DOCSLIB.ORG

Wastewater Management for Shale Hydrocarbon Extraction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wastewater Management for Shale Hydrocarbon Extraction Wastewater Management for Shale Hydrocarbon Extraction Hiba Hashmi – Ecotoxicology & Environmental Health Courtney Kutchins – Environmental Economics & Policy Beth Yetter – Energy & Environment Nairuo Zhu – Global Environmental Change Masters project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Environment Management Degree at the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University. Dr. Rob Jackson, Advisor May 2013 ABSTRACT Wastewater generation poses significant challenges to the future of shale oil and gas extraction. With the rapid expansion of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling operations, solutions for wastewater management are in high demand. This client project for Waste Management, Inc. reviews characteristics of produced and flow-back water in ten active shale formations, federal and state regulatory constraints on water supply and management practices in thirteen states, current wastewater management practices, and current and emerging wastewater treatment technologies. We conclude that recycling wastewater for reuse in additional hydraulic fracturing activities is preferred over other management practices. We evaluate current and emerging treatment technologies using criteria based on cost, potential environmental impact, potential community impact, regulatory requirements, suitability for waste stream characteristics, and other technological considerations. We employ a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to rank technologies and propose technologies for each shale formation. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose of Report ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Report Organization ...................................................................................................... 3 2. METHODS ......................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Project Scope ................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Technology Evaluation & Recommendation Process................................................... 5 2.3 Challenges and caveats ................................................................................................. 6 3. SHALE GEOLOGY & WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS ................................ 6 3.1 Shale Geology & Hydrocarbons ................................................................................... 6 3.2 Characteristics of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations ............................ 7 3.3 Water Quality .............................................................................................................. 11 3.4 Volume of Produced Water ........................................................................................ 13 3.5 Regulatory Considerations .......................................................................................... 13 4. CURRENT WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURING ................................................................................................................. 15 4.1 Wastewater Transportation ........................................................................................ 16 4.2 Underground Injection ................................................................................................ 18 4.3 Discharge From Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities or Publically Owned Treatment Works ......................................................................................................... 21 4.4 Recycling and Reuse ................................................................................................... 23 6. TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................................... 50 6.1 Current Treatment Technologies for Recycling and Reuse ........................................ 50 6.2 Emerging Treatment Technologies for Recycling and Reuse .................................... 56 6.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 65 7. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 66 7.1 Recommendation and Evaluation Framework ............................................................ 66 7.2 Evaluation of Treatment Options and Technologies .................................................. 67 7.3 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 71 8. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 74 i TABLE OF APPENDICES Appendix A Water rights and appropriation regulations Appendix B PA General Permit WMGR 123 (2012): De-wasted water Appendix C Louisiana commercial disposal facilities Appendix D Geospatial analysis Appendix E Colorado maximum contaminant concentration levels Appendix F Wyoming discharge treatment standards Appendix G Wastewater characteristics Appendix H Emerging technologies ii TABLE OF ACRONYMS ADEQ Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality AMD Acid Mine Drainage AOGC Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission AOPP Advanced Oxidation and Precipitation Process API American Petroleum Institute Ba Barium bbl Barrel (42 gallons) BLM Bureau of Land Management BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand Ca Calcium CDI Capacitive Deionization Cl Chlorine COGCC Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission CSG Coal Seam Gas CWA Clean Water Act CWT Centralized Wastewater Treatment DAF Dissolved Air Flotation DRBC Delaware River Basin Commission DOGR Division of Oil and Gas Resources DWWM WVDEP’s Division of Water and Waste Management E&P Exploration and Production EC