Desalination 440 (2018) 2–17

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/desal

Membrane applications and opportunities for water management in the oil & T
gas industry
⁎
Samer Adhama, , Altaf Hussaina, Joel Minier-Matara, Arnold Jansona, Ramesh Sharmab
a
ConocoPhillips Global Water Sustainability Centre (GWSC), Qatar Science and Technology Park (QSTP), P. O. Box 24750, Doha, Qatar
b
ConocoPhillips Global Production, 600 N Dairy Ashford, P.O. Box 2197, Houston, TX 77252, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Water touches most segments of the petroleum industry and thus cost-effective water management is a key part
Membranes of oil & gas industry operations. The water to be managed is either co-produced with the hydrocarbons, gen-
Reverse osmosis erated as a by-product from oil/gas processing, and/or utilized to support production operations. While a ma-
Nanofiltration jority of the water usually receives basic treatment, there are multiple recent drivers for advanced treatment that
Ultrafiltration
should facilitate beneficial water reuse. Hence, a toolbox of advanced technologies needs to be considered to
Microfiltration
ensure that fit for purpose treatment is deployed. Membrane processes are key components of the technology
Membrane bioreactors
Forward osmosis toolbox since they include some of the best available technologies. This paper provides an overview of the
Membrane distillation various case studies from ConocoPhillips global projects portfolio, which covered various operations such as gas
Ceramic membrane fields, oil fields, oil sands & shale plays. In these case studies, a wide spectrum of membrane processes, including
Produced water membrane bioreactors, reverse osmosis, microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, ceramic membranes,
Oil & gas forward osmosis, membrane distillation, pressure retarded osmosis, membrane contactors, and/or new in-
novative membrane materials were either installed at full scale capacity, evaluated via field/lab testing, or
investigated through desktop studies. The information presented demonstrates that reverse osmosis and nano-
filtration are widely utilized by the industry for water desalination and desulfating, respectively. In addition,
membrane filtration and bioreactors are frequently applied as standalone treatments for inorganics and organics
removal, respectively; or as pretreatment to desalination membranes. Novel membrane technologies and ma-
terials are also being developed by the industry for niche applications.

1. Background and introduction
Oil and gas (O&G) resources can be extracted via both conventional
and unconventional means. The conventional way of hydrocarbon ex-
traction, after well drilling, is by the natural pressure of the well supported
with pumping or compression operations. After depletion of the well's
natural pressure, different methods can be applied to boost production,
mainly water and gas injection or other depletion compression techniques,
but the O&G reservoir is still considered a conventional resource. Beyond
the use of the above traditional methods to increase oil recovery or arti-
ficial lift, the O&G reservoir will be classified as unconventional resource.
The primary sources of unconventional oil typically found in low-perme-
ability rock are heavy oil, oil sands, and oil shale [1–5].
1.1. Water and the petroleum industry
1.1.1. Conventional operations
Water touches most segments of the petroleum industry (see Fig. 1).
For conventional upstream operations, whether it is a gas field produ-
cing natural gas (NG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), or gas to liquid
(GTL); or an oil field with an onshore or offshore platform, all facilities
will have to manage water. Typically, the water to be managed is either
co-produced with the hydrocarbons, generated as a by-product from
oil/gas processing, and/or water utilized at the facility to support
production operations. For downstream facilities supporting conven-
tional oil production, all refineries also utilize water primarily for
cooling purposes and oil processing. Global oil, natural gas & LNG
consumptions are approximately 95 million barrels per day, 320 bil-
lion ft3 per day & 258 million tonnes per annum, respectively [6,7]. It
should be noted that seawater, groundwater and/or surface water
usually play important roles for the upstream & downstream operations
as these sources can provide cooling water, process water, desalinated
water for boiler feed, or just supply potable water for onshore or off-
shore platforms. Thus, cost-effective water management is an integral
part of the O&G industry to ensure optimized sustainable operations
and obtain license to operate in many parts around the world.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: samer.adham@conocophillips.com (S. Adham).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2018.01.030
Received 28 September 2017; Received in revised form 21 January 2018; Accepted 21 January 2018
Available online 02 February 2018
0011-9164/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Adham et al.
Fig. 1. Water in conventional petroleum industry.
For upstream operations, most of the water being managed is called
produced water, which is the water extracted with hydrocarbons from
the O&G reservoirs. For downstream operations, the majority of the
water being utilized is cooling water, which is obtained from saline (e.g.
seawater, brackish groundwater, etc.) and/or non-saline water sources
(e.g. lakes, rivers, fresh groundwater, etc.). Both upstream and down-
stream operations also manage process water, which is the by-product
water generated during hydrocarbon processing. The industry may also
utilize municipal water sources, including desalination plants, to gen-
erate feedwater for boilers, potable supply, and/or other beneficial uses
within the facility.
1.1.2. Unconventional operations
Within the past couple of decades, the O&G production has under-
gone significant evolution, which expanded the global oil production,
especially from unconventional sources. In mid to late-1990s, the
Canadian oil sands/bitumen production, which is primarily extracted
through the steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) process, became a
major focus of the O&G industry [1]. The SAGD process converts water
to steam and injects the steam into upper reservoir (injector well) in the
oil sand deposit to melt the bitumen. The oil and condensed water
collect in a parallel lower channel of the reservoir (producer well) and
are extracted to the surface (Fig. 2a). A major portion of this heavy oil
resource was discovered in Alberta region and this discovery resulted in
dramatic changes in proven reserves for the oil industry. Hence, many
international oil companies invested in major capital programs in
pursuit of this relatively new resource.
More recently, there was a major focus by the industry on un-
conventional shale reservoirs, primarily in the North America. The
extraction process (Fig. 2b) was made more feasible through new de-
velopments in the field of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing
procedures [2]. This made shale plays, which can be gas or liquid-rich
reservoirs, attractive for hydrocarbon extraction and transformed the
hydrocarbon reserves portfolio in the United States, making it one of
the world's leading countries in O&G production. The hydraulic frac-
turing procedure requires water to be mixed with proponent (sand) and
injected to the horizontal reservoirs under very high pressures.
3
Desalination 440 (2018) 2–17
The above demonstrates that water is also very important for un-
conventional resources production. Both saline and non-saline water
sources can be used, after adequate pretreatment, for injection into the
unconventional reservoirs and the water extracted with oil production
is also referred to as produced water. The water extracted immediately
after fracturing shale play reservoirs until oil production is stabilized
can also be called flowback water. This review paper focuses on the
water managed primarily by upstream operations namely; produced
water, process water, and saline water.
1.2. Produced water
1.2.1. Production volume
On average, for every barrel of conventional oil barrel extracted, 3
to 4 barrels of water are usually produced [8]. This ratio will vary with
subsurface geology for hydrocarbon reservoirs around the world. Also,
as the production reservoir ages with years of extraction, the oil-to-
water ratio can increase reaching 1 to 10 or even higher [8]. These
estimates illustrate that petroleum companies handle more water than
oil on a daily basis [9].
Data published in 2011 estimated the global annual produced water
volume from conventional sources at approximately 100 billion barrels
[10,11]. Other newer survey, which included conventional and non-
conventional sources, estimated the annual global produced water vo-
lumes at 202 billion barrels in 2014 and projected it to increase to 340
billion barrels by 2020 [12] (Fig. 3).
Rising unconventional shale oil/gas production will always be an
important factor in increasing the global produced water volumes. The
estimated produced water volume from shale reservoirs ranges between
1.7 and 14.3 million L per well over the first 5–10 years of production
[13]. The estimated annual US production is 20 billion barrels of pro-
duced water [10,11].
1.2.2. Chemical characteristics
While seawater characteristics are reasonably consistent around the
world [14,15], this is not the case for produced water as it varies sig-
nificantly due to various factors including: geographical location, type
S. Adham et al. Desalination 440 (2018) 2–17

Fig. 2. Oil extraction scheme from unconventional reservoirs.

1.3. Treatment of produced water

1.3.1. Basic treatment

For the majority of the O&G facilities worldwide, produced water
treatment is limited to removal of dispersed oil and/or suspended solids
before injection and/or disposal. Traditional technologies are applied
for basic treatment and may include, separators, coalescers and hy-
drocyclones [22–24]. The main beneficial use of produced water in the
O&G industry has historically been maintaining reservoir pressure and
enhanced oil recovery via water flooding. Based on environmental
regulatory requirements, the excess produced water can either be re-
injected into disposal wells or discharged overboard to sea. Overall,
relatively small fraction of produced water is treated to be recycled
and/or reused worldwide.

1.3.2. Advanced treatment

Fig. 3. Global annual produced water volume [10,12]. Due to factors such as regulations, geological restrictions, local
water scarcity, operational challenges, and license to operate concerns,
opportunities for advanced treatment of produced water to address
of hydrocarbon and age of the reservoir. The typical chemical char- these factors are increasing globally. Advanced treatment of produced
acteristics of different produced waters are shown in Table 1 [16–21]. water typically needs to address a wide range of constituents, which are
The characteristics presented comprises of two categories: organic and not removed via basic traditional technologies, to meet the target goals.
inorganic parameters. For organics, produced water sources are typi- These constituents include emulsified oil, colloidal particulates, sali-
cally within a similar range of total organic carbon (TOC) concentration nity, inorganics, organics, microorganisms, trace metals, and residual
of 500–1000 mg/L, except for coal bed methane, which has low organic field chemicals [25]. A toolbox of various advanced technologies needs
carbon content (TOC < 10 mg/L). In terms of salinity, the total dis- to be developed to ensure that fit for purpose treatments are being
solved solids (TDS) of the produced water from conventional oil fields is applied to address these constituents. Membrane processes are key
usually high (> 100,000 mg/L), while the TDS from other types of components of the technology toolbox since they include some of the
hydrocarbons is relatively low (< 10,000 mg/L), much lower than the best available technologies.
salinity of seawater (35,000–40,000 mg/L) [14,15]. The relatively low Over the past few decades, membrane processes have revolutionized
salinity presents opportunities to desalinate produced water at lower the municipal water and wastewater treatment fields. Membrane fil-
specific energy consumption compared to seawater desalination. The tration including microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF), are ty-
shale play produced water is highly variable and can cover all ranges pically applied for solids and/or microbial removal. Membrane bior-
presented above. Overall, given the variability of produced water eactors (MBRs) are usually applied for organic removal. Membrane
characteristics, fit for purpose solutions need to be deployed for water desalination, including nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO),
management of each resource. are regularly applied for multi-valent ions (e.g., calcium, magnesium,
sulfate, etc.) and TDS removal, respectively. The key advantages of
Table 1
membrane processes include consistent product water quality, com-
Typical chemical characteristics of produced water. pactness, suitable for automation, and modular in design for process
scale-up. The disadvantages of membranes include their need for a
Parameter Oil field Gas field SAGD [18] Coal bed methane pretreatment step, potential for fouling that reduce productivity and/or
[16,20] [17] field [21]
require module replacement, and being considered as expensive tech-
TDS, mg/L 247,000 5200 < 10,000 2510 nologies [26–29].
Sodium, mg/L 69,160 1030 3000 1350 The successful large-scale installations of membrane technologies in
Chloride, mg/L 152,750 2300 4800 62 the municipal sector generated a wealth of field experience on their
TOC, mg/L 500–2000 500 430 2
potential application and confirmed their reliability while managing
HCO3, mg/L 310 – 1400 1700
pH 5.6 4.3 8.8 8.4 their possible short-comings. In turn, the industrial sector began capi-
talizing on various membrane technologies by installing full-scale

