SPE 126910

Studies of Effluent Water Quality for the Enhancement of Oil Recovery in North
Kuwait
Emad El-Mohemeed, and John Carew, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research
Falah M. Rasheed Al-Azmi and Uthaman Kuppusamy, Kuwait Oil Company

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 Kuwait International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition held in Kuwait City, Kuwait, 14–16 December 2009.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed
by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

The future plan for North Kuwait oil fields is to produce 900,000 bpd by the year 2013/2014. To meet this target, it is
necessary to inject up to 1.5 million barrels of water per day (bwpd). The future plan is to inject 500,000 bwpd of
treated sea water with the balance from produced water re-injection. However, if water flooding is not implemented,
significant amounts of oil would be left in-place, and the current plan could not be achieved.
Dispersed oil in produced water is detrimental for several reasons. First, bacteria utilize certain components in the
crude oil as food. Second, oil is strongly adsorbed on iron sulfides and other scale deposits, which makes it difficult to
remove these deposits with acid treatments. Third, oil reduces the relative permeability to water in the injection well.
As relative permeability to water decreases, it requires more pressure to inject the same amount of oil free water.
Dispersed oil in the injected water can be reduced by proper selection of water treatment equipment, this equipment
selection dependant on this study results.
One of the main objectives of this study is to perform a system audit of effluent water specifications from gathering
centers (GCs) in one of the Kuwait oil field. This would involve the collecting and analysing the effluent water samples
from various points in each gathering center (GC) and evaluate the water quality and its suitability for re-injection to
enhance the recovery of oil.

Introduction

The success of a waterflood is dependent upon how relevant the target injection water specification is to the field,
and how effectively the injection water is maintained at this target specification. Levels of dissolved oil and suspended
solids in particular have a major impact on injectivity (and therefore efficiency) of the waterflood.
The physical nature of the produced water found in NK required further characterization in order to identify the
typical range of water quality which results from the dehydration process (currently, the produced water is injected to
disposal wells). The information obtained will be used as input to the basis of design and indicate the treatment
processes required to achieve produced water quality at the injection specification. The target injection specification is
shown in Table 1.
Effluent water treatment and disposal are subjects of increasing attention in Exploration and Production (E&P)
operations (Evans and Robinson, 1999) for two main reasons: (1) increasing volumes are being produced as more and
more fields ‘mature’; (2) more stringent discharge standards are being introduced, in many operating areas of Kuwait
oil fields.
2 SPE 126910

These two factors have driven the development of new treatment processes and operating scenarios in recent
years, with some shift away from the traditional focus on oil-in-water (e.g. the common 40 mg/l limit) towards a more
holistic approach. The tremendous variability of effluent waters has been previously described (Allen & Robinson,
1993; Robinson & Homer, 1994). They are typically hot and corrosive, complex brines, commonly containing
‘undesirable’ components such as hydrogen sulphide and organic chemicals, and, less-commonly, significant amounts
of heavy metals and aromatic hydrocarbons. Each oilfield’s effluent water is different to every other, in composition,
and often there are significant differences between each layer in each reservoir after all, the waters may differ by many
millions of years in their origins and depositional environments.
These variations often lead to waters being unstable (scaling) when depressurized and/or cooled on production, or
when mixed with other waters. Because of this and the general composition, facilities for handling produced water tend
to be relatively complex, especially where treatment is required to remove small concentrations of dispersed (droplet)
oil, dissolved hydrocarbons heavy metals etc.
From the point of view of water injection, seawater and produced water can be mixed together and injected, but an
extra level of treatment may be necessary. However, there could be a problem with bacterial growth due to the
composition of seawater. The ability of all the potential injection waters to support bacterial growth should be assessed
under appropriate conditions and time scales. The potential for reservoir souring from injected water should also be
determined.
In order to achieve a production target of 900 mbopd in North Kuwait, the reservoirs will require pressure
maintenance as they are depleted. It is proposed that this support will be provided by a combination of lift gas 400
mmscf and injected water 900 mbwpd. Initially, the water requirement was met by treated sea water injection, which
started in the year 2000, and it is planned that this will be supplemented by increasing amounts of produced water. It
was originally planned to inject 1 mmbwpd of treated sea water, and a process scheme was designed for this purpose.
However, on the basis that produced water could be used to replace some of the sea water, plans for the latter were
changed to provide only 500 mbwpd of treated seawater injection, which gave associated cost savings (BP 1995,
Androw Foakes, Helen Kerr).
Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research (KISR) have already conducted several seawater quality studies as part of
the seawater injection project (Carew et al, 1995a & 1995e; Salman et al, 1995b). Excessive production of water is the
main criterion to abandon oil and gas wells, leaving large volumes of hydrocarbons behind. Field development
scenarios using optimized water management have unlocked and will unlock additional recoverable reserves (Khatib
and Verbeek, 2002). Although in water flooding projects, produced water is an enabler for improved hydrocarbon
recovery, effluent water becomes a major issue due to its sheer volume, its high handling cost and its environmental
impact.
The design process must meet production requirements, assure conformance and sweep and achieve desired
pressure maintenance (Abou-Sayed and Zaki, 2005). Additional considerations include meeting waste management
requirements for disposal volumes and reducing waste. These constraints translate into injector performance matrices
and sustained delivery of the injection rate/injectivity.
Therefore, the choice of effluent water on the product from three (3) GC’s were selected for study.
The quality of these waters were assessed and quantified over the monitoring period.
This study involved defining the minimum requirements for the execution of water quality surveys to verify that water
from the Gathering Centres outlet effluent water (for GC’s -A, -B, and -D) are compatible. Thus, an average water
quality specification can be established. The water and crude oil production was reported during the day of sampling in
order to check for any upset conditions.

