DOCSLIB.ORG

Flotation, Filtration, and Adsorption: Pilot Trials for Oilfield Produced-Water Treatment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Flotation, Filtration, and Adsorption: Pilot Trials for Oilfield Produced-Water Treatment Flotation, Filtration, and Adsorption: Pilot Trials for Oilfield Produced-Water Treatment Rashid S. Al-Maamari, Sultan Qaboos University; Mark Sueyoshi, Masaharu Tasaki, and Kazuo Okamura, Shimizu Corporation; and Yasmeen Al-Lawati, Randa Nabulsi, and Mundhir Al-Battashi, Petroleum Development Oman Summary In Oman, Petroleum Development Oman (PDO), the major As an oil field matures, it produces larger quantities of produced oil-producing company in the country, typically produces ap- water. Appropriate treatment levels and technologies depend on a proximately 8 m3 water/m3 oil for a total of 4.5 million BWPD number of factors, such as disposal methods or usage aims, envi- (Al-Manhal 2009). Disposal or treatment methods depend on the ronmental impacts, and economics. intended use of the treated water. A large portion of produced water In this study, a pilot plant with a capacity of 50 m3/d was used in Oman is treated and reinjected into the oil reservoirs to help to conduct flotation, filtration, and adsorption trials for produced- maintain reservoir pressure, or it is used to generate steam for en- water treatment at a crude-oil gathering facility. The flexible de- hanced-oil-recovery (EOR) projects. Most of the remaining pro- sign of the plant allows for the testing of different combinations duced water is injected into deep-lying aquifers. This method of of these processes on the basis of the requirements of the water to deepwater disposal is safe for the environment because the pro- be treated. The subject water during this study was a complex and duced water is trapped well away from shallow aquifers used for changing mixture of brine and oil from different oil fields. drinking or irrigation. However, such deep disposal is expensive to Induced-gas-flotation (IGF) trials were conducted, with dif- operate because of the high levels of pressure needed to pump the ferent coagulant [polyaluminum chloride (PAC)] -addition rates water to its underground destination. The aquifers also have limited from 0 to 820 mg⋅L–1. Inlet-dispersed oil-in-water (OIW) con- absorption capacity (Al-Manhal 2010). centrations were quite varied during the trials, ranging from 39 to PDO has been exploring environmentally acceptable alterna- 279 mg⋅L–1 (fluorescence-analysis method). Turbidity also varied, tives for produced water. Pumping into the sea is uneconomic, ranging from 85 to 279 FTU. Through coagulation/flocculation and given the high transportation costs involved in moving water to the flotation, dispersed oils were removed from the water. PAC addi- coast. Pumping into exploitable shallow aquifers is ruled out be- tion ranging from 60 to 185 mg⋅L–1 resulted in the reduction of the cause of the polluting effect on these potential future-water-supply dispersed-oil concentration to less than 50 mg⋅L–1 in treated water; sources (Al-Manhal 2009). In the case of low-salinity brines (up to and PAC addition ranging from 101 to 200 mg⋅L–1 resulted in the one-sixth the salinity of seawater), the company is using reed plants reduction of the dispersed-oil concentration to less than 15 mg⋅L–1 to treat produced water (Al-Manhal 2010). Pilot hydrocyclones and in treated water. Turbidity was also reduced through flotation, with gas-flotation projects are being executed with encouraging results trial average reductions ranging from 57 to 78%. Filtration further (Al-Manhal 2009). reduced turbidity at rates greater than 80% through the removal of The choice of suitable methods/technologies is based on dif- any suspended solids remaining from flotation. Activated-carbon ferent factors, such as the characteristics and chemistry of the par- adsorption reduced OIW concentrations of flotation-/filtration- ticular water; the target treatment level on the basis of reuse and treated water to 5 mg⋅L–1 (infrared-analysis method) through the discharge plans of treated water; the capital (equipment) and op- removal of dissolved oil remaining in the water. Results confirmed erating (power, chemical) costs; facility requirements (space)/ that such adsorption treatment would be more practical for water treatment-unit mobility; durability/ease of operation and mainte- with lower chemical-oxygen-demand (COD) concentration be- nance; and the requirement of pre- or post-treatment technologies/ cause high-COD concentrations in water reduce the lifetime of ac- waste-stream byproducts (Arthur et al. 2005). The amount of dis- tivated carbon dramatically. solved and dispersed oil present in the produced water