OPTIMISING STANDARD AND PRODUCED WATER INJECTION SYSTEMS

Extracted and adapted by Bob Eden of CAPCIS Ltd. from the forthcoming Industry Guidelines: Disposal of Produced Water by Injection BACKGROUND In 1996, the Society of Petroleum Engineers established a Task Force Group to examine Produced Water Injection (PWI) issues. The paper presented today comprises edited extracts from the Disposal of Produced Water by Injection document prepared by the Task Force Group. Earlier this year the full document was presented to the E + P Forum and to OSPARCOM authorities as an E + P Industry Guideline for produced water disposal operations. Publication of the full document is expected next year. 1. INTRODUCTION The production of hydrocarbons is usually associated with the generation of a produced water stream. The ever increasing volumes of produced water, which now constitutes the largest single fluids stream in Exploration & Production operations, warrant a structural and integral approach towards its management. The single most important aspect of produced water disposal is its fate and effect in the receiving environment. Prior to the produced water disposal, the quality should be upgraded through treatment to the locally required standards. It is therefore incumbent upon the industry that its produced water management practices should be of a standard accepted by the host government and the public at large. There are many methods of produced water disposal of which injection is an option. Confinement of the injected produced water within the identified strata is critical to the environmental acceptability of the disposal process. The purpose of the injection programme must be defined. In general, the injection of produced water is carried out under one of two scenarios: Waterflooding operation. The purpose here is to inject the produced water into the oil-bearing layers or pressure-supporting aquifer of the reservoir to sweep the oil out of the pore space and into the production wells Disposal operation. The objective of this process is to dispose of the produced water in an environmentally safe manner within an underground formation where long term confinement is assured.

In both cases prediction and control of the water movement into the matrix is paramount. This approach both ensures economic recovery and minimises the chance of break-out of produced water to surface or potable water sources. One aspect crucial to this success is control of the injection water quality. 2. PRODUCED WATER QUALITY & TREATMENT 2.1 PRODUCED WATER QUALITY In assessing the water quality requirements in a PWI scheme, the concentration and particle size distribution of dispersed hydrocarbons and suspended solids are the most crucial characteristics covering both water treatment and water injectivity. However, produced water streams typically contain a wide range of contaminants. The relative importance of these contaminants is strongly dependent upon the receiving environment, particularly the differential between the produced water to be re-injected and the receiving environment. Notwithstanding, in line with the industry's

commitment to identification, management and minimisation of all waste streams, all the constituents of the produced water stream(s) should be identified and accounted for, specifically: Dispersed hydrocarbons Dissolved hydrocarbons Dissolved inorganic chemicals (e.g. toxic heavy metals) The presence of naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) Dissolved treating (production) chemicals Suspended solids Water salinity

Note that produced waters for disposal/re-injection may also include secondary aqueous waste streams (e.g. crude desalting wash waters, miscellaneous drainage waters, etc.) and marine waters only suspended solids and marine life. 2. 2 QUALITY CHARACTERISATION In assessing the differential between the injected water and the receiving environment, the potential problems arising therefrom and the resulting impact on the PWI scheme design, the following data requirements need to be considered. Priority measured parameters. The target areas for consideration include the assessment of scaling potential, rock/ fluid and fluid/fluid compatibility, injectivity impairment potential and the potential for inducing and/or sustaining bacterial activity. The following data set might be typically collected: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Major cations (Na+, K+, NH4+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Ba2+, Sr2+, Fe2+) Major anions (Cl-, Br-, SO4 2-, HCO3 -, CO3 2-, BO2 -, NO3 -, OH-, PO4 3-) Fatty acids (formic, acetic, propionic, butyric, valeric) Dissolved gases (CO2 , H2S, O2) Temperature, pH Free and dissolved hydrocarbons Total and oil-free suspended solids Particle size distribution Filterability or injectivity (membrane and/or coreflood tests)