4
S. Adham et al.
wastewater treatment plants to meet regulatory requirements, reduce
disposal volumes, and/or facilitate water recycling projects [30]. For
industrial applications, new concerns arose related to robustness of the
polymeric materials, typically used in membrane processes, especially
in terms of their tolerance to temperatures and wide range of process
chemicals. Thus, inorganic membranes such as ceramic membranes
(CM) were further developed and considered to treat industrial streams
with high temperatures and/or with variety of field chemicals, which
expanded their application opportunities and assisted in more efficient
chemical cleaning of fouled membranes [31,32]. The membrane ven-
dors, however, are currently working to develop reliable and efficient
polymeric membranes that are more tolerant to wide range of tem-
peratures & chemicals, which are urgently desired by the industry [33].
For ConocoPhillips O&G operations, new challenges created specific
drivers for membrane applications for produced water treatment in-
cluding:
▪ Gas fields: Gas production facilities in Qatar and Australia produce
large volumes of produced and processed waters. Due to various
regulatory constraints on water disposal, the wastewater streams are
being treated to reduce disposal volume and/or to allow reuse as
irrigation or process water. Advanced treatment technologies de-
ployed include MBR/RO in Qatar [34] and MF or UF followed by RO
in Australia [35].
▪ Oil fields: During water flooding for enhanced oil production, sea-
water can be partially desalinated by membranes to reduce salinity.
The desalinated water, when injected into the reservoir, can po-
tentially increase oil recovery, especially for sandstone reservoirs
[36], also de-sulfating of seawater with NF membranes can help
minimize scale formation from barium sulfate, and/or eliminate
reservoir souring due to biogrowth of sulfate reducing bacteria [37].
▪ Oil sands: In Alberta (Canada), there are strict water sourcing and
recycling requirements for SAGD operations. The hot produced
water generated from reservoirs is typically treated by warm lime
softeners and weak acid cation exchange before the once through
steam generator (OTSG). There is interest by the industry to treat
hot produced water using CM [38] or thermal evaporators [39] after
which drum boilers are applied for more efficient steam generation.
In addition, SAGD industry is now incorporating more brackish
water sources to meet the make-up water need. The brackish water
stream often requires a dedicated MF/RO train followed by ion-ex-
change to meet the boiler water quality.
▪ Shale play: There is growing interest in utilizing hypersaline
groundwater and/or produced water for hydraulic fracturing op-
erations [40]. Various fit for purpose technologies are being eval-
uated for partial or complete desalination to allow the use of such
saline water sources.
The overall O&G industry recently recognized the challenges &
drivers for membrane treatment of the by-product water, like the ones
listed above, and began to consider opportunities where produced
water can be a beneficial resource rather than a potential liability.
Thus, many petroleum companies selected commercial membrane
technologies, typically deployed in the municipal and industrial water
sectors, for their specific applications. At the same time, some compa-
nies engaged with developers of innovative membrane technologies
[e.g., forward osmosis (FO), membrane distillations (MD), etc.], who
promised step changes in performance compared to commercial pro-
ducts, to address unique challenges. There were, however, significant
knowledge gaps on the suitability of the above commercial and emer-
ging membrane technologies in the treatment of by-product water from
the O&G industry.
To address knowledge gaps and gain critical experience in advanced
treatment technologies for the O&G industry, ConocoPhillips estab-
lished the Global Water Sustainability Center (GWSC) [41] at the Qatar
Science & Technology Park (QSTP) [42] with the mission to develop
5
Desalination 440 (2018) 2–17
innovative solutions for the management of by-product water from the
petroleum industry as well as seawater desalination. The GWSC was
inaugurated in 2010 [43] and since then, a team of qualified engineers
and scientists has been conducting leading edge research supported by
state-of-the-art laboratories to evaluate a wide range of commercial and
emerging water technologies for the O&G industry. These projects
covered a full spectrum of technology readiness levels (TRL) from 1 to 9
[44].
This paper provides an overview of the various case studies from
ConocoPhillips global projects portfolio, which covered various O&G
operations such as gas fields, oil fields, oil sands & shale plays. In these
case studies, a wide spectrum of membrane processes, including MBR,
RO, MF, UF, NF, CM, FO, MD, pressure retarded osmosis, membrane
contactors, and/or new innovative membrane materials were either
installed at full scale capacity, evaluated via field/lab testing, or in-
vestigated through desktop studies.
2. Advanced treatment of produced water
2.1. Gas fields: Qatargas (QG)
Qatar is the world largest producer of liquified natural gas (LNG)
with annual production capacity of 77 million tonnes per annum (MTA)
[45,46] and has the world largest gas-to-liquid (GTL) production plant
[47]. Qatargas (QG) is the world's largest LNG company. It annually
produces 42 MTA of LNG from across its four ventures (Qatargas 1,
Qatargas 2, Qatargas 3, and Qatargas 4). Qatargas 3 is an integrated
project, jointly owned by Qatar Petroleum (68.5%), ConocoPhillips
(30%) and Mitsui & Co., Ltd. (1.5%) [48].
The LNG and GTL facilities generate substantial amounts of pro-
duced and/or process water, which is currently either being treated
with advanced technologies for reuse/recycle or injected into disposal
wells. Other clean sources of by-product water in these facilities were
being discharged to the Arabian Gulf [34]. To ensure long term disposal
well sustainability and to fulfill commitments made to the Ministry of
the Environment, Qatar Petroleum requested operators in the North
Field cut their wastewater injection volumes by 50% and eliminate
clean wastewater discharges. QG is leading the industry by building two
advanced Wastewater Recycle and Reduction (WRR) plants for various
LNG Trains at Ras Laffan Industrial City in Qatar [34,49]. Each of the
WRR plants will treat five separate process wastewater streams, ex-
cluding the reservoir produced water, at a design flow of 176 m3/h.
Treatment processes include:
• conventional technologies (deoiler, degasser, walnut shell filter and
carbon filtration) and,
• advanced technologies (MBR, RO).
Fig. 4 provides a simplified schematic of the WRR treatment train.
The primary use of the treated process water will be as boiler feedwater
(after polishing deionizer). If operational issues occurred with the RO
process, the MBR effluent can be utilized for restricted landscape irri-
gation. Thus, the main advanced technology of the WRR treatment train
is the RO process, which will generate permeate to feed the boilers
while all other auxiliary treatments in the train serve as pretreatment
steps to remove other contaminants such as dispersed & emulsified oil,
hydrogen sulfide (H2S), suspended solids, and organics. The RO brine
will be mixed with produced water and injected into disposal wells,
resulting in reduced total water disposal volume.
The authors have conducted various treatability studies to in-
vestigate the feasibility and applicability of membrane processes to
address short term and long term solutions for water management at
QG. Key highlights from these laboratory studies are summarized
below:
S. Adham et al.
Fig. 4. Advanced water treatment scheme of Qatargas [34].
2.1.1. Water Recycle & Reduction (WRR) treatment
Various bench-scale treatability tests were conducted mimicking the
WRR treatment processes. The tests were conducted on process water
obtained from a Qatari LNG facility [34] to evaluate performance under
various conditions. The overall objectives of the treatability tests were
to determine if the treatment process train would produce an effluent
meeting QG specifications and to identify any operational issues that
could be expected.
With feed process water chemical oxygen demand (COD) of
200–250 mg/L, a COD removal of > 80% and permeate COD < 50 mg/
L was observed for the MBR effluent, well below the 100 mg/L COD
limit of the process design. It should be noted that process design as-
sumed higher influent COD of approximately 700 mg/L and assumed
86% removal. Fouling of the MBR membrane (Zeeweed - Suez Water
Technologies & Solutions, USA) was observed in bench tests but a 2-step
membrane cleaning with hypochlorite followed by citric acid was
successful in restoring flux. The RO membrane (SWC4 - Hydranautics,
USA) permeate quality met QG specifications and achieved > 99% TDS
rejection; although higher summer operating temperatures are expected
to negatively impact full-scale plant performance, especially sodium
concentration. With feed prefiltered through activated carbon, an RO
flux decline of < 1% was observed. In contrast, an 8% flux decline re-
sulted when the feed was not prefiltered.
2.1.2. MBRs for produced water treatment
Biological treatment is generally regarded as the most cost-effective
method for the removal of organics from wastewater. Biotreatment of
produced water can present many challenges when compared to mu-
nicipal or industrial wastewater. These challenges are typically linked
to recalcitrant organics and salinity, which can dramatically reduce the
biological floc formation and biomass settleability in conventional
clarifiers. In an MBR, the biomass is separated from the treated effluent
by membrane filtration making settleability less of a factor and hence,
the process is more suitable for produced water treatment.
In research [50], supported by the Qatar National Research Fund
(QNRF), the biotreatability of produced from a Qatari gas field was
evaluated in bench-scale MBRs (Fig. 5) following a Box-Behnken ex-
perimental design. Biotreatability was assessed over a range of hy-
draulic retention times (16 to 32 h), solids residence times (60 to
120 days) and temperatures (22° to 38 °C) using hollow fiber membrane
(Zeeweed-Suez Water Technologies & Solutions, USA) [17,51]. After
H2S stripping, the COD of the mix of produced and process water from
gas field was ≈1300 mg/L, sufficient to support biological activity, and
the ≈5200 mg/L of TDS was low enough so as to not be inhibitory. The
results, over 8 months of testing, indicated that COD and TOC removals
averaged 60% (range of 54 to 63%). The results indicated that re-
calcitrant organics were present in the feedwater and that bioactivity
6
Desalination 440 (2018) 2–17
was feed-limited. Membrane flux varied from 3 to 15 L/m2-h and
membrane fouling was not a significant factor affecting performance.
Periodic cleaning with sodium hypochlorite effectively removed any
foulants present on the membrane surface.
2.1.3. Osmotic concentration with FO
The advanced water treatment train planned for the WRR project
comes at a significant cost [34]. For future and/or other facilities in
North Field, an alternative less expensive option for volume reduction
of produced and process water was proposed using FO technology,
applied as an osmotic concentration (OC) process (Fig. 6). This process
uses readily available seawater or concentrated brine from nearby de-
salination plants, to draw water from the feed stream. Concentrated
