Advances of Produced Water Management

Du, Yaoxian; Guan, Li-Zhu; Liang, Hong

doi:10.2118/2005-060

Cited by 19 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some technologies for advances of Produced water management include alternative technologies for reducing the water production and water discharge such as down -hole oil-water separation and sub-sea (Du et al 2005).…”

Section: Treatment Alternatives and Technologies For Produced Watermentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of oil exploration on surface water quality – a review

Lusweti

Kanda

Obando

et al. 2022

Water Practice and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The oil industry is a source of revenue and foreign exchange for an economy. Nevertheless, oil exploration is an inherent risk to the environment due to the pollution of water resources, especially surface water resources. The main waste is produced water which is increasing around the world .As a consequence,water pollution resulting from normal oil drilling, refining, distribution, and accidents is the principal concern of oil exploration in the environment. Oil pollution is associated with ecological contaminants such as heavy metals and organic compounds which are the primary contaminant of surface water resources. Often this results in toxicity accretion in the food chain, and their non-biodegradable nature is of great concern to both human and aquatic life. Therefore, this review evaluates existing knowledge on the effect of oil exploration on surface water quality, hydraulic fracturing technique/chemicals, and composition of produced water. This review also recommends further research on the physicochemical characteristics, analysis of heavy metals in water/sediments, and characterization of hydro-chemical facies of surface water resources around oil exploration sites to enable effective policy development.

show abstract

Section: Treatment Alternatives and Technologies For Produced Watermentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of oil exploration on surface water quality – a review

Lusweti

Kanda

Obando

et al. 2022

Water Practice and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The cost of handling and disposing this unwanted water could have a negative impact on the economic life of the oil well. It is estimated that on average oil companies produce three barrels of water for each barrel of oil, which entails a staggering cost of US$ 30-40 billion worldwide (Du et al 2005).…”

Section: Excess Water Production In Oil Wellsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Chou et al 1994;Chan 1995;Elphick and Seright 1997;Azari et al 1997;Seright 1998;Bailey et al 2000;Kabir 2001;Khatib and Verbeek 2003;Reynolds 2003;Seright et al 2003;Arnold et al 2004;Du et al 2005;Cheung 2006;Sheremetov et al 2007;Fondyga 2008;Joseph and Ajienka 2010) Nevertheless, in reality, many operators do not perform diagnostic procedures before attempting the water shutoff treatment. Seright et al (2003) and Baily et al (2000) emphasize that deficiency in understanding the source of the WPM has been the main reason for unsuccessful and ineffective water control treatments in the industry.…”

Section: Conventional Tools and Techniques For Wpm Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

Excess Water Production Diagnosis in Oil Fields Using Ensemble Classifiers

Rabiei

Gupta

Cheong

et al. 2009

2009 International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In hydrocarbon production, more often than not, oil is produced commingled with water. As long as the water production rate is below the economic level of water/oil ratio (WOR), no water shutoff treatment is needed. Problems arise when water production rate exceeds the WOR economic level, producing no or little oil with it. Oil and gas companies set aside a lot of resources for implementing strategies to effectively manage the production of the excessive water to minimize the environmental and economic impact of the produced water.However, due to lack of proper diagnostic techniques, the water shutoff technologies are not always proficiently applied. Most of the conventional techniques used for water diagnosis are only capable of identifying the existence of excess water and cannot pinpoint the exact type and cause of the water production. A common industrial practice is to monitor the trend of changes in WOR against time to identify two types of WPMs, namely coning and channelling. Although, in specific scenarios this approach may give reasonable results, it has been demonstrated that the WOR plots are not general and there are deficiencies in the current usage of these plots.Stepping away from traditional approach, we extracted predictive data points from plots of WOR against the oil recovery factor. We considered three different scenarios of pre-water production, post-water production with static reservoir characteristics and postwater without static reservoir characteristics for investigation. Next, we used tree-based ensemble classifiers to integrate the extracted data points with a range of basic reservoir characteristics and to unleash the predictive information hidden in the integrated data.Interpretability of the generated ensemble classifiers were improved by constructing a new dataset smeared from the original dataset, and generating a depictive tree for each ensemble using a combination of the new and original datasets. To generate the depictive tree we used a new class of tree classifiers called logistic model tree (LMT). LMT combines the linear logistic regression with the classification algorithm to overcome the disadvantages associated with either method.Our results show high prediction accuracy rates of at least 90%, 93% and 82% for the three considered scenarios and easy to implement workflow. Adoption of this methodology would lead to accurate and timely management of water production saving oil and gas companies considerable time and money.3

show abstract

“…Main drivers for produced water treatment PW treatment and disposal is receiving increasing attention in Exploration and Production (E&P) operations, for three main reasons [15]:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Disposal legislation regarding PW is on the increase worldwide [15]. The characteristics of the produced water and intended use determine which treatment option is most suitable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility of Produced Water Treatment and Reuse – Case Study of a GTL Plant

Onwusogh

2015

Day 2 Mon, December 07, 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a GTL plant located in Qatar, produced water (PW) is considered for treatment and reuse in the existing onsite Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP).The onsite ETP deploys both conventional and advanced water treatment technologies including flocculation flotation unit, biotreatment, membrane filtration (submerged Ultrafiltration (sUF) and Reverse Osmosis (RO) units), evaporation and crystallization processes, to produce water for reuse within the plant mainly for cooling and power generation among many other uses.Current PW disposal is in deep wells. PW reuse was considered an economically viable option for the plant due to its quality (TDS Ͻ 4000 mg/L).A test work was conducted to determine the feasibility to route the PW to existing onsite ETP. Firstly, the PW was chemically analysed for key contaminants including hydrocarbons (condensate), heavy metals and naturally occurring elements, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) etc.Hydrate inhibitor is normally dosed to the PW during the winter season while Corrosion Inhibitor (CI) is dosed continuously throughout the year. This results in two distinct streams, i.e. a ЉWinter PW streamЉ (Stream A) and a ЉSummer PW streamЉ (Stream B).The potential impact of Stream A and Stream B must be evaluated before routing to onsite ETP is considered feasible.Based on sample analysis (pH, conductivity, COD, TOC, ion chromatography, metals scan, toxicity tests and 28 days COD die-away test), it is known that both Streams A and B have the potential to adversely affect the daily performance of the onsite biotreater, with additional risk of sUF/RO membrane fouling (scaling).The following have been considered in the study:a. Hydraulic load of PW to the onsite ETP a. Quality of Streams A and B, in terms of i. Chemical Oxygen Demand ii. TDS which is Ͻ4000 mg/L (0.4% wt) iii. Presence of scaling components (Ca, Mg and Ba) iv. Heavy metals in PW Stream A is considered first for pre-treatment in an onsite Wet Air Oxidation (WAO) unit to destroy hydrate inhibitor, while Stream B will be stored temporarily in a holding tank to ensure complete condensate separation, prior to routing of both pre-treated effluent to the onsite ETP.Experimental test work conducted over a period of 9 months using two bench bioreactors operated at similar hydraulic and solids residence times as the onsite ETP showed COD levels are reduced to levels that meet the specification for further polishing in downstream UF and RO units. Test work suggests PW (Streams A and B) to be compatible with onsite ETP.

show abstract

Advances of Produced Water Management

Cited by 19 publications

References 3 publications

Effects of oil exploration on surface water quality – a review

Effects of oil exploration on surface water quality – a review

Excess Water Production Diagnosis in Oil Fields Using Ensemble Classifiers

Feasibility of Produced Water Treatment and Reuse – Case Study of a GTL Plant

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About