PETROLEUM SOCIETY PAPER 2005-060

CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING, METALLURGY & PETROLEUM

Advances of Produced Water Management

Y. DU*
New Mexico Tech

L. GUAN*
Texas A&M University

H. LIANG
China Petroleum University

(*Now with Chevrontexaco)

This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Society’s 6th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (56th Annual Technical
Meeting), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 7 – 9, 2005. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if
filed in writing with the technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will
be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to
correction.

Abstract
As more and more world major oil fields mature, more
water begins to be produced from oil producers because of
aquifer encroachment and/or water injection. Currently, it has
been well known that the oil industry has to handle more
produced water than oil which makes the oil industry looks
more like a “water industry”. How to wisely handle the
tremendous amount of unwanted produced water is an
imperative task that most oil companies have to face.
This paper describes the development of produced water
management techniques in the petroleum industry and
summarizes what petroleum engineers have learnt so far.
Various cases are discussed on the produced water
management in the industry. The results of our study indicate if
the unwanted produced water is not properly managed, it will
seriously impact the economics of the project through required
water treatment and disposal costs. However, the properly
management of the produced water can lead to significant cost
reduction and improve revenue from hydrocarbon production.
Introduction
Mature fields are major contributors to worldwide oil
production. World Energy Organization Basin Exhaustion S-
curve clearly shows that the exploration and production (E&P)
industry should put more efforts to mature fields, also called as
brownfields. When compared with other deepwater fields or
greenfields, Brownfield’s hold and produce the majority of oil
resources and represent the most significant capacity to provide
future production. Currently brownfields produce 67%-72% of
the world oil production. Most of these brownfields are more
than 30 years old and are in a state of declining production or
reaching the end of their productive life. Their current recovery
factor is about 35-37%. Brownfields are regarded as potential
“fountains of youth” by some petroleum engineers [1].
However, as oil fields mature, they begin to produce water
due to the aquifer encroachment and/or water injection
treatment. The huge volume of water produced is becoming a
primary threat to the continued economic viability of many
brownfields. In some extreme cases, only slightly water cut
increase may negatively impact field performance.