Electrocoagulation ED Electrodialysis EDI Electrodeionization EDR Electrodialysis Reversal ELG Effluent Limitation Guideline F Fluorine FAQ Frequently Asked Questions Fe Iron FO Forward Osmosis ft Feet gpd Gallons per day ITS Integrated Treatment System MBOGC Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation MCT Mobile Chemical Treatment MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality MF Microfiltration Mg Magnesium mg/L Milligrams per liter Mn Manganese MOS Mixed Oxidant Solution NaCl Sodium Chloride NO3 Nitrate NORM Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material iii NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System OCC Oklahoma Corporation Commission ODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources PADEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection PDOPA Polydopamine POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works ppb Parts per billion ppm Parts per million PW-GP Produced Water General Permit Ra Radium RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RO Reverse Osmosis SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SO4 Sulfate Sr Strontium SRB Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria SRBC Susquehanna River Basin Commission STRONGER State Review of Natural Gas Environmental Regulation, Inc. TDS Total Dissolved Solids TOC Total Organic Carbon TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TSS Total Suspended Solids TX RRC Texas Railroad Commission UF Ultrafiltration μg/L Microgram per liter UIC Underground Injection Control μmhos/cm micromhos/cm USDOE United States Department of Energy USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency UV Ultraviolet VOC Volatile Organic Compound WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality WOGCC Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission WQS Water Quality Standard(s) WVDEP West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection iv 1. INTRODUCTION This report was prepared by Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment graduate students for Waste Management, Inc. Waste Management, Inc. partners with its clients in municipalities and industry to reduce and manage waste. They collect and dispose of waste, recover valuable resources, and strive to create clean and renewable energy. Waste Management leads in the development, operation, and ownership of facilities that convert landfill gas to energy and facilities that convert waste to energy. With 45,000 employees committed to environmental sustainability, Waste Management’s mission is to “maximize resource value, while minimizing environmental impact so that both [the] economy and [the] environment can thrive” (Waste Management Inc, 2013). 1.1 Purpose of Report The rapid development of the hydraulic fracturing industry in the past few decades has dramatically impacted the U.S. energy market, in terms of both driving down energy prices and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Worldwatch Institute, 2010). The process of hydraulic fracturing with horizontal drilling has proven to be an effective method to extract natural gas from unconventional sources. Hydraulic fracturing may hold the potential to significantly reduce the US’s dependence on foreign fossil fuel. However, the assessment of the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing, though important to understand, is not yet complete. Shale oil and gas originate within shale formations or plays composed of fine-grained sedimentary rocks; the shale gas within these formations is estimated to comprise about 49% of the total natural gas production in the U.S. by the year 2035 (EIA, 2012). In unconventional reservoirs, natural gas or oil is extracted using two major techniques in combination: horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (Sakmar, 2011).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Who Is MIOX®?
    Who is MIOX®? Control and Prevention (CDC), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the World Health Organization With a history of scientific innovation, MIOX Corporation (WHO) and other internationally‐recognized scientific began manufacturing on‐site water disinfectant generators institutions and universities, to build a substantial body of in 1994. Now with more than 1,700 MIOX installations in scientific documentation to demonstrate the dramatic hundreds of U.S. communities and over 30 countries, MIOX improvements in human health when mixed oxidants are systems are treating used to treat drinking water. more than 6.5 billion gallons of water per Individual treatment for individual needs day, serving millions of We know all treatment needs are not alike. For standard people worldwide. disinfection needs, we offer a state‐of‐the‐art on‐site hypochlorite generator engineered with superior salt and MIOX is used for energy efficiencies. For more advanced treatment needs, potable water, MIOX mixed oxidant technology offers all the disinfection wastewater and reuse, power of hypochlorite with additional treatment benefits commercial swimming including biofilm removal, disinfection by‐product (DBP) MIOX Headquarters pools, on board reduction, improved taste and odor, and improved water Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA military and cruise clarification processes. With mixed oxidant technology, ships, cooling towers, you’ll maintain more persistent and consistent chlorine the beverage industry, oil and gas water treatment, and residuals with lower doses. And compared to conventional other commercial and industrial applications. chlorination, laboratory studies show that mixed oxidants offer a much more effective kill of Cost effective and environmentally even difficult‐to‐inactivate responsible? Absolutely.
