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, the Principal will expect 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 Principal or its technical advisor.

The right to use PTS rests with three categories of users :

1) PETRONAS and its affiliates.

2) Other parties who are authorised to use PTS subject to appropriate contractual
arrangements.
3) 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.
CONTENTS

SUMMARY
List of figures
List of Tables
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
1.2 Purpose and summary of the Manual
1.3 Structure of the Manual and acknowledgment

2. EMULSIONS AND OIL/WATER SEPARATION PROCESSES

2.1 Introduction
2.2 Emulsions
2.2.1 Definition and types
2.2.2 Formation of emulsions
2.2.3 Stability of emulsions
2.2.3.1 Emulsifiers
2.2.3.2 Solids
2.2.3.3 Electrical charges
2.2.4 Bulk properties of oil-water mixtures
2.2.4.1. Relative quantities of oil and water
2.2.4.2. Density
2.2.4.3. Rheological properties
2.2.4.4. Wax drop-out point (cloud point)
2.2.4.5. Droplet size distribution
2.3 Destabilisation of emulsions
2.3.1. Chemical nature of emulsion breakers
2.3.2 Selection of emulsion breakers
2.3.3 Dosage rate of emulsion breakers
2.3.4. Fast/slow acting demulsifiers
2.3.5. Injection points of emulsion breakers
2.3.6 Temperature effects
2.4 Coalescence
2.4.1. General
2.4.2. Mixing energy and coalescence
2.4.2.1. Droplet sizes and mixing energy
2.4.2.2. Calculation of mixing energy
2.4.2.3. Dispersian and coalescence
2.4.3. Coalescence zones
2.4.4. Pipeline coalescence
2.4.5. Preassure reduction pipeline
2.4.6. Electrostatic coalescence
2.4.7 Coalescence media
2.5 Gravity separation
2.5.1 Stokes' Law
2.5.2 Effect of heat on dehydration behavior
2.6 Additional oily water treatment processes
2.6.1. Coagulation or flocculation
2.6.2. Flotation
2.6.3 Filtration
3. SAMPLING AND TESTING FOR DEHYDRATION BEHAVIOUR.
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Formulation of a sampling programme
3.3 Surface sampling of oil/water mixtures
3.3.1. Sampling considerations
3.3.2. Sampling points
3.3.3. Sampling methods and equipment
3.3.4. Sample handling and preservation
3.4 Analysis of actually produced oil/water mixtures
3.4.1. Sample characterization
3.4.2. Dehydration tests with actually produced emulsions
3.4.2.1. General
3.4.2.2. Outline of dehydration testing
3.4.2.3 The bottle test
3.4.2.4. Evaluation of the effectivess of demulsifier dosage
3.4.3. Common test methods for analysis of dehydration behavior
3.4.3.1. Introduction
3.4.3.2 Determination of free water
3.4.3.3. Determination of water and sediment in oil
3.4.3.4. Determination of oil-in-water
3.4.3.5 Determination of droplet size distribution of emulsions
3.5 Standard laboratory dehydration tests
3.5.1 General
3.5.2. Crude oil and water characterisation and handling
3.5.3. Emulsification
3.5.4 Demulsifier selection and addition
3.5.5. The standard settling test
3.5.6. Data processing
3.5.7. The dynamic coalescer
3.6 Rontgen scan (Tomograph) studies at KDEPL
3.7 Discussion on dehydration tests
3.7.1 Representativeness of standard laboratorydehydration
3.7.2. Interpretation of field vs. laboratory dehydration behaviour
3.7.3 Selection of demulsifier chemicals
APPENDICES
3.1 - Description of the Welder pressure sample
3.2 - Summary of additional methods relating to the analysis of dehydration and deoiling
behavior
3.3 - The bottle test
3.4 - KSEPL standard laboratory procedures for dehydration tests
3.5 - Calculation required for the static dehydration test
36- Dehydration test report sheets

4. ASPECT OF DEOILING AND PRODUCED WATER DISPOSAL

4.1 Oil-in-water emulsions
4.1.1. General
4.1.2. Emulsification
4.1.3. Deoilers
4.1.4. Mixing and coalescence
4.1.5. Deoiling tests
4.2 Disposal of produced water
4.2.1. General
4.2 2 Water quality requirements
4.2.2.1. Downhole injection
4.2.2.2. Surface disposal
4.2.3. Oil-in-water
4.2.3.1. Occurrence and environmental aspects
4.2.3.2. Regulatory limits
4.2.4. Determination of hydrocarbons in water
4.2.4.1. Sampling
4.2.4.2 Sample preparation - Acidification
- Extraction
- Filtration/Drying
- Removal of polar materials
4.2.4.3 Infrared analysis of hydrocarbons in water
4.2.4.4 Other methods for analysis of hyrocarbons in water
4.2.4.5. Variability of analytical results
4.2.4.6. Measurement of dispersed oil
4.2.5. Discharge of production water from gas/condensate platforms
APPENDICES
4.1 - The original and development of the PARCOM provisional target standard
4.2 - Published infrared procedures for determination of hydrocarbons in water
4.3 -. Information on infrared spectophotometric methods listed in Appendix 4.2

5. DEHYDRATION EQUIPMENT AND PROCESSES

5.1 General principles
5.2 Chemical destabilisation
5.2.1 Injection system requirements
5.2.2. Demulsifier supply and storage
5.2.3 Location of injection points
5.2.4. Chemical injection pumps
5.2.4.1 General characteristics
5.2.4.2. Commom pumphead types
5.2.4.3. Pumps specifications
5.2.4.4. Example of basic chemical injection system
5.3 Batch dehydration
5.3.1. Operating principles
5.3.2. Settling tanks
5.4 Continuous dehydration
5.4.1 Separators
5.4.1.1 Free water knock-out vessels
5.4.1.2 Plate separators
5.4.1.3 Heater treaters
5.4.2 Dehydration tanks
5.4.2.1. Operating principles
5.4.2.2. Tank design features
5.4.2.3. Alternative tank designs
5.4.2.4. The concentric wash tank
5.4.3 Coalescers
5.4.3.1. Coalescence media
5.4.3.2. Coalescer pipes
5 4 3 3 Electrostatic coalescers
5.4.4 Centrifuges
5.5 Condensate dehydration
5.5.1. Free (dispersed) water removal
5.5.2. Dissolved water removal
5.6 Desalting
5.7 Sludge treatment
5.8 Dehydration of heavy (<16° API) crudes
6. DEOLING EQUIPMENT AND PROCESSES
6.1 General Principles
6.1 1 Removal of suspended oil
6.1.2 Removal of dissolved oil
6.2 Gravity separators
6.2 1 Skim tanks
6.2.2. Skim piles
6.2.3. API oil interceptors
6.2.4. Plate interceptors
6.2.4.1. The corrugated plate interceptor (CPI)
6.2.4.2. The Natro Performax coalesce
6.3 Gas flotation units
6.3.1. Induced gas flotation (IGF) units
6.3.2. Dissolved gas flotation (DGF) units
6.3.3 Tilted plate flotation units
6.4 Flocculation units
6.4.1. Flocculation-sedimentation
6.4 2 Flocculation-flotation
6.4.3. Sludge disposal from flocculation processes
6.5 Coalescers
6.5.1. Examples of commercial coalescers
6.5.1.1 Decrement coalescer
6.5.1.2. Elf Anvar coalescer (Fig. 6.19)
6.5.1.3. Plenty Metro coalescer (Fig. 6.20)
6.5.1.4. KnitMesh Dc coalescer (Fig. 6.21)
6.5.2 Expandable fibrous bed coalescer
6.5.3. Pipeline coalescers
6.6. Filters
6.6.1. Granular media filters
6.6.2 Precoat filters
6.6.3. Novel media filters
6.7 Hydrocyclones
6.8. Removal of dissolved hydrocarbons
6.8.1 Carbon adsorption
6.8.2 Gas stripping
6.8.3 Biological treatment
7. EQUIPMENT SELECTION AND DESIGN/SIZING GUIDELINES
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Dehdration Equipment
7.2.1. Design approach
7.2.2 General design considerations
7.2.2.1. Design conditions
7.2.2.2. Nature of the feed
7.2.2.3. Product specifications
7.2.3. Equipment selection and application
7.2.4. Equipment sizing
7.2.4.1. Sizing criteria
7.2.4.2 Sizing method
7.2.4.3. Sizing routines
7.2.5 Equipment internals and accessories
7.2.5.1. Seperators (including plate separators)
7.2.5.2 Dehydration tanks .
7.2.6. Control and instrumentation
7.2.6.1. Separators (including plate separator)
7.2.6.2. Dehydration tanks
7.3 Deoiling equipment
7.3.1 General considerations
7.3.2 Equipment selection and application
7.3.3. Equipment sizing
APPENDICES
7.1 - Application of Strokes' Law for sizing separators
7.2 - Equipment sizing curves and tables
7.3 - .Equipment drawings showing internals
7.4 - Detail of internals
7.5 - Levels and level control

8. SYSTEM INTEGRATION
8.1. General
8.2 Design considerations for offshore systems
8.3 Design considerations for onshore systems
8.4 Factors affecting oil/water separation efficiency
8.4.1 Emulsifier chemicals
8.4.2. Physical properties of oil and water
8.4.3 Flow conditions
8.4.4. Solids
8.4.5. Pumps and control valves
8.4.6. SRB
8.4.7. Recyling of skimmings and sludges
8.4.8 Mixing of disposal water streams
8.5 Review of field installations
8.5.1 Shell Expro
8.5.2 New North Sea platform designs
8.5.3 Gabon-Gamba/Ivinga fields
8.5.4 PD Oman
8.5.5. SPDC - Nigeria
8.5.6 BSP
8.5.7 SSB/SSPC
8.5.8 Thailand-Sirikit field

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

List of Figures

2.1 A photomicrograph of a water-in-oil emulsion

2.2 Example of surfactants
2.3 Example of surfactant stabilization
2.4 Photomicrograph of water droplet in a water-in-oil emulsion
2.5 Photomicrograph of two water droplets which are touching
2.6 Basic characteristics of Newtonian and non-Newtonian liquids
2.7 Kinematic viscosity vs. temperature, and other properties, for a wide range of traditional crude oil
2.8 Continuous droplet size distribution curve
2.9 Photomicrographs of two samples of the same emulsion, one treated with emulsifier and one
untreated
2.10 Mixing intensity and maximum stable droplet size
2.11 Estimation of friction factor
2.12 Structure of liquid/liquid dispersions
2.13 Settling velocity-temperature relationship for three different API gravity crude oils
2.14 Plots of water density, oil density and oil viscosity at various temperatures for various types for
various types of emulsion
2.15 Water droplet vertical velocity at different temperatures for various types of emulsion
3.1 API recommendation for sampling from a vertical flow line
3.2 Possible sampler installation
3.3 Iso-energetic sampling through ½” sampling tube as function of main line throughput for various
main line diameters
3.4 Schematic presentation of dehydration testing
3.5 Static settling of an emulsion taken at an HP separator inlet
3.6 Example of oil/water separation behavior of a sample taken with the transparent sampling bottle
3.7 Laboratory dehydration tests on artificial, destabilised emulsions
3.8 Schematic of the system for photographing the droplets of the dispersed phase in an emulsion
3.9 Dehydration behavior of some North Sea crude oil emulsions
3.10 Schematic drawing of dynamic coalescer with rotating inner cylinder
3.11 Relation between mixing intensity and rotational speed
3.12 Variation in heights of sedimenting and coalescing interface during decay of a bath dispersion
3.13 Computer tomography
5.1 Typical dehydration process
5.2 Components of a basic chemical injection system (example)
5.3 Batch dehydration process
5.4 Schematic of settling tank
5.5 Various types of separator
5.6 Free water knockout vessel
5.7 Plate separators
5.8 Vertical heater treater
5.9 Horizontal heater treater
5.10 Schematic of typical continuous dehydration tank
5.11 External gas boot
5.12 Internal gas boot
5.13 Spider type spreader
5.14 Inlet spreader with lateral distributors
5.15 Oil skinner in baffled tank
5.16 Water legs for interface level control
5.17 Rim discharge type dehydration tank
5.18. Multiple baffle type dehydration tank
5.19 Creole type dehydration tank
5.20 Spreader plate type dehydration tank
5.21 Concentric wash tank
5.22 Partitioned concentric wash tank
5.23 Electrostatic coalescers
5.24 Two-stage electrostatic coalescer under development
5.25 Particle trajectory through inclined rotating disks
5.26 Solids ejecting disk centrifuge
5.27 Simplified process flow scheme for condensate dehydration
5.28 Desalting system with and without recycle
6.1 Schematic of a skim tank
6.2 Skim pile flow pattern
6.3 API interceptor showing typical arrangement for two parallel basins
6.4 Plate coalescence
6.5 Standard CPI
6.6 Corrugated plate pack arrangements
6.7 Corrugated plate interceptor
6.8 Plate separators manufactured by 'Skimmovex'
6.9 Natco Performax coalescer
6.10 Wemco depurator
6.11 Flotation cell
6.12 Hydrocell induced gas flotation separator
6.13 Solubility of some gases in water
6.14 Dissolved gas flotation unit
6.15 Schematic of a titled plate flotation unit
6.16 Flocculation-sedimentation unit
6.17 Flocculation unit
6.18 Decrement coalescer
6.19 Elf Anvar coalescer
6.20 Plenty Metrol coalescer
6.21 Diagrammatic layout of Knit Mesh DC coalescer
6.22 Expandable fibrous bed coalecer
6.23 Hydration filter
6.24a Virtual flow profile
6.24b 35-mm Virtual cross section
6.25 Example of hydrocyclone efficiency vs. reject ratio
6.26 Activated sludge biotreater
7.1 Heat capacity of normal pour point crudes
7.2 Viscosity of water
7.3 Nomograph: Particle size/specific gravity difference/setting velocity in water at different
temperatures
7.4 Derivation of empirical factor F
7.5 Induced gas flotation unit
7.6 Typical flocculation scheme
APPENDIX 7.1

A 7.1.1. Schematic of a simple oily water separator

APPENDIX 7.2

A 7.2.1. Allowable liquid flux rates for FWKO tanks and separators
A 7.2.2. Standard vessel sizes
A 7.2.3. Allowable oil flux rates for tanks and separators
A 7.2.4. Standard size heater treaters
A 7.2.5. Allowable liquid flux rates for stringent degassing
A 7.2.6. Allo wable liquid flux rates for foaming for foaming crudes.
A 7.2.7. Allowable gas velocities for demisting
A.7.2.8. Allowable oil flux rates for plate separators
A.7.2.9. Allowable water flux rates for plate separators
A.7.2.10. Allowable flow velocities for plate separators
A 7.2.11. Standard vertical tank sizes
A 7.2.12. Allowable oil flux rates for electrostatic coalescers
A.7.2.13. Standard size electrostatic coalescers
A 7.2.14. Standard size electrostatic coalescers (integral heaters)

APPENDIX 7.3

A 7.3.1. Liquid-liquid separator

A 7.3.2. Separator with small gas handling facility (Cg < 0.85)
A.7.3.3. Three phase separator (Cg<0.85)
A.7.3.4. Liquid-liquid plate separator
A 7.3.5. Split flow liquid-liquid plate separator
A.7.3.6. Three phase plate separator (Cg<0.85)
A 7.3.7. Concentric dehydration tank
A.7.3.8. Conventional dehydration tank

APPENDIX 7.4

A 7.4.1 Separator inlet devices

A.7.4.2. Schoepentoeter
A.7.4.3. Double perforated plate
A 7.4.4. Sand flush system
A 7.4.5. Plate pack material
A.7.4.6. Conventional dehydration tank gas boot
A.7.4.7. Degassing tank
A.7.4 8. Conventional dehydration tank inlet distributor
A.7.4.9. Concentric wash tank emulsion transfer ports
A.7.4 10. Wash tank water outlet
A 7.4.11. Wash tank oil collector
APPENDIX 7.5
A 7.5.1. Separator liquid levels
A.7.5.2. Minimum level control requirements for separators
A.7.5.3. Control arrangements for separators with gas cap
A.7.5.4. Crest height over weirs
A.7.5.5. Typical vessel control systems
A 7.5.6. Liquid and interface levels, wash tanks
A 7.5.7. Liquid and interface levels, concentric wash tanks
A.7.5.8. Typical wash tank control systems
A.7.5.9 Conventional wash tank water leg

8.1 Shell Expro-Brent/Dumnlin, Typical production facilities

8.2 Shell Expro-Fulmar Alpha,Typical production facilities
8.3 Shell Expro-Auk, TYpical production facilities
8.4 Shell Expro-Cormorant Alpha, Typical production facilities
8.5 Shell Expro-Noth Cormorant, Typical production facilities
8.6 Shell Expro-Eider production facilities
8.7 Kittiwake project, produced water treatment
8.8 Troll topsides (conceptual)
8.9 Gamba terminal dehydration/desalting/deoiling system
8.10 Typical North and Central Oman production facilities
8.11 Typical South Oman production facilities
8.12 Seria Terminal, dehydration and production water treatment facilities
8.13 Seria Terminal, emulsion treatment facilities
8.14 Lutong water treatment plant
8.15a Lan Krabu production station
8.15b Lan Krabu production station, proposed modifications

List of Tables

1.1 Oil and water production rates (1986 numbers)

2.1 Mixing intensity equations for pipe flow
2.2 Examples of mixing intensity and droplet sizes
2.3 Examples of pipeline coalescence parameters
3.1 Characterization of produced emulsions
4.1 Oil 'sheen' guide
4.2 Typical specifications for aqueous effluents
4.3 Solubility of hydrocarbon in water
4.4 Nation oil-in-water limits
5.1 Chemical injection pump data
5.2 Essential parameters for pump manufacturer's use
7.1 Dehydration equipment selection guidelines
7.2 Nomenclature
7.3 Deoiling process selection guidelines
7.4 Wenco specifications
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

Production of hydrocarbons, the prime objective of the Group Operating Companies, is in all cases
accompanied by the production of unwanted water at some stage in the production life of a well. The
amounts of production water, which may consist of formation water only, or a mixture of formation and
injection water, will normally increase with processing reservoir depletion. The following table shows
average oil and water production rates (1986) for various OPUs, illustrating the significance of the various
amounts of water produced.

Table 1.1: Total oil and water production rates(1986)

Opco Production in Oil '000 m³/d Water Watercut % (vol.)

BSP, Brunei 26.2 16 38

Shell, Gabon 4.5 13 75

BEB, Germany 4.8 60 95

NAM, Holland 4.0 51 95

SSB/SSPC, Malaysia 38.2 20 35

SPDC, Nigeria 120 50 30

TSEPCO, Thailand 3.5 2 35

NVTS, Turkey 2.9 10 80

PD Oman 83.5 65 45

Shell Expro, UK 120 55 30

TOTAL 408 342 46

(2.56 Mbpd) (2.15 Mbpd)

Figures are only indicative and are based on production figures reported in various report and documents

The produced mixture of oil, gas and water first requires separation in order to fully realize the value of
the hydrocarbons. Separation of water and its subsequent disposal is, 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, gas and water mixtures need to be treated in dehydration/deoiling facilities
depends primary on the type of crude produced, the production conditions, and the product specifications.
Crude oil needs to be dehydrated to a certain level to meet purchaser's limits.

These limits on the water and salt content of the crude are typically:

water: 0.2 to 0.5% vol (0.05% vol in Oman )

salt: 42 - 72 g/m³ (15-25 lb/1000 bbl).

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. However, in a number of operation the salt criterion is the
main issue. Examples of this include Oman, Gabon and Syria. In Oman the salt criterion is met by deeper
dehydration down to BSW levels of 0.05%. In other situation however (e.g. Gabon), the introduction of a
desalting stage (Section 5.6) may be more appropriate.

The implication of accepting a given salt specification for new areas and/or fields should be realised. 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

Process water always contain hydrocarbons, both in a dissolved and dispersed state. Produced water is
mainly disposed off through (re)injection into subsurface strata or discharge to surface water bodies
(rivers, lakes, sea). Subsurface injection requires limits to the oil content in order to minimize plugging of
the formation, 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. Such criteria, varying from country to country, also depend on whether water is disposal of in an
offshore or onshore environment and often require inclusion of a deoiling process.

A typical limits for oil-in-water for platform discharges in the North Sea is 40 mg/l. Comparing this limit
with the 0.2 - 0.5% vol. water content specification for crude oil export quality, which is significantly less
stringent, it is clear that in general it is more difficult to de-oil the produced water than to remove water
from the crude. This is compounded, in some cases, by the increased operator attention being given to
effective dehydration, which has a direct bearing on income, and less attention being given to effective
deoiling, which in most cases contributes to increased costs only.

In principle, mixtures of oil and water can be separated by gravity settling only. However, the oil/water
separation process is complicated by the formation of emulsions, caused by agitation of the mixture
during its flow through the well and surface facilities, and by the presence of surface active components in
the crude, which stabilize the emulsions formed. 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.

In general, a dehydration process consist of the initial removal of the (often larger) part of the produced
water which is not emulsified ("free" water), followed by the subsequent further treatment of the emulsified
part of the oil/water mixer. Complete dehydration of the crude oil and deoiling of produced water usually
requires chemical treatment, possibly combined with the gravity separation, either continuous or batch
wise.

Design and operation of dehydration/deoiling facilities has been, till the present day, largely based on
practical field experience and operators' judgement, due to the incomplete understanding of the
chemical/physical principles governing the oil/water separation process. 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. Moreover, an increasingly
wide range of treatment chemicals is available enabling a smooth operation

This traditional approach to equipment design and process operation is, however, no longer adequate for
efficient, cost-effective dehydration of crude oil and treatment of produced water for the following reasons:

i) For offshore installations, where space and weight are at a premium, installation of large
dehydration tanks and bulky water treatment equipment is unacceptable. The development of
compact separation equipment with similar or better performance compared to existing
equipment, is therefore required.

ii) More offshore fields require 'deep' dehydration at the platform (e.g. North Sea) either for
direct tanker loading or for pipeline transport, where as little volume as possible should be
occupied by water.
 iii) As they deplete oil fields produce increasing amounts of water and watercuts of well over
90% are not uncommon, in particular in those fields with pressure maintenance by water
injection.

iv) Because of increased environmental concern legislation governing the quality requirements
for disposal of produced water tends to more stringent with time many areas.

v) Crudes produced by EOR methods in the future will be heavier, more viscous and/or
contaminated and thus fall outside the range of current experience.

In view of these requirements it is necessary to stimulate and undertake the development of:

i) improved (novel) dehydration and deoiling technology, able to cope with future requirements;

ii) a Group wide policy and guidelines on dehydration and deoiling processes and practices and
process selection;

iii) planning and design guidelines for dehydration and deoiling equipment and systems

In this Manual in particular the last two mentioned requirements are addressed. It reviews the various
processes and piece of equipment currently available and in use and presents guidelines on equipment
selection and integration. While this Manual does not give explicit recipes, and cannot be used as a cook
book, 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, with less system upsets.

1.2 Purpose and summary of the Manual

This Dehydration and Deoiling Manual has been prepare with the following objectives in mind:

i) To provide engineers/operators with a basic understanding of the principles of oil/water

separation processes.
ii) To provide guidelines for equipment selection and design, and for subsequent system
planning/integration

This Manual is not specifically meant for specialised design and process engineers, although they may
find its contents of interest and useful, since it provides an integration of petroleum and process
engineering aspects.

In Chapter 2 some of the physical and chemical aspects of emulsions and the principles underlying
oil/water separation processes, are briefly discussed. 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. This process is only qualitatively understood,
however, because the drainage of thin liquid films between droplets on the hand, and the behavior of
dispersions on the other hand, and are influenced by many complex factors. Most of these are surface
phenomena, so the coalescence process is extremely sensitive to small amounts of undefined
contaminants which make a quantitative difficult.

Sampling and testing of emulsions is discussed in Chapter 3. Analysis of the separation behavior of
water-in-oil emulsions is required for a variety of reasons.
• In existing facilities on site 'bottle' test can be performed, using freshly produced emulsions, to
compare and select de-emulsifier chemicals and their dosage requirements and for performance
monitoring/troubleshooting. Additional field testing will invariably be required, however, to
optimise selection/treatment.
 • For new facilities dehydration test using artificial (laboratory prepared) emulsions can be
performed, however, the results may be of limited value. 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, is the most critical aspect for the
interpretation of results of laboratory dehydration test. For such interpretation/translation
correlation are required between behavior of laboratory made emulsions and that of
corresponding emulsions actually encountered in the field. Such correlation are currently not
available, however, and in the absence thereof it has become practice to standardize laboratory
dehydration test, in order to facilitate compassion of laboratory made and in-field emulsion
characteristics. 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, and research is ongoing

Aspects of oil-in-water emulsions and disposal of production water, are discussed in Chapter 4 . Disposal
routes for produced water are injection into subsurface formations and, more commonly, discharge into
surface water sources. Disposal of produced water into the environment is, however, subject to
environmental quality restriction, as set, in most cases, by legislation. For offshore discharge only oil-in-
water content has been specified by regulatory authorities thus far, whereas for discharges into coastal
waters more parameters need to be monitored. Oil-in-water limits, as set by regulations, were originally
based on expectations of oily water treatment equipment performance and hence refer in principal to
dispersed oil-in-water. With available analytical techniques, however, of which the infrared (IR) absorption
technique is the most commonly used method, total oil content (i.e. dispersed plus dissolved oil) is
determined. Furthermore, since most formation waters also contain dissolved organic material, which is
not related to the occurrence of hydrocarbons but contributes to the result of an IR analysis, sample
handling and preparation is very important for the result of an oil-in-water determination. As discussed in
Chapter 4, problems with oil-in-water determination with the IR method also arise for discharges from
gas/condense platforms. Since this water contains a relatively high amount of dissolved aromatic
hydrocarbon, which are not removed by currently used deoiling facilities, high oil-in-water readings can be
obtained exceeding limits. To comply with this limits modifications to the analytical procedure have
recently been proposed.

In Chapters 5 and 6 dehydration and deoiling equipment and processes, currently in use in E & P
operations, are briefly reviewed. As far as future requirements are concerned for in particular compact,
relatively low weight equipment with equivalent or improved performance when compared to conventional
equipment, hydrocyclones for deoiling purpose are now considered to be field proven and are being
installed/planned a.o. on several North Sea platforms. R & D work is ongoing for the development of
hydrocyclones for dehydration purposes, and compact more efficient electrostatic dehydration equipment.
The applicability of centrifuges for oil-water separation has been evaluated in the field, but more testing is
required before they can be considered as oil-field proven.

In Chapter 7 equipment selection and design/sizing guidelines are given for both dehydration and deoiling
equipment. Since in general in deoiling processes relatively large quantities of water are handled,
containing relatively small amounts of oil (typical less than 2% vol.) the dispersion is very dilute and the
oil-water separation process is well described by Stokes' Law. Consequently Stokes' Law can be
successfully applied for the sizing of deoiling equipment. In most dehydration processes, however, the
dispersed water phase is much more concentrated. As mentioned before, a fundamental and quantitative
understanding of the coalescence of liquid droplet in an emulsion would form the basis for the design of
dehydration equipment. However, such a quantitative description of the separation process of a
dispersion has proved to be extremely complex, and a simple and practically applicable mathematical
description of the coalescing mechanism has not yet been forthcoming. Moreover, in the absence of a
practical translation of artificial emulsion behavior to field emulsion behavior, design parameters for
dehydration equipment have had, until now, to rely on empirical (local) field experience and on
comparison with performance of facilities encountering similar production conditions. Empirical, design
and sizing guidelines for dehydration equipment were developed recently in PETRONAS based on a in-
depth review of operating experience in various OPUs and on feedback from equipment manufactures.
These guidelines has been incorporated in full in Chapter 7.
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. This is dealt with in
Chapter 8, where guidelines and further aspects are discussed for the incorporation of individual pieces of
equipment into an integrated system. Depending on the type of crude to be processed, together with
target specifications for gas, oil and produced water, the selection of a system will be governed by
different consideration. In most cases the final or polishing dehydration step is incorporated at the low
pressure stage, following crude stabilization. However, opportunities to start dehydration at an earlier
stage in the process should always be considered, an aspect which has received further impetus from the
recent development of hydrocyclones which require a certain inlet pressure for maximum efficiency. No
single recipe for the most economical and efficient system can be given and in particular the field location,
whether onshore or offshore, whether remote or within an existing production infrastructure, will influence
system selection and integration. As to last mentioned aspect, many new offshore developments in the
North Sea now involve the planned production of smaller, marginal fields. 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.

Offshore systems have normally a requirement for deep dehydration (i.e. very low water content) to meet
a crude specification for either pipeline transport to an onshore terminal, or for direct tanker loading from
the platform facilities. In view of space and weight limitation, compact and efficient separation facilities are
required. 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. In all systems, however, there is a need for each process step to be compatible with
the preceding and subsequent steps, and equipment items need to be matched in terms of capacity,
performance and mode of operation. These requirements are not always met as evidenced by a review of
Group installed field apllications.

Finally, when deciding on the installation of a system, the advantages of pilot testing, where practical,
cannot be over-emphasized. In this way proof of performance prior to full scale investment can be
confirmed.

1.3 Structure of the Manual and acknowledgement

Each chapter of this Manual is self-contained in respect of numbering of pages, tables and figures.
Relevant appendices has been included at the end of each chapter. A detailed table of contents is
included with each chapter. Since each chapter should be accessible and understandable without having
to rely too much on other chapters, some repetition has been unavoidable. References are not given in
the text, to enhance readability, but have been grouped together in various categories, at the end of the
Manual. Since it is thus impractical to indicate in the Manual where parts of available notes and reports
have been used, these contributions are hereby gratefully acknowledged.

The initial version of the manual was prepared by Karl Mess during a temporary assignment with SIPM.
Use was made of available notes and reports, and where feasible, parts were incorporated without further
modification. The unfinished draft concept manual by R.A Bakels was of particular use.

