Zero Produced Water Discharge Innovation in Production Fluid Management for Sustainability and Financial Efficiency

This paper will present the sustainability initiatives of PHI Tanjung Field obtained from the evaluation of existing oil and gas production activities. Through the Plan-Do-Check Action (PDCA) approach, based on the results of life cycle assessment and focus group discussions from managers and engineers in Tanjung Field, the identification of priority problems is related to the management of production fluid generated from outside the existing production facility process. Through a fishbone diagram approach to find out the root of the problem followed by Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) including Pareto diagrams and risk map analysis to get priority risk problems in the form of production fluid processing methods. Furthermore, through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach, the alternative solution taken is to modify the production fluid processing with CSSR (Contain, Sediment, Separate, Recovery) innovation. The results of this CSSR innovation are no more produced water is discharged into the environment so that the Tanjung Field Manager’s policy of moving towards zero produced water discharge is achieved. With this innovation, the processing efficiency of the production fluid in 2^nd year (prediction) after innovation is 97.5%, up from 66.6% in initial year before innovation. By optimizing the use of produced water, the need for clean water for the injection program can be minimized. The reduction of clean water usage from Initial year to 2^nd year (prediction) is 83.1%. The efficiency ratio of this innovation is 11.10 > 1 indicates that the program generates more savings and revenue than its cost, making it a worthwhile investment. In energy reduction, the effectiveness of this innovation from Initial year to 2^nd year (prediction) is reducing energy by 94.96%. In emission reduction, the reduction of CO₂ emission load from Initial year to 2nd year (prediction) is 95%. This innovation contributes to the 6^th Sustainable Development Goal (SDGs) “Clean Water and Sanitation,” the 7^th SDGs “Clean and Affordable Energy,” the 12^th SDGs “Responsible Consumption and Production,” 13^th SDGs “Handling Climate Change,” and the 14^th SDGs “Ocean Ecosystems.”

Introduction

Pertamina is committed to supporting the Indonesian government in achieving net zero emissions (NZE) by 2060 or sooner. NZE is a condition where the amount of carbon emissions released into the atmosphere does not exceed the number of emissions the earth can absorb (PPSDMA KemenESDM, 2022). The Indonesian government’s five principles for achieving net zero emissions consist of increasing the use of new renewable energy (NRE), reduction of fossil energy, use of electric vehicles in the transportation sector, increasing electricity use in households and industry, and finally, the use of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) (KemenESDM, 2021).

Pertamina is moving forward in the energy transition while realizing energy security for Indonesia. Pertamina’s steps to achieve net zero emissions by developing asset decarbonization road maps and green business development. To support this goal, Pertamina has developed ten priority targets for sustainable development goals (Pertamina, 2020). Pertamina as a holding then requires several initiatives from the Pertamina Group Subholding to support the target. Pertamina Hulu Indonesia (PHI) Tanjung Field, one of the work areas for exploration and production activities of the Hulu Subholding, is re-evaluating its activities as a step in the company’s sustainability initiative. From a sustainability perspective, one of PHI Tanjung Field’s concerns before trial period is that the results of production fluid treatment have not been optimized, resulting in the non-production of produced water for pressure maintenance for injection wells. Therefore, zero produced water discharge has not been achieved.

Production fluid from outside the existing production facility processing, such as cellars, rig activities, workshops, and other supporting activities, enter the production fluid processing facilities, and then the produced water resulting from the fluid processing is channeled to the B3 Temporary Storage-1 and are considered as production process residue. Production fluid processing has not been maximized, so the amount of residue from the production process is still quite large, accompanied by energy and emission reduction that has not been optimal. This indicates the need to optimize fluid processing so that the processing results can utilize produced water as pressure maintenance, minimize production process residues, and reduce energy and emissions.

Previous research related to production fluid management by Huiet al. (2020), Abuhaselet al. (2021), and de Medeiroset al. (2022) tends to discuss wastewater treatment technology to its advantages and challenges by focusing on the potential for crude oil recovery. The significance of this paper is that it will discuss production fluid management (wastewater treatment), which is not only crude oil recovery but also encourages efficiency both financially and environmentally.

The financially efficient aspect will be justified based on profit, cost savings, and return on investment (ROI). Then, environmentally efficient aspects include zero produced water discharge to the environment and a reduction of clean water usage, production process residues, energy, and emissions.

The aim and purpose of this research are to develop and evaluate zero-produced water discharge innovation to optimize production fluid management at PHI Tanjung Field with effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and regulatory compliance.

Research Methods

Research Design

The scientific problem-solving method of this research is Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA). PDCA has been practiced as a main competitive advantage and continuous problem-solving approach by many successful companies all over the world (Gideyet al., 2014). PDCA has been practiced as a main competitive advantage and continuous problem-solving approach by many successful companies all over the world (Gideyet al., 2014).

“Plan” is about defining the problem to be solved, gathering relevant data, determining the root cause of the problem, to determining appropriate solutions with quality improvement opportunities. Appropriate solutions are formulated and evaluated to identify the most profitable solutions available (Realyvásquez-Vargaset al., 2018).

“Do” phase is where that plan is implemented for the first time as an opportunity to try out the solution plan (Pratik & Vivek, 2017). In “Do” phase, conduct the trial, gather data, and document the observations of the process, including the deviations from the plan.

In this phase, the results of the actions implemented in the “Do” phase are analyzed and evaluated to check whether there have been improvements or not (Al-Bakooshet al., 2020). After that, make a comparison by evaluating the results against the objectives set in the “Plan” phase.

Based on the results of the “Check” phase, in case the “Plan” is successful or not, the cycle starts again. If the “Plan” is not successful, conduct the review and refine the plan based on what you learned through the cycle and implement it again. If the “Check” phase confirms the success of the “Plan,” standardize and preserve the successful change by updating operating procedures to assure consistency across the business until replication of the pilot innovation is practicable. The research design for this research can be seen in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Research design.

Data Collection Method

This research data consists of primary data and secondary data. The primary data in this research are presented in Table I. The secondary data in this research are presented in Table II.

Table I. Primary Data

Data retrieval	Activities conducted
1. Direct observation	Observe the workflow in the production fluid processing to determine whether there are bottlenecks or production stages that often experience interruptions and collect notes from employees in charge of the fluid processing section about factors that hinder production, suggestions for improvement, and obstacles they face in their daily tasks.
2. Document review	Analyze operational manuals, quality reports, or incident logs to identify trends or recurring issues.
3. Analysis of processing performance before implementation	Collect energy usage data for each stage of fluid processing and analyze inefficient fluid processing.
4. Forum group discussion	a. Use related function reviews or fluid processing feedback to identify problems or complaints related to product quality or delivery times b. Discuss with the production function about fluid management, time constraints on management, chemical inventory management, or other factors that can affect efficiency. c. Discussion of proposed changes in the form of production fluid processing innovations
5. Process recording and documentation	Collect the electricity usage, water usage, production process residue load, and collecting produced water for laboratory testing by a third party.
6. Performance measurement after implementation	Measure electricity usage, water usage, production process residue, and the efficiency level of fluid processing.

Table II. Secondary Data

Data retrieval	Activities performed
1. Scientific research database	Use scientific databases such as Publish or Perish to search for articles discussing solutions for fluid processing
2. Regulations and policies	Access laws or regulations related to production safety, quality standards, or environmental policies
3. Historical production data	Monthly or annual production data from the last few years to see fluctuations in fluid processing or trends in increasing/decreasing efficiency

Data Analysis Method

The data analysis method in this research can be seen in Table III.

Table III. Data Analysis Method

Analysis method	Phase and data type
1. Fishbone diagram, failure mode effect analysis (Pareto diagram and risk map)	Phase: Plan–define the problem
2. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)	Phase: Do & Check–alternative solution
3. Process recording and documentation	Phase: Act–implementation plan
4. Performance analysis of production fluid processing	Phase: Act–justification and contribution
5. Feedback analysis	Phase: Act–recommendation

Results and Discussion

Problem Analysis

This section is the “Plan” phase related to defining the problem to be solved, gathering relevant data, and determining the root cause of the problem. Fluid processing facilities at PHI Tanjung Field are available but have not been run efficiently. The characteristics of the fluid that enters the production fluid management facility is that it is still mixed with oil, water, sediment, and waste.

Root Cause Analysis

Cause-and-effect analysis using a fishbone diagram. Analysis with this diagram was carried out to determine factors that caused the emergence of the selected issue and to determine the relationship between causal factors and the emergence of the issue. This fishbone analysis technique uses 5 M categories with explanations in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Root cause analysis of production fluid processing problems.

Risk Priority Analysis

The Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) method is used to find out the dominant causal factors. The Risk Priority Number (RPN) formula is as follows (1):

(1) $$\begin{array}{rl}RPN& =Severity(S)\times Occurance(O)\\ & \times Detection(D)\end{array}$$

Recapitulation of risk priority analysis with failure mode effect analysis can be seen in Table IV so that a Pareto diagram can be displayed, as can be seen in Fig. 3. Risk map from this FMEA analysis can be seen in Fig. 4.

Table IV. Recapitulation of FMEA

Parameter (FMEA)	S	O	D	RPN	%	% Cumulative
Method	6	9	8	432	56%	56%
Tool	5	8	6	240	31%	88%
Environment	8	8	4	96	13%	100%

Fig. 3. Pareto’s diagram.

Fig. 4. Risk map of production fluid processing problem.

From Table IV, Figs. 3, and 4, the risk priority of the production processing problem is the method. The risk of the method problem in production processing problem is high risk. In the context of a risk map within Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), “high risk” refers to failure modes that have the highest potential impact on the system, process, or product being analyzed.

Analysis of Conditions Before Innovation

The visualization conditions before innovation is production fluids processing from outside the existing production facility processes, such as cellars, rig activities, workshops, and other supporting activities at the PHI Tanjung Field which produced water has not been optimally utilized, can be seen in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. Vizualization conditions of production fluid processing before innovation.

Business Solution

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is one of the most comprehensive multi-criteria decision-making tools (Ahadiet al., 2023). The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) framework in research can be seen in Fig. 6. The determination of the selected alternative based on AHP using matrix multiplication is made. The matrix multiplication in AHP can be seen in Fig. 7.

Fig. 6. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) framework.

Fig. 7. Matrix multiplication in AHP.

Implementation and Justification

Implementation Plan

Implementation plan step of production fluid processing facility using “CSSR” innovation can be seen in Fig. 8.

Fig. 8. Implementation plan step of production fluid processing facility using “CSSR” innovation.

Justification

Justification Based on Efficiency of Production Fluid Processing

“CSSR” innovation in processing production fluids from outside the processing of existing production facilities optimizes the use of produced water to assist the well injection program as pressure maintenance for production wells. Recapitulation of production fluid processing efficiency can be seen in Table V. By optimizing the use of produced water, the need for clean water for the injection program can be minimized. The recapitulation of the reduction of clean water usage can be seen in Table VI.

Table V. Recapitulation of Production Fluid Processing Efficiency

Parameter	Max. level	Before implementation plan			After implementation plan
		Initial year to Q3 Trial period			Q4 Trial period (Trial)			1st year (prediction)			2nd year (prediction)
		Inlet	Outlet	Efficiency	Inlet	Outlet	Efficiency	Inlet	Outlet	Efficiency	Inlet	Outlet	Efficiency
	mg/L	mg/L	mg/L	mg/L	mg/L	mg/L	mg/L	mg/L	mg/L	mg/L	mg/L	mg/L	mg/L
TDS	4000	2206.6	368.3	83.3%	1048.5	90.3	91.4%	1567.0	85.3	94.6%	1567.0	76.3	95.1%
BOD	100	22.3	8.4	62.1%	13.9	2.5	85.0%	88.9	2.1	97.6%	88.9	2.0	97.8%
COD	300	62.2	25.4	59.2%	42.7	6.6	84.4%	274.0	6.5	97.6%	274.0	3.8	98.6%
TOC	110	13.2	5.0	61.9%	4.8	0.8	84.3%	91.9	2.2	97.6%	91.9	1.2	98.7%
Total				66.63%			86.3%			96.9%			97.5%

Table VI. Recapitulation of Reduction of Clean Water Usage

		Before implementation	After implementation
Detail		Initial year	Trial period(Q4 Trial)	1st year(prediction)(1st)	2nd year(prediction)(2nd)
Water usage of production process	m3	4906	4415	857	829
Saving water usage	m3		491.2	4049.3	4076.9
			10.0%	82.5%	83.1%
Total production	TOE	128637	113,623	110,223	110,976
Inflation	%		1.87	5.51	2.61
Cost	IDR/m3	7219	7354	7760	7962
Saving	IDR		3,612,423	31,420,549	32,460,377
Water usage intensity to total production	m3/TOE	0.038	0.039	0.008	0.007
Total saving water usage	m3		8617.4
Total saving	IDR		67,493,349
Average water usage intensity to total production	m3/TOE		0.0076
Reduction of water usage intensity to total production			80%

From the recapitulation in the Table V, the graph of production fluid processing efficiency for each parameter can be seen in Fig. 9. The total fluid treatment efficiency is the average of all parameters.

Fig. 9. Production fluid processing efficiency before and after implementation plan.

From Table V and Fig. 9, with this innovation, the processing efficiency of the production fluid in 2^nd year (prediction) after innovation is 97.5%, up from 66.6% in Initial year before innovation. By optimizing the use of produced water, the need for clean water for the injection program can be minimized. The reduction of clean water usage in 2^nd year (prediction) by 83.1% from 4906.3 m³ in Initial year to 829.4 m³ in 2^nd year (prediction) total saving water usage 8617.4 m³ (0.075 m³ water usage/TOE). Complying with the PermenLHK No. 68, 2016, the efficiency of BOD removal during the trial period is 85.0% and COD removal is 84.4% > 80%.

Justification Based on the Impact on the Company’s Economy

Efficiency is one of the main pillars that supports business continuity in today’s competitive business environment. The company’s efficiency formula for the cost of the improvement program relative to the potential savings in company expenses and additional revenue can be expressed as (2):

(2) $$\begin{array}{rl}& Efficiencyratio\\ & =\frac{Potentialsavings+Additionalrevenue}{Costofimprovementprogram}\end{array}$$

Recapitulation of the company’s economic potential value can be seen in Table VII.

Table VII. Recapitulation of the Company’s Economic Potential Value

Parameter	Unit	Total potential
		Trial period-2nd year (prediction)
Investment
Modifications of fluid processing	IDR	664,000,000
Profit & Savings
Recovery crude oil (≈ IDR 1,318,011/Barrel)	Barrels	135.55
	IDR	178,650,338
Worker operational	IDR	180,900,000
Purchase of materials	IDR	2,77,246,877
Environmental monitoring	IDR	89,700,000
Management of production process residues (≈ IDR 5,624,200/ton)	Ton	1,233
	IDR	6,937,357,977
Electricity usage(≈ IDR 1,765/kWh)	kWh	170,420
	IDR	300,791,266
Clean water management	m3	8617
	IDR	67,493,349
Net income	IDR	7,368,139,806
Average net income	IDR/Month	263,147,850.2
Payback period	Month	4th
Efficiency ratio		11.10

From Table VII, the efficiency ratio of the zero-produced water discharge “CSSR” innovation in processing fluids from outside the processing of existing production facilities is 11.10>1, indicating that the program generates more savings and revenue than its cost, making it a worthwhile investment. In the Trial period-2^nd year (prediction), the company can save IDR 7,368,139,806 with the return on investment (ROI) in four months. These savings include savings on operational costs, facility management costs, chemical material purchase costs, electricity usage costs, B3 waste management costs, and clean water requirements. Furthermore, the value of the savings includes crude oil recovery (136 barrels of oil recovered), which can be optimized.

Justification Based on Reduction of Production Process Residues

This innovation will contribute to reducing production process residues, as shown in Table VIII and Fig. 10.

Table VIII. Recapitulation of Production Process Residues Load

Production process residues load	Before		After
Year	Initial	Trial period	1st (prediction)	2nd (prediction)
Residues (tons)	635.9	446.5	416.1	105.9
Reduction of residues (tons)		189.5	219.8	530.1
Reduction of residues (%)		29.8%	34.6%	83.4%
Total reduction of residues (tons)		939.33
Total production (TOE)	128,637.2	113,623.4	110,223.0	110,976.4
Residues (tons)/TOE	0.0049	0.0039	0.0038	0.0010
Residues reduction (tons)/TOE		0.0010	0.0012	0.0040
Residues reduction (tons)/TOE (%)		20.5%	23.6%	80.7%
Total residues (tons)/TOE			0.0062

Fig. 10. Reduction of production process residues.

From Table VIII and Fig. 10, the effectiveness of the zero-produced discharge “CSSR” innovation in processing fluids from outside the processing of existing production facilities in reducing production process residues in Trial period-2^nd year (prediction) is 939.33 tons (0.0062 tons/TOE). Complying with PP RI No. 22, 2021, implementation of this CSSR innovation contributed the reduction of production process residues by 83.35% > 50% from 635.91 tons in initial year before the innovation to 105.85 tons in 2^nd year (prediction) after the innovation.

Justification Based on Energy Reduction

The energy usage of pump electricity can be seen in Table IX.

Table IX. Energy Usage of Pump Electricity

		Before		After (prediction)
Detail	Energy = kW ⨯ 0.0036 (GJ/Hours)	Initial	Trial	1st year	2nd year
		Energy usage × energy × time
		(GJ/Year)
Fluid pump	0.047	138.6	86.7	16.4	5.0
Transfer pump between tubs	0.002	6.8	4.2	0.8	0.2
Mixer 1	0.005	13.2	8.3	1.6	0.5
Mixer 2	0.005	13.6	8.5	1.6	0.5
Mixer 3	0.005	13.2	8.3	1.6	0.5
Mixer 4	0.004	12.9	8.1	1.5	0.5
Dosing pump	0.003	8.8	5.5	1.0	0.3
Chemical mixer pump	0.014	40.9	25.6	4.8	1.5
Transfer pump to BS II	0.034		62.3	11.8	3.6
Energy usage (GJ/Year)		248	217	41	13
Saving energy usage (GJ)			31	207	236
Total saving energy usage (GJ)			473.15
Reduction of energy usage			12.35%	83.44%	94.96%
Total electricity usage, 1 GJ = 277.778 kWh (kWh/Year)		68,901	60,390	11,410	3473
Saving electricity usage (kWh)			8511	57491	65,429
Total saving electricity usage (kWh)			131,431.14
Total production (TOE)		128,637	113,623	110,223	110,976
Energy usage to total production (GJ/TOE)		0.0019	0.0019	0.0004	0.0001
Saving energy usage total production (GJ/TOE)			0.00001	0.00156	0.00182
Total saving energy usage total production (GJ/TOE)			0.0034
Reduction of GJ/TOE			0.77%	80.67%	94.16%

The reduction of energy can be derived from the reduction of electricity usage, according to (3). The reduction in energy usage can be seen in Fig. 11.

(3) $$\begin{array}{rl}& Energyreduction\left(GJ\right)\\ & =Electricityusagereduction\left(kWh\right)\times 0.000277778\end{array}$$

Fig. 11. Reduction in energy usage.

From Table VIII and Fig. 11, the effectiveness of the zero-produced water discharge “CSSR” innovation in processing fluids from outside the processing of existing production facilities is reducing energy by 94.96% from 248,044 GJ in Initial year before the innovation to 41,076 GJ in 2^nd year (prediction) after the innovation. Total reduction of energy usage in Trial period-2^nd year (prediction) is 131,431.14 kWh or 473.15 GJ (0.0034 GJ/TOE).

Justification Based on Emission Reduction

Checking the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be derived from checking the reduction of electricity usage, according to (4). The recapitulation of CO₂ emission load can be seen in Table X. The reduction in GHG emission load can be seen in Fig. 12.

(4) $$\begin{array}{rl}& GHGemissions=Electricityusage\left(kWh\right)\\ & \times Emissionfactor\left(kgC{O}_{2e}/kWh\right)\end{array}$$

Table X. Recapitulation of Co₂ Emission Load

Emission CO2 load				Initial year		Trial period		1st year (prediction)		2nd year (prediction)
Emission	Emissionfactor	CO2e	Formula for(6), (8),(10), (12)	1 yearelectricityload	EmissionCO2load	1 yearelectricityload	EmissionCO2load	1 yearelectricityload	EmissionCO2load	1 yearelectricityload	EmissionCO2load
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)	(11)	(12)
	ton/106 Wh		Formula	Wh	tons/Year	Wh	tons/Year	Wh	tons/Year	Wh	tons/Year
CO2	0.73	1	= (2) × (3) × (1 year electricity load)/(106)	68901197	50.3	60390020	44.08	11409944	8.33	3472592	2.535
CH4	0.0000149	25			0.0		0.02		0.004		0.001
N02	0.000104	298			2.1		1.87		0.35		0.108
Emission CO2 load (tons)					52.5		46.0		8.7		2.6
Reduction of emission CO2 load (tons)							12%		83%		95%
Total production (TOE)					128637		113623		110223		110976
Emission CO2 load (tons) to total production (TOE)					0.00041		0.00040		0.00008		0.00002
Reduction of emission CO2 load (tons) to total production (TOE)							1%		81%		94%

Fig. 12. Reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emission load.

From Table X and Fig. 12, the effectiveness of the zero-produced water discharge “CSSR” innovation in processing fluids from outside the processing of existing production facilities in reducing emissions is reducing electricity usage, resulting a reduction of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions load in trial period-2^nd year (prediction) by 100.07 tons CO_2e (0.00072 tons CO_2e/1000TOE). The reduction of CO₂ emission load is 95%, from 52.46 tons of CO_2e in the initial year before the innovation to 2.64 tons of CO_2e after the innovation. Complying with Perpres RI No. 98, 2021, the reduction of CO₂ emission in trial period is 12% > 4.14%.

Contribution to Sustainability

Sustainability is gradually becoming a pivotal criterion and driving force to its further advancement in production fluid (wastewater) processing (Liet al., 2014). Exploring the role of technology in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is critical for the decision-makers and will allow them to overcome any possible trade-off (Obaideenet al., 2022). A wastewater infrastructure system derived from the SDGs is presented to assess their environmental, economic, social, and overall sustainability (Delanka-Pedigeet al., 2021). The zero-produced water discharge “CSSR” innovation in production fluid processing contributes to achieving the SDGs. The contribution of the “CSSR” innovation can be seen in Table XI.

Table XI. Contribution of Innovation to SDGs

Contribution	Explanation of the SDGs achieved
Reduction of clean water usage	6th SDGs Clean Water and Sanitation which supports indicator 6.4.2(a) in the form of reducing raw water withdrawals sourced from surface water from the Tabalong River which is processed at the Water Treatment Plant (WTP). The raw water will flow through a pipe from the WTP to enter the water tank at the Water Injection Plant (WIP).
Reduction of electricity usage	7th SDGs Clean and Affordable Energy, which supports indicator 7.1.1(a) in the form of reducing electricity use.
Reducing the burden of greenhouse gas emissions	7th SDGs Clean and Affordable Energy and 13th SDGs Handling Climate Change. The indicators supported are indicators 7.1.2(b) and 13.2.2.(a) in the form of a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions due to a reduction in electricity use.
There is no water pollution load from produced water	14th SDGs Ocean Ecosystems which support indicator 14.6.1.(a) in the form of compliance by business actors with zero produced water discharged because of processing innovation.
Reduction of production process residues	12th Responsible Consumption and Production which supports indicator 12.4.2 by reducing B3 waste in the form of production process residues (B3 waste code: A330-2) by optimizing produced water produced by processing production fluids from outside the processing of existing production facilities and optimizing crude barrels oil that can still be saved.

From Table XI, the zero-produced water discharge with “CSSR” innovation in processing fluids from outside processing of existing production facilities contributes to the achievement of SDGs, including the 6^th SDGs “Clean Water and Sanitation” due to reduction of clean water usage, the 7^th SDGS “Clean and Affordable Energy” due to reduction of electricity usage and greenhouse gas emission load, the 12^th SDGS “Responsible Consumption and Production” due to reduction of production process residues, 13^th SDGS “Handling Climate Change” due to greenhouse gas emission load, and 14^th SDGS “Ocean Ecosystems” due to no water contamination from produced water.

Conclusion

The processing efficiency of the zero-produced water discharge with “CSSR” innovation in processing fluids from outside processing of existing production facilities in 2^nd year (prediction) after innovation is 97.54%, up from 66.63% in the Initial year before innovation. The efficiency ratio of this innovation is 11.10 > 1, which indicates that the program generates more savings and revenue than its cost, making it a worthwhile investment. The effectiveness of this innovation contributes to reducing production process residues, energy, and the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions load. The reduction of energy and emissions is by reducing electricity usage. Therefore, the effectiveness of this innovation contributes to the achievement of SDGs.