SPE
Society of Petroleum Engineer'S
SPE 12591
System Survey for Improving Injection Efficiency
by C.L. Crow and R.E. Keeling, Gulf Oil E&P Co.
Members SPE-AIME
Copyright 1984 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AI ME
This paper was presented at the 1984 Permian Basin Oil & Gas Recovery Conference held in Midland, TX, March 8-9,1984. The material is subject to
correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Write SPE, 6200 North Central Expressway, Drawer
64706, Dallas, Texas 75206 USA. Telex 730989 SPEDAL.
ABSTRACT
Injection water quality is a primary factor
affecting the ease with which water can be injected
into a reservoir and the overall success of a
waterflood operation. Proper water quality can
also keep waterflood maintenance costs low by
reducing the amount of remedial work normally
required on injection wells. Most injection sys-
tems if properly designed minimize oil carryover
and solids content. Water conditioning prevents
scale deposition, reduces solids, and allows
recovery of carryover oil, resulting in minimutl in-
jection pressures. The type of water conditioning
process necessary is determined by equipment eval-
uation and water analyses (including compatibility
predictions and membrane filter testing).
Equipment evaluations, such as retention time
studies that determine vessel residence time,
describe the current mechanical operation of the
system. Water analyses and compatibility studies
predict the probability of scaling, corrosion, and
solids formation occurring within the system. Mem-
brane filter tests are performed to determine the
type and amount of suspended solids contained in
the water. From these tests, proper water condi-
tioning techniques are implemented. All data should
be gathered throughout the system to detect changes
occurring between the water source(s) and the in-
jection wells. Changes in such factors as pressure,
temperature, and dissolved solids influence prob-
lem developmen't.
Graphic representation of data, such as oil
concentration (ppm) versus time (days) of a parti-
cular vessel's influent and effluent, assists in
setting and meeting objectives for injection water
quality. Special analyses, such as core flow tests
and filtration studies, also define cost-effective
solutions to problems.
References and illustrations at end of paper.
147
INTRODUCTION
During the early period of waterflooding,
economical considerations such as filtration,
chemical costs and low oil prices, were all major
restraints on water quality improvement. With
advances in technology and a better understanding
of reservoir characteristics, efficient water-
flood operations have been designed and imple-
mented. Many systems in operation today, however,
were not designed with quality water objectives
in mind. For these systems, a survey of the entire
injection system is needed, along with a periodic
monitoring program. Several different systems
have been observed in these studies, all of which
are "closed" systems, essentially free from air.
Specific studies are described herein which can
be used to ascertain current operating perfor-
manceand methods to improve injection efficiency.
EQUIPMENT EVALUATION
The mechanical operation of the system is
the first consideration in an injection system
survey, since it can significantly affect a chem-
ical program's ability to deliver quality water.
Current equipment performance should be
established by both water quality measurements and
visual inspection. Water quality measurements will
show the effectiveness of the current mechanical/
chemical arrangement. Retention studies will show
how well the equipment is currently operating.
Most produced waters contain some combination
of entrained oil, insoluble iron compounds, sand,
clays, and paraffin. The content of these foulants
in the \'later should be determined both before and
after each separation vessel, to es:tablis:h how well
the vessel and chemical program are performing.
The test method "Methods for Determining Water
Quality for Subsurface Injection Using Membrane
Filters"l is the most practiced for solids deter-
mination. To realize the true effect of poor
equipment performance, oil and solids content
2 SYSTEM SURVEY FOR IMPROVING INJECTION EFFICIENCY
should be magnified to the equivalent of daily
production rates; oil in barrels per day and solids
in pounds p.er year.
For vessels thought to have poor separation, a
retention study should be performed. This study
measures the time available for separation within
the vessel. 2 Visual inspection of piping config-
urations, valve positions, and tank inlet/outlet
positions will help indicate where mechanical
changes can be made to increase retention time.
This mechanical evaluation may show the need
for various improvements, including (a) an addition
of storage capacity to the system, (b) mechanical
changes to certain vessels to improve retention
time, and (c) the initiation of a coagulation
chemical program to aid in solids and oil removal.
A coagulent causes the conglomeration of some fine
particles and the adsorption of others to produce
a large particle called floc. This coagulated
material becomes "conditioned", to separate from
the water. Gravitational separation alone may be
effective, especially if a vessel provides ade-
quate retention time. A chemical coagulant enhan-
ces the process and particle size buildup improves
filtration efficiency.
WATER ANALYSES
After the system's mechanical operation is
evaluated, all water involved in the injection
process should be carefully studied. Samples
should include water produced from the oil reser-
voir as well as all other sources of injection
