Advertisement

Experimental study to evaluate the environmental impacts of disposed produced water on the surrounding ecosystems

  • T. A. Ganat
  • M. HrairiEmail author
  • M. E. Mohyaldinn
Original Paper
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

The large volume and high salinity of produced water (PW) could pose severe environmental impacts. This paper presents the laboratory results on PW from G oil field, located in North Africa, and on groundwater samples from nearby freshwater wells, in order to best comprehend the chemical composition of PW and to evaluate their potential impact on the surrounding environment of this oil field. Such a sizeable data set can make it difficult to integrate, interpret and represent the results. Thus, multivariate statistical techniques were used in the usefulness evaluation of geochemical groundwater control process classification and identification. Principal component analysis of produced water identified three components: the first being a salinization factor that accounted for 53.6% of the overall variance; the second accounted for 24.3% of overall variance and was mostly dictated by scale forming potential; and the third component (12.3% of total variance) representing the quality of the water formed by the rock water interaction. The aforementioned components demonstrated that the quality of discharged produced water didn’t meet national or international standards. For the groundwater analysis, two principal components/clusters were identified. The first one (69.6% of total variance) represented the hardness and salinity of the water, and the second one (18.4% of total variance) can be regarded as the overall effect of weathering and interactions between water and rock on the groundwater quality factor in general. The analysis did not show any contamination in groundwater at the G oil field and in the nearby farms water wells.

Keywords

Produced water Groundwater Environmental impact Chemistry analysis Principal component analysis Cluster analysis 