1
 As a matter of fact, current volume of production water has
impacted our worldwide oil production capacity. It was
estimated that the average worldwide water cut has reached
75%. [2] This means that, globally, oil and gas operators have to
produce an average of three barrels of water for each barrel of
oil from their depleting reservoirs. The water cut is much higher
in the United States. In the country, on average, 10 barrels (1.6
m3) of water are produced for each barrel of oil. Although exact
numbers of water production are difficult to obtain, data
compiled in 1999 indicate that more than 210 million barrels
(equal to 33.4 million m3) of water were being produced by
E&P industry each day. In the U.S.A, produced water comprises
98% of all waste generated by the E&P industry.
Moreover, the future water production is expected to
increase further as some large fields around the world are still
producing at relative low water cuts. Figure 1 shows the WOR
increase in the USA based on API produced water volume and
produced oil volume. The average WOR in 1985 is 7.4, and that
in 1995 is 7.5, similar to that in 1985. But seven years later, in
2002, the WOR jumped to 9.4. Huge volume of water will
definitely be produced in the future.
Given the huge volume of water production compared to oil
production and the increasing water cut trend, most oil
companies could almost be called “water companies”. Water
production management plays a vital role as reservoirs mature
and controlling water production becomes a major challenge to
reservoir management. Most oil companies are now producing
more water than oil.
Consequently, oil field water management is now a
conspicuous cost center in the realm of oil reservoir
management, especially due to the demands of environmental
compliance.[3] The water treatment and disposal cost varies
depending on volumes and location. The average handling and
disposal cost is estimated US $0.5 per barrel of produced water.
This cost only includes capital and operating expenses, utilities
and chemicals for lifting, separation, de-oiling, filtering,
pumping and injection. If the well produces oil with a water cut
of 80%, water handling cost can be as high as US $4 per barrel
of oil produced. The annual cost of dealing with the production
water in the United States is estimated to be US $5-10 billion
and that in the world is a staggering US $30-40 billion. This is a
cost estimate solely of the direct cost of water; an even greater
loss is incurred through the resulting loss of hydrocarbon
production and decreased reserves. [3]
The environmental concern in connection with water
discharge is growing. Nowadays, people are concerning with
their environment. Stricter environmental regulations are put
into effect regarding water treatment and disposal. The oil
company must be prepared for the coming of “Green age”.
Excessive water production reduces well productivity,
increase corrosion rates and compels operators to expand their
water treatment and disposal systems. Otherwise, serious
environmental problems can rise if produced water is not
handled properly.
In sum, rising water production, coupled with new stricter
environmental regulations being introduced worldwide to
control the disposal of produced water. These changes are
presenting operators and service companies with a range of new
challenges. Relatively small reductions in the cost of treating
each barrel of water, and methods of reducing the volume of
water to be treated, will result in significant cumulative savings.
This has encouraged operating companies and their service
partners to find feasible solutions to problems of wastewater.
2
Advances of Water Management
Water affects every stage of oilfield life from
exploration—the oil-water contact is a crucial factor for
determining oil-in-place—through development, production,
and finally to abandonment. As oil is produced from a reservoir,
water from a nearby aquifer or from injectors eventually will be
mixed and produced along with the oil. Water flows through a
reservoir, into production tubing and surface- processing
facilities, and eventually extracted for disposal or injected for
maintaining reservoir pressure. The movement of water is called
the “water cycle”, shown in Figure 2. [4]
Oil field water management encompasses the entire water
cycle associated with field development. The top priority to the
produced water management strategy is to: (1). minimize
produced water (Lowing the handling costs and bottleneck
effect on oil production figure 3., minimizing or eliminating
environmental damage), (2). turn water into a value proposition
utilizing technologies such as to re-inject it for pressure
maintenance and/or improve sweep efficiency, and (3).
treatment and disposal.
The generally preferred hierarchy for water management is
diagnosing, reduce, re-use and treatment ad disposal. Diagnose
means find the water production zone. Reduce means
minimizing produced water to surface. Re-use means turning
water into a value proposition. Treatment and disposal is
handling the water to meet the environmental requirements.
These four management techniques are further expanded on
below.
Diagnosis
Logically, identification of the excess-water-production
problem should be performed before attempting a treatment.
The first step in water management is assessing and diagnosing
the water system. Because of its complexity, defining the
problem is often the most difficult part of the process. Today,
engineers and geoscientists apply a multistep process supported
by a sophisticated array of techniques and tools to diagnose
