1.

BACKGROUND OF STUDY
In crude oil recovery, water is injected into the stratum to drive the crude oil to the surface. This
process is called water flooding injection. Unfortunately, after the water flooding injection has
been performed for certain period of time, the oil content decreases (Liu, Zhao, Dong, Miao, &
Du, 2007). In order to improve the oil recovery process, Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery
(CEOR) is introduced. CEOR is a combination of surfactant and polymer (SP), or, alkaline,
surfactant, polymer (ASP) or any variations of these injection processes. ASP flooding is an
important technology in the tertiary oil extraction since it can increase the oil recovery by 20%
(Deng et al., 2002; Wang et al., 2011). During this ASP flooding application, the breakthrough of
the injected chemicals may occur in the produced water resulting in high viscosity aqueous
containing small oil droplets (Liu et al., 2007), forming a stable emulsion (Dalmazzone, Nok, &
Argillier, 2012). As a result, the produced water from ASP flooding is hard to treat compared to
the produced water from the water flooding. Direct discharge of the ASP produced water must
comply with the certain level limits of the oil content in the effluents. In order to fulfill this
requirement, there are many technologies that have been developed for the produced water
treatment. In an older produced water treatment installation, large-volume plate separator and
gas flotation units were used (Husveg, Johansen, & Bilstad, 2007). However, footprint has
become a critical factor for the installation on the offshore platform. Thus, a simple, low energy
and compact size must be employed for the offshore produced water treatment (Judd et al.,
2014).
Basically, the produced water treatment consists of primary treatment, secondary treatment and
tertiary treatment. The purpose of primary treatment is to remove large oil droplets and coarse
particles while for secondary treatment, the purpose is to remove small oil droplets and fine
particles. Tertiary treatment targets less than 5microns of oil diameter and very fine particles
(Sueyoshi, Tasaki, Kojima, Corporation, & Okamura, 2014). For primary treatment,
hydrocyclone is used while flotation is used in the secondary treatment as shown in Figure 1.
The mechanism of the oil removal in hydrocyclone and flotation equipment usually depends on
the droplet buoyancy. The fundamental design of these two equipment are derived from Stokes
Law as shown in Equation 1 (Stewart & Arnold, 2008).
2

2 R ( 2 1 ) g
v=
9

(Equation 1)

where the removal of oil drops (v) is proportional to the drop radius squared (R 2). The density
difference between oil and water (2 1) is inversely proportional to the viscosity of the water
() and gravitational constant is given by g.

Figure 1: Offshore produced water treatment

The performance of hydrocyclone depends mainly on the split ratio and the pressure drop ratio
(PDR) (Stewart & Arnold, 2008). The split ratio equation is shown in Equation 2 while PDR
equation is shown in Equation 3.

Split ratio , F=

Qo
x 100
Qi

(Equation 2)

where Qo is the flowrate at the overflow while Qi is the flowrate at the inlet (Gmez, 2001).

PDR=

PiP o
PiP u

(Equation 3)

where Pi is the inet pressure, Po is the overflow pressure and Pu is the underflow pressure.
The separation of oil from water decrease with too small split ratio and too large spilt ratio.
Previous study had reported that when the split ratio is too small, the oil cannot be removed
from the hydrocyclone resulting in poor efficiency while for a large split ratio, the phenomenon

for short circuit flow at the inlet will occurred that will reduce the separation efficiency (Jiang,
Zhao, Sun, Tan, & Song, 2008).
On the other hand, efficiency of hydrocyclone increase with the increasing of PDR, (Husveg,
Rambeau, Drengstig, & Bilstad, 2007) but for oil and water separation, it is important to control
the pressure drop since high pressure drop will create turbulence effects that will caused oil
droplets breakup. For a too low pressure drop, breakdown of the spinning flow inside the
hydrocyclone will occur (Figure 2) (Sinker, 2007).

