You are on page 1of 344

PETRONAS TECHNICAL STANDARDS 

 
DESIGN AND ENGINEERING PRACTICE

MANUAL

DEHYDRATION/DEOILING MANUAL

PTS 10.01.00.19
FEBRUARY 2011

© 2011 PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (PETRONAS) 
All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the permission of the copyright owner.

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 3 
 
PREFACE 
 
PETRONAS Technical Standards (PTS) publications reflect the views, at the time of publication, of
PETRONAS OPUs/Divisions.
They are based on the experience acquired during the involvement with the design, construction,
operation and maintenance of processing units and facilities. Where appropriate they are based on, or
reference is made to, national and international standards and codes of practice.
The objective is to set the recommended standard for good technical practice to be applied by
PETRONAS' OPUs in oil and gas production facilities, refineries, gas processing plants, chemical plants,
marketing facilities or any other such facility, and thereby to achieve maximum technical and economic
benefit from standardisation.
The information set forth in these publications is provided to users for their consideration and decision to
implement. This is of particular importance where PTS may not cover every requirement or diversity of
condition at each locality. The system of PTS is expected to be sufficiently flexible to allow individual
operating units to adapt the information set forth in PTS to their own environment and requirements.
When Contractors or Manufacturers/Suppliers use PTS they shall be solely responsible for the quality of
work and the attainment of the required design and engineering standards. In particular, for those
requirements not specifically covered, it is expected of them to follow those design and engineering
practices which will achieve the same level of integrity as reflected in the PTS. If in doubt, the Contractor
or Manufacturer/Supplier shall, without detracting from his own responsibility, consult the owner.
The right to use PTS rests with three categories of users:
1)
2)
3)

PETRONAS and its affiliates.
Other parties who are authorised to use PTS subject to appropriate contractual arrangements.
Contractors/subcontractors and Manufacturers/Suppliers under a contract with users referred to
under 1) and 2) which requires that tenders for projects, materials supplied or - generally - work
performed on behalf of the said users comply with the relevant standards.

Subject to any particular terms and conditions as may be set forth in specific agreements with users,
PETRONAS disclaims any liability of whatsoever nature for any damage (including injury or death)
suffered by any company or person whomsoever as a result of or in connection with the use, application
or implementation of any PTS, combination of PTS or any part thereof. The benefit of this disclaimer shall
inure in all respects to PETRONAS and/or any company affiliated to PETRONAS that may issue PTS or
require the use of PTS.
Without prejudice to any specific terms in respect of confidentiality under relevant contractual
arrangements, PTS shall not, without the prior written consent of PETRONAS, be disclosed by users to
any company or person whomsoever and the PTS shall be used exclusively for the purpose they have
been provided to the user. They shall be returned after use, including any copies which shall only be
made by users with the express prior written consent of PETRONAS.
The copyright of PTS vests in PETRONAS. Users shall arrange for PTS to be held in safe custody and
PETRONAS may at any time require information satisfactory to PETRONAS in order to ascertain how
users implement this requirement.

 

 

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 4 
 

Contents 
 
Summary of Changes .................................................................................................................................. 12 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 22 
1.1 

General ........................................................................................................................................ 22 

1.2 

Purpose and summary of the Manual ........................................................................................ 24 

1.3 

Structure of the Manual and acknowledgement ........................................................................ 26 

EMULSIONS AND OIL/WATER SEPARATION PROCESSES .................................................................... 28 
2.1 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 28 

2.2 

Emulsions .................................................................................................................................... 28 

2.2.1 

Definition and types ............................................................................................................ 28 

2.2.2 

Formation of emulsions ...................................................................................................... 29 

2.2.3 

Stability of emulsions .......................................................................................................... 29 

2.2.3.1  Emulsifiers ....................................................................................................................... 30 
2.2.3.2  Solids ............................................................................................................................... 35 
2.2.3.3  Electrical charges ............................................................................................................ 35 
2.2.4 

Bulk properties of oil‐water mixtures ................................................................................. 35 

2.2.4.1  Relative quantities of oil and water ................................................................................ 36 
2.2.4.2  Density ............................................................................................................................ 36 
2.2.4.3  Rheological properties .................................................................................................... 36 
2.2.4.4  Wax Drop‐Out Point (cloud point) .................................................................................. 40 
2.2.4.5  Droplet size distribution .................................................................................................. 40 
2.3 

Destabilisation of emulsions ....................................................................................................... 41 

2.3.1 

Chemical nature of emulsion breakers ............................................................................... 42 

2.3.2 

Selection of emulsion breakers ........................................................................................... 43 

2.3.3 

Dosage rate of emulsion breakers ...................................................................................... 43 

2.3.4 

Fast/slow acting demulsifiers ............................................................................................. 43 

2.3.5 

Injection points of emulsion breakers ................................................................................ 44 

2.3.6 

Temperature effects ........................................................................................................... 44 

2.4 

Coalescence ................................................................................................................................ 44 

2.4.1 

General ................................................................................................................................ 44 

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 5 
 
2.4.2 

Mixing energy and coalescence. ......................................................................................... 45 

2.4.2.1  Droplet sizes and mixing energy ..................................................................................... 45 
2.4.2.2  Calculation of mixing energy ........................................................................................... 46 
2.4.2.3  Dispersion and coalescence ............................................................................................ 49 
2.4.3 

Coalescence zones .............................................................................................................. 50 

2.4.4 

Pipeline coalescence ........................................................................................................... 51 

2.4.5 

Pressure reduction pipeline ................................................................................................ 53 

2.4.6 

Electrostatic coalescence .................................................................................................... 53 

2.4.7 

Coalescence media.............................................................................................................. 53 

2.5 

2.5.1 

Stokes' Law .......................................................................................................................... 54 

2.5.2 

Effect of heat on dehydration behaviour ............................................................................ 56 

2.6 

Gravity separation ....................................................................................................................... 54 

Additional oily water treatment processes ................................................................................. 59 

2.6.1 

Coagulation or flocculation ................................................................................................. 60 

2.6.2 

Flotation .............................................................................................................................. 60 

2.6.3 

Filtration .............................................................................................................................. 61 

SAMPLING AND TESTING FOR DEHYDRATION BEHAVIOUR ............................................................... 63 
3.1 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 63 

3.2 

Formulation of a sampling programme ...................................................................................... 64 

3.3 

Surface sampling of oil/water mixtures. ..................................................................................... 65 

3.3.1 

Sampling considerations ..................................................................................................... 65 

3.3.2 

Sampling points ................................................................................................................... 66 

3.3.3 

Sampling methods and equipment ..................................................................................... 67 

3.3.4 

Sample handling and preservation ..................................................................................... 69 

3.4 

Analysis of actually produced oil/water mixtures ...................................................................... 70 

3.4.1 

Samples characterization .................................................................................................... 70 

3.4.2 

Dehydration tests with actually produced emulsions ........................................................ 72 

3.4.2.1  General ............................................................................................................................ 72 
3.4.2.2  Outline of dehydration testing ........................................................................................ 72 
3.4.2.3  The bottle test ................................................................................................................. 74 
3.4.2.4  Evaluation of the effectiveness of demulsifier dosage ................................................... 76 

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 6 
 
3.4.3 

Common test methods for analysis of dehydration behaviour .......................................... 77 

3.4.3.1  Introduction .................................................................................................................... 77 
3.4.3.2  Determination of free water ........................................................................................... 77 
3.4.3.3  Determination of water and sediment in oil .................................................................. 79 
3.4.3.4  Determination of oil‐in‐water ......................................................................................... 80 
3.4.3.5  Determination of droplet size distribution of emulsions ................................................ 80 
3.5 

Standard laboratory dehydration tests ....................................................................................... 82 

3.5.1 

General ................................................................................................................................ 82 

3.5.2 

Crude oil and water characterisations and handling .......................................................... 83 

3.5.3 

Emulsification ...................................................................................................................... 85 

3.5.4 

Demulsifier selection and addition ..................................................................................... 85 

3.5.5 

The standard settling test ................................................................................................... 85 

3.5.6 

Data processing ................................................................................................................... 86 

3.5.7 

The dynamic coalescer ........................................................................................................ 88 

3.6 

Rontgen Scan (Tomograph) study ............................................................................................... 90 

3.7 

Discussion on dehydration tests ................................................................................................. 93 

3.7.1 

Representativeness of standard laboratory dehydration tests. ......................................... 93 

3.7.2 

Interpretation of field vs. laboratory dehydration behaviour ............................................ 94 

3.7.3 

Selection of demulsifier chemicals ..................................................................................... 95 

APPENDIX 3.1 .......................................................................................................................................... 96 
APPENDIX 3.2 ‐ SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL METHODS RELATING TO THE ANALYSIS OF DEHYDRATION 
AND EOILING BEHAVIOUR ...................................................................................................................... 98 
APPENDIX 3.3 ‐ THE BOTTLE TEST ......................................................................................................... 101 
APPENDIX 3.4 ‐ LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES FOR DEHYDRATION TESTS ..................................... 102 
APPENDIX 3.5 – CALCULATIONS REQUIRED FOR THE STATIC DEHYDRATION TEST ............................. 103 
APPENDIX 3.6 – DEHYDRATION TEST REPORT SHEET ........................................................................... 105 

ASPECT OF DEOILING AND PRODUCED WATER DISPOSAL ............................................................... 108 
4.1 

Oil‐in‐water emulsions .............................................................................................................. 108 

4.1.1 

General .............................................................................................................................. 108 

4.1.2 

Emulsification .................................................................................................................... 108 

4.1.3 

Deoilers ............................................................................................................................. 109 

............... 122  4....2..............................................................................4..................2..... 122  4................. 112  4..............................................1.................................................4.............................................. 114  4...................2  Regulatory limits ..................2.................................................................2...................................................................................................2......................... 118  4.........4  Chemical injection pumps ..4.........2....................................4............4  Determination of hydrocarbons in water ...........................................3................................4  Example of a basic chemical injection system ...............................................................4..............................2.........2...................2........1 ................................2....................................... 110  4.............................. 136  5................................. 112  4....................................................... 134  5.............3  Location of injection points...........2...2 .1  General characteristics...... 123  4................................2.2  Demulsifier supply and storage ............................5  Discharge of production water from gas/condensate platform ......................2  Common pumphead types ...... 119  4......................................... 115  4.......4.....................1  Downhole injection ................................. 112  4.2........................................2...........................2............ 135  5............................1  General ...................................2.........3..............................1  Sampling ...2  Disposal of produced water ...............................2......................2  Water quality requirements .................... 134  5...............2...........................................................................................................................2.............................1  General principles ........................................................................ 135  5........3  Infrared analysis if hydrocarbons in water ....4........................ 123  APPENDIX 4...... 139  ...................................... 136  5.............1  Occurrence and environmental aspects ..............4...................................................5  Deoiling tests ...................................... 120  4.2.....4..... 136  5.............................2  Chemical destabilisation ...2  Sample preparation...........2.................. 135  5.............................. 118  4..... 138  5....2................................ 110  4..................................................... 110  4............00............3  Pumps specifications ............................... 136  5.................................................................................2.................................................... 110  4.......................... 125  APPENDIX 4....3  Oil‐in‐water ...........4  Mixing and coalescence ........................ 129  5  DEHYDRATION EQUIPMENT AND PROCESSES .....................................01....................4  Other methods for analysis of hydrocarbons in water ......6  Measurement of dispersed oil ...................................................PTS 10.................................................................................................................................................... 114  4.......................2  Surface disposal .................................................................1..............................................................5  Variability of analytical results ...................................2...................4.....................................2...........................................................................................................................................1  Injection system requirements ..................................................19  February 2011  Page 7    4.................

.......................................00.......PTS 10.................................................................................................................................2  Gravity separators ..........................1..................1................................3.................................. 167  5.........2  Settling tanks .....3  Batch dehydration ............ 161  5............. 180  6.......................................................................................................................................4.....2..............3  Coalescers .........................................................................................5........ 183  .................................. 180  6..........................3.............................................................. 154  5.......................................... 154  5............................... 173  5........ 177  DEOILING EQUIPMENT AND PROCESSES ..7  Sludge treatment ....................................................................................................................4.............. 175  5....3........................................................................................... 168  5................................................................................................................................................2... 149  5....4......... 168  5........................4...............................................................................4...........................................................................4....... 180  6................................2......01..............1......................2  Plate separators ......3  Alternative tank designs ............... 168  5.....1  Operating principles .......................................................................................................1  Free (dispersed) water removal ... 141  5....................1................. 143  5........................4  The concentric wash tank ................... 181  6................................4........................................................................................................1  Separators .......2  Dehydration tanks ...................................................................................................................................4......4  Continuous dehydration ..................................................1  Free water knock‐out vessels ....... 181  6.....4.............................................. 143  5............................................................. 164  5........1  Skim tanks ....1.......4..........4.............1  Coalescence media .............................................................. 170  Condensate dehydration.......................................................................................................6  Desalting ...............................2  Skim piles ....... 141  5......................2  Dissolved water removal .......................................................................2  Tank design features ...................................................................................................................................3............................................................... 147  5.......................19  February 2011  Page 8    5..1........................2.......................5.........4....................................... 146  5.....4...................................................................... 142  5..............2...4...........................4...................... 173  5..........................1  General principles ........................... 155  5..........................................................3.....1  Operating principles ...........................................................2  Coalescer pipes ......................3  Electrostatic coalescers ................................................................................................... 181  6........................4  Electrostatic Precipitators ...............5  6  Centrifuges ......................................2  Removal of dissolved oil ....................................................4  5......... 151  5................1  Removal of suspended oil ...2. 173  5..........3  Heater treaters ...................................................

......................................................... 186  6.................... 6......................3  Gas flotation units.........4  Plate interceptors ......... 198  6...........................7  Hydrocyclones ...............................................1  Induced gas flotation (IGF) units..6.......................3  Sludge disposal from flocculation processes ...... 191  6..................................................................................1  Carbon adsorption ................4.......8...........................................................3  API oil interceptor ................................... 200  6.............. 205  6................................................................................................................1................................................................................1  Flocculation‐sedimentation .........3  KnitMesh DC coaleser (Fig.........4............................................ 202  6.... 211  6............................................... 189  6..2.............2  Expandable fibrous bed coalescer ..................19) .................... 194  6...1................................... 199  6..............................01...............................................................................................................................2  The Natco Performax coalescer .......3  Tilted plate flotation units........................................... 206  6.......... 206  6....PTS 10.......................................................................................3  Biological treatment .........6....................................... 184  6....................... 185  6.....................................1  Granular media filters ......................................8...... 6........... 211  6............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6...........8  Removal of dissolved hydrocarbons ...... 214  7....................................................1  The corrugated plate interceptor (CPI) ............................................6  7  Filters .........................2  Plenty Metrol coalescer (Fig........ 197  6.................2  Gas stripping ..............1  Degremont coalescer ...................... 196  6................................................ ........................................................................................................1.....2  Flocculation‐flotation .........................2.............4.......................................................2.................................................................. ........... ...............00......2  Precoat filters ......3.................................................................3...... 200  6.....5.................................................................1  Introduction .5................ 201  6...........................................1  Examples of commercial coalescers ........................... 215  ....................................................................................5  Coalescers ................. 212  6...........5..............................................3  Pipeline coalescers .......................................................... 214  7.....................................................................................4  Flocculation units ............3  Novel media filters ... 198  6...............................5.. 207  6......5.........................................8..................................... 190  6... 199  6....... 212  EQUIPMENT SELECTION AND DESIGN/SIZING GUIDELINES ................................................................2.....4..........3................... 6............. 206  6............2  Dehydration equipment .........................5...................................... 204  6...............................................19  February 2011  Page 9    6..............................2  Dissolved gas flotation (DGF) units ..................................................................................20) ..................... 207  6.....20 Fig....................4.........

...............00.............................................................. 235  7...5  Flocculation units .......................................3  Deoiling equipment .....................................................................................5  Equipment internals and accessories .....................2...............1  Design conditions .............................1  Separators (including plate separators) .......................3  Equipment selection and application .... 220  7.......1  Design approach ....2..............3.........................................................................................................2......................3................... 216  7............2........................................................... 305  8............3..5....................................... 218  7.2  API interceptors ....................................................................2.... 242  7.................................4  Flotation units ...... 236  7............ 239  7......1  Separators (including plate separator) ......3..................................................................2  Equipment selection and application .................. 305  8......1  Skim tanks ...................... 239  7....... 219  7...3......................................................2.......................................................................... 247  7.....2.......4  Equipment sizing ...............6  Hydrocyclones ..........................4.......................... 237  7............................................................2.....................4.............................................................................................................. 248  7................ 221  7.........................3. 307  ................................................................................3..................................................................2  Sizing method ........... 238  7............................................................2  Design considerations for offshore systems ...2.....................................4.........5...........2  Dehydration tanks .......................... 237  7..3............................6...........3  Plate interceptors ................................... 255  8  SYSTEM INTEGRATION ....... 216  7..........................................3  Design considerations for onshore systems .3.....2................ 246  7......................................................................3  Sizing routines ........................................................................... 217  7............................. 219  7......................................................................................3..............................................3...........................2 ‐ EQUIPMENT SIZING CURVES AND TABLES .2.................. 235  7.................2.............3  Equipment sizing ....2....................................................... 306  8.....1  General .................1  General considerations ...................................................2.............................................................................................6....3........2.........................................................................3  Product specifications ...19  February 2011  Page 10    7.......................................................3..........................2  Dehydration tanks ..PTS 10.................2......1  Sizing criteria ... 251  APPENDIX 7. 242  7...................................................3....................... 215  7.................................................................................................. 218  7.....2...............2  General design considerations ....................................................... 242  7........................................................................................................3..........................01....... 240  7..................................................................................................6  Control and instrumentation .......................................2.......2..........................................................2  Nature of the feed ...............................................

...........................................................4...2  Physical properties of oil and water .........................................................8  Mixing of disposal water streams ........5....5..4  Solids ........5...........................................................................1  Demulsifier chemicals ....................................................5  Review of field installations ................8  Thailand‐Sirikit field ...................................... 323  8....5................................................................................................5  SPDC ‐ Nigeria ....................................................................................................... 311  8...................................................................... 310  8.......................3  Flow conditions ...... 308  8.......................................................................................................4  PD Oman ..............................................................................................................................................................3  Gabon‐Gamba/Ivinga fields ...... 331      ............................... 320  8.........4............................................................. 311  8......................................00................................................ 311  8................................4............................................ 311  8............5.................................................................... 329  REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ......2  New North Sea platform designs ............................................ 318  8............................ 324  8......4.................................................4..............................6  SRB ........................................4.................6  BSP .......... 311  8.............................................................................................7  SSB/SSPC ..............5...........................4...............................................PTS 10......................4... 308  8...................................................01........................................... 308  8.........19  February 2011  Page 11    8............................4  Factors affecting oil/water separation efficiency ........1  Shell Expro .................5............ 309  8................. 310  8..........7  Recycling of skimmings and sludges ... 327  8............5......................................................... 314  8................................................................................5  Pumps and control valves ....................

2 1.2 2. Such correlations are currently not available.00.4.2 1.* dependent on the treatment temperature density of the continuous phase (g/cm³) The mixing intensity.2.4. laboratory tests are required to select from a large number of available chemicals to determine the most effective one(s) for a given emulsion.2 2. Empirical.2 1.… To comply with these limits.2 1. The required dosage is a.2 to 0. Emulsions will therefore be formed in those sections of the production system… The higher the energy of mixing/agitation.2.3 2.3.3 2. 2.2 1.1 1. which is defined as the work done on the fluid per unit mass and per unit time can be calculate for any part of the flow system by the relation: t = retention time of the fluid in that part of the system T = retention time (hours) .2 1.2.2. however.2.4. Dynamic and kinematic viscosities are distinguished and interrelated as follows:Fig. Because of the large number of variables in the system and emulsion breakers for a particular emulsion requiring treatment.4. design and sizing guidelines for dehydration equipment were developed recently in PETRONAS based on an in-depth review These guidelines have been incorporated in full in Chapter 7.8 –Continuous droplet size distribution curve.2 2.3 Changes Water: 0. while method to measure them will discussed in Chapter 3.3. typical maximum is 100 g/m3. Relevant appendices have been included at the end of each chapter.1 2.3. the so-called Wax-Drop-Out-Point The design of facilities and the selection of process condition ideally require a knowledge of the following bulk properties… The significance of these properties is discussed below in some detail.2.2 Changes At lower watercuts the emulsions usually tend to be of the water-in-oil type and vice versa. These requirements are not always met as evidenced by a review of Group installed field applications. Testing of a demulsifer should include test on overtreatment… a low dosage rate may become less effective at higher treatment ratios… Deoiler dosages are lower and are typically some 5 ppm.3 2.01.1 1. However.   Section 2. because the drainage of thin liquid films between droplets and the behavior of dispersions are influenced by many complex factors.3 2.19  February 2011  Page 12    Summary of Changes Section 1. An emulsion breaker also removes skin strengthening solids from the interface… …while breakers for oil-in-water emulsions are known as deoilers. modifications to the analytical procedure have recently been proposed.4 2.5 2.3 2.05% vol in Oman ) Salt: 42 .3.3 2.1 1.2.3.4 2.72 g/m³ (15-25 lb/1000 bbl).PTS 10.4.2. the finer the resulting emulsion is.o.2.2 2.2 2. Waxy crude should therefore be dehydrated above the temperature at which wax starts to crystallise. Process water always contains hydrocarbons.1 2.2 1.2. This Dehydration and Deoiling Manual has been prepared with the following objectives in mind: This process is only qualitatively understood.5% vol (0.2 2.2.2.4.

Para 10 3.3.3.6 2.5.5.2.4.4.1 Para 1 3.4.1 Changes Electrostatic coalescence can be applied to any dispersion with an insulting continuous phase and a difference in dielectric… However. To improve sentence Specific statement Added “Repeat Formation Test” To improve sentence Deleted “report” and “April 1988” Added “ latest version” Added “Gas Liquid Ratio” and “Gas Oil Ratio” Deleted “oil and water requires great care” Clearer requirement To improve sentence Already mentioned at the middle of the sentence Deletd “unless” and replaced with “If” Improve sentence.6 2. (ii) 3.3.2.1. Changed “froma” to “from a” 3.2 Para 5 3. Para 1 Deleted “and” after “however” (line 6) Deleted “of the” and replaced with “and” (line 2) Deleted “the” and “for” (line3) Deleted “KSEPL have designed” and “These bottles can be ordered through KSEPL.4.19  February 2011  Page 13    Section 2.2. Para 3 Changes Delete “to the first” Reason Redundancy 3.3.3.” Replaced small “h” with capital “H” for “however” Original sentence too long.2. to KSEPL)” Replaced “T” with “t” Deleted “ IKA bottle shaker” (line 5) Unit must reflect sampling rate.4. LRS/1616.” Specific statement .1 (ii) 3.1 3.4.1 3.00. To improve sentence Specific statement To improve sentence Brand of an equipment Added “ High Pressure” Abbreviation Replaced “is” with “are” To improve sentence Deleted “KSLA have developed a” and “Unfortunately the equipment is not portable and the photographs have to be analysed at KSLA.1.2 Para 4 3. Improve sentence 3.1.2.3 Para 7 3.01.PTS 10.3.” Specifications and objectives are two separate items.2.3.1.3. this has not yet led to a large scale application… Heavy viscous crudes are therefore much more difficult to dehydrate than a light crudes   Clause 3.1 Para 8 Table 3.4.2 Para 2 3. Para 7 3. Para 1 3.4.4. Para 7 Delete “are currently” Redundancy Replaced comma with full stop (line 6) after “ available.g.1 Para 1 Deleted “be” (line 1) Improve typo error Redundancy Section 2: Deleted “1/min” for line 2 and 5 and replaced with “L/min” Replaced “will” with “with” (line 8) Deleted “(e.

” with “For a low mixing intensity.PTS 10.3 Para 8 Replaced “If a low mixing intensity is sufficient plant with the benefit of a more centralised operation.4.4.2.4.2.2.2. “ Not applicable Added “ (2 centrifuge tube)” (line 2) Better explanation Replaced “15” with “10” (line 3) As per the standard method.4. it is sufficient for the chemicals to be injected at the plant” Strengthens the sentence 3. Deleted “The samples are heated in a water bath to 50 °C and centrifuged for 10 minutes. Deleted “(no highly skilled labour required).00.2. 3.4.3 Para 4 3.3 Item (iii) Replaced “if” with “of” (line 3) To improve sentence Added “portion of oil” and “Basic Sediment and Water (BS&W)” Deleted “of oil”. .4.19  February 2011  Page 14    Clause Changes Reason Added “Alternative” 3.3 ASTM D4007 and IP 359 Specified in the test method. “ of the BS&W content” and “ 5 ml “ Deleted “are” Abbreviation and flexibility of the test equipment/apparatus Deleted “the” and “selected by the screening test” To improve sentence Redundancy Appropriate term used for observation.3 Para 6 Replaced “cleanliness” with “ appearance” Replaced “if” with “of” (bullet 1) To improve sentence Replaced “ sharply define” with “clearly separated” (bullet2 ) Replaced “The present” with “Presence” Deleted “the” Specific statement Replaced “when a local requirement” with “depends on local/statutory requirement” Strengthens the sentence 3.4.4.4 Para 7 3.01.2.2.4 Para 3 Deleted “additional of” To improve sentence Deleted “1796-69” and “IP 75-69” Replaced with “1796” and “IP 75” Added “ Latest version of” Test method year is removed to ensure only the latest version of standard method is used.3.3 Para 5 3.2. after which the amounts of free water and emulsions are observed” 3.2.4. Replaced “500 – 800 g” with minimum 600 rcf As per the standard method.4 Para 1 3.3 Item (ii) 3. Deleted API 2548 Standard method withdrawn.4.

3 Para 2 Deleted “ASTM D96 "Test for water and sediment in crude oils" is basically similar to the one described above but the use of a heated centrifuge is optional.4 Para 2 Deleted “In the extraction/IR method.3 Para 3 3.5.5. and multiplied by a factor of two to give results in percent by volume” with “Record the final volume of water and sediment in each tube.1 Para 4 3. Its use shall be restricted to the testing of on-site samples. Express the sum of the two admissible readings as the percentage by volume of water and sediment. The modifications include: • The use of a 1000 ml flask to permit the use of a large sample. IP 74/77. • The installation of a drying tube with desiccant on top of the condenser to prevent entry of atmospheric moisture.3. • The use of calibrated traps.00. carbon tetrachloride is often used as the extraction solvent.4.2 Para 8 3.5.3.5.5.4.19  February 2011  Page 15    Clause 3.1 Para 2 3.and introduced in 1981 to increase the accuracy of the "testing" of crude oil samples for custody transfer and trading.3 Para 2 Not limited to one single supplier To make a general statement .” As per the standard method.4.4.1 Para 6 3.PTS 10.5.3 ASTM 4006 and IP 358 Changes Reason Replaced “The separated quantity of water and sediment is read from the graduations of the centrifuge tube.5.1 Para 5 3. It also allows different types of centrifuge tubes and a choice of solvents.3.01. “ Method ASTM D 96 withdrawn in year 2000 3. using the Horiba OCMA 200 oil content monitor.3. Further” Deleted Equipment mentioned obsolete Deleted “at KSEPL at the request of Opcos” To make a general statement Deleted “at KSEPL” Replaced “if” with “of” Specific statement Improve sentence Deleted ” KSEPL standard” and added “test” Deleted “(see also the SIPM Water Injection Manual): “ Deleted “at KSEPL is a Waring Blender model HGB-100” Specific statement Specific statement 3. “ 3. Added “water” (line 3) “Water” was missing Deleted “This method is a modified version of ASTM D95-70.

5 Para 3 Deleted the whole para Para is a specific statement Replaced “at KSEPL with the extraction/IR absorption method “using an established method” Deleted “e.5. “ Specific statement Added “should be” and deleted “ could be made have not yet sufficiently” & “and further research is currently being done at KSEPL to formulate such rules” Add “Petroleum” Improve sentence Replaced petroleum with “oil” and added “petroleum” Improve sentence Deleted “IP248-ASTM D2547.2 Para 1 Appendix 3.5.6 Title 3.1 Para 9 Appendix 3.2 ASTM 2500 & IP 219 Appendix 3.6 Para 3 3. with the ZXSSQ routine from the IMSL library” Replaed “on a HP” with “using a scientific” To make a general statement Deleted “studies at KSEPL” Added “study Deleted “at KSEPL” Deleted “Research on these topics was started at KSEPL.00.3 Para 3 3.g.7.2 AMS 259 Appendix 3.5.6 Para 8 3.2 IP 77 Appendix 3.5.19  February 2011  Page 16    Clause Changes Added “in the laboratory” Reason 3.6 Para 4 3.6 Para 2 3. late 1987.01.” Replaced “oils” with “products” Specific statement Improve sentence Deleted Covered by other method Replaced “SMS-1897 “ with ASTM D 3246 / ASTM D 3120 Replace with standard method Deleted “SMS 2384” Use standard method only 3.2 ASTM 664/SMS 2384 Specific statement Specific statement Specific statement Specific statement Improve statement .PTS 10.2 SMS 1897 Appendix 3.

4 Title Appendix 3. while heating until an almost dry powder is obtained. recrystallised from MIBK at this temperature. such as distillates.3 Test Procedure.2 Changes Deleted: Reason Use standard method Shell Method Series (SMS) 1769 Wax content of petroleum products. Added: UOP 46 Parrafin Wax Content of Petroleum Oils and Asphalts Light. The residue is dissolved in hot MIBK. ASTM “standard test method” D96” and added ASTM D 96 obsolete. and the toluene is evaporated. “crude oil” . The congealing point of the wax us is determined.00.4 Para 2 & 3 Deleted “e. Samples containing asphaltenes are dissolved in hot toluene. Bullet 2 & 7 Appendix 3.4 Pretreatment of oil sample Appendix 3. and stirred. Appendix 3. “homogenized” and . the adsorption and extraction step can be omitted. The wax is crystallised at -30°C. The wax collected on the filter is removed with hot hexane. For products known to be free from asphaltene and resins. The hexane is evaporated and the wax weighed. The asphaltfree sample is dissolved in warm methylene chloride. To make a general statement Deleted “KSEPL STANDARD” Specific statement Added “test” Deleted “tank” and added “from tank” Improve sentence Deleted “stock oil sample “.PTS 10.g. Added “above mixture” . This solution is chilled to 30° C and filtered through a cold fritted glass filter. dried and weighed.19  February 2011  Page 17    Clause Appendix 3.01. The extract solution is filtered (if required). “sample” . “mixed” and “stock sample” Enhance sentence for better understanding. Heavily colored oils and asphalts are clarified by treatment with sulfuric acid. mixed with active earth. clear oils are analyzed as received. This is extracted with toluene in a Soxhlet apparatus.

4. open sea.4 Note for Bullet 6 Appendix 3.01.2.2.3 4. This is sometimes done with the aid of a coalescer pipe or by the use of coalescer units a) Discharge to surface water.00. Occurrence and environmental aspects There is. where there is sufficient dispersion.4 4.2 4. the usual sample size is about 1 litre.2.2. persistency/(bio)degradability.toxicity. • Delete “ PETRONAS maintains a databank in which this type of information is stored for a variety of chemical compounds and organisms.4.2. in a number if of cases.4.2. and also in the PARCOM recommended IR method The sample is extracted with a suitable solvent (n-pentane) and injected into a gas chromatographic column… The above situation is aggravated by the use of corrosion inhibitors in gas production operations… .2 4. boron.5 Changes The point of deoiler addition should be selected such that sufficient mixing occurs for the chemical to become effectively point may be required. whether oily or not. authorities have. In formulating limits for hydrocarbon levels in effluent water. • can be very dependent on sample handling and preparation.2.3 4.4.3.5 Curve Fitting Deleted “(Mitsubishi moisture meter). therefore.2.1. The most direct way consists of comparing the absorbances with those of a calibration solution.1.1 4. since any compound with a C-H bond.4. e.4 4.2. the Group policy (ref. A quantitative prediction of the deviation cannot. uniform standards for discharge of production water do not exist.2. for practical reasons.PTS 10.2 4.4.2.4 Bullet 7 Deleted “gauge” Improve sentence Deleted “with a Horiba Ocma 200 oil content analyser” To make general statement for oil in water analysis Appendix 3.2 4.. Deleted “Therefore.4 4.g. Sample preparation is extremely important for the final measurement result.3006.3 4. Currently there is a tendency for regulatory limits for effluent water to be tightened up… The determination of hydrocarbons in water consists of a number of steps preceding the actual measurement However.2.3.2.3..1 4.” To make general statement. “ Specific example   Section 4.2 4.2.3. mercury.3.4 4.4 Bullet 6 Appendix 3.2. coastal waters. bioaccumulation/tainting Delete “In the absence of governmental regulations.2.1.2.EP-61240) is that” …… discharges.2.2.2. will give a reading. etc.2. therefore.2. considerable scope for improved monitoring and recording of such discharges by OPU's in line with PETRONAS Group Minimum Environmental Management Standards Implementation Guide PTS 60.2. Deleted “This fit can be done numerically with a routine ZXSSQ from the IMSL library.1 4.” • Heavy metals (e.2.19  February 2011  Page 18    Clause Changes “mixture” Reason Appendix 3.2.2 4. “ Aspects to be considered are eco. be made.) Replace Temperature (oC): 40 – 60 with <45 4. In a significant number of cases.2 Table 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.g.1 4.3.

2.1 Changes 5.4 Chapter 5 5.4.2 It will be seen that the concern at that time was with 'interference' from low molecular weight hydrocarbon gases..4 Chapter 5 5.1.2.1 Chapter 5 5.2 Chapter 5 5.2 Additional Info ‘Nucleonic.2 Chapter 5 5.1 Chapter 5 5. all operating on a similar principle.’ ‘During discharging the cleanest oil…’ Chapter 5 5.PTS 10. the quantity of which varies from several tens to hundreds of ppm oil-in-water.4 6.2.2.1 Chapter 5 5..4.’ Add new section 5.3.4.1.1.4.4.1 Chapter 5 5.1. “In tests at various offshore locations.01.1 Chapter 5 5.3.4 Electrostatic Precipitator/Desalter/Electrostatic Dehydrator Operating Principle Spelling Check: ‘Daily temperature changes the incoming emulsion…’ Additional Info ‘Capacitance Level Probe’ ‘Conductivity Based Level Profiler’ ‘Nucleonic Interface Level Profiler’   Section 6. A number of designs for plate interceptors are available from various manufacturers.1 APPENDIX 4.1 Chapter 5 5.1 Chapter 5 5.1 6. Subsequent information has indicated that the concentrations of hydrocarbons in aqueous 7. Little or no consideration was given in the early stages to the small discharges of low molecular weight species from gas platforms …   Old section New Section Change Chapter 5 5.4.’ Add new paragraph ‘Additional level tapping are needed to measure level for increase water out in the feed.1 APPENDIX 4.2.2 Additional info: • An auxiliary chemical injection pump on standby or on auto start Spelling Check: ‘This “sludge” layer may consist of untreated …’ ‘The system is however.2.4. The method had to be adapted to avoid interference from certain low molecular weight volatile water soluble species that were not removable by oily water separators. it was demonstrated…” “CE Natco have introduced…” .1.3.’ Add new paragraph ‘It is important to provide sampling facilities at all levels for physical verification and the different phases.1 Chapter 5 5.2 Changes The water separated in a dehydration process always contains some oil. type (profiler) interface level measurement is also available in the market.4.4. The interceptor consists of a rectangular basin which is divided into a number of channels. 7.1.4. but the problem of interference from water soluble polar substances was not recognised or addressed. The internals weirs in the separator shall be adjustable to accommodate more water in the future. 6.4.4.2.2 .2.00.19  February 2011  Page 19    Section APPENDIX 4.3 6.4. proven for E&P operations.2.1 6. thus expensive.2.1 APPENDIX 4.

1. together with various other considerations relevant to the design of dehydration equipment. Germany.6. Selection and design guidelines for deoiling equipment is discussed in Section 7. January 2010 .5. page 194 7.1 indicates that separation capacity mainly a function of horizontal cross-sectional area. pilot scale tests carried out indicated that…” Removed entire section on Elf Anvar coalesce Numbering for section 6.7 6.1. 6.1.22” changed to “Fig.22. In December 1987 a research……….5.11.7 6.5.6.7 6.” Para 2: The TPF….5. 6.5. Update PTS revision PTS 31. there is no operating experience within PETRONAS.2. 6.2.4.PTS 10.2 6.24” Higher reject ratio may only yield a marginal improvement in separation efficiency.water for disposal but yet to be commercially proven.05.3 Changes Delete “As to this aspect.1..2 6. Draugen and Troll. Delete “To date.2 6.1. 2nd para.24” changed to “Fig.1 6.3.22” Delete “In a recent trial with production water as feed (BEB.3 changed to 6.5.25”     Section Section 7. Delete “This type of hydrocyclone is now being marketed by BWN.6 6.1 Paragraph 1 Section 7. 6. 5th Paragraph Section 7.1 Changes The design/sizing of dehydration and deoiling equipment should be based on a quantitative description of the separation behavior of two immiscible liquids from an unstable emulsion.7 6.1. 6.3 6. the application of coalescers … has so far proved unreliable.5 6.3 6. 6.2.5.23” The separation performance for solids/gas and liquids/gas cyclones and for solids/liquid hydrocyclones are well establish and many design are available.1.2 6.4.… Delete “They have been installed on North Cormorant for debottlenecking of the produced water system and are planned for Kittiwake. 6. 6.23” changed to “Fig.” Numbering for “Fig.7 6.26” changed to “Fig.3 6.1.2 6.2 Numbering for “Fig. Numbering for “Fig. as the BWN Vortoil.7 6. 7th paragraph page 194 Section 7. 6. 6. but this is… The residence time in the hydrocyclones are in the order of 2-3 seconds. Numbering for “Fig.19” Delete “however.25” changed to “Fig.19  February 2011  Page 20    Section 6. 6.20” Numbering for “Fig.. These guidelines are integrally taken into account in this Manual.” Numbering for “Fig.1 6.6. Recently empirical design guidelines for oil field dehydration equipment were developed in SIPM……….3. This has proved to be very effective and reduce the oil content to less than 5 ppm.1.3 6.” …the geometry of the liquid/liquid hydrocyclone differs substantially from the conventional cyclone. 6.5.3 6. when high water quality is required for injection purposes.7 6. Stokes' Law provides a means that can be used to size an oily-water separator.5. As discussed in Section 7.21” In general application. 1984) influent oil contents of 50-70 g/m³ were reduced consistently to some 5 g/m³.” Numbering for “Fig. an Australian company.20” changed to “Fig.6 6.Timing of the project is such that major result are not expected within the next few years.” “However.1.01. 6.1.2.00. 6. filters in deoiling systems are limited to polishing only. Media other than conventional mineral particles can be used for filtration.7 6. The example shown in Appendix 7.8.21” changed to “Fig. NAM has had problems with this coalescer. and they are presented in Section 7.

2 8.1 8. especially during pigging.PTS 10.1 8. and in water quality. to avoid step changes in flow rate. since vapour recovery systems were inadequate. This resulted in overstabilisation and loss of crude export.19  February 2011  Page 21      Section 8.   .3   Changes To maintain the required BS & W content of the export crude with increasing watercuts.01.00. Add (Requirement to latest approved Malaysian Regulation to be complied) in Para 6 Skim or buffer tanks are always required when linking a continuous water treatment process to a batch dehydration system. the operating temperature had to be increased to about 65 °C.

8 60 95 NAM. Crude oil needs to be dehydrated to a certain level to meet purchaser's limits.01. Nigeria 120 50 30 TSEPCO. Brunei 26. gas and water mixtures need to be treated in dehydration/deoiling facilities depends primary on the type of crude produced. Gabon 4. The amounts of production water.5 2 35 NVTS.PTS 10. is in all cases accompanied by the production of unwanted water at some stage in the production life of a well. These limits on the water and salt content of the crude are typically: . The following table shows average oil and water production rates (1986) for various OPUs. Malaysia 38. Separation of water and its subsequent disposal is. Holland 4.5 65 45 Shell Expro.5 13 75 BEB. the prime objective of the Group Operating Companies.1: Total oil and water production rates (1986) Opco Production in Oil '000 m³/d Water Watercut % (vol. will normally increase with processing reservoir depletion.) BSP.2 16 38 Shell. or a mixture of formation and injection water.15 Mbpd) Figures are only indicative and are based on production figures reported in various report and documents The produced mixture of oil. illustrating the significance of the various amounts of water produced. gas and water first requires separation in order to fully realize the value of the hydrocarbons. to a varying degree. an area of concern in most producing areas since it often requires capital expenditure and increased operating costs later on in a field's life as reserve levels decline and tighter standards are imposed on disposed water The degree to which oil. Germany 4.56 Mbpd) (2.0 51 95 SSB/SSPC.2 20 35 SPDC. Thailand 3. Turkey 2.00.1 General Production of hydrocarbons.9 10 80 PD Oman 83. which may consist of formation water only. and the product specifications. Table 1. the production conditions. UK 120 55 30 TOTAL 408 342 46 (2.19  February 2011  Page 22    1 INTRODUCTION 1.

varying from country to country. Produced water is mainly disposed off through (re)injection into subsurface strata or discharge to surface water bodies (rivers. Moreover.2 . also depend on whether water is disposal of in an offshore or onshore environment and often require inclusion of a deoiling process. In general. Gabon). which in most cases contributes to increased costs only. Gabon and Syria. water content specification for crude oil export quality. largely based on practical field experience and operators' judgement. it is clear that in general it is more difficult to de-oil the produced water than to remove water from the crude. the introduction of a desalting stage (Section 5. till the present day. As salt is dissolved in the aqueous phase separation to the above BSW criteria in many cases also reduced the salt content to acceptable levels. Complete dehydration of the crude oil and deoiling of produced water usually requires chemical treatment. the oil/water separation process is complicated by the formation of emulsions.5% vol (0. either continuous or batch wise. no longer adequate for efficient. caused by agitation of the mixture during its flow through the well and surface facilities.01. in a number of operation the salt criterion is the main issue. cost-effective dehydration of crude oil and treatment of produced water for the following reasons: . Process water always contains hydrocarbons. which has a direct bearing on income. lakes.6) may be more appropriate.PTS 10. Dehydration is therefore not a simple process and many aspects underlying the physics and chemistry of the separation of oil/water emulsions are not sufficiently understood at present.19  February 2011  Page 23    Water: 0.72 g/m³ (15-25 lb/1000 bbl). Examples of this include Oman. This is compounded. Comparing this limit with the 0.05% vol in Oman ) Salt: 42 . However. however. The implication of accepting a given salt specification for new areas and/or fields should be realised. due to the incomplete understanding of the chemical/physical principles governing the oil/water separation process.00.0.5% vol. which stabilize the emulsions formed.2 to 0. Design and operation of dehydration/deoiling facilities has been. both in a dissolved and dispersed state. In principle.g. followed by the subsequent further treatment of the emulsified part of the oil/water mixer. and by the presence of surface active components in the crude. a dehydration process consist of the initial removal of the (often larger) part of the produced water which is not emulsified ("free" water). However. Such criteria. In this context it is worth noting that Expro's recent experiences with Fulmar crude have indicated that salt concentrations up to 200-300 g/m³ are still acceptable. and less attention being given to effective deoiling. However. typical maximum is 100 g/m3. In the past this has met with few problem as shore based installations are often oversized and in offshore production a higher BS & W usually accepted where the oil is shipped to shore for "polishing" in a terminal. A typical limits for oil-in-water for platform discharges in the North Sea is 40 mg/l. mixtures of oil and water can be separated by gravity settling only. sea). Subsurface injection requires limits to the oil content in order to minimize plugging of the formation. by the increased operator attention being given to effective dehydration. In Oman the salt criterion is met by deeper dehydration down to BSW levels of 0.05%. although in some cases water can be accepted with a relatively high oil content without significant reduction of injectivity Discharge at surface most of the time have to meet statutory criteria for oil content as well as other contaminants to limit environmental impact and for good oil field practice reasons. an increasingly wide range of treatment chemicals is available enabling a smooth operation This traditional approach to equipment design and process operation is. in some cases. which is significantly less stringent. possibly combined with the gravity separation. In other situation however (e.

more viscous and/or contaminated and thus fall outside the range of current experience. iv) Because of increased environmental concern legislation governing the quality requirements for disposal of produced water tends to more stringent with time many areas. While this Manual does not give explicit recipes. since it provides an integration of petroleum and process engineering aspects. North Sea) either for direct tanker loading or for pipeline transport. This process is only qualitatively understood. In Chapter 2 some of the physical and chemical aspects of emulsions and the principles underlying oil/water separation processes. are briefly discussed. where as little volume as possible should be occupied by water.19  February 2011  Page 24    i) For offshore installations. in particular in those fields with pressure maintenance by water injection. . installation of large dehydration tanks and bulky water treatment equipment is unacceptable. In view of these requirements it is necessary to stimulate and undertake the development of: i) improved (novel) dehydration and deoiling technology. It reviews the various processes and piece of equipment currently available and in use and presents guidelines on equipment selection and integration. with less system upsets.g. 1. ii) More offshore fields require 'deep' dehydration at the platform (e. able to cope with future requirements. where space and weight are at a premium. so the coalescence process is extremely sensitive to small amounts of undefined contaminants which make a quantitative difficult.00. and cannot be used as a cook book. ii) To provide guidelines for equipment selection and design. is therefore required. because the drainage of thin liquid films between droplets and the behavior of dispersions are influenced by many complex factors. iii) planning and design guidelines for dehydration and deoiling equipment and systems In this Manual in particular the last two mentioned requirements are addressed. Most of these are surface phenomena.PTS 10. it is expected that a more uniform approach to dehydration and deoiling of produced fluids will lead to a more efficient operation of equipment and facilities. ii) a Group wide policy and guidelines on dehydration and deoiling processes and practices and process selection. v) Crudes produced by EOR methods in the future will be heavier. and for subsequent system planning/integration This Manual is not specifically meant for specialised design and process engineers. Some understanding of these processes is essential for the proper operation of oil/water separation facilities and for the selection and planning of new facilities A fundamental understanding of the coalescence mechanism of liquid droplets in a destabilised emulsion would form the basis for quantitative facilities design.01. however. although they may find its contents of interest and useful. iii) As they deplete oil fields produce increasing amounts of water and watercuts of well over 90% are not uncommon.2 Purpose and summary of the Manual This Dehydration and Deoiling Manual has been prepared with the following objectives in mind: i) To provide engineers/operators with a basic understanding of the principles of oil/water separation processes. The development of compact separation equipment with similar or better performance compared to existing equipment.

high oil-in-water readings can be obtained exceeding limits. however. For such interpretation/translation correlation are required between behavior of laboratory made emulsions and that of corresponding emulsions actually encountered in the field. As far as future requirements are concerned for in particular compact. To comply with these limits. the results may be of limited value.o. and in the absence thereof it has become practice to standardize laboratory dehydration test. total oil content (i. however. the dispersed water phase is much more concentrated.01. however. relatively low weight equipment with equivalent or improved performance when compared to conventional equipment. Oil-in-water limits. of which the infrared (IR) absorption technique is the most commonly used method. More work on the classification/characterization of field emulsions and on establishing correlation's between field emulsions and emulsions created in the laboratory is required. as set. In Chapter 7 equipment selection and design/sizing guidelines are given for both dehydration and deoilingequipment. • For new facilities dehydration test using artificial (laboratory prepared) emulsions can be performed. In most dehydration processes. to optimise selection/treatment. • In existing facilities on site 'bottle' test can be performed. sample handling and preparation is very important for the result of an oil-in-water determination. The applicability of centrifuges for oil-water separation has been evaluated in the field. Such correlations are currently not available.19  February 2011  Page 25    Sampling and testing of emulsions is discussed in Chapter 3. R & D work is ongoing for the development of hydrocyclones for dehydration purposes. In this respect the representativeness of emulsion behavior as observed in laboratory tests (in which artificial emulsions are used) for the behavior of actual emulsions under field conditions. however.00.) the dispersion is very dilute and the oil-water separation process is well described by Stokes' Law. in most cases. hydrocyclones for deoiling purpose are now considered to be field proven and are being installed/planned a. For offshore discharge only oil-inwater content has been specified by regulatory authorities thus far. Additional field testing will invariably be required. Since in general in deoiling processes relatively large quantities of water are handled.ed. discharge into surface water sources. which is not related to the occurrence of hydrocarbons but contributes to the result of an IR analysis. a fundamental and quantitative understanding of the coalescence of liquid droplet in an emulsion would form the basis for the design of . Furthermore. modifications to the analytical procedure have recently been propos. As mentioned before. however. to compare and select de-emulsifier chemicals and their dosage requirements and for performance monitoring/troubleshooting. using freshly produced emulsions. which are not removed by currently used deoiling facilities. Consequently Stokes' Law can be successfully applied for the sizing of deoiling equipment. and compact more efficient electrostatic dehydration equipment.PTS 10. As discussed in Chapter 4. in order to facilitate compassion of laboratory made and in-field emulsion characteristics. Disposal routes for produced water are injection into subsurface formations and. dispersed plus dissolved oil) is determined. Analysis of the separation behavior of water-in-oil emulsions is required for a variety of reasons. is the most critical aspect for the interpretation of results of laboratory dehydration test. on several North Sea platforms. problems with oil-in-water determination with the IR method also arise for discharges from gas/condense platforms. In Chapters 5 and 6 dehydration and deoiling equipment and processes currently in use in E & P operations are briefly reviewed. as set by regulations. With available analytical techniques. however. more commonly.e. containing relatively small amounts of oil (typical less than 2% vol. Since this water contains a relatively high amount of dissolved aromatic hydrocarbon. Disposal of produced water into the environment is. subject to environmental quality restriction. since most formation waters also contain dissolved organic material. whereas for discharges into coastal waters more parameters need to be monitored. were originally based on expectations of oily water treatment equipment performance and hence refer in principal to dispersed oil-in-water. and research is ongoing Aspects of oil-in-water emulsions and disposal of production water are discussed in Chapter 4. but more testing is required before they can be considered as oil-field proven. by legislation.

there is a need for each process step to be compatible with the preceding and subsequent steps. many new offshore developments in the North Sea now involve the planned production of smaller. In this way proof of performance prior to full scale investment can be confirmed. Use was made of available notes and reports. some repetition has been unavoidable. These guidelines have been incorporated in full in Chapter 7. oil and produced water. Finally. However. when deciding on the installation of a system. at the end of the Manual. Moreover. A detailed table of contents is included with each chapter. Since it is thus impractical to indicate in the Manual where parts of available notes and reports have been used. In all systems. whether remote or within an existing production infrastructure. until now. Onshore systems have the advantage that space and weight considerations for equipment design are not often as critical as for offshore system and the use of large dehydration and deoiling facilities is normal. No single recipe for the most economical and efficient system can be given and in particular the field location. . tables and figures.e. In view of space and weight limitation. opportunities to start dehydration at an earlier stage in the process should always be considered. design parameters for dehydration equipment have had. where guidelines and further aspects are discussed for the incorporation of individual pieces ofequipment into an integrated system. such a quantitative description of the separation process of a dispersion has proved to be extremely complex. design and sizing guidelines for dehydration equipment were developed recently in PETRONAS based on an indepth review of operating experience in various OPUs and on feedback from equipment manufactures. parts were incorporated without further modification. cannot be over-emphasized. Depending on the type of crude to be processed.3 Structure of the Manual and acknowledgement Each chapter of this Manual is self-contained in respect of numbering of pages. these contributions are hereby gratefully acknowledged. but have been grouped together in various categories. whether onshore or offshore. the advantages of pilot testing. Offshore systems have normally a requirement for deep dehydration (i.PTS 10. As to last mentioned aspect. and equipment items need to be matched in terms of capacity.A Bakels was of particular use. to enhance readability. Here the concept of minimum facilities definition is imperative to ensure acceptable economics and any opportunity to use existing facilities at a nearby platform should be investigated. very low water content) to meet a crude specification for either pipeline transport to an onshore terminal. Since each chapter should be accessible and understandable without having to rely too much on other chapters. the selection of a system will be governed by different consideration. This is dealt with in Chapter 8. References are not given in the text. and where feasible.00. Relevant appendices have been included at the end of each chapter.19  February 2011  Page 26    dehydration equipment. These requirements are not always met as evidenced by a review of Group installed field applications. together with target specifications for gas. performance and mode of operation. in the absence of a practical translation of artificial emulsion behavior to field emulsion behavior. an aspect which has received further impetus from the recent development of hydrocyclones which require a certain inlet pressure for maximum efficiency. to rely on empirical (local) field experience and on comparison with performance of facilities encountering similar production conditions.01. In most cases the final or polishing dehydration step is incorporated at the low pressure stage. However. The selection and sizing of equipment for dehydration and deoiling purposes cannot be done in isolation but must always be carried out within the framework of an integrated system design. compact and efficient separation facilities are required. where practical. however. following crude stabilization. marginal fields. will influence system selection and integration. and a simple and practically applicable mathematical description of the coalescing mechanism has not yet been forthcoming. 1. or for direct tanker loading from the platform facilities. Empirical. The unfinished draft concept manual by R. The initial version of the manual was prepared by Karl Mess during a temporary assignment with SIPM.

The efforts of all involved were much appreciated.01.19  February 2011  Page 27    The initial version of the manual was reviewed by various departments within SIPM/KSEPL and subsequently a draft version forwarded to the larger OPUs for comment. .00. Final editing was undertaken by Mike Beaumont whilst Liesbeth Hendriks coordinated the typing and associated administration.PTS 10.

1 Introduction During the life of a well. intimately dispersed in another in the form of droplets. normally dry oil (and/or gas) is produced initially followed.2. The droplet size of the dispersed phase can vary considerably and droplet radii from 1 micron to several hundred microns have been measured in a single emulsion. is only concerned with emulsions formed by crude oil and water. Some understanding of these processes is necessary for the design and proper operation of oil/water separation facilities. Figure 2. followed by the subsequent further treatment of the emulsified part of the oil/water mixture. Of the two types of emulsion mentioned. In general. possibly combined with the addition of heat.2 Emulsions 2. which requires separation (ideally into dry oil and clean water) before further processing and/or transportation or disposal. caused by agitation during flow through the well and the surface facilities. In many instances the type of emulsion is dependent on the prevailing watercut. At lower watercuts the emulsions usually tend to be of the water-in-oil type and vice versa. • Coalescence of the destabilised droplets into larger ones • Separation of the mixture into an oil and a water phase under the influence of gravity forces. and the presence of surface active components which stabilise the emulsions formed. an oil-in-water (o/w) or reserve emulsion. Two types are recognised: • Water dispersed in crude oil. . by the onset of water. a dehydration process consists of the initial removal of the (often larger) part of the produced water which is not emulsified ('free' water) for which free water knock-out vessels are used.PTS 10.1 show a photomicrograph of a water-in-oil emulsions.00. Simple mixtures of oil water can usually be separated by gravity settling only. the oil/water separation process is complicated by the formation of emulsions. • Oil dispersed in water. However. water-in-oil (w/o) normal emulsion.01. consisting of at least one immiscible liquid. after some time. This manual.1 Definition and types An emulsion is a heterogeneous system. a mixture of oil and water is being produced. In this chapter some of the physical and chemical aspects of emulsions and oil/water separation processes are briefly discussed.19  February 2011  Page 28    2 EMULSIONS AND OIL/WATER SEPARATION PROCESSES 2. the separation of oil field emulsions into their respective phases is generally effected by the following steps: • Destabilisation of the emulsion by chemical treatment. Consequently. 2. the amount of which will generally increase with time. However. by virtue of its purpose. the continuous phase consists of oil or water respectively. The degree of further treatment required is dictated by the physical and chemical properties of the emulsions.

the greater the stability of the emulsion. the finer the resulting emulsion is.2 Formation of emulsions To create an emulsion of oil and water. A simple crude oil/water emulsion would therefore. Likewise. and on the amount of agitation to which it has been subject during its 'life' (so-called shear history). 2.19  February 2011  Page 29    2. are notorious for producing very fine emulsions. it has been noticed in many cases that the stability of oil-in water emulsions decreases with . For example. which is achieved when the droplets are spheroidal. by the presence of surface active material. Consequently there is a tendency for molecules to be removed from the interface. Emulsions will therefore be formed in those sections of the production system where violent agitation occurs such as: • perforations • subsurface pumps • high GOR tubing flow. The greater the surface tension. molecules of the continuous phase are pulled back into their phase. the system is unstable. i.e. In general. The distribution of the droplet sizes in an emulsion is dependent on the properties of the crude and water. Moreover. Finally it should be mentioned that the degree to which emulsions affect the interfacial properties of emulsion droplet is also dependent on the pH and salinity of the aqueous phase. The interface thus assumes a form where its area is minimal.00. However. The 'pull' towards minimum area is known as interfacial tension. Film drainage is also opposed by the presence of finely divided solids. control valves.3 Stability of emulsions The molecules of the dispersed phase at the interface between the dispersed and continuous phases of an emulsion are subject to a net force pulling them into the droplet. where the fluids undergo a large pressure drop in a very short time. the droplets of the dispersed phase may carry an electric charge. including gas lift • flow beans • manifolds • pumps • control valves (throttles) The higher the energy of mixing/agitation. in principle. the interfacial tension is lowered by increasing salt concentration.2.2. so-called emulsifiers. thus enhancing emulsion stability. the two immiscible liquids must be subjected to a degree of agitation which imparts sufficient energy to disperse one liquid into the other.01. Since one sphere of a certain volume has less surface area than two smaller spheres of the same total volume.PTS 10. a consequence of the immiscibility of the two liquids. giving rise to mutual repulsion which also opposes dropletdroplet coalescence. and the stability of an emulsion is thus enhanced. The rate of drainage is opposed. On the contrary. increased salt content of the water phase does not imply increased stability of the emulsion. The coalescence between two drops is controlled by the rate of drainage of the intervening film of the continuous phase. the crude oil should not contact either high or low pH water since the interfacial tension between the oil and water droplets is relatively low at either end of the pH scale. separate spontaneously into the separate phases once agitation of the mixture ceases. To minimise emulsion formation. droplet tend to coalesce when they come into contact. which have a tendency to concentrate at the oil-water interface and to become part of the skin. These surfactants occur naturally in crude oil and concentrate at the droplet interface of oil and water where they strengthen the film or skin around the droplets and so hamper the coalescence of small droplet into larger ones.

