Industrial Desalination Water Reuse (Global Water Intelligence Report July 2012)

© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] i

Industrial Desalination & Water Reuse

ii © GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]


Publication informationIndustrial Desalination & WaterReuse was written and researched by Lola Arowoshola, Hector Brown, Christopher Gasson, Marta Hudecova, Heather Lang, Antoine Schmitt, Jelena Stanic and Jablanka Uzelac.

Additional support was provided by Fabiola Alvarado-Revilla, Steven Bibby, James Brooks, Matthew Daggitt, Ian Elkins, Jonathan Evans, Erich Hiner, Ruby Marsden, Charlotte Massey, Rhys Owen and Brady Porche.

We would like to thank the many people we interviewed for their help with various parts of Industrial Desalination & Water Reuse. A full list of interviewees is included near the end of the report.

Published by Media Analytics Ltd.,

The Jam Factory,

27 Park End Street,

Oxford OX1 1HU,

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 1865 204 208; Fax: +44 1865 204 209

[email protected]


ISBN: 978-1-907467-18-9

While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information in this report, neither Global Water Intelligence, Media Analytics Ltd., nor any contributors accept liability for any errors or oversights.

Unauthorised distribution or reproduction of the contents of this publication is strictly prohibited without the permission of the publisher. Contact Emma Welsh ([email protected]) for permissions.

Requests for more in-depth research and analysis should be addressed to GWI’s Head of Research and Consultancy, Jablanka Uzelac ([email protected]) who will be happy to discuss bespoke projects to meet particular needs.

Additionally, we can provide consultancy services stretching from due diligence to market analysis and strategy reviews.

© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] iii

Executive summary

Executive summaryi The propositionDesalination and water reuse in industry has emerged as one of the most important themes in the water sector over the past five years. Over the next five years the technologies associated with salt removal and the reuse of wastewater will become an essential part of sustainable economic growth and profitability for the following reasons:

• Global economic growth is increasingly coming up against environmental restraints: These constraints include water scarcity, the growing challenge of developing new sources of energy and mineral resources, growing pressures on agricultural productivity, and the need to manage carbon emissions within the context of global warming.

• Freshwater availability is both a resource constraint in itself, and part of the solution to other resource constraints: For example, water plays an increasingly important role in the extraction of marginal natural resources, optimising the efficiency of power generation, and addressing pollution. As the model for global economic growth moves away from extraction, production and disposal towards a circular model in which waste is recycled as the raw material for new products, the role of water becomes more important because it provides the vector for energy and materials recovery.

• Corporate water users are being forced to take notice of water: Whether it is because of investor concerns about operational risks, branding and commitment to corporate social responsibility or direct impacts on the profit and loss account, water has become a boardroom issue for the overwhelming majority of large companies (87% of annual filings to the SEC now include water risk assessments according to Ceres, the investor advocacy group). It means that businesses are more ready to invest in water technology than ever before.

• Desalination and water reuse technologies are the main beneficiaries of these trends: Removing salt from water, and other technologies which turn low quality wastewater and raw water sources into high quality process water, is the key driver of the water efficiency of the global economy. Whether it is delivering higher specifications of ultrapure water to guarantee the profitability of the microelectronics industry, facilitating the recycling of heavily contaminated produced water using evaporators and crystallisers in the Canadian oil sands, or enabling the expansion of the downstream oil and gas industry in the Arabian Gulf by using seawater as a feedwater source, desalination and water reuse technologies are unlocking the potential for growth.

The report focuses on the demands of the eight most water intensive industries:

• Oil and gas

• Refining and petrochemicals

• Power generation

• Food and beverage

• Pharmaceutical

• Microelectronics

• Pulp and paper

• Mining

Within these industries, our market forecast focuses on three principal areas where desalination/demineralisation technologies are employed:

• Ultrapure water (UPW)

• Seawater desalination

• Wastewater desalination

Our overall market forecast for these areas is as follows:

iv © GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]


Figure i UPW, seawater desalination and wastewater desalination by industrial segment, 2011-2025

Mining

Pulp and paper

Microelectronics

Pharmaceutical

Food and beverage

Water for power

Refining andpetrochemicalsOil and gas0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Power / desal co-lo

UPW, seawater desal and wastewater desal by industrial segment

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011-17 2025

Oil and gas 508.9 669.7 771.9 888.9 902.5 844.0 946.3 14.2% 1,938.7Refining and petrochemicals 187.9 308.7 656.1 433.6 618.4 1,073.8 1,000.2 17.1% 1,241.1Power generation 898.7 1,021.0 1,177.0 1,316.6 1,434.4 1,579.6 1,829.8 8.7% 3,774.5Food and beverage 185.1 201.7 219.5 241.2 263.6 287.0 313.1 6.9% 589.0Pharmaceutical 229.9 248.3 268.5 287.3 306.4 327.4 352.6 6.2% 817.7Microelectronics 510.0 503.8 599.8 625.0 667.7 710.7 757.3 5.6% 1,247.6Pulp and paper 25.0 21.8 23.5 27.2 28.3 29.6 30.4 1.8% 46.5Mining 244.6 289.9 569.8 254.9 473.2 429.3 483.4 8.8% 738.1Co-lo power / desalination 857.7 1,200.0 760.0 1,650.0 350.0 1,440.0 1,250.0 6.5% 1,570.0Total (ex co-lo) 2,790.2 3,264.7 4,286.1 4,074.7 4,694.6 5,281.3 5,713.0 12.7% 10,393.2

Source: GWI

ii Oil and gasThere are four key growth markets for desalination and water reuse technologies within the upstream energy sector:

1. Produced water management in the unconventional gas sector: Shale gas and coalbed methane (CBM) production have the potential to rewrite the future of the fossil fuel industry – as long as the related water issues can be addressed effectively. The potential for shale gas production in many regions is limited by the disposal options for the flowback water from hydraulic fracturing. CBM production is challenged by the huge volumes of water that are brought to the surface. Desalination and water reuse technologies are potential solutions. This report argues, however, that the low price of gas in the U.S. in comparison to Europe and the Far East will hold back the development of a strong market for water technology in the North American shale plays until 2015. Instead the most immediate opportunities are in the Australian CBM sector.

2. Low salinity water and sulphate removal for water flood: In order to meet the world’s continuing need for oil, producers are developing new deep sea resources, and looking to squeeze more oil out of existing reservoirs. It turns out that water quality holds the key to both. In the deepwater off-shore industry, around the Atlantic rim, there is growing demand for sulphate removal technology to ensure that when seawater is injected into the wells, it does not scale or sour the reservoir, damaging the profitability of the well. At the same time the industry is beginning to understand how the salt chemistry of water can alter the wettability of the sandstone in which the oil is held. By treating the injection water with a combination of reverse osmosis (RO) and nanofiltration (NF), it is possible to increase the amount of oil recovered from a reservoir by up to 15% or even more if used in conjunction with a chemical f lood. The report suggests that this is a potential game changer: NF and RO for seawater f lood could be the fastest growing sector of the desalination market in the oil and gas industry.

3. Recycling produced water for steam enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in the heavy oil sector: Outside the Arabian peninsula, Canada’s oil sands represent the largest oil reserve in the world. Exploiting the oil sands increasingly relies on steam assisted gravity drainage, and that in turn increasingly relies on water recycling systems in general and evaporation technology in particular. But it is not just Canada which needs to invest in water recycling systems

© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] v

Executive summary

to unlock production. Steam EOR is also becoming a feature of production in the Arabian Peninsula. The report suggests that Oman, and the Wafra field between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, as well as new resources in Latin America will be strong markets for high recovery water desalination systems.

4. Beneficial reuse of produced water in the conventional oil sector: The oil industry produces 39 million m³/d of water – far more than the oil it brings to the surface. The vast majority of this is reinjected straight back into the ground, but a small amount (around 3%) is reused for beneficial purposes. The report argues that this proportion will increase to 7% by 2020, and that brackish water desalination systems will have a role in this evolving opportunity.

Figure ii Oil and gas industry market forecast, 2011-2025

Produced waterRO/evaporation

Produced water polishing

High recovery desalfor steam EOR Water recycling systemsfor steam EOR

SRP/Low salinity systems

CBM high recovery desal

Shale gas highrecovery desalShale gas conventionaltreatment0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Oil and gas ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011-17 2025

Shale gas: conventional treatment 30.7 57.1 68.3 80.4 87.1 100.9 139.4 28.7% 479.9Shale gas high recovery desal 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 35.0 - 100.0CBM high recovery desal (a) 112.7 165.0 126.0 132.0 160.0 170.0 164.4 6.5% 178.4SRP/Low salinity systems (b) 105.0 147.5 253.8 230.6 337.5 487.5 783.5 39.8% 1,275.9Water recycling systems for steam EOR (c) 169.0 183.0 219.0 244.0 244.0 239.0 255.5 7.1% 411.8High recovery desal for steam EOR (d) 291.2 385.3 502.1 602.5 556.8 454.2 519.6 10.1% 1,097.7Produced water polishing (e) 504.7 562.7 609.7 649.1 683.0 741.1 799.0 8.0% 1,302.2Produced water RO/evaporation (f) 105.0 119.4 135.8 154.5 175.7 199.8 227.3 13.7% 562.6Total 1,318.3 1,620.0 1,922.6 2,093.1 2,254.1 2,412.5 2,923.6 14.2% 5,508.5

Source: GWI; see chapter 2 for footnotes and additional detail. For further information about the oil and gas market in North America, see GWI’s Produced Water Market primary research report

Figure iii Oil and gas industry, top country markets, 2013–2017

USA $2,978m

$11,606 mTotal market value

(2013-2017)

Australia $671m

Brazil $526mSaudi Arabia $480m

Oman $353m

China $310m

RoW $4,248m

Canada $2,040m

Source: GWI

vi © GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]


iii Refining and petrochemicalsRefineries typically consume more water than crude oil. The specifications of the water used for steam, cooling and process applications are high, but the raw water sources are becoming more challenging as the locus of growth in the downstream sector moves away from the Atlantic rim and towards emerging markets such as India and China, and towards upstream producers such as the Gulf countries. The report argues that this means that seawater desalination is going to be an increasingly important technology for the refinery sector, and that greater emphasis will be put on reuse technologies.

Figure iv Refining and petrochemicals industry market forecast, 2011–2025

ZLD systems

Seawater desalinationplantsWastewater treatmentsystems

Ultrapure water systems

Pretreatment systems0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Refineries ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011-17 2025

Pretreatment systems (a) 186.2 193.9 202.0 210.5 219.3 228.5 237.1 4.1% 316.0Ultrapure water systems 135.4 141.0 146.9 153.1 159.5 166.2 172.4 4.1% 229.8Wastewater treatment systems (b) 216.0 226.5 237.4 248.9 261.0 273.6 285.8 4.8% 398.1Seawater desalination plants (c) 52.5 167.6 509.2 265.5 458.9 892.6 807.7 57.7% 976.3ZLD systems 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 20.0 0.0% 35.0Total (d) 590.0 729.1 1,095.5 893.0 1,098.7 1,575.8 1,523.0 17.1% 1,955.2

Source: GWI; see chapter 3 for footnotes and additional detail

Figure v Refining and petrochemicals industry, top country markets, 2013–2017


(2013-2017) Saudi Arabia $631m

China $760m

RoW $3,460m

Canada $132m

India $685m

United Arab Emirates $518m

Source: GWI

© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] vii

Executive summary

iv PowerPower generation is the largest industrial user of water, and as with the refining and petrochemical industry, much of the growth is taking place in areas which have limited natural endowment. At the same time as requiring greater water efficiency, customers are putting a growing emphasis on the consistency, reliability and specification of their ultrapure water systems. The report argues that a combination of tighter regulation of coal emissions, ageing infrastructure, lower gas costs and the switch away from nuclear power looks set to lead to accelerated investment in new and upgraded gas power stations. Although coal is unlikely to increase its market share of the power sector, investment in wet scrubber systems for f lue gas desulphurisation will lead to heavy investment in wastewater treatment systems. Overall there is a strong outlook for desalination and water reuse technologies including reverse osmosis, ion exchange (IX), low pressure membranes, electrodeionisation (EDI) and evaporators.

Figure vi Power industry market forecast, 2011–2025

ZLD/high recoverydesalination systems

Co-located power/desal

Seawater desalination

Wastewater treatmentsystems (exc. ZLD)Condensate polishingsystems

Boiler feedwater systems


1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Power ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011-17 2025

Pretreatment systems (a) 653.8 720.6 771.2 795.5 877.6 940.8 1,009.7 7.5% 1,637.9Boiler feedwater systems 255.2 280.8 300.1 309.1 340.5 364.4 390.5 7.3% 626.8Condensate polishing systems 454.5 500.7 535.6 552.3 609.1 652.7 700.1 7.5% 1,132.4Wastewater treatment systems (exc. ZLD) 399.4 415.3 437.7 454.3 484.9 511.5 535.5 5.0% 763.9Seawater desalination (b) 54.0 174.0 202.8 275.1 311.7 346.5 501.6 45.0% 1,301.1Co-located power/desal (c) 857.7 1,200.0 760.0 1,650.0 350.0 1,440.0 1,250.0 6.5% 1,570.0ZLD/high recovery desalination systems 135.0 65.5 138.5 180.1 173.1 216.0 237.6 9.9% 714.2Total (d) 2,809.6 3,356.9 3,145.9 4,216.3 3,147.0 4,472.0 4,624.9 8.7% 7,746.4


Figure vii Power industry, top country markets, 2013–2017


(2013-2017)

India $2,079m

China $2,894m

RoW $10,832m

Germany $580m

USA $2,540m

Japan $680m

Source: GWI

viii © GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]


v Food and beverageDirect reuse of wastewater in the product is not on the menu in the food and beverage industry, but the reuse of water for other purposes (e.g. washing) is now a priority. Most major food and beverage companies have made commitments to reduce their water consumption per unit of product, and reuse is an important part of the strategy for achieving this. Furthermore much of the growth of the industry is in emerging markets which typically have more limited, lower quality water resources than developed countries, creating water treatment challenges. In developed markets, emerging concerns about pharmaceutical by-products and other trace contaminants making their way into the product have lead to greater use of desalination technologies on the process water side.

Figure viii Food and beverage industry market forecast, 2011–2025

Wastewater treatmentsystems

Polishing systems


1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Food & Beverage ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011-17 2025

Pretreatment systems 1,675.7 1,772.7 1,873.0 2,001.3 2,126.2 2,250.2 2,390.5 6.1% 3,577.5Polishing systems 107.3 118.3 130.2 144.6 159.7 175.7 193.6 10.3% 389.8Wastewater treatment systems 1,556.6 1,667.1 1,785.7 1,932.0 2,078.6 2,225.7 2,389.1 7.4% 3,983.4Total 3,339.6 3,558.0 3,788.9 4,077.8 4,364.5 4,651.6 4,973.1 6.9% 7,924.1

Source: GWI. For further information about the Food & Beverage market, see GWI’s Water for Food & Beverage primary research report

Figure ix Food and beverage industry, top country markets, 2013–2017


(2013-2017)

Japan $927m

USA $4,117m

RoW $11,224m

Brazil $748m

China $3,368m

India $1,471m

Source: GWI

© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] ix

Executive summary

vi PharmaceuticalWater reuse is not on the agenda for process water in the pharmaceutical industry. However, drug companies remain a significant market for specialist desalination systems as they look to produce ultrapure and infection-free water for medicine manufacture, and there is interest in reducing water usage through recycling water for utilities and other less critical purposes. The highest quality water is for injections, and may be treated with activated carbon, ion exchange, electrodeionisation, UV disinfection, ultrafiltration (UF), reverse osmosis and distillation before it is used in the product. Such is the conservative nature of the customer base that many will ask for distilled water for processes even though the regulations do not require it.

The report suggests that the main geographical areas of market growth are in the BRIC countries. The main technological opportunities are on the wastewater side, where regulatory concerns about micropollutants are opening up the market for effluent polishing using desalination technologies.

Figure x Pharmaceutical industry market forecast, 2011–2025

Wastewater polishingtechnologiesWastewater treatmentsystems

Disinfection systems



500

1,000

1,500

2,000

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Pharmaceutical ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011-7 2025

Pretreatment systems 165.4 176.4 187.0 197.0 206.3 215.9 226.9 5.4% 465.6Ultrapure water systems 217.1 233.7 250.0 265.8 281.1 297.1 315.4 6.4% 692.1Disinfection systems 46.6 49.8 52.9 55.8 58.7 61.7 65.0 5.7% 95.3Wastewater treatment systems 139.8 146.3 152.1 157.3 161.7 166.2 171.4 3.5% 216.1Wastewater polishing technologies (a) 25.7 29.3 37.2 43.1 50.6 60.6 74.4 19.4% 251.2Total 594.6 635.5 679.2 719.0 758.4 801.5 853.1 6.2% 1,623.6


Figure xi Pharmaceutical industry, top country markets, 2013–2017


(2013-2017)

France $234m

USA $1,061m

RoW $1,322m

India $456m

China $333m Japan $405m

Source: GWI

x © GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]


vii MicroelectronicsMicroelectronics is an important market for ultrapure water systems and the challenges are getting greater. As devices get smaller and the fabrication plants get larger, the purity of the water required increases. In terms of water reuse, the industry has relatively conservative attitudes towards recycling water for ultrapure water applications, but wastewater is treated and reused for cooling and other less critical purposes. This may be insufficient in the longer term: in Taiwan drought has twice threatened to close down the semiconductor industry in the past decade, and maximising reuse has become imperative. Learning from the Taiwanese experience, other chip makers are making commitments to reduce their water footprints.

Besides semiconductors, two other silicon-based sectors of the microelectronics industry need large volumes of highly pure water: f lat panel displays (FPD) and photovoltaics (PV). Both sectors enjoyed dramatic growth at the end of the 2000s and into the 2010s, but are in the process of maturing. Current water quality requirements are similar to those of the semiconductor industry 20 years ago. However, the report suggests that the increasing complexity of FPD and PV devices will create demand for even higher purity water. Short product cycles, together with the pressures on water resources in the key manufacturing markets will ensure strong demand for ultrapure water and water reuse technologies.

Figure xii Microelectronics industry market forecast, 2011–2025




500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Microelectronics ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011-7 2025

Pretreatment systems 357.0 338.3 386.0 385.2 393.8 400.6 408.7 2.3% 496.4Ultrapure water systems 477.8 471.5 560.9 584.0 623.4 663.0 705.8 6.7% 1,155.8Wastewater treatment systems 215.3 215.3 259.3 273.4 295.3 317.7 342.9 8.1% 611.8Total 1,050.0 1,025.0 1,206.3 1,242.5 1,312.5 1,381.3 1,457.4 5.6% 2,264.0

Source: GWI

Figure xiii Microelectronics industry, top country markets, 2013–2017


(2013-2017)

Taiwan $1,810mUSA $519m

RoW $800m

Republic of Korea $1,196mChina $1,432m

Japan $845m

Source: GWI

© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] xi

Executive summary

viii Pulp and paper Historically the pulp and paper industry has had little need for desalination and reuse – not least because the majority of production is located near water sources. Four things are changing this state of affairs, the report suggests.

• The move towards recycling means that production in mills located in “urban forest” areas is rising. These facilities face higher water costs than green forest located mills, and have a greater interest in water efficiency.

• The fastest growing market for pulp and paper is in China, where raw water sources are both limited and impaired, and water technologies which can address these challenges are at a premium.

• The new generation of efficient boilers used in the industry require higher quality feedwater than the traditional boilers, and as existing production facilities are refitted, there will be greater demand for ultrapure water treatment lines than have historically been the case.

• Regulators are becoming more proactive about controlling effluent from the pulp and paper industry: this is especially true in the case of China, where environmental protection has not been a priority.

Figure xiv Pulp and paper industry market forecast, 2011–2025



Process water systems(excl.UPW)0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Pulp and paper ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011-17 2025

Process water systems (excl.UPW) (a) 210.0 190.0 205.2 215.5 224.1 234.2 238.7 2.2% 308.0Boiler feedwater systems (b) 25.0 21.8 23.5 27.2 28.3 29.6 30.4 3.3% 46.5Wastewater treatment systems (c) 304.5 264.9 286.1 302.1 314.2 328.3 332.6 1.5% 423.0Total (d) 539.5 476.7 514.8 544.7 566.5 592.0 601.7 1.8% 777.5


Figure xv Pulp and paper industry, top country markets, 2013–2017


(2013-2017)

Germany $226m

USA $630m

RoW $1,098m

Brazil $131m

China $504m

Japan $231m

Source: GWI

xii © GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]


ix MiningWater is becoming a significant licence to operate issue for the mining industry. Companies now realise that unless they can reduce their water footprint by minimising the amount of freshwater they draw from local resources, and ensure that the effluent they discharge is treated to the highest standard, they may be removed from projects and be blacklisted by governments. The result is that international mining companies are prepared to invest proactively in water technology, going beyond the basic regulatory requirements. At the same time strong mineral prices are drawing miners to work on projects in areas such as Western Australia, Chile and Peru where water represents a major logistical challenge. It all makes for an attractive market for desalination and water reuse technologies, the report concludes, with the proviso that a fall in mineral prices would bring many mining projects to a standstill. The only protection there is against the innate cyclicity of the mining market are sales tied to legally mandated acid rock drainage projects.

Figure xvi Mining industry market forecast, 2011-2025

Seawater desalinationsystems


Process water treatmentsystems0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Mining ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011-17 2025

Process water treatment systems 230.9 294.1 323.5 277.1 320.6 321.1 346.2 7.0% 265.7Wastewater treatment systems 474.1 610.5 679.0 588.0 681.0 685.4 746.4 7.9% 618.4Seawater desalination systems 206.7 241.0 515.5 207.9 418.8 374.4 423.7 12.7% 688.6Total 911.8 1,145.7 1,518.0 1,073.0 1,420.3 1,380.9 1,516.3 8.8% 1,572.7

Source: GWI. For further information about the mining market, see GWI’s Water for Mining primary research report

Figure xvii Mining industry, top country markets, 2013–2017


(2013-2017)Brazil $373m

Australia $1,709mRoW $1,926m

Canada $393mChile $1,583m

Peru $925m

Source: GWI

© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] xiii

Executive summary

x TechnologiesThe core desalination and water reuse technologies covered by the report are reverse osmosis (RO), ultrafiltration (UF) and microfiltration (MF), ion exchange, electrodeionisation (EDI), and evaporation. Adsorption, physical/chemical separation systems, biological treatment, media filtration and disinfection are also covered, but with less specific detail. The main technology trends observed by the report are as follows:

• The challenge of salt waste disposal: Salty wastewater is a fundamental challenge. It is both messy and expensive to treat, and the end result is usually a sludge or brine, which is difficult to dispose of. Membrane-based approaches are defined by scaling problems, while thermal approaches are expensive and often have chemistry problems of their own. The ideal solution would be a low cost salt separation technology which salvaged other value beyond brine from the waste stream. Short of that, a membrane-based treatment which can handle concentrations of more than 100,000 mg/l salinity would be a useful addition to the technology portfolio.

• Six sigma reliability and scale in ultrapure water: Historically the boiler feedwater market has been a fragmented low margin systems business, served by a small number of higher margin chemicals companies supplying the resins. As customers have started to require higher specification water, with greater consistency and fewer waste problems, so the technology train has evolved from IX, to RO-IX, to UF-RO-IX and possibly UF-RO-EDI. It means that there is more value in the systems, relative to the resins, especially when sensing and control systems are incorporated, and lean manufacturing techniques are used to mass produce modular units. The resin manufacturers have responded to falling volume demand for the basic product by concentrating on mixed bed and specialist resins which remove specific impurities.

• Fundamental water challenges remain in most industries: While technology for municipal water treatment is largely settled, there are few industries which have the perfect water technology. In the paper industry, fibre and organic material are the challenges. In the Canadian oil sands it is silica. In the microelectronics industry the problem is with sensors which are no longer sensitive enough to measure the level of quality which is required. It means that the demand for innovation in water technology is strong enough to overcome the innate conservatism of the customer base.

xiv © GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]

Industrial Desalination and Water Reuse

Industrial Desalination and Water ReusePublication information ii

Executive summary iiii The proposition iii

Figure i UPW, seawater desalination and wastewater desalination by industrial segment, 2011-2025 ivii Oil and gas iv

Figure ii Oil and gas industry market forecast, 2011-2025 vFigure iii Oil and gas industry, top country markets, 2013–2017 v

iii Refining and petrochemicals viFigure iv Refining and petrochemicals industry market forecast, 2011–2025 viFigure v Refining and petrochemicals industry, top country markets, 2013–2017 vi

iv Power viiFigure vi Power industry market forecast, 2011–2025 viiFigure vii Power industry, top country markets, 2013–2017 vii

v Food and beverage viiiFigure viii Food and beverage industry market forecast, 2011–2025 viiiFigure ix Food and beverage industry, top country markets, 2013–2017 viii

vi Pharmaceutical ixFigure x Pharmaceutical industry market forecast, 2011–2025 ixFigure xi Pharmaceutical industry, top country markets, 2013–2017 ix

vii Microelectronics xFigure xii Microelectronics industry market forecast, 2011–2025 xFigure xiii Microelectronics industry, top country markets, 2013–2017 x

viii Pulp and paper xiFigure xiv Pulp and paper industry market forecast, 2011–2025 xiFigure xv Pulp and paper industry, top country markets, 2013–2017 xi

ix Mining xiiFigure xvi Mining industry market forecast, 2011-2025 xiiFigure xvii Mining industry, top country markets, 2013–2017 xii

x Technologies xiii

1. Market and technology overview 11.1 Introduction 11.2 Market drivers 1

1.2.1 Water scarcity 11.2.1.1 Case study: Coca-Cola and brand risk 11.2.1.2 Case Study: Tia Maria 21.2.1.3 Case study: the semiconductor industry in Taiwan 2

1.2.2 Water risk 31.2.3 The Global Water Risk Index 3

Figure 1.1 Global Water Risk Index: global water supply 4Figure 1.2 Global Water Risk Index: global water demand in 2030 4Figure 1.3 Global Water Risk Index: water risk in 2030 5

1.2.4 Other drivers of water technology investment 51.3 Membrane filtration 5

1.3.1 Microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes 6Figure 1.4 A microfiltration membrane removes suspended solids 6Figure 1.5 Dead-end and cross-flow membrane modules 6Figure 1.6 Build up of material on ultrafiltration membranes, and cleaning processes 7

1.3.2 Reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes 7Figure 1.7 Removal of dissolved solids by reverse osmosis 8

1.4 Electrical charge separation 91.4.1 Ion exchange 9

Figure 1.8 Ion exchange process 9Figure 1.9 Types of resins and their applications 10

© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] xv

Table of contents

1.4.2 Electrodialysis 10Figure 1.10 An electrodialysis cell 11

1.4.2.1 Electrodialysis reversal 111.4.2.2 Electrodeionisation 111.4.2.3 Problems 12

1.5 Seawater desalination technologies 121.5.1 Reverse osmosis (SWRO) 121.5.2 Multiple-effect distillation (MED) 12

Figure 1.11 The multi-effect distillation process with three distillation chambers 131.5.3 Multi-stage flash evaporation (MSF) 13

Figure 1.12 Multi-stage flash evaporation process with three evaporation chambers 141.6 High recovery technologies 14

1.6.1 Vapour compression 15Figure 1.13 Vapour compression evaporation process 15

1.6.2 Brine concentrators 15Figure 1.14 A falling film brine concentrator with vapour compression 16

1.6.3 Crystallisers 17Figure 1.15 A forced circulation crystalliser 17

1.6.4 Filter presses 18Figure 1.16 The operation of a diaphragm plate filter press 18

1.6.5 High recovery reverse osmosis 18Figure 1.17 Comparison of high recovery and conventional reverse osmosis systems 19

1.6.6 Comparison of high recovery technologies 19Figure 1.19 Comparison of high recovery desalination technologies 19

1.7 Chemical treatment 191.7.1 Lime softening 19

1.7.1.1 Cold and warm lime softening 20Figure 1.20 Cold and warm lime softening processes in a softening basin 20

1.7.1.2 Hot lime softening 20Figure 1.21 Hot lime softening processes in a downflow sludge contact unit 21

1.8 Physical treatment 211.8.1 Coagulation and flocculation 21

Figure 1.22 Coagulation and flocculation create clumps of suspended particles 211.8.2 Adsorption processes 22

1.9 Biological wastewater treatment 221.9.1 Removal of nutrients 231.9.2 Removal of heavy metals 23

1.10 Disinfection 231.10.1 Disinfection with chlorine-based compounds 231.10.2 Disinfection with ultraviolet light 24

Figure 1.23 Emission of ultraviolet light from an array of mercury vapour lamps 241.10.3 Disinfection by ozonation 25

Figure 1.24 Ozone breaks down micro-organisms in deep contact chambers 251.11 Technology trends and market forecast 26

1.11.1 Notes on the forecast 26Figure 1.25 Industry-specific forecast categories and overall forecast categories 26

1.11.2 Ultrapure water technology trends 27Figure 1.26 Advantages and disadvantages of EDI process 27Figure 1.27 The ultrapure water market by industry segment, 2011–2017 28Figure 1.28 The ultrapure water market by technology, 2011–2017 29Figure 1.29 The ultrapure water market by region, 2011–2017 29

1.11.3 High recovery wastewater desalination 301.11.3.1 Wastewater desalination technology trends 30

Figure 1.30 The industrial wastewater desalination market by industry segment 2011–2017 31Figure 1.31 The industrial wastewater desalination market by region, 2011–2017 32Figure 1.32 The industrial wastewater desalination market by technology, 2011–2017 32

1.11.3.2 Wastewater desalination alternate scenario 33Figure 1.33 The industrial wastewater desalination market by technology, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario 33

xvi © GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]


1.11.4 Seawater desalination 331.11.4.1 Seawater desalination technology trends 33

Figure 1.34 All industrial seawater desalination in the context of all seawater desalination, 1990–2011 34Figure 1.35 Contracted >10,000 m³/d industrial seawater desalination plants by off-taker industry, 1990–2011 34Figure 1.36 Seawater desalination plants for industrial customers by technology, 1990–2011 35Figure 1.37 The industrial seawater desalination market by industry segment, 2011–2017 35Figure 1.38 The industrial seawater desalination market by technology, 2011–2017 36Figure 1.39 The industrial seawater desalination market by region, 2011–2017 36

1.11.4.2 Seawater desalination alternate scenario 37Figure 1.40 The industrial seawater desalination market by industry segment, 2011–2017: alternate scenario 37

1.11.5 The overall market 38Figure 1.41 UPW, seawater desalination and wastewater desalination by industrial segment, 2011–2025 38Figure 1.42 Desalination and water reuse market forecast by major market, 2011–2025 39Figure 1.43 Membrane element markets, 2011–2017 40Figure 1.44 Breakdown of equipment for other process water and other wastewater treatment, 2011–2017 41

2. Oil and gas 422.1 Water and wastewater in the oil and gas industry 42

2.1.1 Onshore conventional oil 42Figure 2.1 Typical water and oil production profile of an oil well in the North Atlantic 42Figure 2.2 Salinity of produced water in the U.S. 43Figure 2.3 Water to oil ratios of selected producers 44

2.1.2 Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) 44Figure 2.4 Primary, secondary and tertiary oil recovery 45Figure 2.5 Global oil production by EOR method 45Figure 2.6 low salinity water in polymer flood 46

2.1.3 Steam injection for heavy oil and oil sands 462.1.4 In-situ mining of oil sands 46

Figure 2.7 Inorganic water chemistry of tailings water at Syncrude’s Mildred Lake Settling Basin 47Figure 2.8 Organic chemistry of tailings water at Syncrude’s Mildred Lake Settling Basin 47

2.1.5 Offshore conventional oil 472.1.6 Conventional gas 47

Figure 2.9 Typical produced water constituents from oil, gas and coalbed methane (CBM) production 482.1.7 Shale gas 48

Figure 2.10 Fracturing fluid components 49Figure 2.11 Flowback reuse as fracturing fluid contaminants 49Figure 2.12 Average volumes of frac and drilling water in Barnett, Fayetteville, Haynesville & Marcellus shale 50

2.1.8 Coalbed methane 50Figure 2.13 Gas and produced water from CBM 50

2.1.9 Summary of water and wastewater challenges in the oil and gas industry 512.2 Market drivers 51

2.2.1 Beneficial reuse of conventional oil and gas produced water 51Figure 2.14 U.S. oil and gas produced water volumes by management practice 51Figure 2.15 Global produced water volumes by management practice 52Figure 2.16 Use of produced water in agriculture 52Figure 2.17 Cost of produced water management alternatives 53Figure 2.18 Oil reserves and water risk 54

2.2.2 Low salinity water and sulphate removal for flood and enhanced oil recovery 542.2.2.1 Sulphate removal drivers 54

Figure 2.19 Sulphate removal offshore adoption 55Figure 2.20 Sulphate removal and the growth of the deep water oil production sector 55Figure 2.21 Deepwater offshore crude production, 2010–2030 56Figure 2.22 Deepwater production in the Atlantic Rim, 2000–2020 56

2.2.2.2 Low salinity water flood 56Figure 2.23 Forecast of oil production by EOR from different countries in 2015 and 2030 57

2.2.2.3 Low salinity water for chemical EOR 57Figure 2.24 EOR market development 58Figure 2.25 EOR process selection according to reservoir depth and oil viscosity 58Figure 2.26 Cost profiles of different approaches to EOR 59

© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] xvii

Table of contents

Figure 2.27 Chemical floods since 1985 592.2.3 Water recycling for steam flood 60

Figure 2.28 Top 10 Countries for global steam flood operations 60Figure 2.29 Oil production from steam EOR, 1980–2012 60Figure 2.30 Canadian crude oil production forecast 2007–2020 61Figure 2.31 Potential growth in oil sand operators’ water handling 61Figure 2.32 SAGD capacity in the Canadian oil sands 62Figure 2.33 Long term oil supply cost curve 63

2.2.4 Shale gas produced water management 63Figure 2.34 Global shale plays 63Figure 2.35 Technically recoverable shale gas resources by country 64Figure 2.36 Status of international shale plays 64Figure 2.37 Gas production costs and spot market prices 64Figure 2.38 Natural gas price trends: Henry Hub spot price and LNG import prices in Europe and Japan 65Figure 2.39 Shale gas production by state 66Figure 2.40 Proven shale gas reserves by state and class II injection wells 66

2.2.5 Coalbed methane produced water management 67Figure 2.41 Map of the world’s CBM resources 67Figure 2.42 CBM reserves and production by country 68

2.2.5.1 CBM produced water in the U.S. 68Figure 2.43 Summary of produced water management in the main U.S. CBM basins 69

2.2.5.2 CSG produced water in Australia 69Figure 2.44 CSG water desalination plants in operation/contracted 70Figure 2.45 Upcoming opportunities in Australian CSG water treatment 70

2.2.5.3 CBM produced water elsewhere in the world 712.3 Technologies for desalination and water reuse in the oil and gas industry 71

2.3.1 Produced water management technologies for conventional oil and gas 712.3.1.1 Minimisation 712.3.1.2 Oil/water separation 72

Figure 2.46 Oil water separation and treatment schematic 72Figure 2.47 Differences between IGF and DGF 73

2.3.1.3 Produced water polishing 73Figure 2.48 Off-shore produced water regulation 74

2.3.1.4 Technologies for gas field produced water management 742.3.2 Steam EOR recycling technologies 74

Figure 2.49 Steam EOR evaporation and high recovery reverse osmosis references 75Figure 2.50 Saltworks seawater desalination circuit 76Figure 2.51 Produced water volume reduction guidelines using thermal and membrane technologies 76

2.3.3 Technologies for sulphate removal and low salinity water 76Figure 2.52 Sulphate removal technology train evolution 77

2.3.4 Technologies for unconventional gas produced water management 772.4 Supply chain analysis 78

2.4.1 Reaching the customer 782.4.2 Procurement models 782.4.3 Market structure 79

Figure 2.53 Significant company acquisitions, mergers and joint ventures 792.4.4 Market entry 79

2.5 Market forecast 802.5.1 Overall picture 80

Figure 2.54 Oil and gas industry market forecast, 2011–2025 80Figure 2.55 Oil and gas industry, top country markets, 2013–2017 81

2.5.2 Reference and alternate scenarios 812.5.2.1 Unconventional gas 81

Figure 2.56 Oil and gas industry, unconventional gas combined, 2011–2017: Reference scenario 82Figure 2.57 Oil and gas industry, unconventional gas combined, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario 82

2.5.2.2 Steam and water flood systems 83Figure 2.58 Oil and gas industry, steam and water flood systems, 2011–2017: Reference scenario 83Figure 2.59 Oil and gas industry, steam and water flood systems, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario 83

xviii © GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]


2.5.2.3 Produced water treatment systems 84Figure 2.60 Oil and gas industry, produced water treatment systems, 2011–2017: Reference scenario 84Figure 2.61 Oil and gas industry, produced water treatment systems, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario 84

3. Refining and petrochemicals 853.1 Introduction 85

3.1.1 Introduction to refining 85Figure 3.1 Main crude oil fractions by chain length 85

3.1.2 Crude oil refining processes 853.1.2.1 Desalting 853.1.2.2 Atmospheric distillation 853.1.2.3 Further processing 86

3.1.3 Current refining capacity 86Figure 3.2 Current refinery locations, 2011 86Figure 3.3 Global refining capacity by country, 2011 86Figure 3.4 Top 20 countries by refining capacity, 2011 87Figure 3.5 Global refining capacity by region, 2012 87

3.2 Drivers for water reuse and advanced wastewater treatment technologies 873.2.1 Environmental regulations 873.2.2 Economic considerations 88

Figure 3.6 Crack spreads for gasoline and heating oil, 2006–2012 883.2.3 Water scarcity 883.2.4 Operational reliability 88

3.3 Refinery water requirements 893.3.1 Refinery water systems 89

Figure 3.7 Refinery water systems 893.3.2 Water use in refining 89

3.3.2.1 Boiler feedwater (BFW) 893.3.2.2 Cooling water 893.3.2.3 Process water 903.3.2.4 Treatment methods for contaminants in raw water 90

Figure 3.8 Water quality requirements for refinery’s water streams 90Figure 3.9 Potential contaminants in raw water 91

3.3.3 Water volumes for refining 91Figure 3.10 Wastewater generation by U.S. refineries with crude oil capacities > 300,000 bbl/d 92

3.4 Demineralisation and desalination technologies 923.4.1 Technologies for producing BFW 92

3.4.1.1 Water softening 923.4.1.2 Demineralisation technology trains for BFW 92

3.4.2 Seawater desalination 93Figure 3.11 Large scale seawater desalination for refineries by region, 1990–2011 93Figure 3.12 Large scale seawater desalination for refineries by region and year, 1990–2011 93Figure 3.13 Large scale seawater desalination plants for refineries, 1990–2011 94Figure 3.14 Large scale seawater desalination for refineries by technology, 1990–2011 95

3.5 Wastewater challenges 953.5.1 Wastewater streams and volumes 95

Figure 3.15 Main refinery processes and wastewater streams generated 953.5.2 Strong wastes 953.5.3 Oily wastewater 963.5.4 Blowdown and condensate 96

3.5.4.1 Cooling tower blowdown 963.5.4.2 Condensate from boiler blowdown and steam generators 96

3.5.5 Wastewater streams generated by advanced water treatment processes 963.6 Wastewater treatment technologies 97

Figure 3.16 Typical refinery WWTP technologies 97Figure 3.17 Wastewater streams and wastewater treatment in the refining industry 98

3.6.1 Emerging trends in refinery wastewater treatment 993.7 Water reuse 99

3.7.1 Sources of water for reuse 99

© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] xix

Table of contents

Figure 3.18 Water reuse applications and source of water 993.7.1.1 Stripped sour water 993.7.1.2 Recovered condensate 993.7.1.3 Tertiary and advanced wastewater treatment 100

Figure 3.19 Trends in water reuse technologies 1003.7.2 Zero liquid discharge 1003.7.3 Demand for advanced water reuse technologies 100

3.8 Supply chain analysis 1013.8.1 Procurement models 101

3.8.1.1 EPC model 101Figure 3.20 Seawater desalination for refining by EPC contractor, 1990–2011 101

3.8.1.2 EP model 1023.8.1.3 Direct procurement of treatment solutions 102

3.8.2 Factors that influence decision making 1023.8.3 Maintaining a market presence 102

3.9 Market forecast 1033.9.1 Refining projects 103

Figure 3.21 Future refining projects, 2012–2020 103Figure 3.22 Future additional refining capacity by country, 2012–2017 103

3.9.2 Reference and alternate scenarios 1043.9.3 Overall picture 104

Figure 3.23 Refining and petrochemicals industry market forecast, 2011–2025 104Figure 3.24 Refining and petrochemicals industry: top country markets, 2013–2017 105Figure 3.25 Refining and petrochemicals industry: regional markets, 2013–2017 105

3.9.4 Seawater desalination 106Figure 3.26 Refining and petrochemicals industry, seawater desalination, 2011–2017: Reference scenario 106Figure 3.27 Refining and petrochemicals industry, seawater desalination, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario 106

4. Power 1074.1 Introduction 1074.2 Water intensive processes 108

Figure 4.1 Water cycles and treatment processes in power generation 1084.2.1 Boiler water in the steam cycle 1084.2.2 Cooling cycle 109

Figure 4.2 Water consumption of selected cooling systems in coal-fired power stations 1094.2.3 Combined cycle power plants 109

Figure 4.3 Water use in a combined cycle power plant 110Figure 4.4 Projected water use volumes at the CPV Vaca station combined cycle power plant 110

4.2.4 Flue gas desulphurisation 111Figure 4.5 Limestone addition removes sulphur dioxide from flue gas 111

4.2.5 Ash handling systems 111Figure 4.6 Percentage of US coal-fired power plants using wet ash handling systems 112

4.2.6 Coal gasification 112Figure 4.7 Water use in coal gasification and synthetic gas cleaning 113

4.2.7 Nuclear power industry 1134.2.8 Concentrated solar power 113

Figure 4.8 Potential energy supply and water use from concentrated solar power plants in the U.S. 1144.3 Process water requirements 114

4.3.1 Purity of boiler makeup 114Figure 4.9 ASME guidelines for boiler water purity at increasing pressure and a constant temperature 114

4.3.2 Cooling tower makeup 1144.4 Wastewater characteristics 115

4.4.1 Cooling tower blowdown 115Figure 4.10 Concentration of contaminants in the cooling cycle 115

4.4.2 FGD wastewater 115Figure 4.11 Concentrations of contaminants in FGD wastewater 115

4.5 Demineralisation technologies for process water 1164.5.1 Treatment options for steam cycle boilers 116

4.6 Wastewater treatment technologies 116

xx © GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]


4.6.1 Zero-liquid discharge treatment of cooling tower blowdown 1164.6.2 Treatment of FGD wastewater 116

Figure 4.12 Wastewater treatment processes following flue gas desulphurisation 1164.6.2.1 Opportunities for zero-liquid discharge technologies 117

Figure 4.13 Coal-fired power stations treating FGD wastewater in the United States 117Figure 4.14 ENEL power plants using zero-liquid discharge technology 117

4.6.2.2 Biological treatment for selenium removal 1184.7 Market drivers 118

4.7.1 Trends in fuel use and power plant construction 1184.7.1.1 Coal 118

Figure 4.15 Annual additional capacity of new coal-fired power plants, 1970-2015 1194.7.1.2 Gas 119

Figure 4.16 Annual additional capacity of new gas-fired power plants, 1970-2015 1204.7.1.3 Alternative sources 120

Figure 4.17 Annual additional capacity of nuclear power plants, 1970-2015 1214.7.1.4 Global trends 121

Figure 4.18 Global cumulative generating capacity, 1970-2015 122Figure 4.19 Projected additional capacity for our three forecast regions between 2013 and 2017 122

4.7.2 Increased use of FGD systems 123Figure 4.20 Techniques used to mitigate the emission of sulphur dioxide from coal-fired plants in 2011 123Figure 4.21 Growth of wet limestone scrubbers as method of desulphurisation at coal plants in the USA 124

4.7.3 Regulation of emissions 1244.7.4 Increasing boiler and turbine efficiency 124

Figure 4.22 Temperature and pressure of fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants 125Figure 4.23 Growth in generating capacity provided by supercritical power plants, 1980–2011 126

4.7.5 Coal gasification 126Figure 4.24 Monthly cost of fossil fuels for power generation in the USA 126Figure 4.25 Increase in generating capacity at IGCC plants, 2000–2016 127

4.7.6 Co-located water and power projects 127Figure 4.26 Generating capacity of power plants providing heat for thermal desalination in 2011 128

4.8 Water reuse strategies 128Figure 4.27 Water consumption and discharge in the cooling systems of U.S. power plants 128

4.9 Supply chain analysis 1294.9.1 FGD market 1294.9.2 Procurement models 129

4.9.2.1 Procurement relationships 1294.9.2.2 Procurement process for mobile systems 130

4.9.3 Procurement process in the United States 1304.9.3.1 Outsourcing of water treatment systems 1304.9.3.2 Outsourcing of wastewater treatment systems 130

4.9.4 Procurement process in China 1304.9.5 Procurement process in India 130

4.9.5.1 Tendering 1304.9.5.2 Funding 131

4.9.6 Market players 131Figure 4.28 Companies providing equipment to the U.S. power market 131Figure 4.29 Companies providing water treatment equipment to the Chinese power market 132Figure 4.30 Companies active within the Indian power market 132Figure 4.31 Companies providing water treatment equipment to the Indian power market 132

4.10 Market forecast 1334.10.1 Power plant projects and installed base 1334.10.2 Overall picture 133

Figure 4.32 Power industry market forecast, 2011–2025 133Figure 4.33 Power industry: top country markets, 2013–2017 134Figure 4.34 Power industry: regional markets, 2013–2017 134

4.10.3 Reference and alternate scenarios 134Figure 4.35 Power industry: seawater desalination, 2011–2017: Reference scenario 135Figure 4.36 Power industry, seawater desalination, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario 135

© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] xxi

Table of contents

Figure 4.37 Power industry: water and ww treatment ex. seawater desalination, 2011–2017: Reference scenario 136Figure 4.38 Power industry: water and ww treatment ex. seawater desalination, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario 136Figure 4.39 Power industry, co-located power/desalination: Reference scenario 137Figure 4.40 Power industry, co-located power/desalination: Alternate scenario 137

5. Food and beverage 1385.1 Introduction 138

5.1.1 F&B subsectors 138Figure 5.1 Food and beverage industry subsectors 138

5.1.2 Food processing 138Figure 5.2 Generic food and beverage processing path for fruit/vegetables and meat raw materials 139

5.1.3 Water volumes in the F&B industry 139Figure 5.3 Estimates of global food and beverage water use in 2012 140

5.2 Process water requirements and technologies 1405.2.1 Uses of water in the F&B industry 140

Figure 5.4 Water consuming activities in food and beverage plants 1405.2.1.1 Water that contacts food (cleaning equipment and food processing) 1405.2.1.2 Other operations (utility water, cleaning floors) 141

5.2.2 Process water technologies 141Figure 5.5 Simplified process water treatment line 141Figure 5.6 Process water technology categories 142

5.2.2.1 Membrane technologies for process water 1425.2.2.2 Technology trends 142

5.2.3 Efficiency trends 1425.2.3.1 Cleaning water efficiency 1425.2.3.2 Utility water efficiency 1435.2.3.3 Process water efficiency 1435.2.3.4 Other water efficiency practices 143

5.3 Market drivers 1435.3.1 Brand protection 144

5.3.1.1 The sustainability factor 1445.3.1.2 The risk factor 144

5.3.2 Water scarcity 1445.3.3 Regulations 145

5.3.3.1 Water abstraction regulations 1455.3.3.2 Process water quality standards 1455.3.3.3 Wastewater discharge standards 1455.3.3.4 Adoption of universal regulations at plant sites 145

5.3.4 Geographical trends 146Figure 5.7 Countries mentioned in the expansion plans of 50 leading F&B companies, grouped by region 146

5.4 Wastewater challenges 1465.4.1 Wastewater discharge options 1465.4.2 Wastewater characteristics 146

Figure 5.8 Wastewater characteristics from food and beverage subsectors 1475.5 Wastewater treatment technologies 147

5.5.1 Overview of wastewater treatment technologies 147Figure 5.9 Wastewater treatment technologies 148

5.5.2 Wastewater treatment technology trends 1485.5.2.1 Anaerobic digester technology trends 1485.5.2.2 Aerobic systems: MBBR versus MBR 1485.5.2.3 Membrane-based technology trends in wastewater 148

5.6 Water reuse strategies 1495.6.1 Condensate reuse 149

5.6.1.1 Boiler condensate return systems 1495.6.1.2 Product condensate recovery 149

5.6.2 Water management 1505.6.3 Water reuse trends 150

5.7 Supply chain analysis 1505.7.1 Procurement process 150

xxii © GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]


5.7.1.1 Operation and maintenance 1515.7.1.2 Technology purchasing 1515.7.1.3 Local versus international suppliers 1515.7.1.4 One-stop shop versus separate technologies 151

5.7.2 Procurement models 1515.7.2.1 Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) 1525.7.2.2 Design, build, operate and maintain (DBOM) 1525.7.2.3 Acquire, operate and transfer (AOT) 1525.7.2.4 Build, own, operate and maintain (BOOM) versus build, own, operate and transfer (BOOT) 1525.7.2.5 Request for quotation (RFQ) 152

5.7.3 Market entry 1525.7.3.1 Dominance of market players 1525.7.3.2 Market entry potential for smaller/niche players 153

5.8 Market forecast 1545.8.1 Market background 1545.8.2 Overall picture 154

Figure 5.10 Food and beverage industry market forecast, 2011–2025 154Figure 5.11 Food and beverage industry, top country markets, 2013–2017 155

5.8.3 Reference and alternate scenarios 155Figure 5.12 Food and beverage industry, 2011–2017: Reference scenario 155Figure 5.13 Food and beverage industry, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario 156

6. Pharmaceutical 1576.1 Introduction 157

6.1.1 Introduction to the pharmaceutical industry 1576.1.1.1 Consolidation in the pharmaceutical industry 157

6.1.2 Product safety in the pharmaceutical industry 1576.1.3 Processing of pharmaceutical products 157

6.1.3.1 Pharmaceutical products 1576.1.3.2 Pharmaceutical manufacturing processes 158

Figure 6.1 Generalised manufacturing processing steps 1586.1.4 Water in the pharmaceutical industry 158

6.1.4.1 Water consumption in the pharmaceutical industry 1586.2 Process water requirements 159

6.2.1 Pharmacopoeias 1596.2.2 European pharmacopoeia – pharmaceutical grade water 159

Figure 6.2 European pharmacopoeia grades of water 1596.2.3 United States pharmacopoeia – Pharmaceutical grade water 160

Figure 6.3 USP grades of water 160Figure 6.4 USP water for pharmaceutical applications 161

6.2.4 Japanese pharmacopoeia – Pharmaceutical grade water 162Figure 6.5 JP grades of water 162

6.2.5 Pharmaceutical grade water quality standards from USP, Ph. Eur. And JP 162Figure 6.6 Purified water quality standards from USP, Ph. Eur. And JP 162

6.2.5.1 PW comparison 162Figure 6.7 WFI quality standards from USP, Ph. Eur. and JP 163

6.2.5.2 WFI comparison 1636.2.6 Process water overview 163

6.3 Drivers 1636.3.1 Cost 1636.3.2 Brand 164

6.3.2.1 Energy efficiency 1646.3.2.2 Water efficiency 164

6.3.3 Regulations 1646.3.4 Industry trends 164

6.3.4.1 Geographic shift 1646.4 Process water technologies 165

6.4.1 Typical treatment trains 165Figure 6.8 Technology options for treatment steps 165

© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] xxiii

Table of contents

6.4.2 Pretreatment 1666.4.3 Activated carbon filters 1666.4.4 Softeners (ion exchange) 1666.4.5 Disinfection/sanitisation 166

6.4.5.1 Thermal methods 1666.4.5.2 Chemical methods 1666.4.5.3 UV radiation (In-line) 1666.4.5.4 Clean-in-place (CIP) 167

6.4.6 Deionisation 1676.4.7 Membrane based technologies 167

6.4.7.1 UF 1676.4.7.2 RO 1676.4.7.3 Distillation 167

6.4.8 Technology trends 1676.4.8.1 Disinfection technology trends 1676.4.8.2 Distillation technology trends 1686.4.8.3 RO trends 1686.4.8.4 UF/MF/NF trends 1686.4.8.5 Distillation versus membrane based technologies 168

Figure 6.9 Generalised schematic of a pharmaceutical water treatment system 1696.5 Wastewater challenges 170

6.5.1 Wastewater characteristics 1706.5.1.1 Micropollutants 1706.5.1.2 Wastewater microbial loads 170

6.6 Wastewater treatment technologies 1706.6.1 Technology categorisation 170

Figure 6.10 Wastewater treatment technologies 1706.6.1.1 Wastewater treatment trends 171

6.7 Water reuse strategies 1716.7.1 Water reuse in the pharmaceutical industry 171

6.7.1.1 Factors promoting water reuse 1716.7.1.2 Water reuse limitations 171

6.7.2 Water reuse trends 1726.8 Supply chain analysis 172

6.8.1 Procurement process 1726.8.1.1 Technology purchasing and outsourcing process 1726.8.1.2 Operating and maintenance 1726.8.1.3 Local versus international suppliers 1736.8.1.4 One-stop shop versus separate technologies 173

6.8.2 Market entry 1736.8.2.1 Dominance of market players 1736.8.2.2 New entrants 1736.8.2.3 Opportunities for new entrants 174

6.9 Market forecast 174Figure 6.11 Pharmaceutical industry market forecast, 2011–2025 174Figure 6.12 Pharmaceutical industry, top country markets, 2013–2017 175

6.9.1 Reference and alternate scenarios 175Figure 6.13 Pharmaceutical industry market forecast by region, 2011–2017: Reference scenario 175Figure 6.14 Pharmaceutical industry market forecast by region, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario 176

7. Microelectronics 1777.1 Introduction 177

7.1.1 Microelectronics 1777.1.2 The semiconductor manufacturing process 177

Figure 7.1 Steps in the semiconductor manufacturing process 1777.1.3 Manufacturing process trends 178

7.1.3.1 Greater miniaturisation 178Figure 7.2 The continuing miniaturisation of semiconductor devices 178Figure 7.3 Capacity of new fabrication plants by line-width, 2000–2011 179

xxiv © GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]


Figure 7.4 Capacity of new fabrication plants by line-width, 2012–2020 1797.1.3.2 Greater complexity 1797.1.3.3 Larger wafer sizes 180

Figure 7.5 Capacity of new fabrication plants by wafer size, 2000–2011 180Figure 7.6 Capacity of new fabrication plants by wafer size, 2012–2020 180

7.2 Water treatment market drivers in microelectronics 181Figure 7.7 Planned semiconductor plant locations and water scarcity 181

7.3 Process water requirements 1817.3.1 Current industry water consumption 182

Figure 7.8 UPW consumption at semiconductor and FPD fabrication plants 1827.3.2 Industry standards for UPW and treatment for water reuse 182

7.3.2.1 SEMI F63-0211 Guide for ultrapure water used in semiconductor processing 1827.3.2.2 ASTM D5127 Standard Guide for ultrapure water used in the electronics and semiconductor industries 1827.3.2.3 Comparison of SEMI F63 Standard and ASTM D5127 Standard 1827.3.2.4 Future development of UPW standards 1827.3.2.5 How the standards are used 1837.3.2.6 Other microelectronics-related standards 183

7.3.3 ITRS roadmap guidelines – future technology trends 183Figure 7.9 ITRS water consumption: Facilities technology requirements – near-term years 183

7.3.4 Water quality requirements for UPW 1837.3.4.1 UPW requirements for semiconductor manufacturing 183

Figure 7.10 Major contaminants of concern for UPW production 1847.3.4.2 PV high purity water standard 184

Figure 7.11 Comparison of SEMI F63 and SEMI PV3 Standard UPW requirements 1847.4 Desalination technologies for process water 185

7.4.1 Ultrapure water (UPW) technology trends in semiconductor industry 185Figure 7.12 UPW technology train for the semiconductor and PV industries 185

7.4.1.1 Pretreatment 1857.4.1.2 Reverse osmosis 1867.4.1.3 Polishing 186

7.5 Wastewater challenges 1867.5.1 Semiconductor industry wastewater streams 186

Figure 7.13 Wastewater streams generated in the semiconductor industry 1877.5.2 Wastewater treatment challenges in microelectronics manufacturing 1877.5.3 PV industry wastewater characteristics 188

Figure 7.14 PV wastewater streams 1887.6 Water reuse strategies 188

7.6.1 Reuse opportunities at fabrication plants 188Figure 7.15 Water reuse opportunities 189

7.6.1.1 The “50% rule” 189Figure 7.16 Water reuse applications 190

7.6.2 Water reuse trends 1907.6.3 Water reuse at non-semiconductor facilities 190

7.7 Wastewater treatment and water reuse technologies 1907.7.1 Wastewater treatment technologies and future developments. 190

Figure 7.17 Wastewater treatment technologies – conventional and advanced 1917.7.2 Current trends in wastewater treatment in the semiconductor industry 191

7.7.2.1 HF treatment 1917.7.2.2 Metal-bearing wastewater treatment 1917.7.2.3 Ammonia treatment 1917.7.2.4 Caustic and acid wastewater treatment 1917.7.2.5 Concentrated acids treatment 191

7.7.3 Technology trends 1917.7.3.1 Resource recovery 191

7.7.4 Greater rate of wastewater treatment on-site 1927.7.5 Water reuse technologies and trends 192

7.8 Supply chain analysis 1927.8.1 Market entry opportunities 192

© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] xxv

Table of contents

7.8.1.1 Market entry constraints 1927.8.1.2 Routes to the market 1927.8.1.3 “Success factors” for market entry 1937.8.1.4 Upcoming UPW systems market trend 193

7.8.2 Procurement model 1937.8.3 Whole process stream purchase versus one-stop shop 1947.8.4 Local versus global suppliers 1947.8.5 Opportunities for outsourcing operation and maintenance (O&M) 1947.8.6 The competitive landscape: Major water technology companies and equipment providers 194

7.8.6.1 “Tier-one” companies 194Figure 7.18 Major water companies – “tier-one” 194

7.8.6.2 Specialisation of “tier-one companies” 1957.8.7 “Tier-two” companies 1957.8.8 EPC contractors 195

Figure 7.19 Major EPC contractors 1957.8.9 Microelectronics manufacturers 195

Figure 7.20 Top 10 companies by installed capacity (200 mm wafer equivalent), 2012 1957.9 Market trends 196

7.9.1 Currently installed capacity and market trends 196Figure 7.21 Increment to installed capacity, 2000–2017 196

7.9.1.1 Geographical shift 196Figure 7.22 Global installed capacity by country in 2012 197Figure 7.23 Newly added capacity by country, 2012–2017 197

7.9.1.2 FPD and PV market trends 198Figure 7.24 The top 5 PV cell producing countries, 2010 198

7.10 Market forecast 1987.10.1 Fab projects 1987.10.2 Overall picture 198

Figure 7.25 Microelectronics industry market forecast, 2011–2025 1987.10.3 Regional trends 199

Figure 7.26 Microelectronics industry, top country markets, 2013–2017 1997.10.4 Reference and alternate scenarios 199

Figure 7.27 Microelectronics industry, 2011–2017: Reference scenario 200Figure 7.28 Microelectronics industry, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario 200

8. Pulp and paper 2018.1 Introduction 201

8.1.1 Facility classification 2018.2 Process description: Pulping and paper manufacturing process 202

Figure 8.1 Water in the pulp and paper industry 2028.2.1 Pulping process 203

Figure 8.2 Pulp manufacturing process sequence 2038.2.1.1 Mechanical pulping (groundwood pulping) 2038.2.1.2 Chemical pulping 203

8.2.2 Bleaching 2048.2.3 Paper manufacture 204

8.3 Drivers 2048.3.1 Regulation 2048.3.2 Economic drivers 2058.3.3 Boilers 2058.3.4 Environmental sustainability 205

8.4 Geographies 206Figure 8.3 Paper production by region, 1999–2011 206Figure 8.4 Pulp production by region, 1999–2011 206Figure 8.5 Increasing wood pulp production in Brazil and Chile, 1999–2011 207Figure 8.6 Increasing paper production for packaging and construction in China, 1999–2011 207

8.5 Process water requirements 208Figure 8.7 Water use in paper production, by grade and by region 208

8.5.1 Technologies 208

xxvi © GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]


8.6 Wastewater characteristics 209Figure 8.8 Wastewater contaminants in the pulp and paper making process (bleached Kraft chemical pulp) 209

8.6.1 Technologies 210Figure 8.9 General wastewater treatment technologies for the pulp and paper industry 210Figure 8.10 Biological treatment processes by paper grade 210Figure 8.11 Effluent treatment for pulp and paper mills (within CEPI Member Countries, 2008) 211

8.6.2 Water reuse 2118.7 Supply chain analysis 211

8.7.1 One-stop shop or separate technologies? 2128.7.2 International versus local players 2128.7.3 Requirements 2128.7.4 Market players 2128.7.5 Entering the market 213

8.8 Market forecast 2138.8.1 Overall picture 213

Figure 8.12 Pulp and paper industry market forecast, 2011–2025 213Figure 8.13 Pulp and paper industry, top country markets, 2013–2017 214

8.8.2 Reference and alternate scenarios 214Figure 8.14 Pulp and paper industry by region, 2011–2017: Reference scenario 214Figure 8.15 Pulp and paper industry by region, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario 215

9. Mining 2169.1 Introduction to mining 216

9.1.1 Mining methods 2169.1.2 Mining processing 216

Figure 9.1 Mineral ore processing steps 2179.1.3 Water consumption in mining processes 217

Figure 9.2 Water consumption volumes for the processing steps for selected metals 2189.2 Process water requirements 218

9.2.1 Process water sources 2189.2.1.1 Alternate water sources 218

Figure 9.3 Water quality suitability for selected processes 2199.2.2 Process water technologies 219

Figure 9.4 Process water technologies 2199.2.2.1 Desalination technologies for process water 219

9.2.3 Desalination trends 2209.2.3.1 Desalination trends in Chile and Peru 220

Figure 9.5 Main mining operations using desalination or raw seawater in Chile 220Figure 9.6 Mining operations using, or considering the use of, seawater in Chile 220

9.2.3.2 Desalination trends in Australia 221Figure 9.7 Australian mining desalination project examples 221

9.3 Drivers 222Figure 9.8 Selected metal prices, January 2000–June 2012 222

9.3.1 Water scarcity 223Figure 9.9 Locations of currently operating mines 223

9.3.2 Regulations 223Figure 9.10 Main regulatory requirements in the mining operation life cycle 224

9.3.3 Low grade ores and tailings recovery 2249.4 Wastewater challenges 224

9.4.1 Acid rock drainage (ARD) 2249.4.2 Mine closures 225

9.5 Wastewater treatment technologies 226Figure 9.11 Wastewater treatment technologies 226

9.5.1 Wastewater technology trends 2269.5.1.1 Metal recovery from waste streams 2269.5.1.2 Zero liquid discharge (ZLD) 227

9.6 Water reuse strategies 2279.6.1 Water reuse options 227

9.6.1.1 Direct wastewater reuse 227

© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] xxvii

Table of contents

9.6.1.2 Treated wastewater reuse 2279.6.2 Off-site water reuse 227

9.7 Supply chain analysis 2289.7.1 Procurement process 228

9.7.1.1 Procurement options 2289.7.1.2 Operating, maintenance and outsourcing 2289.7.1.3 Partnership and teaming agreements 2299.7.1.4 One-stop shop versus separate technologies 229

9.7.2 Market players 2309.7.2.1 Engineering programme management firms 2309.7.2.2 Water equipment companies 230

9.7.3 Market entry 2309.7.3.1 Market presence 2319.7.3.2 Barriers to entry 2319.7.3.3 Dominance of market players 2319.7.3.4 Market entry potential for smaller/niche players 231

9.8 Market forecast 2329.8.1 Mining projects 232

Figure 9.12 An overview of future mining projects 2329.8.2 Referance and alternate scenarios 2339.8.3 Overall picture 233

Figure 9.13 Mining industry market forecast, 2011-2025 233Figure 9.14 Mining industry, top country markets, 2013–2017 234Figure 9.15 Mining industry, regional markets, 2013–2017 234

9.8.4 Seawater desalination 235Figure 9.16 Mining industry, seawater desalination, 2011–2017: Reference scenario 235Figure 9.17 Mining industry, seawater desalination, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario 235

9.8.5 Water and wastewater treatment ex. seawater desalination 236Figure 9.18 Mining industry, water and ww treatment ex. seawater desalination, 2011-2017: Reference scenario 236Figure 9.19 Mining industry, water and ww treatment ex, seawater desalination, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario 236

Interviewees 237

References 238

© GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected] 1

Market and technology overview // Introduction

1. Market and technology overview1.1 IntroductionThis report focuses on the opportunities for water treatment technologies which remove dissolved solids from water, either to provide high quality process water or to separate them from an effluent stream. It also covers other advanced water treatment technologies which enable a low quality raw water source to be used for a higher quality application. In that sense it takes a broad view of desalination and water reuse. The main applications we are concerned with are:

• The treatment of raw water to ultrapure water standard, that is to say deionised and mineral free water, with no organic contaminants, and low conductivity. Typically it is used as boiler feedwater, or process water for the semi-conductor or pharmaceutical industries (the required purity varies depending on application).

• The treatment of industrial wastewater containing dissolved solids enabling it to be reused or disposed of without harm to the environment.

• The use of seawater as a feedwater for industrial purposes necessitated by the lack of an alternative.

• The use, more broadly, of advanced water technologies in the eight most water intensive industries (power, oil and gas, petrochemicals, mining, food & beverage and pharmaceutical).

This last bullet point makes the scope of the report extremely broad, and well beyond what would normally be described as desalination and water reuse. The problem is, however, that it is very difficult to distinguish between the technologies which might be used in the once-through use of water in an industrial process (i.e. from water intake to effluent outfall) and those technologies which might be used to enable water to be recycled within a plant. This is particularly true of boiler feedwater or cooling water which might be continuously treated and recirculated (with the occasional removal of blowdown).

The report is trying to highlight the way in which water intensive industries are investing in water technologies that enable them to use water more efficiently, in terms of the quality and quantity of the raw water they draw from the environment; the quality and quantity of the wastewater they return to the environment; and the efficiency with which the water used in between meets the requirements of the processes in which it is involved. In that sense the report could be renamed “water efficiency for industry”, that would however be too broad a title, because water efficiency in industry involves a lot more than water treatment technologies.

1.2 Market drivers

1.2.1 Water scarcityThe most significant driver of expenditure on water technology is the growing issue of water scarcity. Essentially there is a fixed supply of freshwater in the world, but demand increases with population growth and economic activity. The unequal distribution of water supply and demand makes the situation worse. Population and economic growth in areas with limited freshwater resources such as North East China, Gujarat, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu in India, the energy economies of the Gulf and North Africa, Texas, and the South Western United States, Mexico, Chile and Western Australia has pushed the water scarcity issue up the business agenda over the past decade. Different businesses for different reasons have realised simultaneously that water represents a significant risk factor with the potential to impact their profitability in the long term.

1.2.1.1 Case study: Coca-Cola and brand risk

Hindustan Coca-Cola bottling facility was set up in Plachimada, Kerala state in India in 1999. Over subsequent years local farmers became increasingly concerned about declining groundwater availability in the area, with some being forced to abandon farming because they could no longer get enough water. They connected the lack of water availability with the arrival of the bottling operation, and an international activist campaign to close down the bottling factory began. In 2003 the courts ordered the bottling facility to cease operations. However, despite the closure of the facility, the farmers continued to experience declining groundwater availability.

The reality of the situation in Plachimada was that the water table was sinking because the local farmers were pumping more water than water recharged each year through rainfall. If the bottling factory site were to be given over to rice paddy, its ground water withdrawal would probably be double the 500 m³/d that the bottling factory withdrew. In fact the High Court in India ruled that Hindustan Coca-Cola was entitled to use more water than it did according to the acreage of land that it held. The problem for Coca-Cola was that by the time it needed to make these arguments it was already too late. The international campaign against the company was already underway. If you Google “Coca-Cola”, “Water” and “India”, the first ten sites listed are linked to the campaign against the corporation, and suggest that the company was responsible for pumping the aquifer dry and forcing farmers off the land. The point is that actual water availability was not the issue. There was never any real danger that Hindustan Coca-Cola could not get access to the water it needed: if the water table sank, it could drill a deeper well and install a bigger pump.

2 © GWI no copying without permission. Contact [email protected]


It could out-compete other users for access to water. The real issue was that a corporation cannot be seen to be in competition with the local community for water resources, and the reputational risk of being seen to be on the wrong side of a water dispute is far greater than the $16 million cost of the bottling plant at Plachimada.

The Plachimada case was the wake up call for all consumer brands which used water. It led to a number of actions being taken:

• Fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies began to audit their water usage to assess whether there were any production facilities where there was potential conflict with the local community over water usage.

• Many FMCG companies began to measure and set targets for their water usage, to ensure that they were seen to be taking action on the issue.

• Some FMCG companies (such as PepsiCo), became involved in projects to enable people in developing countries to have better access to safe drinking water.

1.2.1.2 Case Study: Tia Maria

Tia Maria is a proposed copper mine located near the city of Arequipa in Southern Peru. It requires an investment of $949 billion, and will produce 120,000 tons of copper per year but it is located in an area where water is a contentious issue. When the project was first proposed, the developer, Southern Copper, suggested diverting surface water into a lake which would then be used to supply the mine, with the wastewater treated and returned to the rivers. This proposal attracted protests, so the mine developer then proposed a seawater desalination plant at the coast, with a pipeline to supply the mine. The wastewater would be treated and returned to the environment. This proposal might have augmented water supplies in the region, but it continued to attract violent protests, with community activists claiming that the risk of contaminating local water supplies remained. The protesters blocked a highway, precipitating a conflict with the police which ended with the death of two protesters (a third was killed at an earlier stage of the protests) and the injury of 30 others. At that point the government rejected the proposed environmental impact assessment of the mine, but the protests against it continued. In December the prime minister of Peru was forced out of office as a result of continuing opposition to Tia Maria and other mining projects.

Although there has undoubtedly been an economic subtext to the protests (the local community complains that it does not see direct benefits from the mining, but drawing attention to the potential environmental threat posed by the mine is a more effective means of winning wider support for the cause), the protests have highlighted the importance of good water stewardship in the mining industry. The fact that not even a seawater desalination plant which would ensure that the mine was independent of the local watershed for its water supply could convince protesters that the mine was not a threat to their water supplies illustrates the fact that there is an assumption that mining companies cannot be trusted with water. The major international mining companies have realised that they need to correct this perception, and many have made good water stewardship an important part of their corporate culture. Some now go far beyond what might be expected of them by regulations alone, and have made it part of their competitive advantage. For example Fortescue Metals has an iron ore mine in Pilbara region of Western Australia which not only has a strongly positive water balance (i.e. water needs continuously to be pumped out of the mine), but it also borders on a sensitive salt marsh environment. The company has brought in the local aboriginal community to help manage water resources on the site, ensuring that the mine operations have a zero impact on the salt marsh. The combination of good water stewardship and local community involvement benefits the company not only in terms of brand image, but also in terms of the obstacles it is likely to face when it goes though the permitting process to develop new mine sites.

What applies to the mining industry applies equally to the upstream oil and gas industry. Water stewardship is increasingly being recognised as an important license to operate issue, but also as a means of speeding up the political approval process that all natural resources companies must go through as they expand operations.

As scarcity becomes more acute, the scope for water to become hold up natural resources projects is expanding.

1.2.1.3 Case study: the semiconductor industry in Taiwan

Coca-Cola in Plachimada and the Tia Maria copper mine in Peru are examples of how water scarcity is creating significant financial risks for companies long before physical water scarcity becomes absolute. In both cases the central problem has been where an industrial user has found itself in competition with the local community for water resources, and public opinion either directly through brand relationships or indirectly through the political process, is important for the financial success of the business.

Our third case study will look at an industry which does not rely to the same extent on public consent in order to operate, but where physical water availability is a direct threat to its operation.

Taiwan is one of the most water rich countries in the world in terms of average annual rainfall. Unfortunately most of this rain falls during the annual typhoon season and washes out to sea as quickly as it arrives. The island’s rivers are short, and it has little storage capacity in dams and lakes (not least because dams were weakened by an earthquake in 1999). 70% of the country’s water use is in agriculture (which contributes less than 2% to GDP), and domestic water use is relatively high at 272 l/head/d. This leaves its semiconductor industry exposed in the event of a drought.


Market and technology overview // Market drivers

The Hsinchu Science and Industrial Park is home to two of the world’s largest silicon chip foundries: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co, and United Microelectronics Co. These businesses, which are an essential part of the supply chain for the global microelectronics industry, have been threatened with closure as a result of severe droughts twice in the past ten years. After the first scare in 2002, the industry started to invest heavily in water efficient technologies from rainwater capture to the recycling of process water and the use of seawater desalination for feedwater, but when drought returned in 2011, the savings made where insufficient, and share prices fell in anticipation of a shut down. Fortunately, water availability never deteriorated to the point at which chip foundries had to be taken off line, but the microelectronics industry did need to appeal to the government for additional support. Chip foundries are extraordinarily exposed to water outages. A silicon wafer can take 12 weeks to build up, and an outage – even for a few seconds – towards the end of a production cycle can cost tens of millions of dollars. A complete water outage for a longer period of time would have a significant impact on the global supply chain.

Similarly, the power industry in many parts of the world has been threatened by severe drought in the past. For example, falling water levels on Lake Mead behind the Hoover dam on the Colorado River in 2010 threatened to leave the intakes for the dam’s 2,080 MW hydroelectric power station exposed. This would have had a significant impact on the spot power market in the western United States. Although water continued to flow over the Hoover Dam, power production fell by 20% as the head of water behind the dam shrank.

1.2.2 Water riskOver the past five years there has been a widespread realisation that water risk is a growing threat. Water issues have become a boardroom issue for most major companies, and those companies which have not identified their exposure to the potential problem are being encouraged to do so by shareholder groups such as Ceres in the US and the Carbon Disclosure Project’s Water project, which is supported by the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund in Europe. Companies are being asked to report their water usage, what they are doing to reduce it, and how they assess the risks associated with it.

One of the problems for the burgeoning water risk assessment industry is that there is no clear and simple measure of water risk. Whereas it is a relatively straightforward exercise to calculate a carbon footprint, measuring the impact and inherent risk in water usage is much more complex because water is essentially a local issue. For example, a paper mill may use a lot of water but this is not a significant water risk if the mill is located in Canada or Finland, but it is a potential problem if the mill is located on the Yangtse River in China. Furthermore a power station with a once through cooling circuit uses a very large volume of water, but almost all of it is returned to the body of water from whence it came: measuring the volume of water and the quality of that water as it is returned to the environment is also an important aspect of measuring the impact of water usage.

Veolia has proposed a Water Impact Index to measure the impact of an individual industrial facility. It would be calculated as a function of the scarcity of water in the location where the water is withdrawn, the quality and quantity of water removed from nature, and the quality and quantity of water returned to nature. Thus a facility which uses a lot of water in a dry place need not have a high water impact if the source of water for the facility is municipal wastewater, but a facility located in an area of abundant water can still have a high water impact if the wastewater returned to the environment is insufficiently treated. This concept has yet to catch on broadly within industry, but it is likely that companies will move towards a facility by facility based approach which takes into account the context of the water withdrawals and the wastewater returns, as the debate on water risk continues.

Corporate interest in water risk is unlikely to wane in the same way that corporate carbon footprinting has become less of a priority as governments have failed to agree on caps on carbon emissions. Global warming is an issue for the next century, while water is an issue for today.

1.2.3 The Global Water Risk IndexGWI’s contribution to the assessment of water risk in industry has been to develop the Global Water Risk Index. This divides the world into 70,000 squares, then maps water availability in each square against projected water demand over the years until 2030, plotting the location of major water users including power stations, refineries, semiconductor foundries, paper mills as well as agricultural water withdrawals.

The supply side of the equation is illustrated in the following figure:



Figure 1.1 Global Water Risk Index: global water supply

Source: Global Water Risk Index, GWI, 2011

The demand side of the equation is as follows:

Figure 1.2 Global Water Risk Index: global water demand in 2030


Using a software simulation the Index then calculates the risk of water “running out” in any one of the 70,000 pixels over the years to 2030.


Market and technology overview // Membrane filtration

Figure 1.3 Global Water Risk Index: water risk in 2030


The Global Water Risk Index would need to be matched with facility location information if it were to be useful as a corporate water risk assessment tool. However, from the point of view of this report, it gives a good indication of where scarcity is likely to be the strongest driver of investment in water technology.

1.2.4 Other drivers of water technology investmentAlthough scarcity is the overarching reason why companies are investing more in water technology other issues are also playing a part:

• Regulation: There are very few places in the world today where polluters can pollute with impunity. Russia for example used to be highly tolerant of water pollution, but it is now forcing companies to meet higher regulatory standards. It is reported that Russia is currently the most buoyant market in Europe for wastewater treatment systems for oil refineries. China too has become serious about environmental protection: the issue has been identified as a potential obstacle to its continued economic growth. In countries which have long traditions of environmental protection, regulation can still be an important driver of investment, as new contaminants such as pharmaceutical by-products move onto the regulatory agenda. Typically, as concerns about the purity of wastewater become more extreme, so the cost of addressing them rises exponentially.

• Process efficiency: Water is a widely used raw material in industry, and the way in which it is treated can have a significant impact on process efficiency. This is particularly true of boiler feedwater, and ultrapure water for the microelectronics and pharmaceutical industries. As power generators look to improve the efficiency of their steam turbines, they typically look to operate at higher temperatures and pressures, which puts increasing demands on water quality. Similarly in the semiconductor industry as silicon wafers get larger, and the fabrication plants get larger, so the purity of water required increases.

• Complex wastewaters: As the lowest cost natural resources are used up, so we turn to more marginal resources such as shale gas and oil sands which bring with them more challenging wastewaters which require more complex treatment.

The next section of this report looks at the technologies relevant to industrial desalination and water reuse.

1.3 Membrane filtrationMembrane technologies allow dissolved and suspended solids to be separated from a feedwater stream. A pressure gradient forces water molecules through the membrane from a more concentrated solution to a less concentrated solution.

There are several terms which are useful when discussing membrane filtration:

• Feedwater is the solution which enters the membrane system.

• Permeate, or filtrate, is the solution that passes through the membrane. This is less concentrated than the feedwater.