Methodology

This section details the sampling and analysis techniques which were employed as part of this study.

2.1 Sampling at Gathering Centers.

A schematic diagram of the design of the GCs (A, B and D) and sampling points are very similar to the one shown
in Figure 1. This water was a mixture of wet tank water and desalter water and was representative of disposal water.
Effluent water sampled from all GC’s disposal pump outlet.
SPE 126910 3

2.2 Analytical Techniques

The below list gives description of the techniques used to assess the various water quality parameters, and
identified which tests were conducted at the point of sample collection.

Dissolved Oxygen. Dissolved oxygen was determined directly on flowing water samples, using a Chemetric test kit
by the phodazine D method. Care was always taken to remove any air bubbles before analysis.

Conductivity was assessed either at the point of sampling or on samples returned to the laboratory. Those
samples returned to the laboratory were cooled to 25oC prior to analysis. From this reading, an estimate of the total
dissolved solids content was made by multiplying the conductivity (as µSiemens/cm @25oC) by a factor of 0.67.

Total Suspended Solids (TSS). Water samples of known volume were passed through a pre-weighed, 0.45µm
Millipore HVLP membrane at ≤20psi differential pressure across the membrane. Upon return to the laboratory, the
membrane was washed with filtered distilled water before drying for 30 minutes at 60oC and re-weighed.

Oil Free Suspended Solids (OFSS). Following determination of the TSS concentration, the same membrane was
washed with S316 solvent, to remove oil contamination, before being dried and re-weighed.

Total and dissolved iron content of water was determined using a Hach spectrophotometric method. For
determination of the dissolved iron content, the samples were filtered to remove precipitated/solid iron prior to analysis.

Oil in Water (OIW) was determined using a TD500 fluorimeter. To determine the dissolved (or soluble) oil content,
water samples were filtered using a 0.45 µm membrane prior to analysis.

Particle Size Analysis. The particle size distribution of the seawater. Was measured by a Coulter Z1 instrument.
This instrument works, on the "electrozone" sensing principle, whereby the electrical resistance across a sampling
orifice is measured as the sample passes through it. The results are expressed as the diameter of a sphere of equal
volume. To prevent the precipitation of solids due to oxidation upon exposure to air (notably, iron Oxide/hydroxide ),
the samples were stabilized with two drops of filtered 10% citric acid.

Membrane Filter Tests. Membrane filter tests were run using pre-weighed Millipore membrane filters, of 47 from
diameter and 0.45 micron pore size. These tests were run in accordance with the NACE (1999) standard TM-01-73.
The method used involved the use of a specially designed on- line filtration rig. This allowed for the membrane filter
tests to be conducted directly at the seawater discharge line, and, hence, totally avoid the ingress of atmospheric
oxygen, which could have caused additional precipitation.
After completion of the tests, membranes were washed with 0.45 micron filtered deionized water to removed all
traces of salt during membrane drying, with subsequent errors in suspended solids determination.