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. The efforts of all involved were
much appreciated. Final editing was undertaken by Mike Beaumont whilst Liesbeth Hendriks coordinated
the typing and associated administration.
2. EMULSIONS AND OIL/WATER SEPARATION PROCESSES

2.1 Introduction

During the life of a well, normally dry oil (and/or gas) is produced initially followed, after some time, by the
onset of water, the amount of which will generally increase with time. Consequently, a mixture of oil and
water is being produced, which requires separation (ideally into dry oil and clean water ) before further
processing and/or transportation or disposal. Simple mixtures of oil water can usually be separated by
gravity settling only. However, the oil/water separation process is complicated by the formation of
emulsions, caused by agitation during flow through the well and the surface facilities, and the presence of
surface active components which stabilise the emulsions formed.

In general, 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, followed by
the subsequent further treatment of the emulsified part of the oil/water mixture. The degree of further
treatment required is dictated by the physical and chemical properties of the emulsions. However, the
separation of oil field emulsions into their respective phases is generally effected by the following steps:

• Destabilisation of the emulsion by chemical treatment, possibly combined with the addition of
heat.

• 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.

In this chapter some of the physical and chemical aspects of emulsions and oil/water separation
processes are briefly discussed. Some understanding of these processes is necessary for the design and
proper operation of oil/water separation facilities.

2.2 Emulsions

2.2.1 Definition and types

An emulsion is a heterogeneous system, consisting of at least one immiscible liquid, intimately dispersed
in another in the form of droplets. 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.

This manual, by virtue of its purpose, is only concerned with emulsions formed by crude oil and water.
Two types are recognised :

• Water dispersed in crude oil, water-in-oil (w/o) normal emulsion.

• Oil dispersed in water, an oil-in-water (o/w) or reserve emulsion.

Of the two types of emulsion mentioned, the continuous phase consists of oil or water respectively. 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 vise versa.

Figure 2.1 show a photomicrograph of a water-in-oil emulsions.

2.2.2 Formation of emulsions

To create an emulsion of oil and water, the two immiscible liquids must be subjected to a degree of
agitation which imparts sufficient energy to disperse one liquid into the other. Emulsions will therefore be
formed in those section of the production system where violent agitation occurs such as:

• perforations
• subsurface pumps
• high GOR tubing flow, including gas lift
• flow beans
• manifolds
• pumps
• control valves (throttles)

The higher the energy of mixing/agitation, the finer the resulting emulsion. For example, control valves,
where the fluids undergo a large pressure drop in a very short time, are notorious for producing very fine
emulsions. The distribution of the droplet sizes in an emulsion is dependent on the properties of the crude
and water, and on the amount of agitation to which it has been subject during its 'life' (so-called shear
history).

2.2.3 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, a consequence of the immiscibility of
the two liquids. Likewise, molecules of the continuous phase are pulled back into their phase.
Consequently there is a tendency for molecules to be removed from the interface. The interface thus
assumes a form where its area is minimal, which is achieved when the droplets are spheroidal. The 'pull'
towards minimum area is known as interfacial tension. Since one sphere of a certain volume has less
surface area than two smaller spheres of the same total volume, droplet tend to coalesce when they
come into contact, i.e. the system is unstable. The greater the surface tension, the greater the stability of
the emulsion. A simple crude oil/water emulsion would therefore, in principle, separate spontaneously into
the separate phases once agitation of the mixture ceases.

The coalescence between two drops is controlled by the rate of drainage of the intervening film of the
continuous phase. The rate of drainage is opposed, and the stability of an emulsion is thus enhanced, by
the presence of surface active material, so-called emulsifiers. 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.

Film drainage is also opposed by the presence of finely divided solids, which have a tendency to
concentrate at the oil-water interface and to become part of the skin. Moreover, the droplets of the
dispersed phase may carry an electric charge, giving rise to mutual repulsion which also opposes droplet-
droplet coalescence.

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. To minimise emulsion
formation, 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, thus enhancing emulsion
stability. In general, the interfacial tension is lowered by increasing salt concentration. However,
increased salt content of the water phase does not imply increased stability of the emulsion. On the
contrary, it has been noticed in many cases that the stability of oil-in water emulsions decreases with
increasing salt content of the water phase. Coupled with the increased gravity forces (due to the higher
water density ) this often results in very high separation efficiencies.
2.2.3.1. Emulsifiers

Emulsifying surfactants are typical long chain organic molecules with both a polar and non-polar end. The
polar portion of the molecule is hydrophilic (preferred affinity for water ) and the non-polar portion
oleophilic (preferred affinity for oil). In Fig.2.2.a surfactant is shown schematically, with two examples.
Fig. 2.1 – A photomicrograph of a water-in-oil emulsion (x 100). The clear circles area water droplets.
Note the variety of sizes of the droplets in this picture. (Photograph courtesy of D.R. Lewis,
EPRC Houston).
Fig. 2.2 – Examples of surfactants

The examples shown in Fig .2.2 are both soaps, i.e. salts of fatty acids. Although soaps are common
formulations, surfactants need not contain metallic cations, such as sodium or calcium, to function
efficiently. Entirely organic molecules may be surface active, provided they contain a water soluble an oil
soluble portion. For example, long chain alcohols, esters, organic acids, and sulphonates are often
surface active.

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. Fig. 2.3 shows typical schematic examples of
stabilisation of w/o and o/w emulsion by surfactant.

Fig. 2.3 – Examples of surfactant stabilisation.

The emulsifier molecules thus form a protective skin around the droplets which obstructs coalescence.
The skin can sometimes be actually observed between bulk quantities of crude oil and water, appearing
as a grey, opalescent film.

In Fig. 2.4 a photomicrograph is shown of a water droplet surrounded by a rigid in a w/o emulsion.
Fig. 2.5 shows two water droplets which area touching, but which have not coalesced because of skin
around droplets.
2.4.2. Mixing energy and coalescence.

2.4.2.1 Droplet sizes and mixing energy

The droplets contained in a destabilised emulsion are subject to continuous dispersion and coalescence.
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. At the same time
that this process is occurring, the motion of the smaller droplets is causing coalescence to take place.
Therefore, it should be input per unit mass and time at which the rate of coalescence equals the rate of
dispersion.

Various studies have been done both experimentally and theoretically on this topic. A relationship
between the maximum stable droplet size in a destabilised emulsion and mixing intensity, which has
proved useful in analysing oil/water separation facilities, was developed by Hinze, of the form:
3
− 2
σ 5
dmax = 0.725 × ε 5   × 10 4 (2.1)
 ρc 
where: dmax = maximum stable droplet size (µm)
ε = mixing intensity equivalent to the work done on the fluid per unit mass per unit
-4
time ( cm²/s³, erg/g.s, 10 Watt/kg)
σ = surface tension (dyne/cm, mN/m)
ρc = density of the continous phase (g/cm³)

Above relationship is shown graphically in Fig. 2.10 for the range of values expected to occur in a crude
handling and dehydration system.

Fig. 2.10 – Mixing intensity and maximum stable droplet size

The mixing intensity shown in Fig. 2.10 ranges from 10 cm²/s³, which occurs during the filling of settling
9
tanks, up to 10 m²/s³, a mixing intensity which may occur (or higher) when an emulsion passes through a
pressure control valve. Fig. 2.10 indicates that the maximum stable droplet size may then vary from
10,000 µm at low mixing intensities, down to 1 µm at very high mixing intensities. The average droplet
size of unstable dispersions will of course be smaller than the indicated maximum droplet size.

2.4.2.2 Calculation of mixing energy

The mixing intensity, 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 realation:

∆p
ε= (2.2)
ρt

where: ∆p = pressure drop over a certain part of the system

t = retension time of the fluid in that part of the system

ρ = density of the fluid.

For field applications it has, in the past, been considered more practical to use as a yardstick the work
done on the fluid per unit volume per unit time, expressed in psi/hour and denoted by E, taking the form:

∆p
E= (2.3)
T
where: ∆p = pressure drop (psi)

T = retension time (hours)

To convert ε (in erg/g.s = cm²/s³) into E (in psi/hr) multiply by ρ / 19.16.

Equation for mixing intensity parameters ε and E for pipeflow are summarised in Table 2.1 for both
laminar and turbulent flow. The dimensionless Reynolds number, Re, is defined as:

inertial forces ρv 2 ρvd vd

Re = = = =
viscous forces η v / d η υ

(v = average flow velocity, m/s).

It is mentioned that the equations shown for laminar flow can be derived directly from equation (2.2) by
substitution of ∆p from the Poiseuille pipe-flow equation.
Table 2.1: Mixing intensity equations for pipe flow

Type of flow ε (SI unit) E (field units)

Laminar 51.2 × 10 −3 ηq2 2 3 26.72 η Q 2

ε= m /s E= psi / hr
(Re < 1500) π 2 ρ d6 π 2 D6

∆p ∆P
= E=
ρt T
Turbulent
(Re > 3000)
3.2 × 10 −3 f 1) q3 2 3 Q3
= m /s = 0.493 × f 1) × ρ × 7
× 10 −3 psi / hr
π 3 d7 D

1) The friction factor f can be estimated from the Figure 2.11.

The symbol and units used in the mixing intensity equations are:

In SI units In field units

q = flow rate, m³/s Q = flow rate, bbl/d
∆p = pressure drop, Pa ∆P = pressure drop, psi
t = residence time, s T = residence time, hr
η = dynamic viscosity, Pa.s η = dynamic viscosity, poise (g/cm.s)
ρ = fluid density, kg/m³ ρ = fluid density, g/cm³
d = pipe diameter, m D = pipe diameter, in.
Fig. 2.11 – Estimation of friction factor. Values derived from this diagram are similar to those obtained
from the well-known ‘Moody diagram’.

It is emphasised that the relation (2.1) between mixing intensity and maximum droplet size is only valid for
liquid-liquid systems. When free gas is present, or when gas break-out may occur with a drop in pressure,
the resulting droplet sizes cannot be estimated from eqn. (2.1) since the expanding gas contributes to the
energy of mixing in an unknown manner. 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.
From eqns. (2.1) and (2.3) the following qualitative conclusions can be drawn:

i) The greater the pressure drop, and thus the shear forces that the fluid experiences in a given
period of the time, while flowing through parts of the treatment facilities, the smaller the droplet
diameter will be. That is, large pressure drops which occur over small distances through chokes,
control valves, etc. result in emulsions that are harder to treat.

ii) The lower the surface tension, the lower the maximum droplet size.

To simulate mixing intensities, encountered in the field in laboratory testing, KSEPL develop the dynamic
coalescer, which is similar in construction to a simple rotational viscometer (e.g. a Fann viscometer). This
device is discussed in more detail in Section 3.5.7. 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 - range 2200 – 11000 cm²/s³ (250 psi/hour, range
100 – 500 psi/hour). Optimum deoiling performance was determined for mixing intensities of
ε = 11,000 – 110,000 cm²/s³ ( E = 500 – 5000 psi/hour).

Some typical mixing intensities, retention times and maximum stable droplet sizes expected to occur in
parts of crude handling system, are shown in Table 2.2. Calculated values assume no free gas present.
In reality free gas is likely to be present, thus increasing the calculated mixing intensities by an unknown
amount, also further decreasing droplet sizes.

Table 2.2 : Example of mixing intensity and droplet sizes.

2.4.2.3 Dispersion and coalescence

The dispersion process, i.e. the process in which a droplet breaks up into smaller droplets under certain
conditions of mixing energy, is theoretically not instantaneous. However, it appears from field experience
to take place very rapidly. For design purposes it can be assumed that whenever large pressure drops
occur, all droplets larger than dmax as given by eqn. (2.1), will disperse instantaneously.

Coalescence of droplets, whether it occurs in piping systems or in large vessels, e.g. free water knock-
outs and settling tanks, is a more time consuming process than dispersion. The time required to obtain a
desired droplet size, can be approximated by:

d4
t= (2.4)
2f v K s

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%.

ii) The more dilute the dispersed phase, the greater the residence time needed to yield a given
droplet size. This is, coalescence occurs, more rapidly in high water content systems.

2.4.3. Coalescence zones

In continuous gravity separation processes an oil/water interface is maintained in the vessel. By

introducing the destabilised 'feed' emulsion just below this boundary, a high water content emulsion layer
builds up between the water and the oil. This zone is called the 'dispersion band', 'working layer' or
'coalescence zone' because the gentle movement caused by the rising oil promotes active coalescence.

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, and a calmer zone close to the disengaging interface in which the
droplets are closely packed. Coalescence in the former zone, which is called sedimenting zone, 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, thus
influencing the coalescence time at the disengaging interface.

In the closed-packed zone the hold-up is high and may approach unity. In Fig.2.12 the structure of liquid-
liquid dispersions is shown schematically for a vertical separator.
Fig. 2.12. – Structure of liquid / liquid dispersions

The quantitative description of the dispersion band thickness versus throughput, as a function of
coalescence parameters, would form the basis for separator design and sizing rules. However, such a
relationship has been found difficult to predict, and considered impossible to do so from physical
properties and operating data alone. Separator design and sizing rules have experience, taking
performance of existing facilities duly into account. Currently research is being conducted at KSEPL to
establish separator design rules based on the behaviour of liquid/liquid dispersions (see also Section 3.6)

2.4.4. Pipeline coalescence

In a destabilised emulsion flowing through a pipeline, droplet coalescence and break-up will occur
simultaneously which eventually leads to an equilibrium droplet size distribution, the characteristics of
which depend on the level of mixing energy imparted on the flowing oil/water mixture. Equations (2.1) and
(2.3) can be used to predict maximum droplet sizes that may result from coalescence during fluid flow
through a pipeline. 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, and the length and diameter
of the coalesce pipe should be adapted to arrive at optimum mixing conditions for the emulsion
concerned.

The required pipe diameter can be calculated from the mixing intensity equations given in Table 2.1, and
the pipe length from:

T×Q
L= (km)
76.45 D 2
For estimation of friction factor see Fig. 2.11, using the quantities and units shown below :

f LQ 2
Pressure loss h = 1.05
D5
Q
Reynolds number Re = 580
Dν

64
Laminar flow when Re < 1500; friction factor f =
Re
Turbulent flow when Re > 3000; friction factor f = f1 + ∆f (Fig 2.11)

h = pressure loss, m liquid

L = length of pipe, km
Q = throughput, m³/d
D = internal pipe diameter, in.
ν = kinematic viscosity, 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, ∆p, in a gradual form (see Section 2.4.5)

In Table 2.3 two examples of typical mixing intensities, retention times and maximum droplet sizes are
shown for pipelines.

Table 2.3 – Examples of pipeline coalescence parameters.

In designing a pipeline stem, it is recommended that dimensions, pressure drops and flow rates be
verified to achieve mixing intensities which do promote coalescence and avoid re-emulsification due to
turbulence. Optimum mixing conditions can be derived from laboratory tests on representative samples of
emulsion. If such tests are not available, tentatively a pipe length of 1 km and a mixing intensity of around
5500 cm²/s³ (250 psi/hour) are recommended. In view of the number of unknown critical parameters in
designing coalescer pipes, a pilot scheme might be useful to ensure a successful application.

2.4.5 Pressure reduction pipeline

The use of pressure reduction pipes is a related application to coalescer pipelines. The purpose of such a
facility is to avoid emulsification as a result of high shear forces in for instance pressure control valves.
A successful application is found in PDO Oman, 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. Severe re-emulsification of
the crude stream dehydration in the interior, took place causing prolonged settling times in the terminal
tanks to achieve export quality crude for which a maximum BS & W of 0.05% v was required on account
of the very high water salinity (150-180 kg/m³). 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, accounting for a back
pressure of some 2050 kPa (300 psi) at 80,000 m³/d (500,000 bbls/day ) throughput.

2.4.6. Electrostatic coalescence

Electrostatic coalescence is a liquid-liquid phase separation process that employs an intense electrical
field to enforce collisions between small droplets. The resulting larger drops are readily separated by
gravity. This technology has been successfully applied to crude desalting processes for more than 50
years and it is available from several manufactures.

Electrostatic coalescence can be applied to any dispersion with an insulting continuous phase and a
different in dielectric constant of continuous and dispersed phase. When these types of dispersion are
subjected to an electrical field, the dispersed phase can experience several types of electrical force.
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. The total result is accelerated movement and increased frequency of collisions. The electrical
forces attainable are two to three orders of magnitude higher than gravitational forces.

There have been some developments in the technology of electrostatic coalescence. However, this has
not yet lead to a large scale application to other liquid-liquid phase separation operations such as
dehydration of production fluids. For this application the electrostatic coalescer should be capable of
handling larger ranges of water concentration in an even more compact separator.

KSLA are currently developing a multistage electrostatic coalescer for dehydration of production fluids
containing water concentrations from 50 ppm to 40%. The multistage coalescence contains several
electrode-separator stages with intermediate water removal and increasing electrical fields. This allows
separation over a wide range of water concentrations in one vessel (see Section 5.4.3.3).

2.4.7. 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. When installed in a stream of destabilised
emulsion, the coalescing medium will be wetted by colliding droplets, spreading over the fiber surface.
Once the surface is saturated, excess dispersed fluid will be shed into the stream as coarser droplets,
which facilitates subsequent gravity settling.

Coalescer beds are sensitive to blockage by solids in the process stream. They are therefore rarely used
in crude oil dehydration, but they have some promise for the deoiling of effluent waters (see Section
6.5.2).
2.5 Gravity separation

2.5.1 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, water droplets falling). The
basic equations governing this motion are the buoyant force:

This equation is usually referred to as Stokes' Law.

From the above simple equation it is apparent that the separation velocity is affected by the following
factors :

• Acceleration due to gravity forces.

Separation is usually effected under conditions of normal gravity. In some latest developments the
separation velocity has been significantly increased by increasing the gravitational acceleration forces by
the use of centrifuges of hydrocyclones.

• Droplet size.

As the terminal velocity is proportional to the square of the droplet diameter, it is desirable to have
relatively large dispersed phase droplets, which can be achieved by minimising the degree of turbulence
and promoting coalescence.

• Density different and viscosity of the continuous phase.

The term (ρw - ρo) / η or ∆ρ / η is called Stokes’ parameter. It is apparent that a low density difference and
a high viscosity slow down oil water gravity separation. Heavy viscous crudes are therefore much more
difficult to dehydrate than a light crudes. Heat reduces the viscosity of the continuous phase (particularly
oil) thus promoting gravity settling, but also effects the density difference between oil and water. This is
discussed in more detail in Section 2.5.2.

In Fig. 2.13 settling velocities of a 200 µm water droplet are shown for various crude gravities, as a
function of temperature.

Fig. 2.13 – Settling velocity-temperature relationship, using Stokes’ Law, for three different API gravity
crude oils (based on water drop size of 200 microns) (source: Heavy Oil Dehydration, R.S.
Jackson et. Al).
2.5.2. Effect of heat on dehydration behaviour

Heat always reduces the viscosity of the oil (continuous)phase of a water-in-oil emulsion. Low oil viscosity
enables water droplets to move faster, thereby promoting droplet collisions and faster water droplet
settling. There is a small percentage of produced emulsions where the emulsifying agent is relatively
weak, and heat alone causes emulsion breaking solely by lowering oil viscosity and increasing the speed
at which water droplet can move.

However, it is not always true that the hotter the emulsion, the better the emulsion breaking, 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, it is necessary to measure water density, oil density and
oil viscosity at a series of different temperatures. This provides what has come to be known as an
emulsion 'fingerprint', and these data, when used with Stokes' Law, can help determine proper operating
temperatures in cases where settling is the prime means of treating the emulsion.

Fig.2.14 shows 'fingerprints' of the three principal types of emulsion, 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.

Value of ρw, ρo and ηo can be taken from the 'fingerprint' at a series of temperatures within the operating
of emulsion treating equipment. These data, combined with an arbitrary fixed value of water droplet
radius, can be used in Stokes' Law to generate pattern of water droplet settling as a function of treater
temperature. Such data are shown on Fig.2.15. The upper figure shows a Type I oil-water system, in
which an increase in temperature always results in an increased droplet velocity. The centre figure shows
a Type II system in which a maximum droplet velocity is reached, and heating beyond this point creates a
disadvantage. The lower figure shows a Type III system, in which a maximum droplet velocity is reached,
after which further heating causes a zero droplet velocity (no separation of oil and water possible),
followed by a reverse of water droplet direction. At temperatures above the zero velocity point the system
inverts, and water goes to the stock tank, while oil goes into the water disposal system. This has
happened many times in heavy oil fields.
Fig. 2.14 – Plots of water density (ρw) oil density (ρo), and oil viscosity (ηo) at various temperature for
Type I emulsions (upper), Type II emulsions (centre), and Type III emulsions (lower).
Fig. 2.15 – Water droplet vertical velocity at different tempereatures for Type I emulsions (upper), Type II
emulsions (centre), and Type III emulsions (lower).
2.6 Additional oily water treatment processes

In addition to the various processes for oil/water separation, discussed in the previous sections, 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/. 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.

The following processes for treatment of oily water will be briefly discussed :

• coagulation or flocculation
• flotation
• filtration

2.6.1 Coagulation or flocculation

Coagulation is the process where suspended, finely divided particles are combined by chemical means.
Flocculation is the further increase in size and volume of the resulting precipitate to form larger and more
readily settleable masses. The water is treated with small amounts (10-50 ppm) of aluminium or ferric
salts (coagulant), the action of which is threefold :

- To form an iron hydroxide ‘floc’ which traps suspended oil and solids, e.g:

Fe 2 (SO 4 )3 + 6 OH- → 2 Fe(OH)3 ↓ + 3 SO 24-

- To neutralise the electrostatic forces which cause individual suspended droplets to repel each other,
thus allowing coalescence.

- To precipitate some dissolved substances such as sulphur and some heavy od transition metals, e.g:

2 Fe 3+ + 3 S 2− → 2 FeS ↓ + S ↓

The resulting floc is subsequently removed from the water by either sedimentation or gas flotation.

The process is sensitive to the pH which should be between 5 and 9 in fresh water. In saline waters the
pH range for optimum floc formation is much smaller and adjustment by treatment with calcium hydroxide
may be necessary.

The quality of the floc can be improved considerably by the addition of polyelectrolytes. These are long
chain, water dispersible polymers with excess electric charges along their entire length. 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. The type of polyelectrolyte to be used depends on the characteristics of the
water and the suspended solids, and must be decided upon on the basis of laboratory tests.
Polyelectrolytes are used in dosages of 1-10 ppm.

This process is not suitable for offshore applications since it generates chemical waste.
2.6.2 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. After the droplet has attached itself to the bubble, the two will
travel to the surface more rapidly than the droplet would on its own. As a result, the rate of oil removal is
increased considerably.

The flotation process consists of the following four basic steps:

• Bubble generation in oily water.

• Contact between a gas bubble and an oil drop suspended in the water.

• Attachment of the oil droplet to the gas bubble.

• Rising of the gas-oil combination to the water surface where the oil can be removed by skimming.

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). The quantity of gas that can
be contained by the water is limited by the solubility of gas in water (typically 0.4-0.9 m³/m³
(0.2-0.5 scf/bbl) for pressures of 400-600 kPa).

• 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.
In this process longer residence times are obtained as compared to dissolved gas flotation.

Bubbles can also be generated by sparging, but this process is not (yet) being applied in commercial
flotation equipment.

The method of bubble generation is important since it determines the bubble size gas concentration for a
given feed. These two parameters influence the collision efficiency and thus the rate of oil recovery.

ii) Bubble-droplet contact

Gas bubbles and oil droplets must come into contact for flotation to occur. Due to their lower density than
water, gas bubbles and oil droplets will both travel to the water surface, gas bubbles rising more rapidly
than the oil droplets. This leads to the possibility of bubble-droplet contact. On the other hand, a fluid flow
pattern is established around a moving gas bubble that tends to deflect oil drops. This reduces the
possibility of contact.

Theoretical studies have indicated that contact efficiency (i.e. 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. Oil droplet sizes can be increased by the use of deoilers (coalescence) and
polyelectrolytes. The gas bubbles in commercial flotation cells range in size from 300-1000 µm. They are
generally smaller in saline water (>36 g/l NaCl equivalent). The size of bubbles can be reduced by the
use of foamers.
iii) Bubble-droplet attachment

Successful flotation requires that the oil droplet attaches itself to the gas bubble, and remain so until the
bubble reaches the surface of the flotation cell. This process is extremely complex as it involves
hydrodynamics and surface. Film drainage and rupturing processes are involved, similar to those related
to droplet-droplet coalescence (see Section 2.2.3). The use of foamers usually has a beneficial effect on
the attachment process.

2.6.3. Filtration

Various types of filtration processes are being used in E & P operation, primary for solids removal from
water prior to injection. Only in few cases is filtration being used treatment of oily water, the main
disadvantage being that even small amounts of oil in water can incapacitate ('blind') a filter fairly rapidly,
and only relatively low throughputs are achievable. The application of filters in deoiling systems should
therefore be limited to 'polishing' of relatively small amounts of produced water, when a high water quality
is required for reinjection purposes.

In summary, the following filtration processes are available.

- Granular media filters, with the media bed consisting of typically sand, or combinations 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 200g/m³) from production water, but practical
experience has indicated that sand filters are less suitable for this duty, particularly when heavy
or waxy crudes are involved. Backwashing procedures are often ineffective leading to frequent
replacement of the media. Backwashing with hot surfactant solution is suggested, however, this
presents a disposal problem for the resulting oil/water emulsion.

As a guide, for dual media (anthracite /garnet ) filters, manufacturers claim that 100g/m³ oil in
water can be handled. However, a value of maximum 30g/m³ may be more realistic for relatively
trouble free operation, especially where heavy oils are involved.

Other media than conventional mineral particles can also be used for filtration. 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. 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. In a recent trial with produced water as feed the media. In a recent trial with produced
water as feed (BEB,Germany,1984) influent oil content of 50-70 g/m³ were reduced consistently
to 5 g/m³.

- 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. The
oil content in the feed to the filter must be less than 15 g/m³ and ideally less than 10 g/m³, since
these filters have a low tolerance for oil.

- Cross-flow membrane filters, the feasibility of which for removing dispersed oil and/or solids from
produced water, was investigated by KSEPL. Cross-flow filtration is characterised by a
(turbulent)flow parallel to the filter surface, with the permeate flux perpendicular through the
membrane, which should result in a reduced accumulation of particles on the filter surface. Filters
tested were capillary membrane filters, made of microporous polypropene. Experiments showed
a rapid decline of the permeate flux, however. In other test oil breakthrough was observed after a
short time of testing. In view of the low ratio between permeate and feed flow rates, a maximum
operating temperature of 60 °C and the low flux values of the operating level, it was concluded
that the potential of porous membranes for application within E & P is low at the moment.
- Cartridge filters are used for all type of source water, either as polishing filters downstream of
media filters, or in place of media filters, 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. The
35 µm polypropylene filters subsequently employed were also adversely affected but appeared to
be more resistant to oil contamination. In principle cartridge filters should be considered
unsuitable for oily water application.

3. SAMPLING AND TESTING FOR DEHYDRATION BEHAVIOUR

3.1 Introduction

Static settling tests for analysis of the separation behavior of a water-in-oil emulsion are required for a
variety of reasons, as mentioned below:

• The quick and comparative screening of various demulsifiers.

• Performance monitoring and/or trouble shooting of existing facilities.
• Establishing guidelines for design and/or operating practices of dehydration equipment of new
projects.

Dehydration test related to the first to the first two objectives are usually carried out in the field either on-
site (bottle tests) or in the (field) laboratory, using fresh, actually produced emulsions. In all types of
dehydration test, representative emulsion or crude oil samples are required, for which a carefully
designed sampling programme needs to be defined. This is discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.

Laboratory dehydration tests are sometimes conducted to establish the following information:

• The minimum temperature required for dehydration of the crude oil.

• The time required for dehydration (provided an effective demulsifying chemical is added in
sufficient quantity).
• The final water content of the oil after dehydration.
• The quality (i.e. oil content and oil droplet size distribution) of the separated water.

Findings of such laboratory test resulting in a recommendation for a new demulsifer need to be confirmed
by a field trial.

The representatives of emulsion dehydration behaviour as observed in the laboratory in static settling
tests, for the behaviour of actual emulsions under field conditions, is the most critical aspect for the
interpretation of results of laboratory dehydration tests. 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.

It has been attempted, in support of facilities design for new project, to carry out laboratory tests on
artificial emulsion. Results from such laboratory test are not, however, directly applicable in practice since
the condition under which emulsions occur in the field cannot be adequately simulated in the laboratory.
In order to obtain design parameters from laboratory dehydration tests, correlations are required between
behaviour of laboratory-made emulsions and that of corresponding emulsions actually encountered in the
field. Such correlation are currently are currently not available, however, and only in a few cases have
comparisons been made between laboratory and in-field behaviour of emulsions. Aspect of
representativeness of laboratory test results are discussed in more detail in Section 3.7.
Currently, a databank containing results from comparative studies on laboratory-made and in-field
emulsion characteristics does not exist, and more work on establishing correlations between laboratory
dehydration behaviour and of corresponding actual emulsions is required. In the absence of a practicable
translation of artificial emulsion behaviour to field behaviour, design parameters for dehydration
equipment have therefore had, until now, to rely and to be established on empirical (local) field
experience and on comparison with performance of facilities encountering are presented in Chapter 7.

Deoiling tests, i.e. the screening of the most effective deoiler chemical to break an oil-in-water emulsion,
are usually carried out in the field with actual o/w emulsions. Once a suitable deoiler has been identified,
field trials are required to confirm the findings of the test programme in actual production conditions.

Deoiling tests can also be carried out in the laboratory, using crude oil and artificial formation water. Apart
from investigating various types of deoiling chemicals for their effectiveness for various to overtreatment
and water systems, their cost, toxicity and sensitivity to overtreatment and demulsifiers (used in
dehydration), the solubility of the crude oil water can also be determined. This latter aspect is of
importance for the disposal of produced water, which has to meet certain criteria for maximum (total) oil in
water, as set by legislation. This matter is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4, together with additional
aspects of deoiling.

3.2 Formulation of a sampling programme

Sampling of produced fluids:

• for troubleshooting purpose:

• when considering de-bottlenecking of existing facilities;

• during the planning stages of new facilities

is becoming more and more important. Indeed, the lack of appropriate sampling locations is seen as a
major shortcoming in the development of the minimum facilities concept for offshore installations.
Consequently the provision of adequate sampling facilities for performance monitoring cannot be
overstressed.

Dehydration tests, either carried out in the field or in the laboratory and/or analysis of actually produced
emulsions, require the formulation and planning of a carefully designed sampling programme and explicit
specification of its objectives.