• Retentate, or concentrate, is the solution that does not pass through the membrane. This is more concentrated than the feedwater.



1.3.1 Microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranesMicrofiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF) membranes are used to remove particles that are suspended in a solution. This technology is used in the treatment of drinking water, as a pretreatment process for reverse osmosis membranes, and to produce a concentrated waste stream.

Figure 1.4 A microfiltration membrane removes suspended solids

1

3

2

Source: GWI

An MF/UF membrane is constructed from bundles of fibres. The gaps between the fibres are the filtering mechanism of the membrane.

1. Particles that are too large to fit through the gaps are retained by the membrane.

2. Water molecules, and smaller particles, are able to fit through the gaps and pass through the membrane.

3. Particles that are similar in size to the gaps between the fibres may be retained by interactions with fibres inside the pores.

Figure 1.5 Dead-end and cross-flow membrane modules

Feedwater

Material builds up on membrane

Permeate

Lifts material off membrane

Permeate

Air pulse

Normal operation BackwashingDead-end filter:

Cross-flow filter:

Permeate

Feedwater Concentrate

Source: Flynn, 2009

There are two possible system designs:

• In a dead-end configuration, feedwater f lows under pressure towards the membrane surface. Water molecules, and smaller particles, pass through the membrane. Larger particles are retained by the membrane and build up on the membrane surface. Over time the build up of material on the membrane surface will cause the flow of water through the membrane to drop. To remove this material, permeate is backwashed, i.e. f lushed back through the membrane.

• In a cross-flow configuration, the feedwater f lows parallel to the surface of the membrane. Water molecules travel through the membrane to a more dilute solution, leaving behind a more concentrated solution. The membrane will


Market and technology overview // Membrane filtration

not need to be cleaned as frequently as the dead-end system, because the flow of the feedwater will remove built up material from the membrane surface.

The size of the particles that are retained by the membrane is defined by the pore size of the membrane. The pore size describes the size of the gaps between the membrane fibres. The typical pore size for an MF membrane is 0.1–0.2 µm, and for a UF membrane is 0.01–0.05 µm.

UF membranes may also be defined by the molecular weight cut off (MWCO) of the membrane. The MWCO describes the minimum atomic weight of the molecules that are retained by the membrane. This definition does not take into account the shape of the molecules, or the operating conditions of the membrane, and therefore is not a perfect description of membrane performance. The typical MWCO of an UF membrane used in water treatment is 100,000 Daltons.

The flow through the membrane will be reduced by the build-up of material on the surface of the membrane. This material can be removed by flushing the permeate back through the membrane. The potential build up of material on the membrane surface can also be reduced by prefiltering the feedwater. These methods are summarised in the following figure:

Figure 1.6 Build up of material on ultrafiltration membranes, and cleaning processes

Fouling type Cause Cleaning methods Pretreatment methodsParticulate Suspended and

colloidal solidsFlushing permeate through the membrane

Sedimentation, depth filtration, coagulation

Biological Growth of microbes and bacteria

Flushing permeate mixed with biocidal chemicals (e.g. Cl2, H2O2)

Adding biocidal chemicals, eliminating nutrients needed for growth

Inorganic Precipitation of salts Flushing permeate mixed with strong acid (e.g. HCl, H2SO4)

Depth filtration, oxidation

Organic Organic material attaching to membrane surface

Flushing permeate mixed with strong alkali (e.g. NaOH)

Coagulation, removing material with activated carbon

Source: Dow Ultrafiltration Product Manual, Dow Chemical Company, April 2011

1.3.2 Reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranesReverse osmosis (RO) and nanofiltration (NF) membranes are used to remove dissolved solids from feedwater. This technology can be used to remove dissolved salts from seawater, prepare wastewater for groundwater recharge, and water softening. It is a required pretreatment step for any process that will be adversely affected by the presence of dissolved solids, and is an alternative to chemical water softening processes.

The movement of water molecules between solutions of different concentrations is described below:

• Osmosis is the movement of water molecules through a semi-permeable membrane, from a solution with a lower concentration of dissolved solids to a solution with a higher concentration of dissolved solids. If the solutions on both sides of the membrane are at equal pressures, osmosis will continue until the concentrations on both sides of the membrane are equal.

• Osmotic pressure is the pressure that must be applied to the more concentrated solution to prevent the movement of water molecules through the membrane. If the difference in the concentration of dissolved solids is 100 mg/l the osmotic pressure will be 1 psi (6.9 kPa).

Reverse osmosis gets its name from the direction that the water molecules travel. Water molecules travel from a more concentrated to a less concentrated solution. The process is described in more detail below:



Figure 1.7 Removal of dissolved solids by reverse osmosis

PermeateFeed

More concentrated Less concentrated

More concentratedLess concentrated

Reverse osmosis:

Transport of water moleculesacross a membrane by osmosis:

Water molecule

Dissolved contaminant

Diagram key

Source: GWI

1. Feedwater enters the RO module under pressure. To force the water molecules to pass through the membrane, the pressure must be greater than the osmotic pressure between the feedwater and permeate.

2. Water molecules pass through the membrane, but dissolved solids do not. This produces a dilute permeate solution and a highly concentrated brine solution.

3. This process can be repeated in two ways:

• In a concentrate staging system, the concentrated brine solution becomes the feedwater for the next membrane. This configuration increases the volume of pure water that can be produced by the system.

• In a permeate staging system, the dilute permeate becomes the feedwater for the next membrane. This configuration decreases the salinity of the water that is produced by the system.

4. The flow of water through the membrane will decrease as organic material, bacteria, and precipitated solids build up on the membrane surface. If the flow through the membrane drops by 10%, the membrane is taken out of service and the surface is cleaned with a solution of extreme pH. A typical membrane will need to be cleaned four times a year.

The build of material on the surface of the membrane can be reduced if the feedwater is passed through an MF membrane before it reaches the RO module. Suspended solids can be removed from the surface of the membrane by periodically f lushing the permeate back through the membrane.

Unlike an MF/UF membrane, an RO/NF membrane does not have clearly defined pores. The removal of dissolved solids is defined by the molecular weight cut off (MWCO) of the membrane. An RO membrane will retain molecules with an atomic weight greater than 300 Daltons. An NF membrane will retain molecules with an atomic weight between 300 and 1,000 Daltons. A reverse osmosis membrane will also reject charged molecules.

Molecules with a greater ionic charge are more likely to be retained by the membrane. An NF membrane will retain 50% of monovalent ions (Na+, Cl–) and 90% of divalent ions (Ca2+, Mg2+). An RO membrane will retain 96% of monovalent ions and 98% of divalent ions.

The polymers in an NF membrane are more permeable to dissolved solids than in an RO membrane. An RO membrane will reject over 96% of dissolved sodium chloride, whereas an NF membrane will only reject 75%. NF membranes operate at lower pressures than RO membranes, and are used when a high removal of dissolved salts is not essential.


Market and technology overview // Electrical charge separation

1.4 Electrical charge separationThe following terms are useful when considering technologies that separate contaminants by their electrical charge:

• Anion: A negatively-charged ion. It will be attracted to a positively-charged electrode, the anode.

• Cation: A positively-charged ion. It will be attracted to a negatively-charged electrode, the cathode.

1.4.1 Ion exchangeIon exchange (IX) is used in water softening (the removal of dissolved salts), nitrogen removal, heavy metal removal and demineralisation. When salts are dissolved in a solution they dissociate, separating into their constituent ions. These ions can be removed through their interactions with a charged resin.

An ion exchange resin is made up of insoluble, electrically-neutral, polymer beads. Throughout these beads there are charged compounds permanently attached to the polymer. These compounds are the exchange sites at which ion exchange takes place. This process is described below:

Figure 1.8 Ion exchange process

–

Ca2+

Na+

––

–

– –

–

Exchange site

Polymer

Counter ion

1

2

Source: Asano et al., 2007

1. The exchange site, or functional group, has an ion of opposite charge that is ready to be exchanged. These ions are known as counter or mobile ions.

2. An ion from the solution with a higher charge or atomic mass will displace the ion already at the exchange site.

3. This process will continue until charges on the counter ions in the solution and the charges on the counter ions in the resin are in equilibrium.

4. The resin is regenerated by washing with an acid, base, or salt solution. An acid or salt solution will provide positive ions (e.g. H+, Na+) for exchange at a negative site. A base solution will provide negative ions (e.g. OH–) for exchange at a negative exchange site. The concentration of the solution used must be high enough to overcome the attraction of the higher charged ion that is already at the exchange site.

To remove positive ions, the exchange site is negative and the counter ion is positive. This is a cation exchange resin. To remove negative ions, the exchange site is positive and the counter ion is negative. This is an anion exchange resin.

The ion exchange resin will be blocked by organic material and colloidal solids. These contaminants can be removed by chemical pretreatment and microfiltration, respectively.

The exchange capacity defines the efficiency of a particular resin material by representing the equivalent mass of ions that can be extracted by 1 kg of resin (or alternatively from 1 l of water). The equivalent mass of the ion is the mass that will displace 1 mole of calcium carbonate (CaCO3).



Figure 1.9 Types of resins and their applications

Type of resins Applications Advantages DisadvantagesStrong Acid Cation (SAC)

Water softening Operate at any pH

Remove all dissolved solids positively charged

Resistant to high temperatures

Require substantial volumes of regeneration chemicalDemineralisation:

First unit in two bed demineraliser

Cation component of a mixed bedWeak Acid Cation (WAC)

Dealkalisation, in combination with a SAC resin:

WAC resin bed removes cation associated with alkalinity.

SAC resin bed then removes cations associated with hardness

Needs smaller volume of acid to be regenerated than SAC resin

Can be regenerated by the waste acid coming from the SAC unit to reduce regeneration cost

Operate with solution with a pH > 3

Strong Base Anion (SBA)

Dealkalisation/ Silica removal / Sulphate removal

Type 1: used on water with high alkalinity and high silica

Operate at any pH

Total anion removal on all waters

Resistant to high temperatures

More difficult to regenerate than type 2

Type 2: used on water with chlorides and sulphates

Operate at any pH Less effective in removing silica and carbon dioxide in waters where these components represent > 30% of the total anions

Weak Base Anion (WBA)

Used on water with high level of sulphates or chlorides

When removal of alkalinity and/or silica is not required

Operate in acidic solution (pH < 5)

Regeneration can be made with waste caustic from a SBA unit

Source: GWI

1.4.2 ElectrodialysisCharged particles can be removed from water f lowing between two electrodes by an alternating series of ion selective membranes. In this process, an ion exchange resin is used as a membrane that will permit particles of a certain charge to pass through it.


Market and technology overview // Electrical charge separation

Figure 1.10 An electrodialysis cell

Anode flushing

Cathode flushing

+

A

C

A

A

C

C

Dilute stream

Concentrated stream

Dilute stream

Concentrated stream

Dilute stream

+

– –

Anode (+)

Cathode (–)

+ +

– –

+ +

– –

Feed

Recycled concentrate

Feed

Recycled concentrate

Feed

A: Anion selective membrane

C: Cation selective membrane

Key

Source: Asano et al., 2007; GWI

• Water is passed through a series of compartments constructed from anion- and cation-selective membranes. A current is passed through the cell, perpendicular to the direction of the water f low.

• An anion in the feedwater solution will be attracted to the anode. It will pass through an anion-selective membrane, but will be stopped by the cathode-selective membrane that follows it.

• The feedwater solution will be separated into dilute and concentrated streams. The charged particles will be trapped in the concentrated stream by the anion- and cation-selective membranes.

• The dilute stream will be removed for use elsewhere in the plant. The concentrated stream will be recirculated to maintain the pressure in the system.

There are two variants to this system, electrodialysis reversal (EDR) and electrodeionisation (EDI).

1.4.2.1 Electrodialysis reversal

An electrodialysis cell can be cleaned if the current that is passed through the system is periodically reversed.

• When the current is reversed, the charged particles in the solution will reverse direction. Ions that have built up on the surface of the selective membranes are removed by the reversal of current.

• This reversal also switches the positions of the dilute and concentrated streams. The waste material that has built up in the concentrated stream is now flushed out by the dilute stream.

• For a short period after the reversal, product water is not collected from the dilute stream. This allows the system time to adjust.

1.4.2.2 Electrodeionisation

In an electrodeionisation (EDI) system, the dilute and concentrated stream compartments are filled with an ion exchange resin. This resin improves the transfer of ions in low strength between compartments.

This system does not require water to be recirculated to flush contaminants from the system. Near the outlet of the cell, where the salinity in the dilute compartment is lowest, the applied current separates the water into H+ and OH– ions. These ions are used to regenerate the exchange sites in the ion exchange resin. This reduces the need for chemicals to be flushed through the system.



1.4.2.3 Problems

In all of these processes, the charge-selective membranes will be blocked by the build of organic material and particles in suspension. Pretreatment with ultrafiltration membranes will remove suspended solids, and RO membranes will remove salts with low solubility. Chemical pretreatment will reduce the build up of organic material on the membranes.

1.5 Seawater desalination technologiesIn areas of the world where the supply of freshwater is limited, extracting freshwater from seawater by desalination becomes economically viable. The most common technologies used for seawater desalination are reverse osmosis (SWRO), multi-effect distillation (MED) and multi-stage flash evaporation (MSF). Thermal processes, including MED and MSF, are able to produce product water with a lower concentration of dissolved solids than reverse osmosis. MED and MSF systems require a large input of energy to evaporate the seawater. These processes are most commonly used when there is a cheap source of steam to heat the seawater.

1.5.1 Reverse osmosis (SWRO)Producing freshwater from seawater by reverse osmosis requires the feedwater to be under a high pressure. The osmotic pressure that is required to prevent the movement of water molecules across a membrane is related to the difference in concentration between the solutions on each side of the membrane. The pressure that is required for SWRO is far greater than the pressure required for industrial water treatment applications.

The typical salinity of seawater is 35,000 mg/l of dissolved salt. A single SWRO module will recover less water than an RO module processing industrial water with a salinity of 1,000 mg/l. To achieve a similar level of water recovery, and a similar permeate salinity, will require several RO modules to be connected in series. A greater amount of energy is required to produce the same amount of water.

The temperature of seawater is typically higher than that of freshwater. An increase in the temperature of the feedwater to an RO membrane will increase the proportion of water that is recovered. A temperature increase represents an increase in the energy of the water molecules in solution and the rate of osmosis across the membrane. The more energetic molecules require less pressure to force them through the membrane, resulting in a lower energy consumption and a higher water recovery. An increase in temperature also increases the rate at which dissolved salts are transported across the membrane, increasing the salinity of the permeate. Higher temperatures increase the rate of membrane degradation, increasing the cost of maintaining and replacing the membranes.

It is necessary to reach a balance between the required levels of water recovery and salt rejection. Where seawater temperatures are high, for example in the Persian Gulf, the RO permeate quality may not be sufficient. If there is a cheap source of energy, it would be more cost efficient to use a thermal process for desalination.

1.5.2 Multiple-effect distillation (MED)Multiple-effect distillation (MED) produces water with a low concentration of dissolved salts. Seawater is sprayed into a distillation chamber and vaporised on contact with a steam-filled heat exchanger. The resulting vapour is condensed through interaction with the incoming seawater. Several distillation chambers are arranged in series, each at a progressively lower pressure. Decreasing the pressure also decreases the temperature at which the water boils.

Heating the seawater requires a large input of energy. MED will only be cost effective when there is a cheap source of steam that can be used to evaporate the water. The process is also cost effective when a high purity product is required, and the contaminants in the water cannot be removed by any other method.


Market and technology overview // Seawater desalination technologies

Figure 1.11 The multi-effect distillation process with three distillation chambers

Product

Concentrate

Feed

Condensate to boiler

Steamfrom boiler

1

32

5

6

4


1. In the first distillation chamber, preheated feedwater is sprayed onto a heat exchanger carrying steam from an external boiler. The feedwater forms a thin film on the surface of the heat exchanger.

2. The thin film of seawater boils. The resulting vapour is moved to the next distillation chamber. The remaining concentrated brine is collected in the bottom of the distillation chamber and removed.

3. In the second distillation chamber, the preheated feedwater is sprayed onto a heat exchanger carrying the vaporised water from the previous chamber (step 2). The thin film of seawater that forms on the heat exchange is vaporised and introduced to the next distillation chamber. The remaining brine concentrate is collected and removed.

4. The vapour inside the heat exchanger loses heat to the cooler feedwater and condenses on the inside of the heat exchanger tubes. This demineralised water is collected.

5. In the final distillation chamber, steps 3 and 4 are repeated.

6. The vapour that is produced in the final chamber is used to preheat the feedwater before it enters the distillation chambers. During this process, the water condenses on the inside of the tube and the demineralised water is collected.

Scale-forming compounds precipitate on the heat exchange surfaces during the evaporation process. The build up of these compounds reduces the efficiency of the heat transfer process. Controlling the pH of the feedwater reduces the level of scale caused by carbonate and hydroxide compounds. The scale can be removed from the heat exchange surfaces by chemical cleaning with strong acids. If the end user requires a product that is free from added chemicals, reverse osmosis can be used to remove scale forming compounds that are dissolved in the feedwater

The energy efficiency of the distillation process can be improved by using a vapour compressor to provide the temperature difference between the feedwater and the vapour. This process is described in more detail in section 1.6.1.

1.5.3 Multi-stage flash evaporation (MSF)Multi-stage flash evaporation (MSF) produces water with a low concentration of dissolved salts. Preheated seawater is pumped into a series of evaporation chambers at progressively lower pressures. The decrease in pressure causes a decrease in the boiling temperature of the seawater. In each chamber, a proportion of the seawater is f lashed into a vapour. Flashing is the boiling of a liquid caused by a decrease in pressure.

MSF has similar limitations to MED, for it requires a large energy input. This technology will be most cost effective where there is a cheap source of waste heat, and when there is no other way to remove the dissolved contaminants.



Figure 1.12 Multi-stage flash evaporation process with three evaporation chambers

Feed

Product

Concentrate

Steamfrom boiler

Condensate to boiler

1

4

3

Pressure decrease Boiling temperature decrease

2


1. Seawater is pretreated to remove suspended solids and dissolved gases. The seawater is heated by passing through a heat exchanger carrying steam from an external boiler.

2. The heated seawater is pumped into the first evaporation chamber. The decrease in pressure causes a decrease in the boiling temperature of the seawater. The sudden decrease in boiling temperature causes some of the seawater to vaporise, leaving behind a more concentrated solution.

3. The vapour condenses on the heat exchanger tubes carrying the cooler seawater. This process also heats the incoming seawater before it reaches the main boiler in step 1.

4. The resulting demineralised water is collected. The concentrated water that is produced in step 2 is introduced to the next evaporation chamber. Vapour is produced in the next chamber by the decrease in pressure.

1.6 High recovery technologiesWater that contains a high concentration of dissolved and suspended contaminants cannot be discharged without further treatment. The following technologies separate the dissolved solids from highly concentrated wastewater. The solids can be removed by continuously evaporating the water in a brine concentrator and removing the crystals that form in rapidly cooling water in a crystalliser. Water can be removed mechanically by compressing the concentrated wastewater in a filter press. Energy for these processes can be produced without an external source of heat by compressing the water vapour.

The level of water recovery that is required is dependent on the environmental regulations concerning discharge of wastewater, and the relative costs of transporting or processing the wastewater. The technologies that are used will depend on the purity of water that is required for discharge and reuse. A typical process chain might include:

• Water from a reverse osmosis module introduced to a brine concentrator.

• Concentrate from the brine concentrator reduced in a crystalliser.

• Highly concentrated sludge from the crystalliser dewatered in a filter press.

There are two terms that are commonly found when discussing high recovery technologies:

• A high recovery technology will recover more than 92% of feedwater, and minimise the volume of the concentrated waste.

• A zero-liquid discharge (ZLD) technology will ensure that no liquid will leave the boundary of the facility.

It is worth remembering that a ZLD technology is usually a high recovery technology, but that high recovery does not imply that the technology is ZLD.


Market and technology overview // High recovery technologies

1.6.1 Vapour compressionVapour compression provides energy for distillation without an external source of heat. This technology can be used to produce water with a low concentration of dissolved salts in places where there is no cheap source of steam to heat the feedwater. The temperature difference that is required for evaporation to take place is introduced by a mechanical compressor.

An increase in the vapour pressure also increases the temperature of the vapour. The temperature difference between the compressed vapour and the incoming feedwater provides the heat that is needed to evaporate the feedwater, leaving behind a concentrated solution.

Figure 1.13 Vapour compression evaporation process

Vapourcompressor

Feed

Concentrate

Product

1

3

2

4


1. The feedwater is preheated by the warmer product and concentrate streams.

2. The heated feedwater is sprayed onto a heat exchanger containing steam from the compressor, where it forms a thin film. Heat from the steam vaporises the film of water, leaving a concentrated solution.

3. The resulting vapour is compressed and introduced to the heat exchanger. The increase in pressure raises the condensation temperature of the water vapour. The water vapour condenses on the inside of the heat exchanger tube, losing energy to the cooler feedwater on the outside of the tube.

4. The product water is collected from the condensed water vapour. The concentrated solution produced in step 2 is regularly discharged to prevent a build up of salt.

The mechanical compressor allows evaporation to take place at a lower temperature than traditional distillation. The lower temperature reduces scale formation and the precipitation of dissolved solids. The same technology can be used to provide heat for a brine concentrator or a crystalliser.

1.6.2 Brine concentratorsA brine concentrator is used to purify industrial wastewater. Wastewater that is introduced to the concentrator is separated into distilled water and concentrated brine. The distilled water can be reused in an industrial plant. The rest of the water in the concentrated brine can be recovered in an evaporation pond, or a crystalliser.



Figure 1.14 A falling film brine concentrator with vapour compression

Product Feed

Brine sump

Vapour

Vapourcompressor

Brine

1

3

2

4

56

Heat exchanger

6

Falling filmevaporator

Multiple heatexchanger tubes

Diagram key

Vapour

Water

Source: GE Water, 2012

There are several methods that are used to separate concentrated brine from distilled water. Figure 1.14 illustrates the operation of a falling film tubular evaporator, which is described below:

1. The feedwater is heated by the distilled water produced by the concentrator. The heated feedwater enters the brine sump of the extractor.

2. Brine is pumped from the sump to the top of a collection of heat exchanger tubes.

3. The brine falls inside the heat exchanger tubes. The falling brine is heated by vapour flowing outside the tubes. Some of the water is vaporised.

4. The vapour produced in step 3 is compressed and introduced to the outside of the heat exchanger tubes. The vapour compression increases the condensation temperature of the vapour.

5. The vapour transfers heat to the brine falling inside the tubes. The vapour condenses as the temperature of the vapour decreases.

6. The condensation is collected and pumped into a heat exchanger to heat the incoming feedwater. The condensation is the distilled product. The concentration of the recirculating brine is controlled by removing a small volume of brine from the sump.

There are other configurations that modify this design:

• In a rising film tubular evaporator, water is pumped upwards on the inside of the heat exchanger tubes. The water is heated by steam condensing on the outside of the tubes. The volume of vapour that is produced increases as the water moves up the tube. Gravity encourages the separation of liquid and vapour, but also increases the pressure on the liquid at the base of the evaporator. A rising film evaporator requires a higher energy input to evaporate liquid at a higher pressure.

• In a plate evaporator, the water to be purified is fed in a thin film to flow across a series of vertical plates. The plates carrying the feedwater are interspersed between plates carrying steam. The feedwater evaporates through heat exchange with the steam. The resulting vapour is collected and condensed to produce distilled water. There are falling and rising film variations of this design.

• In tubular and plate evaporators, the heat exchange elements can be arranged vertically or horizontally. Vertical evaporators are useful if the chemistry of the feedwater increases the risk of corrosion or precipitation, because the liquid passes through the elements in a short time. In horizontal evaporators, boiling is prevented because the heat exchange elements remain full of liquid. This reduces the risk of precipitation inside the elements. The horizontal design requires more floor space.


Market and technology overview // High recovery technologies

The concentrations of sulphate and chloride salts in the brine increase the risk of scale formation on the walls of the heat exchanger. The brine slurry that enters the system is seeded with crystals of calcium sulphate (CaSO4). The salts in the slurry precipitate on the calcium sulphate crystals and not on the walls of the heat exchanger.

1.6.3 CrystallisersCrystallisation is the final step in many water reuse processes. The crystallisation process can remove most of the water from the concentrated brine solution that is produced by reverse osmosis and thermal processes. Crystallisation is also used to extract sugar, and useful salts from a solution. A filter press will remove all of the water from the concentrated slurry produced by a crystalliser.

Purified water produced by this process can be used in other areas of the plant. The salts that are extracted by this process can either be reused or disposed of, depending on regulations and demand.

Figure 1.15 A forced circulation crystalliser

Circulationpump

Feed

Slurry

Vapour

Steam

Condensate

Crystals

Heat exchanger

Source: Genck, 2011

In a typical crystalliser, water is vaporised at the surface of a solution. The more concentrated solution that is left behind sinks and cools, allowing crystals to form. The crystals are removed once they have reached a certain size, and the remaining solution is recirculated through the crystalliser. The process is described in more detail below:

1. The feedwater enters the system and joins a stream of recirculated slurry from the crystalliser. The combined stream is pumped through a heat exchanger. It is common to heat the stream using a source of steam from elsewhere in the plant, or by using the vapour that is produced by the crystalliser.

2. The heated stream enters the crystalliser below the surface of the liquid. The temperature of the slurry near the surface is raised and some of the water is evaporated. The vapour that is removed can be condensed in the heat exchanger in step 1. The resulting pure water can be reused in the plant, or discharged.

3. The evaporation cools the slurry near the surface, leaving behind a super-saturated volume of slurry. This super-saturation encourages the formation of new crystals, and the growth of crystals that are already in the solution.

4. The cooling slurry sinks to the bottom of the crystalliser. The larger crystals are removed from the stream, and the remaining slurry is recirculated to begin the process again.

Heating the feedwater can cause scale-forming compounds to precipitate on the walls of the pipes and the crystalliser. Scale formation can be prevented by rapidly circulating the slurry through the system. This method also reduces the supersaturated volume of slurry and controls the growth of crystals in the crystalliser. Introducing calcium sulphate (CaSO4) crystals to the slurry encourages the growth of crystals in the slurry, and reduces the precipitation on the crystalliser walls.

It is important to ensure that the growth of crystals in the slurry is uniform and does not cycle between fine and coarse crystals. These cycles can be produced if a vortex forms in the crystalliser. To prevent a vortex from forming, the slurry inlet pipe should enter the crystalliser at an angle above horizontal. There must be sufficient pressure in the inlet pipe to ensure that vaporisation does not occur in the pipe.



1.6.4 Filter pressesA filter press will remove all of the water from a concentrated source of feedwater. This process is used to reduce the volume of wastewater by removing all suspended solids. The dry solids can then be stored, processed, sent to landfill or incinerated. A filter press can be used to separate the solid waste from the concentrated brine produced by a crystalliser. If there are restrictions on the compounds that can be discharged to groundwater or reused in industry, a filter press will remove any remaining solid waste.

A filter press is comprised of a series of concave plates with a hole in the middle. When two plates are brought together the gap between the plates forms a chamber that will be filled with concentrated sludge. The chamber is lined with a filter cloth that will permit water to pass through and retain solid waste. A typical filter press is constructed from 80 plates arranged face to face.

Figure 1.16 The operation of a diaphragm plate filter press

Sludge

Water

Pressure1

3

2

Filter cloth Filter plate

Drip tray

Water

Source: EPA, 1987

The operation of a filter press is described below:

1. The filter press is closed. Concentrated sludge is pumped into the press to fill the chambers between the plates. Some water in the sludge passes through filter cloth and is collected in a drip tray below the press.

2. The pressure forcing the water through the filter cloth can be increased by pumping more solids into the press. This is a fixed volume press. The pressure can also be increased by inflating a diaphragm behind each filter cloth when the press is full. This is a variable volume or diaphragm press. The cake is formed when the pressure forces most of the water out of the sludge.

3. When the flow of water through the filter drops below a pre-determined level, the press is opened and the solids are removed.

Processing large volumes of sludge in a filter press will be more cost effective. The volume and concentration of solids that are produced by the press is not affected by the concentration of solids in the incoming sludge. Reducing the volume of wastewater in the filter press will be cost effective when it is less expensive than transporting the concentrated sludge to another site to be processed and disposed of.

1.6.5 High recovery reverse osmosisConventional reverse osmosis technologies are limited by the build up of precipitated salts on the surface of the membrane. To maintain the same flow of water through the membrane requires an increase in the water pressure over time. If the flow of water drops by more than 10%, the membrane must be cleaned to remove the solids that have built up on the surface.

In a high recovery system, the pH of the feedwater is increased to greater than 10. At a high pH, the solubility of some dissolved compounds is increased. Compounds that are more soluble in a high pH solution include silica, boron and organic acids. This solution requires a higher concentration of dissolved solids to reach saturation, and decreases the precipitation of these compounds on the surface of the membrane. In one system, the concentration of silica in the concentrate stream reached 480 ppm, with no increase in precipitation. This allows the membrane system to be run for long periods of time without a significant reduction in water f low rate, and decreases the frequency with which the membrane must be cleaned.

When silica is dissolved in a pH neutral solution, it is present in the water as a weak acid (silicic acid). At a high pH, silicic acid begins to dissociate into its constituent ions, hydrogen (H+) and silicate (SiO4

4–). In this state, over 99% of the dissolved silica is retained by the membrane. This ionisation process can also increase the proportion of boron and organic acids that are retained


Market and technology overview // Chemical treatment

by the membrane. The rejection of contaminants from a high recovery system is compared with conventional reverse osmosis in the following figure.

Figure 1.17 Comparison of high recovery and conventional reverse osmosis systems

High recovery RO Conventional RO

ContaminantFeedwater

(ppm)Concentrate

(ppm)Permeate

(ppm)% of contaminants

retained% of contaminants

retainedSodium 29.9 460.0 0.955 99.73 95–98Potassium 6.4 18.7 <0.003 >99.98 90–95Calcium 34.0 <0.1 <0.003 – –Chloride 12.1 78.1 <0.004 >99.99 97–98Nitrate 0.7 9.4 0.003 99.96 90–95Sulphate 46.1 278.4 <0.001 >99.99 –Boron 0.1 0.6 0.007 98.51 60–70Silica 67.0 480.0 0.460 99.87 95–99Organic Carbon 0.6 1.1 <0.003 >99.66 90–95

Source: Mukhopadhyay, 1999

The solubility of some dissolved compounds, such as calcium, magnesium and iron, decreases at a high pH. These compounds must be removed from the feedwater before the pH of the solution is increased. A cation exchange filter placed before the increase in pH will remove the compounds that would otherwise foul the membrane.

The high pH environment in a high recovery RO system is similar to the environment that is created to remove biological material from a membrane surface in a conventional RO system. In a high recovery system the high pH of the feedwater breaks down bacterial cell walls. Bacteria are killed and dissolved away from the membrane surface, and build up on the membrane as in a conventional RO system. Most particles in solution have a negative surface charge. The high pH environment decreases the distance over which this charge can attract other particles. This reduces the attraction of these particles to the membrane surface, and prevents oils, grease and colloidal particles attaching to the surface of the membrane.

There are two proprietary technologies that make use of a high pH environment to increase the water recovery from an RO membrane. The High Efficiency Reverse Osmosis (HERO™) process, owned by Aquatech, and the Optimised Pretreatment and Unique Separation (OPUS™) process, owned by Veolia.

1.6.6 Comparison of high recovery technologiesThe following figure describes the relative performance of the technologies described above. The cost of each technology is defined in relation to the barrel of water that must be treated.

Figure 1.19 Comparison of high recovery desalination technologies

Concentrator type

Feed TDS (mg/l)

Concentrate TDS (mg/l)

Feed TSS (mg/l)

Concentrate TSS (mg/l)

CAPEX ($/bbl/d)

Electricity (kWh/bbl)

Processing cost ($/bbl)

Suppliers

Falling film evaporator

>45,000 200,000–300,000

<10,000 <10,000 1,000–2,000

3.3–4.5 4–8 Aquatech, GE, Veolia

Forced circulation evaporator

>45,000 200,000–300,000

<100* <20,000**

<500* <20,000**

1,000–2,000

4.5–5.8 3–8 Fountain Quail, GE, Purestream, Veolia

Crystalliser 75,000– 300,000

250,000–300,000

5,000–15,000

150,000–350,000

2,000–4,000

9–13 7–10 GE, Veolia

Membrane brine concentrator

>45,000 200,000–300,000

<100 <500 1,000 3–5 2–3.5 Oasys

High efficiency RO

5,000–30,000

50,000–75,000

<100 <500 500 0.8 3–5 Aquatech, GE, Veolia

Source: Pankratz, 2012

1.7 Chemical treatment

1.7.1 Lime softeningLime softening removes dissolved compounds from the water. It is a necessary pretreatment step if the water is going to be boiled or distilled, because it removes the compounds that would precipitate and cause scaling. The dissolved compounds are present in the water as ions. These compounds can be categorised in several ways:



• Carbonate or temporary hardness is caused by the presence of carbonate ions in solution. A temperature change will alter the equilibrium between the concentrations of calcium (Ca2+), bicarbonate (HCO3

–) and carbonate (CO32–) ions

in the solution. An increase in temperature will increase the concentration of carbonate ions and the precipitation of carbonate compounds. These compounds are removed from the solution.

• Non-carbonate or permanent hardness is not removed by an increase in temperature. This can be caused by the presence of sulphate (SO4

2–) and chloride (Cl–) ions, amongst others. These ions react with hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2) and soda ash (Na2CO3) that is added to the solution. The products of these reactions are less soluble than the original ions and can be easily removed from the feedwater. The proportion of ions that form precipitated compounds increases with temperature.

• Silica (SiO2) that is dissolved in the water is adsorbed onto the precipitated compound (Mg(OH)2) that is produced by the reaction between magnesium and hydrated lime. More silica can be removed by this process at higher temperatures.

1.7.1.1 Cold and warm lime softening

In a cold lime softening process, the softening reactions take place at ambient temperature. Ions are precipitated through reactions with the hydrated lime and soda ash that is added to the feedwater. In a warm lime softening process the feedwater is heated to decrease the solubility of hardness-forming ions so that more compounds are precipitated. The process is described in detail below:

1. Feedwater and softening chemicals are added to the centre of the basin. This is the rapid-mix zone of the unit, where precipitation reactions begin.

2. The water and chemical mixture moves outwards to the slow-mix zone of the basin, where the precipitation reactions continue. Precipitated salt particles become large enough to settle. Chemical sludge may be returned to the rapid-mix zone to improve the softening reactions and increase silica removal.

3. Precipitation reactions continue in the sludge contact unit of the basin. This unit increases the area that is available for precipitation reactions to take place. The concentration of sludge is regulated by mixing and the regular removal of excess sludge.

4. There is a clear dividing line between softened water and precipitated salts. The softened water is removed from the surface of the basin. It takes one hour for water to pass through the basin.

Figure 1.20 Cold and warm lime softening processes in a softening basin

4

3

FeedSoftening chemicals

Sludge

Sludge recirculation

Sedimentation

Clear water

Softened water

2 1


The equilibrium between precipitated salts and dissolved ions makes this process sensitive to changes in temperature of greater than 2o °C. An increase in temperature will increase the precipitation of dissolved salts, and increase the level of precipitated compounds in the softened water. The equilibrium is also upset by rapid changes in the volume of feedwater entering the basin. Storage tanks installed upstream of the basin allow a constant f low to be maintained through the basin.

1.7.1.2 Hot lime softening

Hot lime softening takes place at temperatures between 108 °C and 116 °C. The temperature is sufficient to allow all of the hardness-forming compounds to precipitate. The concentration of calcium (Ca2+) ions is reduced to 8 ppm.

1. Feedwater, softening chemicals and steam are introduced to the top of the unit under pressure. The steam heats the feedwater to just below the boiling point of the water.


Market and technology overview // Physical treatment

2. At high temperatures, the precipitation reactions between the ions and the softening chemicals convert all of the ions into precipitated compounds. The compounds settle at the bottom of the unit.

3. The concentration of softening chemicals is maintained by recirculating the precipitated sludge to the top of the unit. This process reduces the level of silica in the softened water, because the concentration of magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)2) is maintained. The softened water is removed from a “hood” in the centre of the unit. It takes one hour for softened water to pass through the unit.

Figure 1.21 Hot lime softening processes in a downflow sludge contact unit

Feed SteamSoftening chemicals

1

Softened water

Sludge

Sedimentation

3

23

Recirculatingsludge


1.8 Physical treatment

1.8.1 Coagulation and flocculationThe removal of suspended and colloidal particles from a water source is improved if particles can be brought together in large quantities. Coagulation occurs when particles overcome the electrically repulsive forces that keep them apart. Flocculation occurs when charged groups on long chain polymers attract many groups of coagulated particles. The aim of this process is to decrease the time it takes for suspended particles to settle, or to increase the chance that a particle will be removed by later filtration.

Figure 1.22 Coagulation and flocculation create clumps of suspended particles

+

CoagulantFe2+, Fe+3, Al+3 Flocculant

Source: Chesters et al., 2009

In a relatively high pH solution, greater than pH 3, particles suspended in the solution have negative surface charge. This charge provides a repulsive force that prevents particles from coming together. A coagulant, usually a salt with a positively-charged metal ion, neutralises the effect of this negative surface charge. The neutralisation of their surface charge allow particles to collide. The



small clumps of particles formed by this process are known as flocs. Common coagulants include iron chloride (FeCl2 or FeCl3), iron sulphate (FeSO4 or Fe2(SO4)3), and aluminium chloride (AlCl3).

A flocculant is a long polymer with charged molecular groups distributed along its length. The charged groups attract coagulated particles in the solution. The particles are brought together along a “charged bridge” provided by the polymer. This process groups the coagulated particles into larger flocs that can be easily removed by sedimentation or filtration. An anionic polymer has negatively-charged groups along its length, and a cationic polymer has positively-charged groups along its length. An anionic polymer can join together the flocs that are formed from coagulated particles and a cationic polymer. These larger flocs are easier to remove by filtration, and will settle faster. Smaller, charged polymers can also be used as a coagulant, substituting for aluminium or ion salts.

Excess coagulants and flocculants in the solution will irreversibly damage a membrane. Excess iron and aluminium salts will react with water to form metal oxides and hydroxides that precipitate on the membrane surface. This reaction can be prevented by using an antiscalant. Some flocculants use oils or latex to maintain the stability of the polymers in solution. Oil will dissolve the polyamide layer that makes up the surface of the membrane. This damage cannot be repaired, and the membrane would need to be replaced. Long flocculant polymers are less likely to become permanently attached to the membrane surface. The force of the water f low along the length of the polymer will remove the flocculant from the surface.

1.8.2 Adsorption processesAdsorption describes the removal of dissolved contaminants when they become attached to another substance. Adsorption processes have been used to remove organic compounds and heavy metals from process water. Organic compounds may react with disinfectants to form toxic by-products, so adsorption is often used as a pretreatment step before disinfection. Two terms are useful when discussing adsorption:

• Adsorbate – The dissolved contaminants that must be removed from the water.

• Adsorbent – The material which the contaminants will accumulate on.

There are two methods for removing contaminants from untreated water.

• Untreated water is passed through a reactor containing a fixed bed of adsorbent material.

• Untreated water is mixed with a solution of the adsorbent material. The adsorbent becomes saturated with contaminants and is separated from the treated water by sedimentation.

The volume of adsorbate that can be attached to the adsorbent is defined by the surface area of the adsorbent that is available. The surface area that is available for adsorption is greater when the width of pores in the adsorbent is less than 2 nm. There are several adsorbents that are commonly found in water treatment processes:

• Activated carbon is produced by heating organic material at high temperatures to improve the pore structure of the material. Activated carbon removes organic compounds very effectively, but it cannot remove smaller, charged organic compounds. Adsorbents can be classified by the size of the porous structures. Powdered activated carbon (PAC) is smaller than 0.08 mm, and granular activated carbon (GAC) is larger than 0.1 mm.

• Granular ferric hydroxide (GFC) is produced through the reaction of iron (III) chloride solution with sodium hydroxide. GFC is effective at removing heavy metals, including arsenic, chromium and selenium.

• Activated alumina has been used to remove arsenic and fluoride from drinking water. This adsorbent must be regularly regenerated with strong acidic and basic solutions. Managing the wastewater from the regeneration process requires a significant increase in costs. Removal of heavy metals.

1.9 Biological wastewater treatmentIn biological treatment processes, bacteria are added to wastewater to break down organic material. Bacterial processes are characterised by the availability of oxygen:

• Aerobic reactions take place in the presence of free oxygen (O2) introduced to the bioreactor by aeration. Oxygen is necessary for most biological reactions to occur.

• Anoxic reactions take place without free oxygen. Bacteria scavenge bound oxygen from other compounds, including nitrates (NO3).

• Anaerobic reactions take place in an environment that is completely devoid of oxygen. Bacteria that thrive in these conditions are commonly used in sludge treatment.

The treatment system is defined by the way in which bacteria come into contact with the wastewater. In a suspended growth system, bacteria are kept in suspension by continuous mixing and aeration. There are several variations on this system:


Market and technology overview // Disinfection

• Activated sludge is the most widely used system. Wastewater is introduced to an aeration tank containing bacteria in suspension. After the organic matter is digested the resulting mixture is passed to a clarifier, where the activated sludge settles and is separated from the treated wastewater. Most of the sludge is recycled to the bioreactor to maintain the population of bacteria, but some is removed for further treatment before disposal.

• A sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is a modification of the activated sludge process. The reaction and clarification steps take place in the same tank. A separate basin contains the untreated wastewater, which is introduced to the system in batches. When the reactions are complete, the treated wastewater is removed, and the excess sludge is removed for disposal.

• A membrane bioreactor (MBR) is another modification of the activated sludge process. An MF/UF membrane is added inside the bioreactor to increase the removal of organic matter and suspended solids. The treated wastewater is drawn from the permeate stream of the membrane. This technology is not widely used, and requires a larger input of energy.

In an attached growth system, bacteria are grown on a support medium, forming a film of biological material. Untreated wastewater passes through the medium, and organic matter is broken down by the bacteria. This system can be operated in several ways:

• In a trickling filter bioreactor, bacteria are grown on a bed of porous material. Untreated wastewater is sprayed on top of the bed, and trickles down through the material. The wastewater is filtered as the bacteria break down organic material. The material must be washed regularly to control the growth of bacteria.

• In a rotating biological contactor, bacteria are grown on a series of plastic discs that are partially submerged in the wastewater. The discs are rotated to aerate the wastewater and remove excess bacteria from disc. The sludge is separated from the wastewater in a clarifier.

Modifications to these processes can improve the removal of nutrients and heavy metals. These processes are discussed below.

1.9.1 Removal of nutrientsNutrient removal describes the removal of nitrogen and phosphorous based compounds from feedwater. The presence of these compounds will encourage the growth of bacteria and algae in the water system of an industrial plant, especially if the temperature is raised by other processes. If these compounds are present in the wastewater discharged from the plant, they will encourage algal growth in local water bodies. The growth of algae creates “dead zones” by reducing the availability of oxygen in the water.

In the aerobic region of the bioreactor, bacteria use free oxygen to oxidise ammonia and nitrite compounds to form nitrate. In the anoxic region, bacteria scavenge oxygen from nitrate compounds to produce nitrous oxide and nitrogen gas. These products are released from the bioreactor as a gas. It is common for the anoxic region to precede the aerobic. Nitrates are removed by recycling a portion of the wastewater to the anoxic zone.

Phosphates are removed from wastewater by a group of bacteria know as phosphorous accumulating organisms (PAOs). In the anaerobic region, PAOs consume and store fatty acids to fuel later growth. The energy for the accumulation of fatty acids is provided by the release of phosphates. In the aerobic region, the oxygen reacts with the accumulated fatty acids to produce energy. This energy allows the PAOs to grow and divide, and to absorb phosphates from the wastewater. There is a net removal of phosphates from the wastewater, because more energy is released in the aerobic region than was used in the anaerobic region. Phosphates are removed from the system when the sludge is discharged.

1.9.2 Removal of heavy metalsWastewater containing high concentrations of heavy metals cannot be discharged without further treatment. There are strict regulations governing the discharge of contaminated wastewater, because heavy metals such as mercury and selenium are toxic in large quantities.

Heavy metals can be removed from wastewater by interaction with charged compounds (known as functional groups) in the cell walls of bacteria. Positively charged metal ions dissolved in the water are attached to the negatively charged functional groups by charge attraction, or by ion exchange. Metals may also become bonded to the proteins within the cell walls.

1.10 Disinfection

1.10.1 Disinfection with chlorine-based compoundsChlorine-based compounds are used in most municipal wastewater treatment systems to prevent the growth of micro-organisms. The addition of chlorine compounds to water as a disinfection is known as chlorination. Chlorine gas forms hydrochlorous acid on reaction with water. This weak acid can damage bacterial cell walls, affect the uptake of oxygen by cells, and reduce the



reproduction rate of DNA. The compounds that are most commonly used to produce hydrochlorous acid for disinfection are chlorine gas, sodium hypochlorite, and calcium hypochlorite.

Chlorination provides disinfection for water supply systems downstream of the treatment plant, because residual levels of chlorine remain in the water. The process is also used to remove compounds that cause colour and odour, and to remove marine life from the intake of cooling systems.

Chlorination is less effective at removing protozoan cysts. The concentration of chlorine that is required for chlorination is usually the concentration that is required for the inactivation of protozoa. Organic matter in the untreated wastewater will form dangerous disinfection by-products (DBPs), including several strong carcinogens. The concentration of DBPs in treated wastewater is defined by the total organic carbon (TOC) that is present in the wastewater prior to disinfection. Studies have indicated that removing organic matter through coagulation and sedimentation reduces the concentration of DBPs in treated wastewater by 21%.

1.10.2 Disinfection with ultraviolet lightUltraviolet (UV) light prevents microbes from reproducing by altering the chemical bonds within DNA. Irradiation with UV light reduces the growth of microbes in wastewater without the addition of chemicals. Industries that require water to be completely free of contaminants, such as the pharmaceutical industry, will prefer UV disinfection.

Ultraviolet light provides the energy that is needed for reactions between nucleic acids and other proteins. The energy that is provided allows two adjacent proteins in a strand of DNA to be chemically bonded to one another. The bond that is formed prevents the microbe from reproducing by stopping the DNA strand from dividing and copying itself. This process can be described as the inactivation of the microbe. The formation of a “dimer” from two adjacent proteins is the most common result of irradiating a microbe with UV light.

Figure 1.23 Emission of ultraviolet light from an array of mercury vapour lamps

Hg

Hg Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Feed Output

Ultraviolet light

Mercury vapour lamps

Source: GWI

A low pressure (LP) mercury lamp operates near vacuum pressure and emits light with a wavelength of 254 nm. A medium pressure (MP) mercury lamp operates at 40–4,000 kPa and a temperature of 600–900 °C. An MP lamp emits light with a higher intensity than an LP lamp in a broad spectrum between 200 and 300 nm. The wavelength of light that is most effective in altering the DNA of a microbe is about 265 nm. An MP lamp produces more energy to inactivate microbes, but an LP lamp is more energy efficient.

The percentage of light that passes through a material is the UV transmittance (UVT). When designing a disinfection system, the transmittance should be constant at all points in the feedwater. UVT is defined at a wavelength of 254 nm. The UV dose is the total energy of the ultraviolet light that each microbe is exposed to. Dose is measured in units of mJ/cm². The decrease in the concentration of infectious microbes after exposure is defined by the log inactivation. Comparing the dose and log inactivation produces a curve that describes the effect of UV exposure on a particular microbe.

The UVT is reduced by the build up of material on the UV lamps. The fouling is caused by the precipitation of scale forming compounds, and material settling on the lamp casing. Particles suspended in solution shield microbes from the effects of UV radiation. Larger microbes, and groups of smaller microbes, also produce this “shielding effect”. This will reduce the UVT of the solution and decrease the efficiency of the UV disinfection process. Prefiltration will remove the large particles that provide shielding and the dissolved solids that precipitate on the lamps. It is necessary to compare the level of prefiltration that is required with the cost of using ultraviolet light to disinfect the resulting permeate. An RO membrane will remove most of the bacterial and microbial matter from the solution, removing the need for UV disinfection.


Market and technology overview // Disinfection

1.10.3 Disinfection by ozonationOzonation produces two highly reactive compounds that break down bacterial cell walls and remove soluble oxygen compounds from water. If the end user does not want chlorine in the water, ozonation is a viable alternative to chlorination. The process becomes more cost effective if there is a cheap source of pure oxygen to produce the ozone.

Ozone (O3) reacts with water in a series of reactions to produce a highly reactive hydroxyl free radical (H0·). Ozone is the primary disinfectant in low pH solutions. Hydroxyl radicals are the primary disinfectant in high pH solutions. In bacteria, ozone breaks down cell walls by oxidising the proteins in walls. Ozone inactivates viruses by oxidising the proteins in the virus shell. Oxidation prevents the virus from attaching to a host cell and spreading infection. Protozoan cysts are more resistant to ozonation than bacteria and viruses. Ozone oxidises the proteins in the protozoa cell wall and damages the internal structures of the cell.

Ozone also oxidises iron and magnesium ions dissolved in solution, and the compounds that cause taste and odour. Ozone can be used to reduce the oxygen demand caused by organic compounds in wastewater. The compounds that are broken down by this process can be removed by filtration.

Figure 1.24 Ozone breaks down micro-organisms in deep contact chambers

Feed Effluent

Contact chambers Reaction chambers

Ozone (O3)

Ozone decomposition


Ozone is introduced to the water to be disinfected in four deep, covered compartments. The depth of the compartments maximises the amount of ozone dissolved in the water. Bubbles of ozone diffuse into the first and second chambers, the contact chambers. The ozonation reaction completes in the third and fourth chambers, the reaction chambers. Most of the ozone decomposes in the fourth chamber to produce pure oxygen. Ozone that remains is removed and exposed to high temperatures to encourage decomposition. The resulting pure oxygen is recycled in the ozone generation process.

Compounds that can be oxidised have an ozone demand, using up the ozone that could be used to break down micro-organisms. Feedwater with high levels of suspended solids, oils, or precipitating ions should be prefiltered before ozonation to reduce the ozone demand. If the feedwater is of high quality, and it contains few dissolved or suspended compounds, ozonation could be the first process in the treatment system.

Ozone breaks down organic matter into organic acids and compounds that are more biodegradable than the original matter. These compounds provide a source of nutrients for bacteria, and must be removed to prevent bacterial growth in downstream treatment systems. Oxidation with ozone produces pure oxygen, creating favourable conditions for the removal of this biodegradable matter by biologically-active filtration.



1.11 Technology trends and market forecast

1.11.1 Notes on the forecastThis section examines technology trends in three overall forecast categories which present opportunities for desalination / demineralisation technologies: ultrapure water, wastewater desalination and seawater desalination.

The rest of the chapters in the report each cover an individual industry: oil and gas, refining and petrochemicals, power, food and beverage, pharmaceutical, microelectronics, pulp and paper, and mining. At the end of each dedicated industry chapter is a forecast with industry-specific categories that highlight the particular opportunities in that market, e.g. high recovery desalination for steam EOR in the oil and gas industry. The way in which the industry-specific forecast categories map onto the overall forecast categories is shown in the following figure.

Figure 1.25 Industry-specific forecast categories and overall forecast categories

Sector Industry-specific forecast category

Overall forecast category

Ultr

apur

e w

ater

Was

tew

ater

de

salin

atio

n

Seaw

ater

de

salin

atio

n

Proc

ess

wat

er -

othe

r

Wat

ewat

er -

othe

r

Oil and gas Shale gas: conventional treatment •Shale gas high recovery desal •CBM high recovery desal •Sulphate removal package / low salinity systems •Water recycling systems for steam EOR •High recovery desal for steam EOR •Produced water polishing •Produced water RO/evaporation •

Refining and petrochemicals Pretreatment systems •Ultrapure water systems •Wastewater treatment systems •Seawater desalination plants •ZLD systems •

Power Pretreatment systems •Boiler feedwater systems •Condensate polishing systems •Wastewater treatment systems (excl. ZLD) •Seawater desalination •Co-located power/desal •ZLD/high recovery desalination systems •

Food & beverage Pretreatment systems •Polishing systems •Wastewater treatment systems • •

Pharmaceutical Pretreatment systems •Ultrapure water systems •Disinfection systems •Wastewater treatment systems •Wastewater polishing technologies • •

Microelectronics Pretreatment systems •Ultrapure water systems •Wastewater treatment systems • •

Pulp and paper Process water systems (excl. UPW) •Boiler feedwater systems •Wastewater treatment systems •

Mining Process water treatment systems •Wastewater treatment systems • •Seawater desalination systems •

Source: GWI


Market and technology overview // Technology trends and market forecast

The overall forecast categories are defined in the following sections, and the industry-specific forecast categories are defined in their own chapters.

The buoyancy of industrial markets is closely linked to economic circumstances. For example, if the copper price falls it is no longer economically viable to transport and desalinate seawater hundreds of kilometres across a Chilean mountain range to a remote mine site. If the oil price falls, then Middle Eastern countries cannot sustain high levels of investment in large capital projects such as IWPPs. As we cannot possibly predict such circumstances in the long-term, we have offered alternate scenarios for each of the industry-specific forecasts to give an indication of how the forecasts are affected by economic factors.

The forecast looks at how each market is expected to develop annually until 2017, with an additional snapshot of what 2025 might look like if trends continue. By necessity, they contain a highly misleading degree of detail. Of course we cannot know the total wastewater treatment requirements of power plants that will be built in 2015 to four significant figures of accuracy. However we can create a model which gives us an estimated figure, and it is in the nature of such models that they provide a spurious degree of accuracy. The intelligent user of our forecasts will look at the annual forecasted figures as just one of a number of possible scenarios, but put more store by the three-or-four year totals than single year totals.

The industry specific forecasts in this report have been updated since our Global Water Market 2011 report. The factors taken into account have been noted in each of the industry chapters. The forecasts are offered on the understanding that they represent informed expectations based on the best available data, and particular scenarios in terms of how the world economy evolves. They are not infallible, and may be adjusted as better information becomes available, and as the political and financial situation moves on.

The forecast going forward is based on 2012 dollars (i.e. assuming zero inflation from 2012 onwards).

1.11.2 Ultrapure water technology trendsThe technology train used in ultrapure water has evolved over the years. Historically, ion exchange was the most important technology used, with utility water passing through anion, then cation exchange beds before going through a mixed bed polishing step. This reliance on ion exchange was considered to be problematic because the ion exchange beds needed to be regenerated periodically, meaning that there could be difficulties with the consistency of the water quality and the wastewater derived from the spend regenerant would need to be disposed of. The development of reverse osmosis offered an alternative to ion exchange, giving a higher consistency of product water (albeit one which might need to be polished using a mixed bed ion exchange system), without the chemical consumption or wastewater problems associated with regenerating the ion exchange resins. Reverse osmosis membranes brought other problems however, notably biological fouling and damage by suspended solids. Although conventional pretreatment could address these problems, the best guarantee of feedwater quality is ultrafiltration, which has enjoyed growth within the ultrapure water sector in recent years, because of its greater reliability and ease of operation.

For pharma and microelectronics applications higher levels of purity are required. For some pharma applications this is delivered using distillation (see chapter on pharmaceuticals), but electrodeionisation is now widely used in both industries as a polishing step after reverse osmosis. It has yet to have such an impact on the boiler feedwater market. The table below illustrates the arguments for and against EDI as an alternative to ion exchange as a final polishing step in boiler feedwater production:

Figure 1.26 Advantages and disadvantages of EDI process

Advantages DisadvantagesContinuous production of water: no need to stop the process to regenerate the resins

Ion exchange systems are cheaper especially for larger systems because the cost of an EDI system is directly proportionate to its size, whereas IX systems enjoy economies of scale.

Regeneration by electrical current: no need for chemicals and no effluents to be treated

Only a limited number of charged organics are removed.

Cost competitive with ion exchange at small capacities The system requires feed of good quality (membrane pretreatment needed) and is not able to handle hardness beyond 1 mg/l.EDI systems are more sensitive to operate than classical resin beds and require a long stabilisation period after start upIn spite of the continuous regeneration by electrodes, resin must be cleaned – which cannot be done on site

Source: GWI

The move towards the UF(or MF)/RO/EDI technology train has been driven by the two major suppliers in the market, Siemens Water Technologies and GE Water. Both are significant players in the power industry and have, over the past eight years acquired companies offering UF/MF, RO and EDI. The trend has also had the effect of changing the nature of chemical usage in the UPW market. There is less demand for ion exchange resins and regenerants, and more demand for chemicals which clean and protect membranes.



The next stage of evolution is likely to involve greater standardisation of systems, and the use of sensing and control systems to deliver the required product water quality from the available feedwater. This may have the effect of changing the structure of the industry. Currently there are a large number of OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) servicing the sector, typically buying in resins, membranes or EDI blocks and constructing systems to meet the requirements of their customers. It is a competitive and fragmented market whose profitability is disappointing except for high end systems serving pharmaceutical and micro-electronics customers. By bundling advanced sensors and controls alongside the UF/RO/EDI technology in pre-engineered standardised units, the dominant players in this market aim to deliver a knock-out proposition to their customers: lower cost systems, with greater reliability and automation.

The following figure shows how the market for UPW is likely to break down by the industries covered by this report over the coming years. The power sector accounts for nearly 50% of the market, driven by the move towards more efficient boilers in power plants. In order to operate at higher pressures, the new generation of boilers requires higher purity steam, and thus higher purity feedwater. The increasing sophistication of the microelectronics industry means that as components get smaller, their preparation will require increasingly pure water in order to minimise the risk of contamination. A third trend is the growth of the pharmaceuticals market in India and China. As increasing numbers of drugs come off patent, the need for ultrapure water to manufacture generic substitutes will rise dramatically.

Figure 1.27 The ultrapure water market by industry segment, 2011–2017

Food & Beverage

Pulp & paper

Pharmaceutical

Microelectronics

Petrochemicals

Power (condensatepolishing)

Power (boiler feed)0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Ultrapure water by industry segment ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17 2025

Power (boiler feed) 255.2 280.8 300.1 309.1 340.5 364.4 390.5 7.3% 626.8Power (condensate polishing) 454.5 500.7 535.6 552.3 609.1 652.7 700.1 7.5% 1,132.4Refining and petrochemicals 135.4 141.0 146.9 153.1 159.5 166.2 172.4 4.1% 229.8Microelectronics 477.8 471.5 560.9 584.0 623.4 663.0 705.8 6.7% 1,155.8Pharmaceutical 217.1 233.7 250.0 265.8 281.1 297.1 315.4 6.4% 692.1Pulp & paper 25.0 21.8 23.5 27.2 28.3 29.6 30.4 3.3% 46.5Food & beverage 107.3 118.3 130.2 144.6 159.7 175.7 193.6 10.3% 389.8Total 1,672.2 1,767.8 1,947.2 2,035.9 2,201.5 2,348.6 2,508.3 7.0% 4,273.2

Source: GWI

The following figure illustrates how the market for UPW technologies is expected to evolve over the next few years:



Figure 1.28 The ultrapure water market by technology, 2011–2017

BOP

Distillation

EDI

Reverse osmosis

Ion exchange0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Ultrapure water by technology ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Ion exchange 381.1 403.3 434.3 447.6 481.5 508.7 537.9 5.9%Reverse osmosis 261.9 275.8 311.0 330.7 359.6 387.7 418.1 8.1%EDI 141.2 144.4 168.5 177.7 192.0 206.1 221.7 7.8%Distillation 36.9 39.7 42.5 45.2 47.8 50.5 53.6 6.4%BOP 851.1 904.6 990.9 1,034.7 1,120.7 1,195.6 1,277.0 7.0%Total 1,672.2 1,767.8 1,947.2 2,035.9 2,201.5 2,348.6 2,508.3 7.0%

Source: GWI

A regional breakdown sees the most rapid growth for UPW occurring in the Asia Pacifc market – the microelectronics market continues to flourish and pharmaceutical companies are reloaating their production centres.

Figure 1.29 The ultrapure water market by region, 2011–2017

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Ultrapure water by region ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011–17

Americas 443.5 466.4 502.6 526.7 504.7 535.9 624.7 5.9%EMEA 416.0 366.5 373.4 363.5 433.2 469.6 491.7 2.8%Asia Pacific 812.7 934.8 1,071.2 1,145.6 1,263.6 1,343.1 1,391.9 9.4%Total 1,672.2 1,767.8 1,947.2 2,035.9 2,201.5 2,348.6 2,508.3 7.0%

Source: GWI



1.11.3 High recovery wastewater desalination

1.11.3.1 Wastewater desalination technology trends

Thermal technology for wastewater treatment is relatively mature. There have not been any significant improvements in the basic brine concentrator/crystalliser systems during the past decade, but even so there is a high degree of dissatisfaction with the system. The HERO and OPUS systems for high recovery reverse osmosis are similarly not the perfect solution to customer needs. Customers complain that the systems – particularly thermal systems – are expensive to construct, expensive to operate, messy, and unreliable.

While all of these criticisms are valid, they are not all the fault of the technology – in most cases the real problem is the variable nature of the wastewater they are required to treat. For example, an evaporation system for a SAGD project in the Canadian oil sands typically has to be constructed on a modular basis then transported to the site and assembled. The evaporation system is typically designed for a specific volume of water treatment, and a specific level of total dissolved solids. Unfortunately nobody can be sure of the quality and quantity of wastewater that the system will need to handle. This means that it is almost impossible to fix the costs of an evaporation project when a contract is signed – most evaporators end up being procured on a time and materials basis. Similarly, once operations start there is a risk that the quality and quantity of water that a system is required to treat will change again. This can makes it difficult to operate reliably and in such a way that optimises the costs.

Accelerating demand for high recovery desalination technologies as wastewater treatment in the oil and gas sector is however driving change in the industry, and over the next five years we can expect significant developments. These are listed below:

• The use of high temperature reverse osmosis as an initial concentration stage: GE Water has been marketing high temperature reverse osmosis as a pretreatment stage before evaporation as a means of reducing the size of the evaporators required to recycle SAGD water. The company claims that by operating at a high temperature, and pretreating using lime softening to reduce silica, it can avoid some of the problems of scaling which might otherwise render reverse osmosis unworkable. The brine reject from the high temperature RO system would then be put through a brine concentrator, which could be significantly smaller than it would need to be if the RO system was not there to reclaim a portion of the influent water.

• The use of silica sorption using magnesium oxide: GE has claimed a number of patents which restrict the activities of its competitors in the oil sands market. Although both Veolia and Aquatech argue that the patents are unenforceable, they acknowledge that GE is able to use the threat of legal action as a means of maintaining its market share in this market, which is currently the most lucrative market for evaporators. Veolia has responded to this by developing a proprietary silica sorption technology which enables it to run its brine concentrator at a lower pH than GE without infringing any patents.

• Salt recovery technology: The holy grail for industrial wastewater desalination is the ability to salvage value from the brine stream. If it were possible to take a highly saline produced water, reclaim the water, and separate out the dissolved solids into their constituent salts, then the economics of produced water treatment would be revolutionised. In the Australian coal seam gas market, making this dream a reality is becoming an imperative. Gas developers have effectively been mandated by the Queensland Water Commission to develop a means of reclaiming the salt from the produced water so that it can be reused in the chemicals industry. GE Water has been working on a solution to this with Penrice Soda, but it remains to be seen whether the value of the salts recovered justify the investment in evaporation technology.

• The use of forward osmosis: Unlike reverse osmosis, forward osmosis avoids many of the scaling and fouling problems encountered when using membranes in industrial wastewater treatment. A number of companies are developing forward osmosis applications targeting the oil and gas sector. HTI uses forward osmosis to draw freshwater from drilling waste to dilute completion water (which is typically highly saline). Oasys has been developing an ammonia based forward osmosis system for frac flowback water and other oil field wastewaters which works in two stages: first freshwater is drawn out of the influent wastewater through a forward osmosis membrane to dilute a concentrated ammonia solution, then heat is used to remove the ammonia from the permeate water, leaving a pure effluent.

• The use of membrane distillation: MD, like forward osmosis, does not have the same problems with scaling and fouling as conventional reverse osmosis. The most significant company offering an industrial wastewater desalination technology is Singapore based Memsys. The company has a membrane distillation module which can be run in series with the water recirculated enabling high recovery rates (conventional membrane distillation typically operates at very low recovery rates).

The boom in municipal desalination between 2003 and 2008 attracted a lot of interest in developing technologies which offer an alternative to reverse osmosis. Few of these technologies have proved to be competitive on the scale required to serve cities, but they may be applicable to industrial wastewater desalination because of the fundamental limitation of reverse osmosis in this market (even HERO and OPUS struggle to treat wastewaters with a concentration of more than 80,000 mg/l total dissolved



solids). Besides forward osmosis and membrane distillation, the electroseparation technology developed by Saltworks has also been shown to have strong potential in the industrial wastewater desalination market.

The following figure consolidates the expenditure on industrial wastewater desalination from each industry covered in this report.

Figure 1.30 The industrial wastewater desalination market by industry segment 2011–2017

Estimated additionalnot in this reportOther wastewaterpolishingZLD for FGD wasteand blow downZLD forpetrochemical waste

Produced water

Unconventional gas0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Heavy oil

Wastewater desalination ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011-17 2025

Unconventional gas 112.7 165.0 134.0 132.0 170.0 190.0 199.4 10.0% 278.4Heavy oil 291.2 385.3 502.1 602.5 556.8 454.2 519.6 10.1% 1,097.7Produced water 105.0 119.4 135.8 154.5 175.7 199.8 227.3 13.7% 562.6ZLD for petrochemical waste 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 20.0 - 35.0ZLD for FGD waste and blow down 135.0 65.5 138.5 180.1 173.1 216.0 237.6 9.9% 714.2Other wastewater polishing 160.9 179.1 201.1 206.2 228.0 244.1 267.8 8.9% 466.0Total (this report) 804.8 914.3 1,111.5 1,290.2 1,303.7 1,319.1 1,471.7 10.6% 3,153.9Estimated additional not in this report 96.6 109.7 133.4 154.8 156.4 158.3 176.6 - 378.5

(*) May involve brackish water reverse osmosis rather than high recovery reverse osmosis.Figures shown are plant capex rather than system capex (i.e. including pretreatment systems, design, engineering and balance of plant) except in the case of “other wastewater polishing”, which is predominantly a systems business.Source: GWI

The regional breakdown of the wastewater desalination market is as follows:



Figure 1.31 The industrial wastewater desalination market by region, 2011–2017

0

300

600

900

1,200

1,500

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Wastewater desalination by region – this report only ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Americas 474.9 560.6 680.4 790.1 710.6 685.4 795.1 9.0%EMEA 102.6 77.8 143.6 171.2 224.6 226.4 252.7 16.2%Asia Pacific 227.3 275.8 287.4 328.9 368.5 407.4 424.0 10.9%Total (this report) 804.8 914.3 1,111.5 1,290.2 1,303.7 1,319.1 1,471.7 10.6%

Source: GWI

We have also divided the market between thermal, reverse osmosis and new technologies for the industries covered in this report, although this division is somewhat speculative as the new technologies are still at an early stage of commercialisation.

Figure 1.32 The industrial wastewater desalination market by technology, 2011–2017

Alternative technologies(Forward Osmosis/Membrane Distillation)

Reverse osmosis

Evaporation0

300

600

900

1,200

1,500

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Wastewater desalination – this report only ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Evaporation 399.2 437.6 582.7 599.0 538.8 449.3 457.7 2.3%Reverse osmosis (*) 405.6 467.5 506.5 652.5 712.8 803.8 925.7 14.7%Alternative technologies (forward osmosis/membrane distillation) 0.0 9.1 22.2 38.7 52.1 66.0 88.3 –

Total (this report) 804.8 914.3 1,111.5 1,290.2 1,303.7 1,319.1 1,471.7 10.6%(*) Includes both brackish water RO and high recovery RO.This forecast shows plant capex rather than system capex (i.e. it includes pretreatment systems, design, engineering and balance of plant) except in the case of “other wastewater polishing”, which is predominantly a systems business.Source: GWI



1.11.3.2 Wastewater desalination alternate scenario

Industrial activity is linked to economic circumstances, which cannot be exactly predicted. In this report, we have also forecast alternate scenarios for each industry. The alternate scenario for wastewater desalination market envisages the following:

• The oil price falls below $60.

• The U.S. and Europe slip into recession and have more then two quarters of negative growth.

• The growth rate in India and China falls below 6%.

The wastewater desalination technology market in this alternate scenario is shown in the following figure.

Figure 1.33 The industrial wastewater desalination market by technology, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario

Alternative technologies(Forward Osmosis/Membrane Distillation)

Reverse osmosis

Evaporation0

200

400

600

800

1,000

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Wastewater desalination alternate scenario – this report only ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Evaporation 399.2 437.6 183.0 188.2 180.3 167.3 161.8 -14.0%Reverse osmosis (*) 405.6 467.5 463.8 551.1 555.0 564.8 641.8 7.9%Alternative technologies (forward osmosis/membrane distillation) 0.0 9.1 20.0 34.8 46.9 59.4 79.5 –

Total (this report) 804.8 914.3 666.9 774.1 782.2 791.5 883.0 1.6%(*) Includes both brackish water RO and high recovery RO.This forecast shows plant capex rather than system capex (i.e. it includes pretreatment systems, design, engineering and balance of plant) except in the case of “other wastewater polishing”, which is predominantly a systems business.Source: GWI

1.11.4 Seawater desalination

1.11.4.1 Seawater desalination technology trends

There are two main industrial markets for seawater desalination: power and refining/petrochemicals. Other industries such as metals processing, cement, and chlor-alkali chemicals also rely on seawater desalination where the local alternatives are restricted.

Beyond these specific customer groups, there are also seawater desalination plants built by industrial park developers to serve a range of different customers. In fact one of the largest desalination plants in the world – the 800,000 m³/d Jubail MED plant – serves Marafiq, an industrial water utility serving a range of industrial customers including Aramco and Saudi Basic Industries (SABIC). The following figure illustrates how industrial seawater desalination has developed in the context of all other seawater desalination since 1990.



Figure 1.34 All industrial seawater desalination in the context of all seawater desalination, 1990–2011

All other

Industrial0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

20102008200620042002200019981996199419921990

m³/

d

Source: GWI DesalData

The following figure shows how industrial demand for seawater desalination facilities with a capacity of more than 10,000 m³/d divides between metals, refining & chemicals, power and other/general off-takers.

Figure 1.35 Contracted >10,000 m³/d industrial seawater desalination plants by off-taker industry, 1990–2011

Power

Refining / chemicals

Metals0

300,000

600,000

900,000

1,200,000

1,500,000

20102008200620042002200019981996199419921990

m³/

d

Other


Besides captive desalination plants for power stations and refineries, there are also seawater desalination plants attached to power stations which may provide feedwater for the power plant, but the majority of their output goes towards municipal supply. These plants are generally known as independent water and power plants (IWPPs) although strictly speaking IWPP refers only to those integrated power and water plants which are privately financed on a non-recourse basis. For the sake of this report these plants are referred to as co-located power/desal plants. Strictly speaking they have no place in this report because they are built primarily to serve the municipal market, however in the Gulf region it is more common to have a co-located power desal plant than to have a captive desalination plant for a power station, and the growth of the market for co-located power desal plants in the Gulf is driven as much by demand for electricity as it is by demand for water.

Historically, power and refinery customers have preferred thermal desalination to membrane desalination if they are required to consider seawater as a raw water source. This reflects the fact that thermal desalination technology delivers a higher quality product water than membrane desalination, and for power and refinery customers the energy consumption of thermal desalination is usually a lesser consideration. Besides MED and MSF, mechanical vapour compression is also used where customers have no spare steam, but plenty of electricity. This may seem an anomaly when RO is seen to be much more efficient in energy terms. However, MVC systems not only give a high quality product water, they also give an extremely high level of reliability: an MVC unit can run for a decade or two with no maintenance whatsoever.

The following figure illustrates the technology choice in the industrial seawater desalination sector since 1990.



Figure 1.36 Seawater desalination plants for industrial customers by technology, 1990–2011

MSF

MED

RO0

300,000

600,000

900,000

1,200,000

1,500,000

20102008200620042002200019981996199419921990

m³/

d

MVC


Overall we anticipate the industrial market for seawater desalination growing at a faster rate than the municipal market over the next few years. This reflects the fact that the municipal sector has been impacted by the financial crisis, while the industrial sector has fewer financial issues, but increasingly difficult water challenges.

In the following figure we break down the industrial seawater desalination market by offtaker. In addition to the sectors described earlier (power and refining) we anticipate that the mining industry will continue in its employment of seawater desalination in water-scarce areas such as Chile, Peru and Australia – see chapter 9 for details.

The co-located power/desal forecast is based on future projects, and is particularly “lumpy” as large projects can have a significant impact on expenditure in any one year but their timing can be difficult to anticipate in advance. Multi-year aggregates are more indicative of the market trends.

Figure 1.37 The industrial seawater desalination market by industry segment, 2011–2017

Power/desal co-located

Mining

Water for power

Refining and petrochemicals0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Seawater desalination by industry segment ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17 2025

Refining and petrochemicals 52.5 167.6 509.2 265.5 458.9 892.6 807.7 57.7% 976.3Water for power 54.0 174.0 202.8 275.1 311.7 346.5 501.6 45.0% 1,301.1Mining 206.7 241.0 515.5 207.9 418.8 374.4 423.7 12.7% 688.6Power/desal co-located 857.7 1,200.0 760.0 1,650.0 350.0 1,440.0 1,250.0 6.5% 1,570.0Total 1,170.9 1,782.7 1,987.5 2,398.5 1,539.4 3,053.5 2,983.0 16.9% 4,536.1

Source: GWI

We also believe that the proportion of membrane desalination will increase steadily as customers begin to understand its potential benefits, as shown in the following figure.



Figure 1.38 The industrial seawater desalination market by technology, 2011–2017

Thermal desalination

Membrane desalination0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Seawater desalination by technology ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Membrane desalination 303.1 395.2 809.9 427.0 642.9 1,178.2 1,447.4 29.8%Thermal desalination 867.8 1,387.5 1,177.6 1,971.6 896.5 1,875.4 1,535.6 10.0%Total 1,170.9 1,782.7 1,987.5 2,398.5 1,539.4 3,053.5 2,983.0 16.9%

Source: GWI

The regional breakdown for industrial seawater desalination is as follows. The Middle East dominates due to the high value of co-located power / desalination plants.

Figure 1.39 The industrial seawater desalination market by region, 2011–2017

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Seawater desalination by region, reference scenario ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Americas 192.3 337.6 179.5 193.4 124.8 342.2 370.5 11.5%EMEA 926.2 1,253.0 965.6 1,790.2 585.3 2,122.1 1,964.2 13.3%Asia Pacifc 52.4 192.1 842.3 415.0 829.6 589.3 648.7 52.1%Total 1,170.9 1,782.7 1,987.5 2,398.5 1,539.7 3,053.5 2,983.4 16.9%

Source: GWI



1.11.4.2 Seawater desalination alternate scenario

We have developed the following alternate scenario for the industrial seawater desalination market based on the following happening from 2013 onwards:

• Brent crude falls below $60/bbl.

• The U.S. and Europe slip into recession and have more then two quarters of negative growth.

• The annual economic growth rate in India and China falls below 6%.

• Crack spread lower than $20/bbl in the U.S. and lower than $10/bbl in other markets.

• Copper falls below $5,000/tonne while iron ore falls below $100/tonne. This would reflect a broader fall in mineral prices affecting other markets.

If all of these things occur, the alternate scenario looks drastically different from the reference scenario. The drop in the oil price means that co-located power/desalination plants in the Middle East are put on hold, as sufficient funds can no longer be raised from oil sales. New mining projects are put on hold until metal and ore prices recover. Investment levels in refining and power fall to 20-30% of those in the refernece scenario.

The following figure shows how this all adds up to a very different market forecast picture:

Figure 1.40 The industrial seawater desalination market by industry segment, 2011–2017: alternate scenario

Power/desal co-located

Mining

Water for power

Petrochemicals0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Seawater desalination alternate scenario ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Petrochemicals 52.5 167.6 101.8 58.8 125.3 190.5 177.4 22.5%Water for power 54.0 174.1 57.6 93.8 102.4 126.3 100.4 10.9%Mining 206.7 241.0 49.2 0.0 29.4 33.1 34.6 -25.8%Power/desal co-located 857.7 1,200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 –Total 1,170.9 1,782.7 208.6 152.6 257.1 349.9 312.3 -19.8%

Source: GWI



1.11.5 The overall marketWhen the UPW market, seawater desalination market and wastewater desalination market are combined, the breakdown by industry is as shown in the following figure.

