See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322418402

Optimization of produced water treatment process - A case study for disposal

in the Niger Delta

Article  in  Journal of Engineering Science and Technology · January 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 66

2 authors, including:

Boniface Oriji
University of Port Harcourt
57 PUBLICATIONS   40 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

WELL TESTING View project

natural gas View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Boniface Oriji on 10 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
Vol. 12, No. 12 (2017) 3158 - 3172
© School of Engineering, Taylor’s University

OPTIMIZATION OF PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT PROCESS

- A CASE STUDY FOR DISPOSAL IN THE NIGER DELTA

BONIFACE A. ORIJI*, VITALIS A. CHIJIOKE

Department of Petroleum Engineering, University of Port Harcourt.

East-West Road, Choba, Port Harcourt, Nigeria
*Corresponding Author: [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract
Produced water is the interstitial reservoir water that flows to the surface with
the crude oil into the production separators. This study addressed the effects of
some chemicals on produced water and the challenges of finding the optimal
concentrations of these chemicals for treating produced water. In this study,
produced water treatment was carried out in an oil production platform located
in the Niger Delta so as to determine the effect of a particular scale inhibitor,
biocide, demulsifier and water clarifier, also to obtain the optimum
concentrations of these chemicals in the treatment of produced water. The
physico-chemical properties and microbial content of the produced water were
determined. The results showed that the conductivity, hardness, pH and
alkalinity reduced with increasing concentration of the scale inhibitor. The total
heterotrophic bacteria count (THBC), heterotrophic fungi count (THFC) and the
Sulphate reducing bacteria count (SRBC) were found to reduce with increasing
concentration of biocide and exposure time. The increase in biocide
concentration from 64 PPM to 100 PPM resulted in the reduction of THBC by
99.78%, THFC by 81.32% and SRBC 99.85%. The water clarifier gave the
optimum concentration for oil and grease in the produced water at 7.3 PPM.
Keywords: Produced water, Chemical treatment, Niger Delta, Scale inhibitor,
Biocide, Demulsifier.

1. Introduction
Produced water is a mixture of water and impurities such as hydrocarbons,
aromatics, polycyclic, water soluble organics, oil, grease, dissolved solids and
materials produced along with crude oil. The dissolved water soluble organics in
the liquid phase is enhanced by the elevated temperature of the petroleum
reservoir and it forms part of the total oil and grease. In the oil and gas industry,

3158
 Optimization of Produced Water Treatment Process - A Case Study for . . . . 3159

Nomenclatures

AMP Adenosine Monophophate

ATP Adenosine Triphosphate
bbl Barrel
bwpd Barrel of water per day
PPM Parts per million

Abbreviations
API American Petroleum Institute
DPR Directorate of Petroleum Resources
SRBC Sulphate Reducing Bacteria Count
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
THBC Total Heterotrophic Bacteria Count
THFC Total Heterotrophic Fungi Count
some of the major challenges encountered by the operators include; the ability to
contend with the problems of scale formation, oil spill, bacteria and corrosion
associated with produced water in the production facility. These problems results to
production drop, increased production cost and hazard to personnel and the
environment. To prevent these problems, the treatment of produced water should be
properly done before disposal by applying various oil field chemicals such as; scale
inhibitor, water clarifier, demulsifier and biocide in a suitable processing facility.
From laboratory analysis, produced water associated with petroleum in a reservoir
can be identified with its characteristics. The volume of produced water generated
from oil reservoirs during production increases with the age of the field and may
become enormous with time, leading to storage, treatment and disposal problems.
Poor treatment and handling of produced water can cause serious environmental
pollution through the adverse effects of oil sheen and oil accumulation on the water
surface when the produced water is discharged. These substances are toxic to
aquatic lives, contaminate domestic water and pose serious health hazard to man.
If the pH of produced water is equal to or greater than 8.3, alkaline is present
mostly in the form of bicarbonates (HCO3-) [1]. Veil et al. [2] stated that the total
dissolved solid (TDS), pH and bacteria concentration present in the produced water
from the pay zone can give a clue to the type of scale inhibitor and biocide to be
used to treat the produced water and also to identify wellbore problems. Produced
water could also be referred to as connate water although some authors refer to it as
fossil water because it had not been exposed to the atmosphere for several years [3].
Enrlich [4] noted that water soluble organics containing cyclic hydrocarbons,
partially saturate organic acids such as naphthenic acid, which are then removed
from the produced water through acid extraction. This was achieved by adding
phosphoric acid based formulations to the produced water to reduce the pH, proton-
ate the acid and preferentially partition the protonated acid in the oil phase while it
coagulates and floats to the water surface. Further separation could then be
completed by other primary separation processes like skimming. Egwaikhide et al.
[5] undertook a research on the utilization of coconut fibre carbon in the removal of
soluble petroleum fraction in polluted water. The result disclosed that coconut fibre
carbon produced by ammonium chloride activation, possesses sufficient micro
porosity to adsorb dissolved organic compounds with varying molecular sizes from

