Review of Texas A&M Program to Recover Fresh Water from Oil Field Brines:
Field Demonstrations and Community Involvement in
Utilization of Water Resources
• David B. Burnett , GPRI • Department of Petroleum Engineering• Texas A&M University• Faculty Group: Fresh Water Resource
Recovery in Oil & Gas Operations
• 979 845 2274• http://www.gpri.org• http://pumpjack.tamu.edu/
San Angelo O.C. Fisher Reservoir, April 1999
Program’s Vision: GWPC Sponsorship
The goal of the A&M Fresh Water Resource Recovery Program is to prove that produced brines from oil & gas production are a source of fresh water. There are four Big Steps.
The Ground Water Protection Council, as a sponsor of the Programprovides oversight of field projects to ensure that operations are environmentally sound.
The GWPC provides a venue to disseminate the technology and identify new opportunities for fresh water resources recovery.
Does Produced Water have Value?1. Can the water be treated economically?
Impurities removedSalinity removedIt’s a lot easier than refining crude oil
2. What can the water be used for?Agriculture, watershed augmentationLandscaping, Livestock WateringArtificial Wetlands, Habitat RestorationRangeland Recovery
3. Is the water environmentally safe?
4. Is there a method that will allow the water’s value to be realized?– Sell or trade the water– Recover the cost of treatment
– Tax Incentive to help rural sustainability
Proving that Produced Water is a Resource & not a Pollutant
• Step 1: – Designing Water Treatment to achieve acceptable fresh
water quality.• Step 2:
– Developing a Water Reuse Program to utilize the water in beneficial manner.
• Step 3:– Monitoring to Ensure Environment is not harmed.
• Step 4: – Realizing Water as Value for the Community, providing
economic incentives to compensate for oil company expense.
Outline of This Presentation -Summary of the Texas A&M Program
• Description of Produced Water Treatment Technology
• Plans to use Treated Water to Restore Native Rangelands & Wildlife Habitat
• Monitoring to Ensure Environmental Compliance
• Incentives for Operators who Manufacture Fresh Water
Produced Water Treatment and Reuse Program –Collaborators & Co-
Sponsors• Texas Water Resources Institute (TWRI), Global Petroleum Research
Institute (GPRI),
• Department of Pet Engineering Chemical Engineering Separation Sciences Laboratory
• Rangeland Ecology Management Department of Rural Sociology
• Environmental Toxicology Department of Wildlife & Fisheries
• Department of Soils Science Hydrology
• A&M Extension Agency Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC)
The Four “Big Steps”
• Step 1: – Water Treatment to remove contamination and
desalinate the brine• Step 2:
– Water Use Projects to utilize the water in beneficial manner.
• Step 3:– Monitoring to Ensure Environment is not harmed.
• Step 4: – Realizing Water as Value for the Community
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 1: Oil Field Brine Treatment
1. Design a process with the capability to de-oil, desalinate and convert oilfield produced brine to fresh water.
Prove the design in laboratory testsBuild a prototype unit for field treatmentIncorporate Process Stream Monitoring - Remote
2. Incorporate this GPRI project into the overall program currently being conducted at Texas A&M University
• To design for oilfield applications. Plan for portability. Design for compatibility with field facilities.
– Accommodate variation in input stream characteristics– Take advantage of continued disposal of waste stream from
conversion units.– Design for relatively small fresh water output for use nearby.– Plan for automated operation. Reliability and safety issues are
critical.– Utilize existing infrastructure, power, fluid distribution.– Work with local, state and federal agencies to incorporate new
technology into permitted operations.