Figure 1.41 UPW, seawater desalination and wastewater desalination by industrial segment, 2011–2025

Mining

Pulp and paper

Microelectronics

Pharmaceutical

Food and beverage

Water for power

Refining andpetrochemicalsOil and gas0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Power / desal co-lo

UPW, seawater desal and wastewater desal by industrial segment

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011-17 2025

Oil and gas 508.9 669.7 771.9 888.9 902.5 844.0 946.3 14.2% 1,938.7Refining and petrochemicals 187.9 308.7 656.1 433.6 618.4 1,073.8 1,000.2 17.1% 1,241.1Power generation 898.7 1,021.0 1,177.0 1,316.6 1,434.4 1,579.6 1,829.8 8.7% 3,774.5Food and beverage 185.1 201.7 219.5 241.2 263.6 287.0 313.1 6.9% 589.0Pharmaceutical 229.9 248.3 268.5 287.3 306.4 327.4 352.6 6.2% 817.7Microelectronics 510.0 503.8 599.8 625.0 667.7 710.7 757.3 5.6% 1,247.6Pulp and paper 25.0 21.8 23.5 27.2 28.3 29.6 30.4 1.8% 46.5Mining 244.6 289.9 569.8 254.9 473.2 429.3 483.4 8.8% 738.1Co-lo power / desalination 857.7 1,200.0 760.0 1,650.0 350.0 1,440.0 1,250.0 6.5% 1,570.0Total (ex co-lo) 2,790.2 3,264.7 4,286.1 4,074.7 4,694.6 5,281.3 5,713.0 12.7% 10,393.2

Source: GWI



When other water and wastewater treatment is added to UPW, seawater desalination and wastewater desalination, the breakdown is as follows:

Figure 1.42 Desalination and water reuse market forecast by major market, 2011–2025

Other wastewatertreatment

Other process watertreatment


Wastewater desalination

Ultrapure water0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Whole market by major market ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17 2025

Ultrapure water 1,672.2 1,767.8 1,947.2 2,035.9 2,201.5 2,348.6 2,508.3 7.0% 4,273.2Wastewater desalination 804.8 914.3 1,111.5 1,290.2 1,303.7 1,319.1 1,471.7 10.6% 3,169.3Seawater desalination 1,170.9 1,782.7 1,987.5 2,398.5 1,539.4 3,053.5 2,983.0 16.9% 4,536.1Other process water treatment 3,630.5 3,883.4 4,254.5 4,368.4 4,764.0 5,140.4 5,706.2 7.8% 8,438.3

Other wastewater treatment 3,874.9 4,198.8 4,570.5 4,766.3 5,113.4 5,406.0 5,804.0 7.0% 8,978.3Total 11,153.3 12,546.8 13,871.2 14,859.4 14,922.0 17,267.6 18,473.2 8.8% 29,395.2

Source: GWI



We anticipate healthy growth in the UF/MF, NF and RO membrane element markets, as shown in the following figure

Figure 1.43 Membrane element markets, 2011–2017

NF membrane elements

RO membrane elements(excluding replacement)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

UF/MF membraneelements

Membrane markets 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011–17

UF/MF membrane elements 68.7 76.9 86.1 96.5 108.1 121.0 135.5 12.0%RO membrane elements (excluding replacement) (a) 115.6 131.7 173.0 172.1 204.0 262.5 320.2 18.5%NF membrane elements (b) 24.8 32.1 45.5 40.4 52.6 67.9 96.6 25.5%Total 208.51 240.24 304.16 308.45 364.13 450.86 551.77 17.6%UF/MF membrane permeate flow capacity (million m³/d) 3.7 4.1 4.6 5.1 5.8 6.5 7.2 12.0%

(a) This is calculated on the basis that RO membranes represent 18% of the cost of the RO systems used in UPW production, 12% of the cost of RO systems used for wastewater treatment, and 6% of the cost of seawater desalination plants; they will also be a portion of the cost of low salinity systems in off-shore oil and gas(b) The main use is in sulphate removal for the off-shore oil and gas industry, but NF membranes are also used in the pharmaceutical, and food & beverage markets, and in niche areas elsewhere in the industrial sector.Source: GWI

The equipment found in the other process water treatment and other wastewater treatment categories in figure 1.41 breaks down as follows:

• Filtration systems: All filtration systems, excluding UF/MF.

• Sedimentation / clarification: Sedimentation basins and clarifiers.

• Flotation (DAF): Dissolved air f lotation for oil and grease removal.

• UF/MF systems: Ultrafiltration and microfiltration membrane systems, including MBR.

• Anaerobic systems: All anaerobic treatment systems.

• Activated carbon/adsorption: All treatment systems that employ activated carbon or a similar adsorption medium.

• Ion exchange (non-UPW applications): Ion exchange systems with applications other than generating UPW.

• Sludge management: All technologies for sludge management, including dewatering, thickening, etc.

• Monitoring/control: Water treatment control systems and related software.

• Chemical feed systems: Chemical feed systems.

• BOP / other equipment / engineering / design: Everything else not already included in the above categories, including design and engineering costs.

The market values are shown in the following figure.



Figure 1.44 Breakdown of equipment for other process water and other wastewater treatment, 2011–2017

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Sludge managementIon exchange(non-UPW applications)

Activated carbon /adsorption

Anaerobic systems

Sedimentation /clarification

UF/MF systemsFlotation (DAF)Filtration systems

BOP / other equipment / engineering / designChemical feed systemsMonitoring / control

Breakdown of equipment for other process water and wastewater treatment 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Filtration systems 418.2 455.8 487.0 486.6 528.5 551.8 588.1 5.8%Sedimentation / clarification 535.0 573.9 613.3 598.0 653.0 677.4 714.9 4.9%Flotation (DAF) 183.4 195.1 211.6 225.8 240.9 255.4 274.3 6.9%UF/MF systems 274.7 307.6 344.6 385.9 432.2 484.1 542.2 12.0%Anaerobic systems 160.9 176.1 197.4 221.7 247.1 274.0 302.9 11.1%Activated carbon / adsorption 64.6 70.5 75.7 80.0 84.6 91.0 97.4 7.1%Ion exchange (non-UPW applications) 121.0 138.3 153.9 157.0 171.8 181.6 195.4 8.3%Sludge management 579.7 615.5 661.4 716.2 770.9 825.9 885.4 7.3%Monitoring / control 540.4 598.1 672.5 712.5 790.2 864.8 966.9 10.2%Chemical feed systems 487.9 525.3 573.6 593.8 642.0 685.5 748.2 7.4%BOP / other equipment / engineering /design 4,139.7 4,425.8 4,834.2 4,957.2 5,316.1 5,654.9 6,194.5 6.9%Total 7,505.5 8,082.1 8,825.0 9,134.7 9,877.4 10,546.3 11,510.2 7.4%

Note: the reason for the large discrepancy between some of the items in this breakdown and the comparable data from GWI’s Global Water Market 2011 report is because this breakdown strips out design, engineering, and the balance of plant as a separate item whereas Global Water Market 2011 attributed these costs to each equipment line. Additionally there was a significant error in the data given for UF/MF systems in Global Water Market 2011. Source: GWI



2. Oil and gas2.1 Water and wastewater in the oil and gas industryDifferent fossil fuels have different process water requirements and face different wastewater challenges. The oil and gas industry can be divided into five separate sectors from a water management perspective:

2.1.1 Onshore conventional oilProduced water management is the most significant water challenge. On average around the world, five times as much water as oil is brought to the surface. This water comprises formation water – i.e. groundwater which has been drawn into the oil reservoir as the oil is pumped out, and flood water which might have been pumped into the reservoir to drive the oil out. The volume of produced water increases with the age of the well because more formation water is drawn into the reservoir, and more injection water is required to bring the oil to the surface.

Figure 2.1 Typical water and oil production profile of an oil well in the North Atlantic

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

20191817161514131211109876543210

Water production

Oil production

Prod

uctio

n vo

lum

e (m

³/yr

)

Years of operation

Source: Nature Technology Solution

There is a wide variation in the quality and quantity of produced water. Salinity can vary from 500 mg/l to 200,000 mg/l: water is generally considered to be a hazardous waste rather than a potential resource.


Oil and gas // Water and wastewater in the oil and gas industry

Figure 2.2 Salinity of produced water in the U.S.

Tota

l dis

solv

ed s

olid

s (m

g/l)

Seawater

Salt tolerant crops

Livestock

Drinking waterSalt sensitive crops

Willisto

n

Powder

River

Big Horn

Wind River

Green Rive

r

Denve

r

Uinta-Pice

ance

Paradox

- Tota

l

San Jo

aquin

Centra

l Kan

sas

San Ju

an

Andarko

Los A

ngeles

Permian

1,000,000

100,000

10,000

1,000

100

Name of field

Source: Benko and Drewes

Typically, oil will initially be brought to the surface under natural f low or artificial lift (i.e. pumping), but, subsequently, additional pressure may be required to drive the oil to the surface. The process of injecting water down an oil well to drive out the oil is known as ‘water f lood’. The water used for f lood depends on what is available. In most cases the produced water will be recycled as injection water, but additional requirements might have to be met by other available resources: surface water, groundwater, and even seawater pumped up from the coast. In some cases there may be no additional water resources available, in which case an alternative approach to maintaining the pressure on the well, such as CO2 injection, might have to be used.

Produced water which is not used for f lood is reinjected into a disposal well. Whether the water is reused or disposed of, treatment is required to separate out the oil and to remove suspended solids which might impede reinjection. Oil water separation technologies together with reinjection pumps are the most significant area of capital expenditure on produced water management.

There is a growing interest in downhole oil water separation. This involves placing hydrocyclones or gravity separators and pumps in the reservoir, so that the produced water can be diverted to a deep aquifer, rather than be brought to the surface. The advantage of this approach is that it reduces the amount of pumping, and it reduces the environmental risks associated with surface reinjection.

Produced water management and the use of injection water is steadily becoming a more significant issue for the industry because of the increasing maturity of most conventional oil resources. The following figure illustrates the water-to-oil ratio (WOR) of major countries and producers:



Figure 2.3 Water to oil ratios of selected producers

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Qatar (2006)

Abu Dhabi (2006)

Saudi Arabia (2006)

Norway (2004)

Total S.A. (2006)

Offshore USA (2011)

Petrobras (2007)

Shell (2000)

Kuwait (2006)

Statoil (2005)

Chevron (2006)

Shell (2007)

BP (2004)

Syria (2006)

Onshore USA (2011)

Bahrain (2006)

Oman (2006)

Water to oil ratio (bbl/bbl)

Source: Veil & Clarke, 2011

Overall, the global WOR is believed to be in the region of 3:1. This is expected to increase in the future.

Besides the use of water and the production of wastewater in the production process, water is also used and contaminated at the drilling and completion stages of developing a new oil well. Drilling fluids (also known as ‘drilling mud’) are typically water-based, but may also be non-water-based or gaseous. They are used to cool the drill, to bring cuttings to the surface, and to stabilise and control the wellbore. Different proprietary fluids are used for different purposes. Typically, they are very heavy in suspended solids supplied and managed by oil field chemical companies. They are continuously recycled using a mud pump during the drilling process via the shale shaker which removes the cuttings. Completion fluids are used after a well has been drilled, but before production begins, to control the situation while production systems are put in place. They are typically saline solutions (chlorides, bromides and formates – not sulphates), and do not contain any suspended solids. The volumes of water required for drilling and completion can be met by tanker delivery (and on-site storage) or by using seawater.

2.1.2 Enhanced oil recovery (EOR)Typically, between 10% and 30% of the resource in the reservoir can be produced on the basis of natural f low or artificial lift. Water f lood might ensure that a further 5–10% of the resource can be produced. Beyond that, enhanced oil recovery (EOR) processes are required. These might involve a number of different techniques which would aim to recover a further 5–30% of the resource.



Figure 2.4 Primary, secondary and tertiary oil recovery

9

Primary recovery

Artificial lift

Natural flow Water flood Pressure maintenance

Gas injection

Chemical

Solvent

Customwater

Filtered seawater

Sulphate removal

Low-salinity

Tertiary recovery

Filtered seawater

Sulphate removal

Water injection

Produced water re-injection

Produced water re-injection

Thermal

Secondary recovery

Source: Brock, 2010

The market share of the various processes is shown in the following figure:

Figure 2.5 Global oil production by EOR method

IncludingSAGD in

Alberta oil sands

ExcludingSAGD in

Alberta oil sands

Steam

Canadian Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage

Hydrocarbon

Nitrogen

Polymer/chemical

CO2

42%

13%

24%

12%

21%

9%

33%

19%

10%

9%

7%

Source: Oil and gas journal, 2011; Shell; GWI

Four of these processes require specific water conditioning:

• Steam flood: Heavy oil is often too viscous to displace. It can be made to flow more freely with the application of steam.

• Polymer flood: By thickening the water used for f lood, it is possible to improve the consistency of the way in which the oil is swept from the reservoir.

• Alkali-surfactant-polymer (ASP) flood: by conditioning the reservoir first with alkali, and then with surfactants and polymers, it may be possible to improve recovery rates beyond what could be achieved by polymers on their own.

• Low salinity water: Water which is low in divalent ions and has a specific concentration of monovalent ions has been shown to improve the efficiency of water f lood, even without the addition of polymers or surfactants.

The science of EOR is still in its infancy. It is difficult to predict which approach to enhanced recovery might be most effective for a particular well field or understand why one approach works in one place but less well in another. Different companies have different preferences. However, there is growing evidence that the composition of the water used does make a significant difference to recovery rates.



Essentially, the challenge of EOR is to drive the oil off the clays and the sandstone in the reservoir. This can be done by reducing the oil wettability of the clays, and increasing the water wettability. When water with a specific concentration of monovalent ions is injected into the reservoirs, an ion exchange between the water and the divalent clays occurs. This alters the polarity of the clays, making them more attractive to the water molecules, and relatively less attractive to the oil molecules. It has been shown that low salinity water not only improves the effectiveness of water f lood, but also the effectiveness of polymer flood, reducing the volume of chemicals used to drive out the oil.

Figure 2.6 low salinity water in polymer flood

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

5,0004,0003,0002,0001,000

Designer water

SeawaterSignificant reduction in polymer quantity required to achieve the desired viscosity

Polymer quantity (ppm)

Visc

osity

at 7

.3/s

ec (c

P)

Source: Raney, 2011

Historically, water services in the oil field have been dominated by the chemical companies, who typically have staff continuously on-site to take responsibility for water conditioning issues. In future physical water treatment will play a more significant role in EOR, alongside chemical dosage.

2.1.3 Steam injection for heavy oil and oil sandsThere are two approaches to steam EOR:

• Cyclic steam stimulation (CSS): Otherwise known as the ‘huff and puff’ method, this involves injecting steam into the reservoir so that the oil is warm enough to flow. It is then allowed to soak for a while before the oil is drawn to the surface either under its own pressure or by artificial lift.

• Steam flood: Otherwise known as ‘steam drive’, this involves two wells: one for injecting the steam into and the other for producing the oil out of. A variant of steam flood is steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD), which involves drilling two horizontal wells, the upper one for injecting the steam into and the lower one for pumping the oil out of.

Typically, the steam for a CSS system or steam flood will come from a once through steam generator (OTSG). This produces 80% steam and is relatively tolerant of dissolved solids, although they do clog if the feedwater is high in silicates. In the Canadian oil sands, SAGD systems have become the preferred technology, and there is a trend towards greater use of drum boilers as a source of steam. These require higher quality feedwater than an OTSG, but they produce 100% steam, which is more efficient in terms of resource recovery.

2.1.4 In-situ mining of oil sandsHistorically, the main way in which the Canadian oil sands have been exploited has been through surface mining. When bitumen is dug out of a mine, it is mixed with water and shipped as a slurry via pipeline to the process plant and upgrader. In the process plant, the bitumen is separated from the clays and sands by agitating in warm water (to which caustic has been added to hold clay particles in colloidal suspension).

• It takes approximately 11 bbl of water to process each barrel of bitumen in this way.

• A further 1 bbl of water is then required to upgrade 1 bbl of bitumen to SCO.

Of this 12 bbl of water per 1 bbl of bitumen:

• 4 bbl is sourced as make-up water from the Athabasca River. In 2008, mine operators withdrew 151 million m³/yr (9.5 billion bbl/yr) of fresh water from the river.

• 8 bbl is recycled from process water.



The separated water, which contains large quantities of clay and sand (and small amounts of bitumen), is then piped to large tailings ponds where the mixture is allowed to settle out under gravity.

Figure 2.7 Inorganic water chemistry of tailings water at Syncrude’s Mildred Lake Settling Basin

Component Unit Value Potential problemsTDS mg/l 2,221 Builds up to the point where bitumen and sand no longer separatepH pH units 8.2 Keeps fine tailings in suspensionSodium mg/l 659Calcium mg/l 17 Can clog equipmentMagnesium mg/l 8Chloride mg/l 540Bicarbonate mg/l 775 Can clog equipmentSulphate mg/l 218 Can clog equipment

Source: Allen, 2008

Figure 2.8 Organic chemistry of tailings water at Syncrude’s Mildred Lake Settling Basin

Component Unit Value Potential problemsDissolved Organic Carbon mg/l 58 Aquatic toxicityBiochemical Oxygen Demand mg/l 25 Low oxygen levelsChemical Oxygen Demand mg/l 350 Low oxygen levelsOil & Grease mg/l 25 Toxic to aquatic and bird lifeCyanide mg/l 0.5 Aquatic toxicityNapthenic acids mg/l 49 Aquatic toxicityBenzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene

mg/l <0.01 Aquatic toxicity

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

mg/l <0.01 Aquatic toxicity

Source: Allen, 2008

2.1.5 Offshore conventional oilThe offshore oil industry faces similar challenges to the onshore oil industry, with the following added complications:

• Seawater has to be used for injection.

• In many parts of the world there are no-throw zones which restrict waste disposal options.

• There are significant restrictions on the footprint and weight of any equipment used.

Seawater is problematic as a raw water source for f lood because it contains sulphates. These are problematic for two reasons:

1. They can create scale when in contact with the formation water. Scaling reduces the flow of oil through the tubes which bring oil to the surface and impedes the flow through the formation. The biggest problem is where the reservoir contains barium or strontium ions. These react with the sulphates in the seawater to create barium sulphate or strontium sulphate, which are harder than calcium sulphate and less easy to remove using anti-scalant chemicals.

2. Sulphates can sour oil wells when they are digested by bacteria to create hydrogen sulphide. This is corrosive and poisonous and it reduces the value of the oil, as it requires additional washing before it can be refined.

The traditional solution to addressing the scaling and souring issues related to seawater f lood is to “squeeze” the well every so often using antiscalants, and if that is insufficient a physical workover involving the scouring of the tubing may be required. However, this is less practical in deep water, where there is a trend towards sulphate removal as a means of controlling scaling and souring.

2.1.6 Conventional gasFor the most part, the water issues related to the conventional gas industry are similar to the water issues related to the conventional oil industry, but on a much smaller scale. Produced water is brought to the surface in smaller volumes than what is generally expected in oil production, and with the exception of hydraulic fracturing required for shale gas production, there is no significant process water requirement beyond the utility water typically required by any production site.

The greatest water challenge in the conventional gas sector is the toxicity of the produced water. It can contain contaminants such as phenols and benzene which cannot be disposed of into the sea without removal.



The following figure compares the composition of produced water from oil, conventional gas and coal seam gas.

Figure 2.9 Typical produced water constituents from oil, gas and coalbed methane (CBM) production

Oil production Gas production CBM productionGroundwater/seawater Formation water SodiumOil and grease Condensed water BariumCorrosion inhibitors* Benzene CalciumOxygen scavengers* Toluene MagnesiumEmulsion breakers* Ethylbenzene IronClarifiers* Xylene ChlorideCoagulants* Dehydration chemicals* SulphateFlocculants* Hydrogen sulphide-removal chemicals* Total Dissolved SolidsSolvents* Hydrate inhibitors* Total Potassium HydrocarbonsBenzene Mineral Acids* Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)Toluene Dense brines* Alkalinity, as CaCO3Ethylbenzene Additives* Hardness, as CaCO3XyleneNaphthalenes IronLeadManganeseZincBariumAluminumCopperNickelTitaniumArsenicBoronCadmium

*Chemicals found in produced water added for drilling and producing activities.Source: Veil et al., 2004

2.1.7 Shale gasShale gas production is the fastest growing area of water usage in the oil and gas industry. The most significant requirement is in the fracturing process – where water it pumped into the gas-bearing rock to fracture it and release the gas. This fracturing fluid is made up of 98.0–99.5% water and sand. The remaining 0.5–2.0% is comprised of various chemicals that improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the fracturing job. In general, the water source that makes up the fracturing fluid is:

• Freshwater from municipal supply, surface water bodies or groundwater bodies.

• Reused water primarily reclaimed from flowback water.



The following figures show the percentages of the main chemicals found in fracturing fluid.

Figure 2.10 Fracturing fluid components

0.123%

Frac fluidchemicals

0.088%

0.085%

0.06%

0.056%

0.043%0.011%

0.01%

0.007%0.004%

0.002%0.001%

Acid

Friction reducer

Surfactant

KCI

Gelling agent

Scale inhibitor

pH adjusting agent

Breaker

Crosslinker

Iron control

Corrosion inhibitor

Frac fluidcomposition

Other (chemicals)0.49%

Water & sand 99.51%

Biocide

0.123%

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 2009

The fracturing fluid specification is critical to the efficiency of the fracturing job and, to the prevention of damage to the well. Once the flowback water begins to return to the surface, operators are able to collect this water and, after adequate treatment reuse it for future fracturing fluid. At this stage the flowback water is full of chemicals and can have very high salinity. The majority of the flowback water is recovered within a few weeks and in the early stages the water has a lower concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) (5,000 mg/l), which quickly increases to as high as 200,000 mg/l. To ensure the efficiency of the fracturing job, this f lowback water can be blended with freshwater or treated to reduce or remove contaminants.

The following figure shows the typical contaminants and the problems caused when reused as source water for new fracturing fluid.

Figure 2.11 Flowback reuse as fracturing fluid contaminants

Contaminant Problem Bacteria Cause souring of wellsCations (Ba, Ca, Mg, Sr, Mn, Al) In carbonate forms cause scaling in pipes, wells, drilling

equipment and in formation fractures Produce negative impacts on friction reduction

Metals e.g. Iron (Fe) Cause scaling in its sulfide and carbonate form Produce negative impacts on friction reduction

Total suspended solids (TSS) (high concentration)

Cause clogging in pipes

Total dissolved solids (TDS) (high concentrations)

Removal is very expensive

Chlorides (high concentrations) Cause corrosion and treatment is expensiveSource: Grindrod and Spitko, 2010

An operator might expect between 15% and 70% of the frac water to f low back within the first three months of operation. There is a limit – around 10% – to the amount of the flowback water which can be cut into a new frac without significant investment in removing the dissolved salts. This means that unless an operator is exponentially increasing the number of frac jobs it is undertaking, it must find a way of disposing of the surplus frac water. In the Texas shales, which are currently the most productive shale plays in the world, there are plenty of options for reinjecting the flow-back water. In the Marcellus shale play, the options are more limited. As the play becomes more developed it will become necessary to develop more alternatives for reuse and disposal.



Figure 2.12 Average volumes of frac and drilling water in Barnett, Fayetteville, Haynesville & Marcellus shale

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

12,000

15,000

MarcellusHaynesvilleFayettevilleBarnett

m³/

wel

l

Frac waterDrilling water

Shale play Volume of drilling water (m³/well)

Volume of frac water (m³/well)

Total volume of water (m³/well)

Barnett 1,514 8,706 10,220Fayetteville 227* 10,978 11,583Haynesville 3,785 10,220 14,006Marcellus 303* 14,385 14,687

*Drilling performed with an air mist and/or water-based or oil-based muds Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 2009

2.1.8 Coalbed methaneCoalbed methane (CBM), or coal seam gas (CSG), as it is known in Australia, is methane gas which has been trapped in coal formations beneath the ground. Typically, these formations also carry water. The gas is produced by drilling into the formation and sometimes implementing a hydraulic fracture: initially more water than gas will come to the surface, although the situation reverses as the well matures. The profile of CBM gas production is illustrated in the following figure:

Figure 2.13 Gas and produced water from CBM

Water

GasStage 1: Dewatering

Stage 2: Mid-life

Stage 3: Decline production

Time

Volu

me

Conventional gas

Source: Osmoflo

This water has three characteristics which make it different from other produced water in the oil and gas sector.

1. The produced water from CBM is relatively low in TDS, compared to produced water from other sources. In some cases it can be reused in agriculture without significant treatment. In most cases it is low enough for the energy cost of desalinating it not to be prohibitively high.

2. Oil and grease are only a minor concern – less pretreatment is required prior to desalination.

3. The water-to-gas ratio for coalbed methane is relatively high. Massive volumes of water are generated from most fields compared to conventional gas, tight gas or shale gas.


Oil and gas // Market drivers

Although CBM-produced water is relatively more benign than other types of produced water, the location of some CBM plays are such that disposal is a real challenge (for example, because there are no reinjection wells nearby and there are regulatory reasons why evaporation ponds cannot be used). In these circumstances desalination for beneficial reuse or surface disposal is perhaps the only viable option.

CBM wells are typically most productive at the beginning of their life, with the gas pressure declining, bringing less water to the surface as production progresses.

2.1.9 Summary of water and wastewater challenges in the oil and gas industryThe sectors of the market where desalination and water reuse technology is most relevant in the oil and gas industry are as follows:

• Beneficial reuse of conventional oil and gas produced water.

• Low salinity water and sulphate removal packages for f lood/EOR.

• Water recycling for steam flood

• Shale gas produced water management

• CBM produced water management

The next section will look at the drivers which apply to each of these sectors.

2.2 Market drivers

2.2.1 Beneficial reuse of conventional oil and gas produced waterThe vast majority of oil field produced water is reinjected into the ground. Although there are no global statistics for produced water management, the following figure illustrates how produced water from the U.S. oil and gas industry (including CBM) is reused.

Figure 2.14 U.S. oil and gas produced water volumes by management practice

Reinjection for flood / EOR10.72 billion bbl/yr

20.99 billion bbl/yrU.S. producedwater volume

(2007)Reinjection for disposal7.14 billion bbl/yr

Surface discharge0.68 billion bbl/yr

Other / Not known2.35 billion bbl/yr

Management practiceVolume of produced water

(billion bbl/yr)Reinjection for flood / EOR 10.72Reinjection for disposal 7.14Surface discharge 0.68Other/not known (*) 2.35Total 20.99

(*) The other/not known category includes surface discharge (the majority of which is offshore oil produced water) evaporation ponds, off-site commercial disposal, beneficial reuse, and other management methods. Source: Clarke & Veil 2009

In 2007, 1.3 billion bbl/yr of produced water was reported to have been beneficially reused. It is likely that the vast majority (say 1.1 billion bbl/yr) of this is related to CBM production, which is notably less saline than produced water from conventional oil and gas. This suggests that around 200 million bbl/yr (31 million m³/yr; 85,000 m³/d) is reused beneficially. The majority of this water (perhaps 75%) is likely to be used for livestock watering.



On the basis of the U.S. experience, we would estimate the produced water management practices globally to be as follows:

Figure 2.15 Global produced water volumes by management practice

Reinjection for flood / EOR 36.3 billion bbl/yr

69.8 billion bbl/yrGlobal produced

water volume(2007)

Reinjection for disposal 13.3 billion bbl/yr

Surface discharge14.7 billion bbl/yr

Other non-beneficial 3.5 billion bbl/yr

Other beneficial 2.1 billion bbl/yr

Management practiceEstimated volume of

produced water (billion bbl/yr)Reinjection for flood / EOR 36.3Reinjection for disposal 13.3Surface discharge 14.7Other non-beneficial 3.5Other beneficial 2.1Total 69.8

Source: Clarke & Veil 2009 (total); GWI estimates (breakdown)

There are a number of reasons why beneficial reuse of oil field produced water is not more widespread:

• Often, produced water has a high salt content, which makes it unsuitable for most beneficial uses.

• The cost of treating produced water to the level at which it might be reused is too high to justify the investment.

• Producers in certain geographies need every bit of water they can lay their hands on to maintain pressure in the reservoir or to reinject for f lood.

• There are concerns about liability issues relating to reusing oil field wastewater for indirect human consumption.

• There is a mismatch between where produced water is available and where additional water resources are needed.

• There is no method of monetising the value of produced water: even in the U.S., which has a developed system of water rights, it is not easy for energy companies to sell the water they produce.

As a result, beneficial reuse of oil field produced water tends to be restricted to places where the produced water has low salinity and few other treatment challenges, and where there is a ready use for it in agriculture. The following figure illustrates the opportunities for using produced water in farming:

Figure 2.16 Use of produced water in agriculture

TDS Effect on irrigation<400 mg/l No restrictions on crop growth400–1,900 mg/l Slight restrictions on crop growth>1,900 mg/l Severe restrictions on crop growth

TDS Effect on livestock<1,000 mg/l Excellent for all stock1,000–2,999 mg/l Very satisfactory, but some animals may need acclimatising3,000–4,999 mg/l Satisfactory, but some animals may refuse it5,000–9,999 mg/l Use becomes more problematic, especially for pregnant/lactating animals>10,000 mg/l Unsatisfactory for all classes of animal

Source: Muleshoe Engineering, 2010



Besides the agricultural use of produced water, the other low cost/low value application for produced water is in environmental enhancement. In Oman, for example, Petroleum Development Oman has been piloting the use of reed beds as an alternative to reinjection at Nimr. The facility takes produced water with a concentration of 400 ppm oil and a TDS of 6,800, and runs it through a series of reed beds before discharging it into an evaporation pond, by which time the oil content has been reduced to less than 0.5 ppm and the salinity has risen to 12,000 mg/l. The power consumption of the reed bed is 0.1 kWh/m³, which compares to the 4 kWh/m³ which had previously been consumed in reinjecting the produced water. In addition to the energy (and carbon) savings, the reed beds have “greened the desert”, and in future there is the possibility of harvesting the reeds either for use as biomass for energy generation or as a material for thatching or other traditional crafts.

There is some suggestion that beneficial reuse of oil field produced water may be on the verge of significant expansion. There are a number of reasons why this might be the case:

• Water scarcity in some oil producing regions (such as West Texas) has become so severe that all possible additional water resources need to be considered. Instead of produced water being treated as hazardous waste, more people in the industry are taking interest in its potential as a valuable commodity: looking for ways of off-setting the cost of disposal with additional income from beneficial reuse.

• The oil industry is changing its attitude towards water as it looks to burnish its environmental credentials. Projects such as the Nimr Reed Beds look more attractive than reinjection in that sense.

• Environmental regulations are becoming tougher. For example, where produced water is currently discharged to the surface with little treatment, tougher regulation might make it economic to treat the produced water so that it could be used more effectively in agriculture.

• The volumes of produced water brought to the surface are expected to rise from 246 million bbl/d in 2012 to 300 million bbl/d in 2020.

• The cost of alternatives to beneficial reuse may be rising: at the margins, for example, where produced water has to be trucked long distances for reinjection or where the geology of reinjection wells requires very high pressures for effective disposal, increasing the efficiency of desalination technologies will have an impact on the cost benefit analysis with respect to beneficial reuse.

Figure 2.17 Cost of produced water management alternatives

Disposal method Average fee States involved Treatment Burial (landfill) $39.40 - $85.10 / ton OH, NM, WV, ND, AZ, MS, KY, LA Regional Burial (pit) $1.12 - $1.70 / bbl OK, UT, WY RegionalCavern $3.40 - $6.20 /bbl TX NoDischarge (NPDES) $2.50 - $2.80 / bbl PA, WY YesDischarge (POTW) $0.75 - $2.50 / bbl PA YesEvaporation $1.30 - $1.50 / bbl NM, UT, CO, WY YesInjection $0.90 - $1.30 / bbl OK, AL, MS, AR, NM, TX, LA, MI, ND, WV, WY YesInjection (solids) $5.40 - $10.40 / bbl LA, TX YesLand Application $10.60 - $14.90 / bbl AR, NM, UT MostlyThermal Treatment $10.50 - $105 / bbl TX` YesTreatment $5.00 - $9.50 / bbl TX, AL Yes

Source: Veil et al., 2006

The U.S., followed by the Gulf region, is likely to be the best market for beneficial reuse of produced water.



Figure 2.18 Oil reserves and water risk

Source: Global Water Risk Index, GWI 2011

2.2.2 Low salinity water and sulphate removal for flood and enhanced oil recoveryThis section covers three related technologies:

1. The removal of sulphates from seawater for f lood.

2. The use of low salinity water to enhance recovery rates from water f lood.

3. The use of low salinity water in polymer and ASP floods.

The technologies are related because all of them involve altering the concentration of dissolved solids in water used to inject into the ground, and to some extent the use of low salinity water for EOR may replace the sulphate removal technologies currently used.

2.2.2.1 Sulphate removal drivers

Sulphate removal for seawater f lood is used primarily on the Atlantic rim, i.e. the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Brazil, and off the coast of Angola, where barium and strontium are present in the formation. These react with the sulphates in the seawater, causing a hard scale which cannot be removed easily in deep water facilities.



Figure 2.19 Sulphate removal offshore adoption

Source: Dow Water Solutions; Global Water Risk Index, GWI 2011

Dow, which together with Marathon Oil held the patent to the SR90 sulphate removal membrane, believes that the growth of the market has mapped the growth of deep off-shore production.

Figure 2.20 Sulphate removal and the growth of the deep water oil production sector

0

5

10

15

20

25

20102000199019801970196019501940

Total offshore

Shallow water

Sulphate removal capacity

Deep water

Capa

city

(mill

ion

bbl/

d)

Source: Dow Water Solutions

Assuming that the estimated ultimate reserves (EUR) of deepwater oil is 80 billion bbl, total deepwater off-shore production is forecast by IPC Petroleum Consultants and Statoil to rise from 5.5 million bbl/d to a peak of 6.3 million bbl/d in 2015. If the EUR rises to 130 or 180 billion barrels, then production is expected to rise more steeply.



Figure 2.21 Deepwater offshore crude production, 2010–2030

0

5

10

15

2030202520152010

Estimated ultimate reserves of 180 billion bbl



Proj

ecte

d pr

oduc

tion

(mill

ion

bbl/

d)

Projected production (million bbl/d)




2010 5.5 5.5 5.52015 6.3 10.2 13.22025 5.1 8.9 12.72030 4.3 7.7 11.1

Source: OGJ, Volume 108, Issue 41 (2010)

The following figure shows current production and total proven reserves of the four key markets for sulphate reduction technology:

Figure 2.22 Deepwater production in the Atlantic Rim, 2000–2020

RegionOffshore production (million bbl/d)

Proven offshore reserves (million bbl) Predictions Source

Norway 2.01 (2011) 5,670 (2011) Production will remain constant for the next 10 years.

NPD/EIA

Brazil 1.92 (2011) 14,100 (2011) Total production should reach 3 million bbl/d in 2013

ANP/EIA

Angola 1.84 (2011) 9,500 (2011) Total production should reach 2.5–3 million bbl/d by 2016

EIA

Gulf of Mexico 1.32 (2011) 4,010 (2009) EIAUnited Kingdom (North Sea)

1.05 (2011) 2,800 (2011) Production will continue to decline. New discoveries are unlikely

DECC

Source: EIA; ANP; DECC; NPD

Despite the optimism about continued deepwater development off the coast of Angola and Brazil, it has to be acknowledged that deepwater exploration is heavily dependent on the oil price remaining high. The cost of production in Angola for example is estimated by the IEA to be in the region of $30–$40/bbl. The oil majors would not consider a field to be commercially attractive with that cost of production if the oil price were to fall below $70/bbl.

Furthermore it should be noted that the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico led to a six month moratorium on further drilling in that field and increased permitting requirements. This continues to have a significant impact on activity in the area.

2.2.2.2 Low salinity water flood

Low salinity water f lood is an important emerging technology in the oil field. Although the chemistry of altering wettability using low salinity water was first considered in the late 1950s, it is only since 2008 that momentum has started to build behind the technology. Low salinity water f lood is now just beginning to be rolled out on a commercial scale. Recent initiatives include:

• BP: Announced in October 2011 that it was investing £10 million in its first off-shore deployment of low salinity water systems at the Clair Ridge in the North Sea. It has also demonstrated the technology in the Endicott Field, Alaska and a larger scale for the North Slope field is being planned.



• Saudi Aramco: In May 2012 Aramco announced that it was planning a field scale demonstration of its “Smart Water” technology. (Aramco uses seawater f lood on shore to drive production at its giant Gwahar field.).

• Shell: Reported in 2010 to be using low salinity water to improve recovery in Oman and at its Ursa field in the Gulf of Mexico, claiming improved recovery rates in excess of 10%.

• ExxonMobil: Upstream Research group has demonstrated the potential for “Advanced Ion Management” to increase oil recovery in water f lood in Middle East carbonate.

• Kuwait Oil Company: Has been investigating low salinity water f lood for its Sabriyah (Upper Burgan) reservoir in North Kuwait.

Although there are studies which show that low salinity water f lood has delivered increases in recovery of between 2% and 30% of original oil in place, the technology has not been consistently successful at increasing recovery rates. For example, Geoffrey Thyne and Pubundu Gamage of the Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute in Wyoming reported in 2011 that the use of low salinity water had not led to any increased recovery in the Powder River Basin. This suggests that the mechanism by which low salinity water f lood increases recovery is not fully understood. It is likely that some reservoirs will prove more susceptible to the technology than others, and this should somewhat limit the technology’s potential.

Assuming that low salinity water f lood does have an impact on recovery rates in a significant number of oil fields, then the main driver of the growth of the technology is the universal need to squeeze more oil out of existing resources. The mathematics of this are simple. The rate at which new reserves are discovered has fallen from a peak of 55 billion bbl/yr to between 10–15 billion bbl/yr in recent years. Set against annual consumption of around 30 billion bbl/yr, it is clear that more oil needs to be squeezed out of existing resources if the industry is to avoid “peak oil”. If the current recovery rate from oil fields is around 30% using primary and secondary approaches, then methods, including low salinity water injection, which promise to increase that recovery rate are likely to be in strong demand. The International Energy Agency forecast the expansion of EOR as follows in 2008:

Figure 2.23 Forecast of oil production by EOR from different countries in 2015 and 2030

Oman

Algeria

Qatar

United Arab Emirates

Russia

Canada

Kuwait

China

Saudi Arabia

United States

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

2015

2030

Capacity (million bbl/d)

Source: IEA

Another driver of the technology may be the gradual substitution of sulphate removal units (SRUs) with low salinity systems in the Atlantic rim. This is because low salinity systems perform a dual function of addressing the problems of souring and scaling the reservoir at the same time as increasing recovery rates. Although a low salinity system may be marginally more bulky than a standard SRU, it is likely to more than justify the cost of the real estate it occupies on an off-shore platform.

2.2.2.3 Low salinity water for chemical EOR

Chemical EOR, using polymers alone or as part of an alkali surfactant polymer flood, currently represent around 10% of the EOR market.



Figure 2.24 EOR market development

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

201220102005200019951990

CO2

Polymer/chemical

Nitrogen

Hydrocarbon

Steam

Estimated cumulative capacity (bbl/d)


Although it is not as popular as miscible CO2 flood, it occupies a recognised niche in the portfolio of technologies for EOR.

Figure 2.25 EOR process selection according to reservoir depth and oil viscosity

Steam injection

Miscible CO2

or HC gas injection

Miscible nitrogen injection

Surfactants

Polymer injection

Immiscible gas injection

10 100 1,000 10,00010

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

100,000

Reduce viscosity contrast

Reduce surface tension

Oil viscosity (cp)

Rese

rvoi

r dep

th (f

t)

Source: Shell



Figure 2.26 Cost profiles of different approaches to EOR

ThermalCost profile

Miscible gasCost profile

Well capex Prod capex Injectant opexFac capex

ChemicalCost profile

Source: Shell

The following figure shows where chemical f loods have been used around the world since 1985. The oldest site is in China at Daqing, where polymer flood was first used more than 30 years ago, and where ASP flooding has been pioneered.

Figure 2.27 Chemical floods since 1985


Work on the first major off-shore ASP flood project in Malaysia is expected to begin during 2012. The project will incorporate a f loating low salinity water treatment and chemical dosing facility. The vessel (which is expected to be supplied by Water Standard) is expected to cost in the region of $200 million: it will be deployed elsewhere once it has finished work at the initial site.

Although chemical f looding is a relatively established technology, its use with low salinity water is still an early stage technology. It has been proven in a test well, but it has yet to be applied on a large scale commercial basis. However the published research is positive, both in terms of the impact of low salinity water in limiting the cost of a chemical f lood, and in terms of the overall recovery rates achieved. It seems likely that low salinity water will be widely used in polymer and ASP flood in future.

The main restraint on the market for low salinity water in this context will be the oil price: ASP and polymer flood are a relatively expensive EOR technology, with each incremental barrel of oil produced costing an additional $10–$15. The cost of a low salinity system is on top of this price, and it brings with it a larger element of capital cost than a traditional chemical f lood.



2.2.3 Water recycling for steam floodSteam flood is used as a method of EOR for heavy oils and oil sands. The following figure shows where in the world the technology is currently in use:

Figure 2.28 Top 10 Countries for global steam flood operations

Country Enhanced production (bbl/d)USA 303,800Canada 296,500Venezuela 210,000Indonesia 190,000China 151,700Kuwait 96,000Oman 70,500Brazil 21,600Colombia 8,500Trinidad 3,400Rest of world 6,200Total 1,358,200

These values are based on EOR methods and do not account for SAGD methods.Source: Oil and gas journal, 2011; Shell; GWI

Overall there has been a decline in the use of steam as a method of EOR for heavy oil.

Figure 2.29 Oil production from steam EOR, 1980–2012

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2010200520001995199019851980

SAGD in Canadian oil sands

Worldwide steam EOR

Estim

ated

cum

ulat

ive

capa

city

(bbl

/d)


The reason for the relative decline in the use of steam EOR is partly its cost, and partly because of the development of other approaches to EOR. However, in the Canadian oil sands, the outlook for steam EOR in general and SAGD in particular is very strong. Not only is production from the oil sands expected to grow strongly, but a larger proportion of that production is expected to come from in-situ operations which use steam EOR, rather than from mining (which does not), and within in-situ operations, SAGD is gaining market share from CSS.



Figure 2.30 Canadian crude oil production forecast 2007–2020

0

300

600

900

1,200

1,500

2020201520102007

Actual Projected

Offshore

mill

ion

bbl/

yr

OnshoreOil sands

Source: Canadian National Energy Board

The amount of water used in the oil sands for mining and in-situ process water is expected to increase as bitumen production rises. If nothing is done to change current production methods, mining operators would be handling approximately 13.5 million bbl/d of water, in-situ operators a further 3.24 million bbl/d, and upgraders 1.23 million bbl/d, resulting in a total of 17.97 million bbl/d by 2021.

Figure 2.31 Potential growth in oil sand operators’ water handling

Bitumen production (bbl/d) 2006 2011 2016 2021 AssumptionsMining (raw bitumen) 0.77 million 1.00 million 1.22 million 1.23 million CAPP forecastIn-situ (raw bitumen) 0.49 million 0.81 million 1.08 million 1.08 million CAPP forecastTotal bitumen 1.26 million 1.81 million 2.30 million 2.30 million

Water handling (bbl/d) 2006 2011 2016 2021Mining water handling 8.5 million 11.00 million 13.40 million 13.50 million 11 bbl of water required to

produce 1 bbl of bitumenIn-situ water handling 1.50 million 2.40 million 3.20 million 3.24 million 3 bbl of water required to

produce 1 bbl of bitumenUpgrader 0.77 million 1.00 million 1.22 million 1.23 million 1 bbl of water required to

produce 1 bbl of SCOTotal water 10.77 million 14.40 million 17.86 million 17.97 million

Source: CAPP 2010



Figure 2.32 SAGD capacity in the Canadian oil sands

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

Unda

ted

2017

+

2016

2015

2014

2013

*

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

Evaporation

Lime softening

Future projects

0.9

m

1.6

m

New

pro

duct

ion

capa

city

onl

ine

(bbl

/d)

Online year

* Shows confirmed evaporation projects onlySource: Alberta Oil Sands Quarterly; GWI

Besides growth production, the other major driver of water recycling for steam flood is water scarcity. The growth of bitumen production in Alberta has created a demand for water which can no longer be satisfied from the locally available natural resources (chiefly the Athabasca River). As a result, there is regulatory pressure on producers to increase water recycling.

Outside of the Canadian oil sands the main growth markets for steam EOR are Oman and Kuwait (including the partitioned neutral zone), where heavy oil resources coincide with extreme water scarcity. In California, there is a continuing need for steam EOR to support heavy oil production, but the combination of local scarcity and environmental regulation makes recycling the produced water an attractive option.

Venezuela has historically been a strong market for steam EOR, as the Orinoco basin is a heavy oil resource, but there has been little investment in new steam production facilities in recent years. Other potential Latin American heavy oil markets include Trinidad, Colombia, and Brazil. Egypt and Indonesia are also potential opportunities.

Heavy oil and bitumen are plentiful, but high cost resources. The following figure shows how they might fit into the global liquid fuels cost portfolio.



Figure 2.33 Long term oil supply cost curve

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

10,0009,0008,0007,0006,0005,0004,0003,0002,0001,000

Produced

MENA

Other conventional oil

CO2 - EOR

Deepwater & ultra deepwater

EOR

Arctic

Heavy oil and bitumen

Oil shales

Gas to liquids

Coal to liquids

Prod

uctio

n co

st ($

- 20

08)

Resources (billion barrels)

Source: IEA, 2008

2.2.4 Shale gas produced water managementThere are two drivers of the market for desalination and water reuse technology in shale gas production. The first is the volume of shale gas production, and the second is the options for disposing of the flowback water. On the first point, it is clear that shale gas production is going to expand very rapidly. On the second point, where disposal wells are readily available, there is little incentive to consider desalinating or reusing the flowback water. Produced water management becomes a logistics issue: trucking water from the well head to disposal wells as required. Where disposal wells are not locally available, then desalination and reuse becomes a much more significant consideration.

The following figure shows where shale resources are to be found:

Figure 2.34 Global shale plays

Source: EIA



Figure 2.35 Technically recoverable shale gas resources by country

CountryTechnically recoverable reserves (billion m³)

Country Technically recoverable reserves (billion m³)

Country Technically recoverable reserves (billion m³)

China 36,104 France 5,097 Uruguay 595United States 24,409 Norway 2,350 U.K. 566Argentina 21,917 Chile 1,812 Others 538Mexico 19,284 India 1,784 Tunisia 510South Africa 13,734 Paraguay 1,756 Netherlands 481Australia 11,213 Pakistan 1,444 Turkey 425Canada 10,987 Bolivia 1,359 Morocco 311Libya 8,212 Ukraine 1,189 Germany 227Algeria 6,541 Sweden 1,161 Western Sahara 198Brazil 6,400 Denmark 651 Lithuania 113Poland 5,295

Source: EIA, 2011

Although there are significant resources in the rest of the world, only the U.S. is producing significant quantities of shale gas at the moment. The following figure shows the status of shale gas development in other markets

Figure 2.36 Status of international shale plays

Country Current status Large scale production Water challengeChina Up to 20 exploratory wells in operation 2015 Scarcity and disposalPoland Up to 20 exploratory wells in operation 2014 Disposal not scarcityArgentina Early development 2015 Disposal not scarcityMexico Early development 2018 Scarcity not disposalSouth Africa Early development 2020 Scarcity and disposalFrance Moratorium on new development – Disposal not scarcityCanada Up to 500 wells in operation 2014 Some issues

Source: GWI

The speed at which shale gas resources are developed is likely to be a function of the regulatory environment, the cost of developing and producing the resource, and the price of gas. The following figure compares the production and wellhead development costs for shale gas in the major shale plays, with conventional gas production costs and the price that natural gas traded at as this report went to press.

Figure 2.37 Gas production costs and spot market prices

0

3

6

9

12

15

Qatarconv.

Russiaconv.

RussiaCBM

ChinaCBM

Chinashale

EuropeCBM

EuropeShale

U.S. CBM

U.S.shale

U.S. current price $2.20

Europe current import price $11.60

Japan current import price $16.75

Cost

of d

evel

opm

ent &

pro

duct

ion

($/m

illio

n Bt

u)

Source: IEA



The spot market price history of natural gas at the Henry Hub in the U.S., and the liquified natural gas (LNG) import price in Japan and Europe are shown in the following figure.

Figure 2.38 Natural gas price trends: Henry Hub spot price and LNG import prices in Europe and Japan

0

5

10

15

20

201220112010200920082007

Europe LNGimport price

Japan LNGimport price

Henry Hub Natural Gas spot price

$/ m

illio

n Bt

u

Source: World Bank Commodity Markets Review

The chart shows how the gas price in the U.S. has become decoupled from the gas price in Europe and Japan. The main reason for the differential is that European and Japanese gas prices are largely tethered to the oil price, while U.S. gas prices are determined by the spot market at the Henry Hub, and therefore are a better reflection of supply and demand. Increased shale gas production in the U.S. (together with a relatively mild winter) has brought down the price of gas at the Henry Hub, while the switch away from nuclear power in Germany and Japan has ensured tighter demand within the framework of oil price-related contracts. This means that the financial incentive to develop further shale gas resources in North America has become weaker. However, there are two reasons why the U.S. gas price can be expected to recover in the longer term. First, because of the development of the Sabine Pass as an LNG export facility (which received the regulatory go-ahead in April 2012); and, second, because energy consumers within the U.S. are likely to switch to gas away from other fuels, such as coal and oil.

After 2015, it is likely that global gas prices will converge once more. 13 LNG projects are expected to become operational by 2017 (eight of which are located in Australia), adding liquidity to the gas market and making it more difficult to retain oil-indexed pricing.

At the moment, the U.S. is the only significant producer of shale gas in the world, so a slowdown in the rate at which shale resources are developed in the U.S. is of primary importance for the market for water technology in the shale plays.



The following figure shows U.S. shale gas production by state.

Figure 2.39 Shale gas production by state

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200920082007

Arkansas (Fayettesville)Texas (Barnett, Haynesville)bi

llion

m³/

yr

OtherNorth Dakota (Bakken)Pennsylvania (Marcellus)Michigan (Antrim)Oklahoma (Woodford)Louisiana (Haynesville)

Source: EIA, June 2012

Also of primary importance to the development of the water technology sector is the extent to which shale gas resources are developed in those areas of the country where there is only limited access to disposal wells.

Figure 2.40 Proven shale gas reserves by state and class II injection wells

StateProven shale gas reserves

in 2009 (billion m³) Number of class II wellsTexas 798 52,016Louisiana 264 3,731Arkansas 257 1,093Oklahoma 181 10,629Pennsylvania 107 1,861Michigan 71 1,460West Virginia 19 779North Dakota 10 1,023Montana 4 1,062Other 6 27,544Total 1,717 101,198

Source: EIA; EPA

In states such as Texas, where injection wells are available, frac water management is typically a logistical operation. Trucks carry freshwater from a source to the frac site, where it is stored in containers before use, and, after injection, the flowback water is collected and typically trucked to disposal wells. There is some demand for basic pretreatment systems, particularly where the lack of availability of source water makes it attractive to cut some of the flowback water into a new frac. There is no demand for desalination systems which would treat the flowback water to potable standards for surface discharge.

In the Marcellus shale, where there is less scope for reinjecting the flowback water, it is more likely that a market for desalination equipment will emerge, but only if the price of gas rises to the extent that the price of the desalination process can be covered by the price of oil.

Another key issue which will determine the market for water technology in the shale industry, both in the U.S. and in the rest of the world, is the extent to which centralised water treatment facilities will be used as the shale production market matures.

In its report Golden Rules for A Golden Age of Gas, the International Energy Authority makes the following recommendations for water stewardship:

• Zero in-field trucking of water within the concession area: This is an area where regulation and licensing requirements can play an important role. If these facilitate the necessary investment, capital expenditure on building water supply pipelines could be offset over the ten-year period by the reduction in truck movements.

• Central purpose-built water treatment facilities: These facilities, allowing closed-loop recycling of wastewater, could be linked by pipeline to each pad location. They would reduce the overall water supply required for operations and minimise the need for off-site disposal, thereby reducing total transportation, water and disposal costs.



The agency estimates the cost of the first recommendation to be net zero, while the second recommendation would deliver a net saving of between $100,000 and $150,000 per well.

Although the Heckmann Corporation has 50 miles of permanent pipeline and 200 miles of temporary pipeline through the Haynesville shale in Texas and Louisiana, this is used to transport produced water to disposal wells rather than to a centralised treatment plant. (The company also has 19 miles of freshwater pipeline.)

Some industry observers suggest that as the industry matures and the oil majors play a larger role in shale gas production, pipelines and centralised treatment plants (where disposal wells are not available) will become the norm. Others believe that mobile water treatment facilities will become the norm.

2.2.5 Coalbed methane produced water managementThe countries with the largest reserves of coalbed methane are Australia, Canada, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, Ukraine, and the United States.

Figure 2.41 Map of the world’s CBM resources

Source: Various



Their estimated reserves and current production are as follows:

Figure 2.42 CBM reserves and production by country

Country Proven reserves Production ProjectionsAustralia 930 billion m³ (2010) economically recoverable

resources of CSG (IEA Golden Rules report)825 billion m³ (2009) proven and probable reserves (Geoscience Australia)

5 billion m³/yr in 2010 (IEA Golden Rules report)

Australian gas production is projected to reach 218 billion m³/yr in 2029–30. CSG is projected to account for 29% of this total (63.2 billion m³/yr)

Canada 68 billion m³ remaining reserves of CBM in Alberta (2010)5 trillion m³ of remaining recoverable resources of CBM in Canada in 2011 (IEA Golden Rules report)

7.7 billion m³/yr (2011) (National Energy Board) 8 billion m³/yr (IEA Golden Rules report)

Decline to 2.4 billion m³/yr in 2035

China 273.4 billion m³ proved reserves (National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC)36.8 trillion m³ potential reserves (Chinese government’s official estimates)9 trillion m³ of remaining recoverable resources (IEA Golden Rules report), plan to add 1 trillion m³ of CBM to proven reserves by 2015

5 billion m³/yr (2011)10 billion m³/yr in 2010 (IEA Golden Rules report)

30 billion m³/yr in 2015 (IEA Golden Rules report), 50 billion m³ by 2020

India 1,354 billion m³ in awarded contracts (Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas)

83 million m³/yr (2011) 1.5 billion m³/yr by 2016/2017

Indonesia 12.8 trillion m³ (potential resources) Still on a trial basis 5.2 billion m³/yr in 2015,10.3 billion m³/yr in 2020,15.5 billion m³/yr in 2025

Russia 84 trillion m³ probable CBM resources (over 13 trillion m³ in the Kuznetsk Basin)

Just starting with commercial production, until now it was only extracted as a by-product from existing mines (0.5 billion m³/yr)

4 billion m³/yr in 2021 in the Kuznetsk Basin, the first large-scale commercial CBM production site in Russia

Ukraine 12 trillion m³ estimated reserves (2007) No commercial production yet. In May 2012 Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell have won tenders for the exploration of unconventional gas resources in Olesska and Yuzivska field respectively.

3–4 billion m³/yr by 2030 (including coal mine methane)

United States

3 trillion m³ (recoverable resources) 2011 56 billion m³/yr in 2010 Decline to 52 billion m³/yr by 2035

Note: Where different sources have quoted different values, both values have been given.Source: Various

The scope for desalination and water reuse technology in CBM production is determined by regulation, the salinity of the produced water and the alternatives for disposal.

2.2.5.1 CBM produced water in the U.S.

In the U.S., the presence of reinjection wells, and the regulatory-approved possibility of surface impoundments, means that there is not currently a strong market for desalination and reuse technologies.



Figure 2.43 Summary of produced water management in the main U.S. CBM basins

Basin States Typical TDS (mg/l) Typical WGR Current water management methodsSan Juan New Mexico,

South Colorado10,000–100,000 0.053 99.9% reinjected

Uinta Utah 6,350–42,700 0.254 97% reinjected, 3% evaporated Powder River North Colorado,

Wyoming250–3,000 1.670 Wyoming: 64% surface impoundments, 20%

direct discharge to streams, 13% for surface or subsurface irrigation, 3% reinjected

Raton Colorado, New Mexico

900–30,000 1.202 Colorado: 70% direct discharge to streams, 2% surface impoundments, 28% reinjectedNew Mexico: nearly 100% reinjected

Piceance Colorado >10,000 Nearly 100% reinjected; remainder in evaporation ponds.

Source: National Academy of Sciences 2010; U.S. Department of Energy, 2004; Sandia National Laboratories

The best scope for desalination technologies is probably in the Power River basin of North Colorado, and Wyoming, where produced water volumes are high, reinjection is a challenge, and surface discharge may require some desalination to meet regulatory discharge standards. Siemens has sold two RO systems to Petro-Canada Resources USA in Wyoming: one which treated 19,000 m³/d in 2006, and the other which treated 11,000 m³/d in 2008. The latter uses ion exchange as a pretreatment to reduce scaling because of the high carbonate content of the produced water.

Harrison Western designed and installed a produced water treatment plant south of Birmingham, Alabama, in 2006, expecting that the facility would soon be treating and desalting up to 20,000 bpd (3,179 m³/d). Unfortunately, only a fraction of the planned gas wells were drilled, and the produced water volumes from the nearby coal bed methane operations were so low that the plant was never operated.

2.2.5.2 CSG produced water in Australia

In Australia, the salinity of the produced water in the Surat basin is relatively low – between 200 mg/l and 10,000 mg/l, but the Queensland government banned evaporation dams in 2010. The only exception is properly lined aggregation dams, which are used to collect water before it is either transported off-site or treated.

Given that there is only a limited availability of disposal wells nearby the main CSG production sites, CSG management in Australia is more oriented towards beneficial reuse than it is in America. Uses such as coal washing, dust suppression, certain industrial uses, irrigation and livestock watering may not require treatment, depending on the salinity and quality of the produced water. There are relatively strict regulations for using produced water in irrigation, and for disposal at the surface or into potable aquifers. All in all this means that the Australian CSG sector has proved a good market for desalination technologies as a means of produced water management.



Figure 2.44 CSG water desalination plants in operation/contracted

Location Client Capacity (m³/d) Equipment supplier Year onlineRoma Santos 1,500 Osmoflo 2011Roma Santos 10,000 VeoliaFairview Santos 20,000 VeoliaPony Hills Santos 6,000 OsmofloWindibri (Surat Basin) QGC 6,000 Osmoflo 2011Kenya QGC 100,000 GE 2011Kenya (mobile) QGC 12,000 GE 2011Northern WTP (Wandoan) QGC 100,000 GE 2013Roma Origin Energy 2,400 Nirosoft 2004Spring Gully Origin Energy 12,000 Pall Corporation 2007Moranbah Arrow Energy/AGL Energy 2,000 Aquatec-MaxconDarling Downs Arrow Energy 2,500 Aquatec-MaxconCondamine QGC 6,000 VeoliaBibblewindi Eastern Star 1,000 Impulse Hydro 2009Daandine Arrow Energy 12,000 Pall Corporation 2009Condamine Power Station (plant 1) QGC 2,000 Clean Teq 2012Condamine Power Station (plant 2) QGC 2,000 Clean Teq 2012Talinga APLNG 20,000 Pall CorporationTalinga expansion APLNG 20,000 Unknown 2013Condabri Central APLNG 40,000 Unknown 2013Reedy Creek APLNG 40,000 Unknown 2013Total 415,000

Where a project has a range of possible capacities, the maximum capacity has been given.Source: GWI

As shown in the following figure, rapid development of further fields, particularly in central and southern Queensland, is likely to require significant additional capacity going forward. The Surat Gas Project, which is being developed by Arrow Energy, is expected to require six CSG water treatment plants with capacities of 30,000–60,000 m³/d as part of integrated processing facilities. Meanwhile, Arrow’s Bowen Gas Project is projected to produce between 15,000 m³/d and 50,000 m³/d of water which will require advanced treatment.

Figure 2.45 Upcoming opportunities in Australian CSG water treatmentLocation Project name Client Capacity (m³/d) Notes

Dalby (plant 1) Surat Gas Project Arrow Energy 60,000 Max. plant capacityDalby (plant 2) Surat Gas Project Arrow Energy 60,000 Max. plant capacityWandoan Surat Gas Project Arrow Energy 60,000 Max. plant capacityChinchilla Surat Gas Project Arrow Energy 60,000 Max. plant capacityMillmerran/Kogan Surat Gas Project Arrow Energy 60,000 Max. plant capacityGoondiwindi Surat Gas Project Arrow Energy 60,000 Max. plant capacityFairview Gladstone LNG Santos Undecided RO plantRoma Gladstone LNG Santos Undecided RO plantArcadia Valley Gladstone LNG Santos Undecided RO plantRoma/Fairview Gladstone LNG Santos Undecided Mobile RO plantRoma/Fairview Gladstone LNG Santos Undecided Mobile RO plantBowen Basin Bowen Gas Project Arrow Energy 50,000 Higher end of rangeIronbark Ironbark Origin Energy 6,000Central-southern Queensland

Future Gas Supply Area Project

Santos Undecided 4,100 wells max.

Southern Queensland

Galilee Gas Project Galilee Energy/AGL Energy

Undecided

Total 416,000Source: GWI

Desalination does not solve the problem of produced water disposal, because the brine concentrate remains. This has a smaller volume than the produced water, so it can be trucked off-site for disposal more economically. However, the cost of this has engendered interest in salt recovery from the brine.


Oil and gas // Technologies for desalination and water reuse in the oil and gas industry

There is some debate in Australia about the volume of water the CSG industry will remove from the ground, reflecting concern that pumping produced water will have an impact on aquifer levels. The National Water Commission suggested in 2010 that the industry will pump around 300 million m³/yr (which corresponds to an average of 822,000 m³/d). The Queensland Water Commission came up with an estimate for annual produced water volumes within the state of 125 million m³/yr (342,000 m³/d). The discrepancy between the relatively low expected volume of produced water and the much larger capacity of the desalination plants contracted to date reflects the fact that the peak flow of produced water is often very much higher than the average flow.

2.2.5.3 CBM produced water elsewhere in the world

After the U.S. and Australia, the countries with the most developed CBM markets are Canada and China. In Alberta, regulations require that all produced water from CBM wells is reinjected; surface disposal is illegal. Fortunately there is sufficient local capacity for reinjection.

China plans to expand its CBM production rapidly as it diversifies its energy portfolio away from coal. The salinity of the produced water from the Qinshui basin is said to be as high as 15,000 mg/l: it is currently disposed of in disposal pits. It is likely that as the industry develops, standards for regulating the disposal of CBM produced water will become tighter.

Russia, Indonesia and India are also developing CBM markets, but they are not expected to become significant markets for desalination and water reuse technologies in the near future.

2.3 Technologies for desalination and water reuse in the oil and gas industry

2.3.1 Produced water management technologies for conventional oil and gasProduced water is generally considered to be a hazardous waste by the oil and gas industry, and the focus is on minimising it, separating out the valuable oil, and disposing of it. The industry currently sees little scope for beneficial reuse beyond the obvious possibility of reinjecting it into the oil reservoir to maintain pressure on the resource.

2.3.1.1 Minimisation

Minimisation involves the use of approaches and technologies to:

• Modify processes

• Adapt technologies

• Substitute products to reduce the amount of produced water that is generated

• Restrict the entry of water into the well bore.

The first approach available involves reducing the volume of water that is introduced into the well by using mechanical blocking devices or water shutoff chemicals.

Mechanical blocking devices block water from entering wells due to leaks in casing or water that f lows between the casing and the wellbore. The water or oil-swellable elastomer packers are thin rubber sections of swellable rubber vulcanised directly onto the tubing, which swell when they come into contact with water or oil.

Water shutoff chemicals are injected into the formation to prevent water from entering a well. The chemicals shut off the water-bearing channels or fractures within the formation by setting up in the cracks and pathways and displacing the water, while allowing continued oil production.

A second approach involves remote separation, which reduces the amount of produced water that is managed at the surface. These technologies do not minimise the amount of water that enters the well, but rather manage the water at the well bore site or in a remote location such as the sea floor.

Downhole oil/water separators (DOWS): The DOWS system is primarily made up of an oil/water separation system – typically a hydrocyclone – and at least one pump. The pump is used to inject the water underground and to pump oil to the surface. The separated water fraction still contains a small amount of oil (less than 500 mg/l). DOWS systems can use gravity separators to allow the oil droplets that enter the well bore to pass through the production perforations and rise to form an oil layer in the well.

Downhole gas/water separators (DGWS): This technology is installed at the bottom of a gas well, and it separates gas and water in the well bore itself. The DGWS technologies are classified as:

• Bypass tools: Installed at the bottom of a rod pump; water f lows by gravity to a disposal formation.

• Modified plunger rod pump: Uses a rod pump with a plunger modified to act as a solid assembly. It generates higher pressure than the bypass tool.

• Electric submersible pumps (ESPs): Configured to discharge downward to a lower injection zone with packers used to isolate the injection and producing zones.



• Progressive cavity pumps: Can be configured to discharge downward to an injection zone, or, coupled with a bypass, allows the water to f low to the injection formation by gravity.

Sea floor separation: Involves placing a large module on the seafloor to separate the fluids sent from different wells. The separated water is pumped directly into an injection well, while the oil is lifted to a platform or a f loating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel.

Dual completion wells (downhole water sink): During the production of oil, water in the oil well can create a coning effect whereby a cone forms around the production perforations, limiting the volume of oil that can be produced. This effect can be reversed and controlled by completing the well with two separate tubing pumps and string, with the first completion made at a depth where there is strong oil production and the second completion made at a lower interval where there is strong water production. A packer separates the two, with the oil collected above it being produced to the surface and the water collected below it injected into a lower formation.

Although there continues to be investment in produced water minimisation technologies, sub-surface separation currently has only limited applicability.

2.3.1.2 Oil/water separation

Once produced water has been brought to the surface, the first stage of treatment aims to recover as much oil as possible for refining. Thereafter, it is treated to prepare it for disposal (or beneficial reuse). The following figure shows a general schematic for produced water treatment:

Figure 2.46 Oil water separation and treatment schematic

Oil out

Gas to flare

1) Free Water Knock Out or gravity separator: Relies on relative density of oil, water and gas to separate out the three

Slop oil out

Heat

2) Heater Treater: Uses heat to break up emulsions and further separate oil and water. Will reduce oil in water to less than 200 ppm

Gas in

3) Gas Flotation: Fine bubbles of gas, which the oil adheres to are pumped through the water, enabling the oil to be skimmed, reducing oil in water to 25-30 ppm

Oil out

4) Nutshell filters: Walnut shell filters reduce the oil in water to less than 10 ppm

Water out

Produced water and oil in

Gas to flare

Source: GWI

There are many variants to this basic approach.

Hydrocyclones: Are effectively centrifuges which separate oil from water. Typically, they are cone shaped vessels into which the produced water is pumped at a tangent, causing it to spin within the vessel. The heavier water and solids in the influent mixture are forced to the outside of the vessel, and fall to the bottom, spinning more rapidly as the reducing circumference of the cone supplies the centripetal force. The lighter oil in the mixture stays in the centre and rises to the top. Hydrocyclones can reduce oil in water to as low as 20 ppm, but they cannot remove soluble oil and grease from produced water. Typically, they are used after primary oil water separators. Besides de-oiling hydrocyclones, de-sanding hydrocyclones are also used.

Gas flotation variants: There are two main approaches – dissolved gas flotation (DGF), which involves introducing the gas into the produced water under pressure, and induced gas flotation (IGF), where the gas is introduced mechanically.



Figure 2.47 Differences between IGF and DGF

IGF DGFGas introduced mechanically or hydraulically Gas introduced under pressureLower retention time Higher retention timeSmaller sized flotation units Larger sized flotation unitsHigher float recycle rate Lower float recycle rateMore efficient at higher temperature Less efficient at higher temperature, as gas solubility decreases

as temperature increasesLarger sized bubbles generated Smaller sized bubbles generatedLess dense bubble curtain generated Denser bubble curtain generatedOperates at a high skimming rate Operates at a lower skimming ratePreferred option for produced water due to adaptability to flow and conditions and small size

Less used due to large size and sensitivity to increasing temperature, conditions which exist at the wellhead

Source: Veolia Water Solutions, 2010

Other variants include compact f lotation units, whose small dimensions make them particularly suitable for offshore use due to space and footprint constraints.

Coalescers: These encourage the formation of larger droplets from smaller droplets. There are two approaches: electrostatic coalescers and coalescing media filters. The former relies on electrical fields to encourage oil droplets to form, while in the latter, larger oil droplets form from smaller ones on the fibres of a cartridge in a resin bed or structured packing. Coalescing media filters can only be used after pre-filtration because they can be blocked by solids.

De-emulsifying chemicals: These can also be used to separate out oil droplets from oil-water emulsions.

Macro porous media extraction (MPPE): Proprietary polymer beads which remove hydrocarbons from water, but require hourly regeneration. MPPE is highly efficient – it can reduce the concentration of oil in water from concentrations ~1000ppm to below concentrations of 1ppb (parts per billion).

2.3.1.3 Produced water polishing

After nutshell filtration it may be necessary to go through one or more polishing stages to ensure that the produced water can be suitably disposed of or reused.

The principal things which need to be removed from produced water before it can be reinjected are:

• Suspended solids: These may plug the pores of the formation.

• Residual oil: Also a problem for clogging the formation.

• Dissolved oxygen: Together with other gases, such as carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide, this might encourage corrosion and biological activity.

• Bacteria: The cause of most biological activity, which can be problematic, due to corrosive waste products and clogging.

• Dissolved solids: May react with the formation in the injection well if the chemistry of the receiving formation is different from the producing formation.

The off-shore industry has additional concerns regarding treatment of produced water for disposal into the sea. The most important regulations concern the level of dispersed oil in water discharged. This is governed by domestic law as well as a number of international conventions.



Figure 2.48 Off-shore produced water regulation

Convention Region Dispersed oil in water limit NotesOSPAR North East Atlantic 30 mg/l Chemicals must be pre-approvedHELCOM Baltic Sea 15 mg/l

(but can be up to 40 mg/l/d)Chemicals must be pre-approved

Kuwait Convention Red Sea and Persian Gulf Region 40 mg/l (but can be up to 100 mg/l/d)

Barcelona Convention Mediterranean region 40 mg/l (but can be up to 100 mg/l/d)

UNEP/Abijan Convention West Africa 40 mg/l (but can be up to 100 mg/l/d)

Not fully adopted in the region

US EPA US coastal waters 29 mg/l (but can be up to 42 mg/l/d)

Discharge prohibitions also exist on a regional basis

Source: Convention/Regulatory documents

There are also regulations on the toxicity of discharges, meaning that dissolved organics such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) must be minimised when water is discharged into the sea. The technologies used to treat water for reinjection or discharge are as follows:

• Adsorption (activated carbon, zeolite, organoclays and proprietary compounds such as MyCelx): Removes disperse oil to very low concentrations and also BTEX.

• Aeration & sedimentation: Removes iron.

• Partition manipulation: Enables dissolved oil to be returned to the oil phase before a deoiling treatment.

• Solvent extraction (such as MPPE): Removes dissolved and dispersed oil to very low concentrations and reduces BTEX.

• Biological treatment (e.g. MBR): Reduces dissolved organics and removes bacteria

• Ultrafiltration/Nanofiltration: Removes suspended solids to a very low level as well as organics

• Reverse osmosis: Removes dissolved solids

• Ion exchange/Electrodeionisation: Removes dissolved salts

• Other desalination technologies: Such as forward osmosis, freeze thaw evaporation, thermal evaporation and proprietary systems such as Saltworks’ ‘SaltMaker’.

2.3.1.4 Technologies for gas field produced water management

Produced water management in the gas industry is generally considered less challenging than operations in the oil field. This is because the volumes are lower and there are much lower volumes of undissolved hydrocarbons. However, produced water from gas is much more toxic due to the presence of dissolved hydrocarbons and monoethylglycol (which is used to suppress the formation of gas hydrates). Concentration of BTEX and PAH can be as high as 3,000 ppm. This requires specialist treatment because they can kill off the bacteria in an MBR, and cause difficulties for an RO system. A system such as MPPE or bentonite clay adsorption may be required to reach discharge standard, which typically require BTEX and PAH to be non-traceable.

It is for this reason that LNG plants, which on the face of it are not big users of water or producers of wastewater, have such sophisticated wastewater treatment plants. The largest water treatment plant project for an oil and gas installation anywhere in the world is Veolia’s $640 million ZLD project at the Pearl gas to liquids facility in Qatar. It treats 12 different wastewater streams to deliver five different qualities of recycled water for reuse, using ultrafiltration (UF), reverse osmosis (RO), evaporation, and crystallisation.

2.3.2 Steam EOR recycling technologiesThe most significant challenge for recycling produced water for steam EOR is dissolved solids – particularly silica. The systems used for oil water separation are relatively similar to conventional produced water management, i.e. a skim tank followed by induced gas flotation and nutshell filters. In order to prepare the effluent from the nutshell filters for steam generation, the following technologies are used:

• Warm/hot lime softening

• Weak acid cation ion exchange

• Brine concentration (evaporation) and crystallisation

• High recovery reverse osmosis



In the Canadian oil sands where the produced water has a high silica content, the most common technology chain has traditionally been warm lime softening, followed by WAC ion exchange to feed a once through steam generator. Increasingly, however, there has been a switch away from once-through generators towards drum boilers. These require a higher-purity feedwater than once-through steam generators, and this has led to a switch away from relying on ion exchange as the polishing step, towards using evaporators. The main difficulty for evaporators, however, are the sparingly soluble salts such as silica. In order to keep silica and other salts which might drop out, in solution, evaporators need to be run at a high pH. GE Water’s RCC unit has registered a number of broad-ranging patents covering the management of silica for evaporators in the oil sands. These have impeded the operation of other players in the market, as GE has threatened to sue producers who operate evaporators supplied by its competitors in the oils sands. Veolia has responded by developing its own silica sorption technology using magnesium oxide as a way of circumventing the GE patents. Aquatech has toughed it out, taking the view that GE’s patents are opportunistic and unenforceable by law. This may be true, but the company’s case was not helped when Shell acquired a production company which operated an Aquatech system, then chose to settle with GE in order to complete the acquisition quickly, rather than defend the suit.

In the heavy oil sector there has also been a move towards evaporation and high recovery reverse osmosis in order to reuse water for steam flood. In California, Veolia has successfully used its OPUS high recovery reverse osmosis technology at San Ardo and at another undisclosed location. In the Gulf region, GE Water and Aquatech have been using evaporators to facilitate water reuse for steam flood. The following figure lists recent references for evaporation and high recovery reverse osmosis for water recycling for steam EOR.

Figure 2.49 Steam EOR evaporation and high recovery reverse osmosis references

Contract year

Supplier Customer Country Capacity (m³/d)

Equipment

2006 Aquatech Occidental Petroleum Mukhaizna Oman 1,250 7 x 1,250 gpm evaporators 2006 GE Water Petro Canada:

MacKay River ExpansionCanada 160 160 gpm evaporator and dryer

2006 GE Water Suncor Energy: Fire Bag Expansion

Canada 1,200 1,200 gpm evaporator

2006 GE Water Connacher: Great Divide Canada 1,000 2 x 500 gpm evaporators2006 GE Water Connacher: Algar Lake Canada NA 2 x evaporators in series & crystalliser2006 Veolia Chevron San Ardo USA 1,500 OPUS2007 GE Water Voyageur Canada 300 300 gpm evaporator & crystalliser2008 Aquatech Shell Orion phase 1 expansion Canada 1,000 2 x 500 gpm evaporators2010 GE Water Harvest Black Gold

(EPC=GS E&C)Canada NA Evaporator, crystalliser and solidification

using solidification agent2010 Veolia Canadian National Resources:

Kirby LakeCanada NA 3 x evaporators

2011 GE Water Grizzly Oil Sands ULC: Algar Lake Canada NA “Evaporation equipment”2011 GE Water Sunshine: Legend Lake Canada NA 2011 Veolia Osum Oil Sands Corp. Canada NA IGF, oil removal filter and evaporators2011 Veolia Southern Pacific Resource Corp.

MacKay RiverCanada NA Evaporator and crystalliser

2011 GE Water Unnamed Canada 1,000 Evaporator and crystalliser2011 Veolia Unnamed USA 730 Ceramic UF, WAC, OPUS RO, IX + Oxidation

Source: GWI

There are a number of emerging technologies for high recovery produced water desalination. The most important of these are as follows:

• Forward osmosis using ammonia as a draw solution (developed by Oasys): A two stage process involving use of the osmotic potential between the ammonia draw solution and the produced water to draw the water through a semi permeable membrane to dilute the concentrated ammonia solution. This is then heated, evaporating the ammonia to give pure water. It is effective because the forward osmosis process does not encounter the same problems of scaling and fouling as the reverse osmosis process.

• Forward osmosis for drilling waste treatment (developed by HTI): Drilling waste is a hazardous mixture of water, cuttings from under the ground, and the specialist chemicals used in drilling muds. HTI has developed a forward osmosis based system whereby the freshwater can be drawn out of the drilling waste through a semipermeable membrane to dilute saline water (for example, f lowback water) which might not otherwise be suitable for use in hydraulic fracturing.



• Saltworks electro-chemical process (Saltworks): This involves first dividing the influent stream in two and creating a salinity difference between the two, either by means of an evaporation pond or the use of a thermal evaporator. The hypersaline influent stream is connected to two driver solutions using a proprietary polymer ion bridge which allows either positively charged or negatively charged ions through. The osmotic difference between the driver solutions and the hypersaline solution draws the ions out of the hypersaline solution into the driver solutions, one of which (connected with an anion bridge) becomes negatively charged as the anions are attracted into it, the other, being connected by a cation bridge becomes positively charged as the cations are attracted into it. The two driver solutions, one negatively charged, and the other positively charged, are then joined to the desalination influent stream via ion bridges. The positively charged ions from the influent desalination stream are attracted to the negatively charged driver stream, and the negatively charged ions in the desalination influent stream are attracted to the positively charged driver stream.

Figure 2.50 Saltworks seawater desalination circuit

Desalinationstream

Concentratedbrine

Naturalseawater

Naturalseawater

Diagram keyChloride (Cl–)

Sodium (Na+)

Source: Saltworks Technologies

Figure 2.51 Produced water volume reduction guidelines using thermal and membrane technologies

Concentrator type

Feed TDS, mg/l

Conc TDS, mg/l

Feed TSS, mg/l

Conc TSS, mg/l

CapEx, $/bbl/d

Electricity, kWh/bbl

Processing cost, $/bbl Suppliers

Falling film evaporator >45,000

200,000–300,000 <10,000 <10,000

1,000–2,000 3.3–4.5 4–8

Aquatech, GE, Veolia

Forced circulation evaporator >45,000

200,000–300,000

<100* <20,000**

<500* <20,000**

1,000–2,000 4.5–5.8 3–8

Fountain Quail, GE, Purestream, Veolia

Crystalliser75,000– 300,000

250,000–300,000

5,000–15,000

150,000–350,000

2,000–4,000 9–13 7–10 GE, Veolia

Membrane brine concentrator >45,000

200,000–300,000 <100 <500 1,000 3–5 2–3.5 Oasys

High efficiency RO5,000–30,000

50,000–75,000 <100 <500 500 0.8 3–5

Aquatech, GE, Veolia

Source: WDR

2.3.3 Technologies for sulphate removal and low salinity waterSulphate removal technology was pioneered by Marathon Oil and Dow in the late 1980s. Dow Filmtech patented the SR90 NF membrane, then licensed it to four systems suppliers. These licensees are Aker Solutions, Veolia Water Solutions and Technologies, Siemens Water and Cameron. The patent reportedly enabled Dow to charge four or five times the cost of a standard RO membrane element for the SR90 NF element. However, it expired in 2007, and other membrane suppliers have entered the market, although we have yet to see large-scale applications. FilterBoxx subsidiary H2Oil & Gas was set up to offer sulphate removal systems based on a low cost alternative to the SR90 membrane (believed to be supplied by Hydranautics). It achieved its first reference in 2009.

There has been an evolution in the technology train for the sulphate removal process.



