Industrial Desalination Water Reuse (Global Water Intelligence Report July 2012)

GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.
com i
Industrial Desalination
& Water Reuse
ii GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com
Industrial Desalination & Water Reuse
Publication information
Industrial Desalination & WaterReuse was written and researched by Lola Arowoshola, Hector Brown, Christopher Gasson, Marta
Hudecova, Heather Lang, Antoine Schmitt, Jelena Stanic and Jablanka Uzelac.
Additional support was provided by Fabiola Alvarado-Revilla, Steven Bibby, James Brooks, Matthew Daggitt, Ian Elkins, Jonathan
Evans, Erich Hiner, Ruby Marsden, Charlotte Massey, Rhys Owen and Brady Porche.
We would like to thank the many people we interviewed for their help with various parts of Industrial Desalination & Water Reuse.
A full list of interviewees is included near the end of the report.
Published by Media Analytics Ltd.,
The Jam Factory,
27 Park End Street,
Oxford OX1 1HU,
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 1865 204 208; Fax: +44 1865 204 209
subscriptions@globalwaterintel.com
ISBN: 978-1-907467-18-9
While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information in this report, neither Global Water Intelligence,
Media Analytics Ltd., nor any contributors accept liability for any errors or oversights.
Unauthorised distribution or reproduction of the contents of this publication is strictly prohibited without the permission of the
publisher. Contact Emma Welsh (ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com) for permissions.
Requests for more in-depth research and analysis should be addressed to GWIs Head of Research and Consultancy, Jablanka
Uzelac (ju@globalwaterintel.com) who will be happy to discuss bespoke projects to meet particular needs.
Additionally, we can provide consultancy services stretching from due diligence to market analysis and strategy reviews.
GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com iii
Executive summary
Executive summary
i The proposition
Desalination and water reuse in industry has emerged as one of the most important themes in the water sector over the past five
years. Over the next five years the technologies associated with salt removal and the reuse of wastewater will become an essential
part of sustainable economic growth and profitability for the following reasons:
Global economic growth is increasingly coming up against environmental restraints: These constraints include water
scarcity, the growing challenge of developing new sources of energy and mineral resources, growing pressures on
agricultural productivity, and the need to manage carbon emissions within the context of global warming.
Freshwater availability is both a resource constraint in itself, and part of the solution to other resource constraints: For
example, water plays an increasingly important role in the extraction of marginal natural resources, optimising the
efficiency of power generation, and addressing pollution. As the model for global economic growth moves away from
extraction, production and disposal towards a circular model in which waste is recycled as the raw material for new
products, the role of water becomes more important because it provides the vector for energy and materials recovery.
Corporate water users are being forced to take notice of water: Whether it is because of investor concerns about
operational risks, branding and commitment to corporate social responsibility or direct impacts on the profit and
loss account, water has become a boardroom issue for the overwhelming majority of large companies (87% of annual
filings to the SEC now include water risk assessments according to Ceres, the investor advocacy group). It means that
businesses are more ready to invest in water technology than ever before.
Desalination and water reuse technologies are the main beneficiaries of these trends: Removing salt from water, and
other technologies which turn low quality wastewater and raw water sources into high quality process water, is the
key driver of the water efficiency of the global economy. Whether it is delivering higher specifications of ultrapure
water to guarantee the profitability of the microelectronics industry, facilitating the recycling of heavily contaminated
produced water using evaporators and crystallisers in the Canadian oil sands, or enabling the expansion of the
downstream oil and gas industry in the Arabian Gulf by using seawater as a feedwater source, desalination and water
reuse technologies are unlocking the potential for growth.
The report focuses on the demands of the eight most water intensive industries:
Oil and gas
Refining and petrochemicals
Power generation
Food and beverage
Pharmaceutical
Microelectronics
Pulp and paper
Mining
Within these industries, our market forecast focuses on three principal areas where desalination/demineralisation technologies
are employed:
Ultrapure water (UPW)
Seawater desalination
Wastewater desalination
Our overall market forecast for these areas is as follows:
iv GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com
Figure i UPW, seawater desalination and wastewater desalination by industrial segment, 2011-2025
Mining
Pulp and paper
Microelectronics
Pharmaceutical
Food and beverage
Water for power
Refining and
petrochemicals
Oil and gas
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Power / desal co-lo
UPW, seawater desal
and wastewater desal by
industrial segment
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
2011-17
2025
Oil and gas 508.9 669.7 771.9 888.9 902.5 844.0 946.3 14.2% 1,938.7
Refning and petrochemicals 187.9 308.7 656.1 433.6 618.4 1,073.8 1,000.2 17.1% 1,241.1
Power generation 898.7 1,021.0 1,177.0 1,316.6 1,434.4 1,579.6 1,829.8 8.7% 3,774.5
Food and beverage 185.1 201.7 219.5 241.2 263.6 287.0 313.1 6.9% 589.0
Pharmaceutical 229.9 248.3 268.5 287.3 306.4 327.4 352.6 6.2% 817.7
Microelectronics 510.0 503.8 599.8 625.0 667.7 710.7 757.3 5.6% 1,247.6
Pulp and paper 25.0 21.8 23.5 27.2 28.3 29.6 30.4 1.8% 46.5
Mining 244.6 289.9 569.8 254.9 473.2 429.3 483.4 8.8% 738.1
Co-lo power / desalination 857.7 1,200.0 760.0 1,650.0 350.0 1,440.0 1,250.0 6.5% 1,570.0
Total (ex co-lo) 2,790.2 3,264.7 4,286.1 4,074.7 4,694.6 5,281.3 5,713.0 12.7% 10,393.2
Source: GWI
ii Oil and gas
There are four key growth markets for desalination and water reuse technologies within the upstream energy sector:
1. Produced water management in the unconventional gas sector: Shale gas and coalbed methane (CBM) production
have the potential to rewrite the future of the fossil fuel industry as long as the related water issues can be addressed
effectively. The potential for shale gas production in many regions is limited by the disposal options for the flowback
water from hydraulic fracturing. CBM production is challenged by the huge volumes of water that are brought to the
surface. Desalination and water reuse technologies are potential solutions. This report argues, however, that the low
price of gas in the U.S. in comparison to Europe and the Far East will hold back the development of a strong market
for water technology in the North American shale plays until 2015. Instead the most immediate opportunities are in
the Australian CBM sector.
2. Low salinity water and sulphate removal for water flood: In order to meet the worlds continuing need for oil,
producers are developing new deep sea resources, and looking to squeeze more oil out of existing reservoirs. It turns
out that water quality holds the key to both. In the deepwater off-shore industry, around the Atlantic rim, there is
growing demand for sulphate removal technology to ensure that when seawater is injected into the wells, it does
not scale or sour the reservoir, damaging the profitability of the well. At the same time the industry is beginning
to understand how the salt chemistry of water can alter the wettability of the sandstone in which the oil is held.
By treating the injection water with a combination of reverse osmosis (RO) and nanofiltration (NF), it is possible
to increase the amount of oil recovered from a reservoir by up to 15% or even more if used in conjunction with a
chemical flood. The report suggests that this is a potential game changer: NF and RO for seawater flood could be the
fastest growing sector of the desalination market in the oil and gas industry.
3. Recycling produced water for steam enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in the heavy oil sector: Outside the Arabian
peninsula, Canadas oil sands represent the largest oil reserve in the world. Exploiting the oil sands increasingly
relies on steam assisted gravity drainage, and that in turn increasingly relies on water recycling systems in general
and evaporation technology in particular. But it is not just Canada which needs to invest in water recycling systems
GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com v
Executive summary
to unlock production. Steam EOR is also becoming a feature of production in the Arabian Peninsula. The report
suggests that Oman, and the Wafra field between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, as well as new resources in Latin
America will be strong markets for high recovery water desalination systems.
4. Beneficial reuse of produced water in the conventional oil sector: The oil industry produces 39 million m/d of water
far more than the oil it brings to the surface. The vast majority of this is reinjected straight back into the ground, but
a small amount (around 3%) is reused for beneficial purposes. The report argues that this proportion will increase to
7% by 2020, and that brackish water desalination systems will have a role in this evolving opportunity.
Figure ii Oil and gas industry market forecast, 2011-2025
Produced water
RO/evaporation
Produced water polishing
High recovery desal
for steam EOR
Water recycling systems
for steam EOR
SRP/Low salinity systems
CBM high recovery desal
Shale gas high
recovery desal
Shale gas conventional
treatment
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Oil and gas ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
2011-17
2025
Shale gas: conventional treatment 30.7 57.1 68.3 80.4 87.1 100.9 139.4 28.7% 479.9
Shale gas high recovery desal 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 35.0 - 100.0
(a)
112.7 165.0 126.0 132.0 160.0 170.0 164.4 6.5% 178.4
(b)
105.0 147.5 253.8 230.6 337.5 487.5 783.5 39.8% 1,275.9
Water recycling systems for steam EOR
(c)
169.0 183.0 219.0 244.0 244.0 239.0 255.5 7.1% 411.8
High recovery desal for steam EOR
(d)
291.2 385.3 502.1 602.5 556.8 454.2 519.6 10.1% 1,097.7
(e)
504.7 562.7 609.7 649.1 683.0 741.1 799.0 8.0% 1,302.2
Produced water RO/evaporation
(f)
105.0 119.4 135.8 154.5 175.7 199.8 227.3 13.7% 562.6
Total 1,318.3 1,620.0 1,922.6 2,093.1 2,254.1 2,412.5 2,923.6 14.2% 5,508.5
Source: GWI; see chapter 2 for footnotes and additional detail.
For further information about the oil and gas market in North America, see GWIs Produced Water Market primary research report
Figure iii Oil and gas industry, top country markets, 20132017
USA $2,978m
$11,606 m
Total market value
(2013-2017)
Australia $671m
Brazil $526m
Saudi Arabia $480m
Oman $353m
China $310m
RoW $4,248m
Canada $2,040m
Source: GWI
vi GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com
iii Refining and petrochemicals
Refineries typically consume more water than crude oil. The specifications of the water used for steam, cooling and process
applications are high, but the raw water sources are becoming more challenging as the locus of growth in the downstream sector
moves away from the Atlantic rim and towards emerging markets such as India and China, and towards upstream producers
such as the Gulf countries. The report argues that this means that seawater desalination is going to be an increasingly important
technology for the refinery sector, and that greater emphasis will be put on reuse technologies.
Figure iv Refining and petrochemicals industry market forecast, 20112025
ZLD systems
plants
Wastewater treatment
systems
Ultrapure water systems
Pretreatment systems
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Refneries ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
2011-17
2025
(a)
186.2 193.9 202.0 210.5 219.3 228.5 237.1 4.1% 316.0
Ultrapure water systems 135.4 141.0 146.9 153.1 159.5 166.2 172.4 4.1% 229.8
Wastewater treatment systems
(b)
216.0 226.5 237.4 248.9 261.0 273.6 285.8 4.8% 398.1
Seawater desalination plants
(c)
52.5 167.6 509.2 265.5 458.9 892.6 807.7 57.7% 976.3
ZLD systems 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 20.0 0.0% 35.0
Total
(d)
590.0 729.1 1,095.5 893.0 1,098.7 1,575.8 1,523.0 17.1% 1,955.2
Source: GWI; see chapter 3 for footnotes and additional detail
Figure v Refining and petrochemicals industry, top country markets, 20132017
$6,186 m
Total market value
(2013-2017)
Saudi Arabia $631m
China $760m
RoW $3,460m
Canada $132m
India $685m
United Arab Emirates $518m
Source: GWI
GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com vii
Executive summary
iv Power
Power generation is the largest industrial user of water, and as with the refining and petrochemical industry, much of the growth
is taking place in areas which have limited natural endowment. At the same time as requiring greater water efficiency, customers
are putting a growing emphasis on the consistency, reliability and specification of their ultrapure water systems. The report
argues that a combination of tighter regulation of coal emissions, ageing infrastructure, lower gas costs and the switch away from
nuclear power looks set to lead to accelerated investment in new and upgraded gas power stations. Although coal is unlikely to
increase its market share of the power sector, investment in wet scrubber systems for flue gas desulphurisation will lead to heavy
investment in wastewater treatment systems. Overall there is a strong outlook for desalination and water reuse technologies
including reverse osmosis, ion exchange (IX), low pressure membranes, electrodeionisation (EDI) and evaporators.
Figure vi Power industry market forecast, 20112025
ZLD/high recovery
desalination systems
Co-located power/desal
systems (exc. ZLD)
Condensate polishing
systems
Boiler feedwater systems
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Power ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
2011-17
2025
(a)
653.8 720.6 771.2 795.5 877.6 940.8 1,009.7 7.5% 1,637.9
Boiler feedwater systems 255.2 280.8 300.1 309.1 340.5 364.4 390.5 7.3% 626.8
Condensate polishing systems 454.5 500.7 535.6 552.3 609.1 652.7 700.1 7.5% 1,132.4
Wastewater treatment systems (exc. ZLD) 399.4 415.3 437.7 454.3 484.9 511.5 535.5 5.0% 763.9
(b)
54.0 174.0 202.8 275.1 311.7 346.5 501.6 45.0% 1,301.1
(c)
857.7 1,200.0 760.0 1,650.0 350.0 1,440.0 1,250.0 6.5% 1,570.0
ZLD/high recovery desalination systems 135.0 65.5 138.5 180.1 173.1 216.0 237.6 9.9% 714.2
Total
(d)
2,809.6 3,356.9 3,145.9 4,216.3 3,147.0 4,472.0 4,624.9 8.7% 7,746.4
Figure vii Power industry, top country markets, 20132017
$19,606 m
Total market value
(2013-2017)
India $2,079m
China $2,894m
RoW $10,832m
Germany $580m
USA $2,540m
Japan $680m
Source: GWI
viii GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com
v Food and beverage
Direct reuse of wastewater in the product is not on the menu in the food and beverage industry, but the reuse of water for other
purposes (e.g. washing) is now a priority. Most major food and beverage companies have made commitments to reduce their
water consumption per unit of product, and reuse is an important part of the strategy for achieving this. Furthermore much
of the growth of the industry is in emerging markets which typically have more limited, lower quality water resources than
developed countries, creating water treatment challenges. In developed markets, emerging concerns about pharmaceutical
by-products and other trace contaminants making their way into the product have lead to greater use of desalination technologies
on the process water side.
Figure viii Food and beverage industry market forecast, 20112025
systems
Polishing systems
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Food & Beverage ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
2011-17
2025
Pretreatment systems 1,675.7 1,772.7 1,873.0 2,001.3 2,126.2 2,250.2 2,390.5 6.1% 3,577.5
Polishing systems 107.3 118.3 130.2 144.6 159.7 175.7 193.6 10.3% 389.8
Wastewater treatment systems 1,556.6 1,667.1 1,785.7 1,932.0 2,078.6 2,225.7 2,389.1 7.4% 3,983.4
Total 3,339.6 3,558.0 3,788.9 4,077.8 4,364.5 4,651.6 4,973.1 6.9% 7,924.1
Source: GWI. For further information about the Food & Beverage market, see GWIs Water for Food & Beverage primary research report
Figure ix Food and beverage industry, top country markets, 20132017
$21,856 m
Total market value
(2013-2017)
Japan $927m
USA $4,117m
RoW $11,224m
Brazil $748m
China $3,368m
India $1,471m
Source: GWI
GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com ix
Executive summary
vi Pharmaceutical
Water reuse is not on the agenda for process water in the pharmaceutical industry. However, drug companies remain a significant
market for specialist desalination systems as they look to produce ultrapure and infection-free water for medicine manufacture,
and there is interest in reducing water usage through recycling water for utilities and other less critical purposes. The highest
quality water is for injections, and may be treated with activated carbon, ion exchange, electrodeionisation, UV disinfection,
ultrafiltration (UF), reverse osmosis and distillation before it is used in the product. Such is the conservative nature of the
customer base that many will ask for distilled water for processes even though the regulations do not require it.
The report suggests that the main geographical areas of market growth are in the BRIC countries. The main technological
opportunities are on the wastewater side, where regulatory concerns about micropollutants are opening up the market for effluent
polishing using desalination technologies.
Figure x Pharmaceutical industry market forecast, 20112025
Wastewater polishing
technologies
systems
Disinfection systems
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Pharmaceutical ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
2011-7
2025
Pretreatment systems 165.4 176.4 187.0 197.0 206.3 215.9 226.9 5.4% 465.6
Disinfection systems 46.6 49.8 52.9 55.8 58.7 61.7 65.0 5.7% 95.3
Wastewater treatment systems 139.8 146.3 152.1 157.3 161.7 166.2 171.4 3.5% 216.1
Wastewater polishing technologies
(a)
25.7 29.3 37.2 43.1 50.6 60.6 74.4 19.4% 251.2
Total 594.6 635.5 679.2 719.0 758.4 801.5 853.1 6.2% 1,623.6
Figure xi Pharmaceutical industry, top country markets, 20132017
$3,811 m
Total market value
(2013-2017)
France $234m
USA $1,061m
RoW $1,322m
India $456m
China $333m
Japan $405m
Source: GWI
x GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com
vii Microelectronics
Microelectronics is an important market for ultrapure water systems and the challenges are getting greater. As devices get
smaller and the fabrication plants get larger, the purity of the water required increases. In terms of water reuse, the industry has
relatively conservative attitudes towards recycling water for ultrapure water applications, but wastewater is treated and reused for
cooling and other less critical purposes. This may be insufficient in the longer term: in Taiwan drought has twice threatened to
close down the semiconductor industry in the past decade, and maximising reuse has become imperative. Learning from the
Taiwanese experience, other chip makers are making commitments to reduce their water footprints.
Besides semiconductors, two other silicon-based sectors of the microelectronics industry need large volumes of highly pure water:
flat panel displays (FPD) and photovoltaics (PV). Both sectors enjoyed dramatic growth at the end of the 2000s and into the
2010s, but are in the process of maturing. Current water quality requirements are similar to those of the semiconductor industry
20 years ago. However, the report suggests that the increasing complexity of FPD and PV devices will create demand for even
higher purity water. Short product cycles, together with the pressures on water resources in the key manufacturing markets will
ensure strong demand for ultrapure water and water reuse technologies.
Figure xii Microelectronics industry market forecast, 20112025
systems
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Microelectronics ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
2011-7
2025
Ultrapure water systems 477.8 471.5 560.9 584.0 623.4 663.0 705.8 6.7% 1,155.8
Total 1,050.0 1,025.0 1,206.3 1,242.5 1,312.5 1,381.3 1,457.4 5.6% 2,264.0
Source: GWI
Figure xiii Microelectronics industry, top country markets, 20132017
$6,600 m
Total market value
(2013-2017)
Taiwan $1,810m
USA $519m
RoW $800m
Republic of Korea $1,196m
China $1,432m
Japan $845m
Source: GWI
GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com xi
Executive summary
viii Pulp and paper
Historically the pulp and paper industry has had little need for desalination and reuse not least because the majority of
production is located near water sources. Four things are changing this state of affairs, the report suggests.
The move towards recycling means that production in mills located in urban forest areas is rising. These facilities
face higher water costs than green forest located mills, and have a greater interest in water efficiency.
The fastest growing market for pulp and paper is in China, where raw water sources are both limited and impaired,
and water technologies which can address these challenges are at a premium.
The new generation of efficient boilers used in the industry require higher quality feedwater than the traditional
boilers, and as existing production facilities are refitted, there will be greater demand for ultrapure water treatment
lines than have historically been the case.
Regulators are becoming more proactive about controlling effluent from the pulp and paper industry: this is
especially true in the case of China, where environmental protection has not been a priority.
Figure xiv Pulp and paper industry market forecast, 20112025
systems
Process water systems
(excl.UPW)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Pulp and paper ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
2011-17
2025
Process water systems (excl.UPW)
(a)
210.0 190.0 205.2 215.5 224.1 234.2 238.7 2.2% 308.0
(b)
25.0 21.8 23.5 27.2 28.3 29.6 30.4 3.3% 46.5
(c)
304.5 264.9 286.1 302.1 314.2 328.3 332.6 1.5% 423.0
Total
(d)
539.5 476.7 514.8 544.7 566.5 592.0 601.7 1.8% 777.5
Figure xv Pulp and paper industry, top country markets, 20132017
$2,820 m
Total market value
(2013-2017)
Germany $226m
USA $630m
RoW $1,098m
Brazil $131m
China $504m
Japan $231m
Source: GWI
xii GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com
ix Mining
Water is becoming a significant licence to operate issue for the mining industry. Companies now realise that unless they can
reduce their water footprint by minimising the amount of freshwater they draw from local resources, and ensure that the effluent
they discharge is treated to the highest standard, they may be removed from projects and be blacklisted by governments. The
result is that international mining companies are prepared to invest proactively in water technology, going beyond the basic
regulatory requirements. At the same time strong mineral prices are drawing miners to work on projects in areas such as
Western Australia, Chile and Peru where water represents a major logistical challenge. It all makes for an attractive market for
desalination and water reuse technologies, the report concludes, with the proviso that a fall in mineral prices would bring many
mining projects to a standstill. The only protection there is against the innate cyclicity of the mining market are sales tied to
legally mandated acid rock drainage projects.
Figure xvi Mining industry market forecast, 2011-2025
systems
systems
Process water treatment
systems
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Mining ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
2011-17
2025
Process water treatment systems 230.9 294.1 323.5 277.1 320.6 321.1 346.2 7.0% 265.7
Seawater desalination systems 206.7 241.0 515.5 207.9 418.8 374.4 423.7 12.7% 688.6
Total 911.8 1,145.7 1,518.0 1,073.0 1,420.3 1,380.9 1,516.3 8.8% 1,572.7
Source: GWI. For further information about the mining market, see GWIs Water for Mining primary research report
Figure xvii Mining industry, top country markets, 20132017
$6,908 m
Total market value
(2013-2017)
Brazil $373m
Australia $1,709m
RoW $1,926m
Canada $393m
Chile $1,583m
Peru $925m
Source: GWI
GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com xiii
Executive summary
x Technologies
The core desalination and water reuse technologies covered by the report are reverse osmosis (RO), ultrafiltration (UF) and
microfiltration (MF), ion exchange, electrodeionisation (EDI), and evaporation. Adsorption, physical/chemical separation systems,
biological treatment, media filtration and disinfection are also covered, but with less specific detail. The main technology trends
observed by the report are as follows:
The challenge of salt waste disposal: Salty wastewater is a fundamental challenge. It is both messy and expensive to
treat, and the end result is usually a sludge or brine, which is difficult to dispose of. Membrane-based approaches are
defined by scaling problems, while thermal approaches are expensive and often have chemistry problems of their
own. The ideal solution would be a low cost salt separation technology which salvaged other value beyond brine from
the waste stream. Short of that, a membrane-based treatment which can handle concentrations of more than 100,000
mg/l salinity would be a useful addition to the technology portfolio.
Six sigma reliability and scale in ultrapure water: Historically the boiler feedwater market has been a fragmented low
margin systems business, served by a small number of higher margin chemicals companies supplying the resins.
As customers have started to require higher specification water, with greater consistency and fewer waste problems,
so the technology train has evolved from IX, to RO-IX, to UF-RO-IX and possibly UF-RO-EDI. It means that there is
more value in the systems, relative to the resins, especially when sensing and control systems are incorporated, and
lean manufacturing techniques are used to mass produce modular units. The resin manufacturers have responded
to falling volume demand for the basic product by concentrating on mixed bed and specialist resins which remove
specific impurities.
Fundamental water challenges remain in most industries: While technology for municipal water treatment is largely
settled, there are few industries which have the perfect water technology. In the paper industry, fibre and organic
material are the challenges. In the Canadian oil sands it is silica. In the microelectronics industry the problem is
with sensors which are no longer sensitive enough to measure the level of quality which is required. It means that the
demand for innovation in water technology is strong enough to overcome the innate conservatism of the customer
base.
xiv GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com
Industrial Desalination and Water Reuse
Publication information ii
Executive summary iii
i The proposition iii
Figure i UPW, seawater desalination and wastewater desalination by industrial segment, 2011-2025 iv
ii Oil and gas iv
Figure ii Oil and gas industry market forecast, 2011-2025 v
Figure iii Oil and gas industry, top country markets, 20132017 v
iii Refining and petrochemicals vi
Figure iv Refining and petrochemicals industry market forecast, 20112025 vi
Figure v Refining and petrochemicals industry, top country markets, 20132017 vi
iv Power vii
Figure vi Power industry market forecast, 20112025 vii
Figure vii Power industry, top country markets, 20132017 vii
v Food and beverage viii
Figure viii Food and beverage industry market forecast, 20112025 viii
Figure ix Food and beverage industry, top country markets, 20132017 viii
vi Pharmaceutical ix
Figure x Pharmaceutical industry market forecast, 20112025 ix
Figure xi Pharmaceutical industry, top country markets, 20132017 ix
vii Microelectronics x
Figure xii Microelectronics industry market forecast, 20112025 x
Figure xiii Microelectronics industry, top country markets, 20132017 x
viii Pulp and paper xi
Figure xiv Pulp and paper industry market forecast, 20112025 xi
Figure xv Pulp and paper industry, top country markets, 20132017 xi
ix Mining xii
Figure xvi Mining industry market forecast, 2011-2025 xii
Figure xvii Mining industry, top country markets, 20132017 xii
x Technologies xiii
1. Market and technology overview 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Market drivers 1
1.2.1 Water scarcity 1
1.2.1.1 Case study: Coca-Cola and brand risk 1
1.2.1.2 Case Study: Tia Maria 2
1.2.1.3 Case study: the semiconductor industry in Taiwan 2
1.2.2 Water risk 3
1.2.3 The Global Water Risk Index 3
Figure 1.1 Global Water Risk Index: global water supply 4
Figure 1.2 Global Water Risk Index: global water demand in 2030 4
Figure 1.3 Global Water Risk Index: water risk in 2030 5
1.2.4 Other drivers of water technology investment 5
1.3 Membrane filtration 5
1.3.1 Microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes 6
Figure 1.4 A microfiltration membrane removes suspended solids 6
Figure 1.5 Dead-end and cross-flow membrane modules 6
Figure 1.6 Build up of material on ultrafiltration membranes, and cleaning processes 7
1.3.2 Reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes 7
Figure 1.7 Removal of dissolved solids by reverse osmosis 8
1.4 Electrical charge separation 9
1.4.1 Ion exchange 9
Figure 1.8 Ion exchange process 9
Figure 1.9 Types of resins and their applications 10
GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com xv
Table of contents
1.4.2 Electrodialysis 10
Figure 1.10 An electrodialysis cell 11
1.4.2.1 Electrodialysis reversal 11
1.4.2.2 Electrodeionisation 11
1.4.2.3 Problems 12
1.5 Seawater desalination technologies 12
1.5.1 Reverse osmosis (SWRO) 12
1.5.2 Multiple-effect distillation (MED) 12
Figure 1.11 The multi-effect distillation process with three distillation chambers 13
1.5.3 Multi-stage flash evaporation (MSF) 13
Figure 1.12 Multi-stage flash evaporation process with three evaporation chambers 14
1.6 High recovery technologies 14
1.6.1 Vapour compression 15
Figure 1.13 Vapour compression evaporation process 15
1.6.2 Brine concentrators 15
Figure 1.14 A falling film brine concentrator with vapour compression 16
1.6.3 Crystallisers 17
Figure 1.15 A forced circulation crystalliser 17
1.6.4 Filter presses 18
Figure 1.16 The operation of a diaphragm plate filter press 18
1.6.5 High recovery reverse osmosis 18
Figure 1.17 Comparison of high recovery and conventional reverse osmosis systems 19
1.6.6 Comparison of high recovery technologies 19
Figure 1.19 Comparison of high recovery desalination technologies 19
1.7 Chemical treatment 19
1.7.1 Lime softening 19
1.7.1.1 Cold and warm lime softening 20
Figure 1.20 Cold and warm lime softening processes in a softening basin 20
1.7.1.2 Hot lime softening 20
Figure 1.21 Hot lime softening processes in a downflow sludge contact unit 21
1.8 Physical treatment 21
1.8.1 Coagulation and flocculation 21
Figure 1.22 Coagulation and flocculation create clumps of suspended particles 21
1.8.2 Adsorption processes 22
1.9 Biological wastewater treatment 22
1.9.1 Removal of nutrients 23
1.9.2 Removal of heavy metals 23
1.10 Disinfection 23
1.10.1 Disinfection with chlorine-based compounds 23
1.10.2 Disinfection with ultraviolet light 24
Figure 1.23 Emission of ultraviolet light from an array of mercury vapour lamps 24
1.10.3 Disinfection by ozonation 25
Figure 1.24 Ozone breaks down micro-organisms in deep contact chambers 25
1.11 Technology trends and market forecast 26
1.11.1 Notes on the forecast 26
Figure 1.25 Industry-specific forecast categories and overall forecast categories 26
1.11.2 Ultrapure water technology trends 27
Figure 1.26 Advantages and disadvantages of EDI process 27
Figure 1.27 The ultrapure water market by industry segment, 20112017 28
Figure 1.28 The ultrapure water market by technology, 20112017 29
Figure 1.29 The ultrapure water market by region, 20112017 29
1.11.3 High recovery wastewater desalination 30
1.11.3.1 Wastewater desalination technology trends 30
Figure 1.30 The industrial wastewater desalination market by industry segment 20112017 31
Figure 1.31 The industrial wastewater desalination market by region, 20112017 32
Figure 1.32 The industrial wastewater desalination market by technology, 20112017 32
1.11.3.2 Wastewater desalination alternate scenario 33
Figure 1.33 The industrial wastewater desalination market by technology, 20112017: Alternate scenario 33
xvi GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com
1.11.4 Seawater desalination 33
1.11.4.1 Seawater desalination technology trends 33
Figure 1.34 All industrial seawater desalination in the context of all seawater desalination, 19902011 34
Figure 1.35 Contracted >10,000 m/d industrial seawater desalination plants by off-taker industry, 19902011 34
Figure 1.36 Seawater desalination plants for industrial customers by technology, 19902011 35
Figure 1.37 The industrial seawater desalination market by industry segment, 20112017 35
Figure 1.38 The industrial seawater desalination market by technology, 20112017 36
Figure 1.39 The industrial seawater desalination market by region, 20112017 36
1.11.4.2 Seawater desalination alternate scenario 37
Figure 1.40 The industrial seawater desalination market by industry segment, 20112017: alternate scenario 37
1.11.5 The overall market 38
Figure 1.41 UPW, seawater desalination and wastewater desalination by industrial segment, 20112025 38
Figure 1.42 Desalination and water reuse market forecast by major market, 20112025 39
Figure 1.43 Membrane element markets, 20112017 40
Figure 1.44 Breakdown of equipment for other process water and other wastewater treatment, 20112017 41
2. Oil and gas 42
2.1 Water and wastewater in the oil and gas industry 42
2.1.1 Onshore conventional oil 42
Figure 2.1 Typical water and oil production profile of an oil well in the North Atlantic 42
Figure 2.2 Salinity of produced water in the U.S. 43
Figure 2.3 Water to oil ratios of selected producers 44
2.1.2 Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) 44
Figure 2.4 Primary, secondary and tertiary oil recovery 45
Figure 2.5 Global oil production by EOR method 45
Figure 2.6 low salinity water in polymer flood 46
2.1.3 Steam injection for heavy oil and oil sands 46
2.1.4 In-situ mining of oil sands 46
Figure 2.7 Inorganic water chemistry of tailings water at Syncrudes Mildred Lake Settling Basin 47
Figure 2.8 Organic chemistry of tailings water at Syncrudes Mildred Lake Settling Basin 47
2.1.5 Offshore conventional oil 47
2.1.6 Conventional gas 47
Figure 2.9 Typical produced water constituents from oil, gas and coalbed methane (CBM) production 48
2.1.7 Shale gas 48
Figure 2.10 Fracturing fluid components 49
Figure 2.11 Flowback reuse as fracturing fluid contaminants 49
Figure 2.12 Average volumes of frac and drilling water in Barnett, Fayetteville, Haynesville & Marcellus shale 50
2.1.8 Coalbed methane 50
Figure 2.13 Gas and produced water from CBM 50
2.1.9 Summary of water and wastewater challenges in the oil and gas industry 51
2.2.1 Beneficial reuse of conventional oil and gas produced water 51
Figure 2.14 U.S. oil and gas produced water volumes by management practice 51
Figure 2.15 Global produced water volumes by management practice 52
Figure 2.16 Use of produced water in agriculture 52
Figure 2.17 Cost of produced water management alternatives 53
Figure 2.18 Oil reserves and water risk 54
2.2.2 Low salinity water and sulphate removal for flood and enhanced oil recovery 54
2.2.2.1 Sulphate removal drivers 54
Figure 2.19 Sulphate removal offshore adoption 55
Figure 2.20 Sulphate removal and the growth of the deep water oil production sector 55
Figure 2.21 Deepwater offshore crude production, 20102030 56
Figure 2.22 Deepwater production in the Atlantic Rim, 20002020 56
2.2.2.2 Low salinity water flood 56
Figure 2.23 Forecast of oil production by EOR from different countries in 2015 and 2030 57
2.2.2.3 Low salinity water for chemical EOR 57
Figure 2.24 EOR market development 58
Figure 2.25 EOR process selection according to reservoir depth and oil viscosity 58
Figure 2.26 Cost profiles of different approaches to EOR 59
GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com xvii
Table of contents
Figure 2.27 Chemical floods since 1985 59
2.2.3 Water recycling for steam flood 60
Figure 2.28 Top 10 Countries for global steam flood operations 60
Figure 2.29 Oil production from steam EOR, 19802012 60
Figure 2.30 Canadian crude oil production forecast 20072020 61
Figure 2.31 Potential growth in oil sand operators water handling 61
Figure 2.32 SAGD capacity in the Canadian oil sands 62
Figure 2.33 Long term oil supply cost curve 63
2.2.4 Shale gas produced water management 63
Figure 2.34 Global shale plays 63
Figure 2.35 Technically recoverable shale gas resources by country 64
Figure 2.36 Status of international shale plays 64
Figure 2.37 Gas production costs and spot market prices 64
Figure 2.38 Natural gas price trends: Henry Hub spot price and LNG import prices in Europe and Japan 65
Figure 2.39 Shale gas production by state 66
Figure 2.40 Proven shale gas reserves by state and class II injection wells 66
2.2.5 Coalbed methane produced water management 67
Figure 2.41 Map of the worlds CBM resources 67
Figure 2.42 CBM reserves and production by country 68
2.2.5.1 CBM produced water in the U.S. 68
Figure 2.43 Summary of produced water management in the main U.S. CBM basins 69
2.2.5.2 CSG produced water in Australia 69
Figure 2.44 CSG water desalination plants in operation/contracted 70
Figure 2.45 Upcoming opportunities in Australian CSG water treatment 70
2.2.5.3 CBM produced water elsewhere in the world 71
2.3 Technologies for desalination and water reuse in the oil and gas industry 71
2.3.1 Produced water management technologies for conventional oil and gas 71
2.3.1.1 Minimisation 71
2.3.1.2 Oil/water separation 72
Figure 2.46 Oil water separation and treatment schematic 72
Figure 2.47 Differences between IGF and DGF 73
2.3.1.3 Produced water polishing 73
Figure 2.48 Off-shore produced water regulation 74
2.3.1.4 Technologies for gas field produced water management 74
2.3.2 Steam EOR recycling technologies 74
Figure 2.49 Steam EOR evaporation and high recovery reverse osmosis references 75
Figure 2.50 Saltworks seawater desalination circuit 76
Figure 2.51 Produced water volume reduction guidelines using thermal and membrane technologies 76
2.3.3 Technologies for sulphate removal and low salinity water 76
Figure 2.52 Sulphate removal technology train evolution 77
2.3.4 Technologies for unconventional gas produced water management 77
2.4 Supply chain analysis 78
2.4.1 Reaching the customer 78
2.4.2 Procurement models 78
2.4.3 Market structure 79
Figure 2.53 Significant company acquisitions, mergers and joint ventures 79
2.4.4 Market entry 79
2.5 Market forecast 80
2.5.1 Overall picture 80
Figure 2.54 Oil and gas industry market forecast, 20112025 80
Figure 2.55 Oil and gas industry, top country markets, 20132017 81
2.5.2 Reference and alternate scenarios 81
2.5.2.1 Unconventional gas 81
Figure 2.56 Oil and gas industry, unconventional gas combined, 20112017: Reference scenario 82
Figure 2.57 Oil and gas industry, unconventional gas combined, 20112017: Alternate scenario 82
2.5.2.2 Steam and water flood systems 83
Figure 2.58 Oil and gas industry, steam and water flood systems, 20112017: Reference scenario 83
Figure 2.59 Oil and gas industry, steam and water flood systems, 20112017: Alternate scenario 83
xviii GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com
2.5.2.3 Produced water treatment systems 84
Figure 2.60 Oil and gas industry, produced water treatment systems, 20112017: Reference scenario 84
Figure 2.61 Oil and gas industry, produced water treatment systems, 20112017: Alternate scenario 84
3. Refining and petrochemicals 85
3.1 Introduction 85
3.1.1 Introduction to refining 85
Figure 3.1 Main crude oil fractions by chain length 85
3.1.2 Crude oil refining processes 85
3.1.2.1 Desalting 85
3.1.2.2 Atmospheric distillation 85
3.1.2.3 Further processing 86
3.1.3 Current refining capacity 86
Figure 3.2 Current refinery locations, 2011 86
Figure 3.3 Global refining capacity by country, 2011 86
Figure 3.4 Top 20 countries by refining capacity, 2011 87
Figure 3.5 Global refining capacity by region, 2012 87
3.2 Drivers for water reuse and advanced wastewater treatment technologies 87
3.2.1 Environmental regulations 87
3.2.2 Economic considerations 88
Figure 3.6 Crack spreads for gasoline and heating oil, 20062012 88
3.2.4 Operational reliability 88
3.3 Refinery water requirements 89
3.3.1 Refinery water systems 89
Figure 3.7 Refinery water systems 89
3.3.2 Water use in refining 89
3.3.2.1 Boiler feedwater (BFW) 89
3.3.2.2 Cooling water 89
3.3.2.3 Process water 90
3.3.2.4 Treatment methods for contaminants in raw water 90
Figure 3.8 Water quality requirements for refinerys water streams 90
Figure 3.9 Potential contaminants in raw water 91
3.3.3 Water volumes for refining 91
Figure 3.10 Wastewater generation by U.S. refineries with crude oil capacities > 300,000 bbl/d 92
3.4 Demineralisation and desalination technologies 92
3.4.1 Technologies for producing BFW 92
3.4.1.1 Water softening 92
3.4.1.2 Demineralisation technology trains for BFW 92
Figure 3.11 Large scale seawater desalination for refineries by region, 19902011 93
Figure 3.12 Large scale seawater desalination for refineries by region and year, 19902011 93
Figure 3.13 Large scale seawater desalination plants for refineries, 19902011 94
Figure 3.14 Large scale seawater desalination for refineries by technology, 19902011 95
3.5 Wastewater challenges 95
3.5.1 Wastewater streams and volumes 95
Figure 3.15 Main refinery processes and wastewater streams generated 95
3.5.2 Strong wastes 95
3.5.3 Oily wastewater 96
3.5.4 Blowdown and condensate 96
3.5.4.1 Cooling tower blowdown 96
3.5.4.2 Condensate from boiler blowdown and steam generators 96
3.5.5 Wastewater streams generated by advanced water treatment processes 96
3.6 Wastewater treatment technologies 97
Figure 3.16 Typical refinery WWTP technologies 97
Figure 3.17 Wastewater streams and wastewater treatment in the refining industry 98
3.6.1 Emerging trends in refinery wastewater treatment 99
3.7 Water reuse 99
3.7.1 Sources of water for reuse 99
GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com xix
Table of contents
Figure 3.18 Water reuse applications and source of water 99
3.7.1.1 Stripped sour water 99
3.7.1.2 Recovered condensate 99
3.7.1.3 Tertiary and advanced wastewater treatment 100
Figure 3.19 Trends in water reuse technologies 100
3.7.2 Zero liquid discharge 100
3.7.3 Demand for advanced water reuse technologies 100
3.8.1.1 EPC model 101
Figure 3.20 Seawater desalination for refining by EPC contractor, 19902011 101
3.8.1.2 EP model 102
3.8.1.3 Direct procurement of treatment solutions 102
3.8.2 Factors that influence decision making 102
3.8.3 Maintaining a market presence 102
3.9.1 Refining projects 103
Figure 3.21 Future refining projects, 20122020 103
Figure 3.22 Future additional refining capacity by country, 20122017 103
Figure 3.23 Refining and petrochemicals industry market forecast, 20112025 104
Figure 3.24 Refining and petrochemicals industry: top country markets, 20132017 105
Figure 3.25 Refining and petrochemicals industry: regional markets, 20132017 105
Figure 3.26 Refining and petrochemicals industry, seawater desalination, 20112017: Reference scenario 106
Figure 3.27 Refining and petrochemicals industry, seawater desalination, 20112017: Alternate scenario 106
4. Power 107
4.1 Introduction 107
4.2 Water intensive processes 108
Figure 4.1 Water cycles and treatment processes in power generation 108
4.2.1 Boiler water in the steam cycle 108
4.2.2 Cooling cycle 109
Figure 4.2 Water consumption of selected cooling systems in coal-fired power stations 109
4.2.3 Combined cycle power plants 109
Figure 4.3 Water use in a combined cycle power plant 110
Figure 4.4 Projected water use volumes at the CPV Vaca station combined cycle power plant 110
4.2.4 Flue gas desulphurisation 111
Figure 4.5 Limestone addition removes sulphur dioxide from flue gas 111
4.2.5 Ash handling systems 111
Figure 4.6 Percentage of US coal-fired power plants using wet ash handling systems 112
4.2.6 Coal gasification 112
Figure 4.7 Water use in coal gasification and synthetic gas cleaning 113
4.2.7 Nuclear power industry 113
4.2.8 Concentrated solar power 113
Figure 4.8 Potential energy supply and water use from concentrated solar power plants in the U.S. 114
4.3 Process water requirements 114
4.3.1 Purity of boiler makeup 114
Figure 4.9 ASME guidelines for boiler water purity at increasing pressure and a constant temperature 114
4.3.2 Cooling tower makeup 114
4.4 Wastewater characteristics 115
4.4.1 Cooling tower blowdown 115
Figure 4.10 Concentration of contaminants in the cooling cycle 115
4.4.2 FGD wastewater 115
Figure 4.11 Concentrations of contaminants in FGD wastewater 115
4.5 Demineralisation technologies for process water 116
4.5.1 Treatment options for steam cycle boilers 116
xx GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com
4.6.1 Zero-liquid discharge treatment of cooling tower blowdown 116
4.6.2 Treatment of FGD wastewater 116
Figure 4.12 Wastewater treatment processes following flue gas desulphurisation 116
4.6.2.1 Opportunities for zero-liquid discharge technologies 117
Figure 4.13 Coal-fired power stations treating FGD wastewater in the United States 117
Figure 4.14 ENEL power plants using zero-liquid discharge technology 117
4.6.2.2 Biological treatment for selenium removal 118
4.7.1 Trends in fuel use and power plant construction 118
4.7.1.1 Coal 118
Figure 4.15 Annual additional capacity of new coal-fired power plants, 1970-2015 119
4.7.1.2 Gas 119
Figure 4.16 Annual additional capacity of new gas-fired power plants, 1970-2015 120
4.7.1.3 Alternative sources 120
Figure 4.17 Annual additional capacity of nuclear power plants, 1970-2015 121
4.7.1.4 Global trends 121
Figure 4.18 Global cumulative generating capacity, 1970-2015 122
Figure 4.19 Projected additional capacity for our three forecast regions between 2013 and 2017 122
4.7.2 Increased use of FGD systems 123
Figure 4.20 Techniques used to mitigate the emission of sulphur dioxide from coal-fired plants in 2011 123
Figure 4.21 Growth of wet limestone scrubbers as method of desulphurisation at coal plants in the USA 124
4.7.3 Regulation of emissions 124
4.7.4 Increasing boiler and turbine efficiency 124
Figure 4.22 Temperature and pressure of fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants 125
Figure 4.23 Growth in generating capacity provided by supercritical power plants, 19802011 126
4.7.5 Coal gasification 126
Figure 4.24 Monthly cost of fossil fuels for power generation in the USA 126
Figure 4.25 Increase in generating capacity at IGCC plants, 20002016 127
4.7.6 Co-located water and power projects 127
Figure 4.26 Generating capacity of power plants providing heat for thermal desalination in 2011 128
4.8 Water reuse strategies 128
Figure 4.27 Water consumption and discharge in the cooling systems of U.S. power plants 128
4.9.1 FGD market 129
4.9.2.1 Procurement relationships 129
4.9.2.2 Procurement process for mobile systems 130
4.9.3 Procurement process in the United States 130
4.9.3.1 Outsourcing of water treatment systems 130
4.9.3.2 Outsourcing of wastewater treatment systems 130
4.9.4 Procurement process in China 130
4.9.5 Procurement process in India 130
4.9.5.1 Tendering 130
4.9.5.2 Funding 131
4.9.6 Market players 131
Figure 4.28 Companies providing equipment to the U.S. power market 131
Figure 4.29 Companies providing water treatment equipment to the Chinese power market 132
Figure 4.30 Companies active within the Indian power market 132
Figure 4.31 Companies providing water treatment equipment to the Indian power market 132
4.10.1 Power plant projects and installed base 133
Figure 4.32 Power industry market forecast, 20112025 133
Figure 4.33 Power industry: top country markets, 20132017 134
Figure 4.34 Power industry: regional markets, 20132017 134
Figure 4.35 Power industry: seawater desalination, 20112017: Reference scenario 135
Figure 4.36 Power industry, seawater desalination, 20112017: Alternate scenario 135
GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com xxi
Table of contents
Figure 4.37 Power industry: water and ww treatment ex. seawater desalination, 20112017: Reference scenario 136
Figure 4.38 Power industry: water and ww treatment ex. seawater desalination, 20112017: Alternate scenario 136
Figure 4.39 Power industry, co-located power/desalination: Reference scenario 137
Figure 4.40 Power industry, co-located power/desalination: Alternate scenario 137
5. Food and beverage 138
5.1.1 F&B subsectors 138
Figure 5.1 Food and beverage industry subsectors 138
5.1.2 Food processing 138
Figure 5.2 Generic food and beverage processing path for fruit/vegetables and meat raw materials 139
5.1.3 Water volumes in the F&B industry 139
Figure 5.3 Estimates of global food and beverage water use in 2012 140
5.2 Process water requirements and technologies 140
5.2.1 Uses of water in the F&B industry 140
Figure 5.4 Water consuming activities in food and beverage plants 140
5.2.1.1 Water that contacts food (cleaning equipment and food processing) 140
5.2.1.2 Other operations (utility water, cleaning floors) 141
5.2.2 Process water technologies 141
Figure 5.5 Simplified process water treatment line 141
Figure 5.6 Process water technology categories 142
5.2.2.1 Membrane technologies for process water 142
5.2.2.2 Technology trends 142
5.2.3 Efficiency trends 142
5.2.3.1 Cleaning water efficiency 142
5.2.3.2 Utility water efficiency 143
5.2.3.3 Process water efficiency 143
5.2.3.4 Other water efficiency practices 143
5.3.1 Brand protection 144
5.3.1.1 The sustainability factor 144
5.3.1.2 The risk factor 144
5.3.3 Regulations 145
5.3.3.1 Water abstraction regulations 145
5.3.3.2 Process water quality standards 145
5.3.3.3 Wastewater discharge standards 145
5.3.3.4 Adoption of universal regulations at plant sites 145
5.3.4 Geographical trends 146
Figure 5.7 Countries mentioned in the expansion plans of 50 leading F&B companies, grouped by region 146
5.4.1 Wastewater discharge options 146
5.4.2 Wastewater characteristics 146
Figure 5.8 Wastewater characteristics from food and beverage subsectors 147
5.5.1 Overview of wastewater treatment technologies 147
Figure 5.9 Wastewater treatment technologies 148
5.5.2 Wastewater treatment technology trends 148
5.5.2.1 Anaerobic digester technology trends 148
5.5.2.2 Aerobic systems: MBBR versus MBR 148
5.5.2.3 Membrane-based technology trends in wastewater 148
5.6.1 Condensate reuse 149
5.6.1.1 Boiler condensate return systems 149
5.6.1.2 Product condensate recovery 149
5.6.2 Water management 150
5.6.3 Water reuse trends 150
5.7.1 Procurement process 150
xxii GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com
5.7.1.1 Operation and maintenance 151
5.7.1.2 Technology purchasing 151
5.7.1.3 Local versus international suppliers 151
5.7.1.4 One-stop shop versus separate technologies 151
5.7.2.1 Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) 152
5.7.2.2 Design, build, operate and maintain (DBOM) 152
5.7.2.3 Acquire, operate and transfer (AOT) 152
5.7.2.4 Build, own, operate and maintain (BOOM) versus build, own, operate and transfer (BOOT) 152
5.7.2.5 Request for quotation (RFQ) 152
5.7.3.1 Dominance of market players 152
5.7.3.2 Market entry potential for smaller/niche players 153
5.8.1 Market background 154
Figure 5.10 Food and beverage industry market forecast, 20112025 154
Figure 5.11 Food and beverage industry, top country markets, 20132017 155
Figure 5.12 Food and beverage industry, 20112017: Reference scenario 155
Figure 5.13 Food and beverage industry, 20112017: Alternate scenario 156
6. Pharmaceutical 157
6.1.1 Introduction to the pharmaceutical industry 157
6.1.1.1 Consolidation in the pharmaceutical industry 157
6.1.2 Product safety in the pharmaceutical industry 157
6.1.3 Processing of pharmaceutical products 157
6.1.3.1 Pharmaceutical products 157
6.1.3.2 Pharmaceutical manufacturing processes 158
Figure 6.1 Generalised manufacturing processing steps 158
6.1.4 Water in the pharmaceutical industry 158
6.1.4.1 Water consumption in the pharmaceutical industry 158
6.2.1 Pharmacopoeias 159
6.2.2 European pharmacopoeia pharmaceutical grade water 159
Figure 6.2 European pharmacopoeia grades of water 159
6.2.3 United States pharmacopoeia Pharmaceutical grade water 160
Figure 6.3 USP grades of water 160
Figure 6.4 USP water for pharmaceutical applications 161
6.2.4 Japanese pharmacopoeia Pharmaceutical grade water 162
Figure 6.5 JP grades of water 162
6.2.5 Pharmaceutical grade water quality standards from USP, Ph. Eur. And JP 162
Figure 6.6 Purified water quality standards from USP, Ph. Eur. And JP 162
6.2.5.1 PW comparison 162
Figure 6.7 WFI quality standards from USP, Ph. Eur. and JP 163
6.2.5.2 WFI comparison 163
6.2.6 Process water overview 163
6.3 Drivers 163
6.3.1 Cost 163
6.3.2 Brand 164
6.3.2.1 Energy efficiency 164
6.3.2.2 Water efficiency 164
6.3.4 Industry trends 164
6.3.4.1 Geographic shift 164
6.4 Process water technologies 165
6.4.1 Typical treatment trains 165
Figure 6.8 Technology options for treatment steps 165
GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com xxiii
Table of contents
6.4.2 Pretreatment 166
6.4.3 Activated carbon filters 166
6.4.4 Softeners (ion exchange) 166
6.4.5 Disinfection/sanitisation 166
6.4.5.1 Thermal methods 166
6.4.5.2 Chemical methods 166
6.4.5.3 UV radiation (In-line) 166
6.4.5.4 Clean-in-place (CIP) 167
6.4.6 Deionisation 167
6.4.7 Membrane based technologies 167
6.4.7.1 UF 167
6.4.7.2 RO 167
6.4.7.3 Distillation 167
6.4.8 Technology trends 167
6.4.8.1 Disinfection technology trends 167
6.4.8.2 Distillation technology trends 168
6.4.8.3 RO trends 168
6.4.8.4 UF/MF/NF trends 168
6.4.8.5 Distillation versus membrane based technologies 168
Figure 6.9 Generalised schematic of a pharmaceutical water treatment system 169
6.5.1 Wastewater characteristics 170
6.5.1.1 Micropollutants 170
6.5.1.2 Wastewater microbial loads 170
6.6.1 Technology categorisation 170
6.6.1.1 Wastewater treatment trends 171
6.7.1 Water reuse in the pharmaceutical industry 171
6.7.1.1 Factors promoting water reuse 171
6.7.1.2 Water reuse limitations 171
6.8.1.1 Technology purchasing and outsourcing process 172
6.8.1.2 Operating and maintenance 172
6.8.1.3 Local versus international suppliers 173
6.8.2.2 New entrants 173
6.8.2.3 Opportunities for new entrants 174
Figure 6.11 Pharmaceutical industry market forecast, 20112025 174
Figure 6.12 Pharmaceutical industry, top country markets, 20132017 175
Figure 6.13 Pharmaceutical industry market forecast by region, 20112017: Reference scenario 175
Figure 6.14 Pharmaceutical industry market forecast by region, 20112017: Alternate scenario 176
7. Microelectronics 177
7.1.1 Microelectronics 177
7.1.2 The semiconductor manufacturing process 177
Figure 7.1 Steps in the semiconductor manufacturing process 177
7.1.3 Manufacturing process trends 178
7.1.3.1 Greater miniaturisation 178
Figure 7.2 The continuing miniaturisation of semiconductor devices 178
Figure 7.3 Capacity of new fabrication plants by line-width, 20002011 179
xxiv GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com
Figure 7.4 Capacity of new fabrication plants by line-width, 20122020 179
7.1.3.2 Greater complexity 179
7.1.3.3 Larger wafer sizes 180
Figure 7.5 Capacity of new fabrication plants by wafer size, 20002011 180
Figure 7.6 Capacity of new fabrication plants by wafer size, 20122020 180
7.2 Water treatment market drivers in microelectronics 181
Figure 7.7 Planned semiconductor plant locations and water scarcity 181
7.3.1 Current industry water consumption 182
Figure 7.8 UPW consumption at semiconductor and FPD fabrication plants 182
7.3.2 Industry standards for UPW and treatment for water reuse 182
7.3.2.1 SEMI F63-0211 Guide for ultrapure water used in semiconductor processing 182
7.3.2.2 ASTM D5127 Standard Guide for ultrapure water used in the electronics and semiconductor industries 182
7.3.2.3 Comparison of SEMI F63 Standard and ASTM D5127 Standard 182
7.3.2.4 Future development of UPW standards 182
7.3.2.5 How the standards are used 183
7.3.2.6 Other microelectronics-related standards 183
7.3.3 ITRS roadmap guidelines future technology trends 183
Figure 7.9 ITRS water consumption: Facilities technology requirements near-term years 183
7.3.4 Water quality requirements for UPW 183
7.3.4.1 UPW requirements for semiconductor manufacturing 183
Figure 7.10 Major contaminants of concern for UPW production 184
7.3.4.2 PV high purity water standard 184
Figure 7.11 Comparison of SEMI F63 and SEMI PV3 Standard UPW requirements 184
7.4 Desalination technologies for process water 185
7.4.1 Ultrapure water (UPW) technology trends in semiconductor industry 185
Figure 7.12 UPW technology train for the semiconductor and PV industries 185
7.4.1.1 Pretreatment 185
7.4.1.2 Reverse osmosis 186
7.4.1.3 Polishing 186
7.5.1 Semiconductor industry wastewater streams 186
Figure 7.13 Wastewater streams generated in the semiconductor industry 187
7.5.2 Wastewater treatment challenges in microelectronics manufacturing 187
7.5.3 PV industry wastewater characteristics 188
Figure 7.14 PV wastewater streams 188
7.6.1 Reuse opportunities at fabrication plants 188
Figure 7.15 Water reuse opportunities 189
7.6.1.1 The 50% rule 189
Figure 7.16 Water reuse applications 190
7.6.3 Water reuse at non-semiconductor facilities 190
7.7 Wastewater treatment and water reuse technologies 190
7.7.1 Wastewater treatment technologies and future developments. 190
Figure 7.17 Wastewater treatment technologies conventional and advanced 191
7.7.2 Current trends in wastewater treatment in the semiconductor industry 191
7.7.2.1 HF treatment 191
7.7.2.2 Metal-bearing wastewater treatment 191
7.7.2.3 Ammonia treatment 191
7.7.2.4 Caustic and acid wastewater treatment 191
7.7.2.5 Concentrated acids treatment 191
7.7.3 Technology trends 191
7.7.3.1 Resource recovery 191
7.7.4 Greater rate of wastewater treatment on-site 192
7.7.5 Water reuse technologies and trends 192
7.8.1 Market entry opportunities 192
GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com xxv
Table of contents
7.8.1.1 Market entry constraints 192
7.8.1.2 Routes to the market 192
7.8.1.3 Success factors for market entry 193
7.8.1.4 Upcoming UPW systems market trend 193
7.8.2 Procurement model 193
7.8.3 Whole process stream purchase versus one-stop shop 194
7.8.4 Local versus global suppliers 194
7.8.5 Opportunities for outsourcing operation and maintenance (O&M) 194
7.8.6 The competitive landscape: Major water technology companies and equipment providers 194
7.8.6.1 Tier-one companies 194
Figure 7.18 Major water companies tier-one 194
7.8.6.2 Specialisation of tier-one companies 195
7.8.7 Tier-two companies 195
7.8.8 EPC contractors 195
Figure 7.19 Major EPC contractors 195
7.8.9 Microelectronics manufacturers 195
Figure 7.20 Top 10 companies by installed capacity (200 mm wafer equivalent), 2012 195
7.9 Market trends 196
7.9.1 Currently installed capacity and market trends 196
Figure 7.21 Increment to installed capacity, 20002017 196
7.9.1.1 Geographical shift 196
Figure 7.22 Global installed capacity by country in 2012 197
Figure 7.23 Newly added capacity by country, 20122017 197
7.9.1.2 FPD and PV market trends 198
Figure 7.24 The top 5 PV cell producing countries, 2010 198
7.10.1 Fab projects 198
Figure 7.25 Microelectronics industry market forecast, 20112025 198
7.10.3 Regional trends 199
Figure 7.26 Microelectronics industry, top country markets, 20132017 199
Figure 7.27 Microelectronics industry, 20112017: Reference scenario 200
Figure 7.28 Microelectronics industry, 20112017: Alternate scenario 200
8. Pulp and paper 201
8.1.1 Facility classification 201
8.2 Process description: Pulping and paper manufacturing process 202
Figure 8.1 Water in the pulp and paper industry 202
8.2.1 Pulping process 203
Figure 8.2 Pulp manufacturing process sequence 203
8.2.1.1 Mechanical pulping (groundwood pulping) 203
8.2.1.2 Chemical pulping 203
8.2.2 Bleaching 204
8.2.3 Paper manufacture 204
8.3 Drivers 204
8.3.1 Regulation 204
8.3.2 Economic drivers 205
8.3.3 Boilers 205
8.3.4 Environmental sustainability 205
8.4 Geographies 206
Figure 8.3 Paper production by region, 19992011 206
Figure 8.4 Pulp production by region, 19992011 206
Figure 8.5 Increasing wood pulp production in Brazil and Chile, 19992011 207
Figure 8.6 Increasing paper production for packaging and construction in China, 19992011 207
Figure 8.7 Water use in paper production, by grade and by region 208
8.5.1 Technologies 208
xxvi GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com
8.6 Wastewater characteristics 209
Figure 8.8 Wastewater contaminants in the pulp and paper making process (bleached Kraft chemical pulp) 209
8.6.1 Technologies 210
Figure 8.9 General wastewater treatment technologies for the pulp and paper industry 210
Figure 8.10 Biological treatment processes by paper grade 210
Figure 8.11 Effluent treatment for pulp and paper mills (within CEPI Member Countries, 2008) 211
8.6.2 Water reuse 211
8.7.1 One-stop shop or separate technologies? 212
8.7.2 International versus local players 212
8.7.3 Requirements 212
8.7.5 Entering the market 213
Figure 8.12 Pulp and paper industry market forecast, 20112025 213
Figure 8.13 Pulp and paper industry, top country markets, 20132017 214
Figure 8.14 Pulp and paper industry by region, 20112017: Reference scenario 214
Figure 8.15 Pulp and paper industry by region, 20112017: Alternate scenario 215
9. Mining 216
9.1 Introduction to mining 216
9.1.1 Mining methods 216
9.1.2 Mining processing 216
Figure 9.1 Mineral ore processing steps 217
9.1.3 Water consumption in mining processes 217
Figure 9.2 Water consumption volumes for the processing steps for selected metals 218
9.2.1 Process water sources 218
9.2.1.1 Alternate water sources 218
Figure 9.3 Water quality suitability for selected processes 219
9.2.2 Process water technologies 219
Figure 9.4 Process water technologies 219
9.2.2.1 Desalination technologies for process water 219
9.2.3 Desalination trends 220
9.2.3.1 Desalination trends in Chile and Peru 220
Figure 9.5 Main mining operations using desalination or raw seawater in Chile 220
Figure 9.6 Mining operations using, or considering the use of, seawater in Chile 220
9.2.3.2 Desalination trends in Australia 221
Figure 9.7 Australian mining desalination project examples 221
9.3 Drivers 222
Figure 9.8 Selected metal prices, January 2000June 2012 222
Figure 9.9 Locations of currently operating mines 223
Figure 9.10 Main regulatory requirements in the mining operation life cycle 224
9.3.3 Low grade ores and tailings recovery 224
9.4.1 Acid rock drainage (ARD) 224
9.4.2 Mine closures 225
9.5.1 Wastewater technology trends 226
9.5.1.1 Metal recovery from waste streams 226
9.5.1.2 Zero liquid discharge (ZLD) 227
9.6.1 Water reuse options 227
9.6.1.1 Direct wastewater reuse 227
GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com xxvii
Table of contents
9.6.1.2 Treated wastewater reuse 227
9.6.2 Off-site water reuse 227
9.7.1.1 Procurement options 228
9.7.1.2 Operating, maintenance and outsourcing 228
9.7.1.3 Partnership and teaming agreements 229
9.7.2.1 Engineering programme management firms 230
9.7.2.2 Water equipment companies 230
9.7.3.1 Market presence 231
9.7.3.2 Barriers to entry 231
9.7.3.4 Market entry potential for smaller/niche players 231
9.8.1 Mining projects 232
Figure 9.12 An overview of future mining projects 232
9.8.2 Referance and alternate scenarios 233
Figure 9.13 Mining industry market forecast, 2011-2025 233
Figure 9.14 Mining industry, top country markets, 20132017 234
Figure 9.15 Mining industry, regional markets, 20132017 234
Figure 9.16 Mining industry, seawater desalination, 20112017: Reference scenario 235
Figure 9.17 Mining industry, seawater desalination, 20112017: Alternate scenario 235
9.8.5 Water and wastewater treatment ex. seawater desalination 236
Figure 9.18 Mining industry, water and ww treatment ex. seawater desalination, 2011-2017: Reference scenario 236
Figure 9.19 Mining industry, water and ww treatment ex, seawater desalination, 20112017: Alternate scenario 236
Interviewees 237
References 238
GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com 1
Market and technology overview // Introduction
1. Market and technology overview
1.1 Introduction
This report focuses on the opportunities for water treatment technologies which remove dissolved solids from water, either to
provide high quality process water or to separate them from an effluent stream. It also covers other advanced water treatment
technologies which enable a low quality raw water source to be used for a higher quality application. In that sense it takes a broad
view of desalination and water reuse. The main applications we are concerned with are:
The treatment of raw water to ultrapure water standard, that is to say deionised and mineral free water, with no
organic contaminants, and low conductivity. Typically it is used as boiler feedwater, or process water for the semi-
conductor or pharmaceutical industries (the required purity varies depending on application).
The treatment of industrial wastewater containing dissolved solids enabling it to be reused or disposed of without
harm to the environment.
The use of seawater as a feedwater for industrial purposes necessitated by the lack of an alternative.
The use, more broadly, of advanced water technologies in the eight most water intensive industries (power, oil and
gas, petrochemicals, mining, food & beverage and pharmaceutical).
This last bullet point makes the scope of the report extremely broad, and well beyond what would normally be described as
desalination and water reuse. The problem is, however, that it is very difficult to distinguish between the technologies which
might be used in the once-through use of water in an industrial process (i.e. from water intake to effluent outfall) and those
technologies which might be used to enable water to be recycled within a plant. This is particularly true of boiler feedwater or
cooling water which might be continuously treated and recirculated (with the occasional removal of blowdown).
The report is trying to highlight the way in which water intensive industries are investing in water technologies that enable
them to use water more efficiently, in terms of the quality and quantity of the raw water they draw from the environment; the
quality and quantity of the wastewater they return to the environment; and the efficiency with which the water used in between
meets the requirements of the processes in which it is involved. In that sense the report could be renamed water efficiency for
industry, that would however be too broad a title, because water efficiency in industry involves a lot more than water treatment
technologies.
1.2 Market drivers
1.2.1 Water scarcity
The most significant driver of expenditure on water technology is the growing issue of water scarcity. Essentially there is a fixed
supply of freshwater in the world, but demand increases with population growth and economic activity. The unequal distribution
of water supply and demand makes the situation worse. Population and economic growth in areas with limited freshwater
resources such as North East China, Gujarat, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu in India, the energy economies of the Gulf and North
Africa, Texas, and the South Western United States, Mexico, Chile and Western Australia has pushed the water scarcity issue
up the business agenda over the past decade. Different businesses for different reasons have realised simultaneously that water
represents a significant risk factor with the potential to impact their profitability in the long term.
1.2.1.1 Case study: Coca-Cola and brand risk
Hindustan Coca-Cola bottling facility was set up in Plachimada, Kerala state in India in 1999. Over subsequent years local
farmers became increasingly concerned about declining groundwater availability in the area, with some being forced to abandon
farming because they could no longer get enough water. They connected the lack of water availability with the arrival of the
bottling operation, and an international activist campaign to close down the bottling factory began. In 2003 the courts ordered
the bottling facility to cease operations. However, despite the closure of the facility, the farmers continued to experience declining
groundwater availability.
The reality of the situation in Plachimada was that the water table was sinking because the local farmers were pumping more
water than water recharged each year through rainfall. If the bottling factory site were to be given over to rice paddy, its ground
water withdrawal would probably be double the 500 m/d that the bottling factory withdrew. In fact the High Court in India
ruled that Hindustan Coca-Cola was entitled to use more water than it did according to the acreage of land that it held. The
problem for Coca-Cola was that by the time it needed to make these arguments it was already too late. The international campaign
against the company was already underway. If you Google Coca-Cola, Water and India, the first ten sites listed are linked
to the campaign against the corporation, and suggest that the company was responsible for pumping the aquifer dry and forcing
farmers off the land. The point is that actual water availability was not the issue. There was never any real danger that Hindustan
Coca-Cola could not get access to the water it needed: if the water table sank, it could drill a deeper well and install a bigger pump.
2 GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.com
It could out-compete other users for access to water. The real issue was that a corporation cannot be seen to be in competition with
the local community for water resources, and the reputational risk of being seen to be on the wrong side of a water dispute is far
greater than the $16 million cost of the bottling plant at Plachimada.
The Plachimada case was the wake up call for all consumer brands which used water. It led to a number of actions being taken:
Fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies began to audit their water usage to assess whether there were any
production facilities where there was potential conflict with the local community over water usage.
Many FMCG companies began to measure and set targets for their water usage, to ensure that they were seen to be
taking action on the issue.
Some FMCG companies (such as PepsiCo), became involved in projects to enable people in developing countries to
have better access to safe drinking water.
1.2.1.2 Case Study: Tia Maria
Tia Maria is a proposed copper mine located near the city of Arequipa in Southern Peru. It requires an investment of $949 billion,
and will produce 120,000 tons of copper per year but it is located in an area where water is a contentious issue. When the project
was first proposed, the developer, Southern Copper, suggested diverting surface water into a lake which would then be used to
supply the mine, with the wastewater treated and returned to the rivers. This proposal attracted protests, so the mine developer
then proposed a seawater desalination plant at the coast, with a pipeline to supply the mine. The wastewater would be treated
and returned to the environment. This proposal might have augmented water supplies in the region, but it continued to attract
violent protests, with community activists claiming that the risk of contaminating local water supplies remained. The protesters
blocked a highway, precipitating a conflict with the police which ended with the death of two protesters (a third was killed at an
earlier stage of the protests) and the injury of 30 others. At that point the government rejected the proposed environmental impact
assessment of the mine, but the protests against it continued. In December the prime minister of Peru was forced out of office as
a result of continuing opposition to Tia Maria and other mining projects.
Although there has undoubtedly been an economic subtext to the protests (the local community complains that it does not see
direct benefits from the mining, but drawing attention to the potential environmental threat posed by the mine is a more effective
means of winning wider support for the cause), the protests have highlighted the importance of good water stewardship in the
mining industry. The fact that not even a seawater desalination plant which would ensure that the mine was independent of the
local watershed for its water supply could convince protesters that the mine was not a threat to their water supplies illustrates the
fact that there is an assumption that mining companies cannot be trusted with water. The major international mining companies
have realised that they need to correct this perception, and many have made good water stewardship an important part of their
corporate culture. Some now go far beyond what might be expected of them by regulations alone, and have made it part of their
competitive advantage. For example Fortescue Metals has an iron ore mine in Pilbara region of Western Australia which not
only has a strongly positive water balance (i.e. water needs continuously to be pumped out of the mine), but it also borders on a
sensitive salt marsh environment. The company has brought in the local aboriginal community to help manage water resources
on the site, ensuring that the mine operations have a zero impact on the salt marsh. The combination of good water stewardship
and local community involvement benefits the company not only in terms of brand image, but also in terms of the obstacles it is
likely to face when it goes though the permitting process to develop new mine sites.
What applies to the mining industry applies equally to the upstream oil and gas industry. Water stewardship is increasingly being
recognised as an important license to operate issue, but also as a means of speeding up the political approval process that all
natural resources companies must go through as they expand operations.
As scarcity becomes more acute, the scope for water to become hold up natural resources projects is expanding.
1.2.1.3 Case study: the semiconductor industry in Taiwan
Coca-Cola in Plachimada and the Tia Maria copper mine in Peru are examples of how water scarcity is creating significant
financial risks for companies long before physical water scarcity becomes absolute. In both cases the central problem has been
where an industrial user has found itself in competition with the local community for water resources, and public opinion either
directly through brand relationships or indirectly through the political process, is important for the financial success of the
business.
Our third case study will look at an industry which does not rely to the same extent on public consent in order to operate, but
where physical water availability is a direct threat to its operation.
Taiwan is one of the most water rich countries in the world in terms of average annual rainfall. Unfortunately most of this rain
falls during the annual typhoon season and washes out to sea as quickly as it arrives. The islands rivers are short, and it has little
storage capacity in dams and lakes (not least because dams were weakened by an earthquake in 1999). 70% of the countrys water
use is in agriculture (which contributes less than 2% to GDP), and domestic water use is relatively high at 272 l/head/d. This
leaves its semiconductor industry exposed in the event of a drought.
Market and technology overview // Market drivers
The Hsinchu Science and Industrial Park is home to two of the worlds largest silicon chip foundries: Taiwan Semiconductor
Manufacturing Co, and United Microelectronics Co. These businesses, which are an essential part of the supply chain for the
global microelectronics industry, have been threatened with closure as a result of severe droughts twice in the past ten years.
After the first scare in 2002, the industry started to invest heavily in water efficient technologies from rainwater capture to the
recycling of process water and the use of seawater desalination for feedwater, but when drought returned in 2011, the savings
made where insufficient, and share prices fell in anticipation of a shut down. Fortunately, water availability never deteriorated to
the point at which chip foundries had to be taken off line, but the microelectronics industry did need to appeal to the government
for additional support. Chip foundries are extraordinarily exposed to water outages. A silicon wafer can take 12 weeks to build
up, and an outage even for a few seconds towards the end of a production cycle can cost tens of millions of dollars. A complete
water outage for a longer period of time would have a significant impact on the global supply chain.
Similarly, the power industry in many parts of the world has been threatened by severe drought in the past. For example, falling
water levels on Lake Mead behind the Hoover dam on the Colorado River in 2010 threatened to leave the intakes for the dams
2,080 MW hydroelectric power station exposed. This would have had a significant impact on the spot power market in the
western United States. Although water continued to flow over the Hoover Dam, power production fell by 20% as the head of water
behind the dam shrank.
1.2.2 Water risk
Over the past five years there has been a widespread realisation that water risk is a growing threat. Water issues have become
a boardroom issue for most major companies, and those companies which have not identified their exposure to the potential
problem are being encouraged to do so by shareholder groups such as Ceres in the US and the Carbon Disclosure Projects Water
project, which is supported by the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund in Europe. Companies are being asked to report their water
usage, what they are doing to reduce it, and how they assess the risks associated with it.
One of the problems for the burgeoning water risk assessment industry is that there is no clear and simple measure of water risk.
Whereas it is a relatively straightforward exercise to calculate a carbon footprint, measuring the impact and inherent risk in water
usage is much more complex because water is essentially a local issue. For example, a paper mill may use a lot of water but this
is not a significant water risk if the mill is located in Canada or Finland, but it is a potential problem if the mill is located on the
Yangtse River in China. Furthermore a power station with a once through cooling circuit uses a very large volume of water, but
almost all of it is returned to the body of water from whence it came: measuring the volume of water and the quality of that water
as it is returned to the environment is also an important aspect of measuring the impact of water usage.
Veolia has proposed a Water Impact Index to measure the impact of an individual industrial facility. It would be calculated as a
function of the scarcity of water in the location where the water is withdrawn, the quality and quantity of water removed from
nature, and the quality and quantity of water returned to nature. Thus a facility which uses a lot of water in a dry place need not
have a high water impact if the source of water for the facility is municipal wastewater, but a facility located in an area of abundant
water can still have a high water impact if the wastewater returned to the environment is insufficiently treated. This concept has
yet to catch on broadly within industry, but it is likely that companies will move towards a facility by facility based approach which
takes into account the context of the water withdrawals and the wastewater returns, as the debate on water risk continues.
Corporate interest in water risk is unlikely to wane in the same way that corporate carbon footprinting has become less of a
priority as governments have failed to agree on caps on carbon emissions. Global warming is an issue for the next century, while
water is an issue for today.
1.2.3 The Global Water Risk Index
GWIs contribution to the assessment of water risk in industry has been to develop the Global Water Risk Index. This divides the
world into 70,000 squares, then maps water availability in each square against projected water demand over the years until 2030,
plotting the location of major water users including power stations, refineries, semiconductor foundries, paper mills as well as
agricultural water withdrawals.
The supply side of the equation is illustrated in the following figure:
Figure 1.1 Global Water Risk Index: global water supply
Source: Global Water Risk Index, GWI, 2011
The demand side of the equation is as follows:
Figure 1.2 Global Water Risk Index: global water demand in 2030
Using a software simulation the Index then calculates the risk of water running out in any one of the 70,000 pixels over the
years to 2030.
Market and technology overview // Membrane filtration
Figure 1.3 Global Water Risk Index: water risk in 2030
The Global Water Risk Index would need to be matched with facility location information if it were to be useful as a corporate
water risk assessment tool. However, from the point of view of this report, it gives a good indication of where scarcity is likely to be
the strongest driver of investment in water technology.
1.2.4 Other drivers of water technology investment
Although scarcity is the overarching reason why companies are investing more in water technology other issues are also playing a
part:
Regulation: There are very few places in the world today where polluters can pollute with impunity. Russia for
example used to be highly tolerant of water pollution, but it is now forcing companies to meet higher regulatory
standards. It is reported that Russia is currently the most buoyant market in Europe for wastewater treatment systems
for oil refineries. China too has become serious about environmental protection: the issue has been identified as
a potential obstacle to its continued economic growth. In countries which have long traditions of environmental
protection, regulation can still be an important driver of investment, as new contaminants such as pharmaceutical
by-products move onto the regulatory agenda. Typically, as concerns about the purity of wastewater become more
extreme, so the cost of addressing them rises exponentially.
Process efficiency: Water is a widely used raw material in industry, and the way in which it is treated can have a
significant impact on process efficiency. This is particularly true of boiler feedwater, and ultrapure water for the
microelectronics and pharmaceutical industries. As power generators look to improve the efficiency of their steam
turbines, they typically look to operate at higher temperatures and pressures, which puts increasing demands on
water quality. Similarly in the semiconductor industry as silicon wafers get larger, and the fabrication plants get
larger, so the purity of water required increases.
Complex wastewaters: As the lowest cost natural resources are used up, so we turn to more marginal resources
such as shale gas and oil sands which bring with them more challenging wastewaters which require more complex
treatment.
The next section of this report looks at the technologies relevant to industrial desalination and water reuse.
1.3 Membrane filtration
Membrane technologies allow dissolved and suspended solids to be separated from a feedwater stream. A pressure gradient forces
water molecules through the membrane from a more concentrated solution to a less concentrated solution.
There are several terms which are useful when discussing membrane filtration:
Feedwater is the solution which enters the membrane system.
Permeate, or filtrate, is the solution that passes through the membrane. This is less concentrated than the feedwater.
Retentate, or concentrate, is the solution that does not pass through the membrane. This is more concentrated than
the feedwater.
1.3.1 Microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes
Microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF) membranes are used to remove particles that are suspended in a solution. This
technology is used in the treatment of drinking water, as a pretreatment process for reverse osmosis membranes, and to produce a
concentrated waste stream.
Figure 1.4 A microfiltration membrane removes suspended solids
1
3
2
Source: GWI
An MF/UF membrane is constructed from bundles of fibres. The gaps between the fibres are the filtering mechanism of the
membrane.
1. Particles that are too large to fit through the gaps are retained by the membrane.
2. Water molecules, and smaller particles, are able to fit through the gaps and pass through the membrane.
3. Particles that are similar in size to the gaps between the fibres may be retained by interactions with fibres inside the
pores.
Figure 1.5 Dead-end and cross-flow membrane modules
Feedwater
Material builds up on membrane
Permeate
Lifts material off membrane
Permeate
Air pulse
Normal operation Backwashing Dead-end filter:
Cross-flow filter:
Permeate
Feedwater Concentrate
Source: Flynn, 2009
There are two possible system designs:
In a dead-end configuration, feedwater flows under pressure towards the membrane surface. Water molecules, and
smaller particles, pass through the membrane. Larger particles are retained by the membrane and build up on the
membrane surface. Over time the build up of material on the membrane surface will cause the flow of water through
the membrane to drop. To remove this material, permeate is backwashed, i.e. flushed back through the membrane.
In a cross-flow configuration, the feedwater flows parallel to the surface of the membrane. Water molecules travel
through the membrane to a more dilute solution, leaving behind a more concentrated solution. The membrane will
Market and technology overview // Membrane filtration
not need to be cleaned as frequently as the dead-end system, because the flow of the feedwater will remove built up
material from the membrane surface.
The size of the particles that are retained by the membrane is defined by the pore size of the membrane. The pore size describes
the size of the gaps between the membrane fibres. The typical pore size for an MF membrane is 0.10.2 m, and for a UF
membrane is 0.010.05 m.
UF membranes may also be defined by the molecular weight cut off (MWCO) of the membrane. The MWCO describes the
minimum atomic weight of the molecules that are retained by the membrane. This definition does not take into account the
shape of the molecules, or the operating conditions of the membrane, and therefore is not a perfect description of membrane
performance. The typical MWCO of an UF membrane used in water treatment is 100,000 Daltons.
The flow through the membrane will be reduced by the build-up of material on the surface of the membrane. This material can
be removed by flushing the permeate back through the membrane. The potential build up of material on the membrane surface
can also be reduced by prefiltering the feedwater. These methods are summarised in the following figure:
Figure 1.6 Build up of material on ultrafiltration membranes, and cleaning processes
Fouling type Cause Cleaning methods Pretreatment methods
Particulate Suspended and
colloidal solids
Flushing permeate through
the membrane
Sedimentation, depth fltration, coagulation
Biological Growth of microbes
and bacteria
Flushing permeate mixed with
biocidal chemicals (e.g. Cl
2
, H
2
O
2
)
Adding biocidal chemicals, eliminating
nutrients needed for growth
Inorganic Precipitation of salts Flushing permeate mixed with
strong acid (e.g. HCl, H
2
SO
4
)
Depth fltration, oxidation
Organic Organic material attaching
to membrane surface
Flushing permeate mixed with
strong alkali (e.g. NaOH)
Coagulation, removing material with
activated carbon
Source: Dow Ultrafiltration Product Manual, Dow Chemical Company, April 2011
1.3.2 Reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes
Reverse osmosis (RO) and nanofiltration (NF) membranes are used to remove dissolved solids from feedwater. This technology
can be used to remove dissolved salts from seawater, prepare wastewater for groundwater recharge, and water softening. It is a
required pretreatment step for any process that will be adversely affected by the presence of dissolved solids, and is an alternative
to chemical water softening processes.
The movement of water molecules between solutions of different concentrations is described below:
Osmosis is the movement of water molecules through a semi-permeable membrane, from a solution with a lower
concentration of dissolved solids to a solution with a higher concentration of dissolved solids. If the solutions on both
sides of the membrane are at equal pressures, osmosis will continue until the concentrations on both sides of the
membrane are equal.
Osmotic pressure is the pressure that must be applied to the more concentrated solution to prevent the movement
of water molecules through the membrane. If the difference in the concentration of dissolved solids is 100 mg/l the
osmotic pressure will be 1 psi (6.9 kPa).
Reverse osmosis gets its name from the direction that the water molecules travel. Water molecules travel from a more
concentrated to a less concentrated solution. The process is described in more detail below:
Figure 1.7 Removal of dissolved solids by reverse osmosis
Permeate Feed
More concentrated Less concentrated
More concentrated Less concentrated
Reverse osmosis:
Transport of water molecules
across a membrane by osmosis:
Water molecule
Dissolved contaminant
Diagram key
Source: GWI
1. Feedwater enters the RO module under pressure. To force the water molecules to pass through the membrane, the
pressure must be greater than the osmotic pressure between the feedwater and permeate.
2. Water molecules pass through the membrane, but dissolved solids do not. This produces a dilute permeate solution
and a highly concentrated brine solution.
3. This process can be repeated in two ways:
In a concentrate staging system, the concentrated brine solution becomes the feedwater for the next
membrane. This configuration increases the volume of pure water that can be produced by the system.
In a permeate staging system, the dilute permeate becomes the feedwater for the next membrane. This
configuration decreases the salinity of the water that is produced by the system.
4. The flow of water through the membrane will decrease as organic material, bacteria, and precipitated solids build up
on the membrane surface. If the flow through the membrane drops by 10%, the membrane is taken out of service
and the surface is cleaned with a solution of extreme pH. A typical membrane will need to be cleaned four times a
year.
The build of material on the surface of the membrane can be reduced if the feedwater is passed through an MF membrane before
it reaches the RO module. Suspended solids can be removed from the surface of the membrane by periodically flushing the
permeate back through the membrane.
Unlike an MF/UF membrane, an RO/NF membrane does not have clearly defined pores. The removal of dissolved solids is
defined by the molecular weight cut off (MWCO) of the membrane. An RO membrane will retain molecules with an atomic
weight greater than 300 Daltons. An NF membrane will retain molecules with an atomic weight between 300 and 1,000 Daltons.
A reverse osmosis membrane will also reject charged molecules.
Molecules with a greater ionic charge are more likely to be retained by the membrane. An NF membrane will retain 50% of
monovalent ions (Na
+
, Cl
) and 90% of divalent ions (Ca