is related to oil composition, pH, salinity, total dissolved solids, tempera- Introduction ture, oil/water ratio, type and quantity of oilfield chemicals, and Oilfield-produced water is a byproduct associated with production type and quantity of various stability compounds such as waxes of oil and gas. Most produced water requires treatment because it and asphaltenes. There is no single technology suitable for all ef- contains traces of dispersed and dissolved oil, heavy metals, boron, fluent characteristics. corrosive fluids such as H2S and CO2, production chemicals, radio- Many separate and combined physical, chemical, and biolog- active isotopes, formation minerals, and other solids (Khatib and ical methods are proposed for produced-water treatment. Avail- Verbeek 2002; Al-Manhal 2003; Fakhru’l-Razi et al. 2009). It is able produced-water-treatment technologies (primary, secondary, also very salty and, in some cases, is saltier than seawater. The and tertiary treatments) have been discussed in the literature with treatment and disposal of produced water is a significant operating comparative evaluation (Kenawy and Kandil 1998; Plebon 2004; expense for oil and gas companies. Arthur et al. 2005; Fakhru’l-Razi et al. 2009; Perry et al. 2009). Primary-treatment technologies include skim tanks, American Pe- troleum Institute oil/water separators, and various plate-pack inter- ceptors, all of which target free oil and coarse solids (large droplets/ Copyright © 2014 Society of Petroleum Engineers particles >150 µm). Secondary-treatment technologies include flo- This paper (SPE 161289) was accepted for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International tation (e.g., dissolved gas, induced gas), flotation with coagulation Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, 11–14 November 2012, and revised for publication. Original manuscript received for review 21 August 2012. Revised manuscript (e.g., Al and Fe salt, polymer), hydrocyclones, and centrifuges, all received for review 12 May 2013. Paper peer approved 18 November 2013. of which target dispersed oil and fine solids (small droplets/par- 56 Oil and Gas Facilities • April 2014 April 2014 • Oil and Gas Facilities 57 ticles between 20 and 150 µm) and generally reduce dispersed-oil and IGF was selected over dissolved-air flotation because of its concentration to <40 mg⋅L–1. Hydrocyclones have been reported ease in operation, minimal equipment requirements, and small to be able to handle finer solids (5 to 15 µm), reducing oil and footprint. N2 was selected as the flotation gas for safety and main- grease levels to 10 mg⋅L–1. Polishing- and tertiary-treatment tech- tenance issues related to corrosion and scaling. nologies include media filters (e.g., walnut shell, sand, anthracite), Filtration was selected to remove any dispersed contaminants cartridge filters, membranes, adsorption (e.g., activated carbon), remaining in the water following flotation, and adsorption was se- and biological treatment, all of which target emulsified oil and finer lected to remove dissolved contaminants and any dispersed con- solids (smaller droplets/particles between 5 and 20 µm) and dis- taminants remaining in the water following filtration. While the solved oil (droplets <5 µm) and reduce dispersed-oil concentration pilot plant can be used to test a variety of filter media and adsor- to <5–10 mg⋅L–1 (SPE 2011). A combination of more than one bents, sand and activated carbon were used during these trials be- technology might be used in series operation. cause they were judged to be the most-cost-effective filtration and While general data are available for the results of various treat- adsorption materials available. ment technologies, there is a lack of specific operational details Accordingly, the four main components of the plant are concerning coagulant-addition rates for flotation. In this paper, trial • Mixing tanks, 2 units, volume: 0.5 m3 each; operational ca- treatment of oilfield produced water by use of a combined coag- pacity: 0.4 m3 each ulation/flocculation, flotation, filtration, and adsorption treatment • Flotation tank, volume: 0.8 m3; operational capacity: 0.63 m3 system is presented. A compact and mobile pilot plant of 50 m3/d • Filtration tower, volume: 0.5 m3; operational capacity: 0.4 m3 capacity was designed and fabricated on the basis of such chemical • Adsorption tower, volume: 0.5 m3; operational capacity: and mechanical treatment of produced water. The plant design al- 0.4 m3 lowed for the testing of different combinations of these processes to treat water to different levels of oil concentration, depending on Additionally, there are holding tanks for raw water, scum, and need. For example, depending on the characteristics