Figure 2: Minimum and maximum pressure drop for hydrocyclone (Sinker, 2007)
The other factors that affect the hydrocylone efficiency are the inlet oil droplets size, interfacial
tension (IFT) (Sinker, 2007), difference in specific gravity, temperature, and flowrate (Stewart &
Arnold, 2008). High shear that are caused by valve and pump should be controlled since it can
lead to oil droplets breakup, resulting in inefficient separation (Gmez, 2001). Besides,
temperature also affect the efficiency of hydrocyclone by varying the viscosity of the aqueous.
High temperature decrease the viscosity of the aqueous and improve the oil and water
separation (Qi, Yu, Liu, & Li, 2013). At the end, the efficiency of hydrocyclone can be calculated
by using Equation 4.

Efficiency , E=

( C iC o ) ( 100 )

(Equation 4)

Ci

where Ci is the dispersed oil concentration in feed and C o is the dispersed oil concentration in
effluents (Stewart & Arnold, 2008). The effluents from hydrocyclone will be treated further in the
flotation unit.
Conventionally, there are two types of flotation devices used in the industry. First is the
Dissolved Gas Flotation (DGF), which produced fine bubbles dispersion by releasing the
pressure on a gas saturated stream, and secondly is the Induced Gas Flotation (IGF), which
gas is dispersed into the produced water by using hydraulic inductor or vortex set up (Casaday,
1993). The function of the gas bubbles is to attach with the oil droplets, creating particles whose
average density is less than the water so that they can rise to the surface. Therefore, an efficient
oil removal in flotation device depends on the collision of gas bubbles and the oil droplets, the
attachments of the oil droplets to the gas bubbles and the stability of the attachment towards the
(Equation 5)
surface (Eftekhardadkhah, Aanesen, Rabe, & ye, 2015) as shown in Equation 5.

Flotation probability , Pf =Pc . Pa . Ps

(Equation 5)
where Pc is the probability of collision, Pa is the adhesion probability and Ps is the stability
probability (a function of contact angle value). The collision efficiency of particles and gas
bubbles depend on the diameter and density of particles and gas bubbles as shown in Equation
6 (Reay & Ratcliff, 1973).

Collisionefficiency , Ec =

( ) ( )]

R2
1.5
0.5
1+G
+ 3
( 1+G )
R
R

(Equation 6)

Where R and G are given by Equation 7 and 8 (Reay & Ratcliff, 1973):

R=1+

dp
db

( )

(Equation 7)

(Equation 8)

[( ) ]

G=( R 21 ) p 1
f

where dp and db represent diameter of particels and diameter of gas bubble and p and f
represent density of particles and density of water. From the equation, it shows that the
4

efficiency of collision increases with the increasing of particles size, and decreasing bubble size.
However, this equation only applicable for particles less than 0.2mm (Oliveira, Gonzalez, &
Oliveira, 1999). The attachment of the gas bubbles can occur in different ways as shown in
Figure 3 (Maelum & Rabe, 2015). The oil droplets can spread around the gas bubbles, stay at
the bottom of the gas bubble or stick to the outer surface of the gas bubble.

Figure 3: Different ways of oil droplets attachment to gas bubbles (Maelum & Rabe, 2015)
The spreading appearance depends on the spreading coefficient which will controlled by the IFT
of oil and water as shown in Equation 9

Spreading coefficient , S ow = w ( o+ ow )

(Equation 9)

where w is the surface tension of water, o is the surface tension oil and ow is the interfacial
tension of oil and water. Positive value of the spreading coefficient indicates good attachment of
the oil droplets to the bubbles surface (Oliveira et al., 1999). According to Mohammed (2009),
the removal efficiency of oil from water also depends on the gas bubble size and velocity of the
bubble rising, flowrate, pH, temperature and sparger type (Mohammed, 2009). Based on the
Stokes Law (Equation 2), the oil droplets must be bigger to achieve an efficient separation.
Thus, the small oil droplets must be able to coalesce when they approach each other.
Unfortunately, the presence of surfactant in the ASP produced water will produce thin aqueous
film that must be broken before the coalescence take place (Qi et al., 2013). Therefore, the IFT
also plays an important part for an optimum oil removal in the flotation device (Eftekhardadkhah
et al., 2015).

