Available online at www.scholarsresearchlibrary.
com
Scholars Research Library
Archives of Applied Science Research, 2013, 5 (4):69-75
(http://scholarsresearchlibrary.com/archive.html)
ISSN 0975-508X
CODEN (USA) AASRC9
Beneficial uses of the produced water from palogue oil field for injection to
enhance oil recovery
Laila Elhassan Obeadalla1 and Saif Elnasr Abdelmagd2
1
Ministry of Oil, Central Petroleum Laboratories (CPL), Sudan
2
Dept. of Chemistry, College of Science, University of Elneelain, Sudan
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
This study carried out in Palogue oilfield. One water samples collected from field processing facilities and one
water sample collected from formation water in the same field. The water samples (formation and produced water)
blend together. Nineteen blends of these waters for every field analyses for anions using UV Spectroscopy and
cations using Inductive Coupled Plasma –optical E mission Plasma (ICP-OES).Scale deposition calculated for
every blend and select the best blend to use for injection. Then the produced water sample analyses done for
conductivity, total dissolve solids ond anions to calculate sodium adsorption ratio and to measure the suitability for
irrigation of crops.
Key words: Produced water, formation water, injection, enhances oil recovery
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Produced water is the largest volume waste stream in the exploration and production process. Over the economic life
of a producing field, the volume of produced water can exceed by ten times the volume of hydrocarbons produced.
During the latest stages of production, it is not uncommon to find that produced water can account for as much as
98% of the extracted fluids. With volume of this magnitude, the disposal of produced water becomes an important
issue to both the operator and the environment. The optimum method for disposing of produced water is that protect
the environment while imposing the least economic burden on the operator. Often, regulatory controls limit the
options available to the operator. However, the methods dictated by regulatory controls may not be necessary or
appropriate to protect the environment. (Produced water, Editted by J.P. andF.R.I992) In many land-based
production operations, the produced water is either injected into a disposal well or the water is injected into a
producing formation for enhanced oil recovery purposes via water flood or steam flood operations. Before being
injected for either disposal or enhanced recovery, the produced water must undergo treatment to render the water
suitable for use. The produce water can be treated and use for crop irrigation or can have safe disposal.
Produced water injection for enhance oil recovery
The injection water into oilfield reservoirs to maintain reservoir pressure and improve secondary recovery is a
well established mature operation.
Scale formation in surface and subsurface oil and gas production equipment has been recognized to be a major
operational problem. It has been also recognized as a major cause of formation damage either in injection or
69
Scholars Research Library
Laila Elhassan Obeadalla et al Arch. Appl. Sci. Res., 2013, 5 (4):69-75
______________________________________________________________________________
producing wells. Scale contributes to equipment wear and corrosion and flow restriction, thus resulting in a decrease
in oil and gas production.
There are other reasons why scale forms, and the amount and location of which are influenced by several factors,
supersaturating is the most important reason behind mineral precipitation.A super saturated condition is the primary
cause of scale formation and occurs when a solution contains dissolved materials which are at higher concentrations
than their equilibrium concentration. The degree of super saturation also known as the scaling index is the driving
force for the precipitation reaction and a high super saturation condition implies higher possibilities for salt
precipitation. Scale can occur at downstream of any point in the production system, at which super saturation is
generated. Super saturation can be generated in single water by changing the pressure and temperature conditions or
by mixing two incompatible waters. Changes in temperature, pressure, pH, and CO2/H2S partial pressure could also
contribute to scale formation (Mackay J.E., 2003)
Common oil field scales:
The most common oilfield scales are sulfates such as calcium sulfate (anhydrite, gypsum), barium sulfate (barite),
strontium sulfate (celestite) and calcium carbonate. Common scales have also been reported such as iron oxides, iron
sulfides and iron carbonate. Lead and zinc sulfide scale has recently become a concern in a number of North Sea oil
and gas fields (Collins and Jordan, 2001). Many case histories of oil well scaling by calcium carbonate,
calcium sulfate, strontium sulfate, and barium sulfate have been reported (Mitchell et al. 1980; Lindlof and
Stoffer, 1983; Vetter et al., 1987; Shuler et ah, 1991
There follows a brief description of each scale:
Calcium carbonate deposits :
Calcium carbonate or calcite scale is frequently encountered in oilfield operations. But the calcite has the greatest
stability in oilfield circumstances, so it is the most common form of calcium carbonate encountered in oilfield
production operation. Calcium carbonate crystals are large, but when the scale is found together with impurities in
the form of finely divided crystals, then the scale appears uniform. Deposition of CaCO3 scale results from
precipitation of calcium carbonate as in the following equation:
Ca+++ CO3-- CaCO3
Calcium carbonate scale can also be formed by combination of calcium and bicarbonate ions, and this reaction is
the major cause of calcium carbonate scale deposition in oilfield operations. This is because only a small
percentage of the bicarbonate ions dissociated at the pH values found in most injection waters to form H+ and CO3-2
(Moghadasi et al., 2004b). In many oilfields, the deposition of calcium carbonate scale on surface and subsurface
production equipment creates an operation problem. The formation water in which the carbonate-scale-forming
components are initially dissolved becomes supersaturated with calcium carbonate because of the drop in pressure
during production. The continuous flow of a supersaturated solution through the production equipment results in the
growth of a dense layer of calcium-carbonate crystals (Bezemer and Bauer, 1969).
