sic membranes for produced water treatment case study 2
TRANSCRIPT
SiC Membranes for Produced Water
Treatment:Case Study 2
Challenge
• Discharge/Re-injection of Produced Water from oil production becoming difficult.• Oil wells maturing and water cut
increasing• Tighter government regulations
are being enforced for discharge of Produced Water.
Our Solution
SiC Ceramic Membranes Used in a wide variety industrial settings and make the perfect candidate when dealing with oil separation given their oil repelling characteristics.
Unique hydrophilic properties leads to higher water fluxes -> continuous process flux for oil/water separation is between 200-2000 L/(m2*h)
What can I remove?
• Oil • Grease• Iron• TSS (<10,000 mg/L)• Bacteria • Algae• Organic Matter
Why SiC Membranes
• Oil repelling• Inert• Less Footprint• Longer lifetime• High Recovery• Self-cleaning
All this filtration can be accomplished in 1 single
step!
Why SiC over traditional methods
POLYMERIC MEMBRANES ARE • Not as chemically or temperature resistant as not good (ecspecially at high temperatures of oil&gas industry)
• Handle oil very poorly Polymeric membranes are
• Expensive • Low water flux
0.04 Micron 3,000 L/(m2hr)
4,000 L/(m2hr)
10,000 L/(m2hr)
>12,000 L/(m2hr)
FluxPore size
0.1 Microns
1 Microns
3 Microns
Filtration capability
How it works
Feed flow is tangential to the surface of the membrane in order to sweep rejected particles and solutes away
CROSS FLOW FILTRATION
Field Trial: Produced
Water Treatment for Re-Injection
Application: PW Treatment for re-injection at on-shore Colombian production site. Challenge: Field trial in order to evaluate performance and feasibility of SiC membranes for PW filtration prior to re-injection. Improved water quality for re-injection has significant effect on oil recovery, well, and equipment life time Current Treatment: Conventional setup of skim tanks -> micro-flotation -> walnut shell filtersFeedwater: OiW: 500 ppmTSS: 500 ppmRequirement: OiW: < 5 ppmTSS: < 5 ppm
Field Trial: Conventional Technology
Issues
• Often not possible to meet permeate quality with current set-up ( Skim Tank + Micro-Flotation + Shell Filter)
• Quality dependent on correct dosage of chemicals (flocculants, demulsifiers, etc.)
• Difficult due to aging of walnut shell filters and feed composition variability
Field Trial: Test Objectives
& Conditions
2 tests carried out to determine effectiveness of H2O Systems’ SiC membranes:
Test 1: Ultrafiltration before skim tank• SiC Ultrafiltration as a replacement for skim tank, microflotation and walnut shell filters.
• PW is supplied from surge/gun barrell tanks hich process oil/water mixture from oil wells
• High OiW and TSS content fluctuations in feed-water
Test 2: Ultrafiltration after skim tank• SiC Ultrafiltration as a replacement for microflotation and walnut shell filters.
• Pilot testing done on water after skimming tank
• Moderate OiW and TSS content fluctuations in feed-water
Field Trial: Results
Test 1 (before skim tank):
Test 2 (after skim tank):
Operating Conditions:
Field Trial: Results
Test 1: • For membrane operation prior to skim tank, significant OiW luctuations in feed
• Operating conditions changed depending on nature of feed water
• OiW and TSS in permeate < 5 ppmTest 2: • For membrane operation after skim tank, OiW fluctuations reduced
• SiC Membranes removed almost all of the oil and TSS
• 95% of the time, OiW < 1 ppm in permeate
Test 1: Feed (left) Permeate (right) Test 2: Feed (left) Permeate (right)
Conclusion
• Field trial showed oil and TSS can be removed from PW regardless of feedwater oil conc.
• SiC membranes can replace conventional technologies with 1 step process (i.e. microflotation, walnut shell filters)
• Recommended that SiC membranes be used after skim tank -> buffers large conc. fluctuations and leads to higher oil recovery
• Continuous monitoring of OiW required to guarantee
optimal operation of SiC membranes.
Next Steps• Meeting• Submit water analysis • Proposal and savings • Trial• Full systems intergration