Figure 2.52 Sulphate removal technology train evolution

Lift pumpCoarse filtration

50–80 µm

HP pumpsSRP

36 barg

Cartridge filters5 µm

SRU(2-stage,

75%conversion)

Vacuum de-aeration

Injection pumps

Lift pumpCoarse filtration150 µm

Media filtration2–5 µmparticleremoval

Vacuum de-aeration

HP pumpsSRP

36 barg

Guardcartridge

filters5 µm

SRU(2-stage,

75%conversion)

Injection pumps

Practice 1:Macro filtration

Practice 2:Multimedia filtration

Lift pumpCoarse filtration150 µm

MF/UFVacuum

de-aeration

HP pumpsSRP

36 barg

Injectionpumps

SRU(2-stage,

75%conversion)

Practice 3:Micro /ultrafiltration

Source: Dow

Comparing these methods:

• The macro filtration approach is the cheapest in terms of capital expenditure, but it is considered the least efficient and least reliable of the methods.

• The use of dual media filtration is only slightly more expensive than macro filtration, while being more efficient and reliable, but it takes up more space.

• MF/UF is considered to be the most efficient and reliable method, and it uses less space than a dual media system. However it is significantly more expensive than either of the other two methods.

Low salinity water treatment systems are in the early stages of development. The company which is probably most advanced in terms of offering low salinity systems to off-shore customers is Water Standard. The company proposes a ship or barge carrying a pretreatment system, NF and RO trains, with chemical dosing systems for ASP flood together with a power generator.

2.3.4 Technologies for unconventional gas produced water managementMost produced water management in the shale gas industry is relatively unsophisticated. Most of the flowback water is reinjected in disposal wells. This might require some treatment to remove the suspended solids, but the technology is not challenging.

More treatment is required if the flowback water is to be recycled into a new frac, but this does not necessarily involve removing the dissolved solids, as long as the proportion of reclaimed flowback water reused in a new frac is relatively low. The basic technology for frac water treatment is aeration, clarification, f locculation, biological treatment and filtration (possibly using UF membranes). In the longer term, the scope for recycling flowback water without addressing the dissolved solids is likely to be more limited because the proportion of saline treated flowback water which can be cut into a new frac is limited. For example, a producer might expect 20% of the frac water to f low back within the first six weeks of production, might be able to treat and reuse that f lowback water into two new fracs, each comprising of 10% flowback water and 90% freshwater. This means that there is no need to dispose of the flowback water, as long as the ratio of new fractures to producing wells is 2:1. If production growth levels out, then there is likely to be an excess of saline flowback water which cannot be cut into new fracs.

At some point, if the Marcellus shale is to be fully exploited, a solution for the disposal of f lowback water involving the removal of dissolved solids will be required. With this in mind, the major oil field water treatment companies, Veolia, GE Water, and Aquatech, have been developing mobile evaporators which would enable surface disposal or beneficial reuse both on and off the gas field. It is not clear at this stage whether mobile treatment systems will be the long term solution. The International Energy Authority recommends centralised treatment plants connected to production sites by pipelines.

In the Australian CSG market, desalination is already becoming established as the norm for produced water management. Typically, systems will comprise UF pretreatment followed by a high recovery brackish water RO system. This still leaves the problem of disposing of the brine, although the volumes are considerably smaller than the volumes of produced water. With the regulator moving against evaporation ponds, the alternatives for brine disposal are quite limited. For this reason, GE Water has been investigating the possibility of salt recovery from the brine for reuse in the chemical industry.



2.4 Supply chain analysis

2.4.1 Reaching the customerThe four main players in the oil field supply chain are:

• The exploration and production (E&P) companies (such as the oil majors and the national oil companies, and a combination of the two working in production sharing agreements, production enhancement contracts, and risk service contracts).

• The oilfield service companies (such as Schlumberger, Halliburton, and Baker Hughes undertaking all kinds of outsourcing in the oil and gas industry).

• The engineering firms (such as Worley Parsons, Kellog Brown Root, and Mustang, who design facilities but do not necessarily build them).

• The oilfield contractors (such as Bechtel, Technip and Aker Solutions, who build facilities and often design them as well).

The E&P companies are the ultimate customers, but they can outsource their responsibility for water management to oil field service companies, and they can rely on the advice of engineering companies for the design of water systems. It may be up to the contractor to negotiate the actual equipment supply contract.

2.4.2 Procurement modelsThere are four main procurement models used in the sector:

• Engineering procurement and construction (EPC): A single contracting entity takes responsibility for the entire project, typically on a lump sum turnkey basis.

• EPC with long lead items: The client procures certain long lead items before the EPC contract is tender.

• EPC management: An engineering advisor develops the design then packages out the construction and procurement into separate tenders.

• Progressive lump sum: The EPC contract is broken down into separate stages, and the first stage is contracted out for bid. Once this stage has been delivered there is then a negotiation to agree the cost of the next stage.

In addition, some E&P companies will use project management consultants to run a project.

In terms of produced water management, separation, treatment and reinjection equipment is typically part of the EPC package. If the produced water is trucked off-site for reinjection, then the trucking/disposal company would typically get paid per barrel of water treated. As producers begin to look at the options beyond reinjection, there is a growing interest in the possibility of BOT (build-own-operate or vendor financed models), although at this stage it is limited to temporary/mobile facilities.


Oil and gas // Supply chain analysis

2.4.3 Market structureThe market for water treatment systems is highly fragmented, although there has been a wave of mergers which have reduced the number of players at the oil-water separation end of the market.

Figure 2.53 Significant company acquisitions, mergers and joint ventures

Company Acquisitions Month, Year Deal value

MI SwacoCyclotech (McConnell, 2009) December 2009 Approx. £20 millionEpcon Offshore AS February 2006

Schlumberger MI Swaco (60%) February 2010

CameronNatco Group Inc. November 2009 $780m Petreco International March 2004 Approx.$90 million (net of

assumed debt and cash)

ExterranGLR Solutions Ltd. February 2008 Approx $25 millionEMIT Water Discharge Technology, LLC July 2008 Approx.$108.6 million

Prosep Pure Group AS October 2007GE Ionics (including RCC) February 2005 Approximately $1.1 billion FLSmidth Process division of GL&V (included

Krebs Engineers and Dorr-Oliver Eimco)August 2007 $950 million

Nalco Fabrication Technologies (now renamed as Nalco Fab-Tech LLC)

August 2010 Undisclosed

SiemensMonosep Corporation January 2006 UndisclosedUS Filter (USF) (bought from Veolia Environment)

July 2004 $993 million

Layne Christensen Intevras Technologies August 2010 $5.5 millionDobhai Ventures Produced Water Solutions July 2010High Plains Gas Big Cat Energy (31%) December 2010 $600,000STW Resources/Aqua Verde Water Reclamation Partners November 2010 Joint venture

Source: GWI

Cameron is now the leading player in the oil water separations market, although much of the equipment in this sector (gravity separators, heater treaters, hydrocyclones, IGFs, etc) is relatively low tech generic equipment. Veolia Water Solutions and Technologies is probably the leading player at the polishing stage of produced water treatment. It is also the leading supplier of sulphate removal systems, and number two in the evaporation market. GE Water is number one in the evaporation market for steam EOR, and also has a leading position in the Australian CBM market. Siemens Oil and Gas has a number of oil-water separation technologies, and some involvement in polishing using its MF and RO technologies.

2.4.4 Market entryThere are a number of challenges involved in breaking into this market with a new technology:

1. Water management in the oil field typically involves a huge number of different technologies. A new technology which might replace one or two stages of a fifteen stage process is a difficult sell because it has an impact on other parts of the supply chain. Unless you can either get the specification for the process rewritten or you can offer the complete process package, it is difficult to establish a place in the market.

2. Produced water management is not a profit centre. This means that there is less of an incentive to take a risk on new technologies.

3. Many of the oil field service companies have multiple roles and existing relationships. Schlumberger, for example, acquired an interest in MI Swaco, which supplies oil water separation equipment.

4. Cameron is the dominant oil field equipment supplier in the produced water space. Having led the consolidation of the sector, Cameron has better relationships with potential customers and a broader range of equipment in its catalogue than the water treatment companies targeting this market.

With these challenges in mind, the most common way into the market is through partnership with an oil field service company or engineer who already has a position in the oil field. For technologies which have an impact on production (i.e. low salinity EOR), it is more likely that the E&P companies themselves would be interested in partnership.



2.5 Market forecast

2.5.1 Overall pictureWe have forecast the sectors of the market where desalination and water reuse technology are the most relevant to the oil and gas industry as follows:

• Shale gas produced water management: There are opportunities in conventional treatment and an emerging market in high recovery desalination.

• CBM produced water management: High recovery desalination is already an established market.

• Low salinity water and sulphate removal packages (SRP) for flood/EOR: We anticipate that this market will see the largest CAGR, as developers make the most of every well.

• Water recycling for steam flood: This will grow in parallel with the devlopment of the Canadian oil sands and tightening regulations. In the forecast it is split into water recycling systems and high recovery desalination.

• Beneficial reuse of conventional oil and gas produced water: In the forecast this is split into produced water polishing and produced water RO/evaporation.

Figure 2.54 Oil and gas industry market forecast, 2011–2025

Produced waterRO/evaporation

Produced water polishing

High recovery desalfor steam EOR Water recycling systemsfor steam EOR

SRP/Low salinity systems

CBM high recovery desal

Shale gas highrecovery desalShale gas conventionaltreatment0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Oil and gas ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011–17 2025

Shale gas: conventional treatment 30.7 57.1 68.3 80.4 87.1 100.9 139.4 28.7% 479.9Shale gas high recovery desal 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 35.0 – 100.0CBM high recovery desal (a) 112.7 165.0 126.0 132.0 160.0 170.0 164.4 6.5% 178.4Sulphate removal package / low salinity systems (b) 105.0 147.5 253.8 230.6 337.5 487.5 783.5 39.8% 1,275.9

Water recycling systems for steam EOR (c) 169.0 183.0 219.0 244.0 244.0 239.0 255.5 7.1% 411.8High recovery desal for steam EOR (d) 291.2 385.3 502.1 602.5 556.8 454.2 519.6 10.1% 1,097.7Produced water polishing (e) 504.7 562.7 609.7 649.1 683.0 741.1 799.0 8.0% 1,302.2Produced water RO/evaporation (f) 105.0 119.4 135.8 154.5 175.7 199.8 227.3 13.7% 562.6Total 1,318.3 1,620.0 1,922.6 2,093.1 2,254.1 2,412.5 2,923.6 14.2% 5,508.5

(a) Includes complete treatment plant cost rather than just the desalination system.(b) Includes membrane system, controls, pumps and chemical dosing system, but not broader project costs of ship mounted systems.(c) Typically included induced gas flotation, warm lime softening and ion exchange systems.(d) This represents a restatement of the forecast for this sector published in the January 2012 issue of GWI. The downgrade reflects a more realistic view of attitudes towards evaporation technology in the oil sands.(e) Does not include induced gas flotation systems and other oil-water separation systems. Does include nutshell filters, other media filters, adsorption systems, biological systems including MBR, ion exchange, and other non-oil water separation technologies (excluding reverse osmosis).(f) Typically brackish water RO systems for surface discharge of produced water, but in later years some evaporation and high recovery RO is expected.Source: GWI


Oil and gas // Market forecast

The country market split for 2013–2017 is dominated by the U.S. and Canada for a number of reasons, including:

• The U.S. basically represents the entire shale gas market and a large portion of the CBM market.

• The increasing prominence of SAGD in the Canadian oil sands.

• The U.S. and Canada are the two largest markets for steam EOR.

• The U.S. and Canada have the oldest conventional oil wells with the highest water:oil ratios.

Figure 2.55 Oil and gas industry, top country markets, 2013–2017

USA $2,978m


(2013-2017)

Australia $671m

Brazil $526mSaudi Arabia $480m

Oman $353m

China $310m

RoW $4,248m

Canada $2,040m

Source: GWI

2.5.2 Reference and alternate scenariosWe have developed alternate scenarios for each of the distinct markets within the oil and gas sector:

• Unconventional gas (shale gas and CBM).

• Steam and water f lood systems (SRP, low salinity systems, water recycling systems for steam EOR and high recovery desalination for steam EOR).

• Produced water treatment systems (produced water polishing and produced water RO/evaporation).

2.5.2.1 Unconventional gas

The unconventional gas forecast includes both conventional treatment and high recovery desalination for shale, as well as CBM high recovery desalination.

Our reference scenario for unconventional gas makes the following assumptions:

• Henry Hub gas trades at between $2–$3/million Btu until 2015.

• Henry Hub gas trades at over $4/million Btu from 2015 onwards as the export market opens up.

In our alternate scenario:

• Henry Hub gas trades at over $4/million Btu from 2013 onwards.

In both scenarios, the regional breakdowns are dominated by the Americas (U.S. shale / CBM) and Asia Pacific (Australian CBM).



Figure 2.56 Oil and gas industry, unconventional gas combined, 2011–2017: Reference scenario

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Unconventional gas combined reference scenario ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Americas 36.3 62.1 82.6 84.1 100.0 121.6 168.0 29.1%EMEA 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.2 5.5 10.5 –Asia Pacific 107.1 160.1 119.7 127.4 154.9 163.7 160.2 6.9%Total 143.4 222.1 202.3 212.4 257.1 290.9 338.8 15.4%

Source: GWI

In the alternate scenario, the higher Henry Hub gas prices from 2013–2015 nearly doubles the CAGR of the U.S. market.

Figure 2.57 Oil and gas industry, unconventional gas combined, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Unconventional gas combined alternate scenario ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Americas 36.3 62.1 247.8 252.2 300.0 364.9 504.1 55.0%EMEA 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.2 5.5 10.5 –Asia Pacific 107.1 160.1 119.7 127.4 154.9 163.7 160.2 6.9%Total 143.4 222.1 367.5 380.5 457.1 534.2 674.8 29.5%

Source: GWI


Oil and gas // Market forecast

2.5.2.2 Steam and water flood systems

The steam and water f lood systems forecast includes sulphate removal package / low salinity systems, water recycling systems for steam EOR and high recovery desalination for steam EOR.

Our reference scenario for steam and water f lood systems assumes that Brent crude remains above $60/bbl, whereas in the alternate scenario Brent crude falls below $60/bbl in 2013.

Figure 2.58 Oil and gas industry, steam and water flood systems, 2011–2017: Reference scenario

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Steam and water flood systems (reference scenario ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Americas 453.4 564.7 694.3 788.4 725.1 691.8 841.6 10.9%EMEA 88.2 102.8 210.4 213.1 308.7 354.3 480.8 32.7%Asia Pacific 23.7 48.3 70.0 75.6 104.6 134.5 236.2 46.7%Total 565.2 715.8 974.8 1,077.1 1,138.3 1,180.7 1,558.6 18.4%

Source: GWI

In the alternate scenario, the lower oil price makes EOR a less attractive proposition.

Figure 2.59 Oil and gas industry, steam and water flood systems, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Steam and water flood systems alternate scenario ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Americas 453.4 564.7 208.3 236.5 217.5 207.5 252.5 -9.3%EMEA 88.2 102.8 63.1 63.9 92.6 106.3 144.2 8.5%Asia Pacific 23.7 48.3 21.0 22.7 31.4 40.4 70.9 20.1%Total 565.2 715.8 292.4 323.1 341.5 354.2 467.6 -3.1%

Source: GWI



2.5.2.3 Produced water treatment systems

The produced water treatment systems forecast includes produced water polishing and produced water RO/evaporation.

Our reference scenario for produced water treatment systems assumes that Brent crude remains above $60/bbl, whereas in the alternate scenario Brent crude falls below $60/bbl in 2013.

Figure 2.60 Oil and gas industry, produced water treatment systems, 2011–2017: Reference scenario

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Produced water treatment reference scenario ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Americas 336.3 374.1 407.4 438.4 468.4 511.9 557.3 8.8%EMEA 217.6 245.8 270.3 292.6 313.2 345.0 377.7 9.6%Asia Pacific 55.7 62.2 67.8 72.6 77.1 84.1 91.3 8.6%Total 609.7 682.1 745.5 803.6 858.7 941.0 1,026.3 9.1%

Source: GWI

In the alternate scenario, the lower oil price leads to reduced production activity.

Figure 2.61 Oil and gas industry, produced water treatment systems, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Produced water treatment alternate scenario ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Americas 336.3 374.1 285.2 306.9 327.9 358.3 390.1 2.5%EMEA 217.6 245.8 189.2 204.8 219.2 241.5 264.4 3.3%Asia Pacific 55.7 62.2 47.4 50.8 54.0 58.9 63.9 2.3%Total 609.7 682.1 521.8 562.5 601.1 658.7 718.4 2.8%

Source: GWI


Refining and petrochemicals // Introduction

3. Refining and petrochemicals3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 Introduction to refiningCrude oil, also known as petroleum, cannot be used as a fuel directly because it contains a wide range of hydrocarbons with varying chain lengths. Refining crude oil involves separating out this mixture of hydrocarbons into useful fractions that can be sold as products, such as liquid petroleum gas (LPG), petrol (gasoline) or lubricating oil.

The exact composition of crude oil varies by site. For the refining processes used – which determine the wastewater treatment requirements – the most important properties of crude oil are the proportion of long-chain / short-chain hydrocarbons, and the sulphur content. The industry uses the following terms to classify crude oil:

• Heavy: High viscosity (“thick”) – contains a large proportion of long-chain hydrocarbons.

• Light: Low viscosity (“runny”) – contains a large proportion of short-chain hydrocarbons.

• Sour: Significant sulphur content.

• Sweet: Relatively low sulphur content.

The main fractions that can be refined from crude oil, and where they lie on the scale of heavy-light, are shown in the following figure.

Figure 3.1 Main crude oil fractions by chain length

Light Heavy

Liquifiedpetroleum

gas

Gasoline

Naphtha

Kerosene

Diesel fuel

Fuel oils

Lubricatingoils

Paraffin wax

Asphalt /bitumen

Source: GWI

The product range output by refineries and downstream petroleum processing plants depends on the heaviness of the crude oil. For example, the heaver the crude, the more difficult it is to produce short-chain fractions, such as gasoline. Relative local or regional demand for products is also a factor, as is the crack spread, which is the difference between the crude oil price and the price of refined products (so-called because “cracking” is the most common form of refining – see section 3.1.2.3).

3.1.2 Crude oil refining processesCrude oil refining can be broken down into the following main processes:

• Desalting: Removing salt from the crude oil.

• Atmospheric distillation: Initial separation of the crude oil into fractions.

• Further processing: Gaining as much value as possible by processing the fractions into products to maximise profit.

These processes are described in the following sections.

3.1.2.1 Desalting

Crude oil contains salt, which will cause corrosion and product quality issues if it is not removed. The salt is dissolved by adding hot water to heated crude oil. The salt is then removed by separating the oil and water.

3.1.2.2 Atmospheric distillation

Atmospheric distillation separates out the fractions from crude oil using the fact that short-chain hydrocarbons have lower boiling points than long-chain hydrocarbons. The crude oil is heated further, and sent to a distillation unit where different fractions condense out in different locations as they cool.



3.1.2.3 Further processing

In order to improve the market value of the hydrocarbon fractions, a number of further processing steps may be undertaken. These may happen at the refinery site, or at a specialist petrochemical processing plant. A summary of the most common processes follows:

• Vacuum distillation: Provides further separation of the heaviest fractions (“residual bottoms”) from atmospheric distillation.

• Cracking: Converts long-chain hydrocarbons into higher-value shorter-chain hydrocarbons by breaking the chains (e.g. turning gas oils into gasoline). A number of different cracking process exist, e.g. catalytic cracking, hydrocracking and visibreaking.

• Reforming: Converts low-value naptha to higher value gasoline by rearranging the molecules in the chains.

• Coking: Converts very heavy long-chain fractions into gasoline and diesel oil, with petroleum coke as a byproduct.

3.1.3 Current refining capacityThe following figure shows the locations of the 655 current refineries covered by the most recent Oil and Gas Journal Worldwide Refining Survey, published in January 2012.

Figure 3.2 Current refinery locations, 2011

Source: Oil and Gas Journal, 2012; Global Water Risk Index, GWI, 2011

The following two figures illustrate how the global refining capacity of 88.1 million bbl/d of crude oil breaks down by country. The United States is by far the largest single producer, followed by China and Russia. It is noteworthy that there is a trend for substantially larger than average refineries in many East Asian countries, in particular the Republic of Korea and Singapore.

Figure 3.3 Global refining capacity by country, 2011

United States 17.8m bbl/d

88.1m bbl/dRefining capacity

(2011)

Japan 4.7m bbl/d

Russia 5.4m bbl/d

China 6.9m bbl/dRest of world49.2m bbl/d

India 4.0m bbl/d

Source: Oil and gas journal, December 2011


Refining and petrochemicals // Drivers for water reuse and advanced wastewater treatment technologies

Figure 3.4 Top 20 countries by refining capacity, 2011

Country No. of refineries Total refining capacity (bbl/d) Average refinery capacity (bbl/d)United States 125 17,788,314 142,307China 54 6,866,000 127,148Russia 40 5,430,906 135,773Japan 30 4,729,890 157,663India 21 4,042,761 192,512Republic of Korea 6 2,759,500 459,917Germany 15 2,417,162 161,144Italy 17 2,337,229 137,484Saudi Arabia 7 2,112,000 301,714Canada 17 1,918,455 112,850Brazil 13 1,917,333 147,487United Kingdom 10 1,767,168 176,717France 12 1,718,803 143,234Mexico 6 1,540,000 256,667Iran 9 1,451,000 161,222Singapore 3 1,357,000 452,333Taiwan 4 1,310,000 327,500Venezuela 5 1,282,100 256,420Spain 9 1,271,500 141,278Rest of world 252 24,039,030 95,393Total 655 88,056,151 134,437

Source: Oil and Gas Journal, 2011

Figure 3.5 Global refining capacity by region, 2012

East Asia & Pacific 20.6m bbl/d

88.1m bbl/dRefining capacity

(2011)Eastern Europe& Central Asia 11.1m bbl/d

Western Europe 13.7m bbl/d

North America 19.8m bbl/d

MENA 9.0m bbl/d

South Asia 4.3m bbl/d

Latin America & Caribbean 8.1m bbl/d

Africa 1.5m bbl/d


The water requirements of refineries are discussed in section 3.3.

3.2 Drivers for water reuse and advanced wastewater treatment technologiesThere are several drivers for water reuse using advanced technologies in the refining industry.

3.2.1 Environmental regulationsStrict discharge limits and their enforcement have already driven some refineries to adopt zero liquid discharge (ZLD) – see section 3.7.2 for details. Although there are only a handful of ZLD installations to date, the trend towards stricter regulations is apparent even in traditionally less stringent countries such as Russia, China, Brazil and Mexico. Some future discharge limits will not be achievable with standard wastewater treatment systems. For instance, authorities in China are currently considering updating the Integrated Wastewater Discharge Standards (GB8978-1996) from 1996.



Other countries have reuse targets. India monitors water reuse level in certain industries and has specific guidelines for industrial wastewater discharge. One of the goals in Saudi Arabia’s 9th Development Plan (2010–2014) is to increase water reuse to 50%, as well as to increase desalination capacity by 100%.

3.2.2 Economic considerationsThe most fundamental economic consideration in refining is the crack spread, which is the difference between the price of crude oil and the prices of refined products. The crack spread is therefore a measure of the profitability of refining.

As shown in the following figure, the crack spread is very volatile as it is affected by numerous factors – supply, demand, crude oil price – each of which are affected by numerous other factors. For example, if crude oil prices are high and demand for goods transportation is low, this leads to the crack spread for gasoline became negative.

Figure 3.6 Crack spreads for gasoline and heating oil, 2006–2012

Negative crack spread

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Jan 12Jan 11Jan 10Jan 09Jan 08Jan 07Jan 06

Crac

k sp

read

($/b

bl)

Gaso

line

Heat

ing

oil

Crud

e oi

l pric

e ($

/bbl

)Br

ent c

rude

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Jan 12Jan 11Jan 10Jan 09Jan 08Jan 07Jan 06

Source: EIA, 2012; GWI

As the crack spread is a driver for refinery production that cannot be predicted with any certainty, we have presented alternate scenarios in our market forecast (section 3.9).

Economic drivers also exist on the water side, for wastewater treatment and reuse. Water is vital to the refining industry, where it is no longer seen as a low-cost resource. Wastewater treatment and disposal costs are also increasing due to stricter environmental regulations. This is making the industry more aware of the economical benefits of water reuse. For example, the discharge limits for groundwater injection in Venice, Italy are so strict that it is cheaper to reuse the water in the refinery than it is to treat and discharge it.

3.2.3 Water scarcityClimate change is already affecting water availability in many parts of the world. Refineries require large volumes of water, so are often built on the coast and depend on expensive seawater desalination. As with the mining industry, lack of water will push the refining industry to find ways of reducing water consumption and increasing water reuse through employing advanced treatment technologies.

3.2.4 Operational reliabilityUsing water treated with advanced technologies leads to improved system reliability, longer asset life, and a lower operational cost through a decreased need for chemical treatment. Even though the initial capital outlay on advanced technologies is high, in the long term it pays off through operational savings. This has been partially recognised by some companies but a wholesale realisation across the industry has yet to occur.


Refining and petrochemicals // Refinery water requirements

3.3 Refinery water requirements

3.3.1 Refinery water systemsComplex refining operations use large quantities of water, mostly for cooling and steam generation systems. As a result, they are usually situated on the coast or on a river.

A typical refinery contains a number of water systems, which are summarised in the following figure. For the purposes of this report only boiler feedwater (BFW), cooling water and process water are of importance, as they require treatment.

Figure 3.7 Refinery water systems

Water system Brief description Treatment requirementsBoiler feedwater Water used in boilers to generate

the steam required by many refinery processes.

Lime softening followed by ion exchange.Reverse osmosis (RO).Electrodeionisation (EDI).

Cooling water* Water used in heat exchangers that are required by many refinery processes.

Once through: depends on the source of water.Recirculation: softening.Seawater can be used as cooling water if scaling and corrosion are reduced, via limiting the temperature and cathodic protection respectively.

Process water Water that comes into contact with hydrocarbons during refinery processes.

Softening.

Drinking water Water used by people working in the refinery.

Tap water can be used without treatment.If tap water is unavailable, chlorine can be added to water from the demineralisation plant.

Fire water Water “on standby” in case of fire. Typically, the largest raw water source is used, or stormwater is collected.

No treatment required.

Utility water Used for washing surfaces such as floors. Must be uncontaminated; direct use of stormwater is acceptable.*Note that some refineries use air coolingSource: GWI

3.3.2 Water use in refining Compared to some of the other industries discussed in this report (pharmaceutical, F&B, microelectronics), process water for refining requires relatively little treatment. Boiler feedwater (BFW), and cooling water are far more interesting from an advanced water treatment point of view. In each of the following sections, BFW will be discussed first, followed by cooling water then process water, in keeping with the degree of treatment required.

The refining industry has its own terminology, which we will use throughout this chapter. Removing dissolved solids from non-seawater so that it can be used as BFW is referred to as demineralisation, whether or not the process uses traditional desalination technologies. Use of the word desalination in this chapter therefore refers only to seawater desalination.

3.3.2.1 Boiler feedwater (BFW)

BFW has the highest water quality requirements in the refining industry and therefore the greatest treatment needs. This is due to the requirements of high pressure boilers that generate steam for various refinery processes. All new refineries will use high pressure boilers; in the refining industry these are defined as boilers that operate at >100 psi (>690 kPa). Due to evaporation losses and regular blowdown, the steam generating system continually requires makeup water.

3.3.2.2 Cooling water

Cooling is the largest user of water in a refinery, typically accounting for 80–85% of the total water use. The types of cooling system used are similar to those found in many other manufacturing plants and can be divided into three groups:

• Once-through (or open) cooling systems withdraw surface water that is used only once before being discharged back to the environment. No cooling tower is required. Depending on the water source, treatment may be required to prevent scale formation, corrosion, and slime / algae formation. Once-through systems are becoming rare, except in some coastal installations designed to use seawater.

• Open recirculating (or evaporative / semi-open) cooling systems are the most common system in refineries. A cooling tower is employed, where heat is transferred by evaporation. Water reuse is intrinsic, as the water recirculates, though TDS steadily increases as evaporation occurs. Cooling system TDS are allowed to rise until they reach 400–700% of the feedwater TDS (referred to in the industry as 4–7 “cycles of concentration”). Before TDS reaches a level where dissolved solids will precipitate out, blowdown water is removed and the system topped up with makeup water.



• Closed loop (or closed circuit) cooling systems are relatively rare in refineries. A constant volume of water is circulated in a closed loop with negligible evaporation or air contact. Heat that is absorbed by the water is transferred to the environment via a heat exchanger to an open recirculating cooling system and cooled in a cooling tower. Closed systems use very little water, but can be difficult to maintain. Also, initial investment costs are relatively high due to strict treatment requirements beforehand.

Water treatment requirements for recirculating and closed loop systems are higher than for once-through cooling systems. This is due to increasing concentrations of contaminants, especially dissolved solids, as water evaporates. Salt accumulation is also inevitable in cooling towers due to water evaporation. Treatment of cooling system blowdown is discussed in section 3.5.4.

3.3.2.3 Process water

Process water comes into close contact with hydrocarbons during various refinery processes. The wash water used for desalting crude oil is a typical example of process water. The volume of wash water used in desalters is approximately 5% of the volume of crude processed. Other examples of process water include coker quench water, coker cutting water, f lare seal drum, etc.

As mentioned previously, refinery process water quality requirements are low compared to BFW and cooling water. Softening – removal of calcium and magnesium ions from water – is a common practice to achieve required quality level. Use of soft water prevents formation of scale that could damage process equipment. Treatment options are lime softening followed by IX, or on some occasions RO or EDI.

3.3.2.4 Treatment methods for contaminants in raw water

Petroleum refineries differ in their operations depending on:

• Quality and composition of crude oil being processed.

• End products.

Both of these factors influence overall water consumption and water quality requirements by influencing which particular refining processes will take place.

Raw water entering refinery undergoes preliminary treatment to remove suspended solids, e.g. screening and sedimentation. Further treatment takes place in the BFW, cooling water and process water systems; the quality requirements of each system are shown in the following figure.

Figure 3.8 Water quality requirements for refinery’s water streams

Water stream Water quality requiredBFW makeup Conductivity <1 µS/cm

Hardness <0.3 mg/l Chlorides <0.05 mg/lSulphates <0.05 mg/lTotal silica <0.01 mg/lSodium <0.05 mg/lDissolved oxygen <0.007 mg/l

Cooling tower makeup water Conductivity <6,000 µS/cmAlkalinity <3,000 mg/lChlorides <1,500 mg/lSuspended solids <150 mg/l

Wash water (one example of process water)

Sulphide <10 mg/lAmmonia <50 mg/lTDS <200 mg/l

Other process water (e.g. coker quench, coke cutting water)

TSS <100 mg/lNo biological solidsNo H2S and other odorous compounds

Source: IPIECA, 2010


Refining and petrochemicals // Refinery water requirements

The technology options for treating specific contaminants from refinery feedwater are shown n the following figure.

Figure 3.9 Potential contaminants in raw water

Contaminant Problem Treatment methodTurbidity Creates cloudy water; deposits in water and process

equipmentCoagulationSettling and filtration

Hardness Scale formation on process equipment SofteningDemineralisationSurfactants

Dissolved solids (DS) Process interference; foaming in boilers Lime softeningIon exchange softeningElectrodialysis

Suspended solids (SS) Deposits in process equipment; blocking of lines SedimentationCoagulation and settlingFiltration

Oil Scale and sludge formation; foaming in boilers; hinders heat exchange

Oil/water separator strainersCoagulation and filtrationDiatomaceous earth filtration

Sulphate Calcium sulphate scale formation in combination with calcium; contributes to the solids content of water

DemineralisationElectrodialysis

Chloride Enhances corrosion; contributes to the solids content of water

DemineralisationDesalination (if water source is sea water)Electrodialysis

Silica Scale formation on process equipment Anion exchange resinsConductivity High conductivity increases corrosion Demineralisation

Lime softeningAlkalinity Steam system interference – foaming and corrosion Lime and lime-soda softening

Ion exchange softeningDemineralisationDealkalisation by anion exchangeAcid treatment

Iron and magnesium Deposits in water and process equipment Aeration Coagulation and filtrationLime softeningCation exchange

Oxygen Corrosion of process equipment Deaeration Sodium sulphiteCorrosion inhibitors

Hydrogen sulphide Odor problems; corrosion; toxicity AerationChlorination Anion exchange

Source: IPIECA, 2010; GE, 2012

3.3.3 Water volumes for refiningWe have conducted an analysis of water use by U.S. refineries by combining refinery data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) with wastewater discharge monitoring data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We were able to match up 88 refineries for which permitted wastewater discharge volumes were available, representing 84% of total U.S. refinery capacity.

The following figure shows the largest refineries in the U.S. and their wastewater:crude ratios according to the datasets. It should be noted that the wastewater:crude ratios will be on the low side, as the wastewater volumes are average actual f low, while the crude volumes are design capacity.



Figure 3.10 Wastewater generation by U.S. refineries with crude oil capacities > 300,000 bbl/d

Site State CompanyCrude processing

capacity (bbl/d)Average actual

wastewater flow (bbl/d)Wastewater:crude

ratioBaytown Texas ExxonMobil 560,640 857,143 1.53Baton Rouge Louisiana ExxonMobil 502,000 37,857 0.08Garyville Louisiana Marathon 464,000 199,048 0.43Lake Charles Louisiana CITGO 427,800 1,501,190 3.51Texas City Texas BP 406,570 547,619 1.35Whiting Indiana BP 405,000 3,023,810 7.47Beaumont Texas ExxonMobil 344,500 523,810 1.52Philadelphia Pennsylvania Sunoco 335,000 214,675 0.64Pascagoula Mississippi Chevron 330,000 347,466 1.05Deer Park Texas Deer Park 327,000 54,762 0.17Wood River Illinois WRB (Conoco / Cenovus) 306,000 331,667 1.08

Source: EIA, 2012; EPA, 2011; GWI

The Whiting, Indiana refinery is an outlier. The reason for this is unclear, but could be to do with BP’s ongoing $3.8 billion expansion project on the site (due to be fully completed in 2013) and the time lag between the two source datasets. The Lake Charles, Louisiana wastewater:crude ratio is also on the high side. This is also likely to be due to a time lag in the wastewater discharge permit dataset – CITGO claim to have reduced their water use at the site by 94% between 2005–2010 by reusing treated wastewater and improved control systems.

For this dataset of refineries, the overall wastewater:crude ratio is 1.48:1. If the two large outlier refineries described above are omitted, the ratio drops to 1.24:1. This implies that wastewater generation by all U.S. refineries is in the region of 3.4 million m³/d (1.2 km³/yr), and that global wastewater generation by refining is in the region of 17.4 million m³/d (6.4 km³/yr). These numbers should be seen as estimates – as demonstrated by the Lake Charles refinery the wastewater discharged from a particular refinery can vary 20-fold depending on the site’s water reuse policy.

3.4 Demineralisation and desalination technologies

3.4.1 Technologies for producing BFWAs discussed in figure 3.7 demineralisation technologies in the refining industry are used in the treatment of raw water for BFW and cooling tower water. Although the largest volumes of water are used for cooling purposes, cooling water requires relatively little treatment – typically just softening for a recirculating system.

On the other hand, BFW demands the most advanced water treatment technologies that are found in refineries. In order to be used in high pressure boilers, the BFW must have conductivity < 0.1 µS/cm and hardness in the range of 0.01 – 2.00 mg/l. This quality level is typically achieved by softening, followed by demineralisation.

3.4.1.1 Water softening

Softening reduces the concentration of calcium and magnesium ions in order to avoid scaling. Softening is used as:

• Treatment for cooling tower makeup water.

• The first stage of BFW treatment (to be followed by more advanced treatment methods).

In refineries where the primary water source is desalinated sea water, there is no need for additional softening. For other water sources, lime softening or ion exchange is employed.

3.4.1.2 Demineralisation technology trains for BFW

Demineralisation removes dissolved solids from water, and is necessary in order to achieve the low conductivity required for BFW. Industry experts have highlighted the following two technology trains as the main options for demineralisation in the refining industry:

• RO (single pass) followed by polishing using mixed bed ion exchange.

• Double-pass RO followed by electrodeionisation (EDI) polishing. EDI requires lower salinity feedwater than IX, so two passes of RO (two RO membranes being placed one after another) are necessary.

It is difficult to say which of these technology trains dominates in refineries, as technology choice is dependent on the nature of the water source.


Refining and petrochemicals // Demineralisation and desalination technologies

3.4.2 Seawater desalinationFor refineries located on the coast in water scarce areas, seawater desalination is often the only viable option. The following figures show regional breakdowns of large scale (> 10,000 m³/d) seawater desalination activity from 1990 to the present date.

Figure 3.11 Large scale seawater desalination for refineries by region, 1990–2011

Americas 0.14 million m³/d

1.16 million m³/dLarge seawater desal

(1990-2011)

EMEA 0.76 million m³/d

Asia Pacific0.26 million m³/d


Figure 3.12 Large scale seawater desalination for refineries by region and year, 1990–2011

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

20102008200620042002200019981996199419921990

m³/

d


The largest bar in figure 3.12 is due to two extra-large plants that were awarded in 2005. Rabigh ISWPP (Saudi Arabia) is a co-located water and power plant that supplies 227,300 m³/d and 600 MW to the Rabigh Refining and Petrochemical Co. At the time, it was the largest seawater RO plant in the world. Jamnagar (India) is a 96,000 m³/d MED plant which serves India’s largest refinery and also supplies drinking water to the local community. The peak in 2010 is largely due to the Fajr Petrochemical Phase II RO plant at 120,000 m³/d. Although this plant uses river water as feedwater, it has been included here as a recent example of an extra-large refinery project.



The following figure lists all of the seawater desalination plants with capacities > 10,000 m³/d contracted by refineries since 1990.

Figure 3.13 Large scale seawater desalination plants for refineries, 1990–2011

Plant CountryDesign capacity

(m³/d) Technology Award date Online date EPC contractorRabigh IWSPP Saudi Arabia 227,300 RO 2005 2008 MitsubishiFajr Petrochemical Phase II*

Iran 120,000 RO 2010 2014 Zolal Iran

Jamnagar India 96,000 MED 2005 2007 IDEParaguaná Refinery Complex

Venezuela 75,000 RO 2008 2010 Acciona

Daesan Republic of Korea

53,760 RO 2011 2013 Veolia Environnement

Jamnagar India 48,000 MED 1996 1998Aramco/Kaust Saudi Arabia 40,000 RO 2007 2008 Latsis GroupBand Azzaluyeh Iran 37,500 MED 2002 2004 Veolia EnvironnementTakreer RRE Project 3 U&O


33,600 MSF 2009 2014 Samsung Engineering / Hitachi Zosen Corporation

Al Ruwais United Arab Emirates

30,000 MSF 1998 2001 Impregilo Group

Eemshaven Netherlands 30,000 RO 2010 2011Manali, Chennai India 26,400 RO 2006 2007 Ion Exchange (India)Al Ruwais United Arab

Emirates18,240 MSF 1993 1995 Hitachi Zosen Corporation

Bandar Abbas Iran 18,000 MSF 1990 1994 ENIAramco Saudi Arabia 18,000 RO 2007 2008 EBD GroupSardegna Italy 17,280 MED 1996 1998 IDESicily Italy 16,800 RO 2002 2003 Membrane SRLWafa Libya 16,000 MSF 2002 2003UK United Kingdom 15,925 RO 1991 1992 Veolia EnvironnementPriolo Gargallo Italy 14,400 MED 1996 1998 Veolia EnvironnementGela Italy 14,400 MSF 1998 2000 Fantuzzi GroupJamnagar India 14,400 MED 2004 2005 IDERevap Brazil 14,400 RO 2009 2010 Suez EnvironnementRLAM ETA Brazil 14,400 RO 2009 2010 Suez EnvironnementYanbu Saudi Arabia 13,680 MSF 2000 2002 MitsuiSalina Cruz Mexico 13,440 RO 1997 1999 Suez EnvironnementSalina Cruz Mexico 13,440 RO 2011 2011 Suez EnvironnementRuwais Refinery United Arab

Emirates13,248 MSF 1999 2000 Impregilo Group

Kavian Petrochemical Complexes

Iran 12,000 MED 2008 2010 Fan Niroo Company

Bandar Abbas new Refinery

Iran 12,000 MED 2008 2009

Khursaniyah Saudi Arabia 10,790 RO 2006 2007USA United States of

America10,670 RO 1995 1996 MECO

Dalian China 10,000 MSF 1996 1998Rabigh Saudi Arabia 10,000 MED 2003 2005 Aquatech International

Corporation China China 10,000 RO 2005 2006 SiemensRabigh Refinery Saudi Arabia 10,000 RO 2006 2007EPPC Egypt 10,000 RO 2010 2011 Shivsu Canadian Clear

International* Feedwater is river water with TDS of 1,700 mg/lSource: GWI DesalData

The split between membrane and thermal technologies is roughly 60:40 in favour of RO.


Refining and petrochemicals // Wastewater challenges

Figure 3.14 Large scale seawater desalination for refineries by technology, 1990–2011

RO 0.73 million m³/d


(1990-2011)MED 0.26 million m³/d

MSF 0.17 million m³/d


3.5 Wastewater challenges

3.5.1 Wastewater streams and volumesRefinery wastewater contains particularly nasty chemicals – typical constituents include not only oil, but benzene, ammonia, sulphides, phenol and cyanide. Unlike other industries with on-site cooling systems, there is a significant risk that refinery cooling water will be contaminated by oil.

The volume and composition of refinery wastewater means that it cannot be discharged to a municipal sewer, so most refineries have their own on-site WWTP. Wastewater volumes and contaminants vary depending on the kind of processing that is being carried out at the refinery. Typical wastewater streams resulting from refinery processes are shown in the following figure.

Figure 3.15 Main refinery processes and wastewater streams generated

Objective Process Wastewater:crude

oil ratio Type of wastewater generatedSalt removal from crude oil Crude desalting 0.05 Desalter effluentFractionation by heating Atmospheric distillation and

vacuum distillation0.62 (Oily) sour water

Removal of contaminants, e.g. sulphur

Hydrotreating / hydroprocessing 0.02 (Oily) sour water

Long-chains to short-chains Catalytic cracking 0.36 Sour water Thermal cracking / visbreaking 0.05Catalytic hydrocracking 0.05

Residuals to shorter chains + coke

Coking 0.02 Sour waterSpent caustic

Straight chains to cyclic chains Catalytic reforming 0.14 Small volumes of oily wastewater Short-chains to long-chains Polymerisation 1.40 Sour water

Spent causticIncrease octane number by rearranging atoms

Isomerisation 0.02 Sour waterSpent caustic

Alkylation 0.06 Spent causticSource: GWI

The types of wastewater generated by refining processes are typically classified as strong wastes (desalter effluent, sour water, spent caustic) or oily wastewater. Non-refining wastewater includes blowdown / condensate from boilers / cooling towers and wastew streams from advanced feedwater treatment technologies. These are discussed in the following sections.

3.5.2 Strong wastesA number of wastewater streams from refinery processes are classified as strong wastes. Strong wastes are characterised by high concentrations of salts, chemicals and metal ions.

• Desalter effluent: Crude oil contains salts at concentrations of 30–800 mg/l of oil. The desalting process involves adding water to dissolve salts, then separating the oil and water. Desalter effluent contains high quantities of oil, dissolved solids and suspended solids which can cause significant problems in wastewater treatment systems. Pretreatment of desalter effluent is recommended before it is discharged to the refinery’s WWTP.



• Sour water: Sour water can be defined as water that contains hydrogen sulphide and ammonia. Sour water results from many refinery processes where steam condenses in the presence of hydrocarbons (see figure 3.15). A piece of equipment called a sour water stripper is used to treat sour water by removing hydrogen sulphide and ammonia. Significant volumes of sour water are produced, and stripped sour water is one of the main sources of treated wastewater that can be reused (see section 3.7.1.1).

• Spent caustic: Caustic solutions are alkalis, which are used to sweeten products by “scrubbing” them of sulphur-containing compounds (e.g. mercaptans, hydrogen sulphide), or to remove acidic compounds from products. Spent caustic is the term given to a formerly caustic solution once the bulk of the alkali has been “spent” as a result of chemical reactions. A typical refinery will have several spent caustic waste streams; sulphidic spent caustic can be sent to the WWTP, but phenolic spent caustic is usually sent off-site for disposal.

3.5.3 Oily wastewaterIn a refinery, water, in the form of steam, comes into contact with hydrocarbons. This means that much of the water that results from refining processes is oily, i.e. contains hydrocarbons.

Another source of oily wastewater is crude oil storage tanks. As water is more dense than oil, it will build up at the bottom of storage tanks, together with sediment. This bottom water and sediment (BW&S) is periodically drawn off; water is sent to the primary oil/water separator WWTP and sediment to sludge treatment.

3.5.4 Blowdown and condensateTo prevent dissolved solids building up in boilers and cooling towers, a percentage of the water must be continually removed (blowdown) and replaced with makeup water (either BFW or cooling feedwater as appropriate). Compared to other refinery wastewater streams, blowdown is relatively clean. A full discussion of blowdown can be found in chapter xx on the power industry; here we only cover the particular circumstances found at refineries.

3.5.4.1 Cooling tower blowdown

At refineries, the best practice is to route cooling tower blowdown to the WWTP via a separate sewer system. This avoids cross-contamination by oily wastewater streams and allows the primary oil/water separator to be bypassed.

However, even if such precautions are taken, the cooling tower blowdown should join the WWTP at the secondary oil/water separator stage. This is due to the risk of contamination in heat exchangers, where the hydrocarbons being cooled are usually at a higher pressure than the cooling water. This means that if leaks occur, oil will pass into the cooling water, meaning that cooling tower blowdown will typically have a COD in the region of 150 mg/l.

3.5.4.2 Condensate from boiler blowdown and steam generators

Due to the high level of BFW treatment and the lack of contact with hydrocarbons, condensate from boiler blowdown and steam generators is the cleanest wastewater stream found at a refinery. The main treatment challenge posed by condensate is its high temperature. As condensed steam, the condensate will have a temperature in the region of 100°C. If condensate is routed directly to the WWTP, problems caused by high temperatures include:

• Sewers exposed to extreme variations in temperature will deteriorate over time.

• Adding hot water to the sewer can cause hydrocarbons to vaporise.

• A number of wastewater treatment processes, in particular biological treatment, are very temperature-sensitive.

This means that it is best practice to reduce the temperature of condensate before treating it. Typically this is done via a vapour-liquid separator and a heat exchanger. The condensate can either be discharged to the sewer, combined with cooling tower blowdown, or treated separately for reuse – condensate polishing. Condensate polishing typically involves using activated carbon to remove organic compounds, followed by ion exchange.

3.5.5 Wastewater streams generated by advanced water treatment processesRO and IX both generate wastewater streams that need to be dealt with:

• The brine reject stream from RO treatment is high in TDS. Brine disposal is not an issue if the refinery is near the coast, as the brine can be discharged to the sea. However, in other locations disposing of brine off-site is prohibitively expensive. Although high recovery and ZLD technologies are not yet prevalent in refineries, the need to deal with brine streams could act as a driver for more widespread adoption.

• Ion exchange resins are regenerated by washing with an acid, base, or salt solution. This results in a concentrated waste stream that has to be dealt with using dedicated treatments.


Refining and petrochemicals // Wastewater treatment technologies

3.6 Wastewater treatment technologiesA typical refinery wastewater system involves primary and secondary oil/water separation followed by biological treatment and clarification. If the refinery is treating its wastewater for reuse or to meet strict discharge standards, there will also be a tertiary treatment step. Typical treatment technologies found in refineries are illustrated in the following figure.

Figure 3.16 Typical refinery WWTP technologies

Wastewater treatment level Treatment methodPrimary treatment Primary oil/water separator:

API primary oil-water separator Corrugated plate interceptors (CRI) Parallel plate separators (PPI)Secondary oil/water separator: Dissolved air flotation (DAF) Induced air flotation (IAF)

Biological treatment Activated sludgeActivated sludge treatment and powdered activated carbon Sequencing batch reactor (SBR)Membrane bioreactor (MBR)Aerated lagoonsTricking filtersRotating biological contractorNitrogen removal

Tertiary treatment Sand filtrationActivated carbonChemical oxidation

Sludge treatment DewateringThickeningDigestingFiltering

Source: IPIECA, 2010

An equalisation tank is also an important part of a refinery WWTP. The tank acts as a “buffer zone” that smoothes out the fluctuations in the wastewater f low rate that result from fluctuations in production. Depending on the WWTP layout, the equalisation tank can be placed before or after the primary water/oil separator, or after the secondary oil/water separator.

The wastewater streams, and the points at which they join a typical refinery WWTP are illustrated in the following figure.



Figure 3.17 Wastewater streams and wastewater treatment in the refining industry

Primary oil/water separation

Secondaryoil/water separation

EqualisationBiologicaltreatment

Clarification/sedimentation

Tertiary treatment

Crudetank

Tank

Slop oilrecovery

Separationtank

Oil desalter Refinery Phenolic

Sulphidic

Demineralisation system

Boiler

TurbineCoolingtower

Solids handling

Sludge disposal

Wash water

Crude oil

Sour waterOily sour water

Spent caustic

Boiler blowdownUnrecovered condensateCooling tower blowdown

Stripped sour water

Condensaterecovery

Input water

Makeup water

Cooling water evaporation

Oil skim

Discharge

Oil skim

Demineralised water

Steam

Sewer

Steam losses

Oil skim

Solidsor

Coker unit

Crude oil

Desaltereffluent

*

*

Input water

Offsite disposalNeutralisationSale

Steam

Bottomtank draws

Diagram keyOil

Wastewater

Water

Steam* Pretreatment options

Solids

Water reuse

Sour water

strippers

Sour condensate

Discharge

Reuse

Source: GWI


Refining and petrochemicals // Water reuse

3.6.1 Emerging trends in refinery wastewater treatment Industry experts have highlighted the following trends in refinery wastewater treatment:

• Treatment of wastewater streams at source: As illustrated in figure 3.17, the refining industry generates different wastewater streams that are usually combined and treated together. Due to their characteristics, some of the streams (e.g. blowdown) can cause problems in the WWTP plant and ultimately increase the cost of treatment. Refining industry professionals would like to use technologies that deal with each type of wastewater at its source in order to improve its quality before it is sent to the WWTP. One example of this is sour water strippers, which are already common in refineries.

• Collaboration between oil extraction companies and refineries: Extraction companies generate produced water, whose composition varies by location (see chapter 2 of this report). It is possible that treated produced water could be reused in refineries. Another potential area for collaboration is improving the quality of crude oil at the extraction site, which would reduce the volume of water required for desalting.

• Emerging trends in biological treatment: According to interviews conducted with industry experts, the use of membrane bioreactors (MBR) is an emerging trend in refineries. MBR can achieve good water quality (<3 mg/l of TSS and <100 mg/l COD) without the need for a subsequent clarification step.

3.7 Water reuse

3.7.1 Sources of water for reuseThere is huge potential for water reuse at refinery sites. For example, the CITGO refinery at Lake Charles, Louisiana, decreased its water withdrawal by 94% between 2005 and 2010. CITGO achieved this reduction by aggressively adopting reuse policies at their WWTP (which had originally been built in 1995), while upgrading monitoring and control systems. This action was taken in the wake of damage by Hurricane Rita in 2005, and a 54,000 bbl oil spillage in 2006 for which the company was fined $6 million.

The following figure lists potential sources of water reuse in a refinery; subsequent sections give further detail.

Figure 3.18 Water reuse applications and source of water

Source of water for reuse Reuse applicationStripped sour water Desalter wash water

Coker quench / coke cutting waterRecovered condensate BFWTertiary (or better) treated refinery wastewater BFW

Cooling tower feedwaterTertiary (or better) treated stormwater BFW

Cooling tower feedwaterSource: IPIECA, 2010

3.7.1.1 Stripped sour water

Sour water is generated by most refinery processes, when condensing steam becomes contaminated with hydrogen sulphide and ammonia from hydrocarbons. Sour water is treated in sour water strippers, the best of which can achieve <1mg/l hydrogen sulphide and <30 mg/l ammonia. Stripped sour water can be reused as desalter wash water, or to dilute spent caustic solutions prior to further treatment.

Well-designed refineries have multiple sour water strippers so that different wastewater streams can be treated separately. For example, sour water resulting from catalytic cracking or delayed coking contains high levels of phenols and cyanide. Regular sour water strippers do not remove these compounds, so instead a dedicated phenolic sour water stripper should be employed.

Stripped sour water that cannot be reused is sent to the refinery WWTP, joining at the biological treatment stage if it is not contaminated with oil.

3.7.1.2 Recovered condensate

Condensed steam from boilers is already of very high quality, and can be reused as BFW or other steam generation processes after condensate polishing. Condensate polishing uses mixed bed ion exchange to maintain a neutral pH (guard against corrosion) while removing ions and suspended particles that would otherwise cause scaling, e.g. silica, iron oxide.

Although condensate polishing generates high quality water for reuse, the savings made need to be balanced against the cost of treating ion exchange resin regeneration wastewater (see section 3.5.5).



3.7.1.3 Tertiary and advanced wastewater treatment

The refining industry currently lags behind other industries in employing advanced treatment technologies, such as membranes, for wastewater treatment. However, scarcity and rising raw water prices are beginning to make the industry re-evaluate its attitudes towards treating refinery wastewater for reuse.

The technologies shown in the following figure represent the choices available for different reuse applications, although it should be stressed that they are not yet commonly found in refineries.

Figure 3.19 Trends in water reuse technologies

Potential water reuse application Technology Comment Disadvantages Utility water (for washing floors, etc.)Fire water

Media / sand filtration No removal of dissolved solids, only suspended solids.

As a standalone technology it cannot upgrade quality of wastewater effluent.

MF or UF No removal of dissolved solids, only suspended solids.

Susceptible to fouling. Pretreatment recommended.

Cooling water makeupBFW makeup

MF or UF followed by RO RO membranes susceptible to fouling by hydrocarbons.

Dealing with UF reject can increase treatment cost.

MR or UF followed by NF Similar to RO, but lower pressure.

Salt rejection of NF is lower than that of RO.

Ion exchange Cost-effective option to treat effluent to BFW quality.

Resin regeneration wastewater needs to be dealt with.

Source: IPIECA, 2010; GWI

One large drawback of traditional polymer membranes is the difficulty in cleaning them when they foul – especially if the fouling is due to oily waste. Polymer membranes cannot withstand harsh cleaning, whether physical, chemical or steam cleaning. Ceramic membranes aim to do the same job as MF or UF membranes without these drawbacks. They are constructed from robust inorganic materials, such as aluminium oxide or titanium oxide, which enables them to withstand harsher conditions than polymer membranes. Ceramic membranes specifically designed for de-oiling already exist, and could be of special interest to the refining industry as pretreatment for RO.

3.7.2 Zero liquid dischargeZero liquid discharge (ZLD) is not commonly found in refineries. It is very expensive (due to high energy use) and creates a very concentrated waste stream that needs to be dealt with.

However, there are a few examples where ZLD has been used in Mexico (Pemex) and Brazil (Pentrobras) as a result of regulatory pressures. The experts from water companies we interviewed thought that ZLD would only be used if imposed by authorities via environmental regulations.

3.7.3 Demand for advanced water reuse technologiesThe interviews we conducted indicate that the refining industry recognises the technological advantages of water reuse even though it is not yet widely practised. Several opinions were widely held:

• Asset life can be prolonged, system reliability improved and overall operating expenditure decreased if high water quality is provided via reuse.

• Independence is important to refineries. Reuse decreases refineries’ dependence on permitted water allocations or purchasing water from suppliers. There could be opportunities for high recovery technologies and ZLD in order to reuse as much water as possible and avoid using more expensive water sources.

• Fouling is a serious problem when using membranes, especially if they are in contact with oil. Fouling both reduces production and increases operating costs. De-oiling technologies will become more widespread in the industry when water reuse becomes common practice in refineries.

• UF and RO for wastewater treatment is likely to gain most traction in areas where seawater desalination is already practised as the only viable option for generating feedwater. This is because the energy used for RO is dependent on the salinity of the feedwater, meaning that RO wastewater treatment has lower operating costs than RO seawater treatment. As energy prices rise, this cost difference is becoming a more important factor.


Refining and petrochemicals // Supply chain analysis

However, according to our interviewees there still remain significant barriers that need to be overcome in order for more advanced wastewater treatment to be employed:

• Economic considerations: Water technology companies should be working on developing cost-effective reuse technologies and on reducing the payback time. The current generation of advanced treatment technologies are expensive and not yet economically feasible.

• Polishing issues with high recovery technologies: However, to become more widely adopted, improvements need to be made to reduce the amount of polishing required after the high recovery step.

• Adding a water reuse plant adds another layer of complexity to the refinery’s operations. Solutions to this might include simple, automatic plant designs or outsourcing.

3.8 Supply chain analysisRefineries are complex facilities that need different water solutions at different times. That means that there is no one rule of thumb for procurement of water equipment. Several approaches can be adopted, and these are discussed in the following sections.

3.8.1 Procurement models

3.8.1.1 EPC model

EPC is the most common procurement model in the refining industry. Within the model, there are a number of variations on how equipment and technologies are procured and how water companies can be involved.

• The water company can be a subcontractor in an EPC contract. This is usually the case when a new refinery is being built. The water company is subcontracted in order to deal with water production and other water/wastewater issues. This is done when the EPC company does not have water and wastewater treatment in their portfolio.

• The water company can be an EPC contractor and provide their own technologies, as well as selecting equipment and technologies from other suppliers. In this case, companies try to have supervision of the facility for the first year or two.

• The refinery contracts a large EPC company that selects specific equipment and technologies from different suppliers. This is becoming increasingly prevalent in India and the Middle East where refineries mostly rely on an EPC company rather than working directly with water technology companies. This is particularly common for process water treatment technologies, as well as in cases when the refinery wants to have a certain technology.

As shown in the following figure, the EPC contractors who have established themselves in providing seawater desalination plants for refineries include IDE, with 3 MED installations and Veolia Environnement, with two MED and two RO plants. Mitsubishi and Zolal Iran have been EPC contractor for one extra-large plant each (Rabigh and Fajr respectively; discussed earlier in section 3.4.2).

Figure 3.20 Seawater desalination for refining by EPC contractor, 1990–2011

Mitsubishi 227,300 m³/d(1 plant)


(1990-2011)

Zolal Iran 120,000 m³/d(1 plant)

Veolia Environnement 121,585 m³/d(4 plants)

IDE 127,680 m³/d(3 plants)

Other 227,300 m³/d(28 plants)




3.8.1.2 EP model

The EP model is expected to become more important in the future – for a refinery it is less expensive than EPC. In the EP model, a contractor carries out the engineering and procurement of equipment, and construction is carried out by a third party. A local construction company that the refinery has already worked with on the site is often used, as they will be able to provide continuous maintenance.

3.8.1.3 Direct procurement of treatment solutions

Direct procurement usually happens when existing refineries are looking to upgrade their water or wastewater treatment plants. Refineries define the technologies, treatment scheme and any other specifics. The bidding process is normally done online. This approach is more common for wastewater treatment and less common for specialised water treatment requirements.

3.8.2 Factors that influence decision makingA number of factors influence decision making for the purchase of equipment and technologies.

• Price: The lowest price is commonly the decisive factor in decision making. In an EPC contract, capital expenditure is the most important factor in the final decision.

• References: The ability to verify previous work is also important. Companies often need to be willing to build their first or second references at a very low price in order to get a foot in the door and compete as a player in the market.

• Consolidation of water technology offerings: Water companies can be very specialised in what they offer. However refining sector clients tend to prefer to receive a full package for BFW, cooling water, process water and wastewater treatment from a single water company.

• Free pilot projects for new technologies: Clients like to try technologies that are new to them before committing to buy on a larger scale. Some water companies charge for pilot projects, but this approach is not welcomed by refineries. Other water companies offer free trials where they only try to cover internal costs. Carrying out free pilot projects is considered common practice and part of a successful business strategy.

• Good presentation of new technologies: This requires good commercial skills and technical knowledge supported by studies and R&D results. Innovative technologies are expensive, but on the other hand refining companies are rich. A water company’s ability to prove the quality of their technology, coupled with persuasive presentation, can result in clients purchasing despite the expense of the technology.

3.8.3 Maintaining a market presenceMaintaining a market presence is vital. Some of the important factors for this are listed below.

• Technology showcasing and collaboration with other companies: This is particularly important for big EPC contractors. This includes working with suppliers and with new companies who have new ideas, testing new technologies in new installations, and working together to develop the best overall solutions.

• Maintain a good relationship with previous clients: it is always beneficial to stay on good terms with previous clients to increase the chances of involvement in future projects.

• Keep the price low: being less expensive than rival companies is one of the key survival factors in the market.

• Working language: sometimes local suppliers and constructors are preferred as there is no language barrier between the client and contractors.

• Personal contacts: develop and maintain personal contacts with professionals in the refining industry.


Refining and petrochemicals // Market forecast

3.9 Market forecast

3.9.1 Refining projectsOur market forecast has been informed by the May 2012 edition of Oil and Gas Journal’s Worldwide Construction Update, which surveys refining construction activity. The following figure shows the locations of the 287 future projects in the dataset.

Figure 3.21 Future refining projects, 2012–2020

Source: Oil and Gas Journal, 2012; Global Water Risk Index, GWI, 2011

A summary of the top countries by future additional capacity is shown in the following figures. China has by far the most planned activity, but the most water-scarce areas with planned projects are in the Middle East (see map above).

Figure 3.22 Future additional refining capacity by country, 2012–2017

Country Additional refining capacity 2012–17 (bbl/d)

No. of projects

Avg project size (bbl/d)

China 4,068,515 25 162,741Saudi Arabia 1,600,000 7 228,571Canada 1,566,300 16 97,894India 1,448,645 14 103,475Brazil 1,390,112 22 63,187United Arab Emirates 1,023,000 6 170,500United States 991,500 21 47,214Venezuela 900,000 5 180,000Iraq 890,900 6 148,483Mexico 732,500 8 91,563Rest of world 7,746,870 125 61,975Total 22,358,341 255 87,680


To inform our forecast, we have used the published project completion dates, and made estimates of completion dates for projects that are still in the planning stages. We have also factored in information from interviews conducted with industry experts.



3.9.2 Reference and alternate scenariosOur reference scenario for the refining and petrochemicals industry makes the following assumptions:

• Crack spread above $20/bbl in the U.S. and above $10/bbl in other markets.

• Economic growth in India and China in excess of 6%.

• Growth rate in the U.S. in excess of 1%.

• Brent crude remains above $60/bbl (this is relevant to downstream development in the Gulf region, where much of the money for development originates from oil sales).

In our alternate scenario, the following happens from 2013 onwards:

• Crack spread falls below $10/bbl in the U.S. and below $6/bbl in Europe/Asia.

• China and India growth economic rates fall below 6%.


Under the alternate scenario, overall market activity falls by around 80%.

3.9.3 Overall pictureIn our reference scenario, we see steady growth in conventional water and wastewater treatment for the refining and petrochemical industry. We anticipate seawater desalination taking off in Asia Pacific and the Middle East, as projects happen in coastal water-scarce areas where there is little alternative (see map in figure 3.21). We do not forsee ZLD systems becoming widely adopted at this stage, though there will be a handful of pioneers.

Figure 3.23 Refining and petrochemicals industry market forecast, 2011–2025

ZLD systems

Seawater desalinationplantsWastewater treatmentsystems



500

1,000

1,500

2,000

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Refining and petrochemicals ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011-17 2025

Pretreatment systems (a) 186.2 193.9 202.0 210.5 219.3 228.5 237.1 4.1% 316.0Ultrapure water systems 135.4 141.0 146.9 153.1 159.5 166.2 172.4 4.1% 229.8Wastewater treatment systems (b) 216.0 226.5 237.4 248.9 261.0 273.6 285.8 4.8% 398.1Seawater desalination plants (c) 52.5 167.6 509.2 265.5 458.9 892.6 807.7 57.7% 976.3ZLD systems 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 20.0 0.0% 35.0Total (d) 590.0 729.1 1,095.5 893.0 1,098.7 1,575.8 1,523.0 17.1% 1,955.2

(a) Includes intakes, screen and primary treatment, as well as clarification, filtration and other pretreatment approaches.(b) Includes oil water separation. (c) These are essentially captive desalination plants supplying water and possibly steam to a co-located refinery or petrochemical plant, as well as any co-located power plant serving the refinery. (d) This represents a significant upgrade in the outlook for the refining and petrochemical sector as margins in the business have improved since the publication of GWI’s Global Water Market report in 2011.Source: GWI


Refining and petrochemicals // Market forecast

The country market split for 2013–2017 is shown in the following figure. The spend on water/wastewater treatment per additional barrel of oil processing is higher in countries where seawater desalination is used.

Figure 3.24 Refining and petrochemicals industry: top country markets, 2013–2017


(2013-2017) Saudi Arabia $631m

China $760m

RoW $3,460m

Canada $132m

India $685m

United Arab Emirates $518m

Source: GWI

The country market split is also reflected in the regional market split. Other notable country markets that contribute to the regions include the U.S., Brazil and Venezuela.

Figure 3.25 Refining and petrochemicals industry: regional markets, 2013–2017

Americas $1,270m

$6,186mTotal market value

(2013-2017)

EMEA $2,344m

Asia Pacific$2,572m

Source: GWI



3.9.4 Seawater desalinationIn our reference scenario, the seawater desalination market is dominated by large projects in the Middle East and Asia Pacific, though we feel that there is potential for it to take a toehold in the Americas.

Figure 3.26 Refining and petrochemicals industry, seawater desalination, 2011–2017: Reference scenario

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Seawater desalination reference scenario ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Americas 0.0 40.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 60.0 25.0 –EMEA 44.3 37.6 88.2 58.8 123.3 593.0 574.2 53.3%Asia Pacific 8.2 90.0 421.0 156.7 335.6 239.6 208.5 71.5%Total 52.5 167.6 509.2 265.5 458.9 892.6 807.7 57.7%

Source: GWI

In the alternate scenario, there is around 80% less activity in the overall market from 2013 onwards, with no new projects in the Americas.

Figure 3.27 Refining and petrochemicals industry, seawater desalination, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario

0

50

100

150

200

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas



Source: GWI


Power // Introduction

4. Power4.1 IntroductionWater is the “working fluid” of the power generation industry. In a combustion power plant, heat is produced by burning coal, oil or gas. The energy produced by this reaction is transferred to a generator by heating water in the boiler. The steam that is produced expands in a turbine, providing the energy to drive the blades of the turbine. The rotation of the turbine drives the generator, which produces electricity. The basic steam cycle used in combustion plants contains four processes:

• Water is compressed before entering the boiler.

• In the boiler, water is heated at a constant pressure to produce steam.

• In the turbine, the reduced pressure allows the steam to expand. This process releases energy which moves the turbine blades.

• Steam is condensed at low pressure to return to the start of the cycle.

A rough estimate of the efficiency of this cycle can be produced by comparing the highest temperature of the steam after passing through the boiler with the lowest temperature of the water after condensation.

Water in the steam cycle f lowing through the condenser transfers heat to the water in a separate cooling cycle. As a result of the heat transfer process, the steam condenses to water without a decrease in temperature. The heated cooling water is introduced to a cooling tower, where heat is lost to the atmosphere by evaporation and convection. Most of the water is recirculated to the condenser. Water must be introduced to the system to replace the cooling water that is lost through evaporation. The cooling cycle is the largest consumer of water in a power generation plant.

Water is also required as a component of the processes to remove sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide and particulate matter from the exhaust gases produced by the plant. These processes produce highly concentrated streams of wastewater, which must be treated before discharge or reuse. The treatment of contaminated wastewater from exhaust gas scrubbing processes is a promising market for the use of high recovery treatment technologies.



4.2 Water intensive processes

Figure 4.1 Water cycles and treatment processes in power generation

BoilerCoolingtower

Steamturbine

Heat

Steam vapour

Cooling towermakeup water

Condenser

Solidsremoval

(MF / mediafiltration)

Condensatepolishing

(IX)

Boiler blowdown

Cooling tower blowdown

Boilermakeup water

MF ROFeedwater

Mixed bedIX

EDI

Softening ROBrine

concentratorCrystalliser

Filterpress Solids

ZLD process

Boiler makeup treatment Cooling towermakeup treatment

Feedwater

Diagram key

Wastewater

Water Steam

Solids

Source: GWI

4.2.1 Boiler water in the steam cycleThe boiler feedwater in the steam cycle requires the highest quality feedwater in a power plant. Steam produced in the boiler circulates through the turbine and condenser before returning to the boiler. The cycles of compression, evaporation, expansion, and condensation concentrate impurities in the circulating stream. Impurities that are less soluble in steam will deposit in the turbine, creating potential sites for corrosion to occur.

The purity of water in the steam cycle can be controlled by varying the volume of water that is rejected from the boiler. The continuous reject stream, known as blowdown, controls the concentration and volume of water in the boiler. The water lost from the boiler must be continually replaced. The replacement stream is known as makeup.


Power // Water intensive processes

There are several variations on this cycle which increase the amount of energy that can be transferred to the generator. Superheating reduces the volume of liquid water that passes through the turbine and increases the amount of energy available by raising the temperature of the steam. In a supercritical system, the temperature and pressure of the steam entering the boiler is increased until there is no difference between the properties of liquid water and steam. Above the critical point, water can be converted to steam without boiling and the energy that is available increases. Reheating increases the temperature of steam between a high and low pressure turbine. Steam from the high pressure turbine is reheated in the boiler before expanding in the low pressure turbine. This process increases the total amount of energy that can be extracted from the system.

4.2.2 Cooling cycleThe cooling cycle represents the largest use of water in a combustion power plant. In the condenser, water in the cooling cycle removes energy from the water in the steam cycle. The cooling process allows water to be recirculated through the boiler. The cooling water must itself be cooled before discharge or reuse. In a once-through cooling system, water is taken from a source, passed through the condenser and then returned to the source at a higher temperature. In a recirculating cooling system, water from the condenser is cooled and reused in the cooling cycle. A recirculating system consumes more water, i.e. does not return the water to its source, but a once-through system withdraws more water. There are two forms of recirculating cooling:

• In an open system, the water in the cooling cycle is cooled by evaporation.

• In a closed system, the water in the cooling cycle is cooled by heat exchange with another fluid.

In both systems, water must be added to the cooling cycle to replace any losses (makeup). To prevent the excessive concentration of dissolved solids, a percentage of the water must be continually removed (blowdown). In an open system, the volume of makeup water must be equal to the volume of water lost through evaporation and blowdown.

The water consumption requirements of selected cooling systems are described in the following figure.

Figure 4.2 Water consumption of selected cooling systems in coal-fired power stations

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

Rate

of c

onsu

mpt

ion

(m3 /

s)

Rate of withdrawal (m3/s)

Recirculating - Pond

Once through

Recirculating - Tower

See footnote (*)

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

(*) The line that indicates that a plant consumes (evaporates) all of the water that it withdraws is given by y = x. Nothing should be above this line, although in practice this will not always be true.Source: EIA, 2010

4.2.3 Combined cycle power plantsAs the name suggests, a combined cycle power plant uses two cycles of compression and expansion to extract energy. In the first cycle, air is heated under high pressure and then expanded inside a gas turbine, known as a combustion turbine generator (CTG). The second cycle is similar to the steam cycle seen in conventional combustion plants. The exhaust gases from the first cycle



heat water under pressure in a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) to produce steam. The expansion of this steam provides the energy needed to drive a turbine. In a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plant, the energy to drive the CTG is provided by the combustion of natural gas. In an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant, the energy to drive the CTG is provided by the combustion of synthetic gas. The production of synthetic gas through coal gasification is described in Section 4.2.6.

The combined cycle has a higher thermal efficiency than a conventional coal-fired plant. The air in the gas cycle can be heated directly and reach higher temperatures than the steam cycle. Combining the high temperatures of the gas cycle with the improved cooling of the steam cycle increases the temperature range over which the plant operates. The theoretical thermal efficiency of a combined cycle plant is 70%, because of the large difference between heat supplied and heat extracted. The efficiency of an actual plant is limited to 55%.

Figure 4.3 Water use in a combined cycle power plant

HRSG

HRSG blowdown

HRSGmakeup water

Steam(to turbine)

Polished condensate

Compressor

Gasturbine

HeatCombustion

Exhaust air

Air

Gas

Diagram key

Steam

Water

Wastewater

Source: Maulbetsch and DiFilippo, 2006

Figure 4.3 shows the water use in a typical combined cycle plant. In such a plant, water is used as the working fluid in the steam cycle, as a method of condensing steam from the HRSG and as a method of cooling the inlet of the gas turbine. The water used to cool the gas turbine inlet evaporates on contact with the heated air. The steam produced maintains the flow through the gas turbine when the density of air is reduced by high ambient temperatures.

Figure 4.4 Projected water use volumes at the CPV Vaca station combined cycle power plant

Water quality sampling1.1m³/hr

HRSG SystemMakeup

7.3m³/hr

Blowdown 5.1m³/hr

Other losses1.1m³/hr

Wind losses (drift)0.4m³/hr

Evaporative losses453.1m³/hr

Blowodwn122.6m³/hr

Cooling SystemMakeup

567.1m³/hr

Source: CPV Vacaville and CH2M Hill, 2008



The purity requirements for makeup water in HRSG are similar to those required in conventional combustion plants. The HRSG requires demineralised water to prevent scaling and corrosion on internal surfaces. The HRSG requires less water for makeup than a conventional boiler in the steam cycle, because the gas turbine is the primary method of extracting energy from the fuel. To produce the same amount of energy as a conventional power plant requires less steam to be produced in the boiler. A combined cycle plant does not require additional equipment to remove sulphur dioxide and other pollutants from exhaust gases.

4.2.4 Flue gas desulphurisationBurning coal with a high sulphur content releases large volumes of sulphur dioxide gas into the atmosphere. Flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) is the process used to remove sulphur dioxide from exhaust gases before they are discharged. The development of this process has been encouraged by regulations limiting the emissions from combustion power plants. In 80% of FGD systems, the sulphur dioxide is removed from the exhaust gases through an oxidation reaction with limestone slurry (calcium carbonate). This reaction produces gypsum (calcium sulphate) and carbon dioxide. The operating costs of this process can be offset by purifying the gypsum and selling it for use in cement manufacturing. The presence of a marketable by-product encourages the use of high recovery systems to purify the FGD wastewater.

Figure 4.5 Limestone addition removes sulphur dioxide from flue gas

Absorber

Flue gas Air

Scrubbed gas to stack

Mixing limestone slurry

Limestone (CaCO3)

FGD wastewater treatment

Gypsum (CaSO4) Wastewater blowdown

Makeup water

FGD wastewater

Recirculating water

Diagram key

Solid

Water

Wastewater

Source: EC JRC, 2006

Before desulphurisation can take place, f ly ash – particles suspended in the flue gas – is removed from the exhaust gases in the furnace. The cleaned flue gas is introduced to the body of the FGD absorber. Limestone slurry, a mixture of calcium carbonate and water, is sprayed onto the incoming flue gas. The reactions take place in the oxidation reactor near the base of the absorber. Sulphur dioxide (SO2) in the flue gas reacts with calcium carbonate and water in the slurry to form crystals of calcium sulphite (CaSO3). This is the natural oxidation part of the FGD process. Air is introduced into the base of the absorber to produce calcium sulphate (CaSO4) crystals through forced oxidation. Sulphate crystals are larger and easier to dewater, producing a purer saleable product.

4.2.5 Ash handling systemsIn coal-fired power plants, the combustion of coal produces large quantities of ash. Lighter ash particles, or fly ash, are removed from the boiler furnace with the exhaust gases. Fly ash can then be removed from the exhaust gases by mixing with water, passing the contaminated gas through a series of bag filters, or by electric charge attraction. In the United States, f ly ash is usually removed by dry methods, including bag filters or electrostatic precipitation. Heavier ash particles, or bottom ash, collect in the bottom of the boiler furnace, where it is cooled on contact with water. When the hoppers at the bottom of the boiler are full, the ash is sluiced from the water and sent to settling ponds. When the ash settles, the clear water at the surface of the pond is discharged or reused. The ash at the bottom of the pond is regularly dredged and sent to landfill.



Figure 4.6 Percentage of US coal-fired power plants using wet ash handling systems

Wet sluiced34 plants

Fly AshHandling104 plants

117,000 MWHandled dry63 plants

Other7 plants

Unknown1 plant

Wet sluiced85 plants

Handled dry13 plants

BottomAsh Handling

99 plants117,000 MW

Source: EPA, 2009

4.2.6 Coal gasificationGasification can be used to extract synthetic gas, or syngas, from solid fuels. The gasification process was developed to take advantage of plentiful supplies of cheap coal. The syngas produced from coal is burnt to provide energy to drive the gas turbine in a combined cycle power plant. A combined cycle plant is more thermally efficient than a conventional combustion plant.

To produce syngas from raw coal, the following processes are used:

• Gasification: Raw coal, steam and oxygen-rich air are introduced to the gasifier. The carbon in the coal is partially oxidised by the oxygen and steam to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The energy released in this reaction breaks down chemical bonds in the coal to produce tar and oil. Methane is formed by the reaction of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The final syngas mixture contains approximately 25% hydrogen gas, 30% carbon monoxide, 25% steam and 5% methane.

• Syngas cooling: The syngas produced in the gasifier is cooled by exchanging heat with water recycled from other processes in the plant. In a combined cycle plant the heated water produced by this process can be sent to the steam generator to produce electricity.

• Particulate removal: Particulate matter is removed from the cooled syngas through contact with water. The cleaned gas produced by this process has a high concentration of acidic gases (e.g. hydrogen sulphide, H2S), and is commonly referred to as sour gas.

• Acid gas removal: The removal of sulphur from the sour gas is over 99% efficient. Hydrogen sulphide in the syngas is removed through reactions with a chemical solvent. Hydrogen sulphide is chemically bonded to the solvent and removed. The cleaned gas, known as sweet gas, is burnt to provide energy for the gas turbine in the combined cycle plant.

The following figure illustrates the chemical processes described above.



Figure 4.7 Water use in coal gasification and synthetic gas cleaning

GasifierAcid gasremoval

Wetparticulatescrubber

Sulphurrecovery

Steamstripping

Gascooling

Watertreatment

Tail gas(to gasifier)

Sweet gas(to gas turbine)

MakeupProcess waterOxygen

Coal

Sulphur or sulphuric acid

Treated wastewater

Solids

Ash

Raw syngas Sour gas

Acid gasSour condensate

Diagram key

Gas

Solid

Liquid

Wastewater

Makeup

Acid gas

Source: Ratafia-Brown et al., 2002

In a coal gasification plant, water is used to cool the syngas produced by the gasifier, to remove ash particles suspended in the syngas, and to produce steam to fuel reactions in the gasifier.