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2017, Vol. 12(12)

3160 B. A. Oriji and C. A. Vitalis

petroleum polluted water. The relative adsorption rate of lighter fractions was more
than the rate of heavier ones. 42% pollution remediation was achieved in the
experiment conducted by the team on kerosene and diesel polluted water. They
concluded that the process could be applied in the remediation of petrochemical
waste water. Verla et al. [6] carried out a study on the physiochemical
characteristics of produced water and noted that produced water contained dissolved
and suspended solids. Their study observed some variations in the average
physiochemical content (salinity 6,000 mg/l, conductivity 15,000 us.cm, As 1.08
mg/l, Ni 2.08 mg/l, V 1.92mg/l) of a sampled produced water when compared to the
Directorate of Petroleum Resources (DPR) limit. They further stated that the
presence of metals, a high conductivity and salinity in large bodies of water or on
land could cause leaching in soil nutrient and could be dangerous to human and
aquatic lives. They concluded that existing production facilities had not been able to
control these contaminants within tolerable limit.

2. Background Information on the Case Study Field

The case study field consists of some producing wells in the swamp, made up of
eight (8) low pressure production wells and three (3) high pressure production
wells. The wells flowed from the well head to the production platform via three
(3) manifolds (MFD KK, MFD LL & MFD MM). At the platform, the low
pressure wells flowed into a low pressure separator at 100 psi static pressure
while the high pressure wells flowed into a high pressure separator at 200 psi
static pressure. The well fluids from the high pressure separator flowed into the
low pressure separator where more gas was relieved to the gas line. The crude oil
from the low pressure separator flowed to the Chemelectric vessel set at 35 psi
static pressure. Both the low and high pressure separators were used as two phase
separators, separating the well fluid gas from the liquid. The gas flowed through a
flare scrubber, where entrained oil in the gas was scrubbed off, the oil recycled
back into the production surge tank and the gas flared.
The Chemelectric vessel which received the well stream from the low pressure
vessel, acted as a three phase separator. In this vessel, the well stream oil, water
and gas were separated. The gas flowed through the vessel’s gas line to the flare
scrubber where entrained oil in the gas was scrubbed off and the dry gas flowed to
the flare pit where it was burnt. The oil flowed through the vessel oil outlet line to
the surge vessel from where it was pumped by three G398 caterpillar pumps to
the sales line after metering at the LACT unit, with one shipping pump working at
a time while the other two were on standby. The produced water separated at the
Chemelectric flowed through the vessel’s water drain line to the water skimmer
were some oil in the produced water was skimmed off and pumped through the
recycling line to the Chemelectric vessel for treatment. The water from the water
skimmer flowed through the drain line to the Wemco (floatation cell), from where
it was channelled to be dumped overboard.
The oil production platform started production in 1992. It produced 6,000 bbls
of oil and 14,000 bbls of water as at August 2015. Produced water from the field
was treated to DPR effluent water standard (less than 20 PPM) [7] and it flowed
into a floatation cell without adequate floatation aid before it was dumped
overboard. This act constituted environmental pollution as some of the oil-in the
produced water settled out and formed sheens flowing to the creek, which resulted

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2017, Vol. 12(12)

 Optimization of Produced Water Treatment Process - A Case Study for . . . . 3161

in the production of some 'oily-water' that was detrimental to aquatic and human
lives and at the same time contributing to loss in revenue. Some of the soluble
salts crystallize at that high temperature of the flared gas and vaporize to the
atmosphere, thereby polluting the ecosystem.
The field's produced water had increased over the past 3 years from an
average of 1888 bbls as at July 31, 2012 to an average of 14,097 bbls as at August
13, 2015. This therefore signals the need to strongly consider a better treatment of
the produced water from the field to meet the increasing water production and to
help mitigate its negative impact on the environment. Also, the dangers of scale
formation of improperly treated produced water cannot be over emphasized [8].
The rate of micro-organisms activities is on the rise, exposing the system to a high
rate release of H2S and danger of a high corrosion rate [9].

3. Materials and Methods

The materials and methods used for this study are discussed in this section.

3.1. Floatation cell

A floatation cell is a water clarification system that removes finely dispersed oil
and solid particles from the produced water prior to discharging it overboard into
the creek or ocean. Water clarifier chemical is usually added into the floatation
unit to destroy the film separating the oil particles in water emulsion. The
floatation unit comprises of floatation cells in series. The cells use induced gas
floatation to remove the oil particles from the oil in water emulsion. Induced gas
floatation disperses tiny gas bubbles throughout the produced water. These
bubbles attach themselves to the oil particles and float them to the surface where
they are skimmed off into the launder trough of the floatation unit as sludge and
pumped into the Chemelectric vessel for retreatment. The floatation unit is
designed to handle produced water with small concentrations of oil.
The produced water is sampled downstream of the floatation cell (Wemco unit)
of the production platform using one litre sterilized sample glass bottle. At the
sampling point, allow the produced water to flow into a container for two minutes to
flush the line and have a representative sample. Rinse the sample bottle with the
produced water thoroughly before collection. Take the produced water sample to
the laboratory in a cooler containing ice cubes wrapped in cellophane bags to
maintain a low temperature to inhibit the growth of bacteria and enable one to
ascertain the bacteria counts as found in the produced water sample in coli form unit
per millilitre (cfu/ml) [10]. It is necessary to note that systems with acid producing
bacteria are more likely to have higher rates of corrosion [11].