19  February 2011  Page 30    increasing salt content of the water phase. 2.a surfactant is shown schematically.01.PTS 10. The polar portion of the molecule is hydrophilic (preferred affinity for water) and the non-polar portion oleophilic (preferred affinity for oil).2. with two examples.2.3. .00.1 Emulsifiers Emulsifying surfactants are typical long chain organic molecules with both a polar and non-polar end.2. Coupled with the increased gravity forces (due to the higher water density) this often results in very high separation efficiencies. In Fig.

EPRC Houston). . (Photograph courtesy of D. Note the variety of sizes of the droplets in this picture.00. The clear circles area water droplets.PTS 10.1 – A photomicrograph of a water-in-oil emulsion (x 100).19  February 2011  Page 31    Fig. 2.01. Lewis.R.

Fig. to function efficiently.3 – Examples of surfactant stabilisation. surfactants need not contain metallic cations. The skin can sometimes be actually observed between bulk quantities of crude oil and water.e. long chain alcohols. esters. 2.2 – Examples of surfactants The examples shown in Fig .19  February 2011  Page 32    Fig. When an emulsifier adsorbs at an oil-water interface the hydrophilic portion protrudes into the water phase and the oleophilic portion into the oil phase. i. appearing as a grey.PTS 10.01.2. . salts of fatty acids. provided they contain a water soluble an oil soluble portion. Entirely organic molecules may be surface active. organic acids. 2. and sulphonates are often surface active. The emulsifier molecules thus form a protective skin around the droplets which obstructs coalescence.3 shows typical schematic examples of stabilisation of w/o and o/w emulsion by surfactant. Fig.00.2 are both soaps. For example. opalescent film. such as sodium or calcium. 2. Although soaps are common formulations.

It is this film that retards droplet coalescence and separation of the water from the oil.19  February 2011  Page 33    In Fig. Fig 2.4 – A photomicrograph of a water droplet in a water-in-oil emulsion. .PTS 10.01. Fig.00. or ‘skin’. 2. Observe the rigid film.5 shows two water droplets which area touching.4 a photomicrograph is shown of a water droplet surrounded by a rigid in a w/o emulsion. 2. surrounding the droplet. but which have not coalesced because of skin around droplets.

Lewis.01. (Photograph courtesy of D. .R. because of skin around droplets.00. EPRC Houston).PTS 10.19  February 2011  Page 34    Fig.5 – Photomicrograph (x4000) of two water droplets which are touching. 2. but have not coalesced.

• Corrosion products such as iron oxides and iron sulphide (H2S !). . either positive or negative.2 Solids As mentioned earlier. Whether solids do contribute or not the stability of an emulsion depends on a variety of factors. the protective skin around the droplets of the dispersed phase may be further strengthened by finely divided solids which also tend to concentrate at interfaces.2.4 Bulk properties of oil-water mixtures The design of facilities and the selection of process condition ideally require knowledge of the following bulk properties of the produced oil-water mixture: • relative quantities of oil and water • density • rheological properties • Wax-Drop-Out-Point • droplet size distributions The significance of these properties is discussed below in some detail. • Scales. One cause of the excess charge is the presence of anionic or cationic emulsifiers in the skin surrounding the droplet but the charge may also arise from friction between the droplet and the droplets and the surrounding continuous phase. In o/w emulsions on the other hand the excess charge of the oil droplets is an important stabilising factor.2. 2. Waxy crude should therefore be dehydrated above the temperature at which wax starts to crystallise. Thus.3. while method to measure them will be discussed in Chapter 3. In many cases stabilisation due to solids is mainly apparent by the formation of a stable layer at the oil/water boundary. In w/o emulsions the repulsive forces are low because of the low dielectric constant of the oil phase and may be neglected for practical purposes.2. • Insoluble asphaltenes and resins. such as polarity and wettability.01. which requires separate treatment. such as calcium carbonate. This temperature can be found when cooling a drop of crude oil under a microscope and observing the temperature at which the first paraffin crystals appear. the so-called Wax-Drop-Out-Point.3.3 Electrical charges The droplets of the dispersed phase may carry an excess electrical charge. in a settling tank or separator. 2. • Wax crystals. solid particles may even promote coalescence when they are wetted by the droplet phase since the bridge the draining film and promote rupture of the skin. The resulting mutual repulsion opposes droplet coalescence.00. These solids include: • Formation fines. calcium and barium sulphate.PTS 10.19  February 2011  Page 35    2. Wax crystals usually enhance emulsion stability significantly.

3 Rheological properties Knowledge of the rheological or flow properties of a produced fluid is required for the design of gathering and dehydration facilities. the viscosity. This type of flow is called Newtonian flow.19  February 2011  Page 36    2.e.2. nonlinear flow behaviour. Here resistance to flow is not only caused by friction between the molecules of the continuous phase but also by the quantity. More specifically the flow properties of emulsions are affected by the following factors: • the viscosities of oil and water • relative quantities of oil and water • particle size distribution of the dispersed phase • interaction between droplets • nature of solids (e. For a more detailed discussion on the effect of temperature on the separation of oil-water mixtures. is a constant. or as an emulsion which requires destabilisation before separation can take place. The total oil content of water (expressed as ppm) is. 2. In additional the flow properties of the continuous phase of an emulsion are important parameters of its settling behaviour.4.2. i. see Section 2.g. In the case of water and oil mixture it is found that the density difference between the two liquids also varies with temperature.2 Density The density of a fluid is temperature dependent. Oil may dispersed in (separated) water either as 'free' oil which separates in a short time by 'creaming' to the surface. display a more complex.PTS 10. the amount of oil dissolved in water can be relevant for water disposal.2. Most crudes are Newtonian liquids. which must be weakened or destroyed by chemical treatment before separation can take place. The ratio between the two.5. alcohol or light mineral oil offer resistance to flow due to friction between the molecules. however.00. without requiring destabilisation by the addition of chemicals.4. however. may require a minimum temperature for dehydration to take place. independent of the shear rate. While the amount of water dissolved in oil is of no practical significance. A larger density difference will promote gravity separation. the sum of dispersal and dissolved oil (see also Chapter 4 ). Oil and water are mutually soluble to some extent. Emulsified water.2.4. The relationship between the applied stress (shear stress) and the resulting flow (shear rate) is linear. It should be realised. 2. 'Simple' liquids such as water. These liquids do not show a constant viscosity with increasing shear rate and they are classified as non-Newtonian liquids. on the other hand. particularly waxy ones. Heterogeneous system such as suspensions and emulsions.1 Relative quantities of oil and water Water can be dispersed in oil as either 'free' or emulsified water. that some crudes.01. 'Free' water is a coarse dispersion which will settle out in a short time. wax) and solids content . therefore. is intimately dispersed as fine droplets (usually smaller than 100 µm ) in the oil and requires prolonged settling for phase separation The droplet are usually stabilised by surfactants in the surrounding film. size and shape of the droplets of the dispersed phase and by electrical or mass-attraction forces between (solid or liquid) particles in the fluid.

00. . Fig.19  February 2011  Page 37    • size distribution of the solids • interaction between solid particles In addition the shear history of the fluid may have an effect on flow properties when continuous shearing may reduce flow resistance (thixotropic flow). In Fig. An example of a liquid with Bingham plastic behaviour is a waxy crude oil below its pour point.01.6 – Basic characteristics of Newtonian and non-Newtonian liquids.6 the basic characteristics of Newtonian and nonNewtonian liquids are shown.PTS 10. 2. 2.

.2.00.).19  February 2011  Page 38    Emulsions may exhibit pseudoplastic flow. the yield point.e. the shear stress must exceed a threshold value. i. or plastic flow.e. the viscosity decreases with increasing shear rate.PTS 10. i.01. for flow to start (Fig.6.

  .01.PTS 10. for a wide range of traditional crude oils. and other properties.00. 2.19  February 2011  Page 39    Fig. – Kinematic viscosity vs.7. temperature.

Since this is hardly ever the case in a new field development a better approach is to rely on local field experience to design on the basis of the more viscous phase (the oil). As the settling velocity of a water droplet in the continuous (oil) phase is proportional to the square of the droplet diameter (Section 2.8. Waxy crudes should therefore be dehydration above the temperature at which solids wax starts to precipitate.s = 10³ cP = 10³ mPa. m²/s = 10 cSt = 10 mm²/s -3 ρ = fluid density kg/m³ =10 g/cm³ Figure 2. to promote emulsions breaking. Pa.01. 2.) indicating that heating may be required for effective phase separation.2.19  February 2011  Page 40    Dynamic and kinematic viscosities are distinguished and interrelated as follows:η=ν●ρ where: η = dynamic viscosity. For example.4 Wax Drop-Out Point (cloud point) Wax crystals. due to reduction in viscosity of oil and water with increasing temperature. Temperature has a profound effect on flow properties of oil/water mixtures and on settling behaviour of emulsions.2. see Section 2. for illustrative purposes. The number of droplet collisions required is enormous.2. the smaller droplet must collide with other small droplet to form larger droplets which then settle more rapidly. .5.00 droplet of 5 µm radius must collide and coalescence to form one droplet of 250 µm radius. about 125.00. In several cases it has been attempted to predict the viscosity of produced liquids based on measurements with artificially prepared emulsions This can lead to over-design of pumps and pipelines and is therefore not recommended unless the shear rate and shear history of the actual emulsion is known.7 shows. varying size from less than 10 µm to several hundreds of µm. 2.5 Droplet size distribution In an oil field emulsion. the so-called Wax-Drop-Out-Point. Dispersions in low viscosity fluids separate faster than those in more viscous fluids (Stokes' Law.1.5.s 6 6 ν = kinematic viscosity. water is dispersed throughout the form of spherical droplets.4.PTS 10. adsorbed at the droplet interfaces may increase the stability of an emulsion significantly. The droplet size distribution of a typical stable emulsion is shown in Figure 2. the kinematic viscosity versus temperature for a wide range of crude oil listed with their basic properties.4.) droplet size distribution is related to emulsion separation efficiency. The importance of droplet size is apparent when it is realised that. The effect of increased temperature on settling behaviour of emulsions is discussed in more detail in Section 2.1.5.

coalescence. while breakers for oil-in-water emulsions are known as deoilers.8 –Continuous droplet size distribution curve. Emulsions are destabilised by treatment with emulsion breakers. In Fig. 2. The correct application of the chemicals is a key factor in emulsion breaking processes.19  February 2011  Page 41    Fig.3 Destabilisation of emulsions To break an emulsion and promote efficient separation of the oil and water phases. In order to achieve this. An emulsion breaker also removes skin strengthening solids from the interface by dispersing them into one of the separate liquids. 2. 2. The stabilised films around the dispersed phase droplets are thus weakened and colliding droplet are able to merge into larger ones. These are surface active agents which diffuse through the continuous phase of the emulsion to the oil-water interface where they deactivate the emulsifying compounds.00. .PTS 10. the de-emulsifier must have first been transported to the interface (mixing). Emulsions breakers for water-in-oil emulsions are usually referred to as demulsifiers. illustrating the effect of the additional of a demulsifer on emulsion stability. 2) The emulsifying agent must be deactivated or delocalised so that the droplets.01. when they collide. 3) The water droplets must have a different density than the oil so that gravity separation can be achieved. The processes are enhanced by higher temperatures. without destabilisation of the emulsion the subsequent steps of coalescence and gravity separation cannot usually take place. the following conditions must be fulfilled: 1) Droplet must collide.9 photomicrograph of two samples of the same emulsion are shown.

2.19  February 2011  Page 42    Fig.PTS 10. The majority of the non-ionic demulsifiers are esters containing water soluble groups which are polymers of either ethylene and/or polypropylene oxide.00. maintained at a temperature of 79 °C.1 Chemical nature of emulsion breakers Demulsifiers are surface active agents capable of easily migrating through the oil phase to the interface and changing its character from oleophilic to hydrophilic.01. Demulsifiers are available in anionic. Non-ionic demulsifiers are organic molecules which do not ionise and therefore remain unchanged. . and with 200 parts per million of an emulsion breaking chemical (lower row). The basic theory is that an emulsifying agent should be added which would normally produced an oil in water emulsion. cationic or non-ionic form. Cationic demulsifers are typically quaternary ammonium salts whose water soluble group is positively charged.9 – Photomicrograph (x 80) of two samples of the same emulsion.   2. with no chemical treatment (upper row). Because they are more active the majority of demulsifiers are used in the oil field are of the non-ionic type. By attempting to reverse phases the intermediate condition of a destabilised water drop is obtained. organic amine-fatty acid soaps and sulphonated aliphatic and aromatic compounds whose water soluble group is negatively charged.3. Anionic demulsifiers are typically oil and alcohols.

10-20 ppm (w.* dependent on the treatment temperature (see Section 2. while others require a much longer period (in the order of hours) to be fully effective. however. A better approach would be to rely on local field experience or to design on the basis of general design criteria for that type of gravity crude. When making such a selection due consideration should also be given to the quality of the separated water. laboratory tests are required to select from a large number of available chemicals to determine the most effective one(s) for a given emulsion.3. Slower acting chemicals which produced dryer crudes and cleaner water may be preferred in cases where sufficient settling times/capacity exist (mostly onshore). it is not recommended to resort to the preparation of artificial emulsions for demulsifier screening tests. 2.g. 2. e. while for heavy crudes dosages of up to 100 ppm or more are sometimes needed.6. during the appraisal stage of a new discovery.o. Testing of a demulsifer should include test on overtreatment: a demulsifier which shows promising results at a low dosage rate may become less effective at higher treatment ratios and sometimes separated oil and water are re-emulsified upon agitation.r.3.3. additional injection of demulsifier may be required. Deoiler dosages are lower and are typically some 5 ppm. or where line capacities are insufficient to transport all the water to a central treatment plant for separation and disposal. Emulsions breakers are usually supplied as a 25-50% solution of the active material in alcoholic or aromatic solvents.3 Dosage rate of emulsion breakers For light crude oils.3. The required dosage is a.2.00. the solvent(s) should be carefully selected to form a true solution with the active component(s). the most reliable results are obtained from on-site testing with fresh emulsion samples. 2.). Consequently. The method used for the on-site screening of demulsifiers is the bottle test (see Section 3. Whilst this is an undesirable feature the potential operational and economic benefit may warrant its further consideration. oil soluble or oil dispersible compounds are preferred for the treatment of water-in-oil emulsions. where available settling times are limited due to apace/weight restrictions and where line capacities are at a premium for crude transportation.4.01. dry crude) of demulsifier is typically required. In cases where wet crude passes through emulsion generating regulators in the flow/pump system. To obtain reliable conclusions it is required that representative emulsion samples be used and that the test temperature be adjusted to that expected to prevail in the field.4 Fast/slow acting demulsifiers Some demulsifiers are able to effect an oil/water separation in a time span of a few minutes at a certain temperature. Emulsions treated with fast acting demulsifiers.19  February 2011  Page 43    To facilitate the diffusion of emulsion breakers to the oil/water interface. . Fast acting demulsifiers have an application in particular offshore. To prevent separating during storage. generally have a higher residual water-in-oil content compared to slow acting demulsifiers and the oil content of the separated water may be too high for disposal without further treatment.3. further on-site testing can be carried out to optimise/change the selection and dosage of demulsifiers. as derived from laboratory testing.PTS 10.2 Selection of emulsion breakers Because of the large number of variables in the system and emulsion breakers for a particular emulsion requiring treatment. while water dispersible breakers are preferably used for the treatment of oil-in-water emulsions. This should also include test on interference of demulsifier with other production chemicals (for example corrosion inhibitors may interfere with demulsifiers to give emulsion problems). In this respect it should be mentioned that the selection and dosage of emulsion breakers is not critical in the early stages of field development and when actual emulsions do occur.) When samples of produced emulsions are not available.t.

6 Temperature effects Elevated temperatures enhance the destabilising action of emulsion breakers.2.01.3. 2.).3. Therefore an emulsion needs to have been destabilised prior to coalescence.19  February 2011  Page 44    2. if so required.PTS 10. The process of coalescence may occur at any point in the production system. it is vital that the breakers selected for a particular operation still perform sufficiently at the lowest encountered operating temperature. Coalescence is promoted by subjecting the destabilised oil/water mixture to a certain level of agitation/turbulence. In most cases. strongly dependent on the level of agitation and turbulence (mixing energy) that exists in a particular part of the system (see Section 2. • Control of the energy level and residence time of an emulsion flowing through a pipeline system (pipeline coalescence) • Exposure of an emulsion to an electrical field (electrostatic coalescence) • Passage of an emulsion through beds of fibrous or granular material (coalescence media). however. To avoid process upset. When two small droplets come into contact with each other. Generally demulsifiers are injected at flow stations or into manifolds where temperature and mixing conditions are still reasonably favourable. otherwise coalescence cannot be achieved. a suitable demulsifier can be selected which yields a good/acceptable water quality from a dehydration process such that addition of a deoiler is not required.1 General Coalescence is the process of the merging of small droplet into larger ones.). 2. In some areas it is necessary to adjust the injection rates to seasonal temperature fluctuations.4.4. The resistance to occur.00.5 Injection points of emulsion breakers Emulsion breakers should always be injected at a point where sufficient turbulence ensures quick and even distribution of the chemical through the production stream.3. The breaker should be injected as far upstream of the point of emulsification as practically feasible since emulsion stability will be reduced and emulsification may even be prevented. however.4. The degree of coalescence is. demulsifiers should remain stable at the highest process temperature encountered. Injection downhole would be ideal but is rarely applied because an impractically large number of injection points would be required to treat the entire stream. the interfacial film must be ruptured for coalescence to take place. However. and the oil content of the produced water can be sufficiently reduced by coalescence and gravity separation only. The probability for droplet-droplet collisions (and thus coalescence) is increased by: • The creation of coalescence zones in continuous oil/water separation vessels.2. Deoiling chemicals are added to the dehydration water downstream of the bulk oil and water separation stage.4 Coalescence 2. which enhances the probability of droplet-droplet collisions. whereby the interfacial films surrounding the droplets have been ruptured or weakened sufficiently. . The minimum temperature at which a particular emulsion breaker is still effective can be established by bottle testing (Section 3.

2.19  February 2011  Page 45    2. Various studies have been done both experimentally and theoretically on this topic. mN/m) ρc = density of the continuous phase (g/cm³) Above relationship is shown graphically in Fig. Therefore.s.10 for the range of values expected to occur in a crude handling and dehydration system. it should be input per unit mass and time at which the rate of coalescence equals the rate of dispersion. . which has proved useful in analysing oil/water separation facilities. A relationship between the maximum stable droplet size in a destabilised emulsion and mixing intensity.2 Mixing energy and coalescence. 10-4 Watt/kg) σ = surface tension (dyne/cm. erg/g.4. the motion of the smaller droplets is causing coalescence to take place. was developed by Hinze. 2. 2.725 where: 10 dmax (2.00.4.1 Droplet sizes and mixing energy The droplets contained in a destabilised emulsion are subject to continuous dispersion and coalescence.1) = maximum stable droplet size (m m) ε = mixing intensity equivalent to the work done on the fluid per unit mass per unit time ( cm²/s³. At the same time that this process is occurring.PTS 10. A vibrating droplet will become unstable when its kinetic energy is sufficient to make up for the difference in surface energy between a single droplet and the two smaller droplets formed from it.01. of the form: 0.

Fig. in the past.10 indicates that the maximum stable droplet size may then vary from 10. a mixing intensity which may occur (or higher) when an emulsion passes through a pressure control valve.2. which occurs during the filling of settling tanks. 2. been considered more practical to use as a yardstick the work done on the fluid per unit volume per unit time.2) where: ∆p = pressure drop over a certain part of the system t = retention time of the fluid in that part of the system ρ = density of the fluid.4.2 Calculation of mixing energy The mixing intensity. down to 1 mm at very high mixing intensities. 2. For field applications it has.10 ranges from 10 cm²/s³.10 – Mixing intensity and maximum stable droplet size The mixing intensity shown in Fig.01. 2. up to 109 m²/s³. expressed in psi/hour and denoted by E.19  February 2011  Page 46    Fig.PTS 10. taking the form: E ∆p T (2.00.000 mm at low mixing intensities. which is defined as the work done on the fluid per unit mass and per unit time can be calculate for any part of the flow system by the relation: ε ∆p (2. The average droplet size of unstable dispersions will of course be smaller than the indicated maximum droplet size.3) . 2.

Re.493 / 10 The friction factor f can be estimated from the Figure 2.1 for both laminar and turbulent flow.s = cm²/s³) into E (in psi/hr) multiply by ρ / 19. s T = residence time.2) by substitution of ∆p from the Poiseuille pipe-flow equation. Equation for mixing intensity parameters e and E for pipeflow are summarised in Table 2.2 1) 10 d E (field units) 10 d q E 26. kg/m³ ρ = fluid density.PTS 10. in.11. psi = residence time. The dimensionless Reynolds number. Pa t In field units Q = flow rate. psi/hr .s η = dynamic viscosity.01. It is mentioned that the equations shown for laminar flow can be derived directly from equation (2. bbl/d ∆P = pressure drop.19  February 2011  Page 47    where: ∆p T = pressure drop (psi) = retention time (hours) To convert ε (in erg/g. poise (g/cm. m/s).16. hr η = dynamic viscosity. Table 2.00. is defined as: Re inertial forces viscous forces v v/d vd (v = average flow velocity.s) ρ = fluid density.1: Mixing intensity equations for pipe flow ε(SI unit) Type of flow Laminar (Re < 1500) Turbulent (Re > 3000) 51. m³/s ∆p = pressure drop. The symbol and units used in the mixing intensity equations are: In SI units q = flow rate.2 / ∆p t 3.72ηQ psi/hr D E ∆P T 0. m D = pipe diameter. Pa. g/cm³ d = pipe diameter.

00.1) between mixing intensity and maximum droplet size is only valid for liquid-liquid systems.19  February 2011  Page 48    Fig. From eqns.1) since the expanding gas contributes to the energy of mixing in an unknown manner. It is emphasised that the relation (2. the resulting droplet sizes cannot be estimated from eqn. 2.01.PTS 10. or when gas break-out may occur with a drop in pressure. (2.11 – Estimation of friction factor. Values derived from this diagram are similar to those obtained from the well-known ‘Moody diagram’. Mixing intensities and droplet sizes can therefore only be calculated for parts of a production system where complete degassing of the production stream has occurred.1) and (2. (2. When free gas is present.3) the following qualitative conclusions can be drawn: .

while flowing through parts of the treatment facilities.7. . In reality free gas is likely to be present.2.4.5. which is similar in construction to a simple rotational viscometer (e. Optimum deoiling performance was determined for mixing intensities of ε = 11. etc. retention times and maximum stable droplet sizes expected to occur in parts of crude handling system.g. the smaller the droplet diameter will be.1).000 – 110. KSEPL develop the dynamic coalescer. This device is discussed in more detail in Section 3. will disperse instantaneously. control valves. (2. Some typical mixing intensities. To simulate mixing intensities. also further decreasing droplet sizes. are shown in Table 2.2 : Example of mixing intensity and droplet sizes. the process in which a droplet breaks up into smaller droplets under certain conditions of mixing energy.00. However. all droplets larger than dmax as given by eqn.01. a Fann viscometer). large pressure drops which occur over small distances through chokes. thus increasing the calculated mixing intensities by an unknown amount. 2. it appears from field experience to take place very rapidly. range 100 – 500 psi/hour).range 2200 – 11000 cm²/s³ (250 psi/hour. Table 2. and thus the shear forces that the fluid experiences in a given period of the time. Laboratory testing of dehydration and deoiling behaviour of emulsions as a function of mixing intensity showed that optimum dehydration results could be obtained at a mixing intensity of about 5500 cm²/s³ . i. That is.19  February 2011  Page 49    i) The greater the pressure drop. For design purposes it can be assumed that whenever large pressure drops occur.3 Dispersion and coalescence The dispersion process.e. encountered in the field in laboratory testing. ii) The lower the surface tension. Calculated values assume no free gas present.2. the lower the maximum droplet size.000 cm²/s³ (E = 500 – 5000 psi/hour). result in emulsions that are harder to treat. is theoretically not instantaneous.PTS 10.

2. e.g.4) K where: d = final droplet size fv = volume fraction of the dispersed phase Ks = empirical parameter for the particular system The following qualitative conclusions for coalescence in a gravity settler can be drawn from the above relationship: i) A doubling of the residence time will increase the maximum droplet size by only 19%. whether it occurs in piping systems or in large vessels. which is called sedimenting zone.4.01. 'working layer' or 'coalescence zone' because the gentle movement caused by the rising oil promotes active coalescence. . This is. In Fig. a high water content emulsion layer builds up between the water and the oil. Coalescence in the former zone.3 Coalescence zones In continuous gravity separation processes an oil/water interface is maintained in the vessel. The time required to obtain a desired droplet size. From various studies on coalescence in liquid-liquid dispersions it has been demonstrated that there are two zones in a dispersion band: a turbulent zones where the hold-up is about 50% in which the droplets are free to move relative to each other. In the closed-packed zone the hold-up is high and may approach unity.PTS 10. This zone is called the 'dispersion band'. the greater the residence time needed to yield a given droplet size. and a calmer zone close to the disengaging interface in which the droplets are closely packed. is a more time consuming process than dispersion. 2. more rapidly in high water content systems.12 the structure of liquidliquid dispersions is shown schematically for a vertical separator.19  February 2011  Page 50    Coalescence of droplets. free water knockouts and settling tanks. ii) The more dilute the dispersed phase. can be approximated by: d t (2. thus influencing the coalescence time at the disengaging interface. coalescence occurs.00. takes place after impact of the drops which grow in size until they are large enough to sediment into the second zone (the close-packed zone) where gravitational forces are transmitted from drop to drop. By introducing the destabilised 'feed' emulsion just below this boundary.

2. droplet coalescence and break-up will occur simultaneously which eventually leads to an equilibrium droplet size distribution. However care must be taken to ensure that sufficient residence time exists in this relatively 'quiet' area to allow the coalescence process to reach equilibrium.45D km For estimation of friction factor see Fig.6) 2.1. The required pipe diameter can be calculated from the mixing intensity equations given in Table 2. and the length and diameter of the coalesce pipe should be adapted to arrive at optimum mixing conditions for the emulsion concerned. taking performance of existing facilities duly into account.3) can be used to predict maximum droplet sizes that may result from coalescence during fluid flow through a pipeline. would form the basis for separator design and sizing rules. and the pipe length from: L T Q 76. Equations (2.4. as a function of coalescence parameters. and considered impossible to do so from physical properties and operating data alone. Separator design and sizing rules have experience. – Structure of liquid / liquid dispersions The quantitative description of the dispersion band thickness versus throughput. the characteristics of which depend on the level of mixing energy imparted on the flowing oil/water mixture.05 fLQ .4 Pipeline coalescence In a destabilised emulsion flowing through a pipeline.01. Currently research is being conducted at KSEPL to establish separator design rules based on the behaviour of liquid/liquid dispersions (see also Section 3.00.PTS 10. such a relationship has been found difficult to predict. using the quantities and units shown below: Pressure loss h 1.1) and (2.12.19  February 2011  Page 51    Fig.11. 2. However.

m³/d D = internal pipe diameter.PTS 10.01.00. retention times and maximum droplet sizes are shown for pipelines. mm²/s (cSt) Coalescer pipes have been used in the field to achieve the following objectives: – To provide time and favourable mixing conditions for coalescence – To provide a pressure drop. in a gradual form (see Section 2.5) In Table 2. m liquid L = length of pipe. in. Table 2. ν = kinematic viscosity.19  February 2011  Page 52    Reynolds number Re 580 Dν Laminar flow when Re < 1500. . friction factor f Turbulent flow when Re > 3000.3 – Examples of pipeline coalescence parameters.11) h = pressure loss.4.3 two examples of typical mixing intensities. ∆p. km Q = throughput. friction factor 64 Re f = f1 + ∆f (Fig 2.

4. spreading over the fiber surface. The purpose of such a facility is to avoid emulsification as a result of high shear forces in for instance pressure control valves.000 m³/d (500. Electrostatic coalescence can be applied to any dispersion with an insulting continuous phase and a difference in dielectric constant of continuous and dispersed phase.5.4.4. Once the surface is saturated. 2. which facilitates subsequent gravity settling. This technology has been successfully applied to crude desalting processes for more than 50 years and it is available from several manufactures.3. tentatively a pipe length of 1 km and a mixing intensity of around 5500 cm²/s³ (250 psi/hour) are recommended.05% v was required on account of the very high water salinity (150-180 kg/m³).01. KSLA are currently developing a multistage electrostatic coalescer for dehydration of production fluids containing water concentrations from 50 ppm to 40%. a pilot scheme might be useful to ensure a successful application. For this application the electrostatic coalescer should be capable of handling larger ranges of water concentration in an even more compact separator.2).19  February 2011  Page 53    In designing a pipeline stem.000 bbls/day ) throughput. 2. Optimum mixing conditions can be derived from laboratory tests on representative samples of emulsion.3).6 Electrostatic coalescence Electrostatic coalescence is a liquid-liquid phase separation process that employs an intense electrical field to enforce collisions between small droplets. but they have some promise for the deoiling of effluent waters (see Section 6. If such tests are not available. This allows separation over a wide range of water concentrations in one vessel (see Section 5.5 Pressure reduction pipeline The use of pressure reduction pipes is a related application to coalescer pipelines. pressure drops and flow rates be verified to achieve mixing intensities which do promote coalescence and avoid re-emulsification due to turbulence. When these types of dispersion are subjected to an electrical field. the coalescing medium will be wetted by colliding droplets. this has not yet led to a large scale application to other liquid-liquid phase separation operations such as dehydration of production fluids. The multistage coalescence contains several electrode-separator stages with intermediate water removal and increasing electrical fields. The electrical forces attainable are two to three orders of magnitude higher than gravitational forces. 2. However. In view of the number of unknown critical parameters in designing coalescer pipes. the dispersed phase can experience several types of electrical force.PTS 10. took place causing prolonged settling times in the terminal tanks to achieve export quality crude for which a maximum BS & W of 0. The problem was partly solved by replacing one control valve by three parallel coalescer pipes of 8 and 10 inch diameter and 1 km length. Severe re-emulsification of the crude stream dehydration in the interior. . it is recommended that dimensions. When installed in a stream of destabilised emulsion.7 Coalescence media Coalescence is promoted by the passage of an emulsion through a bed made up of fibrous or granular material which is preferentially wetted by the dispersed phase.00. excess dispersed fluid will be shed into the stream as coarser droplets. The resulting larger drops are readily separated by gravity. accounting for a back pressure of some 2050 kPa (300 psi) at 80. where originally two pressure control valves in series were installed at the coastal terminal to provide back pressure of some 4100 kPa (600 psi) to a crude oil stream crossing a mountain range with a high point elevation of some 680 m. The total result is accelerated movement and increased frequency of collisions. A successful application is found in PDO Oman. Droplets that acquire a net charge will start to move in the direction of the field: furthermore dipoles can be induced (charge separation in a neutral droplet) leading to droplets being attracted towards each other. They are therefore rarely used in crude oil dehydration.4. Coalescer beds are sensitive to blockage by solids in the process stream. There have been some developments in the technology of electrostatic coalescence.

00. In some latest developments the separation velocity has been significantly increased by increasing the gravitational acceleration forces by the use of centrifuges of hydrocyclones. it is desirable to have relatively large dispersed phase droplets.5. The basic equations governing this motion are the buoyant force: This equation is usually referred to as Stokes' Law.5 Gravity separation 2. .19  February 2011  Page 54    2. Separation is usually effected under conditions of normal gravity. water droplets falling).PTS 10.01. • Droplet size. As the terminal velocity is proportional to the square of the droplet diameter. From the above simple equation it is apparent that the separation velocity is affected by the following factors: • Acceleration due to gravity forces.1 Stokes' Law Oil and water can be separated by virtue of their different densities which cause the droplets of the dispersed phase to separate from the continuous phase (oil droplets rising. which can be achieved by minimising the degree of turbulence and promoting coalescence.

Heat reduces the viscosity of the continuous phase (particularly oil) thus promoting gravity settling. This is discussed in more detail in Section 2. Heavy viscous crudes are therefore much more difficult to dehydrate than light crudes.13 settling velocities of a 200 µm water droplet are shown for various crude gravities.PTS 10. It is apparent that a low density difference and a high viscosity slow down oil water gravity separation. The term (ρw -ρο) / η or ∆ρ / η is called Stokes’ parameter. In Fig. 2.2.19  February 2011  Page 55    • Density different and viscosity of the continuous phase.01. .5. as a function of temperature. but also effects the density difference between oil and water.00.

for three different API gravity crude oils (based on water drop size of 200 microns) (source: Heavy Oil Dehydration.5. 2. Low oil viscosity enables water droplets to move faster.19  February 2011  Page 56    Fig.00. Jackson et.13 – Settling velocity-temperature relationship.2 Effect of heat on dehydration behaviour Heat always reduces the viscosity of the oil (continuous) phase of a water-in-oil emulsion. and heat alone causes emulsion breaking solely by lowering oil viscosity and increasing the speed at which water droplet can move. thereby promoting droplet collisions and faster water droplet settling. Al).PTS 10.01. There is a small percentage of produced emulsions where the emulsifying agent is relatively weak. . R.S. 2. using Stokes’ Law.

01. can help determine proper operating temperatures in cases where settling is the prime means of treating the emulsion. The lower figure shows a Type III system. in which an increase in temperature always results in an increased droplet velocity.00. the better the emulsion breaking. The centre figure shows a Type II system in which a maximum droplet velocity is reached. This has happened many times in heavy oil fields. ρo and ηo can be taken from the 'fingerprint' at a series of temperatures within the operating of emulsion treating equipment. after which further heating causes a zero droplet velocity (no separation of oil and water possible). particularly when low API gravity crudes are considered. In order to determine how any water-in-oil emulsion will behave under varying condition of temperature.PTS 10. oil density and oil viscosity at a series of different temperatures. Value of ρw. can be used in Stokes' Law to generate pattern of water droplet settling as a function of treater temperature. followed by a reverse of water droplet direction. This provides what has come to be known as an emulsion 'fingerprint'. Such data are shown on Fig. At temperatures above the zero velocity point the system inverts. when used with Stokes' Law.19  February 2011  Page 57    However. Fig.2. it is necessary to measure water density. The upper figure shows a Type I oil-water system. it is not always true that the hotter the emulsion.14 shows 'fingerprints' of the three principal types of emulsion. combined with an arbitrary fixed value of water droplet radius. with the following differences: • Type I : oil and water density curves are about parallel as temperature increases • Type II : oil and water density curves converge slightly as temperature increases • Type III: oil and water density curves cross at a point within the range of treating temperatures. and heating beyond this point creates a disadvantage.15. and water goes to the stock tank. . in which a maximum droplet velocity is reached. and these data. while oil goes into the water disposal system.2. These data.

2. Type II emulsions (centre).00.19  February 2011  Page 58    Fig.PTS 10. and oil viscosity (ηo) at various temperature for Type I emulsions (upper).01. .14 – Plots of water density (ρ w) oil density (ρo). and Type III emulsions (lower).

The following processes for treatment of oily water will be briefly discussed:   . In these processes use is made of methods to speed up oil removal from dehydration water since a simple gravity process alone would be ineffective and too time consuming.00. 2. discussed in the previous sections.15 – Water droplet vertical velocity at different tempereatures for Type I emulsions (upper). and Type III emulsions (lower).PTS 10. Type II emulsions (centre). 2.01.6 Additional oily water treatment processes In addition to the various processes for oil/water separation. there are a number of processes available/in use which are being applied for the treatment of oily water containing very fine oil droplets and/or solids/.19  February 2011  Page 59    Fig.

01. the rate of oil removal is increased considerably. • Attachment of the oil droplet to the gas bubble. finely divided particles are combined by chemical means.g: Fe SO 6 OH 2Fe OH 3 SO – To neutralise the electrostatic forces which cause individual suspended droplets to repel each other. water dispersible polymers with excess electric charges along their entire length. These are long chain. This process is not suitable for offshore applications since it generates chemical waste.6. In saline waters the pH range for optimum floc formation is much smaller and adjustment by treatment with calcium hydroxide may be necessary. and must be decided upon on the basis of laboratory tests. the action of which is threefold : – To form an iron hydroxide ‘floc’ which traps suspended oil and solids. – To precipitate some dissolved substances such as sulphur and some heavy od transition metals.g: 2 Fe 3 2 FeS S The resulting floc is subsequently removed from the water by either sedimentation or gas flotation. the two will travel to the surface more rapidly than the droplet would on its own.PTS 10. Due to these characteristics they can effectively join with a large number of particles and droplets of the opposite charge to form a coarse floc. As a result. The flotation process consists of the following four basic steps: • Bubble generation in oily water. e. Polyelectrolytes are used in dosages of 1-10 ppm.00. The water is treated with small amounts (10-50 ppm) of aluminium or ferric salts (coagulant). The quality of the floc can be improved considerably by the addition of polyelectrolytes. . The process is sensitive to the pH which should be between 5 and 9 in fresh water.6.19  February 2011  Page 60    • coagulation or flocculation • flotation • filtration 2. e. After the droplet has attached itself to the bubble.1 Coagulation or flocculation Coagulation is the process where suspended. The type of polyelectrolyte to be used depends on the characteristics of the water and the suspended solids. 2. • Contact between a gas bubble and an oil drop suspended in the water. thus allowing coalescence. Flocculation is the further increase in size and volume of the resulting precipitate to form larger and more readily settleable masses.2 Flotation Flotation is a process which consists of generating fine gas bubbles in oily water and contracting these bubbles with the oil droplets in the water.

but this process is not (yet) being applied in commercial flotation equipment. • Mechanical mixing of gas and water (dispersed or induced gas flotation). This process is not limited by the solubility of gas in water and is able to intermix 4-9 m³ of gas with one m³ of water. 2. This reduces the possibility of contact. the main disadvantage being that even small amounts of oil in water can incapacitate ('blind') a filter fairly rapidly.PTS 10. and only relatively low throughputs are achievable. On the other hand.3). Due to their lower density than water. They are generally smaller in saline water (>36 g/l NaCl equivalent). This leads to the possibility of bubble-droplet contact. similar to those related to droplet-droplet coalescence (see Section 2. ii) Bubble-droplet contact Gas bubbles and oil droplets must come into contact for flotation to occur. when a high water quality is required for reinjection purposes. The size of bubbles can be reduced by the use of foamers.3 Filtration Various types of filtration processes are being used in E & P operation. The gas bubbles in commercial flotation cells range in size from 300-1000 µm.6. In this process longer residence times are obtained as compared to dissolved gas flotation. and remain so until the bubble reaches the surface of the flotation cell. the fraction of oil droplets in the path swept by the bubble that actually contacts the bubble)is highest when the gas bubbles are small and the oil droplets large.e. Bubbles can also be generated by sparging. primary for solids removal from water prior to injection. These two parameters influence the collision efficiency and thus the rate of oil recovery.5 scf/bbl) for pressures of 400-600 kPa).20. Each of these steps is briefly discussed below. i) Bubble generation in oily water In commercially available equipment two methods of gas bubble generation are being used: • Bubbles can be generated by pressure reduction of water which has previously been saturated with H2S-free gas at an elevated pressure (dissolved gas flotation). This process is extremely complex as it involves hydrodynamics and surface. gas bubbles rising more rapidly than the oil droplets. iii) Bubble-droplet attachment Successful flotation requires that the oil droplet attaches itself to the gas bubble.2. The method of bubble generation is important since it determines the bubble size gas concentration for a given feed. Only in few cases is filtration being used treatment of oily water.4-0. . Oil droplet sizes can be increased by the use of deoilers (coalescence) and polyelectrolytes.00.9 m³/m³ (0.19  February 2011  Page 61    • Rising of the gas-oil combination to the water surface where the oil can be removed by skimming. The quantity of gas that can be contained by the water is limited by the solubility of gas in water (typically 0. a fluid flow pattern is established around a moving gas bubble that tends to deflect oil drops. Film drainage and rupturing processes are involved. The application of filters in deoiling systems should therefore be limited to 'polishing' of relatively small amounts of produced water.01. Theoretical studies have indicated that contact efficiency (i. The use of foamers usually has a beneficial effect on the attachment process. gas bubbles and oil droplets will both travel to the water surface.

Filters tested were capillary membrane filters. However. however. Backwashing procedures are often ineffective leading to frequent replacement of the media. but practical experience has indicated that sand filters are less suitable for this duty. Experiments showed a rapid decline of the permeate flux. Cross-flow filtration is characterised by a (turbulent) flow parallel to the filter surface. however. In principle cartridge filters should be considered unsuitable for oily water application. manufacturers claim that 100g/m³ oil in water can be handled. – Granular media filters.19  February 2011  Page 62    In summary. In a recent trial with produced water as feed (BEB. An example which has been applied to oil field waters is the Hydromation deep bed filter (see Chapter 6) which uses crushed black walnut shells. – Cross-flow membrane filters. made of microporous polypropene.00.     . with the media bed consisting of typically sand. or in place of media filters Although no specific data for oily water applications are available BSP observed (1983) in a filtration field trial with completion fluids that PALL 10µm cellulose filters plugged rapidly in the presence of some oil/condense.01. In view of the low ratio between permeate and feed flow rates. a value of maximum 30g/m³ may be more realistic for relatively trouble free operation. the following filtration processes are available. the feasibility of which for removing dispersed oil and/or solids from produced water. for dual media (anthracite /garnet) filters. this presents a disposal problem for the resulting oil/water emulsion. In other test oil breakthrough was observed after a short time of testing. The 35 µm polypropylene filters subsequently employed were also adversely affected but appeared to be more resistant to oil contamination. In a recent trial with produced water as feed the media. The oil content in the feed to the filter must be less than 15 g/m³ and ideally less than 10 g/m³. which should result in a reduced accumulation of particles on the filter surface. especially where heavy oils are involved. either as polishing filters downstream of media filters. or combinations of anthracite/garnet or anthracite/sand on a suitable support bed. The media is water wetted and is therefore claimed to be particularly suited for removing oil and solids from production water since entrained oil is easily removed from the media. – Precoat filters have found extensive application in removing the final traces of suspended oil from production water prior to softening and conversion into stream for thermal recovery projects. As a guide. was investigated by KSEPL.Germany. it was concluded that the potential of porous membranes for application within E & P is low at the moment. Backwashing with hot surfactant solution is suggested. or in place of media filters. – Cartridge filters are used for all type of source water. since these filters have a low tolerance for oil. It is claimed that downflow sand filters can be used for removal of oil (up to about 200g/m³) from production water.1984) influent oil content of 50-70 g/m³ were reduced consistently to 5 g/m³. particularly when heavy or waxy crudes are involved.PTS 10. with the permeate flux perpendicular through the membrane. a maximum operating temperature of 60 °C and the low flux values of the operating level. Other media than conventional mineral particles can also be used for filtration.

e. is the most critical aspect for the interpretation of results of laboratory dehydration tests.PTS 10. Findings of such laboratory test resulting in a recommendation for a new demulsifer need to be confirmed by a field trial. actually produced emulsions.1 Introduction Static settling tests for analysis of the separation behavior of a water-in-oil emulsion are required for a variety of reasons. Testing of dehydration behaviour in relating to performance monitoring and/or trouble shooting can be done reliably (subject to correct sampling and sample preservation) since these tests are usually done in a fields laboratory using actually produced emulsions. design parameters for dehydration . as mentioned below: • The quick and comparative screening of various demulsifiers. The representatives of emulsion dehydration behaviour as observed in the laboratory in static settling tests. • Performance monitoring and/or trouble shooting of existing facilities. in support of facilities design for new project. Results from such laboratory test are not. In order to obtain design parameters from laboratory dehydration tests. using fresh. only in a few cases have comparisons been made between laboratory and in-field behaviour of emulsions. In the absence of a practicable translation of artificial emulsion behaviour to field behaviour. • The quality (i. and more work on establishing correlations between laboratory dehydration behaviour and of corresponding actual emulsions is required. oil content and oil droplet size distribution) of the separated water. directly applicable in practice since the condition under which emulsions occur in the field cannot be adequately simulated in the laboratory. Aspect of representativeness of laboratory test results are discussed in more detail in Section 3. Currently. Such correlation are currently not available. for the behaviour of actual emulsions under field conditions. however. • Establishing guidelines for design and/or operating practices of dehydration equipment of new projects. representative emulsion or crude oil samples are required. correlations are required between behaviour of laboratory-made emulsions and that of corresponding emulsions actually encountered in the field.01. to carry out laboratory tests on artificial emulsion. This is discussed in more detail in Section 3.19  February 2011  Page 63    3 SAMPLING AND TESTING FOR DEHYDRATION BEHAVIOUR 3. However.00. In all types of dehydration test. a databank containing results from comparative studies on laboratory-made and in-field emulsion characteristics does not exist. Laboratory dehydration tests are sometimes conducted to establish the following information: • The minimum temperature required for dehydration of the crude oil.2. • The final water content of the oil after dehydration. Dehydration test related to the first two objectives are usually carried out in the field either on-site (bottle tests) or in the (field) laboratory. for which a carefully designed sampling programme needs to be defined. • The time required for dehydration (provided an effective demulsifying chemical is added in sufficient quantity). It has been attempted.7.

3. Indeed.01. require the formulation and planning of a carefully designed sampling programme and explicit specification of its objectives. the solubility of the crude oil water can also be determined. using crude oil and artificial formation water. samples can be taken at various points in the system (e. toxicity and sensitivity to overtreatment and demulsifiers (used in dehydration). it is the anticipation of specific potential problem areas which should determine the amount and type of samples to be taken. the lack of appropriate sampling locations is seen as a major shortcoming in the development of the minimum facilities concept for offshore installations. Apart from investigating various types of deoiling chemicals for their effectiveness for various to overtreatment and water systems. A sampling programme in relation to performance monitoring or trouble shooting of existing production facilities can be defined in a relatively simple and straightforward manner. as set by legislation. together with additionalaspects of deoiling. water and/or emulsions in support of new facilities design or to establish operating guidelines. either carried out in the field or in the laboratory and/or analysis of actually produced emulsions. to rely and to be established on empirical (local) field experience and on comparison with performance of facilities encountering are presented in Chapter 7. While from a viewpoint of securing information a minimum programme for sampling can be relatively quickly considered as justified and necessary. Consequently the provision of adequate sampling facilities for performance monitoring cannot be overstressed.00. field trials are required to confirm the findings of the test programme in actual production conditions.g based on analysis of the flow scheme for points of (re)emulsification due to pressure drops or turbulence) and subsequently be analysed for their static oil/water separation behaviour and droplet size distribution. This latter aspect is of importance for the disposal of produced water.e. Deoiling tests. requires a more careful planning and specification of its objectives. which has to meet certain criteria for maximum (total) oil in water.2 Formulation of a sampling programme Sampling of produced fluids: • for troubleshooting purpose: • when considering de-bottlenecking of existing facilities.PTS 10. Depending on availability and suitability of sampling points. Deoiling tests can also be carried out in the laboratory. This matter is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.19  February 2011  Page 64    equipment have therefore had. The definition/formulation of a sampling programme for crude oil. i. Once a suitable deoiler has been identified. their cost. are usually carried out in the field with actual o/w emulsions. The actual sampling requirements will strongly depend on the following aspects: • Is it a completely new development or is it an additional project in an area with similar/comparable developments and similar fluid characteristics? • Is it an offshore or onshore development . the screening of the most effective deoiler chemical to break an oil-in-water emulsion. until now. • during the planning stages of new facilities is becoming more and more important. Dehydration tests.

sampling should take place from a point where the temperature of the oil has not yet dropped below the Wax-Drop-Out-Point of the crude oil. the drum should be heated to a temperature above the crude's WaxDrop-Point and the contents be homogenised thoroughly prior to taking a sample. Brunei). It is important to ensure that sufficient samples are taken to allow a repeat analysis. demulsifiers or either additives. for example.W.00.01. Moreover. In an onshore development modifications/additions to facilities can be made easily. diesel oil. while a more extensive programme is required with heavy crudes. field trials can be carried out much more conveniently. or they may not be possible at all. samples may only be available from a single early exploration well. In general. wax can affect the dehydration behaviour of emulsions considerably. either resulting from. Therefore a sampling /testing programme can be rather simple for light crude oil. 3.3 Surface sampling of oil/water mixtures. and sizing of facilities is of much less concern. Therefore the formulation of a sampling programme for an onshore development is much less critical than for an offshore project. When sampling crude oil and/or emulsions for dehydration tests. residues of mud cake/mud filtrate. when potential problem areas are suspected from initial testing. In summary therefore. When taking a sample from a newlydrilled or worked-over well. If oil and water are flowing in slug flow through the pipeline. the formulation of a sampling programme needs to take into account all of the aspects mentioned above. corrosion inhibitors. North Sea fields which produced mainly light oils). resulting in an oil sample containing too little wax or having lost its heavy (high-melting point) wax components. care should be taken that they are free of any contaminants. with more or less similar production conditions and with known facilities performance. Ampa field. Moreover. Here space and weight limitations are of great importance for the design of facilities and modifications/additions to existing facilities are extremely costly. The specification and objectives of a sampling programme should be clear and explicit and be dictated by considerations of "need-to-know" rather than "nice-to-know". sufficient clean up must be allowed before an emulsion sample is taken. a sampling and testing programme can be very limited.PTS 10. The second aspect is obviously most critical for the definition of sampling requirements when it concerns an offshore development. handled and stored.g. Often these samples are relatively old and contaminated and results of any subsequent testing are critically dependent on the way the sample was obtained. Otherwise wax precipitation may have taken place upstream of the sample location.19  February 2011  Page 65    • Production of light (more than 30° API) or heavy (less than 15° API) crude? As to the first aspect mentioned above. As mentioned in Chapter 2. when oil/water separation facilities are to be designed for a development in an area with more fields already on production.1 Sampling considerations Laboratory testing required to obtain design parameters of facilities for new fields must often be performed with well samples recovered during Repeat Formation Test (RFTs). where more problem areas potentially exist.3. the sample taken should be sufficiently large to ensure that several of these slugs have been sampled. workover fluids. It is an old axiom that the result of any test procedure can be no better than the sample on which it is performed. if required. which consequently stresses the importance of correct sampling and storage of samples. drillstem tests or production tests. or even be left out altogether (e. the separation of water from light oil emulsions is much quicker and easier than from those involving heavy oil (note: an exception to this is the light oil from the S. 3. If a crude oil sample is taken from a drum already in storage. Therefore detailed attention must be given to the method of sampling to ensure that a . In orderto obtain a representative crude oil sample.

3. area. As a final comment. particularly when sampling crude oils. the need for adequate training of personnel taking any hydrocarbon samples is stressed. samples should be handled in such a way that they do not deteriorate or became contaminated before they reach the laboratory (see Section 3. but rather a sample that is representative of the in-situ properties of the mixture in a flowline. using a probe as shown in Figure 3. Account must be taken of the variability of the sampled fluids or emulsion with respect to time. reference is made to ASTM D4057. A method to overcome this problem is to follow the API recommendation of sampling via a section of vertical pipeline from the centre of the flow. A sample taken from a single point on the circumference of the pipeline will in general not be representative of the average pipeline content. Local procedures for taking samples should be strictly adhered to.4). 3. It is essential that such personnel be fully familiar with the sample system requirements for the specific sample being taken.1 – API recommendation for sampling froma vertical flowline. Fig.19  February 2011  Page 66    representative sample is obtained. Both a sample taken from the top and the bottom of the flowline. Furthermore. give the best results. It should be mentioned that depending on the objectives of a sampling exercise. give very poor results. 3.PTS 10. oil and water flowing in a horizontal pipeline will separate to some degree. It appears that at sufficiently high mixture velocities (of around 1 m/s or higher). and to ASTM D4177-Automatic Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products. From a limited number of test it was also concluded that much higher mixture velocities are required for representative sampling from mixtures flowing in the so-called annular mist flow regime than are required in the bubble or slug flow regime.1. depth and rate of flow and samples should be obtained that meet the requirements of the sampling programme.3.2 Sampling points Obtaining a representative sample of the contents of a line transporting a mixture of oil and water requires great care unless a uniform emulsions has been formed. When sampling systems known to contain sour crudes then reference should be made to latest version PTS 60.00.016. a sample representative of the overall composition of the mixture may not be required. forming an oil/water profile.01. Recent research at KSEPL on watercut sampling from multiphase flowlines has resulted in guidelines for representative sampling from horizontal flowlines. In such a case localised sampling with a retractable . For further general considerations and recommendations on sampling. If a uniform emulsion has been formed. since considerable volumes of H 2S may evolve.Manual Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products. samples taken at the centre of the flowline or at the three o'clock position on the circumference.

g.3 Sampling methods and equipment In general. It is therefore of great importance to review design drawings of new facilities with special emphasis on the number of sampling points and their locations. Prior to sampling. into a calibrated glass cylinder. 3. The oil/water separation behaviour under static conditions can be followed visually immediately after sampling under the prevailing line pressure. The disadvantage of the above pressurised sampling methods is that the (important) initial period (10-15 min) of the separation process cannot be visually followed.00.g. cause re-emulsification or additional emulsification of the oil/water mixture by the pressure drop across at the sample cock. Sometimes the sampling line is cooled resulting in a much smoother sampling stream. Atmospheric sampling of pressurised streams will.3. the sampler is depressurised and the sample is transferred to an atmospheric vessel for further behaviour. Control of the sampling rate is effected by adjustment of a needle valve installed downstream of the bottle. thus reducing the degree of additional emulsification.PTS 10. . the piston is forced against one end of the sampler by charging it with a liquid or an inert gas. To overcome the time lag between sampling and visual observation of the sample with the available steel sampling bottles.3. The piston of the Welker Engineering sampler is provided with an indicator rod as a means of visual observation of the sampling rate. avoided by keeping the entire sample under line pressure during sampling. Atmospheric sampling. Re-emulsification can be. The bottle must be flushed at the sampling rate with at least twice its volume before being closed and disconnected. bearing in mind that relief of pressure to atmospheric and subsequent sample transfer into a transparent measuring cylinder often takes a minimum time of 15 minutes. When the objective of a sampling exercise is to determine where in the flow process emulsions could be formed. Any point in the crude handling system which forms a restriction to flow and thus may create a significant pressure drop will cause agitation of the oil and water and is a possible point of emulsion formation.1. resulting in a non-representative sample. The Welker sampler is described in some detail in Appendix 3. After the initial oil/water separation (initial period of settling) has been reached (or if this does not take place at all). e.01. and commonly is. Flushing is not necessary when using sample bottle provided with free floating pistons. e. a transparent pressure sampling bottle. sampling of fluids can either be done under atmospheric conditions or under pressure. has the advantage that the oil/water separation behaviour can be observed immediately after sampling.3. Such a survey should include a careful analysis of the flow scheme by considering each unit in the transport process of the crude. Note: In many cases there is a lack of sampling points in dehydration facilities to allow a proper survey to be undertaken. from the producing zone to the eventual emulsions treating plant where oil and water are separated. This is discussed in more detail in Section 3. For this purpose steel pressure bottles with full bore valves at their either end are suitable. however.19  February 2011  Page 67    probe at various heights in the flowline needs to be done. the "constant pressure sampler" supplied by Welker Engineering. a fact finding survey can be performed. The sample is than admitted to the other end of the piston by withdrawing the charging liquid or gas at a controlled rate. with a working pressure and temperature of 50 bar and 60 °C respectively.

using a retractable sampling probe (Fig. samples should be taken at an increasing sampling rate (starting with iso-energic) until an increase in emulsion stability . This allows the average behaviour of the pipeline (cross-sectional) contents to be described. by taking care to ensure that the mixing energies in the sampling tube and main line are more or less equal.2 – Possible sampler installation The recommended procedure for sampling from a horizontal flowline. 3. In pipelines smaller than 4 inch.PTS 10.e. Stream homogenisation can be obtained with an in-line mixer. establish the stream profile by isokinetic sampling at various heights in the horizontal pipeline using the probe and the transparent bottle. respectively.19  February 2011  Page 68    When sampling "stable" emulsions. be chosen between minimum and maximum sampling rate of 0. the sampling rate should be iso-energetic. to minimise the fluid residence time in the sampling system (sample line + sample bottle) when sampling low mixing energy environments it is recommended to select the highest rate possible (not exceeding 4 L/min) without creating re emulsification.2 ).01. sampling should preferably be carried out using a transparent pressuresampling bottle. Isokinetic (i. In the case of slug flow. 3. sampling must be done under iso-energetic conditions. Fig. When observations of the initial period of settling is required. it may be difficult to establish the profile accurately. steel pressure bottle can be used. Prior to actual sampling from horizontal flowlines where an oil/water profile exists. This rate can.00. However.0 L/min. samples should be taken at different levels of the cross section of the line. 2) Establish optimum sampling rate In principle. withdrawal rate equal to the velocity prevailing in the line) sampling is meant to avoid disturbances of the normal flow pattern inside the pipeline. the representativeness of one sample is questionable and repeated sampling is recommended. The procedure to follow is identical to that for actual sampling (see point 3 below).5 and 4. In each case however. in most cases. To establish the minimum possible sampling rate without creating additional emulsification in the sampling line. In such a case it may be better to sample a vertical part of the pipeline. particularly when a transparent pressure-sampling bottle is available is as follows: 1) Stream profile determination Before actual sampling for on-line stability tests. thus avoiding changes in the droplet size distribution of any emulsions present (see point 2 below). but with the risk of additional emulsification.

. and the rearrangement of the complex structures found at the interface. Regardless of the sample nature. This may become apparent by an increase in the initial period of settling and/or initial residual watercut of the oil phase or oil content of the water phase.3 as a function of the main line throughput for various main line diameters. i. In emulsions samples these changes reflect the time dependency of surfactant adsorption to interfaces. ageing refers to all chemical and physical changes that take place in a freshly produced sample. Fig.4 Sample handling and preservation Complete and unequivocal preservation of samples is a practical impossibility. The dehydration behaviour of a crude oil or emulsions can be very sensitive to "ageing".01. At best. 3) Sampling for on-line stability tests Select (a number of) sampling heights h (with the bottom of the pipeline as reference). 3. depending on the oil/water profile. water-in-oil and oil-in-water emulsion. 3.19  February 2011  Page 69    is observed in the static settling test. complete stability for every constituent can never be achieved.5). In general. 3.e. the iso-energetic sampling rate through a 12 mm (½") sampling tube is given in Fig. and "apparent" oil-free water. As an example.PTS 10. as a result of oxidation processes.3 – Iso-energetic sampling through ½” sampling tube as function of main line throughput for various main line diameters (viscosity < 5 mPa s). In addition. preservation techniques only retard chemical and biological changes that inevitably continue after sample collection. the crude oil itself can change when left in contact with air.3. including "apparent" dry oil. It is recommended to analyse all oil/water mixtures encountered. even at relatively low temperatures (room temperatures). not only during storage but also during laboratory dehydration tests (see also Section 3. with time.00. It is therefore imperative to prevent contact of the sample with oxygen as much as possible.