brine has several advantages compared to seawater: it is already pre-
treated, it has higher salinity which translate to an increased water flux,
and it has an environmental benefit since the brine would be diluted
before disposal [52]. In a recent review, the OC and/or osmotic dilution
of complex industrial water streams, especially from the O&G opera-
tions, was identified among the sweet spots for FO process applications
[53].
A feasibility bench-scale study, funded by QNRF, was conducted
[54,55] as proof-of-concept and results showed that OC has potential
for full scale implementation with lower energy consumption compared
to RO. In the investigation, two different FO configurations were
evaluated: commercial flat sheet (TFC-Hydration Technology Innova-
tions, USA) and innovative hollow fiber membranes (SMTC - Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore). Results showed that the hollow
fiber membranes had a superior performance in terms of water flux and
constituent rejection [56]. The flux of the hollow fiber membranes was
40% higher when treating produced and process water compared to flat
sheet membranes (16.5 L/m2-h vs. 12 L/m2-h, respectively). Experi-
mental data also showed that the process operating conditions can in-
fluence the membrane productivity. Temperature had the highest im-
pact followed by the draw solution salinity. The crossflow velocity did
not clearly impact on water production.
One of the main challenges was FO membrane fouling, which could
significantly affect process performance. Results revealed that the hy-
drophobic organics may have fouled the membranes but fouling could
be prevented with effective pretreatment [54,57,58]. In terms of water
quality, lab analysis showed that the FO membranes can reject the or-
ganics and field chemicals present in the feed stream, and hence it
would not be transferred to the brine or seawater used as draw solution.
As for the energy consumption, FO only required 20% of the energy
needed by RO to treat produced and process water (0.2 vs 1.1 kW-h/m3,
respectively), assuming the same pretreatment for both processes.
A pilot study of the above OC concept is being conducted to de-
monstrate process feasibility in the field. The demonstration project is
S. Adham et al.
Fig. 5. Bench scale MBR systems.
also funded by QNRF and includes a collaborative research team from
Qatar University, Qatargas & GWSC [59].
2.1.4. Hydrate inhibitor removal
The potential for hydrate formation is an important flow assurance
issue and the petroleum industry spends significant amounts of money
on kinetic and thermodynamic hydrate inhibitors. Kinetic hydrate in-
hibitors (KHI) are typically added at low concentrations and act as anti-
nucleator to delay the formation of hydrates. The chemical composition
of KHIs are typically proprietary, however, based on the scientific lit-
erature [60], KHI may include poly(vinylpyrrolidone), poly-
vinylcaprolactum, polyethylacrylamide, polyvinyl-N-methyl acetamide,
etc. Thermodynamic hydrate inhibitors, e.g. monoethylene glycol
(MEG), are added at high concentrations and lower the hydrate equi-
librium temperature sufficiently to reduce hydrate formation. QG has
been using both KHI & MEG [61] and due to various factors, it was
decided to replace KHI with MEG for hydrate control.
One of the concerns is that residual KHI in produced water can
impact the injectivity of disposal wells [62]. In response, investigations
were conducted using physical, chemical, or biological processes re-
move KHI from produced water before injection to disposal wells [63].
Among the processes screened, UF, NF, RO membranes (Osmonics -
Suez Water Technologies & Solutions, USA) were evaluated via bench-
scale testing using synthetic produced water containing KHI [64,65].
The removal efficiency of KHI was found to be > 99%, 99%, 83% for
RO, NF, and UF membranes, respectively.
The biotreatability of MEG and KHI was also investigated under
batch and continuous reactors under aerobic mixed-culture conditions
without pH control [66]. The results indicated that > 80% removal of
COD and TOC was achieved via biological treatment of produced water
with 1.5% MEG added. In contrast, biotreatment can remove only 43%
Fig. 6. Osmotic concentration for volume reduction of process water.
7
Desalination 440 (2018) 2–17
of COD and TOC present in produced water when 1.5% KHI was added.
Although the feed to the reactors (produced water with either MEG or
KHI) was at pH 4.5, the reactor stabilized at pH of 2.6 considered very
acidic for aerobic activity and was apparently caused by the production
of inorganic acid by the biological culture [66].
2.2. Gas fields: Australia Pacific LNG (APLNG)
The Australia Pacific LNG (APLNG) project in Queensland,
Australia, is a joint venture between Origin Energy, ConocoPhillips and
Sinopec. While Origin Energy is responsible for the upstream opera-
tions, ConocoPhillips oversees downstream operations, which includes
converting the coal seam gas (CSG) into LNG, for delivery to domestic
and overseas markets.
The production of CSG relies first on the extraction of water from
the of top of the coal seams which then allows the entrapped gas to be
readily extracted. The water removed is referred to as CSG water and
developing environmentally sustainable CSG water management prac-
tices is a challenge facing the APLNG team. Due to regulatory re-
quirements in Australia that prevent disposal via deep well injection,
the CSG water must be treated for beneficial reuse. Table 2 shows a
typical water quality of the CSG water, which is relatively low in sali-
nity and organics.
Presently, the standard approach to treat the CSG water in Australia
is with RO technology to remove inorganic salts and low concentration
of organics, while the RO brine is sent to open air concentration pits.
Membrane filtration (MF or UF) is typically applied as a pretreatment
step to RO for solids removal. The ion exchange (IX) system is also be
applied to remove divalent cations to protect the RO system from
scaling, which will allow operation at higher recoveries [67]. For ex-
ample, the Spring Gully Water Treatment Facility (SGWTF) [68] with
S. Adham et al.
Table 2
Typical water quality of CSG streams [67].
Parameter Feed Treated water
Sodium, mg/L 2280 < 80
Chloride, mg/L 3100 22–120
Magnesium, mg/L 9.4 >1
Calcium, mg/L 24 >5
Bicarbonate as CaCO3, mg/L 650 – of membrane pore size [76].
TOC, mg/L < 10 <5
TDS, mg/L 6300 < 315
12,000 m3/d capacity has been designed using the best available
technologies (Fig. 7). The integrated membrane system, including MF
and RO units (Pall Corporation, USA) [69], were designed to treat the
CSG water with automation that facilitated unattended operation. The
RO permeate is used primarily for irrigation of a pongamia plantation,
and operations and construction activities [70].
Other large-scale RO plants for APLNG are also constructed in the
area with similar produced water treatment goals, including Reedy
Creek (40,000 m3/d), Condabri Central (40,000 m3/d) and Talinga
(20,000 m3/d) [71]. It should be noted that Origin Energy is one of
multiple major O&G operators in Queensland, all of which are applying
similar membrane desalination schemes, a testament of the magnitude
of large-scale installations of membrane desalination plants in the re-
gion [72,73].
The RO brine disposal strategy via evaporation ponds requires sig-
nificant land area and presents potential environmental concerns
(Fig. 8). Thus, regulators in Australia have actively encouraged the CSG
industry to phase out the use of evaporation ponds for CSG RO brine
storage [21]. This policy has encouraged several operators to develop
methods to reduce the volume and/or to beneficially extract the mi-
nerals from CSG RO brine [74]. Therefore, Origin Energy, as the up-
stream operator of the APLNG, investigated several alternative RO
brine management strategies. From these options, the feasibility of in-
stalling falling film thermal evaporators for the RO brine was in-
vestigated to minimize (or eliminate) the volume of water sent to
evaporation ponds [21]. Also, selective salt recovery (SSR) was ex-
tensively evaluated, including pilot testing, as it presented good po-
tential [74]. A noteworthy example of SSR is the recovery of soda ash
from the CSG RO brine, which was developed by Penrice (Penrice Soda
Holdings Limited, Australia) in collaboration with GE (General Electric,
Australia) and QGC (QGC Pty Limited, Australia). Another example is to
use the sodium-rich RO brine as influent to generate sodium hydroxide
via membrane electrolysis [21,74].
2.2.1. Desalination of RO brine with MD
MD is a hybrid thermal-membrane desalination process that uses
low-grade waste heat and hydrophobic membranes to produce high
quality distillate. MD can treat highly saline brines that other
Fig. 7. Process schematic of Spring Gully Water Treatment Facility.
8
Desalination 440 (2018) 2–17
membrane desalination processes cannot treat [15]. Hence, MD has
been investigated for the treatment of produced water by various re-
searchers [76–78]. For example, three different hydrophobic mem-
branes with different pore sizes were compared based on permeate flux,
rejection factor and energy consumption. Results showed that higher
pore size results in increased permeate flux and decreased rejection
factor. However, the energy consumption was found to be independent
Bench-scale tests were conducted to assess the feasibility of MD to
treat high salinity brines [79] from RO desalination plants applied for
produced water desalination at APLNG (Fig. 9). By installing an MD
process downstream of RO plants, two key benefits are attained:
- RO brine volumes discharged into the concentration pits are re-
duced, and
- Product water of distillate quality is generated that is suitable for
beneficial reuse.
The laboratory tests were conducted using real RO brine from an
APLNG operating desalination plant. The results indicated that MD has
the potential to be implemented as a viable option to treat the RO brine
and produce a high-quality product water that can be recycled and/or
reused in various applications. The specific conclusions included:
- The MD membranes (W. L. Gore & Associates, USA) achieved a
stable flux (≈35 L/m2-h) and produced a distillate of very high
quality (< 9 mg/L TDS, > 99.9% TDS rejection)
- While operating at high recoveries (70%), the MD membrane
showed some fouling which impacted the flux performance (≈32%
flux reduction), however; effluent quality remained excellent
(< 5.7 mg/L TDS).
- The fouled membrane recovered its original flux (≈34 L/m2-h) after
being cleaned with pure water, confirming that the fouling was re-
versible.
2.3. Oil fields: Clair Ridge, United Kingdom
The O&G industry has traditionally extracted hydrocarbons via
conventional onshore and offshore oil platforms where produced water
usually receives primary treatment prior to water flood or deep well
injection. In offshore platforms, secondary treatment to meet environ-
mental regulations may also be applied if produced water is to be dis-
charged to sea.
Seawater is also frequently used for water flood operations to
maintain reservoir pressure and increase oil recovery. The feasibly of
using seawater for water flooding is determined on a case-by-case basis
and several factors are considered. Recently, various studies have sug-
gested injection of low salinity water during water flood can be effec-
tive for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). British Petroleum have registered
S. Adham et al. Desalination 440 (2018) 2–17

