Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 27179

Developments in Environmental Protection Related to Produced

Water Treatments and Disposal (Produced Water Re-Injection)
R.C. Evans, Serck Baker Fluid Systems Consultants
SPE Member

Copyright 1994, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Second International Conference on Health, Safety & Environment in Oil & Gas Exploration & Production held in Jakarta, Indonesia,
25-27 January 1994.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

Abstract Subsurface l>roduced water disposal has taken

place fOi' a number of years onshore where a
Produced water re-injection (PWRI) has become an typical stl'3tegy is to pump the produced water,
increasingly important topic in the oil industry in the last after vat'ious levels of treatment, into a high
few years, especially in mature oil pmducing areas such permeability sand or fractured limestone,
as the North Sea, It even has its own acmnym, The However produced water re- injection for
prime causes for this include the increasing volumes of l>ressure maintenance will be a more exacting
pmduced water fmm mature oil fields, the continued dl'ive engineering challenge as operational problems will
to reduce CAPEX and OPEX, and the greater concem have a direct impact on pmduction and the
over environmental protection, In the latter stages of the profitability of the development,
economic life of an oil field up to 90 % of the produced
fluid volume may be water, Detailed planning for the The uncel'tainties and decisions which will have
treatment and disposal of produced water is required at to be addressed for each produced water re-
an early stage in the development of an oil field to avoid injection pmject include; the injection water
it becoming a bottleneck to pmduction, quality specification; contingency for the sUl'face
disl>osai or storage of the produced water should
Among the perceived benefits of produced water injection injection have to periodically halted; the selection
are; a reduction in the overall volumes of water treated and integration of the additional water sOUl'ce
offshore; that the water should not need deaeration if a which may be required dua-ing the early stages of
closed system is maintained; that it could may reduce the production when the volumes of produced watel'
potential operating problems associated with scaling and al'e insufficient fOi' pressure maintenance; and the
reservoir souring; that the injection zones may be able to design of the pmduced water treatment and
accept a poorer water quality than is specified for surface system,
disposal.
Due to this multidisciplinary' nature, a pl'oduced
water re-injection pmject will obviously require
References and illustrations at end of paper the formation of an integrated team of reservoir

707
engineers, production chemists, geologists and process
engineers.
The key factor in the design of the produced water re-
injection system will be the injection water quality
specification, particularly in comparison to the
specification for surface disposal. Considering the
continuing debate, after two decades of experience, on
water quality for seawater injection, research into water
(Iuality specification for produced water re-injection
should be targeted as a key area of research if produced
water re-injection is to be confidently and successfully
applied given tbe constraints of particularly offshOl'e
production. Each field will require its own studies to
determine the water quality for produced water re-
injection and the appropriate water treatment system
design, due to the variations in resel'voir geology and the
characteristics of produced fluids.
INTRODUCTION
The study of produced water reinjection is topical at a
time when worldwide a number of legislative and
regulatory initiatives are being considered to protect the
environment which could significantly effect the economics
of oil and gas exploration and production (Godec &
Biglarbigi, 1991).
The positive forces for produced water injection may be
summarised as;
* Increasing volumes of produced watel'
* More stringent environmental and
discharge regulations
* Requirements to reduce capital and
operating expenditure
* A water source for pressure maintenance
and EOR
The volumes of produced water for a pal'ticular field can
increase at an accelerating rate (fig I) highlighting the
need to plan for produced watel' treatment in the ea...y
stages of reservoir development to avoid it becoming a
bottleneck to profitable production. Water handling
optimisation is now a major consideration for operators.
There is relatively limited operational experience of, in
particular, offshore produced water injection. This is
reflected in the scarcity of published matel'ial on operatOi'
experience, although more and more data is now being
published as more trials are undertaken and mOl'e
708
s)'stems installed. The limited experience implies
that there are still some uncertainties associated
with produced water injection (fig 2) which need
to be addressed by co-ordinated research
programmes. Particularly important is the
specifying of injection water quality which will be
a key factor influencing overall system design.
Produced water injection system design needs to
be optimised for a particular field to maximise
the net pl'esent value (NPV) of the development
(fig 3). If the water quality specification is not
stringent enough injection problems may occur.
If the injection water quality specification is not
stringent enough, money will be wasted on
unnecessary capital and operating expenditure.
REDUCING THE COSTS OF ENVIRONMENT
COMPLIANCE, AN R&D TARGET FOR THE
1990'S
Operators are re-exammmg their research
I)rogrammes to ensure their is direct correlation
with field needs, and that they can make
significant cost saving benefits. Reducing the
cost of compliance with increasingly stringent
environmental regulations is one of these.
Produced water is an environmental cost centre
many ol)erators are concerned about. Re-
injection is potentiall)' an appealing alternative,
depending on the injection water quality
I'equil'ements (Littlejohn, 1992).
Produced water disposal is one of the significant
environmental issues receiving significant
attention within the oil and gas industry.
Heightened interest within the public and
regulatory agencies towards environmental issues
has been an impetus for the industry to
scrutinise its wastes and how they are managed.
Companies must be concel'ned about complying
with applicable waste disposal regulations,
mmlmlsmg the impact - of wastes on the
environment, and reducing the potential liability
associated with imprope"'y disposed waste. All of
this must be done within certain economic
bounda.-ies.
Eliminating 01' mll1lmlsmg waste generation is
becoming mOl'e critical, both envil"Onmentally and
economically, as a means of reducing waste
related liabilities and costs. The re-injection of produced Activity 18 Finalisation Of Overall
water changes it from a waste product to a resource. System Design

