the

water sustainability solutions

Technical Brief

Oil and Gas Produced Water Treatment Technologies

PRODUCED AND HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FLOWBACK WATERS

Produced waters, co-produced during the extraction of oil and natural gas reserves, in addition to the flow back water from hydraulic fracturing activities (i.e., frac water) must be properly managed in order to mitigate any environmental impacts and impacts to existing water supplies by energy development activities [1]. Hydraulic fracturing is typically used to open up tight geologic formations or reservoir rock (e.g., shale formations) so that the natural gas may be more easily extracted. Recent estimates for the amount of produced water that is generated in the United States (US) range from 1.6 to 2.1 million gallons per day (mgd) [1]. As energy exploration and extraction continue to increase (e.g., oil shale and coal bed methane development) these volumes of water will likely continue to increase [2]. The chemistry and composition of produced and hydraulic fracturing flowback waters is highly variable and in many cases quite complex. The most significant concern for developing effective management strategies for these waters is removing, or reducing, the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration prior to reuse. This technical brief provides an introduction to some of the more commonly employed treatment strategies for produced/hydraulic fracturing flowback waters. Emphasis is placed on the current maturation state of these technologies and addresses some of the associated advantages and disadvantages with their use for managing produced waters.

Oil and Gas produced waters are commonly characterized by high salt concentrations which requires their disposal in evaporation ponds. Produced Water Chemistry and Composition. Produced waters Produced waters are generally characterized as brackish water solutions containing high concentrations of dissolved minerals, metals, and salts [1, 3-5] (Table 1). Waters that are characterized by relatively high TDS concentrations (> 1,000 mg/L) require some form of treatment prior to their discharge or beneficial reuse [6-8]. For comparison the secondary drinking water standard for TDS is 500 mg/L as established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Additionally, produced waters can contain high levels of organics like oils, greases, and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) compounds [1]. The specific composition and chemistry of produced waters is site specific and in fact vary dependent on the location and type of geologic formation from which the produced water is extracted [1, 2]. Furthermore, the chemistry and composition of produced water from a single source may fluctuate greatly during the operation of the well. This fact requires that the associated treatment system be flexible so that it can accommodate changes in the feed water quality. Despite the variation in water

qualities produced waters tend to have relatively high TDS concentrations that make them unsuitable for most potable water applications without treatment. Indeed, produced waters may have TDS concentrations that approach, or are in excess of, 170,000 mg/L, which is nearly five times that of seawater (TDS ~ 36,000 mg/L). Table 1. Concentrations of common inorganic and organic constituents in produced waters (adapted from [1, 2]). Constituent TDS, mg/L Sodium, mg/L Chloride, mg/L Barium, mg/L Strontium, mg/L Sulfate, mg/L Bicarbonate, mg/L Calcium, mg/L Total organic carbon, mg/L Total volatile organics, mg/L Total recoverable oil and grease, mg/L Low 1,000 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.39 6.90 Medium 32,300 9,400 29,000 n/a n/a 500 400 1,500 n/a n/a 39.8 High 400,000 150,000 250,000 850 6,250 15,000 15,000 74,000 1,700 35 210

nd value is below the detection limit of the analytical equipment used n/a data not available

Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking). Flow-Back Water Chemistry and Composition. Unlike produced waters the chemistry and composition of frac water is poorly characterized. The reason for this is the fact that different entities may add proprietary chemicals and other additives that are not disclosed to the public. Generally speaking however, frac water is brackish (TDS > 10,000 mg/L) and contains various organic additives and volatile organic compounds. Example chemical additives to frac water include potassium chloride, guar gum, ethylene glycol, sodium carbonate, potassium carbonate, sodium chloride, borate salts, citric acid, glutaraldehyde, acid, petroleum distillate, and isopropanol [9]. Fracking requires large quantities of water to degree of roughly 2 to 5 million gallons of frac water per well [10] Note that a single well may be fracked over a dozen times during its lifetime. Approximately 15% to 80% of the injected frac water returns to the surface as flowback water. Treatment Costs. The costs associated with managing and treating produced and/or frac waters can is highly dependent on the chemistry/composition of the raw water and the required finished water quality. Therefore, estimating the costs for managing these waters is complex at best given the wide variability in the chemistry of produced/frac waters. In some cases the cost of treating the produced water can be prohibitive to energy development ventures. Furthermore, as clean water is a scarce resource, treating and reusing these waters for beneficial applications (i.e., for irrigation, industrial processes, frac water make up, or other non- potable purposes) may have significant economic incentives (Produced Water Utilization Act of 2008, H.R. 2339). For hydraulic fracturing recovering and reusing the flowback water can reduce