water-related problems. The process often begins with gathering
reservoir, production-history and surface-facility information.
Using previously acquired data, engineers evaluate the current
production system to identify economic bottlenecks and to gain
an initial understanding of the water-flow mechanisms in the
reservoir, wells and surface system.
Various causes of excess water production exist. Each
problem requires a different approach to find its effective
solution. Therefore, to achieve a high success rate when treating
water-production problems, the nature of the problem first must
be identified correctly. Many different materials and methods
can be used to attack excess-water-production problems. Each
of these methods may work very well for certain types of
problems but are usually ineffective for other problems. Again,
for effective treatment, the nature of the problem first must be
identified correctly.
Unfortunately, many (perhaps most) oil and gas producers
do not properly diagnose their water production problems.
Consequently, attempted water-shutoff treatments frequently
have low success rates. Four main reasons exist for the
inadequate diagnosis of water-production problems. [5]
First, operators often do not feel that they have the time or
money to perform the diagnosis, especially on marginal wells
with high water cuts. The performance of the oil production
wells traditionally receives their greatest attention, since it
directly impacts on achieving the daily oil production target. By
contrast, improvements in water injection well efficiency take
weeks or even months before the increased volumes of injection
water show their full impact by increasing the oil production
rate.
Second, uncertainty exists about which diagnostic methods
should be applied first. Perhaps 30 different diagnostic methods
could be used. In the absence of a cost-effective methodology
for diagnosing water- production problems, many operators opt
to perform no diagnosis.
Third, many engineers incorrectly believe that one method
(e.g., cement) will solve all water production problems or that
only one type of water production problem (e.g., 3D coning)
exists.
Finally, some service companies incorrectly encourage a
belief that a “magic bullet” method exists that will solve many
or all types of water production problems.
In the modern economic environment, the long term oilfield
profitability becomes increasingly determined by the efficiency
of the production operations process. This obviously includes
the optimization of the value created by the water management.
Hence, it requires oil companies not only to consider water
management simply as a cost, but also an operation generating
additional value to their asset.
When a reliable production history is available, it often
contains a wealth of information that can help diagnose water
problem. Several different analytical techniques using
information such as water/oil ratios, production data, Nodal
analysis and logging measurements have been developed to
distinguish among the different sources of unacceptable water.
Then engineers and specialists from operator and service
company work together to determine whether any new data are
required to properly assess the production system. For example,
flow tests of production and injection wells, downhole fluid-
flow profiles, wireline and crosswell surveys, and time-lapse
seismic acquisition are capable of defining oil and/or water
movements within the reservoir.
The ten basic problem types vary from easy to solve to the
most difficult to solve as shown in figure 4: [6]
1. Casing, tubing or packer leaks—Leaks through casing,
tubing or packers allow water flow from non-oil-productive
zones to enter the production string.
2. Channel flow behind casing— Failed primary cementing
can connect water-bearing zones to the pay zone.
3. Moving up of oil-water contact— A uniform oil water
contact moving up into a perforated zone in a well during
normal water-drive production can lead to unwanted water
production.
4. Water-out layer without crossflow—A common problem
with multilayer production occurs when a high-permeability
zone with a flow barrier above or below is watered out.
5. Fractures or faults between injectors and producers—In
naturally fractured formations by waterflooding, injection water
can rapidly break through into producing wells.
6. Fractures or faults from a water layer—Water can be
produced from fractures that intersect a deeper water zone.
7. Coning or cusping—Coning occurs in a vertical well
when there is an OWC near perforations in a formation with a
relatively high vertical permeability.
8. Poor areal sweep-Edge water from an aquifer or injection
during waterflooding through a pay zone often lead to poor
areal sweep.
9. Gravity-segregation layer—in a thick reservoir layer with
good vertical permeability, gravity segregation sometimes can
result in unwanted water entry into a producing well.
10. Watered-out layer with crossflow—water crossflow can
occur in high-permeability layers that are not isolated by
impermeable barriers.
3
The diagnosis of common water problems is a very complex
task. The tools which help engineers to establish the causes of
water problems were discussed in detail. [7]
For example, problem caused by leaks or flow behind pipe
can be diagnosed by (1). Leak tests/casing integrity tests (e.g.,
hydrotesting), (2). Temperature surveys, (3). Flow profiling
tools (e.g., radiotracer flow logs, spinner surveys, production
logging tools), (4). Cement bond logs, (5). Borehole
televiewers, and (6). Noise logs.