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. Depending on availability and
suitability of sampling points, samples can be taken at various points in the system (e.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.

The definition/formulation of a sampling programme for crude oil, water and/or emulsions in support of
new facilities design or to establish operating guidelines, requires a more careful planning and
specification of its objectives. While from a viewpoint of securing information a minimum programme for
sampling can be relatively quickly considered as justified and necessary, it is the anticipation of specific
potential problem areas which should determine the amount and type of samples to be taken.
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

• Production of light (more than 30° API ) or heavy (less than 15° API) crude?

As to the first aspect mentioned above, when oil/water separation facilities are to be designed for a
development in an area with more fields already on production, with more or less similar production
conditions and with known facilities performance, a sampling and testing programme can be very limited,
or even be left out altogether (e.g. North Sea fields which produced mainly light oils).

The second aspect is obviously most critical for the definition of sampling requirements when it concerns
an offshore development. Here space and weight limitations are of great importance for the design of
facilities and modifications/additions to existing facilities are extremely costly, or they may not be possible
at all. Moreover, samples may only be available from a single early exploration well, which consequently
stresses the importance of correct sampling and storage of samples. In an onshore development
modifications/additions to facilities can be made easily, and sizing of facilities is of much less concern.
Moreover, when potential problem areas are suspected from initial testing, field trials can be carried out
much more conveniently. Therefore the formulation of a sampling programme for an onshore
development is much less critical than for an offshore project.

In general, 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.W. Ampa field, Brunei). Therefore
a sampling /testing programme can be rather simple for light crude oil, while a more extensive programme
is required with heavy crudes, where more problem areas potentially exist.

In summary therefore, the formulation of a sampling programme needs to take into account all of the
aspects mentioned above. The specification of the objectives of a sampling programme should be clear
and explicit and be dictated by considerations of "need-to-know" rather than "nice-to-know".

3.3 Surface sampling of oil/water mixtures.

3.3.1. Sampling considerations

Laboratory testing required to obtain design parameters of facilities for new fields must often be
performed with well samples recovered during RFTs, drillstem tests or production tests. Often these
samples are relatively old and contaminated and results of any subsequent testing are critically
dependent on the way the sample was obtained, handled and stored.

As mentioned in Chapter 2, wax can affect the dehydration behaviour of emulsions considerably. In order
to obtain a representative crude oil sample, 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. Otherwise wax
precipitation may have taken place upstream of the sample location, resulting in an oil sample containing
too little wax or having lost its heavy (high-melting point) wax components. If a crude oil sample is taken
from a drum already in storage, the drum should be heated to a temperature above the crude's
Wax-Drop-Point and the contents be homogenised thoroughly prior to taking a sample.

When sampling crude oil and/or emulsions for dehydration tests, care should be taken that they are free
of any contaminants, either resulting from, for example, residues of mud cake/mud filtrate, workover
fluids, diesel oil, corrosion inhibitors, demulsifiers or either additives. When taking a sample from a
newly-drilled or worked-over well, sufficient clean up must be allowed before an emulsion sample is
taken.
The introduction of the tomograph in dehydration/deoiling research at KSEPL has shown that
tomographic data obtained from static settling tests can give information regarding settling velocity,
sludge build-up and water content of a decaying dispersion, in a time and space domain. X-ray
tomography allows the construction of cross-sectional images of density variations within an object
without affecting the process under investigation. By measuring the line projections of a cross-section of
an object under various angles, a reconstruction of that plane (tomogram) can be made.

The experimental set-up for computer tomography (CT) is shown schematically in Figure 3.13.

Fig. 3.13 – Computer tomography

A CT scanner consists of an X-ray source and an array of detectors mounted on a rotating frame. 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, which is short with respect to the separation
time of most emulsions. The attenuation data obtained is sufficiently accurate to allow transformation into
dispersed phase fraction (saturation) values. In turn, other quantities are derived from the saturation data
such as sedimenting velocity and volume flux of the dispersed phase. These quantities can then be used
to validate existing models or trigger the development of new models.

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. By applying X-ray tomography a reversed
approach can be followed because the variables in the numerical solution methods (saturation, settling
velocity) are now known quantities. Thus with the topographic information one can now solved the
hydrodynamic equations of motion for the physical parameters, e.g. the drag coefficient. These
parameters need further evaluation to describe/relate separation behaviour to emulsion/crude oil
properties (viscosity, droplet size.).

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. A
conventional bottle test only gives information about the separations behaviour of an emulsion with time.
Whether a dense layer is formed during settling is hardly detectable. The effect of a demulsifier is often
described in terms of shorter dehydration times only. If the same bottle test is done using the tomograph,
the build-up and break-up of a demulsifier, e.g. break-up and thickness of the dense-packed layer can be
studied in more detail.

This kind of information will be used to described the coalescence behaviour of dense-packed layers in a
quantitative manner. Such a description would then form the basis for obtaining design parameters for
separation facilities and for the prediction of emulsion characteristics. Research on these topics was
started at KSEPL, late 1987,and is currently progressing.

3.7 Discussion on dehydration tests

3.7.1 Representativeness of standard laboratory dehydration tests.

As mentioned earlier, laboratory dehydration tests, usually performed with artificially made emulsions, are
done in support of new facilities design and/or to provide guidance for operational practices. Care must
be taken that a representative crude sample is obtained, the properties of which should not have been
altered during storage and/or transportation (Section 3.3.). However for such tests to be representative of
actual field behaviour, two further stipulations are to be, but are mostly not, fulfilled:

i) The emulsion used in the laboratory tests should be representative of actual field emulsions.

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, such as:

• natural flow or artificial lift

• pressure drop across the choke
• production rate
• water cut
• drawndown

At present, it is not possible to predict the stability of an emulsion produced under a certain
set of conditions, as listed above. Moreover, factors which enhance the stability of produced
emulsions, such as sand, wax or asphaltenes cannot be sufficiently accounted for in
laboratory dehydration tests.

In standard laboratory tests the starting point has, until now, 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. 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.

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, as standardly used in the "Standard Dehydration Test", which did not show any
water settling after 24 hours, and only partial dehydration could be obtained with the addition
of demulsifiers. At moderate shear levels (hand shaking or mechanical bottle shaker) the
 resulting emulsions were much less stable, which could be easily dehydrated to low residual
watercuts with demulsifiers. The tight emulsions created with the high shear mixer were not
encountered during actual production, and therefore it was concluded that these emulsions
are not representative of actual field conditions.

In another recent study, however, using Draugen (a new development in Norway) crude, it
appeared not possible to create stable water-in-oil emulsions with the standard procedure of
laboratory dehydration testing.

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.
Depending on the outcome of such a comparative study, the procedure for creating
emulsions in the laboratory may have to be revised.

ii) The results of a standard laboratory dehydration test, in which the dehydration takes place
under static conditions, must be interpreted for a dynamic system in which the dehydration
takes place under flowing conditions.

This is of particular importance of the time needed for dehydration (i.e. the size of the
dehydration vessels for a certain throughput) is to be estimated. The rules on which such an
interpretation could be made have not yet sufficiently been established and further research
is currently being done at KSEPL to formulate such rules (see also Section 3.6).

Finally, it should be mentioned that, as far as new facility design is concerned, any design on
fluid properties should recognise that fluid properties themselves can change in time due to
e.g. changes in GOR, amount and composition of produced water, presence of solids.

3.7.2 Interpretation of field vs. 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. In these studies the dehydration behaviour of
actually produced emulsions was compared with that of artificially made emulsions.

The main observations made, and conclusions drawn from these studies, are as follows:

• The effect of temperature on dehydration behaviour is comparable for both types (i.e. actual and
artificial) of emulsion. 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.
• In the laboratory stable emulsions can be made from crudes which do not produce emulsions in
practice, and artificially made emulsions are much more stable than actually produced emulsions.
• The settling time (or residence time) needed for dehydration of artificially made emulsions is
conservative as compared to that required in practice. However, settling tests with actually
produced emulsions give realistic results provided sampling is representative and does not cause
additional emulsification.
• 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.
• General experience indicates that a higher demulsifier dosage is needed in laboratory tests as
compared to the dosage needed in the field.
• Water droplet sizes removed in dehydration vessels are significantly smaller than predicted by
Stokes' Law.
The above aspects indicate that result from standard laboratory dehydration tests cannot, in general, be
directly used to obtain design parameters for oil and water treatment facilities in the field. Before such
design parameters can be obtained from laboratory tests, 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.

These correlations do not yet exist, however, 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.
More work on this subject is required and design parameters have to rely for the time being, 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.

• A rough indication of the time needed for complete dehydration (order of magnitude).
• An indication of whether residual sludge (emulsion) problems may be expected.

3.7.3 Selection of demulsifier chemicals

As discussed in Section 3.7.2, 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. The oil and water quality in laboratory
tests greatly depends on the method used for the emulsification. However, for comparative purposes, the
evaluation of the effect of the various demulsifier on the water quality, the determination of the oil content
of the separated water and/or the water content of the oil phase after a standard dehydration test, is
considered to be of value.

The optimum concentration of demulsifier required in the laboratory is usually conservative, however.

Once an effective demulsifier has been selected and applied in the field, its effectiveness should be
verified regularly (with bottle tests for instance) in view of :

• the constant development of new and improved chemicals, which could achieve a more cost
effective solution to demulsification;
• the possible change in the character of the produced emulsions due to changing production
conditions (watercut, GOR, sand, scale, etc.) and/or a change in the crude properties themselves
with progressing reservoir depletion.

For lighter crudes a suitable frequency would be, say every 1-2 years. However, for heavy crudes,
particularly those associated with termal recovery operations, an increased frequency, say 2-3 times per
year, would be more appropriate.
APPENDIX 3.1
APPENDIX 3.2 - SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL METHODS RELATING TO THE ANALYSIS OF
DEHYDRATION AND EOILING BEHAVIOUR

In addition to the methods briefly discussed in Section 3.4.3 the following methods for determination of
various fluid properties are of relevance. For more detail information, the referenced documents should
be consulted, i.e. mainly the Annual Book of ASTM Standard for Petroleum and Products.

ASTM D1298 and IP160

Density, relative density (specific gravity), or API gravity of crude petroleum and liquid petroleum products
by hydrameter method.

The sample is brought to the prescribed temperature and transferred to a cylinder at approximately the
same temperature. The appropriate hydrameter is lowered into the sample and allowed to settle. After
temperature equilibrium has been reached, the hydrometer scale is read, and the temperature of the
sample is noted. If necessary the cylinder and its contents are placed in a constant-temperature bath to
avoid excessive temperature variation during the test. Readings of density are being reduced to 15°C,
and of specific gravity and API gravity to 60°F, by means of international standard tables.

ASTM D445 and IP71

Kinematic viscosity of transparent and opaque liquids and the calculation of dynamic viscosity.

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. The
kinematic viscosity is the product of the measured flowtime and the calibration constant of the viscometer.

ASTM D97 and IP15

Pour point of petroleum oils.

After preliminary heating, the sample is cooled at a specified rate examined at intervals of 3°C (or 5°F) for
flow characteristics. 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.

ASTM D938 and IP76

Congealing point of petroleum waxes, including petrolatum.

A sample of wax is melted and a droplet is made to adhere to the bulb of a thermometer. Using a
prewarmed flask as an air jacket, the droplet on the bulb is allowed to cool at a fixed rate until is congeals.
The congealing point is observed as the temperature at which the droplet ceases to flow as the
thermometer is turned.

IP77

Salt content crude petroleum and products.

The sample is extracted with water in the presence of a solvent and a demulsifying agent in a TEL
extraction apparatus, IP248-ASTM D2547; the halides in the extract are determined volumetrically after
the removal of sulphide. The result is expressed as sodium chloride.
ASTM D3230

Salt in crude oil (electrometric method).

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 dissolved in a mixed solvent when and placed in a test cell
consisting of a beaker and two parallel steel plates. An alternating voltage is impressed on the plates and
the resulting current flow is measured. The salt content is obtained by reference to a calibration curve of
current versus salt content of known mixtures.

ASTM D2500 and IP219

Cloud point of petroleum oils.

The sample is cooled at a specified rate and examined periodically. The temperature at which haziness is
first observed at the bottom of the test jar is recorded as the cloud point.

This method covers only petroleum oils which are transparent in layers 38 mm in thickness, and with a
cloud point below 49°C (120°F); therefore it is rarely applicable for crude oils.

For dark oils, which are not transparent the Bondi method may be used. 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, maintained at a temperature at lease 25°C lower than
the expected cloud point. A record is made of the temperature at 1 minute intervals. A plot of the
logarithm of the temperature versus time will show the cloud point by a break in the straight line,
indicating a slowing of the cooling rate by crystallisation heat release.

More than one break may be observed when distinctly different wax fractions are present.

AMS 259-1

The paraffin wax cloud point of dark fuel oils.

This method is part of the Amsterdam Method Series, issued by KSLA. It has been specifically designed
for opaque fuel oils but applies equally well to crude oils.

A thin layer of the oil sample is cooled in a cell of special design and is observed through a microscope
between crossed nicols. On cooling birefringent paraffin wax crystals become visible as shining sports in
the oil. The temperature at which the first crystals appear is considered as the micro-cloud point.

IP24

Distillation of crude petroleum, preliminary distillation.

100 ml of the sample is distilled in specified glass apparatus under prescribed condition of heat input and
rate of distillation. The volume of distillates obtained at each multiple of 25°C is recorded, up to a
maximum of 300°C, when the distillation is stopped.
Shell Method Series (SMS) 1769

Wax content of petroleum products.

Samples containing asphaltenes are dissolved in hot toluene, mixed with active earth, and stirred, while
heating until an almost dry powder is obtained. This is extracted with toluene in a Soxhlet apparatus. The
extract solution is filtered (if required), and the toluene is evaporated. The residue is dissolved in hot
MIBK. The wax is crystallised at -30°C, recrystallised from MIBK at this temperature, dried and weighed.
The congealing point of the wax us determined.

For products known to be free from asphaltene and resins, such as distillates, the adsorption and
extraction step can be omitted.

SMS-1897

Total sulphur in gases and organic liquids.

Oxidation-Microcoulometric method.

The sample is injected into the vaporiser section of a heated quartz combustion tube. The sample
vapours are taken up to a stream of argon or helium and burned in oxygen. Any sulphur present is
converted into sulphur dioxide and sulphur trioxide. The combustion products are passed through
phosphoric acid and ammonium, iron (II) sulphate or silver wool to remove water and interfering
substances such as free halogens. The sulphur dioxide is absorbed in a titron cell and titrated
instantaneously with electrolytically-generated iodine by means of an automatic microcaulometric titrator.
The voltage drop over a measuring resistance included in the electrolysis circuit is recorded. The area of
the resulting peak is a measure of the amount of sulphur dioxide titrated. The ratio between sulphur
converted into sulphur dioxide and total sulphur is determined separately by means if standards sulphur
solutions. The sulphur content of the sample is calculated from these data.

ASTM 664/SMS 2384

Acid value of dark coloured petroleum products, crude oils, bitumen involving potentiometric titron with
alcoholic potassium hydroxide.

IP 143

Asphaltenes* precipitation with normal heptane.

A quantity of the sample is dissolved in n-heptene and the insoluble material, consisting of asphaltenes
and waxy substances, is separated under hot reflux with n-heptane, and the asphaltenes are isolated by
extraction with toluene or benzene.

The extraction with benzene is not normally recommended because of the high toxicity of this material
and should only be used for referee purposes. In normal practice use toluene instead of benzene. The
precision of the method when using toluene has been found to be the same as when using benzene.

* Note:

Asphaltenes

Asphaltenes are defined based on their solubility, i.e. they are soluble in light aromatics (benzene,
toluene ) and insoluble in paraffins such as pentane, hexane, heptane, etc. The yield and the
composition of the asphaltenes precipitated depends on many factors such as the hydrocarbons
used, the precipitated depends on many factors such as the hydrocarbons used, the precipitation
time and the oil-solvent ratio. All methods give different results because they all precipitate a different
fraction of the colloidally dispersed particles present in crude oil.
APPENDIX 3.3 - THE BOTTLE TEST

Apparatus and materials

• Separating funnels, 2 litres capacity

• 200 ml graduated screwcap test bottles
• 100 ml screwcap bottles for demulsifier stock solutions
• Hypodermic syringes 2 ml capacity, graduated in 0.1 ml increments
• Graduated pipettes or hypodermic syringes of 1 ml capacity graduated in 0.1. ml increments
• Volumetric pipettes of 5, 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, adjustable to the settling temperature prevailing in the field
• Solvent for demulsifier stock solutions.

Emulsion sample

Use fresh samples uncontaminated with demulsifier and other unwanted treatment chemicals.

Follow the sampling directions discussed in Section 3.3.

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. Make sure to avoid
contamination of one demulsifier by another by scrupulously cleaning syringes, pipettes and
glassware with solvent. Store the stock solutions in the dark and do not keep them longer than
two weeks. Do not use water to prepare stock solutions: most demulsifiers will be decomposed by
hydrolysis.
• Remove free water from the emulsion using the separating funnels. Determine the BS & W
content of the remaining sample according to e.g. ASTM D96 to ensure that the emulsified water
content is representative for the field conditions.
• Pour 100 ml samples of emulsion into the 200 ml graduated test bottles. Using a graduated
pipette or hypodermic syringe, treat the emulsion samples with the required quantity of stock
solution (0.5 ml of 2% stock solution, added to 100 ml of emulsion corresponds to a treatment
ratio of 100 ppm). Initial ratio testing is usually carried out with treatment ratios if 100, 200 and
300 ppm, which are subsequently adjusted in the light of the first results. Always include a blank
test. Use clean glassware to avoid contamination.
• Shake the bottles by hand 100, 200 or 300 times or whatever is needed to disperse the
demulsifier thoroughly through the emulsion. Destabilisation can be observed by comparing the
colour of the treated emulsions with the blank. A stable emulsion is cloudly whereas a broken one
will appear brighter.
• Allow the samples to settle and observe the quantity of water separated as a function of time.
Note the presence and appearance of sludge layer between the separated oil and water
• On completion of the settling period the bottles may be reshaken 100 times and left to settle for a
second time. The results will give an indication of the tendency towards the reemulsification.
• Finally, 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.g. ASTM D96. A sample of the
separated water can be taken in a similar manner to determination of the oil content.
APPENDIX 3.4 - KSEPL STANDARD LABORATORY PROCEDURES FOR DEHYDRATION TESTS

Pretreatment of oil sample

The stock oil sample should be heated to a temperature well above the cloud point of the crude oil
(preferably the reservoir temperature) for at least two hours in a closed container (to avoid light end
losses) and under a nitrogen blanket.

The stock oil sample should be subsequently well mixed. After the heating the crude oil may be cooled to
a temperature still well above the cloud point, but sufficiently low to allow some oil to be taken from the
stock sample without extensive light end losses.

Pretreatment of water sample

The water used for making up water-in-oil emulsions should be oxygen-free. A simple nitrogen purge is
sufficient. The chemical composition of the water must be the same as the composition of the produced
water. Water used in the test should be stored under nitrogen at the emulsification temperature in closed
(glass or plastic) containers.

Dehydration test

• Bring the thermostatted mixer (Waring Blender model HGB-100) to the required emulsification
temperature (T em).
• Add 50 ml (artificially made) de-oxygenated production water at temperature T . em
• Add 200 ml tank crude oil at temperature Tem.
• Mix at high speed under nitrogen.
Note: Two minutes mixing times have often been used/recommended in the past. Experience has
shown that this is excessive and generates emulsions which are significantly more stable
than reality.

• Cool the created emulsion to the required settling temperature (Ts).

• Add the appropriate amount (usually 25, 50, 100, 200 or 400 ppm) of demulsifier (10 % dilution in
toluene) and mix for 10 seconds at low speed.
• Quickly transfer the mixture into a calibrated settling tube (at KSEPL the tubes used are 250 ml,
φ = 37 mm, H = 24 cm).
• Seal off settling tube and place the settling tube in a waterbath at the required settling
temperature Ts (usually 20, 40, 60 or 80 °C).
Record : total liquid volume in the settling tube (V ml), amount of free water separated after t
seconds 'static" settling (x (t) ml), amount of sludge (emulsion) at the oil/water interface
(a considerable reduction in interfacial emulsion content can sometimes be obtained by
enforcing some liquid motion by rotating the settling tube rapidly a few times).

• When the bulk of the water has separated, take (with a syringe) small samples (0.1 ml max.) of
the phase at the top, middle and bottom of the oil phase at specific time intervals (15 min,
30 min,1 h,2 h, 12h,24 h).Analyse these samples for water content with a Karl Fisher titration
(Mitsubishi moisture meter).

Note : The gauge size of the syringe needle is an important factor in withdrawing samples of
settled oil for determination of residual water contents. Large diameter needles are more
likely to give representative samples of emulsions because they are less likely to
preferentially draw instead of water droplets.
• At the same time take a sample from the water phase, acidify it to pH = 2 and analyse for oil
content with a Horiba Ocma 200 oil content analyser (note the amount of water taken out of the
settling tube).

• When the test are done with an actually produced emulsion, the original watercut is unknown and
must be determined afterwards.
APPENDIX 3.5 – CALCULATIONS REQUIRED FOR THE STATIC DEHYDRATION TEST

Dehyration curve

If the dehydration behaviour of an emulsion is investigated, the amount of free water separated from the
emulsion (x(t) ml) under static settling conditions is measured with time.

Suppose the total liquid volume in the settling tube is V ml. The total watercut is y %v (usually 10 %v in
case of laboratory tests). When x ml water has separated, the amount of water still contained in the oil
phase is given by:

( y / 100) ∗ V − x( t )
φ( t ) = ∗ 100 (%v)
( V − x(t ))
based on oil volume.

The values of φ(t) can be plotted against time, giving a ‘dehydration curve’.

Curve fitting

The experimentally determined points φi(t) can be fitted by a three-parameter function given by:

ρ( t ) = φ ∞ + (φ o − φ ∞ ) e −b t
n
(eqn. 1)

This fit can be done numerically with a routine ZXSSQ from the IMSL library.

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, and fitting b and n by means of
simple linear regression, available on almost any calculator.

For this purpose, equation 1 is rewritten as:

φo − φ∞
ln( ) = b tn
φ( t ) − φ ∞
φ( t ) = b t n

b and n are then given by:

( ∑ ln t i )( ∑ ln φ i )
∑ (ln t )(ln φ ) −
i i
N
n=
( ∑ ln t i ) 2
∑ (ln t ) i
2
−
N

b = exp
∑ ln φ i
−n
∑ ln t i

N N

Where N = number of data points.

With a correlation coefficient given by:

 ( ∑ ln t i )( ∑ ln φ i ) 
2

∑ (ln t i )(ln φ i ) − 
 N 
r2 =  
 ( ∑ ln t i ) 2
∑ (ln φi )2 
∑ − ∑ i φ − 
2 2
(ln t i ) ( ln )
 N N 

Fits with correlation coefficient > 0.9 are considered sufficiently accurate.
APPENDIX 3.6 – DEHYDRATION TEST REPORT SHEET
4. ASPECT OF DEOILING AND PRODUCED WATER DISPOSAL

4.1 Oil-in-water emulsions

4.1.1 General

The water produced from an oil gas well and separated in a dehydration process always contains some
hydrocarbons (and dissolved organic acids, see Section 4.2.3.1). These hydrocarbons are a dispersed
phase (oil-in-water emulsion) and dissolved in the water (mainly relatively low molecular weight
aromatics).

Like in the dehydration process, the separation of emulsified oil from water is, in principle, effected in
three steps:

• destabilisation of the oil-in-water emulsion by chemical treatment (deoilers);

• coalescence of the destabilised oil droplets by controlled agitation;
• separation of the oil and water phase by gravity.

In selecting the best performing demulsifier from the results of bottle tests (Chapter 3 ), the quality of the
water phase in terms of oil content is usually taken into account. Quite often both an effectively
dehydrated crude containing only little water, and a good/acceptable oil-in-water quality can be obtained
with a suitable demulsifier. In that case in the above treatment sequence for oil-in-water separation, the
first step, viz. destabilisation, can be left out and only coalescence followed by segregation of oil from
water may have to be promoted. During the coalescence step an additional chemical (deoiler) may then
be required in order to assist in the coalescence process.

Only in cases where very stable oil-in-water emulsions are encountered (heavy oil, high mixing
intensities), 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, is destabilisation by chemical treatment followed by coalescence and gravity
separation required.

Deoiling equipment is reviewed in Chapter 6 and its selection and application in Chapter 7.

4.1.2 Emulsification

Briefly the following mechanisms can cause oil-in-water emulsification:

•
+
Stabilisation of oil-in-water emulsion is promoted by e.g. soaps of univalent cations such as Na
+
and Li , and in some cases also by the demulsifier used such to destabilise water-in-oil
emulsions. The latter may occur when an overdose of demulsifier has been used. In other cases
where a fast acting demulsifier has been selected, oil-in-water emulsions may result requiring
additional treatment by a suitable deoiler.
• The use of corrosion inhibitors, in particular in gas production operations, can cause very small oil
droplets which do not separate from ambient water but remain very small dispersed in the water
phase.
• High mixing intensities can cause very small oil droplets which do not separate from ambient
water but remain dispersed in the water phase.
• Increase of the pH, for instance caused by the escape of CO2 upon heating of crude containing
water with bicarbonate in solution, to the range of 8 -10 and higher, cause components of the
water phase, resulting in a reduction of interfacial tension. Low interfacial tensions facilitate
emulsification of oil-in-water and water-in-oil: less agitation or mixing intensity is then required to
form emulsions.
 • Stable oil-in-water emulsions may result when:

- NaCl concentration of the aqueous phase lies in the range of 0-30,000 ppm NaCl;
- the concentration of divalent cations is very low; however, this will also be dependent on the
actual water composition.

Stable oil-in-water emulsions are not normally obtained when the salinity is in the order of
100,000 mg/l or higher. A notable exeption, however, is the Gannet crude (North Sea), with a
formation water salinity of 150,000 mg/l,where clear residual emulsions were observed in bottle
tests.

Oil-in-water emulsions may be effectively broken by the addition of:

• acids, which lower the pH of the system and which, depending on the stabilising compound, could
result in better deoiling;
• divalent cations, resulting in soaps that are unsuitable as stabilisers for oil-in-water emulsions;
• suitable surfactant (see Section 4.1.3).

4.1.3 Deoilers

As for a water-in-oil emulsion the stability of an oil-in-water (reverse) emulsion us affected by emulsifying
agents. In a reverse emulsion these emulsifying agents tend to be anionic in nature (i.e. the water soluble
part carries a negative charge), and they impart this negative charges cause electrical repulsion between
the oil droplets. The negative charges cause electrical repulsion between the oil droplet coalescence.
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.e. positively charged) surface active agents and
polymers. The chemicals are dispersed in the continuous active agents and polymers. The chemicals are
dispersed in the continuous water phase and migrate to the oil droplet-water interfaces. 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.

Two problems can result of an optimum dosage is not attained:

i) Underdosing

During steady state plant conditions underdosing may not be apparent. However, during plant
upsets (loss of separator interface levels, etc.) high concentrations of oil in the separator interface
levels, etc.) high concentrations of oil in the separated water can occur until steady conditions are
re-established.

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. In addition, water processing system will contain a high water content. In additional,
gross overdosing can lead to over-neutralisation of the charges present on the dispersed oil
droplets (i.e. from negative to positive) causing re-stabilisation of the emulsion. Overdosing can
result in higher than normal oil-in-water levels being present during steady plant conditions.

In conclusion, for effective dehydration and deoiling, careful control over the chemical dosage is
necessary for the continuous and efficient operation of the process facilities.
4.1.4 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. If deoilers are added at an earlier stage in the process,
where the demulsifier is still present and acting, the combined presence of deoiler and demulsifier may
result in both chemicals to become ineffective, and (re)stabilisation of either o/w or w/o emulsions may
occur.

The point of deoiler addition should be selected such that sufficient mixing occur for the chemical to
become effectively point may be required.

Once the oil-in-water emulsion has been destabilised, coalescence of individual oil droplet should be
promoted and improved as much as possible. This is sometimes done with the aid of a coalescencer pipe
or by the use of coalescencer units (Chapter 6).

Similar to the dehydration process, a certain amount of mixing energy is required to promote and optimise
coalescence. For deoiling, a mixing energy of 11,000-110,000 cm²/s³ (500-5000 psi/hr) is required to
promote efficient coalescence. This is a higher energy level (by approximately a factor of 5) than that
required for effective dehydration (see also Chapter 2).

4.1.5. Deoiling tests

Deoiling tests are mainly carried out to:

• screen chemicals enabling improvement of the deoiling of the water phase;

• test coalescing equipment in order to improve the oil/water separation process.

Experience has shown that deoiling test with oil-in-water emulsions representative for field conditions, are
difficult to perform. One of the reasons is the representativeness of the water sample in terms of oil
content and droplets size distribution. 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. It is therefore recommended to carry out deoiler screening tests and
coalescing tests directly in field installations. In this respect a bench model Wemco unit is available in the
market to perform such tests. BSP's experience is that it is a good machine to screen and rank chemicals.

4.2. Disposal of produced water

4.2.1. General

Production water is the total water discharged from the production process, which has been in contact
with produced hydrocarbons. It includes (flashed) formation water, 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, or following subsurface breakthrough of water injected into the reservoir
for pressure support). Production water generally contains hydrocarbon in a dispersed (oil-in-water
emulsion) and dissolved phase, and organic components in varying amounts, not directly originating from
the produced hydrocarbons (see also Section 4.2.3.1.).

Production water needs to be disposed of. Depending on the type of the disposal method and the
oil-in-water quality (both dispersed and dissolved oil), a further reduction in hydrocarbon content of the
production water is usually required in a deoiling process. With the currently applied deoiling techniques
in EP operations, only dispersed hydrocarbons can be reduced.
The methods which are available for the disposal of production water include the following:

a) Injection into subsurface formations, e.g. non-potable aquifers or hydrocarbon-bearing

reservoirs in support if a water injection scheme, or a water-based EOR scheme.

b) Discharge to surface water, where there is sufficient dilution, e.g. open sea, coastal waters.

