Rawl that could be used to transfer the water however
there are integrity issues surrounding this pipeline.
 Sour water stripping will be difficult due to iron content of the water.

 Steam was injected in a pilot for enhanced oil recovery was shown to be successful.
 There are several steam generation plant challenges that includes:
(1) Fresh water supply to boilers.

(2) High volumes for water disposal.
(3) Boiler’s design that can cope with salt (produced water has salinity levels of 250 000 mg/l in
Qarn Alam and 100 000 mg/l in Siah Rawl).
(4) Reverse Osmosis application – problem could be fouling,
(5) The use of aquifer water which is potentially exploitable, but would not be favoured by the
Ministry of Water Resources.
(6) There is a desalination plant in Galfar that is not in use anymore, which potential could be used
to desalinate the boiler feed water.
 Disposal versus pressure maintenance injection spec are not identified. There is a need for more
information on the receiving reservoir.
BSP, Seria Re*A Reinjection System Onshore Water Treatment Plant
The Seria Terminal treats water from four different streams:
1. Offshore light crude (low OIW content)

2. Offshore heavy crude (low OIW content)
3. Onshore light crude (high OIW content)
4. Onshore heavy crude ( high OIW content)
The four streams of produced water are separated in four separate continuous dehydration tanks. The
produced water from offshore heavy crude, land heavy crude and land light crude is collected in tank
T-44, which acts as a buffer upstream of two parallel Wemcos. In addition, there is a heavily
contaminated water stream from the emulsion treatment plant and one from the neighbouring condensate
stabilisation plant. The Wemcos treat the water to a quality of approximately 20 mg/l. The water is then
discharged to the Sungai Bera river via API provided with further oil skimmers. The overall watercut in
the terminal is approximately 35-40%. See Figure 4.5.

BSP, SERIA CRUDE OIL TERMINAL PRODUCED WATER OVERVIEW
Injection
RE * A
Wells
T-43
Offshore
light crude
T-150
T-33
OIW ~ 17 mg/l
NNF
Drains
Sumps T-34
Offshore
heavy crude
T-160
NNF
OIW ~ 18 mg/l T-35

ETP
Land light
crude T-120
T-36
OIW
~ 100-150 mg/
l
T-44
Land WEMCO SOUTH CHINA

heavy crude
T-130
SEA
OIW ~ 260 mg/
l
API
OIW ~ 20-30 mg/l
P047 - Horiba
single wave length
water IR-method
TS
- NAM
DSC
TSC/4-NR.049-110399-PPT © Technical Services
Figure 4.5 Brunei, Onshore Seria Crude Oil Terminal produced water overview.
The water from the offshore light crude goes to T-43 and is then treated in the Re*A water injection plant
see figure 4.6 any excess water is routed to the API. The Re*A water injection plant consist of
flocculation (T-117) followed dissolved air flotation (T-116) and dual media filters, which achieve an
OIW level od 5-10 mg/l, prior to re-injection. Injection is under matrix conditions. BSP's future plans are
to move away from river discharge, primarily because of BOD of the effluent on the river environment.
There is also a potential water injection project on land, which would consume a significant quantity of
the water.

BSP - Re*A Plant

Flocculation Tank
Water
Excess water
P201 B/D to EWTP
Polyelectrolyte
Chlorine Gas
Iron Chloride
T-120
T-43
Water M M Water
From T-120 To slops tanks
Land Heavy P201 A/C
Catalyst
T-117 T-118 T-119
Oxygen
Detergent
Scavenger
V-101/ T-60
2/3
V-104 Water
Air Scour
To injection
wells
V-100 P-130/131
P-122/123
Riocide Fuel Gas
RE* PLANT
Water
Surplus water
to api separator
TSC/4-NR.064-061299-PPT
Figure 4.6 Brunei, Onshore Re*A produced water treatment plant overview.
Learning Points
 No injectivity decline information are available.
 A problem in injected water is the generated FeS. FeS needs to be avoided if at all possible, and
where present, needs to be removed, as it represents corrosion of carbon steel, it creates large
quantities of solids, it discolours the final effluent, and oil droplets stick to it thereby increasing the
OIW level. It's production can be minimised by excluding oxygen, and by separating the sour system
from sweet system. Air in Wemco also contributes to the presence of FeS, and would be better
replaced by a hydrocarbon gas blanket.
4.6.3 Other Operators Experience
Information on PWRI applications from other oil companies such as the North Sea Operators has also
been summarized in table 4.6. Although the data are not complete, several observations can be made
based:
 Injection of PWRI is feasible under fracture conditions.

 Injection into thermal fractured zones appears to be the common mechanism for injecting poor
quality water.
 PWRI application is mainly for pressure maintenance.
The field experience of PWRI in BPAmoco's ULA field is discussed in this section.

Field / Operator Well Type Reservoir Number of PWI Water Injected Initial Injection Reservoir OIW Solids Fracture/ Injectivity Major Water Treatment Comments
Wells Injection Water Temp (TSS) Matrix Index System
Rate Temp Decline
Vertical Deviated Rock k mD Type Start B/D/Well C C Mg/l mg/l % (Upstream of WI)
Horizontal Type P S S/P
PRUDHOE BAY / Deviated 100 - 74 R ?/83 5,000 - SW = 27 94  400  15 30 - 50 GFUs SPE 35874
BPA/Arco 300 20,000 PW = 65 SPE 28976
SPE 28936
PRUDHOE BAY / Horizontal 100 - 2 (+ 74) R GFUs PWI about to
BPA/Arco 300 commence
FORTIES / BPA Deviated CS 70 - 500 1 x FD R ?/89 8,000 30 150 200 5-9 30 From separators SPE 23140
Deviated CS 70 - 500 3 x FA R ? - 96 13,000 150 50 From separators see note **
Deviated CS 70 - 500 2 x FD R 97 - 27,000 150 From separators see note *
WYTCH FARM / UCS ~ 70 2 R 12,000 SW = 5 69 50 No Damage see note *
BPA PW = 65
KUPARUK / R 1,000 Damaged see note *

Arco/BPA
ULA / BPA Norge Deviated CS 6 R 02/95 45,000 60-70 130 15 6 NIL Hydrocyclones SPE 35874
mixed prod. &
seawater
BRUCE/BPA CS D Hydrocyclones
HARDING/BPA UCS R 10,000 Matrix Hydrocyclones
+120,000
MAGNUS/BPA CS R? 2000 Hydrocyclones
GYDA/BPA CS R 2000 Hydrocyclones
ETAP/BPA CS 90/10 2000 Hydrocyclones
R +
GORM / Maersk Deviated One R 4,500 500 NIL From separators Process upsets
 OIW = 3%
MAUREEN / Deviated 100 - One  3 R 12/91 18,000 20 - 38 117 25 - 3,000 NIL From separators SPE 26703
Phillips 500
Table 4.6 Summary of field experiences from outside the Shell Group.
NOTE: There are several other produced water injection operations. Those not included in the above table are not published or the published data is not sufficient to warrant inclusion. See also report
UESC/8/DWA/96003 (SPE Water Management Workshop, Oct 96, Summary notes by DW Argo)
R = Produced Water Injection into Reservoir Zone (Pressure maintenance control)
D = Produced Water Injection into Aquifer Zone
CS = Consolidated sand
UCS = Unconsolidated sand
C = Carbonate
* = Preliminary verbal reports, firm (official) data being sought
** = Forties FA PWRI decommissioned in 1996 when new hydrocyclones commissioned

GapProduced Water Re-injection
BP Norway, PWRI Experiences from Ula Field
BP Norway initiated a full scale PWRI into Ula sandstone reservoir in February 1995 [11] following
seawater injection since 1988. A schematic of the process facilities is presented in Figure 4.7. The
produced water is handled in the separators, treated in the hydrocyclones and degassing drum before it is
cooled down to approximately 50ºC. Downstream the coolers, produced water is either mixed with sea
water and reinjected or discharged. PWRI (50% PW) cooled down to 31ºC was the normal mode of
operation and discharge was only occurring if water injection system is closed down or temperature of
PW exceeded 55ºC. This temperature limit was set to avoid cavitation of the injection pumps. Sea water
is treated in coarse filters, followed by deoxygenation tower and then entering the residence drum where
it is mixed with PW prior to water injection.
Total solids were 22 mg/l and oil content was about 15 mg/l.
ULA - BP Amoco , full scale PWRI trail
Gas
Demulsifer
Separators Degassing drum

Hydrocyclones
Corrosion / PW Coolers
scale
inhibitor
Produced
water (PW)
PW
discharge
Oil Antifoam to sea
PWRI
Production wells
Oxygen scavenger
Biocide ( batchwise ) Injection
water
SW
(IW)
Residence drum
Hypochlorite
Coarse Water
Deoxygenation
filter injection
tower
pumps
Injection wells
Seawater (SW)
TSC/4-NR.068-091299-PPT
Figure 4.7 Schematic of fullscale produced water reinjection on BPAmoco's Ula platform.
Learning Points
 The downhole samples from wells showed an increase in solids loading (~ 6 mg/l as compared to 0.1
mg/l downstream of fine filters). As a result, the seawater fine filters were bypassed and no injectivity
decline was observed.
 The oil/water separation was improved by optimising the use of demulsifier, modifications of the HP-
separators and improving the water balance over the hydrocyclones.
 The efficiency of the produced water coolers was reduced due to the scale deposits at the inlet of the
coolers. The scales consisting of 23% asphaltenes, 24% iron sulfide and 27% zinc sulfide as well as
26% other metal sulfides. Cleaning of the coolers were done by acid washing and mechanical
scraping.
 BaSO4 and SrSO4 has been observed through out the production facilities. CaCO 3 was observed in
pressure drop areas. Scale inhibitor squeezes was believed to keep the scale under control.
 Limited amount of SRB’s have been found in the blended water.

GapProduced Water Re-injection
 Corrosion potential due to CO2, oxygen, free Chlorine, pH and SRB in the injected produced water
was low since the PW already contained 85% seawater. That was indicated by the average corrosion
rate 0,1 mm/year which is of the same order as was previously measured during seawater injection.
 The amount of hydrocarbons, dissolved organics, residual chemicals and heavy metals in the
produced water discharges to the marine environment have been significantly reduced by the
implementation of the PWRI.

Continuous On-line Oil in Water Monitors
5 GAPS AND PROMISING TECHNOLOGIES
5.1 Removal of Dispersed Hydrocarbons
In 1993 the Deoiling manual [4] was published and techniques for removal of dispersed hydrocarbon are
well described in that manual. Furthermore, last year 'Best Practice Report' [1] Section 7.1 gave a recent
development in techniques and methods for removal of dispersed hydrocarbons, these included:
 Counteracting Pressure Drop
 Coalescers
 Mechanical Coalesers
 Chemical Coalescers
 Hydraulic Coalescence
 The SIEP RTS Dynamic Coalescer
 The Oscillatory Flow Coalescer
 Pseudo co-current extraction process
 Kvaerner C-Tour
 Hydrocyclones
 Pumped Hydrocyclones
 Hydrocyclone Reject Stream
 Rotating Hydrocyclones
 Produced Water Flash Vessel
 Filtration
 Deep bed media filtration
 Media filters
 Crushed nut shells
 Flotation
 Single cell polishers
 Flotation hydrocyclone
 Centrifuges
This section describes different initiatives that have been carried out in 1999 to improve the separation of
dispersed oil in water, the focus has been on coalescence. However, a gamechanger on anitifouling
membranes has also been conducted, a project on axiflow hydrocyclones is described and a proposal from
ERT on a choke valve that have potential for reducing the shearing of droplets.
5.1.1 Conclusions
 The majority of research in the area of dispersed oil removal has been focusing on finding a suitable
coalescing device to improve performance of existing systems.
 Generally coalesers are prone to blockage of solids.
 Mare's tail and Pect-F looks promising for higher volumes.
 Pall Ammonia Coalescer works well on low volumes, low solids and on oily water with low
interfacial tension.
 Screen coalescer did not work well on water with corrosion inhibitor, but could look promising for
other applications.
 Axiflow hydrocyclones may offer an opportunity to treat higher flow and work on lower pressure
drops, but it still needs further development.
 With the next generation membranes, which are a combination of the anti-fouling characteristics of
vibrations (acoustics) and the "filter" characteristics of a conventional cross flow membrane, it is
possible to cost effectively use membranes in the oil industry.

5.1.2 Mare's Tail (JIP)
During 1999, Environment & Resource Technology Ltd (ERT) carried out a programme of work
concerned with the development of a low cost coalescer unit designed to improve droplet growth in
produced water applications.
The unit is known as the ‘Mare’s Tail’ coalescer. The project work involved conducting a series of
developmental trials to determine the optimum performance and configuration of the unit. A patent has
been applied for on the technology. The results of the work are covered by a two year confidentiality
period. However, the results obtained during the programme showed that the unit offers excellent
potential as a simple, reliable oil in water coalescer for use in both onshore and offshore applications.
Excellent oil droplet growth was demonstrated and this translated into significantly improved
hydrocyclone performance in the development trials that were carried out.
The main benefits the technology is expected to provide are, as follows:
 Minimisation/elimination of potentially toxic and frequently costly production chemicals such as

reverse demulsifiers (deoilers).
 Little operator training/involvement.
 Low CAPEX and OPEX.
 Designed as ‘fit and forget’.
 Easy to retrofit.
 Designed to improve performance of existing water treatment packages such as hydrocyclone
systems.
The Mares tail design is based on using a fibrous media of mineral, synthetic or natural fibres which are
held in a simple spool piece. They may have either no affinity or have a natural affinity for oil droplets,
but can be made either from oleophilic or hydrophilic material.
The device was originally envisaged as being retrofitable within existing pipework, and thus should have
a minimal impact on facilities weight and space. The media is fixed at the inlet end with fluid flow
entering the device at right angles to the main direction of flow. Oil droplet growth occurs on the media
surface as the fluids pass through the unit.
The degree of droplet growth or coalescence is affected by the oil, temperature, material used and fibre
length in addition to flowrate and inlet droplet size. The way the fibres are placed in the vessel; straight,
spiral wound or 'randomly' packed also have an effect. The final choice of fibre, packing method and the
material that is made for any specific application will be influenced by the amount and size of any solids
that may be encountered and the scaling tendency of the fluid.
5.1.3 PECT-F
The principle behind the Performance Enhancing Coalescence Technology (PECT) is that it is build to
improve the performance of hydrocyclones. The technology is aimed at existing systems which do not
meet specification, or require excessive chemical dosing to do so. The coalescer device is retro-fitted into
existing hydrocyclone systems without major vessel or pipework modification, See figure 5.1
A fuller description of the PECT-F is given in Appendix C.

Figure 5.1 Hydrocyclone vessel with PECT-F coalescer device.
The field trial that was conducted at BPAmoco Andrew platform showed good results as seen in Section
7.5 and in the SPE paper "Enhanced Deoiling Hydrocyclone Performance without Resorting to
Chemicals" [12].
The overall conclusions were that:
 The coalescer improved the OIW quality.

 Low pressure drop over the coalescer.
 First results indicate that it has low sensitivity to blockage from solids and wax-build up, but that will
be confirmed in further trials.
 It is a disadvantage that when it needs to be cleaned, the whole hydrocyclone system needs to be shut
down.
From a one week trail on 2nd stage hydrocyclone system on Shell Expro's Dunlin platform it was found
that over the hydrocyclone pressure drop range tested. The hydrocyclones with PECT-F had an average
outlet concentration of ~ 6 mg/l, compared to ~ 40 mg/l without the PECT-F, a performance
improvement of ~70%. There was no evidence of any form of solids blinding. [13]
5.1.4 Pall Coalescer
Due to poor water quality on the K81 gas/condensate platform in NAM, various solutions were sought.
As the water and condensate has a very low interface tension (<0,5 dynes/cm) it was found that Pall
Coalescer could be a way of improving the water quality.
The Pall horizontal liquid/liquid coalescer system was integrated in the overboard water stream at the
offshore platform K81 to reduce the dispersed aliphatic contend down to 20 - 40 ppm.
During the trials three different Pall coalescer elements were tested at different integration points.
Integration point of the Pall coalescer test rig instead of the centrifuge:
A reduction of hydrocarbon components during the trials with the Pall coalescer was observed. The
measurement of the aliphatic and aromatic components behind the different Pall coalescers shows, that
the reductions of the hydrocarbons are nearly comparable with the reduction of the centrifuge at low
coalescer flow rates. The target to reduce the dispersed aliphatic contend down to 20 - 40 ppm could not
be achieved.
Integration point of the Pall coalescer test rig downstream the centrifuge:
The best result was found when the Pall Ammonia Coalescer was tested, where it managed to reduced the
OIW level with extra 60 ppm. The measurement of the aliphatic and aromatic components based on the

IR-spectroscopy shows a reduction of the aliphatic components behind the Pall coalescer. At a flow of 0,1
m³/h the aliphatic components were in a range of 17 to 25 ppm. The target to reduce the dispersed
aliphatic contend down to 20 - 40 ppm is therefore achieved. Additional a reduction of the aromatic
contend was measured. The average after the Pall coalescer (flow = 0,1 m³) was 166,4 ppm and after the
centrifuge 217 ppm. The outlet of the Pall coalescer was bright and clear indicating that nearly all
dispersed hydrocarbons are separated.
From these tests it can be concluded that an integration of a Pall horizontal coalescer system with the
ammonia coalescer behind the centrifuge would improve the water quality to a level were it safely can be
discharged overboard. To protect the coalescer element a pre filter system is necessary. The pre-filters will
be the majority of the OPEX. NAM has been quoted a CAPEX of 250 000 Nfl (~ 115 000 $US) for and
coalescer that can handle 200 m3/day.
Shell Oil is testing the Pall Coalescer in December 1999 and the first results are that it is plugging very
fast, because they have too many solids in the water. They are now planing test it with a better filter in
front of the coalescer. Woodside Australia has plans to test the Pall Coalescers in year 2000.
5.1.5 Screen Coalescer
The Screen section of the coalescer system consists of a tubular device wrapped with a very finely woven
stainless steel screen. The feed flow passes through the screen and a fine oil film is formed on the screen
which aids in the coalescing of other oil droplets. The flow through the screen is such that the oil is not
stripped off by the fluid flow but acts as the coalescing aid necessary for fine oil droplet removal.
DIRECTION OF FLOW
LARGE ORGANIC
DROPLETS
SMALL ORGANIC
DROPLETS
FINE MESH SCREEN
COATED WITH ORGANIC
Figure 5.2 Principle of the screen coalescer.
The nature of the finely woven screen and the design of the SC MaX System allows for lower plugging and
fouling problems. In conventional coalescers, while the tortuous path provided by sintered metals,
disposable meshes or knit media creates good conditions for fine coalescing, they also act as a filter and
therefore are extremely susceptible to plugging with solids. The SpinTek Screen Coalescer collects solids
in the feed stream but these are captured on the surface of the screen and automatically flushed away.
The combined Screen Coalescer and the Matrix Tower is a design which provides a non-fouling media
with automatic cleaning and a small footprint. See set-up in Figure 5.3.
As solids build up on the surface of the SC MaX and start to blind the screen, the flow is automatically
reversed through the screen. The solids are flushed off the screen’s surface and the oil and solids are sent
downstream to the Matrix Tower.