    [Show full text]
  • Potable Water Presentation
    MIOX for Potable Water MIOX is On-Site Generation Technology A direct replacement for chlorine and other biocide chemicals used in all types of water treatment. MIOX Vault™ OSG system virtually eliminates maintenance Generating chemicals on site, on demand is safer, cost effective, and eco-friendly. Eliminates storage and transportation of hazardous chemicals. Dramatically improved safety; less liability. Lifecycle costs much lower than delivered chemicals. Inherently a “greener” approach with reduced carbon footprint. Why MIOX? NIPSCO Power Plant Safe… Saves Over 70% with MIOX $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 Conventional chemicals $100,000 $50,000 MIOX $0 …saves money… … is more effective! A History of Innovation MIOX Founded in 1994 to replace delivered chemical for disinfection 1994 – 2005 – Early emphasis on public water systems – Listed by NSF International and U.S. EPA – Extensive government funded research – MSR MIOX Purifier developed MIOX today – A fast growing enterprise with proven technology and an established market base (1,700+ installed units) – Sales presence in 30+ countries – Over 16 U.S. patents MIOX® Technology Timeline 2008: Groundbreaking 2010: 2011: “Elfin RIO™ mid-sized OSG Revolutionary Platform” launched; modular cell small series self- available for design allows cleaning Vault™ 0.5-2 ppd unprecedented OSG launched flexibility 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 • 12 year history • Company • RIO™ • Added 3 New • New VP • Vault™ • “Elfin recapitalized Launched Experienced Industrial Launched Platform” • Technology
    [Show full text]
  • The Differences Between On-Site Generated Mixed-Oxidant Solution and Sodium Hypochlorite (Aka the Master Features Summary) Wesley L
    The Differences between On-Site Generated Mixed-Oxidant Solution and Sodium Hypochlorite (aka the Master Features Summary) Wesley L. Bradford, Ph.D., formerly Los Alamos Technical Associates, Inc. (LATA), Los Alamos, NM, and Chief Scientist, Product Development, MIOX Corporation, Albuquerque, NM Currently Chief Scientist, MIOX Corporation, Albuquerque, NM Last updated 8 February 2011 Table of Contents Background .................................................................................................................................................. 2 Chemistry ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Differences between MIOX Mixed-Oxidant Solution and Sodium Hypochlorite ................................ 3 Chemical Analyses .......................................................................................................................... 3 Other Laboratory Evidence for the Presence of Oxidants Other than Chlorine ............................ 5 Chemistry-Related Differences in Behavior of Mixed-Oxidant Solution Compared to Chlorine ........ 8 Superior Microorganism Inactivation in Potable Water and Processes ........................................ 8 Superior Effectiveness of Mixed-Oxidant Solution for Cryptosporidium Inactivation ................... 9 Early Work Suggests Effectiveness at Practical FAC Concentrations ..................................... 9 Difficulties in Repeating the Early Observations ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Hydrogen Peroxide Effect Along with Sodium Hypochlorite Against Marine Blue Mussels Aimed at Antifouling Usage
    Environ. Eng. Res. 2017; 22(1): 108-115 pISSN 1226-1025 https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2016.043 eISSN 2005-968X Assessing the hydrogen peroxide effect along with sodium hypochlorite against marine blue mussels aimed at antifouling usage Md. Niamul Haque1, Sunghyun Kwon2† 1Department of Ocean System Engineering, College of Marine Science, Gyeongsang National University, Cheondaegukchi-Gil 38, Tongyeong 53064, Republic of Korea 2Department of Marine Environmental Engineering, College of Marine Science, Engineering Research Institute (ERI), Gyeongsang National University, Cheondaegukchi-Gil 38, Tongyeong 53064, Republic of Korea ABSTRACT Chlorination has been the most common antifouling method, but alternatives are under searching. In this article, we report how the hydrogen peroxide could enhance the effect of chlorination to prevent fouling by inhibiting larvae settlement and abatement of mussel colonization or by extinct of them; through marine mussel Mytilus edulis. The addition of hydrogen peroxide shows synergic effect on the veliger larvae (up to 19 folds) and effectively reduces required time of mussel mortality by 8-22%. For resolution of micro- and macro-fouling caused by the marine mussel, as well as diminishing of time and conventional chlorine dose could be im- portant factor in favour of environment and economics. Keywords: Biofouling, Hydrogen peroxide, Mytilus edulis, Sodium hypochlorite, Veliger larvae 1. Introduction ozone) and nonoxidizing agents (amines, heavy metals, alde- hydes, organo-bromine compounds) [8]. Chlorination has been the most commonly used to control fouling. However, owing Micro- and macro-fouling can be a potentially serious problem to increasing concern about toxicity of chlorine and its inter- in a submerged cooling system, leading to the reduced heat ex- mediates to aquatic life, several countries are making effort change efficiency [1], to the reduced water flow [2] and to the to minimize chlorine residuals in the discharges [9].
