Advanced Treatment of Shale Gas Fracturing Water To Produce Re-Use or Discharge Quality Water ... (PDFDrive)

Advanced Treatment of Shale Gas Fracturing Water
to Produce Re-use or Discharge Quality Water

RPSEA Project 11122-57
Final Report – Technology Field Demonstration
Prepared For:
US Department of Energy - National Energy Technology Laboratory

Pittsburgh, PA
and
Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America

Sugar Land, TX
Prepared By:
Southern Research
Energy & Environment Division
Durham, NC
Version 1.1 – November 2015
Contract 11122-57 Final Field Demonstration Report
Executive Summary
Southern Research (SR) and industry partners M2 Water Treatment (M2) and BKT Co. LTD (BKT) have
completed bench-scale laboratory evaluations and pilot scale field evaluations of the performance and
economics of two technologies for treatment of shale gas fracturing flowback and produced waters
(fracwater).
The project was managed and executed by SR under contract to US Department of Energy – National
Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America
(RPSEA). M2 and BKT provided the technologies evaluated and demonstrated under this project, as well
as technical support and guidance in project planning and execution.
The technologies evaluated over the course of the project were M2’s Magnetic Ballast Clarification
(MBC) system, and BKT’s Vortex-generation (FMX) filtration and reverse osmosis (RO) filtration
systems. The project also examined the effectiveness of approaches for treatment of sludge and
concentrates generated by treatment, including adsorption, precipitation, solidification, and stabilization.
Bench-scale activities were focused on understanding and optimizing the processes under evaluation for
fracwater treatment and management of process residuals (i.e., high-solid MBC sludge and FMX
membrane concentrate). Bench scale results were reported previously and are only summarized in the
present report.
The field demonstration was conducted at a fracwater disposal site in the Permian basin in Palo Pinto
County, Texas. The site provided ready access to waters from a variety of nearby well sites. One water
sample from the Eagle Ford play was also processed and evaluated.
The overall goal of the field tests was to gather process data representing MBC and FMX performance,
alone and in combination, for a variety of representative waters. Water from a total of nine wells was
processed over a period of several weeks in July and August 2015. Analytical results were obtained for
the untreated feedwaters, and for waters treated by MBC only, FMX only and MBC followed by FMX,
including waste MBC sludge and FMX concentrate. FMX followed by RO treatment was also evaluated
to demonstrate treatment to NPDES discharge quality. Compared to the bench scale evaluations, the
laboratory work for the field demonstration was more narrowly focused on analytes selected as important
for water re-use, as treating water for NPDES discharge is often impractical or uneconomical, and
discharge to publicly owned treatment works (POTW’s) is banned in several states and may soon be
banned nationwide.
The following overall conclusions can be drawn from the bench and pilot scale evaluations of MBC and
FMX technologies.
• Either of the technologies evaluated, MBC or FMX (NF or UF), are separately able to treat
produced or flowback waters sufficiently to meet common criteria for re-use.
• MBC clarification primarily removes TSS and Iron. MBC treatment produced acceptable
quality water for re-use for 8 of the 9 waters tested during the field demonstration. With pre-
oxidation, MBC produced acceptable quality water for re-use for all of the five waters tested
in this manner. MBC performance was unaffected by the TDS concentration of the water
treated.
i
• FMX-NF is designed to remove TSS as well as divalent ions, but will pass mono-valent ions
such as chloride. FMX nano-filtration alone produced acceptable quality water for re-use for
all five of the waters tested during the field demonstration. FMX ultra-filtration can also
produce acceptable quality water for re-use and at lower cost than nano-filtration. The quality
of recovered water can result in a significant change in flux. With a membrane process, the
flux determines the initial capital cost as well as influencing maintenance and labor costs.
• Use of MBC or FMX, separately or in combination, to treat water to re-use standards appears
to be cost effective compared to baseline use of 100% fresh water for well completion and
down-hole disposal of wastes as is common practice at present. This is true for either
Marcellus, Barnett or Eagle Ford type scenarios, but the payback is much more evident where
down-hole disposal is not locally available.
• For Barnett and Eagle Ford, a significant fraction of total costs is fresh water (16% to 23%).
Therefore, the market for these technologies in the Barnett and Eagle Ford, is to provide
alternatives to fresh water. The Marcellus data, however, are dominated by transportation
costs (68% to 86% of total costs). Therefore, the market in the Marcellus is to alleviate the
need to transport waste fluids to deep well injection sites.
• MBC treatment alone or FMX-UF are low cost options for treatment for re-use. There is a
definite cost advantage to larger plant size for MBC.
• FMX in combination with RO is capable of treating water to NPDES discharge levels. The
FMX+RO option appears to be cost prohibitive compared to deep well injection in the
Barnett. However, the FMX+RO option may be competitive against the long haul distances
to deep well injection sites encountered in the Marcellus.
• Both hydrogel and solidification/stabilization were effective at preparing FMX concentrates

for safe landfill disposal. MBC sludge volumes are minimal.
ii
Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... i
Contents ....................................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... vi
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................. viii
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... ix
1.0 Introduction and Background............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Overall Project Objectives and Focus ........................................................................................... 1
1.2 Bench Scale Activities and Results Summary .............................................................................. 2
1.3 Field Demonstration Activities and Results .................................................................................. 2
1.4 Document Roadmap...................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 Technologies Evaluated .................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Magnetic ballast clarification (MBC) ........................................................................................... 3
2.2 Anti-fouling Membrane System (FMX) ....................................................................................... 3
2.3 Hydrogel Adsorbent ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.4 Precipitation, Solidification, and Stabilization.............................................................................. 6
2.5 Competing and Associated Technologies ..................................................................................... 6
3.0 Field Demonstration Objectives and Approach .............................................................................. 10
3.1 Field Demonstration Objectives.................................................................................................. 10
3.2 Treatment Design Parameters and Performance Expectations ................................................... 10
3.3 Analyte Selection ........................................................................................................................ 13
3.5 Sampling and Analysis Matrix.................................................................................................... 15
3.7 Field Demonstration Site and Test Logistics .............................................................................. 16
4.0 Field Demonstration Results ........................................................................................................... 18
4.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 18
iii
4.1.1 Key Analytes ........................................................................................................................... 18
4.1.2 Feed Water Characterization ................................................................................................... 19
4.2 MBC-only Treatment .................................................................................................................. 20
4.2.1 Characterization of MBC Effluent/Sludge and Treatability ................................................... 20
4.2.2 MBC Removal Efficiency for Key Analytes .......................................................................... 21
4.2.3 Hydraulics for MBC treatment ............................................................................................... 24
4.2.4 Improvement of MBC Performance by Pre-oxidation ............................................................ 24
4.3 FMX-only Treatment: nano-filtration ......................................................................................... 25
4.3.1 Characterization of Nano-filtration Permeate and Treatability ............................................... 25
4.3.2 Nano-filtration Removal Efficiency of Key Analytes............................................................. 26
4.3.3 Hydraulics of FMX-only Nano-filtration Treatment .............................................................. 27
4.4 FMX-only Treatment: ultra-filtration ......................................................................................... 27
4.4.1 Characterization of Ultrafiltration Permeate and Treatability................................................. 28
4.4.2 FMX UF Removal Efficiency for Key Analytes .................................................................... 28
4.4.3 Hydraulics of FMX-only Ultra-filtration Performance ........................................................... 28
4.5 MBC+FMX NF Integrated Treatment ........................................................................................ 29
4.5.1 Characterization of Permeate and Treatability ........................................................................ 29
4.5.2 Removal Efficiency of Key Analytes ..................................................................................... 29
4.5.3 Effect of MBC Pre-treatment on FMX Performance .............................................................. 30
4.6 FMX+RO Treatment ................................................................................................................... 31
4.6.1 RO Pilot-Scale Experiments ................................................................................................... 31
4.6.2 Sampling and Analysis............................................................................................................ 32
4.6.3 Performance ............................................................................................................................ 32
4.6.4 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 32
4.7 Waste Management ..................................................................................................................... 33
4.7.1 Hydrogel Brine Treatment Performance ................................................................................. 33
iv
4.7.2 Precipitation and Stabilization Treatment Performance.......................................................... 35
4.8 Data Quality Assessment ............................................................................................................ 35
5.0 Economic Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 38
5.1 Model Basis ................................................................................................................................ 38
5.2 Model Results ............................................................................................................................. 43
6.0 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 57
References ................................................................................................................................................... 58
Appendix A. Field Demonstration Analytical Methods ............................................................................. 63
Appendix B. FMX Cost Details .................................................................................................................. 64
Appendix C. MBC Cost Details.................................................................................................................. 68
Appendix D. Design Criteria for Estimating Treatment Plant Size ............................................................ 70
Appendix E. Appendix to the Economic Analysis...................................................................................... 78
Appendix F. Raw Data ................................................................................................................................ 88
List of Figures
Figure 1. MBC Conceptual Drawing (Courtesy of M2 Water Treatment Inc.) ........................................ 3
Figure 2. Schematic of Conventional Membrane ......................................................................................... 4
Figure 3. Schematic of FMX Vortex-based Anti-fouling System ................................................................ 4
Figure 4. Full-scale Vortex-based Anti-fouling Membrane System ............................................................. 5
Figure 5. Site Layout................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 6. MBC TSS Treatment Effectiveness: Aerated-only Pretreatment ................................................ 22
Figure 7. MBC TSS Treatment Effectiveness: H2O2 Pretreatment ............................................................ 23
Figure 8. MBC TSS Treatment Effectiveness: NaOCl Pretreatment ......................................................... 23
Figure 9. Ba and Sr Adsorption from FMX-NF Concentrate (120 minutes contact time).......................... 34
Figure 10. Cost ($/bbl) of Providing 9,520 bbl frac water (400,000 gallons) to an End-User in the Barnett
based on a treatment facility of 2,380 bbl/day (100,000 gpd). Flowback recovery assumed 25% and blend
ratio assumed up to 25% as reused water. .................................................................................................. 49
v
Figure 11. Cost ($/bbl) of Providing 9,520 bbl frac water (400,000 gallons) to an End-User in the
Marcellus based on a treatment facility of 2,380 bbl/day (100,000 gpd). Flowback recovery assumed
25% and blend ratio assumed up to 25% as reused water........................................................................... 50
Figure 12. Cost ($/bbl) of Providing 9,520 bbl frac water (400,000 gallons) to an End-User in the Eagle
Ford based on a treatment facility of 2,380 bbl/day (100,000 gpd). Flowback recovery assumed 25% and
blend ratio assumed up to 25% as reused water.......................................................................................... 51
Figure 13: Cost ($/bbl) of Providing 47,620 bbl frac water (2,000,000 gallons) to an End-User in the
Barnett based on a treatment facility of 11,905 bbl/day (500,000 gpd). Flowback recovery assumed 25%
and blend ratio assumed up to 25% as reused water. .................................................................................. 52
Figure 14. : Cost ($/bbl) of Providing 47,620 bbl frac water (2,000,000 gallons) to an End-User in the
Eagle Ford based on a treatment facility of 11,905 bbl/day (500,000 gpd). Flowback recovery assumed
Figure 16. Sensitivity Analysis of the Effects of FMX-UF Ultrafilter Membrane Flux (60-100 LMH) on
the Cost ($/bbl) of Providing 9,520 bbl frac water (400,000 gallons) to an End-User in the Barnett based
on a treatment facility of 2,380 bbl/day (100,000 gpd). Fl ........................................................................ 55
Figure 17. Sensitivity Analysis of the Effects of FMX-UF Ultrafilter Membrane Flux (60-100 LMH) on
the Cost ($/bbl) of Providing 9,520 bbl frac water (400,000 gallons) to an End-User in the Barnett based
on a treatment facility of 2,380 bbl/day (100,000 gpd). Fl ........................................................................ 56
List of Tables
Table 1. Process Description and Associated Costs (Kuijvenhonen et al 2013) ........................................... 7
Table 2. Summary of Competing Innovative Technology and Assessment ................................................. 8
Table 3. Fracwater Quality Requirements for Re-use................................................................................. 11
Table 4. Example Surface Discharge Criteria ............................................................................................. 12
Table 5. Analyte Selection Rationale .......................................................................................................... 13
Table 6. Field Demonstration Sampling and Analysis Matrix .................................................................... 15
Table 7. Field Demonstration Data Inventory ............................................................................................ 18
Table 8. Feed Water Characterization......................................................................................................... 19
Table 9. Characterization of Feed Water for FMX-UF Bench Test ........................................................... 20
Table 10. Characterization of MBC Effluent .............................................................................................. 20
vi
Table 11. Characterization of MBC Sludge (mg/l) ..................................................................................... 21
Table 12. Removal Efficiency of Key Analytes by MBC .......................................................................... 22
Table 13. Hydraulics Summary for MBC Treatment.................................................................................. 24
Table 14. Improvement of MBC Performance by Pre-oxidation ................................................................ 25
Table 15. Characterization of Permeate from FMX-only NF Treatment .................................................... 26
Table 16. Key Analyte Removal Efficiency ............................................................................................... 27
Table 17. Hydraulics Summary for FMX-only Treatment ......................................................................... 27
Table 18. Characterization of Permeate from FMX-only UF Treatment .................................................... 28
Table 19. Removal Efficiency of Key Analytes by FMX Ultrafiltration.................................................... 28
Table 20. Characterization of FMX-NF Permeate after Integrated Treatment ........................................... 29
Table 21. Key Analytes Removal Efficiency.............................................................................................. 30
Table 22. Effect of MBC Pre-Treatment on FMX Removal of Key Analytes ........................................... 30
Table 23. Increase in FMX Flux due to MBC Pre-treatment ...................................................................... 31
Table 24. Specifications of the Seawater Grade RO Membrane ................................................................ 32
Table 25. Analytical Results from FMX NF + RO Run of Eagle Ford Sample ......................................... 33
Table 26. TCLP Leaching Results from Dried Hydrogel and EPA Allowable Limits ............................... 35
Table 27. Differences in Economic Drivers between Geographic Regions ................................................ 39
Table 28. MBC, FMX, RO Treatment Costs used in Economic Model ($/bbl) ......................................... 40
Table 29. Costs and Related Parameters Used in Economic Evaluation .................................................... 41
Table 30. Water Distribution Modeled for Each Treatment Option ........................................................... 43
Table 31. Cost to Provide 9,520 Barrels Frac Fluid to an End User (Based on a 2,380 Barrel/day
Treatment Plant).......................................................................................................................................... 45
Table 32. Cost to Provide 47,620 Barrels Frac Fluid to an End User ((Based on a 11,905 Barrel/day
Treatment Plant).......................................................................................................................................... 46
Table 33. Sensitivity Analysis of the Effects of FMX Ultrafilter Flux on the Cost to Provide 9,520 Barrels
Frac Fluid (400,000 gal) to an End User Based on a 2,380 Barrel/day (100,000 gpd)Treatment Plant ..... 47
Table 34. Sensitivity Analysis of the Effects of FMX Nano-Filter Flux on the Cost to Provide 9,520
Barrels Frac Fluid (400,000 gal) to an End User Based on a 2,380 Barrel/day (100,000 gpd)Treatment
Plant ............................................................................................................................................................ 48
vii
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Full name
bbl barrel, 42 US gallons
pCi/l picocuries per liter
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand
CFA Coal Fly Ash
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CWA Clean Water Act
DO Dissolved Oxygen
EF Eagle Ford
gpd gallons per day
HEM N-Hexane Extractable Material (Oil and Grease)
LMH Membrane Flux Unit Liter Meter-2Hour-1
MBC Magnetic Ballast Clarification
mg/L milligram per liter
MVR Mechanical Vapor recompression
ND Non-Detect (Below Detection Limit)
NF Nano-filtration
NORM Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material
NPDES National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System
NR Not Reported (Below Reporting Limit)
O&G Oil and Grease
ORP Oxidation-Reduction Potential
PC Portland Cement
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Work
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RO Reverse Osmosis
S/S Solidification/Stabilization
SGT Silica Gel Treated
SR Southern Research
TA Total Alkalinity
TCLP Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TDS Total Dissolved Solid
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TSS Total Suspended Solid
UF Ultra-filtration
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
viii
Acknowledgements
Southern Research would like to express gratitude to Mr. Kent Perry of RPSEA and Ms. Sandra McSurdy
of DOE NETL, for project support and guidance, and to K&R Tank Trucks for hosting the field
demonstration at their Graford, Texas facility.
ix
1.0 Introduction and Background

This report presents the results of a project conducted by Southern Research (SR) and industry partners
M2 Water Treatment (M2) and BKT Co. LTD (BKT) to evaluate the performance and economics of
technologies for the advanced treatment of shale gas fracturing flowback and produced waters
(fracwater).
The project was managed and executed by SR under contract to US Department of Energy – National
Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America
(RPSEA). M2 and BKT provided the technologies evaluated and demonstrated under this project, as well
as technical support and guidance in project planning and execution. The technologies evaluated over the
course of the project are M2’s Magnetic Ballast Clarification (MBC) system, and BKT’s Vortex-
generation (FMX) filtration and reverse osmosis (RO) filtration systems. The project also examined the
effectiveness of approaches for treatment of sludge and concentrates generated by treatment, including
adsorption, precipitation, solidification, and stabilization.
The project was conducted over a 3-year contract period and included the following primary tasks:
 An assessment of the status of fracwater treatment technologies,
 Bench scale research and experimentation of the treatment technologies and approaches,
 Pilot scale field demonstration of the treatment technologies, and
 Technology transfer activities.
Results and findings from Tasks 1 and 2 were reported through a project interim report in March 2015,
“Advanced Treatment of Shale Gas Fracturing Water to Produce NPDES Quality Water, Interim Project
Report – Bench-Scale Evaluations” [Southern Research 2015]. Technology transfer activities under Task
4 have been conducted throughout the course of the project and will continue after publication of this
report.
1.1 Overall Project Objectives and Focus
The initial objectives of the project were to determine if the technologies under evaluation can:
 Treat fracwater to meet NPDES discharge criteria and/or beneficial re-use for hydrofracking.
 Volumetrically decrease the waste containing metals and subsequently solidify/stabilize these residual
wastes for landfill disposal
As the project progressed, it became clear that, while the technologies under evaluation (among others)
are able to treat fracwater to surface discharge standards, such a high level of treatment is unlikely to be
economical and widely used (see section 5.0). In addition, fracwater discharge to publicly owned
wastewater treatment plants has been effectively banned in some states (e.g., Pennsylvania) and, under
recently proposed EPA pretreatment standards (July 2015) may soon be banned nationwide. Therefore,
the focus of the latter part of the study, particularly the field demonstration, shifted toward evaluation in
terms of beneficial re-use. The objectives that address management/disposal of the MBC sludge and FMX
concentrate remained unchanged.
1
1.2 Bench Scale Activities and Results Summary
Bench-scale activities were focused on understanding and optimizing the processes under evaluation for
fracwater treatment and management of process residuals (i.e., high-solid MBC sludge and FMX
membrane concentrate). These included:
 MBC treatment
 FMX and RO filtration
 integrated MBC, FMX, and RO filtration
 Hydrogel adsorption of NF concentrate
 Precipitation, solidification, and stabilization of sludge and concentrates.
The bench tests used flowback and produced waters sampled from the Eagle Ford formation in Texas and
the Bakken formation in North Dakota, representing a wide range of total dissolved solids content. Very
detailed characterization of feed waters and process effluents were made as part of these studies. The
bench scale studies informed MBC coagulant and polymer selection and dosing, FMX membrane
selection, and optimization of operating parameters for both processes. These activities provided
preliminary performance data at bench scale as well as technical preparation and justification for the
subsequent field demonstration with scaled-up systems.
1.3 Field Demonstration Activities and Results
The field demonstration was conducted at a fracwater disposal site in the Permian basin in Palo Pinto
County, Texas. The disposal site provided ready access to produced waters from a variety of nearby well
sites on a daily basis. The overall goal of the field tests was to gather process data representing MBC and
FMX performance, alone and in combination, for a variety of representative waters. Specific objectives
and test plans are detailed in section 0 of this report. Water from a total of nine wells was processed over
a period of several weeks in July and August 2015. Analytical results were obtained for the untreated
feedwaters, and for waters treated by MBC only, FMX only and MBC followed by FMX, including waste
MBC sludge and FMX concentrate. The laboratory work for the field demonstration was more narrowly
focused on analytes selected as important for re-use, or that were of concern for MBC or FMX
performance evaluation. Field demonstration results are presented in detail in section 0
1.4 Document Roadmap
A description of the technologies evaluated is presented in section 0 along with an overview of competing
technologies. A detailed presentation of the field demonstration objectives, approach and implementation
is provided in section 0. Field demonstration results are presented in section 0, followed by an economic
evaluation of the technologies against reasonable baseline alternatives in section 0. The report wraps up in
section 6.0 with a broader discussion of the meaning and value of the results to the oil and gas industry
and the conclusions that may reasonably be drawn regarding likely performance of the technologies
evaluated at commercial scale.
2
2.0 Technologies Evaluated

