The Environmentally Friendly Drilling Program: Lowering Footprint of Energy Production

November, 2011

Produced Water Desalination:Science and Solutions

Environmentally Friendly Drilling

David B. BurnettGlobal Petroleum Research Institute Harold Vance Department of Petroleum EngineeringTexas A&M University979 845 2274http://www.gpri.orgburnett@pe.tamu.edu

The A&M Program: What We Do

October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment

For more Info see:http://www.gpri.org/

Saline Water Injection into Oil and Gas Zones

Gas

Water

Oil

WaterDisposal

Well

Gas Oil

Water

Desalination

Surface

Active Water Drive Production

Mobile Membrane Testing Unit

A Research Unit – 50 bbls per day

Desalination Methodologies: Comparison of Thermal vs. Membranes

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

1 2 3 4

Thermal Brine Desalination

Reverse Osmosis Definitions (RO)

• Salt rejection • Transmembrane pressure• Feed, permeate, reject or

concentrate rates• Fluxes (volumetric

rate/area)Feed Flux: JF = QF / A

FP CCR /1

PRF P

2PPTMP

October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment

CFx

y P

PF

C

October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment

Micro Filtration (MF) (10-0.1m)Bacteria, suspended particles

Ultrafiltration (UF) (0.05-0.005m) 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

Filtration and Reverse Osmosis: Definitions

TECHNICAL ISSUES

October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment

Why Membranes

• 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.

9

Operating Conditions Affecting Output Stream Composition

Feedstock solids concentration (ppm)TemperaturepHMembrane TypeTrans 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

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

Courtesy Williams Bros. Company

Characteristics of Field BrineSilurian 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 NTU1 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 49,8091 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

‐0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Elapsed Time, min.

Cum

. Vol

., ga

l.Polymer Ventures/ABS

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0:00:00 1:12:00 2:24:00 3:36:00 4:48:00 6:00:00

Axis Title

Axis Title

Pressure and Rate Koch Hollow Fiber August 25, 2011

Pressure

Injection Rate

Suspended Solids - Contd

TSS RemovalPall  CeramicGraver Stainless SteelPall  Hollow Fiber TDS RemovalDow NF

TSS 105 0.67TSS 105 4.8TSS 105 0.47

TSS 1.51

AfterBefore

Solids Removal by Micro-F

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

235 570 986 1022

Turbidity, N

TU

Cumulative Throughput, gallons

BeforeMicro‐F

High Pressure Membranes and On-Line Sensors

Sample No. Analyte Before Membrane After Membrane Type of Membrane

S-7, S-8 Sufate 1025 92 Dow N-245 (A)

S-7, S-8 Chlorides by titration 186,500 150,000 Dow N-245

(A)S-60, S-61 Hardness, Ca++ 67,200 51,600 mg/LS-70, S-71 Hardness, Ca++ 210,500 56,000 mg/LS-63

S-44 Ferric - field brine

110

S-70, S-71Ferric - B/A

100 128 Hydranautics

Nano - Continued

Field Frac Brine after Three Weeks

Treated Un-Treated

October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment

Salinity of Feed Brine,tds (ppm)

Power Costs Kw Hr per 1,000 gal. Permeate

Pre- treatment ROdesalination

Operating Cost, $ per 1,000 gal.

Operating Cost, $ per bbl

Contaminated Surface water

~1,500 tds.

$.65 $1.25 $1.90 $0.08

Gas well producedbrine ~ 3,600 tds.

$2.50 $2.00 $4.50 $0.19

Oil well producedbrine ~50,000 tds

$2.20 $6.00 $8.20 $0.34

Gas well producedbrine ~ 35,000 tds

$2.00 (est.) $4.20 (est.) $6.20 (est.) $0.26

Representative power costs of desalination of oil field brine

Samples Date  Test DescriptioDuration kw usedost per bblS‐62, S‐63 Sept. 2 Running Dow NF (B) 3.35 0.2 0.84$        S‐58, S‐59 2‐Sep Koch U‐F  $0.0275S‐84, S‐85 Sept. 20media 325 gal. 0.3 0.0039$   

Koch UF 63.63 2.1 0.14$        0.98$        

Representative Power Costs for Brine Treatment*

* 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

October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment

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

All Weather Mobile Unit for Site Treatments (2011)

• Mobile testing laboratory in South Texas.

October 2008Texas A&M Produced Water Treatment

Business Model for On Site Treatment

Operating cost

Produced brine

+$$

Brine/oil Membrane Reject

Weighted brine+$$

Fresh Water

+$$

Profit = Income (Sales clean brine + Fresh water + produced water pay -Cost (operating & reject disposal)

For More Information

http://efdsystems.orghttp://www.GPRI.org

http://sites.google.com/a/pe.tamu.edu/efd-alliance/Home

Any Questions?