water. Inspection of the water across the system
will indicate trends and point out areas which
require further investigation.
Obtaining representative samples is one of
the most important aspects in determining problems
and their sources. Sampling procedures are out-
lined in "Analysis of Oil-Field Waters"3. Measure-
ments of pH, dissolved oxygen, H2S, and alkalinity
must be determined immediately upon collecting
the sample. Additional measurements include iron,
calcium, sulfate, turbidity, temperature, sus-
pended solids (membrane filter), corrosion rates,
oil carryover, and bacteria counts.
Graphical presentation of sample data is one
technique for correctly analyzing problems in the
fluid cycle. 4 Examples are given in Figures 1
through 6 in the Appendix. While these examples
portray scale problems, other waterflood problems
such as corrosion, plugging by suspended solids,
and bacteri a1 acti vi ty coul d also be graphi ca 11y
represented.
The calcium carbonate predictions in this
study were made using the Stiff and Davis exten-
sion of the Langlier saturation index.5 The cal-
cium sulfate solubilities were determined using
the Metler and Ostroff Method. 6 Important factors
in the precipitation of calcium carbonate are:
temperature, pH, carbon dioxide, alkal.i;nity and;tne
calcium content of the water. The solubility of
calcium carbonate varies directly with acidity
and carbon dioxide content, but varies inversely
with temperature. Increases in suspended solids,
as measured by membrane filter analyses, may
148
SPE 12591
indicate scale formation. Suspended solids can
also include corrosion by-products, oil and water
dispersible chemicals. Decreases in suspended sol-
ids may pOint to deposition within the system.
Increases in pH in Figure 1 and increases in
bicarbonate in Figure 3 are good indications of
scale deposition, as witnessed in Figure 4.
(Observe increase in calcium carbonate scaling
tendency as fluid moves toward the injector). The
mixing ratios of the two waters and variation in the
chloride levels also influence this deposition.
The possibility of calcium sulfate scale is negative
and formation of this product is therefore doubt-
ful, as shown in Figure 6. Note that all suspended
solids present at the injector in Figure 5 will be
deposited in or near the well bore. In many water-
flood systems, this amounts to tons per year and
causes expensive remedial work that mayor may not
be successful. The result of this particular system
survey was a scale inhibition program at the in-
jection pumps.
WATER COMPATIBILITY
Waters that are compatible can be mixed with-
out producing any undesirable chemical reactions
between dissolved components in the individual
waters. This is of primary importance in oper-
ating a waterflood system. If solids are created
due to combining incompatible waters, a separation
or a chemical alteration is needed.
In Figure 5, iron sulfide was produced when
the source (reef} water and produced water were
combined at the tank inlet. If a source water
must be used, and the reaction cannot be chemi-
cally prevented, an isolation of the problem in
order to remove the solids may be an alternative.
This could be as simple as placing a suction line
in the bottom center of the tank along with a
means of agitation to periodically clean out the
deposits. Or, it could be as complicated as
filtration (usually successful if the chemical
reactions have reached completion before the
filter}. Otherwise, depOSition will continue to
occur in injection lines or injection wells and
cause plugging.
Iron sulfide is not the only undesirable by-pro-
duct of mixing incompatible waters. Scale such as
calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, barium sul-
fate, and iron oxide may also form. When water
that is incompatible with formation water is in-
jected, deposition will occur at the interfacial
point of contact between the two waters. This
mayor may not be significant in the development
of problems. Once the producing we 11 bore is
reached and complete mixing occurs, the solids
will precipitate and cause damage to the well.
Compatibil ity tests should be performed in order
to predict, and thereby avoid, this problem. 7
FILTRATION
One alternative to remove solids from incom-
patible or turbid waters is filtration. The water
used for injection is usually produced water.
Initially this water is in equilibrium with the
gas, oil, and solids present in the formation.
However, critical transformations occur as the
3 C. L. CROW AND R. E. KEELING
water is brought to the surface and as the water is
transferred through the system. Suspended solids,
such as oil, iron sulfide, and scale can result.
The type and amount of water contaminants that
cause scale and solids formation influence the need
for filtration. Reservoir characteristics of the
injection well are another contributing factor.
If the reservoir is dense to begin with, forcing
unfiltered water through the pores is likely to
plug off the well, or at least reduce the effi-
ciency of the VJaterf100d.
In one system, a mineralogical survey was
conducted on core samples to quantify the effects
of using unfiltered water on the reservoir. The
formation consisted mainly of sandstone, class-
ified as a "dirty" sandstone with large amounts
of clays and other minerals blocking pore spaces,
Electron microscope photographs were taken to
obtain the initial pore space data. Two cores
were then cast and mounted such that fluid flow
would be oriented horizontal to the formation,
as would occur during actual water injection. The
inlet and outlet core ends were broken rather than
cut to minimize further core damage. Flow tests
were conducted on the cores using both filtered