PRODUCED WATER INJECTION REOUIRES A

MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH AND AN
INTEGRATED TEAM DISPOSAL REGULATIONS AND
El'ivlRONMENTAL LAW
A produced water re-injection project requires the
integration of oilfield chemistry, geology, reservoir The extent of the application of produced water
engineering, process design and financial appraisals in re-injection will be greatly influenced by trends
order to achieve the most suitable produced water in environmental law and disposal regulations.
injection system for a particular oilfield. This highli~hts
the need for an integrated and multidisciplinary team In the NE Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, the Paris
right from the initial design stages. Some of the wide Convention on the Prevention of Marine
variety of reservoir engineering and process considerations Pollution f.'om Land Based Sources (PARCOM)
for produced water injection systems are illustrated in 1974 applies to discharge from offshore oil and
fIgUre 4. gas installations. The target standard for
produced water discharges is presently set at a
A typical sequence of activities which may be required for mean of 40 mWI total oil based on solvent
a produced water injection project, up to the finalisation extl'8ction and inC.'ared spectroscopy. More
of the system desi~n, is listed below and reveals the recent I)ARCOM discussions have even sug~ested
variety of expertise required. a possible reduction of the 40 mWI target to 30
mWI or even lower. In the UK the Prevention of
Activity 1 Produced Water Characterisation Oil Pollution Act enacts the relevant conditions
Activity 2 Characterisation Of recommended by the Pa.'is Commission with
Supplemental Water Sources reference to operational oily water discharges
Activity 3 Reservoir Characterisation For from offshore oil and ~as operations. In the USA
Water Injection Purposes new Offshore Emuent Guidelines have established
Activity 4 Coreflooding Tests oil and ~rease limits for all produced water
Activity 5 Reservoir Simulation To dischar~es of a monthly avera~e of 29 mWI and a
Evaluate Injectivity daily maximum of 42 mg/l for terl'itorial seas and
Activity 6 Reservoir Simulation To offshore continental shelf locations. The previous
Evaluate Water Production limits were a daily average of 48 mg/I and a
Activity 7 Pilot Process Plant Tests maximum of 72 mW" The new limits are based
Activity 8 Pilot Injection Tests on improved .performances of gas flotation
Activity 9 Scaling Studies technology. The stipulation of no visible surface
Activity 10 Reservoir Souring Studies sheen on the seawater is also made. In the USA
Activity 11 Microbiology and COI-rosion in offshore areas, companies are mandated by the
Studies Minerals Mana~ement Service (MMS) 30 CFR
Activity 12 Determination Of Injection 250 to pl'()\'ide the best available technology
Water Quality (HAT) for the disposal of pl'Oduced water. The
Activity 13 Integration Of Supplemental genel'8l h'end in the USA is to p.'ohibit the
Water Source dischar~e of produced water in shallow coastal
Activity 14 Selection Of Process Packages locations, yet to allow surface discharge in deeper
Activity 15 Chemical T.'eatment Selection waters of .'egions such as the Gulf of Mexico.
Activity 16 Evaluation Of Techniques To Re-injection by all facilities has been considered
Control Water Production by EPA but has not yet been enforced.
Activity 17 Financial Appraisals Includin~
Comparisons With Alternath'es The EPA does not have sufficient data to
Such As Surface Or Subsurface determine if radionuclides in produced water are
Disposal l)()lIutants of concern, and without this data the