19  February 2011  Page 70    In general crude oil and/or emulsions samples should be processed as soon as possible (within 24 hours) after sampling. and be stored under a nitrogen blanket. Freezing will tear the interfacial film of emulsions by the formation of ice crystals. The sample is then further characterised by the following parameters: • The amount of free water as a percentage of the total liquid volume sampled. in connection to performance monitoring of existing facilities and/or establishing (changes in) treatment requirements of a production stream (screening of demulsifiers/deoilers).4. A better method to identify the type of emulsion is to test its dispersability in water and a light hydrocarbon such as petroleum spirit or kerosene. An oil-in-water emulsion will be absorbed while a water-in-oil emulsion will not. • The oil content of the free water.00. the first step in sample characterisation is usually to identify whether the emulsion (if present) is a water-in-oil (normal) emulsion. they should be stored in glass containers under a nitrogen blanket. contain a certain amount of free water in addition to an emulsion of water-in-oil. and should be avoided. 3. In order to allow investigation into the cause of the emulsification. various analyses of samples taken are required. If it is not possible to perform dehydration tests with the samples straight away. • The stability of the water-in-oil emulsion (characterised by its oil/water separation behaviour as a function of time and demulsifier dosage). or an oil-in-water (reverse) emulsions. • Establishing parameters required in support of new facilities design or when further laboratory test with the samples are planned. The conductivity of a water-in-oil emulsion will essentially be that of the continuous phase which is much lower than that of water or brine which would be predominant in an oil-in-water emulsion. Sampling in connection with this objective is directed at obtaining an uncontaminated crude oil sample. . a list of data to be recorded together with the sample description is given in Table 3.1 Samples characterization The objectives of a sampling programme can be directed at: • On site dehydration tests. Depending on these objectives.PTS 10. A produced sample will. The reverse emulsion will disperse in the hydrocarbon. The water used for make-up of the emulsion in the laboratory should be de-aerated. Here sampling is aiming at obtaining a representative emulsion sample. A simple test to establish the type of emulsion is to observe whether the emulsion will wet or be substantially absorbed on a piece of blotting paper. it should not come into contract with oxygen. in the dark and at a temperature of approximately 5 °C. in general. • Droplet size distribution. i) When samples are taken in relation to the first-mentioned objectives. The most reliable method is to measure the electrical conductivity of the emulsion.01. • The amount of dispersed water in the oil as a percentage of emulsion volume. If sampled formation water is to be used for make-up of emulsions in laboratory tests.4 Analysis of actually produced oil/water mixtures 3.1.

• Density of the oil at sample temperature and one other temperature.) characterisation emulsion : % free water + oil content % emulsified water in the oil phase settling behaviour of the emulsified water with and without demulsifer (see also Section 3. .). control valves) upstream of the sampling point flow regime (mist flow.01. stratified flow etc. These samples will then be used in further more elaborated laboratory testing for the make-up of artificial emulsions.5. for examples. also for sample identification if they are to be used in further laboratory testing elsewhere. Samples to be sent to a remote laboratory for further testing will eventually be analysed more comprehensively upon arrival (see alsoSection 3.2 for well samples : well characterisation : Tubing length (TV/AH) Tubing size Minimum restriction -ID/Depth Production rate Drawdown FTHP FTHT ∆P choke Oil/water ratio Gas Liquid Ratio (GLR) Gas Oil Ratio (GOR) natural Lift method Lift depth GLR including lift gas For pipeline samples : predominant lengths and sizes pressure drops (at. including simulations of emulsions transport through (subsea) pipelines.1: Characterisation of produced emulsions Method of sampling: Oil characterisation Water characterisation } see Section 3. slug flow.5.00.5.2).5. ii) Sampling in support of new facilities design/selection. Various parameters of the samples taken need to be determined locally. The following analyses should be carried out locally after sampling: • Water content of the sample.19  February 2011  Page 71    Table 3.4. • Kinematic viscosity of the samples at sample temperature and one or two more temperatures.3. will generally be directed at obtaining (dry) crude oil samples. The same precautions with respect to sample handling and samplepreservation should be taken during transport of samples.PTS 10. as described in Section 3.

these properties are difficult to determine and need the use of sophisticated measuring equipment and skilled analysts. Except in cases where dehydration behaviour of emulsions is to be studied after injection of demulsifier into the production stream as being used at that time (performance monitoring). i.asphaltene content. Further properties which are also important for the emulsifying and coalescing behaviour of the emulsion. In existing facilities it is common practice to invite manufacturers of oil field chemicals to screen their emulsion breakers on site. demulsifier is mixed through the emulsion. 3. anions and pH).4. ii) To establish the oil/water separation performance of the existing facilities. or in the field laboratory where more advanced analytical techniques may be available. The sampled (stable) emulsion is transferred into a calibrated settling tube and placed in a water bath at a certain temperature. On-site tests are also required to confirm the findings of laboratory dehydration tests in particular related to demulsifiers dosage.4.g. However. emulsion samples be used and that the test temperature be adjusted to that expected to prevail in the field. a Wemco unit).19  February 2011  Page 72    • Chemical composition of the water phase. This can be done either by shaking .2. Occasionally. When the emulsion has reached this temperature.2 Outline of dehydration testing Static settling tests with actual emulsions can either be done directly on-site. cloud point and pour point of the oil.4.2. To obtain reliable conclusions it is required that representative.4. The method used for the screening of demulsifiers is the bottle test (Section 3. is stopped in time such that untreated emulsions can be sampled. mg/kg).1 General Settling tests with actual emulsions are carried out with one or several of the following objectives: i) To screen and/or select emulsion breakers.3).01. • Parameters of interest . Consequently the most reliable results are obtained from on-site testing with fresh emulsions samples. as a function of time and demulsifier dosage. at various locations in the facilities and analysed for their oil/water separation behaviour and/or emulsion characteristics. corrective action can then be taken.PTS 10. are the oil/water interfacial tension. Therefore these analyses cannot usually be done in the field laboratory. viscosity and elasticity. The stability of an emulsion is characterised by its oil/water separation behaviour at a certain temperature.2. untreated with demulsifiers. with continued demulsifier injection into the production stream. stable emulsions. In cases of upset in the treatment of produced fluids a trouble-shooting exercise can be carried out whereby samples are taken. Based on the results of such an exercise. the oil/water separation performance of existing facilities has also been determined to investigate whether performance can be correlated with facilities design rules (Stokes` Law) or the performance of a laboratory model of the particular unit under scrutiny (e. if present (major cations. 3. not treated with demulsifier injection into the wellstream to be sampled. and H 2S content (safety reasons).e. • Salt content (NaCl. wax content.00.2 Dehydration tests with actually produced emulsions 3. Often laboratory tests are required to select from a large number of available chemicals the most effective one(s) for a given emulsion.

and is characterised by the rate of water separation.4.01.19  February 2011  Page 73    the bottle or tube by hand or by mechanical shaker. the build-up of an interfacial emulsion layer and the water content of the top crude oil layer immediately after sampling and after the bulk of the water has separated (10-15 minutes). photomicrographs can be taken of the emulsion droplets for later analysis (see Section 3. Separated water samples can be taken at the same time of crude oil sampling.5 where standard laboratory dehydration tests are discussed in more detail.3. The oil/water separation behaviour is then followed visually with time.5.PTS 10. 3. 3.5).4. A schematic presentation of the procedure is shown in Figure 3. An example of the static settling of an actual emulsion sempled at the High Pressure (HP) separator inlet of a North Sea platform is shown in Fig. Fig. If required.00.4 – Schematic presentation of dehydration testing. for oil-in-water content determination. . Further details on procedures and analyses of dehydration behaviour are given in Section 3.

After that period the sampler is fully depressurised.2 refer to the analysis of dehydration behaviour of actually produced emulsions in the field (laboratory) as a function of various parameters.PTS 10.4. after which oil and water are separated from each other and. together with other measurements. for the quick screening of demulsifiers and demulsifier dosage the bottle test is often used on-site.01. the dehydration behaviour of actually produced emulsions can thus be studied in the field as a function of: • temperature • demulsifier dosage • production rate • location in facilities 3. When a sample has been taken with the transparent pressure sampler. 3.4.3 The bottle test The test procedures briefly outline in Section 3. However.2. and its contents emptied into a separation funnel.5 – Static settling of an emulsion taken at HP separator inlet. By installing provisional facilities for injecting demulsifier into the sampling line. The bottle test .19  February 2011  Page 74    Fig. the oil/water separation taking place in the sampler is observed visually during the first 15 minutes.00.2. the long-term settling behaviour of the remaining oil-in-water is determined.

It is good practice to evaluate the proposed products in your local Production Chemistry laboratory. preferably at the settling temperature prevailing in the field and the quantity of water settling out as a function of time is recorded. The chemical dosage is varied to establish the ratio of demulsifier to emulsion required for successful dehydration. Residual BS&W content of the crude. The latter results give an indication of the re-emulsification tendency of a particular demulsifier. 100 ml portions of a fresh emulsion sample are poured into graduated 200 ml screw cap bottles and treated with the required quantities of demulsifiers. ii) The screening test The screening test is used to screen a large number of demulsifiers at the dosage established by the ratio test. The presence and appearance of a sludge layer between the separated oil and water is noted. the excess should be removed. The bottles are allowed to stand.3.PTS 10. Because of the extreme selectivity of the chemical compounds in use as demulsifier or deoiler. one or more "broad spectrum" demulsifiers. uncontaminated emulsion samples. and it is common practice to allow representatives for the best demulsifier. Outline of test method: If the sample contains free water. speed of water separations. The chemicals are dispersed by shaking the bottles by hand. They should be carried out on fresh. In interpreting the results of bottle testing the most important factors to be considered are: . in the case of a new field development. The bottle test method is described in detail in Appendix 3. Alternatively the bottles may be reshaken and the settling behaviour observed once more. The recommended chemicals may then be field tested against each other and compared with the chemicals already in use.19  February 2011  Page 75    is a simplified version of the static dehydration test and it aims at qualitative results for comparison purposes.00. The suppliers of demulsifiers are sometimes somewhat biased towards the performance of their own products. The use of on-site bottle tests to determine the most suitable chemical for dehydration (and deoiling). mixing times and settling temperatures. Any chemical addition upstream of the sample point must be suspended for long enough to clear the line before sampling.01. overtreatment and re-emulsification are carefully evaluated. These chemicals are tested at different treatment ratios. is fairly well standardised. appearance of separated water and sensitivity to temperature. bottle tests should be done with care and precision. Selection of the most effective demulsifier chemicals is effected in three stages: i) The ratio test This test is carried out with the demulsifier currently in use or. At the end of the settling period a portion of oil sample may be withdrawn for Basic Sediment and Water (BS&W) determination. salt content (in case of export requirements). iii) The confirmation test The screening test is used to evaluate three or four best chemicals.

despite long settling times (> 24 hours). Presence of such a layer in settling and storage tanks may cause operational problems. . In addition conclusions may be drawn with respect to the location of the demulsifier injection point. it is desirable to have a check-point. The treated crude oil can remain in a pipeline system for a period of many hours and in some systems. 3. it is sufficient for the chemicals to be injected at the plant. If a high mixing intensity is required then the chemical should be injected as far upstream as possible. Whenever the centrifuged sample shows a fair amount of water as well as dark brown loose emulsion. it is unlikely that water will settle out in the receiving tanks. A suitable demulsifier can often be selected which both results in an effectively dehydrated crude oil. the water will settle quickly in the settling or wash tanks and clean shippable oil will result. should indicate whether sufficient demulsifier has been introduced at the injection point in order to obtain the required results in the settling or wash tanks. If. can be analysed for water/emulsion content by the 'centrifuge-method' (Latest version of ASTM 1796 IP 75) without the addition of demulsifiers. For a low mixing intensity. and good/acceptable oil-in-water quality.4. The checking method described has proved of practical value in oil fields because of its simplicity. • The oil/water interface should be clean and clearly separated. To control and check the effect of the demulsifier treating ratios subsequent to an extended retention time.19  February 2011  Page 76    • The relative speed of water separation. Presence of a web or sludge at the water line indicates a tendency for a layer of unbroken emulsion to build up at the water/oil interface. downhole or upstream of the choke.PTS 10. days. e. Sampling.2. A distinction should be made between a chemical which shows a rapid separation but stops before all the water is released and a chemical which releases water more slowly but gives a drier oil. • The relative salt content of the separated oil depends on local/statutory requirement). little free water but mainly emulsion (including yellow coloured stable emulsion) is shown in the centrifuge tube. In this case the demulsifier injection ratio should be increased until the checkpoint samples reach the required condition.g. heating and centrifuging can be carried out by the operator/assistant.00. at 2 to 4 hourly intervals.01.4 Evaluation of the effectiveness of demulsifier dosage In order to establish control over the effectiveness of the demulsifier injection system and thus avoid shipments of 'off-specification' crude oil. the water carried by the crude oil system may settle in the settling or wash tanks provided sufficient settling time is available. • The relative lowest BS&W in the separated oil. These tests indicate that whenever free water and no emulsion is shown in the centrifuge tube. however. a check-point close to the settling or wash tanks should be chosen. Samples taken from this point. thus obviating the need for application of a deoiler. • The relative oil content of the separated water. and centrifuged (without demulsifier).

destabilised emulsions is shown in Fig. free water is defined as that water which separates from the mixture within 1 minute of sampling.4. .PTS 10.3. Details andoperating instructions are given in the referenced literature. Most of these tests can be carried out in field laboratories. Further methods relating to dehydration and deoiling analyses are summarised in Appendix 3.19  February 2011  Page 77    3. a longer settling time may be required.1 Introduction This section gives a brief description of the various methods of direct relevance to the analysis of oil/water separation processes. In Figure 3.3. When the settling behaviour of destabilised oil-water mixtures is studied.6 an example is shown of oil/water separation behaviour in a transparent pressure-sampling bottle.2.4. To determined the free water of an untreated oil-water mixture. a settling time of 10 -15 min is recommended for 30°-45° API crudes.3 Common test methods for analysis of dehydration behaviour 3. For heavier crudes.01. Laboratories should make certain that the latest versions of the standard are available by taking a subscription on the section of interest. 3. the separated water of which is not considered initially free water.7. 3. A distinction is made here between the free water determined for an untreated produced oil-water mixture and a mixture that has been treated with a demulsifier (destabilised emulsion). A typical example of dehydration behaviour of artificially made.2 Determination of free water Values of free water are obtained by simply allowing a sample to settle in a graduated glass cylinder and visually observing the separation of clear water. Most of the tests are standardised by the American Society for Testing and Materials (US) and the Institute of Petroleum (UK) who issue updated versions of the testing manuals on an annual basis.4.00. At later times the effect of the destabilisation of the emulsion will be noticeable.

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 78 
 
Fig. 3.6 – Example of oil/water separation behaviour of a sample taken with the transparent sampling
bottle.

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 79 
 
Fig. 3.7 – Laboratory dehydration tests on artificial, destabilised emulsions.

3.4.3.3 Determination of water and sediment in oil
ASTM D4007 and IP 359.
Determination of water and sediment in crude oil by centrifuge method.
A 50 ml sample is diluted with an equal volume of water saturated toluene in a graduated conical
centrifuge tube (2 centrifuge tube). A small quantity of demulsifier is added. The sample is preheated in a
bath to 60°C and then centrifuged in a heated centrifuge at the same temperature for 10 min at minimum
600 rcf. Record the final volume of water and sediment in each tube. Express the sum of the two
admissible readings as the percentage by volume of water and sediment.
The centrifuge method for determining of water and sediment in crude oil is not entirely satisfactory. The
amount of water detected is almost always lower than the actual water content. When a highly accurate
value is required, the revised procedures for determination of water by distillation (ASTM D4006, IP 358)
and sediment by extraction (ASTM D473, IP 53) must be used. These are discussed briefly below.

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 80 
 
ASTM D4006 and IP 358.
Determination of water in crude oil by distillation.
The sample is heated under reflux with a water-immiscible solvent which co-distils with the water in the
sample. Condensed solvent and water are continuously separated in a trap, the water settling in the
graduated section of the trap and the solvent returning to the still.
ASTM D473 and IP53.
Determination of sediment in crude and fuel oils by extraction.
An amount of a representative oil sample, contained in a refractory thimble, is extracted with hot toluene
until the residue reaches constant weight. The mass of residue, calculated as a percentage, is reported
as 'sediment by extraction'.
ASTM D1744.
Water in liquid petroleum products by Karl Fisher reagent.
This method is intended for the determination of water in oil at very low concentrations (50 -1000 ppm).
The sample to be analysed is titrated with Karl Fischer reagent to an electrometric end point. H 2S and
mercaptans interfere and 2 corrections must be applied. See also ASTM D4377 "Water in crude oils' (Karl
Fischer) titration.
Method IP 356 is a modification of the test method. Increased sensitivity is achieved by using a potential
difference electrode system to indicate the end point and by using a special titration cell which can be
totally sealed and rapidly 'conditioned' to the end point prior to analysis.
3.4.3.4 Determination of oil-in-water
Over the years a number of different methods for the estimation of oil in water have been published. The
methods consist basically of a solvent extraction stage, followed by the determination of the oil content of
the extract by solvent evaporation and weighing of the residue (gravimetric method) or by absorbance of
visible light for infrared radiation (colorimetric and IR methods).
Details on determination of oil in water are discussed in Chapter 4.
3.4.3.5 Determination of droplet size distribution of emulsions
Basically there are two systems to determine particle size distributions of emulsions:

Analysis of a microscopic image(image scanning).

Transport of particles through a detection zone where each particle is detected, counted and sized
(zone sensing).The two most important techniques are electrical and optical zone sensing.

These system are briefly discussed below.
3.4.3.5.1

Image Scanning

An image obtained with an optical microscope can be photographed and the droplets counted and sized
"by hand". This is a lengthy and tedious procedure since at least 300 droplets must be counted for a
statistically significant droplet size distribution. Alternative measuring technique whereby the sample is
isokinetically extracted from the pipeline by a probe inserted through a packed gland and photographed

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 81 
 
under pressure in a cuvette (Fig. 3.8). The droplet size distribution is determined from the photograph
using the "IBAS" interactive image analysis system. "IBAS" is a commercially available fully automated
system which works out the drop size distribution from the photograph placed under a video camera.
Fig. 3.8 – Schematic of the system for photographing the droplets of the dispersed phase in an emulsion.

It is recommended that operating departments in OPUs establish a file of photographs of emulsions taken
at various points in the production system. They may provide useful reference information when trying to
find the cause of a plant upset. Qualitative study of the pictures may pin-point locations if
(re)emulsification (broken valves if beam pumping units, etc.).
3.4.3.5.2

Electrical zone sensing

The electrical zone sensing technique was developed by Coulter Inc. Droplets (or particles) suspended in
an electrolyte passes the orifice, the change in resistance between the electrodes is recorded as a
voltage pulse. The amplitude of this pulse is proportional to the size of the droplet. The pulses are sized
and counted and thus a droplet size distribution is obtained. The method is only applicable if the
continuous phase if the emulsion is conductive. Its use is therefore restricted to oil-in-water emulsions.
With proper precautions the Coulter Counter model D can be used in the field. The other, more
sophisticated models must be permanently installed in laboratories.
3.4.3.5.3

Optical zone sensing

Optical zone sensing systems operate on the principle of light blockage. The droplets to be analysed are
suspended in a fluid with a refractive index different from that of the droplet themselves. In the detection
zone a light beam is directed at a photodiode. When a particle traverses the light, beam it momentarily

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 82 
 
reduces the amount of light reaching the photodiode, thus causing a voltage pulse. The amplitude of this
pulse is proportional to the amount of light blocked by the droplet and therefore proportional to its
projected area.
A series of droplets passing through a light beam causes a train of pulses. Each pulse is sized and
counted by a microprocessor.

3.5

Standard laboratory dehydration tests

3.5.1

General

Laboratory tests with artificial emulsions to define treatment problems/requirements have often been
performed in the past. Whilst in specific instances such tests can provide valuable insight to a problem,
experience has generally shown the results to be unrepresentative when compared to actual field
conditions. The results of such tests should therefore be used with caution. This aspect is discussed in
more detail in Section 3.7.
Static settling tests carried out in the laboratory not located in the field, are usually done with artificially
(laboratory) made emulsions. Such tests are frequently carried out, mainly with the objective to obtain
design parameters for dehydration facilities of new developments, and to a limited extent for evaluation
purposes. The main design parameters required are the minimum residence time, minimum dehydration
temperature and achievable oil and water quality in terms of water and oil contents respectively.
In conjunction with such tests, emulsion viscosities can also be determined, in relation to pipeline design.
Here, evaluation of potential problem areas such as flowability, restartability and wax deposition, primary
as a function of temperature is required. Such tests are of particular importance for subsea developments
where produced oil-water mixtures are to be transported to a central platform for further processing. In
these tests also artificial emulsions are being used.
Since the results of laboratory dehydration tests are expected to depend to a large degree on the actual
procedure applied, a method was developed for "Standard Dehydration Tests". Standardisation and
reporting of the test procedures and conditions would allow effective comparison and evaluation of
laboratory and field tests, both for a specific situation and on a more global scale. The ultimate objective
of standardisation is to relate the character of an emulsion in terms of stability and dehydration behaviour
to types of crudes and water mixtures and production conditions in general.
A complete laboratory dehydration test consists of the following steps/aspects:

crude oil sampling;

handling of the crude oil sample in the laboratory;

characterisation of the crude oil and water used for emulsion make-up;

elimination of the temperature history of the crude oil;

emulsification;

demulsifier addition/selection;

description of the oil/water separation behaviour

effect of demulsifier concentration

effect of temperature

quality of the separated water

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 83 
 

optional :

de-oiling of the water
effect of pipeline coalescence
behaviour of the velocity if emulsions
effect of desalting on dehydration performance

In the following sections some of the above topics are discussed in more detail. In Appendix 3.4 a
summary is given of the laboratory test procedures.
3.5.2

Crude oil and water characterisations and handling

For aspects/considerations on sampling of crude oil and water, reference is made to Section 3.3.
The origin of the oil sample and the manner in which it was obtained should be properly documented (see
also Section 3.4.1). Any observations made on the production during the sampling of the crude oil sample
(if the well was flowing steady, how long has the well been in production before the sample was taken,
could contamination of the crude oil with a workover or completion fluid have taken place, sampling
temperature, line pressure during sampling) are of value if the representativeness of the oil sample is to
be judged at a later stage.
When a crude oil has experienced a temperature below its Wax-Drop-out-Point, wax crystals can be
present, the size and amount of which depend on the temperature history of the crude oil. Since wax
crystals can affect the dehydration behaviour considerably, it is essential to heat the crude to above the
dissolution temperature of the wax, preferably to its original reservoir temperature and for at least several
hours to ensure the dissolution of the wax into the crude oil. In practice, heating to a temperature of 85°C
is considered to be sufficient. Heating should take place in closed containers, to avoid extensive losses of
the light ends, and under anaerobic conditions, to avoid oxidation of the oil.
The following "black oil" properties are (or are expected to be) of interest in conjunction with the
dehydration performance.

see Appendix 3. bivalent/monovalent cation ratio and pH suffice. either as spacer fluid or to kick off a well.00.01. this water should be removed from the oil. i. Firstly the artificially made water in the laboratory tests should not be scaling and secondly it appears that correct values of total dissolved solids (TDS).e. immediately after sampling.PTS 10.2. it is also recommended that dehydration tests should be done as soon as possible after the crude oil has been sampled. and therefore form a fair comparison basis for actual emulsions (ageing). in order to obtain results from standard laboratory dehydration tests which give consistent and repeatable results. preferably without the use of chemicals (for example. If water is present in the oil sample (often in the form of finely dispersed water droplets). the oil used should not already contain any significant amount of dispersed water.3. In order to ensure that in the standard laboratory tests water is emulsified in the oil in a consistent way. it is recommended that: • Crude oil should be stored under a nitrogen blanket. The chemical composition of the water should be analysed in order to provide the data to enable its simulation in the laboratory and also to identify any contamination of the sample with. The trace components can be left out for all practical purposes.19  February 2011  Page 84    When for instance. A residual water content below 1% is achievable and does not affect the test result significantly. . Scaling can be avoided by adjusting the bicarbonate content/sulphate content. Since it has been found that despite taking these precautions. the pH and CO 2 content should be measured as quickly as possible. by centrifuge. for instance. contamination of the oil sample with the diesel oil can be shown from the distillation curve. The following ions are usually determined in such an analysis If the analysis concerns the composition of a produced formation water sample.4. vacuum distillation). For test methods of the properties. the dehydration behaviour of crude oils may still change with time. It is not always feasible/necessary to simulate the exact composition of the formation water in the laboratory tests. • All dehydration test procedures should be done under nitrogen. mud filtrate and workover brine. • The water used for the make-up of the emulsions should be de-aerated. diesel oil is used in a well. As discussed in Section 3.

01. while the initial characteristics of the emulsion should not be affected. However. For the time being.5. it must be ensured that the demulsifier is homogeneously distributed throughout the emulsion. The high speed mixer used in the laboratory. nozzle method). a high speed mixer is used to create emulsions. dynamic coalescer. high speed mixer. 3.5. When T em is chosen near or below the cloud point of the crude oil. The amount of free water separated is measured as a function of time. For this purpose they will carry out tests following their own specific procedures which can be expected to differ from company to company. as this is a simple and fast method. When the emulsion has reached this temperature. The mixture is subsequently transferred into a calibrated settling tube. The extra time is permissible since such crude oils usually dehydrate slowly (e.5. Before the demulsifier is added the temperature of the emulsion should be brought to the temperature at which the oil/water separation performance is to be investigated. In such a case low speed mixing for prolonged times may be effective. the emulsion is cooled to the temperature at em which the oil/water separation process is to be stuied.1).2) The stability of the created emulsion depends on the emulsion preparation method (e. At present it is not known which method to choose to create an emulsion which is most representative of an actually produced emulsion.19  February 2011  Page 85    3. 3. This may be a problem as the created emulsions may be rather viscous. usually giving mean droplet sizes of around 20µm. which is sealed off under a nitrogen blanket and left to settle at a constant temperature. the temperature history if the crude oil should be taken into consideration (section 3. or when developing effective new compounds.5 The standard settling test After the emulsion has been made at the emulsification temperature Tem. in the case of very viscous emulsions of several thousand centipoises.It has been found that by mixing a 10% dilution of the demulsifier in toluene through the emulsion with the Waring Blender at low speed for 10 seconds gives acceptable results. The emulsification temperature is usually taken to be equal to the flowing wellhead temperature. crude oil at the required temperature.3 Emulsification In the standard dehydration test. hours settling time needed). This method is considered to yield conservative ("safe") results unless the field emulsion is extremely stable (see also Section 3.00.5. pending the results of continuing studies. Thus it was concluded that maximum performance of a demulsifier can be expected when its is equally soluble in the oil and the aqueous phase.PTS 10.7. de-aerated (artificially made)formation water is emulsified in 80% vol. and the amount of demulsifier to be dispersed through the emulsion is often very small (10 µl demulsifier is to be dispersed through 200 ml emulsion if a dosage of 50 ppm is required). While little experience with these results exists at present. but preferably above the cloud point of the crude oil. they should be taken into account when selecting the proper demulsifier for field use. Oil and water are mixed in the blender for two minutes at high speed.g. Recent work on the design and selection of demulsifiers for optimum field performance has indicated that the demulsifiers tested gave optimum performance when the partition coefficient is unity. 20% vol.g. Tem.4 Demulsifier selection and addition Demulsifiers are selected and added to determine the best possible dehydration performance obtainable for the emulsion under study under laboratory conditions. equipped with a thermostatted wall in order to keep the temperature constant during emulsification. After specific time . bottle shaking. Service companies may be requested to provide samples if effective demulsifiers for the particular crude oil under investigation. the problem of demulsifier mixing may still exist. For a demulsifier to be effective. demulsifier is mixed through the emulsion.

19  February 2011  Page 86    intervals samples of the oil layer (top..PTS 10. Oil content in water is standardly measured using an established method.5.4. middle and bottom) are taken and analysed for water content with a coulometric titration method. 50. water samples can be taken from the separated water for oil content analysis. The residual watercut calculated in this way at a time X should be similar to the between these values indicates sludge build-up at the interface. In the standard dehydration test programme. 60 and 80°C) It is noted that other production treatment chemical such as corrosion/scale/wax inhibitors. Compatibility tests should be included in the demulsifier screening programme when it is known that other chemicals will be used in the system under investigation. the residual watercut of the overlaying oil phase is calculated and plotted as a function of time. detailed procedures are given in Appendix 3.5. can affect the effectiveness of certain demulsifiers (either beneficially or adversely).01.6 Data processing From the data obtained from a dehydration test a 'dehydration curve' can be obtained (Fig 3.00. In future it may be necessary to analyse the water for aromatics. At the same time that oil samples are taken for water content analysis. 3. drag reducers. 200 and 400 ppm) • dehydration temperature (usually 20. phenolic compounds and halogenated compounds. 40. From the amount of free water separated. 100.9. the dehydration behaviour is tested as a function of: • demulsifier dosage (usually 25. The calculations involved are given in Appendix 3. Any build-up of an emulsion (sludge) layer at the oil/water interface is also recorded by measuring its volume. It has been found that this dehydration curve can be adequately described by a three-parameter function: . etc.).

PTS 10.01. 3.00.19  February 2011  Page 87    Fig. .9 – Dehydration behaviour of some North Sea crude oil emulsions.

The instrument consists of two concentric cylinders. The testing procedure is more time consuming than the bottle test and would normally only be applied for the final evaluation of candidate chemicals for field testing.PTS 10. the demulsifier injection rate which will be required in field operations may be predicted fairly accurately. .19  February 2011  Page 88    The values of φ∞.9. independent of the prevailing flow regime. Since the length of the agitation period and the temperature can also be varied. i.7 The dynamic coalescer The bottle test. the bottle test.3. The sample in the annular space is subjected to predominantly laminar"Couette flow". is given in Appendix 3. If such facitlities are not available a suitable fit can also be obtained if φ∞ is estimated and b and n are fitted wih a simple fitting procedure that can be done using a scientific calculator (Appendix 3.6. the inner one of which rotates while the outer one remains stationary (Fig. In Figure 3. translation/comparison of results obtained for certain mixing conditions to parts of the product system where free gas is still present. The mixing intensity parameter can be calculated from the rpm of the inner cylinder. b and n can be easily obtained by means of numerical curve fitting procedures. suitable for storage in a data bank. 3. The mixing intensity parameter concept postulates that dispersion and coalescence are only affected by the amount of work done on the fluid. the work done on the emulsion per unit mass and unit time can be adjusted.01.4. A final evaluation sheet of a set of dehydration tests. By varying the speed of rotation the mixing intensity.e. Therefore. To simulate field mixing conditions in pipelines in the laboratory more accurately and to study the effects of demulsifiers on oil/water mixtures which have been subjected to well defined mixing conditions prior to the settling period.11 mixing intensity is shown as a function of rotational speed.3 is not capable of accurately simulating the degree of mixing to which oil/water mixtures are subjected in the field. It is stressed that the dynamic coalescer mixing conditions of gas free liquid-liquid system are simulated.5.10). This concept is currently under review. the dynamic coalescer was developed. as discussed in Section 3.00. cannot be done in a meaningful manner.5). Some results obtained with this procedure are shown in Figure 3.2.

Dynamic coalescer test procedure 400 cm³ emulsion is heated to the required temperature. which is continued for the desired mixing period. 3. after which the mixture is transferred to the dynamic coalescer. the required amount of demulsifier added (1% or 2% solution in a suitable solvent) and homogenised by shaking for 30 seconds. thus enabling the effectiveness of the demulsifier to be assessed. 24 hours. the water and sludge separation is recorded and an oil sample analysed for water and/or salt content. At regular intervals. say. In addition.19  February 2011  Page 89    Fig. economic factors should be taken into account.PTS 10. After treatment the mixture is transferred to a settling tube kept at the required settling temperature. the lowest % sludge and the lowest amount of water remaining in the oil. in the same way as described for interpretation of bottle test results.01. The mixing time used in the test should be the same as the residence time of the emulsion in the pipeline. The choice of demulsifier should then be made on the basis of the chemical which gives the highest % of free water. through an upper limit of 30 minutes is recommended for practical purpose. The rotational speed is adjusted to obtain the desired mixing intensity. . up to a total settling time of.10 – Schematic drawing of dynamic coalescer with rotating inner cylinder.00.

using artificial emulsions.12. the droplets coalesce at the interphase with their bulk homophase The decay of a batch dispersion with time to simultaneous sedimentation and coalescence at the disengaging interface is shown schematically in Figure 3.4. In the sedimenting zone droplets collide and grow in size due to interdrop coalescence until they are large enough to sediment into the dense-packed zone. viz.6 Rontgen Scan (Tomograph) study The main objective of static settling tests in the laboratory.01. a dispersion band. As discussed in Section 2.11 – Relationship between mixing intensity and rotational speed. consists of two zones. is to obtain design parameters for dehydration facilities.00. 3. The quantitative description of such sedimenting and coalescence processes .3. separation temperature and achievable oil and water quality. Continued effort is required to develop methods for predicting the (field) emulsion character. for creating representative emulsions in the laboratory and for translating laboratory results into field performance. Similar processes take place in steady-state continuous gravity settlers. present in a separation vessel between the oil andwater phases.PTS 10. the sedimenting zone and the close or dense-packed zone.19  February 2011  Page 90    Figure 3. the main parameters being residence time. Coalescence continues in this zone. but more importantly.

12 – Variation in heights of sedimenting and coalescing interface during decay of a batch dispersion.13. Fig. in a time and space domain.PTS 10.19  February 2011  Page 91    would form the basis for establishing design parameters for dehydration facilities.01. The introduction of the tomograph in dehydration/deoiling research has shown that tomographic data obtained from static settling tests can give information regarding settling velocity. a reconstruction of that plane (tomogram) can be made.00. . 3. The experimental set-up for computer tomography (CT) is shown schematically in Figure 3. sludge build-up and water content of a decaying dispersion. By measuring the line projections of a cross-section of an object under various angles. Other physical parameters determining the process are in most cases impossible to measure. X-ray tomography allows the construction of cross-sectional images of density variations within an object without affecting the process under investigation. However. due to opaqueness of crude oil emulsions only the dense-packed/water (coalescing) interface can be monitored during conventional settling tests.

droplet size. If the same bottle test is done using the tomograph. the drag coefficient. The effect of a demulsifier is often described in terms of shorter dehydration times only. Whether a dense layer is formed during settling is hardly detectable. The source and the detectors can rotate in a continuous manner around the object to produce a tomogram. The time needed for one scan is in the order of seconds. In turn.13 – Computer tomography A CT scanner consists of an X-ray source and an array of detectors mounted on a rotating frame. Another example of the information one can obtain from tomography is the detection of the build-up of a dense-packed layer and the effect of a demulsifier on the coalescence behaviour of an emulsion.00.19  February 2011  Page 92    Fig.PTS 10. e. which is short with respect to the separation time of most emulsions. other quantities are derived from the saturation data such as sedimenting velocity and volume flux of the dispersed phase. settling velocity) are now known quantities.g. These quantities can then be used to validate existing models or trigger the development of new models. By applying X-ray tomography a reversed approach can be followed because the variables in the numerical solution methods (saturation.01. Thus with the topographic information one can now solved the hydrodynamic equations of motion for the physical parameters. These parameters need further evaluation to describe/relate separation behaviour to emulsion/crude oil properties (viscosity.). . An example of the use of topographic data is the hydrodynamical problem of sedimentation for concentrated systems which can only be described by numerically solving the continuity equations and hydrodynamic equations of motion for a particular system. A conventional bottle test only gives information about the separations behaviour of an emulsion with time. 3. The attenuation data obtained is sufficiently accurate to allow transformation into dispersed phase fraction (saturation) values.

3. This kind of information will be used to described the coalescence behaviour of dense-packed layers in a quantitative manner. however. Recent studies on dehydration behaviour of artificial emulsions using crudes from various fields in Gabon showed that extremely stable emulsions were created using the Waring Blender. fulfilled: i) The emulsion used in the laboratory tests should be representative of actual field emulsions. However for such tests to be representative ofactual field behaviour. been the creation of a completely stable emulsion which does not separate any free water without the use of demulsifying chemicals at any practical dehydration temperature. Such a description would then form the basis for obtaining design parameters for separation facilities and for the prediction of emulsion characteristics.7 Discussion on dehydration tests 3.). the properties of which should not have been altered during storage and/or transportation (Section 3. such as: • natural flow or artificial lift • pressure drop across the choke • production rate • water cut • drawndown At present. such as sand. 3. In standard laboratory tests the starting point has.00. which did not show any water settling after 24 hours. The picture thus obtained is considered to be conservative with respect to the amount of demulsifier needed for full destabilisation and to the residual watercut of the oil after dehydration. At moderate shear levels (hand shaking or mechanical bottle shaker) the resulting emulsions were much less stable. are done in support of new facilities design and/or to provide guidance for operational practices. . two further stipulations are to be. e. as standardly used in the "Standard Dehydration Test". The tight emulsions created with the high shear mixer were not encountered during actual production. factors which enhance the stability of produced emulsions. laboratory dehydration tests. Moreover. but are mostly not.g. and only partial dehydration could be obtained with the addition of demulsifiers. Care must be taken that a representative crude sample is obtained. using Draugen (a new development in Norway) crude.01. and therefore it was concluded that these emulsions are not representative of actual field conditions. This pre-requisite is difficult to fulfil as the stability of the emulsion actually produced obviously depends on the circumstances under which it is produced. which could be easily dehydrated to low residual watercuts with demulsifiers. it appeared not possible to create stable water-in-oil emulsions with the standard procedure of laboratory dehydration testing.PTS 10.1 Representativeness of standard laboratory dehydration tests.19  February 2011  Page 93    the build-up and break-up of a demulsifier. In another recent study. it is not possible to predict the stability of an emulsion produced under a certain set of conditions. usually performed with artificially made emulsions. wax or asphaltenes cannot be sufficiently accounted for in laboratory dehydration tests. until now. As mentioned earlier.7. as listed above. break-up and thickness of the dense-packed layer can be studied in more detail.

in which the dehydration takes place under static conditions. Depending on the outcome of such a comparative study.e. must be interpreted for a dynamic system in which the dehydration takes place under flowing conditions.19  February 2011  Page 94    More results on comparison of dehydration behaviour of artificial emulsions with that of actual emulsions are required since only in few cases such comparisons have been made. any design on fluid properties should recognise that fluid properties themselves can change in time due to e.e. • The settling time (or residence time) needed for dehydration of artificially made emulsions is conservative as compared to that required in practice. as far as new facility design is concerned. changes in GOR. the size of the dehydration vessels for a certain throughput) is to be estimated. • The final watercut of the oil and the oil content of the water after oil/water separation in a laboratory using artificial emulsions are significantly different (sometimes an order of magnitude higher or lower) as compared to actual system performance.6).7. and conclusions drawn from these studies. . Therefore from laboratory dehydration tests a minimum temperature can be defined above which rapid oil/water separation occurs without residual sludge being built up at the oil/water interface.01. • In the laboratory stable emulsions can be made from crudes which do not produce emulsions in practice. be directly used to obtain design parameters for oil and water treatment facilities in the field. • Water droplet sizes removed in dehydration vessels are significantly smaller than predicted by Stokes' Law.2 Interpretation of field vs. actual and artificial) of emulsion. Before such design parameters can be obtained from laboratory tests. settling tests with actually produced emulsions give realistic results provided sampling is representative and does not cause additional emulsification. The above aspects indicate that result from standard laboratory dehydration tests cannot. it should be mentioned that. in general. In these studies the dehydration behaviour of actually produced emulsions was compared with that of artificially made emulsions. are as follows: • The effect of temperature on dehydration behaviour is comparable for both types (i. The main observations made. Finally.PTS 10. correlations between the result of laboratory tests and the actual oil/water separation achieved in the field with certain emulsions and certain sets of facilities should be established. The rules on which such an interpretation should be established (see also Section 3. presence of solids. ii) The results of a standard laboratory dehydration test. laboratory dehydration behaviour Various studies have been carried out to establish the (degree of) representativeness of laboratory derived dehydration performance data for in-field behaviour. amount and composition of produced water. • General experience indicates that a higher demulsifier dosage is needed in laboratory tests as compared to the dosage needed in the field. 3. the procedure for creating emulsions in the laboratory may have to be revised.00. This is of particular importance of the time needed for dehydration (i. and artificially made emulsions are much more stable than actually produced emulsions.g. However.

scale. however.3 Selection of demulsifier chemicals As discussed in Section 3. the residual water content of the oil phase and the oil content of the separated water in a standard laboratory dehydration test may not be representative of the actually obtained oil and water quality from an oil/water separation process. is considered to be of value. The optimum concentration of demulsifier required in the laboratory is usually conservative. 3. an increased frequency. • the possible change in the character of the produced emulsions due to changing production conditions (watercut. Once an effective demulsifier has been selected and applied in the field. the evaluation of the effect of the various demulsifier on the water quality. However. particularly those associated with termal recovery operations.7. the determination of the oil content of the separated water and/or the water content of the oil phase after a standard dehydration test. GOR.7.2. for heavy crudes. on comparison with or gauging against existing facilities processing similar/comparable confidence: Therefore it is currently felt that only the following design parameters can be deduced from standard laboratory dehydration tests with reasonable confidence : • The minimum temperature necessary for dehydration. • An indication of whether residual sludge (emulsion) problems may be expected. however. say every 1-2 years. The oil and water quality in laboratory tests greatly depends on the method used for the emulsification.19  February 2011  Page 95    These correlations do not yet exist. and only in a few cases have comparisons been made between dehydration behaviour of emulsions made in the laboratory and those encountered in the field. However. .) and/or a change in the crude properties themselves with progressing reservoir depletion. for comparative purposes. More work on this subject is required and design parameters have to rely for the time being. its effectiveness should be verified regularly (with bottle tests for instance) in view of: • the constant development of new and improved chemicals.01.00. For lighter crudes a suitable frequency would be. etc. would be more appropriate. which could achieve a more cost effective solution to demulsification.PTS 10. say 2-3 times per year. sand. • A rough indication of the time needed for complete dehydration (order of magnitude).

1 .01.00.19  February 2011  Page 96    APPENDIX 3.PTS 10.

.01.19  February 2011  Page 97    .PTS 10.00.

or API gravity of crude petroleum and liquid petroleum products by hydrameter method. the hydrometer scale is read. . For more detail information.2 . the sample is cooled at a specified rate examined at intervals of 3°C (or 5°F) for flow characteristics.SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL METHODS RELATING TO THE ANALYSIS OF DEHYDRATION AND EOILING BEHAVIOUR In addition to the methods briefly discussed in Section 3. If necessary the cylinder and its contents are placed in a constant-temperature bath to avoid excessive temperature variation during the test. i. ASTM D97 and IP15 Pour point of petroleum oils. The sample is extracted with water in the presence of a solvent and a demulsifying agent in a TEL extraction apparatus.19  February 2011  Page 98    APPENDIX 3. The sample is brought to the prescribed temperature and transferred to a cylinder at approximately the same temperature. ASTM D1298 and IP160 Density. The congealing point is observed as the temperature at which the droplet ceases to flow as the thermometer is turned. the droplet on the bulb is allowed to cool at a fixed rate until is congeals. ASTM D938 and IP76 Congealing point of petroleum waxes. IP77 Salt content crude oil and petroleum products. and of specific gravity and API gravity to 60°F. by means of international standard tables.3 the following methods for determination of various fluid properties are of relevance. The time is measured in second for a fixed volume of liquid to flow under gravity through the capillary of a calibrated viscometer under a reproducible driving head and at a closely controlled temperature. ASTM D445 and IP71 Kinematic viscosity of transparent and opaque liquids and the calculation of dynamic viscosity. The lowest temperature at which movement if the oil is observed is recorded as the pour temperature at which movement of the oil is observed is recorded as the pour point. After temperature equilibrium has been reached. mainly the Annual Book of ASTM Standard for Petroleum and Petroleum Products.01. The appropriate hydrameter is lowered into the sample and allowed to settle. A sample of wax is melted and a droplet is made to adhere to the bulb of a thermometer. The kinematic viscosity is the product of the measured flowtime and the calibration constant of the viscometer. The result is expressed as sodium chloride.PTS 10. the halides in the extract are determined volumetrically after the removal of sulphide. Using a prewarmed flask as an air jacket. relative density (specific gravity). and the temperature of the sample is noted.e.4. ASTM D3230 Salt in crude oil (electrometric method). After preliminary heating. the referenced documents should be consulted. Readings of density are being reduced to 15°C.00. including petrolatum.

therefore it is rarely applicable for crude oils. up to a maximum of 300°C.00. which are not transparent the Bondi method may be used. A plot of the logarithm of the temperature versus time will show the cloud point by a break in the straight line. A record is made of the temperature at 1 minute intervals. IP24 Distillation of crude petroleum.01. For dark oils. ASTM D2500 and IP219 Cloud point of petroleum products. maintained at a temperature at lease 25°C lower than the expected cloud point. indicating a slowing of the cooling rate by crystallisation heat release.19  February 2011  Page 99    This method is based on the conductivity of a solution of crude oil in a polar solvent when subjected to an alternating electrical voltage. The sample is heated to a temperature well above the expected cloud point (at least + 25°C) in a pour point/cloud point jar is placed in an sir jacket in a thermostatically controlled bath.PTS 10. 100 ml of the sample is distilled in specified glass apparatus under prescribed condition of heat input and rate of distillation. This method covers only petroleum oils which are transparent in layers 38 mm in thickness. The sample is dissolved in a mixed solvent when and placed in a test cell consisting of a beaker and two parallel steel plates. The volume of distillates obtained at each multiple of 25°C is recorded. when the distillation is stopped. An alternating voltage is impressed on the plates and the resulting current flow is measured. . The sample is cooled at a specified rate and examined periodically. More than one break may be observed when distinctly different wax fractions are present. preliminary distillation. and with a cloud point below 49°C (120°F). The salt content is obtained by reference to a calibration curve of current versus salt content of known mixtures. The temperature at which haziness is first observed at the bottom of the test jar is recorded as the cloud point.

ASTM 664 Acid value of dark coloured petroleum products. heptane. A quantity of the sample is dissolved in n-heptene and the insoluble material. crude oils. the precipitation time and the oil-solvent ratio. nitrogen. is separated under hot reflux with n-heptane.   . The asphalt-free sample is dissolved in warm methylene chloride. consisting of asphaltenes and waxy substances. The extraction with benzene is not normally recommended because of the high toxicity of this material and should only be used for referee purposes. The wax collected on the filter is removed with hot hexane. and the asphaltenes are isolated by extraction with toluene or benzene.19  February 2011  Page 100    UOP 46 Parrafin Wax Content of Petroleum Oils and Asphalts Light. ASTM D 3246 / ASTM D 3120 Sulfur in Petroleum Gas by Oxidative Microcoulometry A sample is injected into a combustion tube maintained at about 800 °C having a flowing stream of gas containing about 80% oxygen and 20% inert gas (for example. toluene ) and insoluble in paraffins such as pentane.01. * Note: Asphaltenes Asphaltenes are defined based on their solubility. bitumen involving potentiometric titron with alcoholic potassium hydroxide. The triiodide thus consumed.PTS 10.00. the precipitated depends on many factors such as the hydrocarbons used. In normal practice use toluene instead of benzene. etc). The yield and the composition of the asphaltenes precipitated depends on many factors such as the hydrocarbons used.e. The precision of the method when using toluene has been found to be the same as when using benzene. IP 143 Asphaltenes* precipitation with normal heptane. clear oils are analyzed as received. hexane. Oxidative pyrolisis converts the sulfur to sulfur dioxide which then flows into a titration cell where it reacts with triiodide ion present in the electrolyte. they are soluble in light aromatics (benzene. The hexane is evaporated and the wax weighed. Heavily colored oils and asphalts are clarified by treatment with sulfuric acid. etc. argon. This solution is chilled to 30° C and filtered through a cold fritted glass filter. is coulometrically replaced and the total current required to replace it is a measure of the sulfur present in the sample injected. All methods give different results because they all precipitate a different fraction of the colloidally dispersed particles present in crude oil. i.

200 or 300 times or whatever is needed to disperse the demulsifier thoroughly through the emulsion. graduated in 0. • Pour 100 ml samples of emulsion into the 200 ml graduated test bottles.3. Using a graduated pipette or hypodermic syringe. Destabilisation can be observed by comparing the colour of the treated emulsions with the blank. • Allow the samples to settle and observe the quantity of water separated as a function of time.THE BOTTLE TEST Apparatus and materials • Separating funnels. Follow the sampling directions discussed in Section 3. Test procedure • Prepare 2% solutions of the demulsifiers to be tested by adding 2 ml of demulsifier (with a hypodermic syringe) to 98 ml of the stock solution solvent and shaking.19  February 2011  Page 101    APPENDIX 3. 200 and 300 ppm. A stable emulsion is cloudly whereas a broken one will appear brighter. treat the emulsion samples with the required quantity of stock solution (0.01. which are subsequently adjusted in the light of the first results.1. Determine the BS & W content of the remaining sample according to standard test method to ensure that the emulsified water content is representative for the field conditions. Use clean glassware to avoid contamination. Store the stock solutions in the dark and do not keep them longer than two weeks.PTS 10.5 ml of 2% stock solution. 2 litres capacity • 200 ml graduated screwcap test bottles • 100 ml screwcap bottles for demulsifier stock solutions • Hypodermic syringes 2 ml capacity. 10 and 25 ml capacity • A hand operated or electrically driven centrifuge provided with a head suitable for centrifuge tubes of 10 ml capacity • Graduated centrifuge tubes of 10 ml capacity • A thermostatic bath. pipettes and glassware with solvent. adjustable to the settling temperature prevailing in the field • Solvent for demulsifier stock solutions.1 ml increments • Graduated pipettes or hypodermic syringes of 1 ml capacity graduated in 0. Emulsion sample Use fresh samples uncontaminated with demulsifier and other unwanted treatment chemicals. • Shake the bottles by hand 100.3 . Initial ratio testing is usually carried out with treatment ratios if 100. Always include a blank test. Note the presence and appearance of sludge layer between the separated oil and water . Make sure to avoid contamination of one demulsifier by another by scrupulously cleaning syringes. • Remove free water from the emulsion using the separating funnels. added to 100 ml of emulsion corresponds to a treatment ratio of 100 ppm).00. ml increments • Volumetric pipettes of 5. Do not use water to prepare stock solutions: most demulsifiers will be decomposed by hydrolysis.

• Record: total liquid volume in the settling tube (V ml).LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES FOR DEHYDRATION TESTS Pretreatment of oil sample • Bring the thermostatted mixer (Waring Blender model HGB-100) to the required emulsification temperature (Tem). 40. amount of free water separated after t seconds 'static" settling (x (t) ml). • Finally. The results will give an indication of the tendency towards the reemulsification. Pretreatment of water sample The water used for making up water-in-oil emulsions should be oxygen-free. APPENDIX 3. • Seal off settling tube and place the settling tube in a waterbath at the required settling temperature Ts (usually 20. Water used in the test should be stored under nitrogen at the emulsification temperature in closed (glass or plastic) containers. After the heating the may be cooled to a temperature still well above the cloud point. 60 or 80 °C). 100.PTS 10. but sufficiently low to allow some oil to be taken from the mixture without extensive light end losses. • Add 50 ml (artificially made) de-oxygenated production water at temperature Tem • Add 200 ml crude oil from tank at temperature Tem. The chemical composition of the water must be the same as the composition of the produced water. • Add the appropriate amount (usually 25. 200 or 400 ppm) of demulsifier (10 % dilution in toluene) and mix for 10 seconds at low speed.00. 50. A simple nitrogen purge is sufficient.01. Experience has shown that this is excessive and generates emulsions which are significantly more stable than reality. Dehydration test • Mix at high speed under nitrogen. φ = 37 mm.4 . The above mixture should be heated to a temperature well above the cloud point of the (preferably the reservoir temperature) for at least two hours in a closed container (to avoid light end losses) and under a nitrogen blanket. ASTM D96. Note: Two minutes mixing times have often been used/recommended in the past. The above mixture should be subsequently well homogenized.g. • Quickly transfer the mixture into a calibrated settling tube (at KSEPL the tubes used are 250 ml. amount of sludge (emulsion) at the oil/water interface (a . H = 24 cm). • Cool the created emulsion to the required settling temperature (Ts). a 5 ml sample of oil may be withdrawn with a volumetric pipette from near the oil/water interface for determination of the BS & W content according to e.19  February 2011  Page 102    • On completion of the settling period the bottles may be reshaken 100 times and left to settle for a second time. A sample of the separated water can be taken in a similar manner to determination of the oil content.

The values of φ(t) can be plotted against time. middle and bottom of the oil phase at specific time intervals (15 min. The total watercut is y %v (usually 10 %v in case of laboratory tests). acidify it to pH = 2 and analyse for oil content note the amount of water taken out of the settling tube). • At the same time take a sample from the water phase. available on almost any calculator.PTS 10.24 h).1 ml max. take (with a syringe) small samples (0. equation 1 is rewritten as: ln ∞ (t) b tn . When x ml water has separated. 30 min.00.01.Analyse these samples for water content with a Karl Fisher titration.) of the phase at the top. the amount of water still contained in the oil phase is given by: (t)= y/100 V – x(t) V – x(t) * 100 (%v) based on oil volume. Suppose the total liquid volume in the settling tube is V ml. • Note: The size of the syringe needle is an important factor in withdrawing samples of settled oil for determination of residual water contents. APPENDIX 3. the amount of free water separated from the emulsion (x(t) ml) under static settling conditions is measured with time.5 – CALCULATIONS REQUIRED FOR THE STATIC DEHYDRATION TEST Dehyration curve If the dehydration behaviour of an emulsion is investigated. Curve fitting The experimentally determined points φi(t) can be fitted by a three-parameter function given by: ρ(t)= ∞ ∞ bt n When such computer facilities are not available. a reasonable estimate of the parameters can also be obtained by estimating φ∞ from the experimental dehydration curve. 12h. the original watercut is unknown and must be determined afterwards. Large diameter needles are more likely to give representative samples of emulsions because they are less likely to preferentially draw instead of water droplets. • When the test are done with an actually produced emulsion.1 h. and fitting b and n by means of simple linear regression. For this purpose.19  February 2011  Page 103    considerable reduction in interfacial emulsion content can sometimes be obtained by enforcing some liquid motion by rotating the settling tube rapidly a few times).2 h. giving a ‘dehydration curve’. • When the bulk of the water has separated.

19  February 2011  Page 104    b tn (t) b and n are then given by: n= ∑ ln ti ln ∑ ln ti ∑ ln N ∑ ln ti n N i ∑ ln ti b exp ∑ ln N i n i ∑ ln ti N Where N = number of data points. With a correlation coefficient given by: r ∑ ln ti ln ∑ ln ti i ∑ ln ti N ∑ ln ti ∑ ln ∑ ln i i ∑ ln N i Fits with correlation coefficient > 0.9 are considered sufficiently accurate.   .01.PTS 10.00.

19  February 2011  Page 105    APPENDIX 3.00.PTS 10.01.6 – DEHYDRATION TEST REPORT SHEET .

19  February 2011  Page 106    .00.PTS 10.01.

01.PTS 10.00.19  February 2011  Page 107    .

2 Emulsification Briefly the following mechanisms can cause oil-in-water emulsification: • Stabilisation of oil-in-water emulsion is promoted by e. Only in cases where very stable oil-in-water emulsions are encountered (heavy oil. During the coalescence step an additional chemical (deoiler) may then be required in order to assist in the coalescence process.1 Oil-in-water emulsions 4.2. These hydrocarbons are a dispersed phase (oil-in-water emulsion) and dissolved in the water (mainly relatively low molecular weight aromatics). • coalescence of the destabilised oil droplets by controlled agitation. • High mixing intensities can cause very small oil droplets which do not separate from ambient water but remain dispersed in the water phase. • The use of corrosion inhibitors.19  February 2011  Page 108    4 ASPECT OF DEOILING AND PRODUCED WATER DISPOSAL 4. effected in three steps: • destabilisation of the oil-in-water emulsion by chemical treatment (deoilers). the first step.1 General The water produced from an oil gas well and separated in a dehydration process always contains some hydrocarbons (and dissolved organic acids. 4. In other cases where a fast acting demulsifier has been selected. is destabilisation by chemical treatment followed by coalescence and gravity separation required. and a good/acceptable oil-in-water quality can be obtained with a suitable demulsifier. Quite often both an effectively dehydrated crude containing only little water. can cause very small oil droplets which do not separate from ambient water but remain very small dispersed in the water phase. viz. The latter may occur when an overdose of demulsifier has been used. • Increase of the pH. high mixing intensities).1. see Section 4. • separation of the oil and water phase by gravity. where very fine oil droplets in the water are present (deoiling equipment is designed to remove oil droplets above a certain droplet diameter) and depending on the composition of the oil and production conditions. soaps of univalent cations such as Na+ + and Li . destabilisation.3. the quality of the water phase in terms of oil content is usually taken into account.1.g. in particular in gas production operations. to the range of 8 -10 and higher. in principle. cause components of the water . for instance caused by the escape of CO2 upon heating of crude containing water with bicarbonate in solution. and in some cases also by the demulsifier used such to destabilise water-in-oil emulsions. In that case in the above treatment sequence for oil-in-water separation. In selecting the best performing demulsifier from the results of bottle tests (Chapter 3). oil-in-water emulsions may result requiring additional treatment by a suitable deoiler.PTS 10.00.01. Like in the dehydration process. Deoiling equipment is reviewed in Chapter 6 and its selection and application in Chapter 7. can be left out and only coalescence followed by segregation of oil from water may have to be promoted. the separation of emulsified oil from water is.1).