4.2.7 Nuclear power industryIn a nuclear power plant, steam is used to drive a turbine. The heat for this process is provided by the decay of radioactive isotopes of uranium. In a pressurised water reactor (PWR), two separate water cycles are required to transfer energy from radioactive decay to the turbine. In a boiling water reactor (BWR), one water cycle is used to cool the reactor, moderate the emission of neutrons produced by radioactive decay, and drive the steam through the turbine.

4.2.8 Concentrated solar powerOn a long enough timescale, all of the energy used to generate electricity comes from the sun. Concentrated solar power (CSP) or solar thermal power uses the energy of the sun to directly heat the working fluid of the steam cycle. It should be noted that this technology does not require the use of photovoltaic cells (solar panels), in which solar radiation transfers energy directly to charged particles in the cell.

At a CSP plant, an array of reflectors are used to focus radiation from the sun onto a network of f luid containing tubes. The focused energy heats the fluid inside these tubes, which can be molten salt, water or oil. The heated fluid provides enough energy to generate the steam needed to power a turbine. The steam and cooling cycles of a CSP plant are similar to the cycles found in a conventional fossil fuel fired power station. Water is used to maintain the purity of the boiler and cooling cycle, and to clean the reflector surfaces. Environmental conditions that are appropriate for CSP plants do not produce abundant sources of water.

There are several configurations seen in operational CSP plants. The most common design in the U.S. is the parabolic trough design, consisting of an array of parabolic mirrors which focus solar radiation onto a heat transfer f luid. An upcoming CSP project will also incorporate a solar tower design, in which an array of mirrors focus solar energy onto a receiver on top of a tower. Molten salt is heated in the receiver and the energy is transferred to water in the steam cycle.



The Solar Energy Industries Association estimates that there are 19 concentrated solar power projects currently operating in the United States, with a capacity of 515 MW. The following figure describes energy produced by concentrated solar power, and the water consumed in production.

Figure 4.8 Potential energy supply and water use from concentrated solar power plants in the U.S.

Plant design

No. of operating

projects

Total capacity of operating projects

(MW)

No. of upcoming

projects

Total capacity of upcoming projects

(MW)

Typical water consumption/plant

(gal/MWh)Parabolic trough 13 500 12 2,300 920Solar tower 1 5 12 2,800 830

Source: DeMeo and Galdo, 1997; SEIA, 2012

4.3 Process water requirements

4.3.1 Purity of boiler makeupThe purity of the water in the boiler is dependent on two sources: the boiler makeup and the condensate that is returned to the boiler after completing the cycle. Increasing the pressure of water entering the boiler increases the energy that can be extracted from steam in the turbine. In modern power plants, boilers and HRSGs are designed to operate under high temperatures and pressures. In an ultra-supercritical system, steam is heated above 566 oC at a pressure greater than 4,500 psig.

The following figure presents guidelines for the purity of boiler feedwater published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). At increasing temperature and pressure, the solubility of scale forming compounds decreases. Under such conditions scale is more likely to form on the walls of the boiler. The solubility of silica in steam increases at supercritical pressures. In supercritical and ultra-supercritical boilers, dissolved silica will be carried into the turbine. Silica will deposit in the turbine as the steam expands and cools. These deposits decrease the efficiency of the turbine.

Figure 4.9 ASME guidelines for boiler water purity at increasing pressure and a constant temperature

Operating pressure (psig) 451–600 601–750 751–900 901–1,000 1,001–1,500 1,501–2,000FeedwaterDissolved oxygen (mg/l of O2) <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007Iron (mg/l of Fe) 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01Copper (mg/l of Cu) 0.02 0.02 0.015 0.015 0.01 0.01Hardness (mg/l of CaCO3) 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 Not detectable Not detectablepH range 7.5–10.0 7.5–10.0 7.5–10.0 8.5–9.5 9.0–9.6 9.0–9.6

Boiler waterSilica (mg/l of SiO2) ≤40 ≤30 ≤20 ≤8 ≤2 ≤1Alkalinity (mg/l CaCO3) <250 <200 <150 <100 Not detectable Not detectableSpecific conductance (µS/cm) <2,500 <2,000 <1,500 <1,000 ≤150 ≤100

Source: ASME, 1994

The operation of the turbine is affected by the quality of the steam produced by the boiler. The rate of corrosion of the turbine blades, and the deposition of dissolved solids within the turbine, is determined, in part, by the chemical composition of the steam.To maintain the quality of water in the steam cycle, makeup for the boiler must have a conductivity less than 0.1 µS/cm. The conductivity of water is used as an indicator of the concentration of dissolved solids, and measures the concentration of charged particles in the water. To provide a continuous supply of electricity, the makeup pretreatment system must be able to supply water of this quality to replace the losses in the boiler. Failure to provide a consistent stream of high quality water will result in corrosion in the turbine, a reduction in heating efficiency, and ultimately a shutdown of the power station.

4.3.2 Cooling tower makeupWater in the cooling cycle is not required to be as pure as water in the steam cycle. Cooling makeup must be treated to remove suspended and colloidal solids, but not dissolved solids. Suspended solids collect in the condenser and internal piping, especially in areas of low flow. The build-up of material reduces the flow of water through the cooling cycle, and the efficiency of cooling.

The heat that enters the cooling cycle in the condenser creates an ideal environment for the growth of biological activity. The efficiency of the condenser is reduced by the presence of biological material on heat transfer surfaces. If the cooling makeup is drawn directly from surface water, a mechanical screen will prevent the uptake of marine life. A filtering system does not prevent the intake of plankton and larvae. The growth of these organisms can be prevented by the addition of chlorine, or other biocidal chemicals.


Power // Wastewater characteristics

4.4 Wastewater characteristics

4.4.1 Cooling tower blowdownThe evaporation of water in the cooling cycle increases the concentration of dissolved solids in the remaining water. To maintain the concentration at a constant level, a volume of water must be continuously removed from the cooling cycle. This volume of water, known as blowdown, is dependent on the concentration of dissolved solids. The conductivity of the water is an indicator of the solids concentration, and is used to calculate the volume of water that must be removed. To maintain the volume of water in the cooling cycle, water must be added to the cycle. This volume of water is known as makeup.

The concentration of water in the cooling cycle is defined by the cycles of concentration. This concept measures the concentration of the cooling cycle water in relation to the concentration of the makeup. The cycles of concentration are used to calculate the volume of makeup water that is required to replace what is lost in blowdown. The following figure describes the concentration of water in the cooling cycle in relation to the cycles of concentration. Increasing the volume of the blowdown decreases the concentration of dissolved solids, and the number of cycles of concentration.

Figure 4.10 Concentration of contaminants in the cooling cycle

Cycles of concentration

Conductivity (µS/cm)

Total hardness (mg/l as CaCO3)

Calcium hardness (mg/l as CaCO3)

Silica (mg/l)

Makeup water 600 300 150 52 1,200 600 300 104 2,400 1,200 600 206 3,600 1,800 900 3010 6,000 3,000 1,500 50

Source: Loretitsch, 2002

The dissolved solids in the cooling system provide the raw materials for oxidation and reduction reactions on the heat transfer surfaces. These reactions contribute to the corrosion of metal surfaces in the cooling system. The damage caused by corrosion produces cracks in the walls of the condenser tubes, allowing cooling water to mix with the higher purity boiler water. The concentration of dissolved solids must be controlled to maintain the quality of the water in the boiler.

4.4.2 FGD wastewaterThe concentrated solution in the flue gas scrubber is continually removed to maintain the level of suspended solids, control the rate of oxidation and reduce the build-up of corrosion forming impurities. Gypsum crystals can be separated from the wastewater by weight in a hydrocyclone, or through a coagulation and settling process. Larger crystals are sent to a zero-liquid discharge (ZLD) system, typically a filter press, to produce low moisture solids for sale. Smaller crystals remain in the wastewater for additional treatment.

Figure 4.11 Concentrations of contaminants in FGD wastewater

Constituent Concentration Heavy metal Concentration of soluble metal (ppm)

TSS 1.4–17% Iron 0.1–1Sulphate 1,500–8,000 mg/l Mercury 0.0001–0.01Chloride 1,000–28,000 mg/l Selenium 0.1–1Calcium 750–4,000 mg/l Arsenic 0.007–0.1Magnesium 1,100–4,800 mg/l Boron 10–700Sodium 670–4,800 mg/l

Source: Higgins et al. 2009

Figure 4.11 describes the typical concentrations of common contaminants in FGD wastewater. The wastewater from the FGD process contains impurities introduced to the flue gas during the combustion of coal. Chlorides and other acidic compounds cause corrosion in the FGD scrubber and downstream equipment. Heavy metals, including mercury and selenium, must be removed from wastewater before discharge or reuse. The concentration of mercury in Figure 4.11 is not representative of the mercury concentration in FGD wastewater, because mercury in FGD wastewater is typically in particulate form. After treatment, wastewater can be reused in other areas of the plant, and as makeup water for the limestone slurry in the FGD scrubber.



4.5 Demineralisation technologies for process water

4.5.1 Treatment options for steam cycle boilersSteam cycle boilers require demineralised feedwater with conductivity less than 0.1 µS/cm. This standard prevents the precipitation of scale forming compounds in the boiler, and the movement of solids into the turbine. To provide the level of purity, boiler feedwater is passed through an RO module to remove dissolved solids, followed by a mixed bed ion exchange filter. Electrodeionisation (EDI) can be used as an alternative to mixed bed ion exchange. The EDI filters are more expensive and can be temperamental, but they do not need to be replaced and regenerated.

Operators of new combined heat and power (CHP) plants prefer to use a combination of RO and EDI. This combination is capable of providing a flow of water up to 30 m³/hr. Operators of larger plants, requiring over 100 m³/hr of water for the boiler, prefer to use a conventional cation and mixed bed ion exchange system. The system that provides the required level of water purity for the boiler is commonly called demineralisation.

4.6 Wastewater treatment technologies

4.6.1 Zero-liquid discharge treatment of cooling tower blowdownZero liquid discharge (ZLD) technologies can recover 96% of the water from cooling tower blowdown, demineralisation plant effluent and FGD wastewater. The water that is recovered through this process can be reused as makeup water for the cooling towers. It would be possible to use the water recovered by ZLD in the demineralisation process for boiler makeup. According to a source interviewed by GWI, this is not currently common practice in the power industry. The development of cost effective treatment technologies for treating cooling water blowdown may make reuse in boiler makeup more common.

4.6.2 Treatment of FGD wastewater

Figure 4.12 Wastewater treatment processes following flue gas desulphurisation

2

FGD WastewaterFGDwastewater

Softening Primaryclarification

Metalsprecipitation

Coagulation/flocculation

Secondaryclarification

Mediafiltration

FGD WastewaterTreatedwastewater

Solidmixer

Filterpress

FGD WastewaterSolids(gypsum)

FGD WastewaterConcentratedwater

Recycledwater

1

3

4

5

6

Source: Higgins et al. 2009

FGD wastewater is the blowdown water which is continuously removed from the wet limestone scrubber. Solids, including saleable by-products, are removed from the wastewater. The treated wastewater can be reused as makeup water in the plant. A typical treatment train includes:

1. Gypsum desaturation: Calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) is added to the FGD wastewater to encourage the precipitation of dissolved gypsum. Careful control of pH is required to prevent calcium carbonate precipitation.

2. Clarification: Large gypsum crystals are separated from the wastewater and removed for dewatering. Fine crystals and other dissolved solids require further treatment. A portion of the sludge is returned to the desaturation stage to increase the precipitation and growth of gypsum crystals.


Power // Wastewater treatment technologies

3. Precipitation of metals: Metal anions in the wastewater solution are removed by adsorption onto iron hydroxide. The resulting compound is removed by precipitation.

4. Coagulation: Coagulation and flocculation increase the size of suspended solids and improve the filtration of precipitated metals. An additional clarification step increases the volume of solids that are removed for dewatering.

5. Dewatering: Solids removed in the clarification stage are introduced to a filter press. Solid gypsum is produced with a 20% moisture content. Water removed by the press is returned to the primary clarifier.

6. Filtration: Coagulated solids are removed from the wastewater by multimedia filtration. The permeate can be reused in the plant or, if the concentration of contaminants meets regulatory standards, discharged. The concentrate is returned to the primary clarifier for further treatment. Additional biological treatment will remove heavy metals that are not affected by precipitation with iron hydroxide.

4.6.2.1 Opportunities for zero-liquid discharge technologies

The previous section describes the use of chemical treatment processes to reduce the volume of FGD wastewater. Chemical treatment alone will not completely remove trace contaminants from wastewater streams before discharge. ZLD technologies offer the opportunity to reduce the stream of FGD wastewater to solid waste. The water that is recovered by ZLD technologies can be reused as makeup to the FGD scrubber. The use of ZLD technologies will only become cost effective in regions where regulations limit the discharge of trace contaminants.

In a recent study, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that 30% of the coal fired power plants that treated FGD wastewater used a ZLD system. The majority of the ZLD systems that were studied (85%) were described as “complete recycle” systems. In systems like these, solids are separated from the wastewater in a centrifuge or a rotary filter. The dewatered solids are sent to landfill, and the recovered water is used as makeup for the FGD scrubber. The EPA survey found one plant using a vapour compression brine concentrator to reduce the volume of wastewater. The concentrated slurry produced in the concentrator is mixed with dry fly ash from the exhaust stack to improve handling of the ash. The following figure illustrates the method used to treat FGD wastewater in the United States.

Figure 4.13 Coal-fired power stations treating FGD wastewater in the United States

ZLD 38,740 MW

FGD110 plants

108,000 MW

Settling ponds 27,640 MWChemical/Biological 21,030 MW

Other5,011 MW

Fully recycled33,800 MW

ZLD33 plants

39,000 MW

Evaporation pond 1,800 MW

Dry fly ash 1,140 MW

Deep well 2,000 MWUnknown15,600 MW

Source: EPA, 2009

Italy’s largest electricity utility, ENEL, uses evaporative treatment technologies to achieve ZLD. In 2008, ENEL selected Aquatech to provide, operate and maintain ZLD treatment systems for FGD wastewater at five coal-fired power stations. The installation and operation of these systems are more expensive than an alternative, chemical treatment option. However, the ZLD technology allows the power plant operator to meet discharge limits, regardless of the sulphur content of coal, or tightening regulations. The following figure describes the five ENEL power plants using ZLD systems.

Figure 4.14 ENEL power plants using zero-liquid discharge technology

LocationNo. of brine

concentratorsNo. of

crystallisersCapacity

(m³/d)Estimated cost of

equipment ($ million)Plant capacity

(MW)Brindisi 2 1 3,350 19.3 2,640Torrevaldaliga 2 2 1,200 6.9 1,980Fusina 2 1 1,690 9.7 1,000La Spezia 1 1 710 4.1 600Sulcis 1 1 1,090 6.3 590Total 8 6 8,040 46.3 6,810

Source: GWI; Bonfanti and Donadono, 2009



4.6.2.2 Biological treatment for selenium removal

Dewatering the sludge produced by a wet limestone FGD scrubber produces solid gypsum crystals that can be sold, and a dilute stream of water that can be reused in the plant. Selenium, nitrates, mercury, and other heavy metals are present in this stream in large concentrations. They are removed from the flue gas by the precipitation reactions in the limestone scrubber. These contaminants must be removed from the dilute stream before the water can be reused as cooling or boiler makeup water. Some of these contaminants cannot be removed by conventional methods. Highly soluble selenate (SeO4

2–) ions are produced by oxidation with calcium carbonate in the limestone scrubber.

Wastewater for biological treatment is passed through a series of softening, coagulation and settling steps to remove suspended solids. The treated wastewater from these processes is introduced to a bioreactor. In the bioreactor, contaminants are removed by oxidation and reduction reactions with bacteria attached to an activated carbon frame. Enzymes within the bacteria oxidise selenate ions to less soluble selenite, and then oxidise the selenite ions to elemental selenium. Grains of selenium attach themselves to the oxidising bacteria, and can be removed by regularly f lushing water through the bioreactor. In a pilot unit, at Roxboro Station in North Carolina, nitrates were oxidised by bacteria in a primary bioreactor, and selenium was removed in a secondary bioreactor. The treatment process, provided by GE’s Advanced Biological Metals Removal (ABMet®) system, removed 99% of selenium compounds from FGD wastewater.

4.7 Market drivers

4.7.1 Trends in fuel use and power plant constructionTo establish the global trends in the power generation market, we have used the UDI World Electric Power Plants (WEPP) database, which contains 124,710 currently operating power plants and 20,184 future power plant projects. This data is published by Platts, a leading provider of energy information. We reached an estimate of the current generating capacity by calculating the total capacity of operating plants. To provide an insight into the trends that influence the power market, we have calculated the current generating capacity in each country, for each fuel type, and for each of our forecast regions. We have estimated the total capacity of future projects by taking the predicted capacity of plants that are described by the WEPP as under construction. In this section, we will present the drivers that we believe best represent the evolution of the global power market.

4.7.1.1 Coal

Coal is the most widely used fuel in power generation, particularly in Asia. The growth in capacity of coal-fired power stations has been driven by construction in China and India. In China, the capacity of new coal power stations has increased by 270% since the beginning of the 11th Five Year Plan in 2001. In India, the total capacity of newly constructed coal power stations increased by over 700% during the 11th Five Year Plan, from 2007 to 2011. The WEPP database tracks a continued increase in newly constructed power stations in India until 2015. India is likely to be the largest market for new coal-fired power stations by 2014.


Power // Market drivers

The following figure illustrates the construction of new coal-fired power plants in China and India.

Figure 4.15 Annual additional capacity of new coal-fired power plants, 1970-2015

Americas

0

16,000

32,000

48,000

64,000

80,000

2015201020052000199519901985198019751970

EMEA

Rest of Asia

China

India

MW

Source: Platts, 2011

In the rest of the world, there has been relatively little construction of new coal-fired power stations since 1990. The growth in generating capacity in Europe and North America has been driven primarily by increasing use of natural gas. Future growth in coal-fired generating capacity will be driven by the construction of new plants in Asia. The WEPP database suggests that for the period 2013–2017, there will be 550,000 MW of additional capacity in China and India alone. The market for water treatment in Europe and the Americas will be driven by upgrades and improvement at existing plants to comply with regulations on emissions.

4.7.1.2 Gas

Natural gas is the primary source of fuel for power plants in the Americas. This dominance was driven by a surge in the number of new gas-fired power stations in the USA in between 1998 and 2002. In the 1990s, gas turbine and combined cycle plants were preferred over conventional coal-fired plants because they were cheaper, more efficient, and could be more rapidly constructed. Between 1998 and 2002, the generating capacity provided by natural gas in the USA increased by 120 GW. The drive towards new gas-fired power stations, accompanied by a series of cold winters and hot summers, increased demand for natural gas. Gas producers were unable to keep pace with the demand and the spot prices for natural gas peaked at $10 /million Btu in December 2000. The construction of new gas-fired power stations peaked in 2002, when 49,000 MW of capacity were added.

The construction of new gas-fired power plants is strongly dependent on the cost of natural gas. Shale gas production in the USA has driven the development of gas turbine and combined cycle plants, at the expense of conventional coal-fired plants. In the United Kingdom, the generating capacity provided by natural gas has been growing steadily since 1990. Natural gas is currently the most common fuel used in UK plants. The abundance of natural gas has also affected the economics of coal gasification.



The following figure describes the construction of new gas-fired power plants since 1970.

Figure 4.16 Annual additional capacity of new gas-fired power plants, 1970-2015

Americas

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

2015201020052000199519901985198019751970

EMEA

Asia Pacific

MW


Future growth of gas power capacity will be driven by the construction of new gas turbine and combined cycle plants. The largest market for new power plants will be in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, where 233,000 MW of generating capacity will be added between 2013 and 2017. Outside the EMEA region, the largest single market for new gas fired power stations will be in the USA, driven primarily by cheap sources of natural gas. The market for water treatment systems will not benefit as much from the growth in gas-fired capacity as it will from the growth in coal. The construction of new gas-fired power stations will limit the growth of the water treatment market at coal-fired power stations.

4.7.1.3 Alternative sources

Coal and gas fired power stations face competition from other sources of electricity, including nuclear power, hydroelectricity and wind power. These sources will provide an alternative source of energy in specific situations. However, in the near future fossil fuels such as coal and gas will remain the primary source of energy for power generation.

The growth in generating capacity at nuclear power stations has stalled because recent events have raised questions about the safety of the technology. In Europe and the Americas, growth in the generating capacity of nuclear plants has remained below 10% since 1990. In Asia there has been a steady growth in capacity, driven by new construction in Japan, South Korea, and more recently China. China had no nuclear power plants in 1990, but now has a total capacity of 125,000 MW. The future of nuclear power in Europe and the Americas is uncertain. The replacement of ageing infrastructure has given the industry some growth, but nuclear power is unlikely to represent a large share of the global market.



The following figure represents the growth in generating capacity provided by nuclear power. Recent growth has been provided by construction in China.

Figure 4.17 Annual additional capacity of nuclear power plants, 1970-2015

0

6,000

12,000

18,000

24,000

30,000

36,000

42,000

2015201020052000199519901985198019751970

France

China

USA

Other

Japan

Russia

MW


Countries with large resources of surface water have looked to hydroelectric power to supplement total generating capacity. Canada and Brazil generate most of the their electricity using hydroelectric power,at 53% and 75% respectively. In China, hydroelectric capacity has grown by 170,000 MW since 1990 and currently represents 18% of total generating capacity. Hydroelectric power has several drawbacks that may hinder future growth in capacity. Where the power plant requires the damming of a river, the natural water supply of the surrounding region will be disrupted. The capacity of the power plant is dependent on the flow of water through the turbines. Consequently, a prolonged period of drought will reduce the supply of water to the plant.

4.7.1.4 Global trends

The following figure illustrates the growth of worldwide generating capacity since 1970. Coal and gas fired power stations provide 60% of current generating capacity. In recent years there has been a growth in renewable sources, including hydroelectricity and wind power, to meet emissions targets and reduce the impact of power generation on the environment. Renewable sources are unlikely to affect the need for new coal and gas power stations because the generating capacity of such power stations is heavily dependent on the weather.



Figure 4.18 Global cumulative generating capacity, 1970-2015

Coal

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2015201020052000199519901985198019751970

Gas

Oil

Nuclear

Hydroelectric

Other

MW


The following figure describes the additional capacity that is projected to be added between 2013 and 2017. The largest increase in generating capacity will be added in the Asia Pacific region.

Figure 4.19 Projected additional capacity for our three forecast regions between 2013 and 2017

Nuclear OtherWindCoal Gas Hydroelectric

EMEA572,000 MW

Asia Pacific1,150,000 MW

Americas350,000 MW




4.7.2 Increased use of FGD systemsWet scrubber FGD systems are the most common method of sulphur dioxide removal at coal-fired power plants. 36% of the generating capacity from coal-fired power plants is provided by plants using wet scrubber FGD systems. Using wet scrubbers for FGD is more efficient than using dry scrubbers, especially at plants with a capacity higher than 300 MW. Wet limestone scrubbers can remove 92% of sulphur compounds from the flue gas, and dry scrubbers are capable of removing 80% of sulphur compounds. The cost of an FGD system is related to the capacity of the generating unit that it is applied to. Wet limestone scrubbers are the system of choice at higher capacity plants. The gypsum slurry produced by these systems is dewatered and sold. The increase in wet limestone FGD systems will increase the size of the market for ZLD systems. Total recovery of FGD process water will increase the purity of the gypsum product and decrease the volume of wastewater that must be discharged.

The following figure illustrates the total capacity of coal-fired power plants that are using FGD systems in our three forecast regions. The data presented here is derived from the WEPP database, which describes the technologies that are used to reduce the emission of sulphur dioxide. This information is most complete for power plants in the Americas, particularly the USA. In Europe, Asia and Africa, there is no information on the FGD system for over half of the power plants in the database. These unknown systems are likely to be wet or dry scrubber systems. The most common design found in all three forecast regions is the wet limestone or lime scrubber. In the Americas, 36% of the generating capacity of coal-fired power plants is produced by units burning low sulphur (emissions compliant) fuels.

Figure 4.20 Techniques used to mitigate the emission of sulphur dioxide from coal-fired plants in 2011

NoneLow sulphur fuel Alternative boiler

UnknownWet Dry Other

352,000 MW 1,050,000 MW370,000 MW

Americas1,524 units

Asia-Pacific4,717 units

EMEA2,497 units


The common use of wet scrubbers in coal-fired power plants is confirmed by the Annual Electric Generator survey, published by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). In 2010, the last year for which there is verified data, 53% of the generating capacity of coal-fired power plants in the USA was provided by plants equipped with wet scrubbers. Units using limestone precipitation for sulphur removal had a capacity of 121,000 MW in 2010. Units that added lime to remove sulphur had a total capacity of 43,000 MW in 2010. The percentage of generating units equipped with wet limestone scrubbers increased by 125% between 2000 and 2010. The following figure describes the growth in the use of wet limestone scrubbers at coal-fired power plants since 1970.



Figure 4.21 Growth of wet limestone scrubbers as method of desulphurisation at coal plants in the USA

0

24,000

48,000

72,000

96,000

120,000

201020052000199519901985198019751970

Wet- Limestone

Dry

Other

Wet - Lime

Tota

l gen

erat

ing

capa

city

(MW

)

Source: EIA, 2010

4.7.3 Regulation of emissionsThe market for water treatment services for FGD wastewater is dependent on the regulations governing the emissions of sulphur dioxide in flue gas and the discharge of toxic metals in wastewater. In the USA, the Mercury and Air Toxic Standard was introduced in 2011 to regulate the emission of sulphur dioxide, mercury and acid gases. Although the regulatory standards do not require a particular technology to be used, wet scrubbers will be more efficient at removing sulphur dioxide and will require a more complex water treatment process. The Steam Effluent Guidelines regulate the discharge of contaminants in boiler and cooling tower blowdown, and wastewater from ash handling systems. The last update to the guidelines was published in 1982. The EPA is expected to produce updated guidelines at some point in 2012, which will come into force by 2014.

In the European Union, the emission of sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide is regulated by the Large Combustion Plant Directive (2001/80/EC). Coal-fired power stations that are constructed in EU countries must install an FGD system to meet emission targets, or use alternative boilers that reduce the volume of emissions. Existing coal-fired power stations may be shutdown if a system for sulphur dioxide reduction is not in place by 2015. Power operators must also comply with directives regulating the discharge of contaminants in wastewater. The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (98/15/EC) limits the discharge of sludge into surface water bodies.

In China, a standard published in 2012 requires that coal-fired power plants meet new limits for sulphur dioxide emissions within three years. New generating units cannot emit more than 50mg of SO2 in each cubic metre of f lue gas. Existing units must be fitted with systems to reduced levels of sulphur dioxide. This standard will drive the growth of FGD systems in China, and with it the market for wastewater treatment services. Tightening of regulations governing wastewater discharge will increase the size of the market for more advanced treatment technologies.

4.7.4 Increasing boiler and turbine efficiencyIncreasing the temperature and pressure of the steam that is produced by the boiler increases the energy that can be extracted as the steam expands. A theoretical estimate of the efficiency of this process can be determined from the difference in temperature between the boiler and the condenser. In a working plant, the efficiency is limited by friction within the steam cycle, and a loss of heat to the surroundings. The temperature and pressure that can be applied to the steam is limited by the materials used to construct the turbine and the purity of boiler feedwater. In modern boilers, the conductivity of makeup must be less than 0.1 µS/cm to prevent scaling in the boiler and corrosion in the turbine.

84% of coal-fired power stations use subcritical steam to generate electricity. Only 12% of gas and oil-fired power stations use subcritical steam to power the turbine. Most gas power plants generate electricity using heated gas to drive a turbine. According to



the WEPP database, 90% of gas and oil fired power plants do not use steam to generate electricity. The following figure describes the temperatures and pressures used in coal, gas, oil, and nuclear power plants. 85% of these the plants described in the following figure use subcritical steam. The need for ultrapure water for supercritical and ultra-supercritical boilers will be driven by the expansion of coal-fired power plants. At present, 11% of coal fired power plants use supercritical water to drive the turbine.

Figure 4.22 Temperature and pressure of fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 8001

10

100

1,000

Pres

sure

(bar

)

Temperature (Celsius)

Gas

Coal

Nuclear

OilVapour

Supercritical fluidLiquid


Most plants use superheated steam to drive the turbine. These plants are represented by the area below the liquid-vapour equilibrium line in the figure above. Nuclear power plants are typically operated at lower temperatures and pressures than fossil fuel fired plants. In a pressurised water reactor (PWR) the cycle is pressurised to limit boiling in the system. PWR plants use saturated steam to drive the turbine and operate at the point where liquid and vapour are in equilibrium. This is represented by the liquid-vapour equilibrium line in the figure above.

Supercritical water is useful for power generation because it is able to transfer heat more effectively than subcritical steam. The critical point of water marks the point where the properties of the liquid and vapour phases become indistinguishable. In the supercritical region, no energy is needed to convert water to steam. The increase in the number of power plants using supercritical water in the steam cycle will increase demand for higher purity water for boiler makeup.

The following figure illustrates the increasing number of plants in our three forecast regions using supercritical steam in their generating cycle. There has been a worldwide increase of 216% in the generating capacity provided by supercritical power plants since 1980. The largest increase in supercritical capacity has occurred since 2005. In the Asia Pacific region, the generating capacity provided by supercritical power plants has increased by 220% since 2005. By comparison, in the rest of the world there was only a 10% increase in supercritical capacity. If the number of supercritical plants in the Asia Pacific region continues to grow, this region will see a high demand for ultrapure boiler feedwater.



Figure 4.23 Growth in generating capacity provided by supercritical power plants, 1980–2011

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

2010200520001995199019851980

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Cum

ulat

ive c

apac

ity (M

W)


4.7.5 Coal gasificationElectricity producers can take advantage of cheap, abundant supplies of coal by producing synthetic natural gas from coal stocks. The synthetic gas produced in the gasification process can be burnt to provide energy for the gas turbine in a combined cycle power plant. Interest in coal gasification has increased because the technology can reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide without additional equipment for f lue gas cleaning. Water use is reduced in an IGCC plant because most of the electricity produced by the plant is derived from the gas turbine generator.

The environmental benefits of IGCC plants are outweighed by a large capital cost. A typical combined cycle plant costs twice as much as a conventional pulverised coal plant of similar capacity. The market for gasification projects in the USA is weak. The large growth in shale gas extraction has contributed to a significant fall in the price of natural gas. It is not cost effective to produce synthetic gas from coal when there are readily available supplies of cheap natural gas. The following figure illustrates the cost of coal and natural gas for electricity production in the USA. This information is derived from monthly fuel receipts published by the EIA.

Figure 4.24 Monthly cost of fossil fuels for power generation in the USA

0

5

10

15

201220102008200620042002200019981996199419921990

Coal

Natural gas

Oil

Cost

of f

uel

($/m

illio

n Bt

u)

Source: EIA, 2012



The development of IGCC technologies is still ongoing. According to the 2010 World Gasification Database (WGD), there are only two IGCC projects in the USA, and both of these were demonstration projects in the 1990s. The following figure illustrates the growth of electricity at IGCC plants in our three forecast regions. The global market for IGCC projects is expected to grow by 200% between 2010 and 2015. Most of this growth will come from the USA. The combined capacity of IGCC projects in the USA is predicted to be 6,400 MWe by 2015. The projected growth in the IGCC market may, however, be deceptive. Projects have been pushed back and even cancelled because of problems with the technology and fuel. Initial production at the Edwardsport IGCC project in Indiana was delayed until 2012 with an additional cost of $530 million due to the project’s “scale and complexity”. The final project cost of $2.88 billion is comparable to similar IGCC projects in the USA. GWI sources have suggested that the market for IGCC plants in China faces similar problems. These sources have indicated that IGCC will not have a significant impact on the Chinese market, despite the growth of coal-fired production.

Figure 4.25 Increase in generating capacity at IGCC plants, 2000–2016

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

15000

201620142012201020082006200420022000

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Capa

city

(MW

e)

Source: NETL, 2010

4.7.6 Co-located water and power projectsIt is possible to use heat produced in power generation to provide energy for thermal desalination. Heat that is normally discharged through the cooling system is used to heat the feedwater for MED or MSF desalination. The water that is produced by distillation can be used as makeup for the power plant boilers. The concentrated brine produced by desalination is diluted with the water discharged from the power station. The construction of an integrated power station and desalination plant is commonly called a co-located water and power project (CWP).

The following figure describes the countries where heat from the power generation cycle is used to provide energy for thermal desalination. Combined water and power plants are primarily found in the Middle East, where there are abundant sources of oil and gas, and a preference for thermal desalination. Over 90% of the CWP plants are fueled by coal and gas combustion.



Figure 4.26 Generating capacity of power plants providing heat for thermal desalination in 2011

United Arab Emirates13,364 MW

45,600 MW359 plants

Saudi Arabia11,737 MW

Qatar4,529 MW

Bahrain1,631 MW

Kuwait9,804 MW

Other4,516 MW


4.8 Water reuse strategiesThe cooling cycle requires the largest volume of water in a power plant. The volume of water that is discharged into local bodies of water is significantly decreased for plants using recirculating cooling systems. The following figure illustrates the volume of water that is consumed and discharged from cooling water systems in the United States. This information is calculated from the annual survey of electric generators conducted by the U.S. Energy Information in 2010. Water consumed in the cooling system is not returned directly to its source, i.e. it is lost through evaporation. Water that is discharged from the cooling system is returned to its source.

Figure 4.27 Water consumption and discharge in the cooling systems of U.S. power plants

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 100.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

Disc

harg

e ra

te (m

3 /s)

Consumption rate (m3/s)

Once-through

Recirculating

Source: EIA, 2010

In a recirculating cooling system, water is not discharged after passing through the condenser. Instead it is cooled by evaporation and recycled through the system. With every cycle of evaporation, cooling and reuse, the concentration of dissolved solids in the cooling system is increased. Water must be continually removed from the cooling cycle to maintain the concentration of


Power // Supply chain analysis

dissolved solids. As the rate of consumption (evaporation) increases, the volume of water that must be discharged also increases (blowdown).

Plants that adopt recirculating cooling systems will require additional wastewater treatment to treat the cooling water blowdown before it can be reused in the cooling cycle. Other sources for the cooling water makeup include treated boiler blowdown, treated wastewater from the demineralisation plant and FGD wastewater.

The nature of the power generation process means that most of the water in the steam cycle is reused, but some treatment is required to prevent corrosion and solids deposition in the turbine. Condensing steam from the turbine cycle is treated in a mixed-bed ion exchange unit to remove dissolved silica. Silica is carried from the boiler to the turbine because it is more soluble in high temperature steam. Without a condensate polishing ion exchange unit, there will be increased risk of silica deposits forming in the turbine, because concentration of dissolved silica in the steam will increase with each cycle. A portion of the water from each cycle must be discharged to prevent the build-up of dissolved material in the boiler. The volume of water that is discharged must be replaced by water of boiler feedwater quality.

4.9 Supply chain analysisThe power industry is a conservative market. The industry prefers to adopt proven technologies, but can be open to new ones in certain situations. Plant operators want technology that has been proven to provide a reliable stream of water. When a new technology is introduced to the market, the end users typically want it pilot tested. This approach is considered to be very effective within the power industry.

Pilot tests are conducted to prove that a new technology can meet an important challenge affecting the market, and to prove its efficacy to the power companies. The company that conducts the pilot test will charge the end user, with the aim of straightforward cost recovery.

In situations of particular need and immediate demand, the adoption of a new technology can be faster. Problems with water treatment equipment can significantly decrease the generating capacity of a plant. In extreme cases, such problems can result in the shutdown of the plant. These problems may be solved by the adoption of a new technology. In these situations, the time available is not sufficient for full-scale pilot testing. Short in-house pilot tests will be performed to ensure that the new technology can achieve the required results. It can take as little as eight to ten weeks to install a system that solves the problem.

4.9.1 FGD marketIn the FGD market, power companies have traditionally purchased water treatment chemicals from dedicated chemical supply companies. Increasingly, chemical supply companies are being awarded water management contracts. Under a water management contract, companies take responsibility for managing the water quality across the power plant site. Chemical supply companies are also looking at the potential markets for water treatment equipment in the power industry.

The key deciding factors when selecting FGD systems are cost and design. These factors are influenced by issues that are specific to each plant, including openness to innovation and the availability of space.

4.9.2 Procurement modelsThe procurement models used in the power industry vary by country and by region. The choice of procurement model depends on the plant location, and the power company that the equipment is being sold to. In general the power industry prefers to use the engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) model for equipment contracts.

The dominant feature of the EPC model in the power industry is the purchase of effective technologies at the lowest possible cost. EPC contractors are focused on the initial cost of the equipment, and look to provide technologies with low capital expenditure (CAPEX). EPC contractors buy equipment at the lowest cost put forward by a list of approved suppliers. The price of this equipment is increased for the end user.

It is also possible to deal directly with the end users – the power plant operators. Plant owners are more interested in low operating expenditure (OPEX), than low initial CAPEX. In Australia, several contracts for water treatment systems have been awarded directly by plant operators. In Europe, Asia, the Middle East or the Americas, the EPC model is most common.

4.9.2.1 Procurement relationships

The most important players in the supply chain are plant owners and consultants. The EPC contractor is highly influential, because the contractor oversees the purchasing of equipment. To work effectively on each project, it is necessary to form relationships with all of these players. Good relationships provide a balanced view of the products and services offered by each company, and allow each player to balance the cost of installing and operating the system.

The consultants are responsible for finding the necessary technologies. They are looking for technologies with a proven track record, but can also be open to innovative technologies.



EPC contractors are interested in the technologies with the lowest possible CAPEX. The plant operators are interested in technologies that are simple to operate and maintain, with a low OPEX. The focus of the EPC contractors is problematic. An equipment supplier will have difficulty convincing EPC contractors to accept a technology that is very OPEX driven. The EPC contractors are responsible for the initial operation of the water treatment system. They are looking for low cost technologies that will work effectively for this initial operating period.

4.9.2.2 Procurement process for mobile systems

Mobile water systems can be contracted in two ways:

• The plant operator purchases the equipment when the plant is being commissioned. The equipment is purchased under a long-term lease to provide a temporary source of water to ensure the continued operation of the site. The mobile water system supplements the existing water treatment system during the initial operation of the plant.

• The plant owner purchases the equipment in an emergency, in the event of a problem with the existing water treatment system. An equipment supplier is brought in to provide the necessary equipment.

4.9.3 Procurement process in the United States

4.9.3.1 Outsourcing of water treatment systems

At coal-fired power plants, external water companies do not typically operate water treatment systems. In these plants, outsourcing of water treatment operations is not very common. If water companies can deliver cost effective solutions, there is some potential for outsourcing in the future. Outsourcing will become more cost effective for the operation of highly complex water treatment systems, which require trained staff to be constantly on duty.

At gas-fired power plants, outsourcing of makeup water treatment is common. Gas-fired plants are typically used as peaking plants, because they are able to come online quickly to meet shortfalls in demand. The number of staff required to operate these plants is smaller than in coal-fired plants.

Power companies typically want to operate the water treatment systems themselves, to retain control of the system. Power companies must decide if the system can be operated more efficiently by an external contractor. Outsourcing becomes difficult if the plant is located in an isolated area.

Outsourcing is more common in merchant plants. A merchant plant sells the electricity it produces directly to the market. This contrasts with non-utility regulated power plants, who are contracted to provide electricity to specific customers. Merchant plant operators, and the investors financing the plant, are looking to reduce their staffing levels and production costs.

4.9.3.2 Outsourcing of wastewater treatment systems

Wastewater treatment systems are traditionally operated by the plant operators. Outsourcing may become more common as wastewater treatment processes become more complex and specialised. One model of financing such systems involves charging by volume for the treatment. If this model can be made cost effective, it could be potentially lucrative.

4.9.4 Procurement process in ChinaIn China, outsourcing is more common than in the United States. Outsourcing is typically used to simplify the plant operations, and to provide chemicals for water treatment. Chinese power companies have limited experience in handling FGD wastewater. Companies look to outsource contracts to provide the necessary technology and experience. It is imperative that companies understand the significance of competition and value propositions to the industry. In some rare situations, power companies will hire a developer to build and operate their FGD systems using a build, operate, transfer (BOT) model.

4.9.5 Procurement process in IndiaIn India, the most important factor in selecting a treatment technology is cost. Most public sector power generation companies are more interested in the technology with the lowest initial costs, than the life cycle costs of the plant. Private power generation companies and captive power plants are more open to the adoption of new technologies, especially if the technology improves the efficiency of the plant.

The procurement process in India is very fragmented. The market is dominated by a few large, established companies. These companies are responsible for installing and operating the water treatment equipment. The larger companies often work with a number of smaller companies to supply power plants with water. Companies can be provided equipment for the boiler-turbine-generator (BTG), or the rest of the plant (balance of plant (BoP) suppliers).

4.9.5.1 Tendering

In India, contracts are usually awarded by international open tenders. This model is used by the state electricity boards, the central government power companies, and the private power companies. BTG equipment is increasingly being provided in


Power // Supply chain analysis

partnership with equipment suppliers. Power companies partner with equipment suppliers because capital costs are lower than in an international open tender contract.

The power companies typically use the following tender packages:

• Multiple packages: Each component in a power plant is tendered separately. The power company has greater control over equipment specifications and the selection of subcontractors. There can be as many as 40 packages in one plant. Tendering separately for each package requires long order cycles and significant manpower for project management. Minor changes to the project design or execution can result in long delays and cost overruns. Full system performance guarantees are difficult, but sub-system performance guarantees are possible.

• Single BTG package: The BTG system is tendered as one package, with separate tenders for the remaining components of the plant. The single BTG package is typically affected by the same disadvantages that affect the multiple package tender. However, the single BTG tender is less tedious.

• BoP package: The contract to provide the BoP package will be awarded to a single company. This company will provide the design, engineering, supply, construction, commissioning and O&M services for all the sub-packages in the BoP package. The BoP package includes the coal and ash handling plants, water treatment plants and others. There is a trend towards tendering entire BoP system as one package. If this trend continues, the companies providing the BoP package will develop water treatment capabilities through their in-house water departments.

• Twin package: The power companies award contracts for the BTG and BoP packages only. The twin package is an emerging tendering model. The main advantages include fast commissioning, shorter equipment order cycles, improved coordination and low staffing needs. In addition, power plant tendering has built-in performance guarantees. The guarantees are a major advantage as the power company is exposed to less risk.

4.9.5.2 Funding

Public sector power stations receive 70% of their funding from the Power Finance Corporation (PFC) and the Rural Electrification Corporation (REC). The PFC, a non-banking financial company, provides financing for the development of the power sector. The REC provides financing for rural electricity projects. The PFC and REC loans money to power companies at an interest rate of 12%/yr. The PFC and REC can raise less expensive funds from the stock and bond markets.

The remaining funding is provided by state governments, or obtained from the resources of the power companies.

4.9.6 Market playersWe estimate that the largest players in the market for water treatment equipment are GE, Siemens and Veolia. Each of the companies has an estimated 10% of the global water for power market. Other significant players include Aquatech, Suez, and Ovivo.

Certain companies, including GE and Siemens, have divisions that produce equipment for the water sector and the power sector. A source interviewed by GWI noted that when GE awards contracts for water treatment plants at its power stations, the specifications at the enquiry stage are from GE Water.

To be dominant in the market, companies need to differentiate themselves, and provide services that other companies are unable to offer. For example, there are very few equipment suppliers that are also able to operate the equipment. Companies with experience in supplying and operating equipment will know the potential issues that could occur, and the associated operating costs. These companies provide a significant insight that is not found in traditional equipment suppliers.

The following figures describe the companies that are active in the U.S., Chinese and Indian water for power markets.

Figure 4.28 Companies providing equipment to the U.S. power market

Equipment type Companies NotesFGD equipment B&V, Babcock power,

Hitachi and AlstomThese companies are the key players for FGD systems. The suppliers have differing designs, which are suitable for specific applications.Alstom is recognised for its patented Noval Integrated Desulphurisation (NID), a dry-FGD variant.

Water treatment equipment

Siemens, Veolia, GE, Aquatech, Infilco Degremont, GEA Group, VA Tech Wabag

They are all players in the market with no marred dominance.There is no market leader in thermal evaporation. The companies have different technology and equipment scopes.Some companies may have more experience or can provide better financial solutions.

Source: GWI



Figure 4.29 Companies providing water treatment equipment to the Chinese power market

Company type Companies NotesLocal and national The local and national companies dominate in the China power market.

These companies are recognised by plant operators. International General Water, Wuhan Kaidi,

Enersave, Tonji Water, Dow OmexThese are the international companies that are well known in the China power market.

Source: GWI

Figure 4.30 Companies active within the Indian power market

Company type Companies NotesBTG suppliers (Established) Siemens, ABB, GE, Bharat Heavy Electricals

Ltd (BHEL), Shanghai Electric Corporation, L&T - Mitsubishi heavy Industries Limited, GB Engineering – Ansaldo.

BHEL is a very prominent player, which currently accounts for 59% market share

BTG suppliers (New entrants) Bharat Forge Alstom, JSW Toshiba These companies are the new players in the power market.

BoP for water treatment Aquatech Asia, VA Tech Wabag, Driplex Water Engineering, Ion Exchange, Thermax, Doshion, IDE Technologies, BGR Energy, Degremont, Treveni Engineering, L&T, Siemens, Kirloskar, Reliance

These companies provide specialised solutions for water treatment BoP package components.

Source: GWI

Figure 4.31 Companies providing water treatment equipment to the Indian power market

Equipment type Companies NotesCooling systems Paharpur cooling, Gammon, Indure, Reliance,

L&T, BGR energy, Hamon Sriram, Alstom, Punj Lloyd, BHEL, Subhash Project Limited

These companies provide solutions for cooling towers and cooling water equipment.

Demineralisation and pretreatment plants

Driplex Water Engineering This company provides water demineralisation and pretreatment plants to the power sector.It is a prominent player in the market with a 25% market share for this segment.

Other equipment GE, ABB, Hydranautics, Toray, Siemens, Thyssen Krupp, Tecpro Ash Tech, IVRCL, Larsen & Toubro, BGR Energy and local EPC players

Other equipment includes:Membranes, pumps, control panels, switchgears, transformers, piping, air compressor, elevators, mechanical equipment and EPC works

Source: GWI


Power // Market forecast

4.10 Market forecast

4.10.1 Power plant projects and installed baseAs explained in section 4.7.1, our forecast has been informed by the UDI World Electric Power Plants (WEPP) database, published by Platts, a leading provider of energy information. The dataset contains 124,710 currently operating power plants and 20,184 future projects. For the forecast, we took future projects into account and also considered the installed base, in particular to highlight opportunities for FGD wastewater treatment.

4.10.2 Overall pictureIn our reference scenario, we anticipate growth overall, with a “lumpiness” due to the anticipated years of future projects. It should be noted that the timing of projects can be difficult to anticipate in advance, and multi-year aggregates are more indicative of the market trends.

Figure 4.32 Power industry market forecast, 2011–2025

ZLD/high recoverydesalination systems

Co-located power/desal


Wastewater treatmentsystems (exc. ZLD)Condensate polishingsystems



1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Power ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011–17 2025

Pretreatment systems (a) 653.8 720.6 771.2 795.5 877.6 940.8 1,009.7 7.5% 1,637.9Boiler feedwater systems 255.2 280.8 300.1 309.1 340.5 364.4 390.5 7.3% 626.8Condensate polishing systems 454.5 500.7 535.6 552.3 609.1 652.7 700.1 7.5% 1,132.4Wastewater treatment systems (excl. ZLD) 399.4 415.3 437.7 454.3 484.9 511.5 535.5 5.0% 763.9Seawater desalination (b) 54.0 174.0 202.8 275.1 311.7 346.5 501.6 45.0% 1,301.1Co-located power/desal (c) 857.7 1,200.0 760.0 1,650.0 350.0 1,440.0 1,250.0 6.5% 1,570.0ZLD/high recovery desalination systems 135.0 65.5 138.5 180.1 173.1 216.0 237.6 9.9% 714.2Total (d) 2,809.6 3,356.9 3,145.9 4,216.3 3,147.0 4,472.0 4,624.9 8.7% 7,746.4

(a) Includes intakes(b) These are essentially captive desalination plants meeting the needs of the power station, but not supplying the broader community.(c) Strictly speaking these are municipal desalination plants situated alongside power plants. Typically they take steam and/or power from the power plant, share intakes and outfalls, and supply the power plant with high quality feedwater, although the bulk of their output goes to a municipal off-taker. (d) The total figure cannot be compared directly with the Power sector in GWI’s Global Water Market 2011 report because it includes co-located power/desal. Stripping that line out, the forecast for the pure water for power market has been upgraded since the Global Water Market 2011 report to reflect the turmoil in the power market in Japan and Germany, expected changes to flue gas regulation in the U.S., the expectation that India’s power sector build out will regain momentum, and continuing growth in China.Source: GWI



The country market split for 2013–2017 is shown in the following figure. The predominance of China and India reflects the high level of planned coal fired power stations in these countries (sees Section 4.7.1.1). The U.S. has a large installed base of coal fired power stations where we anticipate wet scrubber FGD systems to be installed (see Section 4.7.2 for a full analysis).

Figure 4.33 Power industry: top country markets, 2013–2017


(2013-2017)

India $2,079m

China $2,894m

RoW $10,832m

Germany $580m

USA $2,540m

Japan $680m

Source: GWI

Figure 4.34 Power industry: regional markets, 2013–2017

Americas $3,540m


(2013-2017)

EMEA $8,497m

Asia Pacific$7,570m

Source: GWI

4.10.3 Reference and alternate scenariosOur reference scenario for the power industry makes the following assumptions:

• Brent crude remains above $60/bbl.


• U.S. and European economies do not experience two quarters of negative growth.



• China and India growth economic rates fall below 6%.

• U.S. and European economies experience two quarters of negative growth, impacting the subsequent 6 quarters.

Our regional market forecasts for seawater desalination, co-located power/desalination and water and wastewater treatment (excluding seawater desalination) under these two scenarios are shown in the following figures.



Figure 4.35 Power industry: seawater desalination, 2011–2017: Reference scenario

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Seawater desalination reference scenario ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR


Source: GWI

Figure 4.36 Power industry, seawater desalination, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario

0

50

100

150

200

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas



Source: GWI



Figure 4.37 Power industry: water and ww treatment ex. seawater desalination, 2011–2017: Reference scenario

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Water and wastewater treatment excluding seawater desalination reference scenario ($ million)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011–17

Americas 647.4 527.9 584.6 609.0 632.5 784.1 901.7 5.7%EMEA 662.4 515.8 467.5 521.7 472.1 527.6 518.4 -4.0%Asia Pacific 588.1 939.2 1,131.1 1,160.4 1,380.7 1,373.8 1,453.2 16.3%Total 1,897.9 1,982.9 2,183.1 2,291.2 2,485.3 2,685.5 2,873.3 7.2%

Source: GWI

Figure 4.38 Power industry: water and ww treatment ex. seawater desalination, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Water and wastewater treatment excluding seawater desalination alternate scenario ($ million)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011–17

Americas 647.4 527.9 350.7 365.4 379.5 470.4 541.0 -2.9%EMEA 662.4 515.8 280.5 313.0 283.3 316.6 311.1 -11.8%Asia Pacific 588.1 939.2 565.5 580.2 690.3 686.9 726.6 3.6%Total 1,897.9 1,982.9 1,196.8 1,258.7 1,353.1 1,473.9 1,578.7 -3.0%

Source: GWI



Figure 4.39 Power industry, co-located power/desalination: Reference scenario

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

EMEA

Co-located power/desal reference scenario ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17EMEA 857.7 1,200.0 760.0 1,650.0 350.0 1,440.0 1,250.0 6.5%

Source: GWI

In the alternate scenario, the low oil price means that Middle Eastern economies are unable to fund major projects , and activity drops to zero.

Figure 4.40 Power industry, co-located power/desalination: Alternate scenario

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

EMEA

Co-located power/desal alternate scenario ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17EMEA 857.7 1,200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 –

Source: GWI



5. Food and beverage5.1 Introduction The food and beverage (F&B) industry is a major user of water and energy. The industry is affected by a variety of market forces, which include changing customer preferences, regulations, acquisitions, expansion into new regions, and sustainability. These factors all have an impact on the manufacturing practices employed by F&B companies, including their water management strategies.

For F&B companies, image is everything and adverse publicity is to be avoided at all costs. Food safety is of primary importance: this dictates the quality requirements for process water. Sustainability is also very important for public image – improving water efficiency, energy efficiency and decreasing their carbon footprint are the three primary aims of companies’ sustainability agendas.

Wastewater characteristics vary widely depending on the type of product, but are clearly defined for each F&B subsector (breweries, dairies, slaughterhouses, etc.). The industry is fragmented, with thousands of manufacturing plants operating across the globe.

5.1.1 F&B subsectorsThe F&B processing industry can be divided into many subsectors, and the classification systems used vary between countries and regions. For example the FAO/WHO food standards divide food into 16 broad categories, which are in turn subdivided into further categories.

For the purposes of this report, we will use a simplified system to classify the F&B industries into subsectors, as shown in the following figure.

Figure 5.1 Food and beverage industry subsectors

Food sector Beverage sectorAgro industry BreweriesMilk and derivatives DistilleriesMeat, fish, poultry WineriesProduce (fruits, vegetables etc.) Soft drinksOil and derivatives Bottled waterGeneral foodsPet foodAnimal feed

Source: Water for Food & Beverage, GWI, 2012

5.1.2 Food processingPrimarily, F&B plants process raw ingredients to generate a food or beverage product. The basic processing steps include screening, washing, processing and packaging.

Depending on the final product that is being manufactured and the type and condition of the ingredients used, the actual f low of the processing steps can vary. Processing fruit and vegetable raw materials involves the basic processing steps, whereas slaughtering live animals for meat products requires a different processing path. A generic processing path is shown in the following figure.


Food and beverage // Introduction

Figure 5.2 Generic food and beverage processing path for fruit/vegetables and meat raw materials

Receipt of raw materials

Killing and bleeding

Intermediary storage

Primary cleaning / washing

Sorting

Chilling

Product preparation

Product processing

Further processing

Packaging

Fruit and vegetables Meat processing

Feedwater Wastewater

Feedwater

Feedwater

Feedwater

Feedwater

Feedwater

Feedwater

Feedwater

Feedwater BloodWastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Cooling waterSteam

Cooling waterSteam

Cooling waterSteam

Hair

Wastewater

Primary grading / screening / processing

Evisceration, trimmingand dehairing

Sorting, gradingand inspection

Source: Water for Food and Beverage, GWI, 2012

5.1.3 Water volumes in the F&B industryA company’s water:product ratio is an important benchmark that is frequently quoted in sustainability targets. This ratio depends on both the type of processing taking place and the technologies used on-site. Typical values range from ~1.5 l/kg for bottled water to ~30.0 l/kg for fish processing. An extensive examination of water:product ratios across sectors and continents can be found in GWI’s Water for Food and Beverage report.

Using the water:product ratios from the previous section and data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, we have estimated total water use for the worldwide F&B industry. If the average water:product ratios are used across all subsectors, the total amounts to 62 km³/yr, with a range of 39 km³/yr–177 km³/yr if the minimum or maximum water:product ratios are used. The largest subsectors are fruit and vegetables and the agro industry. This information is summarised in the following figure.



Figure 5.3 Estimates of global food and beverage water use in 2012

Fruit and vegetables

Oils and derivatives

Other food

BreweriesFish

Agro industry

Milk and derivatives

Meat and poultry

Distilleries

Wineries

Soft drinks

Bottled water

Minimum water:product ratios Maximum water:product ratiosAverage water:product ratios

62 km³/yrGlobal F&B water

(2012)


(2012)


(2012)


5.2 Process water requirements and technologies

5.2.1 Uses of water in the F&B industryThe activities which contribute the most to water usage at a typical F&B plant are shown in the following figure.

Figure 5.4 Water consuming activities in food and beverage plants

Process Examples of activitiesCleaning equipment Supplying feedwater for bottle washing and clean-in-place (CIP) systems

Cleaning equipment and plant wash downEvacuating waste from plantHigh water pressure sprays

Food processing path Washing raw materialsPrimary cleaning and sorting technologies such as sieving and screeningProcessing steps such as pasteurisation, fermentation and blanchingTransporting materials using wet conveying systemsCooling blanched foodsWater for thawingIngredient water incorporated into the final product

Utility water Cooling circuitsBoiler feedwaterOverflow tanksFluming

Miscellaneous Cleaning floorsDust suppression

Source: Petitpain-Perrin, 2006; IFC, 2007

It should be noted that, in the food and beverage industry, “utility water” refers primarily to water for boilers and cooling.

An average F&B plant has a water treatment capacity in the region of 1,000–3,000 m³/d.

5.2.1.1 Water that contacts food (cleaning equipment and food processing)

F&B companies must comply with strict guidelines for food safety and hygiene. Any water that comes into direct contact with food must be obtained from potable water sources such as municipal tap water, surface water or groundwater. The same applies to water used for cleaning equipment or surfaces that food will be in contact with – using any kind of treated wastewater would be a public relations disaster.


Food and beverage // Process water requirements and technologies

The raw potable water that is sourced by the aforementioned means is still subject to levels of treatment depending on the application on which the water is going to be put to use. For example, very limited treatment is required for water that is used for transporting sugar beets at sugar refineries. However, advanced treatment is needed to generate the appropriate quality of water used in breweries, as the presence and concentration of certain ions or compounds can affect the taste of the final product. A product is sold for its unique flavour profile, and as such needs to be consistent irrespective of the location and initial raw water source.

5.2.1.2 Other operations (utility water, cleaning floors)

Other operations at F&B plants that require water include cleaning floors and utility water for boilers and cooling. These operations often use potable water sources, but can also use water of lower initial quality. These alternative water sources include:

• Wastewater streams generated from food processing steps.

• Wastewater generated from washing, cleaning in place, cooling, boilers, etc.

• Stormwater or rainwater.

5.2.2 Process water technologiesFood safety in the food and beverage industry is of paramount importance. Despite the use of high quality potable water sources, the water must undergo some level of treatment prior to use in process water applications at the F&B plants. High quality water is also required for boiler feedwater and cooling tower water, as this is essential to prevent scaling and corrosion.

A simplified treatment train for generating process water for the F&B industry is shown in the following figure.

Figure 5.5 Simplified process water treatment line

MMFActivated

carbon MF/UF RO/NF Deionisation CEDI

UV Ozone Chemical

Feedwater

Pretreatment Membrane based treatment Deionisation

Distribution at manufacturing plantFinalpolishing

Disinfection

Source: Siemens Water Technologies Corp., 2006



Process water treatment technologies can be grouped into five broad categories based on their general treatment functions. These categories are shown in the following figure.

Figure 5.6 Process water technology categories

Category Technology FunctionPretreatment Screening, clarification, filtration,

softeners, activated carbon filtersPretreatment is an essential part of the water treatment line. The relevant technologies are used to remove particulate matter, chlorine, chloramines, hydrogen sulfide silt, iron, manganese and other contaminants.

Membrane based UF, MF, NF, RO Membranes are used to achieve very high process water quality by rejecting ions present in the water.

Deionisation Electrodeionisation (EDI) EDI is sometimes preferred to ion exchange as there is no regeneration step (which requires hazardous chemicals and waste neutralisation).

Disinfection UV, ozonation, chemical (chlorine, chlorine dioxide, sodium hypochlorite)

These technologies are used to sanitise water and the water systems to reduce microbes and prevent the buildup of biofilms.For industries where water is a significant ingredient, such as brewing, chemical disinfection is avoided as it adversely affects the taste.

Final polishing Cartridge filters, membrane vacuum degasification

The final polishing step is used to achieve water of required quality for use as an ingredient.Membrane vacuum degasification is used to produce water with very low levels of dissolved oxygen for the manufacture of beverages, particularly in breweries.

Source: Siemens Water Technologies Corp., 2006

5.2.2.1 Membrane technologies for process water

Membrane-based technologies are used to remove particulate matter and dissolved solids from raw water streams. In particular:

• UF/MF: Used to remove suspended solids, viruses, bacteria and parasites. UF/MF represents pretreatment for RO systems to reduce fouling. MF can be used as an alternative to conventional filtration methods. UF is a viable alternative to lime treatment systems when treating feedwater with low pH.

• NF systems: NF membranes can be used as water softeners, particularly in the carbonated soft drinks industry, where it is vital to reduce the alkalinity and hardness of process water. NF membranes can also be used instead of lime coagulation units.

• RO systems: Used to provide ultimate water quality.

5.2.2.2 Technology trends

Historically, the F&B industry used ion exchange for process water and utility water. However, current trends are towards the use of membranes. For low TDS feedwater UF is sufficient; for higher TDS feedwater RO is combined with UF pretreatment.

UF and RO are particularly used in the soft drink industry, where the water that goes into the product needs to possess a carefully determined salinity. The most consistent way of achieving this is deionising the water, followed by remineralising to the desired level.

In the F&B industry extremely pure water with low conductivity is not a requirement, so EDI systems are employed less often than in the pharmaceutical or microelectronics industries.

5.2.3 Efficiency trendsWith sustainability high on the agenda, F&B companies are keen to increase the efficiency of their operations so that they use less water. Water reuse is an approach that can be effectively utilised in the F&B industry. The options will be discussed in section 5.6.

Numerous practices are employed to increase efficiency regarding cleaning water, process water and utility water. These practices are described only briefly in the following sections, as only some of them provide opportunities for water technology companies.

5.2.3.1 Cleaning water efficiency

Cleaning surfaces and equipment is often the largest consumer of water in F&B plants, e.g. in a dairy cleaning can account for 50–90% of total water use.

• High-pressure cleaning systems: Use around 60% less water than hoses attached to the water main. High-pressure cleaning systems are used for cooling towers, WWTP areas and some floors. However, they cannot be used in all areas, due to the potential risk of creating aerosols and contaminating products.


Food and beverage // Market drivers

• Trigger-operated controls for hoses: Prevent hoses from operating while unattended.

• Site design: Pipes should be angled to improve drainage. Floor surfaces should promote run-off to reduce the need for hosing down product residues.

• Clean-in-place (CIP) systems: Enable equipment to be cleaned without being dismantled. CIP systems are typically used in beverage plants. In the most efficient CIP systems, rinse water and chemicals are recovered for reuse using membrane technologies.

• Crate washer maintenance: Crate washers can represent up to 16% of total water use in a dairy, but are highly susceptible to leaks.

• Dry cleaning: Removing as much product as possible prior to washing, so that less cleaning water is required.

• Efficient product changeovers: Reducing the number of cleaning cycles required by working out the optimal product changeover pattern.

5.2.3.2 Utility water efficiency

Utilities at F&B plants include boilers and cooling towers and systems.

• Optimising cooling towers and boiler blowdown: When water turns into steam, suspended and dissolved solids are left behind. To prevent these contaminants from accumulating, water is periodically removed (“blowdown”), and replaced with feedwater. To optimise the frequency of this process, a conductivity probe can be installed so that blowdown is only initiated when the water conductivity (which is high when TDS is high) exceeds a predetermined value.

• Cooling tower maintenance and control: Poorly maintained cooling towers can lead to excessive water consumption. Float valves are be used to optimise the supply of makeup water.

• Equipment sealing water: Equipment like homogenisers and vacuum and centrifugal pumps require water for cooling and sealing. Typically the water is used only once, but there is potential for reuse in non-product applications.

5.2.3.3 Process water efficiency

Process water volumes are being reduced in the F&B industry by:

• Automating leak detection and repair.

• Optimising flow rates to minimise water use.

• Installing monitoring & control systems, such as automatic shut-off valves.

5.2.3.4 Other water efficiency practices

Many companies run staff education programmes to reduce ancillary water use in amenities, cafeterias, etc. In addition to this, the water supply at F&B plants is often supplemented by harvesting rain and storm water for non-product applications, e.g. cleaning floors.

5.3 Market driversThere are several drivers for F&B companies to increase their water efficiencies and use advanced water management strategies. The drivers are all interconnected, but the approaches adopted by F&B companies can usually be traced back to the following three:

• Brand protection: Public image is of primary importance to F&B companies. It is imperative that the operational trends and goals do not harm the brand.

• Water scarcity: In many regions across the world, water is becoming a scarce commodity. Operating food or beverage manufacturing plants in such regions poses water-related risks that can have both financial and public image consequences.

• Regulations: The regulatory framework can vary greatly between regions and countries. F&B companies are required to meet set regulations and plan ahead for any future changes. Stricter regulations on water allocations or volumes and qualities of wastewater that can be discharged can affect the operability of F&B plants.

Additionally, there is a strong geographical trend towards emerging markets as GDP per capita and urbanisation rates increase.



5.3.1 Brand protectionBrand perception is key in the F&B industry. Companies must know what they stand for – their goals and approach must convey an appropriate message to their customer base, the public. It is therefore essential that F&B companies both develop and achieve goals that will help promote their brand further (the “sustainability factor”), and do not operate in a manner that harms their brand (the “risk factor”).

5.3.1.1 The sustainability factor

Sustainability is the current buzzword in the F&B industry – “green is good” in the public eye. Sustainability goals are being used informally to benchmark companies in competing subsectors of the F&B industry. Major F&B companies release sustainability reports, which set out their goals for water efficiency, energy efficiency and carbon footprint. The need to maintain their corporate image drives companies towards the uptake of water and energy efficient technologies, to help them achieve their sustainability agenda.

The sustainability mindset and brand focus is of greater significance to companies that supply products directly to the consumer. For companies that supply businesses with ingredients, other drivers will play a larger role than brand protection.

Improved water efficiency and the adoption of water efficient approaches go a long way towards brand promotion and in turn can provide the social licence to operate in new regions and markets. Companies that can show they will be good environmental stewards and protect the water and other resources in that region will be able to enter and develop their brand within that market. This is particularly important when operating in water scarce regions, where instances of poor water stewardship can lead to withdrawal of a company’s business licence to operate.

5.3.1.2 The risk factor

Minimising risk is crucial to the F&B industry – whether the risk relates to food safety and hygiene, water availability, perception and so on. Risk management can restrain companies in their adoption of water efficient technologies and applications – they must guarantee that new approaches will not affect product safety or damage their brand.

Water reuse is promoted to some extent in the F&B industry. However, if there is even the slightest risk that water reuse applications can affect the wholesomeness of a product for human consumption, F&B companies are well within their rights not to take that risk. Food safety is by far the most important factor to these companies, and failures in food safety will result in whole batches of product being recalled. This is bad for public image, bad for the bottom line, and overall very bad for business.

Food safety aside, public perception is also an issue. If the public hear that a company is reusing wastewater and believe that this has interacted with a product, there is the major psychological issue of “consuming waste”. As soon as the public perception is that a company is “using waste” to make their product, this irreparably affects the brand.

5.3.2 Water scarcityA reliable and continuous supply of potable quality water is needed in the F&B industry to ensure the productivity and efficiency of their operations. The implications of water scarcity are very far reaching in the F&B industry, particularly in beverage subsectors where water is used as an ingredient that can make up more than 96% of the product. Water scarcity can be physical or economical.

Physical water scarcity is affected by climate, and is a regional problem. F&B plants in water-scarce regions have a very real issue that they must overcome to ensure operability and production.

Water is a finite resource, and as such F&B companies are looking for the best alternatives to maximise the water that they can access. Physical scarcity alone will drive F&B companies to implement more water efficient approaches such as water reuse applications within their operations.

Economic water scarcity is where water is readily available, but a lack of infrastructure means that it is not readily accessible. These circumstances are often found in developing nations, and lead to F&B companies building their own surface water or groundwater intakes and a full WTP on-site.

Cost is a major factor too. In areas where there is competition with other users, prices will be driven up. Where there is any type of scarcity, the true value of water is recognised and high prices will again affect the bottom line. This issue is likely to be compounded by reduced water allocations in the future. F&B plants operating under such conditions must take steps to adopt water efficient technologies and approaches to improve profitability.


Food and beverage // Market drivers

5.3.3 RegulationsFood and beverage companies are required to comply with local, regional or national regulatory standards when operating a manufacturing site in a country. The standards and requirements can vary greatly from one region to another. Overall, the regulatory framework surrounding the water aspect of the food and beverage industry addresses:

• Water abstraction regulations, which protect water security.

• Process water quality standards, which protect human health.

• Wastewater discharge standards, which protect the environment.

These are discussed in the following sections, together with the trend of multinational companies adopting universal regulations across all of their sites.

5.3.3.1 Water abstraction regulations

Physical water scarcity and competing demands for water are on the rise in many regions around the world. Governments must address water security through issuing withdrawal permits for industrial users, which, in turn, drives water efficiency and reuse.

These withdrawal permits (or licences) regulate the volumes of water that F&B companies are given access to. The permits can be revoked or reassessed in times of scarcity or following noncompliance by companies. As competing demands for water continues to rise, water abstraction licences are expected to get stricter.

5.3.3.2 Process water quality standards

The two main factors in defining F&B water quality standards are the raw water source and the treatment required to produce process water of acceptable quality. Both of these are critical in ensuring the safety of the product.

The quality of any water source that is to be used for process water at F&B plants must be of “at least potable water quality”. This means that only sources such as municipal tap water, well water, borehole water, groundwater and surface water can be used.

Increasing numbers of contaminants with the potential to affect human health are being found in raw water sources. The most important of these emerging contaminants are endocrine disruptors, which interfere with hormonal function in living organisms, including humans. With this is mind, new regulations are likely to be developed either to monitor the presence of these contaminants, or to require strict process water quality standards that mandate the use of high level water treatment technologies.

Drinking water regulations are generally well established around the world. The lists of parameters, limit values, and monitoring procedures show relatively little variation from one country to another, as they are all based to some degree on the World Health Organization Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality.

5.3.3.3 Wastewater discharge standards

There is a trend towards more stringent wastewater discharge regulations. This acts as a driver towards more advanced wastewater treatment technologies. Wastewater streams must be effectively treated to prevent damage to the environment, and noncompliance with regulations will likely have cost implications such as fines, penalties or plant closures. In general, wastewater discharge standards are getting stricter worldwide and it is believed that developing nations are developing stricter regulations at a fast pace.

The wastewater streams generated from the food and beverage industry are considered to be quite clean when compared to those generated in other industries. This means that there is potential for the biosolids from the F&B wastewater to be disposed of by land application, a practice that is not an option for other industries due to regulations.

In some countries the wastewater discharge guidelines or regulations for industrial effluent apply to all industries including F&B. Other countries have developed individual F&B industry wastewater discharge standards on a subsector-by-subsector level. Standards can be set to prescribe minimum values for discharging to treatment plants or discharging directly to water bodies.

5.3.3.4 Adoption of universal regulations at plant sites

Many major international F&B companies are adopting company-wide standards for wastewater treatment across all plant sites, regardless of location. In countries where the local regulations are not as stringent or do not exist, such company-wide standards protect both the environment and the company’s image.

However, smaller, less global F&B companies may be limited in their capacity to adopt such wide reaching approaches like adopting a company-wide standard for wastewater discharge.



5.3.4 Geographical trendsAs people become richer and move to the cities, demand for branded processed food and drink increases. The expansion of the formal food and drinks processing sector is a major driver of demand for water technology as companies look to ensure that their product is safe and dependable, and their water use does not put them into competition with the community they serve.

In order to quantify these trends, we have analysed the expansion plans of 50 large F&B companies from around the world. The following figure shows the number of times a country in each region was mentioned in a company’s plans, summed across all companies in the sample.

Figure 5.7 Countries mentioned in the expansion plans of 50 leading F&B companies, grouped by region

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Western Europe

Middle East & North Africa

Africa

Europe & Central Asia

North America

Southern Asia

Latin America & Caribbean

East Asia & Pacific

No.of times a country in the region is mentioned in company expansion plans


A full overview of each of the 50 companies’ expansion plans, together with an analysis of regional financial statements from 9 of the largest multi-nationals, can be found in GWI’s Water for Food and Beverage primary research report.

5.4 Wastewater challengesWastewater is generated from the majority of activities at manufacturing plant sites, such as the transportation and washing of raw materials, cleaning of equipment and plant wash down, evacuation of waste, CIP processes, cooling circuits, pasteurisers, steeping of raw materials, spills from processing and wasted products.

5.4.1 Wastewater discharge optionsWhen compared to other industries such as oil and gas, mining or refining, the wastewater generated from a F&B plant is considered to be relatively clean. In countries where suitable infrastructure is available, direct discharge to the municipal sewer system is the norm. Indeed, in the U.S. there is only one facility with a current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for direct wastewater discharge to surface water bodies. However, there are still strict wastewater treatment and discharge requirements that must be complied with, which may result in the need for some level of pretreatment prior to discharge to sewers. Where infrastructure is not in place, direct discharge is the only option.

In plants where wastewater is treated on-site, standard treatment technologies can be used to effectively treat the streams to comply with discharge quality standards.

5.4.2 Wastewater characteristicsWastewater characteristics are highly variable from subsector to subsector, due to the wide range of raw materials and processes that can be used. For example, wastewater from fruit washing will be relatively clean, whereas wastewater from a dairy or slaughterhouse will contain high levels of oil and grease, etc.


Food and beverage // Wastewater treatment technologies

A summary of typical contaminants for a range of subsectors is shown in the following figure.

Figure 5.8 Wastewater characteristics from food and beverage subsectors

Pollutant Breweries Energy soft drinks

Dairy Meat Poultry Sugar (cane)

Sugar (beet)

Vegetable oil

BOD5 (mg/l)

1,000–1,500

_ 1,000–4,000 (up to 10,000)

600–8,000

1,600– 3,300

1,700–6,600

4,000–7,000

20,000–35,000

COD (mg/l)

1,800–3,000

4,000 400–1,500

Up to 10,200

_ 2,300–8,000

Up to 10,000

30,000–60,000

TSS (mg/l)

10–60 250 400–2,000

360–3,300

760–1,650

Up to 5,000

Up to 5,000

TDS 10,000

Nitrogen (mg/l) 30–100 54* 1–115 25–300* 54–90* High High 500–800Phosphorus (mg/l) 10–30 2.5 9–210 35–80 12–72 – – –Oil & grease (mg/l) _ _ 25–500 150–

1,800150–800 _ _ 5,000–

10,000Total coliform bacteria (CFU/100 ml)

_ _ Present 7.3x105–1.6x106

8.6– 9.8x105

_ _ _

* Total Kjeldahl nitrogenSource: Carawan et al., 1979; IFC, 1998; Smith et al., 2008

As can be seen from the figure above, subsectors such as meat processing (slaughterhouses), the sugar industry and the dairy industry all generate wastewater streams with high BOD loads. Also, certain processes in other subsectors can generate highly loaded wastewater in very small quantities. In the brewery industry, the fermentation and filtration steps generate only 3% of the total wastewater by volume plant, but this wastewater is so highly loaded that it can represent up to 97% of the BOD from the entire plant.

The main wastewater challenges stem from the variability of the wastewater from plant to plant. This variety is as a result of the range of the ingredients used, process water qualities, and the processing steps and products. Due to the risk-averseness of F&B companies, pilot trials may need to be conducted on a plant-by-plant basis to ensure that the treatment solutions can handle the wastewater streams.

Although there is great scope for water reuse, the F&B industry is risk averse in nature. Overall, F&B companies need to work with technology providers that they can trust, who will provide process guarantees against wastewater discharge failures and the associated negative press that would affect their brand.

Another challenge within the F&B industry is the segregation of wastewater streams. It is easier to treat high load/low flow streams separately from low load/high flow streams. Treating such streams separately, rather than combining them, enables better treatment to be achieved at a lower cost. This is particularly true when dealing with one wastewater stream that is highly loaded with fats, oils and greases (FOG). For example, the high load streams can be sent to an anaerobic MBR, while the low load streams can be directed to the final stage of treatment in an aerobic unit or RO units for water reuse, depending on how “clean” the wastewater stream is. The challenge is to identify the streams that would benefit from separate treatment, efficiently segregate the flows, and to decide where to combine the flows in order to achieve the most efficient and consistent process possible.


5.5.1 Overview of wastewater treatment technologiesThe F&B industry generates wastewater with similar characteristics to municipal wastewater, with the exception of subsectors whose wastewater also contains high levels of FOG. Therefore, no real industry-specific technologies have been developed, unlike other industries where specialised contaminants need to be removed.

The range of technologies that might be used to treat F&B wastewater are categorised in the following figure. As discussed in subsequent sections, some of these technologies, such as bioplastics production, are still at the pilot stage.



Figure 5.9 Wastewater treatment technologies

Treatment TechnologiesPrimary treatment Grease traps, skimmers, tertiary filters, clarifiers Flotation Dissolved air flotation Nutrient removal Chemical precipitation for phosphorus removalAerobic treatment Extended aeration, aerobic treatment unit (ATU), Membrane bioreactor (MBR), Moving bed biofilm

reactor (MBBR), sequencing batch reactor (SBR)Anaerobic treatment Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB), expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB), continuous

stirred-tank reactor (CSTR), internal circulation (IC), anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR)Membrane technologies UF, MF, RODisinfection Chlorination, ozonation, UVEvaporation Evaporators, crystallisersSludge management Thickening, dewatering, sludge stabilisation, thermal hydrolysis for biological treatment, drying,

incinerationValue from wastewater Anaerobic digestion for biogas, nutrient recovery for fertilisers, bioplastics production, microbial

fuel cell production Source: GWI

5.5.2 Wastewater treatment technology trends

5.5.2.1 Anaerobic digester technology trends

Energy efficiency is an important goal for F&B companies. One of the current energy saving trends in the industry is on the wastewater treatment side. F&B plants are now using more anaerobic digester (AD) technologies in conjunction with aerobic treatments in an effort to reduce energy consumption. AD is more energy efficient than aerobic systems. Significant energy savings can be made by using the more energy efficient AD first (to treat a high load waste stream) followed by aerobic treatment for polishing low load wastewater.

Traditional AD systems have been used in municipal WWTPs for decades. However, technology advances have improved the efficiency of AD systems and enabled them to handle more contaminated wastewater streams such as those laden with FOG, which traditional AD systems are unable to handle.

AD technologies are also able to provide a source of renewable energy in the form of biogas. Biogas is mostly methane, and is produced by microorganisms when they respire anaerobically. The biogas has potential to be captured and used on-site in CHP engines and boilers, or it can be sold into a national grid for revenue. Although these opportunities for biogas are quite impressive, the F&B industry largely f lares the biogas they produce. The cost of cleaning the biogas prior to use, the infrastructure needed to transport the gas to the site of use and the need to install specific equipment to be able to use biogas in certain systems, can make harnessing biogas economically unfeasible, particularly if the volumes of biogas generated are not consistent.