Parameters for environmental risk considerations . The data set below would not normally be collected for sub-surface injection purposes but may need to be considered if discharge to a surface environment constitutes a fall-back option in the event of PWI scheme failure(s): 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Aromatic compounds Aliphatic compounds (mainly dispersed oil) Naphtalenes Poly-aromatic hydrocarbons Phenols Polar organics (mainly organic acids) Heavy metals Production chemicals Toxicity (e.g. Microtox) BOD, COD

Additional parameters. To address issues related to facilities design, collection of any or all of the following data may be required depending upon the objectives of the

PWI programme. Target areas for consideration include treatment process selection, corrosion management and future injection well interventions (e.g. stimulation): 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Specific gravity of produced water Specific gravity of produced hydrocarbon fluids Total dissolved solids Water corrosivity and conductivity Rheological properties of separable (from produced water) oil Microscopic analysis of separable solids Chemical analysis of separable solids Water treatability characteristics (e.g. settling, flotation, hydrocyclones, etc.)

2. 3 TREATMENT AND INJECTION FACILITIES Generally, produced water may be injected with minimal treatment when injection under fracturing conditions or into (thermally) fractured formations. Occasionally (e.g. under conditions of matrix injection) the quality of the produced water may require modifications prior to its injection, and so consideration should be given to the treatment and injection facilities. A step by step approach to facilities design is given below. Note that conventional and raw seawater injection scheme designs follow a similar path to PWI facilities rationale, feeding into their equivalent of box 2:
1. Identify the source(s) and magnitude of the produced water stream 2. Identify the concentration and nature of contaminants in the produced water

3. Identity the quality requirements for subsurface disposal., taking into account regulatory constrains

4. Select a suitable water treatment system 5. Identify upstream processes which could complicate the water treatment and what steps can be taken to make the water easier to treat 6. Select the number of water treatment stages required to achieve the required water quality 7. Select suitable water treatment and injection equipment considering droplet/ particle size and other constraints.\ 8. Identify the methods for the treatment or disposal of secondary waste streams 9. Review design to ensure scheme is optimised and integrated into the overall production process scheme

3. PREDICTION TECHNOLOGY Successful PWI operations achieve economic disposal or re-use of produced water for pressure maintenance without causing negative consequences to the underground environments. Such success can be achieved by ensuring the confinement of the injected water within acceptable disposal / injection zones and away from any underground source of usable water for drinking or irrigation. The certainty with which re-injected produced water will be contained within the receiving environment is of paramount importance in preserving the injection option for the disposal and/or re-use of produced water in reservoir waterflood operations. This section will address the recommended efforts needed to ensure that the operator of any PWI scheme has available the necessary information that provides the basis for predicting the outcome of the injection operations. Predictive models: must be verified and validated; shall be appropriate for the injection site; shall be appropriate for the mode of operation; shall have been calibrated for other existing sites where sufficient data are available or shall have been (are) used extensively by the industry to perform similar predictions.

3. 1 INJECTION SCHEME PREDICTION The requirement for adequate prediction of the fate of the injected produced water and how it impacts upon the subsurface strata is tied closely to the objectives of the PWI scheme. This is especially important as most PWI operations require fracturing of the injection zone(s) to maintain long term adequate injectivity and thus reduce the need for multiple injectors. The fracturing process will facilitate the use of higher injection rates. However, the conditions under which confinement of the injected produced water and the created fracture within the intended horizon can be achieved must be defined. In this context we define here (see figure below): Confinement as the process by which the produced water is kept within specified horizons. The injected water may be allowed to enter into a rock layer above or below the injection horizon, i.e. containment layers (which are not directly accessible from the well bore). The water, however, would not be allowed to get out of the containment layers. The two layers immediately surrounding the containment layers are known as confinement zones. The confinement zone is an impermeable rock layer into which fracture propagation is not allowed. Hence the purpose of the confinement layers is to prevent the encroachment of the produced water or fracture into non-permitted areas of the subsurface strata. Analysis and prediction of fracture confinement and the evaluation of the area of review are critical to safe and environmentally acceptable PWI schemes. Hence, the necessary prediction capability, as will be discussed later, requires specific information, data and tools to ensure confinement with a high degree of certainty. The operator, therefore, must strive to obtain an adequate definition of the injection sites present status and operating history, including locations of current and abandoned wells.

