WATER INITIATED PROBLEMS

IN
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS

BY
HOWARD J. ENDEAN
CONSULTANT

AND
RAYMOND D. SHELTON
TECHNICAL ADVISOR

CHAMPION TECHNOLOGIES
HOUSTON TEXAS
1991
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This booklet is a compilation of many of the successful laboratory and field technical solutions to water
problems developed in field operations during the more than thirty years the authors have been associated in
the technical service function. In addition to their own investigations, the text includes information from
studies from other producing companies and service organizations. In these types of projects, published
technical reports, and textbooks invariably were reviewed and applied where pertinent to the programs.

With the many individuals, companies and sources of information used, over the more than thirty years
covered, it is impossible to attempt to acknowledge the contribution of specific individuals and companies.
Most domestic major producing companies and technical service companies supplying production chemicals
would be included in a listing. Personnel involved research, technical service and production engineers.
Also field-operating personnel often assisted in testing and frequently, through their experience, suggested
test modifications or other factors requiring investigation. A considerable amount of the confirming
information is from in-house reports, etc., not available as reference.

This book is a tribute to the many sources of information that have made the publication possible. Without
the widespread cooperation that is typical in technical aspects of production operations, the generalized
solutions to the water problems reviewed would not have been practical. The presentation is also a tribute to
the technical proficiency of the many individuals who assisted in the projects.

The authors, since their retirements from a major petroleum company, have both been associated with
Champion Technologies in a technical advisory capacity. Prior to their retirements, both had been closely
associated with the service companies supplying chemicals for production operations. From the pre-
retirement association they were well acquainted with Champion Technologies where their years of technical
experience could be applied.

This booklet is a further example of Champion Technologies’ interest in broadening the production industry’s
know how. The authors are appreciative of the opportunity they have been afforded to compile the
information that may assist others in their solution of water problems in production operations.

Howard J. EnDean
Raymond D. Shelton
Houston, Texas

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF WATER IN PRODUCTION OPERATIONS

CHAPTER II
TYPES OF RESERVOIR WATERS
GENERAL
A. SOURCES OF WATER IN PETROLEUM RESERVOIRS
B. PRIMARY OIL PRODUCTION WITH GAS AND WATER DRIVE ENERGY SOURCES
C. WATER PRODUCTION DURING PRIMARY OIL PRODUCTION
D. OIL WELL COMPLETION vs. RESERVOIR DRIVE

CHAPTER III
VARIETIES OF INJECTION WATER
GENERAL
A. SURFACE WATERS
B. SHALLOW WELLS
C. DEEP WELLS
D. SEA WATER
E. PRODUCED WATER
F. MIXED WATERS

CHAPTER IV
EVALUATION OF INJECTION WATERS
GENERAL
A. WATER QUALITY vs. INJECTIVITY
B. CASE HISTORY -INJECTION WATER SYSTEM
C. COMMENTS ON MEMBRANE FILTER PLUGGING COMPONENTS
D. EVALUATING WATER QUALITY
E. EVALUATING OTHER SOURCE WATER FACTORS
F. INJECTION PRESSURE

CHAPTER V
PROCESSING OF INJECTION WATERS
GENERAL
A. GRAVITY SEPARATION OF PRODUCED WATER CONTAMINANTS
B. PROCESSING LARGE VOLUMES OF PRODUCED AND SOURCE WATERS
C. REMOVAL OF OXYGEN FROM SEA AND ONSHORE SURFACE WATERS

CHAPTER VI
OFFSHORE DISPOSAL OF PRODUCED WATER
GENERAL
A. SCOPE OF EPA PROGRAM
B. OVERVIEW OF EPA TEST PROGRAM
C. SIGNIFICANCE OF TOTAL OIL DESIGNATION
D. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS FROM EPA PROGRAM ON WATER CLARIFICATION
E. DISCUSSION
F. FURTHER INDEPENDENT CONCLUSION FROM EPA PROGRAM

ii
CHAPTER VII
MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENT FOR HANDLING OIL FIELD WATERS
GENERAL
A. REMOVAL OF OXYGEN FROM SEA AND ONSHORE SURFACE WATERS
B. SOURCES OF OXYGEN ENTRAINMENT IN PRODUCTION OPERATIONS
C. CORROSION RESISTANT PIPING FOR WATER
D. CORROSION RESISTANT ALLOYS FOR HANDLING OIL FIELD WATERS
E. ELECTROLYTIC CORROSION

CHAPTER VIII
CORROSION MONITORING IN WATER SYSTEMS
GENERAL
A. CORROSION MONITORING TECHNIQUES
B. DIRECT MONITORING TECHNIQUES
C. INDIRECT MONITORING TECHNIQUES
D. SULFATE REDUCING BACTERIA CORROSION

CHAPTER IX
OTHER WATER PROBLEMS IN PRODUCTION OPERATIONS
GENERAL
A. WET OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION
B. SCALING PROBLEMS
C. PREDICTION OF SCALING

CHAPTER X
CHEMICAL TREATMENT FOR PRODUCTION WATER PROBLEMS
GENERAL

iii
 FOREWORD

The geomorphic processes through which the petroleum reservoirs were formed dictate that all oil and gas
produced will entrain water. The water can be trace amounts when only the water in solution with the oil or
gas evolves as the temperature and pressure reduce from the reservoir to surface equipment. However, with
water drive reservoirs and floods, water cuts can eventually be as high as 98% and still be a profitable
operation.

The chemical composition of both produced and injected waters can vary widely. With produced water, the
composition can vary from potable to saturated brines. With injected waters, the range is normally potable
grades to seawater and in most injection projects the produced water will be mixed with injection water.

In all typical accounting processes, water handling cost will be an expense item. Also, many of the other
expense items such as chemicals for emulsion breaking, inorganic scale deposits, skin damage, and
corrosion treating, are caused by water. All well or equipment repairs or replacement due to corrosion are
caused by the presence of water. While efficient accounting procedures dictate that these are separately
recorded, basically they are all water-induced expenses.

The objective in production is to maximize profits, which dictates minimizing expenses consistent with
maintaining rate of production at the highest practical level. Unfortunately, many of the problems caused by
water that eventually will cause major expenses are of an insidious type. Scale, corrosion, or skin damage
begins slowly and even when suspected or recognized will generally be ignored as long as the production
rate is not seriously reduced. Often by the time the problem becomes serious or equipment failures begin,
major expenditures will be required to correct the problem. With most of the water-induced problems, if
corrective measures are taken as soon as recognized, the damaging effects can be stopped or minimized.

The objective of this book is to present an overview of water in petroleum production. The text presents
types of water, variations in composition, rates of production, and problems that may develop. The specific
solutions of the various water-induced problems are not discussed. Their solution will usually require special
tests, test equipment and skilled personnel available usually in only the technical and research staffs of the
operators of service companies. Hopefully, information in this book will enable an early recognition of
potentially serious problems. Technical studies at this time will confirm whether remedial corrective action is
desirable. If required and started, such programs can be expected to maintain a reasonable level of
operating expense and probably extend the profitable life of an operation.

iv
CHAPTER I
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF WATER IN PRODUCTION OPERATIONS

Water produced with oil and gas has been a cause of problems since practically the beginning of the domestic
production industry. Initially, wells were drilled with open hole into the producing formation, except for short
lengths of conductor pipe (6’-20’) through the unconsolidated surface solids. Production was from shallow gas-
drive reservoirs with short periods of flush production. The flush production would be prematurely topped when
the hydrostatic head of water entering the wells from upper sands balanced the reservoir pressure. Restoring the
watered out well to production required running tubing with a packer set immediately above the producing
formation. All field equipment during the early days was improvised. The first reported successful packer was
called a Seed Bag. This consisted of a leather or buckskin boot arrangement, filled with flax seed and attached
around the bottom of the tubing. The water caused the seeds to swell, forcing the boot against the formation. The
advantage of surface casing to cover the shallow water sands was quickly apparent and by 1873, 6”-6-1/2”
casings were being run to cover these sands. However, there was no positive seal between the casing and open
hole and leakage still occurred into the open hole, where the tubing still incorporated the Seed Bag as the sealing
element. While undoubtedly other packing arrangements were improvised, it was not until 1892 that a standard
design of packer was advertised in the trade literature. There are vague references to early attempts at using
cement in casings to shut off water. However, the first successful application reporting the use of cement around
casings occurred in 1902 in California.

During the first 60-70 years of the producing industry, the disposal of produced water, like all industrial wastes,
was a nuisance type problem. It was assumed that with time, Mother Nature could handle all wastes. In the
Eastern Fields, with their small streams and water runoff courses, produced water was flowed to the closest
stream or runoff ditch. In some streams there was enough oil carryover that entrepreneurs placed booms across
the streams and entrapped enough oil to have a highly profitable operation. In Western Fields with gas drives,
higher ambient temperatures, low humidities and extended dry periods, the produced water would often be
drained into surface soils or evaporated from pits.

West of the Mississippi River, fields frequently had active water drives or mobile water tables. This resulted in
increased production of formation water and increased the problems associated with the casual disposal of the
water. Larger and larger pits were dug. Also, where practical, these would be located close to a stream or water
runoff ditch. In heavy rains, the bottom drains of pits would be opened for clearing of the pits. While there is no
record of when it occurred, undoubtedly, some imaginative operator decided a watered out well at the edges of a
field could be used as a disposal well. By the late 30’s, disposal in watered out wells, or, in many areas, wells
specifically drilled for disposal became a widely used procedure. In early injection operations, the water was
exposed to the atmosphere and became saturated with oxygen. Frequently, the waters carried in solution carbon
dioxide and hydrogen sulfide. This made controlling corrosion a major requirement for high quality injection water.
The beginning of offshore production was in the late 20’s and 30’s in the marshes and coastal waters of the Gulf
of Mexico. Disposal of produced water initially was, as in the Eastern Fields, a nuisance – not a serious problem.
The crude oil was generally of a high gravity, and with the advances in separating equipment, the entrained oil in
produced water had been markedly reduced. While by present standards the level of oil entrainment would be
unacceptable, at that time dumping directly into surface water was permitted.

As noted, until the 30’s disposal of produced water was not a serious problem. The object was to use the
cheapest method that would be acceptable to all concerned. But with the continuing use of disposal wells and
emphasis on protection of the environment, water processing became mandatory. As was the case with the Seed
Bag Packer, initial efforts at water processing were field improvisations. Initially, a wide variety of water

1
processing equipment was built and field-tested. Modifying and improving designs of equipment and processes
had been continuing since this beginning period.

There is a reference as early as 1875 that water will effectively displace oil and increase well production. The
reference states, “… the seed bags… to exclude water would frequently fail or had to be removed to repair the
pump, thus permitting water to stand on the oil sand. If such a condition was not corrected, it would be reflected
by an increase in oil production in surrounding wells…” While not recorded, this procedure may have been
generally recognized and occasionally used in early operations. It is stated that “…accidental and perhaps
intentional water flooding of the oil producing zone occurred in the Pithole City area in Pennsylvania in 1865”.

The extent to which this either accidental or deliberate dump type flooding occurred in the Eastern Fields in
unknown. However, sizeable increases in production were reported for the Third Bradford sand in the 1905-06
periods, and a later study reported that flooding had started in the Bradford Field in 1900. While secondary
recovery by deliberate flooding is presumed to have started in 1900, there is no technical information suggesting it
was other than a continuation of the improvising procedures that had been employed with earlier water problems.
As small operators depleted their wells, dump type water floods would be started to maintain production.

During the 30’s, the research departments of major producers were expanding. While reservoir studies were still
of minor concern, the fluid flow parameters and the PVT relationships of the reservoir fluids were under
investigation. These preliminary studies established that efficient water flooding required control of well spacing
and pattern, water volumes, injection rates, and knowledge of reservoir rock fluid flow characteristics. A
bibliography of major technical activities of today’s large producing companies lists a number of engineered water
injection projects initiated in the 30’s. Since these beginnings in the 30’s, petrophysics, “the study of the physical
properties of rocks and their relationship to the contained fluids”, has been a continuously expanding science.

While undoubtedly emulsions were always present in production, there is no indication of their being considered a
problem in early production. With the high gravity, paraffin base oils, most of the emulsions probably broke in
storage and the balance was disposed of with the produced water into streams and ditches. While recognized as
an impurity, it was not identified as an oil water emulsion until after 1900. However, up until 1920, this emulsion
was just cons idered another phase of the water disposal nuisance type problem. When disposing of the sludge
with the runoff water was no longer feasible, segregating of the sludge in burning pits became the acceptable
method of disposal.

Even after it was recognized that the “cut oil” was an emulsion, breaking of the emulsion to recover the oil was not
considered until the volumes produced became quite large. Early tests on emulsions established that heat would
break most of an emulsion. This was still in the period of improvisation and a wide variety of designs were used.
One reported “poor boy” system was to direct the flow line over a ditch containing burning oil. During the 20’s and
30’s, equipment manufacturers designed and patented a variety of vessels using both heat and internal
configurations of baffling systems to assist oil and water separation. It was also during this period that the testing
of emulsion breaking chemicals began. Heating, while often still desirable, is now of secondary importance to the
breaker chemicals in the de-emulsifying treatments.

Undoubtedly, water deposited scales have occurred in production operations since the beginnings of the industry.
However, there are no technical references to their presence constituting a problem. Probably, as was the case
with emulsions, with only low water production the amount formed was small and considered a nuisance rather
than a problem. There is a reference in the late 20’s when acidizing was being promoted for well stimulation, that
acid would also clean scales from equipment. In the early 40’s, when many major floods were beginning, there is
a reference to the injection of polyphosphates into wells for scale prevention. Since the 40’s scale control has
been a major subject of investigation.
2
As with scale depositing chemicals, potentially damaging bacteria have undoubtedly been present in produced
and injection waters since the beginning of the industry. However, bacteria as a potential problem was not
recognized until the 50’s. Then two significant problem areas were recognized, both of which could be serious.
Many waters carried what are classified as slime forming bacteria. Under a wide variety of ambient water
conditions, these bacteria can multiply rapidly and in water injection or disposal wells, constitute a serious
plugging problem. Another bacteria specie classified as sulfate reducers will, in the right environment, attach to
ferrous metals initiating corrosion and with susceptible steels, hydrogen embrittlement. While much progress has
been made in bacteria control in oil field waters, it is still an area of extensive research.

Solution water was probably not recognized until research studies were conducted on representative reservoir
samples of oil and gas. Since forming, the oil and gas segregating into the reservoirs had been in intimate contact
with the formation waters. The water, oil and gas have a mutual solubility with the amounts entering solution
being a function of pressure and temperature. While the amount of water per unit volume of the oil or gas is small,
it will continue to evolve until the oil and/or gas has dehydrated to a dew point temperature below the lowest
temperature that the oil and/or gas will encounter in processing.