The detail comparison of the diagnosis techniques is out of
the scope of this paper. The key information here is that water
production diagnosis can not be overemphasized.
Reduce the Volume of Discharged
Produced Water
First and foremost, minimization of water production is to
be pursued in water management. Minimizing the amount of
water brought to surface may lower all costs associated with
production, water disposal and handling and eliminates
environmental impact.
Oil operators have different options for reducing the
produced water discharge. These options are based on either
minimizing water production, minimizing the handling of
produced water on the surface or disposing of the water, by
putting it back into the ground. The alternative technologies for
reducing the water production and water discharge are
summarized in following paragraphs.
Water Control Treatment
In the past, water control was thought as simply a plug and
cement operation, or a gel treatment in a well. The main reason
for the industry’s failure to consistently control water has been a
lack of understanding of the different problems and the
consequent application of inappropriate solutions. This is
demonstrated by the number of the technical papers discussing
the treatments and results with little or no reference to the
geology. Well diagnostics are used in the following ways: (1).
to screen wells that are suitable candidates for water control,
(2). to determine the water problem so that a suitable water
control method can be selected, (3). to locate the water entry
point in the well so that a treatment can be correctly placed.
After we determined the problem, we may reduce the water
production through selective shutting off the inflow of
unwanted water by chemical or biological methods and in
combinations with mechanical shut-off techniques.
This treatment is used to block off the water zone in wells
and maintain the production from the oil rich zones. This
technique is only applicable in multi perforated zones and
where it is clear that one perforated zone is producing a high
water rate, or as high as 90 – 100%.
This treatment includes the development and proof of
reversible shut-off system for matrix type reservoirs, the
implementation of water based self-selective shut-off systems in
oil wells, the novel fracture shut-off systems to minimize rapid
water breakthrough from naturally or induced fractures and the
application of zonal isolation technology in vertical gravel
packed wells and in horizontal wells.
Success with treatments relies on selecting wells that have
high water-oil ratios, substantial moveable oil saturations,
unexpectedly low oil recoveries, early water or gas break-
throughs, or high fluid levels in the wellbore.
Figure 5 shows the four problem categories in the general
order of increasing treatment difficulty. Within each category,
the listing order is only roughly related to the degree of
treatment difficulty. Category A, “Conventional” Treatments
Normally are probably effective, includes the application of
water-shutoff techniques that are generally well established, use
materials with high mechanical strength, and function in or very
near the wellbore. Examples include Portland cement,
mechanical tubing patches, bridge plugs, and straddle packers.
Category B: Treatments with gelants normally are probably
effective, Category C: treatments with preformed gels are
probably effective, and Category D: difficult problems for
which gel treatments should not be used. Polymer gels cut water
production by blocking fluids from the wellbore, or by
improving sweep efficiency. Successfully gel treatment depend
on correctly identifying the problem (coning, breakthrough, or
permeability streaks), and the type of gel fluid chosen
(according to temperature, salinity, or fluid compatibility), as
well as treatment sizing, placement, and application.
Downhole Oil-Water Separation
Downhole Separation is a technique to separate and allow
the water to flow back to the reservoir without bringing it up to
the surface. Suitable oil water separation units are placed inside
the well and must be installed during well operation.
This technology basically adapts the hydrocyclone
technology, used for the topside treatment facilities with
modifications and is installed downhole. Downhole electrical
pumps will be required in order to pump the water back to
higher-pressure zone.
Downhole oil-water separation may make marginal
discoveries profitable, increase ultimate recovery, extend the
economic life of wells and fields, reduce capital expenditure as
water handling facilities can be smaller, lower lifting and
operating cost, reduce chemical cost for water treatment and
corrosion protection, help protect the environment.
But downhole oil-water separation technique requires (1).
API gravity >20, (2). water cut > 80%, (3). 10-30% of inflow
volume lifted to surface, (4). surface oil cut <50% and (5).
efficient downhole monitoring system.
Sub-Sea Separation
Sub-sea separation is a relatively new technology, and still
under assessment. It is specific to sub-sea production. For
onshore operation, vaporization of water using large surface
area exposure of water on water ponds is an option, though such
approach will cause other environmental impacts relevant to the
atmosphere as well as life around the ponds.
Horizontal Producer
For reservoirs with many vertical flow barriers, excess
water production relief is expected from horizontal wells
because the smaller drawdown and lager drainage area
compared with vertical wells.
Dual-Completion Water Sinks [8]