For first mentioned disposal method, normal water injection considerations need to be taken into account,
and the allowable suspended oil concentration is dictated by plugging tendency of the reservoir could be
an attractive alternative. In some operations it may be possible to inject the separated oily water without
any further treatment (e.g. N. Oman), whilst in other cases only a few g/m³ of dispersed oil in the water is
allowed.

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. In the absence of regulatory limits, environmental quality considerations
need to be taken into account. This latter aspect is discussed in more detail in Section 4.2.2.2.

Visible detection of oil-in-water is virtually impossible for low oil concentrations, as can be noticed from
the following table:

Table 4.1 :Oil 'sheen’ guide

oil concentration (g/m³) Effect on water surface

0 - 30 Not visible
30- 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, such as
biochemical oxygen demand, salinity, heavy metals, and oil content. 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. This is
discussed in more detail in Section 4.2.3.

4.2.2 Water quality requirements

4.2.2.1. Downhole injection

When disposal of produced water by downhole injection is considered feasible and/or desirable, 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. To this end
core flushing test may be required to determine the allowable maximum suspend oil concentration and oil
droplet sizes. The results of such tests are also of importance for the selection and design of required
deoiling equipment.
Aspects which also need to be taken into account when downhole injection is considered include;

• Is filtration required and if so, what degree?

• Is mixing of produced water with injection water permitted/possible (formation of scale, bacterial
growth)?

When injection of disposal water under fracturing conditions is acceptable, more relaxed water quality
specifications can be tolerated.

For a detailed discussion on water injection and water quality requirements, reference is made to the
Water Injection Manual EP-63600, and the relevant references mentioned therein.

4.2.2.2. Surface disposal

For the disposal of production water into surface waters, the amount of organic and inorganic
components and, in particular, the amount of hydrocarbons allowed in the discharge water, is in a
significant number of cases governed by regulatory limits as set by national or regional authorities. In the
absence of such regulations, the impact of production water disposal on the environment needs to be
carefully assessed. It is clear, however, that the environmental impact can be very different depending on
whether production water is discharge into in-land lakes, rivers, estuaries or into the open sea. Therefore,
uniform standards for discharge of production water do not exist.

In order to assess the environmental impact for each situation an environmental quality objectives (EQO)
approach should be followed. This is based on the capacity of the receiving environment to assimilate the
effluent rather than on fixed standards for effluent quality. The EQO approach involves the following
steps:

i) Agree/decide on the use of the receiving water

ii) Determine the distribution, fate and effect of potentially polluting substances. Aspects to be
considered are eco-tixicity, persistency/(bio)degradability, bioaccumulation/tainting.
iii) Set standards for the receiving water.
iv) Set effluent quality limits based upon the results of i), ii) and iii).

While the setting of EQOs should considered the task of national and/or regional authorities, 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. This is of particular relevance when regulatory limits on oil-in-water content are tightened, and
the applied deoiling facilities cannot meet such requirements, thus necessitating the
application/development of new methods. This is discussed in more detail in Section 4.2.5.

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, with representatives of Oil Industry.

In the absence of governmental regulations, the Group policy (ref.EP-61240) is that the EQO approach
should be used to assess the acceptability of our aqueous discharges. This would be based on a number
of parameters such as:

• Flow volume; to assess the discharged volume against the receiving water.
• Flow velocities; to assess the potential for dispersion/dilution of the effluent.
• pH; this is restricted to a range between 5.5 and 9 in various countries (ASTM-D1293-78).
• Temperature; if there is a restriction for temperature discharge, it is normally limited to an increase of
maximum 5°C above background.
• BOD; biochemical oxygen demand, defined as the amount of oxygen expresses in mg/l, consumed
by micro organisms during stabilisation of organic matter under aerobic conditions under prescribed
th
conditions, usually over a five-day period and at 20°C (APHA P.483-15 ).
• COD; chemical oxygen demand, defined as the amount of oxygen, expressed in mg/l, consumed
under specific conditions in the chemical oxidation of the organic and the oxidisable matter contained
in waste water, corrected for the influence of chlorides (ASTM Test Method D-1252).
• TOC; total organic carbon, defined is the toal carbon content minus the inorganic carbon content
(ASTM-D-2579-78).
• TOD; total oxygen demand (ASTM-D-3250-77)
• Oil-in-water content (see Section 4.2.4).
• TSS; total suspended solids (ASTM-D-1888-78)
• Some chemical components and heavy metals; specifications from governments normally include the
determination of phenolics, nitrogen and sulphur.
• Salinity; too high salinity contrasts of production water with the receiving water can have toxic and/or
adverse effect on dilution/dispersion processes.
• Toxicity; to obtain an impression of the toxicity of a certain component or a composition of a number
of pollutants in waste water, fish or shrimp tests are most commonly used (ASTM-D-1345.59). The
toxic effect of an aqueous material is described by its LC50 value, which is the lethal concentration at
which 50% of the test organisms will die within a prescribed time (usually 96 hours). PETRONAS
maintains a databank in which this type of information is stored for a variety of chemical compounds
and organisms.
• Location; tropical areas have higher rates of biodegradation than temperate areas due to higher
temperature and longer sunshine hours.

Some typical specifications for aqueous effluents are summarised in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 – Typical specifications for aqueous effluents

The number of parameters that need to be checked before disposal varies depending on where the
production water is discharged. For offshore discharges only the oil-in-water content has been specified
by regulations so far, whereas for discharges into coastal water of rivers most or all of the above
parameters need to be monitored. The parameter common to all monitoring programmes is the
oil-in-water content. This parameter and its analytical method will be discussed in more detail in the
following sections.
4.2.3. Oil-in-water

4.2.3.1. Occurence and environmental aspects

As mentioned earlier, production water is the total water from the production process which has been in
contact with the produced hydrocarbons. Since formation water has existed for a very long time in contact
with the minerals in the formation, it may be saturated with salts of organic acids, (e.g. acetic, proprionic,
butyric, acids, etc.). These compounds occur naturally in formation water in varying amounts, and their
occurrence may not be related to the formation water in varying amounts, and their occurrence may not
be related to the presence of hydrocarbons. In addition, formation water may contain soluble fractions of
hydrocarbons. When formation water comes to the surface and the pressure is released, some of the
dissolved gases flash off. In some cases, where there is a high concentration of bicarbonate ions, carbon
dioxide can be released, precipitating carbonates of alkaline metals such as calcium and producing
emulsions.

The organic components present in production water, which may consist of formation water alone, or a
mixture of formation and injection water, and small amounts of other waste water (e.g. from washing
decks, etc.) can be categorised into four groups:

a) Dispersed non-volatile oil, containing a proportion of light ends and hydrocarbon gases.

b) Light hydrocarbons dissolved in the water (mostly low molecular weight aromatics, naphthenic acids,
etc. and hydrocarbon gases).

c) Salt of organic acids or other acidic material dissolved in the water.

d) Relatively small, but possibly significant quantities of production chemicals (demulsifiers, corrosion
inhibitors, etc.)

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. Of these, the lower molecular weight aromatics are appreciably soluble in
water whereas those of higher molecular weight are dissolved in the suspended oil phase.

In Table 4.3 the solubility of some hydrocarbons in water is listed. It can be observed that aromatics are
much more soluble than aliphatic components, with benzene (C6H6 ) having highest solubility of 1.7 g/I.
Table 4.3 : Solubility *) of hydrocarbons in water (mg/l at 15°C)

Those components of oil which are dissolved in water, such as light aromatics, naphthenic acids, normal
paraffins, etc., as well as the non-hydrocarbon organic matter dissolved in water, are known to be readily
destroyed over a period of time by the bacteria present in natural waters such as the sea. Effects due to
dissolved organic components are therefore only likely to be observed in the immediate vicinity of the
discharge point.

Heavier aromatics are in the suspended oil phase, which is amenable to removal by conventional deoiling
processes.

The environmental impact of non-hydrocarbon components on production water discharges (including

heavy metals) has only recently been studied in a systematic approach. The results are insufficient to
demonstrate, both in general and individual cases, that the production water discharge causes no reason
for concern. There is, therefore, considerable scope for improved monitoring and recording of
such discharges by OPU's in line with PETRONAS Environmental Management Guideline EP-61240.

4.2.3.2. Regulatory limits

In formulating regulations for the control of effluent into the environment, among the parameters of
relevance as discussed in Section 4.2.2.2, the hydrocarbon content of the discharge water has been
considered the most prominent and critical parameter, and most regulations, in particular those prominent
and critical parameter, and most regulations, in particular those relating to offshore discharges, specify
oil-in-water limits only. In this respect legislation has tended to follow public and environmental demand.
Legislation in the past has been directed at the avoidance of fouling of the surface of the sea. That is to
say, it has been concerned with suspended (i.e. insoluble) non-volatile oil, and oil-in-water limits as
specified by regulatory bodies were (intended to be) referring to dispersed oil-in-water.

In this respect it is to be noted that limits were developed essentially on equipment performance
expectations and not on environmental impact considerations.
In formulating limits for hydrocarbon levels in effluent water, authorities have, in a number if cases, also
specified the analytical method for determining oil-in-water. Several methods for this purpose are
available/suitable (see also Section 4.2.4.) which, however, may give results that are:

• not directly mutually comparable, and

• can be very dependant on sample handling and preparation.

These aspects are discussed in more detail in Section 4.2.4.

Various oil-in-water limits as currently applied in several countries are listed in Table 4.4, together with the
required analytical method, if specified. As will be discussed more extensively in Section 4.2.4, with the
analytical methods specified, including sample handling/preparation, these limits refer, however, to total
oil content, i.e. dispersed plus dissolved oil rather than to dispersed oil only. Regulatory limits are not
always explicit at this point and some confusion may exist on how to interpret specific oil-in-water limits.

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), as determined by the
infrared method (Section 4.2.4.3.). This therefore, in principle, refers to the total amount of oil. The
PARCOM recommendation has been adopted by several countries, including the Netherlands and the
UK. In Appendix 4.1, the origin and development of the PARCOM standard is briefly reviewed.
Table 4.4 – National oil-in-water limits
With significant variability if analytical results for oil-in-water determination possible (Section 4.2.4.5.), it is
required in several countries that discharges meet a monthly average and/or maximum for any sample
instead of a rigid limit.

The regulatory limits as currently in use in most countries refer to levels of hydrocarbons in effluent water
only. As discussed in Section 4.2.3.1, production water may also contain significant amounts of other
organic components which are of non-hydrocarbon origin, but are discharged into the environment with
the production water. Currently there is a tendecy for regulatory limits for effluent water to be tightened
up, and possibly to also restrict the total amount of organic material (i.e. dispersed and dissolved oil, and
organic non-hydrocarbons) to be discharged. In such a case levels of TOC need to be
determine/controlled to comply with regulations. If such more stringent regulations would come into effect,
current deoiling facilities are not adequate and more advanced water treatment techniques may have to
be applied/developed.

4.2.4. Determination of hydrocarbons in water

The determination of hydrocarbons in water consist of a number of steps preceding the actual
measurement viz.:

• sampling;
• acidification;
• extraction with a solvent;
• clean-up/removal of polar compounds.

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. In the following paragraphs these steps are
discussed in some detail.

4.2.4.1. Sampling

Sampling of mixtures containing two or more phases e.g. water and oil, is very difficult unless the mixture
is completely emulsified or in a very fine stable dispersion (see also Section 3.3).

In general, the larger the sample, the more likely it is to be representative for the average mixture
composition. However, practical reasons, the usual sample size is about 1 litre. The smaller the residual
oil droplets, the more evenly dispersed they are likely to be. Care should be exercised to avoid sampling
the surface of a liquid (which is likely to be unrepresentative). "Isokinetic" equal linear velocity sampling in
mid stream is the best but rarely possible. The sampling line should first be flushed well and the sample
should be taken quickly. In practice, it is best to sample after a pump, or similar turbulent area where the
stream is well mixed.

For sampling points the PARCOM specifies the following locations:

i) Immediately downstream of the oily water separator, or separators if a number operate in parallel
or series.

ii) From, or just downstream of, a turbulent region.

Although it sounds obvious, it cannot be stressed too strongly that sample bottles should be scrupulously
clean and preferably of glass. Bottles on oily sites and operator's hands can have thin surface films of oil
or even detergent residues after washing, both of which can give rise to erroneous and high oil readings.
Bottles must not be rinsed with the sample as this can put an oil film on the bottle and give a false high
reading. The whole of the sample should be analysed and the bottle washed with solvent. Only glass or
inert plastic (such as teflon) stoppers should be used. Cork or other absorbent materials must not be used
unless covered with aluminium foil.
The person doing the sampling must be well trained and experienced, and be able to recognise a spoilt or
unrepresentative sample should this occur. Samples must be correctly labelled immediately after being
taken and any abnormal circumstances noted on the sample. Where the slightest doubt exists, the
sample should be thrown away and a new one taken in a fresh container.

The frequency of sampling obviously depends on the practicability at each site. Sufficient analyses should
be performed to give a representative average. At an adequately manned site, 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).

PARCOM guidelines on sampling specify for platforms discharging continuously, at least 16 samples per
month, with samples to be taken at pre-arranged intervals.

4.2.4.2. Sample preparation

According to the PARCOM method, all samples are to be purged at a temperature (30°C) with a nitrogen
purge gas flow (approximately 1 l/min) for 45 seconds, through a sintered frit. This strips out any
dissolved gases, which might interfere with the measurement and thus give unreliable/unrepeatable
results, but leaves the quantities of dissolved hydrocarbons greatly unaffected.

i) Acidification

If not analysed immediately, 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, Hydrochloric acid is used to avoid problems
with calcium sulphate. Acidification is also meant to improve phase separation when extracted with a
solvent.

Acidification of the sample has the problem, however, 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. This is of particular
concern with the most commonly used infrared method (ref. Section 4.2.4.3.). The concentration of these
organic components in formation water can be as high as 1000 mg/l. However, as these organic are
polar, they can be removed by passing the solvent extract through a suitable adsorption column, prior to
analysis. This step is essential to obtain a relevant indication of oil in water. Otherwise a result would be
obtained which may be more indicative of TOC.

ii) Extraction

Solvent

Commonly used solvents in the past have been petroleum ether, diethyl ether, chloroform and carbon
tetrachloride. Of these, petroleum ether and diethyl ether can be used in conjunction with a gravimetric
measuring technique but they are highly inflammable and somewhat dangerous. Chloroform, although
one of the best solvents and carbon tetrachloride are toxic; consequently both these solvents are being
phased out of used for human health reasons.

Where an infrared method is used,1,1,2 trichloro, trifluoroethane (such as Freon 113) is becoming the
preferred, and in many countries the only acceptable solvent. However, 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. Moreover, further disadvantages of Freon 113 are its greater volatility and its
somewhat lower solvency for hydrocarbons. Where a gravimetric or colorimetric measuring technique is
used, 1.1.1.-trichloroethane (B.Pt. 74°C ) or dichloroethylene may be used.

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, with 1 or 2 extractions being commonly employed.
Mixing

Good mixing is of major importance in the oil extraction procedure. Experience shows this step can have
a decisive influence on the final result achieved. Regarding the extraction of hydrocarbons from the
sample there is wide variation in the procedures as far as the mixing mechanism and time, the quantity if
solvent used and the number of extractions required.

Several methods involve shaking by hand, other methods prescribe shaking by machine or used if a
magnetic stirrer. The mixing time ranges from 2 minutes for hand shaking, to 60 minutes using a shaking
machine (Swedish method).

iii) Filtration/drying

To remove polar and most of the water which can be associated with the solvent extract, it is practice to
filter the extract. The solvent extract must be dry and it is normal to pass it through an anhydrous sodium
sulphate or similar drying column.

iv) Removal of polar materials

To remove polar material, especially acids liberated by acidification, which will interfere with the
oil-in-water determination, the solvent extract must be passed through a column containing a polar
adsorbent such as activated silica-gel (e.g. Florisil) or alumina. Such absorbents may also remove some
aromatic hydrocarbons of high molecular weight which have polar properties. If extraneous polar material
is not removed from the sample the result of the oil-in-water determination will be too high. When the
extraneous polar material is removed, possibly including some of the high molecular weight aromatic
hydrocarbons, the deviation from the true value of the oil-in-water will depend on the composition of the
hydrocarbons in the effluent sample.

The result may still be affected by the presence, if any, of non-polar compounds, different from
hydrocarbons, in the extraneous material. A quantitive prediction of the deviation cannot, therefore, be
made.

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. Only
recently have recommendations has been made by PARCOM's Working Group on Oil Pollution, to revise
the prescribed analytical method and to include advance removal of polar compounds prior to infrared
analysis.

4.2.4.3 Infrared analysis if hydrocarbons in water

The infrared (IR) technique is the most commonly used analytical technique for the determination of
hydrocarbons in water. The method has evolved in the course of time, both in technique and
interpretation. The most salient features of a number of published methods are given in Appendices 4.2
and 4.3. 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.

Briefly, the method consists of an extraction with solvent and further preparation as derailed in the
previous section. Sample preparation is extremely important for the final measurement result, since any
compound with a C-H bond, whether oily or not, will give a readings. Therefore, to apply the method to
determine the oil-in-water content, all other organic components which will increase the analytical result
and which are not related to the hydrocarbon content of the water, need to be removed (e.g. by
contacting with Florisil). It should also be clear that the IR method measures total oil content, since no
distinction is made between dispersed and dissolved oil.

The extract obtained is then made up to a standard volume which us scanned in an infrared
-1
spectrophotometer (e.g. the Horiba OCMA 200) in the range 3400 to 2500 cm , with the absorbance
measured at one or more of the following wavelengths:
 -1
3.38 µm (2959 cm ) - CH3 groups
-1
3.42 µm (2924 cm ) - CH2 groups
3.30 µm (3030 cm-1) - CH groups (aromatic)

The next step in the analytical process is to convert the measured absorbances into an analytical result.
The most direct way consist if comparing the absorbances with those of a calibration solution, for which
use can be made of:

• "known oils ",such as those recovered from the gravity separators in a water treatment system. Such
separated oils do not necessarily reflect the mixture of hydrocarbons in the effluent finally released,
particularly where further treatment stages, such as air flotation and biotreatment, are included,
however, it is the closest approximation to the composition of the oil practically available.

• a "reference oil", consisting of a defined mixture of hydrocarbons such as benzene, isooctane and
cetane (see also Appendix 4.2). When the hydrocarbons in the water to be analysed have a group
composition similar to that of the reference oil, then the accuracy that can be obtained in this way is
good. However, the mixture selected may be quite different from the hydrocarbons being measured.

In a significant number if cases, and also in the PARCOM recommended IR method, the absorbance is
-1
measured at only one wavelength (2924 cm ) which is the characteristic absorption frequency of the
mostly dispersed aliphatic hydrocarbons.

In this respect it should be mentioned that in the presence if a high proportion of aromatic hydrocarbons,
the accuracy of these measurements is effected, resulting in erroneous oil content readings. The limits of
application of the "reference oil" in the IR method is given in the Dutch NEN method, which states that it is
not applicable when the aromatic content is such that the ratio between the absorbances at 3.30 and
3.42 µm is greater than 0.23, and only a qualitative expression of the oil content can then be derived.

An alternative to the used of "known oil" or "reference oils" is the use of typical specific absorption
coefficients (absorptivities) for calibration purposes. This makes the evaluation, within limits, independent
of the composition if the unknown hydrocarbon mixture in the water.

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. Such structures are
present in many hydrocarbons. In order to overcome this problems, correction factors have been
developed, but they are empirical and do not necessary apply to all the hydrocarbon mixtures, that may
be present in effluents. The problem does not exist if "known oils" are used as calibrated material.

Although the IR technique may be less appropriate for detection of aromatic hydrocarbons than some of
the other more sophisticated techniques, 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. It is a quick method, which is used; its minimum determinability is around 0.1-0.2 mg
"oil" per litre of waste water.

4.2.4.4. Other methods for analysis of hydrocarbons in water

The following summarises the most commonly used other analytical techniques for oil-in-water
determination.

i) Gravimetric method

The sample is extracted with a solvent which is filtered to remove solids, water and salt. The solvent is
evaporated under standard conditions and the residue is weighed. Dissolved gases do not interfere.
However, the gravimetric method generally results in lower values of oil-in-water than the IR method,
mainly because of inevitable evaporation losses.
The method needs care, takes some time and needs steady conditions where an analytical balance may
be used. It therefore needs a shore laboratory and is usually impractical on a platform. However, 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.

ii) Ultra violet fluorescence spectrometry

Aromatic compounds and those with conjugated or pseudo-conjugated double bonds present in oil,
fluoresce when exposed to suitable ultra violet light. The fluorescence may be related to the total oil
content if the proportion of aromatics and similar compounds is constant. This is usually not so but should
be with dispersed crude oil from a single well or single formation.

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. 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 has the advantage that dissolved gases and many other non-oily organic compounds, being
colourless, do not interfere. Other advantages are that it is not usually necessary to acidify the sample;
solvents containing hydrogen can be used; it is not normally necessary to filter, dry or pass the sample
through an adsorbtion column. However, the coloured components in crude oil are very easily absorbed
on surface and lost.

The equipment is simple and cheap and portable and is suitable for use under difficult conditions. This
method is used in the North Sea and some areas of the Middle East and Africa.

iv) Chromatography

The sample is extracted with a suitable solvent (n-pentane) and injected into a gas chromatographic
columns, which separates hydrocarbons in order of boiling point. Gas chromatography gives a detail
picture of the composition of a sample and may be applied for special studies on individual oil
components, but not on a routine basis (time-consuming). 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. The sensitivity of the method is 0.1 mg/l for oil; for single components less than 0.01 mg/l.

4.2.4.5. 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.

2) Variations due to unrepresentative sampling.

3) Inherent scatter in the analytical method.

4) Lack of skill or care on the part of the analyst.

5) False high values due to slightly oil sample bottles.

6) False readings due to error in calculation, confusion between samples, biological degradation, etc.

Of these, only 1) affects the environment. Outside the immediate vicinity of the discharge joint, the load
on the environment due to 1) is related to the long-term average, provided that the scatter is not too great
in relation to the volume of the receiving water.
If the crude contains some sludge (i.e. very stable emulsion) this could accumulate at the oil-water
interface and interface and hinder the oil/water separation process. Consequently, it is always advisable
to install connections at the interface to drain away any sludge to the sludge treatment plant, or dispose of
it into the oil stream. Drained sludge should not be recycled into the feed stream since otherwise a sludge
build-up will occur in the separator.

The FWKO shown in Fig. 5.6 is basically a two-phase oil-water separator, but with the facility to remove
some residual gas. In this case the inlet is at the centre-line so that the crude can be fed directly into the
active oil-water interface. However, alternative designs would have the feed line located above the liquid
level to avoid gas break-out during the dehydration process (see Fig. 5.5b). In the case of a three-phase
gas-oil-water separator, the crude also enters at the top of the vessel (above the oil level) so that gas can
be released (see Fig.5.5c). The size of the gas cap in a three-phase separator is usually much larger than
in a two-phase liquid-liquid separator.

5.4.1.2. 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. Dehydration offshore rather than at the onshore terminal, is
desirable from the point of view of reducing the size of pipelines and meeting pipeline specifications.
However, restrictions on the size and weight of offshore equipment requires that offshore dehydration
must be achieved in relatively small units.

One way of increasing the efficiency and/or reducing the size of a separator is to install a plate pack.
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'. In a plate separator of the size of a free
water knock-out vessel, typically a water content in the crude oil at the outlet of 1-3% vol. can be
achieved.

Plate packs can be retrofitted to existing vessels where problems are being experienced in meeting the
design specifications. They are not suitable, however, for crude oils containing large quantities of sand or
wax since these will cause fouling problems.

Typical plate separators are shown in Fig. 5.7.

One of most commonly used plate pack manufacturers within Shell is Pielkenrood Water Company, the
Netherlands.
Figure 5.7 – Plate separators.

For processing dead crude, or when the operating pressure is above the bubble point, a plate separator
with no gas handling facilities can be used, see Fig. 5.7a. For high flowrate applications, say, in excess of
350 m³/hr, a split flow plate separator may be required, see Fig. 5.7b. In the case of the formation of a
relatively thick dispersion band in the separator which may hamper proper level control, a dispersion-
retaining plate can be fitted in the vessel after the plate pack, under which separated water and over
which dehydrated crude can flow. In this manner a relatively sharp oil/water interface is obtained at the
end of the vessel, thus allowing good level control.

When concurrent separation of oil, water and gas is required, a three-phase plate separator fitted with a
schoepentoeter inlet device should be used, see Fig. 5.7c.

5.4.1.3. 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. They are compact and self contained, which is useful in inaccessible locations and where space
is limited, e.g. offshore. Heater treaters can be considered for dehydration of difficult emulsions or very
viscous crudes. They can be operated at temperatures high than 100°C.

Sizes range from 1 m diameter to 5 m with a throughput ranging from 50 bpd to 3000 bpd. A heat
exchanger for preheating incoming emulsion and cooling treated crude may be included. In general, the
vertical heater treater is used for treating small volumes of relatively light oils; horizontal units are used for
treating larger volumes and are more suited for heavy (viscous) crudes.

i) Vertical heater treater

A schematic of a vertical heater treater is shown in Fig. 5.8.

Figure 5.8 – Vertical heater treater.

After having been preheated through a heat exchanger, the mixture of oil, water, emulsion and gas enters
the top of the treater, which must be sized to separate gas from the inlet flow. If the treater is downstream
of a separator, this chamber can be very small. The gas separation section should incorporate an inlet
diverter and mist eliminator.

Liquids flow through the downcomer pipe to the treater, which serves as a free water knock-out section,
and water is discharged through the water outlet line. The end of the downcomer should be slightly below
the oil-water interface to promote coalescence of water droplets. Oil and emulsion rise over heater fire
tubes to a coalescing section where further coalescence removes more water, which settles to the
bottom. Treated oil is cooled and discharged to the storage tanks. Normally, sufficient pressure is
available to transport the oil from the unit to the tanks; a pump need not be required.

Detailed design of pressure vessels, including design of internals (many having patented features )
should be the responsibility of the equipment supplier.
The water level is maintained either by an interface level controller or by a water syphon operating on the
principle explained in Section 5.4.2.2.

Production volume capacity of a vertical configuration vessel is limited by its cross-section and the usable
size of its coalescing section, and also by the capability of its heating section. A pre-heater may be used
to reduce the load on the unit but still its capacity may be limiting. To meet higher production
requirements, it is most common to install parallel units with upstream facilities for free water knock-out
and degassing.

ii) Horizontal heater treater

A schematic diagram of a horizontal heater is shown in Figure 5.9.

Figure 5.9 - Horizontal heater treater.

Emulsion, water, oil and gas enter, and free gas is released; the liquid flows downward, around a
U-shaped hood, to the bottom of the first section where free water is released. Free gas, in the upper
section, flows through the inverted U-shaped equaliser into the heating section. Degassed liquid rises
around the heater section, releasing entrained gas which is then joined by the free gas coming through
the equaliser and is discharged. Heated liquid flows over the baffle into the coalescencing and settling
section, shown as the right half of the vessel, where final removal of water occurs.

Vertical Flow Horizontal (VFH) systems are more efficient and can handle large throughputs than vertical
units. In general, a vertical flow horizontal unit will handle the same volume as three vertical units of the
same cross-sectional area. VFH units are more easily adapted to a specific type of production fluid. A
number of internal and external controls may be added to modify the basic process. Straightforward
control of the water level to modify the basic process. Straightforward control of the water level in the
coalescencing section is by an interface controller, but a water syphon may be used, just as in a three-
phase separator.
5.4.2. Dehydration tanks

5.4.2.1 Operating principles

Figure 5.10 illustrates the operation of a typical design of a continuous dehydration tank. The emulsion
enters via an inlet distributor which spreads the flow across the horizontal cross section area. The oil
slowly rises up the tank and overspills into a collecting device. Water droplets settle against the upward
flow of the oil. Large droplets will have a net downward velocity and will settle into the water layer at the
bottom of the tank. Small droplets will have a net upward velocity and will be carried away with the oil
flow. The water level in the tank is maintained at a fixed height (usually 2.5-3 m) with a level control
devise to provide residence time for reduction of the oil content of the separated water. Most crudes will
be dehydrated down to 1-2% vol. residual water in a continuous dehydration tank.

Fig. 5.10 - Schematic of typical continuous dehydration tank.

In normal operation a high-water content emulsion layer of 0.5-1.5 m thickness builds up between the
water and the oil. By introducing the feed stream just below this "dispersion band" or 'coalescence
zone" the gentle movement introduced by the rising oil promotes active coalescence.

In normal operation, i.e. when the feed consists of destabilised emulsion, the thickness of the
coalescence zone will be more or less constant. Introduction of stable emulsion and sludge into the
system will hinder coalescence and upset the operation of the coalescencer zone, it is therefore
advisable to install a bleed line to withdraw part of the contaminated coalescence zone for processing
in sludge treatment facilities.

Daily temperature charges of the incoming emulsion may cause thermal currents in the tank which
should ideally remain undisturbed. 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. Insulation may be
required.

Gas evolution hinders the coalescence and settling processes. It is therefore essential that the crude
enters the tank degassed to atmospheric pressure. Arrangement to achieve this are discussed in
Section 5.4.2.2.
In order to avoid shortcircuiting in the tank, it is advisable to have inlets and outlets as far apart as
possible. Basically there are two alternative configuration: a central inlet with peripheral outlets or a
peripheral inlet with central outlets. The latter arrangement (Fig. 5.10) is preferred since this allows the
feed stream to be spread over a large area, which is conducive for good separation. It is favoured that all
internal components are fixed, because floating and/or adjustable outlet devices are prone to damage
and failure. Furthermore, outlets should be fitted with vortex breakers to prevent entrainment.

The continuous dehydration tank has been in use for many years, 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". Since then, views have altered and it
is now believed that coalescence in the coalescence zone, as discussed above, is the essential features
of dehydration tank operation. The term "wash tank" remains, however, as part of the oil field jargon.

One of the most common problems with dehydration tanks is the build-up of an emulsion layer at the oil-
water interface. This layer typically contains water-in-oil emulsion, waxes, paraffin, sand or clay particles
and iron sulphide. If the layer becomes thicker than a few inches and the waxes harden, then action must
be taken to prevent an escalation of the situation.

