SPE-173589-MS

Improving Oil Separation From Produced Water Using new Compact

Flotation Unit Design
M. Maelum, and K. Rabe, Schlumberger

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 1–5 March 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Produced Water Treatment (PWT) technologies have evolved significantly over the past 15 years. In
2001, the first Compact Flotation Unit (CFU) was introduced to the oil and gas industry on the Norwegian
Continental Shelf. Today, this well-proven technology, which separates residual oil from produced water
(PW), operates worldwide. CFUs function either in the facility’s PW train as a final step downstream from
a separator in various configurations, or as a standalone treatment system in the slop/reject treatment
process system.
Our analysis shows that it is possible to substantially improve conventional CFU oil separation
performance. A portion of small gas bubbles that have been in contact with oil droplets will never rise to
the top of the CFU vessel due to countercurrent water flow. Instead, they exit at the bottom of the unit.
Removing a larger portion of these small bubbles in flotation technology will achieve an additional
decrease of oil-in-water (OiW). Because of their high surface-to-volume ratio, removing small gas
bubbles helps move more oil away from the PW discharge.
Schlumberger development of next-generation CFU technology included theoretical study, benchmark
lab testing and field trials. To improve separation efficiency, we implemented several new internal designs
within the same external CFU size and design, and analyzed them in a computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) model. For manufacturing and further lab- and field-testing, we selected a final design that
considerably improved oil-separation efficiency. The new technology delivers two-stage oil separation in
a single vessel. Each stage uses a different mechanism to improve oil separation.
Results from lab testing show that the new CFU increases oil-separation efficiency up to 45%
compared with existing technology. Key benefits of the new design include:
● Less impact on the environment through improved OIW discharge figures
● Lower skid weight through fewer vessels (one instead of two)
● Reduced facility footprint through smaller skid size
● Retrofittable technology
We based the new CFU design on CFD analysis, testing in a PW flow loop, and an offshore field trial
which also verified better oil separation performance. Results from the field trial indicated the new CFU
2 SPE-173589-MS

improved performance 27 % compared with conventional technology. This was achieved while main-
taining the outer CFU dimensions and design.

Introduction
A large number of mature oil fields with increasing produced water (PW) flow rates require greater PW
treatment capacity. Especially in offshore facilities, space and the weight of equipment should be kept at
a minimum. In compliance with tougher environment legislation, the environmental footprint of oil and
gas operations also should be minimized.
After years of laboratory tests, field trials and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis, we
discovered it was possible to improve CFU oil separation efficiency without increasing the unit’s overall
footprint. Our development project plan included three main stages:
1. CFD study of new possible designs
2. Manufacturing and benchmark testing in a flow loop
3. Field trial offshore
Gas bubbles are crucial to separation efficiency. These bubbles are created by a gas/liquid mixer in the
PW feed flow to the CFU, as well as by release of gas from the liquid by pressure reduction. In the existing
design, gas bubbles tend to aid separation in the upper region of the CFU. Meanwhile, a certain portion
of the gas bubbles flow vertically downwards past the wing and bucket along with PW, and exit the CFU
at the bottom outlet, with and without attached oil droplets.
The main focus of our project, therefore, was to manipulate fluid flow in the CFU to recover a larger
portion of these “lost” gas bubbles in the middle zone, below the guide (Figure 1). We refer to the new,
two-stage CFU design as DUAL technology throughout the rest of this paper.

Figure 1—CFU zone classification

Statement of Theory and Definitions

Compact Flotation mechanisms
Produced water cleaning capacity ranges from 1-6 m3/h for the smallest CFU vessel up to 1150 m3/h for
the largest vessel. A CFU utilizes both dissolved and induced gas flotation to remove oil droplets in the
PW. Flotation efficiency is defined by Equation 1. A specially designed gas mixer at a designated distance
from the vessel’s PW inlet mixes an external flotation gas (N2, or fuel gas) with the bulk PW flow.
Equation 1
SPE-173589-MS 3