The solution water has been a major problem in pipeline operations. Normally pipelines are buried below the
freezing depth of the terrain. Until the oil or gas has been dehydrated to or below freezing temperature, water
evolves in pipelining of the oil or gas. Unless the velocity is high enough to maintain the water entrained in the oil
or gas, it will segregate along the bottom of the pipe. If the water is corrosive, this can result in serious metal loss
and premature failures in a system. While beyond the scope of this presentation, there are a number of problems
in wells caused by the evolution of water in the well bore that can cause premature well equipment failures. When
the possibility of solution water problems are recognized, they are readily controlled. Due to its importance in
production operations, corrosion is generally considered as an independent problem area. In this presentation the
corrosion in water handling is not discussed.

As noted in the first 50 years of the industry, most operations were controlled by individuals and small companies.
There were no media for dissemination of solutions to similar problems. It was a period of trial and error solutions
and improvisation throughout the entire industry. Historical information on this period is largely from recollections
of “old timers”. By 1920 large companies were beginning to form, the API had been established and several of
the technical societies had formed committees for industry-wide sharing of information. However, major efforts by
technical personnel in the 20’s and 30’s emphasized the development of drilling and production methods and
standardizing of equipment. During this period, the problems associated with water were generally accepted as
inherent in production, to be handled in the most cost effective methods. In-depth studies first began in field
operations when large volumes of emulsion were produced and in research when reservoir-engineering studies
established that a technical knowledge of the behavior of water in reservoirs was a prerequisite for understanding
reservoirs. Also, in the 30’s with the increasing emphasis on flooding and the use of disposal wells, water quality
requirements were developed with regard to formation plugging type contaminants.

In this chapter only the developments in the industry having a direct bearing on the factors directly associated with
water in the history of production have been considered. While factual data on the first 50 years are limited, the
History of Petroleum Engineering sponsored and published by the American Petroleum Institute is an excellent
reference for the first 100 years of the domestic industry.

3
CHAPTER II
TYPES OF RESERVOIR WATERS

GENERAL

Water covers approximately seventy-five (75%) percent of the earth’s surface and is a mandatory requirement for
life on the planet. Invariably, the basic molecule – H2O will constitute at least 98% of water in its liquid state.
However, generally, until the source of water is known, its suitability for specific applications is uncertain. This
reflects that even though the water molecule – H2O will generally constitute most of the volume, the minute traces
of entrained or solubilized contaminants can significantly control the end use of water.

The technology for the use of water can be traced back to earliest history. With the end uses of water
continuously expanding, research has been continuous. Over the years with the development of technology a
large number of adjectives have been developed to be used with the water to describe the type or end use. From
the standpoint of domestic usage, the terms potable and non-potable as a description of water suitable for
consumption are probably the most widely known adjectives.

The term Reservoir Water as used in the title of this chapter is a broad classification of waters that may be
produced in oil or gas operations. Another classification frequently used as a general description of type is
produced or injection water. These general terms “produced” or “injection” are usually the only adjectives required
in discussions or reports on most field operations. However, when the subject under consideration is concerned
specifically with produced water, detailed information is required. The items of specific interest can be water
source, entrained contaminants, pH, volumes to be handled, and variations in all factors that may be anticipated
during the operation. While the amount of information required will depend on the subject under investigation,
most of the information is usually available from files or can be obtained with routine type test procedures.

Produced water studies can be classified into two categories, specific problems requiring relatively prompt
solution, such as scales, corrosion, formation plugging, ecological factors, etc. Other studies are of the in-depth
type required to project future water operations. With this type study operation equipment, procedures and costs
can be estimated to evaluate the economic viability of a project. These studies are becoming increasingly
important in domestic operations where the profitability of a company’s operations are increasingly contingent on
the successful operations of secondary and tertiary recovery projects.

In the in-depth studies, information is required on the petroleum fluids reservoir, its relationship with the reservoir
aquifer and how conditions will change with depletion of the oil and gas. Generally, water studies are not
undertaken until a number of wells are producing and the type and extent of the reservoir has been defined. The
following is an overview of water types that can be anticipated from various reservoir configurations prior to
application of secondary recovery operations.

A. SOURCES OF WATER IN PETROLEUM RESERVOIRS

The organic matter that eventually becomes the oil and gas is randomly distributed in the sand and shale
sections that are deposited over geologic time in the sedimentary basins.

4
 FIGURE 1
SCHEMATIC OF SEDIMENTARY BASIN

One hypothesis on the formation of oil and gas postulates that a combination of bacterial action, pressure and
temperature causes the conversion. Initially, the minute droplets are distributed through the water phase in
the sand and shale sediments. During this period of complete immersion in the formation water, the oil and
gas are saturated with water for the pressure and temperature of the system. The water will normally remain
in solution with the oil and gas during the many years it remains in the reservoir. When production begins,
there is generally a marked reduction of temperature as oil and gas flow up the tubing and solution water
evolves as free water in the production.

It is conjectured, prior to compaction, the organic matter evolves into the oil and gas. This occurs over
geologic time. The dispersion in the unconsolidated formation is shown in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2
OIL AND GAS FORMATION IN SEDIMENTS

The compaction of the shale beds displaces the oil, gas and water into the deposits with porosity (sands,
vugular or fractured formations) and forms a seal over the system developing a basic requirement for
formation of a reservoir. With the passage of geologic time, due to gravity difference, the oil and gas will
segregate along the interface with the impermeable layer. Distortion of the earth’s sedimentary layers by
faulting, folding, salt dome intrusions, etc, causes the formation of typical reservoir traps. Again with the
geologic time, the gravity differences cause the oil and gas to slowly segregate in the traps collecting a
sufficient volume of hydrocarbons for economic development.

There are many areas of the world in which the necessary distortion of the sedimentary basins have not
occurred to form the reservoirs. Generally the thin bands of oil in these deposits cannot be economically
developed.

5
Idealized representations of the typical reservoirs that form due to compaction and distortion of the
sedimentary beds are shown in Figure 3. The sedimentary beds not occupied by the petroleum will be filled
with formation water.

FIGURE 3
TYPICAL RESERVOIRS

However, the displacement of water from the formation where the reservoirs form is never complete as shown
in Figure 4. The interstices between sand grains, minute cracks in fractured formations, or minute vugs
remain filled with connate water of the composition that flowed into or was present in the basins when the
sediments were deposited. In sandstones the water will usually occupy about 25% of the porosity. With
fractured or vugular formations, the amount is typically much lower, in the ±2% range. Also with all
formations, the surface of the formation rocks will normally be filmed with water.

The oil and water in the reservoir and throughout the sedimentary basin will be pressurized by the forces of
the compaction process. This compression in the reservoir fluids is one of the energy sources moving the
petroleum fluids to the wellbore.

FIGURE 4
IDEALIZED POROSITY

VUGULA SAND

The two types of water in the reservoirs are distinctly different. The composition of the connate or formation
water varies widely with the geographic area. It can be essentially saturated brine in some Gulf Coast fields
to practically a potable grade in some fields in the Rocky Mountains and West Coast. However, all connate
waters contain some dissolved solids. The water dissolved in the gas is always solids free and neutral (pH =
7.0).
6
In primary production operations, most of the water that evolves from the oil or gas will be as a pinpoint
dispersion. Since most reservoir oil contains at least traces of organic emulsifying components, the evolved
water will be mostly in emulsion form. Most gas production does not contain the emulsifying components and
the pinpoint dispersion coalesces into larger droplets.

Figure 5 is an approximation of the solution water in barrels per 1000 barrels of oil production at various
temperatures.

FIGURE 5
WATER IN SOLUTION WITH PETROLEUM

As will be noted, the water in solution with crude oil is quite small, at 150°F. Approximately two barrels per
1000 barrels of crude oil. At an ambient temperature of 60°F, 1.8 barrels of water will have evolved as liquid
water in the crude oil. This will be neutral, solids-free as a pinpoint dispersion. With crude oil containing trace
amounts of organic emulsifying agents the evolved solution water is produced in an emulsion form. In many
fields, during the primary production period, the BS&W is less than the 2% allowable and no emulsion treating
is required. When interstitial or formation water is also produced, some additional emulsion may form. But in
many instances this water will mostly coalesce and separate as free water in production vessels. With most
condensate production, there are only trace amounts of emulsifying agents and the evolved solution water will
generally coalesce and separate in processing equipment.

As noted in the above, from practical considerations, the water that evolves from the oil as a pinpoint liquid
dispersion will be neutral and solids free. However, in-depth micro analyses have established that this water
will contain trace quantities of ions of inorganic chemicals. It is conjectured these ions are from the
contaminants contained in the organic materials that over geologic time formed the petroleum deposits. As
noted later the inorganic metallic ions that are present in this evolved water are the principal cause of the
usually small amounts of tight emulsion present in practically all produced crude oil. Other than this emulsion
these minute impurities do not cause production difficulties.

7
Figure 6 is an approximation of solution water in pounds per MMSCF of gas versus pressure and
temperature.

FIGURE 6
WATER IN SOLUTION WITH GAS

Generally there are three possible distinct periods of water entrainment in the producing life of oil and gas
wells. In newly discovered reservoirs the principal water will be solution water that evolves from the oil or gas
due to change in temperature and pressure between the reservoir and surface conditions. Generally, during
this initial production period, only trace amounts of formation water are stripped from the reservoir rock.
During a second period of water entrainment, as reservoir pressure declines, the drainage area increases and
the formation water is the primary type water entrained. The composition now approaches formation water.
While the amount of water entrained in this period is higher than in the first period, it will still be low and will
not constitute a significant custody transfer problem. The third period occurs with water drive or mobile water
table fields or in water injection type secondary recovery projects. Once water breakthrough develops the
water volume rapidly increases with increasing problems of produced water disposal.

While all waters associated with production can be a problem, it may also be a major source of the energy
required in the production process. The two primary sources of energy in producing petroleum are water and
gas. However, in the final stages of production, gravity drainage may be the controlling energy source.

8
B. PRIMARY OIL PRODUCTION WITH GAS AND WATER DRIVE ENERGY SOURCES

Production of oil and gas is dependent on the pressure drop between the reservoir and wellbore and energy
sources in the reservoir to move oil and gas. There are four potential energy sources for primary production:
the compression of the liquids, gas, gravity, and hydrostatic pressure in the aquifer. Until secondary recovery
processes are initiated, these are the only energy sources available for moving the petroleum fluids to the
wellbore.

Figure 7 is a theoretical representation of production response in reservoirs with gas or water drives. When
these sources of energy are depleted, the wells are usually of stripper classification with gravity slowly moving
oil, gas and water to the wellbore.

FIGURE 7
THEORETICAL OIL PRODUCTION
vs.
PRESSURE DROP

With the dissolved gas drive, as the pressure drops gas evolves from the oil as a minute bubble dispersion.
As pressure decreases, free gas enters the well bore. As indicated, the rate of pressure drop is quite rapid
and gas bubbles in the pores would expand rapidly. Before a significant percentage of the oil in place has
been produced, the gas bubbles will have combined, with the amount of gas produced per unit of oil
production rapidly increasing. It is obvious with the high rate of pressure drop that artificial lift equipment will
have to be installed early in production. Also as indicated by the figure, without a secondary recovery
operation, total production of the oil in place will be only about 20%. In reservoirs that are predominantly
dissolved gas drive, secondary recovery should be instituted early in the production. Since it is desirable to

9
 keep gas in solution, a water injection, pressure maintenance type program will usually be the most effective in
maximizing recovery.

As will be noted in Figure 7, with an effective gas cap drive, the rate of pressure drop initially will be slower.
While gas will still evolve from the oil, bubble growth will be slower and the flush production period longer.
However, after production of approximately 15% of the oil in place the rate of pressure drop is of the same
order of magnitude as in the solution gas drive. Without secondary recovery the percent of oil produced will be
higher. But in most cases, it will be desirable to begin a pressure maintenance secondary recovery process
early in the producing life of the wells.

The advantages of having the reservoir energy furnished by an active water drive are obvious from the curve
in Figure 7. The pressure drop in specific reservoirs will vary widely. This drop is a function of permeability,
distance of a well from the aquifer interface, and size and pressure of the aquifer. There are fields with
vugular porosity and large aquifers with no significant pressure drop regardless of rate of production. High oil
producing rates can often be maintained until water breakthrough occurs. After breakthrough occurs, the
water will continue to entrain oil with the economic limit of a field often dictated by the water disposal
requirements. In some fields the flush period will be short but with high volume pumping equipment, high
producing rates can be continued for extended periods. Figure 8 is a companion curve to Figure 7, an
idealized representation of how GOR’s will vary with the three types of reservoir drives.

FIGURE 8
THEORETICAL PRODUCTION vs. GAS/OIL RATIO

The curves for dissolved gas and gas cap drives are reasonable approximations. However, for a water drive,
while the straight-line representation is correct, the abscissa can vary widely depending on the degree of
under saturation with regard to the gas in the oil. The oil can vary from essentially saturated to isolated
instances where the gas in solution is insignificant.

C. WATER PRODUCTION DURING PRIMARY OIL PRODUCTION

In addition to the formation rock filming and segregation of water at interstices in Section A - SOURCES OF
WATER IN PETROLEUM RESERVOIRS, there is a gradation of the ratio of water to oil down through the
10
petroleum reservoir. This extends from the cap rock sealing formation to the interface of the oil or gas with the
aquifer. Production-wise, these are two distinct zones. The upper zone is designated as either “irreducible
water zone” or “connate water zone”. Production from this zone contains only water in solution with the oil as
approximated in Figure 7. While some of this dissolved water will evolve in the well bore and surface
equipment, the amounts will be low and usually in the form of an emulsion.

The reservoir section from this “irreducible water zone” to the aquifer is described as the “transition zone”.
Through the “transition zone” there is a layer of mobile water over the connate water that will move with the oil
to the well bore. Also, since this mobile layer contacts the aquifer, it will continuously be replenished. When
gas is evolving in the reservoir, the water cut will continuously increase as the reservoir pressure decreases.
With an active “water drive” as oil and transition zone water flow to the well bore, the oil water interface will
continuously advance and eventually enter the well bore. Once water reaches the well bore the water cut
increases rapidly. However, in some instances, wells can remain profitable with water cuts as high as 98%.

Typical water distribution through an oil sand reservoir is illustrated in Figure 9. It is assumed the water
saturation in the “connate water zone” will be in the +23% range, grading as indicated up to 100%. In vugular
or fractured formations the conditions for height and rates of increase vary widely. The minimum usually
assumed as 2-3% in oil reservoirs.

Figure 3 in this chapter illustrated the movement of oil and gas up dip, over geologic time, forming the
petroleum reservoirs. Theoretically, with a long enough geologic period there would be no free water zone,
with only connate water present in the petroleum reservoir. Figure 9 is considered a reasonable
approximation of connate and free water distribution for oil reservoirs.

FIGURE 9
WATER DISTRIBUTION WITH DEPTH

11
 When the type energy drive is known and considered in selecting the producing interval, the period for low
water production can be extended. With the movement of the oil and gas being a function of the difference in
densities of the gas, oil and water, the general shape of the curve for gas would be the same. When wells are
completed high in the producing interval, low water production would be anticipated.