of the waste treated water, and smaller chemical tanks for preparation and water to be treated for marine disposal, the secondary-treatment dosing of the chemical solutions required for coagulation and floc- processes of coagulation, flocculation, and flotation alone may be culation of water contaminants. sufficient. For use of the waste water for irrigation, additional ter- Different pumps convey water through the treatment processes tiary-treatment processes of filtration and adsorption may also be and generate the microbubbles required for flotation. Mixers are required. The aim of trial operation of the pilot unit was to assist used to prepare chemical solutions that coagulate and flocculate in the identification of suitable full-scale technologies that can be contaminants in the water. A scraper removes separated oily scum used to handle the huge quantities of produced water in Oman.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Summary of Produced Water Management Practices
    Potential for Beneficial Use of Oil and Gas Produced Water David B. Burnett1 Abstract Technology advancements and the increasing need for fresh water resources have created the potential for desalination of oil field brine to be a cost-effective fresh water resource for the citizens of Texas. In our state and in other mature oil and gas production areas, the majority of wells produce brine water along with gas and oil. Many of these wells produce less than 10 barrels of oil a day (bbl/day) along with substantial amounts of water. Transporting water from these stripper wells is expensive, so much so that in many cases the produced water can be treated on site, including desalination, for less cost than hauling it away. One key that makes desalination affordable is that the contaminants removed from the brine can be injected back into the oil and gas producing formation without having to have an EPA Class I hazardous injection permit. The salts removed from the brine originally came from the formation into which it is being re-injected and environmental regulations permit a Class II well to contain the salt “concentrate”. This chapter discusses key issues driving this new technology. Primary are the costs (economic and environmental) of current produced water management and the potential for desalination in Texas. In addition the cost effectiveness of new water treatment technology and the changes in environmental and institutional conditions are encouraging innovative new technology to address potential future water shortages in Texas. Introduction Who in their right mind would ever try to purify and re-use oil field brine? The very nature of the material produced along with oil and gas would seem to make such practices uneconomical.
    [Show full text]
  • I Subsurface Waste Disposal by Means of Wells a Selective Annotated Bibliography
    I Subsurface Waste Disposal By Means of Wells A Selective Annotated Bibliography By DONALD R. RIMA, EDITH B. CHASE, and BEVERLY M. MYERS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 2020 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1971 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS G. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. A. Radlinski, Acting Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 77-179486 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.50 (paper cover) Stock Number 2401-1229 FOREWORD Subsurface waste disposal or injection is looked upon by many waste managers as an economically attractive alternative to providing the sometimes costly surface treatment that would otherwise be required by modern pollution-control law. The impetus for subsurface injection is the apparent success of the petroleum industry over the past several decades in the use of injection wells to dispose of large quantities of oil-field brines. This experience coupled with the oversimplification and glowing generalities with which the injection capabilities of the subsurface have been described in the technical and commercial literature have led to a growing acceptance of deep wells as a means of "getting rid of" the ever-increasing quantities of wastes. As the volume and diversity of wastes entering the subsurface continues to grow, the risk of serious damage to the environment is certain to increase. Admittedly, injecting liquid wastes deep beneath the land surface is a potential means for alleviating some forms of surface pollution. But in view of the wide range in the character and concentrations of wastes from our industrialized society and the equally diverse geologic and hydrologic con­ ditions to be found in the subsurface, injection cannot be accepted as a universal panacea to resolve all variants of the waste-disposal problem.