The induced gas triggers collisions between gas bubbles and oil droplets, which start immediately
downstream from the gas mixer. Thus, the distance from the gas mixer to the compact flotation vessel
plays an important part in overall oil removal efficiency. Bubble/droplet collisions continue through the
tangential inlet to the vessel where bulk flow sets them in a swirling motion. PW contains a certain amount
of dissolved natural gas. When bulk fluid flow is exposed to shear forces, small gas bubbles are released.
These bubbles assist the induced gas bubbles in the overall flotation process. A high Ecollision requires a
certain gas bubble size distribution, which is achieved by the gas mixer inducing flotation gas and through
piping, restrictions and CFU internals releasing dissolved natural gas.
The attachment or adhesion of oil droplets to gas bubbles can occur in different ways (Figure 2). The
PW bulk phase has a downward movement opposite that of the main gas bubble. The gas bubble will rise
upwards in the vessel, moving faster than or in the opposite direction as an oil droplet (depending on the
size of the oil droplet). The droplet can either spread around the gas bubble, forming a “perfect”
attachment, or it can stay within the bottom of the gas bubble, or stick to the outer gas bubble surface,
forming a weak attachment. The spreading appearance depends on the spreading coefficient, which, in
turn, depends on the interfacial tensions acting at the contact surface between fluid phases. For a CFU
system, one must consider the surface tensions between oil-water, oil-gas, and water-gas to estimate the
spreading coefficient. The spreading coefficient can be positive (i.e. an oil layer will spread around the
water/gas interface) or negative (i.e. oil will not spread on the water/gas interface).

Figure 2—Gas bubble - oil droplet attachment

Gas bubbles with attached oil droplets rise to the liquid surface inside the CFU. Consequently, an oil
layer will form at the liquid surface and a gas pocket will form above it. The oil/water/gas mixture is
removed from the vessel by an immersed reject pipe. The three-phase reject fluid flow rate is measured
by a high accuracy Coriolis flow meter, while fluids are transported to a separate reject system or returned
to the separation train. Cleaned water exits through the bottom vessel outlet. The internal design of the
CFU, reject- and flotation gas control and upstream gas-liquid mixing device largely determine how
efficiently the CFU will perform.
CFU observations Drag force on spherical particles is a function of Reynolds number. An oil droplet
movement in PW (low Reynolds number) is influenced by viscous forces as opposed to a gas bubble
(higher Reynolds number) which is influenced by inertia forces (White, F. 1994 and Perry, R.H. 1998.)
in a CFU. Equation 2 represents the terminal velocity of a gas bubble, vt denoted gas bubble and an oil
droplet, denoted oil droplet. ␳ represents fluid density difference, d represents the diameter of the gas
bubble/oil droplet, g represents gravitational force, Cd represents the drag coefficient for a gas bubble
estimated to 1. ␳w represents the density of the water bulk phase. The result is shown in Figure 3. The
PW bulk downward velocity is estimated to 0.05 m/s in the CFU. A gas bubble must be larger than 180
␮m to float to the water surface inside the CFU vessel, assuming there is no recirculation or disturbance.
According to Figure 3, an oil drop should be larger than 760 ␮m to reach the water surface. In a PW
4 SPE-173589-MS

system, oil droplets of this size are rare. Theoretically, therefore, gas bubbles below 180 ␮m and oil
droplets below 760 ␮m will exit at the bottom clean water exit, if no bubble-bubble or droplet-droplet
collisions occur. However, the latter are likely to happen. When the residence time and level of
bubble/droplet mixing is high enough, bubbles and droplets can collide, coalesce and increase in size. By
doing so, the possibility of their reaching the water surface increases significantly. Figure 3 shows the
importance of creating gas bubbles of the correct size and maintaining a uniform bulk flow through the
CFU.
Equation 2

Figure 3—CFU terminal velocity

SPE-173589-MS 5

Description and Application of Equipment and Processes

Mechanical design and Manufacturing

Based on CFD simulations (see Results section below), we implemented the selected design in Solid
Works 3-D CAD software from Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corp. Then a test CFU vessel and all
internal components were manufactured for lab testing purposes.
Closed off Bucket While introducing the swirl design, the bucket must be either closed off below the
water surface or extended to the top of the CFU vessel. If not, the fluid flow will enter and move down
inside the bucket, which is not desired. Either way of closing off the bucket enforces two reject outlets.
Extending the bucket to the top of the CFU vessel showed marginally better separation performance than
closing off the bucket below the water surface. We chose the closed off bucket as the preferred design
because it caused less disturbance in the important upper separation zone, and CFD simulations might
miss important effects that influence overall flotation efficiency in this area. The reject pipe inside the
bucket is located a certain distance below the top of the bucket, exits below the swirl geometry, through
the vessel wall in the test vessel design (Figure 4, right).
Gas bubbles and entrained oil droplets will rise to the surface inside the closed off bucket, utilizing the
volume inside the bucket as a secondary oil separation stage. A gas pocket forms in the top of the bucket
above the reject pipe. The reject pipe inside the bucket will remove a mixture of oil/water/gas and keep
the desired level constant. The same operational principles apply here as in primary reject operations.
Figure 4 shows various versions of the internal design including the new geometry inside the top of the
vessel (left), by itself (center), and inside the bottom of the vessel (right; as seen from the clean water exit)
with the secondary reject pipe.