costs associated with disposing of the wastewater and the acquisition/transport of new make up water. Essential to the realization of these beneficial reuse applications is the development and implementation of effective produced water treatment systems; however, the complex chemistries that characterize these waters makes treatment by existing desalting technologies difficult at best. Removing TDS from any water is an energy intensive endeavor. Generally speaking treatment costs will increase rather rapidly as the TDS concentration increases. For membrane processes, such as reverse osmosis (RO) this relationship between cost and TDS is attributed to the relationship between salt concentration and osmotic pressure (i.e., as salinity increases so too does the osmotic pressure of the solution). More saline solutions will require larger and more energy intensive feed pumps in order to overcome the osmotic pressure of the feed solution. The type of desalination technology used will vary depending on the ionic composition of the water. For example, ion exchange or pH adjustment may be used when the water is primarily composed of carbonate species, while membrane processes or distillation processes will be required for more complex waters. Unique considerations associated with produced and frac water treatment systems are outlined below: Treatment system mobility to account for the variable lifetimes of producing wells as well as the development of new ones. High source water recovery to mitigate the further treatment and/or disposal of wastewaters resulting from the treatment of the produced/frac water. Variability in source water quality requires that systems be flexible and robust to account for changes in water quality during the maturation of a well, as well as the different water qualities from newly developed wells. Treatment / finished water quality requirements, together with the chemistry / composition of the produced / frac water, dictate the type of treatment that will be required. As such, the level of treatment, and thus the cost of treatment, may vary from one location to the next.

TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS AND CHALLENGES

The level of treatment that is required is dictated by the intended application or end use for the treated produced water. Regardless of the intended application however, some form of treatment will likely be required in order to meet the regulatory criteria for the targeted end use. As clean water is a scarce resource, treating produced water may have significant economic incentives, such as its expanded use as irrigation water, process make-up water, or even as a drinking source (Produced Water Utilization Act of 2008, H.R. 2339). While the exact chemistry and composition of produced waters is variable it generally contains high concentrations of TDS and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Hydrocarbon products and VOCs may be removed using a range of conventional treatment systems, such as oil water separators, aeration systems, dissolved air flotation, and oxidation processes. Effluents from these conventional treatments usually meet the requirements for surface holding ponds and subsurface injection; however, the exceptionally high TDS concentrations in produced water present unique and substantial challenges. The need for reducing TDS concentrations is especially important for areas where

salinity management is critical, such as for the Colorado River Basin [11]. High TDS concentrations are in fact, problematic even for underground injection, as a result of mineral scaling from calcium carbonate and barium sulfate, which can plug subsurface formations. Advanced separation processes, which are collectively referred to as desalination processes are required. Examples of desalination technologies include electrochemical processes, ion exchange (IX), mechanical evaporation processes [multi-effect distillation (MED), multi-stage flash (MSF) distillation, and vapor compression (VC)], capacitive deionization, pressure driven membrane processes, and non-pressure driven membrane processes (e.g., membrane distillation, forward osmosis, electrodialysis reversal). Of these different demineralization techniques only IX, mechanical evaporation or distillation, and the membrane processes have received widespread application in the treatment of produced waters. Mechanical evaporation processes have been used to treat produced waters from a variety of sources such as the Fort McMurray, Alberta tar sands; however, evaporative processes suffer from a number of drawbacks. For example, large-scale mechanical evaporation systems are energy intensive and complex. Nevertheless, evaporative processes are in some cases the best and only option for treating challenging water sources (TDS >> 50,000 mg/L). Processes like capacitive deionization are in the early stages of development and have yet to be tested on a reasonable scale, though early results are promising [7]. The following sections are intended to provide a brief overview of a select number of treatment processes that are commonly used in treating produced and to some extent frac waters.

PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS

Pressure Driven Membrane Processes. Pressure-driven membrane processes are perhaps the most well known desalting technology and include processes such as nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO). NF is differentiated from RO in that it is primarily used to removal multi- valent ions like calcium and magnesium and is commonly referred to as membrane softening. In addition to NF and RO are several design variations that are meant to mitigate membrane fouling in an attempt to maximize the achievable feed water recovery ratio. Both NF and RO have long been used for treating saline water sources in municipal and industrial applications [12-14], including produced waters [6, 7]. The modular design, small equipment footprint, low labor requirements, and superior product water quality all make them an attractive treatment option for produced waters [2]. NF and RO are considered to be high-pressure membrane processes as they typically require feed pressures in the range of 100 to 1,000 psig. Such high- pressure requirements arise from the relatively high osmotic pressures that characterize the feedwaters to these processes. Pressure driven membrane processes utilize a semi-permeable membrane to separate suspended and dissolved contaminants from a feed solution. Here, pressure is applied to a feedwater in order to force the water through the semi-permeable membrane, which retains the salt(s) while allowing water to pass through as a result of differences in diffusivity between the solute and water molecules. Because it is a separation, and not a treatment, process two liquid process streams are produced: i) a clean demineralized product water (permeate) and ii) a reject or concentrated brine solution (concentrate). The operating pressure in the membrane system must be greater than the solutions osmotic pressure in order for water to flow from the feed solution and across the membrane. Because the osmotic pressure increases with increasing

salt concentration the pressure and pumping requirements will increase with TDS concentrations. The high-pressure feed pump is the largest energy consumer in high-pressure membrane processes. Secondary energy consuming devices include the concentrate and permeate booster pumps (if required). For salt rejecting membranes energy consumption is directly related to the TDS concentration in the feed water, which also ultimately determines the achievable recovery ration (Qproduct/Qfeed) for the desalting process. Salts impart an osmotic pressure that must be overcome in order to transport water across the membrane. Thus, greater feed pressures, and in turn pumping requirements, are needed for higher salinity waters. Furthermore, practical recovery ratios for feed TDS concentrations of 36,000 mg/L are 50%, with this ratio decreasing as TDS increases beyond this value. This means that for a produced water characterized by a TDS concentration of 36,000 mg/L half of the water will leave the treatment system as clean water, while the other half (i.e., the concentrate) must still be disposed of. This is a critical concern for produced waters where the raw water TDS concentration may be many times that of seawater (TDS ~ 36,000 mg/L). Thus, concentrate disposal is a significant cost and environmental consideration for desalting membrane processes. Membrane fouling is another important consideration because it reduces membrane permeability and necessitates higher feed pressures in order to maintain a desired permeate flux.

Picture of a typical reverse osmosis (RO) desalination treatment system The importance of fouling points to the significance of implementing an effective pretreatment scheme in order to minimize energy costs. This is a particularly relevant point for produced waters as they may contain relatively high concentrations of recalcitrant foulant materials such as oils, greases, and dissolved metals [1]. Efforts to overcome fouling have led to the

development of unique design approaches for pressure driven membrane processes, some of which are outlined below: Vibratory Enhanced Membrane Process (VSEP): VSEP is a proprietary compact mechanical membrane system (New Logic Research, Oakland, CA) that can process high salinity waters and dilute sludges. VSEP has successfully been used in more than 200 commercial-scale industrial applications treating extremely challenging source waters (high TDS, high solids content). The system consists of a series of disk-shaped, flat-sheet membranes attached to a central shaft. The shaft rotates a short distance in one direction, and then reverses itself, at a frequency of 50 to 60 times per second. At the outer edge of the membrane disks, the amplitude of the oscillation can be adjusted to between 0.25 and 1.25 inches. The oscillating motion in the VSEP system allows NF and RO membranes to treat high TDS source waters (e.g., 300,000 mg/L TDS) such as those produced by shale gas activities. The oscillation reduces membrane fouling by increasing the shear forces and mixing at the membrane surface. This action significantly reduces foulant deposition and the thickness of the concentration polarization layer that forms at the surface of salt rejecting membranes. Both of these actions would, if not controlled, contribute to a significant loss of permeate flux through the membrane. The shear action prevents the formation of a continuous scale on the membrane surface [15]. Instead, the minerals nucleate and form colloids in the bulk solution. This allows the VSEP process to achieve higher raw water recoveries, and treat waters having substantially higher TDS concentrations, than conventional RO systems. Furthermore, VSEP is capable of processing source waters that have high concentrations of suspended solids and organic materials, thus minimizing the amount of pretreatment requirements. Despite its promise the application full-scale VSEP systems in produced water treatment applications has been limited, likely as a result of comparatively high energy and capital equipment requirements. High Efficiency Reverse Osmosis (HERO): Another RO design approach that has been developed for increasing the achievable recovery ratio for high salinity source waters is the high-efficiency reverse osmosis (HERO) process. Here, scale forming compounds (Ca, Mg, Si) are removed before the RO step using a softening process. Silica precipitation in the RO process is mitigated by operating at a high solution pH (pH > 9). Collectively these efforts reduce membrane fouling and allow for the RO system to operate at higher recovery ratios than traditional RO. While it is possible to achieve high feedwater recoveries (> 90% in some cases), the consumptive use of chemicals is substantial and the challenges associated with high osmotic pressures for highly saline waters remains an issue.