Except for the exploratory drilling period, when the reservoir limits are being defined, development wells will be
completed a reasonable distance above the interface between the aquifer and the oil reservoir. Initially,
whether the well flows or is pumped, there will usually be a short period of high production while a large
pressure drop zone around the wellbore develops. The size of the zone will vary widely depending on
reservoir characteristics. However, the high rate of pressure drop will be only in the immediate vicinity of the
well. This is also the zone of high flow rates with the fluids being in the turbulent regime. Any plugging, either
in producing or injection wells, will seriously affect the efficient operation of a reservoir.

D. OIL WELL COMPLETIONS vs. RESERVOIR DRIVE

Figures 7 and 8 are theoretical representations of reservoir pressure decline and gas/oil ratio variations that
will occur if only the type drive shown persists until the depletion of the energy source. The curves are
reasonable approximations of the early production periods. However, the methods of completion discussed
below will affect the projected intercept of the curve with the oil-produced axis. In gas drive type reservoirs,
any secondary recovery methods that tend to maintain the pressure will keep gas in solution and improve the
total recovery.

When the reservoir stratigraphy permits, gas drive type wells will normally be completed in the transition zone.
With dissolved gas drive reservoirs, secondary type gas caps can develop, tending to maintain reservoir
pressure. This will both decrease the rate of gas evolution in the reservoir and rate of water increase by flow
from the aquifer. For these conditions the intercept of the curve with the “oil produced” axis would be
displaced to the right for a higher total production for a dissolved gas drive.

With a “gas-cap drive”, in addition to the above advantages, completion in the “transition zone” will increase
the producing period before free gas enters the wellbore. This decreases the rate of pressure drop and again
moves the “gas-cap drive” intercept with the oil-produced intercept to the right.

The major problem with completing wells with these gas drives in the transition zone is possible water coning.
If production is too close to the aquifer, water may cone to the well. This will both increase water cut and
markedly reduce oil production. If reduction of producing rate does not eliminate coning, well work-overs are
necessary.

With “water-drive” reservoirs, regardless of stratigraphy, the wells should be completed as high in the reservoir
as consistent with obtaining the desired rate of production. With water drives the objective is to defer for as
long as possible, producing water directly from the aquifer. This may dictate unusual spacing patterns as
illustrated in Figure 10.

12
 FIGURE 10
SPACING PATTERNS

13
 CHAPTER III
VARIETIES OF INJECTION WATER

GENERAL

Water flooding is today the principal recovery process in domestic operations. While total oil from these projects
is not available, it is undoubtedly a major percentage of domestic production. Also, the volume of water injected to
achieve this production greatly exceeds the total of the produced oil.

The ideal injection water, in addition to being available in an adequate volume, would be free of plugging type
solids, neither corrosive or scale forming, entrain no harmful bacteria, and be compatible with all ratios of
produced water. Unfortunately, there are few ideal waters and most will require some processing. Also, in many
locations, there will be only one water source available with an adequate volume. The water sources generally
used in injection projects are as follows:

1. Surface Water: Rivers, lakes, etc.,

2. Shallow Wells: Wells that produce from shallow alluvial aquifers connected to surface waters.
3. Deep Wells: Wells producing from aquifers that were formed and charged during past geologic periods.
4. Sea Water: This is normally the only logical water source in offshore operations.
5. Produced Water: When a field is being selectively flooded, the water collected from most of the producing
area may have an adequate volume.
6. Mixed Water: Where compatible, produced water will generally be combined with injection water and in
later stages of most floods may be the primary water source.

The following discusses each of the water types and factors to be considered in designing the processing
installation.

A. SURFACE WATERS

This is the most variable source of injection water and, with the exception of produced water, the least
desirable. In most instances the pH will be about neutral; all will be saturated with oxygen and highly
corrosive, until the oxygen is removed. The entrained, plugging type solids will vary widely depending on the
drainage area. Factors controlling quality are effluents from industrial plants and population centers, run off
from cultivated land and seasonal variations. Location and turbulence at the water intake can also affect the
quantity of entrained solids. The two naturally occurring organic species of concern are algae and bacteria.
Where surface water is relatively dormant in lakes or pools of streams and sunlight is present, algae can grow.
Should this enter an injection system in any significant volume, it can quickly plug a filter or the producing
formation surface. While most bacteria are not of concern, there is always the possibility that sulfate reducers
will develop.

The one surface water exception to the above is for streams originating in undeveloped areas where the
natural ground cover has not been disturbed. There are a number of flood projects using water from such
sources. Tests on these waters indicate low entrained solids and no algae and pH´s of 7.0 and up. Other
than oxygen removal, no further processing is required.

Where typical surface water is to be injected and it is practical, a pilot flood project is desirable. The test
program on the pilot should be extensive and specifically directed to determine processing plant requirements.

14
 Where a pilot flood is not practical, tests should be conducted to obtain as much data as feasible. These tests
could include:

1. Seasonal Variations of Dissolved Solids

2. Seasonal Oxygen Entrainment
3. Seasonal Millipore Filter Tests
4. Corrosivity of Water
5. Scaling Index Tests
6. Sensitivity to Clay Swelling, if pertinent
7. Testing and Selection of Chemicals, if pertinent.

B. SHALLOW WELLS

In some areas, there are shallow, high permeability, alluvial strata contacting a river or major water source.
These alluvial deposits will generally supply high quality water. The beds are mostly sand and gravel so that
the water entering the supply wells is essentially filtered. Also, most beds contain organic matter and for a
long producing period the water entering the wells will usually be oxygen free. Eventually, traces of oxygen
may enter the wells. Frequently, when oxygen develops, moving the supply well to a new location is the
preferred solution. Also, where large volumes of water are required, drilling a number of wells is desirable.
This will minimize the possibility of developing channels through the alluvial bed to the water source.

Generally the water quality from these wells is quite consistent, so testing for seasonal variation is not
required. While a pilot flood is often desirable for reservoir considerations, it would be of only minor
significance for water quality considerations. If a pilot flood were installed, one or two of the same test
sequences listed in the previous A. SURFACE WATERS would be suggested. If a pilot flood is installed, after
operation of the water wells has stabilized, the following tests are suggested. Each test should be conducted
a number of times to verify the values.

1. Millipore Filter Tests

2. Water Analysis
3. Oxygen Entrainment
4. Sulfate Reducer Entrainment

C. DEEP WELLS

Where deep wells are required for a water source, the normal procedure will be to drill to the shallowest
aquifer that can supply the required volume. However, in some areas, low solids water is required for
irrigation, cattle or domestic use and can no longer be used as a source of injection water. In these instances,
the deeper aquifers available may be highly saline and often acidic.

However, when the relatively neutral aquifers can be used generally high quality water is produced. The water
will be oxygen free and neither corrosion nor scaling will be a problem. The entrained solids will generally be
quite low and consist of high-density sediment fines. Most of these will settle out in a supply tank and rarely
constitute a significant plugging problem. Initially, sulfate reducers would not be expected. As long as the
injection system is maintained closed (no air entrainment) little processing of this water is required. However,
an initial test program is always desirable to assure high quality is present. This initial test data will also serve
for comparison when produced water is combined with injection water. The same program suggested for
evaluating shallow wells in the above mentioned B. SHALLOW WELLS could be used for the tests.

15
 When high salinity aquifers are the source of injection water a thorough test program is desirable. Where
practical, a closed pilot flood installation is also desirable. In testing, the following program is desirable.

1. Millipore Filter Tests

2. Presence of CO 2 and/or H2S
3. Scaling with Various Ratios of Produced Water
4. Water Analysis
5. Corrosivity of Water
6. Testing and Selection of Treating Chemicals

NOTE:
Since the reservoir water will be oxygen free, testing is not required. However, periodic tests in a closed
system are desirable to assure no air entrainment develops.

The test program would also be suggested with a pilot flood operation.

D. SEAWATER

In the 50’s water injection at offshore locations began in the Gulf of Mexico. In these operations, seawater
was the only logical source of injection water. Initially, many problems were encountered. However, field
experience and testing has resolved most of the uncertainties and today installations are routine.

With regard to shallow seawater sources, quality from injectivity considerations are similar to the above A.
SURFACE WATER, with regard to variations that may be encountered. However, at deep water locations not
affected by the flow from large rivers, with water inlets below the effects of swell wave action and minimum of
10 feet off bottom, the quality of the water is generally excellent. The depth of effective swell wave action is
assumed to be one-half the span of the average wave. While wind waves may be larger, the depth of effect is
less. The following data are from various depths at a deep water offshore platform in the Gulf of Mexico for
typical sea conditions.

SUSPENDED SOLIDS IN SEAWATER

IN GULF OF MEXICO
(0.45µ Filter)
SOLIDS-PPM

DEPTH INORGANIC ORGANIC TOTAL

FEET SOLIDS SOLIDS SOLIDS

10 1.0 2.0 3.1

20 1.0 1.3 2.3
30 0.6 1.4 2.0
40 0.3 1.0 1.3
50 0.2 1.1 1.3
60 0.0 1.2 1.1
70 0.2 0.7 0.5
80 0.2 0.7 0.9

16
 NOTE:
Lack of Totals agreement reflects limitations of analysis procedure.

In the above test program, the water at all depths was indicated at pH – 8.25, saturation indices were all
negative indicating no scaling and the oxygen content decreased with depth from 6 ppm at 10 feet to 0.5 at 80
feet.

The oxygen content of this water is unusually low, reflecting a large plankton growth in the surface waters that
consume the oxygen. This would undoubtedly vary widely with location and season. Monitoring for oxygen
would be desirable coupled with an oxygen scavenging program. While bacteria problems are unusual, there
have been instances of sulfate reducers being present, and monitoring is desirable. The objective in handling
water of this high quality is to move the water from the riser inlet to the injection wells as rapidly as possible.

With sea depths of 30 feet or less, the water quality can vary widely. If the bottom is sand, rock, etc. without
significant plankton or seaweed growth, the entrained solids will approximate the totals shown in the above
table. However, with a semi-solid silt buildup, the entrained solids in the water can be much higher. Oxygen
and bacteria counts will be higher and again, vary widely with location and season.

The following is a listing of the type information desirable on water from shallow sources and, as indicated,
these tests should be obtained periodically until the seasonal variations can be approximated.

1. Seasonal Variations of Entrained Solids

2. Seasonal Oxygen Entrainment
3. Seasonal Sulfate Reducer Entrainment
4. Seasonal Millipore Membrane Thru-Puts
5. Evaluation of Chemical Treating Requirements

E. PRODUCED WATER

From quality considerations, produced water is the least desirable and will require maximum processing to
condition for injection. Frequently, it is delivered from satellite production processing centers. The quality of
the water from these centers can vary widely with regard both to entrained oil and solids. Frequently, the
delivery from the centers is intermittent, causing wide variations in the water entering the injection water
processing plant. Where the production contains CO2 and/or H2S the water will be corrosive. While in most
operations the production centers will be operated closed, there are many locations in these systems where air
can enter the water so that oxygen control type treatments are generally required. Frequently harmful bacteria
strains are also present which require treatment. From technical considerations, the best method for
determining the water processing requirements is a pilot flood project.

Considering the wide variations in produced waters, an in-depth program is desirable either with or without a
pilot flood installation. The program can be time consuming and require scheduling incompatible with routine
field operations. These programs can best be designed and undertaken by the Technical Service staffs of the
producer or a Service Company.

F. MIXED WATERS

Where injection and produced water are compatible, frequently the produced water will be mixed with the
injection water. When production is from gas drive reservoirs, the amount of produced water is normally small
compared with the volume of injection water. When field separation is efficient and before injection water
17
breakthrough, the mixing of small volumes of produced water into the injection water will not generally cause
problems.

However, as soon as injection water breakthrough develops, the water cut in the producing wells will markedly
increase. This water will also entrain oil, basic sediment, and if H2S and/or CO2 are present in the reservoir,
will be corrosive. The combined injection water now can have all the problems previously discussed in E.
PRODUCED WATER and the same type of in-depth study will be required.

18
CHAPTER IV
EVALUATION OF INJECTION WATERS

GENERAL

As noted previously, the ideal injection water would be essentially neutral (pH 6.5-7.5), low in dissolved solids, low
in plugging contaminants, non-corrosive, and oxygen free. Unfortunately, few such natural waters exist and the
testing of proposed injection waters is essential to determine the extent of processing required for an efficient, cost
effective system.

The initial test program will generally be dictated by the size of the operation. In water disposal wells or small
floods of anticipated limited duration, only superficial testing may be justified to determine desirable processing.
However, in the flooding of major reservoirs, in-depth testing is desirable. In large projects a pilot flood can
develop the information required for both the original injection water and required plant additions when the
recycling of produced water is required. This presentation assumes the actual test program will be by technical
personnel skilled in the testing and analysis procedures.

Generally, the manager or engineers with overall control of the project have major responsibilities with regard to
the evaluation of tests. Smaller projects may involve the use of several local testing laboratories. In these
instances, the type, number and location of tests may have to be designated. Also, in smaller projects, the
operating personnel will probably be responsible for interpretation and significance of the reported data. These
large, in-depth studies by technical service personnel often result in a report type evaluation on the project,
possibly including design details on processing. Such reports require careful review from two considerations.
First, have all potential problem areas subject to testing been evaluated? Second, if the report includes
specifications for quality control factors, are they realistic? The objective with any water injection program is a
cost effective, trouble free installation. This requires an objective estimate of water quality requirements,
processing procedures to achieve this quality, and the materials and chemical additives to assure achieving
trouble free operating conditions. Water quality requirements from injectivity consideration will determine the
required processing. However, materials and chemicals will generally control operating factors other than
injectivity and should be given careful consideration in plant design and operation.

The following is an overview of the various factors that can be evaluated in testing of injection water and the
extent to which control may be desirable in typical injection projects.

A. WATER QUALITY vs. INJECTIVITY

The term water quality in this presentation and in the industry in general refers to data obtained by the
procedure in NACE Standard TM-01-73, “Methods for Determining Water Quality for Subsurface Injection
Using Membrane Filters”. Specific to the test procedure is the use of a membrane filter with a mean pore size
of 0.45 microns with a diameter of 47mm. Test pressure is specified as 20 psig at the membrane. The testing
procedure should be followed precisely in all tests to assure comparison between tests or to assure tests in
traversing a system will be meaningful.

While the data from membrane filter tests can be used to compare the relative quality of injection waters, this
cannot be related to the well injectivity. The reason for this is obvious. The data relates only to the flow rate
and retained solids for a 0.45-micron pore size filter. In all injection projects there are both large variations in
porosity and permeability across the producing formation and between wells.

19
 In most instances, the average porosity across a producing formation would be significantly larger than the
0.45 microns and often be markedly different between wells. Generally, it is assumed that if a reasonable
volume of water (+ 1 liter) can be passed through the membrane filter with less than a 30% reduction in flow
rate, the reduction in injectivity in typical wells will be at a reasonably low rate.