Figure 4 —New internal design

Modular test CFU vessel The CFU test vessel consists of three main parts: a top, bottom and middle
section (Figure 17). The three sections are all flanged as a variant of a slip-on flange. Flange rings are
pressed against a pipe collar by 12 stud bolts.

Figure 5—Test vessel details

General Lab specification

Equipment at the Schlumberger Produced Water & Sand Management (PWSM) test facility in Porsgrunn,
Norway includes the following:
6 SPE-173589-MS

Produced Water Rig

● Synthesized Produced Water (loop)
● 1 to 15 m3/h @ 1 to14 barg and 60 degC (90 degC short time)
● 0 to 15 % Salinity (5 % as normal max)
● Gas saturation with Nitrogen
● 0 to ~500 ppm oil content (any oil can be used, 3 - 40 ␮m droplet size)
● Gas injection (N2, measured flow up to 20% of PW rate)
● Online salinity measurement
● Online OiW monitor at in/out (Adv. Sensors)
● Online Malvern Lazer diffraction (droplet sizing)
● Good monitoring/storage/trending opportunities by use of LabView and Bazefield Database
Software (P, T, Flows, Salinity, Valves, etc.)
● PW Technologies in Test Rig - EPCON CFU and Cyclotech Hydroyclones

Analytical Lab
● Particle and Droplet sizing (Malvern 2000)
● Oil in water concentrations (TD500 UV)

Flow loop description

A purpose-built PW test rig simulates an actual PW environment by making artificial produced water. In
the gas saturation vessel, different brines are added to fresh tap water to reproduce different oil field
chemistries. The vessel is pressurized by an N2 gas supply to simulate dissolved gas in a liquid well
stream, which expands across pipe restrictions in the process system and improves flotation process
efficiency.
SPE-173589-MS 7

Figure 6 —Dv50 oil droplet size

Figure 7—Test rig illustration

The inlet shear valve creates a certain oil droplet size distribution (i.e. volume) depending on the
differential pressure across the valve. Figure 6 shows dv50 values for droplet sizes created by the inlet
shear valve. The crude oil used in this experiment was Oseberg Blend Troll Blend. The instrument used
for droplet size distribution measurements was a Malvern Insitec Wet with RTsizer software.
Induced gas flotation is emphasized in the CFU. Hence, a static gas/liquid mixer upstream from each
CFU inlet creates the gas bubble distribution required by the specific flotation process. An inline
conductivity meter monitors the salinity level. A 42-kW electrical heater ensures the desired PW
temperature. The system is equipped with several inline temperature and pressure sensors for process
monitoring and control.
Selected crude oils were added to the PW utilizing a controlled volume pump, providing the specified
OiW concentration. The OiW concentration was monitored by an online measurement system from
Advanced Sensors and reference measurements were made by industry-recognized offline measuring
methodology. Oil-droplet size distributions were produced by adjusting the shear force applied on the
liquid by the inlet droplet design valve. The oil droplet size of dv50 used in the tests was determined
according to Figure 6, where the x-axis represents differential pressure across the inlet valve and the y-axis
represents the dv50 distribution. The oil droplet sizes were measured by inline and offline Malvern
instruments (Mastersizer 2000 and Insitec Wet).
8 SPE-173589-MS