2+
, Mg
2+
). An RO membrane will retain 96% of monovalent ions and 98%
of divalent ions.
The polymers in an NF membrane are more permeable to dissolved solids than in an RO membrane. An RO membrane will
reject over 96% of dissolved sodium chloride, whereas an NF membrane will only reject 75%. NF membranes operate at lower
pressures than RO membranes, and are used when a high removal of dissolved salts is not essential.
Market and technology overview // Electrical charge separation
1.4 Electrical charge separation
The following terms are useful when considering technologies that separate contaminants by their electrical charge:
Anion: A negatively-charged ion. It will be attracted to a positively-charged electrode, the anode.
Cation: A positively-charged ion. It will be attracted to a negatively-charged electrode, the cathode.
1.4.1 Ion exchange
Ion exchange (IX) is used in water softening (the removal of dissolved salts), nitrogen removal, heavy metal removal and
demineralisation. When salts are dissolved in a solution they dissociate, separating into their constituent ions. These ions can be
removed through their interactions with a charged resin.
An ion exchange resin is made up of insoluble, electrically-neutral, polymer beads. Throughout these beads there are charged
compounds permanently attached to the polymer. These compounds are the exchange sites at which ion exchange takes place.
This process is described below:
Figure 1.8 Ion exchange process
Ca
2+
Na
+

Exchange site
Polymer
Counter ion
1
2
Source: Asano et al., 2007
1. The exchange site, or functional group, has an ion of opposite charge that is ready to be exchanged. These ions are
known as counter or mobile ions.
2. An ion from the solution with a higher charge or atomic mass will displace the ion already at the exchange site.
3. This process will continue until charges on the counter ions in the solution and the charges on the counter ions in the
resin are in equilibrium.
4. The resin is regenerated by washing with an acid, base, or salt solution. An acid or salt solution will provide positive
ions (e.g. H
+
, Na
+
) for exchange at a negative site. A base solution will provide negative ions (e.g. OH
) for exchange at
a negative exchange site. The concentration of the solution used must be high enough to overcome the attraction of
the higher charged ion that is already at the exchange site.
To remove positive ions, the exchange site is negative and the counter ion is positive. This is a cation exchange resin. To remove
negative ions, the exchange site is positive and the counter ion is negative. This is an anion exchange resin.
The ion exchange resin will be blocked by organic material and colloidal solids. These contaminants can be removed by chemical
pretreatment and microfiltration, respectively.
The exchange capacity defines the efficiency of a particular resin material by representing the equivalent mass of ions that can be
extracted by 1 kg of resin (or alternatively from 1 l of water). The equivalent mass of the ion is the mass that will displace 1 mole of
calcium carbonate (CaCO
3
).
Figure 1.9 Types of resins and their applications
Type of resins Applications Advantages Disadvantages
Strong Acid Cation
(SAC)
Water softening Operate at any pH
Remove all dissolved solids
positively charged
Resistant to high temperatures
Require substantial
volumes of regeneration
chemical
Demineralisation:
First unit in two bed demineraliser
Cation component of a mixed bed
Weak Acid Cation
(WAC)
Dealkalisation, in combination with a SAC
resin:
WAC resin bed removes cation associated with
alkalinity.
SAC resin bed then removes cations
associated with hardness
Needs smaller volume of acid to
be regenerated than SAC resin
Can be regenerated by the waste
acid coming from the SAC unit to
reduce regeneration cost
Operate with solution
with a pH > 3
Strong Base Anion
(SBA)
Dealkalisation/ Silica removal / Sulphate
removal
Type 1: used on water with high alkalinity and
high silica
Operate at any pH
Total anion removal on all waters
Resistant to high temperatures
More diffcult to
regenerate than type 2
Type 2: used on water with chlorides and
sulphates
Operate at any pH Less effective in removing
silica and carbon dioxide
in waters where these
components represent >
30% of the total anions
Weak Base Anion
(WBA)
Used on water with high level of sulphates or
chlorides
When removal of alkalinity and/or silica is not
required
Operate in acidic solution (pH < 5)
Regeneration can be made with
waste caustic from a SBA unit
Source: GWI
1.4.2 Electrodialysis
Charged particles can be removed from water flowing between two electrodes by an alternating series of ion selective
membranes. In this process, an ion exchange resin is used as a membrane that will permit particles of a certain charge to pass
through it.
Market and technology overview // Electrical charge separation
Figure 1.10 An electrodialysis cell
Anode flushing
Cathode flushing
+
A
C
A
A
C
C
Dilute stream
Concentrated stream
Dilute stream
Concentrated stream
Dilute stream
+
Anode (+)
Cathode ()
+
+
+
+
Feed
Recycled concentrate
Feed
Recycled concentrate
Feed
A: Anion selective membrane
C: Cation selective membrane
Key
Source: Asano et al., 2007; GWI
Water is passed through a series of compartments constructed from anion- and cation-selective membranes. A
current is passed through the cell, perpendicular to the direction of the water flow.
An anion in the feedwater solution will be attracted to the anode. It will pass through an anion-selective membrane,
but will be stopped by the cathode-selective membrane that follows it.
The feedwater solution will be separated into dilute and concentrated streams. The charged particles will be trapped
in the concentrated stream by the anion- and cation-selective membranes.
The dilute stream will be removed for use elsewhere in the plant. The concentrated stream will be recirculated to
maintain the pressure in the system.
There are two variants to this system, electrodialysis reversal (EDR) and electrodeionisation (EDI).
1.4.2.1 Electrodialysis reversal
An electrodialysis cell can be cleaned if the current that is passed through the system is periodically reversed.
When the current is reversed, the charged particles in the solution will reverse direction. Ions that have built up on
the surface of the selective membranes are removed by the reversal of current.
This reversal also switches the positions of the dilute and concentrated streams. The waste material that has built up
in the concentrated stream is now flushed out by the dilute stream.
For a short period after the reversal, product water is not collected from the dilute stream. This allows the system time
to adjust.
1.4.2.2 Electrodeionisation
In an electrodeionisation (EDI) system, the dilute and concentrated stream compartments are filled with an ion exchange resin.
This resin improves the transfer of ions in low strength between compartments.
This system does not require water to be recirculated to flush contaminants from the system. Near the outlet of the cell, where the
salinity in the dilute compartment is lowest, the applied current separates the water into H
+
and OH
ions. These ions are used to

regenerate the exchange sites in the ion exchange resin. This reduces the need for chemicals to be flushed through the system.
1.4.2.3 Problems
In all of these processes, the charge-selective membranes will be blocked by the build of organic material and particles in
suspension. Pretreatment with ultrafiltration membranes will remove suspended solids, and RO membranes will remove salts
with low solubility. Chemical pretreatment will reduce the build up of organic material on the membranes.
1.5 Seawater desalination technologies
In areas of the world where the supply of freshwater is limited, extracting freshwater from seawater by desalination becomes
economically viable. The most common technologies used for seawater desalination are reverse osmosis (SWRO), multi-effect
distillation (MED) and multi-stage flash evaporation (MSF). Thermal processes, including MED and MSF, are able to produce
product water with a lower concentration of dissolved solids than reverse osmosis. MED and MSF systems require a large input
of energy to evaporate the seawater. These processes are most commonly used when there is a cheap source of steam to heat the
seawater.
1.5.1 Reverse osmosis (SWRO)
Producing freshwater from seawater by reverse osmosis requires the feedwater to be under a high pressure. The osmotic pressure
that is required to prevent the movement of water molecules across a membrane is related to the difference in concentration
between the solutions on each side of the membrane. The pressure that is required for SWRO is far greater than the pressure
required for industrial water treatment applications.
The typical salinity of seawater is 35,000 mg/l of dissolved salt. A single SWRO module will recover less water than an RO
module processing industrial water with a salinity of 1,000 mg/l. To achieve a similar level of water recovery, and a similar
permeate salinity, will require several RO modules to be connected in series. A greater amount of energy is required to produce
the same amount of water.
The temperature of seawater is typically higher than that of freshwater. An increase in the temperature of the feedwater to an RO
membrane will increase the proportion of water that is recovered. A temperature increase represents an increase in the energy
of the water molecules in solution and the rate of osmosis across the membrane. The more energetic molecules require less
pressure to force them through the membrane, resulting in a lower energy consumption and a higher water recovery. An increase
in temperature also increases the rate at which dissolved salts are transported across the membrane, increasing the salinity of the
permeate. Higher temperatures increase the rate of membrane degradation, increasing the cost of maintaining and replacing the
membranes.
It is necessary to reach a balance between the required levels of water recovery and salt rejection. Where seawater temperatures
are high, for example in the Persian Gulf, the RO permeate quality may not be sufficient. If there is a cheap source of energy, it
would be more cost efficient to use a thermal process for desalination.
1.5.2 Multiple-effect distillation (MED)
Multiple-effect distillation (MED) produces water with a low concentration of dissolved salts. Seawater is sprayed into a distillation
chamber and vaporised on contact with a steam-filled heat exchanger. The resulting vapour is condensed through interaction with
the incoming seawater. Several distillation chambers are arranged in series, each at a progressively lower pressure. Decreasing the
pressure also decreases the temperature at which the water boils.
Heating the seawater requires a large input of energy. MED will only be cost effective when there is a cheap source of steam that
can be used to evaporate the water. The process is also cost effective when a high purity product is required, and the contaminants
in the water cannot be removed by any other method.
Market and technology overview // Seawater desalination technologies
Figure 1.11 The multi-effect distillation process with three distillation chambers
Product
Concentrate
Feed
Condensate
to boiler
Steam
from boiler
1
3 2
5
6
4
1. In the first distillation chamber, preheated feedwater is sprayed onto a heat exchanger carrying steam from an
external boiler. The feedwater forms a thin film on the surface of the heat exchanger.
2. The thin film of seawater boils. The resulting vapour is moved to the next distillation chamber. The remaining
concentrated brine is collected in the bottom of the distillation chamber and removed.
3. In the second distillation chamber, the preheated feedwater is sprayed onto a heat exchanger carrying the vaporised
water from the previous chamber (step 2). The thin film of seawater that forms on the heat exchange is vaporised and
introduced to the next distillation chamber. The remaining brine concentrate is collected and removed.
4. The vapour inside the heat exchanger loses heat to the cooler feedwater and condenses on the inside of the heat
exchanger tubes. This demineralised water is collected.
5. In the final distillation chamber, steps 3 and 4 are repeated.
6. The vapour that is produced in the final chamber is used to preheat the feedwater before it enters the distillation
chambers. During this process, the water condenses on the inside of the tube and the demineralised water is
collected.
Scale-forming compounds precipitate on the heat exchange surfaces during the evaporation process. The build up of these
compounds reduces the efficiency of the heat transfer process. Controlling the pH of the feedwater reduces the level of scale
caused by carbonate and hydroxide compounds. The scale can be removed from the heat exchange surfaces by chemical cleaning
with strong acids. If the end user requires a product that is free from added chemicals, reverse osmosis can be used to remove
scale forming compounds that are dissolved in the feedwater
The energy efficiency of the distillation process can be improved by using a vapour compressor to provide the temperature
difference between the feedwater and the vapour. This process is described in more detail in section 1.6.1.
1.5.3 Multi-stage flash evaporation (MSF)
Multi-stage flash evaporation (MSF) produces water with a low concentration of dissolved salts. Preheated seawater is pumped
into a series of evaporation chambers at progressively lower pressures. The decrease in pressure causes a decrease in the boiling
temperature of the seawater. In each chamber, a proportion of the seawater is flashed into a vapour. Flashing is the boiling of a
liquid caused by a decrease in pressure.
MSF has similar limitations to MED, for it requires a large energy input. This technology will be most cost effective where there is
a cheap source of waste heat, and when there is no other way to remove the dissolved contaminants.
Figure 1.12 Multi-stage flash evaporation process with three evaporation chambers
Feed
Product
Concentrate
Steam
from boiler
Condensate
to boiler
1
4
3
Pressure decrease
Boiling temperature decrease
2
1. Seawater is pretreated to remove suspended solids and dissolved gases. The seawater is heated by passing through a
heat exchanger carrying steam from an external boiler.
2. The heated seawater is pumped into the first evaporation chamber. The decrease in pressure causes a decrease in
the boiling temperature of the seawater. The sudden decrease in boiling temperature causes some of the seawater to
vaporise, leaving behind a more concentrated solution.
3. The vapour condenses on the heat exchanger tubes carrying the cooler seawater. This process also heats the incoming
seawater before it reaches the main boiler in step 1.
4. The resulting demineralised water is collected. The concentrated water that is produced in step 2 is introduced to the
next evaporation chamber. Vapour is produced in the next chamber by the decrease in pressure.
1.6 High recovery technologies
Water that contains a high concentration of dissolved and suspended contaminants cannot be discharged without further
treatment. The following technologies separate the dissolved solids from highly concentrated wastewater. The solids can be
removed by continuously evaporating the water in a brine concentrator and removing the crystals that form in rapidly cooling
water in a crystalliser. Water can be removed mechanically by compressing the concentrated wastewater in a filter press. Energy
for these processes can be produced without an external source of heat by compressing the water vapour.
The level of water recovery that is required is dependent on the environmental regulations concerning discharge of wastewater,
and the relative costs of transporting or processing the wastewater. The technologies that are used will depend on the purity of
water that is required for discharge and reuse. A typical process chain might include:
Water from a reverse osmosis module introduced to a brine concentrator.
Concentrate from the brine concentrator reduced in a crystalliser.
Highly concentrated sludge from the crystalliser dewatered in a filter press.
There are two terms that are commonly found when discussing high recovery technologies:
A high recovery technology will recover more than 92% of feedwater, and minimise the volume of the concentrated
waste.
A zero-liquid discharge (ZLD) technology will ensure that no liquid will leave the boundary of the facility.
It is worth remembering that a ZLD technology is usually a high recovery technology, but that high recovery does not imply that
the technology is ZLD.
Market and technology overview // High recovery technologies
1.6.1 Vapour compression
Vapour compression provides energy for distillation without an external source of heat. This technology can be used to produce
water with a low concentration of dissolved salts in places where there is no cheap source of steam to heat the feedwater. The
temperature difference that is required for evaporation to take place is introduced by a mechanical compressor.
An increase in the vapour pressure also increases the temperature of the vapour. The temperature difference between the
compressed vapour and the incoming feedwater provides the heat that is needed to evaporate the feedwater, leaving behind a
concentrated solution.
Figure 1.13 Vapour compression evaporation process
Vapour
compressor
Feed
Concentrate
Product
1
3
2
4
1. The feedwater is preheated by the warmer product and concentrate streams.
2. The heated feedwater is sprayed onto a heat exchanger containing steam from the compressor, where it forms a thin
film. Heat from the steam vaporises the film of water, leaving a concentrated solution.
3. The resulting vapour is compressed and introduced to the heat exchanger. The increase in pressure raises the
condensation temperature of the water vapour. The water vapour condenses on the inside of the heat exchanger tube,
losing energy to the cooler feedwater on the outside of the tube.
4. The product water is collected from the condensed water vapour. The concentrated solution produced in step 2 is
regularly discharged to prevent a build up of salt.
The mechanical compressor allows evaporation to take place at a lower temperature than traditional distillation. The lower
temperature reduces scale formation and the precipitation of dissolved solids. The same technology can be used to provide heat
for a brine concentrator or a crystalliser.
1.6.2 Brine concentrators
A brine concentrator is used to purify industrial wastewater. Wastewater that is introduced to the concentrator is separated into
distilled water and concentrated brine. The distilled water can be reused in an industrial plant. The rest of the water in the
concentrated brine can be recovered in an evaporation pond, or a crystalliser.
Figure 1.14 A falling film brine concentrator with vapour compression
Product
Feed
Brine sump
Vapour
Vapour
compressor
Brine
1
3
2
4
5
6
Heat exchanger
6
Falling film
evaporator
Multiple heat
exchanger tubes
Diagram key
Vapour
Water
Source: GE Water, 2012
There are several methods that are used to separate concentrated brine from distilled water. Figure 1.14 illustrates the operation of
a falling film tubular evaporator, which is described below:
1. The feedwater is heated by the distilled water produced by the concentrator. The heated feedwater enters the brine
sump of the extractor.
2. Brine is pumped from the sump to the top of a collection of heat exchanger tubes.
3. The brine falls inside the heat exchanger tubes. The falling brine is heated by vapour flowing outside the tubes. Some
of the water is vaporised.
4. The vapour produced in step 3 is compressed and introduced to the outside of the heat exchanger tubes. The vapour
compression increases the condensation temperature of the vapour.
5. The vapour transfers heat to the brine falling inside the tubes. The vapour condenses as the temperature of the
vapour decreases.
6. The condensation is collected and pumped into a heat exchanger to heat the incoming feedwater. The condensation is
the distilled product. The concentration of the recirculating brine is controlled by removing a small volume of brine
from the sump.
There are other configurations that modify this design:
In a rising film tubular evaporator, water is pumped upwards on the inside of the heat exchanger tubes. The water
is heated by steam condensing on the outside of the tubes. The volume of vapour that is produced increases as the
water moves up the tube. Gravity encourages the separation of liquid and vapour, but also increases the pressure on
the liquid at the base of the evaporator. A rising film evaporator requires a higher energy input to evaporate liquid at a
higher pressure.
In a plate evaporator, the water to be purified is fed in a thin film to flow across a series of vertical plates. The plates
carrying the feedwater are interspersed between plates carrying steam. The feedwater evaporates through heat
exchange with the steam. The resulting vapour is collected and condensed to produce distilled water. There are falling
and rising film variations of this design.
In tubular and plate evaporators, the heat exchange elements can be arranged vertically or horizontally. Vertical
evaporators are useful if the chemistry of the feedwater increases the risk of corrosion or precipitation, because the
liquid passes through the elements in a short time. In horizontal evaporators, boiling is prevented because the heat
exchange elements remain full of liquid. This reduces the risk of precipitation inside the elements. The horizontal
design requires more floor space.
Market and technology overview // High recovery technologies
The concentrations of sulphate and chloride salts in the brine increase the risk of scale formation on the walls of the heat
exchanger. The brine slurry that enters the system is seeded with crystals of calcium sulphate (CaSO
4
). The salts in the slurry
precipitate on the calcium sulphate crystals and not on the walls of the heat exchanger.
1.6.3 Crystallisers
Crystallisation is the final step in many water reuse processes. The crystallisation process can remove most of the water from
the concentrated brine solution that is produced by reverse osmosis and thermal processes. Crystallisation is also used to extract
sugar, and useful salts from a solution. A filter press will remove all of the water from the concentrated slurry produced by a
crystalliser.
Purified water produced by this process can be used in other areas of the plant. The salts that are extracted by this process can
either be reused or disposed of, depending on regulations and demand.
Figure 1.15 A forced circulation crystalliser
Circulation
pump
Feed
Slurry
Vapour
Steam
Condensate
Crystals
Heat exchanger
Source: Genck, 2011
In a typical crystalliser, water is vaporised at the surface of a solution. The more concentrated solution that is left behind sinks
and cools, allowing crystals to form. The crystals are removed once they have reached a certain size, and the remaining solution is
recirculated through the crystalliser. The process is described in more detail below:
1. The feedwater enters the system and joins a stream of recirculated slurry from the crystalliser. The combined stream
is pumped through a heat exchanger. It is common to heat the stream using a source of steam from elsewhere in the
plant, or by using the vapour that is produced by the crystalliser.
2. The heated stream enters the crystalliser below the surface of the liquid. The temperature of the slurry near the
surface is raised and some of the water is evaporated. The vapour that is removed can be condensed in the heat
exchanger in step 1. The resulting pure water can be reused in the plant, or discharged.
3. The evaporation cools the slurry near the surface, leaving behind a super-saturated volume of slurry. This super-
saturation encourages the formation of new crystals, and the growth of crystals that are already in the solution.
4. The cooling slurry sinks to the bottom of the crystalliser. The larger crystals are removed from the stream, and the
remaining slurry is recirculated to begin the process again.
Heating the feedwater can cause scale-forming compounds to precipitate on the walls of the pipes and the crystalliser. Scale
formation can be prevented by rapidly circulating the slurry through the system. This method also reduces the supersaturated
volume of slurry and controls the growth of crystals in the crystalliser. Introducing calcium sulphate (CaSO
4
) crystals to the slurry
encourages the growth of crystals in the slurry, and reduces the precipitation on the crystalliser walls.
It is important to ensure that the growth of crystals in the slurry is uniform and does not cycle between fine and coarse crystals.
These cycles can be produced if a vortex forms in the crystalliser. To prevent a vortex from forming, the slurry inlet pipe should
enter the crystalliser at an angle above horizontal. There must be sufficient pressure in the inlet pipe to ensure that vaporisation
does not occur in the pipe.
1.6.4 Filter presses
A filter press will remove all of the water from a concentrated source of feedwater. This process is used to reduce the volume of
wastewater by removing all suspended solids. The dry solids can then be stored, processed, sent to landfill or incinerated. A filter
press can be used to separate the solid waste from the concentrated brine produced by a crystalliser. If there are restrictions on the
compounds that can be discharged to groundwater or reused in industry, a filter press will remove any remaining solid waste.
A filter press is comprised of a series of concave plates with a hole in the middle. When two plates are brought together the gap
between the plates forms a chamber that will be filled with concentrated sludge. The chamber is lined with a filter cloth that will
permit water to pass through and retain solid waste. A typical filter press is constructed from 80 plates arranged face to face.
Figure 1.16 The operation of a diaphragm plate filter press
Sludge
Water
Pressure 1
3
2
Filter cloth Filter plate
Drip tray
Water
Source: EPA, 1987
The operation of a filter press is described below:
1. The filter press is closed. Concentrated sludge is pumped into the press to fill the chambers between the plates. Some
water in the sludge passes through filter cloth and is collected in a drip tray below the press.
2. The pressure forcing the water through the filter cloth can be increased by pumping more solids into the press. This
is a fixed volume press. The pressure can also be increased by inflating a diaphragm behind each filter cloth when
the press is full. This is a variable volume or diaphragm press. The cake is formed when the pressure forces most of
the water out of the sludge.
3. When the flow of water through the filter drops below a pre-determined level, the press is opened and the solids are
removed.
Processing large volumes of sludge in a filter press will be more cost effective. The volume and concentration of solids that are
produced by the press is not affected by the concentration of solids in the incoming sludge. Reducing the volume of wastewater
in the filter press will be cost effective when it is less expensive than transporting the concentrated sludge to another site to be
processed and disposed of.
1.6.5 High recovery reverse osmosis
Conventional reverse osmosis technologies are limited by the build up of precipitated salts on the surface of the membrane. To
maintain the same flow of water through the membrane requires an increase in the water pressure over time. If the flow of water
drops by more than 10%, the membrane must be cleaned to remove the solids that have built up on the surface.
In a high recovery system, the pH of the feedwater is increased to greater than 10. At a high pH, the solubility of some dissolved
compounds is increased. Compounds that are more soluble in a high pH solution include silica, boron and organic acids.
This solution requires a higher concentration of dissolved solids to reach saturation, and decreases the precipitation of these
compounds on the surface of the membrane. In one system, the concentration of silica in the concentrate stream reached
480 ppm, with no increase in precipitation. This allows the membrane system to be run for long periods of time without a
significant reduction in water flow rate, and decreases the frequency with which the membrane must be cleaned.
When silica is dissolved in a pH neutral solution, it is present in the water as a weak acid (silicic acid). At a high pH, silicic acid
begins to dissociate into its constituent ions, hydrogen (H
+
) and silicate (SiO
4
4
). In this state, over 99% of the dissolved silica is
retained by the membrane. This ionisation process can also increase the proportion of boron and organic acids that are retained
Market and technology overview // Chemical treatment
by the membrane. The rejection of contaminants from a high recovery system is compared with conventional reverse osmosis in
the following figure.
Figure 1.17 Comparison of high recovery and conventional reverse osmosis systems
High recovery RO Conventional RO
Contaminant
Feedwater
(ppm)
Concentrate
(ppm)
Permeate
(ppm)
% of contaminants
retained
% of contaminants
retained
Sodium 29.9 460.0 0.955 99.73 9598
Potassium 6.4 18.7 <0.003 >99.98 9095
Calcium 34.0 <0.1 <0.003
Chloride 12.1 78.1 <0.004 >99.99 9798
Nitrate 0.7 9.4 0.003 99.96 9095
Sulphate 46.1 278.4 <0.001 >99.99
Boron 0.1 0.6 0.007 98.51 6070
Silica 67.0 480.0 0.460 99.87 9599
Organic Carbon 0.6 1.1 <0.003 >99.66 9095
Source: Mukhopadhyay, 1999
The solubility of some dissolved compounds, such as calcium, magnesium and iron, decreases at a high pH. These compounds
must be removed from the feedwater before the pH of the solution is increased. A cation exchange filter placed before the increase
in pH will remove the compounds that would otherwise foul the membrane.
The high pH environment in a high recovery RO system is similar to the environment that is created to remove biological
material from a membrane surface in a conventional RO system. In a high recovery system the high pH of the feedwater breaks
down bacterial cell walls. Bacteria are killed and dissolved away from the membrane surface, and build up on the membrane as
in a conventional RO system. Most particles in solution have a negative surface charge. The high pH environment decreases the
distance over which this charge can attract other particles. This reduces the attraction of these particles to the membrane surface,
and prevents oils, grease and colloidal particles attaching to the surface of the membrane.
There are two proprietary technologies that make use of a high pH environment to increase the water recovery from an RO
membrane. The High Efficiency Reverse Osmosis (HERO) process, owned by Aquatech, and the Optimised Pretreatment and
Unique Separation (OPUS) process, owned by Veolia.
1.6.6 Comparison of high recovery technologies
The following figure describes the relative performance of the technologies described above. The cost of each technology is
defined in relation to the barrel of water that must be treated.
Figure 1.19 Comparison of high recovery desalination technologies
Concentrator
type
Feed TDS
(mg/l)
Concentrate
TDS (mg/l)
Feed TSS
(mg/l)
Concentrate
TSS (mg/l)
CAPEX
($/bbl/d)
Electricity
(kWh/bbl)
Processing
cost ($/bbl)
Suppliers
Falling flm
evaporator
>45,000 200,000
300,000
<10,000 <10,000 1,000
2,000
3.34.5 48 Aquatech, GE, Veolia
Forced
circulation
evaporator
>45,000 200,000
300,000
<100*
<20,000**
<500*
<20,000**
1,000
2,000
4.55.8 38 Fountain Quail, GE,
Purestream, Veolia
Crystalliser 75,000
300,000
250,000
300,000
5,000
15,000
150,000
350,000
2,000
4,000
913 710 GE, Veolia
Membrane brine
concentrator
>45,000 200,000
300,000
<100 <500 1,000 35 23.5 Oasys
High effciency
RO
5,000
30,000
50,000
75,000
<100 <500 500 0.8 35 Aquatech, GE, Veolia
Source: Pankratz, 2012
1.7 Chemical treatment
1.7.1 Lime softening
Lime softening removes dissolved compounds from the water. It is a necessary pretreatment step if the water is going to be boiled
or distilled, because it removes the compounds that would precipitate and cause scaling. The dissolved compounds are present in
the water as ions. These compounds can be categorised in several ways:
Carbonate or temporary hardness is caused by the presence of carbonate ions in solution. A temperature change will
alter the equilibrium between the concentrations of calcium (Ca
2+
), bicarbonate (HCO
3
) and carbonate (CO

3
2
) ions
in the solution. An increase in temperature will increase the concentration of carbonate ions and the precipitation of
carbonate compounds. These compounds are removed from the solution.
Non-carbonate or permanent hardness is not removed by an increase in temperature. This can be caused by the
presence of sulphate (SO
4
2
) and chloride (Cl
) ions, amongst others. These ions react with hydrated lime (Ca(OH)
2
)
and soda ash (Na
2
CO
3
) that is added to the solution. The products of these reactions are less soluble than the original
ions and can be easily removed from the feedwater. The proportion of ions that form precipitated compounds
increases with temperature.
Silica (SiO
2
) that is dissolved in the water is adsorbed onto the precipitated compound (Mg(OH)
2
) that is produced
by the reaction between magnesium and hydrated lime. More silica can be removed by this process at higher
temperatures.
1.7.1.1 Cold and warm lime softening
In a cold lime softening process, the softening reactions take place at ambient temperature. Ions are precipitated through
reactions with the hydrated lime and soda ash that is added to the feedwater. In a warm lime softening process the feedwater is
heated to decrease the solubility of hardness-forming ions so that more compounds are precipitated. The process is described in
detail below:
1. Feedwater and softening chemicals are added to the centre of the basin. This is the rapid-mix zone of the unit, where
precipitation reactions begin.
2. The water and chemical mixture moves outwards to the slow-mix zone of the basin, where the precipitation reactions
continue. Precipitated salt particles become large enough to settle. Chemical sludge may be returned to the rapid-mix
zone to improve the softening reactions and increase silica removal.
3. Precipitation reactions continue in the sludge contact unit of the basin. This unit increases the area that is available
for precipitation reactions to take place. The concentration of sludge is regulated by mixing and the regular removal of
excess sludge.
4. There is a clear dividing line between softened water and precipitated salts. The softened water is removed from the
surface of the basin. It takes one hour for water to pass through the basin.
Figure 1.20 Cold and warm lime softening processes in a softening basin
4
3
Feed
Softening chemicals
Sludge
Sludge recirculation
Sedimentation
Clear water
Softened water
2
1
The equilibrium between precipitated salts and dissolved ions makes this process sensitive to changes in temperature of greater
than 2o C. An increase in temperature will increase the precipitation of dissolved salts, and increase the level of precipitated
compounds in the softened water. The equilibrium is also upset by rapid changes in the volume of feedwater entering the basin.
Storage tanks installed upstream of the basin allow a constant flow to be maintained through the basin.
1.7.1.2 Hot lime softening
Hot lime softening takes place at temperatures between 108 C and 116 C. The temperature is sufficient to allow all of the
hardness-forming compounds to precipitate. The concentration of calcium (Ca
2+
) ions is reduced to 8 ppm.
1. Feedwater, softening chemicals and steam are introduced to the top of the unit under pressure. The steam heats the
feedwater to just below the boiling point of the water.
Market and technology overview // Physical treatment
2. At high temperatures, the precipitation reactions between the ions and the softening chemicals convert all of the ions
into precipitated compounds. The compounds settle at the bottom of the unit.
3. The concentration of softening chemicals is maintained by recirculating the precipitated sludge to the top of the unit.
This process reduces the level of silica in the softened water, because the concentration of magnesium hydroxide
(Mg(OH)
2
) is maintained. The softened water is removed from a hood in the centre of the unit. It takes one hour for
softened water to pass through the unit.
Figure 1.21 Hot lime softening processes in a downflow sludge contact unit
Feed Steam
Softening chemicals
1
Softened water
Sludge
Sedimentation
3
2
3
Recirculating
sludge
1.8 Physical treatment
1.8.1 Coagulation and flocculation
The removal of suspended and colloidal particles from a water source is improved if particles can be brought together in large
quantities. Coagulation occurs when particles overcome the electrically repulsive forces that keep them apart. Flocculation occurs
when charged groups on long chain polymers attract many groups of coagulated particles. The aim of this process is to decrease
the time it takes for suspended particles to settle, or to increase the chance that a particle will be removed by later filtration.
Figure 1.22 Coagulation and flocculation create clumps of suspended particles
+
Coagulant
Fe
2+
, Fe
+3
, Al
+3
Flocculant
Source: Chesters et al., 2009
In a relatively high pH solution, greater than pH 3, particles suspended in the solution have negative surface charge. This charge
provides a repulsive force that prevents particles from coming together. A coagulant, usually a salt with a positively-charged metal
ion, neutralises the effect of this negative surface charge. The neutralisation of their surface charge allow particles to collide. The
small clumps of particles formed by this process are known as flocs. Common coagulants include iron chloride (FeCl
2
or FeCl
3
),
iron sulphate (FeSO
4
or Fe
2
(SO
4
)
3
), and aluminium chloride (AlCl
3
).
A flocculant is a long polymer with charged molecular groups distributed along its length. The charged groups attract coagulated
particles in the solution. The particles are brought together along a charged bridge provided by the polymer. This process
groups the coagulated particles into larger flocs that can be easily removed by sedimentation or filtration. An anionic polymer
has negatively-charged groups along its length, and a cationic polymer has positively-charged groups along its length. An anionic
polymer can join together the flocs that are formed from coagulated particles and a cationic polymer. These larger flocs are
easier to remove by filtration, and will settle faster. Smaller, charged polymers can also be used as a coagulant, substituting for
aluminium or ion salts.
Excess coagulants and flocculants in the solution will irreversibly damage a membrane. Excess iron and aluminium salts will
react with water to form metal oxides and hydroxides that precipitate on the membrane surface. This reaction can be prevented by
using an antiscalant. Some flocculants use oils or latex to maintain the stability of the polymers in solution. Oil will dissolve the
polyamide layer that makes up the surface of the membrane. This damage cannot be repaired, and the membrane would need to
be replaced. Long flocculant polymers are less likely to become permanently attached to the membrane surface. The force of the
water flow along the length of the polymer will remove the flocculant from the surface.
1.8.2 Adsorption processes
Adsorption describes the removal of dissolved contaminants when they become attached to another substance. Adsorption
processes have been used to remove organic compounds and heavy metals from process water. Organic compounds may react
with disinfectants to form toxic by-products, so adsorption is often used as a pretreatment step before disinfection. Two terms are
useful when discussing adsorption:
Adsorbate The dissolved contaminants that must be removed from the water.
Adsorbent The material which the contaminants will accumulate on.
There are two methods for removing contaminants from untreated water.
Untreated water is passed through a reactor containing a fixed bed of adsorbent material.
Untreated water is mixed with a solution of the adsorbent material. The adsorbent becomes saturated with
contaminants and is separated from the treated water by sedimentation.
The volume of adsorbate that can be attached to the adsorbent is defined by the surface area of the adsorbent that is available. The
surface area that is available for adsorption is greater when the width of pores in the adsorbent is less than 2 nm. There are several
adsorbents that are commonly found in water treatment processes:
Activated carbon is produced by heating organic material at high temperatures to improve the pore structure of the
material. Activated carbon removes organic compounds very effectively, but it cannot remove smaller, charged organic
compounds. Adsorbents can be classified by the size of the porous structures. Powdered activated carbon (PAC) is
smaller than 0.08 mm, and granular activated carbon (GAC) is larger than 0.1 mm.
Granular ferric hydroxide (GFC) is produced through the reaction of iron (III) chloride solution with sodium
hydroxide. GFC is effective at removing heavy metals, including arsenic, chromium and selenium.
Activated alumina has been used to remove arsenic and fluoride from drinking water. This adsorbent must be
regularly regenerated with strong acidic and basic solutions. Managing the wastewater from the regeneration process
requires a significant increase in costs. Removal of heavy metals.
1.9 Biological wastewater treatment
In biological treatment processes, bacteria are added to wastewater to break down organic material. Bacterial processes are
characterised by the availability of oxygen:
Aerobic reactions take place in the presence of free oxygen (O
2
) introduced to the bioreactor by aeration. Oxygen is
necessary for most biological reactions to occur.
Anoxic reactions take place without free oxygen. Bacteria scavenge bound oxygen from other compounds, including
nitrates (NO
3
).
Anaerobic reactions take place in an environment that is completely devoid of oxygen. Bacteria that thrive in these
conditions are commonly used in sludge treatment.
The treatment system is defined by the way in which bacteria come into contact with the wastewater. In a suspended growth
system, bacteria are kept in suspension by continuous mixing and aeration. There are several variations on this system:
Market and technology overview // Disinfection
Activated sludge is the most widely used system. Wastewater is introduced to an aeration tank containing bacteria
in suspension. After the organic matter is digested the resulting mixture is passed to a clarifier, where the activated
sludge settles and is separated from the treated wastewater. Most of the sludge is recycled to the bioreactor to
maintain the population of bacteria, but some is removed for further treatment before disposal.
A sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is a modification of the activated sludge process. The reaction and clarification steps
take place in the same tank. A separate basin contains the untreated wastewater, which is introduced to the system
in batches. When the reactions are complete, the treated wastewater is removed, and the excess sludge is removed for
disposal.
A membrane bioreactor (MBR) is another modification of the activated sludge process. An MF/UF membrane is
added inside the bioreactor to increase the removal of organic matter and suspended solids. The treated wastewater is
drawn from the permeate stream of the membrane. This technology is not widely used, and requires a larger input of
energy.
In an attached growth system, bacteria are grown on a support medium, forming a film of biological material. Untreated
wastewater passes through the medium, and organic matter is broken down by the bacteria. This system can be operated in
several ways:
In a trickling filter bioreactor, bacteria are grown on a bed of porous material. Untreated wastewater is sprayed on
top of the bed, and trickles down through the material. The wastewater is filtered as the bacteria break down organic
material. The material must be washed regularly to control the growth of bacteria.
In a rotating biological contactor, bacteria are grown on a series of plastic discs that are partially submerged in
the wastewater. The discs are rotated to aerate the wastewater and remove excess bacteria from disc. The sludge is
separated from the wastewater in a clarifier.
Modifications to these processes can improve the removal of nutrients and heavy metals. These processes are discussed below.
1.9.1 Removal of nutrients
Nutrient removal describes the removal of nitrogen and phosphorous based compounds from feedwater. The presence of
these compounds will encourage the growth of bacteria and algae in the water system of an industrial plant, especially if the
temperature is raised by other processes. If these compounds are present in the wastewater discharged from the plant, they will
encourage algal growth in local water bodies. The growth of algae creates dead zones by reducing the availability of oxygen in
the water.
In the aerobic region of the bioreactor, bacteria use free oxygen to oxidise ammonia and nitrite compounds to form nitrate. In the
anoxic region, bacteria scavenge oxygen from nitrate compounds to produce nitrous oxide and nitrogen gas. These products are
released from the bioreactor as a gas. It is common for the anoxic region to precede the aerobic. Nitrates are removed by recycling
a portion of the wastewater to the anoxic zone.
Phosphates are removed from wastewater by a group of bacteria know as phosphorous accumulating organisms (PAOs). In
the anaerobic region, PAOs consume and store fatty acids to fuel later growth. The energy for the accumulation of fatty acids
is provided by the release of phosphates. In the aerobic region, the oxygen reacts with the accumulated fatty acids to produce
energy. This energy allows the PAOs to grow and divide, and to absorb phosphates from the wastewater. There is a net removal
of phosphates from the wastewater, because more energy is released in the aerobic region than was used in the anaerobic region.
Phosphates are removed from the system when the sludge is discharged.
1.9.2 Removal of heavy metals
Wastewater containing high concentrations of heavy metals cannot be discharged without further treatment. There are strict
regulations governing the discharge of contaminated wastewater, because heavy metals such as mercury and selenium are toxic
in large quantities.
Heavy metals can be removed from wastewater by interaction with charged compounds (known as functional groups) in the cell
walls of bacteria. Positively charged metal ions dissolved in the water are attached to the negatively charged functional groups by
charge attraction, or by ion exchange. Metals may also become bonded to the proteins within the cell walls.
1.10 Disinfection
1.10.1 Disinfection with chlorine-based compounds
Chlorine-based compounds are used in most municipal wastewater treatment systems to prevent the growth of micro-organisms.
The addition of chlorine compounds to water as a disinfection is known as chlorination. Chlorine gas forms hydrochlorous
acid on reaction with water. This weak acid can damage bacterial cell walls, affect the uptake of oxygen by cells, and reduce the
reproduction rate of DNA. The compounds that are most commonly used to produce hydrochlorous acid for disinfection are
chlorine gas, sodium hypochlorite, and calcium hypochlorite.
Chlorination provides disinfection for water supply systems downstream of the treatment plant, because residual levels of
chlorine remain in the water. The process is also used to remove compounds that cause colour and odour, and to remove marine
life from the intake of cooling systems.
Chlorination is less effective at removing protozoan cysts. The concentration of chlorine that is required for chlorination is
usually the concentration that is required for the inactivation of protozoa. Organic matter in the untreated wastewater will
form dangerous disinfection by-products (DBPs), including several strong carcinogens. The concentration of DBPs in treated
wastewater is defined by the total organic carbon (TOC) that is present in the wastewater prior to disinfection. Studies have
indicated that removing organic matter through coagulation and sedimentation reduces the concentration of DBPs in treated
wastewater by 21%.
1.10.2 Disinfection with ultraviolet light
Ultraviolet (UV) light prevents microbes from reproducing by altering the chemical bonds within DNA. Irradiation with UV light
reduces the growth of microbes in wastewater without the addition of chemicals. Industries that require water to be completely
free of contaminants, such as the pharmaceutical industry, will prefer UV disinfection.
Ultraviolet light provides the energy that is needed for reactions between nucleic acids and other proteins. The energy that is
provided allows two adjacent proteins in a strand of DNA to be chemically bonded to one another. The bond that is formed
prevents the microbe from reproducing by stopping the DNA strand from dividing and copying itself. This process can be
described as the inactivation of the microbe. The formation of a dimer from two adjacent proteins is the most common result of
irradiating a microbe with UV light.
Figure 1.23 Emission of ultraviolet light from an array of mercury vapour lamps
Hg
Hg Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Feed Output
Ultraviolet light
Mercury vapour lamps
Source: GWI
A low pressure (LP) mercury lamp operates near vacuum pressure and emits light with a wavelength of 254 nm. A medium
pressure (MP) mercury lamp operates at 404,000 kPa and a temperature of 600900 C. An MP lamp emits light with a
higher intensity than an LP lamp in a broad spectrum between 200 and 300 nm. The wavelength of light that is most effective
in altering the DNA of a microbe is about 265 nm. An MP lamp produces more energy to inactivate microbes, but an LP lamp is
more energy efficient.
The percentage of light that passes through a material is the UV transmittance (UVT). When designing a disinfection system,
the transmittance should be constant at all points in the feedwater. UVT is defined at a wavelength of 254 nm. The UV dose is
the total energy of the ultraviolet light that each microbe is exposed to. Dose is measured in units of mJ/cm. The decrease in the
concentration of infectious microbes after exposure is defined by the log inactivation. Comparing the dose and log inactivation
produces a curve that describes the effect of UV exposure on a particular microbe.
The UVT is reduced by the build up of material on the UV lamps. The fouling is caused by the precipitation of scale forming
compounds, and material settling on the lamp casing. Particles suspended in solution shield microbes from the effects of UV
radiation. Larger microbes, and groups of smaller microbes, also produce this shielding effect. This will reduce the UVT of
the solution and decrease the efficiency of the UV disinfection process. Prefiltration will remove the large particles that provide
shielding and the dissolved solids that precipitate on the lamps. It is necessary to compare the level of prefiltration that is required
with the cost of using ultraviolet light to disinfect the resulting permeate. An RO membrane will remove most of the bacterial and
microbial matter from the solution, removing the need for UV disinfection.
Market and technology overview // Disinfection
1.10.3 Disinfection by ozonation
Ozonation produces two highly reactive compounds that break down bacterial cell walls and remove soluble oxygen compounds
from water. If the end user does not want chlorine in the water, ozonation is a viable alternative to chlorination. The process
becomes more cost effective if there is a cheap source of pure oxygen to produce the ozone.
Ozone (O
3
) reacts with water in a series of reactions to produce a highly reactive hydroxyl free radical (H0). Ozone is the primary
disinfectant in low pH solutions. Hydroxyl radicals are the primary disinfectant in high pH solutions. In bacteria, ozone breaks
down cell walls by oxidising the proteins in walls. Ozone inactivates viruses by oxidising the proteins in the virus shell. Oxidation
prevents the virus from attaching to a host cell and spreading infection. Protozoan cysts are more resistant to ozonation than
bacteria and viruses. Ozone oxidises the proteins in the protozoa cell wall and damages the internal structures of the cell.
Ozone also oxidises iron and magnesium ions dissolved in solution, and the compounds that cause taste and odour. Ozone can
be used to reduce the oxygen demand caused by organic compounds in wastewater. The compounds that are broken down by this
process can be removed by filtration.
Figure 1.24 Ozone breaks down micro-organisms in deep contact chambers
Feed Effluent
Contact chambers Reaction chambers
Ozone (O
3
)
Ozone decomposition
Ozone is introduced to the water to be disinfected in four deep, covered compartments. The depth of the compartments
maximises the amount of ozone dissolved in the water. Bubbles of ozone diffuse into the first and second chambers, the contact
chambers. The ozonation reaction completes in the third and fourth chambers, the reaction chambers. Most of the ozone
decomposes in the fourth chamber to produce pure oxygen. Ozone that remains is removed and exposed to high temperatures to
encourage decomposition. The resulting pure oxygen is recycled in the ozone generation process.
Compounds that can be oxidised have an ozone demand, using up the ozone that could be used to break down micro-organisms.
Feedwater with high levels of suspended solids, oils, or precipitating ions should be prefiltered before ozonation to reduce the
ozone demand. If the feedwater is of high quality, and it contains few dissolved or suspended compounds, ozonation could be the
first process in the treatment system.
Ozone breaks down organic matter into organic acids and compounds that are more biodegradable than the original matter.
These compounds provide a source of nutrients for bacteria, and must be removed to prevent bacterial growth in downstream
treatment systems. Oxidation with ozone produces pure oxygen, creating favourable conditions for the removal of this
biodegradable matter by biologically-active filtration.
1.11 Technology trends and market forecast
1.11.1 Notes on the forecast
This section examines technology trends in three overall forecast categories which present opportunities for desalination /
demineralisation technologies: ultrapure water, wastewater desalination and seawater desalination.
The rest of the chapters in the report each cover an individual industry: oil and gas, refining and petrochemicals, power, food
and beverage, pharmaceutical, microelectronics, pulp and paper, and mining. At the end of each dedicated industry chapter
is a forecast with industry-specific categories that highlight the particular opportunities in that market, e.g. high recovery
desalination for steam EOR in the oil and gas industry. The way in which the industry-specific forecast categories map onto the
overall forecast categories is shown in the following figure.
Figure 1.25 Industry-specific forecast categories and overall forecast categories
Sector Industry-specifc forecast category
Overall forecast category
U
l
t
r
a
p
u
r
e

w
a
t
e
r
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r

d
e
s
a
l
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
S
e
a
w
a
t
e
r

d
e
s
a
l
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s

w
a
t
e
r

-

o
t
h
e
r
W
a
t
e
w
a
t
e
r

-

o
t
h
e
r
Oil and gas Shale gas: conventional treatment
Shale gas high recovery desal
Sulphate removal package / low salinity systems
Refning and petrochemicals Pretreatment systems
ZLD systems
Power Pretreatment systems
Condensate polishing systems
Wastewater treatment systems (excl. ZLD)
ZLD/high recovery desalination systems
Food & beverage Pretreatment systems
Polishing systems
Pharmaceutical Pretreatment systems
Microelectronics Pretreatment systems
Pulp and paper Process water systems (excl. UPW)
Mining Process water treatment systems
Seawater desalination systems
Source: GWI
Market and technology overview // Technology trends and market forecast
The overall forecast categories are defined in the following sections, and the industry-specific forecast categories are defined in
their own chapters.
The buoyancy of industrial markets is closely linked to economic circumstances. For example, if the copper price falls it is no
longer economically viable to transport and desalinate seawater hundreds of kilometres across a Chilean mountain range to a
remote mine site. If the oil price falls, then Middle Eastern countries cannot sustain high levels of investment in large capital
projects such as IWPPs. As we cannot possibly predict such circumstances in the long-term, we have offered alternate scenarios
for each of the industry-specific forecasts to give an indication of how the forecasts are affected by economic factors.
The forecast looks at how each market is expected to develop annually until 2017, with an additional snapshot of what 2025 might
look like if trends continue. By necessity, they contain a highly misleading degree of detail. Of course we cannot know the total
wastewater treatment requirements of power plants that will be built in 2015 to four significant figures of accuracy. However we
can create a model which gives us an estimated figure, and it is in the nature of such models that they provide a spurious degree
of accuracy. The intelligent user of our forecasts will look at the annual forecasted figures as just one of a number of possible
scenarios, but put more store by the three-or-four year totals than single year totals.
The industry specific forecasts in this report have been updated since our Global Water Market 2011 report. The factors taken into
account have been noted in each of the industry chapters. The forecasts are offered on the understanding that they represent
informed expectations based on the best available data, and particular scenarios in terms of how the world economy evolves. They
are not infallible, and may be adjusted as better information becomes available, and as the political and financial situation moves
on.
The forecast going forward is based on 2012 dollars (i.e. assuming zero inflation from 2012 onwards).
1.11.2 Ultrapure water technology trends
The technology train used in ultrapure water has evolved over the years. Historically, ion exchange was the most important
technology used, with utility water passing through anion, then cation exchange beds before going through a mixed bed
polishing step. This reliance on ion exchange was considered to be problematic because the ion exchange beds needed to be
regenerated periodically, meaning that there could be difficulties with the consistency of the water quality and the wastewater
derived from the spend regenerant would need to be disposed of. The development of reverse osmosis offered an alternative to
ion exchange, giving a higher consistency of product water (albeit one which might need to be polished using a mixed bed ion
exchange system), without the chemical consumption or wastewater problems associated with regenerating the ion exchange
resins. Reverse osmosis membranes brought other problems however, notably biological fouling and damage by suspended solids.
Although conventional pretreatment could address these problems, the best guarantee of feedwater quality is ultrafiltration,
which has enjoyed growth within the ultrapure water sector in recent years, because of its greater reliability and ease of operation.
For pharma and microelectronics applications higher levels of purity are required. For some pharma applications this is delivered
using distillation (see chapter on pharmaceuticals), but electrodeionisation is now widely used in both industries as a polishing
step after reverse osmosis. It has yet to have such an impact on the boiler feedwater market. The table below illustrates the
arguments for and against EDI as an alternative to ion exchange as a final polishing step in boiler feedwater production:
Figure 1.26 Advantages and disadvantages of EDI process
Advantages Disadvantages
Continuous production of water: no need to stop the process to
regenerate the resins
Ion exchange systems are cheaper especially for larger systems
because the cost of an EDI system is directly proportionate to its
size, whereas IX systems enjoy economies of scale.
Regeneration by electrical current: no need for chemicals and no
effuents to be treated
Only a limited number of charged organics are removed.
Cost competitive with ion exchange at small capacities The system requires feed of good quality (membrane
pretreatment needed) and is not able to handle hardness beyond
1 mg/l.
EDI systems are more sensitive to operate than classical resin
beds and require a long stabilisation period after start up
In spite of the continuous regeneration by electrodes, resin must
be cleaned which cannot be done on site
Source: GWI
The move towards the UF(or MF)/RO/EDI technology train has been driven by the two major suppliers in the market, Siemens
Water Technologies and GE Water. Both are significant players in the power industry and have, over the past eight years acquired
companies offering UF/MF, RO and EDI. The trend has also had the effect of changing the nature of chemical usage in the UPW
market. There is less demand for ion exchange resins and regenerants, and more demand for chemicals which clean and protect
membranes.
The next stage of evolution is likely to involve greater standardisation of systems, and the use of sensing and control systems to
deliver the required product water quality from the available feedwater. This may have the effect of changing the structure of the
industry. Currently there are a large number of OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) servicing the sector, typically buying
in resins, membranes or EDI blocks and constructing systems to meet the requirements of their customers. It is a competitive
and fragmented market whose profitability is disappointing except for high end systems serving pharmaceutical and micro-
electronics customers. By bundling advanced sensors and controls alongside the UF/RO/EDI technology in pre-engineered
standardised units, the dominant players in this market aim to deliver a knock-out proposition to their customers: lower cost
systems, with greater reliability and automation.
The following figure shows how the market for UPW is likely to break down by the industries covered by this report over the
coming years. The power sector accounts for nearly 50% of the market, driven by the move towards more efficient boilers in
power plants. In order to operate at higher pressures, the new generation of boilers requires higher purity steam, and thus higher
purity feedwater. The increasing sophistication of the microelectronics industry means that as components get smaller, their
preparation will require increasingly pure water in order to minimise the risk of contamination. A third trend is the growth of
the pharmaceuticals market in India and China. As increasing numbers of drugs come off patent, the need for ultrapure water to
manufacture generic substitutes will rise dramatically.
Figure 1.27 The ultrapure water market by industry segment, 20112017
Food & Beverage
Pulp & paper
Pharmaceutical
Microelectronics
Petrochemicals
Power (condensate
polishing)
Power (boiler feed)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Ultrapure water by industry
segment ($ million)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
2025
Power (boiler feed) 255.2 280.8 300.1 309.1 340.5 364.4 390.5 7.3% 626.8
Power (condensate polishing) 454.5 500.7 535.6 552.3 609.1 652.7 700.1 7.5% 1,132.4
Refning and petrochemicals 135.4 141.0 146.9 153.1 159.5 166.2 172.4 4.1% 229.8
Pharmaceutical 217.1 233.7 250.0 265.8 281.1 297.1 315.4 6.4% 692.1
Pulp & paper 25.0 21.8 23.5 27.2 28.3 29.6 30.4 3.3% 46.5
Food & beverage 107.3 118.3 130.2 144.6 159.7 175.7 193.6 10.3% 389.8
Total 1,672.2 1,767.8 1,947.2 2,035.9 2,201.5 2,348.6 2,508.3 7.0% 4,273.2
Source: GWI
The following figure illustrates how the market for UPW technologies is expected to evolve over the next few years:
Figure 1.28 The ultrapure water market by technology, 20112017
BOP
Distillation
EDI
Reverse osmosis
Ion exchange
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Ultrapure water by technology
($ million)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Ion exchange 381.1 403.3 434.3 447.6 481.5 508.7 537.9 5.9%
Reverse osmosis 261.9 275.8 311.0 330.7 359.6 387.7 418.1 8.1%
EDI 141.2 144.4 168.5 177.7 192.0 206.1 221.7 7.8%
Distillation 36.9 39.7 42.5 45.2 47.8 50.5 53.6 6.4%
BOP 851.1 904.6 990.9 1,034.7 1,120.7 1,195.6 1,277.0 7.0%
Total 1,672.2 1,767.8 1,947.2 2,035.9 2,201.5 2,348.6 2,508.3 7.0%
Source: GWI
A regional breakdown sees the most rapid growth for UPW occurring in the Asia Pacifc market the microelectronics market
continues to flourish and pharmaceutical companies are reloaating their production centres.
Figure 1.29 The ultrapure water market by region, 20112017
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Ultrapure water by region ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 443.5 466.4 502.6 526.7 504.7 535.9 624.7 5.9%
EMEA 416.0 366.5 373.4 363.5 433.2 469.6 491.7 2.8%
Asia Pacifc 812.7 934.8 1,071.2 1,145.6 1,263.6 1,343.1 1,391.9 9.4%
Total 1,672.2 1,767.8 1,947.2 2,035.9 2,201.5 2,348.6 2,508.3 7.0%
Source: GWI
1.11.3 High recovery wastewater desalination
1.11.3.1 Wastewater desalination technology trends
Thermal technology for wastewater treatment is relatively mature. There have not been any significant improvements in the
basic brine concentrator/crystalliser systems during the past decade, but even so there is a high degree of dissatisfaction with the
system. The HERO and OPUS systems for high recovery reverse osmosis are similarly not the perfect solution to customer needs.
Customers complain that the systems particularly thermal systems are expensive to construct, expensive to operate, messy,
and unreliable.
While all of these criticisms are valid, they are not all the fault of the technology in most cases the real problem is the variable
nature of the wastewater they are required to treat. For example, an evaporation system for a SAGD project in the Canadian oil
sands typically has to be constructed on a modular basis then transported to the site and assembled. The evaporation system is
typically designed for a specific volume of water treatment, and a specific level of total dissolved solids. Unfortunately nobody can
be sure of the quality and quantity of wastewater that the system will need to handle. This means that it is almost impossible to
fix the costs of an evaporation project when a contract is signed most evaporators end up being procured on a time and materials
basis. Similarly, once operations start there is a risk that the quality and quantity of water that a system is required to treat will
change again. This can makes it difficult to operate reliably and in such a way that optimises the costs.
Accelerating demand for high recovery desalination technologies as wastewater treatment in the oil and gas sector is however
driving change in the industry, and over the next five years we can expect significant developments. These are listed below:
The use of high temperature reverse osmosis as an initial concentration stage: GE Water has been marketing high
temperature reverse osmosis as a pretreatment stage before evaporation as a means of reducing the size of the
evaporators required to recycle SAGD water. The company claims that by operating at a high temperature, and
pretreating using lime softening to reduce silica, it can avoid some of the problems of scaling which might otherwise
render reverse osmosis unworkable. The brine reject from the high temperature RO system would then be put
through a brine concentrator, which could be significantly smaller than it would need to be if the RO system was not
there to reclaim a portion of the influent water.
The use of silica sorption using magnesium oxide: GE has claimed a number of patents which restrict the activities of
its competitors in the oil sands market. Although both Veolia and Aquatech argue that the patents are unenforceable,
they acknowledge that GE is able to use the threat of legal action as a means of maintaining its market share in this
market, which is currently the most lucrative market for evaporators. Veolia has responded to this by developing a
proprietary silica sorption technology which enables it to run its brine concentrator at a lower pH than GE without
infringing any patents.
Salt recovery technology: The holy grail for industrial wastewater desalination is the ability to salvage value from
the brine stream. If it were possible to take a highly saline produced water, reclaim the water, and separate out the
dissolved solids into their constituent salts, then the economics of produced water treatment would be revolutionised.
In the Australian coal seam gas market, making this dream a reality is becoming an imperative. Gas developers have
effectively been mandated by the Queensland Water Commission to develop a means of reclaiming the salt from
the produced water so that it can be reused in the chemicals industry. GE Water has been working on a solution to
this with Penrice Soda, but it remains to be seen whether the value of the salts recovered justify the investment in
evaporation technology.
The use of forward osmosis: Unlike reverse osmosis, forward osmosis avoids many of the scaling and fouling
problems encountered when using membranes in industrial wastewater treatment. A number of companies
are developing forward osmosis applications targeting the oil and gas sector. HTI uses forward osmosis to draw
freshwater from drilling waste to dilute completion water (which is typically highly saline). Oasys has been developing
an ammonia based forward osmosis system for frac flowback water and other oil field wastewaters which works in
two stages: first freshwater is drawn out of the influent wastewater through a forward osmosis membrane to dilute a
concentrated ammonia solution, then heat is used to remove the ammonia from the permeate water, leaving a pure
effluent.
The use of membrane distillation: MD, like forward osmosis, does not have the same problems with scaling
and fouling as conventional reverse osmosis. The most significant company offering an industrial wastewater
desalination technology is Singapore based Memsys. The company has a membrane distillation module which can be
run in series with the water recirculated enabling high recovery rates (conventional membrane distillation typically
operates at very low recovery rates).
The boom in municipal desalination between 2003 and 2008 attracted a lot of interest in developing technologies which offer
an alternative to reverse osmosis. Few of these technologies have proved to be competitive on the scale required to serve cities,
but they may be applicable to industrial wastewater desalination because of the fundamental limitation of reverse osmosis in
this market (even HERO and OPUS struggle to treat wastewaters with a concentration of more than 80,000 mg/l total dissolved
solids). Besides forward osmosis and membrane distillation, the electroseparation technology developed by Saltworks has also
been shown to have strong potential in the industrial wastewater desalination market.
The following figure consolidates the expenditure on industrial wastewater desalination from each industry covered in this
report.
Figure 1.30 The industrial wastewater desalination market by industry segment 20112017
Estimated additional
not in this report
Other wastewater
polishing
ZLD for FGD waste
and blow down
ZLD for
petrochemical waste
Produced water
Unconventional gas
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Heavy oil
Wastewater desalination ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
2011-17
2025
Unconventional gas 112.7 165.0 134.0 132.0 170.0 190.0 199.4 10.0% 278.4
Heavy oil 291.2 385.3 502.1 602.5 556.8 454.2 519.6 10.1% 1,097.7
Produced water 105.0 119.4 135.8 154.5 175.7 199.8 227.3 13.7% 562.6
ZLD for petrochemical waste 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 20.0 - 35.0
ZLD for FGD waste and blow down 135.0 65.5 138.5 180.1 173.1 216.0 237.6 9.9% 714.2
Other wastewater polishing 160.9 179.1 201.1 206.2 228.0 244.1 267.8 8.9% 466.0
Total (this report) 804.8 914.3 1,111.5 1,290.2 1,303.7 1,319.1 1,471.7 10.6% 3,153.9
Estimated additional not in this report 96.6 109.7 133.4 154.8 156.4 158.3 176.6 - 378.5
(*)
May involve brackish water reverse osmosis rather than high recovery reverse osmosis.
Figures shown are plant capex rather than system capex (i.e. including pretreatment systems, design, engineering and balance of
plant) except in the case of other wastewater polishing, which is predominantly a systems business.
Source: GWI
The regional breakdown of the wastewater desalination market is as follows:
Figure 1.31 The industrial wastewater desalination market by region, 20112017
0
300
600
900
1,200
1,500
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Wastewater desalination by region this
report only ($ million)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 474.9 560.6 680.4 790.1 710.6 685.4 795.1 9.0%
EMEA 102.6 77.8 143.6 171.2 224.6 226.4 252.7 16.2%
Asia Pacifc 227.3 275.8 287.4 328.9 368.5 407.4 424.0 10.9%
Total (this report) 804.8 914.3 1,111.5 1,290.2 1,303.7 1,319.1 1,471.7 10.6%
Source: GWI
We have also divided the market between thermal, reverse osmosis and new technologies for the industries covered in this report,
although this division is somewhat speculative as the new technologies are still at an early stage of commercialisation.
Figure 1.32 The industrial wastewater desalination market by technology, 20112017
Alternative technologies
(Forward Osmosis/
Membrane Distillation)
Reverse osmosis
Evaporation
0
300
600
900
1,200
1,500
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
this report only ($ million)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Evaporation 399.2 437.6 582.7 599.0 538.8 449.3 457.7 2.3%
Reverse osmosis
(*)
405.6 467.5 506.5 652.5 712.8 803.8 925.7 14.7%
Alternative technologies (forward
osmosis/membrane distillation)
0.0 9.1 22.2 38.7 52.1 66.0 88.3
Total (this report) 804.8 914.3 1,111.5 1,290.2 1,303.7 1,319.1 1,471.7 10.6%
(*)
Includes both brackish water RO and high recovery RO.
This forecast shows plant capex rather than system capex (i.e. it includes pretreatment systems, design, engineering and balance of
Source: GWI
1.11.3.2 Wastewater desalination alternate scenario
Industrial activity is linked to economic circumstances, which cannot be exactly predicted. In this report, we have also forecast
alternate scenarios for each industry. The alternate scenario for wastewater desalination market envisages the following:
The oil price falls below $60.
The U.S. and Europe slip into recession and have more then two quarters of negative growth.
The growth rate in India and China falls below 6%.
The wastewater desalination technology market in this alternate scenario is shown in the following figure.
Figure 1.33 The industrial wastewater desalination market by technology, 20112017: Alternate scenario
Alternative technologies
(Forward Osmosis/
Membrane Distillation)
Reverse osmosis
Evaporation
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Wastewater desalination alternate
scenario this report only ($ million)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Evaporation 399.2 437.6 183.0 188.2 180.3 167.3 161.8 -14.0%
Reverse osmosis
(*)
405.6 467.5 463.8 551.1 555.0 564.8 641.8 7.9%
Alternative technologies (forward osmosis/
membrane distillation)
0.0 9.1 20.0 34.8 46.9 59.4 79.5
Total (this report) 804.8 914.3 666.9 774.1 782.2 791.5 883.0 1.6%
(*)
Includes both brackish water RO and high recovery RO.
This forecast shows plant capex rather than system capex (i.e. it includes pretreatment systems, design, engineering and balance of
Source: GWI
1.11.4 Seawater desalination
1.11.4.1 Seawater desalination technology trends
There are two main industrial markets for seawater desalination: power and refining/petrochemicals. Other industries such as
metals processing, cement, and chlor-alkali chemicals also rely on seawater desalination where the local alternatives are restricted.
Beyond these specific customer groups, there are also seawater desalination plants built by industrial park developers to serve a
range of different customers. In fact one of the largest desalination plants in the world the 800,000 m/d Jubail MED plant
serves Marafiq, an industrial water utility serving a range of industrial customers including Aramco and Saudi Basic Industries
(SABIC). The following figure illustrates how industrial seawater desalination has developed in the context of all other seawater
desalination since 1990.
Figure 1.34 All industrial seawater desalination in the context of all seawater desalination, 19902011
All other
Industrial
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
2010 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990
m
/
d
Source: GWI DesalData
The following figure shows how industrial demand for seawater desalination facilities with a capacity of more than 10,000 m/d
divides between metals, refining & chemicals, power and other/general off-takers.
Figure 1.35 Contracted >10,000 m/d industrial seawater desalination plants by off-taker industry, 19902011
Power
Refining / chemicals
Metals
0
300,000
600,000
900,000
1,200,000
1,500,000
2010 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990
m
/
d
Other
Besides captive desalination plants for power stations and refineries, there are also seawater desalination plants attached to power
stations which may provide feedwater for the power plant, but the majority of their output goes towards municipal supply. These
plants are generally known as independent water and power plants (IWPPs) although strictly speaking IWPP refers only to those
integrated power and water plants which are privately financed on a non-recourse basis. For the sake of this report these plants are
referred to as co-located power/desal plants. Strictly speaking they have no place in this report because they are built primarily to
serve the municipal market, however in the Gulf region it is more common to have a co-located power desal plant than to have a
captive desalination plant for a power station, and the growth of the market for co-located power desal plants in the Gulf is driven
as much by demand for electricity as it is by demand for water.
Historically, power and refinery customers have preferred thermal desalination to membrane desalination if they are required
to consider seawater as a raw water source. This reflects the fact that thermal desalination technology delivers a higher quality
product water than membrane desalination, and for power and refinery customers the energy consumption of thermal
desalination is usually a lesser consideration. Besides MED and MSF, mechanical vapour compression is also used where
customers have no spare steam, but plenty of electricity. This may seem an anomaly when RO is seen to be much more efficient
in energy terms. However, MVC systems not only give a high quality product water, they also give an extremely high level of
reliability: an MVC unit can run for a decade or two with no maintenance whatsoever.
The following figure illustrates the technology choice in the industrial seawater desalination sector since 1990.
Figure 1.36 Seawater desalination plants for industrial customers by technology, 19902011
MSF
MED
RO
0
300,000
600,000
900,000
1,200,000
1,500,000
2010 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990
m
/
d
MVC
Overall we anticipate the industrial market for seawater desalination growing at a faster rate than the municipal market over
the next few years. This reflects the fact that the municipal sector has been impacted by the financial crisis, while the industrial
sector has fewer financial issues, but increasingly difficult water challenges.
In the following figure we break down the industrial seawater desalination market by offtaker. In addition to the sectors described
earlier (power and refining) we anticipate that the mining industry will continue in its employment of seawater desalination in
water-scarce areas such as Chile, Peru and Australia see chapter 9 for details.
The co-located power/desal forecast is based on future projects, and is particularly lumpy as large projects can have a significant
impact on expenditure in any one year but their timing can be difficult to anticipate in advance. Multi-year aggregates are more
indicative of the market trends.
Figure 1.37 The industrial seawater desalination market by industry segment, 20112017
Power/desal co-located
Mining
Water for power
Refining and
petrochemicals
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Seawater desalination by industry
segment ($ million)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
2025
Refning and petrochemicals 52.5 167.6 509.2 265.5 458.9 892.6 807.7 57.7% 976.3
Water for power 54.0 174.0 202.8 275.1 311.7 346.5 501.6 45.0% 1,301.1
Mining 206.7 241.0 515.5 207.9 418.8 374.4 423.7 12.7% 688.6
Power/desal co-located 857.7 1,200.0 760.0 1,650.0 350.0 1,440.0 1,250.0 6.5% 1,570.0
Total 1,170.9 1,782.7 1,987.5 2,398.5 1,539.4 3,053.5 2,983.0 16.9% 4,536.1
Source: GWI
We also believe that the proportion of membrane desalination will increase steadily as customers begin to understand its potential
benefits, as shown in the following figure.
Figure 1.38 The industrial seawater desalination market by technology, 20112017
Thermal desalination
Membrane desalination
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Seawater desalination by
technology ($ million)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Membrane desalination 303.1 395.2 809.9 427.0 642.9 1,178.2 1,447.4 29.8%
Thermal desalination 867.8 1,387.5 1,177.6 1,971.6 896.5 1,875.4 1,535.6 10.0%
Total 1,170.9 1,782.7 1,987.5 2,398.5 1,539.4 3,053.5 2,983.0 16.9%
Source: GWI
The regional breakdown for industrial seawater desalination is as follows. The Middle East dominates due to the high value of
co-located power / desalination plants.
Figure 1.39 The industrial seawater desalination market by region, 20112017
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Seawater desalination by region,
reference scenario ($ million)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 192.3 337.6 179.5 193.4 124.8 342.2 370.5 11.5%
EMEA 926.2 1,253.0 965.6 1,790.2 585.3 2,122.1 1,964.2 13.3%
Asia Pacifc 52.4 192.1 842.3 415.0 829.6 589.3 648.7 52.1%
Total 1,170.9 1,782.7 1,987.5 2,398.5 1,539.7 3,053.5 2,983.4 16.9%
Source: GWI
1.11.4.2 Seawater desalination alternate scenario
We have developed the following alternate scenario for the industrial seawater desalination market based on the following
happening from 2013 onwards:
Brent crude falls below $60/bbl.
The U.S. and Europe slip into recession and have more then two quarters of negative growth.
The annual economic growth rate in India and China falls below 6%.
Crack spread lower than $20/bbl in the U.S. and lower than $10/bbl in other markets.
Copper falls below $5,000/tonne while iron ore falls below $100/tonne. This would reflect a broader fall in mineral
prices affecting other markets.
If all of these things occur, the alternate scenario looks drastically different from the reference scenario. The drop in the oil price
means that co-located power/desalination plants in the Middle East are put on hold, as sufficient funds can no longer be raised
from oil sales. New mining projects are put on hold until metal and ore prices recover. Investment levels in refining and power
fall to 20-30% of those in the refernece scenario.
The following figure shows how this all adds up to a very different market forecast picture:
Figure 1.40 The industrial seawater desalination market by industry segment, 20112017: alternate scenario
Power/desal co-located
Mining
Water for power
Petrochemicals
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Seawater desalination alternate scenario
($ million)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Petrochemicals 52.5 167.6 101.8 58.8 125.3 190.5 177.4 22.5%
Water for power 54.0 174.1 57.6 93.8 102.4 126.3 100.4 10.9%
Mining 206.7 241.0 49.2 0.0 29.4 33.1 34.6 -25.8%
Power/desal co-located 857.7 1,200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 1,170.9 1,782.7 208.6 152.6 257.1 349.9 312.3 -19.8%
Source: GWI
1.11.5 The overall market
When the UPW market, seawater desalination market and wastewater desalination market are combined, the breakdown by
industry is as shown in the following figure.
Figure 1.41 UPW, seawater desalination and wastewater desalination by industrial segment, 20112025
Mining
Pulp and paper
Microelectronics
Pharmaceutical
Food and beverage
Water for power
Refining and
petrochemicals
Oil and gas
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Power / desal co-lo
UPW, seawater desal
and wastewater desal by
industrial segment
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
2011-17
2025
Oil and gas 508.9 669.7 771.9 888.9 902.5 844.0 946.3 14.2% 1,938.7
Refning and petrochemicals 187.9 308.7 656.1 433.6 618.4 1,073.8 1,000.2 17.1% 1,241.1
Power generation 898.7 1,021.0 1,177.0 1,316.6 1,434.4 1,579.6 1,829.8 8.7% 3,774.5
Food and beverage 185.1 201.7 219.5 241.2 263.6 287.0 313.1 6.9% 589.0
Pharmaceutical 229.9 248.3 268.5 287.3 306.4 327.4 352.6 6.2% 817.7
Pulp and paper 25.0 21.8 23.5 27.2 28.3 29.6 30.4 1.8% 46.5
Mining 244.6 289.9 569.8 254.9 473.2 429.3 483.4 8.8% 738.1
Co-lo power / desalination 857.7 1,200.0 760.0 1,650.0 350.0 1,440.0 1,250.0 6.5% 1,570.0
Total (ex co-lo) 2,790.2 3,264.7 4,286.1 4,074.7 4,694.6 5,281.3 5,713.0 12.7% 10,393.2
Source: GWI
When other water and wastewater treatment is added to UPW, seawater desalination and wastewater desalination, the breakdown
is as follows:
Figure 1.42 Desalination and water reuse market forecast by major market, 20112025
Other wastewater
treatment
Other process water
treatment
Ultrapure water
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Whole market by major
market ($ million)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
2025
Ultrapure water 1,672.2 1,767.8 1,947.2 2,035.9 2,201.5 2,348.6 2,508.3 7.0% 4,273.2
Wastewater desalination 804.8 914.3 1,111.5 1,290.2 1,303.7 1,319.1 1,471.7 10.6% 3,169.3
Seawater desalination 1,170.9 1,782.7 1,987.5 2,398.5 1,539.4 3,053.5 2,983.0 16.9% 4,536.1
Other process water
treatment
3,630.5 3,883.4 4,254.5 4,368.4 4,764.0 5,140.4 5,706.2 7.8% 8,438.3
Other wastewater treatment 3,874.9 4,198.8 4,570.5 4,766.3 5,113.4 5,406.0 5,804.0 7.0% 8,978.3
Total 11,153.3 12,546.8 13,871.2 14,859.4 14,922.0 17,267.6 18,473.2 8.8% 29,395.2
Source: GWI
We anticipate healthy growth in the UF/MF, NF and RO membrane element markets, as shown in the following figure
Figure 1.43 Membrane element markets, 20112017
NF membrane elements
RO membrane elements
(excluding replacement)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
UF/MF membrane
elements
Membrane markets 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
UF/MF membrane elements 68.7 76.9 86.1 96.5 108.1 121.0 135.5 12.0%
RO membrane elements (excluding replacement)
(a)
115.6 131.7 173.0 172.1 204.0 262.5 320.2 18.5%
NF membrane elements
(b)
24.8 32.1 45.5 40.4 52.6 67.9 96.6 25.5%
Total 208.51 240.24 304.16 308.45 364.13 450.86 551.77 17.6%
UF/MF membrane permeate fow capacity
(million m/d)
3.7 4.1 4.6 5.1 5.8 6.5 7.2 12.0%
(a)
This is calculated on the basis that RO membranes represent 18% of the cost of the RO systems used in UPW production, 12% of the
cost of RO systems used for wastewater treatment, and 6% of the cost of seawater desalination plants; they will also be a portion of the
cost of low salinity systems in off-shore oil and gas
(b)
The main use is in sulphate removal for the off-shore oil and gas industry, but NF membranes are also used in the pharmaceutical,
and food & beverage markets, and in niche areas elsewhere in the industrial sector.
Source: GWI
The equipment found in the other process water treatment and other wastewater treatment categories in figure 1.41 breaks down
as follows:
Filtration systems: All filtration systems, excluding UF/MF.
Sedimentation / clarification: Sedimentation basins and clarifiers.
Flotation (DAF): Dissolved air flotation for oil and grease removal.
UF/MF systems: Ultrafiltration and microfiltration membrane systems, including MBR.
Anaerobic systems: All anaerobic treatment systems.
Activated carbon/adsorption: All treatment systems that employ activated carbon or a similar adsorption medium.
Ion exchange (non-UPW applications): Ion exchange systems with applications other than generating UPW.
Sludge management: All technologies for sludge management, including dewatering, thickening, etc.
Monitoring/control: Water treatment control systems and related software.
Chemical feed systems: Chemical feed systems.
BOP / other equipment / engineering / design: Everything else not already included in the above categories,
including design and engineering costs.
The market values are shown in the following figure.
Figure 1.44 Breakdown of equipment for other process water and other wastewater treatment, 20112017
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Sludge management
Ion exchange
(non-UPW applications)
Activated carbon /
adsorption
Anaerobic systems
Sedimentation /
clarification
UF/MF systems Flotation (DAF) Filtration systems
BOP / other equipment / engineering / design Chemical feed systems Monitoring / control
Breakdown of equipment for other process
water and wastewater treatment
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Filtration systems 418.2 455.8 487.0 486.6 528.5 551.8 588.1 5.8%
Sedimentation / clarifcation 535.0 573.9 613.3 598.0 653.0 677.4 714.9 4.9%
Flotation (DAF) 183.4 195.1 211.6 225.8 240.9 255.4 274.3 6.9%
UF/MF systems 274.7 307.6 344.6 385.9 432.2 484.1 542.2 12.0%
Anaerobic systems 160.9 176.1 197.4 221.7 247.1 274.0 302.9 11.1%
Activated carbon / adsorption 64.6 70.5 75.7 80.0 84.6 91.0 97.4 7.1%
Ion exchange (non-UPW applications) 121.0 138.3 153.9 157.0 171.8 181.6 195.4 8.3%
Sludge management 579.7 615.5 661.4 716.2 770.9 825.9 885.4 7.3%
Monitoring / control 540.4 598.1 672.5 712.5 790.2 864.8 966.9 10.2%
Chemical feed systems 487.9 525.3 573.6 593.8 642.0 685.5 748.2 7.4%
BOP / other equipment / engineering /design 4,139.7 4,425.8 4,834.2 4,957.2 5,316.1 5,654.9 6,194.5 6.9%
Total 7,505.5 8,082.1 8,825.0 9,134.7 9,877.4 10,546.3 11,510.2 7.4%
Note: the reason for the large discrepancy between some of the items in this breakdown and the comparable data from GWIs Global
Water Market 2011 report is because this breakdown strips out design, engineering, and the balance of plant as a separate item
whereas Global Water Market 2011 attributed these costs to each equipment line. Additionally there was a signifcant error in the data
given for UF/MF systems in Global Water Market 2011.
Source: GWI
2. Oil and gas
2.1 Water and wastewater in the oil and gas industry
Different fossil fuels have different process water requirements and face different wastewater challenges. The oil and gas industry
can be divided into five separate sectors from a water management perspective:
2.1.1 Onshore conventional oil
Produced water management is the most significant water challenge. On average around the world, five times as much water as
oil is brought to the surface. This water comprises formation water i.e. groundwater which has been drawn into the oil reservoir
as the oil is pumped out, and flood water which might have been pumped into the reservoir to drive the oil out. The volume of
produced water increases with the age of the well because more formation water is drawn into the reservoir, and more injection
water is required to bring the oil to the surface.
Figure 2.1 Typical water and oil production profile of an oil well in the North Atlantic
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Water production
Oil production
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

v
o
l
u
m
e

(
m
/
y
r
)
Years of operation
Source: Nature Technology Solution
There is a wide variation in the quality and quantity of produced water. Salinity can vary from 500 mg/l to 200,000 mg/l: water is
generally considered to be a hazardous waste rather than a potential resource.
Oil and gas // Water and wastewater in the oil and gas industry
Figure 2.2 Salinity of produced water in the U.S.
T
o
t
a
l

d
i
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

s
o
l
i
d
s

(
m
g
/
l
)
Seawater
Salt tolerant crops
Livestock
Drinking water
Salt sensitive crops
W
i
l
l
i
s
t
o
n
P
o
w
d
e
r

