Julio de la Rosa Acciona

1. L O W - C O S T & L O W - R I S K S O L U T I O N S I N W AT E R T R E AT M E N T,
R E C Y C L I N G , A N D R E U S E
1 7 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 2 .

2. 2 I N D E X
1. Amount + Situation.
2. Current Solutions.
3. Microfiltration + Ultrafiltration.
4. Nanofiltration + Reverse Osmosis.
5. FO+NF/RO.
6. MBR.
7. Ceramic Membranes.

3. 3 A M O U N T + S I T U A T I O N
ME oil production: 32 Mbbl/day
Average 4 bb-water/bbl
ME bb-water production: 128 Mbbw/day
160 L/bb – 0.16 m3/bb
20.000.000 m3/day
80.000.000 people/d
70% Onshore.
56.000.000 people/d
In terms of revenues, the global
produced water treatment market
is estimated to reach
US$ 187.4 Bn by 2030

4. 4 C U R R E N T S O L U T I O N S
1. Discharge into the ocean.
2. Underground injection through disposal wells.
3. Recycling of produced water.
A. Reuse within the oil and gas industry
B. Reuse in sectors different than O&G
I. Livestock watering.
II. Industrial cooling.
III. Irrigation of crops.
IV. Mining.
V. Recreational uses.

5. 5 M I C R O F I L T R A T I O N + U L T R A F I L T R A T I O N
Process Mechanishm Material Target Polutant
Microfiltration.
(0.1 – 3 Bar)
Range of 0.1 to 10 μm Material: Polimeric and
Inorganic.
Type: Porous
Suspended Solid.
Organic Molecules.
Coloidal Particle.
Turbidity.
Ultrafiltration.
(3.4 – 8.3 bar)
Range of 0.02 to 0.1 μm Material: Polimeric and
Inorganic.
Type: Porous
Dissolved molecules
Colloid particles
Bacteria
Proteins
Virus

6. 6
Process Mechanishm Material Target Polutant
Nanofiltration.
(4 – 16 bar)
Range up of
0.001 μm to
0.0001 μm.
Material: Polimeric.
Type: Dense.
- Dissolved
particles.
- Ions and cations
depending on
the specified
charge and the
polarity of the
molecules
- Decreases the
electrical
conductivity of
water
Reverse Osmosis.
(40 – 60 bar)
Solubility
difference and
diffusion rates of
water and solutes.
Pore size below
0.0001 μm.
Material: Polimeric.
Type: Dense.
- Low molecular
weight
components
- Inorganic ions
N A N O F I L T R A T I O N + R E V E R S E O S M O S I S

7. 7 F O R W A R D O S M O S I S + N A N O F I L T R A T I O N

8. 8 F O R W A R D O S M O S I S + N A N O F I L T R A T I O . D R A W S O L U T I O N S

9. 9 F O R W A R D O S M O S I S + N A N O F I L T R A T I O N . C H A L L E N G E S
1. Low flux and expensive elements
Improvements in FO membranes:
Thinner membranes with less tortuosity (S parameter) → higher flux
More providers → lower prices
2. DS recovery is energy intensive.
Diluted DS has more osmotic pressure than feed water
3. DS replacement costs
Reverse Salt diffusion and incomplete DS recovery
4. Permeate quality
DS content
5. No real data
Main studies are lab-scale, synthetic feed, short term and batch conditions
Realistic studies are still needed → OFREA PROJECT

10. 10 F O R W A R D O S M O S I S + N A N O F I L T R A T I O N . C A P E X v s O P E X
UF+RO vs. FO+NF:
CAPEX:
• FO Membrane prices should go down in the future years
OPEX:
• Energy consumption is higher for the FO+NF
• Chemicals
 Low fouling:
- Membrane replacement and chemicals for cleaning and shutdowns will be lower for the FO option.
- Low or zero pretreatment: no antiscalant, pH adjustment, FeCl3,…
 Draw solution costs:
- Due to incomplete recovery → economical DS must be found
• Costs
• Relevant cost due to DS losses and DS reconcentration energy
• Balance between cost of DS, membranes and energy needed
FO application is still challenging…but is becoming a reality!

11. 11 M B R
• Micro or Ultrafiltration membranes.
• Membrane geometries:
• Hollow Fibre
• Flat Sheet
• Tubular
Submerge Configuration Sidestream Configuration
Advantages:
1) Smaller footprint (new WWTPs) or higher hydraulic throughput
(existing WWTPs).
2) High-quality effluent, free of bacteria and pathogens
3) Higher automation capabilities

12. 12 M B R . C A P E X
MBR.
CA + ADVANCE TERCIARY (Memb)
CA + CONVENTIONAL TERCIARY (Coag, sand filter and
desinf.)

13. 13 M B R . O P E X
MBR.
CA + ADVANCE TERCIARY (Memb)
CA + CONVENTIONAL TERCIARY (Coag, sand filter and
desinf.)
OPEX

14. 14 M B R . O P E X
1) The CAPEX of the MBR 10% lower than conventional extended aeration with tertiary
membrane polishing.
2) OPEX MBR costs, 20% lower conventional extended aeration with tertiary membrane
polishing..
3) The cost benefits of MBRs increase with increasing plant size due to the decreased
labour requirement, though the energy demand is higher than for conventional
processes.

15. 15 C E R A M I C M E M B R A N E S
3 Layers:
1) Support Layer: Provide support to the film.
2) Transition Layer: To protect the film.
3) Separation Layer (The film): Separation function.
The ceramic membrane is an inorganic separation membrane made of ceramic material
with separation function. It is a product obtained by uniformly mixing additives of inorganic
raw materials after reaction molding, and calcination at high temperature. The interior
contains a lot of pores, porosity is greater than 30% and the average pore size usually
1~10µm
Filtration Method:
1) Terminal Filtration.
2) Cross-Flow.
Pore Size:
1) Microfiltration.
2) Ultrafiltration.
3) Nanofiltration.

16. 16 C E R A M I C M E M B R A N E S
Base on Membrane Module:
1) Flat
2) Hollow-Fiber.
3) Tubular.

17. 17 C E R A M I C M E M B R A N E S
Advantages:
1) Good Chemical Stability: Corrosive liquids.
2) Mechanical Strength: No deformation by HP. Maintain continuous operation.High Back Pressure.
3) Anti-Microbial Capacity: Reduced Biofouling.
4) High Temperature Resistance. 800 C
5) Narrow pore size distribution.
6) Small footprint. Easily Expandable.
7) Low chemical consumption.
8) Low or zero sludge production.
9) Easy Cleaning.
10) Long service live
Disadvantages:
1) Brittle.
1. High Production Cost.
2. Alkali intolerat.

18. 18 C E R A M I C M E M B R A N E S
Outcome:
The removal rate of oilfield waste-water treatment with micro / nanofiltration ceramic
membrane can reach more than 99.5%.
Next Steps:
1. To develop low cost high performance membranes materials.
2. To improve film processing technology. Higher efficiency and permeability.
3. To reduce membrane pollution during manufacturing. Membrane regeneration
and life extension.
4. Ceramic membrane brittleness improvement. Processing technology.
CERAMIC vs OSMOSIS
• CAPEX: 0.30 MUSD/MLD vs 0.20 MUSD/MLD.
• OPEX: 0.23 USD/m3 vs 0.24 USD/m3

19. Q U E S T I O N S ?
Julio de la Rosa Jurado
Middle East Development Director, Water
jrosa@acciona.com
+966563384474 / +971551308241