    [Show full text]
  • Conversion from Traditional Biocide to Miox On-Site Generation at Nrg Phoenix Chilled Water Plant
    Fehr Solutions, LLC Water Treatment Services and Consulting CONVERSION FROM TRADITIONAL BIOCIDE TO MIOX ON-SITE GENERATION AT NRG PHOENIX CHILLED WATER PLANT MICHAEL FEHR, PH.D. FEHR SOLUTIONS, LLC Fehr Solutions, LLC Water Treatment Services and Consulting BACKGROUND ON BIOLOGICAL CONTROL • BIOLOGICAL CONTROL WITHIN COOLING TOWERS HAS ALWAYS BEEN IMPORTANT FROM A PERFORMANCE AND SAFETY STANDPOINT. • IT HAS BECOME EVEN MORE IMPORTANT WITH THE ASHRAE 188-2015 STANDARD BEING ISSUED • COOLING TOWERS FOR DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEMS ARE ALMOST BY DEFINITION LOCATED IN HIGHLY POPULATED AREAS • INCREASES POTENTIAL EXPOSURE • THE TECHNOLOGY USED TO CONTROL BACTERIAL GROWTH HAS STAGNATED Fehr Solutions, LLC Water Treatment Services and Consulting THE “BIOLOGICAL CONTROL” PLAYERS Non-Oxidizers (slow acting) Oxidizers (fast acting) Activated Bromine (Sodium Bromide + Bleach (12.5%) Isothiazolin Glutaraldehyde HOCl) Stabilized Chlorine Bromine (12 Dioxide %) Quats DBNPA BCDMH (Solid) Fehr Solutions, LLC Water Treatment Services and Consulting THE FEED AND CONTROL STRATEGIES • CONTINUOUS • MAINTAIN CONTINUOUS RESIDUAL • SLUG FEED • SLUG FEED ON REGULAR BASIS ON A REPEATING CYCLE • OFTEN OVERLAID WITH REGULAR NON-OXIDIZER USAGE • CONTROL • ORP • FREE CHLORINE ANALYZERS • REAGENT TYPE • MEMBRANE TYPE Fehr Solutions, LLC Water Treatment Services and Consulting THE HANDLING PROBLEM • BIOCIDES ARE GENERALLY THE MOST • CHLORINE DIOXIDE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN A FACILITY • PRECURSORS CAN BE EXPLOSIVE (IF DRIED) • THEY ARE DESIGNED TO KILL BACTERIA AND • OSHA LIMIT
    [Show full text]
  • Utilization of Mixed Oxidants to Improve Residual & Overall Water
    PA-AWWA 70th Annual Conference Pocono Manor, PA Utilization of Mixed Oxidants to Improve Residual & Overall Water Quality in Distribution Systems May 10, 2018 What are Mixed Oxidants? Mixed Oxidants are Produced by On-site Generation • On-site generation is when basic, simple chemicals are used to generate chemical at the point of use • In this case, the chemical produced is a chlorine-based disinfectant generated using salt Why Use On-Site Generation? Safety is One Major Reason OSG • Regulations • Trend toward the safest solution • Limit on hazardous chemical storage • Incidents • Recent near miss of Cl2 leak at two large industrial facilities South East US • Chlorine dioxide related fatalities: GM plant in 2014, Midland TX Oilfield 2016 • Sustainability • Less trucks, lower carbon footprint • Water conservation, less chemicals Operational Cost is Another… To produce 1 lb of 100% Free Available Chlorine equivalent to 1 gallons of 12.5% hypo Salt Electricity Operational Cost MIOX $0.30 + $0.18 = Cost ~$0.50 Equivalent to 1 gallon of delivered 3 lbs salt at $0.10/lbs (or delivered brine) 2.5 kW-hr power at $0.07/kW-hr 12.5% sodium hypochlorite ~$0.10 addt’l including parts maintenance Equivalent Operational Cost 12.5% Sodium Hypochlorite $0.65 ~ $2.50 Chlorine Gas $0.40 ~ $.75 and Performance is the Third • Mixed Oxidants outperform typical bleach generators by providing enhanced behaviors Future Challenges - Chlorate - • Chlorate (ClO3 ) is on the EPA’s Third Chemical Contaminant List (CCL3) • indicating that the intention of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review chlorate as a potential candidate for regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of Drinking Water Technical Staff THRO
    Working Memo 897 Page 1 of 5 DATE: November 9, 2006, Revised June 24, 2009 TO: Office of Drinking Water Technical Staff THROUGH: J. Wesley Kleene, Ph.D., P.E., Director, Office of Drinking Water FROM: Susan E. Douglas, P.E., Technical Services Director SUBJECT: System Evaluation, Design & Construction - MIOX Mixed Oxidant Treatment Systems RELATED: WM 841(Interim Guidance on Waterworks Classification) Revision Highlights : Deleted requirement for Temporary or Provisional permit, Clarified capacity and standby equipment requirements, Revised design to include hydrogen gas ventilation, water temperature considerations, Added initial and routine monitoring requirements, Deleted schematic diagrams, Added water quality factors - oxidant demand table as appendix. SUMMARY STATEMENT Disinfection by on-site generation of “mixed oxidants” using the proprietary MIOX Corporation treatment process is an option for waterworks to meet the disinfection requirements in 12VAC5- 590-500 of the Regulations . This memo addresses the process design features and controls, approval procedures, waterworks classification, monitoring and reporting requirements for these systems. I. BACKGROUND The MIOX On-Site Mixed-Oxidant Generation System produces a chlorine-based disinfectant solution using a proprietary electrolytic cell. The cell generates the disinfectant from a sodium chloride salt solution, eliminating the transport of chlorine gas or hypochlorite solution to the site. Another purported advantage of using the mixed oxidant system over a conventional hypochlorite feed system is the elimination of biofilm on pipes and membranes. Removal of the biofilm on piping results in lower chlorine demand / dosage, a more durable free chlorine residual in the distribution system, and reduction in distribution system TTHM levels. The MIOX mixed oxidant onsite generators have been certified under ANSI / NSF Standard 61, Drinking Water Components – Health Effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Session 7A – How to Better Control Legionella Presented By: Thomas Muilenberg Agenda
    Session 7A – How to Better Control Legionella Presented by: Thomas Muilenberg www.miox.com Agenda • Framing the key issues regarding legionella control • Why biofilm control is important • Options for halogen source • On-site generation overview • Advantages of on-site generation • Cost • Safety • Effectiveness • Case studies Legionnaires’ Risk Google news search Many documented cases from systems with a free available chlorine (FAC) residual from delivered bleach. FAC residual and biofilm control are required for long term risk management. Framing the Key Issues • Effectiveness is determined by two factors • Remove biofilms, control Legionella • Maintain stable disinfection residuals • Regulatory monitoring requirements for disinfectants • Safety – chemical generation and storage • Cost – capital and operational Bleach (Chlorine) is not sufficient alone Biofilm Removal is needed Inactivating Legionella is easy with Chlorine when it does not hide behind the biofilm Inactivating Pseudomonas aeruginosa that makes up the Biofilm is not easy Options to remove the Biofilm: 1) Chlorine Dioxide 2) On site generated Chlorine 3) Organic Biocides Biofilm Harbors Legionella • Free-floating Legionella is easy to kill • Harbors in biofilm, which protects organisms • MIOX removes biofilm – controls Legionella Concept of biofilm formation in pipes How Do You Control Biofilm, Then? • ASHRAE 188 simply recommends the use of a halogen (plus a monitoring/flushing program) • Regular hypochlorite/bleach • Cannot penetrate the biofilm layer • Other alternatives
    [Show full text]
  • COOLTECH Your Partner in Water Treatment
    Mixed Oxidants Generator Improves Cooling Tower Overall Treatment Husam Smadi Husam Smadi Cooltech Water Treatment When efficiency matters Presentation Overview Chemistry Background • General background on On-Site Oxidant Generation Implementation of MOS at Selected Site • Cooling Tower and MOS System Selection, and application of the new Biocide treatment program. • Integration of Online Monitoring Tools and Performance Monitoring Tools. Results and Lessons Learned • Biological Growth Control • Impact on Corrosion and Scale/Fouling formation • TCO and Environmental Impact of Miox in Cooling tower application On-Site Generation (OSG) of Biocides OSG biocide production is accomplished through the electrolysis of a sodium chloride brine stream to produce a chlorine based biocidal solution Electrochemical reactions occur on both the anode and cathode •Primary anode reaction: chlorine production - - through chloride oxidation (2 Cl - 2e → Cl2) •Primary cathode reaction: reduced of oxygen + - to produce hydrogen peroxide (O2 + 2H + 2e → H2O2) MOS Produced at lower concentration (0.45%): a) More stable b) Un-Harmful Revolutionary efficacy is derived from the 2nd oxidant present in the solution – Hydrogen Peroxide, which co-exists for 24-48 hours after electrolysis. CoolTech When efficiency matters Implementation of MOS at site An MOS system was installed for the cooling tower biological treatment in the District Cooling Plant EX-01 Previous Biocide treatment program (100 m3/hr) comprises Non-Oxidizing Biocide and Chlorine Base Biocide Miox System (Vault M15SC) of 6.8 kg of FAC/day was installed. Peak Water Consumption per day = 2800 (118 m3/hr)| m3/day, Holding Volume = 750 m3 13,800m3/hr (18 m3/hr) Study monitored the last 40 weeks of operations.
    [Show full text]
  • On-Site Generated Chemical At
    on-site Generated ChemiCaL at experTs in OIl & gaS Lowest Cost m ixed oxidanT Technology provides reliable disinfecTion for many oil and gas processes: • Frac waTer disinfecTion water • Surface and subsurface h2s & odor eliminaTion Per Barrel • Broad specTrum bacTeria treatment eliminaTion (srb, APB, eTc.) Take care of The environmenT while Taking care of your operaTions. • Produced waTer recycling • WaTer flood injecTion waTer pre-TreaTmenT for increased injecTiviTy The oil and gas industry deals with large amounts of water. In 2009, in the US • Disposal well waTer pre-TreaTmenT for alone, over 18.9 billion barrels of water were managed in the industry. With prevenTaTive mainTenance hydraulic fracturing (frac) on the rise, water volumes used in the oil and gas • membrane cleaning industry are increasing, and so is the reuse of produced water in these fracs. • organic desTrucTion • Hydrocarbon eliminaTion all of this water contains microorganisms. While the types of organisms vary widely, the most detrimental to the oil and gas industry are the sulfate- • Emulsion breaking reducing bacteria (SrBs). These SrBs are present in all waters handled in the oilfield, and they sour reservoirs by converting sulfate ions to hydrogen sulfide (H2S). The potential for SrB activity is even greater when operations rely on injecting produced water. For this reason, biocides play a major role in frac miox Can fluid treatment and any water injected downhole. treat your water for The most common are non-oxidizing organic biocides, referred to as as Low as ‘conventional’ biocides. These include glutaraldehydes (glut), quaternary amines (quat) and others. Many SrBs become resistant to conventional biocides, limiting effectiveness and requiring operators to increase the concentrations used.
    [Show full text]
  • 3 Inactivation (Disinfection) Processes
    3 Inactivation (disinfection) processes This chapter covers the various disinfection processes used in drinking-water treatment to inactivate pathogenic microbes. It looks first at factors affecting the efficiency of disinfection process, and then goes on to consider the following disinfection processes: • pretreatment oxidation — in which oxidants are added to water early in the treatment process. • primary disinfection — a common component of primary treatment of drinking-water, and important because granular filter media do not remove all microbial pathogens from water • secondary disinfection — used to maintain the water quality achieved at the treatment plant throughout the distribution system up to the tap. 3.1 FACTORS AFFECTING DISINFECTION The principal factors that influence disinfection efficiency are disinfectant concentration, contact time, temperature and pH. Disinfectant concentration and © 2004 World Health Organization. Water Treatment and Pathogen Control: Process Efficiency in Achieving Safe Drinking Water. Edited by Mark W LeChevallier and Kwok-Keung Au. ISBN: 1 84339 069 8. Published by IWA Publishing, London, UK. 42 Water treatment and pathogen control contact time are integral to disinfection kinetics and the practical application of the CT concept (CT being the disinfectant concentration multiplied by the contact time). Development and derivations of this disinfection model are discussed in the modelling section below. Temperature, over the range appropriate for drinking-water, affects the rate of disinfection reactions according to the Arrhenius equation, although this may not hold for certain disinfectants at low temperatures. The pH of the disinfectant solution affects the reaction kinetics. For example, the disinfection efficiency of free chlorine is increased at lower pH values, whereas that of chlorine dioxide is greater at alkaline pH levels.
    [Show full text]
  • 62%Mortality Decreased By
    CASE STUDY Hen Drinking Water at Egg Production Farm MORTALITY DECREASED BY Egg farm avoids Avian Flu and eliminates antibiotics after switching to MIOX for drinking water, coop and cooling pad disinfection. LOCATION CUSTOMER’S CHALLENGE62% A.B. Foods Inc. Egg Farm - 2 million eggs per day In 2014, a resurgence of various avian flu strains was seen on a global scale Manyas, Balikesir, Turkey affecting more than 35 countries and resulting in millions of poultry deaths from infection and precautionary slaughter. CONTACT Tuncer Tutar Egg producers struggle with various chickens diseases that affect mortality Veterinary, A.B. Foods Inc. rates and egg production. As disease increases, mortality rates follow. [email protected] Expensive antibiotics are usually administered in order to maintain the health EQUIPMENT of a coop by combating waterborne illnesses which spread rapidly through coliform and E-coli contaminated water and feed. Yet, antibiotics do not MIOX Vault M30 MOS generator Installed 2013 maintain low mortality rates in the long term because they cannot combat widespread disease outbreaks such as Avian Influenza. Further complications PREVIOUS DISINFECTION are imposed by new vendor requirements banning the use of antibiotics. This Organic Acids / Antibiotics restricts producers’ ability to adhere to new policies while preventing and controlling outbreaks that threaten chicken health. A.B. Foods Inc. operates a 2 million egg production farm in Turkey. The country MIOX’S MOS ADVANTAGE of Turkey experienced a massive outbreak of the H5N1 avian flu strain in early Mixed Oxidant Solution (MOS) is a biocide generated on 2015 after being absent since 2008. site using salt, water, and electricity.
    [Show full text]