3.2. The scale inhibitor physico-chemical efficiency test

The scale inhibitor pump was put off for 24 hours in the production platform and
produced water was sampled downstream of the floatation cell unit as stated in
the previous section and sent to the laboratory for analysis. The result was
compared to the produced water analysis at the following scale inhibitor
concentrations at different days; 0 PPM, 2.1 PPM, 5.5 PPM, 7.2 PPM, 8.6 PPM at
the existing produced water production rate of approximately 14,000 bbls/day.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2017, Vol. 12(12)

3162 B. A. Oriji and C. A. Vitalis

3.3. Produced water clarifier chemical test

The test method employed was the Bottle test plus spectrophotometric analysis.
The following materials were used; produced water sample of 749.2 PPM, oil,
grease, hot plate, 250 and 100 ml beakers, Spectrophotometer [12-15].
1gm of water clarifier (Nalco EC6029A) was diluted in distilled water made
up to 1000 ml to have a concentration of 1000 mg/L as the chemical stock for
laboratory treatment of the produced water [12-15].
Procedure: 3.7 ml, 5.5 ml, 7.3 ml and 9.2 ml of the diluted stock were
separately transferred into 1000 ml conical flasks respectively and further diluted
with produced water up to the 1000 ml mark. Applying the principle of serial
dilution the concentration was determined as shown below:
g 3.7 g mg
1 × 10−3 ⁄ml × = 3.7 × 10−6 ⁄ml = 3.7 ⁄1000ml = 3.7 PPM
1000

Thus the other concentrations prepared were; 5.5 PPM, 7.3 PPM and 9.2 PPM.
The samples were stirred and transferred into 50 ml beaker containers which were
placed on a hot plate. The samples were heated to 1200F (490C) for 2 minutes and
allowed to cool. The samples of the various concentrations were analyzed for oil and
grease using the spectrophotometric method after the filtration of suspended particles.

3.4. Microbiological analysis of produced water

Some of the analysis that were carried out are discussed below

3.4.1. Serial dilution

The serial dilution process was performed using a series of small bottles that
contained a specific medium for growing a particular type of bacteria. It involved
using a sterile syringe to draw one millilitre of the sample fluid and injecting it into
the first bottle. A new syringe was used to draw fluid from the first bottle and
injected into the next bottle. This process was repeated with each successive bottle
in the series of small bottles. Each “injection step” diluted the bacteria from the
previous bottle by a factor of 10. The total number of the specific bacteria in the
original water sample was determined by the number of bottles that showed growth.

3.4.2. Accucount
Accucount is a kit used to enumerate bacteria by the presence of Adenosine
Triphosphate (ATP). ATP is a molecule found in every cellular process that
requires energy (metabolism, protein synthesis, etc.). The kit also measures
Adenosine Monophosphate (AMP), a molecule found in all dormant organisms.
All actively growing bacteria have approximately the same amount of ATP and
all dormant bacteria have approximately the same amount of AMP.

3.4.3. Enumeration of sulphate reducing bacteria

The test method employed was the Spread plate technique. The following
materials were used; Erlenmeyer flask, Petri dishes, incubator, cotton wool,
anaerobic glass jar containing gas pack and catalyst [12-15].

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2017, Vol. 12(12)

 Optimization of Produced Water Treatment Process - A Case Study for . . . . 3163

Table 1 shows the reagent composition of the Sulphate Reducing Bacteria (SRB)
growth medium.
Table 1. Reagent composition of sulphate reducing
bacteria (SRB) growth medium per litre of de-ionized water.
S/N Reagent Weight proportion
A K2H PO4 0.8 gm
B NH4CL 1.0 gm
C Na2SO4 1.0 gm
D CaCl2.6H2O 2.0 gm
E Na lactate 3.5 ml of 75% solution
F FeSO4. 7H2O 0.002 gm
G Na thioglycollate 0.01 gm
H Ferric Ammonium Sulphate 0.05 gm
I Agar 20 gm