The material in this section is similar to, but has been updated from that presented in the interim report
[Southern, 2015].
2.1 Magnetic ballast clarification (MBC)
Magnetic Ballast Clarification (MBC) technology, developed and marketed by M2 Water Treatment, is
designed to provide effective solids removal with a small footprint, allowing for portable commercial
scale units. The process includes a mix tank where suspended solids are coagulated and flocculated.
Magnetite is added into the reactor to generate a magnetic floc. Magnetic drums lift the flocked
magnetite/suspended solids combination from the system, leaving water behind. The magnetite is then
mechanically separated from the suspended solids using a proprietary approach. The clean magnetite is
then returned to the unit and the solids are discharged as sludge. Reuse of the magnetite is important to
making the MBC economical and reducing overall sludge volumes. Compared to conventional
technologies, MBC technology has a smaller physical footprint which allows for the development of a
portable treatment system that may be more applicable to small producer applications (Figure 1). MBC
is generally only 5 to 10% the footprint of a conventional clarifier.
Figure 1. MBC Conceptual Drawing (Courtesy of M2 Water Treatment Inc.)
2.2 Anti-fouling Membrane System (FMX)
During use of a conventional membrane filtration system for flowback water treatment, inorganic scale,
particulates, and microorganisms tend to build up on the membrane surface over sustained use, gradually
decreasing the flow of permeate and increasing the pressure needed for filtration (Figure 2). Although
membranes can be chemically cleaned, frequent cleaning required for high-solids feed water decreases
time-in-operation and can become cost-prohibitive. Additionally, damage from fouling and scaling may
be irreversible. Because shale gas fracturing wastewater contains large and variable levels of solids, as
well as multiple ions that can contribute to scaling, the application of membrane technologies to this
waste stream are likely to be costly if applied without pretreatment.
3
BKT has developed the FMX system evaluated here. FMX is a unique anti-fouling membrane filtration
system designed specifically for viscous, high-solids, and otherwise difficult-to-treat wastewaters. To
resist fouling, patented vortex-generating blades rotate above the stationary membrane surface (Figure 3).
The blades generate turbulence that prevents suspended solids from collecting on the membrane surface,
allowing effective filtration of wastewater with up to 5% solids (TSS). The anti-fouling membrane
system has been proven in multiple challenging industrial applications to reduce downtime and maintain a
steady flux over long-term operation [Min et al., 2011].
Figure 2. Schematic of Conventional Membrane
Figure 3. Schematic of FMX Vortex-based Anti-fouling System
The vortex-based anti-fouling membrane unit is described in Figure 4. The system utilizes flat-sheet
membrane trays, allowing it to treat higher-temperature (up to 120°C) fluids than conventional membrane
systems. Conventional membrane systems are generally spiral-wound, requiring adhesives and backing
materials which break down at temperatures above 50°C. Because shale gas sites often experience
extreme temperatures, temperature tolerance is essential for an on-site treatment system.
A rotating vortex generator is mounted above each membrane tray, generating turbulence and protecting
the membrane surface from fouling. Feed water enters the anti-fouling membrane unit at the base and
travels through the stack of membrane trays to the top, where concentrate is removed. Permeate is drained
under each membrane tray through a permeate carrier cloth and the outer membrane shell before exiting
at the base of the unit.
4
Figure 4. Full-scale Vortex-based Anti-fouling Membrane System
The unique design of the vortex-based anti-fouling membrane system allows it to overcome the
limitations that have long prevented the application of membrane filtration for high-solids, high-fouling
industrial waste and process streams. The anti-fouling membrane filtration system can be fitted with a
range of membrane types, including microfiltration (MF), ultra-filtration (UF), nano-filtration (NF), and
low-pressure RO membranes. This allows the system to be applied to a wide variety of applications,
providing tailored treatment based on the feed water quality and treatment goals. While large particulates
(larger than 250 microns) are typically removed from the feed water by screening, the FMX system can
accept raw feed water containing up to 3-5% solids without experiencing fouling.
The anti-fouling membrane system can be operated as a batch process or as a once-through treatment
step. For feed water that has high levels of solids, batch operation is preferable. Single-pass operation
can be a highly efficient treatment mode for low-solids feed water.
While the FMX is not backwashed, a forward flush with tap water or filtered water is performed after
each batch. The timing of flushing and the batch size will be determined based on the specific properties
of the feed water.
2.3 Hydrogel Adsorbent
Hydrogel media, developed and supplied by Enova Water, is a single-use adsorption media providing a
simple approach for FMX filtration concentrates treatment and waste volume reduction. A low-cost
hydrogel adsorbent, produced from seaweed-extracted biopolymer and chelating agents, can be used to
adsorb metals, trace elements, and potentially NORMs from membrane concentrates. In full-scale
applications, concentrate will flow through series of lead lag pressure vessels filled with hydrogel
adsorbent. This strategy will allow contaminants to be in contact with adsorptive media, where removal
takes place. Once breakthrough occurs for the target contaminants, media within the vessels is removed
and disposed of off-site. The spent media can be dehydrated to reduce waste media volume up to 90%.
5
2.4 Precipitation, Solidification, and Stabilization
Solidification/Stabilization (S/S) technology was developed in the 1950s using Portland cement to treat
nuclear waste and was expanded in the 1970s to treat hazardous wastes (Batchelor, 2006). Since that time,
S/S has been a widely used treatment technique for waste failing the TCLP test required for landfill
disposal. The S/S process usually includes the mixing of wastes (liquids, sludges, and solid waste) with
mixtures of Portland cement, coal fly ash, or lime (The State of Pennsylvania, 2010; Batchelor, 2006;
Kameswari et al., 2001; Kamon et al., 2000; Keller, 2002; Kumpienem et al., 2007; Qian et al., 2006;
Ramgobeen, 2010; Singh and Pant, 2006; Terzano et al., 2005). Additives such as reductants and
precipitants can be added to the mixture. The purpose of the S/S process is to form a solid waste from the
concentrated brine that can be easily handled and landfilled. The second objective is to chemically
stabilize contaminants in the waste to limit leaching within the landfill. The USEPA regards S/S to be an
established best management practice for more than 57 waste streams (Mickley, 2008; Paria and Yuet,
2006). S/S has been shown by many studies to be a viable treatment process for many metal bearing and
radioactive wastes (Akhter et al., 1997; Batchelor, 2006; Kameswari et al., 2001; Kamon et al., 2000;
Kumpienem et al., 2007; Li et al., 2001; Mangialardi et al., 1999; Mickley, 2008; Moon et al., 2009; Paria
and Yuet, 2006; Pereira et a;., 2001; Qian et al., 2006; Singh and Pant, 2006; Solem-Tishmack and
McCarthy, 1995; Su and Wong, 2003; Terzano et al., 2005; Valls and Vazquez, 2002; Yilmaz et al.,
2003). For example, barium and radium were previously stabilized in cement-based S/S to less than
RCRA requirements through sulfate precipitation (Connor, 1997). Even waste containing high
concentrations of barium can be stabilized with the addition of gypsum or sodium sulfate so that the
resulting leachate will meet drinking water requirements (Connor, 1997). The utilization of S/S for the
treatment of difficult wastes is based on sound engineering principles.
2.5 Competing and Associated Technologies
Conventional treatment processes include coagulation, flocculation, settling and filtration. This list may
be amended by adding aeration for iron oxidation and oil/water separation as required. Typical flow
charts for traditional pretreatment may be found in Hayes et al (2014) and Kuijvenhoven et al (2013).
The conventional processes are meant to control grease and oil, suspended solids and iron and make the
water suitable for deep well injection or possible re-use.
The current trend in the industry is for higher ratios of recycle to fresh water in the initial fracture water
(blend ratio). Some of this change in strategy is due to the development of highly cross-linked polymers
(slick water) in the fracwater blend (Boschee 2014, Paktinat et al 2011, Aften 2010, Bryant et al 2010),
however, the need to alleviate costs of providing fresh water, water hauling, and water discharge are also
a strong impetus for re-use (Hayes and Severin, 2012, Slutz et al 2012). Blend ratios including up to 35%
recycled water in the fracture water are now common (Shipman et al 2013). Very little of the recovered
water is presently discharged directly to a receiving stream. The target for discharge water is difficult to
achieve and generally uneconomical with presently available methods.
Kuijvenhoven et al (2013) set targets of <2 ppm TSS and <5 ppm oil and grease for re-use water. They
investigated two commercially available primary treatment systems on two waters with <100 ppm TSS
and 75-100 ppm. Both electo-coagulation with settling and chemical coagulation with dissolved air
floatation were able to meet their primary discharge criteria.
Kuijvenhoven et al (2013) further identified levels of treatment as primary, secondary, tertiary and zero
discharge. The costs, process targets, uses, and typical processes generalized by these authors are
summarized in Table 1. Specific references to lab, pilot and full-scale evaluations of secondary and
tertiary from other sources are summarized in Table 2.
6
Table 1. Process Description and Associated Costs (Kuijvenhonen et al 2013)
Treatment Cost/bbl Target Use Processes
Primary $1-2 TSS, Oil and grease, Reuse or treatment for aeration with
iron, broken deep well injection coagulation and
polymers, bacteria settling or DAF,
sometimes filtration
Secondary $2-6 Divalent Cations Ca, Control Scaling in Precipitation or

Ba, Sr Reuse selective adsorption
Tertiary $6-8 Salt Removal Surface water discharge MVR, RO or Ion

with brine disposal to Exchange
deep well
Zero $12-20 Salt Crystallization Industrial product or Crystallization

Discharge solid waste landfill
Evaporation $4-12 volume reduction An open constructed

Ponds storage pond
Disposal Well $1-3 final disposal
Silva et al (2012) investigated methods for removal of barium and radium, making their research
consistent with a goal somewhere between secondary treatment and tertiary treatment (Table 1). Their
goal was to produce a usable or landfill solid with TCLP targets of < 100 mg/l Ba and <25 pCi/gm in the
leachate. They identified a triage assessment: Type I with maximum barium < 1000-2000 mg/l and low
radium requires no treatment; Type II with barium >2000 mg/l and radium < 200-1000 pCi/l may be
treated with sulfate to create a stable barium sulfate product; Type III with barium > 2000 mg/l and
radium > 200-1000 pCi/l requires barium removal along with calcium to create a larger volume of sludge.
These researchers were most interested in method to treat Type III wastes. They focused on two
technologies. Quick-lime soda softening with material and disposal costs was estimated at $3.5/bbl and
HCl-regenerated MnO2 adsorption was estimated at $1.7-2.3/bbl.
Bruff and Jikich (2011) evaluated a distillation tower to desalinize water. They treated 6000 bbl of
recovered water over a six month period, apparently without pretreatment except minimal settling in the
recovery tanks. They reported 75% distillate recovery that met Pennsylvania State NPDES discharge
limits. Their reported costs were $1.94/barrel for natural gas and $0.31/bbl electric costs.
Mechanical vapor recompression (MVR) was tested for 60 days at a full scale flowback water recycling
site in the Barnett Shale region (Hayes et al, 2012). The treatment plant process included aeration, lime
addition for pH and iron control, and pre-settling on lamellae plates. The clarifier overflow was fed to
three full-scale MVR units. These generated approximately 72% distillate recovery with concentrations of
TDS less than 100 ppm. The concentrate contained in excess of 99% of the total solids. Energy costs
were estimated from gas turbine electrical generation at 60.5 SCF per bbl distillate produced. It was
estimated that this technology could meet the industry standard of $1/bbl treatment costs.
7
A lab scale pilot electrodialysis unit was tested against lab generated salt solutions including Ca, Mg, Fe,
Ba, and Mn at concentrations expected in Marcellus shale waters (Severin and Hayes, 2012). A number
of process improvements were required to handle waters at 50,000 mg/l TDS and containing the
interfering cations. Two test waters from Marcellus and two from Barnett were also treated. It was felt
that this process could be adapted to treat influent waters of 50,000 TDS mg/l down to a level of 10,000
mg/l. This seemed to be in line with the quality needed for re-use as blended fracking fluid water. In this
range, treatment operating costs were estimated at $63/lb salt removed per day for capital and $0.033 per
pound salt removed.
Membrane coatings targeted to improve flux and membrane life were tested on UF and RO membranes
(Hayes et al 2011). Lab scale membranes were challenged with synthetic oil and salt solutions. The
membrane coatings increased the flux from a range of 20-30 LMH to 70 LMH and produced 98% filtrate
recovery. These improvements prompted the researchers to target a cost range of $1-2/bbl.
Table 2. Summary of Competing Innovative Technology and Assessment
Process Testing Scale Pretreatment Target Performance Estimated Cost

Evaluated Required
Quick-lime soda Laboratory with None- would Solid waste Met target $3.5/bbl
softening (4) field samples work in consort with TCLP objectives
with a typical Ba<100 mg/l
primary settling and Ra<2
system with solid pCi/gm
waste handling
Manganese Laboratory with Presumably pre- Solid waste Met target $1.7-2.3/bbl
Dioxide Adsorption field samples settling with TCLP objectives
with HCL Ba<100 mg/l
regeneration (4) and Ra<2
pCi/gm
Tower Distillation 6000 bbl in 6 Direct from PA discharge 75% distillate $1.94/bbl
(3) months Recovery Tank NPDES recovery throughput in gas
>99.9% solids cost
in retentate
$0.31/bbl electric
costs
Mechanical Vapor Full Scale 3 Aeration for iron, 100 ppm 72% distillate $1/bbl
Recompression units 2000 Settling for TSS TDS in recovery
(Distillation) (2) BBl/d distillate
>99% solids in
Barnett retentate
Produced Water
8
Process Testing Scale Pretreatment Target Performance Estimated Cost

Evaluated Required
Modified 10 L Pilot Stack settling, filtration TDS from Modifications Capital: $63/lb/day
Electrodialysis (5) in Lab Lab 2 iron control 10,000 ppm needed to salt removed
Barnett and 2 Initial water protect
Marcellus membrane and Operation:
flowback electrolye from $0.033/lb salt
waters removed
Ba, Ca, and Fe
UF-RO membrane Lab unit Lab none described Improve flux Increased flux $1-2/bbl "feasable"
coatings (1) salts with and from 20-30
Vegetable Oil membrane LMH to 70
life LMH, 98%
filtrate recovery
1) Hayes et al (2011)
2) Hayes et al (2014)
3) Bruff and Jikich (2011)
4) Silva et al (2012)
5) Severin and Hayes (2012)
6) Note that estimated cost figures are the author’s and may not be directly comparable with one another or with cost
figures for the technologies under evaluation in this report.
9
3.0 Field Demonstration Objectives and Approach

As opposed to the bench scale portion of this project, which was research oriented and focused on
discovery of optimal treatment conditions, an effort was made to focus the field demonstration on test
objectives that would provide the oil and gas industry with practical information that could be used to
assess applicability of the candidate technologies in their operations.
Where the bench scale objectives weighted the goal of treatment for discharge to surface waters or
publicly owned treatment plants equally with treatment for re-use, the field demonstration was focused on
treatment for re-use. While possible, treatment for discharge to surface waters is generally impractical or
uneconomic. Discharge to wastewater treatment plants is already banned in some States and, at the time
of this writing, appears likely to be banned nationwide.
3.1 Field Demonstration Objectives
The following specific objectives were defined for the field demonstration and test conditions and
procedures were designed to provide data that could be used to meet these objectives. Each of the
objectives applies to the MBC and FMX processes individually or with MBC as pretreatment for FMX.
In general, the goal was to process a variety of feed waters to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
technologies as broadly as possible; however, given practical constraints, it was necessary to generate
defensible results for a limited set of feed waters that could serve as a sound basis for extrapolation to
other potential feed waters.
 Define treatability: (what water compositions can and cannot be effectively treated by the processes
under test)
 Determine removal efficiency for key selected analytes identified as important, primarily for re-use.
 Determine the mass balance (treated water flow versus waste stream flows)
 Characterize the quality of treated water streams
 Characterize ‘waste’ (slurry/retentate) streams and identify practical means of disposal
 Model economics at representative scale(s) and assess cost effectiveness
A more general statement of the overall objective would be to generate system configuration and
performance data to support cost effective application of the technologies. Still more broadly, the
objective would be to obtain and present data to make the applicability and cost of the system as
predictable as possible so that the risk to potential first commercial users is reduced or minimized.
3.2 Treatment Design Parameters and Performance Expectations
In order to meet overall treatment goals, each unit in the system must perform to expectations. These
expectations were developed based on engineering principles, experience, and analysis of the laboratory-
and bench-scale experiments performed to date:
Initial oil and water separation removed 80% or more of the floatable oils.
Aeration was used to oxidize iron to ferric hydroxide.
Coagulation and flocculation were used to produce a floc suitable for Magnetic Ballast Clarification.
MBC is designed to remove 95% of the remaining oils and TSS. MBC typically has a sludge flow of less
than 1% of the influent flow, resulting in sludge with a 100 fold increase in suspended solids compared to
the influent.
FMX filtration was designed to remove 95% of the remaining oils and TSS as well as remove 30 to 80
percent of the Ca, Ba, Sr, and Fe. FMX was also designed to produce 80% forward flow (recovery).
10
RO filtration designed to remove 90% of the remaining TDS, with a focus on Ca, Ba, Sr, and Fe.
The treatment train includes oil/water separation, aeration for iron control, polymer and flocculant
addition, magnetic ballast clarification, nano-filtration (NF), and reverse osmosis (RO) filtration. This
system can potentially produce water of sufficient quality for re-use up to NPDES surface discharge
quality. The RO unit provides polishing of residual TDS and generates NPDES quality discharge waters.
Success depends on the quality of the influent, the effectiveness of each stage, water treatment objectives,
and overall costs. Flowback and produced water chemistry varies greatly within and between geographic
regions. As such, the criteria for success will depend to a greater or lesser extent on the needs of a
specific client at each specific region. The criteria for re-use can be generalized as low TSS needed to
avoid plugging of the strata; however the following additional criteria are considered.
 Low TSS to avoid plugging of the strata
 Low TDS (10,000-40,000 mg/l) for integrity of friction reducers
 Low sulfate concentrations to avoid barium and calcium gypsum-like precipitation,
 Low carbonate alkalinity to avoid calcium carbonate precipitation,
 Low iron concentrations to avoid plugging as iron hydroxide and limit iron bacteria growth,
 Low concentration of the scale formers, magnesium, barium, strontium, radium, etc.,
 Low concentration of biological oxygen demand (BOD) to avoid bacterial growth, and
 Low oil and grease concentrations to avoid fouling.
Requirements for fracking re-use are summarized below in Table 3.
Table 3. Fracwater Quality Requirements for Re-use
Parameter Requirement Reference
TSS <50 mg/l

CDM Smith, 2013
Total Fe <10 mg/l
O&G <5.0 mg/l Kuijvenhoven et al., 2013
The criteria for NPDES discharge are more specific and depend largely on limiting TDS, chloride, barium
and strontium. Example requirements for NPDES surface discharge are summarized in Error! Reference
source not found..
11
Table 4. Example Surface Discharge Criteria
State/Region TDS Chloride Barium Strontium Reference
Unit mg/l pCi/l
Pennsylvania 500 250 10 10 The State of Pennsylvania, 2013
Ohio –
Statewide
1,500 N/A N/A N/A
protection of
aquatic life Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, 2012
Ohio River – 750 max
protection of N/A N/A N/A
human health 500 avg
Colorado –
Colorado Department of Public
Colorado river 500 250 1 8
Health and Environment, 2013
basin
Texas - Basin San Antonio-Nueces Basin (Eagle Ford)

Texas Commission on
and segment
Environmental Quality, 2007
specific 2,000 850 2 --
Wyoming –
Wyoming Department of
Colorado 723 - 879 230 2 --
Environmental Quality, 2000
River Basin
The State of West Virginia,

West Virginia N/A 250 1 10
2011
12
3.3 Analyte Selection
Considerations and rationale for analytes considered for the field demonstration are provided in Table 5.
A subset of these analytes was ultimately selected for analysis of field demonstration samples as detailed
in section 3.4.
Table 5. Analyte Selection Rationale
Analytes Purpose/Notes
pH field measurement: adjustments to optimize coagulant/flocculant

effectiveness for MBC, general chemistry
Conductivity field measurement: quick indication of relative TDS in field
ORP field measurement: control of aeration (iron removal) process, bacterial

indicator
DO field measurement: biologic indicator, general water quality
turbidity field measurement: may effect some treatment processes, related to TSS
BOD should be low to avoid bacterial growth (re-use), general water quality
indicator, necessary for surface discharge, not essential as indication of
field performance
COD more easily analyzed surrogate for BOD (better than TOC)
bacteria avoid bacterial growth, COD adopted as surrogate for field demonstration
TSS/VSS low TSS to avoid plugging of the strata in re-use
TDS low TDS (10,000-40,000 mg/l) for integrity of friction reducers (re-use),
listed for surface discharge
Oil and Grease low oil and grease concentrations to avoid fouling in re-use applications
Calcium Hardness scale forming minerals
Total Hardness scale forming minerals
Carbonate low carbonate alkalinity to avoid calcium carbonate precipitation (re-use)

Alkalinity
13
Analytes Purpose/Notes
Calcium (Ca 2+) scale former (re-use)
Magnesium (Mg scale former (re-use)

2+)
Sulfate SO4(2-) low sulfate concentrations to avoid barium and calcium gypsum-like
precipitation (re-use)
Sulfide (S-) must be of interest if included in the Hach frac water kit
Chloride (CL-) listed for discharge
Iron (Fe) low iron concentrations to avoid plugging as iron hydroxide and limit iron
bacteria growth (re-use)
Barium (Ba) scale former (re-use), listed for NPDES
Strontium (Sr) scale former (re-use), listed for NPDES
Radium (Ra) scale former (re-use), also NORM
14
3.5 Sampling and Analysis Matrix
Analytes selected for analysis at key process points are presented in Table 6Table 6. Field Demonstration
Sampling and Analysis Matrix. This matrix served as the guide for sampling and analysis during the field
demonstration. An abbreviated set of analytes was determined for special pre-oxidation runs adopted to
isolate the effect of solids precipitation over time on MBC effluent and slurry laboratory TSS results.
Oxidants (NaOCl, H2O2) were not introduced to the FMX due to concern for membrane damage.
Table 6. Field Demonstration Sampling and Analysis Matrix