709
EPA chose not to stipulate injection. However the EPA
will be collecting this data in the future in order to review
the situation with respect to surface discharges.
There is a draft EPA guideline for compulsory produced
water injection at coastal locations to meet the zero
discharge requirement in those locations. Some of The
USA states on the Gulf of Mexico plan to covel' new
oilfield developments in the OCS under a new pel'mit, the
water quality provisions in which may restrict produced
water discharges leading to the need for I'e-injection.
Oil company personnel may now find themselves faced
with personal liabilities taking the form of fines 01'
imprisonment. In the USA, at least, individuals may now
be subject to criminal convictions. There has begun a
shift from civil to criminal prosecutions concerning the
breach of environmental regulations. In the USA plant
managers, foremen and field hands are serving prison
sentences at an increasing rate for wilfully disregarding
environmental laws (Griffin et.at., 1993),
I)ersonnel training and QA procedm'es will obviously play
a large part in the minimising of pollution from both
onshore and offshore installations. Recently BS 7750 has
been prepared in the UK to specify requirements for the
development, implementation and maintenance of
environmental management systems aimed at ensuring
compliance with stated envimnmental policy and
objectives. This standard complements the dl"aft
European Community Eco-Audit Regulation (Version 3).
It also complements BS 5750 as they take pat"allel
approaches to achieving and demonstmting compliance
with specified I'equirements. Environmental audits and
associated services now play a major role in oilfield
operations.
WHAT IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF
PRODUCED WATER?
The increasing trend of oil pollution from pmduced watel"
in the North Sea is dit'ectly due to the increasing volumes
of produced water being disposed of. In 1991
approximately 4,500 tonnes of oil was discharged into the
North Sea from about 90 oil and gas production
platforms. This is equivalent to mughly 5 % of the cargo
of the Braer which ran aground on the coast of Shetland
in January 1993. Thus current oil dischal1~es of oil in
produced water is equivalent to, in volume, a BI"aer type
disaster every 20 years. However, the fate of oil in the
710
marine environment is determined by the
following interrelated factors: spreading,
evaporation, dispersion, emulsification,
dissolution. sedimentation and various
degmdation processes such as photochemical
oxidation and microbiological degradation. The
I'ate of bacterial action depends on the
composition of the oil, the tempemture, nutl"ients
and sul'face m·ea. As the oil is present as small
droplets this gl'eatly enhances the rate of
degradation.
It is important to note that dispersed
hydmcal"l)ons are not the only constituent of
pmduced watel" which raises environmental
concern. Dthel" constituents include dissolved oil,
tI"eatment chemicals, heavy metals, radionuclides
and high total dissolved solids.
The recent study by Stephenson (1992) concluded
that in geneml, pmduced watel" is not harmful in
the offshore emit'onment when it is discharged
within current dischat'ge limits and when more
than adequate dilution occm"s, The potential fOi'
envimnmental damage incI"eases fOI' discharges
nem"ShOl"e and coastal locations where dilution
and watel" cit'culation are I"estl"icted.
Excessive amounts of any of the substances
quoted as being in produced water can be
harmful to the envimnment. It is the degree of
dilution and dispersal, and the callacity of the
envit'onment to use, absorb 01' I"endel' hat"mless
the constituents in the watel" which will control
the degl"ee of envimnmental pollution caused by
the sul'face disposal of produced water.
Chronic toxicity is more difficult to quantify that
lethal efl"ects and should not be neglected. 1<'01'
chnmic efl"ects the no observed efl"ect
concentmtion (NDEC) is believed to be 1000
times less than that for acute efl"ects (Hansen &
Davis, 1993).
Thus the degl"ee of envit'onmental hat"m caused
by I"esponsible and compliant surface produced
water disposal is still a matter of debate, but
cel"tainly the outcome will not be a relaxing of
dischat°ge regulations. The opemtol"s are unlikely
to be given the benefit of the doubt.
At present the regulations and methods for produced
water treatment for surface disposal do not normally
include the removal of treatment chemicals, soluble
hydrocarbons, heavy metals or radionuclides, which are
potentially the most toxic components of the produced
water.
WATER PRODUCTION CONTROL
Methods of controlling water production should be
considered as a means of reducing the volumes of water
produced on topsides facilities, especially as produced
water is relatively difficult to treat. A recent survey by
the Petroleum Engineer International (October 1992)
revealed that some 89 % of the respondents confirmed
that excessive water production was adversely affecting
their fields profitability. Of these operators, 74 % have
used established, proven technology, whilst 47 % had used
new, experimental technology over the past 2 years to
reduce water production. Surprisingly 32 % of the
l'espondents indicated that they had done little to reduce
water production.
The methods of water production control may be divided
broadly into those involving well design, and those
incorporating the use of chemicals or solids squeezed into
the formation.
The chemical/solids methods include the ultra-fine
particle size cement squeeze, the cement squeeze, and the
use of resins, epoxy plastic pills, cross-linked polymers
and sodium silicate gels. The use of cross-linked
polymers and sodium silicate gels were given the lowest
technical and economic success ratings in the Petroleum
Engineer International survey.
The well completion design methods include the use of
horizontal wells, and dual completions with a tailpil)e
water sink for vertical wells.
Parameters effecting water coning in vertical wells are the
mobility ratio, oil zone thickness, ratio of gravity forces to
viscous forces, well spacing, .-atio of horizontal
permeability to vertical permeability, well penetration and
production rate.
In the case of the dual completion/tailpipe water sink
method, the well is dual completed so that the lower
perforations are placed in the watel' zone, and the water
can be produced concurrently and independently to oil
production. The two producing streams are separated by
711
a packer. Coning control is performed by