5.5.2.2 Aerobic systems: MBBR versus MBR

The choice of aerobic system used to treat wastewater streams depends on the final quality that needs to be attained:

• An MBBR system reduces suspended solids and BOD to create a water quality that is suitable for discharge, although a further membrane step (UF) may also be required.

• An MBR system employed after anaerobic digestion provides high quality treated wastewater that can be reused directly in the utilities as cooling water. If the water is for reuse in boiler systems, an additional RO step is required to prevent scaling.

Additionally, MBR represents a higher capital outlay than MBBR.

5.5.2.3 Membrane-based technology trends in wastewater

There are trends towards using UF and/or RO membranes in F&B wastewater treatment:

• UF membranes are an integral part of an MBR system, and may also be used after an MBBR step.

• Sometimes RO membrane treatment may be employed after UF. NF is not popular in the F&B industry despite having a slightly lower capital cost than RO. The small plant sizes found in the F&B industry mean that the cost difference is negligible, unless the plant is uncharacteristically large.


Food and beverage // Water reuse strategies

5.6 Water reuse strategies Water reuse is growing within the F&B industry. Some wastewater streams generated from manufacturing processes are clean enough to be used for certain on-site applications without treatment. Other wastewater streams require treatment before they are suitable for reuse.

Irrespective of the quality of the treated wastewater, water reuse is typically not used for applications that are in contact with the product, especially when water is used as an ingredient. In the fruit and vegetable subsectors, there is potential to recycle the water used to wash the raw fruits and vegetables back in a loop, with simple clarification as a treatment standard. The main area of opportunity for water reuse is in the utilities. However, the reuse water must be of a high quality as the presence of salts or organics causes scaling and corrosion in the boilers and cooling towers.

The common technologies used for water reuse are as follows:

• Screens, clarifiers, multimedia filters, softeners, crystallisation softeners

• Membrane technologies

• Deionisation and EDI

• Aerobic treatments and towards ZLD technologies

• Disinfection – UV, ozonation

• Evaporation – Evaporators, crystallisers

There are several water reuse strategies available in the food and beverage industry, which include the following:

5.6.1 Condensate reuseCondensate is water that is formed when steam condenses. It is found in two places in the F&B industry:

• Steam supply systems and boilers.

• Product condensate, e.g. generated by the dairy industry when using evaporative and drying processes to concentrate milk products or manufacture powdered milk.

5.6.1.1 Boiler condensate return systems

Boiler condensate return systems effectively reuse condensate as boiler makeup water. Efficiency savings result from using less water, using fewer chemicals, and not having to reheat the already hot condensate. Combined these savings can reduce operating costs by up to 70%. To maintain boiler efficiency and reduce the need for blowdown, the routine maintenance is essential.

5.6.1.2 Product condensate recovery

When a condensed or dry milk product is being manufactured, water amounting to around 74% of the original milk volume can be recovered as condensate and reused. The recovered condensate can be reused in boilers, as cooling tower feedwater, in CIP systems, for wash water, in dryer wet scrubbers, and for pump seal water. The condensate is also hot, a property that can be made the most of via heat exchangers. To achieve the maximum economic benefit from water reuse and heat exchange, product condensate recovery should be integrated into the process at the design stage.

When considering reusing condensate at a food and beverage plant, the following points should be taken into account:

• The water may contain product carryover.

• The water may require cooling before it is suitable for use.

• The conductivity of the water may make it prone to causing corrosion.

• The water may have a bad odour.

Because of these considerations, recovered condensate typically needs further treatment before it can be reused. Treatment involves using disinfectants, carbon filtration and ion exchange. Membrane technologies such as reverse osmosis are also used to achieve very high levels of treatment to produce high quality water that can be reused in most areas of a food and beverage plant. Acidic condensate can be neutralised, preventing corrosion in boilers.

However, membrane technologies are very expensive and the cost can prove to be prohibitive – alternative water sources are likely to be cheaper. Additionally, membranes are not suitable for treating wastewater from all waste streams. For example, if RO is used to recover water from whey, the treated permeate should not be used anywhere on the dairy plant site as there is risk that bacteriophage viruses may be present. Bacteriophages can infect the bacteria used for fermenting the cheese, which would reduce the rate of fermentation and result in a low quality product.



5.6.2 Water managementAs a water management strategy, water reuse has two outcomes that will help a food and beverage company to meet its sustainability targets:

• Reducing the overall water:product ratio.

• Reducing the volume of wastewater generated.

Exploring both these avenues can also result in cost savings for the F&B company. Raw water has a cost, treating water to meet process or utility water standards has a cost, and treating wastewater streams has a cost. Reusing water rather than purchasing more is a cost effective approach on all fronts, as water and wastewater treatment will happen anyway.

The first step in developing an efficient water management strategy for a F&B plant is to gain a true understanding of the overall water consumption. This involves determining the volumes of water that enter and leave the plant, identifying the different processes and applications where water is used, and identifying where wastewater can be reclaimed for reuse. This can be achieved by calculating the water balance for the plant site – determining the total volume of water that enters the plant over a specified period of time then balancing it with the volume of water that is used in F&B processing and the volume disposed of as wastewater.

5.6.3 Water reuse trendsThe trend towards water reuse in the F&B industry is growing fastest in developed nations. The strategy is to close the treatment loop, and determine an ideal water reuse approach that will generate cost savings from source water purchases, wastewater treatment and discharge costs or WWTP surcharges.

In general, for wastewater treated for reuse in utilities, an anaerobic digester can be used followed by aerobic MBR to generate good quality feedwater. For reuse as boiler feedwater, RO is also needed to remove scaling ions. Depending on the wastewater quality and energy requirements, single, double or even triple pass RO can be performed to treat wastewater to achieve the relevant water quality for reuse. Membranes are used to achieve a level of preconcentration. Evaporator crystalliser technologies are then used to crystallise the solids, and the clean water generated can be reused.

5.7 Supply chain analysis The F&B industry is very risk averse by nature. However, this does not automatically imply that the industry is highly conservative. The F&B industry is open to new solutions and technology innovations, but proof is required that the system works, that it can be operated consistently, that there are minimal risks associated with its use and that it makes good business sense.

The industry is at the mercy of the media, and public perception carries a lot of weight. There will always be a level of conservativeness towards adopting new technologies and strategies, but not to the level witnessed in highly conservative industries such as the pharmaceutical industry.

5.7.1 Procurement processThe water and wastewater treatment plants are typically built at the same time as the F&B manufacturing plant. This is more so the case for the water treatment plants, which are essential for production. WWTPs may not be required if the manufacturing plant is small and can discharge directly to a sewer system.

It is generally the medium to large scale manufacturing plants that need to build WWTPs. From the very beginning, during the procurement stages, companies are looking at how to reuse their water and generate biogas from organic material in their wastewater streams to create a self-sufficient and highly efficient system.

In the Canadian market, F&B plants were traditionally permitted to discharge to the sewer system. However, this culture is now changing as the government now requires that these plants install their own WWTPs, rather than just paying discharge taxes. If a new plant needs to build a WWTP, due to the regulatory structure in place, they must have their WWTP pre-approved by the Department of Environment, the EPA or, depending on the province, the Ministry of Environment.

At the start of the procurement process for a F&B manufacturing plant, an engineering firm is hired to design and construct the manufacturing plant. For the process water and wastewater parts, the F&B companies directly approach equipment suppliers that have engineering capabilities to design and build the water and wastewater treatment plants. This is very attractive to equipment suppliers as F&B industrial clients will rarely use consultants as part of the procurement process. The main procurement models are turnkey and equipment-only turnkey. The F&B companies manage construction by giving solo or contractor equipment contracts, which include all the detailed design, detailed engineering, equipment, commissioning and start-up to the relevant company, and generally the F&B company will be the ones taking care of operation and maintenance (O&M).


Food and beverage // Supply chain analysis

5.7.1.1 Operation and maintenance

On the process water side, F&B companies do not generally outsource O&M in the majority of cases. However, for wastewater, F&B companies can decide to outsource their O&M. However, as these companies have very specific cycles and batch systems, their wastewater streams are highly variable. Operation therefore needs to be flexible and the operators need to be responsive to the wastewater variations, which makes outsourcing more difficult. These issues are typically stated at the beginning of the project to ensure a lot of work is done on the design alongside their selected original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) or providers. The final solution is determined, the equipment is purchased and then the F&B company can make requirements for secondary operator training periodically (typically every six months).

If a service provider is awarded a contract which includes designing and operating the plant for 5 or 10 years, the selected design will differ from a system designed to be operated by the customer. When a food and beverage company is in charge of operation, typically a standard design is used with the best available technologies. For the service provider to be able to make money when operating the plant, the plant design must be highly efficient to allow cost effective operation. Approaches include the installation of pumps in accessible areas to enable easy maintenance and changes. Such an approach is very expensive, as additional structures need to be included which would not be required in the tender specifications for building a plant for F&B operations. However, if the service company is designing, building and operating the plant for a certain period of time, the plant will cost more to begin with, but the lifetime cycle will be less costly because the operation costs will be lower. In general, companies in the tender process tend to provide offers that are most cost effective as the majority of F&B companies judge offers on the capital expenditure rather than the operating expenditure.

5.7.1.2 Technology purchasing

The OEM that is awarded the contract typically selects the different technologies that will be used. The OEMs design, engineer and build the treatment equipment, as well as buy and assemble different technology components.

Some F&B companies are looking to standardise their wastewater procurement approach by reducing the number of suppliers on their selected supplier lists. However, in some rare cases companies may wish to impose the specific technologies that they want to be used, which may not be a viable approach due to the different technology stages involved. But F&B companies generally have their preferred suppliers for technologies, particularly the larger players, as they are more willing to spend more on technology.

The choice of technology used and the supplier is related to system integration. For membrane systems, the choice of membrane will depend on the system being designed because of footprint restrictions and infrastructure available, which would promote the use of vertical configurations. For the majority of the time, technology choices are down to cost, the manufacturer and the level of after-sales services available.

5.7.1.3 Local versus international suppliers

In the F&B industry, local suppliers are used particularly for the lower specification equipment and technologies such as pipes and valves, because plants demand a high level of maintenance. A lot of support is required during commissioning, automation to meet regulations and adjustments during commissioning, so local suppliers can be a preference. In general, the F&B companies choose the low specification equipment in their request for quotations. The F&B companies list two or three suppliers that they would like to provide these types of systems, as the companies want their system to be standardised.

For the higher specification technologies such as membranes, companies prefer to work with the supplier that can provide the best technology, so long as they have a local engineering service presence. However, there is still a place for local companies that can supply a good product and provide a good, affordable service, giving them a competitive advantage in terms of technologies, particularly in niche markets. In general, local F&B companies tend to use local companies as suppliers, but large global F&B companies typically use international suppliers.

5.7.1.4 One-stop shop versus separate technologies

The F&B industry is typically looking for fully integrated solutions to meet their water and wastewater needs at their plant sites. F&B companies are generally reluctant to mix and match different suppliers and split the responsibility of the overall process. In situations where the equipment provider does not have the full scope of technologies and the client wants to use a specific supplier’s technology, they can opt for an open source OEM, who will purchase the outstanding technologies that are not in their portfolio and include them in the final solution. F&B companies will always prefer to work with a single provider at the end of the day, whether it is an open source OEM or an OEM that has the full complement of technologies.

5.7.2 Procurement modelsThere are different procurement models that can be used in the F&B industry for the water and wastewater treatment aspect. The models chosen can vary significantly depending on region.



5.7.2.1 Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)

Operating is possible in the F&B industry, as long as the OEM is also providing some financing for the project. But in general it is difficult for the OEM to directly operate a F&B company’s sytem for them. In addition, there is no real incentive as the cost reductions achieved are typically very small.

5.7.2.2 Design, build, operate and maintain (DBOM)

This is considered by many to be a good procurement model and it is particularly popular in Europe. In this case, the service provider company will build the plant, and install and operate the technologies for a specified number of years. This model is interesting for turnkey systems, which are generally used for big projects.

5.7.2.3 Acquire, operate and transfer (AOT)

Procurement differs in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly in China and Korea. In this region, OEMs currently have to buy the asset and operate it on a long-term contract ranging from 20 to 30 years. This model is dependent on the region and the financial loads in place. It is used particularly in major projects, where a main focus is to recover biogas from AD, as it will involve technology purchases including AD and CHP systems to generate electricity and energy, which are complicated to operate. In these situations, the complex nature of the projects and operations makes the F&B companies more willing to hand over project operation to the OEM.

5.7.2.4 Build, own, operate and maintain (BOOM) versus build, own, operate and transfer (BOOT)

This model is very risky, because the asset is not transferred. So the service provider has to build the asset, operate it and make it profitable for an extended period of time to recover the cost of the investment after several years, which can take a very long time. BOOT, on the other hand, is less risky as the asset will be transferred.

5.7.2.5 Request for quotation (RFQ)

This procurement model is used when retrofitting or upgrading existing water or wastewater treatment plants. RFQ is a direct tender model for existing assets. F&B companies provide the specifications, which state the water quality they want to achieve. The service providers then propose their best ideas for the technologies needed to achieve the water requirements. The lowest-cost offers are those that make optimal use of the existing equipment at the site. It is therefore key for service providers to visit the site and dialogue with on-site staff about which existing equipment can be employed in order to lower the final cost of the project and make their offer more competitive. As F&B is a global business, having a local team can make an offer more competitive, as they will be able to visit the site and understand the inherent local challenges that will affect the water quality.

5.7.3 Market entry The water for F&B industry is full of potential and emerging opportunities. The diversity in the products, processing steps, and water and wastewater needs open up many avenues to enter this market, and success can vary locally, regionally and globally. Access to the water for F&B market is open to all water technology companies, ranging from large global firms to smaller niche technology manufacturers. The typical size of the projects in the F&B industry (in the region of 1,000–3,000 m³/d) allows projects to be handled by major water companies that can provide turnkey engineering solutions, thus reducing the need for EPC companies in this market.

The first step in effectively accessing the water for F&B market is to determine the appropriate market access approach for your company. There are numerous avenues that companies can follow to access the market. Successful entry and maintaining a strong presence in the F&B market depends a lot on forging strong relationships with the F&B clients. Visibility in the market is also important, as F&B companies can approach water technology companies directly when trying to address specific issues. Being visible to the F&B customers and being in a position to get referrals is an important factor, particularly for the smaller, less established companies that do not have the obvious brand name and clout.

There are many critical success factors for market entry and maintaining a presence in the market. It is necessary to understand the processes that the F&B customers use in order to assess their needs and find the appropriate solutions. So it is key to have a slew of relevant technologies to meet the various needs of the F&B market. Interacting effectively with F&B clients is important, as this allows companies to understand what their clients want to achieve and their overarching goals. Having the appropriate expertise is crucial in this market to be able to innovate and develop the varied solutions the different F&B clients will need. In addition, it is important to have the requisite knowledge and understanding of local markets and the inherent challenges that exist. F&B companies are risk averse, and therefore need to be sure that any technology will work effectively and not risk the productivity of their plant sites. Therefore proving the technology works by performing pilot trials is important for large and small companies alike.

5.7.3.1 Dominance of market players

Large water companies are seen to dominate the water for F&B market space. This can be attributed to their size and visibility, their creativity and innovation, their portfolio of proven technologies and the fact that they are perceived to be low risk.


Food and beverage // Supply chain analysis

Relationship building is a major success factor for large water companies, which they promote and depend on to maintain their presence in the market. The dominance of the larger water companies can be linked to their presence in many markets, but developing relationships at the local level is also important for competitiveness as local knowledge is an important factor.

Larger water companies have the financial resources to be active in different markets and develop new technologies that may be unavailable to the smaller players. They also tend to prefer working with the global companies as they are less risky and provide process guarantees. However, these larger, more established water companies can be limited in the F&B market due to their size and inflexibility, making it difficult to move quickly into new markets.

5.7.3.2 Market entry potential for smaller/niche players

Smaller local players can be competitive in the F&B market because of local experience and knowledge. To be competitive and visible in the F&B market, smaller water companies need to prove their technologies work and effectively demonstrate their business case. Local water technology companies can improve their competitiveness in the F&B market by forming partnerships. Local firms can develop very quickly as they have local knowledge, and when they enter into partnerships with technology suppliers from Europe and the U.S., they can become very competitive in that region.

Niche players who can offer specialised services and technologies do have opportunities to be active in the F&B market – more so than medium sized companies, as the technology offerings may be too limited for the global players. The mid-sized players face the most barriers in the industry, as they cannot survive on small volume niche business, nor do they have the global capacity to compete with the established companies.



5.8 Market forecast

5.8.1 Market backgroundThe drivers of the market for water technology in the F&B sector can be summarised as follows:

1. Emerging market growth: As GDP per capita and urbanisation increase, demand for branded processed food and drink also increases. We have analysed food production data, population data, economic data, the expansion plans of 50 major F&B companies and the financial statements of 9 of the largest multinationals to quantify this demand.

2. Water scarcity and environmental protection: As global water demand increases, water stress spreads across the globe. The impact of poorly treated wastewater is also becoming apparent to policy makers.

3. Corporate risk: Image is everything, and corporations have begun to assess the operational, environmental, and reputational risks associated with water and wastewater.

4. The value proposition: Increasingly, technology allows good water stewardship to go hand in hand with increased profitability. Value from waste propositions such as energy recovery, water reuse (not within the product) and materials recovery ensure that investment in water technology benefits the bottom line.

5.8.2 Overall pictureCapital expenditure on water technology by F&B companies for plants which use more than 100 m³/d will grow from $3.6 billion in 2012 to $7.9 billion in 2025. The market forecast has been split into three categories for the purposes of this report: all pretreatment systems, all wastewater systems and polishing systems.

Figure 5.10 Food and beverage industry market forecast, 2011–2025


Polishing systems


1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Food & beverage ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011–17 2025

Pretreatment systems 1,675.7 1,772.7 1,873.0 2,001.3 2,126.2 2,250.2 2,390.5 6.1% 3,577.5Polishing systems (a) 107.3 118.3 130.2 144.6 159.7 175.7 193.6 10.3% 389.8Wastewater treatment systems 1,556.6 1,667.1 1,785.7 1,932.0 2,078.6 2,225.7 2,389.1 7.4% 3,983.4Total (b) 3,339.6 3,558.0 3,788.9 4,077.8 4,364.5 4,651.6 4,973.1 6.9% 7,924.1

(a) Equipment for removing dissolved solids, including nanofiltration, ion exchange, EDI, RO etc.(b) For further detail on the F&B market, including a detailed breakdown by equipment line, see GWI’s Water for Food & Beverage primary research report.Source: GWI


Food and beverage // Market forecast

We would estimate that approximately 5% of the total wastewater systems market presented here would fall into the “wastewater desalination” forecast category presented in figure 1.29 of the report introduction.

The country market split for 2013–2017 is shown in the following figure. European and North American markets will be more sluggish, but emerging markets including China, India and Brazil will grow at double digit rates.

Figure 5.11 Food and beverage industry, top country markets, 2013–2017


(2013-2017)

Japan $927m

USA $4,117m

RoW $11,224m

Brazil $748m

China $3,368m

India $1,471m

Source: GWI

5.8.3 Reference and alternate scenariosOur reference scenario for the food and beverage industry makes the following assumptions:




• China and India economic growth rates fall below 6%.


Our regional market forecasts for the food and beverage market under these two scenarios are shown in the following figures.

Figure 5.12 Food and beverage industry, 2011–2017: Reference scenario

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Food & beverage reference scenario ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Americas 1,153.7 1,205.8 1,261.4 1,328.8 1,394.8 1,461.5 1,534.6 4.9%EMEA 1,154.8 1,196.5 1,229.3 1,268.5 1,308.4 1,342.6 1,379.2 3.0%Asia Pacific 1,031.2 1,155.6 1,298.3 1,480.6 1,661.3 1,847.5 2,059.3 12.2%Total 3,339.6 3,558.0 3,788.9 4,077.8 4,364.5 4,651.6 4,973.1 6.9%

Source: GWI



Under the alternate scenario, overall market activity falls by 5–10% as the rate of increase of demand for processed food slows.

Figure 5.13 Food and beverage industry, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Food & beverage alternate scenario ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Americas 1,153.7 1,205.8 1,135.2 1,195.9 1,255.3 1,315.3 1,381.1 3.0%EMEA 1,154.8 1,196.5 1,106.3 1,141.6 1,177.5 1,208.4 1,241.3 1.2%Asia Pacific 1,031.2 1,155.6 1,233.4 1,406.5 1,578.3 1,755.1 1,956.3 11.3%Total 3,339.6 3,558.0 3,474.9 3,744.1 4,011.1 4,278.8 4,578.8 5.4%

Source: GWI


Pharmaceutical // Introduction

6. Pharmaceutical6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 Introduction to the pharmaceutical industryThe pharmaceutical industry researches, develops, manufactures and markets medications for human and animal health, and it is one of the most profitable industries in the world. In 2010, revenues from the top 50 pharmaceutical manufacturers accounted for $593.4 billion in human prescription drug sales.

6.1.1.1 Consolidation in the pharmaceutical industry

Currently, the pharmaceutical market is experiencing significant upheaval with the consolidation of pharmaceutical companies across the globe. The upheaval in the industry can be attributed to the patent cliff phenomenon. Lucrative patents for products such as insulin, interleukin, etc have recently lapsed. This has caused significant losses in revenues for the global giants and shaken shareholders’ trust.

Mergers and acquisitions are used to help companies maintain a market presence and build new product research and development portfolios. Companies are also looking to new pharmaceutical markets in emerging regions and new sectors such as personal care products and animal pharmaceuticals. These approaches are used in an effort to calm stakeholders’ fears.

The recent mergers and acquisitions in the industry are impacting other market players to some degree. Consolidated facilities may have excess capacity and thus they do not need to purchase new equipment when they bring two plants together. This reuse of technologies at redundant sites may impact expansion and new business strategies for players supplying technologies in the water market. Water of very high quality is essential to this industry. Therefore, spending on water treatment systems will not be directly impacted by the aforementioned upheaval in the market.

6.1.2 Product safety in the pharmaceutical industry Product contamination in the pharmaceutical industry is potentially life threatening. Water is a major component that is heavily used in the manufacturing process, and preventing the contamination of water and other compounds is an important part of meeting product safety requirements. Contaminated products can result in unknown drug interactions and reactions, and this can be especially damaging to consumers with ailing health.

Product recalls due to contamination failures can be very damaging to a brand. Consumers and shareholders can lose trust in the brand or the company. The industry is highly regulated to ensure product safety, and pharmaceutical companies therefore ensure that they comply fully with requirements.

6.1.3 Processing of pharmaceutical products

6.1.3.1 Pharmaceutical products

Pharmaceutical products are classified according to:

• The dosage form (DF): Whether the product is a solid, liquid, gas or semi-solid.

• The route of administration (ROA): Whether the product is swallowed, injected, applied to skin etc.

The manufacture of parenteral products is the most water intensive sector in the industry. Parenteral products are introduced to the body by injection. They include saline solutions and intravenous fluids. These products are typically manufactured in bulk requiring large water demands. Lower water volumes are involved in the manufacture of solid products like tablets and capsules.



6.1.3.2 Pharmaceutical manufacturing processes

The two main production lines involved in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and biotechnology products are primary and secondary manufacturing. The manufacturing process is summarised in the following figure. The numbers in the figure denote a process that will be described in further detail in the text. Primary manufacturing involves steps 1, 2 and 3, while secondary manufacturing involves step 4.

Figure 6.1 Generalised manufacturing processing steps

Chemical synthesis Fermentation Extraction Formulation andpackaging

Raw materials IntermediatesActive pharmaceutical

ingredient (API)

Sterile API

Finished product

1 32 4

Source: Kaplan and Laing, 2005

1. Chemical synthesis: The first step in primary manufacturing. Solvents, substances and raw materials are used to generate bulk material products. The chemical reaction is performed in a reactor. The reagents are blended using a mixer or compressed air to generate a reaction product. The active ingredient is then separated from the other material. Water is used during the separation phase to separate the active ingredient from reaction by-products.

2. Fermentation: Involves the production and separation of medicinal chemicals like antibiotics and vitamins from microorganisms.

3. Extraction: The active ingredient is processed further to purify the product. Biological products are made during the extraction step. The organic chemicals are removed from vegetative materials or animal tissues to generate the product. Further separation processes can be performed to generate a final product. The final product is milled and prepared for packaging.

4. Formulation and packaging: The secondary manufacturing step. Formulation involves treating and modifying active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) into final products in different dosage forms such as tablets, emulsions and ointments. The APIs are diluted or incorporated with excipients before being stabilised into the varied pharmaceutical dosage forms. Excipients are inert materials such as sugar, starch and lactose, which determine the final physical characteristics of the products. During packaging, the final solid products are packed into relevant dosages.

6.1.4 Water in the pharmaceutical industry There are numerous grades of pharmaceutical water used to manufacture pharmaceutical products. These grades of water vary in terms of quality and the specific technologies used to generate them. The requirements for generating pharmaceutical grade water are prescribed under relevant pharmacopoeias. Pharmacopoeias will be discussed further on in the chapter.

The feedwater that is taken into a plant is expected to be of potable water quality. This can vary depending on the country or region the plant is operating in, as access to a suitable municipal source may be limited. In general, water can be obtained from numerous sources such as municipalities, groundwater and surface water sources. These sources may not all be deemed potable, particularly in developing nations. Pharmaceutical plants need to use different technologies to bring the feedwater to the relevant pharmaceutical grade water quality. The level of technologies used depends on the quality of the feedwater.

Water is used in the following applications at manufacturing plant sites:

• Process solvent: Water is used to transport or support chemical compounds used in reaction processes. The generated water is used in process streams.

• Product and process stream washes: Water is used to remove impurities from carriers, spent acids/bases, intermediates and products.

• Cleaning: Water is used to wash process equipment and floors.

6.1.4.1 Water consumption in the pharmaceutical industry

Typical pharmaceutical plants can use between 1,200 and 2,400 gal/hr (4.5–9.1 m³/hr) of water. Smaller plants can use 1,000 gal/hour (3.7 m³/hr). Very large plants can use up to 24,000 gal/hr (91 m³/hr).


Pharmaceutical // Process water requirements

6.2 Process water requirementsProcess water in the pharmaceutical industry refers to water of very high quality that meets set criteria. Water that meets the standards set out by the relevant pharmacopoeias will be deemed to be pharmaceutical grade.

6.2.1 Pharmacopoeias Pharmacopoeias set out the specifications for the characteristics, manufacture and use of pharmaceutical substances. Specifications and analytical procedures are used to determine requirements for pharmaceutical substances (including water), excipients and dosage forms . The standards for pharmaceutical grade water and pharmaceutical substances are provided in monographs.

The International Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Int.) is a collection of recommended specifications and analytical procedures to determine pharmaceutical substances, excipients and dosage forms. It is the only international pharmacopoeia and it can be used by WHO member states to develop their pharmaceutical requirements.

As of March 2012, there are currently 47 national pharmacopoeias and 2 regional/sub-regional pharmacopoeias across the globe. In countries where a pharmacopoeia has not been established, the global pharmaceutical giants typically refer to the most popular global pharmacopoeia standards. However, with indigenous firms in countries where the pharmacopoeia monographs are not set or stringent, there is an opportunity for smaller pharmaceutical firms to work to standards that are not up to international quality as the products are for a local market. But the tide is turning as a lot of developing nations are also demanding the use of internationally recognised standards.

The following pharmacopoeias are the most commonly referred to around the world. They will be of focus in this report.

• European Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur.)

• United States Pharmacopoeia (USP)

• Japanese Pharmacopoeia (JP)

6.2.2 European pharmacopoeia – pharmaceutical grade waterThe Ph. Eur. contains the standards for pharmaceutical grade water that is accepted for use in the manufacture of finished pharmaceutical products intended for sale and consumption within the European regions. The grades of water covered are shown in the following figure.

Figure 6.2 European pharmacopoeia grades of water

Grade Use of water Technology NotesPotable water Used for chemical synthesis

processes. Cleaning manufacturing equipment during the early stages of production, except where higher grades of water are required for cleaning.

N/A It is not a pharmaceutical grade and is not covered under a pharmacopoeia monograph.Plants are required to use potable water that meets the quality standards set by the relevant regulating body in the EU country.

Purified water (PW) Used for the preparation of medicinal products that do not require the use of sterile water, such as oral, nasal, ear preparations.

Ion exchangeDistillation Any other suitable method

PW is generated from potable feedwater.

Highly purified water (HPW) Used to manufacture products that require water with a high biological quality, except where WFI quality water is required.

Double-pass RO in conjunction with deionisation and UF

HPW meets the same quality standards as WFI. It is deemed to be less reliable when compared with the technology approach used for WFI.

Water for injection (WFI) Used for the production of medicines that will be administered via the parenteral route (injected).

Distillation is the only approved method as the primary concern is to ensure consistent microbiological quality.

Highest grade of pharmaceutical water available.WFI is generated from PW or potable feedwater.

Source: European Pharmacopoeia, 2009a; European Pharmacopoeia, 2009b



6.2.3 United States pharmacopoeia – Pharmaceutical grade waterThe USP covers several grades of water that are suitable for use in pharmaceutical purposes. The monographs specify the uses, acceptable methods of preparation and the quality standards of these grades of water. These waters can be divided into the following categories:

• Bulk waters: Typically produced and used on-site.

• Packaged waters: Typically produced, packaged and sterilised to preserve microbial quality throughout their packaged shelf life.

The grades of water covered are seen in the following figure.

Figure 6.3 USP grades of water

Grade Use of water Technology NotesPotable water Used for plant cleaning.

The prescribed source of feedwater for manufacturing bulk monographed pharmaceutical waters.

N/A It is a non-monographed manufacturing water. It must comply with U.S. EPA National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; The drinking water regulations of the European Union or Japan; The WHO Drinking Water Guidelines.

Purified water (PW)

Used as an excipient in the production of non-parenteral preparations.Cleaning certain equipment.Cleaning non-parenteral product contact components. Used for tests and assays where water is indicated.

Deionisation, distillation, ion exchange, RO, filtration.Other suitable purification procedures.

Potable feedwater is used to produce PW.PW must meet the set ionic and organic chemical purity standards.

Water for injection (WFI)

Used as an excipient in the production of parenteral and other preparations, where the product endotoxin content must be controlled. Cleaning certain equipment.Cleaning parenteral product contact components.

Distillation.Another purification process that is equivalent to or superior to distillation in the removal of chemicals and microorganisms.

WFI is generated from potable feedwater. WFI must meet the chemical requirements for PW, in addition to a bacterial endotoxin specification.WFI systems must be consistently validated.

Source: USP, 2006

In addition to the grades of water described in the figure above, there are several other pharmaceutical monograph waters in the USP. These include water for hemodialysis, pure/clean steam and five packaged monograph waters. The packaged forms are of either PW or WFI quality that have been sterilised to preserve their microbiological properties.


Pharmaceutical // Process water requirements

The following figure shows the treatment steps to achieve various pharmaceutical grades of water.

Figure 6.4 USP water for pharmaceutical applications

Water for hemodialysis

Water for hemodialysis (bulk packaged)

Purified water Water for injection

Packaging and sterilisation

Cleaning and ingredient water for parental

dosage forms

Analytical reagant water

Cleaning and ingredient water for non-parenteral

dosage forms

Sterile purified waterPurified water

(bulk packaged)

Water for injection (bulk packaged)Sterile water for injectionSterile water for irrigationBacteriostatic water for injectionSterile water for inhalation

If compatible withoutfurther purification

Typical treatment steps could include:

- Pre-filtration- Softening- Dechlorination- Deammonification- Organic scavenging

- Deionisation- Reverse osmosis- Distillation- Ultrafiltration- UV light

Unreactive packaging

Distillation or equivalent/ superior process for removing chemicals and microorganisms

PackagingSterilisation

Drinking water(Complying with U.S. EPA NPDWR

or drinking water regulations of EU or Japan or WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water)

Water for special pharmaceutical purposes (e.g. initial cleaning, API process

and ingredient water)

Source: USP, 2006



6.2.4 Japanese pharmacopoeia – Pharmaceutical grade waterThe JP covers different grades of water that are used in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products. The grades of water covered are shown in the following figure.

Figure 6.5 JP grades of water

Grade Use of water Technology NotesPotable water Used to generate

pharmaceutical grade water.N/A Must meet the quality standards

of water supplies specified under Article 4 of the Water Supply Law of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare Ministerial Ordinance No. 101 of May 30, 2003. Water must meet an ammonium limit test (no more than 0.05 mg/l).

Purified water (PW) Used to produce pharmaceutical excipients.

Hyperfiltration, which involves RO, UF, IX, distillation. A combination of these methods.

PW must be used immediately after purification. PW can be stored for a certain period of time if packed and stored in suitable containers that prevent microbial growth.

Sterile purified water Used to generate sterile pharmaceutical products

Sterilisation PW is used to generate sterile purified water by sterilisation.

Water for injection (WFI) Used to prepare injections. When preserved and sterilised in suitable containers, used as a solvent for injections.

DistillationRO-UFA combined system of RO and UF membranes.

WFI is generated from potable water or PW.When WFI is prepared by RO-UF, extra precaution is taken to prevent and remove microbial contamination within the system.

Source: Japanese Pharmacopoeia, 2006

6.2.5 Pharmaceutical grade water quality standards from USP, Ph. Eur. And JPThe water quality standards for PW and WFI from the USP, Ph. Eur. and JP are shown in the following figures.

Figure 6.6 Purified water quality standards from USP, Ph. Eur. And JP

Parameter USP Ph. Eur. JPProduction technology Deionisation, distillation, ion

exchange, RO, filtration or other suitable purification method

Ion exchange, distillation or other suitable method

RO/UF, distillation or a combination of these methods

Conductivity 1.3 μS/cm at 25 °C 4.3 μS/cm at 20 °C NCDTotal organic carbon (TOC) (mg/l) 0.5 0.5 Not specifiedNitrates (mg/l) Not specified 0.2 NCDAmmonium (mg/l) Not specified 0.2* 0.05Aluminium (mg/l) Not specified Maximum 0.01 Not specifiedHeavy metals (mg/l) 0.1 0.1 NCDBacteria (CFU/100ml) 100 100 Not specifiedEndotoxin (EU/ml) Not specified 0.25 Not specifiedResidue on evaporation (%) Not specified 0.001* 0.001

NCD – No change or colour development occurs during the specified analytical test*Standards apply only to purified water in containers under Ph. Eur. regulations

Source: European Pharmacopoeia, 2009a; European Pharmacopoeia, 2009b; Japanese Pharmacopoeia, 2006; USP, 2006

6.2.5.1 PW comparison

The technology requirements vary for the production of PW. The JP has the most stringent requirements as it mandates the use of only RO-UF or distillation. The USP and Ph. Eur. allow the use of different technologies and other suitable methods.

Under the JP not all parameters have standards. Compliance is achieved by conducting specific tests and meeting required results. Results are typically in the form of colour or other changes.


Pharmaceutical // Drivers

Figure 6.7 WFI quality standards from USP, Ph. Eur. and JP

Parameter USP Ph. Eur. JPProduction technology Distillation or purification

process proven to be equal to or superior to distillation

Distillation only Distillation or RO/UF

Conductivity (μS/cm at 25 °C or equivalent at other temperatures)

1.3 1.3 1.3

TOC (mg/l) 0.5 0.5 0.5Nitrates (mg/l) Not specified 0.2 NCDAmmonium (mg/l) Not specified 0.2* 0.05Aluminium (mg/l) Not specified Maximum 0.01 N/AHeavy metals (mg/l) 0.1 0.1 NCDBacteria (CFU/100ml) 10 10 10 Endotoxin (EU/ml) 0.25 0.25 0.25 Residue on evaporation (%) Not specified 0.004 (volume ≤10ml)*

0.003 (volume >10ml)*0.001 0.004 (volume ≤10ml), 0.003 (volume >10ml)**

NCD – No change or colour development occurs during the specified analytical test*Standards apply only to sterilised water for injections under Ph. Eur. regulations**When WFI is prepared using RO-UF under JP regulationsSource: European Pharmacopoeia, 2009a; European Pharmacopoeia, 2009b; Japanese Pharmacopoeia, 2006; USP, 2006

6.2.5.2 WFI comparison

The USP has the most lenient requirements in terms of technology choices, while the JP allows distillation and RO-UF. The technologies that are suitable for production of WFI have been hotly debated in the industry. The Ph. Eur. is the only pharmacopoeia which states that distillation is the only acceptable method for producing WFI.

In 1999 lobbying groups from national delegations in the EU requested an evaluation to allow the use of RO to generate WFI. Following a major international symposium, it was decided that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of RO to make WFI due to the safety concerns it would pose.

The harmonisation of pharmacopoeia requirements would be welcomed in the industry. The current approach makes it difficult for pharmaceutical companies to market their products globally. For example, a product manufactured according to the U.S. pharmacopoeia requirements cannot be sold in Europe, and so on. Harmonising the pharmacopoeia standards would benefit the water and manufacturing companies by enabling them to operate globally more easily. However, the EU’s unequivocal stance on membrane technologies for WFI makes the harmonisation of requirements unlikely in the near future.

6.2.6 Process water overviewThe grades of water are used for different applications based on their qualities. For example, pharmaceutical grade water rather than potable water can be required for cleaning equipment, closures and containers. This is because the grade of water that is used in the final rinse step should be of the same quality that is used in the final stage of manufacture of the API excipient used in a medicinal product.

In general, pharmaceutical plants can take a pragmatic approach when determining the quality of cleaning water to use on equipment. Some plants can produce multiple products such as oral preparations that require PW as well as parenteral products that demand WFI. In these situations, the company may decide to utilise only WFI to remove the need to install, maintain and validate two different water treatment system loops, making their operations more efficient to run.

6.3 Drivers In the pharmaceutical industry, there are three main drivers that influence capital expenditure on water and wastewater treatment technologies and the adoption of water efficiency approaches: cost, brand and regulations.

6.3.1 Cost The pharmaceutical industry is very cost-conscious as well as very conservative in nature, which makes technology development difficult. However, there are moves being made towards more advanced approaches. These include using evaporators to reduce the volume of wastewater generated and technology options for achieving WFI. The use of such technologies that can lower water consumption and associated costs and reduce discharge volumes and discharge costs and surcharge taxes is a major industry driver, as this helps the bottom line and these companies are profit focused. The caveat is the technologies must be rigorously



tested before being accepted. Adoption of such technologies can be many years in the making, as numerous trials have to be put in place in different sectors of the industry. Trials help to provide more confidence in the use of such technologies, as companies have good experiences during these trial phases. As time goes on, certain innovative technologies will make the grade with the help of good trial projects.

6.3.2 Brand Brand image is a significant factor for pharmaceutical companies. Adopting a sustainability agenda on the basis of water and energy is a strong approach that is gaining momentum.

6.3.2.1 Energy efficiency

One of the primary drivers within the pharmaceutical industry is the need to improve energy efficiencies. The production of pharmaceutical grade water requires the use of membrane-based systems and distillation technologies, which are notorious for their energy consumption. In addition, the traditional approach of recirculating water during standby periods to prevent microbial growth within the water treatment systems also results in major energy consumption. Companies are therefore looking for ways to reduce their energy consumption and be more cost effective.

6.3.2.2 Water efficiency

Sustainability goals and green image improvements are of growing importance for pharmaceutical companies. They want to show their customers, the public and their shareholders that they are good environmental stewards and efficient water users. Being more water efficient can go hand in hand with improving energy efficiencies. Energy consumption is very high in the pharmaceutical industry: it can be even higher than water consumption. A primary target in the industry is to reduce water consumption, particularly in water stressed areas. Water reuse, reducing discharge volumes and reducing costs are important strategies, as the industry is very cost focused. Corporate giants have set aside significant budgets to develop strategies to meet sustainability targets for reducing water use, which they can showcase to their shareholders and consumers. However, new approaches to achieve sustainability goals may add an element of risk to their operations. As such, it is necessary that such risk factors are fully considered during the decision making process.

6.3.3 RegulationsSustainability is encouraging companies to be good environmental citizens. Companies are ensuring that they comply with wastewater discharge regulations and aim to minimise their wastewater streams and reuse their water. In countries around the globe, wastewater regulations are becoming more stringent, with greater restrictions on the contaminants that can be discharged to sewers or water bodies. Compliance failures are costly, as are the growing costs associated with discharge.

Regulations are driving the industry to reduce wastewater streams and improve discharge standards to ultimately save costs. However, in regions where the penalties for non-compliance are not too steep, some companies may prefer to pay the fine rather than invest in the wastewater treatment equipment.

In addition, meeting the regulated process water standards is very important in the industry. Failures in water quality and in the subsequent products can be very detrimental to a brand.

6.3.4 Industry trends

6.3.4.1 Geographic shift

The U.S. and Western European pharmaceutical markets are currently saturated, as the healthcare systems in these regions are well established with numerous pharmaceutical facilities already in place. However, there are some new facilities being built in Western Europe and the United States.

It is expected that in the coming years, developing nations with large populations will see a rise in healthcare and manufacturing facilities. The shift towards developing nations is attributed to population growth, an ageing population, improvements to quality of life and the need for first generation medicines. There is currently growing demand for pharmaceutical products to meet their needs. Manufacturing is performed locally to reduce logistical issues for bulk liquids and eliminate import duties. China, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and Brazil are some of the countries with increased demand for pharmaceutical products.

The market in India is following a different approach. The Indian market was initially more cost driven than demand driven. The Indian facilities market currently has a short-term focus. The companies manufacturing in India are meeting the growing demand of the European and U.S. markets, and facilities in India may eventually replace facilities in Europe. A lot of the companies operating in India are also expanding in Europe. This approach is slowly developing their pharmaceutical market, which is related to their drive for medications and who pays for it.

The patent cliff is causing consolidation in the pharmaceutical market. Consolidation is a factor that is influencing the geographical shift. Companies are changing plant locations due to excess plant capacities caused by the mergers and acquisitions. Large players are looking for new markets to participate in. They are developing processes to replicate first generation processes


Pharmaceutical // Process water technologies

in developing economies to make the products more readily available. Companies can also form partnerships to develop new products to bring to the new markets. Overall more innovation is expected to take place in the developing economies, in addition to simple replication.

There is a boom occurring with small pharmaceutical companies manufacturing cheap medications due to the lapsed patents in developing nations. Despite the fact that their generic medications are cheaper, these companies typically still demand the best water treatment systems available despite the higher costs.

6.4 Process water technologies

6.4.1 Typical treatment trainsAs discussed in the previous section, the most important thing about producing process water is following the regulations laid down in the relevant pharmacopoeia. If the regulations state that a particular technology must be used, then there is no leeway. For example, the European pharmacopoeia mandates that only distillation technologies may be used generate WFI.

Another factor that dictates technology choice is the feedwater quality. There is a strong preference for using drinking water as feedwater because it is of certified quality. However, in some regions there is no choice but to use local groundwater or surface water as feedwater, meaning that additional screening and clarification are required.

A typical process water technology train consists of:

• Screening / clarification (where necessary): Used when drinking water is not available. Removes suspended solids.

• Pretreatment: Protects the downstream systems by removing particulate matter.

• Softening: Prevents scaling in downstream systems by removing hardness ions.

• Disinfection/sanitisation: Kills and removes microorganisms from process water and from the water treatment system.

• Deionisation: Used to generate purified water by removing ions, through membrane or electrical means.

• Distillation: Used to generate WFI.

There is a preference throughout the industry to avoid adding chemicals at any point in the train. This is to avoid having to remove the chemicals at a later stage. This means that using an ion exchange resin that requires chemical regeneration, or using chlorine as a disinfectant are not favoured options.

The technology options for each of these steps are summarised in the following figure:

Figure 6.8 Technology options for treatment steps

Stage Typical technology options NotesScreening/clarification Screen, settling tank / clarifier. Only needed if drinking water is unavailable as feedwater.Pretreatment Sand filter

Multimedia filter Cartridge filter

Pretreatment removes solid contaminants and particulate matter, which would otherwise inhibit equipment performance and shorten the working life of membrane and distillation systems.

Softening Activated carbon filter IX possible but suboptimal because of requirement to remove regeneration chemicals.

Disinfection/sanitisation Thermal (e.g. steam, hot water) UV Chemical (e.g. ozone, chlorine)

Chemical disinfectants are generally avoided. UV step(s) may be placed at a number of different points.

Deionisation UF, EDI followed by RO UF step(s) may be placed at a number of different points.Distillation MED

Vapour compressionDistillation units are used to provide WFI quality water.

Source: GWI



The following sections discuss the technology options and factors affecting the decision making process.

6.4.2 Pretreatment Pretreatment involves the use of coarse treatment technologies to remove solid contaminants that are present in the feedwater source. Pretreatment removes particulate matter, which would otherwise inhibit equipment performance and shorten the working life of membrane and distillation systems.

6.4.3 Activated carbon filtersActivated carbon filters adsorb and remove low molecular weight organic materials and oxidising additives, such as chlorine and chloramines, from the water. These filters improve the water quality and protect against problems with membranes, resins and stainless steel surfaces downstream. Chlorine must be removed from the feedwater if it is intended for use in RO or distillation units. Distillation systems are operated at elevated temperatures. If chlorine is present in the feedwater, it can cause the stainless steel to stress, crack and corrode.

6.4.4 Softeners (ion exchange)Softeners use sodium-based cation exchange resins to remove ions that cause hardness in water. Softeners can also be used to remove ammonium ions. Hardness ions must be removed to prevent the fouling or interference with the performance of the downstream membrane and distillation units. Softener units are typically located either upstream or downstream of disinfectant removal units. The softener must be located downstream of the disinfectant removal unit if it is required to remove ammonium ions. This is because the disinfectant unit may liberate ammonium ions from neutralised chloramine disinfectants. Water softeners require the use of chemicals to regenerate the resins. The addition of chemicals is not favoured in the pharmaceutical industry.

6.4.5 Disinfection/sanitisationMicrobial growth is a major issue in the water treatment systems. Microorganisms present in the treatment system tend to aggregate such that their cells adhere to each other on a surface, forming a biofilm. Microbial control is primarily achieved using sanitisation methods. The water treatment systems can be sanitised using thermal, chemical or UV methods.

6.4.5.1 Thermal methods

Thermal methods are considered to be the best options for disinfection. Thermal methods involve the use of periodically or continuously circulating hot water and the use of steam. Temperatures of at least 80 °C are most commonly used for this purpose, but continuously recirculating water of at least 65 °C is also effective if used in insulated stainless steel distribution systems. Thermal methods control the development of biofilms. When using intermittent applications, thermal methods continuously inhibit biofilm growth or destroy the microorganisms within biofilms. However, thermal methods are ineffective at removing established biofilms. After sanitisation has concluded, the inactivated biofilms are still present and can then become a nutrient source for rapid biofilm regrowth. A combination of thermal and periodic chemical sanitisation can be more effective.

6.4.5.2 Chemical methods

Chemical methods involve the use of oxidising agents such as halogenated compounds, ozone, hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid or combinations of these compounds. Ozone, hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid are able to oxidise bacteria and biofilms by forming reactive peroxides and free radicals. Halogenated compounds are difficult to f lush out of the treatment system and may leave the biofilms intact.

The addition of sanitising chemicals is not the favoured disinfection approach in the industry. Any chemicals added must be removed from the water at a later stage. Carbon filters are used to remove the residual chemicals in the systems. From this point onward, no more chemical sanitant is introduced to the system. A UV unit can be placed after the carbon filter to remove any bacteria that have bred in the carbon filter.

6.4.5.3 UV radiation (In-line)

UV radiation is used to continuously sanitise water that is circulating in the water treatment system. UV units inactivate a high percentage of microorganisms that f low through the unit. However, UV units are unable to directly control established biofilms upstream or downstream of the unit. UV units must be sized appropriately to the water f low to ensure effective sanitisation. To improve UV effects and prolong the interval between system sanitisations, the units can be located immediately upstream of a microbially retentive filter. Alternatively UV units can be coupled with conventional thermal or chemical sanitisation methods.



6.4.5.4 Clean-in-place (CIP)

CIP strategies are employed within the pharmaceutical plants to clean and sanitise the equipment, pipes, valves in the water treatment systems line and the pharmaceutical manufacturing equipment. This approach is more water efficient and provides effective disinfection of the entire system.

6.4.6 DeionisationDeionisation and continuous electrodeionisation (EDI) are effective methods for removing cations and anions from water streams to improve the chemical quality attributes. Conventional deionisation units can start with unpurified source water, whereas EDI units must start with partially purified water. This is because EDI units typically cannot produce purified water (PW) quality when starting with a heavier ion load from a low purity water source.

6.4.7 Membrane based technologiesThere are numerous membrane-based technologies that are used in the pharmaceutical industry for the production of pharmaceutical grade water. These include the following:

6.4.7.1 UF

UF systems are used to remove endotoxins from the water stream. One of the most effective placements of UF units is at the front end of the plant to directly treat the incoming feedwater. Placement of UF units at the front end of the plant prevents bacteria and viruses from entering into the treatment system. This helps to maintain a very low microbial load throughout the system.

Microbes can build up in the treatment systems, particularly in the carbon filters. Placing the UF units upfront will inhibit bacterial growth in the carbon filters and reduce the need to thermally sanitise the carbon filters.

Alternatively, UF units can be placed after the carbon filters. This is a practical approach as the carbon filters will grow bacteria, which have to be removed.

Another configuration is to place UF units at the tail end of the membrane-based plant that is manufacturing PW or HPW. This approach has its benefits because the UF membrane will capture the microbes that are shed from the membrane-based/EDI system.

6.4.7.2 RO

RO systems can be used to achieve chemical, microbial and endotoxin quality improvements in a water treatment system. An additional pass of permeate through a second RO stage may be necessary to achieve adequate permeate purity. Effective pretreatment, system configuration variations and chemical additives may be needed to achieve the desired performance and reliability of RO membranes.

6.4.7.3 Distillation

Distillation units are used to provide very pure water via thermal vaporisation, mist elimination and water vapour condensation. The units are available in a variety of designs such as single effect, multiple effect (MED) and vapour compression distillation (VCD). MED and VCD are the most popular in the pharmaceutical industry.

MED and VCD differ in their pretreatment needs. MED systems typically require RO and deionisation for pretreatment. VCD systems can require only water softeners as the pretreatment option. Overall, the pretreatment option selected is always a function of the feedwater quality.

6.4.8 Technology trends

6.4.8.1 Disinfection technology trends

Thermal methods are commonly used in the pharmaceutical industry. The main issue is the high costs and carbon footprints associated with their use.

UV radiation is widely accepted across the globe and is extensively used, particularly in the United States. UV will only disinfect at the point of sanitisation. As such, it is necessary to periodically run a residual type disinfectant through the water treatment system. This typically involves using ozonation.

Ozonation is a popular approach in Europe. Ozonation is considered to be a progressive approach to disinfection. Ozone destruction equipment must be installed to remove ozone from the water system. The pharmaceutical industry is starting to look closer at using ozone to replace thermal systems, because of the high cost and carbon footprint associated with thermal systems. In addition the industry is looking towards green technology approaches.



The International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE) is in the process of releasing an ozone-UV guideline manual for the use of ozone in conjunction with UV in the pharmaceutical industry. The release of this manual is expected to result in a trend towards adopting this methodology and a move away from thermal sanitisation.

6.4.8.2 Distillation technology trends

MED is the most predominant means of distilling water in Europe. It consumes a lot of steam and has a relatively low economy. The MED market is currently very strong. This can be attributed to the conservative nature of the industry, as MED is known and trusted. MED systems require RO as a pretreatment step, which consumes a lot of water and is expensive.

VCD units are growing in popularity in the industry, particularly in the U.S. and in other parts of the world. VCD is a very efficient system that allows the use of simpler pretreatment methodologies and does not require the use of RO units. VCD is commonly used for large water treatment systems. VCD is considered to be more efficient and less expensive than MED. However, due to the size of VCD units, it can be deemed to be more expensive and somewhat more water consuming than MED.

The pharmaceutical industry is very traditional in its approach to technologies. Manufacturers and governments trust MED systems and will not switch to VCD, despite the improved efficiency of VCD systems. Reduced water rejection, lower energy consumption and cost savings are not enough to sway pharmaceutical companies from MED. MED systems have served them well for decades, so the risk of switching to VCD is too great.

6.4.8.3 RO trends

RO units are used to pretreat feedwater for MED systems. RO units are used ahead of MED to remove scale-forming species. RO is typically not required for VCD configured systems. This is because vapour compression operates at a lower temperature than MED. However, the industry tends to expect the same approach for VCD, although it is not necessary to use a membrane beforehand.

Removing RO from the water treatment system reduces the volume of reject water from the plant. It is not necessary to use RO systems for VCD and regulations do not stipulate the use of RO for pretreatment. Despite this, companies are conservative and typically still demand a membrane system upstream of the VCD unit for pretreatment.

Companies are slowly coming to the realisation that membrane systems are not necessary for VCD pretreatment. However, if a membrane system is demanded, UF would be the ideal option instead of RO. UF units remove the bacterial load with lower water reject rates. UF units also have fewer membrane failures due to their tolerance to chlorine and the ability to backwash the filters.

The risk averse nature of pharmaceutical companies is a factor that hinders the replacement of RO with UF units as a pretreatment option.

6.4.8.4 UF/MF/NF trends

UF and MF are the most heavily used membranes in the manufacturing of the finished pharmaceutical products. UF and MF units are particularly used in biotechnology when manufacturing a drug product starting with a genetically modified cell such as E. coli or yeast. NF membranes are also widely used in pharmaceutical manufacturing.

On the process water side of the industry, UF is commonly utilised. These membranes have been used in the pharmaceutical industry for several decades, with the majority of the manufacturers coming from the U.S. market. Germany and Japan also widely utilise UF membranes.

Overall the use of UF membranes can significantly reduce the water consumption within a plant. The trend towards UF is growing. The potential to replace RO with UF units is being recognised more and more in the industry.

There is no general trend towards the use of MF units to produce pharmaceutical grade water. Despite the lower capital expenditure costs of MF units, the volumes involved make it inherently inefficient to use long term.

6.4.8.5 Distillation versus membrane based technologies

There are differing pharmacopoeia requirements for the production of WFI. This has sparked debate and lobbying in the industry, particularly by equipment manufacturers. Only the Ph. Eur. states distillation as the only method to achieve WFI. Other pharmacopoeias allow alternate methods to be used to generate WFI. Despite this allowance, the conservative nature of the industry means that distillation to make WFI is still preferred. There is a comfort level associated with using distillation. This is attributed to decades of proven service that membrane-based systems cannot provide.

The distillation equipment market for WFI is currently growing and is very well positioned. Distillation is an efficient process that produces consistent quality water in a one-step process of vaporisation and condensation.

Alternative methods can be used to generate WFI. Methods include using a series of filters such as RO/UF and EDI. The use of multiple units can be problematic. When alternative methods are used, validation and monitoring equipment must be installed. Validation of the water treatment system is conducted on alternative systems to ensure the microbial quality of the water. The



use of all of these technologies adds to the level of equipment needed to operate the plant. This is very beneficial to equipment vendors, who would typically only have to supply a distillation unit.

The water-energy nexus is a major factor as distillation is very energy consumptive. This translates to high costs. Therefore it is possible to build a membrane-based plant that is less expensive than a distillation plant in terms of front capital cost. This is due in part to the lower energy consumption at the membrane-based plant. When the operating cost is taken into account, membrane replacements, water quality validation and monitoring systems are very expensive. Over the life cycle of the plant, these costs make membrane-based plants more expensive.

Some industry players see distillation as the old way and membranes as the new trend. This is due to the potential for cost savings from lower energy consumption, despite the need for expensive validation systems. To a certain degree there is a push towards membranes being observed. However, the full adoption of alternative methods to make WFI is still limited due to the conservative nature of the industry.

The following figure shows a generalised schematic of the technologies involved in a pharmaceutical water treatment system.

Figure 6.9 Generalised schematic of a pharmaceutical water treatment system

FeedwaterActivated

carbon filter

UVCartridge

filter

UV

MEDVCD

Pure steam generator

WFI storage

tank

Cartridge filterMultimedia filter

Organic scavengerSand filter

UF Softener

Pretreatment

Single or double pass

RO

CEDI or mixed bed deioniser

UV Cartridge filter

Hot water or steam

sanitisation

UFCeramic membrane

Hollow fibre membrane

Purified water tank

SanitisationChemical

OzoneHot water

Steam

Storage &distribution

Sanitisation

Distribution to pharmaceuticalmanufacturing plant

Distribution to pharmaceuticalmanufacturing plant

Generation treatment

Storage &distribution

Generationtreatment

Source: Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies, 2010




6.5.1 Wastewater characteristicsWastewater streams can be discharged directly to sewers for treatment at municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). This option is only available where such infrastructure is in place. Wastewater treatment for streams generated from primary pharmaceutical manufacturing needs to address organic material, total suspended solids (TSS), ammonia, toxicity and pH. Numerous chemical compounds are also present in wastewater streams, including organic and inorganic acids, solvents and active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs).

6.5.1.1 Micropollutants

The main specialist contaminants of concern are micropollutants, such as hormones, antibiotics and endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs). WWTPs that accept pharmaceutical waste monitor the wastewater streams. Heavy fines and surcharges can be levied if regulated compounds are found in wastewater streams.

Regulators can identify new micropollutants that must be regulated. The identified micropollutant must be removed from wastewater streams. Pharmaceutical plants that have the micropollutant present in their discharge must then conduct extensive research to develop an appropriate treatment protocol.

Pilot trials are conducted with water technology companies. The trials are performed to prove the efficiency and efficacy of the technologies in removing the micropollutant. Following the completion of the trial, tests are carried out to ensure the micropollutant is removed to the parts-per-trillion level. The project can then be appropriately scaled up.

Micropollutants can be treated using membrane-based technologies such as UF. Micropollutants present in the waste stream can be concentrated and removed.

6.5.1.2 Wastewater microbial loads

The microbial loads in the wastewater can be too high to be discharged directly to sewers. This is because the microbes present in the wastewater stream have the potential to interfere with the municipalities’ treatment system. In such situations, a UV unit may be used at the point of discharge. The UV unit will significantly reduce the final microbial load in the discharged wastewater stream.


6.6.1 Technology categorisationThere are numerous technologies that are used to treat the wastewater generated from pharmaceutical manufacturing. The technologies can be categorised into several groups, as shown in the following figure.


Treatment TechnologiesPrimary treatment Grease traps, skimmers, filters, clarifiers Flotation Dissolved air flotation, oil water separators Aerobic treatment Membrane bioreactor (MBR),

Moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR)Anaerobic treatment Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB),

Expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB), Continuous stirred-tank reactor (CSTR)

Membrane technologies Ceramic UF/MF, RODisinfection Chlorination, ozonation, UVEvaporation Evaporators, crystallisersSludge management Dewatering, filtration, anaerobic digestion, drying, fluidised bed incinerationValue from wastewater UASB, EGSB, CSTR, liquid/liquid extraction, macro porous polymer extraction (MPPE)Metal recovery Membrane filtration, physical/chemical treatment technologiesOrganics removal Activated carbon, advanced chemical oxidationColour removal Adsorption, chemical oxidationToxicity RO, ion exchange, activated carbonDissolved solids RO, evaporation

Source: GWI; IFC, 2007


Pharmaceutical // Water reuse strategies

6.6.1.1 Wastewater treatment trends

The standard treatment flow is to clarify the wastewater, perform dissolved air f lotation and then biologically treat using an aerobic system. MBBR aerobic systems are currently somewhat routinely used in the industry compared to 10–15 years ago. Aerobic systems are used more commonly than anaerobic systems to treat pharmaceutical wastewater.

There is a growing trend within the pharmaceutical industry towards zero liquid discharge (ZLD). Following aerobic treatment, a filter press is used to form a cake. The cake can be incinerated to generate energy or it may be suitable for use as a fertiliser. All offending contaminants must be removed before it can be used as a fertiliser. The dewatered liquid from the filter press is then sent to the evaporator unit. The evaporator generates a clean distillate, suitable for reuse or discharge.

6.7 Water reuse strategies

6.7.1 Water reuse in the pharmaceutical industryWater reuse has relatively limited adoption within the pharmaceutical industry. Treated wastewater is typically only used in non-product contact applications. Water can be reused in the following applications:

• Utilities (boiler, cooling systems, etc)

• Supplementary feedwater

• Ancillary applications such as irrigation and cleaning

• General sanitation

• Non-validated water system lines, used to manufacture products such as toothpaste and mouthwash. These products require high quality water, but the water does not have to be validated in the same way as pharmaceutical grade waters.

However, in some pharmaceutical processes, it may be necessary to use pharmaceutical grade water for f loor washing at production sites. This helps to minimise contamination of the production area. Using higher grade water for cleaning removes a common application for treated wastewater.

6.7.1.1 Factors promoting water reuse

The main factors promoting water reuse applications in the pharmaceutical industry are as follows:

• Operating costs can be very high when dealing with water management. Using water more efficiently helps to protect the bottom line. Water reuse helps reduce direct expenditure on water purchases, treatment and discharge costs. Companies can conduct water balance calculations to understand their usage and determine the avenues to optimise their water systems using water reuse strategies.

• Sustainability goals are very important to pharmaceutical companies. Adopting water reuse strategies helps companies to showcase their green credentials and meet their sustainability agendas. Companies can also use alternative water sources such as stormwater and rainwater to provide water savings, further showcasing their commitment to sustainability.

• Strengthening wastewater discharge regulations is driving water reuse in the industry. In countries or regions where regulations require that wastewater streams must be recovered and reused, there is an added incentive towards reuse. Noncompliance with regulations will result in hefty fines and penalties. There is potential for the selective recovery of proprietary compounds from wastewater streams. Recovery is achieved by using membrane-based technologies such as MF, UF, NF, RO and ceramic membranes.

Pharmaceutical product safety is very important in this sector. Therefore the adoption of water reuse strategies must not in any way limit or compromise the durability and efficiency of the water systems expected in the industry.

6.7.1.2 Water reuse limitations

There is currently no potential for water reuse to manufacture pharmaceutical grade water. The approach may be possible in the future but regulations would need to play a heavy role in promoting this approach. The main factors limiting the adoption of water reuse strategies are as follows:

• The current regulatory environment coupled with the risk averse nature of the industry are limiting the water reuse trend. Companies do not want to implement any strategies that can add a level of risk to their operations.

• A limiting factor is that pharmacopoeia regulations stipulate using drinking water quality to make pharmaceutical grade water. This requires the wastewater to be treated, constantly monitored and validated as drinking water before it can be used for production. In addition, the wastewater that is generated from this industry is highly variable. This is problematic because of the difficulty to develop a consistent treatment approach to meet the variable streams.



6.7.2 Water reuse trendsThe major trend in water reuse involves the capture of RO reject water. Companies with installed RO systems can reduce their water losses on the RO end. The reject water from the RO units can be captured. This water can be used in numerous applications on-site to reduce the volumes of water that are discharged into the sewers.

Water reuse is more prominent in developing nations affected by water scarcity. Reuse is also popular in regions where access to good water quality is limited. Companies use water reuse strategies because the qualities achieved are very high and the process is very cost effective.

6.8 Supply chain analysisThe pharmaceutical industry is very conservative in nature. The industry does not gamble or take unnecessary risks with regards to water production, and it does not easily entertain new technologies or approaches. The availability of a new, innovative and highly efficient technology or solution is not enough to sway this conservative industry to adopt it. Pharmaceutical companies want to use their tried, tested and regulator approved strategies. In general, companies do not want to be the first to try a technology. They would rather be the second or third to adopt the technology after it has been proven.

The traditional nature of the industry makes it difficult for companies to thrive in the market. But there are several factors that can help improve success in the market. A strong track record is one of the most critical success factors for water technology vendors operating in this market. Reliability, technology specification quality, process guarantees and the ability to deliver consistent services in short lead times are also important.

6.8.1 Procurement processThe majority of pharmaceutical project tenders are published, but the key to success is to be on the vendor list. This is not always the case, as the vendor lists are at times not fully adhered to. Prior relationships can result in being awarded a contract. Relationship building is therefore very important to market survival.

Turnkey projects are more common in the Asian and Indian markets. Greenfield sites are common in the Asian pharmaceutical market. Turnkey projects are very efficient and can result in a lot of repeat business.

Turnkey projects are not as popular in Europe or in the United States, where technical collaborations are more prevalent. Such collaborations are used to solve specific reuse or discharge issues or process improvement solutions. Currently few greenfield sites are being built in the U.S. or Europe.

6.8.1.1 Technology purchasing and outsourcing process

At the start of the procurement process for a new manufacturing plant, an engineering firm is typically hired to design the process and construct the plant. A contractor will then be hired who decides which technology suppliers to buy from. Contractors can purchase equipment from multiple suppliers. But there are situations where the client requests a one-stop shop as they only want to deal with one company. In this situation, reputable service providers are approached to supply the entire system under a turnkey model.

If a piecemeal approach is taken, Architecture & Engineering (A&E) firms tend to provide procurement services on an hourly billable rate. This is in contrast to the fixed price associated with the turnkey models.

To determine the ideal technologies to purchase, pharmaceutical companies can use in-house engineers or contract architects, engineers or vendors that are active in the industry. Companies may decide to make the technology purchases in-house. Alternatively companies can outsource technology purchasing to the vendor that built the plant or to the architect that designed the plant. Typically the vendor makes the decisions regarding technologies and equipment purchases.

6.8.1.2 Operating and maintenance

Pharmaceutical companies operate the water treatment plants. They do not want to risk handing the process over to a vendor as they are liable for the pharmaceutical products they manufacture. Companies do not want a third party in control of such a crucial part of their system.

The water treatment plants are generally very easy to operate, especially when compared to running large-scale desalination plants. This makes the need for the vendors to operate the plant redundant. The vendors are, however, still required for equipment maintenance.

Overall, the pharmaceutical companies can hire architects, engineers, contractors and equipment vendors to build and stock their plants. Once the plant is completed, the pharmaceutical company will entirely operate the system.

With regards to wastewater, pharmaceutical companies are starting to see the potential of outsourcing operations to service providers. This trend is expected to grow as the importance of wastewater discharge continues to gain traction in the industry.


Pharmaceutical // Supply chain analysis

6.8.1.3 Local versus international suppliers

In developing nations, the regulations are not as strict and cheaper technologies are readily available. In these cases, local equipment suppliers can be used. However, international suppliers have dominance in the market simply because they are able to meet high standards. At the local level, if the international players can support the plant on the ground, they are the preferred choice.

Developing nations are now moving with the times and reacting to strengthening regulations within their regions. Additionally, it is impossible to market their products in other regions around the world unless they use internationally recognised standards. International suppliers are seen as the best choice to meet these standards.

Supplier selection can vary depending on the technology or equipment in question. For example, companies may decide to work with local pipe manufacturers but may insist on an international supplier for the membrane systems. The main issue with using local suppliers for the relatively low specification technologies or equipment is that they may not all use internationally recognised installation protocols. International suppliers are generally seen as the safer option.


Service providers arrange the one-stop shop solutions to clients. The one-stop shop approach is a very efficient and cost effective approach. This is because the provider is working to a fixed price. There is generally a lot of technology and process understanding with such companies, which is transferred to the client.

The approach taken by A&E companies is to provide separate technologies. A&E companies follow a billing rate approach. There is therefore potential to deviate from plans, which can be very inefficient for the client.

Overall, the one-stop shop approach is very popular in the industry and it can result in a lot of repeat business due to the associated efficiencies. The one-stop shop approach is liked by pharmaceutical companies, particularly on the process water end. However, the vast majority of the work done in the pharmaceutical industry is run by the major A&E firms, so in general, the piecemeal approach is more common in the industry.

6.8.2 Market entryThere is a need for excellence in the pharmaceutical industry. Vendors must show excellence in their project execution, technology or system efficiencies and strong track records. These factors are crucial to entry and maintaining a presence in the market. Vendors that provide a great service can count on repeat business due to the quality of the work.

A direct approach can be successfully applied in the industry. Established companies can use the direct approach when bringing a new technology to the market. Taking a direct approach is important because waiting for requests for quotes (RFQs) can be seen as being too late. This is because at the RFQ stage it is too late to add value as clients are simply checking prices and comparing bids.

Relationships are a big factor in the industry. Pharmaceutical companies like to work with companies they know and have worked with time and time again. Without prior relationships in place, entry to the market is limited. Fostered relationships are very important in the industry.

However, what is unique in this industry is the attitude of “Better the devil you know”. Even when a vendor does not provide a very efficient service, a pharmaceutical company is still likely to work with that company in the future. This is particularly the case when they have worked with the company before and the pharmaceutical company is confident that the technology company can make the necessary changes and meet their needs. Despite the poor result of one project, pharmaceutical companies consider them to be less risky than a company they have never worked with before.


The established market players that have developed long-standing relationships with the pharmaceutical companies are the dominant players in the market. The conservative nature of the industry has made it difficult for companies to enter the pharmaceutical market. This has helped the companies in place to secure and maintain their market presence. It has also limited the manoeuvrability of their competitors who may be very active in other industrial markets.

6.8.2.2 New entrants

Entering the pharmaceutical market as a new player is very difficult. There are major barriers to entry that are difficult to overcome. New entrants will face significant challenges trying to get their first project, as pharmaceutical companies are very risk averse. New entrants have no history in the market and are considered to be too much of a risk. New entrants do not have a brand identity or history. A valid approach is to partner with a more established company to bring a new technology to the market.

The “Better the devil you know” attitude is particularly detrimental for new entrants. Subpar project achievements would be reason enough to change vendors in other industries, but in the pharmaceutical arena, this is just not reason enough to cut ties and consider new market players.



When a new player comes into the market, the success of their first project is crucial to their survival. It is essential that the new entrants build a solid name in the industry. Project failures will almost certainly result in the company being blacklisted within the industry.

6.8.2.3 Opportunities for new entrants

Directly approaching pharmaceutical companies is not a successful strategy for new entrants. Even when a technology developed by the new entrant fulfils a particular industry need, a direct approach is not advised. A viable option is to form relationships with the service providers. The vendors can purchase their technology and enter into partnership agreements. This is particularly effective when dealing with new, innovative technologies, such as technologies to handle micropollutants.

The primary issue with partnering is that the new entrant will have to give up control and profit. This is a sacrifice that has to be made to enter the market. Partnering is essential because the technology needs to be scaled up and fully integrated into a water treatment system. It is therefore more effective to approach a service provider to integrate and scale up the treatment capacity.

In addition, technology adoption can be very slow in this industry. It can take many years, even decades. This is very difficult for smaller players and new entrants, as they need the technology to generate revenue quickly. The long time horizons for technology adoption make it even less appealing to work with new entrants. This is because the pharmaceutical companies are not guaranteed the new entrant will still be around in 5 years’ time. Therefore working with an established partner helps to mitigate the risk associated with new entrants.

New market entrants have to think outside the box to enter the close knit pharmaceutical market. They need to look at alternative markets to get their foot in the door. An opportunity is to try and work with indigenous pharmaceutical companies in developing nations. This will help the new entrant establish a foothold in the industry and build up their reference list.

6.9 Market forecastWe envisage steady growth of the overall market due to the “patent cliff” and increased production of generic drugs. The fastest growing area of opportunity is in specialist wastewater polishing systems for removal of emerging contaminants, such as endocrine disruptors.

Figure 6.11 Pharmaceutical industry market forecast, 2011–2025

Wastewater polishingtechnologiesWastewater treatmentsystems

Disinfection systems



500

1,000

1,500

2,000

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Pharmaceutical ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011–17 2025

Pretreatment systems 165.4 176.4 187.0 197.0 206.3 215.9 226.9 5.4% 465.6Ultrapure water systems 217.1 233.7 250.0 265.8 281.1 297.1 315.4 6.4% 692.1Disinfection systems (a) 46.6 49.8 52.9 55.8 58.7 61.7 65.0 5.7% 95.3Wastewater treatment systems 139.8 146.3 152.1 157.3 161.7 166.2 171.4 3.5% 216.1Wastewater polishing technologies (b) 25.7 29.3 37.2 43.1 50.6 60.6 74.4 19.4% 251.2Total 594.6 635.5 679.2 719.0 758.4 801.5 853.1 6.2% 1,623.6

(a) Includes all types of disinfection.(b) These are specialist systems designed to remove endocrine disruptors and other trace pharmaceuticals from wastewater.Source: GWI


Pharmaceutical // Market forecast

The top country markets are shown in the following figure. Although the Chinese and Indian markets have enjoyed high growth rates, it will still take a significant amount of time for their production to rival the large installed base that already exists in the U.S. and Europe.

Figure 6.12 Pharmaceutical industry, top country markets, 2013–2017


(2013-2017)

France $234m

USA $1,061m

RoW $1,322m

India $456m

China $333m Japan $405m

Source: GWI

6.9.1 Reference and alternate scenariosOur reference scenario for the pharmaceutical industry makes the following assumptions:

• Current trends towards generic drug manufacture and emerging market growth continue.


• U.S. and European new drug discovery rates improve.


Regional breakdowns under these two scenarios are shown in the following figures.

Figure 6.13 Pharmaceutical industry market forecast by region, 2011–2017: Reference scenario

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Pharmaceutical reference scenario ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR


Source: GWI



In the alternate scenario, growth in the emerging Asia Pacific and Latin American markets is stunted, as production centres remain in the U.S. and Europe.

Figure 6.14 Pharmaceutical industry market forecast by region, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Pharmaceutical alternate scenario ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR


Source: GWI


Microelectronics // Introduction

7. Microelectronics 7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 MicroelectronicsMicroelectronics is a rapidly evolving industry which produces a wide range of devices for the modern world. Common products include microchips (also called “computer chips” or “integrated circuits”), solar cells, and the flat panel displays. Microelectronics devices are produced in fabrication plants (fabs) and large volumes of ultrapure water (UPW) are required during the production process. The industry also generates complex wastewater streams which contain toxic contaminants, e.g. a wide range of acids and metals which require special treatment prior to discharge.

This chapter covers the following three sectors:

• Semiconductor sector: Includes the production of raw silicon wafers and microchips, such as microprocessors, memory chips, and digital signal processors.

• Photovoltaic (PV) sector: Solar cells and photovoltaic modules.

• Flat panel display (FPD) sector: Liquid crystal displays (LCD) and thin film transistors (TFT).

The primary focus of the chapter is the semiconductor sector, which had a global revenue of $325 billion in 2011. The semiconductor industry requires the highest purity of UPW and therefore offers the greatest opportunities for advanced water treatment technologies.

The PV and FPD sectors are also covered in the chapter, but less comprehensively. The reasons for this are two-fold. Firstly, these industries are smaller than the semiconductor industry, and the global revenue of the PV industry was $110 billion in 2011. Secondly, the water treatment requirements for PV and FPD are significantly lower than those for semiconductors, and resemble the requirements of the semiconductor industry 20 years ago. However, as the manufacturing processes in these industries develop, higher standards of UPW are required.

7.1.2 The semiconductor manufacturing processThe most common semiconductor, microchips, are produced on a silicon wafer, using a series of manufacturing processes, which can involve over 1,500 individual steps. The following figure illustrates the key processes in semiconductor manufacturing. Once the fabrication process (the process of creating a microchip) is complete, the wafer is cut, and thousands of individual microchips with billions of circuit elements are produced from a single wafer.

The following figure shows the main uses of UPW – and the sources of different wastewater streams. UPW is mainly used for silicon thinning, etching, stripping and electroplating (electrowinning) operations, where it cleans chemicals and debris from the wafer. The manufacturing process is constantly developing in ways that increase the purity requirements for UPW.

Figure 7.1 Steps in the semiconductor manufacturing process

Silicon thinning(backgrinding)

SiO2 layerformation

Photolithography(lithography)

Etching

StrippingElectricity flow

stabilisationElectroplating

Silicon wafer is ground to achieve appropriate thickness. Wafer is polished to remove impurities.

A layer of silicon dioxide (SiO2) is deposited on the wafer.

Multiple integrated circuits (IC) are patterned on the wafer.

Following the lithography process, non-hardenedmaterials are washed away.

Unwanted hardeneddeposits are stripped off.

To control flow of electricityin the microchip, certain areasare exposed to chemicals.

A layer of metal (typically copper)is placed on the microchip and unwanted metal is polished off.

* * *

*** UPW consumption and

wastewater generation

Diagram key

Source: GWI



Fab capacities are typically quoted in number of wafers per month. To enable fabs that work with different sizes of wafers to be directly compared, the number of wafers produced has been converted to its equivalent in 200 mm wafers for all of the charts in this chapter.

7.1.3 Manufacturing process trendsThe following three major microelectronic manufacturing process trends have been identified as having a direct effect on water treatment technology requirements and water consumption rates: miniaturisation, complexity and wafer size.

7.1.3.1 Greater miniaturisation

Throughout the history of the semiconductor industry, the physical size of the components on chips has been decreasing. This enables more powerful chips to be built. In parallel with this trend towards miniaturisation, the purity requirements for UPW have increased. This is because the smaller the components, the greater the danger presented by impurities in water that comes into contact with the chip.

In the industry, the physical size of the components is expressed in terms of “line-width” (or “node”). Currently, state-of-the-art microchip fabs manufacture chips with a line-width of 22 nm. The industry “roadmap” predicts that the minimum line-width will continue to decrease, as shown in the following figure. Therefore, the degree of purity required for UPW will continue to increase.

Figure 7.2 The continuing miniaturisation of semiconductor devices

0

5

10

15

20

25

20182017201620152014201320122011

Line width

nm

* Note: Line-width in this chart refers to the smallest line-width occurring in devices manufactured in a particular year.Source: ITRS, 2012


Microelectronics // Introduction

The following two figures compare the line-widths of new fabs constructed during 2000–2011 and planned fabs between 2012–2020. Devices with a full range of line-widths are being produced, but the trend moves continuously towards miniaturisation.

Figure 7.3 Capacity of new fabrication plants by line-width, 2000–2011

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

≥700400-699200-399120-199

80-11950-7938-4925-3718-2413-17≤12

Line

wid

th (n

m)

No. of wafers/month, 200mm wafer equivalent (million)

Source: SEMI World Fab Forecast, May 2012

Figure 7.4 Capacity of new fabrication plants by line-width, 2012–2020

0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5

≥700400-699200-399120-199

80-11950-7938-4925-3718-2413-17≤12


Line

twid

th (n

m)


The data shows that in 2012, 22% of production was for line-widths of 18–24 nm. In 2013, the industry will start producing devices with line-widths of 13–17 nm, which is expected to account for 15.6% of the new global semiconductor market in 2013. Line-widths smaller than 12 nm are also expected be produced in the future. The figures also show that the production of microchips with line-widths of 25–37 nm is likely to become minimal in the future – these geometries are no longer cutting-edge, and so have been superseded.