Produced Water Treatment: Issues
Micro Filtration (MF) (10-0.1µm)Bacteria, suspended particles
Ultrafiltration (UF) (0.05-0.005µm) Colloids, macromolecules
Nanofiltration (NF) (5e-3-5.e-4 µm)Sugars, dyes, divalent salts
Reverse Osmosis (RO) (1.e-4-1e-5 µm)Monovalent salts, ionic metals
Water
Filtration and Reverse Osmosis: Definitions
Facilities: Produced Water Treatment
Program
Separation Sciences LabTexas A&M University
Pump
Brine Water
HydrocycloneOrganoclay
Permeate
Recycle
Concentrate
RO System
Brine Desalination Process
Recent Test Results with New Membrane Filters
Oil Rejection
Desalination
Flux
Efficiency
Reduction in TOC by Centrifuge and Organoclay
020406080
100120140160180200
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
Time, hours
TO
C, p
pm
of
C
Produced Water from Centrifuge
Output from Organoclay
29 ppm Discharge Limit
Produced Water
Produced Water Pr. Water from CentrifugeOutput from Organoclay29 ppm Discharge Limit
• Total dissolved Solids (TDS) in Permeate (Salt Concentration)
Salt Rejection by Membranes
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
A B C D E F-1 F-2 G-1 G-2 H J
Membrane Type
To
tal d
isso
lved
So
lids
(TD
S),
p
pm
as
NaC
l
Produced Water
Produced Water Flux vs. Pressure for the Selected Membrane Kat Selected Flow Rates
(12,500 ppm TDS Produced Water - Normalized @ 95 F)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Average Trans-Membrane Pressure - psi
Flu
x -
GP
M(g
al /
ft-s
q. /
day
)
8 gpm 11 gpm 14 gpm Linear (8 gpm) Linear (14 gpm) Linear (11 gpm)
14 gpm
8 gpm
11 gpm
Percent Recovery Vs Pressure for The Selected Membrane Jat Selected Flow Rates
(12,500 ppm TDS Produced Water - Normalized @ 95 F)
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
20.0%
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Pressure - psi
Per
cent
Rec
over
y -
%
8 gpm 11 gpm 14 gpm Linear (8 gpm) Linear (11 gpm) Linear (14 gpm)
8 gpm
11 gpm
14 gpm
Percent Salt (TDS) Rejection vs. Pressure for the Selected Membrane Kat Selected Flow Rates
(12,500 ppm TDS Produced Water - Normalized @ 95 F)
97.60%
97.80%
98.00%
98.20%
98.40%
98.60%
98.80%
99.00%
99.20%
99.40%
99.60%
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Pressure - psi
Per
cen
t R
ejec
rio
n
8 gpm 11 gpm 14 gpm Poly. (8 gpm) Poly. (11 gpm) Poly. (14 gpm)
14 gpm
8 gpm
11 gpm
Standard Fouling Test for the Selected Membrane J - Flux vs. Time(Selected Operating Pressure = 550 psi and Operating Flow Rate = 10 gpm,
12500 ppm TDS Produced Water)
1
10
100
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time - min
Flu
x -
GF
D(g
al /
ft-s
q /
day
)
Foul 1 Foul 2 Linear (Foul 1)
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) vs. Time - Fouling Testfor the Selected Membrane J
(Selected Operating Pressure = 550 psi and Operating Flow Rate = 10 gpm,12500 ppm TDS Produced Water)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time - mins
Tota
l Dis
solv
ed S
olid
s (T
DS
) -
ppm
Foul 1 Foul 2
Percent Salt (TDS) Rejection vs. Time for Fouling Testfor the Selected Membrane J
(Selected Operating Pressure = 550 psi and Operating Flow Rate = 10 gpm,12500 ppm TDS Produced Water)
90%
91%
92%
93%
94%
95%
96%
97%
98%
99%
100%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time - mins
Per
cent
Rej
ecti
on
Foul 1 Foul 2
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) vs Time - Fouling Testfor the Selected Membrane J
(Selected Operating Pressure = 550 psi and Operating Flow Rate = 10 gpm,12500 ppm TDS Produced Water)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time - mins
To
tal O
rgan
ic C
arb
on
(TO
C) -
pp
m C
Foul 1 Foul 2
Feed
PermeatePermeate
29 ppm Discarge Limit
Oilfield Produced Water
200 ppm TOC42,500 ppm TDS
Partially Treated Water
80 ppm TOC42,500 ppm TDS
Final Product(Treated Water)
< 8 ppm TOC< 500 ppm TDS
Our Progress
*
Laboratory Data
0.7893
0.9126
1.0770
1.4605
0.6491
0.7724
0.9368
1.3203
0.6073
0.6742
0.7635
0.9717
0.4671
0.5340
0.6233
0.8315
Total Water Cost($/bbl perm.)