In a reverse emulsion these emulsifying agents tend to be anionic in nature (i. Oil-in-water emulsions may be effectively broken by the addition of: • acids. which lower the pH of the system and which.e.) high concentrations of oil in the separator interface levels. from negative to positive) causing re-stabilisation of the emulsion.) high concentrations of oil in the separated water can occur until steady conditions are re-established. resulting in soaps that are unsuitable as stabilisers for oil-in-water emulsions.1. 4. A notable exeption. – the concentration of divalent cations is very low.PTS 10. water processing system will contain a high water content. Overdosing can result in higher than normal oil-in-water levels being present during steady plant conditions. However.000 mg/l or higher. ii) Overdosing High levels of reverse emulsion breaker can have similar effects to overdosing with demulsifiers except that the recovered oil from the produced water processing system will contain a high water content.1.e.e. . • Stable oil-in-water emulsions may result when: – NaCl concentration of the aqueous phase lies in the range of 0-30. etc. In additional. The type pf reverse emulsion breaker required for any particular system is determined by on-site laboratory tests (bottle tests) and the dosage optimised for continuous application during subsequent field trails. resulting in a reduction of interfacial tension. is the Gannet crude (North Sea). with a formation water salinity of 150. however. however. depending on the stabilising compound. positively charged) surface active agents and polymers.19  February 2011  Page 109    phase. Low interfacial tensions facilitate emulsification of oilin-water and water-in-oil: less agitation or mixing intensity is then required to form emulsions.000 mg/l. The chemicals are dispersed in the continuous water phase and migrate to the oil droplet-water interfaces. could result in better deoiling. The negative charges cause electrical repulsion between the oil droplet coalescence. during plant upsets (loss of separator interface levels.3 Deoilers As for a water-in-oil emulsion the stability of an oil-in-water (reverse) emulsion us affected by emulsifying agents. This effect is overcome by the additional of a reverse emulsion breaker (or deoiler) upstream in the produced water treatment facilities. Reverse emulsion breakers contain mixtures of cationic (i. • divalent cations. The chemicals are dispersed in the continuous active agents and polymers. gross overdosing can lead to over-neutralisation of the charges present on the dispersed oil droplets (i. the water soluble part carries a negative charge).000 ppm NaCl. Two problems can result of an optimum dosage is not attained: i) Underdosing During steady state plant conditions underdosing may not be apparent. etc.3). In addition. Stable oil-in-water emulsions are not normally obtained when the salinity is in the order of 100.01.00. where clear residual emulsions were observed in bottle tests. this will also be dependent on the actual water composition. • suitable surfactant (see Section 4. and they impart this negative charges cause electrical repulsion between the oil droplets.

where the demulsifier is still present and acting.2 Disposal of produced water 4. a certain amount of mixing energy is required to promote and optimise coalescence. but it can also be the result of the mixing of formation water with various proportions of other waters (for instance during processing and storage operations on a platform.00. • test coalescing equipment in order to improve the oil/water separation process. and (re)stabilisation of either o/w or w/o emulsions may occur. This is a higher energy level (by approximately a factor of 5) than that required for effective dehydration (see also Chapter 2). Once the oil-in-water emulsion has been destabilised. It is therefore recommended to carry out deoiler screening tests and coalescing tests directly in field installations.000-110.5 Deoiling tests Deoiling tests are mainly carried out to: • screen chemicals enabling improvement of the deoiling of the water phase. or following subsurface breakthrough of water injected into the reservoir for pressure support). Experience has shown that deoiling test with oil-in-water emulsions representative for field conditions.19  February 2011  Page 110    In conclusion. not directly originating from the produced hydrocarbons (see also Section 4. are difficult to perform. which has been in contact with produced hydrocarbons. Droplets of in particular light oil dispersed in the water phase may separate quickly and an oily water sample to be used for testing will become non-representative after a relatively short period of time. Similar to the dehydration process.PTS 10. the combined presence of deoiler and demulsifier may result in both chemicals to become ineffective. This is sometimes done with the aid of a coalescer pipe or by the use of coalescer units (Chapter 6). If deoilers are added at an earlier stage in the process.).4 Mixing and coalescence The additional of a deoiler chemical to the process should occur at a location where oil-in-water emulsions are separated from the "dry" crude.1. a mixing energy of 11. The point of deoiler addition should be selected such that sufficient mixing occurs for the chemical to become effectively point may be required.01. 4.1. careful control over the chemical dosage is necessary for the continuous and efficient operation of the process facilities. For deoiling. coalescence of individual oil droplet should be promoted and improved as much as possible. BSP's experience is that it is a good machine to screen and rank chemicals.1. and organic components in varying amounts.000 cm²/s³ (500-5000 psi/hr) is required to promote efficient coalescence.3.2. One of the reasons is the representativeness of the water sample in terms of oil content and droplets size distribution. for effective dehydration and deoiling.2. In this respect a bench model Wemco unit is available in the market to perform such tests.1 General Production water is the total water discharged from the production process. 4. . It includes (flashed) formation water. Production water generally contains hydrocarbon in a dispersed (oil-in-water emulsion) and dissolved phase. 4.

3. e.2. or a water-based EOR scheme. N. The methods which are available for the disposal of production water include the following: b) Injection into subsurface formations. This is discussed in more detail in Section 4.1: Oil 'sheen’ guide oil concentration (g/m³) Effect on water surface 0 . whilst in other cases only a few g/m³ of dispersed oil in the water is allowed.2. For first mentioned disposal method.PTS 10. environmental quality considerations need to be taken into account.19  February 2011  Page 111    Production water needs to be disposed of. where there is sufficient dispersion. and oil content. .g. open sea.60 Silvery sheen 60-100 Traces of colour > 120 Bright colour > 400 Dull colour > 800 Dark colour In all cases of surface disposal there are a number of quality criteria to be considered. salinity. only dispersed hydrocarbons can be reduced. a further reduction in hydrocarbon content of the production water is usually required in a deoiling process. and the allowable suspended oil concentration is dictated by plugging tendency of the reservoir could be an attractive alternative. Depending on the type of the disposal method and the oil-inwater quality (both dispersed and dissolved oil).01. As to the last mentioned parameter. the manner in which the allowable oil concentration is specified and the analytical method for estimation of oil-in-water content are critically important for monitoring and control of oily water disposal. With the currently applied deoiling techniques in EP operations. Visible detection of oil-in-water is virtually impossible for low oil concentrations.2. coastal waters. non-potable aquifers or hydrocarbon-bearing reservoirs in support if a water injection scheme. normal water injection considerations need to be taken into account. In some operations it may be possible to inject the separated oily water without any further treatment (e. as can be noticed from the following table: Table 4. heavy metals. Oman). c) Discharge to surface water.30 Not visible 30.g.00.2. e. In the absence of regulatory limits. The degree of treatment of production water required in the case of surface disposal will be depend on the quality of the dehydration water and on the legislation governing the water quality requirements for disposal into the environment. such as biochemical oxygen demand. This latter aspect is discussed in more detail in Section 4.g.

iv) Set effluent quality limits based upon the results of i). While the setting of EQOs should considered the task of national and/or regional authorities. Aspects to be considered are eco. thus necessitating the application/development of new methods. what degree? • Is mixing of produced water with injection water permitted/possible (formation of scale. in particular.01.2 Water quality requirements 4. the amount of organic and inorganic components and.2. . To this end core flushing test may be required to determine the allowable maximum suspend oil concentration and oil droplet sizes. the settling of effluent quality limits and the specification of their analytical methods should be carried out jointly in specifications/consultations between the company responsible for the discharges and the local authorities.2. is in a significant number of cases governed by regulatory limits as set by national or regional authorities. This is of particular relevance when regulatory limits on oil-in-water content are tightened. In order to assess the environmental impact for each situation an environmental quality objectives (EQO) approach should be followed. The EQO approach involves the following steps: i) Agree/decide on the use of the receiving water ii) Determine the distribution. more relaxed water quality specifications can be tolerated. and the applied deoiling facilities cannot meet such requirements.2. the amount of hydrocarbons allowed in the discharge water. Aspects which also need to be taken into account when downhole injection is considered include. It is clear. ii) and iii).toxicity. iii) Set standards for the receiving water. This is based on the capacity of the receiving environment to assimilate the effluent rather than on fixed standards for effluent quality. reference is made to the Water Injection Manual EP-63600. and the relevant references mentioned therein. For a detailed discussion on water injection and water quality requirements. • Is filtration required and if so. careful evaluation of the plugging tendency of dispersed oil in the formation and the effects of residual oil saturation on the injectivity is required if injection under intentional fracturing is not allowed. however.2. fate and effect of potentially polluting substances.00.2. The results of such tests are also of importance for the selection and design of required deoiling equipment. bioaccumulation/tainting. the impact of production water disposal on the environment needs to be carefully assessed.19  February 2011  Page 112    4.5.2. This is discussed in more detail in Section 4. estuaries or into the open sea. In the absence of such regulations. bacterial growth)? When injection of disposal water under fracturing conditions is acceptable. 4. rivers. persistency/(bio)degradability. that the environmental impact can be very different depending on whether production water is discharge into in-land lakes.1 Downhole injection When disposal of produced water by downhole injection is considered feasible and/or desirable.PTS 10.2 Surface disposal For the disposal of production water into surface waters.

fish or shrimp tests are most commonly used (ASTM-D1345.g. mercury. defined as the amount of oxygen expresses in mg/l. expressed in mg/l. biochemical oxygen demand. this is restricted to a range between 5.00. which is the lethal concentration at which 50% of the test organisms will die within a prescribed time (usually 96 hours). total oxygen demand (ASTM-D-3250-77) • Oil-in-water content (see Section 4. Some typical specifications for aqueous effluents are summarised in Table 4. it is normally limited to an increase of maximum 5°C above background. • Temperature. specifications from governments normally include the determination of phenolics. .19  February 2011  Page 113    In Europe contacts and discussions between governments and oil companies are maintained by the Paris Commissions (PARCOM) with governmental representatives from countries around the North Sea and the E & P Forum. consumed under specific conditions in the chemical oxidation of the organic and the oxidisable matter contained in waste water. to obtain an impression of the toxicity of a certain component or a composition of a number of pollutants in waste water. • TSS. total suspended solids (ASTM-D-1888-78) • Heavy metals (e. This would be based on a number of parameters such as: • Flow volume. • Salinity. corrected for the influence of chlorides (ASTM Test Method D-1252). Location. usually over a five-day period and at 20°C (APHA P. defined as the amount of oxygen. • Flow velocities. too high salinity contrasts of production water with the receiving water can have toxic and/or adverse effect on dilution/dispersion processes. with representatives of Oil Industry.) • Some chemical components and heavy metals. to assess the potential for dispersion/dilution of the effluent.PTS 10. if there is a restriction for temperature discharge.2. total organic carbon. The EQO approach should be used to assess the acceptability of our aqueous discharges. The toxic effect of an aqueous material is described by its LC50 value. boron. defined is the toal carbon content minus the inorganic carbon content (ASTM-D-2579-78).2. etc.483-15 ). • TOD.4). chemical oxygen demand. • COD. nitrogen and sulphur. consumed by micro organisms during stabilisation of organic matter under aerobic conditions th under prescribed conditions.5 and 9 in various countries (ASTM-D1293-78).59). • TOC. • BOD. to assess the discharged volume against the receiving water. • pH. tropical areas have higher rates of biodegradation than temperate areas due to higher temperature and longer sunshine hours. • Toxicity.01.

b) Light hydrocarbons dissolved in the water (mostly low molecular weight aromatics.3 Oil-in-water 4. some of the dissolved gases flash off.2. The parameter common to all monitoring programmes is the oil-inwater content. (e. and small amounts of other waste water (e.).2.g. etc. Since formation water has existed for a very long time in contact with the minerals in the formation.1 Occurrence and environmental aspects As mentioned earlier. etc. In some cases. etc.5 – 9.6 – 8. naphthenic acids. and hydrocarbon gases). corrosion inhibitors. These compounds occur naturally in formation water in varying amounts. from washing decks.2 20 H2S (ppm) 2. This parameter and its analytical method will be discussed in more detail in the following sections.0 - 1. containing a proportion of light ends and hydrocarbon gases. When formation water comes to the surface and the pressure is released.19  February 2011  Page 114    Table 4.5 - 6.) .3. acids. c) Salt of organic acids or other acidic material dissolved in the water. production water is the total water from the production process which has been in contact with the produced hydrocarbons. In addition. precipitating carbonates of alkaline metals such as calcium and producing emulsions.PTS 10. it may be saturated with salts of organic acids. which may consist of formation water alone. The organic components present in production water. where there is a high concentration of bicarbonate ions. whereas for discharges into coastal water of rivers most or all of the above parameters need to be monitored. carbon dioxide can be released.2 – Typical specifications for aqueous effluents Parameter River (Refineries) Disposal Point Sea Sewer Temperature (oC) 30 30 <45 BOD (ppm) 20 400 - TSS (ppm) 30 - - 5.3.01.00.) can be categorised into four groups: a) Dispersed non-volatile oil.g. 4.0 Oil content (ppm) 10 Section 4. and their occurrence may not be related to the formation water in varying amounts. butyric. and their occurrence may not be related to the presence of hydrocarbons.0 pH The number of parameters that need to be checked before disposal varies depending on where the production water is discharged.2. proprionic. etc. but possibly significant quantities of production chemicals (demulsifiers. d) Relatively small. formation water may contain soluble fractions of hydrocarbons. For offshore discharges only the oil-in-water content has been specified by regulations so far. or a mixture of formation and injection water. acetic.

4.3: Solubility *) of hydrocarbons in water (mg/l at 15°C) Those components of oil which are dissolved in water. both in general and individual cases.2. in particular those relating to offshore discharges. which is amenable to removal by conventional deoiling processes. Table 4.. considerable scope for improved monitoring and recording of such discharges by OPU's in line with PETRONAS Group Minimum Environmental Management Standards Implementation Guide PTS 60. as well as the non-hydrocarbon organic matter dissolved in water. among the parameters of relevance as discussed in Section 4. In Table 4. normal paraffins. are known to be readily destroyed over a period of time by the bacteria present in natural waters such as the sea.2. that the production water discharge causes no reason for concern.01. Of these. with benzene (C6H6) having highest solubility of 1. Effects due to dissolved organic components are therefore only likely to be observed in the immediate vicinity of the discharge point.2 Regulatory limits In formulating regulations for the control of effluent into the environment. There is. etc. the lower molecular weight aromatics are appreciably soluble in water whereas those of higher molecular weight are dissolved in the suspended oil phase. naphthenic acids. such as light aromatics. The results are insufficient to demonstrate. . It can be observed that aromatics are much more soluble than aliphatic components. specify oil-in-water limits only.3 the solubility of some hydrocarbons in water is listed.00.PTS 10. in particular those prominent and critical parameter.2.7 g/I. the hydrocarbon content of the discharge water has been considered the most prominent and critical parameter. The environmental impact of non-hydrocarbon components on production water discharges (including heavy metals) has only recently been studied in a systematic approach. therefore. Heavier aromatics are in the suspended oil phase. and most regulations.3.3006.19  February 2011  Page 115    As far as the environmental impact of the organic constituents of production water discharges is concerned. indications are that any adverse biological effects are associated with the aromatic compounds present in the oil. and most regulations.2. In this respect legislation has tended to follow public and environmental demand.

2. and oil-in-water limits as specified by regulatory bodies were (intended to be) referring to dispersed oil-in-water. authorities have. as determined by the infrared method (Section 4. Several methods for this purpose are available/suitable (see also Section 4.4. however. with the analytical methods specified.PTS 10.2. together with the required analytical method. Regulatory limits are not always explicit at this point and some confusion may exist on how to interpret specific oil-in-water limits. also specified the analytical method for determining oil-in-water.4.e.4. insoluble) non-volatile oil. the origin and development of the PARCOM standard is briefly reviewed. These aspects are discussed in more detail in Section 4. it has been concerned with suspended (i. including sample handling/preparation.1. these limits refer. i.19  February 2011  Page 116    Legislation in the past has been directed at the avoidance of fouling of the surface of the sea. In this respect it is to be noted that limits were developed essentially on equipment performance expectations and not on environmental impact considerations. in principle.2. if specified. In Western Europe the PARCOM has made recommendations for a target standard limit for 40 ppm hydrocarbons in effluent water (based on equipment performance considerations). and can be very dependent on sample handling and preparation. Various oil-in-water limits as currently applied in several countries are listed in Table 4.01. may give results that are: • • not directly mutually comparable. dispersed plus dissolved oil rather than to dispersed oil only.3. . in a number of cases. That is to say. including the Netherlands and the UK.e. In Appendix 4. to total oil content. refers to the total amount of oil.2.) which. however.00.4. In formulating limits for hydrocarbon levels in effluent water. This therefore. As will be discussed more extensively in Section 4. The PARCOM recommendation has been adopted by several countries.4.).

01.4 – National oil-in-water limits .PTS 10.00.19  February 2011  Page 117    Table 4.

2. but are discharged into the environment with the production water. Bottles must not be rinsed with the sample as this can put an oil film on the bottle and give a false high reading. "Isokinetic" equal linear velocity sampling in mid stream is the best but rarely possible. and possibly to also restrict the total amount of organic material (i.2.3). current deoiling facilities are not adequate and more advanced water treatment techniques may have to be applied/developed. Only glass or . dispersed and dissolved oil. Each of this intermediate steps can strongly influence the outcome of the measurement and care should be taken to avoid such interferences with the final result. The whole of the sample should be analysed and the bottle washed with solvent. If such more stringent regulations would come into effect.2. For sampling points the PARCOM specifies the following locations: i) Immediately downstream of the oily water separator.1. As discussed in Section 4.2. 4.5.19  February 2011  Page 118    With significant variability if analytical results for oil-in-water determination possible (Section 4.4.00. • clean-up/removal of polar compounds. ii) From. In the following paragraphs these steps are discussed in some detail.e. 4. or just downstream of. the more likely it is to be representative for the average mixture composition.: • sampling. water and oil. Currently there is a tendency for regulatory limits for effluent water to be tightened up. for practical reasons.01. it is required in several countries that discharges meet a monthly average and/or maximum for any sample instead of a rigid limit. • extraction with a solvent.PTS 10. In practice. it is best to sample after a pump. Although it sounds obvious. the usual sample size is about 1 litre. Care should be exercised to avoid sampling the surface of a liquid (which is likely to be unrepresentative). and organic non-hydrocarbons) to be discharged. the more evenly dispersed they are likely to be. is very difficult unless the mixture is completely emulsified or in a very fine stable dispersion (see also Section 3.). • acidification.4. The smaller the residual oil droplets. However. it cannot be stressed too strongly that sample bottles should be scrupulously clean and preferably of glass.g. production water may also contain significant amounts of other organic components which are of non-hydrocarbon origin. Bottles on oily sites and operator's hands can have thin surface films of oil or even detergent residues after washing. or similar turbulent area where the stream is well mixed. or separators if a number operate in parallel or series. The regulatory limits as currently in use in most countries refer to levels of hydrocarbons in effluent water only.4 Determination of hydrocarbons in water The determination of hydrocarbons in water consists of a number of steps preceding the actual measurement viz.1 Sampling Sampling of mixtures containing two or more phases e. The sampling line should first be flushed well and the sample should be taken quickly. In general. a turbulent region.3. the larger the sample. In such a case levels of TOC need to be determine/controlled to comply with regulations. both of which can give rise to erroneous and high oil readings.

4. which might interfere with the measurement and thus give unreliable/unrepeatable results. The frequency of sampling obviously depends on the practicability at each site. i) Acidification If not analysed immediately. they can be removed by passing the solvent extract through a suitable adsorption column. prior to analysis.2 Sample preparation According to the PARCOM method.00. trifluoroethane (such as Freon 113) is becoming the preferred. Of these. The person doing the sampling must be well trained and experienced. Freon has been included in the EEC List of Dangerous Substances and some authorities believe that it can interfere with the ozone level in the atmosphere. through a sintered frit. At an adequately manned site. with samples to be taken at pre-arranged intervals. diethyl ether.1. but leaves the quantities of dissolved hydrocarbons greatly unaffected. However. Acidification of the sample has the problem. Acidification is also meant to improve phase separation when extracted with a solvent. and in many countries the only acceptable solvent.PTS 10. ii) Extraction Solvent Commonly used solvents in the past have been petroleum ether. Cork or other absorbent materials must not be used unless covered with aluminium foil.2 trichloro. However. the sample should be thrown away and a new one taken in a fresh container.2. Chloroform. Samples must be correctly labelled immediately after being taken and any abnormal circumstances noted on the sample. although one of the best solvents and carbon tetrachloride are toxic. chloroform and carbon tetrachloride. PARCOM guidelines on sampling specify for platforms discharging continuously. This strips out any dissolved gases. 4. The concentration of these organic components in formation water can be as high as 1000 mg/l. Moreover. further disadvantages of Freon 113 are its greater volatility and its . and be able to recognise a spoilt or unrepresentative sample should this occur. that it can liberate organic acidic material from its salts which can then be extracted by solvent and give a reading in the tests method. Section 4. all samples are to be purged at a temperature (30°C) with a nitrogen purge gas flow (approximately 1 l/min) for 45 seconds.4. however.01. Sufficient analyses should be performed to give a representative average. Where an infrared method is used.3. This is of particular concern with the most commonly used infrared method (ref. Where the slightest doubt exists. Otherwise a result would be obtained which may be more indicative of TOC. it is common to acidify the sample to pH 5 or often pH 2 to preserve the sample against bacterial action and/or to dissolve precipitated calcium carbonate which would cause difficulties in separating the solvent phase from the water. consequently both these solvents are being phased out of used for human health reasons. as these organic are polar. a frequency of sampling and analysis of once per 12-hour shift is recommended to effectively monitor equipment performance (unmanned sites have obvious problems if accessibility and are a special case).2. petroleum ether and diethyl ether can be used in conjunction with a gravimetric measuring technique but they are highly inflammable and somewhat dangerous. at least 16 samples per month.1. Hydrochloric acid is used to avoid problems with calcium sulphate. This step is essential to obtain a relevant indication of oil in water.19  February 2011  Page 119    inert plastic (such as teflon) stoppers should be used.).

other methods prescribe shaking by machine or used if a magnetic stirrer. which will interfere with the oil-inwater determination. the method consists of an extraction with solvent and further preparation as derailed in the previous section.4.19  February 2011  Page 120    somewhat lower solvency for hydrocarbons.Pt. iv) Removal of polar materials To remove polar material. It is worth mentioning here that the PARCOM recommended IR method for analysis of hydrocarbons in water did initially not include the step of removing polar compounds from the solvent extract.1. The result may still be affected by the presence. The mixing time ranges from 2 minutes for hand shaking. 1. The method has evolved in the course of time.g. if any.PTS 10.01. the solvent extract must be passed through a column containing a polar adsorbent such as activated silica-gel (e. Experience shows this step can have a decisive influence on the final result achieved. 4. especially acids liberated by acidification. to revise the prescribed analytical method and to include advance removal of polar compounds prior to infrared analysis. The most salient features of a number of published methods are given in Appendices 4. 74°C) or dichloroethylene may be used. Several methods involve shaking by hand.1. with 1 or 2 extractions being commonly employed. the deviation from the true value of the oil-in-water will depend on the composition of the hydrocarbons in the effluent sample.2 and 4. Mixing Good mixing is of major importance in the oil extraction procedure. different from hydrocarbons. If extraneous polar material is not removed from the sample the result of the oil-in-water determination will be too high. The total quantity of solvent used ranges from about 15 ml/l (CONCAWE) to 120 ml/l (ASTM) and the number if extractions from 1 to 3. A quantitative prediction of the deviation cannot. The large number of different methods shown there serves to illustrate difficulty and sometimes confusion involved in properly defining oil-in-water content and its measurement. it is practice to filter the extract. possibly including some of the high molecular weight aromatic hydrocarbons. of non-polar compounds.3. The solvent extract must be dry and it is normal to pass it through an anhydrous sodium sulphate or similar drying column. Regarding the extraction of hydrocarbons from the sample there is wide variation in the procedures as far as the mixing mechanism and time. Such absorbents may also remove some aromatic hydrocarbons of high molecular weight which have polar properties. Where a gravimetric or colorimetric measuring technique is used. When the extraneous polar material is removed. therefore.-trichloroethane (B.2. Only recently have recommendations has been made by PARCOM's Working Group on Oil Pollution. Briefly.3 Infrared analysis if hydrocarbons in water The infrared (IR) technique is the most commonly used analytical technique for the determination of hydrocarbons in water.00. in the extraneous material. Florisil) or alumina. Sample preparation is extremely important for the final measurement result. iii) Filtration/drying To remove polar and most of the water which can be associated with the solvent extract. the quantity if solvent used and the number of extractions required. be made. both in technique and interpretation. to 60 minutes using a shaking machine (Swedish method). since any .

the Horiba OCMA 200) in the range 3400 to 2500 cm . In this respect it should be mentioned that in the presence if a high proportion of aromatic hydrocarbons. its ability to cover the whole range of hydrocarbons is unmatched by techniques which could be considered to be within the normal scope of a laboratory on an offshore platform. Such separated oils do not necessarily reflect the mixture of hydrocarbons in the effluent finally released. The most direct way consists of comparing the absorbances with those of a calibration solution. It should also be clear that the IR method measures total oil content. consisting of a defined mixture of hydrocarbons such as benzene. An alternative to the used of "known oil" or "reference oils" is the use of typical specific absorption coefficients (absorptivities) for calibration purposes. then the accuracy that can be obtained in this way is good. will give a reading.PTS 10. In order to overcome this problems. The limits of application of the "reference oil" in the IR method is given in the Dutch NEN method. need to be removed (e.CH2 groups 3.42 µm is greater than 0. whether oily or not. Such structures are present in many hydrocarbons. and also in the PARCOM recommended IR method.19  February 2011  Page 121    compound with a C-H bond.38 µm (2959 cm-1) . it is the closest approximation to the composition of the oil practically available. with the absorbance measured at one or more of the following wavelengths: 3. and only a qualitative expression of the oil content can then be derived. Although the IR technique may be less appropriate for detection of aromatic hydrocarbons than some of the other more sophisticated techniques. particularly where further treatment stages. such as air flotation and biotreatment.2 mg "oil" per litre of waste water. isooctane and cetane (see also Appendix 4. that may be present in effluents. for which use can be made of: • "known oils ". This way of calculating the analytical result does not directly account for carbon atoms fully substituted by group other than hydrogen atoms. as these carbon atoms do not absorb in the IR. by contacting with Florisil).2). When the hydrocarbons in the water to be analysed have a group composition similar to that of the reference oil. . resulting in erroneous oil content readings.42 µm (2924 cm-1) .CH3 groups 3. the accuracy of these measurements is effected. The problem does not exist if "known oils" are used as calibrated material. however. are included. Therefore.1-0. its minimum determinability is around 0. In a significant number of cases. which states that it is not applicable when the aromatic content is such that the ratio between the absorbances at 3. all other organic components which will increase the analytical result and which are not related to the hydrocarbon content of the water. which is used. correction factors have been developed.g.such as those recovered from the gravity separators in a water treatment system.g. to apply the method to determine the oil-in-water content.CH groups (aromatic) The next step in the analytical process is to convert the measured absorbances into an analytical result.23. However. the mixture selected may be quite different from the hydrocarbons being measured. the absorbance is measured at only one wavelength (2924 cm-1) which is the characteristic absorption frequency of the mostly dispersed aliphatic hydrocarbons.30 µm (3030 cm-1) . • a "reference oil". This makes the evaluation.00.30 and 3. since no distinction is made between dispersed and dissolved oil. within limits. but they are empirical and do not necessary apply to all the hydrocarbon mixtures. It is a quick method. The extract obtained is then made up to a standard volume which us scanned in an infrared -1 spectrophotometer (e.01. independent of the composition if the unknown hydrocarbon mixture in the water.

19  February 2011  Page 122    4.01 mg/l. However.1 mg/l for oil. ii) Ultra violet fluorescence spectrometry Aromatic compounds and those with conjugated or pseudo-conjugated double bonds present in oil. the gravimetric method generally results in lower values of oil-in-water than the IR method. This latter method is easy and quick to perform and can be quite accurate for a particular production water containing relatively high oil contents. The method needs care. The equipment is simple and cheap and portable and is suitable for use under difficult conditions. Other advantages are that it is not usually necessary to acidify the sample.2. but not on a routine basis (time-consuming). the coloured components in crude oil are very easily absorbed on surface and lost. Gas chromatography gives a detail picture of the composition of a sample and may be applied for special studies on individual oil components. However. 4. This is usually not so but should be with dispersed crude oil from a single well or single formation.00. takes some time and needs steady conditions where an analytical balance may be used. which separates hydrocarbons in order of boiling point. dry or pass the sample through an adsorbtion column. The fluorescence may be related to the total oil content if the proportion of aromatics and similar compounds is constant. it is not normally necessary to filter. for single components less than 0. being colourless. It therefore needs a shore laboratory and is usually impractical on a platform. do not interfere.5 Variability of analytical results Measured oil contents of a given treated effluent discharge by any particular precisely defined method can vary for the following reasons: 1) Variations in the actual oil content. i) Gravimetric method The sample is extracted with a solvent which is filtered to remove solids. solvents containing hydrogen can be used.4.PTS 10. . The method has the advantage that dissolved gases and many other non-oily organic compounds. iv) Chromatography The sample is extracted with a suitable solvent (n-pentane) and injected into a gas chromatographic column. The solvent is evaporated under standard conditions and the residue is weighed. The main disadvantage of this method is that high boiling components are not detected (boiling point > 350°C) as they are not carried through the column. fluoresce when exposed to suitable ultra violet light. However.4 Other methods for analysis of hydrocarbons in water The following summarises the most commonly used other analytical techniques for oil-in-water determination. Dissolved gases do not interfere. The sensitivity of the method is 0. it is a fundamental analysis-one weigh so many milligrammes of oil extracted from so many milligrammes of oil extracted from so many litres of water-and is independent of calibration problems.2.01. This method is used in the North Sea and some areas of the Middle East and Africa. iii) Visible spectrum colorimetry The solvent extract is either measured for absorbance in the visible light region or is directly visually compared with (freshly) made up samples of the particular oil in the solvent.4. mainly because of inevitable evaporation losses. water and salt.

e. etc.2. only 1) affects the environment. provided the organic non-hydrocarbons (polar compounds) are sufficiently removed from the sample. the dispersed oil.PTS 10.4.e. and the filtrate thus constitutes the sample for the blank measurement. The truest effect on the environment is obtained by eliminating phase readings under 5) and 6). 6) False readings due to error in calculation.2 most regulatory limits for allowable oil-in-water content refer to dispersed oil only. which is also indicative of the performance of deoiling equipment. The errors introduced by 3) and often 2) and 4) can be minimised by averaging over a large number of results provided the system is operating steadily. the dispersed oil with relatively heavy molecular weight aromatics dissolved in the oil droplets in the effluent water is generally considered to be the main pollutant. from an environmental point of view. biological degradation. i. The most commonly used analytical technique for oil-in-water determination (also specified by regulatory authorities) is the infrared technique which measures both dispersed oil plus dissolved oil (i. that with the analytical methods most commonly applied for the determination of hydrocarbons in water (i. It should be realised. and dissolved hydrocarbons are left unaffected. the most convenient approach to a background reading is to filter the sample through a suitable fine filter to remove the suspended oil.e. In the case of oily water.6 Measurement of dispersed oil Currently installed deoiling facilities in EP operations are only effective in removing/reducing dispersed oil-in-water. Outside the immediate vicinity of the discharge joint. thereby not being allowed to exceed maximum limit. This is recognised in several countries where discharges are required to meet a monthly average instead of a rigid limit.3.00. Of these. and not just the reagents or even on a pseudo sample made from pure laboratory reagents. they have been interpreted in that sense. Currently installed deoiling facilities in E & P operations are designed for/capable of removing or reducing the amount of dispersed oil.19  February 2011  Page 123    2) Variations due to unrepresentative sampling. 5) False high values due to slightly oil sample bottles. or in the absence of explicit guidelines. the IR and gravimetric methods) the total amount of hydrocarbons in water is measured.). Since most crudes contain relatively small amounts of soluble components (low molecular weigh aromatics) which could contribute in the order if up to 10 mg/l to the oil-in-water readings of the IR . 4. 3) Inherent scatter in the analytical method. confusion between samples. 4) Lack of skill or care on the part of the analyst. As said before (Section 4. It is important to carry out the blank determination on a real sample. i.2. provided that the scatter is not too great in relation to the volume of the receiving water. both dispersed and dissolved oil.e. False readings due to 5) and 6) can often be spotted by eye or by a statistical analysis of the results.2. the response of the analytical method to an identical sample in the absence of the substance which it is desired to measure. should be measured. The background response is called a "blank" and must be subtracted from the response of the whole sample.2. where possible and by averaging a large number of the remaining results. total oil). the load on the environment due to 1) is related to the long-term average. In order to obtain a measure of dispersed oil in discharge water. 4. however.5 Discharge of production water from gas/condensate platform As discussed in Section 4.3.01.

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 124 
 
method, discharge water from oil platforms has generally been able to meet regulatory limits with the
currently installed conventional deoiling facilities.
During production of gas, condensate is also produced together with (condensed) water. This condensate
is characterised by a relatively high content of lower aromatics (up to 30% in volume). These aromatics
are much more soluble in water (in particular benzene) than the aliphatic hydrocarbons in the condensate
and therefore, they contaminate the production water disproportionately. Effluent water from
gas/condensate platforms therefore contains significant quantities of dissolved hydrocarbons (up to
several hundreds of ppm) which are not removed by conventional deoiling facilities. Analysis if a sample
from such production water by the IR method would therefore result in a very high reading of
hydrocarbons in water.
The above situation is aggravated by the use of corrosion inhibitors in gas production operations, which
promote the formation of very fine emulsions (which are difficult to remove). Moreover, corrosion inhibitors
are not efficiently removed from the sample together with the polar components, by an adsorbent (e.g.
florisil), thus giving a reading in the IR analysis.
Recently, concerns have been generated by the intention of authorities in some European countries (a.o.
the Netherlands) to implement the PARCOM recommendation for a limit of 40 mg/l oil in effluent water
also for gas/condensate platforms. The PARCOM recommendation also specifies the IR method for
analysis of discharge water.
The above intentions could create serious problems for the Industry since it is clear that this target limit
cannot be attained with the equipment presently installed. Only by installation of additional extensive
and/or expensive equipment of unproven performance offshore to remove both free and dissolved
hydrocarbons, could the above limit be achieved. As far as the analytical method for monitoring of
production water for hydrocarbon content is concerned, it is mentioned that the IR method as
recommended by the PARCOM is unsuitable for this particular case, since the aromatic to aliphatic
hydrocarbon ratio is too high (> 0.23, ref. Section 4.2.4.3.) thus resulting in erroneous oil-in-water values.
As far as implementation of the PARCOM recommendation for gas/condensate platforms is concerned
and its relevance for environmental considerations, it should be realised that despite the apparent high
dissolved hydrocarbon content in effluent water, the total production water discharged into the
environment from gas/condensate platforms, is very small as compared to the total discharges from oil
installations. In this respect it is mentioned that the total volume of hydrocarbons discharged from gas
platforms in the North Sea is some 200 tons/year, compared with a total hydrocarbon input from
production water of around 3000 tons/year.
Following recent discussions (early 1988) between the E & P Forum and PARCOM's Working Group on
Oil Pollution, it was decided by PARCOM to maintain the 40 mg/l target standard for hydrocarbons in
effluent water for gas/condensate platforms, but to modify the analytical method. Recommendations were
made to ensure IR absorbances at two wavelengths, viz. around 2924 cm-1 (CH2 groups) and around
3030 cm-1 (aromatics) and to "correct" the results by subtracting the contribution from the aromatic
hydrocarbons from the total result. In this manner a measure is obtained primarily for the aliphatic oil
content of production water. In addition, gas platforms discharging less than 2 tons hydrocarbons per year
will be exempted from the 40 ppm oil-in-water limit. In all other cases the 40 ppm target standard will have
to be met. At the time of writing, the matter was still under discussion, however.
 

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 125 
 
APPENDIX 4.1

E & P Forum
The Origin and Development of the PARCOM
Provisional Target Standard
by A.D. Read, E & P Forum
Report No. 2.43/142

(prepared for presentation to PARCOM Ad Hoc Working
Group on Platform-14 December 1987)
Abstract
A short review of the development of the provisional target standard since 1976 covering:

the equipment performance basis,

the North American experience prior to 1976 that led to these performance expectations,

the original emphasis on oil platform discharges, and

the development of analytical/sampling procedures to help ensure uniform application.

1.

Introduction

Although the history of the 40 ppm standard covers only 11 years, only a few individuals have maintained
an involvement throughout this period.
This short note has been prepared by one who has been able to follow developments throughout the
period-from 76-87.
Considerations involved in decisions taken as long as in 1976 cannot of course be regarded as
necessarily relevant in 1987. However, it may be useful for those now involved, to be aware of
some of the underlying principles and assumptions behind some of the decisions taken earlier.
2.

1976

2.1

The development of the provisional target standard began in 1976, two years prior to the entry into
force of the Paris Convention in 1978.

2.2.

Although offshore gas production started in 1967, oil production did not commence until 1972. In
the summer of 1976 the only oilfields in production in the North Sea were Argyll, Auk, Dan, Ekofisk
and Forties. None of them were at that time discharging produced water. However in anticipation
of such discharges the UK Department of the Environment published at that time a report entitled,

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 126 
 
'The Separation of Oil From Water for North Sea Oil Operations'. This contained information on the
characteristics, likely volumes and treatment possibilities for these waters.
2.3.

The subject was taken up in June 76 at the third meeting of the IPARCOM Technical Working
group which decided that agreement should be reached on the quality of discharges from oil
production installations.

2.4

This decision prompt the UK and France to prepare in September 76 the following statement
(IPARCOM (76)(14)) for the consideration of other States.
'...our belief is that it is important that all new platforms should be equipped with the
best practicable means for separating oil from discharged water, and that this means
are corrugated plate interceptors or gas flotation units, or other equipment capable of
reducing the average oil content of a discharge to within the range of 30 to 50 ppm. It
is in this sense that we interpret the recommended provisional target standard of the
order of 40 ppm. Our joint acceptance of this proposal is without prejudice to our view
that the control of marine pollution by crude oil by environmental quality objectives is
preferable.'

2.5.

The meeting of the Interim Paris Commission held in Dublin later that year considered the above
statement and the purposed target standard of 40 ppm was accepted as being achievable using
current technology. They agreed to adopt the interpretation of this recommendation contained in
IPARCOM (76) (14). (i.e. as stated above).

2.6

Thus at its inception the 40 ppm limit was:
(i)

based on equipment performance expectations of oily water treatment technology,

(ii)

not associated with a particular analytical and sampling regime,

(iii)

based not on North Sea, but largely on Gulf of Mexico experience (where the analytical
method was and still is the gravimetric method),

(iv)

developed in the anticipation of production water discharges from oil production platforms,
but,

(v)

not explicitly or implicitly stated as applying to the much smaller discharges from the already
well established gas platforms-the numerous references to oil and crude oil (underlined
above) suggest the converse.

3.

1978

3.1

A composite report was submitted to the sixth meeting of the Technical Working Group
(TWGVI/4/1) entitled, 'Progress in Implementation of the Provisional Target Standards for
Discharges from Offshore Oil Installations'. This was prepared by the UK from contributions
supplied by the Danish, French, Netherlands and Norwegian administrations. The report in
addition to reporting the progress made by the various stages in implementing the standards also
highlighted the need for agreement to be reached on sampling and analysis aspects. Most of the
national reports concentrated on oil platforms although the contribution from Norway did make
reference to a 30 ppm monthly average limit being applies to the Frigg gas complex.

4.

First Meeting of Paris Commission The Hague November 1978, (1st Annual Report p7 para 30):

4.1

The Commission confirmed its acceptance of a provisional target standard for discharges from
offshore oil and gas installations of 40 ppm. It acknowledged that the provisional target standard
was essentially an equipment performance standard and that the 40 ppm figure was therefore a
mean which was considered achievable using present technology for separating oil from
discharged water.

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 127 
 
4.2.

It would appear that a decision taken in 1976 to develop standards for discharges from oil
production platforms emerged in 1978 as a decision to apply an identical standard to oil and gas
installations, without any formal consideration in the interim of the need fro or justification of the
application of an identical limit to the low volume discharges from gas installations.

4.3.

It is clear that had the standards been developed on an environmental quality objective approach
(the preferred approach mentioned by the UK and France in 1976 (para 2.4 above), different limits
would have been introduced for the different type and magnitude of discharges from oil and gas
production installations.

5.

Analytical and sampling Aspects.

5.1.

The need for the provisional target standard to be associated with an appropriate sampling and
analysis regime was clearly apparent. In the selection of the approved analytical procedure the
equipment performance nature of the standard was recognised. An example of this approach is
contained in the Third Annual Report, p 3 para 15, where inclusion of the optional gas purge stage
was discussed:'15. At its Second Meeting the Commission had approved the methods of sampling and
analysis for implementing the provisional target standard of 40 mg/l for discharges form oil
and gas production platforms. Recognising that a nitrogen purge might be desirable in
samples containing high concentrations of low molecular weight hydrocarbon gases, some of
which have solubilities in excess of the 40 mg/l provisional target standard, the Commission
adopted the following modification to the agreed method of analysis:
(i)

a purge of nitrogen of purified air can be employed at stage 6.2 of the agreed method of
analysis at the discretion of national authorities;

(ii)

the purge conditions at 30° for a 1 litre sample shall.....

(iii)

the purge shall only be employed on particular effluent streams which contain significant
concentrations of light hydrocarbon gases, i.e. where the introduction of such a purge will
result in a reduction of the perceived hydrocarbon concentration of in excess of 10 ppm.'

5.2

It will be seen that the concern at that time was with 'interference' from low molecular weight
hydrocarbon gases, but the problem of interference from water soluble polar substances was not
recognised or addressed.

6.

Comparison of discharges from oil and gas installations

6.1.

Subsequent information has indicated that the concentrations of hydrocarbons in aqueous
discharges from gas platforms can in some cases be relatively high compared with those from oil
platforms, the absolute quantities are much lower. When compared on an equivalent energy
produced basis (e.g. kg oil discharged/Mjoule energy produced) the inputs of hydrocarbons from
gas operations are seen to be only around 5% of those from gas platforms.

7.

Concluding remarks

7.1

The standard since its inception has been based on the equipment performance expectations of
oily water separators designed to remove discrete oil droplets.

7.2

The sampling and analytical procedures adopted were intended to be compatible with the nature
of the standard. The method had to be adapted to avoid interference from certain low molecular
weight volatile water soluble species that were not removable by oily water separators. The use of
fluorosil column to remove interfering polar substances would seem to be a logical extension of
that approach.

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 128 
 
7.3.

Little or no consideration was given in the early stages to the small discharges of low molecular
weight species from gas platforms although the standard was formally applied to them in 1978.

7.4.

Should it be decided not to apply the 40 ppm limit to certain gas platform discharges provided that
the total quantity if hydrocarbons discharged did not say exceed x tonnes/yr a separate sampling
and analytical regime would need to be developed to measure the aggregate quantities
discharged.

7.5.

It would seem consistent for PARCOM to consider separate and different standard for the small
gas platform discharges, based on similar principles to those used in setting the limits for oil
platforms.

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 129 
 
APPENDIX 4.2

PTS 10.01.00.19  February 2011  Page 130    .

00.19  February 2011  Page 131    .PTS 10.01.

00.19  February 2011  Page 132    .PTS 10.01.

PTS 10.01.00.19  February 2011  Page 133    .

2). Gas bubbles will rise to the surface and entrain water droplets. degasser performance and dehydration tank or vessel will be strongly dependent not only on the oil and .1 General principles As discussed in detail in Chapter 2. that the presence of gas can enhance the deoiling of water (see Section 2.6. In general. Figure 5. The net result of this process is that water droplets will have less chance to coalesce and consequently it will take much longer for water to settle out. v) settling of water. indicate that minimal quantities of free gas (<5 per cent volume) degrade dehydrated crude oil BS&W by a factor of two. the following process steps can be distinguished in typical oil field dehydration systems: i) destabilisation of the emulsion by injection of chemicals. iv) coalescence of small water droplets into larger ones. viscous crudes. It is to be noted. iii) heating (especially for heavy. ii) degassing in a separator and/or degassing boot. In some instances dilution with a light distillate fraction may also be considered. The requirements on chemical treatment.01. laboratory data.1 – Typical dehydration process. however. As to the effect of free gas on crude dehydration. supported by field observations. The application of heat to enhance the mobility and coalescence of droplets is often required when dehydrating heavy.PTS 10. principle of crude oil dehydration is the destabilisation by chemicals of the demulsified water droplets. such that on collision under suitable circumstances they will coalesce to form larger droplets and ultimately settle out into a discrete and separable water phase. No single recipe can be given for all dehydration systems. Achievement of the same discharge BS&W as would be experienced in the absence of gas would require a dehydration vessel size increase by a factor of five. Oil dehydration is adversely affected by the presence of gas.19  February 2011  Page 134    5 DEHYDRATION EQUIPMENT AND PROCESSES 5. For dehydration processes where water and oil are separated continuously. viscous crudes). insufficient degassing will lead to high water concentrations on the separated crude oil. the basic.00.

1 Injection system requirements The prime requirements for the satisfactory and efficient operation of a demulsifier injection system are the following: i) the injected fluid delivery should be continuous and dispersed. especially during storage in the open.2. since the ratio of oil to chemical is very large. the importance of neat and orderly storage of drummed materials cannot be overstressed. • an auxiliary chemical injection pump on standby or on auto restart. Where consumption is large enough.19  February 2011  Page 135    water properties. which should include • an alarm system to indicate a low level of chemical in the supply tank. in order of 10 :1. but also on the quality requirements for the crude and water leaving the dehydration system.PTS 10. the use of proper suction tanks is preferred. Their size will be dependent on injection rates and required top-up frequency and they should be elevated in order to maintain a flooded suction at the injection pump. etc.2. Mixing of the demulsifier in the crude is promoted by the degree of turbulence in the flow process. defoamers. but on-site dilution is operationally unattractive and errors in the manufacturer may cause serious plant upsets. Occasionally the macnufacturer may make a blending error and supply an offspec product. corrosion inhibators.2 Chemical destabilisation 5. mostly packed in drums. The bottom of the tank should slope with a drainage point for sediments at the lower end and each tank should be provided with a gauge glass and a dipstick. 4 The first requirement is important. independent of other variables. iii) the pump operating range should be able to accommodate any change in flowrate. In cold climates it is advisable to install a thermostatted heating element to ensure that the demulsifier remains pumpable. Other features which are desirable for an injection system are: • facilities for (remotely) monitoring chemical usage. As the markings on drums tend to disappear with time. and not intermittent. This method is in use in BSP and PDO.2 Demulsifier supply and storage Demulsifier is normally supplied in 200 litres (55 US gallon) steel drums. oxygen scavenger.00. 5.). The purchase of concentrated demulsifier and dilution on site with a locally available solvent may also save some transport cost. It is therefore advisable to check the demulsifier efficiency on a regular basis. savings in transport and handling may be achieved by the use of bulk containers. good uniform injection is required to produce adequate dispersion. and to be injected into the production stream (s) (demulsifiers. .01. Although the drums containing demulsifier chemicals may simply be connected to the suction end of the injection pumps. A modern production operation requires a variety of chemical products. For that purpose a suitable well (constant water cut) should be selected and Bottle Tests performed comparing the new and old batches.and since in principle each droplet of the emulsion should be contacted by the chemical. ii) delivery of a specific volume of fluid is made at a specific pressure rating. but nevertheless a continuous injection is required to maintain destabilisation of the oil/water interface. deoilers. 5.

: . To facilitate control it is recommended to restrict the number of demulsifier (and other chemicals) in use as much as possible.4 Chemical injection pumps 5.g.19  February 2011  Page 136    Field personnel should be instructed to make absolutely sure that the various suction tanks are loaded with the correct products. They can be a major source of problems. Therefore injection in a cooled section of the flow process will be less effective. Factors influencing valve type including flow speed through valve chamber and fluid data. The pumps must be able to cope with varying flow rates and the tanks of the chemicals must be periodically filled.2. 5.2. However. Spring loaded valves may.1 General characteristics Chemical injection pumps are relatively minor items of equipment in terms of the overall dehydration system. These dampeners are vessels pressurised with gas. This is found useful mainly in gaslifted wells and is practised e. Pumphead valves are often seen as a major problem area of chemical injection pumps. giving a positive action by means of a belt drive. Usually a demulsifier will be more effective at higher temperatures. In order to produce a continuous flow. the overall dehydration system. cause adverse wear and metering problems. should be suitable for the pumped medium. however. in Nigeria and Gabon. Valve material selected by the manufacturer on receipt of operator's data. viz. gas locking. Mechanically operated valves are also possible.00. if injection is required at the wellhead. At the manifold of a flow station the temperature and mixing conditions are usually still favourable.PTS 10. In some situations this may not be practical due to terrain conditions. Another common cause of pump breakdown is operation beyond its specification. the demulsifier should be injected as far upstream in the process system as possible. then each well must be supplied with chemical and an injection pump. which must be checked and maintained. plunger pumps have to be fitted with pulsation dampeners. suction/delivery valves.01.2 Common pumphead types There are various commonly used pumphead types. remoteness of location or other local considerations. The gas cushion is thus alternately expanded and compressed. The standard valve design is the ball type valve. 5. Care should be taken that the demulsifier remains stable at the highest process temperature encountered. They can be a major source of problems. however. ideally before the initial source of emulsion formation. and this is the most common location for demulsifier injection.2. The most common type of injection pump is the positive displacement pump of the intermittent (plunger action) type. It is possible to inject chemicals at the wellhead or even downhole. cracked diaphragms and blocked lines. Selection of the correct pump for the job is therefore all important.2.3 Location of injection points As a general rule. 5. Spring or cam aided valves for closing/opening may be required to reduce back flow losses and to help the washing away of solid particles.4. which operate synchronously with the pump plunger oscillations whereby they store and discharge part of the stroke volume. since they are prone to failure and require regular and through maintenance. Failure frequently involves plunger seals.4.

19  February 2011  Page 137    • The plunger type head. Maintenance with this pump type should be negligible. which is the most economical for handling non-hazardous fluids. i. The data shown are not complete and there are other suitable pumps. temperature less than 120°C and pressure less than 200 bar.PTS 10. Diaphragm rupture sensors can be incorporated into the pump alarm system.g. • The bellows type pumphead is glandless and is therefore completely sealed from the pumped fluid. etc. Wallace and tiernan. e. however. in which the plunger activates the diaphragm by fluid displacement. However. Basic data on some pumps that have been applied in Group production operations are given in Table 5. The diaphragm material is plastic for normal mode operation. is the most common type. • The diaphragm type pumphead. its major drawback is the restricted pressure and delivery range available compared to the hydraulic diaphragm and plunger type models.1. require a significant degree of monitoring of the plunger seal zone since it will never be completely free from leakage. It does. is normally used for the pumping of volatile fluids.000 hrs. The diaphragm can be driven mechanically or hydraulically. The latter type. This feature makes the pump suitable for dealing with hazardous or volatile fluids. like the bellow type. Lapp. Metal diaphragm will be used when operating outside this pressure/temperature range.00.01. Plastic diaphragms tend to have a longer life than metal ones and they last around 8-10. .e.

.2 are required by the pump supplier to ensure that specific features are designed into the pumping system. to prevent the inadvertent loss of process fluids. and provision of this data will help to ensure an efficient system. with hydraulically operated diaphragms.19  February 2011  Page 138    Table 5.01. A knowledge of the anticipated operating demands and conditions is also useful to the supplier.3 Pumps specifications The parameters shown in Table 5. 5.4.2.PTS 10.1 – Chemical injection pump data In general. all injection pumps should preferably be of the leak-proof type.00.

29.19  February 2011  Page 139    Table 5.4 Example of a basic chemical injection system A flow scheme showing the components of a basic chemical injection system suitable for a supplier is shown in Figure 5.12. . In general. fluid driven pumps need to be carefully sited of their exhaust is of flammable material to atmosphere.00.PTS 10.2 – Essential parameters for pump manufacturer’s use Reference should also be made to the Standard Data/Requisition Sheet for Pumps and to PTS 31.4.93. 5.2.2.01.

PTS 10.01.2 – Components of a basic chemical injection system (example).19  February 2011  Page 140    Figure 5. However. but this requires the provision of equipment and the power necessary for the increased injection pressure.00. The correct admixture of chemicals via an atomising device gives the best possible results. it is accepted that an atomiser head producing finely dispersed chemical is advantageous. since a better distribution of the demulsifier is achieved. The subject of atomised injection has not been fully researched by contractors or service companies and as yet the use of this method has not been fully exploited. .

systems design must accommodate filling and settling in the first tank while exporting from the second. • degas the oil/water/gas mixture prior to dehydration.1 Operating principles Probably the simplest way of separating a (destabilised) crude oil/water mixture is to route it directly to storage tanks and allow the water to settle out whilst the crude is awaiting shipment. • avoid pumps for transport of the oil/water mixture. Note that for some low throughput production systems. Batch . the second one for settling (12-24 hours) and the third one for draining off water and subsequent pumping of oil. In this case.PTS 10.19  February 2011  Page 141    5.5. • heaters are sometimes applied.3 Batch dehydration 5. In Fig. Crudes are dehydrated in this process to 0. At any one time one tank is used for filling. Batch dehydration is widely applies either as the sole dehydration system or as a polishing process for partially dehydrated crudes. a "two tank concept" may be more cost effective.01. The following aspects are to be noted in this process: • inject demulsifier as far upstream as possible.3 – Batch dehydration process. particularly when dehydrating heavy crudes to break stubborn emulsions. Figure 5.5% water in oil or better. if possible.3. Each tank performs all of these operations in turn. Batch dehydration normally requires a minimum of three storage tanks. but use elevation differences.00.3 this batch process is shown schematically.

incorrect operation of gaslift valves.2 Settling tanks Figure 5. using free water knock-out vessels (FWKO). 5. On draining. and by a natural ageing process. At the start of the pumping cycle. etc. corrosion products. viz. . some unbroken emulsion is usually present between the dry oil and the water. valuable tank space is tied-up with water storage.19  February 2011  Page 142    dehydration is quite often acceptable/preferable as long as the watercuts are reasonably low.4 shows a typical settling tank with bottom inlet and discharge Figure 5. The emulsion may further be stabilised by paraffin wax.01. divert sludge to the sludge treatment plant.4 – Schematic of setting tanks During the filling operation. This "sludge" layer may consist of untreated emulsion because of injection pump breakdown. the operator will normally adhere to the following procedure: i) drain water to the oily water treatment facilities. start exporting oil. abnormally tight emulsion caused by defective pump valves. However. if the watercut is above. the water/sludge interface and the sludge/oil interface. In that case a continuous dehydration process (Section 5.00.7). ii) at the sludge/water interface.4. there will be two interfaces to consider when sludge is present. This sludge will not normally break down with time.3. etc. iii) at the sludge/oil interface. say 10%. On completion of the settling process. It must be removed from the tanks and treated in a separate sludge treatment system which should be an intergral part of each settling plant (see Section 5. the incoming fluid disturbs the settling process and may even cause reemulsification. dehydration tanks or plate separators.) upstream of the batch tanks becomes desirable. which may be unacceptable from an economic/operational point of view.PTS 10.

1 Separators Separators are prefabricated pressure vessels which are suitable for separating oil. thus.g. A separator can also be intended to separate gas only form the oil/water mixture. or when gas blanketing is installed. 5. 5. water and gas isrequired.5) should be used. jamming of the joint or of the sliding guide structure fitted to the inside of the tank roof may cause severe damage and leakage of the joint may turn tank operation into bottom fill/discharge.   Summarising. The system is.5a. During discharging the cleanest oil (from the top of the tank) is pumped and under normal conditions there is no need for deep drainage of the water to avoid the discharge of sludge.5.5c. contamination with sludge and/or oil may occur. see Fig. With this system the disturbance during filling is greatly reduced.00. expensive. not yet proven for E&P operations. which amounts to another reduction in effective settling time. the disturbance of the settling process causes a reduction in effective settling time and possible re-emulsification. water and gas (if applicable).4 Continuous dehydration As the watercut increases. or whenthe operating pressure is above the bubble point. Obviously accumulation of sludge as a result of process upsets and natural causes may also occur when the tankfarm is equipped with floating suctions and facilities to process the sludge will still be required. This may then cause upsets in the oily water system. 5. From an operational point of view. If there is some residual gas.4. Unfortunately. If simultaneous separation of oil. see Fig. The above disadvantages can be overcome by equipping the settling tanks with a floating fill/discharge line. even through extra care must be given to sludge and waste water treatment. Nucleonic type (profiler) interface level measurement is also available in the market. KSEPL are developing means of interface detection by capacitance probes (measuring changes in dielectric constant) for water/sludge and sludge/oil interfaces.5b.PTS 10. it becomes more attractive to remove water in a continuous process rather than in a batch dehydration process. the separation of which is achieved at a later stage. For processing dead crude. a three-phase separator fitted with a "schoepentoeter" inlet device (see Section 7. a liquid-liquid separator with no gas handling facilities can be used.3. 5. the wettest crude is discharged first. hewever. settling tanks with floating suction/discharge lines thus have a distinct advantage over bottom fill/discharge lines. • By pumping from the bottom.01. described in Section 5. in settling tanks. the floating suctions are mechanically sensitive.19  February 2011  Page 143    During the draining of water. Current thinking is therefore in favour of the mechanically more reliable bottom fill/discharge system. e. sludge may be discharged. 5. The following types of continuousdehydration equipment are commonly being used: • separators • dehydration tanks • coalescers The above-mentioned dehydration equipment will be discussed in the following sections. 5. a (small)gas handling capacity is required. • The required deep drainage of the settling tank may cause poor quality drain water. • At the start of the pumping cycle. see Fig. the disadvantages of the bottom fill/discharge system are: • During bottom filling.2. unknown to the operator. Typical designs are shown schematically in Fig. .

.PTS 10. for a three-phase separator. for a given throughput the dimensions of a vessel for dehydration service are necessarily larger.01. The rest of the water will remain dispersed in the crude. typically 1-3% vol. for a liquid-liquid separator and 1-5% vol.00.19  February 2011  Page 144    Separators can be designed for 'free water knock-out' or 'dehydration' service. typically 5-10% vol. for light crudes (r o < 850 kg/m³) and 10-20% vol. Both look similar in appearance but. A separator designed for dehydration service will dehydrate crudes down to low water content levels. for heavy crude (ro > 900 kg/m³). A separator designed for free water knock-out service will generally only remove free water from the feed stream.