2. PROBLEM STATEMENTS
The produced water from ASP produced water potentially contains alkali, surfactant and
polymer. The surfactants decrease the IFT of the oil and water while alkali saponifies the acidic
components in the crude oil mixture resulting in higher water solubility and lower IFT. In addition,
polymer increase the viscosity of the aqueous (Dalmazzone et al., 2012; Qi et al., 2013).
Therefore, the produced water from ASP flooding forms a complex and stable emulsion that is
more difficult to treat than the produced water from the water flooding (Dalmazzone et al., 2012;
Wang et al., 2011).
Based on previous research, the stability of the oil droplets in the produced water from ASP
flooding has not been fully understood and it is indicated that the settling time for produced
water from ASP flooding was extended to 26 hours compared to the produced water from water
flooding that only required 4 hour settling time. The existing system cannot meet the
requirements for the treatment (Deng et al., 2002) and there is no effective technologies that
can meet the treatment criteria of the produced water from ASP flooding (Wang et al., 2011).
Some of the separation methods are limited by the critically small diameter of the oil droplets
(Gu & Chiang, 1999; Qi et al., 2013). This includes hydrocyclone and flotation devices. The
hydrocyclone and flotation equipment must be efficient and able to handle EOR effluent in
offshore projects where weight and footprint are important. Unfortunately, with the presence of
ASP, the performance of hydrocyclone and flotation degrades to more than 50% due to increase
of the produced water viscosity (Dalmazzone et al., 2012; Walsh & Henthorne, 2012) and the
mechanisms of the separation within these equipment in the presence of ASP are not fully
understood.

3. OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study are:
1. To study experimentally the effect of AS and ASP on the performance of hydrocyclone
and flotation units in chosen operating condition.
2. To determine the operating parameters of hydrocyclone and flotation units which have
significant

influence

on

the

hydrocyclone

and

flotation

devices

performance

characteristic.
3. To propose a model of the hydrocyclone and flotation units and to determine the
parameters of the model experimentally.
6

4. To produce a predictive performance model of the hydrocylone and flotation units in the
presence of ASP which will be run in MATLAB.

4. SCOPE AND DELIVERABLES

The study will be focused on the development of the hydrocyclone and flotation model in the
presence of ASP produced water. Model will be proposed and will be supported by some
experimental works. The, full model will be developed and will be validated by using actual data
from the offshore produced water. The study will contribute in the development of predictive
performance model of hydrocyclone and flotation devices in the presence of ASP which will be
run in MATLAB and with the goal of importing it to engineering design.

5. METHODOLOGY
Figure 3 shows an overview method for the study.

Figure 4: Overview of the study

Based on Figure 3, the literature review to describe the model parameter for hydrocyclone and
flotation units will be done and model will be proposed. The model will be tested by doing some
experimental work that will include synthetic produced water preparation by varying the
8

concentration of ASP. The oil and water will be separated by using hydrocyclone and flotation
equipment under chosen operating parameter. The purpose is to know the effect of AS and ASP
to the hydrocyclone and flotation units efficiency since the concentrations of ASP will control the
viscosity, oil droplets size and IFT of the oil and water. Calculations on the efficiency will be
done based on the oil concentrations in the effluents. Next, experimental work to know the effect
of different operating parameter for hydrocyclone and flotation devices will be carry out by
running chosen ASP concentration of the synthetic produced water through these devices. The
efficiency of the devices will be calculated as well. Model will be developed based on the
experimental data. The model for hydrocyclone and flotation will be combined for full model
development. Finally, the model will be validated by using actual data from the offshore
produced water. For an invalid model, new approach will be proposed.
Research Activities