CONFINEMENT LAYER CONTAINMENT LAYER INJECTION LAYER CONTAINMENT LAYER CONFINEMENT LAYER

3. 2 RESERVOIR AND FRACTURE PROPAGATION PREDICTION There are three aspects to the prediction modeling of produced water re-injection: Flow (reservoir) simulation Injection well fracturing and fracture propagation Area of review and the zone of endangerment influence The first two establish the whereabouts of the injected produced water and provide the operator with an integrated knowledge sufficient to manage the injection process in an environmentally safe manner. The third aspect ensures that the injected stream will not intersect any open conduits (i.e. old wells, penetrations or future wells) that may cause upward fluid movements. In order to provide a high level of confidence of the modelled predictions, model calibration, verification and sensitivity of the results must be demonstrated. The historical or previous performance of any model applied, or alternatively wide industry use, may be considered adequate measures of the credibility of model predictions. Notwithstanding, it is highly recommended that the following tasks be carried out as part of the prediction effort: 1. Input data uncertainty and model sensitivity analysis 1.1 Define input parameters uncertainties 1.2 Assess sensitivity of predictions to data uncertainties 2. Modelling Results 2.1 Provide predictions during the injection operational period 2.2 Provide an assessment of changes during post-operational period The last item (2.2) may be important if the injection process leaves the formation with higher pore pressure than existed prior to the start of PWI as a result of e.g. injection into shales or low permeability zones. It is also pertinent where injection takes place in areas that may encounter potential/future drilling operations. Definition and prediction with a high degree of certainty of the extent of a fracture, especially during disposal operations, is critical. Fracture geometry simulators specifically aimed at predicting the vertical and areal extent of the fracture as well as its geometry (height, length and width) must provide complete representation of the phenomena involved. This requirement has its roots in the observation that care must be taken to ensure that both the fracture and the injected fluid are contained within the allowed zones. The disposal process must be terminated by the operator before the

predicted fracture propagation becomes detrimental to the vertical conformance or the areal sweep. Most fracture propagation models that have been traditionally used in the prediction of PWI have been developed as modifications of simulators that are intended to design/predict hydraulic fracture geometry for given injection and formation parameters during well stimulation operations. More recently, however, several simulators have been developed with the specific application to water injection, disposal and waterflooding. The use of any of these or other verified and calibrated models will provide adequate prediction of the geometry and extent of the created fracture during the PWI process. 3. CONCLUSIONS The above extracts, though specifically addressing PWI, form a framework upon which other injection water sources guidelines can be built, including onshore surface water and marine rawwater injection. Crucial to the success of any injection strategy ensuring targeted flow is the collaboration of the facilities design department and the fracture modelling group. Water need only be conditioned sufficiently for a safe injection operation and no more. By ensuring that the two groups itterate water quality needs with injectivity performance to correctly size the treatment plant not only are energy and costs saved, the all-important environmental safety record stays clean.

Acknowledgements The author gratefully acknowledges his fellow authors, the major contributors, of the GUIDELINES: To an operator in evaluating, designing and managing a safe and environmentally responsible produced water injection (PWI) operation, namely Ahmed Abou-Sayed (BP Exploration), Rob Eylander (Shell-NAM), Ghassam Gheissary (Shell), Leo Henriquez (Dutch State Supervision of Mines), Laurence Murray (BP Exploration), Hans de Pater (Technical University, Delft), Richard Paige (BP Exploration), Ian Phillips (Halliburton), Keith Robinson (Oil Plus Ltd.), and Kre Salte (Statoil).