The components of the medium were weighed and dissolved in the de-ionized
water made up to 1 litre in an Erlenmeyer flask plugged with cotton wool. The
flask was autoclaved at 1210C at a pressure of 15 psi for 15 minutes to sterilize
the medium. The cotton wool was covered with foil to prevent the absorption of
moisture or steam in the process. The medium was dispensed into the sterile Petri
dishes and allowed to solidify at room temperature. After solidification the Petri
dishes were dried at 600C for 20 minutes. 0.1 ml of the produced water sample
was transferred into the SRB medium plates in duplicates and inoculated by
spread plate technique. The plates were inserted into an anaerobic glass jar that
contained a gas pack and catalyst that reacted to produce an anaerobic condition
suitable for SRB growth. The anaerobic glass jar containing the inoculated SRB
medium plates were transferred into an incubator set at room temperature for two
weeks to develop the SRB. The presence of Sulphate Reducing Bacteria was
indicated by black mucous colonies on the SRB medium plates [12-15].
The colony forming unit per ml (cfu/ml) was calculated using Eq. (1) while
the dilution factor was calculated using Eq. (2) as shown below:
cfu⁄ = (Dilution factor)×(Number of organism enumerated on petri dish) (1)
ml volume of inoculants plated
3
where dilution factor = (2)
dilution of inoculant

3.4.4. Biocide toxicity test on micro-organisms

The test method employed was the Spread plate technique.
The following materials were used; Erlenmeyer flask, biocide chemical (Nalco
VX9298), nutrient agar for heterotrophic bacteria, heterotrophic fungi and
sulphate reducing bacteria, produced water sample, glass beakers.
1 gm of biocide chemical was diluted in 1000 ml distilled water in a glass
beaker and made to have a concentration of 1x10-3 g/litre of biocide in distilled
water. Four glass beakers were assembled.
To the first beaker, 100 ml of produced water was added to it without adding
biocide so as to serve as control.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2017, Vol. 12(12)

3164 B. A. Oriji and C. A. Vitalis

To the second beaker, 10 ml from the biocide stock was added to it and the
content diluted with produced water up to the 100 ml mark [12-15].
Applying the principle of serial dilution, the concentration of biocide in the
dilution of the 10 ml of the biocide stock with produced water to the 100 ml mark
was obtained as shown below;
g
1 × 10−3 ⁄liter × 10 ml⁄100 ml =
1000mg 0.1mg
=
10000ml ml

To the third beaker, 7.5 ml from the biocide stock was added to it and the
content diluted with produced water up to the 100 ml mark. This was equivalent
to 0.075 mg/ml of biocide concentration in the produced water.
To the fourth beaker, 5 ml from the biocide stock was added to it and the
content diluted with produced water up to the 100 ml mark. This was equivalent
to 0.05 mg/ml biocide concentration in the produced water.
To the fifth beaker, 2.5 ml from the biocide stock was added to it and the
content diluted with produced water up to the 100 ml mark. This was equivalent
to 0.025 mg/ml biocide concentration in the produced water.
Each concentration was given the following exposure time interval; 0 hour, 1
hour, 2 hours, 4 hours, 5 hours and 7 hours respectively. The microbial content of
the produced water at the various exposure time and biocide concentrations were
determined to ascertain the toxicity of the biocide.
Dry sterile nutrient agar plates were inoculated with the specimen by spread
plate technique and inserted into an incubator for 24 hours at 370C for the
enumeration of the effluent total heterotrophic bacteria.
Sabouraud dextrose agar plates were inoculated and inserted into an incubator
for 72 hours at ambient temperature for the enumeration of the effluent total
heterotrophic fungi.
SRB medium plates were inoculated and inserted into an anaerobic glass jar to
produce anaerobic condition. The jar was put into an incubator for two weeks at room
temperature for enumeration of the effluent SRB. The plate counts were carried out to
determine the colony forming units per ml of the produced water sample.
It should be noted that negative control plates, that is, un-inoculated sterile
plates in triplicates were equally incubated. The 100 ml flask of produced water
free of biocide served as positive control. It was also used for the enumeration of
the initial micro flora counts for THBC, THFC and SRB

3.5. Crude oil emulsion de-emulsification test with desmulsifier Nalco

EC2206b
Figure 1 shows the demulsifier bottle testing.The following materials were
used; Toluene, Centrifuge machine, graduated test bottles and Metal sample cans.
Metal cans were used to sample crude oil at the inlet, outlet and the delivery
line of the chemelectric separator.
The crude oil (API 340) emulsion in the station facility was treated with the
following concentrations of demulsifier, Nalco EC2206B; 0.99 PPM, 1.98 PPM,
2.96 PPM, 3.89 PPM, 4.90 PPM, 2.87 PPM, 3.08 PP\M to optimize the produced

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2017, Vol. 12(12)

 Optimization of Produced Water Treatment Process - A Case Study for . . . . 3165

water treatment and enhance proper oil-water separation. The performance of the
demulsifier chemical was effective because the production platform facility had a
functional chemelectric three phase separator that applies electrostatic separation
in addition to the chemical treatment. The crude oil samples from the three points
were vigorously stirred in the metal sample cans to homogenize the content and
then transferred into the centrifuge test bottle filled up to 50% while toluene was
added to it to make up to 100% volume. Two sample test bottles were used for
each sample point.