Basic sediments and water (BS&W) was determined by centrifution of the oil.

Microbiological Contamination. Three types of bacteria (SRB, GAB and GAnB) were assessed periodically.
Incubation of samples was at 31oC. Growth media was balanced to meet the water salinity (5,000 mg/l TDS for
brackish water, 80,000 mg/l TDS for desalter out-let and 150,000 mg/l TDS for effluent water).

API water chemistry was determined by a combination of ICP/AES (inductively coupled plasma atomic emission
spectroscopy) and titration. A combination of techniques was required due to the manner in which differing elements
are resolved by the differing methods. Major cations (Na+, K+, Li+, Mg++, Ca++, Ba++, Sr++, Fe) plus boron and silica were
determined by ICP. Bicarbonate was determined by acid titration with chloride determined as described above.
Sulphate was determined turbidimetrically using a spectrophotometer. Alkalinity was determined by calculation from
the carbonate and bicarbonate data. Hardness was determined by calculation from the calcium and magnesium data
obtained from the ICP analysis.

Volatile Fatty Acid Anions were determined on filtered samples returned to the laboratory using ion
chromatography. Identification of theses short chain carbon molecules gives an indication of the potential food sources
4 SPE 126910

for bacterial metabolism and microbiological activity. Only samples from the disposal pump outlets and selected
production wells were assessed.

Oil/Solids Differentiation using a Jorin ViPA particle analyser. The Jorin ViPA uses image analysis techniques to
differentiate between particles and droplets in real time, the ViPA monitors up to seventeen parameters about each
particle and droplet continuously including size and concentration.

Results

Density of Solid Particle by EDS Method

The suspended solids collected on the solid membrane were examined initially by scanning electron microscope
(SEM) followed by Energy dispersive electroscopy (EDS). The analysis was performed in order to assist in the
identification of solid and provide an elemental analysis of whole membrane surface.
Based on the type of solid present, their density is tabulated in Table 2, with an average for two samples.

Water Quality Data for GC’s

Table 3 gives the average water quality data obtained for GC-A. Figures 2 and 3 show the frequency with which the
TSS results fell within each weight range in 10 mg/l increments. For GC-A the majority of the TSS values were in the
10 mg/l range, falling in frequency as the TSS weight increased. Only a few outlaying results occurred.
The highest frequency of TSS result for GC-D was in the 10 mg/l range. The frequency of results decreased as the
weight range increased. Infrequent high TSS results were found. Such a high value for dissolved OIW is likely to have
resulted from free oil contamination, and indeed, for all the dissolved oil data obtained from all three GC’s, maxima of
no greater than approximately 15 mg/l are recorded (averages being considerably lower) and for basis of design, it
would not be unreasonable to assume a typical dissolved OIW content to be 10 mg/l.
Regarding total OIW content for GC-B, a single, maximum value of 20,000 mg/l has been recorded at the desalter
outlet. This data point was excluded from average OIW content calculations, but has been left in Table 4 as this may
be a true representation of production operations dosing upset conditions, i.e. slugging of oil into the separated water,
and so may warrant further consideration as basis for design. Average total OIW content at GC-B separator was at
82.6 mg/l (maximum 274.9 mg/l).

GC-D total OIW content was as follows

GC-D Total OIW (as mg/l)

Disposal
Pump
Outlet
Max. Avg.
419 61

Table 3 illustrates the average particle size distribution data for selected locations at GC-A. The majority of the
particles are below 4 µm in diameter.
For the optimal separation of oil droplets they need to be as large as possible, thus any process activity that breaks
the droplets down in size reduces the efficiency of the oil and water separation process.
The average particle size distribution throughout the GC-B and GC-D system remains similar. The particle size
distribution data for selected GC-B and GC-D locations are presented on Table 4 and Table 5.
SPE 126910 5

Viscosity

The raw data for the viscosity results is presented in Table 6, a summary is given below.