COALESCED OIL
(ORGANIC)
Aqueous Treatment with
Screen Coalescer and TNT
Screen
Coalescer
CLEAN
AQUEOUS
AQUEOUS
IN
Figure 5..3 Set-up of the Screen Coaleser trial in Woodside
A field trial was conducted on North Rankin A platform during the period 12 - 16th Nov 1998. [14]
The water on NRA platform has a high level of corrosion inhibitor which causes the oil in water.
Associated dissolved gas is a secondary cause. Because of those two factors the coalescer was prevented
to functioning effectively. If there should be a chance for the screen coalescer to function better the
corrosion inhibitor concentration should be reduced to approximately 50 ppm. A membrane filtration
system would be a more suitable oil / water separation system if corrosion inhibitor remains at current
levels of 200 - 1000 ppm.
The overall result was that the screen coalescer will make an emulsion because of the corrosion inhibitor
and therefore make the quality of the water worse.
5.1.6 Development of an Ultrasonic Emulsion Coalescence Technology (JIP)
The principle behind this technology is, to overcome the interfacial mechanical barrier, that inhibits
coalescence in oil in water emulsions ultrasonic mechanisms can negate the interfacial mechanical barrier.
Figure 5.4 Surfactant Forces Governing Droplet Coalescence
When two drops come together, figure 5.4, the dividing film thins as the fluid drains from the point of
contact to the extremities. As the distance between the two drops closes, the viscous shear imposed by
the draining fluid will shift the stabilising surfactant molecules towards the perimeter of the interface.
The resulting radial surfactant concentration gradient causes a similar variation in the local interfacial
tension parallel to the interface, both gradients being directly proportional to each other. The interfacial
tension gradient generates an interfacial flow which opposes the film drainage flow. Therefore if the
droplets can be “driven” into each other with sufficient velocity so that the local interfacial tension

gradient cannot respond quickly enough and coalescence occurs. Ultrasonic could provide that extra
velocity.
A feasibility study has been carried out by Cyclotech Ltd [15] to evaluate the use of ultrasonic
mechanisms for dispersed phase coalescence to assist the performance of conventional equipment.
Cyclotech has carried out an extensive literature search to explore any precedents for this type of
technique and to define the applicable theory. This has determined that whilst the technique has been
researched to some extent, there has been very little commercial exploitation and certainly none in the
hydrocarbon production sector.
The theory has demonstrated that the use of ultrasonic mechanisms does have the potential to
significantly improve separation.
Computer model shows that all but high viscosity continuous phase applications, can be addressed using
an in-pipe approach where the ultrasonic systems can be deployed in a spool piece upstream or in
between conventional equipment. For more viscous applications the ultrasonic system needs to be
deployed inside a conventional separator due to residence time constraints.
The cost to manufacture this so-called in-pipe design are approximately 113 000 US$ for a system to
handle 60 m3/hr liquid flowrate at a design pressure of ANSI Class 300#. The in-vessel approach will
cost around 242 000 US$ to manufacture.
A test programme for testing the in-pipe configuration has been developed on a 5m 3/h stream in Norske
Hydro's multi-phase facility test center in Norway in year 2000.
5.1.7 Labyrinth Chokes
By minimising the degree of shear the formation of emulsions and small droplets can be minimised. This
in turn results in easier separation and allows the potential reduction in energy and chemical usage with
attendant reductions in operating expense. So the chockes are designed for low shear, low noise and a
reduction of erosion if solids are present.
The degree of mixing has been shown to correlate to valve type (i.e. orifice and flow path design) and the
percentage closure of the valve. The higher the rate of pressure drop, the greater the probability of shear.
The highest rate of pressure drop and thus the highest shear occurs where there is an obstruction in the
flow. In choke valves, where large pressure drops occur, the probability of droplet shear may be greatly
reduced by reducing the pressure drop in small stages. It is this concept of gradual, staged, pressure
reduction that is behind the design of the Labyrinth choke valve.
ERT has proposed to optimise the design of the labyrinth choke valve, construct prototype units, and
compare the performance with a range of other conventional choke valve types in both the laboratory and
field situation. This would be a JIP and cost 180 000 GBP. Shell Expro has already shown interest in
supporting this project in year 2000.
5.1.8 Axiflow Hydrocyclone
Parties involved are CDS Engineering, Delft University of Technology, NAM, De Nooij Stainless.
The Axiflow is a hydrocyclone liquid-liquid separator, which will separate dispersed droplets from a
strongly swirling flow of a continuous second liquid phase of different density. The separation process is
dominated by buoyancy, hence a much shorter residence time is required in such a cyclone than in a
traditional gravity settler. As a consequence, a cyclone separator can be much more compact in volume
than a settler.
The oil/water mixture enters the hydrocyclone in the axial direction. The mixture passes through the
(static) blade section which causes the flow to rotate. The centrifugal forces cause the lighter component
(oil) to accumulate in the center. Therefore, the resulting flow has a core that consists of oil surrounded by
water. By positioning the outlets in the proper way, the separated oil and water can be collected.

A fuller description of the Axiflow is given in the fact sheet in Appendix C.
The technology is under development, with tests being carried out at Delft University of Technology.
The latest test results showed that to treat water/condensate mixtures with a wide variety in water/oil
ranges (100% oil down to 100% water) one device is unlikely to be able separate it all. Therefore two
separators have to be applied, one for bulk separation down to approximately 5000 mg/l. There after
treatment down to below 40 ppm should be possible.
Currently the test facility achieves a removal efficiency of 100% for particles with a diameter larger than
80 um. Theoretically it should be 15 um.
At the moment CDS are matching the device with Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modelling,
where after the design will be tuned via computer simulations. The turn down range with the current
design is 1 to 5 (same performance). It is still not meeting the criteria for full scale testing, other
parameters have still to be addressed as well, e.g. how will corrosion inhibitor influence the performance.
At this point in time there is still some development to be carried out, but the technique looks very
promising.
5.1.8 Antifouling Membrane
In the SIEP Note from February 1999: "GameChanger workplan Good vibes, vibrating antifouling device
for membranes" [16] the background and principles are described of the antifouling membrane.
Membrane filtration is one of the leading water-processing technologies used worldwide, and has huge
potential to treat oily waste water streams effectively and economically. However, membranes have a
strong tendency to foul and as such they are a 'show-stopper' for a successful application of membrane
filtration in the oil industry.
This GameChanger is to prevent the membranes from fouling by the application of vibrational motion
(high shear rates) as a revolutionary technique to prevent membranes from fouling. Since all membrane
systems are plagued by this fouling problem, the use of vibrational motion is an enabler for using
membrane filtration successfully and also cost effectively in de-oiling the waste water streams that E&P
produces today.
With the next generation membranes, which are a combination of the anitifouling characteristics of
vibrations (acoustics) and the "filter" characteristics of a conventional cross flow membrane, it is possible
to cost effectively use membranes in the oil industry. Compared to conventional solutions (centrifuges)
membranes allow unmanned operations of platforms at 50% lower CAPEX investment. OPEX is also
lower than that of centrifuges.
In this year's BAA for ISF (Innovative Surface Facilities) the project received 400 kNfl (~ 180$ kUS) and
the aim is to have a pilot test unit ready at the end of 2000, which combines ultrasonics- and membrane
technology in one single unit. The CTR is called ISF-C4 Vibrane09 12.doc and can be found in the
Surface Facilities Global Network AVF.
5.2 Removal of Dissolved (and Dispersed) Hydrocarbons
In the SIEP 99-5229 Best Practice in Produced Water-WGM03 report [1] a comprehensive overview of
recently studies assessing and comparing technologies capable of removing dissolved hydrocarbons was
given in Chapter 7. In this report an update of what has happened with the MPPE trial in NAM is
summarised and furthermore tests evaluating biotreatment for use in the E&P industry, also carried out by
NAM, are presented. A workshop evaluating these different bioreactors was carried out and the summary
can be seen in this chapter. The last technique which has been tested in 1999 is the C-tour process, which
has been tested on lab-scale and in a pilot-test on one of Statoil's platforms.

5.2.1 Conclusions
 A MPPE field trial in NAM showed good results.

 A fixed bed bioreactor should be used for low contaminated water (COD approx. 100 mg/l).
 The membrane bioreactor for medium contaminated water (COD approximate 1000 mg/l) and
relative low flow (<50m3/day).
 Biofilm airlift reactor for medium to high loading (1000-2000 mg/l) and higher flow (up to
100m3/day).
 A field test with the C-Tour was carried out on one of Statoil's oil platforms, but was not successful.
Further improvements needs to be implemented.
5.2.2 Pilot test of MPPE
The test started in Q1 1999 and the MPPE unit has been build and tested at a NAM L2-offshore location.
The unit is fitted in a 15 foot container. The container is completely self supporting and the only thing
required is the connection to the inlet and one to the outlet. The unit is designed to treat 80m 3/day
(efficiency 80%) and that is sufficient for that particular offshore gas location. On 4 February 1999 the
MPPE started operation on the platform. The test results have been reported in two parts: The
performance of the unit has been reported in a student report and the operational experience in a report
from the manufacturer AKZO Nobel. Those reports can be found in the AVF under 'New Technology and
Research'. The major results have been summarised here.
The MPPE unit consists of two columns which contain macro porous polymer particles holding an
extraction liquid. One column filled with MPPE particles is used to extract the (dissolved) hydrocarbons
from the water. The other column is regenerated by low-pressure steam stripping, in order to remove the
volatile hydrocarbons. The volatised hydrocarbons are condensed and separated as waste from the unit.
By switching from one column to another, the water flow towards the unit can be held constant. See fuller
description of the equipment in Appendix C.
In order to prevent the MPPE beds from blocking the influent was filtered. The last six weeks of the four
months trial period, the unit was operated without a pre-filter to determine the pressure build up across
the MPPE columns when using unfiltered water.
The samples taken to measure the performance of the unit and pre-filter are:
 NEN6675 (dispersed and total concentration hydrocarbons)

 BTEX
 PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons)
 Heavy metals
 Chloride
 Glycol/ methanol
 Solids concentration
The MPPE unit showed a reduction of dispersed and dissolved (BTEX and PAH) hydrocarbons and
mercury in the overboard water from the closed sump. A removal of more than 95% (dissolved
hydrocarbons) was accomplished. The aliphatic hydrocarbons were also removed (50%) whereas heavy
metals (a slight reduction in Hg was observed) and a-polar components (glycol/methanol) were not
removed. The organic phase (waste) extracted from the overboard water was analysed on composition
and water concentration, this to check the performance of the MPPE unit. As the benzene concentration in
the influent is the highest from all treated components, the organic phase consisted of mainly (±85 mol%)
benzene. The amount of water in the waste was found to be nil.

Once the performance of the unit was at the required level (above 90% removal of dissolved
hydrocarbons) various operational adjustments were made in order to optimise operational costs without
affecting the performance of the unit. Changing the amount of steam (reduction of required potable water)
needed to heat up or regenerate a column showed almost no change in the performance up to a certain
level (10kg/h). Below that level the performance reduced significantly.
Due to the temperature (30-35°C) in the separators and the return water tank, aromatic hydrocarbons
evaporated and condensed again in the vent pipe. The design of the vent pipe has to be made so that the
aromatic hydrocarbons are not stripped in to the air.
5.2.3 Bioreactors
In April a Workshop was held to evaluate the different bioreactors trails that have been carried out in
NAM over the past years. The workshop summary can be seen in the AVF and a paper was prepared from
the results, discussions and previously written reports [17] [18] and presented in Shell's first international
conference 2-3 November 1999 [19].
The currently employed treatment technologies for waste water in the E&P industry are not capable of
removing dissolved hydrocarbons or heavy metals, but are mainly based on enhanced gravity, hence they
only remove dispersed hydrocarbons. In NAM there are different kinds of water and different places
where the water has to be disposed of. Three different situations have been studied:
1. Produced water from a gas/condensate platform, with a COD loading of approximately 1000-1500
mg/l that will be disposed overboard into the sea.
2. Produced water from onshore gas location contaminated with methanol and a COD loading of
approximately 11500 mg/l, that potential could be disposed of in the sewage system.
3. Rain water collected in a concrete pit (hoekbak) from an onshore gas location, with a COD of
maximum 100 mg/l, to be disposed of in a canal.
Specific aspects are the removal of dissolved hydrocarbons and heavy metals. The main differentiation
between onshore and offshore are:
 reducing the over all load of heavy metal/ BTEX (Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene) to the
sea offshore (no specific legislation for each platform) , and
 to meet specific discharge legislation onshore.
Offshore the BMP does not prescribe specific levels for the removal of dissolved hydrocarbons and heavy
metals, but prescribe an overall reduction. In view of current experiences, efficiency more than 95% is
considered a minimum requirement for a technique to remove aromates. No specific max concentrations
have been specified for heavy metals; the current policy is to aim for a limited number of treatment
facilities reducing overall load with 80%.
There is a tendency with the Government to bring limits (discharge specifications) to each discharge
offshore, similar to onshore, which would mean that extra treatment or re-injection of the water has to be
applied.
Onshore, there is produced water and contaminated rainwater. Contrary to offshore, there are discharge
outlet concentrations to be met. Apart from re-injection, two discharge routes can be differentiated
 discharge to surface water, extremely low outlet concentrations and

 discharge to sewage plant.
For discharge to surface waters, there are special specifications. The specs can vary depending on the
water and where it is being disposed to, e.g. disposing to a North Sea canal ("big receiving open surface

water") is different to an inland pond ("smaller, more vulnerable surface water"). For discharge to sewage
plants, there are different specs, and each case has to be evaluated before discharging the water.
Production water from gas/condensate platforms can contain a substantial amount of dissolved
hydrocarbons and heavy metals like zinc and lead. Furthermore when the gas is transported onshore either
glycol or methanol has to be injected to the gas to avoid hydrate formation, that methanol or glycol will
then be in the separated condensed water. Methanol and glycol contributes to the overall level of total
organic carbon (TOC) and biological oxygen demand (BOD), which is not allowed to be discharged to
the local sewage system or re-injected if above 4wt% methanol. Rainwater from an onshore gas location
can contain small amounts of especially benzene, which has very strict limits in the permit when
disposing the water to a canal, therefore it is important to clean the water to a very high specification in
order to avoid transporting the water to a waste water treatment plant.
In all three cases biological treatment could be an attractive solution to clean the waters.
Historically biological treatment of waste water in the E&P industry has been less attractive for two main
reasons, namely the large amounts of water which would make the bioreactor large and the salinity of the
water, which makes the biomass less efficient. Adaptation of the bacteria to change in feed concentration
can be in a matter of hours, but adaptation to new contaminants may take days. It is therefor important to
have a fairly constant water composition, which can be difficult if water from new wells is being added to
the treatment system.
There have been developments in reducing the size of the reactors and make them both more effective
and also more resistant to saline waters. Therefore different Business Units in NAM decided to test some
of these improved technologies to evaluate their use in the E&P industry.
Pilot-scale test of the biofilm airlift reactor.
This test was designed for on-site treatment of production water from gas-platforms offshore. It was
chosen because it has a small footprint compared to conventional aerobic biotreatment systems and could
therefore be attractive to use on an offshore platform with relative high loadings.
The airlift bioreactor process integrate two
technologies, the first one being the biomass
attached on a basalt carrier and the second being
that the biomass-on-carrier is in an airlift reactor,
which combined create a large surface and a good
oxygen transfer for the biomass to be active. The
process is a high rate treatment system for
degrading dissolved organics, such as aromatic and
aliphatic hydrocarbons and organic acids.
Furthermore there is a possibility for the heavy
metals to be attached to the biomass and thereby
also be removed from the water. Figure 5.5 shows a
schematic diagram of the pilot scale biofilm airlift
reactor. Air is injected at the bottom of the reactor
and up through the water that contains the biomass-
on-carrier. The biomass consume the hydrocarbons
and the clean water goes to a settler where small
amounts of the biomass will settle and be returned
to the main compartment and the effluent can be
disposed.
Figure 5.5 Schematic diagram of the pilot scale biofilm airlift bioreactor.
Scouting laboratory study.
Prior to conducting the pilot-plant demonstration, a bench-scale experiment was conducted in Shell
Sittingbourne Research Centre with simulated gas condensate effluents in a 2.0 liter laboratory scale
biofilm airlift reactor. The results demonstrated that at a salinity of 3%, up to 90% of the total organic

carbon could be removed. Individual components, such as glycol, methanol, acetate and BTEX had a very
good removal efficiency of up to 99%, with less than 5% of the aromatics being airstripped. These
removal efficiencies were achieved at carbon loading rates between 0.2 - 0.42 kg m 3/h, corresponding to
17-35 kg COD/m3/d. Experiments with salinities up to 10% showed that the maximum carbon loading
that can be treated is reduced as a consequence of the reduced oxygen mass-transfer rate with increasing
salinity, but even at these high salinity the removal efficiency of BTEX was 99% and total hydrocarbon
65-75%.
Pilot-scale test.
A demonstration of produced water treatment using a 600 liter biofilm airlift reactor was conducted at a
Coevorden location in NAM with production water. The objective of the test was to assess the feasibility
of the biofilm airlift reactor technology on-site on production water from gas-platforms offshore. During
the test period a number of problems arose, such as the biomass would not attach sufficiently to the
carrier and that there was loss of biomass-on-carrier to the effluent water. Table 5.1 show the results of the
pilot-scale test after it has been stable for a longer period. With loadings as seen in this table and salinity
of 1,5% the reactor is able to reduce most of the components to a satisfactory level.
Parameter Influent conc. Effluent conc. Removal efficiency

(mg/l) (mg/l)
COD-soluble 1065 320 70%
TOC 303 93 69%
Individual Components
DEG 50 < 50 -
TEG 250 < 50 > 80%
Acetic Acid 120 85 29 %
Hydrocarbons (incl. aromatics) 125 26 79%
Hydrocarbons (excl. aromatics) 100 24 76 %
BTEX 29 1.7 94%
PAH (polyaromatic hydrocarbons) 190 44 77%
Naphthalene 190 44 77%
Iron 40 23 43%
Table 5.1. Performance of the biofilm airlift reactor in the pilot test.
The main conclusions of the tests were that biofilm airlift reactor can be applied to production water of
1,5% salinity and have the potential of treating high saline production water. Furthermore it is the oxygen
transfer capacity and the COD removal efficiency that determine the organic loading rate suitable for
production water, which was in the range of 20-25 kg COD/m3 d for the pilot test.
If the design and influent concentration of the biofilm airlift reactor is similar to this and an 1 hour
hydraulic resident time a biofilm airlift reactor's size would be the same m 3 as the m3/h it has to treat, so if
it should treat 10 m3/h the size would be 10 m3.
The main reason why the scouting test showed better removal efficiency than the pilot test, was because
not enough oxygen were supplied to the loading of the biofilm airlift reactor.
The reason why NAM did not install biofilm airlift reactors on any of their platforms were that further
improvements had to be made with respect to the attached biomass concentration, the oxygen transfer
capacity, the reduction of the suspended solids concentration in the effluent and the effect of shock
loadings of oil has to be further investigated.
Fixed bed bioreactor for cleaning contaminated Rainwater
Rainwater that is falling on the area around a gas producing location is collected in a concrete pit. This is
because accidental leakage or spillage from the process can occur and thereby contaminate the water. If
the water is contaminated with even small amount of hydrocarbons it can not be disposed of to surface
water. Therefore a technique that could clean the water to very high specifications and at the same time be
easy to operate was desired. The fixed bed bioreactor has potential for those requirements and was tested
in a concrete pit at the gas producing Coevorden-17 location in NAM Business Unit Gas Land.