01. Separator internals comprise the following items: • inlet devices . depending on their duty.PTS 10.5 – Various types of a separator. short-circuiting and gas break-out.00. are meant to minimize effects of turbulence.19  February 2011  Page 145    Figure 5. Separators can be fitted with a variety of internal devices which.

pipelines. 5.5. Most of the separation takes place in the dispersion band or coalescence zone at the oil-water interface.1 Free water knock-out vessels For many high watercut crudes the bulk of the water separates out quickly. Separated water (free water) leaves via an outlet located just upstream of the weir and is discharged by interface level control.2. . 5.00.4. The internals weirs in the separator shall be adjustable to accommodate more water in the future.19  February 2011  Page 146    • flow distributors • sand flushing system and sludge drains • liquid outlet nozzles • plate packs.e. It may be attractive to remove the 'free water' at an early stage in the process as this will reduce load on downstream facilities.1. This band should be maintained at (approximately) the vessel centre-line in order to provide the maximum possible horizontal cross-sectional area for separation.1 the selection and design of above separator internals are discussed in more detail. Additional level tapping are needed to measure level for increase water out in the feed. Separated oil flows away from the dispersion band and over a weir into a small compartment from which it is discharged under level control. In Section 7. i.01. The feed enters the vessel through an inlet diffuser which breakers the forward velocity and distributes the flow across the separator. heaters and dehydration tanks. pumps.PTS 10.6. The main design features of a FWKO are illustrated in Fig. The water outlet should be fitted with a vortex breaker to avoid entrainment of the dispersion band.

alternative designs would have the feed line located above the liquid level to avoid gas break-out during the dehydration process (see Fig.e.1.2 Plate separators In the past decade there has been an expansion in offshore developments and many of these fields are now producing substantial amounts of water.19  February 2011  Page 147    Figure 5. very stable emulsion) this could accumulate at the oil-water interface and interface and hinder the oil/water separation process. In the case of a threephasegas-oil-water separator.PTS 10. It is important to provide sampling facilities at all levels for physical verification and the different phases. . The FWKO shown in Fig. Drained sludge should not be recycled into the feed stream since otherwise a sludge build-up will occur in the separator. In this case the inlet is at the centre-line so that the crude can be fed directly into the active oil-water interface. the crude also enters at the top of the vessel (above the oil level) so that gas can be released (see Fig. 5. restrictions on the size and weight of offshore equipment requires that offshore dehydration must be achieved in relatively small units. The size of the gas cap in a three-phase separator is usually much larger thanin a two-phase liquid-liquid separator. it is always advisable to install connections at the interface to drain away any sludge to the sludge treatment plant.6 is basically a two-phase oil-water separator.00. Consequently. is desirable from the point of view of reducing the size of pipelines and meeting pipeline specifications.5. or dispose of it into the oil stream.5b). but with the facility to remove some residual gas. However.01. If the crude contains some sludge (i.5c). Dehydration offshore rather than at the onshore terminal.6 – Free water knock-out vessel. 5. However.4. 5.

5. can be achieved. however.7. typically a water content in the crude oil at the outlet of 1-3% vol.PTS 10. For high flowrate applications. Figure 5. or when the operating pressure is above the bubble point. a dispersion- .19  February 2011  Page 148    One way of increasing the efficiency and/or reducing the size of a separator is to install a plate pack.00. In a plate separator of the size of a free water knock-out vessel. the Netherlands. for crude oils containing large quantities of sand or wax since these will cause fouling problems. see Fig. a plate separator with no gas handling facilities can be used.7 – Plate separators. For processing dead crude. One of most commonly used plate pack manufacturers within Shell is Pielkenrood Water Company. They are not suitable. In the case of the formation of a relatively thick dispersion band in the separator which may hamper proper level control. Typical plate separators are shown in Fig. say. Basically the objective is to promote laminar flow and to reduce the distance over which a droplet has to travel before it meets a coalescing surface and is 'intercepted'.01. 5. in excess of 350 m³/hr. a split flow plate separator may be required. see Fig. 5.7b.7a. Plate packs can be retrofitted to existing vessels where problems are being experienced in meeting the design specifications.

In this manner a relatively sharp oil/water interface is obtained at the end of the vessel. which is useful in inaccessible locations and where space is limited. 5. i) Vertical heater treater A schematic of a vertical heater treater is shown in Fig.01. water and gas is required.g. They are compact and self contained. see Fig. They can be operated at temperatures high than 100°C. e. . When concurrent separation of oil.1. offshore.00.19  February 2011  Page 149    retaining plate can be fitted in the vessel after the plate pack. thus allowing good level control. 5. In general. A heat exchanger for preheating incoming emulsion and cooling treated crude may be included. 5. under which separated water and over which dehydrated crude can flow.4.PTS 10. Sizes range from 1 m diameter to 5 m with a throughput ranging from 50 bpd to 3000 bpd. a three-phase plate separator fitted with a schoepentoeter inlet device should be used.7c. the vertical heater treater is used for treating small volumes of relatively light oils. Heater treaters can be considered for dehydration of difficult emulsions or very viscous crudes. horizontal units are used for treating larger volumes and are more suited for heavy (viscous) crudes.3 Heater treaters Heater treaters are designed to include in one unit several or all of the following elements: • gas/oil separator • free water knock-out • heater • coalescing section • heat exchange The units operate under pressure which conserves the light end of the crude oil and maintains API gravity.8.

and water is discharged through the water outlet line. The gas separation section should incorporate an inlet diverter and mist eliminator. a pump need not be required.2. .PTS 10. which serves as a free water knock-out section.19  February 2011  Page 150    Figure 5. Oil and emulsion rise over heater fire tubes to a coalescing section where further coalescence removes more water. A pre-heater may be used to reduce the load on the unit but still its capacity may be limiting. which must be sized to separate gas from the inlet flow. Normally.4. Liquids flow through the downcomer pipe to the treater. emulsion and gas enters the top of the treater. sufficient pressure is available to transport the oil from the unit to the tanks.2. and also by the capability of its heating section. The water level is maintained either by an interface level controller or by a water syphon operating on the principle explained in Section 5. it is most common to install parallel units with upstream facilities for free water knock-out and degassing. If the treater is downstream of a separator. The end of the downcomer should be slightly below the oil-water interface to promote coalescence of water droplets. To meet higher production requirements. the mixture of oil. which settles to the bottom. Detailed design of pressure vessels. Production volume capacity of a vertical configuration vessel is limited by its cross-section and the usable size of its coalescing section. including design of internals (many having patented features ) should be the responsibility of the equipment supplier. this chamber can be very small. water.00.8 – Vertical heater treater After having been preheated through a heat exchanger. Treated oil is cooled and discharged to the storage tanks.01.

Horizontal heater treater. hydrogen having partial positive character Normally the arrangement of the water molecules in the liquid phase is random. When water droplet enters an high voltage electrical field. This electrical attraction results in .9 . VFH units are more easily adapted to a specific type of production fluid. where final removal of water occurs.19  February 2011  Page 151    ii) Horizontal heater treater A schematic diagram of a horizontal heater is shown in Figure 5. Therefore the removal of the water will also remove the salt and emulsion. When these dipoles are created the ends of droplets that are positive are attracted to the ends of droplets that are negative. and two A water molecule consists of a central oxygen atom that has a partial negative character ( .01. a vertical flow horizontal unit will handle the same volume as three vertical units of the same cross-sectional area. in the upper section. around a Ushaped hood.00. A dipole exists when the ionic charges that are inherent in a droplet are separated so that the positive ions move to one end of the droplet while the negative ions move to the other end.1. Heated liquid flows over the baffle into the coalescencing and settling section. Straightforward control of the water level to modify the basic process. just as in a threephase separator. it will contain salt and emulsion which will be present in the water. This results in a molecule that is electronically polar. to the bottom of the first section where free water is released. flows through the inverted U-shaped equaliser into the heating section. Emulsion. Straightforward control of the water level in the coalescencing section is by an interface controller. Vertical Flow Horizontal (VFH) systems are more efficient and can handle large throughputs than vertical units. In general.4 Electrostatic Precipitators Electrostatic Precipitator/Desalter/Electrostatic Dehydrator Operating Principle When crude oil is produced. and free gas is released. Figure 5. but a water syphon may be used. shown as the right half of the vessel. Degassed liquid rises around the heater section. a dipole is created.PTS 10.9. 5. Free gas. oil and gas enter. releasing entrained gas which is then joined by the free gas coming through the equaliser and is discharged.4. water. A number of internal and external controls may be added to modify the basic process. the liquid flows downward.

Electrophoresis . Different high voltage taps are required to allow different voltage gradients to be applied to oil to find the most optimum coalescing voltage.PTS 10. The low voltage side can be supplied to the voltage desired. powered by a voltage step up transformer. The electrodes are suspended in the oil phase of the equipment by insulating hangers. The conventional electrostatic field is an alternating field. Dipolar Attraction Electrical force produced by positive and negative centers on induced dipoles of water drops 2. These collisions continue until the droplets coalesce large enough to settle into the water phase of the vessel.00.01. Figure: Typical Electrostatic Precipitator Layout There are three electrostatic forces available: 1.19  February 2011  Page 152    collisions between droplets.

19  February 2011  Page 153    Electrically induced movement of polar bodies in a uniform field toward closest electrode 3. Dielectrophoresis Movement of polar bodies induced by a divergent electric field toward increasing gradient Figure: Typical Electrostatic Process Configuration .00.PTS 10.01.

the thickness of the coalescence zone will be more or less constant. In normal operation.5 m thickness builds up between the water and the oil. Most crudes will be dehydrated down to 1-2% vol.5-1. By introducing the feed stream just below this "dispersion band" or 'coalescence zone" the gentle movement introduced by the rising oil promotes active coalescence. Fig.4. Daily temperature changes of the incoming emulsion may cause thermal currents in the tank which should ideally remain undisturbed.Schematic of typical continuous dehydration tank.2 Dehydration tanks 5.00.e. it is therefore advisable to install a bleed line to withdraw part of the contaminated coalescence zone for processing in sludge treatment facilities. when the feed consists of destabilised emulsion.10 illustrates the operation of a typical design of a continuous dehydration tank. Insulation may be required. 5. Large droplets will have a net downward velocity and will settle into the water layer at the bottom of the tank.2. Introduction of stable emulsion and sludge into the system will hinder coalescence and upset the operation of the coalescencer zone.10 .5-3 m) with a level control devise to provide residence time for reduction of the oil content of the separated water. The water level in the tank is maintained at a fixed height (usually 2.19  February 2011  Page 154    5.PTS 10. i. residual water in a continuous dehydration tank. Small droplets will have a net upward velocity and will be carried away with the oil flow. . The oil slowly rises up the tank and overspills into a collecting device. Also temperature changes caused by exposure of part the tank wall to sun or wind may have a detrimental effect on the operation of the tank.01.4. Water droplets settle against the upward flow of the oil.1 Operating principles Figure 5. The emulsion enters via an inlet distributor which spreads the flow across the horizontal cross section area. In normal operation a high-water content emulsion layer of 0.

The continuous dehydration tank has been in use for many years. is the essential features of dehydration tank operation.00.19  February 2011  Page 155    Gas evolution hinders the coalescence and settling processes.01. sand or clay particles and iron sulphide.PTS 10.2 Tank design features In the following sections various design features for tank internals are briefly discussed. e. which then settle at the bottom of the tank. Chemicals may be used to control interfacial build-up by applying surfactants to water wet the solids.g. . b) Peripheral (spinder type) inlet with central outlets to ensure full utilisation of tank cross-sectional area. as discussed above.:• gas boots • inlet distributors • oil collectors • interface level control • baffle plates The preferred concept would incorporate the following design features:a) External gas boot. because floating and/or adjustable outlet devices are prone to damage and failure. 5. Basically there are two alternative configuration: a central inlet with peripheral outlets or a peripheral inlet with central outlets.7. originally it was thought that a "washing action" of the water layer on the emulsion rising through it towards the oil layer was an essential part of the process and dehydration tanks were referred to as "wash tanks". views have altered and it is now believed that coalescence in the coalescence zone.2. 5. The latter arrangement (Fig. This layer typically contains water-in-oil emulsion. If the layer becomes thicker than a few inches and the waxes harden. it is advisable to have inlets and outlets as far apart as possible. Since then. paraffin. by withdrawing excess emulsion and heating it up in a separate sludge treatment facility.) 5. It is therefore important in the design stage to consider this problem and install one or more connections at the height of the oil-water interface level to enable withdrawal for treatment (see Fig. In order to avoid shortcircuiting in the tank. Furthermore. The term "wash tank" remains. or if necessary.2. waxes. as part of the oil field jargon.10) It is a serious mistake to recirculate an unbroken emulsion or waxy materials to the treating system. Heat may be applied to the interfacial material either directly within the tank by pumping in hot oil or alternatively. then action must be taken to prevent an escalation of the situation. Paraffin solvent may be added to suspend the paraffin in the oil. then there is little change that a second treatment will take any improvement and the build-up of sludge will simply accelerate.4. outlets should be fitted with vortex breakers to prevent entrainment. Arrangement to achieve this are discussed in Section 5. It is favoured that all internal components are fixed. however.10) is preferred since this allows the feed stream to be spread over a large area. Unbroken emulsion withdrawn from a dehydration tank should therefore be treated in a sludge treatment plant (see Section 5. If the first treatment is not effective. separate degassing tank/separator.4. It is therefore essential that the crude enters the tank degassed to atmospheric pressure. which is conducive for good separation. One of the most common problems with dehydration tanks is the build-up of an emulsion layer at the oilwater interface.2.

an impact angle or centrifugal ring can be inserted. The inlet emulsion line enters the gas section about midway. Figure 5. i) Gas separation using an external gas boot The external gas boot or flume consists of a large diameter pipe extending to the top of the tank with a large diameter gas section on top extending above the tank roof. The downcomer protrudes to near the bottom of the tank with a circular spreader installed at the bottom of the pipe.01.00. no internal parts are used inside the gas section. The sole purpose of the boot is for gas separation before the emulsion enters the wash tank. d) Water outlet nozzle requires a hood and vortex breaker to avoid short circuiting and entrainment.. 5. into the settling tank.12) with the gas section resting on the roof.11.External gas boot ii) Gas separation using an internal gas boot The inlet boot can also mounted inside the tank (Fig.5. Normally. however.2. . This system can be troublesome if corrosion occurs in the downcomer and the untreated emulsion goes directly. without being distributed.19  February 2011  Page 156    c) Oil collector with serrated weir to ensure equal inflow distribution oil outlet nozzle requires vortex breakers to avoid entrainment of gas.PTS 10. and concentrates on design options mentioned above. In Section 7.2 selection and design of tank internals is discussed in more detail. if more complete separation is necessary.

00. These laterals are pipes cut in half longitudinally with the open half facing downward.Spider type spreader Another type of spreader which has proved to be very efficient.13 . yet is much more . This design not only provides distribution over a large area of the tank.19  February 2011  Page 157    Figure 5. Fig.12 – Internal Gas boot iii) Inlet distributors The purpose of the inlet distributor is to initiate good distribution and full utilisation of tank cross-sectional area. 5. This arrangement spreads the incoming oil over a large cross-sectional area of the tank. 5. with differing degrees of success. A7. but also imparts a rotational flow to the fluid. Current preference is for the 'spider' type distributor shown in Fig. The number of spider legs will depend upon the tank diameter and they are sized for a flow velocity of about 0.13.48.PTS 10.01. consists of a main trunk line with several laterals. The legs of the spider radiate from a central core connected to the feedline. Many different types of inlet distributors have been used in Group applications.2 m/s further design details are given in Fig.

In a spreader with holes or other openings in the top of the pipe. the pipe can become plugged with debris. drilling mud or sand which enters with the oil can fall freely to the bottom of the tank and be washed out with the waste water. 5. This is a function of baffle arrangement. it is common to install a collector pipe at the oil level. The bottom of the laterals are open so that any scale. Fig.Inlet spreader with lateral distributors iv) Oil collectors The type of oil collectors installed in a dehydration tank depends on the flow pattern of the oil at the top of the tank.14).19  February 2011  Page 158    simple to construct than a distributor with sufficient outlets to spreads the flow over the entire crosssectional are (see Fig.00. rust.PTS 10.14 . if indeed baffles are installed at all. In large dehydration tanks. without baffles.01. 5. This collector pipe extends .

15 . Fig. leaving a certain section of the tank opposite the outlet as dead space. In very large units. 5.19  February 2011  Page 159    from the oil outlet point to the opposite side of the tank so that oil is drawn off equally from the section through which it passes.Oil skimmer in baffled tank v) Interface level control The water level in the tank is maintained by an interface level controller. 5. This can be a water leg (syphon) with a fixed spill point or an adjustable spill point. the faster the settling is. This will reduce the oil retention time and may be done on the premise that the higher the emulsion temperature. The top edge of the through can be flat or serrated. which contains a flexible loop section. Drexelbook capacitance probes are used for interface level indication. Tanks fitted with baffles should have an outlet skimmer through fitted. If needed. surrounding the outlet connection (Fig. this arrangement has proved to be fully reliable and effectively maintains the interface level at the set height. This skimmer through consists of an open-top box located inside the tank.15). The device will allow outlet oil to be skimmed from the very top of the settling section deriving full benefit from the settling section's volume. 5. Despite the very low density different between the water and crude oil. Oil-water interface control by adjustable leg is widely and effectively used by Shell Oil in their heavy crude dehydration plants.00. 5. however. In any settling tank the lighter oil channels towards the outlet. A water leg with a fixed spill is the most trouble free. to raise the level of the oil-water interface in the warmer months of the year. the interface level can be adjusted by changing the elevation of the water leg.16. An adjustable type may be desirable.PTS 10.01.10). It is welded to the tank shell or to the shell and baffle plate. . as shown schematically in Fig. outlets are sometimes spaced equally around the tank circumference to provide equal drainage from all parts of the tank. Clean oil simply overflows the lip ofthe pan and is drained from a suction line connected to the pan. A further possibility in an unbaffled tank is to install a collection pan for oil removal (Fig.

A sensor surrounded by sand will measure lower conductivity than a sensor in water.  . The source is often mounted in a dry insertion well inside the vessel close to the wall to minimize the radiation path length and size of the source required.00. the air or gas normally surrounding the electrode is displaced by material having a different dielectric constant.PTS 10. its higher density attenuates more of the energy emitted from the nucleonic source. RF (radio frequency) capacitance instruments detect this change and convert it into a relay actuation or a proportional output signal. The profiler will monitor sand build-up as it gradually increases in levels. The metal rod of the electrode acts as one plate of the capacitor and the tank wall (or reference electrode in a non-metallic vessel) acts as the other plate. The resultant differential is used to calculate the interface level. A change in the value of the capacitor takes place because the dielectric between the plates has changed.01. A nucleonic interface level measurement system typically consists of a detector mounted outside the wall of a vessel and a sealed radiation source.Water legs for interface level control vi) Capacitance Level Probes A capacitor is formed when a level sensing electrode is installed in a vessel. As level from the lower phases rises. 5. Sand build-up on the bottom of the separator is measured using the same principle as oil in water measurements. viii) Nucleonic Interface Level Profiler A nucleonic interface level measurement system uses a nucleonic (radiometric) detector to detect the difference in densities between product/fluid of multiple phases. The conductivity based profiler sensors utilize the conductivity difference to measure the oil in water content. As level rises. vii) Conductivity Based level Profiler The conductivity based profiler measures the electrical conductivity of the water/oil mixture surrounding each sensor.19  February 2011  Page 160    Fig.16 . The overall conductivity will therefore decrease with increasing concentration of oil. Dispersed oil droplets are nonconductive compared to the surrounding water.

But there must be fluid movement throughout this settling section to achieve the full benefit of the volume of the section. Agitation. is not needed. 5.4. Various alternative tank internal design are briefly discussed below.01. .PTS 10. In this respect it is mentioned that KSEPL are developing in dehydration/storage and fuel tanks. Further work is ongoing on testing in high P and T separators and on reducing the effect of fouling. The flow then exist the tank radially to a rim collector. 3) The entry of the liquid at the bottom of the tank through the diffuser does not spread the emulsion adequately enough to effectively wash the emulsion in the water layer.3 Alternative tank designs The operating principles and design features of the simple. vi) Baffle plates Gentle agitation is desirable while emulsion passes through the water layer. displacer type level detection instruments are used for light/medium density crudes where interface emulsions are less of a problem.2. There are three main disadvantages with this type of tank design: 1) The flow in the central area of the tank is turbulent and does 2) The low flowrate at the rim of the weir means that great occurrency is required in the construction of the weir to ensure even distribution through the tank. leaving dead areas in the tank which do not contribute to retention time. since this aids coalescence of water droplets. The device is.1 (Fig 5. showing good prospects.2.2. after the emulsion enters the oil section and begins to settle.00. spreader type dehydration tank. however. i) Rim discharged type (Fig. in NAM and BSP. nor desired.4. Tests have been carried out a. 17) Radial flow characterises this type of construction where the emulsion enters at the centre of the tank through a flow diffuser. This device relies on measurement of the difference in dielectric constant of different fluids.4. were discussed in Section 5. They have recently been applied with good results for continuous dehydration of the land crudes at the Seria Terminal in Brunei. Retention time calculated form total tank volume may be used to reduce the channeling effect. however. They should be designed to provide a long enough retention time if fluid within the tank to achieve the required degree of separation (see also Section 5.o.3). then oil will channel through the settling section. It has been proven by laboratory models that if there is a direct route form the emulsion inlet to the oil outlet.19  February 2011  Page 161    In addition to the use of syphons for interface level control.10). not yet proven/suitable for the E & P environment.5.

19  February 2011  Page 162    Fig. 5.18) This design attempts to produce a long horizontal flow path. Flow entry occurs through a triangular weir arrangement which is positioned normal to the fluid flow.00. iii) Multiple baffle type (Fig. . Its primary advantage is that it is a simple and consequently low cost design.PTS 10. The flow enters on one side of the baffle and exits immediately adjacent in the other side of the baffle.17 – Rim discharge type dehydration tank ii) Single baffle type A single baffle extends from the wall to the centre of the tank. Although subsidiary baffles may be installed to initiate desired flow paths. Only partial success is achieved as the numerous reversals in the direction of flow disturb the settling process and lead to incomplete use of the available tank volume. 5.01. it is unlikely that full use of the tank volume is achieved.

Multiple baffle type dehydration tank iv) Creole type (Fig. The oil and water are drawn off from the centre of tank above the spreader. 5.5.01.19 . .20) This design of tank consists of a spreader plate located a few feet of the tank bottom. The spiral baffle arrangement gives better usage of tank volume and reasonably quiescent conditions. Incoming enters at the centre of the underside of the spreader plate.PTS 10.19  February 2011  Page 163    Fig. 5. Good flow distribution on the underside of the plate is assisted by radial baffles.00. 5.19) This design is similar to the multiple baffle type in that it aims for a long horizontal flow path.18 . Fig. At the outer edge if the spreader plate a water wash will occur as the water level in the tank is held above the spreader plate.Creole type dehydration tank v) Spreader plate type (Fig. This tank has been shown to operate successfully but is very expensive to construct.

01.21). good distribution around the outer edges of the tank means the flow velocity is minimised and thus settling is encouraged.4 The concentric wash tank The concentric wash tank (CWT) consists of an outer and an inner tank. Gas evolved in the feed steam is liberated in the outer section. Firstly. both covered by one roof (Fig.2. free water droplets will settle to the bottom of the tank. The large oil/gas interfacial area and the substantial retention volume in the outer section ensures that gas liberation has proceeded to completion prior to the oil moving into the inner tank. . The operating principle is as follows.00.19  February 2011  Page 164    Fig. A further 10-20 slots have been cut in the internal wall just above the tank bottom so that free water settling out at the bottom of the outer tank can flow into the inner tank. The outer tank therefore acts as free water knockout and degasser. 5. As coalescence occurs mainly at the interface this is a useful feature. In this way the emulsion is gently agitated by the upward moving oil. 5. The oil-water interface in the inner tank is controlled at a level just above the oil inlet nozzles. the oil/water interface area is effectively doubled. where there is a water layer. The oil carrying the residual water enters the inner tank via a number (typically 8-15) of separate nozzles. Secondly.20 .PTS 10.4. 5. which enhances the coalescence of water droplets.Spreader plate type dehydration tank Several features of this tank design are conducive to dehydration. Wet crude is introduced into the outer tank through two tangential pipes arranged 180° apart. As the wet crude flows into the outer tank.

Large scale 8000 m³ (50. BEB. Furthermore. but not all the advantages of CWTs are attained. Their operating performance is satisfactory. with rising water cuts the heaters may become overloaded and a free water knock-out tank may need to be installed.the CWT concept has shown to be very effective on in particular heavy. In addition. but it uses two separate tanks for the (through) degassing/free water separation and dehydration steps. Twin wash tanks have been used in Nigeria and the concept was recommended recently for a new dehydration system at the Bonny Terminal (Nigeria). This system is based on the same principle as the CWT.00.PTS 10. unless the inner tank is sufficiently strong.000 bbl) wash tanks have been in operation in Oman since 1982. the inner tank wall may collapse. viscous crude streams. In the meantime FWKO tanks have been installed in their Riman and Marmul facilities. The settling process is thus unaffected by convective currents which could result in potential thermal gradients and subsequent shortcircuiting.5% vol. can be obtained.000 b/d). and thus more residence time for the water) otherwise the outer tank will overflow. The main attraction of this system is that it can be constructed from existing fixed roof storage tanks. the twin wash concept has been developed. temperature changes in the incoming emulsion are neutralised in the outer tank. as occurred in PDO.01. Entrained water levels in the oil outlet stream of 1-1. 2) If heating is required to dehydrate the oil.8°API Tia Juana crude (124.19  February 2011  Page 165    The inner tank is insulated by the outer tank from wall thermal effects. . As an alternative to the concentric wash tank. It cannot be raised indefinitely (to accommodate higher water cuts. BSP and SSB). The concentric wash tank has been extensively tested in a number if pilot trials in various operating companies (NAM. Following successful pilot testing on heavy crudes (11-20°API). respectively. The concentric wash tank has disadvantages: 1) The limited flexibility of the oil/water interface level. Maraven (Venezuela) are installing CWTs for their 11.

the partitioned concentric wash tank.22) During trials with CWTs it became evident that the rotational movement in the outer and inner tank as claimed by the original design did not occur. viscous crudes.PCWT (Fig.24.00. 5. .PTS 10. To promote the circular movement in these tanks and thus reduce the risk of shortcircuiting between inlets and outlets.01. 5.19  February 2011  Page 166    Fig. 5.21 – Concentric wash tank • Partitioned concentric wash tank . has been developed. Good dehydration performance was observed during trials with a 160 m³ tank on very heavy (density 980 kg/m³). as schematically shown in Fig.

00. Fig. therefore. can be stimulated by the application of coalescence media. It cannot. In the following sections these coalescence promoters are briefly discussed.PTS 10. by specially designed coalescer pipes. yet be identified as fully proven in operation and should not be considered as a first choice design.01.19  February 2011  Page 167    Note: This PCWT concept has been installed at Maraven.4. .3 Coalescers The coalescence of destabilised emulsions. which normally takes place in pipeline and/or in coalescence zones (dispersion bands) of oil-water separators or settling tanks. 5. but data on performance are not yet available. Actual oil-water separation then takes place in a subsequent settling section or settling tank. or by the application of an electrical field.22 – Partitioned concentric wash tank 5.

.4.01. The water content of the crude oil at the outlet is typically in the range of 0. when mixing conditions prevailing in an existing crude handling system are unsuitable to achieve the required coalescer pipe can be considered.3 Electrostatic coalescers Electrostatic coalescers are pressure vessels fitted with electric grid internals and are suitable for deep dehydration of crude oil.4.5% vol. Typical electrostatic coalescer designs are shown in Fig. See also Section 2.4.1 to 0. Free design variables of a coalescer pipe are: • pipe length • pipe diameter • number of pipes The free design variables can be used to manipulate the following dependent variables.19  February 2011  Page 168    5.2 Coalescer pipes In many cases mixing conditions in transport lines are of the required magnitude to promote coalescence. Labour cost and the problem of disposal of used coalescer packs have so far prevented large scale application of coalescer packs for crude oil dehydration.3.5). salt and wax. however. coalescer pipes are more commonly used. 5. rather than for dehydration purposes. The units are relatively compact and therefore suitable for use offshore. 5. which are all related to the total flowrate and which govern the flow regime: • pressure drop across the coalescer pipe • flowrate in wash pipe (overall flowrate is fixed) • retention time • mixing intensity parameter.ε • flow regime In this manner. media coalescence has more promise for the deoiling of effluent waters (see Section 6.4. and then they have to be changed out. However.1 Coalescence media Plant fibers are a suitable coalescer material for water-in-oil emulsions and many types if unitised emulsion treaters are equipped with "hay sections".3.3. In the field. for coalescing oil droplets dispersed in water. by designing for conditions expected to be favourable for good coalescence.4 for further aspects of pipeline coalescence.PTS 10.00.23. The chief drawback of these coalescer beds is that they usually plug up after a short time with sediment. However. 5. a piping system may be planned.

otherwise electrical short circuiting will occur. However. dependent on unit size. effectively doubling the throughput potential. In this case the watercuts of the feed stream should be limited to 10% vol. however. Voltages of up to several tents of kilovolt are being used.PTS 10. In practice. Both types can handle feed watercuts in excess of 20% vol. A relatively recent development in electrostatic design is the bi-electric unit. .. Conventional electrostatic coalescers feature an AC field whereas some of the later designs use an AC-DC field combination which have higher throughput capabilities. 5. Bulk oil-water separation occurs in the lower half of the vessel and relatively dry crude moves up into the grid section.23 – Electrostatic coalescers. Deep dehydration occurs in the grid section due to the enhanced coalescence conditions which are created by the action of the electrical field. Electrostatic coalescers are widely used in refineries for crude desalting (Section 5. There are also applications in the E & P field.5) and dehydration to achieve very high dehydration efficiencies. from 5-25 kW (excluding energy consumption required for heating of the crude).00. throughputs of only 50% higher than the conventional design can be achieved. The energy consumption of electrostatic coalescers is relatively low and varies.19  February 2011  Page 169    Fig. the units are sophisticated and maintenance of the electrical equipment has proven to be relatively difficult. In this case the feed stream is introduced directly into two grid sections.01.

in which they are developing a multistage electrostatic coalescer.4 Centrifuges High-speed centrifuges have been used for many years for separating liquid-liquid dispersions. and many others.4. Solids and sludge handling requirements may roughly double the volume of the coalescer.24 . Fluctuations in the feed require a voltage control for the first stage only. leaving the full efficiency of the subsequent stages. Conventional electrostatic separators employ an upward flow through the electrode/gravity residence time. thus leaving a reduction of a factor of 5. Consequently . recently in uranium extractions.19  February 2011  Page 170    KSLA have a research programme ongoing on compact separators.Two-stage electrostatic coalescer under development 5. Staging the electrodes permits handling of higher watercuts as each stages has an electrical field optimal to the water concentration. leading to much dead space. Furthermore. Fig. conventional electrostatic coalescers have simple liquid distributors and scale-up characteristics. a reduction in residence time by a factor of 10 is possible. 5. In Fig.01.24 a schematic is shown of the KSLA multistage electrostatic coalescer under development. 5. In the KSLA design. yet a poor droplet separation. for example in the separation of caustic solutions and oils in the soap-making process.00. a downward flow of the oil and water mixture is utilised. By enhancing both the settling and coalescence rates by increased settling forces (up to 5000 g is achievable) centrifuges reduce the residence times considerably. Estimation of the comparative performance of this coalescer with available coalescer types indicates that for dispersions that do not contain solids or form sludge. This reduction is obtained by optimisation of the two necessary steps (electrostatic coalescence and gravity separation) separately.PTS 10. and the use of better internals.

Fig. Centrifuges have so far not been routinely applied in E & P operations.PTS 10. the direction of wich determines the path of the droplet or particle. 5. The machine comprises a frame containing in its lower part a horizontal drive shaft with friction clutch and brake. but they are being used for dewatering of refinery sludges. the particles or droplet reaching the underside of disk BB'. however.Particles trajectory through inclined rotating disks The process liquid enters the separation channel at radius r 1 flows through the channel and leaves at r2. a particle must be deposited on the upper disk BB' before reaching B'. In order to be separated out. Separation of water droplets and particles takes place as the liquid flows through the channel with velocity w.. acting in the direction of the periphery of the bowl.25.19  February 2011  Page 171    their sizes can be much reduced for a certain throughput.00.26 shows a schematic of a solids ejecting disk separator. before flowing to the outlet.5. as compared to a conventional emulsion treatment vessel of similar capacity. The sum of these velocities gives a resultant velocity v p.01. 5. The frame hood carries the feed and discharge systems. worm gear and a vertical bowl spindle and in its upper part the bowl. thus moves outward towards the periphery of the bowl under the influence of the centrifugal force. . The centrifugal force acts on individual droplets and imparts on them the sedimenting velocity v. The principle of separating a dispersion (and solids) in a centrifuge. is illustrated in Fig. Since the liquid velocity w along the disk surface is near zero.25 . The bowl is of the self-cleaning disk type with a water manoeuvred hydraulic operating system for controlled solids particles discharged and is fixed on top of the spinder inside the space formed by the upper part of the frame and frame hood. Fig.

Recently NAM also tested a centrifuge on a crude of about 20°API.00.01. The dehydrated oil contained .e.PTS 10. In the recent tests. Separators of this type are commercially available with capacities ranging from 1 to 200 m³/hr bulk feed.19  February 2011  Page 172    Fig. A centrifuge for oil-water separation was first tested 1982/83 by NAM and KSEPL on stable water-incondensate emulsions. 5. The settling depth is minimised by a stack of conical disks (clearance ± 2-10 mm).Solids ejecting disk centrifuge Separation takes place in the rotating bowl (generating some 5000 g forces). or as a clarifier for separating oil from sludge and small quantities of water. with potentially much higher savings possible for offshore operations. Economic considerations indicated that the centrifugal separation technique could result in savings of up to 50% as compared to costs of a conventional onshore crude oil processing plant.26 . Both types have been tested by NAM and the three phase decanter is successfully used as sludge thickener. The solid sludge. The operating performances of the permanent installation and the test units have been remarkably good. There is virtually no oil loss. Centrifuges could either be used as oil-water separators or as oil-water-solids separators. . wet. The operating temperature was 40°C rather than the normal dehydration temperature of 70-80°C.3%(vol. sand). Clean oil and the separated water are discharged continuously under pressure (± 3 barga) by built-in paring disk pumps.) water was passthrough a 2 m³/h capacity test unit. accumulating at the periphery of the bowl is expelled in small portions at frequent intervals with no interrupted of the flow of oil through the separators. degassed crude containing 6.8% (vol. The bowl can be arranged either as a purifier for oil with a high water content and some sludge (i.) water. Only sludge and a small proportion of the separated water is ejected during the short period of bowl opening. whilst the water contained 50-200 g/m³ oil.

5 Condensate dehydration 5. This is due to a number of factors. When the condensate/gas ratio in the pipeline is large. The design/sizing guidelines are the same as for crude oil dehydration (see Section 7. The performance of a plate pack separator can be further improved by ensuring that the liquids are completely degassed prior to entering the plate pack section. offshore) then plate pack internals can be installed in the separator (see Section 5. there is insufficient gas available to absorb the free water in the condensate. When the dehydration specification is relatively "relaxed".5% (v/v) if properly designed. Such a system can remove free water down to a level of less than 0.1 Free (dispersed) water removal The principles involved in the dehydration of condensate are basically similar to those for the dehydration of oil. In general. . Provided that the gas has been sufficiently "overdried". The best performance figures achieved to date is dehydration down to 400 ppm(v) free water. it will be necessary to dehydrate both the gas and the condensate to prevent corrosion of the pipeline. Commercial vendors. gas/liquid) production separator.PTS 10. condensate is more amenable to dehydration than oil due to its lower density and lower viscosity. supply units of this type. a cartridge type coalescer system can be used. is provided between the production separator and the plate pack separator. The relatively large amount of remaining free water in the condensate. the water dew point of the gas will still remain below the minimum pipeline temperature even after absorbing the additional water from the condensate. typically down to 500 ppm(v). In this situation it is necessary to remove all the free (dispersed) water from the condensate prior to comingling with the dried gas and entering the pipeline. free water will exist which will cause corrosion of the pipeline. The units consist of a number of cartridge type fibrous coalescencer elements. Consequently. it is possible to dry the gas in a glycol dehydration system and remove most of the free water from the condensate prior to entry in the export pipeline. When the gas contains carbon dioxide. When the condensate/gas ratio in the pipeline is low. In some cases the gas and condensate are transported together through a single export pipeline to processing facilities onshore. Experience has indicated that vendors tend to be over optimistic when predicting performance of their units.1. The coalescencers are also sensitive to solids blockage. the principal ones being flow rate fluctuations in reality through the units and the presence if corrosion inhibitor in the condensate. The condensate and water leaving the production separator will be completely degassed.2).e.5.19  February 2011  Page 173    5. 5. or cooling.2). so it is recommended to install a filter unit upstream of the coalescer.g.00. such as Peco and KnitMesh.4.4.2 Dissolved water removal In most cases natural gas production is associated with liquid hydrocarbons and water.5. If the dehydration specification is "tighter" or where it is desirable to minimise the size of the separation equipment (e. For very deep removal of free water from condensate.01. This can be achieved by having the plate pack installed in a separate vessel downstream of a two-phase (i. Gas breakout will be prevent if sufficient static head. the use of three-phase separators (see Section 5.1) will be sufficient.

A computer programme has been developed at KSLA for simulating this process. The rewetted gas from the condensate stripping column is recycled back to the glycol tower. which then allows the free water (which is present in the form of small droplets) to dissolve into the condensate. However.1) prior to the stripping process since: i) it limits the required residence time (i. glycol towers) and this dried gas is used as a stripping medium for the condensate. The process can be accelerated by dispersing the water as possible should be removed from the condensate by other means (see section 5. The limiting steps of this process is the mass transfer rate of free water from the droplets compared to the gas-liquid interfacial area.27 .00. The physical mechanism of this stripping process is that the dry gas strips out the dissolved water from the condensate. The gas is dried by conventional means (e. The cost implications of this should not be overlooked.5. ii) it is also limits the required flow rate of the stripping gas (i.27). molsieves.01. 5. This process continues until all the free water has dissolved into the condensate. the performance of the column is very sensitive to the incoming condensate.g. . Furthermore. this drying process operates continuously and can handle small amounts of water droplets on a routine basis. Contrary to the use of e.19  February 2011  Page 174    Fig. 5. the recycling of gas from the condensate stripping column to the glycol dehydration system results in the requirement of a larger glycol dehydration system. column diameter ).e.g.Simplified process flow scheme for condensate dehydration This method developed to handle this problem is as follows (Fig. which also takes into account water droplet size and residence time distribution of the condensate at the stripper column trays. the number if stripper column trays and column height).e.PTS 10.

Salt is dissolved in the water phase and therefore if the percentage by volume of residual water and its salt content are known. For some oil fields (e. for which largevolumes of wash required. Typical desalting process flow schemes are given in Fig. Gabon) the salinity of the produced water so high that the crude oil needs to be desalted in a process additional to the normal dehydration process. . 5.g. A dehydrated crude is usually desalted in two steps: • salty water in the crude oil is diluted by the addition of water (with low salt concentration) upstream of a mixing device (e. the saline water contained in the crude is diluted with low salinity (fresh) water. To reduce the volumes of fresh water required.g. g/m³ Y = residual water. the production fluids are first dehydrated. % vol.00.PTS 10.01. in order to meet the crude export salt specification.28. In a desalting process. and therefore purchasers/refineries set an upper limit on the salt content of the crude to be processed (typically 72 g/m³). For very saline crudes. pump). the amount of salt per unit of crude oil can be estimated from the equation: crude oil salt content where: K · Y g/m K = salt concentration of residual water.19  February 2011  Page 175    5. This is done to minimise the volume of required wash water and to make use of the heat absorbed by the water.6 Desalting The salinity of wet crude oil is determined by the salt concentration in the associated water and the percentage of water in the crude. Salt in crude oil leads to corrosion of pipelines and fouling of heat exchangers. • the crude oil is dehydrated again. the dehydrated water from the second stage dehydrator is recycled.

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 176 
 
Fig. 5.28 - Desalting systems with and without recycle

It is important that the dilution water is thoroughly mixed with the crude oil. Adequate mixing is usually
provided by premixers and control valves. In such a mixing process best results are obtained when the
fresh water added to the crude is dispersed to droplets of about the same size as that of the original saltcontaining droplets. If this step is omitted mainly the coarse, fresh water droplets will be separated in the
subsequent settling stage. This results in inefficient desalination. The mixing intensity to be applied by a
mixing valve will depend on the required size of the droplets to which the wash water is to be dispersed,
and can be controlled by the pressure drop over the valve. A promising new development is the
application of static mixers downstream of the mixing valve, which promote more efficient mixing.
The emulsion droplets formed by the mixing valve may be too small for quick separation. Hence, these
droplets should get sufficient opportunity to collide and coalesce with the brine droplets, not only to obtain
sufficiently large droplets, but also to achieve an equal distribution of the salt over all droplets.
The required coalescence can be obtained by passing the fresh-water/crude emulsion resulting from the
mixing valve for a sufficiently long time through a coalescer pipe of suitable size. Mixing intensities in the
4

range of 2 x 10³ to 10 cm²/s³ (100 to 500 psi/hr) may be adequate for this purpose.
The longer the retention time of the fluid in the coalescer pipe, the more opportunity is given to the
droplets to coalesce to the maximum droplet size possible at a given mixing intensity.
The retention time that can be realised, however, will largely be determined by the available pumping
power. Thus, forcing 20,000 b/d of a 19°API crude oil (+ water) through a 6" coalescer pipe at a mixing
intensity E = 500 psi/hr will require a pressure of about 6.8 psi per 100 m of pipe (per 100 m of pipe T =
0.0135 hours).

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 177 
 
Obviously, to obtain coalescence in the coalescer pipe, the fresh-water/crude oil emulsion should be well
destabilised (by an effective demulsifier and a sufficiently high temperature).
The amount of dilution water required in a desalting process can be estimated from the following
equation:

Dilution water required

K
K

K
K

·

Y
E

(as % vol. of crude flow)
where:

K1 =

salt concentration of residual water (before desalting), g/m³

K2 =

salt concentration of dilution water, g/m³

K3 =

salt concentration of water in the desalted crude needed to give the required crude oil
salt content, g/m³

Y=
E=

residual water, % vol.
empirical mixing efficiency (typical 0.5 to 0.6)

Desalting is a continuous process in which electrostatic coalescers are often used as dehydrators,
particularly in refineries. In refineries mostly stripped process water is used as dilution water while in EP
operations fresh water from lakes or rivers can be used, as well as salinity aquifer water. Care should be
taken that the dilution water is compatible with the production water to avoid scaling problems with the
equipment.

5.7

Sludge treatment

One of the most common problems in an oil/water separation process is the build-up of an unbroken
emulsions layer or sludge at the oil/water interface. This can be the result of upsets in the demulsifier
injection system, the presence of wax, scale, sand particles or corrosion products, or the occurrence of
zones of high mixing energy in the treatment facilities.
Where possible, the production of sludge should be prevented or reduced, primarily by treatment with
chemicals and/or application of heat. However, in many cases there may still be unbroken residues,
whatever the method of treatment that is being used. In such cases the sludge has to be removed from
the separation vessels and be treated separately and/or disposed of. Under no circumstances should an
unbroken sludge layer be recycled into the treatment process. There are numerous examples where
recirculation of sludge merely lead to a further accumulation in the separation vessels, thus aggravating
the problem.
Sludge treatment will depend on the method of disposal to be used, which will in turn depend on local
circumstances and governmental regulations. In offshore operations there are limited possibilities for the
treatment of sludge. Depending on the amounts of sludge formed, the best route for sludge disposal is in
the crude export. This allows dilution of sludge with the crude oil to perhaps a level that still meets crude
export specifications, or further treatment in onshore separation and treatment facilities. In this respect it
should be noted that currently there is no offshore production of heavy crude oil in Group operations, thus
reducing the (potential) problem of offshore treatment and disposal of sludge significantly.
In onshore operations a separate sludge treatment system is usually incorporated in a settling plant.
Sludges can originate from:

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 178 
 

settling and storage tanks;

a crude desalting process;

a waste water treatment process.

Upon removal and collection of sludges from the treatment facilities, usually the oily sludges are first
dewatered and when possible deoiled before disposal. In such processes the sludge can be treated
further with chemicals, with heat treatment, it can be centrifuged or it may be passed through a high
pressure filter press.
For the disposal of sludge residues there are three main routes available, viz.:

Dumping or landfill

This has traditionally been a major route for the disposal of (refinery) sludges. Permission for dumping or
landfilling often depends on the classification of the waste: properties such as toxic, hazardous,
nonhazardous are considered. Sometimes this classification is based on the oil or heavy metal content,
its agitation temperature or whether it is volatile or reactive.

Incineration

This is the second disposal route for dewatered sludges. When the amount of sludge to be incinerated is
too small for installing own facilities, incineration may be done by contractors or by a central incinerator
owned by industry/municipality.

Land treatment of oily sludge

Land treatment of sludge is based on the biodegradation of hydrocarbons by micro-organisms that are
naturally present in the soil. It is a simple and cheap technique, but in some countries it is not allowed.
Food crops should not be grown on the land treatment, and if vegetation is allowed to grow, it should
rather be ploughed back into the soil.
5.8 Dehydration of heavy (<16° API) crudes
Group experience, outside North America, for the dehydration of heavy crude oils is based largely on the
concentric wash tank concept described in Section 5.4.2.4. In North America, a research programme
iscurrently being undertaken by Shell Oil. Preliminary conclusions are as follows :
For 3.0% BS&W discharge
Perforated baffle treaters, dehydration tanks, and desalters offer the most capital cost-effective means of
dehydrating 11° API to 16° API crude oils to the presently acceptable 3.0 BS&W level. Further, an 11°
API crude oil is best treated at approximately 120°C while approximately 90°C appears suitable for higher
gravity oils. Thus 11° API crude oils should be treated in perforated baffle treaters or desalters as
dehydration tanks cannot operate above 100 °C. Decanters begin to play a role for gravities higher than
13° API. Decanters are not recommended for this service as they will have high operating costs
(maintenance and horsepower) and lack oil field data. They may, however, become attractive offshore
(small size and weigh) and for sump oil treatment.
The capital cost for treating an 11° API oil is approximately twice that for a 13° API oil and six times that
for a 16° API crude. Operating coasts should not vary significantly as higher temperature systems will
employ heat recovery. The above thus can serve as a guide for selecting treating gravity for very heavy
oils (less than 10° API) that must be blended with light oil.

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 179 
 
For 1.0% BS&W discharge
This can be achieved most capital cost-effectively for 11° to 16° API crudes by desalters, flash
evaporators, and perforated baffle treaters. In all cases, the treating temperature should be 120°C to
150°C. Desalters appear most efficient with flash evaporators also feasible for 11° API crudes and
perforated baffle treaters becoming feasible for 16° API crudes.
An 11° API crude treatment requires approximately twice the capital cost of that for a 13° API crude and
five times that for a 16° API crude.
Desalters appear to be the preferred method of achieving the desired 1.0% BS&W. This applies to new
vessels or retrofits of existing dehydration vessels. Flash evaporates, as mentioned previously, will
increase the salt content of the crude that may incur a penalty to its value.
 

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 180 
 
6

DEOILING EQUIPMENT AND PROCESSES

6.1

General principles

The water separated in a dehydration process always contains some oil, the quantity of which varies from
several tens to hundreds of ppm oil-in-water. Depending on the nature of the disposal method, a further
reduction in the oil content of production water is required. Deoiling equipment is required for the
treatment of produced water prior to disposal or further process use (e.g. steam raising, water injection).
As mentioned previously, the removal of finely dispersed oil from production water is effected in a
number of steps similar to a dehydration process, viz. destabilisation, coalescence and gravity
separation. Except in cases of very fine/stubborn oil-in-water emulsions, only the last two steps are
required in a deoiling process.
Methods currently available for de-oiling can be categorised as follows:
6.1.1

Removal of suspended oil

The types of equipment for suspended oil removal are listed below, together with an indication of
expected performance.
System

Suspended oil content (g/m³)

Gravity type
- Skim tanks

50-1500

- Skim pipes

50-1500

- API interceptors

50-100

- Separators

40-100

- Hydrocyclones

15-40

Gas flotation type
- Induced gas flotation

15-40

- Dissolved gas flotation

15-40

Filtration

10-30

Flocculation/flotation

5-20

The choice and performance of a deoiler system depends on the quantity/quality of the feedwater and on
the required residual oil concentration. In many E & P operations, a combination of the separation types
listed above is used to achieve the desired water quality.
The use of hydrocyclones, particularly for offshore applications where sufficient feedwater pressure is
available, has recently gained Group acceptance. They are now the preferred solution offshore
production water disposal.

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 181 
 
6.1.2

Removal of dissolved oil

Facilities for removal of dissolved oil have not yet been widely used in E & P operations. The main
process alternatives are:

Biotreatment

Activated carbon adsorption

Steam stripping

The various process units are discussed in the following sections. It should be noted that, in many cases,
the most appropriate process option can only be selected after extensive field testing.

6.2

Gravity separators

6.2.1

Skim tanks

Skim tanks are often as first stage oily water separators. A typical design of a skim tank is shown in
Fig.6.1.

. In such a case. thus allowing for intermittent surges and inadvertent slugs of free oil in the incoming flow. The skim tank shown in Fig. Small droplets will have a net downward velocity and these will be carried away with the water flow.19  February 2011  Page 182    Fig.PTS 10. The 'deoiled' water leaves the tank via an adjustable syphon which maintains the levels the tank at the right height for optimum skimming.1 can also act as a buffer tank. Oily water enters the tank via an inlet spreader. 6. 6.01.1 – Schematic of a skim tank Skim tanks operate in a manner similar to continuous dehydration tanks. but here we are concerned with the removal of oil droplets rather than water droplets. Oil cannot be skimmed continuously (unless a floating skimmer is installed). Water flows to the bottom of the tank. and oil droplets rise against the downward water flow according to Stokes' Law.00. The tank should be sized such that droplets larger than approximately 150 µm are not entrained with the water phase. Large oil droplets will achieve a net upward velocity and will eventually reach the surface to form an oil layer which is continuously skimmed. the tank is usually kept half full. instead the oil is removed at regular intervals by adjusting the levels in the tank and draining the oil through the oil outlet valve. The oil concentration in the water at the tank outlet will be dependent on the oil droplet sizes and the type of crude. and may vary between 50 and 1500 g/m³.

2 – Skim pile flow pattern Flow through the multiple series of baffle plates creates quiescent zones that reduce the distance a given oil droplet must rise to be separated from the main flow.6. which originates either from rainwater or washdown water. only separation of the oil droplets. Thus. including it . 6. Fig. is oxygen laden.2 Skim piles A skim pile is a long attached to a platform and extending below the surface of the water a series of baffles that allow for gravity separation of the oil droplets. The net effect of the baffles is to reduce this rise distances so as to capture smaller droplets. however. when considering offshore locations.PTS 10. only those droplets whose diameter is large enough that their vertical velocity overcomes the full downward velocity of the water discharge will be able to rise to the surface. In an open sump without such baffles. For intermittent or during period of no flow. Once in the quiescent zone. 6. Space and weight requirements are disadvantages.00. and became trapped and protected from being swept back into the flow stream when flow is resumed. Fig. there is plenty of time for droplet-droplet coalescence. The action of the skim pile is enhanced by coalescence that occurs as a result of the long retention times and low energy input.2 shows a cross section of a patented skim-pile design. oil droplets rise to the area of the quiescent zone. In an open sump without such baffles. This flow.2.19  February 2011  Page 183    Skim tanks simple and economical for primary oily water treatment.01. It is corrosive and irregular in flow rate. and the resulting larger droplets then migrate up the underside of the baffle to an oil-collection system. Skim piles also provide a method for treating deck drainage.

Fig. Oil droplets rise to the surface according to Stokes' Law.2. this flow must gravitate to a low point for collection and either be pumped up to a higher level for treatment or be treated at that low point.API interceptor showing typical arrangement for two parallel basins. and it minimises commingling in the process since it is the last piece of treating equipment before disposal.00.3 API oil interceptor A standard API oil interceptor is shown in Fig. The skim pile can be protected from corrosion.PTS 10. 6. and by design is located low enough on the platform to eliminate the need for pumping the water.6. The interceptor consists of a rectangular basin which is divided into a number of channels. .3. Skim piles are excellent for this purpose. but the operation of the skim pile can continue). .19  February 2011  Page 184    in water treating equipment could cause upsets. it contains no small passages subject to plugging by scale build-up.3. Influent water is distributed across the basin by a vertical slotted baffle and flows down the channels under conditions approximating laminar flow. The skim pile is not affected severely by large instantaneous flow-rate changes (effluent quality may be affected to some extent.01. 6. Finally.

it is necessary to check and possibly adjust the skimming levels once or twice per shift.PTS 10. 6.4 – Plate coalescence The inclusion of plates effectively reduces the hydraulic radius and maintains laminar flow conditions at significantly higher flow rates than with an empty vessel. As the oil layer builds up. The slop oil is drained from the pit intermittently baffle and leaves the interceptor over a weir. plate interceptors for effluent water clean up are often designed to remove about 95% of oils droplets larger than 60µm. These units cannot be expected to remove finely dispersed particles or emulsified oil. the skimmings may entrain a significant quantity of water which can lead to emulsification problems when slops are recycled. If left unattended. It may be necessary from time to time to remove an accumulation of solids which builds up on the bottom of the basin.19  February 2011  Page 185    Floating oil is held within the interceptor basin by an oil retention baffle. it is removed by a skimming device and flows into an oil slop pit along with some water.00.4 Plate interceptors Plate interceptors were initially developed by installing a series of parallel plates into an API separator. API interceptors are usually designed to remove 95% of all droplets above 150µm. although the value of 60 µm can be varied by choosing different plate . or to prevent escape of explosive gases into the atmosphere. An interceptor with plate internals will have a greater efficiency in terms of oil removal than an API interceptor. In view of its relatively small size a plate interceptor can be enclosed to reduce evaporation losses/undesirable odours. APIs are not normally labour intensive in their operation. The maximum rising height of an oil droplet is reduced and the underside of each plates acts as a coalescing surface. In so far as there is a standard. and it can therefore be considerably smaller to achieve the same performance.2. The continued build-up of such solids will adversely affect the performance of an API. Weight and space requirements are prohibitive for offshore application of API interceptors.01. The performance of a plate interceptor can be varied by varying the plate spacing. In practice it is preferable to incline the plates so that coalesced oil droplets can flow upwards to reach the surface of the water and suspended solids can fall downwards to collect on the bottom of the enclosing vessel (see Fig 6. however.4) Fig 6.

5 . Fig. The oil moves up the plates and accumulates at the surface where it is removed by skimming. the steeper angles being employed when fouling from solids can be anticipated.19  February 2011  Page 186    spacings. 6. A number of designs for plate interceptors are available from various manufacturers. Larger spacings should be used when fouling from suspended solids or wax build-up is a potential problem. . Typical names are parallel plate interceptor (PPI). tilted plate interceptor (TPI) and corrugated plate interceptor (CPI).Standard CPI The deoiled water flows over another weir into the outlet channel.01. Water entering the CPI first passes through a trash rack for removal of any coarse material and then flows over the inlet weir and through a corrugated plate pack where oil droplets separate from the water.1 The corrugated plate interceptor (CPI) A standard CPI is shown in Fig. 6.PTS 10.4. 6.2.00. all operating on a similar principle. Inclination of the plates is normally in the range 45-60°.5. The normal range for plate spacings is 20-40 mm.

6 – Corrugated plate pace arrangements The body of the CPI. shown in Figure 6.6. The different arrangements are shown in Fig. The cross flow mode is particularly suited to installation in a pressure vessel where the direction of liquid flow is across the vessel.7. which are stacked in a parallel fashion with a plate spacing of typically 20 mm. the plates can be installed in cross flow mode rather than downflow (or upflow.01.19  February 2011  Page 187    The corrugated plate pack consists of a number of corrugated plates (usually GRP). . 6. In order to save space (important offshore) or to reduce the cost of a unit (typically by 30%).PTS 10. as preferred by some suppliers).00. is constructed in concrete. Figure 6. which is typical for the treatment of effluent water in land based installation.

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 188 
 
Figure 6.7 – Corrugated plate interceptor

Plate packs can also be housed in steel containers or pressure vessels allowing the use of a gas blanket
when operation must be carried out in an oxygen free environment (see Fig. 6.8)
During operation of plate separators it is often necessary to clean the plate packs. Suitable lighting
equipment should be installed.
Fig. 6.8 – Plate separators manufactured by ‘Skimmovex’

Commercially sized CPIs are capable of removing droplets larger than 50 µm. Although the efficiency of a
CPI depends on the nature of the feed, particularly the oil droplet size distribution, typical oil content
levels in the effluent are in the order of 50 to 100 g/m³.

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 189 
 
In tests at various offshore locations, it was demonstrated that a polypropylene mesh interceptor when
placed in the downstream section of a CPI, could substantially enhance the CPI's water treating/oil
removal performance, reducing an average effluent water quality of about 50 ppm oil-in-water to around
35 ppm. Problems with solids laden emulsion were experienced, however, and regular cleaning of the
fibers was required. Moreover, the flowrates tested were relatively low, and performance at higher
flowrates is currently not known.
6.2.4.2 The Natco Performax coalescer
CE Natco has introduced a deoiling device referred to as the Performax Coalescer (Fig. 6.9). It is not a
coalescer in the true sense of the word, but a form of plate separator, which in the 'standard' package is
designed to separate oil droplets of 60 µm (cf. the standard TPI). The plates are replaced by a plastic
matrix material which may be fitted in to conventional horizontal vessel, or retrofitted to existing vessels
using compression retaining rings. 'Blocks' of the matrix material are taken into a vessel through a
manhole and assembled into a continuous structure inside.
Care is required when treating oily water containing sand and wax particles, since fouling of the plates
may occur.

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 190 
 
Fig. 6.9 – Natco Performax Coalescer

6.3

Gas flotation units.

Gas flotation is the process by which oil droplets (and some solid particles) are removed from water by
attachment to rising gas bubbles. An oily scum forms on the water surface which is subsequently
removed by skimming. Commercial gas flotation units are categorized into two principal types by the way
in which the gas bubbles are generated:
i)

Induced gas flotation units - bubbles are mechanically generated by the rotation of an impeller.

ii)

Dissolved gas flotation units - bubbles are generated by pressure reduction of water which has
previously been saturated with H2S-free gas at an elevated pressure.

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 191 
 
In the case of treatment of production waters for re-injection, the absence of oxygen in the treated water
is normally essential. The produced water on arrival at the wellhead will be oxygen free and it is preferred
that it remains so, thus avoiding the necessity to include expensive oxygen removal equipment. In this
case the use of hydrocarbon gas or nitrogen to form the flotation bubbles is generally recommended.
6.3.1

Induced gas flotation (IGF) units.