Dual-completion water sinks are perforated in both the oil
and water legs of a formation, which produce simultaneously
with rates controlling pressure differentials and/or coning.
When properly balanced, the oil zone produces essentially
water-free oil, while the water zone produces essentially oil-free
water. Although water is still produced to the surface,
separation costs are lowered. A variation injects the produced
water into another formation that is not in pressure
communication with the producing formation. The disposal
zone must have adequate injectivity to handle anticipated fluid
volumes, and thus requires more perforations and larger
tubulars.
This allows produce the oil and water legs individually,
reduce differential pressure, and reduce coning in dual-action
4
pumping system, lowering treating costs as they separate the oil
from the water downhole, and then re-inject it. In formations
where the oil and water legs are in good pressure
communication, dual completion water sinks maybe a
promising alternative. Best knowledge on the porosity and
permeability relationships is preferred.
Transforming Produced Water From Waste
Into Resource
Despite advances made by operators and service companies
in surface and downhole water management, produced water
remains a necessary, if burdensome, by-product of oil and gas
production. In mature fields around the world, more than 210
million bbl of water produced daily from oil and gas operations,
and 30% to 40% of produced water are disposed.
The substantial availability of produced water, along with a
need for less costly alternatives to disposal, leads researchers to
study the reuse of produced water for irrigation, industrial use
and other applications. With proper treatment, produced water
may find many uses while relieving pressure on the Earth’s
freshwater supply. There are huge potential to transfer produced
water from waste into source.
However, the path from waste to resource depends on water
chemistry and contaminant level.
Produced-water quality varies with geology, geography,
production techniques, and the type of hydrocarbons being
produced. The water may contain dispersed oil, light
hydrocarbons, metals, salts, and a wide variety of other organic
and inorganic materials.
The production water must be treated to meet the
requirement of further usage.
Produced Water Re-Injection (PWRI)
Reservoir engineers can use water to perform useful tasks
such as flooding oil in the reservoir and maintaining reservoir
pressure. The benefit of water injection is that typically it will
increase the recovery factor and it is the preferred
environmental option for discharge of excess waste water.
The first documented project for the disposal of oil field
brine (salt water produced along with oil and gas), in the same
formation where it originated, started in Texas in 1938.
enhanced oil recovery , which is the injection of water or other
fluid into a formation to extract additional oil and gas, probably
started early in the 1930s. Industrial waste injection started in
the 1950s with Dow Chemical injection industrial fluids. In the
1950s DuPont Chemical Corporation started to inject some of
its industrial waste into deep wells.
A general document describing the guidelines for produced
water re-injection (PWRI) was issued by International
Association of Oil & Gas Producer. [9] This document addresses
all relevant issues concerning PWRI in terms of reservoir issues
and criteria for the re-injection, in terms of, well design,
operational issues, process monitoring, containment and
confinement. It is a useful document to use for assessing the
PWRI from reservoir and operational aspects. The different
categories of re-injection will be addressed from the operational
sustainability and the HS&E impact of the individual categories.
These categories are:
1. PWRI into a dedicated disposal well that is not part of the
reservoir pressure maintenance management.
2. PWRI into a dedicated injection well that is part of the
reservoir pressure maintenance management, with full or
minimum filtration criteria.
3. Produced water commingled with seawater and injected
into a well that is part of the reservoir pressure maintenance
management, with full or minimum filtration criteria.
 4. PWRI in gas producing installation that is based on Watering the Desert
injection into a dedicated well for disposal. Generally speaking,
In the deserts environment, fresh water is a rare commodity.
water injection is not utilized widely in gas reservoir for
In the late 1990s, Petroleum Development Oman (PDO) started
pressure maintenance.
their Greening the Desert project. They converted produced
The PWRI can be done by alternatives such as: (1). High
water into a usable resource through a combination of
pressure water injection above the original fracture pressure;
biotreatment and biosaline agriculture. PDO produces more
(2). Injection under thermal fracturing conditions if the
than 200,000 m3 of water daily from the Nimr oil field in
produced water is cool enough to propagate the thermal
southern Oman in a desert environment. At costs as high as US
fractures; and (3). Radial flow injection below the fracture
$l5.00/m3, a cost lower than that of disposal. Ideally, access to
pressure for both original and cooled conditions.
this fresh water could convert a dry, inhospitable environment
Chemical treatments including emulsion breakers, biocides,
into one of economic prosperity through agriculture and other
polyelectrolytes and oxygen scavengers are added to the water
associated benefits. By selecting special salt-tolerant crops and