2015
Q4

2016

2017

Q
1

Q2

Q
3

Q
4

Determination and selection

of hydrocyclone and
flotation units parameters

Development of model for

chosen parameters
Experimental work

X
X

Statement of research
problems and objectives
Literature review

Q1

Q
2

Q3

2018
Q
4

Q1

Q
2

Q3

Full model development

Simulation and validation of
the model

6. WORK SCHEDULE

7. REFERENCES
Casaday, A. L. (1993). Advances in flotation unit design for produced water treatment. In
9

Production Operations Symposium (pp. 581590). http://doi.org/10.2118/25472-MS

Dalmazzone, C., Nok, C., & Argillier, J. F. (2012). Impact of chemical enhanced oil recovery on
the separation of diluted heavy oil emulsions. Energy and Fuels, 26(6), 34623469.
http://doi.org/10.1021/ef300083z
Deng, S., Bai, R., Chen, J. P., Yu, G., Jiang, Z., & Zhou, F. (2002). Effects of
alkaline/surfactant/polymer on stability of oil droplets in produced water from ASP flooding.
Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 211(2-3), 275284.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-7757(02)00281-9
Eftekhardadkhah, M., Aanesen, S. V., Rabe, K., & ye, G. (2015). Oil removal from produced
water during laboratory and pilot scale gas flotation - the influence of interfacial adsorption
and
induction
times.
Energy
&
Fuels,
acs.energyfuels.5b02110.
http://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b02110
Gmez, C. H. (2001). Oil-Water Separation In Liquid-Liquid Hydrocyclones (LLHC)- Experminet
and Modeling.
Gu, X., & Chiang, S. (1999). A novel flotation column for oily water cleanup. Separation and
Purification
Technology,
16(January),
193203.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S13835866(99)00004-0
Husveg, T., Johansen, O., & Bilstad, T. (2007). Operational control of hydrocyclones during
variable produced water flow rates - Fry case study. In SPE Production and Operations
(Vol. 22, pp. 294300). Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2s2.0-34548410060&partnerID=tZOtx3y1
Husveg, T., Rambeau, O., Drengstig, T., & Bilstad, T. (2007). Performance of a deoiling
hydrocyclone during variable flow rates. Minerals Engineering, 20(4), 368379.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2006.12.002
Jiang, M., Zhao, L., Sun, F., Tan, R., & Song, H. (2008). Characteristic Research of Air Injected
Hydrocyclonic Separators. Annual Spe Technical Conference [Atce 2008] (Denver, Co,
9/21-24/2008)
Proceedings,
(200850),
16.
Retrieved
from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pta&AN=982427&site=ehost-live
Judd, S., Qiblawey, H., Al-Marri, M., Clarkin, C., Watson, S., Ahmed, A., & Bach, S. (2014). The
size and performance of offshore produced water oil-removal technologies for reinjection.
Separation
and
Purification
Technology,
134,
241246.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2014.07.037
Liu, S., Zhao, X., Dong, X., Miao, B., & Du, W. (2007). Experimental Research on Treatment of
Produced Water From a Polymer-Flooding Process Using a, (October 2005), 1921.
10

Maelum, M., & Rabe, K. (2015). Improving Oil Separation From Produced Water Using new
Compact.
Mohammed, S. S. (2009). EFFECT OF HYDRODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS ON
FLOTATION TREATMENT PROCESS OF OILY By.
Oliveira, R. C. ., Gonzalez, G., & Oliveira, J. . (1999). Interfacial studies on dissolved gas
flotation of oil droplets for water purification. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and
Engineering Aspects, 154(1-2), 127135. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-7757(98)00890-5
Qi, W. K., Yu, Z. C., Liu, Y. Y., & Li, Y. Y. (2013). Removal of emulsion oil from oilfield ASP
wastewater by internal circulation flotation and kinetic models. Chemical Engineering
Science, 91, 122129. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2013.01.020
Reay, D., & Ratcliff, G. a. (1973). Removal of fine particles from water by dispersed air flotation:
Effects of bubble size and particle size on collection efficiency. The Canadian Journal of
Chemical Engineering, 51(2), 178185. http://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.5450510207
Sinker, A. (2007). Produced Water Treatment Using Hydrocyclones: Theory and practical
application. 14th Annual International Petroleum Environmental Conference.
Stewart, M., & Arnold, K. (2008). Produced Water Treating Systems. Emulsion and Oil Treating
Equipment. http://doi.org/DOI: 10.1016/B978-075067853-7.50012-0
Sueyoshi, M., Tasaki, M., Kojima, K., Corporation, S., & Okamura, K. (2014). Polymer-Flood
Produced- Water-Treatment Trials, (December).
Walsh, J. M., & Henthorne, L. (2012). Challenges of Water Treating for Chemical Enhanced Oil
Recovery, (August), 914.
Wang, B., Wu, T., Li, Y., Sun, D., Yang, M., Gao, Y., Li, X. (2011). The effects of oil
displacement
agents
on
the
stability
of
water
produced
from
ASP
(alkaline/surfactant/polymer) flooding. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and
Engineering Aspects, 379(1-3), 121126. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2010.11.064

11