Induced or dispersed gas flotation units are the most common choice for oil field use. They are normally
small packaged units which can be skid mounted (see Fig. 6.10). Because of their small size and low
operating weight they are particularly suitable for installation offshore.
Fig. 6.10 – Wemco depurator

Typical of induced gas flotation units is the Wemco depurator, which consists of four flotation cells
connected in series, each providing a residence time of one minute for the water at the manufacturers
recommended design throughput. The feedwater is usually dosed with 2 to 5 g/m³ of polyelectrolyte to
help improve the separation efficiency and produce a stable froth.
The operating mechanism can be described by considering one of the flotation cells, see Fig. 6.11.
Rotation of the star shaped impeller creates a region of low pressure. As a result, gas is drawn down the
standpipe and water moves in towards the impeller. At the foot of the standpipe water and gas are forced
into contact and travel outwards at high velocity through the disperser cage.

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 192 
 
Fig. 6.11 – Flotation cell

Shearing action across the disperser causes the formation of small gas bubbles. These bubbles rise to
the surface, picking up oil droplets on the way. At the liquid surface the gas breaks out, leaving behind a
froth layer.
The froth is lifted over the weir by paddles into a launder bin and the gas is recycled. The volume of froth
is about 5 to 8% of throughput and is usually spiked into an export crude stream or recycled through a
holding tank.
Operation with gas rather than air is often required to prevent precipitation of iron oxides and to avoid
bacterial and scaling problems. The amount of gas injected into the water is typically 8.5 m³(st)/m³ of
water per cell. This does not represent the amount of gas required from an outside source, it is the
recirculated flow. The amount of make-up gas is usually in the range of 0.05 to 0.10 m³(st)/m³ of water, or
just enough to maintain a gas blanket of 3-6 kPa above the liquid. When air is used, it is introduced at
atmospheric pressure. It is recommended that the gas flow in each cell can be individually adjusted from
outside.
Performance
Several Wemco units have been operated successfully in E & P locations since 1970. For many
applications, IGFs are used in combination (downstream) with some form of gravity separator and an oil
removal efficiency of 70 to 90% is then achieved. Typical figures for oil concentration in the outlet stream
are 20 to 50 g/m³ for an inlet stream with 100-500 g/m³ of oil. Some cases of low deoiling efficiency have
been correlated with waters having a high suspended solids concentration. This is probably due to solid
particles attaching to oil droplets or being enveloped in an oil film.
Since the Wemco is only partially successful at removing suspended solids, waters with a high solids
concentration of ten cannot be successfully deoiled to low levels.
Operating experience has been satisfactory although there are some common problems associated with
either poor control of the skimming rate and/or the formation of 'jelly like' deposits due to the overdosage
of chemicals. These problems appear to be aggravated by fluctuating feed conditions. Therefore it is

PTS 10.01.00.19 
February 2011 
Page 193 
 
desirable to install buffer tanks upstream of the Wemco units to 'level out' fluctuations in flow and quality.
This is not always acceptable for offshore applications because of weight/space limitations.
The flotation cells are normally fabricated from carbon steel and internally lined. It is advisable to include
internal cathodic protection to ensure that corrosion can be controlled in the event of small areas of
coating becoming detached or eroded away. The area under the impellers is subject to high wear, and it
is advisable to install substantial sacrificial wear plates in this area. Facilities should be included for
obtaining samples from each individual cell and or flushing out solids which may collect in the base of the
cells.
The performance of a Wemco unit can be estimated from bench tests with a model flotation cell. Bench
testing can also be used to select suitable polyelectrolytes although optimum chemical dosage rates can
only be established by full scale test runs. It has been found that the performance of Wemco units can
sometimes be improved by addition of deoiling chemicals.
Alternative designs of induced gas flotation units
It is possible to induce gas into the water stream hydraulically, rather than mechanically as in the Wemco
unit described above. Water is recycled from the discharge compartment via a delivery tube which
extends through the standpipe in each of the flotation cells to within a short distance from the base of
each cell. The 'Hydrocell', typical of this design is shown in Fig. 6.12. Water pumped through this delivery
tube is deflected from the bottom of the cell and through a small opening between the tank bottom and
the standpipe flange. A venturi effect is created which induces gas into the liquid. It is claimed that the
reduced shear experienced in this design compared to the mechanical rotor design makes it suitable for
handling flocculated material. It is believed that this design is used successfully by other operators but no
experience is available within the Group with the exception of Shell Oil who have installed one recently
and are purchasing others.

01. Examples of gas solubility versus temperature are shown in Figure 6.3. 6. The total water flow can be saturated with gas.PTS 10.13 . the water to be treated is saturated with gas under pressure (typically 400-600 kPa). most of the dissolved gas is liberated (until equilibrium saturation is again reached) in the form of fine bubbles. typically 30-120 µm diameter. The required recycle ratio and the operating pressure will depend on the nature of the effluent stream.00. It must be possible to dissolve sufficient gas to effectively float the oil at the operating temperature. which rise to the surface attaching themselves to oil droplets on the way. A scum. the flotation gas used and the temperature. but in order to economise on pump sizing and energy consumption it is normal to recycle only about 30% of the cleaned water back through the gas saturation equipment. and then introduce this water together with the main stream into the flotation chamber. typically 1% of throughput.12 – Hydrocell induced gas flotation separator 6. is formed on the surface.2 Dissolved gas flotation (DGF) units In a dissolved gas flotation unit. air is often used leading to the commonly applied name dissolved air flotation unit (DAF).19  February 2011  Page 194    Fig. For effluent clean-up duties. When the pressurised water is introduced into a large vessel at (or close to) atmospheric pressure.

00.19  February 2011  Page 195    Fig. . 2-5 g/m³ of polyelectrolyte to enhance the performance.01.PTS 10. 6.14.Solubility of some gases in water It is common practice to add ca. The oil forms as a scum on the surface of the vessel and its removed by scraper arms to be normally recycled back into the process.6. The arrangement of a typical DFG unit is shown in Fig. Use of polyelectrolytes ensures that the skimmings remain largely hydrocarbon (in contrast with the use of inorganic flocculants).13 .

If a TPI is correctly specified it can be graded (at some additional cost) to a flotation system at a later date if a more stringent residual oil specification is eventually required.2). The tilted plate flotation unit (TPF) is an unusual design of gas flotation unit in that it is based on a tilted plate interceptor with the addition of a dissolved gas recycle stream (Fig. but for greater effectiveness it is used in combination with inorganic flocculation. The process is then called flocculation/flotation (see Section 6. .01.15).3 Tilted plate flotation units.19  February 2011  Page 196    Fig. 6. 6. 6. The TPF has performed well in pilot trials with NAM to remove suspended oil and solids to a level of < 20 g/m³ from production water in the Schoonebeek field prior to injection of the water for disposal but yet to be commercially proven.00.4.3. However. The DAF unit can be used by itself. attempts to use the DAF (alone) for the treatment of production water have met with only limited success and in most cases only about 50% oil removal could be achieved.14 – Dissolved gas flotation unit Dissolved air flotation units have been used for a number of years for secondary oil removal from effluent waters. Several units are installed at Group refineries.PTS 10.

The polyelectrolytes bind together individual micro flocs to form a relatively large spongy mass which can be subsequently removed from the water by either sedimentation or gas flotation. In the mixing section inorganic flocculants (typically ferric chloride. These chemicals destabilise suspended particles and encourage them to coagulate and form microflocs.15 – Schematic of a tilted plate flotation unit 6. .19  February 2011  Page 197    Fig. A flocculation unit usually consists of a mixing section followed by a floc growth section.4 Flocculation units In water treatment the process of chemical flocculation is widely used for the removal of suspended oil and solids and some dissolved substances. In most cases pH control facilities may be required. 6.PTS 10. i. aluminium sulphate or ferric sulphate) are rapidly mixed with the raw water to ensure homogenisation. The flocculation process cannot be used in combination with the induced gas flotation process because the high mixing intensity generated by the impellers would destroy the fragile precipitates.01.00. caustic or acid injection. In the floc growth section polyelectrolytes are added to the water and gently mixed to promote coalescence. For optimum floc formation the pH should be in the range 5 to 9.e.

large flocs. This can be achieved by the installation of buffer tanks upstream of the flocculator.1 Flocculation-sedimentation A standard flocculation-sedimentation unit is shown in Fig. The raw water is injected with 10 to 50 g/m³ flocculant and then fed into a central mixing compartment.g.4. Rawwater enter the mixing basin where flocculants are added (10 to 50 g/m³) and rapidly mixed to ensure homogenisation. as shown in Fig.PTS 10.2 Flocculation-flotation The flocculation and flotation steps are normally carried out in separate units. 6. The water then spills over a weir into a much smaller floc growth basin where it is gently agitated in order to obtain strong. suspended oil removal efficiencies of 80 to 95% can be achieved. 6. or near to.00. Fig.01. the periphery of the unit. Sometimes weighting agents. 6. The clarified water rises out of the settling zone and overflows into effluent launders at. Bottom scrapers move the settled floc into a central hopper from which it is removed by gravity or sludge pumps. From the mixing zone the water flows into the floc growth region where polyelectrolytes can be added. active silica. e. see .17. Good operation of the flocculator requires a feed which is constant in flow.4. 6. Here the water and flocculant are mechanically mixed by an impeller. quality and degree of contamination. It should be noted that the settled sludge bed can be easily upset by fluctuations in velocity. The water then proceeds to the sedimentation zone where the flocs fall towards the conical bottom. From this basin the mixture flows by gravity into the flotation unit where the flocs are floated to the surface by air bubbles (for description of the flotation unit. are added to make the flocs heavier and thus improve the settling characteristics.16.16 – Flocculation-sedimentation unit In general.19  February 2011  Page 198    6.

2.2 to 2. 6. . Fig. is the overall reduction in space requirements and chemical consumption (weighting agents not required).5% of the total produced water flow rate.PTS 10. Larger volumes must be 'thickened' by gravity. the rest being oil and solids. The clarified water from the unit is suitable for media filtration without any further treatment. A possible solution to this problem is to coalesce the small droplets into larger ones which can then be subsequently separated by gravity. evaporation. The accumulated floc is skimmed by surface scrapers into a sump from where it is removed by sludge pumps (sludge disposal is addressed in the following section). 6. Consequently.5 Coalescers Separation of oil droplets by API or CPI oil interceptors is often not sufficient to meet injection water quality requirements.19  February 2011  Page 199    Section 6.3 Sludge disposal from flocculation processes The problem of disposal of oily sludge containing inorganic flocculants should not be underestimated.01. To date.3.). The advantage in using flocculation-flotation instead of flocculation-sedimentation.7). typically comprising of 95 to 98% water.17 – Flocculation unit The flocculation-flotation process is capable of achieving oil removal efficiencies of 80 to 95%.4. therefore there is no alternative other than disposal Small volumes of sludge can be disposed of by ponding or spraying. good operation requires reasonable constant feed conditions and buffer tanks are therefore desirable. centrifuges or filters and then disposed of by incineration or land farming.00. 6. or even higher. Plate pack separators become uneconomical if particles smaller than 50 µm have to be removed from the influent. the oil and solids concentrations in the treated water are often lower than 15 g/m³ and 2 g/m³ has been achieved. It is impractical to recover clean oil from this sludge. universally acceptable methods of sludge disposal have not yet been developed (see also Section 5. The volume of sludge can vary from 0. As with the flocculation-sedimentation unit.

The small oil droplets are attracted to the oleophilic surface where coalescence takes place due to the close proximity of large numbers of droplets. and for viscous oils a backwash temperature of about 40 °C is required to release the oil. Regular backwashing of the bed is necessary to avoid plugging.00.19  February 2011  Page 200    In commercial units coalescence is achieved by feeding the water through a bed of surface active (oleophilic) media .this may be fibrous or granular material which has an oleophilic surface or a homogeneous oleophilic resin. current experience is that coalescers can only tolerate a very low solids concentration in the feed. or by regular backwashing. . The gravity separation step can be included in the same vessel or as a subsequent step.5.1 Degremont coalescer The Degremont coalescer consists of a tower which is packed with a bed of graded sand (Fig.01. A number of installations have been reported where coalescers are claimed to successfully remove oil from tanker ballast water.1 Examples of commercial coalescers 6. An oleophilic surface is created on the sand particles by the continuous addition of polyelectrolyte chemical to the feed.PTS 10. There are several proprietary designs of coalescers on the market.18).1. selected examples are briefly discussed in the following sections. of say. 6. This can sometimes be avoided by the installation of a pre-filter. 6. The oil leaves the bed in the form of larger droplets which can be easily separated by gravity. The major problem is that the coalescing media becomes blocked with suspended solids since the bed also acts as a filter. less than 5 g/m³. However.5.

2 Plenty Metrol coalescer (Fig. The manufacturer claims that this unit can be expected to reduce suspended oil content down to 5-10 g/m³.5. 6. Oil droplets. However.PTS 10. pilot scale tests carried out indicated that these high efficiencies could only be achieved at the expense of a very high backwash frequency. 6.20 Fig. coalesced within the cartridge. Oily water enters the base of the vessel and is distributed to the catridges and flows radially outwards into the bulk volume of the vessel.01. 6. rise to the surface at the top of the vessel where they form a layer which is discharged by level control.18 – Degremont coalesce The manufacturer claims that the unit is capable of 90%+ oil removal.1. 6. .19) Feedwater is pre-filtered to protect the coalescer against solids blockage.19  February 2011  Page 201    Fig.00. The coalescer itself consists of about 10 coalescer cartridge.

6. iv) efficiency maintained even with phase inversion of the dispersed liquid.20) The KnitMesh DC coalescer contains a packing of coalescing filaments consisting of a combination of two different materials.00. one of low surface-free energy (such as plastic) and the other of high surface-free energy (such as metal).PTS 10.3 KnitMesh DC coaleser (Fig. the separation efficiency is greatly increased. Therefore by making use of a packing containing many such 'junction points'. the DC coalescer will continue to operate efficiently when the dispersion inverts.01.5. A further advantage of dual material (DC) packing is that since the packing filaments are effective for both phases of the liquid/liquid dispersion. The manufacturer claims the following principal advantages for the DC coalescer: i) improve separation efficiency. 6.19  February 2011  Page 202    Fig.19 – Plenty Metrol coalescer 6.1. ii) higher flowrates permit significant reduction in vessel size. . viz. Droplet coalescence is greatly enhanced at a point on a surface at which there is a discontinuity of surface-free energy. v) high percentage of voids gives smaller pressure drop. iii) large cost savings in pressure vessels. a so-called 'junction point'.

and no gravity settling of separate droplets is required.00.01. .19).19  February 2011  Page 203    Fig. 6. 6. The outer layer is KnitMesh DC packing.PTS 10. The feed enters the centre of the cylinder and flows radially through the coalescer similar to the Plenty Metrol coalescer (Fig.20 – Diagrammatic layout of KnitMesh DC coalesce For very tight emulsion (< 30 µm) KnitMesh market the DUSEC coalescer consisting of an array of cartridges consisting of a selection of fibre materials formed in layers around a central perforated cylinder. The KnitMesh DUSEC cartridge is designed to achieve phase disengagement within the outer layer of the cartridge.

6.PTS 10.21). The large oil droplets are subsequently removed in a separate gravity interceptor. . These pertain to the surface treatment of the fibres and the provision of a low shear zone for releasing the oil droplets.00. In later work by TRC (UK) various modifications to the coalescer shown in Fig. 6. 6. The unit consists of a bed of polypropylene fibres which can be expanded during the periodic cleaning cycle to remove entrained solids. and at this stage potential applications appear to be limited to those of relatively small capacity. The fibres themselves are permanently surface treated to enhance coalescence.5.21 were developed. then recompressed for their coalescence duty.2 Expandable fibrous bed coalescer In recognition of the problem of blocking of coalescer beds with solid particles.01. The expandable fibrous bed coalescer has so far not been developed for commercial exploitation. KSEPL/TRC have developed the expandable fibrous bed coalescer (Fig.19  February 2011  Page 204    KnitMesh coalescers have mostly been applied in a refinery environment but they have potential for E&P applications. Deoiling efficiencies can be as high as 95% depending on the chemical composition of the emulsion to be treated.

a CPI unit.01.00. e. it can be considered to treat the oil-in-water emulsion with a deoiler.g. in Nigeria. 6. . To further promote coalescence of the destablised oil droplets. 4" diameter pipe and 1200'. The average deoiling efficiency of the coalescer pipe system was estimated at about 40%. with residence times of about 1 min and 6 min respectively. The coalesced oil droplets can subsequently be separated in e. This system consisted of 500 ft. Coalescer pipe systems for deoiling purposes have been installed in a few cases only.PTS 10.5.21 – Expandable fibrous bed coalescer 6. 6" diameter pipe. use can be made of a coalescer pipe system.3 Pipeline coalescers In some cases where the water obtained in a dehydration process contains a very fine oil-in-water dispersion (oil droplet sizes of 10 µm to less than 1 µm) which cannot be effectively separated in the deoiling facilities. and a pressure drop of 22 psi over the system.19  February 2011  Page 205    Fig.g.

1 Granular media filters Granular media filters are backwashable filters which therefore operate on an cyclic basis. they have as disadvantages: • plugging and maintenance problems • too low flowrates • prohibitive capital and operating cost 6. This has proved to be very effective and reduce the oil content to less than 5 ppm. They have also found extensive application in removing the final traces of suspended oil from production water prior to softening and conversion into steam for thermal recovery projects. In general it is recommended that granular media filters can be considered for application in oily water treatment when the oil content in the influent is less than 30 g/m³ 6. For a further discussion on pipeline coalescence reference is made to Section 2.4.PTS 10.4. This restricts capacities of filtration units to low values. They are frequently used for seawater filtration.01. leading to frequent replacement of the media. However. This capability may be useful in some offshore designs. In general application. filters in deoiling systems are limited to polishing only. Oil content in the filter feed must be less than 15 g/m³ and ideally less than 10 g/m³. 6. practical experience has indicated that sand filters are unsuitable for this duty.19  February 2011  Page 206    Critical parameters to be considered in the design of a coalescer pipe system are the mixing intensity parameter and retention time. since filters clog up rapidly even with relatively small amounts of oil whether or not in combination with solids. furthermore. Precoat filters are normally only economically viable for treating water which contains relatively low suspended solids (< 5 g/m³) or where very stringent water quality specifications have to be met.2 Precoat filters Precoat filtration offers the possibility of producing water of very low residual suspended solids content with equipment operating at a high throughput for its size and weight relative to media filters.6 Filters The application of filters for the treatment of oily water has been limited so far. Membrane filters are currently not "proven technology" and they are not discussed since. Water is filtered through a media bed of typically sand or a combination of anthracite/garnet or anthracite/sand on a suitable support bed It is claimed that downflow sand filters can be used for removal of oil (up to about 200 g/m³) from production water. In BSP the DAF effluent (< 20 ppm oil) is filtered through dual media filters which are backwashed with 'Nonidet LE' solution to present fouling and clogging.00. Backwashing procedures are often ineffective.6. . when high water quality is required for injection purposes. particularly where heavy or waxy crudes are involved. and frequent cleaning/removal of the filtration medium is required. In the following sections the various filtration processes are briefly discussed.6.

6.22 and is unusual in that the media is hydraulically removed from the filter vessel and circulated through an adjacent small scrubber vessel where agglomerated oil particles are broken up. Fig.00. 6. The media is water wetted and is therefore claimed to be particularly suited to removing oil and solids from production water since the entrained oil is easily removed from the media. since a good separation of small particles can be achieved with a short residence time.3 Novel media filters Media other than conventional mineral particles can be used for filtration. Characteristic is the very long tapered section and the absence of a vortex finder in the swirl chamber. Attrition of the walnut shell media during backwash necessitates about 10% replacement annually.22 – Hydromation filter Typical flux rates claimed are about 30 (m³/h)/m² for production water and 50 (m³/h)/m² for seawater.6. oil-in-water dispersion) and a minimum shear to avoid droplet break-up.e. the geometry of the liquid/liquid hydrocyclone differs substantially from the conventional cyclone. 6. allowing the oil and entrained solids to pass through a stainless steel mesh. a dispersion with a lower density than the continuous phase (i. .19  February 2011  Page 207    6. In liquid/liquid hydrocyclone has been developed with a special duty of removing small quantities of dispersed oil from water and is being optimised for a low density difference. The principle of the design is shown in Fig.01. The separation performance for solids/gas and liquids/gas cyclones and for solids/liquid hydrocyclones are well establish and many design are available. An example which has been applied to oilfield waters is the Hydromation deep bed filter which uses crushed black walnut shells. Cyclone separators have already found many applications.7 Hydrocyclones Hydrocyclones have recently gained Group acceptance and are now the preferred option for offshore production water disposal.PTS 10.

but upstream of any interstage or produced water coolers. The clean water stream exits as the continuous phase from the downstream end. The lighter oil droplets migrate towards the lower pressure central core where an axial reversal of flow occurs. Separation is achieved by generating centrifugal forces. however. where the bulk of the separation occurs. A high velocity vortex with a reverse flowing central core is set up by entry of the oily water through a tangential inlet into the cyclindrical swirl chamber.higher flowrate increase the intensity of the centrifugal separation forces.23 the Vortoil consists of four sections: • a cylindrical swirl chamber • a concentric reducing section • a fine tapered section. 6.19  February 2011  Page 208    In Fig. The oil removal efficiency of hydrocyclone influenced by a number of factors such as: • Density different .01. The fluid is accelerated through the concentric reducing and finer taper sections of the cyclone. As can be seen from Fig. .minimising high shear areas upstream of the hydrocyclone is important to prevent droplet disintegration. 6. orders of magnitude higher (~ 1000 g) than available in conventional gravity based separation equipment. into the parallel tail section where the smaller slower moving oil droplets are recovered. and • a cyclindrical tail section.PTS 10. Too high flowrates. affords best performance.the greater the difference.23 a schematic diagram is shown of the BWN Vortoil. • Mean droplet size .00. • Flowrate . the greater the potential for rapid phase separation. resulting in the lower density oil enriched phase being removed through a small diameter orifice in the centre of the inlet head (reject stream). may shear oil droplets and reduce the available pressure to drive the reject stream. • Temperature – installation downstream of the first stage separator where typically 95% water removal occurs.

19  February 2011  Page 209    Fig.01.23b . 6. chamber length 6 ft) .23a – Vortoil flow profile Fig.35-mm Vortoil cross section (not scale.PTS 10. 6.00.

which is defined as the ratio of fluid reject as concentrated oily water from the upstream outlets.24 . A control system based on total flow/reject flow cannot be used due to metering problems with gas break-out which exists preferentially with the reject stream. i. reject ratio. Hydrocyclones should be installed immediately downstream of the first stage separator. expressed as a percentage.01. or as an upgrade of the originally installed water handling capacity. until it levels out at around 1-2% reject ratio (see Fig.24). A considerable degree of flexibility exists with the hydrocyclone liners which can be fabricated in either single or four-in-one 35 or 60 mm units. and between the inlet and reject stream. This size refers to the diameter at the transition between the concentric reducing and fine taper section of the cyclone.e. As the reject ratio increases. Additional units can simply be added as a bolton expansion as watercut increases. Higher reject ratio may only yield a marginal improvement in separation efficiency. Fig. that between the inlet and outlet of the hydrocyclone. so does the efficiency of separation. 6. to the clean water underflow. but this is not normally justified/desirable since the rejected flow needs to be treated again further downstream in the treatment facilities. 6.19  February 2011  Page 210    Another important parameter affecting the performance is the reject ratio.00.PTS 10. Therefore this flow should be kept to a minimum. but .Example of hydrocyclone efficiency vs. Control of the reject is achieved by controlling the pressure drops in the system.

Further detail on capacity and performance are given in Section 7. leading to plugging. The pore structure can be controlled in the production process. They require extensive pretreatment of the effluent water.01. viz. and nonadsorption if hydrocarbons. • A substantial logistical and hygiene problem.3. These are briefly discussed below.8. The following problems may arise with this process: • Fouling of the carbon by impurities in the production water. Hydrocyclones need about 8-10 bar pressure differential between oily water inlet and reject outlet streams.3. 6. especially when applied offshore. the effluent water is fed through vessels which contain up to 60 cartridges filled with activated carbon. 6.8 Removal of dissolved hydrocarbons Three possible processes for removal of dissolved hydrocarbons are briefly described in the following sections. and there are prohibitive cost and space requirements for E & P application. For lower feed pressures pumped feed using low shear pumps of the progressive cavity type (MONO/EEPEX) or twin helical screw pumps (Stothert & Pitt) must be used. Carbon adsorption process should be applied only for polishing treatment.00.19  February 2011  Page 211    upstream of the separator level control valves to maximise the available pressure driving force while minimising high shear areas which would cause droplet break-up.PTS 10. Various field trials have shown that oily water with oil droplets larger than 15-50 µm can be effectively cleaned. These pumps are suitable for increasing the feed pressure by up to 10 bar.6. In view of their compactness. it determines the adsorption capability and rate. arising from changing out the vessel contents and transportation of spent cartridges for regeneration or incineration. Feed pressures of 4-6 bar are acceptable but very limited turndown if individual cyclones is available at these pressures. The residence time in the hydrocyclones are in the order of 2-3 seconds. In treating oily water. .: • carbon adsorption • gas stripping • biological treatment.1 Carbon adsorption Activated carbon removes organics by adsorption on its microporous surface. Hydrocyclones are in operation with differential pressures of over 35 bar. compared to the 5-10 minutes in plate separators. hydrocyclones are very attractive for offshore applications.

PTS 10. Part of the activated sludge is recycled into the raw water feed.01. 6.25). Main disadvantages of the gas stripping method are: • very high energy costs • it causes air pollution • facilities are prohibitively bulky and expensive.8. The water to be treated is contacted with bacteria and sufficient oxygen has to be supplied (aeration) to activate biochemical reactions.3 Biological treatment This process uses bacteria to remove dissolved organic contaminants (including dissolved oil). 6. In steam stripping the dissolved hydrocarbons (with a boiling point of 70-80 °C) are stripped out of the effluent water by stream formed by boiling off a few per cent of the effluent water itself.19  February 2011  Page 212    6.8. After allowing time for biodegradation to take place. It should be preceded by gravity separation and/or flotation units to ensure almost complete removal of free oil prior to the biotreaters. Fig.2 Gas stripping Gas stripping of hydrocarbons can be achieved either by the use of steam or by air. An air cooler condenses the steam for recycling to the process.00.25 – Activated sludge biotreater . whilst the hydrocarbons are vented. the water is routed to a settling basin where clarified water and water concentrated with bacteria flocs (activated sludge) are separated. The vapour leaving the stripping column will be hydrocarbons. There are two main biotreatment processes which can be applied. i) Treatment in an activated sludge basin followed by a clarifier (see Fig. In this process the raw water is mixed with water containing a high concentration of bacteria and thoroughly mixed and aerated. 6. Air stripping is effected by blowing a large excess volume of air through a packed column in countercurrent with effluent water. which strips the hydrocarbons out of the water. and the hydrocarbons are vented along with the airstream to atmosphere. Effluent water is directly discharged. together with an amount of steam.

01. • It will not usually operate because of high mineral concentrations. of lava rocks for example. Biological treatment in E & P operations may not be practicable because of: • prohibitive space and weight requirements. • It requires skilled disposal attention. Here the water is sprayed over an activated bed.PTS 10.19  February 2011  Page 213    ii) Treatment in a trickle filter followed by a clarifier. . On these rocks bacteria will develop and basically the same biochemical reaction occurs as in the activated sludge process. The trickle filter effluent passes through a clarifier to remove bacteria flocs.00. • Possible sludge disposal problems.

existing (local) experience and to a large extent on the judgement of the designer. the sizing of individual pieces of equipment and the design of a system has heavily relied on laboratory/field testing. etc. where individual droplets will collide and coalesce. An illustration of how Stokes' Law can be usedto size an oily water separator. for the same or better efficiency. The dispersion is therefore very dilute and the oil-water separation process is well described by Stokes' Law.00.3). in deoiling processes relatively large quantities of water are handled. droplet size. In this case we are not simply concerned with the separation of a number of individual droplets. Stokes' Law cannot describe the settling process. • Behaviour of an emulsion as function of concentration.). However. Probably the only guarantees that can be given are that the forecast will change and that once water production has commenced the BSW will increase with time. Consequently Stokes' Law can be successfully applied for the sizing of deoiling equipment (Section 7. the dispersed water phase is much more concentrated. turbulence. the need to thoroughly discuss requirements and forecast throughput levels with production operations and petroleum engineering functions cannot be overstressed. however. since a quantitative description would have to take into account processes such as: • Inter-droplet film drainage and droplet-droplet coalescence as a function of interfacial and bulk parameters. As a second objective. 7. With regard to the forecasts it should be realised that regardless of how carefully they have been derived the range of uncertainty associated with them will be large. and a simple and practically applicable mathematical description of the coalescing mechanism has not yet been forthcoming. and to develop robust equipment not sensitive to upsets in feed conditions. due to the many uncertainties involved. but with a swarm of droplets. In the absence of proper sizing rules for dehydration equipment based on a quantitative description of emulsion behaviour. Recently empirical design guidelines for oil field dehydration equipment were developed in SIPM based on an in-depth review of operating experience in various Opcos and feedback from equipment . containing relatively small amounts of oil (typically less than 2% vol. In most dehydration processes.1. Although a significant number of studies on these topics has been carried out.1 Introduction The design/sizing of dehydration and deoiling equipment should. flow properties. empirical rules have been developed and applied thus far. the project aims to significantly reduce the residence time in oil/water separators (by a factors of about ten). many existing facilities are non-optimally designed/sized.).PTS 10. In December 1987 a research project started at KSEPL to develop procedures for predicting separator performance based on readily determined physico-chemical properties of emulsions (see Section 3. be based on a quantitative description of the separation behaviour of two immiscible liquids from an unstable emulsion. Consequently.6. In these case. or excessive weight/space requirements.01. Timing of the project is such that major result are not expected within the next few years. often resulting in off-spec crude oil and/or water. a quantitative description of the separation process of a dispersion has proved to be extremely complex.19  February 2011  Page 214    7 EQUIPMENT SELECTION AND DESIGN/SIZING GUIDELINES Prior to the commencement of any design work on new or existing facilities. is given in Appendix 7. Generally.

Therefore. together with various other considerations relevant to the design of dehydration equipment.PTS 10. The recommended design approach for dehydration equipment is then as follows: • Determine reservoir fluid and production parameters (temperatures. Indeed.2. empirical relations were established between two of the terms in Stokes’ Law. Whereas the selection and sizing of individual components can be done by using a set of guidelines as given in this chapter.3. For system integration no single recipe can be provided and in the final analysis the choice of a particular combination must rely rather heavily on the judgement and experience of the design engineer. 7. equipment dimensions are chosen to provide sufficient retention time or hold-up volumes for oil water separation to take place. viscosity. in the absence of practical sizing rules based on quantitative dispersion behaviour. therefore. These guidelines are integrally taken into account in this Manual. that retention time alone is an unsuitable sizing criterion since it only specifies a volume requirement and not a horizontal cross-sectional area requirement. Selection and design guidelines for deoiling equipment is discussed in Section 7. It can be concluded. empirical correlations have recently been developed in SIPM.2. Stokes' Law provides a means that can be used to size an oily-water separator. i.2. From extensive analyses of different types of dehydration unit in use in various Opcos.e.2 Dehydration equipment 7. • Establish the duty of the equipment. Aspects of system integration are discussed in Chapter 8 as well operational aspects/guidelines. This retention time criteria used. The above relationship forms the basis for the sizing methods for dehydration equipment as discussed in Section 7. When using this approach it should be realised that optimum retention times will vary over the life of a field since the BSW will normally increase.). In the first mentioned approach. The example shown in Appendix 7. densities). is often wrongly sized. are normally based on the results of settling tests or operating experience with similar crudes. these components need to be put together and integrated into a system.1. and they are presented in Section 7. equipment sized based on retention time considerations. Stokes' Law cannot adequately described the dehydration process(separation of a water-in-oil emulsion) since it is too simple to provide a proper description of the coalescence mechanism.4.1 indicates that separation capacity mainly a function of horizontal cross-sectional area.01. viz. This particular characteristic is supported by many practical experiments.19  February 2011  Page 215    manufacturers. As mentioned in Section 7.2. .1.2. Q/A (= flow ‚ horizontal crosssectional area) and Dr/h ( = density difference oil/water ‚ viscosity of the continuous phase). As discussed in Section 7.1 Design approach Most of the equipment sizing methods currently in use are based on either retention time or Stokes' Law. These empirical relations are the following form: Q A ∆ρ a η b with the coefficients a and b depending on the type of liquid and the dehydration performance. pressures. flowrates. the nature of the feed and required specification of separated oil and water (Section 7.00.

• Design/select the internals and accessories (Section 7. Margins up to 50-75% are not uncommon.2.PTS 10. Flow rate 'Severest' flow rates of oil. which refer to the following aspects:– Design conditions .6.19  February 2011  Page 216    • Select the most appropriate dehydration equipment for the established duty and conceptually determine the treatment stages required to achieve the specifications (Section 7.5.).). 7.flow rate .2. • Run a process computer simulation to determine the number of stages and process design. water cut and GLR.3. During the life cycle of a field gross production and relative gas-water-in-oil compositions.emulsion stability . i. Having identified the severest mode it is then necessary to add a margin to arrive at the design flow rate. this as a result of e. water of gross flow rate.4.).gas fraction Product specification . flow fluctuations.water quality The above aspects are briefly discussed below.2. safety and surging. piping operations etc. a number of general considerations need to be taken into account. taking intoaccount the uncertainties associated with the long-term production forecasts. ambient temperature variations.).00. However. Temperature .density and viscosity .g.2.droplets size distribution . The margin to be added to arrive at the design flow rate is less well defined and is dependent on the dynamic flow behaviour in wells. multiphase flow in (long) flow lines.temperature Nature of the feed . The dehydrator design shall be based upon the operation mode with the severest condition in terms of temperature and oil.oil quality .1 Design conditions Dehydrators are typically incorporated in process schemes for which there are different modes of operation. They are directly related to production forecasts or actual daily production rates.2.2. size the equipment using the empirical sizing rules (Section 7.2 General design considerations In order to arrive at an optimum design and sizing of dehydration equipment.01. • With flowrates estimated in all relevant parts of the conceptual facilities from computer simulations. gas and water are usually well defined. 7.e.2. will change dramatically. in upstream/downstream piping and in associated process facilities. • Design/decide on the required control system (Section 7. an in-depth assessment of the define entire oil-gas-water processing system is required to define the margin to be applied.watercut . This margin should include allowances for overdesign.

g. Gas fraction Gas break-out tends to disrupt the dehydration process. or the settler should be operated above the bubble point to avoid gas break-out.as densities and viscosities are largely temperature dependent it is prudent that design figures are defined consistent with the "severest" operating conditions (see also Section 2. Density and viscosity The general settling characteristics of a destabilised emulsion can be roughly predicted from the density and viscosity of both the (dry) oil and the water. In offshore operations.5% BS&W) is required. Nevertheless. Droplet size distribution Droplet size is an important parameter in oil-water separation. it is difficult to predict droplet size distributions (dsd's) and quantify the effect on dehydration performance.2. At high water cuts much of the water may exist as a distinct phase.2.2) Emulsion stability The stability of the crude oil-water emulsion depends on the effectiveness of the chemical and heat treatment applied upstream of the dehydrator. However.2 Nature of the feed In addition to temperature and flow rate. the following parameters should be known. it is obvious that the dehydration process benefits from higher temperatures. Bottle test results can be used by the equipment design engineer as a guide to the likely time required for separation and possible emulsion problems.00. or where deep dehydration (0. degassing should be carried out upstream of the dehydrator. water and gas (three-phase separation) can be carried out effectively. In practice. by comparison with similar tests for installed facilities with known performance. e. the rest of the water remains dispersed in the oil.PTS 10. Coarse dsd's can be expected at the end of long pipelines and flowlines. this is often achieved at the expense of fuel cost for heating and losses of hydrocarbon vapours. Referring to Stokes' Law. Fine dsd's can be expected immediately downstream of chokes. Water cut Separation of a destablised emulsion tends to proceed faster with increasing water cut.19  February 2011  Page 217    A minimum temperature is often required to destabilise the emulsion and enable effective oil-water separation. control valves and pumps.01.5. In general light/low-viscosity crude oil are much easier to dehydrate than heavy/high-viscosity crude oils (Stokes' Law). . however. with light or low-viscosity crudes the simultaneous separation of oil. 7. since oil viscosities are reduced and density differences increase. settling velocity being directly proportional to the square of the droplet diameter.1 to 0. In this respect it should be noted that laboratory and/or on-site bottle tests should be carried out as standard practice in order to identify a suitable demulsifying chemical and it determine the minimum temperature required for dehydration. albeit contaminated with oil droplets. referred to as "free water". Bottle test results can be used to assess the minimum separation temperature. well and pipeline insulation can be beneficially incorporated for improved dehydration behaviour. The best approach would seem to describe the feed as having a "fine" or "coarse" dsd. however. For heavy or viscous crudes.

i. Deep dehydration to 0.00. whilst in other areas dehydration vessels in the field may be preferred. This is usually achieved by batch settling in storage tanks prior to shipment. Unfortunately no single recommendation can be made.e. and in particular when potential problems with separation of the produced emulsions are expected. however. This may be for feed to a pipeline or for storage purposes.PTS 10. A typical water quality resulting from a dehydration process prior to de-oiling is less than 2000 g/m³ oil in water for heavy crudes and less than 500 g/m³ oil in water for light/medium crudes.3 Product specifications Oil quality In the case of high water cut crudes it may be desirable to remove the bulk of the "free water" at an early stage in the process in order to reduce the load on downstream facilities.2. Usually the simplest system is the most efficient and economical. Dehydration water generally requires further treatment in dedicated deoiling equipment before disposal requirement are met.2. most duties can be met by utilisation of one or more of the units listed below in Table 7. However. Most general purpose dehydrators are required to reduce water-in-oil contents to typically 1 to 5% vol. 7.2.e. the target residual water (dehydration) and oil content (deoiling). which are widely used in the North Sea. deep dehydration may be achieved by applying electrostatic coalescers. It should be mentioned that platform storage cells. iii) The location and operating philosophy. ii) The product specifications.1. (see Section 7. the decision on whether or not to construct a platform with or without storage cells will be dictated by conditions and requirements other than those concerning dehydration. for onshore application the selection of equipment may be guided more by considerations of simplicity (minimal maintenance requirements) and robustness/dependability.3 Equipment selection and application The selection and design of appropriate dehydration equipment for a particular case depends on three principal factors: i) The feed. or no specification at all. if space and weight are limited such as in offshore applications. In most cases.5% BS&W is usually only required in case of set crude oil export specifications with regards to BS&W and/or salinity. It should be noted that in one area dehydration may be limited to tankage at the export terminal. tests should be run to determine the best course of treatment and help optimise operating conditions. Where for offshore application space and weight requirements are critical. i. While these devices are promising for future applications (hydrocyclones are . Alternatively. As to new developments in dehydration equipment. When selecting dehydration equipment.01. Water quality The main consideration is to avoid excessive contamination with oil.1 to 0. it is mentioned that both centrifuges and hydrocyclones are being investigated/tested for dehydration applications.3). In this case the dehydration unit has either a relaxed water content specification (<10% vol). conventional equipment. the nature of the crude and proportion of production water to be treated. Both types of equipment offer the advantages of much reduced space/weight requirements with a performance similar or better than.19  February 2011  Page 218    7. in principle could also be considered in the selection of appropriate dehydration processes and/or equipment.

Table 7. Can be operated at higher temperature than 100°C Not a god choice for high water cut crudes Careful design of internals required to avoid channeling More expensive than the conventional design and more difficult to operate More sophisticated. More trials required to prove the system to be suitable for EP operations Equipment sizing 7.1 – Dehydration equipment selection guidelines Equipment 1.1 Sizing criteria Flux rate The capacity of a dehydrator is mainly a function of disengagement area at the oil-water interface.5% water) 8. the flux rate (volumetric flow rate ‚ horizontal cross-sectional area) should not exceed the volume recommended for the given feed condition and required product specifications. hence more potential problems. Dehydration type separators Application For high watercut crudes where the bulk of water separates quickly For low cut crudes where dehydration to about 1-5% water is required 3. In this case. indicating the degree of turbulence.4 Comments Final crude polishing to export quality can be carried out using method Usually located downstream of FWKO separator (s) in offshore applications Choice base on economic arguments. Free water knockout type separators 2. Particularly useful with higher water cut crudes Particularly useful for heavy. Dehydration tanks 6.4. Centrifudes Suitable for deep dehydration and solids removal Compact size Potential for offshore application 7.PTS 10. Research at KSLA to reduce size and increase efficiency/working range up to 40% water cut Field tested in NAM. Short circuiting problems. Electrostatic coalescers Considered when deep dehydration is required ( to about 0. Reynolds number Turbulence is created by the cross flow interferences with the settling process. Batch tanks 5.2. A well-designed dehydrator should sufficient horizontal cross-sectional area to produced crude and water of the required quality under the maximum flowrate conditions. Use especially where plenty of tankage is available General purposes.19  February 2011  Page 219    already being installed for deoiler purposes) further laboratory development and/or prolonged field testing is needed to evaluate the operational performance and application potential of the systems. The type flow regime. For an "empty" unit the disengagement area corresponds to the horizontal cross-sectional area of the separation compartment. high water cut crudes 7.01.2. Concentric dehydration tanks General purpose.00. Heater treater Considered for dehydration of difficult emulsion or very viscous crudes 4. can be calculated from the Reynolds number: .

05. For an “empty” dehydrator this is usually impractical. .11.2. • little gas break-out. Typical design values are: a) for corrugated plate packs.19  February 2011  Page 220    ρ·v·δ η Re Where v = flow velocity d = hydraulic diameter 4× flow are wetted perimeter Best conditions for separation are achieved if the flow is laminar. laminar flow conditions can be provided by appropriate spacing of the parallel plates.22.01.00. 3%).2. Re £ 1200. The first step of the sizing method is to establish an allowable flux rate. from the empirically derived relationships as introduced in Section 7. but an upper limit of Re = 20 000 for the oil phase is recommended.2 Sizing method It is important that all possible operating conditions are considered. • coarse dispersion. These criteria are included in the three-phase separator sizing routines given in this Manual. These limits correspond to the following aspect: Upper design limit • relaxed BS&W specification (more than.2. for three-phase separators and plate separators. Usually maximum net oil flow. etc. • emulsion problems. conditions at the maximum operating temperature must also be considered to ensure that gas handling requirements are met. These relationships are shown in graphical form in Appendix 7. January 2010). • no emulsion problems (droplet sizes in the range of 20-100 µm). based on the value determined for Dr/h. Lower design limit • tight BS&W specification (less than 3%). b) for flat plate packs. maximum net water flow and minimum temperature are the critical parameters. In some of the sizing routines shown in Appendix 7. For a separator fitted with plate internals. Re £ 400. droplet size distribution. Gas-liquid separation Design criteria for the gas-liquid part of three-phase separator can be found in the PETRONAS Technical Standard (PTS 31.1. The thus derived flux rates can then be discounted by a factor to account for emulsion stability. However. product specifications. say. Q/A. 7.PTS 10.2 upper and lower design limits are suggested.4.

3 Sizing routines In this section sizing routines are given for the following pieces of equipment: 1) Liquid-liquid separator (Cg < 0.PTS 10.85) . • substantial gas break-out. has been summarised.fwko service 2) Liquid-liquid separator (Cg < 0.2.2.2.2. Sizing routines. whereasaspect of control and instrumentation are covered in Section 7.3. together with relevant empirical equipment sizing curves.dehydration service 6) Liquid-liquid plate separator 7) Three-phase plate separator 8) Dehydration tank 9) Concentric wash tank 10) Electrostatic coalescer All relevant Figures related to the sizing of the above pieces of equipment are given in Appendix 7.2.6. the nomenclature as used in this Section. 7.5. are discussed in detail in Section 7. It should be noted that equipment internals and accessories are discussed in Section 7.19  February 2011  Page 221    • fine dispersion (droplet size of less then 20µm). In Table 7.2.00. for the determination of dehydration unit dimensions.01.fwko service 5) Three-phase separator . .85) .4.dehydration service 3) Heater treater 4) Three-phase separator .4.

01.19  February 2011  Page 222    Table 7.PTS 10.2 – Nomenclature. A  Ah  Al   Ag  Cg  Cross sectional area  Horizontal cross section area (HXA)  Vertical cross sectional area (VXA) for liquid flow  VXA for gas flow  D  D i  Do  d  hs  L  Lp  qg  qo  ql  qw  (ql/A)  (qo/A)  (qw/A)  (qg/A)  t  U  α  Δ  Δρ  ρg  ρo   ρw   ηo  ηw  Vessel/tank diameter  Inner tank diameter  Outer tank diameter  Pipe diameter  Height of surge volume  Length of vessel (tan‐to‐tan)  Length of plate pack  Design gas flow  Design net oil flow  Design total liquid flow  Design water flow  Liquid flux rate  Oil flux rate  Water flux rate  Gas flux rate  Temperature  Velocity  Plate angle  Plate spacing  Oil/water‐density difference  Gas density  Oil density  Water density  Oil viscosity  Water viscosity  Gas fraction (=    m2  m2  m2  m2    m  m  m  m  m  m  m  m3/s  m3/s  m3/s  m3/s  m  m/s  m/s  m/s  °C  m/s  degree  m  kg/m3  kg/m3  kg/m3  kg/m3  Pa.s  .00.s  Pa.

2.PTS 10. the tan-totanlength will be approximately one meter longer than the separation compartment.1 and Figure A 7.e. ηw The sizing routine is as follows: Step 1 Calculate the terms: ∆ρ = ρw -ρo. ηo.e. i. The vessel L/D ratio should be in the range 3 to 5. i.3.85) The following data are required at the minimum operating temperature: qo.3 repectively. Cg 0.4.2. ρw.85) The following data are required: q1.2.2.3. q1. ρw. Step 3 Calculate the minimum required horizontal cross sectional area of the separation compartment: Ahmin = q1/(q1/A) Step 4 Select suitable vessel dimensions to satisfy A hmin. For vessels fitted with a weir. Cg 0.2. Step 3 .1.01.00.2. ρo.19  February 2011  Page 223    7.1 Liquid-liquid separator in free water knock out service (including separator with small gas handling facilities. ∆ρ/ηo and ∆ρ/ηw Step 2 Find the maximum allowable fluxrates (q 1/A) and (qo/A) from Figure A 7.2. ρo. 7. ηw The sizing routine is as follows: Step 1 Calculate ∆ρ = ρw -ρo and ∆ρ/ηw Step 2 Find the maximum allowable liquid fluxrate (q1/A) from Figure A 7. to provide sufficient surge volume downstream of the weir.2 Liquid-liquid separator in dehydration service (including separators with small gas handling acilities. Standard pressure vessel sizes are given in Figure A 7.4.

1 – Heat capacity of normal pour point crudes . For standard pressure vessel sizes see Figure A 7.PTS 10.01. For vessels fitted with a weir the tan-to–tan length will be approximately one meter longer than the separation compartment.2.00.4.3.2 are required.2. In addition. 7.3. to provide sufficient surge volume downstream of the weir.2.3 Heater treater.19  February 2011  Page 224    Calculate the minimum required horizontal cross-sectional area of the separation compartment: Ah = q1/(q1/A) m2 Ah = qo/(qo/A) m2 Select the highest value for Ahmin Step 4 Select a vessel with suitable dimensions to satisfy the A hmin requirement.4. the following data are also required Inlet temperature : ti (°C) Optimum operating temperature :t (°C) Specific heat of crude : Cp (kJ/kg °C) The sizing routine as follows: Step 1 : Calculate the required heat input H = qo ρo Cp (t – ti) kJ/s Cp values for normal pour point crudes are given in Figure 7. The L/D ratio should be in the range 3 to 5. Similar data is discussed in Section 7.2.1 Figure 7.

3.3.2.1 The rest of the sizing routine is based on the PETRONAS Technical Standard for gas/liquid separators.01. qg.2. Step 3 Select a vessel size which satisfies the above requirements from Figure A 7.PTS 10.2. ∆ρ/ηw Step 2 Find the maximum allowable liquid fluxrate (q1/A) for FWKO service from Figure A 7.4. q1. ηw The sizing routine is as follows: Step 1 Calculate the following terms at the minimum operating temperature: ∆ρ = ρw -ρo. 7. ρg. The following data are required at the maximum and the minimum operating temperatures: qo.4 Three-phase separator in free water knock-out service. Step 3 .4. ρo. ρw.4.2.00. ηo.19  February 2011  Page 225    Step 2 Calculate the required horizontal cross-sectional area for the separation compartent as described in Section 7.2 for a liquid separator in dehydration service.

5 d + 0.2. stringent degassing and foaming (steps 2. Ah.2.2.15 m Calculation of the inlet nozzle size. Use ηo at the minimum operating temperature.6.2.19  February 2011  Page 226    If stringent degassing is required.2.5D.PTS 10. A 7.4. Check 1 Check that the schoepentoeter inlet device can be accommodated in the available gas cap: height required = 1. find the maximum allowable liquid fluxrate (q1/A) from Figure A 7. It is usual to start with a LZA (HH) level at ± 0. The following checks are required to ensure that the operating levels are adequately positioned. is covered in Figure A 7. Use η0 at the minimum operating temperature.5. as well as vertical crosssectional areas above 0.01. areas.00. of the separation compartment for free water knock out.7 Step 8 Calculate the minimum required vertical cross-sectional area above the maximum liquid level (LZA(HH)) for demisting purposes (see also Fig.1. Step 7 Find the maximum allowable superficial gas velocity (qg/Ag) from Figure A 7. .6D.2. Ag qg / qg Ag Step 9 Select a vessel with suitable dimensions to satisfy Ahmin and Ag requirements. The vessel L/D ratio should be in the range 3 to 5. Step 4 If foaming is likely to occur.5. d. Step 5 Calculate the minimum required horizontal cross-sectional. 4): Ah = q1/(q1/A) m² Select the highest value of Ah above for Ahmin Step 6 Evaluate the term o g g at the minimum design temperature. Standard pressure vessel sizes are given in Figure A 7.).5.1.6D and below 0. find the maximum allowable liquid fluxrate (q1/A) from Figure A 7. see Figure A 7. 3.

ρo. qg.2. find the maximum allowable liquid fluxrate (q1 /A ) from Figure A 7. Use ho at the minimum operating temperature.2. ηo . ρw. Check 3 For foaming crude.01.00. Use ho at the minimum operating temperature.2. Step 3 If stringent degassing is required.1. find the maximum allowable liquid fluxrate (q1/A) from Figure A 7. check that there is sufficient area available for gas flow when the foam level is at maximum height (about 0. 7.4.6. if foam is expected: Height available = D . Step 5 . respectively. ρg. ηw The sizing routine is as follows: Step 1 Calculated the following terms at the minimum operating temperature: ∆ρ = ρw -ρo. The rest of the sizing routine is based on the PTS. and A 7. Appendix 7.(LZA (HH) + 0. Step 4 If foaming is likely to occur. taking into account the various trip and alarm settings (Ref.25 m).5).PTS 10.5 Three-phase separator in dehydration service The following data are required at the maximum and the minimum operating temperatures : qo. ∆ρ/ηo.25) m Check 2 Check that the normal liquid level is adequately positioned.2. ∆ρ/ηw for oil and water phases respectively Step 2 Find the maximum allowable liquid and oil fluxrate (q 1 /A) and (qo /A) from Figures A 7.LZA (HH) m or.3.3.19  February 2011  Page 227    Height available = D .5. q1.2.

Step 8 Calculate the minimum required vertical cross-sectional area above LZA (HH) for demisting: Ag qg / qg Ag Step 9 Select a vessel with suitable dimensions to satisfy Ahmin and Ag requirements. Standard pressure vessel sizes are given in Figure A 7. 3. if foam is expected: Height available = D . see Figure A 7. Step 7 Find the maximum allowable superficial gas velocity (qg /Ag) from Figure A 7.6D.5 d + 0.5).2. Ah.19  February 2011  Page 228    Calculate the minimum required horizontal cross-sectional.2. Height available = D .2.2. The following checks are required to ensure that the operating levels are adequately positioned. Check 1 Check that the schoepentoeter inlet devise can be accommodated in the available gas cap: height required = 1.PTS 10. 4): Ah = q1 /(q1/A). stringent degassing and foaming (step 2.01. taking into account the various trip and alarm settings (Ref.4.(LZA (HH) +0.15 m Calculation of the inlet nozzles size. qo /(qo/A) m² Select the highest value of Ah above for Ahmin Step 6 Evaluate the term o g g at the maximum design temperature. The vessel L/D ratio should be inthe range 3 to 5.1. Check 3 . d.7. Appendix 7. It is usual to start with a LZA (HH) level at ± 0. areas of the separation compartment for dehydration. is covered in Figure A 7.00.5.25) m Check 2 Check that the normal liquid level is adequately positioned.LZA (HH) m or.

Step 3 Calculate the minimum required horizontal cross-sectional area of the separation compartment for oil and water flow Ah = q / (q/A) m² Select the highest value for Ahmin Step 4 Evaluate the term ρw/ηw for the water phase at the maximum operating temperature.00.10. Umax. Step 5 Find the maximum allowable velocity through the plate pack. check that there is sufficient area available for gas flow when the level is at minimum height (about 0. ηo.2. 15 mm should only be considered if the feed is clean. ρo. ii) Flat plate packs are the preferred choice for high flowrate conditions.2. Step 2 Find the maximum allowable oil and water fluxrates (qo/A) and (qw/A) from Figures A 7. 7.2.19  February 2011  Page 229    For foaming crude. which provides laminar flow conditions for the selected type and plate spacing. ρw.6 Liquid-liquid plate separator The following data are required at the maximum and the minimum operating temperatures: qo.2.25 m).8.9 respectively. ηw The sizing routine is as follows: Step 1 Calculate the terms ∆ρ/ηo and ∆ρ/ηw for the oil and water phases respectively at the minimum design temperatures. qw. and A 7.4. Note: i) A 20-40 mm plate spacing is recommended. see Figure A 7. Step 6 Calculate the minimum required vertical cross-sectional area for separation: Avmin = q1/Umax m² . q1.3.PTS 10.01.

ηo · 1. • alternative 2: rework the design from step 4 using ρo/ηo rather than ρw/ηw as the design criteria. 7. there are two alternative courses of action: • alternative 1: consider a split flow design (see Fig. that turbulent conditions will exist in the water phase and as a result water quality will suffer. dw < 100 µm.00.01. The vessel L/D should be in the range 3 to 5. Check 2 Check the critical droplet size: do ∆ cos α · U Lp · 1. the length of the plate pack can be determined from the "rule of thumb" Lp = 0.7b) in which case the vertical cross-sectional area of the vessel can be halved.25L (or for split flow type.8 m Typically. Step 8 Once the size of the separator has been selected. If so.5. It should be appreciated.2. do < 60 µm Plate angle is usually taken as 60°.125L) The following checks should be made to determine the critical oil and water droplet sizes removed: Check 1 Check the critical water droplet size such that Lp ≥ cos∆ α · vU Applying Stokes’ Law (App.2.PTS 10.8 ηw . Typically.19  February 2011  Page 230    Step 7 Select a vessel with suitable dimensions to satisfy the Ahmin and Avmin requirements. however. Lp = 2 * 0. For standard vessel sizes see Figure A 7.1) will result in: dw ∆ cos α · U Lp .1 m . At this stage it may be found that the vessel diameter is too large.2. see Section 7.5.

and A 7. 3.8. Step 5 Calculate the minimum required horizontal cross-sectional area of the separation compartment for oil. ρg .19  February 2011  Page 231    7.7 Three-phase plate separator The following data are required at the maximum and the minimum operating temperature: qo . Step 7 Find the maximum allowable superficial gas velocity (qg /Ag) from Figure A 7. Step 3 to 8 are based on the PTS.7. 2. q1.2. 4 above) Ah = q/(q/A) m² Select the highest value of Ah above for Ahmin Step 6 Evaluate the term o at the maximum design temperature.PTS 10. degassing and defoaming (step 1. at the minimum design temperature. qw. ρw.2. ρo. ηo. find the maximum allowable liquid fluxrate (q1/A) from Figure A 7. find the maximum allowable liquid fluxrate (q1/A) from Figure A 7. water flow.6.9 respectively. Step 3 If stringent degassing is required. ηw The sizing routine is as follows: Step 1 Calculate the terms ∆ρ/ηo and ∆ρ/ηw for the oil and water phases respectively.5.01.2. Step 8 Calculate the minimum required vertical cross-sectional areas above LZA (HH) for demisting: Ag qg / Step 9 qg Ag .3.2.00. qg.4. Step 4 If foaming is likely to occur.2. Step 2 Find the maximum allowable oil and water fluxrate (qo/A) and qw/A) from Figures A 7.2.

00. Once satisfactory vessel dimensions have been selected the length of the plate pack can be found from the "rule of thumb". see Figure A 7.5. the design can be reworked from step 9 using ρo/ηo rather than ρw/ηw as the design term.4. It should be appreciated.2. This is an iterative process. that turbulent conditions will exist in the water phase and as a result water quality will suffer.10. Note: i) A 20-40 mm plate spacing is recommended. if foam is expected: Height available = D . Lp = 0. For standard vessel sizes.25) Check 2 m .6D see Figure A 7.2.15 mm should only be considered if the feed is clean.2.25L The following checks are required to ensure that the operating levels are adequately positioned: Check 1 Check that the schoepentoetor inlet device can be accommodated in the available gas cap: Height required = 1. Step 11 Calculate the minimum required vertical cross-sectional area for liquid flow: A1 = q1 /Umax m² Step 12 Select a vessel of suitable dimensions to satisfy the Ahmin.15 m Calculation of the inlet nozzles size. It is usually best to start with a LZA (HH) level at 0.01. The vessel L/D ratio should be in the range 3 to 5. ii) Flat plate packs are the preferred choice for high flowrate conditions. If so.5 d + 0. A1 and Ag requirements. however. Umax. Height available = D . see Figure A 7.LZA(HH) m or. is covered in Figure A 7. which provides laminar flow conditions for the selected plate type and plate spacing.PTS 10.1.(LZA(HH) + 0. d. At this stage it may be found that the vessel diameter is unacceptably large because of high liquid handling requirements.2. Step 10 Find the maximum allowable velocity through the plate pack.19  February 2011  Page 232    Evaluate the term ρw/ηw for the water phase at the maximum operating temperature.