Sample Purpose Flow Field Solids: Oil and Organics: Anions: Hardness/ Trace
Point Screening: TSS/TDS Grease: COD, SO4(2- Alkalinity: metals:
pH, HEM (BOD5) ), Cl (-) Ca Mg, Ca,
Conductivity, and hardness, Sr, Ba,
Turbidity/ SGT- total Ra, Fe,
TSS, HEM hardness, B
settlable carbonate
solids, alkalinity
ORP/DO
Baseline 'To Process' yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
(post (baseline)
aeration)
MBC MBC yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Effluent removal
efficiency,
characterize
for re-use
MBC with pre- yes TSS only yes no no no no dissolved
Effluent oxidation Fe only
MBC characterize yes yes yes yes no no yes yes
Slurry for disposal
MBC with pre- yes TSS only yes no no no no dissolved
Slurry oxidation Fe only
FMX FMX yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Permeate removal
efficiency
FMX characterize na yes yes yes no no yes yes
Concentrate for hydrogel
treatment or
disposal
RO RO removal yes yes yes no BOD5 yes yes yes
Permeate efficiency.
Characterize
for NPDES
discharge
RO characterize yes yes yes no no no yes yes
Concentrate for hydrogel
treatment or
disposal
15
3.7 Field Demonstration Site and Test Logistics
The field demonstration site that was ultimately selected is a down-hole disposal site in the Permian Basin
in Palo Pinto County near Graford, TX. The site receives at least several truckloads of flow-back or
produced water from surrounding production wells daily. Most of the wells in the area have been in place
for many years, but several of the sampled wells had been re-stimulated by hydro-fracturing within the
past year. That said, all of the water that was ultimately sampled should be considered produced water as
none of the wells had been hydro-fractured more recently than several months prior to the field
demonstration. While this was not ideal, the difficulties encountered in gaining participation of a suitable
site prevented finding a more representative site within the time available.
A generalized daily routine was established during the field demonstration as follows.
 Through discussion with the site operator and truck drivers, waters were identified that would be
available the following day and one of these was selected based primarily on achieving variety. A
truck was scheduled for early delivery the following day.
 The selected water was pumped from the tanker truck into a frac tank.
 The water in the tank was mixed and aerated by recirculation from the bottom back to the top of the
frac tank using a high capacity pump. On re-introduction to the frac tank, the water was allowed to
fall several feet. Aggressive aeration was achieved in this manner.
 Following aeration, approximately 300 gallons (200-500) of water was transferred to the MBC and
FMX influent feed tanks. The MBC feed tank was continuously mixed.
 A feed water sample (approximately 5 gallons) was collected, field screening analyses were
conducted and logged, and sub-samples were preserved and packaged for the various laboratory
analyses.
 FMX was run in batch mode with concentrate recirculation for an ‘FMX-only’ run. The run was
stopped at 80 percent recovery. A fresh water flush was completed at the end of each run.
 A permeate sample was collected mid-way through the FMX run. A concentrate sample was collected
at the end of the FMX run. These samples were processed and prepared for shipment in a manner
similar to the feed water sample.
 After jar tests to determine optimal polymer selection and dosing, MBC was run. Samples of MBC
effluent and slurry were collected and processed.
 MBC effluent was transferred to the FMX feed tank and subsequently run through FMX. FMX
permeate and concentrate samples were collected and processed as described above.
 Remaining water in the frac tank was pumped back into a truck and disposed of in the disposal well
on site.
The site layout is illustrated in Figure 5.
16
Figure 5. Site Layout
17
4.0 Field Demonstration Results

4.1 Overview
Field demonstration test runs were completed over several weeks in July and August 2015, representing
produced waters from eight separate Permian basin wells located in Palo Pinto County, TX. In addition,
two samples were obtained from the Eagle Ford play to provide a lower range TDS.
Test treatments included MBC-only, FMX-only and MBC+FMX processing. Field and laboratory
analyses (per Table 6) were conducted on nearly 70 samples in total. Table 7 provides an inventory of
waters tested, treatments run, and samples analyzed.
Table 7. Field Demonstration Data Inventory
Sample Point
Well Process Feed MBC MBC MBC MBC MBC MBC FMX FMX RO RO
Eff Eff, Eff, Slurry Slurry Slurry Perm. Conc. Perm. Conc.
(NaOCl) (H2O2) (NaOCl) (H2O2)
Dworsky "A" FMX-Only x x x

Dworsky "A" MBC+FMX x x x x x
McQuerry #3 MBC+FMX x x x x x
McQuerry #3 FMX-Only x x x
Dynamic Canyon MBC+FMX x x x x x
Dynamic Canyon FMX-Only x x x
GF Green MBC+FMX x x x x x
Firewater-Wharton MBC+FMX x x x x x
Firewater-Wharton MBC-only, Pre-ox x x x
Ragle Battery MBC+FMX, Pre-
Brown ox x x x x x x x x x
Ragle Battery
Brown FMX-Only x x x
MBC+FMX, Pre-
Eagleford ox x x x x x x x
Eagleford FMX-Only x x x
Dworsky "B" MBC only, Pre-ox x x x x x x x
Joe Best #7 MBC only, Pre-ox x x x x x x
Eagleford (1) FMX+RO x x x x
4.1.1 Key Analytes
Presentation of results in this section is focused on analytes/parameters identified as of most significant

concern or most indicative of water quality required for re-use or discharge.
Removal of the following key analytes by MBC, FMX, or integrated treatment are presented: TSS, O&G,
total Ba, total Ca, total Fe, turbidity and TDS. All these analytes (except TDS and turbidity) can cause
scaling and fouling problems during deep well injection and fracking re-use. TSS, O&G, and total Fe
were reported as limiting factors for fracturing re-use (CDM Smith, 2013; Kuijvenhoven et al., 2013) .
Turbidity and TDS are important factors if surface discharge is needed.
18
Results for additional analytes tested such as COD, hardness, total Mg, total Sr, and sulfate are not
presented in the results sections because they are either related to the selected analytes (e.g. COD vs O&G
and total Fe, Mg vs Ca, Sr vs Ca and Ba, sulfate vs Ba) or there was no significant removal (such as
chloride). However, in general, the following notes apply to these analytes.
 Strontium was removed approximately 44% consistently by FMX-NF.
 TDS was removed 25% by FMX.
 Mg 28% removal by FMX.
 Calcium and total hardness reflect the Calcium data as it is the major contributor.
 There was very little alkalinity because the soluble calcium was so high.
 COD is most likely either from unoxidized iron, or remaining oil and grease.
Note that, due to high TDS levels in the Permian waters, TSS levels were observed to increase after
treatment as TDS constituents, particularly iron compounds, continued to precipitate – even within the
sample jars. Thus, laboratory TSS results were often significantly higher than field measurements of TSS.
Special experiments with pre-oxidation to remove dissolved iron prior to MBC treatment (see section
4.2.4) confirmed that the laboratory TSS measurements were unrepresentative of field conditions.
Therefore, field TSS values (by Hach DR900 colorimetry), are used in this report in place of the
laboratory values.
4.1.2 Feed Water Characterization
Feed waters for field demonstration were collected from nine sources and are characterized below in
Table 8. The numbers in the parentheses after each analyte indicate the number of samples analyzed. The
produced waters covered in the field demonstration had wide ranges of key parameters, and are broadly
representative of typical produced waters found in US.
Table 8. Feed Water Characterization
TSS O&G (HEM) O&G (SGT-HEM) Total Ba Total Ca Total Fe

mg/l TDS (9)
(9) (7) (7) (9) (9) (9)
Min 65 60,000 0.70 0.70 2.9 2,700 16
Max 772 200,000 810 490 830 15,000 110
Median 140 160,000 4.0 2.9 8.0 11,000 53
Flowback waters from Eagle Ford Galvan and Gonzalez sites were also treated by FMX ultra-filtration
(as opposed to nano-filtration) during FMX only bench scale tests. These results are included here as they
were not presented in the bench scale report and have bearing on FMX flux rates for re-use applications
where ultra-filtration may be more appropriate than nano-filtration as TDS removal is no longer critical
for re-use. These feed waters are characterized below in Table 9.
19
Table 9. Characterization of Feed Water for FMX-UF Bench Test
mg/l TSS TDS O&G (HEM) O&G (SGT-HEM) Total Ba Total Ca Total Fe
Eagle Ford Galvan 66 657 - - 1.3 111 14
Eagle Ford Gonzalez 2,292 1,300 - - 2.6 431 118
4.2 MBC-only Treatment
There were 16 runs of MBC treatment with nine sources of produced water. Three types of MBC
treatment were conducted: without peroxidation (aerated only), pre-oxidized by NaOCl, and pre-oxidized
by H2O2. The purpose of pre-oxidation was to precipitate dissolved iron. Among the key parameters, TSS
and total Fe were significantly removed by MBC. Data for turbidity removal is also presented here
because turbidity is an important parameter for surface discharge. The manufacturer expects that removal
rates will increase with a full scale installation as the system can be better optimized at scale.
4.2.1 Characterization of MBC Effluent/Sludge and Treatability
Characteristics of the MBC effluent and sludge are summarized in Table 10 and Table 11. The numbers in
parentheses after each analyte indicate the number of samples analyzed. Results for MBC runs with
NaOCl and H2O2 pre-treatments are given separately.
Table 10. Characterization of MBC Effluent
Effluent Effluent-NaOCl Effluent-H2O2
Total
TSS TSS TSS
Total Fe Turb. Total Fe Turb. Fe Turbidity
mg/l mg/l mg/l
mg/l (9) NTU (7) mg/l (5) NTU (2) mg/l NTU (1)
(9) (5) (4)
(4)
Min 2.5 5.5 8.8 2.5 0.025 8.0 2.5 0.025
Max 50 64 54 35 20 12 32 14 7
Median 2.5 21 16 8.6 2.1 10 11 3
% below re-use
89% 11% - 100% 80% - 100% 75% -
limit
Note: Underlined values are reporting limits (half of detection limit)
20
Table 11. Characterization of MBC Sludge (mg/l)

Sludge Sludge-NaOCl Sludge-H2O2
Total Fe Total Fe
TSS (7) TSS (4) TSS (2) Total Fe (2)
(9) (2)
Min 510 87 3,000 600 4,000 650
Max 25,000 9,000 28,000 5,500 8,400 1200
Median 6,100 1,155 13,900 3,035 6,200 925
The value given in the table as “% below re-use limit” is the percentage of runs that generated effluent
with key analytes lower than re-use limits as given in Table 3. MBC treatment, with or without pre-
oxidation, is capable of decreasing TSS to below the re-use limit. MBC without pre-oxidation dropped
total Fe to below the re-use limit only once out of nine runs. However, pre-oxidation with either NaOCl or
H2O2 improved total Fe removal significantly. The slight difference of “%below the re-use limit” between
NaOCl and H2O2 for total Fe doesn’t necessarily indicate that NaOCl was a better pre-oxidizer than H2O2
since there was one less run with pre-oxidation through H2O2 than pre-oxidation through NaOCl. The
highest TSS in MBC effluent was 50 mg/l and the feed water (from Eagle Ford Gonzalez) contained
significant levels of O&G, which may have compromised the performance of MBC removal of TSS.
MBC sludge contains high concentration of TSS and total Fe. It is commonly observed that the sludge
will concentrate to half its volume within about an hour when placed in a decant tank. The sludge
contains only small quantities of magnetite. The magnetite is recovered and returned to the mix chamber.
For example, on MBC units that process 100 gallons per minute there might be a loss of 10 lbs per day of
magnetite. That equates to about 850 mg/l magnetite in a sludge that is about 30,000 mg/l TSS.
MBC did not demonstrate significant removal of TDS or total metals (except total Fe). Therefore,
additional treatment will be needed if surface discharge or release to POTWs is under consideration.
Different pre-treatment chemistry can be applied should additional metals removal be required with
MBC. For example, pH could be raised to increase metals precipitation, a more aggressive hydroxide
precipitation could be used or even sulfide based precipitation could be employed. These chemistries will
reduce metals such that discharge to a POTW may be viable.
4.2.2 MBC Removal Efficiency for Key Analytes
Removal efficiencies for TSS, total Fe, and turbidity are summarized below in Table 4-7. The numbers in
the parentheses after each analyte indicate the number of samples analyzed. MBC without pre-oxidation
showed high removal efficiency for TSS and turbidity. MBC with pre-oxidation also demonstrated high
removal efficiency for total Fe.
21
Table 12. Removal Efficiency of Key Analytes by MBC
Without pre-oxidation Pre-oxidized by NaOCl Pre-oxidized by H2O2
Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity

TSS (9) Total Fe (9) TSS (5) Total Fe (5) TSS (4) Total Fe (4)
(7) (2) (1)
Min 70% 14% 72% 85% 62% 93% 83% 52%
Max 99% 89% 97% 97% 100% 96% 99% 100% 94%
Median 96% 45% 92% 96% 96% 95% 86% 96%
Figure 6, Figure 7, and Figure 8 show MBC influent and effluent TSS values for aerated-only, H2O2 pre-
treatment and NaOCl pre-treatment for tested waters.
Figure 6. MBC TSS Treatment Effectiveness: Aerated-only Pretreatment
22
Figure 7. MBC TSS Treatment Effectiveness: H2O2 Pretreatment
Figure 8. MBC TSS Treatment Effectiveness: NaOCl Pretreatment
23
4.2.3 Hydraulics for MBC treatment
Table 4-8 shows the very low generation of sludge during MBC treatment. Feed water recovery was
higher than 99% for all the field demonstration tests.
Table 13. Hydraulics Summary for MBC Treatment
Processed volume (gallons) Sludge volume (gallons) Flowrate (gpm) Recovery (%)
Without pre-oxidation
Min 190 0.38 1.7 99.8%
Max 645 3.5 4.0 99.5%
Median 362 1.3 3.0 99.6%
Pre-oxidized by NaOCl
Min 190 0.66 2.3 99.7%
Max 310 1.1 4.0 99.6%
Median 225 0.95 3.2 99.6%
Pre-oxidized by H2O2
Min 145 0.91 2.4 99.4%
Max 200 1.5 3.3 99.3%
Median 195 1.1 3.3 99.4%
4.2.4 Improvement of MBC Performance by Pre-oxidation
Due to concerns about ongoing TSS precipitation following MBC treatment, special tests were conducted
for several runs where the MBC influent was pretreated with either chlorine bleach (NaOCl) or hydrogen
peroxide (H2O2) to cause solids to precipitate before the MBC was run, ensuring optimal solids removal.
Improvement of MBC of either TSS or total Fe removal was calculated according Equation 1.
Improvement=(Ceff-1 -Ceff-2 )/Ceff-1 Eqn.1
24
Where Ceff-1 is the concentration in the effluent without pre-oxidation; Ceff-2 is the concentration in the
effluent with pre-oxidation. Feed water is the same for MBC treatment without pre-oxidation as those
with pre-oxidation.
Table 14. Improvement of MBC Performance by Pre-oxidation
Pre-oxidized by NaOCl Pre-oxidized by H2O2
TSS (5) Total Fe (4) Turbidity (2) TSS (4) Total Fe (3) Turbidity (1)
Min -244% 39% -17% -340% 13%
Max 58% 94% 47% 79% 95% 53%
Median 30% 77% 15% 40% 65%
% of runs improved 60% 100% 50% 75% 100% -
The parameter of “% of runs improved” is the percentage of paired runs in which effluent with pre-
oxidation had lower concentrations of key analytes than effluent without pre-oxidation.
Pre-oxidation yielded an improvement in total Fe removal by oxidizing ferrous to ferric and eventually to
form particulate ferric oxides. Pre-oxidation also improved removal of TSS and turbidity during some of
the runs.
4.3 FMX-only Treatment: nano-filtration
There were five runs of nano-filtration during FMX only treatment. The FMX was run in batch mode. In
batch mode, the concentrate is recycled to the feed tank and the run is stopped after 80% of the initial feed
water volume is recovered. Chemical analysis was conducted on the permeate and the 20% leftover
concentrate in the feed tank. FMX nano-filtration demonstrated significant removal of TSS, O&G, total
Fe, total Ba, total Ca, and TDS.
4.3.1 Characterization of Nano-filtration Permeate and Treatability
Characteristics of the FMX permeate are summarized in Table 15. There were five samples for each
analyte.
25
Table 15. Characterization of Permeate from FMX-only NF Treatment
O&G O&G (SGT-

TSS TDS Total Ba Total Ca Total Fe
(HEM) HEM)
Unit mg/l
Min 2.5 52,000 0.7 0.7 1.8 2,400 2.9
Max 30 140,000 4.6 3.0 330 8,100 12
Median 25 130,000 0.7 0.7 16 7,000 8.1
% below
re-use limit 100% - - - - - 80%
(1)
(1) See Table 3
FMX nano-filtration dropped TSS to below the re-use limit (50 mg/l) in all the five runs. FMX dropped
total Fe to below the re-use limit (10 mg/l) in four out of five runs and was not far above the re-use limit
in the fifth run. All five runs generated permeate with O&G lower than 5 ppm, the target O&G value for
fracking re-use (Kuijvenhoven et al., 2013).
While some TDS was removed, the permeate TDS level was too high for surface discharge. Total Ba
limit in several states is below 10 mg/l. FMX nano-filtration decreased total Ba sufficiently to meet the
Pennsylvania limit (10 mg/l) of Ba in two out of five runs, to meet the Wyoming-Colorado river basin
limit (2 mg/l) of Ba in one out of five runs.
4.3.2 Nano-filtration Removal Efficiency of Key Analytes
Nano-filtration during FMX-only treatment demonstrated high removal of TSS and O&G (see Table 16).
To be noted, zero percent removal of O&G was due to the fact that influent O&G was already below
detection limit of 1.4 mg/l. TDS was removed by nano-filtration during FMX only treatment but removal
percentage was lower than 25%. FMX nano-filtration removed TDS mainly through removal of divalent
(or trivalent) ions, such as sulfate, Ba, Ca, Mg, and Fe.
Total Fe, total Ba, and total Ca can form scaling and fouling problems during deep well injection and
fracking re-use. Significant removal of these metals can help extend the service life of deep wells and
pipelines for fracking.
26
Table 16. Key Analyte Removal Efficiency
TSS TDS O&G (HEM) O&G (SGT-HEM) Total Ba Total Ca Total Fe
Min 78% 13% 0% 0% 36% 11% 38%
Max 97% 24% 100% 99% 60% 42% 97%
Median 85% 19% 83% 76% 38% 33% 84%
4.3.3 Hydraulics of FMX-only Nano-filtration Treatment
FMX flux is negatively impacted by influent TDS. Chemical washing was conducted after treating high-
TDS produced water; however, flux rates were generally consistent with or without washing.
FMX flux was not necessarily affected by O&G concentration. The Eagle Ford-Gonzalez produced water
had much higher O&G than the other tested waters; however, the flux of Eagle Ford Gonzalez water was
not compromised.
For the Permian waters, the flux was much lower than the expected value of 40 LMH (see Table 17) -
mainly due to high influent TDS. The expected flux of 40 LMH was based on full-scale testing of
produced and flowback water prior to the DOE site in the Eagle Ford Galvan/Gonzalez area. Pressure of
FMX treatment was 174 psi.
Table 17. Hydraulics Summary for FMX-only Treatment
Permeate Concentrate flowrate

Feed water volume Water recovery Flux
flowrate
Unit Gallons % gpm gpm LMH
Min 289 0.53 7.3
Max 332 80% 1.4 10 19
Median 298 0.99 14
4.4 FMX-only Treatment: ultra-filtration
The data presented in this section were collected during the previously conducted bench test runs, but are
presented here to illustrate the case that UF membrane may be more suitable for re-use application as it
can achieve acceptable TSS reduction for re-use at higher throughput and at less cost than NF
membranes.
27
There were two runs of ultra-filtration during FMX only treatment. FMX ultra-filtration demonstrated
significant removal of TSS and Fe, as well as removal of Ba and total Ca.
4.4.1 Characterization of Ultrafiltration Permeate and Treatability
FMX ultra-filtration dropped TSS to below re-use limit (50 mg/l), as was total Fe reduced to below re-use
limit (10 mg/l) for both waters tested (see Table 18). Except for the permeate O&G (HEM) from Eagle
Ford Galvan water, permeate O&G in both runs were lower than the re-use limit of 5.0 mg/l.
Table 18. Characterization of Permeate from FMX-only UF Treatment
O&G O&G (SGT-

TSS TDS Total Ba Total Ca Total Fe
(HEM) HEM)
Unit mg/l
Eagle Ford
5.6 483 30 1.8 0.48 77 0.50
Galvan
Eagle Ford
16 1,086 2.2 2.5 0.41 456 0.50
Gonzalez
% below
100% - 50% 100% - - 100%
re-use limit
4.4.2 FMX UF Removal Efficiency for Key Analytes
FMX ultra-filtration shows high removal of TSS and total Fe (see Table 19). O&G removal efficiency
was not reported because the feed water O&G was not available.
Table 19. Removal Efficiency of Key Analytes by FMX Ultrafiltration
TSS Total Ba Total Ca Total Fe
Eagle Ford Galvan 91% 65% 30% 96%
Eagle Ford Gonzalez 99% 84% 64% 100%
4.4.3 Hydraulics of FMX-only Ultra-filtration Performance
FMX ultra-filtration achieved much higher flux values than the FMX nano-filtration. FMX ultra-filtration
of Eagle Ford Galvan water achieved 66 LMH and that of Eagle Ford Gonzalez water achieved 105
LMH. The nano-filtration flux during FMX only treatment of high TDS Permian waters was lower than
28
20 LMH in all cases, though nano-filtration achieved average flux of about 40 LMH for lower TDS Eagle
Ford waters. The expected flux of 40 LMH is based on full-scale testing of produced and flow-back
water as measured prior to the DOE site in the Eagle Ford Galvan/Gonzalez area.
4.5 MBC+FMX NF Integrated Treatment
Seven waters were treated by MBC+FMX NF integrated processing during the field demonstration. Five
of these waters received parallel FMX-only treatment by nano-filtration. Thus, it is possible to
characterize integrated treatment performance as well as to assess the character and magnitude of the
effect of MBC pre-treatment on FMC performance.
4.5.1 Characterization of Permeate and Treatability
All FMX permeates from the seven runs of integrated treatment achieved TSS and O&G levels lower than
the re-use limit (50 mg/l for TSS and 5.0 mg/l for O&G) – see Table 20. Five out of seven runs generated
permeate with total Fe lower than re-use limit of 10 mg/l.
Table 20. Characterization of FMX-NF Permeate after Integrated Treatment
O&G O&G (SGT- Total

