Seun Olatubi 

Global Petroleum Research Institute (Texas A&M, University )IPEC , Nov 3-5, 2009, Houston, Texas 
 E&P wastes 

 Our objective (s) Methodology  Results  Future Work  Miscellaneous 
 This study focused primarily on produce

spent water based drilling fluids. 

 Reliable forecasts show that continued e

of unconventional resources would dramincrease water based E&P production. 

 Industry disposal and handling costs of w

wastes are estimated to be about 50 billyearly1
 Large Volumes 

 Low amount of recycle and re-use  Water is the new oil: increased competit

freshwater sources and rising costs

 Increased footprint 

“

a typical drilling and completion operation in the Mar

approximately 4 million gallons of freshwater; about 100,

used for drilling and above 3 million gallons are used for 

standard 5-10 stage lateral utilizing slick water fracture e

addition after stimulation about 1.5 million gallons of flo

would require disposal

”2

 Re-use aimed primarily for on-site use(s

preferably on-site (low foot print)

 Treatment options that allow the extract

able water/effluent from these wastes 

 Evaluation of pre-treatment options to m

tertiary treatment options as desalinatio
 Common step towards re-use for all typ

based E&P waste was colloidal filtration 

 Membranes show superior colloidal and 

filtration in comparison to other options 

 Membranes provide the combination of 

footprint, waste volume concentration, lrequirement and mobility

 Advances in membrane technology has 

capabilities
 Concentration polarization/fouling 

decline 

 Large volumes of water based wast

produced 

 Operational challenges and feed 

characteristic challenges.
 Oil and suspended s Mechanical pre-trea Optimization for so

• Oil < 2000 ppm

• Salts and dissolved solids • Suspended solids 

• dissolved solids• salinity 

• concentrated oil• concentrated suspended solids 
 Water extraction 

 Solids-free permeWaste volume conreduction 

High solids Dissolved solids Mostly water 

• concentrated solids • low water 
 Sample uniformity of field samples (produc

drilling fluids) 

 Feed parameter variation (Produced water: 

concentration, Spent drilling fluids: solids concentration)

 Operational parameter evaluation (CFV, tem

and pressure)

 Resistance calculation (results not shown) Fouling mitigation (backflushing) and chem
Ceramic membrane 

Pore size a)0.2 μmb)0.01 μmc)0.005 μm 

Ca)b)c)d)e)

Hollow fibre membrane 

Pore sizea)0.2 μmb)0.1 μm

Chaa)Pb)Hc)Mtemd)L
 Solids rejection was between 93-99%, solids concentration was b

25,000 mg/L (mean particle size was between 38-116 microns)  Turbidity removal was about 99%, from 1857 NTU to less than 1.

 Solids concentration was varied from 8.8% - 10.20 % vol solids, t

the more the flux

Mud weight: 9.7 ppg and 10.8 ppg Solids concentration: (8.8 % (vol),19,000 

), 31,000 mg/L) pH: 9.5 . Ceramic membrane 0.01 micron pore size
 Flux increased with higher temperature and high cross flow velo

 Pressure regimen is very important in prolonging the onset of fo Solids help reduce the effect of concentration polarization due t

scouring of the membranes 

Mud weight: 9.7 ppg Solids concentration: 8.8 % (vol) , (19,000 m

Maximum Flux (GFD) Minimum Flux (GFD) Average Flux (GFD) 

Temp (C)

20 18.14 13.89 15.65 38 30.57 26.31 26.80 52 51.84 36.10 43.77 

CFV (ft/s)

6.04 12.17 9.2 10.36 

10.08 30.57 26.31 26.80 16.12 70.07 52.13 64.23 

TMP (psi)

10 21.35 30.47 27.85 15 30.57 26.31 26.80 20 34.11 27.22 32.38 
High Solids 

Dissolved solids 100% volume8.8 – 10.2% solids

by volume

(19,000 -32,000 mg/L)

Concentrated Solids60% volume

SoD40

High Solids Dissolved solids 100% volume8.8 – 10.2% solids

by volume

(19,000 -32,000 mg/L)
 Increased temperature, cross flow velocity and pressure increa

 Pressure regimen was important to reduce the onset of fouling  Oil concentration as high as 1200 ppm was handled effectively 

membranes , PVDF could hand less than 300 ppm 

 Temperature was the most important factor in filtration. 

Oil concentration 700 ± 500 ppm, pH 7.3 ±1.5 and salinity 36,000 ± 5000 

Maximum Flux (GFD) Minimum Flux (GFD) Average Flux (GFD) 

Temp (C) 20 58.44 45.45 51.32 

38 140.70 100.11 110.06 52 160.04 149.01 152.05 

CFV (ft/s) 4 68.42 63.10 65.03 

8 140.70 100.11 110.06 

11 164.10 124.8 142.42 

TMP (psi) 10 68.18 45.45 53.07 

15 140.70 100.11 110.06 21 139.93 112.00 100.65 
 PVDF membranes showed fluxes 5 times greater than with cera

pressure and energy requirements

 PVDF membranes could handle less oil in water before fouling
High oil in water

Suspended solids Dissolved salts Low solids 100% volume 96-99% oil 

96-99 % solids5-7% volume 

 Backwash was applied every 40 minutes after the 80th minute at a cross f

ft/s, the filtration cross flow was 16 ft/s By prolonging the onset of flux decline the permeate was increased by 54

backwash 
 Backwash was applied every 25 minutes at a cross flow velocity of 16 ft/

flow was 10 ft/s By prolonging the onset of flux decline the permeate was increased by o

would have obtained without backwash Backwashing also reduced the total reversible fouling from 20% to 6% 
 Backwash was applied every 15 minutes at a cross flow velocity of 6.5 ft/

flow was 3.8 ft/s. The oil concentration was 500 ppm The hydrophobic nature of the PVDF membrane material affected the a

flux.Backwash as high oil concentration would be ineffective in hollow fibre m
 Two cleaning agents were used in our st

membranes backwashed and not backwalso used in four hour filtration experime

 Using fouling mitigation techniques and 

chemical cleaning recovered between 93membrane 

 Well designed cleaning regimens are ess

membrane systems and are determined by case basis
 Membranes are effective in the colloidal 

water based E&P wastes to produce re-ueffluents 

 Membrane systems operational and feed 

parameters need to be optimized throuknowledge to optimize filtration 

 Fouling mitigation and cleaning regimen

integral part of the membrane system 
 Pretreatment is the key to successful me

 We are at the field testing stage of a pilo

mobile unit for produced water treatmendifferent sections. 
Sample

characterization

Solids

Above 30,000 mg/L

Less than 15,000 mg/L

Below 5,000 mg/L

Pretreatment to reduce solids 

Below 5,000 mg/LLess than 15,000 mg/L

Above 2,000 ppmLess than 1,500 ppmBelow 300 ppm

Pretreatment to reduce oil 

Below 3,000 ppm

Less than 1,500 ppm

Oil Concentration Salinity

Above 40,000 TDSbelow 40,000 TDS

CLASS I CLASS IICLASS IV

TDS (other)

Dissolved solids ID and manufacturer’s specification about membrane material and ion(s) reaction 

User classification based on concentration 

High Medium 

Low 

Pretreatme

Pretrea

No pretr

Gel/Polymer Pre treatment to 

remove gels 

CLASS I CLASS IICLASS IIICLASS IV Miscellaneous

VIIVVI

IIIII
 Thank you 

 For more Information: 

GPRI Website 

http://www.pe.tamu.edu/gpri-newDavid Burnett , Director, GPRI.