Fig. 8. APLNG water treatment facility with evaporation pond [75].

Fig. 9. Application of MD for treatment of RO concentrate.

that concept in their LoSal® process for EOR. This has been the outcome
of more than ten years of investigation that supported the evidence for
use of low salinity, especially cationic ions, water injection as a viable
EOR process [80].
Clair Ridge [81] in the UK, a partnership project between British
Petroleum, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, and Shell, will include the first
offshore deployment of the LoSal® EOR water injection technology
[80]. The low salinity water will be generated via RO with UF as pre-
treatment (Fig. 10). The membrane plant's construction is almost
complete and after operation, the project is expected to generate a
wealth of data to confirm the overall feasibility of the LoSal® process for
large scale installation [81].
2.3.1. Membrane desulfating for water flood
When seawater is to be used for water flood, the presence of sulfate
can raise the following concerns for reservoir operations:
- Presence of sulfate reducing bacteria can lead to reservoir souring
- Presence of barium can cause barium sulfate scale formation in the
reservoir
The above two issues are typically evaluated and in some cases,
operations would require to desulfate the seawater prior to water flood
application [82]. We conducted an internal technical review of the NF
technology for offshore application and below is a summary of the

Fig. 10. Clair Ridge water treatment process for EOR application.

9
S. Adham et al.
outcomes:
NF is a globally recognized process for sulfate removal that has been
successfully applied by the O&G industry in many offshore applications.
In case where sulfate removal by NF is applied, cartridge filters (typi-
cally rated at 5 μm) are also supplied upstream of the system to mini-
mize pre-treatment upsets. Guard cartridge filters will not be required if
membrane filtration technology is used in place of media filtration. The
NF process is designed to reduce sulfate in the injection water to <
40 mg/L. NF is typically performed using spiral wound polymeric
membranes in pressure vessel. Typical sulfate removal membranes are
available in 8″ element designs with 400–440 ft2 of surface area per
element. Sulfate removal packages use a specialized NF membrane
material with very high sulfate ion rejection, but very low monovalent
ion (such as sodium and chloride) rejection characteristics. The mem-
branes can also remove large fraction of multivalent ions (such as cal-
cium (> 80% removal), magnesium (> 90% removal)) from the in-
jected seawater, which present the potential of EOR as discussed above.
Dow Chemical (FILMTEC™ SR90, USA) is widely used for offshore ap-
plications to achieve target sulfate levels in the permeate in a single
pass configuration. These NF membranes were developed and patented
by Marathon Oil and Dow Chemical [83], but the patent expired in
2011 [37]. Since then, other membrane manufacturers (e.g. GE, Hy-
dranautics, etc.) have been developing new competing NF membranes
for seawater desulfating applications.
2.3.2. Membrane filtration and deoxygenation
An internal desktop evaluation, conducted by the authors, demon-
strated that the use of membrane technologies in off-shore platforms
including, membrane filtration to replace media filtration and mem-
brane de-oxygenation (3M Liqui-Cel, USA) to replace vacuum de-
aeration, provided significant benefits in weight and foot-print reduc-
tion, with small differences in OPEX. The use of membrane filtration
was estimated to result in a wet weight savings of approximately 40%
and a foot-print reduction of approximately 60% when compared with
media filtration. The CAPEX for the membrane filtration technology
was about 25–30% lower than that for the media filtration system. The
CAPEX for the membrane de-oxygenation system is about 1.5 times the
CAPEX of the vacuum de-aeration system. The membrane filtration
technology has a TRL of 7 and is gaining more acceptance for use in
offshore projects [84]. The membrane de-oxygenation technology has a
TRL of 4 and pilot testing at relevant field conditions is warranted.
2.4. Oil sands: Surmont, Canada
Oil sand is a naturally occurring mixture of sand, clay, water and
bitumen, an extremely viscous oil that is typically extracted via in situ
production or open pit mining. Most of the current reserves (80%) are
accessible via in situ techniques, with SAGD being the most widely used
recovery method [1]. SAGD requires the drilling of two horizontal
wells, one on top of each other, through the oil sands deposit. Steam is
injected continuously to the top well and, as the temperature rises, the
bitumen becomes more fluid and flows to the lower well. The hot water
and bitumen are then pumped to the surface.
Surmont Phase 1 & 2 SAGD development in Alberta, Canada is
operated by ConocoPhillips Canada and is a 50/50 joint-venture with
Total E&P Canada. Construction of Surmont phase 1 began in 2004 and
Surmont 2 in 2010 and by October 2016, Surmont production reached
100,000 barrels per day. Surmont Phase 2 is the largest single-phase
SAGD project ever undertaken and production from this facility is tar-
geted for > 50 years.
SAGD facilities typically recycle over 90% of hot produced water to
generate steam for oil production. This closed water cycle makes
treatment critical, as any process upsets can cause unplanned main-
tenance and production losses. SAGD produced water treatment, prior
to once through steam generators (OSTG), comprises a skim tank, in-
duced gas flotation, oil removal filter (walnut shell filter), warm lime
10
Desalination 440 (2018) 2–17
softener, after filter, and weak acid cation ion exchange softening resin
(Fig. 11a). There is a recent paradigm shift to desalinate the hot pro-
duced water via falling film thermal evaporators and then use drum
boilers rather than OTSG for steam generation (Fig. 11b). The alter-
native treatment scheme is projected to improve process efficiency and
reduce operating cost [39].
The GWSC team participated in various studies to evaluate the ap-
plication of innovative membrane processes to SAGD. Below are some
highlights:
2.4.1. CM for SAGD application
As hot produced water recycle and reuse efforts mount, interest in
the application of CM for produced water treatment is increasing. CM
are attractive primarily for these reasons [38]:
• Robustness of the membranes to chemicals
• Tolerance to high temperatures
• Absolute barrier filtration
• Compactness compared to conventional filtration
These reasons provide process efficiency & reliability demanded by
O&G industry. Many different commercial CM products are available,
each with inherent advantages and disadvantages and supplied by
vendors with varying degrees of qualifications and industry experience.
A comprehensive assessment of CM technology and its application
in the treatment of produced water was conducted. Three separate
applications targeting the removal of oil, silica and hardness (for boiler
feedwater) were evaluated. Key findings from the assessment included:
1) CM made of silicon carbide historically showed superior perfor-
mance and lower fouling compared with aluminum oxide mem-
branes.
2) For low solids (polishing) applications, operation of the CM in
“dead-end” filtration offers significant CAPEX and OPEX savings.
3) Potential applications of CM for the O&G industry include produced
water treatment at off-shore platforms and/or SAGD applications.
4) Field testing of the treatment scheme with CM should be performed
to develop accurate full-scale design data and identify opportunities
for process optimization.
CM are ideal for high temperature applications and can be included
in the SAGD process treatment scheme for the removal of oil [85],
suspended solids, hardness and/or soluble silica. While the removal of
oil and suspended solids is by simple filtration, for silica and hardness
removal, the process requires chemical addition to precipitate the so-
luble ions. The particulate silica and hardness are then removed by the
CM producing a low turbidity filtrate and a waste stream that can be
dewatered and disposed off-site. The process can be operated either in
“dead-end” or “cross-flow” mode. Under cross-flow mode, the solids are
continuously recycled back to the process reactor tank providing seed
for crystal growth allowing Removal of Oil suspended Solids and Scale
formers (ROSS™ process) [86]. As produced water chemistry can vary
significantly from site to site, pilot testing is typically needed to de-
termine optimum process conditions and expected membrane perfor-
mance.
A CM (CeraMem® - Veolia Water Technologies, France) pilot system
(Fig. 12) was installed at ConocoPhillips Surmont Phase 1, taking hot
produced water feed after the trim cooler, at nominally 93 °C. The pilot
unit [31] comprised a chemical-free skim tank; continuously stirred
tank reactor (CSTR) with sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and magnesium
oxide (MgO) dosing; and a CM system fitted with backpulse, chemically
enhanced backpulse and crossflow reversal as flux maintenance. Hot
produced water feed entered the skim tank, where bulk oil and solids
removal occurred, and then entered the pH controlled CSTR with MgO
dosing. The CSTR effluent was processed in the CM system, where silica
and hardness precipitates were removed by the membranes, along with
S. Adham et al.
Fig. 11. Produced water treatment by conventional and evaporators for stream generation.
other suspended solids and emulsified oils producing a low turbidity
filtrate. While the CM pilot met the target product water quality, it was
not feasible to do clean-in-place (CIP) at the pilot site, which presented
key challenges in the overall process evaluation, especially related to
membrane fouling and chemical management. The vendor (Veolia
Water Technologies, France) has provided a full-scale system for Plain
Exploration & Production Company (PXP), San Luis Obispo, California,
and generated additional data on the ROSS™ process feasibility [87].
However, the project team decided that additional data on process
performance need to be generated on relevant field conditions in Ca-
nada and due to budget constraints and other considerations, no further
actions were taken to consider the CM application for potential future
phases of Surmont.
2.4.2. High temperature polymeric membranes
Various membrane application studies for SAGD are being con-
ducted by COSIA (Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance). One of the
innovative projects is investigating the feasibility new high temperature
polymeric UF and RO membranes (Suez Water Technologies &
Solutions, USA) for SAGD applications [85]. The primary objective of
the high temperature UF membranes is for deoiling of the hot produced
water while the RO membranes are to produce boiler feedwater (BFW)
quality. The testing program is still ongoing with multiple phases to
enhance the TRL of these new generation membrane products.
Other membrane vendors (e.g. Mitsubishi, Hydranautics, etc.) are
also developing polymeric membranes for high temperature water ap-
plications [88]. Recently, it was announced by Kahramaa that a pilot
project will be conducted to desalinate hot seawater discharged from
Fig. 12. Ceramic membrane pilot system for SAGD.
11
Desalination 440 (2018) 2–17
cooling loops of various industrial plants located at the North Field in
Qatar [89].
2.5. Shale plays: Permian Basin, Texas
O&G production from unconventional shale reservoirs is the most
recent development for the industry, spurred by advancements in hor-
izontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques which helped un-
lock vast hydrocarbon resources. Currently, most of the development is
in North America, while explorations are being pursued in other loca-
tions worldwide.
For each shale play, there are specific site challenges that need to be
addressed related to water management, including:
▪ Access to fresh or saline water sources
▪ Volume of flowback & produced water
▪ Produced water quality & salinity
▪ Availability of salt water disposal wells
▪ Haulage, road maintenance & spillage concerns
The above challenges make it prudent that fit for purpose water
solutions be implemented based on site conditions. The industry is
generally committed to creating a responsible water management plan
in the developing their shale play assets, especially in regions where
water is scarce like the Permian Basin in West Texas. ConocoPhillips
acreage in the Permian Basin includes approximately 123,500 net un-
conventional acres [90] and current activities are focused on appraising
and developing this unconventional play in the Delaware, Central
S. Adham et al.