TSS TDS Total Ba Total Fe
(HEM) HEM) Ca
Unit mg/l
Min 2.5 47000 0.7 0.7 1.5 1,900 0.025
Max 14.3 150,000 2.8 2.2 400 8,800 13
Median 2.5 130,000 0.7 0.7 4.9 6,600 3.3
% below
100% - 100% 100% - - 71%
re-use limit
4.5.2 Removal Efficiency of Key Analytes
In addition to significant removal of TSS and O&G, integrated treatment also removed significant TDS.
Total Ba, total Ca, and total Fe were also removed significantly. The effect of MBC treatment on FMX
performance is discussed in section 4.5.3
29
Table 21. Key Analytes Removal Efficiency
TSS TDS O&G (HEM) O&G (SGT-HEM) Total Ba Total Ca Total Fe
Min 96% 8% 0% 0% 39% 15% 74%
Max 98% 71% 100% 100% 90% 79% 100%
Median 98% 21% 83% 76% 48% 32% 87%
4.5.3 Effect of MBC Pre-treatment on FMX Performance
Improvement in FMX removal of key analytes due to MBC pre-treatment is summarized in Table 22.
MBC consistently improved FMX TSS and iron removal; however, on average, removal of other key
analytes did not improve.
The improvement was calculated according to Equation 2:
Improvement=(Cper-1 -C𝑝𝑒𝑟-2 )/Cper-1 Eqn.2
Where Cper-1 is the concentration in the FMX permeate without MBC pretreatment; Cper-2 is the
concentration in the permeate with MBC pretreatment.
Table 22. Effect of MBC Pre-Treatment on FMX Removal of Key Analytes
O&G
O&G
TSS TDS (SGT- Total Ba Total Ca Total Fe
(HEM)
HEM)
Min 0% -8% 0% 0% -21% -5.0% 17%
Max 92% 0% 85% 71% 32% 6.0% 99%
Median 87% 0% 0% 0% 6.0% -1.0% 58%
% of runs
80% 0% 40% 40% 40% 40% 100%
improved
Judging by these data, MBC pretreatment appears to have had some positive effect on FMX NF flux;
however, this impact is not strongly indicated. Given that FMX flux performance may have been
compromised for Permian waters due to high TDS levels, these results may not be representative. It is
possible that MBC polymers might reduce FMX flux; however, this effect was not apparent in these data.
In bench test results, MBC pre-treatment made a significant improvement in FMX flux for one Eagle
Ford water, but essentially no improvement for another. Results for metals removal were similarly mixed.
30
The MBC process introduces some dissolved solids (coagulants and polymers) so may potentially
increase TDS levels in FMX permeate. For these runs the coagulants and polymers would have increased
the TDS less than 1,000 mg/l. Compared to the high TDS levels already present (ca. 125,000 mg/l), the
additional coagulants and polymers would not significantly increase TDS levels in FMX permeate.
Improvement of FMX flux by MBC pretreatment is presented, according to Equation 3.
Improvement=(F2 -F1 )/F1 Eqn.3
Where F1 is the flux of FMX without MBC pretreatment; F2 is the flux of FMX with MBC pretreatment.
Table 23. Increase in FMX Flux due to MBC Pre-treatment
Flux
Min -21%
Max 43%
Median 9.0%
% of runs improved 60%
The parameter of “% of runs improved” is the percentage of runs in which the permeate had lower key
analyte concentrations or higher flux than the permeate from FMX only treatment.
MBC pretreatment yielded a significant improvement of FMX nano-filtration for removal of TSS, total
Fe. MBC pretreatment did not appear to significantly improve FMX flux or removal of TDS.
4.6 FMX+RO Treatment
In this test, Seawater Reverse Osmosis (SWRO) was used as a polishing step for treatment of FMX-NF
permeate.
Due to high TDS levels (>120,000 mg/l) at the Permian site, flowback water to be processed through the
SWRO membrane system was taken from the Eagle Ford area, which displayed lower TDS levels (40,000
to 60,000 mg/l). Since the Eagle Ford site had already shut down its demonstration unit, feed water was
collected and sent to California for processing through the same NF membrane on a pilot scale FMX to
generate permeate for testing of seawater reverse osmosis. The Eagle Ford sample was then run through
the same FMX-NF membrane used on-site so permeate could be collected for use as feed water for the
seawater-grade RO system.
4.6.1 RO Pilot-Scale Experiments
After pilot-scale tests of the FMX-NF filtration system on flowback waters, a commercially available 2-
element, pilot-scale RO system equipped with a DOW Filmtec SWRO membrane (SW30) was tested as
an additional treatment step to obtain further reduction of TDS for NPDES compliance. The RO
membrane used in testing was selected due to the high levels of TDS which cannot be handled by typical
31
membranes intended for use with brackish water. The RO unit was operated at 700 psi, in a single-stage
batch configuration.
Table 24. Specifications of the Seawater Grade RO Membrane

Membrane Type Polyamide Thin-Film Composite
Maximum Operating Temperature 113°F (45°C)
Maximum Operating Pressure 800 psi (55 bar)
Maximum Pressure Drop 15 psig (1.0 bar)
pH Range, Continuous Operation 2-11
pH Range, Short-Term Cleaning 1-13
Maximum Feed Silt Density Index SDI 5
Free Chlorine Tolerance <0.1 ppm
4.6.2 Sampling and Analysis
The RO unit was continuously flushed with tap water for one hour to prepare the new membrane vessels
and stabilize operation of the unit, after which the tap water was then drained from the feed tank.
Approximately 1.5 gallons of feed were collected after recirculation of the feed for approximately 15
minutes. Once pressure was brought up to 700psi and stabilized, approximately 1.5 gallons each of
permeate and concentrate was collected in sample bottles that were pulled and submitted to a commercial
lab within 6 hours.
The analytical parameters were pH, conductivity, turbidity, TSS, ORP, DO, TSS, TDS, oil and grease,
BOD, COD, SO42-, chloride, calcium hardness, total hardness, carbonate alkalinity, magnesium, calcium,
strontium, barium, iron, and boron. All parameters were measured by Test America’s laboratory, based in
Irvine, CA.
4.6.3 Performance
The unit averaged 31 LMH of flux throughout the run. Pretreatment via FMX-NF membrane was able to
provide a quality stream for the seawater grade membrane to process.
4.6.4 Results
Test results from the RO run are given in Table 25. Some goals of the NPDES discharge limits were met
by treatment with FMX alone, and all were satisfied after addition of SWRO as a polishing step.
32
Table 25. Analytical Results from FMX NF + RO Run of Eagle Ford Sample
Parameter Raw FMX NF FMX RO RO % NPDES RO
Water Effluent/ NF % Permeate Removal Limits Concentrate
RO Feed removal (1)
pH 7.77 7.43 N/A 7.53 N/A 7.55
Conductivity 94,000 78,000 17% 480 99.4 88,000
Turbidity 42 0.86 98% ND 100% 0.91
TSS 200 7 97% ND 100% 9.7
500-
TDS 56,000 44,000 21% 260 99.4 52,000
2,000
Oil and Grease
19.5 ND 100% ND N/A N/A
(HEM)
BOD N/A 100 N/A 4.6 95.4 N/A
COD 1200 ND 100% ND N/A N/A
Sulfate 150 ND 100% ND N/A N/A
Chloride 32,000 22,000 31% 130 99.4 230-850 N/A
Calcium Hardness 5,900 2,700 54% 3.9 99.9 3,300
Total Hardness 7,100 2,900 59% 4.4 99.9 3,700
Carbonate
540 320 41% 15 95.3 330
alkalinity
Magnesium 300 57 81% 0.13 99.8 84
Calcium 2,090 1,100 47% 1.6 99.9 1,300
Barium 6.8 2.1 69% 0.011 99.5 1-10 3.4
Iron 6.58 0.065 99% ND 100% 0.093
Boron 110 81 26% 11 86.4 82
(1) See Table 3.
4.7 Waste Management
As part of a complete treatment program, residual sludge and brines from the MBC and FMX processes
respectively, must be responsibly managed. As has been demonstrated, MBC sludge is a very small
portion (< 1%) of influent volume that can be managed by decanting, dewatering and disposal. FMX
concentrate will represent in the neighborhood of 20 percent of the influent volume. With FMX followed
by RO, combined concentrate volume will be in the neighborhood of 25 percent of the influent volume.
This volume of concentrated brine may be successfully managed by down-hole disposal, hydrogel
treatement or solidification and landfill.
4.7.1 Hydrogel Brine Treatment Performance
The raw water sample collected from McQuerry was processed using FMX-NF membrane system to
collect the concentrate sample for a series of adsorption tests. The FMX NF concentrate containing metal
contaminants could pose disposal issues, so an adsorption process was evaluated to selectively remove
metal contaminants without targeting salt and other contaminants. An adsorption process with a single use
media that was initially developed to remove metals such as arsenic, selenium, chromium, lead, zinc, etc.
was employed.
With any adsorption process, such as granular activated carbon, ion exchange resin, and other media,
spent media waste could pose transportation and final disposal issues. Consequently, a media type was
33
selected that could minimize such disposal issues associated with spent adsorption material. The hydrogel
media used for the adsorption process (from Enova Water) has a unique characteristic which allows the
spent media to be dehydrated to 5 to 10% of the original volume using a simple air drying process. With
this 10 to 20 fold weight and volume reduction of spent media waste, both transportation and disposal
costs can be substantially decreased.
Batch Adsorption Tests
The batch reactor testing for the adsorption media was performed by adding 200 mL of the FMX-NF
concentrate to a 250 mL HDPE bottle with varying amounts of adsorption media. A specified amount of
adsorption media was added to the test reactor bottles. A varying amount of adsorption media from 5, 10,
25, 80 and 200 mg/l and a contact time of 120 minutes were used for testing. Since this FMX-NF
concentrate had high levels of calcium, barium, and strontium, those were targeted for the follow up tests
as contaminants of interest. These bottles were then placed on an orbital shaker to provide mixing.
The results are illustrated in Figure 9 for target metals strontium, barium and calcium as a function of
media dosages. The higher dosage of media per given amount of FMX-NF concentrate resulted in lower
contaminant concentration in the supernatant as expected. Barium was most reduced by adsorption. The
fact that these contaminants show decreasing trend as adsorption media dosage increases is encouraging
for these target contaminants in NF concentrate.
Figure 9. Ba and Sr Adsorption from FMX-NF Concentrate (120 minutes contact time)
Dehydration and TCLP Test
After the batch tests, the spent adsorption media was separated from the liquid fraction to be dehydrated
for TCLP leaching test to assess if any adsorbed metals leach from the spent media. Since using heat to
dry the spent media may cause media rupture, a simple column filled with spent media was connected to a
compressed air source to air dry the media.
Since the TCLP test required about 100 grams of solid material, a 1L batch adsorption test was conducted
to generate sufficient volume of dried media for the leaching test. The drying was continued using an
34
ambient temperature air flow through a column filled with about (1 L) of hydrated, spent media. After the
dehydration step, the media volume stabilized to about 10% of the initial state resulting in 10 fold volume
reduction.
For the TCLP test, the dried spent media were extracted with 0.2 M sodium acetate buffer (pH=5) for 18
hours with a weight of solution equal to 20 times that of the media. The actual TCLP procedure was
carried out by the Test America in Irvine, CA. The US EPA allowable limits as well as actual leaching
test results are summarized in Table 26.
Table 26. TCLP Leaching Results from Dried Hydrogel and EPA Allowable Limits
Heavy metal Result [mg/l] Limit [mg/l]
Arsenic < 0.2 5.0
Barium 41 100.0
Cadmium < 0.1 1.0
Chromium < 0.1 5.0
Lead < 0.1 5.0
Selenium < 0.1 1.0
Silver < 0.2 5.0
Mercury < 0.002 0.2
4.7.2 Precipitation and Stabilization Treatment Performance
In the bench scale tests, four mixtures of Portland cement, gypsum, coal fly ash (with and without
gypsum pre-treatment to encourage barium and strontium precipitation) were applied to FMX
concentrates from two Eagle Ford fracwaters. Subsequent testing showed no presence of metals in the
TCLP extract except for Cr, Cd, and Pb. These residuals were determined to originate from background
metals contained in the coal fly ash. Full details of methodology and results are available in the interim
bench scale report (Southern, 2015).
4.8 Data Quality Assessment
After all laboratory results were received and compiled into summary tables for analysts use in data
interpretation and results reporting, a preliminary assessment of data quality was conducted by Southern’s
quality assurance manager. The activities and results from this assessment, including follow up actions,
are as follows.
Sources Consulted:
 “\\14033_RPSEA 11122-57\Analytical\Field Demo data\Field trials data\Field trial data
summary_08-26.xlsx"
 "…\\14033_RPSEA 11122-57\Analytical\Field Demo data\Field trials data\RPSEA Run Log.xlsx"
 Records in ‘\\14033_RPSEA 11122-57\Analytical\Field Demo data\Field trials data\
35
Data Inventory:
 15 runs completed, 5 FMX only, 10 MBC only (including pre-oxidation runs), 7 MBC+FMX
(including 2 MBC+FMX+PreOx). No pre-ox water introduced to FMX.
 9 waters
 70 total unique sample sets
Audit Activities and Results:

 Verified all analytes accounted for per test plan in data summary and lab report.
 Verified correct analyses conducted/received for each sample point.
 Transcription errors: Verified runs run4_pt5, run5_pt2a, run7_pt3, run 12_pt5, >5% of total runs.
o Note, there is some likelihood of transcription error because lab report order for metals
varies among reports – however, no errors were noted in samples examined.
 Verified field screening conducted and results properly recorded in data summary.
 No field screening was conducted for runs 16/17 as SR crew had left site.
 Verified all TestAmerica lab results on file.
 Verified data completeness (checked runs run4_pt5, run5_pt2a, run7_pt3, run 12_pt5 )
o Checked run forms: There were often incomplete, e.g., no flow data, missing ‘days since
frack, dissolved iron values. Data were completed from field notebooks.
o Noted need to compile flow, flux, frack days, Fe, etc. data as possible from BKT and M2
records and include in data summary. Done.
o Checked sample forms: These looked great. Screening analyses were in triplicate and
averaged.
o Verified Chain of Custody documentation. Complete.
o Verified data summary (all runs checked).
 Need to obtain dissolved iron data from M2 for non-preox runs. Done.
 Checked sample quality, pH/temperature as received at lab –
o Obtained copy of email from lab stating higher temps ‘as received’ were ok since elapsed
time was short. Prepare summary table of as-received temps for analyst reference.
o Verified pH < 2 for 1) hardness, 2) O&G, 3) cations, 4) COD. Noted a few exceptions in
QC summary.
o Compiled QC data from ‘case narrative’ in lab reports and examined significance of all
findings.
 Verified documentation quality: Overall very well done.
 Valid/suspect data identification needed some work as noted elsewhere in this report. Completed.
 Reasons for missing data identified.
Additional Findings, Recommendations and Questions:

 Compile forward flow and flux data from BKT for FMX runs in summary. Done.
 Make sure to transcribe data quality notes from ‘case narrative’ into summary. Done.
 Verify water that RO runs were done on. Complete.
 Compile forward and waste flows for all runs. Done.
 In ‘case narrative’ sample from run4_pt5a, run5_pt2a, ‘general chemistry’ mentions “Sample matrix
interference and/or non-homogeneity are suspected”. Done. Not significant.
 Sample and custody docs on server largely repeat info that is in lab reports filed under ‘field trials
data’. Corrected.
 Laboratory data quality were summarized from notes in laboratory reports to allow analysts to easily
verify any questionable values. All laboratory data were deemed valid.
36
 Note that field TSS data (Hach DR900) was used instead of lab TSS data (SM2540D) for field
demonstration because of continued precipitation of dissolved Fe after the samples were collected.
See section 4.1.1.
37
5.0 Economic Evaluation

The economic evaluation presented below was conducted to be illustrative of a range of practical
application scenarios for the MBC and FMX technologies evaluated. The economic analysis does not
extend to the waste treatment technologies tested since these are experimental technologies at this time
without commercial readiness and reliable capital and operating cost values at scale.
5.1 Model Basis
The economic model presented, herein, follows the general framework established by Slutz et al (2012)
who presented an analysis the cost of obtaining frac water by an end user. These authors investigated the
costs of fresh water, truck costs, and treatment costs for two regions, the Barnett and the Marcellus shale
districts. The parameters used by Slutz et al (2012) are summarized in Appendix E (Table A1). Slutz’s
model assumptions covered three cases;
1) No water reuse in the frac blend with 100% disposal of recovered flowback fluids by deep well
injection.
2) Complete reuse of recovered flowback water with minimal treatment consisting of settling or
dissolved air floatation followed by sand filtration.
3) Deionization for NPDES Discharge.
The goal of the present economic model is to gain general insight into the costs of water management
options examined in the previous sections of this report. Comparisons are based upon “end-user” costs of
obtaining blended frac water. It is assumed that flowback water is recovered at a volume approximately
25% of the total frac water used (Hayes (2009) and Galusky and Hayes (2011)). The recovered flowback
water is either disposed of, reused in blended frac water (up to 25% blend ratio with fresh water) or
discharged by NPDES permit. The blend ratio is both an operational limit due to too much TDS in the
frac water and a recovery issue, i.e., if one collects only 25% of frac water as flowback, then the reuse of
flowback can only be 25% of the frac water for the next well.
Six process options are evaluated;

1) No reuse; 100% of flowback is deep well injected; 100% of frac water is from fresh water.
2) MBC treatment only for TSS and oil and grease control; up to 25% of frac water is recovered as
flowback for reuse. This represents a chemical/physical treatment option requiring water
conditioning with coagulants and flocculants, then accelerated settling of solids.
3) FMX-UF equipped with ultra-filters for TSS and oil and grease control; up to 25% of frac water is
recovered as flowback for reuse. This represents a physical treatment option based on membrane
separation.
4) FMX-NF only equipped with nano-filter for limited scale control (about 40% scale removal, can be
greater for some divalent ions) plus TSS and oil and grease; up to 25% of frac water is recovered
flowback. This represents a physical treatment option based on membrane separation. The water
from this treatment process is of higher quality than options 2 or 3 above.
5) MBC followed by FMX-NF with nano-filtration; up to 25% of frac water is recovered flowback for
reuse. This represents a series chemical/physical treatment followed by physical treatment. The water
6) FMX-UF equipped with ultrafilter for TSS and oil and grease control followed by reverse osmosis for
NPDES permit discharge. This option potentially produces water with sufficient quality for NPDES
38
discharge. This option is limited to flowback or produced water that is generally less than 35,000
mg/l TDS; a process limitation inherent with reverse osmosis.
The six treatment options were evaluated for two sizes of treatment plants, 100,000 gpd (2,380 bbl/day)
and 500,000 gpd (11,905 bbl/day) for each of three geographic regions, Marcellus and Barnett and Eagle
Ford. The two plant sizes were established because they represent a range of operation that might be
expected for small to large regional plants supporting water reuse within a county-wide range within each
play (see Appendix D for a full treatment of the scaling rationale). Three shale plays, Marcellus, Barnett
and Eagle Ford were chosen because they represent a wide range of flowback water qualities, availability
of fresh water resources, reuse and treatment goals, distances to disposal, and drilling activity (Table 27).
Table 27. Differences in Economic Drivers between Geographic Regions
Region Fresh Drilling Recovered Water Quality Disposal Water

Water Activity Availability Treatment
Availability Goals
Barnett Scant Mature, High TDS >100,000 mg/l Deep wells Protect deep
Declining plentiful and wells, reduce
The preponderance of recovered local fresh water needs.
water is low- flow produced
water.
Eagle Ford Scant Young, Low TDS < 30,000 mg/l Deep wells Reduce fresh
Increasing Flowback exceeds produced plentiful and water needs.
water. local
Marcellus Plentiful Moderate, High TDS >140,000 mg/l Deep wells Reduce travel to
Stable scant and distant disposal
The preponderance of recovered distant sites.
water is low- flow produced
water.
Table 28 is a summary of the vendor price quotes for the process options investigated for this report.
These costs include capital costs over a presumed 10 year lifetime with zero salvage value and operating
costs including materials, supplies and labor for operation and maintenance. These data were used
directly, or modified as described later, as the basis for the economic model runs.
The MBC unit shows significant economy of scale for the larger plant size. This reduction represents both
an equipment component and a reduction in total labor costs.
The FMX-UF is the ultrafilter membrane option as a stand-alone unit. The vendor provided a range of
costs for membrane fluxes between 60 and 100 LMH. Any specific assumptions in the model for
applicable flux utilized are based on linear interpolations within the range provided.
The FMX-NF is the nano-filter membrane option as a stand-alone unit. The vendor provided a range of
costs for membrane fluxes between 10 and 40 LMH. This range was tailored to flux achieved during the
field demonstration. In BKT’s experience, this range is at the low end of the design flux range and the
39
range of flux achieved in other tests. Any specific assumptions in the model for applicable flux are based
on linear interpolations within the range provided.
Reverse osmosis costs were provided by private correspondence from two outside vendors and are
generally representative of costs for seawater level TDS treatment. This option is only available for flow-
back or produced water with relatively low TDS concentrations. It is generally accepted that the RO
option would not be applicable for recovered water from either the Barnett or the Marcellus. However
recovered water from the Eagle Ford may be of sufficiently low TDS to be processed with RO.
Table 28. MBC, FMX, RO Treatment Costs used in Economic Model ($/bbl)
100,000 gpd* 500,000 gpd*
MBC 0.79 0.22 Provided by vendor
FMX-UF 0.17 0.17 Low Cost Provided by Vendor for flux = 100 LMH
FMX-UF 0.17 0.17 High Cost Provided by Vendor for flux = 60 LMH
FMX-NF 0.58 0.58 Low Cost Provided by Vendor for flux = 40 LMH
FMX-NF 2.32 2.32 High Cost Provided by Vendor for flux = 10 LMH
RO 5.88 5.88 Private quotes from membrane companies