and unfiltered water while the flow rates were
held constant. The pressure differential and flow
rates were measured and the permeability calculated.
These tests indicated that unfiltered water
greatly reducec;l, permeabil ity by p1 uggi ng pore
throat passages. From electron microscope photo-
graphs taken of the rock matrix after unfiltered
water passage, it was evident that the we11bore
area would be reduced by the solids. Flow through
the porosity would therefore be restricted, causing
possible channeling prop1ems.through fractures and
i;fn i.neffi cfent~weep. Figures 7 through 11
illustrate these occurrences in. the formation.
Figure 7 represents a clean broken core face
as compared to two cores whi ch had unfi ltered i n-
jection water flowed through them. The material
filtered out on the core faces was reddish in
color and x-ray analysis indicated that it was
primarily iron compounds. Note also that the
core plugs did have small fractures present and
once the flow channels plugged, the majority of
the flow was through these small fractures. Fig-
ures 8 and 9 depict a sample from the first core
plug before and after the injection of unfiltered
water. Framework grains and flow channels are
very evident initially. Then, the material from
the unfiltered injection water completely covers
the framework grains and plugs the flow channels.
Figures 10 and 11 also depict similar occurrences
in the second core sample.
A pilot filtration study was run using an
upf10w filter test unit. The filter unit con-
s i sted of a si ng1 e, 16"-di ameter, upward-fl owi ng,
sand media filter capable of operating at 6-8
gpm/ft 2 at 30 psi. The rate tested was 7 gpm/ft 2
at 30 psi through the vessel. The pilot test
was conducted on a station that processed 180,000
BWPD. Of this total, 160,000 was produced water
and 20,000 was water from a nearby reef. The
system received over 1,000 ppm of oil per day,
which was reduced upstream of the filter by a
flocculating agent to less than 300 ppm. With
149
SPE 12591
the addition of the pilot filter test unit, oil
carryover was consistently held to less than 5 ppm
downstream. In Table I, note the reduction in
suspended solids of influent versus effluent.
To determine the performance of the pilot
filter, particle size distribution was oberved
with a Coulter Counter. Influent oil concentra-
tions were greater than 1,000 ppm, with the
effluent less than 5 ppm. Table II shows addi-
tional performance data.
The pilot test was successful and construc-
tion of a full scale filtration unit is planned.
Results of the implementation will be reported
at a later date.
CONCLUSION
While the survey presented is a good repre-
sentation of field testing, it is not the only
way to perform a complete system survey. The
methods presented are an approach to determine
problem areas of a particular injection system.
Alternatives to consider in solving these prob-
lems were also discussed. The main topics covered
in the paper are:
1. A method for evaluating waterf100d systems.
2. Equipment evaluation and mechanical changes
necessary for effective operation.
3. A survey of water characteristics, beginning
at the source and continuing to the injector.
4. Water compatibility and some adverse effects
on the injection system.
5. Filtration as a possible alternative for
solids removal.
Variable conditions in a waterf100d may
cause one or all of the problems mentioned. These
problems are closely related to the origin of the
water and should be approached with this in
mind. By improving the water quality, a reduction
in maintenance costs and a more efficient water-
flood operation can be realized.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express thanks to the
management of Gulf Oil Corporation for permission
to publish this paper. Special acknowledgements
go to J. A. Moody, Gulf Oil Corporation, for core
flow evaluation, and to S. L. Ryman, Na1co Chem-
ical Company, for her interest and contributions.
Special thanks go to R. K. Hummel with L'eau
Claire Systems, Inc., for field testing and data
evaluation, and to Ha11iburtion Services Company
for performing core flow simulation tests.
REFERENCES
1. NACE Standard TM-Ol-73 (1973) "Tes t r~ethod for
Determining Water Quality for Subsurface
Injection Using Membrane Filters, Materials
Protection and Performance", Vol. 12, No.5.
2. Sevin, R. J. (1971) "How to Evaluate Water
4 SYSTEM FOR IMPROVING INJECTION EFFICIENCY SPE 12591
Treating Equipment", Petroleum Engineer Inter-
national, August, P. 73-79.
3. API Report 45 (1968) "API Recommended Practice
for Analysis of Oil-Field Waters", American
Petroleum Institute, Production Depar~~ent,
300 Corrigan Tower Bldg., Dallas, Texas 75201
4. Bilhartz, H. (1967) "A Standardized Method of
Monitoring Water Quality in Sub-Surface In- TABLE I
jection Systems", SPE Paper No. 1793.
5. H. A. Stiff and L. E. Davis (1952) " A Method TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS IN WATER
of Predicting the Tendency of Oilfield Waters
to Deposit Calcium Carbonate", Trans. AIME,
Vol. 195, p. 213. DATE INFLUENT EFFLUENT
(mg/l) (mg/l)
6. A. V. Metler and A. G. Ostroff (1967) " The
Proximate Calculation of the Solubility of 11-09-83 18.0 0.6
Gypsum in Natural Brines from 28 to 70 C",
Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. I, 11-09-83 23.0 0.7
p. 185.
11-09-83 54.7 1.7
7. Ostroff, A. G. (1979) Introduction to Oilfield
Water Technology, NACE, Houston, Texas 77084 il-10-83 20.0 0.3
8. Cowan, J. and Weintritt, D. (1976) Water 11-10-83 23.5 0.5
Formed Scale Deposits, Gulf Publishing Company
Houston, Texas
9. Patton, C. C. (1981) Oilfield Water Systems,
Campbell Petroleum Series, Norman, Oklahoma
73069