adjusting water production rate to oil production
rate in order to prevent the water cone from
breaking through the oil into the oil perforations.
At equilibrium a stable water cone is held -down
below the .oil producing perforations (Wojtanowicz
et.al, 1991). There are several potential
advantages of this method,
* oil production rate increases
. without water breakthl'ough
* well life extends far beyond its
value without coning control
* produced water not so
contaminated with crude oil,
demulsifiers and other agents
used in production and therefore
easiel' to clean for discharge
regulations
* reduction in water oil/ratio
* well productivity not reduced due
to water encroachment in near-
well zone.
The use of horizontal-well drainage can be used
to repress the coning problem, and so water
production. Horizontal wells result in a lower
watercut than in vertical wells resulting in less
watel' production and potentially less water
treatment costs, The higher production index of
the horizontal well should result in less pressure
drawdown so reducing the risk of fines movement
and sand production.
In the Brae. field, when prolific producers have
watered out, a reduction in water cut has been
achieved by remedial work planned to exploit
unswept areas of the reservoir. Water producing
zones have been isolated (Wolodkiewicz, 1993).
INJECTION WATER QUALITY SPECIFICATION
WILL BE TilE KEY TO PRODUCED WATER
INJECTION SYSTEM DESIGN
It is not surprising that their is uncertainty over
water quality specifications for produced water
injection, as their are still widely conflicting ideas
on watel' (Iuality for the more traditional seawater
injection. Yet it is the injection water quality
specification which will be one of the most
important factors effecting produced water injection
system design.
Produced water is a much more complex fluid than
seawater. The levels of total suspended matter are much
more variable than North Sea seawater which is in fact
one of the cleanest water sources for water injection (fig
5). As a consequence it would be very unwise to
extrapolate the results of injecting North Sea seawater to
injecting produced water.
Studies need to be initiated on a variety of scales from
that of the pore network to that of the reservoir as a
whole (fig 6).
A water quality specification for produced water injection
should include specifications on;
* oil droplet size distribution
* total oil in water concentration
* suspended solids size distribution
* total suspended matter
'" cI,emical treatments
... dissolved gases
.. bacteria
... scale and corrosion control
It is only when these parameters can be specified with
confidence, for a particular oil field, that the most cost
effective produced water injection system design can be
formulated. An incorrectly specified injection watel'
quality could be wasteful in one of two respects. If the
specification is too stringent money will be wasted on
un-necessary process equipment. If it is too lax,
operating costs will rise due to injectivity problems,the
need to retrofit additional process, reservoir pressure
declines and production rates will decline. A water
quality specification of just total oil-in-water will
certainly be insufficient yet this is often the only
parameter recorded for onshore produced water injection
and during the few offshore produced water injection
trials that have been conducted.
It will be important not to repeat the mistake of seawater
injection of initially setting an ambiguous water quality
specification which then became an industry standard by
default. This involved just quoting a percent removal
specification which takes no account of the absolute
concentrations, and maximum size, of particles in the.
injection water.
712
It is important to realise that produced water has
orders of magnitude higher concentrations of
total suspended matter than North Sea seawater.
Also, unless cooled, the I)roduced water will also
be significantly warmer that the North Sea
seawater, reducing the reservoir cooling and the
extent of the thermo-elastic fracture.
Thermo-elastic fractures are also less likely to
occur in unconsolidated sands.
For cold seawater injection, traditionally lower
injectivity declines have been recorded for
injection wells than were predicted by cOl'eflood
tests or pore size distribution measures such as
the effective hydraulic radius. The existence of
thermo-elastic fractures has been proven to be
one of the reasons for this uiscrepancy. Recent
papel's have discussed the existence of fractures
developed in water injection wells due to the
cooling of the reservoir rock by the injection
water. As discussed by Clifford et.ai." 1990, the
injection of cool surface water into a warm
reservoir leads to cooling and contraction of the
rock around the wellbore. As the cooled rock
pulls inward towards the· upon the upon the
warm region around it, a tensile component of
stress (thermoelastic) builds up within it. This
allows fl'actures to propagate at bottom - hole
pressUl'es significantly lower than the
conventionally estimated fracture gradients. The
fracture opens against the direction of least
stress, which means it will occupy a vertical
plane.
In the case of water injection into unconsolidated
reservoirs, if the depth of permeability damage,
pel'meability heterogeneity and radial flow are
taken into account when using coreflood and pore
netwo..k data, estimates of injectivity index can be
made which closely co....espond to those measured
in the field (fig 7). This will be similar to the
case of the injection of hot produced water in the
abscence of fl'actu..es (natu..al, the..mo-elastic or
intentially induced). It should be noted that the
method of dete..mining a filtration specification
based on the effective hydraulic radius takes no
account of the depth of permeability damage, and
assumes that the damage will occur along the
enti..e length from the injection well to the
production well.
Properly designed coreflood tests using
appropiately designed coreholders can provide valuable
data for the design of produced water injection systems
such as the depth and extent of permeability damage
related to water quality. Whilst the overall permeability
decline for a coreplug may register 50%, permeability
decline may be restricted to the first few centimeters of
the coreplug, whilst the downstream section of the plug
experiences relatively little permeability decline. As a
particle, or oil droplet has to pass through hundreds of
pore throats even in the first few centimeters of a
coreplug, the probability is that if it is not retained then