Fig. 13. Frac tanks for oxidizing iron from produced water [92].
Platform and Midland Delaware basins. With the number of stacked
plays in this basin, it is expected that drilling and production in that
basin will continue for many years. Sourcing water for large multi-frac
stimulations is a well-known constraint for O&G developments in that
region. Additionally, large volumes of produced water have tradition-
ally required treatment and disposal in injection wells. Rather than
viewing these constraints only as challenges, the industry realized the
tremendous opportunity to address both issues by treating and reusing
produced for hydraulic fracturing operations.
A pilot testing program for produced water reuse was executed for
multi-wells in the Permian Basin [91]. A fit for purpose treatment
scheme was deployed to selectively remove free oil, suspended solids,
H2S, and iron as well as to inactivate microorganisms (Fig. 13). While
gravity separation was adequate for de-oiling and filtration for sus-
pended solids, oxidation followed by coagulation and clarification was
necessary for dissolved iron removal. The average treated water iron
concentration was < 5 mg/L (feed: 70 mg/L) whereas the average tur-
bidity was consistently < 10 NTU (feed: 222 NTU), making it suitable
for well completion. When treating for H2S removal, oxidation followed
by filtration was sufficient to reduce the average H2S concentration
to < 0.2 mg/L (feed: 500 mg/L) and achieve average turbidity < 10
NTU (feed: 500 NTU). The treated produced water was compatible with
the new salt-tolerant friction reducer, achieving similar friction reduc-
tion compared to the standard friction reducer and fresh water. The
treated produced water used in hydraulic fracturing was also compa-
tible with formation water as it was produced from the same formation.
The sulfate reducing bacteria were non-detectable in the treated water
after four weeks of storage. Overall the pilot testing program demon-
strated that produced water reuse is technically feasible and can be
cost-effective compared to other available water sourcing alternatives.
The technical approach developed allowed use of salty produced
water (> 220,000 mg/L TDS) for completion activities utilizing the salt
tolerant friction reducer. Application of membrane technology, in-
cluding MF, UF and/or RO, for the treatment and recycling of produced
water has not yet been fully explored as most operators are selecting fit
for purpose treatment that targets specific constituents in produced
water which can impact well completion activities. Multiple vendors,
however, provide fit for purpose water technologies in mobile skid
mounted trailers (or centralized temporary facilities) for removal of
suspended solids, iron, hardness, and selective ions, including desalting
of produced water. The mobile systems typically include coagulation/
clarification units, sludge thickener, MF/RO membranes, and other
auxiliary support equipment. The vendors receive the produced water
and/or flowback water from the O&G operators and after treatment, the
brine and/or fresh water is then reused for hydraulic fracturing [93].
12
Desalination 440 (2018) 2–17
Various vendors also demonstrated their innovative technologies for
the desalination of highly saline brines for potential application to shale
play water reuse and recycling. For example, Oasys pilot tested their FO
membrane brine concentrator (MBC) for desalination of flowback and
produced water from natural gas operations in the Marcellus and
Permian shale plays [94,95]. Furthermore, GE Water & Process Tech-
nologies, acquired by Suez Water Technologies & Solutions, USA, tested
a combination of MD with mechanical vapor compression (MVC) to
desalinate high salinity produced water in Texas [96]. Extensive pre-
treatment was required for the above two applications to operate ef-
fectively, which translated to high operating costs. While the processes
were able to achieve high desalination levels (> 99%) no full-scale
system was installed by the O&G industry for shale play applications.
2.5.1. Hypersaline water desalination with MD
MD can treat highly saline brines that other membrane desalination
processes cannot treat [97,98]. These unique features of MD make it an
ideal candidate to desalinate concentrated brines from thermal desali-
nation plants to augment freshwater production from existing facilities.
The application of MD was evaluated for the desalination of con-
centrated brines from thermal desalination plants [99]. Five different
MD technologies were screened and the two most suitable systems were
selected for field-testing at a full-scale thermal desalination plant in
Qatar. One of tested MD units (Pilot A - Memsys water technologies
GmbH, Germany) achieved excellent salt rejection (> 99.99%), with
average feed and distillate TDS at 71,000 mg/L and 6 mg/L, respec-
tively. With proper pretreatment and optimized operating conditions,
the MD unit maintained sustainable membrane flux at 6.2 L/m2-h and
stable recovery of 52%. However, cost-effective scale-up designs for
large applications and improved energy efficiency of the MD process
were two key areas that vendors were asked to work on before follow-
up demonstration testing.
Given the promising results of MD testing for desalination of high
salinity brines, Pilot A was shipped to Texas so that the technology
could be further evaluated for desalination of hypersaline groundwaters
[100]. It should be noted that hypersaline groundwaters are one of the
challenged water options being considered by the industry as a poten-
tial water source for fracking operations, especially in water scarce
regions. MD was tested in combination with humidification/dehumi-
dification (HDH) as dual emerging desalination technologies suitable
for inland desalination with “zero liquid discharge” (ZLD). Hence, a
1 m3/d pilot multi-effect MD system (Fig. 14) was operated in the field
to desalinate saline groundwaters with up to 6.3% TDS and produced
distillate and brine at 10.2% TDS. This brine served as the feed for a
subsequent pilot of a multi-effect HDH crystallizer (Saltworks
S. Adham et al.
Fig. 14. MD & HDH for hypersaline ground water desalination in Texas.
Technologies, Canada). The MD unit operated at 40% recovery pro-
ducing distillate with < 20 mg/L TDS at a stable flux of 5 L/m2-h.
Pretreatment, either by adding antiscalant or concentrated acid, was
important for stable MD operation. HDH was an effective crystallizer
capable of generating solids from the MD brine while producing addi-
tional distillate with TDS below 100 mg/L. Total energy inputs for MD
and HDH were 260 kWh/m3 and 220 kWh/m3 respectively. This
equates to a gain-output ratio of ≈3 and is due to the multi-effect de-
signs for both systems. Because cooling water is typically not available
at inland applications, removal of latent energy is the key challenge
faced by inland thermal desalination processes. Overall, pilot results
showed MD & HDH to be technically feasible for inland desalination but
both processes need to increase energy efficiency to improve process
economics.
3. Future membrane technologies & applications
Membrane processes continue to have new opportunities for a wide
range of applications worldwide. Currently, the GWSC team is involved
in executing the following joint research projects that, if successful, can
further deploy membrane technologies for water management in the O
&G industry. However, the below processes and/or membrane material
development are still in relatively nascent stage and it will likely take a
long time for deployment. It should also be noted this section does not
cover all current membrane developments for the O&G industry.
3.1. Pressure retarded osmosis with FO membranes
Although the hypersalinity of produced water from conventional oil
sources can hinder its reuse, this hyper-salinity represents high osmotic
pressure, which can offer potential for green energy production if the
osmotic energy is converted into usable mechanical energy. Pressure-
retarded osmosis (PRO) [101–104] is a process that can convert osmotic
energy into electrical energy using a hydro-turbine and generator in a
way that is similar to conventional hydropower plants (Fig. 15)
[105,106]. However, there are only very few rigorous studies on the
capabilities and limitations of PRO when applied to hypersaline water
with such complex composition as found in produced water.
In most of the previous studies of power production using PRO, low
salinity waters such as fresh water or treated wastewater have been
used as feed solution, with seawater or rejected brine from seawater
desalination plants used as draw solution [107]. Our project aims [108]
at adopting seawater or brine from desalination plants as feed solution
and the hyper-saline produced water as draw solution. Hypersaline
produced water can have salinities up to ≈290,000 mg/L or 8 times
higher than seawater at 35,000 mg/L and this greatly increases the
osmotic pressure differential (driving force) and membrane flux when
compared with other PRO applications. Seawater is several times less
saline than produced water, which will maintain a high osmotic pres-
sure difference between the draw solution and the feed solution. Since
many of the conventional oil production facilities are located either
13
Desalination 440 (2018) 2–17
offshore or close to sea onshore, the above proposed PRO concept be-
comes more feasible due to availability of seawater and/or RO brine.
Harnessing osmotic energy effectively from highly saline produced
water will require innovative process design and hardware develop-
ment, including a new generation of FO membranes. The high salinity
and complex composition of produced water pose several challenges.
The first challenge caused by the high osmotic pressure of produced
water is the high operating hydraulic pressure that will be required to
obtain peak power density. In that regards, four commercial FO mem-
brane for PRO were recently investigated and findings indicated that
membrane deformation was observed at higher operating pressure of
3.5 MPa [102]. Another major challenge for PRO is the low power
density and energy efficiency that is practically achievable compared to
theoretical values. Thus, it will be critical to fabricate FO membranes
that can withstand high pressures with a thin support layer. The authors
in collaboration with Texas A&M University in Qatar/US and University
of Technology Sydney are currently working on evaluating PRO to
produce green energy from highly saline produced water [108].
3.2. H2S removal with hydrophobic membrane contactor
One of key challenges for water management in the O&G industry is
the removal of H2S from sour water [109]. H2S is a toxic gas that must
be removed from produced water prior to any treatment & reuse for
various reasons including corrosion, environmental regulations and
health & safety concerns. H2S removal may also be required before
reinjection into disposal wells to minimize reservoir souring potential
[110]. Currently, sour water strippers are the standard process for H2S
removal; however, they have limitations mainly due to the high cost
associated with the materials of construction and to their lack of port-
ability [111].
Membranes could be an alternative technology for sour water
treatment. Experiments were recently conducted [112] which showed
that hollow fiber hydrophobic membrane contactors (G543 - 3M Liqui-
Cel, USA), generally used for gas separations, can remove H2S from sour
water and trap it in a receiving solution (i.e. sodium hydroxide, amines,
etc.) which immediately converts the H2S into a non-hazardous form.
The mass transfer rate across the membrane is directly proportional to
the mass transfer coefficient, which depends on membrane properties
and H2S concentration on the water stream. Results with synthetic so-
lutions simulating the inorganic content of process water and con-
taining H2S showed that the membrane process performance is pH
dependent since H2S speciation changes with pH. Faster removal rates
were obtained at pH 4 or below since all the sulfide species are present
as H2S [112]. Temperature also enhanced performance as results
showed that the mass transfer coefficient increased exponentially with
temperature. At 25 °C the mass transfer coefficient was 0.243 cm/min
while at 45 °C, it was 0.336 cm/min. Finally, tests were conducted using
actual process water from a gas production facility to evaluate the
impact of organics on process performance. No significant membrane
fouling was observed and the H2S removal rate was measured to
S. Adham et al. Desalination 440 (2018) 2–17

Fig. 15. Membrane application to produced water for power production & seawater desalination.