0.5016
0.5016
0.5016
0.5016
0.3614
0.3614
0.3614
0.3614
0.4511
0.4511
0.4511
0.4511
0.3109
0.3109
0.3109
0.3109
Operation Cost($/bbl perm.)
0.2877
0.4110
0.5753
0.9589
0.2877
0.4110
0.5753
0.9589
0.1562
0.2231
0.3123
0.5205
0.1562
0.2231
0.3123
0.5205
Capital Cost($/bbl perm.)
0.0188
0.0217
0.0256
0.0348
0.0155
0.0184
0.0223
0.0314
0.0145
0.0161
0.0182
0.0231
0.0111
0.0127
0.0148
0.0198
Total Water Cost($/gal perm.)
0.0119
0.0119
0.0119
0.0119
0.0086
0.0086
0.0086
0.0086
0.0107
0.0107
0.0107
0.0107
0.0074
0.0074
0.0074
0.0074
Operation Cost($/gal perm.)
0.0068
0.0098
0.0137
0.0228
0.0068
0.0098
0.0137
0.0228
0.0037
0.0053
0.0074
0.0124
0.0037
0.0053
0.0074
0.0124
Capital Cost($/gal perm.)
7,500
10,714
15,000
25,000
7,500
10,714
15,000
25,000
9,500
13,571
19,000
31,667
9,500
13,571
19,000
31,667
Capital Cost($/yr)
10753107531075310753Unit Life (years)
80 ppmC30 ppmC80 ppmC30 ppmCTOC before Organoclay
75,000 $95,000 $Total
Capital Investment
3000 gpd (2.08 gpm)7000 gpd (4.86 gpm)
Treated Water
(Permeate) Flow Rate
6000 gpd (9.72 gpm)14000 gpd (9.72 gpm)Prod. Water Flow Rate
Total Water Cost (7,000 gpd)($/gal fresh water.) 0.02
($/bbl fresh water) 0.83
Total Water Cost (3,000 gpd)($/gal fresh water.) 0.03
($/bbl fresh water) 1.32
Portable filtration unit donated to Texas A&M by Koch Micromembrane Filtration Services Inc.
Step 1
Operating Costs of Filtration Unit
Pre-TreatmentMicrofiltrationReverse OsmosisUtility costs
Objectives of Step 2 of the Water Reuse Project
1. Water Reuse
To design and operate sites for restoration of range land and habitat .
2. To Monitor the Field OperationsPerformance of filtration UnitsGrowth of Soils/grasses and plant re-establishmentWildlife for change in Chromosomal Damage
A&M Agriculture Extension Service and Research has special expertise in rangeland management.
Microenvironment Creation for Site Remediation:2 to 3 acre sites used for field demonstrations1 inch water per month avg. for 24 monthsMonitor EC soil readings, monitor plant growthReestablishing native grasses from seed bank Providing nutrients for wildlife and natural grass re
establish.
Step 2: Rangeland & Grassland Rehabilitation
A&M Team: October, 2001, Chevron McElroy Field, Upton Co. TX.
Community of Iraan & Marathon’s Yates Ranch Site
Site of Yates Ranch Project
Yates Ranch and Pecos River
Mason Wildlife Management Area Test Plot
Example of Test Plot
Water Runoff Collector, to Sampler
Step 1
Step 3: Environmental Monitoring :
1. To Ensure Fresh Water Quality
2. To Measure Filtration Unit Performance
3. To Measure Impact on Soils/ Native Grasses
4. To measure Wildlife for Changes in Chromosomal Damage
Example: Environmental Monitoring Site, Tennessee
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 BrushyFork
A B AB C C
EFPC Sites
Num
ber o
f SSB
/105
bp
A A AB C BC
Coe
ffic
ient
of V
aria
tion
(DN
A C
onte
nt)
B. Number of Single-Strand Breaks
Flow Cytometry DNA Biotyping for Chromosomal Damage
• RRC Land Treatment Permit – Current Restrictions:– Isolated from Ground Water– Not subject to flooding– Not subjected to erosion– Minimize release of pollutants to off-site water, lands or air.
