Comparing North Sea and Deepwater Gulf

of Mexico Produced-Water-Treating Systems

I n terms of platform technologies

and extraction strategies, there are
fundamental differences between the
North Sea and the deepwater Gulf of
Mexico (GOM). We consider these
systems in light of best practices in
water-treating-system design and
consider the reasons for deviation from
those practices. This process provides
insight into the design of water-treating
systems in general, emphasizing the
importance of carrying out effective
water treatment early in the process and
the necessity of using large end-of-pipe
equipment when this is not possible.
Introduction
Generally speaking, there is a percep-
tion that water-treating systems in the
North Sea are different from those in the
deepwater GOM. Specifically, North Sea
systems involve greater use of hydrocy-
clones, with either no flotation or com-
pact vertical flotation. Deepwater GOM
systems are associated with the use of hy-
drocyclones (but to a lesser degree than
in the North Sea) and the use of large hor-
izontal multistage flotation. While these
differences are often noted, even greater
differences are observed by considering
the oil/water/gas-separation system as a
whole. The oil/water-separation system
includes dehydration of oil and deoil-
ing of water. From the standpoint of the
overall integrated oil/water-­separation
system, the water-treating system is
only a part. If a water-treating system
is considered an add-on to the overall
separation-system (oil/water/gas) de-
This article, written by JPT Technology Editor Chris Carpenter, contains highlights of
paper SPE 159713, “Produced-Water-Treating Systems: Comparison Between North
Sea and Deepwater Gulf of Mexico” by J.M. Walsh, SPE, Shell, and W.J. Georgie,
SPE, Maxoil Solutions, prepared for the 2012 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8–10 October. The paper has not been
peer reviewed.
sign, rather than an integral part, then
it will invariably be tasked with a much
more difficult challenge (smaller drop-
lets, more-stable emulsions). In that
case, it will require large multistage flo-
tation and perhaps tertiary end-of-pipe
equipment such as media treatment
or filtration.
As shown in Fig. 1, a typical North
Sea oil/water-treating system consists
of inlet heating where necessary (not
shown), followed by first-stage three-
phase separation. The produced water
is separated from the first-stage separa-
tion with enough pressure and is treated
through hydrocyclone units.
As shown in Fig. 2, typical deep-
water GOM oil/water systems consist of
one- or two-stage two-phase separation,
followed by three-phase separation. Inlet
heating is often not used. The produced
water is separated toward the end of the
process at lower operating pressure. The
produced water is processed through hy-
drocyclones through a common collect-
ing vessel operated at a lower pressure
and, in many cases, a lower temperature.
The main features of North Sea sys-
tems can be summarized as follows:
◗◗Relatively more weight and space
available than in the deepwater
GOM
◗◗Relatively high arrival
temperature or heat added
upstream
◗◗Several primary separators to
segregate incompatible fluids
◗◗Three-phase primary separators
◗◗Hydrocyclones on every
horizontal separator
◗◗Hydrocyclones used upstream
(on aforementioned three-
phase separators), providing
greater driving force for
separation
◗◗Infrequent use of hydrate
inhibitors during steady-state
operation
◗◗Slightly more corrosive fluids
(higher CO2 and H2S) and hence
greater use of corrosion inhibitor
◗◗Flotation flocculant added
upstream of degassing vessel and
downstream of any valves
◗◗Typically compact and vertical
flotation (if present)
The main features of deepwater GOM
systems can be summarized as follows:
◗◗Relatively less weight and space
available than in the North Sea
◗◗Heat added downstream of the
produced-water-separation
vessels
◗◗Few primary separators (cannot
segregate crude oils and water)
◗◗Small, two-phase primary
separators (sized for degassing)
with no hydrocyclones on water
discharge, meaning that the
hydrocyclone units are operated
at a lower-pressure operating
limit
◗◗Treated produced water with
a higher range of smaller oil
droplets of less than 10 μm
◗◗Moderately heavy use of hydrate
inhibitors and other flow-
assurance chemicals
◗◗Large multistage horizontal
flotation
Best Practice in Design
of Water-Treating-Process
Lineups
The term “best practices” here refers
only to removing oil from water. This
is a very narrow definition, which does

For a limited time, the complete paper is free to SPE members at www.spe.org/jpt.