However, while this membrane data cannot be directly related to a specific well or field injectivity, periodic
tests are an excellent monitoring procedure. Comparison of flow rates and amounts of filterable solids
retained on the membrane can assure the injectivity quality of water is being maintained. Further, the
qualitative and quantitative analysis of the filterable solids can serve as basis for treating to maintain injectivity
and other well problems.

The following is a case history of the use of the NACE membrane filter procedure for monitoring an injection
water supply system for flood projects in the Mid Continent area.

B. CASE HISTORY – INJECTION WATER SYSTEM

The water was supplied from sand points driven 30 feet to the alluvial sands along the Arkansas River.
Delivery was to a buried sump supplying a surface driven centrifugal pump then to a 26-inch transmission line
10 miles long. Normal operating pressure was 100 psi and the line was periodically pigged. The system
operated as a common carrier. Delivery was to a number of flood projects through various sized laterals.

The water quality was periodically monitored using a program similar to the NACE Standard TM-01-73
procedure. Tests were conducted at the water source and various laterals to the projects. The following
Figure and Table are data from four locations in a test sequence. It will be noted in comparing the Flow Rates
and Filtered Solids that the total of solids cannot be related to flow rate. Experience has indicated the size
distribution of the inorganic solids and cementation effect of the organic component will control its plugging
rate.

FIGURE 1

20
 MEMBRANE FILTER FLOW RATES
A. – Source Wells
B., C., & D. – Project Laterals

TABLE 1
FILTERED SOLIDS - ppm

Source Supply Laterals

A B C D
Fe2O3 0.1 0.7 0.05 0.3
CaCO3 0.6 0.6 0.20 0.5
Sand 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3
Organic 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.3
Total 1.5 1.8 0.55 1.4

1. Membrane Filter Flow Rates

Comparison of A with B & C indicates no significant deterioration of water quality through these sections of
the system. The marked reduction of flow rate at lateral D reflects a markedly reduced flow rate through
the lateral at the time of sampling resulting in a nonrepresentative sample.

2. Filtered Solids
Totals at all locations are quite low and water is suitable for injection without further processing.

3. Comments On Injection Programs

During the period only minor amounts of produced waters were combined with this source water, no further
processing for water quality improvement was required. Several programs attempting to further improve
quality with conventional filtering systems were ineffective and discontinued.

After flood water breakthrough occurred and larger volumes of produced water were combined with the source
water, well injectivity problems increased. Also flow rates through the injection water system decreased and a
bacterial control program with chlorine injection was begun. As long as the system was maintained oxygen
free, there was no significant corrosion in sections of the system that were periodically pigged. Significant
isolated pitting did develop in unpigged, dormant and low flow sections of the system.

C. COMMENTS ON MEMBRANE FILTER PLUGGING COMPONENTS

Depending on the water source, the plugging materials collected on the membrane filter will vary widely,
particularly with surface waters, produced waters or combinations of produced with the various injection water
sources. Comments on these waters without specific test data would be meaningless. However shallow,
alluvial aquifers, deep wells, and seawater sources will generally supply high quality water from membrane
filter considerations. The following lists the typical range of solids in these waters and comments on the types
of materials.

21
 TABLE 2
TYPICAL RANGE OF MEMBRANE FILTER DEPOSITS

Total Acid Acid

Water Source Deposits Soluble Insoluble Organic
Wells
(Dolometic) 3-6 ppm + 90% + 10% ?
Wells (Sand) 5-10 ppm + 25% + 45% + 30%
Sea Water (+30’) 1-5 ppm trace + 40% + 60%

From the standpoint of filter deposits, all these waters would be considered excellent and the extent to which
further processing is required for removal of entrained filterable contaminants requires careful consideration.
As noted, membrane filter data cannot be directly related to well injectivity, however, the higher quality as
reflected by the data implies a slow rate of well bore plugging. This suggests that the capital costs of quality
improvement equipment and its operating expense should be compared to the cost of occasional well service
work to maintain injectivity. The cost and inconvenience of maintaining injectivity by occasional well service
operations can be the preferred method. The evaluation of injectivity requirements is further discussed in the
next heading.

D. EVALUATING WATER QUALITY FOR INJECTIVITY REQUIREMENTS

In considering the potential injectivity of wells or a reservoir, the average permeability is usually used as a
basis of judgment. The normal designations for permeability are low, medium or high. The numerical values
in millidarcies placed on these three designations vary widely, largely based on the variations in the reservoirs
in a specific producing area. It is also frequently overlooked that the average value for a reservoir can be
misleading, as can be the average value for individual wells. In reservoirs of any significant thickness, there
can be large variations of permeability vertically across the producing area. Also, the average permeability of
individual wells can vary widely. However, without pilot flood installations, the average field permeability is the
only information available and water quality requirements will usually be based on this information.

Historically, in domestic operations most water injection projects have been in sand reservoirs. The following
are suggested as reasonable millidarcy numerical values that could be used for the three designations:

1. Low Permeability – Below 10 millidarcies

2. Medium Permeability – 10-75 millidarcies

3. High Permeability – Above 75 millidarcies

The following discussion is based on these designations and reviews the four water sources discussed in B
where total solids are within the range listed and flow rates through the membrane filter remain relatively high.

1. Shallow Wells from Alluvial Deposits (In Table 1)

Field experience indicates that where water of the quality noted in B can be delivered to the injection
stations, this water is suitable for injection without further processing. In most installations the water
passes through a low velocity supply tank where, if suitably baffled, considerable amounts of the acid

22
 solubles and insolubles will separate by gravity, further improving the quality. Generally, the systems have
been closed.

The item of ongoing concern in the listed contaminants is the organic. This component is generally algae
or bacteria. Should ambient conditions between source wells and injection station cause growth, these
can cause serious injectivity plugging. In a number of projects the injection systems were treated with
biocides at the source and the waters were transmitted and injected without further problems.

2. Deep Wells From Dolometic Formations (In Table 2)

This sour water is from a major source in Permian Basin Flood operations. The principal contaminant is
FeS and where transported over long distances in non-lined steel piping, the amount can increase
significantly. However, the FeS is readily separated by gravity segregation, which normally occurs in
tankage at injection plants. In most operations in closed systems, after settling at injection plants this
water can be injected without further water quality processing for all permeabilities.

3. Deep Wells – Sand Formations (Table 2)

If this water were first processed through settling tanks, the typical contaminant level noted would be
markedly reduced. Further, the organic component is probably petroleum that will also segregate and
could be removed in the settling procedure. The improvement by this gravity segregation procedure
should first be investigated before a decision is made on whether further processing should be considered.

4. Sea Water – Gulf of Mexico (Table 2)

Tests on sea water from a number of locations indicates that if water is below the zone of normal swell
wave effect and sufficiently above the ocean floor so sediments are not disturbed, a high quality of water
will be obtained from injectivity considerations. Space and loading considerations on most platforms
dictate that water be injected with a minimum of handling. Except for a few instances of very low
permeabilities, water quality within the limits in the example can be injected without further processing from
injection quality considerations.

E. EVALUATING OTHER SOURCE WATER FACTORS

Injectivity of source waters is generally the item of major importance in initial testing programs. However, the
other testing suggested in Chapter III furnishes data that can be of importance in the planning and operation of
injection systems. The following further reviews the range of factors usually encountered and the significance
of the numerical data.

1. Corrosivity of Source Waters

Generally, most injection water delivery systems are low pressure. Design considerations will generally
dictate the use of corrosion resistant linings or materials through these systems, up to and including the
injection pumps. On this basis, the following is directed specifically to consideration of the corrosivity
downstream of the high-pressure injection pumps.

a. Water From Alluvial Deposits

Water from these deposits will generally be oxygen free and in a range of pH 6.5 – 7.5. If the system
can be maintained oxygen free to the injection wells, even with a pH of 6.5 it would be considered only
mildly corrosive. Only minor air entrainment would be anticipated and oxygen could be controlled by
scavenging chemicals. Monitoring for corrosion downstream of injection pumps is desirable, with
further control based on results.
23
 b. Water From Deep Wells
As with the water from alluvial deposits, water from deep wells will, with typical completions, be oxygen
free. Generally the water will be high in dissolved solids and frequently have traces of either CO2 or
H2S and pH’s probably lower than 6.5. The water will be classified as corrosive and should oxygen
enter the system, the corrosivity will markedly increase. When practical, the injection well equipment
should be internally coated. Corrosion in the injection system should be monitored and when metal
loss is serious or pitting occurs, the corrosion should be controlled.

c. Sea Water
Sea water is generally ±7.5 pH and when the oxygen is removed is noncorrosive. It will always contain
oxygen, the amount determined by water depth and the extent to which the oxygen has been
consumed by biological type organic components in the upper levels of the sea. Also, as previously
noted, the objective at offshore locations is to process the water as rapidly as possible and inject.
Large volumes of water and high oxygen content will generally dictate removal of most of the oxygen
with vacuum or gas refluxing towers. Generally, there will still be traces of oxygen present at a level
that can be cost effectively removed with scavengers.

d. Surface Waters
Surface waters will generally be similar to sea water with regard to pHs and also saturated with oxygen
for ambient conditions. If the injection side of a project is unprotected steel, oxygen should be
removed. Usually, the vacuum or refluxing tower systems followed by scavenging for traces of oxygen
will be the most cost effective.

e. Produced And Mixed Waters

Generalities for these waters are not possible. Corrosion can vary widely both with regard to acidic
gases content and oxygen entrainment in the produced water. Also, generally the relative amounts of
produced and source water will change with time as the level of breakthrough of injection water
increases. Continuous monitoring is required for corrosion control decisions.

2. Scaling Of Injection Waters

While scaling of source waters is unusual, it has occasionally occurred and testing for scaling tendency
should be a routine item in the testing program. The possibility of scaling increases with the mixing of
produced and source waters. Theoretical evaluations by combining various ratios of the waters based on
analyses can be used to determine the likelihood of scaling. However, if this analysis suggests that
scaling may occur, a laboratory evaluation of water mixtures is desirable. Of particular significance is a
condition when scaling develops at low concentrations of injection water versus produced water. This
condition can result in a serious skin damage problem in producing wells during the period of injection
water breakthrough. Should this result in a gyp scale deposit, control and/or removal will be difficult.
Where this may occur, procedures for preventing the condition should be studied.

3. Sulfate Reducing Bacteria

All waters that will be used in an injection project should be tested for sulfate reducing bacteria. While
growth will not occur in aerated waters bacteria can be present. Growth can occur in aerated systems
where the bacteria are present under deposits that can establish an anaerobic (no oxygen) environment.
In oxygen free (closed systems) serious sulfate reducer infestations are most likely to occur where:

a. There are dormant pools

b. The flow is laminar (velocity > 3-1/2 fps)
24
 c. There are sludge buildups
d. The temperature is in the 90° - 125°F range

Where there are any areas where a serious infestation could develop, a bacteria control program should
be developed.

4. Clay Swelling
With fresh water injection into formations containing clay, swelling can occur depending on the type of clay
particle. When this occurs, permeability and injectivity can be markedly decreased. If this is considered a
possibility, tests should be conducted on core samples or formation cuttings to determine the type of clay
present and the possibility of swelling.

F. INJECTION PRESSURE

One item on which there is lack of agreement is the desirability of specifying a maximum allowable injection
pressure. All injection wells will gradually plug with injection rate gradually decreasing and pressure
increasing. If maximum allowable pressure is not limited, eventually formation breakdown (frac pressure) will
be exceeded. When this occurs, a clean injection face is exposed, the pressure drops and injection rate
increases. This new surface will gradually plug and pressure will again increase until a new fracture forms or
the original frac is further extended.

A review of data from a number of mid continent floods in operations where injection pressures are limited, the
maximum will be maintained below formation breakdown pressure. When this pressure is reached, due to
formation plugging, injection is stopped. The wells are then worked on to restore injectivity. Typical
treatments are with acids, surfactants or combinations of the two. Also, where the reservoir has an adequate
pressure, back flowing of a well will usually remove sufficient plugging layer to restore injectivity.

The advantages cited for maintaining pressure below formation breakdown are as follows:

1. By maintaining the desired flood front, optimum recovery is assured.

2. The possible problems listed for breaking down of the formation are avoided.
3. With a high quality injection water, the remedial work for restoring injectivity will not be a major problem
either time or expense-wise.

The disadvantages cited for the procedure are following:

1. To assure long injectivity periods before well treatments, a high quality injection water is required.
2. Production rates will be lower extending the life of the flood.
3. The higher water quality desired and well treatments increase operating expense of the project.

The advantages cited for permitting injection pressures above frac pressure are as follows:

1. Allowing formation to frac increases production rate from flood.

2. A higher rate of plugging type solids can be tolerated in injection waters.
3. If the fracture is oriented toward another injection well, the flood pattern is improved.

25
The disadvantages cited for the procedure are as follows:

1. The fractures are usually vertical and if oriented toward a producing well, the flood front modification can
markedly reduce the total recovery in a project.

2. The fracture may extend through impermeable formation barriers sealing the reservoir. This can cause
leak off of petroleum fluids, contamination of fresh water sands, or modification of the flood front.

Both of the injection procedures are in use with operators satisfied with the results. Both procedures are
considered acceptable pending research establishing that injection pressure should be maintained below
formation breakdown pressure.

26
CHAPTER V
PROCESSING OF INJECTION WATERS

GENERAL

In most installations, the primary objective in processing is to improve the injectivity of the water. The principal
exceptions to this will be with sea and surface waters where the main concern will be the removal of oxygen.
Unfortunately, there are no industry standards for water quality, either with regard to membrane filter flow rate or
amount of entrained plugging contaminants. One factor having a direct bearing on required quality is injection
pressure control as discussed in Chapter IV, (F) INJECTION PRESSURE. When this pressure is not limited so
that formation breakdown can occasionally occur, a lower quality of water can be injected successfully.

In most areas the same or similar water sources are used in many operations. Also, the field procedures for
processing of waters are similar. The years of experience in injecting these waters generally controls the
processing decision. For land domestic operations where formations are considered to have medium or higher
permeabilities, a gravity segregation operation is generally the first stage of quality improvement. As a “rule of
thumb” a properly engineered and sized system can be expected to remove ±80% of the plugging contaminants.
If further clarification is required, the next processing sequence will be full flow filters. The type used will be
determined by the water quality desired at the injection wells. Occasionally, where very high quality is required,
cartridge filters will also be installed on individual injection lines. As noted previously, in offshore injection
projects, with high quality seawater, other than removal of oxygen, no further processing is usually required.
However, when produced water is to be disposed of into the sea, processing to meet maximum allowable
contaminant specifications can be a problem. Space and platform loading limitations generally preclude an
optimum gravity separating process. This dictates the use of special oil/water separating equipment and the use
of chemicals. Processing of produced water for sea disposal will be further discussed in Chapter VI, OFFSHORE
DISPOSAL OF PRODUCED WATER.