Viscosity (cP)
GC Location
at 40ºC at 60ºC
A Disposal Pump 0.9489 0.7085
B Disposal Pump 0.8664 0.6377
D Disposal Pump 0.8905 0.6932

For comparison, pure water has a viscosity of 0.6531 cP @ 40°C and 0.4668 cP @ 60°C.
The water from the desalter is of lower salinity than the disposal pump water as it is a combination of wash water
and produced water removed from the production. The water at the disposal pump is a combination of the desalter
outlet water and the produced water from the separators. The viscosity of the water will have a slight effect on the
energy requirements for pumping, although this is likely to be negligible.
Tables 7 to 9 show the API water analysis data for the GC stations. The produced water is typically most saline at
the HP and LP headers and separators. The Desalter outlet water is of a reduced salinity due to the lower salinity of
the wash water. Disposal water salinity is higher than the Desalter water outlet and in most cases close to the
separator water salinity indicating that the over all dilution of the produced water by wash water is minimal. The
disposal well API analysis data is comparable to the disposal pump API analytical data which would be expected as
there is no other treatment processes between the disposal pump and the disposal well head. In summary, salinity of
water through the plant is as would be expected and these changes are summarised in Table 10.

Volatile Fatty Acid Anions

Volatile fatty acids in the produced water provide the carbon source required by sulphate reducing bacteria for the
metabolic conversion of sulphate into sulphide. In the process the bacteria acquire their energy requirements required
for replication. The presence of VFA combined with an abundant source of sulphate provides conditions under which
proliferation of sulphate bacteria may occur. In addition to the presence of a carbon source and sulphate, a source of
nitrogen and phosphorous is also required. The absence of oxygen and an environment of suitable salinity are also
necessary for successful bacterial growth.
The results presented in Table 11 show the presence of acetate and propionate in the disposal water at GC-A, GC-
B and GC-D. The predominant volatile fatty acid present in all samples is acetate. A Table combining the average
value of acetate from Table 11 with the sulphate and TDS from the API analyses in Tables 7, 8, and 9.

Average concentration of Acetate, Sulphate and TDS for GC Disposal Pumps

Disposal Pump
GC-A GC-B GC-D
Acetate ppm 88.7 136.5 95.4
Sulphate ppm 613 1,078 575
TDS ppm 190,599 153,094 203,672

The factor limiting bacterial growth is the availability of a suitable carbon source (VFA) and the salinity of the water.
At salinities of 150,000 mg/l and above sulphate reducing bacterial growth is inhibited or prevented.
The average water salinity measured at GC-A and GC-D is far in excess of the normal growth range for sulphate
reducing bacteria; however GC-B’s salinity is close to the normal upper limit for sulphate reducing bacterial growth. If
the amount of seawater breakthrough were to increase thus reducing the overall water salinity then all the conditions
for the growth of sulphate reducing bacteria would be met and the generation of hydrogen sulphide could occur.
6 SPE 126910

Summary and Recommendations

The testing program was developed to assess the current water quality with respect to the Treated Effluent Water
Injection Specification.
The injection specification calls for TSS in water content of less than 30 mg/l TSS. The average value for TSS at
GC-A and GC-D disposal pumps is less than the disposal specification but there are occasional excursions above the
<30 mg/l limit. This identifies that water treatment facilities will be required to remediate off specification water and an
engineering study, which gives a technoeconomic evaluation of the various treatment options is recommended. GC-B
disposal pump TSS averages were above the 30 mg/l limit, with frequent excursions above 30 mg/l. Similarly, an
engineering study is recommended.
The majority of particles, both oil and solids, at the disposal pump and separator outlets for all GCs, are below 5
microns in diameter.
Additional treatment will be required to consistently achieve the desired target of < 40 ppm oil-in-water. Slugs of oil
and high oil-in-water contents have been observed and average OIW content for the three GCs is as follows: GC-A =
75.8 mg/l total OIW, GC-B = 18.0 mg/l total OIW and GC-D = 61.0 mg/l total OIW.
No oxygen was detected in the produced water. As the water is produced from an oxygen free formation it should
be oxygen free unless there is ingress of oxygen during production and processing. Oxygen must be rigorously
excluded from all stages of the water handling system to reduce corrosion and prevent iron precipitation. Iron
precipitation would increase the TSS of the water.
An audit of the operation of the oxygen removal systems in all 3 GC’s considered is recommended. This is
particularly pertinent in view of the fact that the produced waters are relatively high in calcium content, and overdosing
of oxygen scavenger could result in the formation of scale, notably calcium sulphite.
No bacterial contamination has been detected. The high salinity water of most of the system will tend to inhibit
bacterial growth however, the locations at which the most recent tests were conducted have shown bacteria are in
areas of lower salinity and are thus conducive to bacterial growth. Regular testing and remedial treatment when
required will be needed.