Chemicals may be used to control interfacial build-up by applying surfactants to water wet the solids,
which then settle at the bottom of the tank. Paraffin solvent may be added to suspend the paraffin in the
oil.

Heat may be applied to the interfacial material either directly within the tank by pumping in hot oil or
alternatively, by withdrawing excess emulsion and heating it up in a separate sludge treatment facility. 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. 5.10)

It is a serious mistake to recirculate an unbroken emulsion or waxy materials to the treating system. If the
first treatment is not effective, then there is little change that a second treatment will take any
improvement and the build-up of sludge will simply accelerate. Unbroken emulsion withdrawn from a
dehydration tank should therefore be treated in a sludge treatment plant (see Section 5.7.)

5.4.2.2 Tank design features

In the following sections various design features for tank internals are briefly discussed, e.g.:-

• gas boots
• inlet distributors
• oil collectors
• interface level control
• baffle plates

The preferred concept would incorporate the following design features:-

a) External gas boot, or if necessary, separate degassing tank/separator.

b) Peripheral (spinder type) inlet with central outlets to ensure full utilisation of tank cross-sectional area.

c) Oil collector with serrated weir to ensure equal inflow distribution oil outlet nozzle requires vortex
breakers to avoid entrainment of gas.

d) Water outlet nozzle requires a hood and vortex breaker to avoid short circuiting and entrainment.

In Section 7.2.5.2 selection and design of tank internals is discussed in more detail, and concentrates on
design options mentioned above.
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 inlet emulsion line enters the gas
section about midway. The sole purpose of the boot is for gas separation before the emulsion enters the
wash tank. Normally, no internal parts are used inside the gas section; however, if more complete
separation is necessary, an impact angle or centrifugal ring can be inserted.

Figure 5.11.- External gas boot

ii) Gas separation using an internal gas boot

The inlet boot can also mounted inside the tank (Fig. 5.12) with the gas section resting on the roof. The
downcomer protrudes to near the bottom of the tank with a circular spreader installed at the bottom of the
pipe. This system can be troublesome if corrosion occurs in the downcomer and the untreated emulsion
goes directly, without being distributed, into the settling tank.

Figure 5.12 – 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. Many different types of inlet distributors have been used in Group applications, with differing
degrees of success.

Current preference is for the 'spider' type distributor shown in Fig. 5.13. This design not only provides
distribution over a large area of the tank, but also imparts a rotational flow to the fluid. The legs of the
spider radiate from a central core connected to the feedline.

The number of spider legs will depend upon the tank diameter and they are sized for a flow velocity of
about 0.2 m/s further design details are given in Fig. A7.48.

Fig. 5.13 - Spider type spreader

Another type of spreader which has proved to be very efficient, consists of a main trunk line with several
laterals. These laterals are pipes cut in half longitudinally with the open half facing downward. This
arrangement spreads the incoming oil over a large cross-sectional area of the tank, yet is much more
simple to construct than a distributor with sufficient outlets to spreads the flow over the entire cross-
sectional are (see Fig. 5.14).

The bottom of the laterals are open so that any scale, rust, 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. In a spreader with holes
or other openings in the top of the pipe, the pipe can become plugged with debris.
Fig. 5.14 - 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. This is a function of baffle arrangement, if indeed baffles are installed at all. In large dehydration
tanks, without baffles, it is common to install a collector pipe at the oil level. This collector pipe extends
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.

In any settling tank the lighter oil channels towards the outlet, leaving a certain section of the tank
opposite the outlet as dead space. In very large units, outlets are sometimes spaced equally around the
tank circumference to provide equal drainage from all parts of the tank. A further possibility in an
unbaffled tank is to install a collection pan for oil removal (Fig. 5.10). Clean oil simply overflows the lip of
the pan and is drained from a suction line connected to the pan.

Tanks fitted with baffles should have an outlet skimmer through fitted. This skimmer through consists of
an open-top box located inside the tank, surrounding the outlet connection (Fig. 5.15). It is welded to the
tank shell or to the shell and baffle plate. The top edge of the through can be flat or serrated. 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.
Fig. 5.15 - Oil skimmer in baffled tank

v) Interface level control

The water level in the tank is maintained by an interface level controller. This can be a water leg (syphon)
with a fixed spill point or an adjustable spill point, as shown schematically in Fig. 5.16. A water leg with a
fixed spill is the most trouble free. An adjustable type may be desirable, however, to raise the level of the
oil-water interface in the warmer months of the year. This will reduce the oil retention time and may be
done on the premise that the higher the emulsion temperature, the faster the settling is.

Oil-water interface control by adjustable leg is widely and effectively used by Shell Oil in their heavy crude
dehydration plants. Despite the very low density different between the water and crude oil, this
arrangement has proved to be fully reliable and effectively maintains the interface level at the set height.
If needed, the interface level can be adjusted by changing the elevation of the water leg, which contains a
flexible loop section. Drexelbook capacitance probes are used for interface level indication.

Fig. 5.16 - Water legs for interface level control

In addition to the use of syphons for interface level control, displacer type level detection instruments are
used for light/medium density crudes where interface emulsions are less of a problem. They have
recently been applied with good results for continuous dehydration of the land crudes at the Seria
Terminal in Brunei. In this respect it is mentioned that KSEPL are developing in dehydration/storage and
fuel tanks. This device relies on measurement of the difference in dielectric constant of different fluids.
Tests have been carried out a.o. in NAM and BSP, showing good prospects. Further work is ongoing on
testing in high P and T separators and on reducing the effect of fouling. The device is, however, not yet
proven/suitable for the E & P environment.

vi) Baffle plates

Gentle agitation is desirable while emulsion passes through the water layer, since this aids coalescence
of water droplets. Agitation, however, is not needed, nor desired, after the emulsion enters the oil section
and begins to settle. But there must be fluid movement throughout this settling section to achieve the full
benefit of the volume of the section. It has been proven by laboratory models that if there is a direct route
form the emulsion inlet to the oil outlet, then oil will channel through the settling section, leaving dead
areas in the tank which do not contribute to retention time. Retention time calculated form total tank
volume may be used to reduce the channeling effect. 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
5.4.2.3).

5.4.2.3 Alternative tank designs

The operating principles and design features of the simple, spreader type dehydration tank, were
discussed in Section 5.4.2.1 (Fig 5.10). Various alternative tank internal design are briefly discussed
below.

i) Rim discharged type (Fig.5. 17)

Radial flow characterises this type of construction where the emulsion enters at the centre of the tank
through a flow diffuser. The flow then exist the tank radially to a rim collector.

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.

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.
Fig. 5.17 – Rim discharge type dehydration tank

ii) Single baffle type

A single baffle extends from the wall to the centre of the tank. The flow enters on one side of the baffle
and exits immediately adjacent in the other side of the baffle. Although subsidiary baffles may be installed
to initiate desired flow paths, it is unlikely that full use of the tank volume is achieved. Its primary
advantage is that it is a simple and consequently low cost design. Flow entry occurs through a triangular
weir arrangement which is positioned normal to the fluid flow.

iii) Multiple baffle type (Fig. 5.18)

This design attempts to produce a long horizontal flow path. 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.
Fig. 5.18 - Multiple baffle type dehydration tank

iv) Creole type (Fig. 5.19)

This design is similar to the multiple baffle type in that it aims for a long horizontal flow path. The spiral
baffle arrangement gives better usage of tank volume and reasonably quiescent conditions. This tank has
been shown to operate successfully but is very expensive to construct.

Fig. 5.19 - Creole type dehydration tank

v) Spreader plate type (Fig.5.20)

This design of tank consists of a spreader plate located a few feet of the tank bottom. Incoming enters at
the centre of the underside of the spreader plate. Good flow distribution on the underside of the plate is
assisted by radial baffles. 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. The oil and water are drawn off from the centre of tank
above the spreader.

Fig. 5.20 - Spreader plate type dehydration tank

Several features of this tank design are conducive to dehydration. Firstly, the oil/water interface area is
effectively doubled. As coalescence occurs mainly at the interface this is a useful feature. Secondly, good
distribution around the outer edges of the tank means the flow velocity is minimised and thus settling is
encouraged.
5.4.2.4 The concentric wash tank

The concentric wash tank (CWT) consists of an outer and an inner tank, both covered by one roof
(Fig. 5.21). The operating principle is as follows.

Wet crude is introduced into the outer tank through two tangential pipes arranged 180° apart. As the wet
crude flows into the outer tank, free water droplets will settle to the bottom of the tank, where there is a
water layer. Gas evolved in the feed steam is liberated in the outer section. 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 outer tank therefore acts as free water
knock-out and degasser.

The oil carrying the residual water enters the inner tank via a number (typically 8-15) of separate nozzles.
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 oil-water interface in the inner tank is controlled at a level just above the oil inlet nozzles. In this way
the emulsion is gently agitated by the upward moving oil, which enhances the coalescence of water
droplets.

The inner tank is insulated by the outer tank from wall thermal effects. Furthermore, temperature changes
in the incoming emulsion are neutralised in the outer tank. The settling process is thus unaffected by
convective currents which could result in potential thermal gradients and subsequent shortcircuiting.

The concentric wash tank has been extensively tested in a number if pilot trials in various operating
companies (NAM, BEB, BSP and SSB).the CWT concept has shown to be very effective on in particular
heavy, viscous crude streams. Entrained water levels in the oil outlet stream of 1-1.5% vol. can be
obtained.

The concentric wash tank has disadvantages:

1) The limited flexibility of the oil/water interface level. It cannot be raised indefinitely (to
accommodate higher water cuts, and thus more residence time for the water) otherwise the outer
tank will overflow. In addition, unless the inner tank is sufficiently strong, the inner tank wall may
collapse, as occurred in PDO.

2) If heating is required to dehydrate the oil, with rising water cuts the heaters may become
overloaded and a free water knock-out tank may need to be installed.

Large scale 8000 m³ (50,000 bbl) wash tanks have been in operation in Oman since 1982. Their
operating performance is satisfactory. In the meantime FWKO tanks have been installed in their Riman
and Marmul facilities. Following successful pilot testing on heavy crudes (11-20°API), Maraven
(Venezuela) are installing CWTs for their 11.8°API Tia Juana crude (124,000 b/d).

As an alternative to the concentric wash tank, the twin wash concept has been developed. This system is
based on the same principle as the CWT, but it uses two separate tanks for the (through) degassing/free
water separation and dehydration steps, respectively. The main attraction of this system is that it can be
constructed from existing fixed roof storage tanks, but not all the advantages of CWTs are attained. Twin
wash tanks have been used in Nigeria and the concept was recommended recently for a new dehydration
system at the Bonny Terminal (Nigeria).
Fig. 5.21 – Concentric wash tank
• Partitioned concentric wash tank - PCWT (Fig. 5.22)

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. To promote the circular movement in these tanks and thus
reduce the risk of shortcircuiting between inlets and outlets, the partitioned concentric wash tank, as
schematically shown in Fig. 5.24, has been developed.

Good dehydration performance was observed during trials with a 160 m³ tank on very heavy (density 980
kg/m³), viscous crudes.

Note : This PCWT concept has been installed at Maraven, but data on performance are not yet
available. It cannot, therefore, yet be identified as fully proven in operation and should not be
considered as a first choice design.

Fig. 5.22 – Partitioned concentric wash tank

5.4.3. 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, can be stimulated by the application of
coalescence media, by specially designed coalescer pipes, or by the application of an electrical field.
Actual oil-water separation then takes place in a subsequent settling section or settling tank.

In the following sections these coalescence promoters are briefly discussed.

5.4.3.1 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". The chief drawback of these coalescer beds is that
they usually plug up after a short time with sediment, salt and wax, and then they have to be changed out.
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.

However, media coalescence has more promise for the deoiling of effluent waters (see Section 6.5).

5.4.3.2. Coalescer pipes

In many cases mixing conditions in transport lines are of the required magnitude to promote coalescence.
However, when mixing conditions prevailing in an existing crude handling system are unsuitable to
achieve the required coalescer pipe can be considered.

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, 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, by designing for conditions expected to be favourable for good coalescence, a piping
system may be planned. In the field, coalescer pipes are more commonly used, however, for coalescing
oil droplets dispersed in water, rather than for dehydration purposes. See also Section 2.4.4 for further
aspects of pipeline coalescence.
5.4.3.3. Electrostatic coalescers

Electrostatic coalescers are pressure vessels fitted with electric grid internals and are suitable for deep
dehydration of crude oil. The water content of the crude oil at the outlet is typically in the range of 0.1 to
0.5% vol. The units are relatively compact and therefore suitable for use offshore.

Typical electrostatic coalescer designs are shown in Fig. 5.23.

Fig. 5.23 – Electrostatic coalescers.

Bulk oil-water separation occurs in the lower half of the vessel and relatively dry crude moves up into the
grid section. Deep dehydration occurs in the grid section due to the enhanced coalescence conditions
which are created by the action of the electrical field. Conventional electrostatic coalescers feature an AC
field whereas some of the later designs use an AC-DC field combination which have higher throughput
capabilities. Both types can handle feed watercuts in excess of 20% vol. Voltages of up to several tents of
kilovolt are being used. The energy consumption of electrostatic coalescers is relatively low and varies,
dependent on unit size, from 5-25 kW (excluding energy consumption required for heating of the crude).
A relatively recent development in electrostatic design is the bi-electric unit. In this case the feed stream
is introduced directly into two grid sections, effectively doubling the throughput potential. In practice,
however, throughputs of only 50% higher than the conventional design can be achieved. In this case the
watercuts of the feed stream should be limited to 10% vol., otherwise electrical short circuiting will occur.

Electrostatic coalescers are widely used in refineries for crude desalting (Section 5.5) and dehydration to
achieve very high dehydration efficiencies. There are also applications in the E & P field. However, the
units are sophisticated and maintenance of the electrical equipment has proven to be relatively difficult.

KSLA have a research programme ongoing on compact separators, in which they are developing a
multistage electrostatic coalescer. Estimation of the comparative performance of this coalescer with
available coalescer types indicates that for dispersions that do not contain solids or form sludge, a
reduction in residence time by a factor of 10 is possible. Solids and sludge handling requirements may
roughly double the volume of the coalescer, thus leaving a reduction of a factor of 5. This reduction is
obtained by optimisation of the two necessary steps (electrostatic coalescence and gravity separation)
separately, and the use of better internals. Conventional electrostatic separators employ an upward flow
through the electrode/gravity residence time, yet a poor droplet separation. Furthermore, conventional
electrostatic coalescers have simple liquid distributors and scale-up characteristics, leading to much dead
space.

In the KSLA design, a downward flow of the oil and water mixture is utilised. Staging the electrodes
permits handling of higher watercuts as each stages has an electrical field optimal to the water
concentration. Fluctuations in the feed require a voltage control for the first stage only, leaving the full
efficiency of the subsequent stages.

In Fig. 5.24 a schematic is shown of the KSLA multistage electrostatic coalescer under development.

Fig. 5.24 - Two-stage electrostatic coalescer under development

5.4.4. Centrifuges

High-speed centrifuges have been used for many years for separating liquid-liquid dispersions, for
example in the separation of caustic solutions and oils in the soap-making process, recently in uranium
extractions, and many others. By enhancing both the settling and coalescence rates by increased settling
forces (up to 5000 g is achievable) centrifuges reduce the residence times considerably. Consequently
their sizes can be much reduced for a certain throughput, as compared to a conventional emulsion
treatment vessel of similar capacity. Centrifuges have so far not been routinely applied in E & P
operations, however, but they are being used for dewatering of refinery sludges.

The principle of separating a dispersion (and solids) in a centrifuge, is illustrated in Fig. 5.25.

Fig.5.25 - Particles trajectory through inclined rotating disks

The process liquid enters the separation channel at radius r1 flows through the channel and leaves at r2,
before flowing to the outlet. Separation of water droplets and particles takes place as the liquid flows
through the channel with velocity w. The centrifugal force acts on individual droplets and imparts on them
the sedimenting velocity v, acting in the direction of the periphery of the bowl. The sum of these velocities
gives a resultant velocity vp, the direction of wich determines the path of the droplet or particle..

In order to be separated out, a particle must be deposited on the upper disk BB' before reaching B'. Since
the liquid velocity w along the disk surface is near zero, the particles or droplet reaching the underside of
disk BB', thus moves outward towards the periphery of the bowl under the influence of the centrifugal
force.

Fig. 5.26 shows a schematic of a solids ejecting disk separator. The machine comprises a frame
containing in its lower part a horizontal drive shaft with friction clutch and brake, worm gear and a vertical
bowl spindle and in its upper part the bowl.

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. The frame hood carries the feed and discharge systems.
Fig. 5.26 - Solids ejecting disk centrifuge

Separation takes place in the rotating bowl (generating some 5000 g forces). The settling depth is
minimised by a stack of conical disks (clearance ± 2-10 mm). Clean oil and the separated water are
discharged continuously under pressure (± 3 barga) by built-in paring disk pumps.

The solid sludge, 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. Only sludge and a small proportion
of the separated water is ejected during the short period of bowl opening. There is virtually no oil loss.

The bowl can be arranged either as a purifier for oil with a high water content and some sludge (i.e.
sand), or as a clarifier for separating oil from sludge and small quantities of water.

Separators of this type are commercially available with capacities ranging from 1 to 200 m³/hr bulk feed.

Centrifuges could either be used as oil-water separators or as oil-water-solids separators. Both types
have been tested by NAM and the three phase decanter is successfully used as sludge thickener. A
centrifuge for oil-water separation was first tested 1982/83 by NAM and KSEPL on stable water-in-
condensate emulsions. Recently NAM also tested a centrifuge on a crude of about 20°API.

The operating performances of the permanent installation and the test units have been remarkably good.
In the recent tests, wet, degassed crude containing 6.8% (vol.) water was passthrough a 2 m³/h capacity
test unit. The dehydrated oil contained .3%(vol.) water, whilst the water contained 50-200 g/m³ oil. The
operating temperature was 40°C rather than the normal dehydration temperature of 70-80°C.

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, with potentially much
higher savings possible for offshore operations.
5.5. Condensate dehydration

5.5.1. Free (dispersed) water removal

The principles involved in the dehydration of condensate are basically similar to those for the dehydration
of oil. In general, condensate is more amenable to dehydration than oil due to its lower density and lower
viscosity.

When the dehydration specification is relatively "relaxed", the use of three-phase separators
(see Section 5.4.1) will be sufficient. The design/sizing guidelines are the same as for crude oil
dehydration (see Section 7.2).

If the dehydration specification is "tighter" or where it is desirable to minimise the size of the separation
equipment (e.g. offshore) then plate pack internals can be installed in the separator (see Section 5.4.1.2).
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. This can be achieved by having the plate
pack installed in a separate vessel downstream of a two-phase (i.e. gas/liquid) production separator. The
condensate and water leaving the production separator will be completely degassed. Gas breakout will be
prevent if sufficient static head, or cooling, is provided between the production separator and the plate
pack separator. Such a system can remove free water down to a level of less than 0.5% (v/v) if properly
designed.

For very deep removal of free water from condensate, typically down to 500 ppm(v), a cartridge type
coalescer system can be used. The units consist of a number of cartridge type fibrous coalescencer
elements. Commercial vendors, such as Peco and KnitMesh, supply units of this type. Experience has
indicated that vendors tend to be over optimistic when predicting performance of their units. This is due to
a number of factors, the principal ones being flow rate fluctuations in reality through the units and the
presence if corrosion inhibitor in the condensate. The best performance figures achieved to date is
dehydration down to 400 ppm(v) free water. The coalescencers are also sensitive to solids blockage, so it
is recommended to install a filter unit upstream of the coalescer.

5.5.2. Dissolved water removal

In most cases natural gas production is associated with liquid hydrocarbons and water. In some cases the
gas and condensate are transported together through a single export pipeline to processing facilities
onshore. When the gas contains carbon dioxide, it will be necessary to dehydrate both the gas and the
condensate to prevent corrosion of the pipeline.

When the condensate/gas ratio in the pipeline is low, 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. The
relatively large amount of remaining free water in the condensate. Provided that the gas has been
sufficiently "overdried", the water dew point of the gas will still remain below the minimum pipeline
temperature even after absorbing the additional water from the condensate.

When the condensate/gas ratio in the pipeline is large, there is insufficient gas available to absorb the
free water in the condensate. Consequently, free water will exist which will cause corrosion of the
pipeline. 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.
Fig. 5.27 - Simplified process flow scheme for condensate dehydration

This method developed to handle this problem is as follows (Fig. 5.27). The gas is dried by conventional
means (e.g. glycol towers) and this dried gas is used as a stripping medium for the condensate. The
rewetted gas from the condensate stripping column is recycled back to the glycol tower. The physical
mechanism of this stripping process is that the dry gas strips out the dissolved water from the
condensate, which then allows the free water (which is present in the form of small droplets) to dissolve
into the condensate. This process continues until all the free water has dissolved into the condensate.
The limiting steps of this process is the mass transfer rate of free water from the droplets compared to the
gas-liquid interfacial area. The process can be accelerated by dispersing the water as possible should be
removed from the condensate by other means (see section 5.5.1) prior to the stripping process since:

i) it limits the required residence time (i.e. the number if stripper column trays and column height);

ii) it is also limits the required flow rate of the stripping gas (i.e. column diameter ).

A computer programme has been developed at KSLA for simulating this process, which also takes into
account water droplet size and residence time distribution of the condensate at the stripper column trays.

Contrary to the use of e.g. molsieves, this drying process operates continuously and can handle small
amounts of water droplets on a routine basis. However, the performance of the column is very sensitive to
the incoming condensate.

Furthermore, the recycling of gas from the condensate stripping column to the glycol dehydration system
results in the requirement of a larger glycol dehydration system. The cost implications of this should not
be overlooked.
5.6 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, and therefore purchasers/refineries set an upper limit on the salt content of the crude to be
processed (typically 72 g/m³). For some oil fields (e.g. 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, in order
to meet the crude export salt specification.

Salt is dissolved in the water phase and therefore if the percentage by volume of residual water and its
salt content are known, the amount of salt per unit of crude oil can be estimated from the equation:
K
crude oil salt content = • Y g / m³
100
where: K = salt concentration of residual water, g/m³
Y = residual water, % vol.

In a desalting process, the saline water contained in the crude is diluted with low salinity (fresh) water. To
reduce the volumes of fresh water required, the production fluids are first dehydrated.
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.g. pump);
• the crude oil is dehydrated again.

Typical desalting process flow schemes are given in Fig. 5.28. For very saline crudes, for which large
volumes of wash required, the dehydrated water from the second stage dehydrator is recycled. This is
done to minimise the volume of required wash water and to make use of the heat absorbed by the water.
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 salt-
containing 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
range of 2 x 10³ to 104 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).
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:

(K 1 − K 3 ) Y
Dilution water required = •
(K 3 − K 2 ) 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
salt concentration of water in the desalted crude needed to give the
K3 =
required crude oil salt content, g/m³
Y= residual water, % vol.
E= 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:

• 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, non-
hazardous 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 is
currently 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 can not 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.

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.
6. DEOILING EQUIPMENT AND PROCESSES

6.1. General principles

The water separated in a dehydration process always contains some oil, the quantity of which vary 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 50-1500

- Skim tanks 50-1500
- Skim pipes 50-100
- API interceptors 40-100
- Separators 15-40
- Hydrocyclones
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.
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.

Fig. 6.1 - 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. Oily water enters the tank via an inlet spreader.
Water flows to the bottom of the tank, and oil droplets rise against the downward water flow according to
Stokes' Law.

Large oil droplets will achieve a net upward velocity and will eventually reach the surface to form an oil
layer which is continuously skimmed. Small droplets will have a net downward velocity and these will be
carried away with the water flow. The 'deoiled' water leaves the tank via an adjustable syphon which
maintains the levels the tank at the right height for optimum skimming. The tank should be sized such that
droplets larger than approximately 150 µm are not entrained with the water phase. 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.

The skim tank shown in Fig. 6.1 can also act as a buffer tank. In such a case, the tank is usually kept half
full, thus allowing for intermittent surges and inadvertent slugs of free oil in the incoming flow. Oil cannot
be skimmed continuously (unless a floating skimmer is installed ), instead the oil is removed at regular
intervals by adjusting the levels in the tank and draining the oil through the oil outlet valve.

Skim tanks simple and economical for primary oily water treatment. Space and weight requirements are
disadvantages, however, when considering offshore locations.

6.2.2. 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. In an open sump without such baffles, only
separation of the oil droplets. In an open sump without such baffles, 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. Fig.6.2 shows a cross section of a patented skim-pile design.

Fig. 6.2 - 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. Once in the quiescent zone, there is plenty of
time for droplet-droplet coalescence, and the resulting larger droplets then migrate up the underside of
the baffle to an oil-collection system.

For intermittent or during period of no flow, oil droplets rise to the area of the quiescent zone, and became
trapped and protected from being swept back into the flow stream when flow is resumed. The net effect of
the baffles is to reduce this rise distances so as to capture smaller droplets. The action of the skim pile is
enhanced by coalescence that occurs as a result of the long retention times and low energy input.

Skim piles also provide a method for treating deck drainage. This flow, which originates either from
rainwater or washdown water, is oxygen laden. It is corrosive and irregular in flow rate. Thus, including it
in water treating equipment could cause upsets. Finally, 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.

Skim piles are excellent for this purpose. The skim pile can be protected from corrosion, and by design is
located low enough on the platform to eliminate the need for pumping the water. The skim pile is not
affected severely by large instantaneous flow-rate changes (effluent quality may be affected to some
extent, but the operation of the skim pile can continue), it contains no small passages subject to plugging
by scale build-up, and it minimises commingling in the process since it is the last piece of treating
equipment before disposal.

6.2.3. API oil interceptor

A standard API oil interceptor is shown in Fig.6.3.

Fig. 6.3. - API interceptor showing typical arrangement for two parallel basins.
The interceptor consist of a rectangular basin which is divided into a number of channels. Influent water is
distributed across the basin by a vertical slotted baffle and flows down the channels under conditions
approximating laminar flow. Oil droplets rise to the surface according to Stokes' Law.

Floating oil is held within the interceptor basin by an oil retention baffle. As the oil layer builds up, it is
removed by a skimming device and flows into an oil slop pit along with some water. The slop oil is drained
from the pit intermittently baffle and leaves the interceptor over a weir.

API interceptors are usually designed to remove 95% of all droplets above 150µm. These units cannot be
expected to remove finely dispersed particles or emulsified oil.

APIs are not normally labour intensive in their operation, however, it is necessary to check and possibly
adjust the skimming levels once or twice per shift. If left unattended, the skimmings may entrain a
significant quantity of water which can lead to emulsification problems when slops are recycled.

It may be necessary from time to time to remove an accumulation of solids which builds up on the bottom
of the basin. 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.

6.2.4. Plate interceptors

Plate interceptors were initially developed by installing a series of parallel plates into an API separator.
The maximum rising height of an oil droplet is reduced and the underside of each plates acts as a
coalescing surface. 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 6.4)

Fig 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. An interceptor with plate internals will have a
greater efficiency in terms of oil removal than an API interceptor, and it can therefore be considerably
smaller to achieve the same performance. In view of its relatively small size a plate interceptor can be
enclosed to reduce evaporation losses/undesirable odours, or to prevent escape of explosive gases into
the atmosphere.
The performance of a plate interceptor can be varied by varying the plate spacing. In so far as there is a
standard, plate interceptors for effluent water clean up are often designed to remove about 95% of oils
droplets larger than 60µm, although the value of 60 µm can be varied by choosing different plate
spacings. The normal range for plate spacings is 20-40 mm. Larger spacings should be used when
fouling from suspended solids or wax build-up is a potential problem. Inclination of the plates is normally
in the range 45-60°, the steeper angles being employed when fouling from solids can be anticipated.

A number of design for plate interceptors are available from various manufacturers, all operating on a
similar principle. Typical names are parallel plate interceptor (PPI), tilted plate interceptor (TPI) and
corrugated plate interceptor (CPI).

6.2.4.1. The corrugated plate interceptor (CPI)

A standard CPI is shown in Fig. 6.5. 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.

Fig. 6.5 - Standard CPI

The deoiled water flows over another weir into the outlet channel. The oil moves up the plates and
accumulates at the surface where it is removed by skimming.
The corrugated plate pack consists of a number of corrugated plates (usually GRP), which are stacked in
a parallel fashion with a plate spacing of typically 20 mm.

In order to save space (important offshore) or to reduce the cost of a unit (typically by 30%), the plates
can be installed in cross flow mode rather than downflow (or upflow, as preferred by some suppliers). The
different arrangements are shown in Fig. 6.6. The cross flow mode is particularly suited to installation in a
pressure vessel where the direction of liquid flow is across the vessel.

Fig. 6.6 – Corrugated plate pack arrangements

The body of the CPI, shown in Figure 6.7, is constructed in concrete, which is typical for the treatment of
effluent water in land based installation.

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.

In recent tests by Shell Oil 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

Recently CE Natco have 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. As to this aspect, NAM has had problems with this coalescer.
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.

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.
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
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.

Fig. 6.12 - Hydrocell induced gas flotation separator

6.3.2. Dissolved gas flotation (DGF) units

In a dissolved gas flotation unit, the water to be treated is saturated with gas under pressure (typically
400-600 kPa). For effluent clean-up duties, air is often used leading to the commonly applied name
dissolved air flotation unit (DAF). When the pressurised water is introduced into a large vessel at (or close
to) atmospheric pressure, most of the dissolved gas is liberated (until equilibrium saturation is again
reached) in the form of fine bubbles, typically 30-120 µm diameter, which rise to the surface attaching
themselves to oil droplets on the way. A scum, typically 1% of throughput, is formed on the surface.

The total water flow can be saturated with gas, 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. The
required recycle ratio and the operating pressure will depend on the nature of the effluent stream, the
flotation gas used and the temperature. It must be possible to dissolve sufficient gas to effectively float
the oil at the operating temperature. Examples of gas solubility versus temperature are shown in
Figure 6.13

Fig.6.13 - Solubility of some gases in water

It is common practice to add ca. 2-5 g/m³ of polyelectrolyte to enhance the performance. Use of
polyelectrolytes ensures that the skimmings remain largely hydrocarbon (in contrast with the use of
inorganic flocculants). 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. The arrangement of a typical DFG unit is shown in
Fig. 6.14.
Fig. 6.14 - 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. However, 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. The DAF unit can be used by itself, but for greater effectiveness it is used in
combination with inorganic flocculation. The process is then called flocculation/flotation
(see Section 6.4.2).