Non-Pressure Driven Membrane Processes. Non-pressure driven membrane processes utilize mechanisms other than hydraulic pressure to transport water across a membrane barrier. Examples of non-pressure driven membrane processes include membrane distillation, forward osmosis, and pervaporation. While each of these processes are described in greater detail below it is prudent to point out that few of these processes are currently used in treating produced/frac waters. Forward osmosis has perhaps received the most application in full-scale settings. Some of the advantages and challenges that are associated with these non-pressure driven processes are highlighted in Table 2. Little cost data is available for the non-pressure

driven processes that are discussed in this report; however, where appropriate reference will be made as to the unique design characteristics for each process that can improve or hinder their cost competiveness to more traditional desalting technologies. Membrane Distillation (MD). Membrane distillation (MD) is a thermally driven separation process that has received attention as a possible water and wastewater treatment technology in applications such as desalination and water reuse [16-18]. In contrast to processes like RO, which utilize pressure as a driving force for mass transport, MD utilizes the vapor pressure difference across a membrane [18]. In MD, the vapor pressure difference is affected by different parameters [17]; however, the thermal gradient across the membrane is the primary mechanism for mass transport. Water vapor is transported from the feed, which is at an elevated temperature relative to the permeate side, across a hydrophobic microporous membrane and into a condensing medium [17]. There are a variety of MD configurations which may be used [18]; however, a universal critical process parameter is the maintenance of the liquid-vapor interface (i.e., liquid water cannot penetrate the membrane pores, which requires the use of a durable hydrophobic membrane [19]. The principle advantage of MD derives from the fact that it is a thermally, and not pressure, driven separation process. Therefore, MD does not need to overcome the high osmotic pressures that characterize produced waters. For this reason, MD is an attractive treatment technology for produced waters because it is not osmotically limited like pressure driven membrane processes. Additionally, MD requires significantly lower operating temperatures and thus has lower energy requirements relative to mechanical evaporation processes. It is important to bear in mind though that a waste heat source must be available in order to allow the MD process to function. In the absence of a heat source the energy requirements, and thus the costs, associated with MD can increase dramatically. Finally, because non-volatile solutes cannot be transported across the membrane barrier in a MD system, it is capable of achieving near 100% rejection of dissolved salts and minerals [17]. For these reasons, MD is a promising technology that has progressively gained attention as a treatment alternative for high salinity source waters [17, 20]. Forward Osmosis. Forward osmosis (FO) operates on the process of natural osmosis in which water flows from an area of low salt concentration, across a semi-permeable membrane, to an area of high salt concentration in an attempt to reach an equilibrium state (balancing out the osmotic pressure difference between the two solutions. FO is sometimes referred to as engineered osmosis as an osmotic agent is used to draw water from a saline feed water, such as produced water, into a draw or capture solution. The two most critical components in an FO system are the osmotic agent and the membrane. To be successful the osmotic agent must be highly soluble in water, be easily recovered, and impart a high osmotic pressure when dissolved in solution. The most promising osmotic agents include various types of ammonia salts because they can be relatively easily recovered from solution and reused. There are a few FO membranes and systems currently on the market (see e.g., Hydration Technology Innovations); however, an inherent challenge with FO processes is concentration polarization. Concentration polarization can occur on both the feed and permeate sides of the membrane, as well as in the membrane interior (internal concentration polarization). All of these types of concentration polarization act to reduce the osmotic pressure gradient between the feed and permeate solutions resulting in a reduction in the permeate flux rate. This is particularly challenging because it is difficult to overcome operationally. For example, in pressure driven processes it is

