Challenges in Using Membranes for Reclaiming Produced Water

CHALLENGES IN USING MEMBRANES FOR RECLAIMING PRODUCED WATER

I G. Wenten

Dept. of Chemical Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung Jl. Ganesha 10 Bandung, West Java, Indonesia

[email protected]

PRODUCED WATER

- High temperature- High salt concentration- Corrosive- Oily and waxy- Biologically active- Toxic (heavy metals and

radioactive)- Dissolved organics (including

hydrocarbon)

- Dissolved minerals- Chemicals used in production- Suspended oil - Solids (sand)- Volatile aromatics fraction such

as BTEX, PAH, organic acid, phenol, alkylated phenol

- Metals- Radionucleid

Characteristics:

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

PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT

� AFFECTED BY: composition, location, quantity,

availability of resources

� Treatment options:

� Avoid production of water onto the surface

� Inject produced water

� Discharge produced water

� Reuse in oil and gas operations

� Consume in beneficial use

[Arthur, 2005]

PRODUCED WATER TREATING EQUIPMENT

PRODUCED

WATER

REUSE

DISCHARGE

RE-INJECTION

MBR - RO

MBR

UF

PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT FOR REINJECTION

General purposes:� Oil & grease removal� Suspended solids removal � Organics removal� Controlling microbial growth� Controlling corrosion rate� Controlling oxygen concentration

REINJECTION:

• Suitability of produced water with formation

• Presence of particulate � formation clogging, equipment damage, heat

insulation

• Controlled excess supended solids, dissolved oil, corrosion, chemical reaction,

microbial growth � removal of oil & grease, suspended solid, organic

Quality Standard for Re-injection Purposes

Parameter Re-injection Standard

Oil content(mg/L) <0.1

SS conc. (mg/L) <0.1

Medium diameter (µm) <0.5

Total Fe (mg/L) <0.5

Sulfide <0.05

SBR (n/ml) 0

TGB (n/ml) <102

IB (n/ml) <102

pH 6-9

PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT

Oil and Gas Production Produced Water

• Zero Discharge• Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)

Discharge

Re-useReinjection

• TSS < 1 mg/l• Solid particles 0 ppm

Produced Water Treatment ��FILTRATION TECHNOLOGIES

PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT, cont.

Process EquipmentSeparated particle

sizes (µµµµm)

API gravity separator 150

Corrugated plate separator 40

Induced gas flotation

without chemical adiition25

Induced gas flotation

with chemical addition3 – 5

Hydrocyclone 10 -15

Mesh coalescer 5

Media filter 5

Sentrifuge 2

Membrane filter 0.01

Cartridge filter :

�Non- backwash able

�Routine replacement, high cost

�Complex maintenance

FILTRATION TECHNOLOGY

� Catridge filter

� Membrane filter

� Media filter � Walnut filter

Membrane filter :

� Backwashable

� High selectivity, particle removal up to 0,01 µm

� Continuous operation

Walnut filter :

� Backwashable

� Lower selectivity compare with membrane

� Continuous operation[Argonne National Laboratory]

MEMBRANE TECHNOLOGY

� Absolute separation up to 0.01 micron

� No cartridge replacement

� Effective removal of dispersed oil

� Compact design and modular

� Easy to scale-up

� Simple operation and maintenance

� Continuous operation

� Minimal chemical usage (only for CIP)

� Simple automation

Topic Results Reference

Oil removal UF Crossflow: oil conc. in permeate = 15 mg/l, flux = 25 LMH Farnand & Krug (1989)

Organic removal

NF: oil rejection =72 – 89%, oil conc. in permeate = 48 mg/l. Dyke & Bartels (1990)

Oil, grease, and suspended solid removal

Ceramic MF: dispersed oil & grease conc. in permeate <5 mg/l; suspended solid < 1 mg/l

Chen, et al. (1991)

Oil & suspended solid removal

UF bench scale: flux 217 – 321 LMH; recovery 90% Zaidi, et al. (1991)

Oil & suspended solid removal

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

Zaidi, et al. (1992)

Produced water treatment

Crossflow UF: oil & grease conc. in permeate 14 mg/l Santos (1993)

STATE OF THE ART

STATE OF THE ART, cont.


