Upload
others
View
10
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PD
-Sw
20
5w
1
Modeling Costs for
Produced Water Reuse Scenarios
Pei Xu, PhD
Associate Professor, Environmental Engineering
New Mexico State University
New Mexico Produced Water Conference
November 15-16, 2018
Environmental Lab of Innovative Technologies
PD
-Sw
20
5w
2
➢ Develop an i-DST capable of selecting produced water treatment options
based on the composition of produced water and intended beneficial use with
consideration of multiple factors, criteria, constraints and functions
➢ Identify cost-efficient and environmentally sound strategies for management
and treatment of flowback and produced water
• Reuse versus disposal options
Produced water
WaterReuse
Integrated Decision Support Tool (i-DST) for
Management of Flowback and Produced Water
Characterization, Treatment and Beneficial Use
PD
-Sw
20
5w
3
➢ Integrated Decision Support Tool (i-DST)
➢ Treatment Technologies
➢ Water Quality Database
➢ Approach for Treatment Selection
➢ Case study – Permian Basin
➢ Summary
Outline
PD
-Sw
20
5w
4
Produced Water Treatment Technologies
➢ Requirements
➢ High rejection of contaminants: meet reuse requirements
➢ Low demand on energy and chemicals
➢ Minimize waste disposal
➢ Robustness and low-maintenance: reduce labor and supervision
requirement
➢ Flexibility: able to handle high variation in water quality and
quantity
➢ Modular:
► small footprint
► minimal environmental disturbance
PD
-Sw
20
5w
5
Treatment Technology Assessment
A total of 62 technologies were reviewed- included in DST
An Integrated Framework for Treatment and
Management of Produced Water
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES
2nd EDITION
RPSEA Project 11122-53
Dr. Pei Xu, Guanyu Ma,
Dr. Zachary Stoll
New Mexico State University
Department of Civil Engineering
Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 575-646-5870
Dr. Mengistu Geza, Dr. Tzahi Cath, Dr. Jörg Drewes
Colorado School of Mines
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Golden, CO 80401
E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected];
Phone: 720-982-5359; 303-273-3402
August 2016
PD
-Sw
20
5w
6
Produced Water
Pre-treatment
TDS Bins (mg/L)Deep Well
Injection
Removal of:
▪TSS
▪Organics
▪Hardness
Beneficial Use
Reuse for hydraulic fracturing
(No desalination required)
Recovery of valuable products and energy
(I2, NaCl, NH4Cl, MgCl2, Na2CO3, etc.)
Reuse for other purposes
(potable use, aquifer recharge, irrigation, industrial, etc.)
< 10,000 10,000 – 40,000 40,000 – 70,000 > 70,000
Mature, less
costly,
existing
technology
- RO/NF
- ED/EDR
Mature, cost
intensive,
existing
technology
- SWRO
- BWRO
Emerging,
cost
intensive
technology
- FO
- MD
Moderate
mature,
moderate costly
technology
- MVC
- MED
Treatment/Desalination
Waste Disposal
Treatment Technologies and TDS Bins
PD
-Sw
20
5w
7
• Colorado- 2 basins
• New Mexico- 2 basins
• New York-2 basins
• Pennsylvania-4 basins
• Pennsylvania- Frac flow back water
• California- SaltonSea
• Texas -Hidalgo
• Nevada-Washoe
• Nevada-Steamboat
Water Quality Database by Basin
➢A water quality database has been collected, summarized and built into the
i-DST
▪ Basins (4) with Geothermal
energy sources for desalination
▪ Basins (17) with produced water
• Ohio-1 basin
• Oklahoma -3 basins
• Texas-2 basins
• Wyoming- 1 basin
➢The i-DST compares water quality from a basin to the water quality
requirements for a user selected beneficial use and selects treatment options
PD
-Sw
20
5w
8
➢ A very large number of permutations
➢ 62 treatment processes and 46 water quality
parameters
➢ Complexity increases with number of treatment
technologies, number of water quality
parameters, and number of treatment/system
constraints to be added
➢ Intelligent process selection
Treatment Selection Approach
➢ Multi-Objective Optimization (MOO) approaches
-Algorithms based on a non-linear optimization with defined
constraints and objective function
PD
-Sw
20
5w
9
Overview of the i-DST
Water Quality Module
User & Expert
RankingModule
Selects the best treatment train with respect to technical & economic criteria while meeting water quality requirements.
➢ Constituents➢ Required TE
➢ A list of criteria➢ Weights, expert
ranking
➢ Treatment train➢ Cost Estimates, Energy
demand
➢ Treatment cost➢ Energy
requirement
Economic & Energy demand Module
Treatment Selection Module
[Optimization module]
PD
-Sw
20
5w
10
Simplified User Interaction
PD
-Sw
20
5w
11
User interaction
Output viewing options
PD
-Sw
20
5w
12
➢ Permian Basin, New Mexico
➢ Lea County
➢ Eddy County
Case Study
PD
-Sw
20
5w
13
Average TDS
90,000 mg/L.
Samples with lower
TDS values (yellow
circles) show
clusters in eastern
Lea County where
there is also
relatively high water
production.