Calcium sulphate deposits:
Calcium sulfate, or gypsum, is another solid frequently deposited by oilfield brines. Calcium sulfate usually
precipitates directly on the metal surfaces of flow lines, boilers, heat exchanger tubes, etc., and consequently forms a
scale rather than sludge. The crystals of calcium sulfate are smaller than those of calcium carbonate, so the scale is
generally harder and denser than carbonate scales. Sulfate scales do not effervesce when treated with acid and
cannot successfully be removed by acidizing at normal temperatures. Calcium sulfate scale is more difficult to
remove than calcium carbonate scale.
The precipitation of calcium sulfate from water can be expressed as:
Ca++ + SO4-- CaSO4
Barium sulphate deposits
One of the most insoluble substances formed from water and it is very difficult to remove once formed on
equipment. It is formed by reaction between sulfate and barium ions as shown in equation below:
70
Scholars Research Library
Laila Elhassan Obeadalla et al Arch. Appl. Sci. Res., 2013, 5 (4):69-75
______________________________________________________________________________
Ba+++ SO4-- BaSO4
The solubility of barium sulfate in distilled water at 25 oC is 0.0023 g/liter. This is much less than solubility of 2.08
g/liter for calcium sulfate and 0.053 g/liter for calcium carbonate. Barium sulfate is so insoluble that quantitative
analysis methods for both barium and sulfate are based upon the precipitation of barium sulfate. Barium is
occasionally found in brines in some oilfields, because of the low solubility of barium sulfate, water containing
barium contains only a few ppm, if any, dissolved sulfate. Oilfield waters containing 50 to 100 ppm barium are not
common. Waters with more than 500 ppm sulfate would not contain appreciable amounts of dissolved barium.
Strontium sulfate deposits:
Another of alkaline earth metals, strontium, forms a sparingly soluble compound with sulfate. Strontium sulfate
scale has not received the attention that gypsum or barite scale has, but in some areas, celestite may be a major
problem. Solubility of strontium sulfate in water is 114 mg/l at 25 oC. This is less than calcium sulfate (2080 mg/l or
2630 mg/l expressed as CaSO4.2H2O) and more than barium sulfate (2.3 mg/l).
Iron deposits :
Deposits of iron compounds can be traced to two sources. One source is the water itself, which may contain
dissolved iron. The second source is corrosion of iron or steel in the system, which results in formation of iron-
containing corrosion products. Precipitated iron compounds from either of these sources may form scale on the
surface of metal or remain in water as colloidal suspension. Water containing colloidal ferric oxide (Fe2O3) has a
reddish color and is usually called “red water”. Water containing colloidal ferrous sulfide (FeS) has a black color
and is termed “black water”.
Silica deposits:
Natural waters are occasionally found containing as much as 100 ppm silica. Silica may be present as colloidal,
amorphous silica, and as the hypothetical monosilicic acid (H4SiO4). For most uses, the silica content of the water is
not an important consideration.
Biological deposits:
Algae, fungi, and bacteria are living organisms that may cause fouling in lines and equipment. Most algae require
carbon dioxide and sunlight for their growth. They may be particularly active in cooling towers. Dislodged algae
growths can cause serious obstructions in lines, on screens, or on the surface of formation rock. Plugging of
injection wells by bacterial growth is not uncommon. However, oilfield waters usually do not contain the necessary
nutrients top produce large bacterial growths. Biofouling problems in water handling systems are generally caused
by a chemical change in the water or the addition of a bactericide that results in killing the organisms. The dead cells
then accumulate on the formation face or in some location of restricted water flow.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data collected for this study from different methods:
a) Data from literature review.
b) Data from Ministry of Petroleum(MOP)
c) Data from Petro-Dar Operating Company (PDOC)
d) Data from Site survey for produced water samples.
e) Data from Central Petroleum Laboratories (CPL).
f) Data from Laboratory analysis.