it will keep on passing through the coreplug.
Permeability decline in the damage zone of a coreplug
needs to be in excess of 70% for significant injectivity
declines to be recorded when taking into account radial
flow. Also it is important to remember that in terms of
injection capacity a 1 metre interval with a pel-meability
of 1 Darcy is equivalent to a 100 metre interval with a
permeability of 10 mD. So if the high permeability zones
remain unblocked there will not be significant overall
llermeability declines. This is why it is essential to fully
consider permeability heterogeneity.
MISCONCEPTIONS ON DETERMINING WATER
QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
Certainly the specification of water quality for seawater
injection has been plagued by inappropriate techniques
and misconceptions which have lead to inadequate
definitions.
The method used to specify the water quality for produced
water injection should include the characteristics listed
below;
. It should integrate reservoir engineering,
sedimentology, process design and source water
studies.
It should not only consider overall injectivity
decline for setting filtration specifications, but
should also consider important financial
considerations such as sweep efficiency
.. It should consider the effect of reselovoir
fracturing where applicable
It should take into account the characteristics of
sedimentary rocks from the pore throat to the
reservoir scale.
.. It should not assume that vital attributes of
sedimentary rocks, such as pore throat sizes, are
713
randomly distributed.
=I: It should take into account the full range
of permeability heterogeneities, and
should not use average values.
.. It should take into account, and not
guess at, the depth of permeability
damage,
.. It should interpret the results of linear
coreflood experiments in terms of radial
flow from an injection well
. Coreflood experiments should be
continued until a stable permeability had
been reached enabling the actual level of
pel-meability decline to be quantified.
.. It should not extrapolate the results of
short term coreflooding tests using
concepts of filter cake build up on
membrane filters when the membrane
filters are not representative of reservoir
rocks
* It should not use simplistic rules of
thumb to determine the blockage of pore
throats by suspended solids.
.. It should not express filtration
specifications on a percent removal basis.
It should not blindly use filtration
specifications from previous water
injection projects when the reservoir and
produced water characteristics may be
considerably different.
=I: It should take into account heterogeneity
between the reservoir zones in a field
and the consequential different water
quality requirements, especially if
significant proportions of the recoverable
oil is in the low permeability zones.
SWEEP E14....l.CIENCY
Thermo-elastic fl'actures have enabled cold
seawater with suspended solids of up to 10 mg/I
to be injected into relatively high permeability
I'eservoirs without apparent losses in injectivity.
With respect to sweep efficiency, the high
pel-meability zones will receive the greater
volumes of watel' and so the greater degree of
cooling. Thus the thermally induced fractures
may prefel'entially occur in the high permeability
layers. The fracturing of the high permeability
zones may conceal to an even greater degree the
injectivity decline in the low permeability zones.
Of prime importance in water injection is the sweep
eBiciency. A low overall injectivity decline may conceal
high injectivity declines in the low permeability zones.
The blockage of the least permeable layers in an injection
well by suspended matter will reduce the rate of injection
into that layer, and as a consequence the rate of oil
sweeping in the low permeability zones will also be
reduced. However if the most permeable layers remain
unblocked the injectivity will, to a great extent be
sustained. If the low permeability zones contain significant
proportions of the recoverable oil, the economics of the
field development will be impaired as a consequence. (fig.
9) Thus maintaining a certain overall level of injectivity
in a non - homogeneous reservoir should not be the only
criteria of specifying filtration requirements.
With respect to the North Sea, comparisons may be made
between the relatively high permeability Etive formation
and the low permeability Rannoch Formation. In some
reservoirs the Rannoch may contain over 30 % of th~
oil-in-place such as in the Cormorant field, thus setting
the injection water quality specification for the lower
permeability zone, may be more economically prudent
than considering injectivity decline for injection into. all
the formations combined.
Thus the existence of thermo-elastic fractures during the
injection of the very clean, very cold North Sea seawater
into consolidated sands, should not be considered as the
passport to the injection of relatively untreated produced
water which contains orders of magnitude higher levels of
total suspended matter and is also considerably warmel·.
AN EXAMPLE OF OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE OF
THE DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON PRODUCTION IN
HETEROGENEOUS RESERVOIRS OF POOR
INJECTION WATER QUALITY
Parsons. et.al. (1988) describe practical experience of
cleaner injection water improving sweep efficiency and oil
recovery associated with waterflooding a thick,
heterogeneous reservoir in the Inglewood field in the Los
Angeles Basin. The reservoir is of unconsolidated sand
with a gross thickness of between 300 m and 425 m.
Most of the individual sand bodies are less than 1.8 m
thick separated by shales. The coefficient of permeability
variation is 0.6.
Water injection began in 1954 with unfiltered produced
water, however water injection wells historically tended to
714
exhibit poor vertical distributions of injection
water. In the late 1970's treatment of the
produced water resulted in cleaner water for the
waterflood and a sharp increase in oil production.
Ultimate oil recovery from the oil reservoir is
exrcted to be 53.6 million barrels [8.5 million
m ] of oil which is 35% of the original oil-in -
place (OOIP). Waterflooding with cleaner water
is expected to increase the final production by
20.3 million barrels [3.2 million m 3] of oil, in
comparison to primary recovery alone.
At the beginning of the waterflood in 1954 the
blockage of the perforations and the formations
associated with the injecting unfiltered produced