JPT • DECEMBER 2013 125

WM159713.indd 125 11/13/13 8:51 AM

 Wells
Wells
Wells
Fig. 1—Typical North Sea oil/water-separation system.
not include capital cost, operating cost,
schedule, operability, footprint, or
weight. All of these factors typically, and
in many cases justifiably, account for de-
viation from best practices.
In general, the design of a water-
treating system takes the following into
consideration:
◗◗Separation efficiency of
equipment and process lineup
◗◗Capital expenses and operating
expenses (cost of equipment,
interconnections, chemicals, and
consumables)
◗◗Reliability, availability, and
maintenance
◗◗Weight and space
◗◗Equipment availability (project
schedule)
In theory, the term “best practice”
would include all of the preceding fac-
tors. However, many of these elements
are project specific, or depend on the
local regulations or the financial con-
straints imposed on a project owing to a
particular business cycle.
The following best practices for re-
moving oil from water are given in the
case where there are no other constraints
on the design of the system.
1. Minimize inlet shear.
2. Apply heat upstream.
126
WM159713.indd 126
Primary Water Stream
Reject/Recycle Oily Water
Degassing
Vessel
3. Prevent solids production;
separate and remove solids.
4. Minimize the use of hydrate
inhibitor.
5. Minimize the use of corrosion
inhibitor.
6. Separate water early in the
process.
7. Provide an effective rejects-
handling system.
8. Provide an effective chemical-
treating system.
9. Provide an effective monitoring
and control system.
Water-Treating-Process
Lineups
The following field cases provide the ini-
tial basis upon which to understand the
link between the process lineup and the
effluent water quality. (For descriptions
of more field cases from the North Sea
and the GOM, as well as a discussion of
the use of modeling tools to describe
systemic differences in a quantitative
manner, please see the complete paper.)
The process lineup has a profound ef-
fect on the final effluent water quality.
This is particularly true for offshore in-
stallations, where space and weight are
constrained. In addition to the process
lineup, the fluid properties, chemical-
treating program, and operations strat-
Oil to
Dry-Oil Tank
Two-Stage
Compact
Flotation
Overboard
Discharge
egy have important effects on final efflu-
ent quality.
North Sea. Field A. High-pressure wells
(21-barg arrival pressure) are processed
in a two-stage separator train compris-
ing three-phase separators. Oily water
is discharged from the first-stage sepa-
rator and processed through hydrocy-
clones. Low-pressure wells (11-barg ar-
rival pressure) are processed in a single
three-phase separator. Oily water is dis-
charged from the separator and pro-
cessed through hydrocyclones.
Thus, all production is routed
through three-phase separators, with
hydrocyclones on the water discharge.
The effluent from all hydrocyclones is
routed to a produced-water flash tank
and then discharged to the sea. Typ-
ical oil-discharge quality is 2% basic
sediment and water (BS&W). Typical
water-discharge quality is 20- to 40-mg/L
oil content.
Field B. Oil is processed in two par-
allel separator trains, both with three
stages, comprising three-phase separa-
tors exclusively. First-stage separators
are operated at 56 barg and second-
stage separators at 15 barg. Third-party
oil production is also produced in the
same production trains, entering at the
second stage. Produced water is taken
JPT • DECEMBER 2013
11/13/13 8:51 AM

Primary
Direct Vertical Access
or Subsea Wells
Fig. 2—Typical deepwater GOM oil/water-separation system.
from all first- and second-stage sepa-
rators and is treated in hydrocyclones,
produced-water flash tanks, and flota-
tion cells before discharge to sea. Typi-
cal oil quality to storage cells is 0.7%
BS&W. Typical discharged-produced-­
water quality is 10 to 20 ppm oil content.
Field C. The oil is “medium-heavy
oil” and is heated between first- and
second-stage separators to achieve de-
sired separation (from approximately
50°C to 70°C). The oil is processed in
one separation train with four stages,
with an electrostatic coalescer as the last
stage. All separators are three-phase,
with hydrocyclones on the water dis-
charge. The first-stage separator is op-
erated at 14 barg and the second stage
at 10 barg. Produced water is separated
from the first- and second-stage separa-
tors and is treated in hydrocyclones, a
produced-water flash tank, and a com-
pact flotation unit before discharge to
sea. Typical oil-export quality is 0.5%
BS&W. Typical discharged-produced-
water quality is less than 10 ppm oil con-
tent (oil-droplet size is D50<13 μm for
all hydrocyclone inlets).
GOM. Field A. This field was one of the
first deepwater platforms in the world.
Because of capital constraints, it was
deployed without water-treating equip-
128
WM159713.indd 128
Primary Water Stream
Reject/Recycle Oily Water
Gas
Gas
Free-Water
Knockout
Hydrocyclone
Oily Water
ment. All inlet separators were relatively
small two-phase vessels with high flux
rates and short residence time. Incoming
fluids were relatively cool (30 to 50°C),
and heat was added only downstream for
crude-oil vapor-pressure control.
For the first few years of opera-
tion, all water-producing wells were
shut in. This was a reasonable strategy
for several years because initial produc-
tion remained essentially dry. However,
when water production did commence,
it rose rapidly to approximately 20%.
During an 18-month period, roughly
16,000  BOPD was shut in because of
an inability of the facilities to treat the
water. This equated to roughly 8 mil-
lion bbl of oil deferred. During this time,
a project was executed to install, and
shortly thereafter to expand, the water-
treating system.
The water-treating-process lineup
eventually included the conversion of
one of the two-phase primary separators
to a three-phase vessel with the addi-
tion of hydrocyclones. A produced-­water
flash tank was installed downstream of
the hydrocyclones. A multistage hori-
zontal flotation unit was also installed.
Field B. The process lineup for this
field is typical of the deepwater GOM. As
a general design strategy for this field,
the high-pressure and intermediate-
Gas
Flotation
Sump
System
Wet-Oil Oil to
Tank Dry-Oil
Tank
Overboard
Discharge
pressure separators are two-phase, with
short residence times (and therefore
high flux rates). The free-water knock-
out is three-phase but is also designed
with a short residence time. Hydrocy-
clones were installed only downstream,
and heat was added only downstream.
Thus, the topside design was quite com-
pact, like that of its predecessor, Plat-
form A.
Reject from the hydrocyclones is fed
to the wet-oil tank. Reject from the flo-
tation unit is fed to a slops-oil tank and
then to the wet-oil tank. Reject from the
slops tank is fed to the dry-oil tank, from
which it is then exported along with
the platform produced oil. The slops-
oil tank was used to degas the flotation
reject stream and to separate oil, which
could then be pumped to the dry-oil
tank. Oily water from the slops-oil tank
was pumped to the wet-oil tank.
Because of tight capital constraints,
minimal flowline insulation was used.
The typical hydrate-control strategy was
to use methanol on startup. This had an
adverse effect on water quality.
Historically, the average oil-in-­
water concentration is near 20 mg/L,
and only a few sheens occur per year.
The hydrocyclones operated at 70% ef-
ficiency, and the flotation unit operated
at 90% ­efficiency. JPT
JPT • DECEMBER 2013
11/13/13 8:51 AM