In the balance of this chapter, several equipment arrangements and items that have been widely used are
reviewed. As noted above in onshore operations, where required, the second processing operation will be full
flow filters. A variety of designs of these filters are marketed and a general discussion of frequently used types is
included.

A. GRAVITY SEPARATION OF PRODUCED WATER CONTAMINANTS

In the majority of water flood projects where injection and produced waters are compatible, they will be mixed
for injection. Generally, the produced water will be from separators, gun barrels or free water knockouts. With
properly sized equipment, in good operating condition, these water sources from oil production will carry
contaminants in the 50 - 100 ppm range. With gas production the typical range of contaminants will be in the
25 - 50 ppm range. A widely followed procedure is to first pass this produced water through a gravity settling
vessel before combining it with the source water in the injection pump supply tankage.

Field experience has established that with properly designed baffling in the settling vessel and a minimum,
relatively dormant storage period of 4 hours, + 80% of the plugging type contaminants entrained in the water
may be segregated and easily removed. With the range of contaminants noted above, those in oil production
would be reduced to the 10 to 30 ppm range and with gas production to the 5 to 10 ppm range. Field
experience also suggests that with all produced water there will be 5-15 ppm of dispersed contaminants that,
due to minute size and density close to that of water, cannot be effectively separated by gravity segregation.

27
As will be noted from the Table, the delivery from the satellite producing units does not total the various
contaminants entering the coalescer. This reflects that there were a number of field units delivering to the
coalescer and that tests were sequential. The variations are typical of those expected in this type operation. It
will be also observed that filtering was not required in this installation. Where a full flow filter is required, the
unit would be installed at location A. Where cartridge type filters are required for a final polish, installation will
frequently be at the injection wellhead. The following discusses details of the installation.

1. Coalescer
In the schematic, the first processing vessel is a coalescer that would be considered an optional piece of
equipment. The primary function of a coalescer is to entrap and remove any large slugs or batches of oil
that might be transmitted in case of separating equipment malfunction. Generally this could occur only
when the produced water is delivered directly to the transmittal line from a separator, heater treater or free
water knockout. In most operations produced water will be tanked at the production facility and batched to
the processing center. In this type operation, the tank at the production unit would collect any large
volumes of oil due to facility malfunction and the coalescer would not be required.

2 Settling Tank
The settling tank would be similar in construction details to the settling tank in the schematic of Figure 1.
The tank should be sized for a minimum of 4 hours retention for the maximum of produced water
anticipated. As noted +78% removal of contaminants is being achieved with this settling tank.

3. Working Tank
As indicated on the schematic the produced and source water would be mixed in the working tank. The
internal arrangement would be similar to that indicated for the working tank in the schematic of Figure 1.
Sizing of this tank would be based on injection pump delivery specifications. Generally the sizing will be
based on volume between the working levels and selected to assure as continuous an operation as
practical.

4. Total Flow Filters

Filters are also considered optional equipment and would be located as indicated by (A) of Figure 2.
Filters are available from a number of manufacturers in a variety of sizes and designs. Generally type and
sizing will be by the manufacturer based on the operator’s specification as to the water contaminants and
the degree of clarification desired. The following are generalities of the commonly applied types and
comments on their application. Of major importance with all of these filters is servicing. If the type is
suitable to the application and adequately serviced, water clarification should approximate the
manufacturer’s specifications.

a. Standard Graded Bed Filters

These were the only type of filter originally used in injection projects. Generally they are downflow
design with successive layers of finer to coarser material through the filter bed. Manufacturers’
specifications as to type, size gradations and bed thickness should be closely followed in placement
and replacement.

As the filter operates, the upper fine layer, usually sand, gradually plugs with the pressure drop across
the filter bed dictating the period between backwashing for plugging solids removal. Typical pressure
for backwash is ±3.4 psi. Backwash rates should be to filter specifications with period determined by
experience with pressure drop decrease. Usually 10-15 gallons per minute per square foot for 5 to 10
minutes is specified. Coagulants (filter aids) will improve solids removal but increase filter plugging
29
 rate and decrease operating period. Organic type contaminants and particularly oil will usually cause
frequent filter plugging and may cause channeling through the filter bed. When this condition occurs,
the problem is difficult to detect and the filter is ineffective. Periodic testing of water quality across a
filter is desirable to assure good operation.

b. Deep Bed Upflow Filter

With this design, the gradation from fine through coarser media from top to bottom is the same as in
the standard filters. However, each media gradation is contained within a perforated steel grid. The
flow is upward at 6 to 8 gallons per square foot per minute or approximately three times the rate in the
standard graded bed filters. At this flow rate, the media layers are compacted against the grids
markedly improving filter performance with regard to the amount of solid contaminants that will be
retained in the filter. While major plugging is still associated with the upper layer of fine media, all of
the layers effectively filter some of the solids. References state that without filter-aid these filters will
remove contaminants down to the 5-10 micron range and with an effective coagulant down to a 1-
micron diameter.

With the exception that channeling is unlikely, the plugging action is identical with that in the standard
filter, except the plugging cake will be in the underside of the fine media layer. Both organics and
coagulants will increase the rate of plugging.

While backwashing is still a routine operation, it requires more equipment and is a complicated
procedure. The direction of flow is the same as with filtering but first air is flowed at a high rate through
the bed to break the compression and loosen the layers of filter media. With air still flowing, water is
then injected at the rate of 15 – 20 gallons/square foot/minute, usually for about 10 minutes. After a
short period for settling the beds, the filter is returned to operation.

c. Variations of Deep Bed Filters

There are a number of designs of deep bed filter arrangements offered by various manufacturers. The
principal design differences are downflow arrangements or using only one or two grades of filtering
media. Horizontal arrangements have been used. In one design an upflow unit is placed at the top of
a vertical vessel and a downflow unit at the bottom, the flow enters the center of the vessel and is
directed through both units. Higher flow rates are often specified for downflow units.

While each of the designs are claimed to have specific advantages all depend on media compaction
and use of the entire bed for filtration as the basis for improvement of water quality. Theoretically, the
degree of improvement with all units would be expected to be of the same order of magnitude.

In major projects where multiple filtering installations will be made, pilot tests of various filter designs
may be feasible. Where this is not practical, selection should be based on servicing availability and
cost.

d. Cartridge Filters
These units are occasionally installed at wellheads or in well distribution lines. The function is for a
high polish where the formation requires extremely high quality water to assure adequate injection.
These are available in a variety of designs and cartridge types. Typical cartridge materials are pleated
paper, plastics, glass fiber, sintered metals and metal screens. Pore sizes less than 1 micron are
available but for this application 5-micron pores are typical.

30
 These filters have quite limited capacity for contaminant removal so for a reasonable service period the
water quality delivered must be quite high. Where use at the well is considered necessary the filter
units at A are very desirable. If the water contains any significant level of contaminants over 5 ppm,
parallel units with permanent metal cartridges and incorporating a backwash arrangement should be
considered.

C. REMOVAL OF OXYGEN FROM SEA AND ONSHORE SURFACE WATERS

Water from the sea or onshore surface waters will normally be considered oxygen saturated for the
temperature of the water at the system inlet. While the amount of oxygen can vary widely, it would generally
be assumed to be in the 5 to 8 ppm range. In most water flood projects corrosion control requirements would
dictate the removal of oxygen. While chemical scavenging is feasible when only traces of oxygen or small
volumes of water are to be treated, with large volumes, the amount of scavenger required will normally dictate
the use of other methods. Where large volumes of water are to be deaerated either gas or vacuum refluxing
flow type stripping towers are frequently used. The schematic system illustrated in Figure 3 is for a gas type
system. In this system the water is pumped to the tower. Where non-saleable, high pressure gas is available
the water may be gas lifted to the tower. While this procedure requires more gas it is a very effective
deaerating procedure. The equipment arrangement would be essentially the same for a vacuum system
except for tower internals.

FIGURE 3
REMOVAL OF OXYGEN FROM SEA AND ONSHORE SURFACE WATERS

Theoretically, all oxygen can be removed by either gas or vacuum systems. However, complete aeration is
not usually economically feasible and trace levels remain. The usual procedure is to achieve a final polish by
injecting an oxygen scavenger between the tower and the water supply tank. Figure 3 also lists the types of
materials and reference for materials that have been effectively applied in sea water installations.

31
CHAPTER VI
OFFSHORE DISPOSAL OF PRODUCED WATER

GENERAL

During the early development of tidelands and offshore production the general practice was to dispose of
produced and other casual waters associated with production facilities directly into the surface waters. Normally
no attempts where made to further clarify produced waters beyond that effected by typical separation processes.
These waters frequently entrained significant amounts of oil and continuous oil slicks were frequently observed.

From the beginning of environmental concern in the 60’s this casual disposal practice was cited as a production
industry area where corrective action was required. Today there are limiting oil specifications for produced water
disposal in all Federal controlled offshore operations. In some states controlling tidal and offshore waters there
are more stringent requirements than those of the Federal Government. Also with continuing experience and
equipment development of suitable clarification processes and emphasis on the environment, there is the
tendency of governmental agencies to further reduce the level of contaminants allowable in disposal waters.

In the mid 70’s the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the issuing of a New Source Standard
(NSS) to include “Oil in Water Effluent Guidelines”. For these guidelines to be meaningful and acceptable to the
industry a project was proposed titled, “Pollution Control Technology for Offshore Oil Drilling and Production
Platforms, Field Verification, And Evaluation Phase”. This project was finally undertaken by a number of
independent testing organizations. The test program was detailed by technical personnel of producers. The final
report of this program was reviewed and approved by producers before its release.

In the balance of this chapter, highlights of this study are summarized along with a generalized discussion of the
water clarification method found the most effective.

A. SCOPE OF EPA PROGRAM

This study was during the period when most domestic offshore operations were in the Gulf of Mexico and the
investigation was confined to these operations. To select suitable test sites, the Offshore Operators
Committee (OOC) submitted 56 operating sites for consideration. These sites were reviewed by the Industry
Technical Advisory Group (ITAG) and 20 sites selected. The selection was based on two criteria - technical
and convenience. Based on experience, it was decided that only two-stage treating systems would be tested.
The first stage to be a gravity separating vessel, i.e. tank, gun barrel, corrugated plate interceptor, etc. The
second stage, described as “polishing” was based on a previous study that indicated flotation cells were the
best practical procedure. In addition to these primary technical criteria, system complexity, hydraulic loading,
type of production, type of lift, water cut, chemical usage and age were considered in the site selection.

Since each test would cover a ten-day period with service company technical personnel, the convenience
criteria included transportation, living quarters, suitably located test taps and instrumentation, and availability
on site when needed.

B. OVERVIEW OF EPA TEST PROGRAM

One objective of the program was to determine if there were some specific test sequences that would
indicated the susceptibility of produced water to separation of the oil and water by the two stage method. To

32
 evaluate this possibility, fourteen specific tests were included in the program and were performed wherever
feasible. Unfortunately with one exception, in-depth statistical analyses since the program’s completion have
not established any correlating parameters. The exception noted is API Method 734-53, “Determination of
Susceptibility of Oil Separation” contained in API Recommended Practice for Analysis of Oilfield Water, 1968.
This test provides an approximation of the susceptibility of separation of dispersed oil by gravity.

However, this thorough, in depth testing of ten typical offshore produced water disposal systems proved the
adequacy of the systems under routine operating conditions. It also established the types of production
upsets that impaired the operation of two stage systems.

The tests established the most effective design to be a system comprised of a skim tank gravity separator and
a multi-cell, dispersed gas flotation unit. In addition, certain design parameters were suggested for skim tank
construction and the extent of downgrading necessary on throughput rating of flotation cells. Testing during
periods when flotation aid chemicals were not being applied established their use was mandatory for effective
operation of the systems.

In the balance of this presentation, only the most effective systems will be reviewed. These consisted of six
systems using various designs of skim tanks and multi-cell, dispersed gas flotation cells. Based on present
technology this should be the preferred design for clarification of produced water for disposal in offshore
operations.

C. SIGNIFICANCE OF TOTAL OIL DESIGNATION

The term TOTAL OIL used in the following text is comprised of both dispersed oil and soluble oil. The EPA
program established that both types were always present in all the produced waters tested. The testing
further indicated that high soluble oil content is usually found in low water producers, which are generally
recently completed wells. This suggests that the period of high soluble oil content of the produced water
would be associated with the period when most is solution water from the oil or oil/water from the transition
zone of the reservoir. This would be the section of the reservoir where the oil and water were closely
associated for the longest geologic time, assuring saturation of the water with all soluble oil molecules. This
suggests the soluble oil component in produced water will be significantly lower with increasing influx of water
from outside the oil reservoir limits.

In the balance of this chapter all TOTAL OIL data were obtained by the infrared testing procedure that was
extensively used in the field test procedures.

The average results from the six multi-cell units reviewed in this section are:

OIL IN EFFLUENTS FROM FLOTATION UNITS, mg/l

Average Oil in Range of Oil Average Average
Effluent Removed Soluble Oil Dispersed
Oil
38 14-70 30 8

With the exception of one installation where the soluble oil was in excess of 50 mg/l the effluents from all units
operating normally were within the frequently used 50 mg/l limit desired for disposal water.

33
D. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS FROM EPA PROGRAM ON WATER CLARIFICATION

1. Gravity separation will reduce the dispersed oil content of produced water and protect flotation systems
from slugs of oil due to severe, long term, treating system upsets.

2. Skim tanks are the most effective gravity separation methods tested.

3. Dispersed, multi-cell flotation units are the most effective for the “polishing” stage.

4. Flotation systems should be sized for 30% to 40% of rated capacity.

5. Flotation-Aid chemicals are essential to efficient flotation unit operation.

6. The two stage system is primarily effective on dispersed oil and when soluble oil is high a large carry
through can be expected.

7. When the system effluent contains prohibitive amounts of soluble oil a third separating method will be
required.

8. The program established that well designed, properly sized, two stage gravity and flotation cell systems,
with stable, typical operating conditions, effectively remove dispersed oil from produced waters and
generally reduce total oil to below present limiting specifications.

E. DISCUSSION

The final draft of the report submitted to the EPA by the prime contractor recommended that a more thorough
analysis of the data was desirable. Since the funds for the study were practically depleted this would have
required an additional grant. The Industrial Technical Advisory Group’s (ITAG) review, “…considers the
report, in general, to be acceptable”, and EPA accepted and published the final draft. Subsequently, the report
was further reviewed by various members of the ITAG and additional tentative conclusions drawn from the
data. The following summarizes the additional information from one such further report.

F. FURTHER INDEPENDENT CONCLUSIONS FROM EPA PROGRAM

1. The report “…contains the most comprehensive set of operating data related to the oil content of produced
brines available for the offshore oil and gas industry.”

2. “The data in the report are an excellent depiction of the state-of-the-art in offshore produced water treating
technology”.

3. With regard to the extreme variability of the data, “…study… for each platform show that each data
excursion can be attributed to some event which occurred in the producing or water treating system.”

