Produced Water Desalination: Science and...
Transcript of Produced Water Desalination: Science and...
The Environmentally Friendly Drilling Program: Lowering Footprint of Energy Production
November, 2011
Produced Water Desalination:Science and Solutions
Environmentally Friendly Drilling
David B. BurnettGlobal Petroleum Research Institute Harold Vance Department of Petroleum EngineeringTexas A&M University979 845 2274http://[email protected]
The A&M Program: What We Do
October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment
For more Info see:http://www.gpri.org/
Saline Water Injection into Oil and Gas Zones
Gas
Water
Oil
WaterDisposal
Well
Gas Oil
Water
Desalination
Surface
Active Water Drive Production
Mobile Membrane Testing Unit
A Research Unit – 50 bbls per day
Desalination Methodologies: Comparison of Thermal vs. Membranes
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
5
1 2 3 4
Thermal Brine Desalination
Reverse Osmosis Definitions (RO)
• Salt rejection • Transmembrane pressure• Feed, permeate, reject or
concentrate rates• Fluxes (volumetric
rate/area)Feed Flux: JF = QF / A
FP CCR /1
PRF P
2PPTMP
October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment
CFx
y P
PF
C
October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment
Micro Filtration (MF) (10-0.1m)Bacteria, suspended particles
Ultrafiltration (UF) (0.05-0.005m) Colloids, macromolecules
Nanofiltration (NF) (5e-3-5.e-4 m)Sugars, dyes, divalent salt ppts.
Reverse Osmosis (RO) (1.e-4-1e-5 m)Monovalent salts, ionic metals
Water
Filtration and Reverse Osmosis: Definitions
TECHNICAL ISSUES
October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment
Why Membranes
• Membranes are designed for colloidal filtration • Modern membranes are robust and find wide application in various
processes and industries • They are energy efficient, small footprint and easy maintenance and
use.
9
Operating Conditions Affecting Output Stream Composition
Feedstock solids concentration (ppm)TemperaturepHMembrane TypeTrans membrane pressure Re-circulation Steps (Separation Efficiency)Feed flow rate
October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment
Design of Field Mobile Laboratory
All Weather Mobile Unit for Site Treatments (2011)
• Mobile testing laboratory in South Texas.
Analytical Laboratory at A&M
Marcellus Shale
Brine Re-Use
Deliverables• Identify optimal treatment techniques for
ultra-high brine concentrations
• Provide information to community leaders
Status• Current field trials in New York• A&M Separation Sciences pilot testing
new technology• Creation of new Analytical Services
Roundtable
Courtesy Williams Bros. Company
Characteristics of Field BrineSilurian Formation Well
Sample Analyte Result Sample Analyte Result
1 Conductivity 222,000 uS/CM ~144,000 TDS (1) 1 Conductivity 222,000 uS/CM
~144,000 TDS (1)
1 pH 4.10 SU 1 pH 5.10 SU
1 Turbidity 175.0 NTU 1 Turbidity 175.0 NTU
1 Dup. Turbidity 173.0 NTU 1 Dup. Turbidity 173.0 NTU1 TOC as NPOC 68.0 mg/L. 1 TOC as NPOC 68.0 mg/L.
1 Dup. TOC as NPOC 65.5 mg/L. 1 Dup. TOC as NPOC 65.5 mg/L.
A,B & C BTEX (avg. from previous Sx’s.) < 1.00 mg/L. A,B & C BTEX (avg. from
previous Sx’s.) < 1.00 mg/L.
A,B, & C Oil/Grease (avg. from previous Sx’s) 33.67 mg/L. A,B, & C Oil/Grease (avg.
from previous Sx’s) 33.67 mg/L.
1 Ammonia as NH3 124.2 mg/L. 1 Ammonia as NH3 124.2 mg/L.
Na 49,8091 Total Barium 116.0 mg/L. 1 Total Barium 116.0 mg/L.1 Boron 4.00 mg/L. 1 Boron 4.00 mg/L.
1 Calcium as Hardness 46,000 mg/L. 1 Calcium as Hardness 4,600 mg/L.
For more Info see:www.EFD-TIP.org
Low Pressure BTEX Removal
Oil & Grease Removal
Media Filtration 9.22
‐0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Elapsed Time, min.
Cum
. Vol
., ga
l.Polymer Ventures/ABS
Field BTEX INFICON Performance
Sample No. Process Step BTEX Reading, ppb
Benzene Toluene Ehylbenzene Xylene Napthalene
Blank STD Test Sample ND 0.201 0.06 0.261 0.049
S‐1 Fld Brine 1 0.048
S‐78 Field Brine ND 0.028 ND ND
G‐79 after Mycelx cArtridge ND 0.097 0.033 ND 0.012
S‐80 After ABS Media ND 0.026 ND ND 0.01
S‐81 Before Ceramic Micro‐filter ND 0.065 0.017 ND
S‐82 After ceramic micro‐filter ND 0.009 0.002 ND
S‐8 After Nano‐filter ND ND ND ND 0.006
Analytical Equipment for BTEX Analysis on Site
Solids Removal
TSS Removal by Micro-Filter
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0:00:00 1:12:00 2:24:00 3:36:00 4:48:00 6:00:00
Axis Title
Axis Title
Pressure and Rate Koch Hollow Fiber August 25, 2011
Pressure
Injection Rate
Suspended Solids - Contd
TSS RemovalPall CeramicGraver Stainless SteelPall Hollow Fiber TDS RemovalDow NF
TSS 105 0.67TSS 105 4.8TSS 105 0.47
TSS 1.51
AfterBefore
Solids Removal by Micro-F
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
235 570 986 1022
Turbidity, N
TU
Cumulative Throughput, gallons
BeforeMicro‐F
High Pressure Membranes and On-Line Sensors
Sample No. Analyte Before Membrane After Membrane Type of Membrane
S-7, S-8 Sufate 1025 92 Dow N-245 (A)
S-7, S-8 Chlorides by titration 186,500 150,000 Dow N-245
(A)S-60, S-61 Hardness, Ca++ 67,200 51,600 mg/LS-70, S-71 Hardness, Ca++ 210,500 56,000 mg/LS-63
S-44 Ferric - field brine
110
S-70, S-71Ferric - B/A
100 128 Hydranautics
Nano - Continued
Field Frac Brine after Three Weeks
Treated Un-Treated
October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment
Salinity of Feed Brine,tds (ppm)
Power Costs Kw Hr per 1,000 gal. Permeate
Pre- treatment ROdesalination
Operating Cost, $ per 1,000 gal.
Operating Cost, $ per bbl
Contaminated Surface water
~1,500 tds.
$.65 $1.25 $1.90 $0.08
Gas well producedbrine ~ 3,600 tds.
$2.50 $2.00 $4.50 $0.19
Oil well producedbrine ~50,000 tds
$2.20 $6.00 $8.20 $0.34
Gas well producedbrine ~ 35,000 tds
$2.00 (est.) $4.20 (est.) $6.20 (est.) $0.26
Representative power costs of desalination of oil field brine
Samples Date Test DescriptioDuration kw usedost per bblS‐62, S‐63 Sept. 2 Running Dow NF (B) 3.35 0.2 0.84$ S‐58, S‐59 2‐Sep Koch U‐F $0.0275S‐84, S‐85 Sept. 20media 325 gal. 0.3 0.0039$
Koch UF 63.63 2.1 0.14$ 0.98$
Representative Power Costs for Brine Treatment*
* Texas A&M Field Trial, NY September ,2011
Benefit to Communities
Brackish Water Desalination with Re-Use of Concentrate
Comparison of Desalinated Produced Water with Municipal Water from College Station. TX
Inventory Map of Brackish Ground Water Aquifers in Texas
October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment
Barnett Shale Well Equivalent to City of 4,000 Population
Water Usage Well Operations City Operations(1) Comments
Water Usage 10 million gal 18 million gal (3 mo.)
5-6 mm gal frac. 1-2 mm gal well ops.
Power Use 7,500 HP 6 MW (8,000 Hp) Avg. SCR rig
Solid Waste 43,000 cu ft. (wbm, 7,000 ft well)
55,000 cu.ft 3 mo. Ops.
Unit Budget ~$ 2.2 MM ~$1.7 MM 3 mo. Ops.
(1) Based on comparison to Andrews TX city budget (pop.9,600) 2008 FY
All Weather Mobile Unit for Site Treatments (2011)
• Mobile testing laboratory in South Texas.
October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment
Business Model for On Site Treatment
Operating cost
Produced brine
+$$
Brine/oil Membrane Reject
Weighted brine+$$
Fresh Water
+$$
Profit = Income (Sales clean brine + Fresh water + produced water pay -Cost (operating & reject disposal)
For More Information
http://efdsystems.orghttp://www.GPRI.org
http://sites.google.com/a/pe.tamu.edu/efd-alliance/Home
Any Questions?