Laboratory analysis:-
Laboratory analysis was done in Central Petroleum Laboratory (CPL) to measure the main parameter for formation,
produced and injected waters. Two samples were collected from two locations includes formation water and
produced water tank in Palogue field. The water samples were examined in accordance with the “Standard Methods
for Examination of Water and Waste Water” 20 Edition.
pH test was done in central petroleum laboratory using JENWAY 3510 pH meter . A test for cations done by using
Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectrometry (ICP- OES) .Alkalinity is the acid neutralizing capacity
of water. Usually expressed as “M” alkalinity (the methyl orange titration end point at a pH of 4.3) and “P”
71
Scholars Research Library
Laila Elhassan Obeadalla et al Arch. Appl. Sci. Res., 2013, 5 (4):69-75
______________________________________________________________________________
alkalinity (the phenolphthalein titration end point at (pH 8.3).Several ions contribute to alkalinity. It is generally
assumed to be due to bicarbonate, (HCO3–)), carbonate (CO3=), and hydroxyl (OH–) ions. The test carried out by
using Automatic Titrate (Titrino plus) using (2320 APHA Method).Chloride test (4500-Cl-APHA Method) using
UV-4000 spectrophotometer. Sulphate test (HACH -Sulpha -Ver 4 Method) using UV- 4000 Spectrophotometer
Water analysis:
The physical and chemical property of water sample from Palogue oilfield in table (1)
Table (1) Produced and formation water analysis from Palogue oilfield
CL SO4 OH- CO3 HCO3 cond. TDS Salinity Ba Ca Mg Na
Sample pH
mg/L mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l ms/cm g/l g/L ppm ppm ppm ppm
Produced water 238.50 20.00 0.00 500.00 4045.00 8.14 7.59 4.07 3.30 0.91 7.38 3.22 3115.69
Formation water 230.50 22.00 0.00 700.00 4550.00 8.02 8.31 5.10 3.60 2.98 28.93 4.12 2977.34
The formation water and produced water blended in ratio for injection started from 5% produced water and 95%
formation water then 10% produce water and 90 % formation water till blend 19 (95% produced water and 5%
formation water) . Analysis was done for every blend to calculate concentration of cations and anions then
calculate scale deposition for each blend.
Table (2) Palogue blends of produced and formation water (1-19)
Chloride Sulfate OH- CO3 HCO3 Ba Ca Mg K Sr
Blend Na ppm Ph
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm
B 1 (5/95%) 242.6 29 0 500 4395 0.91 5.08 2.78 2134.67 110.65 0.34 8.08
B2
220.5 29 0 600 4245 1.03 6.56 2.99 2131.97 121.24 0.38 8.08
(10/90%)
B3
236.1 27 0 700 4245 0.88 5.86 2.61 2225.03 111.07 0.31 8.08
(15/85%)
B4
233.6 25 0 900 3945 0.95 6.83 2.75 2173.03 114.76 0.34 8.08
(20/80%)
B5
244.6 26 0 700 4095 0.88 5.95 2.68 2173.28 111.61 0.32 8.08
(25/72%)
B6
240.5 24 0 600 4295 0.94 7.02 2.61 2170.45 106.4 0.32 8.08
(30/70%)
B7
236.9 22 0 700 4045 0.96 7.93 3 2139.9 120.99 0.36 8.08
(35/65%)
B8
231.5 23 0 900 3695 0.86 6.94 2.69 2159.07 122.73 0.32 8.08
(40/60%)
B9
230.9 21 0 700 3895 0.89 8.05 3.13 2072.22 129.84 0.34 8.08
(45/55%)
B10
213.0 21 0 1750 3845 <0.2 7.33 3.15 2839.07 145.27 2.03 8.08
(50/50%)
B
20.33 22 0 1000 3795 <0.2 15.88 3.31 2088.08 184.58 4.0 8.08
11(55/45%)
B12
20.93 20 0 1000 4095 <0.2 7.95 3.3 2224.8 160.48 4.88 8.08
(60/40%)
B13
21.5 18 0 700 3795 <0.2 10.15 3.02 1883 150.87 5.18 8.08
(65/35%)
B14
20.79 18 0 900 3545 <0.2 15.35 3.15 1931.7 158.59 5.15 8.08
(70/30%)
B15
20.83 16 0 700 3695 <0.2 9.13 3.17 1841.79 157.15 5.28 8.08
(75/25%)
B16
22.99 17 0 600 3795 <0.2 8.2 3.19 1899.94 152.95 5.13 8.08
(80/20%)
B17
21.0 16 0 500 3495 <0.2 11.15 3.3 1610.99 156.43 5.1 8.08
(85/15%)
B18
22.77 15 0 800 3445 <0.2 8.4 3.18 1833.96 147.11 5.0 8.08
(90/10%)
B19 (95/5%) 21.03 15 0 400 3995 <0.2 12.1 3.08 1741.36 127.74 4.83 8.08
72
Scholars Research Library
Laila Elhassan Obeadalla et al Arch. Appl. Sci. Res., 2013, 5 (4):69-75
______________________________________________________________________________
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Scale Index calculations:
• If scale index calculation positive means scale likely and deposition starts to appear.