A Fixed Bed Bioreactor consists of a series of different compartments, which each hold a cartridge filled
with polypropylene beads (see figure 5.6). The contaminated water is pumped through the compartments
together with some nutritious matter to stimulate bacteria growth on the beads. By continuously pumping
air through the compartments the aerobic process is kept as effective as possible. When the bacteria have
grown enough and adapted to the environment they will start consuming any hydrocarbons in the water.
Besides acting as a bioreactor it also acts as a filter for suspended solids, since heavy metals can attach to
solids it is possible that this method also will reduce the level of heavy metals. The series of
compartments also ensure that surges in contaminant levels can be handled.
The produced biomass stays in the compartments and since the compartments can be taken out separately
it is easy to clean a single compartment while the others are still functioning.
Figure 5.6 Schematic drawing of Fixed bed bio-reactor used in Coevorden-17 experiment.
Field test
The objective of this field test was to evaluate the feasibility of the fix bed bioreactor's ability to secure
the reduction of condensate in the water. The unit was installed directly in the concrete pit in 1997 and
was able to treat all the water from the location. The size of the unit was 2,5 m 3 and designed to handle 1
litre of condensate per day, which is equivalent to a COD loading of 1,33 kg/day.
In the start-up phase it was fed with nutrients (plant fertiliser and pure condensate) to ensure growth of
the biomass. Growth occurred within 2 weeks, and within 6 weeks an achievement of reducing BTEX
levels from 2000 μg/l to < 0.2 μg/l was accomplished. 2000 μg/l of BTEX is not the normal level of
BTEX but was added on purpose to ensure the biomass would grow and adapt to the environment of the
concrete pit. After the start-up phase a longer term trial was conducted on the rainwater from the location.
It was found that once a week the nutrient dosage have to be tailored to the organic loading, which
sometime could be low as no contaminants were present in the rain water.
The trial showed that it was possible to treat the water for BTEX to levels < 0,2 μg/ litre, which is lower
than the requirement for releasing the water to surface water (<2 μg/l).
Furthermore it was found that there was a reduction in total suspended solids (TSS), which indicates that
heavy metal might be removed as a significant level of the heavy metals is normally attached to the
suspended solids. The trial also verified that during the winter period, where the water temperature was
<10ºC, the activity of the biomass was low but still working. There is very low dead biomass production
as the feed level contamination is very low.
The main problems with this technique have been mechanical problems such as adjusting the feed pump
and a bioreactor container failed and released beads into the concrete pit.
It is intended to continue the trials in 1999 to determine the efficiency of the fixed bed bioreactor to
remove glycol and methanol.

The system is a polishing technology, designed to go from around 100 mg/l hydrocarbons to μg/l levels,
which this trial showed was possible. This unit was designed for a max. COD loading of 1.33 kg/day,
which equates to about 1 litre condensate/day. The technology is capable of handling much higher COD
loadings, provided they are big enough.
It would not be practical to use on produced water in the E&P industry as that water is normally
contaminated too much higher levels of hydrocarbons and larger amounts of water.
It has to be investigated how much heavy metal is contained in the biomass as disposing of the waste
might become a substantial cost.
Membrane bio reactors (MBR)for cleaning produced water
There have been two main reasons to test this technique:
1. Onsite treatment of onshore produced water contaminated with methanol or glycol to avoid
transporting the contaminated water to a water treatment plant.
2. Onsite treatment of offshore produced water from a gas platform to reduce dissolved hydrocarbons
and possible heavy metals in the water.
In both cases a membrane bioreactor was chosen because it has a very compact design compared to
traditional biotreatment reactors and it looked like an cost-effective alternative to either transporting the
water to a waste watertreatment plant or in the offshore situation chose an alternative technique such as
re-injecting. A schematic drawing of the membrane bioreactor can be seen in Figure 5.7.
Figure 5.7 Schematic diagram of the membrane bioreactor
The membrane bioreactor combine biological treatment with membrane filtration. The major advantage
with this method is that the rector volume can be reduced by a factor 10 because the cross flow membrane
will make sure that the biomass stays in the reactor and thereby concentrating the biomass more than in
conventional bioreactors. It is essential that there is a backwash system installed to avoid fouling of the
membrane. Another advantage is that this system is not including a clarifyer stage, which can be very
difficult to handle.
As in the other methods there is a possibility that besides the removal of organic compounds heavy metals
will be adsorbed to the biomass and accumulated in the bioreactor.

Field test with methanol contaminated produced water.
The first trials were conducted in the NAM onshore location called Gaag, with methanol containing
production water. The objective of the tests were to evaluate the possibility of economically cleaning the
water to a specification that would allow it to be disposed in the local sewage system rather then being
transported to a waste water treatment plant for regeneration of 15-40 wt% methanol. The limits for
disposing to the sewage system are <30 μg/l for BTEX and COD < 400mg/l Besides methanol the
produced water also contains small amounts of aromatics, naphthalene and heavy metals. A pilot-scale
membrane bioreactor (in a 20 ft sea container) was installed.
To be able to treat the high concentration of methanol, the feed had to be diluted 15 times. At start-up,
there were serious foaming problems, which needed operator attention, but when that was under control
the process ran with small adjustments in nutrients.
The results of the tests showed that it is feasible to use the membrane bioreactor to reduce the chemical
oxygen demand (COD) with >95% and thereby clean the production water to a COD less than 400 mg/l,
which is the desired limit. Furthermore it could clean the water for methanol with an efficiency of 99.9%
and the BTEX >90 wt%. To make the process work satisfactory extra nutrients also had to be added.
Results are shown in table 5.2
Parameter Influent Effluent Efficiency Influent Effluent Efficiency

conc. [ug/l] conc. [ug/l] % conc. [ug/l] conc. [ug/l] %
Low methanol content High methanol content
Methanol 6030 000 2 >99,9 11530 000 50 99,6
Benzene 23 < 0.2 100 33 <0,2 100
Toluene 19 2,3 88 27 0,2 99
Ethylbenzene 5,4 1,3 76 3,2 1,3 59
Xylen 37 8,6 77 27 7,3 73
Total BTEX 84,4 12,2 86 90,2 8,8 90
Min. oil 800 < 0,2 >99,9 800 <0,2 >99,9
Table 5.2 Results from the MBR treatment of methanol contaminated water
It was investigated whether the BTEX was consumed by the biomass or stripped out by air. The results
showed that a very small amount is stripped out, which mean that its removal is actually in the bioreactor.
Regarding heavy metals, the 'fresh' bacteria seemed to have a higher metal content before use than after
use - it seemed that metals were actually desorbed from the biomass. Perhaps the low absorption was due
to the small size of the biomass.
The hydraulic residence time was up to 6 days because of the high loading, and the hydraulic load =
0,007 m3 water/m3 reactor/hr. Because of the low hydraulic load it will probably be impractical to use a
MBR for cleaning the water.
It was calculated that install a bioreactor that could treat 107 m 3/month with average 28% methanol in the
water it would cost approximately Nfl. 800 000 in investment and yearly operation cost would be 105
Nfl/m3. For transport and cleaning and regeneration of the methanol it would cost 361 Nfl/m3.
In principle the MBR was able to clean the water to a level where it could have been disposed off the
local sewage system. However, it has been decided not to used the membrane bioreactor to clean the
water on a cost comparison basis.

Laboratory test with offshore gas production water.
In this test a membrane bioreactor from another company was tested in order to asses the capability of the
reactor to achieve significant mass reduction in dissolved hydrocarbons and some mass reduction of
heavy metals. The process should be effective in saline conditions and should not be affected by dispersed
oil.
A membrane bioreactor which operates at pressure, which allows higher oxygen levels and more compact
unit, was tested. 1.5 m3 of production water (see composition in table 5.3) from a gas platform was taken
to the laboratory. A 4-week trial starting with bacteria which was already accustomed to saline water and
removal of hydrocarbons was conducted.
Parameter Influent conc. (mg/l) Removal efficiency

COD 1420 >75%
BTEX 85,6 >99%
Benzene 75,0 -
Hydrocarbons (NEN 6675 mod.) 27 -
TEG 280 -
PAH 0,0041 >97%
Cr 0,010
Ni 0,026 >90% but no stable
Pb 0,230 situation with slib
Zn 5 production
Hg 0,0007
Cd 0,055
Chloride 20 000 -
Table 5.3 Composition of produced water used in test and test results.
Table 5.3 shows the removal efficiency for the bioreactor. High level of salt had no effect on performance.
Balance in nutrients (C and N) was not correct, addition of extra nutrients required after 3 weeks, addition
of nutrient gave immediate positive response. Slib production = 0.3 kgDS/kgCOD (concentration dry
solids = 20 kg/m3) this will convert into 10-15 m 3 slib production/month for 2 m3/h plant. Minor
reduction in membrane performance over the 4 week test period was observed. The level of BTEX was
reduced by more than 99%, which was the required specification.
Test results indicated that heavy metal would accumulate in the biomass, but the effect of build up is not
known. In this short test, heavy metals did build up on the slib, but it could desorb later, like observed in
the Gaag test section. From this test there was not a clear indication that this method would remove heavy
metals consistently and further tests would have to be carried out.
The hydraulic resident time was approximately 7,5 hours and hydraulic load = 0,13 m 3 water/m3
reactor/hr.
In practice, a full scale installation will be able to operate with low operator maintenance and reduce the
dissolved hydrocarbons to a desired level. Weekly checks on pH, oxygen, temperature are required and
periodically a storage vessel of nutrients will have to be replaced or refilled, together with small technical
maintenance.
Uncertainties remain, one of the reasons being the short term nature of the test, and actual situation could
not be realistically simulated in the laboratory.
The uncertainties include -
 maximum concentration of heavy metals before poisoning,

 long term quality of slib, how to handle spent slib,
 reaction to large variations in feed quality, and

 effects of dispersed hydrocarbons.

Overall conclusions for bioreactors in NAM
These studies illustrate that there are biological technologies, which could be applicable to the treatment
of water in the E&P industry. The three technologies presented here show promise for the treatment of
produced water and rainwater to levels which would allow for surface disposal in different regions. The
most fundamental driver of these technologies development activities is producing a lower cost
alternative to re-injection, transportation of water or complying to legislation.
Sensitivity to inlet variations are known to be a critical factor when operating bioreactors, however all the
trials have been shorter than a year so for proper design, feed characterisation is essential, this should be
established over a year at least. Adaptation of the bacteria to change in feed concentration can be in a
matter of hours, but adaptation to new contaminants may take the order of days. The biofilm airlift reactor
and the membrane bioreactor have shown that they can work with saline water, i.e. the worries about the
bioreactor would not work to treat saline production waters is not an issue, but they have to adapt to the
water first and there will be an upper limit, where the water has to be diluted.
In table 5.4 a comparison of the results are summarised and it is seen that the fixed bed bioreactor should
be used in cases with low loading as a polishing step, whereas the biofilm airlift reactor have potential to
be used at higher loadings and higher flow rates. The membrane bioreactor could be used on water from a
gas/condensate platform, with high loadings of dissolved hydrocarbons, but not excessive loadings as
with the methanol.
Parameter Fixed bed bioreactor Airlift bioreactor MBR MBR

COD loading Max. 100 mg/l 1065 mg/l 11500 mg/l 1420 mg/l
Hydraulic Residence time 1 hrs/6°C, 15 min./25°C 1 hrs 144 hrs 7,5 hrs
Hydraulic Loading 1,6 1 0.007 0,13
[m3water/m3 reactor/hr]
Table 5.4 Summary of the loadings and resident times in the different bioreactors
From this it is seen that:

 a fixed bed bioreactor should be used for low contaminated water (COD approx. 100 mg/l),
 the membrane bioreactor for medium contaminated water (COD approximate 1000 mg/l) and relative
low flow (<50m3/day)
 Biofilm airlift reactor for medium to high loading (1000-2000 mg/l) and higher flow (up to
100m3/day)
None of these technologies have been introduced as permanent installations in NAM, offshore (biofilm
airlift reactor and membrane bioreactor) the main reason being that they are not mature enough to reliable
be able to operate offshore. Onshore the main reasons have been that alternative cheaper disposal ways
have been found or more operational data and optimisation of the process have to be established before a
decision to permanent installation can be taken.
5.2.4 C-Tour
A JIP supported by four oil companies (BPAmoco, Statoil, Phillips and Elf) have been carried out at RF-
Rogaland in Norway and followed that study a field trial on one of Statoil's platforms was carried out.
Since most of the test results are confidential and Shell has not financially supported the program detailed
information of the results can not be given in this report. However, an overview of the process and an up
to date progress will be given here:
The C-Tour process uses liquid hydrocarbon gasses (natural gas fraction) to extract dispersed and
dissolved hydrocarbons from produced water. The principle behind the process is that since more liquid
hydrocarbon is added a coalescence effect occurs and at the same time the density difference between that
water and the hydrocarbon increase and thereby makes the separation easier.

The pilot tests conducted at RF-Rogaland Research's testing facilities indicates that the C-Tour process
can provide a 90% reduction in residual, dispersed oil concentration and simultaneously remove 97% of
the dissolved (PAH) components. It should be noted that the condensate must contain essential zero
amounts of BTX-components, otherwise these components will be carried over in the water phase [20].
CAPEX is estimated to fall in the range of 1-2 million US$ with OPEX ranging from 1-100 kUS$ per
year. This is estimated for four different North Sea water processes where C-Tour would be retrofitted
into the process [20]. These production facilities have water capacities from 1000 - 36 000 m3/day.
A field test was carried out on one of Statoil's oil platforms, but was not successful. Reduction down to
55% of inlet oil and the oil droplets were found to be smaller instead of larger as expected. To investigate
this further critical parameters were identified to be: injection system, separation of smaller droplet,
residence time (> 30 seconds) and amount of free gas from the condensate.
Another possibility could be that if asphaltenic oil is present and gets into contact with condensate, it will
destabilise the asphaltene and thereby precipitate them, this could be the reason why the results were not
as good as expected. It is being investigated at the moment and another field trial is proposed to be carried
out by Statoil, Phillips and perhaps Norske Shell.
This is a new technique and refinements to the process are ongoing.
5.2.4 Petroleum Environment Research Forum (PERF)
In America a research project is ongoing on Soluble Organics.
PERF Project- 9804. Cooperative Research on Soluble Organics

Characterisation and Prediction of Water Soluble Organics
Characterise water soluble organics (WSOs) in produced water. The program is divided into two phases
and each participant provide their assigned work in 2000 and before end of year 2001.
 Predict the level of WSOs in produced water in advance of installing production facilities, by using
properties of or knowledge about the crude oil, formation characteristics, or other relevant and
available data.
 Cost Effective Treatment of Water Soluble Organics
 Develop, apply and transfer technology and information which will assist in cost-effective treatment
or management of WSOs in produced water, especially on offshore
There are 6 participants with Shell. These are BP, Statoil, Phillips, Chevron, Marathon and US
Department of Energy through Oakridge National Lab. All the contributions are in-kind. Due date for
delivery is year 2001.
STATOIL - PLANNED RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS AND ESTIMATED COSTS

98-04-01 Extraction of Hydrocarbon Contaminants from Produced Water with Natural Gas Fractions
98-04-02 Characterization of water soluble organics from North Sea fields . (US$ 100,000)
98-04-03 Qualify commercial simulation program with data from
PERF project (US$ 25,000)
98-04-04 Comparison of the new standard method for oil-in-water analyses with the Freon-IR method.
Implementation of the new method on Statoil operated fields (US$ 25,000).
BP AMOCO - PLANNED RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS AND ESTIMATED COSTS

98-04-01 Field Trials to Review Processes for Removing Soluble Organics from Produced Water on
MISSISSIPPI CANYON 109 Platform (US$95,000)
98-04-02 Field Pilot to Review Amine-Based Chemical Processes for Removing Soluble Organics from
Produced Water on MISSISSIPPI CANYON 109 Platform (US$65,000)
(US$120,000) .

PHILLIPS - PLANNED RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS AND ESTIMATED COSTS

(US$120,000 by Phillips)
98-04-02 Case Studies: Proper Selection for Emulsion Breakers to Achieve Optimum Partitioning of
Liquid Phases (i.e. oil and water) (US$60,000)
98-04-03 A Case Study: Correlate Oil/Water Separation Properties with Well Fluids (US$30,000)
CHEVRON - PLANNED RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS AND ESTIMATED COSTS

94-07-01. New Polymeric or Solid Adsorbents for WSO (Including Activated Carbon Modifications)
(US$55,000)
94-07-02. Acid Springing Phase Separation Studies (US$45,000)
94-07-03. WSO Parameters that Affect Removal Efficiency (US$50,000)
MARATHON - PLANNED RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS AND ESTIMATED COSTS

98-04-01 Investigating The Effects Of Elemental Sulfur On The Hexane Extraction Method Under EPA
1664 (US$30,000)
98-04-02 Developing A Predictive Model For High Water Soluble Organics In Produced Water
(US$120,000)
SHELL - PLANNED RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS AND ESTIMATED COSTS

98-04-01 A Comparison of technologies For the Removal of Dissolved Hydrocarbons From Produced
Water (US$150,000)

6 CONTINUOUS ON-LINE OIL IN WATER MONITORS

Last year's work on continuous on-line oil in water (OIW) monitors have been developed further this
year, with the main focus on developing a database that contain information on the various monitors and
also is searchable, so that criteria can be set and possible monitors suggested for field testing.
6.1 Conclusions
 OIW monitors are successfully being used to monitor trend/upsets in the water treatment process.
Such as the Esso Australia UV-fluorescence monitor [21].
 A database with 64 on-line oil-in-water monitors has been developed.
 An updated method and data presented in this chapter and in Chapter 5 in SIEP 99-5229, may assist
in carrying out a proper evaluation of the OIW monitor. The vendor should be involved in the initial
set up (installation and calibration) and start up, since water quality may change during upsets. A
"troubleshot" agreement with the vendor is always recommended, since water quality may change
during upsets.
 The ERT database and guidelines that was funded by WGM03 is a good starting point for developing
a tool to choose an oil in water monitor. The information in database still needs to be expanded to
include more monitors.
 The weighting factor that ERT has recommended is not adequate and should be used with
carefulness, it is recommend to develop a 'go' / 'no go' principle instead of.
 Using the generic type UV-fluorescent monitor is not advisable on a gas/condensate platform,
especially if comparison with laboratory IR-analysis is required. This is because the level of
dissolved hydrocarbon (which is what UV-fluorescent is measuring) is much higher than the
dispersed (approximately 200 mg/l compared to 10 mg/l). In that case a correlation between the UV-
fluorescent and IR was not possible. Furthermore the calibration it self with condensate is not a
straight line.
6.2 Best Practice in Continuous On-line Oil in Water Monitors
 Start of with getting a good understanding of what is actually going to be measured and characterise
the water to be measured.
 Never buy an OIW monitor, without thoroughly investigating what is needed to make it function in
the particular situation. A six month "lease option purchase" agreement is recommended.
 Use the stepwise approach and the OIW monitor database that has been developed to assist the
choice of monitor.
 Take into consideration that a result is only as good as the sample taken.
6.3 Introduction
Last year the "Best Practice report" [1] gave a description of the different types of monitors, their
advantages, disadvantages, generic type, summaries reports on trials that have been carried out and also
gave a starting point for a way of selecting one of these monitors for a particular application.
This year that selection method has been further developed in corporation with ERT and a database with
search facilities in Microsoft Access Version 7.0 have been developed.