Fig. 16. Integration of membrane contactors with an amine regeneration unit.

be > 98%; with the feed and effluent H2S concentrations at 98.4 mg/L
and < 2 mg/L, respectively.
This technology is still under development but it has a potential
application in refineries and gas processing facilities where amine re-
generation units are available, since amines can be used as receiving
solutions (Fig. 16). This process could also be applied on remote loca-
tions where portable systems are required as fit for purpose technolo-
gies. One of the process advantages is that the treated feed water will
not contain scavenger and/or scavenger byproducts.
[113]. Specifically, the dimensions and characteristics of the etched
membrane pores on the efficiency of oil-water separation will be in-
vestigated in this project. The potential for enhancing separation effi-
ciency and selectivity of the BCP membranes pores by chemical mod-
ification will be evaluated and compared with commercial membranes.
Also studied will be the effect of the type and amount of reinforcing
nanofillers on mechanical stability and durability. Other investigators
also addressed oil water separation by evaluating novel membrane
processes, including UF and an integrated FO-MD system [114,115].

3.3. New generation membranes 3.3.2. Aquaporin/graphene FO membranes

3.3.1. Novel UF membranes for oil-water separation
Researchers at Qatar and Akron Universities, in collaboration with
the GWSC team, are developing novel UF membranes for oil-water se-
paration based on nano-reinforced, etched block copolymers (BCP)
As indicated earlier, a pilot study of the OC process using FO
membranes to reduce the volume of QG process water is in progress. As
a part of this project, the feasibility of FO membranes made of aqua-
porins (AQPHFFO 2 - Aquaporin A/S, Denmark) and/or graphene ma-
terials will be investigated to enhance process efficiency. Aquaporins