Water treatment

MF, UF: BTEX reduction 54%, Cu & Zn removal: 95% Bilstad & Espedal (1996)

Water treatment (model solution)

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

Mueller, et al. (1997)

Water treatment

UF bench scale: produce permeate with high quality (meets regulation standard); flux were affected by varied feed

Santos & Weisner (1997)

Water treatment for irrigation purposes or discharge

Hybrid RO-constructed wet land; reduce conductivity up to 95% & TDS 94%

Murray-Gulde, et al, (2003)

STATE OF THE ART, cont.


Salt removal ED: TDS removal increased linearly with increased voltage Sirivedhin, et al. (2004)

Water treatment UF, NF, RO: system recovery more than 80% (UF concentrate recycle konsentrat UF and utilization of RO concentrate)

Osmonics [Arthur (2005)]

RO Arthur (2005)

MF, RO Newpark [Arthur (2005)]

Oil and suspended solid removal

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

Beech (2006)

MEMBRANE FOULING

Produced water:

�Prevention of

membrane fouling by waxes and

asphaltenes

�Oil emulsion �

adsorption, cake layer

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

CLEANING

� Removal of foreign material from the surface and body of the membrane and associated equipment

� Cleaning frequency � economics, membrane lifetime

� Clean membrane [Cheryan (1998)]:

- Physically-

- Chemically-

- Biologically clean membrane

� Flux recovery to initial flux of a new membrane after cleaning can be used as indication of clean membrane

� Cleaning methods:

- hydraulic cleaning,

- mechanical cleaning,

- chemical cleaning,

- electrical cleaning

•Module configuration•Membranes type

•Chemical resistance•Type of foulant

CLEANING, cont.

� Chemicals used for cleaning:

- Acids: dissolving calcium salts and metal oxides

- Alkalis: removing silica, inorganic colloids and many

biological/organic foulants,

- Surfactants: displacing foulants, emulsifying oils, dissolving

hydrophobic foulants,

- Oxidants: oxidizing organic material and bacteria (disinfection),

- Sequestrates (chelating agents): removing metal cations from

a solution,

- Enzymes: degrading foulants.

� Alkaline-acidic-alkaline wash cycle

� Micellar solution

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

Flux versus time graph for Devecatagi produced water

[Cakmakci, et al., 2008]

Treatment effluents of Devecatagi oil well produced water

[Cakmakci, et al., 2008]

Reverse osmosis results of different organic solutions (operation pressure: 2.76 MPa)

[Liu, et al., 2008]

Perbandingan HTU

Mueller, et al, 1997

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

Comparison of baseline fluxes for the three different membranes


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


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

Conclusion

1.Each of polymeric and ceramic MF membrane always produced high quality permeate containing < 6 ppm total hydrocarbons, starting with 250-1000 ppm heavy crude oil

2.The 0.2 and 0.8 µm ceramic membranes appeared to exhibit internal followed by external fouling, while external fouling appeared to dominate the behavior of the 0.1 µm PAN

membrane from the start.

3.The 0.2 µm ceramic membrane is more permeable and exhibits a higher flux than does 0.1 µm polymeric membrane.

4. the final total resistance is lower for the ceramic membrane than that for the polymeric membrane.


Summary of results for the three tested microfiltration membranes

Effect of Turbulence Promoter During Produced Water Filtration

The Best TP

Xing Hua, et al, 2006

TP3-20

The Best TP3

Effect of Winding on Turbulence Promoter During Produced Water Filtration


Performance of permeate flux for the best turbulence promoter

Conclusion

1. The improved performance of produced water cross flow ultrafiltration can be obtained by using the turbulence promoter

2. The insertion of turbulence promoter caused a large improvement of the permeate flux and the winding inserts with 20 mm ditches can cause the largest improvement of the permeate flux with the least energy consumption among the four kinds of turbulence promoters.