Fig. 1. Demulsifier bottle testing.

To the first test bottle no drop of demulsifier was added so as to serve as control
and to the second, one drop of demulsifier was added to it. Centrifuge test bottles
were put into the centrifuge machine and the heater put on to heat up the sample for
4 minutes, then later the centrifuge switch was put on to spin the sample in the test
bottle for 5 minutes. The water in the crude oil separated from the oil because of the
differential densities between the two components. The percentage of base sediment
and water was multiplied by two since 50% volume of crude oil was used in the test
per test bottle. The bottle test result with increasing base sediment was an indication
of excess demulsifier in the crude while the one with clear water without further
increase in water content was an indication of the optimal demulsifier concentration
in the treated crude oil. Figure 2 still shows the liquid levels in the bottle test while
Fig. 3 shows the centrifuge test.

Fig. 2. Bottle testing.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2017, Vol. 12(12)

3166 B. A. Oriji and C. A. Vitalis

Fig. 3. Grindout/centrifuge test.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Scale inhibitor physico-chemical efficiency test
Table 2 shows the effect of scale inhibitor concentration on the physico-chemical
properties of the produced water investigated. The result showed that in the
absence of scale inhibitor, the concentrations of the metal cations (Ca2+, Na+,
Mg2+, Ba2+ and Pb2+) and anions (SO42-, Cl- and HCO3-) were less in solution
compared to when scale inhibitor chemical was injected into the produced water.
This simply indicated that the scale inhibitor in solution retarded the salt crystal
formation reaction between the anions and the cations in the produced water. In
the sample without scale inhibitor some of the metal cations had reacted with the
anions in solution to form salt which was responsible for the observed increased
values in hardness, alkalinity, conductivity and the pH of the produced water.
This is a proof that the scale inhibitor chemical Nalco EC6080A is effective in the
treatment of the produced water. It can also be deduced that the absence of scale
inhibitor in produced water could result in tremendous crystallization of
supersaturated salts in solution on the internal walls of the produced water drain
pipes, crude oil transport pipes and storage vessels. The reason for this is that the
scale inhibitor in the produced water diffuses and gets to the ion clusters in the
liquid to disrupt the scaling ion cluster growth from getting to crystal stage.

4.2. Water clarifier treatment on produced water

Untreated produced water with 749.2ppm oil and grease from Wemco water
outlet was treated with different concentrations of water clarifier, Nalco EC6029A
chemicals (as shown in Table 3). From the results in Table 3, at 9.2 PPM there
was evidence of water clarifier chemical/water polymer formation which
indicated an over treatment. Nalco EC6029A at 7.3 PPM was gotten as the
optimal concentration. The introduction of floatation cell in the treatment of the
produced water resulted in a reduction of the oil/grease concentration from 749.2
PPM to 15 PPM. With the application of water clarifier Nalco EC6029A at 7.3

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2017, Vol. 12(12)

 Optimization of Produced Water Treatment Process - A Case Study for . . . . 3167

PPM, an optimal concentration of 10 PPM was obtained for oil and grease. This
confirms the effectiveness of the water clarifier Nalco EC6029A in the treatment
of the produced water. Thus oil that would have been burnt at the flare pit was
recovered in the floatation cell and reprocessed at the chemelectric separator.

Table 2. Produced water treatment physico-chemical test result.

COMPONENTS 0 2.1 3.9 5.5 7.2 8.6
PPM PPM PPM PPM PPM PPM
24 24 24 24 24 24
hours hours hours hours hours hours
Field Field Field Field Field Field
Test Test Test Test Test Test
July8, July 9 July 10, July 11, July 12 July 13
15 ,15 15 15 15 ,15
13560 13389 13278 13580 13498 13293
bwpd bwpd bwpd bwpd bwpd bwpd
Na (mg/l) 7870.6 7870.8 7880.6 7887.6 7888.4 7890.5
Ca (Mg/l) 28.6 28.9 29.0 29.1 29.5 29.7
Fe (Mg/l) 0.155 0.155 0.155 0.155 0.155 0.161
Mg (Mg/l) 43.2 43.2 43.2 43.2 43.2 45.6
Pb (Mg/l) 0.18 0.182 0.185 0.189 0.189 0.19
Cond (uS/cm) 24000 21750 18000 17560 17120 16150
Hardness 11000 10980 10754 9500 970 800
Mg (CaCO3)/l)
Alkalinity 25 23.5 23 23 21 20
Mg (CaCO3)/l)
pH 7.8 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.3 7.5
Cr(Mg/l) 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Ba(Mg/l) 12.85 12.85 12.88 12.89 12.89 12.9
Hg(Mg/l) 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.56
Suspended solid 460 456 450 432 423 410
Chloride ion 12,853 12,854 12,854 12,854.9 12,856 12,857.47
(Mg/l)
Carbonate 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
CO3 (Mg/l)
SulphateSO4 10.5 10.6 10.6 10.8 10.85 11
(Mg/l)
Bicarbonate 786 865 870 873 873 875
(Mg/l)
CO2 (Mg/l) 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 11
Sulfide (Mg/l) 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04