6.4 Stepwise Approach and Selection Database

The desk study “Oil in Water Monitor Selection Database” was carried out by Environment & Resource
Technology Ltd (ERT Ltd) on the behalf WGM03 [26]. The main objective was to establish a searchable
database with on-line oil in water monitors and describe a method to aid the process of selecting a
suitable monitor for their particular application.
The database consists of 64 monitors with information on : Model type, manufacture details, which stage
of development the monitor is in, what generic type it applies, which oil concentration ranges it can
measure, what accuracy it has, what temperature and pressures it can stand and so on. Not all the fields
are filled in at this stage, either because they are not available, not known or still has to be added to the
database.
To assist using the database a "Guidance notes for System Selection" is available. This document
describes how to use the stepwise approach, the database and the various categories under which the OIW
monitors should be assessed.
We took it to the test both in NAM and in Woodside Australia, in the following section a practical
example has been carried out and the comments from Woodside have been added to the guide-lines and
included in the conclusions.
6.4.1 Practical Example of Choosing an OIW Monitor

In last year's work the CFLJ monitor from Sigrist was identified as a possible opportunity for testing on
one of NAM's gas/condensate platform, however, after tests in the Sigrist laboratory it was found that
because the level of dissolved hydrocarbons are so much higher than the dispersed hydrocarbons, the
monitor could not give a satisfactory results, that could be compaired with the NEN 6675 mod. method.
This is because the level of dissolved hydrocarbon (which is what the method is measuring) is much
higher than the dispersed (approximately 200 mg/l compared to 10 mg/l), then a correlation between the
UV-fluorescent and IR was not possible. Furthermore the calibration of the monitor with condensate was
not a straight line.
The example is for an offshore gas/condensate platform in the Dutch sector of the North Sea. We have
followed the stepwise approach, which was recommended by the ERT report. It is recommended to have
the report when going through the steps.
Step 1: Identify why monitor is required.

 A continuous on-line monitor is required to replace the time consuming NEN 6675 mod. oil-in-water
laboratory measuring method (which uses freon as extraction liquid)
 To install on unmanned platforms so that it can be proved that oil overboard is controlled.
 According to ISO 14001 NAM has to show that they are implementing continuous improvement to
the environment, an on-line OIW monitor would give an faster response on an eventual fluctuation in
the OIW-level and it could be reacted upon.
Step 2: Identify process conditions.

 The monitor at least has to be able to measure dispersed hydrocarbons and the result has to have a
collation with the IR spectrophotometric NEN 6675 mod. method.
 If the monitor can measure both dispersed and dissolved hydrocarbons, it should differentiate
between them. Again the results have to be comparable to the NEN 6675 mod. Standard method.
 Up to 10% inaccuracy can be accepted.
 The system will be located on an offshore platform.
 At the water overboard outlet, which has almost atmospheric pressure.
The sample conditioning requirements for the water are:
 Temperature range = 30-35 ºC
 Solid loading = very low.
 Production chemicals = demulisifier is used at the moment. Might change to deoiler in the future.
 Oil content = dispersed 30-50mg/l (NEN6675mod.). Dissolved 200-400mg/l (NEN 6675)
 Water chemistry = there might be gas bubbles present, the water density = 1002 kg/m3.
This may increase in the future to maximum 1050 kg/m3.

 Other = no freon is to be used as extraction liquid.
Step 3: Identify monitor requirements.

For this step a "oil in water monitor selective categories" in the ERT report has been developed, with 18
different selection criteria, the following is the result of this selection the number weighting is 1,2,3,4 and
5. See table 6.1.
Criteria Grading from ERT report F98/243 Step 3 Comments Step 3 Weighting
Choice
Oil 5 < 100 ppm Since 40 ppm dispersed is the limit 5-2
Concentration 4 100 to 250 ppm No. 1 and 2 are unacceptable. If total
Range 3 250 to 500 ppm oil is measured then only 3 and 2 is Very
acceptable, but with a high accuracy. Important
2 500 to 1000 ppm
1 > 1000 ppm
0 Unknown
Accuracy 5 > +/- 10% Better than 10%, if only dispersed is 1-4
4 +/- 5 to 10% measured, but if higher range then
3 +/- 2 to 5% better than 5% is required. Very
Important
2 +/- 1 to 2%
1 < +/- 1%
0 Unknown
Oil Type 5 TOC/VOC It is essential that the results can be 1 or 2
4 Dissolved only compared with the Dutch legislative
3 Dispersed and dissolved NEN6675 (mod.) methods. A total Essential
measurement only would be
(combined)
worthless.
2 Dispersed only
1 Dispersed and dissolved
(separate)
0 Unknown
Temperature 5 < 25 oC The produced water temperature is 4
range 4 25 to 50 oC between 30-35ºC.
3 50 to 75 oC Not
Important
2 75 to 100 oC
1 > 100 oC
0 Unknown
Pressure range 5 < 2 Bar 4-5
4 2 to 10 Bar
3 10 to 25 Bar Not
important
2 25 to 50 Bar
1 > 50 Bar
0 Unknown
Response time 5 > 10 min All levels accepted. 1-5
4 5 to 10 min
3 1 to 5 min Not
important
2 30 to 60 sec
1 < 30 sec
0 Unknown
System cost 5 > £40k All level accepted at this point, if the 1-5
4 £30 to 40k monitor is working satisfactory, but
3 £20 to 30k has to be evaluated further at a later Not
point if a monitor is seen as important
2 £10 to 20k
successful.
1 < £10k
0 Unknown
Sample 5 Sample unconditioned It would be preferred that the 3,5
conditioning 3 Sample conditioned monitor have no sample
1 Sample unconditioned (not conditioning as it makes it more Very
complicated and more things can go Important
required)
wrong.
0 Unknown

Criteria Grading from ERT report F98/243 Step 3 Comments Step 3 Weighting
Choice
Cleaning 5 No automatic cleaning Prefer no cleaning, but accept fully 1 or 3
system 3 Fully automatic automatic periodic cleaning Fairly
1 Not required Important
0 Unknown
Level of 5 Manual The monitor might go on unmanned 1 or 3
automation 3 Semi-automatic platforms. Cut time for sample Not too
1 Automatic collecting and testing. Important
0 Unknown
Calibration 5 Daily 1,2,3
frequency 4 Weekly
(due to drift) 3 Monthly Fairly
Important
2 Annually
1 One off
0 Unknown
Calibration 5 Manufacturer calibration It would be acceptable if the 1 and 3
requirements 3 Operator calibration (‘in manufacture have to do it on site
field’ calibration) depending on frequency. Not too
Important
1 Automatic calibration
0 Unknown
Utility 5 Power and chemicals In this case compressed air and 1 and 3
requirement 3 Power with compressed air clean water is available on the
and/or clean water platform, however we want to move Fairly
away from using solvents. Important
1 Power only
0 Unknown
Track record 5 Onshore only It is important for this case that the 1 and 2
4 Predominantly onshore monitor has been tested offshore as
3 Predominantly offshore the budget is not to developing a Very
monitor but use it as it is, with as Important
(vessels only)
few modifications as possible.
2 Predominantly offshore
(platforms and vessels)
1 Widely used offshore
(platform and vessels) as well as
onshore
0 Unknown
Area 5 None hazardous area Offshore area. 1
certification enclosure only (non-robust)
3 None hazardous area Not too
Important
enclosure only (robust)
1 Hazardous area enclosure
available
0 Unknown
Affected by 5 Large effect Demulsifier is added to the water. 1 or 3
chemicals 3 Some effect
1 No effect Essential
0 Unknown
Affected by 5 Large effect Low solids content. 1,3,5
solids 3 Some effect Not too
1 No effect Important
0 Unknown
Affected by 5 Large effect There might be gas bubbles 1 or 3
free gas 3 Some effect present. Fairly
1 No effect Important
0 Unknown
Table 6.1 System grading with the choice made for a specific (see step 2) produced water
characteristic.
Step 4: Undertake a search

The search was done in the Microsoft Access oil-in-water monitor database, which can be obtained via
the AVF or through the WGM03 team.
Step 5: Are any monitors identified?.

Eight monitors were identified:
FPA 300 - UV absorption
OS-100 - IR absorption
MPS-D - IR light scattering
OCD 30 - IR light scattering
Step 6: Are too many monitors identified?.

Yes there were too many monitors identified, so by reviewing the search results it was decided that deeper
investigation of the MPS-D from Monitek Technologies, the OCD 30 and OCD 3 from Rivertrace
Engineering will be investigated further.
Woodside Australia also tested the method for a gas/condensate platform and had the following
comments, that now have been incorporated to the Guide-lines:
 It was found that when asking for too many parameters at once. It is advisable to say ask for only
one or two at a time (eg, <100ppm, dispersed). This will give a list which can then be further
shortened by adding say 'no effect' for chemicals etc.
 There are too many columns in the output to be able to properly assess the data. It is possible to hide
certain columns and also to change the column widths but the data is still hard to assess on the
computer screen. We found it easier to print out even though it was spread over 4 or 5 pages.
 It took approx 90 mins to get a short list of possible (see below) with no grading.
 We were not sure how the grading criteria worked and did not have sufficient time to investigate
further.
The search results were as follows:

R&H- IR light scattering
OPM1- IR light scattering
OPM2 - IR light scattering
CIS-1000/1002-Laser based time of transition
Oil Content Bilge Alarm-IR light scattering
Oil Content Monitor - IR light scattering
Hydalarm - IR light scattering
Envirolert 5100- UV absorption and light scattering
861 - W/P/I- IR light scattering
Model 160 - IR light scattering
Model 829 - IR light scattering
MPS-AT3 - IR light scattering
BWAM S 646/751 - IR light scattering
Unknown (TNO) - Ultrasonic
Oilcon Mk5 - IR light scattering
This is too many monitors and Woodside will have to go through them and review them and decide which
ones they will investigate further.
We agree with Woodside that the weighting factor that ERT has developed is not very good as they are
weighting each monitor instead of making people weighting the specific situation. It is recommended to

develop a more simple approach like 'go' or 'no go' criteria. For example is it essential to NAM that the
monitor reading can be compared to the legislative OIW measurement method, otherwise it is a 'no go'
situation.
6.5 On-line Oil-in-Water Monitors developments in 1999.
In 1999 there was again a focus on the R&H monitor and Lars Linden, EPT-ASP from SEPTAR, took
contact with the OUs that have bought such a monitor to evaluate its progress. The following is a
summary of his findings.
R&H Oil-in-Water Analyser
The R&H monitor was originally developed by Shell, now the company Imtech has taken over the
commercial part of promoting the R&H oil-in-water analyser.
On 27.01.1999 two meetings were held regarding the R&H Oil-in-water Analyser, one at the NAM
offices at Schiedam and one at Imtech's offices at Tholen, to clarify the situation with the apparent
problems that seem to prevail with the instrument. Three analyser applications were discussed:
 the test installation at NAM (Rotterdam),

 the instrument delivered to BSP and
 the application in PDO (Nimr).
An early prototype was tested at NAM’s Berkel oil field, where the operating principle and laboratory
work was field verified. Later, a production prototype was tested at SPDC’s Bonny terminal in Nigeria
with good results. The crude oil encountered at Berkel is classified as heavy crude (0,93 kg/l) and the
Bonny crude is predominantly light mixed with some medium gravity. (SPE paper 36839)
The first generation of commercial analysers, i.e. the installations at NAM, BSP and PDO, has suffered
from some teething problems. These comprise mechanical problems with the viper mechanism in the
measuring chamber, mixer problems but also deficiencies in the software related to spectrum analysis and
the user interface.
In addition to this, some problems have been experienced with how the analysers have been tied in to the
water treatment process in both BSP and PDO, i.e. more related to good installation practices.
An improved design to rectify the mechanical problems with the window viper assembly is available and
is presently being implemented in the new ‘NAM’ and subsequent analysers.
Based on experience with the more viscous oil encountered in PDO, modified software algorithms have
had to be developed to enable tuning of the spectrum detection window, i.e. to enable the instrument to
find the desired peak in the mixing intensity versus light scattering spectrum. It is felt that with the new
software, the system is more robust and that it should be able to handle more diverse applications.
Improved user interface software has also been developed, facilitating easier in-situ calibration.
Through the problems encountered during the implementation of the first few analysers it is obvious that
the consequences of high viscosity oil and varying droplet size were not fully appreciated during the
development of the measurement principle. These phenomena are now much better understood, and this
additional knowledge, together with some more practical experience, should enable a more fit-for-
purpose analyser through improved design and factory tuning of the mixer/measurement assembly.
A mobile calibration unit has been developed for verification of the analyser results against a (variable)
test stream.
There are still some areas of concerns, which are the potential problem with the method’s inherent
sensitivity to gas bubbles in the sample. The difference in refractive index between gas bubbles and water
will result in that the analyser will interpret gas bubbles in a similar way as oil droplets. This is no

different to other turbidity or to, for example, dielectric meters, but an aggravating factor in this respect
for the R&H analyser is the mixing energy added through the ultrasonic mixer. If the fluid is close to its
vapour point it is obvious that this adding of mechanical energy could easily make the fluid cavitate. This
phenomenon is further pronounced when dealing with more viscous products, as more energy would have
to be injected into the measurement cell to split the droplets to obtain the desired spectrum. In the case it
is not unlikely that gas would boil off through an increase in sample temperature.
The apparent unwillingness of Imtech to assist in resolving the outstanding problems in BSP and PDO are
probably related to the relatively high costs involved due to the travel required, and the shortage of
qualified personnel. The latter is presumably a result of the low volumes of units involved to date. This
‘chicken and egg’ situation has been addressed with Analyser System’s management, who fully
understands the implications of not responding adequately.
Earlier this year NAM tested a generation two analyser at their Rotterdam location. This model had
revised software and a modified mechanical system and it was hoped that it would be substantially more
robust than the previous model. However, the tests showed that the filters and some of the pipelines
blocked due to the waxy crude, and it has been decided not to do any more tests at NAMs location in the
near future.
It is still the opinion that the R&H monitor should be able to perform as intended in most applications
where the concentration of dispersed oil is the criterion. An important aspect to keep in mind, though, is
the vapour pressure of the water and the oil viscosity. A proper sampling system design and good
mixer/sample cell design is essential to mitigate these potential problems.
The analyser is from a mechanical, process and sampling equipment point of view a relatively simple
apparatus and should therefore be reasonably robust.
Woodside Australia:
Woodside Australia is also looking into the possible use of the R&H monitor and tested it on two
platforms in Australia. After sending samples of products from both platforms to the vendor, the unit
were brought out to Australia for testing in situ on North Rankin and Goodwyn.
The unit was not able to monitor the OIW concentration to the required accuracy. The main reason for
the failure was due to the presence of corrosion inhibitor in the discharge stream. This inhibitor does
contain hydrocarbon and so interferes with the analysis process. The second reason was R & H unit has a
requirement that the sample stream have a pressure of 400 kPa and a flow rate of at least 5 litres per
minute. As the existing sample pump only delivers the stream to module 8 at around 50 kPa and 3 l/min a
booster pump was included in the loop. For expedience an air driven Mono pump was hired for the
purpose. The initial arrangement saw the Mono pump lined up in series with the sample stream and then
directly into the unit. This was changed after it was found that entrained gas/air was being circulated
through the analyser. The impact of these bubbles was found to interfere with the light scattering
technique making it impossible for the device to distinguish between drops of oil and bubbles of gas. This
was confirmed by the vendor rep who had a laptop PC connected for carrying out diagnostic checks. This
problem was known to the vendor but not communicated to Woodside prior to the start of the trial.
In 1999 Woodside has gone further with the investigation and are hoping that a new degasser vessel will
sufficiently remove any entrained gas. They initially thought that the bubbles were due to gas breakout
because the sample was taken from -40m below sea level. A recent lab trials at Imtech, performed with
samples of North Rankin (NRA) water that contains condensate and corrosion inhibitor, showed that the
R&H is not affected by corrosion inhibitor. The lab trial seems to indicate that the bubble problem is due
to foaming of the corrosion inhibitor. At dosing rates up to 100ppm using a pump at 3000 rpm no
foaming occurred. When the rpm was increased to 5000rpm foaming occurred.
It is possible that when the R&H was trialed on NRA the booster pump used was causing foaming of the
inhibitor. The inhibitor dosing rate has been significantly reduced since then so the problem may have
gone away. A low shear pump is planned to be installed to minimise this. Woodside is waiting on a trial
report from Imtech to confirm these assumptions.

UV Aquatracka Monitor
Elke Sensfelder in Shell's Research and Technology Centre in Thornton is in the process of organising a
test of a newly developed monitor from Chelsea Instruments Ltd in the UK called UV Aquatracka.
The operating principle of the monitor is UV fluorescence with measurements of emission wavelength for
hydrocarbons at 360nm. The UV Aqatraka's pressure housing is manufactured in titanium for long life. It
utilises a pulsed xenon light source, a detector and incorporates a 20-bit ADC under the control of a micro
controller. Further technical details have not been released. In beginning of Q1 2000 the monitor will be
tested in ERT according to the set-up seen in Table 6.2.
Day Test parameter Oil Oil Median oil Water Water Other
Type conc droplet size temp Salinity
mg/l µm ºC g/l
1 Base case trials Flotta Crude (36º API) 10 25 55 34 No other contaminants to establish
'base-line' data
Flotta Crude (36º API) 20 25 55 34
2 Base case trials Flotta Crude (36º API) 100 25 55 34
(cont)
Feed oil droplet size Flotta Crude (36º API) 40 Minimum 55 34 Maximum shear achievable
variation
Effect of free gas Flotta Crude (36º API) 40 25 55 34 0.5 % v/v Nitrogen
Flotta Crude (36º API) 40 25 55 34 1 % v/v Nitrogen
3 Effect of oil type Heavy (<30º API) 10 25 55 34
Heavy (<30º API) 20 25 55 34
Heavy (<30º API) 40 25 55 34
Heavy (<30º API) 60 25 55 34
4 Temperature Flotta Crude (36º API) 40 25 10 34 Or ambient temperature at time of
variation testing
Salinity variation Flotta Crude (36º API) 40 25 55 0
5 Effect of production Flotta Crude (36º API) 40 25 55 34 20 mg/l Demulsifier
chemicals
Flotta Crude (36º API) 40 25 55 34 20 mg/l Corrosion Inhibitor
Effect of solids Flotta Crude (36º API) 40 25 55 34 20 mg/l Silica Sand
Flotta Crude (36º API) 40 25 55 34 40 mg/l Silica Sand
Table 6.2 UV Aquatracka oil in water monitor trials set-up in ERT.
This test-matrix will give a good indication on the OIW monitor's performance.
Photo Acoustic Monitor
The operating principle of the monitor is a pulsed laser photoacoustic spectroscopy in the near infrared
spectral region. The process is based on the absorbed optical energy creating local heating, which
generates rapid, localised thermal expansion. This in turn generates a pressure wave, which can be
detected with an acoustic detector. The hydrocarbon composition in the water has to be known to allow
calibration of the probe by conventional analysis of samples otherwise, only trend monitoring of a fixed
hydrocarbon composition is possible. Both aromatic and dispersed hydrocarbons can be measured.
The latest status on the monitor is that the proto-type is almost developed and should be ready in Q1
2000, however, there are no immediate plans for testing it in the field. At the moment the proto-type is
designed for measuring asphaltenes in crude oil and would therefore not be suitable for gas/condensate
related water, however, the wavelengths could be changed so that it would work for these conditions.
If anyone is interested in testing the monitor please contact the WGM03 team or S. Freeborn at Hariot-
Watt University.