TABLE II

COULTER COUNTER DATA OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

PARTICLE SIZE PERCENT REMOVAL

1.26 - 1.59 microns 89
1.59 - 2.00 microns 90
Greater than 2 microns 98-100

150
 REEF TANK INJECTOR REEF TANK INJECTOR
PRQRl,J.<;:ED INLET PUMP INJECTOR PRQP~C;:ED INLET PUMP INJECTOR
7 75

70

w
6.6 0::
::J 65
l-
X
Q.
a: ......
0::
w
6.4 a.
:!: 60
W
I-

6.2 55

6 50
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Fig. 1-pH throughout injection system. Fig. 2-Temperature throughout injection system.

REEF TANK INJECTOR REEF TANK INJECTOR

PRQP~<;:ED INLET PUMP INJECTOR PRQP~C;:ED INLET PUMP INJECTOR
10 1.5

9.5 )-
u
z 1.2
9 w
r:I
z
w
8.5 I-
.9
(']
0
u
X
8
:
: ..
~
z
oJ
a: .6
7.5 u
III
(']
7 : 0
U
: a: .3
6.5 : u

6 0
1 2 3 4 2 3 ..
Fig. 3;.....Bicarbonate throughout injection system. Fig. 4-Calcium carbonate scaling tendency
throughout injection system.

REEF TANK INJECTOR REEF TANK INJECTOR

INLET PUMP INJECTOR PRQPI,J,C;:ED INLET PUMP INJECTOR
P~9P~c;:F=D
150 o
-2
,
:: 130
m
)-

~ -4
w
~110 ~ -6
w
III I- -8
::l
.J
90 ~

o ~ -18
III .J
r:I
w
70 5 -12
III
r:I
C'i 50 . .... -14
o
a. ~ -16
III
ijl30 u
-18
-20~----------~----------+---------~
2 3 .. 1 2 3

Fig. S-Suspended solids throughout injection system. Fig. 6-Calcium sulfate scaling tendency throughout
injection system.

SPE12j~1
Fig. 7-Clean broken lace (tlollom cenler) as compared with two core faces Fig. 8-First core plug before the unfiltered water was injected.
aller injection of unfiltered water.

Fig. 9-lnjection face of Ihe first core plug after the unfiltered water was Fig . 10-Second core plug before the unfiltered waler was injected.
injected.

Fig. t1 -lnjection face of the second core plug after the unfiltered waler was
injec ted