• If the saturation index is zero means the saturation point.
• If the saturation index negative means scale unlikely but corrosion start to take place.
• A positive value for the saturation index indicates that the water is oversaturated and will precipitate calcium
carbonate; a negative value indicates that the water is corrosive, i.e., will dissolve calcium carbonate scale.
Palogue oilfield
Table (3) CaCO3 Scale index (Is) at temperature 68OF
Blend CaCO3Scale Index (Is)
B 1 (5/95%) 0.390
B 2 (10/90%) 0.481
B 3 (15/85%) 0.419
B 4 (20/80%) 0.447
B 5 (25/72%) 0.416
B 6 (30/70%) 0.513
B 7 (35/65%) 0.538
B 8 (40/60%) 0.431
B 9 (45/55%) 0.534
B10 (50/50%) 0.380
B 11(55/45%) 0.800
B12 (60/40%) 0.521
B13 (65/35%) 0.642
B14 (70/30%) 0.777
B15 (75/25%) 0.589
B16 (80/20%) 0.557
B17 (85/15%) 0.687
B18 (90/10%) 0.520
B19 (95/5%) 0.771
B means Blend
CaCO3Scale Index (Is)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
.
O
Figure (1) Palogue oilfield CaCO3 Scale index (Is) at temperature 68 F
From the above table (5):
1) All blends Ca CO3 scale index (Is) is above zero means scale deposition of Ca CO3. (Stiff, H. A. and Davis,)
73
Scholars Research Library
Laila Elhassan Obeadalla et al Arch. Appl. Sci. Res., 2013, 5 (4):69-75
______________________________________________________________________________
2) The best blend for mixing formation water with produce water is blend ten (10) with lower scale index 0.380
which contain a mixture of 50% produce water and 50% formation water.
3) This mixture means 50% of water injection is produced water and this decrease the water reach the environment
and this is best way to manage the produced water for health environment and to enhance oil recovery which
increase the production of the oil.
4) This water should be treated with scale inhibitor before injection and this mixture the less cost for scale
deposition treatment.
Palogue oilfield:
Table (4) Ca SO4, BaSO4 and Sr SO4 mg/l 68OF
Blend Ca SO4 mg/l BaSO4 mg/l SrSO4 mg/l
B 1 (5/95%) -2005 0.573 -202
B 2 (10/90%) -2021 0.536 -206
B 3 (15/85%) -1997 0.525 -202
B 4 (20/80%) -2073 0.621 -219
B 5 (25/72%) -2083 0.600 -221
B 6 (30/70%) -2093 1.297 -220
B 7 (35/65%) -2128 0.837 -232
B 8 (40/60%) -2160 1.009 -239
B 9 (45/55%) -2072 0.791 -220
B10 (50/50%) -2082 1.366 -220
B 11(55/45%) -2166 1.633 -243
B12 (60/40%) -2208 1.865 -253
B13 (65/35%) -2379 2.203 0.000
B14 (70/30%) -1982 2.551 -264
B15 (75/25%) -1959 2.859 0.000
B16 (80/20%) -1917 2.197 -268
B17 (85/15%) -1345 2.062 0.000
B18 (90/10%) -1248 1.893 -302
B19 (95/5%) -803 -0.917 -308
B means Blend
BaSO4 mg/l
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
Ba mg/l
1
0.5
0
B 1 (5/95%)
B10 (50/50%)
B12 (60/40%)
B13 (65/35%)
B14 (70/30%)
B15 (75/25%)
B16 (80/20%)
B17 (85/15%)
B18 (90/10%)
B19 (95/5%)
B 2 (10/90%)
B 3 (15/85%)
B 4 (20/80%)
B 5 (25/72%)
B 6 (30/70%)
B 7 (35/65%)
B 8 (40/60%)
B 9 (45/55%)
B 11(55/45%)
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Blends .