Such as:
a. Marked increase in flow to gravity separator stage.
b. Malfunction of pump supplying flotation aid chemical to flotation unit.
c. Inclusion of oil liquids other than produced water influent to gravity separator, i.e. oily packer fluid.
d. Intermittent production of high water producing wells.

34
4. A study of system upsets indicate that better performance of water treating systems will be obtained at
“steady state” conditions.

5. Water treating systems should be sized for the larger intermittent flow rates rather than average thru-put
volumes.

6. With properly sized and reasonably steady-state operation flotation cells are effective in removing
dispersed oil.

7. Skim tanks are more effective than either corrugated plate interceptors (CPI) or gun barrel arrangements
as the first stage of separation.

8. The test program indicated the preferred skim tank to be custom designed with the following features:

a. Produced water influent through a horizontally slotted spreader arrangement to spread water over as
large an area as possible.
b. Influent spreader to be located as close to oil-water contact as consistent with operating levels of tank
but always below the oil-water contact level.
c. Effluent of tank to be through spreader arrangement that withdraws water from as large an area as
practical.
d. Skim tank and operation to be sized to maintain reasonably steady-state flow to flotation cells for
longest practical operating period.

35
CHAPTER VII
MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING OIL FIELD WATERS

GENERAL

Corrosion is the principal problem and cause of equipment failures in water-handling operations. Most produced
waters and primary source water from deeper aquifers are acidic and corrosive. However, as long as such waters
can be maintained oxygen free the type attack is relatively easy to control by chemical inhibition. If these waters
are contacted by air and oxygen dissolves in the water, the rate of corrosion markedly increases and frequently
deep pitting develops.

It is generally accepted today that where practical, all oil field water processing systems should be of the closed
type. Where the waters being handled are initially oxygen free, the equipment design and operating procedure
should be engineered to maintain this condition. Where the waters already contain oxygen, the initial processing
should be to remove this corrodent.

Good design is the first requirement in establishing a closed system. Of equal importance is an efficient
preventive maintenance type operating program for assuring continuing oxygen free operation. Frequently many
of the potential sources of air entry into a system are overlooked, resulting in serious corrosion and failures.

The following reviews factors controlling air entry into systems and corrosion resistant materials and coatings that
are applicable in some of the operations.

A. REMOVAL OF OXYGEN FROM SEA AND ONSHORE SURFACE WATERS

These waters are saturated with oxygen requiring the use of process vessels for effective removal. The
subject has been presented in Chapter V, PROCESSING OF INJECTION WATER Section C, under the same
title as above.

B. SOURCES OF OXYGEN ENTRAINMENT IN PRODUCTION OPERATIONS

During the period when water production is low and velocity in surface equipment is in the turbulent range,
even though minor air entrainment (oxygen) occurs it will generally not constitute a serious problem. Oil and
gas will be the external fluid phases and the air will remain entrained in the water as a non-wetting phase.
Also, the oxygen will react with organic molecules and no longer constitute a serious corrodent. However, with
low velocities, >5 fps, water will segregate in piping and vessels. Lower areas of the equipment will now be
water wetted. Also, when the cut exceeds 25%, water may be the external phase and the equipment will be
water wetted. Most produced waters contain H2S and/or CO2, have pH´s below 7.00 and are at least slightly
corrosive. However, with only the acid gases present, the corrosion can be readily inhibited. But when air
enters the system, the corrosivity is markedly increased and the combination of oxygen with the acid gases is
much more difficult to control.

While the desirability of maintaining production and injection operations air free is generally recognized, it is
frequently overlooked how many sources there are of air entrainment. In many, the amount of air entrainment
may be minute. However, it can cause localized areas of high corrosion with isolated failures markedly
increasing operating costs. The following discusses locations where air entrainment has caused failures.

36
1. Producing Wells

The producing of water wells, while not usually a source of air contamination can, under certain operating
conditions, let air enter the system. This occurs when the wells pump off and when the casing annulus is
open.

This will not cause difficulty in oil wells during the period of low water cut. But, when wells with high water
production are pumped off, with the casing annulus open, air contamination of produced water can
develop. Air entering through the casing will oxidize the short head of oil allowing air to diffuse into the
water. While this is an unusual source of difficulty, it has been encountered and should be investigated
when air entrainment cannot be located at the more usual sources of leakage.

A more frequent source of leakage in high-water-cut wells that are pumped-off is the polish rod stuffing
box. When wells are over pumped a slight vacuum can occur at the wellhead with each pump stroke.
Under these conditions, air will intermittently enter the well fluids unless the stuffing box is tight and has the
type of packing that will hold a vacuum. This problem has occurred most frequently at the polish-rod
stuffing box, but it can also occur in other packing type seals between the wellhead and flowline check
valve.

2. Production Tank Battery

Water handling equipment at the production tank batteries is a frequent source of air contamination of
produced water. This is generally caused by failure to recognize the limited ability of oil blankets on
storage tanks in preventing oxygen entering the water.

In a system where the water has only a short storage interval in the tanks, a thick oil blanket, frequently
replaced, is reasonably effective. However, occasionally oil carried over in the produced water is
considered adequate for blanketing the tanks. These thin oil blankets, coupled with the low water
producing rates, result in the produced water being essentially saturated with oxygen and being highly
corrosive when delivered to the injection plants.

With gas blankets this source of difficulty is largely eliminated. However, where batching of the produced
water is at high pumping rates, the control valves, pipe size and delivery pressure of the supply gas for the
blanket must be considered. If the gas supply is from a low pressure separator with a high-water-cut, gas
availability must also be considered in sizing of the water transfer pumps, pumping rate and period of
pumping.

3. Transfer and Injection Pumps

Pump installations and methods of operation are probably the most frequent source of air contamination in
well designed water processing systems. This is generally caused by failure to recognize that, for a given
set of pumping conditions, any pump will endeavor to deliver a specific volume of fluid. When water is not
available at the pump suction in adequate volume and at sufficient pressure, cavitation with accompanying
partial vacuum occurs within the pump. This can cause air to be drawn into the pump through packing
glands and contaminate the water in the system.

This source of air is easily prevented once the problem is recognized. Transfer pumps should be as close
to the tank as possible. The suction piping should be of the same size or larger than the pump inlet port.
Valves in the line should be through-ported and full opening. Change of flow direction should be
37
 minimized, i.e., ells, tees, etc. Where direction must be changed, 45° fittings or long radius ells should be
used.

With a suction system as short as practical and properly sized, the only remaining major requirement is
maintenance of adequate pressure for water movement. At production facilities the tank head is the usual
pressure source for pump loading. The head requirement will vary with each installation and the pressure
head specifications of the pump manufacturer should be considered as a minimum requirement.

If the head is not maintained, high speed/high pressure plunger pumps with rapid water charging rates are
particularly susceptible to cavitation. Several manufacturers suggest that even with oversized manifolding
and minimum spacing between the pumps and tanks, a head of six to ten feet is desirable. Also, most
manufacturers have suction type, sump dampening units available. These units, either built into the pump
body or attached close to the suction, should be considered if there is any possibility that pump cavitation
might occur.

4. Injection Systems

If the water is kept air-free through the injection pump and a positive pressure is maintained to the
formation, air contamination cannot occur in the injection system.

The problem most frequently encountered on the injection side of systems is caused by failure to seal
mating components. The slightest seep providing a continuous water phase between the atmosphere and
the injection water will quickly corrode the joints. This is because oxygen dissolves into the water at the
seep and diffuses into the wetted joint section. While the amount will not be of a significant quantity in the
total injection stream, it will create an extremely significant leak. Absolute pressure-tight joints and sealing
surfaces through the injection systems are primary requirements of trouble-free operation.

Frequently during the initial phase of a flood project, the injection wells are on vacuum. During this period
the wellhead, valves, meter, etc. will be under partial vacuum. Frequently, seal leakage can cause air to
enter the system making injection water corrosive. Most compression type seals normally used in valves
can be sufficiently compressed to prevent this air entrainment. However, many meters use a self
energizing type seal on the drive shaft to the register that will not hold a vacuum and can be a source of air
entrainment.

5. Locations Where Air Entrainment May Occur

The following is a listing of specific locations where air entrainment has occurred.

PRODUCING WELLS PRODUCTION FACILITIES INJECTION FACILITIES

Well Annulus Produced Water Tank Water Well Annulus
Polish Rod Stuffing Box Inadequate Gas Blanket Supply Water Tanks
Well Head Valves Inadequate Oil Blanket Inadequate Gas Blanket
Pipe Joints and Seals Transfer Pump Injection Pump Manifold
Transfer Pump Shaft Seal Injection Pump Seals
Pipe Joints and Seals Piping Joints and Seals
Water Meters (Vacuum Only)
Wellhead Valves (Vacuum Only)

38
supply side of the systems, this can often be accomplished with short sections of non-metallic conductors. On
the injection side, insulated type couplings should be installed.

GALVANIC SERIES IN SEA WATER

1. Magnesium and alloys

2. Zinc or galvanized metals
3. Aluminum (soft alloys)
4. Cadmium or cadmium plating
5. Aluminum (hard alloys)
6. Steel, cast iron, wrought iron
7. Solder (50% lead, 50% tin)
8. Stainless steel (AISI Series 300, active)
9. Lead
10. Tin
11. Naval brass, manganese bronze, yellow brass, admiralty brass, aluminum bronze, red brass, copper,
silicon bronze
12. Inconel
13. Monel
14. Stainless steel (AISI Series 300, passive)

42
CHAPTER VIII
CORROSION MONITORING IN WATER SYSTEMS

GENERAL
As previously noted, corrosion is the principal problem and cause of equipment failures in water handling
equipment. In water flood operations during the period of primary water injection, oxygen will be the principal
corrodent. However, when produced water is combined with the primary water source or in produced water
disposal systems, in addition to oxygen, carbon dioxide and/or hydrogen sulfide and bacteria can also be present
as corrodents. In addition to the level of corrosivity of the water, its velocity and areas of high turbulence can
markedly affect the rate and type of metal loss. With high velocity or flow system configurations creating zones of
high turbulence, the corrosion/erosion phenomena can result in premature equipment failures. The decision to
institute a corrosion monitoring program will generally be dictated by safety and/or economic considerations.
Where safety is not of concern, but corrosion is considered possible, economics will usually dictate the desirability
of a monitoring program. In most operations preventing of corrosion failures becomes obvious when the cost of
equipment replacement and loss of revenue due to down time is evaluated.

The decision to monitor is usually the operators prerogative, along with the method to be used and locations
where monitoring equipment or tests are to be made. Generally the preferred monitoring locations should be
where maximum metal loss is anticipated. If test data at these locations show an acceptable level of metal loss, it
can generally be assumed the corrosion level throughout the section of the system with comparable conditions. If
a corrosion control program is in operation, tests at these locations will establish the effectiveness.

In addition to selecting suitable locations for monitoring the measuring methods available but with the exception of
possibly two procedures, all give single point observations. While with the proper location a single point
observation may be adequate, it emphasizes the importance of carefully designing the monitoring program. The
following reviews the principal monitoring methods now in use and their limitations.

A. Corrosion Monitoring Techniques

Corrosion monitoring techniques can be broadly classified as direct and indirect procedures. In the direct
procedures the actual metal loss is being measured or observed. With the indirect techniques, except for iron
counts, the observation or measurement is of corrosion occurring on metal of approximately the same
composition and processing as that used in the equipment being monitored.

The following table is a listing of the methods generally used, classified under these headings.

DIRECT INDIRECT
Visual Inspection Iron Counts
Ultra-Sonic Inspection Coupons
Calipers Linear Polarization Probe
Test Spools Electrical Resistance
Probe
Radiography Galvanic Probe
Hydrogen Probe

When applicable, a direct procedure, where both the rate of metal loss and type can be determined is
generally the preferred monitoring approach. Direct observations are particularly advantageous where zones

43
 of possible accelerated attack can be observed. This permits preventive maintenance and equipment
replacements to be scheduled, minimizing the possibilities of hazardous type equipment failures. A principal
limitation of the direct procedure is in systems where corrosive conditions may markedly change and
hazardous conditions develop between surveys. Where this is a possibility, a monitoring program can be
optimized by combining indirect and direct procedures. The indirect can be either of a frequently programmed
or continuous monitoring type and the developed data used as an indicator to determine when a direct
inspection procedure is warranted. Following is a brief review of the advantages and limitations of the direct
procedures.

B. Direct Monitoring Techniques

1. Visual Inspection
The procedure is advantageous where fluid characteristics, velocities and phase relationships may cause
significant differences in rates and types of corrosion. The method is particularly desirable at equipment
locations susceptible to accelerated attack, i.e. welds, seams, jointures of dissimilar metals. Where
required, the visual observations can be combined with measurements to quantitatively determine the
extent of metal loss. If the system is being inhibited the overall effectiveness of the program is easily
evaluated.

Where a thorough inspection must be made, the procedure can be time consuming and frequently require
extensive cleaning operations. Since visual inspection without substantiating measurements is a matter of
judgment, the expertise of the inspecting personnel is a major concern. This requires both the ability to
judge the degree of deterioration since the previous inspection and sufficient knowledge of the process to
select the locations in the system that require close inspection.

Where visual inspection is possible, it would always be recommended as the initial phase in a monitoring
program. However, where a corrosion failure can result in hazardous conditions or a major economic loss,
visual inspection should be supplemented by in-depth dimensional inspections of locations where
accelerated metal loss may occur.

2. Test Spools
This is an excellent procedure for monitoring corrosion in piping systems. Since spools are fabricated from
the same metals used in the system, differences in composition are not a factor. In systems with large
diameter pipe, the spools can be in a by-pass arrangement. Where corrosion is of a general metal loss
type, with only minor pitting, visual inspection is normally all that is required. Spools are readily installed
and inexpensive and multiple installations can be made. In corrosive systems the failure of an inhibition
program can be quickly detected and when in-depth testing is required, the spools are available as a
representative material specimen. In systems where corrosion is being continuously monitored by one of
the indirect probe instruments, the test spool is an excellent procedure for verifying instrument recordings.

3. Ultra-Sonic Inspection
There are several small field instruments that give instantaneous readings of metal thickness. Where the
original dimensions are known these instruments will, when accurately positioned, give a precise
measurement of the extent of metal loss. Measurement traverses at close intervals will detect and
measure depth of pitting. The instruments are easily calibrated and personnel can be readily trained in
their use.

The principal limitation of the method for monitoring the progress of corrosion, as reflected in increasing
metal loss, is inherent in the ultra-sonic technique. The ultra-sonic beam measuring the metal thickness is
44
 reflected from a minute area. The beam travels in a straight path and for an accurate measurement the
probe must be perpendicular to the metal surface. This requires that in a monitoring program the
measurement sites be accurately located and the surface prepared so as to assure a perpendicular
positioning of the measuring probe. The ultra-sonic inspection method has an additional advantage in
monitoring equipment subject to high or cyclic stressing. The beam is reflected from any discontinuity
such as an internal crack. When properly positioned, it can detect incipient fatigue failures. However,
when used for this type survey, positioning of the probe is extremely important and operators must be
skilled in data interpretation.