Produced Water Quality
PD
-Sw
20
5w
14
Combining GIS Mapping for Evaluating
Beneficial Use Feasibility - Irrigation
➢ Irrigation water TDS 1500 mg/L
➢ Eliminated wells with TDS over
40,000 mg/L
➢ 983 active oil and gas wells
included in the cluster
➢ Annual produced water
production: ~170 million bbls
➢ Average distance to irrigation
areas: 1.9 miles
➢ Treatment: three-phase separator
– settling tank - chemical softening
- media filtration - seawater RO -
solid and liquid waste disposal.
PD
-Sw
20
5w
15
Combining GIS Mapping for Evaluating
Feasibility – Surface Water Augmentation
➢ Pecos River TDS 5,000 mg/L
➢ Produced water TDS ~ 35,000
mg/L
➢ 759 active oil and gas wells
included in the cluster
➢ Annual produced water production:
~17 million bbls
➢ Average distance to Pecos River:
4.5 miles
➢ Treatment: three-phase separator –
settling tank - chemical softening -
media filtration - electrodialysis-
solid and liquid waste disposal.
PD
-Sw
20
5w
16
Combining GIS Mapping for Evaluating
Beneficial Use Feasibility - Mining
➢ Acceptable water quality is 100 g/L
TDS
➢ Average PW quality 145 g/L
➢ Average distance to mining sites:
10 miles
➢ Produce ”clean brine” with three-
phase separator - settling tank –
chemical softening/coag./floc./sed. -
media filter - waste disposal.
➢ Blending with lower TDS water
PD
-Sw
20
5w
17
Combining GIS Mapping for Evaluating
Beneficial Use Feasibility - Fracturing
Hydraulic Fracturing System Cross Link Gel Slickwater
pH 6.0 - 8.0 > 5
Total Suspended Solids < 0.1 mg/L
Microbes Require disinfection
Hardness (Ca+Mg) < 2,000 mg/L -
Iron < 20 mg/L -
Sulfate 200 - 1,000 mg/L -
Chloride < 40,000 mg/L -
Bicarbonate < 1,000 mg/L -
Boron < 10 mg/L -
Multivalent Ions - < 5,000 mg/L
TDS - < 40,000 mg/L
Reducing Agent < 25 mg/L -
PD
-Sw
20
5w
18
Combining GIS Mapping for Evaluating
Beneficial Use Feasibility - Fracturing
➢ Cross-link gel system does not require TDS concentration, but limits
hardness: three-phase separator - settling tank - chemical
coagulation/flocculation/settling - media filtration – disinfection
➢ Slickwater system requires desalination: three-phase separator - settling
tank - chemical coagulation/flocculation/settling - media filtration –
disinfection – SWRO at low recovery
PD
-Sw
20
5w
19
Case Study – Permian Basin
Irrigation
w/SWRO
Cross-
link Gel
Slickwater
w/ SWRO
Slickwater w/
Blending
Pecos River
Augmentation
Mining
Disposal Cost
($/day)
18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000
Unit Cost*
($/kgal)
12.81 6.33 7.07 6.33 10.62 10.82
Unit Treatment
Cost ($/bbl)*
0.54 0.27 0.30 0.27 0.45 0.45
Product Flow
(bbl/day)
9,000 18,000 9,000 18,000 9,000 18,000
Marginal
benefits
($/day)
4,158 13,213 6,327 13,215 4,986 9,820
The cost estimates are in the range of -30% to +50% for feasibility study.
• Unit costs including water treatment and distribution
• Benefits do not include the saving from use of freshwater
PD
-Sw
20
5w
20
➢ The i-DST provides an integrated produced water
management tool that accounts for quantifiable and non-
quantifiable criteria in the selection of treatment processes
➢ Offers additional flexibility considering factors, constraints
and objectives in selecting the final treatment trains
➢ Simulates logical treatment trains for various source water
types
➢ Provides a screening-level economic estimate for produced
water treatment and reuse
Summary and Concluding Remarks
PD
-Sw
20
5w
21
➢ Use of produced water for hydraulic fracturing is economically
feasible, while agricultural irrigation and instream augmentation
of Pecos River are expensive. The transportation cost to mining
is estimated high.
➢ Investments on infrastructure of water treatment, storage,
collection and distribution.
➢ Liability and users of treated water
➢ Public acceptance, water rights and regulations
➢ Environmental and social benefits should be included
➢ Innovative technologies for water quality characterization,
treatment and resources recovery, in particular for brines
➢ Renewable energy driven, low costs treatment technologies
(visit posters)
Summary and Concluding Remarks
PD
-Sw
20
5w
22
➢ DOE/RPSEA (Research Partnership to Secure Energy for
America)
➢ New Mexico Environmental Department
➢ Guanyu Ma at New Mexico State University
➢ Mengistu Geza, Tzahi Cath, Jorg Drewes at Colorado
School of Mines
➢ Katharine Dahm and Katie Guerra at BoR
➢ Robert Sabie, Sam Fernald, Kenneth Carroll, Jeri Sullivan-
Graham, Martha Cather
➢ Brent Van Dyke and Donnie Hill
Acknowledgement