Table 3. Results of water clarifier treatment

on untreated produced water samples in the laboratory.
Nalco EC6029A Mg water clarifier/ PPM oil DRPR
Concentration 1000 ml produced water & Grease Allowable
3.7 PPM 3.7 mg/ 1000ml water 30
5.5 PPM 5.5 mg/1000ml water 21
7.3 PPM 7.3 mg/1000ml water 10 20 PPM
9.2 PPM 9.2 mg/1000ml water 2.5

4.3. Produced water biocide (NALCO VX9298) treatment

From Table 4, it was Observed that the Heterotrophic bacteria initial counts in the
produced water reduced from 2.7×105 to 5.8×102 cfu/ml (99.78% reduction), the
heterotrophic fungi count reduced from 3.8×103 to 7.1×101 cfu/ml (98.13%

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2017, Vol. 12(12)

3168 B. A. Oriji and C. A. Vitalis

reduction), Sulphate reducing bacteria reduced from 4.2×105 cfu/ml to 6.2×102

cfu/ml (99.85% reduction) when the biocide concentration was increased from 64
PPM to 100 PPM. Hence from the analysis, an optimal clean out of the microbial
organism was estimated at 100 PPM of biocide Nalco VX9298 injection into the
produced water.
Table 4. Microbial analysis result after weekly biocide injection.
Nalco VX9298 Conc. In produced water
Parameter
64 ppm 87 ppm 100 ppm
Sulfate Reducing bacteria (SRB) cfu/ml 4.2×105 2.5×105 6.2×102
Heterotrophic Bacteria (HB) cfu/ml 2.7×105 1.9×105 5.8×102
3 2
Heterotrophic fungi (HF) cfu/ml 3.8×10 2.4×10 7.1×101

The total heterotrophic bacteria and fungi counts in the produced water reduced
with increasing concentration of biocide in solution. This confirms the effectiveness
of the biocide VX9298 in the treatment of the produced water. Tables 5, 6 and 7
shows the result of the biocide toxicity tests on the total heterotrophic bacteria
count, total heterotrophic fungi count and sulphate reducing bacteria respectively.
Table 5. Biocide toxicity test result on total heterotrophic bacteria counts.
Nalco VX9298 conc. In produced water (mg/ml) and Heterotrophic
bacteria count (cfu/ml).
0.05
Exposure 0.025 0.1
mg/ml 0.075
time Mg/ml mg/ml
mg/ml biocide
Biocide biocide
biocide conc.
Conc. conc.
Conc.
0 hourr 440 300 280 150
1 hour 90 29 58 70
2 hours 70 28 40 20
4 hours 70 21 10 10
5 hours 70 30 10 10
7 hours 40 20 10 10

Initial Heterotrophic bacteria count before toxicity test was 5.8×102 cfu/ml.

Table 6. Biocide toxicity test result on total heterotrophic fungi count.

Nalco VX9298 conc. In produced water (mg/ml) and Heterotrophic Fungi
Count (cfu/ml).
Exposure 0.025 mg/ml 0.05 mg/ml 0.075 mg/ml 0.1 mg/ml
time biocide conc. biocide conc. biocide conc. biocide conc.
0 hour 630 cfu/ml 240 cfu/ml 190 cfu/ml 20 cfu/ml
1 hour 20 20 0 0
2 hours 10 0 0 0
4 hours 0 0 0 0
5 hours 0 0 0 0
7 hours 0 0 0 0

Initial heterotrophic fungi count before biocide toxicity test was 7.1x101 cfu/ml

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2017, Vol. 12(12)

 Optimization of Produced Water Treatment Process - A Case Study for . . . . 3169

Table 7. Biocide toxicity test result on

sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB) counts.
Nalco VX9298 conc. In produced water (mg/ml)
and Heterotrophic Fungi count (cfu/ml).
0.025 mg/ml 0.05 mg/ml 0.075 mg/ml 0.1 mg/ml
Exposure time
biocide conc. biocide conc. biocide conc. biocide conc.
0 hour 510 cfu/ml 320 cfu/ml 300 cfu/ml 162 cfu/ml
1 hour 92 50 48 49
2 hours 75 32 40 24
4 hours 72 28 14 12
5 hours 68 25 10 10
7 hours 38 21 10 10

Initial Sulphate reducing bacteria counts before toxicity test was 6.2×102 cfu/ml.

4.4. Demulsifier chemical (NALCO EC2206B) treatment

From Table 8, the function of the demulsifier in bringing about proper separation
of the crude oil emulsion was observed. This separation process makes it possible
to treat produced water with minimal free oil in it. From the analysis on the
demulsifier chemical, Nalco EC2206B, the optimal concentration to treat an
average gross emulsion of 20,000 bbl of liquid was 2.98 PPM. The average
discharged basic sediment and water (BS&W) at this concentration was 0.10%,
with an average oil production of 6,000 bbl (API 340) and water production of 14,
000 bbls for the period under review. Table 9 shows how the treated produced
water compares with the DPR standards and Table 10 shows the remarks made
after treating the produced water.