to condition it for reinjection, and corrosion inhibitors and anti-
trees for produced-water irrigation, growth can be sustained
scale chemicals are added to protect tubulars and downhole
even in desert environments.
equipment.
Typical separation techniques remove oil dispersed in water
The re-injection of production water needs to be considered
to a concentration below 200 ppm. After primary oil-water
carefully to avoid recharging production horizons as this would
separation, the effluent has salinity that is only 25% that of sea
accentuate the problem of ever increasing streams of
water. This water irrigates a lined-bed planted with halophytes,
dehydration water
reed-type plants that grow well in saline environments.
Approximately 50 million barrels of water are injected
Farming operations have demonstrated that natural
worldwide. After re-injection disposal costs are US $0.5 to
processes in the reed beds degrade residual oil, while the
0.50 per barrel, and if this water must be trucked, costs can rise
halophytes cleanse the water of heavy metals. With most of the
to US $1.50 per barrel.
contaminants removed, only dissolved salts preclude the water’s
use for conventional agriculture and other applications.
Produced Water Irrigation
In year 2000, PDO completed this project the cost is USD
The World Health Organization and other agencies suggest 0.23/m3, similar to the cost of ocean discharge. But it avoids the
that severe regional water shortages affect over 400 million environmental disadvantages attached to the ocean discharge
[13]
people today and may affect 4 billion by 2050. With treatment, .
produced water has the potential to play a key role in relieving
the demand on natural freshwater systems. Agricultural usage Produced Water to Cool Thermoelectric Energy Generation
accounts for at least two- thirds of global water consumption.
As we know, the global community is highly reliant on
Shortages of water for irrigation are either already occurring or
electrical energy, Power plants that provide this electricity rely
projected to occur in major grain-growing regions of the world.
[10] on transmission lines, a fuel such as natural gas or coal, and
water for cooling. Ranked in 2000 just behind agriculture in
As demand for usable water increases in some areas,
water use, thermoelectric energy generation in the USA
engineers and scientists look for ways to convert this economic
withdraws 195 billion gallons of water daily from the
liability into a viable resource.
ecosystem, most of which is fresh water. [14]
Climate research studies conducted by the University of
The SJGS (San Juan Generating Station) represents only
Arizona, Tucson, USA, indicate that the state of New Mexico,
one case in which governmental agencies and power generators
located in the south western USA, will continue to be drier over
are working together to conserve a vital resource by converting
the next 30 to 40 years. Today, researchers, oil and gas
waste into a resource.
operators and government officials are taking steps to prepare
In 2004, the Department of Energy of USA in conjunction
for the drier times ahead.
with PNM (Public Service Company of New Mexico) examined
For example, working in conjunction with several E&P
the potential use of produced water for cooling at the SJGS.
companies and the US Bureau of Land Management, scientist at
The coal-fired PNM San Juan Generating Station is one of
New Mexico State University are exploring the possibilities of
the USA’s largest power generating facilities, producing the
using the water produced from local coalbed methane (CBM)
majority of PNM’s electricity and withdrawing a significant
wells to irrigate selected grasses. They have selected experiment
amount of fresh water from the San Juan basin. While
sites and conducted researches to identify specials of rangeland
generating as much as 1,800 megawatts of power, the facility
grass which shows adoptions to CBM-Produced water
withdraws 400,000 to 500,000 bbl of cooling water daily. The
irrigation. The results show very promising [11].
San Juan basin also has more than 18,000 oil and gas wells,
Another good example conducted by Texas A&M
cumulatively producing more than 62,000 bbl of water daily
University, College Station, Texas, USA. A team of engineers
across a 3,200-square mile area.
and rangeland, soils, wildlife and irrigation specialists, is taking
Engineers concluded that the abandoned, or limited-use,
the produced-water rangeland irrigation process one step
pipelines is capable of delivering as much as 43,000 bbl/d of
further. Working with the Texas Water Research Institute,
produced water to the power plant— to 11% of the daily
engineers have built a prototype mobile produced-water
cooling intake at SJGS and representing a 10- to 20-year
treatment unit. Water can be treated on site to remove
supplemental cooling-water supply.
contaminants and dissolved salts prior to rangeland irrigation.
Although some adaptation of power plant cooling systems
Field tests indicate that mobile unit water- processing cost is
may be required to use untreated conventional and CBM-
approximately US $0.80 per barrel of produced water, a rate
produced water, the benefits outweigh modification costs.
often half that of conventional regional-disposal practices.
Scientists are investigating alternative techniques for effluent
Produced Water to Purified Water
disposal that might further reduce desalination cost [12].
Removing dissolved salts by common techniques, such as
RU, is not always cost-efficient. A novel polymer engineered by
Akzo Nobel allowed Solar Dew B.V., working with Shell and