3. The average flux improvement during the filtration period ranged from 83 % to 164 % and the specific energy consumption reduction ranged from 31 % to 42 %.

4. The use of the turbulence promoter at very low –recirculated feed velocity of 1-2 m/s and optimum TMP of 0.30-0.35 Mpa can provide the commercially acceptable values for filtration


Case Study:Produced Water Treatment Plant (Tambun Plant)

CASE STUDY 2: Treatment of Oil Produced Water with

Ultrafiltration Membrane System at Tambun Plant, Indonesia

Oil & Gas Production

Produced water ! Oil & Gas

Lab. scale to full scale

UF Membrane System

Tambun Plant, Bekasi, Indonesia

Lab. Scale Apparatus

Pilot Scale UF Membrane System

Product FeedFlux and Rejection Performance


Ultrafiltration Membrane System at Tambun Plant, Indonesia, cont.

Full-scale system

Current production capacity: 1.5 MLD of

produced water

Process units:

•Oil catcher

•Skim tank

•CPI

•Automatic screen filter

•UF system

•De-aerator

The UF facility has been operational since 2008The effluent meets reinjection requirement


Ultrafiltration Membrane System at Tambun Plant, Indonesia, cont.

t (min)

t (min)

t (min)

J (

l/m

2.h

)J (

l/m

2.h

)

J (

l/m

2.h

)

FLUXES & REJECTION

Product vs Feed

CASE STUDY 1: Treatment of Coal Seam Methane Produced

Water with a Pall Integrated Membrane System at Origin Energy

Coal Seam Methane

Water must be pumped from the coal

seams to reduce the pressure & allow

the large volumes of gas to flow

Produced water !

Origin Energy & Pall Corporation

Integrated Membrane System (IMS): MF/RO

Provide almost 90% of the total gas market in

Quensland, Australia

The Spring Gully Gas Plant, Central Queensland

Gas

[Pall Corporation , 2008]


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

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



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

Current production capacity: 9 MLD of

CSM produced water, and the IMS can be

expanded to support up to 15 MLD

Process units:

-Prestrainer

-MF system

-RO systems

-Chemical cleaning and flushing systems

-Chemical dosing systems

-Compressed air systems

-Motor control centers

-Interconnecting pipework

Key advantage to the Pall IMS

system:

•adaptability of RO systems to

variations in feedwater (periodic

alga blooms)

•minimum power requirements

through use of an inter-stage

boosting capability that balance

flux

•High degree of instrumentation

to enable ongoing remote

monitoring and full automatic

sequencing of all processes

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


COMPARISON of PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT PLANT

The Spring Gully Gas Plant The Tambun Plant

Source of

produced water

Coal seam methane

production

Oil and gas production

Capacity 9-15 MLD 1.5 MLD

System MF/RO UF

Treatment

objective

Discharge Reinjection

Operated since December 2007 Oct. 2007

CASE STUDY : WTP MEMBRANE BASEDWIP CAPACITY 50.000 BPD

SYSTEM CONFIGURATION FOR REINJECTION

� Gravity separation � Skimmer Tanks

� Plate coalescence � CPI Separator

� Gas flotation � Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF)

� Filtration

� Media filter (multi media: antrachite dan garnet )

� Membrane filter

� Deaeration � Vacuum Deaerator

� Solid Handling � Coagulation/Flocculation-Dewatering-Incinerator

� Chemical Feed System � Coagulany/flocculant, biocide, ph adjusment,

oxygen scavenger

SIMPLE BLOCK DIAGRAM

POWER CONSUMPTION & COST ANALYSIS

Power Consumption

�WTP : 1 – 1,2 kWH /m3

�WIP : 3.5 – 4 kWH/m3

Cost Analysis

�WTP : Rp. 60 – 65 million/m3 Product

�WIP : Rp. 35 – 36 million/m3 Product

Assumption

� Injection pressure design : 1350 psi

� Injection capacity : 50,000 BPD

�Generator type : Gas Generator

Thank you

Challenges in Using Membranes for Reclaiming Produced Water

Documents

Transcript of Challenges in Using Membranes for Reclaiming Produced Water