* Treatment plant size, 100,000 and 500,000 gpd (2,380 and 11,905 bbl/day), All units are $/bbl
Table 29 contains the specific parameters used in the economic model. Transportation costs ($/bbl) were
obtained from Slutz et al (2012) for Barnett and Marcellus using the average of the high and low costs
($0.03 /bbl-mile). The exception is the landfill transportation costs ($0.05/bbl-mile). This value were
based on the 0.03 $/bbl generic transportation number, but assumes that there is additional labor in
handling solid waste. Transportation distances for Barnett and Marcellus are from Slutz et al (2012).
Fresh water costs and deep well injection costs for Barnett and Marcellus are the average of high and low
costs from Slutz et al (2012) as presented in Appendix E (Table A1). The parameters for Eagle Ford are
assumed to follow equivalently to those presented for the Barnett. The two regions have similar fresh
water limitations, availability of deep well assets, and well densities.
Treatment costs for FMX, MBC and RO options are from vendor data provided in Table 28. The FMX-
UF costs reflect the ability to treat the various waters at different ultrafilter fluxes depending on influent
water quality (Barnett 80 LMH, Marcellus 100 LMH and Eagle Ford 100LMH). The FMX-NF costs
reflect the ability to treat the various waters at different nano-filter fluxes depending on influent TDS
level (Barnett 25 LMH, Marcellus 40 LMH and Eagle Ford 40 LMH). The MBC + FMX-NF option is
evaluated as the direct sum of the MBC and FMX-NF processes without discount for labor or potential
O&M savings. The FMX-UF + RO option is evaluated as the direct sum of the FMX-UF and RO
processes without discount for labor or potential O&M savings. Note that the RO option is not likely
feasible for water treatment in the Marcellus or the Barnett due to high TDS levels that exceed the process
limits for RO.
The landfill cost for solid waste management is assumed to approximate $100/ton tipping fee. Distances
between the wells and fresh water, disposal wells, recycle and reuse centers for the 100,000 gpd plant
option are based on Slutz et al (2012) for the Barnett and the Marcellus regions as presented in Appendix
40
E (Table A1). The distance to a landfill is assumed to be the same as the distance to a recycle center. A
larger 500,000 gpd treatment plant must draw clientele from a larger geographic region, therefore, the
distance between the wells and the treatment facility is assumed to increase scaled to area of plant
coverage. The treatment facility is assumed to provide up to 25% of the frac water needed in the
geographic region representing a blend ratio of 25%. The parameters for Eagle Ford are assumed to
follow equivalently to those from the Barnett.
Table 29. Costs and Related Parameters Used in Economic Evaluation
Unit Barnett Marcellus Eagle Ford
(1)
TREATMENT PLANT 100K 500K 100K 500K 100K 500K
SIZE
TRANSPORTATION COSTS
Fresh Water Transport $/bbl mi $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03
Direct Reuse Transport $/bbl mi $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03
Treated Water Transport $/bbl mi $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03
Injection Transport $/bbl mi $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03
Landfill Transport $/bbl mi $0.05 $0.05 $0.03 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05
WATER, WATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL COSTS
Fresh Water Costs $/bbl $0.30 $0.30 $0.02 $0.02 $0.30 $0.30
MBC Treatment Price $/bbl $0.79 $0.22 $0.79 $0.22 $0.79 $0.22
(2)
FMX -UF only $/bbl $0.23 $0.23(2) $0.17 $0.17 $0.17 $0.17
(3)
FMX-NF only $/bbl $1.45 $1.45 $0.58 $0.58 $0.58 $0.58
(4)
MBC and FMX-NF $/bbl $2.24 $1.67 $1.37 $0.80 $1.37 $0.80
(5)
FMX-UF and RO $/bbl NA NA NA NA $6.05 $6.05
Disposal Injection cost $/bbl $0.53 $0.53 $2.50 $2.50 $0.53 $0.53
41
Unit Barnett Marcellus Eagle Ford
(1)
TREATMENT PLANT 100K 500K 100K 500K 100K 500K
SIZE
Landfill Tipping Costs $/bbl $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00
FRACTURE WATER AND FLOWBACK TREATED
Total Fracture Volume bbl 9,524 47,619 9,524 47,619 9,524 47,619
Flowback Processed bbl 2,381 11,905 2,381 11,905 2,381 11,905
Flowback Recovered % 25 25 25 25 25 25
AVERAGE DISTANCE TO DESTINATION (Round Trip)
Fresh Water Transport Dist. mi 30 30 10 15 30 30
Dist. to Reuse facility mi 15 25* 50 110* 15 25*
Dist. recycle facilty to fracs mi 15 25* 50 110* 15 25*
Dist. to disposal well mi 50 50 500 500 50 50
Distance to landfill mi 50 50 50 50 50 50
(1)
Treatment plant size, 100,000 and 500,000 gpd (2,380 and 11,905 bbl/day)
(2)
FMX-UF fluxes assumed; Barnett (80 LMH), Marcellus (100 LMH), Eagle Ford (100LMH)
(3)
FMX-NF fluxes assumed; Barnett (25 LMH), Marcellus (40 LMH), Eagle Ford (40LMH)
(4)
MBC and FMX-NF costs direct sum of MBC and FMX-NF without discount for labor savings
(5)
FMX-UF and RO NF costs direct sum of FMX-UF and RO without discount for labor savings
NA = not applicable process for Barnett or Marcellus due to excessively high TDS concentrations
*The larger scale plant will draw clientele from a larger distance; scaled by service area.
42
Table 30 is a compilation of assumptions for the distribution of water for each treatment option. The no-
treatment option requires all recovered flowback to be disposed in a deep well (99%) or landfill (1%).
The MBC process alone allows for up to 98% reuse with only a small increase (2%) designated for the
landfill. FMX has a typical rejection rate of 20% to the concentrate stream distributed to the deep well or
landfill. The exact rejection rate will depend on the raw water quality, finished water quality goal, and
membrane specified. The MBC-FMX option is assumed to produce slightly more landfill material (3%).
Both the FMX and RO units have significant rejection rates. However, judicious internal process recycle
may be applied. For example the RO concentrate may be recycled to the FMX unit for a significant
potential savings in water rejection. Also, FMX-UF will likely have a higher recovery rate, so the
rejection rate will be less than 20%. Therefore, for purposes of this model, the total discharge volume
from the FMX-RO is assumed to increase only slightly to 25%.
Table 30. Water Distribution Modeled for Each Treatment Option
MBC MBC + FMX +

TREATMENT LEVELS NONE Only FMX Only FMX RO
TREATMENT GOAL DISPOSAL REUSE REUSE REUSE NPDES
% of recovered volume reused 0 98 80 80 0
% of recovered volume discharged 0 0 0 0 75
% of recovered volume to disposal well 99 0 17.5 17 22.5
% of recovered volume to landfill 1 2 2.5 3 2.5
5.2 Model Results

Details of the model runs are presented in APPENDIX E. Tables A2-A7 are the calculation sheets for the
Barnett, Marcellus and Eagle Ford data for treatment capacities or 100,000 gpd (2,380 bbl/d) and 500,000
gpd (11,905 bbl/d), respectively. Data are presented as the raw costs ($) to provide 400,000 gal (9,520
bbl) and 2,000,000 gal (47,620 bbl) of blended frac water to an end-user. Flowback recovery is assumed
to be 25% of frac water utilized. The blend ratio assumed is up to 25% reused water and 75% fresh
water.
Table 31 and Table 32 are summaries prepared from Appendix E Tables A2-A7. The broad categories
examined are fresh water costs, combined injection and landfill costs, treatment costs and transportation
costs. In general, Barnett and Eagle Ford test runs show a significant fraction of total costs as fresh water
(16% to 23%). Therefore, the market in the Barnett, as in the Eagle Ford, is to provide alternatives to
fresh water. The Marcellus data, however, are dominated by transportation costs (68% to 86% of total
costs). Therefore, the market in the Marcellus is to alleviate the need to transport waste fluids to the deep
well injection sites, mostly located in Central Ohio.
The summary data from Table 31 and Table 32 data are plotted in Figure 10 through Figure 15 to provide
an easy visualization of the relative costs of the treatment options compared to the baseline (no
treatment). In most cases, the least cost option is MBC treatment only, which represents a
chemical/physical treatment with coagulants and flocculants followed by accelerated settling. Subsequent
dewatering costs may be incurred, which are not considered, herein. There is a cost advantage to the
larger plant size for the MBC, which represents both a labor reduction and an equipment cost advantage at
the larger scale. However, there is not much difference in cost for the FMX-UF ultrafilter option for a
43
physical treatment option. The difference in cost is a slightly higher disposal cost for concentrate
disposal. The FMX option is based on the costs provided by the vendor, which apparently do not include
labor discounts for larger scale plants. Only the Eagle Ford recovered water has sufficiently low TDS
concentration to allow an FMX-UF+RO option.
Better knowledge of the water quality for design purposes would provide a closer refinement of the FMX
treatment costs. The quality of recovered water can result in a large swing in flux. With a membrane
process, the flux determines the initial capital, maintenance and labor cost. For the ultrafilter option, the
treatment cost is from $0.17/bbl at a flux of 100 LMH, whereas, the cost is $0.29/bbl at a flux of 60 LMH
(Table 28). It is re-emphasized that the flux assumed for the Marcellus and Eagle Ford economic
analyses in Table 31 and Table 32 were based on a ultrafilter flux of 100 LMH while the Barnett data
were based on a flux of 80 LMH. For the nano-filter option, the cost range is much broader from
$0.58/bbl at a flux of 40 LMH to $0.29/bbl at 80 LMH . Referring again to Table 31 and Table 32, the
flux assumed for the Marcellus and Eagle Ford were based on a nano-filter flux of 40 LMH while the
Barnett data were based on a flux of 25 LMH.
Sensitivity analyses for both the ultra-filter and the nano-filter options were run using linear interpolations
across the flux ranges. The raw data presented in Appendix E (Tables A8 and A9) were compiled using
the other cost parameters representing a 2,380 bbl/day (100,000 gpd) in the Barnett region. The only
change in these runs was the treatment costs, as determined by the membrane flux. Therefore, the
treatment costs may be applied to any other of the scenarios (geographic regions) with linear scaling
between the two plant sizes.
The data from Appendix E Tables A8 and A9 are summarized in Table 33 and Table 34 and illustrated in
Figure 16 and Figure 17. The treatment costs for the ultrafilter option are very low (Table 8) making a
difference of only a few cents per barrel to the end user. Therefore, the choice of ultra-filter flux has very
little influence on the outcome of the analysis. With the nano-filter option, however, the cost range
($1.32/bbl at the high flux to $1.78/bbl at the low flux) is much broader as a function of the membrane
flux. This affects the overall cost of water delivery by approximately 28%, and more care must be taken
to use representative field data for any plant design or more detailed costs analyses.
44
Table 31. Cost to Provide 9,520 Barrels Frac Fluid to an End User (Based on a 2,380 Barrel/day
Treatment Plant)
Barnett MBC MBC + FMX-NF +
NONE Only FMX-UF FMX-NF FMX- NF RO
Fresh Water ($) $2,857 $2,157 $2,286 $2,286 $2,286 NA
Disposal (Deep Well + Landfill) ($) $1,321 $143 $370 $399 $429 NA
Treatment ($) $0 $1,881 $548 $3,452 $5,333 NA
Transportation ($) $12,167 $7,640 $8,488 $8,488 $8,500 NA
Total Barnett ($) $16,345 $11,821 $11,691 $14,626 $16,548 NA
Marcellus MBC MBC + FMX-NF +
NONE Only FMX-UF FMX-NF FMX-NF RO
Fresh Water ($) $190 $144 $152 $152 $152 NA
Disposal (Deep Well + Landfill) ($) $5,964 $143 $1,220 $1,220 $1,226 NA
Treatment ($) $0 $1,881 $405 $1,381 $3,262 NA
Total Marcellus ($) $44,429 $7,944 $13,319 $14,295 $16,033 NA
Eagle Ford MBC MBC + FMX-NF +
NONE Only FMX-UF FMX-NF FMX NF RO
Fresh Water ($) $2,857 $2,157 $2,286 $2,286 $2,286 $2,857
Disposal (Deep Well + Landfill) ($) $1,321 $143 $399 $399 $429 $463
Treatment ($) $0 $1,881 $405 $1,381 $3,262 $14,405
Transportation ($) $12,167 $7,640 $8,488 $8,202 $8,500 $9,524
Total Marcellus ($) $16,345 $11,821 $11,578 $12,268 $14,476 $27,248
Barnett MBC MBC + FMX-NF +
Fresh Water ($/bbl) $0.30 $0.23 $0.24 $0.24 $0.24 NA
Disposal (Deep Well + Landfill) ($/bbl) $0.14 $0.02 $0.04 $0.04 $0.05 NA
Treatment ($/bbl) $0.00 $0.20 $0.06 $0.36 $0.56 NA
Transportation ($/bbl) $1.28 $0.80 $0.89 $0.89 $0.89 NA
Total Barnett ($/bbl) $1.72 $1.24 $1.23 $1.54 $1.74 NA
Marcellus MBC MBC + FMX-NF+
NONE Only FMX-UF FMX NF FMX NF RO
Treatment ($/bbl) $0.00 $0.20 $0.04 $0.15 $0.34 NA
Total Marcellus ($/bbl) $4.67 $0.83 $1.40 $1.50 $1.68 NA
Eagle Ford MBC MBC + FMX-NF +
Fresh Water ($/bbl) $0.30 $0.23 $0.24 $0.24 $0.24 $0.30
Disposal (Deep Well + Landfill) ($/bbl) $0.14 $0.02 $0.04 $0.04 $0.05 $0.05
Treatment ($/bbl) $0.00 $0.20 $0.04 $0.15 $0.34 $1.51
Transportation ($/bbl) $1.28 $0.80 $0.89 $0.86 $0.89 $1.00
Total Eagle Ford ($/bbl) $1.72 $1.24 $1.22 $1.29 $1.52 $2.86
45
Table 32. Cost to Provide 47,620 Barrels Frac Fluid to an End User ((Based on a 11,905 Barrel/day
Treatment Plant)
Barnett NONE MBC FMX-UF FMX-NF MBC + FMX-NF +
Only FMX-NF RO
Fresh Water ($) $14,286 $10,786 $11,429 $11,429 $11,429 NA
Treatment ($) $0 $2,619 $2,738 $17,262 $19,881 NA
Total Barnett ($) $81,723 $55,821 $61,461 $75,985 $78,811 NA
Marcellus NONE MBC FMX-UF FMX-NF MBC + FMX-NF +
Only FMX-NF RO
Fresh Water ($) $952 $719 $762 $762 $762 NA
Treatment ($) $0 $2,619 $2,024 $6,905 $9,524 NA
Total Marcellus ($) $222,143 $53,933 $83,738 $78,143 $90,524 NA
Eagle Ford NONE MBC FMX-UF FMX-NF MBC + FMX UF +
Only FMX-NF RO
Fresh Water ($) $14,286 $10,786 $11,429 $11,429 $11,429 $14,286
Disposal (Deep Well + Landfill) ($) $6,604 $714 $1,997 $1,997 $2,144 $2,313
Treatment ($) $0 $2,619 $2,024 $6,905 $9,524 $72,024
Transportation ($) $60,833 $41,702 $45,298 $45,298 $45,357 $47,619
Total Marcellus ($) $81,723 $55,821 $60,747 $65,628 $68,454 $136,241
Barnett NONE MBC FMX-UF FMX-NF MBC + FMX UF +
Only FMX-NF RO
Treatment ($/bbl) $0.00 $0.05 $0.06 $0.36 $0.42 NA
Total Barnett ($/bbl) $1.72 $1.17 $1.29 $1.60 $1.65 NA
Marcellus NONE MBC FMX-UF FMX-NF MBC + FMX + RO
Only FMX-NF
Treatment ($/bbl) $0.00 $0.05 $0.04 $0.14 $0.20 NA
Total Marcellus ($/bbl) $4.66 $1.13 $1.76 $1.64 $1.90 NA
Eagle Ford NONE MBC FMX-UF FMX-NF MBC + FMX UF +
Only FMX NF RO
Fresh Water ($/bbl) $0.30 $0.23 $0.24 $0.24 $0.24 $0.30
Disposal (Deep Well + Landfill) ($/bbl) $0.14 $0.01 $0.04 $0.04 $0.05 $0.05
Treatment ($/bbl) $0.00 $0.05 $0.04 $0.14 $0.20 $1.51
Transportation ($/bbl) $1.28 $0.88 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $1.00
Total Eagle Ford ($/bbl) $1.72 $1.17 $1.28 $1.38 $1.44 $2.86
46
Table 33. Sensitivity Analysis of the Effects of FMX Ultrafilter Flux on the Cost to Provide 9,520
Plant
FMX-UF FMX-UF FMX-UF FMX-UF FMX-UF
Barnett 60 LMH 70 LMH 80 LMH 90 LMH 100 LMH
Fresh Water ($) $2,286 $2,286 $2,286 $2,286 $2,286
Disposal (Deep Well + Landfill) ($) $370 $370 $370 $370 $370
Treatment ($) $693 $624 $554 $481 $405
Transportation ($) $8,488 $8,488 $8,488 $8,488 $8,488
Total Barnett ($) $11,836 $11,767 $11,697 $11,624 $11,548
Total Costs ($/bbl) to Supply Water to End User at a Rate of 400,000 gpd (9,520 bbl/d)
FMX-UF FMX-UF FM-UF FMX-UF FMX UF-
Fresh Water ($/bbl) $0.24 $0.24 $0.24 $0.24 $0.24
Disposal (Deep Well + Landfill) ($/bbl) $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04
Treatment ($/bbl) $0.07 $0.07 $0.06 $0.05 $0.04
Transportation ($/bbl) $0.89 $0.89 $0.89 $0.89 $0.89
Total Barnett ($/bbl) $1.24 $1.24 $1.23 $1.22 $1.21
47
Table 34. Sensitivity Analysis of the Effects of FMX Nano-Filter Flux on the Cost to Provide 9,520
Plant
FMX-UF FMX-UF FMX-UF FMX-UF FMX-UF
Fresh Water ($) $2,286 $2,286 $2,286 $2,286 $2,286
Disposal (Deep Well + Landfill) ($) $370 $370 $370 $370 $370
Treatment ($) $5,500 $4,119 $3,452 $2,762 $1,381
Transportation ($) $8,488 $8,488 $8,488 $8,488 $8,488
Total Barnett ($) $16,643 $15,263 $14,596 $13,905 $12,524
Total Costs ($/bbl) to Supply Water to End User at a Rate of 400,000 gpd (9,520 bbl/d)
FMX-UF FMX-UF FM-UF FMX-UF FMX UF-
Fresh Water ($/bbl) $0.24 $0.24 $0.24 $0.24 $0.24
Disposal (Deep Well + Landfill) ($/bbl) $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04
Treatment ($/bbl) $0.58 $0.43 $0.36 $0.29 $0.15
Transportation ($/bbl) $0.89 $0.89 $0.89 $0.89 $0.89
Total Barnett ($/bbl) $1.75 $1.60 $1.53 $1.46 $1.32
48
Barnett based on a treatment facility of 2,380 bbl/day (100,000 gpd). Flowback recovery assumed 25%
and blend ratio assumed up to 25% as reused water.
49
25% and blend ratio assumed up to 25% as reused water.
50
Figure 12. Cost ($/bbl) of Providing 9,520 bbl frac water (400,000 gallons) to an End-User in the Eagle
Ford based on a treatment facility of 2,380 bbl/day (100,000 gpd). Flowback recovery assumed 25%
and blend ratio assumed up to 25% as reused water.
51
Figure 13: Cost ($/bbl) of Providing 47,620 bbl frac water (2,000,000 gallons) to an End-User in the
Barnett based on a treatment facility of 11,905 bbl/day (500,000 gpd). Flowback recovery assumed
52
53
Eagle Ford based on a treatment facility of 11,905 bbl/day (500,000 gpd). Flowback recovery assumed
54
Figure 16. Sensitivity Analysis of the Effects of FMX-UF Ultrafilter Membrane Flux (60-100 LMH)
on the Cost ($/bbl) of Providing 9,520 bbl frac water (400,000 gallons) to an End-User in the Barnett
based on a treatment facility of 2,380 bbl/day (100,000 gpd). Fl
55
Figure 17. Sensitivity Analysis of the Effects of FMX-UF Ultrafilter Membrane Flux (60-100 LMH)
on the Cost ($/bbl) of Providing 9,520 bbl frac water (400,000 gallons) to an End-User in the Barnett
based on a treatment facility of 2,380 bbl/day (100,000 gpd). Fl
56
6.0 Conclusions
During the field demonstration, produced waters from eight Permian wells and one Eagle Ford well were
processed by MBC and/or FMX. TDS levels in the Permian wells ranged from 140,000 to 200,000 mg/l.
TDS for the Eagle Ford sample was 60,000 mg/l. This range is broadly representative of U.S. produced
waters generally, excepting relatively uncommon brackish produced waters. Influent TSS levels were
relatively low for the Permian samples, ranging from 65 to 239 mg/l. TSS for the Eagle Ford sample was
high at 772 mg/l.
The following overall conclusions can be drawn from the bench and pilot scale evaluations of MBC and
FMX technologies.
 Either of the technologies evaluated, MBC or FMX (NF or UF), are separately able to treat produced
or flowback waters sufficiently to meet common criteria for re-use.
 MBC clarification primarily removes TSS and Iron. MBC treatment produced acceptable quality
water for re-use for 8 of the 9 waters tested during the field demonstration. With pre-oxidation, MBC
produced acceptable quality water for re-use for all of the five waters tested in this manner. MBC
performance is unaffected by the TDS concentration of the water treated.
 FMX-NF is designed to remove TSS as well as divalent ions, but will pass mono-valent ions such as
chloride. FMX nano-filtration alone produced acceptable quality water for re-use for all five of the
waters tested during the field demonstration. FMX ultra-filtration can also produce acceptable quality
water for re-use and at lower cost than nano-filtration. The quality of recovered water can result in a
significant change in flux. With a membrane process, the flux determines the initial capital cost as
well as influencing maintenance and labor costs.
 Use of MBC or FMX, separately or in combination, to treat water to re-use standards appears to be
cost effective compared to baseline use of 100% fresh water for well completion and down-hole
disposal of wastes as is common practice at present. This is true for either Marcellus, Barnett or Eagle
Ford type scenarios, but the payback is much more evident where down-hole disposal is not locally
available.
 For Barnett and Eagle Ford, a significant fraction of total costs is fresh water (16% to 23%).
Therefore, the market for these technologies in the Barnett and Eagle Ford, is to provide alternatives
to fresh water. The Marcellus data, however, are dominated by transportation costs (68% to 86% of
total costs). Therefore, the market in the Marcellus is to alleviate the need to transport waste fluids to
deep well injection sites.
 MBC treatment alone or FMX-UF are low cost options for treatment for re-use. There is a definite
cost advantage to larger plant size for MBC.
 FMX in combination with RO is capable of treating water to NPDES discharge levels. The FMX+RO
option appears to be cost prohibitive compared to deep well injection in the Barnett. However, the
FMX+RO option may be competitive against the long haul distances to deep well injection sites
encountered in the Marcellus.
 Both hydrogel and solidification/stabilization were effective at preparing FMX concentrates for safe
landfill disposal. MBC sludge volumes are minimal.
57
References
Aften, CW. (2010) Study of Fricition Reducers from Recycled Stimulation Fluids in Environmentally
Sensitive Regions. Society of Petroleum Engineers #138984, 20 pp.
Akhter, H., Cartledge, F. K., Roy, A., Tittlebaum, M. E. (1997). Solidification/stabilization of arsenic
salts: effects of long cure times. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 52 (2-3), 247-264.
Batchelor, B. (2006). Overview of waste stabilization with cement. Waste Management, 26 (7), 689–698.
Boschee, P. (2014). Produced and flowback water recycling and reuse, economics, limitations, and
technology. Oil and Gas Facilities, 3 (1), 16-21.
Bruff, M., Sinisha, A. (2011). Field demonstration of an integrated water treatment technology solution in
Marcellus Shale, Paper presented at SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Columbus, Ohio, USA., Aug. 17-19.
Bruff, M.J., and Jikich, S. (2011) Field Demonstration of an Integrated Water Treatment Technology
Solution in Marcellus Shale. Society Petroleum Engineers, No. 149466-MS, 9 pp.
Bryant J., Robb I., Welton T., and Haggstrom J. (2010) Maximizing friction reduction performance using
Flowback Water and Produced Water for Waterfrac Aapplications. IN AIPG Marcellus Shale Hydraulic
Fracturing Conference.
Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (2013). Water quality standards. Retrieved Jan.
07, 2015 from https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/water-quality-standards
Connor, J. R. (1997). Guide to improving the effectiveness of cement-based stabilization/solidification.

