Produced Water Desalination: Science and Solutions The Environmentally Friendly Drilling Program: Lowering Footprint of Energy Production November, 2011
Environmentally Friendly Drilling David B. Burnett Global Petroleum Research Institute Harold Vance Department of Petroleum Engineering Texas A&M University 979 845 2274 http://www.gpri.org burnett@pe.tamu.edu
The A&M Program: What We Do Saline Water Injection into Oil and Gas Zones Desalination Gas Oil Surface Water Gas Oil Active Water Drive Production Water Water Disposal Well For more Info see: http://www.gpri.org/ October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment
Mobile Membrane Testing Unit A Research Unit 50 bbls per day
Desalination Methodologies: Comparison of Thermal vs. Membranes 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 1 2 3 4
Thermal Brine Desalination
Reverse Osmosis Definitions (RO) R 1 C P / C F Salt rejection Transmembrane pressure Feed, permeate, reject or concentrate rates Fluxes (volumetric rate/area) Feed Flux: J F = Q F / A F TMP P F 2 P R P P P C y P x C F October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment
TECHNICAL ISSUES Filtration and Reverse Osmosis: Definitions Micro Filtration (MF) (10-0.1 m) Bacteria, suspended particles Ultrafiltration (UF) (0.05-0.005 m) Colloids, macromolecules Nanofiltration (NF) (5e -3-5.e -4 m) Sugars, dyes, divalent salt ppts. Reverse Osmosis (RO) (1.e -4-1e -5 m) Monovalent salts, ionic metals Water October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment
Why Membranes 9 Membranes are designed for colloidal filtration Modern membranes are robust and find wide application in various processes and industries They are energy efficient, small footprint and easy maintenance and use. October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment
Operating Conditions Affecting Output Stream Composition Feedstock solids concentration (ppm) Temperature ph Membrane Type Trans membrane pressure Re-circulation Steps (Separation Efficiency) Feed flow rate October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment
Design of Field Mobile Laboratory
All Weather Mobile Unit for Site Treatments (2011) Mobile testing laboratory in South Texas.
Analytical Laboratory at A&M
Marcellus Shale Brine Re- Use Courtesy Williams Bros. Company Deliverables Identify optimal treatment techniques for ultra-high brine concentrations Provide information to community leaders Status Current field trials in New York A&M Separation Sciences pilot testing new technology Creation of new Analytical Services Roundtable
Characteristics of Field Brine Silurian Formation Well Sample Analyte Result Sample Analyte Result 1 Conductivity 222,000 us/cm ~144,000 TDS (1) 1 Conductivity 222,000 us/cm ~144,000 TDS (1) 1 ph 4.10 SU 1 ph 5.10 SU 1 Turbidity 175.0 NTU 1 Turbidity 175.0 NTU 1 Dup. Turbidity 173.0 NTU 1 Dup. Turbidity 173.0 NTU 1 TOC as NPOC 68.0 mg/l. 1 TOC as NPOC 68.0 mg/l. 1 Dup. TOC as NPOC 65.5 mg/l. 1 Dup. TOC as NPOC 65.5 mg/l. A,B & C BTEX (avg. from previous Sx s.) < 1.00 mg/l. A,B & C BTEX (avg. from previous Sx s.) < 1.00 mg/l. A,B, & C Oil/Grease (avg. from previous Sx s) 33.67 mg/l. A,B, & C Oil/Grease (avg. from previous Sx s) 33.67 mg/l. 1 Ammonia as NH3 124.2 mg/l. 1 Ammonia as NH3 124.2 mg/l. Na 49,809 1 Total Barium 116.0 mg/l. 1 Total Barium 116.0 mg/l. 1 Boron 4.00 mg/l. 1 Boron 4.00 mg/l. 1 Calcium as Hardness 46,000 mg/l. 1 Calcium as Hardness 4,600 mg/l.