R
i
v
e
r
B
i
g

H
o
r
n
W
i
n
d

R
i
v
e
r
G
r
e
e
n

R
i
v
e
r
D
e
n
v
e
r
U
i
n
t
a
-
P
i
c
e
a
n
c
e
P
a
r
a
d
o
x

-

T
o
t
a
l
S
a
n

J
o
a
q
u
i
n
C
e
n
t
r
a
l

K
a
n
s
a
s
S
a
n

J
u
a
n
A
n
d
a
r
k
o
L
o
s

A
n
g
e
l
e
s
P
e
r
m
i
a
n
1,000,000
100,000
10,000
1,000
100
Name of field
Source: Benko and Drewes
Typically, oil will initially be brought to the surface under natural flow or artificial lift (i.e. pumping), but, subsequently, additional
pressure may be required to drive the oil to the surface. The process of injecting water down an oil well to drive out the oil is
known as water flood. The water used for flood depends on what is available. In most cases the produced water will be recycled
as injection water, but additional requirements might have to be met by other available resources: surface water, groundwater, and
even seawater pumped up from the coast. In some cases there may be no additional water resources available, in which case an
alternative approach to maintaining the pressure on the well, such as CO
2
injection, might have to be used.
Produced water which is not used for flood is reinjected into a disposal well. Whether the water is reused or disposed of,
treatment is required to separate out the oil and to remove suspended solids which might impede reinjection. Oil water
separation technologies together with reinjection pumps are the most significant area of capital expenditure on produced water
management.
There is a growing interest in downhole oil water separation. This involves placing hydrocyclones or gravity separators and pumps
in the reservoir, so that the produced water can be diverted to a deep aquifer, rather than be brought to the surface. The advantage
of this approach is that it reduces the amount of pumping, and it reduces the environmental risks associated with surface
reinjection.
Produced water management and the use of injection water is steadily becoming a more significant issue for the industry because
of the increasing maturity of most conventional oil resources. The following figure illustrates the water-to-oil ratio (WOR) of
major countries and producers:
Figure 2.3 Water to oil ratios of selected producers
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Qatar (2006)
Abu Dhabi (2006)
Saudi Arabia (2006)
Norway (2004)
Total S.A. (2006)
Offshore USA (2011)
Petrobras (2007)
Shell (2000)
Kuwait (2006)
Statoil (2005)
Chevron (2006)
Shell (2007)
BP (2004)
Syria (2006)
Onshore USA (2011)
Bahrain (2006)
Oman (2006)
Water to oil ratio (bbl/bbl)
Source: Veil & Clarke, 2011
Overall, the global WOR is believed to be in the region of 3:1. This is expected to increase in the future.
Besides the use of water and the production of wastewater in the production process, water is also used and contaminated at the
drilling and completion stages of developing a new oil well. Drilling fluids (also known as drilling mud) are typically water-
based, but may also be non-water-based or gaseous. They are used to cool the drill, to bring cuttings to the surface, and to stabilise
and control the wellbore. Different proprietary fluids are used for different purposes. Typically, they are very heavy in suspended
solids supplied and managed by oil field chemical companies. They are continuously recycled using a mud pump during the
drilling process via the shale shaker which removes the cuttings. Completion fluids are used after a well has been drilled, but
before production begins, to control the situation while production systems are put in place. They are typically saline solutions
(chlorides, bromides and formates not sulphates), and do not contain any suspended solids. The volumes of water required for
drilling and completion can be met by tanker delivery (and on-site storage) or by using seawater.
2.1.2 Enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
Typically, between 10% and 30% of the resource in the reservoir can be produced on the basis of natural flow or artificial lift.
Water flood might ensure that a further 510% of the resource can be produced. Beyond that, enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
processes are required. These might involve a number of different techniques which would aim to recover a further 530% of the
resource.
Figure 2.4 Primary, secondary and tertiary oil recovery
9
Primary
recovery
Artificial lift
Natural flow Water flood
Pressure
maintenance
Gas injection
Chemical
Solvent
Custom
water
Filtered
seawater
Sulphate
removal
Low-salinity
Tertiary
recovery
Filtered
seawater
Sulphate
removal
Water injection
Produced water
reinjection
Produced water
reinjection
Thermal
Secondary
recovery
Source: Brock, 2010
The market share of the various processes is shown in the following figure:
Figure 2.5 Global oil production by EOR method
Including
SAGD in
Alberta oil sands
Excluding
SAGD in
Alberta oil sands
Steam
Canadian Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage
Hydrocarbon
Nitrogen
Polymer/chemical
CO
2
42%
13%
24%
12%
21%
9%
33%
19%
10%
9%
7%
Source: Oil and gas journal, 2011; Shell; GWI
Four of these processes require specific water conditioning:
Steam flood: Heavy oil is often too viscous to displace. It can be made to flow more freely with the application of
steam.
Polymer flood: By thickening the water used for flood, it is possible to improve the consistency of the way in which
the oil is swept from the reservoir.
Alkali-surfactant-polymer (ASP) flood: by conditioning the reservoir first with alkali, and then with surfactants and
polymers, it may be possible to improve recovery rates beyond what could be achieved by polymers on their own.
Low salinity water: Water which is low in divalent ions and has a specific concentration of monovalent ions has been
shown to improve the efficiency of water flood, even without the addition of polymers or surfactants.
The science of EOR is still in its infancy. It is difficult to predict which approach to enhanced recovery might be most effective
for a particular well field or understand why one approach works in one place but less well in another. Different companies
have different preferences. However, there is growing evidence that the composition of the water used does make a significant
difference to recovery rates.
Essentially, the challenge of EOR is to drive the oil off the clays and the sandstone in the reservoir. This can be done by reducing
the oil wettability of the clays, and increasing the water wettability. When water with a specific concentration of monovalent ions
is injected into the reservoirs, an ion exchange between the water and the divalent clays occurs. This alters the polarity of the
clays, making them more attractive to the water molecules, and relatively less attractive to the oil molecules. It has been shown
that low salinity water not only improves the effectiveness of water flood, but also the effectiveness of polymer flood, reducing the
volume of chemicals used to drive out the oil.
Figure 2.6 low salinity water in polymer flood
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000
Designer water
Seawater
Significant reduction in polymer quantity
required to achieve the desired viscosity
Polymer quantity (ppm)
V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

a
t

7
.
3
/
s
e
c

(
c
P
)
Source: Raney, 2011
Historically, water services in the oil field have been dominated by the chemical companies, who typically have staff continuously
on-site to take responsibility for water conditioning issues. In future physical water treatment will play a more significant role in
EOR, alongside chemical dosage.
2.1.3 Steam injection for heavy oil and oil sands
There are two approaches to steam EOR:
Cyclic steam stimulation (CSS): Otherwise known as the huff and puff method, this involves injecting steam into
the reservoir so that the oil is warm enough to flow. It is then allowed to soak for a while before the oil is drawn to the
surface either under its own pressure or by artificial lift.
Steam flood: Otherwise known as steam drive, this involves two wells: one for injecting the steam into and the
other for producing the oil out of. A variant of steam flood is steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD), which involves
drilling two horizontal wells, the upper one for injecting the steam into and the lower one for pumping the oil out of.
Typically, the steam for a CSS system or steam flood will come from a once through steam generator (OTSG). This produces 80%
steam and is relatively tolerant of dissolved solids, although they do clog if the feedwater is high in silicates. In the Canadian oil
sands, SAGD systems have become the preferred technology, and there is a trend towards greater use of drum boilers as a source
of steam. These require higher quality feedwater than an OTSG, but they produce 100% steam, which is more efficient in terms
of resource recovery.
2.1.4 In-situ mining of oil sands
Historically, the main way in which the Canadian oil sands have been exploited has been through surface mining. When bitumen
is dug out of a mine, it is mixed with water and shipped as a slurry via pipeline to the process plant and upgrader. In the process
plant, the bitumen is separated from the clays and sands by agitating in warm water (to which caustic has been added to hold clay
particles in colloidal suspension).
It takes approximately 11 bbl of water to process each barrel of bitumen in this way.
A further 1 bbl of water is then required to upgrade 1 bbl of bitumen to SCO.
Of this 12 bbl of water per 1 bbl of bitumen:
4 bbl is sourced as make-up water from the Athabasca River. In 2008, mine operators withdrew 151 million m/yr
(9.5 billion bbl/yr) of fresh water from the river.
8 bbl is recycled from process water.
The separated water, which contains large quantities of clay and sand (and small amounts of bitumen), is then piped to large
tailings ponds where the mixture is allowed to settle out under gravity.
Figure 2.7 Inorganic water chemistry of tailings water at Syncrudes Mildred Lake Settling Basin
Component Unit Value Potential problems
TDS mg/l 2,221 Builds up to the point where bitumen and sand no longer separate
pH pH units 8.2 Keeps fne tailings in suspension
Sodium mg/l 659
Calcium mg/l 17 Can clog equipment
Magnesium mg/l 8
Chloride mg/l 540
Bicarbonate mg/l 775 Can clog equipment
Sulphate mg/l 218 Can clog equipment
Source: Allen, 2008
Figure 2.8 Organic chemistry of tailings water at Syncrudes Mildred Lake Settling Basin
Component Unit Value Potential problems
Dissolved Organic Carbon mg/l 58 Aquatic toxicity
Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/l 25 Low oxygen levels
Chemical Oxygen Demand mg/l 350 Low oxygen levels
Oil & Grease mg/l 25 Toxic to aquatic and bird life
Cyanide mg/l 0.5 Aquatic toxicity
Napthenic acids mg/l 49 Aquatic toxicity
Benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylene
mg/l <0.01 Aquatic toxicity
Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons
mg/l <0.01 Aquatic toxicity
Source: Allen, 2008
2.1.5 Offshore conventional oil
The offshore oil industry faces similar challenges to the onshore oil industry, with the following added complications:
Seawater has to be used for injection.
In many parts of the world there are no-throw zones which restrict waste disposal options.
There are significant restrictions on the footprint and weight of any equipment used.
Seawater is problematic as a raw water source for flood because it contains sulphates. These are problematic for two reasons:
1. They can create scale when in contact with the formation water. Scaling reduces the flow of oil through the tubes
which bring oil to the surface and impedes the flow through the formation. The biggest problem is where the
reservoir contains barium or strontium ions. These react with the sulphates in the seawater to create barium sulphate
or strontium sulphate, which are harder than calcium sulphate and less easy to remove using anti-scalant chemicals.
2. Sulphates can sour oil wells when they are digested by bacteria to create hydrogen sulphide. This is corrosive and
poisonous and it reduces the value of the oil, as it requires additional washing before it can be refined.
The traditional solution to addressing the scaling and souring issues related to seawater flood is to squeeze the well every so
often using antiscalants, and if that is insufficient a physical workover involving the scouring of the tubing may be required.
However, this is less practical in deep water, where there is a trend towards sulphate removal as a means of controlling scaling
and souring.
2.1.6 Conventional gas
For the most part, the water issues related to the conventional gas industry are similar to the water issues related to the
conventional oil industry, but on a much smaller scale. Produced water is brought to the surface in smaller volumes than what is
generally expected in oil production, and with the exception of hydraulic fracturing required for shale gas production, there is no
significant process water requirement beyond the utility water typically required by any production site.
The greatest water challenge in the conventional gas sector is the toxicity of the produced water. It can contain contaminants such
as phenols and benzene which cannot be disposed of into the sea without removal.
The following figure compares the composition of produced water from oil, conventional gas and coal seam gas.
Figure 2.9 Typical produced water constituents from oil, gas and coalbed methane (CBM) production
Oil production Gas production CBM production
Groundwater/seawater Formation water Sodium
Oil and grease Condensed water Barium
Corrosion inhibitors* Benzene Calcium
Oxygen scavengers* Toluene Magnesium
Emulsion breakers* Ethylbenzene Iron
Clarifers* Xylene Chloride
Coagulants* Dehydration chemicals* Sulphate
Flocculants* Hydrogen sulphide-removal chemicals* Total Dissolved Solids
Solvents* Hydrate inhibitors* Total Potassium Hydrocarbons
Benzene Mineral Acids* Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)
Toluene Dense brines* Alkalinity, as CaCO3
Ethylbenzene Additives* Hardness, as CaCO3
Xylene
Naphthalenes
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Barium
Aluminum
Copper
Nickel
Titanium
Arsenic
Boron
Cadmium
*Chemicals found in produced water added for drilling and producing activities.
Source: Veil et al., 2004
2.1.7 Shale gas
Shale gas production is the fastest growing area of water usage in the oil and gas industry. The most significant requirement is in
the fracturing process where water it pumped into the gas-bearing rock to fracture it and release the gas. This fracturing fluid is
made up of 98.099.5% water and sand. The remaining 0.52.0% is comprised of various chemicals that improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of the fracturing job. In general, the water source that makes up the fracturing fluid is:
Freshwater from municipal supply, surface water bodies or groundwater bodies.
Reused water primarily reclaimed from flowback water.
The following figures show the percentages of the main chemicals found in fracturing fluid.
Figure 2.10 Fracturing fluid components
0.123%
Frac fluid
chemicals
0.088%
0.085%
0.06%
0.056%
0.043%
0.011%
0.01%
0.007%
0.004%
0.002%
0.001%
Acid
Friction reducer
Surfactant
KCI
Gelling agent
Scale inhibitor
pH adjusting agent
Breaker
Crosslinker
Iron control
Corrosion inhibitor
Frac fluid
composition
Other (chemicals)
0.49%
Water & sand 99.51%
Biocide
0.123%
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 2009
The fracturing fluid specification is critical to the efficiency of the fracturing job and, to the prevention of damage to the well.
Once the flowback water begins to return to the surface, operators are able to collect this water and, after adequate treatment
reuse it for future fracturing fluid. At this stage the flowback water is full of chemicals and can have very high salinity. The
majority of the flowback water is recovered within a few weeks and in the early stages the water has a lower concentration of
total dissolved solids (TDS) (5,000 mg/l), which quickly increases to as high as 200,000 mg/l. To ensure the efficiency of the
fracturing job, this flowback water can be blended with freshwater or treated to reduce or remove contaminants.
The following figure shows the typical contaminants and the problems caused when reused as source water for new fracturing
fluid.
Figure 2.11 Flowback reuse as fracturing fluid contaminants
Contaminant Problem
Bacteria Cause souring of wells
Cations (Ba, Ca, Mg, Sr, Mn, Al) In carbonate forms cause scaling in pipes, wells, drilling
equipment and in formation fractures
Produce negative impacts on friction reduction
Metals e.g. Iron (Fe) Cause scaling in its sulfde and carbonate form
Produce negative impacts on friction reduction
Total suspended solids (TSS)
(high concentration)
Cause clogging in pipes
Total dissolved solids (TDS) (high
concentrations)
Removal is very expensive
Chlorides (high concentrations) Cause corrosion and treatment is expensive
Source: Grindrod and Spitko, 2010
An operator might expect between 15% and 70% of the frac water to flow back within the first three months of operation. There
is a limit around 10% to the amount of the flowback water which can be cut into a new frac without significant investment
in removing the dissolved salts. This means that unless an operator is exponentially increasing the number of frac jobs it
is undertaking, it must find a way of disposing of the surplus frac water. In the Texas shales, which are currently the most
productive shale plays in the world, there are plenty of options for reinjecting the flow-back water. In the Marcellus shale play, the
options are more limited. As the play becomes more developed it will become necessary to develop more alternatives for reuse and
disposal.
Figure 2.12 Average volumes of frac and drilling water in Barnett, Fayetteville, Haynesville & Marcellus shale
0
3,000
6,000
9,000
12,000
15,000
Marcellus Haynesville Fayetteville Barnett
m
/
w
e
l
l
Frac water
Drilling water
Shale play Volume of drilling water
(m/well)
Volume of frac water
(m/well)
Total volume of water
(m/well)
Barnett 1,514 8,706 10,220
Fayetteville 227* 10,978 11,583
Haynesville 3,785 10,220 14,006
Marcellus 303* 14,385 14,687
*Drilling performed with an air mist and/or water-based or oil-based muds
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 2009
2.1.8 Coalbed methane
Coalbed methane (CBM), or coal seam gas (CSG), as it is known in Australia, is methane gas which has been trapped in coal
formations beneath the ground. Typically, these formations also carry water. The gas is produced by drilling into the formation
and sometimes implementing a hydraulic fracture: initially more water than gas will come to the surface, although the situation
reverses as the well matures. The profile of CBM gas production is illustrated in the following figure:
Figure 2.13 Gas and produced water from CBM
Water
Gas
Stage 1:
Dewatering
Stage 2:
Mid-life
Stage 3:
Decline production
Time
V
o
l
u
m
e
Conventional gas
Source: Osmoflo
This water has three characteristics which make it different from other produced water in the oil and gas sector.
1. The produced water from CBM is relatively low in TDS, compared to produced water from other sources. In some
cases it can be reused in agriculture without significant treatment. In most cases it is low enough for the energy cost
of desalinating it not to be prohibitively high.
2. Oil and grease are only a minor concern less pretreatment is required prior to desalination.
3. The water-to-gas ratio for coalbed methane is relatively high. Massive volumes of water are generated from most fields
compared to conventional gas, tight gas or shale gas.
Oil and gas // Market drivers
Although CBM-produced water is relatively more benign than other types of produced water, the location of some CBM plays are
such that disposal is a real challenge (for example, because there are no reinjection wells nearby and there are regulatory reasons
why evaporation ponds cannot be used). In these circumstances desalination for beneficial reuse or surface disposal is perhaps
the only viable option.
CBM wells are typically most productive at the beginning of their life, with the gas pressure declining, bringing less water to the
surface as production progresses.
2.1.9 Summary of water and wastewater challenges in the oil and gas industry
The sectors of the market where desalination and water reuse technology is most relevant in the oil and gas industry are as
follows:
Beneficial reuse of conventional oil and gas produced water.
Low salinity water and sulphate removal packages for flood/EOR.
Water recycling for steam flood
Shale gas produced water management
CBM produced water management
The next section will look at the drivers which apply to each of these sectors.
2.2 Market drivers
2.2.1 Beneficial reuse of conventional oil and gas produced water
The vast majority of oil field produced water is reinjected into the ground. Although there are no global statistics for produced
water management, the following figure illustrates how produced water from the U.S. oil and gas industry (including CBM) is
reused.
Figure 2.14 U.S. oil and gas produced water volumes by management practice
Reinjection for flood / EOR
10.72 billion bbl/yr
20.99 billion bbl/yr
U.S. produced
water volume
(2007)
Reinjection for disposal
7.14 billion bbl/yr
Surface discharge
0.68 billion bbl/yr
Other / Not known
2.35 billion bbl/yr
Management practice
Volume of produced water
(billion bbl/yr)
Reinjection for food / EOR 10.72
Reinjection for disposal 7.14
Surface discharge 0.68
Other/not known
(*)
2.35
Total 20.99
(*)
The other/not known category includes surface discharge (the majority of which is offshore oil produced water) evaporation ponds,
off-site commercial disposal, benefcial reuse, and other management methods.
Source: Clarke & Veil 2009
In 2007, 1.3 billion bbl/yr of produced water was reported to have been beneficially reused. It is likely that the vast majority (say
1.1 billion bbl/yr) of this is related to CBM production, which is notably less saline than produced water from conventional oil and
gas. This suggests that around 200 million bbl/yr (31 million m/yr; 85,000 m/d) is reused beneficially. The majority of this
water (perhaps 75%) is likely to be used for livestock watering.
On the basis of the U.S. experience, we would estimate the produced water management practices globally to be as follows:
Figure 2.15 Global produced water volumes by management practice
Reinjection for flood / EOR
36.3 billion bbl/yr
69.8 billion bbl/yr
Global produced
water volume
(2007)
Reinjection for disposal
13.3 billion bbl/yr
Surface discharge
14.7 billion bbl/yr
Other non-beneficial
3.5 billion bbl/yr
Other beneficial
2.1 billion bbl/yr
Management practice
Estimated volume of
produced water (billion bbl/yr)
Reinjection for food / EOR 36.3
Reinjection for disposal 13.3
Surface discharge 14.7
Other non-benefcial 3.5
Other benefcial 2.1
Total 69.8
Source: Clarke & Veil 2009 (total); GWI estimates (breakdown)
There are a number of reasons why beneficial reuse of oil field produced water is not more widespread:
Often, produced water has a high salt content, which makes it unsuitable for most beneficial uses.
The cost of treating produced water to the level at which it might be reused is too high to justify the investment.
Producers in certain geographies need every bit of water they can lay their hands on to maintain pressure in the
reservoir or to reinject for flood.
There are concerns about liability issues relating to reusing oil field wastewater for indirect human consumption.
There is a mismatch between where produced water is available and where additional water resources are needed.
There is no method of monetising the value of produced water: even in the U.S., which has a developed system of
water rights, it is not easy for energy companies to sell the water they produce.
As a result, beneficial reuse of oil field produced water tends to be restricted to places where the produced water has low salinity
and few other treatment challenges, and where there is a ready use for it in agriculture. The following figure illustrates the
opportunities for using produced water in farming:
Figure 2.16 Use of produced water in agriculture
TDS Effect on irrigation
<400 mg/l No restrictions on crop growth
4001,900 mg/l Slight restrictions on crop growth
>1,900 mg/l Severe restrictions on crop growth
TDS Effect on livestock
<1,000 mg/l Excellent for all stock
1,0002,999 mg/l Very satisfactory, but some animals may need acclimatising
3,0004,999 mg/l Satisfactory, but some animals may refuse it
5,0009,999 mg/l Use becomes more problematic, especially for pregnant/lactating animals
>10,000 mg/l Unsatisfactory for all classes of animal
Source: Muleshoe Engineering, 2010
Besides the agricultural use of produced water, the other low cost/low value application for produced water is in environmental
enhancement. In Oman, for example, Petroleum Development Oman has been piloting the use of reed beds as an alternative
to reinjection at Nimr. The facility takes produced water with a concentration of 400 ppm oil and a TDS of 6,800, and runs it
through a series of reed beds before discharging it into an evaporation pond, by which time the oil content has been reduced
to less than 0.5 ppm and the salinity has risen to 12,000 mg/l. The power consumption of the reed bed is 0.1 kWh/m, which
compares to the 4 kWh/m which had previously been consumed in reinjecting the produced water. In addition to the energy (and
carbon) savings, the reed beds have greened the desert, and in future there is the possibility of harvesting the reeds either for
use as biomass for energy generation or as a material for thatching or other traditional crafts.
There is some suggestion that beneficial reuse of oil field produced water may be on the verge of significant expansion. There are
a number of reasons why this might be the case:
Water scarcity in some oil producing regions (such as West Texas) has become so severe that all possible additional
water resources need to be considered. Instead of produced water being treated as hazardous waste, more people in
the industry are taking interest in its potential as a valuable commodity: looking for ways of off-setting the cost of
disposal with additional income from beneficial reuse.
The oil industry is changing its attitude towards water as it looks to burnish its environmental credentials. Projects
such as the Nimr Reed Beds look more attractive than reinjection in that sense.
Environmental regulations are becoming tougher. For example, where produced water is currently discharged to the
surface with little treatment, tougher regulation might make it economic to treat the produced water so that it could
be used more effectively in agriculture.
The volumes of produced water brought to the surface are expected to rise from 246 million bbl/d in 2012 to 300
million bbl/d in 2020.
The cost of alternatives to beneficial reuse may be rising: at the margins, for example, where produced water has
to be trucked long distances for reinjection or where the geology of reinjection wells requires very high pressures
for effective disposal, increasing the efficiency of desalination technologies will have an impact on the cost benefit
analysis with respect to beneficial reuse.
Figure 2.17 Cost of produced water management alternatives
Disposal method Average fee States involved Treatment
Burial (landfll) $39.40 - $85.10 / ton OH, NM, WV, ND, AZ, MS, KY, LA Regional
Burial (pit) $1.12 - $1.70 / bbl OK, UT, WY Regional
Cavern $3.40 - $6.20 /bbl TX No
Discharge (NPDES) $2.50 - $2.80 / bbl PA, WY Yes
Discharge (POTW) $0.75 - $2.50 / bbl PA Yes
Evaporation $1.30 - $1.50 / bbl NM, UT, CO, WY Yes
Injection $0.90 - $1.30 / bbl OK, AL, MS, AR, NM, TX, LA, MI, ND, WV, WY Yes
Injection (solids) $5.40 - $10.40 / bbl LA, TX Yes
Land Application $10.60 - $14.90 / bbl AR, NM, UT Mostly
Thermal Treatment $10.50 - $105 / bbl TX` Yes
Treatment $5.00 - $9.50 / bbl TX, AL Yes
Source: Veil et al., 2006
The U.S., followed by the Gulf region, is likely to be the best market for beneficial reuse of produced water.
Figure 2.18 Oil reserves and water risk
Source: Global Water Risk Index, GWI 2011
2.2.2 Low salinity water and sulphate removal for flood and enhanced oil recovery
This section covers three related technologies:
1. The removal of sulphates from seawater for flood.
2. The use of low salinity water to enhance recovery rates from water flood.
3. The use of low salinity water in polymer and ASP floods.
The technologies are related because all of them involve altering the concentration of dissolved solids in water used to inject into
the ground, and to some extent the use of low salinity water for EOR may replace the sulphate removal technologies currently
used.
2.2.2.1 Sulphate removal drivers
Sulphate removal for seawater flood is used primarily on the Atlantic rim, i.e. the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of
Brazil, and off the coast of Angola, where barium and strontium are present in the formation. These react with the sulphates in
the seawater, causing a hard scale which cannot be removed easily in deep water facilities.
Figure 2.19 Sulphate removal offshore adoption
Source: Dow Water Solutions; Global Water Risk Index, GWI 2011
Dow, which together with Marathon Oil held the patent to the SR90 sulphate removal membrane, believes that the growth of the
market has mapped the growth of deep off-shore production.
Figure 2.20 Sulphate removal and the growth of the deep water oil production sector
0
5
10
15
20
25
2010 2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940
Total offshore
Shallow water
Sulphate removal
capacity
Deep water
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n

b
b
l
/
d
)
Source: Dow Water Solutions
Assuming that the estimated ultimate reserves (EUR) of deepwater oil is 80 billion bbl, total deepwater off-shore production is
forecast by IPC Petroleum Consultants and Statoil to rise from 5.5 million bbl/d to a peak of 6.3 million bbl/d in 2015. If the EUR
rises to 130 or 180 billion barrels, then production is expected to rise more steeply.
Figure 2.21 Deepwater offshore crude production, 20102030
0
5
10
15
2030 2025 2015 2010
Estimated ultimate
reserves of
180 billion bbl
Estimated ultimate
reserves of
130 billion bbl
Estimated ultimate
reserves of
80 billion bbl
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n

b
b
l
/
d
)
Projected production
(million bbl/d)
Estimated ultimate
reserves of 80 billion bbl
Estimated ultimate
Estimated ultimate
2010 5.5 5.5 5.5
2015 6.3 10.2 13.2
2025 5.1 8.9 12.7
2030 4.3 7.7 11.1
Source: OGJ, Volume 108, Issue 41 (2010)
The following figure shows current production and total proven reserves of the four key markets for sulphate reduction
technology:
Figure 2.22 Deepwater production in the Atlantic Rim, 20002020
Region
Offshore production
(million bbl/d)
Proven offshore
reserves (million bbl) Predictions Source
Norway 2.01 (2011) 5,670 (2011) Production will remain constant for the next
10 years.
NPD/EIA
Brazil 1.92 (2011) 14,100 (2011) Total production should reach 3 million bbl/d
in 2013
ANP/EIA
Angola 1.84 (2011) 9,500 (2011) Total production should reach 2.53 million bbl/d
by 2016
EIA
Gulf of Mexico 1.32 (2011) 4,010 (2009) EIA
United Kingdom
(North Sea)
1.05 (2011) 2,800 (2011) Production will continue to decline.
New discoveries are unlikely
DECC
Source: EIA; ANP; DECC; NPD
Despite the optimism about continued deepwater development off the coast of Angola and Brazil, it has to be acknowledged that
deepwater exploration is heavily dependent on the oil price remaining high. The cost of production in Angola for example is
estimated by the IEA to be in the region of $30$40/bbl. The oil majors would not consider a field to be commercially attractive
with that cost of production if the oil price were to fall below $70/bbl.
Furthermore it should be noted that the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico led to a six month moratorium on
further drilling in that field and increased permitting requirements. This continues to have a significant impact on activity in the
area.
2.2.2.2 Low salinity water flood
Low salinity water flood is an important emerging technology in the oil field. Although the chemistry of altering wettability using
low salinity water was first considered in the late 1950s, it is only since 2008 that momentum has started to build behind the
technology. Low salinity water flood is now just beginning to be rolled out on a commercial scale. Recent initiatives include:
BP: Announced in October 2011 that it was investing 10 million in its first off-shore deployment of low salinity water
systems at the Clair Ridge in the North Sea. It has also demonstrated the technology in the Endicott Field, Alaska and
a larger scale for the North Slope field is being planned.
Saudi Aramco: In May 2012 Aramco announced that it was planning a field scale demonstration of its Smart Water
technology. (Aramco uses seawater flood on shore to drive production at its giant Gwahar field.).
Shell: Reported in 2010 to be using low salinity water to improve recovery in Oman and at its Ursa field in the Gulf of
Mexico, claiming improved recovery rates in excess of 10%.
ExxonMobil: Upstream Research group has demonstrated the potential for Advanced Ion Management to increase
oil recovery in water flood in Middle East carbonate.
Kuwait Oil Company: Has been investigating low salinity water flood for its Sabriyah (Upper Burgan) reservoir in
North Kuwait.
Although there are studies which show that low salinity water flood has delivered increases in recovery of between 2% and 30% of
original oil in place, the technology has not been consistently successful at increasing recovery rates. For example, Geoffrey Thyne
and Pubundu Gamage of the Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute in Wyoming reported in 2011 that the use of low salinity water
had not led to any increased recovery in the Powder River Basin. This suggests that the mechanism by which low salinity water
flood increases recovery is not fully understood. It is likely that some reservoirs will prove more susceptible to the technology than
others, and this should somewhat limit the technologys potential.
Assuming that low salinity water flood does have an impact on recovery rates in a significant number of oil fields, then the main
driver of the growth of the technology is the universal need to squeeze more oil out of existing resources. The mathematics of this
are simple. The rate at which new reserves are discovered has fallen from a peak of 55 billion bbl/yr to between 1015 billion bbl/
yr in recent years. Set against annual consumption of around 30 billion bbl/yr, it is clear that more oil needs to be squeezed out
of existing resources if the industry is to avoid peak oil. If the current recovery rate from oil fields is around 30% using primary
and secondary approaches, then methods, including low salinity water injection, which promise to increase that recovery rate are
likely to be in strong demand. The International Energy Agency forecast the expansion of EOR as follows in 2008:
Figure 2.23 Forecast of oil production by EOR from different countries in 2015 and 2030
Oman
Algeria
Qatar
United Arab Emirates
Russia
Canada
Kuwait
China
Saudi Arabia
United States
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
2015
2030
Capacity (million bbl/d)
Source: IEA
Another driver of the technology may be the gradual substitution of sulphate removal units (SRUs) with low salinity systems in
the Atlantic rim. This is because low salinity systems perform a dual function of addressing the problems of souring and scaling
the reservoir at the same time as increasing recovery rates. Although a low salinity system may be marginally more bulky than a
standard SRU, it is likely to more than justify the cost of the real estate it occupies on an off-shore platform.
2.2.2.3 Low salinity water for chemical EOR
Chemical EOR, using polymers alone or as part of an alkali surfactant polymer flood, currently represent around 10% of the EOR
market.
Figure 2.24 EOR market development
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
2012 2010 2005 2000 1995 1990
CO
2
Polymer/chemical
Nitrogen
Hydrocarbon
Steam
Estimated cumulative
capacity (bbl/d)
Although it is not as popular as miscible CO
2
flood, it occupies a recognised niche in the portfolio of technologies for EOR.
Figure 2.25 EOR process selection according to reservoir depth and oil viscosity
Steam injection
Miscible CO
2
or HC gas injection
Miscible nitrogen
injection
Surfactants
Polymer
injection
Immiscible
gas injection
10 100 1,000 10,000 1
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
100,000
Reduce viscosity
contrast
Reduce surface
tension
Oil viscosity (cp)
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

d
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
)
Source: Shell
Figure 2.26 Cost profiles of different approaches to EOR
Thermal
Cost profile
Miscible gas
Cost profile
Well capex Prod capex Injectant opex Fac capex
Chemical
Cost profile
Source: Shell
The following figure shows where chemical floods have been used around the world since 1985. The oldest site is in China at
Daqing, where polymer flood was first used more than 30 years ago, and where ASP flooding has been pioneered.
Figure 2.27 Chemical floods since 1985
Work on the first major off-shore ASP flood project in Malaysia is expected to begin during 2012. The project will incorporate a
floating low salinity water treatment and chemical dosing facility. The vessel (which is expected to be supplied by Water Standard)
is expected to cost in the region of $200 million: it will be deployed elsewhere once it has finished work at the initial site.
Although chemical flooding is a relatively established technology, its use with low salinity water is still an early stage technology.
It has been proven in a test well, but it has yet to be applied on a large scale commercial basis. However the published research
is positive, both in terms of the impact of low salinity water in limiting the cost of a chemical flood, and in terms of the overall
recovery rates achieved. It seems likely that low salinity water will be widely used in polymer and ASP flood in future.
The main restraint on the market for low salinity water in this context will be the oil price: ASP and polymer flood are a relatively
expensive EOR technology, with each incremental barrel of oil produced costing an additional $10$15. The cost of a low salinity
system is on top of this price, and it brings with it a larger element of capital cost than a traditional chemical flood.
2.2.3 Water recycling for steam flood
Steam flood is used as a method of EOR for heavy oils and oil sands. The following figure shows where in the world the
technology is currently in use:
Figure 2.28 Top 10 Countries for global steam flood operations
Country Enhanced production (bbl/d)
USA 303,800
Canada 296,500
Venezuela 210,000
Indonesia 190,000
China 151,700
Kuwait 96,000
Oman 70,500
Brazil 21,600
Colombia 8,500
Trinidad 3,400
Rest of world 6,200
Total 1,358,200
These values are based on EOR methods and do not account for SAGD methods.
Overall there has been a decline in the use of steam as a method of EOR for heavy oil.
Figure 2.29 Oil production from steam EOR, 19802012
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
2010 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980
SAGD in Canadian
oil sands
Worldwide steam EOR
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

(
b
b
l
/
d
)
The reason for the relative decline in the use of steam EOR is partly its cost, and partly because of the development of other
approaches to EOR. However, in the Canadian oil sands, the outlook for steam EOR in general and SAGD in particular is very
strong. Not only is production from the oil sands expected to grow strongly, but a larger proportion of that production is expected
to come from in-situ operations which use steam EOR, rather than from mining (which does not), and within in-situ operations,
SAGD is gaining market share from CSS.
Figure 2.30 Canadian crude oil production forecast 20072020
0
300
600
900
1,200
1,500
2020 2015 2010 2007
Actual Projected
Offshore

m
i
l
l
i
o
n

b
b
l
/
y
r
Onshore
Oil sands
Source: Canadian National Energy Board
The amount of water used in the oil sands for mining and in-situ process water is expected to increase as bitumen production
rises. If nothing is done to change current production methods, mining operators would be handling approximately 13.5 million
bbl/d of water, in-situ operators a further 3.24 million bbl/d, and upgraders 1.23 million bbl/d, resulting in a total of 17.97 million
bbl/d by 2021.
Figure 2.31 Potential growth in oil sand operators water handling
Bitumen production (bbl/d) 2006 2011 2016 2021 Assumptions
Mining (raw bitumen) 0.77 million 1.00 million 1.22 million 1.23 million CAPP forecast
In-situ (raw bitumen) 0.49 million 0.81 million 1.08 million 1.08 million CAPP forecast
Total bitumen 1.26 million 1.81 million 2.30 million 2.30 million
Water handling (bbl/d) 2006 2011 2016 2021
Mining water handling 8.5 million 11.00 million 13.40 million 13.50 million 11 bbl of water required to
produce 1 bbl of bitumen
In-situ water handling 1.50 million 2.40 million 3.20 million 3.24 million 3 bbl of water required to
produce 1 bbl of bitumen
Upgrader 0.77 million 1.00 million 1.22 million 1.23 million 1 bbl of water required to
produce 1 bbl of SCO
Total water 10.77 million 14.40 million 17.86 million 17.97 million
Source: CAPP 2010
Figure 2.32 SAGD capacity in the Canadian oil sands
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
U
n
d
a
t
e
d
2
0
1
7
+
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
3
*
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
9
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
9
9
9
1
9
9
8
1
9
9
7
Evaporation
Lime softening
Future projects
0
.
9

m
1
.
6

m
N
e
w

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

o
n
l
i
n
e

(
b
b
l
/
d
)
Online year
* Shows confrmed evaporation projects only
Source: Alberta Oil Sands Quarterly; GWI
Besides growth production, the other major driver of water recycling for steam flood is water scarcity. The growth of bitumen
production in Alberta has created a demand for water which can no longer be satisfied from the locally available natural resources
(chiefly the Athabasca River). As a result, there is regulatory pressure on producers to increase water recycling.
Outside of the Canadian oil sands the main growth markets for steam EOR are Oman and Kuwait (including the partitioned
neutral zone), where heavy oil resources coincide with extreme water scarcity. In California, there is a continuing need for steam
EOR to support heavy oil production, but the combination of local scarcity and environmental regulation makes recycling the
produced water an attractive option.
Venezuela has historically been a strong market for steam EOR, as the Orinoco basin is a heavy oil resource, but there has been
little investment in new steam production facilities in recent years. Other potential Latin American heavy oil markets include
Trinidad, Colombia, and Brazil. Egypt and Indonesia are also potential opportunities.
Heavy oil and bitumen are plentiful, but high cost resources. The following figure shows how they might fit into the global liquid
fuels cost portfolio.
Figure 2.33 Long term oil supply cost curve
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000
Produced
MENA
Other conventional oil
CO
2
- EOR
Deepwater & ultra deepwater
EOR
Arctic
Heavy oil and bitumen
Oil shales
Gas to liquids
Coal to liquids
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t

(
$

-

2
0
0
8
)
Resources (billion barrels)
Source: IEA, 2008
2.2.4 Shale gas produced water management
There are two drivers of the market for desalination and water reuse technology in shale gas production. The first is the volume
of shale gas production, and the second is the options for disposing of the flowback water. On the first point, it is clear that shale
gas production is going to expand very rapidly. On the second point, where disposal wells are readily available, there is little
incentive to consider desalinating or reusing the flowback water. Produced water management becomes a logistics issue: trucking
water from the well head to disposal wells as required. Where disposal wells are not locally available, then desalination and reuse
becomes a much more significant consideration.
The following figure shows where shale resources are to be found:
Figure 2.34 Global shale plays
Source: EIA
Figure 2.35 Technically recoverable shale gas resources by country
Country
Technically recoverable
reserves (billion m)
Country Technically recoverable
Country Technically recoverable
China 36,104 France 5,097 Uruguay 595
United States 24,409 Norway 2,350 U.K. 566
Argentina 21,917 Chile 1,812 Others 538
Mexico 19,284 India 1,784 Tunisia 510
South Africa 13,734 Paraguay 1,756 Netherlands 481
Australia 11,213 Pakistan 1,444 Turkey 425
Canada 10,987 Bolivia 1,359 Morocco 311
Libya 8,212 Ukraine 1,189 Germany 227
Algeria 6,541 Sweden 1,161 Western Sahara 198
Brazil 6,400 Denmark 651 Lithuania 113
Poland 5,295
Source: EIA, 2011
Although there are significant resources in the rest of the world, only the U.S. is producing significant quantities of shale gas at
the moment. The following figure shows the status of shale gas development in other markets
Figure 2.36 Status of international shale plays
Country Current status Large scale production Water challenge
China Up to 20 exploratory wells in operation 2015 Scarcity and disposal
Poland Up to 20 exploratory wells in operation 2014 Disposal not scarcity
Argentina Early development 2015 Disposal not scarcity
Mexico Early development 2018 Scarcity not disposal
South Africa Early development 2020 Scarcity and disposal
France Moratorium on new development Disposal not scarcity
Canada Up to 500 wells in operation 2014 Some issues
Source: GWI
The speed at which shale gas resources are developed is likely to be a function of the regulatory environment, the cost of
developing and producing the resource, and the price of gas. The following figure compares the production and wellhead
development costs for shale gas in the major shale plays, with conventional gas production costs and the price that natural gas
traded at as this report went to press.
Figure 2.37 Gas production costs and spot market prices
0
3
6
9
12
15
Qatar
conv.
Russia
conv.
Russia
CBM
China
CBM
China
shale
Europe
CBM
Europe
Shale
U.S.
CBM
U.S.
shale
U.S. current price $2.20
Europe current import
price $11.60
Japan current import
price $16.75
C
o
s
t

o
f

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

&

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
(
$
/
m
i
l
l
i
o
n

B
t
u
)
Source: IEA
The spot market price history of natural gas at the Henry Hub in the U.S., and the liquified natural gas (LNG) import price in
Japan and Europe are shown in the following figure.
Figure 2.38 Natural gas price trends: Henry Hub spot price and LNG import prices in Europe and Japan
0
5
10
15
20
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
Europe LNG
import price
Japan LNG
import price
Henry Hub
Natural Gas
spot price
$
/

m
i
l
l
i
o
n

B
t
u
Source: World Bank Commodity Markets Review
The chart shows how the gas price in the U.S. has become decoupled from the gas price in Europe and Japan. The main
reason for the differential is that European and Japanese gas prices are largely tethered to the oil price, while U.S. gas prices are
determined by the spot market at the Henry Hub, and therefore are a better reflection of supply and demand. Increased shale
gas production in the U.S. (together with a relatively mild winter) has brought down the price of gas at the Henry Hub, while
the switch away from nuclear power in Germany and Japan has ensured tighter demand within the framework of oil price-
related contracts. This means that the financial incentive to develop further shale gas resources in North America has become
weaker. However, there are two reasons why the U.S. gas price can be expected to recover in the longer term. First, because of the
development of the Sabine Pass as an LNG export facility (which received the regulatory go-ahead in April 2012); and, second,
because energy consumers within the U.S. are likely to switch to gas away from other fuels, such as coal and oil.
After 2015, it is likely that global gas prices will converge once more. 13 LNG projects are expected to become operational by 2017
(eight of which are located in Australia), adding liquidity to the gas market and making it more difficult to retain oil-indexed
pricing.
At the moment, the U.S. is the only significant producer of shale gas in the world, so a slowdown in the rate at which shale
resources are developed in the U.S. is of primary importance for the market for water technology in the shale plays.
The following figure shows U.S. shale gas production by state.
Figure 2.39 Shale gas production by state
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2009 2008 2007
Arkansas (Fayettesville)
Texas (Barnett, Haynesville) b
i
l
l
i
o
n

m
/
y
r
Other
North Dakota (Bakken)
Pennsylvania (Marcellus)
Michigan (Antrim)
Oklahoma (Woodford)
Louisiana (Haynesville)
Source: EIA, June 2012
Also of primary importance to the development of the water technology sector is the extent to which shale gas resources are
developed in those areas of the country where there is only limited access to disposal wells.
Figure 2.40 Proven shale gas reserves by state and class II injection wells
State
Proven shale gas reserves
in 2009 (billion m) Number of class II wells
Texas 798 52,016
Louisiana 264 3,731
Arkansas 257 1,093
Oklahoma 181 10,629
Pennsylvania 107 1,861
Michigan 71 1,460
West Virginia 19 779
North Dakota 10 1,023
Montana 4 1,062
Other 6 27,544
Total 1,717 101,198
Source: EIA; EPA
In states such as Texas, where injection wells are available, frac water management is typically a logistical operation. Trucks carry
freshwater from a source to the frac site, where it is stored in containers before use, and, after injection, the flowback water is
collected and typically trucked to disposal wells. There is some demand for basic pretreatment systems, particularly where the
lack of availability of source water makes it attractive to cut some of the flowback water into a new frac. There is no demand for
desalination systems which would treat the flowback water to potable standards for surface discharge.
In the Marcellus shale, where there is less scope for reinjecting the flowback water, it is more likely that a market for desalination
equipment will emerge, but only if the price of gas rises to the extent that the price of the desalination process can be covered by
the price of oil.
Another key issue which will determine the market for water technology in the shale industry, both in the U.S. and in the rest of
the world, is the extent to which centralised water treatment facilities will be used as the shale production market matures.
In its report Golden Rules for A Golden Age of Gas, the International Energy Authority makes the following recommendations for
water stewardship:
Zero in-field trucking of water within the concession area: This is an area where regulation and licensing
requirements can play an important role. If these facilitate the necessary investment, capital expenditure on building
water supply pipelines could be offset over the ten-year period by the reduction in truck movements.
Central purpose-built water treatment facilities: These facilities, allowing closed-loop recycling of wastewater, could
be linked by pipeline to each pad location. They would reduce the overall water supply required for operations and
minimise the need for off-site disposal, thereby reducing total transportation, water and disposal costs.
The agency estimates the cost of the first recommendation to be net zero, while the second recommendation would deliver a net
saving of between $100,000 and $150,000 per well.
Although the Heckmann Corporation has 50 miles of permanent pipeline and 200 miles of temporary pipeline through the
Haynesville shale in Texas and Louisiana, this is used to transport produced water to disposal wells rather than to a centralised
treatment plant. (The company also has 19 miles of freshwater pipeline.)
Some industry observers suggest that as the industry matures and the oil majors play a larger role in shale gas production,
pipelines and centralised treatment plants (where disposal wells are not available) will become the norm. Others believe that
mobile water treatment facilities will become the norm.
2.2.5 Coalbed methane produced water management
The countries with the largest reserves of coalbed methane are Australia, Canada, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, Ukraine, and
the United States.
Figure 2.41 Map of the worlds CBM resources
Source: Various
Their estimated reserves and current production are as follows:
Figure 2.42 CBM reserves and production by country
Country Proven reserves Production Projections
Australia 930 billion m (2010) economically recoverable
resources of CSG (IEA Golden Rules report)
825 billion m (2009) proven and probable
reserves (Geoscience Australia)
5 billion m/yr in 2010 (IEA Golden
Rules report)
Australian gas production
is projected to reach
218 billion m/yr in 2029
30. CSG is projected to
account for 29% of this
total (63.2 billion m/yr)
Canada 68 billion m remaining reserves of CBM in
Alberta (2010)
5 trillion m of remaining recoverable resources
of CBM in Canada in 2011 (IEA Golden Rules
report)
7.7 billion m/yr (2011) (National
Energy Board)
8 billion m/yr (IEA Golden Rules
report)
Decline to 2.4 billion m/yr
in 2035
China 273.4 billion m proved reserves (National
Development and Reform Commission (NDRC)
36.8 trillion m potential reserves (Chinese
governments offcial estimates)
9 trillion m of remaining recoverable resources
(IEA Golden Rules report), plan to add 1 trillion
m of CBM to proven reserves by 2015
5 billion m/yr (2011)
10 billion m/yr in 2010 (IEA Golden
Rules report)
30 billion m/yr in 2015
(IEA Golden Rules report),
50 billion m by 2020
India 1,354 billion m in awarded contracts (Ministry
of Petroleum and Natural Gas)
83 million m/yr (2011) 1.5 billion m/yr by
2016/2017
Indonesia 12.8 trillion m (potential resources) Still on a trial basis 5.2 billion m/yr in 2015,
10.3 billion m/yr in 2020,
15.5 billion m/yr in 2025
Russia 84 trillion m probable CBM resources (over 13
trillion m in the Kuznetsk Basin)
Just starting with commercial
production, until now it was only
extracted as a by-product from
existing mines (0.5 billion m/yr)
4 billion m/yr in
2021 in the Kuznetsk
Basin, the frst large-
scale commercial CBM
production site in Russia
Ukraine 12 trillion m estimated reserves (2007) No commercial production yet. In
May 2012 Chevron and Royal Dutch
Shell have won tenders for the
exploration of unconventional gas
resources in Olesska and Yuzivska
feld respectively.
34 billion m/yr by 2030
(including coal mine
methane)
United
States
3 trillion m (recoverable resources) 2011 56 billion m/yr in 2010 Decline to 52 billion m/yr
by 2035
Note: Where different sources have quoted different values, both values have been given.
Source: Various
The scope for desalination and water reuse technology in CBM production is determined by regulation, the salinity of the
produced water and the alternatives for disposal.
2.2.5.1 CBM produced water in the U.S.
In the U.S., the presence of reinjection wells, and the regulatory-approved possibility of surface impoundments, means that there
is not currently a strong market for desalination and reuse technologies.
Figure 2.43 Summary of produced water management in the main U.S. CBM basins
Basin States Typical TDS (mg/l) Typical WGR Current water management methods
San Juan New Mexico,
South Colorado
10,000100,000 0.053 99.9% reinjected
Uinta Utah 6,35042,700 0.254 97% reinjected, 3% evaporated
Powder River North Colorado,
Wyoming
2503,000 1.670 Wyoming: 64% surface impoundments, 20%
direct discharge to streams, 13% for surface or
subsurface irrigation, 3% reinjected
Raton Colorado,
New Mexico
90030,000 1.202 Colorado: 70% direct discharge to streams, 2%
surface impoundments, 28% reinjected
New Mexico: nearly 100% reinjected
Piceance Colorado >10,000 Nearly 100% reinjected; remainder in evaporation
ponds.
Source: National Academy of Sciences 2010; U.S. Department of Energy, 2004; Sandia National Laboratories
The best scope for desalination technologies is probably in the Power River basin of North Colorado, and Wyoming, where
produced water volumes are high, reinjection is a challenge, and surface discharge may require some desalination to meet
regulatory discharge standards. Siemens has sold two RO systems to Petro-Canada Resources USA in Wyoming: one which
treated 19,000 m/d in 2006, and the other which treated 11,000 m/d in 2008. The latter uses ion exchange as a pretreatment to
reduce scaling because of the high carbonate content of the produced water.
Harrison Western designed and installed a produced water treatment plant south of Birmingham, Alabama, in 2006, expecting
that the facility would soon be treating and desalting up to 20,000 bpd (3,179 m/d). Unfortunately, only a fraction of the planned
gas wells were drilled, and the produced water volumes from the nearby coal bed methane operations were so low that the plant
was never operated.
2.2.5.2 CSG produced water in Australia
In Australia, the salinity of the produced water in the Surat basin is relatively low between 200 mg/l and 10,000 mg/l, but the
Queensland government banned evaporation dams in 2010. The only exception is properly lined aggregation dams, which are
used to collect water before it is either transported off-site or treated.
Given that there is only a limited availability of disposal wells nearby the main CSG production sites, CSG management in
Australia is more oriented towards beneficial reuse than it is in America. Uses such as coal washing, dust suppression, certain
industrial uses, irrigation and livestock watering may not require treatment, depending on the salinity and quality of the
produced water. There are relatively strict regulations for using produced water in irrigation, and for disposal at the surface or into
potable aquifers. All in all this means that the Australian CSG sector has proved a good market for desalination technologies as a
means of produced water management.
Figure 2.44 CSG water desalination plants in operation/contracted
Location Client Capacity (m/d) Equipment supplier Year online
Roma Santos 1,500 Osmofo 2011
Roma Santos 10,000 Veolia
Fairview Santos 20,000 Veolia
Pony Hills Santos 6,000 Osmofo
Windibri (Surat Basin) QGC 6,000 Osmofo 2011
Kenya QGC 100,000 GE 2011
Kenya (mobile) QGC 12,000 GE 2011
Northern WTP (Wandoan) QGC 100,000 GE 2013
Roma Origin Energy 2,400 Nirosoft 2004
Spring Gully Origin Energy 12,000 Pall Corporation 2007
Moranbah Arrow Energy/AGL Energy 2,000 Aquatec-Maxcon
Darling Downs Arrow Energy 2,500 Aquatec-Maxcon
Condamine QGC 6,000 Veolia
Bibblewindi Eastern Star 1,000 Impulse Hydro 2009
Daandine Arrow Energy 12,000 Pall Corporation 2009
Condamine Power Station (plant 1) QGC 2,000 Clean Teq 2012
Condamine Power Station (plant 2) QGC 2,000 Clean Teq 2012
Talinga APLNG 20,000 Pall Corporation
Talinga expansion APLNG 20,000 Unknown 2013
Condabri Central APLNG 40,000 Unknown 2013
Reedy Creek APLNG 40,000 Unknown 2013
Total 415,000
Where a project has a range of possible capacities, the maximum capacity has been given.
Source: GWI
As shown in the following figure, rapid development of further fields, particularly in central and southern Queensland, is likely
to require significant additional capacity going forward. The Surat Gas Project, which is being developed by Arrow Energy, is
expected to require six CSG water treatment plants with capacities of 30,00060,000 m/d as part of integrated processing
facilities. Meanwhile, Arrows Bowen Gas Project is projected to produce between 15,000 m/d and 50,000 m/d of water which
will require advanced treatment.
Figure 2.45 Upcoming opportunities in Australian CSG water treatment
Location Project name Client Capacity (m/d) Notes
Dalby (plant 1) Surat Gas Project Arrow Energy 60,000 Max. plant capacity
Dalby (plant 2) Surat Gas Project Arrow Energy 60,000 Max. plant capacity
Wandoan Surat Gas Project Arrow Energy 60,000 Max. plant capacity
Chinchilla Surat Gas Project Arrow Energy 60,000 Max. plant capacity
Millmerran/Kogan Surat Gas Project Arrow Energy 60,000 Max. plant capacity
Goondiwindi Surat Gas Project Arrow Energy 60,000 Max. plant capacity
Fairview Gladstone LNG Santos Undecided RO plant
Roma Gladstone LNG Santos Undecided RO plant
Arcadia Valley Gladstone LNG Santos Undecided RO plant
Roma/Fairview Gladstone LNG Santos Undecided Mobile RO plant
Roma/Fairview Gladstone LNG Santos Undecided Mobile RO plant
Bowen Basin Bowen Gas Project Arrow Energy 50,000 Higher end of range
Ironbark Ironbark Origin Energy 6,000
Central-southern
Queensland
Future Gas Supply
Area Project
Santos Undecided 4,100 wells max.
Southern
Queensland
Galilee Gas Project Galilee Energy/
AGL Energy
Undecided
Total 416,000
Source: GWI
Desalination does not solve the problem of produced water disposal, because the brine concentrate remains. This has a smaller
volume than the produced water, so it can be trucked off-site for disposal more economically. However, the cost of this has
engendered interest in salt recovery from the brine.
Oil and gas // Technologies for desalination and water reuse in the oil and gas industry
There is some debate in Australia about the volume of water the CSG industry will remove from the ground, reflecting concern
that pumping produced water will have an impact on aquifer levels. The National Water Commission suggested in 2010 that
the industry will pump around 300 million m/yr (which corresponds to an average of 822,000 m/d). The Queensland Water
Commission came up with an estimate for annual produced water volumes within the state of 125 million m/yr (342,000 m/d).
The discrepancy between the relatively low expected volume of produced water and the much larger capacity of the desalination
plants contracted to date reflects the fact that the peak flow of produced water is often very much higher than the average flow.
2.2.5.3 CBM produced water elsewhere in the world
After the U.S. and Australia, the countries with the most developed CBM markets are Canada and China. In Alberta, regulations
require that all produced water from CBM wells is reinjected; surface disposal is illegal. Fortunately there is sufficient local
capacity for reinjection.
China plans to expand its CBM production rapidly as it diversifies its energy portfolio away from coal. The salinity of the produced
water from the Qinshui basin is said to be as high as 15,000 mg/l: it is currently disposed of in disposal pits. It is likely that as the
industry develops, standards for regulating the disposal of CBM produced water will become tighter.
Russia, Indonesia and India are also developing CBM markets, but they are not expected to become significant markets for
desalination and water reuse technologies in the near future.
2.3 Technologies for desalination and water reuse in the oil and gas industry
2.3.1 Produced water management technologies for conventional oil and gas
Produced water is generally considered to be a hazardous waste by the oil and gas industry, and the focus is on minimising it,
separating out the valuable oil, and disposing of it. The industry currently sees little scope for beneficial reuse beyond the obvious
possibility of reinjecting it into the oil reservoir to maintain pressure on the resource.
2.3.1.1 Minimisation
Minimisation involves the use of approaches and technologies to:
Modify processes
Adapt technologies
Substitute products to reduce the amount of produced water that is generated
Restrict the entry of water into the well bore.
The first approach available involves reducing the volume of water that is introduced into the well by using mechanical blocking
devices or water shutoff chemicals.
Mechanical blocking devices block water from entering wells due to leaks in casing or water that flows between the casing and
the wellbore. The water or oil-swellable elastomer packers are thin rubber sections of swellable rubber vulcanised directly onto the
tubing, which swell when they come into contact with water or oil.
Water shutoff chemicals are injected into the formation to prevent water from entering a well. The chemicals shut off the water-
bearing channels or fractures within the formation by setting up in the cracks and pathways and displacing the water, while
allowing continued oil production.
A second approach involves remote separation, which reduces the amount of produced water that is managed at the surface. These
technologies do not minimise the amount of water that enters the well, but rather manage the water at the well bore site or in a
remote location such as the sea floor.
Downhole oil/water separators (DOWS): The DOWS system is primarily made up of an oil/water separation system typically
a hydrocyclone and at least one pump. The pump is used to inject the water underground and to pump oil to the surface. The
separated water fraction still contains a small amount of oil (less than 500 mg/l). DOWS systems can use gravity separators to
allow the oil droplets that enter the well bore to pass through the production perforations and rise to form an oil layer in the well.
Downhole gas/water separators (DGWS): This technology is installed at the bottom of a gas well, and it separates gas and water in
the well bore itself. The DGWS technologies are classified as:
Bypass tools: Installed at the bottom of a rod pump; water flows by gravity to a disposal formation.
Modified plunger rod pump: Uses a rod pump with a plunger modified to act as a solid assembly. It generates higher
pressure than the bypass tool.
Electric submersible pumps (ESPs): Configured to discharge downward to a lower injection zone with packers used to
isolate the injection and producing zones.
Progressive cavity pumps: Can be configured to discharge downward to an injection zone, or, coupled with a bypass,
allows the water to flow to the injection formation by gravity.
Sea floor separation: Involves placing a large module on the seafloor to separate the fluids sent from different wells. The
separated water is pumped directly into an injection well, while the oil is lifted to a platform or a floating production, storage and
offloading (FPSO) vessel.
Dual completion wells (downhole water sink): During the production of oil, water in the oil well can create a coning effect whereby
a cone forms around the production perforations, limiting the volume of oil that can be produced. This effect can be reversed and
controlled by completing the well with two separate tubing pumps and string, with the first completion made at a depth where
there is strong oil production and the second completion made at a lower interval where there is strong water production. A packer
separates the two, with the oil collected above it being produced to the surface and the water collected below it injected into a lower
formation.
Although there continues to be investment in produced water minimisation technologies, sub-surface separation currently has
only limited applicability.
2.3.1.2 Oil/water separation
Once produced water has been brought to the surface, the first stage of treatment aims to recover as much oil as possible for
refining. Thereafter, it is treated to prepare it for disposal (or beneficial reuse). The following figure shows a general schematic for
produced water treatment:
Figure 2.46 Oil water separation and treatment schematic
Oil out
Gas to flare
1) Free Water Knock Out
or gravity separator:
Relies on relative density
of oil, water and gas to
separate out the three
Slop oil out
Heat
2) Heater Treater: Uses heat to
break up emulsions and further
separate oil and water. Will
reduce oil in water to less than
200 ppm
Gas in
3) Gas Flotation: Fine bubbles
of gas, which the oil adheres to
are pumped through the water,
enabling the oil to be
skimmed, reducing oil in water
to 25-30 ppm
Oil out
4) Nutshell filters: Walnut shell
filters reduce the oil in water to
less than 10 ppm
Water out
Produced water
and oil in
Gas to flare
Source: GWI
There are many variants to this basic approach.
Hydrocyclones: Are effectively centrifuges which separate oil from water. Typically, they are cone shaped vessels into which the
produced water is pumped at a tangent, causing it to spin within the vessel. The heavier water and solids in the influent mixture
are forced to the outside of the vessel, and fall to the bottom, spinning more rapidly as the reducing circumference of the cone
supplies the centripetal force. The lighter oil in the mixture stays in the centre and rises to the top. Hydrocyclones can reduce oil
in water to as low as 20 ppm, but they cannot remove soluble oil and grease from produced water. Typically, they are used after
primary oil water separators. Besides de-oiling hydrocyclones, de-sanding hydrocyclones are also used.
Gas flotation variants: There are two main approaches dissolved gas flotation (DGF), which involves introducing the gas into the
produced water under pressure, and induced gas flotation (IGF), where the gas is introduced mechanically.
Figure 2.47 Differences between IGF and DGF
IGF DGF
Gas introduced mechanically or hydraulically Gas introduced under pressure
Lower retention time Higher retention time
Smaller sized fotation units Larger sized fotation units
Higher foat recycle rate Lower foat recycle rate
More effcient at higher temperature Less effcient at higher temperature, as gas solubility decreases
as temperature increases
Larger sized bubbles generated Smaller sized bubbles generated
Less dense bubble curtain generated Denser bubble curtain generated
Operates at a high skimming rate Operates at a lower skimming rate
Preferred option for produced water due to adaptability to fow
and conditions and small size
Less used due to large size and sensitivity to increasing
temperature, conditions which exist at the wellhead
Source: Veolia Water Solutions, 2010
Other variants include compact flotation units, whose small dimensions make them particularly suitable for offshore use due to
space and footprint constraints.
Coalescers: These encourage the formation of larger droplets from smaller droplets. There are two approaches: electrostatic
coalescers and coalescing media filters. The former relies on electrical fields to encourage oil droplets to form, while in the latter,
larger oil droplets form from smaller ones on the fibres of a cartridge in a resin bed or structured packing. Coalescing media
filters can only be used after pre-filtration because they can be blocked by solids.
De-emulsifying chemicals: These can also be used to separate out oil droplets from oil-water emulsions.
Macro porous media extraction (MPPE): Proprietary polymer beads which remove hydrocarbons from water, but require hourly
regeneration. MPPE is highly efficient it can reduce the concentration of oil in water from concentrations ~1000ppm to below
concentrations of 1ppb (parts per billion).
2.3.1.3 Produced water polishing
After nutshell filtration it may be necessary to go through one or more polishing stages to ensure that the produced water can be
suitably disposed of or reused.
The principal things which need to be removed from produced water before it can be reinjected are:
Suspended solids: These may plug the pores of the formation.
Residual oil: Also a problem for clogging the formation.
Dissolved oxygen: Together with other gases, such as carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide, this might encourage
corrosion and biological activity.
Bacteria: The cause of most biological activity, which can be problematic, due to corrosive waste products and
clogging.
Dissolved solids: May react with the formation in the injection well if the chemistry of the receiving formation is
different from the producing formation.
The off-shore industry has additional concerns regarding treatment of produced water for disposal into the sea. The most
important regulations concern the level of dispersed oil in water discharged. This is governed by domestic law as well as a
number of international conventions.
Figure 2.48 Off-shore produced water regulation
Convention Region Dispersed oil in water limit Notes
OSPAR North East Atlantic 30 mg/l Chemicals must be pre-approved
HELCOM Baltic Sea 15 mg/l
(but can be up to 40 mg/l/d)
Chemicals must be pre-approved
Kuwait Convention Red Sea and Persian Gulf Region 40 mg/l
Barcelona Convention Mediterranean region 40 mg/l
UNEP/Abijan Convention West Africa 40 mg/l
Not fully adopted in the region
US EPA US coastal waters 29 mg/l
Discharge prohibitions also exist
on a regional basis
Source: Convention/Regulatory documents
There are also regulations on the toxicity of discharges, meaning that dissolved organics such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylene (BTEX) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) must be minimised when water is discharged into the sea. The
technologies used to treat water for reinjection or discharge are as follows:
Adsorption (activated carbon, zeolite, organoclays and proprietary compounds such as MyCelx): Removes disperse oil
to very low concentrations and also BTEX.
Aeration & sedimentation: Removes iron.
Partition manipulation: Enables dissolved oil to be returned to the oil phase before a deoiling treatment.
Solvent extraction (such as MPPE): Removes dissolved and dispersed oil to very low concentrations and reduces BTEX.
Biological treatment (e.g. MBR): Reduces dissolved organics and removes bacteria
Ultrafiltration/Nanofiltration: Removes suspended solids to a very low level as well as organics
Reverse osmosis: Removes dissolved solids
Ion exchange/Electrodeionisation: Removes dissolved salts
Other desalination technologies: Such as forward osmosis, freeze thaw evaporation, thermal evaporation and
proprietary systems such as Saltworks SaltMaker.
2.3.1.4 Technologies for gas field produced water management
Produced water management in the gas industry is generally considered less challenging than operations in the oil field. This
is because the volumes are lower and there are much lower volumes of undissolved hydrocarbons. However, produced water
from gas is much more toxic due to the presence of dissolved hydrocarbons and monoethylglycol (which is used to suppress the
formation of gas hydrates). Concentration of BTEX and PAH can be as high as 3,000 ppm. This requires specialist treatment
because they can kill off the bacteria in an MBR, and cause difficulties for an RO system. A system such as MPPE or bentonite
clay adsorption may be required to reach discharge standard, which typically require BTEX and PAH to be non-traceable.
It is for this reason that LNG plants, which on the face of it are not big users of water or producers of wastewater, have such
sophisticated wastewater treatment plants. The largest water treatment plant project for an oil and gas installation anywhere in
the world is Veolias $640 million ZLD project at the Pearl gas to liquids facility in Qatar. It treats 12 different wastewater streams
to deliver five different qualities of recycled water for reuse, using ultrafiltration (UF), reverse osmosis (RO), evaporation, and
crystallisation.
2.3.2 Steam EOR recycling technologies
The most significant challenge for recycling produced water for steam EOR is dissolved solids particularly silica. The systems
used for oil water separation are relatively similar to conventional produced water management, i.e. a skim tank followed by
induced gas flotation and nutshell filters. In order to prepare the effluent from the nutshell filters for steam generation, the
following technologies are used:
Warm/hot lime softening
Weak acid cation ion exchange
Brine concentration (evaporation) and crystallisation
High recovery reverse osmosis
In the Canadian oil sands where the produced water has a high silica content, the most common technology chain has
traditionally been warm lime softening, followed by WAC ion exchange to feed a once through steam generator. Increasingly,
however, there has been a switch away from once-through generators towards drum boilers. These require a higher-purity
feedwater than once-through steam generators, and this has led to a switch away from relying on ion exchange as the polishing
step, towards using evaporators. The main difficulty for evaporators, however, are the sparingly soluble salts such as silica. In
order to keep silica and other salts which might drop out, in solution, evaporators need to be run at a high pH. GE Waters RCC
unit has registered a number of broad-ranging patents covering the management of silica for evaporators in the oil sands. These
have impeded the operation of other players in the market, as GE has threatened to sue producers who operate evaporators
supplied by its competitors in the oils sands. Veolia has responded by developing its own silica sorption technology using
magnesium oxide as a way of circumventing the GE patents. Aquatech has toughed it out, taking the view that GEs patents
are opportunistic and unenforceable by law. This may be true, but the companys case was not helped when Shell acquired a
production company which operated an Aquatech system, then chose to settle with GE in order to complete the acquisition
quickly, rather than defend the suit.
In the heavy oil sector there has also been a move towards evaporation and high recovery reverse osmosis in order to reuse water
for steam flood. In California, Veolia has successfully used its OPUS high recovery reverse osmosis technology at San Ardo and at
another undisclosed location. In the Gulf region, GE Water and Aquatech have been using evaporators to facilitate water reuse for
steam flood. The following figure lists recent references for evaporation and high recovery reverse osmosis for water recycling for
steam EOR.
Figure 2.49 Steam EOR evaporation and high recovery reverse osmosis references
Contract
year
Supplier Customer Country Capacity
(m/d)
Equipment
2006 Aquatech Occidental Petroleum Mukhaizna Oman 1,250 7 x 1,250 gpm evaporators
2006 GE Water Petro Canada:
MacKay River Expansion
Canada 160 160 gpm evaporator and dryer
2006 GE Water Suncor Energy: Fire Bag
Expansion
Canada 1,200 1,200 gpm evaporator
2006 GE Water Connacher: Great Divide Canada 1,000 2 x 500 gpm evaporators
2006 GE Water Connacher: Algar Lake Canada NA 2 x evaporators in series & crystalliser
2006 Veolia Chevron San Ardo USA 1,500 OPUS
2007 GE Water Voyageur Canada 300 300 gpm evaporator & crystalliser
2008 Aquatech Shell Orion phase 1 expansion Canada 1,000 2 x 500 gpm evaporators
2010 GE Water Harvest Black Gold
(EPC=GS E&C)
Canada NA Evaporator, crystalliser and solidifcation
using solidifcation agent
2010 Veolia Canadian National Resources:
Kirby Lake
Canada NA 3 x evaporators
2011 GE Water Grizzly Oil Sands ULC: Algar Lake Canada NA Evaporation equipment
2011 GE Water Sunshine: Legend Lake Canada NA
2011 Veolia Osum Oil Sands Corp. Canada NA IGF, oil removal flter and evaporators
2011 Veolia Southern Pacifc Resource Corp.
MacKay River
Canada NA Evaporator and crystalliser
2011 GE Water Unnamed Canada 1,000 Evaporator and crystalliser
2011 Veolia Unnamed USA 730 Ceramic UF, WAC, OPUS RO, IX + Oxidation
Source: GWI
There are a number of emerging technologies for high recovery produced water desalination. The most important of these are as
follows:
Forward osmosis using ammonia as a draw solution (developed by Oasys): A two stage process involving use of the
osmotic potential between the ammonia draw solution and the produced water to draw the water through a semi
permeable membrane to dilute the concentrated ammonia solution. This is then heated, evaporating the ammonia to
give pure water. It is effective because the forward osmosis process does not encounter the same problems of scaling
and fouling as the reverse osmosis process.
Forward osmosis for drilling waste treatment (developed by HTI): Drilling waste is a hazardous mixture of water,
cuttings from under the ground, and the specialist chemicals used in drilling muds. HTI has developed a forward
osmosis based system whereby the freshwater can be drawn out of the drilling waste through a semipermeable
membrane to dilute saline water (for example, flowback water) which might not otherwise be suitable for use in
hydraulic fracturing.
Saltworks electro-chemical process (Saltworks): This involves first dividing the influent stream in two and creating a
salinity difference between the two, either by means of an evaporation pond or the use of a thermal evaporator. The
hypersaline influent stream is connected to two driver solutions using a proprietary polymer ion bridge which allows
either positively charged or negatively charged ions through. The osmotic difference between the driver solutions
and the hypersaline solution draws the ions out of the hypersaline solution into the driver solutions, one of which
(connected with an anion bridge) becomes negatively charged as the anions are attracted into it, the other, being
connected by a cation bridge becomes positively charged as the cations are attracted into it. The two driver solutions,
one negatively charged, and the other positively charged, are then joined to the desalination influent stream via ion
bridges. The positively charged ions from the influent desalination stream are attracted to the negatively charged
driver stream, and the negatively charged ions in the desalination influent stream are attracted to the positively
charged driver stream.
Figure 2.50 Saltworks seawater desalination circuit
Desalination
stream
Concentrated
brine
Natural
seawater
Natural
seawater
Diagram key
Chloride (Cl
)
Sodium (Na
+
)
Source: Saltworks Technologies
Figure 2.51 Produced water volume reduction guidelines using thermal and membrane technologies
Concentrator
type
Feed TDS,
mg/l
Conc TDS,
mg/l
Feed TSS,
mg/l
Conc TSS,
mg/l
CapEx,
$/bbl/d
Electricity,
kWh/bbl
Processing
cost, $/bbl Suppliers
Falling flm
evaporator >45,000
200,000
300,000 <10,000 <10,000
1,000
2,000 3.34.5 48
Aquatech, GE,
Veolia
Forced circulation
evaporator >45,000
200,000
300,000
<100*
<20,000**
<500*
<20,000**
1,000
2,000 4.55.8 38
Fountain Quail, GE,
Purestream, Veolia
Crystalliser
75,000
300,000
250,000
300,000
5,000
15,000
150,000
350,000
2,000
4,000 913 710 GE, Veolia
Membrane brine
concentrator >45,000
200,000
300,000 <100 <500 1,000 35 23.5 Oasys
High effciency RO
5,000
30,000
50,000
75,000 <100 <500 500 0.8 35
Aquatech, GE,
Veolia
Source: WDR
2.3.3 Technologies for sulphate removal and low salinity water
Sulphate removal technology was pioneered by Marathon Oil and Dow in the late 1980s. Dow Filmtech patented the SR90
NF membrane, then licensed it to four systems suppliers. These licensees are Aker Solutions, Veolia Water Solutions and
Technologies, Siemens Water and Cameron. The patent reportedly enabled Dow to charge four or five times the cost of a standard
RO membrane element for the SR90 NF element. However, it expired in 2007, and other membrane suppliers have entered
the market, although we have yet to see large-scale applications. FilterBoxx subsidiary H2Oil & Gas was set up to offer sulphate
removal systems based on a low cost alternative to the SR90 membrane (believed to be supplied by Hydranautics). It achieved its
first reference in 2009.
There has been an evolution in the technology train for the sulphate removal process.
Figure 2.52 Sulphate removal technology train evolution
Lift pump
Coarse
filtration
5080 m
HP pumps
SRP
36 barg
Cartridge
filters
5 m
SRU
(2-stage,
75%
conversion)
Vacuum
de-aeration
Injection
pumps
Lift pump
Coarse
filtration
150 m
Media
filtration
25 m
particle
removal
Vacuum
de-aeration
HP pumps
SRP
36 barg
Guard
cartridge
filters
5 m
SRU
(2-stage,
75%
conversion)
Injection
pumps
Practice 1:
Macro filtration
Practice 2:
Multimedia
filtration
Lift pump
Coarse
filtration
150 m
MF/UF
Vacuum
de-aeration
HP pumps
SRP
36 barg
Injection
pumps
SRU
(2-stage,
75%
conversion)
Practice 3:
Micro /
ultrafiltration
Source: Dow
Comparing these methods:
The macro filtration approach is the cheapest in terms of capital expenditure, but it is considered the least efficient
and least reliable of the methods.
The use of dual media filtration is only slightly more expensive than macro filtration, while being more efficient and
reliable, but it takes up more space.
MF/UF is considered to be the most efficient and reliable method, and it uses less space than a dual media system.
However it is significantly more expensive than either of the other two methods.
Low salinity water treatment systems are in the early stages of development. The company which is probably most advanced in
terms of offering low salinity systems to off-shore customers is Water Standard. The company proposes a ship or barge carrying a
pretreatment system, NF and RO trains, with chemical dosing systems for ASP flood together with a power generator.
2.3.4 Technologies for unconventional gas produced water management
Most produced water management in the shale gas industry is relatively unsophisticated. Most of the flowback water is reinjected
in disposal wells. This might require some treatment to remove the suspended solids, but the technology is not challenging.
More treatment is required if the flowback water is to be recycled into a new frac, but this does not necessarily involve removing
the dissolved solids, as long as the proportion of reclaimed flowback water reused in a new frac is relatively low. The basic
technology for frac water treatment is aeration, clarification, flocculation, biological treatment and filtration (possibly using UF
membranes). In the longer term, the scope for recycling flowback water without addressing the dissolved solids is likely to be
more limited because the proportion of saline treated flowback water which can be cut into a new frac is limited. For example, a
producer might expect 20% of the frac water to flow back within the first six weeks of production, might be able to treat and reuse
that flowback water into two new fracs, each comprising of 10% flowback water and 90% freshwater. This means that there is no
need to dispose of the flowback water, as long as the ratio of new fractures to producing wells is 2:1. If production growth levels
out, then there is likely to be an excess of saline flowback water which cannot be cut into new fracs.
At some point, if the Marcellus shale is to be fully exploited, a solution for the disposal of flowback water involving the removal
of dissolved solids will be required. With this in mind, the major oil field water treatment companies, Veolia, GE Water, and
Aquatech, have been developing mobile evaporators which would enable surface disposal or beneficial reuse both on and off the
gas field. It is not clear at this stage whether mobile treatment systems will be the long term solution. The International Energy
Authority recommends centralised treatment plants connected to production sites by pipelines.
In the Australian CSG market, desalination is already becoming established as the norm for produced water management.
Typically, systems will comprise UF pretreatment followed by a high recovery brackish water RO system. This still leaves the
problem of disposing of the brine, although the volumes are considerably smaller than the volumes of produced water. With the
regulator moving against evaporation ponds, the alternatives for brine disposal are quite limited. For this reason, GE Water has
been investigating the possibility of salt recovery from the brine for reuse in the chemical industry.
2.4 Supply chain analysis
2.4.1 Reaching the customer
The four main players in the oil field supply chain are:
The exploration and production (E&P) companies (such as the oil majors and the national oil companies, and a
combination of the two working in production sharing agreements, production enhancement contracts, and risk
service contracts).
The oilfield service companies (such as Schlumberger, Halliburton, and Baker Hughes undertaking all kinds of
outsourcing in the oil and gas industry).
The engineering firms (such as Worley Parsons, Kellog Brown Root, and Mustang, who design facilities but do not
necessarily build them).
The oilfield contractors (such as Bechtel, Technip and Aker Solutions, who build facilities and often design them as
well).
The E&P companies are the ultimate customers, but they can outsource their responsibility for water management to oil field
service companies, and they can rely on the advice of engineering companies for the design of water systems. It may be up to the
contractor to negotiate the actual equipment supply contract.
2.4.2 Procurement models
There are four main procurement models used in the sector:
Engineering procurement and construction (EPC): A single contracting entity takes responsibility for the entire
project, typically on a lump sum turnkey basis.
EPC with long lead items: The client procures certain long lead items before the EPC contract is tender.
EPC management: An engineering advisor develops the design then packages out the construction and procurement
into separate tenders.
Progressive lump sum: The EPC contract is broken down into separate stages, and the first stage is contracted out for
bid. Once this stage has been delivered there is then a negotiation to agree the cost of the next stage.
In addition, some E&P companies will use project management consultants to run a project.
In terms of produced water management, separation, treatment and reinjection equipment is typically part of the EPC package.
If the produced water is trucked off-site for reinjection, then the trucking/disposal company would typically get paid per barrel of
water treated. As producers begin to look at the options beyond reinjection, there is a growing interest in the possibility of BOT
(build-own-operate or vendor financed models), although at this stage it is limited to temporary/mobile facilities.
Oil and gas // Supply chain analysis
2.4.3 Market structure
The market for water treatment systems is highly fragmented, although there has been a wave of mergers which have reduced the
number of players at the oil-water separation end of the market.
Figure 2.53 Significant company acquisitions, mergers and joint ventures
Company Acquisitions Month, Year Deal value
MI Swaco
Cyclotech (McConnell, 2009) December 2009 Approx. 20 million
Epcon Offshore AS February 2006
Schlumberger MI Swaco (60%) February 2010
Cameron
Natco Group Inc. November 2009 $780m
Petreco International March 2004 Approx.$90 million (net of
assumed debt and cash)
Exterran
GLR Solutions Ltd. February 2008 Approx $25 million
EMIT Water Discharge Technology, LLC July 2008 Approx.$108.6 million
Prosep Pure Group AS October 2007
GE Ionics (including RCC) February 2005 Approximately $1.1 billion
FLSmidth Process division of GL&V (included
Krebs Engineers and Dorr-Oliver Eimco)
August 2007 $950 million
Nalco Fabrication Technologies
(now renamed as Nalco Fab-Tech LLC)
August 2010 Undisclosed
Siemens
Monosep Corporation January 2006 Undisclosed
US Filter (USF) (bought from Veolia
Environment)
July 2004 $993 million
Layne Christensen Intevras Technologies August 2010 $5.5 million
Dobhai Ventures Produced Water Solutions July 2010
High Plains Gas Big Cat Energy (31%) December 2010 $600,000
STW Resources/Aqua Verde Water Reclamation Partners November 2010 Joint venture
Source: GWI
Cameron is now the leading player in the oil water separations market, although much of the equipment in this sector (gravity
separators, heater treaters, hydrocyclones, IGFs, etc) is relatively low tech generic equipment. Veolia Water Solutions and
Technologies is probably the leading player at the polishing stage of produced water treatment. It is also the leading supplier
of sulphate removal systems, and number two in the evaporation market. GE Water is number one in the evaporation market
for steam EOR, and also has a leading position in the Australian CBM market. Siemens Oil and Gas has a number of oil-water
separation technologies, and some involvement in polishing using its MF and RO technologies.
2.4.4 Market entry
There are a number of challenges involved in breaking into this market with a new technology:
1. Water management in the oil field typically involves a huge number of different technologies. A new technology
which might replace one or two stages of a fifteen stage process is a difficult sell because it has an impact on other
parts of the supply chain. Unless you can either get the specification for the process rewritten or you can offer the
complete process package, it is difficult to establish a place in the market.
2. Produced water management is not a profit centre. This means that there is less of an incentive to take a risk on new
technologies.
3. Many of the oil field service companies have multiple roles and existing relationships. Schlumberger, for example,
acquired an interest in MI Swaco, which supplies oil water separation equipment.
4. Cameron is the dominant oil field equipment supplier in the produced water space. Having led the consolidation
of the sector, Cameron has better relationships with potential customers and a broader range of equipment in its
catalogue than the water treatment companies targeting this market.
With these challenges in mind, the most common way into the market is through partnership with an oil field service company
or engineer who already has a position in the oil field. For technologies which have an impact on production (i.e. low salinity
EOR), it is more likely that the E&P companies themselves would be interested in partnership.
2.5 Market forecast
2.5.1 Overall picture
We have forecast the sectors of the market where desalination and water reuse technology are the most relevant to the oil and gas
industry as follows:
Shale gas produced water management: There are opportunities in conventional treatment and an emerging market
in high recovery desalination.
CBM produced water management: High recovery desalination is already an established market.
Low salinity water and sulphate removal packages (SRP) for flood/EOR: We anticipate that this market will see the
largest CAGR, as developers make the most of every well.
Water recycling for steam flood: This will grow in parallel with the devlopment of the Canadian oil sands and
tightening regulations. In the forecast it is split into water recycling systems and high recovery desalination.
Beneficial reuse of conventional oil and gas produced water: In the forecast this is split into produced water polishing
and produced water RO/evaporation.
Figure 2.54 Oil and gas industry market forecast, 20112025
Produced water
RO/evaporation
High recovery desal
for steam EOR
Water recycling systems
for steam EOR
Shale gas high
recovery desal
Shale gas conventional
treatment
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Oil and gas ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
2025
Shale gas: conventional treatment 30.7 57.1 68.3 80.4 87.1 100.9 139.4 28.7% 479.9
Shale gas high recovery desal 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 35.0 100.0
(a)
112.7 165.0 126.0 132.0 160.0 170.0 164.4 6.5% 178.4
Sulphate removal package /
low salinity systems
(b)
105.0 147.5 253.8 230.6 337.5 487.5 783.5 39.8% 1,275.9
(c)
169.0 183.0 219.0 244.0 244.0 239.0 255.5 7.1% 411.8
(d)
291.2 385.3 502.1 602.5 556.8 454.2 519.6 10.1% 1,097.7
(e)
504.7 562.7 609.7 649.1 683.0 741.1 799.0 8.0% 1,302.2
(f)
105.0 119.4 135.8 154.5 175.7 199.8 227.3 13.7% 562.6
Total 1,318.3 1,620.0 1,922.6 2,093.1 2,254.1 2,412.5 2,923.6 14.2% 5,508.5
(a)
Includes complete treatment plant cost rather than just the desalination system.
(b)
Includes membrane system, controls, pumps and chemical dosing system, but not broader project costs of ship mounted systems.
(c)
Typically included induced gas fotation, warm lime softening and ion exchange systems.
(d)
This represents a restatement of the forecast for this sector published in the January 2012 issue of GWI. The downgrade refects a
more realistic view of attitudes towards evaporation technology in the oil sands.
(e)
Does not include induced gas fotation systems and other oil-water separation systems. Does include nutshell flters, other media
flters, adsorption systems, biological systems including MBR, ion exchange, and other non-oil water separation technologies (excluding
reverse osmosis).
(f)
Typically brackish water RO systems for surface discharge of produced water, but in later years some evaporation and high recovery
RO is expected.
Source: GWI
Oil and gas // Market forecast
The country market split for 20132017 is dominated by the U.S. and Canada for a number of reasons, including:
The U.S. basically represents the entire shale gas market and a large portion of the CBM market.
The increasing prominence of SAGD in the Canadian oil sands.
The U.S. and Canada are the two largest markets for steam EOR.
The U.S. and Canada have the oldest conventional oil wells with the highest water:oil ratios.
Figure 2.55 Oil and gas industry, top country markets, 20132017
USA $2,978m
$11,606 m
Total market value
(2013-2017)
Australia $671m
Brazil $526m
Saudi Arabia $480m
Oman $353m
China $310m
RoW $4,248m
Canada $2,040m
Source: GWI
2.5.2 Reference and alternate scenarios
We have developed alternate scenarios for each of the distinct markets within the oil and gas sector:
Unconventional gas (shale gas and CBM).
Steam and water flood systems (SRP, low salinity systems, water recycling systems for steam EOR and high recovery
desalination for steam EOR).
Produced water treatment systems (produced water polishing and produced water RO/evaporation).
2.5.2.1 Unconventional gas
The unconventional gas forecast includes both conventional treatment and high recovery desalination for shale, as well as CBM
high recovery desalination.
Our reference scenario for unconventional gas makes the following assumptions:
Henry Hub gas trades at between $2$3/million Btu until 2015.
Henry Hub gas trades at over $4/million Btu from 2015 onwards as the export market opens up.
In our alternate scenario:
Henry Hub gas trades at over $4/million Btu from 2013 onwards.
In both scenarios, the regional breakdowns are dominated by the Americas (U.S. shale / CBM) and Asia Pacific (Australian
CBM).
Figure 2.56 Oil and gas industry, unconventional gas combined, 20112017: Reference scenario
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Unconventional gas combined
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 36.3 62.1 82.6 84.1 100.0 121.6 168.0 29.1%
EMEA 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.2 5.5 10.5
Asia Pacifc 107.1 160.1 119.7 127.4 154.9 163.7 160.2 6.9%
Total 143.4 222.1 202.3 212.4 257.1 290.9 338.8 15.4%
Source: GWI
In the alternate scenario, the higher Henry Hub gas prices from 20132015 nearly doubles the CAGR of the U.S. market.
Figure 2.57 Oil and gas industry, unconventional gas combined, 20112017: Alternate scenario
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Unconventional gas combined
alternate scenario ($ million)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 36.3 62.1 247.8 252.2 300.0 364.9 504.1 55.0%
EMEA 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.2 5.5 10.5
Asia Pacifc 107.1 160.1 119.7 127.4 154.9 163.7 160.2 6.9%
Total 143.4 222.1 367.5 380.5 457.1 534.2 674.8 29.5%
Source: GWI
Oil and gas // Market forecast
2.5.2.2 Steam and water flood systems
The steam and water flood systems forecast includes sulphate removal package / low salinity systems, water recycling systems for
steam EOR and high recovery desalination for steam EOR.
Our reference scenario for steam and water flood systems assumes that Brent crude remains above $60/bbl, whereas in the
alternate scenario Brent crude falls below $60/bbl in 2013.
Figure 2.58 Oil and gas industry, steam and water flood systems, 20112017: Reference scenario
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Steam and water food systems
(reference scenario ($ million)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 453.4 564.7 694.3 788.4 725.1 691.8 841.6 10.9%
EMEA 88.2 102.8 210.4 213.1 308.7 354.3 480.8 32.7%
Asia Pacifc 23.7 48.3 70.0 75.6 104.6 134.5 236.2 46.7%
Total 565.2 715.8 974.8 1,077.1 1,138.3 1,180.7 1,558.6 18.4%
Source: GWI
In the alternate scenario, the lower oil price makes EOR a less attractive proposition.
Figure 2.59 Oil and gas industry, steam and water flood systems, 20112017: Alternate scenario
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Steam and water food systems
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 453.4 564.7 208.3 236.5 217.5 207.5 252.5 -9.3%
EMEA 88.2 102.8 63.1 63.9 92.6 106.3 144.2 8.5%
Asia Pacifc 23.7 48.3 21.0 22.7 31.4 40.4 70.9 20.1%
Total 565.2 715.8 292.4 323.1 341.5 354.2 467.6 -3.1%
Source: GWI
2.5.2.3 Produced water treatment systems
The produced water treatment systems forecast includes produced water polishing and produced water RO/evaporation.
Our reference scenario for produced water treatment systems assumes that Brent crude remains above $60/bbl, whereas in the
alternate scenario Brent crude falls below $60/bbl in 2013.
Figure 2.60 Oil and gas industry, produced water treatment systems, 20112017: Reference scenario
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Produced water treatment
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 336.3 374.1 407.4 438.4 468.4 511.9 557.3 8.8%
EMEA 217.6 245.8 270.3 292.6 313.2 345.0 377.7 9.6%
Asia Pacifc 55.7 62.2 67.8 72.6 77.1 84.1 91.3 8.6%
Total 609.7 682.1 745.5 803.6 858.7 941.0 1,026.3 9.1%
Source: GWI
In the alternate scenario, the lower oil price leads to reduced production activity.
Figure 2.61 Oil and gas industry, produced water treatment systems, 20112017: Alternate scenario
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Produced water treatment
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 336.3 374.1 285.2 306.9 327.9 358.3 390.1 2.5%
EMEA 217.6 245.8 189.2 204.8 219.2 241.5 264.4 3.3%
Asia Pacifc 55.7 62.2 47.4 50.8 54.0 58.9 63.9 2.3%
Total 609.7 682.1 521.8 562.5 601.1 658.7 718.4 2.8%
Source: GWI
Refining and petrochemicals // Introduction
3. Refining and petrochemicals
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 Introduction to refining
Crude oil, also known as petroleum, cannot be used as a fuel directly because it contains a wide range of hydrocarbons with
varying chain lengths. Refining crude oil involves separating out this mixture of hydrocarbons into useful fractions that can be
sold as products, such as liquid petroleum gas (LPG), petrol (gasoline) or lubricating oil.
The exact composition of crude oil varies by site. For the refining processes used which determine the wastewater treatment
requirements the most important properties of crude oil are the proportion of long-chain / short-chain hydrocarbons, and the
sulphur content. The industry uses the following terms to classify crude oil:
Heavy: High viscosity (thick) contains a large proportion of long-chain hydrocarbons.
Light: Low viscosity (runny) contains a large proportion of short-chain hydrocarbons.
Sour: Significant sulphur content.
Sweet: Relatively low sulphur content.
The main fractions that can be refined from crude oil, and where they lie on the scale of heavy-light, are shown in the following
figure.
Figure 3.1 Main crude oil fractions by chain length
Light Heavy
Liquified
petroleum
gas
Gasoline
Naphtha
Kerosene
Diesel fuel
Fuel oils
Lubricating
oils
Paraffin wax
Asphalt /
bitumen
Source: GWI
The product range output by refineries and downstream petroleum processing plants depends on the heaviness of the crude
oil. For example, the heaver the crude, the more difficult it is to produce short-chain fractions, such as gasoline. Relative local or
regional demand for products is also a factor, as is the crack spread, which is the difference between the crude oil price and the
price of refined products (so-called because cracking is the most common form of refining see section 3.1.2.3).
3.1.2 Crude oil refining processes
Crude oil refining can be broken down into the following main processes:
Desalting: Removing salt from the crude oil.
Atmospheric distillation: Initial separation of the crude oil into fractions.
Further processing: Gaining as much value as possible by processing the fractions into products to maximise profit.
These processes are described in the following sections.
3.1.2.1 Desalting
Crude oil contains salt, which will cause corrosion and product quality issues if it is not removed. The salt is dissolved by adding
hot water to heated crude oil. The salt is then removed by separating the oil and water.
3.1.2.2 Atmospheric distillation
Atmospheric distillation separates out the fractions from crude oil using the fact that short-chain hydrocarbons have lower boiling
points than long-chain hydrocarbons. The crude oil is heated further, and sent to a distillation unit where different fractions
condense out in different locations as they cool.
3.1.2.3 Further processing
In order to improve the market value of the hydrocarbon fractions, a number of further processing steps may be undertaken.
These may happen at the refinery site, or at a specialist petrochemical processing plant. A summary of the most common
processes follows:
Vacuum distillation: Provides further separation of the heaviest fractions (residual bottoms) from atmospheric
distillation.
Cracking: Converts long-chain hydrocarbons into higher-value shorter-chain hydrocarbons by breaking the
chains (e.g. turning gas oils into gasoline). A number of different cracking process exist, e.g. catalytic cracking,
hydrocracking and visibreaking.
Reforming: Converts low-value naptha to higher value gasoline by rearranging the molecules in the chains.
Coking: Converts very heavy long-chain fractions into gasoline and diesel oil, with petroleum coke as a byproduct.
3.1.3 Current refining capacity
The following figure shows the locations of the 655 current refineries covered by the most recent Oil and Gas Journal Worldwide
Refining Survey, published in January 2012.
Figure 3.2 Current refinery locations, 2011
Source: Oil and Gas Journal, 2012; Global Water Risk Index, GWI, 2011
The following two figures illustrate how the global refining capacity of 88.1 million bbl/d of crude oil breaks down by country.
The United States is by far the largest single producer, followed by China and Russia. It is noteworthy that there is a trend for
substantially larger than average refineries in many East Asian countries, in particular the Republic of Korea and Singapore.
Figure 3.3 Global refining capacity by country, 2011
United States 17.8m bbl/d
88.1m bbl/d
Refining capacity
(2011)
Japan 4.7m bbl/d
Russia 5.4m bbl/d
China 6.9m bbl/d
Rest of world
49.2m bbl/d
India 4.0m bbl/d
Source: Oil and gas journal, December 2011
Refining and petrochemicals // Drivers for water reuse and advanced wastewater treatment technologies
Figure 3.4 Top 20 countries by refining capacity, 2011
Country No. of refineries Total refining capacity (bbl/d) Average refinery capacity (bbl/d)
United States 125 17,788,314 142,307
China 54 6,866,000 127,148
Russia 40 5,430,906 135,773
Japan 30 4,729,890 157,663
India 21 4,042,761 192,512
Republic of Korea 6 2,759,500 459,917
Germany 15 2,417,162 161,144
Italy 17 2,337,229 137,484
Saudi Arabia 7 2,112,000 301,714
Canada 17 1,918,455 112,850
Brazil 13 1,917,333 147,487
United Kingdom 10 1,767,168 176,717
France 12 1,718,803 143,234
Mexico 6 1,540,000 256,667
Iran 9 1,451,000 161,222
Singapore 3 1,357,000 452,333
Taiwan 4 1,310,000 327,500
Venezuela 5 1,282,100 256,420
Spain 9 1,271,500 141,278
Rest of world 252 24,039,030 95,393
Total 655 88,056,151 134,437
Source: Oil and Gas Journal, 2011
Figure 3.5 Global refining capacity by region, 2012
East Asia & Pacific 20.6m bbl/d
88.1m bbl/d
Refining capacity
(2011)
Eastern Europe
& Central Asia 11.1m bbl/d
Western Europe 13.7m bbl/d
North America 19.8m bbl/d
MENA 9.0m bbl/d
South Asia 4.3m bbl/d
Latin America & Caribbean 8.1m bbl/d
Africa 1.5m bbl/d
The water requirements of refineries are discussed in section 3.3.
3.2 Drivers for water reuse and advanced wastewater treatment technologies
There are several drivers for water reuse using advanced technologies in the refining industry.
3.2.1 Environmental regulations
Strict discharge limits and their enforcement have already driven some refineries to adopt zero liquid discharge (ZLD) see
section 3.7.2 for details. Although there are only a handful of ZLD installations to date, the trend towards stricter regulations is
apparent even in traditionally less stringent countries such as Russia, China, Brazil and Mexico. Some future discharge limits
will not be achievable with standard wastewater treatment systems. For instance, authorities in China are currently considering
updating the Integrated Wastewater Discharge Standards (GB8978-1996) from 1996.
Other countries have reuse targets. India monitors water reuse level in certain industries and has specific guidelines for
industrial wastewater discharge. One of the goals in Saudi Arabias 9th Development Plan (20102014) is to increase water reuse
to 50%, as well as to increase desalination capacity by 100%.
3.2.2 Economic considerations
The most fundamental economic consideration in refining is the crack spread, which is the difference between the price of crude
oil and the prices of refined products. The crack spread is therefore a measure of the profitability of refining.
As shown in the following figure, the crack spread is very volatile as it is affected by numerous factors supply, demand, crude
oil price each of which are affected by numerous other factors. For example, if crude oil prices are high and demand for goods
transportation is low, this leads to the crack spread for gasoline became negative.
Figure 3.6 Crack spreads for gasoline and heating oil, 20062012
Negative crack spread
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Jan 12 Jan 11 Jan 10 Jan 09 Jan 08 Jan 07 Jan 06
C
r
a
c
k