At the top of the CFU vessel, a gas cap forms between the water surface and the vessel top. Oil droplets
attached to gas bubbles float to the water surface, forming an oil layer. An immersed reject pipe at the top
of the vessel evacuates the three-phase fluid (oil, water, gas) from the vessel top through a reject valve
into a reject treatment system. Reject evacuation is pressure driven and requires a higher pressure than the
reject receiving system (reject treatment, separation train).
The new design features a secondary separation step inside the CFU vessel. The smaller gas bubbles
with attached oil droplets float to the water surface in the secondary separation chamber, and exit through
a dedicated secondary reject pipe. The reject streams are connected downstream from the CFU vessel to
a common receiving facility. It is extremely important to minimize reject flows, and online monitoring
systems are designed specifically for this purpose (Asdahl, S., Rabe, K., 2012). The reject flow rate is
determined by a certain percentage of the total CFU liquid feed flow. The clean PW exits at the vessel
bottom.
The test rig control system uses software and hardware from National Instruments, Labview (the
graphical program for measurement and control systems) and FieldPoint (a distributed I/O system). Data
capture, storage, trending and visualization were made with Bazefield software from Baze Technology.
Sampling and OiW measurement
The OiW concentration is measured in real time by
Advanced Sensors Ltd OiW EX model, a system
designed to monitor the residual hydrocarbon con-
tent of pipelines carrying PW at oil processing fa-
cilities. The OiW-EX Series of Oil in Water Mon-
itor Systems uses laser radiation to energize the
contents of the measurement chamber with an inci-
dent optical wavelength. Then a sensitive tuned
detector at a different wavelength measures the Figure 8 —OiW analyzer
stimulated fluorescence value, which is used to de-
termine the proportion of hydrocarbons within the
chamber. The test rig is equipped with a sampling station. Manual valves route sample flow lines to
designated destinations including the OiW analyzer (Figure 8), Malvern droplet analyzer, or sample points
for bottle samples. Each sample point in the test rig has a sample quill placed in the center of the pipe to
extract a representable sample. Isokinetic sampling is maintained by an electromagnetic flow meter.

Results
Below we describe the results from the three parts of our project plan: the CFD analysis (i.e., a study of
potential new designs), performance testing at the PWSM Test Centre (i.e., benchmark testing in flow
loop), and the field trial offshore.

Computational Fluid Dynamics

We screened several possible designs during the pre-study phase of the project, and selected two designs
for further validation and optimization based on promising CFD results. The two designs we investigated
further during the concept validation phase were:
● Second guide design (Figure 9). The additional guide is located beneath the present guide, fixed
to the vessel wall with a gap between the bucket and guide. This design aids flotation of gas
bubbles/oil droplets that have moved below the primary guide and otherwise might be lost from
the flotation process.
● Swirl design (Figure 10). This design features a lower terminal velocity in certain areas, smooth
downward fluid bulk flow, a fluid vortex that aids collisions between gas bubbles and oil droplets
SPE-173589-MS 9

(improving the possibility of coalesced droplets rising in the CFU), and separates residual crude
oil from PW in a second treatment stage.

Figure 10 —Swirl design

Figure 9 —Second guide design

All simulations were performed using ANSYS FLUENT v.15.5. We designed a CFD model and a
simplified Lagrangian multiphase model, using one-way coupling for simulation. First, water flow was
simulated with no oil or gas present. When the calculation converged, flow field was frozen and gas
bubbles at different sizes were released at the inlet. We made the assumption that the flow pattern of the
water affects the flow pattern of gas bubbles, not the reverse. We tracked gas bubbles in the simulations,
not oil droplets, since the likelihood of gas bubbles eventually hitting an oil droplet is much greater.
Finally, we recorded the fraction of gas bubbles that reached the water surface and used that to determine
oil separation efficiency.
Figure 11 shows how the DUAL CFU technology improved separation performance compared with
existing technology. The separation improvement is largest when gas bubble sizes are from 250-350 ␮m
in the more promising of the two internal designs. By decreasing the gas bubble diameter, while still
satisfying Equation 2, a higher collision efficiency can be achieved according to Reay and Ratcliff,
(Oliveira, R.C.G., Gonzalesz, G., Oliveira, J.F. 1999.)
Equation 3

Where ␣0 is a proportionality factor and N depends on the density of the oil droplet and the gas
bubble. A higher collision efficiency contributes to greater overall oil separation efficiency, accord-
ing to Equation 1.
10 SPE-173589-MS

Figure 11—CFD analysis of design alternatives

Figure 11 summarizes the main results from our CFD analysis. Introducing the second guide increased
gas bubble separation efficiency only by 3-4%, while using the swirl design increased separation by
3040%. Hence, we chose the swirl design for further analysis, prototyping and testing. Based on our
experience, a good correlation exists between gas bubble separation efficiency in CFD analysis and oil
separation efficiency in real operations on full-scale systems.

Optimization of the swirl design in DUAL

We based the optimization of the swirl design on investigation of the separation efficiency of 250-␮m,
350-␮m, 500-␮m and 750␮m gas bubbles released at the inlet of the CFD model. Originally, the swirl
design started with a helix in which water flow circled around the Z-axis downward inside a helix channel.
Figure 12 illustrates the premature helix configuration. CFD simulation shows that the swirl design causes
gas bubbles with oil droplets to spin beneath the main guide. Eventually, the gas bubble/oil droplets end
up at the surface, inside the closed off bucket. The residence time of bubble/droplets within the CFU is
high enough to enable them to coalesce and thereby substantially improve overall separation efficiency.
SPE-173589-MS 11

Figure 12—Swirl helix optimization

Figure 13—Illustration of final product

Figure 14 —Swirl optimization - number of turns

12 SPE-173589-MS

Figure 15—Swirl optimization skirt angle

We optimized the helix design by comparing the

number of turns with separation efficiency (Figure
14 shows 1, 1.5, 2, 3 and 6 channel turns). One turn
showed only marginally lower performance than
three and six turns. Because of its simpler design
Figure 16 —Swirl angle
and high separation performance, we chose the sin-
gle turn swirl option for further benchmark perfor-
mance testing. The geometry of “one turn” exhibits
no channel flow. The PW simply passes through a rectangular gap and subsequently enters the swirl
motion, facilitating flotation of gas bubbles and oil droplets inside the closed off bucket.
After investigating several possible swirl guide angles (Figure 15) between the vessel wall and bucket,
we found that a 15 deg guide angle (Figure 16) provided the best performance.

Performance testing at the PWSM Test Center

As indicated above, the DUAL vessel was manufactured according to the best results from CFD
simulations and analysis, and tested in a laboratory flow loop.
Benchmark performance tests used two types of crude oil, an Oseberg Blend with an API gravity of
37.8 and a Troll Blend with an API gravity of 35.9. Figure 17 shows the DUAL test vessel connected to
an existing test rig ready for operation.
SPE-173589-MS 13

Figure 17—CFU test vessel

Benchmark tests — Oseberg Blend Crude Oil The original CFU and the DUAL design were both
benchmark tested using an experimental setup that allowed a sudden switch over from the existing CFU
to DUAL. While most real configurations consist of two CFUs in serial operation, this experiment tested
only a single existing CFU against the new CFU. The test procedure included the following steps:
● Set flotation gas rate, wait for set point value and stable conditions
● Manually adjust the DUAL’s second reject rate, read inlet concentration from Oil In Water
analyzer
● Switch sample point to DUAL outlet, wait and register response, read outlet concentration from
OiW analyzer.
● Set sample point to inlet, switch to existing CFU, read inlet concentration from Oil In Water
analyzer (use manual samples to verify)
● Switch sample point to existing CFU outlet, wait and register response, read outlet concentration
from OiW analyzer.
● Set new desired flotation gas rate, and repeat procedure above.

Table 1—Oseberg Blend benchmark parameters

14 SPE-173589-MS

Figure 18 —Benchmark test Single CFU vs DUAL (Oseberg Blend)

The new CFU showed significantly better separation performance than a traditional one-stage CFU
(Figure 18 shows average values from repeat tests). The pressure in the DUAL vessel was 2.2 barg
compared to the CFU vessel pressure of 1.7 barg. The pressure difference favors the dissolved gas effect
of the CFU in this test. According to the Oseberg crude oil benchmark test, for practical flotation gas rates,
the new CFU improves separation performance by 45 %.
Benchmark tests — Troll Blend Crude Oil The Troll Blend crude oil was tested using the same
procedure as the Oseberg Blend. However, this benchmark test compared two CFUs in serial operation
with one DUAL vessel. The same test parameters were applied to both the Oseberg and Troll Blends
(Tables 1 and 2). The differences were the API value of each blend and test pressure

Table 2—Troll Blend benchmark parameters

SPE-173589-MS 15

Figure 19 —Performance tests, 2 CFUs vs DUAL (Troll Blend)

In Figure 19, both vessels have a pressure of 1.65 barg. The oil separation performance of an individual
CFU in serial operation can vary from one facility to another and the process can vary from well to
facility, in addition to process parameters and PW chemistries.
At realistic flotation gas rates, the new DUAL technology reached 80% of the oil separation efficiency
of two serially-operated CFU vessels.
Offshore Field trial
Field Trial kit The trial test system consisted of one conventional CFU vessel and one DUAL design
(Figure 20) with all associated fittings, hoses, and other components required to tie in to the offshore
facility PW process. The utility system on the platform supplied flotation gas (N2), which a Schlumberger
metering station controlled.