    [Show full text]
  • REFERENCE GUIDE to Treatment Technologies for Mining-Influenced Water
    REFERENCE GUIDE to Treatment Technologies for Mining-Influenced Water March 2014 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation EPA 542-R-14-001 Contents Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 5 Notice and Disclaimer..................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 9 Passive Technologies Technology: Anoxic Limestone Drains ........................................................................................ 11 Technology: Successive Alkalinity Producing Systems (SAPS).................................................. 16 Technology: Aluminator© ............................................................................................................ 19 Technology: Constructed Wetlands .............................................................................................. 23 Technology: Biochemical Reactors .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Water and Sewage Management Issues in Rural Poland
    water Article Water and Sewage Management Issues in Rural Poland Adam Piasecki Faculty of Earth Sciences, Nicolaus Copernicus University, 87-100 Torun, Poland; [email protected] Received: 19 December 2018; Accepted: 22 March 2019; Published: 26 March 2019 Abstract: Water and sewage management in Poland has systematically been transformed in terms of quality and quantity since the 1990s. Currently, the most important problem in this matter is posed by areas where buildings are spread out across rural areas. The present work aims to analyse the process of changes and the current state of water and sewage management in rural areas of Poland. The author intended to present the issues in their broader context, paying attention to local specificity as well as natural and economic conditions. The analysis led to the conclusion that there have been significant positive changes in water and sewage infrastructure in rural Poland. A several-fold increase in the length of sewage and water supply networks and number of sewage treatment plants was identified. There has been an increase in the use of water and treated sewage, while raw sewage has been minimised. Tap-water quality and wastewater treatment standards have improved. At the same time, areas requiring further improvement—primarily wastewater management—were indicated. It was identified that having only 42% of the rural population connected to a collective sewerage system is unsatisfactory. All the more so, in light of the fact that more than twice as many consumers are connected to the water supply network (85%). The major ecological threat that closed-system septic sewage tanks pose is highlighted.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Risks and Benefits for Pennsylvania Water Sources When Utilizing Acid Mine Drainage for Hydraulic Fracturing Frederick R
    The University of San Francisco USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center Master's Projects and Capstones Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects Spring 5-22-2015 Assessment of Risks and Benefits for Pennsylvania Water Sources When Utilizing Acid Mine Drainage for Hydraulic Fracturing frederick r. davis University of San Francisco, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons, Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, Oil, Gas, and Energy Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation davis, frederick r., "Assessment of Risks and Benefits for eP nnsylvania Water Sources When Utilizing Acid Mine Drainage for Hydraulic Fracturing" (2015). Master's Projects and Capstones. 135. https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone/135 This Project/Capstone is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects at USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Projects and Capstones by an authorized administrator of USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Davis 0 This Master’s Project Assessment of Risks and Benefits for Pennsylvania Water Sources When Utilizing Acid Mine Drainage for Hydraulic Fracturing by Frederick R. Davis Is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of: Master’s of Science in Environmental Management at the University of San Francisco Submitted by: Received By: Frederick R. Davis 5/21/2015 Kathleen Jennings 5/21/2015 Davis 1 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wastewater an Arab Perspective E/ESCWA/SDPD/2017/BOOKLET.1
    Wastewater An Arab Perspective E/ESCWA/SDPD/2017/BOOKLET.1 Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia Wastewater An Arab Perspective @ 2017 United Nations All rights reserved worldwide Requests to reproduce excerpts or photocopy should be addressed to the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to: ESCWA, United Nations House, Riad El Solh Square, P.O. Box: 11- 8575, Beirut, Lebanon. E-mail: [email protected]; website: www.unescwa.org United Nations publication issued by ESCWA. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this booklet do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Mention of commercial names and products does not imply the endorsement of the United Nations. The document is issued without formal editing. 17-00174 3 Preface This World Water Day booklet builds on the Arab Chapter included in the 2017 World Water Development Report, Wastewater: the untapped resource. The World Water Development Report is published annually by the World Water Assessment Programme of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO/WWAP) with the substantive support of other United Nations organizations through UN-Water. The Arab Chapter (Chapter 10) of the 2017 World Water Development Report was contributed by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA).