6.6 Oil-in-water monitoring outside Shell
This year we have made a further effort to gather information on OIW monitors out-side Shell.
6.6.1 OIW monitoring workshop
On the 22nd April 1999 National Engineering Laboratory hosted a workshop in Aberdeen with the title
"Oil in Water Monitoring Workshop", WGM03 attended the workshop and below is the relevant
information summaries.
There were two presentations on the overall problem identification of on-line monitors and three case
studies for on-line monitors, which were of relevance.
The need for an in-line OIW monitor

Even though on-line OIW monitors have been on the marked for many years they have always fallen
below operational requirements. However, new techniques and steadily increasing demands for better
measurements mean that systems are becoming available with a potential to give good performance.
One of the main conclusions were that it is not likely that one measurement technique can be applied for
the wide range of conditions, but it is more likely that a few techniques are developed and tailored to the
specific situation.
Reliable OIW monitoring - problem and solutions.

The main conclusion of an investigation of 47 monitors made by NEL was:
To achieve a successful installation of on-line OIW monitors, a step by step approach is recommended.
By sharing operating experiences and combining this with the joint efforts of manufacturers and users,
and other organisations, reliable on-line OIW monitoring is considered to be achievable.
Photoacoustic monitor.
See working principle in section 6.5.
At the moment they have had some very promising results in the laboratory, but the instrument still needs
to be tested in an offshore situation.
UV fluorescence NOCELL monitor.

The Steptech instrument has been developed with Turner Design in USA.
It seemed more like a sales promotion than a case study, however, this were the major conclusions from
the presentation:
Major reasons for failure are too high temperature, presence of solids, fouling, scale, an aggressive
environment and high maintenance, to combat this following has been carried out:
- The instrument takes samples at high sample velocity (2,5 m/s)
- There is a simple flow path
- A device for homogenising and degassing the sample has been installed
BP Amoco experiences with UV-fluorescence monitor.

BP has made field trails with two UV fluorescence monitors (no mentioning of make or supplier).
The conclusions were as follows:
- Suitable monitors can not be selected on the sole criterion of cost alone; however, cost is an
important factor. Decisions must be accuracy and precision driven. Installing a poorly selected
system is a bad investment.
- On-line monitors are not fit and forget technology, they do require periodic calibration and service
checks. Their output should not be taken at face value, but related to a known laboratory calibration
test method.
- Current monitors can indicate the quality of discharged or re-injected produced water, and as such
can be successfully employed offshore as on-line process management tools. BP Amoco has
observed a good correlation between process plant upsets and excursions in produced water quality
reported by the on-line OIW monitors.
- On-line monitors are capable of identifying and solving process problems.

6.6.2 OIW monitors in the field
Esso Australia Ltd experiences with SIGRIST UV-fluorescence monitor [21]
On Esso Australia Ltd's (EAL) 12 oil platforms they have two systems in place for measuring oil in water;
UV Spectrometer Analysis and Sigrist Model No. KFLJM B060-F3. The UV Spectrometer method is
done manually and is the basis for EAL regulatory compliance. They have to take and analyse every 6
hours and make a weighted average that has to be reported. Sigrist provide them with a continuous
monitoring of oil-in-water concentrations for water overboard and forms the basis of shutdown
requirements to prevent spills. So the instrument is currently approved as a shutdown and trending device,
but is NOT approved as a reporting tool.
The shut down valve is activated if the Sigrist indicates that an OIW concentration of 50 mg/l is exceeded
for 30 minutes, or 100 mg/l is exceeded for 10 seconds.
To be able to use the Sigrist monitor reliable a number of measurements had to be adapted:
The main sources for the Sigrist to be unreliable and inaccurate are:
 sample conditioning,
 maintenance and
 calibration
To overcome those points following was done:
Sampling condition:
It is of great importance to create a CONSTANT flowrate for which the monitor is calibrated. The rate is
between 5-7 l/min.
Gas in the sample causes the monitor to record concentration higher than the true values, hence a
degasser pot is installed, however, it had to be altered to be able to degas the sample better. The problem
was that in some cases the degasser was to full, which results in a layer of oil that builds up on top of the
water, causing spikes in the trending results.
According to Graham Parkin they have had no problems due to production chemicals nor from the sand
that they produce. However, iron sulfides do block the lines (see below) and gas bubbles have cause
problems, but they are solved by installing a degasser pot.
Maintenance:
One of the problems that caused the Sigrist to give error readings was blockages of FeS in the sample
lines. Furthermore, fouling on the optics reduces the intensity of the UV beam, and reduces the
fluorescent output, therefor regular cleaning is essential. It is recommended that preventive maintenance
should be carried out once a week.
Calibration:
Beforehand the Sigrists were calibrated (zeroed) before installation on platforms. However, that resulted
in results that were different from the UV Spectrometer results. The report recommends that the monitor
has to be calibrated to the UV Spectrometer offshore and not before it is send offshore.
The results also showed a reliable calibration curve between 15-30 mg/l, but due to low OIW
concentrations, higher levels could not be tested (30-100 mg/l)
When these precautions are taken it was found that the Sigrist monitor can produced accurate reading 85-
90% of the time.
The overall conclusion from the Esso work is that with proper sample conditioning, maintenance and
calibration the Sigrist monitor is able to be a reliable on-line OIW monitor. Esso is still in the process of
convincing the regulatory body in Victoria, Australia, that this monitor should be recognised as a
reporting tool.

Best Practice Sharing
7 BEST PRACTICE SHARING
“Best Practice” was defined by the 1998 project as not only application of best available technology but
also as a way of working and sharing information, good and bad experiences that comes together and
form the best way to deal with a problem.
From last years work it was concluded that to share best practice not only one method can be applied, but
by combining several communication methods more people have been reached and contributed to sharing
their best practice in water treatment. The following have been carried out in 1999:
 The water treatment network list been updated with relevant personnel (see list in Appendix E).
 Information sharing via the Shell Wide Web (AVF).
 Local OU Workshops.
 Specialist and Operator Workshops.
 Field visits.
 Literature list divided into subjects, so that it is easier to find information on a water treatment
subjects. (see Appendix G)
 Report writing.
7.1 Conclusions
 The major improvement compared to the work carried out in 1998 is that a link between Shell and
other Operators has been established. To obtain more "Best Practice" on various subjects it is
important to keep that link and improve on the relationship between operators.
 The workshops are still seen as an excellent media to distribute and collect "best Practice" and
experience. Now eight OUs have had a workshop and in year 2000 more should be carried out.
 Combining different approaches to achieve "Best Practice" sharing has proven to be very good.
 A further improvement to develop "Best Practice" is to make groups of highly qualified people that
can go out and assist OUs in specific water treatment issues. The team members of such a group do
not have to be the same, but should be sought out depending on the nature of the assignment.
7.2 Water Treatment Network
The main objective with the network is to have an active communication tool to:
 Disseminate information on state of the art technology
 Exchange expertise and experience worldwide
 Easily connect to experts who can help troubleshooting/problem solving
 Narrow gap between research and operation
 Help engineers doing a better job (design and operate)
 Steer research
 Facilitate field-testing with emerging technology

We wanted to create a forum where people with water treatment issues, but with different skills and
therefore different ways of approaching the problem could move towards the best solution. The water
treatment network list now consists of 83 people in 15 locations in 12 countries (see list in Appendix E).
Alta Vista Forum (AVF)
AltaVista Forum is an application that provides an easy way to communicate and to share information.
Using the AltaVista Forum you can work with groups of people within your own OU or Shell wide.
In 1998 the forum was located in the BAA WGM site. In line with the restructuring of all AVF locations,
the water treatment site has been moved to the Surface Cluster Global network.
There are different ways to get to the forum. However, the easiest way is to enter the URL (Universal
Resource Locator which is an Internet address) in the Netscape Netsite box :
http://sww1.epglobal.shell.com/forums/surface/dispatch.cgi
This will take you to the Surface Cluster Global Network and the "Water Management" is folder number
19.
If you want to be able to reply or add documents and discussion topics you have to register as prescribed
on the Surface Cluster site in the Alta Vista Global Helpdesk on the left hand side on the main page.
For more details on how to work with Alta Vista Forum see Appendix F.
The benefits of working with AVF compared with the E-mail system is that when you have a question or
some useful information, it will get out to many instead of a few selected people and also in a discussion
the question and answers will be written once and stored once, where as in the email system the
information get stored every time a new e-mail arrives or leave.
However, there are still blockers such as getting people to use it and in some OUs it is very slow and
some staff do not have access to the "SWW" but only the local web.
The future for the AVF site is very much up to the water treatment group it self and we need to have an
energiser and team commitment. The team has to both give as well as take otherwise it will die.
7.3 Water Treatment Web site
The 1999 scope of work called for a development of an expertise/knowledge base, which would provide
electronic, readily accessible information on water treatment. One of the main purposes with such a base
would be to capture conclusions and best practices from the AVF discussions, WGM03 workshops and
documents.
We decided that a web site within the Shell intranet would be appropriate and evaluated alternatives to
develop a site. In 1998, support had been given to the BAA project ‘Zero Impact Facilities (ZIF)’ in
which a CD ROM had been developed to allow projects to identify ways of minimising the environmental
impact of EP facilities and operations. The Zero Impact Facility initiative 1999 plans were to develop an
electronic interactive tool to allow a first pass at identifying emissions and technologies to treat or reduce
emissions for project and process engineers. Regarding water treatment, it would be based on the De-
oiling Manual SIEP 93-1315, the Best Practice in Produced Water Treatment SIEP 99-5229, and
published literature. By co-operating with the ZIF initiative, a single website for ZIF and WGM03,
incorporating the learning from WGM03, has been developed. This approach has made optimum use of
BAA funding.
The web site can be accessed via the Surface Cluster Global Network AVF site under ISF 03, or directly
via the url:
http://swwrij.siep.shell.com/cc/df/zif/zif_home.htm

This is the front page 'Enter'- go to 'Process Design Guide Lines'. Then click 'Enter' and choose "Water
Treatment".
The Water Treatment section will continue to be developed. Recognised documents and references, such
as the Deoiling Manual, JIP Reports, will be either included directly or via links to other web sites.
Knowledge and experience in water treatment will be captured from the AVF site. The web site will be
improved and updated regularly by the person who manage the site as validated information is gathered.
7.4 Workshops
7.4.1 WGM03 Workshops
Three OUs were visited during 1999. The workshops were two days long and a workshop handout book
was made for each individual OU. The workshops were specifically tailored to each OU needs; Norske
Shell – produced water re-injection, PD Oman – onshore produced water handling, Shell Oil Gulf of
Mexico – offshore produced water handling.
The workshops general objectives were to:

 Disseminate and share information
 Identify and address common problem areas
 Transfer best operating practice
 Create a Forum to interact with each other and introduce Alta Vista
 Find best way forward in achieving Best Practice in produced water treatment
Following are the summaries from each workshop:
Norske Shell, 26 - 27 May in Risavika
In this workshop a wide range of subjects and many issues relating directly to Draugen produced water
handling were discussed. There was a good lively discussion about problems NSEP encounter and
examples from other OUs were used to share best practice. Presentations were made by various people
from NSEP and the WGM03 team.
Chris Craft, who has together with Gunn Gadeholdt and Neil Harvey, been the focal point for arranging
the workshop from NSEP opened the workshop and gave a short introduction. After that A.C. Lawrence
gave an account for the amounts of produced water in the Shell Group(28 000 m3/d for Draugen by year
2009) and then J. Pedersen gave an overview of the background and the objectives with the WGM03
project. Trym Edvardsson presented the discharge criteria for NSEP now and for the future; they have to
conform to the 'zero discharge' strategy. J. Pedersen then presented the criteria for some of the other OUs
and for the Shell Group in total, which is expected to be 18 mg/l oil in water in year 2002.
A.C. Lawrence talked about techniques on removal of oil and heavy metals. A short overview of the oily
water characteristics were given and it was emphasized that oil droplets are one of the most govern
parameters for gravity separation of oil from water.
The first day ended with a discussion and a review of the different options that the PW team has identified
lead by A.C. Lawrence and main conclusions were-
 C-tour is worthwhile to test first. However, the type and source of condensate is important to avoid
addition of soluble organics such as BETX in the treated water.
 Remember to add a test for the C-Tour that takes into account that the water characteristic will
change with time.
 Investigate the GFU (also pressurised) further, there has been a lot of good experience with them.
Also investigate single and dual flotation cells.

 The coalesers have a potential low cost and potential to work, so would be worthwhile to follow any
development in this area, however beware that the hydrocyclones might already work to their oil
removal limit.
 Mare's tail should be investigated further.
 A cheap option could be to have more pipes with tangential inlet to the separator and to upgrade PW
flash drum.
 Draugen maybe able to include some plate-packs in the first stage separator, but have to be careful if
there is sand in the water. In theory they should not get sand production as they have a sand screen in
the wells, but in practice fine sand could become an issue with high water production.
Day two started with produced water re-injection in mind. Zara Khatib gave a comprehensive review on
the factors that would affect the injectivity of produced water. This included the characterisation of the
injected waters, the compatibility of injected waters with the formation water, the well completions and
the reservoir constraints. In addition, the water treatment requirement in the surface facilities to minimise
injectivity decline was discussed. Neil Harvey gave a summary of the Draugen injection strategy and the
reservoir constraints. A brain storming session involving all the participants, identified several options for
PWRI and associated treatment cost and risks. The main conclusions were- Draugen has to have the
topside facilities anyway so there is a backup system and if produced water has to be injected, injectivity
could be maintained by injection above fracture pressure.
Since, little is know about fracturing high permeable unconsolidated sands, further work was outlined to
investigate the feasibility of this approach.
The overall conclusion from the workshops was that it provided a:
 review of and confirmation of water disposal team direction and previous work, (They haven't missed
too much out !)
 highlighting of additional potential quality improvements with conversion of flashdrum to a flotation
cell. This will now receive some more focus this year.
 large number of (new) operational concerns for PW re-injection to think about, and improved
awareness of other operating unit experience.
 awareness on sensitivities of on-line oil in water metering.
The produced water team is now setting up the second phase of the project and will incorporate these
areas within the current workscope.
PDO, 2 - 3 October in Muscat
A wide range of subjects and many issues relating directly to PDO's produced water handling were
discussed. There was a good lively discussion about problems PDO encounter and examples from other
OUs were used to share best practice. Presentations were made by various people from PDO and the
WGM03 team.
An overview of the WGM03 project was given together with a discussion on the legislation issues for
produced water in Oman, such as the legal limit for oil in water is expected to increase from 5 to 15 mg/l
and that there will be tighter limits on BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand), Phenols and some heavy
metals and that PDO has to phase out Shallow water disposal.
The chemical characterisations of the waters were presented and it showed that there is a large variety in
the quality of the waters.

Treatment of water separated from heavy crude was presented with emphasis on the total system
approach, main operating parameter and water treatment equipment.
Other presentations were on new technology in water treatment equipment of special interest for PDO
and best practice for existing equipment. To implement best practice a discussion on Alta Vista Forum
was also carried out.
Several discussions around case studies were conducted.
Main conclusions from them were:
Marmul - There is limited data available correlating decline of injectivity to water quality. The injectivity
is more effected by the solids content of the water than by the OIW content of the water and they have
been injecting into the Al Khlata and Haima formation for 5 years at pressures below 50 bar without
noticeable effect on injectivity.
Nimr - To be able to inject more water in deep water reservoirs, more has to be known about the
injectivity and the characteristic of the water. Nimr should consider the use of Mares' tail technology to
improve the CPI performance.
Bottom Water Draw Off – The biggest issue is to be able to control the system, so for example find a
turbidity meter that can measure 1%. Other monitors of interest would be on-line OIWs, which in the new
report from WGM03 might be easier to find. Another issue is to handle the potential big amounts of sand
in the water. Here Jane Pedersen will forward some information on a promising technology.
Reed Beds - The pilot test is going very well and the results look promising for treating the Nimr water.
The treatment cost is 7 US$cents/m 3 at this point in time. A new plan for treating water at the MaF
terminal is also in progress.
Qarn Alam – Different possibilities for cleaning produced water to boiler feed were discussed, but they
will all be expensive.
MaF Terminal – To be able to meet the new legislation a trial of Reed beds are going to be carried out.
An alternative would be to investigate one of the new biotreatment reactors (Combine anaerobic and
aerobic treatment). Furthermore there is an urgent need to investigate sludge treatment on the terminal.
SOI, 16 -17 November in New Orleans
SOI in conjunction with SIEP–SEPTAR hosted a WGM03 workshop on Best Practice in Treatment of
Produced Water at the Robert Training Centre, Louisiana, on 15 th and 16th November 1999. The WGM03
project has been sponsored by NAM, and technically supported by various groups in SEPTAR and in
NAM. The project is one of the WGM (Water and Gas Management) BAA (Business Area Alignment)
Club in SIEP, but is carried out in NAM. The other three projects are:
WGM01: Water and Gas Shutoff,

WGM02: Downhole Processing, and
WGM04: Produced Water re-injection” Downhole aspects of injectivity and fracture growth”
The objective of this workshop was to:
 have good awareness of SIEP and GOM practices.

 provide better knowledge of performance and parameters for produced water discharge.
 identify common problems and future challenges to focus and research needs.
 exchange best practices between the SOI assets and the Shell Group operating Units, OUs.
 discuss a wide range of issues relating directly to SOI assets offshore produced water handling.
 create a forum to interact with each other and via Alta Vista.

There was a lively discussion about challenges that SOI faces in complying with environmental targets.
Presentations were made by various people from SOI and the WGM03 team. Day 1 included
presentations on:
The Water and Gas Management programme since 1998, WGM03 Year 2000 programme, Petroleum
Environmental Research Forum project on soluble organics, and the SEPTAR Innovative Surface
Facilities Evolutionary Programme on Separation of condensate from methanol laden produced water
The latest technologies and best practices in water treatment for removal dispersed oil, dissolved oil, and
heavy metals.
Technologies for sea water treatment for injection and the implications of commingling and reinjecting
produced water on the treatment facilities and integrity of the injection system
The WGM video was shown.
The Alta Vista Forum: benefits, registration procedure and use. All participants were registered and now
have access to the site http://sww1.epglobal.shell.com/forums/surface/dispatch.cgi
The Environmental issues and implications including HSE issues present and future, SOI offshore
performance, US and International regulations present and future.
Day 2 included presentations on SOI issues and operating practices such as:
Future challenges in GOM design and practices
 MinDVA and debottlenecking concepts.