4. Profile Type Corrosion Calipers

With profile type corrosion calipers, the internal wall surface of the pipe is contacted by feelers. These are
adjusted for the pipe size to be surveyed and recordings are a direct measure of changes in the internal
diameter of the pipe. The original calipers, invented by M.M. Kinley, were for monitoring of corrosion of in
place tubing and casing. The caliper incorporates the recorder in the body of the tool and is run into the
well on Halliburton line. The instrument has fifteen feelers, each of which records on a movie type film.
The instrument is now also available in a line type tool. The recording system is essentially the same, and
available for various schedules of line pipe of 3”, 3-1/2”, 4” and 6” sizes. At the present time adequate
definition of feeler recordings limits the length of survey to 30,000 feet.

The service company reports for a multiple feeler recording type instrument show the percentage of wall
thickness remaining, depths of pits, and zones of abnormally high corrosion. Generally the recording will
also isolate the ring worm type attack associated with welds, heat run-out zones, and other anomalies
associated with pipe wall deformation. While the surveys are expensive, where other monitoring results
and premature failures indicate isolated areas of abnormal corrosion, the surveys can isolate sections
where total line replacement is required. The following lists the limitations of the calipers.

Profile Caliper Limitations

a. Scale and corrosion products can mask a pitting attack.

b. Even though feelers encircle the pipe, tracing is along a line and the actual area surveyed is small.
c. Internal pipe coating may be damaged by feelers.
d. Special pig launchers and receivers are required.
e. Service company supervision and data interpretation are required.
f. Compared to other monitoring procedures the surveys are expensive.

5. Radiography
While frequently used for weld inspections in new installations, the testing equipment, cost and expertise
required generally preclude its use for routine monitoring. However, in critical areas, where corrosion
erosion or accelerated pitting may occur and a failure could be catastrophic, it is occasionally the only
method applicable. The method directs X-rays or gamma rays through the equipment to a photographic
film. The intensity of the rays impinging on the film is proportional to the density and thickness of the metal
penetrated. This method is very effective in locating defective welds, laminations or metal porosity. Also
in complex piping or equipment configurations, where pitting or erosion may cause catastrophic failures
and monitoring is essential, radiography is frequently used. With the extent of corrosion being a function of
gradations between light and dark areas on the film, attempting to monitor a progress of general corrosion
is quite difficult requiring a high level of expertise in film interpretation.

45
 One advantage of radiography is that the radiographs furnish a permanent record and any increase in
pitting or erosion in critical areas can be readily determined.

C. Indirect M onitoring Techniques

1. Corrosion Coupons
With the exception of visual inspection, coupons have the longest history for studying corrosion. Since the
ASTM sponsored the use of coupons in 1915, the method has been a standard throughout most
industries. When properly installed, the results will accurately reflect the corrosivity at the measuring site.
The following are factors that must be considered for meaningful results.

a. Material
Corrosion rate and type attack of steels will be affected by manufacturing processes. In production and
pipelining, most equipment is manufactured from hot rolled or heat treated steel. Coupons of the same
material and heat treatment as the equipment would be desirable but generally this is not practical.
The steel that approximates metallurgical characteristics in most equipment is a hot rolled, 1020 grade.
After forming, the coupons should be lightly sandblasted to remove all mill scale, cleaned, weighed and
stored to prevent corrosion occurring prior to installation. Cold rolled or polished steels should not be
used for monitoring corrosion.

b. Location
Coupons determine the electro-chemical corrosion in a system. Unless the coupon is located where it
will be continuously water wetted results will be meaningless. Locating coupons in oil-water systems
can be particularly difficult since some oils tend to preferentially wet steel.

Also, phase relations and component distribution can vary widely with velocity and multiple coupon
locations may be required. Where coupons are mounted directly in the flow stream, velocity must be
considered. The rate of metal loss is a function of corrosion product, scale or inhibitor deposited on the
metal. At high velocities where the flow impinges directly on the coupon, the corrosion product or
inhibitor may be eroded from the surface and rate of metal loss will not reflect operating conditions.

c. Handling
For accurate results, the coupon must be free of corrosion when installed and prevented from further
attack after removal from testing. General practice is to deliver and return coupons to the laboratory in
inhibited envelopes. The coupon should not be removed from the envelopes until time of installation
and immediately on removal from test, carefully dried and placed in an inhibited envelope. Also, the
coupons should be handled only by the edges to prevent either sweat or grease from fingerprints
causing extraneous surface effects.

d. Exposure Time
The importance of an adequate exposure time cannot be over emphasized if results are to be
meaningful. Also, pitting corrosion is time dependent and a reasonable exposure time is necessary to
assure its detection. The figure below is typical of the type dependency of corrosion rates. Ten days is
suggested as a minimum exposure time and at least thirty days is desirable in a routine monitoring
program.

46
 FIGURE 1
TYPICAL CORROSION COUPON DATA

e. Test Results
When the exposed coupons are returned to the laboratory, they are cleaned and metal loss due to
corrosion reported in mils per year. The mpy value assumes corrosion is uniform and is meaningful
only in the case of a general metal loss. In production and pipeline operations, pitting is of greater
concern. Pipe penetration and practically all stress corrosion failures are caused by pitting and
inspection of coupons for pit development is mandatory.

When coupon results indicate pitting in equipment subject to stress reversals, premature failures will
occur unless corrosion can be controlled. In new installations where corrosion is anticipated inhibiting
should begin with equipment start-up and carefully monitored until it is established corrosion is
controlled.

2. Iron Counts

Next to corrosion coupons, dissolved iron, i.e. iron counts have probably the longest history as an indirect
method of measuring corrosion. Where applicable, the method has many advantages. The iron counts reflect
the amount of iron being removed from all metal surfaces in a system on which corrosion is occurring. Where
the total water being transported through the system is known, the amount of iron being removed can be
calculated. Iron counts are frequently applied for measuring the effectiveness of corrosion inhibition programs
and when used with batch type corrosion control treatments, will indicate when re-treating is required. When a
system has been designed for readily obtaining representative samples from a system, iron counts are usually
the most convenient, accurate, and least expensive of all the indirect monitoring methods.

The iron count procedure consists of three basic steps: 1) Sampling, 2) Analysis and 3) Interpretation of
results. The following summarizes the requirements and some precautions required in each of these
procedures.

47
 a. Sampling
Sampling is the most important of the three steps, since unless the liquids tested are of that flowing
through the equipment the results will be meaningless.

Wherever possible, the water samples should be trapped in sample containers (pots) attached directly
to the ends of the equipment being monitored. When water is being delivered to a pipeline from
production facilities or plants, samples should be obtained at both ends of the line.

Sample containers and accessories must be of corrosion resistant metals or internally coated with
holiday free linings. Where there is the possibility of galvanic corrosion an insulating type connection is
required between the sampling container and the equipment to which it is attached.

Cleanliness and maintaining the sample free of air are mandatory requirements in extracting and
transporting the sample. Transfer lines and containers must be corrosion resistant and clean. Transfer
should be with the line inserted to the bottom of the container with flow at a low rate that prevents
splashing or agitation that will aerate the water. Some waters tend to precipitate solids on release of
pressure and where this may occur, acid must be added to the sample container before sampling. The
sample containers should be completely filled before sealing.

b. Sample Analysis
Routine analyses can be either with field kits or in the laboratory, however, in the initial phase of a
program, multiple, complete water analyses of samples are desirable. The objective of these tests is to
determine that there are no elements or radicals in solution that will affect the analysis for dissolved
iron. Also, there may be dissolved iron in the formation water or from corrosion in downstream
equipment. If there is iron normally present in the water, this base value must be known for monitoring
tests to be accurately interpreted. Where iron counts are to be used for monitoring a corrosion control
program, a base iron count obtained before the inhibiting program is started is important in evaluating
the effectiveness of the program.

c. Interpretation of Results
A quantitative evaluation of the significance of iron counts requires knowing the total volume of water
moving through a system and the phase relationship and fluid dynamics of the flow. In a single phase,
water system, it can be assumed that the dissolved iron is being removed from all the water wetted
steel in the system. By calculation or nomograph the total weight of iron being corroded can be
determined.

When iron counts are used in monitoring corrosion or the effectiveness of an inhibitor program in
production and pipeline operations, the other factors that control the area where corrosion may be
occurring must be studied.

3. Corrosion Monitoring Instruments

Ever since the discovery that corrosion was directly related to chemical and/or electrochemical reactions
research has been directed to applying measurements of these phenomena for analyzing corrosivity.
Measurement of pH was probably the first measurement applied for evaluating corrosivity and is still widely
used. While pH cannot be directly related to metal loss, it will generally determine the corrosivity of a
system and dictate when inhibiting procedures are desirable.
48
The developing of instruments for indirect methods to measure the amount of metal loss in routine
operations is a recent development. The electrochemical reactions in corrosion had been recognized for
years. However, it was not until the development of precise, sensitive electronic instruments that
meaningful measurements could be routinely observed.

A number of instruments are now available which, when properly applied and with limitations of the
measurements understood, will determine a quantitative or qualitative rate of metal loss. The following
discusses several of the more frequently used types of instruments and some of the factors to be
evaluated in interpreting the measurements.

a. Electrical Resistance Probes

Measuring the increase in the electrical resistance of a probe as the cross sectional area of the metal is
reduced by corrosion can be directly related to the amount of metal loss. The probe must be of similar
composition and heat treatment to the metal in the system. It must be located where the fluid is
representative of the system but not where a corrosion/erosion phenomenon can develop. The probe,
like the conventional corrosion coupon must have an initial period of immersion to reach equilibrium
with the system. As a “Rule of Thumb”, this will be at least ten days.

After this period the increase in resistance per interval of time can be converted from increase in
resistance recorded by the meter into mpy metal loss. Factors for this conversion are furnished by the
instrument supplier.

The time dependency must be recognized in analyzing results. A reasonable period, generally several
days, must be allowed between measurements. Single readings are subject to significant error and the
average of a number of readings should be used in an analysis. The corrosion in sour systems can
deposit a conductive iron sulfide film on the probe and results may be subject to large errors. Until it
has been established that the corrosion is a general attack, the probe should frequently be inspected
for pitting.

The electrical resistance method used in conjunction with operating history and inspections is a good
indirect monitoring method.

b. Linear Polarization Probes

These systems are available in a variety of designs. Probe units can be of either a two or three
component configuration and with one design allowing positioning in small isolated areas of possible
attack. Instrumentation can be of either direct reading or continuous recording types. A further
advantage of the system is that when the metallurgy of the probe elements is similar to systems
components the instruments can be calibrated for direct recording in mpy’s. For those interested in
theory of operation, “Corrosion Control in Petroleum Production”, NACE publication TPC No. 5 is
recommended as a reference. The mandatory requirement for application of the linear polarization
method is the mounting of the probe elements in an electrically conductive fluid. Measurements cannot
be made in gas or oil. Where probes are intermittently wetted, the measurement will indicate corrosion
is occurring but the mpy values have no significance. Also where systems entrain conductive solids,
FeS, Mil Scale, etc. the probes must be mounted so that elements cannot be shorted. As in the case
of corrosion coupons and the electrical resistance probe, the probes must each equilibrate with the
system before the measurements are meaningful. Since the effectiveness of the system is particularly
sensitive to probe conditions, the installation should be designed so the elements can be easily

49
 removed for inspection. Properly engineered and operated it is an excellent indirect monitoring
method.

c. Galvanic Probes
Galvanic probes give a qualitative evaluation of the fluid corrosivity rather than a measurement of the
electrochemical or chemical reaction of the corrosion. The probe assembly generally consists of a pair
of electrodes of dissimilar metals, typically brass and steel. These are connected externally through a
micrometer. When the liquid in which the electrodes are immersed is conductive a battery is created.
The current flow is a function of the corrosivity of the liquid, increasing metal loss indicated with
increasing current flow.

The probe system is subject to the same limitations noted for the linear polarization probes. In
addition, the system is more generally applicable to O2 attack than H2S or CO2. Galvanic probes are
not usually applicable until operating experience or more precise monitoring methods have established
the level of corrosivity in a system. However, once conditions in the system are established, the
method can be successfully used.

d. Hydrogen Probes
The principal of operation is the ability of monatomic hydrogen (H+) to diffuse through steel while the
much larger hydrogen molecule (H2) cannot. The probe can have a variety of designs. In its simplest
form it consists of a hollow, thin-walled steel tube, sealed at one end and attached to a pressure gage
at the other end. The atoms of hydrogen that diffuse into the tube combine with other atoms forming
molecules and are entrapped. The pressure in the tube rises with the increasing concentration of
hydrogen molecules. The rate of pressure increase is a function of the rate of corrosion.

The hydrogen probe gives a qualitative measurement. Pressure developed in the probe and its rate of
increase when used in conjunction with other monitoring techniques can be a valuable tool for
corrosion studies and control programs. However, until experience has established the significance of
the probe readings it should not be used as a primary monitoring procedure.

D. SULFATE REDUCING BACTERIA CORROSION

Since most oil field water systems are built and operated to exclude oxygen, most of the serious bacterial
problems are caused by anaerobes. One of the most common anaerobes is the sulfate reducing bacteria
(SRB). Even in the planktonic state these “bugs” reduce inorganic sulfate in the water to sulfide. The resulting
hydrogen sulfide can cause corrosion. Iron sulfide, a product of the corrosion reaction, can plug filters and
injection wells, especially if it is oil wet. Iron sulfide can also deposit on steel and cause more corrosion
because of its cathodic nature with respect to steel. Sessile SRB’s also produce a dark gray to black slime.
Thus, one of the most troublesome bacteria in the oil field is the sessile anaerobic sulfate reducer.

Large colonies of SRB’s growing beneath scale deposits, slime masses, etc, can generate very high
concentrations of hydrogen sulfide in a small confined area. This results in severe localized pitting. The pits
are broad and appear to be shallow. Once the bacteria, corrosion product, etc. are cleaned off the steel, a
characteristic pattern of “step-wise” corrosion can usually be seen. In this form of corrosion a wide shallow pit
develops and a thin layer of steel is corroded away. A smaller, deeper pit then develops near the center of
that pit. The area around the smaller pit will normally have a rough or mottled appearance.

50
SRB’s can exist in both fresh water and brines. The sessile forms are most often found in areas with stagnant
or slow moving water, e.g. at stagnant points in flowlines or pipelines, beneath deposits or slime in vessels and
pipes, in mud left behind casing, etc.

The usual procedure for detection of SRB’s and estimation of their population is the serial dilution method
described in API RP 38, “Biological Analysis of Subsurface Injection Waters”. API RP 38 offers no further
interpretation of the data. As a result, the practical meaning of the test has been the subject of considerable
debate since the method was first adopted.

When tests show sulfate reducers to be present, localized areas of serious infestations are possible,
specifically, in any piping where velocity is 3-1/2 fps or lower, vessels or tanks where there are dormant water
pools or where sludge collects. Where such conditions are known to exist, technical personnel familiar with
treating of such infestations should be consulted for system analysis and treating of the system.