watel' was not observed as the high permeability
layers were still taking the majority of the flow.
However over time it was finally noticed that the
use of dirty injection water had caused a
reduction in the vertical coverage in all
waterfloods in the Inglewood field. The
subsequent of cleaner injection water increased
the vertical coverage from approximately 15% to
about 70 %. Overall injection rates increased by
35%.
CONTROL OF DOWNHOLE WATER QUALITY
Some measurements of downhole water quality in
injection wells have supposedly revealed levels of
total suspended solids more than twice that in
the unfiltered seawater. However it should be
noted that the water samples would have been
exposed to the atmosphere prior to analysis which
leads to the question of precipitation of dissolved
i.-on. Thel'e is also the question of contamination
of the sample caused by contact of the wireline
and sampler- with the tubing walls.
Even if a downhole deterioration of water quality
is occurring it does not mean that this should be
accepted even though overall levels of injectivity
declines are relatively small. This downhole
deterioration is costing the operator in terms of
the corrosion of the downhole tubulars and
possible reductions in sweep efficiency, reducing
the rates of injection into the low permeability
zones which may contain significant proport!ons
of the recoverable oil.
 Water injection well steel tubing lined with high density
polyethylene pipe is now being used by some operators
to control downhole corrosion. The insertion of the
aDPE adds about 37 % to the cost of the injection
tubing. The tubing can be pulled several times without
damage to the lining and joint seals.
EXAMPLES OF RECENT NORTH SEA INJECTION
TRIALS
Recent produced water injection trials by North Sea
operators have highlighted the different ideas on water
quality specifications and reasons for injectivity
impairment. - _What is noticeable is that the injection
water quality is overwhelmingly reported only in terms of
total oil in water. The size distribution of the total
suspended matter in relation to the reservoir quality
should be the main water quality parameter.
. Simpsonet.aI. (1991) reported no loss of injectivity during
a six week trial involving the injection of produced watel'
with an oil-in-water concentration varying from 50 to
1200 ppm and a suspended solids concentration varying
from 5 to 50 mg/I.
Alternatively, Dorrestijn (1991), reported a decline in
injection rate from 16,000 BWPD to 4,000 BWPD over a
25 day period when injecting produced water with an oil-
in -water concentration as low as 20 to 40 ppm. The free
oil, in combination with iron oxide and scale, forming a
filter cake on the injection face was thought to be
responsible for the injectivity decline.
I>etersen & Jorgensen (1991) reported no injectivity
decline when injecting produced water with an oil-in-
water concentration of 20 to 40 mg/I. Tests of injecting
water direct from the separator were then tried. Injection
pressure increases were reported following a process upset
when produced water with an oil-in-water concentration
of up to 3 % was injected.
Sweeney & Paige (1993) report that in the case of the
relatively high permeability Forties field, the injection
produced water from the degasser with an average oil-
in-water concentration of 300 mg/kg and an avel'age
suspended solids concentration of 20 mg/kg resulted in a
50% loss in injectivity in comparison to the injectivity
with seawater. The injectivity could be restored to a great
extent by the subsequent injection of seawater, although
stimulation using acid or solvents were generally
715
unsuccessful In the case of Wytch Farm where
the produced water is passed through sand filters,
the injection of water with average oil-in-water
concentrations of less than 15 mg/kg and average
suspended solids of less than 5 mglkg resulted in
no loss in injectivity.
King (1993) reports on PWRI for the Maureen
Field, again a relatively high permeability
reservoir. Produced water has been injected with
oil-in-water concentrations varying between 50
and 725 ppm with no apparent permanent skin
damage, Injectivity losses which occurred when
high levels of oil- in -water were injected were
restored when relatively cleanel' water was
injected.
The differing reselovoir response in the above
examples may be attributed to differing reservoir
characteristics, and different suspended matter
size distributions. The water quality specification
for produced water injection should take into
account the reservoir characteristics (such as
wettability and pe-rmeability), and oil droplet and
suspenrled solids size distributions and
concentrations in the injected produced water.
PROCESS OPTIONS FOR PRODUCED WATER
INJECTION SYSTEMS
Some of the various lu'ocess packages which may
be included in -a produced water treatment system
are listed below:
* Plate separators
* Induced Gas Floatation
* Media Filters
* Coalescers
* Static Hydrocyclones
* Rotary Hydrocyclones
Cartridge Filters
* Solid/Liquid Hydrocyclones
01< Membranes
The selection of the process packages will depend
on; the injection watel' quality specification; the
charactel'istics of the untreated produced water;
the amount of l)roduced fines/solids; surface
discharge regulations; supplemental water
resources required, whether the platform is
Roating; production methods; relative capital and
operating expenditure, and weight and space restrictions.
An increasingly relevant subject in the design of produced
water treatment systems is the possibility of the presence
of Normally Occurring Radionuclide Material ·(NORM).
This will obviously effect the design of the system with
respect to waste disposal, safe operation and
decommissioning.
During the life of an oiltield the produced water is
unlikely to provide enough water to satisfY all the water
injection needs. It will have to be supplemented by either
seawater or aquifer water for offshore developments. The
additional water source may require deaeration.. Severe
scaling problems may also result from the mixing of the
waters. This will also influence the process selection and
process design. The solid/liquid hydrocyclone may be
required when signiticant tines and sand production
occurs.
Figure 10 illustrates the relative cost and droplet size
removal of some of the process options. Basically, the
tiner the droplet removal the greater the cost.
Hydrocyclones and flotation units have become the
workhorses for offshore produced water treatment to meet
existing surface discharge regulations in the North Sea