14
S. Adham et al.
are protein channels that permit the transport of up to a billion water
molecules per second, if a sufficiently high osmotic potential exists
across the membrane [116,117]. They constitute a large family of
proteins that transport water across cell membranes. The aquaporin
proteins are hosted by a thin film coating which ensures that the natural
activity of such proteins is preserved during water treatment.
Graphene-based nanomaterials have also attracted interest in de-
salination due their unique properties and distinctive structural char-
acteristics, high mechanical strength and negligible thickness. The ad-
vancement in molecular simulation of graphene opened up the
development of novel graphene-based membranes. Based on simula-
tion, the nanopores investigated showed salt rejection and water per-
meability 2–3 orders of magnitude greater than commercialized mem-
branes [118–120].
4. Summary
Water touches most segments of the petroleum industry. Water
managed by the industry is either co-produced with the hydrocarbons,
generated as a by-product from oil/gas processing, and/or utilized to
support production operations. This paper provided an overview of the
various case studies of the oil and gas industry where membrane pro-
cesses were installed or considered and a review of applied research
projects that included membrane technology evaluations. Below are
key highlights:
▪ Cost-effective water management is a key part of the oil & gas in-
dustry efforts to ensure optimized sustainable operation throughout
the world.
▪ Produced water volumes will continue to increase and regulations/
water scarcity will drive more beneficial reuse of that resource.
▪ Given the variability of produced water characteristics, a toolbox of
various technologies need to be developed to ensure that fit for
purpose treatment can be deployed.
▪ While the majority of the water from the petroleum industry typi-
cally receives basic treatment, there are multiple recent drivers for
membrane process applications to meet regulatory requirements,
reduce disposal volumes, and/or facilitate water recycling/reuse
projects.
▪ Reverse osmosis and nanofiltration are widely installed by the in-
dustry for water desalination and desulfating, respectively.
▪ Membrane filtration and bioreactors are also frequently applied as
standalone treatments for inorganics and organics removal, respec-
tively; or as pretreatment to desalination membranes.
▪ Emerging membrane technologies (e.g., ceramic membranes,
membrane distillation, forward osmosis, pressure retarded osmosis,
hydrophobic membrane contactors, etc.) may be feasible for niche
applications.
▪ Novel membranes (e.g., high temperature polymeric membranes,
etched block copolymers, aquaporin, graphene, etc.) can provide a
step change in performance compared to commercial membranes.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge Qatar National Research
Fund (a member of Qatar Foundation) for funding various research
projects through their flagship grants # [NPRP 10-0118-170191, NPRP
10-1231-160069, NPRP 10-0127-170269, NPRP 6-868-1-163, NPRP 5-
573-1-102]. The authors acknowledge the lead principal investigators
(LPI's) of the following projects NPRP 10-0118-170191, NPRP 10-1231-
160069, NPRP 10-0127-170269 are Professors Simon Judd, Mariam
AlMa'adeed and Ahmed Abdel-Wahab, respectively. The authors would
also like to thank the contributions of multiple ConocoPhillips collea-
gues, some of whom left the company, including Steve Jester, Kris
Bansal, Dave Rowley, Kristie McLin, Samir Gharfeh, Nabin Upadhyay,
Eman Al Shamari, Raul Dores, Ana Santos, Mary Katebah, Aida Rafat,
15
Desalination 440 (2018) 2–17
Zakir Hirani, and many others.
References
[1] T.N. Nasr, H. Golbeck, G. Korpany, G. Pierce, SAGD operating strategies, SPE Int.
Conf. Horiz. Well Technol, 1998, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/50411-ms.
[2] C.T. Montgomery, M.B. Smith, Hydraulic fracturing: history of an enduring tech-
nology, J. Pet. Technol. 62 (2010) 26–40, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/1210-0026-
JPT.
[3] M. Medina, SAGD: R & D for unlocking unconventional heavy-oil resources, Soc.
Pet. Eng. - W. Ahead. 6 (2010) 6–9 https://www.spe.org/twa/print/archives/
2010/2010v6n2/05_Tech_101.pdf.
[4] Samer Adham, Desalination Needs and Opportunities in the Oil & Gas Industry,
Keynote Speech at International Conference on Emerging Water Desalination
Technologies in Municipal and Industrial Applications, NWRI-Desaltech, San
Diego, USA, 2015.
[5] T.L.S. Silva, S. Morales-Torres, S. Castro-Silva, J.L. Figueiredo, A.M.T. Silva, An
overview on exploration and environmental impact of unconventional gas sources
and treatment options for produced water, J. Environ. Manag. 200 (2017)
511–529, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.06.002.
[6] B. Petroleum, BP energy outlook energy 2017, BP Stat. Rev. World Energy, 52
2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
[7] D.R. Tobergte, S. Curtis, IGU world LNG report – 2015 edition, J. Chem. Inf.
Model. 53 (2017) 1689–1699, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.
004.
[8] R. Dores, A. Hussain, M. Katebah, S. Adham, Using advanced water treatment
technologies to treat produced water from the petroleum industry, SPE Int. Prod.
Oper. Conf. Doha, Qatar, 2012.
[9] Z. Khatib, P. Verbeek, Shell Intl. E&P, Water to value-produced water management
for sustainable field development of mature and green fields, J. Pet. Technol. 55
(2003) 26–28, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/0103-0026-JPT.
[10] C. Clark, J. Veil, Produced water volumes and management practices in the United
States, Argonne Natl. Lab. Rep. 64 2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.2172/1007397.
[11] J. Veil, C. Clark, Produced water volume estimates and management practices, SPE
Prod. Oper. 26 (2011) 234–239, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/125999-PA.
[12] Transparency Market Research, Produced Water Treatment Systems Market Will
Rise to US$6.16B by 2020 at a CAGR of 6.1%; Global Industry Analysis, Size,
Share, Growth, Trends and Forecast 2020, (2016), pp. 1–65 http://www.
transparencymarketresearch.com/produced-water-treatment-market.html ,
Accessed date: 10 September 2017.
[13] A.J. Kondash, E. Albright, A. Vengosh, Quantity of flowback and produced waters
from unconventional oil and gas exploration, Sci. Total Environ. 574 (2017)
314–321, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.069.
[14] D.A. Ladner, A. Subramani, M. Kumar, S.S. Adham, M.M. Clark, Bench-scale
evaluation of seawater desalination by reverse osmosis, Desalination 250 (2010)
490–499, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2009.06.072.
[15] S. Adham, A. Hussain, J.M. Matar, R. Dores, A. Janson, Application of membrane
distillation for desalting brines from thermal desalination plants, Desalination 314
(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.01.003.
[16] E.A. Emam, T.M. Moawad, N.A. Aboul-Gheit, Evaluating the characteristics of
offshore oilfield produced water, Pet. Coal. 56 (2014) 363–372.
[17] A. Janson, A. Santos, M. Katebah, A. Hussain, J. Minier-Matar, S. Judd, S. Adham,
Assessing the biotreatability of produced water from a Qatari gas field, SPE J.
(2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/173188-pa.
[18] W.H. Goodman, M.R. Godfrey, T.M. Miller, Comany, Scale and deposit formation
in steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) facilities, Int. Water Conf, 2010, pp.
24–28.
[19] Katharine G. Dahm, Katie L. Guerra, Junko Munakata-Marr, Jörg E. Drewes,
Trends in water quality variability for coalbed methane produced water, J. Clean.
Prod. 84 (2014) 840–848, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2014.04.033.
[20] A.-G.M. Al-Kaabi M, A.B. Ghazi, R. Qunnaby, F. Dawwas, H. Al-Hadrami, Z. Khatir,
M. Yousif, T. Ahmed, Enhancing the quality of “produced water” by activated
carbon, Qatar Found. Annu. Res. Conf. Proc. 2016, 2016, pp. 16–17.
[21] L.D. Nghiem, C. Elters, A. Simon, T. Tatsuya, W. Price, Coal seam gas produced
water treatment by ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis and multi-effect distillation: a
pilot study, Sep. Purif. Technol. 146 (2015) 94–100, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
seppur.2015.03.022.
[22] D. Robinson, Oil and gas: water treatment in oil and gas production – does it
matter? Filtr. Sep. 47 (2010) 14–18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0015-1882(10)
70032-X.
[23] K.M. Bansal, D.D. Caudle, Interferences with produced water treatment for dis-
persed oil removal, SPE Int. Conf. Heal. Safety, Environ. Oil Gas Explor. Prod,
1998.
[24] K.M. Bansal, D.D. Caudle, A new approach for injection water quality, 67th Annu.
Tech. Conf. Exhib. Soc. Pet. Eng, 1992.
[25] A. Hussain, J. Minier-Matar, A. Janson, S. Gharfeh, S. Adham, Advanced tech-
nologies for produced water treatment and reuse, Soc. Pet. Eng. - Int. Pet. Technol.
Conf., Doha, Qatar, 2014.
[26] J. Mulder, Basic Principles of Membrane Technology, Second, Kluwer Academic
Publisher, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1766-8.
[27] MWH, Water Treatment: Principles and Design, John Wiley & Sons, 2005.
[28] S. Judd, The MBR Book, 2nd ed., Elsevier, 2010.
[29] S. Judd, Membrane Bioreactors for Industrial Wastewater Treatment, Judd and
Judd Ltd, UK, 2017.
[30] P. Pal, Industrial Water Treatment Process Technology, Elsevier, 2017.
S. Adham et al.
[31] S. Smith, B. Bishop, M. Nicholoson, S. Parab, Field study of ceramic membranes:
revolutionizing SAGD produced water treatment through reliability, simplicity
and economics, Can. OIl Sands Netw. Res. Dev. (CONRAD), Water Conf, 2012.
[32] P.S. Goh, A.F. Ismail, A review on inorganic membranes for desalination and
wastewater treatment, Desalination (2017) 0–1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2017.07.023.
[33] Hydranautics, Hydranautics Introduces New SWC4 - High Temperature, Boron
Rejection SeaWater Composite Membrane!, http://www.membranes.com/press/
pr_newswc4.htm, (2018) , Accessed date: 18 January 2018.
[34] J.M. Sheikhan, I. Zainab, S. Janson, Arnold, Adham, Qatargas wastewater treat-
ment plants: an advanced design for water, Int. Pet. Technol. Conf. Doha, Qatar,
2015.
[35] G.J. Millar, S.J. Couperthwaite, C.D. Moodliar, Strategies for the management and
treatment of coal seam gas associated water, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 57 (2016)
669–691, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.087.
[36] L. Henthorne, C. Martin, H. Johnson, Developing and piloting water treatment
technologies to address offshore EOR challenges, Soc. Pet. Eng. - SPE Enhanc. Oil
Recover. Conf. EORC 2013, 2013, pp. 366–372, , http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
165241-MS.
[37] L. Henthorne, M. Hartman, A. Hayden, Improving chemical EOR economics by
optimizing water quality, SPE Enhanc. Oil Conf, 2011, pp. 19–21, , http://dx.doi.
org/10.2118/144397-MS.
[38] S.R. Smith, The use of ceramic membranes for treatment of produced water from
steam EOR to produced feedstock for steam generation and desalination for sur-
face discharge, IDA Water Recycl. Desalin. Oil Gas Ind. Banff, Alberta, Canada,
2013, pp. 1–105.
[39] W.F. Heins, Is a paradigm shift in produced water treatment technology occurring
at SAGD facilities? J. Can. Pet. Technol. 49 (2010) 10–15, http://dx.doi.org/10.
2118/132804-PA.
[40] M.K. Camarillo, J.K. Domen, W.T. Stringfellow, Physical-chemical evaluation of
hydraulic fracturing chemicals in the context of produced water treatment, J.
Environ. Manag. 183 (2016) 164–174, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.
2016.08.065.
[41] GWSC, Global Water Sustainability Centre, www.globalwsc.com, (2009) ,
Accessed date: 9 September 2017.
[42] QSTP, Qatar Science Technology Park, https://qstp.org.qa/, (2017) , Accessed
date: 10 September 2017.
[43] COP, ConocoPhillips, http://www.conocophillips.com/newsroom/news-release-
archives/Pages/2010/ConocoPhillips-and-GE-Open-Global-Water-Sustainability-
Center.aspx, (2017) , Accessed date: 5 September 2017.
[44] Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Deskbook, (2009), http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/SpringerReference_24357.
[45] Qatar Overview, http://www.theoilandgasyear.com/market/qatar, (2017).
[46] I. Bawazir, M. Raja, I. Abdelmohsen, Qatargas flare reduction program, Int. Pet.
Technol. Conf, 2014, pp. 20–22.
[47] M.M.G. Senden, F.J.A. Martens, W.D.E. Steenge, R.K. Nagelvoort, Shell's GTL: its
technology and design, its operation and products, Int. Pet. Technol. Conf, 2005,
pp. 1–4.
[48] Qatargas, QG Ventures, https://www.qatargas.com/English/QGVentures/Pages/
Qatargas3Project.aspx, (2017) , Accessed date: 25 September 2017.
[49] News, Qatargas Awards Ras Laffan Water Recycling Facility Deal to Qatar Kentz,
Gulf Times, http://www.gulf-times.com/story/463683/Qatargas-awards-Ras-
Laffan-water-recycling-facility-deal-to-Qatar-Kentz, (2010) (accessed September
18, 2017).
[50] S. Adham, S. Judd, A. Soares, Assessing the Biotreatability of Produced Water
From Qatari Gas Fields, NPRP 5 - 573 - 1 - 102, https://pub.qgrants.org/Awards/
ProjectDetails?p=5867&s=N&prm2=0&prm3=0&prm4=0&prm5=0&prm6=
0&prm9=0&prm12=0&prm13=0&prm14=0&prm15=Biotreatability, (2012) ,
Accessed date: 25 September 2017.
[51] A. Janson, M. Katebah, A. Santos, J. Minier-Matar, A. Hussain, S. Adham, S. Judd,
Assessing the biotreatability of produced water from a Qatari gas field, Int. Pet.
Technol. Conf. Qatar, 2014.
[52] J. Minier-Matar, A. Hussain, A. Janson, R. Wang, A.G. Fane, S. Adham, Application
of forward osmosis for reducing volume of produced/process water from oil and
gas operations, Desalination 376 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.
08.008.
[53] B.D. Coday, P. Xu, E.G. Beaudry, J. Herron, K. Lampi, N.T. Hancock, T.Y. Cath, The
sweet spot of forward osmosis: treatment of produced water, drilling wastewater,
and other complex and difficult liquid streams, Desalination 333 (2014) 23–35,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.11.014.
[54] J. Minier-Matar, A. Santos, A. Hussain, A. Janson, R. Wang, A.G. Fane, S. Adham,
Application of hollow fiber forward osmosis membranes for produced and process
water volume reduction: an osmotic concentration process, Environ. Sci. Technol.
50 (2016) 6044–6052, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04801.
[55] S. Adham, A.G. Fane, R. Wang, Application of Forward Osmosis to Reduce
Produced Water Injection Volumes in Qatari Gas Fields, NPRP 6 - 868 - 1 - 163