51
CHAPTER IX
OTHER WATER PROBLEMS IN PRODUCTION OPERATIONS

GENERAL
The two principal water problems not covered in previous chapters are non-specification oil and gas due to
emulsions or entrained liquid water, and scales that may precipitate from water or be formed in corrosion. There
are also a variety of water induced nuisance type problems that occur. The handling of these are usually on an
improvised basis depending on their scope and frequency of occurrence. Many of these nuisance type problems
are associated with disposal of water contaminated with chemicals such as drilling mud or test water used in
pressure tests of lines or vessels. There are also frequent disposal problems associated with the sludge that
develops in tanks and vessels and sludge interfaces that can develop between oil and water in storage vessels.

Often these occasionally occurring contaminants contain ecological damaging components that are controlled by
environmental regulations. Today a major responsibility of the operator is to assure that the method of disposal of
the contaminated materials from these nuisance type problems does not conflict with the environmental
regulations. Frequently the best way of accomplishing this is by contracting with a licensed waste disposal
company. Since routine methods for disposal of these occasional problems have not been developed, no further
discussion is included.

With wet oil or gas and scales, the primary responsibility of the operator is to identify the problem and make
certain the cause is not operating conditions or processing equipment. If the cause is inherent with the waters
some type of chemical treatment is undoubtedly required for a solution. If the operator has identified the problem
but not the underlying cause, tests by technical personnel should be conducted to further identify and recommend
the type of chemical solution. When both the problem and cause are recognized, normal practice is to refer the
matter directly to the service company furnishing chemicals to the operation. The following reviews the
information of interest to an operator to assist in evaluating a problem.

A. WET OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION

Practically all oil contains at least trace levels of emulsifying agents that in combinations with entrained water
will create emulsions. Most oils also entrain traces of organic or formation solids and scale particles that can
form stabilizing films around the emulsion globules.

Generally the condensate that evolves from gas in the flow string and processing equipment entrains such
minute traces of emulsifying agents that emulsions are not a problem in gas production. While there are
exceptions, in most instances when emulsion problems develop in gas processing, it is caused by chemicals,
usually inhibitors used for corrosion control in well operation.

1. Background on Oil Well Emulsions

In-depth research has established that the elastic, tenacious film encasing the oil or water globule of an
emulsion has a complex structure. The nucleus of the emulsion film molecules will be a metal ion from
the organic matter that eventually formed the hydrocarbons. With geologic time, hydrocarbon
molecules form and by chelation encase the minute amounts of metal ions present. These chelated
molecules are attracted to the water phase and encase the internal phase of the emulsion. As noted
above, this encapsulating film is tenacious and with time attracts particles of scale, basic sediment and
other contaminants in the water, stabilizing the film. The factors controlling emulsion can be
generalized as follows.

52
 a. Water globules in a stable emulsion vary in diameter from 0.004 to 0.020 millimeters.

b. Impurities act as emulsifiers. The volume, tightness and treatment of an emulsion are determined
by amount and type of impurity.

c. The emulsifying film is flexible and tenacious and with time is encased with particles of basic
sediment, scales, etc., toughening and stabilizing the film.

Figures 1 and 2 are idealized representations of an emulsion molecule and typical globule size distribution.

FIGURE 1
AGED EMULSION GLOBULE

While emulsion globules vary from 0.004 to 0.02 mm as noted above, in most emulsions there will be a
spectrum of sizes as shown in the following illustration.

FIGURE 2
GLOBULE SIZES OF EMULSION X 1000

53
While emulsions tend to stabilize with time, in essentially dormant storage the large globules of emulsion
continue to break and coalesce and drop out as liquid water. This may reduce the BS&W to below
Custody Transfer specification and no further treatment is required.

However, in most operations there will be periods when, if the oil is not treated, the BS&W specifications
will be exceeded. Generally production chemical companies will recommend minimum type treating
programs to minimize these occurrences.

2. Field Processing vs. Oil Production Emulsions

Since all crude oil will contain traces of emulsifying agents, one objective in designing the field processing
plant should be to minimize the forming of tight emulsions. The term “tight” implies many small emulsion
globules with relatively thick stabilizing films. Conversely a loose emulsion has many large relatively
unstable globules that will break with time, or be easily broken by chemical or heat.

Turbulence in the flow stream is the principal cause of abnormal volumes of emulsions. This can be
continuous turbulence due to high velocity. However, isolated locations of turbulence due to constrictions
or marked change of direction or pressure are more frequent locations of emulsion formation. The
turbulence will cause some of the entrained water or oil to be scattered as minute globules through the
principal phase, which may be either oil or water. These globules are coated with the emulsifying
component. As the globules are contacted by the stabilizing film components the strength of the emulsion
film increases. The higher the turbulence and the longer it persists, the smaller the globules and the
tighter the emulsion.

If emulsions were a serious problem without readily available demulsifier chemicals, equipment could be
designed to markedly reduce the amount formed. However, with today’s readily available treating
chemicals most can be broken. From the operator’s position emulsions are a service company’s
responsibility and as long as custody transfer oil is produced at a reasonable treating cost, no action is
required by the operator.

While emulsions are not generally the operator’s concern, when large volumes of a tight emulsion are
being formed, it can be indicative of a problem that is his responsibility. As noted, tight emulsions are
formed by turbulence. Turbulence is also the cause of corrosion/erosion type metal loss that can result in
premature equipment failure. This corrosion/erosion type attack can be particularly severe at
discontinuities in a flow stream such as valves, seal rings, change of direction, chokes, etc. In systems
where the water is corrosive and an abnormal emulsion condition is present, zones of high turbulence
should be inspected for the corrosion/erosion phenomena. If these are located but cannot be eliminated,
continuous treatment with a water soluble inhibitor may be effective. Filming with batch type inhibitors will
not be effective since inhibitor films cannot be maintained in the turbulent flow regime.

3. Emulsions With E.O.R. Processes

With some of the recently developed Enhanced Recovery Processes there has been a marked increase in
emulsion problems that have increased the problems of treating. These have been particularly difficult to
resolve with fire and polymer floods, requiring in-depth plant tests and continued monitoring since the
emulsification characteristics change as the floods progress. With steam floods, the usual emulsifying
agents predominate but the globule sizes are quite small and the volume large. While heat and chemicals
will generally resolve these emulsions, the volume of chemical and heating time and temperature required
can markedly increase costs of treating.
54
 The unusual emulsion problems in E.O.R. Processes do not occur until breakthrough of the process
affected oil occurs. However, in these processes the operator should anticipate problems would develop.
Since the required plant testing will undoubtedly be by a service company, they should be forewarned of
the development and be prepared to quickly initiate a test program. The operator should also be prepared
to install new processing equipment and for a marked increase in oil processing expense.

4. Processing Problems With Wet Gas

As noted, emulsions are not normally a problem in gas production. The L.P.G. liquids formed generally
entrain only minute traces of emulsifying agents. Also, there are generally only traces of the contaminants
forming the stabilizing film. Emulsions that form are unstable and easily broken with small injections of
chemicals. Generally, a service company can quickly resolve the occasional emulsion problem.

The most frequent processing problem encountered is with the inhibitors and hydrocarbon diluents used in
corrosion control batch treating. With this type program there is a treating residue mist feedback of
inhibitor, oil and water. With a heavy rate of feedback some of the mist will pass through separators and/or
surge vessels into the gas processing or dehydration equipment. This mist can cause upsets of
processing procedures. In dehydrators, depending on type, it can either poison the dehydrating liquids or
poison or powder the solid or granular type dehydrating materials.

Corrosion treating is frequently performed by service companies. From cost considerations their objective
will be to treat wells as rapidly as possible. This can result in overloading of the separating equipment with
a high rate of mist by-passing into the affected equipment. Frequently, rescheduling of the corrosion
control program to reduce the rate of mist carryover will correct the difficulty. Also, the problem can
frequently be corrected by decreasing the volume of pre or over flush of diluent frequently used in such
treatments. Another solution to the problem is by including in the inhibitor a demulsifier compound to
improve separation and segregation of the mist in separation equipment. When none of the above solves
the problem a change of corrosion treating procedure may be required. In the most severe cases the use
of a nitrogen squeeze procedure with an inhibitor incorporating a demulsifier will eliminate the problem.
The operator’s responsibility is to make certain the service company recognizes the possibility of the
problem and plans a corrosion control program that minimizes its possibility.

B. SCALING PROBLEMS

The major scale problems are deposits that are crystals of minerals that precipitate from the water. This type
of scaling can be caused by changes in pressure, temperature, and pH and by mixing of incompatible waters.
All scaling of this type reflects that the factors limiting the solubility of some mineral dissolved in the water has
been exceeded, causing crystals to precipitate.

The other water caused scales are corrosion products. With any corrosive water in typical field equipment
manufactured from conventional carbon steels, some corrosion can be expedited. With reasonably effective
corrosion control programs the scales from this source, while possibly a nuisance, do not warrant special
attention. When large amounts of corrosion product type solids are entrained in water, serious metal loss is
occurring. From water handling operations the level of scale would still probably be of minor consideration, but
the level of metal loss, and the possibility of isolated deep pitting suggests an overall review of system
corrosion.

55
In reviewing the tests from the operator’s standpoint the possibility of the crystalline type scaling developing
should be a major consideration in planning operations. Should scaling develop it may form in the formation
porosity, wellbore tubulars and equipment, flowlines and production vessels. Scaling is also a possibility in
water floods and water disposal wells.

The following is an overview of factors that can be reviewed by an operator to evaluate scaling possibilities. It
is important when the factors suggest scaling that the water analyses conducted in technical studies include
tests or use of calculated indices on scaling to further define the possibility. Generally when there is a high
possibility of scaling occurring, the technical service company supplying chemicals should review the problem
and recommend preventative measures.

1. Type of Precipitated Scales

Of the many possibilities there are six scaling minerals, that due to the amounts formed, or particular
characteristics, can constitute operating problems. These are as follows:

Calcium Carbonate CaCO3

Gypsum CaSO4 · 2H2O
Anhydrite CaSO4
Barium Sulfate BaSO4
Strontium Sulfate SrSO4
Salt NaCl

The following is general information on these scales and their tendency to form.

a. Calcium Carbonate
This is the most frequently encountered scale and the one most likely to precipitate in large volumes.
The following are the factors that influence scaling tendencies.
1. Evolution of CO2 with pressure reduction
2. Increase of pH with release of CO2
3. Decrease of solubility with increase in temperature
4. Mixing of incompatible waters
5. Increase in scaling with increase in turbulence
6. Scaling affected by salinity.

b. Gypsum and Anhydrite

While gypsum and anhydrite occur less frequently than calcium carbonate they are a more serious
problem when formed. Control by inhibiting is more difficult and both are relatively acid insoluble.
Removal of the scales is by an ion exchange type treatment that is time dependent and treatments
must be carefully spotted for effective treatments. When water analyses or tests indicate these scales
are a possibility, inhibition treatments should be started as soon as possible. The following are factors
that influence scaling tendencies.

1. Scaling tendency increases with decreasing pressure

2. Scaling tendency decreases with increasing salinity
3. Scaling tendency increase with increasing turbulence
4. Scaling of anhydrite increases with increasing temperature
5. Mixing of incompatible flood and formation waters frequent cause of scaling

56
 6. Formation water saturated with CaSO4 will often scale with any pressure reduction
7. Formation water saturated with CaSO4 will often scale with any pressure reduction
NOTE - Frequent cause of formation plugging.

c. Barium Sulfate and Strontium Sulfate

As with the gypsum and anhydrite scales these are of less frequent occurrence but are a more serious
problems when they occur. This is due to there being no well established methods for scale removal.
When the initial water composition analyses on produced, flood or disposal well waters suggest the
possibility of either of these scales, an inhibiting or control program should be started as soon as
feasible. If scaling is first detected by the forming of deposits, these should be analyzed immediately.
If either barium or strontium sulfate is present, begin control programs.

d. Salt
When formation water is a saturated brine, precipitation of salt will occur with decrease of temperature
or evaporation of the water. This can be severe near the bottom in gas or high gas/oil ratio oil wells.
This is readily controlled by periodic batches or continuous injection of low solids water. Since a
solution is readily available for salt scales, specific tests for detection and treating programs have not
been developed.

C. PREDICTION OF SCALING
The majority of oil and gas production operations will encounter water deposited scaling during the producing
life of the operation. The type of scale, amount, and location of deposit can vary widely. Also, the deposition
can be continuous during the producing life of the operation or occur only when there is some specific
combination of waters or operating conditions.

From an operator’s standpoint, knowing in advance that scaling may occur and specific operating conditions
when scaling can be anticipated, is very desirable. When the composition of the various produced and
injection waters are known experienced technical personnel can conjecture on the possibility of scaling. If
scaling seems possible there are stability indices that can be calculated from the water analyses to further
determine the possibility of scaling. Also, physical testing of various mixtures of the waters will further confirm
scaling possibilities.

The operator or engineers responsible for the production program should be sure that test programs
conducted in the design and monitoring of a system include the calculations and tests required to evaluate the
scaling possibilities.

57
CHAPTER X
CHEMICAL TREATMENTS FOR PRODUCTION WATER PROBLEMS

GENERAL
As will have been noted throughout the text, there have been no specific recommendations on chemical
treatments for water induced problems. This presentation is intended primarily for production personnel
skilled in the equipment, procedures and techniques in producing oil and gas. However, most have neither
the time nor expertise to analyze water induced problems or prescribe the specific chemicals and treating
procedures to require extensive site and laboratory testing. Test results will usually specify the generic type
chemical required and concentrations required for assisting in the solution of the problem. Of equal
importance to these specifications is the design of a treating procedure that will assure efficient functioning of
the chemical. These requirements for chemical selection and application generally require personnel
specifically trained in production chemical usage. Frequently, the personnel performing or supervising the
projects will be degreed in chemistry or chemical engineering and with many problems that may arise, a basic
knowledge of organic chemistry is required. As recommended in the text when entrained water initiates a
problem and the solution is not obvious, the problem should be referred to technical or professional personnel
specifically knowledgeable in production water problems.

Many major producers have technical service and/or research divisions that can conduct these special
investigations. Where these are not available there are independent laboratories that can be retained. Also,
most major suppliers of production chemicals have technical service personnel who perform tests and submit
recommendations.

Champion Technologies has both technical service and research divisions that are available for water
problem investigations. In major producing areas, Champion’s field service laboratories are staffed with
trained personnel who can conduct tests and often recommend immediate solutions to problems. When the
scope of the problem is beyond field technical service, senior technical service or research personnel will be
consulted. Frequently, from their experience, chemicals and procedures can be recommended. Where
further testing is required it will usually be conducted or directed by senior staff members.

Champion Technologies has been one of the leaders in solving field water problems since its beginnings in
the 1950’s. Where unusual water problems develop they will be pleased to assist in the solution.

58