7.1.3.2 Greater complexity

Greater miniaturisation means that the number of production steps required to complete a single microchip is increasing. More steps means more water, and thus generation of new wastewater streams. More wastewater streams leads to an increased risk of wastewater stream cross-contamination, which results in wastewater that is even more difficult to treat and reuse.



7.1.3.3 Larger wafer sizes

It makes economic sense to maximise the number of microchips per wafer. This trend has driven the industry towards increasing wafer sizes. Currently, the most commonly used wafers have diameters of 300 mm. However, a number of manufacturers have announced that they will start construction of fabs for 450 mm wafers in 2013. When the 450 mm wafer fabs come online, they will require more UPW for production and cooling, and new ranges of equipment, such as larger piping equipment.

The following two figures compare the wafer sizes of new fabs constructed during 2000–2011 and planned fabs between 2012–2020. The current trend is building fabs that use 300 mm wafers, but small wafer size fabrication plants (i.e. 50 mm, 100 mm or 150 mm) still have their place in the industry. China is the largest producer of small wafer semiconductors. 450 mm wafer fabrication plants are currently in planning stages in Taiwan, the Republic of Korea, Belgium and the United States. The newly added capacity of 450 mm in Belgium and the USA is, however, too small to be significant in Figure 7.6.

Figure 7.5 Capacity of new fabrication plants by wafer size, 2000–2011

0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000

50 mm

75 mm

100 mm

125 mm

150 mm

200 mm

300 mm

450 mm Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

No. wafers/month (200 mm wafer equivalent)


Figure 7.6 Capacity of new fabrication plants by wafer size, 2012–2020

0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000

50 mm

75 mm

100 mm

150 mm

200 mm

300 mm

450 mm Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas




Microelectronics // Water treatment market drivers in microelectronics

7.2 Water treatment market drivers in microelectronicsThere are a number of drivers that shape the water treatment requirements of the microelectronics industry:

• Water scarcity: A number of fabs are located or planned in regions where water is scarce, such as parts of Singapore, Taiwan, China, the U.S. and the Middle East. Water scarcity does not prevent the construction of fabs, but where water is limited, plant manufacturers will have to decrease water consumption and look at ways of increasing reuse rates.

Figure 7.7 Planned semiconductor plant locations and water scarcity

Source: SEMI World Fab Forecast, May 2012; Global Water Risk Index, GWI, 2011

• Tighter UPW requirements: The line-width of chips is still being reduced. The smaller the line-width, the greater the purity requirements for UPW, and the greater the demand for advanced water treatment technologies.

• Brand management and water conservation: Many of the global microelectronics players are keen to improve their brand image by conserving water. In some cases, companies set themselves company-wide water reuse and wastewater treatment targets beyond what local regulations require.

• Stricter regulations: Increasingly, governmental mandates and industry best practice guidelines are pushing the industry to adopt greater water reuse strategies and limit wastewater discharge. Further limits on the total dissolved solids (TDS) and salts content in wastewater is anticipated. This will mean an increase in on-site desalination and the reuse of wastewater in fabs.

• Energy reduction: Since less energy consumption means lower costs, equipment which requires less energy will have a competitive advantage.

• Equipment cost: This is an important driver for UPW, water reuse and wastewater systems. Whereas the cost of acquiring a UPW system can be justified by greater confidence in the system and therefore greater reliability and profit margin, the decision to adopt advanced technologies for water reuse and wastewater treatment has to be based on direct financial returns.

• Fluctuations in demand: The microelectronics industry is a cyclical industry and many products rely on consumer demand. The growth of the PV market has been driven primarily by government subsidies for new power generation units in EU countries. Without these subsidies the market is likely to find it hard to maintain high levels of growth.

7.3 Process water requirementsTwo grades of water are used in fabs: UPW, which comes into direct contact with the device being produced, and other process water, which is used for other equipment related to the manufacturing process. UPW is used in different steps of the manufacturing process and constitutes the majority of the water used in a plant.

According to the ASTM standard, UPW is typically used for the following operations:

• Washing

• Rinsing semiconductor components



• Making steam for the oxidation of silicon surfaces

• Cleaning and etching

• Preparing photo masks or depositing luminescent materials

Low grade process water is used, for example, in:

• Cooling towers

• Acid waste scrubbers

• Heating, ventilation and conditioning systems (HVAC)

The UPW system uses more water than any other process on-site. The cooling towers use 30–60% of the volume used by the UPW system. The precise amount depends on the local evaporation rate.

7.3.1 Current industry water consumptionA typical semiconductor facility uses around 3.8–7.6 m³/min of UPW. The exact water consumption varies according to the production output of the fab and the product being made (e.g. semiconductors, FPD, PV). The following figure lists some of the UPW loop water consumption rates at fabs.

Figure 7.8 UPW consumption at semiconductor and FPD fabrication plants

Type of fab UPW loop size UPW consumption (m³/min)Semiconductor plant Small UPW loop 1.9–2.3

Standard UPW loop 3.8–7.6 Large UPW loop up to 52.5

FPD plant Standard UPW 15.1–22.7

Source: GWI

Water consumption is set to increase. This is because the trend is towards amalgamating fabs and the installation of UPW systems.

7.3.2 Industry standards for UPW and treatment for water reuse The latest developments in the science of UPW are reflected in two different sets of international standards, the SEMI Standards and the ASTM Standards. These standards are produced by manufacturing and technology providers in collaboration with independent laboratories and global experts.

In addition, the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS) predicts how semiconductor devices will evolve, and provides guidance on the water usage and water reuse rates of fabs.

7.3.2.1 SEMI F63-0211 Guide for ultrapure water used in semiconductor processing

Published in 2011, SEMI F63-0211 is the most up-to-date UPW standard for cutting edge fabs which produce semiconductors with line-widths smaller than 65 nm. The standards include a table showing recommended degrees of quality of UPW, as well as explanations of why specific contaminants are of concern for the semiconductor manufacturing process and should be removed.

7.3.2.2 ASTM D5127 Standard Guide for ultrapure water used in the electronics and semiconductor industries

Published in 2007, ASTM D5127 provides recommendations for water quality related to both electronics and semiconductor manufacturing. It gives recommendations for six types of water quality which correspond to the sizes of device being manufactured. The standard covers devices with line-width 90–5,000 nm. It also lists possible options for technologies used for UPW production.

7.3.2.3 Comparison of SEMI F63 Standard and ASTM D5127 Standard

A key difference between the SEMI and ASTM standards is that SEMI F63 includes much higher water quality specifications for smaller line-width devices. The SEMI F63 standard is therefore appropriate for the newest fabs which manufacture the smallest line-width devices currently possible. Older semiconductor plants, PV and FPD plants should follow the water specifications set out in ASTM D5127 standard. SEMI F63 incorporates the ITRS requirements, and therefore takes into account forthcoming technological advances in the industry.

7.3.2.4 Future development of UPW standards

At the time of publication, an updated version of the ASTM D5127 is being prepared. The updated ASTM standard will include the SEMI F63 specification, as well as other UPW quality requirements for older generations of equipment used in


Microelectronics // Process water requirements

microelectronics manufacturing. An update to SEMI F63 is currently being prepared to incorporate new information from ITRS. The new document will differ significantly in format and scope.

7.3.2.5 How the standards are used

Different groups use different standards. Smaller electronics companies, which in many instances produce larger line-width devices, prefer the ASTM standard. Semiconductor companies that use the latest technologies prefer SEMI F63, and tend to work with the ITRS to develop their own internal specifications.

Additionally, UPW equipment suppliers and EPC contractors use published standards as a reference for design specifications when communicating with clients.

7.3.2.6 Other microelectronics-related standards

In addition to the above UPW standards, the SEMI Group publishes other microelectronics-related standards. These include information on water reuse and water treatment at PV plants:

• SEMI F98 Guide for treatment of reuse water in semiconductor processing: Published in 2011, this standard lists and explains the design elements of water reuse systems.

• SEMI PV3 Guide for high purity water used in photovoltaic cell processing: Published in 2010, this guide gives performance criteria and water quality standards for high purity water used in the PV industry.

To date, no dedicated standard for the FPS industry has been published.

7.3.3 ITRS roadmap guidelines – future technology trends The ITRS is published each year and provides a 15-year projection of the semiconductor industry’s technology requirements. The ITRS sets annual targets for water consumption and water reuse rates at fabs. These targets are recommendations – they are not legally binding.

The following figure summarises the ITRS target water consumption rates and water reuse rates to 2025. The ITRS stresses the need for a continuous reduction in water consumption and an increase in the water reuse rate of fabs. The technology for reduced water consumption is currently available, but it will only be possible to achieve more than 85% water reuse when new technological solutions are in place.

Figure 7.9 ITRS water consumption: Facilities technology requirements – near-term years

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

20

40

60

80

100

20262024202220202018201620142012

Cons

umpt

ion

(litre

s/cm

2 )

Fab water consumption

UPW waterconsumption

% o

f wat

er re

used

Water reuse

Source: ITRS, 2012

7.3.4 Water quality requirements for UPW

7.3.4.1 UPW requirements for semiconductor manufacturing

In most cases, fabs get feedwater from raw surface waters or use potable water from the municipal supply. While using brackish water as feedwater is not a worldwide trend, there are examples of its use in fabs in China.

As the line widths of semiconductor devices get smaller, the UPW water requirements will change. This presents an on-going challenge for the science of UPW.



Current challenges in UPW treatment are:

• Detecting particles: Particle detection has not kept pace with the diminishing line width of semiconductor devices, and new detection methods need to be found for increasingly small production lines. Current measurement methods are capable of detecting 50 nm particles, whereas the industry needs to refine the measurement down to 10 nm particles.

• Removing “killer particles”: After particle identification, the industry needs to remove killer particles, which are defined by the ITRS as particles below 30 nm. Example include traces of metals, salts and organics in this size range.

• Removing organics: As long as Total Organic Carbon (TOC) is restricted to 2 ppb, no defects should occur. However, the effect of specific organic compounds is less clear. The ITRS has been trying to identify a comprehensive list of critical organics over the last few years, but this work is not yet complete.

UPW production is treatment-intensive and results in extremely low concentrations of contaminants. Key contaminants to be substantially reduced and monitored are shown in the following figure.

Figure 7.10 Major contaminants of concern for UPW production

Contaminants ProblemsTotal organic carbon (TOC) including specific organic compounds (such as urea, compounds containing hydroxide (–OH), and compounds containing N, Cl and Br)

Can adversely affect wafer production. The presence of specific organic compounds can lead to oxide breakdowns, voltage leaks and other dysfunctions in the photolithography process.

Silica (colloidal silica, dissolved silica as SiO2) Silica enters the system through incoming feedwater, or it may be dissolved from wafer surfaces. Silica can then be transferred onto wafers, causing water spotting. Silica might also absorb metals and act as a transport mechanism for metals.

Boron Boron is used during the manufacturing process and is present in the air of clean rooms which can damage wafers by oxidisation on silicon surfaces.

Metal ions (barium, calcium and copper) Can significantly affect the yield of microelectronics devices due to their ability to cause a dielectric breakdown and crystal defects.

Dissolved oxygen and nitrogen Can damage silicon surfaces and other process steps. Dissolved oxygen might also enhance corrosion of metals such as copper.

Source: SEMI, 2011; GWI

A review of appropriate contaminant levels, together with a full list of contaminants that should be treated and monitored, can be found in the relevant industry standards, such as ASTM D5127 and SEMI F63. The values listed in the standards are not legally binding, but they indicate the best performance criteria for appropriate water quality.

7.3.4.2 PV high purity water standard

Standards for the quality of high purity water for the PV industry are not as stringent as the UPW requirements for top-class semiconductor fabs. This is illustrated in the following figure. Metal contamination of the high purity water is typically measured in parts-per-billion in the PV industry, for example, whereas the semiconductor industry measures contamination in parts-per-trillion. In addition, certain contaminants are not a concern for the PV industry (e.g. boron, dissolved oxygen). However, as the industry strives to achieve greater production efficiency, the high purity water requirements will increase.

Figure 7.11 Comparison of SEMI F63 and SEMI PV3 Standard UPW requirements

Parameter

UPW for advanced semiconductor plants

(SEMI F63)

High purity water for PV manufacturing

(SEMI PV3)Resistivity online @ 25C (MΩcm) > 18.18 >17.5TOC (online) <2 <20Dissolved oxygen (ppb) < 10 n/aBacteria (CFU/l) < 1 <10Silica – total (ppb) <0.5 <20Fluoride (ppt) < 50 <1,000Boron (ppt) < 50 n/aArsenic (ppt) <10 <1,000Copper (ppt) <1 <1,000

Source: SEMI 2010, 2011


Microelectronics // Desalination technologies for process water

7.4 Desalination technologies for process water

7.4.1 Ultrapure water (UPW) technology trends in semiconductor industryUPW treatment for semiconductor manufacturing has developed rapidly over the last 20 years. At present, the existing treatment technologies are able to meet the water quality requirements for the current generation of devices. The individual technologies are likely to remain the same for the foreseeable future. However, the exact treatment train used in a UPW system will depend on a number of factors: feedwater quality, device line-width, specific contaminants of concern, production requirements and end-user confidence levels. For example, if an end-user wishes to operate a facility 24 hours per day all year round, it might be prudent to install duplicate selected equipment to avoid disruption of the production process in case of equipment failure. The plant operator might also install more specific equipment to further increase confidence levels in the UPW production process.

The following figure shows the technology train options for a UPW system for the semiconductor and PV industries.

Figure 7.12 UPW technology train for the semiconductor and PV industries

Media filtration

Activated carbon

Cartridge filter

UF

First pass

Second pass

HERO

IX mixed beds UF Advanced oxidation

Degasificationand UV

UV and/orozonation

PV UPWQuality Requirements

SEMI F63 StandardUPW Quality Requirements

UPW quality requirements are line-width dependent

Pretreatment RO Polishing

IX

EDI

Diagram key

Processes that can be used together Process that can be used alone Does not apply for production of PV UPW *

*

Source: Morgan, 2009; GWI

The UPW technology train involves three key steps:

• Pretreatment

• Reverse osmosis (RO)

• Polishing

The process train for PV high purity water production is less stringent (and therefore less interesting) and involves only pretreatment, RO membranes and ion exchange.

7.4.1.1 Pretreatment

There are various technologies which can be used to pretreat water coming into the UPW system.

• Multimedia filtration and activated carbon: The most commonly used technology is multimedia filtration. In the past multimedia filtration was used automatically, regardless of the feedwater quality, as a means of protecting the UPW system. In recent years, companies have been more open to risk at the front end of the water treatment cycle, and have applied media filtration only when the quality of feedwater was poor and the water treatment quality was required to be very high. Multimedia filtration is effective when applied with activated carbon. Activated carbon is very efficient at dechlorination, fine particles removal, and organic carbon removal. Dechlorination is specifically required where feedwater is drawn from a municipal supply where chlorination has been used for disinfection. The use of activated carbon depends on the feedwater quality and the level of performance expected of the system.



• Ultrafiltration (UF): UF has proved to be a successful alternative to multimedia filtration at many fabs worldwide and so may become the technology of choice. The decision whether to install multimedia filtration or UF depends primarily on feedwater quality and water treatment requirements. Where the operational cost of UF is lower than that of the multimedia filters, the UF pretreatment will be preferred. UF as a pretreatment method is widely used in China and is becoming increasingly popular in Japan.

• Cartridge filters: Cartridge filters are also an effective pretreatment method.

7.4.1.2 Reverse osmosis

The following types of RO membranes are typically used in a UPW system.

• Reverse osmosis (RO) and high efficiency reverse osmosis (HERO). There is a general trend towards using two-train RO membranes. Two-train RO consists of using two RO membranes in sequence. Doubling up the RO membranes is more effective than single-train RO for removing dissolved ions, organic and biological compounds, silica and other suspended contaminants, and is therefore more suitable for UPW production. At plants with the most stringent UPW requirements, HERO technology can be used instead of the two-train RO. The decision to install HERO rather than two-train RO will depend on a thorough analysis of the feedwater and the location of the plant. At plants in which HERO is installed, HERO manufacturers claim a higher rejection rate (up to 95%), and removal of larger amounts of boron, silica and TOC.

7.4.1.3 Polishing

After RO filtration, the UPW is polished.

• Electrodeionisation (EDI) is very efficient in reducing boron and silica. EDI was introduced to the microelectronics industry a decade ago and is now a mature technology which is gaining popularity among plant operators. EDI can be placed immediately after RO membranes, or it can be placed in the middle of the UPW system to act as a substitute for various ion exchange treatments. There is a trend towards using RO in conjunction with EDI and IX. Alternatively, HERO followed by EDI produces water which meets silica requirements. However, despite its increasing popularity, the technology has not caught on everywhere due to higher capital cost requirements.

• Ion Exchange (IX) further reduces silica levels after water has passed through RO membranes and the EDI system, and increases stable production of UPW on the site. By adding IX to the UPW system, the regeneration frequency is minimised from a few days to a year, ensuring a steady production over a longer period of time.

• UF can be used at the front end of the UPW system to protect RO membranes and also at the end of the UPW systems to remove the last remaining particles prior to contact with a wafer. UF has been used successfully in the final polishing treatment for more than 15 years and it is still the main technology for particle filtration, although this might change in the future. Cross-flow filtration might be exchanged for cartridge filters. The performance of these technologies is getting closer to that of UF filters, and they are physically more robust.

• Degasification membranes are required for all advanced semi-conductor facilities. The trend is moving from a degasification tower towards membrane degasification.

• UV is primarily used for TOC removal. In the past, UV was used for disinfection, but this application is no longer very common. If ozonation is applied in the UPW system, UV is installed to destroy residual ozone. UV is widely used in fabs in Asia.


7.5.1 Semiconductor industry wastewater streamsThe semiconductor manufacturing process uses a wide range of slurries and chemicals which generate very contaminated wastewater. Although the industry does not use toxic chemicals such as cyanide and lead, it uses other compounds which if left untreated cause environmental pollution and pose a risk to human health. For example, the industry uses high volumes of corrosive hydrofluoric acid (HF) for cleaning and photosensitive treatments, which in high concentrations can dissolve many materials. Other agents used during the manufacturing process include ammonium hydroxide ( NH4OH), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), hydrochloric acid (HCl), sulphuric acid (H2SO4) or phosphoric acid (H3PO4 ). The wastewater includes mixtures of these chemicals, together with other contaminants that result from the manufacturing processes, such as traces of nickel, copper, cobalt, titanium, fluoride, silica, ammonia, and many other organic and inorganic compounds.

The following figure identifies the major wastewater streams from the semiconductor manufacturing process. However, it is important to note that this overview provides examples, rather than a comprehensive list of contaminants. The exact wastewater stream composition depends on the manufacturing process, and is typically bound to trade secrets and therefore not publicly available.


Microelectronics // Wastewater challenges

Figure 7.13 Wastewater streams generated in the semiconductor industry

Process Possible wastewater streams Typical contaminants Volume of wastewater

Contamination levels

Chemical mechanical polishing (CMP)

CMP involves three wastewater streams: the most concentrated stream, from the polishing stage; a less concentrated stream, from the cleaning unit; and, the least contaminated stream, from the rinsing unit. The following three types of wastewater might be segregated for further treatment: Copper CMP wastewaterAmmonia CMP wastewaterFluoride CMP wastewater

The exact contaminants depend on the type of slurry and the cleaning agent used during the polishing and cleaning stages of CMP. Typical contaminants might include: NH4OH (ammonium hydroxide), HF (hydrofluoric acid), HCl (hydrochloric acid), slurry particles, copper, iron, silica, inorganic ions, organic compounds etc.

High Low–high

Wafer backgrinding (BG) (also called wafer thinning)

n/a Suspended silicon particles Medium Medium

Wafer cleaning n/a High/low TOC rinse water NH4OH, HCL, H2O2, H2SO4

High Low–medium

Photolithography n/a Generates general acid wastewater Low HighEtching HF wastewater HF, NH4F, HNO3, H3PO4, Silicates Medium Medium–highStripping n/a Concentrate chemicals, solvents,

Polymers, H2SO4, MetalsLow High

Source: GWI

7.5.2 Wastewater treatment challenges in microelectronics manufacturingMicroelectronics plant operators have tended to focus less on wastewater treatment than on UPW treatment. There is therefore a much room for improvement in this area.

The industry faces a number of key challenges:

• To identify the correct process chemistries for smaller line-width devices: Semiconductor devices are getting smaller, with the result that the manufacturing processes becomes more complex, and the wastewater streams more chemically complex. Further research is needed to find the right process chemistries for smaller line-widths.

• Identifying the effects of nanoparticles in waste streams: The cumulative effect of nanoparticles in wastewater has not been widely discussed. The industry needs to monitor the impact of these particles and find treatment which prevents this cumulative effect.

• Separating different waste streams: The industry needs to find the best way of separating different wastewater streams to maximise water reuse on site. The SEMI F98 standard recommends segregating clean rinse from acid water, then separating streams which contain organics, and finally, isolating wastewater streams which require specific treatment (e.g. HF, CMP processing, copper and phosphoric acid treatment).

• Resource recovery: Wider adoption of resource recovery techniques to capture less abundant contaminants than copper and fluoride.

• Managing large volume flow rates: Some of the new fabs have been built within existing manufacturing facilities, which increases the total volume of wastewater generated on site. Consequently, new solutions for managing high volumes of wastewater are needed.



7.5.3 PV industry wastewater characteristics Wastewater streams in the PV industry are similar to those in the semiconductor industry. Although the exact manufacturing steps differ, there are similarities in the process chemistries used in a number of the steps (e.g. wafer cleaning and etching), which results in a similar composition of wastewater streams. The following figure further describes the major wastewater processes in PV and their key contamination characteristics.

Figure 7.14 PV wastewater streams

Process steps Description Contamination characteristics Wafer cleaning After the wafer is cut to the appropriate width

(approximately 300 nm), any damaged surfaces and remaining debris must be removed. Depending on the type of silicon wafer used (e.g. multi-crystalline or semi-crystalline wafer) different cleaning agents are applied which affects the wastewater composition. A large amount of water is used to clean the wafer surface during this step.

Poly-crystalline wafer: Wastewater streams containing a varied concentration of concentrate and rinse HF and/or HNO3 acids are generated. Mono-crystalline wafer: Hot caustic solution with isopropanol (ISA) is used for cleaning wafer surfaces. The wastewater is not suitable for an on-site treatment and is typically externally discharged.

Emitter formation The wafer is diffused in a small amount of phosphorus coating, then rinsed and dried.

P-containing wastewater, HF rinse wastewater.

PSG (phosphosilicate glass) etching

The phosphorus diffusion process forms PSG on the wafer surface, which requires further removal by applying HF acid.

HF concentrated wastewater, and HF rinse water.

Si3N4 (silicon nitrate) deposition

Si3N4 layer is required to reduce light reflection on the wafer’s surface. The process chamber is cleaned typically with fluoride-containing agents that generate F-containing wastewater. The amount of wastewater generated is low.

Composition of wastewater depends on the cleaning agent used. Typically, F-containing wastewater is generated as well as other types of caustic and acid wastewater.

Source: GWI, after Schleef et al, 2011

7.6 Water reuse strategies

7.6.1 Reuse opportunities at fabrication plants Fabs offer a wide range of opportunities for water reuse. However the suitability of a wastewater stream for reuse depends on the level of contamination, and this varies between processes, as well as depending on the individual steps of particular manufacturing processes. For example, during the CMP process, only the wastewater from two of the three steps is suitable for water reuse.

The following figure shows which grades of wastewater are typically treated to achieve typical water reuse rates. Lower reuse rates are achieved by recycling only less contaminated wastewater streams such as the final rinses in various manufacturing processes (e.g. wafer cleaning or CMP filtration). If a higher percentage of water reuse is required, then more complex wastewater streams must be treated (e.g. first and second rinses and organic waste).


Microelectronics // Water reuse strategies

Figure 7.15 Water reuse opportunities

1–39%

40–59%

60–89%

90–100%

Fina

l ino

rgan

ic ri

nse

Fina

l ino

rgan

ic ri

nse

with

lim

itatio

ns

2nd

inor

gani

c rin

se w

ith li

mita

tions

Chuc

k cl

ean

2nd

orga

nic

and

inor

gani

c rin

se w

ith li

mita

tions

Fina

l org

anic

rins

e w

ithou

t lim

itatio

ns

1st a

nd 2

nd o

rgan

ic ri

nse

with

lim

itatio

ns

CMP

recy

clin

g

Phot

olito

grap

hy w

aste

Euro

pe

ZLD

Wastewater generating process options

- Water cleaning

Water reuse practice

Conv

entio

nal t

echn

olog

ies

Adva

nced

tech

nolo

gies

Water reuse treatment rate

Water reuse technologies

Euro

pe(s

tand

ard)

(adv

ance

d) Asia

(sta

ndar

d)

- Etching

- Stripping

- CMP process

- Photolitography

Source: GWI, after Libman, 2008

7.6.1.1 The “50% rule”

The figure above shows that a reuse rate of 50% can be easily achieved through reuse of less contaminated wastewater using conventional technologies. Plant operators use this treated wastewater in less sensitive equipment such as at cooling towers and scrubbers (see the following figure). A reuse rate of 50% can be easily achieved by using the water almost solely in cooling towers. However, some experts believe that this issue has been oversimplified in the past, and that cooling towers should not act as a dumping ground for poorly treated wastewater because this might damage the equipment.

Reuse rates above 50% can only be achieved by using more advanced technologies to treat complex contaminants. In order to obtain a return on investment in these more expensive technologies, plant operators have to consider reusing treated wastewater in the UPW cycle. Reuse rates of 75–80% can be achieved in this way. Plant operators can also choose to reuse wastewater off-site (e.g. for non-agricultural use), however this is dependent on the local infrastructure and appropriate discharge regulations.

Finally, there is an approximate limit on how much UPW can be recycled, which is currently around 85%. It is possible to achieve higher reuse rates, but zero liquid discharge (ZLD) technology has to be installed on site. This increases the operational cost considerably, and some experts believe that using ZLD technology is not environmentally friendly, because it is so energy-intensive.



Figure 7.16 Water reuse applications

Water reuse options Applications “High-grade water reuse” (process water for UPW system)

UPW process water requirements such as CMP final rinse

“Low-grade water reuse” (process water for non-UPW equipment (industrial make-up water))

Cooling towersAcid waste scrubbersFire-protection

Off-site water reuse options Agricultural and non-agricultural irrigationClean courts Wetland restoration

Source: GWI

7.6.2 Water reuse trendsThe ITRS roadmap recommends that plant operators reuse 75% of the UPW at fabs, and this requirement should increase to 85% from 2016. Despite this optimistic target, water reuse varies widely between regions and companies. Currently, the trend is towards redirecting wastewater back into less sensitive equipment – mainly cooling towers and scrubbers – rather than back into the UPW loop.

The following three types of water reuse are currently practised worldwide:

1. Partial reuse of UPW, for cooling tower feedwater and other less sensitive equipment.

2. Complete reuse of UPW, for cooling tower feedwater and other less sensitive equipment.

3. Complete reuse of UPW, in the UPW recycling loop and other less sensitive equipment.

The extent of water reuse in fabs typically depends on the following factors:

• Water availability

• Infrastructure

• The cost of water reuse

• Local regulation

• Willingness of plant operators to take a risk in reusing wastewater.

As greater water reuse rates require advanced water reuse technologies, and hence greater investment, companies may be reluctant to increase water reuse unless a clear financial benefit results from this practice. Additionally, reusing wastewater in the UPW system is still a serious concern for plant manufactures, as they fear damaging the process equipment and losing substantial revenue streams. This fear will be difficult to overcome, as the process chemistries of smaller devices are becoming more complex and therefore harder to treat.

7.6.3 Water reuse at non-semiconductor facilitiesSemiconductor fabs are currently achieving overall higher water reuse rates than the FPD industry. The FPD industry typically reaches a reuse rate of approximately 50%, while raw wafer manufacturing has a reuse rate of only 30%.

7.7 Wastewater treatment and water reuse technologies

7.7.1 Wastewater treatment technologies and future developments.No specific wastewater treatment technologies have been developed primarily for the microelectronics industry, and the conventional technologies used are very similar to those used in other industries. The following figure lists the most common wastewater treatment methods employed by the industry.

Typically, wastewater treatment involves a combination of chemical and physical treatments, neutralisation tanks, and the occasional application of degasification technologies. The extent to how advanced the recovery treatment technologies are will depend on local regulations on specific contaminants such as fluoride or copper.

The key to successful wastewater treatment and water reuse is the segregation of various grades of wastewater according to their chemical properties. Where water reuse is practised on-site, additional lines of water reuse technologies have to be installed.


Microelectronics // Wastewater treatment and water reuse technologies

Figure 7.17 Wastewater treatment technologies – conventional and advanced

Type Technologies Conventional Clarification systems (precipitation, sedimentation, coagulation)

Neutralisation tanksAdvanced Electrowinning (*)

Advanced oxidationMBRIXMembrane filtration (particle filtration, UF)

(*) Electrowinning technologies are described in section 7.7.3.1Source: GWI

7.7.2 Current trends in wastewater treatment in the semiconductor industryThe following sections describe how typical wastewater contaminants are treated in the semiconductor industry.

7.7.2.1 HF treatment

Due to the regulatory limitations on fluoride, HF treatment is practised most often in the semiconductor and PV industry. HF is treated separately from other acids used during the manufacturing process (e.g H2O2, H2SO4, HCl) to ensure that f luoride contamination is adequately dealt with. A typical wastewater process includes precipitation, sedimentation and filtration, followed by a final treatment of the filter reject in the neutralisation tanks. In the PV industry, filtration is most commonly carried out by dead-end filters. Remaining solids are then collected and run through a filter press to create a solid cake which is ready for external disposal.

7.7.2.2 Metal-bearing wastewater treatment

The treatment for wastewater which contains copper traces is also very common in the semiconductor industry. Depending on the local regulations, plant operators can either treat the wastewater through conventional methods or can apply advanced resource recovery methods (eg. IX, electrowinning, advanced oxidation) to decrease the final level of contaminants in the wastewater. Nickel recovery treatments have been problematic because of the inability of membrane treatment to achieve satisfactory results. Metal-bearing wastewater treatment is not used in the PV industry.

7.7.2.3 Ammonia treatment

Ammonia treatment has become more prevalent in the past decade, but it is location-specific and has not been adopted everywhere because of the high operating cost. High levels of ammonia might not be a problem on their own, and only becomes an issue when large volumes of ammonia overload sewage.

7.7.2.4 Caustic and acid wastewater treatment

The most common treatment for caustic and acid wastewater (including H2O2, H2SO4, HCl and H3PO4) is to install neutralisation tanks. These adjust the pH, or add specific acids to neutralise the wastewater, in order to meet the relevant discharge limits. Adoption of phosphoric acid (H3PO4) treatment in China has historically been poor, but fabs now have to install appropriate treatment facilities. HF treatment requires additional pretreatment to remove fluoride which is described in Section 7.7.2.1.

7.7.2.5 Concentrated acids treatment

The semiconductor and PV industries generate a certain amount of very concentrated acids (HF, HNO3). These are typically collected separately from diluted wastewater streams and shipped off-site for further treatment and decomposition.

7.7.3 Technology trends

7.7.3.1 Resource recovery

The industry is moving towards greater adoption of resource recovery technologies including electrowinning and IX.

• Electrowinning is an old-fashioned electro-chemical recovery process used for extracting metals (such as copper, nickel or cobalt) from wastewater. The principle of electrowinning is to place anodes and cathodes in an acid-resistant bath and pass an electric current through the electrodes. Traces of metals are then attracted to the electrodes and subsequently recovered. Typically, the microelectronics industry uses electrowinning for copper removal from the CMP process. Although it is widely used in fabs, there is a need to upgrade to achieve more efficient recovery.



• IX is also used by the industry to remove metal ions from wastewater. It can be installed on its own or as part of a combination of metal recovery processes, in which case the IX would be followed by electrowinning technologies and advanced oxidation. There is a growing trend towards adopting IX as an effective method of wastewater treatment.

7.7.4 Greater rate of wastewater treatment on-site Currently, fabs do not treat all waste streams on-site and the most concentrated acid wastewater is shipped to be treated off-site. However, if there are greater regulatory and economic incentives to complete the treatment of these waste streams on-site, the plant operators might re-evaluate the whole wastewater treatment process and install more advanced technologies. This would mean greater demand for water reuse and wastewater treatment technologies such as UF, membrane bioreactor (MBR), or ZLD.

• UF is used for diluted, non-acidic waste streams from CMP or the wafer backgrinding process.

• MBR is installed if specific organic levels have to be met. However, the installation of MBR is location-specific, and the technology is not used on a regular basis.

• ZLD is not widely used because of the high operating cost involved. However, there are a number of fabs in Europe and Asia which do employ it.

7.7.5 Water reuse technologies and trends The technology train of water reuse technologies is similar to that of a UPW system. According to the SEMI F98 standard, the following technology options have been identified as the best means of achieving high rates of water reuse (i.e. water suitable for use in the UPW system):

• Media filtration/ cartridge filtration

• UF, MF

• RO

• EDI

• IX

• UV (sometimes combined with ozone and hydrogen peroxide)

• Activated carbon

• Biological processes such as fixed bed systems or fluidised bed systems

Pretreatment to prevent RO fouling is an on-going challenge for water reuse. To protect the RO membranes, the use of UF membranes is becoming popular. In some places in China, MBR is used as a pretreatment method .

As well as developments in treatment equipment, the industry has been developing chemicals to prevent the fouling of RO membranes.

7.8 Supply chain analysis

7.8.1 Market entry opportunities

7.8.1.1 Market entry constraints

The semiconductor industry is very conservative, and is therefore a difficult market to enter. Microelectronics manufacturers (also called “end-users”) are looking for water treatment companies which clearly understand their needs and requirements and will not jeopardise their production yield. Manufacturers prefer long-term relationships and are open to change only when it is seen as absolutely necessary.

Ultra-conservative companies will only install equipment which has been tested in-house for at least 6 months. In addition, they require the equipment manufacturer to provide assurances against potential process failure. Less conservative companies will allow a degree of innovation if the supplier can offer performance guarantees and warranties.

7.8.1.2 Routes to the market

There are traditionally two ways to enter the market:

• Cooperation with an EPC contractor or a water treatment company.

• Developing an active relationship with the end-user.


Microelectronics // Supply chain analysis

The option a company chooses will depend on the size of the company and its product offerings. Larger water treatment companies have to establish relationships with global EPC contractors, while smaller equipment suppliers have to find the best partners to integrate their products within a particular water treatment system.

7.8.1.3 “Success factors” for market entry

The key to persuading an end-user to switch supplier, or to being chosen for a new project, is to convince the end-user that they will not lose any revenue as a result of new equipment installations. Despite the resistance of the market to new entrants, companies which can prove that they will help the end-user to significantly improve the performance of the system, reduce costs, and which can guarantee and prolong the life of the equipment, have a greater chance of being accepted. The following product “success factors” have been identified for new equipment products.

• Having “unique” proprietary technologies: As the industry moves towards processing smaller components and the next generation of wafer devices, water companies which have unique proprietary technologies and which are able to address smaller particle sizes and organic compounds will have a better chance of entering the market. This will mean that on-going relationships may be challenged, and companies which have understood and solved new problems will be in the strongest position.

• Meeting the ITRS roadmap requirements: The ITRS is very influential in the industry, therefore if a new technology can meet and exceed its requirements, it has a better chance of succeeding in the market.

• Energy saving equipment: Energy consumption is a major cost to microelectronics manufacturers. Water companies which can provide less energy-intensive equipment and so reduce manufacturers’ operational expenditure have a better chance of securing contracts.

• Offer a high degree of automation: It is important to stay on the top of the complex manufacturing process and optimise the productivity of the equipment. Therefore a greater degree of automation of water treatment systems is desirable.

• Experienced staff: In order for water companies to provide their customers with the best service, their staff must be fully trained in the appropriate clean-room and manufacturing protocols. In this way, a water company can become a helpful partner to the microelectronics manufacturers, and offer appropriate solutions.

The PV and flat panel display industries are much less conservative, because they do not require such a high quality of water. There are therefore more opportunities to enter these markets.

7.8.1.4 Upcoming UPW systems market trend

In addition to the success factors listed above, water treatment companies which are able to offer a standardised pre-engineered UPW system will have a better chance of succeeding in the market. This is because the construction period for a fab will be reduced from 10–12 months to 6 months.

7.8.2 Procurement modelThere are four types of procurement model for purchasing water treatment technologies. The most common model is procurement on an EPC basis. The preferred model depends on the individual preference of the end-user (the microelectronic manufacturer) and the degree to which the end-user wishes to be involved in the procurement process.

• Direct EPC (design-build) model: The end-user contracts a large EPC contractor (e.g. MW Group, CH2M HILL, Hyflux) that acts on behalf of the end-user and selects specific technologies for the water treatment systems. If the EPC contractor is looking for a specific equipment manufacturer, then three major equipment suppliers are typically considered during the selection process. In some cases, a major water company can be asked to validate the selection of individual equipment suppliers, to increase confidence in the selection process.

• EPC model with a subcontracted water company: This model establishes a relationship between an EPC contractor and a major water technology company (e.g. GE, Veolia, Kurita). The water technology company then acts as sub-contractor of an EPC firm and offers a complete solution for a particular water treatment system. The water company is then tied up in “a functional spec”. This specialised contract guarantees the end-client a specific quality and quantity of water from the water treatment system. Additional performance guarantees and warrantees are also set as part of the functional spec.

• Water treatment company acts as an EPC contractor: Another purchasing model is based on direct communication between the end-user and a major water company. The water treatment company, which has EPC capabilities and a relevant department, then acts as an EPC contractor (e.g Kurita). This model is very successful in Japan, where a water treatment company is often known prior to the start of the project. The water company then provides the end-user with a complete solution.



• Direct procurement with specific equipment manufacturers: In some cases a smaller fab buys specific equipment directly from equipment suppliers. However, this model is not widely employed since it may be time-consuming for the end-user, and it compromises any guarantee for the performance of the whole system.

7.8.3 Whole process stream purchase versus one-stop shopThe most common option for purchasing a water treatment system is to split the order into three main categories, rather than to purchase individual technologies separately:

• UPW system

• Wastewater treatment system

• Water reuse system

The end-users might be interested in receiving a quote for the full water treatment process (i.e. UPW, wastewater and reuse system). However it is very unlikely that the final order will be given to a single supplier. It is more common to combine the wastewater treatment and the water reuse systems.

In Asia, where low cost is the key priority, single technology purchase is preferred. However, where a single point of responsibility is preferred, the whole process purchase is prioritised. Additionally, wastewater treatment in Asia is typically carried out by local companies as the technological requirements are not as rigorous as they are for UPW and water reuse systems.

7.8.4 Local versus global suppliers Larger, international suppliers have a competitive advantage compared to local, well-established suppliers because they are able to shoulder multi-billion projects and offer product guarantees. Global suppliers are therefore preferred for larger projects. Local players have a greater chance of succeeding at smaller projects where cost is the main priority.

A preference for local players is also country specific. For example, in Japan, local players are more likely to be considered. In China, local players will be chosen for the basic equipment line, such as pipes, and more advanced technologies, such as RO membranes, will come from established international suppliers. Chinese companies are able to produce UF/MF membranes which are cost and quality competitive.

7.8.5 Opportunities for outsourcing operation and maintenance (O&M)In the USA and Europe, the market is very conservative with regard to outsourcing the O&M of water treatment systems. Currently, only a small minority of companies will pass responsibility for O&M on to an external company.

In Asia, the opportunities for outsourcing O&M are greater. O&M is performed by the company responsible for the construction of a particular water system, or if the fab plant operator is price-conscious, it will pass the O&M on to a cheaper provider, or perform it internally.

Some companies outsource the management of residual, highly contaminated wastewater so that it can be treated off-site.

7.8.6 The competitive landscape: Major water technology companies and equipment providers

7.8.6.1 “Tier-one” companies

There are many companies active in the microelectronics industry. The following figure lists some of the major water technology players. The major water companies provide a complete solution for the customer (i.e. UPW, water reuse and wastewater systems). They offer their own technologies and also purchase specialised technologies from smaller equipment suppliers and integrate them within their own system. As water treatment systems are so complex, it is almost impossible to build a system without components procured from competitors.

Figure 7.18 Major water companies – “tier-one”

Major water company Key regionGE North AmericaSiemens North AmericaVeolia EuropeOvivo EuropeNomura Micro Science AsiaKurita Water Industries AsiaOrgano Cooperation Asia

Source: GWI


Microelectronics // Supply chain analysis

7.8.6.2 Specialisation of “tier-one companies”

The influence of the companies listed above varies from region to region, and companies are active in numerous countries. In addition, companies do not necessarily compete with each other in all circumstances. They choose different size projects or concentrate on specific manufacturing processes (e.g. PV, LED, different types of semiconductor manufacturing plants). For example, Kurita, as a major Japanese microelectronics water treatment company with 50–60% share of the market, bids for smaller projects, while large-scale projects are carried out by “truly” global players such as GE.

7.8.7 “Tier-two” companies There is a wide range of specialised equipment suppliers which provide solutions as part of an overall water system typically offered by a larger player. The leading specialised companies are Nitto Denko, Dow, Pall, Agru and Georg Fischer.

7.8.8 EPC contractorsSome of the major EPC international players are listed in the following figure. Each player concentrates on a specific segment, in which they are the market leader or one of a group of market leaders. There are also other, smaller firms which are active in the industry. Some water treatment companies also have an engineering division and offer EPC services.

Figure 7.19 Major EPC contractors

EPC contractors Key regionsMW Group Southeast Asia, EuropeCH2M HILL Taiwan, North AmericaJacobs USAHyflux Asia

Source: GWI

7.8.9 Microelectronics manufacturersThere are over 500 companies active in the industry, but about 15 of the companies have over 50% of the market (i.e. over 50% of installed capacity). The major player in terms of installed capacity and equipment spending is Samsung and the main competitor in the construction spending area is Intel. The following figure shows the installed capacity, where the wafer size has been taken into consideration, for the top ten companies by capacity in 2012.

Figure 7.20 Top 10 companies by installed capacity (200 mm wafer equivalent), 2012

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

UMC

Texas Instruments, Inc.

Globalfoundries

STMicroelectronics

Flash Alliance Ltd.

Micron Technology Inc

Intel Corporation

SK Hynix

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.

Samsung



There has been a decrease in the number of major players in the industry over the last 20 years. When 200 mm silicon wafers were standard, there were around 200 major players. However, when 300 mm wafer fabs became the norm, fewer companies were able to compete on a large scale and the number of major players decreased to around 25. It is anticipated that as the industry moves towards 450 mm wafer fabs, there will be only a handful of companies which are able to achieve the necessary levels of investment.



7.9 Market trends

7.9.1 Currently installed capacity and market trendsAccording to the SEMI World Fab Forecast dataset (the industry standard for semiconductor fab information), the current design capacity of the semiconductor industry is 21.4 million wafers/month in 200 mm wafer equivalent. Fabs currently produce microchips on wafers ranging from 50 mm to 300 mm in diameter. 450 mm wafer fabs are currently in planning stages and a first commercial plant is likely to be built within the next few years.

Asia is the major region where fabs are located. This region currently accounts for 76% of global semiconductor and FPD production, while America accounts for just 14% and the rest of the world the remaining 10%.

The following figure shows the newly added global installed capacity from 2000 until 2017. It indicates that between 2000 and 2017 new capacity has been rising steadily in Asia. The growth of the other regions was less steady over the period. The whole market came to a standstill between 2008 and 2010, when newly added capacity decreased sharply in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. The Americas have tried to take advantage of the unstable climate in Asia, and since 2010 the semiconductor market has been reviving. The U.S. in particular is the major semiconductor market of the Americas region. However, growth in the U.S. is predicted to peak in 2013, after which further growth is uncertain. Asia is set to remain the region where the majority of the fabs are built.

Figure 7.21 Increment to installed capacity, 2000–2017

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

20162012200820042000

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

No.

waf

ers/

mon

th (2

00 m

m w

afer

equ

ival

ent)


7.9.1.1 Geographical shift

Over the past decade the industry has been experiencing a regional shift from the traditional semiconductor manufacturing countries such Japan and the U.S., to countries where production processes can be more cost-effective.

The following figure shows the current total installed capacity of the top 10 countries, and Figure 7.23 shows projected newly added installed capacity by country from 2012–2017. There are a number of trends that can be derived from the following figures.

Japan is currently the country with the largest installed capacity worldwide. However, its position is very likely to be challenged by other major players. Taiwan, China, South Korea and the U.S. will most likely add more new capacity to challenge Japan’s current leading status.

Secondly, while the U.S. will continue to add new capacity, the production output is unlikely to reach the capacity of other Asian countries. The key role of the U.S. and Japan will be to remain the major microelectronics R&D centres where new technology is established. As soon as the technology is fully developed, the trend is to build fabs in regions where labour and construction costs are lower, such as China. There are great cost savings in this approach and some experts suggested that building a fab in Asia


Microelectronics // Market trends

could be $1 billion cheaper than constructing it in the United States. This is a significant reduction, considering that the cost of a large-scale fab currently costs around $5 billion.

Thirdly, Taiwan and South Korea will remain the key hubs in the semiconductor industry and China will emerge as the third major player.

Figure 7.22 Global installed capacity by country in 2012

0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000

RoW

Italy

Malaysia

France

Germany

Singapore

China

United States of America

Taiwan

South Korea

Japan



Figure 7.23 Newly added capacity by country, 2012–2017

0 280,000 560,000 840,000 1,120,000 1,400,000

Russian Federation

Malaysia


Japan

United States of America

South Korea

China

Taiwan





7.9.1.2 FPD and PV market trends

The FPD industry is currently at its most active in Japan and Taiwan. However, as the FPD technology matures, the industry may follow a regional shift similar to the semiconductor industry as production is moved towards China.

The global PV cell production is concentrated mainly in Asia. China has the largest share and produced nearly three times the capacity of Taiwan in 2010 (see the following figure). The other major PV cell producing countries are Japan, Germany and the United States.

The industry has grown rapidly between 2009 and 2011. However, in 2012 growth has flattened out. This is because the demand for PV cells was driven by EU subsidies which are not active at the moment. Other non-European countries such as China have made some commitments towards solar energy governmental subsidies. However, the exact extent of these commitments is still uncertain and additional governmental support is needed to bring the industry back to a stable growth trajectory.

Figure 7.24 The top 5 PV cell producing countries, 2010

Country PV cell production (MW)China 11,000Taiwan 3,600Japan 2,200Germany 2,000USA 1,100

Source: Earth Policy Institute, 2011

7.10 Market forecast

7.10.1 Fab projectsOur market forecast is underpinned by the SEMI World Fab Forecast, May 2012 edition, which details capital expenditure, capacity, technology, geometry and products on a fab-by-fab basis. The dataset is the de-facto data source for information about the semiconductor industry. It contains 1,166 existing fabs, 106 fabs starting operation and 53 fabs starting construction, with expected online dates which we used to inform our forecast.

7.10.2 Overall picture The following figure shows our market forecast for pretreatment, UPW and wastewater treatment systems from 2011 to 2025.

Figure 7.25 Microelectronics industry market forecast, 2011–2025




500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Microelectronics ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011–7 2025

Pretreatment systems 357.0 338.3 386.0 385.2 393.8 400.6 408.7 2.3% 496.4Ultrapure water systems 477.8 471.5 560.9 584.0 623.4 663.0 705.8 6.7% 1,155.8Wastewater treatment systems 215.3 215.3 259.3 273.4 295.3 317.7 342.9 8.1% 611.8Total 1,050.0 1,025.0 1,206.3 1,242.5 1,312.5 1,381.3 1,457.4 5.6% 2,264.0

Source: GWI


Microelectronics // Market forecast

The whole water treatment systems market is forecast to see stable growth of 5.6% between 2011 and 2017.

The largest capital expenditure of microelectronics companies is currently spent on the UPW systems. These systems are essential for ensuring manufacturing equipment operation reliability. The expenditure for UPW will grow by a healthy 6.7% from 2011 to 2017. This is mainly because of ever-increasing UPW quality requirements for the production of smaller microchips. This will lead to utilising more technologies in order to achieve an appropriate UPW quality, and in some cases even doubling-up specific equipment to enhance confidence in the systems performance.

Pretreatment systems account for the second largest capital expenditure of microelectronics companies. However, growth is set to be relatively smaller with an increase of 2.3% between 2011 and 2017. The microelectronics manufacturers have been open to taking risk when installing pretreatment technologies only when it was essential to do so, which limits this growth. However, with more new state-of-the art fabs coming into use, there will be a greater need to have reliable pretreatment methods and manufacturers will invest into more robust pretreatment systems such as multimedia filtration with activated carbon or UF, as opposed to more basic cartridge filters.

Wastewater treatment systems are forecast to experience growth of 8.1% between 2011 and 2017. The growth will be driven primarily by an investment into water reuse and resource recovery equipment rather than improvements in conventional wastewater treatment methods. These will include a greater uptake of RO, UF and cartridge filters on the water reuse front and electrowinning and IX technologies on the resource recovery side. As the regulations slowly tighten and water scarcity threatens an uninterrupted production process, we will see more water reuse and wastewater technologies being installed.

7.10.3 Regional trendsThe key area of growth in the period from 2013 to 2017 will be Asia, which will account for the majority of equipment spending. Taiwan is forecast to invest the most in water treatment equipment, closely followed by China and then the Republic of Korea (see the following figure). Japan will still experience some growth, but its position will be weakened due to its higher labour and construction costs than in other Asian countries. The same applies to spending in the U.S., which will reach approximately a quarter of the Chinese market in that period.

Figure 7.26 Microelectronics industry, top country markets, 2013–2017


(2013-2017)

Taiwan $1,810mUSA $519m

RoW $800m

Republic of Korea $1,196mChina $1,432m

Japan $845m

Source: GWI

7.10.4 Reference and alternate scenariosOur reference scenario for the microelectronics industry is relatively conservative, and makes the following assumptions:

• Demand for 300 mm wafers will continue to grow steadily, eventually giving way to a next generation standard.

• The production growth for the solar panels and flat panel displays remains lower than 10%.

Our alternate scenario from 2013 is more optimistic:

• Global demand for new microelectronics goods will grow steadily, leading to a greater demand for higher performance chips.

• The demand for solar panels will return to more than a 12% growth rate due to increased subsidies and higher electricity costs.

• The next generation of f lat panel displays will replace the current LCD standard.



The regional breakdown highlights the dominance of Asia Pacific in this market, as shown in the following figures.

Figure 7.27 Microelectronics industry, 2011–2017: Reference scenario

0

300

600

900

1,200

1,500

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Microelectronics reference scenario ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Americas 59.5 152.7 201.7 210.1 88.9 95.5 86.2 6.4%EMEA 29.7 14.0 1.7 13.3 106.7 132.5 155.2 31.7%Asia Pacific 960.8 858.3 1,002.8 1,019.1 1,116.9 1,153.3 1,216.1 4.0%Total 1,050.0 1,025.0 1,206.3 1,242.5 1,312.5 1,381.3 1,457.4 5.6%

Source: GWI

In the alternate scenario, the overall market is around 10% higher, due to increased demand for devices with smaller line-widths which require a higher purity of UPW.

Figure 7.28 Microelectronics industry, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Microelectronics alternate scenario ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Americas 59.5 152.7 221.9 231.1 97.8 105.0 94.8 8.1%EMEA 29.7 14.0 1.9 14.6 117.3 145.7 170.7 33.8%Asia Pacific 960.8 858.3 1,404.0 1,426.7 1,563.7 1,614.6 1,702.5 10.0%Total 1,050.0 1,025.0 1,627.7 1,672.5 1,778.8 1,865.4 1,968.0 11.0%

Source: GWI


Pulp and paper // Introduction

8. Pulp and paper8.1 IntroductionThe pulp and paper industry represents a group of industries that produce different grades of pulp and paper for various purposes, such as cardboard, tissues and newspapers. Water plays a dominant role in the pulp and paper making process: it is used in various steps of the process, as well as a medium for transporting the fibres (raw material) through the paper machine. A typical 1,000 t/d pulp and paper plant would use up to 70,000 m³/d of water. Water and the paper product are so intertwined during the paper production process that, for example, at the beginning of the process, the stock solution is typically 99% water and 1% fibre, while the final product may be around 5% water and 95% fibre.

The process of producing different paper grades from the fibre can be divided into 2 main processes: pulping and paper production.

8.1.1 Facility classificationFacilities can be classified in 2 different ways: by process (end result) and by source of fibre (location).

Based on the end result, the facilities can be divided into 3 types:

• Pulping facilities: Production of pulp only.

• Paper facilities: Production of paper from pulp.

• Pulp and paper facilities: Integrated pulp and paper production.

Facilities can be further categorised according to the source of fibre used by the facility:

• Virgin facilities (greenfield mills): Located near the forest, virgin facilities use virgin fibre (wood chips from trees) as a source. These types of mills are mostly located on large water bodies such as lakes or rivers.

• Urban facilities (urban forests): Located in cities, urban facilities use recycled paper as a source of fibre.

These two categories of facility have different drivers in terms of water use and wastewater discharge, and face different water and wastewater challenges, which will be explained later in the chapter.



8.2 Process description: Pulping and paper manufacturing processThe following figure depicts the main steps in the paper making process, along with the water and wastewater aspects involved.

Figure 8.1 Water in the pulp and paper industry

Digester Washer Bleaching Wet end Dry end Coating PaperWoodchips

Bleach filtrate recycle process

White water reuse

Process water Steam

TreatmentIntake Boiler feedtreatment Boiler

Wastewatertreatment

Specifictreatments

Sludgedewatering

Treated effluent

Evaporator &concentrator

Strong black liquor

Steam

White liquor

Vario

us s

teps

Weak black liquor

Wastewater treatment for reuse

CondensateUsed as a biofuel

Diagram keyPulp and paper

Wastewater

Water

Steam

Chemical recovery

Sludge

Water reuse

Pulp

Paper

Brown stock

Source: GWI


Pulp and paper // Process description: Pulping and paper manufacturing process

8.2.1 Pulping processIn the initial stage of the paper making process, pulp, wood or recycled paper is broken down into its components so that the fibres can be separated. The fibres are washed, water is pressed out and the residue is dried. The pulp can be bleached and made into white paper or used directly.

Virgin fibre originates from either hardwood trees such as birch and oak, or softwood trees such as pine and spruce. First, the tree is debarked and chipped into small wood particles. The tree then undergoes a pulping process where cellulose fibres (the main constituents of wood) are separated from the lignin that binds fibres together.

Recycled fibre originates from old paper. However, it cannot completely replace the use of virgin fibre, for although recycled fibre can be used 5–7 times, the fibres get shorter each time they are reused which decreases the strength of the final product. Recycled fibre is therefore used for products made of lower grade paper, such as newspapers. When recycled paper is used, the raw material is mixed with water and chemicals, the mixture is agitated to produce individual fibres and the ink is then removed in a de-inking process.

The process steps for pulp manufacturing are presented in the following figure.

Figure 8.2 Pulp manufacturing process sequence

Process sequence Description Fibre furnish preparationand handling

Debarking, slashing, chipping of wood logs and screening of wood chips/secondary fibres (some pulp mills purchase chips and skip this step).

Pulping Chemical, semi-chemical, or mechanical breakdown of pulping material into fibres.Pulp processing Removal of pulp impurities, cleaning and thickening of pulp fibre mixture. Bleaching Addition of chemicals in a staged process of reaction and washing increases whiteness and

brightness of pulp, if necessary. Pulp drying and baling (non-integrated mills)

At non-integrated pulp mills, pulp is dried and bundled into bales for transport to a paper mill.

Stock preparation Mixing, refining, and addition of wet additives that will affect strength, gloss and texture of the final paper product.

Source: Adapted from EPA, 2002

Pulping processes can be divided into two main types, mechanical and chemical.

8.2.1.1 Mechanical pulping (groundwood pulping)

In this process, the wood is mechanically grinded into relatively short fibres by pressing the wood against a rotating wheel. The yield of the pulp is high at 90–95%, but the quality of the pulp is low grade, it is highly coloured and contains short fibres. Thermomechanical pulping (TMP) is a modification where steam is used prior to grinding, and in chemothermomechanical pulping (CTMP), sulphur based chemicals are added prior to steaming. Mechanical pulping is used for recycled fibre, while for virgin fibre both mechanical and chemical pulping can be used.

8.2.1.2 Chemical pulping

In chemical pulping, wood chips are “pressure cooked” with appropriate chemicals in a solution. The yield of the pulp is around 40–50%, and very pure cellulose fibres are produced. There are 2 main chemical pulping processes:

• Kraft process: A widely used process where the woodchips are cooked in white cooking liquor, which is a mixture of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium sulphide (NaS2).

• Sulphite process: Wood chips are cooked in a mixture of sulphurous acid (H2SO3) and hydrogen sulphite ions (HSO3).

The Kraft process is commonly used because it allows the chemicals involved to be recycled and generates steam as a by-product, while minimising environmental impacts. Figure 8.1 illustrates a few steps in the Kraft process, where wood chips are transformed into pulp for processing. The wood chips, mixed with the white liquor, are heated in a digester in order to break down and remove lignin. Two main products emerge from the process: “waste” fluid called black liquor and a valuable brown stock. The brown stock is washed in order to dilute chemicals and then sent to a bleaching process or directly to paper production.

The black liquor, a mixture of lignin and used chemicals, carbohydrates and resins, goes through a process of chemical recovery. In order to remove water from the black liquor, two processes are used:

• First, multiple effect evaporators increase the solids concentration in the black liquor. The liquid condensate, also known as foul condensate, is not pure enough to be used as boiler feedwater, but it can be used in the brown wash stockers. Only a part of the condensate can be reused as boiler feedwater.

• Second, a concentrator extracts the final amount of water from the black liquor.



This concentrated black liquor is then burned in a recovery boiler. A liquid pool called smelt is sent to a smelt dissolving tank, where it is combined with a large volume of water. After this, it undergoes various steps where the final result is clear white liquor that will be used in a digester.

8.2.2 Bleaching After pulping, and particularly with the chemical process, lignin develops a strong colour, which is a problem for white paper grades, where bleaching is necessary. This increases the brightness of the product and gives it a whiter appearance.

Common bleaching processes are the following:

• Chlorine bleaching using chlorine gas (Cl2)

• Chlorine dioxide bleaching (ClO2)

• Caustic extraction bleaching (NaOH)

• Chlorine bleaching using hypochlorite (NaOCl)

• Oxygen bleaching (O2)

• Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)

• Ozone (O3)

Historically, chlorine has been the most common chemical used for bleaching. However, it was discovered that it results in creating chlorinated organic compounds, including dioxins, which are highly toxic and cancer-causing. Nowadays, the bleaching is done in a way to use elemental chlorine free (ECF) bleaching sequences. It is also possible to produce totally chlorine free (TCF) pulp, which uses oxygen, ozone and peroxides.

8.2.3 Paper manufactureA paper production machine, the most common of which is the Fourdrinier paper machine, is used to transform processed pulp into a paper product. In the case of a non-integrated mill, where the paper mill is separate from the pulp mill, pulp arrives in a dry form and is then diluted. The process water in the paper mill is called whitewater. After dilution, different additives are added, such as fillers, sizing material, dyes and chemicals. The stock solution (as it is called at this stage) is further diluted. There are two general steps in the paper making process:

• Wet end operations: The pulp solution is pumped into the paper machine, where it is evenly spread over a long moving wire belt. Water is removed by gravity and suction. In order to remove more water and compress the fibres, the sheet is pressed between a series of rollers. A paper sheet is formed from the wet pulp.

• Dry end operations: The paper product is dried using steam heated rollers to compress the sheets further. At this stage coatings can be applied to improve gloss, colour or printing details.

8.3 DriversHistorically, pulp and paper facilities were located in close proximity to water sources, and there was little need for water reuse. However, the situation is changing, with the use of advanced technologies coming into favour as a result of the following:

• A rise in production from mills located in “urban forest” areas. These facilities face higher water costs than “green forest” located mills, and have a greater interest in water efficiency.

• The fastest growing market for pulp and paper is in China, where raw water sources are both limited and impaired, and water technologies which can address these challenges are at a premium.

• The new generation of boilers used in the industry require higher quality feedwater than traditional boilers. As existing production facilities are refitted, there will be a greater demand for ultrapure water treatment lines than has historically been the case.

Global demand continues to drive the need for the manufacture of more industrial goods, and the limited amount of water available means that alternative water sources are required. Aside from the issue of water scarcity, the main drivers for improved water management in the pulp and paper industry are regulation, economic drivers, use of new boilers and environmental responsibility.

8.3.1 RegulationRegulation of the quantity and quality of water discharged from the plant is a significant driver in terms of water management in the pulp and paper industry. For any large mill that is located near green forest or where the fibre is being produced or grown,


Pulp and paper // Drivers

regulation is by far the primary driver. Each mill will have a permit that allows the discharge of treated water to the environment. The permit will establish clear discharge limits for various criteria, such as COD, suspended solids and nutrients (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorus). New regulations that come along are reflected in the renewal of the permits.

Places like North America and Western Europe have established strict regulatory criteria, where by and large all mills are already in compliance with the criteria. In certain areas where regulatory standards were established but not enforced – for example China and Russia to some extent – the enforcement of regulation is moving very quickly. The result is that China now has one of the most stringent discharge limits, and it is the fastest growing market. For example, mills that were built in the 1980s and 1990s in locations with strict regulation in place (such as Scandinavia and North America) would not be able to operate now if they were built new in countries where investments are currently being made, such as South America or China.

There are cases where mills are located in countries in which there is no local requirement for a certain level of treatment, but their products are being sold to a market where higher treatment requirements exist. This situation forces a company to introduce treatment that is not required at local level, due to the market demand. For example, pulp produced in a mill located in Africa, in a place where there are no strict local requirements, is sold to the European market where some restrictions are in place (such as chlorine free bleaching). In such a situation, a company would comply with the requirements set by the market in Europe.

8.3.2 Economic driversIn the case of the “urban forest” facility (which uses recycled paper as a source of fibre), economic drivers related to the cost of water and the cost of wastewater treatment play a big role. If a recycled paper mill needs to pay a very high price for purchasing water, and a very high price for discharging that water to the local city sewer system, an investment into on-site treatment that would allow the mill to reuse water can provide a very good return on the investment.

8.3.3 BoilersThe quality of the water needed to make steam is dependent upon the boiler technology that has been used. Regardless of the type of boiler, the water needs to be demineralised (which involves removing the salt). Many of the old mills that use low pressure boilers do not need high quality water to make steam. However, a modern-day mill with a modern-day boiler system is going to need higher quality water, which can be achieved by using advanced technology.

In North America, around 60–65% of the boilers at large industrial plants (and not just pulp and paper plants) are 20 years old or more, which indicates that it is a mature market. A lot of manufacturing plants have been in existence for 20–30 years, and the boilers also tend to last 20–30 years. This means that a lot of mature plants are now reaching the phase where most of the key operations need to be replaced. On the other hand, a new plant in India or China will have a brand new boiler.

8.3.4 Environmental sustainabilityPulp and paper companies want to be seen as environmentally responsible. Mills have been reducing their water use over the last few decades, and continue to do so. Reasons for this reduction in use include the cost of water, the availability of water and water stewardship.

For example, in Western Europe paper mills are interested in showing that their manufacturing processes are sustainable. Paper is a consumer good, and therefore brand image is important to the mills.



8.4 GeographiesThere is an old saying in the industry – paper doesn’t travel well, but pulp travels very well. Paper mills are therefore being built in places where there is growth in paper consumption per capita. In the emerging markets, the consumption of paper per capita is still increasing in the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China). In the traditional, mature markets, such as North America and Western Europe, the case is quite the opposite – the consumption of paper per capita is decreasing.

In contrast, pulp mills, in the case of eucalyptus pulp, are built close to the natural resource (trees) and where they grow. This is predominantly South America and South East Asia, as countries such as Brazil, Chile, and Indonesia have faster-growing trees. Although China also has pulp mills, they either import the pulp or import the raw material (wood chips) from other regions.

To quantify the leading markets for pulp and paper production we have analysed data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation. The FAO ForesSTAT database provides the total weight of pulp and paper production on an annual basis. To demonstrate the evolution of the pulp and paper industry we have considered production from 1999 to 2011. (This is in order to avoid misrepresenting the size of the markets for recycled pulp and paper, as the FAO introduced these as new categories from 1998 onwards.)

The following figures demonstrate the emergence of Asia Pacific in both the pulp market and the paper market.

Figure 8.3 Paper production by region, 1999–2011

150

200

250

300

350

400

2011200920072005200320011999

Americas

EMEA

Asia Pacific

Tota

l pro

duct

ion

(mill

ion

tonn

es)

Source: FAO ForesSTAT, 2012

Figure 8.4 Pulp production by region, 1999–2011

50

100

150

200

250

2011200920072005200320011999

Americas

EMEA

Asia Pacific

Tota

l pro

duct

ion

(mill

ion

tonn

es)



Pulp and paper // Geographies

The following figure illustrates the growth of wood pulp production in South America compared to mature markets in North America and Europe.

Figure 8.5 Increasing wood pulp production in Brazil and Chile, 1999–2011

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2011200920072005200320011999

Brazil

Chile

Canada

Sweden

Tota

l pro

duct

ion

(mill

ion

tonn

es)


The pulp and paper industry is growing in these countries to serve domestic demand for paper products. However, exportation is also a big driver for these countries, as it enables them to maintain a positive trade balance by making products that can be exported. Furthermore, the low labour costs in these countries give them an advantage in the global marketplace.

In terms of China, the demand for packaging paper has also increased, as China produces a lot of consumer goods. Any product that has been bought online or in a shop needs to be packaged. The production of paper for packaging accounts for 33% of current Chinese production. The following figure illustrates the growth of paper production for packaging and construction, which together represent 70% of total production.

Figure 8.6 Increasing paper production for packaging and construction in China, 1999–2011

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2011200920072005200320011999

Packaging

Construction

Tota

l pro

duct

ion

(mill

ion

tonn

es)


North America and Western Europe are very mature markets, where minimal new capacity is being installed. Often mills in these regions are expanding – big mills are getting bigger. The problem is also that it is not easy to permit a new facility, as people oppose having a big pulp and paper mill in their backyards.



8.5 Process water requirements Water requirements for modern pulp and paper mills can vary considerably, depending on the pulping process, water availability, the bleaching sequence, and the restrictions on wastewater discharge. Water quality is very important in some cases because it has a direct influence on the quality of the pulp and paper product (especially in the case of bleached pulp).

Pulp and paper facility water needs can be divided into 3 basic categories:

• Cooling water needs: There is a lot of rotating equipment and increases in temperature which need to be cooled down.

• Boiler feedwater for steam generation: Many mills in the sector produce their own power. There is therefore a need for high quality water that can be fed to the power plant, made into steam and ultimately into electrical energy. Before being sent to the plant, the water must undergo condensate polishing.

• Water used for processing (washing & conveyance): Within any type of facility, fibres will be mixed with water and conveyed around the mill. The largest water consumption comes from washing the fibre.

The following figure shows typical water use/tonne of production by grade of paper being made in different regions around the world.

Figure 8.7 Water use in paper production, by grade and by region

Major gradeNorth America

(m³/tonne)Europe

(m³/tonne)Latin America

(m³/tonne)Asia Pacific (m³/tonne)

Market pulp 170 160 180 170Newsprint 90 80 70 90Other papers 140 110 120 150Packaging 150 100 100 70Printing & writing 160 90 160 120Tissue 80 90 60 60

Source: Nalco Water Handbook, 2009

As can be seen in Figure 8.7, the most water per tonne of production is required for market pulp and for printing grades of paper. Both of these categories have higher brightness or whiteness standards, along with higher contaminant removal. In order to achieve these standards, more processing steps are needed, as well as more water, to prevent contaminants from being retained in the process. On the other hand, tissue production requires the least amount of water as it uses recycled paper as a source (pulping and bleaching operations are not present).

Water use in packaging varies significantly. The reason for this difference is the source of fibre used. When virgin fibre is the source water use can be high, but mills that use recycled fibre use less water, as they tend to practice more water reuse.

8.5.1 TechnologiesWater treatment will depend greatly on the source of water being used. In most cases, especially for virgin fibre facilities, surface water such as a river or stream is the source. However, for an increasing number of mills, particularly in developing countries such as China and India, industrial wastewater is being reused.

When surface water is the source, the usual technology train is as follows:

• Course filtration (screen, cartridge filters, multimedia filtration or sand filtration) to remove suspended solids.

• A combination of reverse osmosis (RO) and ion exchange (IX) to demineralise water.

When wastewater is the source, membrane technologies can have a role in treatment (especially ultrafiltration (UF) or microfiltration (MF)). Wastewater treatment will be explained in further detail in Section 8.6.

There are varying levels of water specifications, and some of the most stringent specifications are in regard to boiler feedwater for steam generation. Water specifications tend to be dependent on the pressure rating and the age of the boiler. Most new boilers tend to operate at higher pressure and cycling rates, so require water of a higher quality.

Treatment technologies for boiler feedwater can include conventional clarification, MF or UF, RO and/or IX.

Although modern day boilers require water of a higher quality, the water still needs to be demineralised regardless of the boiler type. IX used to be the standard technology for demineralisation, but over the last 5–10 years economics has been driving the business more towards RO, due to it being less expensive, more efficient, and better in terms of performance.


Pulp and paper // Wastewater characteristics

8.6 Wastewater characteristicsWastewater characteristics in the pulp and paper industry can differ significantly based on mill processes and material inputs. To a large degree, the type of chemicals used in processes determines the wastewater treatment needs. The major contaminants in the wastewater, resulting from various steps in the pulp and paper making process, are shown in the following figure.

Figure 8.8 Wastewater contaminants in the pulp and paper making process (bleached Kraft chemical pulp)

Process Material inputs Process outputs Wastewater characteristicsFibre furnish preparation Wood logs

ChipsSawdust

Furnish chips Suspended solidsBODDirt, grit, fibres, bark

Chemical pulping Kraft process(Digester)

Furnish chips Black liquor (to chemical recovery system) Pulp (to bleaching/processing)

ResinsFatty acidsColourBODCODAOXa

VOC’sb (terpens, alcohol, phenols, methanol, acetone, chloroform, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK))

Evaporators (Chemical recovery system)

Black liquor Strong black liquor Evaporator condensate (BOD, suspended solids)

Pulp bleachingc Chemical pulpHypochlorite (HClO, NaOCl, Ca(OCl)2 )Chlorine dioxine (ClO2)

Bleached pulp Dissolved lignin CarbohydratesColorCODAOXInorganic chlorine compounds (e.g., chlorate (ClO3

–))d

VOCs (acetone, methylene chloride, chloroform, MEK, chloromethane, trichloroethane)

Paper making Additives, bleached/unbleached pulp

Paper/paperboard product Particulate wastesOrganic compoundsInorganic dyesCODAcetone

a AOX – adsorbable organic halidesb VOC’s – volatile organic compoundsc Contaminant list is based on the elemental chlorine free (ECF) bleaching technologiesd Chlorate is only significantly produced in mills with high rates of chlorine dioxide useSource: USA EPA, 2002



8.6.1 TechnologiesWastewater would usually go through primary and secondary treatment, and then either be discharged to the environment after secondary treatment, or move on to advanced treatment for reuse. The common technologies used in different treatment steps are listed in the following figure.

Figure 8.9 General wastewater treatment technologies for the pulp and paper industry

Treatment TechnologyPreliminary Screening

Grit removalPrimary (Physical) Sedimentation

FlotationFiltration

Secondary (Biological) Activated sludgeAerated lagoonsAnaerobic treatmentSequential treatment

Tertiary (Physico-chemical) Membrane separationCoagulation/PrecipitationAdsorptionChemical oxidation (wet oxidation, ozonisation, etc)

Source: Ince et all, 2011

When recycled paper is used as the fibre source, the wastewater is particularly difficult to deal with. Calcium and sulphate (SO42–)

in particular can cause problems. In general, secondary treatment is sufficient to reduce COD levels prior to discharge, and although the wastewater will remain coloured, the water recipient is not affected by the non-biodegradable material.

As more stringent regulations are being introduced, especially in China, additional treatment (the Fenton process) is required to decolourise the wastewater. The Fenton process itself creates an additional chemical sludge waste stream which needs to be dealt with. This is usually taken to a landfill, where it will create a leach and be processed somewhere else.

Another problem in the pulp and paper industry is that the short fibres tend to clog up any treatment technology quickly.

The water consumption and COD load for paper production, along with the correlating biological treatment processes, are shown in the following figure. Depending on the COD concentration, the technologies vary.

Figure 8.10 Biological treatment processes by paper grade

0

8,000

3025201510

Brown papers

White papers, NP/SC

Tissue, mixed DIP/pulp

Special paper pulp

5

Combination of anaerobic, lime trap, aerobic

Aerobic high output - MBBR

Aerobic 2-stage cascade

Aerobic 1 - stage surface aerator

COD,

mg/

l of O

2

Specific water consumption l/kg

Source: Voith, 2009

Anaerobic treatment in Europe, particularly for recycled paper mills, is already widely used or widely accepted. However, an anaerobic membrane bioreactor is seen as a new technology that is now garnering some interest.

Large mills outside cities generally have a lot of land, and therefore big plant sites. These plants use high volumes of water, and consequently require large treatment systems to process the wastewater generated. In contrast, recycled paper mills in cities have limited space, so require technologies that are very space efficient.


Pulp and paper // Supply chain analysis

The different levels of effluent treatment used for pulp and paper mills in Europe are shown in the following figure.

Figure 8.11 Effluent treatment for pulp and paper mills (within CEPI Member Countries, 2008)

Country

Total effluent*

(million m³)

Primary (mechanical-sedimentation)

(million m³)

Secondary (biological) (million m³)

Tertiary (million m³)

Cooling water/ no treatment **

(million m³)Austria 171 0 99 0 72 Belgium 50 1 49 0 0 Czech Republic 61 6 49 2 4 Finland 1,021 9 510 35 467 France 243 30 195 15 3 Germany 486 3 219 16 248 Italy 208 52 137 19 0 Netherlands 92 3 21 5 63 Norway 167 16 15 35 101 Poland 64 1 61 0 2 Portugal 80 12 63 0 5 Slovak Republic 48 0 39 0 9 Spain 124 35 78 11 0 Sweden 800 10 370 80 340 Switzerland 19 0 16 2 1 United Kingdom 76 19 44 10 3 Total 3,666 198 1,970 224 1,274

*Includes process effluents and separate non-contact cooling water discharges. **Separate non-contact cooling water discharge contribution included with process effluents that undergo no treatment; non-contact cooling waters not contaminated by process materials. Source: NCASI, 2011

8.6.2 Water reuseWater reuse practices within the pulp and paper industry differ significantly between the greenfield mills and urban forest mills.

Greenfield mills that are located near the forest would consider treating and reusing individual wastewater streams. For example, a large mill with a capacity of 100,000 m³/d may consider reusing 5,000 m³/d. The tendency of urban forest mills, on the other hand, is to treat and reuse all of the water.

The reasons behind these practices are purely economical. If a mill is located near a forest on a large water body, where essentially free water is available from a river, then there is little incentive for water reuse. If, however, a mill is located in the city, where the cost of water is high and the act of discharging it to the sewer system expensive, then water reuse is a logical route to take if it can offer a good return on the investment.

The main challenge regarding water reuse is to retain certain characteristics of the water during the process (such as COD, salts and pH). Biological activity can become an issue if the water is not treated correctly, which would generate a smell that can interfere with the product. The presence of slimy contaminants in some agents (like a bio-film) would be released, enter the paper and damage it.

Calcium can also be problematic. Waste papers contain a lot of calcium, and if the pH level is incorrect, resulting in the system not being able to run, then calcium precipitation occurs. This reaction creates a lot of difficulties in the paper production process.

8.7 Supply chain analysisThere are various ways an equipment supplier can approach a pulp and paper client. In a situation where the pulp and paper company wants to develop a mill, it is very common for the pulp and paper company to contract a consultant, as they themselves usually do not have the structure to develop the mill on their own. Different approaches can be summarised as follows:

• Direct approach: When the client wants to do the project themselves.

• Through a consultant: When a mill outsources the work to a consultant.

• Through an agent: The agent represents a number of different manufacturers that are not in competition with each other, but instead complement each other so that the agent has a wide offering of technologies in their portfolio.

In a situation where the mill outsources the work to a consultant, the mill would work closely with the consultant company to develop the design. The consultant would discuss the mill’s needs with different suppliers, prepare an enquiry, and send it to



possible suppliers. Suppliers would prepare a proposal and consultants would approve a few proposals (at least two), considering the technologies suggested and the commercial conditions. After the final negotiations, a decision would be made on the supplier. In terms of buying the equipment, the three different islands – water treatment plant, effluent treatment plant and boiler feedwater – may sometimes all be bought from one supplier, and at other times be bought from different suppliers.

The relationship between the equipment supplier and the consultant is very important, as is contact with the final customer (the owner of the mill). In growing markets such as Brazil and China, where big plants are being built, there are not many equipment supplier options. Regular communication is therefore maintained between a consultant and an equipment supplier. Regarding the relationship with the end user, it is beneficial to keep mills updated on the latest technologies, experience and references. Then a trusting relationship with the client can be established, where they are able to, for example, understand a certain technology and not view it as a black box.

It is not unusual for an equipment supplier to have an agent, especially in key market areas. The agent is in frequent contact with the mill, so an international player can get in contact through their local establishment (typically an agent), or ideally a business unit. Where a big pulp and paper mill exists, and where international companies are present, agents are present.

8.7.1 One-stop shop or separate technologies?The way that a pulp and paper company purchases equipment from a supplier depends on the company’s practice and if they have the engineering outfit. The client may want a turnkey solution, or the client may wish to buy different pieces of equipment from various suppliers. At the beginning of a project, the client may buy big packages from the same supplier. However, further into the development stage of a project, some pieces of equipment may be bought from other suppliers due to differences in prices.

8.7.2 International versus local playersSmall mills tend to buy from local players, while big international companies buy from whoever offers the best price and quality. If it is a big mill, the requirements are such that there is very rarely a local company who can match the requirements. So the decision is influenced by company size. However, this does not mean that a small mill will not need the services of a big, international player. In emerging markets, such as China and Brazil, there are not many equipment supplier options, and the mills tend to select international players. Mills in emerging markets tend to prefer international players over local options due to their references in the pulp and paper industry, and because international players understand the mill’s needs.

8.7.3 RequirementsThere are 2 important criteria to fulfil when conducting business with a pulp and paper mill:

1. Being a credible player.

2. Offering a competitive price.

A company’s credibility is based on its reputation, experience, and the type of work the company has completed (e.g. references). Along with being a serious player, the equipment supplier must provide a competitive price – otherwise the company is very likely to be out of the running.