(2013) https://pub.qgrants.org/Awards/ProjectDetails?p=10870&s=N&prm2=
0&prm3=0&prm4=0&prm5=0&prm6=0&prm8=ForwardOsmosis&prm9=0&
prm12=0&prm13=0&prm14=0 , Accessed date: 10 September 2017.
[56] J. Minier-Matar, A. Hussain, A. Santos, A. Janson, R. Wang, A.G. Fane, S. Adham,
Advances in application of forward osmosis technology for volume reduction of
produced/process water from gas-field operations, Int. Pet. Technol. Conf, 2015,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2523/iptc-18380-ms.
[57] J. Minier-Matar, A. Hussain, A.F. Janson, A.G. Fane, S. Adham, Application of
forward osmosis to reduce produced water injection volumes, Proc. 4th Int. Gas
Process. Symp, 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-63461-0.50032-8.
16
Desalination 440 (2018) 2–17
[58] S. Zhao, J. Minier-Matar, S. Chou, R. Wang, A.G. Fane, S. Adham, Gas field pro-
duced/process water treatment using forward osmosis hollow fiber membrane:
membrane fouling and chemical cleaning, Desalination 402 (2017) 143–151,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.10.006.
[59] S. Judd, A. Benamor, M. Nasser, S. Adham, Osmotic Concentration for Reducing
Injected Wastewater Volumes in Qatar, NPRP 10-0118-170191, https://pub.
qgrants.org/Awards/ProjectDetails?p=27329&s=N&prm2=0&prm3=0&
prm4=0&prm5=0&prm6=0&prm9=0&prm12=0&prm13=0&prm14=2665,
(2017).
[60] M. Kelland, History of the development of low dosage hydrate inhibitors, Energy
Fuel 20 (2006) 825–847, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef050427x.
[61] P. Kumar, S. Mitra, Challenges in uninterrupted production and supply of gas to
mega LNG trains, Int. Pet. Technol. Conf, 2014, pp. 1–8, , http://dx.doi.org/10.
2523/IPTC-17499-MS.
[62] A. Al Redoua, S.A. Hamid, D.E. Limited, Industrial application for the removal of
kinetic hydrate inhibitor (KHI) co-polymers from produced water streams, Int. Pet.
Technol. Conf, 2015.
[63] S. Adham, A. Hussain, J. Minier Matar, A. Janson, S. Gharfeh, Screening of ad-
vanced produced water treatment technologies: overview and testing results, IDA
J. Desalin. Water Reuse 5 (2013) 75–82.
[64] S. Adham, S. Gharfeh, A. Hussain, J. Minier-Matar, A. Janson, Kinetic hydrate
inhibitor removal by physical, chemical and biological processes, Proc. Annu.
Offshore Technol. Conf, 2014.
[65] A. Hussain, J. Minier-Matar, S. Gharfeh, A. Janson, S. Adham, Advanced tech-
nologies for produced water treatment, Offshore Technol. Conf, 2014, http://dx.
doi.org/10.4043/24749-ms.
[66] A. Janson, A. Santos, A. Hussain, S. Judd, A. Soares, S. Adham, Biotreatment of
hydrate-inhibitor-containing produced waters at low pH, SPE J. 20 (2015).
[67] APLNG, Australia Pacific LNG Combabula CSG Water Management Plan Report, Q-
4200-45-MP-0001, https://www.aplng.com.au/content/dam/aplng/compliance/
management-plans/Appendix_F3-CSG_Water_Management_Plan_Combabula.pdf,
(2010) , Accessed date: 10 October 2017.
[68] APLNG, Water to Landholders, https://www.aplng.com.au/content/dam/aplng/
reports/2014/waterlandowners-aug-2014.pdf, (2014) , Accessed date: 8 October
2017.
[69] Pall, Case Study With a Pall Integrated Membrane System at Origin Energy,
https://chemicals-polymers.pall.com/content/dam/pall/chemicals-polymers/
literature-library/non-gated/FCCSOEN.pdf, (2007) , Accessed date: 21 January
2018.
[70] APNLG, Spring Gully Water Treatment Facility Water Quality Discharge Annual
Report, Q-8220-15-RP-005, https://www.aplng.com.au/content/dam/aplng/
reports/2011/SGWTF_annual_report_rev0_jul_2010_jun_2011.pdf, (2011) ,
Accessed date: 9 October 2017.
[71] APLNG, Water and CSG, https://www.aplng.com.au/topics/water-and-csg.html,
(2017) , Accessed date: 20 September 2017.
[72] Gasfields Commission, CSG Water Treatment and Beneficial Use, http://www.
gasfieldscommissionqld.org.au/gasfields/water-and-salt-management/
information-and-publications.html, (2014).
[73] C. Fell, Water Treatment and Coal Seam Gas, (2014), pp. 1–59 http://www.
chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/56858/Water-treatment-
and-CSG_Final.pdf , Accessed date: 9 June 2017.
[74] APLNG, Australia Pacific LNG Saline Effluent Management Plan Condabri Central,
Q-LNG01-15-MP-0033, https://www.aplng.com.au/content/dam/aplng/
compliance/management-plans/Appendix_G2-Saline_Effluent_Management_Plan_
Condabri_Central.pdf, (2014) , Accessed date: 6 July 2010.
[75] TENEO, APLNG Upstream Water Treatment Facilities, Phase 1 - Reedy Creek &
Condarbi Central, http://www.teneogroup.com.au/project/reedy-creek/, (2017) ,
Accessed date: 25 September 2017.
[76] A. Alkhudhiri, N. Darwish, N. Hilal, Produced water treatment: application of air
gap membrane distillation, Desalination 309 (2013) 46–51, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.desal.2012.09.017.
[77] J. Kim, H. Kwon, S. Lee, S. Lee, S. Hong, Membrane distillation (MD) integrated
with crystallization (MDC) for shale gas produced water (SGPW) treatment,
Desalination 403 (2017) 172–178, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.07.
045.
[78] D. Singh, K.K. Sirkar, Desalination of brine and produced water by direct contact
membrane distillation at high temperatures and pressures, J. Membr. Sci. 389
(2012) 380–388, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.11.003.
[79] A. Hussain, J. Minier-Matar, A. Janson, S. Adham, Treatment of produced water
from oil & gas operations by membrane distillation, Proc. 4th Int. Gas Process.
Symp, 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-63461-0.50029-8.
[80] E. Robbana, T.A. Buikema, C. Mair, D. Williams, D.J. Mercer, K.J. Webb,
A. Hewson, C.E. Reddick, Low salinity enhanced oil recovery - laboratory to day
one field implementation - LoSal EOR into the Clair Ridge project, Abu Dhabi Int.
Pet. Exhib. Conf, 2012, pp. 12–14, , http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/161750-MS.
[81] Clair Ridge Project, Shetlands, United Kingdom, http://www.offshore-technology.
com/projects/clair-ridge-project-shetlands/, (2017) , Accessed date: 9 September
2017.
[82] N. Lesage, P. Pedenaud, M. Jacob, Detection and monitoring of biofilm growth in
the seawater sulfate, SPE Prod. Water Handl. Manag. Symp, 2015.
[83] M.P. Roy Davis, Ian Lomax, Membranes solve North Sea waterflood sulfate pro-
blems, Oil Gas J. (1996), http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-94/issue-
48/in-this-issue/production/membranes-solve-north-sea-waterflood-sulfate-
problems.html , Accessed date: 20 September 2017.
[84] L. Henthorne, S. Van Pelt, H. Johnson, Offshore IOR/EOR implementation through
weight and footprint reduction, SPE Prod. Water Handl. Manag. Symp, 2015.
S. Adham et al.
[85] D. Rowley, V. Martez, Enhanced environmental performance in oil sands in-situ
water treatment and steam generation, Oil Sands Facil. Summit, 2017.
[86] Veolia, ROSS™ Technology Removal of Oil, Solids and Scale Formers, http://www.
veoliawatertech.com/en/news-resources/datasheets/ross-flowback-produced-
water.htm, (2017) , Accessed date: 9 September 2017.
[87] Veolia, Water provides system to treat produced water at PXP oilfield, Membr.
Technol. 2011 (2011) 2, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0958-2118(11)70084-2.
[88] Specialized Membranes for the Most Difficult and Challenging Feed Streams,
http://membranes.com/solutions/products/process/hydrapro/, (2017) , Accessed
date: 23 November 2017.
[89] Kahramaa, Japan Firm Sign MoU on Energy Efficient Desalination Project, http://
www.gulf-times.com/story/568035/Kahramaa-Japan-firm-sign-MoU-on-energy-
efficient-d, (2017) , Accessed date: 20 November 2017.
[90] ConocoPhillips, Permian Basin, http://www.conocophillipsuslower48.com/
where-we-operate/Pages/permian.aspx, (2017) , Accessed date: 20 September
2017.
[91] Ramesh Sharma, Kristie McLin, Kevin Bjornen, Austin Shields, Zakir Hirani,
Samer Adham, Fit-for-purpose treatment of produced water for hydraulic frac-
turing – a choice of oxidant, Int. Pet. Technol. Conf, 2015.
[92] J. Hester, Red Hills rising, COP Spirit Mag. 3rd Quart. 2014, pp. 36–41.
[93] P. Horner, J. Anderson, M. Thompson, Mobile clarification for re-use of un-
conventional oil and gas produced water to reduce costs and minimize environ-
mental footprint, Unconv. Resour. Technol. Conf. Denver, Color. 12–14 August
2013, 2013, pp. 1–10, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/urtec2013-218.
[94] R.L. McGinnis, N.T. Hancock, M.S. Nowosielski-Slepowron, G.D. McGurgan, Pilot
demonstration of the NH3/CO2 forward osmosis desalination process on high
salinity brines, Desalination 312 (2013) 67–74, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.
2012.11.032.
[95] Oasyswater, Produced Water: Permian Basin, http://oasyswater.com/case-study-
post/permian-basin/, (2017) , Accessed date: 9 September 2017.
[96] J.M. Silva, R.M. Gettings, W.L. Kostedt, V.H. Watkins, A. Shapiro, RPSEA NORM
Mitigation and Clean Water Recovery From Marcellus Produced Water, (2014).
[97] J.G. Lee, Y.D. Kim, W.S. Kim, L. Francis, G. Amy, N. Ghaffour, Performance
modeling of direct contact membrane distillation (DCMD) seawater desalination
process using a commercial composite membrane, J. Membr. Sci. 478 (2015)
85–95, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2014.12.053.
[98] J. Xu, Y.B. Singh, G.L. Amy, N. Ghaffour, Effect of operating parameters and
membrane characteristics on air gap membrane distillation performance for the
treatment of highly saline water, J. Membr. Sci. 512 (2016) 73–82, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.04.010.
[99] J. Minier-Matar, A. Hussain, A. Janson, F. Benyahia, S. Adham, Field evaluation of
membrane distillation technologies for desalination of highly saline brines,
Desalination 351 (2014) 101–108, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.07.
027.
[100] J. Minier-Matar, R. Sharma, A. Hussain, A. Janson, S. Adham, Field evaluation of
membrane distillation followed by humidification/dehumidification crystallizer
for inland desalination of saline groundwater, Desalination 398 (2016), http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.07.006.
[101] N. Bajraktari, C. Hélix-Nielsen, H.T. Madsen, Pressure retarded osmosis from hy-
persaline sources — a review, Desalination 413 (2017) 65–85, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.desal.2017.02.017.
[102] K.L. Hickenbottom, J. Vanneste, M. Elimelech, T.Y. Cath, Assessing the current
state of commercially available membranes and spacers for energy production
with pressure retarded osmosis, Desalination 389 (2016) 108–118, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.09.029.
[103] G. Han, S. Zhang, X. Li, T.S. Chung, Progress in pressure retarded osmosis (PRO)
17
Desalination 440 (2018) 2–17
membranes for osmotic power generation, Prog. Polym. Sci. 51 (2014) 1–27,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2015.04.005.
[104] H.T. Madsen, S.S. Nissen, E.G. Søgaard, Theoretical framework for energy analysis
of hypersaline pressure retarded osmosis, Chem. Eng. Sci. 139 (2016) 211–220,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2015.09.018.
[105] A. Achilli, A.E. Childress, Pressure retarded osmosis: from the vision of Sidney
Loeb to the first prototype installation - review, Desalination 261 (2010) 205–211,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2010.06.017.
[106] A. Achilli, T.Y. Cath, A.E. Childress, Power generation with pressure retarded
osmosis: an experimental and theoretical investigation, J. Membr. Sci. 343 (2009)
42–52, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2009.07.006.
[107] T.S. Chung, L. Luo, C.F. Wan, Y. Cui, G. Amy, What is next for forward osmosis
(FO) and pressure retarded osmosis (PRO), Sep. Purif. Technol. 156 (2015)
856–860, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2015.10.063.
[108] A.A. Abdel-Wahab, S. Adham, M. Castier, C. Yu, H. Shon, M. Elimelech,
Sustainable Reuse of Hypersaline Oil-produced Water for Green Energy
Production, NPRP 10-1231-160069, https://pub.qgrants.org/Awards/
ProjectDetails?p=27199&s=N&prm1=N&prm2=73&prm3=0&prm4=0&
prm5=0&prm6=0&prm9=0&prm12=0&prm13=0&prm14=2665, (2017).
[109] H. Devold, Oil and Gas Production Handbook, (2006).
[110] L. Addington, C. Fitz, K. Lunsford, L. Lyddon, I. Mariana Siwek, Sour water: where
it comes from and how to handle it, Digit. Refin. Process. Oper. Maint. 2011
http://www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000741,Sour_water__where_it_comes_
from_and_how_to_handle_it.html#.WPm8p2clGUk.
[111] Surinder Parkash, Refining Processes Handbook, Elsevier, 2003.
[112] J. Minier-Matar, A. Janson, A. Hussain, S. Adham, Application of membrane
contactors to remove hydrogen sulfide from sour water, J. Membr. Sci. (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.07.025.
[113] M. AlMa'adeed, S. Adham, A. Karim, M. Hassan, Nanostructured Membranes for
Oil-Water Separation, NPRP 10-0127-170269, https://pub.qgrants.org/Awards/
ProjectDetails?p=27440&s=N&prm1=N&prm2=73&prm3=0&prm4=0&
prm5=0&prm6=0&prm9=0&prm12=0&prm13=0&prm14=2665, (2017).
[114] S. Zhang, P. Wang, X. Fu, T.S. Chung, Sustainable water recovery from oily was-
tewater via forward osmosis-membrane distillation (FO-MD), Water Res. 52
(2014) 112–121, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.12.044.
[115] L. Luo, G. Han, T.S. Chung, M. Weber, C. Staudt, C. Maletzko, Oil/water separation
via ultrafiltration by novel triangle-shape tri-bore hollow fiber membranes from
sulfonated polyphenylenesulfone, J. Membr. Sci. 476 (2015) 162–170, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2014.11.035.
[116] A. Giwa, S.W. Hasan, A. Yousuf, S. Chakraborty, D.J. Johnson, N. Hilal,
Biomimetic membranes: a critical review of recent progress, Desalination 420
(2017) 403–424, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.06.025.
[117] M. Grzelakowski, M.F. Cherenet, Y. xiao Shen, M. Kumar, A framework for ac-
curate evaluation of the promise of aquaporin based biomimetic membranes, J.
Membr. Sci. 479 (2015) 223–231, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.01.
023.
[118] P.S. Goh, A.F. Ismail, Graphene-based nanomaterial: the state-of-the-art material
for cutting edge desalination technology, Desalination 356 (2015) 115–128,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.10.001.
[119] K.A. Mahmoud, B. Mansoor, A. Mansour, M. Khraisheh, Functional graphene na-
nosheets: the next generation membranes for water desalination, Desalination 356
(2015) 208–225, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.10.022.
[120] A. Rafat, What's thinner than a hair, yet stronger than steel? Br. Counc. (2016),
https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/whats-thinner-than-hair-
stronger-than-steel , Accessed date: 9 September 2017.