 Main Pass 252 condensate separation from methanol laden water .
 Expansion of the Auger facilities.
 GOM tips on water treatment facilities operations and surveillance.
 Surveillance needs.
Day 2 also included a presentation/demonstration of the Zero Impact Facilities (ZIF) CD and future
website, and the Debottlenecking Tool. Handouts were provided which included additional information
on oil-in-water monitors, and other related literature.
The workshop was concluded by getting feedback from the attendees on the benefits of the workshop,
and a list of actions and associated sponsors was compiled, and is shown below. Attendees agreed that all
objectives had been met during the Workshop and that the shared experience and knowledge of the tools
and forum were most valuable. Other comments highlighted the fact that Project Engineering was not
represented and that their participation would have been beneficial to future projects. To enhance the
implementation of the Workshop learning, the attendees felt management involvement and sponsorship
was essential.
7.4.2 Specialist Workshop

One specialist workshop was carried out in NAM. The subject was removal of hydrocarbons and heavy
metals by Bio-treatment in NAM.
Following is a summary of the workshop:
1. Introduction and Objectives
Objective of the workshop
 Assess potential of using bio-processes to treat waste water for

- removing dissolved hydrocarbons,
- removing heavy metals,
- removing dispersed hydrocarbon.

 Discuss/compare various kind of processes as have been reviewed in the last years
 Define the way forward to mature a process for NAM purposes
The programme for the day comprises presentations on the four techniques followed by discussion.
Alternative methods may also be identified and assessed.
2. What and why does NAM want to treat?
Specific aspects are the removal of dissolved hydrocarbons and heavy metals. The main differentiation
between onshore and offshore are:
i) reducing the over all load of heavy metal/ BTEX to the sea offshore (no specific legislation for
each platform) , and
ii) to meet discharge specifications onshore.
Offshore the BMP (Bedrijfsmilieuplan) does not prescribe specific levels, but prescribe an overall
reduction. In view of current experiences, efficiency more than 95% is considered a minimum
requirement for a technique to remove aromates. No specific max concentrations have been specified for
heavy metals; the current policy is to aim for a limited number of treatment facilities reducing overall
load with 80%. Reduction of dispersed hydrocarbons is not a main issue in this workshop, but if the
process can handle dispersed as well, it is seen as an advantage.
Zinc and Lead are the main contributors to sea (from all platforms). There are only a few platforms which
contribute dissolved hydrocarbons. There is a tendency with the Government to bring limits (discharge
specifications) to each discharge offshore, similar to onshore.
Onshore, there is produced water and contaminated rainwater (hoekbak). Contrary to offshore, there are
discharge outlet concentrations to be met. Two discharge routes can be differentiated
i) discharge to surface water, extremely low outlet concentrations and

ii) discharge to sewage plant.
For discharge to surface waters, there are BAGA specs. The specs can vary depending on the water,
which is being disposed into, e.g. North Sea canal is different to inland pond. But for compounds such as
benzene, the spec is the same no matter which water is being disposed into. For discharge to sewage
plants, there are different specs for the provinces, these should be made available on the AVF.
3. Airlift Bioreactor
Presented two cases:

i) pilot scale test by TNO/NAM/SRC in 1994/1995.
ii) Proposal for new test with improved design and new development
The principle of the system is that the methanol will be removed in the anaerobic step and here perhaps
the heavy metals could also be precipitated with the sulphate and be removed. The aerobic step is then to
remove dissolved hydrocarbons and part of the dispersed hydrocarbons.
Pilot scale test by TNO/NAM/SRC in 1994/1995:

600 litre airlift bioreactor, see attachment for details and sketch. The efficiency depends on the hydraulic
residence time and the aeration capacity. The performance efficiency is different for each component, for
e.g. BTEX is 94%, TEG over 80%, acetic acid over 29%. The summarised results are 75% for water-
soluble hydrocarbons, over 90% for aromatics by a salinity of 3 %, retention time approx. 1 hour.
Bacteria growth rates depend on the component being consumed. A multiple of components gives a
multiple of different growth rates, and some bacteria may grow in suspension.
Up to 15% salinity was not a problem (in Sittingbourne tests) and this could be alternated down to 1% but
not to zero %. Salt content is only an issue when there is a fluctuation from zero. So do not go from fresh
water to saline water and the other way around.

There are three improvement proposals for the existing equipment set-up:
i) add bio-screens,
ii) other biomass carrier
iii) improvement of oxygen transfer
A lot of instability is caused by overloading (creating oxygen deficiency) and this causes conditions
deeper in the biofilm to become anaerobic, and the evolution of gas anaerobically disintegrates the
biofilm.
These installations can be unmanned, but there would have to be a good monitoring system and the start-
up and any changes have to be attended.
Biothane's new development - Presentation by Arnold Mulder (from Biothane Systems

International):
COD in NAM tests was mainly due to glycol and methanol. It is best to have an anaerobic pre -treatment,
this will also remove heavy metals but not BTEX. The new concept is anaerobic followed by aerobic. The
anaerobic reactor is 50 m3 and here the bed is not a fluidised bed but in an expanded mode instead with
the inlet at the base. The biogas contains 60 - 70% methane, rest is CO 2. The anaerobic part is followed by
a flash aeration tank, at the moment it has no internals. In an application for one client the reactors are 12-
14 metres high and 2 metres diameter. The system (10 - 12 m 3/day) was all skid mounted and could be
installed in one day. The volume of the anaerobic system was 50 m 3, if it was just an aerobic system, the
volume would have been 1000 m3.
Capex and Opex not available.
4. Fixed Bed Bioreactor

There are 10 compartments filled with polypropylene beads (offspec beads from Shell Chemicals)
Capacity is 4 m3/h. Total volume of kit is 4 m 3, but the actual bead volume is much less. The box is sitting
in the Hoekbak, but could be anywhere as a polishing step. There are a series of beds so surges in
contaminant levels can be handled, and you can take a single unit out and shake it to remove excess
biomass. There is very low sludge production as the feed level contamination is very low (normally 2
μg /litre benzene). The unit was installed in 1997 and in the start-up it was fed with nutrients (plant
fertiliser), growth occurred within 2 weeks, and within 6 weeks got < 0.2 μg out for 2000 μg inlet BTEX
(pure condensate fed into inlet water).
A longer term trial was conducted and it was found that one of the problems is that the nutrient dosage
have to be tailored to the organic loading. There was a big reduction in TSS, which indicate that heavy
metal might be removed as a significant level of the heavy metals is normally attached to the suspended
solids. There have been mechanical problems (feed pump, a bioreactor container failed and released
beads, reliance on plant air). It is intended to continue the trials in 1999. Glycol, methanol, etc will be
trialled in 1999. The system is really a polishing technology, designed to go from 100 mg/l (but typically
2 mg/l) down to 2 μg/ litre BTEX. It is not for the same applications as the airlift bioreactor the fixed bed
bioreactor is for low levels of contaminate. Cost of the prototype was NLG 90,000 and another NLG
50,000 in fixing problems. It is basically designed to treat hoekbak water - a competitive technology
could be reed beds.
4. Membrane bioreactor (SEPTO)

The SEPTO membrane bioreactor was tested because it could be an alternative to the existing way the
process water (containing high levels of methanol) is trucked away for reclaiming of methanol by
CALDIC. The economics were that reclaiming methanol is more expensive than buying fresh methanol,
and the bioreactor was evaluated as a disposal alternative. A pilot (in a 20 ft sea container) was installed
by SEPTO. Disposal to sewage can have a higher content than disposal to surface. Monster is methanol
process (15-40% methanol in water), Gaag is a glycol process. To treat the concentration of methanol, the
feed had to be diluted. At start up, there were serious foaming problems, which needed operator attention.
The loading is 0.2 kg BOD/kg biomass per day (compares to 0.15 for conventional bioreactor system).
Yearly costs would be 105 NLG/m3 a year for the SEPTO system, plus you have to buy fresh methanol.
For reclaiming through CALDI it is 361 NLG/m3.
Another trial was treating Botlek water (with glycol). A problem was adapting the biomass to work. It
took 4 weeks to adapt.

It was investigated whether the BTEX just get stripped out by the air, so the BTEX was measured in the
offgas. It seems that there is a very small amount stripped out, which mean that its removal is actually in
the bioreactor. But this still has to be checked. Regarding heavy metals, the 'fresh' bacteria seemed to have
a higher metal content before use than after use - it seemed that metals were actually desorbed from the
biomass. Perhaps low absorption due to the small size of the biomass.
5. Bio-membrane Reactor (Triqua)

The requirements are to achieve a significant mass reduction in dissolved hydrocarbons, some mass
reduction of heavy metals, the process should be effective in saline conditions and should not be affected
by dispersed oil. Triqua membrane bioreactor which operates at pressure (allows higher oxygen levels
and more compact unit) was tested. The focus was for offshore application. 1.5 m 3 of production water
from K8-FA1 was taken to Triqua laboratory, a 4-week trial starting with slib from Phenol Chemie
Antwerpen (which was already used to saline water and removal of hydrocarbons).
The composition of K8-FA1 water was:

 COD 1420 mg/l
 BTEX: 85600 ug/l (75000 ug/l benzene)
 NEN6675: 27 mg/l (dispersed)
 4.1 ug/l total PAH
 280 mg/l TEG
 Heavy metals (ug/l): Cr 10; Ni 26, Pb 230, Zn 5000, Hg 0.7, Cd 55 (chloride 20 g/l)
Test results
Operational aspects:
i) High level of salt had no effect on performance
ii) Balance in nutrients (C and N) was not correct, addition of extra nutrients required after 3 weeks,
addition of nutrient gave immediate positive response
iii) Slib production = 0.3 kgDS/kgCOD (concentration dry solids = 20 kg/m 3) this will convert into
10-15 m3 slib production/month for 2 m3/h plant.
iv) Minor reduction in membrane performance over the test period.
Assessment of process simplicity:

i) Unmanned operation OK but depend on stability of inlet (sensitivity to changes)
ii) Waste slib stream gave heavy metal concentration, effect of build up not known,
iii) Nutrient requirement
Heavy metals in slib, the test was not long enough to see the complete picture. In this short test, heavy
metals did build up on the slib, but it could desorb later. From this test there was not a clear indication
that this method would remove heavy metals consistently. For offshore, MPPE seems better for aromatics,
but MPPE, does not remove heavy metals.
Costs for a 2 m3/h unit, COD 1300 mg/l

Capex NLG 480,000
Opex NLG 125,000 from which
 Energy 23,000
 Membrane 6,200
 Personnel 10,000
 Slib removal 3,500
 Chemicals 2,000
 Various 80,000
Uncertainties remain, one of the reasons being the short term nature of the test, and actual situation could
not be realistically simulated. The uncertainties include maximum concentration of heavy metals before
poisoning, long term quality of slib, how to handle spent slib, reaction to large variations in feed quality,
and effects of dispersed hydrocarbons.

6. Discussion and conclusions/recommendations of the four techniques
It should be considered to find a better way to define the quality of the influent feed stream, and
especially with respect to fluctuation on an hourly/daily basis, also acceptable excursions in effluent
quality, and acceptable failures, all these issues has to be clear before choosing a method to use.
The four methods were evaluated and the conclusions/recommendations were:
i) Dissolved Hydrocarbons can be removed down to any level desired by the appropriate design.
The design rules are available.
ii) Heavy metals removal require further investigation. Perhaps something can be added to
precipitate the metals. Membrane reactors give you the best containment of the heavy metals. If
it accumulate in the biomass, then is it worthwhile to remove biomass. There should be no
toxicity effects on the biomass itself by the heavy metals.
iii) Sensitivity to inlet variations. Would appear to be 100% down to 20%. Below 20%, could be
critical, but it depends on the time of the year, and the duration. For proper design, feed
characterisation is essential, this should be established over a year at least. Adaptation of the
bacteria to change in feed concentration can be in a matter of hours, adaptation to new
contaminants may take the order of days. However, biotreaters are self-adapting and therefore
are very interesting.
iv) Biotreatment processes are not mature within E&P, but they do operate in refineries and in other
industries.
v) Choices of biological treatment process will depend on actual COD and hydraulic load.
vi) Treatment of hoekbak water by a membrane bioreactor would be too expensive.
vii) Unmanned operation is possible, but monitoring and control is essential.
viii) Can work up to 15% salinity, i.e. the worries about the bioreactor would not work to treat saline
production waters is not an issue, they just have to adapt to the water first.
Additional comments -
1. Make a full list of requirements and send to a number of vendors. The tenders will give a good idea
of the potential options.
2. Evaluate options and then do a pilot test,
3. After this survey, bids and bid analysis. Once the pilot plant tests are complete, process guarantees on
the real plant can be provided.
The significant question is whether heavy metal removal is required offshore. If it is proven that heavy
metals can not be remove there is no advantage of using bio treatment above MPPE. It is believed that it
might be required in a 5-10 year timeframe. The problem with removal is the generation of a waste stream
with toxic heavy metals containment.
7. Alternatives to biotreatment
i) MPPE takes out dissolved hydrocarbons and some dispersed hydrocarbons, not glycol, not
methanol, not heavy metals,
ii) UV Oxidation using Ozone, no removal of heavy metals.
iii) Airstripper, but have to clean up air, does not remove heavy metals.
iv) Membranes - not yet.
v) Reed beds, require large surface area.
vi) Anaerobic for high COD loads, not for aromatics.
vii) Flocculation and precipitation of heavy metals.
viii) Sulphate reducing anaerobic sludge, will remove all heavy metals.
ix) Re-injection.

x) Bio-rotor - too large

xi) Sequential batch reactor - a large system, one tank acts as a reactor, the other acts as a settler.
xii) Degremont Laing can also do membrane Bioreactors
xiii) Seghers is a better company to go with for pilots and development according to John Linton.
xiv) Aerobic biotreaters will not remove heavy metals. Alternatives seem to be precipitate with a
membrane to capture, or anaerobic and membrane to capture. However, the anaerobic does not
remove BTEX. Anaerobic may be more appropriate for a very high loaded system such as the
methanol.
NAM is looking for a system, which will remove BTEX and heavy metals.
7.5 Operator Experience Meeting

On the 9th November 1999 five operators (BPAmoco, Shell, Statoil, Amerada Hess and Texaco) from the
North Sea got together to discuss best practice of existing technology on oil producing offshore platforms
and discussing potential new technology. Best practice and experience with new technology have been
incorporated in the relevant sections in this report. The following is a summary of the meeting.
Objectives of the Meeting
To transfer best operating practice for oil producing water systems and share information between the
Operators.
The meeting was divided into three parts

1. Getting the best from existing systems
2. New technology and
3. Re-injection systems
Getting the Best from Existing Systems
The three main technologies that were discussed included hydrocyclones, separators and induced gas
flotation units.
Hydrocyclones are the basis for cleaning the produced water to the specifications on almost every oil
platform in the North Sea. Most of them perform satisfactory, but some have problems. The best practice
for hydrocyclone were discussed and the main finding were:
The orientation of the hydrocyclone unit does not effect the performance of the hydrocyclones, but the
horizontal units are easier to maintain -
Statoil experience on the Statfjord field is that they have fine solids in the water such as FeS, asphaltene,
oil and sand, which accumulate inside the reject chamber and lower the performance of the G-liners
hydrocyclone. To keep the performance the hydrocyclones are backflushed every day and cleaned every
week with steam. They use a standby hydrocyclone unit so that they continuously can operate. To
overcome the steam cleaning every week new Gm-liners, with bigger reject orifice will be installed and
thereby reduce the time in between cleaning. Furthermore avoid blocking of hydrocyclones a desanding
hydrocyclone installed upstream of the hydrocyclone might be a good solution to handling the blocking
problem.
BP with a change of scale inhibitor, the performance was improved from 35ppm down to 15ppm.
Apparently, less solids coated with oil. Similar experience with Amerada Hess.
Recycle of slop has been treated separately in Ekofisk.
Shell Expro has trialed to kinds of new hydrocyclones:
1. Mozely hydrocyclones:
Trials have been carried out with a portable test hydrcocyclone vessel which has recently been fabricated
by Mozley The unit contains seven ceramic, dual-inlet liners, and it was tested on Gannet and the
Anasuria. The Mozley hydrocyclone performed well, and achieved better oil in water levels than the

existing hydrocylones on both installations. The average oil removal efficiencies achieved were 88.9% on
Gannet, and 84.1% on the Anasuria. It also proved to be robust and relatively insensitive to process upsets
and changes in feed quality or chemical injection rates.
However, the performance improvement was not adequate to displace the gas flotation unit which is to be
installed on Gannet later this year.
2. Gm-Liners:
There are four hydrocyclone units installed on Eider. All of the hydrocyclones are manufactured by
Conoco Speciality Products Ltd, all are installed horizontally, and each is provided with a backwashing
facility in order to alleviate problems of reject port blockage. The source of the produced water to the
hydrocyclone is the production separator and this production separator operates at 14 barg and 97 ºC.
After flowing from the production separator through hydrocyclone the produced water passes under level
control to a produced water flash drum.
As a result of reaching a produced water throughput constraint with the ‘G’ type liners, the 22 ‘G’ type
liners in the hydrocyclone were changed to 37 of the ‘Gm’ type. This has resulted in the hydrocyclone
3 3
achieved a capacity of 7680 m /d compared with 4632 m /d that is achieved in an identical
Hydrocyclone, which contains 22 of the ‘G’ type liners. Oil separation performance of the ‘Gm’ type liner
has also been good with typical exit OIW contents for Gm-liners and G-liners being 7.5 ppm and 19.5
ppm respectively. It has not been necessary to clean the Gm-liners since it has been put on line so the
feeling is that this would tend to support the manufacturers claims that the ‘Gm’ type liner is more robust
to clogging and blocking of the oil reject.
Amerada Hess experience on Ivanhoe/RobRoy, Installation –AH –001, the system consist of 2 x 20mm
K- Liner hydrocyclone one downstream of the separator followed by a degasser, a pump then another
hydrocyclone as a polishing unit. The solids that were found in the reject chamber were “smooth” like
toothpaste consisting of silt, clay and others. The problem was solved by managing the emulsion in the
separator. This could be done by changing the emulsion chemicals for NATCO design separator upstream.
The emulsion breaker was targeting clean water. The water cut is at 40%-50% where the water became
continuous and therefor the emulsion breaker had to be changed. By adding the emulsion breaker the
solids became oil wet and goes with oil (S.G. 0.86) and not the water. The outlet oil content was close to
30 ppm. Beside the change in emulsion breaker Performax packs were removed from the bottom of the
separator due to solids accumulation. Simple baffles replaced the packs.
Old hydrocyclone design like F-liners on Piper Alfa, were 35 mm units, a single unit and easy to clean
each reject, because it was fitted with simple individual manifolds connecting to the individual liner and
each set of liners can be isolated and cleaned. In this case they worked better than G-Liner. The manifold
is the key.
Separator retrofit: On the Shell Expro Nelsen Field, the separator was retrofitted from a Schoepentooter
inlet to Zeta inlets. This meant that the control of the separator was much smoother. By having a more
controled flow, the performance of downstream equipment was better and less upsets are observed.
Statoil have found that to handle spare capacity and cleaning of equipment it is essential to have a spare
vessel where the water can be stored.
Induced Gas Flotation Units: Statoil's Statfjord C platform has current water flow of 50,000 sm 3/d, oil,
40,000 sm3/d and, gas production 9.5 Million Sm3/d. They have two systems on the platform a high
pressure system and a low pressure system.
The water will be injected for both pressure maintenance and disposal.
Statoil has had a lot of problems with the Gas Flotation cell and have tried many different options with
chemical injection points and different chemicals. The Gas Flotation Unit (GFU) is a 20 year old Alfsen
og Gunderson 1982, capacity 7000 sm3/d and performance is 40-60 ppm. The experience was that
hydrocyclones were better 15 ppm. Oil (ppm) went up with subsea tie-ins and the flocculant interacted
with methanol (which is added to avoid hydrate forming) and deposited in injection pumps. Retention
time, mixing and temperature affected the flocculant performance so that with an inlet of 65-130 ppm the
removal efficiency is 20-30%. The HP system also includes a three phase separator (70 bar) where water
is cleaned through G-liner and discharged after degassed. The water is further separated in two low 3