For more Info see: www.efd-tip.org
Low Pressure BTEX Removal
Oil & Grease Removal
Media Filtration 9.22 Polymer Ventures/ABS Cum. Vol., gal. 300 250 200 150 100 50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Elapsed Time, min. 0.50
Field BTEX INFICON Performance Sample No. Process Step BTEX Reading, ppb Benzene Toluene Ehylbenzene Xylene Napthalene Blank STD Test Sample ND 0.201 0.06 0.261 0.049 S 1 Fld Brine 1 0.048 S 78 Field Brine ND 0.028 ND ND G 79 after Mycelx cartridge ND 0.097 0.033 ND 0.012 S 80 After ABS Media ND 0.026 ND ND 0.01 S 81 Before Ceramic Micro filter ND 0.065 0.017 ND S 82 After ceramic micro filter ND 0.009 0.002 ND S 8 After Nano filter ND ND ND ND 0.006
Analytical Equipment for BTEX Analysis on Site
Solids Removal
TSS Removal by Micro-Filter 40 Pressure and Rate Koch Hollow Fiber August 25, 2011 Axis Title 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0:00:00 1:12:00 2:24:00 3:36:00 4:48:00 6:00:00 Axis Title Pressure Injection Rate
Suspended Solids - Contd TSS Removal Pall Ceramic Graver Stainless Steel Pall Hollow Fiber TDS Removal Dow NF Before After TSS 105 0.67 TSS 105 4.8 TSS 105 0.47 TSS 1.51
Solids Removal by Micro-F 30 Turbidity, NTU 25 20 15 10 Before Micro F 5 0 235 570 986 1022 Cumulative Throughput, gallons
High Pressure Membranes and On-Line Sensors
Nano - Continued Sample No. Analyte Before Membrane After Membrane S-7, S-8 Sufate 1025 92 S-7, S-8 Chlorides by titration 186,500 150,000 S-60, S-61 Hardness, Ca++ 67,200 51,600 mg/l S-70, S-71 Hardness, Ca++ 210,500 56,000 mg/l S-63 S-44 Ferric - field brine 110 S-70, S-71 Ferric - B/A 100 128 Type of Membrane Dow N-245 (A) Dow N-245 (A) Hydranautic s
Field Frac Brine after Three Weeks Treated Un-Treated
Representative power costs of desalination of oil field brine Salinity of Feed Brine, tds (ppm) Pre- treatment Power Costs Kw Hr per 1,000 gal. Permeate RO desalination Operating Cost, $ per 1,000 gal. Operating Cost, $ per bbl Contaminated Surface water ~1,500 tds. Gas well produced brine ~ 3,600 tds. $.65 $1.25 $1.90 $0.08 $2.50 $2.00 $4.50 $0.19 Oil well produced brine ~50,000 tds $2.20 $6.00 $8.20 $0.34 Gas well produced brine ~ 35,000 tds $2.00 (est.) $4.20 (est.) $6.20 (est.) $0.26 October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment
Representative Power Costs for Brine Treatment* Samples Date Test DescriptioDuration kw usedost per bbl S 62, S 63 Sept. 2 Running Dow NF (B) 3.35 0.2 $ 0.84 S 58, S 59 2 Sep Koch U F $0.0275 S 84, S 85 Sept. 20 media 325 gal. 0.3 $ 0.0039 Koch UF 63.63 2.1 $ 0.14 $ 0.98 * Texas A&M Field Trial, NY September,2011
Benefit to Communities Brackish Water Desalination with Re-Use of Concentrate
Comparison of Desalinated Produced Water with Municipal Water from College Station. TX
Inventory Map of Brackish Ground Water Aquifers in Texas
Barnett Shale Well Equivalent to City of 4,000 Population Water Usage Well Operations City Operations(1) Comments Water Usage 10 million gal 18 million gal (3 mo.) 5-6 mm gal frac. 1-2 mm gal well ops. Power Use 7,500 HP 6 MW (8,000 Hp) Avg. SCR rig Solid Waste 43,000 cu ft. (wbm, 7,000 ft well) 55,000 cu.ft 3 mo. Ops. Unit Budget ~$ 2.2 MM ~$1.7 MM 3 mo. Ops. (1) Based on comparison to Andrews TX city budget (pop.9,600) 2008 FY October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment
All Weather Mobile Unit for Site Treatments (2011) Mobile testing laboratory in South Texas.
Business Model for On Site Treatment Brine/oil Membrane Reject Produced brine +$$ Operating cost Weighted brine +$$ Fresh Water +$$ Profit = Income (Sales clean brine + Fresh water + produced water pay -Cost (operating & reject disposal) October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment
For More Information http://efdsystems.org http://www.gpri.org http://sites.google.com/a/pe.tamu.edu/efd-alliance/home
Any Questions?