6.3.3. Tilted plate flotation units.

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. 6.15). 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.

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. At the time
of writing NAM have placed an order for several of these units, but as yet there is no commercial scale
experience with this equipment in the Group.
Fig. 6.15 - Schematic of a tilted plate flotation unit

6.4. 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. A flocculation unit usually consists of a mixing section
followed by a floc growth section. In the mixing section inorganic flocculants (typically ferric chloride,
aluminium sulphate or ferric sulphate) are rapidly mixed with the raw water to ensure homogenisation.
These chemicals destabilise suspended particles and encourage them to coagulate and form microflocs.
For optimum floc formation the pH should be in the range 5 to 9. In most cases pH control facilities may
be required, i.e. caustic or acid injection.

In the floc growth section polyelectrolytes are added to the water and gently mixed to promote
coalescence. 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.

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.
6.4.1 Flocculation-sedimentation

A standard flocculation-sedimentation unit is shown in Fig. 6.16. The raw water is injected with 10 to 50
g/m³ flocculant and then fed into a central mixing compartment. Here the water and flocculant are
mechanically mixed by an impeller. From the mixing zone the water flows into the floc growth region
where polyelectrolytes can be added. The water then proceeds to the sedimentation zone where the flocs
fall towards the conical bottom. Sometimes weighting agents, e.g. active silica, are added to make the
flocs heavier and thus improve the settling characteristics. Bottom scrapers move the settled floc into a
central hopper from which it is removed by gravity or sludge pumps. The clarified water rises out of the
settling zone and overflows into effluent launders at, or near to, the periphery of the unit.

Fig. 6.16 - Flocculation-sedimentation unit

In general, suspended oil removal efficiencies of 80 to 95% can be achieved. Good operation of the
flocculator requires a feed which is constant in flow, quality and degree of contamination. This can be
achieved by the installation of buffer tanks upstream of the flocculator. It should be noted that the settled
sludge bed can be easily upset by fluctuations in velocity.

6.4.2. Flocculation-flotation

The flocculation and flotation steps are normally carried out in separate units, as shown in Fig. 6.17. Raw
water enter the mixing basin where flocculants are added (10 to 50 g/m³) and rapidly mixed to ensure
homogenisation. The water then spills over a weir into a much smaller floc growth basin where it is gently
agitated in order to obtain strong, large flocs. 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, see
Section 6.3.2.). 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).

The advantage in using flocculation-flotation instead of flocculation-sedimentation, is the overall reduction

in space requirements and chemical consumption (weighting agents not required).
Fig. 6.17 - Flocculation unit

The flocculation-flotation process is capable of achieving oil removal efficiencies of 80 to 95%, or even
higher. Consequently, the oil and solids concentrations in the treated water are often lower than 15 g/m³
and 2 g/m³ has been achieved. As with the flocculation-sedimentation unit, good operation requires
reasonable constant feed conditions and buffer tanks are therefore desirable. The clarified water from the
unit is suitable for media filtration without any further treatment.

6.4.3 Sludge disposal from flocculation processes

The problem of disposal of oily sludge containing inorganic flocculants should not be underestimated. The
volume of sludge can vary from 0.2 to 2.5% of the total produced water flow rate, typically comprising of
95 to 98% water, the rest being oil and solids. It is impractical to recover clean oil from this sludge,
therefore there is no alternative other than disposal

Small volumes of sludge can be disposed of by ponding or spraying. Larger volumes must be 'thickened'
by gravity, evaporation, centrifuges or filters and then disposed of by incineration or land farming. To
date, universally acceptable methods of sludge disposal have not yet been developed
(see also Section 5.7).

6.5 Coalescers

Separation of oil droplets by API or CPI oil interceptors is often not sufficient to meet injection water
quality requirements. Plate pack separators become uneconomical if particles smaller than 50 µm have to
be removed from the influent. A possible solution to this problem is to coalesce the small droplets into
larger ones which can then be subsequently separated by gravity.

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. The small oil droplets are attracted to the oleophilic surface where
coalescence takes place due to the close proximity of large numbers of droplets. The oil leaves the bed in
the form of larger droplets which can be easily separated by gravity. The gravity separation step can be
included in the same vessel or as a subsequent step.
To date, the application of coalescers has not been successful for large scale treatment of production
water and operation of this equipment in other than a polishing duty, i.e. inlet water containing less then
50 g/m³ oil, has so far proved unreliable. The major problem is that the coalescing media becomes
blocked with suspended solids since the bed also acts as a filter. This can sometimes be avoided by the
installation of a pre-filter, or by regular backwashing. However, current experience is that coalescers can
only tolerate a very low solids concentration in the feed, of say, less than 5 g/m³.

A number of installations have been reported where coalescers are claimed to successfully remove oil
from tanker ballast water.

There are several proprietary designs of coalescers on the market; selected examples are briefly
discussed in the following sections.

6.5.1 Examples of commercial coalescers

6.5.1.1. Degremont coalescer

The Degremont coalescer consists of a tower which is packed with a bed of graded sand (Fig. 6.18). An
oleophilic surface is created on the sand particles by the continuous addition of polyelectrolyte chemical
to the feed. Regular backwashing of the bed is necessary to avoid plugging, and for viscous oils a
backwash temperature of about 40 °C is required to release the oil.

Fig. 6.18 - Degremont coalescer

The manufacturer claims that the unit is capable of 90%+ oil removal. However, pilot scale tests carried
out by Shell Expro indicated that these high efficiencies could only be achieved at the expense of a very
high backwash frequency.
6.5.1.2. Elf Anvar coalescer (Fig. 6.19)

The oily water passes through a bed of resin (similar in structure to an ion exchange resin) into which an
oleophilic agent has been incorporated during its manufacture. The micronic oil droplets are first
adsorbed onto the surface of the resins and form a film around each grain. Thereafter, under the action of
the liquid flux, this film sets free large droplets of oil which rise to the upper part of the coalescer where a
continuous oil layer is formed for removal by automatic level control. The operation is claimed to be
continuous, requiring only infrequent washing to remove trapped solids.

Fig. 6.19 - Elf Anvar coalescer

The manufacturers claim that the unit is 90 to 95% efficient and can tolerate 2-3 g/m³ suspended solids in
the influent. However, a unit installed at Shell Stanlow Refinery (UK) became rapidly blocked with less
than 1 g/m³ solids in the feed. All attempts to resolve this problem were unsuccessful and eventually the
unit was abandoned.

6.5.1.3 Plenty Metrol coalescer (Fig. 6.20)

Feedwater is pre-filtered to protect the coalescer against solids blockage. The coalescer itself consists of
about 10 coalescer 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. Oil droplets, coalesced within the cartridge,
rise to the surface at the top of the vessel where they form a layer which is discharged by level control.
The manufacturer claims that this unit can be expected to reduce suspended oil content down to 5-10
g/m³, however, there is no operating experience within PETRONAS.
Fig. 6.20 - Plenty Metrol coalescer
6.5.1.4 KnitMesh DC coaleser (Fig. 6.21)

The KnitMesh DC coalescer contains a packing of coalescing filaments consisting of a combination of two
different materials, viz. one of low surface-free energy (such as plastic) and the other of high surface-free
energy (such as metal). Droplet coalescence is greatly enhanced at a point on a surface at which there is
a discontinuity of surface-free energy, a so-called 'junction point'. Therefore by making use of a packing
containing many such 'junction points', the separation efficiency is greatly increased. 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 DC coalescer will continue to operate efficiently when the dispersion inverts.
The manufacturer claims the following principal advantages for the DC coalescer:

i) improve separation efficiency;

ii) higher flowrates permit significant reduction in vessel size;

iii) large cost savings in pressure vessels;

iv) efficiency maintained even with phase inversion of the dispersed liquid;

v) high percentage of voids gives smaller pressure drop.

Fig. 6.21 - Diagrammatic layout of KnitMesh DC coalescer

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 outer layer is KnitMesh DC packing. The feed enters the centre of the cylinder and flows radially
through the coalescer similar to the Plenty Metrol coalescer (Fig. 6.20). The KnitMesh DUSEC cartridge is
designed to achieve phase disengagement within the outer layer of the cartridge, and no gravity settling
of separate droplets is required.

KnitMesh coalescers have mostly been applied in a refinery environment but they have potential for E&P
applications.
6.5.2 Expandable fibrous bed coalescer

In recognition of the problem of blocking of coalescer beds with solid particles, KSEPL/TRC have
developed the expandable fibrous bed coalescer (Fig. 6.22). The unit consists of a bed of polypropylene
fibres which can be expanded during the periodic cleaning cycle to remove entrained solids, then
recompressed for their coalescence duty. The fibres themselves are permanently surface treated to
enhance coalescence. The large oil droplets are subsequently removed in a separate gravity interceptor.
Deoiling efficiencies can be as high as 95% depending on the chemical composition of the emulsion to be
treated.

In later work by TRC (UK) various modifications to the coalescer shown in Fig. 6.22 were developed.
These pertain to the surface treatment of the fibres and the provision of a low shear zone for releasing the
oil droplets.

The expandable fibrous bed coalescer has so far not been developed for commercial exploitation, and at
this stage potential applications appear to be limited to those of relatively small capacity.

Fig. 6.22 - Expandable fibrous bed coalescer

6.5.3 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, it can be considered to treat the oil-in-water emulsion with a deoiler. To further promote
coalescence of the destablised oil droplets, use can be made of a coalescer pipe system. The coalesced
oil droplets can subsequently be separated in e.g. a CPI unit.

Coalescer pipe systems for deoiling purposes have been installed in a few cases only, e.g. in Nigeria.
This system consisted of 500 ft, 4" diameter pipe and 1200', 6" diameter pipe, with residence times of
about 1 min and 6 min respectively, and a pressure drop of 22 psi over the system. The average deoiling
efficiency of the coalescer pipe system was estimated at about 40%.

Critical parameters to be considered in the design of a coalescer pipe system are the mixing intensity
parameter and retention time. For a further discussion on pipeline coalescence reference is made to
Section 2.4.4.

6.6. Filters

The application of filters for the treatment of oily water has been limited so far, since filters clog up rapidly
even with relatively small amounts of oil whether or not in combination with solids. This restricts capacities
of filtration units to low values, and frequent cleaning/removal of the filtration medium is required. In
general application of filters in deoiling systems are limited to polishing only, when high water quality is
required for injection purposes. 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. This has proved
very effective and reduce the oil content to less than 5 ppm.

In the following sections the various filtration processes are briefly discussed. Membrane filters are
currently not "proven technology" and they are not discussed since, furthermore, they have as
disadvantages:

• plugging and maintenance problems

• too low flowrates

• prohibitive capital and operating cost

6.6.1 Granular media filters

Granular media filters are backwashable filters which therefore operate on an cyclic basis. They are
frequently used for seawater filtration. 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. However, practical experience has indicated that sand filters are unsuitable for this
duty, particularly where heavy or waxy crudes are involved. Backwashing procedures are often
ineffective, leading to frequent replacement of the media.

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
6.6.2 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. This
capability may be useful in some offshore designs. 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. 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. Oil content in the filter feed must be less than 15 g/m³ and ideally less than 10 g/m³.

6.6.3 Novel media filters

Other media than conventional mineral particles can be used for filtration. An example which has been
applied to oilfield waters is the Hydromation deep bed filter which uses crushed black walnut shells. 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. The principle of the design is
shown in Fig. 6.23 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,
allowing the oil and entrained solids to pass through a stainless steel mesh. Attrition of the walnut shell
media during backwash necessitates about 10% replacement annually.

Fig. 6.23 - Hydromation filter

Typical flux rates claimed are about 30 (m³/h)/m² for production water and 50 (m³/h)/m² for seawater. In a
recent trial with production water as feed (BEB, Germany, 1984) influent oil contents of 50-70 g/m³ were
reduced consistently to some 5 g/m³.
6.7 Hydrocyclones

Hydrocyclones have recently gained Group acceptance and are now the preferred option for offshore
production water disposal. Cyclone separators have already found many applications, since a good
separation of small particles can be achieved with a short residence time. The separation performance for
solids/gas and liquids/gas cyclones and for solids/liquid hydrocyclones is well establish and many design
are available.

In recent years a liquid/liquid hydrocyclone has been developed at Southampton University (UK) with a
special duty of removing small quantities of dispersed oil from water. This type of hydrocyclone is now
being marketed by BWN, an Australian company, as the BWN Vortoil. Being optimised for a low density
difference, a dispersion with a lower density than the continuous phase (i.e. oil-in-water dispersion) and a
minimum shear to avoid droplet break-up, the geometry of the liquid/liquid hydrocyclone differs
substantially form the conventional cyclone. Characteristic is the very long tapered section and the
absence of a vortex finder in the swirl chamber.

In Fig. 6.24 a schematic diagram is shown of the BWN Vortoil. As can be seen from Fig. 6.24 the Vortoil
consists of four sections :

• a cylindrical swirl chamber

• a concentric reducing section

• a fine tapered section, and

• a cyclindrical tail section.

Separation is achieved by generating centrifugal forces, orders of magnitude higher (~ 1000 g) than
available in conventional gravity based separation equipment. 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. The fluid is accelerated through the concentric reducing and finer taper sections of the cyclone,
where the bulk of the separation occurs, into the parallel tail section where the smaller slower moving oil
droplets are recovered. The lighter oil droplets migrate towards the lower pressure central core where an
axial reversal of flow occurs, resulting in the lower density oil enriched phase being removed through a
small diameter orifice in the centre of the inlet head (reject stream). The clean water stream exits as the
continuous phase from the downstream end.

The oil removal efficiency of hydrocyclone influenced by a number of factors such as:

• Density different - the greater the difference, the greater the potential for rapid phase separation.

• Mean droplet size - minimising high shear areas upstream of the hydrocyclone is important to
prevent droplet disintegration.

• Temperature – installation downstream of the first stage separator where typically 95% water
removal occurs, but upstream of any interstage or produced water coolers, affords best
performance.

• Flowrate - higher flowrate increase the intensity of the centrifugal separation forces. Too high
flowrates, however, may shear oil droplets and reduce the available pressure to drive the reject
stream.
Fig. 6.24a – Vortoil flow profile

Fig. 6.24b - 35-mm Vortoil cross section (not scale; chamber length 6 ft)
Another important parameter affecting the performance is the reject ratio, which is defined as the ratio of
fluid reject as concentrated oily water from the upstream outlets, to the clean water underflow, expressed
as a percentage. As the reject ratio increases, so does the efficiency of separation, until it levels out at
around 1-2% reject ratio (see Fig.6.25). Higher reject ratio may only yield a marginal improvement in
separation efficientcy, but this is not normally justified/desirable since the rejected flow needs to be treated
again further downstream in the treatment facilities. Therefore this flow should be kept to a minimum.

Fig.6.25 - Example of hydrocyclone efficiency vs. reject ratio.

Control of the reject is achieved by controlling the pressure drops in the system, i.e. that between the inlet
and outlet of the hydrocyclone, and between the inlet and reject stream. 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.

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. This size refers to the diameter at the transition between the
concentric reducing and fine taper section of the cyclone. Additional units can simply be added as a bolt-
on expansion as watercut increases, or as an upgrade of the originally installed water handling capacity.
Hydrocyclones should be installed immediately downstream of the first stage separator, but 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.
Hydrocyclones need about 8-10 bar pressure differential between oily water inlet and reject outlet
streams. Feed pressures of 4-6 bar are acceptable but very limited turndown if individual cyclones is
available at these pressures. Hydrocyclones are in operation with differential pressures of over 35 bar.

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. These pumps are suitable for
increasing the feed pressure by up to 10 bar.

Various field trials have shown that oily water with oil droplets larger than 15-50 µm can be effectively
cleaned. The residence time in the hydrocyclones is in the order of 2-3 seconds, compared to the 5-10
minutes in plate separators. In view of their compactness, hydrocyclones are very attractive for offshore
applications. They have been installed on North Cormorant for debottlenecking of the produced water
system and are planned for Kittiwake, Draugen and Troll.

Further detail on capacity and performance are given in Section 7.3.3.6.

6.8 Removal of dissolved hydrocarbons

Three possible processes for removal of dissolved hydrocarbons are briefly described in the following
sections, viz.:

• carbon adsorption

• gas stripping

• biological treatment.

These are briefly discussed below.

6.8.1 Carbon adsorption

Activated carbon removes organics by adsorption on its microporous surface. The pore structure can be
controlled in the production process; it determines the adsorption capability and rate. In treating oily
water, the effluent water is fed through vessels which contain up to 60 cartridges filled with activated
carbon.

The following problems may arise with this process:

• Fouling of the carbon by impurities in the production water, leading to plugging, and non-
adsorption if hydrocarbons.

• A substantial logistical and hygiene problem, especially when applied offshore, arising from
changing out the vessel contents and transportation of spent cartridges for regeneration or
incineration.

Carbon adsorption process should be applied only for polishing treatment. They require extensive
pretreatment of the effluent water, and there are prohibitive cost and space requirements for E & P
application.
6.8.2 Gas stripping

Gas stripping of hydrocarbons can be achieved either by the use of steam or by air.

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. The vapour
leaving the stripping column will be hydrocarbons, together with an amount of steam. An air cooler
condenses the steam for recycling to the process, whilst the hydrocarbons are vented.

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. Effluent water is
directly discharged, and the hydrocarbons are vented along with the airstream to atmosphere.

Main disadvantages of the gas stripping method are:

• very high energy costs

• it causes air pollution

• facilities are prohibitively bulky and expensive.

6.8.3 Biological treatment

This process uses bacteria to remove dissolved organic contaminants (including dissolved oil). It should
be preceded by gravity separation and/or flotation units to ensure almost complete removal of free oil
prior to the biotreaters.

The water to be treated is contacted with bacteria and sufficient oxygen has to be supplied (aeration) to
activate biochemical reactions. There are two main biotreatment processes which can be applied.

i) Treatment in an activated sludge basin followed by a clarifier (see Fig 6.26). In this process
the raw water is mixed with water containing a high concentration of bacteria and thoroughly
mixed and aerated. After allowing time for biodegradation to take place, the water is routed to
a settling basin where clarified water and water concentrated with bacteria flocs (activated
sludge) are separated. Part of the activated sludge is recycled into the raw water feed.

Fig. 6.26 - Activated sludge biotreater

 ii) Treatment in a trickle filter followed by a clarifier. Here the water is sprayed over an
activated bed, of lava rocks for example. 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.

Biological treatment in E & P operations may not be practicable because of :

• prohibitive space and weight requirements.

• It will not usually operate because of high mineral concentrations.

• Possible sludge disposal problems.

• It requires skilled disposal attention.

7. EQUIPMENT SELECTION AND DESIGN/SIZING GUIDELINES

Prior to the commencement of any design work on new or existing facilities, the need to thoroughly
discuss requirements and forecast throughput levels with production operations and petroleum
engineering functions cannot be overstressed. 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. 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.

7.1 Introduction

The design/sizing of dehydration and deoiling equipment should, ideally speaking, be based on a
quantitative description of the separation behaviour of two immiscible liquids from an unstable emulsion.

Generally, in deoiling processes relatively large quantities of water are handled, containing relatively
small amounts of oil (typically less than 2% vol.). The dispersion is therefore very dilute and the oil-water
separation process is well described by Stokes' Law. Consequently Stokes' Law can be successfully
applied for the sizing of deoiling equipment (Section 7.3). An illustration of how Stokes' Law can be used
to size an oily water separator, is given in Appendix 7.1.

In most dehydration processes, however, the dispersed water phase is much more concentrated. In this
case we are not simply concerned with the separation of a number of individual droplets, but with a
swarm of droplets, where individual droplets will collide and coalesce. In these case, Stokes' Law cannot
describe the settling process, 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.

• Behaviour of an emulsion as function of concentration, turbulence, flow properties, droplet size,

etc.

Although a significant number of studies on these topics has been carried out, a quantitative description
of the separation process of a dispersion has proved to be extremely complex, and a simple and
practically applicable mathematical description of the coalescing mechanism has not yet been
forthcoming.

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 3.6.).
As a second objective, the project aims to significantly reduce the residence time in oil/water separators
(by a factors of about ten), for the same or better efficiency, and to develop robust equipment not
sensitive to upsets in feed conditions. Timing of the project is such that major result are not expected
within the next few years, however.

In the absence of proper sizing rules for dehydration equipment based on a quantitative description of
emulsion behaviour, empirical rules have been developed and applied thus far. Consequently, the sizing
of individual pieces of equipment and the design of a system has heavily relied on laboratory/field testing,
existing (local) experience and to a large extent on the judgement of the designer. However, due to the
many uncertainties involved, many existing facilities are non-optimally designed/sized, often resulting in
off-spec crude oil and/or water, or excessive weight/space requirements.
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
manufacturers. These design guidelines are contained in EP 86-0870, "A guide to the selection and
design of oil field dehydration equipment", of November 1986. While it is recognised that these sizing
methods still have several shortcomings, they are considered to be the best currently available. These
guidelines are integrally taken into account in this Manual, and they are presented in Section 7.2, together
with various other considerations relevant to the design of dehydration equipment. Selection and design
guidelines for deoiling equipment is discussed in Section 7.3.

Whereas the selection and sizing of individual components can be done by using a set of guidelines as
given in this chapter, these components need to be put together and integrated into a system. 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. Aspects of
system integration are discussed in Chapter 8 as well operational aspects/guidelines.

7.2 Dehydration equipment

7.2.1 Design approach

Most of the equipment sizing methods currently in use are based on either retention time or Stokes' Law.
In the first mentioned approach, equipment dimensions are chosen to provide sufficient retention time or
hold-up volumes for oil water separation to take place. This retention time criteria used, are normally
based on the results of settling tests or operating experience with similar crudes. 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.

As discussed in Section 7.1, Stokes' Law provides a means that can be used to size an oily-water
separator. The example shown in Appendix 7.1 indicates that separation capacity us mainly a function of
horizontal cross-sectional area. This particular characteristic is supported by many practical experiments.
It can be concluded, therefore, that retention time alone is an unsuitable sizing criterion since it only
specifies a volume requirement and not a horizontal cross-sectional area requirement. Indeed, equipment
sized based on retention time considerations, is often wrongly sized.

As mentioned in Section 7.1, 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. Therefore, in the absence of practical sizing rules based on quantitative
dispersion behaviour, empirical correlations have recently been developed in SIPM.

From extensive analyses of different types of dehydration unit in use in various Opcos, empirical relations
were established between two of the terms in Stokes’ Law, viz, Q/A (= flow ÷ horizontal cross-sectional
area) and ∆ ρ / η ( = density difference oil/water ÷ viscosity of the continuous phase). These empirical
relations are the following form:

b
Q  ∆ρ 
= a  
A  η 
with the coefficients a and b depending on the type of liquid and the dehydration performance. The above
relationship forms the basis for the sizing methods for dehydration equipment as discussed in Section 7.2.4.
The recommended design approach for dehydration equipment is then as follows:

• Determine reservoir fluid and production parameters (temperatures, pressures, viscosity,

flowrates, densities).

• Establish the duty of the equipment, i.e. the nature of the feed and required specification of
separated oil and water (Section 7.2.2.).

• Select the most appropriate dehydration equipment for the established duty and conceptually
determine the treatment stages required to achieve the specifications (Section 7.2.3.).

• Run a process computer simulation to determine the number of stages and process design.

• With flowrates estimated in all relevant parts of the conceptual facilities from computer
simulations, size the equipment using the empirical sizing rules (Section 7.2.4.), taking into
account the uncertainties associated with the long-term production forecasts.

• Design/select the internals and accessories (Section 7.2.5.).

• Design/decide on the required control system (Section 7.2.6.).

7.2.2 General design considerations

In order to arrive at an optimum design and sizing of dehydration equipment, a number of general
considerations need to be taken into account, which refer to the following aspects:

Design conditions - flow rate

- temperature

Nature of the feed -

density and viscosity
- emulsion stability
- droplets size distribution

- watercut
gas fraction
-

Product specification - oil quality

- water quality

The above aspects are briefly discussed below.

7.2.2.1 Design conditions

Dehydrators are typically incorporated in process schemes for which there are different modes of
operation. During the life cycle of a field gross production and relative gas-water-in-oil compositions, i.e.
water cut and GLR, will change dramatically. The dehydrator design shall be based upon the operation
mode with the severest condition in terms of temperature and oil, water of gross flow rate. Having
identified the severest mode it is then necessary to add a margin to arrive at the design flow rate,
This margin should include allowances for overdesign, safety and surging.

Flow rate

'Severest' flow rates of oil, gas and water are usually well defined. They are directly related to production
forecasts or actual daily production rates. 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, in upstream/downstream piping
and in associated process facilities; this as a result of e.g. multiphase flow in (long) flow lines, ambient
temperature variations, flow fluctuations, piping operations etc. Margins up to 50-75% are not uncommon.
However, an in-depth assessment of the define entire oil-gas-water processing system is required to
define the margin to be applied.

Temperature

A minimum temperature is often required to destabilise the emulsion and enable effective oil-water
separation. Bottle test results can be used to assess the minimum separation temperature.

Referring to Stokes' Law, it is obvious that the dehydration process benefits from higher temperatures,
since oil viscosities are reduced and density differences increase. However, this is often achieved at the
expense of fuel cost for heating and losses of hydrocarbon vapours. In offshore operations, well and
pipeline insulation can be beneficially incorporated for improved dehydration behaviour.

7.2.2.2 Nature of the feed

In addition to temperature and flow rate, the following parameters should be known.

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 general light/low-viscosity crude oil are much easier to
dehydrate than heavy/high-viscosity crude oils (Stokes' Law).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 2.5.2)

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. 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. 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, e.g. by comparison with similar tests for installed facilities with known performance.
Droplet size distribution

Droplet size is an important parameter in oil-water separation, settling velocity being directly proportional
to the square of the droplet diameter. In practice, however, it is difficult to predict droplet size distributions
(dsd's) and quantify the effect on dehydration performance.

The best approach would seem to describe the feed as having a "fine" or "coarse" dsd. Fine dsd's can be
expected immediately downstream of chokes, control valves and pumps. Coarse dsd's can be expected
at the end of long pipelines and flowlines.

Water cut

Separation of a destablised emulsion tends to proceed faster with increasing water cut. At high water cuts
much of the water may exist as a distinct phase, albeit contaminated with oil droplets, referred to as "free
water", the rest of the water remains dispersed in the oil.

Gas fraction

Gas break-out tends to disrupt the dehydration process. Nevertheless, with light or low-viscosity crudes
the simultaneous separation of oil, water and gas (three-phase separation) can be carried out effectively.
For heavy or viscous crudes, however, or where deep dehydration (0.1 to 0.5% BS&W) is required,
degassing should be carried out upstream of the dehydrator, or the settler should be operated above the
bubble point to avoid gas break-out.

7.2.2.3 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. In this case the dehydration unit
has either a relaxed water content specification (<10% vol), or no specification at all.

Most general purpose dehydrators are required to reduce water-in-oil contents to typically 1 to 5% vol.
This may be for feed to a pipeline or for storage purposes.

Deep dehydration to 0.1 to 0.5% BS&W is usually only required in case of set crude oil export
specifications with regards to BS&W and/or salinity. This is usually achieved by batch settling in storage
tanks prior to shipment. Alternatively, if space and weight are limited such as in offshore applications,
deep dehydration may be achieved by applying electrostatic coalescers.

Water quality

The main consideration is to avoid excessive contamination with oil. 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. Dehydration water generally requires further treatment in
dedicated deoiling equipment before disposal requirement are met. (see Section 7.3).
7.2.3 Equipment selection and application

The selection and design of appropriate dehydration equipment for a particular case depends on three
principal factors:

i) The feed, i.e. the nature of the crude and proportion of production water to be treated.

ii) The product specifications, i.e. the target residual water (dehydration) and oil content
(deoiling).

iii) The location and operating philosophy.

When selecting dehydration equipment, and in particular when potential problems with separation of the
produced emulsions are expected, tests should be run to determine the best course of treatment and help
optimise operating conditions. Usually the simplest system is the most efficient and economical. Where
for offshore application space and weight requirements are critical, for onshore application the selection
of equipment may be guided more by considerations of simplicity (minimal maintenance requirements)
and robustness/dependability.

It should be noted that in one area dehydration may be limited to tankage at the export terminal, whilst in
other areas dehydration vessels in the field may be preferred. Unfortunately no single recommendation
can be made. However, most duties can be met by utilisation of one or more of the units listed below in
Table 7.1.

It should be mentioned that platform storage cells, which are widely used in the North Sea, in principle
could also be considered in the selection of appropriate dehydration processes and/or equipment. In most
cases, however, 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.

As to new developments in dehydration equipment, it is mentioned that both centrifuges and

hydrocyclones are being investigated/tested for dehydration applications. Both types of equipment offer
the advantages of much reduced space/weight requirements with a performance similar or better than,
conventional equipment. While these devices are promising for future applications (hydrocyclones are
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.
Table 7.1 - Dehydration equipment selection guidelines
7.2.4 Equipment sizing

7.2.4.1 Sizing criteria

Flux rate

The capacity of a dehydrator is mainly a function of disengagement area at the oil-water interface. For an
"empty" unit the disengagement area corresponds to the horizontal cross-sectional area of the separation
compartment.

A well-designed dehydrator should sufficient horizontal cross-sectional area to produced crude and water
of the required quality under the maximum flowrate conditions. In this case, 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.

Reynolds number

Turbulence is created by the cross flow interferences with the settling process. The type flow regime,
indicating the degree of turbulence, can be calculated from the Reynolds number:

ρ•v•δ
Re =
η
Where v = flow velocity

4 x flow area
δ = hydraulic diameter =
wetted perimeter

Best conditions for separation are achieved if the flow is laminar. For an “empty” dehydrator this is usually
impractical, but an upper limit of Re = 20 000 for the oil phase is recommended. For a separator fitted
with plate internals, laminar flow conditions can be provided by appropriate spacing of the parallel plates.