Skokie, Illinois: Portland Cement Association
Dawson, K., McCracken, D., Monroe, S. (2013). Know your water: evaluating characteristics of source,
flowback, and produced water for effective treatment. Shale Play Water Management, 1 (3), 16-22.
Galusky, P.L. and Hayes, T.D., (2011) Feasibility Assessment of Early Flowback Water Recovery for
Reuse in Subsequent Well Completions, Task 7; RPSEA No. 08122-05.07 48 pp.
Hayes, T. D., Halldorson, B., Horner, P. H., Ewing, J. J. R., Werline, J. R., & Severin, B. F. (2014,
August 1). Mechanical vapor recompression for the treatment of shale-gas flowback water. Oil and Gas
Facilities, 3 (4), 54-62.
Hayes, T.D, & Severin, B.F. (2012a). Characterization of flowback waters from the Marcellus and
Barnett shale regions, RPSEA Contract 08122-05 Topical Report Task 9, Gas Technology Institute, Des
Plaines, Il.
Hayes, T.D, & Severin, B.F. (2012b). Barnett and Appalachian shale water management and reuse
technologies Report No. 08122-05.FINAL2, RPSEA contract 08122-05.
Hayes, T.D.( 2009) Sampling and Analysis of Water Streams Associated with the Development of
Marcellus Shale Gas, Final Report to the Marcellus Shale Coalition. Gas Technology Institute, Des
Plaines, Il.
58
Hayes, T.D., Halldorson, B., Horner, P., Ewing, J.J.R., Werline, J.R., and Severin, B.F. (2014),
Mechanical Vapor Recompression for the Treatment of Shale Gas Flowback Water, Society Petroleum
Engineers (2014) Oil and Facilities, paper 170247, pp 54-62.
Hayes, T.D., Huang, X., Agnihotri, D., Freeman, B.D., Hayes, R., Kasemset,S., Lee, A., Li, H., Sharma,
M., and Shiner, S., (2011). Field Assesment of Anti-fouling Polymeric Membrane Coatings for Treatment
of Barnett Shale Flow-Back Produced Water. Topical Report Task 5, RPSEA Contract 08122-05, 40 pp.
Kameswari, K. S. B., Bhole, A.G., Paramasivam, R. (2001). Evaluation of solidification/stabilization

(S/S) process for the disposal of arsenic-bearing sludges in landfill sites. Environmental Engineering
Science, 18 (3), 167-176.
Kamon, M., Katsumi, T., Sano, Y. (2000). MSW fly ash stabilized with coal ash for geotechnical
application. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 76 (2-3), 265-283
Keller, I. R. B. (2002). The immobilisation of heavy metals and metalloids in cement stabilised wastes: a
study focusing on the selenium oxyanions SeO32- and SeO42-. (Doctoral dissertation), Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland
Kuijvenhoven, C., Fedotov, V., Gallo D., and Hagemeijer, P. (2013) Water management approach for
shale operations in North America. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE # 167057, 10 pp.
Kumpienem, J., Lagerkvist, A., Maurice, C. (2007). Stabilization of Pb- and Cu-contaminated soil using
coal fly ash and peat. Environmental Pollution, 145 (1), 365-373.
Li, X. D., Poona, C. S., Suna, H., Lob, I. M. C., Kirk, D. W. (2001). Heavy metal speciation and leaching
behaviors in cement based solidified/stabilized waste materials. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 82 (3),
215–230.
Maguire-Boyle, S.J., & Barron, A.R. (2014). Organic compounds in produced waters from shale gas
wells. Environmental Science Processes & Impacts, 16 (10), 2217-2462.
Mangialardi, T., Paolini, A. E., Polettini, A., Sirini, P. (1999). Optimization of the
solidification/stabilization process of MSW fly ash in cementitious matrices. Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 70 (1-2), 53-70.
Mickley, M. (2008). Survey of high recovery and zero liquid discharge technologies for water utilities.
(WRF-02-006a). Alexandria, Virginia: Water Reuse Foundation
Min, J.H., Kim, D., Eum, Y., Park, G., Kim, S., Kim, J. (2011). Anti-fouling membrane system for
industrial wastewater treatment and recovery. Paper presented at Official Proceedings of the International
Water Conference 72nd Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, USA, Nov. 13-17
Moon, D. H., Grubb, D. G., Reilly, T. L. (2009). Stabilization/solidification of selenium-impacted soils

using Portland cement and cement kiln dust. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 168 (2-3), 944–951
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2012). Chapter 3745-1 Water quality standards, 3745-1-01
purpose and applicability. Retrieved Jan. 07, 2015 from http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/3745-1
59
Paktinat, J., James, B., and Tuslissi, M.G., Case Studies: Impact of High Salt Tolerant Friction Reducers
on Freshwater Conservation in Canadian Shale Fracturing Treatments. Society of Petroleum Engineers,
No. 14972-MS, 14 pp.
Paktinat, J., O., Neil, B. J., & Tulissi, M. G. (2011). Case studies: improved performance of high brine
friction reducers in fracturing shale reservoirs. Paper presented at SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Columbus, Oh, USA, Aug. 17-19.
Paria, S., & Yuet, P. K. (2006). Solidification-stabilization of organic and inorganic contaminants using
Portland cement: a literature review. Environmental Reviews, 14 (4), 217-255
Pereira, C. F., Rodriguez-Piñero, M., Vale, J. (2001). Solidification/stabilization of electric arc furnace
dust using coal fly ash analysis of the stabilization process. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 82 (2), 183-
195
Qian, G., Cao, Y., Chui, P., Tay, J. (2006). Utilization of MSWI fly ash for stabilization/solidification of
industrial waste sludge. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 129 (1-3), 274-281
Ramgobeen, D. (2010). "Preparation and testing of chloride & sulphate containing minerals from
industrial wastes", solidification/stabilisation of chloride & sulphate ions from APC residues with calcium
aluminate cements. (Master's thesis), University College of London, London, England
Severin, B.F. and Hayes, T.D. (2012) Evaluation of Electrodialysis for the Desalination of Shale Gas
Flowback Water. RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.12, Contract No. 08122-05, 156 pp.
Shipman S., McConnel, D., Mccutchan, MP., and Seth K. (2013). Maximizing flowback reuse and
reducing freshwater demand:Case studies from the challenging Marcellus Shale: IN SPE Eastern
Regional Meeting. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Silva, JM, Matis, H., Kostedt, WL IV, and Watkins, V. (2012) Produced Water Pretreatment for Water
Recovery and Salt Production. Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America, Final Report Contract
#08122-36, 67 pp.
Singh, T. S., & Pant, K. K. (2006). Solidification/stabilization of arsenic containing solid wastes using
Portland cement, fly ash and polymeric materials. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 131 (1-3), 29–36.
Slutz, J., Anderson, J., and Horner, P., (2012) Key Shale Gas Water Management Strategies: An
Economic Assessment Tool, Society of Professional Engineers No. 157532, 15 pp.
Solem-Tishmack, J. K., & McCarthy, G. J. (1995). High-calcium combustion by-products: engineering

properties, ettringite formation, and potential application in solidification and stabilization of selenium
and boron. Cement and Concrete Research, 25 (3), 658-670.
Southern Research Institute (2013). “Advanced treatment of shale gas fracturing wastewater to produce
NPDES quality water: bench-scale evaluation experimental plan.” RPSEA Project 11122-57, Sept. 2013.
Stephan, D.J., Shockey, R.E., Kurz, B.A., Kalenze N.S., Cowan, R.M, Ziman, J.J, Harju, J.A., (2010).
Bakken water opportunities assessment – phase 1, northern great plains water consortium, Retrieved Jan.
07, 2015 from http://www.undeerc.org/bakken/pdfs/FracWaterPhaseIreport.pdf.
60
Su, D. C., & Wong, J. W. C. (2003). Chemical speciation and phytoavailability of Zn, Cu, Ni and Cd in
soil amended with fly ash-stabilized sewage sludge. Environment International, 29 (7), 895– 900.
Terzano, R., Spagnuolo, M., Medici, L., Vekemans, B., Vincze, L., Janssens, K., and Ruggiero, P. (2005).
Copper stabilization by zeolite synthesis in polluted soils treated with coal fly ash. Environmental Science
& Technology, 39 (16), 6280-6287
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (2007). Chapter 307 - Texas surface water quality
standards, Rule Project No. 2007-002-307-OW, Retrieved Jan. 07 from
http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/waterquality/standards/TSWQS2010/TSWQS2010_rule.pdf
The State of Pennsylvania (2010). Pennsylvania Code Chapter 95: wastewater treatment requirements,
Retrieved Jan. 22, 2015 from http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter95/chap95toc.html
The State of Pennsylvania (2013). 93.7 Specific water quality criteria, Retrieved Jan. 07, 2015 from
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter93/s93.7.html
The State of Pennsylvania (2014). Oil and gas reports, Retrieved Jan. 07, 2015 from
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/oil_and_gas_reports/20297
The State of West Virginia (2011). Series 2, requirements governing water quality standards, Retried Jan.
07, 2015 from http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/upload/wv_require.pdf
United States Energy Information Administration (2014a). Annual energy outlook, 2014. Retrieved Jan.
074, 2015 from http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/.
United States Energy Information Administration (2014b). Bakken region drilling productivity report.
Retrieved Jan. 07, 2015 from http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/drilling/pdf/bakken.pdf.
United States Energy Information Administration (2014c). Eagle Ford drilling productivity report.
Retrieved Jan. 05, 2015 from http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/drilling/pdf/eagleford.pdf.
USEPA, 1992. Method 1311 - toxicity characteristic leaching procedure 1992. Retrieved Jan. 14. 2015
from http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/1311.pdf.
USEPA, 1994. Method 200.8 - Determination of trace elements in waters and wastes by inductively
coupled plasma - mass spectrometry. Retrieved Jan. 14.2015 from
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/bioindicators/upload/2007_07_10_methods_method_200_8.pdf
USEPA, 2012. Code of Federal regulations-Title 40. Protection of environment. Retrieved Jan. 14, 2015
from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title40-vol28/xml/CFR-2012-title40-vol28-sec268-
48.xml.
Valls, S.,& Vazquez, E. (2002). Leaching properties of stabilised/solidified cement-admixtures-sewage

sludges systems. Waste Management, 22 (1), 37-45
Veil, J. A., Puder, M. G., Elcock, D., & Redweik Jr, R. J., (2004). A white paper describing produced
water from production of crude oil, natural gas, and coal bed methane. Retrieved Jan. 07, 2015 from
http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2004/02/49109.pdf.
61
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (2000). Water quality rules and regulations, Retrieved
Jan. 07, 2015 from http://soswy.state.wy.us/Rules/RULES/6547.pdf
Yilmaz, O., Unlu, K., Cokca, E. (2003). Solidification/stabilization of hazardous wastes containing metals
and organic contaminants. Journal of Environmental Engineering 129 (4), 366-376
62
Appendix A. Field Demonstration Analytical Methods

Analyte Lab / (Field) Method
pH (Hach 8156)
Conductivity (Hach 8160)
ORP (Hach 10228)
DO (Hach 10360)
Turbidity (Hach 8195)
Settlable Solids (Hach 8165)
TSS SM 2540D / (Hach 8006[DR 900])
BOD SM5210B
COD SM 5220D
TDS SM 2540C
Oil and Grease 1664A
Total hardness SM 2340B
Carbonate Alkalinity SM 2320B
Sulfate SO4(2-) EPA 300
Chloride (CL-) EPA 300
Calcium (Ca 2+) 6010B
Magnesium (Mg 2+) 6010B
Iron (Fe) 6010B
Barium (Ba) 6010B
Strontium (Sr) 6010B
Boron (B) 6010B
63
Appendix B. FMX Cost Details

FMX Cost Estimates and Scale-up
Design Basis
The data collected over the 2-month on-site trial was used as the basis for design and cost
estimates for a possible full scale implementation utilizing the anti-fouling membrane system.
Capital costs and operation and maintenance costs were estimated for 2,380 barrels/day or
100,000 gallons/day. A flux of approximately 40 LMH (23.5 GFD) was used for the full-scale
design because there was a difference between shale sites and flux. The high TDS streams had a
low flux whereas lower TDS streams provided higher flux values.
Figure 1. Simplified schematic of treatment with FMX
The concentrate that is generated from the FMX system will be sent to a brine treatment process.
During the second phase of this project, a selective adsorption process will be tested with the
goal of reducing the volume of concentrate that must be disposed of.
2,381 Barrel/day Treatment System Design: FMX

Assuming a flux of 40 LMH (23.5 GFD) at an operating pressure of 12 bar (174 psi), 4 full-scale
FMX-NF units would be required to treat 2,380 barrels/day targeting a recovery of 80%. Basic
design parameters for the 2,380 barrels/day are summarized in Table 1, and a cost estimate for
this flow rate is provided in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 1. Design parameters for 2,380 barrels/day

Design conditions for FMX
Item Unit Condition
Design flow rate Bpd/gpd 2,380 (100,000)
Feed TS % <1%
o
Operating temperature F (oC) 80 (26.7)
Operating pressure psi (bar) 174 (12)
Design average flux LMH (GFD) 40.0 (23.5)
Recovery rate % 80
The FMX-S100 is equipped with 94.86 m2 (1,021.1 ft2) of membrane surface area per unit. The
drive motor for vortex generation is included, and the mechanical/electrical skid includes pumps,
64
valves, inner connecting pipes, and standard instruments for operation of FMX-S100. Because
the FMX is a highly modular system and the skid includes much of the necessary electrical
wiring and control systems, the installation costs will be low compared to other systems of
similar capacity.
Table 2. Capital cost estimate for 2,380 barrels/day

Cost Estimation
Item Unit Cost Remark
FMX-S100
4 $2,000,000
module
Capital Mechanical &
Pumps, valves, inner connecting pipe,
cost Electrical 2 $320,000
standard instruments
Skid
Total Cost $2,320,000
The operation and maintenance cost is listed in Table 3. The power requirement is based on the
power needed to drive the vortex-generating blades. The chemical costs include costs for weekly
cleaning of membranes.
Table 3. Operation and maintenance cost estimate for 2,380 barrels/day

Power - $106,680 $0.06/kWh, 360 days/yr
O&M Chemical - $10,800 360 days/yr

Cost
(USD/yr) Memb. Replacement - $160,000 Annualized cost
Total Cost $277,480
The membrane replacement frequency is an annualized cost assuming the membranes last 2
years. Membrane life is affected by the feed water quality, and some applications, membranes
have lasted as long as 5 years in the FMX system. Altogether, treating a volume of 2,380
barrels/day will cost $2,320,000 for equipment cost and $277,480 per year for operations and
maintenance.
Scope of Supplies for the FMX System

Table 4 provides a scope of supplies required for the operation of FMX-S100. The pumps are
specified for a 2,380 barrel per day flow rate. These items are included with the mechanical and
electrical skid costs.
65
Table 4 Scope of Supplies for FMX Unit provided with skid

Item Quantity Remarks
FMX Filtration System 4 2,380 barrels/day feed
FMX Drive motor 4 75 kW, 270 RPM
Membrane area 379.44m2 (4,084.4 NF membrane
ft2)
Feed pump 2 106 gpm capacity, 220 psi, centrifugal
pump
Flushing tank heat 1 Circulating volume of 2,378 gal/day, 20°C
exchanger/heater to 60 °C (68 °F to 140 °F)
Cleaning chemical 1 set
injection equipment
NaOH pump 2 6 gpm, 50 psi, diaphragm pump
H2SO4 pump 2 2 gpm, 50 psi, diaphragm pump
The tanks needed for operation of the FMX system are not included and must be supplied by the
client. The tank sizes and numbers listed in Table 5 are specified for a 2,380 barrel/day
treatment.
Table 5. Items provided by the client

Item Quantity Remarks
FMX Feed Tank 2 14,000 gallon, inclined bottom
Permeate tank 1 28,000 gallon, inclined bottom
Concentrate tank 1 7,000 gallon, inclined bottom
Flushing and CIP tank 1 2,700 gallon, inclined bottom
NaOH chemical tank 1 350 gallon
H2SO4 chemical tank 1 100 gallon
Dollar/Barrel Cost and Lifecycle Cost of FMX

In regards to costs, the operation and capital is factored to a 10 year non salvageable condition.
Although the frame, motor and other equipment could very well last more than 10 years, this was
used as a conservative basis of calculations. Table 6 reflects this calculations.
Table 6. $/barrel cost and lifecycle cost of FMX
Capital Cost Capital Cost $2,320,000
Operation and Maintenance Cost O&M Cost $277,480
$ per year assuming 10 year lifespan $509,480

Gallons/year Treatment at 100,000 GPD 36,500,000
$/gallon $0.0139
$/barrel $0.586
66
Additional options
FMX was tested for NF/UF for the treatment of produced and flowback water. UF memrbanes
provided almost all TSS removal, which could be a good candidate for clients looking only for
TSS removal. Below is a summary table of the costs between UF and NF comparison.
Table 7. $/barrel cost and cost of FMX with NF and UF configuration*

Membrane NF** UF***
Flux Range 40-10 100-60
# of FMX 4-16 4-7
# of Skids 2-6 2-3
Total Capital Cost $2,350,000 - $9,150,000 $590,000 - $1,010,000
Annual Operation and Maintinence Cost $274,480 – $1,097,920 $86,872 – $152,026
Gallons/Year Treatment at $100,000 GPD 36,500,000 36,500,000
$/gallon $0.0139 - $0.0551 $0.0039 - $0.0069
$/barrel $0.5838 - $2.3162 $0.1679 - $0.2912
*
Feed water quality, membrane selection, and client water quality goals will affect flux and
performance, which will affect pricing range.
**
Full Scale (2015): Flux based on full scale testing on-site. Costs based on FMX-S class model
***
Pilot Scale (2014): Flux based on pilot scale and costs above based on lower cost FMX-E llass
model
67
Appendix C. MBC Cost Details

