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
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.
Topic Results Reference
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.
Topic Results Reference
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
Mueller, et al, 1997
Op. cond.: 10 psig TMP, 250 ppm heavy oil, 40°C, and 0.24 ms -1
Mueller, et al, 1997
Total resistance versus time curves for the three different membranes at baseline conditions
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.
Mueller, et al, 1997
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
Xing Hua, et al, 2006
Performance of permeate flux for the best turbulence promoter
Conclusion
1. The improved performance of produced water cross flow ultrafiltration can be obtained by using the turbulence promoter
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
Xing Hua, et al, 2006
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
CASE STUDY 2: Treatment of Oil Produced Water with
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
CASE STUDY 2: Treatment of Oil Produced Water with
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]
CASE STUDY 1: Treatment of Coal Seam Methane Produced
Water with a Pall Integrated Membrane System at Origin Energy, cont.
An IMS consist of:•4 MF racks, each containing 56 x 0.1 micron Microza modules•1 RO system•Pre-strainer•Chemical dosing & compressed air systems•Interconnecting pipe work•Motor control centers
[Pall Corporation , 2008]
CASE STUDY 1: Treatment of Coal Seam Methane Produced
Water with a Pall Integrated Membrane System at Origin Energy, cont.
Current production capacity: 9 MLD of
CSM produced water, and the IMS can be
expanded to support up to 15 MLD
Process units:
-Prestrainer
-MF system
-RO systems
-Chemical cleaning and flushing systems
-Chemical dosing systems
-Compressed air systems
-Motor control centers
-Interconnecting pipework
Key advantage to the Pall IMS
system:
•adaptability of RO systems to
variations in feedwater (periodic
alga blooms)
•minimum power requirements
through use of an inter-stage
boosting capability that balance
flux
•High degree of instrumentation
to enable ongoing remote
monitoring and full automatic
sequencing of all processes
The IMS facility has been operational since December 2007The effluent meets discharge limits prescribed by the Queensland EPA
[Pall Corporation , 2008]
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
Page 38
POWER CONSUMPTION & COST ANALYSIS
Power Consumption
�WTP : 1 – 1,2 kWH /m3
�WIP : 3.5 – 4 kWH/m3
Cost Analysis
�WTP : Rp. 60 – 65 million/m3 Product
�WIP : Rp. 35 – 36 million/m3 Product
Assumption
� Injection pressure design : 1350 psi
� Injection capacity : 50,000 BPD
�Generator type : Gas Generator
Thank you