and in the USA.
In the case of hydrocyclones, separation is achieved by
accelerated settling (up to 3000 times that of gravitational
force) caused by centrifugal action inside the
hydrocyclone. The hydrocyclones can be used for
solidlliquid separations and liquid/liquid separation. If
the sand is removed prior to deoiling, the wear on the
liquid/liquid hydrocyclones will be reduced. However the
specific design of the hydrocyclone and the use of linings
will minimise erosion. The advantage of removing the oil
before the sand is that it reduces the shearing of the oil
droplets. The solid/liquid and liquid/liquid hydrocyclones
will have significantly different geometries. The cone
angle is much less for the Iiquid/liquid hydrocyclone
enabling more residence time and reducing the shear.
Hydrocyclones may operate directly downstream of the
three phase separator and at pressures of 60 psi upwards.
Alternatively they may be used downstream of a low
pressure separator or surge tank in which case a positive
displacement type pump such as the progressive cavity
pump which can develop the required head without
excessive shear of the dispersed oil droplets.
716
Induced gas flotation is often capable of 96 %
removal of oil-in-water, reducing inlet
concentrations of greater than 200 mwl to less
than 20 mwl with the help of approximately 10
ppm chemical. New developments include
pressurised flotation units to eliminate emissions
of volatile organic carbons and new floating
skimmer designs to enable their use on floating
production facilities.
As plate separators are not particularly effective
at removing droplets smaller than 50 microns it
seems likely that a minimum of flotation or
hydrocyclone packages will be required for most
produced water injection systems, expect pOssibly
for high permeability strata as p'resent in some of
the North Sea Palaeocene reservoirs. Thus in
terms of process equipment the produced water
injection system is likely to be at least as
expensive as system for surface disposal. It also
means that the produced water should also be of
sufficient quality for surface discharge should
injection have to be periodically halted. This of
course assumes discharge regulations are not
tightened a factor which will increase the cost-
effectiveness of PWRI.
CHEMICAL TRF.ATMENTS
The performance of a produced water treatment
and injection system may be dependent on a
number of chemicals. Chemicals may be required
to control bacteria, scaling and corrosion within
the system. Chemicals such as polyelectrolytes
and demulsitiers may be required for the process
packa~es. An important factor in the design of
the system is the selection of effective and
compatible chemicals. The entire suite of
chemicals used constitute a chemical system
which has to be optimised, both in terms of the
combination of chemicals used and the individual
dose rates. Corrosion inhibitors are notorious
for contributing to the formation of fine
emulsions which make separation more difficult.
DATA IS REOUIRED ON PROCESS PACKAGE
PERFORMANCE WITH RESPECT TO ABSOLUTE OIL
DROPLET AND PARTICLE SIZE REMOVAL, NOT
.lUST TOTAL OIL-IN-WATER REMOVAL
In the case of produced water injection the performance
of the process packages in terms of their absolute
particle/oil droplet removal will be vital in terms of
process selection.
At present most data has been selected in terms of
performance in reducing total oil-in-water. More data
needs to be collected on the long term operation of the
process packages in terms of maintaining a consistent
water quality with respect to absolute maximum
particle/droplet sizes.
Relatively short term upsets in that respect could cause
significant injectivity decline.
Developments in on -line monitoring systems will be
useful in this respect.
THE USE OF DECISION ANALYSIS TO REDUCE RISK
AND UNCERTAINTY
Over and above the initial uncertainty of accurately
predicting water cuts in the early stages of field
development, this paper has raised uncertainty about key
factors concerning produced water injection such as the
injection water quality specification and the performance
of the process packages in term of absolute particle and
oil droplet size removal.
Decision analysis, and the associated use of decision trees,
is a means of highlighting such uncertainties in the
decision making during design, and also of integrating
technical and financial aspects of the project (fig 11).
Not only is there technical and economic uncertainty, the
problems of decision making are compounded by bias.
The use of decision trees forces engineers to quantify the
probability of their advice being wrong. It also enables
assessment of the impact of that advice being wrong on
the NPV of the oilfield development. As a consequence it
highlights which uncertainties it would be pmdent to
reduce by doing injectivity tests and pilot tests to obtain
better information on reservoir response.
717
CONCLUSIONS
In light of current uncertainty it to would appear
pmdent to reduce risk by targeted research
projects, particularly with. respect to injection
water quality specification, process plant
performance, on -line monitoring, and injectivity
tests.
Water injection is key to the financial success of
most offshore developments, especially in high
production cost areas such as the North Sea.
Although a water injection system including
injection wells may account for only 5% of total
capital expenditure in an offshore field
development it can double the oil recovered.
Thus when considering the potential losses and
gains with respect to produced water injection it
would appear, at present, pmdent to err on the
side of caution with respect to injection water
quality and process plant selection.
Developments in primary separation techniques
should not be overlooked as potential means of
easing the problem of produced water treatment.
REFERENCES
CALLAGHAN, D, ET.AL. (1990).
Characterisation Of Residual Hydrocarbons In
Produced Water Discharged From Gas Production
Platforms. SPE Paper No. 20881.
CLIFFORD, P.J. ET. AL. 1990 Modelling The
Vertical Confinement of Injection Well Thermal
Fractures. SPE Paper No. 20741.
DORRESTIJN, L.W. (1991). Injection of
unfiltered Produced Water In the Helder Field.
Water Management Offshore Conference. October
1991.
GOIlEC, M.L & BIGLARBIGI, K (1991).
Economic Effects of Environmental Regulations
On Finding And Ileveloping Crude Oil In The
U.S.A. J.P.T. Jan 91.
GRIFFIN, J.M, ET.AL. (1993). Measuring The
Environmental Practices Of An Oilfield Unit.
AFS - Texas Chapter 3rd Annual "Produced
Water Seminar".