Typical design values are:

a) for corrugated plate packs, Re ≤ 400.

b) for flat plate packs, Re ≤ 1200.

Gas-liquid separation

Design criteria for the gas-liquid part of three-phase separator can be found in the PETRONAS Technical
Standard (PTS 31.22.05.11, February 1982). These criteria are included in the three-phase separator
sizing routines given in this Manual.
7.2.4.2 Sizing method

It is important that all possible operating conditions are considered. Usually maximum net oil flow,
maximum net water flow and minimum temperature are the critical parameters. However, for three-phase
separators and plate separators, conditions at the maximum operating temperature must also be
considered to ensure that gas handling requirements are met.

The first step of the sizing method is to establish an allowable flux rate, Q/A, based on the value
determined for ∆ρ/η, from the empirically derived relationships as introduced in Section 7.2.1. These
relationships are shown in graphical form in Appendix 7.2. The thus derived flux rates can then be
discounted by a factor to account for emulsion stability, product specifications, droplet size distribution,
etc. In some of the sizing routines shown in Appendix 7.2 upper and lower design limits are suggested.
These limits correspond to the following aspect:

Upper design limit

• relaxed BS&W specification (more than, say, 3%);

• no emulsion problems (droplet sizes in the range of 20-100 µm);
• coarse dispersion;
• little gas break-out.

Lower design limit

• tight BS&W specification (less than 3%);

• emulsion problems;
• fine dispersion (droplet size of less then 20µm);
• substantial gas break-out.

Sizing routines, together with relevant empirical equipment sizing curves, for the determination of
dehydration unit dimensions, are discussed in detail in Section 7.2.4.3.

7.2.4.3 Sizing routines

In this section sizing routines are given for the following pieces of equipment:

1) Liquid-liquid separator (Cg < 0.85) - fwko service

2) Liquid-liquid separator (Cg < 0.85) - dehydration service
3) Heater treater
4) Three-phase separator - fwko service
5) Three-phase separator - 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.

It should be noted that equipment internals and accessories are discussed in Section 7.2.5, whereas
aspect of control and instrumentation are covered in Section 7.2.6.

In Table 7.2, the nomenclature as used in this Section, has been summarised.

Table 7.2 – Nomenclature.

7.2.4.3.1 Liquid-liquid separator in free water knock out service (including separator with small gas
handling facilities, i.e. Cg 0.85)

The following data are required:

q1, ρo, ρw, 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 7.2.1.

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 Ahmin. The vessel L/D ratio should be in the range 3 to 5.
Standard pressure vessel sizes are given in Figure A 7.2.2. For vessels fitted with a weir, the tan-to-tan
length will be approximately one meter longer than the separation compartment, to provide sufficient
surge volume downstream of the weir.
7.2.4.3.2 Liquid-liquid separator in dehydration service (including separators with small gas handling
facilities, i.e. Cg 0.85)

The following data are required at the minimum operating temperature:

qo, q1, ρo, ρw, ηo, ηw

The sizing routine is as follows:

Step 1

Calculate the terms: ∆ρ = ρw - ρo, ∆ρ/ηo and ∆ρ/ηw

Step 2

Find the maximum allowable fluxrates (q1/A) and (qo/A) from Figure A 7.2.1 and Figure A 7.2.3
repectively.

Step 3

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 Ahmin requirement. The L/D ratio should be in the
range 3 to 5. For standard pressure vessel sizes see Figure A 7.2.2.

For vessels fitted with a weir the tan-to–tan length will be approximately one meter longer than the
separation compartment, to provide sufficient surge volume downstream of the weir.
7.2.4.3.3 Heater treater.

Similar data is discussed in Section 7.2.4.3.2 are required. In addition, 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 – t i) kJ/s

Cp values for normal pour point crudes are given in Figure 7.1

Figure 7.1 – Heat capacity of normal pour point crudes

Step 2

Calculate the required horizontal cross-sectional area for the separation compartent as described in
Section 7.2.4.3.2 for a liquid separator in dehydration service.

Step 3

Select a vessel size which satisfies the above requirements from Figure A 7.2.4.
7.2.4.3.4 Three-phase separator in free water knock-out service.

The following data are required at the maximum and the minimum operating temperatures:

qo, q1, qg, ρo, ρw, ρg, ηo, ηw

The sizing routine is as follows:

Step 1

Calculate the following terms at the minimum operating temperature:

∆ρ = ρw - ρo, ∆ρ/ηw

Step 2

Find the maximum allowable liquid fluxrate (q1/A) for FWKO service from Figure A 7.2.1

The rest of the sizing routine is based on the PETRONAS Technical Standard for gas/liquid separators.

Step 3

If stringent degassing is required, find the maximum allowable liquid fluxrate (q1/A) from Figure A 7.2.5.
Use ηo at the minimum operating temperature.

Step 4

If foaming is likely to occur, find the maximum allowable liquid fluxrate (q1/A) from Figure A 7.2.6. Use ηo
at the minimum operating temperature.

Step 5

Calculate the minimum required horizontal cross-sectional, Ah, areas, of the separation compartment for
free water knock out, stringent degassing and foaming (steps 2, 3, 4):

Ah = q1/(q1/A) m²

Select the highest value of Ah above for Ahmin

Step 6

 ρo − ρ g 
Evaluate the term   at the minimum design temperature.
 ρ 
 g 
Step 7

Find the maximum allowable superficial gas velocity (qg/Ag) from Figure A 7.2.7

Step 8

Calculate the minimum required vertical cross-sectional area above the maximum liquid level (LZA(HH))
for demisting purposes (see also Fig. A 7.5.1.).

 qg 
A g = qg /  
A 
 g

Step 9

Select a vessel with suitable dimensions to satisfy Ahmin and Ag requirements.

It is usual to start with a LZA (HH) level at ± 0.6D, see Figure A 7.5.1. The vessel L/D ratio should be in
the range 3 to 5. Standard pressure vessel sizes are given in Figure A 7.2.2, as well as vertical cross-
sectional areas above 0.6D and below 0.5D.

The following checks are required to ensure that the operating levels are adequately positioned.

Check 1

Check that the schoepentoeter inlet device can be accommodated in the available gas cap:

height required = 1.5 d + 0.15 m

Calculation of the inlet nozzle size, d, is covered in Figure A 7.4.2.

Height available = D - LZA (HH) m

or, if foam is expected:

Height available = D - (LZA (HH) + 0.25) m

Check 2

Check that the normal liquid level is adequately positioned, taking into account the various trip and alarm
settings (Ref. Appendix 7.5).

Check 3

For foaming crude, check that there is sufficient area available for gas flow when the foam level is at
maximum height (about 0.25 m).
7.2.4.3.5 Three-phase separator in dehydration service

The following data are required at the maximum and the minimum operating temperatures :

qo , q1 , qg , ρo , ρw , ρg, ηo , ηw

The sizing routine is as follows:

Step 1

Calculated the following terms at the minimum operating temperature:

∆ρ = ρw - ρo, ∆ρ/ηo, ∆ρ/ηw for oil and water phases respectively

Step 2

Find the maximum allowable liquid and oil fluxrate (q1 /A) and (qo /A) from Figures A 7.2.1. and A 7.2.3.
respectively.

The rest of the sizing routine is based on the PTS.

Step 3

If stringent degassing is required, find the maximum allowable liquid fluxrate (q1/A) from Figure A 7.2.5.
Use ηo at the minimum operating temperature.

Step 4

If foaming is likely to occur, find the maximum allowable liquid fluxrate (q1 /A ) from Figure A 7.2.6. Use ηo
at the minimum operating temperature.

Step 5

Calculate the minimum required horizontal cross-sectional, Ah, areas of the separation compartment for
dehydration, stringent degassing and foaming (step 2, 3, 4):

Ah = q1 /(q1/A), qo /(qo/A) m²

Select the highest value of Ah above for A hmin

Step 6

ρ o − ρg
Evaluate the term at the maximum design temperature.
ρg
Step 7

Find the maximum allowable superficial gas velocity (qg /Ag) from Figure A 7.2.7.

Step 8

Calculate the minimum required vertical cross-sectional area above LZA (HH) for demisting:

 qg 
A g = qg /  
A 
 g

Step 9

Select a vessel with suitable dimensions to satisfy Ahmin and Ag requirements.

It is usual to start with a LZA (HH) level at ± 0.6D, see Figure A 7.5.1. The vessel L/D ratio should be in
the range 3 to 5. Standard pressure vessel sizes are given in Figure A 7.2.2.

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 = 1.5 d + 0.15 m

Calculation of the inlet nozzles size, d, is covered in Figure A 7.4.2.

Height available = D - LZA (HH) m

or, if foam is expected:

Height available = D - (LZA (HH) +0.25) m

Check 2

Check that the normal liquid level is adequately positioned, taking into account the various trip and alarm
settings (Ref. Appendix 7.5).

Check 3

For foaming crude, check that there is sufficient area available for gas flow when the level is at minimum
height (about 0.25 m).
7.2.4.3.6 Liquid-liquid plate separator

The following data are required at the maximum and the minimum operating temperatures:

qo, qw, q1, ρo, ρw, ηo, 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.

Step 2

Find the maximum allowable oil and water fluxrates (qo/A) and (qw/A) from Figures A 7.2.8. and A 7.2.9
respectively.

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.

Step 5

Find the maximum allowable velocity through the plate pack, Umax, which provides laminar flow conditions
for the selected type and plate spacing, see Figure A 7.2.10.

Note:

i) A 20-40 mm plate spacing is recommended. 15 mm should only be considered if the feed

is clean.

ii) Flat plate packs are the preferred choice for high flowrate conditions.

Step 6

Calculate the minimum required vertical cross-sectional area for separation:

Avmin = q1/Umax m²
Step 7

Select a vessel with suitable dimensions to satisfy the

Ahmin and Avmin requirements. The vessel L/D should be in the range 3 to 5. For standard vessel sizes see
Figure A 7.2.2.

At this stage it may be found that the vessel diameter is too large. If so, there are two alternative courses
of action:

• alternative 1: consider a split flow design (see Fig.5.7b) in which case the vertical cross-sectional
area of the vessel can be halved;

• alternative 2: rework the design from step 4 using ρo/ηo rather than ρw/ηw as the design criteria. It
should be appreciated, however, that turbulent conditions will exist in the water phase and as a
result water quality will suffer.

Step 8

Once the size of the separator has been selected, the length of the plate pack can be determined from
the "rule of thumb" Lp = 0.25L (or for split flow type, Lp = 2 * 0.125L)

The following checks should be made to determine the critical oil and water droplet sizes removed:

Check 1

∆ U
Check the critical water droplet size such that Lp ≥ •
cos α v t

Applying Stokes’ Law (App. 7.1) will result in:

0 .5
 ∆ U η 
dw >  • • 1 .8 o  m
 cos α L ∆ρ 
 p

Typically, dw < 100 µm.

Check 2

Check the critical droplet size:

0.5
 ∆ U η 
do >  • • 1 .8 w  m
 cos α L ∆ρ 
 p

Typically, do < 60 µm

Plate angle is usually taken as 60°, see Section 7.2.5.1

7.2.4.3.7 Three-phase plate separator

The following data are required at the maximum and the minimum operating temperature:

qo , qw, q1, qg, ρo, ρw, ρg , ηo, 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
temperature.

Step 2

Find the maximum allowable oil and water fluxrate (qo/A) and qw/A) from Figures A 7.2.8.and A 7.2.9
respectively.

Step 3 to 8 are based on the PTS.

Step 3

If stringent degassing is required, find the maximum allowable liquid fluxrate (q1/A) from Figure A 7.2.5.

Step 4

If foaming is likely to occur, find the maximum allowable liquid fluxrate (q1/A) from Figure A 7.2.6.

Step 5

Calculate the minimum required horizontal cross-sectional area of the separation compartment for oil,
water flow, degassing and defoaming (step 1, 2, 3, 4 above)

Ah = q/(q/A) m²

Select the highest value of Ah above for Ahmin

Step 6

ρ o − ρg
Evaluate the term at the maximum design temperature.
ρg

Step 7

Find the maximum allowable superficial gas velocity (qg /Ag) from Figure A 7.2.7.

Step 8

Calculate the minimum required vertical cross-sectional areas above LZA (HH) for demisting:

 qg 
A g = qg /  
A 
 g 
Step 9

Evaluate the term ρw/ηw for the water phase at the maximum operating temperature.

Step 10

Find the maximum allowable velocity through the plate pack, Umax, which provides laminar flow conditions
for the selected plate type and plate spacing, see Figure A 7.2.10.

Note:

i) A 20-40 mm plate spacing is recommended.15 mm should only be considered if the feed

is clean.

ii) Flat plate packs are the preferred choice for high flowrate conditions.

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, A1 and Ag requirements.

This is an iterative process. It is usually best to start with a LZA (HH) level at 0.6D see Figure A 7.5.1. The
vessel L/D ratio should be in the range 3 to 5. For standard vessel sizes, see Figure A 7.2.2.

At this stage it may be found that the vessel diameter is unacceptably large because of high liquid
handling requirements. If so, the design can be reworked from step 9 using ρo/ηo rather than ρ w/ηw as the
design term. It should be appreciated, however, that turbulent conditions will exist in the water phase and
as a result water quality will suffer.

Once satisfactory vessel dimensions have been selected the length of the plate pack can be found from
the "rule of thumb", Lp = 0.25L

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 = 1.5 d + 0.15 m

Calculation of the inlet nozzles size, d, is covered in Figure A 7.4.2.

Height available = D - LZA(HH) m

or, if foam is expected:

Height available = D - (LZA(HH) + 0.25) m

Check 2

Check that the normal liquid level is adequately positioned, taking into account the various trip and alarm
settings (Ref. Appendix 7.5).
Check 3

For foaming crude, check sufficient gas area is still available for gas flow when the foam level is at
maximum height (about 0.25 m).

The following checks should be made to determine the critical oil and water droplet sizes removed.

Check 4

∆ U
Check the critical water droplet size such that L p ≥ •
cos α v t

Applying Stokes’ Law (App. 7.1) will result in:

0. 5
 ∆ U η 
dw ≥  • • 1 .8 o  m
 cos α L ∆ρ 
 p

Typically, dw < 100 µm.

Check 5

Check the critical oil droplet size:

0. 5
 ∆ U η 
do ≥  • • 1 .8 w  m
 cos α L ∆ρ 
 p

Typically, do < 60 µm

Plate angle is usually taken as 60°, see Section 7.2.5.1

7.2.4.3.8.Dehydration tank

The following data are required at the maximum operating temperatures:

qo , qw, ρo, ρw, ηo, ηw

The sizing routine is as follows:

Step 1

Calculate terms ∆ρ/ηo and ∆ρ/ηw for the oil and water phases respectively.

Step 2

Find the maximum allowable oil and water fluxrates (qo/A) and (qw/A) from Figures A 7.2.3 and A 7.2.1
respectively.

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. Suitable standard tank sizes are given in Figure A 7.2.11.

7.2.4.3.9 Concentric wash tank

The following data are required at the minimum operating temperatures:

qo, ρo , ρw, ηo,

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 7.2.3.

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 7.2.11.

The diameter, Do of the outer tank is then calculated using the "rule of thumb":

Do = 1.3Di
7.2.4.3.10 Electrostatic coalescers

Electrostatic coalescers are proprietary devices and sizing will be done by the vendor. However, the
following procedure should be used as a check.

Feed inlet water cut is usually restricted to 20% for AC and AC-DC units, and 10% for bi-electric units,
otherwise shortcircuiting of the grids may occur. 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, ρo, ρw , ηo

The sizing routine is as follows:

Step 1

Calculate the term ∆ρ/η o for the oil phase

Step 2

Find the maximum allowable oil fluxrate (qo/A) from Figure A 7.2.12. 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. Suitable standard sizes are given in
Figures A 7.2.13 and A 7.2.14.
7.2.5 Equipment internals and accessories

A survey of existing dehydration equipment in Group operations reveals a variety of internal devices and
accessories (baffles, spreaders, spiders, gas boots, etc.), many of unique design. This section covers the
design of preferred internals and accessories.

The internals of separators and tanks should be designed to minimise the effects of turbulence,
shortcircuiting and gas break-out. The preferred internals for each type of separator and tank are shown
in Appendix 7.3. Details of internals are shown in Appendix 7.4.

7.2.5.1. Separators (including plate separators)

Inlet devices

If there is no or little gas, the inlet device should direct the flow against the dished end of the separator.

The flow velocity through the inlet nozzle and inlet device should not exceed 1 m/s. If there is a small
amount of gas (Cg < 0.85) a half open pipe should be used. Design details are given in Figure A 7.4.1.

Three-phase separators should be fitted with a "schoepentoeter" inlet device, which promotes early
degassing. Design details are given in Figure A 7.4.2.

Flow distributor

Perforated plates in the inlet section are recommended for flow distribution and "dampening" of slugs.

The flow distributor comprises two baffles with circular holes. 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%. The gap between the plates
should be about the same as the hole diameters. A perforated plate design is given in Figure A 7.4.3.

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. A suitable sand flushing system
is shown in Figure A 7.4.4.

Liquid outlet nozzles

The flow velocity through a liquid outlet nozzle should not exceed 1 m/s. Outlets should be fitted with
vortex breakers.

Plate packs

Plate packs comprise a number of plates stacked in a parallel fashion. The plates may be flat, corrugated
or have some other profile. The actual design will depend on the vendor, see Figure A 7.4.5.

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. The base of the pack should stand clear of the vessel bottom
to allow solids to be flushed away.
7.2.5.2. Dehydration tanks

Upstream of a dehydration tank there should be a gas boot. If deep dehydration is required, consideration
should be given to the installation of a degassing tank. No degassing facilities are required upstream of
the concentric wash tank since the outer tank performs the degassing function.

In order to avoid shortcircuiting in the tank it is advisable to keep inlet and outlets as far apart as possible.
Basically there are two alternative configurations : central inlet with peripheral outlets, or a peripheral inlet
with central outlets. The latter arrangement is preferred because it spreads the feed across a large area,
which is conducive for good separation.

It is beneficial to introduce the feed stream just below the oil/water interface. The rising oil stream gently
agitates the interfacial emulsion layer which promotes coalescence. Velocities at inlet and outlet should
be kept low in order to avoid disturbances and turbulence.

Gas boot

Gas boots are designed to remove "free gas" from crude oil emulsions - the gas would otherwise disturb
the settling process. Gas boots are suitable for GORs up to 10 nm³/m³. Above this value a gas-liquid
separator sized according to the PTS is recommended. The downward liquid flow velocity should not
exceed 0.1 m/s. Design details are given in Figure A 7.4.6.

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). In that case sizing is based on the PTS
criteria for stringent degassing. Design details are given in Figure A 7.4.7.

Inlet spider

Inlet spiders are designed to spread the feed equally around the tank periphery. The number of spider
legs required increases with the tank diameter. The flow velocity in the feed line and spider legs should
not exceed 0.5 and 0.2 m/s respectively. Design details are given in Figure A 7.4.8.

Transfer ports

The transfer ports in the concentric wash tank have the same function as the spider in the conventional
wash tank. 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 7.4.9.

Water outlet

The water outlet nozzle should be fitted with a hood and vortex breaker in order to avoid shortcircuiting
and entrainment. The flow velocity in the outlet type should not exceed 1 m/s. Design details are given in
Figure A 7.4.10.

Oil collector

The oil collector should have a serrated weir, this provides equal flow distribution even if the weir is
slightly off horizontal. 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 outlet line should not exceed 1 m/s. The
diameter of oil collector is arbitrarily taken at five times the outlet line diameter. Design details are given in
Figure A 7.4.11.
7.2.6. Control and instrumentation

For good operation of a dehydration unit proper setting and control of the liquid and interface levels is
essential. This section covers the various aspects of level control for separators and dehydration tanks.

7.2.6.1. Separators (including plate separator)

Level setting

For separator levels, see Figure A 7.5.1.

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, otherwise
excessive shear will occur at the interface. Normally the ratio of velocities should not exceed 2 :1;

• the interface level should be kept well away from the oil and water withdrawal points, otherwise
entrainment may result.

In practice it is best to install a wide range interface controller. 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. Furthermore, the normal liquid level in the separation compartment should not fall
below 0.5D.

Level control requirement

The general level control requirements are given in Figure A 7.5.2. Vessel sizing (diameter) should
always be checked against these requirements. For separators with gas separation facilities the oil is
usually withdrawn from a surge compartment downstream of the weir. In most cases a weir located at
approximately one metre from the end of the vessel will provide sufficient volume for control purposes.
However, for small diameter or high flowrate vessels a (relatively) large surge compartment may be
required. In these cases it may be more attractive to design the system with a flooded weir
(see Figure A 7.5.3.)

For liquid/liquid separators with a plate pack, in the case of the formation of a relatively thick dispersion
band which may hamper proper level control, a dispersion-retaining plate can be fitted in the vessel after
the plate pack, under which water and over which dehydrated crude can flow. In this manner a sharp
oil/water interface is obtained at the end of the vessel, thus allowing good level control.

For heights, see Figure A 7.5.4.

The need for low and high level alarms and oil-water interface low level trip are largely dependent on
operating philosophy. Installation may not always be required.
Level control system

The preferred level control systems for liquid-liquid and three-phase separators are shown in
Figure A 7.5.5. The main problems are proper measurement and control of the interface.

The instruments used for interface level measurement in vessels are currently of the displacement type.
These are suitable for light/medium density crudes, with minimum ∆ρ requirement of 100 kg/m³. For
heavier crudes prototype capacitance devices have shown promise, but these are not currently available
“off the shelf”.

Interfacial level measurement devices should be installed inside the vessel and not on an external leg.
Level measurement is adversely affected by the presence of residual sludge and it is strongly advised
that interfacial drains are installed and used frequently.

7.2.6.2. Dehydration tanks

Level setting

For dehydration tank levels, see Figures A 7.5.6. and A 7.5.7.

Best operation is usually achieved with the interface level between 2.5 m to 3.0 m from the bottom of the
tank. The free liquid level should be a further 5 m above the interface level. The maximum free liquid level
(LZA(HH)) should be more than 0.2 m from the top of the tank

Level control systems

Two alternative control systems are shown in Figure A 7.5.8. Both operate with a flooded weir. The biggest
problem is good control of the interface.

Displacement type instruments can be used for light/medium density crudes (ρo < 900 kg/m³). For heavy
crudes good results have been obtained with the water syphon, see Figure A 7.5.9.
7.3 Deoiling equipment

7.3.1 General considerations

The water separated in a dehydration process always contains some oil. Depending both on the nature of
the disposal method and existing regulatory limits, if applicable, a further reduction in the hydrocarbon
content of produced water is required.

The choice and performance of a deoiler system depends on:

i) the water quality at the inlet of the treating unit;

ii) the water quality required at the outlet of the treating unit.

For the characterisation of the influent water quality, it is necessary to know both the oil concentration and
the oil droplet size distribution associated with this concentration. Selection and sizing of a particular
piece of deoiling equipment should, in principle, be based on the relationship between oil content and
cumulative droplet size distribution, since its design is based on removal of a minimum size oil droplet. All
oil droplets with smaller sizes are thus left behind in the treated water, 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 order to assess the water quality both at the inlet and outlet of a water treatment unit, samples should
be taken for further analysis of oil content and droplet size distribution (see also Chapter 3). can be done
in installed facilities for e.g. troubleshooting purposes and/or when improvement in plant performance is
required either by adjusting/modifying the equipment, or by installing additional water treatment units. In
some cases samples for further analysis can be taken from a pilot plant, which is being tested prior to
installation of the actual water treatment plant.

When selecting and designing deoiling facilities for new developments, samples for droplet size analysis
are generally not available. Moreover, in practice it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict droplet size
distributions to be treated in the facilities, and to quantify the effect on deoiling performance. In such
cases the selection of deoiling performance. In such cases the selection of deoiling equipment can be
based on a comparison with the performance of facilities installed elsewhere in the region, and
processing more or less similar crudes. Such a comparison can be supported by further laboratory testing
of artificial emulsions using representative crude samples. While the translation of results from laboratory
testing to field conditions cannot be done reliably (as discussed in Chapter 3), indications can be obtained
for potential problem areas in the deoiling of produced water associated with a particular crude.

A final choice of the required deoiling facilities of new developments is not always possible, however,
since initial emulsion properties are insufficiently known, and they may also change with progressing
reservoir depletion. Moreover, the use of chemicals in the production process (demulsifiers, biocides,
corrosion inhibitors) may stabilise an oil-in-water emulsion which is then very difficult to break. In such
cases facilities either have to be modified at a later stage, even replaced, or additional units may be
required to meet effluent quality specifications. While such modifications may not be problematic in
onshore treatment facilities, they may not be possible for facilities installed offshore. Here the initial
choice of a deoiling system is much more critical.

As to the water quality required at the outlet of the deoiling facilities, 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. All currently applied deoiling equipment in E & P operations basically relies
on simple gravity separation. With this method only the amount of dispersed oil is reduced.

Mostly a combination of gravity and secondary treatment (gas flotation/filtration, etc.) is being used to
achieve the required water quality specification. Treatment for removal of dissolved oil has so far not
been applied in E & P operations. More stringent legislation as to total oil-in-water content and/or total
organic carbon content in disposal water might, however, necessitate the application of such treatment
processes in the future.
As far as new developments are concerned, in the drive to limit space and weight requirements for in
particular offshore applications, hydrocyclones and centrifuges have been actively pursued during the
past few years. 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.

7.3.2. Equipment selection and application

In Table 7.3 selection guidelines for deoiling equipment currently applicable in E & P operations, have
been summarised together with some additional comments.
Table 7.3 – Deoiling process selection guidelines.
7.3.3 Equipment sizing

As mentioned in Section 7.1, in deoiling processes relatively large quantities of water are being handled,
containing relatively small amounts of oil. The dispersion is therefore very dilute and the oil-water
separation behaviour is reasonably well described by Stokes' Law, which therefore can be successfully
applied for the sizing of deoiling equipment. This is illustrated further in Appendix 7.1, where it is
demonstrated that the sizing of the equipment is based on the removal of oil droplets with a minimum
size, at certain conditions of temperature and flow rate.

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. The brief
technical data on hydrocyclones given in Section 7.3.3.6 is taken directly from the BWN Vortoil brochure.

7.3.3.1 Skim tanks

Skim tanks are often used as first stage oily water separator. They operate in a similar manner as
continuous dehydration tanks, but here we are concerned with the removal of oil droplets rather than
water droplets. Skim tanks are capable of removing free oil droplets and slugs of free oil (which may
occasionally inadvertently enter the water treating system). 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.

There are no recognised guidelines for the sizing of skim tanks. The design approach usually followed is
based on the selection of the minimum size of oil droplet to be removed, which is typically 150 µm as for
an API interceptor (see section 7.3.3.2).

7.3.3.2 API interceptors

The design of an API separator is based on the removal of oil droplets larger than 150 µm. The efficiency,
expressed in terms of oil removal or residual oil, will therefore depend on the nature of the feed,
particularly the oil droplet size distribution. With some effluent water the oil content may be reduced to 50-
100 g/m³ at the outlet, however, if the oil is present in the form of a fine dispersion, little change can be
anticipated between the inlet and outlet oil contents. In those cases the oily water should be treated first
with a deoiler, before it is fed to the interceptor.

For sizing of API interceptors the following procedure can be followed.

The rizing velocity v of an oil droplet relative to the water-continuous phase is given by Stokes’ Law.

200 g d2 (ρ w − ρo )
vt = (m/h)
ηw

Where g = acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s²)

-6
d = diameter of oil droplet (150 x 10 m for standard API design)

ρw = density of water kg/m³

ρo = density of oil kg/m³

ηw = viscosity of water Pa.s (see Figure 7.2)

Alternatively, the nomograph shown in Figure 7.3 can be use to evaluate v t.

Fig. 7.2 – Viscosity of water

Fig. 7.3 – Nomograph: Particle size/specific gravity difference/settling velocity in water at different
temperatures.
A maximum value is imposed on the horizontal water flow v h with the condition:

Vh ≤ 15 vt or 55 m/h (which is the smaller)

This restriction is to avoid turbulent flowing conditions.

The minimum allowable vertical cross sectional area Av is specified as

AV ≥ qw/v h (m²)

Where qw is the water flow rate m³/h.

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. A suitable value for F can be
found from Figure 7.4.

Fig. 7.4 – Derivation of empirical factor F

Having specified the cross sectional areas it is possible to specify the depth d and breadth b, which
should fall within the following ranges:

1.0 ≤ d ≤ 2.5 m
2.0 ≤ b ≤ 6.0 m
0.3 ≤ d/b ≤ 0.5
It may be necessary to split the interceptor into a number of channels. The number of channels can be
determined (taking into account that the largest vertical cross section of a channel is 6.0 x 2.5 = 15 m²) by
calculating n = Av /15 = qw/15vh (rounded up to the nearest whole number). 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.

The interceptor length may be specified to give the required horizontal cross sectional area.

7.3.3.3 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.

The performance of a plate interceptor can be adjusted by varying the plate spacing. In so far as there is
standard, plate interceptor for effluent water clean-up are often designed to remove about 95% of oil
droplets larger than 60µm, although this value can be varied by choosing different plate spacings. The
normal range for plate spacings is 20 – 40 mm. Larger spacings should be used when fouling from
suspended soilds or wax build-up is a potential problem. Inclination of the plates is normally in the range
45-60°, the steeper angles being employed when fouling from solids can be anticipated.

As to the sizing of plate interceptor, the rising velocity vt of the smallest oil droplet which is required to be
removed from the water (typically 60µm) is determined using Stokes’ Law or the nomograph in Figure 7.3.

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)

q
A=
v t . cos α
then

For a ‘standard’ corrugated plate pack with dimensions 1.0 m x 1.0 m x 1.75 m with 20 mm plate spacing
and an angle of inclination of π/4 rad (45°) (assuming 80% of the plate area is effective), 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 qw 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’).

Generally, each standard CPI pack is designed to handle a normal effluent flow of approximately
30 m³/h and maximum flow of 60 m³/h.
7.3.3.4 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. The flotation process is enhanced by upstream injection of chemical demulsifiers
and deoilers, and by chemicals which promote the formation of a stable froth on the surface. Current units
commercially available fall into two categories;

i) Induced gas units; gas is injected into the water by means of a rotating impeller.

ii) Dissolved gas units; gas is dissolved into water under pressure, then released as bubbles
by pressure reduction.