Appendix 7.PTS 10. 7. Check 3 For foaming crude. taking into account the various trip and alarm settings (Ref. dw < 100 µm. ηw The sizing routine is as follows: Step 1 Calculate terms ∆ρ/ηo and ∆ρ/ηw for the oil and water phases respectively.5. do < 60 µm Plate angle is usually taken as 60°.2. Check 5 Check the critical oil droplet size: do ∆ cos α · U Lp · 1.8 ηw .1 7. Dehydration tank The following data are required at the maximum operating temperatures: qo . ηo. Step 2 .00.01.25 m). qw.8 . ρw.2.4. see Section 7.3. Check 4 Check the critical water droplet size such that Lp ∆ cos α · U vt Applying Stokes’ Law (App. The following checks should be made to determine the critical oil and water droplet sizes removed. ρo.19  February 2011  Page 233    Check that the normal liquid level is adequately positioned.8.5). ηo m Typically. m Typically. check sufficient gas area is still available for gas flow when the foam level is at maximum height (about 0.1) will result in: dw ∆ cos α · U Lp · 1.

Do of the outer tank is then calculated using the "rule of thumb": Do = 1. .3.PTS 10.2.01. ρo . ρw.2.3.4. the following procedure should be used as a check. ηo.3 and A 7. Suitable standard tank sizes are given in Figure A 7.2. Step 3 Calculate the minimum required horizontal cross-sectional area for dehydration and deoiling: Ah = q/(q/A) m² Select the highest value for Ahmin Step 4 Select a suitable tank size to satisfy Ahmin.1 respectively.3.10 Electrostatic coalescers Electrostatic coalescers are proprietary devices and sizing will be done by the vendor.11.2.4. However. Step 3 Calculate the minimum required horizontal cross-sectional area of the inner tank: Ahmin = qo/(qo/A) m² Step 4 Select a suitable size for the inner tank to satisfy Ahmin Suitable standard tank sizes are given in Figure A 7.2.2.19  February 2011  Page 234    Find the maximum allowable oil and water fluxrates (qo/A) and (qw/A) from Figures A 7.11.9 Concentric wash tank The following data are required at the minimum operating temperatures: qo.2. The diameter.00.3Di 7. The sizing routine is as follows: Step 1 Calculate the terms ∆ρ/ηo for the oil phase. Step 2 Find the maximum allowable oil fluxrate (qo/A) from Figure A 7. 7.

85) a half open pipe should be used.3. .19  February 2011  Page 235    Feed inlet water cut is usually restricted to 20% for AC and AC-DC units.1 Separators (including plate separators) Inlet devices If there is no or little gas.1. Details of internals are shown in Appendix 7.2. Note that AD-DC and bi-electric units have a higher rating than the conventional DC units. Step 3 Calculate the minimum required horizontal cross-sectional area of the separation compartment: Ahmin = qo/(qo/A) m² Step 4 Select a suitable electrostatic coalescer to satisfy Ahmin.14. shortcircuiting and gas break-out.4. otherwise shortcircuiting of the grids may occur.2. ρw . the inlet device should direct the flow against the dished end of the separator. 7.5 Equipment internals and accessories A survey of existing dehydration equipment in Group operations reveals a variety of internal devices and accessories (baffles. Design details are given in Figure A 7.2.13 and A 7.5. many of unique design.4.2. ρo.01.00. spreaders. gas boots.12. spiders. This section covers the design of preferred internals and accessories. It is not usual to consider water fluxrates since these are nearly always satisfied.). The following data are required at the minimum operating temperatures: qo. The flow velocity through the inlet nozzle and inlet device should not exceed 1 m/s. 7. and 10% for bi-electric units. The internals of separators and tanks should be designed to minimise the effects of turbulence. ηo The sizing routine is as follows: Step 1 Calculate the term ∆ρ/ηo for the oil phase Step 2 Find the maximum allowable oil fluxrate (qo/A) from Figure A 7. etc. Suitable standard sizes are given in Figures A 7.PTS 10. If there is a small amount of gas (Cg < 0. The preferred internals for each type of separator and tank are shown in Appendix 7.2.

or a peripheral inlet with central outlets. No degassing facilities are required upstream of the concentric wash tank since the outer tank performs the degassing function. It is beneficial to introduce the feed stream just below the oil/water interface.4.2 Dehydration tanks Upstream of a dehydration tank there should be a gas boot.00.4. The flow distributor comprises two baffles with circular holes. The actual design will depend on the vendor.2. Velocities at inlet and outlet should be kept low in order to avoid disturbances and turbulence. 7.1 m/s. corrugated or have some other profile.4. Flow distributor Perforated plates in the inlet section are recommended for flow distribution and "dampening" of slugs.2. The downward liquid flow velocity should not exceed 0.6.4. A suitable sand flushing system is shown in Figure A 7. Outlets should be fitted with vortex breakers. Design details are given in Figure A 7.01. Sand flushing system and sludge drains Vessels should be fitted with a sand flushing system and interfacial drains. otherwise bottom sediment and residual sludge could accumulate and eventually hinder separation. Design details are given in Figure A 7. The first plate should have a net free area of 3 to 10% and the second plate should have a net free area of 10 to 50%.3. Basically there are two alternative configurations: central inlet with peripheral outlets.5. Liquid outlet nozzles The flow velocity through a liquid outlet nozzle should not exceed 1 m/s. . The rising oil stream gently agitates the interfacial emulsion layer which promotes coalescence. consideration should be given to the installation of a degassing tank. If deep dehydration is required. Gas boot Gas boots are designed to remove "free gas" from crude oil emulsions . Gas boots are suitable for GORs up to 10 nm³/m³. A perforated plate design is given in Figure A 7. In order to avoid shortcircuiting in the tank it is advisable to keep inlet and outlets as far apart as possible. In order to avoid fouling of the plates with solids it is recommended that a minimum plate spacing of 20 mm and plate angle of 60° are taken for design. see Figure A 7.4.4.19  February 2011  Page 236    Three-phase separators should be fitted with a "schoepentoeter" inlet device. Above this value a gas-liquid separator sized according to the PTS is recommended. Plate packs Plate packs comprise a number of plates stacked in a parallel fashion.the gas would otherwise disturb the settling process. The plates may be flat.5. which promotes early degassing. The latter arrangement is preferred because it spreads the feed across a large area. The gap between the plates should be about the same as the hole diameters. which is conducive for good separation. The base of the pack should stand clear of the vessel bottom to allow solids to be flushed away.PTS 10.

7. The flow velocity in the outlet type should not exceed 1 m/s. • the interface level should be kept well away from the oil and water withdrawal points.6.19  February 2011  Page 237    Degassing tank If thorough degassing is required for deep dehydration purposes then a degassing tank may be required venting to atmosphere (or very low-pressure recovery system).5.00. Design details are given in Figure A 7.6 Control and instrumentation For good operation of a dehydration unit proper setting and control of the liquid and interface levels is essential.4.4.9. The diameter of oil collector is arbitrarily taken at five times the outlet line diameter. Normally the ratio of velocities should not exceed 2:1.4. Inlet spider Inlet spiders are designed to spread the feed equally around the tank periphery. otherwise entrainment may result. The oil outlet nozzle at the bottom of the collector should be fitted with a vortex breaker to avoid entrainment of gas. The flow velocity in the feed line and spider legs should not exceed 0. The best location for the interface levels is dependent on the following considerations: • the superficial forward velocity of both the oil and water phases should be similar. The number of spider legs required increases with the tank diameter.7. The flow velocity in the outlet line should not exceed 1 m/s. Design details are given in Figure A 7. Oil collector The oil collector should have a serrated weir.4. This section covers the various aspects of level control for separators and dehydration tanks.2. In that case sizing is based on the PTS criteria for stringent degassing.4.PTS 10. otherwise excessive shear will occur at the interface. this provides equal flow distribution even if the weir is slightly off horizontal.1. .11.01.2 m/s respectively. Water outlet The water outlet nozzle should be fitted with a hood and vortex breaker in order to avoid shortcircuiting and entrainment. 7.1 Separators (including plate separator) Level setting For separator levels.10.8. The number and size of the transfer ports depend on the size of the tank and the flow rate. Design details are given in Figure A 7.5 and 0. Transfer ports The transfer ports in the concentric wash tank have the same function as the spider in the conventional wash tank.2. Design details are given in Figure A 7. see Figure A 7. Design details are given in Figure A 7.

Vessel sizing (diameter) shouldalways be checked against these requirements.PTS 10. Installation may not always be required.5D. but these are not currently available “off the shelf”.4. These are suitable for light/medium density crudes.5. thus allowing good level control. Level measurement is adversely affected by the presence of residual sludge and it is strongly advised that interfacial drains are installed and used frequently.01. . In most cases a weir located at approximately one metre from the end of the vessel will provide sufficient volume for control purposes.00.5.7. For separators with gas separation facilities the oil is usually withdrawn from a surge compartment downstream of the weir.5. The instruments used for interface level measurement in vessels are currently of the displacement type.) For liquid/liquid separators with a plate pack. For heavier crudes prototype capacitance devices have shown promise.6. a dispersion-retaining plate can be fitted in the vessel after the plate pack. This allows normal interfacial level (NIL) to be set at a low elevation during years of low water cut. and at a higher elevation during years of high water cut. For three-phase separators there should be sufficient gas area above the maximum liquid level (LZA(HH)) for demisting purposes. In these cases it may be more attractive to design the system with a flooded weir (see Figure A 7. see Figures A 7. the normal liquid level in the separation compartment should not fall below 0. Level control requirement The general level control requirements are given in Figure A 7. Furthermore.2 Dehydration tanks Level setting For dehydration tank levels.5.5. and A 7. In this manner a sharp oil/water interface is obtained at the end of the vessel. for small diameter or high flowrate vessels a (relatively) large surge compartment may be required.3.5. 7. For heights. under which water and over which dehydrated crude can flow. Interfacial level measurement devices should be installed inside the vessel and not on an external leg.6. Level control system The preferred level control systems for liquid-liquid and three-phase separators are shown in Figure A 7. in the case of the formation of a relatively thick dispersion band which may hamper proper level control. with minimum ∆ρ requirement of 100 kg/m³. The need for low and high level alarms and oil-water interface low level trip are largely dependent on operating philosophy. However. see Figure A 7.2.5.2. The main problems are proper measurement and control of the interface.19  February 2011  Page 238    In practice it is best to install a wide range interface controller.

9. which is being tested prior to installation of the actual water treatment plant.g.2 m from the top of the tank Level control systems Two alternative control systems are shown in Figure A 7.5. see Figure A 7. Displacement type instruments can be used for light/medium density crudes (ρo < 900 kg/m³).01. Selection and sizing of a particular piece of deoiling equipment should. can be done in installed facilities for e. to predict droplet size distributions to be treated in the facilities. or by installing additional water treatment units.8. Depending both on the nature of the disposal method and existing regulatory limits.19  February 2011  Page 239    Best operation is usually achieved with the interface level between 2.1 General considerations The water separated in a dehydration process always contains some oil.3 Deoiling equipment 7. All oil droplets with smaller sizes are thus left behind in the treated water. be based on the relationship between oil content and cumulative droplet size distribution. The maximum free liquid level (LZA(HH)) should be more than 0. Moreover.00. it is necessary to know both the oil concentration and the oil droplet size distribution associated with this concentration. When selecting and designing deoiling facilities for new developments. if not impossible. Both operate with a flooded weir. if applicable. While the translation of results from laboratory testing to field conditions cannot be done reliably (as discussed in Chapter 3). and processing more or less similar crudes.5 m to 3. Such a comparison can be supported by further laboratory testing of artificial emulsions using representative crude samples. samples for droplet size analysis are generally not available. since its design is based on removal of a minimum size oil droplet.PTS 10. ii) the water quality required at the outlet of the treating unit. a further reduction in the hydrocarbon content of produced water is required. In such cases the selection of deoiling performance. in practice it is difficult.3. and to quantify the effect on deoiling performance. in principle. For the characterisation of the influent water quality. The free liquid level should be a further 5 m above the interface level. troubleshooting purposes and/or when improvement in plant performance is required either by adjusting/modifying the equipment.0 m from the bottom of the tank. and so determine the deoiling duties of the next piece of equipment in the treatment facilities and/or the oil content of the disposal water. In some cases samples for further analysis can be taken from a pilot plant. 7. The biggest problem is good control of the interface. For heavy crudes good results have been obtained with the water syphon.5. . The choice and performance of a deoiler system depends on: i) the water quality at the inlet of the treating unit. In such cases the selection of deoiling equipment can be based on a comparison with the performance of facilities installed elsewhere in the region. In order to assess the water quality both at the inlet and outlet of a water treatment unit. indications can be obtainedfor potential problem areas in the deoiling of produced water associated with a particular crude. samples should be taken for further analysis of oil content and droplet size distribution (see also Chapter 3).

With this method only the amount of dispersed oil is reduced. etc. Moreover. they may not be possible for facilities installed offshore.00. The first mentioned devices are now successfully being employed as a deoiler. The application of centrifuges as a deoiler has still to be operationally proven/tested to assess their application potential. in the drive to limit space and weight requirements for in particular offshore applications. however. Treatment for removal of dissolved oil has so far not been applied in E & P operations. the manner in which the oil-in-water concentration is specified (including the analytical method) is critically important for the selection and design of deoiling equipment. biocides. and they may also change with progressing reservoir depletion. since initial emulsion properties are insufficiently known. While such modifications may not be problematic in onshore treatment facilities. even replaced.3. however.01. or additional units may be required to meet effluent quality specifications. Here the initial choice of a deoiling system is much more critical.) is being used to achieve the required water quality specification. As far as new developments are concerned.3 selection guidelines for deoiling equipment currently applicable in E & P operations. . corrosion inhibitors) may stabilise an oil-in-water emulsion which is then very difficult to break. have been summarised together with some additional comments. 7. Mostly a combination of gravity and secondary treatment (gas flotation/filtration.PTS 10. In such cases facilities either have to be modified at a later stage. the use of chemicals in the production process (demulsifiers. All currently applied deoiling equipment in E & P operations basically relies on simple gravity separation. necessitate the application of such treatment processes in the future. hydrocyclones and centrifuges have been actively pursued during the past few years.19  February 2011  Page 240    A final choice of the required deoiling facilities of new developments is not always possible. More stringent legislation as to total oil-in-water content and/or total organic carbon content in disposal water might.2 Equipment selection and application In Table 7. As to the water quality required at the outlet of the deoiling facilities.

40 ‐ Very effective with chemical aids ‐ Dissolved air/gas flotation handles high solids contents Enhanced gravity (hydrocyclones. centrifuges) ‐ Potentially applicable as very effective secondary stage both offshore and onshore 15 .00.01. Equipment/ Process Application Typical performance (outlet water g/m3) 50 -1500 Sea pump. caisson skim pile ‐ Extensive use offshore Settling and skimming tanks ‐ In frequent use as first stage oily water separator 50 – 1500 API interceptor 50 – 100 CPI PPI ‐ General purpose primary treatment ‐ General purpose primary treatment Flotation (possible to combine with flocculation) ‐ Secondary treatment for finely dispersed oil 15 . very suitable for offshore application 40 – 100 Advantages Disadvantages ‐ Simple and economical maintenance and operation ‐ Immersed system ‐ Excellent discharge to sea ‐ Simple and economical primary treatment ‐ Acts as a buffer between continuous and batch treatment processes ‐ Simple and economical maintenance and operation ‐ Simple operation ‐ Modular installation ‐ Reasonable space and weight requirement ‐ Economical ‐ Performance monitoring difficult ‐ Space and weight limitation for offshore use ‐ Space and weight limitation for offshore use ‐ Difficult to use with waxy crudes ‐ Performance depends on temperature ‐ Periodical cleaning maybe necessary ‐ Needs a buffer tank upstream ‐ High operating weight ‐ Chemical handling is necessary ‐ Possible sludge disposal problem ‐ Centrifuges not proven yet ‐ Hydrocyclones require feed water pressure at more than 6 bar to avoid pumping .3 – Deoiling process selection guidelines.19  February 2011  Page 241    Table 7.40 ‐ High removal performance possible ‐ Compact.PTS 10.

little change can be anticipated between the inlet and outlet oil contents.2). The design approach usually followed is based on the selection of the minimum size of oil droplet to be removed. containing relatively small amounts of oil.PTS 10. but here we are concerned with the removal of oil droplets rather than water droplets.3. They operate in a similar manner as continuous dehydration tanks. The oil concentration level at the tank outlet will be very dependent on the oil droplet size and type of crude and may vary between 50 and 1500 g/m³. if the oil is present in the form of a fine dispersion.19  February 2011  Page 242    7. which therefore can be successfully applied for the sizing of deoiling equipment. The efficiency. The dispersion is therefore very dilute and the oil-water separation behaviour is reasonably well described by Stokes' Law. expressed in terms of oil removal or residual oil. however.1.2 API interceptors The design of an API separator is based on the removal of oil droplets larger than 150 µm.3.3.3. where it isdemonstrated that the sizing of the equipment is based on the removal of oil droplets with a minimum size. which is typically 150 µm as for an API interceptor (see section 7. at certain conditions of temperature and flow rate. There are no recognised guidelines for the sizing of skim tanks. Skim tanks are capable of removing free oil droplets and slugs of free oil (which may occasionally inadvertently enter the water treating system). in deoiling processes relatively large quantities of water are being handled.1.3.3. The rizing velocity v of an oil droplet relative to the water-continuous phase is given by Stokes’ Law. particularly the oil droplet size distribution. In those cases the oily water should be treated first with a deoiler.6 is taken directly from the BWN Vortoil brochure. With some effluent water the oil content may be reduced to 50100 g/m³ at the outlet. 7. . will therefore depend on the nature of the feed. For sizing of API interceptors the following procedure can be followed.1 Skim tanks Skim tanks are often used as first stage oily water separator.3.00.3 Equipment sizing As mentioned in Section 7. In the following paragraphs a brief process description and some guidelines are given for the sizing of the following pieces of deoiling equipment: 1) Skim tanks 2) API interceptors 3) Plate interceptors 4) Flotation units 5) Flocculation units 6) Hydrocyclones Design and sizing of hydrocyclones is proprietary information of the manufacturer BWN Vortoil. before it is fed to the interceptor. This is illustrated further in Appendix 7. The brief technical data on hydrocyclones given in Section 7. 7.3.01.3.

00. Fig.3 can be use to evaluate vt.2) Alternatively.PTS 10.01.s (see Figure 7.19  February 2011  Page 243    v Where gd w w (m/h) g = acceleration due to gravity (9. 7.2 ‐ Viscosity of water  . the nomograph shown in Figure 7.81 m/s²) d = diameter of oil droplet (150 x 10-6 m for standard API design) ρw = density of water kg/m³ ρo = density of oil kg/m³ ηw = viscosity of water Pa.

PTS 10.3 ‐ Nomograph: Particle size/specific gravity difference/settling velocity in water at different temperatures  .00. 7.01.19  February 2011  Page 244    Fig.

which should fall within the following ranges: 1.0 ≤ d ≤ 2.4. 7. The minimum allowable vertical cross sectional area Av is specified as AV ≥ qw/vh (m²) Where qw is the water flow rate m³/h.01. The minimum allowable horizontal cross sectional area AH is defined by AH ≥ Fqw/vt (m²) Where F is an empirical factor to allow for turbulence and shortcircuiting.19  February 2011  Page 245    A maximum value is imposed on the horizontal water flow vh with the condition: Vh ≤ 15 Vt or 55 m/h (which is the smaller) This restriction is to avoid turbulent flowing conditions.4 – Derivation of empirical factor F Having specified the cross sectional areas it is possible to specify the depth d and breadth b. Fig.0 m 0.0 ≤ b ≤ 6.00.5 .PTS 10.5 m 2.3 ≤ d/b ≤ 0. A suitable value for F can be found from Figure 7.

5 = 15 m²) by calculating n = Av /15 = qw/15Vh (rounded up to the nearest whole number). each standard CPI pack is designed to handle a normal effluent flow of approximately30 m³/h and maximum flow of 60 m³/h. The performance of a plate interceptor can be adjusted by varying the plate spacing. although this value can be varied by choosing different plate spacings.3. the steeper angles being employed when fouling from solids can be anticipated.0 x 2. Generally.0 m x 1. In so far as there is standard. The normal range for plate spacings is 20 – 40 mm. the capacity of the plate pack q p is given by qp = 50 Vt m³/h The number of ‘standard’ plate packs (n) required for a total water flow rate q w m³/h is given by n = q w/qp (Note that the additional plate area due to the corrugations in the plates is not included in the calculation and may be considered a ‘safety factor’). When A is the effective area of the plates (m²) q is the total waterflow (m³/h) α is the plate inclination from horizontal (rad) then A= q vt · cos α For a ‘standard’ corrugated plate pack with dimensions 1.01. Larger spacings should be used when fouling from suspended soilds or wax build-up is a potential problem. 7. The number of channels can be determined (taking into account that the largest vertical cross section of a channel is 6. As to the sizing of plate interceptor. The interceptor length may be specified to give the required horizontal cross sectional area.3. . Inclination of the plates is normally in the range 45-60°.3.19  February 2011  Page 246    It may be necessary to split the interceptor into a number of channels. plate interceptor for effluent water clean-up are often designed to remove about 95% of oil droplets larger than 60mm.3 Plate interceptors Plate interceptors were initially developed by installing a series of parallel plates in an API separator. An interceptor with plate internals can be considerably smaller than an API interceptor to achieve the same performance.0 m x 1.00. Installing more channels has the operational advantage of allowing one channel to be taken out of service for maintenance without stopping the flow through the other channels.PTS 10. the rising velocity Vt of the smallest oil droplet which is required to be removed from the water (typically 60mm) is determined using Stokes’ Law or the nomograph in Figure 7.75 m with 20 mm plate spacing and an angle of inclination of π/4 rad (45°) (assuming 80% of the plate area is effective).

7. i) Induced gas units.Induced gas flotation unit The induced gas flotation unit is divided into four cells operating in series.00. gas is dissolved into water under pressure. 7. and by chemicals which promote the formation of a stable froth on the surface.19  February 2011  Page 247    7. Induced gas flotation units are typically designed to remove 95% of all droplets down to a size of 15 µm. with a design residence time of 1 minute per cell.3.PTS 10.3.5 . . The flotation process is enhanced by upstream injection of chemical demulsifiers and deoilers.01. Current units commercially available fall into two categories. ii) Dissolved gas units. then released as bubbles by pressure reduction. A typical dispersed or induced gas flotation (IGF) unit is the Wemco depurator (Fig. gas is injected into the water by means of a rotating impeller.4 Flotation units Flotation units separate oil and water using the principle that rising gas bubbles distributed throughout the water will attach themselves to oil droplets and carry them to the surface where they will tend to coalesce and can be separated.5) of which several units have been operated successfully in E & P locations since 1970 Fig.

Some cases of low deoiling efficiency have been correlated with waters having a high suspended solids concentration. Typical figures for oil concentration in the outlet stream are 20 to 50 g/m³ for an inlet stream with 100-500 g/m³ of oil. CPI) and an oil removal efficiency of 70 to 90% is then achieved.4 29. up to 1500 m³/h. . For example.Wemco specifications Model Number Capacity m3/hr 36 44 56 66 76 84 120 120x 144x 11.3.3. up to 500 m³/h.19  February 2011  Page 248    For many applications. the cross-sectional area of the flotation basin is usually based on an overflow rate (superficial velocity) of 5 m/h .1 22.4 3.5 12.01. A typical flocculation scheme is shown in Fig.00. can be built from prefabricated steel sections.0 2. A list of standard sizes and capacities for Wemco units is given in Table 7.PTS 10.4 3.which results in a retention time of 15 to 40 minutes. When typical residence times of 15-40 minutes are considered. IGFs are used in combination (downstream) with some form of gravity separator (API.1 19.1 1. it is immediately evident that the DGF process has a serious drawback in comparison to the IGF process (typically four minutes residence time) where weight and/or space is critical (e. Larger units.4 Connected Power kW 9.4 .4 6.5 Width m 1.4 8.6.9 88.4.3 16.3 10.5 34 68 102 170 255 510 681 1131 Dimensions Length m 4. Table 7.2 15. This is probably due to solid particles attaching to oil droplets or being enveloped with an oil film.5 73. offshore) 7. DGF units up to 150 m³/h capacity can be purchased as skid mounted packaged units.4 2.9 73.8 44.g. a unit capable of processing 400 m³/h would have a cross-sectional area of 80 m².5 1.8 9.4 3. are usually constructed in concrete.5 Flocculation units Suspended liquid and solid matter can be removed from water by chemical flocculation.7 2. The largest units. The pressurisation pumps should be sized assuming a recycle rate of 30% and the size of the saturation vessel should be base on approximately two minutes retention time.0 9.0 9. 7.6 As to the sizing of dissolved gas flotation (DGF) units.

01. As a guide.PTS 10. To-date the use of flocculation within EP has been restricted to the treatment of water for re-injection purposes Flocculation-sedimentation The sizing of a flocculation/sedimentation unit will depend on the particular conditions for any duty. In the floc growth chamber the micro-flocs are given the opportunity to collide and form larger flocs. These are subsequently removed from the water by either gravity separation (sedimentation) or dissolved air flotation. These chemicals destabilise suspended particles and encourage them to coagulate and form microflocs.Typical flocculation scheme A flocculation unit usually consists of a mixing section followed by a floc growth section.19  February 2011  Page 249    Figure 7. the following criteria can be used.6 . .00. In the first chamber chemical coagulants are mixed with the feed.

g. Complete flocculation-sedimentation units can also be purchased and installed on a turnkey basis. if constructed in steel. pH. suspended oil removal efficiencies of 80 to 95% can be achieved. Factory assembled units for flows up to 100 m³/h are available. the oil and solids concentrations in the treated water are often lower than 15 g/m³. or even higher. however. The clarified water from the unit is suitable for media filtration without any further treatment. Unit basins or chambers constructed in concrete can be built by the purchaser with mechanical internals and ancillary equipment being supplied by the manufacturer for installation on location. Larger units. The flocculation process cannot be used in combination with the induced gas flotation process because the high mixing intensity generated by the impellers would destroy the fragile precipitates. Complete assembled packages can be purchased from several manufacturers. i.PTS 10.01. The advantage in using flocculation-flotation instead of flocculation-sedimentation.00. operating temperature.19  February 2011  Page 250    Retention time (min) Mixing intensity (W/m³) Mixing section 5-10 20-200 (variable) Floc growth section 10-25 2-5 The cross-sectional area of the sedimentation section is usually based on an overflow rate (superficial velocity) of 2.3.4 For efficient clarification of produced water it is advisable to determine optimum conditions for destabilisation. a flocculation unit and a DAF unit. Sizing The sizing of a flocculation unit will depend on the individual characteristics of the stream and contaminants. are generally shipped in 'knocked down' form and assembled on site. Consequently. e.which results in retention times of 1 to 2 hours. Performance The flocculation-flotation process is capable of achieving oil removal efficiencies of 80 to 95%.e. As with the flocculation-sedimentation unit. order of addition of chemicals.3. flocculation and flotation by testing in the laboratory. In general. is the overall reduction in space requirements and chemical consumption (weighting agents not required). the following can be used as a guide: Retention time (min) Mixing intensity (W/m³) Mixing section 15 20-200 Floc growth section 5 15 The flotation basin should be sized to the guidelines given in Section 7. and 2 g/m³ has been achieved. .5 m³/h . good operation requires reasonably constant feed conditions and buffer tanks are therefore desirable. Flocculation-flotation The flocculation and flotation steps are normally carried out in separate units. etc.

a higher temperature results in better separation.01. For design/sizing of hydrocyclones advice has therefore to be sought from BWN Vortoil.6 Hydrocyclones Design and sizing of hydrocyclones is proprietary information of the manufacturer BWN Vortoil. Temperature Separation efficiency is affected by temperature. This can be . Differential pressure The critical differential pressure is inlet to reject. Reject flow This is typically 2% of the main water flow and results in a considerably reduced flow to the recovered oil system. The 35 mm hydrocyclone is also supplied as 1-in-1 unit.PTS 10.19  February 2011  Page 251    7. complete units can be taken off line or even individual cyclones blocked off for periods of low flow Droplet size Hydrocyclones can remove much smaller droplets than any conventional system. Pilot plants can also be supplied by the manufacturer for on-site testing. and this governs the capacity of the hydrocyclone.3. taken directly from their brochure 35 mm and 60 mm diameter units BWN Vortoil hydrocyclones are available in two basic sized: 35 mm and 60 mm with the 60 mm unit capable of handling approximately 2½ times more flow than the 35 mm unit.00. Density The greater density differential between the oil and the produced water the better is the separation Minimum flow requirements Low initial flows can be accommodated because of the modular construction of hydrocyclones. Below follows a brief technical data summary of BWN Vortoil hydrocyclones. even with 5-10 micron droplets the efficiency is still significant. Minimum differential pressure required is 4 bar for 35 mm units and 6 bar for 60 mm units. Systems can be designed to give nil nett output of oily water. Performances for both units are comparable and choice of size is dependent on the main factors listed below. Configurations 35 mm and 60 mm hydrocyclones are available in 4-in-1 configuration.3. Reject flow ratio control For large flow rates it is usual to control the reject flow at a constant ratio of the feed flow. Some degree of freedom is possible by using different sized reject nozzles.

01. Typical capacity and weight data ANSI rating (lb)  Max. This is due to the very short residence time of the fluid in the hydrocyclone. . Gas in considerable quantities is released once the liquid leaves the cyclone. It may be necessary to fit small flash tanks on the clean water stream before it flows to the disposal caisson.00.000  1400  35 mm 1‐in 1  35 mm 4‐in‐1  60 mm 4‐in‐1  300 48 20 600  91  30      Typical performance The performance of the hydrocyclone one the sites tested and operating is summarised below: Oil inlet concentration ppm 100 400 3000 Particle size micron 5-15 10-30 50 + Separation efficiency % 70 90-95 99 + Clean water outlet conc. Gas break-out Gas break-out is not of significance in deoiling because gas/liquid equilibrium is not achieved.PTS 10.19  February 2011  Page 252    done by differential pressure ratio control being used to control a flow control valve in the reject line where the additional pressure drop is not significant or to control the speed of reject pumps for low differential pressure applications. ppm 30 30-40 30-40 Hydrocyclones are not affected by changes in inlet concentration or flow rate. design pressure  bar  Typical differential pressure bar    Flow rate in BWPD  150 18 10         Operating weight kg  Hydrocyclone only  1225 1700 2050  200  4800 6800 8200  700  12.300 23.400 18.

Alternatively. .APPLICATION OF STOKES' LAW APPLICATION OF STOKES' LAW FOR SIZING OILY WATER SEPARATORS The use of Stokes' Law for the sizing of deoiling equipment is best illustrated by the example below.e. Step 2 Calculate the rising velocity of the oil droplet using Stokes' Law (equation (1)). breadth 'b' and height 'h') through which the oily water flows under conditions approximating laminar flow and leaves via a bottom outlet. Consider an oil droplet of given diameter 'd' (in m) which starts life at the bottom of the separator. if or L· b ·h h q vt Lb ≥ q vt m2 (2) Thus we have developed a method for sizing the oily water separator. gives a reasonable deoiling efficiency.1.01. we can select a droplet size which. This can be determined by analysis of the oil droplet size distribution in the inlet stream.1. namely: Step 1 Select the size of droplet which is required to be removed.19  February 2011  Page 253    A 7. If we know the physical properties of the oil and water (density.00. from experience. The separator consists of a rectangular tank (length 'L'.PTS 10. A simple oily water separator is shown in Figure A 7.1 . The time ‘t 1’ taken by the droplet to rise to the surface is: h t vt s and the time ‘t2’ for the water to pass through the separator is given by: L· b ·h t q s where q = throughput in m³/s The droplet will be intercepted if t 2 > t 1 i. viscosity) then the rising velocity 'v' t of the oil droplet can be calculated using Stokes' Law: g Vt ηw ρw ρo m/s (1) If this droplet is to be removed from the water it must reach the surface before it reaches the end of the separator (and is swept away with the main water flow). Step 3 Select length and breadth of the separator which satisfy equation (2). Oil droplets rise to the surface to form an oil layer which is continuously removed through a separate outlet at the top of the unit.

01.00. in practice the settler must have a finite height so that the water can be withdrawn without entrainment of the oil layer.PTS 10. However. A7.19  February 2011  Page 254    It is apparent from the analysis above that the settler only requires horizontal cross-section area (Lxb) . FIGURE NO.its height is of no consequence.1 – SCHEMATIC OF A SIMPLE OILY WATER SEPARATOR.   .1.

00.PTS 10.19  February 2011  Page 255    APPENDIX 7.01.2 .2.EQUIPMENT SIZING CURVES AND TABLES FIGURE NO. A7.1 – ALLOWABLE LIQUID FLUX RATES FOR TWO FWKO TANKS AND SEPARATORS .

01.00.PTS 10.19  February 2011  Page 256    .

19  February 2011  Page 257    .01.00.PTS 10.

01.PTS 10.19  February 2011  Page 258    .00.

01.PTS 10.19  February 2011  Page 259    .00.

00.01.19  February 2011  Page 260    .PTS 10.

00.19  February 2011  Page 261    .PTS 10.01.

00.01.PTS 10.19  February 2011  Page 262    .

00.PTS 10.01.19  February 2011  Page 263    .

00.01.PTS 10.19  February 2011  Page 264    .

9 .ALLOWABLE WATER FLUX RATES FOR PLATE SEPARATORS .19  February 2011  Page 265    FIGURE NO A7.PTS 10.00.2.01.

10 – ALLOWABLE FLOW VELOCITIES FOR PLATE SEPARATORS .00.2.19  February 2011  Page 266    FIGURE NO A7.PTS 10.01.

2.01.19  February 2011  Page 267    FIGURE NO A7.PTS 10.00.11 – STANDARD VERTICAL TANK SIZES .

00.01.PTS 10.12 – ALLOWABLE OIL FLUX RATES FOR ELECTROSTATIC COALESCERS .2.19  February 2011  Page 268    FIGURE NO A7.

01.14 – STANDARD SIZE ELECTROSTATIC COALESCERS (INTERGRAL HEATERS) .00.2.13 – STANDARD SIZE ELECTROSTATIC COALESCERS FIGURE NO A7.2.19  February 2011  Page 269    FIGURE NO A7.PTS 10.

01.00.19  February 2011  Page 270    .PTS 10.

00.1 – LIQUID-LIQUID SEPARATOR .3 – EQUIPMENT DRAWINGS SHOWING INTERNALS FIGURE NO A7.01.3.19  February 2011  Page 271    APPENDIX 7.PTS 10.

PTS 10.2 – SEPARATOR WITH A SMALL GAS HANDLING FACILITY (Cg < 0.01.85) .00.19  February 2011  Page 272    FIGURE NO A7.3.

PTS 10.3.3 – THREE PHASE SEPARATOR (Cg < 0.19  February 2011  Page 273    FIGURE NO A7.00.85) .01.

00.19  February 2011  Page 274    .01.PTS 10.

19  February 2011  Page 275    .00.PTS 10.01.

3.01.6 – THREE PHASE PLATE SEPARATOR (Cg < 0.00.PTS 10.19  February 2011  Page 276    FIGURE NO A7.85) .

PTS 10.3.00.19  February 2011  Page 277    FIGURE NO A7.7 – CONCENTRIC DEHYDRATION TANK .01.

8 – CONVENTIONAL DEHYDRATION TANK .00.PTS 10.3.01.19  February 2011  Page 278    FIGURE NO A7.

4 – DETAILS OF INTERNALS FIGURE NO A7.4.1 – SEPARATOR INLET DEVICES .01.00.PTS 10.19  February 2011  Page 279    APPENDIX 7.

m/s m Step 3 Select a suitable size of inlet nozzle d qg qw qo Vm .19  February 2011  Page 280    7.1 Half open pipe inlet device The required size of the inlet nozzle and inlet device can be calculated as follows: Step 1 Evaluate the mean density of the feed: ρm qg g qo o qw w qg qo qw kg/m3 Step 2 Calculate the allowable velocity in the feed nozzle: vm .01.4.PTS 10. m .00.

01.00.PTS 10.19  February 2011  Page 281    FIGURE NO A7.2 – SCHOEPENTOETER .4.

m/s m .4.19  February 2011  Page 282    7.PTS 10.00. m/s g Step 3 Select a suitable size of inlet nozzle: . m .2 Schoepentoeter The detailed design procedure for the Schoepentoeter inlet device is covered in the PTS and the ‘schoepentoeter’ design manual. The required size of the inlet nozzle can be calculated as follows: Step 1 Evaluate the mean density of the feed: ρm qg g qo o qw w qg qo qw kg/m3 Step 2 Calculate the allowable velocity in the feed nozzle: vm vg .01. qg qw qo d d Vm · qg Vg m .

PTS 10.01.3 – DOUBLE PERFORATED PLATE .19  February 2011  Page 283    FIGURE NO A7.00.4.

19  February 2011  Page 284    .PTS 10.00.01.

00.PTS 10.5 – PLATE PACK MATERIAL .4.19  February 2011  Page 285    FIGURE NO A7.01.

19  February 2011  Page 286    FIGURE NO A7.00.PTS 10.6 – CONVENTIONAL DEHYDRATION TANK GAS BOOT .4.01.

19  February 2011  Page 287    FIGURE NO A7.7 – DEGASSING TANK .00.4.01.PTS 10.

Standard tank sizes are given in Figure A7.5. Step 2 Calculate the minimum required horizontal cross-sectional area: Ah min = q1/(q1/A) m2 Step 3 Select a tank of suitable size to satisfy the Ah min requirement.2. (q1/A).01.2.PTS 10.00.11   .19  February 2011  Page 288    7.1 Degassing tank – Sizing The following data is required at the minimum operating temperature: ηo. q1 Step 1 Find the maximum allowable liquid flux rate.1. from Figure A7.

00.8 – CONVENTIONAL DEHYDRATION TANK INLET DISTRIBUTER .PTS 10.01.19  February 2011  Page 289    FIGURE NO A7.4.

4.00.19  February 2011  Page 290    FIGURE NO A7.PTS 10.01.9 – CONCENTRIC WASHTANK EMULSION TRANSFER PORTS .

4.01.19  February 2011  Page 291    FIGURE NO A7.9-DETAILS OF THE CONCENTRIC WASHTANK TRANSFER PORTS .PTS 10.00.

01.PTS 10.19  February 2011  Page 292    FIGURE NO A7.10 – WASHTANK WATER OUTLET .4.00.

19  February 2011  Page 293    FIGURE NO A7.11 – WASHTANK OIL COLLECTOR .4.PTS 10.01.00.

5 -LEVELS AND LEVEL CONTROL FIGURE NO A7.5.PTS 10.19  February 2011  Page 294    APPENDIX 7.00.01.1 – SEPARATOR LIQUID LEVELS .

01.19  February 2011  Page 295    SEPARATOR LIQUID LEVELS .00.PTS 10.

PTS 10.5.2 – MINIMUM LEVEL CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR SEPARATORS .00.01.19  February 2011  Page 296    FIGURE NO A7.

19  February 2011  Page 297    FIGURE NO A7.01.00.3 – CONTROL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SEPARATORS WITH GAS CAP .5.PTS 10.

PTS 10.00.5.4 – CREST HEIGHTS OVER WIERS .19  February 2011  Page 298    FIGURE NO A7.01.

01.5 – TYPICAL VESSEL CONTROL SYSTEMS .19  February 2011  Page 299    FIGURE NO A7.00.5.PTS 10.

19  February 2011  Page 300    FIGURE NO A7.PTS 10.6 – LIQUID AND INTERFACE LEVELS WASHTANKS .5.00.01.

7 – LIQUID AND INTERFACE LEVELS CONCENTRIC WASHTANKS .00.5.19  February 2011  Page 301    FIGURE NO A7.PTS 10.01.

8 – TYPICAL WASHTANK CONTROL SYSTEMS .00.19  February 2011  Page 302    FIGURE NO A7.5.01.PTS 10.

5.9 – CONVENTIONAL WASHTANK WATER LEG .PTS 10.19  February 2011  Page 303    FIGURE 7.00.01.

e. can be calculated using the following equation: Ho –   ho w Hl ρe hl o ho ρe Ho will be at maximum in the (unlikely) event that the inner tank is full of water (i. ρe = ρo).e.5 – 1 m above the normal inner tank liquid level. In order to avoid excessive external load a number of overspill ports should be installed 0. consequently. .19  February 2011  Page 304    CONCENTRIC WASHTANK – LIQUID LEVELS – Hi and ho are fixed by the height of the oil collector (or liquid level controller) and the emulsion transfer ports respectively.PTS 10. stifferners will be required to cater for the external loading condition. thus subjecting the inner tank to external load. – – hi can be varied by means of the interface controller. and this will result in variations in Ho The height of the free liquid level in the outer tank. Tanks are usually only designed for internal load and.00. Ho. hi = Hi) and the outer tank is full of dry oil (i.01. For this case: Ho – hl Hl ho w ho ρo ρo The liquid height in the outer tank will always be higher than the liquid height in the inner tank.

). together with empirical equipment sizing guidelines. Such an approach could have the following advantages: i) It will minimise the size of the final dehydration facilities and associated equipment (pipelines. since vapour recovery systems were inadequate. system design for crude oil dehydration and deoiling of production water must be made in combination with the other processing requirements and they cannot be considered in isolation. opportunities to begin dehydration at an earlier stage in the process should always be considered. crude TVP and gas quality. This may involve not only the provision of properly sized equipment. in particular for onshore can proceed unhindered by gas break-out. for relatively low GOR reservoirs. This resulted in overstabilisation and loss of crude export. . iii) Upstream separators may be operated at higher temperatures. where fluid viscosities are lower than in the lower temperature final stage. together with the pressures and temperatures at which they operate will be influenced by. producing smaller amounts of associated gas. to hydrocyclones which require a certain inlet pressure for maximum efficiency. the operating temperature had to be increased to about 65 °C.PTS 10. System definition must firstly be base on a clear understanding and knowledge of fluid properties. Process design will then proceed to identify the intermediate operations required between production well and product outlet.5. On the other hand.condensate specification directly from a three. compression requirements for optimum gas recovery. For relatively high GOR reservoirs from which a significant quantity of associated gas in addition to crude oil is produced. pumps. i. giving larger dispersed phase droplet sizes. taking account of changing production conditions over the field life. Plant modifications were then required to reduce crude losses. etc. ii) It will provide a dehydration step upstream of system control valves and pumps where liquid shearing is minimised.1 General The preceding chapters have given details of the equipment types available for dehydration and deoiling. To maintain the required BS & W content of the export crude with increasing watercuts. These events therefore illustrate that it is important to integrate processing requirements for crude dehydration and stabilisation at the design stage. for instance gas reservoirs with small amounts of liquid production.19  February 2011  Page 305    8 SYSTEM INTEGRATION 8. system design will be largely driven by requirements for crude oil dehydration and deoiling of production water. In such a case. but also an assessment of the alternative locations for water removal in the processing train. This could extend and simplify the choice of deoiling equipment. This remains a sensible approach. However. The size (diameter) of such a separator would be dictated by gas flow requirements and sufficient cross-sectional area may well then be available for effective condensate dehydration. A good example of the interaction between dehydration and crude processing requirements is the Sirikit field (Thailand) experience (Section 8. In some cases.00. The number of separation stages. it may well be possible to achieve the required water-in. It is most common in the design of a system to incorporate the final or polishing dehydration step at a low pressure stage. following crude stabilisation. However. system design will be largely driven by the processing steps needed to meet the hydrocarbon specifications for products leaving the facility. together with target specifications for gas. for example. iv) It will provide a production water stream also at higher pressure.01.8).e. heaters. oil and produced water. for example.phase wellhead separator. equipment selection and sizing must always be carried out within the framework of an integrated system design.

produced water discharges are normally required to meet a specification as set by legislation. for which the specification is less than 0. should be investigated. For this final dehydration stage the use of a plate separator or an electrostatic coalescer should be considered. The dehydration vessel is then operated above the liquid bubble point and gas break-out is thus avoided (see also Section 8. Further water removal following such a heating step should also be considered. an efficient means of deoiling to this level is provided by hydrocyclones. . Design should follow the prime objective of 'fitness for purpose'. Water removal efficiencies can be enhanced by the installation of a plate pack. marginal fields where this concept of minimum facility definition is imperative to ensure acceptable economics.5. Processing requirements may dictate the need for a heater between separation stages to control. 8. for example. water. any opportunity to use existing facilities at a nearby platform.01. Many new offshore developments now involve the production of smaller. especially in remote locations. however. it is the field location. For offshore platforms.2).19  February 2011  Page 306    In the end. for which typically less than 5% vol.PTS 10. if platform design does not include crude storage cells.5% vol. that will influence system selection and integration most. Where space and weight considerations are overriding factors for offshore systems design. whether onshore or offshore. thus facilitating gravity separation. whether remote or within an existing production infrastructure.00. especially if a differential pressure of about 10 bar (minimum) can be accommodated between inlet and reject streams. In this context. Deep crude dehydration will normally be required offshore to meet the water specification for: i) pipeline transport to an onshore terminal. or ii) direct tanker loading from the platform facilities. crude TVP. these are of less importance for onshore installations and here ease of maintenance and dependability/robustness may be prime factors to be considered. A recent example of satellite production is the new Shell Expro Eider field. For case ii) an electrostatic coalescer would represent the preferred choice. (Requirement to latest approved Malaysian regulation to be complied) At present. where facilities at the nearby North Cormorant platform will be utilised to provide final stabilisation and export of crude oil. For offshore systems the use of three-phase separators in the processing train should always be considered. processing requirements should generally be kept to a minimum. water in the crude is required. The operating pressure of the crude dehydration step (plate separator) will be kept just above 15 bar by locating the vessel at a slightly lower elevation than the production separator. since crude viscosities are lower at higher temperature. either in part or in whole.2 Design considerations for offshore systems It is particularly important in offshore system design to minimise space and weight requirements of production systems. The first stage of separation is normally a good location for water removal since shearing between oil and water phases is then kept to a minimum. Processing at the Eider platform is limited to initial three-phase separation at high pressure (15 bar). followed by crude dehydration to less than 5 % water. To simplify and reduce equipment installation as much as possible. if this is deemed suitable with respect to potential waxing tendencies and/or sand (solids) production. which is typically 40 ppm oil-in-water for the North Sea. Final polishing of product specifications can often be achieved onshore at the receiving terminal.

there could well be various water streams for disposal such as formation/production water. however. iii) The sequence of equipment. A good example of such gradual pressure reduction is the Oman pipeline system. Deoiling equipment requirements may be more extensive. and in water quality. In all cases. However. Each process step must be compatible with the preceding and subsequent steps. particularly for deoiling. should be based on an understanding of performance against an expected mean droplet size for the dispersed phase. dehydration and deoiling equipment remain integral parts of the produced fluid processing system. described in Section 2.00. for instance. not be controlled. emulsions created in pumps and control valves can be minimised by careful design of the production facilities.PTS 10. ii) Skim or buffer tanks are always required when linking a continuous water treatment process to a batch dehydration system. giving poor system performance. since specifications for coastal or inland surface water disposal are more stringent. space and weight considerations for equipment design are not often as critical as for offshore systems.3 Design considerations for onshore systems Similar principles apply to the design and integration of equipment for onshore systems. to avoid step changes in flow rate. that: i) Production separators upstream of continuous dehydration tanks should have adequate capacity to completely degas the crude oil. The use of tanks for dehydration is thus more widely employed. Best results will be achieved by locating the (interface) level control valve from the separator downstream of the hydrocyclone. especially during pigging. performance and mode of operation. An API or PPI interceptor will not be effective. 8. for example. This again reduces 'shear' and preserves droplet sizes of oil-in-water. if oil droplet sizes at the inlet are smaller than 150 µm and 50-60 µm respectively. it can then: i) either be pumped to a pressure consistent with hydrocyclone operation. then consideration should always be given to low shear type pump and to a gradual reduction in system pressure. A gravity-fed dehydration and produced water treatment system is therefore preferred. slops water) and rain water. Depending on the nature and location of the operation. oily condensate. separate disposal routes should be evaluated and treatment steps incorporated prior to recycle. Wherever possible. process water (cooling water. They are often heavily contaminated with solids and chemicals and lead to a build-up of untreatable sludge. for example. Care should be taken to ensure that pump selection is such that potential 'shear' is minimised.4. in general. Emulsion formed in the flow system upstream of the manifold can. It is often common practice to mix these various water streams for treatment prior to disposal.01. and equipment items need to be matched in terms of capacity. by an eccentric screw 'mono' type pump. as those discussed for offshore systems in the preceding section. This practice. However. or ii) be treated via a plate separator and/or gas flotation unit prior to discharge. can lead to fluctuations in both quantity and quality of the feed water . however. however. In practice this means.4 A further feature which often impairs performance of both dehydration and water treatment plants is the recycling of skimmings from oily water separators and residual sludges from sludge treatment plants. If dehydration water is removed at lower pressures. Should this be impractical.19  February 2011  Page 307    Note that high-pressure dehydration is then most compatible with the application of hydrocyclones.

The optimum demulsifier can only be selected by "trial and error".5 it appears that dehydration and deoiling facilities do not always perform optimally.4. The controlling parameters are: . initially in the laboratory (bottle tests) and later in the field. as was done e. Without treatment oil and water cannot be separated fully.01. Hence chemicals injection should always be the first (but not the only) step in any oil-water separation process. The advantages of pilot testing for water treatment facilities should be emphasised. In this way proof of performance prior to full scale installation can be confirmed.4 Factors affecting oil/water separation efficiency From the review of Group operated dehydration and deoiling systems presented in Section 8. However.1 Demulsifier chemicals The oil-water emulsions we encounter in our EP production systems always have a certain stability. and therefore the effectiveness of the demulsifiers in use and dosages applied. in spite of many years of research at Group laboratories and by others.00. Destabilisation is always required prior to the coalescence of small droplets into larger ones and the settling of the larger drops into a single phase.19  February 2011  Page 308    streams and to inconsistent performance of the treatment facilities. should be checked regularly (say once every 1-2 years). consideration should be given to segregation/simplification of treatment facilities to avoid such problems.2 Physical properties of oil and water Oil and water can only practically be separated by virtue of their different densities.4. 8. some of the main factors affecting the oil-water separation behaviour can be identified and pertain to the following operational aspects: • demulsifier chemicals • physical properties of oil and water • flow conditions • solids • pumps and control valves • SRB • recycling of skimmings and sludges • mixing of disposal water streams The aspects listed above are discussed briefly in the following sections. 8. The chemical-physical process of the separation of oil and water is extremely complex and still not fully understood.g. by BSP at the Seria Terminal. Changes to the type of chemicals and injection tests are required as production characteristics change and more suitable chemicals are marketed. 8. Demulsifiers play a key role in all dehydration and deoiling systems as they destabilise (break) the emulsion.PTS 10. The detailed reasons for the nonoptimum performance differ. Wherever possible.

Separation by hydrocyclones or centrifuges is thus orders of magnitude faster than by normal gravity settling and consequently their sizes are much reduced. thus making them very attractive in particular for offshore applications. To ensure effective oil-water separation it is essential that the following operating condition are fulfilled: • laminar flow inside separators • minimum flow variations (surges) • constant quality feed stream It is obvious that these conditions are best met in static settling tanks. Since API and corrugated plate interceptors have been designed for removing droplets larger than 150 µm and 60 µm respectively it is not surprising that these units are rather ineffective. Group research work and field experience it is clear that the hydrodynamics inside vessels and tanks play a key role in the separation process. are now fully proven in operation and there are many applications worldwide. Heat treatment can be used to accelerate the dehydration of a heavy crude because an increase in temperature results in a decrease in viscosity.4. heavy crudes are much more difficult to dehydrate than light crudes. the (gravity) separation of water from oil and oil from water proceeds unhindered. it is desirable to have relatively large dispersed phase droplets. This can be increased using cyclones (up to 100 g) or centrifuges (up to 400 g). Consequently APIs and plate separators will hardly be effective on the bulk of the water drained from settling tanks. The use of centrifuges for oil/water separation has yet to be commercialised.19  February 2011  Page 309    • droplet size • acceleration • density of the water and oil • viscosity of the continuous phase.00. . Consequently. Group experience is limited to testing by NAM at the Berkel site in the Netherlands. Acceleration For gravity settling acceleration is due to gravity.PTS 10. Which can be achieved by either minimising the degree of mixing or by promoting coalescence. In several water treatment plants where oil droplets sizes have been measured it is found that these were relatively small (1-20 µm).01. will usually discharge dry oil and clean water. Once tanks have been filled and degassed. In this respect it is also noted that settling tanks. 8. Density difference and viscosity Large density differences between oil and water and low continuous phase viscosities are favourable for fast separation. however. Droplet size The terminal velocity is proportional to the square of the droplet diameter (Stokes' Law). Therefore. Hydrocyclones.3 Flow conditions From literature. Generally the heavier the crude the greater the viscosity and of course the lower oil-water density difference. which provide sufficient time for the smallest droplets to be separated.

corrosion products and scales have a stabilising effect on the emulsions.However. short circuiting and gas break-out. API. manifolds. flow beans.4. However. A gravity fed dehydration and production eater treatment system is therefore preferred. Each process step should be compatible with the preceding and subsequent steps.01. silt. dissolved gas flotation units and flocculation agents should be used rather than IGF (Wemco) units. TPI. Emulsions formed in the flow system upstream of the manifold cannot be controlled. production separators upstream of continuous dehydration tanks should have adequate capacity to completely degas the crude oil and to smooth any flow surges and that skim/buffer tanks are always required to enable batch dehydration to be performed with continuous water treatment. Flocculation/flotation water treatment methods are then required.g. etc. many of unique design.4 Solids The fine solids. This means that gravity separation by conventional equipment. wax. gas boots.e.g. i. e. This means that oil and water are more difficult to separate and produced water is likely to be highly contaminated. 3) The internals of separators and tank should be designed so as to minimise the effects of turbulence. tubing (particularly in gas lift wells). In this case it is recommended that positive displacement pumps rather than centrifugal pumps are used and that pressure is gradually reduced. etc. clay. Special heat and/or chemical treatment is required to break this sludge. sand. Solids play an important role in oily water separators. solids cause residual sludge at the tank/vessel bottom or at the oil-water interface.PTS 10. Greater uniformity in future equipment design should result in more efficient dehydration and deoiling performances with less upsets of a circumstantial nature.g. but the following basic principles should be adhered to: 1) Dehydration and deoiling equipment are integral parts of the produced fluid processing system. Their performance is adversely affected by the presence of solids.). which imparts sufficient energy to disperse one liquid into the other. pumps and control valves. is ineffective. emulsions created in pumps and control valves should be minimised. e. In practical terms this means that e. In many installations we see that solids are coated with oil and are almost neutrally buoyant.00. When the oily water contains more than say 50 ppm solids. spreaders. CPI. insoluble asphaltenes or which are introduced by the crude/water processing facilities. This is not always practicable and pumps or pressure reduction valves may be required. e.19  February 2011  Page 310    For continuous deoiling and dehydration there is no single recipe for the best system design.5 Pumps and control valves To produce and emulsion of oil and water the two immiscible liquids must be subjected to a degree of agitation. 8. This requires careful design of the production facilities.g. Emulsions will therefore be formed in sections of the flow system where 'large' pressure drops and thus violent agitation occurs. which are either produced together with the crude oil. in perforations.4. 8. 2) The vessel and tank dimensions and internals should provide laminar flow under all operating conditions. A survey of existing dehydration and deoiling facilities reveals a variety of internal devices and accessories (baffles. . the widely used induced gas flotation units are inadequate. In some cases. spiders. christmas trees.

e. Nevertheless the target water-in-oil (5% (vol. The production from Brent.7).) for Brent. FeS will also result in a dark coloured water.) water. However. The crude discharged into the Fulmar FSU contains less than 0.PTS 10. rain water. It is interesting to note that the oily water treatment and dehydration systems are different for each platform. after treatment in electrostatic coalescers. 8. slops water) and formation/production water. This review with comments may well be helpful in avoiding pitfalls for future designs.1 Shell Expro A variety of dehydration and produced water treatment systems are used on Shell Expro's North Sea platforms. 8. It is thought that in Sarawak SRB are introduced as a result of draining of the offshore sump piles. which will adversely affect dehydration and deoiling performance.) for Fulmar and Auk) and oil-in-water (40 g/m³ measured by IR) of the export crude and disposal water respectively are met. The crude oil discharge into the Brent pipeline has a water content of 0.5. Residual sludges from sludge treatment plants are apparently untreatable and will also contain a large amount of solids.01. . for all water treatment plants steady state feed conditions are necessary to maintain a consistent system performance. SRB colonies could well develop in tanks and pipeline systems.5% (vol. skimmings contain 9098% water and are often heavily contaminated with solids and chemicals.8 Mixing of disposal water streams Depending on the nature and location of the operation there are various water streams for disposal.00. Dunlin and Cormorant is transferred to Sullom Voe where it is dehydrated to refinery specification (BS&W é 0. or they should be processed in a dedicated sludge treatment plant (see Section 5. process water (cooling water.5%).7 Recycling of skimmings and sludges Skimmings of oily water separators and residual sludges from sludge treatment plants are often reinjected into the incoming stream to the dehydration or water treatment plants.1 to 0. Recirculation of these skimmings and sludges may lead to a build-up of solids and untreatable sludges. Disposing of this water in urban areas is a problem.4.4.19  February 2011  Page 311    8. 8. 8. Schematics of these installations are given in Fig. This SRB growth will result in H 2S production causing corrosion and FeS. Therefore recirculation of skimmings and sludges should be avoided and they should be disposed of either into the crude export stream. When these waters are mixed with the produced fluids.g.5% (vol.8.4. Dunlin and Cormorant and 0.1 . provided sufficient dilution exists to achieve the crude export specifications.5. displacement/ballast water. However. 8.6 SRB Most surface waters are likely to contain SRB. with comments and suggestions on performance improvement. These solids will adversely affect dehydration and deoiling performances as explained above.5 Review of field installations In the following sections a brief review is given of several dehydration and deoiling systems installed or planned in various Group operations. The produced water rates in all fields are increasing and at present the average watercut is some 3035%. Mixing of the various water streams will give a fluctuating feed stream in both quality and quantity to the water treatment plants.9% (vol. oily condensate. In Gabon SRB are introduced through wash water which is drawn from a fresh water lake.).