Figure (3) Palogue oilfield water injection BaSO4 mg/l 68OF
74
Scholars Research Library
Laila Elhassan Obeadalla et al Arch. Appl. Sci. Res., 2013, 5 (4):69-75
______________________________________________________________________________
From table (4)
1) No Ca SO4 deposition in all blends, concentration is below zero.
2) BaSO4 deposition in all blends but the deposition is less than CaCO3
3) No Sr SO4 deposition in all blends.
CONCLUSION
As a result of the study the conclusion listed on the following points:
The formation water and produced water mixing in Palogue field caused scale deposition.
The best blending ratio for Palogue oilfield blend ten (50% produced water and 50% formation water).d water and
45% formation water).
The above mentioned ratio less of scale deposited and high consumes of produced water that protecting the
environment. The most common scale deposit is calcium carbonate.
The calcium sulphate deposit is not occurred (unlikely).Barium sulphate is likely but in small amount.
Strontium sulphate deposit is not occurred (unlikely)
The study area basement complex (Meta – Sediment) rich with Ca CO3 rock found as crystalline marble at the
surface (Rabak cement Query) and found also at subsurface as encountered at some drilled wells in block (7) and (3)
(Central Petroleum Laboratories (CPL)) .This source supposes to introduce calcium carbonate in formation water
beside the intruded volcanic sills inside sediment of Melut basin which related to the activity of African Rift zone.
The accompanied solution with the volcanic rocks also adds sodium carbonate and chloride which is reported in
many localize along the Rift zone like Magadi Lake at Kenya. (Baker, B.H. 1958. Geology of the Magahi area)
REFERENCES
[1] Baker, B.H. 1958. Geology of the Magadi area, report of the Geological survey of Kenya, pp 42-81)
[2] Bezemer, C. and Bauer, A. K. (1969). Journal of Petroleum Technology. April 1969, 505 - 514.
[3] Collins, R. I., Duncum, D.S., Jordan, M. M. and Feasey, D. N. (2006). The Development of a Revolutionary
Scale-Control Product for the Control of Near-Well Bore Sulfate Scale within Production Wells by the Treatment of
Injection Seawater. The 2006 SPE Oilfield Scale Symposium. 31 May- 1 June. Aberdeen, UK: SPE 100357, 1 - 20.
[4] Lindlof, C. J. and Stoffer, G. K. (1983). Journal of Petroleum Technology, July 1983 1256 - 1262.
[5] Mackay, J. E., Collins, R. I. and Jordan, M. M. (2003). PWRI: scale Formation Risk Assessment and
Management. The SPE 5th International Symposium on Oilfield Scale. January 29 - 30. Aberdeen, UK: SPE
80385, 1 - 18.
[6] Moghadasi, J., Jamialahmadi, M., Muller-Steinhagen, H., Sharif, A., Ghalambor, A., Izadpanah, R. M. and
Motaie, E. (2003). Scale Formation in Iranian Oil Reservoir and Production Equipment during Water Injection.
The 5th International Oilfield Scale Symposium and Exhibition. January 29 - 30. Aberdeen, UK: SPE 80406, 1 -
14.
[7] Moghadasi, J., Jamialahmadi, M., Muller-Steinhagen, H.and Sharif, A. (2003). Scale Formation in Oil
Reservoir and Production Equipment during Water Injection (Kinetics of CaCO4 and CaCO3 Crystal Growth and
Effect on Formation Damage). The SPE European Formation Damage Conference. May 13 - 14. Hague,
Netherlands: SPE 82233, 1 -12.
[8] Ostroff, A. G.: Introduction to Oilfield Water Technology, National Association of Corrosion Engineers,
Houston, Texas (1979).
[9] Reilly 1991.Technologyical / Environmental issue & solutions, page 1-2.
[10] Stiff, H. A. and Davis, L. E.: "A Method for Predicting the Tendency of Oil Field Waters to Deposit
Calcium Carbonate," Transactions AIME, (Vol. 195, 1952) 213.
75
Scholars Research Library