Table 8. Crude oil emulsion demulsifier Nalco EC2206B

optimization test result in the production platform.
No Drop One Drop
Chemical
Sampling Demelsifier Demulsifier
Date Injection
Point BS& BS&
BS H2O BS H2O Rate (Ppm)
W W
Day 1 Chemelectric
3 30 33 0 40 40
Inlet.
Chemelectric
0.05 0.05 0.1 0 0.1 0.1
Outlet
0.99 PPM
Discharge
0.05 0.05 0.1 0 0.1 0.1
Line
Day 2 Chemelectric
2 35 37 0 43 43
Inlet.
Chemelectric
0.06 0.02 0.08 0 0.1 0.1
Outlet
1.98 PPM
Discharge
0.05 0.02 0.07 0 0.1 0.1
Line
Day 3 Chemelectric
1.0 39 40 0 40 40
Inlet.
Chemelectric
0.06 0.04 0.1 0 0.2 0.2
Outlet
2.96 PPM
Discharge
0.05 0.05 0.1 0 0.15 0.15
Line
Day 4 Chemelectric
1.5 38 39.5 1.0 39 40
Inlet.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2017, Vol. 12(12)

3170 B. A. Oriji and C. A. Vitalis

Chemelectric 3.89 PPM

0.1 0.05 0.15 0.12 0.05 0.17
Outlet
Discharge
0.1 0.05 0.15 0.1 0.05 0.16
Line
Day 5 Chemelectric
2 38 40 2.5 38 40.5
Inlet.
Chemelectric
0.1 0.05 0.15 0.12 0.05 0.17
Outlet
4.90 PPM
Discharge
0.1 0.05 0.15 0.1 0.05 0.16
Line
Day 6 Chemelectric
1.0 39 40 0 40 40
Inlet.
Chemelectric
0.05 0.05 0.1 0 0.1 0.1
Outlet
2.87 PPM
Discharge
0.05 0.03 0.08 0 0.1 0.1
Line
Day 7 Chemelectric
1.0 43 44 0 45 45
Inlet.
Chemelectric
0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 0.2
Outlet
3.08 PPM
Discharge
0 0.15 0.15 0 0.15 0.15
Line
Day 8 Chemelectric
1.0 43 44 0 45 45
Inlet.
Chemelectric
0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 2.98 PPM
Outlet
Discharge
0.05 0.05 0.1 0 0.1 0.1
Line

Table 9. Comparison of results of treated

produced water parameter with DPR standards.
Produced water Produced water Produced water
component quality before quality after DPR 2002
introduction of introduction of standard near
Remarks
flotation cell flotation cell shore (brackish
chemical chemical / saline water)
optimisation optimisation
Na (mg/l) 7870.6 7890.5 Not stated
Ca (Mg/l) 28.6 29.7 Not stated
Fe (Mg/l) 0.155 0.161 Not stated
Mg (Mg/l) 43.2 45.6 Not stated
Pb (Mg/l) 0.18 0.19 Not stated
Cond (uS/cm) 24000 16150 Not stated
Oil&Grease (Mg/l) 749.2 15 20 Within spec
Hardness
11000 800 Not stated
(mg(CaCO3)/l)
Alkalinity 25 20 Not stated
pH 7.8 7.5 6.5 – 8.5 Within spec
Cr(Mg/l) 0.05 0.05 0.5 Within spec
Ba(Mg/l) 12.85 12.9 Not stated
Hg(Mg/l) 0.56 0.56 Not stated
Chloride Cl (Mg/l) 12,853 12,857.47 2000 Above spec
Carbonate CO3
0.08 0.08 Not stated
(Mg/l)
SulphateSO4(Mg/l) 10.5 11 Not stated
Bicarbonate (Mg/l) 786 875 Not stated
CO2(Mg/l) 10.9 11 Not stated
Sulfide(mg/l) 0.04 0.04 Not stated
Total Suspended
Solid (TSS) mg/l 460 8 50 Within spec
Total dissolved
21,606 21,723 5000 Above spec
solid (TDS) mg/l

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2017, Vol. 12(12)

 Optimization of Produced Water Treatment Process - A Case Study for . . . . 3171

Table 10. Final treated produced water.