    [Show full text]
  • A White Paper Describing Produced Water from Production of Crude Oil
    AAA WWWhhhiiittteee PPPaaapppeeerrr DDDeeessscccrrriiibbbiiinnnggg PPPrrroooddduuuccceeeddd WWWaaattteeerrr fffrrrooommm PPPrrroooddduuuccctttiiiooonnn ooofff CCCrrruuudddeee OOOiiilll,,, NNNaaatttuuurrraaalll GGGaaasss,,, aaannnddd CCCoooaaalll BBBeeeddd MMMeeettthhhaaannneee Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory Under Contract W-31-109-Eng-38 Prepared by: Argonne National Laboratory John A. Veil Markus G. Puder Deborah Elcock Robert J. Redweik, Jr. January 2004 Produced Water White Paper i TABLE OF CONTENT Executive Summary............................................................................................................ v 1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 What Is Produced Water? ................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Layout of White Paper........................................................................................ 2 1.4 Acknowledgments .............................................................................................. 2 2 Produced Water Characteristics.............................................................................. 3 2.1 Major Components of Produced Water .............................................................. 3 2.1.1 Produced Water from Oil Production ............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • NAWI Technology Roadmap: Resource Extraction Sector
    RESOURCE EXTRACTION SECTOR TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP Tzahi Cath Cameron McKay Colorado School of Mines The University of Texas–Austin Shankar Chellam Kaleisha Miller Texas A&M University Texas A&M University Lynn Katz Jason Monnell The University of Texas–Austin Electric Power Research Institute Richard Breckenridge Nalini Rao Electric Power Research Institute Electric Power Research Institute Carolyn A. Cooper James Rosenblum The University of Texas–Austin Colorado School of Mines Kirk Ellison David Sedlak Electric Power Research Institute University of California–Berkeley Jordan Macknick Jennifer Stokes-Draut National Renewable Energy Laboratory Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Acknowledgements This material is based upon work supported by the National Alliance for Water Innovation (NAWI), funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Advanced Manufacturing Office, under Funding Opportunity Announcement Number DE-FOA-0001905. NAWI would like to thank the Department of Energy Technical Monitor Melissa Klembara for guidance and support throughout the roadmapping process. This roadmap was developed under the guidance of the National Alliance for Water Innovation (NAWI) Desalination Hub executive team, cartographers, and technical staff as well as the NAWI’s Research Advisory Council (RAC). Those from industry, academia, national laboratories, and government who made crucial contributions through participation in workshops, surveys, phone interviews, and roadmap reviews are identified in Appendix F of this report. Nexight Group supported the overall roadmapping process. Suggested citation Tzahi Cath; Shankar Chellam; Lynn Katz; Richard Breckenridge; Carolyn A. Cooper; Kirk Ellison; Jordan Macknick; Cameron McKay; Kaleisha Miller; Jason Monnell; Nalini Rao; James Rosenblum; David Sedlak; Jennifer Stokes-Draut.
    [Show full text]
  • CBM, Oil, Or Gas Produced Water Permit Requirements
    GUIDELINES CHAPTER 3 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR TREATMENT OF CBM, OIL OR GAS PRODUCED WATER Revised August 9, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Authority...................................................................................................................... 1 a. Environmental Quality Act ................................................................................................................ 1 b. Chapter 3 ........................................................................................................................................... 1 c. Chapter 11 ......................................................................................................................................... 1 II. Who needs a permit? ................................................................................................... 1 a. Permit Required ................................................................................................................................ 1 III. Types of permits .......................................................................................................... 2 a. General Permits ........................................................................................................... 2 b. Individual Permits ........................................................................................................ 2 IV. Permit Application Requirements ................................................................................ 2 a. Chapter 3 Permit Application ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Proven Solutions for the Produced Water Industry