References

Allen, R.M. and K. Robinson: “Environmental Aspects of Produced Water Disposal”, SPE Paper No. 25549, SPE
Middle East Oil Technical Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain, 3-6 April 1993.
Carew, J., A.A. Hasan, W. Al-Bazzaz, and A. Al-Hashem, August 1995. Consultancy Services for the Laboratory and
On-Site Studies for the Finalization of the Process Design Parameters of Seawater Injection Project, North
Kuwait, Study No. 1 (First Survey): The Analysis and Evaluation of Seawater from Subiya.
Robinson K., and D. Homer: “Produced Water Treatment to Meet Current and Future Environmental Standards”, SPE
Paper No. 27178, second International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas
Exploration and Production, Jakarta, 25-27 January 1994.
Salman, M., W. Al-Bazzaz, A.A. Hasan, and M.A. Juma, December 1995. Consultancy Services for the Laboratory
Studies for Effluent Disposal – West Kuwait, Study No. 4: On-Site Permeability Testing (Coreflooding).
Salman, M., K. Al-Muhanna, and A. Hussain, December 1995. Consultancy Services for the Laboratory Studies for
Effluent Disposal – West Kuwait, Study No. 5: Scale Prediction and Compatibility Study.
Salman, M., M.A. Juma, W. Al-Bazzaz, and A.A. Hasan, August 1995. Consultancy Services for the Laboratory and
On-Site Studies for the Finalization of the Process Design Parameters of Seawater Injection Project, North
Kuwait, Study No. 2: The Analysis and Evaluation of Core Samples for the Purpose of Water Injection.
F. Andrson, H. Kerr, R. Mecraden, North Kuwait Water Managment Studies- Phase -1 Water Quality & Injectivity
Studies, BP Production operations 1995, Summary Report, POB/010/96.
Acknowledgment:

The authors wish to thank the management of Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research and Kuwait Oil Company for
their kind permission to publish the data contained in this paper.
SPE 126910 7

Table 1. Treated Effluent Water Injection Specifications.

Required Quality
Specification for GC-D Disposal GC-B Disposal GC-A Disposal
Parameter Units Injection* Pump Outlet Pump Outlet Pump Outlet Notes
Total Suspended
mg/l <30 15.1 43.4 13.5 1
Solids

Particle Size microns <98% than 5 microns <98% <98% <98% 1

Total Oil-In-Water ppm or mg/l <40 61.8 18 75.8 1

Dissolved Oxygen ppb <10 0 0 0 2

SRB Planktonic <1 on serial dilution 0 0 0

SRB Sessile <100 on serial dilution 0 0 0

<10000 on serial
GAB Planktonic 0 0 0
MPN/ml

dilution

GAB Sessile <100 on serial dilution 0 0 0

<10000 on serial
GAnB Planktonic 0 0 0
dilution

GAnB Sessile <100 on serial dilution 0 0 0

<2 mpy for general >10 (Coupons >10 (Coupons >10 (Coupons
corrosion and LPR) and LPR) and LPR)
Corrosion Rate mpy

<5 for pitting corrosion N/D

Residual
ppm <2 <0.64
Bisulphite
Notes:
1 - This could be achievable without EW filtration, provided process plant operation is optimal.
2 - Immediate action is required if it exceeds 50ppb, including shutting the plant down.

Table 2. Densities of Solids Present in Membrane Surface.

Sample Disposal Pump Outlet GC-B

Date 17-Apr-08 16-Aug-08 Average
Density gm/cm3 2.71 4.26 3.49
Sample Disposal Pump Outlet GC-A
Date 14-Jun-08 29-Jun-08 Average
Density gm/cm3 4.12 4.12 4.12
Sample Disposal Pump Outlet GC-D
Date 30-Jun-08 4-May-08 Average
Density gm/cm3 4.47 5.04 4.76
8 SPE 126910

Table 3. Average Water Quality Data for GC-A Disposal Pump Outlet.