5
PDO, to develop an alternative membrane-based water-
purification concept. By taking advantage of the arid climate
and abundant sunlight, the mostly oil-free produced water is
passed through special polymer tubes made by Solar Dew.
Energy from the sun heats the water inside the tubes. Water
molecules migrate to the outside of the semipermeable polymer
tube, leaving salts and impurities concentrated within.
The purified water evaporates, then condenses, on the
underside of a rigid plate covering the apparatus and is
channeled to and captured in holding tanks. Unlike more
conventional techniques, the process requires no pressure or
external energy other than that supplied by the sun.
The novel produced-water treatment processes being
developed by PDO exploit available and renewable resources to
produce usable water from waste, potentially leading the way to
greener environments, habitability and improved economic
sustainability for many arid oil-producing regions of the world.
In most desalination processes, salts and other contaminants
are removed and become concentrated in a waste material,
Because of its unique structure; spent zeolite material may be
usable as construction material or in roadbeds, thus turning
another waste product into a resource. Sandia is currently
conducting scale- up engineering and materials processing cost
studies to further evaluate the potential of this promising
material.
Treatment/Disposal
Produced water is typically hot and corrosive, complex
brines, commonly containing ‘undesirable’ components such as
hydrogen sulphide and organic chemicals, and, less-commonly,
significant amounts of heavy metals, aromatic hydrocarbons
and radioactive compounds.
Water treatment and disposal are subjects of increasing
attention in E & P operations, for three main reasons: (1)
increasing volumes are being produced as more and more fields
‘mature’; (2) more stringent discharge standards are being
introduced in many operating areas of the world, and; (3) the
need to reduce capital and operating costs.
Disposal legislation regarding produced water is on the
increase worldwide.
Most of discharged water requires treatment because of
contamination with traces of oil, heavy metals, boron, and
corrosive fluids like H2S, CO2, salt and solids. The potential
savings for handling and treating this upcoming wave of
produced water is significant, however, these costs exclude the
cost of deferred oil and additional costs of drilling new wells to
replace the watered out ones and injection wells. The greatest
value comes from incremental oil recovery by utilizing
technology to reduce downhole and / or to recycle produced
water for reservoir management (i.e. pressure maintenance and
sweep).
Optimizing oil removal from produced water has two
primary effects: more oil is recovered, and cleaner produced
water is delivered for disposal or reuse.
Normal sea water contains around 3.5% dissolved material
(Often expressed as 35,000 ppm). About 90% of this dissolved
material is sodium chloride. The nature and quantity of water in
an oil and gas reservoir is very different. If the reservoir rocks
are close to outcrop, or where the rock sequence is strongly
faulted, the reservoir water is generally characterized by oil
field water with a lower salinity (May less than 10,000 ppm).
At depths in excess of few hundred meters the dissolved
materials found in formation water are at a very high
concentration (more than 100,000 ppm). In extreme cases,
formation waters may contain more than 300,000 ppm.
6
A new process for produced water cleanup is now being
field-tested with promising results. The light water treatment
unit uses coalescing and separation techniques to reduce the
amount of oil-in-water to levels below 20 ppm at flow rates up
to 3,000 bbl/d (477 m3/d).
The main options for produced water disposal are listed
below. The overall produced water management strategy could
involve different combinations of these options at different
phases of the filed life. (1). Surface disposal, (2) Subsurface
disposal after producing to surface, (3) Subsurface re-injection
for IOR after producing to surface, (4) Subsurface disposal after
downhole separation, and (5). Subsurface re-injection for IOR
after downhole separation.
In offshore operations, topside equipment for produced
water handling adds an enormous cost. It is imperative that we
find cost effective solutions for treating this water in an
environmental benign manner. Seafloor separation coupled with
sub-surface injection of produced water for waterflooding to
recover additional oil is an excellent disposal strategy for the
produced water that achieves three important goals: (1).
minimize the water treatment cost, (2). disposes the produced
water in a cost effective and environmentally benign manner,
and (3). provide valuable resource for water flooding.
Conclusion
Advances in water-management technologies are allowing
engineers to better analyze, optimize and manage water in the
reservoir and at the surface. At the same time, researchers
around the world are working to find alternative uses for excess
produced water.
Water affects every stage of oilfield life from exploration
through development, production, and finally to abandonment.
Water management will play a crucial role to the development
of fields in the future.
Technology to transform produced water from waste into
resource is merging. What was once a waste and liability may
tomorrow be a valuable resource in agriculture, industrial
applications and beyond.
NOMENCLATURE
CBM = coal bed methane
E&P = exploration and production
HS&E = healthy, safety and environment
OWC = oil-water contact
PDO = Petroleum Development Oman
PNM = Public Service Company of New Mexico
PWRI = production water re-injection
SJGS = San Juan Generating Station
WOR = water oil ratio
REFERENCES
1. AHMED, U, A White Paper on Brownfields,
Schlumberger, January 2004.
2. VEIL, J.A., PUDER, M., ELCOCK, D. and REDWEIK,
R.J., A White Paper Describing Produced Water from
Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal Bed
Methane;
http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/dsp_detail.cfm?PubID=171
5, 2004.
3. EVANS, R., Improved Environmental Compliance and
Planning for Oil Field Water Management Using The
Latest Information Technology; SPE 37844, Presented at
 the 1997 SPE/UKOOA European Environmental
Conference held in Aberdeen, Scotland, April 1997.
4. KHATIB, Z. and VERBEEK, P., Water to Value-
Produced Water Management for Sustainable Field
Development of Mature and Green Fields; SPE 73853,
Presented at the SPE international Conference on Health,
Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March
2002.
5. SERIGHT, R.S., LANE, R.H. and SYDANSK, R.D., A
Strategy for Attacking Excess water Production, SPE
Production & Facilities, published in August 2003.
6. ARNOLD, R., and BURNETT, D.B., Managing Water-
From Waste to Resource; Oilfield Review, 2004.
7. BAILEY, B., CRABTREE, M., TYRIE, J., ELPHICK,
J., KUCHUK, F., ROMANO, C, and ROODHART, L.
Oil Field Review, Spring 2000. Page 30-51.
8. Advanced Technologies for Managing Produced Water,
PTTC workshop held in Columbus, OH, USA, March,
1998.
9. EVANS, R., Produced Water Management Strategy with
the Aid of Decision Analysis, SPE 66543, presented at
the SPE/EPA/DOE Exploration and Production
7
Environmental Conference, San Antonio, USA,
February 2001.
10. Burnett D.B, Decision and Risk Analysis Study of the
injection of Desalination By-Products into Oil and Gas-
Producing Zones, SPE 86526, presented at the SPE
international Symposium and Exhibition on Formation
Damage Control, held in Lafayette, USA, February
2004.
11. CAVAZOS, N. F., Cool-Season Precipitation in the
Southwestern USA Since AD 1000: Comparison of
Linear and Nonlinear Techniques for Reconstruction,
International Journal of Climatology, held in Novermber
2002.
12. BURNETT D. and FOX W., Produced Water: An Oasis
for Arid and Semi-Arid Range Restoration,
http://www.gwpc.org/meetings/PW2002.
13. MUSCATI, A., HUIJSKES, J. and PARKER, D.H.
Production Water Management in Oman; SPE 37786,
Presented at the 1997 Middle East Oil Show in Bahrain,
March 1997.
14. AWAD, M.A., Middle East Well Evaluation Review;
November 1999.
 WOR Increase in the U.S.A