Abbreviations

BAT

Best available techniques

BTEX

Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene

BOPD

Barrel oil per day

BWPD

Barrel water per day

Br

Bromine

Cl

Chloride

CO2

Carbon dioxide

Ca2+

Calcium

Cd2

Cadmium

EU

European Union

EC

Electrical conductivity

EGA

Environmental general authority

HCO3

Bicarbonates

K

Potassium

Mg2+

Magnesium

M

Thousand

Na+

Sodium

OIW

Oil in water

Pd

Lead

PW

Produced water

SO42−

Sulphates

Sr

Strontium

TDS

Total dissolved solid

TOC

Total organic carbon

TPH

Total petroleum hydrocarbon

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Tripoli University for their technical support of this study and all who assisted in this work, especially Professor Bashir Fars for his valuable guidance and providing work facilities. The authors also gratefully acknowledge assistance received from Lynn Mason for editing this manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abdunaser KM (2015) Review of the petroleum geology of the western part of the Sirt Basin, Libya. J Afr Earth Sci 111:76–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambrose G (2000) The geology and hydrocarbon habitat of the Sarir Sandstone, SE Sirt Basin, Libya. J Pet Geol 23:165–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. API RP 45 (1998) Analysis of oilfield waters, 3rd edn. API, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  4. ASTM (2002) Water and environmental technology. In: Annual book of ASTM standards, section 11. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnett DB (2010) Potential for beneficial use of oil and gas produced water. http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/beneficialuses-produced-water.pdf. Accessed 2 Nov 2018
  6. Chase G, Kulkarni P (2010) Mixed hydrophilic/hydrophobic fiber media for liquid–liquid coalescence. US Patent No. 2010/0200512 A1Google Scholar
  7. EGA (2004) Study of environmental impacts on produced water and soil in oases area, Unpublished Report, Environment General Authority, Tripoli, LibyaGoogle Scholar
  8. Farag AM, Harper DD (2014) A review of environmental impacts of salts from produced waters on aquatic resources. Int J Coal Geol 126:157–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fraser J, Zaidi A, Preston M, Liu T, Doyle E (1996) Evaluation of NFIUF membrane treatment in de-oiling produced water in situ at a heavy-oil production facility in western Canada. In: Reed M, Johnsen S (eds) Produced water 2: environmental issues and mitigation technologies, vol 52. Plenum Press, New York, pp 471–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grant A, Briggs AD (2002) Toxicity of sediments from around a North Sea oil platform: are metals or hydrocarbons responsible for ecological impacts? Mar Environ Res 53:95–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guerra K, Dahm K, Dundorf S (2011) Oil and gas produced water management and beneficial use in the western united states. Science and technology program report no. 157. Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, Washington DC. http://www.usbr.gov/research/AWT/reportpdfs/report157.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2018
  12. Guo J, Cao J, Li M, Xia H (2013) Influences of water treatment agents on oil-water interfacial properties of oilfield produced water. Pet Sci 10:415–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansen BR, Davies SRH (1994) Review of potential technologies for the removal of dissolved components from produced water. Chem Eng Res Des 72:176–188Google Scholar
  14. Hayes T, Severin BF (2012) Barnett and appalachian shale water management and reuse technologies. https://www.netl.doe.gov/FileLibrary/Research/Oil-Gas/NaturalGas/shalegas/08122-05-final-report.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2018
  15. Igwe CO, Al-Saadi A, Ngene SE (2013) Optimal options for treatment of produced water in offshore petroleum platforms. J Pollut Effects Control 1:102Google Scholar
  16. Islam S (2006) Investigation of oil adsorption capacity of granular organoclay media and the kinetics of oil removal from oil-in-water emulsions. Dissertation, Texas A&M UniversityGoogle Scholar
  17. Li H (2013) Produced water quality characterization and prediction for Wattenberg field. Dissertation, Colorado State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  18. Mareth B (2006) A reverse osmosis treatment process for produced water: optimization, process control, and renewable energy application. Dissertation, Texas A&M UniversityGoogle Scholar
  19. OGP (2002) Aromatics in produced water: occurrence, fate and effect, and treatment. Report number 1.20/324Google Scholar
  20. Omo-Irabor OO, Olobaniyi SB, Oduyemi K, Akunna J (2008) Surface and groundwater water quality assessment using multivariate analytical methods: a case study of the Western Niger Delta, Nigeria. Phys Chem Earth 33:666–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pillard DA, Tietge JE, Evans JM (1996) Estimating the acute toxicity of produced waters to marine organisms using predictive toxicity models. In: Reed M, Johnsen S (eds) Produced water 2. Environmental issues and mitigation technologies. Plenum Press, New York, pp 49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rafique JS (2013) Systems and methods for de-oiking and total organic carbon reduction in produced water, US Patent No. US 20150122481 A1Google Scholar
  23. Rahman MATMT, Saadat AHM, Islam MS, Al-Mansur MA, Ahmed S (2017) Groundwater characterization and selection of suitable water type for irrigation in the western region of Bangladesh. Appl Water Sci 7(1):233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rassenfoss S (2011) From flowback to fracturing: water recycling grows in the Marcellus shale. J Pet Technol 63:48–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Owner Oil Company (2002) G, D, B Reservoirs—Vol 1, 2. Reservoir Engineering StudyGoogle Scholar
  26. Salahi A, Mohammadi T, Rahmat PA, Rekabdar F (2009) Oily wastewater treatment using ultrafiltration. Desalin Water Treat 6:289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shaffer DL, Arias-Chavez LH, Ben-Sasson M, Castrillón RVS, Yip NY, Elimelech M (2013) Desalination and reuse of high-salinity shale gas produced water: drivers, technologies, and future directions. Environ Sci Technol 47:9569–9583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shrestha S, Kazama F (2007) Assessment of surface water quality using multivariate statistical techniques: a case study of the Fuji river basin, Japan. Environ Modell Softw 22(4):464–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wasylishen R (2013) Recycling flowback and produced water in tight-oil development. IDA J Desalin Water Reuse 22:26–30Google Scholar
  30. Wright EP, Benfield AC, Edmunds WM, Kitching R (1982) Hydrogeology of the Kufra and Sirte basins, eastern Libya. O J Eng Geol 15:83–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhang X, Qian H, Wu H, Chen J, Qiao L (2016) Multivariate analysis of confined groundwater hydrochemistry of a long-exploited sedimentary basin in Northwest China. J Chem 2016:3812125Google Scholar
  32. Zhong J, Sun X, Wang C (2003) Treatment of oily wastewater produced from refinery processes using flocculation and ceramic membrane filtration. Sep Purif Technol 32:93–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Petroleum EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi PETRONASSeri IskandarMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringInternational Islamic University MalaysiaKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations