CHALLENGES IN USING MEMBRANES FOR RECLAIMING PRODUCED WATER

I G. Wenten Dept. of Chemical Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung Jl. Ganesha 10 Bandung, West Java, Indonesia igw@che.itb.ac.id

PRODUCED WATER

Characteristics:
High temperature High salt concentration Corrosive Oily and waxy Biologically active Toxic (heavy metals and radioactive) - Dissolved organics (including hydrocarbon) Dissolved minerals Chemicals used in production Suspended oil Solids (sand) Volatile aromatics fraction such as BTEX, PAH, organic acid, phenol, alkylated phenol - Metals - Radionucleid

[Sathananthan & Shields (2005), Davies (2005), Li, dkk. (2006), Murray-Gulde, dkk. (2003)].

PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT

AFFECTED BY: composition, location, quantity, availability of resources Treatment options: Avoid production of water onto the surface Inject produced water Discharge produced water Reuse in oil and gas operations Consume in beneficial use

[Arthur, 2005]

PRODUCED WATER TREATING EQUIPMENT

REUSE

MBR - RO

PRODUCED WATER

DISCHARGE

MBR

RE-INJECTION

UF

PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT FOR REINJECTION

General purposes: Oil & grease removal Suspended solids removal Organics removal Controlling microbial growth Controlling corrosion rate Controlling oxygen concentration
REINJECTION: Suitability of produced water with formation Presence of particulate formation clogging, equipment damage, heat insulation Controlled excess supended solids, dissolved oil, corrosion, chemical reaction, microbial growth removal of oil & grease, suspended solid, organic

Quality Standard for Re-injection Purposes

Parameter Oil content(mg/L) SS conc. (mg/L) Medium diameter (m) Total Fe (mg/L) Sulfide SBR (n/ml) TGB (n/ml) IB (n/ml) pH Re-injection Standard <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 0 <102 <102 6-9

PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT

Oil and Gas Production Produced Water
Discharge Re-use

Reinjection

Zero Discharge Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)

TSS < 1 mg/l Solid particles 0 ppm

Produced Water Treatment FILTRATION TECHNOLOGIES

PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT, cont.

FILTRATION TECHNOLOGY
Catridge filter Membrane filter Media filter Walnut filter
Cartridge filter : Non- backwash able Routine replacement, high cost Complex maintenance Membrane filter : Backwashable High selectivity, particle removal up to 0,01 m Continuous operation Walnut filter : Backwashable Lower selectivity compare with membrane Continuous operation Process Equipment API gravity separator Corrugated plate separator Induced gas flotation without chemical adiition Induced gas flotation with chemical addition Hydrocyclone Mesh coalescer Media filter Sentrifuge Membrane filter Separated particle sizes (m) 150 40 25 35 10 -15 5 5 2 0.01
[Argonne National Laboratory]

MEMBRANE TECHNOLOGY
Absolute separation up to 0.01 micron No cartridge replacement Effective removal of dispersed oil Compact design and modular Easy to scale-up Simple operation and maintenance Continuous operation Minimal chemical usage (only for CIP) Simple automation

STATE OF THE ART

Topic
Oil removal Organic removal Oil, grease, and suspended solid removal Oil & suspended solid removal Oil & suspended solid removal Produced water treatment

Results
UF Crossflow: oil conc. in permeate = 15 mg/l, flux = 25 LMH NF: oil rejection =72 89%, oil conc. in permeate = 48 mg/l. Ceramic MF: dispersed oil & grease conc. in permeate <5 mg/l; suspended solid < 1 mg/l UF bench scale: flux 217 321 LMH; recovery 90%

Reference
Farnand & Krug (1989) Dyke & Bartels (1990) Chen, et al. (1991) Zaidi, et al. (1991) Zaidi, et al. (1992) Santos (1993)

MF/UF: oil conc. in permeate 10 mg/l, TSS conc.15 26 mg/l; average flux 1250 LMH. Crossflow UF: oil & grease conc. in permeate 14 mg/l

STATE OF THE ART, cont.

Topic
Water treatment

Results
MF, UF: BTEX reduction 54%, Cu & Zn removal: 95%

Reference
Bilstad & Espedal (1996)

Water treatment (model solution) Water treatment Water treatment for irrigation purposes or discharge

MF (ceramic, PAN): hydrocarbon conc. in permeate < 6 ppm. Fouling layer was affacted by membrane material and morphology

Mueller, et al. (1997)

UF bench scale: produce permeate with high quality (meets regulation standard); flux were affected by varied feed Hybrid RO-constructed wet land; reduce conductivity up to 95% & TDS 94%

Santos & Weisner (1997) Murray-Gulde, et al, (2003)

STATE OF THE ART, cont.

Topic
Salt removal Water treatment

Results
ED: TDS removal increased linearly with increased voltage UF, NF, RO: system recovery more than 80% (UF concentrate recycle konsentrat UF and utilization of RO concentrate) RO MF, RO

Reference
Sirivedhin, et al. (2004) Osmonics [Arthur (2005)] Arthur (2005) Newpark [Arthur (2005)] Beech (2006)

Oil and suspended solid removal

UF: turbidity removal 95.75 99.87 %; oil removal 47.32 94.31% by using three different membrane material. The best performance was PVDF membrane with MWCO of 30.000 and operating pressure 10-150 psi (oil in permeate < 10 ppm)

MEMBRANE FOULING
Produced water: Prevention of membrane fouling by waxes and asphaltenes Oil emulsion adsorption, cake layer

[Belfort, et al, 1994; Ashaghi, et al, 2007; Silalahi, et al, 2009]

CLEANING
Removal of foreign material from the surface and body of the membrane and associated equipment Cleaning frequency economics, membrane lifetime Clean membrane [Cheryan (1998)]: - Physically- Chemically- Biologically clean membrane Flux recovery to initial flux of a new membrane after cleaning can be used as indication of clean membrane Cleaning methods: - hydraulic cleaning, Module configuration - mechanical cleaning, Membranes type Chemical resistance - chemical cleaning, Type of foulant - electrical cleaning

CLEANING, cont.
Chemicals used for cleaning: - Acids: dissolving calcium salts and metal oxides - Alkalis: removing silica, inorganic colloids and many biological/organic foulants, - Surfactants: displacing foulants, emulsifying oils, dissolving hydrophobic foulants, - Oxidants: oxidizing organic material and bacteria (disinfection), - Sequestrates (chelating agents): removing metal cations from a solution, - Enzymes: degrading foulants. Alkaline-acidic-alkaline wash cycle Micellar solution

[Zeman & Zydney, 1996; Mueller, et al, 1997; Beech, 2006]

Flux versus time graph for Devecatagi produced water

[Cakmakci, et al., 2008]

Treatment effluents of Devecatagi oil well produced water

[Cakmakci, et al., 2008]

Reverse osmosis results of different organic solutions

(operation pressure: 2.76 MPa)

[Liu, et al., 2008]

Perbandingan HTU

Comparison of water flux decline at 40 C and 10 psig transmembrane pressure for the three different membranes

Mueller, et al, 1997

Comparison of baseline fluxes for the three different membranes

Op. cond.: 10 psig TMP, 250 ppm heavy oil, 40 C, and 0.24 ms -1

Mueller, et al, 1997

Total resistance versus time curves for the three different membranes at baseline conditions

Mueller, et al, 1997

Summary of results for the three tested microfiltration membranes

Conclusion
1. Each of polymeric and ceramic MF membrane always produced high quality permeate containing < 6 ppm total hydrocarbons, starting with 250-1000 ppm heavy crude oil 2. The 0.2 and 0.8 m ceramic membranes appeared to exhibit internal followed by external fouling, while external fouling appeared to dominate the behavior of the 0.1 m PAN membrane from the start. 3. The 0.2 m ceramic membrane is more permeable and exhibits a higher flux than does 0.1 m polymeric membrane. 4. the final total resistance is lower for the ceramic membrane than that for the polymeric membrane.

Mueller, et al, 1997

Effect of Turbulence Promoter During Produced Water Filtration

The Best TP

Xing Hua, et al, 2006

Effect of Winding on Turbulence Promoter During Produced Water Filtration

The Best TP3

TP3-20

Xing Hua, et al, 2006

Performance of permeate flux for the best turbulence promoter

Conclusion 1. The improved performance of produced water cross flow ultrafiltration can be obtained by using the turbulence promoter The insertion of turbulence promoter caused a large improvement of the permeate flux and the winding inserts with 20 mm ditches can cause the largest improvement of the permeate flux with the least energy consumption among the four kinds of turbulence promoters. The average flux improvement during the filtration period ranged from 83 % to 164 % and the specific energy consumption reduction ranged from 31 % to 42 %. The use of the turbulence promoter at very low recirculated feed velocity of 1-2 m/s and optimum TMP of 0.30-0.35 Mpa can provide the commercially acceptable values for filtration Xing Hua, et al, 2006

2.

3.

4.

Case Study: Produced Water Treatment Plant (Tambun Plant)

CASE STUDY 2: Treatment of Oil Produced Water with

Ultrafiltration Membrane System at Tambun Plant, Indonesia

Oil & Gas Production

Produced water !

Oil & Gas

Lab. scale to full scale UF Membrane System

Tambun Plant, Bekasi, Indonesia

CASE STUDY 2: Treatment of Oil Produced Water with

Ultrafiltration Membrane System at Tambun Plant, Indonesia, cont.

Lab. Scale Apparatus Pilot Scale UF Membrane System

Flux and Rejection Performance

Product

Feed

CASE STUDY 2: Treatment of Oil Produced Water with

Ultrafiltration Membrane System at Tambun Plant, Indonesia, cont. Current production capacity: 1.5 MLD of produced water Process units: Oil catcher Skim tank CPI Automatic screen filter UF system De-aerator The UF facility has been operational since 2008 The effluent meets reinjection requirement

Full-scale system

FLUXES & REJECTION

J (l/m2.h)

J (l/m2.h)

t (min)

t (min)

J (l/m2.h)

t (min)

Product vs Feed

CASE STUDY 1: Treatment of Coal Seam Methane Produced

Water with a Pall Integrated Membrane System at Origin Energy Coal Seam Methane
Provide almost 90% of the total gas market in Quensland, Australia

Water must be pumped from the coal seams to reduce the pressure & allow the large volumes of gas to flow

Produced water !

Gas

Origin Energy & Pall Corporation

The Spring Gully Gas Plant, Central Queensland

Integrated Membrane System (IMS): MF/RO

[Pall Corporation , 2008]

CASE STUDY 1: Treatment of Coal Seam Methane Produced

Water with a Pall Integrated Membrane System at Origin Energy, cont.

An IMS consist of:

4 MF racks, each containing 56 x 0.1 micron Microza modules 1 RO system Pre-strainer Chemical dosing & compressed air systems Interconnecting pipe work Motor control centers

[Pall Corporation , 2008]

CASE STUDY 1: Treatment of Coal Seam Methane Produced

Water with a Pall Integrated Membrane System at Origin Energy, cont. Current production capacity: 9 MLD of CSM produced water, and the IMS can be expanded to support up to 15 MLD Process units: -Prestrainer -MF system -RO systems -Chemical cleaning and flushing systems -Chemical dosing systems -Compressed air systems -Motor control centers -Interconnecting pipework Key advantage to the Pall IMS system: adaptability of RO systems to variations in feedwater (periodic alga blooms) minimum power requirements through use of an inter-stage boosting capability that balance flux High degree of instrumentation to enable ongoing remote monitoring and full automatic sequencing of all processes

The IMS facility has been operational since December 2007 The effluent meets discharge limits prescribed by the Queensland EPA

[Pall Corporation , 2008]

COMPARISON of PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT PLANT

The Spring Gully Gas Plant Source of produced water Capacity System Treatment objective Operated since Coal seam methane production 9-15 MLD MF/RO Discharge December 2007 The Tambun Plant Oil and gas production 1.5 MLD UF Reinjection Oct. 2007

CASE STUDY : WTP MEMBRANE BASED WIP CAPACITY 50.000 BPD

SYSTEM CONFIGURATION FOR REINJECTION

Gravity separation Plate coalescence Gas flotation Filtration Media filter (multi media: antrachite dan garnet ) Membrane filter Deaeration Solid Handling Vacuum Deaerator Coagulation/Flocculation-Dewatering-Incinerator Coagulany/flocculant, biocide, ph adjusment, Skimmer Tanks CPI Separator

Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF)

Chemical Feed System oxygen scavenger

SIMPLE BLOCK DIAGRAM

Page 38

POWER CONSUMPTION & COST ANALYSIS

Power Consumption WTP : 1 1,2 kWH /m3 WIP : 3.5 4 kWH/m3 Cost Analysis WTP : Rp. 60 65 million/m3 Product WIP : Rp. 35 36 million/m3 Product Assumption Injection pressure design : 1350 psi Injection capacity : 50,000 BPD Generator type : Gas Generator

Thank you