possible to increase the hydraulic pressure that is applied in order to maintain a constant flux rate while accommodating losses in flux as a result of fouling. Conversely, increasing the osmotic pressure gradient requires the addition of greater quantities of osmotic agent and/or increased mixing at the membrane surfaces. Regardless of the action taken concentration polarization poses a significant hurdle to the wide spread application of FO in the produced water sector, because of the already low flux rates that characterize this process. Nevertheless, advances in membrane materials, process design, and new types of osmotic agents are promising. Table 2. Advantages and challenges associated with different non-pressure driven membrane processes in produced water treatment applications. Process Advantages Challenges Requires waste heat source to drive mass transport Lack of commercially available membranes Susceptibility to pore flooding from membrane fouling resulting in lack of ion rejection Largely unproven at full- scale installations Recovery of osmotic agent can be technically and economically challenging Concentration polarization (internal, external) dramatically reduces permeate flux rates Comparatively low flux rates to pressure driven membrane processes Few full-scale installations and limited commercially available membranes

Membrane Distillation

Low pumping requirements resulting in low energy footprint assuming waste heat source is available Capable of treating high salinity solutions (TDS > 50,000 mg/L)

Forward Osmosis

With proper selection of osmotic agent it is capable of treating high salinity solutions (TDS > 50,000 mg/L) Pumping requirements are low as mass transport is driven by differences in osmotic pressure

Ion Exchange. Ion exchange (IX) is a process in which ions are exchanged between an ion containing solution and a bed of synthetic resin beads (adsorbent) presaturated with noncontaminant ions, such as sodium (Na+), chloride (Cl-), hydrogen (H+), or hydroxyls (OH-) [21]. Using IX it is possible to selectively remove nitrogen compounds, hardness (i.e., water softening), and monovalent ions like sodium and chloride from aqueous streams and has widely been applied in municipal, industrial, and residential applications. While IX may be used in a wide range of applications, water softening with gel resins remains as the most widespread. In most cases IX is restricted to applications where ultrapure water are required (industrial makeup water) or for water softening (residential applications); however, in some instances it is applicable to the treatment of more challenging feed streams such as produced waters.

Specifically, the application of IX for treating produced waters will be dependent on the ionic composition of the feed stream as it is most appropriate for waters composed primarily of bicarbonate ions (HCO3-). This form of treatment is termed strong base IX, where the OH- is exchanged for the bicarbonate ion. In these cases IX is capable of effectively treating produced waters to high standards. Unlike membrane processes IX does not use a semi-permeable barrier to separate the dissolved salts and minerals from water. Instead, IX is both an adsorption process and a chemical reaction. It resembles adsorption because solid particles (resin) are used and regenerated, while the chemical reaction specifically applies to the regeneration of the resin. IX requires a relatively high quality source water that is free of particulates, foulant materials and other competing ions for the exchange sites in the resin. Therefore, its application has primarily been restricted to the treatment of CBM produced waters, which are relatively free of contaminants outside of the aforementioned bicarbonates, and waters that have undergone extensive pretreatment. The primary costs associated with IX are the resin, regeneration of the resin, capital equipment (pumps, motors, IX columns), and disposal costs associated with disposal of the regenerating solution for the IX resin. Mechanical Evaporation. Mechanical evaporation processes are in many cases the only suitable option for disposing of high TDS (TDS > 50,000 mg/L) wastewaters. These processes involve the evaporation of water through a variety of means to ultimately produce a solids cake containing all of the dissolved solids that were present in the produced water. These processes are energy intensive and thus are associated with substantial capital and operation and maintenance costs. However, as previously stated they are in many cases the only option when disposal of high salinity produced waters is required. Summaries of some example mechanical evaporation technologies that may be used in treating produced water are given below. Multi-Effect Distillation (MED): MED is an established process for desalting high salinity waters (TDS > 36,000 mg/L). In a MED system, water is boiled in a sequence of evaporators, each held at a lower pressure than the last. Each evaporator in the series is called an "effect". Because the boiling point of water decreases as pressure decreases, the vapor boiled off in one vessel can be used to heat the next, and only the first evaporator (the one at the highest pressure) requires an external source of heat. A reduced pressure in the vapor space of the first evaporator must be maintained to account for the difference in the boiling points of pure and saline water. Another requirement to maintain reasonable heat exchange between the pipes containing the condensing steam and those with the boiling produced water, the temperature of the produced water must be several degrees lower than that of the condensing steam. MED systems typically operate at a low temperature of 71.1C and a high temperature of 110C. Operating at lower temperatures limits corrosion and these systems can be constructed out of less expensive materials. The amount of fresh water produced per unit amount of heating steam increases almost proportionally with the number of stages. While in theory, evaporators may be built with an arbitrarily large number of stages, evaporators with more than four stages are rarely practical. Multi-Stage Flash (MSF) Distillation: MSF distills saline water by flashing a portion of the feed water into steam in multiple stages. In MSF the produced water is heated under high pressure in order to prevent boiling, until it reaches the first flash chamber.

In the flash chamber the pressure is released and sudden evaporation or flashing takes place. Flashing continues in each successive stage, because the pressure is lower as you progress from one stage to the next. The water gains heat as it passes through each stage by condensing vapors that are generated by the flashing process. The steam is condensed on tubes of heat exchangers that run through each stage. MSF treatment systems typically utilize a waste heat source in order to reduce the energy consumption by one-half to two-thirds. Mechanical Vapor Compression (MVC): MVC is generally used for small-and medium- scale (Q = 0.005 to 0.5 mgd) desalination systems. The heat for evaporating the produced water comes from the compression of vapor rather than the direct exchange of heat from steam produced in a boiler. The boiling point of the water is reduced by reducing the pressure that is applied to it. Two methods are used to condense the vapor so as to produce enough heat to evaporate incoming produced water: a mechanical compressor or a steam jet. The mechanical compressor is usually electrically driven.

Mechanical zero liquid discharge (ZLD) systems also fall under the category of mechanical evaporation systems and include thermal evaporators, crystallizers and spray dryers. These treatment technologies are commonly used in combination with RO systems in order to achieve a zero liquid discharge status (i.e., no liquid waste stream resulting from treating the produced or frac water). The capital and operational costs for these thermal systems are typically higher than for the desalination membrane facility due to the extensive mechanical systems and exotic alloy materials required. In addition, the energy costs associated with the evaporation processing are significant. Zero liquid discharge systems ultimately reduce the concentrate or produced water to a solid product (crystallized salts and minerals) for landfill disposal. In some cases, the water vapor is recovered. A summary comparison of mechanical evaporation processes to RO is given in Table 3. Table 3. Comparison of performance statistics for mechanical evaporation and reverse osmosis (RO) desalting technologies. Process MSF MED MVC RO Energy Usea (kWh/1,000 gal) 58 29 30 53 8 23 Method of Operation Steam (heat) Steam (heat) Compression (heat) Pressure System Recovery (%) 10 20 20 60 35 99 35 55b Relative Capital Costs High Medium to High High Low to Medium

Notes: a Combined electrical and equivalent thermal energy. b Recovery ratios are a function of the feed water TDS concentration. Recovery ratios increase beyond 50% as the feed water TDS decreases below approximately 36,000 mg/L.

10

WORK CITED
1. Benko, K.L. and J.E. Drewes, Produced Water in the Western United States: Geographical Distribution, Occurrence, and Composition. Environmental Engineering Science, 2008. 25(2): p. 239-246. Mondal, S. and S.R. Wickramasinghe, Produced water treatment by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes. Journal of membrane Science, 2008. 322: p. 162-170. Jackson, R.E. and K.J. Reddy, Geochemistry of Coalbed Natural Gas (CBNG) Produced Water in Powder River Basin, Wyoming: Salinity and Sodicity. Water, Air, Soil Pollution, 2007. 184: p. 49-61. McBeth, I.H., K.J. Reddy, and Q.D. Skinner, Chemistry of trace elements in coalbed methane product water. Journal of Water Research, 2003. 37: p. 884-890. Rice, C.A., M.S. Ellis, and J.H. Bullock Jr., Water Co-Produced with Coalbed Methane in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming: Preliminary Compositional Data. Open-File Report 00-372. , 2000, U.S. Geological Survey Washington, DC. Xu, P. and J.E. Drewes, Viability of nanofiltration and ultra-low pressure reverse osmosis membranes for multi-beneficial use of methane produced water. Separation and Purification Technology, 2006. 52: p. 67-76. Xu, P., et al., Treatment of brackish produced water using carbon aerogel-based capacitive deionization technology. Water Research, 2008. 42: p. 2605-2617. Xu, P., J.E. Drewes, and D. Heil, Beneficial use of co-produced water through membrane treatment: technical-economic assessment. Desalination, 2008. 225: p. 139-155. Rahm, D., Regulating hydraulic fracturing in shale gas plays: The case of Texas. Energy Poliscy, 2011. 39: p. 2974-2981. Agency, E.P. Scoping Materials for Initial Design of EPA Research Study on Potential Relationships Between Hydraulic Fractur- ing and Drinking Water Resources. 2010; Available from: /http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/3B745430D624ED3B852576D400514B7 6/$File/HydraulicFracScopingDocforSAB-3-22-10Final.pdfS. Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, I., Salinity Management Study Final Report Long Term Strategy and Recommended Action Plan, 1999, US Bureau of Reclamation. p. 70. Mallevialle, J., Odendaal, P., Wiesner, M., The Emergence of Membranes in Water and Wastewater Treatment, in Water Treatment Membrane Processes, J. Mallevialle, Odendaal, P., Wiesner, M., Editor 1996b, McGraw-Hill: New York. p. 1.1-1.10. Matsuura, T., Progress in membrane science and technology for seawater desalination - a review. Desalination, 2001. 134: p. 47-54. Mousa, H.A. and S.A. Al-Hitmi, Treatability of wastewater and membrane fouling. Desalination, 2007. 217(1-3): p. 65-73. Culkin, B. Concentrating RO reject streams with VSEP. 2008; Available from: http://www.waterandwastewater.com.

2. 3.

4. 5.

6.

7. 8. 9. 10.

11. 12.

13. 14. 15.

11

16.

Cath, T.T., V.D. Adams, and A.E. Childress, Experimental study of desalination using direct contact membrane distillation: a new approach to flux enchancement. J. Membrane Sci., 2004(228): p. 5-16. El-Bourawi, M.S., et al., A framework for better understanding membrane distillation seperation process. J. Membrane Sci., 2006. 285: p. 4-29. Lawson, K.W. and D.R. Lloyd, Membrane distillation. J. Membrane Sci., 1997. 124: p. 1- 25. Hendren, Z.D., J.A. Brant, and M.R. Wiesner, Surface modification of nanostructured ceramic membranes for direct contact membrane distillation. Journal of Membrane Science, 2009. In-press. Miller, J., et al., Pilot Plant Treatment of Natural Gas Produced Water to Meet Beneficial Use Discharge Requirement, 1997. Metcalf & Eddy, I., Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. Fourth ed2003: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

17. 18. 19.

20. 21.

12

In an ever changing world with finite resources, it is now more critical than ever for America to tap into its existing energy resources: oil and natural gas. Domestic energy development activities are setting us free from the reliance of foreign imports. But with this freedom comes a challenge: how to manage the vast quantities of water that are produced and consumed in the process.

Meet the Nexus Group.

A team of forward thinking specialists who have dedicated the last 10 years to researching cutting edge technologies and solutions to this very issue.

Our mission: To bridge the gap between a sustainable environment and

a sustainable economy, one drop at a time.

JONATHAN A. BRANT, PHD

Jon@NexusGroupSolutions.com NexusGroupSolutions.com office: 307.766.5446 cell: 307.275.2677

The Nexus Group has prepared this report for the sole use of the Client and for the intended purposes as stated in the agreement between the client and The Nexus Group under which this work was completed. The report may not be relied upon by any other party without the express written agreement of The Nexus Group. Any recommendations, opinions or findings stated in this report are based on circumstances and facts as they existed at the time The Nexus Group performed the work. Any changes in such circumstances and facts upon which this report is based may adversely affect any recommendations, opinions or findings contained in this report. The Nexus Group does not make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any third party research, information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represent that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendations, or favoring by The Nexus Group.