• Texas Natural Resources Codes– Announcements in Newspaper –”Commercial Surface Disposal
Facility Permit”.– Public Meeting (subject to Commission’s requirements)
• Liability– Not defined.
Permits for Field Project: Texas
• Michael Williams, Chairman of the RRC has publicly announced his support of the Texas A&M program.
• “The Texas A&M team has shown that produced water can be treated economically and used safely to augment our state’s water supplies.”
Endorsement of A&M Program by Chairman of Texas Railroad Commission
Step 1
Step 4: Realizing Water to Value for the Community
1. Creation of a Community- Industry Dialog
2. Developing a model for water use and its value to the community.
3. Identifying Incentives for Producers to Treat Water and Provide it for Community Needs
Step 4: The Value of Rangeland and Habitat Restoration
Step 4: Intervention for Rural Community Development
TRAVERSE CITY - U.S. Rep. David Boniorwould boost the economy and protect the
environment at the same time if he were elected governor, he told an environmental Group Wednesday. (January 17, 2002 )He touched on several environmental issues ofconcern to this region, including the South
Fox Island land swap, slant drilling for natural gas under the Great Lakes, commercial bottling of groundwater and developmental sprawl.
Also, the number of water bottling plants is growing in Michigan and said they should be limited."They suck up water from our aquifer," he said. "We're losing the aquifer water we need to have an agricultural economy."
BLM Rangeland at Risk: Powder River Basin
Population 93,000Water Usage 20 MM gal.
Average Annual rainfall 18.3 in.Rainfall 2002 2.2 in.
Condition of O. C. Fisher 9% of capacity(up from 4% in April, 2000)
Monthly oil production, six county area 1.7 MM bbl (7/97) Daily water disposal 71 MM gal.
(est. based on WOR = 1)
Example: Community Needs: Statistics for San Angelo Texas
Technology Acceptance – Market Mechanisms & Incentives
• Rangeland and Habitat Restoration
– The model: Mason Texas Wildlife Management Area
• Creation of “Water Banks” for Community/Industry Venture
– The model: Wichita Kansas /Jet Blue Airline Venture
• Tax Credits as Incentives to Operators
– Model: PGA Championship Golf Course Balcones Aquifer Recharge Zone
– Model: New Mexico Pecos Watershed Augmentation Plan
• “Tax Enterprise Zones” for Community / Industry Development
Oil Company – Economic Incentives
•Financial Set Asides to Offset Future Expenses of Environmental Compliance
– The cost of a potential penalty for environmental non-compliance is a real expense, but is often not recognized. State of Texas levies more than $7 MM a year in fines and penalties. Funds are used toremediate environment.
June 10, 2002, 12:40AMHouston Chronicle
HIGH AND DRYAdventure travel itineraries may run aground if drought conditions persistBy HARRY SHATTUCKCopyright 2002
The worst drought in 50 years has put adventure travel off-limits in some areas of the Southwest. Outfitters are adjusting rafting itineraries in New Mexico, Colorado and Utah -- favorite destinations for many Houston-area vacationers --because of low water flow. Also in New Mexico, the Santa Fe and Carson national forests areclosed to the public because of fire potential in the kindling-dry forests, requiring hikers, bikers and picnickers to look elsewhere.
Houston Chronicle
Ø Adapt interdisciplinary skills to oil field operations Ø Develop Automated Small Scale Transportable UnitsØ Relate Environmental and Regulatory Issues to Ø Develop Integrated Approach to main areas of
work:
Engineering Program Development
Field Trial Demonstration segment
Technical Management and Administration
The Challenge to Treat Oil Field Brine
Rio Grande Valley Agriculture: Restored Irrigation Pump House
Thank you!
David B. Burnett
GPRI
Texas A&M University
409 845 2274
http://www.gpri.orgPresentation Available at:
4 Steps