MBC Cost Estimates and Design Basis
The following capital and operating cost estimates for full scale system treatment of fracwater using a
Magnetic Ballast Clarifier (MBC) were prepared using data from the on-site trial and costs from full scale
installations. Capital costs and operation and maintenance costs were estimated for 2,380 barrels/day
(100,000 gallons per day) and for 11,905 barrels/day (500,000 gallons per day).
Design Basis
The MBC system would consist of two chemical feed pumps, mix/reaction tank, MBC, sludge pump and
sludge decant tank. The MBC is a gravity flow through system thereby eliminating the need for
additional pumping of the frac water. Sludge generated from the MBC would be pumped to a sludge
decant tank where it will generally double in concentration. The thickened sludge can then be sent to a
settling pond or to a plate and frame press for dewatering and disposal.
The MBC is a fully integrated unit which can be moved with a forklift. This minimizes the amount of
piping needed and the installation time and cost. In addition, the MBC is easy moved to another location
should that be needed. The MBC is small enough that it and the ancillary equipment can be containerized
if needed to provide a fully transportable system.
Lastly, the performance of the MBC was unaffected by Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentrations so
no changes need to be incorporated into the system for high TDS waters.
Capital Cost Estimate for 2,381 and 11,905 Barrels/Day
Capital costs were prepared for 2,381 BPD and 11,905 BPD scenarios.
Capital costs can vary widely based upon the location of the installation, hours of operation and degree of
winterization required. As such, the following assumptions were used in developing the capital costs:
Small building and slab are already present on site for installation of the system. Should this not be the
case the system can be containerized for a nominal cost.
System will operate 20 hours per day, seven days per week.
MBC for 2,381 BPD will be at 50% rated capacity if operated 20 hours per day.
MBC for 11,905 BPD will be at 80% rated capacity if operated 20 hours per day.
Installation costs can vary significantly based upon location. For example, winterization costs for a west
Texas location will be less than for one in Alaska and as such the installation costs provided should be
adjusted based upon specific site requirements. Installation costs used here are for minimal winterization.
Item Capital Cost, 2,381 BPD Capital Cost, 11,905 BPD
One MBC, four chemical feed pumps, one 395,000 445,000

mix tank, one sludge decant tank with one
sludge pump and installation, Total $
68
Operational and Maintenance Costs
Operation and maintenance costs were estimated based upon full scale production units and the chemical
usage determined during the field trials. No costs are included for sludge disposal due to the wide
variety of disposal options and associated costs.
Chemical usage is directly related to the flow and suspended solids and as such increase proportionally as
the flow increases. Chemical usage costs are based upon a two chemical treatment program consisting of
a coagulant and flocculant.
Labor costs were included for one operator 24 hours per day at $65 per hour based upon this system being
installed at a location with no existing operational support. Twenty four hour per day operational support
is not needed for the MBC but if no other personnel are on site then that the labor costs are 100%
allocated to the MBC. This labor cost can be reduced considerably should the system be located at a site
with existing operational personnel. Operator time is the same for both flowrates.
Electrical costs do not increase proportionally with the increased flowrate as there is an economy of scale
with the larger units. Electrical costs were estimated based upon the system energized 24 hours per day at
a rate of $0.06/Kwh.
Part replacement includes bearings, motors, scrappers and other wear components. The cost for
replacement parts does not increase proportionally with the flow as there is an economy of scale in the
equipment size and number of components with the larger flowrates.
Item Annual Operational Cost, 2,381 BPD Annual Operational Cost, 11,905 BPD
Total, $ 646,112 906,770
$/BBL 0.74 0.21
Life Cycle Cost of MBC System
There are parts of the MBC system such as bearings, motors, drums, disks and scrapers that need to be
replaced on a scheduled periodic basis and are accounted for in the operational costs. The MBC tankage
could well have a life cycle of over 20 years. However, to be conservative a 10 year non salvageable
condition was assumed for this analysis. No cost of money factor has been included in this analysis and a
straight line amortization was used.
Item 2,381 BPD 11,905 BPD
Capital Cost, $ 395,000 445,000
Amortized Capital Cost, $/year 39,500 44,500
Amortized Capital Cost, $/BBL per year 0.046 0.010
69
Appendix D. Design Criteria for Estimating Treatment Plant Size

Summary:
The basis of the design example is derived from data from Pennsylvania State (2015). The top eleven
natural gas producing counties in Pennsylvania (mostly Marcellus shale) were analyzed in detail. Based
upon an average rate of new well completion and waste generation, an average county could utilize a
large scale treatment facility with a capacity of 12,900 BBL/day (540,000 US gpd) which includes 4
hours per day shift maintenance, and 69 days per year vacation and weekend downtime. Designs for
other regions, specifically the Barnett and Eagle Ford shales in Texas are also estimated based on water
recovery data from other published literature. A large county-wide plant in the Barnett region would be
about 23,800 BBL/day and be dominated by produced water flow from existing plants. The plant would
be best design to produce water for deep well injection. A large county-wide plant in Eagle Ford would
be about 34,400 BBL/day. The flow would be dominated by recovered flowback water from the rapid
rate of well completion in the region. The plant would be best designed to provide reuse water for
hydraulic fracturing.
Pennsylvania Data Base:
The design of a treatment system of a given locale is based upon the expected daily waste fluid load to the
plant. To estimate the load for a large regional treatment facility, the Pennsylvania State (2015) database
was used. This open source database provides a realistic view of the wastes generated in large
geographical regions within a well- established production area. The database is segmented into 6-
month blocks. The six 6-months blocks representing waste generation data from January 2012 through
December 2014 was loaded into a single file containing in excess of 84,000 company waste reports. At
the time of this report, the data for 2015 had not yet become available. While 35 counties show drilling
activities, representing 7182 permitted wells, the eleven largest producing counties presented in Table A1
contained 6395 of the reporting wells.
Table A1 is a compilation of all the reports between 2012 and 2014 sorted by the SPUD date of the
permitted well. The SPUD date is the date that the first spade hits earth, and is a loose representation of
the age of a well. All Pennsylvania permits are time limited such that some wells are spudded early to
defend against permit lapses. In this discussion the SPUD date, as reported by Pennsylvania State (2015)
is assumed to correlate with the age of the well. The data in Table A1 show the dramatic growth of the
hydrofracture industry. In 2007 there were about 100 wells permitted. By year- end 2014 there were
6395 wells permitted in the top producing counties. The far right column is an estimate of the current rate
of well completion and is calculated from the SPUD dates between 2012 and 2014. The average top
producing county is completing 50 wells per year. This gives a good estimate of near term growth within
a generic geographic area.
Table A1: Total Permits Reporting in 11 Most Active Counties in Pennsylvania by Year End
Reported by SPUD Date
County 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 *Wells/Yr
WASHINGTON 46 107 202 360 510 705 923 1117 137
BRADFORD 3 22 172 426 731 848 910 946 33
GREENE 12 72 174 274 394 497 614 836 113
SUSQUEHANNA 3 29 112 235 410 557 700 837 93
LYCOMING 4 15 35 137 392 640 712 757 39
TIOGA 13 13 121 317 537 644 676 693 16
BUTLER 10 21 31 64 95 165 252 304 46
70
Table A1: Total Permits Reporting in 11 Most Active Counties in Pennsylvania by Year End
Reported by SPUD Date
FAYETTE 7 26 78 121 171 214 237 254 13
WESTMORELAND 6 38 74 122 179 218 246 250 11
WYOMING 0 0 1 24 86 101 159 205 35
ARMSTRONG 5 12 31 67 100 142 176 196 18
Total 109 355 1031 2147 3605 4731 5605 6395 555
Note: *Wells/Yr calculated between 2012 and 2014 only 50
Table A2 is a list of the categories of waste generation and disposal means reported in the Pennsylvania
State (2015) database. For the present analysis, only the generation categories were analyzed.
PRODUCED FLUID WASTE was assumed to represent the fluid generated by operating wells.
FRACING FLUID WASTE and DRILLING FLUID WASTE were summed to represent the waste
generated from newly completed wells. Fluid disposal means were not analyzed for the present project,
however, a quick calculation of CENTRAL TREAT. FOR RECYCLE plus REUSE OTHER THAN
ROAD SPREADING indicated that the overall average recycle rate of the fluid wastes ranged 16-93% by
county with a weighted average of 77% reuse.
Table A2: Categories of Fluid Waste Generation and Disposal Means in the
Pennsylvania State (2015) Database and Inclusion in Present Analysis
Fluid Waste Generation Categories Fluid Waste Disposal Categories
Yes PRODUCED FLUID WASTE No CENTRAL TREAT. FOR RECYCLE

Yes FRACING FLUID WASTE No WASTE TREAT. FOR NPDES DISCHARGE
Yes DRILLING FLUID WASTE No REUSE OTHER THAN ROAD SPREADING
No BASIC SEDIMENT No ROAD SPREADING
No SPENT LUBRICANTS No STORAGE PENDING DISPOSAL
No SERVICING FLUIDS No RESIDUAL WASTE TRANSFER
No LANDFILL
No INJECTION DISPOSAL WELL
Table A3 is a summary of the calculation to generate values for produced water per well and total
flowback recovered per new well. The average number of operating wells between 2012 and 2014 was
generated from Table A1, such that the total produced fluid wastes could be apportioned to the operating
wells. Produced water per well per day ranged from 5.2 to 12.2 BBL per day per well by county with a
weighted average of 7.7 The new wells drilled column was generated from Table A1 and represents the
total number of wells completed between 2012 and 2014. The flowback plus drilling fluid reported was
assumed to be generated from the newly completed wells. The flowback recovery is between 5,700 and
102,000 BBL per well completion with a weighted average of 16,600 BBL per well.
Table A3 : Fluid Waste Production in Top 11 Producing Counties in Pennsylvania Years 2012-2014
Average New Flowback + Produced *Flowback + **Produced Produced
Number Wells Drilling Fluid Water Drilling Fluid Water per Water BBL
Wells Drilled BBL BBL per Well Well per
Between 2012- 2012-2104 2012-2014 BBL/Well BBL/Well Well per day
2012-2014 2014
WASHINGTON 915 412 5,219,905 9,121,741 12,700 10,000 9.1
BRADFORD 901 98 2,290,413 7,668,381 23,400 8,500 7.8
GREENE 649 339 5,641,520 8,680,829 16,600 13,400 12.2
71
SUSQUEHANNA 698 280 4,767,222 4,270,868 17,000 6,100 5.6
LYCOMING 703 117 1,152,318 7,934,723 9,800 11,300 10.3
TIOGA 671 49 2,463,432 4,496,783 50,300 6,700 6.1
BUTLER 240 139 787,211 2,032,121 5,700 8,500 7.8
FAYETTE 235 40 2,546,524 1,406,714 63,700 6,000 5.5
WESTMORELAND 238 32 3,263,134 2,020,049 102,000 8,500 7.8
WYOMING 155 104 735,759 1,286,623 7,100 8,300 7.6
ARMSTRONG 171 54 858,859 977,932 15,900 5,700 5.2
Average 16,600* 8,500 7.7

Note: *Assumes the flowback and drilling fluid wastes are generated by the new wells drilled during 2012-2014. **Assumes the
produced water is generated by the average of existing wells during 2012-2014. There are 365 x 3 = 995 days assumed for the
reporting period January 2012- December 31, 2014.
Operational Design for a Regional Treatment Facility in Pennsylvania:
The Operational Design Load (BBL/day) is the expected size of the treatment capacity without process
downtime. The Baseload (BBL/day) is the produced water generated by the operating wells in the locale.
The New Well Load (BBL/day) is the flowback plus drilling fluid wastes generated by new completions
within the region. The Expansion Load is the increase in baseload created by new well completion
projected over a number of years. The Storage Load is the volume of fluid waste held by the producers in
temporary storage for later treatment apportioned at a reasonable rate for treatment. The Baseload, New
Well Load, Expansion Load and Storage Load (BBL/day) may be defined as follows:
𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 + 𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝑊𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 + 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 + 𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑
𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 𝑄𝑃𝑊 𝑥 𝑁𝑂
𝑄𝑃𝑊 = 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 (𝐵𝐵𝐿)
𝑁𝑂 = 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛
𝐶𝑅 𝑥 𝑉𝐹𝐵
𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝑊𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 =
365
𝐶𝑅 = 𝑛𝑒𝑤 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
𝑉𝐹𝐵 = 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐷𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐹𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝑊𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 (𝐵𝐵𝐿)
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 𝑌 𝑥 𝐶𝑅 𝑥 𝑄𝑃𝑊
𝑌 = 𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡 (𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 5)
𝑉𝑆 𝑥 (𝑁𝑂 + 𝑌𝐶𝑅 )
𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 =
365
𝑉𝑆 = 𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑎𝑤𝑎𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝐵𝐵𝐿 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
Table A4 is a summary of the design parameters used with the design model. These parameters were
presented in the previous Tables A1 and A3. The model is calculated using the average results for the
parameters without regard to variations. It is assumed that a more detailed design would be based upon
the exact location and the parameters associated to that geographic region.
72
Table A4: Typical Values for Operational Design Load Based on Largest Producing Counties in Pennsylvania
Low High Average Units
NO 196 1117 581 Number
Qpw 5.2 12.2 7.7 BBL/well-day
VFB 5,700 102,000 16,600 BBL/well completed
CR 11 137 50 Wells completed/year
VS 0 108 20 BBL/Well-year
Y 0 10 5 Years
The purpose of this exercise is to present an upper limit to the design of a treatment system for a large
regional plant. Table A5 presents the case for an average county within the top eleven-producing
counties within Pennsylvania. The parameters are from Table A4. The plant size without maintenance,
vacation, weekend, or other downtime is estimated to be 8,707 BBL/day (Table A5).
Table A5: Estimated Nominal Design Load for a Plant for a Major Producing County in Pennsylvania
Baseload New Well Load Expansion Load Storage Load Sum
Parameter NO x QPw CR x VFB / 365 Y x CR x QPW (NO + Y x CR ) x VS / 365
Typical 581 7.7 50 16,600 365 5 50 7.7 581 5 50 20 365

8,707
Operational 4,473 2,274 1,925 35 BBL/day
Design Load BBL/day BBL/day BBL/day BBL/day
=
Actual Design Load for a Plant in Pennsylvania:
The fully operational design load needs to include any planned major maintenance, weekend or holiday
downtime, and daily scheduled shift changes or routine daily maintenance. Table A6 contains typical
times of planned non-operation. These times are used to calculate FY and FD, which represent yearly and
daily discount factors.
Table A6 : Planned Times of Non-operation : Operational Time Discount Factors
Yearly Major Maintenance 10 days/year
Weekend 52 days/year
Holiday 7 days/year
Total 69 days/year
Yearly discount factor FY = (365-69)/365 0.81
Daily Down Time 4 hour/day
Daily discount factor FD=(24-4)/24 0.83
The actual design load required is related to the operational design load:
𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑

𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 ≈
𝐹𝐷 𝐹𝑌
73
For the specific case representing a major regional facility capable of treating the waste fluid flow from a
test region based on the average of the largest 11 producing counties in Pennsylvania, the operational
design load is calculated:
8,707
𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑃𝑒𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑦𝑙𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑎 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑦 ≈ = 12,884 𝐵𝐵𝐿/𝑑𝑎𝑦
0.81 𝑥 0.83
Therefore, a 12,884 BBL/day treatment facility with time for maintenance and vacations, is required to
treat the daily input of 8707 BBL/day. This is a significant plant that needs to handle about 80 truckloads
per day, or about 366,000 gallons/day.
Water Recovery in other Plays:

Martell (2011) presented an overview of water recovery from drilling activities for six shale regions. The
Martell data have been converted to barrels and summarized in Table A7 and represent the first 5
columns. The far right hand column is an estimation of the daily produced water generation assuming a
25 year life of a well for the purposes of the present report. It should be noted that the Marcellus
estimates for produced water per day (2.8 BBL/well-day) falls far short of the Pennsylvania State (2015)
estimate of 7.7 BBL/well-day in Table A3.
Galusky and Hayes (2011) measured flowback volumes at 11 new wells in the Barnett shale region of
Texas. Ten of the sites were measured over periods exceeding 100 days after fracture. In the ten sites,
the flowback recovered volume ranges 25,000 BBL to 70,000 BBL with an average of 41,400 BBL per site.
The average from Galusky and Hayes (2011) is three times the volume estimated by Mantell (2011).
Bradford (2015) reported that the daily produced water rate in Eagle Ford was approximately 1.6 million
barrels. The Eagle Ford region in SW Texas is one of the fastest growing development area and has seen
a rise in producing wells from just over 100 (total gas and oil) in 2009 to more than 4900 wells in 2013
(see Table A6 from Rail Road Commission of Texas (2015)). Assuming approximately 1000 wells
completed per year at 25,000 BBL per well recovered fracture water, the figure in Bradford yields a rate
of 300 BBL per day per well of produced water not including hydrofracture. This is an unsustainable
number, and most likely in error considering that 8 BBL/day is deemed to be a large number.
Table A7: Water Recovery Data from Mantell (2011) and Estimates from other sources
Water per well Flowback Produced Water Gas per Well Produced Water
During Drilling Recovered over life of well Billion Cf BBL/well-day
BBL/well Per well BBL/MMCf
Barnett 95,000 11,900-14,300 24 3 8
Haynesville 133,000 5,900 5-24 2.6 1.4-6.8
Eagle Ford 145,000 ND 5-24 ND NE
Fayetteville 117,000 11,900-14,300 5-24 2.6 1.4-6.8
Marcellus 133,000 11,900-14,300 5 5.2 2.8
Niobrara 79,000 ND ND ND NE
ND = data not discussed in Mantell (2011)
Estimated from the Mantell (2011) data calculated assuming 25 year well-life; NE not estimated
74
Drilling Activity in Eagle Ford and Barnett:

Table A8 is a summary of the number of producing wells in Eagle Ford shale showing tremendous
growth of nearly 800 wells per year. The Eagle Ford shale activity is found in 26 counties in SW Texas,
with most drilling in 14 counties. The total area of the 14 counties is about 18,000 square miles with the
majority of drilling concentrated within 30% of the total area, giving a drilling density of about 1 well per
square mile. Reliable produced water generation numbers on a per well basis have not been found for
the present report, however, literature states that the number is low.
Table A8: Producing Wells by Year in the Eagle Ford Shale (Rail Road Commission of Texas, 2015a)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Oil 40 72 368 1262 2521
Gas 67 158 550 875 2418
Table A9 is a summary of the number of permits issued by the Rail Road Commission of Texas (2015b)
for the Barnett shale districts from 2006 through 2014. The Barnett region represents some of the most
densely drilled property in the country. The 5,000 square mile region is represented by parts of 18
counties in North Central Texas, with a majority of drilling occurring in about 30% of the area. There are
estimated to be 17,000 natural gas and 1,000 oil wells currently operating in the region. Approximately
800 well permits are expected have been issued for 2015. The well density exceeds 3 wells per square
mile. Declining permits reflect, in part, a maturation of play with declining gas production from new
wells on a per well basis. The decline also represents a softening of energy prices over the last year.
Reliable numbers for produced water generation were not established for this report. However, the
value of 8 BBL/well/day from Table A7 will be used for design basis.
Table A9: Permits Issued (gas and oil) for new well in Barnett (Rail Road Commission of Texas, 2015b)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2510 3622 4065 1719 2128 2008 1182 940 1140
Design Cases for Large Regional (County-Wide) Treatment Plants in Barnett and Eagle Ford Shale
Table A10 is a compilation of design parameters for Barnett and Eagle Ford shale based on assumptions
from Tables A7, A8 and A9 and other rational judgements. In general, the Barnett region seems to
produce a bit more flowback recovery and a slightly wetter gas due to occasional incursion of the wells
into an underlying strata containing brine. County averages are based on the most active counties in
each region (Barnett 18 counties and Eagle Ford 14 Counties).
Table A10: Typical Values for Average County in Barnett and Eagle Ford Shale Regions
Barnett Shale Eagle Ford Shale Units
Barnett County Source Eagle Ford County Source
Total Average Total Average
No 18000 1000 7 6000 430 6 Number
Qpw 8 2,4 5 4 BBL/well-day
VFB 41,400 1 29,000 3 BBL/well completed
CR 920 51 9 2800 200 8 Wells completed/year
75
VS 50 5 35 5 BBL/Well-year
Y 5 5 Years
1) Galusky and Hayes (2011)
2) Mantell (2011)
3) Mantell (2011) based on the average fracture volume used and assuming 20% recovery
4) Thomas D. Hayes personal communication (September 2015)
5 Marcellus Storage Data (State of Pennsylvania 2015) prorated by recovered fracture volume per well
6) Rail Road Commission of Texas showed 4900 operating wells in 2013, and assuming 1100 completions between 2013 and 2015
7) Rail Road Commission of Texas showed 18000 operating wells in 18 counties
8) Table A8 shows about 2800 wells completed between 2012 and 2013 in 14 most active countiesx
9) Based on Table A9 average 2012 through 2014 permits issued prorated to 90% completion
Table A11 shows an example for an average county in the Barnett Region the Operational Design Load is
about 16,000 BBL/day and is roughly twice the size of a county wide plant in the Marcellus. The plant
load is dominated by produced water from existing wells. Assuming the same maintenance and
vacation schedule as in Table A6, the Actual Design Load must be about 24,000 BBL/day.
Table A5: Estimated Nominal Design Load for a Plant for a Major Producing County in Barnett
Typical 1000 8 51 41,400 365 5 51 8 1000 5 51 50 365