phase flow separators (25, 6 and 2 bar) . The water then is degassed and then treated through the gas
flotation. The test separator provides more water (20-30 ppm oil) about 3000 sm 3/d in addition to the
existing 3-3.500 sm3/d. The degassing vessel upstream of the GFU is loaded with solids and surges of oil
and solids to the GFU. The main findings with the system are that it is important that the chemicals are
injected in correctly amounts.
A suggestion from BPAmoco was to take the water directly from one of the higher pressure separators
and close the gas bubbles (since they are probably too big to separate out the small droplets). The gas that
breaks out will be smaller bubbles and perhaps remove the bubbles better. Another suggestion was to
make sure that the flow to the GFU was optimal and constant, so that skimming is good.
Gannet Pilot scale GFU showed high performance. A Baker Hughes unit was trialed with four different
deoiling chemicals and in general, was able to reduce oil-in-water content from inlet oil up to 130 ppm
and outlet was 3-7 ppm. The unit was installed downstream of the flash produced water flash drum. The
technology has now been selected by Shell Expro for installation to ensure that the discharge limit of 40
mg/l is never exceeded, and that the discharge levels can be reduced in future.
New Technologies
Mares Tail. Shell Expro. Kvaerner KPS, JIP at ERT with 4 sponsors including BPA, Chevron,
Mobil and Shell.
The principle of Mare's tail is to coalesce the droplets upstream of hydrocyclones, it has been shown that
it can shift droplet size from 15 to 45um. Results demonstrated 40-45% improvement in efficiency.
From initial tests it also showed that solids were not a problem in the two weeks test period. Pressure
drop of less 1 bar for a limit period of time.
At the moment both Shell and BPA are looking for a long term field trial.
The Mare's tail should be installed with a By-pass to clean if solids plug.
Pect-F. BP-Amoco
Again the coalesce devices , Cyclotech PECT-F main function is to increase oil droplet size to improve
performance of hydrocyclones. See Section 5.1.3 On further details on the principal of the coalescer
device.
Material used is wire mesh to slip over the cyclone and a snug fit between the wall of the vessel and the
liners. The inlet water passes through the mesh on the other side and enters on the other side to the
hydrocyclone liners. The results of the tests are shown in table 7.1
A B C
Inlet OIW 125 mg/l 200 mg/l 125 mg/l
Outlet (without Pect-F) 25 mg/l 70-85 mg/l 27-32 mg/l
Outlet (with Pect-F) 14-23 mg/l 30-35 mg/l 14 mg/l
Performance improvement 170% 240% 190%
Overall removal (without) 80% 60% 76%
Overall removal (with) 88% 85% 88%
Table 7.1 Results from BPA test with the coalescer device Pect-F.
Test units 2 weeks to several weeks to check solids loadings and did not experience any effect of solids.
Differential pressure is 0.1-1 bar.
Disadvantage is that it has to be out of service to clean. The water to be coalesced should have low solid
loading. Hydrocyclone vessels need to be specified for entry from both sides for cleaning purposes.
From a technical point of view it seams like a robust technology and it has low delta p, the material is
metal and it is resistant to low loads of solids.
20,000 bbl/day will be installed this month in a low solids loading on Andrew platform.

Pall Coalescers Trials in Shell, NAM – K81

See section 5.1.4 for a detailed description of the trials.
Low interfacial tension of the water of about 1 dynes/cm make it difficult to coalesce the droplets.
Centrifuges on the platform is not performing satisfactory (outlet about 56-82 ppm oil), so therefore a
coalescer device was investigated.
Pall Coalescers have three different cartridges that had potential to increase the droplet sizes. All were
tested and this is the result:
Before centrifuge
 Phasesep 237 down to 89 ppm
 Aquasep 338 down to 80 ppm
 Ammonia 830 down to 64 ppm
After Centrifuge
 Ammonia 79 down to 26 ppm, 94  27 ppm, 64 17 ppm
Pre-filter of a 10 micron cartridge which should be included as OPEX.
Installed on NAM offshore platform down stream of the Centrifuge this year.
C-Tour Process, Per Grini, Statoil

See also section 5.2.4 for a more detail description of the process.
Injection of condensate from the suction scrubber upstream of hydrocyclone.
Pilot showed a good performance with 90% removal of dispersed and removal of some soluble organic.
To remove oil from 40 ppm to 10 ppm you need 20,000 ppm of condensate.
Field trial on a Statoil platform “was not successful. Reduction down to 55% of inlet oil and the oil
droplets were found to be smaller.
Identified critical parameters: were injection system, separation of smaller droplet, and residence time (>
30 seconds) and amount of free gas of condensate.
Polyaromatic hydrocarbon were reduced by reducing dispersed oil

Issue of asphaltenic oil that may contact with condensate and destabilize the asphaltene and precipitate
them.
Feasibility study by Statoil, Phillips and NORSKE is underway for another field trial
Walnut Shell filters, Amerada Hess
For filtering seawater , Offshore. At the moment there is a land based new design with a mechanical
stirrer that makes the backflushing more effective.
Re-injection Systems
North Sea Environmental Challenge, BPA
BPA initiative began 1995 and they have promised continuos improvement of oil to sea by 10 %
By year 2000 about 50% reduction in comparison to year 1995.
Move is to reduce the volume of the water after that (1400 to 700 ton of oil per year)
1-2 ppm of H2S in the gas.
Status of PWRI
Incentives:
- Reduce over all volume of oil discharged
- Reduce chemical consumption
- All water is treated for discharge quality

BPA FIELD Experience
ULA: Since 1995-96 commingled PW/SW with low injectivity problems (90% uptime). Consolidated
sand 60-70 ºC vs 130 ºC. The injection is done to carry out pressure maintenance.
Downtime is due to zincsulfide precipitate due to cooling the mixture in heat exchangers
Harding: 10 kbd commingled into Aquifer injection 120 kbd. Some injectivity issues. Unconsolidated
sand. Matrix injectivity through gravel pack. Pressure maintenance
Forties: limited PWRI on FA &FD (25 kbd)
Injection losses cooling water SW due to insufficient WHIP
2000 objectives include pressure increase, higher rate injectors, full PWRI implementation. Consolidated
sand. Reservoir temperature 150ºC. Pressure maintenance (PM). Consolidated sand (CS).
Wytch Farm: All PW re-injected, no problem (12kbd). Unconsolidated sand & PM
Bruce: Limited PWRI for disposal. CS
Gyda: Commingling planned 2000. (80 kbd.) PM. CS
Magnus: PWRI pilot 2000 with planned conversion for 2001. PM, CS
ETAP: Provide an environmental impact assessment based on 10% discharge and 90% injection. All
fluids are treated for discharge. CS & PM
The next meeting is planned for end of Q1 2000 in BPAmoco Stavanger.
7.6 Literature Sorted into Subjects
This is meant to be an aid for finding relevant literature when starting to investigate a new area. It was
started last year and has now been updated with more relevant literature and divided into more subjects.
The list has been complied as part of best practice sharing and though it is probably not complete, it is
meant to be an active document, where all can add interesting and relevant literature. It can also be found
on the Water Treatment Alta Vista Forum web site. See Appendix G.

The Other WGM Projects in 1999
8 THE OTHER WGM PROJECTS IN 1999
In the Water and Gas Management team there are three other projects which investigate opportunities for
water management:
1. First opportunity is to exploit natural in-reservoir separation of water/oil/gas through shut-off.
2. Next opportunity is in the wellbore through downhole separation and re-injection.
3. Generally however water and gas are produced to surface and mostly exported with the oil to
platforms, flowstations or terminals for separation, treatment and disposal, either at surface or
through re-injection.
In the following three section those projects are described shortly.
8.1 WGM01 Water and Gas Shut Off

Project leader is M.J. Faber, EPT-AWW
Water and gas shut-off systems are aimed at reducing the water and gas production while maintaining or
even increasing the oil production. These systems can be placed either selectively into the watered-out or
gassed-out zones to be treated or via bullheading. Full blocking systems are designed to completely stop
the inflow of unwanted fluids. Selective placement is a requirement to ensure that these systems will only
invade the targeted intervals. In a number of OUs this type of treatment has been successfully performed
(Expro and NAM). A recent treatment in the Berkel field turned a high water-cut well (94%) into a dry oil
producer with an increase in oil production from 9 to 70 m 3/d. Future field trials will be carried out in
AFPC to demonstrate the application of these systems in the high temperature range.
For gas shut-off dedicated foam systems have been developed. In the gas producing zone the foam system
will result in blockage of gas flow, whilst in the oil producing zone the foam is flushed out and production
is not reduced. The end result is a lower GOR well. Recently, field trials were successfully performed in
two wells in BSP demonstrating a reduction in gas production of about 75%. This enables BSP to
continue producing wells, which would otherwise be closed in due to high gas production. See figure 8.1.
Further field trials are being planned in S.W. Ampa (BSP) and in SPDC.
Gas production Situation after bullheading Schematic after foam generated by

mechanism foam incoming reservoir gas
300 160
140
250 GOR, m3/m3
GSO trial
120
Net Oil, m3/day
200
100
150 80
60
100
40
50
20
0 0
07-12-93 07-12-94 07-12-95 06-12-96 06-12-97 06-12-98
Figure 8.1 Champion-55 (BSP) Foam treatment of HGOR wells and production profile
before and after foam treatment

For water shut-off in oil or gas wells (novel) self-selective polymer systems are under development,
which selectively reduce the flow of water while marginally affecting the flow of oil or gas. Polymer
systems have exhibited in laboratory testing the required behaviour and field trials need to be performed
to evaluate the impact on well performance. For the initial field trials suitable candidates will be selected
via experimental and modeling studies to optimise the impact of the chemical treatment on the oil/gas and
water production.
Another initiative currently ongoing is shutting off of water in open hole horizontal wells equipped with a
slotted liner. Here, an annular chemical isolation packer has been developed which can be placed at a
certain position in the wellbore. In the Rabi field (Gabon) the toe of the well exhibiting high water influx
was isolated from the remainder of the well through the application of the chemical packer and a bridge
plug. The oil production increased by 2750 BPD and that the water production decreased by 2000 BPD in
a gross-constraint system.
8.2 WGM02 Downhole Processing
Project leader is Paul Verbeek, SIEP EPT-AWW
In downhole separation the wellbore is used to extract the hydrocarbons from the water; the separated
water is re-injected from the same wellbore. The technical feasibility of downhole separation has been
demonstrated since 1994 in many field installations, including a first-in-Shell in BEB’s Eldingen field
(producing more oil and less water) and a second is expected to be installed in PDO’s Yibal field later in
1999. State-of-the-art technologies exploit either separation by gravity, as in the Downhole Water Sink
and the Dual Action Pump, or by hydrocyclones.
Different configurations of hydrocyclones can be envisaged, for

Concentrate
pu mp example: a Single-stage system for high-watercut wells (90%)
capable of bulk water removal (surface watercut 50%) see figure 8.2
Emulsion
pu mp and a Two-stage system for a broader inlet watercut range (up from
50% reducing surface watercut to some 10%). A Two-stage with
Motor recycle concept can further purify oil to a few percent water-in-oil.
Hydrocyclone
Figure 8.2 Downhole oil/water separation – hydrocyclone-based, single- stage, push-through

design with dual-stream pump for oil production and water re-injection from the same wellbore.
By installing the downhole separator at an early stage, upgrading of water treatment facilities may be
avoided, minimizing offshore infrastructure and number of platforms. The biggest gain may come from
integration of the downhole separator in the Smart Well concept with full capability of monitoring and
control in a multilateral downhole infrastructure. In this concept the ultimate aim would be to keep all
undesirable products underground while leaving the production of hydrocarbons unhindered (Zero Waste
Well).
8.3 WGM04 Produced Water Re-injection
Project leader is G. Sommerauer, EPT-AWW
Produced water re-injection (PWRI) is rapidly becoming the only viable option for disposal of the huge
amounts of water produced by the Group. This is largely due to increasing environmental concerns with
surface disposal and treatment costs. There are two distinct methods of injection:
 injection below fracturing pressure, where flow into the reservoir is under matrix conditions with the
risk of formation plugging;

 injection above fracturing pressures, leading to fracture initiation and growth resulting in much
higher and more stable injection rates and therefore better well performance.
SEPTAR has developed and recently released the computer program PWRI-FRAC as a design and monitoring
tool for produced water re-injection. It predicts the growth of the fracture with time and is capable of handling
long term dirty water injection into a multi-layer setting with different rock and formation properties. The user
may evaluate the uncertainties concerning required injection rates, pressures, fracture containment; Fig. 8.3
shows the output of a 3-D fracture simulation after 20 years of injection.
Clearly this technology is also of great relevance to downhole separation where the waste water stream
needs to be re-injected into a pre-selected target. Produced water re-injection is also being used
increasingly for reservoir pressure maintenance and sweep, where performance is largely determined by
fractures and the injection profile.
Figure 8.3 Typical output from PWRI-FRAC

CTR for WGM03 in Year 2000+
9 CTR FOR WGM03 IN YEAR 2000+
In the September 1999 WGM BAA (Water and Gas Management Business Alignment Area) workshop it
was decided that the two TOPs called WGM03 and WGM04 should merge to one and have three sub-
topics. Therefore there are three CTRs in the WGM03 project in year 2000:
 WGM 3.1: Best Practice in water treatment, discharge and disposal, budget 363US$
(continuation of previous WGM03).
 WGM 3.2: Integration of Surface and Subsurface Water Treatment specifications for Produced Water
Re-injection, budget 182 US$ (new).
 WGM 3.3: Produced water injection technology for reservoir management, budget 327 US$
(formerly known as WGM04).
The CTRs can be seen below and are prepared on the basis of what feedback was given at the OU
workshops, the BAA workshop, feedback through AVF, emails and as a logical follow up of the work that
was carried out in 1999.
9.1 WGM 3.1 Best Practice in water treatment, discharge and disposal
Customers Customer Funding Customer Contact Reference Indicator

[US$]
PDO 66,000 Dave Munro ONP/5
BSP 20,000 Jaap van Ballegooyen DRO
NSEP 10,000 Neil Harvey EPOR/06
SPDC 75,000 David A.E.Short DAE-PTC
Expro 80,000 Colin Woodrow UESC/8
NAM 50,000 Tjeerd Kuiper TSC
WEL/SDA 10,000 Karl Johnson NPS
SSB 2,000 Kees Veeken EPK-SUP
AFPC 50,000 Jochen Marwede TPT/25
Total US$ 363,000
Resources Planned Cost in USD ($)

Non Labour 2000 2001 2002 2003+
External Services 110 000 210 000 60 000
IT Services 0
Materials 0
Training 0
Travel and Representation 95 000 95 000 95 000
Labour Planned Hours

Cost Center Activity Type
2000 2001 2002 2003+
(e.g. Clusterette) (labor/salary grade )
US NL
Person(s) to be advised 1500 1500 1500

Business & Technical Objectives:

Business Objective:
 To ensure compliance with legislation, permits and SHELL policies with regard to production water
management (disposal and injection) and minimise environment impact.
 To reduce cost of production water management by making optimum use of available technology, best
practices and pilot test results.
 To increase throughput existing facilities (if water treatment is bottleneck).
 To prevent treatment problems and reduce troublesome water treatment facilities
Technical objectives:
 To compile best practices and performance data of available technologies on water treatment.
 To make above information easily and transparently available throughout Shell.
To identify main problem areas in water treatment technology/practices and make relevant research proposals.
Implementation Plan:
Year 2000:
During Q1, resource Project, set up framework for knowledge base, schedule Workshops and conferences.
Focus on water treatment for PWRI and for surface discharge. Upgrade AVF site, extend specialist network,
support promising JIPs, conduct OU workshops, conduct inter operator workshops and conferences, populate
develop and maintain knowledge base, establish capex and opex data bank, co-ordinate specialist water
treatment services. Initiate sludge treatment work.
Year 2001:
Continue with best practice in produced water treatment in similar fashion to 2000 project, but extend to
include Best Practice in minimising, handling, treating and disposing of sludges and solids arising from
produced water treatment and crude dewatering. Collect best practices, develop guideline, support appropriate
developments, disseminate knowledge
Year 2002:
 Continue with best practice in produced water treatment in similar fashion to 2001 project, and extend to
revisit Best Practice for the removal of dissolved hydrocrabons and removal of heavy metals. Benchmark
existing technologies and evaluate results of any field trials, support JIPs, disseminate information. Write
final report (Q4 2000) including research.
 Investigate promising JIPs (Q1-Q3)
Deliverables/Milestones:
No. Deliverables Sched. Date
1 Quarterly status reports and a final report summarising results Q1,Q2,Q3,Q4
2 Reports from JIPS and results of specific trials with produced water treatment Q4
technology
3 Transparent and active AVF. Q2
4 Specialist knowledge base easily accessible from AVF with performance Q2-Q4
characteristics and CAPEX/OPEX of all relevant technologies and related best
practices and fit for purpose tools to assist decision making in the design and
operational stages.
5 An up-to date water specialist network within and outside Shell. Q2-Q4

6 Clear research proposals justified on identified technology gaps. Q4

7 Where possible and/or required, holding of (regional) workshops to facilitate Q2-Q4
information exchange and learning.
8 Facilitate provision of service for OUs. Q1-Q4
9 Input to year 2001+ Q4
No. Tollgates Sched. Date

1 Availability of relevant JIPs to commit to Q2
2 Suitable re-sourcing for project Q1
3 Workshop programme for year 2000 Q1
4 Continuation of project in 2001+ (BAA workshop year 2000) Q4
No. Customer Scorecards (where applicable) Sched. Date

