Post on 09-Mar-2018
Advances in Water
Injection Technology
Graeme OrrOPO ConferenceAberdeen 2014
FPSO Cidade de Sao Paulo water injection plant load-out
Who are Veolia?
Water injection filtration technology overview
The benefits of Membrane Filtration for water injection plant
Examples
Membrane de-oxygenation
Subsea Sulphate Removal
Questions
Contents
Veolia, the global leader in resource management
Water, waste and energy:
a unique combination of expertise
€22.3 billion in revenue
202,800 employees on 5 continents
94 million people supplied with drinking
water
62 million people connected to wastewater
systems
86 million MWh generated
38 million metric tons of waste recovered
Over 200,000 professionals dedicated to designing and implementing the best possible solutions for local management of essential resources: water, energy and raw materials.
Veolia partners with manufacturers, cities and local residents to make optimal resource management the foundation for a new approach to human progress, regional appeal and sustainable growth.
Specific business units specialise in markets/technology (we used to be called VWS Westgarth)
(2013 global data)
Water Injection –
Brief Process Overview
>
FPSO Itagui water injection plant load-out
Seawater Sulphate Removal (SRP)
o Veolia are world leaders in this technology and have previously delivered all common
variations in process design (this example is deaeration upstream of NF)
Train “A”
Pre-FiltrationMembrane System (NF)
Cartridge FiltrationMedia FiltrationMembrane Filtration
Train “B”
Train “C”
Guard Cartridge FiltrationSDI <5 (not req. with MF/UF pre-filtration systems)
HP PumpsSRP ~ 36 barg
To Injection
Well
Deaeration
Injection System
Mechanical ~ 40ppbChemically ~ 10ppb
Sea Water FeedProcess Product Sulphates Product Salinity*
SRP single pass < 50 ppm 26,000 TDS
SRP two pass < 20 ppm 24,000 TDS
LoSal single pass < 10 ppm < 1,500 TDS
*Typical Feed SW 36,000 TDS - 15°C
2nd Stage
Membrane System Conversion: ~ 75%
1st Stage
Reject OB
Permeate
PCV OB
Coarse Filtration80 – 100 μm
Filtration/Injection Options
o Coarse Strainer (80-100µm) followed by Cartridge Filter (10µm abs)
o Coarse Strainer (80-100µm) followed by Multi-media Filter (5-15µm nominal) followed by Cartridge Filter (10µm abs)
o Coarse Strainer (80-100µm) followed by Membrane Filtrationo Micro-Filtration (0.10µm abs)
o Ultra-Filtration (0.03µm abs)
Basic
State of the art
Can be used as the sole filtration stage, resulting in low capex/high opex due to frequent filter change (purchase, store, dispose)
Typically N+1
Material:Vessel – Lined carbon steel or Super Duplex
Filter - Polypropylene
Cartridge rating 5 – 10μm
Filtration: Cartridge Filters
10μm nominal primary filtration
Media: Sand/Pumice/Garnet
Material:
Vessel – carbon steel internally lined
Internals - super duplex
N+1 configuration
Good practice to use cartridge filtration
downstream to catch fines and provide
a guarantee of treated water quality
High capex, space & weight, reduced
opex compared to cartridge filtration
only (allows less frequent cartridge filter
element replacement)
Filtration: Multi–Media Filters
First designs were racks of single
membranes
Latest design is a multiple-
membrane element vessel (MEV)
Established membrane with proven
seawater suitability (PVDF material)
Excellent treated water quality
Micro-Filtration (0.10µm abs)
Ultra-Filtration (0.03µm abs)
No need for cartridge filters
Capex is similar to media filters,
space and weight are less
Filtration: Micro/Ultrafiltration membranes
The Benefits of Membrane Pre-
filtration for SRP/LoSal/CEOR
Injection Water
FPSO Clovmembrane pre-filtration skid load-out
Operating experience proves that membrane pre-filtration reduces SRP/SWRO membrane CIP frequency and therefore reduces operating costs
No cartridge filters are required to guarantee performance
Reduced CIP frequency increases the life of SRP/SWRO membranes
Reduced CIP frequency of SRP/SWRO membranes gives increased water injection capacity
Membrane pre-filtration has lower capital cost, space and weight
Benefits of Membrane Pre-filtration Technology
Proven Membrane Experience &Technology!
Why Do We Recommend UF?
o Kindasa Hydranautics UF
Hydranautics RO
o Buzzard Pall Baekert MF/Dow NF
o FPSO Pazflor Pall Pentair MF/Dow NF
o FPSO Clov INGE Baekert UF/Dow NF
o FPSO Moho Nord Dow UF
o FPSO Egina Dow UF
Why Do We Now Recommend MEV?
13Reduces Footprint, Weight & Expensive Pipework!