Disposal Pump Outlet

MAX AVG MIN
Pressure (psi) 150.0 105.3 80.0
Temp. (Deg. C) 47.0 39.6 33.0
pH 6.7 N/D 5.8
Cond. (ms/cm2) 275.5 246.6 208.4
Diss. O2 (ppb) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diss. H2S (ppm) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diss. CO2 (mg/l) 550.0 380.5 195.0
Bicarbonate (mg/l) 183.0 171.6 158.6
Corrosion Rate (mpy) 14.3 12.0 9.8
TSS (mg/l) 119.0 13.5 3.0
OFTSS (mg/l) 36.9 5.7 1.0
Total Iron (mg/l) 183.7 126.5 95.0
Soluble Iron (mg/l) 174.0 123.0 94.0
Sulfite SO3 (mg/l) 4.5 2.0 0.6
OIW Total (mg/l) 680.0 75.8 0.0
OIW Soluble (mg/l) 2.6 0.3 0.0
Turbidity (NTU) 746.0 92.3 3.7
BS&W N/A N/A N/A

Table 4. Average Water Quality Data for GC-B Disposal Pump Outlet.

Disposal Pump Outlet

MAX AVG MIN
Pressure (psi) 1080.0 799.8 500.0
Temp. (Deg. C) 42.0 37.2 28.0
pH 6.8 6.2 5.6
Cond. (ms/cm2) 230.0 207.4 180.0
Diss. O2 (ppb) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diss. H2S (ppm) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diss. CO2 (mg/l) 475.0 264.3 110.0
Bicarbonate (mg/l) 244.0 231.8 219.6
Corrosion Rate (mpy) N/D N/D N/D
TSS (mg/l) 115.7 43.4 3.2
OFTSS (mg/l) 56.0 17.6 1.3
Total Iron (mg/l) 112.0 53.5 39.0
Soluble Iron (mg/l) 111.0 51.2 37.0
Sulfite SO3 (mg/l) 7.7 3.2 0.6
OIW Total (mg/l) 50.1 18.0 4.2
OIW Soluble (mg/l) 2.3 0.4 0.0
Turbidity (NTU) 801.0 155.3 6.4
BS&W N/A N/A N/A
SPE 126910 9

Table 5. Average Water Quality Data for GC-D Disosal Pump Outlet.

Disposal Pump Outlet A

MAX AVG MIN
Pressure (psi) 85.0 47.0 30.0
Temp. (Deg. C) 59.5 38.2 26.0
pH 6.8 6.4 5.4
Cond. (ms/cm2) 2487.5 318.6 155.6
Diss. O2 (ppb) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diss. H2S (ppm) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diss. CO2 (mg/l) 535.0 385.8 200.0
Bicarbonate (mg/l) 207.0 150.1 109.8
Corrosion Rate (mpy) 15.5 11.2 7.3
TSS (mg/l) 96.0 15.1 2.0
OFTSS (mg/l) 70.0 6.7 0.7
Total Iron (mg/l) 166.0 137.6 10.0
Soluble Iron (mg/l) 164.0 133.8 10.0
Sulfite SO3 (mg/l) 12.8 2.0 0.6
OIW Total (mg/l) 419.0 61.0 2.0
OIW Soluble (mg/l) 15.8 2.0 0.0
Turbidity (NTU) 925.0 87.5 2.5
BS&W N/A N/A N/A

Table 6. Composition of GC-A Disposal Pump Outlet.