2 – Shell Expro – Fulmar Alpha. Fig. .01.19  February 2011  Page 312    Fig. 8. Typical production facilities.00. Typical production facilities. 8.PTS 10.1 – Shell Expro – Brent/Dunlin.

Cormorant Alpha.Shell Expro .00.2 .19  February 2011  Page 313    Fig. 8. 8.Auk. typical production facilities   Fig.1 .01.PTS 10. typical production facilities .Shell Expro .

Oil concentrations during tests were reduced from 450 to 20 g/m³.North Cormorant.). 8.00. the residual water content in the oil from the first stage separators was found to be in the order of nil . During the Fulmar tests it was found that water quality deteriorates with increasing pressure drop over the chokes. 8. It was also found that the oil-in-water content of water drained from the first stage North Cormorant separator was in the order of 50g/m³. which require more time to settle.6) Eider has been designed by Shell Expro as a satellite platform to North Cormorant. This confirms the general understanding that higher pressure drops create smaller droplets. This fully explains why the oily water separators and corrugated plate packs designed for removing oil droplets of 50 µm and larger. This pressure was chosen to ensure that hydrates would not form in the export oil under minimum temperature and maximum pressure .Shell . or if too small. hydrocyclones. which was surprisingly low. with a mean diameter of 15-20 µm. The injection and proper mixing of demulsifier chemicals upstream of the first stage separators however. During recent tests with the Fulmar test separator and the North Cormorant first stage separator it was confirmed that dehydration is relatively easy.2 New North Sea platform designs Some of the interesting aspects associated with new North Sea platform designs are discussed below: a) Eider (see Fig. were installed at North Cormorant for produced water treatment following successful field trials. Hydrocyclones are now permanently installed on North Cormorant as from late 1987.5.5% (vol.19  February 2011  Page 314    Fig. In spite of loading the separators beyond the usually adopted design capacity.Expro .01.3 . typical production facilities The relatively low density.PTS 10.0. are hardly effective. 8. During 1987. These trials showed that oil droplets with a diameter of 10 µm and larger could be removed with very high efficiencies (l95%). Crude is partially stabilised and dewatered at about 15. Furthermore the oil droplet size was very small.0 bar in the production separator. will not settle at all. proved to be essential for good dehydration performance. high production temperature (70-90 °C) and consequently low oil viscosity (< lcSt) of the North Sea crudes provide favourable conditions for effective oil-water separation.

Fergus. to avoid gas break-out.4 .5% BS&W in an electrostatic coalescer (to be supplied by Petrolite).Eider production facilities The deoiling system chosen for Eider consists of a gravity separator with plate internals followed by an induced gas flotation unit (Wemco). 8. via a subsea pipeline. c) Kittiwake One of the original Gannet clusters . b) Tern Tern has also been designed by Shell Expro in parallel with Eider. Final dewatering to about 3% water will be achieved in a plate pack coalescer. The processing facilities include three stages of separation with final crude dehydration to 0. Water will be fed directly from the first stage . Hydrocyclones were not considered at the design stage since insufficient operating experience existed at that time.7 Stabilised crude will be loaded directly into an export tanker and associated gas will be compressed to enter the Fulmar gas line to St. Fig.has now been designed by Shell Expro as a stand-alone platform development. Crude export is then metered and routed. A schematic of the produced water treatment facilities is shown in Fig.19  February 2011  Page 315    conditions in the pipeline.01. It is a gas lift platform but contains similar crude oil dewatering and deoiling concepts to those described for Eider.Kittiwake . 8. which is operated at slightly higher pressure (above liquid bubble point).PTS 10.00. to the second stage separator at North Cormorant for final stabilisation.Shell Expro .

The optimum process scheme for producing a pipeline quality gas is based upon a turbo expansion process. and a water dewpoint of 31 mg/Sm³ which will permit transportation in the existing Norpipe system and sale in Europe without further treatment. will be a gas lift platform. will be installed.PTS 10. A glycol contacting dehydration process is proposed to maintain the water content of the gas below 31 mg/Sm³ (2 lbs/MMscf)               . it has been suggested to install a plate pack. The Troll gas contains 93% methane and is relatively lean such that only 35 m³ of condensate will be produced for every 1 million Sm³ of Troll gas. The process configuration (see Fig. with the incoming gas precooled by heat exchange with cold gas from the dewpoint control separator. Belgium respectively. and a mono type eccentric screw pump. Water separated at lower pressure stages will either be pumped to the hydrocyclone inlet or treated via a separator (with plate pack) followed by induced gas flotation.19  February 2011  Page 316    separator and pumped from the coalescer to a system of hydrocyclones. The condensate will be stabilised and exported via pipeline to Oseberg "A" for spiking into the crude pipeline to shore at Sture.00. The eastern province of the field which contains around two-thirds of Troll's recoverable gas reserves of 1290 billion Sm³ will be the location of the first development phase consisting of a concrete substructure with topsides designed to process around 66 million Sm³/d of gas to hydrocarbon dewpoint specification of -3 °C at 70 bara and below. Hydrocyclones are being considered for water clean-up.8. manufactured by Seepex in Germany. e) Troll The Troll Field is located some 80 km west-north-west of Bergen (Norway) in a water depth of 300-340 m. certainly for that water removed in the first (high pressure) stage of separation. Pump selection has recognised the need for reduced shearing. The gas will be exported via the existing Statpipe/Northpipe system and the proposed new Zeepipe system to landing points at Emden and Zeebrugge. Storage cells will be provided for crude oil dehydration. To maximise water removed in this separator. d) Draugen Draugen is being developed by Norske Shell and like Tern.8) provides a product gas which meets the hydrocarbon dewpoint specification (-3 °C at 70 bara and below) at an export pressure of 165 bara using gas turbine driven pipeline compressors at a design end plateau wellhead pressure of 60 bara.01.

8.5 .Kittiwake Project.01.00.19  February 2011  Page 317    Fig. produced water treatment .PTS 10.

000 g/m³ NaCl) water. A schematic of the terminal's dehydration and waste water treatment scheme is shown in Fig.000 b/d) highly saline (275.Troll topsides (conceptual) An interesting feature of condensate/water separation will be the provision of a three-phase inlet gas separator (Fig.6 . thus avoiding additional shearing between the phases.8).00. The crude oil is degassed and treated with chemicals for emulsion breaking at the Gamba and Ivinga stations prior to dehydration at the Gamba terminal.19  February 2011  Page 318    Fig.925 m³ (75.5. 8.8. ii) Mixing of 'wet' condensate form the first stage separator with 'dry' condensate from the gas chilling train is avoided It is presently planned to use hydrocyclones for water clean-up prior to disposal. . Separator sizing is governed by gas load.3 Gabon-Gamba/Ivinga fields a) Description of dehydration and deoiling facilities The Gamba and Ivinga fields together produced about 2400 m³/d (15.01. 8.9. but sufficient cross-sectional area exists to also provide for water/condensate separation. 8.000 b/d) waxy crude oil (po = 850 kg/m³) and some 11.PTS 10. Such a scheme has the following advantages over dehydration of the separated condensate: i) Separation of water and condensate is achieved before condensate is transferred into the stabilisation system (with a pressure reduction of 90 bar to approximately 30 bar).

Gamba terminal dehydration/desalting/deoiling system Degassed crude oil and skimming from the API oil interceptors (and retention basin) are dehydrated in Tank T170.PTS 10. e.These operate in a batch mode and water is drained off intermittently. . The piping arrangement is such that streams can either be combined. B. are collected in the same open drain system. Final dehydration and desalting is achieved in four export tanks (A.7 . C and D). Water from the four export tanks A. The crude is dehydrated again in T180.19  February 2011  Page 319    Fig. Rain water.g. which is also tied into the API interceptors. thus reducing the salt concentration.3% water and the separated water contains 20-40 g/m³ oil (by IR method) and 20-50 g/m³ suspended solids. The effluent water from the API oil interceptors is disposed of into a retention basin from where it overflows into the Vevy lagoon.01. from pigging or tank sampling operations. equipped with flow distribution internals (spreaders) and vortex breakers at the oil and water outlets.00.As the crude oil salt specification cannot be met by this single step continuous dehydration fresh water is added to the crude from T170. Large variations in T170 effluent water quality and a build-up of an interfacial sludge layer are occasionally observed. 8. Since that date dehydration/deoiling performance of T170 has shown marked improvement. B. or be disposed of separately. cooling water and spillages. b) System performance In 1981 the distribution spreaders of T170 and T180 were modified to improve the flow pattern inside the tanks. C and D is drained into an open gutter system. Tank T170 and T180 are identical 7950 m³ (50. Suspended solids appear to be attached to the oil and oil/solid conglomerates are almost neutrally buoyant. The effluent water streams from T170 and T180 are discharged into two parallel oil-water (API) separators. most likely introduced by the recycled skimmings from the API oil interceptor and holding basin.000 bbl) continuous dehydration tanks. The dehydrated oil from T170 contains less than 0. The size of the solids and oil droplets is very small (2-9 µm).

It is also employed at the Thayyem Production Facilities in Syria.01. which is taken from a nearby pond.PTS 10.1% water and the effluent water contains some 40-50 g/m³ oil. Note: Dehydration of salty crude oils. the API oil interceptor is ineffective.19  February 2011  Page 320    Usually T180 is operated with an oil-water interface about 3 m above the bottom and thus provides three days residence time for the water and oil to separate. whilst in Central Oman water is injected into a disposal aquifer. During normal operations the oil contains 0. Process upsets of this nature should therefore be reduced in future The API oil interceptors have a nominal capacity of approximately 250 m³/h. However. T180 export tanks and cooling water) and an additional 190 m³/h during rain storms. Wash water quality is not constant and a potential source for process upsets. As part of the terminal extension to process Rabi crude. . can alternatively be achieved using electrostatic coalescers rather than continuous dehydration tanks. which is dispersed as very fine solids and acts as an ideal emulsifier. The water from the dehydration tanks is fed by gravity to skim tanks. The resulting dispersion of oil-in-water then becomes difficult to separate.1% (vol. introduced through the wash water. In fact the water quality sometimes deteriorates from the pick-up of oil from the separator walls. The water content in the exported oil is 0. A schematic of typical North and Central Oman crude oil-water processing facilities is shown in Fig 8. as at Gamba. Dehydration is carried out in floating roof tanks. this source of wash water will be replaced by aquifer water. The dehydration process is continuous and to create ullage tanks are operated at the 55-65% level.01-0. As oil/solids from the dehydration tanks are very finely dispersed and neutrally buoyant.5-2 m is usually maintained. It is thought that these high oil levels are caused by FeS. This is typically the method employed at refineries to reduce salt (water) content of incoming crude oil.10. The dehydration tanks have a tangential inlet and a floating suction. An interface level of 1. Gas is separated in the fields in two-phase separators and atmospheric tanks. The FeS is generated by Sulphur Reducing Bacteria (SRB) activity. The dehydration water in the northern area is reinjected for reservoir pressure maintenance.4 PD Oman a) Description of dehydration and deoiling facilities Production in Oman originates from three geographical areas. Final dehydration and desalting is achieved in the four export tanks. With a continuous throughput of 520 m³/h (T170. during upsets oil-in-water concentrations increase and an interfacial sludge layer builds up. the API oil interceptors are often overloaded.).00. 8. It therefore represents a proven operational system and choice will depend upon local factors such as availability of sufficiently skilled operation and maintenance support.5.

8 .19  February 2011  Page 321    Fig.PTS 10. Further degassing and dehydration is achieved in concentric (dynamic) wash tanks.00. Dehydration water is pumped to skim tanks from where it is discharged into disposal wells. Heating to 60-70 °C is required for dehydration.01. 8. . 8. Gas liquid separation takesplace at about 200 kPa. A schematic of typical production processing facilities is shown in Fig.11.Typical North and Central Oman production facilities In South Oman the crude is heavier and more viscous.

Dehydration efficiencies as gauged by BS&W in the discharge vary: 0. thus providing long residence times and small upward oil velocities. (The superficial water velocities in these skim tanks are almost twice the downward water velocities in the dehydration tanks). Tanks are filled in sequence giving time to settle residual water. The quality of the water from the skim tanks is hardly improved.3% (vol. However.19  February 2011  Page 322    Fig. This water is drained from the tanks and gravity fed to an API oil interceptor and corrugated plate interceptor from where it flows via a small stream into the sea. 8". To provide back pressure for the 600 m oil column a pressure control valve and three kilometres of small diameter (6". expressed in terms of oil-in-water content is rather poor and varies from 100-400 g/m³. the dehydration water can be injected without problems.2-0 5% (vol. 8. No particular problems are experienced. The (partly) dehydrated crude gathered in the three main areas is pumped to the coastal terminal at Mina al Fahal crossing a mountain which is 680 m above MSL. The quality of the dehydration water. The terminal receiver is at 80 m above MSL. 10") pipes have been installed to gradually reduce pressure and thus avoid emulsification of the oil and water.9 . b) System performance North Oman The dehydration performance is generally good.PTS 10. The tank capacity is more than adequate.) for summer conditions (35-50 °C) and 0.1-0.) for winter conditions (15-35 °C).00. Central Oman Dehydration performance in the Qarn Alam area is comparable to that in North Oman.01.Typical South Oman production facilities The more recently developed fields have corrugated plate interceptors installed downstream of the skim tanks. .

The tanks which experience these load variations show a poor deoiling performance and support the general opinion that "steady" flow conditions are a pre-requisite for effective oil-water separation. The water is treated in CPI's and disposed into the sea. Dehydration performance of the tanks has been good (0.01. Wet crude is separated from the associated gas at the flow stations in the field.5-1% BS&W). 8.6 hours for the light crudes and some 72 hours for the somewhat heavier BonnyMedium crude.5. The settling times to reach the oil export quality are in the order of 4 . but the sourness of the water is different. In the recent Nimr development FWKO tanks were installed from the start. The crude oil is relatively light with a density around 850 kg/m³.) residual watercut in the dehydrated oil discharge. Dehydration is achieved by batch settling in tankage. The production processing is the same for both areas. Indications are that these FWKO tanks are removing only 10% of the free water which is rather disappointing. leading to poor water quality.5 SPDC . though with frequent excursions above 2000 g/m³. The water separation is almost complete and therefore salinity is less than the maximum export figure of 70 g/m³ NaCl. The water drained from these tanks is pumped to the Rapele River where it is discharged without further treatment. Even at twice the design throughput dehydration performance has been very good with just over 1% (vol. These tanks are operated in series.PTS 10. treated with demulsifying chemicals and transferred to either the Ughelli Quality Control Centre (UQCC). A small water leg is maintained.00. Modifications are under way to improve this situation. Mina al Fahal Crude salinity rather than water in the export crude oil is of main concern at the PDO export terminal. Severe surges in the high watercut producers are observed.19  February 2011  Page 323    A large difference is found in dehydration water quality. This results in fluctuating water loadings. The sludge is treated in a sludge treatment plant and the recovered oil is spiked into the export stream. Water and interfacial sludge are therefore completely drained from each tank. the Forcados Export Terminal or the Bonny Export Terminal. Tank loading and physical water/oil properties are almost identical. Upon separation the tanks are drained until a capacitance probe senses dry oil. Residual water is removed in batch wise operated tanks. After setlling the produced water at Forcados and Bonny is drained into corrugated plate interceptors which overflow via an API oil interceptor into the coastal waters. Whereas the effluent water of some tanks contains very low amounts of oil (0-20 g/m³ range). The dehydrated crude of the UQCC is pumped to either the Forcados Terminal or to the Warri refinery. To avoid overdrainage of the tanks and to prevent oil slugs entering the water treatment plants. Significant quantities of iron sulphide solids are present in the sour production water. . At UQCC the production water is drained into two sludge/skim tanks. others discharge water with an average oil content of 1000 g/m³. Recently FWKO tanks have been installed in front of the concentric dehydration tanks in Marmul and Rima to cater for the higher watercuts.Nigeria a) Description of dehydration and deoiling facilities Production in Nigeria is from two areas. In Marmul this has resulted in a higher oil content in the disposal water despite the installation of CPI units. the elevation of the oil-water interface in the tank is monitored by sample nozzles on the tank wall. South Oman Concentric wash tanks have been in use since February 1981 in Marmul and October 1982 in Rima.

the quality of the disposal water is within the self-imposed limit of 50 g. The field production is gathered in five trunk lines. . The wet crude is fully degassed in the field where demulsifier chemicals are also added. However.PTS 10.130 g/m³.00. A more advanced water treatment method will then probably be required. which discharge in batch wise operated dehydration tanks. It is expected that in future the government will impose a more stringent legislation and a limit of 20 g/m³ oil-in-water is expected. with an average value below 50 g/m³. As part of a recent study on the revamping of the Ughelli quality Control Centre.12) and the dry oil is pumped to the export tanks. Measurements of oil-in-water droplet size distribution after 6 hours settling indicated that 85% of the droplets were smaller than 10 µm.6 BSP a) Description of dehydration and deoiling facilities Dehydration and water treatment facilities are centralised in the Seria Terminal. corrugated plate interceptors would therefore be ineffective. the water is either drained to the API oil interceptor or pumped to tanks T22/36 (see Fig.01. the water handling capacity of all terminals is limited and bottlenecking is required for future water disposal volumes.g.19  February 2011  Page 324    b) System performance The dehydration performance at the three production centres is good and after batch dehydration crude export specifications (BS&W » 0. 8. 8.5.1%) are met without problems. At present. Further reduction in oil-in-water by using e. it was demonstrated that the oil-in-water content downstream of the settling tanks varied from 30 . as these are typically designed to remove oil droplets larger than 60 µm.m³ oil-in-water. When a particular tank is full and water has settle out for 3-6 hours.

see Fig. offshore light water (OLW) and the balance of LHW are routed through a Wemco induced air flotation unit.1% BS&W) and the water. storm water. This interfacial emulsion is collected in two emulsion holding tanks (T41/42. which consists of heating. Wemco and DAF skimmings for further batch wise treatment. The water leaving the basin has an oil content below BSPs self imposed target of 35 ppm which is mainly achieved by the settling in the basin in combination with disc skimmers. dehydration and production water treatment facilities After the normal settling time water and oil have not separated fully and an emulsion layer is sandwiched between the dry oil (0. . which comprises a flocculation unit. acetic acid dosing (800 g/m³) and oil-water separation.10 . A mixture of land light water (LLW). The oil from the separators is still relatively wet and is therefore routed through the batch wise operated dehydration tanks T45/46. i. where in time the emulsion will break down into separate oil and water phases. water ex emulsion treatment plant and the water from the condensate tanks (CHPS water) is routed via the API oil interceptor and the Sungai Bera Holding Basin into the sea.e.PTS 10. The separated water is drained into the API oil interceptor via the dirty water tank T34. a dissolved air flotation (DAF) unit and dual media filters. The emulsions associated with offshore light production are rather stubborn and require special treatment. The emulsion of the land heavy and land light production is pumped to the next receiving tank.Seria Terminal. 8. An upgrade of the water treatment is planned to be completed in 1992 which will ensure the 35 ppm target for the water leaving the API separator. 8.19  February 2011  Page 325    Fig. The remaining terminal effluent water. Part of the land heavy water (LHW) is treated in the RE*A water treatment plant.01. production water.00.13) together with API.

13). T120 for land heavy crude and T130 for land light crude in March 1988. Note: A new demulsifier will shortly be introduced which. This recycling tends to result in a build-up of solidsand tight emulsions within the system. The performance of the Wemco and DAF units is generally good with efficiencies in the order of 80-95%. . The recycling of sludges from T45/46 and skimmings (DAF. reduced the oil content of the milky water from 1500 g/m³ to less than 400 g/m³. In the case of the condensate stream. it is proposed to convert the remaining dehydration facilities from batch to continuous operation.19  February 2011  Page 326    b) System performance The dehydration efficiency is good and in general export crude contains less than 0. It should be noted that this plant was installed following extensive pilot testing. Wemco and API) impact on the performance of the emulsion and sludge treatment plant (Fig. the quality of the produced water can be affected by the following factors: a) Quantities of emulsion/oil entering the water treatment facilities during draining cycles.1% (vol. 1500 g/m³ very finely dispersed oil. is reduced to 20 g/m³ (total oil). The performance of the DAF/filter system at the plant at the Seria Terminal is remarkably good mainly due to the backwashing of filters with Nonidet LE (1%) and regular clean out of sludge from the DAF and floc tank. in a field trial.01.PTS 10.00. this will be dehydrated in three-phase separators in the new condensate stabilisation plant presently (1988) being designed. 8. The current batch dehydration system for land light and land heavy consisting of six tanks has been replaced by two new 6000 m³ Continuous Dehydration tanks. Special treatment of this water would improve overall system performance. As a result to their satisfactory operation.) water. b) Relatively small volumes of water (CHPS and slops water) which contribute significantly to the overall oil-in-water content of the terminal effluent. The oil content of the milky water (LHW). However. The DAF unit requires extensive operator attention to achieve good results (more so than the Wemco).

Labuan and Bintulu terminals prior to export by tanker. Wet crude is dehydrated in the Lutong. crude-receiving tanks. waxy crude. induced gas flotation (Wemco) and holding basin. The water drained from the FWKOs and the crude receiving tanks is passed through the water treatment plant (see Fig. 8.7 SSB/SSPC a) Description of dehydration and deoiling facilities The offshore oil fields in Sarawak and Sabah produce light. Water is drained from the tank bottoms immediately after a particular tank has been filled.11 . storage tanks. At these terminals the producing water is treated and disposed of into the sea.5.14). The atmospherically stabilised oil production enters the terminal via four different trunklines.PTS 10. Interfacial emulsions together with skimmings of the API. Wemco and holding basin are further treated in the emulsion and wax treatment plant (EWTP). The oily water from FWKO vessels. interfacial emulsion is pumped to the emulsion hold-up (T41). . In the field the crude is fully degassed and demulsifier chemicals are added. EWTP and the sump pit is drained into the API oil interceptor .00.Seria Terminal. from where it flows through a corrugated plate interceptor (CPI1).19  February 2011  Page 327    Fig.14 refers). The streams are passed through FWKO vessels and discharged into crude receiving tanks. emulsion treatment facilities 8. 8. which is described below.01. CPI. Subsequently. At present the water from the holding basin is pumped through 4 x 12" pipelines (redundant product/crude oil export lines) to discharge points 1525 m (5000 ft) beyond the low-low water mark to make it a truly offshore disposal (Figures 8. which are used as batch dehydration tank as. tank T41. The facilities at each terminal are essentially the same as at the Lutong terminal.

Skimmed oil and water from the holding basin follows the same route. the service is for two phase (oil/water) separation only with slotted baffle plate and improved inlet nozzle to distribute flow over the full cross section of the vessel. However. These vessels were installed for three phase separation with a weir. Performance under normal operating conditions at present shows efficiencies as high as 70%. BOD/COD. although in the offshore discharge situation the oil content criteria (measured by IR method) is met most of the time. The skimming of the API and TPI interceptors as well as from the Wemco are collected in a sump pit.19  February 2011  Page 328    The waterflow through the effluent treatment plant (ETP) is by gravity. Before this modification criteria for inshore disposal (Bintulu. whereas the residual emulsion leaves the vessel at the top. phenols. Free water knockout vessels are used in two terminals (Bintulu has none).000 bbls/day).3 to 0.m ). At present. This is a marked improvement from the 20-30% efficiencies recorded before the (three) vessels at Lutong terminal were modified. sulphide and total suspended solids.12 . the quality of the effluent water is relatively poor. The performance of SSB/SSPC's water treatment and emulsion/wax treatment plants is inadequate for the following reasons: . -3 These included limits for oil content (10 g.00. Fig.PTS 10.Lutong water treatment plant b) System performance Dehydration efficiency in all three terminals is good and export specifications of less than 0. 8.000 m³/day (75. for processing in the emulsion and wax treatment plant (EWTP).01. Water is drained through an (enlarged) bottom nozzle. The design capacity is 12. The top layer of this pit is periodically (level control) pumped via TPI-2 sump to T-41.5% v (depending on the terminal) water are always met. the emulsion holding tank. It is noted that water discharge in all three terminals were only recently relocated to an offshore location (as from January 1988). Labuan) and onshore disposal were always exceeded because of the stringent statutory requirements.

operating batch-wise. Furthermore. • Recycling of skimmings to the EWTP (via T-41) and subsequent routine of oil discharge (containing solids/sludge) to the incoming crude oil stream. Pressure drops of 70-700 kPa are experienced over the flowlines. a loss in revenue of 6 some US $2. The wells are located at nine locations where they are choked and manifolded into 6" flowlines to the Lan Krabu production station. Reaction of sulphide with corrosion products in dehydration tanks and ETP produces FeS which stabilises an oil/water emulsion and also causes the "black water". • Over draining of dehydration tanks. Frequent over draining of the dehydration tanks causes overload to the ETP of emulsion and crude oil. Depending on their FTHP.5. problems were experienced at the Lan Krabu production station with crude oil dehydration. however. the operating temperatures of the LLP separator and stock tank had to be increased above the cloud point to about 65°C. -3 -3 The poor performance of the Wemco unit is attributed to flow surges. The lengths of the flowlines vary from 350 m to ± 7 km. an oil loss of about 64 m³/d was estimated.000 kPa. causes large surges into the ETP. This leaves the common drain line to the API separator full of emulsion which is swept into the ETP when the next dehydration tank commences draining. low pressure (LP) or low-low pressure (LLP) flowline. This is further aggravated by the presence of acetic acid which is used as demulsifier for the EWTP treated sludge.m in the water. 8. In order for Thai Shell to meet the contractual obligation of 0. which resulted in recommendations to: i) reroute the condensate recycles from the compressor discharge to the LP and LLP separators to reduce flaring of the gas. 8. With increasing watercuts in producing wells. low oil droplet size (distribution) and. LP and LLP gas/liquid separator operating at 2000. in particular. An investigation was made to identify possible means of recovering the oil losses. 800 g.9 x 10 /year at the crude price of US $20/bbl. • Routine of poor quality EWTP water (up to 2000 g.5% maximum BS&W in the crude export.8 Thailand-Sirikit field The output from the Sirikit field originates from some 40 production strings.PTS 10.15a). . 550 and 140 kPa respectively (see Fig.e.00. Because of the limited LLP compressor capacity and flashed gas from the stock tank. the wells produce either into a high pressure (HP). Water from the dehydration tanks. the poor level control in the unit. solids content of the feed. i. A continuous stream of FWKO water (some 5000 m³/day) is passed to the ETP.19  February 2011  Page 329    • Flow surges in the ETP.01. At the Lan Krabu production station the flowlines from the various well sites are manifolded and routed to an HP.m solids) to ETP. This is inherent to the operating practice to drain the tanks till emulsion is observed at the API separator. The crude is of a waxy nature (18% wax content) with a density of 850 kg/m³ and Wax-Drop-Out-Point of about 55 °C. ranging in productivity from 13 to 175 m³/d and FTHPs ranging from 400 to 10. 4 5 SRB activity in the trunkline is relatively high (commonly populations of 10 to 10 per cm³ are recorded) -3 resulting in sulphide levels of some 15 g. oleophilic FeS is covered by oil and has an almost neutral buoyancy. only than routing further (emulsion) draining to the emulsion holding tank (T-41).m oil.

proposed modification . 8.13 .Lan Krabu production station Fig.15b).15b . 8.00. Fig.01.Lan Krabu production station.PTS 10.19  February 2011  Page 330    ii) cool the export crude to 45 °C and reroute the condensates from compressor discharges into the crude storage tanks (see Fig. 8.

P. pgs.Flow patterns of the dispersed and continuous phases within the dispersion band Part III . 7 September 1970 Barnea.The structure of the dispersion band Part II .P. E.D. References have been grouped according to a specific subject heading. 1975. Dehydration equipment and processes 6.and Mizrahi. February 1987. Produced water and sludge disposal 1. Berger. THE HOW AND WHY OF EMULSIONS The Oil and Gas Journal.field specific. pg.Continuous settler characteristics Trans. DEHYDRATION/DEOILING/EMULSIONS .PTS 10. and Arendell. Hsu. P. Sci. J SEPARATION MECHANISM OF LIQUID-LIQUID DISPERSIONS IN A DEEP-LAYER GRAVITY SETTLER: Part I . 3. 53. New York. Fact-finding studies 5. Clay. and references given in a particular note or report may also be usefully consulted. Becker.general 2. (Amsterdam). . Headings used are as follows: 1.. 87. Royal Acad. J. P. 852 and 979.GENERAL Bansbach. Vol. Instn. Dehydration/deoiling/emulsions . C.19  February 2011  Page 331    REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY The following gives a selection of EP reports and other notes/reports of relevance for the contents of this Manual. It goes without saying that the listing of references is not exhaustive.01. THE MECHANISM OF EMULSION FORMATION IN TURBULENT FLOW Proc. Engrs.H. Inc.L. P. (editor) ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF EMULSION TECHNOLOGY Volumes I and II.00. Vol. Chem. Dehydration/deoiling/emulsion .Hindered settling and drop-to-drop coalescence in the dispersion band Part IV . Laboratory studies/methods 4.. 1983. DESIGNING AND SELECTING DEMULSIFIERS FOR OPTIMUM FIELD PERFORMANCE BASED ON PRODUCTION FLUID CHARACTERISTICS SPE 16285. Deoiling equipment and processes 7.. 43. but many are appropriate to other headings as well. 1940. Marcel Dekker.

73).W. F. state of the Art report. R. J. T. December 1970 Shinnar.Ch. 289-95 Hodgson. 0071.19  February 2011  Page 332    Daalen.01. March 1960. March 1985. and Mitchell. 253 . EP/23.0073. April 1973. SUMMARY ON CRUDE-OIL DEHYDRATION KSEPL report.O FUNDAMENTALS OF THE HYDRODYNAMIC MECHANISM OF SPLITTING IN DISPERSION PROCESSES A. State of the Art Report.E. van and Meijs.H. January 1985 Hartland. DEOILING CHEMICALS FOR CRUDE OIL-IN-WATER EMULSIONS Report EP-45055 (rkgr. R.PTS 10.M PREDICTING PARTICLE SIZE IN AGITATED DISPERSIONS Ind. 52. May 1973. F.H. S. Journal. and Church. November 1985.D. Report MF 86-0853 Hinze. April 1973.W STUDIES ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF COALESCENCE CONDITIONS OF OIL FIELD EMULSIONS SPE 4356. Mitchell. Chem. Meijs.22 INTRODUCTION TO DEHYDRATION AND DEOILING SIPM Report. STUDY OF OIL-IN-WATER EMULSION IN CONNECTION WITH DEHYDRATION OF HEAVY CRUDE OILS Report EP-42194 (RKGR. Martin. van DEHYDRATION OF CRUDE OIL AND DEOILING OF EFFLUENT WATER Report EP-44311.70).I. Poelgeest. April 1976 Report MF80-0697.H. R. F. J. September 1955. and Hartland.00. P. February 1969. Meijs. F. and Eng.D COALESCENCE DEVICES FOR LIQUID-LIQUID SYSTEMS Separation processes service.. S COALESCENCE IN LIQUID-LIQUID DISPERSIONS Separation Processes Service. DESIGN OF SIMPLE GRAVITY SETTLERS FOR THE COALESCENCE OF LIQUID-LIQUID DISPERSIONS Separation Processes Service Report.

A. DEHYDRATION AND VISCOSITY OF RIMA AND JALMUD CRUDE OIL EMULSIONS. S.216).Ch.P. DEOILING AND SAMPLE CHARACTERISATION TESTS OF TERN CRUDE OIL (210/25A-5) Report EP-60616 (RKOR.77). April 1974 Bohm.T. 8.0050.C. RABI AND GAMBA/IVINGA COMMINGLED DEHYDRATION/DESALINATION (BOTTLE TEST PROCEDURE) Report EP 87-0503.84.T.008). G. J. Hamersma. .00.T. C. J. Journal.19  February 2011  Page 333    SIPM Water Injection Panel WATER INJECITON MANUAL Report EP-63600.E.74). p. J.W. P.80. No.W. AMPA CRUDE OIL EMULSIONS Report EP-50014 (RKOR. J.FIELD SPECIFIC Aberson.C. October 1979. 13. DEHYDRATION. 2. DEHYDRATION.W.A MAXIMUM STABLE DROP SIZE IN TURBULENT FLOW A I. April 1984. January 1987. AMPA CRUDE OIL EMULSIONS Report EP-48389 (RKOR. and Ankone.I.J. DESTABILISATION OF S.C.471 Ward.01. and Bohm. Journal. December 1978 Bohm.79.78). and Knudsen. 2. Kuyvenhoven. p.C.C.T.A A LABORATORY STUDY IN CONNECTIION WITH ABU DHABI CRUDE OIL DEHYDRATION/DESALINATION PROBLEMS Report EP-45684 (RKTR. C. AND VISCOSITY OF SOUTH OMAN CRUDE OIL EMULSIONS Report EP-51562 (RKOR. 0096.G TURBULENT FLOW OF UNSTABLE LIQUID-LIQUID DISPERSIONS: DROP SIZE AND VELOCITY DISTRIBUTIONS A. J INTERIM REPORT ON THE CHEMICAL DESTABILISATION OF S.E. and Glas.0050. September 1962. 0017. 356.T. Report EP-53135 (RKOR). March 1967.. DEHYDRATION/DEOILING/EMULSION .Ch. Vol.PTS 10. December 1980 Bieshaar.C DEHYDRATION.T. April 1978 Bohm. J. AND VISCOSITY AMAL/MARMUL CRUDE OIL EMULSIONS Report EP-50567 (RKOR.78). J. December 1978 Bohm. Vol. J.062). August 1965 SIPM Production Division PRODUCTION HANDBOOK Sleicher. J.

A.01.025). April 1983.0119.W. Mandersloot. R. R. W.J FOAMING AND EMULSION CHARACTERISTICS OF TROLL CRUDE OIL Report EP-58438 (RKOR. Mandersloot.73).H.80. May 1983.85.036).M.R INVESTIGATION INTO THE STABLISING FACTORS OF S. and Eijlander. van de DEHYDRATION TESTS AT THE AUK-A PLATFORM.A. C.H. A. April 1973 . June 1986. W.A.J. Mandersloot. W. DUNLIN FIELD TESTS: A DESCRIPTION OF THE PRODUCED EMULSIONS Report EP-63932 (RKOR.A.E.85. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE DEHYDRATION BEHAVIOUR OF LABORATORY. DEHYDRATION OF SLUDGE SEPARATING CRUDE WITH ACID AND NON-ACID DEMULSIFIERS Report EP-52118 (PE note No.J.A.W.J.A. VISCOSITY OF NIMR/RUNIB CRUDE OIL EMULSIONS Report EP-57479. and Glas. Mandersloot. LABORATORY STUDY OF DEHYDRATION AND DESALTING PROBLEM ASSOCIATED WITH GAMBA AND IVINGA CRUDES Report EP-43754 (RKTR.PREPARED AND ACTUALLY PRODUCED TROLL CRUDE OIL EMULSIONS Report EP-61159 (RKOR. June 1986. 0058.A. August 1984. M. DEOILING AND VISCOSITY OF TERN AND EIDER CRUDE OIL EMULSIONS Report EP-57982 (RKOR. Michels. W.J. and Mandersloot. DEHYDRATION.T. C.72). July 1980 Mitchell.80. AMPA/FAIRLEY CRUDE OIL EMULSIONS Report EP-52955 (RKGR.W. September 1985 Kwant.19  February 2011  Page 334    Kuyvenhoven.049).027). January 1983.G. van and Mandersloot W.T.011). J A LABORATORY STUDY OF POSSIBLE DEHYDRATION AND WATER-TREATMENT PROBLEMS IN HANDLING BRENT OIL WITH THE SPAR UNIT Report EP-44632 (RKTR. 83.BSP).00. J. W.T.J.W. Kuyvenhoven. February 1980 Linden. PERFORMANCE OF FACILITIES AND CORRELATION WITH THEORY AND LAB-TESTS Report EP-65632 (RKOR. April 1972 Mitchell. BOHAI BAY BZ-28-1-7/BZ-34-2-2. DEHYDRATION STUDY KSEPL Note for File.J. and Mandersloot. and Stadt.84.03. DESALINATION AND DEHYDRATION OF LUCINA CRUDE OIL EMULSIONS Report EP-57479. W.036). Kuyvenhoven.A. 83.A. C.PTS 10.J.A. J. B. November 1982.

012). THE NETHERLANDS Report EP-45659 (NAM-TM Report no. van de GUIDELINES FOR LABORATORY DEHYDRATION TESTS Report EP-64496 (RKGR. 1916 Race Street. Int. PA 19103.W A THREE-PARAMETER FUNCTION DESCRIBING THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OBTAINED FROM DEHYDRATION AND SOME PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY RELATED TESTS IRN 334.85.00.0039. December 1976.E. August 1987 Smit. F. H.H. A.H. W.J. F.5559).J. and Ankone. Library (IMSL). van de EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FROM DEHYDRATION TESTS OF DRAUGEN CRUDE OIL (WELL 6407/93) EMULSIONS Report EP 87-2044 (RKER. 0055. and Stadt.A. December 1978 Annual Book of ASTM Standards Section 5: PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.71). LUBRICANTS AND FOSSIL FUELS ASTM.85.87. July 1971 . TURBULENT PIPE FLOW OF DILUTE LIQUID-LIQUID DISPERSIONS. DYNAMIC COALESCER EXPERIMENTS WITH SCHOONEBEEK CRUDE-OIL EMULSION.H and Beest.19  February 2011  Page 335    Molenaar. London Hamersma. and Stadt. F. July 1984. van A NEW DEMULSIFIER TEST METHOD BASED ON THE DYNAMIC COALESCER Report EP-42848 (RKGR. Math. W. W.78). August 1985 Mandersloot. April 1974. LABORATORY STUDIES/METHODS Aberson.245). July 1971 Meijs. and Poelgeest. Mandersloot. DROP SIZES AND CRITERIA FOR HOMOGENEOUS BS&W DISTRIBUTION Report EP-48081 (Technical Progress Report WRC 197-76. Shell Development Company).71). 0055. and Stadt.E.A.01. van FLOW-INDUCED COALESCENCE IN CHEMICAL DEHYDRATION Report EP-42848 (RKGR. P.J.J.E. 3..J. KSEPL. REVIEW OF MAIN TECHNIQUES FOR PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS APPLICABLE TO EMULSIONS Report EP-50355 (RKSR.PTS 10.131). J. G. Meijs. and Stat. Philadelphia. M. Texas Karabeles. Routine name ZXSSQ. USA Annual Edition of IP Standards for Petroleum and its Products. Methods for Analysis and Testing The Institute of Petroleum. M. Houston. Col. W. van de INSTRUCTION MANUAL TRANSPARENT PRESSURE-SAMPLING BOTTLE FOR ON-LINE STABILITY TESTS OF OIL/WATER MIXTURES IN PRODUCTION SYSTEMS Report EP-63911 (RKMR.J. November 1985. M.

W.72. H.J.01. Mandersloot.A NEW EMULSIFICATION METHOD KSEPL Note RKRS. H. March 1983 Mandersloot. Scheers.P. INSTRUCTION MANUAL . July 1986 Deenen.PTS 10. EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF MARMUL ANDRIMA CONCENTRIC WASH TANKS Report RKTR. SHORT EVALUATION OF THE HORIBA OCMA 25 OIL-IN-WATER MONITOR Report EP-60787 (RKTR.M.A.J.00.OPERATION OF THE DYNAMIC COALESCER RKSR. 84. May 1984 4. AN OVERVIEW Report 86-0393 (PDO report). W.J PRESSURE-REGULATED EMULSIFICATION . July 1981 CRUDE OIL DEHYDRATION AND DISPOSAL OF PRODUCED WATER IN PDO. R.V.J. W.87.W. R. TURKSE SHELL IN CONNECTION WITH DEHYDRATION PROBLEMS FROM 12 TO 21 JANUARY 1981 Report EP-53259. H. W. prepared for the 1986 SIPM Production Technology Conference. R. A. de REPORT OF A VISIT TO N. and Glas.152).H.007. NOTES ON DEHYDRATION TESTS CARRIED OUT IN BACHAQUERO TERMINAL AND PROPOSALS FOR MODIFICATIONS Report EP-55292.A. J. June 1987 Bakels.P. June 1972. VISIT TO SPDC NIGERIA: FEASIBILITY STUDY INTO CONTINUOUS DEHYDRATION AT BONNY TERMINAL Report EP-62025 (RKOR. and Wit. SIRIKIT CRUDE OIL DEHYDRATION.A. N WATERCUT SAMPLING FROM MULTIPHASE FLOWLINES Paper 5/08. February 1981 Bakels.84. A FIELD STUDY . May 1984. Molenaar.. de REPORT OF VISIT TO PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT (OMAN) IN CONNECTION WITH DEHYDRATION/DESALTING PROBLEMS 6-22 JULY 1981 Report EP-55261.19  February 2011  Page 336    Mitchell.A. November 1980 Mandersloot. and Wit.04. FACT-FINDING STUDIES A STUDY OF EFFLUENT QUALITY IN SPDC WESTERN DIVISION (NIGERIA) Report EP 87-1313. 83.048).A. April 1987 Nederveen. 0013.

van der and Schrameijer. Scoot. G and Bohm. R. S. 79.J.Jr. W. 29/9-10/2/1986.0044.68).T.74). CHEM-ELECTRIC VERSUS CHEMICAL DEHYDRATION . prepared for the 1986 SIPM Production Technology Conference. Report EP-65410. J.68 Report EP-39679 (RKOR. PIPELINE COALESCER DESIGN FOR IRAN Report EP-46177 (RKOR. August 1978 Aberson. F.5.van der GROUP OPERATED DEHYDRATION AND DEOILING SYSTEMS .DETERMINING HEATER-TREATER SIZES AND HEAT REQUIREMENTS World Oil.A. DEHYDRATION IN PDO's EARLY DEPLOYMENT FACILITIES Paper 5/07. van der DEHYDRATION AND EFFLUENT WATER TREATMENT AT SSB/SSPC TERMINALS (Visit Report) Report EP-65420.C. January 1980 Velden. J.C and Lea. 0018.PTS 10. INVESTIGATIONS INTO REDUCING THE OIL CONTENT OF THE KAPUNI PRODUCED WATER Report EP-51637 (PTN/1/1980. J. and Velden. April 1986.M.044. G.00.H. H.5. Meijs. The Hague Velden.H.01. J. 85.T. October 1974. September 1968 Schrameijer.K.78).0048. SERIA TERMINAL DEHYDRATION AND EFFLUENT WATER TREATMENT (Visit Report). and Stewart.T. A VISIT TO VENEZUELA IN CONNECTION WITH CRUDE OIL DEHYDRATION PROBLEMS FROM 9.19  February 2011  Page 337    Report RKOR. J. Ltd. F.W. 1 February 1985 Bieshaar. F. J.J. DEHYDRATION EQUIPMENT AND PROCESSES Aberson.079).C. June 1986 Mandersloot. DESIGNING OIL AND GAS PRODUCING SYSTEMS .W. Bohm. FIELD TESTS FOR THE DESIGN OF AMAL/MARMUL DEHYDRATION AND GATHERING FACILITIES Report EP-49788 (RKOR. April 1986 5.EVALUATION OF SYSTEM's DESIGN AND PERFORMANCES Paper presented at the SIPM Field Engineering Workshop (PW10). and Glas. FIELD TESTING OF A CONCENTRIC WASH-TANK MODEL AND SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF SETTLING TANKS PROCESSING WEST-LUTONG CRUDE OIL Report EP-51751 (RKOR.A. December 1987 Arnold.C. J.68 to 24.M. Shell BP and Todd). Brunei Shell Petroleum Co. G and Bohm.

A.J. July 1978.P. Alberta. H. DESIGN AND REQUISITIONING OF SCHOEPENTOETER (VANE-TYPE) INLET DEVICES Report EP 86-0225. February 1982 Hamersma. DYNAMIC CRUDE DEHYDRATION METHOD Report EP-54036.W. and Glendinning.A.E.P. presented at the 1986 SIPM production Technology Conference Echenhausen. 0016.83. SELECTION OF TYPE AND RULES OF DESIGN PETRONAS Technical Standard.R. Canada. Deenen.211 (1983) Cruijsberg.01. FIELD TESTS ON OFFSHORE CHEM-ELECTRIC DEHYDRATION OF S.78). August 1098 Cornelissen. A. DRYING OF NATURAL GAS CONDENSATE BY STRIPPING WITH DRY GAS III . M. R. 83.19  February 2011  Page 338    An evaluation of field tests carried out in the Fenn-Big Valley Field.W. Bohm.W. Report EP-49727 (RKGR.A TRAY-TO-TRAY COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR STRIPPER COLUMN DESIGN Report AMGR. and Callaghen. June 1969 Eigner.00.E. AMPA CRUDE OIL Report EP-50897 (RKOR. J. PTS 31.. 0043.A. June 1979 Bos. M. January 1984 . P. BATCH TANK VERSUS CONCENTRIC WASH TANK.79). August 1986 Dijkhuis. J. D ROXANA FLUID TREATMENT STUDIES.H. H. DRYING OF NATURAL GAS CONDENSATE BY STRIPPING WITH DRY GAS II .) Paper 5/02.H. CONTINUOUS DEHYDRATION WITH A CENTRIFUGAL SEPARATOR Report EP 86-0553 (NAM Report). 6 December 1983. E DEHYDRATION AND DEOILING PROBLEMS WITH STEAM AFFECTED CRUDE (MARAVEN S. and Klein Nagelvoort.C.131.22. A.211 (1983) Cornelissen.R. Kwant.83.A STUDY ON CRUDE OIL DEHYDRATION IN PARTITIONED WASH TANKS CMFE/33 Note.T. August 1981 GAS/LIQUID SEPARATORS. D. July 1981 Dries. E. NOTES ON THE COALESCER PIPE AND DEHYDRATION PERFORMANCE IN THE MINA AL FAHAL TERMINAL OF PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT (OMAN) LIMITED Report EP-40514. 71/19 (BSP). DEHYDRATION FIELD TRIAL PE Note no.R. R.05.PTS 10. W.MODEL EXPERIMENTS Report AMER. CROSS-FLOW MEMBRANE FILTRATION: A LITERATURE REVIEW RKGR. and Visser.11.

COMPACT EQUIPMENT FOR DEHYDRATION AND DEOILING . van der and Bohm.19  February 2011  Page 339    Hamersma. K. H.N. HEAVY OIL DEHYDRATION.EFFECT ON PERFORMANCE OF FREE AND DISSOLVED GAS Report EP 87-1084 (RKGR. and Cornelissen.E. A. B. March 1987 A GUIDE TO THE SELECTION AND DESIGN OF OILFIELD DEHYDRATION EQUIPMENT Report EP 86-870.A. M.J.A.M. COMPARISON OF EXISTING DEHYDRATION VESSELS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Report EP 86-0865 (Technical Progress Report WRC 188-86. PILOT TESTS WITH THE CONCENTRIC WASH TANK AT NAM's PRODUCTION STATION BRIENENOORD Report EP-58450 (RKGR. P.A. J. FIELD TESTS WITH A CONCENTRIC WASH TANK MODEL AT BEB's OSTERWALD PRODUCTION STATION BEB Report.82.K. October 1971 Molenaar.00. P. V. G DRYING OF NATURAL GAS CONDENSATE BY STRIPPING WITH DRY GAS IV – FIELD EXPERIMENTS ON THE NAM-K15-FB-1 PLATFORM Report AMER.0070.020). van de A HYDROCYCLONE AS FREE-WATER KNOCK-OUT DEVICE . and Chin.71). Linden. November 1986 Spaninks. F.T. April 1985 Meijs.052 (1982) Weve.J. March 1985.A. and Ankone. July 1984 Kruka.J. June 1983 Marriot. Marriot.036 (1984) Juttner.034). D. R.E DRYING OF NATURAL GAS CONDENSATE BY STRIPPING WITH DRY GAS I . October 1986 Mandersloot. IN-LINE DEHYDRATION OF CRUDE OILS KSEPL Note RKRS. and Stadt. 83. 85.W.W.W. DESIGN OF COALESCER PIPES FOR THE DEHYDRATION OF CRUDE-OIL EMULSIONS AND DEOILING OF OIL/WATER EMULSIONS Report EP-40340 (RKGR.M..H. September 1985 Hoek.A EIDER PROJECT.84. and Dries. 87. H.R.J. F. J.K.H.SIZING OF THE STRIPPER COLUMN FOR THE NAM-F3-PROJECT Report AMER. DESIGN OF THE GAS-OIL-WATER SEPARATORS Report EP-63360. Shell Development Company).01.PTS 10.M. and Konijn. BONNY TERMINAL CONTINUOUS DEHYDRATION STUDY Report EP-62590. J.09.C.J.W.

Jr. S. DEOILING EQUIPMENT AND PROCESES Angelidou.R. Jr DESIGN CONCEPTS FOR OFFSHORE PRODUCED-WATER TREATING AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS Journal of Petroleum Technology. B. and Bowman. and Glas. et al THE REMOVAL OF EMULSIFIED OIL PARTICLES FROM WATER BY FLOTATION Industrial Engineering Chemistry.E.76).PTS 10. M. and Visser. D.C. and Glas. DESIGNING OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION SYSTEMS How to size and select produced water treating equipment World Oil. J. R. S. C. Design for optimum deoiling B.00. F. 14-16 October 1987 Zemel. and Stewart. EXPERIENCE WITH VORTOILS IN THE MURCHISON FIELD .C. Development of tapered coalescer pipe systems Report EP-47971 (RKGR. and Stewart. J. Deconick. H.P ELECTROSTATIC BOTTLE TESTS KSLA Research note EE/542/87.036). Scotland. September 1976 Bieshaar. 436-41 Arnold. May 1985 Bieshaar. J LABORATORY STUDY OF COALESCER PIPE SYSTEMS A.0057.C.0051. H. Pet. LABORATORY EVALUATION OF COALESCER BEDS FOR EFFLUENT WATER DEOILING Report EP-47842 (RKGR. May 1974 Zeff.ELECTROSTATIC CRUDE OIL DEHYDRATION Paper presented at the International Conference on Offshore Separation Processes. SELECTING A WASTE WATER TREATING SYSTEM World Oil.A. K.. E. October 1987 Zeef. Edinburgh. February 1983 Arnold.76). 5/04. H. April 1980 Choufoer. RESIDENCE TIME DISTRIBUTIONS IN GRAVITY OIL-WATER SEPARATORS J.P. Tech.W. Process Design Development (1977) 16. E. K.80.A. February 1978 6. AN EXPANDABLE FIBROUS BED COALESCER FOR DEOILING OIL FIELD PRODUCTION WATERS Part I: Description of a laboratory model and some preliminary observations Report EP-52293 (RKGR. M. December 1976 Bohm. and Visser. March 1985.E. prepared for the 1986 SIPM Production Technology Conference Wit. de NEW DESIGN WASH TANK FOR DEHYDRATION AND DESALTING OF LARGE VOLUMES OF CRUDE OIL SPE 4848.T.19  February 2011  Page 340    Paper no.01.

USE OF A EMSH INTERCEPTOR FOR WASTE CLARIFICATION Paper No.T. 85. and Kuyvenhoven. 1985 Kuyvenhoven. Grimes.2.82. HYDROCYCLONE FOR OIL/WATER SEPARATION KSEPL Note RKRS.01. and McGuire. Texas. J. and Mandersloot.00. presented at the Facilities/Chemical Engineering Conference. C. D. G.068).J. September 1983 Kuyvenhoven.J.J. (Shell Oil Company) AN EVALUATION OF THE OIL REMOVAL CAPABILITIES OF THE STANDAR DESIGN OF PRODUCED BRINE TREATING FACILITIES .J. C.T.19  February 2011  Page 341    Paper 5/03.W.071).045. presented at the 1986 SIPM Production Technology Conference DEOILING INDUSTRIAL WASTE WATER.A. Houston. May 6-8. August 1982 Mandersloot.84.83.S. C. Effect of the superficial velocity.T EXPANDABLE FIBROUS BED COALESCER Part IV. A LABORATORY INVESTIGATION OF CROSS-FLOW MEMBRANE FILTRATION RKOR.A. April 18-20. and Prendergast. May 1988. May 1985 Matovick. P. October 1984 Hayes.J. 85. type of crude oil and water salinity Report EP-62767 (RKGR.05.J.A. EXPANDABLE FIBROUS BED COALSESCER Part III: Field tests with a laboratory model of the expandable fibrous bed coalescer with emphasis on fouling and cleaning Report EP-59158 (RKGR. M.A.H AIR STRIPPING FOR TREATMENT OF PRODUCED WATER Journal of Petroleum Technology. W. and Kuyvenhoven.C. C.PTS 10. Fothergill.P. W. W.043).J. and KUYVENHOVEN. HYDROCYCLONES FOR TREATING OILY WATER: DEVELOPMENT AND FIELD TESTING IN BASS STRAIT th Paper OTC 5079. October 1985 Fang. C. Texas.STATE OF THE ART May 1979 E & P Forum TREATMENT OF PRODUCTION WATER .A.J.T AN EXPANDABLE FIBROUS BED COALESCER FOR DEOILING OIL FIELD WATERS Part II: Optimisation of process parameters Report EP-56926 (RKGR. presented at the 17 annual OTC in Houston. D..A REVIEW OF CURRENT ERFORMANCE Report No.A.A. J.D.A. 1988 Hamersma. Carrol. and Lin.T..A. March 1985 Mandersloot. W. TMI2. May 1981 E & P Forum TREATMENT OF PRODUCTION WATER . C. DESIGN AND OPERATION OF THE "CPI" (CORRUGATED PLATE INTERCEPTOR) Report MF 81-0700. W.29/111.

HYDROCYCLONES: A SOLUTION TO PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT th Paper OTC 5594. Texas.J.72. LABORATORY RESULTS CLEANING PRODUCED WATER BY GAS FLOTATION Report EP-50926. F. November 1975 Strickland. 87. ANALYSIS OF FLUID FLOW IN A CROSS-FLOW CORRUGATED PLATE SEPARATOR WITH THE COMPUTER PROGRAM FLUENT Report EP 88-0388 (RKGR. R.19  February 2011  Page 342    Report EP-49651. March 1984 .N. B EFFICIENT SEPARATORS SHOW GOOD HYDRAULIC BEHAVIOUR Oil and Gas Journal. London. W. J.00. van SEPARATION OF OIL FROM WATER Paper Eur 278.T. H.M.28 October 1982 Strickland. van der GENERAL REVIEW OF SHELL's PLANTS AND FACILITIES FOR PRODUCTION WATER TREATMENT Paper presented at the 'Oily Water Separation' Workshop of the Institute of Chemical Engineers.M COMPACT EQUIPMENT FOR DEHYDRATION AND DEOLING Paper no. September 1973. R. June 1972.73. D. 1/84.W.PTS 10. 1987 Mitchell.W. Jr. Scottish Branch.110). Mitchell. 5/04. December 1977 7. 23 September 1986 Weve. Molenaar. presented at the European Petroleum Conference. GAS FLOTATION OF PRODUCED WATER Technical progress Report BRC-EP 26-75-P Report EP-47155. April 27-30. Aberdeen. presented at the 19 Annual OTC in Houston. R.0067. PRODUCED WATER AND SLUDGE DISPOSAL CONCAWE DETERMINATION OF HYDROCARBON IN AQUEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM THE OIL INDUSTRY BY INFRARED ANALYSIS Report No.0075.H DEOILING OF CRUDE OIL EFFLUENT WATERS RKGR. Jr. prepared for the 1986 SIPM Production Technology Conference Zemel. July 1979 Velden. THE USE OF FIBROUS-BED COALESCERS IN THE DEOILING OF EFFLUENT WATERS RKGR. October 1987 Staa.T.01. January 1978 Meldrum. and Meijs. W. N. 25.

Athens. METHODS OF ANALYSIS AND SAMPLING OF OIL-IN-WATER E & P Forum paper.A. Vol.48 COURSE ON EFFLUENT WATER TREATMENT i) An introduction to waste water treatment definitions and glossary. A. R.01. 11-13 February 1985 Read. 11.D.19  February 2011  Page 343    E & P Forum REVIEW OF DISCHARGES FROM OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION PLATFORMS INTO THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT March 1979 E & P Forum. and Blackman. 1987 Tan. A. 44-47. 549-558. 2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF E&P ACTIVITIES .4/144.F. pp.GENERAL GUIDELINES Report EP-61240.00. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT OF PRODUCED WATER FROM NORTH SEA OIL OPERATIONS Marine Pollution Bulletin. G. PILOT SLUDGE FARMING PROJECT . 18. 2.B. G. 10. December 1987 MF-3. Vol. Sub-committee F THE ESTIMATION OF OIL-IN-WATER WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON PRODUCTION ON WATER DISCHARGES June 1979 E & P Forum THE NATURE.A OILY WATER DISCHARGES FROM OFFSHORE NORTH SEA INSTALLATIONS: A PERSPECTIVE Marine Pollution Bulletin.PTS 10. ii) Handling and disposal of refinery sludges NEN 6674 (Nederlandse Norm) WASTE WATER-DETERMINATION OF MINERAL OIL BY INFRARED SPECTROPHOTOMETRY January 1981 Oldham. No. et al.P. TREATMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF GAS PLATFORM DISCHARGES Report No.First cultivation cycle . pp.D.J. H. presented at the Seminar or Aspects of the Prevention of Oil Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea. December 1987 SIPM EP/23. (E & P Forum) THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARCOM PROVISIONAL TARGET STANDARD Report No. February 1980 Read.43/143. March 1986 Somerville.

No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Name W Sobri B W Abdullah Wahida Bt Hazmin Awang B Botok Mona Liza Bt Anwar Suhaimi B Tajuddin Hemadevi Balasubramaniam Nur Fazliana Bt A Rahman Anida Bt Hamzah S Karthikeyan Siti Balqis Bt Mansor Pattahil Suresh Bijay Kumar Nepak M Rosdi Naim B Mat Hasinah Bt M Hanafi – Omar Designation Principal (Water Technology) Engineer (Water Technology) Prinicipal (Analytical Tech) Staff (Analytical Tech) Staff (Analytical Tech) Engineer (Analytical Tech) Engineer (Analytical Tech) Engineer (Treating & Liquefaction) Staff (Ammonia) Engineer (Environmental Design) Staff (Process Safety) Principal (Hydrotreating & Conversion) Principal (Process Design) Staff (Process Design) OPU/HCU GTS GTS GTS GTS GTS GTS GTS GTS GTS GTS GTS GTS GTS GTS .PTS 10.00.01.19  February 2011  Page 344    COMMITTEE REPRESENTATION Acknowledgement is made to the following contributors.