15,997
Operational 8,000 5,785 2040 172 BBL/day
Design Load BBL/day BBL/day BBL/day BBL/day
=
15,997
𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑦 ≈ = 23,800 𝐵𝐵𝐿/𝑑𝑎𝑦
0.81 𝑥 0.83
Table A12 shows an example for an average county in the Barnett Region the Operational Design Load is
about 23,100 BBL/day and is roughly three times the size of a county wide plant in the Marcellus. The
Eagle Ford plant load is dominated by flowback water from new well completion. Assuming the same
maintenance and vacation schedule as in Table A6, the Actual Design Load must be about 24,000
BBL/day.
Table A12: Estimated Nominal Design Load for a Plant for a Major Producing County in Eagle Ford
Typical 430 5 200 29,000 365 5 200 5 430 5 200 20 365

23,118
Operational 2,150 BBL/day 15,890 5,000 78 BBL/day
Design Load = BBL/day BBL/day BBL/day
76
23,118
𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑦 ≈ = 34,400 𝐵𝐵𝐿/𝑑𝑎𝑦
0.81 𝑥 0.83
References to the Appendix:

Pennsylvania State (2015) Department of Environmental Protection Website
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/wastewater_management/10582
Martell, M.E. (2011) Produced water reuse and recycling challenges and opportunities across major
shale plays. EPA Hydraulic Fracture Study Technical Workshop #4.
Rail Road Commission of Texas (2015a) www.lrrc.state.tx.us/oil-gas/major-oil-gas-formations/Eagle-

Ford-Shale/
Rail Road Commission of Texas (2015b) www.lrrc.state.tx.us/media/14482/barnettshaledrillingpermits

issued.pdf
Bradford, A, (2015) Energy Market Commentary, BTUanalytics.com/producedwater-volumes/
Rail Road Commission of Texas (2015c)

www.barnetshalenews.com/documents/Tinterra/20%SW20%FW4.pdf
Galusky, P.L. and Hayes, T.D., (2011) Feasibility Assessment of Early Flowback Water Recovery for Reuse
in Subsequent Well Completions, Task 7; RPSEA No. 08122-05.07 48 pp.
77
Appendix E. Appendix to the Economic Analysis

Table A1 is a summary of the range of treatment, disposal, water costs, trucking costs, and distances as
presented in Slutz el al (2012) and form the basis for some of the assumptions used in the economic
assessment model.
Tables A2-A6 are the data compilations for the economic analyses of end-user costs of providing either
9,524 bbl (400,000 gal) or 47,620 bbl (2,000,000 gal) frac water based on 25% flowback recovery, 25%
blend ratio assisted with either a 2,381 bbl/day (100,000 gpd) or a 11,905 bbl/day (500,000 gpd)
treatment facility, respectively. The treatment options examined are;
1) No reuse; 100% of flowback is deep well injected; 100% of frac water is from fresh water.
2) MBC treatment only for TSS and oil and grease control; up to 25% of frac water is recovered as
flowback fro reuse. This represents a chemical treatment option requiring water conditioning
with coagulants and flocculants.
3) FMX-UF only equipped with ultra-filters for TSS and oil and grease control; up to 25% of frac
water is recovered as flowback for reuse. This represents a physical treatment option based on
membrane separation.
4) FMX-NF only equipped with nano-filter for limited scale control (about 40% scale removal) plus
TSS and oil and grease; up to 25% of frac water is recovered flowback. This represents a physical
treatment option based on membrane separation. The water from this treatment process is of
higher quality than options 2 or 3 above.
5) MBC followed by FMX-NF with nano-filtration; up to 25% of frac water is recovered flowback for
reuse. This represents a series chemical treatment followed by physical treatment. The water
6) FMX-UF equipped with ultrafilter for TSS and oil and grease control followed by reverse osmosis
for NPDES permit discharge. This option potentially produces water with sufficient quality for
NPDES discharge. This option is limited to flowback water that is generally less than 35,000 mg/l
TDS; a process limitation inherent in the pressure differentials within the reverse osmosis
process.
Tables A7-A8 are the data compilations for the sensitivity of the economic analyses of membrane flux on
FMX treatment costs for the ultrafilter option (FMX-UF; 60-100 LMH) and the nano-filter option (FMX-
NF; 10 LMH – 40 LMH). Other data in the analyses are for the Barnett region providing 9,524 bbl
(400,000 gal) frac water based on 25% flowback recovery, 25% blend ratio assisted with a 2,381 bbl/day
(100,000 gpd) treatment facility.
78
Table A1: Typical Cost Figures for Water Management (Slutz et al 2012)
Marcellus Barnett
low high low high
Storage ($/bbl) Frac Tank $0.07 $0.12 $0.07 $0.12
Portable Tanks $0.04 $0.09 $0.04 $0.09
Class II Well ($/bbl) Injection $2.00 $3.00 $0.07 $1.00
Reuse ($/bbl) TSS only $1.00 $1.00
Scale Removal $2.00 $2.00
Transportation
($/bbl-mile) Trucks $0.02 $0.04 $0.02 $0.04
Pipeline $0.02 $0.40 $0.02 $0.40
Fresh Water ($/bbl) $0.01 $0.02 $0.25 $0.30
Distance (miles) Reuse Facility 10 5

Recycle Facility 50 10
Disposal Well 500 50
79
Table A2: End User Cost of Producing 9,524 bbl (400,000 gal) Frac Water Based on 25% Flowback
Recovery, 25% Blend Ratio Assisted with a 2,381 bbl (100,000 gal) Treatment Facility in the Barnett
BARNETT 100K
MBC MBC +
TREATMENT LEVELS NONE Only FMX-UF FMX-UF FMX-NF
TREATMENT GOAL DISPOSAL REUSE REUSE REUSE REUSE
Total Frac Fuid Volume Needed (bbl) 9,524 9,524 9,524 9,524 9,524
Vol. Treated Water for Reuse (bbl) 0 2,333 1,905 1,905 1,905
Fresh Water Make-up Required (bbl) 9,524 7,190 7,619 7,619 7,619
Fresh Water Price ($/bbl) $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 $0.30
FRESH WATER SUPPLY COSTS $2,857 $2,157 $2,286 $2,286 $2,286
Fresh Water Required (bbl) 9,524 7,190 7,619 7,619 7,619
Fresh Water Transport ($/bbl mi) $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03
Fresh Water Transport Distance (mi) 30 30 30 30 30
FRESH WATER TRANSPORTATION $8,571 $6,471 $6,857 $6,857 $6,857
Flowback Vol. Treated at Plant (bbl) 2,381 2,381 2,381 2,381 2,381
Treatment Price ($/bbl) 0 $0.79 $0.23 $1.45 $2.24
TREATMENT COST $0 $1,881 $548 $3,452 $5,333
Volume of Treated Water ($/bbl) 0 2,333 1,905 1,905 1,905
Treated Water Transport ($/bbl) $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03
Treated Water Transport Dist. (mi) 0 15 15 15 15
TREATMENT TRANSPORTATION $0 $1,050 $857 $857 $857
Injection Well Volume (bbl) 2,357 0 417 417 405
Injection Costs ($/bbl) $0.53 $0.53 $0.53 $0.53 $0.53
DISPOSAL INJECTION COSTS $1,249 $0 $221 $221 $215
Injection Transportation ($/bbl mi) $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03
Injection Transportation Dist. (mi) 50 50 50 50 50
DISPOSAL INJECTION TRANSPORT $3,536 $0 $625 $625 $607
Landfill Volume (bbl) 24 48 60 60 71
Landfill Tipping Costs ($/bbl) $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00
LANDFILL COSTS $71 $143 $179 $179 $214
Landfill Transport costs ($/bbl mi) $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05
Landfill Transport distance mile (mi) 50 50 50 50 50
LANDFILL TRANSPORT COSTS $60 $119 $149 $149 $179
TOTAL WATER MANAGEMENT $16,345 $11,821 $11,721 $14,626 $16,548
80
Table A3: End User Cost of Producing 47,620 bbl (2,000,000 gal) Frac Water Based on 25% Flowback
BARNETT 500K
TREATMENT LEVELS NONE MBC Only FMX UF FMX NF MBC + FMX
TREATMENT COST $0 $2,619 $2,738 $17,262 $19,881
TREATMENT TRANSPORTATION $0 $8,750 $7,143 $7,143 $7,143
Injection Well Volume (bbl) 11,786 0 2,083 2,083 2,024
DISPOSAL INJECTION COSTS $6,246 $0 $1,104 $1,104 $1,073
DISPOSAL INJECTION TRANSPORT $17,679 $0 $3,125 $3,125 $3,036
LANDFILL COSTS $357 $714 $893 $893 $1,071
81
Table A4: End User Cost of Producing 9,524 bbl (400,000 gal) Frac Water Based on 25% Flowback
Recovery, 25% Blend Ratio Assisted with a 2,381 bbl (100,000 gal) Treatment Facility in the Marcellus
MARCELLUS 100K
MBC MBC +
TREATMENT LEVELS NONE Only FMX-UF FMX-UF FMX-NF
FRESH WATER SUPPLY COSTS $190 $144 $152 $152 $152
TREATMENT COST $0 $1,881 $405 $1,381 $3,262
LANDFILL COSTS $71 $143 $179 $179 $214
82
Recovery, 25% Blend Ratio Assisted with a 11,905 bbl (500,000 gal) Treatment Facility in the Marcellus
MARCELLUS 500K
MBC +
TREATMENT LEVELS NONE MBC Only FMX-UF FMX-UF FMX-NF
FRESH WATER SUPPLY COSTS $952 $719 $762 $762 $762
TREATMENT COST $0 $2,619 $2,024 $6,905 $9,524
LANDFILL COSTS $357 $714 $893 $893 $1,071
83
Table A6: End User Cost of Producing 9,524 bbl (400,000 gal) Frac Water Based on 25% Flowback Recovery,
25% Blend Ratio Assisted with a 2,381 bbl (100,000 gal) Treatment Facility in the Eagle Ford
EAGLE FORD 100K
MBC + FMX-NF
TREATMENT LEVELS NONE MBC Only FMX-UF FMX-UF FMX-NF + RO
TREATMENT GOAL DISPOSAL REUSE REUSE REUSE REUSE NPDES
Total Frac Fuid Volume Needed (bbl) 9,524 9,524 9,524 9,524 9,524 9,524
Vol. Treated Water for Reuse (bbl) 0 2,333 1,905 1,905 1,905 0
Fresh Water Make-up Required (bbl) 9,524 7,190 7,619 7,619 7,619 9,524
Fresh Water Price ($/bbl) $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 $0.30
FRESH WATER SUPPLY COSTS $2,857 $2,157 $2,286 $2,286 $2,286 $2,857
Fresh Water Required (bbl) 9,524 7,190 7,619 7,619 7,619 9,524
Fresh Water Transport ($/bbl mi) $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03
Fresh Water Transport Distance (mi) 30 30 30 30 30 30
FRESH WATER TRANSPORTATION $8,571 $6,471 $6,857 $6,857 $6,857 $8,571
Flowback Vol. Treated at Plant (bbl) 2,381 2,381 2,381 2,381 2,381 2,381
Treatment Price ($/bbl) 0 $0.79 $0.17 $0.58 $1.37 $6.05
TREATMENT COST $0 $1,881 $405 $1,381 $3,262 $14,405
Volume of Treated Water ($/bbl) 0 2,333 1,905 1,905 1,905 0
Treated Water Transport ($/bbl) $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.02 $0.03 $0.03
Treated Water Transport Dist. (mi) 0 15 15 15 15 15
TREATMENT TRANSPORTATION $0 $1,050 $857 $571 $857 $0
Injection Well Volume (bbl) 2,357 0 417 417 405 536
Injection Costs ($/bbl) $0.53 $0.53 $0.53 $0.53 $0.53 $0.53
DISPOSAL INJECTION COSTS $1,249 $0 $221 $221 $215 $284
Injection Well Volume (bbl) 2,357 0 417 417 405 536
Injection Transportation ($/bbl mi) $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03
Injection Transportation Dist. (mi) 50 50 50 50 50 50
DISPOSAL INJECTION TRANSPORT $3,536 $0 $625 $625 $607 $804
Landfill Volume (bbl) 24 48 60 60 71 60
Landfill Tipping Costs ($/bbl) $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00
LANDFILL COSTS $71 $143 $179 $179 $214 $179
Landfill Transport costs ($/bbl mi) $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05
Landfill Transport distance mile (mi) 50 50 50 50 50 50
LANDFILL TRANSPORT COSTS $60 $119 $149 $149 $179 $149
TOTAL WATER MANAGEMENT $16,345 $11,821 $11,578 $12,268 $14,476 $27,248
84
Recovery, 25% Blend Ratio Assisted with a 11,905 bbl (500,000 gal) Treatment Facility in the Eagle Ford
EAGLE FORD 500K
MBC MBC + FMX-NF +
TREATMENT LEVELS NONE Only FMX-UF FMX-UF FMX-NF RO
TREATMENT GOAL DISPOSAL REUSE REUSE REUSE REUSE NPDES
Total Frac Fuid Volume Needed (bbl) 47,619 47,619 47,619 47,619 47,619 47,619
Vol. Treated Water for Reuse (bbl) 0 11,667 9,524 9,524 9,524 0
Fresh Water Make-up Required (bbl) 47,619 35,952 38,095 38,095 38,095 47,619
Fresh Water Price ($/bbl) $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 $0.30
FRESH WATER SUPPLY COSTS $14,286 $10,786 $11,429 $11,429 $11,429 $14,286
Fresh Water Required (bbl) 47,619 35,952 38,095 38,095 38,095 47,619
Fresh Water Transport ($/bbl mi) $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03
Fresh Water Transport Distance (mi) 30 30 30 30 30 30
FRESH WATER TRANSPORTATION $42,857 $32,357 $34,286 $34,286 $34,286 $42,857
Flowback Vol. Treated at Plant (bbl) 11,905 11,905 11,905 11,905 11,905 11,905
Treatment Price ($/bbl) 0 $0.22 $0.17 $0.58 $0.80 $6.05
TREATMENT COST $0 $2,619 $2,024 $6,905 $9,524 $72,024
Volume of Treated Water ($/bbl) 0 11,667 9,524 9,524 9,524 0
Treated Water Transport ($/bbl) $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03
Treated Water Transport Dist. (mi) 0 25 25 25 25 25
TREATMENT TRANSPORTATION $0 $8,750 $7,143 $7,143 $7,143 $0
Injection Well Volume (bbl) 11,786 0 2,083 2,083 2,024 2,679
Injection Costs ($/bbl) $0.53 $0.53 $0.53 $0.53 $0.53 $0.53
DISPOSAL INJECTION COSTS $6,246 $0 $1,104 $1,104 $1,073 $1,420
Injection Well Volume (bbl) 11,786 0 2,083 2,083 2,024 2,679
Injection Transportation ($/bbl mi) $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03
Injection Transportation Dist. (mi) 50 50 50 50 50 50
DISPOSAL INJECTION TRANSPORT $17,679 $0 $3,125 $3,125 $3,036 $4,018
Landfill Tipping Costs ($/bbl) $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00
LANDFILL COSTS $357 $714 $893 $893 $1,071 $893
Landfill Transport costs ($/bbl mi) $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05
Landfill Transport distance mile (mi) 50 50 50 50 50 50
LANDFILL TRANSPORT COSTS $298 $595 $744 $744 $893 $744
TOTAL WATER MANAGEMENT $81,723 $55,821 $60,747 $65,628 $68,454 $136,241
85
Table A8: Sensitivity Analysis for the FMX-UF Ultrafilter Option Based on a Flux Range of 60-100
LMH, End User Cost of Producing 9,524 bbl (400,000 gal) Frac Water Based on 25% Flowback
FLUX LMH 60 70 80 90 100
TREATMENT LEVELS FMX-UF FMX-UF FMX-UF FMX-UF FMX-UF
Vol. Treated Water for Reuse (bbl) 1,905 1,905 1,905 1,905 1,905
Treatment Price ($/bbl) $0.29 $0.26 $0.23 $0.20 $0.17
TREATMENT COST $693 $624 $554 $481 $405
Volume of Treated Water ($/bbl) 1,905 1,905 1,905 1,905 1,905
TREATMENT TRANSPORTATION $857 $857 $857 $857 $857
Injection Well Volume (bbl) 417 417 417 417 417
DISPOSAL INJECTION COSTS $221 $221 $221 $221 $221
DISPOSAL INJECTION TRANSPORT $625 $625 $625 $625 $625
LANDFILL COSTS $179 $179 $179 $179 $179
86
Table A8: Sensitivity Analysis for the FMX-NF Nano-filter Option Based on a Flux Range of 10-40
LMH, End User Cost of Producing 9,524 bbl (400,000 gal) Frac Water Based on 25% Flowback
FLUX LMH 10 20 25 30 40
TREATMENT LEVELS FMX-NF FMX-NF FMX-NF FMX-NF FMX-NF
Vol. Treated Water for Reuse (bbl) 1,905 1,905 1,905 1,905 1,905
Treatment Price ($/bbl) $2.31 $1.73 $1.45 $1.16 $0.58
TREATMENT COST $5,500 $4,119 $3,452 $2,762 $1,381
Volume of Treated Water ($/bbl) 1,905 1,905 1,905 1,905 1,905
TREATMENT TRANSPORTATION $857 $857 $857 $857 $857
DISPOSAL INJECTION COSTS $221 $221 $221 $221 $221
DISPOSAL INJECTION TRANSPORT $625 $625 $625 $625 $625
LANDFILL COSTS $179 $179 $179 $179 $179
87
Appendix F. Raw Data

Excel files of raw data and data processed for the analyses presented in this report are available from
Southern Research upon request.
88

Advanced Treatment of Shale Gas Fracturing Water To Produce Re-Use or Discharge Quality Water ... (PDFDrive)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Treatment of Shale Gas Fracturing Water To Produce Re-Use or Discharge Quality Water ... (PDFDrive)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Treatment of Shale Gas Fracturing Water

to Produce Re-use or Discharge Quality Water

US Department of Energy - National Energy Technology Laboratory

Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America

• Both hydrogel and solidification/stabilization were effective at preparing FMX concentrates

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... i

Contents ....................................................................................................................................................... iii

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... v

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... vi

List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................. viii

1.0 Introduction and Background............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Overall Project Objectives and Focus ........................................................................................... 1

1.2 Bench Scale Activities and Results Summary .............................................................................. 2

1.3 Field Demonstration Activities and Results .................................................................................. 2

1.4 Document Roadmap...................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 Technologies Evaluated .................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Magnetic ballast clarification (MBC) ........................................................................................... 3

2.2 Anti-fouling Membrane System (FMX) ....................................................................................... 3

2.3 Hydrogel Adsorbent ...................................................................................................................... 5

2.4 Precipitation, Solidification, and Stabilization.............................................................................. 6

2.5 Competing and Associated Technologies ..................................................................................... 6

3.0 Field Demonstration Objectives and Approach .............................................................................. 10

3.1 Field Demonstration Objectives.................................................................................................. 10

3.2 Treatment Design Parameters and Performance Expectations ................................................... 10

3.3 Analyte Selection ........................................................................................................................ 13

3.5 Sampling and Analysis Matrix.................................................................................................... 15

3.7 Field Demonstration Site and Test Logistics .............................................................................. 16

4.0 Field Demonstration Results ........................................................................................................... 18

4.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 18

4.1.1 Key Analytes ........................................................................................................................... 18

4.1.2 Feed Water Characterization ................................................................................................... 19

4.2 MBC-only Treatment .................................................................................................................. 20

4.2.1 Characterization of MBC Effluent/Sludge and Treatability ................................................... 20

4.2.2 MBC Removal Efficiency for Key Analytes .......................................................................... 21

4.2.3 Hydraulics for MBC treatment ............................................................................................... 24

4.2.4 Improvement of MBC Performance by Pre-oxidation ............................................................ 24

4.3 FMX-only Treatment: nano-filtration ......................................................................................... 25

4.3.1 Characterization of Nano-filtration Permeate and Treatability ............................................... 25

4.3.2 Nano-filtration Removal Efficiency of Key Analytes............................................................. 26

4.3.3 Hydraulics of FMX-only Nano-filtration Treatment .............................................................. 27

4.4 FMX-only Treatment: ultra-filtration ......................................................................................... 27

4.4.1 Characterization of Ultrafiltration Permeate and Treatability................................................. 28

4.4.2 FMX UF Removal Efficiency for Key Analytes .................................................................... 28

4.4.3 Hydraulics of FMX-only Ultra-filtration Performance ........................................................... 28

4.5 MBC+FMX NF Integrated Treatment ........................................................................................ 29

4.5.1 Characterization of Permeate and Treatability ........................................................................ 29

4.5.2 Removal Efficiency of Key Analytes ..................................................................................... 29

4.5.3 Effect of MBC Pre-treatment on FMX Performance .............................................................. 30

4.6 FMX+RO Treatment ................................................................................................................... 31

4.6.1 RO Pilot-Scale Experiments ................................................................................................... 31

4.6.2 Sampling and Analysis............................................................................................................ 32

4.6.3 Performance ............................................................................................................................ 32

4.6.4 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 32

4.7 Waste Management ..................................................................................................................... 33

4.7.1 Hydrogel Brine Treatment Performance ................................................................................. 33

4.7.2 Precipitation and Stabilization Treatment Performance.......................................................... 35

4.8 Data Quality Assessment ............................................................................................................ 35

5.0 Economic Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 38

5.1 Model Basis ................................................................................................................................ 38

5.2 Model Results ............................................................................................................................. 43

6.0 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 57

Appendix A. Field Demonstration Analytical Methods ............................................................................. 63

Appendix B. FMX Cost Details .................................................................................................................. 64