1

Shale Gas Water WaterManagement Consortiums:

Marcellus and Barnett RegionsTom Hayes, GTI

GWPC Water/Energy SymposiumPittsburgh, PA

September 27, 2010

2

Challenges Produced Water (PW) comprises >90% of

total waste volume from gas development Produced Water (PW) is at ground zero in

debates over unconventional gas development

Many areas of the U.S. are running out of reinjection capacity (e.g. Rocky Mountain States, Appalacian areas, CBNG basins)

Energy planners and stakeholders need alternatives for PW mgt to avoid constraints to energy production

Major Efforts on Shale Gas Produced Water Management Industry Water Conservation Consortia Barnett Shale (BSWCMC)Appalachian Shale (ASWCMC)Marcellus Shale Coalition

Individual Developer Company Testing of Available Know-How

RPSEA Program NETL-DOE Program NYSERDA Project on Shale Gas Issues

5

Major Efforts on Shale Gas Produced Water Management Industry Water Conservation Consortia Barnett Shale (BSWCMC)Appalachian Shale (ASWCMC)Marcellus Shale Coalition

Individual Developer Company Testing of Available Know-How

RPSEA Program NETL-DOE Program NYSERDA Project on Shale Gas Issues

6

• GTI Shale Gas Water Mgt• GE Pretreatment R&D• CSM Tech Assessment

Barnett Shale and Appalachian Shale Water Conservation Committees Demographic Surveys on Water Practices Identification of the Best Opportunity for

Water Conservation Expert Panels on Water Issues and Mgt Defining Water Conditioning Targets Establishing Present Day Best Practices Prioritizing R&D Directions Outreach to Stakeholders

7

Components in Flowback Water

Constituents of Produced Water

Frac Job Additives+

Natural Gas Industry Water Use in the Barnett Shale

Frac Jobs Drilling Other

10%

89%

Total Water Projected Use = 10,905 Ac-Ft(2006 Estimate)

<1%

Water Sources Used in the Barnett Shale for Natural Gas Development

Groundwater Surface Water Reuse and Recycle

<1%43% 56%

Total 2006 Water Use = 10,905 Ac-Ft/yrDaily Use = 9.7 MG

0

500

1000

1500

2005 2010 (Projected)

Mun

icip

al

Stea

mEl

ectr

ic

Irrig

atio

n

Man

ufac

turin

g

Live

stoc

k

Min

ing

Bar

nett

Dril

ling

Ann

ual W

ater

Use

1000

’s A

cre-

Feet

Natural Gas Development

Freshwater Users in the Barnett Shale Region

Fountain Quail Mechanical Vapor Recompression Unit for FlowbackWater Treatment and Reuse

12

• At Devon Sites• 6,000 bbls/d/site• AquaPure Mfgr• Operated by

Fountain Quail• Obtaining field

Performance Information

Encana Ultrafiltration

Electrocoagulation Testing

14

Reverse Osmosis Trials in the Barnett

Currently Available Innovative Brine Management Technology Options Fountain Quail (Thermal Processing for

Water Recovery) 212 Resources (Thermal Processing for

Water Recovery) GE Thermal Processing (Thermal

Processing for Water Recovery) Intevras (Heat Recovery from

Compressor Engines for Brine Evap) GeoPure (UF / Reverse Osmosis) Ecosphere Technologies (Ozonation

and Reverse Osmosis)

Example Products from the Consortia Companies Survey Results Water Data from Grab Samples Water Availability Assessment Reports Proceedings of the Frac Job Expert Panel Information from the review of equipment

vendors and solution providers Identified Friction Reducers that Perform

Well at High TDS Levels R&D Planning Reflecting Industry Priorities Website: www.barnettshalewater.org

17

Recent Results from Sampling and Analysis of Flowback Water funded by the Marcellus Shale Coalition

New Data on Sampling and Analysis of Flowback Water Funding from MSC and ASWCMC

Industry Consortia Sampling from 19 locations Initiated and completed in 2009 Includes general chemistry and detailed

analysis of constituents of interest Lists of Constituents of Interest

provided by the USEPA, WV-DEP and PA-DEP

Over 250 determinations performed on samples

Summary of Results Flowback water characteristics are

consistent with ranges observed with conventional produced water

Low suspended solids and TOC Man-made chemicals of concern are at

non-detect levels. BTEX and PAHs are at trace levels. Oils and greases are at non-problem levels,

but some control may be needed Soluble organics are highly biodegradable Heavy metals are lower than in Mun Sludge

Concentration of TDS in Flowback Water with Time During Well Completion: Location A

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

0 20 40 60 80 100Days Following Hydraulic Fracturing

Total Dissolved Solids, mg/l

Conceptual Example of Salt Concentration Versus Time in Flowback Water Collected with Time During Well Completion

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

0 5 10 15Days Following Hydraulic Fracturing

Total Dissolved Solids, mg/lFlow

Rate

TDS Builds up ---But Flow Rate Decreases.Therefore, early 20-50% of FBWater may be low in TDS

Categories of Chemicals of Concern

Volatile Organics Semivolatile Organics Pesticides Organophosphorus Pesticides PCBs Metals

Summary of Results of Volatiles Measurements in 14-Day Samples

Possible Treatment Needs Brine Volume Reduction with Water

Recovery (for reuse in future frac jobs) Removal of Polymers (Friction Reducer

Compounds) Scale Control (Including NORM Scale) Oil and Grease Control Soluble Organics: Decrease Total

Organic Carbon Control of suspended solids Microbial Control

Well 1

Well 2

Near-WellWater MgtDecisions

Pre-Concentrate

?

ConcentatorAlternatives

ThermalMembranesHybrid

ProcessingEtc.

Final Disposal orUtilization Options

•Deep Well Injection (Class II) of Brines

•Conventional Dispat POTWs

•By-Product Salt Recovery

•Landfill•Ocean Disposal•Etc.

Make-upWater

By-Pass

WaterRecoveredFor Reuse

PretreatOptions

ConditioningOptions

By-PassYes

No

FlowbackWater orPW

In-Field Near-Field Far-FieldWithin 2 mi Within 20 mi Within 200 mi

Generic Flowsheet of Management Options

Blend

Completion

RPSEA Funded Work

Barnett and Appalachian Shale Water Management and Reuse (GTI)

27

Deliverables Database on Shale Gas FB and PW

Compositions Conceptual designs for low TDS FB water

segregation and mgt Guidance Document on best practices for

alternate water source utilization (BEG) Engineering decision tool on mechanical

vapor recompression evaporative treatment processing

Electrically driven processing for low-energy partial demineralization

New Generation of coated membranes for improved UF/NF/RO capabilities (UT)

28

Benefits and Impact to Industry

Reduce industry demand of fresh water for shale gas developments

Ease water availability constraints to well development and completion.

Decrease environmental impacts due to water transportation (i.e. air impacts, fugitive dust, traffic, and carbon footprint)

Reduced cost of water processing for reuse of flowback water for future well completions.

29

For more informationContact Tom Hayes (847.768.0722)Email: tom.hayes@gastechnology.org