GC No. GC-A
Sampling Point Disposal Pump C
Date 10/May/08 24/May/08 7/Jun/08 22/Jun/08 5/Jul/08 19/Jul/08
Sodium (mg/l) 58,006 59,312 error 64,958 66,140 66,022
Calcium (mg/l) 12,467 12,860 13,580 13,400 15,696 15,566
Magnesium (mg/l) 2,488 2,494 2,795 2,747 4,044 4,531
Potassium (mg/l) 2,459 2,483 2,126 2,636 3,739 3,762
Strontium (mg/l) 355.7 351.8 349.9 319.7 477.3 471.6
Barium (mg/l) 5.19 5.13 5.15 4.87 5.08 5
Boron (mg/l) 24.42 27.03 24.69 33.99 47.37 36.88
Lithium (mg/l) 5.57 5.27 5.74 4.58 5.6 8.8
Silicon (mg/l) 1.63 3.48 2.49 2.04 3.24 3.87
Chloride (mg/l) 116,480 117,365 120,980 117,293 124,916 128,256
Sulphate (mg/l) 600 600 540 610 640 640
Alkalinity as CO32- (mg/l) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alkalinity as HCO3- (mg/l) 140.9 80.5 87.8 139.1 65.9 90.3
TDS (mg/l) 193,035 195,588 147,860 202,267 216,006 219,624
Density @ 25°C (gm/cm3) 1.1341 1.1359 1.1392 1.1331 1.1375 1.1386
Hardness (mg/l) 41,370 42,375 45,409 29,762 65,820 69,990
Total Alkalinity (mg/l) 140.9 80.5 87.8 139.1 65.9 90.3
10 SPE 126910

Table 7. Composition of GC-B Disposal Pump Outlet.

GC No. GC-B
Sampling Point Disposal Pump
Date 7/Apr/08 17/Apr/08 4/Aug/08 1/Sep/08 29/Sep/08 13/0ct/08
Sodium (mg/l) 51,660 54,447 59,169 46,111 34,653 50,642
Calcium (mg/l) 10226 9,683 10,179 9.098 7,446 10,197
Magnesium (mg/l) 2,127 2,655 2,455 2,002 1,754 2,175
Potassium (mg/l) 2.092 2,668 2,477 1,985 1,705 1,450
Strontium (mg/l) 291.7 3099 3653 354 367.3 398.7
Barium (mg/l) 32 338 328 3.26 2.99 3.67
Boron (mg/l) 25.8 21.99 33.65 24.76 26.52 2679
Lithium (mg/l) 3.28 3.63 3.6 3.11 2,89 3.21
Silicon (mg/l) 8.94 2.33 727 5.14 0.71 3.44
Chloride (mg/l) 108,794 97,770 110,438 84,307 69,013 97,784
Sulphate (mg/l) 1.500 1 200 1.000 900 1200 670
Alkalinity as CO32- (mg/l) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alkalinity as HCO3- (mg/l) 356.2 2196 257.4 182.4 221.4 139.7
TDS (mg/l) 177,089 168,984 186.520 144,836 116,222 163,536
Density @ 25°C (gm/cm3) 1.1059 1.1062 1.007 1.0964 1.0979 1.101
Hardness (mg/l) 34.288 35,092 35.514 30.953 25,805 34,408
Total Alkalinity (mg/l) 356.2 219.6 257.4 182.4 221.4 139.7

Table 8. Composition of GC-D Disposal Pump Outlet.

GC No. GC-D
Sampling Point Disposal Pump A
Date 25/May/08 1/Jun/08 23/Jun/08 6/Jul/08 20/Jul/08 3/Aug/08 1/Sep/08 28/Sep/08 12/Oct/08
Sodium (mg/l) 63,236 60,646 67,970 71,058 68,668 69,480 63,358 43,956 68.920
Calcium (mg/l) 13,436 11,715 12,390 17,267 14,852 15,930 13,621 10,016 14,135
Magnesium (mg/l) 2,701 2,211 2,452 3.176 2,861 2.969 2,900 2,275 2.970
Potassium (mg/l) 2694 2146 2348 3001 2555 2571 2427 1 390 2115
Strontium (mg/l) 4049 320.8 323.3 669.9 421.2 486 361.6 367.1 421.7
Barium (mg/l) 5.7 3.66 527 644 5.89 5.68 48 4.99 5.54
Boron (mg/l) 29.89 20.02 34.98 40.94 3043 5907 30.59 31.32 37.73
Lithium (mg/l) 6.11 4.38 5 14 5.2 4.27 4.98 2.26 4.76 5.11
Silicon (mg/l) 3.65 1.34 683 587 0.05 2.22 11 3.73 1.09
Chloride (mg/l) 124,127 108,460 120044 118,278 111,923 110,785 120,526 87,641 120,781
Sulphate (mg/l) 540 600 560 460 660 670 550 580 610
Alkalinity as CO32- (mg/l) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alkalinity as HCO3- (mg/l) 1183 142.1 1177 47 70.2 41.5 142.7 64.1 683
TDS (mg/l) 207,303 186,330 206,365 214,212 202,226 203,314 204,456 146,395 210,154
3
Density @ 25°C (gm/cm 1 1385 1 1238 1 1372 1.0844 1.1314 1 121 1.1371 1.1346 1 1333
)
Hardness (mg/l) 44.664 38,354 41.027 76,888 69,191 71,059 45,940 34,366 47,515
Total Alkalinity (mg/l) 1183 142.1 117.7 47 70.2 41.5 142.7 64.1 68.3
SPE 126910 11

