WateReuse – Texas July 2012

PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT

and REUSE in

QUEENSLAND AUSTRALIA

Presenter :Robert M. (Bob) Johnson, P.E.MWH Americas, Inc.7557 Rambler Road Suite 440QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA 7557 Rambler Road, Suite 440Dallas, TX 75231

Author:Ron Cass P E PMPRon Cass, P.E., PMPMWH Americas, Inc.

July 2012

PROJECT BACKGROUND

• Facilites in the Bowen• Facilites in the Bowen and Surat Basins– LNG Facility on CurtisLNG Facility on Curtis

Island– Regional gas

compression– Regional Water

Treatment and ReuseTreatment and Reuse– Local gas/water

separation– Distributed wellfields

PROJECT BACKGROUND

• Global Energy Developers include:Developers include:

Queensland Curtis LNG (QCLNG) - owned by the Queensland Gas Company QGC

Gladstone LNG (GLNG) - a joint venture ( ) jbetween Santos Ltd, Petronas, Kogas and Total

Australia Pacific LNG (APLNG) - a joint venture project between Originventure project between Origin, ConocoPhillips and Sinopec

Arrow LNG - a joint venture between Shell and PetroChina

Gl d t LNG Fi h L di Gladstone LNG Fishermans Landing - a joint venture between LNG Limited and Huanqiu Contracting and Engineering Corporations HQCEC (a wholly owned

b idi f Chi N ti l P t lsubsidiary of China National Petroleum Corporation)

Focus of This Paper is Reuse Alternatives

• Industrial Reuse such as cooling water that would• Industrial Reuse – such as cooling water that would normally be taken from area streams or groundwater

• Agricultural Reuse – reuse in lieu of further groundwater extraction, extending preservation of the local aquifers

• Injection – a groundwater replenishment initiative

• River Discharge – blending with the seasonal ephemeral stream to eliminate aquatic impact.

Produced Water Reuse

• Coal seam gas/water source• Coal seam gas/water source– Gas dissolution from groundwater

extraction

• Nature of the separated waterBrackish saline 4000 8000 mg/L– Brackish saline – 4000-8000 mg/L TDS

– Hardness – 1000-2000 mg/L (Bicarbonate predominantly)(Bicarbonate, predominantly)

– Iron and Manganese contributions

– Silica – 20 – 30 mg/L.

Treatment Alternatives

F d t li it d lit d d d i• Feed water salinity and reuse quality needed drives reverse osmosis as core of process

• Wellfield collection system results in varying inflow of feed y y gwater, hence feed storage ponds.

• Feed storage ponds in turn, allow for algae growth –ti f filt ti d b filt tisuggesting use of coarse filtration and membrane filtration

for particulate removal• High groundwater hardness requires reduction to maximizeHigh groundwater hardness requires reduction to maximize

RO recovery – hence Ion Exchange for hardness removal• Post-treatment of permeate for various reuse applications

Process Flow Diagrams

Typical Plant General Arrangement

Feed Ponds and Pump Station

• Feed Water Pump• Feed Water Pump Station– Alternate sources forAlternate sources for

flexibility– Inter-plant transfer for

phasing and redundancy

– Bypassing for startupBypassing for startup

Disc Filters

• Four banks of twenty• Four banks of twenty cells

• Continuous rotating backwash with linebackwash with line pressure

• All HDPE for corrosion protectionp

Membrane Filtration

• Ten trains of pressure• Ten trains of pressure MF

• CIP and Blower systems

• Fully remote operation plannedplanned

Weak Acid Ion Exchange

• Pre-assembled off-site for shipping– Vessels in Korea– Racks/valves in

QueenslandQueensland – Valves Owner supply

• Level four fabrication drawingsg

Reverse Osmosis

• 8 trains in three skids– Vessel array

stage one– Vessel array

stages two and threeee

– Pump array• China final

assembly

Reuse Water Export

• Injection

• River Discharge

• Agricultural

• Industrial

Four Primary Flow Streams

• Permeate/distillate for reuse with possible MF• Permeate/distillate for reuse with possible MF filtrate blending if reuse criteria allows

• Brine Stream for impounded storage

• Chemical Wastes stream (membranes clean in place)place)

• Solids waste stream from Disc Filters and MF• Solids waste stream from Disc Filters and MF backwash

Reuse Alternatives – EPA 1994

• Category One preferred • Category Two non-• Category One – preferred management options include:

• Category Two – non-preferred management options include:

– Acquifer injection where detrimental impacts is unlikely (includes ‘virtual i j ti ’)

– Disposal via evaporation dams

– Disposal via injections injection’)

– Untreated use where detrimental impact is

lik l

where detrimental impact is likely

– Disposal to surface watersunlikely

– Treatment to an agreed standard for agricultural, i d t i l d t bl

– Disposal to land

industrial and potable uses

DERM Defined Beneficial Purposes

• DERM (Department of Environmental and Resource• DERM (Department of Environmental and Resource Management) will issue notices of decision to approve a resource for beneficial use for CSG water for the following uses:– Aquaculture

Coal washing– Coal washing– Dust suppression– Industrial useIndustrial use– Irrigation– Livestock watering

Four Reuse Systems Considered

Injection – a groundwater replenishment initiative, to re-inject treated water back into the aquifers. This also considers ‘virtual injection’, where an approved beneficial use substitutes an existing groundwater take.

Industrial Reuse – With these water treatment facilities centralized in a remote regionIndustrial Reuse With these water treatment facilities centralized in a remote region of many hectares of well extraction fields, there are few opportunities at this time for industrial reuse. Our project applications include vegetation irrigation to reduce erosion of embankments, service water for dust control, and camp use.

Agricultural Reuse – Agricultural reuse is gaining interest in the region with trials of Pongamia pinnata – a type of legume that can be used as cattle feed and can also be processed to make bio-fuel. This potential biofuel has been under world-wide scrutiny for applications in poor soils high saline regionsfor applications in poor soils, high saline regions.

River Discharge – River discharge is the last and final option – declared as non-preferred by DERM. As can be imagined with most sensitive watersheds and water ways, issues of concern are inter-basin transfer, water quality and temperature change impacts on aquatic life, and percentage of discharge flow to stream base flow.

Future of Reuse in Produced Water Area of Practice

• Innovation for clean energy and the part that water treatment and reuse can playwater treatment and reuse can play

• Anticipated future results setting a new standard• Anticipated future results setting a new standard for reuse in terms of project size

• The Oz experience translates to CSG and produced water worldwideproduced water worldwide

Thanks

• To the APLNG and Origin Team for allowing this• To the APLNG and Origin Team for allowing this presentation

• To Michael Bremer with Origin Energy for his review• To Michael Bremer with Origin Energy for his review and support of this paper

• For further information, please contact the author at Ron.Cass@us.mwhglobal.comRon.Cass@us.mwhglobal.com