1 After each workshop Q1-Q4
2 At the end of year 2000 Q1-2001
Risks / Critical Factors:

Constraint: Available project time 12 months, from 1 January 2000 till 31 December 2000.
Risk: Resourcing not available. Information overflow.
This project is a part of the 2000 Evolutionary programme and closely supports WGM3.2 and WGM3.3. It is
building on and extending the good results achieved in the project over the past two years.
Project deals with all water treatment both for disposal, injection purposes and slugde treatment.
9.2 WGM 3.2 Integration of Surface and Subsurface Water Treatment

specifications for Produced Water Re-injection.
Customers Customer Funding Customer Contact Reference Indicator Customer Coding

PDO 2 Larry Nnabuihe ONP/5
BSP 25 Ying Chong Yong DRO
SPDC 80 David A.E.Short DAE-PTC
SOI 75 Harold Bross
Total KUS$ in 2000 182

Non Labour 2000 2001 2002 2003+
External Services 35 35 35 35
IT Services 10 10 10 10
Materials 5 5 5 5
Training 10 10 10 10
Travel and Representation 30 30 30 30

Cost Center Activity Type
2000 2001 2002 2003+
(e.g. Clusterette) (labor/salary grade )
US NL
Zara Khatib 55 55 60 60 60
TBA 37 37 60 60 60

The business objective is to promote the application of the latest water injection technologies in the OU’s to:
 increase recovery in water floods by maintaining injectivity
 reduce cost of associated water production handling by optimising injection operation in disposal wells

 focus on critical areas and key concerns inclusive of environmental aspects
The technical objective is to:

 develop a methodology/decision tree to develop water quality criteria and optimise overall Capex and
Opex for produced water injection by integration of surface and sub-surface water specifications and
treatment
 provide best practice guidelines for produced water injection under matrix conditions to assist OU’s in
evaluating and operating water treatment facilities, perform scale and corrosion management and
determine well stimulation selection and frequency.
 integrate Shell’s and Industry’s experience in water injection and disposal management into a user-friendly
interactive tool box using latest water quality programs
Year 2000
 Send a well defined questionaire to OU’s for information and data collection
 Verify the relevant information by visiting the locations of the identified field cases
 Obtain the latest versions of Water Quality programs and work with a contractor to install them on the
AVF.
 Implement current expertise and know how by conducting tech service feasibility studies for PWRI.
(example Bonga and Draugen fields)
 Discuss/Consult continuously with WGM team on the methodology of the Decision Tree and encourage
the champion OU’s to use and challenge the information
 Gate keep with relevant JIP on Produced Water Injections that Shell is sponsoring and seek Industries
experience by participating in workshops or conferences
 Conduct a technology workshop at RTS jointly with WGM Team and OU’s
Year 2001-2003
 Integrate the Decision Tree tool with WGM03.1 Best Practice in Produced water treatment, discharge and
disposal and WGM03.3 Produced Water injection for reservoir management.
 Upgrade the Decision Tree Methodology to incorporate learning from additional case histories
 Transfer the technology and implement in every OU so that local OU engineers and production chemists
will be able to utilise as essential tool in their project planning and debottlenecking
Deliverables / Toll Gates:
No.
1 Identify current status of PWRI and Conduct a field survey to identify locations of Shell’s produced
water re-injection under matrix conditions
Deliverables:
 A matrix spreadsheet of most Shell’s produced water injection facilities and reservoir
characteristics
 Agree with sponsor on three field cases (sandstone, Carbonate, and other ) and start collating
relevant data
2 Identify, Install and update* the Water Quality programs on the Well Cluster Network: Water Advisor
for rock compatibility, Fordam & WID** for injectivity decline predictions due to suspended solids,
ScaleChem for scale and reservoir souring predictions, and available corrosion mitigation programs.
Deliverable:
 Description of water quality programs and link to programs on Alta Vista
* Tech Service funds will be used to Update of programs to window environment.
** WID will be obtained via JIP
3 Evaluate/analyse Identified field cases and compare performance with the results of the water quality
programs
Deliverable:
 progress report on each case
4 Develop a methodology/decision tree to define water quality specifications and to determine cost
effective water quality treatment for injection under matrix conditions
Deliverable:

 Decision Tree “ Guideline for predicting water quality specs for optimum injection. The water
specs will be provided for the WGM03.1 to determine cost effective equipment
5 Test implementation of the decision tree/methodology on 1-2 identified field cases.
6 Conduct an OU workshop at Rijswijk jointly with WGM03-1 and WGM03. to determine best
approach to : (1) integrate predictive tools for injection under matrix and above fracture conditions,
(2) determine the necessary water Treatment facilities to meet the water specs and to (3) identify year
2001 development, implementation and commercialisation
7 Issue Quarterly Reports on Progress of Project
Milestones:
1  Identify current status of PWRI and Conduct a field survey to identify locations of Q1
Shell’s produced water re-injection under matrix conditions
 A matrix spreadsheet of most Shell’s produced water injection facilities and reservoir Q2
characteristics
2  Identify, Install and update* the Water Quality programs on the Well Cluster
Network: Water Advisor for rock compatibility, Fordam & WID** for injectivity
decline predictions due to suspended solids, Scale-Chem for scale and reservoir
souring predictions, and available corrosion mitigation programs.
 Description of water quality programs and link to programs on Alta Vista
* Tech Service funds will be used to Update of programs to window environment.

** WID will be obtained via JIP Q2-Q3
3  Evaluate/analyse Identified field cases and compare performance with the results of Q2-Q3
the water quality programs
 progress report on each case Q3
4  Develop a methodology/decision tree to define water quality specifications and to Q3-Q4
determine cost effective water quality treatment for injection under matrix conditions
 Decision Tree “ Guideline for predicting water quality specs for optimum injection.
The water specs will be provided for the WGM03.1 to determine cost effective
equipment Q4
5  Test implementation of the decision tree/methodology on 1-2 identified field cases. Q4
6  Conduct an OU workshop at Rijswijk jointly with WGM03-1 and WGM03. to Q4
determine best approach to : (1) integrate predictive tools for injection under matrix
and above fracture conditions, (2) determine the necessary water Treatment facilities
to meet the water specs and to (3) identify year 2001 development, implementation
and commercialisation
7  Issue Quarterly Reports on Progress of Project Q1-4

1 Agree with sponsor on three field cases (sandstone, Carbonate, and other ) and start Q2
collating relevant data
2 Conduct an OU workshop at Rijswijk jointly with WGM03-1 and WGM03. to determine Q4
best approach to : (1) integrate predictive tools for injection under matrix and above
fracture conditions, (2) determine the necessary water Treatment facilities to meet the
water specs and to (3) identify year 2001 development, implementation and
commercialisation
No. Customer Scorecards (where applicable) Sched. Date

1 Following 2nd Quarterly report Q3
2 Following 4th. Quarterly report Q4

Technical/managerial: Manpower/skills availability for design and implementation phase
Technical: Timely availability of sufficient field data for programs’ verifications

9.3 WGM 3.3 Produced water injection technology for reservoir

management
Customers Customer Funding [US$] Customer Contact Reference Indicator
PDO 20,000 Larry Nnabuihe ONP/51

BSP 30,000 Ying Chong Yong DRO/3
NSEP 10,000 Neil Harvey EPUP/13
SPDC 18,000 David A.E.Short DAE-PTC
Nuhu Adaji DAW-PTC
SOI 75,000 Harold Bross SDDI-NOR
Total KUS$ 315,000

Non Labour 2000 2001 2002 2003+
External Services 24,000
IT Services 0
Materials 0
Training 0
Travel and Representation 22,500

Cost Center (e.g. Clusterette) Activity Type (labor/salary grade) 2000 2001 2002 2003+
US NL
Paul van den Hoek JG3 675
Gerald Sommerauer JG4 1350

The business objective is to develop and promote the application of the latest WI technology in the OU’s with
the objective to increase recovery in water floods, to support downhole processing, to reduce costs of
associated water production handling and to eliminate of the negative environmental impact of produced water
by re-injection.
The technical objective is to develop and disseminate to the OU’s predictive tools and guidelines for design,
optimisation and monitoring of water injection/re-injection operations above the fracturing pressure for
reservoir management.
Year 2000:
Feasibility study and implementation of link between PWRI-FRAC and MoReS. Testing of the linkage with
Nimr (PDO) and Seria (BSP) case studies.
Year 2001:
Further development and full scale implementation of the PWRI-FRAC/MoReS technology link in all other
assets which could gain from fractured water injection for reservoir management.
Year 2002:
Further development and improvement on novel technology developments in fracture propagation prediction
and monitoring for water injection induced fracturing or commercialisation if the technology is fully mature at
this stage.

Milestones:
1 Design specifications concerning PWRI-FRAC – MoReS linkage 31-Mar-00
2 Prototype implementation and testing of PWRI-FRAC linkage with MoReS 31-Dec-00
3 Test implementation on Nimr water disposal project 31-Dec-00
4 Test implementation on Seria water flooding project 31-Dec-00
5 Full scale testing and dissemination of WI technology with respect to reservoir mgt. 31-Dec-01

1 Feasibility of connecting PWRI-FRAC results with MoReS simulator 31-Mar-00
2 Re-evaluate achieved linkage & decide on further 31-Dec-00
development/implementation/commercialisation

Technical/managerial:
Manpower/skills availability for design and implementation phase
Technical:
Positive outcome of feasibility study (Q1) and timely availability of sufficient field data for field testing on
PDO and BSP case (Q3-Q4).

Distribution List
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Report : SIEP 99-5806
Title : Best Practice in Produced Water Treatment - WGM03
Authors : Jane Pedersen, TSC/4, Allan Lawrence, EPT-ASF and Z.I. Khatib, EPT-ASF
CTR No. : 3451300
Original Distribution:
Shell International Exploration and Production B.V.

SEPTAR, EPT-ASF (Z. Khatib) Rijswijk 5
SEPTAR, EPT-AWW (Leo Roodhart) Rijswijk 1
SEPTAR, EPT-CS (Reports Library), Rijswijk 8
SEPTAR, EPT-AWW Sander de Kruijf 1
SEPTAR, EPT-AWW Paul van den Hoek 1
Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij B.V.

NAM, TSC (T.O.H. Kuiper), Assen 1
NAM, TSC/4 (A. van Dijk), Assen 1
NAM, OEF/15 (C.A.T. Kuijvenhoven), Schiedam 1
NAM, SSO/6 (C.E. Klamer), Velsen 1
NAM, FFD53, (M-DSC-C, reports library), Assen 1
Shell Gabon,
GABON, OPS/5 (W. Lodder), Gamba 1
Shell Petroleum Development Company

SPDC, DPE-PTC (D.A.E. Short,), Portharcourt 2
SPDC, PCW-DEV (N. Adaji), Warri 2
Brunei Shell Petroleum

BSP, DRO/2, (Jaap van Ballegooijen), Seria 2
BSP, EFE/3 (C. Barry), Seria 1
Shell Sarawak Bhd

SSB, EPG-PRO, (Tan, Nai-Guek), Lutong 1
SSB, EPK-SUP, (Kees Veeken), Lutong 1
A/S Norske Shell

NORSKE, EPPC/13 (K.J. Li), Risavika 1
NORSKE, EPOE/3 (G. Gadeholt), Risavika 1
Shell U.K. Exploration and Production Ltd.

SUKEP, UESC/9 (D.M. Evans), Aberdeen 1
SUKEP, UEGS/5 (S.Brook), Lowestoft 1
Shell Oil Company U.S.A.

SEPTCO, ID842008 (D.C. McCammon), Houston 2
SEPTCO, Houston, Jane Price 2
SEPTCO, Houston, Greg Hardy 2
SOI New Orleans, B.J. Grimes 1

SOI New Orleans, Mike Thompson 1
SOI New Orleans, Ken Satterlee 1
Shell Syria
AFPC, TPT/25 (J. Marwede), Damaskus 1

References
REFERENCES
[1] "Best Practice in Produced Water Treatment - WGM03" by Jane Pedersen, TSC/4 and Allan
Lawrence, EPT-DF. Reviewed by Zara Khatib, EPT-DF. SIEP 99-5228, March 1999.
[2] "Production Water Management Plan - An Executive Summary" by PDO, December 1995.
[3] "Project Development Plan for Produced Water Disposal" by Sivaramakrishna Rachabattuni and
C. Barry. BI Number: 6082, Revision 3.0. 1999,33 pages.
[4] "DEOILING MANUAL" EP 93-1315 by A.C. Lawrence, EPD/421, November 1993.
[5] "Solving problems with overboard water handling systems" by Ted Frankiewicz and Joe
Clemens, World Oil July 1999, page 53-57.
[6] “Characteristics and possibilities of Some Techniques for De-Oiling of Production Water” by
W.M.G.T. van den Broek and R. Plat, Delft U. of Technology. SPE 23315, 10-14 November
1991. SPE Society of Petroleum Engineers Meeting in The Hague, pp.47-54.
[7] "Close out report L9-FF-1 water overboard problem" by P.A. van Splunter, NAM Doc. No.
199905000290, April 1999, 4 pages.
[8] "Eider Produced Water Re-injection Trial in Northern Business Unit, Shell U.K. E&P" by Frans
De Bever and Astrid M. Tugwell, Report UED/71/1220/99.010, September 1999.
[9] "Study of Injection Water Quality at Ventura Avenue Field" by Zara I. Khatib, Report No. BRC
44-88, 1988.
[10] "PWRI in the Draugen Field, Offshore Norway" by Khatib, Z.I., G. Sommerauer, A. Lawrence
and R.A. Trompert, (1999), SIEP 99-5738.
[11] "Produced Water Re-injection (PWRI) Experience from the Ula field" by Siri Bakke, Eilen A.
Vik, Hans Gruner and T.A. Hjelmas, from Produced Water 2 Environmental Issues and
Mitigation Technologies" Edited by Mark Reed and Ståle Johnsen, Environmental Science
Research Vol. 52, 1995, Plenum Press, New York.
[12] "Enhanced Deoiling Hydrocyclone Performance without Resorting to Chemicals" by B. Sinker,

M. Humphris and N. Wayth, SPE 56969, September 1999, 9 pages.
[13] "Dunlin A Platform- PECT-F Field Test" by Cyclotech for Shell UK ltd., November 1999, 20
pages.
[14] "Spintek Oil Water SeparationTrial at Woodside North Rankin-A" by Misak Dzhragatspanyan
and George Hobbs, November 1998, 5 pages.
[15] "Development of An Ultrasonic Emulsion Coalescence Technology – Feasibility Study" by

Cyclotech on behalf of Norsk Hydro, Schlumberger, Shell International, CONFIDENTIAL,
September 1999, 53 pages.
[16] "GameChanger workplan Good vibes, vibrating antifouling device for membranes" by J.G. van
Munster, A.M. Mollinger, A.C. Lawrence, SIEP Note, February 1999, 26 pages.
[17] "Behandeling afvalwater van gasplatformen met een membraanbioreactor - resultaten van een
bench scale proefonderzoek" by Triqua bv, November 1998.
[18] "Airlift slurry reactors for biotreatment of offshore production effluents, Engineering aspects:
Evaluation of results of 600l reactor pilot plant run at TNO" by P.Buitink, EP 96-0556,
AMGR.95.483, NAM report No. 29399, December 1993- May 1995. CONFIDENTIAL.

References
[19] "NAM's Experience with bio-reactors for Water treatment" by Jane Pedersen, First Shell
International Water Management Conference in Noordwijk, 2-3 November 1999.
[20] "Production Separation Systems" from IIR Ltd. conference in Aberdeen, 24-25 February 1999, 8
papers on various subjects Conf. Code: P1811, approximately 3 cm thick document.
[21] "CFC113 Replacement" CH404 Experimental Project by Josie Trethewie, Esso Australia Ltd.,
199, 50 pages.
[22] "WATER INJECTION" by D.E. Milliams, H. Niko, J.E.V. Ovens, K. Robinson and J. Wood. EP
93-2900, June 1994. CONFIDENTIAL.
[23] "Integrated Water and Gas Management Review of Business Alignment" By WGM team, SIEP
99-5247, October 1999, 80 pages.
[24] "Simulation of produced water reinjection under fracturing conditions" by P.J. van den Hoek, T.
Matsuura, M. de Kroon and G. Gheissary, SPE Prod. & Facilities, Vol 14 (3), August 1999,
pp.166-176.
[25] "Bonga Reservoir Souring Study; most likely H2S level" by Z. Khatib, SIEP 99-5477. 1999.
[26] "Oil in Water Selection Database; Guidance notes for system selection" by Allan Mann, ERT.
December 1999.

Specification For Welding of Duplex Stainless Steel Piping

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Specification For Welding of Duplex Stainless Steel Piping

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SIEP Report December 1999

Sponsor: BAA-WGM Club Members

Period of Work: January 1999 - December 1999

Appnedices: See Hardcopy

SIEP 99-5806 -I- Restricted

The general observation and conclusions for the matrices are:

Best Practice for Flotation Units:

Best Practice for Hydrocyclones:

SIEP B.V. 1999

SHELL TECHNOLOGY EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION, RIJSWIJK

SIEP 99-5806 - II - Restricted

 Solids will reduce performance of hydrocyclones.

Best Practice for Plate Interceptors:

Best Practice for Centrifuges:

Best Practice for Filtration:

SIEP 99-5806 - III - Restricted

SIEP 99-5806 - IV - Restricted

The main conclusions on OIW monitors are:

SIEP 99-5806 -V- Restricted

SIEP 99-5806 - VI - Restricted

SIEP 99-5806 - VII - Restricted

SIEP 99-5806 - VIII - Restricted

The 1999 project has the following key elements:

This final report includes:

SIEP 99-5806 -1- Restricted

 Gaps and promising technologies, including field trials. Chapter 5.

The project has been carried out by NAM on behalf of SEPTAR.

Produced Water in Shell

Figure 1.1 Shell's produced water destinations from 1994 to 1998

SIEP 99-5806 -2- Restricted

oil conc. (mg/l)

Produced water Oil in water

20.00 2,000 tonne

Concentration oil Target concentration

Figure 1.3 Oil in produced water to surface environment

SIEP 99-5806 -3- Restricted

2 PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT MATRIX

2.1 General Observations and Conclusions

2.2 Description of the Matrices

 'Enter', On left hand menu, select ‘Process design Guidelines’, 'Enter'

SIEP 99-5806 -4- Restricted

Dispersed Dissolved Other

2.2.2 Fluid Separability Chart

SIEP 99-5806 -5- Restricted

Temperature High temperature >80 °C »»» Low temperature <50 °C

Water Cut Water cut >50% »»» Water cut <30%

Significant solid presence

SIEP 99-5806 -6- Restricted

Coalescence of dispersed hydrocarbon droplets should be promoted wherever possible.

2.2.3 Selection Matrices

SIEP 99-5806 -7- Restricted

Figure 2.3 Offshore Oil Production Proven Technology Matrix

SIEP 99-5806 -8- Restricted

Figure 2.4 Onshore Oil Production Proven Technology Matrix

Figure 2.5 Gas/Condensate Production Proven Technology Matrix

2.2.4 Water Treatment Schematics

Figure 2.6 'Basic Offshore Scheme for Oil Production Facilities'

SIEP 99-5806 -9- Restricted

FROM CRUDE TOFINAL

BLANKET GAS LP FLARE

Page Down to Notes CLEAN

2.2.5 Further Development of Matrices

Further development of the matrices could be in the following areas: