SPE 94276

A Review of Downhole Separation Technology

O.O. Ogunsina, SPE, and M.L. Wiggins, SPE, U. of Oklahoma
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Production and Operations
Symposium held in Oklahoma City, OK, U.S.A., 17 19 April 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
In recent years, a technique of separating water downhole to
reduce the volume of produced water and decrease the chance
of surface pollution has been developed. It is called downhole
oil-water separation (DOWS) technology. This technique
allows water to be separated in the wellbore and injected into a
suitable injection zone downhole while oil with traces of water
is produced to the surface.
Subsequent to the introduction of the DOWS technology
to the oil industry in the 1990s, several trial applications have
been undertaken to test the technology. These trials allowed
significant information to be collected on the feasibility of the
DOWS technology. Through the joint efforts of Argonne
National Laboratory, CH2M-Hill, and the Nebraska Oil and
Gas Conservation Commission, a comprehensive technical
report was issued in January 1999 discussing this technology.
Additional reports on trial applications and feasibility studies
have been presented by various study groups.
This paper reviews the status of and issues surrounding
the application of downhole separation technology. This
review summarizes the various papers and reports dealing
with DOWS technology and its application in the oil and gas
industry. This technology has the potential to provide
significant reductions in produced water as the technology is
adopted by the industry. It can also reduce produced water
handling costs and increase oil and gas production in the right
application. The wide-spread adoption of DOWS technology
is dependent on improving the understanding of the process
and its applications throughout the oil and gas industry.
Introduction
One of the waste by-products of crude oil and natural gas
production in the upstream industry is produced water.
Produced water has been defined as the water produced to the
surface from the hydrocarbon bearing formation during the
extraction of oil and gas, and can include formation water,
injection water and any waste chemicals added downhole or
during the oil/water separation processes.

Conventional production processes involve producing

both oil and water to the surface and then separating them at
the surface. This separation occurs through the use of
separation and dehydration equipment including skimmer
vessels, plate coalescence, hydrocyclones, and, in some cases,
cross-flow membrane filters to reduce the oil content in the
water phase and enhance the quality of the water prior to
disposal. However, as a reservoir matures and oil and gas
production peaks, there is often an associated increase in water
cut and a corresponding increase in both lifting and water
disposal costs. The increased water cut also necessitates
additional maintenance for production equipment and
downhole treatment for corrosion, bacteria, scale, and
naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM).
Although producers still have a variety of choices in
either disposing the water or re-using it, there is a growing
concern from the public related to the handling of this waste
product. Public concern about the environmental impacts of
produced water disposal has therefore become a major issue in
the industry especially related to surface damage due to
spillage or subsurface contamination of drinking water due to
poor injection activities. Environmental regulations pertaining
to produced water management are expected to become more
stringent in the future necessitating new practices and
techniques of managing produced water.
Downhole oil-water separation (DOWS) technology was
introduced to the industry in the 1990s and further work to
assess its feasibility was sponsored by the US Department of
Energy in 1999.1,2 DOWS, unlike the conventional separation
process, separates oil and gas from produced water at the
bottom of the well and injects the separated produced water
into another formation usually deeper than the producing
formation, while the oil and gas are pumped to the surface.2
DOWS technology has the following advantages
associated with its application.
1. DOWS presents an economic advantage in terms of
reduction in water handling costs, as much of the
produced water is not pumped to the surface, thereby
reducing treatment and disposal costs.1-5
2. Reports on trial applications have shown that when
DOWS technology is used, additional oil may be
recovered due to reduced water cut and waterflooding
potential during re-injection.1,2,6
3. DOWS presents a viable option in surface facilities
de-bottlenecking projects, especially in fields that are
far from processing facilities, as it provides extra
capacity for the production of additional oil and gas
due to the reduced surface volume of produced
water.4-7

SPE 94276

4.

DOWS reduces environmental impact of oil and gas

operations as it minimizes the opportunity for
contamination of the surface land and waters through
spillage and surface leaks and underground sources
of drinking water through leaks in tubing and casing
during the surface injection process.4,5,7,8

Although the technical feasibility of DOWS was

established in some specific situations, the economic
feasibility still remains a great challenge in many field
applications due to quick failures in several of the applications
and a general misapplication and misunderstanding of the
technology. There is a need to improve the understanding on
the use of the technology and its application in order to
enhance its chances for wider industry acceptability. This
paper reviews the current status on the use of DOWS through
review and analysis of the field applications carried out in
several independent studies.
Literature Review
The production of subsurface water often accompanies oil and
gas production as it is present in the reservoir. Generally, this
water production increases during the life of the reservoir as a
consequence of reservoir depletion, water influx from an
adjoining reservoir, or through improved reservoir recovery
processes. Oil and water, due to density differences, are
normally initially segregated in the reservoir. However, as
production begins, they become mixed into emulsions as the
fluids from the reservoir flow to the surface through the
reservoir, perforations, tubing, chokes and pumps. Once the
fluids reach the surface, they must be separated again.
Proposed solutions to reduce the cost of separation and
prevent the formation of emulsions have been either to prevent
water from entering the wellbore or manage the water after
entry in a way that emulsions are not formed, which
sometimes involves the use of expensive chemicals.
DOWS technology seeks to address both problems. First,
DOWS reduces the amount of water that is transported with
the oil from the reservoir to the surface. Second, separation
costs are reduced due to a decrease in emulsions problems as
the water phase is reduced in the production stream. Several
studies, including laboratory experiments, simulations,
modeling, feasibility analyzes, and field applications have
been carried out to demonstrate the DOWS technology.1-20
DOWS consists essentially of two systems: a separation
system and a pumping/injection system. Two basic types of
DOWS systems have been developed based on the separation
system utilized. One type relies on gravity separation while
the second system uses hydrocyclones to separate oil and
water. A third type of separation system using membrane
separation technology is yet to be developed and applied in the
field but has been investigated through simulation studies.18
There are three basic types of pumping/injection systems
used with DOWS technology. Electric submersible pumps,
progressing cavity pumps, and sucker rod pumps have been
used in combination with the hydrocyclone separation system
to reinject the water. The gravity separation system has
focused on the use of the sucker rod pump for reinjection.
Stuebinger and Elphingstone11 foresee the potential for several
different combinations of fluid lift systems and injection
systems.

Shaw et al.10 noted in their report that DOWS can also be

classified based on the relative positioning of the pump and
the separator assembly in the wellbore. If the fluid enters the
separator assembly first, the configuration is called a pull
through system. If the produced fluid enters the pumping
system first, the configuration is called a push through system.
Both processes have the disadvantage of poor separation. In
the push through systems this is due to formation of a tighter
emulsion created by the feed pump. The poor separation is due
to free gas or poor homogeneity of inlet mixtures in the pull
through systems.
Gravity Separation DOWS. This type of DOWS takes
advantage of the gravity separation of oil and water that
occurs in the tubing/casing annulus.3,9 In this process, the oil is
allowed to rise upward due to density differences with the
produced water. The separation process is controlled by
Stokes law.
The gravity separator systems work mainly with sucker
rod pumps. There are three different types of gravity separator
systems based on the pump type, the dual action pumping
system (DAPS), the triple action pumping system (TAPS) and
the Q-Sep G system.2
As reported, the most commonly used type of gravity
separator DOWS is the dual action pumping system (DAPS)
which was first developed in 1994 and installed in 1995 by
Texaco personnel. The pump design is shown in Fig. 1. It
incorporates dual intakes to take advantage of the gravity
segregation in the casing. The two intake ports are a critical
distinguishing feature of the gravity type DAPS. Limitations
for the DAPS system includes a maximum fluid capacity of
1200 BPD, the inability to efficiently handle natural gas or
fines in the fluid, and available injection pressures. It also
requires sufficient vertical space between the injection and
production zones to allow for sufficient gravity separation.
The application must provide sufficient wellbore volume that
an appropriate resident time is provided for the oil drop size to
separate and rise from the fluid stream. Equipment allows the
installation in 4-1/2 inch and larger casing.
The second type of gravity separator is a modified version
of the DAPS, the triple action pumping system (TAPS) shown
in Fig. 2. This separation system was also introduced by
Texaco and can be used when the injection formation has low
permeability or requires higher injection pressures. The TAPS
includes an upper piston that operates on the upstroke and two
pistons that operate on the downstroke.
The last type of gravity separator DOWS is the Q-Sep G.
This system is designed to avoid the compressive strain
experienced by the sucker rod string in the DAPS system
during the down stroke due to the required injection pressure.
This system provides a dual operation of lifting the
hydrocarbon and injecting the water on the upstroke while it
carries out an enhanced gravity separation during the down
stroke.
Hydrocyclone Separation DOWS. The separation
mechanism in hydrocyclone separation DOWS is also
governed by Stokes law and is seen in the difference between
centrifugal force generated by the spinning fluid and the drag
force on the moving droplet. The hydrocyclone separator has

SPE 94276

no moving parts. Separation is achieved through high

centrifugal forces which develop due to the geometric design
of the hydrocyclone (Fig. 3).
In operation, produced fluid is introduced into the top
cylindrical portion of the hydrocyclone. The swirling of the
fluid mixture makes the water, the heavier fluid, to spin to the
outside of the hydrocyclone and move toward the lower outlet
while the lighter fluids (oil and gas) remain in the center of the
hydrocyclone where they are drawn through a vortex finder
into the upper outlet and produced by the pump to the surface.
Perfect separation of oil and water in a hydrocyclone,
however, is not possible as some oil is carried along with the
water fraction to be injected and some water is brought to the
surface with the oil and gas fraction. Multiple hydrocyclone
assemblies can be connected in series to enhance the separator
efficiency or in parallel to accommodate flow rates greater
than achievable in a single unit.17
Reports show that the hydrocyclone provides very
effective separation of oil from high water cut fluids, the water
disposal stream usually containing less than 200 ppm residual
oil. A key parameter of hydrocyclone separation is the feed
mixture viscosity. Hydrocyclone performance is viscosity
sensitive and inlet mixture viscosities above 5-10 cp will show
reduced separation performance. The inlet viscosity is a
function of temperature, oil concentration, and pure
component viscosities.
The disposal zone injectivity and the pressure required to
produce the fluid to the surface dictates the horsepower
requirement which in turn determines the number of pumps
that are most appropriate. Dual pump systems allow
horsepower savings to be achieved in applications where the
pressure required to dispose the water is less than the pressure
needed to produce the lower density oil stream to the surface.
The hydrocyclone DOWS separator system was
developed by C-FER Technologies Inc. Several suppliers have
developed different products with various tradenames for the
hydrocyclone based DOWS including AQWANOT,
HydroSep, and Q-Sep. The tradenames are based on the type
of pumps used: electric submersible pumps, progressing cavity
pumps or rod pumps. The most common is the electric
submersible pump DOWS (Fig. 4). It offers many advantages
in situations where the reservoirs are deep and the production
volume is high. Because of the limited wellbore space,
hydrocyclones used in DOWS are narrow and tall in design
requiring a minimum 5-1/2 inch casing size.
Membrane Separation DOWS. The existing gravity
separation and hydroclone separation DOWS technologies
have disadvantages in terms of separation efficiency, cost,
complexity, frequency of failure, and control system
requirements. A new membrane separation technology that
can allow water free production from early production and
does not require any mechanical moving parts is presently
being investigated and has the potential to enhance the use of
DOWS in the industry.14,18
Membrane filtration is the separation of the components
of a pressurized fluid performed by polymeric membranes.
The polymeric membrane is permeable to one or more
components of the mixture and is impermeable to the
remaining components. The openings in the membrane

matrices (pores) are so small that significant fluid pressure is

required to drive liquid through them. The pressure required to
drive the fluid through the membrane varies depending on the
size of the membrane pores. Reverse osmosis (RO)
membranes have the smallest pores, while microfiltration
(MF) membranes have the largest pores, and hence, require
the least pressure.
Tweheyo et al.18 reported that the basic principle in
hydrophobic oil wet membranes proposed for use in downhole
oil-water separation is that the membrane maintains the
capillary entry pressure for water higher than the oil pressure.
This concept presents the potential of separating oil and water
downhole and the possibility of water free oil production.
The membrane well represents the central element in a robust
downhole separation system that does not require movable
parts, mechanical tools or advanced sensors.18
The membrane device can be placed either on the
production tubing or towards the reservoir wellbore. It can be
combined with a water re-injection system so that the
separated water is injected into a suitable formation like other
DOWS systems. It therefore offers a viable option for future
DOWS and in the long term should be simpler than existing
DOWS systems.
The challenges surrounding the process are still
numerous. Since different wells operate in different downhole
pressure regimes, it is expected that different membrane types
will have to be designed to allow for the various capillary
entry pressures of water that will be experienced.
Alternatively, if a standard membrane type is used for all
wells, there will be a need to control the bottomhole pressure
through a pressure control device. The ability to increase
production as desired may be reduced to a specific range of
rate-pressure drawdown for the optimum performance of the
membrane system. Furthermore, membranes loose their
performance effectiveness with time based on the membrane
type, hydrodynamics, membrane-solute interaction, feed and
process conditions.
Another concern in downhole application is related to
membrane fouling. Flux, as a measure for membrane
performance, decreases due to fouling. Membrane fouling
occurs due to the deposition and accumulation of particles on
the membrane surface and within the pores of the membrane.14
The critical enabling technology needed is the development of
reliable membrane materials that can provide long-term
service without excessive fouling.
Different reservoirs may require specific experimental
studies to establish the maximum pressure range over which a
particular type of membrane may be used. Empirical studies
on reducing membrane fouling can make use of standard
membranes and measure filtration flux while keeping other
variables like trans-membrane pressure, oil-water cut,
temperature, and cross-flow velocity constant.
Field Applications
Although relatively more expensive, the most widely used
type of DOWS is the hydrocyclone separation DOWS
technology. There have been some success stories with the
application of DOWS technology; however, the confidence
level in the technology is still low. This has limited the extent
of deployment of the technology industry-wide. The low

SPE 94276

confidence level is mainly due to the misapplication of the

technology in some cases which has yielded undesirable
results that have not encouraged further deployment.11,17
While the individual components of DOWS technology
are fairly simple and easy to operate, the environment in
which they operate is complex and dynamic. This requires
careful consideration and evaluation of operating conditions
when choosing candidate wells. Other reasons for the limited
deployment include high costs, especially for the
hydrocyclone type DOWS, as well as the indirect monitoring
and control required as the pumping/separator system is
downhole. Indirect monitoring may impact the separation
efficiency and possesses the attendant risk of injecting
significant amounts of oil together with the produced water.
This potential production loss is a great inhibitor for the
application of this technology.
Further deployment and trial application of the
technology is needed in order to carry out more studies to
overcome the existing challenges. The fact that most oil
companies presently produce more water than oil and the
current relatively high cost of crude oil in the international
market present an opportunity to encourage further
deployment of the DOWS technology at this present time.
Some of the ways to facilitate further deployment of the
technology includes providing proper guides in the selection
of candidate wells as well as technological improvement of the
process to increase the separator/pump robustness while
lowering costs.
The DOWS technology has been applied in North
America (Canada and USA), South America, Germany,
France, and China with mixed results. Several feasibility
studies without actual field application have also been carried
out for applications in other areas including Africa (Nigeria)
and the Middle East (UAE).
Some of the field applications have shown positive results
with a significant reduction in produced water and no decrease
in oil rates for a significant period of time including the
applications in the Alliance Field3 and the LA-90 well of Lacq
Superieur Field of southwest France.16 Veil et al.2,5 provides a
summary analysis of thirty-seven field trials in North America.
Experience from field trials indicate that as operators and
vendors gain experience with the technology in a particular
area, especially in candidate well selection, that overall
performance of DOWS systems improve.
Other applications of DOWS technology were not
successful and failed within a few days to a few months of
installation. The failure analysis in many cases showed
plugging of injection zones as the main cause of failure. Other
reasons included excessive solids production, corrosion of
downhole tools, undersized pumps, etc. One field trial in East
Texas showed early promise but failed quickly due to
operational problems.12 An example of an unsuccessful
application of DOWS technology is an example from the La
Victoria Field in Venezuala.17

high cost suggests that the design life or time to failure is a

critical factor to the success of a DOWS project. The degree
and duration of benefit that can be realized with the DOWS
technology depends on the particular characteristics of the
producing well, reservoir rock and fluid properties, and the
robustness of the separator/pump assembly. The factors listed
below, though not in order of importance, are all relevant and
should be given careful consideration in the selection and
design process in order to ensure the success of a DOWS
technology installation.

Parameters for Technical and Economic Success

Depending on the DOWS type, typical DOWS project costs
(procurement and installation) range between $120,000 and
$300,000.2 Although reports show that some DOWS projects
have had payback periods as short as 2 months, the relatively

IV. Compatibility between produced water and injection

zone fluids. Incompatible fluids can cause plugging,
corrosion and scaling. This can lead to reduced
injectivity and ultimately a shutdown of the DOWS
system.

I. Presence of a suitable injection zone. This is perhaps

the most important technical requirement. For DOWS
technology to operate properly the injection zone must
have sufficient permeability and porosity to accept
separated produced water. The produced water should
enter continuously into the formation so that the
injection pressure does not build up to exceed the
capability of the pump. Accurate determination of the
injection index of the target zone should never be
compromised during the selection of candidate wells.
II. Location of the injection zone. It is mandatory that the
injection zone and the production zone be isolated and
that there is a significant distance between the last
production perforation and the injection interval. The
Stuebinger et al. report1 recommends at least 10 feet of
separation for gravity-type DOWS installations. The
injection zone can be in the same formation as the
production zone provided there is no pressure
communication between the perforated intervals.
Without sufficient isolation between intervals, the
injected produced water can migrate back into the
producing zone and then short circuit into the
producing perforations, thereby recycling the produced
water and causing oil production rates to drop sharply.
III. High water-oil ratio. The economics of the application
of DOWS is a lot better at the later stage of the
producing life of a well when the water cut is above
80%. At this stage most wells already require artificial
lift systems; a significant portion of the energy is
therefore being spent in lifting the water to the surface.
It is reported that power savings up to 50% over
conventional ESP lift can be achieved when DOWS
technology is applied. Furthermore, increasing water
production leads to higher chemical consumption rates
needed to prevent corrosion, scaling, and emulsions
that ultimately leads to well abandonment due to
declining profitability. The best use of DOWS is
therefore in areas with high water handling costs, i.e.
high water cut wells, operations requiring the use of
third party facilities for water treatment or operations
requiring long distance transportation of produced
water.

SPE 94276

V. Wellbore size and geometry. It is expected that the

interval for DOWS use is fairly vertical. Substantial
deviation of the interval from the vertical may have
undesirable effects on the operation of the DOWS
technology especially when the flowrates are high.
Appropriate casing diameters are also required for the
installation of the downhole equipment.
VI. Produced fluid gravity. Gravity type DOWS are not
suitable for very heavy oils as the time required for
natural separation becomes unnecessarily lengthy. In
addition, the difference in the density of the produced
oil and water is very important to this process as fluids
with minor density differences lengthen the separation
time. Reports indicate that heavy crude/water mixtures
are more likely to form water in oil emulsions
especially when exposed to the shear induced by a push
through design using ESPs, thereby reducing the
efficiency of the DOWS system.
VII. Unconsolidated formations. Reservoirs that are suspect
for sand production may not be suitable for DOWS
technology due to the potential of plugging within the
DOWS system.
VIII. Wellbore integrity. As with any other production
operation, especially subsurface injection, wellbore
integrity is important. Suitable zonal isolation must be
provided in the injection zone through packer
arrangement and cement integrity. This is required to
prevent unwanted fluid movement behind pipe,
minimize leakage in the DOWS system, and potential
recirculation of injected fluids.
IX. Wellbore accessibility. The candidate well should be
free of any downhole obstruction that may increase the
operational risk in installing downhole equipment and
gaining access to the targeted disposal/injection zone.
The application of DOWS technology requires careful
analysis and screening in candidate selection. It further
requires an appropriate evaluation and design process to
determine both economic and technical feasibility of the
potential installation. An appropriate design process is
necessary to provide acceptable performance that will
encourage utilization of the technology.
Blanco and Davies13 developed a decision tree or
selection guide for use in determining the application of
DOWS technology. While the guide does not directly address
the technical requirements in the design of a DOWS
installation, it provides insight on the overall process one
should utilize in evaluating the application of the technology.
Fig. 5 reproduces their screening guide. Jokhio et al.20
analyzed the economic parameters that affect DOWS
installations and discussed characteristics of improved oil
recovery operations that could benefit economically from the
application of DOWS technology. Alhoni et al.19 present an
engineering feasibility study for a particular reservoir to
screen and select potential candidates well for application of
DOWS technology. Each of these examples provides insight

into the selection process for the application of DOWS

technology.
Conclusions
DOWS technology was introduced to the oil and gas industry
in the 1990s. Reports detailing the application of DOWS
technology from inception to date indicate DOWS technology
has considerable benefits despite formidable challenges.
The DOWS technology applied in mature fields
producing at high water-oil ratios has established benefits in
reducing water handling costs and increased oil production
with a reduction of risk of adverse affects on the environment.
While current technology is available for successful
DOWS implementation, there are opportunities for improving
the technology. One such opportunity is in the development
and application of membrane technology, which may
represent a significant enhancement in the utilization of
DOWS technology.
The choice of candidate wells has a great impact on the
potential benefits derived from the application of DOWS
technology. A major consideration in the application of the
technology is the proper candidate well selection based upon
several factors. These factors include the presence of a
suitable injection zone, wellbore configuration, zonal
isolation, and compatibility of fluids.
Data from the field trials indicate that as operators and
equipment vendors gain experience in selecting candidate
wells, the overall performance of this technology improves.
While proven in the field, DOWS technology still has a
number of obstacles to overcome prior to gaining wide-spread
acceptance within the oil and gas industry. The first step in
this acceptance is for the professional and technical staff to
gain a better understanding of the principles and applications
of DOWS technology. The second is for field and operating
staff to gain operational experience with actual field
installations that are successful. Once these two things occur
and personnel become familiar and comfortable with the
technology, then the DOWS technology will evolve and may
become a widely accepted technology for produced water
management.
References
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Stuebinger, L. et al.: Dual Injection and Lifting Systems: Rod

Pumps, paper SPE 38790 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, 5-8
Oct.
Veil J.A., Langhus, B.G. and Belieu, S.: Feasibility Evaluation
of Downhole Oil/Water Separation (DOWS) Technology,
Technical Report for U.S. Department of Energy, Jan. 1999.
Matthews, C.M., Chachula, R., Peachey, B.R., and Solanki,
S.C.: Application of Downhole Oil/Water Separation Systems
in the Alliance Field, paper SPE 35817 presented at the 1996
SPE International Conference on Health, Safety & Environment,
New Orleans, LA, 9-12 June.
Bowers, B.E., Brownlee, R.F., Schrenkel, P.J.: Development of
a Downhole Oil/Water Separation and Reinjection System for
Offshore Application, SPEPF (May 2000).
Veil, J.A., Langhus, B.G. and Belieu, S.: Downhole Oil/Water
Separators: An Emerging Produced Water Disposal
Technology, paper SPE 52703 presented at the 1999 SPE/EPA
Exploration and Production Environmental Conference, Austin,
TX, 28 Feb.-3 March.

6.

7.

8.

9.
10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

SPE 94276

Verbeek, P.H.J., Smeenk, R.G., and Jacobs, D.: Downhole

Separator Produces Less Water and More Oil, paper SPE
50617 presented at the 1998 SPE European Petroleum
Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 20-22 October.
Shaw, C.: Downhole Separation as a Strategic Water and
Environmental Management Tool, paper SPE 61186 presented
at the 2000 SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and
the Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production,
Stavanger, Norway, 26-28 June.
Schrenkel, P.J.: Joint Industry Development of the Downhole
Oil Water Separation System: Field Case Study An Update,
paper SPE 38535 presented at the 1997 SPE Production
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, 9-11 March.
Peachey, P.R and Matthews C.M.: Downhole Oil/Water
Separator Development, JCPT (Sept. 1994) 17-21.
Shaw, C. and Fox, M.: Economics of Downhole Oil-Water
Separation: A Case History and Implications for the North Sea,
paper SPE 50618 presented at the 1998 SPE European
Petroleum Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 20-22
October.
Stuebinger, L.A. and Elphingstone, G.M. Jr.: Multipurpose
Wells: Downhole Oil/Water Separation in the Future, SPEPF
(Aug. 2000).
Analysis of Data from a Downhole Oil/Water Separator Field
Trial in East Texas, Argonne National Laboratory and Arthur
Langhus Layne, Technical Report for U.S. Department of
Energy, Feb. 2001.
Blanco, A.E. and Davies, D.R.: Technical and Economic
Application Guidelines for Downhole Oil-Water Separation
Technology, paper SPE 67182 presented at the 2001 SPE
Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK,
24-27 March.
Fernandez, L.G., Soria, C.O., Tourn, C.A.G., and Izquierdo,
M.S.: The Study of Oil/Water Separation in Emulsion by
Membrane Technology, paper SPE 69554 presented at the
2001 SPE Latin American and Carribean Petroleum Engineering
Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 25-28 March.
Xiaoming, L. et al.: Research of Downhole Separation and
Injection Technique for Rod Pumping Well, paper SPE 68719
presented at the 2001 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference
and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 17-19 April.
Gay, J-C, Minnebois, J-L, Lacourie, Y., and Lecoffre, Y.:
TotalFinaElf Experience and Strategy in Downhole
Processing, paper SPE 78541 presented at the 2002 Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi,
13-16 Oct.
Bangash, Y.K. and Reyna, M.: Downhole Oil Water Separation
(DOWS) Systems in High-Volume/High HP Application, paper
SPE 81123 presented at the 2003 SPE Latin American and
Carribean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Port-of-Spain,
Trinidad, West Indies, 27-30 April.
Tweheyo, M.T., Akervoll, I., Holt, T. and Torsaeter, O.:
Simulations of Oil-Wet Membrane Wells for Water-Free Oil
Production and Downhole Separation, paper SPE 81189
presented at the 2003 SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad,
West Indies, 27-30 April.
Alhoni, M.A., Jerbi, K.K., Drawil, T.A., and Zekri, A.Y.:
Application of Downhole Oil-Water Separation: A Feasibility
Study, paper SPE 80485 presented at the 2003 SPE Asia
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Jakarta, Indonesia, 9-11 Sept.
Jokhio, S.A., Berry, M.R., and Bangash, Y.K.: DOWS
(Downhole
Oil-Water
Separation)
Cross-Waterflood
Economics, paper SPE 75273 presented at the 2002 SPE/DOE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, 13-17 April.

21. Wacker, H.J. et al.: Test Proves Out Triple-Action Pump in

Downhole Separation, Oil & Gas Journal, (4 Oct. 1999) 49-55.

Fig. 1. DAPS System (From Stuebinger et al. )

SPE 94276

Fig. 3. Hydrocyclone Schematic. (From Bowers et al. )

21

Fig 2. TAPS System. (From Wacker et al. )

Fig. 4: DOWS Hydrocyclone System.

SPE 94276

Premises :
1. ESP is economically more
attractive than the current production
method.
2. DOWS is going to be evaluated since:
a) Surface facilities are overloaded or
b) Water handling cost are too high or
c) WC is higher than 50% or
d) Drilling an injector well is too expensive
3. The extra oil production may add by an
additional well being put on production or
increased oil production from this well is not
considered.
4. The profitability impairment due to the
volume of oil injected into the disposal
formation is not considered

CURRENT PRODUCTION METHOD

(ECONOMICAL ANALYSIS)
BASE CASE

DOWS ECONOMICAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

ECONOMIC DATA INPUT

ESP& DOWS equip. reliability, water handling
cost, oil price, discount rate, power supply cost,
ESP & DOWS W/O costs, etc

ESP economical analysis

- Economic limit
- Cum NPV at ESP economic limit

Strategy 1

Strategy 3

Strategy 2
Install DOWS at fixed
installation time

Install DOWS at ESP economic limit.

Select different DOWS
installation times, i.e. ESP
W/O installation times

DOWS evaluation
- Maximum achievable oil
rate based on operational
constraints?
- Economic limit
- Cum. NPV at DOWS economic
limit

1
DOWS reliability, oil price, water handling,
discount rate and power supply cost analysis
- Minimum DOWS reliability, oil price,
water handling, power cost, etc to achieve
DOWS more economically attractive
than ESP

Sensitivity analysis
with DOWS reliability , oil price,
discount rate, water handling and
power cost at the different
installation times

Install DOWS

No

Install ESP

Produce until
ESP economic limit

Evaluate another
Production
Alternative

Evaluate
Strategy 1 or 2

No

Does DOWS extend the

wells economic life?

Install ESP

Yes
Install DOWS

Yes
Is DOWS benefit >
Extra W/O cost
@ DOWS econ . limit

Produce until
DOWS economic limit

Design a plan of
DOWS installation
time depending on the
DOWS reliability , oil price,
water handling, power cost
and discount rate

Produce until
ESP economic limit

Produce until
DOWS economic
limit

Evaluate another
production
alternative
Evaluate another
production alternative

Evaluate another
Production alternative

Install DOWS when

Input conditions
are optimum
for installation

13

Fig. 5. Decision tree for DOWS installation developed by Blanco and Davies.
13
(From Blanco and Davies )