The bottom line is that there is a certain standard that an equipment supplier is required to match, but the process is essentially a price race. Mills tend to collect comparable proposals from different suppliers, and although some preferences may exist in the market, the decision does come down to price.

8.7.4 Market playersThe different players present in the water for pulp and paper market can be categorised as follows:

• Consultants

• Engineering companies (design-build)

• Suppliers

Each of these categories can be divided into international players, big players and small, local companies. Most of the major engineering companies are active in the pulp and paper market (such as CH2M Hill or Bechtel). In terms of consultancy, the Finnish company, Jaakko Pöyry, is seen as a big player in the industry.

There is a pool of general suppliers in the pulp and paper market, including Andritz, Metso and Voith, who are responsible for bulk supply, or supplying the production line. Some suppliers may have their own water treatment systems.

Large water technology companies are active in this market, with Veolia and Degremont providing the most complete offering in terms of their technologies and global participation, but other companies such as Ovivo, GE, Siemens and Dow are also present.


Pulp and paper // Market forecast

8.7.5 Entering the marketTo enter this market, a new player must be able meet the following criteria:

• Be cheaper than the other players that have penetrated the market.

• Be able to find a client that is willing to take the risk of doing business with them.

• Be a credible company.

It is essential for each market entrant to get a first reference, after which the process becomes easier. One way to achieve this is through a pilot study, which a company may have to finance itself. Whatever a company is developing, unless it has a significant proven benefit to the client, which is often the case, it has to be cheaper than the other equipment available in the market.

8.8 Market forecast

8.8.1 Overall pictureThe water and wastewater treatment market for the pulp and paper industry is relatively f lat. It will show a small amount of growth but nothing drastic, as shown in the following figure.

Figure 8.12 Pulp and paper industry market forecast, 2011–2025



Process water systems(excl.UPW)0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Pulp and paper ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011–17 2025

Process water systems (excl.UPW) (a) 210.0 190.0 205.2 215.5 224.1 234.2 238.7 2.2% 308.0Boiler feedwater systems (b) 25.0 21.8 23.5 27.2 28.3 29.6 30.4 3.3% 46.5Wastewater treatment systems (c) 304.5 264.9 286.1 302.1 314.2 328.3 332.6 1.5% 423.0Total (d) 539.5 476.7 514.8 544.7 566.5 592.0 601.7 1.8% 777.5

(a) Includes technologies such as screens and different types of filtration to treat water for different processes, such as washing or conveyance.(b) Technologies used to demineralise water for the purposes of boiler feedwater, e.g. MF or UF, RO and/or IX.(c) Includes primary, secondary and tertiary treatment.(d) This figure represents a downward adjustment in the market size in comparison to the figure published in the Global Water Market 2011 report. The definition of water treatment equipment has been drawn more tightly to reflect the experience of water treatment companies operating in this market. It is a grey area: paper making is essentially about water conditioning and processing.Source: GWI



The country market split for 2013–2017 reflects the strides in production that China made during the 2000s. Mature markets, such as Europe and North America, have not been demonstrating much growth due to lack of new demand for paper products, but will see investment in existing older facilities. There is also a trend towards new pulp mills in South America, especially in Brazil.

Figure 8.13 Pulp and paper industry, top country markets, 2013–2017


(2013-2017)

Germany $226m

USA $630m

RoW $1,098m

Brazil $131m

China $504m

Japan $231m

Source: GWI

8.8.2 Reference and alternate scenariosThe market depends on the economic climate and the demand for paper products.

Our reference scenario for the pulp and paper industry makes the following assumptions:






The following figures show regional breakdowns for each scenario.

Figure 8.14 Pulp and paper industry by region, 2011–2017: Reference scenario

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Pulp and paper reference scenario ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR


Source: GWI


Pulp and paper // Market forecast

In the alternate scenario, the overall market is down by around 40%.

Figure 8.15 Pulp and paper industry by region, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Pulp and paper alternate scenario ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Americas 200.7 176.4 94.7 99.7 102.8 106.6 107.4 -9.9%EMEA 121.0 105.4 73.0 75.5 77.8 79.7 79.5 -6.8%Asia Pacific 217.9 194.9 149.1 159.7 168.9 179.4 185.3 -2.7%Total 539.5 476.7 316.9 334.9 349.5 365.7 372.1 -6.0%

Source: GWI



9. Mining 9.1 Introduction to miningMining involves the extraction and recovery of minerals and metals from the earth. The mined rock, known as ‘ore’ contains economic concentrations of minerals or metals. Mining is a water intensive operation that occurs in many regions faced with limited water infrastructure and affected by water scarcity. Arid regions such as north-western and central Australia, northern Chile and the south-west United States are some of the major mining regions in the world. Water is a crucial component of the mining industry as it is essential for many mining applications.

Water is consumable at mine sites and it is used in varied mining operations, processing steps, transportation and/or handling, transportation and disposal of waste streams, and in the utilities. Water is a major environmental and water security concern for the mining industry. Limited availability of water affects the survival of mine operations. In addition, the wastewater generated can negatively impact the environment and water bodies. Acid rock drainage (ARD) in the ore at sulphide metal, coal and gold mines is a major environmental problem for the industry.

9.1.1 Mining methodsSurface and underground mining are the primary methods used to extract ores from the earth. Both methods can be achieved by using various mining techniques. The techniques are selected based on the depth, size and shape of the ore body, the topography of the area being mined and mining costs.

• Surface mining: Involves accessing the ore body from the surface by removing the non-valuable overburden material that overlies it. It is used to extract ores in relatively shallow, large, lower grade deposits.

• Underground mining: Used to extract rocks and minerals when the geometry and geology of the ore deposit make surface mining techniques uneconomic. It is used for narrow and deep ore bodies.

9.1.2 Mining processingMined ores contain impurities that need to be separated and removed during processing to improve the quality of the ores. The processed ore can then be shipped to market in the form of a pure metal or a concentrate. There are several processing steps that can be performed to improve the quality of an ore. The geology and mineralogy of the ore determines which techniques are used. The main processing techniques are as follows:

• Comminution is the first step that is conducted. Ore is crushed and ground to break it down into fine sized particles. The crushing and grinding processes liberate the valuable minerals from the impurities and allows effective separation.

• Physical separation processing involves using physical methods to produce a final product. Separation is based on the physical properties such as the size, density and the surface properties of the mineral. Froth flotation is a water intensive physical separation method.

• Pyrometallurgical processing involves the use of thermal techniques to cause physical and chemical transformations in metallurgical ores, concentrates and minerals. The thermal techniques include the application of heat or burning fuel to recover valuable metals.

• Hydrometallurgical processing involves using chemical reactions to dissolve metals and minerals for later extraction and purification. The reactions take place between the aqueous solutions and the ores. Leaching is a hydrometallurgy process that consumes large volumes of water.

• Electrometallurgical processing involves separating metals from ores or purifying metals through an electrical process. It is often conducted after hydro or pyrometallurgy processing.

The processing techniques are used in varied combinations to process an ore to a purified metal or concentrate. The different processing techniques used in mining extraction and processing can be seen in the following figure.


Mining // Introduction to mining

Figure 9.1 Mineral ore processing steps

SolutionMining

MININGMETHOD

OreStockpile

Concentrate(Cu, Pb, Zn, Fe)

Refining

Heap Leaching(Au, Ag, Cu)

Leaching(Zn)

BENEFICIATIONPROCESSING

WasteRock

Tailings

Waste

Waste

WASTE

Product

Gold boxes identify potential ARD, NMD & SD sources

Smelting

Physical Separation:Gravity, Flotation,

Magnetic, Electrostatic

Milling

Liberation:Crushing, Grinding,Screening & Sizing

Ore Ore

SurfaceMining

UndergroundMining

Waste

ChemicalProcessingLeaching

(Au, U)

Source: GARD Guide, 2011

9.1.3 Water consumption in mining processesThe quantity of ore being produced determines the volume of water required at a mine site. It should be noted that the grade of the ore is very important as it is heavily linked with water consumption. Lower grade ores require the use of larger volumes of water for processing. Whereas, higher grade ores consume less water for processing. Depletion of mining deposits around the world is causing mines to extract more lower grade ores. This is therefore impacting their water consumption needs.

The CSIRO published a water use study in mining and refining, which covered a life cycle analysis of water consumed taking an ore from “cradle to grave”. It should be noted that this study over-estimates water consumption at the mining site for electrically-intensive methods such as electrowinning. This is because the water required for power production is also taken into account in such a “life cycle analysis”.



The following figure provides a summary of the CSIRO findings.

Figure 9.2 Water consumption volumes for the processing steps for selected metals

Metal Processes Process stage Water consumption (m³/t)Copper Smelting

Converting Electro-refining

Mine and concentrator 0.37 m³/t of oreSmelting 7.8 m³/t of CuRefining 0.6 m³/t of Cu

Heap acid leaching SX and EW

Mining and heap leaching 23 m³/t of CuSX and EW 6.4 m³/t of Cu

Nickel Flash furnace smelting Sherritt-Gordon refining

Mine and concentrator 0.93 m³/t of oreSmelting 0.81 m³/t of concentrate

Pressure acid leaching SX/EW Refining 7.16 m³/t of matteTotal of all stages* 3.4 m³/t of ore

Lead Blast furnace Mine and concentrator 0.64 m³/t of oreSmelting 4.85 m³/t of PbRefining 0.47 m³/t of Pb

Imperial smelting process Mine and concentrator 0.64 m³/t of oreSmelting 12.73 m³/t of PbRefining 0.47 m³/t of Pb

Zinc Imperial smelting process Mine and concentrator 0.64 m³/t of oreSmelting 12.73 m³/t of ZnRefining 0.54 m³/t of Zn

Electrolytic process Mine and concentrator 0.64 m³/t of oreElectrolytic refining 12.33 m³/t of Zn

Aluminium Bayer/Hall-Heroult processes Mining 0.03 m³/t of bauxiteBayer alumina refining 2.9 m³/t of aluminaHall-Heroult smelting 1.5 m³/t of Al

Titanium Becher/Kroll processes Mine and concentrator 5.16 m³/t of ilmeniteBecher process 6 m³/t of rutileKroll process 40 m³/t of Ti

Iron or steel Blast furnace (BF) Basic Oxygen furnace (BOF)

Mine and concentrator 0.21 m³/t of oreSintering 0.15 m³/t of sinterBF and BOF 1.94 m³/t of steel

Stainless steel Electric arc furnace / argon oxygen decarburisation – ferronickel feedstock

Smelting and refining 2.24 m³/t of steel

Electric arc furnace / argon oxygen decarburisation – nickel feedstock

Smelting and refining 2.24 m³/t of steel

Gold CIL cyanidation EW/smelt

Total of all stages* 0.74 m³/t of ore

*Stage by stage data was not availableSource: Norgate and Lovel, 2004

In the 2011 GWI Water for Mining report, we estimate that water withdrawals for the global metal and mineral mining sector are in the region of 7–9 km³/yr. This estimate includes coal but excludes hard rock, clay, sand, gravel, etc.

9.2 Process water requirements

9.2.1 Process water sourcesWater is essential to the continued operability of a mine site. Many factors can affect the availability of water at mines sites. Some of the factors include the different geographic locations of mines, competing demands for water, climatic variations in regions, water allocation regulations and water quality issues. As such, water supply management is a critical aspect of the overall water management plan. Water used in mining operations can be supplied from surface and groundwater sources, seawater, municipalities and alternate water sources.

9.2.1.1 Alternate water sources

Governments are becoming more reluctant to grant water allocations to the mining sector. Environmental concerns and increasingly stringent regulations are limiting the water sourcing options for mining companies. As such, the use of traditional water supplies particularly in water scarce regions is greatly reduced.


Mining // Process water requirements

The growth in mining activities in regions impacted by limited water resources has put additional stress on countries like Australia, South Africa, Peru and Chile over the last 10 years. Alternative water resources must be explored to meet the growing water needs. The current trend is the use of seawater as an alternative water source. The viable alternate water resource options include the following:

• Raw seawater and brackish water

• Manufactured water (desalinated seawater and low chloride water from RO)

• Storm water and mining water reuse

• Wastewater supplies from municipalities

• Third party sources

There are different factors that influence the choice of alternate feedwater sources. The varied qualities of the alternate water sources affect the suitability of use. The source water quality can limit the applications where the water can be used. Although water quality is not a limiting factor for processes like copper flotation and oxide leaching, high quality water is required for sulphide reduction processes such as cyanide leaching for gold processing. For electrowinning processes, desalinated water, which is free of chlorine and sulphates, is required.

Overall, desalination provides high quality water that is suitable for use in all mining applications. It is therefore becoming the preferred option for an increasing number of mining operators. It is becoming increasingly common for new mines in water-scarce areas, to have their own desalination plant. Indeed, for remote mountainous locations situated in Chile and Southern Peru for example, seawater desalination is the only viable water source. Such mines are typically 70–200 km from the coast at an altitude of 500–3,000 m. Using groundwater as feedwater would devastate the local communities. Even though the pipeline and conveyance costs are large, the mines still make economic sense.

An assessment must be conducted to evaluate the effects of the alternate source water quality on mining processes. It is very important to take into account the impact the water will have on the mining operation. The suitability of alternate water sources is seen in the following figure.

Figure 9.3 Water quality suitability for selected processes

Water quality Flotation Oxide leaching Sulfide leaching ElectrowinningRaw seawater Yes Yes No NoBrackish well water Yes Yes Maybe NoDesalinated seawater Yes Yes Yes NoMunicipal wastewater Maybe Maybe Yes NoReverse osmosis water (Low chloride) Yes Yes Yes Yes

Source: Fleming, 2011

9.2.2 Process water technologiesThe use of varied feedwater water qualities in the mining industry necessitates the use of different processing technologies. Numerous technologies are used to treat the feedwater and bring it to the quality that is suitable for use in processing activities. The technologies used in generating process water are seen in the following figure.

Figure 9.4 Process water technologies

Category Technology FunctionScreening Screens, disc filters, drum filters Removes suspended solidsNeutralisation Lime neutralisation, lime precipitation Treat mine effluent affected by ARD

For reuse as feedwaterClarification Clarifiers Removes total suspended solids, colloidal matter, heavy metals Filtration Multimedia filters, sand filters Removes suspended solidsMembrane systems UF, MF, NF Pretreats water to protect downstream desalination systemsDeionisation EDI Removes ions from feedwaterDesalination RO, SWRO, BWRO, thermal desalination Rejects salt and generates high quality water from brackish

water and seawaterSource: GWI

9.2.2.1 Desalination technologies for process water

The desalination processes used to generate feedwater suitable for the use in mining processing are seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO), brackish water RO (BWRO) and thermal desalination. Pretreatment technologies have also been undergoing



improvements over the past 15–20 years. Mining companies are placing a significant emphasis on membrane pretreatment approaches at mining desalination plants. There is a need for improved metal ion removal at the pretreatment stage to reduce membrane fouling downstream.

9.2.3 Desalination trendsGlobally over the last decade, desalination has become a much more attractive option for mining operations. Due to the expense involved, desalination is not the most favoured water supply option if other sources of water are available.

Australia, Chile and Peru currently have large numbers of desalination projects in mining operations. The adoption of desalination technologies has evolved differently. The desalination trends are described as follows.

9.2.3.1 Desalination trends in Chile and Peru

Mines in Chile and Southern Peru are increasingly using seawater to meet their water needs. The seawater needs to be transported to mines generally located at high altitudes away from the coast. In the majority of the projects, the desalination plant is located on the coast. This necessitates transporting the desalinated water over hundreds of kilometres inland to the mining site.

Some large Chilean copper mines have adopted a new trend of using raw seawater for processes where it does not affect the final product quality (e.g. copper flotation). Some mining operations are designed as a hybrid solution where raw seawater is used where possible but a desalination plant is located on site for operations that require desalinated water, e.g. electrowinning .

The following figures illustrate the growing trend for Chilean mining operations to use seawater, and whether desalination is employed.

Figure 9.5 Main mining operations using desalination or raw seawater in Chile

Company Operation Feedwater Capacity (m³/d)

Investment/Cost ($)

Status

BHP Billiton Coloso Plant at Escondida

Desal 45,360 $200 million ($50 million for plantand $150 million for pumping system)

Operating since 2006

++ Minerals Michilla Mine Use of direct seawater for leaching process

6,500 – Operating since early 1990s

Antofagasta Minerals

Esperanza Use of raw seawater for copper flotation

62,200 $2.3 billion (mine project including pipeline)

Started operating in 2011

Source: GWI

The following projects have submitted an environmental impact study considering the use of desalinated water or seawater:

Figure 9.6 Mining operations using, or considering the use of, seawater in Chile

Company Operation Feedwater Capacity (m³/d)

Investment/cost ($)

Status/start date

CAP Cerro Negro Norte Desal (RO) 17,280–34,560

$180 million (desalination plant)

Under construction by Acciona Agua, online in 2013

Anglo American Chile Mantoverde Desal (RO) 10,368 $106 million (desalination plant)

Valoriza began construction May 2012

Freeport McMoRan Candelaria Desal (RO) 25,920 $21 million (desalination plant)

Under construction by aqualia, due online September 2012

Xstrata / Barrick El Morro Desal 64,000 – Under construction by Cadagua

BHP Billiton Escondida (Expansion)

Desal 276,480 $3.5 billion (mine project)

Approved

Quadra FNX Sierra Gorda Direct seawater 65,664 $183 million 2013–14Xstrata/Anglo American/Mitsui

Collahuasi Desal 129,600 $500 million (desalination plant)

EIA to be submitted mid-2012

White Mountain Titanium Corporation

Cerro Blanco Desal 12,096 $15–20 million (desalination plant)

In permitting. Due to be operational in 2014.

Source: GWI


Mining // Process water requirements

9.2.3.2 Desalination trends in Australia

Adoption of desalination technologies to meet water supply needs began two decades ago in the Australian mining industry. Brackish water is the typical feedwater source used by mining operations in Australia. Seawater is not the ideal feed water source at mining sites located in Australia due to conveyance issues and availability of alternate sources. Seawater is rarely used as a feedwater source at mine sites unless:

• The mine is located in close proximity to the coast

• The groundwater is particularly difficult to treat

The use of desalination technologies by the Australian mining industry has a long history dating back to the late 1980s. Australian gold mining operations were the leaders in using membrane technology to produce quality feedwater. Highly saline groundwater was the only source of water available. The salinity level of the groundwater was very close to that of seawater. The need for very high quality water triggered investments in RO desalination systems. Typical plants sizes at that stage were 200 m³/d.

The high cost of desalination limited its adoption to gold mining operations until the early 1990s. By this time, the desalination costs had significantly reduced and resulted in the adoption of RO plants to produce high quality feedwater. Mine sites located in remote areas began adopting RO to produce feedwater. Growth in the gold and nickel mining operations resulted in desalination plants increasing the capacity to approximately 1,000 m³/d.

In the late 1990s, new leaching processes for nickel were developed that required the use of high quality water. This led to widespread adoption of desalination technologies. Some of these projects used thermal desalination rather than membrane desalination systems.

Thermal desalination technologies were used at projects where there was a wasted heat source from power stations. In addition, some plants were operated using hypersaline water, which can have a salinity over double that of seawater. In these cases, the membrane based desalination technologies were too expensive and thermal systems were used instead.

Extra large-scale seawater desalination for mining is a recent development in Australia. At 140,000 m³/d, the desalination plant for Citic Pacific’s Sino Iron project has set a new benchmark, which will soon be surpassed by BHP Billiton’s Olympic Dam expansion at 280,000 m³/d (see following figure).

Figure 9.7 Australian mining desalination project examples

Company Operation Capacity (m³/d) Type Costs ($) StatusCitic Pacific Sino Iron Magnetite

project139,600 Seawater

desalination$5.2 billion (for the whole mine)$1.3 billion (for power station, port and desal plant)

Expected online June 2011

BHP Olympic Dam (expansion)

280,000 Seawater desalination

$20 billion (for the entire project)

Awaiting approval

Minara Resources (60%)Glencore (40%)

Murrin Murrin nickel operation

15,000 Borehole water desalination

A$ 1.0 billion (for the entire project)

Operating since mid 1990s

Braemar Iron Alliance Port Germein Undetermined Seawater desalination

A$7 billion (total cost of various new mining projects under consideration in Broken Hill region)

Conceptual stage

Grange Resources Ltd Southdown Magnetite mine, Cape Riche

35,000 Seawater desalination

Undetermined Bids under evaluation

Adani Group Carmichael Mining project

Undetermined Seawater desalination

A$6 billion (US$6.3 billion) for the mining project as a whole, including railway connections

Desal under consideration for port facilities supporting mine

Mitsubishi Corp Oakajee Port and Rail 10,000 Seawater desalination

A$50 million (US$51.9 million) for project as a whole

Desal under consideration for deepwater port to serve mining interests

$ = U.S. dollars; A$ = Australian dollars

Source: GWI



9.3 Drivers Mining activity is driven by commodity prices which have been historically cyclical. Typically the price of metal ores and other minerals has increased in the latter stages of the economic cycle, as manufacturing demand develops. Once manufacturing demand peaks there is usually a corresponding peak in the supply of mine products and this causes prices to fall steeply. As prices start to fall producers reduce the number of new investments and production at high cost sites. Supply and demand both fall until a new equilibrium is reached, at which point the cycle is ripe to start again. From the viewpoint of the water equipment market, the most important driver of demand is new investment in production capacity – new mines need new water infrastructure.

In recent years talk of the commodities “super cycle” has gained momentum. This is because, after the economic downturn of late 2008 and early 2009, commodities prices recovered sharply, despite the weak recovery in Europe and North America. The following figure illustrates what happened to a number of metal prices over the financial crisis (prices have been rebased to 100 in January 2000).

Figure 9.8 Selected metal prices, January 2000–June 2012

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2012201120102009200820072006200520042003200220012000

Copper

Nickel

Zinc

Gold

Silver

Rela

tive

pric

e (Ja

n 20

00 =

100

)

Steel

Source: World Bank

Except for commodity prices, the main reasons for growth in the market are summarised below:

• New mines are increasingly being developed in places (such as Australia and Chile) where natural freshwater resources are limited.

• Mining companies are looking to treat their wastewater to a higher standard. This is driven partly by regulation, partly by the need to recycle where water is scarce, and partly by the mining companies themselves wishing to implement global best practices on water stewardship for corporate social responsibility purposes.

• Increased reliance on low grade ores means that more water is required for each tonne of refined product. Water use is a function of the volume of ore extracted rather than the weight of finished product sold. In order to generate the same amount of finished product it is necessary to invest more in water infrastructure as more water is required.

• Mining companies can no longer walk away from the problems caused by ARD. The inconvenience of spending money on cleaning up mine water now continues long after a mine has closed.


Mining // Drivers

9.3.1 Water scarcityIn places where water resources are already scarce, mining competes with other water users such as agricultural and municipal users. In the future, water scarcity may be further intensified by the effects of climate change, leading to a decrease in water availability which will affect mining operations.

The mining industry is looking towards alternate water supplies to meet their growing water needs. These water supplies are typically of low quality, which necessitates the use of advanced technologies and water management strategies to bring the water up to the required standards. The limited availability of water to mine sites is causing companies to use improved approaches to ensure their water and operational security. The following figure illustrates areas of the world that are currently experiencing water scarcity and the locations of operating mines.

Figure 9.9 Locations of currently operating mines

Source: Raw Materials Data. Copyright: Raw Materials Group, Stockholm, 2012; Global Water Risk Index, GWI, 2011

9.3.2 RegulationsRegulatory requirements relating to water allocations and wastewater discharges are strengthening. The regulatory outlook is serving to drive the mining industry to utilise more advanced technologies and approaches to meet these stricter standards. Mining companies need to comply with regulations to prevent fines, penalties, licence revocations and potentially mine closures.

Water regulation in the mining sector can be divided into two broad types of regulatory requirements. The requirements are as follows:

• Water use regulation: This focuses on the allocation of water management of competitive water uses. Stricter water allocation regulations are forcing the mining industry to explore alternative water sources and utilise innovative technologies and strategies to achieve required water qualities.

• Wastewater quality regulation: This serves to prevent the release of pollutants into the environment. Environmental protection is very important and governments are very strict about mining discharges. Mining waste streams are highly polluted and poor treatment poses a significant risk to the environment. Compliance failures heavily affect the bottom line as associated fines and clean up costs can be very steep. Companies need to use the best technologies and solutions to effectively handle these dirty waste streams.

An overview of regulations for the mining industry in water scarce areas can be found in GWI Water for Mining report.

Mining companies have to comply with regulations at each stage of the mining operation life cycle. The following figure summarises the typical regulatory requirements at each stage of the mining life cycle.



Figure 9.10 Main regulatory requirements in the mining operation life cycle

Life cycle stages Examples of water related activities Common regulatory requirementsExploration Temporary water supply

Impacts of water management on local water resourcesWastewater disposal

Water allocation policies

Feasibility & design

Identification and evaluation of water supply optionsEvaluation of impacts of water abstraction on local water resourcesGovernment approvals

Water resource evaluationEnvironmental Impact Assessment procedures including water management and monitoring plans

Development & construction

Design & construction of water system (supply, storage and effluent treatment)

Implementation of water management and monitoring plans

Mining & minerals processing

Mine dewateringManagement of:- Water supply - Effluent discharge - Dust control and pollution - ARDPerformance monitoring and reporting

Implementation of water management and monitoring plansEffluent discharge regulationsRegulations and guidelines on ARD

Rehabilitation Contaminated site remediationWater supply scheme decommissioningDecommissioning of mineral processing and transport facilitiesFormulation of closure strategies

Mining closure regulationsPost-mining & closure

Monitoring of rehabilitation performanceErosion control and drainage maintenanceVerification of contaminated site remediationStakeholder and regulatory sign-off

Source: Adopted from Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, 2008

It is important to note that big international mining companies usually have their own corporate regulatory standards that they apply globally, across all of their sites. These corporate standards are often stricter than the standards set by the countries in which their operations take place.

9.3.3 Low grade ores and tailings recoveryThe growing demand for resources around the world, coupled with high commodity prices, is making it economical to process low grade ore, resulting in the extraction of lower ore grades. The increased reliance on lower grade ores means that more water is used to refine a product, as water consumption is proportional to the quantity of ore extracted, not the quantity of the finished product. This creates an additional market for advanced water treatment technologies in order to be able to meet these increased water needs. Wastewater tailings are generated from ore processing and are usually collected on-site in tailings ponds. These tailings need to be adequately treated and discharged. In particular, the processing of lower grade ores generates large volumes of mine tailings that need to be handled. Historically, mining companies would discharge up to 5% of metal left in the wastewater into their tailing ponds. However, today mine tailings are a known metal reserve which have the potential to be turned into a revenue stream, especially given the reality of today’s high metal prices. This leads to the important approach of recovering as much value, in the form of metal, from the wastewater stream as possible. This involves the use of more advanced water treatment strategies to achieve metal recovery from waste streams.

In addition, the recovery of metals from waste streams also allows the potential for water reuse at mine sites. Water reuse is very important for mines as it provides a viable alternative water source, which helps to reduce pressure from the water demands at the site.

9.4 Wastewater challengesEffluent waste streams generated from ore processing activities are referred to as tailings. Due to the level of contamination in mine tailings, they must be effectively treated and safely disposed. The quality and volume of the tailings generated will depend largely on the mineral processing steps involved, the grade of the ore and the process water quantity and quality.

The wastewater challenges that affect mine sites are ARD and mine closures. They are described below.

9.4.1 Acid rock drainage (ARD)ARD is a naturally occurring process that generates acidic (low pH) and metal bearing solutions from reactions of minerals in rock material in the presence of oxygen (from the air) and water. ARD most commonly results from wastes containing pyrite, an iron sulphide with chemical composition FeS

2. It is a common problem at mine sites that have sulphide material in the ore and


Mining // Wastewater challenges

waste streams (e.g. copper, lead/zinc and nickel sulphide operations, some gold operations, and some coal operations). The acidic solutions generated by ARD also result in dissolution of metals from the waste streams, including copper, lead, zinc, arsenic, cadmium and iron. Such metals can be extremely toxic to aquatic life, especially fish, resulting in downstream environmental impacts.

The acid generating potential of a waste material is dependent on the following factors:

• Mineralogical makeup: The relative proportion of minerals with the potential to generate acid (such as iron sulphide and other sulphides) and acid neutralising minerals (such as carbonates like limestone).

• Size distribution: Finer material reacts faster than coarser material due to the greater relative surface area.

• Climatic conditions: ARD is more persistent in warm, wet climates such as in the Northern Territory, Australia, New Guinea and Brazil.

• Ingress of air into the waste: Waste placement and the presence of solid or water barriers can affect the ingress of water and ore into the waste dump. Loosely packed dumps with a high permeability will have higher reaction rates.

9.4.2 Mine closures Mines can undergo planned and unplanned closures for numerous reasons, be they regulatory, geological, economic, technical or social. Mine closure is a major challenge and is well regulated to protect the environment. Currently, mine closure and completion plans are typically included in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) before a mine is given approval to begin operations.

When a mine closes, water risk factors must be addressed to prevent persistent environmental damage by ensuring compliance with regulations. Poor execution of a mine closure plan has many knock-on effects. The environment, local communities and the mining industry are all negatively impacted by the associated costs of mine closure failures. It is necessary to take an early and integrated approach to mine closures, which will help minimise the potential negative impacts of unplanned closures.

The main water risks include the following:

• Protecting the quality of the groundwater and surface water sources in the area.

• Preventing atmospheric, soil or water contamination when waste rock, effluent and poorly stored processing chemicals react with water.



9.5 Wastewater treatment technologiesThere are numerous technologies that are used to treat the mine wastewater generated from processing activities. The technologies have been grouped into several categories based on the treatment approach used as seen in the following figure.


Category Technologies FunctionNeutralisation Conventional lime neutralisation, high density sludge

process, limestone neutralisation These technologies are mainly used to treat effluent that has been affected by ARD or has the potential to generate ARD.

Passive treatment

Aerobic wetland, anaerobic wetland These technologies use natural materials such as soil, clay and rock, and plant residues such as straw, wood chips, manure, and compost, to promote the growth of natural vegetation.

Metal removal Sulphide precipitation, BioSulphide® precipitation process, ChemSulphide® precipitation process, biogenic sulphide precipitation, biological sulphide precipitation, biological filters, fluidised bed reactor

These technologies are used to treat mine effluents by selectively removing dissolved metals from the waste stream. This is usually achieved by performing sulphide precipitation reactions.

Membrane technologies

MF, UF, NF, RO, electrodialysis (ED), electrodialysis reversal (EDR), bipolar electrodialysis (BPED), electrodeionisation (EDI)

These technologies are used to remove particulate matter and dissolved solids from wastewater streams.

Advanced treatment

Evaporators (VCD, MVR, MED), brine concentrators and crystallisers

These technologies are used to generate very high quality water and a waste solid resulting in low or zero liquid discharge.

Dewatering Clarifiers, dissolved air flotation These technologies are used to reduce the water volumes in mine waste tailings and to clarify the effluent water. This involves the use of gravity and flocculants to help settle the contaminating solids out of solution.

Filtration and thickening

Sand filters, ceramic vacuum filters, pressure filters, thickeners, high rate thickeners, paste thickeners

These technologies are used to significantly reduce the amount of water in effluent tailings that will be left in the slurry prior to reduce the volume of waste slurry to be discharged.

Contaminant treatment

Zero-valent iron (ZVI) ZVI acts as a strong reducing agent for a number of water pollutants, including selenium, aluminium and iron. It reduces the water soluble forms of selenium found in contaminated water by capturing its elemental form on the surface of the iron.

Cyanide treatment

Alkaline chlorination, International Nickel Company’s (INCO) process, hydrogen peroxide process, acidification volatilisation recovery (AVR) cyanide recovery process, sulphidisation, acidification, recycling and thickening (SART) process, biological cyanide treatment

These technologies are primarily used in the gold mining industry. Cyanide treatment involves the addition of a chemical reagent to react with cyanide to generate less harmful products such as cyanate or gypsum.

Effluent disposal Tailings disposal, backfill disposal Effluent tailings are typically dewatered to allow for reuse and recycling of the water and also serves to reduce the volume of the waste slurry that is generated to reduce the volumes disposed in tailings dams and prolong the lifetime of the dam.

Source: Water for Mining, GWI, 2011

9.5.1 Wastewater technology trends

9.5.1.1 Metal recovery from waste streams

The wastewater streams generated from mining activities are potentially a recoverable resource. Water, acids and metals are the important recoverable components. Membrane technologies can be used as a separation tool to recover these resources. The membrane-based technologies that can achieve this separation involve the use of selective-acid-solvent stable NF membranes.

• The metal concentrate can be used to produce other materials.

• The acid and water streams generated can be used directly as an acid stream.

• Alternatively, the streams can be separated into a water stream and a purified acid stream to be reused in mine processing steps.


Mining // Water reuse strategies

Metal recovery is a growing trend in the mining industry. It is opening up significant opportunities in wastewater treatment technologies, with potential to generate revenue. Mine production capacities can be increased by extracting additional metals from the waste streams. This can significantly improve the overall efficiency at mine sites by treating a specific stream.

The use of technologies to recover metals from waste tailings is increasing. However, its adoption will depend on the quantities that can be recovered, as it needs to be economically viable. The metal recovery approach is ideally used when an environmental improvement investment is required. Combining both approaches is likely to provide additional value, investment returns and reduce long term liability.

The concept of metal recovery comes from the potential of the reuse market. Advanced technologies are required to bring the wastewater stream to a suitable quality for reuse. As such, recovering metals from the waste stream that is being treated for reuse is a sound approach.

9.5.1.2 Zero liquid discharge (ZLD)

Due to a combination of drivers – scarcity, regulation, lobbying and the pressure on companies to follow “best” practice – ZLD and evaporation technologies are likely to see increased uptake in arid areas of Australia and Latin America. For example, social pressure is a major barrier against new mining projects in Peru, Chile and Brazil. Significant delays can occur in the permitting process unless mining companies are able to promise that no wastewater will be discharged from the mine site. Similar social pressures exist in Australia.

9.6 Water reuse strategiesWater reuse is an important water management option for mines in order to maintain a sustainable water supply system. A water reuse opportunities plan is used to address the water supply needs in the overall water management system.

9.6.1 Water reuse options

9.6.1.1 Direct wastewater reuse

This option involves the reuse of wastewater streams with no prior treatment. It can be advantageous due to the energy, infrastructure and transportation costs involved in wastewater treatment. However, over time, accumulation of contaminants in such wastewater streams will become a problem in the repetitive recirculation of the site water system. This issue needs to be understood and addressed in the water management plan. Direct wastewater reuse is limited in its use. Due to the heavy contamination of some wastewater streams, direct reuse is not possible for certain processes, which can cause adverse effects.

9.6.1.2 Treated wastewater reuse

Some wastewater streams cannot be reused directly without prior treatment. In this case, water reuse involves treating the wastewater to qualities that ensure it is suitable for use. The treatment options used will depend on the water quality required. The reuse water quality standards will differ for the applicable mineral processing steps. The quality needs will also differ based on regulatory discharge requirements. A valid approach to achieve efficiency is to match the appropriate water quality with specific water activities and operations.

Water reuse offers the following advantages:

• It provides an alternate water supply option at mine sites, which is especially important in water scarce areas where water allocation for industrial users will not be a priority when municipal and agricultural sectors are present.

• The use of metal recovery technologies to treat effluents can provide new revenue streams.

• Some recovery processes can recover reagents. The reagents can be sent back into the relevant processing step. This helps to reduce the overall cost of purchasing and transporting reagents to the site.

9.6.2 Off-site water reuse The reuse of water off-site is mainly to meet environmental needs, particularly in water scarce regions. Activities such as irrigation, livestock uses, dust control and watershed management require additional water allocations. Water reuse off-site can help meet these needs.

Generating additional water opens the potential to sell the water to other industrial users. In addition, mines with excess water can enter into water trade agreements with surrounding mines. They can supply treated or untreated effluent water to other mines.



9.7 Supply chain analysisThe mining industry is considered to be innately conservative. The conservative nature makes it difficult for the wide adoption of new and innovative technologies in the market. This can pose a significant barrier to entry in the technologies market.

Mining companies are very risk-averse. They do not want to take a risk on a technology or on working with a company that can compromise their production or reputation. The potential of significant cost savings from the use of a new technology is not a great enough incentive in this industry. As such, it is necessary that these technologies are proven before they can be adopted. This is achieved by conducting pilot trials. Companies need assurances that there is little potential for problems that could significantly impact their production and operability. In addition, regulatory compliance failures and damage to corporate reputations will not be tolerated.

However, mining companies are adapting to the strengthening regulatory environment. They are now becoming more open to new technologies. Water scarcity, climate change, stricter regulations, lower ore grades and higher commodity prices are serving to drive the industry towards the adoption of innovative water technologies.

9.7.1 Procurement processMining companies typically follow an engineering, procurement, and construction management (EPCM) model. In the EPCM model, the mining company maintains the responsibility for buying equipment and for performance guarantees. They hire an engineering firm to serve as their agent to design the processes, specify the equipment, negotiate, purchase and install all the equipment and perform construction roles. The decisions are made with the mining companies’ approval, so the mining company retains responsibility.

Managing their water systems is particularly important to the mining companies. They do not want to put their water security in the hands of a third party, as there is the potential for water prices to be increased.

9.7.1.1 Procurement options

Process engineering packages can be used in the mining industry. An engineering package describes the solutions that are on offer, provides process flow diagrams, the bill of materials, the software required for the system and the equipment. The engineering companies can offer the mining clients a complete solution with the large construction companies or original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) as part of their offerings.

OEM companies can aim to form partnerships with mining companies, engineering firms, consulting firms, construction companies and with the engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contractors for the mine. This is a preferable approach to participating solely as a vendor.

Overall, it is very important for OEMs and technology suppliers to try and get involved in the procurement process as early as possible. Ideally, at the exploration phase or earlier, as the water balance and water management studies are conducted at this time. Companies involved at that stage gain more information about the water requirements and the relevant technologies needed. This will help determine the best overall solution.

9.7.1.2 Operating, maintenance and outsourcing

Historically, the larger mining companies have typically followed the EPCM model. However currently, there is some movement to alternative procurement models. Outsourcing is becoming a little more common in the industry. These outsourcing models include the following:

• Build operate transfer (BOT)

• Build own operate (BOO)

• Design build operate (DBO)

• Design build finance operate (DBFO)

• Engineering, procurement and construction (EPC)

The EPC contracts are also known as construction management risk. In the traditional EPC model, the mining company will assign the responsibility of building the water plant to an outside firm. The responsibilities would include designing, building, project management, providing cost certainties and performance warranties.

Generally, the smaller mining companies will follow the EPC contract models. This is because they may not have a strong balance sheet and will not want to spend money on non-revenue generating activities. These smaller mining companies tend to hire engineering firms to handle the project for them and to operate and maintain responsibility for the plant.


Mining // Supply chain analysis

9.7.1.3 Partnership and teaming agreements

There are numerous partnership and teaming agreements that players in the water for mining market can enter into.

• Joint ventures (JVs) are partnership business models that are used in the mining industry. Companies can enter into JVs where they share the capital and operating costs of the treatment plant. This is more common for design-build-operate (DBO) models. The company will design, build and operate that plant, but the mining client pays for the plant in a fee-based structure. In situations where the mining company wants to purchase a plant, these companies can build, commission and transfer the plant to the client. Therefore, the procurement process choices in this industry are very customer driven.

• Mining companies can use a direct approach for partnering. They aim to align with existing and proven water companies in the form of alliances. Each party provides their specialist area of expertise to the overall solution.

• When working directly with the mining clients, technology and service provider firms aim to become preferred suppliers and enter into preferred supplier agreements. They can also enter into other agreements such as teaming, partnering, structured and consortium agreements.

• Construction companies can team up and partner with technology and service provider firms to develop turnkey solutions. This will include equipment and construction services. The full solution can then be taken directly to the mining companies as a black box offering.

• Engineering firms will look to form partnerships with construction firms and technology suppliers when trying to win an EPC contract. Each partner will bring a differentiating offer that will help secure the project.

• Larger technology suppliers that do not have the whole process solution can enter into partnerships with other companies who will help to complement their product offerings. Interacting with smaller market players with new technologies or innovations helps to bring new technologies or solutions to the market. The small company may not have been able to bring the technologies or solutions to market alone.

• Consulting firms typically form relationships with the equipment suppliers. They work closely with component manufacturers for the application of innovative technologies. In addition, they collaborate with other consulting firms.

These teaming agreements and alliances have disadvantages. Exclusive agreements between a consultancy firm and a technology provider can affect the objectivity of the firm. The firm may not be fully objective when selecting the right solutions for their client, as there is subtle pressure to use equipment provided solely by their partner. This may not be the right value proposition for the client.

The nature of such relationships can limit technology objectivity. This is turn can hinder the procurement approach that the mining companies typically respect and appreciate. Technical objectivity is one of the features that mining companies appreciate in the consultants they work with. They want their consultants to select the applicable technologies to create the best solution for the project.


Mining companies in general are looking for whole process solutions rather than purchasing separate water technologies. Complete solutions can include plant operation and water treatment. They tend to work with companies that have the resources to build, construct and integrate the complete technologies.

However, the choice of a separate technology versus whole solution will depend on the needs of the customer. Multiple treatment technologies can be combined into an integrated treatment process. This is in line with the holistic approach towards water management that is gaining popularity in the mining industry.

In a sense, both approaches of looking for whole process solutions or separate technologies are currently happening in the industry. The full solution approach is typically achieved by the engineering companies or general contractors. These companies invite other companies to take part and purchase separate technologies.

Mining companies are looking to the engineering service providers to supply the relevant offerings that can take the water issue off their hands. Engineering firms are seen to be the companies that can meet the process solution needs of the mining companies. Engineering firms have the greatest opportunities to supply complete solutions for this industry. These full service engineering companies are able to handle the challenges the process solutions pose. The mining companies want to work with engineering companies from concept development through to execution. They want companies to bring in operating strategies that can help ensure cost effective and safe construction in very difficult environments.

Overall, technology companies do have a place in this market, as their technologies are part of the solution. But mining companies need a contractor who can provide the full service. Water projects are a critical aspect for the development and expansion of mining operations.



9.7.2 Market playersThe global water for mining market is an unusually narrow and fragmented one, with only a few big players, while the rest of the market is populated with regional and numerous local firms. Within the water for mining market, we are covering water supply, effluent treatment and reuse.

Obtaining reliable market share data is difficult. Our analysis is based on the market share estimates provided by the industry experts interviewed for this report.

Main market players include engineering programme management firms, water technology companies and manufacturers of special equipment/chemicals.

9.7.2.1 Engineering programme management firms

Of the few key engineering programme management firms, Hatch is the dominant player with around 30% of the global market share. The others are SNC Lavalin, Golder and AMEC. Some of the bigger firms in other industries, such as Bechtel, Mitsubishi, Samsung and Doosan have entered the water for mining market in recent years, recognising its potential.

In addition, a number of engineering companies are operating at the regional level. Examples include, Odebrecht in Brazil, Keyplan in South Africa, and Worley Parsons which is now expanding beyond Australia.

9.7.2.2 Water equipment companies

Globally the largest market share is controlled by FLSmidth. In terms of value, the company is considered to hold over 25% of the market share. Tyco Flow Control/Tyco International was also suggested as a major player. However, the company’s offers are mostly limited to supplies of physical treatment systems, such as screens, clarifiers and filters of large volumes.

Traditional water technology companies are increasingly looking at opportunities in the water for mining market. Among them are Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies , Degremont, Siemens and GE, which appear to be the dominant players. While Veolia holds the biggest market share with approximately 10% of the global market, and is considered to have the biggest market share of secondary and tertiary water, the remaining companies hold only a very small percentage of the global market. On the desalination side, Keyplan, IDE, FCC and Acciona have won big SWRO projects in the last few years, while Osmoflo, aqualia and Cadagua are all becoming important.

In each of the market segments, water technology companies take different positions in different regions. For example, Spanish companies such as Acciona, Befesa and Cadagua are becoming dominant players in desalination for mining in South America.

There are some specialised companies such as BioteQ and Paques that have been increasingly well-recognised for their biological wastewater treatment technologies.

Undoubtedly, global water technology companies who have successfully entered this market in the last few years will continue to increase their market share in the short term. Regional and local companies continue to maintain their presence in the market.

9.7.3 Market entry Players attempting to enter and succeed in the market need to have a good understanding of the industry. They need to be able to back that understanding with appropriate technologies and solutions. Companies should aim to focus on their core competencies and strengths. Building a reputation as a leader in a particular solution can create new opportunities.

There are different approaches that companies can use to enter and participate in the market. They are as follows:

• Relationship development is an essential strategy in this industry, and initial entry into the market can be achieved through a personal connection to someone at the mining company. Long-standing relationships have been established between mining companies and the more established groups. These relationships are advantageous and strengthen dominance in the market.

• Problem solving is a significant approach to entering the market. Companies that can provide solutions to meet the changing water management needs are likely to enter and maintain a presence in this market. In such cases, directly approaching the mining company to enter into a small project is a viable strategy.

• Mining companies can also approach companies directly. Visibility is therefore very important in the market. It is essential that the information and specs for innovative technologies are readily accessible to the mining companies that need such solutions.

• Using a multi-phased approach can help with the large capital requirements and risk averseness in the industry. In this approach, risks should be managed with the investment by performing project roll out effectively. This can involve conducting bench lab work, development of concepts, pilots, pre and full feasibility studies, development of small commercial plants and then full project start-up.


Mining // Supply chain analysis

9.7.3.1 Market presence

Maintaining a presence in the market is key to longevity and survival in the mining industry. As such, market entry is just the first step in the process. Companies need to successfully fulfil their projects and ensure the services they are providing to the mining clients are fully achieved.

Taking feedback from the clients and using it to innovate new technologies to solve specific problems is a sound strategy. This shows the client you understand their needs and you are the company to solve their individual problems. This can help companies to remain in the market place as active players. Overall, creativity and the ability to provide full service packages are important to survival in this market.

9.7.3.2 Barriers to entry

A major challenge is the ability to develop sustainable solutions to meet the changing needs of the mining industry. Technologies need to be able to meet the diverse needs of the industry and companies need to be innovative to stand out. A lot of effort must be put into developing strategies that will help serve the market better, while also setting your technology apart from the rest on the market. This can be difficult to achieve due to the low level of positive differentiation in the marketplace.

Although in the majority of cases piloting is typically required to prove a new technology works before it is adopted, pilot trials are not always needed to prove technologies. If the technology has already been used and successfully demonstrated in other industries, the technology can be adopted without pilot trials. This is advantageous as piloting can be very difficult to set up and there are numerous risks associated with pilot tests.

Mining companies are looking for value adding strategies and technologies. Water recovery rates, life cycle and operating cost savings and potential revenue generating opportunities are just some of the ways to effectively showcase the advantages of a new technology. This is crucial to the successful adoption of technologies in the industry.


The more established global players in the water for mining market seem to have the competitive advantage in the market place. They tend to dominate over the newer market entrants as they have long track records. Establishing credibility and showcasing a sound track record in the industry can be a major battle for new entrants.

• The dominance of global players can be attributed to mining companies preferring to work with companies that will provide the same level of technologies and satisfaction all over the world.

• The larger players tend to have the necessary resources to deliver large design and construction projects. Such projects require a significant capital investment that smaller players may not be able to afford.

• Larger players can provide work performance guarantees and project cost savings. These can be critical to the success of a project.

• Established companies can be more dominant, particularly in terms of water treatment equipment supply. This is because these established engineering consultancies generally have a deeper knowledge of water treatment. They can produce good results and have a reputation that the mining companies can trust.

• Major players can also have good local presence in many countries. This is due to their long reach and global footprint. This is very important to mining companies as they want to work with suppliers and service providers that can solve any issues at their mine sites. This is of particular importance as mines are typically located in isolated areas.

9.7.3.4 Market entry potential for smaller/niche players

Although the larger players are typically more dominant, the smaller and niche players still have a place in this industry.

• Smaller companies that have better offerings can be very competitive in the market. They can show that they truly understand the market needs and how their solution solves the issue.

• Some players have an edge when it comes to new innovative technologies. They are able to provide unique technologies, which help to set one company apart from others.

• Directly approaching mining companies can be an appropriate approach for smaller players. This is when it is related to technology innovations that are specifically needed in the industry.

• Partnering is another viable option for market entry and survival for the smaller and newer players. Smaller players can enter into partnership agreements with engineering companies. This way, their technologies are included in projects.

• The presence of these smaller players in a local market can increase their competitiveness significantly. The smaller companies that are local to the mining clients are very well positioned to get a large share of the more routine projects. This is because they have the local resources to handle the routine project needs.



9.8 Market forecast

9.8.1 Mining projectsActivity in the mining market is driven by commodity prices, which have historically been cyclical. During the latter stage of an economic cycle, prices rise in step with manufacturing demand, and output increases accordingly. After the peak of manufacturing demand has been reached, the market is over-saturated and prices fall sharply. This causes producers to put a hold on new investment, and reduce production at high-cost sites. Supply and demand both fall until a new equilibrium is reached, at which point the cycle is ripe to start again.

In terms of the water equipment market, new investment in production capacity is the most important factor: new mines need new water infrastructure. There is also additional inventment into current mines – replacing ageing plants, and addressing acid rock drainage.

The forecast begins with the Raw Materials Data Metals dataset, published by the Raw Materials Group. This gives a breakdown of both operating mines and future projects by country and mineral type, and gives information on the timing of capital expenditure. From there we have taken a view on the level of water-related infrastructure spending on each project and aggregated it. An overview of future project locations is given in the following figure.

Figure 9.12 An overview of future mining projects

Source: Raw Materials Data. Copyright: Raw Materials Group, Stockholm, 2011; Global Water Risk Index, GWI, 2011

We have also factored in spending on mines that are already in operation (see figure 9.9).


Mining // Market forecast

9.8.2 Referance and alternate scenariosOur reference scenario for the mining industry makes the following assumptions:

• Copper price remains above $5,000/tonne.

• Iron ore price remains above $100/tonne.


• Copper price falls below $5,000/tonne.

• Iron ore price falls below $100/tonne.

(This would reflect a broader fall in mineral prices affecting other markets).

9.8.3 Overall pictureFor the purposes of this report, our market forecast is broken down into three categories: seawater desalination, wastewater desalination and process water treatment systems, as shown in the following figure. The forecast is punctuated by estimated dates of future projects, which can be difficult to anticipate in advance. Multi-year aggregates are more indicative of the market trends.

Figure 9.13 Mining industry market forecast, 2011-2025

Seawater desalinationsystems


Process water treatmentsystems0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

20252017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Mining ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011–17 2025

Process water treatment systems 230.9 294.1 323.5 277.1 320.6 321.1 346.2 7.0% 265.7Wastewater treatment systems 474.1 610.5 679.0 588.0 681.0 685.4 746.4 7.9% 618.4Seawater desalination systems 206.7 241.0 515.5 207.9 418.8 374.4 423.7 12.7% 688.6Total 911.8 1,145.7 1,518.0 1,073.0 1,420.3 1,380.9 1,516.3 8.8% 1,572.7

For further mining market detail and breakdowns, see GWI’s Water for Mining reportSource: GWI



The top country markets are summarised in the following figure.

Figure 9.14 Mining industry, top country markets, 2013–2017


(2013-2017)Brazil $373m

Australia $1,709mRoW $1,926m

Canada $393mChile $1,583m

Peru $925m

For a detailed breakdown of the mining market in the top 10 countries, see GWI’s Water for Mining reportSource: GWI

Figure 9.15 Mining industry, regional markets, 2013–2017

Americas $2,029m


(2013-2017)

EMEA $894m

Asia Pacific$2,045m

Source: GWI


Mining // Market forecast

9.8.4 Seawater desalinationWe have split our seawater desalination forecast by country, rather than by region according to its feasibility as a water source (see Section 9.2.3 for details).

Figure 9.16 Mining industry, seawater desalination, 2011–2017: Reference scenario

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Peru

Australia

Chile

Seawater desalination reference scenario 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Chile 185.7 214.6 155.5 106.5 93.3 210.9 232.0 3.8%Australia 14.4 14.4 336.0 64.5 294.0 120.0 78.2 32.6%Peru 6.6 12.0 24.0 36.9 31.5 43.5 113.5 60.7%Total 206.7 241.0 515.5 207.9 418.8 374.4 423.7 12.7%

Source: GWI

In the alternate scenario, it is no longer economically viable to transport seawater hundreds of kilometres to inland across a mountain range.

Figure 9.17 Mining industry, seawater desalination, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario

0

50

100

150

200

250

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Peru

Australia

Chile

Seawater desalination alternate scenario 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR

2011–17Chile 185.7 214.6 15.6 0.0 0.0 21.1 23.2 -29.3%Australia 14.4 14.4 33.6 0.0 29.4 12.0 0.0 –Peru 6.6 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 9.5%Total 206.7 241.0 49.2 0.0 29.4 33.1 34.6 -25.8%

Source: GWI



9.8.5 Water and wastewater treatment ex. seawater desalinationThe reference scenario for all other process water and wastewater treatment is shown in the following figure. The most active regions are the Americas and Asia Pacific.

Figure 9.18 Mining industry, water and ww treatment ex. seawater desalination, 2011-2017: Reference scenario

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Water and ww treatment ex. seawater desalination reference scenario

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011–17

Americas 268.1 352.9 475.1 374.7 358.6 393.5 427.2 8.1%EMEA 144.8 180.2 158.3 126.5 216.2 188.3 204.4 5.9%Asia Pacific 292.2 371.6 369.1 363.8 426.8 424.7 461.0 7.9%Total 705.0 904.7 1,002.4 865.1 1,001.6 1,006.4 1,092.6 7.6%

Source: GWI

The alternate scenario shows reduced market size in all regions, with the Americas and Asia Pacific the hardest hit.

Figure 9.19 Mining industry, water and ww treatment ex, seawater desalination, 2011–2017: Alternate scenario

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

2017201620152014201320122011

$ m

illio

n

Asia Pacific

EMEA

Americas

Water and ww treatment ex. seawater desalination alternate scenario

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR 2011–17

Americas 268.1 352.9 142.5 112.4 107.6 118.0 128.1 -11.6%EMEA 144.8 180.2 110.8 88.6 151.3 131.8 143.1 -0.2%Asia Pacific 292.2 371.6 110.7 109.1 128.0 127.4 138.3 -11.7%Total 705.0 904.7 364.0 310.1 386.9 377.3 409.5 -8.7%

Source: GWI


Interviewees

Interviewees Bill Bonkoski, Executive – Sales, Global Domain Team, GE Power & Water

Oscar Bravo, Director of Global Marketing/Product Management Ion Exchange Resins, Lanxess

Guillaume Clairet, Vice President, Strategic Business Development, H2O Innovation

Paul Coe, Global Director – Power, Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies

Hans Corvers, OMOBILE BU Development Director, Ondeo Industrial Solutions

Bertrand Garnier, Technical Director, Ondeo-Industrial Solutions

Werner Gessler, Voith Paper

Dr Ismail Gobulukoglu, Chief Scientist, Aquafine Corporation

Daniel Gosselin, Business Development Manager, Trojan Technologies

George Gsell, President, Meco

Chris Hall, Vanox Product Manager – Water Technologies Business Unit, Siemens

Deepak Kachru, Assistant General Manager – Sales, Aquatech Asia

Marlin Kinzey, Associate Director of Marketing, Dow Water and Process Solutions

Roland Konietz, Sales Manager for Africa, AWAS International GmbH

Alan Knapp, Business Development for Microelectronics and Solar, Siemens

Vivien Krygier, Sr. Vice President – Marketing, Pall – Microelectronics

Bill LaVoice, Sales Manager, Trojan Technologies

John W. Lee, Jr. BCEE, DEE, PE, Senior Vice President & Technology Fellow, CH2M Hill

Vyacheslav, Libman, Water Lab Director, Air Liquide – Balazs Nanoanalysis

David McBain, Global Director – Pharmaceuticals & Cosmetics, Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies

Rod McNelly, Vice President Commercial and Industrial Sales (Americas and Asia-Pacific), Culligan Matrix Solutions

John Morgan, High Purity Water Technology Treatment Leader, H2Morgan

Michel Otten, Technical Director, PT Biothane Asia Pacific

Laurent Panzani, Global Director Food & Beverage, Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies

Rubens Perez, Business Development Manager for the Pulp & Paper Market, Veolia Water Brazil

Gary Pitts, Global Business Leader for Microelectronics, GE

Swaminathan Ramachandran, Executive VP Chemicals & Water, Thermax

Mike A. Ray, VP N.A. Sales & Service, Aquafine Corporation

Chris Sacksteder, Associate Product Director, FILMTEC™ Membranes, Dow Water & Process Solutions

Alexander Scheffler, Head of “Specialty Applications” Segment, Lanxess

Alan Sharpe, Head of the Reverse Osmosis Project, Lanxess

Ron Shook, Engineering Manager, Aqua-Chem

Mitch Summerfield, Vice President, Industry Segment, Siemens Water Technologies

Gary Vanderlaan, Market Manager, Trojan Technologies

Cristina Vigano, Proposal Manager, Ondeo Industrial Solutions

Seppo Wallinmaa, CEO, Aquaflow Oy

Ralph Williams, Principal Technologist, CH2M HILL



ReferencesAlexandersson, T., 2003. Water Reuse in Paper Mills: Measurement and control problems in biological treatment (Licentiate Thesis).

Al-Jubori, A., Johnston, S., Boyer, C., Lambert, S.W., Bustos, O.A., Pashin, J.C., Wray, A., 2009. Coalbed Methane: Clean Energy for the World. Oilfield Review 21, 4–13.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1994. Consensus operating practices for control of feedwater/boiler water chemistry in modern industrial boilers.

APV, 2009. Evaporator handbook.

Arden, W., Brillouët, M., Cogez, P., Graef, M., Huizing, B., Mahnkpof, R., 2010. More-than-Moore [WWW Document]. International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors. URL http://www.itrs.net/Links/2010ITRS/IRC-ITRS-MtM-v2%203.pdf

Asano, T., Burton, F.L., Leverenz, H.L., Tsuchihashi, R., Tchobanoglous, G., 2007. Water reuse : issues, technology, and applications. McGraw-Hill, New York.

ASTM International, 2007. Standard Guide for Ultrapure Water Used in the Electronics and Semiconductor Industries (ASTM Standard No. ASTM D5127-07). ASTM International.

Benyahia, F., Abdulkarim, M., Embaby, A., Rao, M., 2006. Refinery wastewater treatment: a true technological challenge. Presented at the The Seventh Annual U.A.E. University Research Conference, Al-Ain, UAE.

Beukes, N.T., Badenhorst, J., 2009. Copper electrowinning: theoretical and practical design. SAIMM 109, 343–356.

Bignold, G., Concari, S., Daucik, K., Fitchett, G., Harries, R., Magnani, G., Quadri, G., Roofthooft, R., Zeijseink, A., 1997. Chemical guidelines for water/steam cycle of fossil fired units ( No. 02004Ren9766). Union of the Electricity Industry.

Blankinship, S., 2009. “Bugs” used to treat FGD wastewater. Power Engineering 113.

Boman, K., 2012. Coalbed Methane to Play Integral Role in China’s Gas Production Goals [WWW Document]. RGIZONE. URL http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=116542

Bonfanti, S., Donadono, S., 2009. ENEL: ZLD systems for FGD wastewaters.

Browner, C.M., Fox, J.C., Frace, S., Rubin, M.B., Hund, F., 1998. Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category. Environmental Protection Agency.

Cacciotti, J., Clinton, P., 2011. 12th Annual Pharm Exec 50. Pharmaceutical Executive.

Canadian National Energy Board, 2011. Canada’s Energy Future: Energy supply and demand projections to 2035 (Energy Market Assessment). Canadian National Energy Board.

Caravaggio, M., 2012. Part 1: Plant steam/water cycle make-up water treatment raw water analysis. Ultrapure Water Journal 8–14.

Carawan, R.E., Chambers, J.V., Zall, R.R., 1979. Spinoff on Dairy Processing Water and Wastewater Management (Extension Special Report No. AM-18B), Water and Wastewater Management in Food Processing. North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service.

Carter, N.T., Campbell, R.J., 2009. Water issues of concentration solar power in the U.S. Southwest (Report for Congress No. R40631). Congressional Research Service.

Chesters, S., Darton, E., Gallego, S., Vigo, F., 2009. The safe use of cationic flocculants with reverse osmosis membranes. Desalination and Water Reuse 6, 144–151.

Council of Europe, European Pharmacopoeia Commission, European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & Healthcare, 2010. European Pharmacopoeia, 7th ed, European treaty series. Council Of Europe.

CPV Vacaville, LLC, CH2M Hill, 2008. CPV Vaca Station - Application for Certification.

de Wild-Scholten, M., Kostieva, M., Bartels, R., Worf, D., Schleef, M., 2011. Waste water treatment for crystalline silicon solar cell production. Photovoltaics International 11, 20–24.

Deep Hole Driller, 2012. Ripe for the drilling [WWW Document]. Deep Hole Driller. URL http://deepholedriller.com/2012/04/rd20-oil-gas-drill-rig/ripe-for-the-drilling/

DeMeo, E.A., Galdo, J.F., 1997. Renewable energy technology characterizations (Topical Report No. TR-109496). Department of Eenrgy.

Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, 2011. Energy in Australia 2011. Australian Government.


References

Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, Geoscience Australia, 2010. Australian Energy Resource Assessment. Australian Government.

Dow Chemical Company, 2011. Ultrafiltration Product Manual.

Energy Information Administration, 2001. US natural gas markets: Recent trends and prospects for the future ( No. SR/OIAF/2001-02). Energy Information Administration.

Energy Information Administration, 2010a. EIA-860: Annual electric generator data [WWW Document]. URL http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/

Energy Information Administration, 2010b. EIA-923: Annual electric utility data [WWW Document]. URL http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/

Energy Information Administration, 2011. Natural Gas Annual 2010 ( No. DOE/EIA-0131(10)). Energy Information Administration.

Energy Information Administration, 2012a. Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (Early Release Overview No. DOE/EIA-0383ER(2012)). Energy Information Administration.

Energy Information Administration, 2012b. Monthly Energy Review - June 2012 ( No. DOE/EIA-0035(2012/06)). Energy Information Administration.

Energy Information Administration, 2012c. Refining Crude Oil [WWW Document]. Energy explained - Your guide to understanding energy. URL http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_refining

Energy Information Administration, 2012d. Spot Prices for Crude Oil and Petroleum Products [WWW Document]. Petroleum & Other Liquids - Data. URL http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_d.htm

Environmental Protection Agency, 1987. Dewatering municipal wastewater sludges (Design manual No. EPA/625/1-87/014). Environmental Protection Agency.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1995. Profile of the Petroleum Refining Industry (Sector Notebook Project No. 310-R-95-013). Environmental Protection Agency.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1999. Alternative disinfectants and oxidants (Guidance manual No. 815-R-99-014). Environmental Protection Agency.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. Profile of the Pulp and Paper Industry (Sector Notebook Project No. 310-R-02-002). Environmental Protection Agency.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. Membrane filtration (Guidance manual No. 815-R-06-009). Environmental Protection Agency.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. Steam electric power generating point source category (Final detailed study report No. 821-R-09-008). Environmental Protection Agency.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2012. Industrial Regulations [WWW Document]. Industrtial Effluent Guidelines. URL http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/industry.cfm

European Agency for the Evaluation of Medical Products, 2002. Note for Guidance on Quality of Water for Pharmaceutical Use ( No. CPMP/QWP/158/01). European Agency for the Evaluation of Medical Products.

European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2001. Reference Document on the application of Best Available Techniques to Industrial Cooling Systems.

European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2006. Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Large Combustion Plants.

Federal Energy Management Programme, 2011. Cooling towers: Understanding Key components of cooling towers and how to improve water efficiency.

Feeley, T.J., Skone, T.J., Stiegel, G.J., McNemar, A., Nemeth, M., Schimmoller, B., Murphy, J.T., Manfredo, L., 2008. Water: A critical resource in the thermoelectric power industry. Energy 33, 1–11.

Fisher Investments, Azelton, A., Teufel, A., 2009. Fisher Investments on Energy. Fisher Investments Press.

Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2012. ForeSTAT.

Gazprom, 2010. Gazprom launches Russia’s first CBM facility [WWW Document]. Gazprom. URL http://www.gazprom.com/press/news/2010/february/article76350/

Gazprom, 2012. Production of coal bed methane [WWW Document]. Gazprom. URL http://www.gazprom.com/about/production/extraction/metan/



GE Water, 2012. Handbook of Industrial Water Treatment [WWW Document]. URL http://www.gewater.com/handbook/index.jsp

Genck, W., 2011. A Clearer View of Crystallizers. Chem. Eng. 118, 28–32.

Gifford, J., 2012. Lux predicts f lat demand and revenue declines [WWW Document]. PV Magazine. URL http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/lux-predicts-flat-demand-and-revenue-declines_100006366/

Global Water Intelligence, 2010. Global Water Market 2011 - Meeting the world’s water and wastewater needs until 2016. Global Water Intelligence.

Global Water Intelligence, 2011a. Global Water Risk Index [WWW Document]. URL http://www.water-risk-index.com/

Global Water Intelligence, 2011b. Water for Mining - Opportunities in scarcity and environmental regulation (GWI Primary Research). Global Water Intelligence.

Global Water Intelligence, 2011c. Produced water market - Opportunities in the oil, gas and shale gas sectors in North America (GWI Primary Research). Global Water Intelligence.

Global Water Intelligence, 2012a. Desal Data [WWW Document]. URL http://desaldata.com/

Global Water Intelligence, 2012b. Water for Food & Beverage - Opportunities in water efficency and gaining value from wastewater (GWI Primary Research). Global Water Intelligence.

Global Water Intelligence, PUB Singapore, 2009. Municipal Water Reuse Markets 2010 - Analysis, forecasts and inventory. Global Water Intelligence.

Government of Alberta, 2012. Alberta oil sands industry - Quarterly update - Spring 2012 [WWW Document]. Oil sands quarterly. URL http://www.albertacanada.com/documents/AOSID_Quarterly_Update_Spring2012.pdf

Herbert, B., Knapp, A., Morgan, J., Bates, W., 2011. Economics benefits of processing RO reject with additional RO for additional water recovery.

Higgins, T.E., Sandy, A.T., Givens, S.W., 2009. Flue gas desuplhurization wastewater treatment primer. Power Magazine.

Honsberg, C., Bowden, S., 2012. Solar Cell Production Line [WWW Document]. Photovoltaic Education Network. URL http://pveducation.org/pvcdrom/manufacturing/introduction

Hutcheson, J., 2006. Ultrapure water: Systems for microelectronics. Filtration & Separation 43, 22–25.

IDC-CH2M Hill, 2012. Wafer Fab Water Recovery [WWW Document]. IDC-CH2M Hill Life Technology. URL http://www.idc-ch2m.com/Papers/IDC2000%20waterrecovery.pdf

Indian Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, 2010. Annual Report 2009-10.

Indonesian Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, 2010. CBM Production in 2025 is Expected to Reach 1,500 MMSCFD [WWW Document]. Directorate General of Oil and Gas. URL http://www.migas.esdm.go.id/?newlang=english#

International Energy Agency, 2012. Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas (World Energy Outlook No. WEO-2012). International Energy Agency.

International Finance Corporation, 1998. Fruit and Vegetable Processing, Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook. World Bank Group.

International Finance Corporation, 2007a. Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology Processing (Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines). World Bank Group.

International Finance Corporation, 2007b. Food and Beverage Processing` (Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines). World Bank Group.

International Finance Corporation, 2007c. Semiconductor & Other Electronics Manufacturing (Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines). World Bank Group.

IPIECA, 2010. Petroleum refining water/wastewater use and management, Operations Good Practice Series.

Jack, A., 2012. Pharma tries to avoid falling off “patent cliff” [WWW Document]. Financial Times. URL http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/572ea510-9452-11e1-bb47-00144feab49a.html#axzz2275bVwP8

Jeyanayagam, S., 2005. True confessions of the biological nutrient removal process. Florida Water Resources Journal 37–46.

Jonas, O., Machemer, L., 2008. Steam turbine corrosion and deposits - Problems and solutions. Presented at the 37th Turbomachinery Symposium, pp. 211–228.

Jonsson, M., Yan, J., 2005. Humidified gas turbines - a review of proposed and implemented cycles. Energy 30, 1013–1078.


References

Judd, S., Jefferson, B. (Eds.), 2003. The pulp and paper industry, in: Membranes for Industrial Wastewater Recovery and Reuse. Elsevier Science, pp. 102–131.

K. Ince Bahar, Cetecioglu Zeynep, Ince Orhan, 2011. Pollution Prevention in the Pulp and Paper Industries, in: Broniewicz, E. (Ed.), Environmental Management in Practice. InTech.

Kaplan, W., Laing, R., 2005. Local Production of Pharmaceuticals: Industrial Policy and Access to Medicines (HNP Discussion Paper).

Kim, K.-W., Kang, S.-Y., 2005. Bacterial Biosorption of Trace Elements, in: Trace Elements in the Environment. CRC Press, pp. 291–324.

Klemeš, J., Smith, R., Kim, J.-K. (Eds.), 2008. Handbook of Water and Energy Management in Food Processing, Woodhead Publishing in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition. Woodhead Publishing.

Koch, J., von Gottberg, A., 2009. MBR provides effective pretreatment for RO systems [WWW Document]. WaterWorld. URL http://www.waterworld.com/articles/2009/09/mbr-provides-effective.html

Kupchinsky, R., 2007. Ukraine: Possible Energy Solution In Coal Beds [WWW Document]. Radio Free Europe. URL http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1073793.html

Kuuskraa, V., Stevens, S., van Leeuwen, T., Moodhe, K., 2011. World Shale Gas Resources: An Initial Assessment of 14 Regions Outside the United States. Energy Information Administration.

Libman, S., Neuber, A., Latimer, B., Schoen, S., Sinha, D., Blackford, D., 2009. Managing semiconductor manufacturing risk through improved control of nano-particles in ultra-pure water [WWW Document]. Fluid Measurment Technologies Inc. URL http://www.fmtdevelop.com/uploads/3/5/4/5/3545567/npcd_itrsroundrobin_2009.pdf

Libman, V., Neuber, A., 2008. Water Conservation Challenges Facing the Microelectronics Industry. Ultrapure Water Journal 25, 36.

Loretitsch, G., 2902. Guidelines for Managing Water in Cooling Systems. San José Environmental Service Department.

Macknick, J., Newmark, R., Heath, G., Hallet, K., 2011. A review of operational water consumption and withdrawal factors for electricity generating technologies (Technical Report No. TP-6A20-50900). National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Malmberg, B., Wiegand, P., 2011. Manufacturing Water Profile of the European Paper Industry. National Council for Air and Steam Improvement.

Maulbetsch, J.S., DiFilippo, M.N., 2006. Cost and value of water use at combined-cycle power plants (PIER final project report No. CEC-500-2006-034). California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research Program.

McKay, A.D., Carson, L., Huleatt, M., Miezitis, Y., Porritt, K.R., Sait, R., Kay, P., Whitaker, A., Towner, R., Sexton, M., 2011. Australia’s Identified Mineral Resources 2010. Geoscience Australia.

Ministry of Environmental Protecton, People’s Republic of China, 2008. Environmental Regulations And Standards Putting Into Effect As Of Aug. 1, 2008 [WWW Document]. Catalogue of Standards. URL http://english.mep.gov.cn/standards_reports/standards/Catalogue_Standards/200808/t20080827_127742.htm

Morgan, J., Schoen, S., Neuber, A., Burkhart, M., Libman, S., 2009. High-purity water needs for the PV industry - Part 1: Development of cost effective specification.

Mukhopadhyay, D., 1999. Method and apparatus for high efficiency reverse osmosis operation.

Nagghappan, L., 2010. Method for treating wastewater or produced water.

Nalco Company, 2009. The Nalco water handbook, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill.

National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2010. 2010 World Gasification Database.

National Institute of Health Sciences, Japan, 2006. The Japanese Pharmacopoeia, 15th Edition [WWW Document]. URL http://jpdb.nihs.go.jp/jp15e/

Natural Gas Europe, 2012a. Chevron and Shell Tipped to be Winners of Ukraine Shale Gas Bids [WWW Document]. Natural Gas Europe. URL http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/chevron-shell-ukraine-shale-gas

Natural Gas Europe, 2012b. Ukraine’s Gas Future: Two Chances [WWW Document]. News̀ . URL http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/ukraines-gas-future

Oil & Gas Journal, 2008. 2008 Worldwide EOR Survey [WWW Document]. Oil & Gas Company Surveys. URL http://www.ogj.com/ogj-survey-downloads.html




Oil & Gas Journal, 2011. Worldwide Refining Survey 2011 [WWW Document]. Oil & Gas Company Surveys. URL http://www.ogj.com/ogj-survey-downloads.html


Ottewell, S., 2010. Coal bed methane production: success depends on location [WWW Document]. Oil and Gas Engineer. URL http://www.engineerlive.com/Oil-and-Gas-Engineer/Environment_Solution/Coal_bed_methane_production%3A_success_depends_on_location/22359/

OVIVO, 2010. Water specialists for the Semiconductor Sector [WWW Document]. OVIVO Water. URL http://www.ovivowater.com/content/files/data/Ovivo_Industry_Semiconductor_77ca1d43a68a4067b7602456616211d6.pdf

Pankratz, T., 2012. Fuzzy logic: oilfield brine management. WDR 48.

Petitpain-Perrin, F., 2006. Les grandes catégories d’usages de l’eau dans l’industrie ( No. G1150), Eaux industrielles: Une gamme de traitements nécessaires aux industries. Techniques de l’ingénieur.

Pickett, T., Sonstegard, J., Bonkoski, B., 2006. Using biology to treat selenium. Power Engineering.

Platts, 2011. UDI World Electric Power Plants database.

Pokhrel, D., Viraraghavan, T., 2004. Treatment of pulp and paper mill wastewater - a review. Science of the Total Environment 333, 37–58.

Protogere, A., Currens, B., 2010. Duke Energy Indiana files cost update for clean coal gasification power plant [WWW Document]. Duke Energy. URL http://www.duke-energy.com/news/releases/2010041601.asp

Ratafia-Brown, J., Manfredo, L., Hoffmany, J., Ramezan, M., 2002. Major environmental aspects of gasification-based power generation technologies (Final Report). NETL, US Department of Energy.

Riffe, M.R., Heimbigner, B.E., Kutzora, P.G., Braunstein, K.A., 2008. Wastewater treatment for FGD purge systems. Presented at the 2008 Mega Symposium, Baltimore, MD.

Roney, J.M., 2011. Solar PV Breaks Records in 2012 [WWW Document]. Earth Policy Institute. URL http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C47

Rutkowski, M.D., Klett, M.G., Kuehn, N.J., Schoff, R.L., Vaysman, V., White, J.S., 2007. Power plant water usage and loss study (Revised Report). NETL, US Department of Energy.

Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International, 2010. Guide for High Purity Water Used in Photovoltaic Cell Processing (SEMI Standards No. PV3-0310), Photovoltaic. Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International.

Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International, 2011a. Guide for Ultrapure Water used in Semiconductor Processing (SEMI Standards No. F63-0211), Facilities. Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International.

Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International, 2011b. Guide for Treatment of Reuse Water in Semiconductor Processing (SEMI Standards No. F98-0305 (Reapproved 1111)), Facilities. Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International.

Shaw, W.A., 2008. Benefits of evaporation FGD wastewater. Power Magazine.

Shulder, S.J., Riffe, M.R., Walp, R.J., 2010. Microbiological treatment to remove heavy metals and nutrients in FGD wastewater. Power Engineering 114.

Siemens Water Technologies Corp., 2009a. Methods of Producing Water for Injection [WWW Document]. URL http://www.water.siemens.com/en/life-sciences/biopharm/Pages/water-for-injection.aspx

Siemens Water Technologies Corp., 2009b. Water and Energy Conservation in the Pharmaceutical Industry [WWW Document]. Pharma Industry Solutions for Water and Wastewater Treatment. URL http://www.water.siemens.com/en/life-sciences/biopharm/Pages/water-energy-conservation.aspx

Siemens Water Technologies Corporation, 2006. Products and Services for the Beverage Industry.

Singh, R.P.N., 2012. Production of CBM to reach 4 MMSCMD by 2016-17 [WWW Document]. Press Information Bureau, Government of India. URL http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=81790

Solar Energy Industries Association, 2012. Utility‐scale solar projects in the united states.

Sonstegard, J., Pickett, T., Harwood, J., Johnson, D., 2008. Full scale operation of GE ABMet® biological technology for the removal of selenium from FGD wastewaters. Presented at the International Water Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Speight, J.G., 2005. Environmental Analysis And Technology For The Refining Industry, Chemical Analysis. John Wiley & Sons.


References

US Pharmacopoeial Convention, 2008. United States Pharmacopoeia 32-NF 27, 32nd Revised ed. US Pharmacopoeia Convention Inc.

Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies, 2006. Dedicated water, wastewater and sludge treatment expertise for the Pulp and Paper industry [WWW Document]. Pulp & Paper - Veolia Water. URL http://www.veoliawaterst.co.uk/vwst-uk/ressources/documents/1/15912,Pulp-Paper1.pdf

Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies, 2010. Pharmaceutical Pure Water Guide [WWW Document]. URL http://www.pharma.veoliawaterst.com/pcc/ressources/documents/1/4680,9308A1_PCC_PHARMPWGuideV3FINAL.pdf

Voith Paper, 2009. Biodegradation as the key to successful wastewater treatment. twogether.

Whiting Equipment Canada Inc., 2004. Brochure - Svenson evaporators.

Willis, S., 2007. Pure water technology. Pharmaceutical Technology Europe.

World Bank Group, 1999. Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook 1998: Toward Cleaner Production.

World Health Organisation, 2005. WHO expert committee on specifications for pharmaceutical preparations ( No. 929), WHO Technical Report Series. World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.

World Health Organisation, 2012a. The International Pharmacopoeia [WWW Document]. URL http://www.who.int/medicines/publications/pharmacopoeia/overview/en/index.html

World Health Organisation, 2012b. Index of Pharmacopoeias [WWW Document]. URL http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/quality_assurance/resources/index-of-pharmacopoeias16032012.pdf

Xinhua, 2012. China eyes increased coalbed methane output [WWW Document]. China.org.cn. URL http://www.china.org.cn/business/2012-01/03/content_24313846.htm

Documents

Industrial Desalination Water Reuse (Global Water Intelligence Report July 2012)