HANSEN & DAVIES. (1993). Review Of Potential

Technologies For The Removal Of Dissolved Components
From Produced Water. Water Management Offshore
Conference. October 1993.

KING (1993). Maureen Produced Water Injection. SPE

26703.

UTILETON, J. (1992) Reservoir Analysis, Marginal

Fields, Environmental Compliance Drive North Sea R &
D. Petroleum Engineer International. September.

PARSONS, A.R. (1988) Waterflooding A thick

Heterogeneous Reservoir in The Los Angeles Basin. A
Case History. J.P.T. Nov.

PARKER, D.H., ET.AL. (1991). Oil Production And

Water Management In Oman. SPE paper No. 23322.

SIMPSON, A. ET.AL. (1991) Advances In Forties Field

Water Injection. SPE Paper No. ~3140.

PETERSON, J.P & JORGENSEN. J. (1991). Produced

Water Disposal Trials. Water Management offshore
Conference. October 1991.

STEPHENSON, M.T. (1992) Components Of Produced

Water: A Compilation of Industry Studies J.P.T. May.

SWEENEY & PAIGE (1993). Produced Water Re-

Injection - Understanding The Problems. Water
Management Offshore Conference. 1993.

WOJTANOWICZ, A.K.,ET.AL (1991). Oilwell Coning

Control Using Dual Completion With Tailpipe Water Sink.
SPE Paper No. 21654.

WOLODKIEWICZ (1993). Arresting Production Decline

In A Mature North Sea Oilfield. SPE 26786.

718
 FIe.. 1.

PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT

EARLY PLANNING REQUIRED TO
AVOID BOTTLENECKS

INCREASING PRODUCED WATER VOLUMES. A N:SEA FIELD

BWPD (THOUSANDS)
3OOr------------------,
250

200

150

100

50

o L...IooooO::::'--_ _- - - ' ----l...- -'-'

1978 1984 1990

UNCERTAINTY AND RISK

UNCERTAINTY

719
 RELATIONSHIP OF OILFIELD DEVELOPMENT
NET PRESENT VALUE TO INJECTION WATER
QUALITY SPECIFICATION

Net
present
value

Increasing stringent injection

water quality specification

PRODUCED WATER INJECTION

SYSTEM CONSIDERATIONS
PROCESS
_ Process selection
...... _ Addition of supplementary I--
PRODUCTION water sources INJECTION
_ Produced fluids - Chemical treatments _ Reservoir
characteristics characteristics
_ 8caling _ Injected fluid
_ Souring characteristics

_ Production • Injection water

quality specification
techniques
_ 8caling
_ Solids production
_ Chemical treatments
_ Corrosion
_ Souring
_ Chemical treatments
_ Corrosion

720
 PRODUCED WATER. MUCH
HIGHER AND MORE VARIABLE
TOTAL SUSPENDED MATTER
THAN N.SEA SEAWATER
SOURCE WATER TOTAL SUSPENDED MATTER COMPARISONS
ISM. MGlL.
60

50

40
-
MINIMUM

MAXIMUM
Ill!!!ilII
AVERAGE

30

20

10

0
N.SEA AQUIFER PRODUCED RIVER

INJECTION WATER QUALITY

SPECIFICATION
* PORE NETWORK
MODELLING
* RESERVOIR
HETEROGENEITY
EVALUATION
* ON-SITE COREFLOOD AT
RESERVOIR CONDITIONS
*QUANTIFICATION OF
DEPTH OF PERMEABILITY
DAMAGE
* THERMO-ELASTIC
FRACTURING STUDIES
* SWEEP EFFICIENCY
EVALUATIONS
* INJECTIVITY INDEX
CALCULATIONS

721
 INJECTIVITY MODELLING AND
INJECTION WATER QUALITY SPECIFICATION

FRACTIONAL INJECTIVITY INDEX CURVES

FRACTIONAL INJECTIVITY INDEX

0.8

0.6 -

0.4 -
H
0.2 -UNIT 3
+UNIT 1
o'--------'--'--'-----'---'----'--'---'---'-----'-----'-----'---'
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

ABSOLUTE FILTRATION. MICRONS

ON-SITE COREFLOOD TESTS TO

QUANTIFY DEPTH AND EXTENT
OF PERMEABILITY DAMAGE
.PERMEABILITY (% OF INITiAl)
120 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , "DAMAGED ZONE"

"UNDAMAGED ZONE"
100f-,--_ _- - - - _ - -
80

60

40

20

CUMULATIVE PORE VOLUMES

722
 RELATE INJECTION WATER
QUALITY TO INJECTIVITY INDEX
AND SWEEP EFFICIENCY
PERMEABILITY RELATED TO FLOW CAPACITY & POROSITY
% OF TOTAL

40 • POROSITY
11II FLOW CAPACITY

30

20

10

o
PERMEABILITY
------Ili>

ric.. /0

DROPLET SIZE REMOVAL AND

RELATIVE COST OF PROCESS
OPTIONS
(AFTER PARKER HAL, AND CALLAGHAN HAL.)

I-
en
o
o
ill
>
!;;(
....J
ill
IY

0.1 1 10 100 1000

DROPLET DIAMETER, MICRONS

723
 DECISION ANALYSIS. A
FRAMEWORK FOR DECISION
MAKING UNDER UNCERTAINTY:
NP'
HIGH GOOD SWEEP
INJECTIVITY EFFICIENCY $
DECLINE
FINE $
FILTRATION
$
$
$
COARSE
FILTRATION $

$
LOW
INJECTIVITY
DECLINE $
DECISION III

EVENT
(PROBABILITIES)

724