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