A typical dispersed or induced gas flotation (IGF) unit is the Wemco depurator (Fig. 7.5) of which several
units have been operated successfully in E & P locations since 1970

Fig. 7.5 - Induced gas flotation unit

The induced gas flotation unit is divided into four cells operating in series, with a design residence time of
1 minute per cell. Induced gas flotation units are typically designed to remove 95% of all droplets down to
a size of 15 µm.

For many applications, IGFs are used in combination (downstream) with some form of gravity separator
(API, CPI) 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 with an
oil film.

A list of standard sizes and capacities for Wemco units is given in Table 7.4.

Table 7.4 - Wemco specifications

As to the sizing of dissolved gas flotation (DGF) units, the cross-sectional area of the flotation basin is
usually based on an overflow rate (superficial velocity) of 5 m/h - which results in a retention time of 15 to
40 minutes. For example, a unit capable of processing 400 m³/h would have a cross-sectional area of
80 m². 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.

DGF units up to 150 m³/h capacity can be purchased as skid mounted packaged units. Larger units, up to
500 m³/h, can be built from prefabricated steel sections. The largest units, up to 1500 m³/h, are usually
constructed in concrete.

When typical residence times of 15-40 minutes are considered, 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.g. offshore)
7.3.3.5 Flocculation units

Suspended liquid and solid matter can be removed from water by chemical flocculation. A typical
flocculation scheme is shown in Fig. 7.6.

Figure 7.6 - Typical flocculation scheme

A flocculation unit usually consists of a mixing section followed by a floc growth section. In the first
chamber chemical coagulants are mixed with the feed. These chemicals destabilise suspended particles
and encourage them to coagulate and form microflocs. 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.

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. As a
guide, the following criteria can be used.

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 2.5 m³/h - which results in retention times of 1 to 2 hours. In general, suspended oil removal
efficiencies of 80 to 95% can be achieved.

Complete assembled packages can be purchased from several manufacturers. Factory assembled units
for flows up to 100 m³/h are available. Larger units, if constructed in steel, are generally shipped in
'knocked down' form and assembled on site. 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. Complete flocculation-sedimentation units can also be purchased and installed
on a turnkey basis.

Flocculation-flotation

The flocculation and flotation steps are normally carried out in separate units, i.e. a flocculation unit and a
DAF unit. 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.

The advantage in using flocculation-flotation instead of flocculation-sedimentation, is the overall reduction

in space requirements and chemical consumption (weighting agents not required).

Performance

The flocculation-flotation process is capable of achieving oil removal efficiencies of 80 to 95%, or even
higher. Consequently, the oil and solids concentrations in the treated water are often lower than 15 g/m³,
and 2 g/m³ has been achieved. As with the flocculation-sedimentation unit, good operation requires
reasonably constant feed conditions and buffer tanks are therefore desirable. The clarified water from the
unit is suitable for media filtration without any further treatment.

Sizing

The sizing of a flocculation unit will depend on the individual characteristics of the stream and
contaminants, however, 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 7.3.3.4

For efficient clarification of produced water it is advisable to determine optimum conditions for
destabilisation, flocculation and flotation by testing in the laboratory, e.g. pH, operating temperature, order
of addition of chemicals, etc.
7.3.3.6. Hydrocyclones

Design and sizing of hydrocyclones is proprietary information of the manufacturer BWN Vortoil. For
design/sizing of hydrocyclones advice has therefore to be sought from BWN Vortoil. Pilot plants can also
be supplied by the manufacturer for on-site testing.

Below follows a brief technical data summary of BWN Vortoil hydrocyclones, 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. 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. The 35 mm hydrocyclone is also

supplied as 1-in-1 unit.

Differential pressure

The critical differential pressure is inlet to reject, and this governs the capacity of the hydrocyclone. Some
degree of freedom is possible by using different sized reject nozzles. Minimum differential pressure
required is 4 bar for 35 mm units and 6 bar for 60 mm units.

Temperature

Separation efficiency is affected by temperature; a higher temperature results in better separation.

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; 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; even with 5-10 micron
droplets the efficiency is still significant.

Reject flow

This is typically 2% of the main water flow and results in a considerably reduced flow to the recovered oil
system. Systems can be designed to give nil nett output of oily water.

Reject flow ratio control

For large flow rates it is usual to control the reject flow at a constant ratio of the feed flow. This can be
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.
Gas break-out

Gas break-out is not of significance in deoiling because gas/liquid equilibrium is not achieved. 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.

Typical capacity and weight data

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. ppm 30 30-40 30-40

Hydrocyclones are not affected by changes in inlet concentration or flow rate.

APPENDIX 7.1 - 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.

A simple oily water separator is shown in Figure A 7.1.1. The separator consists of a rectangular tank
(length 'L', breadth 'b' and height 'h') through which the oily water flows under conditions approximating
laminar flow and leaves via a bottom outlet. 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.

Consider an oil droplet of given diameter 'd' (in m) which starts life at the bottom of the separator. If we
know the physical properties of the oil and water (density, viscosity) then the rising velocity 'v' t of the oil
droplet can be calculated using Stokes' Law:

gd2
vt = (ρ w − ρo ) m/s (1)
18 η w

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). The time ‘t1’ taken by the droplet to rise to the
surface is:

h
t1 = s
vt

and the time ‘t2’for the water to pass through the separator is given by:

L•b•h
t2 = s, where q = throughput in m³/s
q
The droplet will be intercepted if t 2 > t 1

L•b•h h
i.e. if ≥
q vt

q
or Lb ≥ m² (2)
vt

Thus we have developed a method for sizing the oily water separator, namely:

Step 1

Select the size of droplet which is required to be removed. This can be determined by analysis of
the oil droplet size distribution in the inlet stream. Alternatively, we can select a droplet size
which, from experience, gives a reasonable deoiling efficiency.

Step 2

Calculate the rising velocity of the oil droplet using Stokes' Law (equation (1)).
 Step 3

Select length and breadth of the separator which satisfy equation (2).

It is apparent from the analysis above that the settler only requires horizontal cross-section area (Lxb) - its
height is of no consequence. However, in practice the settler must have a finite height so that the water
can be withdrawn without entrainment of the oil layer.
FIGURE NO. A7.1.1 – SCHEMATIC OF A SIMPLE OILY WATER SEPARATOR.
APPENDIX 7.2 - EQUIPMENT SIZING CURVES AND TABLES

FIGURE NO. A7.2.1 – ALLOWABLE LIQUID FLUX RATES FOR TWO FWKO TANKS AND
SEPARATORS
FIGURE NO A7.2.2 – STANDARD VESSEL SIZES
FIGURE NO A7.2.3 – ALLOWABLE OIL FLUX RATES FOR TANKS AND SEPARATORS
FIGURE NO A.7.2.4 – STANDARD SIZE HEATER TREATERS
FIGURE NO A7.2.5 – ALLOWABLE LIQUID FLUX RATES FOR STRINGENT DE-GASSING
FIGURE NO A7.2.6 – ALLOWABLE LIQUID FLUX RATES FOR FOAMING CRUDES
FIGURE NO A7.2.7 – ALLOWABLE GAS VELOCITIES FOR DE-MISTING
FIGURE NO A7.2.8 – ALLOWABLE OIL FLUX RATES FOR PLATES SEPARATORS
FIGURE NO A7.2.9 - ALLOWABLE WATER FLUX RATES FOR PLATE SEPARATORS
FIGURE NO A7.2.10 – ALLOWABLE FLOW VELOCITIES FOR PLATE SEPARATORS
FIGURE NO A7.2.11 – STANDARD VERTICAL TANK SIZES
FIGURE NO A7.2.12 – ALLOWABLE OIL FLUX RATES FOR ELECTROSTATIC COALESCERS
b) System performance

The dehydration efficiency is good and in general export crude contains less than 0.1% (vol.) water.
However, 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.

b) Relatively small volumes of water (CHPS and slops water) which contribute significantly to the overall
oil-in-water content of the terminal effluent. Special treatment of this water would improve overall
system performance.

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, Wemco and API) impact on the performance
of the emulsion and sludge treatment plant (Fig. 8.13). This recycling tends to result in a build-up of solids
and tight emulsions within the system.

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. The oil content of the milky water (LHW), 1500 g/m³ very finely dispersed oil, is reduced to
20 g/m³ (total oil). It should be noted that this plant was installed following extensive pilot testing. Note: A
new demulsifier will shortly be introduced which, in a field trial, reduced the oil content of the milky water
from 1500 g/m³ to less than 400 g/m³. The DAF unit requires extensive operator attention to achieve good
results (more so than the Wemco).

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, T120 for land heavy crude and T130 for
land light crude in March 1988.

As a result to their satisfactory operation, it is proposed to convert the remaining dehydration facilities
from batch to continuous operation.

In the case of the condensate stream, this will be dehydrated in three-phase separators in the new
condensate stabilisation plant presently (1988) being designed.
Fig. 8.13 - Seria Terminal, emulsion treatment facilities

8.5.7 SSB/SSPC

a) Description of dehydration and deoiling facilities

The offshore oil fields in Sarawak and Sabah produce light, waxy crude. In the field the crude is fully
degassed and demulsifier chemicals are added. Wet crude is dehydrated in the Lutong, Labuan and
Bintulu terminals prior to export by tanker. At these terminals the producing water is treated and disposed
of into the sea. The facilities at each terminal are essentially the same as at the Lutong terminal, which is
described below.

The atmospherically stabilised oil production enters the terminal via four different trunklines. The streams
are passed through FWKO vessels and discharged into crude receiving tanks, which are used as batch
dehydration tank as. Water is drained from the tank bottoms immediately after a particular tank has been
filled. Subsequently, interfacial emulsion is pumped to the emulsion hold-up (T41). The water drained
from the FWKOs and the crude receiving tanks is passed through the water treatment plant
(see Fig. 8.14). Interfacial emulsions together with skimmings of the API, CPI, Wemco and holding basin
are further treated in the emulsion and wax treatment plant (EWTP).

The oily water from FWKO vessels, crude-receiving tanks, storage tanks, tank T41, EWTP and the sump
pit is drained into the API oil interceptor , from where it flows through a corrugated plate interceptor
(CPI-1), induced gas flotation (Wemco) and holding basin. 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 8.14 refers).
The waterflow through the effluent treatment plant (ETP) is by gravity. The skimming of the API and TPI
interceptors as well as from the Wemco are collected in a sump pit. The top layer of this pit is periodically
(level control) pumped via TPI-2 sump to T-41, the emulsion holding tank, for processing in the emulsion
and wax treatment plant (EWTP). Skimmed oil and water from the holding basin follows the same route.

Fig. 8.14 – Lutong water treament plant

b) System performance

Dehydration efficiency in all three terminals is good and export specifications of less than 0.3 to 0.5% v
(depending on the terminal) water are always met. However, the quality of the effluent water is relatively
poor, although in the offshore discharge situation the oil content criteria (measured by IR method) is met
most of the time. It is noted that water discharge in all three terminals were only recently relocated to an
offshore location (as from January 1988). Before this modification criteria for inshore disposal (Bintulu,
Labuan) and onshore disposal were always exceeded because of the stringent statutory requirements.
-3
These included limits for oil content (10 g.m ), BOD/COD, phenols, sulphide and total suspended solids.

Free water knockout vessels are used in two terminals (Bintulu has none). The design capacity is
12,000 m³/day (75,000 bbls/day). Performance under normal operating conditions at present shows
efficiencies as high as 70%. This is a marked improvement from the 20-30% efficiencies recorded before
the (three) vessels at Lutong terminal were modified. These vessels were installed for three phase
separation with a weir. At present, 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. Water is
drained through an (enlarged) bottom nozzle, whereas the residual emulsion leaves the vessel at the top.
The performance of SSB/SSPC's water treatment and emulsion/wax treatment plants is inadequate for
the following reasons:

• Flow surges in the ETP. A continuous stream of FWKO water (some 5000 m³/day) is passed to the
ETP. Water from the dehydration tanks, operating batch-wise, however, causes large surges into the
ETP.
• Over draining of dehydration tanks. Frequent over draining of the dehydration tanks causes overload
to the ETP of emulsion and crude oil. This is inherent to the operating practice to drain the tanks till
emulsion is observed at the API separator, only than routing further (emulsion) draining to the
emulsion holding tank (T-41). 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.
• Recycling of skimmings to the EWTP (via T-41) and subsequent routine of oil discharge (containing
solids/sludge) to the incoming crude oil stream.
•
-3 -3
Routine of poor quality EWTP water (up to 2000 g.m oil, 800 g.m solids) to ETP. This is further
aggravated by the presence of acetic acid which is used as demulsifier for the EWTP treated sludge.

The poor performance of the Wemco unit is attributed to flow surges, solids content of the feed, low oil
droplet size (distribution) and, in particular, the poor level control in the unit.
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.m in the water. 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". Furthermore, oleophilic FeS is covered by oil and has an almost neutral buoyancy.

8.5.8 Thailand-Sirikit field

The output from the Sirikit field originates from some 40 production strings, ranging in productivity from
13 to 175 m³/d and FTHPs ranging from 400 to 10,000 kPa. 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. The wells are located at
nine locations where they are choked and manifolded into 6" flowlines to the Lan Krabu production
station. Depending on their FTHP, the wells produce either into a high pressure (HP), low pressure (LP)
or low-low pressure (LLP) flowline. At the Lan Krabu production station the flowlines from the various well
sites are manifolded and routed to an HP, LP and LLP gas/liquid separator operating at 2000, 550 and
140 kPa respectively (see Fig. 8.15a).

The lengths of the flowlines vary from 350 m to ± 7 km. Pressure drops of 70-700 kPa are experienced
over the flowlines.

With increasing watercuts in producing wells, problems were experienced at the Lan Krabu production
station with crude oil dehydration. In order for Thai Shell to meet the contractual obligation of 0.5%
maximum BS&W in the crude export, the operating temperatures of the LLP separator and stock tank
had to be increased above the cloud point to about 65°C. Because of the limited LLP compressor capacity
and flashed gas from the stock tank, an oil loss of about 64 m³/d was estimated, i.e. a loss in revenue of
6
some US $2.9 x 10 /year at the crude price of US $20/bbl.

An investigation was made to identify possible means of recovering the oil losses, 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;

ii) cool the export crude to 45 °C and reroute the condensates from compressor discharges into the
crude storage tanks (see Fig. 8.15b).
Fig. 8.15a – Lan Krabu production station

Fig. 8.15b – Lan Krabu production station, proposed modifications

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following gives a selection of EP reports and other notes/reports of relevance for the contents of this
Manual. References have been grouped according to a specific subject heading, but many are
appropriate to other headings as well. It goes without saying that the listing of references is not
exhaustive, and references given in a particular note or report may also be usefully consulted.

Headings used are as follows:

1. Dehydration/deoiling/emulsion - general
2. Dehydration/deoiling/emulsions - field specific.
3. Laboratory studies/methods
4. Fact-finding studies
5. Dehydration equipment and processes
6. Deoiling equipment and processes
7. Produced water and sludge disposal

1. DEHYDRATION/DEOILING/EMULSIONS - GENERAL

Bansbach, P.L.
THE HOW AND WHY OF EMULSIONS
The Oil and Gas Journal, pg. 87, 7 September 1970

Barnea, E.and Mizrahi, J

SEPARATION MECHANISM OF LIQUID-LIQUID DISPERSIONS IN A DEEP-LAYER GRAVITY
SETTLER:
Part I - The structure of the dispersion band
Part II - Flow patterns of the dispersed and continuous phases within the dispersion band
Part III - Hindered settling and drop-to-drop coalescence in the dispersion band
Part IV - Continuous settler characteristics
Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs., Vol. 53, 1975.

Becker, P. (editor)
ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF EMULSION TECHNOLOGY
Volumes I and II, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1983.

Berger, P.D.; Hsu, C. and Arendell, J.P.

DESIGNING AND SELECTING DEMULSIFIERS FOR OPTIMUM FIELD
PERFORMANCE BASED ON PRODUCTION FLUID CHARACTERISTICS SPE 16285, February 1987.

Clay, P.H.
THE MECHANISM OF EMULSION FORMATION IN TURBULENT FLOW
Proc. Royal Acad. Sci. (Amsterdam), Vol. 43, 1940, pgs. 852 and 979.

Daalen, van
DEHYDRATION OF CRUDE OIL AND DEOILING OF EFFLUENT WATER Report EP-44311, April 1973.
EP/23.22
INTRODUCTION TO DEHYDRATION AND DEOILING
SIPM Report, January 1985
Hartland, S
COALESCENCE IN LIQUID-LIQUID DISPERSIONS
Separation Processes Service, State of the Art Report,
November 1985. Report MF 86-0853

Hinze, J.O
FUNDAMENTALS OF THE HYDRODYNAMIC MECHANISM OF SPLITTING IN DISPERSION
PROCESSES
A.I.Ch.E. Journal, September 1955, 289-95

Hodgson, T.D
COALESCENCE DEVICES FOR LIQUID-LIQUID SYSTEMS
Separation processes service, state of the Art report, April 1976 Report MF80-0697.

Martin, P.D. and Hartland, S.

DESIGN OF SIMPLE GRAVITY SETTLERS FOR THE COALESCENCE OF LIQUID-LIQUID
DISPERSIONS
Separation Processes Service Report, March 1985.

Meijs, F.H.
SUMMARY ON CRUDE-OIL DEHYDRATION
KSEPL report, February 1969.

Meijs, F.H. and Mitchell, R.W

STUDIES ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF COALESCENCE CONDITIONS OF OIL FIELD EMULSIONS
SPE 4356, May 1973.

Mitchell, R.W.
DEOILING CHEMICALS FOR CRUDE OIL-IN-WATER EMULSIONS
Report EP-45055 (rkgr.0073.73), April 1973.

Poelgeest, F. van and Meijs, F.H.

STUDY OF OIL-IN-WATER EMULSION IN CONNECTION WITH DEHYDRATION OF HEAVY CRUDE
OILS
Report EP-42194 (RKGR. 0071.70), December 1970

Shinnar, R. and Church, J.M

PREDICTING PARTICLE SIZE IN AGITATED DISPERSIONS
Ind. and Eng. Chem., March 1960, 52, 253

SIPM Water Injection Panel

WATER INJECITON MANUAL
Report EP-63600, August 1965

SIPM Production Division

PRODUCTION HANDBOOK

Sleicher, C.A
MAXIMUM STABLE DROP SIZE IN TURBULENT FLOW
A I.Ch.E. Journal, Vol. 8, September 1962, p.471

Ward, J.P. and Knudsen, J.G

TURBULENT FLOW OF UNSTABLE LIQUID-LIQUID DISPERSIONS: DROP SIZE AND VELOCITY
DISTRIBUTIONS
A.I.Ch.E. Journal, Vol. 13, No. 2, March 1967, p. 356.
2. DEHYDRATION/DEOILING/EMULSION - FIELD SPECIFIC
Aberson, G.; Kuyvenhoven, C.A.T. and Bohm, J.T.C.
DEHYDRATION AND VISCOSITY OF RIMA AND JALMUD CRUDE OIL
EMULSIONS. Report EP-53135 (RKOR).80.216), December 1980

Bieshaar, S.C.A
A LABORATORY STUDY IN CONNECTIION WITH ABU DHABI CRUDE OIL
DEHYDRATION/DESALINATION PROBLEMS
Report EP-45684 (RKTR. 0096.74), April 1974

Bohm, J.T.C. and Glas, J

INTERIM REPORT ON THE CHEMICAL DESTABILISATION OF S.W. AMPA
CRUDE OIL EMULSIONS
Report EP-48389 (RKOR. 0017.77), April 1978

Bohm, J.T.C.
DESTABILISATION OF S.W. AMPA CRUDE OIL EMULSIONS
Report EP-50014 (RKOR.0050.78), December 1978

Bohm, J.T.C
DEHYDRATION, AND VISCOSITY AMAL/MARMUL CRUDE OIL EMULSIONS
Report EP-50567 (RKOR.0050.78), December 1978

Bohm, J.T.C.
DEHYDRATION, AND VISCOSITY OF SOUTH OMAN CRUDE OIL EMULSIONS
Report EP-51562 (RKOR.79.062), October 1979.

Hamersma, P.J. and Ankone, J.W.

DEHYDRATION, DEOILING AND SAMPLE CHARACTERISATION TESTS OF TERN CRUDE OIL
(210/25A-5) Report EP-60616 (RKOR.84.008), April 1984.

IPT/3 (Shell Gabon, Port-Gentil, Gamba)

RABI CRUDE OIL DEHYDRATION STUDY (BOTTLE TEST PROCEDURE)
Report EP 86-1041A, November 1986.

IPT/3 (Shell Gabon, Port-Gentil, Gamba)

RABI AND GAMBA/IVINGA COMMINGLED DEHYDRATION/DESALINATION (BOTTLE TEST
PROCEDURE)
Report EP 87-0503, January 1987.

IPT/3 (Shell Gabon, Port-Gentil,Gamba)

RABI CRUDE DEHYDRATION STUDY : COMPARISON RABI AND Ga/Iv
DEHYDRATION/DESALINATION (BOTTLE TEST PROCEDURE)
Report EP 87-0503, January 1987.

Kuyvenhoven, C.A.T. and Mandersloot, W.A.J

FOAMING AND EMULSION CHARACTERISTICS OF TROLL CRUDE OIL
Report EP-58438 (RKOR. 83.025), May 1983.

Kuyvenhoven, C.A.T. and Mandersloot, W.A.J.

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE DEHYDRATION BEHAVIOUR OF LABORATORY- PREPARED AND
ACTUALLY PRODUCED TROLL CRUDE OIL EMULSIONS
Report EP-61159 (RKOR.84.027), August 1984.
Kuyvenhoven, C.A.T.
BOHAI BAY BZ-28-1-7/BZ-34-2-2, DEHYDRATION STUDY
KSEPL Note for File, September 1985

Kwant, J.W.H.
DEHYDRATION OF SLUDGE SEPARATING CRUDE WITH ACID AND NON-ACID DEMULSIFIERS
Report EP-52118 (PE note No.80.03,BSP), February 1980

Linden, B.H.J. van and Mandersloot W.A.J.

DEHYDRATION, DEOILING AND VISCOSITY OF TERN AND EIDER CRUDE OIL EMULSIONS
Report EP-57982 (RKOR. 83.011), April 1983.

Mandersloot, W.A.J.
VISCOSITY OF NIMR/RUNIB CRUDE OIL EMULSIONS
Report EP-57479, November 1982.

Mandersloot, W.A.J.
DESALINATION AND DEHYDRATION OF LUCINA CRUDE OIL EMULSIONS
Report EP-57479, January 1983.

Mandersloot, W.A.J.
DUNLIN FIELD TESTS: A DESCRIPTION OF THE PRODUCED EMULSIONS
Report EP-63932 (RKOR.85.036), June 1986.

Mandersloot, W.A.J. and Stadt, M.E. van de

DEHYDRATION TESTS AT THE AUK-A PLATFORM, PERFORMANCE OF FACILITIES AND
CORRELATION WITH THEORY AND LAB-TESTS Report EP-65632 (RKOR.85.036), June 1986.

Michels, A.M. and Eijlander, J.G.R

INVESTIGATION INTO THE STABLISING FACTORS OF S.W. AMPA/FAIRLEY CRUDE OIL
EMULSIONS
Report EP-52955 (RKGR.80.049), July 1980

Mitchell, R.W.
LABORATORY STUDY OF DEHYDRATION AND DESALTING PROBLEM ASSOCIATED WITH GAMBA
AND IVINGA CRUDES
Report EP-43754 (RKTR. 0058.72), April 1972

Mitchell, R.W. and Glas, J

A LABORATORY STUDY OF POSSIBLE DEHYDRATION AND WATER-TREATMENT PROBLEMS IN
HANDLING BRENT OIL WITH THE SPAR UNIT
Report EP-44632 (RKTR.0119.73), April 1973

Molenaar, H.J. and Stadt, M.E. van de

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FROM DEHYDRATION TESTS OF DRAUGEN CRUDE OIL (WELL 6407/9-
3) EMULSIONS
Report EP 87-2044 (RKER.87.245), August 1987

Smit, W.H.
DYNAMIC COALESCER EXPERIMENTS WITH SCHOONEBEEK CRUDE-OIL EMULSION, THE
NETHERLANDS
Report EP-45659 (NAM-TM Report no.5559), April 1974.
3. LABORATORY STUDIES/METHODS
Aberson, G.
REVIEW OF MAIN TECHNIQUES FOR PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS APPLICABLE TO EMULSIONS
Report EP-50355 (RKSR.0039.78), December 1978

Annual Book of ASTM Standards

Section 5: PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, LUBRICANTS AND FOSSIL FUELS
ASTM, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, USA

Annual Edition of IP Standards for Petroleum and its Products, Methods for Analysis and Testing
The Institute of Petroleum, London

Hamersma, P.J. and Ankone, J.W

A THREE-PARAMETER FUNCTION DESCRIBING THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OBTAINED FROM
DEHYDRATION AND SOME PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY RELATED TESTS IRN 334, KSEPL,
July 1984.

Int. Math. and Stat. Library (IMSL), Col., Routine name ZXSSQ, Houston, Texas

Karabeles, A.J.
TURBULENT PIPE FLOW OF DILUTE LIQUID-LIQUID DISPERSIONS, DROP SIZES AND CRITERIA
FOR HOMOGENEOUS BS&W DISTRIBUTION
Report EP-48081 (Technical Progress Report WRC 197-76, Shell Development Company),
December 1976.

Mandersloot, W.A.J. and Stadt, M.E. van de

INSTRUCTION MANUAL TRANSPARENT PRESSURE-SAMPLING BOTTLE FOR ON-LINE STABILITY
TESTS OF OIL/WATER MIXTURES IN PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
Report EP-63911 (RKMR.85.012), August 1985

Mandersloot, W.A.J. and Stadt, M.E. van de

GUIDELINES FOR LABORATORY DEHYDRATION TESTS Report EP-64496 (RKGR.85.131),
November 1985.

Meijs, F.H and Beest, W.J. van

FLOW-INDUCED COALESCENCE IN CHEMICAL DEHYDRATION
Report EP-42848 (RKGR. 0055.71), July 1971

Meijs, F.H. and Poelgeest, F. van

A NEW DEMULSIFIER TEST METHOD BASED ON THE DYNAMIC COALESCER
Report EP-42848 (RKGR. 0055.71), July 1971

Mitchell, R.W. and Glas, J.

INSTRUCTION MANUAL - OPERATION OF THE DYNAMIC COALESCER
RKSR. 0013.72, June 1972.

Molenaar, H.J
PRESSURE-REGULATED EMULSIFICATION - A NEW EMULSIFICATION METHOD
KSEPL Note RKRS.87.04., April 1987

Nederveen, N
WATERCUT SAMPLING FROM MULTIPHASE FLOWLINES
Paper 5/08, prepared for the 1986 SIPM Production Technology Conference.

Scheers, A.M.
SHORT EVALUATION OF THE HORIBA OCMA 25 OIL-IN-WATER MONITOR
Report EP-60787 (RKTR. 84.152), May 1984
Staa, R. van
SEPARATION OF OIL FROM WATER
Paper Eur 278, presented at the European Petroleum Conference, London, 25,28 October 1982

Strickland, W.T. Jr.

GAS FLOTATION OF PRODUCED WATER
Technical progress Report BRC-EP 26-75-P
Report EP-47155, November 1975

Strickland, W.T. Jr.

LABORATORY RESULTS CLEANING PRODUCED WATER BY GAS FLOTATION
Report EP-50926, July 1979

Velden, J. 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, Scottish
Branch, Aberdeen, 23 September 1986

Weve, D.N.M.M
COMPACT EQUIPMENT FOR DEHYDRATION AND DEOLING
Paper no. 5/04, prepared for the 1986 SIPM Production Technology Conference

Zemel, B
EFFICIENT SEPARATORS SHOW GOOD HYDRAULIC BEHAVIOUR
Oil and Gas Journal, December 1977

7. PRODUCED WATER AND SLUDGE DISPOSAL

CONCAWE
DETERMINATION OF HYDROCARBON IN AQUEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM THE OIL INDUSTRY BY
INFRARED ANALYSIS
Report No. 1/84, March 1984

E & P Forum
REVIEW OF DISCHARGES FROM OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION PLATFORMS INTO THE
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
March 1979

E & P Forum, Sub-committee F

THE ESTIMATION OF OIL-IN-WATER WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON PRODUCTION ON WATER
DISCHARGES
June 1979

E & P Forum
THE NATURE, TREATMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF GAS PLATFORM
DISCHARGES
Report No. 2.4/144, December 1987

MF-3.48
COURSE ON EFFLUENT WATER TREATMENT
i) An introduction to waste water treatment definitions and glossary.
ii) Handling and disposal of refinery sludges
NEN 6674 (Nederlandse Norm)
WASTE WATER-DETERMINATION OF MINERAL OIL BY INFRARED SPECTROPHOTOMETRY
January 1981

Oldham, G.F.
METHODS OF ANALYSIS AND SAMPLING OF OIL-IN-WATER
E & P Forum paper, presented at the Seminar or Aspects of the Prevention of Oil Pollution in the
Mediterranean Sea, Athens, 11-13 February 1985

Read, A.D. and Blackman, R.A.A

OILY WATER DISCHARGES FROM OFFSHORE NORTH SEA INSTALLATIONS:
A PERSPECTIVE Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 11, pp, 44-47, February 1980

Read, A.D. (E & P Forum)

THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARCOM PROVISIONAL TARGET STANDARD
Report No. 2.43/143, December 1987

SIPM EP/23.5
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF E&P ACTIVITIES - GENERAL GUIDELINES
Report EP-61240, March 1986

Somerville, H.J. et al.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT OF PRODUCED WATER FROM NORTH SEA OIL OPERATIONS
Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 18, No. 10, pp. 549-558, 1987

Tan, G.P.B.
PILOT SLUDGE FARMING PROJECT - First cultivation cycle

Sarawak Shell Berhad, June 1980

UETA/22 (Shell Expro)
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF OFFSHORE WATER INJECTION
Report EP-61212, February 1985