UF Membrane for Multi-Element Vessel
PVDF hollow fibre out-to-
in configuration has
process advantages over
in-to-out designs
MEV Ultrafiltration skid
Multi-Media FiltrationSkid plus Cartridge
Filtration skid
Typical example: 250,000BPD
SRP Pre-treatment system
MEV UF design achieves:
Circa 25% area saving
Circa 50% weight saving
MEV Saves Space & Weight
North Sea platform undergoing a 10 year life extension review
Ageing plant
Existing 100,000BPD water injection system with multi-media filtration and two
trains of SRP
Planned additional production wells create a demand for increased water
injection volume
Obvious answer - expand plant by adding another SRP train
Not practical due to space and jacket weight restraints
Only option – make an old plant more productive by increasing
water injection availability
Solution - replace existing media pre-filtration plant with UF membrane pre-
filtration plant
Recent Example
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
3500000
4000000
4500000
5000000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Year
Media pre-filtration
Membrane pre-filtration
Cu
mu
lati
ve lo
st in
ject
ion
cap
acit
y -
bar
rels
Comparison of Lost Injection Water Capacity
Lost SRP capacity calculated on backwashing/CIP frequency and duration
Approx 3m Barrelsof injection water
From the previous graph, it is clear that a significant volume of
injection water is ‘lost’ due to the frequency and duration of CIP
Predictive software, plus many years of operational experience,
allows calculation of the additional injection water volume that the
plant can supply if UF pre-filtration is installed
Taking a North Sea average of one barrel injection water = half a
barrel oil of produced, we can calculate additional oil production
Budget capex of replacing Media pre-filtration with MEV UF = $8m
Lost Capacity
18
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Non
-Reco
ve
red
Oil
Co
st
($m
illio
n)
assu
min
g 1
ba
rre
l in
jectio
n =
0
.5 b
arr
el o
il re
co
ve
red
an
d c
on
sta
nt o
il p
rice
of $
10
0/b
arr
el
Year
Oil Recovery Potential - Financial
$160
$140
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
Increased water injection volume is possible with a new UF pre-
filtration system
More water injection equates to increased oil recovery
Will fit on platform (takes less footprint and weight than existing media filtration)
Can be delivered as a single module for fast installation
Provides higher quality feedwater to downstream SRP so longer membrane life
Case Study Conclusions
Allow the experienced D&B contractor much greater freedom to propose a process design based upon Clients operational priorities
A recent FPSO has a design specification of 5x20% NF membrane trains. During the cleaning of a train, it automatically converts the operation of the trains to 4x25%, thus maintaining 100% injection capacity – only possible with UF
100% injection capacity = maximum revenue!
Can be applied to both SRP, SWRO and CEOR injection projects
UF pre-filtration will enable the NF/SWRO membrane supplier to extend the warranty
Higher quality feedwater allows reduced CIP chemical consumption
Higher quality feedwater can allow greater throughput of the NF/SWRO plant, or a similar throughput from a smaller plant
Further Project Considerations
21
>
Membrane Deaeration
Technology
Gasses in the atmosphere dissolve into
water until equilibrium is reached
Equilibrium between the liquid and gas
phase is offset when a vacuum and/or
source of strip gas is applied
This creates a driving force to move
gasses from the liquid phase into the gas
phase
Principles of Gas Transfer
23
Vacuum and/or Sweep
Gas
LIQ
UID
O2
yO2
Liquid/Gas contact area at the pore
Conventional Vacuum Tower v Membrane DA
o Weight (flooded)
o Mem. : MINOX : Vac. Tower
1 : 2 : 4
o CAPEX (Installed)
o Operating Consumables
13,500m3/day Mem. Vac. Tower MINOX TM
Power (kW) 40 42 26
O2 scavenger (L/yr) 5,000 30,000 30,000
Antifoam (L/yr) - 2,500 2,500
Methanol (L/yr) - - 100,000
Compressed Air (Nm3/h) - - 25
Joint Industry Development
SPRINGS® – Subsea Seawater Sulphate Removal (SRP)
Developers: Total, Saipem, and Veolia
Design Capacity: 5,000 to 50,000BPD
Design Depth: up to 3,000metres
Up to 50km from FPSO
Technologies:Disinfection
Backwashable disc filters
Nanofiltration membranes (SRP)
Injection pumps
SPRINGS®
Subsea Process and Injection Gear for Seawater
Subsea Seawater Treatment
SPRINGS®: Modules
NanofiltrationModule
Coarse Filtration Module
Pump Module
Chemical Dosing Module
Subsea Trial Unit Installation
Offshore Congo – May/June 2014
Operation commenced 12th June 2014
Satisfactory performance to dateProduct water sulphate content
Key equipment function without issue
Membrane foulingRate of TMP and DP increase observed
Intervention frequency forecast from fouling rate
Nature of fouling to be established by autopsy
Subsea Trial Unit Operation
Membrane subsea operation is feasible
SPRINGS® Subsea Treatment Unit allows refinement of:Subsea station process design
IMR strategy
Feed water inlet location
Future testing at greater depthsUp to 3000metres
The ocean floor is becoming the new topsides
Conclusion
Questions??
Thank you