s
p
r
e
a
d

(
$
/
b
b
l
)
G
a
s
o
l
i
n
e
H
e
a
t
i
n
g

o
i
l
C
r
u
d
e

o
i
l

p
r
i
c
e

(
$
/
b
b
l
)
B
r
e
n
t

c
r
u
d
e
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Jan 12 Jan 11 Jan 10 Jan 09 Jan 08 Jan 07 Jan 06
Source: EIA, 2012; GWI
As the crack spread is a driver for refinery production that cannot be predicted with any certainty, we have presented alternate
scenarios in our market forecast (section 3.9).
Economic drivers also exist on the water side, for wastewater treatment and reuse. Water is vital to the refining industry, where it
is no longer seen as a low-cost resource. Wastewater treatment and disposal costs are also increasing due to stricter environmental
regulations. This is making the industry more aware of the economical benefits of water reuse. For example, the discharge limits
for groundwater injection in Venice, Italy are so strict that it is cheaper to reuse the water in the refinery than it is to treat and
discharge it.
Climate change is already affecting water availability in many parts of the world. Refineries require large volumes of water, so are
often built on the coast and depend on expensive seawater desalination. As with the mining industry, lack of water will push the
refining industry to find ways of reducing water consumption and increasing water reuse through employing advanced treatment
technologies.
3.2.4 Operational reliability
Using water treated with advanced technologies leads to improved system reliability, longer asset life, and a lower operational
cost through a decreased need for chemical treatment. Even though the initial capital outlay on advanced technologies is high,
in the long term it pays off through operational savings. This has been partially recognised by some companies but a wholesale
realisation across the industry has yet to occur.
Refining and petrochemicals // Refinery water requirements
3.3 Refinery water requirements
3.3.1 Refinery water systems
Complex refining operations use large quantities of water, mostly for cooling and steam generation systems. As a result, they are
usually situated on the coast or on a river.
A typical refinery contains a number of water systems, which are summarised in the following figure. For the purposes of this
report only boiler feedwater (BFW), cooling water and process water are of importance, as they require treatment.
Figure 3.7 Refinery water systems
Water system Brief description Treatment requirements
Boiler feedwater Water used in boilers to generate
the steam required by many refnery
processes.
Lime softening followed by ion exchange.
Reverse osmosis (RO).
Electrodeionisation (EDI).
Cooling water* Water used in heat exchangers that are
required by many refnery processes.
Once through: depends on the source of water.
Recirculation: softening.
Seawater can be used as cooling water if scaling and corrosion
are reduced, via limiting the temperature and cathodic protection
respectively.
Process water Water that comes into contact with
hydrocarbons during refnery processes.
Softening.
Drinking water Water used by people working in the
refnery.
Tap water can be used without treatment.
If tap water is unavailable, chlorine can be added to water from the
demineralisation plant.
Fire water Water on standby in case of fre.
Typically, the largest raw water source is
used, or stormwater is collected.
No treatment required.
Utility water Used for washing surfaces such as foors. Must be uncontaminated; direct use of stormwater is acceptable.
*Note that some refneries use air cooling
Source: GWI
3.3.2 Water use in refining
Compared to some of the other industries discussed in this report (pharmaceutical, F&B, microelectronics), process water for
refining requires relatively little treatment. Boiler feedwater (BFW), and cooling water are far more interesting from an advanced
water treatment point of view. In each of the following sections, BFW will be discussed first, followed by cooling water then
process water, in keeping with the degree of treatment required.
The refining industry has its own terminology, which we will use throughout this chapter. Removing dissolved solids from non-
seawater so that it can be used as BFW is referred to as demineralisation, whether or not the process uses traditional desalination
technologies. Use of the word desalination in this chapter therefore refers only to seawater desalination.
3.3.2.1 Boiler feedwater (BFW)
BFW has the highest water quality requirements in the refining industry and therefore the greatest treatment needs. This is due
to the requirements of high pressure boilers that generate steam for various refinery processes. All new refineries will use high
pressure boilers; in the refining industry these are defined as boilers that operate at >100 psi (>690 kPa). Due to evaporation
losses and regular blowdown, the steam generating system continually requires makeup water.
3.3.2.2 Cooling water
Cooling is the largest user of water in a refinery, typically accounting for 8085% of the total water use. The types of cooling
system used are similar to those found in many other manufacturing plants and can be divided into three groups:
Once-through (or open) cooling systems withdraw surface water that is used only once before being discharged back
to the environment. No cooling tower is required. Depending on the water source, treatment may be required to
prevent scale formation, corrosion, and slime / algae formation. Once-through systems are becoming rare, except in
some coastal installations designed to use seawater.
Open recirculating (or evaporative / semi-open) cooling systems are the most common system in refineries. A cooling
tower is employed, where heat is transferred by evaporation. Water reuse is intrinsic, as the water recirculates, though
TDS steadily increases as evaporation occurs. Cooling system TDS are allowed to rise until they reach 400700%
of the feedwater TDS (referred to in the industry as 47 cycles of concentration). Before TDS reaches a level where
dissolved solids will precipitate out, blowdown water is removed and the system topped up with makeup water.
Closed loop (or closed circuit) cooling systems are relatively rare in refineries. A constant volume of water is circulated
in a closed loop with negligible evaporation or air contact. Heat that is absorbed by the water is transferred to the
environment via a heat exchanger to an open recirculating cooling system and cooled in a cooling tower. Closed
systems use very little water, but can be difficult to maintain. Also, initial investment costs are relatively high due to
strict treatment requirements beforehand.
Water treatment requirements for recirculating and closed loop systems are higher than for once-through cooling systems. This
is due to increasing concentrations of contaminants, especially dissolved solids, as water evaporates. Salt accumulation is also
inevitable in cooling towers due to water evaporation. Treatment of cooling system blowdown is discussed in section 3.5.4.
3.3.2.3 Process water
Process water comes into close contact with hydrocarbons during various refinery processes. The wash water used for desalting
crude oil is a typical example of process water. The volume of wash water used in desalters is approximately 5% of the volume of
crude processed. Other examples of process water include coker quench water, coker cutting water, flare seal drum, etc.
As mentioned previously, refinery process water quality requirements are low compared to BFW and cooling water. Softening
removal of calcium and magnesium ions from water is a common practice to achieve required quality level. Use of soft water
prevents formation of scale that could damage process equipment. Treatment options are lime softening followed by IX, or on
some occasions RO or EDI.
3.3.2.4 Treatment methods for contaminants in raw water
Petroleum refineries differ in their operations depending on:
Quality and composition of crude oil being processed.
End products.
Both of these factors influence overall water consumption and water quality requirements by influencing which particular
refining processes will take place.
Raw water entering refinery undergoes preliminary treatment to remove suspended solids, e.g. screening and sedimentation.
Further treatment takes place in the BFW, cooling water and process water systems; the quality requirements of each system are
shown in the following figure.
Figure 3.8 Water quality requirements for refinerys water streams
Water stream Water quality required
BFW makeup Conductivity <1 S/cm
Hardness <0.3 mg/l
Chlorides <0.05 mg/l
Sulphates <0.05 mg/l
Total silica <0.01 mg/l
Sodium <0.05 mg/l
Dissolved oxygen <0.007 mg/l
Cooling tower makeup water Conductivity <6,000 S/cm
Alkalinity <3,000 mg/l
Chlorides <1,500 mg/l
Suspended solids <150 mg/l
Wash water
(one example of process water)
Sulphide <10 mg/l
Ammonia <50 mg/l
TDS <200 mg/l
Other process water
(e.g. coker quench, coke cutting water)
TSS <100 mg/l
No biological solids
No H
2
S and other odorous compounds
Source: IPIECA, 2010
Refining and petrochemicals // Refinery water requirements
The technology options for treating specific contaminants from refinery feedwater are shown n the following figure.
Figure 3.9 Potential contaminants in raw water
Contaminant Problem Treatment method
Turbidity Creates cloudy water; deposits in water and process
equipment
Coagulation
Settling and fltration
Hardness Scale formation on process equipment Softening
Demineralisation
Surfactants
Dissolved solids (DS) Process interference; foaming in boilers Lime softening
Ion exchange softening
Electrodialysis
Suspended solids (SS) Deposits in process equipment; blocking of lines Sedimentation
Coagulation and settling
Filtration
Oil Scale and sludge formation; foaming in boilers;
hinders heat exchange
Oil/water separator strainers
Coagulation and fltration
Diatomaceous earth fltration
Sulphate Calcium sulphate scale formation in combination with
calcium; contributes to the solids content of water
Demineralisation
Electrodialysis
Chloride Enhances corrosion; contributes to the solids content
of water
Demineralisation
Desalination (if water source is sea water)
Electrodialysis
Silica Scale formation on process equipment Anion exchange resins
Conductivity High conductivity increases corrosion Demineralisation
Lime softening
Alkalinity Steam system interference foaming and corrosion Lime and lime-soda softening
Ion exchange softening
Demineralisation
Dealkalisation by anion exchange
Acid treatment
Iron and magnesium Deposits in water and process equipment Aeration
Coagulation and fltration
Lime softening
Cation exchange
Oxygen Corrosion of process equipment Deaeration
Sodium sulphite
Corrosion inhibitors
Hydrogen sulphide Odor problems; corrosion; toxicity Aeration
Chlorination
Anion exchange
Source: IPIECA, 2010; GE, 2012
3.3.3 Water volumes for refining
We have conducted an analysis of water use by U.S. refineries by combining refinery data from the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA) with wastewater discharge monitoring data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We
were able to match up 88 refineries for which permitted wastewater discharge volumes were available, representing 84% of total
U.S. refinery capacity.
The following figure shows the largest refineries in the U.S. and their wastewater:crude ratios according to the datasets. It should
be noted that the wastewater:crude ratios will be on the low side, as the wastewater volumes are average actual flow, while the
crude volumes are design capacity.
Figure 3.10 Wastewater generation by U.S. refineries with crude oil capacities > 300,000 bbl/d
Site State Company
Crude processing
capacity (bbl/d)
Average actual
wastewater flow (bbl/d)
Wastewater:crude
ratio
Baytown Texas ExxonMobil 560,640 857,143 1.53
Baton Rouge Louisiana ExxonMobil 502,000 37,857 0.08
Garyville Louisiana Marathon 464,000 199,048 0.43
Lake Charles Louisiana CITGO 427,800 1,501,190 3.51
Texas City Texas BP 406,570 547,619 1.35
Whiting Indiana BP 405,000 3,023,810 7.47
Beaumont Texas ExxonMobil 344,500 523,810 1.52
Philadelphia Pennsylvania Sunoco 335,000 214,675 0.64
Pascagoula Mississippi Chevron 330,000 347,466 1.05
Deer Park Texas Deer Park 327,000 54,762 0.17
Wood River Illinois WRB (Conoco / Cenovus) 306,000 331,667 1.08
Source: EIA, 2012; EPA, 2011; GWI
The Whiting, Indiana refinery is an outlier. The reason for this is unclear, but could be to do with BPs ongoing $3.8 billion
expansion project on the site (due to be fully completed in 2013) and the time lag between the two source datasets. The Lake
Charles, Louisiana wastewater:crude ratio is also on the high side. This is also likely to be due to a time lag in the wastewater
discharge permit dataset CITGO claim to have reduced their water use at the site by 94% between 20052010 by reusing
treated wastewater and improved control systems.
For this dataset of refineries, the overall wastewater:crude ratio is 1.48:1. If the two large outlier refineries described above are
omitted, the ratio drops to 1.24:1. This implies that wastewater generation by all U.S. refineries is in the region of 3.4 million m/d
(1.2 km/yr), and that global wastewater generation by refining is in the region of 17.4 million m/d (6.4 km/yr). These numbers
should be seen as estimates as demonstrated by the Lake Charles refinery the wastewater discharged from a particular refinery
can vary 20-fold depending on the sites water reuse policy.
3.4 Demineralisation and desalination technologies
3.4.1 Technologies for producing BFW
As discussed in figure 3.7 demineralisation technologies in the refining industry are used in the treatment of raw water for BFW
and cooling tower water. Although the largest volumes of water are used for cooling purposes, cooling water requires relatively
little treatment typically just softening for a recirculating system.
On the other hand, BFW demands the most advanced water treatment technologies that are found in refineries. In order to be
used in high pressure boilers, the BFW must have conductivity < 0.1 S/cm and hardness in the range of 0.01 2.00 mg/l. This
quality level is typically achieved by softening, followed by demineralisation.
3.4.1.1 Water softening
Softening reduces the concentration of calcium and magnesium ions in order to avoid scaling. Softening is used as:
Treatment for cooling tower makeup water.
The first stage of BFW treatment (to be followed by more advanced treatment methods).
In refineries where the primary water source is desalinated sea water, there is no need for additional softening. For other water
sources, lime softening or ion exchange is employed.
3.4.1.2 Demineralisation technology trains for BFW
Demineralisation removes dissolved solids from water, and is necessary in order to achieve the low conductivity required for BFW.
Industry experts have highlighted the following two technology trains as the main options for demineralisation in the refining
industry:
RO (single pass) followed by polishing using mixed bed ion exchange.
Double-pass RO followed by electrodeionisation (EDI) polishing. EDI requires lower salinity feedwater than IX, so two
passes of RO (two RO membranes being placed one after another) are necessary.
It is difficult to say which of these technology trains dominates in refineries, as technology choice is dependent on the nature of
the water source.
Refining and petrochemicals // Demineralisation and desalination technologies
For refineries located on the coast in water scarce areas, seawater desalination is often the only viable option. The following
figures show regional breakdowns of large scale (> 10,000 m/d) seawater desalination activity from 1990 to the present date.
Figure 3.11 Large scale seawater desalination for refineries by region, 19902011
Americas 0.14 million m/d
1.16 million m/d
Large seawater desal
(1990-2011)
EMEA 0.76 million m/d
Asia Pacific
0.26 million m/d
Figure 3.12 Large scale seawater desalination for refineries by region and year, 19902011
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
2010 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990
m
/
d
The largest bar in figure 3.12 is due to two extra-large plants that were awarded in 2005. Rabigh ISWPP (Saudi Arabia) is a
co-located water and power plant that supplies 227,300 m/d and 600 MW to the Rabigh Refining and Petrochemical Co. At the
time, it was the largest seawater RO plant in the world. Jamnagar (India) is a 96,000 m/d MED plant which serves Indias largest
refinery and also supplies drinking water to the local community. The peak in 2010 is largely due to the Fajr Petrochemical Phase
II RO plant at 120,000 m/d. Although this plant uses river water as feedwater, it has been included here as a recent example of an
extra-large refinery project.
The following figure lists all of the seawater desalination plants with capacities > 10,000 m/d contracted by refineries since 1990.
Figure 3.13 Large scale seawater desalination plants for refineries, 19902011
Plant Country
Design capacity
(m/d) Technology Award date Online date EPC contractor
Rabigh IWSPP Saudi Arabia 227,300 RO 2005 2008 Mitsubishi
Fajr Petrochemical
Phase II*
Iran 120,000 RO 2010 2014 Zolal Iran
Jamnagar India 96,000 MED 2005 2007 IDE
Paraguan Refnery
Complex
Venezuela 75,000 RO 2008 2010 Acciona
Daesan Republic of
Korea
53,760 RO 2011 2013 Veolia Environnement
Jamnagar India 48,000 MED 1996 1998
Aramco/Kaust Saudi Arabia 40,000 RO 2007 2008 Latsis Group
Band Azzaluyeh Iran 37,500 MED 2002 2004 Veolia Environnement
Takreer RRE Project 3
U&O
United Arab
Emirates
33,600 MSF 2009 2014 Samsung Engineering /
Hitachi Zosen Corporation
Al Ruwais United Arab
Emirates
30,000 MSF 1998 2001 Impregilo Group
Eemshaven Netherlands 30,000 RO 2010 2011
Manali, Chennai India 26,400 RO 2006 2007 Ion Exchange (India)
Al Ruwais United Arab
Emirates
18,240 MSF 1993 1995 Hitachi Zosen Corporation
Bandar Abbas Iran 18,000 MSF 1990 1994 ENI
Aramco Saudi Arabia 18,000 RO 2007 2008 EBD Group
Sardegna Italy 17,280 MED 1996 1998 IDE
Sicily Italy 16,800 RO 2002 2003 Membrane SRL
Wafa Libya 16,000 MSF 2002 2003
UK United Kingdom 15,925 RO 1991 1992 Veolia Environnement
Priolo Gargallo Italy 14,400 MED 1996 1998 Veolia Environnement
Gela Italy 14,400 MSF 1998 2000 Fantuzzi Group
Jamnagar India 14,400 MED 2004 2005 IDE
Revap Brazil 14,400 RO 2009 2010 Suez Environnement
RLAM ETA Brazil 14,400 RO 2009 2010 Suez Environnement
Yanbu Saudi Arabia 13,680 MSF 2000 2002 Mitsui
Salina Cruz Mexico 13,440 RO 1997 1999 Suez Environnement
Salina Cruz Mexico 13,440 RO 2011 2011 Suez Environnement
Ruwais Refnery United Arab
Emirates
13,248 MSF 1999 2000 Impregilo Group
Kavian Petrochemical
Complexes
Iran 12,000 MED 2008 2010 Fan Niroo Company
Bandar Abbas new
Refnery
Iran 12,000 MED 2008 2009
Khursaniyah Saudi Arabia 10,790 RO 2006 2007
USA United States of
America
10,670 RO 1995 1996 MECO
Dalian China 10,000 MSF 1996 1998
Rabigh Saudi Arabia 10,000 MED 2003 2005 Aquatech International
Corporation
China China 10,000 RO 2005 2006 Siemens
Rabigh Refnery Saudi Arabia 10,000 RO 2006 2007
EPPC Egypt 10,000 RO 2010 2011 Shivsu Canadian Clear
International
* Feedwater is river water with TDS of 1,700 mg/l
The split between membrane and thermal technologies is roughly 60:40 in favour of RO.
Refining and petrochemicals // Wastewater challenges
Figure 3.14 Large scale seawater desalination for refineries by technology, 19902011
RO 0.73 million m/d
1.16 million m/d
(1990-2011)
MED 0.26 million m/d
MSF 0.17 million m/d
3.5 Wastewater challenges
3.5.1 Wastewater streams and volumes
Refinery wastewater contains particularly nasty chemicals typical constituents include not only oil, but benzene, ammonia,
sulphides, phenol and cyanide. Unlike other industries with on-site cooling systems, there is a significant risk that refinery
cooling water will be contaminated by oil.
The volume and composition of refinery wastewater means that it cannot be discharged to a municipal sewer, so most refineries
have their own on-site WWTP. Wastewater volumes and contaminants vary depending on the kind of processing that is being
carried out at the refinery. Typical wastewater streams resulting from refinery processes are shown in the following figure.
Figure 3.15 Main refinery processes and wastewater streams generated
Objective Process
Wastewater:crude
oil ratio Type of wastewater generated
Salt removal from crude oil Crude desalting 0.05 Desalter effuent
Fractionation by heating Atmospheric distillation and
vacuum distillation
0.62 (Oily) sour water
Removal of contaminants,
e.g. sulphur
Hydrotreating / hydroprocessing 0.02 (Oily) sour water
Long-chains to short-chains Catalytic cracking 0.36 Sour water
Thermal cracking / visbreaking 0.05
Catalytic hydrocracking 0.05
Residuals to shorter chains
+ coke
Coking 0.02 Sour water
Spent caustic
Straight chains to cyclic chains Catalytic reforming 0.14 Small volumes of oily wastewater
Short-chains to long-chains Polymerisation 1.40 Sour water
Spent caustic
Increase octane number by
rearranging atoms
Isomerisation 0.02 Sour water
Spent caustic
Alkylation 0.06 Spent caustic
Source: GWI
The types of wastewater generated by refining processes are typically classified as strong wastes (desalter effluent, sour water,
spent caustic) or oily wastewater. Non-refining wastewater includes blowdown / condensate from boilers / cooling towers and
wastew streams from advanced feedwater treatment technologies. These are discussed in the following sections.
3.5.2 Strong wastes
A number of wastewater streams from refinery processes are classified as strong wastes. Strong wastes are characterised by high
concentrations of salts, chemicals and metal ions.
Desalter effluent: Crude oil contains salts at concentrations of 30800 mg/l of oil. The desalting process involves
adding water to dissolve salts, then separating the oil and water. Desalter effluent contains high quantities of oil,
dissolved solids and suspended solids which can cause significant problems in wastewater treatment systems.
Pretreatment of desalter effluent is recommended before it is discharged to the refinerys WWTP.
Sour water: Sour water can be defined as water that contains hydrogen sulphide and ammonia. Sour water results
from many refinery processes where steam condenses in the presence of hydrocarbons (see figure 3.15). A piece of
equipment called a sour water stripper is used to treat sour water by removing hydrogen sulphide and ammonia.
Significant volumes of sour water are produced, and stripped sour water is one of the main sources of treated
wastewater that can be reused (see section 3.7.1.1).
Spent caustic: Caustic solutions are alkalis, which are used to sweeten products by scrubbing them of sulphur-
containing compounds (e.g. mercaptans, hydrogen sulphide), or to remove acidic compounds from products. Spent
caustic is the term given to a formerly caustic solution once the bulk of the alkali has been spent as a result of
chemical reactions. A typical refinery will have several spent caustic waste streams; sulphidic spent caustic can be
sent to the WWTP, but phenolic spent caustic is usually sent off-site for disposal.
3.5.3 Oily wastewater
In a refinery, water, in the form of steam, comes into contact with hydrocarbons. This means that much of the water that results
from refining processes is oily, i.e. contains hydrocarbons.
Another source of oily wastewater is crude oil storage tanks. As water is more dense than oil, it will build up at the bottom of
storage tanks, together with sediment. This bottom water and sediment (BW&S) is periodically drawn off; water is sent to the
primary oil/water separator WWTP and sediment to sludge treatment.
3.5.4 Blowdown and condensate
To prevent dissolved solids building up in boilers and cooling towers, a percentage of the water must be continually removed
(blowdown) and replaced with makeup water (either BFW or cooling feedwater as appropriate). Compared to other refinery
wastewater streams, blowdown is relatively clean. A full discussion of blowdown can be found in chapter xx on the power
industry; here we only cover the particular circumstances found at refineries.
3.5.4.1 Cooling tower blowdown
At refineries, the best practice is to route cooling tower blowdown to the WWTP via a separate sewer system. This avoids cross-
contamination by oily wastewater streams and allows the primary oil/water separator to be bypassed.
However, even if such precautions are taken, the cooling tower blowdown should join the WWTP at the secondary oil/water
separator stage. This is due to the risk of contamination in heat exchangers, where the hydrocarbons being cooled are usually at a
higher pressure than the cooling water. This means that if leaks occur, oil will pass into the cooling water, meaning that cooling
tower blowdown will typically have a COD in the region of 150 mg/l.
3.5.4.2 Condensate from boiler blowdown and steam generators
Due to the high level of BFW treatment and the lack of contact with hydrocarbons, condensate from boiler blowdown and steam
generators is the cleanest wastewater stream found at a refinery. The main treatment challenge posed by condensate is its high
temperature. As condensed steam, the condensate will have a temperature in the region of 100C. If condensate is routed directly
to the WWTP, problems caused by high temperatures include:
Sewers exposed to extreme variations in temperature will deteriorate over time.
Adding hot water to the sewer can cause hydrocarbons to vaporise.
A number of wastewater treatment processes, in particular biological treatment, are very temperature-sensitive.
This means that it is best practice to reduce the temperature of condensate before treating it. Typically this is done via a vapour-
liquid separator and a heat exchanger. The condensate can either be discharged to the sewer, combined with cooling tower
blowdown, or treated separately for reuse condensate polishing. Condensate polishing typically involves using activated carbon
to remove organic compounds, followed by ion exchange.
3.5.5 Wastewater streams generated by advanced water treatment processes
RO and IX both generate wastewater streams that need to be dealt with:
The brine reject stream from RO treatment is high in TDS. Brine disposal is not an issue if the refinery is near the
coast, as the brine can be discharged to the sea. However, in other locations disposing of brine off-site is prohibitively
expensive. Although high recovery and ZLD technologies are not yet prevalent in refineries, the need to deal with
brine streams could act as a driver for more widespread adoption.
Ion exchange resins are regenerated by washing with an acid, base, or salt solution. This results in a concentrated
waste stream that has to be dealt with using dedicated treatments.
Refining and petrochemicals // Wastewater treatment technologies
3.6 Wastewater treatment technologies
A typical refinery wastewater system involves primary and secondary oil/water separation followed by biological treatment and
clarification. If the refinery is treating its wastewater for reuse or to meet strict discharge standards, there will also be a tertiary
treatment step. Typical treatment technologies found in refineries are illustrated in the following figure.
Figure 3.16 Typical refinery WWTP technologies
Wastewater treatment level Treatment method
Primary treatment Primary oil/water separator:
API primary oil-water separator
Corrugated plate interceptors (CRI)
Parallel plate separators (PPI)
Secondary oil/water separator:
Dissolved air fotation (DAF)
Induced air fotation (IAF)
Biological treatment Activated sludge
Activated sludge treatment and powdered activated carbon
Sequencing batch reactor (SBR)
Membrane bioreactor (MBR)
Aerated lagoons
Tricking flters
Rotating biological contractor
Nitrogen removal
Tertiary treatment Sand fltration
Activated carbon
Chemical oxidation
Sludge treatment Dewatering
Thickening
Digesting
Filtering
An equalisation tank is also an important part of a refinery WWTP. The tank acts as a buffer zone that smoothes out the
fluctuations in the wastewater flow rate that result from fluctuations in production. Depending on the WWTP layout, the
equalisation tank can be placed before or after the primary water/oil separator, or after the secondary oil/water separator.
The wastewater streams, and the points at which they join a typical refinery WWTP are illustrated in the following figure.
Figure 3.17 Wastewater streams and wastewater treatment in the refining industry
Primary
oil/water
separation
Secondary
oil/water
separation
Equalisation
Biological
treatment
Clarification/
sedimentation
Tertiary
treatment
Crude
tank
Tank
Slop oil
recovery
Separation
tank
Oil desalter
Refinery Phenolic
Sulphidic
Demineralisation
system
Boiler
Turbine
Cooling
tower
Solids handling
Sludge disposal
Wash water
Crude oil
Sour water
Oily sour water
Spent caustic
Boiler blowdown
Unrecovered condensate
Cooling tower blowdown
Stripped sour water
Condensate
recovery
Input water
Makeup water
Cooling water evaporation
Oil skim
Discharge
Oil skim
Demineralised water
Steam
Sewer
Steam losses
Oil skim
Solids
or
Coker unit
Crude oil
Desalter
effluent
*
*
Input water
Offsite disposal
Neutralisation
Sale
Steam
Bottom
tank draws
Diagram key
Oil
Wastewater
Water
Steam
*
Pretreatment options
Solids
Water reuse
Sour water
strippers
Sour condensate
Discharge
Reuse
Source: GWI
Refining and petrochemicals // Water reuse
3.6.1 Emerging trends in refinery wastewater treatment
Industry experts have highlighted the following trends in refinery wastewater treatment:
Treatment of wastewater streams at source: As illustrated in figure 3.17, the refining industry generates different
wastewater streams that are usually combined and treated together. Due to their characteristics, some of the streams
(e.g. blowdown) can cause problems in the WWTP plant and ultimately increase the cost of treatment. Refining
industry professionals would like to use technologies that deal with each type of wastewater at its source in order
to improve its quality before it is sent to the WWTP. One example of this is sour water strippers, which are already
common in refineries.
Collaboration between oil extraction companies and refineries: Extraction companies generate produced water, whose
composition varies by location (see chapter 2 of this report). It is possible that treated produced water could be reused
in refineries. Another potential area for collaboration is improving the quality of crude oil at the extraction site, which
would reduce the volume of water required for desalting.
Emerging trends in biological treatment: According to interviews conducted with industry experts, the use of
membrane bioreactors (MBR) is an emerging trend in refineries. MBR can achieve good water quality (<3 mg/l of
TSS and <100 mg/l COD) without the need for a subsequent clarification step.
3.7 Water reuse
3.7.1 Sources of water for reuse
There is huge potential for water reuse at refinery sites. For example, the CITGO refinery at Lake Charles, Louisiana, decreased its
water withdrawal by 94% between 2005 and 2010. CITGO achieved this reduction by aggressively adopting reuse policies at their
WWTP (which had originally been built in 1995), while upgrading monitoring and control systems. This action was taken in the
wake of damage by Hurricane Rita in 2005, and a 54,000 bbl oil spillage in 2006 for which the company was fined $6 million.
The following figure lists potential sources of water reuse in a refinery; subsequent sections give further detail.
Figure 3.18 Water reuse applications and source of water
Source of water for reuse Reuse application
Stripped sour water Desalter wash water
Coker quench / coke cutting water
Recovered condensate BFW
Tertiary (or better) treated refnery wastewater BFW
Cooling tower feedwater
Tertiary (or better) treated stormwater BFW
Cooling tower feedwater
3.7.1.1 Stripped sour water
Sour water is generated by most refinery processes, when condensing steam becomes contaminated with hydrogen sulphide
and ammonia from hydrocarbons. Sour water is treated in sour water strippers, the best of which can achieve <1mg/l hydrogen
sulphide and <30 mg/l ammonia. Stripped sour water can be reused as desalter wash water, or to dilute spent caustic solutions
prior to further treatment.
Well-designed refineries have multiple sour water strippers so that different wastewater streams can be treated separately. For
example, sour water resulting from catalytic cracking or delayed coking contains high levels of phenols and cyanide. Regular sour
water strippers do not remove these compounds, so instead a dedicated phenolic sour water stripper should be employed.
Stripped sour water that cannot be reused is sent to the refinery WWTP, joining at the biological treatment stage if it is not
contaminated with oil.
3.7.1.2 Recovered condensate
Condensed steam from boilers is already of very high quality, and can be reused as BFW or other steam generation processes after
condensate polishing. Condensate polishing uses mixed bed ion exchange to maintain a neutral pH (guard against corrosion)
while removing ions and suspended particles that would otherwise cause scaling, e.g. silica, iron oxide.
Although condensate polishing generates high quality water for reuse, the savings made need to be balanced against the cost of
treating ion exchange resin regeneration wastewater (see section 3.5.5).
3.7.1.3 Tertiary and advanced wastewater treatment
The refining industry currently lags behind other industries in employing advanced treatment technologies, such as membranes,
for wastewater treatment. However, scarcity and rising raw water prices are beginning to make the industry re-evaluate its
attitudes towards treating refinery wastewater for reuse.
The technologies shown in the following figure represent the choices available for different reuse applications, although it should
be stressed that they are not yet commonly found in refineries.
Figure 3.19 Trends in water reuse technologies
Potential water reuse application Technology Comment Disadvantages
Utility water (for washing foors, etc.)
Fire water
Media / sand fltration No removal of dissolved solids,
only suspended solids.
As a standalone technology
it cannot upgrade quality of
wastewater effuent.
MF or UF No removal of dissolved solids,
only suspended solids.
Susceptible to fouling.
Pretreatment recommended.
Cooling water makeup
BFW makeup
MF or UF followed by RO RO membranes susceptible to
fouling by hydrocarbons.
Dealing with UF reject can
increase treatment cost.
MR or UF followed by NF Similar to RO, but lower
pressure.
Salt rejection of NF is lower
than that of RO.
Ion exchange Cost-effective option to treat
effuent to BFW quality.
Resin regeneration wastewater
needs to be dealt with.
Source: IPIECA, 2010; GWI
One large drawback of traditional polymer membranes is the difficulty in cleaning them when they foul especially if the
fouling is due to oily waste. Polymer membranes cannot withstand harsh cleaning, whether physical, chemical or steam cleaning.
Ceramic membranes aim to do the same job as MF or UF membranes without these drawbacks. They are constructed from
robust inorganic materials, such as aluminium oxide or titanium oxide, which enables them to withstand harsher conditions than
polymer membranes. Ceramic membranes specifically designed for de-oiling already exist, and could be of special interest to the
refining industry as pretreatment for RO.
3.7.2 Zero liquid discharge
Zero liquid discharge (ZLD) is not commonly found in refineries. It is very expensive (due to high energy use) and creates a very
concentrated waste stream that needs to be dealt with.
However, there are a few examples where ZLD has been used in Mexico (Pemex) and Brazil (Pentrobras) as a result of regulatory
pressures. The experts from water companies we interviewed thought that ZLD would only be used if imposed by authorities via
environmental regulations.
3.7.3 Demand for advanced water reuse technologies
The interviews we conducted indicate that the refining industry recognises the technological advantages of water reuse even
though it is not yet widely practised. Several opinions were widely held:
Asset life can be prolonged, system reliability improved and overall operating expenditure decreased if high water
quality is provided via reuse.
Independence is important to refineries. Reuse decreases refineries dependence on permitted water allocations or
purchasing water from suppliers. There could be opportunities for high recovery technologies and ZLD in order to
reuse as much water as possible and avoid using more expensive water sources.
Fouling is a serious problem when using membranes, especially if they are in contact with oil. Fouling both reduces
production and increases operating costs. De-oiling technologies will become more widespread in the industry when
water reuse becomes common practice in refineries.
UF and RO for wastewater treatment is likely to gain most traction in areas where seawater desalination is already
practised as the only viable option for generating feedwater. This is because the energy used for RO is dependent on
the salinity of the feedwater, meaning that RO wastewater treatment has lower operating costs than RO seawater
treatment. As energy prices rise, this cost difference is becoming a more important factor.
Refining and petrochemicals // Supply chain analysis
However, according to our interviewees there still remain significant barriers that need to be overcome in order for more
advanced wastewater treatment to be employed:
Economic considerations: Water technology companies should be working on developing cost-effective reuse
technologies and on reducing the payback time. The current generation of advanced treatment technologies are
expensive and not yet economically feasible.
Polishing issues with high recovery technologies: However, to become more widely adopted, improvements need to be
made to reduce the amount of polishing required after the high recovery step.
Adding a water reuse plant adds another layer of complexity to the refinerys operations. Solutions to this might
include simple, automatic plant designs or outsourcing.
Refineries are complex facilities that need different water solutions at different times. That means that there is no one rule
of thumb for procurement of water equipment. Several approaches can be adopted, and these are discussed in the following
sections.
3.8.1.1 EPC model
EPC is the most common procurement model in the refining industry. Within the model, there are a number of variations on
how equipment and technologies are procured and how water companies can be involved.
The water company can be a subcontractor in an EPC contract. This is usually the case when a new refinery is being
built. The water company is subcontracted in order to deal with water production and other water/wastewater issues.
This is done when the EPC company does not have water and wastewater treatment in their portfolio.
The water company can be an EPC contractor and provide their own technologies, as well as selecting equipment and
technologies from other suppliers. In this case, companies try to have supervision of the facility for the first year or
two.
The refinery contracts a large EPC company that selects specific equipment and technologies from different
suppliers. This is becoming increasingly prevalent in India and the Middle East where refineries mostly rely on
an EPC company rather than working directly with water technology companies. This is particularly common for
process water treatment technologies, as well as in cases when the refinery wants to have a certain technology.
As shown in the following figure, the EPC contractors who have established themselves in providing seawater desalination plants
for refineries include IDE, with 3 MED installations and Veolia Environnement, with two MED and two RO plants. Mitsubishi
and Zolal Iran have been EPC contractor for one extra-large plant each (Rabigh and Fajr respectively; discussed earlier in section
3.4.2).
Figure 3.20 Seawater desalination for refining by EPC contractor, 19902011
Mitsubishi 227,300 m/d
(1 plant)
1.16 million m/d
(1990-2011)
Zolal Iran 120,000 m/d
(1 plant)
Veolia Environnement 121,585 m/d
(4 plants)
IDE 127,680 m/d
(3 plants)
Other 227,300 m/d
(28 plants)
3.8.1.2 EP model
The EP model is expected to become more important in the future for a refinery it is less expensive than EPC. In the EP
model, a contractor carries out the engineering and procurement of equipment, and construction is carried out by a third party.
A local construction company that the refinery has already worked with on the site is often used, as they will be able to provide
continuous maintenance.
3.8.1.3 Direct procurement of treatment solutions
Direct procurement usually happens when existing refineries are looking to upgrade their water or wastewater treatment plants.
Refineries define the technologies, treatment scheme and any other specifics. The bidding process is normally done online. This
approach is more common for wastewater treatment and less common for specialised water treatment requirements.
3.8.2 Factors that influence decision making
A number of factors influence decision making for the purchase of equipment and technologies.
Price: The lowest price is commonly the decisive factor in decision making. In an EPC contract, capital expenditure is
the most important factor in the final decision.
References: The ability to verify previous work is also important. Companies often need to be willing to build their
first or second references at a very low price in order to get a foot in the door and compete as a player in the market.
Consolidation of water technology offerings: Water companies can be very specialised in what they offer. However
refining sector clients tend to prefer to receive a full package for BFW, cooling water, process water and wastewater
treatment from a single water company.
Free pilot projects for new technologies: Clients like to try technologies that are new to them before committing to
buy on a larger scale. Some water companies charge for pilot projects, but this approach is not welcomed by refineries.
Other water companies offer free trials where they only try to cover internal costs. Carrying out free pilot projects is
considered common practice and part of a successful business strategy.
Good presentation of new technologies: This requires good commercial skills and technical knowledge supported by
studies and R&D results. Innovative technologies are expensive, but on the other hand refining companies are rich.
A water companys ability to prove the quality of their technology, coupled with persuasive presentation, can result in
clients purchasing despite the expense of the technology.
3.8.3 Maintaining a market presence
Maintaining a market presence is vital. Some of the important factors for this are listed below.
Technology showcasing and collaboration with other companies: This is particularly important for big EPC
contractors. This includes working with suppliers and with new companies who have new ideas, testing new
technologies in new installations, and working together to develop the best overall solutions.
Maintain a good relationship with previous clients: it is always beneficial to stay on good terms with previous clients
to increase the chances of involvement in future projects.
Keep the price low: being less expensive than rival companies is one of the key survival factors in the market.
Working language: sometimes local suppliers and constructors are preferred as there is no language barrier between
the client and contractors.
Personal contacts: develop and maintain personal contacts with professionals in the refining industry.
Refining and petrochemicals // Market forecast
3.9 Market forecast
3.9.1 Refining projects
Our market forecast has been informed by the May 2012 edition of Oil and Gas Journals Worldwide Construction Update, which
surveys refining construction activity. The following figure shows the locations of the 287 future projects in the dataset.
Figure 3.21 Future refining projects, 20122020
Source: Oil and Gas Journal, 2012; Global Water Risk Index, GWI, 2011
A summary of the top countries by future additional capacity is shown in the following figures. China has by far the most
planned activity, but the most water-scarce areas with planned projects are in the Middle East (see map above).
Figure 3.22 Future additional refining capacity by country, 20122017
Country Additional refining
capacity 201217 (bbl/d)
No. of
projects
Avg project size
(bbl/d)
China 4,068,515 25 162,741
Saudi Arabia 1,600,000 7 228,571
Canada 1,566,300 16 97,894
India 1,448,645 14 103,475
Brazil 1,390,112 22 63,187
United Arab Emirates 1,023,000 6 170,500
United States 991,500 21 47,214
Venezuela 900,000 5 180,000
Iraq 890,900 6 148,483
Mexico 732,500 8 91,563
Rest of world 7,746,870 125 61,975
Total 22,358,341 255 87,680
To inform our forecast, we have used the published project completion dates, and made estimates of completion dates for projects
that are still in the planning stages. We have also factored in information from interviews conducted with industry experts.
Our reference scenario for the refining and petrochemicals industry makes the following assumptions:
Crack spread above $20/bbl in the U.S. and above $10/bbl in other markets.
Economic growth in India and China in excess of 6%.
Growth rate in the U.S. in excess of 1%.
Brent crude remains above $60/bbl (this is relevant to downstream development in the Gulf region, where much of
the money for development originates from oil sales).
In our alternate scenario, the following happens from 2013 onwards:
Crack spread falls below $10/bbl in the U.S. and below $6/bbl in Europe/Asia.
China and India growth economic rates fall below 6%.
Under the alternate scenario, overall market activity falls by around 80%.
In our reference scenario, we see steady growth in conventional water and wastewater treatment for the refining and
petrochemical industry. We anticipate seawater desalination taking off in Asia Pacific and the Middle East, as projects happen in
coastal water-scarce areas where there is little alternative (see map in figure 3.21). We do not forsee ZLD systems becoming widely
adopted at this stage, though there will be a handful of pioneers.
Figure 3.23 Refining and petrochemicals industry market forecast, 20112025
ZLD systems
plants
systems
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Refning and petrochemicals
($ million)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
2011-17
2025
(a)
186.2 193.9 202.0 210.5 219.3 228.5 237.1 4.1% 316.0
(b)
216.0 226.5 237.4 248.9 261.0 273.6 285.8 4.8% 398.1
(c)
52.5 167.6 509.2 265.5 458.9 892.6 807.7 57.7% 976.3
ZLD systems 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 20.0 0.0% 35.0
Total
(d)
590.0 729.1 1,095.5 893.0 1,098.7 1,575.8 1,523.0 17.1% 1,955.2
(a)
Includes intakes, screen and primary treatment, as well as clarifcation, fltration and other pretreatment approaches.
(b)
Includes oil water separation.
(c)
These are essentially captive desalination plants supplying water and possibly steam to a co-located refnery or petrochemical plant,
as well as any co-located power plant serving the refnery.
(d)
This represents a signifcant upgrade in the outlook for the refning and petrochemical sector as margins in the business have
improved since the publication of GWIs Global Water Market report in 2011.
Source: GWI
Refining and petrochemicals // Market forecast
The country market split for 20132017 is shown in the following figure. The spend on water/wastewater treatment per additional
barrel of oil processing is higher in countries where seawater desalination is used.
Figure 3.24 Refining and petrochemicals industry: top country markets, 20132017
$6,186 m
Total market value
(2013-2017)
Saudi Arabia $631m
China $760m
RoW $3,460m
Canada $132m
India $685m
United Arab Emirates $518m
Source: GWI
The country market split is also reflected in the regional market split. Other notable country markets that contribute to the
regions include the U.S., Brazil and Venezuela.
Figure 3.25 Refining and petrochemicals industry: regional markets, 20132017
Americas $1,270m
$6,186m
Total market value
(2013-2017)
EMEA $2,344m
Asia Pacific
$2,572m
Source: GWI
In our reference scenario, the seawater desalination market is dominated by large projects in the Middle East and Asia Pacific,
though we feel that there is potential for it to take a toehold in the Americas.
Figure 3.26 Refining and petrochemicals industry, seawater desalination, 20112017: Reference scenario
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 0.0 40.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 60.0 25.0
EMEA 44.3 37.6 88.2 58.8 123.3 593.0 574.2 53.3%
Asia Pacifc 8.2 90.0 421.0 156.7 335.6 239.6 208.5 71.5%
Total 52.5 167.6 509.2 265.5 458.9 892.6 807.7 57.7%
Source: GWI
In the alternate scenario, there is around 80% less activity in the overall market from 2013 onwards, with no new projects in the
Americas.
Figure 3.27 Refining and petrochemicals industry, seawater desalination, 20112017: Alternate scenario
0
50
100
150
200
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
EMEA 44.3 37.6 17.6 11.8 24.7 118.6 114.8 17.2%
Asia Pacifc 8.2 90.0 84.2 47.0 100.7 71.9 62.6 40.3%
Total 52.5 167.6 101.8 58.8 125.3 190.5 177.4 22.5%
Source: GWI
Power // Introduction
4. Power
4.1 Introduction
Water is the working fluid of the power generation industry. In a combustion power plant, heat is produced by burning coal,
oil or gas. The energy produced by this reaction is transferred to a generator by heating water in the boiler. The steam that is
produced expands in a turbine, providing the energy to drive the blades of the turbine. The rotation of the turbine drives the
generator, which produces electricity. The basic steam cycle used in combustion plants contains four processes:
Water is compressed before entering the boiler.
In the boiler, water is heated at a constant pressure to produce steam.
In the turbine, the reduced pressure allows the steam to expand. This process releases energy which moves the
turbine blades.
Steam is condensed at low pressure to return to the start of the cycle.
A rough estimate of the efficiency of this cycle can be produced by comparing the highest temperature of the steam after passing
through the boiler with the lowest temperature of the water after condensation.
Water in the steam cycle flowing through the condenser transfers heat to the water in a separate cooling cycle. As a result of the
heat transfer process, the steam condenses to water without a decrease in temperature. The heated cooling water is introduced
to a cooling tower, where heat is lost to the atmosphere by evaporation and convection. Most of the water is recirculated to the
condenser. Water must be introduced to the system to replace the cooling water that is lost through evaporation. The cooling cycle
is the largest consumer of water in a power generation plant.
Water is also required as a component of the processes to remove sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide and particulate matter from the
exhaust gases produced by the plant. These processes produce highly concentrated streams of wastewater, which must be treated
before discharge or reuse. The treatment of contaminated wastewater from exhaust gas scrubbing processes is a promising
market for the use of high recovery treatment technologies.
4.2 Water intensive processes
Figure 4.1 Water cycles and treatment processes in power generation
Boiler
Cooling
tower
Steam
turbine
Heat
Steam vapour
Cooling tower
makeup water
Condenser
Solids
removal
(MF / media
filtration)
Condensate
polishing
(IX)
Boiler blowdown
Cooling tower blowdown
Boiler
makeup water
MF RO Feedwater
Mixed bed
IX
EDI
Softening RO
Brine
concentrator
Crystalliser
Filter
press
Solids
ZLD process
Boiler makeup treatment Cooling tower
makeup treatment
Feedwater
Diagram key
Wastewater
Water Steam
Solids
Source: GWI
4.2.1 Boiler water in the steam cycle
The boiler feedwater in the steam cycle requires the highest quality feedwater in a power plant. Steam produced in the boiler
circulates through the turbine and condenser before returning to the boiler. The cycles of compression, evaporation, expansion,
and condensation concentrate impurities in the circulating stream. Impurities that are less soluble in steam will deposit in the
turbine, creating potential sites for corrosion to occur.
The purity of water in the steam cycle can be controlled by varying the volume of water that is rejected from the boiler. The
continuous reject stream, known as blowdown, controls the concentration and volume of water in the boiler. The water lost from
the boiler must be continually replaced. The replacement stream is known as makeup.
Power // Water intensive processes
There are several variations on this cycle which increase the amount of energy that can be transferred to the generator.
Superheating reduces the volume of liquid water that passes through the turbine and increases the amount of energy available
by raising the temperature of the steam. In a supercritical system, the temperature and pressure of the steam entering the boiler
is increased until there is no difference between the properties of liquid water and steam. Above the critical point, water can
be converted to steam without boiling and the energy that is available increases. Reheating increases the temperature of steam
between a high and low pressure turbine. Steam from the high pressure turbine is reheated in the boiler before expanding in the
low pressure turbine. This process increases the total amount of energy that can be extracted from the system.
4.2.2 Cooling cycle
The cooling cycle represents the largest use of water in a combustion power plant. In the condenser, water in the cooling cycle
removes energy from the water in the steam cycle. The cooling process allows water to be recirculated through the boiler. The
cooling water must itself be cooled before discharge or reuse. In a once-through cooling system, water is taken from a source,
passed through the condenser and then returned to the source at a higher temperature. In a recirculating cooling system, water
from the condenser is cooled and reused in the cooling cycle. A recirculating system consumes more water, i.e. does not return
the water to its source, but a once-through system withdraws more water. There are two forms of recirculating cooling:
In an open system, the water in the cooling cycle is cooled by evaporation.
In a closed system, the water in the cooling cycle is cooled by heat exchange with another fluid.
In both systems, water must be added to the cooling cycle to replace any losses (makeup). To prevent the excessive concentration
of dissolved solids, a percentage of the water must be continually removed (blowdown). In an open system, the volume of makeup
water must be equal to the volume of water lost through evaporation and blowdown.
The water consumption requirements of selected cooling systems are described in the following figure.
Figure 4.2 Water consumption of selected cooling systems in coal-fired power stations
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
R
a
t
e

o
f

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
(
m
3
/
s
)
Rate of withdrawal (m
3
/s)
Recirculating - Pond
Once through
Recirculating - Tower
See footnote
(*)
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
(*)
The line that indicates that a plant consumes (evaporates) all of the water that it withdraws is given by y = x.
Nothing should be above this line, although in practice this will not always be true.
Source: EIA, 2010
4.2.3 Combined cycle power plants
As the name suggests, a combined cycle power plant uses two cycles of compression and expansion to extract energy. In the first
cycle, air is heated under high pressure and then expanded inside a gas turbine, known as a combustion turbine generator (CTG).
The second cycle is similar to the steam cycle seen in conventional combustion plants. The exhaust gases from the first cycle
heat water under pressure in a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) to produce steam. The expansion of this steam provides the
energy needed to drive a turbine. In a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plant, the energy to drive the CTG is provided by the
combustion of natural gas. In an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant, the energy to drive the CTG is provided by
the combustion of synthetic gas. The production of synthetic gas through coal gasification is described in Section 4.2.6.
The combined cycle has a higher thermal efficiency than a conventional coal-fired plant. The air in the gas cycle can be heated
directly and reach higher temperatures than the steam cycle. Combining the high temperatures of the gas cycle with the
improved cooling of the steam cycle increases the temperature range over which the plant operates. The theoretical thermal
efficiency of a combined cycle plant is 70%, because of the large difference between heat supplied and heat extracted. The
efficiency of an actual plant is limited to 55%.
Figure 4.3 Water use in a combined cycle power plant
HRSG
HRSG blowdown
HRSG
makeup water
Steam
(to turbine)
Polished condensate
Compressor
Gas
turbine
Heat
Combustion
Exhaust air
Air
Gas
Diagram key
Steam
Water
Wastewater
Source: Maulbetsch and DiFilippo, 2006
Figure 4.3 shows the water use in a typical combined cycle plant. In such a plant, water is used as the working fluid in the steam
cycle, as a method of condensing steam from the HRSG and as a method of cooling the inlet of the gas turbine. The water used
to cool the gas turbine inlet evaporates on contact with the heated air. The steam produced maintains the flow through the gas
turbine when the density of air is reduced by high ambient temperatures.
Figure 4.4 Projected water use volumes at the CPV Vaca station combined cycle power plant
Water quality
sampling
1.1m/hr
HRSG System
Makeup
7.3m/hr
Blowdown 5.1m/hr
Other losses
1.1m/hr
Wind losses (drift)
0.4m/hr
Evaporative losses
453.1m/hr
Blowodwn
122.6m/hr
Cooling System
Makeup
567.1m/hr
Source: CPV Vacaville and CH2M Hill, 2008
The purity requirements for makeup water in HRSG are similar to those required in conventional combustion plants. The HRSG
requires demineralised water to prevent scaling and corrosion on internal surfaces. The HRSG requires less water for makeup
than a conventional boiler in the steam cycle, because the gas turbine is the primary method of extracting energy from the fuel.
To produce the same amount of energy as a conventional power plant requires less steam to be produced in the boiler. A combined
cycle plant does not require additional equipment to remove sulphur dioxide and other pollutants from exhaust gases.
4.2.4 Flue gas desulphurisation
Burning coal with a high sulphur content releases large volumes of sulphur dioxide gas into the atmosphere. Flue gas
desulphurisation (FGD) is the process used to remove sulphur dioxide from exhaust gases before they are discharged. The
development of this process has been encouraged by regulations limiting the emissions from combustion power plants. In 80%
of FGD systems, the sulphur dioxide is removed from the exhaust gases through an oxidation reaction with limestone slurry
(calcium carbonate). This reaction produces gypsum (calcium sulphate) and carbon dioxide. The operating costs of this process
can be offset by purifying the gypsum and selling it for use in cement manufacturing. The presence of a marketable by-product
encourages the use of high recovery systems to purify the FGD wastewater.
Figure 4.5 Limestone addition removes sulphur dioxide from flue gas
Absorber
Flue gas Air
Scrubbed gas to stack
Mixing limestone slurry
Limestone (CaCO
3
)
FGD wastewater treatment
Gypsum (CaSO
4
) Wastewater blowdown
Makeup water
FGD wastewater
Recirculating water
Diagram key
Solid
Water
Wastewater
Source: EC JRC, 2006
Before desulphurisation can take place, fly ash particles suspended in the flue gas is removed from the exhaust gases in the
furnace. The cleaned flue gas is introduced to the body of the FGD absorber. Limestone slurry, a mixture of calcium carbonate
and water, is sprayed onto the incoming flue gas. The reactions take place in the oxidation reactor near the base of the absorber.
Sulphur dioxide (SO
2
) in the flue gas reacts with calcium carbonate and water in the slurry to form crystals of calcium sulphite
(CaSO
3
). This is the natural oxidation part of the FGD process. Air is introduced into the base of the absorber to produce calcium
sulphate (CaSO
4
) crystals through forced oxidation. Sulphate crystals are larger and easier to dewater, producing a purer saleable
product.
4.2.5 Ash handling systems
In coal-fired power plants, the combustion of coal produces large quantities of ash. Lighter ash particles, or fly ash, are removed
from the boiler furnace with the exhaust gases. Fly ash can then be removed from the exhaust gases by mixing with water,
passing the contaminated gas through a series of bag filters, or by electric charge attraction. In the United States, fly ash is
usually removed by dry methods, including bag filters or electrostatic precipitation. Heavier ash particles, or bottom ash, collect
in the bottom of the boiler furnace, where it is cooled on contact with water. When the hoppers at the bottom of the boiler are full,
the ash is sluiced from the water and sent to settling ponds. When the ash settles, the clear water at the surface of the pond is
discharged or reused. The ash at the bottom of the pond is regularly dredged and sent to landfill.
Figure 4.6 Percentage of US coal-fired power plants using wet ash handling systems
Wet sluiced
34 plants
Fly Ash
Handling
104 plants
117,000 MW
Handled dry
63 plants
Other
7 plants
Unknown
1 plant
Wet sluiced
85 plants
Handled dry
13 plants
Bottom
Ash Handling
99 plants
117,000 MW
Source: EPA, 2009
4.2.6 Coal gasification
Gasification can be used to extract synthetic gas, or syngas, from solid fuels. The gasification process was developed to take
advantage of plentiful supplies of cheap coal. The syngas produced from coal is burnt to provide energy to drive the gas turbine in
a combined cycle power plant. A combined cycle plant is more thermally efficient than a conventional combustion plant.
To produce syngas from raw coal, the following processes are used:
Gasification: Raw coal, steam and oxygen-rich air are introduced to the gasifier. The carbon in the coal is partially
oxidised by the oxygen and steam to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The energy released in this reaction
breaks down chemical bonds in the coal to produce tar and oil. Methane is formed by the reaction of carbon
monoxide and hydrogen. The final syngas mixture contains approximately 25% hydrogen gas, 30% carbon monoxide,
25% steam and 5% methane.
Syngas cooling: The syngas produced in the gasifier is cooled by exchanging heat with water recycled from other
processes in the plant. In a combined cycle plant the heated water produced by this process can be sent to the steam
generator to produce electricity.
Particulate removal: Particulate matter is removed from the cooled syngas through contact with water. The cleaned
gas produced by this process has a high concentration of acidic gases (e.g. hydrogen sulphide, H
2
S), and is commonly
referred to as sour gas.
Acid gas removal: The removal of sulphur from the sour gas is over 99% efficient. Hydrogen sulphide in the syngas
is removed through reactions with a chemical solvent. Hydrogen sulphide is chemically bonded to the solvent and
removed. The cleaned gas, known as sweet gas, is burnt to provide energy for the gas turbine in the combined cycle
plant.
The following figure illustrates the chemical processes described above.
Figure 4.7 Water use in coal gasification and synthetic gas cleaning
Gasifier
Acid gas
removal
Wet
particulate
scrubber
Sulphur
recovery
Steam
stripping
Gas
cooling
Water
treatment
Tail gas
(to gasifier)
Sweet gas
(to gas turbine)
Makeup Process water
Oxygen
Coal
Sulphur or sulphuric acid
Treated wastewater
Solids
Ash
Raw syngas Sour gas
Acid gas
Sour condensate
Diagram key
Gas
Solid
Liquid
Wastewater
Makeup
Acid gas
Source: Ratafia-Brown et al., 2002
In a coal gasification plant, water is used to cool the syngas produced by the gasifier, to remove ash particles suspended in the
syngas, and to produce steam to fuel reactions in the gasifier.
4.2.7 Nuclear power industry
In a nuclear power plant, steam is used to drive a turbine. The heat for this process is provided by the decay of radioactive isotopes
of uranium. In a pressurised water reactor (PWR), two separate water cycles are required to transfer energy from radioactive decay
to the turbine. In a boiling water reactor (BWR), one water cycle is used to cool the reactor, moderate the emission of neutrons
produced by radioactive decay, and drive the steam through the turbine.
4.2.8 Concentrated solar power
On a long enough timescale, all of the energy used to generate electricity comes from the sun. Concentrated solar power (CSP)
or solar thermal power uses the energy of the sun to directly heat the working fluid of the steam cycle. It should be noted that
this technology does not require the use of photovoltaic cells (solar panels), in which solar radiation transfers energy directly to
charged particles in the cell.
At a CSP plant, an array of reflectors are used to focus radiation from the sun onto a network of fluid containing tubes. The
focused energy heats the fluid inside these tubes, which can be molten salt, water or oil. The heated fluid provides enough energy
to generate the steam needed to power a turbine. The steam and cooling cycles of a CSP plant are similar to the cycles found in a
conventional fossil fuel fired power station. Water is used to maintain the purity of the boiler and cooling cycle, and to clean the
reflector surfaces. Environmental conditions that are appropriate for CSP plants do not produce abundant sources of water.
There are several configurations seen in operational CSP plants. The most common design in the U.S. is the parabolic trough
design, consisting of an array of parabolic mirrors which focus solar radiation onto a heat transfer fluid. An upcoming CSP
project will also incorporate a solar tower design, in which an array of mirrors focus solar energy onto a receiver on top of a tower.
Molten salt is heated in the receiver and the energy is transferred to water in the steam cycle.
The Solar Energy Industries Association estimates that there are 19 concentrated solar power projects currently operating in the
United States, with a capacity of 515 MW. The following figure describes energy produced by concentrated solar power, and the
water consumed in production.
Figure 4.8 Potential energy supply and water use from concentrated solar power plants in the U.S.
Plant design
No. of
operating
projects
Total capacity of
operating projects
(MW)
No. of
upcoming
projects
Total capacity of
upcoming projects
(MW)
Typical water
consumption/plant
(gal/MWh)
Parabolic trough 13 500 12 2,300 920
Solar tower 1 5 12 2,800 830
Source: DeMeo and Galdo, 1997; SEIA, 2012
4.3 Process water requirements
4.3.1 Purity of boiler makeup
The purity of the water in the boiler is dependent on two sources: the boiler makeup and the condensate that is returned to the
boiler after completing the cycle. Increasing the pressure of water entering the boiler increases the energy that can be extracted
from steam in the turbine. In modern power plants, boilers and HRSGs are designed to operate under high temperatures and
pressures. In an ultra-supercritical system, steam is heated above 566
o
C at a pressure greater than 4,500 psig.
The following figure presents guidelines for the purity of boiler feedwater published by the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME). At increasing temperature and pressure, the solubility of scale forming compounds decreases. Under
such conditions scale is more likely to form on the walls of the boiler. The solubility of silica in steam increases at supercritical
pressures. In supercritical and ultra-supercritical boilers, dissolved silica will be carried into the turbine. Silica will deposit in the
turbine as the steam expands and cools. These deposits decrease the efficiency of the turbine.
Figure 4.9 ASME guidelines for boiler water purity at increasing pressure and a constant temperature
Operating pressure (psig) 451600 601750 751900 9011,000 1,0011,500 1,5012,000
Feedwater
Dissolved oxygen (mg/l of O
2
) <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007 <0.007
Iron (mg/l of Fe) 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01
Copper (mg/l of Cu) 0.02 0.02 0.015 0.015 0.01 0.01
Hardness (mg/l of CaCO
3
) 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 Not detectable Not detectable
pH range 7.510.0 7.510.0 7.510.0 8.59.5 9.09.6 9.09.6
Boiler water
Silica (mg/l of SiO
2
) 40 30 20 8 2 1
Alkalinity (mg/l CaCO
3
) <250 <200 <150 <100 Not detectable Not detectable
Specifc conductance (S/cm) <2,500 <2,000 <1,500 <1,000 150 100
Source: ASME, 1994
The operation of the turbine is affected by the quality of the steam produced by the boiler. The rate of corrosion of the turbine
blades, and the deposition of dissolved solids within the turbine, is determined, in part, by the chemical composition of the steam.
To maintain the quality of water in the steam cycle, makeup for the boiler must have a conductivity less than 0.1 S/cm. The
conductivity of water is used as an indicator of the concentration of dissolved solids, and measures the concentration of charged
particles in the water. To provide a continuous supply of electricity, the makeup pretreatment system must be able to supply water
of this quality to replace the losses in the boiler. Failure to provide a consistent stream of high quality water will result in corrosion
in the turbine, a reduction in heating efficiency, and ultimately a shutdown of the power station.
4.3.2 Cooling tower makeup
Water in the cooling cycle is not required to be as pure as water in the steam cycle. Cooling makeup must be treated to remove
suspended and colloidal solids, but not dissolved solids. Suspended solids collect in the condenser and internal piping, especially
in areas of low flow. The build-up of material reduces the flow of water through the cooling cycle, and the efficiency of cooling.
The heat that enters the cooling cycle in the condenser creates an ideal environment for the growth of biological activity. The
efficiency of the condenser is reduced by the presence of biological material on heat transfer surfaces. If the cooling makeup is
drawn directly from surface water, a mechanical screen will prevent the uptake of marine life. A filtering system does not prevent
the intake of plankton and larvae. The growth of these organisms can be prevented by the addition of chlorine, or other biocidal
chemicals.
Power // Wastewater characteristics
4.4 Wastewater characteristics
4.4.1 Cooling tower blowdown
The evaporation of water in the cooling cycle increases the concentration of dissolved solids in the remaining water. To maintain
the concentration at a constant level, a volume of water must be continuously removed from the cooling cycle. This volume of
water, known as blowdown, is dependent on the concentration of dissolved solids. The conductivity of the water is an indicator of
the solids concentration, and is used to calculate the volume of water that must be removed. To maintain the volume of water in
the cooling cycle, water must be added to the cycle. This volume of water is known as makeup.
The concentration of water in the cooling cycle is defined by the cycles of concentration. This concept measures the concentration
of the cooling cycle water in relation to the concentration of the makeup. The cycles of concentration are used to calculate the
volume of makeup water that is required to replace what is lost in blowdown. The following figure describes the concentration
of water in the cooling cycle in relation to the cycles of concentration. Increasing the volume of the blowdown decreases the
concentration of dissolved solids, and the number of cycles of concentration.
Figure 4.10 Concentration of contaminants in the cooling cycle
Cycles of
concentration
Conductivity
(S/cm)
Total hardness
(mg/l as CaCO
3
)
Calcium hardness
(mg/l as CaCO
3
)
Silica
(mg/l)
Makeup water 600 300 150 5
2 1,200 600 300 10
4 2,400 1,200 600 20
6 3,600 1,800 900 30
10 6,000 3,000 1,500 50
Source: Loretitsch, 2002
The dissolved solids in the cooling system provide the raw materials for oxidation and reduction reactions on the heat transfer
surfaces. These reactions contribute to the corrosion of metal surfaces in the cooling system. The damage caused by corrosion
produces cracks in the walls of the condenser tubes, allowing cooling water to mix with the higher purity boiler water. The
concentration of dissolved solids must be controlled to maintain the quality of the water in the boiler.
4.4.2 FGD wastewater
The concentrated solution in the flue gas scrubber is continually removed to maintain the level of suspended solids, control the
rate of oxidation and reduce the build-up of corrosion forming impurities. Gypsum crystals can be separated from the wastewater
by weight in a hydrocyclone, or through a coagulation and settling process. Larger crystals are sent to a zero-liquid discharge
(ZLD) system, typically a filter press, to produce low moisture solids for sale. Smaller crystals remain in the wastewater for
additional treatment.
Figure 4.11 Concentrations of contaminants in FGD wastewater
Constituent Concentration Heavy metal Concentration of
soluble metal (ppm)
TSS 1.417% Iron 0.11
Sulphate 1,5008,000 mg/l Mercury 0.00010.01
Chloride 1,00028,000 mg/l Selenium 0.11
Calcium 7504,000 mg/l Arsenic 0.0070.1
Magnesium 1,1004,800 mg/l Boron 10700
Sodium 6704,800 mg/l
Source: Higgins et al. 2009
Figure 4.11 describes the typical concentrations of common contaminants in FGD wastewater. The wastewater from the FGD
process contains impurities introduced to the flue gas during the combustion of coal. Chlorides and other acidic compounds
cause corrosion in the FGD scrubber and downstream equipment. Heavy metals, including mercury and selenium, must be
removed from wastewater before discharge or reuse. The concentration of mercury in Figure 4.11 is not representative of the
mercury concentration in FGD wastewater, because mercury in FGD wastewater is typically in particulate form. After treatment,
wastewater can be reused in other areas of the plant, and as makeup water for the limestone slurry in the FGD scrubber.
4.5 Demineralisation technologies for process water
4.5.1 Treatment options for steam cycle boilers
Steam cycle boilers require demineralised feedwater with conductivity less than 0.1 S/cm. This standard prevents the
precipitation of scale forming compounds in the boiler, and the movement of solids into the turbine. To provide the level of
purity, boiler feedwater is passed through an RO module to remove dissolved solids, followed by a mixed bed ion exchange filter.
Electrodeionisation (EDI) can be used as an alternative to mixed bed ion exchange. The EDI filters are more expensive and can be
temperamental, but they do not need to be replaced and regenerated.
Operators of new combined heat and power (CHP) plants prefer to use a combination of RO and EDI. This combination is capable
of providing a flow of water up to 30 m/hr. Operators of larger plants, requiring over 100 m/hr of water for the boiler, prefer to
use a conventional cation and mixed bed ion exchange system. The system that provides the required level of water purity for the
boiler is commonly called demineralisation.
4.6.1 Zero-liquid discharge treatment of cooling tower blowdown
Zero liquid discharge (ZLD) technologies can recover 96% of the water from cooling tower blowdown, demineralisation plant
effluent and FGD wastewater. The water that is recovered through this process can be reused as makeup water for the cooling
towers. It would be possible to use the water recovered by ZLD in the demineralisation process for boiler makeup. According to
a source interviewed by GWI, this is not currently common practice in the power industry. The development of cost effective
treatment technologies for treating cooling water blowdown may make reuse in boiler makeup more common.
4.6.2 Treatment of FGD wastewater
Figure 4.12 Wastewater treatment processes following flue gas desulphurisation
2
FGD Wastewater
FGD
wastewater
Softening
Primary
clarification
Metals
precipitation
Coagulation/
flocculation
Secondary
clarification
Media
filtration
FGD Wastewater
Treated
wastewater
Solid
mixer
Filter
press
FGD Wastewater
Solids
(gypsum)
FGD Wastewater
Concentrated
water
Recycled
water
1
3
4
5
6
Source: Higgins et al. 2009
FGD wastewater is the blowdown water which is continuously removed from the wet limestone scrubber. Solids, including
saleable by-products, are removed from the wastewater. The treated wastewater can be reused as makeup water in the plant. A
typical treatment train includes:
1. Gypsum desaturation: Calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)
2
) is added to the FGD wastewater to encourage the precipitation of
dissolved gypsum. Careful control of pH is required to prevent calcium carbonate precipitation.
2. Clarification: Large gypsum crystals are separated from the wastewater and removed for dewatering. Fine crystals
and other dissolved solids require further treatment. A portion of the sludge is returned to the desaturation stage to
increase the precipitation and growth of gypsum crystals.
Power // Wastewater treatment technologies
3. Precipitation of metals: Metal anions in the wastewater solution are removed by adsorption onto iron hydroxide. The
resulting compound is removed by precipitation.
4. Coagulation: Coagulation and flocculation increase the size of suspended solids and improve the filtration of
precipitated metals. An additional clarification step increases the volume of solids that are removed for dewatering.
5. Dewatering: Solids removed in the clarification stage are introduced to a filter press. Solid gypsum is produced with a
20% moisture content. Water removed by the press is returned to the primary clarifier.
6. Filtration: Coagulated solids are removed from the wastewater by multimedia filtration. The permeate can be reused
in the plant or, if the concentration of contaminants meets regulatory standards, discharged. The concentrate is
returned to the primary clarifier for further treatment. Additional biological treatment will remove heavy metals that
are not affected by precipitation with iron hydroxide.
4.6.2.1 Opportunities for zero-liquid discharge technologies
The previous section describes the use of chemical treatment processes to reduce the volume of FGD wastewater. Chemical
treatment alone will not completely remove trace contaminants from wastewater streams before discharge. ZLD technologies offer
the opportunity to reduce the stream of FGD wastewater to solid waste. The water that is recovered by ZLD technologies can be
reused as makeup to the FGD scrubber. The use of ZLD technologies will only become cost effective in regions where regulations
limit the discharge of trace contaminants.
In a recent study, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that 30% of the coal fired power plants that treated FGD
wastewater used a ZLD system. The majority of the ZLD systems that were studied (85%) were described as complete recycle
systems. In systems like these, solids are separated from the wastewater in a centrifuge or a rotary filter. The dewatered solids are
sent to landfill, and the recovered water is used as makeup for the FGD scrubber. The EPA survey found one plant using a vapour
compression brine concentrator to reduce the volume of wastewater. The concentrated slurry produced in the concentrator is
mixed with dry fly ash from the exhaust stack to improve handling of the ash. The following figure illustrates the method used to
treat FGD wastewater in the United States.
Figure 4.13 Coal-fired power stations treating FGD wastewater in the United States
ZLD 38,740 MW
FGD
110 plants
108,000 MW
Settling ponds 27,640 MW
Chemical/
Biological 21,030 MW
Other
5,011 MW
Fully recycled
33,800 MW
ZLD
33 plants
39,000 MW
Evaporation pond 1,800 MW
Dry fly ash 1,140 MW
Deep well 2,000 MW Unknown
15,600 MW
Source: EPA, 2009
Italys largest electricity utility, ENEL, uses evaporative treatment technologies to achieve ZLD. In 2008, ENEL selected Aquatech
to provide, operate and maintain ZLD treatment systems for FGD wastewater at five coal-fired power stations. The installation
and operation of these systems are more expensive than an alternative, chemical treatment option. However, the ZLD technology
allows the power plant operator to meet discharge limits, regardless of the sulphur content of coal, or tightening regulations. The
following figure describes the five ENEL power plants using ZLD systems.
Figure 4.14 ENEL power plants using zero-liquid discharge technology
Location
No. of brine
concentrators
No. of
crystallisers
Capacity
(m/d)
Estimated cost of
equipment ($ million)
Plant capacity
(MW)
Brindisi 2 1 3,350 19.3 2,640
Torrevaldaliga 2 2 1,200 6.9 1,980
Fusina 2 1 1,690 9.7 1,000
La Spezia 1 1 710 4.1 600
Sulcis 1 1 1,090 6.3 590
Total 8 6 8,040 46.3 6,810
Source: GWI; Bonfanti and Donadono, 2009
4.6.2.2 Biological treatment for selenium removal
Dewatering the sludge produced by a wet limestone FGD scrubber produces solid gypsum crystals that can be sold, and a dilute
stream of water that can be reused in the plant. Selenium, nitrates, mercury, and other heavy metals are present in this stream
in large concentrations. They are removed from the flue gas by the precipitation reactions in the limestone scrubber. These
contaminants must be removed from the dilute stream before the water can be reused as cooling or boiler makeup water. Some of
these contaminants cannot be removed by conventional methods. Highly soluble selenate (SeO
4
2
) ions are produced by oxidation
with calcium carbonate in the limestone scrubber.
Wastewater for biological treatment is passed through a series of softening, coagulation and settling steps to remove suspended
solids. The treated wastewater from these processes is introduced to a bioreactor. In the bioreactor, contaminants are removed
by oxidation and reduction reactions with bacteria attached to an activated carbon frame. Enzymes within the bacteria oxidise
selenate ions to less soluble selenite, and then oxidise the selenite ions to elemental selenium. Grains of selenium attach
themselves to the oxidising bacteria, and can be removed by regularly flushing water through the bioreactor. In a pilot unit, at
Roxboro Station in North Carolina, nitrates were oxidised by bacteria in a primary bioreactor, and selenium was removed in a
secondary bioreactor. The treatment process, provided by GEs Advanced Biological Metals Removal (ABMet
) system, removed
99% of selenium compounds from FGD wastewater.
4.7 Market drivers
4.7.1 Trends in fuel use and power plant construction
To establish the global trends in the power generation market, we have used the UDI World Electric Power Plants (WEPP)
database, which contains 124,710 currently operating power plants and 20,184 future power plant projects. This data is published
by Platts, a leading provider of energy information. We reached an estimate of the current generating capacity by calculating the
total capacity of operating plants. To provide an insight into the trends that influence the power market, we have calculated the
current generating capacity in each country, for each fuel type, and for each of our forecast regions. We have estimated the total
capacity of future projects by taking the predicted capacity of plants that are described by the WEPP as under construction. In this
section, we will present the drivers that we believe best represent the evolution of the global power market.
4.7.1.1 Coal
Coal is the most widely used fuel in power generation, particularly in Asia. The growth in capacity of coal-fired power stations has
been driven by construction in China and India. In China, the capacity of new coal power stations has increased by 270% since
the beginning of the 11th Five Year Plan in 2001. In India, the total capacity of newly constructed coal power stations increased
by over 700% during the 11th Five Year Plan, from 2007 to 2011. The WEPP database tracks a continued increase in newly
constructed power stations in India until 2015. India is likely to be the largest market for new coal-fired power stations by 2014.
Power // Market drivers
The following figure illustrates the construction of new coal-fired power plants in China and India.
Figure 4.15 Annual additional capacity of new coal-fired power plants, 1970-2015
Americas
0
16,000
32,000
48,000
64,000
80,000
2015 2010 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980 1975 1970
EMEA
Rest of Asia
China
India
M
W
Source: Platts, 2011
In the rest of the world, there has been relatively little construction of new coal-fired power stations since 1990. The growth in
generating capacity in Europe and North America has been driven primarily by increasing use of natural gas. Future growth in
coal-fired generating capacity will be driven by the construction of new plants in Asia. The WEPP database suggests that for the
period 20132017, there will be 550,000 MW of additional capacity in China and India alone. The market for water treatment in
Europe and the Americas will be driven by upgrades and improvement at existing plants to comply with regulations on emissions.
4.7.1.2 Gas
Natural gas is the primary source of fuel for power plants in the Americas. This dominance was driven by a surge in the number
of new gas-fired power stations in the USA in between 1998 and 2002. In the 1990s, gas turbine and combined cycle plants were
preferred over conventional coal-fired plants because they were cheaper, more efficient, and could be more rapidly constructed.
Between 1998 and 2002, the generating capacity provided by natural gas in the USA increased by 120 GW. The drive towards
new gas-fired power stations, accompanied by a series of cold winters and hot summers, increased demand for natural gas. Gas
producers were unable to keep pace with the demand and the spot prices for natural gas peaked at $10 /million Btu in December
2000. The construction of new gas-fired power stations peaked in 2002, when 49,000 MW of capacity were added.
The construction of new gas-fired power plants is strongly dependent on the cost of natural gas. Shale gas production in the USA
has driven the development of gas turbine and combined cycle plants, at the expense of conventional coal-fired plants. In the
United Kingdom, the generating capacity provided by natural gas has been growing steadily since 1990. Natural gas is currently
the most common fuel used in UK plants. The abundance of natural gas has also affected the economics of coal gasification.
The following figure describes the construction of new gas-fired power plants since 1970.
Figure 4.16 Annual additional capacity of new gas-fired power plants, 1970-2015
Americas
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
2015 2010 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980 1975 1970
EMEA
Asia Pacific
M
W
Future growth of gas power capacity will be driven by the construction of new gas turbine and combined cycle plants. The largest
market for new power plants will be in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, where 233,000 MW of generating capacity will be
added between 2013 and 2017. Outside the EMEA region, the largest single market for new gas fired power stations will be in the
USA, driven primarily by cheap sources of natural gas. The market for water treatment systems will not benefit as much from
the growth in gas-fired capacity as it will from the growth in coal. The construction of new gas-fired power stations will limit the
growth of the water treatment market at coal-fired power stations.
4.7.1.3 Alternative sources
Coal and gas fired power stations face competition from other sources of electricity, including nuclear power, hydroelectricity and
wind power. These sources will provide an alternative source of energy in specific situations. However, in the near future fossil
fuels such as coal and gas will remain the primary source of energy for power generation.
The growth in generating capacity at nuclear power stations has stalled because recent events have raised questions about the
safety of the technology. In Europe and the Americas, growth in the generating capacity of nuclear plants has remained below
10% since 1990. In Asia there has been a steady growth in capacity, driven by new construction in Japan, South Korea, and more
recently China. China had no nuclear power plants in 1990, but now has a total capacity of 125,000 MW. The future of nuclear
power in Europe and the Americas is uncertain. The replacement of ageing infrastructure has given the industry some growth,
but nuclear power is unlikely to represent a large share of the global market.
The following figure represents the growth in generating capacity provided by nuclear power. Recent growth has been provided
by construction in China.
Figure 4.17 Annual additional capacity of nuclear power plants, 1970-2015
0
6,000
12,000
18,000
24,000
30,000
36,000
42,000
2015 2010 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980 1975 1970
France
China
USA
Other
Japan
Russia
M
W
Countries with large resources of surface water have looked to hydroelectric power to supplement total generating capacity.
Canada and Brazil generate most of the their electricity using hydroelectric power,at 53% and 75% respectively. In China,
hydroelectric capacity has grown by 170,000 MW since 1990 and currently represents 18% of total generating capacity.
Hydroelectric power has several drawbacks that may hinder future growth in capacity. Where the power plant requires the
damming of a river, the natural water supply of the surrounding region will be disrupted. The capacity of the power plant is
dependent on the flow of water through the turbines. Consequently, a prolonged period of drought will reduce the supply of water
to the plant.
4.7.1.4 Global trends
The following figure illustrates the growth of worldwide generating capacity since 1970. Coal and gas fired power stations provide
60% of current generating capacity. In recent years there has been a growth in renewable sources, including hydroelectricity and
wind power, to meet emissions targets and reduce the impact of power generation on the environment. Renewable sources are
unlikely to affect the need for new coal and gas power stations because the generating capacity of such power stations is heavily
dependent on the weather.
Figure 4.18 Global cumulative generating capacity, 1970-2015
Coal
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
2015 2010 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980 1975 1970
Gas
Oil
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
Other
M
W
The following figure describes the additional capacity that is projected to be added between 2013 and 2017. The largest increase in
generating capacity will be added in the Asia Pacific region.
Figure 4.19 Projected additional capacity for our three forecast regions between 2013 and 2017
Nuclear Other Wind Coal Gas Hydroelectric
EMEA
572,000 MW
Asia Pacific
1,150,000 MW
Americas
350,000 MW
4.7.2 Increased use of FGD systems
Wet scrubber FGD systems are the most common method of sulphur dioxide removal at coal-fired power plants. 36% of the
generating capacity from coal-fired power plants is provided by plants using wet scrubber FGD systems. Using wet scrubbers
for FGD is more efficient than using dry scrubbers, especially at plants with a capacity higher than 300 MW. Wet limestone
scrubbers can remove 92% of sulphur compounds from the flue gas, and dry scrubbers are capable of removing 80% of sulphur
compounds. The cost of an FGD system is related to the capacity of the generating unit that it is applied to. Wet limestone
scrubbers are the system of choice at higher capacity plants. The gypsum slurry produced by these systems is dewatered and sold.
The increase in wet limestone FGD systems will increase the size of the market for ZLD systems. Total recovery of FGD process
water will increase the purity of the gypsum product and decrease the volume of wastewater that must be discharged.
The following figure illustrates the total capacity of coal-fired power plants that are using FGD systems in our three forecast
regions. The data presented here is derived from the WEPP database, which describes the technologies that are used to reduce
the emission of sulphur dioxide. This information is most complete for power plants in the Americas, particularly the USA.
In Europe, Asia and Africa, there is no information on the FGD system for over half of the power plants in the database. These
unknown systems are likely to be wet or dry scrubber systems. The most common design found in all three forecast regions is the
wet limestone or lime scrubber. In the Americas, 36% of the generating capacity of coal-fired power plants is produced by units
burning low sulphur (emissions compliant) fuels.
Figure 4.20 Techniques used to mitigate the emission of sulphur dioxide from coal-fired plants in 2011
None Low sulphur fuel Alternative boiler
Unknown Wet Dry Other
352,000 MW 1,050,000 MW 370,000 MW
Americas
1,524 units
Asia-Pacific
4,717 units
EMEA
2,497 units
The common use of wet scrubbers in coal-fired power plants is confirmed by the Annual Electric Generator survey, published
by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). In 2010, the last year for which there is verified data, 53% of the generating
capacity of coal-fired power plants in the USA was provided by plants equipped with wet scrubbers. Units using limestone
precipitation for sulphur removal had a capacity of 121,000 MW in 2010. Units that added lime to remove sulphur had a total
capacity of 43,000 MW in 2010. The percentage of generating units equipped with wet limestone scrubbers increased by 125%
between 2000 and 2010. The following figure describes the growth in the use of wet limestone scrubbers at coal-fired power
plants since 1970.
Figure 4.21 Growth of wet limestone scrubbers as method of desulphurisation at coal plants in the USA
0
24,000
48,000
72,000
96,000
120,000
2010 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980 1975 1970
Wet- Limestone
Dry
Other
Wet - Lime
T
o
t
a
l

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

(
M
W
)
Source: EIA, 2010
4.7.3 Regulation of emissions
The market for water treatment services for FGD wastewater is dependent on the regulations governing the emissions of
sulphur dioxide in flue gas and the discharge of toxic metals in wastewater. In the USA, the Mercury and Air Toxic Standard was
introduced in 2011 to regulate the emission of sulphur dioxide, mercury and acid gases. Although the regulatory standards do
not require a particular technology to be used, wet scrubbers will be more efficient at removing sulphur dioxide and will require
a more complex water treatment process. The Steam Effluent Guidelines regulate the discharge of contaminants in boiler and
cooling tower blowdown, and wastewater from ash handling systems. The last update to the guidelines was published in 1982.
The EPA is expected to produce updated guidelines at some point in 2012, which will come into force by 2014.
In the European Union, the emission of sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide is regulated by the Large Combustion Plant Directive
(2001/80/EC). Coal-fired power stations that are constructed in EU countries must install an FGD system to meet emission
targets, or use alternative boilers that reduce the volume of emissions. Existing coal-fired power stations may be shutdown if a
system for sulphur dioxide reduction is not in place by 2015. Power operators must also comply with directives regulating the
discharge of contaminants in wastewater. The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (98/15/EC) limits the discharge of sludge
into surface water bodies.
In China, a standard published in 2012 requires that coal-fired power plants meet new limits for sulphur dioxide emissions
within three years. New generating units cannot emit more than 50mg of SO
2
in each cubic metre of flue gas. Existing units must
be fitted with systems to reduced levels of sulphur dioxide. This standard will drive the growth of FGD systems in China, and
with it the market for wastewater treatment services. Tightening of regulations governing wastewater discharge will increase the
size of the market for more advanced treatment technologies.
4.7.4 Increasing boiler and turbine efficiency
Increasing the temperature and pressure of the steam that is produced by the boiler increases the energy that can be extracted as
the steam expands. A theoretical estimate of the efficiency of this process can be determined from the difference in temperature
between the boiler and the condenser. In a working plant, the efficiency is limited by friction within the steam cycle, and a loss
of heat to the surroundings. The temperature and pressure that can be applied to the steam is limited by the materials used to
construct the turbine and the purity of boiler feedwater. In modern boilers, the conductivity of makeup must be less than 0.1 S/
cm to prevent scaling in the boiler and corrosion in the turbine.
84% of coal-fired power stations use subcritical steam to generate electricity. Only 12% of gas and oil-fired power stations use
subcritical steam to power the turbine. Most gas power plants generate electricity using heated gas to drive a turbine. According to
the WEPP database, 90% of gas and oil fired power plants do not use steam to generate electricity. The following figure describes
the temperatures and pressures used in coal, gas, oil, and nuclear power plants. 85% of these the plants described in the following
figure use subcritical steam. The need for ultrapure water for supercritical and ultra-supercritical boilers will be driven by the
expansion of coal-fired power plants. At present, 11% of coal fired power plants use supercritical water to drive the turbine.
Figure 4.22 Temperature and pressure of fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
1
10
100
1,000
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
b
a
r
)
Temperature (Celsius)
Gas
Coal
Nuclear
Oil
Vapour
Supercritical fluid Liquid
Most plants use superheated steam to drive the turbine. These plants are represented by the area below the liquid-vapour
equilibrium line in the figure above. Nuclear power plants are typically operated at lower temperatures and pressures than fossil
fuel fired plants. In a pressurised water reactor (PWR) the cycle is pressurised to limit boiling in the system. PWR plants use
saturated steam to drive the turbine and operate at the point where liquid and vapour are in equilibrium. This is represented by
the liquid-vapour equilibrium line in the figure above.
Supercritical water is useful for power generation because it is able to transfer heat more effectively than subcritical steam.
The critical point of water marks the point where the properties of the liquid and vapour phases become indistinguishable.
In the supercritical region, no energy is needed to convert water to steam. The increase in the number of power plants using
supercritical water in the steam cycle will increase demand for higher purity water for boiler makeup.
The following figure illustrates the increasing number of plants in our three forecast regions using supercritical steam in their
generating cycle. There has been a worldwide increase of 216% in the generating capacity provided by supercritical power plants
since 1980. The largest increase in supercritical capacity has occurred since 2005. In the Asia Pacific region, the generating
capacity provided by supercritical power plants has increased by 220% since 2005. By comparison, in the rest of the world there
was only a 10% increase in supercritical capacity. If the number of supercritical plants in the Asia Pacific region continues to
grow, this region will see a high demand for ultrapure boiler feedwater.
Figure 4.23 Growth in generating capacity provided by supercritical power plants, 19802011
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
2010 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

(
M
W
)
4.7.5 Coal gasification
Electricity producers can take advantage of cheap, abundant supplies of coal by producing synthetic natural gas from coal stocks.
The synthetic gas produced in the gasification process can be burnt to provide energy for the gas turbine in a combined cycle
power plant. Interest in coal gasification has increased because the technology can reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide and
carbon dioxide without additional equipment for flue gas cleaning. Water use is reduced in an IGCC plant because most of the
electricity produced by the plant is derived from the gas turbine generator.
The environmental benefits of IGCC plants are outweighed by a large capital cost. A typical combined cycle plant costs twice
as much as a conventional pulverised coal plant of similar capacity. The market for gasification projects in the USA is weak.
The large growth in shale gas extraction has contributed to a significant fall in the price of natural gas. It is not cost effective to
produce synthetic gas from coal when there are readily available supplies of cheap natural gas. The following figure illustrates
the cost of coal and natural gas for electricity production in the USA. This information is derived from monthly fuel receipts
published by the EIA.
Figure 4.24 Monthly cost of fossil fuels for power generation in the USA
0
5
10
15
2012 2010 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990
Coal
Natural gas
Oil
C
o
s
t

o
f

f
u
e
l
(
$
/
m
i
l
l
i
o
n

B
t
u
)
Source: EIA, 2012
The development of IGCC technologies is still ongoing. According to the 2010 World Gasification Database (WGD), there are
only two IGCC projects in the USA, and both of these were demonstration projects in the 1990s. The following figure illustrates
the growth of electricity at IGCC plants in our three forecast regions. The global market for IGCC projects is expected to grow by
200% between 2010 and 2015. Most of this growth will come from the USA. The combined capacity of IGCC projects in the USA
is predicted to be 6,400 MW
e
by 2015. The projected growth in the IGCC market may, however, be deceptive. Projects have been
pushed back and even cancelled because of problems with the technology and fuel. Initial production at the Edwardsport IGCC
project in Indiana was delayed until 2012 with an additional cost of $530 million due to the projects scale and complexity. The
final project cost of $2.88 billion is comparable to similar IGCC projects in the USA. GWI sources have suggested that the market
for IGCC plants in China faces similar problems. These sources have indicated that IGCC will not have a significant impact on
the Chinese market, despite the growth of coal-fired production.
Figure 4.25 Increase in generating capacity at IGCC plants, 20002016
0
3000
6000
9000
12000
15000
2016 2014 2012 2010 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

(
M
W
e
)
Source: NETL, 2010
4.7.6 Co-located water and power projects
It is possible to use heat produced in power generation to provide energy for thermal desalination. Heat that is normally
discharged through the cooling system is used to heat the feedwater for MED or MSF desalination. The water that is produced by
distillation can be used as makeup for the power plant boilers. The concentrated brine produced by desalination is diluted with
the water discharged from the power station. The construction of an integrated power station and desalination plant is commonly
called a co-located water and power project (CWP).
The following figure describes the countries where heat from the power generation cycle is used to provide energy for thermal
desalination. Combined water and power plants are primarily found in the Middle East, where there are abundant sources of oil
and gas, and a preference for thermal desalination. Over 90% of the CWP plants are fueled by coal and gas combustion.
Figure 4.26 Generating capacity of power plants providing heat for thermal desalination in 2011
13,364 MW
45,600 MW
359 plants
Saudi Arabia
11,737 MW
Qatar
4,529 MW
Bahrain
1,631 MW
Kuwait
9,804 MW
Other
4,516 MW
4.8 Water reuse strategies
The cooling cycle requires the largest volume of water in a power plant. The volume of water that is discharged into local bodies
of water is significantly decreased for plants using recirculating cooling systems. The following figure illustrates the volume of
water that is consumed and discharged from cooling water systems in the United States. This information is calculated from the
annual survey of electric generators conducted by the U.S. Energy Information in 2010. Water consumed in the cooling system is
not returned directly to its source, i.e. it is lost through evaporation. Water that is discharged from the cooling system is returned
to its source.
Figure 4.27 Water consumption and discharge in the cooling systems of U.S. power plants
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1,000
D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

r
a
t
e

(
m
3
/
s
)
Consumption rate (m
3
/s)
Once-through
Recirculating
Source: EIA, 2010
In a recirculating cooling system, water is not discharged after passing through the condenser. Instead it is cooled by evaporation
and recycled through the system. With every cycle of evaporation, cooling and reuse, the concentration of dissolved solids in
the cooling system is increased. Water must be continually removed from the cooling cycle to maintain the concentration of
Power // Supply chain analysis
dissolved solids. As the rate of consumption (evaporation) increases, the volume of water that must be discharged also increases
(blowdown).
Plants that adopt recirculating cooling systems will require additional wastewater treatment to treat the cooling water blowdown
before it can be reused in the cooling cycle. Other sources for the cooling water makeup include treated boiler blowdown, treated
wastewater from the demineralisation plant and FGD wastewater.
The nature of the power generation process means that most of the water in the steam cycle is reused, but some treatment is
required to prevent corrosion and solids deposition in the turbine. Condensing steam from the turbine cycle is treated in a mixed-
bed ion exchange unit to remove dissolved silica. Silica is carried from the boiler to the turbine because it is more soluble in high
temperature steam. Without a condensate polishing ion exchange unit, there will be increased risk of silica deposits forming in
the turbine, because concentration of dissolved silica in the steam will increase with each cycle. A portion of the water from each
cycle must be discharged to prevent the build-up of dissolved material in the boiler. The volume of water that is discharged must
be replaced by water of boiler feedwater quality.
The power industry is a conservative market. The industry prefers to adopt proven technologies, but can be open to new ones
in certain situations. Plant operators want technology that has been proven to provide a reliable stream of water. When a new
technology is introduced to the market, the end users typically want it pilot tested. This approach is considered to be very effective
within the power industry.
Pilot tests are conducted to prove that a new technology can meet an important challenge affecting the market, and to prove
its efficacy to the power companies. The company that conducts the pilot test will charge the end user, with the aim of
straightforward cost recovery.
In situations of particular need and immediate demand, the adoption of a new technology can be faster. Problems with water
treatment equipment can significantly decrease the generating capacity of a plant. In extreme cases, such problems can result
in the shutdown of the plant. These problems may be solved by the adoption of a new technology. In these situations, the time
available is not sufficient for full-scale pilot testing. Short in-house pilot tests will be performed to ensure that the new technology
can achieve the required results. It can take as little as eight to ten weeks to install a system that solves the problem.
4.9.1 FGD market
In the FGD market, power companies have traditionally purchased water treatment chemicals from dedicated chemical
supply companies. Increasingly, chemical supply companies are being awarded water management contracts. Under a water
management contract, companies take responsibility for managing the water quality across the power plant site. Chemical supply
companies are also looking at the potential markets for water treatment equipment in the power industry.
The key deciding factors when selecting FGD systems are cost and design. These factors are influenced by issues that are specific
to each plant, including openness to innovation and the availability of space.
The procurement models used in the power industry vary by country and by region. The choice of procurement model depends
on the plant location, and the power company that the equipment is being sold to. In general the power industry prefers to use the
engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) model for equipment contracts.
The dominant feature of the EPC model in the power industry is the purchase of effective technologies at the lowest possible cost.
EPC contractors are focused on the initial cost of the equipment, and look to provide technologies with low capital expenditure
(CAPEX). EPC contractors buy equipment at the lowest cost put forward by a list of approved suppliers. The price of this
equipment is increased for the end user.
It is also possible to deal directly with the end users the power plant operators. Plant owners are more interested in low operating
expenditure (OPEX), than low initial CAPEX. In Australia, several contracts for water treatment systems have been awarded
directly by plant operators. In Europe, Asia, the Middle East or the Americas, the EPC model is most common.
4.9.2.1 Procurement relationships
The most important players in the supply chain are plant owners and consultants. The EPC contractor is highly influential,
because the contractor oversees the purchasing of equipment. To work effectively on each project, it is necessary to form
relationships with all of these players. Good relationships provide a balanced view of the products and services offered by each
company, and allow each player to balance the cost of installing and operating the system.
The consultants are responsible for finding the necessary technologies. They are looking for technologies with a proven track
record, but can also be open to innovative technologies.
EPC contractors are interested in the technologies with the lowest possible CAPEX. The plant operators are interested in
technologies that are simple to operate and maintain, with a low OPEX. The focus of the EPC contractors is problematic. An
equipment supplier will have difficulty convincing EPC contractors to accept a technology that is very OPEX driven. The EPC
contractors are responsible for the initial operation of the water treatment system. They are looking for low cost technologies that
will work effectively for this initial operating period.
4.9.2.2 Procurement process for mobile systems
Mobile water systems can be contracted in two ways:
The plant operator purchases the equipment when the plant is being commissioned. The equipment is purchased
under a long-term lease to provide a temporary source of water to ensure the continued operation of the site. The
mobile water system supplements the existing water treatment system during the initial operation of the plant.
The plant owner purchases the equipment in an emergency, in the event of a problem with the existing water
treatment system. An equipment supplier is brought in to provide the necessary equipment.
4.9.3 Procurement process in the United States
4.9.3.1 Outsourcing of water treatment systems
At coal-fired power plants, external water companies do not typically operate water treatment systems. In these plants,
outsourcing of water treatment operations is not very common. If water companies can deliver cost effective solutions, there is
some potential for outsourcing in the future. Outsourcing will become more cost effective for the operation of highly complex
water treatment systems, which require trained staff to be constantly on duty.
At gas-fired power plants, outsourcing of makeup water treatment is common. Gas-fired plants are typically used as peaking
plants, because they are able to come online quickly to meet shortfalls in demand. The number of staff required to operate these
plants is smaller than in coal-fired plants.
Power companies typically want to operate the water treatment systems themselves, to retain control of the system. Power
companies must decide if the system can be operated more efficiently by an external contractor. Outsourcing becomes difficult if
the plant is located in an isolated area.
Outsourcing is more common in merchant plants. A merchant plant sells the electricity it produces directly to the market. This
contrasts with non-utility regulated power plants, who are contracted to provide electricity to specific customers. Merchant plant
operators, and the investors financing the plant, are looking to reduce their staffing levels and production costs.
4.9.3.2 Outsourcing of wastewater treatment systems
Wastewater treatment systems are traditionally operated by the plant operators. Outsourcing may become more common as
wastewater treatment processes become more complex and specialised. One model of financing such systems involves charging
by volume for the treatment. If this model can be made cost effective, it could be potentially lucrative.
4.9.4 Procurement process in China
In China, outsourcing is more common than in the United States. Outsourcing is typically used to simplify the plant operations,
and to provide chemicals for water treatment. Chinese power companies have limited experience in handling FGD wastewater.
Companies look to outsource contracts to provide the necessary technology and experience. It is imperative that companies
understand the significance of competition and value propositions to the industry. In some rare situations, power companies will
hire a developer to build and operate their FGD systems using a build, operate, transfer (BOT) model.
4.9.5 Procurement process in India
In India, the most important factor in selecting a treatment technology is cost. Most public sector power generation companies
are more interested in the technology with the lowest initial costs, than the life cycle costs of the plant. Private power generation
companies and captive power plants are more open to the adoption of new technologies, especially if the technology improves the
efficiency of the plant.
The procurement process in India is very fragmented. The market is dominated by a few large, established companies. These
companies are responsible for installing and operating the water treatment equipment. The larger companies often work with a
number of smaller companies to supply power plants with water. Companies can be provided equipment for the boiler-turbine-
generator (BTG), or the rest of the plant (balance of plant (BoP) suppliers).
4.9.5.1 Tendering
In India, contracts are usually awarded by international open tenders. This model is used by the state electricity boards, the
central government power companies, and the private power companies. BTG equipment is increasingly being provided in
Power // Supply chain analysis
partnership with equipment suppliers. Power companies partner with equipment suppliers because capital costs are lower than in
an international open tender contract.
The power companies typically use the following tender packages:
Multiple packages: Each component in a power plant is tendered separately. The power company has greater control
over equipment specifications and the selection of subcontractors. There can be as many as 40 packages in one plant.
Tendering separately for each package requires long order cycles and significant manpower for project management.
Minor changes to the project design or execution can result in long delays and cost overruns. Full system
performance guarantees are difficult, but sub-system performance guarantees are possible.
Single BTG package: The BTG system is tendered as one package, with separate tenders for the remaining
components of the plant. The single BTG package is typically affected by the same disadvantages that affect the
multiple package tender. However, the single BTG tender is less tedious.
BoP package: The contract to provide the BoP package will be awarded to a single company. This company will
provide the design, engineering, supply, construction, commissioning and O&M services for all the sub-packages
in the BoP package. The BoP package includes the coal and ash handling plants, water treatment plants and others.
There is a trend towards tendering entire BoP system as one package. If this trend continues, the companies
providing the BoP package will develop water treatment capabilities through their in-house water departments.
Twin package: The power companies award contracts for the BTG and BoP packages only. The twin package is an
emerging tendering model. The main advantages include fast commissioning, shorter equipment order cycles,
improved coordination and low staffing needs. In addition, power plant tendering has built-in performance
guarantees. The guarantees are a major advantage as the power company is exposed to less risk.
4.9.5.2 Funding
Public sector power stations receive 70% of their funding from the Power Finance Corporation (PFC) and the Rural Electrification
Corporation (REC). The PFC, a non-banking financial company, provides financing for the development of the power sector. The
REC provides financing for rural electricity projects. The PFC and REC loans money to power companies at an interest rate of
12%/yr. The PFC and REC can raise less expensive funds from the stock and bond markets.
The remaining funding is provided by state governments, or obtained from the resources of the power companies.
4.9.6 Market players
We estimate that the largest players in the market for water treatment equipment are GE, Siemens and Veolia. Each of the
companies has an estimated 10% of the global water for power market. Other significant players include Aquatech, Suez, and
Ovivo.
Certain companies, including GE and Siemens, have divisions that produce equipment for the water sector and the power
sector. A source interviewed by GWI noted that when GE awards contracts for water treatment plants at its power stations, the
specifications at the enquiry stage are from GE Water.
To be dominant in the market, companies need to differentiate themselves, and provide services that other companies are
unable to offer. For example, there are very few equipment suppliers that are also able to operate the equipment. Companies with
experience in supplying and operating equipment will know the potential issues that could occur, and the associated operating
costs. These companies provide a significant insight that is not found in traditional equipment suppliers.
The following figures describe the companies that are active in the U.S., Chinese and Indian water for power markets.
Figure 4.28 Companies providing equipment to the U.S. power market
Equipment type Companies Notes
FGD equipment B&V, Babcock power,
Hitachi and Alstom
These companies are the key players for FGD systems. The suppliers have differing
designs, which are suitable for specifc applications.
Alstom is recognised for its patented Noval Integrated Desulphurisation (NID), a
dry-FGD variant.
Water treatment
equipment
Siemens, Veolia,
GE, Aquatech, Inflco
Degremont, GEA Group,
VA Tech Wabag
They are all players in the market with no marred dominance.
There is no market leader in thermal evaporation.
The companies have different technology and equipment scopes.
Some companies may have more experience or can provide better fnancial solutions.
Source: GWI
Figure 4.29 Companies providing water treatment equipment to the Chinese power market
Company type Companies Notes
Local and national The local and national companies dominate in the China power market.
These companies are recognised by plant operators.
International General Water, Wuhan Kaidi,
Enersave, Tonji Water, Dow Omex
These are the international companies that are well known in the China
power market.
Source: GWI
Figure 4.30 Companies active within the Indian power market
Company type Companies Notes
BTG suppliers (Established) Siemens, ABB, GE, Bharat Heavy Electricals
Ltd (BHEL), Shanghai Electric Corporation,
L&T - Mitsubishi heavy Industries Limited, GB
Engineering Ansaldo.
BHEL is a very prominent player, which
currently accounts for 59% market share
BTG suppliers (New entrants) Bharat Forge Alstom, JSW Toshiba These companies are the new players in the
power market.
BoP for water treatment Aquatech Asia, VA Tech Wabag, Driplex Water
Engineering, Ion Exchange, Thermax, Doshion,
IDE Technologies, BGR Energy, Degremont,
Treveni Engineering, L&T, Siemens, Kirloskar,
Reliance
These companies provide specialised solutions
for water treatment BoP package components.
Source: GWI
Figure 4.31 Companies providing water treatment equipment to the Indian power market
Equipment type Companies Notes
Cooling systems Paharpur cooling, Gammon, Indure, Reliance,
L&T, BGR energy, Hamon Sriram, Alstom,
Punj Lloyd, BHEL, Subhash Project Limited
These companies provide solutions for cooling towers
and cooling water equipment.
Demineralisation and
pretreatment plants
Driplex Water Engineering This company provides water demineralisation and
pretreatment plants to the power sector.
It is a prominent player in the market with a 25%
market share for this segment.
Other equipment GE, ABB, Hydranautics, Toray, Siemens,
Thyssen Krupp, Tecpro Ash Tech, IVRCL, Larsen
& Toubro, BGR Energy and local EPC players
Other equipment includes:
Membranes, pumps, control panels, switchgears,
transformers, piping, air compressor, elevators,
mechanical equipment and EPC works
Source: GWI
Power // Market forecast
4.10 Market forecast
4.10.1 Power plant projects and installed base
As explained in section 4.7.1, our forecast has been informed by the UDI World Electric Power Plants (WEPP) database, published
by Platts, a leading provider of energy information. The dataset contains 124,710 currently operating power plants and 20,184
future projects. For the forecast, we took future projects into account and also considered the installed base, in particular to
highlight opportunities for FGD wastewater treatment.
In our reference scenario, we anticipate growth overall, with a lumpiness due to the anticipated years of future projects. It
should be noted that the timing of projects can be difficult to anticipate in advance, and multi-year aggregates are more indicative
of the market trends.
Figure 4.32 Power industry market forecast, 20112025
ZLD/high recovery
desalination systems
systems (exc. ZLD)
Condensate polishing
systems
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Power ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
2025
(a)
653.8 720.6 771.2 795.5 877.6 940.8 1,009.7 7.5% 1,637.9
Boiler feedwater systems 255.2 280.8 300.1 309.1 340.5 364.4 390.5 7.3% 626.8
Condensate polishing systems 454.5 500.7 535.6 552.3 609.1 652.7 700.1 7.5% 1,132.4
Wastewater treatment systems (excl. ZLD) 399.4 415.3 437.7 454.3 484.9 511.5 535.5 5.0% 763.9
(b)
54.0 174.0 202.8 275.1 311.7 346.5 501.6 45.0% 1,301.1
(c)
857.7 1,200.0 760.0 1,650.0 350.0 1,440.0 1,250.0 6.5% 1,570.0
ZLD/high recovery desalination systems 135.0 65.5 138.5 180.1 173.1 216.0 237.6 9.9% 714.2
Total
(d)
2,809.6 3,356.9 3,145.9 4,216.3 3,147.0 4,472.0 4,624.9 8.7% 7,746.4
(a)
Includes intakes
(b)
These are essentially captive desalination plants meeting the needs of the power station, but not supplying the broader community.
(c)
Strictly speaking these are municipal desalination plants situated alongside power plants. Typically they take steam and/or power
from the power plant, share intakes and outfalls, and supply the power plant with high quality feedwater, although the bulk of their
output goes to a municipal off-taker.
(d)
The total fgure cannot be compared directly with the Power sector in GWIs Global Water Market 2011 report because it includes
co-located power/desal. Stripping that line out, the forecast for the pure water for power market has been upgraded since the Global
Water Market 2011 report to refect the turmoil in the power market in Japan and Germany, expected changes to fue gas regulation in
the U.S., the expectation that Indias power sector build out will regain momentum, and continuing growth in China.
Source: GWI
The country market split for 20132017 is shown in the following figure. The predominance of China and India reflects the high
level of planned coal fired power stations in these countries (sees Section 4.7.1.1). The U.S. has a large installed base of coal fired
power stations where we anticipate wet scrubber FGD systems to be installed (see Section 4.7.2 for a full analysis).
Figure 4.33 Power industry: top country markets, 20132017
$19,606 m
Total market value
(2013-2017)
India $2,079m
China $2,894m
RoW $10,832m
Germany $580m
USA $2,540m
Japan $680m
Source: GWI
Figure 4.34 Power industry: regional markets, 20132017
Americas $3,540m
$19,606m
Total market value
(2013-2017)
EMEA $8,497m
Asia Pacific
$7,570m
Source: GWI
Our reference scenario for the power industry makes the following assumptions:
Brent crude remains above $60/bbl.
U.S. and European economies do not experience two quarters of negative growth.
China and India growth economic rates fall below 6%.
U.S. and European economies experience two quarters of negative growth, impacting the subsequent 6 quarters.
Our regional market forecasts for seawater desalination, co-located power/desalination and water and wastewater treatment
(excluding seawater desalination) under these two scenarios are shown in the following figures.
Figure 4.35 Power industry: seawater desalination, 20112017: Reference scenario
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 0.0 71.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.8 0.0
EMEA 24.2 15.3 117.5 81.3 112.0 89.1 140.0 34.0%
Asia Pacifc 29.8 87.7 85.3 193.8 200.0 229.7 362.0 51.6%
Total 54.0 174.1 202.8 275.1 312.0 346.5 502.0 45.0%
Source: GWI
Figure 4.36 Power industry, seawater desalination, 20112017: Alternate scenario
0
50
100
150
200
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 0.0 71.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0
EMEA 24.2 15.3 23.5 16.3 22.4 17.8 28.0 2.5%
Asia Pacifc 29.8 87.7 34.1 77.5 80.0 91.9 72.4 15.9%
Total 54.0 174.1 57.6 93.8 102.4 126.3 100.4 10.9%
Source: GWI
Figure 4.37 Power industry: water and ww treatment ex. seawater desalination, 20112017: Reference scenario
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Water and wastewater treatment
excluding seawater desalination
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 647.4 527.9 584.6 609.0 632.5 784.1 901.7 5.7%
EMEA 662.4 515.8 467.5 521.7 472.1 527.6 518.4 -4.0%
Asia Pacifc 588.1 939.2 1,131.1 1,160.4 1,380.7 1,373.8 1,453.2 16.3%
Total 1,897.9 1,982.9 2,183.1 2,291.2 2,485.3 2,685.5 2,873.3 7.2%
Source: GWI
Figure 4.38 Power industry: water and ww treatment ex. seawater desalination, 20112017: Alternate scenario
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Water and wastewater
treatment excluding seawater
desalination alternate
scenario ($ million)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 647.4 527.9 350.7 365.4 379.5 470.4 541.0 -2.9%
EMEA 662.4 515.8 280.5 313.0 283.3 316.6 311.1 -11.8%
Asia Pacifc 588.1 939.2 565.5 580.2 690.3 686.9 726.6 3.6%
Total 1,897.9 1,982.9 1,196.8 1,258.7 1,353.1 1,473.9 1,578.7 -3.0%
Source: GWI
Figure 4.39 Power industry, co-located power/desalination: Reference scenario
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
EMEA
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
EMEA 857.7 1,200.0 760.0 1,650.0 350.0 1,440.0 1,250.0 6.5%
Source: GWI
In the alternate scenario, the low oil price means that Middle Eastern economies are unable to fund major projects , and activity
drops to zero.
Figure 4.40 Power industry, co-located power/desalination: Alternate scenario
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
EMEA
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
EMEA 857.7 1,200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Source: GWI
5. Food and beverage
5.1 Introduction
The food and beverage (F&B) industry is a major user of water and energy. The industry is affected by a variety of market forces,
which include changing customer preferences, regulations, acquisitions, expansion into new regions, and sustainability. These
factors all have an impact on the manufacturing practices employed by F&B companies, including their water management
strategies.
For F&B companies, image is everything and adverse publicity is to be avoided at all costs. Food safety is of primary importance:
this dictates the quality requirements for process water. Sustainability is also very important for public image improving water
efficiency, energy efficiency and decreasing their carbon footprint are the three primary aims of companies sustainability
agendas.
Wastewater characteristics vary widely depending on the type of product, but are clearly defined for each F&B subsector
(breweries, dairies, slaughterhouses, etc.). The industry is fragmented, with thousands of manufacturing plants operating across
the globe.
5.1.1 F&B subsectors
The F&B processing industry can be divided into many subsectors, and the classification systems used vary between countries
and regions. For example the FAO/WHO food standards divide food into 16 broad categories, which are in turn subdivided into
further categories.
For the purposes of this report, we will use a simplified system to classify the F&B industries into subsectors, as shown in the
following figure.
Figure 5.1 Food and beverage industry subsectors
Food sector Beverage sector
Agro industry Breweries
Milk and derivatives Distilleries
Meat, fsh, poultry Wineries
Produce (fruits, vegetables etc.) Soft drinks
Oil and derivatives Bottled water
General foods
Pet food
Animal feed
Source: Water for Food & Beverage, GWI, 2012
5.1.2 Food processing
Primarily, F&B plants process raw ingredients to generate a food or beverage product. The basic processing steps include
screening, washing, processing and packaging.
Depending on the final product that is being manufactured and the type and condition of the ingredients used, the actual
flow of the processing steps can vary. Processing fruit and vegetable raw materials involves the basic processing steps, whereas
slaughtering live animals for meat products requires a different processing path. A generic processing path is shown in the
following figure.
Food and beverage // Introduction
Figure 5.2 Generic food and beverage processing path for fruit/vegetables and meat raw materials
Receipt of raw materials
Killing and bleeding
Intermediary storage
Primary cleaning / washing
Sorting
Chilling
Product preparation
Product processing
Further processing
Packaging
Fruit and vegetables Meat processing
Feedwater Wastewater
Feedwater
Feedwater
Feedwater
Feedwater
Feedwater
Feedwater
Feedwater
Feedwater Blood
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Cooling water
Steam
Cooling water
Steam
Cooling water
Steam
Hair
Wastewater
Primary grading /
screening / processing
Evisceration, trimming
and dehairing
Sorting, grading
and inspection
Source: Water for Food and Beverage, GWI, 2012
5.1.3 Water volumes in the F&B industry
A companys water:product ratio is an important benchmark that is frequently quoted in sustainability targets. This ratio depends
on both the type of processing taking place and the technologies used on-site. Typical values range from ~1.5 l/kg for bottled water
to ~30.0 l/kg for fish processing. An extensive examination of water:product ratios across sectors and continents can be found in
GWIs Water for Food and Beverage report.
Using the water:product ratios from the previous section and data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation,
we have estimated total water use for the worldwide F&B industry. If the average water:product ratios are used across all
subsectors, the total amounts to 62 km/yr, with a range of 39 km/yr177 km/yr if the minimum or maximum water:product
ratios are used. The largest subsectors are fruit and vegetables and the agro industry. This information is summarised in the
following figure.
Figure 5.3 Estimates of global food and beverage water use in 2012
Fruit and vegetables
Oils and derivatives
Other food
Breweries Fish
Agro industry
Milk and derivatives
Meat and poultry
Distilleries
Wineries
Soft drinks
Bottled water
Minimum water:product ratios Maximum water:product ratios Average water:product ratios
62 km/yr
Global F&B water
(2012)
177 km/yr
Global F&B water
(2012)
39 km/yr
Global F&B water
(2012)
5.2 Process water requirements and technologies
5.2.1 Uses of water in the F&B industry
The activities which contribute the most to water usage at a typical F&B plant are shown in the following figure.
Figure 5.4 Water consuming activities in food and beverage plants
Process Examples of activities
Cleaning equipment Supplying feedwater for bottle washing and clean-in-place (CIP) systems
Cleaning equipment and plant wash down
Evacuating waste from plant
High water pressure sprays
Food processing path Washing raw materials
Primary cleaning and sorting technologies such as sieving and screening
Processing steps such as pasteurisation, fermentation and blanching
Transporting materials using wet conveying systems
Cooling blanched foods
Water for thawing
Ingredient water incorporated into the fnal product
Utility water Cooling circuits
Boiler feedwater
Overfow tanks
Fluming
Miscellaneous Cleaning foors
Dust suppression
Source: Petitpain-Perrin, 2006; IFC, 2007
It should be noted that, in the food and beverage industry, utility water refers primarily to water for boilers and cooling.
An average F&B plant has a water treatment capacity in the region of 1,0003,000 m/d.
5.2.1.1 Water that contacts food (cleaning equipment and food processing)
F&B companies must comply with strict guidelines for food safety and hygiene. Any water that comes into direct contact with
food must be obtained from potable water sources such as municipal tap water, surface water or groundwater. The same applies to
water used for cleaning equipment or surfaces that food will be in contact with using any kind of treated wastewater would be a
public relations disaster.
Food and beverage // Process water requirements and technologies
The raw potable water that is sourced by the aforementioned means is still subject to levels of treatment depending on the
application on which the water is going to be put to use. For example, very limited treatment is required for water that is used for
transporting sugar beets at sugar refineries. However, advanced treatment is needed to generate the appropriate quality of water
used in breweries, as the presence and concentration of certain ions or compounds can affect the taste of the final product. A
product is sold for its unique flavour profile, and as such needs to be consistent irrespective of the location and initial raw water
source.
5.2.1.2 Other operations (utility water, cleaning floors)
Other operations at F&B plants that require water include cleaning floors and utility water for boilers and cooling. These
operations often use potable water sources, but can also use water of lower initial quality. These alternative water sources include:
Wastewater streams generated from food processing steps.
Wastewater generated from washing, cleaning in place, cooling, boilers, etc.
Stormwater or rainwater.
5.2.2 Process water technologies
Food safety in the food and beverage industry is of paramount importance. Despite the use of high quality potable water sources,
the water must undergo some level of treatment prior to use in process water applications at the F&B plants. High quality water is
also required for boiler feedwater and cooling tower water, as this is essential to prevent scaling and corrosion.
A simplified treatment train for generating process water for the F&B industry is shown in the following figure.
Figure 5.5 Simplified process water treatment line
MMF
Activated
carbon
MF/UF RO/NF Deionisation CEDI
UV Ozone Chemical
Feedwater
Pretreatment
Membrane based treatment Deionisation
Distribution at manufacturing plant
Final
polishing
Disinfection
Source: Siemens Water Technologies Corp., 2006
Process water treatment technologies can be grouped into five broad categories based on their general treatment functions. These
categories are shown in the following figure.
Figure 5.6 Process water technology categories
Category Technology Function
Pretreatment Screening, clarifcation, fltration,
softeners, activated carbon flters
Pretreatment is an essential part of the water treatment line. The
relevant technologies are used to remove particulate matter, chlorine,
chloramines, hydrogen sulfde silt, iron, manganese and other
contaminants.
Membrane based UF, MF, NF, RO Membranes are used to achieve very high process water quality by
rejecting ions present in the water.
Deionisation Electrodeionisation (EDI) EDI is sometimes preferred to ion exchange as there is no regeneration
step (which requires hazardous chemicals and waste neutralisation).
Disinfection UV, ozonation, chemical (chlorine,
chlorine dioxide, sodium
hypochlorite)
These technologies are used to sanitise water and the water systems to
reduce microbes and prevent the buildup of bioflms.
For industries where water is a signifcant ingredient, such as brewing,
chemical disinfection is avoided as it adversely affects the taste.
Final polishing Cartridge flters, membrane
vacuum degasifcation
The fnal polishing step is used to achieve water of required quality for use
as an ingredient.
Membrane vacuum degasifcation is used to produce water with very low
levels of dissolved oxygen for the manufacture of beverages, particularly
in breweries.
Source: Siemens Water Technologies Corp., 2006
5.2.2.1 Membrane technologies for process water
Membrane-based technologies are used to remove particulate matter and dissolved solids from raw water streams. In particular:
UF/MF: Used to remove suspended solids, viruses, bacteria and parasites. UF/MF represents pretreatment for
RO systems to reduce fouling. MF can be used as an alternative to conventional filtration methods. UF is a viable
alternative to lime treatment systems when treating feedwater with low pH.
NF systems: NF membranes can be used as water softeners, particularly in the carbonated soft drinks industry, where
it is vital to reduce the alkalinity and hardness of process water. NF membranes can also be used instead of lime
coagulation units.
RO systems: Used to provide ultimate water quality.
5.2.2.2 Technology trends
Historically, the F&B industry used ion exchange for process water and utility water. However, current trends are towards the use
of membranes. For low TDS feedwater UF is sufficient; for higher TDS feedwater RO is combined with UF pretreatment.
UF and RO are particularly used in the soft drink industry, where the water that goes into the product needs to possess a carefully
determined salinity. The most consistent way of achieving this is deionising the water, followed by remineralising to the desired
level.
In the F&B industry extremely pure water with low conductivity is not a requirement, so EDI systems are employed less often
than in the pharmaceutical or microelectronics industries.
5.2.3 Efficiency trends
With sustainability high on the agenda, F&B companies are keen to increase the efficiency of their operations so that they use less
water. Water reuse is an approach that can be effectively utilised in the F&B industry. The options will be discussed in section 5.6.
Numerous practices are employed to increase efficiency regarding cleaning water, process water and utility water. These practices
are described only briefly in the following sections, as only some of them provide opportunities for water technology companies.
5.2.3.1 Cleaning water efficiency
Cleaning surfaces and equipment is often the largest consumer of water in F&B plants, e.g. in a dairy cleaning can account for
5090% of total water use.
High-pressure cleaning systems: Use around 60% less water than hoses attached to the water main. High-pressure
cleaning systems are used for cooling towers, WWTP areas and some floors. However, they cannot be used in all
areas, due to the potential risk of creating aerosols and contaminating products.
Food and beverage // Market drivers
Trigger-operated controls for hoses: Prevent hoses from operating while unattended.
Site design: Pipes should be angled to improve drainage. Floor surfaces should promote run-off to reduce the need for
hosing down product residues.
Clean-in-place (CIP) systems: Enable equipment to be cleaned without being dismantled. CIP systems are typically
used in beverage plants. In the most efficient CIP systems, rinse water and chemicals are recovered for reuse using
membrane technologies.
Crate washer maintenance: Crate washers can represent up to 16% of total water use in a dairy, but are highly
susceptible to leaks.
Dry cleaning: Removing as much product as possible prior to washing, so that less cleaning water is required.
Efficient product changeovers: Reducing the number of cleaning cycles required by working out the optimal product
changeover pattern.
5.2.3.2 Utility water efficiency
Utilities at F&B plants include boilers and cooling towers and systems.
Optimising cooling towers and boiler blowdown: When water turns into steam, suspended and dissolved solids are
left behind. To prevent these contaminants from accumulating, water is periodically removed (blowdown), and
replaced with feedwater. To optimise the frequency of this process, a conductivity probe can be installed so that
blowdown is only initiated when the water conductivity (which is high when TDS is high) exceeds a predetermined
value.
Cooling tower maintenance and control: Poorly maintained cooling towers can lead to excessive water consumption.
Float valves are be used to optimise the supply of makeup water.
Equipment sealing water: Equipment like homogenisers and vacuum and centrifugal pumps require water for cooling
and sealing. Typically the water is used only once, but there is potential for reuse in non-product applications.
5.2.3.3 Process water efficiency
Process water volumes are being reduced in the F&B industry by:
Automating leak detection and repair.
Optimising flow rates to minimise water use.
Installing monitoring & control systems, such as automatic shut-off valves.
5.2.3.4 Other water efficiency practices
Many companies run staff education programmes to reduce ancillary water use in amenities, cafeterias, etc. In addition to this,
the water supply at F&B plants is often supplemented by harvesting rain and storm water for non-product applications, e.g.
cleaning floors.
5.3 Market drivers
There are several drivers for F&B companies to increase their water efficiencies and use advanced water management strategies.
The drivers are all interconnected, but the approaches adopted by F&B companies can usually be traced back to the following
three:
Brand protection: Public image is of primary importance to F&B companies. It is imperative that the operational
trends and goals do not harm the brand.
Water scarcity: In many regions across the world, water is becoming a scarce commodity. Operating food or beverage
manufacturing plants in such regions poses water-related risks that can have both financial and public image
consequences.
Regulations: The regulatory framework can vary greatly between regions and countries. F&B companies are required
to meet set regulations and plan ahead for any future changes. Stricter regulations on water allocations or volumes
and qualities of wastewater that can be discharged can affect the operability of F&B plants.
Additionally, there is a strong geographical trend towards emerging markets as GDP per capita and urbanisation rates increase.
5.3.1 Brand protection
Brand perception is key in the F&B industry. Companies must know what they stand for their goals and approach must convey
an appropriate message to their customer base, the public. It is therefore essential that F&B companies both develop and achieve
goals that will help promote their brand further (the sustainability factor), and do not operate in a manner that harms their
brand (the risk factor).
5.3.1.1 The sustainability factor
Sustainability is the current buzzword in the F&B industry green is good in the public eye. Sustainability goals are being used
informally to benchmark companies in competing subsectors of the F&B industry. Major F&B companies release sustainability
reports, which set out their goals for water efficiency, energy efficiency and carbon footprint. The need to maintain their corporate
image drives companies towards the uptake of water and energy efficient technologies, to help them achieve their sustainability
agenda.
The sustainability mindset and brand focus is of greater significance to companies that supply products directly to the consumer.
For companies that supply businesses with ingredients, other drivers will play a larger role than brand protection.
Improved water efficiency and the adoption of water efficient approaches go a long way towards brand promotion and in turn
can provide the social licence to operate in new regions and markets. Companies that can show they will be good environmental
stewards and protect the water and other resources in that region will be able to enter and develop their brand within that market.
This is particularly important when operating in water scarce regions, where instances of poor water stewardship can lead to
withdrawal of a companys business licence to operate.
5.3.1.2 The risk factor
Minimising risk is crucial to the F&B industry whether the risk relates to food safety and hygiene, water availability, perception
and so on. Risk management can restrain companies in their adoption of water efficient technologies and applications they
must guarantee that new approaches will not affect product safety or damage their brand.
Water reuse is promoted to some extent in the F&B industry. However, if there is even the slightest risk that water reuse
applications can affect the wholesomeness of a product for human consumption, F&B companies are well within their rights not
to take that risk. Food safety is by far the most important factor to these companies, and failures in food safety will result in whole
batches of product being recalled. This is bad for public image, bad for the bottom line, and overall very bad for business.
Food safety aside, public perception is also an issue. If the public hear that a company is reusing wastewater and believe that this
has interacted with a product, there is the major psychological issue of consuming waste. As soon as the public perception is
that a company is using waste to make their product, this irreparably affects the brand.
A reliable and continuous supply of potable quality water is needed in the F&B industry to ensure the productivity and efficiency
of their operations. The implications of water scarcity are very far reaching in the F&B industry, particularly in beverage
subsectors where water is used as an ingredient that can make up more than 96% of the product. Water scarcity can be physical
or economical.
Physical water scarcity is affected by climate, and is a regional problem. F&B plants in water-scarce regions have a very real issue
that they must overcome to ensure operability and production.
Water is a finite resource, and as such F&B companies are looking for the best alternatives to maximise the water that they can
access. Physical scarcity alone will drive F&B companies to implement more water efficient approaches such as water reuse
applications within their operations.
Economic water scarcity is where water is readily available, but a lack of infrastructure means that it is not readily accessible.
These circumstances are often found in developing nations, and lead to F&B companies building their own surface water or
groundwater intakes and a full WTP on-site.
Cost is a major factor too. In areas where there is competition with other users, prices will be driven up. Where there is any
type of scarcity, the true value of water is recognised and high prices will again affect the bottom line. This issue is likely to be
compounded by reduced water allocations in the future. F&B plants operating under such conditions must take steps to adopt
water efficient technologies and approaches to improve profitability.
Food and beverage // Market drivers
5.3.3 Regulations
Food and beverage companies are required to comply with local, regional or national regulatory standards when operating a
manufacturing site in a country. The standards and requirements can vary greatly from one region to another. Overall, the
regulatory framework surrounding the water aspect of the food and beverage industry addresses:
Water abstraction regulations, which protect water security.
Process water quality standards, which protect human health.
Wastewater discharge standards, which protect the environment.
These are discussed in the following sections, together with the trend of multinational companies adopting universal regulations
across all of their sites.
5.3.3.1 Water abstraction regulations
Physical water scarcity and competing demands for water are on the rise in many regions around the world. Governments must
address water security through issuing withdrawal permits for industrial users, which, in turn, drives water efficiency and reuse.
These withdrawal permits (or licences) regulate the volumes of water that F&B companies are given access to. The permits can be
revoked or reassessed in times of scarcity or following noncompliance by companies. As competing demands for water continues
to rise, water abstraction licences are expected to get stricter.
5.3.3.2 Process water quality standards
The two main factors in defining F&B water quality standards are the raw water source and the treatment required to produce
process water of acceptable quality. Both of these are critical in ensuring the safety of the product.
The quality of any water source that is to be used for process water at F&B plants must be of at least potable water quality. This
means that only sources such as municipal tap water, well water, borehole water, groundwater and surface water can be used.
Increasing numbers of contaminants with the potential to affect human health are being found in raw water sources. The
most important of these emerging contaminants are endocrine disruptors, which interfere with hormonal function in living
organisms, including humans. With this is mind, new regulations are likely to be developed either to monitor the presence
of these contaminants, or to require strict process water quality standards that mandate the use of high level water treatment
technologies.
Drinking water regulations are generally well established around the world. The lists of parameters, limit values, and monitoring
procedures show relatively little variation from one country to another, as they are all based to some degree on the World Health
Organization Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality.
5.3.3.3 Wastewater discharge standards
There is a trend towards more stringent wastewater discharge regulations. This acts as a driver towards more advanced
wastewater treatment technologies. Wastewater streams must be effectively treated to prevent damage to the environment, and
noncompliance with regulations will likely have cost implications such as fines, penalties or plant closures. In general, wastewater
discharge standards are getting stricter worldwide and it is believed that developing nations are developing stricter regulations at
a fast pace.
The wastewater streams generated from the food and beverage industry are considered to be quite clean when compared to those
generated in other industries. This means that there is potential for the biosolids from the F&B wastewater to be disposed of by
land application, a practice that is not an option for other industries due to regulations.
In some countries the wastewater discharge guidelines or regulations for industrial effluent apply to all industries including
F&B. Other countries have developed individual F&B industry wastewater discharge standards on a subsector-by-subsector level.
Standards can be set to prescribe minimum values for discharging to treatment plants or discharging directly to water bodies.
5.3.3.4 Adoption of universal regulations at plant sites
Many major international F&B companies are adopting company-wide standards for wastewater treatment across all plant sites,
regardless of location. In countries where the local regulations are not as stringent or do not exist, such company-wide standards
protect both the environment and the companys image.
However, smaller, less global F&B companies may be limited in their capacity to adopt such wide reaching approaches like
adopting a company-wide standard for wastewater discharge.
5.3.4 Geographical trends
As people become richer and move to the cities, demand for branded processed food and drink increases. The expansion of the
formal food and drinks processing sector is a major driver of demand for water technology as companies look to ensure that their
product is safe and dependable, and their water use does not put them into competition with the community they serve.
In order to quantify these trends, we have analysed the expansion plans of 50 large F&B companies from around the world. The
following figure shows the number of times a country in each region was mentioned in a companys plans, summed across all
companies in the sample.
Figure 5.7 Countries mentioned in the expansion plans of 50 leading F&B companies, grouped by region
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Western Europe
Middle East & North Africa
Africa
Europe & Central Asia
North America
Southern Asia
Latin America & Caribbean
East Asia & Pacific
No.of times a country in the region is mentioned in company expansion plans
A full overview of each of the 50 companies expansion plans, together with an analysis of regional financial statements from 9 of
the largest multi-nationals, can be found in GWIs Water for Food and Beverage primary research report.
Wastewater is generated from the majority of activities at manufacturing plant sites, such as the transportation and washing of
raw materials, cleaning of equipment and plant wash down, evacuation of waste, CIP processes, cooling circuits, pasteurisers,
steeping of raw materials, spills from processing and wasted products.
5.4.1 Wastewater discharge options
When compared to other industries such as oil and gas, mining or refining, the wastewater generated from a F&B plant is
considered to be relatively clean. In countries where suitable infrastructure is available, direct discharge to the municipal sewer
system is the norm. Indeed, in the U.S. there is only one facility with a current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit for direct wastewater discharge to surface water bodies. However, there are still strict wastewater treatment
and discharge requirements that must be complied with, which may result in the need for some level of pretreatment prior to
discharge to sewers. Where infrastructure is not in place, direct discharge is the only option.
In plants where wastewater is treated on-site, standard treatment technologies can be used to effectively treat the streams to
comply with discharge quality standards.
5.4.2 Wastewater characteristics
Wastewater characteristics are highly variable from subsector to subsector, due to the wide range of raw materials and processes
that can be used. For example, wastewater from fruit washing will be relatively clean, whereas wastewater from a dairy or
slaughterhouse will contain high levels of oil and grease, etc.
Food and beverage // Wastewater treatment technologies
A summary of typical contaminants for a range of subsectors is shown in the following figure.
Figure 5.8 Wastewater characteristics from food and beverage subsectors
Pollutant Breweries Energy
soft drinks
Dairy Meat Poultry Sugar
(cane)
Sugar
(beet)
Vegetable
oil
BOD
5

(mg/l)
1,000
1,500
_ 1,000
4,000
(up to 10,000)
600
8,000
1,600
3,300
1,700
6,600
4,000
7,000
20,000
35,000
COD
(mg/l)
1,800
3,000
4,000 400
1,500
Up to
10,200
_ 2,300
8,000
Up to
10,000
30,000
60,000
TSS
(mg/l)
1060 250 400
2,000
360
3,300
760
1,650
Up to
5,000
Up to
5,000
TDS
10,000
Nitrogen (mg/l) 30100 54* 1115 25300* 5490* High High 500800
Phosphorus (mg/l) 1030 2.5 9210 3580 1272
Oil & grease (mg/l) _ _ 25500 150
1,800
150800 _ _ 5,000
10,000
Total coliform
bacteria
(CFU/100 ml)
_ _ Present 7.3x10
5
1.6x10
6
8.6
9.8x10
5
_ _ _
* Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Source: Carawan et al., 1979; IFC, 1998; Smith et al., 2008
As can be seen from the figure above, subsectors such as meat processing (slaughterhouses), the sugar industry and the dairy
industry all generate wastewater streams with high BOD loads. Also, certain processes in other subsectors can generate highly
loaded wastewater in very small quantities. In the brewery industry, the fermentation and filtration steps generate only 3% of the
total wastewater by volume plant, but this wastewater is so highly loaded that it can represent up to 97% of the BOD from the
entire plant.
The main wastewater challenges stem from the variability of the wastewater from plant to plant. This variety is as a result of the
range of the ingredients used, process water qualities, and the processing steps and products. Due to the risk-averseness of F&B
companies, pilot trials may need to be conducted on a plant-by-plant basis to ensure that the treatment solutions can handle the
wastewater streams.
Although there is great scope for water reuse, the F&B industry is risk averse in nature. Overall, F&B companies need to work
with technology providers that they can trust, who will provide process guarantees against wastewater discharge failures and the
associated negative press that would affect their brand.
Another challenge within the F&B industry is the segregation of wastewater streams. It is easier to treat high load/low flow
streams separately from low load/high flow streams. Treating such streams separately, rather than combining them, enables
better treatment to be achieved at a lower cost. This is particularly true when dealing with one wastewater stream that is highly
loaded with fats, oils and greases (FOG). For example, the high load streams can be sent to an anaerobic MBR, while the low load
streams can be directed to the final stage of treatment in an aerobic unit or RO units for water reuse, depending on how clean
the wastewater stream is. The challenge is to identify the streams that would benefit from separate treatment, efficiently segregate
the flows, and to decide where to combine the flows in order to achieve the most efficient and consistent process possible.
5.5.1 Overview of wastewater treatment technologies
The F&B industry generates wastewater with similar characteristics to municipal wastewater, with the exception of subsectors
whose wastewater also contains high levels of FOG. Therefore, no real industry-specific technologies have been developed, unlike
other industries where specialised contaminants need to be removed.
The range of technologies that might be used to treat F&B wastewater are categorised in the following figure. As discussed in
subsequent sections, some of these technologies, such as bioplastics production, are still at the pilot stage.
Figure 5.9 Wastewater treatment technologies
Treatment Technologies
Primary treatment Grease traps, skimmers, tertiary flters, clarifers
Flotation Dissolved air fotation
Nutrient removal Chemical precipitation for phosphorus removal
Aerobic treatment Extended aeration, aerobic treatment unit (ATU), Membrane bioreactor (MBR), Moving bed bioflm
reactor (MBBR), sequencing batch reactor (SBR)
Anaerobic treatment Upfow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB), expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB), continuous
stirred-tank reactor (CSTR), internal circulation (IC), anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR)
Membrane technologies UF, MF, RO
Disinfection Chlorination, ozonation, UV
Evaporation Evaporators, crystallisers
Sludge management Thickening, dewatering, sludge stabilisation, thermal hydrolysis for biological treatment, drying,
incineration
Value from wastewater Anaerobic digestion for biogas, nutrient recovery for fertilisers, bioplastics production, microbial
fuel cell production
Source: GWI
5.5.2 Wastewater treatment technology trends
5.5.2.1 Anaerobic digester technology trends
Energy efficiency is an important goal for F&B companies. One of the current energy saving trends in the industry is on the
wastewater treatment side. F&B plants are now using more anaerobic digester (AD) technologies in conjunction with aerobic
treatments in an effort to reduce energy consumption. AD is more energy efficient than aerobic systems. Significant energy
savings can be made by using the more energy efficient AD first (to treat a high load waste stream) followed by aerobic treatment
for polishing low load wastewater.
Traditional AD systems have been used in municipal WWTPs for decades. However, technology advances have improved the
efficiency of AD systems and enabled them to handle more contaminated wastewater streams such as those laden with FOG,
which traditional AD systems are unable to handle.
AD technologies are also able to provide a source of renewable energy in the form of biogas. Biogas is mostly methane, and
is produced by microorganisms when they respire anaerobically. The biogas has potential to be captured and used on-site in
CHP engines and boilers, or it can be sold into a national grid for revenue. Although these opportunities for biogas are quite
impressive, the F&B industry largely flares the biogas they produce. The cost of cleaning the biogas prior to use, the infrastructure
needed to transport the gas to the site of use and the need to install specific equipment to be able to use biogas in certain systems,
can make harnessing biogas economically unfeasible, particularly if the volumes of biogas generated are not consistent.
5.5.2.2 Aerobic systems: MBBR versus MBR
The choice of aerobic system used to treat wastewater streams depends on the final quality that needs to be attained:
An MBBR system reduces suspended solids and BOD to create a water quality that is suitable for discharge, although
a further membrane step (UF) may also be required.
An MBR system employed after anaerobic digestion provides high quality treated wastewater that can be reused
directly in the utilities as cooling water. If the water is for reuse in boiler systems, an additional RO step is required to
prevent scaling.
Additionally, MBR represents a higher capital outlay than MBBR.
5.5.2.3 Membrane-based technology trends in wastewater
There are trends towards using UF and/or RO membranes in F&B wastewater treatment:
UF membranes are an integral part of an MBR system, and may also be used after an MBBR step.
Sometimes RO membrane treatment may be employed after UF. NF is not popular in the F&B industry despite
having a slightly lower capital cost than RO. The small plant sizes found in the F&B industry mean that the cost
difference is negligible, unless the plant is uncharacteristically large.
Food and beverage // Water reuse strategies
Water reuse is growing within the F&B industry. Some wastewater streams generated from manufacturing processes are clean
enough to be used for certain on-site applications without treatment. Other wastewater streams require treatment before they are
suitable for reuse.
Irrespective of the quality of the treated wastewater, water reuse is typically not used for applications that are in contact with the
product, especially when water is used as an ingredient. In the fruit and vegetable subsectors, there is potential to recycle the
water used to wash the raw fruits and vegetables back in a loop, with simple clarification as a treatment standard. The main area
of opportunity for water reuse is in the utilities. However, the reuse water must be of a high quality as the presence of salts or
organics causes scaling and corrosion in the boilers and cooling towers.
The common technologies used for water reuse are as follows:
Screens, clarifiers, multimedia filters, softeners, crystallisation softeners
Membrane technologies
Deionisation and EDI
Aerobic treatments and towards ZLD technologies
Disinfection UV, ozonation
There are several water reuse strategies available in the food and beverage industry, which include the following:
5.6.1 Condensate reuse
Condensate is water that is formed when steam condenses. It is found in two places in the F&B industry:
Steam supply systems and boilers.
Product condensate, e.g. generated by the dairy industry when using evaporative and drying processes to concentrate
milk products or manufacture powdered milk.
5.6.1.1 Boiler condensate return systems
Boiler condensate return systems effectively reuse condensate as boiler makeup water. Efficiency savings result from using less
water, using fewer chemicals, and not having to reheat the already hot condensate. Combined these savings can reduce operating
costs by up to 70%. To maintain boiler efficiency and reduce the need for blowdown, the routine maintenance is essential.
5.6.1.2 Product condensate recovery
When a condensed or dry milk product is being manufactured, water amounting to around 74% of the original milk volume
can be recovered as condensate and reused. The recovered condensate can be reused in boilers, as cooling tower feedwater, in
CIP systems, for wash water, in dryer wet scrubbers, and for pump seal water. The condensate is also hot, a property that can be
made the most of via heat exchangers. To achieve the maximum economic benefit from water reuse and heat exchange, product
condensate recovery should be integrated into the process at the design stage.
When considering reusing condensate at a food and beverage plant, the following points should be taken into account:
The water may contain product carryover.
The water may require cooling before it is suitable for use.
The conductivity of the water may make it prone to causing corrosion.
The water may have a bad odour.
Because of these considerations, recovered condensate typically needs further treatment before it can be reused. Treatment
involves using disinfectants, carbon filtration and ion exchange. Membrane technologies such as reverse osmosis are also used to
achieve very high levels of treatment to produce high quality water that can be reused in most areas of a food and beverage plant.
Acidic condensate can be neutralised, preventing corrosion in boilers.
However, membrane technologies are very expensive and the cost can prove to be prohibitive alternative water sources are likely
to be cheaper. Additionally, membranes are not suitable for treating wastewater from all waste streams. For example, if RO is
used to recover water from whey, the treated permeate should not be used anywhere on the dairy plant site as there is risk that
bacteriophage viruses may be present. Bacteriophages can infect the bacteria used for fermenting the cheese, which would reduce
the rate of fermentation and result in a low quality product.
5.6.2 Water management
As a water management strategy, water reuse has two outcomes that will help a food and beverage company to meet its
sustainability targets:
Reducing the overall water:product ratio.
Reducing the volume of wastewater generated.
Exploring both these avenues can also result in cost savings for the F&B company. Raw water has a cost, treating water to meet
process or utility water standards has a cost, and treating wastewater streams has a cost. Reusing water rather than purchasing
more is a cost effective approach on all fronts, as water and wastewater treatment will happen anyway.
The first step in developing an efficient water management strategy for a F&B plant is to gain a true understanding of the overall
water consumption. This involves determining the volumes of water that enter and leave the plant, identifying the different
processes and applications where water is used, and identifying where wastewater can be reclaimed for reuse. This can be
achieved by calculating the water balance for the plant site determining the total volume of water that enters the plant over a
specified period of time then balancing it with the volume of water that is used in F&B processing and the volume disposed of as
wastewater.
5.6.3 Water reuse trends
The trend towards water reuse in the F&B industry is growing fastest in developed nations. The strategy is to close the treatment
loop, and determine an ideal water reuse approach that will generate cost savings from source water purchases, wastewater
treatment and discharge costs or WWTP surcharges.
In general, for wastewater treated for reuse in utilities, an anaerobic digester can be used followed by aerobic MBR to generate
good quality feedwater. For reuse as boiler feedwater, RO is also needed to remove scaling ions. Depending on the wastewater
quality and energy requirements, single, double or even triple pass RO can be performed to treat wastewater to achieve the
relevant water quality for reuse. Membranes are used to achieve a level of preconcentration. Evaporator crystalliser technologies
are then used to crystallise the solids, and the clean water generated can be reused.
The F&B industry is very risk averse by nature. However, this does not automatically imply that the industry is highly
conservative. The F&B industry is open to new solutions and technology innovations, but proof is required that the system works,
that it can be operated consistently, that there are minimal risks associated with its use and that it makes good business sense.
The industry is at the mercy of the media, and public perception carries a lot of weight. There will always be a level of
conservativeness towards adopting new technologies and strategies, but not to the level witnessed in highly conservative
industries such as the pharmaceutical industry.
5.7.1 Procurement process
The water and wastewater treatment plants are typically built at the same time as the F&B manufacturing plant. This is more so
the case for the water treatment plants, which are essential for production. WWTPs may not be required if the manufacturing
plant is small and can discharge directly to a sewer system.
It is generally the medium to large scale manufacturing plants that need to build WWTPs. From the very beginning, during
the procurement stages, companies are looking at how to reuse their water and generate biogas from organic material in their
wastewater streams to create a self-sufficient and highly efficient system.
In the Canadian market, F&B plants were traditionally permitted to discharge to the sewer system. However, this culture is now
changing as the government now requires that these plants install their own WWTPs, rather than just paying discharge taxes.
If a new plant needs to build a WWTP, due to the regulatory structure in place, they must have their WWTP pre-approved by the
Department of Environment, the EPA or, depending on the province, the Ministry of Environment.
At the start of the procurement process for a F&B manufacturing plant, an engineering firm is hired to design and construct the
manufacturing plant. For the process water and wastewater parts, the F&B companies directly approach equipment suppliers that
have engineering capabilities to design and build the water and wastewater treatment plants. This is very attractive to equipment
suppliers as F&B industrial clients will rarely use consultants as part of the procurement process. The main procurement models
are turnkey and equipment-only turnkey. The F&B companies manage construction by giving solo or contractor equipment
contracts, which include all the detailed design, detailed engineering, equipment, commissioning and start-up to the relevant
company, and generally the F&B company will be the ones taking care of operation and maintenance (O&M).
Food and beverage // Supply chain analysis
5.7.1.1 Operation and maintenance
On the process water side, F&B companies do not generally outsource O&M in the majority of cases. However, for wastewater,
F&B companies can decide to outsource their O&M. However, as these companies have very specific cycles and batch systems,
their wastewater streams are highly variable. Operation therefore needs to be flexible and the operators need to be responsive
to the wastewater variations, which makes outsourcing more difficult. These issues are typically stated at the beginning of
the project to ensure a lot of work is done on the design alongside their selected original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) or
providers. The final solution is determined, the equipment is purchased and then the F&B company can make requirements for
secondary operator training periodically (typically every six months).
If a service provider is awarded a contract which includes designing and operating the plant for 5 or 10 years, the selected design
will differ from a system designed to be operated by the customer. When a food and beverage company is in charge of operation,
typically a standard design is used with the best available technologies. For the service provider to be able to make money when
operating the plant, the plant design must be highly efficient to allow cost effective operation. Approaches include the installation
of pumps in accessible areas to enable easy maintenance and changes. Such an approach is very expensive, as additional
structures need to be included which would not be required in the tender specifications for building a plant for F&B operations.
However, if the service company is designing, building and operating the plant for a certain period of time, the plant will cost
more to begin with, but the lifetime cycle will be less costly because the operation costs will be lower. In general, companies in
the tender process tend to provide offers that are most cost effective as the majority of F&B companies judge offers on the capital
expenditure rather than the operating expenditure.
5.7.1.2 Technology purchasing
The OEM that is awarded the contract typically selects the different technologies that will be used. The OEMs design, engineer
and build the treatment equipment, as well as buy and assemble different technology components.
Some F&B companies are looking to standardise their wastewater procurement approach by reducing the number of suppliers on
their selected supplier lists. However, in some rare cases companies may wish to impose the specific technologies that they want
to be used, which may not be a viable approach due to the different technology stages involved. But F&B companies generally have
their preferred suppliers for technologies, particularly the larger players, as they are more willing to spend more on technology.
The choice of technology used and the supplier is related to system integration. For membrane systems, the choice of membrane
will depend on the system being designed because of footprint restrictions and infrastructure available, which would promote the
use of vertical configurations. For the majority of the time, technology choices are down to cost, the manufacturer and the level of
after-sales services available.
5.7.1.3 Local versus international suppliers
In the F&B industry, local suppliers are used particularly for the lower specification equipment and technologies such as pipes
and valves, because plants demand a high level of maintenance. A lot of support is required during commissioning, automation to
meet regulations and adjustments during commissioning, so local suppliers can be a preference. In general, the F&B companies
choose the low specification equipment in their request for quotations. The F&B companies list two or three suppliers that they
would like to provide these types of systems, as the companies want their system to be standardised.
For the higher specification technologies such as membranes, companies prefer to work with the supplier that can provide the
best technology, so long as they have a local engineering service presence. However, there is still a place for local companies that
can supply a good product and provide a good, affordable service, giving them a competitive advantage in terms of technologies,
particularly in niche markets. In general, local F&B companies tend to use local companies as suppliers, but large global F&B
companies typically use international suppliers.
5.7.1.4 One-stop shop versus separate technologies
The F&B industry is typically looking for fully integrated solutions to meet their water and wastewater needs at their plant sites.
F&B companies are generally reluctant to mix and match different suppliers and split the responsibility of the overall process.
In situations where the equipment provider does not have the full scope of technologies and the client wants to use a specific
suppliers technology, they can opt for an open source OEM, who will purchase the outstanding technologies that are not in their
portfolio and include them in the final solution. F&B companies will always prefer to work with a single provider at the end of the
day, whether it is an open source OEM or an OEM that has the full complement of technologies.
There are different procurement models that can be used in the F&B industry for the water and wastewater treatment aspect. The
models chosen can vary significantly depending on region.
5.7.2.1 Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)
Operating is possible in the F&B industry, as long as the OEM is also providing some financing for the project. But in general
it is difficult for the OEM to directly operate a F&B companys sytem for them. In addition, there is no real incentive as the cost
reductions achieved are typically very small.
5.7.2.2 Design, build, operate and maintain (DBOM)
This is considered by many to be a good procurement model and it is particularly popular in Europe. In this case, the service
provider company will build the plant, and install and operate the technologies for a specified number of years. This model is
interesting for turnkey systems, which are generally used for big projects.
5.7.2.3 Acquire, operate and transfer (AOT)
Procurement differs in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly in China and Korea. In this region, OEMs currently have to buy
the asset and operate it on a long-term contract ranging from 20 to 30 years. This model is dependent on the region and the
financial loads in place. It is used particularly in major projects, where a main focus is to recover biogas from AD, as it will involve
technology purchases including AD and CHP systems to generate electricity and energy, which are complicated to operate. In
these situations, the complex nature of the projects and operations makes the F&B companies more willing to hand over project
operation to the OEM.
5.7.2.4 Build, own, operate and maintain (BOOM) versus build, own, operate and transfer (BOOT)
This model is very risky, because the asset is not transferred. So the service provider has to build the asset, operate it and make it
profitable for an extended period of time to recover the cost of the investment after several years, which can take a very long time.
BOOT, on the other hand, is less risky as the asset will be transferred.
5.7.2.5 Request for quotation (RFQ)
This procurement model is used when retrofitting or upgrading existing water or wastewater treatment plants. RFQ is a direct
tender model for existing assets. F&B companies provide the specifications, which state the water quality they want to achieve.
The service providers then propose their best ideas for the technologies needed to achieve the water requirements. The lowest-cost
offers are those that make optimal use of the existing equipment at the site. It is therefore key for service providers to visit the site
and dialogue with on-site staff about which existing equipment can be employed in order to lower the final cost of the project and
make their offer more competitive. As F&B is a global business, having a local team can make an offer more competitive, as they
will be able to visit the site and understand the inherent local challenges that will affect the water quality.
5.7.3 Market entry
The water for F&B industry is full of potential and emerging opportunities. The diversity in the products, processing steps, and
water and wastewater needs open up many avenues to enter this market, and success can vary locally, regionally and globally.
Access to the water for F&B market is open to all water technology companies, ranging from large global firms to smaller niche
technology manufacturers. The typical size of the projects in the F&B industry (in the region of 1,0003,000 m/d) allows
projects to be handled by major water companies that can provide turnkey engineering solutions, thus reducing the need for EPC
companies in this market.
The first step in effectively accessing the water for F&B market is to determine the appropriate market access approach for your
company. There are numerous avenues that companies can follow to access the market. Successful entry and maintaining a
strong presence in the F&B market depends a lot on forging strong relationships with the F&B clients. Visibility in the market
is also important, as F&B companies can approach water technology companies directly when trying to address specific issues.
Being visible to the F&B customers and being in a position to get referrals is an important factor, particularly for the smaller, less
established companies that do not have the obvious brand name and clout.
There are many critical success factors for market entry and maintaining a presence in the market. It is necessary to understand
the processes that the F&B customers use in order to assess their needs and find the appropriate solutions. So it is key to have a
slew of relevant technologies to meet the various needs of the F&B market. Interacting effectively with F&B clients is important,
as this allows companies to understand what their clients want to achieve and their overarching goals. Having the appropriate
expertise is crucial in this market to be able to innovate and develop the varied solutions the different F&B clients will need. In
addition, it is important to have the requisite knowledge and understanding of local markets and the inherent challenges that
exist. F&B companies are risk averse, and therefore need to be sure that any technology will work effectively and not risk the
productivity of their plant sites. Therefore proving the technology works by performing pilot trials is important for large and small
companies alike.
5.7.3.1 Dominance of market players
Large water companies are seen to dominate the water for F&B market space. This can be attributed to their size and visibility,
their creativity and innovation, their portfolio of proven technologies and the fact that they are perceived to be low risk.
Food and beverage // Supply chain analysis
Relationship building is a major success factor for large water companies, which they promote and depend on to maintain their
presence in the market. The dominance of the larger water companies can be linked to their presence in many markets, but
developing relationships at the local level is also important for competitiveness as local knowledge is an important factor.
Larger water companies have the financial resources to be active in different markets and develop new technologies that may be
unavailable to the smaller players. They also tend to prefer working with the global companies as they are less risky and provide
process guarantees. However, these larger, more established water companies can be limited in the F&B market due to their size
and inflexibility, making it difficult to move quickly into new markets.
5.7.3.2 Market entry potential for smaller/niche players
Smaller local players can be competitive in the F&B market because of local experience and knowledge. To be competitive and
visible in the F&B market, smaller water companies need to prove their technologies work and effectively demonstrate their
business case. Local water technology companies can improve their competitiveness in the F&B market by forming partnerships.
Local firms can develop very quickly as they have local knowledge, and when they enter into partnerships with technology
suppliers from Europe and the U.S., they can become very competitive in that region.
Niche players who can offer specialised services and technologies do have opportunities to be active in the F&B market more so
than medium sized companies, as the technology offerings may be too limited for the global players. The mid-sized players face
the most barriers in the industry, as they cannot survive on small volume niche business, nor do they have the global capacity to
compete with the established companies.
5.8 Market forecast
5.8.1 Market background
The drivers of the market for water technology in the F&B sector can be summarised as follows:
1. Emerging market growth: As GDP per capita and urbanisation increase, demand for branded processed food and
drink also increases. We have analysed food production data, population data, economic data, the expansion plans of
50 major F&B companies and the financial statements of 9 of the largest multinationals to quantify this demand.
2. Water scarcity and environmental protection: As global water demand increases, water stress spreads across the globe.
The impact of poorly treated wastewater is also becoming apparent to policy makers.
3. Corporate risk: Image is everything, and corporations have begun to assess the operational, environmental, and
reputational risks associated with water and wastewater.
4. The value proposition: Increasingly, technology allows good water stewardship to go hand in hand with increased
profitability. Value from waste propositions such as energy recovery, water reuse (not within the product) and
materials recovery ensure that investment in water technology benefits the bottom line.
Capital expenditure on water technology by F&B companies for plants which use more than 100 m/d will grow from $3.6 billion
in 2012 to $7.9 billion in 2025. The market forecast has been split into three categories for the purposes of this report: all
pretreatment systems, all wastewater systems and polishing systems.
Figure 5.10 Food and beverage industry market forecast, 20112025
systems
Polishing systems
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Food & beverage ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
2025
Pretreatment systems 1,675.7 1,772.7 1,873.0 2,001.3 2,126.2 2,250.2 2,390.5 6.1% 3,577.5
Polishing systems
(a)
107.3 118.3 130.2 144.6 159.7 175.7 193.6 10.3% 389.8
Wastewater treatment systems 1,556.6 1,667.1 1,785.7 1,932.0 2,078.6 2,225.7 2,389.1 7.4% 3,983.4
Total
(b)
3,339.6 3,558.0 3,788.9 4,077.8 4,364.5 4,651.6 4,973.1 6.9% 7,924.1
(a)
Equipment for removing dissolved solids, including nanofltration, ion exchange, EDI, RO etc.
(b)
For further detail on the F&B market, including a detailed breakdown by equipment line, see GWIs Water for Food & Beverage
primary research report.
Source: GWI
Food and beverage // Market forecast
We would estimate that approximately 5% of the total wastewater systems market presented here would fall into the wastewater
desalination forecast category presented in figure 1.29 of the report introduction.
The country market split for 20132017 is shown in the following figure. European and North American markets will be more
sluggish, but emerging markets including China, India and Brazil will grow at double digit rates.
Figure 5.11 Food and beverage industry, top country markets, 20132017
$21,856 m
Total market value
(2013-2017)
Japan $927m
USA $4,117m
RoW $11,224m
Brazil $748m
China $3,368m
India $1,471m
Source: GWI
Our reference scenario for the food and beverage industry makes the following assumptions:
China and India economic growth rates fall below 6%.
Our regional market forecasts for the food and beverage market under these two scenarios are shown in the following figures.
Figure 5.12 Food and beverage industry, 20112017: Reference scenario
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Food & beverage reference
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 1,153.7 1,205.8 1,261.4 1,328.8 1,394.8 1,461.5 1,534.6 4.9%
EMEA 1,154.8 1,196.5 1,229.3 1,268.5 1,308.4 1,342.6 1,379.2 3.0%
Asia Pacifc 1,031.2 1,155.6 1,298.3 1,480.6 1,661.3 1,847.5 2,059.3 12.2%
Total 3,339.6 3,558.0 3,788.9 4,077.8 4,364.5 4,651.6 4,973.1 6.9%
Source: GWI
Under the alternate scenario, overall market activity falls by 510% as the rate of increase of demand for processed food slows.
Figure 5.13 Food and beverage industry, 20112017: Alternate scenario
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Food & beverage alternate
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 1,153.7 1,205.8 1,135.2 1,195.9 1,255.3 1,315.3 1,381.1 3.0%
EMEA 1,154.8 1,196.5 1,106.3 1,141.6 1,177.5 1,208.4 1,241.3 1.2%
Asia Pacifc 1,031.2 1,155.6 1,233.4 1,406.5 1,578.3 1,755.1 1,956.3 11.3%
Total 3,339.6 3,558.0 3,474.9 3,744.1 4,011.1 4,278.8 4,578.8 5.4%
Source: GWI
Pharmaceutical // Introduction
6. Pharmaceutical
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 Introduction to the pharmaceutical industry
The pharmaceutical industry researches, develops, manufactures and markets medications for human and animal health, and it
is one of the most profitable industries in the world. In 2010, revenues from the top 50 pharmaceutical manufacturers accounted
for $593.4 billion in human prescription drug sales.
6.1.1.1 Consolidation in the pharmaceutical industry
Currently, the pharmaceutical market is experiencing significant upheaval with the consolidation of pharmaceutical companies
across the globe. The upheaval in the industry can be attributed to the patent cliff phenomenon. Lucrative patents for products
such as insulin, interleukin, etc have recently lapsed. This has caused significant losses in revenues for the global giants and
shaken shareholders trust.
Mergers and acquisitions are used to help companies maintain a market presence and build new product research and
development portfolios. Companies are also looking to new pharmaceutical markets in emerging regions and new sectors such as
personal care products and animal pharmaceuticals. These approaches are used in an effort to calm stakeholders fears.
The recent mergers and acquisitions in the industry are impacting other market players to some degree. Consolidated facilities
may have excess capacity and thus they do not need to purchase new equipment when they bring two plants together. This reuse
of technologies at redundant sites may impact expansion and new business strategies for players supplying technologies in the
water market. Water of very high quality is essential to this industry. Therefore, spending on water treatment systems will not be
directly impacted by the aforementioned upheaval in the market.
6.1.2 Product safety in the pharmaceutical industry
Product contamination in the pharmaceutical industry is potentially life threatening. Water is a major component that is heavily
used in the manufacturing process, and preventing the contamination of water and other compounds is an important part of
meeting product safety requirements. Contaminated products can result in unknown drug interactions and reactions, and this
can be especially damaging to consumers with ailing health.
Product recalls due to contamination failures can be very damaging to a brand. Consumers and shareholders can lose trust in the
brand or the company. The industry is highly regulated to ensure product safety, and pharmaceutical companies therefore ensure
that they comply fully with requirements.
6.1.3 Processing of pharmaceutical products
6.1.3.1 Pharmaceutical products
Pharmaceutical products are classified according to:
The dosage form (DF): Whether the product is a solid, liquid, gas or semi-solid.
The route of administration (ROA): Whether the product is swallowed, injected, applied to skin etc.
The manufacture of parenteral products is the most water intensive sector in the industry. Parenteral products are introduced to
the body by injection. They include saline solutions and intravenous fluids. These products are typically manufactured in bulk
requiring large water demands. Lower water volumes are involved in the manufacture of solid products like tablets and capsules.
6.1.3.2 Pharmaceutical manufacturing processes
The two main production lines involved in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and biotechnology products are primary and
secondary manufacturing. The manufacturing process is summarised in the following figure. The numbers in the figure denote
a process that will be described in further detail in the text. Primary manufacturing involves steps 1, 2 and 3, while secondary
manufacturing involves step 4.
Figure 6.1 Generalised manufacturing processing steps
Chemical synthesis Fermentation Extraction
Formulation and
packaging
Raw materials Intermediates
Active pharmaceutical
ingredient (API)
Sterile API
Finished product
1 3 2 4
Source: Kaplan and Laing, 2005
1. Chemical synthesis: The first step in primary manufacturing. Solvents, substances and raw materials are used to
generate bulk material products. The chemical reaction is performed in a reactor. The reagents are blended using
a mixer or compressed air to generate a reaction product. The active ingredient is then separated from the other
material. Water is used during the separation phase to separate the active ingredient from reaction by-products.
2. Fermentation: Involves the production and separation of medicinal chemicals like antibiotics and vitamins from
microorganisms.
3. Extraction: The active ingredient is processed further to purify the product. Biological products are made during
the extraction step. The organic chemicals are removed from vegetative materials or animal tissues to generate the
product. Further separation processes can be performed to generate a final product. The final product is milled and
prepared for packaging.
4. Formulation and packaging: The secondary manufacturing step. Formulation involves treating and modifying
active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) into final products in different dosage forms such as tablets, emulsions
and ointments. The APIs are diluted or incorporated with excipients before being stabilised into the varied
pharmaceutical dosage forms. Excipients are inert materials such as sugar, starch and lactose, which determine the
final physical characteristics of the products. During packaging, the final solid products are packed into relevant
dosages.
6.1.4 Water in the pharmaceutical industry
There are numerous grades of pharmaceutical water used to manufacture pharmaceutical products. These grades of water vary
in terms of quality and the specific technologies used to generate them. The requirements for generating pharmaceutical grade
water are prescribed under relevant pharmacopoeias. Pharmacopoeias will be discussed further on in the chapter.
The feedwater that is taken into a plant is expected to be of potable water quality. This can vary depending on the country or
region the plant is operating in, as access to a suitable municipal source may be limited. In general, water can be obtained from
numerous sources such as municipalities, groundwater and surface water sources. These sources may not all be deemed potable,
particularly in developing nations. Pharmaceutical plants need to use different technologies to bring the feedwater to the relevant
pharmaceutical grade water quality. The level of technologies used depends on the quality of the feedwater.
Water is used in the following applications at manufacturing plant sites:
Process solvent: Water is used to transport or support chemical compounds used in reaction processes. The generated
water is used in process streams.
Product and process stream washes: Water is used to remove impurities from carriers, spent acids/bases,
intermediates and products.
Cleaning: Water is used to wash process equipment and floors.
6.1.4.1 Water consumption in the pharmaceutical industry
Typical pharmaceutical plants can use between 1,200 and 2,400 gal/hr (4.59.1 m/hr) of water. Smaller plants can use 1,000 gal/
hour (3.7 m/hr). Very large plants can use up to 24,000 gal/hr (91 m/hr).
Pharmaceutical // Process water requirements
Process water in the pharmaceutical industry refers to water of very high quality that meets set criteria. Water that meets the
standards set out by the relevant pharmacopoeias will be deemed to be pharmaceutical grade.
6.2.1 Pharmacopoeias
Pharmacopoeias set out the specifications for the characteristics, manufacture and use of pharmaceutical substances.
Specifications and analytical procedures are used to determine requirements for pharmaceutical substances (including water),
excipients and dosage forms . The standards for pharmaceutical grade water and pharmaceutical substances are provided in
monographs.
The International Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Int.) is a collection of recommended specifications and analytical procedures to determine
pharmaceutical substances, excipients and dosage forms. It is the only international pharmacopoeia and it can be used by WHO
member states to develop their pharmaceutical requirements.
As of March 2012, there are currently 47 national pharmacopoeias and 2 regional/sub-regional pharmacopoeias across the globe.
In countries where a pharmacopoeia has not been established, the global pharmaceutical giants typically refer to the most popular
global pharmacopoeia standards. However, with indigenous firms in countries where the pharmacopoeia monographs are not
set or stringent, there is an opportunity for smaller pharmaceutical firms to work to standards that are not up to international
quality as the products are for a local market. But the tide is turning as a lot of developing nations are also demanding the use of
internationally recognised standards.
The following pharmacopoeias are the most commonly referred to around the world. They will be of focus in this report.
European Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur.)
United States Pharmacopoeia (USP)
Japanese Pharmacopoeia (JP)
6.2.2 European pharmacopoeia pharmaceutical grade water
The Ph. Eur. contains the standards for pharmaceutical grade water that is accepted for use in the manufacture of finished
pharmaceutical products intended for sale and consumption within the European regions. The grades of water covered are shown
in the following figure.
Figure 6.2 European pharmacopoeia grades of water
Grade Use of water Technology Notes
Potable water Used for chemical synthesis
processes.
Cleaning manufacturing
equipment during the early
stages of production, except
where higher grades of water
are required for cleaning.
N/A It is not a pharmaceutical
grade and is not covered
under a pharmacopoeia
monograph.
Plants are required to use
potable water that meets the
quality standards set by the
relevant regulating body in the
EU country.
Purifed water (PW) Used for the preparation of
medicinal products that do
not require the use of sterile
water, such as oral, nasal, ear
preparations.
Ion exchange
Distillation
Any other suitable method
PW is generated from potable
feedwater.
Highly purifed water (HPW) Used to manufacture products
that require water with a high
biological quality, except where
WFI quality water is required.
Double-pass RO in conjunction
with deionisation and UF
HPW meets the same quality
standards as WFI. It is deemed
to be less reliable when
compared with the technology
approach used for WFI.
Water for injection (WFI) Used for the production
of medicines that will
be administered via the
parenteral route (injected).
Distillation is the only
approved method as the
primary concern is to ensure
consistent microbiological
quality.
Highest grade of
pharmaceutical water
available.
WFI is generated from PW or
potable feedwater.
Source: European Pharmacopoeia, 2009a; European Pharmacopoeia, 2009b
6.2.3 United States pharmacopoeia Pharmaceutical grade water
The USP covers several grades of water that are suitable for use in pharmaceutical purposes. The monographs specify the uses,
acceptable methods of preparation and the quality standards of these grades of water. These waters can be divided into the
following categories:
Bulk waters: Typically produced and used on-site.
Packaged waters: Typically produced, packaged and sterilised to preserve microbial quality throughout their packaged
shelf life.
The grades of water covered are seen in the following figure.
Figure 6.3 USP grades of water
Potable water Used for plant cleaning.
The prescribed source of feedwater
for manufacturing bulk monographed
pharmaceutical waters.
N/A It is a non-monographed
manufacturing water.
It must comply with U.S. EPA
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations;
The drinking water regulations of
the European Union or Japan;
The WHO Drinking Water
Guidelines.
Purifed water
(PW)
Used as an excipient in the production of
non-parenteral preparations.
Cleaning certain equipment.
Cleaning non-parenteral product contact
components.
Used for tests and assays where water is
indicated.
Deionisation, distillation, ion
exchange, RO, fltration.
Other suitable purifcation
procedures.
Potable feedwater is used to
produce PW.
PW must meet the set ionic and
organic chemical purity standards.
Water for
injection (WFI)
Used as an excipient in the production of
parenteral and other preparations, where
the product endotoxin content must be
controlled.
Cleaning certain equipment.
Cleaning parenteral product contact
components.
Distillation.
Another purifcation process
that is equivalent to or
superior to distillation in the
removal of chemicals and
microorganisms.
WFI is generated from potable
feedwater.
WFI must meet the chemical
requirements for PW, in addition to
a bacterial endotoxin specifcation.
WFI systems must be consistently
validated.
Source: USP, 2006
In addition to the grades of water described in the figure above, there are several other pharmaceutical monograph waters in the
USP. These include water for hemodialysis, pure/clean steam and five packaged monograph waters. The packaged forms are of
either PW or WFI quality that have been sterilised to preserve their microbiological properties.
Pharmaceutical // Process water requirements
The following figure shows the treatment steps to achieve various pharmaceutical grades of water.
Figure 6.4 USP water for pharmaceutical applications
Water for hemodialysis
Water for hemodialysis
(bulk packaged)
Purified water Water for injection
Packaging
and sterilisation
Cleaning and ingredient
water for parental
dosage forms
Analytical reagant water
Cleaning and ingredient
water for non-parenteral
dosage forms
Sterile purified water
Purified water
(bulk packaged)
Water for injection (bulk packaged)
Sterile water for injection
Sterile water for irrigation
Bacteriostatic water for injection
Sterile water for inhalation
If compatible without
further purification
Typical treatment steps could include:
- Pre-filtration
- Softening
- Dechlorination
- Deammonification
- Organic scavenging
- Deionisation
- Reverse osmosis
- Distillation
- Ultrafiltration
- UV light
Unreactive packaging
Distillation or equivalent
/ superior process for
removing chemicals
and microorganisms
Packaging
Sterilisation
Drinking water
(Complying with U.S. EPA NPDWR
or drinking water regulations of EU or Japan
or WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water)
Water for special pharmaceutical purposes
(e.g. initial cleaning, API process
and ingredient water)
Source: USP, 2006
6.2.4 Japanese pharmacopoeia Pharmaceutical grade water
The JP covers different grades of water that are used in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products. The grades of water covered
are shown in the following figure.
Figure 6.5 JP grades of water
Potable water Used to generate
pharmaceutical grade water.
N/A Must meet the quality standards
of water supplies specifed under
Article 4 of the Water Supply Law of
the Ministry of Health, Labour and
Welfare Ministerial Ordinance No.
101 of May 30, 2003.
Water must meet an ammonium
limit test (no more than 0.05 mg/l).
Purifed water (PW) Used to produce
pharmaceutical excipients.
Hyperfltration, which involves
RO, UF, IX, distillation.
A combination of these
methods.
PW must be used immediately after
purifcation.
PW can be stored for a certain
period of time if packed and stored
in suitable containers that prevent
microbial growth.
Sterile purifed water Used to generate sterile
pharmaceutical products
Sterilisation PW is used to generate sterile
purifed water by sterilisation.
Water for injection (WFI) Used to prepare injections.
When preserved and sterilised
in suitable containers, used as
a solvent for injections.
Distillation
RO-UF
A combined system of RO and
UF membranes.
WFI is generated from potable
water or PW.
When WFI is prepared by RO-
UF, extra precaution is taken to
prevent and remove microbial
contamination within the system.
Source: Japanese Pharmacopoeia, 2006
6.2.5 Pharmaceutical grade water quality standards from USP, Ph. Eur. And JP
The water quality standards for PW and WFI from the USP, Ph. Eur. and JP are shown in the following figures.
Figure 6.6 Purified water quality standards from USP, Ph. Eur. And JP
Parameter USP Ph. Eur. JP
Production technology Deionisation, distillation, ion
exchange, RO, fltration or other
suitable purifcation method
Ion exchange, distillation or
other suitable method
RO/UF, distillation or a
combination of these methods
Conductivity 1.3 S/cm at 25 C 4.3 S/cm at 20 C NCD
Total organic carbon (TOC) (mg/l) 0.5 0.5 Not specifed
Nitrates (mg/l) Not specifed 0.2 NCD
Ammonium (mg/l) Not specifed 0.2* 0.05
Aluminium (mg/l) Not specifed Maximum 0.01 Not specifed
Heavy metals (mg/l) 0.1 0.1 NCD
Bacteria (CFU/100ml) 100 100 Not specifed
Endotoxin (EU/ml) Not specifed 0.25 Not specifed
Residue on evaporation (%) Not specifed 0.001* 0.001
NCD No change or colour development occurs during the specifed analytical test
*Standards apply only to purifed water in containers under Ph. Eur. regulations
Source: European Pharmacopoeia, 2009a; European Pharmacopoeia, 2009b; Japanese Pharmacopoeia, 2006; USP, 2006
6.2.5.1 PW comparison
The technology requirements vary for the production of PW. The JP has the most stringent requirements as it mandates the use
of only RO-UF or distillation. The USP and Ph. Eur. allow the use of different technologies and other suitable methods.
Under the JP not all parameters have standards. Compliance is achieved by conducting specific tests and meeting required
results. Results are typically in the form of colour or other changes.
Pharmaceutical // Drivers
Figure 6.7 WFI quality standards from USP, Ph. Eur. and JP
Parameter USP Ph. Eur. JP
Production technology Distillation or purifcation
process proven to be equal to
or superior to distillation
Distillation only Distillation or RO/UF
Conductivity (S/cm at 25 C or
equivalent at other temperatures)
1.3 1.3 1.3
TOC (mg/l) 0.5 0.5 0.5
Nitrates (mg/l) Not specifed 0.2 NCD
Ammonium (mg/l) Not specifed 0.2* 0.05
Aluminium (mg/l) Not specifed Maximum 0.01 N/A
Heavy metals (mg/l) 0.1 0.1 NCD
Bacteria (CFU/100ml) 10 10 10
Endotoxin (EU/ml) 0.25 0.25 0.25
Residue on evaporation (%) Not specifed 0.004 (volume 10ml)*
0.003 (volume >10ml)*
0.001
0.004 (volume 10ml), 0.003
(volume >10ml)**
NCD No change or colour development occurs during the specifed analytical test
*Standards apply only to sterilised water for injections under Ph. Eur. regulations
**When WFI is prepared using RO-UF under JP regulations
Source: European Pharmacopoeia, 2009a; European Pharmacopoeia, 2009b; Japanese Pharmacopoeia, 2006; USP, 2006
6.2.5.2 WFI comparison
The USP has the most lenient requirements in terms of technology choices, while the JP allows distillation and RO-UF.
The technologies that are suitable for production of WFI have been hotly debated in the industry. The Ph. Eur. is the only
pharmacopoeia which states that distillation is the only acceptable method for producing WFI.
In 1999 lobbying groups from national delegations in the EU requested an evaluation to allow the use of RO to generate WFI.
Following a major international symposium, it was decided that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of RO to make
WFI due to the safety concerns it would pose.
The harmonisation of pharmacopoeia requirements would be welcomed in the industry. The current approach makes it difficult
for pharmaceutical companies to market their products globally. For example, a product manufactured according to the U.S.
pharmacopoeia requirements cannot be sold in Europe, and so on. Harmonising the pharmacopoeia standards would benefit the
water and manufacturing companies by enabling them to operate globally more easily. However, the EUs unequivocal stance on
membrane technologies for WFI makes the harmonisation of requirements unlikely in the near future.
6.2.6 Process water overview
The grades of water are used for different applications based on their qualities. For example, pharmaceutical grade water rather
than potable water can be required for cleaning equipment, closures and containers. This is because the grade of water that is
used in the final rinse step should be of the same quality that is used in the final stage of manufacture of the API excipient used
in a medicinal product.
In general, pharmaceutical plants can take a pragmatic approach when determining the quality of cleaning water to use on
equipment. Some plants can produce multiple products such as oral preparations that require PW as well as parenteral products
that demand WFI. In these situations, the company may decide to utilise only WFI to remove the need to install, maintain and
validate two different water treatment system loops, making their operations more efficient to run.
6.3 Drivers
In the pharmaceutical industry, there are three main drivers that influence capital expenditure on water and wastewater
treatment technologies and the adoption of water efficiency approaches: cost, brand and regulations.
6.3.1 Cost
The pharmaceutical industry is very cost-conscious as well as very conservative in nature, which makes technology development
difficult. However, there are moves being made towards more advanced approaches. These include using evaporators to reduce
the volume of wastewater generated and technology options for achieving WFI. The use of such technologies that can lower water
consumption and associated costs and reduce discharge volumes and discharge costs and surcharge taxes is a major industry
driver, as this helps the bottom line and these companies are profit focused. The caveat is the technologies must be rigorously
tested before being accepted. Adoption of such technologies can be many years in the making, as numerous trials have to be put
in place in different sectors of the industry. Trials help to provide more confidence in the use of such technologies, as companies
have good experiences during these trial phases. As time goes on, certain innovative technologies will make the grade with the
help of good trial projects.
6.3.2 Brand
Brand image is a significant factor for pharmaceutical companies. Adopting a sustainability agenda on the basis of water and
energy is a strong approach that is gaining momentum.
6.3.2.1 Energy efficiency
One of the primary drivers within the pharmaceutical industry is the need to improve energy efficiencies. The production of
pharmaceutical grade water requires the use of membrane-based systems and distillation technologies, which are notorious for
their energy consumption. In addition, the traditional approach of recirculating water during standby periods to prevent microbial
growth within the water treatment systems also results in major energy consumption. Companies are therefore looking for ways
to reduce their energy consumption and be more cost effective.
6.3.2.2 Water efficiency
Sustainability goals and green image improvements are of growing importance for pharmaceutical companies. They want to
show their customers, the public and their shareholders that they are good environmental stewards and efficient water users.
Being more water efficient can go hand in hand with improving energy efficiencies. Energy consumption is very high in the
pharmaceutical industry: it can be even higher than water consumption. A primary target in the industry is to reduce water
consumption, particularly in water stressed areas. Water reuse, reducing discharge volumes and reducing costs are important
strategies, as the industry is very cost focused. Corporate giants have set aside significant budgets to develop strategies to meet
sustainability targets for reducing water use, which they can showcase to their shareholders and consumers. However, new
approaches to achieve sustainability goals may add an element of risk to their operations. As such, it is necessary that such risk
factors are fully considered during the decision making process.
6.3.3 Regulations
Sustainability is encouraging companies to be good environmental citizens. Companies are ensuring that they comply with
wastewater discharge regulations and aim to minimise their wastewater streams and reuse their water. In countries around the
globe, wastewater regulations are becoming more stringent, with greater restrictions on the contaminants that can be discharged
to sewers or water bodies. Compliance failures are costly, as are the growing costs associated with discharge.
Regulations are driving the industry to reduce wastewater streams and improve discharge standards to ultimately save costs.
However, in regions where the penalties for non-compliance are not too steep, some companies may prefer to pay the fine rather
than invest in the wastewater treatment equipment.
In addition, meeting the regulated process water standards is very important in the industry. Failures in water quality and in the
subsequent products can be very detrimental to a brand.
6.3.4 Industry trends
6.3.4.1 Geographic shift
The U.S. and Western European pharmaceutical markets are currently saturated, as the healthcare systems in these regions are
well established with numerous pharmaceutical facilities already in place. However, there are some new facilities being built in
Western Europe and the United States.
It is expected that in the coming years, developing nations with large populations will see a rise in healthcare and manufacturing
facilities. The shift towards developing nations is attributed to population growth, an ageing population, improvements to quality
of life and the need for first generation medicines. There is currently growing demand for pharmaceutical products to meet
their needs. Manufacturing is performed locally to reduce logistical issues for bulk liquids and eliminate import duties. China,
Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and Brazil are some of the countries with increased demand for pharmaceutical products.
The market in India is following a different approach. The Indian market was initially more cost driven than demand driven.
The Indian facilities market currently has a short-term focus. The companies manufacturing in India are meeting the growing
demand of the European and U.S. markets, and facilities in India may eventually replace facilities in Europe. A lot of the
companies operating in India are also expanding in Europe. This approach is slowly developing their pharmaceutical market,
which is related to their drive for medications and who pays for it.
The patent cliff is causing consolidation in the pharmaceutical market. Consolidation is a factor that is influencing the
geographical shift. Companies are changing plant locations due to excess plant capacities caused by the mergers and acquisitions.
Large players are looking for new markets to participate in. They are developing processes to replicate first generation processes
Pharmaceutical // Process water technologies
in developing economies to make the products more readily available. Companies can also form partnerships to develop new
products to bring to the new markets. Overall more innovation is expected to take place in the developing economies, in addition
to simple replication.
There is a boom occurring with small pharmaceutical companies manufacturing cheap medications due to the lapsed patents in
developing nations. Despite the fact that their generic medications are cheaper, these companies typically still demand the best
water treatment systems available despite the higher costs.
6.4 Process water technologies
6.4.1 Typical treatment trains
As discussed in the previous section, the most important thing about producing process water is following the regulations laid
down in the relevant pharmacopoeia. If the regulations state that a particular technology must be used, then there is no leeway.
For example, the European pharmacopoeia mandates that only distillation technologies may be used generate WFI.
Another factor that dictates technology choice is the feedwater quality. There is a strong preference for using drinking water as
feedwater because it is of certified quality. However, in some regions there is no choice but to use local groundwater or surface
water as feedwater, meaning that additional screening and clarification are required.
A typical process water technology train consists of:
Screening / clarification (where necessary): Used when drinking water is not available. Removes suspended solids.
Pretreatment: Protects the downstream systems by removing particulate matter.
Softening: Prevents scaling in downstream systems by removing hardness ions.
Disinfection/sanitisation: Kills and removes microorganisms from process water and from the water treatment
system.
Deionisation: Used to generate purified water by removing ions, through membrane or electrical means.
Distillation: Used to generate WFI.
There is a preference throughout the industry to avoid adding chemicals at any point in the train. This is to avoid having to
remove the chemicals at a later stage. This means that using an ion exchange resin that requires chemical regeneration, or using
chlorine as a disinfectant are not favoured options.
The technology options for each of these steps are summarised in the following figure:
Figure 6.8 Technology options for treatment steps
Stage Typical technology options Notes
Screening/clarifcation Screen, settling tank / clarifer. Only needed if drinking water is unavailable as feedwater.
Pretreatment Sand flter
Multimedia flter
Cartridge flter
Pretreatment removes solid contaminants and particulate
matter, which would otherwise inhibit equipment performance
and shorten the working life of membrane and distillation
systems.
Softening Activated carbon flter IX possible but suboptimal because of requirement to remove
regeneration chemicals.
Disinfection/sanitisation Thermal (e.g. steam, hot water)
UV
Chemical (e.g. ozone, chlorine)

Chemical disinfectants are generally avoided.
UV step(s) may be placed at a number of different points.
Deionisation UF, EDI followed by RO UF step(s) may be placed at a number of different points.
Distillation MED
Vapour compression
Distillation units are used to provide WFI quality water.
Source: GWI
The following sections discuss the technology options and factors affecting the decision making process.
6.4.2 Pretreatment
Pretreatment involves the use of coarse treatment technologies to remove solid contaminants that are present in the feedwater
source. Pretreatment removes particulate matter, which would otherwise inhibit equipment performance and shorten the
working life of membrane and distillation systems.
6.4.3 Activated carbon filters
Activated carbon filters adsorb and remove low molecular weight organic materials and oxidising additives, such as chlorine and
chloramines, from the water. These filters improve the water quality and protect against problems with membranes, resins and
stainless steel surfaces downstream. Chlorine must be removed from the feedwater if it is intended for use in RO or distillation
units. Distillation systems are operated at elevated temperatures. If chlorine is present in the feedwater, it can cause the stainless
steel to stress, crack and corrode.
6.4.4 Softeners (ion exchange)
Softeners use sodium-based cation exchange resins to remove ions that cause hardness in water. Softeners can also be used to
remove ammonium ions. Hardness ions must be removed to prevent the fouling or interference with the performance of the
downstream membrane and distillation units. Softener units are typically located either upstream or downstream of disinfectant
removal units. The softener must be located downstream of the disinfectant removal unit if it is required to remove ammonium
ions. This is because the disinfectant unit may liberate ammonium ions from neutralised chloramine disinfectants. Water
softeners require the use of chemicals to regenerate the resins. The addition of chemicals is not favoured in the pharmaceutical
industry.
6.4.5 Disinfection/sanitisation
Microbial growth is a major issue in the water treatment systems. Microorganisms present in the treatment system tend to
aggregate such that their cells adhere to each other on a surface, forming a biofilm. Microbial control is primarily achieved using
sanitisation methods. The water treatment systems can be sanitised using thermal, chemical or UV methods.
6.4.5.1 Thermal methods
Thermal methods are considered to be the best options for disinfection. Thermal methods involve the use of periodically or
continuously circulating hot water and the use of steam. Temperatures of at least 80 C are most commonly used for this purpose,
but continuously recirculating water of at least 65 C is also effective if used in insulated stainless steel distribution systems.
Thermal methods control the development of biofilms. When using intermittent applications, thermal methods continuously
inhibit biofilm growth or destroy the microorganisms within biofilms. However, thermal methods are ineffective at removing
established biofilms. After sanitisation has concluded, the inactivated biofilms are still present and can then become a nutrient
source for rapid biofilm regrowth. A combination of thermal and periodic chemical sanitisation can be more effective.
6.4.5.2 Chemical methods
Chemical methods involve the use of oxidising agents such as halogenated compounds, ozone, hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid
or combinations of these compounds. Ozone, hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid are able to oxidise bacteria and biofilms by
forming reactive peroxides and free radicals. Halogenated compounds are difficult to flush out of the treatment system and may
leave the biofilms intact.
The addition of sanitising chemicals is not the favoured disinfection approach in the industry. Any chemicals added must be
removed from the water at a later stage. Carbon filters are used to remove the residual chemicals in the systems. From this point
onward, no more chemical sanitant is introduced to the system. A UV unit can be placed after the carbon filter to remove any
bacteria that have bred in the carbon filter.
6.4.5.3 UV radiation (In-line)
UV radiation is used to continuously sanitise water that is circulating in the water treatment system. UV units inactivate a high
percentage of microorganisms that flow through the unit. However, UV units are unable to directly control established biofilms
upstream or downstream of the unit. UV units must be sized appropriately to the water flow to ensure effective sanitisation. To
improve UV effects and prolong the interval between system sanitisations, the units can be located immediately upstream of a
microbially retentive filter. Alternatively UV units can be coupled with conventional thermal or chemical sanitisation methods.
6.4.5.4 Clean-in-place (CIP)
CIP strategies are employed within the pharmaceutical plants to clean and sanitise the equipment, pipes, valves in the water
treatment systems line and the pharmaceutical manufacturing equipment. This approach is more water efficient and provides
effective disinfection of the entire system.
6.4.6 Deionisation
Deionisation and continuous electrodeionisation (EDI) are effective methods for removing cations and anions from water streams
to improve the chemical quality attributes. Conventional deionisation units can start with unpurified source water, whereas EDI
units must start with partially purified water. This is because EDI units typically cannot produce purified water (PW) quality
when starting with a heavier ion load from a low purity water source.
6.4.7 Membrane based technologies
There are numerous membrane-based technologies that are used in the pharmaceutical industry for the production of
pharmaceutical grade water. These include the following:
6.4.7.1 UF
UF systems are used to remove endotoxins from the water stream. One of the most effective placements of UF units is at the front
end of the plant to directly treat the incoming feedwater. Placement of UF units at the front end of the plant prevents bacteria and
viruses from entering into the treatment system. This helps to maintain a very low microbial load throughout the system.
Microbes can build up in the treatment systems, particularly in the carbon filters. Placing the UF units upfront will inhibit
bacterial growth in the carbon filters and reduce the need to thermally sanitise the carbon filters.
Alternatively, UF units can be placed after the carbon filters. This is a practical approach as the carbon filters will grow bacteria,
which have to be removed.
Another configuration is to place UF units at the tail end of the membrane-based plant that is manufacturing PW or HPW. This
approach has its benefits because the UF membrane will capture the microbes that are shed from the membrane-based/EDI
system.
6.4.7.2 RO
RO systems can be used to achieve chemical, microbial and endotoxin quality improvements in a water treatment system.
An additional pass of permeate through a second RO stage may be necessary to achieve adequate permeate purity. Effective
pretreatment, system configuration variations and chemical additives may be needed to achieve the desired performance and
reliability of RO membranes.
6.4.7.3 Distillation
Distillation units are used to provide very pure water via thermal vaporisation, mist elimination and water vapour condensation.
The units are available in a variety of designs such as single effect, multiple effect (MED) and vapour compression distillation
(VCD). MED and VCD are the most popular in the pharmaceutical industry.
MED and VCD differ in their pretreatment needs. MED systems typically require RO and deionisation for pretreatment. VCD
systems can require only water softeners as the pretreatment option. Overall, the pretreatment option selected is always a function
of the feedwater quality.
6.4.8 Technology trends
6.4.8.1 Disinfection technology trends
Thermal methods are commonly used in the pharmaceutical industry. The main issue is the high costs and carbon footprints
associated with their use.
UV radiation is widely accepted across the globe and is extensively used, particularly in the United States. UV will only disinfect
at the point of sanitisation. As such, it is necessary to periodically run a residual type disinfectant through the water treatment
system. This typically involves using ozonation.
Ozonation is a popular approach in Europe. Ozonation is considered to be a progressive approach to disinfection. Ozone
destruction equipment must be installed to remove ozone from the water system. The pharmaceutical industry is starting to look
closer at using ozone to replace thermal systems, because of the high cost and carbon footprint associated with thermal systems.
In addition the industry is looking towards green technology approaches.
The International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE) is in the process of releasing an ozone-UV guideline manual
for the use of ozone in conjunction with UV in the pharmaceutical industry. The release of this manual is expected to result in a
trend towards adopting this methodology and a move away from thermal sanitisation.
6.4.8.2 Distillation technology trends
MED is the most predominant means of distilling water in Europe. It consumes a lot of steam and has a relatively low economy.
The MED market is currently very strong. This can be attributed to the conservative nature of the industry, as MED is known and
trusted. MED systems require RO as a pretreatment step, which consumes a lot of water and is expensive.
VCD units are growing in popularity in the industry, particularly in the U.S. and in other parts of the world. VCD is a very
efficient system that allows the use of simpler pretreatment methodologies and does not require the use of RO units. VCD
is commonly used for large water treatment systems. VCD is considered to be more efficient and less expensive than MED.
However, due to the size of VCD units, it can be deemed to be more expensive and somewhat more water consuming than MED.
The pharmaceutical industry is very traditional in its approach to technologies. Manufacturers and governments trust MED
systems and will not switch to VCD, despite the improved efficiency of VCD systems. Reduced water rejection, lower energy
consumption and cost savings are not enough to sway pharmaceutical companies from MED. MED systems have served them
well for decades, so the risk of switching to VCD is too great.
6.4.8.3 RO trends
RO units are used to pretreat feedwater for MED systems. RO units are used ahead of MED to remove scale-forming species.
RO is typically not required for VCD configured systems. This is because vapour compression operates at a lower temperature
than MED. However, the industry tends to expect the same approach for VCD, although it is not necessary to use a membrane
beforehand.
Removing RO from the water treatment system reduces the volume of reject water from the plant. It is not necessary to use RO
systems for VCD and regulations do not stipulate the use of RO for pretreatment. Despite this, companies are conservative and
typically still demand a membrane system upstream of the VCD unit for pretreatment.
Companies are slowly coming to the realisation that membrane systems are not necessary for VCD pretreatment. However, if a
membrane system is demanded, UF would be the ideal option instead of RO. UF units remove the bacterial load with lower water
reject rates. UF units also have fewer membrane failures due to their tolerance to chlorine and the ability to backwash the filters.
The risk averse nature of pharmaceutical companies is a factor that hinders the replacement of RO with UF units as a
pretreatment option.
6.4.8.4 UF/MF/NF trends
UF and MF are the most heavily used membranes in the manufacturing of the finished pharmaceutical products. UF and MF
units are particularly used in biotechnology when manufacturing a drug product starting with a genetically modified cell such as
E. coli or yeast. NF membranes are also widely used in pharmaceutical manufacturing.
On the process water side of the industry, UF is commonly utilised. These membranes have been used in the pharmaceutical
industry for several decades, with the majority of the manufacturers coming from the U.S. market. Germany and Japan also
widely utilise UF membranes.
Overall the use of UF membranes can significantly reduce the water consumption within a plant. The trend towards UF is
growing. The potential to replace RO with UF units is being recognised more and more in the industry.
There is no general trend towards the use of MF units to produce pharmaceutical grade water. Despite the lower capital
expenditure costs of MF units, the volumes involved make it inherently inefficient to use long term.
6.4.8.5 Distillation versus membrane based technologies
There are differing pharmacopoeia requirements for the production of WFI. This has sparked debate and lobbying in the
industry, particularly by equipment manufacturers. Only the Ph. Eur. states distillation as the only method to achieve WFI.
Other pharmacopoeias allow alternate methods to be used to generate WFI. Despite this allowance, the conservative nature of the
industry means that distillation to make WFI is still preferred. There is a comfort level associated with using distillation. This is
attributed to decades of proven service that membrane-based systems cannot provide.
The distillation equipment market for WFI is currently growing and is very well positioned. Distillation is an efficient process
that produces consistent quality water in a one-step process of vaporisation and condensation.
Alternative methods can be used to generate WFI. Methods include using a series of filters such as RO/UF and EDI. The use of
multiple units can be problematic. When alternative methods are used, validation and monitoring equipment must be installed.
Validation of the water treatment system is conducted on alternative systems to ensure the microbial quality of the water. The
use of all of these technologies adds to the level of equipment needed to operate the plant. This is very beneficial to equipment
vendors, who would typically only have to supply a distillation unit.
The water-energy nexus is a major factor as distillation is very energy consumptive. This translates to high costs. Therefore it is
possible to build a membrane-based plant that is less expensive than a distillation plant in terms of front capital cost. This is due
in part to the lower energy consumption at the membrane-based plant. When the operating cost is taken into account, membrane
replacements, water quality validation and monitoring systems are very expensive. Over the life cycle of the plant, these costs
make membrane-based plants more expensive.
Some industry players see distillation as the old way and membranes as the new trend. This is due to the potential for cost savings
from lower energy consumption, despite the need for expensive validation systems. To a certain degree there is a push towards
membranes being observed. However, the full adoption of alternative methods to make WFI is still limited due to the conservative
nature of the industry.
The following figure shows a generalised schematic of the technologies involved in a pharmaceutical water treatment system.
Figure 6.9 Generalised schematic of a pharmaceutical water treatment system
Feedwater
Activated
carbon
filter
UV
Cartridge
filter
UV
MED
VCD
Pure steam
generator
WFI
storage
tank
Cartridge filter
Multimedia filter
Organic scavenger
Sand filter
UF Softener
Pretreatment
Single or
double pass
RO
CEDI or
mixed bed
deioniser
UV
Cartridge
filter
Hot water
or steam
sanitisation
UF
Ceramic membrane
Hollow fibre
membrane
Purified
water tank
Sanitisation
Chemical
Ozone
Hot water
Steam
Storage &
distribution
Sanitisation
Distribution to pharmaceutical
manufacturing plant
Distribution to pharmaceutical
manufacturing plant
Generation treatment
Storage &
distribution
Generation
treatment
Source: Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies, 2010
6.5.1 Wastewater characteristics
Wastewater streams can be discharged directly to sewers for treatment at municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs).
This option is only available where such infrastructure is in place. Wastewater treatment for streams generated from primary
pharmaceutical manufacturing needs to address organic material, total suspended solids (TSS), ammonia, toxicity and pH.
Numerous chemical compounds are also present in wastewater streams, including organic and inorganic acids, solvents and
active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs).
6.5.1.1 Micropollutants
The main specialist contaminants of concern are micropollutants, such as hormones, antibiotics and endocrine disrupting
compounds (EDCs). WWTPs that accept pharmaceutical waste monitor the wastewater streams. Heavy fines and surcharges can
be levied if regulated compounds are found in wastewater streams.
Regulators can identify new micropollutants that must be regulated. The identified micropollutant must be removed from
wastewater streams. Pharmaceutical plants that have the micropollutant present in their discharge must then conduct extensive
research to develop an appropriate treatment protocol.
Pilot trials are conducted with water technology companies. The trials are performed to prove the efficiency and efficacy of
the technologies in removing the micropollutant. Following the completion of the trial, tests are carried out to ensure the
micropollutant is removed to the parts-per-trillion level. The project can then be appropriately scaled up.
Micropollutants can be treated using membrane-based technologies such as UF. Micropollutants present in the waste stream can
be concentrated and removed.
6.5.1.2 Wastewater microbial loads
The microbial loads in the wastewater can be too high to be discharged directly to sewers. This is because the microbes present
in the wastewater stream have the potential to interfere with the municipalities treatment system. In such situations, a UV unit
may be used at the point of discharge. The UV unit will significantly reduce the final microbial load in the discharged wastewater
stream.
6.6.1 Technology categorisation
There are numerous technologies that are used to treat the wastewater generated from pharmaceutical manufacturing. The
technologies can be categorised into several groups, as shown in the following figure.
Treatment Technologies
Primary treatment Grease traps, skimmers, flters, clarifers
Flotation Dissolved air fotation, oil water separators
Aerobic treatment Membrane bioreactor (MBR),
Moving bed bioflm reactor (MBBR)
Anaerobic treatment Upfow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB),
Expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB),
Continuous stirred-tank reactor (CSTR)
Membrane technologies Ceramic UF/MF, RO
Disinfection Chlorination, ozonation, UV
Sludge management Dewatering, fltration, anaerobic digestion, drying, fuidised bed incineration
Value from wastewater UASB, EGSB, CSTR, liquid/liquid extraction, macro porous polymer extraction (MPPE)
Metal recovery Membrane fltration, physical/chemical treatment technologies
Organics removal Activated carbon, advanced chemical oxidation
Colour removal Adsorption, chemical oxidation
Toxicity RO, ion exchange, activated carbon
Dissolved solids RO, evaporation
Source: GWI; IFC, 2007
Pharmaceutical // Water reuse strategies
6.6.1.1 Wastewater treatment trends
The standard treatment flow is to clarify the wastewater, perform dissolved air flotation and then biologically treat using an
aerobic system. MBBR aerobic systems are currently somewhat routinely used in the industry compared to 1015 years ago.
Aerobic systems are used more commonly than anaerobic systems to treat pharmaceutical wastewater.
There is a growing trend within the pharmaceutical industry towards zero liquid discharge (ZLD). Following aerobic treatment,
a filter press is used to form a cake. The cake can be incinerated to generate energy or it may be suitable for use as a fertiliser. All
offending contaminants must be removed before it can be used as a fertiliser. The dewatered liquid from the filter press is then
sent to the evaporator unit. The evaporator generates a clean distillate, suitable for reuse or discharge.
6.7.1 Water reuse in the pharmaceutical industry
Water reuse has relatively limited adoption within the pharmaceutical industry. Treated wastewater is typically only used in non-
product contact applications. Water can be reused in the following applications:
Utilities (boiler, cooling systems, etc)
Supplementary feedwater
Ancillary applications such as irrigation and cleaning
General sanitation
Non-validated water system lines, used to manufacture products such as toothpaste and mouthwash. These products
require high quality water, but the water does not have to be validated in the same way as pharmaceutical grade waters.
However, in some pharmaceutical processes, it may be necessary to use pharmaceutical grade water for floor washing at
production sites. This helps to minimise contamination of the production area. Using higher grade water for cleaning removes a
common application for treated wastewater.
6.7.1.1 Factors promoting water reuse
The main factors promoting water reuse applications in the pharmaceutical industry are as follows:
Operating costs can be very high when dealing with water management. Using water more efficiently helps to protect
the bottom line. Water reuse helps reduce direct expenditure on water purchases, treatment and discharge costs.
Companies can conduct water balance calculations to understand their usage and determine the avenues to optimise
their water systems using water reuse strategies.
Sustainability goals are very important to pharmaceutical companies. Adopting water reuse strategies helps
companies to showcase their green credentials and meet their sustainability agendas. Companies can also use
alternative water sources such as stormwater and rainwater to provide water savings, further showcasing their
commitment to sustainability.
Strengthening wastewater discharge regulations is driving water reuse in the industry. In countries or regions where
regulations require that wastewater streams must be recovered and reused, there is an added incentive towards reuse.
Noncompliance with regulations will result in hefty fines and penalties. There is potential for the selective recovery of
proprietary compounds from wastewater streams. Recovery is achieved by using membrane-based technologies such
as MF, UF, NF, RO and ceramic membranes.
Pharmaceutical product safety is very important in this sector. Therefore the adoption of water reuse strategies must not in any
way limit or compromise the durability and efficiency of the water systems expected in the industry.
6.7.1.2 Water reuse limitations
There is currently no potential for water reuse to manufacture pharmaceutical grade water. The approach may be possible in
the future but regulations would need to play a heavy role in promoting this approach. The main factors limiting the adoption of
water reuse strategies are as follows:
The current regulatory environment coupled with the risk averse nature of the industry are limiting the water reuse
trend. Companies do not want to implement any strategies that can add a level of risk to their operations.
A limiting factor is that pharmacopoeia regulations stipulate using drinking water quality to make pharmaceutical
grade water. This requires the wastewater to be treated, constantly monitored and validated as drinking water before it
can be used for production. In addition, the wastewater that is generated from this industry is highly variable. This is
problematic because of the difficulty to develop a consistent treatment approach to meet the variable streams.
The major trend in water reuse involves the capture of RO reject water. Companies with installed RO systems can reduce their
water losses on the RO end. The reject water from the RO units can be captured. This water can be used in numerous applications
on-site to reduce the volumes of water that are discharged into the sewers.
Water reuse is more prominent in developing nations affected by water scarcity. Reuse is also popular in regions where access to
good water quality is limited. Companies use water reuse strategies because the qualities achieved are very high and the process is
very cost effective.
The pharmaceutical industry is very conservative in nature. The industry does not gamble or take unnecessary risks with regards
to water production, and it does not easily entertain new technologies or approaches. The availability of a new, innovative and
highly efficient technology or solution is not enough to sway this conservative industry to adopt it. Pharmaceutical companies
want to use their tried, tested and regulator approved strategies. In general, companies do not want to be the first to try a
technology. They would rather be the second or third to adopt the technology after it has been proven.
The traditional nature of the industry makes it difficult for companies to thrive in the market. But there are several factors that
can help improve success in the market. A strong track record is one of the most critical success factors for water technology
vendors operating in this market. Reliability, technology specification quality, process guarantees and the ability to deliver
consistent services in short lead times are also important.
The majority of pharmaceutical project tenders are published, but the key to success is to be on the vendor list. This is not
always the case, as the vendor lists are at times not fully adhered to. Prior relationships can result in being awarded a contract.
Relationship building is therefore very important to market survival.
Turnkey projects are more common in the Asian and Indian markets. Greenfield sites are common in the Asian pharmaceutical
market. Turnkey projects are very efficient and can result in a lot of repeat business.
Turnkey projects are not as popular in Europe or in the United States, where technical collaborations are more prevalent. Such
collaborations are used to solve specific reuse or discharge issues or process improvement solutions. Currently few greenfield sites
are being built in the U.S. or Europe.
6.8.1.1 Technology purchasing and outsourcing process
At the start of the procurement process for a new manufacturing plant, an engineering firm is typically hired to design the
process and construct the plant. A contractor will then be hired who decides which technology suppliers to buy from. Contractors
can purchase equipment from multiple suppliers. But there are situations where the client requests a one-stop shop as they only
want to deal with one company. In this situation, reputable service providers are approached to supply the entire system under a
turnkey model.
If a piecemeal approach is taken, Architecture & Engineering (A&E) firms tend to provide procurement services on an hourly
billable rate. This is in contrast to the fixed price associated with the turnkey models.
To determine the ideal technologies to purchase, pharmaceutical companies can use in-house engineers or contract architects,
engineers or vendors that are active in the industry. Companies may decide to make the technology purchases in-house.
Alternatively companies can outsource technology purchasing to the vendor that built the plant or to the architect that designed
the plant. Typically the vendor makes the decisions regarding technologies and equipment purchases.
6.8.1.2 Operating and maintenance
Pharmaceutical companies operate the water treatment plants. They do not want to risk handing the process over to a vendor as
they are liable for the pharmaceutical products they manufacture. Companies do not want a third party in control of such a crucial
part of their system.
The water treatment plants are generally very easy to operate, especially when compared to running large-scale desalination
plants. This makes the need for the vendors to operate the plant redundant. The vendors are, however, still required for equipment
maintenance.
Overall, the pharmaceutical companies can hire architects, engineers, contractors and equipment vendors to build and stock their
plants. Once the plant is completed, the pharmaceutical company will entirely operate the system.
With regards to wastewater, pharmaceutical companies are starting to see the potential of outsourcing operations to service
providers. This trend is expected to grow as the importance of wastewater discharge continues to gain traction in the industry.
Pharmaceutical // Supply chain analysis
6.8.1.3 Local versus international suppliers
In developing nations, the regulations are not as strict and cheaper technologies are readily available. In these cases, local
equipment suppliers can be used. However, international suppliers have dominance in the market simply because they are able
to meet high standards. At the local level, if the international players can support the plant on the ground, they are the preferred
choice.
Developing nations are now moving with the times and reacting to strengthening regulations within their regions. Additionally,
it is impossible to market their products in other regions around the world unless they use internationally recognised standards.
International suppliers are seen as the best choice to meet these standards.
Supplier selection can vary depending on the technology or equipment in question. For example, companies may decide to work
with local pipe manufacturers but may insist on an international supplier for the membrane systems. The main issue with using
local suppliers for the relatively low specification technologies or equipment is that they may not all use internationally recognised
installation protocols. International suppliers are generally seen as the safer option.
Service providers arrange the one-stop shop solutions to clients. The one-stop shop approach is a very efficient and cost
effective approach. This is because the provider is working to a fixed price. There is generally a lot of technology and process
understanding with such companies, which is transferred to the client.
The approach taken by A&E companies is to provide separate technologies. A&E companies follow a billing rate approach. There
is therefore potential to deviate from plans, which can be very inefficient for the client.
Overall, the one-stop shop approach is very popular in the industry and it can result in a lot of repeat business due to the
associated efficiencies. The one-stop shop approach is liked by pharmaceutical companies, particularly on the process water end.
However, the vast majority of the work done in the pharmaceutical industry is run by the major A&E firms, so in general, the
piecemeal approach is more common in the industry.
6.8.2 Market entry
There is a need for excellence in the pharmaceutical industry. Vendors must show excellence in their project execution,
technology or system efficiencies and strong track records. These factors are crucial to entry and maintaining a presence in the
market. Vendors that provide a great service can count on repeat business due to the quality of the work.
A direct approach can be successfully applied in the industry. Established companies can use the direct approach when bringing
a new technology to the market. Taking a direct approach is important because waiting for requests for quotes (RFQs) can be seen
as being too late. This is because at the RFQ stage it is too late to add value as clients are simply checking prices and comparing
bids.
Relationships are a big factor in the industry. Pharmaceutical companies like to work with companies they know and have worked
with time and time again. Without prior relationships in place, entry to the market is limited. Fostered relationships are very
important in the industry.
However, what is unique in this industry is the attitude of Better the devil you know. Even when a vendor does not provide a
very efficient service, a pharmaceutical company is still likely to work with that company in the future. This is particularly the
case when they have worked with the company before and the pharmaceutical company is confident that the technology company
can make the necessary changes and meet their needs. Despite the poor result of one project, pharmaceutical companies consider
them to be less risky than a company they have never worked with before.
The established market players that have developed long-standing relationships with the pharmaceutical companies are the
dominant players in the market. The conservative nature of the industry has made it difficult for companies to enter the
pharmaceutical market. This has helped the companies in place to secure and maintain their market presence. It has also limited
the manoeuvrability of their competitors who may be very active in other industrial markets.
6.8.2.2 New entrants
Entering the pharmaceutical market as a new player is very difficult. There are major barriers to entry that are difficult to
overcome. New entrants will face significant challenges trying to get their first project, as pharmaceutical companies are very risk
averse. New entrants have no history in the market and are considered to be too much of a risk. New entrants do not have a brand
identity or history. A valid approach is to partner with a more established company to bring a new technology to the market.
The Better the devil you know attitude is particularly detrimental for new entrants. Subpar project achievements would be
reason enough to change vendors in other industries, but in the pharmaceutical arena, this is just not reason enough to cut ties
and consider new market players.
When a new player comes into the market, the success of their first project is crucial to their survival. It is essential that the new
entrants build a solid name in the industry. Project failures will almost certainly result in the company being blacklisted within
the industry.
6.8.2.3 Opportunities for new entrants
Directly approaching pharmaceutical companies is not a successful strategy for new entrants. Even when a technology developed
by the new entrant fulfils a particular industry need, a direct approach is not advised. A viable option is to form relationships
with the service providers. The vendors can purchase their technology and enter into partnership agreements. This is particularly
effective when dealing with new, innovative technologies, such as technologies to handle micropollutants.
The primary issue with partnering is that the new entrant will have to give up control and profit. This is a sacrifice that has to be
made to enter the market. Partnering is essential because the technology needs to be scaled up and fully integrated into a water
treatment system. It is therefore more effective to approach a service provider to integrate and scale up the treatment capacity.
In addition, technology adoption can be very slow in this industry. It can take many years, even decades. This is very difficult for
smaller players and new entrants, as they need the technology to generate revenue quickly. The long time horizons for technology
adoption make it even less appealing to work with new entrants. This is because the pharmaceutical companies are not
guaranteed the new entrant will still be around in 5 years time. Therefore working with an established partner helps to mitigate
the risk associated with new entrants.
New market entrants have to think outside the box to enter the close knit pharmaceutical market. They need to look at alternative
markets to get their foot in the door. An opportunity is to try and work with indigenous pharmaceutical companies in developing
nations. This will help the new entrant establish a foothold in the industry and build up their reference list.
6.9 Market forecast
We envisage steady growth of the overall market due to the patent cliff and increased production of generic drugs. The fastest
growing area of opportunity is in specialist wastewater polishing systems for removal of emerging contaminants, such as
endocrine disruptors.
Figure 6.11 Pharmaceutical industry market forecast, 20112025
Wastewater polishing
technologies
systems
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Pharmaceutical ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
2025
(a)
46.6 49.8 52.9 55.8 58.7 61.7 65.0 5.7% 95.3
(b)
25.7 29.3 37.2 43.1 50.6 60.6 74.4 19.4% 251.2
Total 594.6 635.5 679.2 719.0 758.4 801.5 853.1 6.2% 1,623.6
(a)
Includes all types of disinfection.
(b)
These are specialist systems designed to remove endocrine disruptors and other trace pharmaceuticals from wastewater.
Source: GWI
Pharmaceutical // Market forecast
The top country markets are shown in the following figure. Although the Chinese and Indian markets have enjoyed high growth
rates, it will still take a significant amount of time for their production to rival the large installed base that already exists in the
U.S. and Europe.
Figure 6.12 Pharmaceutical industry, top country markets, 20132017
$3,811 m
Total market value
(2013-2017)
France $234m
USA $1,061m
RoW $1,322m
India $456m
China $333m
Japan $405m
Source: GWI
Our reference scenario for the pharmaceutical industry makes the following assumptions:
Current trends towards generic drug manufacture and emerging market growth continue.
U.S. and European new drug discovery rates improve.
Regional breakdowns under these two scenarios are shown in the following figures.
Figure 6.13 Pharmaceutical industry market forecast by region, 20112017: Reference scenario
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Pharmaceutical reference
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 224.0 232.2 240.3 246.3 250.2 253.5 258.2 2.4%
EMEA 192.2 201.8 211.4 218.2 223.8 228.2 234.0 3.3%
Asia Pacifc 178.4 201.4 227.5 254.5 284.4 319.8 360.8 12.5%
Total 594.6 635.5 679.2 719.0 758.4 801.5 853.1 6.2%
Source: GWI
In the alternate scenario, growth in the emerging Asia Pacific and Latin American markets is stunted, as production centres
remain in the U.S. and Europe.
Figure 6.14 Pharmaceutical industry market forecast by region, 20112017: Alternate scenario
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Pharmaceutical alternate
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 224.0 232.2 264.3 270.9 275.2 278.9 284.0 4.0%
EMEA 192.2 201.8 232.5 240.0 246.2 251.0 257.4 5.0%
Asia Pacifc 178.4 201.4 193.4 203.6 213.3 223.9 234.5 4.7%
Total 594.6 635.5 690.2 714.5 734.7 753.7 776.0 4.5%
Source: GWI
Microelectronics // Introduction
7. Microelectronics
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 Microelectronics
Microelectronics is a rapidly evolving industry which produces a wide range of devices for the modern world. Common products
include microchips (also called computer chips or integrated circuits), solar cells, and the flat panel displays. Microelectronics
devices are produced in fabrication plants (fabs) and large volumes of ultrapure water (UPW) are required during the production
process. The industry also generates complex wastewater streams which contain toxic contaminants, e.g. a wide range of acids and
metals which require special treatment prior to discharge.
This chapter covers the following three sectors:
Semiconductor sector: Includes the production of raw silicon wafers and microchips, such as microprocessors,
memory chips, and digital signal processors.
Photovoltaic (PV) sector: Solar cells and photovoltaic modules.
Flat panel display (FPD) sector: Liquid crystal displays (LCD) and thin film transistors (TFT).
The primary focus of the chapter is the semiconductor sector, which had a global revenue of $325 billion in 2011. The
semiconductor industry requires the highest purity of UPW and therefore offers the greatest opportunities for advanced water
treatment technologies.
The PV and FPD sectors are also covered in the chapter, but less comprehensively. The reasons for this are two-fold. Firstly, these
industries are smaller than the semiconductor industry, and the global revenue of the PV industry was $110 billion in 2011.
Secondly, the water treatment requirements for PV and FPD are significantly lower than those for semiconductors, and resemble
the requirements of the semiconductor industry 20 years ago. However, as the manufacturing processes in these industries
develop, higher standards of UPW are required.
7.1.2 The semiconductor manufacturing process
The most common semiconductor, microchips, are produced on a silicon wafer, using a series of manufacturing processes, which
can involve over 1,500 individual steps. The following figure illustrates the key processes in semiconductor manufacturing. Once
the fabrication process (the process of creating a microchip) is complete, the wafer is cut, and thousands of individual microchips
with billions of circuit elements are produced from a single wafer.
The following figure shows the main uses of UPW and the sources of different wastewater streams. UPW is mainly used for
silicon thinning, etching, stripping and electroplating (electrowinning) operations, where it cleans chemicals and debris from the
wafer. The manufacturing process is constantly developing in ways that increase the purity requirements for UPW.
Figure 7.1 Steps in the semiconductor manufacturing process
Silicon thinning
(backgrinding)
SiO
2
layer
formation
Photolithography
(lithography)
Etching
Stripping
Electricity flow
stabilisation
Electroplating
Silicon wafer is ground to
achieve appropriate thickness.
Wafer is polished to remove
impurities.
A layer of silicon dioxide (SiO
2
)
is deposited on the wafer.
Multiple integrated circuits (IC)
are patterned on the wafer.
Following the lithography
process, non-hardened
materials are washed away.
Unwanted hardened
deposits are stripped off.
To control flow of electricity
in the microchip, certain areas
are exposed to chemicals.
A layer of metal (typically copper)
is placed on the microchip and
unwanted metal is polished off.
* * *
* *
*
UPW consumption and
wastewater generation
Diagram key
Source: GWI
Fab capacities are typically quoted in number of wafers per month. To enable fabs that work with different sizes of wafers to be
directly compared, the number of wafers produced has been converted to its equivalent in 200 mm wafers for all of the charts in
this chapter.
7.1.3 Manufacturing process trends
The following three major microelectronic manufacturing process trends have been identified as having a direct effect on water
treatment technology requirements and water consumption rates: miniaturisation, complexity and wafer size.
7.1.3.1 Greater miniaturisation
Throughout the history of the semiconductor industry, the physical size of the components on chips has been decreasing. This
enables more powerful chips to be built. In parallel with this trend towards miniaturisation, the purity requirements for UPW
have increased. This is because the smaller the components, the greater the danger presented by impurities in water that comes
into contact with the chip.
In the industry, the physical size of the components is expressed in terms of line-width (or node). Currently, state-of-the-art
microchip fabs manufacture chips with a line-width of 22 nm. The industry roadmap predicts that the minimum line-width
will continue to decrease, as shown in the following figure. Therefore, the degree of purity required for UPW will continue to
increase.
Figure 7.2 The continuing miniaturisation of semiconductor devices
0
5
10
15
20
25
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
Line width
n
m
* Note: Line-width in this chart refers to the smallest line-width occurring in devices manufactured in a particular year.
Source: ITRS, 2012
Microelectronics // Introduction
The following two figures compare the line-widths of new fabs constructed during 20002011 and planned fabs between 2012
2020. Devices with a full range of line-widths are being produced, but the trend moves continuously towards miniaturisation.
Figure 7.3 Capacity of new fabrication plants by line-width, 20002011
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
700
400-699
200-399
120-199
80-119
50-79
38-49
25-37
18-24
13-17
12
L
i
n
e

w
i
d
t
h

(
n
m
)
No. of wafers/month, 200mm wafer equivalent (million)
Source: SEMI World Fab Forecast, May 2012
Figure 7.4 Capacity of new fabrication plants by line-width, 20122020
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
700
400-699
200-399
120-199
80-119
50-79
38-49
25-37
18-24
13-17
12
L
i
n
e

t
w
i
d
t
h

(
n
m
)
The data shows that in 2012, 22% of production was for line-widths of 1824 nm. In 2013, the industry will start producing
devices with line-widths of 1317 nm, which is expected to account for 15.6% of the new global semiconductor market in 2013.
Line-widths smaller than 12 nm are also expected be produced in the future. The figures also show that the production of
microchips with line-widths of 2537 nm is likely to become minimal in the future these geometries are no longer cutting-edge,
and so have been superseded.
7.1.3.2 Greater complexity
Greater miniaturisation means that the number of production steps required to complete a single microchip is increasing. More
steps means more water, and thus generation of new wastewater streams. More wastewater streams leads to an increased risk of
wastewater stream cross-contamination, which results in wastewater that is even more difficult to treat and reuse.
7.1.3.3 Larger wafer sizes
It makes economic sense to maximise the number of microchips per wafer. This trend has driven the industry towards increasing
wafer sizes. Currently, the most commonly used wafers have diameters of 300 mm. However, a number of manufacturers have
announced that they will start construction of fabs for 450 mm wafers in 2013. When the 450 mm wafer fabs come online, they
will require more UPW for production and cooling, and new ranges of equipment, such as larger piping equipment.
The following two figures compare the wafer sizes of new fabs constructed during 20002011 and planned fabs between 2012
2020. The current trend is building fabs that use 300 mm wafers, but small wafer size fabrication plants (i.e. 50 mm, 100 mm
or 150 mm) still have their place in the industry. China is the largest producer of small wafer semiconductors. 450 mm wafer
fabrication plants are currently in planning stages in Taiwan, the Republic of Korea, Belgium and the United States. The newly
added capacity of 450 mm in Belgium and the USA is, however, too small to be significant in Figure 7.6.
Figure 7.5 Capacity of new fabrication plants by wafer size, 20002011
0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000
50 mm
75 mm
100 mm
125 mm
150 mm
200 mm
300 mm
450 mm
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
No. wafers/month (200 mm wafer equivalent)
Figure 7.6 Capacity of new fabrication plants by wafer size, 20122020
0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000
50 mm
75 mm
100 mm
150 mm
200 mm
300 mm
450 mm
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Microelectronics // Water treatment market drivers in microelectronics
7.2 Water treatment market drivers in microelectronics
There are a number of drivers that shape the water treatment requirements of the microelectronics industry:
Water scarcity: A number of fabs are located or planned in regions where water is scarce, such as parts of Singapore,
Taiwan, China, the U.S. and the Middle East. Water scarcity does not prevent the construction of fabs, but where
water is limited, plant manufacturers will have to decrease water consumption and look at ways of increasing reuse
rates.
Figure 7.7 Planned semiconductor plant locations and water scarcity
Source: SEMI World Fab Forecast, May 2012; Global Water Risk Index, GWI, 2011
Tighter UPW requirements: The line-width of chips is still being reduced. The smaller the line-width, the greater the
purity requirements for UPW, and the greater the demand for advanced water treatment technologies.
Brand management and water conservation: Many of the global microelectronics players are keen to improve
their brand image by conserving water. In some cases, companies set themselves company-wide water reuse and
wastewater treatment targets beyond what local regulations require.
Stricter regulations: Increasingly, governmental mandates and industry best practice guidelines are pushing the
industry to adopt greater water reuse strategies and limit wastewater discharge. Further limits on the total dissolved
solids (TDS) and salts content in wastewater is anticipated. This will mean an increase in on-site desalination and the
reuse of wastewater in fabs.
Energy reduction: Since less energy consumption means lower costs, equipment which requires less energy will have
a competitive advantage.
Equipment cost: This is an important driver for UPW, water reuse and wastewater systems. Whereas the cost of
acquiring a UPW system can be justified by greater confidence in the system and therefore greater reliability and
profit margin, the decision to adopt advanced technologies for water reuse and wastewater treatment has to be based
on direct financial returns.
Fluctuations in demand: The microelectronics industry is a cyclical industry and many products rely on consumer
demand. The growth of the PV market has been driven primarily by government subsidies for new power generation
units in EU countries. Without these subsidies the market is likely to find it hard to maintain high levels of growth.
Two grades of water are used in fabs: UPW, which comes into direct contact with the device being produced, and other
process water, which is used for other equipment related to the manufacturing process. UPW is used in different steps of the
manufacturing process and constitutes the majority of the water used in a plant.
According to the ASTM standard, UPW is typically used for the following operations:
Washing
Rinsing semiconductor components
Making steam for the oxidation of silicon surfaces
Cleaning and etching
Preparing photo masks or depositing luminescent materials
Low grade process water is used, for example, in:
Cooling towers
Acid waste scrubbers
Heating, ventilation and conditioning systems (HVAC)
The UPW system uses more water than any other process on-site. The cooling towers use 3060% of the volume used by the
UPW system. The precise amount depends on the local evaporation rate.
7.3.1 Current industry water consumption
A typical semiconductor facility uses around 3.87.6 m/min of UPW. The exact water consumption varies according to the
production output of the fab and the product being made (e.g. semiconductors, FPD, PV). The following figure lists some of the
UPW loop water consumption rates at fabs.
Figure 7.8 UPW consumption at semiconductor and FPD fabrication plants
Type of fab UPW loop size UPW consumption (m/min)
Semiconductor plant Small UPW loop 1.92.3
Standard UPW loop 3.87.6
Large UPW loop up to 52.5
FPD plant Standard UPW 15.122.7
Source: GWI
Water consumption is set to increase. This is because the trend is towards amalgamating fabs and the installation of UPW
systems.
7.3.2 Industry standards for UPW and treatment for water reuse
The latest developments in the science of UPW are reflected in two different sets of international standards, the SEMI Standards
and the ASTM Standards. These standards are produced by manufacturing and technology providers in collaboration with
independent laboratories and global experts.
In addition, the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS) predicts how semiconductor devices will evolve,
and provides guidance on the water usage and water reuse rates of fabs.
7.3.2.1 SEMI F63-0211 Guide for ultrapure water used in semiconductor processing
Published in 2011, SEMI F63-0211 is the most up-to-date UPW standard for cutting edge fabs which produce semiconductors
with line-widths smaller than 65 nm. The standards include a table showing recommended degrees of quality of UPW, as well as
explanations of why specific contaminants are of concern for the semiconductor manufacturing process and should be removed.
7.3.2.2 ASTM D5127 Standard Guide for ultrapure water used in the electronics and semiconductor industries
Published in 2007, ASTM D5127 provides recommendations for water quality related to both electronics and semiconductor
manufacturing. It gives recommendations for six types of water quality which correspond to the sizes of device being
manufactured. The standard covers devices with line-width 905,000 nm. It also lists possible options for technologies used for
UPW production.
7.3.2.3 Comparison of SEMI F63 Standard and ASTM D5127 Standard
A key difference between the SEMI and ASTM standards is that SEMI F63 includes much higher water quality specifications for
smaller line-width devices. The SEMI F63 standard is therefore appropriate for the newest fabs which manufacture the smallest
line-width devices currently possible. Older semiconductor plants, PV and FPD plants should follow the water specifications
set out in ASTM D5127 standard. SEMI F63 incorporates the ITRS requirements, and therefore takes into account forthcoming
technological advances in the industry.
7.3.2.4 Future development of UPW standards
At the time of publication, an updated version of the ASTM D5127 is being prepared. The updated ASTM standard will
include the SEMI F63 specification, as well as other UPW quality requirements for older generations of equipment used in
Microelectronics // Process water requirements
microelectronics manufacturing. An update to SEMI F63 is currently being prepared to incorporate new information from ITRS.
The new document will differ significantly in format and scope.
7.3.2.5 How the standards are used
Different groups use different standards. Smaller electronics companies, which in many instances produce larger line-width
devices, prefer the ASTM standard. Semiconductor companies that use the latest technologies prefer SEMI F63, and tend to work
with the ITRS to develop their own internal specifications.
Additionally, UPW equipment suppliers and EPC contractors use published standards as a reference for design specifications
when communicating with clients.
7.3.2.6 Other microelectronics-related standards
In addition to the above UPW standards, the SEMI Group publishes other microelectronics-related standards. These include
information on water reuse and water treatment at PV plants:
SEMI F98 Guide for treatment of reuse water in semiconductor processing: Published in 2011, this standard lists and
explains the design elements of water reuse systems.
SEMI PV3 Guide for high purity water used in photovoltaic cell processing: Published in 2010, this guide gives
performance criteria and water quality standards for high purity water used in the PV industry.
To date, no dedicated standard for the FPS industry has been published.
7.3.3 ITRS roadmap guidelines future technology trends
The ITRS is published each year and provides a 15-year projection of the semiconductor industrys technology requirements. The
ITRS sets annual targets for water consumption and water reuse rates at fabs. These targets are recommendations they are not
legally binding.
The following figure summarises the ITRS target water consumption rates and water reuse rates to 2025. The ITRS stresses
the need for a continuous reduction in water consumption and an increase in the water reuse rate of fabs. The technology for
reduced water consumption is currently available, but it will only be possible to achieve more than 85% water reuse when new
technological solutions are in place.
Figure 7.9 ITRS water consumption: Facilities technology requirements near-term years
0
3
6
9
12
15
0
20
40
60
80
100
2026 2024 2022 2020 2018 2016 2014 2012
C
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

(
l
i
t
r
e
s
/
c
m
2
)
Fab water
consumption
UPW water
consumption
%

o
f

w
a
t
e
r

r
e
u
s
e
d
Water reuse

Source: ITRS, 2012
7.3.4 Water quality requirements for UPW
7.3.4.1 UPW requirements for semiconductor manufacturing
In most cases, fabs get feedwater from raw surface waters or use potable water from the municipal supply. While using brackish
water as feedwater is not a worldwide trend, there are examples of its use in fabs in China.
As the line widths of semiconductor devices get smaller, the UPW water requirements will change. This presents an on-going
challenge for the science of UPW.
Current challenges in UPW treatment are:
Detecting particles: Particle detection has not kept pace with the diminishing line width of semiconductor devices,
and new detection methods need to be found for increasingly small production lines. Current measurement methods
are capable of detecting 50 nm particles, whereas the industry needs to refine the measurement down to 10 nm
particles.
Removing killer particles: After particle identification, the industry needs to remove killer particles, which are
defined by the ITRS as particles below 30 nm. Example include traces of metals, salts and organics in this size range.
Removing organics: As long as Total Organic Carbon (TOC) is restricted to 2 ppb, no defects should occur. However,
the effect of specific organic compounds is less clear. The ITRS has been trying to identify a comprehensive list of
critical organics over the last few years, but this work is not yet complete.
UPW production is treatment-intensive and results in extremely low concentrations of contaminants. Key contaminants to be
substantially reduced and monitored are shown in the following figure.
Figure 7.10 Major contaminants of concern for UPW production
Contaminants Problems
Total organic carbon (TOC) including specifc organic
compounds (such as urea, compounds containing
hydroxide (OH), and compounds containing N, Cl and Br)
Can adversely affect wafer production. The presence of specifc organic
compounds can lead to oxide breakdowns, voltage leaks and other
dysfunctions in the photolithography process.
Silica (colloidal silica, dissolved silica as SiO
2
) Silica enters the system through incoming feedwater, or it may be
dissolved from wafer surfaces. Silica can then be transferred onto
wafers, causing water spotting. Silica might also absorb metals and act
as a transport mechanism for metals.
Boron Boron is used during the manufacturing process and is present in the
air of clean rooms which can damage wafers by oxidisation on silicon
surfaces.
Metal ions (barium, calcium and copper) Can signifcantly affect the yield of microelectronics devices due to their
ability to cause a dielectric breakdown and crystal defects.
Dissolved oxygen and nitrogen Can damage silicon surfaces and other process steps. Dissolved oxygen
might also enhance corrosion of metals such as copper.
Source: SEMI, 2011; GWI
A review of appropriate contaminant levels, together with a full list of contaminants that should be treated and monitored, can be
found in the relevant industry standards, such as ASTM D5127 and SEMI F63. The values listed in the standards are not legally
binding, but they indicate the best performance criteria for appropriate water quality.
7.3.4.2 PV high purity water standard
Standards for the quality of high purity water for the PV industry are not as stringent as the UPW requirements for top-class
semiconductor fabs. This is illustrated in the following figure. Metal contamination of the high purity water is typically measured
in parts-per-billion in the PV industry, for example, whereas the semiconductor industry measures contamination in parts-per-
trillion. In addition, certain contaminants are not a concern for the PV industry (e.g. boron, dissolved oxygen). However, as the
industry strives to achieve greater production efficiency, the high purity water requirements will increase.
Figure 7.11 Comparison of SEMI F63 and SEMI PV3 Standard UPW requirements
Parameter
UPW for advanced
semiconductor plants
(SEMI F63)
High purity water for
PV manufacturing
(SEMI PV3)
Resistivity online @ 25C (Mcm) > 18.18 >17.5
TOC (online) <2 <20
Dissolved oxygen (ppb) < 10 n/a
Bacteria (CFU/l) < 1 <10
Silica total (ppb) <0.5 <20
Fluoride (ppt) < 50 <1,000
Boron (ppt) < 50 n/a
Arsenic (ppt) <10 <1,000
Copper (ppt) <1 <1,000
Source: SEMI 2010, 2011
Microelectronics // Desalination technologies for process water
7.4 Desalination technologies for process water
7.4.1 Ultrapure water (UPW) technology trends in semiconductor industry
UPW treatment for semiconductor manufacturing has developed rapidly over the last 20 years. At present, the existing treatment
technologies are able to meet the water quality requirements for the current generation of devices. The individual technologies are
likely to remain the same for the foreseeable future. However, the exact treatment train used in a UPW system will depend on a
number of factors: feedwater quality, device line-width, specific contaminants of concern, production requirements and end-user
confidence levels. For example, if an end-user wishes to operate a facility 24 hours per day all year round, it might be prudent to
install duplicate selected equipment to avoid disruption of the production process in case of equipment failure. The plant operator
might also install more specific equipment to further increase confidence levels in the UPW production process.
The following figure shows the technology train options for a UPW system for the semiconductor and PV industries.
Figure 7.12 UPW technology train for the semiconductor and PV industries
Media filtration
Activated carbon
Cartridge filter
UF
First pass
Second pass
HERO
IX mixed beds UF
Advanced
oxidation
Degasification
and UV
UV and/or
ozonation
PV UPW
Quality Requirements
SEMI F63 Standard
UPW Quality Requirements
UPW quality requirements are
line-width dependent
Pretreatment RO Polishing
IX
EDI
Diagram key
Processes that can be used together Process that can be used alone Does not apply for production of PV UPW
*
*
Source: Morgan, 2009; GWI
The UPW technology train involves three key steps:
Pretreatment
Reverse osmosis (RO)
Polishing
The process train for PV high purity water production is less stringent (and therefore less interesting) and involves only
pretreatment, RO membranes and ion exchange.
7.4.1.1 Pretreatment
There are various technologies which can be used to pretreat water coming into the UPW system.
Multimedia filtration and activated carbon: The most commonly used technology is multimedia filtration. In the past
multimedia filtration was used automatically, regardless of the feedwater quality, as a means of protecting the UPW
system. In recent years, companies have been more open to risk at the front end of the water treatment cycle, and have
applied media filtration only when the quality of feedwater was poor and the water treatment quality was required to
be very high. Multimedia filtration is effective when applied with activated carbon. Activated carbon is very efficient
at dechlorination, fine particles removal, and organic carbon removal. Dechlorination is specifically required where
feedwater is drawn from a municipal supply where chlorination has been used for disinfection. The use of activated
carbon depends on the feedwater quality and the level of performance expected of the system.
Ultrafiltration (UF): UF has proved to be a successful alternative to multimedia filtration at many fabs worldwide
and so may become the technology of choice. The decision whether to install multimedia filtration or UF depends
primarily on feedwater quality and water treatment requirements. Where the operational cost of UF is lower than
that of the multimedia filters, the UF pretreatment will be preferred. UF as a pretreatment method is widely used in
China and is becoming increasingly popular in Japan.
Cartridge filters: Cartridge filters are also an effective pretreatment method.
7.4.1.2 Reverse osmosis
The following types of RO membranes are typically used in a UPW system.
Reverse osmosis (RO) and high efficiency reverse osmosis (HERO). There is a general trend towards using two-train
RO membranes. Two-train RO consists of using two RO membranes in sequence. Doubling up the RO membranes is
more effective than single-train RO for removing dissolved ions, organic and biological compounds, silica and other
suspended contaminants, and is therefore more suitable for UPW production. At plants with the most stringent UPW
requirements, HERO technology can be used instead of the two-train RO. The decision to install HERO rather than
two-train RO will depend on a thorough analysis of the feedwater and the location of the plant. At plants in which
HERO is installed, HERO manufacturers claim a higher rejection rate (up to 95%), and removal of larger amounts of
boron, silica and TOC.
7.4.1.3 Polishing
After RO filtration, the UPW is polished.
Electrodeionisation (EDI) is very efficient in reducing boron and silica. EDI was introduced to the microelectronics
industry a decade ago and is now a mature technology which is gaining popularity among plant operators. EDI
can be placed immediately after RO membranes, or it can be placed in the middle of the UPW system to act as a
substitute for various ion exchange treatments. There is a trend towards using RO in conjunction with EDI and
IX. Alternatively, HERO followed by EDI produces water which meets silica requirements. However, despite its
increasing popularity, the technology has not caught on everywhere due to higher capital cost requirements.
Ion Exchange (IX) further reduces silica levels after water has passed through RO membranes and the EDI system,
and increases stable production of UPW on the site. By adding IX to the UPW system, the regeneration frequency is
minimised from a few days to a year, ensuring a steady production over a longer period of time.
UF can be used at the front end of the UPW system to protect RO membranes and also at the end of the UPW
systems to remove the last remaining particles prior to contact with a wafer. UF has been used successfully in the
final polishing treatment for more than 15 years and it is still the main technology for particle filtration, although this
might change in the future. Cross-flow filtration might be exchanged for cartridge filters. The performance of these
technologies is getting closer to that of UF filters, and they are physically more robust.
Degasification membranes are required for all advanced semi-conductor facilities. The trend is moving from a
degasification tower towards membrane degasification.
UV is primarily used for TOC removal. In the past, UV was used for disinfection, but this application is no longer
very common. If ozonation is applied in the UPW system, UV is installed to destroy residual ozone. UV is widely
used in fabs in Asia.
7.5.1 Semiconductor industry wastewater streams
The semiconductor manufacturing process uses a wide range of slurries and chemicals which generate very contaminated
wastewater. Although the industry does not use toxic chemicals such as cyanide and lead, it uses other compounds which if
left untreated cause environmental pollution and pose a risk to human health. For example, the industry uses high volumes of
corrosive hydrofluoric acid (HF) for cleaning and photosensitive treatments, which in high concentrations can dissolve many
materials. Other agents used during the manufacturing process include ammonium hydroxide ( NH
4
OH), hydrogen peroxide
(H
2
O
2
), hydrochloric acid (HCl), sulphuric acid (H
2
SO
4
) or phosphoric acid (H
3
PO
4
). The wastewater includes mixtures of these
chemicals, together with other contaminants that result from the manufacturing processes, such as traces of nickel, copper,
cobalt, titanium, fluoride, silica, ammonia, and many other organic and inorganic compounds.
The following figure identifies the major wastewater streams from the semiconductor manufacturing process. However, it is
important to note that this overview provides examples, rather than a comprehensive list of contaminants. The exact wastewater
stream composition depends on the manufacturing process, and is typically bound to trade secrets and therefore not publicly
available.
Microelectronics // Wastewater challenges
Figure 7.13 Wastewater streams generated in the semiconductor industry
Process Possible wastewater streams Typical contaminants Volume of
wastewater
Contamination
levels
Chemical mechanical
polishing (CMP)
CMP involves three wastewater
streams: the most concentrated
stream, from the polishing stage;
a less concentrated stream, from
the cleaning unit; and, the least
contaminated stream, from the
rinsing unit.
The following three types of
wastewater might be segregated
for further treatment:
Copper CMP wastewater
Ammonia CMP wastewater
Fluoride CMP wastewater
The exact contaminants depend
on the type of slurry and the
cleaning agent used during the
polishing and cleaning stages of
CMP. Typical contaminants might
include: NH
4
OH (ammonium
hydroxide), HF (hydrofuoric acid),
HCl (hydrochloric acid), slurry
particles, copper, iron, silica,
inorganic ions, organic compounds
etc.
High Lowhigh
Wafer backgrinding (BG)
(also called wafer
thinning)
n/a Suspended silicon particles Medium Medium
Wafer cleaning n/a High/low TOC rinse water NH
4
OH,
HCL, H
2
O
2
, H
2
SO
4
High Lowmedium
Photolithography n/a Generates general acid wastewater Low High
Etching HF wastewater HF, NH
4
F, HNO
3
, H
3
PO
4
, Silicates Medium Mediumhigh
Stripping n/a Concentrate chemicals, solvents,
Polymers, H
2
SO
4
, Metals
Low High
Source: GWI
7.5.2 Wastewater treatment challenges in microelectronics manufacturing
Microelectronics plant operators have tended to focus less on wastewater treatment than on UPW treatment. There is therefore a
much room for improvement in this area.
The industry faces a number of key challenges:
To identify the correct process chemistries for smaller line-width devices: Semiconductor devices are getting smaller,
with the result that the manufacturing processes becomes more complex, and the wastewater streams more
chemically complex. Further research is needed to find the right process chemistries for smaller line-widths.
Identifying the effects of nanoparticles in waste streams: The cumulative effect of nanoparticles in wastewater has
not been widely discussed. The industry needs to monitor the impact of these particles and find treatment which
prevents this cumulative effect.
Separating different waste streams: The industry needs to find the best way of separating different wastewater
streams to maximise water reuse on site. The SEMI F98 standard recommends segregating clean rinse from acid
water, then separating streams which contain organics, and finally, isolating wastewater streams which require
specific treatment (e.g. HF, CMP processing, copper and phosphoric acid treatment).
Resource recovery: Wider adoption of resource recovery techniques to capture less abundant contaminants than
copper and fluoride.
Managing large volume flow rates: Some of the new fabs have been built within existing manufacturing facilities,
which increases the total volume of wastewater generated on site. Consequently, new solutions for managing high
volumes of wastewater are needed.
7.5.3 PV industry wastewater characteristics
Wastewater streams in the PV industry are similar to those in the semiconductor industry. Although the exact manufacturing
steps differ, there are similarities in the process chemistries used in a number of the steps (e.g. wafer cleaning and etching),
which results in a similar composition of wastewater streams. The following figure further describes the major wastewater
processes in PV and their key contamination characteristics.
Figure 7.14 PV wastewater streams
Process steps Description Contamination characteristics
Wafer cleaning After the wafer is cut to the appropriate width
(approximately 300 nm), any damaged surfaces
and remaining debris must be removed.
Depending on the type of silicon wafer used
(e.g. multi-crystalline or semi-crystalline wafer)
different cleaning agents are applied which
affects the wastewater composition. A large
amount of water is used to clean the wafer
surface during this step.
Poly-crystalline wafer:
Wastewater streams containing a varied
concentration of concentrate and rinse HF and/or
HNO
3
acids are generated.
Mono-crystalline wafer:
Hot caustic solution with isopropanol (ISA) is
used for cleaning wafer surfaces. The wastewater
is not suitable for an on-site treatment and is
typically externally discharged.
Emitter formation The wafer is diffused in a small amount of
phosphorus coating, then rinsed and dried.
P-containing wastewater, HF rinse wastewater.
PSG (phosphosilicate glass)
etching
The phosphorus diffusion process forms PSG
on the wafer surface, which requires further
removal by applying HF acid.
HF concentrated wastewater, and HF rinse water.
Si
3
N
4
(silicon nitrate)
deposition
Si
3
N
4
layer is required to reduce light refection
on the wafers surface. The process chamber is
cleaned typically with fuoride-containing agents
that generate F-containing wastewater. The
amount of wastewater generated is low.
Composition of wastewater depends on the
cleaning agent used. Typically, F-containing
wastewater is generated as well as other types of
caustic and acid wastewater.
Source: GWI, after Schleef et al, 2011
7.6.1 Reuse opportunities at fabrication plants
Fabs offer a wide range of opportunities for water reuse. However the suitability of a wastewater stream for reuse depends
on the level of contamination, and this varies between processes, as well as depending on the individual steps of particular
manufacturing processes. For example, during the CMP process, only the wastewater from two of the three steps is suitable for
water reuse.
The following figure shows which grades of wastewater are typically treated to achieve typical water reuse rates. Lower reuse rates
are achieved by recycling only less contaminated wastewater streams such as the final rinses in various manufacturing processes
(e.g. wafer cleaning or CMP filtration). If a higher percentage of water reuse is required, then more complex wastewater streams
must be treated (e.g. first and second rinses and organic waste).
Microelectronics // Water reuse strategies
Figure 7.15 Water reuse opportunities
139%
4059%
6089%
90100%
F
i
n
a
l

i
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
c

r
i
n
s
e
F
i
n
a
l

i
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
c

r
i
n
s
e

w
i
t
h

l
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
2
n
d

i
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
c

r
i
n
s
e

w
i
t
h

l
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
C
h
u
c
k

c
l
e
a
n
2
n
d

o
r
g
a
n
i
c

a
n
d

i
n
o
r
g
a
n
i
c

r
i
n
s
e

w
i
t
h

l
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
F
i
n
a
l

o
r
g
a
n
i
c

r
i
n
s
e

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

l
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
1
s
t

a
n
d

2
n
d

o
r
g
a
n
i
c

r
i
n
s
e

w
i
t
h

l
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
C
M
P

r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
P
h
o
t
o
l
i
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
y

w
a
s
t
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
Z
L
D
Wastewater generating process options
- Water cleaning
Water reuse practice
C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Water reuse treatment rate
Water reuse technologies
E
u
r
o
p
e
(
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
)
(
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
)
A
s
i
a
(
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
)
- Etching
- Stripping
- CMP process
- Photolitography

Source: GWI, after Libman, 2008
7.6.1.1 The 50% rule
The figure above shows that a reuse rate of 50% can be easily achieved through reuse of less contaminated wastewater using
conventional technologies. Plant operators use this treated wastewater in less sensitive equipment such as at cooling towers and
scrubbers (see the following figure). A reuse rate of 50% can be easily achieved by using the water almost solely in cooling towers.
However, some experts believe that this issue has been oversimplified in the past, and that cooling towers should not act as a
dumping ground for poorly treated wastewater because this might damage the equipment.
Reuse rates above 50% can only be achieved by using more advanced technologies to treat complex contaminants. In order to
obtain a return on investment in these more expensive technologies, plant operators have to consider reusing treated wastewater
in the UPW cycle. Reuse rates of 7580% can be achieved in this way. Plant operators can also choose to reuse wastewater off-site
(e.g. for non-agricultural use), however this is dependent on the local infrastructure and appropriate discharge regulations.
Finally, there is an approximate limit on how much UPW can be recycled, which is currently around 85%. It is possible to
achieve higher reuse rates, but zero liquid discharge (ZLD) technology has to be installed on site. This increases the operational
cost considerably, and some experts believe that using ZLD technology is not environmentally friendly, because it is so energy-
intensive.
Figure 7.16 Water reuse applications
Water reuse options Applications
High-grade water reuse
(process water for UPW system)
UPW process water requirements such as CMP fnal rinse
Low-grade water reuse
(process water for non-UPW equipment
(industrial make-up water))
Cooling towers
Acid waste scrubbers
Fire-protection
Off-site water reuse options Agricultural and non-agricultural irrigation
Clean courts
Wetland restoration
Source: GWI
The ITRS roadmap recommends that plant operators reuse 75% of the UPW at fabs, and this requirement should increase to
85% from 2016. Despite this optimistic target, water reuse varies widely between regions and companies. Currently, the trend is
towards redirecting wastewater back into less sensitive equipment mainly cooling towers and scrubbers rather than back into
the UPW loop.
The following three types of water reuse are currently practised worldwide:
1. Partial reuse of UPW, for cooling tower feedwater and other less sensitive equipment.
2. Complete reuse of UPW, for cooling tower feedwater and other less sensitive equipment.
3. Complete reuse of UPW, in the UPW recycling loop and other less sensitive equipment.
The extent of water reuse in fabs typically depends on the following factors:
Water availability
Infrastructure
The cost of water reuse
Local regulation
Willingness of plant operators to take a risk in reusing wastewater.
As greater water reuse rates require advanced water reuse technologies, and hence greater investment, companies may be
reluctant to increase water reuse unless a clear financial benefit results from this practice. Additionally, reusing wastewater
in the UPW system is still a serious concern for plant manufactures, as they fear damaging the process equipment and losing
substantial revenue streams. This fear will be difficult to overcome, as the process chemistries of smaller devices are becoming
more complex and therefore harder to treat.
7.6.3 Water reuse at non-semiconductor facilities
Semiconductor fabs are currently achieving overall higher water reuse rates than the FPD industry. The FPD industry typically
reaches a reuse rate of approximately 50%, while raw wafer manufacturing has a reuse rate of only 30%.
7.7 Wastewater treatment and water reuse technologies
7.7.1 Wastewater treatment technologies and future developments.
No specific wastewater treatment technologies have been developed primarily for the microelectronics industry, and the
conventional technologies used are very similar to those used in other industries. The following figure lists the most common
wastewater treatment methods employed by the industry.
Typically, wastewater treatment involves a combination of chemical and physical treatments, neutralisation tanks, and the
occasional application of degasification technologies. The extent to how advanced the recovery treatment technologies are will
depend on local regulations on specific contaminants such as fluoride or copper.
The key to successful wastewater treatment and water reuse is the segregation of various grades of wastewater according to their
chemical properties. Where water reuse is practised on-site, additional lines of water reuse technologies have to be installed.
Microelectronics // Wastewater treatment and water reuse technologies
Figure 7.17 Wastewater treatment technologies conventional and advanced
Type Technologies
Conventional Clarifcation systems (precipitation, sedimentation, coagulation)
Neutralisation tanks
Advanced Electrowinning
(*)
Advanced oxidation
MBR
IX
Membrane fltration (particle fltration, UF)
(*)
Electrowinning technologies are described in section 7.7.3.1
Source: GWI
7.7.2 Current trends in wastewater treatment in the semiconductor industry
The following sections describe how typical wastewater contaminants are treated in the semiconductor industry.
7.7.2.1 HF treatment
Due to the regulatory limitations on fluoride, HF treatment is practised most often in the semiconductor and PV industry. HF
is treated separately from other acids used during the manufacturing process (e.g H
2
O
2
, H
2
SO
4
, HCl) to ensure that fluoride
contamination is adequately dealt with. A typical wastewater process includes precipitation, sedimentation and filtration, followed
by a final treatment of the filter reject in the neutralisation tanks. In the PV industry, filtration is most commonly carried out
by dead-end filters. Remaining solids are then collected and run through a filter press to create a solid cake which is ready for
external disposal.
7.7.2.2 Metal-bearing wastewater treatment
The treatment for wastewater which contains copper traces is also very common in the semiconductor industry. Depending on the
local regulations, plant operators can either treat the wastewater through conventional methods or can apply advanced resource
recovery methods (eg. IX, electrowinning, advanced oxidation) to decrease the final level of contaminants in the wastewater.
Nickel recovery treatments have been problematic because of the inability of membrane treatment to achieve satisfactory results.
Metal-bearing wastewater treatment is not used in the PV industry.
7.7.2.3 Ammonia treatment
Ammonia treatment has become more prevalent in the past decade, but it is location-specific and has not been adopted
everywhere because of the high operating cost. High levels of ammonia might not be a problem on their own, and only becomes
an issue when large volumes of ammonia overload sewage.
7.7.2.4 Caustic and acid wastewater treatment
The most common treatment for caustic and acid wastewater (including H
2
O
2
, H
2
SO
4
, HCl and H
3
PO
4
) is to install neutralisation
tanks. These adjust the pH, or add specific acids to neutralise the wastewater, in order to meet the relevant discharge limits.
Adoption of phosphoric acid (H
3
PO
4
) treatment in China has historically been poor, but fabs now have to install appropriate
treatment facilities. HF treatment requires additional pretreatment to remove fluoride which is described in Section 7.7.2.1.
7.7.2.5 Concentrated acids treatment
The semiconductor and PV industries generate a certain amount of very concentrated acids (HF, HNO
3
). These are typically
collected separately from diluted wastewater streams and shipped off-site for further treatment and decomposition.
7.7.3 Technology trends
7.7.3.1 Resource recovery
The industry is moving towards greater adoption of resource recovery technologies including electrowinning and IX.
Electrowinning is an old-fashioned electro-chemical recovery process used for extracting metals (such as copper,
nickel or cobalt) from wastewater. The principle of electrowinning is to place anodes and cathodes in an acid-resistant
bath and pass an electric current through the electrodes. Traces of metals are then attracted to the electrodes and
subsequently recovered. Typically, the microelectronics industry uses electrowinning for copper removal from the
CMP process. Although it is widely used in fabs, there is a need to upgrade to achieve more efficient recovery.
IX is also used by the industry to remove metal ions from wastewater. It can be installed on its own or as part of a
combination of metal recovery processes, in which case the IX would be followed by electrowinning technologies and
advanced oxidation. There is a growing trend towards adopting IX as an effective method of wastewater treatment.
7.7.4 Greater rate of wastewater treatment on-site
Currently, fabs do not treat all waste streams on-site and the most concentrated acid wastewater is shipped to be treated off-site.
However, if there are greater regulatory and economic incentives to complete the treatment of these waste streams on-site, the
plant operators might re-evaluate the whole wastewater treatment process and install more advanced technologies. This would
mean greater demand for water reuse and wastewater treatment technologies such as UF, membrane bioreactor (MBR), or ZLD.
UF is used for diluted, non-acidic waste streams from CMP or the wafer backgrinding process.
MBR is installed if specific organic levels have to be met. However, the installation of MBR is location-specific, and
the technology is not used on a regular basis.
ZLD is not widely used because of the high operating cost involved. However, there are a number of fabs in Europe
and Asia which do employ it.
7.7.5 Water reuse technologies and trends
The technology train of water reuse technologies is similar to that of a UPW system. According to the SEMI F98 standard, the
following technology options have been identified as the best means of achieving high rates of water reuse (i.e. water suitable for
use in the UPW system):
Media filtration/ cartridge filtration
UF, MF
RO
EDI
IX
UV (sometimes combined with ozone and hydrogen peroxide)
Activated carbon
Biological processes such as fixed bed systems or fluidised bed systems
Pretreatment to prevent RO fouling is an on-going challenge for water reuse. To protect the RO membranes, the use of UF
membranes is becoming popular. In some places in China, MBR is used as a pretreatment method .
As well as developments in treatment equipment, the industry has been developing chemicals to prevent the fouling of RO
membranes.
7.8.1 Market entry opportunities
7.8.1.1 Market entry constraints
The semiconductor industry is very conservative, and is therefore a difficult market to enter. Microelectronics manufacturers (also
called end-users) are looking for water treatment companies which clearly understand their needs and requirements and will
not jeopardise their production yield. Manufacturers prefer long-term relationships and are open to change only when it is seen as
absolutely necessary.
Ultra-conservative companies will only install equipment which has been tested in-house for at least 6 months. In addition, they
require the equipment manufacturer to provide assurances against potential process failure. Less conservative companies will
allow a degree of innovation if the supplier can offer performance guarantees and warranties.
7.8.1.2 Routes to the market
There are traditionally two ways to enter the market:
Cooperation with an EPC contractor or a water treatment company.
Developing an active relationship with the end-user.
Microelectronics // Supply chain analysis
The option a company chooses will depend on the size of the company and its product offerings. Larger water treatment
companies have to establish relationships with global EPC contractors, while smaller equipment suppliers have to find the best
partners to integrate their products within a particular water treatment system.
7.8.1.3 Success factors for market entry
The key to persuading an end-user to switch supplier, or to being chosen for a new project, is to convince the end-user that
they will not lose any revenue as a result of new equipment installations. Despite the resistance of the market to new entrants,
companies which can prove that they will help the end-user to significantly improve the performance of the system, reduce costs,
and which can guarantee and prolong the life of the equipment, have a greater chance of being accepted. The following product
success factors have been identified for new equipment products.
Having unique proprietary technologies: As the industry moves towards processing smaller components and the
next generation of wafer devices, water companies which have unique proprietary technologies and which are able
to address smaller particle sizes and organic compounds will have a better chance of entering the market. This
will mean that on-going relationships may be challenged, and companies which have understood and solved new
problems will be in the strongest position.
Meeting the ITRS roadmap requirements: The ITRS is very influential in the industry, therefore if a new technology
can meet and exceed its requirements, it has a better chance of succeeding in the market.
Energy saving equipment: Energy consumption is a major cost to microelectronics manufacturers. Water companies
which can provide less energy-intensive equipment and so reduce manufacturers operational expenditure have a
better chance of securing contracts.
Offer a high degree of automation: It is important to stay on the top of the complex manufacturing process and
optimise the productivity of the equipment. Therefore a greater degree of automation of water treatment systems is
desirable.
Experienced staff: In order for water companies to provide their customers with the best service, their staff must be
fully trained in the appropriate clean-room and manufacturing protocols. In this way, a water company can become a
helpful partner to the microelectronics manufacturers, and offer appropriate solutions.
The PV and flat panel display industries are much less conservative, because they do not require such a high quality of water.
There are therefore more opportunities to enter these markets.
7.8.1.4 Upcoming UPW systems market trend
In addition to the success factors listed above, water treatment companies which are able to offer a standardised pre-engineered
UPW system will have a better chance of succeeding in the market. This is because the construction period for a fab will be
reduced from 1012 months to 6 months.
7.8.2 Procurement model
There are four types of procurement model for purchasing water treatment technologies. The most common model is
procurement on an EPC basis. The preferred model depends on the individual preference of the end-user (the microelectronic
manufacturer) and the degree to which the end-user wishes to be involved in the procurement process.
Direct EPC (design-build) model: The end-user contracts a large EPC contractor (e.g. MW Group, CH2M HILL,
Hyflux) that acts on behalf of the end-user and selects specific technologies for the water treatment systems. If the
EPC contractor is looking for a specific equipment manufacturer, then three major equipment suppliers are typically
considered during the selection process. In some cases, a major water company can be asked to validate the selection
of individual equipment suppliers, to increase confidence in the selection process.
EPC model with a subcontracted water company: This model establishes a relationship between an EPC contractor
and a major water technology company (e.g. GE, Veolia, Kurita). The water technology company then acts as sub-
contractor of an EPC firm and offers a complete solution for a particular water treatment system. The water company
is then tied up in a functional spec. This specialised contract guarantees the end-client a specific quality and
quantity of water from the water treatment system. Additional performance guarantees and warrantees are also set as
part of the functional spec.
Water treatment company acts as an EPC contractor: Another purchasing model is based on direct communication
between the end-user and a major water company. The water treatment company, which has EPC capabilities and
a relevant department, then acts as an EPC contractor (e.g Kurita). This model is very successful in Japan, where a
water treatment company is often known prior to the start of the project. The water company then provides the end-
user with a complete solution.
Direct procurement with specific equipment manufacturers: In some cases a smaller fab buys specific equipment
directly from equipment suppliers. However, this model is not widely employed since it may be time-consuming for
the end-user, and it compromises any guarantee for the performance of the whole system.
7.8.3 Whole process stream purchase versus one-stop shop
The most common option for purchasing a water treatment system is to split the order into three main categories, rather than to
purchase individual technologies separately:
UPW system
Wastewater treatment system
Water reuse system
The end-users might be interested in receiving a quote for the full water treatment process (i.e. UPW, wastewater and reuse
system). However it is very unlikely that the final order will be given to a single supplier. It is more common to combine the
wastewater treatment and the water reuse systems.
In Asia, where low cost is the key priority, single technology purchase is preferred. However, where a single point of responsibility
is preferred, the whole process purchase is prioritised. Additionally, wastewater treatment in Asia is typically carried out by local
companies as the technological requirements are not as rigorous as they are for UPW and water reuse systems.
7.8.4 Local versus global suppliers
Larger, international suppliers have a competitive advantage compared to local, well-established suppliers because they are able
to shoulder multi-billion projects and offer product guarantees. Global suppliers are therefore preferred for larger projects. Local
players have a greater chance of succeeding at smaller projects where cost is the main priority.
A preference for local players is also country specific. For example, in Japan, local players are more likely to be considered. In
China, local players will be chosen for the basic equipment line, such as pipes, and more advanced technologies, such as RO
membranes, will come from established international suppliers. Chinese companies are able to produce UF/MF membranes
which are cost and quality competitive.
7.8.5 Opportunities for outsourcing operation and maintenance (O&M)
In the USA and Europe, the market is very conservative with regard to outsourcing the O&M of water treatment systems.
Currently, only a small minority of companies will pass responsibility for O&M on to an external company.
In Asia, the opportunities for outsourcing O&M are greater. O&M is performed by the company responsible for the construction
of a particular water system, or if the fab plant operator is price-conscious, it will pass the O&M on to a cheaper provider, or
perform it internally.
Some companies outsource the management of residual, highly contaminated wastewater so that it can be treated off-site.
7.8.6 The competitive landscape: Major water technology companies and equipment providers
7.8.6.1 Tier-one companies
There are many companies active in the microelectronics industry. The following figure lists some of the major water technology
players. The major water companies provide a complete solution for the customer (i.e. UPW, water reuse and wastewater systems).
They offer their own technologies and also purchase specialised technologies from smaller equipment suppliers and integrate
them within their own system. As water treatment systems are so complex, it is almost impossible to build a system without
components procured from competitors.
Figure 7.18 Major water companies tier-one
Major water company Key region
GE North America
Siemens North America
Veolia Europe
Ovivo Europe
Nomura Micro Science Asia
Kurita Water Industries Asia
Organo Cooperation Asia
Source: GWI
Microelectronics // Supply chain analysis
7.8.6.2 Specialisation of tier-one companies
The influence of the companies listed above varies from region to region, and companies are active in numerous countries. In
addition, companies do not necessarily compete with each other in all circumstances. They choose different size projects or
concentrate on specific manufacturing processes (e.g. PV, LED, different types of semiconductor manufacturing plants). For
example, Kurita, as a major Japanese microelectronics water treatment company with 5060% share of the market, bids for
smaller projects, while large-scale projects are carried out by truly global players such as GE.
7.8.7 Tier-two companies
There is a wide range of specialised equipment suppliers which provide solutions as part of an overall water system typically
offered by a larger player. The leading specialised companies are Nitto Denko, Dow, Pall, Agru and Georg Fischer.
7.8.8 EPC contractors
Some of the major EPC international players are listed in the following figure. Each player concentrates on a specific segment, in
which they are the market leader or one of a group of market leaders. There are also other, smaller firms which are active in the
industry. Some water treatment companies also have an engineering division and offer EPC services.
Figure 7.19 Major EPC contractors
EPC contractors Key regions
MW Group Southeast Asia, Europe
CH2M HILL Taiwan, North America
Jacobs USA
Hyfux Asia
Source: GWI
7.8.9 Microelectronics manufacturers
There are over 500 companies active in the industry, but about 15 of the companies have over 50% of the market (i.e. over 50% of
installed capacity). The major player in terms of installed capacity and equipment spending is Samsung and the main competitor
in the construction spending area is Intel. The following figure shows the installed capacity, where the wafer size has been taken
into consideration, for the top ten companies by capacity in 2012.
Figure 7.20 Top 10 companies by installed capacity (200 mm wafer equivalent), 2012
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
UMC
Texas Instruments, Inc.
Globalfoundries
STMicroelectronics
Flash Alliance Ltd.
Micron Technology Inc
Intel Corporation
SK Hynix
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.
Samsung
There has been a decrease in the number of major players in the industry over the last 20 years. When 200 mm silicon wafers
were standard, there were around 200 major players. However, when 300 mm wafer fabs became the norm, fewer companies
were able to compete on a large scale and the number of major players decreased to around 25. It is anticipated that as the industry
moves towards 450 mm wafer fabs, there will be only a handful of companies which are able to achieve the necessary levels of
investment.
7.9 Market trends
7.9.1 Currently installed capacity and market trends
According to the SEMI World Fab Forecast dataset (the industry standard for semiconductor fab information), the current design
capacity of the semiconductor industry is 21.4 million wafers/month in 200 mm wafer equivalent. Fabs currently produce
microchips on wafers ranging from 50 mm to 300 mm in diameter. 450 mm wafer fabs are currently in planning stages and a
first commercial plant is likely to be built within the next few years.
Asia is the major region where fabs are located. This region currently accounts for 76% of global semiconductor and FPD
production, while America accounts for just 14% and the rest of the world the remaining 10%.
The following figure shows the newly added global installed capacity from 2000 until 2017. It indicates that between 2000 and
2017 new capacity has been rising steadily in Asia. The growth of the other regions was less steady over the period. The whole
market came to a standstill between 2008 and 2010, when newly added capacity decreased sharply in the aftermath of the global
financial crisis. The Americas have tried to take advantage of the unstable climate in Asia, and since 2010 the semiconductor
market has been reviving. The U.S. in particular is the major semiconductor market of the Americas region. However, growth in
the U.S. is predicted to peak in 2013, after which further growth is uncertain. Asia is set to remain the region where the majority
of the fabs are built.
Figure 7.21 Increment to installed capacity, 20002017
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2016 2012 2008 2004 2000
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
N
o
.

w
a
f
e
r
s
/
m
o
n
t
h

(
2
0
0

m
m

w
a
f
e
r

e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
)
7.9.1.1 Geographical shift
Over the past decade the industry has been experiencing a regional shift from the traditional semiconductor manufacturing
countries such Japan and the U.S., to countries where production processes can be more cost-effective.
The following figure shows the current total installed capacity of the top 10 countries, and Figure 7.23 shows projected newly
added installed capacity by country from 20122017. There are a number of trends that can be derived from the following figures.
Japan is currently the country with the largest installed capacity worldwide. However, its position is very likely to be challenged by
other major players. Taiwan, China, South Korea and the U.S. will most likely add more new capacity to challenge Japans current
leading status.
Secondly, while the U.S. will continue to add new capacity, the production output is unlikely to reach the capacity of other Asian
countries. The key role of the U.S. and Japan will be to remain the major microelectronics R&D centres where new technology is
established. As soon as the technology is fully developed, the trend is to build fabs in regions where labour and construction costs
are lower, such as China. There are great cost savings in this approach and some experts suggested that building a fab in Asia
Microelectronics // Market trends
could be $1 billion cheaper than constructing it in the United States. This is a significant reduction, considering that the cost of a
large-scale fab currently costs around $5 billion.
Thirdly, Taiwan and South Korea will remain the key hubs in the semiconductor industry and China will emerge as the third
major player.
Figure 7.22 Global installed capacity by country in 2012
0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000
RoW
Italy
Malaysia
France
Germany
Singapore
China
United States of America
Taiwan
South Korea
Japan
Figure 7.23 Newly added capacity by country, 20122017
0 280,000 560,000 840,000 1,120,000 1,400,000
Russian Federation
Malaysia
Japan
United States of America
South Korea
China
Taiwan
7.9.1.2 FPD and PV market trends
The FPD industry is currently at its most active in Japan and Taiwan. However, as the FPD technology matures, the industry may
follow a regional shift similar to the semiconductor industry as production is moved towards China.
The global PV cell production is concentrated mainly in Asia. China has the largest share and produced nearly three times the
capacity of Taiwan in 2010 (see the following figure). The other major PV cell producing countries are Japan, Germany and the
United States.
The industry has grown rapidly between 2009 and 2011. However, in 2012 growth has flattened out. This is because the demand
for PV cells was driven by EU subsidies which are not active at the moment. Other non-European countries such as China have
made some commitments towards solar energy governmental subsidies. However, the exact extent of these commitments is still
uncertain and additional governmental support is needed to bring the industry back to a stable growth trajectory.
Figure 7.24 The top 5 PV cell producing countries, 2010
Country PV cell production (MW)
China 11,000
Taiwan 3,600
Japan 2,200
Germany 2,000
USA 1,100
Source: Earth Policy Institute, 2011
7.10 Market forecast
7.10.1 Fab projects
Our market forecast is underpinned by the SEMI World Fab Forecast, May 2012 edition, which details capital expenditure,
capacity, technology, geometry and products on a fab-by-fab basis. The dataset is the de-facto data source for information about
the semiconductor industry. It contains 1,166 existing fabs, 106 fabs starting operation and 53 fabs starting construction, with
expected online dates which we used to inform our forecast.
The following figure shows our market forecast for pretreatment, UPW and wastewater treatment systems from 2011 to 2025.
Figure 7.25 Microelectronics industry market forecast, 20112025
systems
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Microelectronics ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
20117
2025
Ultrapure water systems 477.8 471.5 560.9 584.0 623.4 663.0 705.8 6.7% 1,155.8
Total 1,050.0 1,025.0 1,206.3 1,242.5 1,312.5 1,381.3 1,457.4 5.6% 2,264.0
Source: GWI
Microelectronics // Market forecast
The whole water treatment systems market is forecast to see stable growth of 5.6% between 2011 and 2017.
The largest capital expenditure of microelectronics companies is currently spent on the UPW systems. These systems are
essential for ensuring manufacturing equipment operation reliability. The expenditure for UPW will grow by a healthy 6.7%
from 2011 to 2017. This is mainly because of ever-increasing UPW quality requirements for the production of smaller microchips.
This will lead to utilising more technologies in order to achieve an appropriate UPW quality, and in some cases even doubling-up
specific equipment to enhance confidence in the systems performance.
Pretreatment systems account for the second largest capital expenditure of microelectronics companies. However, growth is set
to be relatively smaller with an increase of 2.3% between 2011 and 2017. The microelectronics manufacturers have been open to
taking risk when installing pretreatment technologies only when it was essential to do so, which limits this growth. However,
with more new state-of-the art fabs coming into use, there will be a greater need to have reliable pretreatment methods and
manufacturers will invest into more robust pretreatment systems such as multimedia filtration with activated carbon or UF, as
opposed to more basic cartridge filters.
Wastewater treatment systems are forecast to experience growth of 8.1% between 2011 and 2017. The growth will be driven
primarily by an investment into water reuse and resource recovery equipment rather than improvements in conventional
wastewater treatment methods. These will include a greater uptake of RO, UF and cartridge filters on the water reuse front and
electrowinning and IX technologies on the resource recovery side. As the regulations slowly tighten and water scarcity threatens
an uninterrupted production process, we will see more water reuse and wastewater technologies being installed.
7.10.3 Regional trends
The key area of growth in the period from 2013 to 2017 will be Asia, which will account for the majority of equipment spending.
Taiwan is forecast to invest the most in water treatment equipment, closely followed by China and then the Republic of Korea
(see the following figure). Japan will still experience some growth, but its position will be weakened due to its higher labour and
construction costs than in other Asian countries. The same applies to spending in the U.S., which will reach approximately a
quarter of the Chinese market in that period.
Figure 7.26 Microelectronics industry, top country markets, 20132017
$6,600 m
Total market value
(2013-2017)
Taiwan $1,810m
USA $519m
RoW $800m
Republic of Korea $1,196m
China $1,432m
Japan $845m
Source: GWI
Our reference scenario for the microelectronics industry is relatively conservative, and makes the following assumptions:
Demand for 300 mm wafers will continue to grow steadily, eventually giving way to a next generation standard.
The production growth for the solar panels and flat panel displays remains lower than 10%.
Our alternate scenario from 2013 is more optimistic:
Global demand for new microelectronics goods will grow steadily, leading to a greater demand for higher
performance chips.
The demand for solar panels will return to more than a 12% growth rate due to increased subsidies and higher
electricity costs.
The next generation of flat panel displays will replace the current LCD standard.
The regional breakdown highlights the dominance of Asia Pacific in this market, as shown in the following figures.
Figure 7.27 Microelectronics industry, 20112017: Reference scenario
0
300
600
900
1,200
1,500
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Microelectronics reference
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 59.5 152.7 201.7 210.1 88.9 95.5 86.2 6.4%
EMEA 29.7 14.0 1.7 13.3 106.7 132.5 155.2 31.7%
Asia Pacifc 960.8 858.3 1,002.8 1,019.1 1,116.9 1,153.3 1,216.1 4.0%
Total 1,050.0 1,025.0 1,206.3 1,242.5 1,312.5 1,381.3 1,457.4 5.6%
Source: GWI
In the alternate scenario, the overall market is around 10% higher, due to increased demand for devices with smaller line-widths
which require a higher purity of UPW.
Figure 7.28 Microelectronics industry, 20112017: Alternate scenario
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Microelectronics alternate
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 59.5 152.7 221.9 231.1 97.8 105.0 94.8 8.1%
EMEA 29.7 14.0 1.9 14.6 117.3 145.7 170.7 33.8%
Asia Pacifc 960.8 858.3 1,404.0 1,426.7 1,563.7 1,614.6 1,702.5 10.0%
Total 1,050.0 1,025.0 1,627.7 1,672.5 1,778.8 1,865.4 1,968.0 11.0%
Source: GWI
Pulp and paper // Introduction
8. Pulp and paper
8.1 Introduction
The pulp and paper industry represents a group of industries that produce different grades of pulp and paper for various
purposes, such as cardboard, tissues and newspapers. Water plays a dominant role in the pulp and paper making process: it is
used in various steps of the process, as well as a medium for transporting the fibres (raw material) through the paper machine.
A typical 1,000 t/d pulp and paper plant would use up to 70,000 m/d of water. Water and the paper product are so intertwined
during the paper production process that, for example, at the beginning of the process, the stock solution is typically 99% water
and 1% fibre, while the final product may be around 5% water and 95% fibre.
The process of producing different paper grades from the fibre can be divided into 2 main processes: pulping and paper
production.
8.1.1 Facility classification
Facilities can be classified in 2 different ways: by process (end result) and by source of fibre (location).
Based on the end result, the facilities can be divided into 3 types:
Pulping facilities: Production of pulp only.
Paper facilities: Production of paper from pulp.
Pulp and paper facilities: Integrated pulp and paper production.
Facilities can be further categorised according to the source of fibre used by the facility:
Virgin facilities (greenfield mills): Located near the forest, virgin facilities use virgin fibre (wood chips from trees) as a
source. These types of mills are mostly located on large water bodies such as lakes or rivers.
Urban facilities (urban forests): Located in cities, urban facilities use recycled paper as a source of fibre.
These two categories of facility have different drivers in terms of water use and wastewater discharge, and face different water and
wastewater challenges, which will be explained later in the chapter.
8.2 Process description: Pulping and paper manufacturing process
The following figure depicts the main steps in the paper making process, along with the water and wastewater aspects involved.
Figure 8.1 Water in the pulp and paper industry
Digester Washer Bleaching Wet end Dry end Coating Paper
Wood
chips
Bleach filtrate recycle
process
White water reuse
Process water Steam
Treatment Intake
Boiler feed
treatment
Boiler
Wastewater
treatment
Specific
treatments
Sludge
dewatering
Treated effluent
Evaporator &
concentrator
Strong black liquor
Steam
White liquor
V
a
r
i
o
u
s

s
t
e
p
s
Weak black liquor
for reuse
Condensate
Used as a biofuel
Diagram key
Pulp and paper
Wastewater
Water
Steam
Chemical recovery
Sludge
Water reuse
Pulp
Paper
Brown stock
Source: GWI
Pulp and paper // Process description: Pulping and paper manufacturing process
8.2.1 Pulping process
In the initial stage of the paper making process, pulp, wood or recycled paper is broken down into its components so that the
fibres can be separated. The fibres are washed, water is pressed out and the residue is dried. The pulp can be bleached and made
into white paper or used directly.
Virgin fibre originates from either hardwood trees such as birch and oak, or softwood trees such as pine and spruce. First, the
tree is debarked and chipped into small wood particles. The tree then undergoes a pulping process where cellulose fibres (the
main constituents of wood) are separated from the lignin that binds fibres together.
Recycled fibre originates from old paper. However, it cannot completely replace the use of virgin fibre, for although recycled fibre
can be used 57 times, the fibres get shorter each time they are reused which decreases the strength of the final product. Recycled
fibre is therefore used for products made of lower grade paper, such as newspapers. When recycled paper is used, the raw material
is mixed with water and chemicals, the mixture is agitated to produce individual fibres and the ink is then removed in a de-inking
process.
The process steps for pulp manufacturing are presented in the following figure.
Figure 8.2 Pulp manufacturing process sequence
Process sequence Description
Fibre furnish preparation
and handling
Debarking, slashing, chipping of wood logs and screening of wood chips/secondary fbres
(some pulp mills purchase chips and skip this step).
Pulping Chemical, semi-chemical, or mechanical breakdown of pulping material into fbres.
Pulp processing Removal of pulp impurities, cleaning and thickening of pulp fbre mixture.
Bleaching Addition of chemicals in a staged process of reaction and washing increases whiteness and
brightness of pulp, if necessary.
Pulp drying and baling
(non-integrated mills)
At non-integrated pulp mills, pulp is dried and bundled into bales for transport to a paper mill.
Stock preparation Mixing, refning, and addition of wet additives that will affect strength, gloss and texture of the
fnal paper product.
Source: Adapted from EPA, 2002
Pulping processes can be divided into two main types, mechanical and chemical.
8.2.1.1 Mechanical pulping (groundwood pulping)
In this process, the wood is mechanically grinded into relatively short fibres by pressing the wood against a rotating wheel.
The yield of the pulp is high at 9095%, but the quality of the pulp is low grade, it is highly coloured and contains short fibres.
Thermomechanical pulping (TMP) is a modification where steam is used prior to grinding, and in chemothermomechanical
pulping (CTMP), sulphur based chemicals are added prior to steaming. Mechanical pulping is used for recycled fibre, while for
virgin fibre both mechanical and chemical pulping can be used.
8.2.1.2 Chemical pulping
In chemical pulping, wood chips are pressure cooked with appropriate chemicals in a solution. The yield of the pulp is around
4050%, and very pure cellulose fibres are produced. There are 2 main chemical pulping processes:
Kraft process: A widely used process where the woodchips are cooked in white cooking liquor, which is a mixture of
sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium sulphide (NaS
2
).
Sulphite process: Wood chips are cooked in a mixture of sulphurous acid (H
2
SO
3
) and hydrogen sulphite ions (HSO
3
).
The Kraft process is commonly used because it allows the chemicals involved to be recycled and generates steam as a by-product,
while minimising environmental impacts. Figure 8.1 illustrates a few steps in the Kraft process, where wood chips are
transformed into pulp for processing. The wood chips, mixed with the white liquor, are heated in a digester in order to break
down and remove lignin. Two main products emerge from the process: waste fluid called black liquor and a valuable brown
stock. The brown stock is washed in order to dilute chemicals and then sent to a bleaching process or directly to paper production.
The black liquor, a mixture of lignin and used chemicals, carbohydrates and resins, goes through a process of chemical recovery.
In order to remove water from the black liquor, two processes are used:
First, multiple effect evaporators increase the solids concentration in the black liquor. The liquid condensate, also
known as foul condensate, is not pure enough to be used as boiler feedwater, but it can be used in the brown wash
stockers. Only a part of the condensate can be reused as boiler feedwater.
Second, a concentrator extracts the final amount of water from the black liquor.
This concentrated black liquor is then burned in a recovery boiler. A liquid pool called smelt is sent to a smelt dissolving tank,
where it is combined with a large volume of water. After this, it undergoes various steps where the final result is clear white liquor
that will be used in a digester.
8.2.2 Bleaching
After pulping, and particularly with the chemical process, lignin develops a strong colour, which is a problem for white paper
grades, where bleaching is necessary. This increases the brightness of the product and gives it a whiter appearance.
Common bleaching processes are the following:
Chlorine bleaching using chlorine gas (Cl
2
)
Chlorine dioxide bleaching (ClO
2
)
Caustic extraction bleaching (NaOH)
Chlorine bleaching using hypochlorite (NaOCl)
Oxygen bleaching (O
2
)
Hydrogen peroxide (H
2
O
2
)
Ozone (O
3
)
Historically, chlorine has been the most common chemical used for bleaching. However, it was discovered that it results in
creating chlorinated organic compounds, including dioxins, which are highly toxic and cancer-causing. Nowadays, the bleaching
is done in a way to use elemental chlorine free (ECF) bleaching sequences. It is also possible to produce totally chlorine free (TCF)
pulp, which uses oxygen, ozone and peroxides.
8.2.3 Paper manufacture
A paper production machine, the most common of which is the Fourdrinier paper machine, is used to transform processed pulp
into a paper product. In the case of a non-integrated mill, where the paper mill is separate from the pulp mill, pulp arrives in a
dry form and is then diluted. The process water in the paper mill is called whitewater. After dilution, different additives are added,
such as fillers, sizing material, dyes and chemicals. The stock solution (as it is called at this stage) is further diluted. There are two
general steps in the paper making process:
Wet end operations: The pulp solution is pumped into the paper machine, where it is evenly spread over a long
moving wire belt. Water is removed by gravity and suction. In order to remove more water and compress the fibres,
the sheet is pressed between a series of rollers. A paper sheet is formed from the wet pulp.
Dry end operations: The paper product is dried using steam heated rollers to compress the sheets further. At this
stage coatings can be applied to improve gloss, colour or printing details.
8.3 Drivers
Historically, pulp and paper facilities were located in close proximity to water sources, and there was little need for water reuse.
However, the situation is changing, with the use of advanced technologies coming into favour as a result of the following:
A rise in production from mills located in urban forest areas. These facilities face higher water costs than green
forest located mills, and have a greater interest in water efficiency.
The fastest growing market for pulp and paper is in China, where raw water sources are both limited and impaired,
and water technologies which can address these challenges are at a premium.
The new generation of boilers used in the industry require higher quality feedwater than traditional boilers. As
existing production facilities are refitted, there will be a greater demand for ultrapure water treatment lines than has
historically been the case.
Global demand continues to drive the need for the manufacture of more industrial goods, and the limited amount of water
available means that alternative water sources are required. Aside from the issue of water scarcity, the main drivers for improved
water management in the pulp and paper industry are regulation, economic drivers, use of new boilers and environmental
responsibility.
8.3.1 Regulation
Regulation of the quantity and quality of water discharged from the plant is a significant driver in terms of water management
in the pulp and paper industry. For any large mill that is located near green forest or where the fibre is being produced or grown,
Pulp and paper // Drivers
regulation is by far the primary driver. Each mill will have a permit that allows the discharge of treated water to the environment.
The permit will establish clear discharge limits for various criteria, such as COD, suspended solids and nutrients (e.g. nitrogen
and phosphorus). New regulations that come along are reflected in the renewal of the permits.
Places like North America and Western Europe have established strict regulatory criteria, where by and large all mills are already
in compliance with the criteria. In certain areas where regulatory standards were established but not enforced for example
China and Russia to some extent the enforcement of regulation is moving very quickly. The result is that China now has one
of the most stringent discharge limits, and it is the fastest growing market. For example, mills that were built in the 1980s and
1990s in locations with strict regulation in place (such as Scandinavia and North America) would not be able to operate now if
they were built new in countries where investments are currently being made, such as South America or China.
There are cases where mills are located in countries in which there is no local requirement for a certain level of treatment, but
their products are being sold to a market where higher treatment requirements exist. This situation forces a company to introduce
treatment that is not required at local level, due to the market demand. For example, pulp produced in a mill located in Africa, in
a place where there are no strict local requirements, is sold to the European market where some restrictions are in place (such as
chlorine free bleaching). In such a situation, a company would comply with the requirements set by the market in Europe.
8.3.2 Economic drivers
In the case of the urban forest facility (which uses recycled paper as a source of fibre), economic drivers related to the cost of
water and the cost of wastewater treatment play a big role. If a recycled paper mill needs to pay a very high price for purchasing
water, and a very high price for discharging that water to the local city sewer system, an investment into on-site treatment that
would allow the mill to reuse water can provide a very good return on the investment.
8.3.3 Boilers
The quality of the water needed to make steam is dependent upon the boiler technology that has been used. Regardless of the
type of boiler, the water needs to be demineralised (which involves removing the salt). Many of the old mills that use low pressure
boilers do not need high quality water to make steam. However, a modern-day mill with a modern-day boiler system is going to
need higher quality water, which can be achieved by using advanced technology.
In North America, around 6065% of the boilers at large industrial plants (and not just pulp and paper plants) are 20 years old
or more, which indicates that it is a mature market. A lot of manufacturing plants have been in existence for 2030 years, and
the boilers also tend to last 2030 years. This means that a lot of mature plants are now reaching the phase where most of the key
operations need to be replaced. On the other hand, a new plant in India or China will have a brand new boiler.
8.3.4 Environmental sustainability
Pulp and paper companies want to be seen as environmentally responsible. Mills have been reducing their water use over the last
few decades, and continue to do so. Reasons for this reduction in use include the cost of water, the availability of water and water
stewardship.
For example, in Western Europe paper mills are interested in showing that their manufacturing processes are sustainable. Paper
is a consumer good, and therefore brand image is important to the mills.
8.4 Geographies
There is an old saying in the industry paper doesnt travel well, but pulp travels very well. Paper mills are therefore being built
in places where there is growth in paper consumption per capita. In the emerging markets, the consumption of paper per capita
is still increasing in the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China). In the traditional, mature markets, such as North
America and Western Europe, the case is quite the opposite the consumption of paper per capita is decreasing.
In contrast, pulp mills, in the case of eucalyptus pulp, are built close to the natural resource (trees) and where they grow. This is
predominantly South America and South East Asia, as countries such as Brazil, Chile, and Indonesia have faster-growing trees.
Although China also has pulp mills, they either import the pulp or import the raw material (wood chips) from other regions.
To quantify the leading markets for pulp and paper production we have analysed data from the UN Food and Agriculture
Organisation. The FAO ForesSTAT database provides the total weight of pulp and paper production on an annual basis. To
demonstrate the evolution of the pulp and paper industry we have considered production from 1999 to 2011. (This is in order to
avoid misrepresenting the size of the markets for recycled pulp and paper, as the FAO introduced these as new categories from
1998 onwards.)
The following figures demonstrate the emergence of Asia Pacific in both the pulp market and the paper market.
Figure 8.3 Paper production by region, 19992011
150
200
250
300
350
400
2011 2009 2007 2005 2003 2001 1999
Americas
EMEA
Asia Pacific
T
o
t
a
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
o
n
n
e
s
)
Source: FAO ForesSTAT, 2012
Figure 8.4 Pulp production by region, 19992011
50
100
150
200
250
2011 2009 2007 2005 2003 2001 1999
Americas
EMEA
Asia Pacific
T
o
t
a
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
o
n
n
e
s
)
Pulp and paper // Geographies
The following figure illustrates the growth of wood pulp production in South America compared to mature markets in North
America and Europe.
Figure 8.5 Increasing wood pulp production in Brazil and Chile, 19992011
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2011 2009 2007 2005 2003 2001 1999
Brazil
Chile
Canada
Sweden
T
o
t
a
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
o
n
n
e
s
)
The pulp and paper industry is growing in these countries to serve domestic demand for paper products. However, exportation
is also a big driver for these countries, as it enables them to maintain a positive trade balance by making products that can be
exported. Furthermore, the low labour costs in these countries give them an advantage in the global marketplace.
In terms of China, the demand for packaging paper has also increased, as China produces a lot of consumer goods. Any product
that has been bought online or in a shop needs to be packaged. The production of paper for packaging accounts for 33% of current
Chinese production. The following figure illustrates the growth of paper production for packaging and construction, which
together represent 70% of total production.
Figure 8.6 Increasing paper production for packaging and construction in China, 19992011
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2011 2009 2007 2005 2003 2001 1999
Packaging
Construction
T
o
t
a
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
o
n
n
e
s
)
North America and Western Europe are very mature markets, where minimal new capacity is being installed. Often mills in
these regions are expanding big mills are getting bigger. The problem is also that it is not easy to permit a new facility, as people
oppose having a big pulp and paper mill in their backyards.
Water requirements for modern pulp and paper mills can vary considerably, depending on the pulping process, water availability,
the bleaching sequence, and the restrictions on wastewater discharge. Water quality is very important in some cases because it
has a direct influence on the quality of the pulp and paper product (especially in the case of bleached pulp).
Pulp and paper facility water needs can be divided into 3 basic categories:
Cooling water needs: There is a lot of rotating equipment and increases in temperature which need to be cooled down.
Boiler feedwater for steam generation: Many mills in the sector produce their own power. There is therefore a need
for high quality water that can be fed to the power plant, made into steam and ultimately into electrical energy. Before
being sent to the plant, the water must undergo condensate polishing.
Water used for processing (washing & conveyance): Within any type of facility, fibres will be mixed with water and
conveyed around the mill. The largest water consumption comes from washing the fibre.
The following figure shows typical water use/tonne of production by grade of paper being made in different regions around the
world.
Figure 8.7 Water use in paper production, by grade and by region
Major grade
North America
(m/tonne)
Europe
(m/tonne)
Latin America
(m/tonne)
Asia Pacific
(m/tonne)
Market pulp 170 160 180 170
Newsprint 90 80 70 90
Other papers 140 110 120 150
Packaging 150 100 100 70
Printing & writing 160 90 160 120
Tissue 80 90 60 60
Source: Nalco Water Handbook, 2009
As can be seen in Figure 8.7, the most water per tonne of production is required for market pulp and for printing grades of paper.
Both of these categories have higher brightness or whiteness standards, along with higher contaminant removal. In order to
achieve these standards, more processing steps are needed, as well as more water, to prevent contaminants from being retained in
the process. On the other hand, tissue production requires the least amount of water as it uses recycled paper as a source (pulping
and bleaching operations are not present).
Water use in packaging varies significantly. The reason for this difference is the source of fibre used. When virgin fibre is the
source water use can be high, but mills that use recycled fibre use less water, as they tend to practice more water reuse.
8.5.1 Technologies
Water treatment will depend greatly on the source of water being used. In most cases, especially for virgin fibre facilities, surface
water such as a river or stream is the source. However, for an increasing number of mills, particularly in developing countries
such as China and India, industrial wastewater is being reused.
When surface water is the source, the usual technology train is as follows:
Course filtration (screen, cartridge filters, multimedia filtration or sand filtration) to remove suspended solids.
A combination of reverse osmosis (RO) and ion exchange (IX) to demineralise water.
When wastewater is the source, membrane technologies can have a role in treatment (especially ultrafiltration (UF) or
microfiltration (MF)). Wastewater treatment will be explained in further detail in Section 8.6.
There are varying levels of water specifications, and some of the most stringent specifications are in regard to boiler feedwater
for steam generation. Water specifications tend to be dependent on the pressure rating and the age of the boiler. Most new boilers
tend to operate at higher pressure and cycling rates, so require water of a higher quality.
Treatment technologies for boiler feedwater can include conventional clarification, MF or UF, RO and/or IX.
Although modern day boilers require water of a higher quality, the water still needs to be demineralised regardless of the boiler
type. IX used to be the standard technology for demineralisation, but over the last 510 years economics has been driving the
business more towards RO, due to it being less expensive, more efficient, and better in terms of performance.
Pulp and paper // Wastewater characteristics
8.6 Wastewater characteristics
Wastewater characteristics in the pulp and paper industry can differ significantly based on mill processes and material inputs. To
a large degree, the type of chemicals used in processes determines the wastewater treatment needs. The major contaminants in
the wastewater, resulting from various steps in the pulp and paper making process, are shown in the following figure.
Figure 8.8 Wastewater contaminants in the pulp and paper making process (bleached Kraft chemical pulp)
Process Material inputs Process outputs Wastewater characteristics
Fibre furnish preparation Wood logs
Chips
Sawdust
Furnish chips Suspended solids
BOD
Dirt, grit, fbres, bark
Chemical pulping Kraft
process
(Digester)
Furnish chips Black liquor (to chemical
recovery system)
Pulp (to bleaching/processing)
Resins
Fatty acids
Colour
BOD
COD
AOX
a
VOCs
b
(terpens, alcohol, phenols, methanol,
acetone, chloroform, methyl ethyl ketone
(MEK))
Evaporators
(Chemical recovery system)
Black liquor Strong black liquor Evaporator condensate (BOD, suspended
solids)
Pulp bleaching
c
Chemical pulp
Hypochlorite (HClO,
NaOCl, Ca(OCl)
2
)
Chlorine dioxine (ClO
2
)
Bleached pulp Dissolved lignin
Carbohydrates
Color
COD
AOX
Inorganic chlorine compounds (e.g., chlorate
(ClO
3
))
d
VOCs (acetone, methylene chloride,
chloroform, MEK, chloromethane,
trichloroethane)
Paper making Additives, bleached/
unbleached pulp
Paper/paperboard product Particulate wastes
Organic compounds
Inorganic dyes
COD
Acetone
a
AOX adsorbable organic halides
b
VOCs volatile organic compounds
c
Contaminant list is based on the elemental chlorine free (ECF) bleaching technologies
d
Chlorate is only signifcantly produced in mills with high rates of chlorine dioxide use
Source: USA EPA, 2002
8.6.1 Technologies
Wastewater would usually go through primary and secondary treatment, and then either be discharged to the environment after
secondary treatment, or move on to advanced treatment for reuse. The common technologies used in different treatment steps are
listed in the following figure.
Figure 8.9 General wastewater treatment technologies for the pulp and paper industry
Treatment Technology
Preliminary Screening
Grit removal
Primary (Physical) Sedimentation
Flotation
Filtration
Secondary (Biological) Activated sludge
Aerated lagoons
Anaerobic treatment
Sequential treatment
Tertiary (Physico-chemical) Membrane separation
Coagulation/Precipitation
Adsorption
Chemical oxidation (wet oxidation, ozonisation, etc)
Source: Ince et all, 2011
When recycled paper is used as the fibre source, the wastewater is particularly difficult to deal with. Calcium and sulphate (SO
4
2
)
in particular can cause problems. In general, secondary treatment is sufficient to reduce COD levels prior to discharge, and
although the wastewater will remain coloured, the water recipient is not affected by the non-biodegradable material.
As more stringent regulations are being introduced, especially in China, additional treatment (the Fenton process) is required to
decolourise the wastewater. The Fenton process itself creates an additional chemical sludge waste stream which needs to be dealt
with. This is usually taken to a landfill, where it will create a leach and be processed somewhere else.
Another problem in the pulp and paper industry is that the short fibres tend to clog up any treatment technology quickly.
The water consumption and COD load for paper production, along with the correlating biological treatment processes, are shown
in the following figure. Depending on the COD concentration, the technologies vary.
Figure 8.10 Biological treatment processes by paper grade
0
8,000
30 25 20 15 10
Brown papers
White papers, NP/SC
Tissue, mixed DIP/pulp
Special paper pulp
5
Combination of
anaerobic, lime trap, aerobic
Aerobic high output - MBBR
Aerobic 2-stage cascade
Aerobic 1 -
stage surface aerator
C
O
D
,

m
g
/
l

o
f

O
2
Specific water consumption l/kg
Source: Voith, 2009
Anaerobic treatment in Europe, particularly for recycled paper mills, is already widely used or widely accepted. However, an
anaerobic membrane bioreactor is seen as a new technology that is now garnering some interest.
Large mills outside cities generally have a lot of land, and therefore big plant sites. These plants use high volumes of water, and
consequently require large treatment systems to process the wastewater generated. In contrast, recycled paper mills in cities have
limited space, so require technologies that are very space efficient.
Pulp and paper // Supply chain analysis
The different levels of effluent treatment used for pulp and paper mills in Europe are shown in the following figure.
Figure 8.11 Effluent treatment for pulp and paper mills (within CEPI Member Countries, 2008)
Country
Total
effluent*
(million m)
Primary (mechanical-
sedimentation)
(million m)
Secondary
(biological)
(million m)
Tertiary
(million m)
Cooling water/
no treatment **
(million m)
Austria 171 0 99 0 72
Belgium 50 1 49 0 0
Czech Republic 61 6 49 2 4
Finland 1,021 9 510 35 467
France 243 30 195 15 3
Germany 486 3 219 16 248
Italy 208 52 137 19 0
Netherlands 92 3 21 5 63
Norway 167 16 15 35 101
Poland 64 1 61 0 2
Portugal 80 12 63 0 5
Slovak Republic 48 0 39 0 9
Spain 124 35 78 11 0
Sweden 800 10 370 80 340
Switzerland 19 0 16 2 1
United Kingdom 76 19 44 10 3
Total 3,666 198 1,970 224 1,274
*Includes process effuents and separate non-contact cooling water discharges.
**Separate non-contact cooling water discharge contribution included with process effuents that undergo no treatment; non-contact
cooling waters not contaminated by process materials.
Source: NCASI, 2011
8.6.2 Water reuse
Water reuse practices within the pulp and paper industry differ significantly between the greenfield mills and urban forest mills.
Greenfield mills that are located near the forest would consider treating and reusing individual wastewater streams. For example,
a large mill with a capacity of 100,000 m/d may consider reusing 5,000 m/d. The tendency of urban forest mills, on the other
hand, is to treat and reuse all of the water.
The reasons behind these practices are purely economical. If a mill is located near a forest on a large water body, where essentially
free water is available from a river, then there is little incentive for water reuse. If, however, a mill is located in the city, where the
cost of water is high and the act of discharging it to the sewer system expensive, then water reuse is a logical route to take if it can
offer a good return on the investment.
The main challenge regarding water reuse is to retain certain characteristics of the water during the process (such as COD,
salts and pH). Biological activity can become an issue if the water is not treated correctly, which would generate a smell that can
interfere with the product. The presence of slimy contaminants in some agents (like a bio-film) would be released, enter the paper
and damage it.
Calcium can also be problematic. Waste papers contain a lot of calcium, and if the pH level is incorrect, resulting in the system
not being able to run, then calcium precipitation occurs. This reaction creates a lot of difficulties in the paper production process.
There are various ways an equipment supplier can approach a pulp and paper client. In a situation where the pulp and paper
company wants to develop a mill, it is very common for the pulp and paper company to contract a consultant, as they themselves
usually do not have the structure to develop the mill on their own. Different approaches can be summarised as follows:
Direct approach: When the client wants to do the project themselves.
Through a consultant: When a mill outsources the work to a consultant.
Through an agent: The agent represents a number of different manufacturers that are not in competition with each
other, but instead complement each other so that the agent has a wide offering of technologies in their portfolio.
In a situation where the mill outsources the work to a consultant, the mill would work closely with the consultant company to
develop the design. The consultant would discuss the mills needs with different suppliers, prepare an enquiry, and send it to
possible suppliers. Suppliers would prepare a proposal and consultants would approve a few proposals (at least two), considering
the technologies suggested and the commercial conditions. After the final negotiations, a decision would be made on the supplier.
In terms of buying the equipment, the three different islands water treatment plant, effluent treatment plant and boiler
feedwater may sometimes all be bought from one supplier, and at other times be bought from different suppliers.
The relationship between the equipment supplier and the consultant is very important, as is contact with the final customer (the
owner of the mill). In growing markets such as Brazil and China, where big plants are being built, there are not many equipment
supplier options. Regular communication is therefore maintained between a consultant and an equipment supplier. Regarding
the relationship with the end user, it is beneficial to keep mills updated on the latest technologies, experience and references.
Then a trusting relationship with the client can be established, where they are able to, for example, understand a certain
technology and not view it as a black box.
It is not unusual for an equipment supplier to have an agent, especially in key market areas. The agent is in frequent contact with
the mill, so an international player can get in contact through their local establishment (typically an agent), or ideally a business
unit. Where a big pulp and paper mill exists, and where international companies are present, agents are present.
8.7.1 One-stop shop or separate technologies?
The way that a pulp and paper company purchases equipment from a supplier depends on the companys practice and if they have
the engineering outfit. The client may want a turnkey solution, or the client may wish to buy different pieces of equipment from
various suppliers. At the beginning of a project, the client may buy big packages from the same supplier. However, further into
the development stage of a project, some pieces of equipment may be bought from other suppliers due to differences in prices.
8.7.2 International versus local players
Small mills tend to buy from local players, while big international companies buy from whoever offers the best price and quality.
If it is a big mill, the requirements are such that there is very rarely a local company who can match the requirements. So
the decision is influenced by company size. However, this does not mean that a small mill will not need the services of a big,
international player. In emerging markets, such as China and Brazil, there are not many equipment supplier options, and the
mills tend to select international players. Mills in emerging markets tend to prefer international players over local options due to
their references in the pulp and paper industry, and because international players understand the mills needs.
8.7.3 Requirements
There are 2 important criteria to fulfil when conducting business with a pulp and paper mill:
1. Being a credible player.
2. Offering a competitive price.
A companys credibility is based on its reputation, experience, and the type of work the company has completed (e.g. references).
Along with being a serious player, the equipment supplier must provide a competitive price otherwise the company is very likely
to be out of the running.
The bottom line is that there is a certain standard that an equipment supplier is required to match, but the process is essentially
a price race. Mills tend to collect comparable proposals from different suppliers, and although some preferences may exist in the
market, the decision does come down to price.
The different players present in the water for pulp and paper market can be categorised as follows:
Consultants
Engineering companies (design-build)
Suppliers
Each of these categories can be divided into international players, big players and small, local companies. Most of the major
engineering companies are active in the pulp and paper market (such as CH2M Hill or Bechtel). In terms of consultancy, the
Finnish company, Jaakko Pyry, is seen as a big player in the industry.
There is a pool of general suppliers in the pulp and paper market, including Andritz, Metso and Voith, who are responsible for
bulk supply, or supplying the production line. Some suppliers may have their own water treatment systems.
Large water technology companies are active in this market, with Veolia and Degremont providing the most complete offering in
terms of their technologies and global participation, but other companies such as Ovivo, GE, Siemens and Dow are also present.
Pulp and paper // Market forecast
8.7.5 Entering the market
To enter this market, a new player must be able meet the following criteria:
Be cheaper than the other players that have penetrated the market.
Be able to find a client that is willing to take the risk of doing business with them.
Be a credible company.
It is essential for each market entrant to get a first reference, after which the process becomes easier. One way to achieve this is
through a pilot study, which a company may have to finance itself. Whatever a company is developing, unless it has a significant
proven benefit to the client, which is often the case, it has to be cheaper than the other equipment available in the market.
8.8 Market forecast
The water and wastewater treatment market for the pulp and paper industry is relatively flat. It will show a small amount of
growth but nothing drastic, as shown in the following figure.
Figure 8.12 Pulp and paper industry market forecast, 20112025
systems
Process water systems
(excl.UPW)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Pulp and paper ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
2025
Process water systems (excl.UPW)
(a)
210.0 190.0 205.2 215.5 224.1 234.2 238.7 2.2% 308.0
(b)
25.0 21.8 23.5 27.2 28.3 29.6 30.4 3.3% 46.5
(c)
304.5 264.9 286.1 302.1 314.2 328.3 332.6 1.5% 423.0
Total
(d)
539.5 476.7 514.8 544.7 566.5 592.0 601.7 1.8% 777.5
(a)
Includes technologies such as screens and different types of fltration to treat water for different processes, such as washing or
conveyance.
(b)
Technologies used to demineralise water for the purposes of boiler feedwater, e.g. MF or UF, RO and/or IX.
(c)
Includes primary, secondary and tertiary treatment.
(d)
This fgure represents a downward adjustment in the market size in comparison to the fgure published in the Global Water Market
2011 report. The defnition of water treatment equipment has been drawn more tightly to refect the experience of water treatment
companies operating in this market. It is a grey area: paper making is essentially about water conditioning and processing.
Source: GWI
The country market split for 20132017 reflects the strides in production that China made during the 2000s. Mature markets,
such as Europe and North America, have not been demonstrating much growth due to lack of new demand for paper products,
but will see investment in existing older facilities. There is also a trend towards new pulp mills in South America, especially in
Brazil.
Figure 8.13 Pulp and paper industry, top country markets, 20132017
$2,820 m
Total market value
(2013-2017)
Germany $226m
USA $630m
RoW $1,098m
Brazil $131m
China $504m
Japan $231m
Source: GWI
The market depends on the economic climate and the demand for paper products.
Our reference scenario for the pulp and paper industry makes the following assumptions:
The following figures show regional breakdowns for each scenario.
Figure 8.14 Pulp and paper industry by region, 20112017: Reference scenario
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Pulp and paper reference
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 200.7 176.4 189.4 199.4 205.6 213.1 214.8 1.1%
EMEA 121.0 105.4 112.3 116.1 119.7 122.7 122.3 0.2%
Asia Pacifc 217.9 194.9 213.0 228.1 241.2 256.2 264.6 3.3%
Total 539.5 476.7 514.8 543.7 566.5 592.0 601.7 1.8%
Source: GWI
Pulp and paper // Market forecast
In the alternate scenario, the overall market is down by around 40%.
Figure 8.15 Pulp and paper industry by region, 20112017: Alternate scenario
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Pulp and paper alternate
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 200.7 176.4 94.7 99.7 102.8 106.6 107.4 -9.9%
EMEA 121.0 105.4 73.0 75.5 77.8 79.7 79.5 -6.8%
Asia Pacifc 217.9 194.9 149.1 159.7 168.9 179.4 185.3 -2.7%
Total 539.5 476.7 316.9 334.9 349.5 365.7 372.1 -6.0%
Source: GWI
9. Mining
9.1 Introduction to mining
Mining involves the extraction and recovery of minerals and metals from the earth. The mined rock, known as ore contains
economic concentrations of minerals or metals. Mining is a water intensive operation that occurs in many regions faced with
limited water infrastructure and affected by water scarcity. Arid regions such as north-western and central Australia, northern
Chile and the south-west United States are some of the major mining regions in the world. Water is a crucial component of the
mining industry as it is essential for many mining applications.
Water is consumable at mine sites and it is used in varied mining operations, processing steps, transportation and/or handling,
transportation and disposal of waste streams, and in the utilities. Water is a major environmental and water security concern for
the mining industry. Limited availability of water affects the survival of mine operations. In addition, the wastewater generated
can negatively impact the environment and water bodies. Acid rock drainage (ARD) in the ore at sulphide metal, coal and gold
mines is a major environmental problem for the industry.
9.1.1 Mining methods
Surface and underground mining are the primary methods used to extract ores from the earth. Both methods can be achieved by
using various mining techniques. The techniques are selected based on the depth, size and shape of the ore body, the topography
of the area being mined and mining costs.
Surface mining: Involves accessing the ore body from the surface by removing the non-valuable overburden material
that overlies it. It is used to extract ores in relatively shallow, large, lower grade deposits.
Underground mining: Used to extract rocks and minerals when the geometry and geology of the ore deposit make
surface mining techniques uneconomic. It is used for narrow and deep ore bodies.
9.1.2 Mining processing
Mined ores contain impurities that need to be separated and removed during processing to improve the quality of the ores. The
processed ore can then be shipped to market in the form of a pure metal or a concentrate. There are several processing steps that
can be performed to improve the quality of an ore. The geology and mineralogy of the ore determines which techniques are used.
The main processing techniques are as follows:
Comminution is the first step that is conducted. Ore is crushed and ground to break it down into fine sized particles.
The crushing and grinding processes liberate the valuable minerals from the impurities and allows effective
separation.
Physical separation processing involves using physical methods to produce a final product. Separation is based on
the physical properties such as the size, density and the surface properties of the mineral. Froth flotation is a water
intensive physical separation method.
Pyrometallurgical processing involves the use of thermal techniques to cause physical and chemical transformations
in metallurgical ores, concentrates and minerals. The thermal techniques include the application of heat or burning
fuel to recover valuable metals.
Hydrometallurgical processing involves using chemical reactions to dissolve metals and minerals for later extraction
and purification. The reactions take place between the aqueous solutions and the ores. Leaching is a hydrometallurgy
process that consumes large volumes of water.
Electrometallurgical processing involves separating metals from ores or purifying metals through an electrical
process. It is often conducted after hydro or pyrometallurgy processing.
The processing techniques are used in varied combinations to process an ore to a purified metal or concentrate. The different
processing techniques used in mining extraction and processing can be seen in the following figure.
Mining // Introduction to mining
Figure 9.1 Mineral ore processing steps
Solution
Mining
MINING
METHOD
Ore
Stockpile
Concentrate
(Cu, Pb, Zn, Fe)
Refining
Heap Leaching
(Au, Ag, Cu)
Leaching
(Zn)
BENEFICIATION
PROCESSING
Waste
Rock
Tailings
Waste
Waste
WASTE
Product
Gold boxes identify potential ARD, NMD & SD sources
Smelting
Physical Separation:
Gravity, Flotation,
Magnetic, Electrostatic
Milling
Liberation:
Crushing, Grinding,
Screening & Sizing
Ore Ore
Surface
Mining
Underground
Mining
Waste
Chemical
Processing
Leaching
(Au, U)
Source: GARD Guide, 2011
9.1.3 Water consumption in mining processes
The quantity of ore being produced determines the volume of water required at a mine site. It should be noted that the grade of
the ore is very important as it is heavily linked with water consumption. Lower grade ores require the use of larger volumes of
water for processing. Whereas, higher grade ores consume less water for processing. Depletion of mining deposits around the
world is causing mines to extract more lower grade ores. This is therefore impacting their water consumption needs.
The CSIRO published a water use study in mining and refining, which covered a life cycle analysis of water consumed taking an
ore from cradle to grave. It should be noted that this study over-estimates water consumption at the mining site for electrically-
intensive methods such as electrowinning. This is because the water required for power production is also taken into account in
such a life cycle analysis.
The following figure provides a summary of the CSIRO findings.
Figure 9.2 Water consumption volumes for the processing steps for selected metals
Metal Processes Process stage Water consumption (m/t)
Copper Smelting
Converting
Electro-refning
Mine and concentrator 0.37 m/t of ore
Smelting 7.8 m/t of Cu
Refning 0.6 m/t of Cu
Heap acid leaching
SX and EW
Mining and heap leaching 23 m/t of Cu
SX and EW 6.4 m/t of Cu
Nickel Flash furnace smelting Sherritt-Gordon
refning
Smelting 0.81 m/t of concentrate
Pressure acid leaching SX/EW Refning 7.16 m/t of matte
Total of all stages* 3.4 m/t of ore
Lead Blast furnace Mine and concentrator 0.64 m/t of ore
Smelting 4.85 m/t of Pb
Refning 0.47 m/t of Pb
Imperial smelting process Mine and concentrator 0.64 m/t of ore
Smelting 12.73 m/t of Pb
Refning 0.47 m/t of Pb
Zinc Imperial smelting process Mine and concentrator 0.64 m/t of ore
Smelting 12.73 m/t of Zn
Refning 0.54 m/t of Zn
Electrolytic process Mine and concentrator 0.64 m/t of ore
Electrolytic refning 12.33 m/t of Zn
Aluminium Bayer/Hall-Heroult processes Mining 0.03 m/t of bauxite
Bayer alumina refning 2.9 m/t of alumina
Hall-Heroult smelting 1.5 m/t of Al
Titanium Becher/Kroll processes Mine and concentrator 5.16 m/t of ilmenite
Becher process 6 m/t of rutile
Kroll process 40 m/t of Ti
Iron or steel Blast furnace (BF)
Basic Oxygen furnace (BOF)
Sintering 0.15 m/t of sinter
BF and BOF 1.94 m/t of steel
Stainless steel Electric arc furnace / argon oxygen
decarburisation ferronickel feedstock
Smelting and refning 2.24 m/t of steel
Electric arc furnace / argon oxygen
decarburisation nickel feedstock
Smelting and refning 2.24 m/t of steel
Gold CIL cyanidation
EW/smelt
Total of all stages* 0.74 m/t of ore
*Stage by stage data was not available
Source: Norgate and Lovel, 2004
In the 2011 GWI Water for Mining report, we estimate that water withdrawals for the global metal and mineral mining sector are
in the region of 79 km/yr. This estimate includes coal but excludes hard rock, clay, sand, gravel, etc.
9.2.1 Process water sources
Water is essential to the continued operability of a mine site. Many factors can affect the availability of water at mines sites.
Some of the factors include the different geographic locations of mines, competing demands for water, climatic variations in
regions, water allocation regulations and water quality issues. As such, water supply management is a critical aspect of the overall
water management plan. Water used in mining operations can be supplied from surface and groundwater sources, seawater,
municipalities and alternate water sources.
9.2.1.1 Alternate water sources
Governments are becoming more reluctant to grant water allocations to the mining sector. Environmental concerns and
increasingly stringent regulations are limiting the water sourcing options for mining companies. As such, the use of traditional
water supplies particularly in water scarce regions is greatly reduced.
Mining // Process water requirements
The growth in mining activities in regions impacted by limited water resources has put additional stress on countries like
Australia, South Africa, Peru and Chile over the last 10 years. Alternative water resources must be explored to meet the growing
water needs. The current trend is the use of seawater as an alternative water source. The viable alternate water resource options
include the following:
Raw seawater and brackish water
Manufactured water (desalinated seawater and low chloride water from RO)
Storm water and mining water reuse
Wastewater supplies from municipalities
Third party sources
There are different factors that influence the choice of alternate feedwater sources. The varied qualities of the alternate water
sources affect the suitability of use. The source water quality can limit the applications where the water can be used. Although
water quality is not a limiting factor for processes like copper flotation and oxide leaching, high quality water is required for
sulphide reduction processes such as cyanide leaching for gold processing. For electrowinning processes, desalinated water,
which is free of chlorine and sulphates, is required.
Overall, desalination provides high quality water that is suitable for use in all mining applications. It is therefore becoming the
preferred option for an increasing number of mining operators. It is becoming increasingly common for new mines in water-
scarce areas, to have their own desalination plant. Indeed, for remote mountainous locations situated in Chile and Southern
Peru for example, seawater desalination is the only viable water source. Such mines are typically 70200 km from the coast at an
altitude of 5003,000 m. Using groundwater as feedwater would devastate the local communities. Even though the pipeline and
conveyance costs are large, the mines still make economic sense.
An assessment must be conducted to evaluate the effects of the alternate source water quality on mining processes. It is very
important to take into account the impact the water will have on the mining operation. The suitability of alternate water sources is
seen in the following figure.
Figure 9.3 Water quality suitability for selected processes
Water quality Flotation Oxide leaching Sulfde leaching Electrowinning
Raw seawater Yes Yes No No
Brackish well water Yes Yes Maybe No
Desalinated seawater Yes Yes Yes No
Municipal wastewater Maybe Maybe Yes No
Reverse osmosis water (Low chloride) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Source: Fleming, 2011
9.2.2 Process water technologies
The use of varied feedwater water qualities in the mining industry necessitates the use of different processing technologies.
Numerous technologies are used to treat the feedwater and bring it to the quality that is suitable for use in processing activities.
The technologies used in generating process water are seen in the following figure.
Figure 9.4 Process water technologies
Category Technology Function
Screening Screens, disc flters, drum flters Removes suspended solids
Neutralisation Lime neutralisation, lime precipitation Treat mine effuent affected by ARD
For reuse as feedwater
Clarifcation Clarifers Removes total suspended solids, colloidal matter, heavy metals
Filtration Multimedia flters, sand flters Removes suspended solids
Membrane systems UF, MF, NF Pretreats water to protect downstream desalination systems
Deionisation EDI Removes ions from feedwater
Desalination RO, SWRO, BWRO, thermal desalination Rejects salt and generates high quality water from brackish
water and seawater
Source: GWI
9.2.2.1 Desalination technologies for process water
The desalination processes used to generate feedwater suitable for the use in mining processing are seawater reverse osmosis
(SWRO), brackish water RO (BWRO) and thermal desalination. Pretreatment technologies have also been undergoing
improvements over the past 1520 years. Mining companies are placing a significant emphasis on membrane pretreatment
approaches at mining desalination plants. There is a need for improved metal ion removal at the pretreatment stage to reduce
membrane fouling downstream.
9.2.3 Desalination trends
Globally over the last decade, desalination has become a much more attractive option for mining operations. Due to the expense
involved, desalination is not the most favoured water supply option if other sources of water are available.
Australia, Chile and Peru currently have large numbers of desalination projects in mining operations. The adoption of
desalination technologies has evolved differently. The desalination trends are described as follows.
9.2.3.1 Desalination trends in Chile and Peru
Mines in Chile and Southern Peru are increasingly using seawater to meet their water needs. The seawater needs to be
transported to mines generally located at high altitudes away from the coast. In the majority of the projects, the desalination plant
is located on the coast. This necessitates transporting the desalinated water over hundreds of kilometres inland to the mining site.
Some large Chilean copper mines have adopted a new trend of using raw seawater for processes where it does not affect the final
product quality (e.g. copper flotation). Some mining operations are designed as a hybrid solution where raw seawater is used
where possible but a desalination plant is located on site for operations that require desalinated water, e.g. electrowinning .
The following figures illustrate the growing trend for Chilean mining operations to use seawater, and whether desalination is
employed.
Figure 9.5 Main mining operations using desalination or raw seawater in Chile
Company Operation Feedwater Capacity
(m/d)
Investment/Cost
($)
Status
BHP Billiton Coloso Plant
at Escondida
Desal 45,360 $200 million
($50 million for plant
and $150 million for pumping
system)
Operating since
2006
++ Minerals Michilla Mine Use of direct seawater
for leaching process
6,500 Operating since
early 1990s
Antofagasta
Minerals
Esperanza Use of raw seawater for
copper fotation
62,200 $2.3 billion (mine
project including pipeline)
Started operating
in 2011
Source: GWI
The following projects have submitted an environmental impact study considering the use of desalinated water or seawater:
Figure 9.6 Mining operations using, or considering the use of, seawater in Chile
Company Operation Feedwater Capacity
(m/d)
Investment/cost
($)
Status/start date
CAP Cerro Negro Norte Desal (RO) 17,280
34,560
$180 million
(desalination plant)
Under construction by
Acciona Agua, online in
2013
Anglo American Chile Mantoverde Desal (RO) 10,368 $106 million
Valoriza began
construction May 2012
Freeport McMoRan Candelaria Desal (RO) 25,920 $21 million
Under construction by
aqualia, due online
September 2012
Xstrata / Barrick El Morro Desal 64,000 Under construction by
Cadagua
BHP Billiton Escondida
(Expansion)
Desal 276,480 $3.5 billion (mine
project)
Approved
Quadra FNX Sierra Gorda Direct seawater 65,664 $183 million 201314
Xstrata/Anglo
American/Mitsui
Collahuasi Desal 129,600 $500 million
EIA to be submitted
mid-2012
White Mountain
Titanium Corporation
Cerro Blanco Desal 12,096 $1520 million
In permitting. Due to be
operational in 2014.
Source: GWI
Mining // Process water requirements
9.2.3.2 Desalination trends in Australia
Adoption of desalination technologies to meet water supply needs began two decades ago in the Australian mining industry.
Brackish water is the typical feedwater source used by mining operations in Australia. Seawater is not the ideal feed water source
at mining sites located in Australia due to conveyance issues and availability of alternate sources. Seawater is rarely used as a
feedwater source at mine sites unless:
The mine is located in close proximity to the coast
The groundwater is particularly difficult to treat
The use of desalination technologies by the Australian mining industry has a long history dating back to the late 1980s.
Australian gold mining operations were the leaders in using membrane technology to produce quality feedwater. Highly saline
groundwater was the only source of water available. The salinity level of the groundwater was very close to that of seawater. The
need for very high quality water triggered investments in RO desalination systems. Typical plants sizes at that stage were 200
m/d.
The high cost of desalination limited its adoption to gold mining operations until the early 1990s. By this time, the desalination
costs had significantly reduced and resulted in the adoption of RO plants to produce high quality feedwater. Mine sites located in
remote areas began adopting RO to produce feedwater. Growth in the gold and nickel mining operations resulted in desalination
plants increasing the capacity to approximately 1,000 m/d.
In the late 1990s, new leaching processes for nickel were developed that required the use of high quality water. This led to
widespread adoption of desalination technologies. Some of these projects used thermal desalination rather than membrane
desalination systems.
Thermal desalination technologies were used at projects where there was a wasted heat source from power stations. In addition,
some plants were operated using hypersaline water, which can have a salinity over double that of seawater. In these cases, the
membrane based desalination technologies were too expensive and thermal systems were used instead.
Extra large-scale seawater desalination for mining is a recent development in Australia. At 140,000 m/d, the desalination plant
for Citic Pacifics Sino Iron project has set a new benchmark, which will soon be surpassed by BHP Billitons Olympic Dam
expansion at 280,000 m/d (see following figure).
Figure 9.7 Australian mining desalination project examples
Company Operation Capacity (m/d) Type Costs ($) Status
Citic Pacifc Sino Iron Magnetite
project
139,600 Seawater
desalination
$5.2 billion (for the
whole mine)
$1.3 billion (for power
station, port and desal
plant)
Expected online
June 2011
BHP Olympic Dam
(expansion)
280,000 Seawater
desalination
$20 billion (for the
entire project)
Awaiting approval
Minara Resources
(60%)
Glencore (40%)
Murrin Murrin nickel
operation
15,000 Borehole water
desalination
A$ 1.0 billion (for the
entire project)
Operating since
mid 1990s
Braemar Iron Alliance Port Germein Undetermined Seawater
desalination
A$7 billion (total
cost of various new
mining projects under
consideration in Broken
Hill region)
Conceptual stage
Grange Resources Ltd Southdown Magnetite
mine, Cape Riche
35,000 Seawater
desalination
Undetermined Bids under
evaluation
Adani Group Carmichael Mining
project
Undetermined Seawater
desalination
A$6 billion (US$6.3
billion) for the mining
project as a whole,
including railway
connections
Desal under
consideration
for port facilities
supporting mine
Mitsubishi Corp Oakajee Port and Rail 10,000 Seawater
desalination
A$50 million (US$51.9
million) for project as a
whole
Desal under
consideration for
deepwater port
to serve mining
interests
$ = U.S. dollars; A$ = Australian dollars
Source: GWI
9.3 Drivers
Mining activity is driven by commodity prices which have been historically cyclical. Typically the price of metal ores and other
minerals has increased in the latter stages of the economic cycle, as manufacturing demand develops. Once manufacturing
demand peaks there is usually a corresponding peak in the supply of mine products and this causes prices to fall steeply. As prices
start to fall producers reduce the number of new investments and production at high cost sites. Supply and demand both fall until
a new equilibrium is reached, at which point the cycle is ripe to start again. From the viewpoint of the water equipment market,
the most important driver of demand is new investment in production capacity new mines need new water infrastructure.
In recent years talk of the commodities super cycle has gained momentum. This is because, after the economic downturn of
late 2008 and early 2009, commodities prices recovered sharply, despite the weak recovery in Europe and North America. The
following figure illustrates what happened to a number of metal prices over the financial crisis (prices have been rebased to 100
in January 2000).
Figure 9.8 Selected metal prices, January 2000June 2012
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Gold
Silver
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
r
i
c
e

(
J
a
n

2
0
0
0

=

1
0
0
)
Steel
Source: World Bank
Except for commodity prices, the main reasons for growth in the market are summarised below:
New mines are increasingly being developed in places (such as Australia and Chile) where natural freshwater
resources are limited.
Mining companies are looking to treat their wastewater to a higher standard. This is driven partly by regulation,
partly by the need to recycle where water is scarce, and partly by the mining companies themselves wishing to
implement global best practices on water stewardship for corporate social responsibility purposes.
Increased reliance on low grade ores means that more water is required for each tonne of refined product. Water use
is a function of the volume of ore extracted rather than the weight of finished product sold. In order to generate the
same amount of finished product it is necessary to invest more in water infrastructure as more water is required.
Mining companies can no longer walk away from the problems caused by ARD. The inconvenience of spending
money on cleaning up mine water now continues long after a mine has closed.
Mining // Drivers
In places where water resources are already scarce, mining competes with other water users such as agricultural and municipal
users. In the future, water scarcity may be further intensified by the effects of climate change, leading to a decrease in water
availability which will affect mining operations.
The mining industry is looking towards alternate water supplies to meet their growing water needs. These water supplies are
typically of low quality, which necessitates the use of advanced technologies and water management strategies to bring the water
up to the required standards. The limited availability of water to mine sites is causing companies to use improved approaches to
ensure their water and operational security. The following figure illustrates areas of the world that are currently experiencing
water scarcity and the locations of operating mines.
Figure 9.9 Locations of currently operating mines
Source: Raw Materials Data. Copyright: Raw Materials Group, Stockholm, 2012; Global Water Risk Index, GWI, 2011
9.3.2 Regulations
Regulatory requirements relating to water allocations and wastewater discharges are strengthening. The regulatory outlook is
serving to drive the mining industry to utilise more advanced technologies and approaches to meet these stricter standards.
Mining companies need to comply with regulations to prevent fines, penalties, licence revocations and potentially mine closures.
Water regulation in the mining sector can be divided into two broad types of regulatory requirements. The requirements are as
follows:
Water use regulation: This focuses on the allocation of water management of competitive water uses. Stricter water
allocation regulations are forcing the mining industry to explore alternative water sources and utilise innovative
technologies and strategies to achieve required water qualities.
Wastewater quality regulation: This serves to prevent the release of pollutants into the environment. Environmental
protection is very important and governments are very strict about mining discharges. Mining waste streams are
highly polluted and poor treatment poses a significant risk to the environment. Compliance failures heavily affect the
bottom line as associated fines and clean up costs can be very steep. Companies need to use the best technologies and
solutions to effectively handle these dirty waste streams.
An overview of regulations for the mining industry in water scarce areas can be found in GWI Water for Mining report.
Mining companies have to comply with regulations at each stage of the mining operation life cycle. The following figure
summarises the typical regulatory requirements at each stage of the mining life cycle.
Figure 9.10 Main regulatory requirements in the mining operation life cycle
Life cycle stages Examples of water related activities Common regulatory requirements
Exploration Temporary water supply
Impacts of water management on local water resources
Wastewater disposal
Water allocation policies
Feasibility &
design
Identifcation and evaluation of water supply options
Evaluation of impacts of water abstraction on local water resources
Government approvals
Water resource evaluation
Environmental Impact Assessment
procedures including water
management and monitoring plans
Development &
construction
Design & construction of water system (supply, storage and
effuent treatment)
Implementation of water management
and monitoring plans
Mining & minerals
processing
Mine dewatering
Management of:
- Water supply
- Effuent discharge
- Dust control and pollution
- ARD
Performance monitoring and reporting
Implementation of water management
and monitoring plans
Effuent discharge regulations
Regulations and guidelines on ARD
Rehabilitation Contaminated site remediation
Water supply scheme decommissioning
Decommissioning of mineral processing and transport facilities
Formulation of closure strategies
Mining closure regulations
Post-mining &
closure
Monitoring of rehabilitation performance
Erosion control and drainage maintenance
Verifcation of contaminated site remediation
Stakeholder and regulatory sign-off
Source: Adopted from Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, 2008
It is important to note that big international mining companies usually have their own corporate regulatory standards that they
apply globally, across all of their sites. These corporate standards are often stricter than the standards set by the countries in
which their operations take place.
9.3.3 Low grade ores and tailings recovery
The growing demand for resources around the world, coupled with high commodity prices, is making it economical to process
low grade ore, resulting in the extraction of lower ore grades. The increased reliance on lower grade ores means that more water
is used to refine a product, as water consumption is proportional to the quantity of ore extracted, not the quantity of the finished
product. This creates an additional market for advanced water treatment technologies in order to be able to meet these increased
water needs. Wastewater tailings are generated from ore processing and are usually collected on-site in tailings ponds. These
tailings need to be adequately treated and discharged. In particular, the processing of lower grade ores generates large volumes of
mine tailings that need to be handled. Historically, mining companies would discharge up to 5% of metal left in the wastewater
into their tailing ponds. However, today mine tailings are a known metal reserve which have the potential to be turned into
a revenue stream, especially given the reality of todays high metal prices. This leads to the important approach of recovering
as much value, in the form of metal, from the wastewater stream as possible. This involves the use of more advanced water
treatment strategies to achieve metal recovery from waste streams.
In addition, the recovery of metals from waste streams also allows the potential for water reuse at mine sites. Water reuse is very
important for mines as it provides a viable alternative water source, which helps to reduce pressure from the water demands at the
site.
Effluent waste streams generated from ore processing activities are referred to as tailings. Due to the level of contamination in
mine tailings, they must be effectively treated and safely disposed. The quality and volume of the tailings generated will depend
largely on the mineral processing steps involved, the grade of the ore and the process water quantity and quality.
The wastewater challenges that affect mine sites are ARD and mine closures. They are described below.
9.4.1 Acid rock drainage (ARD)
ARD is a naturally occurring process that generates acidic (low pH) and metal bearing solutions from reactions of minerals in
rock material in the presence of oxygen (from the air) and water. ARD most commonly results from wastes containing pyrite, an
iron sulphide with chemical composition FeS
2
. It is a common problem at mine sites that have sulphide material in the ore and
Mining // Wastewater challenges
waste streams (e.g. copper, lead/zinc and nickel sulphide operations, some gold operations, and some coal operations). The acidic
solutions generated by ARD also result in dissolution of metals from the waste streams, including copper, lead, zinc, arsenic,
cadmium and iron. Such metals can be extremely toxic to aquatic life, especially fish, resulting in downstream environmental
impacts.
The acid generating potential of a waste material is dependent on the following factors:
Mineralogical makeup: The relative proportion of minerals with the potential to generate acid (such as iron sulphide
and other sulphides) and acid neutralising minerals (such as carbonates like limestone).
Size distribution: Finer material reacts faster than coarser material due to the greater relative surface area.
Climatic conditions: ARD is more persistent in warm, wet climates such as in the Northern Territory, Australia, New
Guinea and Brazil.
Ingress of air into the waste: Waste placement and the presence of solid or water barriers can affect the ingress of
water and ore into the waste dump. Loosely packed dumps with a high permeability will have higher reaction rates.
9.4.2 Mine closures
Mines can undergo planned and unplanned closures for numerous reasons, be they regulatory, geological, economic, technical
or social. Mine closure is a major challenge and is well regulated to protect the environment. Currently, mine closure and
completion plans are typically included in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) before a mine is given approval to begin
operations.
When a mine closes, water risk factors must be addressed to prevent persistent environmental damage by ensuring compliance
with regulations. Poor execution of a mine closure plan has many knock-on effects. The environment, local communities and the
mining industry are all negatively impacted by the associated costs of mine closure failures. It is necessary to take an early and
integrated approach to mine closures, which will help minimise the potential negative impacts of unplanned closures.
The main water risks include the following:
Protecting the quality of the groundwater and surface water sources in the area.
Preventing atmospheric, soil or water contamination when waste rock, effluent and poorly stored processing
chemicals react with water.
There are numerous technologies that are used to treat the mine wastewater generated from processing activities. The
technologies have been grouped into several categories based on the treatment approach used as seen in the following figure.
Category Technologies Function
Neutralisation Conventional lime neutralisation, high density sludge
process, limestone neutralisation
These technologies are mainly used to treat effuent
that has been affected by ARD or has the potential to
generate ARD.
Passive
treatment
Aerobic wetland, anaerobic wetland These technologies use natural materials such as soil,
clay and rock, and plant residues such as straw, wood
chips, manure, and compost, to promote the growth of
natural vegetation.
Metal removal Sulphide precipitation, BioSulphide
precipitation
process, ChemSulphide
precipitation process,
biogenic sulphide precipitation, biological sulphide
precipitation, biological flters, fuidised bed reactor
These technologies are used to treat mine effuents by
selectively removing dissolved metals from the waste
stream. This is usually achieved by performing sulphide
precipitation reactions.
Membrane
technologies
MF, UF, NF, RO, electrodialysis (ED), electrodialysis
reversal (EDR), bipolar electrodialysis (BPED),
electrodeionisation (EDI)
These technologies are used to remove particulate
matter and dissolved solids from wastewater streams.
Advanced
treatment
Evaporators (VCD, MVR, MED), brine concentrators
and crystallisers
These technologies are used to generate very high
quality water and a waste solid resulting in low or zero
liquid discharge.
Dewatering Clarifers, dissolved air fotation These technologies are used to reduce the water
volumes in mine waste tailings and to clarify the effuent
water. This involves the use of gravity and focculants to
help settle the contaminating solids out of solution.
Filtration and
thickening
Sand flters, ceramic vacuum flters, pressure flters,
thickeners, high rate thickeners, paste thickeners
These technologies are used to signifcantly reduce the
amount of water in effuent tailings that will be left in the
slurry prior to reduce the volume of waste slurry to be
discharged.
Contaminant
treatment
Zero-valent iron (ZVI) ZVI acts as a strong reducing agent for a number of
water pollutants, including selenium, aluminium and
iron. It reduces the water soluble forms of selenium
found in contaminated water by capturing its elemental
form on the surface of the iron.
Cyanide
treatment
Alkaline chlorination, International Nickel Companys
(INCO) process, hydrogen peroxide process,
acidifcation volatilisation recovery (AVR) cyanide
recovery process, sulphidisation, acidifcation,
recycling and thickening (SART) process, biological
cyanide treatment
These technologies are primarily used in the gold mining
industry. Cyanide treatment involves the addition of a
chemical reagent to react with cyanide to generate less
harmful products such as cyanate or gypsum.
Effuent disposal Tailings disposal, backfll disposal Effuent tailings are typically dewatered to allow for
reuse and recycling of the water and also serves to
reduce the volume of the waste slurry that is generated
to reduce the volumes disposed in tailings dams and
prolong the lifetime of the dam.
Source: Water for Mining, GWI, 2011
9.5.1 Wastewater technology trends
9.5.1.1 Metal recovery from waste streams
The wastewater streams generated from mining activities are potentially a recoverable resource. Water, acids and metals are the
important recoverable components. Membrane technologies can be used as a separation tool to recover these resources. The
membrane-based technologies that can achieve this separation involve the use of selective-acid-solvent stable NF membranes.
The metal concentrate can be used to produce other materials.
The acid and water streams generated can be used directly as an acid stream.
Alternatively, the streams can be separated into a water stream and a purified acid stream to be reused in mine
processing steps.
Mining // Water reuse strategies
Metal recovery is a growing trend in the mining industry. It is opening up significant opportunities in wastewater treatment
technologies, with potential to generate revenue. Mine production capacities can be increased by extracting additional metals
from the waste streams. This can significantly improve the overall efficiency at mine sites by treating a specific stream.
The use of technologies to recover metals from waste tailings is increasing. However, its adoption will depend on the quantities
that can be recovered, as it needs to be economically viable. The metal recovery approach is ideally used when an environmental
improvement investment is required. Combining both approaches is likely to provide additional value, investment returns and
reduce long term liability.
The concept of metal recovery comes from the potential of the reuse market. Advanced technologies are required to bring the
wastewater stream to a suitable quality for reuse. As such, recovering metals from the waste stream that is being treated for reuse
is a sound approach.
9.5.1.2 Zero liquid discharge (ZLD)
Due to a combination of drivers scarcity, regulation, lobbying and the pressure on companies to follow best practice ZLD
and evaporation technologies are likely to see increased uptake in arid areas of Australia and Latin America. For example, social
pressure is a major barrier against new mining projects in Peru, Chile and Brazil. Significant delays can occur in the permitting
process unless mining companies are able to promise that no wastewater will be discharged from the mine site. Similar social
pressures exist in Australia.
Water reuse is an important water management option for mines in order to maintain a sustainable water supply system. A water
reuse opportunities plan is used to address the water supply needs in the overall water management system.
9.6.1 Water reuse options
9.6.1.1 Direct wastewater reuse
This option involves the reuse of wastewater streams with no prior treatment. It can be advantageous due to the energy,
infrastructure and transportation costs involved in wastewater treatment. However, over time, accumulation of contaminants
in such wastewater streams will become a problem in the repetitive recirculation of the site water system. This issue needs to
be understood and addressed in the water management plan. Direct wastewater reuse is limited in its use. Due to the heavy
contamination of some wastewater streams, direct reuse is not possible for certain processes, which can cause adverse effects.
9.6.1.2 Treated wastewater reuse
Some wastewater streams cannot be reused directly without prior treatment. In this case, water reuse involves treating the
wastewater to qualities that ensure it is suitable for use. The treatment options used will depend on the water quality required.
The reuse water quality standards will differ for the applicable mineral processing steps. The quality needs will also differ based
on regulatory discharge requirements. A valid approach to achieve efficiency is to match the appropriate water quality with
specific water activities and operations.
Water reuse offers the following advantages:
It provides an alternate water supply option at mine sites, which is especially important in water scarce areas where
water allocation for industrial users will not be a priority when municipal and agricultural sectors are present.
The use of metal recovery technologies to treat effluents can provide new revenue streams.
Some recovery processes can recover reagents. The reagents can be sent back into the relevant processing step. This
helps to reduce the overall cost of purchasing and transporting reagents to the site.
9.6.2 Off-site water reuse
The reuse of water off-site is mainly to meet environmental needs, particularly in water scarce regions. Activities such as
irrigation, livestock uses, dust control and watershed management require additional water allocations. Water reuse off-site can
help meet these needs.
Generating additional water opens the potential to sell the water to other industrial users. In addition, mines with excess water
can enter into water trade agreements with surrounding mines. They can supply treated or untreated effluent water to other
mines.
The mining industry is considered to be innately conservative. The conservative nature makes it difficult for the wide adoption of
new and innovative technologies in the market. This can pose a significant barrier to entry in the technologies market.
Mining companies are very risk-averse. They do not want to take a risk on a technology or on working with a company that can
compromise their production or reputation. The potential of significant cost savings from the use of a new technology is not a
great enough incentive in this industry. As such, it is necessary that these technologies are proven before they can be adopted.
This is achieved by conducting pilot trials. Companies need assurances that there is little potential for problems that could
significantly impact their production and operability. In addition, regulatory compliance failures and damage to corporate
reputations will not be tolerated.
However, mining companies are adapting to the strengthening regulatory environment. They are now becoming more open to
new technologies. Water scarcity, climate change, stricter regulations, lower ore grades and higher commodity prices are serving
to drive the industry towards the adoption of innovative water technologies.
Mining companies typically follow an engineering, procurement, and construction management (EPCM) model. In the EPCM
model, the mining company maintains the responsibility for buying equipment and for performance guarantees. They hire
an engineering firm to serve as their agent to design the processes, specify the equipment, negotiate, purchase and install all
the equipment and perform construction roles. The decisions are made with the mining companies approval, so the mining
company retains responsibility.
Managing their water systems is particularly important to the mining companies. They do not want to put their water security in
the hands of a third party, as there is the potential for water prices to be increased.
9.7.1.1 Procurement options
Process engineering packages can be used in the mining industry. An engineering package describes the solutions that are
on offer, provides process flow diagrams, the bill of materials, the software required for the system and the equipment. The
engineering companies can offer the mining clients a complete solution with the large construction companies or original
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) as part of their offerings.
OEM companies can aim to form partnerships with mining companies, engineering firms, consulting firms, construction
companies and with the engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contractors for the mine. This is a preferable approach
to participating solely as a vendor.
Overall, it is very important for OEMs and technology suppliers to try and get involved in the procurement process as early as
possible. Ideally, at the exploration phase or earlier, as the water balance and water management studies are conducted at this
time. Companies involved at that stage gain more information about the water requirements and the relevant technologies
needed. This will help determine the best overall solution.
9.7.1.2 Operating, maintenance and outsourcing
Historically, the larger mining companies have typically followed the EPCM model. However currently, there is some movement
to alternative procurement models. Outsourcing is becoming a little more common in the industry. These outsourcing models
include the following:
Build operate transfer (BOT)
Build own operate (BOO)
Design build operate (DBO)
Design build finance operate (DBFO)
Engineering, procurement and construction (EPC)
The EPC contracts are also known as construction management risk. In the traditional EPC model, the mining company will
assign the responsibility of building the water plant to an outside firm. The responsibilities would include designing, building,
project management, providing cost certainties and performance warranties.
Generally, the smaller mining companies will follow the EPC contract models. This is because they may not have a strong balance
sheet and will not want to spend money on non-revenue generating activities. These smaller mining companies tend to hire
engineering firms to handle the project for them and to operate and maintain responsibility for the plant.
Mining // Supply chain analysis
9.7.1.3 Partnership and teaming agreements
There are numerous partnership and teaming agreements that players in the water for mining market can enter into.
Joint ventures (JVs) are partnership business models that are used in the mining industry. Companies can enter into
JVs where they share the capital and operating costs of the treatment plant. This is more common for design-build-
operate (DBO) models. The company will design, build and operate that plant, but the mining client pays for the plant
in a fee-based structure. In situations where the mining company wants to purchase a plant, these companies can
build, commission and transfer the plant to the client. Therefore, the procurement process choices in this industry
are very customer driven.
Mining companies can use a direct approach for partnering. They aim to align with existing and proven water
companies in the form of alliances. Each party provides their specialist area of expertise to the overall solution.
When working directly with the mining clients, technology and service provider firms aim to become preferred
suppliers and enter into preferred supplier agreements. They can also enter into other agreements such as teaming,
partnering, structured and consortium agreements.
Construction companies can team up and partner with technology and service provider firms to develop turnkey
solutions. This will include equipment and construction services. The full solution can then be taken directly to the
mining companies as a black box offering.
Engineering firms will look to form partnerships with construction firms and technology suppliers when trying to
win an EPC contract. Each partner will bring a differentiating offer that will help secure the project.
Larger technology suppliers that do not have the whole process solution can enter into partnerships with other
companies who will help to complement their product offerings. Interacting with smaller market players with new
technologies or innovations helps to bring new technologies or solutions to the market. The small company may not
have been able to bring the technologies or solutions to market alone.
Consulting firms typically form relationships with the equipment suppliers. They work closely with component
manufacturers for the application of innovative technologies. In addition, they collaborate with other consulting
firms.
These teaming agreements and alliances have disadvantages. Exclusive agreements between a consultancy firm and a technology
provider can affect the objectivity of the firm. The firm may not be fully objective when selecting the right solutions for their
client, as there is subtle pressure to use equipment provided solely by their partner. This may not be the right value proposition
for the client.
The nature of such relationships can limit technology objectivity. This is turn can hinder the procurement approach that the
mining companies typically respect and appreciate. Technical objectivity is one of the features that mining companies appreciate
in the consultants they work with. They want their consultants to select the applicable technologies to create the best solution for
the project.
Mining companies in general are looking for whole process solutions rather than purchasing separate water technologies.
Complete solutions can include plant operation and water treatment. They tend to work with companies that have the resources to
build, construct and integrate the complete technologies.
However, the choice of a separate technology versus whole solution will depend on the needs of the customer. Multiple treatment
technologies can be combined into an integrated treatment process. This is in line with the holistic approach towards water
management that is gaining popularity in the mining industry.
In a sense, both approaches of looking for whole process solutions or separate technologies are currently happening in the
industry. The full solution approach is typically achieved by the engineering companies or general contractors. These companies
invite other companies to take part and purchase separate technologies.
Mining companies are looking to the engineering service providers to supply the relevant offerings that can take the water
issue off their hands. Engineering firms are seen to be the companies that can meet the process solution needs of the mining
companies. Engineering firms have the greatest opportunities to supply complete solutions for this industry. These full service
engineering companies are able to handle the challenges the process solutions pose. The mining companies want to work with
engineering companies from concept development through to execution. They want companies to bring in operating strategies
that can help ensure cost effective and safe construction in very difficult environments.
Overall, technology companies do have a place in this market, as their technologies are part of the solution. But mining
companies need a contractor who can provide the full service. Water projects are a critical aspect for the development and
expansion of mining operations.
The global water for mining market is an unusually narrow and fragmented one, with only a few big players, while the rest of the
market is populated with regional and numerous local firms. Within the water for mining market, we are covering water supply,
effluent treatment and reuse.
Obtaining reliable market share data is difficult. Our analysis is based on the market share estimates provided by the industry
experts interviewed for this report.
Main market players include engineering programme management firms, water technology companies and manufacturers of
special equipment/chemicals.
9.7.2.1 Engineering programme management firms
Of the few key engineering programme management firms, Hatch is the dominant player with around 30% of the global market
share. The others are SNC Lavalin, Golder and AMEC. Some of the bigger firms in other industries, such as Bechtel, Mitsubishi,
Samsung and Doosan have entered the water for mining market in recent years, recognising its potential.
In addition, a number of engineering companies are operating at the regional level. Examples include, Odebrecht in Brazil,
Keyplan in South Africa, and Worley Parsons which is now expanding beyond Australia.
9.7.2.2 Water equipment companies
Globally the largest market share is controlled by FLSmidth. In terms of value, the company is considered to hold over 25% of
the market share. Tyco Flow Control/Tyco International was also suggested as a major player. However, the companys offers are
mostly limited to supplies of physical treatment systems, such as screens, clarifiers and filters of large volumes.
Traditional water technology companies are increasingly looking at opportunities in the water for mining market. Among them
are Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies , Degremont, Siemens and GE, which appear to be the dominant players. While
Veolia holds the biggest market share with approximately 10% of the global market, and is considered to have the biggest market
share of secondary and tertiary water, the remaining companies hold only a very small percentage of the global market. On the
desalination side, Keyplan, IDE, FCC and Acciona have won big SWRO projects in the last few years, while Osmoflo, aqualia and
Cadagua are all becoming important.
In each of the market segments, water technology companies take different positions in different regions. For example, Spanish
companies such as Acciona, Befesa and Cadagua are becoming dominant players in desalination for mining in South America.
There are some specialised companies such as BioteQ and Paques that have been increasingly well-recognised for their biological
wastewater treatment technologies.
Undoubtedly, global water technology companies who have successfully entered this market in the last few years will continue to
increase their market share in the short term. Regional and local companies continue to maintain their presence in the market.
9.7.3 Market entry
Players attempting to enter and succeed in the market need to have a good understanding of the industry. They need to be able to
back that understanding with appropriate technologies and solutions. Companies should aim to focus on their core competencies
and strengths. Building a reputation as a leader in a particular solution can create new opportunities.
There are different approaches that companies can use to enter and participate in the market. They are as follows:
Relationship development is an essential strategy in this industry, and initial entry into the market can be achieved
through a personal connection to someone at the mining company. Long-standing relationships have been
established between mining companies and the more established groups. These relationships are advantageous and
strengthen dominance in the market.
Problem solving is a significant approach to entering the market. Companies that can provide solutions to meet the
changing water management needs are likely to enter and maintain a presence in this market. In such cases, directly
approaching the mining company to enter into a small project is a viable strategy.
Mining companies can also approach companies directly. Visibility is therefore very important in the market. It is
essential that the information and specs for innovative technologies are readily accessible to the mining companies
that need such solutions.
Using a multi-phased approach can help with the large capital requirements and risk averseness in the industry.
In this approach, risks should be managed with the investment by performing project roll out effectively. This can
involve conducting bench lab work, development of concepts, pilots, pre and full feasibility studies, development of
small commercial plants and then full project start-up.
Mining // Supply chain analysis
9.7.3.1 Market presence
Maintaining a presence in the market is key to longevity and survival in the mining industry. As such, market entry is just the
first step in the process. Companies need to successfully fulfil their projects and ensure the services they are providing to the
mining clients are fully achieved.
Taking feedback from the clients and using it to innovate new technologies to solve specific problems is a sound strategy. This
shows the client you understand their needs and you are the company to solve their individual problems. This can help companies
to remain in the market place as active players. Overall, creativity and the ability to provide full service packages are important to
survival in this market.
9.7.3.2 Barriers to entry
A major challenge is the ability to develop sustainable solutions to meet the changing needs of the mining industry. Technologies
need to be able to meet the diverse needs of the industry and companies need to be innovative to stand out. A lot of effort must be
put into developing strategies that will help serve the market better, while also setting your technology apart from the rest on the
market. This can be difficult to achieve due to the low level of positive differentiation in the marketplace.
Although in the majority of cases piloting is typically required to prove a new technology works before it is adopted, pilot trials
are not always needed to prove technologies. If the technology has already been used and successfully demonstrated in other
industries, the technology can be adopted without pilot trials. This is advantageous as piloting can be very difficult to set up and
there are numerous risks associated with pilot tests.
Mining companies are looking for value adding strategies and technologies. Water recovery rates, life cycle and operating cost
savings and potential revenue generating opportunities are just some of the ways to effectively showcase the advantages of a new
technology. This is crucial to the successful adoption of technologies in the industry.
The more established global players in the water for mining market seem to have the competitive advantage in the market place.
They tend to dominate over the newer market entrants as they have long track records. Establishing credibility and showcasing a
sound track record in the industry can be a major battle for new entrants.
The dominance of global players can be attributed to mining companies preferring to work with companies that will
provide the same level of technologies and satisfaction all over the world.
The larger players tend to have the necessary resources to deliver large design and construction projects. Such
projects require a significant capital investment that smaller players may not be able to afford.
Larger players can provide work performance guarantees and project cost savings. These can be critical to the success
of a project.
Established companies can be more dominant, particularly in terms of water treatment equipment supply. This is
because these established engineering consultancies generally have a deeper knowledge of water treatment. They can
produce good results and have a reputation that the mining companies can trust.
Major players can also have good local presence in many countries. This is due to their long reach and global footprint.
This is very important to mining companies as they want to work with suppliers and service providers that can solve any
issues at their mine sites. This is of particular importance as mines are typically located in isolated areas.
9.7.3.4 Market entry potential for smaller/niche players
Although the larger players are typically more dominant, the smaller and niche players still have a place in this industry.
Smaller companies that have better offerings can be very competitive in the market. They can show that they truly
understand the market needs and how their solution solves the issue.
Some players have an edge when it comes to new innovative technologies. They are able to provide unique
technologies, which help to set one company apart from others.
Directly approaching mining companies can be an appropriate approach for smaller players. This is when it is related
to technology innovations that are specifically needed in the industry.
Partnering is another viable option for market entry and survival for the smaller and newer players. Smaller players can
enter into partnership agreements with engineering companies. This way, their technologies are included in projects.
The presence of these smaller players in a local market can increase their competitiveness significantly. The smaller
companies that are local to the mining clients are very well positioned to get a large share of the more routine
projects. This is because they have the local resources to handle the routine project needs.
9.8 Market forecast
9.8.1 Mining projects
Activity in the mining market is driven by commodity prices, which have historically been cyclical. During the latter stage
of an economic cycle, prices rise in step with manufacturing demand, and output increases accordingly. After the peak of
manufacturing demand has been reached, the market is over-saturated and prices fall sharply. This causes producers to put a hold
on new investment, and reduce production at high-cost sites. Supply and demand both fall until a new equilibrium is reached, at
which point the cycle is ripe to start again.
In terms of the water equipment market, new investment in production capacity is the most important factor: new mines need
new water infrastructure. There is also additional inventment into current mines replacing ageing plants, and addressing acid
rock drainage.
The forecast begins with the Raw Materials Data Metals dataset, published by the Raw Materials Group. This gives a
breakdown of both operating mines and future projects by country and mineral type, and gives information on the timing
of capital expenditure. From there we have taken a view on the level of water-related infrastructure spending on each
project and aggregated it. An overview of future project locations is given in the following gure.
Figure 9.12 An overview of future mining projects
Source: Raw Materials Data. Copyright: Raw Materials Group, Stockholm, 2011; Global Water Risk Index, GWI, 2011
We have also factored in spending on mines that are already in operation (see figure 9.9).
Mining // Market forecast
9.8.2 Referance and alternate scenarios
Our reference scenario for the mining industry makes the following assumptions:
Copper price remains above $5,000/tonne.
Iron ore price remains above $100/tonne.
Copper price falls below $5,000/tonne.
Iron ore price falls below $100/tonne.
(This would reflect a broader fall in mineral prices affecting other markets).
For the purposes of this report, our market forecast is broken down into three categories: seawater desalination, wastewater
desalination and process water treatment systems, as shown in the following figure. The forecast is punctuated by estimated dates
of future projects, which can be difficult to anticipate in advance. Multi-year aggregates are more indicative of the market trends.
Figure 9.13 Mining industry market forecast, 2011-2025
systems
systems
Process water treatment
systems
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2025 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Mining ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
2025
Process water treatment systems 230.9 294.1 323.5 277.1 320.6 321.1 346.2 7.0% 265.7
Seawater desalination systems 206.7 241.0 515.5 207.9 418.8 374.4 423.7 12.7% 688.6
Total 911.8 1,145.7 1,518.0 1,073.0 1,420.3 1,380.9 1,516.3 8.8% 1,572.7
For further mining market detail and breakdowns, see GWIs Water for Mining report
Source: GWI
The top country markets are summarised in the following figure.
Figure 9.14 Mining industry, top country markets, 20132017
$6,908 m
Total market value
(2013-2017)
Brazil $373m
Australia $1,709m
RoW $1,926m
Canada $393m
Chile $1,583m
Peru $925m
For a detailed breakdown of the mining market in the top 10 countries, see GWIs Water for Mining report
Source: GWI
Figure 9.15 Mining industry, regional markets, 20132017
Americas $2,029m
$4,968m
Total market value
(2013-2017)
EMEA $894m
Asia Pacific
$2,045m
Source: GWI
Mining // Market forecast
We have split our seawater desalination forecast by country, rather than by region according to its feasibility as a water source (see
Section 9.2.3 for details).
Figure 9.16 Mining industry, seawater desalination, 20112017: Reference scenario
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Peru
Australia
Chile
reference scenario
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Chile 185.7 214.6 155.5 106.5 93.3 210.9 232.0 3.8%
Australia 14.4 14.4 336.0 64.5 294.0 120.0 78.2 32.6%
Peru 6.6 12.0 24.0 36.9 31.5 43.5 113.5 60.7%
Total 206.7 241.0 515.5 207.9 418.8 374.4 423.7 12.7%
Source: GWI
In the alternate scenario, it is no longer economically viable to transport seawater hundreds of kilometres to inland across a
mountain range.
Figure 9.17 Mining industry, seawater desalination, 20112017: Alternate scenario
0
50
100
150
200
250
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Peru
Australia
Chile
alternate scenario
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Chile 185.7 214.6 15.6 0.0 0.0 21.1 23.2 -29.3%
Australia 14.4 14.4 33.6 0.0 29.4 12.0 0.0
Peru 6.6 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 9.5%
Total 206.7 241.0 49.2 0.0 29.4 33.1 34.6 -25.8%
Source: GWI
9.8.5 Water and wastewater treatment ex. seawater desalination
The reference scenario for all other process water and wastewater treatment is shown in the following figure. The most active
regions are the Americas and Asia Pacific.
Figure 9.18 Mining industry, water and ww treatment ex. seawater desalination, 2011-2017: Reference scenario
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Water and ww treatment
ex. seawater desalination
reference scenario
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 268.1 352.9 475.1 374.7 358.6 393.5 427.2 8.1%
EMEA 144.8 180.2 158.3 126.5 216.2 188.3 204.4 5.9%
Asia Pacifc 292.2 371.6 369.1 363.8 426.8 424.7 461.0 7.9%
Total 705.0 904.7 1,002.4 865.1 1,001.6 1,006.4 1,092.6 7.6%
Source: GWI
The alternate scenario shows reduced market size in all regions, with the Americas and Asia Pacific the hardest hit.
Figure 9.19 Mining industry, water and ww treatment ex, seawater desalination, 20112017: Alternate scenario
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Asia Pacific
EMEA
Americas
Water and ww treatment
ex. seawater desalination
alternate scenario
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
CAGR
201117
Americas 268.1 352.9 142.5 112.4 107.6 118.0 128.1 -11.6%
EMEA 144.8 180.2 110.8 88.6 151.3 131.8 143.1 -0.2%
Asia Pacifc 292.2 371.6 110.7 109.1 128.0 127.4 138.3 -11.7%
Total 705.0 904.7 364.0 310.1 386.9 377.3 409.5 -8.7%
Source: GWI
Interviewees
Interviewees

Bill Bonkoski, Executive Sales, Global Domain Team, GE Power & Water
Oscar Bravo, Director of Global Marketing/Product Management Ion Exchange Resins, Lanxess
Guillaume Clairet, Vice President, Strategic Business Development, H2O Innovation
Paul Coe, Global Director Power, Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies
Hans Corvers, OMOBILE BU Development Director, Ondeo Industrial Solutions
Bertrand Garnier, Technical Director, Ondeo-Industrial Solutions
Werner Gessler, Voith Paper
Dr Ismail Gobulukoglu, Chief Scientist, Aquafine Corporation
Daniel Gosselin, Business Development Manager, Trojan Technologies
George Gsell, President, Meco
Chris Hall, Vanox Product Manager Water Technologies Business Unit, Siemens
Deepak Kachru, Assistant General Manager Sales, Aquatech Asia
Marlin Kinzey, Associate Director of Marketing, Dow Water and Process Solutions
Roland Konietz, Sales Manager for Africa, AWAS International GmbH
Alan Knapp, Business Development for Microelectronics and Solar, Siemens
Vivien Krygier, Sr. Vice President Marketing, Pall Microelectronics
Bill LaVoice, Sales Manager, Trojan Technologies
John W. Lee, Jr. BCEE, DEE, PE, Senior Vice President & Technology Fellow, CH2M Hill
Vyacheslav, Libman, Water Lab Director, Air Liquide Balazs Nanoanalysis
David McBain, Global Director Pharmaceuticals & Cosmetics, Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies
Rod McNelly, Vice President Commercial and Industrial Sales (Americas and Asia-Pacific), Culligan Matrix Solutions
John Morgan, High Purity Water Technology Treatment Leader, H2Morgan
Michel Otten, Technical Director, PT Biothane Asia Pacific
Laurent Panzani, Global Director Food & Beverage, Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies
Rubens Perez, Business Development Manager for the Pulp & Paper Market, Veolia Water Brazil
Gary Pitts, Global Business Leader for Microelectronics, GE
Swaminathan Ramachandran, Executive VP Chemicals & Water, Thermax
Mike A. Ray, VP N.A. Sales & Service, Aquafine Corporation
Chris Sacksteder, Associate Product Director, FILMTEC Membranes, Dow Water & Process Solutions
Alexander Scheffler, Head of Specialty Applications Segment, Lanxess
Alan Sharpe, Head of the Reverse Osmosis Project, Lanxess
Ron Shook, Engineering Manager, Aqua-Chem
Mitch Summerfield, Vice President, Industry Segment, Siemens Water Technologies
Gary Vanderlaan, Market Manager, Trojan Technologies
Cristina Vigano, Proposal Manager, Ondeo Industrial Solutions
Seppo Wallinmaa, CEO, Aquaflow Oy
Ralph Williams, Principal Technologist, CH2M HILL
References
Alexandersson, T., 2003. Water Reuse in Paper Mills: Measurement and control problems in biological treatment (Licentiate
Thesis).
Al-Jubori, A., Johnston, S., Boyer, C., Lambert, S.W., Bustos, O.A., Pashin, J.C., Wray, A., 2009. Coalbed Methane: Clean Energy
for the World. Oilfield Review 21, 413.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1994. Consensus operating practices for control of feedwater/boiler water chemistry
in modern industrial boilers.
APV, 2009. Evaporator handbook.
Arden, W., Brillout, M., Cogez, P., Graef, M., Huizing, B., Mahnkpof, R., 2010. More-than-Moore [WWW Document].
International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors. URL http://www.itrs.net/Links/2010ITRS/IRC-ITRS-MtM-v2%203.pdf
Asano, T., Burton, F.L., Leverenz, H.L., Tsuchihashi, R., Tchobanoglous, G., 2007. Water reuse : issues, technology, and
applications. McGraw-Hill, New York.
ASTM International, 2007. Standard Guide for Ultrapure Water Used in the Electronics and Semiconductor Industries (ASTM
Standard No. ASTM D5127-07). ASTM International.
Benyahia, F., Abdulkarim, M., Embaby, A., Rao, M., 2006. Refinery wastewater treatment: a true technological challenge.
Presented at the The Seventh Annual U.A.E. University Research Conference, Al-Ain, UAE.
Beukes, N.T., Badenhorst, J., 2009. Copper electrowinning: theoretical and practical design. SAIMM 109, 343356.
Bignold, G., Concari, S., Daucik, K., Fitchett, G., Harries, R., Magnani, G., Quadri, G., Roofthooft, R., Zeijseink, A., 1997.
Chemical guidelines for water/steam cycle of fossil fired units ( No. 02004Ren9766). Union of the Electricity Industry.
Blankinship, S., 2009. Bugs used to treat FGD wastewater. Power Engineering 113.
Boman, K., 2012. Coalbed Methane to Play Integral Role in Chinas Gas Production Goals [WWW Document]. RGIZONE. URL
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=116542
Bonfanti, S., Donadono, S., 2009. ENEL: ZLD systems for FGD wastewaters.
Browner, C.M., Fox, J.C., Frace, S., Rubin, M.B., Hund, F., 1998. Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category. Environmental Protection Agency.
Cacciotti, J., Clinton, P., 2011. 12th Annual Pharm Exec 50. Pharmaceutical Executive.
Canadian National Energy Board, 2011. Canadas Energy Future: Energy supply and demand projections to 2035 (Energy Market
Assessment). Canadian National Energy Board.
Caravaggio, M., 2012. Part 1: Plant steam/water cycle make-up water treatment raw water analysis. Ultrapure Water Journal 814.
Carawan, R.E., Chambers, J.V., Zall, R.R., 1979. Spinoff on Dairy Processing Water and Wastewater Management (Extension
Special Report No. AM-18B), Water and Wastewater Management in Food Processing. North Carolina Agricultural Extension
Service.
Carter, N.T., Campbell, R.J., 2009. Water issues of concentration solar power in the U.S. Southwest (Report for Congress No.
R40631). Congressional Research Service.
Chesters, S., Darton, E., Gallego, S., Vigo, F., 2009. The safe use of cationic flocculants with reverse osmosis membranes.
Desalination and Water Reuse 6, 144151.
Council of Europe, European Pharmacopoeia Commission, European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & Healthcare,
2010. European Pharmacopoeia, 7th ed, European treaty series. Council Of Europe.
CPV Vacaville, LLC, CH2M Hill, 2008. CPV Vaca Station - Application for Certification.
de Wild-Scholten, M., Kostieva, M., Bartels, R., Worf, D., Schleef, M., 2011. Waste water treatment for crystalline silicon solar cell
production. Photovoltaics International 11, 2024.
Deep Hole Driller, 2012. Ripe for the drilling [WWW Document]. Deep Hole Driller. URL http://deepholedriller.com/2012/04/
rd20-oil-gas-drill-rig/ripe-for-the-drilling/
DeMeo, E.A., Galdo, J.F., 1997. Renewable energy technology characterizations (Topical Report No. TR-109496). Department of
Eenrgy.
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, 2011. Energy in Australia 2011. Australian Government.
References
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, Geoscience Australia, 2010. Australian Energy Resource Assessment. Australian
Government.
Dow Chemical Company, 2011. Ultrafiltration Product Manual.
Energy Information Administration, 2001. US natural gas markets: Recent trends and prospects for the future ( No. SR/
OIAF/2001-02). Energy Information Administration.
Energy Information Administration, 2010a. EIA-860: Annual electric generator data [WWW Document]. URL http://www.eia.
gov/electricity/data/eia860/
Energy Information Administration, 2010b. EIA-923: Annual electric utility data [WWW Document]. URL http://www.eia.gov/
electricity/data/eia923/
Energy Information Administration, 2011. Natural Gas Annual 2010 ( No. DOE/EIA-0131(10)). Energy Information
Administration.
Energy Information Administration, 2012a. Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (Early Release Overview No. DOE/EIA-0383ER(2012)).
Energy Information Administration.
Energy Information Administration, 2012b. Monthly Energy Review - June 2012 ( No. DOE/EIA-0035(2012/06)). Energy
Information Administration.
Energy Information Administration, 2012c. Refining Crude Oil [WWW Document]. Energy explained - Your guide to
understanding energy. URL http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_refining
Energy Information Administration, 2012d. Spot Prices for Crude Oil and Petroleum Products [WWW Document]. Petroleum &
Other Liquids - Data. URL http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_d.htm
Environmental Protection Agency, 1987. Dewatering municipal wastewater sludges (Design manual No. EPA/625/1-87/014).
Environmental Protection Agency.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1995. Profile of the Petroleum Refining Industry (Sector Notebook Project No. 310-R-95-013).
Environmental Protection Agency, 1999. Alternative disinfectants and oxidants (Guidance manual No. 815-R-99-014).
Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. Profile of the Pulp and Paper Industry (Sector Notebook Project No. 310-R-02-002).
Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. Membrane filtration (Guidance manual No. 815-R-06-009). Environmental Protection
Agency.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. Steam electric power generating point source category (Final detailed study report No.
821-R-09-008). Environmental Protection Agency.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2012. Industrial Regulations [WWW Document]. Industrtial Effluent Guidelines. URL http://
water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/industry.cfm
European Agency for the Evaluation of Medical Products, 2002. Note for Guidance on Quality of Water for Pharmaceutical Use (
No. CPMP/QWP/158/01). European Agency for the Evaluation of Medical Products.
European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2001. Reference Document on the application of Best Available Techniques to
Industrial Cooling Systems.
European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2006. Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Large Combustion
Plants.
Federal Energy Management Programme, 2011. Cooling towers: Understanding Key components of cooling towers and how to
improve water efficiency.
Feeley, T.J., Skone, T.J., Stiegel, G.J., McNemar, A., Nemeth, M., Schimmoller, B., Murphy, J.T., Manfredo, L., 2008. Water: A
critical resource in the thermoelectric power industry. Energy 33, 111.
Fisher Investments, Azelton, A., Teufel, A., 2009. Fisher Investments on Energy. Fisher Investments Press.
Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2012. ForeSTAT.
Gazprom, 2010. Gazprom launches Russias first CBM facility [WWW Document]. Gazprom. URL http://www.gazprom.com/
press/news/2010/february/article76350/
Gazprom, 2012. Production of coal bed methane [WWW Document]. Gazprom. URL http://www.gazprom.com/about/
production/extraction/metan/
GE Water, 2012. Handbook of Industrial Water Treatment [WWW Document]. URL http://www.gewater.com/handbook/index.jsp
Genck, W., 2011. A Clearer View of Crystallizers. Chem. Eng. 118, 2832.
Gifford, J., 2012. Lux predicts flat demand and revenue declines [WWW Document]. PV Magazine. URL http://www.
pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/lux-predicts-flat-demand-and-revenue-declines_100006366/
Global Water Intelligence, 2010. Global Water Market 2011 - Meeting the worlds water and wastewater needs until 2016. Global
Water Intelligence.
Global Water Intelligence, 2011a. Global Water Risk Index [WWW Document]. URL http://www.water-risk-index.com/
Global Water Intelligence, 2011b. Water for Mining - Opportunities in scarcity and environmental regulation (GWI Primary
Research). Global Water Intelligence.
Global Water Intelligence, 2011c. Produced water market - Opportunities in the oil, gas and shale gas sectors in North America
(GWI Primary Research). Global Water Intelligence.
Global Water Intelligence, 2012a. Desal Data [WWW Document]. URL http://desaldata.com/
Global Water Intelligence, 2012b. Water for Food & Beverage - Opportunities in water efficency and gaining value from
wastewater (GWI Primary Research). Global Water Intelligence.
Global Water Intelligence, PUB Singapore, 2009. Municipal Water Reuse Markets 2010 - Analysis, forecasts and inventory. Global
Water Intelligence.
Government of Alberta, 2012. Alberta oil sands industry - Quarterly update - Spring 2012 [WWW Document]. Oil sands
quarterly. URL http://www.albertacanada.com/documents/AOSID_Quarterly_Update_Spring2012.pdf
Herbert, B., Knapp, A., Morgan, J., Bates, W., 2011. Economics benefits of processing RO reject with additional RO for additional
water recovery.
Higgins, T.E., Sandy, A.T., Givens, S.W., 2009. Flue gas desuplhurization wastewater treatment primer. Power Magazine.
Honsberg, C., Bowden, S., 2012. Solar Cell Production Line [WWW Document]. Photovoltaic Education Network. URL http://
pveducation.org/pvcdrom/manufacturing/introduction
Hutcheson, J., 2006. Ultrapure water: Systems for microelectronics. Filtration & Separation 43, 2225.
IDC-CH2M Hill, 2012. Wafer Fab Water Recovery [WWW Document]. IDC-CH2M Hill Life Technology. URL http://www.idc-
ch2m.com/Papers/IDC2000%20waterrecovery.pdf
Indian Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, 2010. Annual Report 2009-10.
Indonesian Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, 2010. CBM Production in 2025 is Expected to Reach 1,500 MMSCFD
[WWW Document]. Directorate General of Oil and Gas. URL http://www.migas.esdm.go.id/?newlang=english#
International Energy Agency, 2012. Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas (World Energy Outlook No. WEO-2012). International
Energy Agency.
International Finance Corporation, 1998. Fruit and Vegetable Processing, Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook. World
Bank Group.
International Finance Corporation, 2007a. Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology Processing (Environmental, Health and Safety
Guidelines). World Bank Group.
International Finance Corporation, 2007b. Food and Beverage Processing` (Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines). World
Bank Group.
International Finance Corporation, 2007c. Semiconductor & Other Electronics Manufacturing (Environmental, Health and
Safety Guidelines). World Bank Group.
IPIECA, 2010. Petroleum refining water/wastewater use and management, Operations Good Practice Series.
Jack, A., 2012. Pharma tries to avoid falling off patent cliff [WWW Document]. Financial Times. URL http://www.ft.com/cms/
s/0/572ea510-9452-11e1-bb47-00144feab49a.html#axzz2275bVwP8
Jeyanayagam, S., 2005. True confessions of the biological nutrient removal process. Florida Water Resources Journal 3746.
Jonas, O., Machemer, L., 2008. Steam turbine corrosion and deposits - Problems and solutions. Presented at the 37th
Turbomachinery Symposium, pp. 211228.
Jonsson, M., Yan, J., 2005. Humidified gas turbines - a review of proposed and implemented cycles. Energy 30, 10131078.
References
Judd, S., Jefferson, B. (Eds.), 2003. The pulp and paper industry, in: Membranes for Industrial Wastewater Recovery and Reuse.
Elsevier Science, pp. 102131.
K. Ince Bahar, Cetecioglu Zeynep, Ince Orhan, 2011. Pollution Prevention in the Pulp and Paper Industries, in: Broniewicz, E.
(Ed.), Environmental Management in Practice. InTech.
Kaplan, W., Laing, R., 2005. Local Production of Pharmaceuticals: Industrial Policy and Access to Medicines (HNP Discussion
Paper).
Kim, K.-W., Kang, S.-Y., 2005. Bacterial Biosorption of Trace Elements, in: Trace Elements in the Environment. CRC Press, pp.
291324.
Kleme, J., Smith, R., Kim, J.-K. (Eds.), 2008. Handbook of Water and Energy Management in Food Processing, Woodhead
Publishing in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition. Woodhead Publishing.
Koch, J., von Gottberg, A., 2009. MBR provides effective pretreatment for RO systems [WWW Document]. WaterWorld. URL
http://www.waterworld.com/articles/2009/09/mbr-provides-effective.html
Kupchinsky, R., 2007. Ukraine: Possible Energy Solution In Coal Beds [WWW Document]. Radio Free Europe. URL http://www.
rferl.org/content/article/1073793.html
Kuuskraa, V., Stevens, S., van Leeuwen, T., Moodhe, K., 2011. World Shale Gas Resources: An Initial Assessment of 14 Regions
Outside the United States. Energy Information Administration.
Libman, S., Neuber, A., Latimer, B., Schoen, S., Sinha, D., Blackford, D., 2009. Managing semiconductor manufacturing risk
through improved control of nano-particles in ultra-pure water [WWW Document]. Fluid Measurment Technologies Inc. URL
http://www.fmtdevelop.com/uploads/3/5/4/5/3545567/npcd_itrsroundrobin_2009.pdf
Libman, V., Neuber, A., 2008. Water Conservation Challenges Facing the Microelectronics Industry. Ultrapure Water Journal 25,
36.
Loretitsch, G., 2902. Guidelines for Managing Water in Cooling Systems. San Jos Environmental Service Department.
Macknick, J., Newmark, R., Heath, G., Hallet, K., 2011. A review of operational water consumption and withdrawal factors for
electricity generating technologies (Technical Report No. TP-6A20-50900). National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Malmberg, B., Wiegand, P., 2011. Manufacturing Water Profile of the European Paper Industry. National Council for Air and
Steam Improvement.
Maulbetsch, J.S., DiFilippo, M.N., 2006. Cost and value of water use at combined-cycle power plants (PIER final project report
No. CEC-500-2006-034). California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research Program.
McKay, A.D., Carson, L., Huleatt, M., Miezitis, Y., Porritt, K.R., Sait, R., Kay, P., Whitaker, A., Towner, R., Sexton, M., 2011.
Australias Identified Mineral Resources 2010. Geoscience Australia.
Ministry of Environmental Protecton, Peoples Republic of China, 2008. Environmental Regulations And Standards Putting
Into Effect As Of Aug. 1, 2008 [WWW Document]. Catalogue of Standards. URL http://english.mep.gov.cn/standards_reports/
standards/Catalogue_Standards/200808/t20080827_127742.htm
Morgan, J., Schoen, S., Neuber, A., Burkhart, M., Libman, S., 2009. High-purity water needs for the PV industry - Part 1:
Development of cost effective specification.
Mukhopadhyay, D., 1999. Method and apparatus for high efficiency reverse osmosis operation.
Nagghappan, L., 2010. Method for treating wastewater or produced water.
Nalco Company, 2009. The Nalco water handbook, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill.
National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2010. 2010 World Gasification Database.
National Institute of Health Sciences, Japan, 2006. The Japanese Pharmacopoeia, 15th Edition [WWW Document]. URL http://
jpdb.nihs.go.jp/jp15e/
Natural Gas Europe, 2012a. Chevron and Shell Tipped to be Winners of Ukraine Shale Gas Bids [WWW Document]. Natural Gas
Europe. URL http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/chevron-shell-ukraine-shale-gas
Natural Gas Europe, 2012b. Ukraines Gas Future: Two Chances [WWW Document]. News`. URL http://www.naturalgaseurope.
com/ukraines-gas-future
Oil & Gas Journal, 2008. 2008 Worldwide EOR Survey [WWW Document]. Oil & Gas Company Surveys. URL http://www.ogj.
com/ogj-survey-downloads.html
Oil & Gas Journal, 2011. Worldwide Refining Survey 2011 [WWW Document]. Oil & Gas Company Surveys. URL http://www.ogj.
Ottewell, S., 2010. Coal bed methane production: success depends on location [WWW Document]. Oil and Gas Engineer. URL
http://www.engineerlive.com/Oil-and-Gas-Engineer/Environment_Solution/Coal_bed_methane_production%3A_success_
depends_on_location/22359/
OVIVO, 2010. Water specialists for the Semiconductor Sector [WWW Document]. OVIVO Water. URL http://www.ovivowater.
com/content/files/data/Ovivo_Industry_Semiconductor_77ca1d43a68a4067b7602456616211d6.pdf
Pankratz, T., 2012. Fuzzy logic: oilfield brine management. WDR 48.
Petitpain-Perrin, F., 2006. Les grandes catgories dusages de leau dans lindustrie ( No. G1150), Eaux industrielles: Une gamme
de traitements ncessaires aux industries. Techniques de lingnieur.
Pickett, T., Sonstegard, J., Bonkoski, B., 2006. Using biology to treat selenium. Power Engineering.
Platts, 2011. UDI World Electric Power Plants database.
Pokhrel, D., Viraraghavan, T., 2004. Treatment of pulp and paper mill wastewater - a review. Science of the Total Environment
333, 3758.
Protogere, A., Currens, B., 2010. Duke Energy Indiana files cost update for clean coal gasification power plant [WWW
Document]. Duke Energy. URL http://www.duke-energy.com/news/releases/2010041601.asp
Ratafia-Brown, J., Manfredo, L., Hoffmany, J., Ramezan, M., 2002. Major environmental aspects of gasification-based power
generation technologies (Final Report). NETL, US Department of Energy.
Riffe, M.R., Heimbigner, B.E., Kutzora, P.G., Braunstein, K.A., 2008. Wastewater treatment for FGD purge systems. Presented at
the 2008 Mega Symposium, Baltimore, MD.
Roney, J.M., 2011. Solar PV Breaks Records in 2012 [WWW Document]. Earth Policy Institute. URL http://www.earth-policy.org/
indicators/C47
Rutkowski, M.D., Klett, M.G., Kuehn, N.J., Schoff, R.L., Vaysman, V., White, J.S., 2007. Power plant water usage and loss study
(Revised Report). NETL, US Department of Energy.
Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International, 2010. Guide for High Purity Water Used in Photovoltaic Cell Processing
(SEMI Standards No. PV3-0310), Photovoltaic. Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International.
Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International, 2011a. Guide for Ultrapure Water used in Semiconductor Processing
(SEMI Standards No. F63-0211), Facilities. Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International.
Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International, 2011b. Guide for Treatment of Reuse Water in Semiconductor Processing
(SEMI Standards No. F98-0305 (Reapproved 1111)), Facilities. Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International.
Shaw, W.A., 2008. Benefits of evaporation FGD wastewater. Power Magazine.
Shulder, S.J., Riffe, M.R., Walp, R.J., 2010. Microbiological treatment to remove heavy metals and nutrients in FGD wastewater.
Power Engineering 114.
Siemens Water Technologies Corp., 2009a. Methods of Producing Water for Injection [WWW Document]. URL http://www.
water.siemens.com/en/life-sciences/biopharm/Pages/water-for-injection.aspx
Siemens Water Technologies Corp., 2009b. Water and Energy Conservation in the Pharmaceutical Industry [WWW Document].
Pharma Industry Solutions for Water and Wastewater Treatment. URL http://www.water.siemens.com/en/life-sciences/biopharm/
Pages/water-energy-conservation.aspx
Siemens Water Technologies Corporation, 2006. Products and Services for the Beverage Industry.
Singh, R.P.N., 2012. Production of CBM to reach 4 MMSCMD by 2016-17 [WWW Document]. Press Information Bureau,
Government of India. URL http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=81790
Solar Energy Industries Association, 2012. Utilityscale solar projects in the united states.
Sonstegard, J., Pickett, T., Harwood, J., Johnson, D., 2008. Full scale operation of GE ABMet biological technology for the
removal of selenium from FGD wastewaters. Presented at the International Water Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Speight, J.G., 2005. Environmental Analysis And Technology For The Refining Industry, Chemical Analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
References
US Pharmacopoeial Convention, 2008. United States Pharmacopoeia 32-NF 27, 32nd Revised ed. US Pharmacopoeia Convention
Inc.
Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies, 2006. Dedicated water, wastewater and sludge treatment expertise for the Pulp and
Paper industry [WWW Document]. Pulp & Paper - Veolia Water. URL http://www.veoliawaterst.co.uk/vwst-uk/ressources/
documents/1/15912,Pulp-Paper1.pdf
Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies, 2010. Pharmaceutical Pure Water Guide [WWW Document]. URL http://www.pharma.
veoliawaterst.com/pcc/ressources/documents/1/4680,9308A1_PCC_PHARMPWGuideV3FINAL.pdf
Voith Paper, 2009. Biodegradation as the key to successful wastewater treatment. twogether.
Whiting Equipment Canada Inc., 2004. Brochure - Svenson evaporators.
Willis, S., 2007. Pure water technology. Pharmaceutical Technology Europe.
World Bank Group, 1999. Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook 1998: Toward Cleaner Production.
World Health Organisation, 2005. WHO expert committee on specifications for pharmaceutical preparations ( No. 929), WHO
Technical Report Series. World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.
World Health Organisation, 2012a. The International Pharmacopoeia [WWW Document]. URL http://www.who.int/medicines/
publications/pharmacopoeia/overview/en/index.html
World Health Organisation, 2012b. Index of Pharmacopoeias [WWW Document]. URL http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/
quality_safety/quality_assurance/resources/index-of-pharmacopoeias16032012.pdf
Xinhua, 2012. China eyes increased coalbed methane output [WWW Document]. China.org.cn. URL http://www.china.org.cn/
business/2012-01/03/content_24313846.htm

Industrial Desalination Water Reuse (Global Water Intelligence Report July 2012)

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Industrial Desalination Water Reuse (Global Water Intelligence Report July 2012)

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

GWI no copying without permission. Contact ewelsh@globalwaterintel.

) and 90% of divalent ions (Ca

ions. These ions are used to

) and carbonate (CO

Você também pode gostar