Figure 20 —Test equipment for offshore field trial

16 SPE-173589-MS

Hook up To ensure equal distribution, quality and velocity below 3 m/s of inlet water to the two vessels,
a 1.5” spool was connected to a 2” tie-in valve. As shown in the trial kit set-up (Figure 21), a horizontally
oriented T-piece distributed flow to the two vessels (left). The sampling point was upstream of the
chemical injection point (right).

Figure 21—Trial kit set-up

Sampling Samples were taken out of both trial CFUs from their common inlet. In addition, visual reject
samples were taken and monitored for tuning/optimization purposes. Schlumberger personnel at the
facility’s lab analyzed samples using a Turner 500D. A facility lab-technician analyzed parallel samples
using the standard gas chromatograph method for verification and correlation. Finally, a certain number
of samples were sent onshore for third-party verification.
OiW analyzer Oil in Water measurements was executed using a Turner Designs TD-500D OiW
analyzer. The instrument measures the intensity of fluorescence from aromatic compounds in the crude
oil. Cold PW samples conserved with hydrochloric acid are extracted from the oil using n-pentane. Then,
the pentane phase is measured directly for oil content. A two-point calibration is made with the local crude
oil. The local laboratory technician can also analyze parallel samples for comparison. The method is quick
and useful for analyzing many samples in a short period. However, it is not accepted as an official method
for reporting OiW to the authorities.
Based on our experience, OiW results found with the Turner TD 500D are usually higher than those
measured by the InfraCal. To obtain results that could be compared with the daily discharge PW from the
current platform, we performed a calibration between the two methods.
Field trial results Based on our offshore field trial, the DUAL CFU performed 27% more efficiently
than the existing CFU. The new internal design substantially improved both oil separation efficiency and
outlet OiW concentration (Figure 22).
SPE-173589-MS 17

Figure 22—Field trial analysis

Conclusion
Schlumberger has completed a significant project aimed at developing an improved CFU design. CFD
analysis suggested that a new internal swirl design could improve gas separation efficiency on order of
30-40% compared with existing technology. Experience from earlier research work shows a good
correlation between oil separation efficiency and CFD results based on gas bubble separation efficiency.
We built a modular test vessel called DUAL to test relevant internal configurations. Lab tests and
analysis in the flow loop with Oseberg Blend and Troll Blend crude oils confirms that the new design
improves oil separation efficiency by 45% compared with the existing CFU design. A field trial at an
offshore facility on the Norwegian Continental Shelf in 2014 demonstrated that DUAL technology
improved efficiency in the field by 27% compared with the existing CFU.
As a result of this development project, a new CFU product is ready for the industry to deploy either
in new builds or retrofits. While the new design features considerably improves separation efficiency, it
retains the same outer dimensions and weight as existing units.

Acknowledgments
We thank Schlumberger for permission to publish this paper. We also thank our suppliers who were
involved in successful delivery of the project: Acona Flow Technology AS and Cody AS.

Nomenclature
CFU ⫽ Compact Flotation Unit
CFD ⫽ Computational Fluid Dynamics
PWSM ⫽ Produced Water & Sand Management
PW ⫽ Produced Water
OiW ⫽ Oil in Water
18 SPE-173589-MS

Eflot ⫽ Flotation efficiency

Ecollision ⫽ Gas-oil collision efficiency
Eadhesion ⫽ Oil-gas adhesion efficiency
Eagglomerate ⫽ Agglomerate creation efficiency
Vt oil droplet ⫽ terminal velocity oil droplet
Vt gas bubble ⫽ terminal velocity gas bubble
␳w ⫽ density water
␳g ⫽ density gas
␳o ⫽ density oil
dg ⫽ diameter gas bubble
do ⫽ diameter oil droplet
g ⫽ gravitational force
CD ⫽ drag coefficient gas bubble
␮w ⫽ dynamic viscosity water
Ec ⫽ collision efficiency
␣0 ⫽ proportionality factor

References
Asdahl, S., Rabe, K., 2012. Real-Time Automatic Operation and Optimization of Produced-Water
Treatment. Paper SPE 167492 presented at SPE Middle East Intelligent Energy Conference and
Exhibition held in Dubai, UAE, 28-30 October 2013.
Oliveira, R.C.G., Gonzalesz, G., Oliveira, J.F. 1999. Interfacial Studies on Dissolved Gas Flotation.
Paper SPE 50767 presented at 1999 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry held in
Houston, Texas, 16-19 February 1999.
Perry, R.H. and Green, D.W. 1998. Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, seventh edition:
McGraw-Hill. INC
White, F.M. 1994. Fluid Mechanics, third edition: McGraw-Hill, INC