10

9
Water-oil Ratio

5
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year

Figure 1. Increase of Water-Oil-Ratio in U.S.A Figure 2. “Water Cycle”-- the Movement of Water[4]

Key Performance Indicators Bottlenecks

Lower water-handling cost Water-handling cost per bbl

Mitigate environmental impact Water production rate

Increase oil productivity Oil production rate

Increase reserves Sweep efficiency

Figure 3 Water’s Impact on Oil Field Development

Easy

Simple
“Conventional” Treatments are Normally Effective
1. Casing, tubing or packer leaks Casing leaks without flow restrictions.
Flow behind pipe without flow restrictions.
2. Channel flow behind casing
Unfractured injectors/producers with effective crossflow barriers.

3. Moving up of oil-water contact Treatments with Gelants Normally are Effective

Casing leaks with flow restrictions.
4. Water-out layer without crossflow
Flow behind pipe with flow restrictions.
“2D coning” through a hydraulic fracture from an aquifer.
5. Fractures or faults between injectors and producers
Natural fracture system leading to an aquifer.

6. Fractures or faults from a water layer Treatments With Preformed Gels are Effective
Faults or fractures crossing a deviated or horizontal well.
7. Coning or cusping Single fracture causing channeling between wells.
Natural fracture system allowing channeling between wells.
8. Poor areal sweep
Gel Treatments Should Not be Used

9. Gravity-segregation layer 3D coning.

Cusping.

10. Watered-out layer with crossflow Channeling through strata (no fractures), with crossflow.
Difficult
Complex
Figure 5. Four Problem Categories in the General Order of
Figure 4. Ten Basic Problem Types from Easy to Solve to the Increasing Treatment Difficulty [6]
Most Difficult to Solve [6]