Table 9. Viscosity Data For GC Stations Disposal Pump Outlet,

Viscosity (cP)
GC Location Date
at 40ºC at 60ºC
A Disposal Pump 22/06/08 0.9709 0.7101
A Disposal Pump 05/07/08 0.9754 0.7201
A Disposal Pump 19/07/08 0.9707 0.7140
A Disposal Pump 02/07/08 0.9813 0.7227
A Disposal Pump 16/08/08 0.9668 0.7340
A Disposal Pump 01/09/08 0.8490 0.6867
A Disposal Pump 27/09/08 0.9539 0.7009
A Disposal Pump 11/10/08 0.9234 0.6793
Average 0.9489 0.7085
B Disposal Pump 04/08/08 0.8584 0.6323
B Disposal Pump 18/08/08 0.8460 0.6221
B Disposal Pump 29/08/08 0.8734 0.6434
B Disposal Pump 13/10/08 0.8877 0.6531
Average 0.8664 0.6377
D Disposal Pump 22/06/08 0.9641 0.7056
D Disposal Pump 06/07/08 0.9745 0.7163
D Disposal Pump 20/07/08 0.7185 0.7041
D Disposal Pump 03/08/08 0.9303 0.6844
D Disposal Pump 17/08/08 0.9554 0.7017
D Disposal Pump 01/09/08 0.8765 0.7086
D Disposal Pump 28/09/08 0.9696 0.6263
D Disposal Pump 12/10/08 0.7352 0.6987
Average 0.8905 0.6932

Table 10. TDS of Water through the Disposal Pumps Outlet.

GC Nos. GC- A GC- B GC- D

Average TDS (PPM)
Disposal Pump Disposal Pump Disposal Pump
Sampling Point
Outlet Outlet Outlet

TDS(ppm) 190.599 153.094 203.672

12 SPE 126910

Table 11. Volatitle Fatty Acid Anion Analysis

As ppm v/v
GC’s Location Date Acetate Propionate Iso-butyrate Butyrate
Disposal Pump Outlet 19/07/08 92 8 - -
Disposal Pump Outlet 19/07/08 86 9 - -
Disposal Pump Outlet 2/8/2008 83 13 - -
Disposal Pump Outlet 2/8/2008 83 14 - -
GC-A
Disposal Pump Outlet 6/9/2008 86 9 - -
Disposal Pump Outlet 16/09/08 91 16 - -
Disposal Pump Outlet 14/07/08 100 10 - <2.0
Average 88.7 11.3 - -
Disposal Pump Outlet 4/8/2008 159 17 - -
Disposal Pump Outlet 4/8/2008 107 25 - -
GC-B Disposal Pump Outlet 1/9/2008 139 19 - -
Disposal Pump Outlet 16/09/08 141 11 - -
Average 136.5 18 - -
Disposal Pump Outlet 20/07/08 104 27 - -
Disposal Pump Outlet 14/09/08 87 9 - -
Disposal Pump Outlet 16/09/08 107 21 - -
GC-D
Disposal Pump Outlet 19/07/08 94 10 - -
Disposal Pump Outlet 2/8/2008 85 13 - -
Average 95.4 16 - -
- Not Determined N/D Not Detected
SPE 126910 13

Figure 1. Typical process flow diagram for gathering center production facilities.
14 SPE 126910

Figure 2. GC-A disposal pump outlet TSS, OFTSS, and OIW total.

Figure 3. GC-B disposal pump outlet TSS, OFTSS, and OIW total.
SPE 126910 15

Figure 4. GC-D disposal pump outlet TSS, OFTSS, and OIW total.