Internal scale
Remarks
formation on pipes
Caco3 None Clean Pipe
Caso4 None Clean Pipe
Mgco3 None Clean Pipe
Mgso4 None Clean Pipe
Generally scales were not found in the pipes due to the sound produced water
treatment quality

5. Conclusions
After a thorough experimental analysis and treatment of produced water samples
from a field in the Niger Delta region, the following conclusions were made:
 Increase in concentration of Nalco EC6080A (scale inhibitor) from 0 PPM to
8.6 PPM resulted in reduction in conductivity by 32% (24,000 Us/cm to
16,350 Us/cm), in hardness by 93%(11,000 mg(CaCO3) per litre produced
water to 800 mg(CaCO3) per liter) and in pH by 4% (7.8 to 7.5)
 Suspended solids and alkalinity reduce with increase in concentration of
scale inhibitor.
 Optimal concentration of water clarifier Nalco EC6029A to treat 14,000 bbl
of produced water was achieved at 7.3 PPM.
 Optimal concentration of demulsifier Nalco EC2206B for the separation of
14000 bbls of produced water and 6,000 bbls of crude oil (340) was achieved
at 2.98 PPM with average BS &W of 0.1%
 Increase in weekly biocide Nalco VX9298 concentration from 64 PPM to
100 PPM resulted in 99.78% reduction of heterotrophic bacteria, 81.32% of
heterotrophic fungi and 99.78% of sulphate reducing bacteria. 100 PPM was
proposed for total microorganism elimination to extinction. It is important to
state that a total elimination of the bacteria was not necessary because the
extra cost in increasing the biocide concentration would not be justified since
the bacteria elimination level achieved in this study already rendered the
bacteria ineffective.
 Biocide toxicity test carried out showed that the elimination of total
Heterotrophic bacteria, Fungi and sulphate reducing bacteria were
proportional to increase in Biocide concentration and exposure time.
 Finally, it should be noted that the results from this analysis represent
produced water for fields in the Niger Delta. It may also be useful for
produced water from other oil provinces with similar formation
characteristics to the Niger Delta formation. For instance, the Gulf of Mexico
(GoM) has some similarities with the Niger Delta; hence this result may be
useful in the GoM.
It is therefore recommended that these optimal chemical concentrations of the
various chemicals analyzed in this study be maintained for effective treatment of
produced water for fields in the Niger Delta.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2017, Vol. 12(12)

 3172 B. A. Oriji and C. A. Vitalis

References
1. Salman, M.; Qabazard, H.; and Moshfeghian, M. (2007). Water scaling case
studies in a Kuwaiti oil field. Journal of Petroleum Science and Technology,
55(1-2), 48-55.
2. Veil, J. A. ; Puder, M. G. ; Elcock, D. ; and Redweik, R. J., Jr. (2004). A
white paper describing produced water from production of crude oil, natural
gas and coal bed methane. US department of energy, W31-109-Eng-38, 1-5.
3. Bradley, H.B.; Gipson, F.W.; Odeh, A.S.; Sizer, P.S.; Mortada, M.; Raymer,
L.L.; and Smith, G.L. (1992). Petroleum engineering Handbook. Third
Printing, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson TX, USA.
4. Enrilich, R.J (2000). Advanced treatment for produced water. Retrieved
November 5, 2015 from http://www.spenigeria. spe.org
5. Egwaikhide, P.A, Aikporhonor, E.E and Okeimen, F.E., (2007). Utilization
of fibre carbon in the removal of soluble petroleum fraction polluted water.
Retrieved December 10, 2015 from http://www.spenigeria,spe.org
6. Verla, A.W.; Ogeneh, B.O.; Verla, E.N.; and Okoro, O.U. (2007).
Physiochemical characteristics of Produced water from crude oil processing
and its public health importance. Retrieved December 12, 2015 from
http://www.spenigeria,spe.org.
7. The Directorate of Petroleum Resources Lagos (2002). Environmental
guidelines and standards for the petroleum industry in Nigeria (EGASPIN).
8. Dyer S.J.; and Graham, G.M. (2002). The effect of temperature and pressure
on oilfield scale formation. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,
35(1-2), 95-107.
9. Peabody, A.W. (2001). Peabody’s control of pipeline corrosion. NACE
Publication, Housten Texas, Volume 1, 173-177.
10. Ondeo Oil Field Chemical manual. Emulsion breaker, scale inhibitor, water
clarifier, Biocide ^ corrosion. ONDEO Nalco, Sections 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11.
Private communications.
11. Odokuma, L.O.; and Okpokwasile, G.C. (1993). Seasonal ecology of
hydrocarbon-utilizing microbes in the surface waters of a river.
Environmental Monitoring And Assessment, 27(3), 175-191.
12. NALCO Ondeo Handbook (2014). Nalco champion oil field chemical
training manual (2014 edition) & OFC job aids. Private communications.
13. Ademorotic, C.M.O. (1996). Standard methods for water and effluent
analysis. Foludex press Ltd, Ibadan, 3:29-118.
14. Department of Microbiology Uniport (2004): A manual laboratory exercises
for introductory and general microbiology, University of Port Harcourt
press, 22-31.
15. American Public Health Association (APHA) (1998). Standard methods for
the examination for waste water and water, Washington D.C 19th edition.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2017, Vol. 12(12)

View publication stats