    CECO Peerless PROVEN SOLUTIONS FOR THE PRODUCED WATER INDUSTRY WITH OVER 80 OF YEARS EXPERIENCE, CECO PEERLESS IS THE GLOBAL LEADER IN SEPARATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE OIL, GAS AND PETROCHEMICAL MARKETS. Offering treatment systems for both onshore and offshore applications, CECO Peerless designs and supplies a wide range of compact, engineered, high-efficiency, processing, separation and filtration equipment for the global oil and gas industry. CECO Environmental’s energy solutions include leading technologies such as CECO Peerless separation and filtration, Burgess Manning oil and gas processing technologies and Skimovex oily water separation. Key CECO Peerless Facts • Over 80 years of experience • 1000s of successful installations and millions of hours of engineering excellence • Experienced in technology, process, engineering and turnkey solutions • Expertise from concept through commissioning stages • Worldwide delivery capability and vast network of local / regional / global partners • Global presence, multi-cultural teams with localised approach to attain clean, safe, efficient and sustainable solutions within budget and schedule CECO Peerless provides you with the seamless end-to-end solution. We combine our technologies, process experience and R&D with our multi-disciplined engineering experience to give you every advantage: • Concept / FEED studies • Fast track delivery • Detailed engineering • Achieve overall performance • Engineered packages • Customer satisfaction • Modular / skid design and supply • After sales service • Turnkey solutions for EPF / CPF / topsides www.cecopeerless.com PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT WITH DECADES OF EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE, CECO PEERLESS DELIVERS RELIABLE AND ECONOMICAL COMPONENTS OR COMPLETE WATER TREATMENT SOLUTIONS TO ENSURE OPTIMAL PERFORMANCE AND OIL AND WATER SEPARATION EFFICIENCY. PRIMARY TREATMENT CORRUGATED PLATE INTERCEPTORS CECO Peerless Corrugated Plate Interceptors (CPI) as Oily Water Separators can be designed with various configurations, i.e., in a steel tank, in a concrete basin, or in a pressure vessel.
    [Show full text]
  • A White Paper Describing Produced Water from Production of Crude Oil
    AAA WWWhhhiiittteee PPPaaapppeeerrr DDDeeessscccrrriiibbbiiinnnggg PPPrrroooddduuuccceeeddd WWWaaattteeerrr fffrrrooommm PPPrrroooddduuuccctttiiiooonnn ooofff CCCrrruuudddeee OOOiiilll,,, NNNaaatttuuurrraaalll GGGaaasss,,, aaannnddd CCCoooaaalll BBBeeeddd MMMeeettthhhaaannneee Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory Under Contract W-31-109-Eng-38 Prepared by: Argonne National Laboratory John A. Veil Markus G. Puder Deborah Elcock Robert J. Redweik, Jr. January 2004 Produce Water White Paper i TABLE OF CONTENT Executive Summary............................................................................................................ v 1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 What Is Produced Water? ................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Layout of White Paper........................................................................................ 2 1.4 Acknowledgments .............................................................................................. 2 2 Produced Water Characteristics.............................................................................. 3 2.1 Major Components of Produced Water .............................................................. 3 2.1.1 Produced Water from Oil Production ............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sources of Coal-Mine Drainage and Their Effects on Surface-Water Chemistry in the Claybank Creek Basin and Vicinity, North-Central Missouri, 1983-84
    Sources of Coal-Mine Drainage and Their Effects on Surface-Water Chemistry in The Claybank Creek Basin and Vicinity, North-Central Missouri, 1983-84 United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2305 Prepared in cooperation with Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Land Reclamation Commission and U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Sources of Coal-Mine Drainage and Their Effects on Surface-Water Chemistry in The Claybank Creek Basin and Vicinity, North-Central Missouri, 1983-84 By DALE W. BLEVINS Prepared in cooperation with the Misssouri Department of Natural Resources, Land Reclamation Commission and U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 2305 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL MODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1989 For sale by the Branch of Distribution Books and Open-File Reports Section U.S. Geological Survey Federal Center Box 25425 Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Blevins, Dale W. Sources of coal-mine drainage and their effects on surface-water chemistry in the Claybank Creek basin and vicinity, North-central Missouri, 1983-84 (U.S. Geological Survey water-supply ; 2305) Bibliography: p. Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.13:2305 1. Acid mine drainage Missouri Congresses. 2. Coal mine waste Missouri- Congresses. 3. Water chemistry Congresses I. Missouri. Land Reclamation
    [Show full text]