### Science and Technology Program Report No. 157



# Oil and Gas Produced Water Management a nd Beneficial Use in the Western United States

U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation September 20 1 1

## REPORT DOCUM ENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704

- 0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time fo r reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintainin g the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate o r any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Wa shington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704

- 0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA
22202

- 4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person sha ll be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD

- MM

- YYYY) September 2011 2. REPORT T YPE Final 3. DATES COVERED (From

- To) 10/2006 to 9/2010

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Oil and Gas Produced Water Management and Beneficial Use in the

Western United States 5a. PROJECT NUMBER 3180

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHO R(S) Katie Guerra, Katharine Dahm, Steve Dundorf 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) U.S . Department of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation
Denver Federal Center
PO Box 25 007
Denver CO 80225

- 0007 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT
NUMBER

9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation,
Denver Federal Center PO Box 25007, Denver CO 80225

- 0007 10 . SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) Reclamation

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) S&T Report No. 157

12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Available from the National Technical Information Service Operations Division, 5285 Port Royal Road , Springfield VA 22161

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Report can be downloaded from Reclamation Web site: www.usbr.gov/pmts/water/publications/reports.html

14. ABSTRACT **(Maximum 200 words)** Produced water from oil and gas operations is currently handled as a waste product. The quality of produced water varies significantly based on the geochemistry of the producing formation, the type of hydrocarbon produced, and the characteristics of the producing well. If produced water meets appropriate water quality cri teria, it may be used beneficially for purposes such as irrigation, livestock watering, aquifer storage, streamflow augmentation, and municipal and industrial uses. Treatment may be required to improve the quality of produced water so that it can be put t o beneficial use.

15. SUBJECT TERMS Water reuse, wastewater treatment, ultrasound, disinfection, sonochemical process

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT SAR 18. NUMBER OF PAGES 113 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PER SON Katie Guerra

a. REPORT U L b. ABSTRACT
U L c. THIS PAGE U L 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code) 303

- 445

- 2 01 3

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239

- 18U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation
Technical Service Center
Water and Environmental Resources Division
W ater Treatment E ngineering Research Group Denver, Colorado September 2011 

### Desalination and Water Purification Research and Development P rogram Report No. 157



# Oil and Gas Produced Water Management and Beneficial Use in the Western United States

Prepared for Reclamation Under Agreement No. A10

- 1541

- 8053

- 381

- 01

- 0

- 1

by 

## Katie Guerra
Katharine Dahm
Steve Dundorf

## Disclaimer

The views, analysis, recommendations, and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not represent official or unofficial policies or opinions of the United States Government, and the United States ta kes no position with regard to any findings, conclusions, or recommendations made. As such, mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the
United States Government. 

### MISSION STATEMENTS

The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future.

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.iii 

# Acronyms

acre/lb acres per pound

AFY acre

- feet per year

AOC assimilable organic carbon

AWWA American Water Works Associations

BAF biological aerated filter

b bl/MCF barrels per million cubic feet

bpd barrels per day

BAC biologically active carbon

BOD biological oxygen demand

BOE barrels of energy

BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene

CBM coal bed methane , also coal bed natural gas

CIP clean in place

COD chemical oxygen demand

COGCC Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

DBP disinfection byproduct

DGF dissolved gas fl otation

EC
w electrical conductivity

EOR enhanced oil recovery

DAF d issolved air flotation

DO dissolved oxygen

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

dS/m decisiemen s per meter

ED electrodialysis

EDI electro deionization

GAC granular activated carbon

gpd gallons per day

IGF induced gas flotation

kgal kilogallon

kWh/day kilowatthours per dayiv Acronyms (continued)

m 2 /gram square meters per gram

MCF million cubic feet

meq/L milliequivalent per liter

MF microfiltration

mrem/yr millirem per year

M FL magnetic flux leakage

mg/L milligrams per liter

NOM natural organic matter

NORM naturally occurring radioactive materials

O&M operation and maintenance

OPUS optimized pretreatment and unique separation

pCi/L picocuries per l iter

ppm parts per mi llion

psi pounds per square inch

Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation

SAR sodium absorption ratio

S/cm siemens per centimeter

TDS total dissolved solids

THMs trihalomethanes

TN total nitrogen

TOC t otal organic carbon

TSS total suspended solids

UF u ltrafiltration

USEIA U.S. Energy Information Administration

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

UV ultraviolet

VOC volatile organic chemicals

WAC weak acid cation

ZLD zero liquid discharge

°F degree Fahrenheit

μg /L microgram per literv Acronyms (continued)

μm micrometers

> greater than

< less than

% percentvii 

# Contents

Page

Acronyms

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... iii
1. Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................ 1
2. Background

................................ ................................ ............................. 3
2.1 Petroleum Resource Formation and Production

............................. 3
2.1.1 Conventional Oil and Gas

................................ ................... 3
2.1.2 Unconventional Petroleum Resources

................................ 3
2.2 Produced Water Generation and Production

................................ ... 5
2.2.1 Conventional Oil and Gas

................................ ................... 5
2.2.2 Unconventional Resources

................................ .................. 6
2.3 Current Produced Water Management Practices

............................ 7
2.4 Environmental Impacts Caused by Produced Water

..................... 8
2.5 Study Objectives

................................ ................................ ............. 9
3. Conclusions and Recommendations

................................ ........................ 11
4. Geographical Occurrence of Produced Water

................................ ......... 13
4.1 Conventional Oil and Gas Resources

................................ ............. 13
4.2 Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources

................................ ......... 17
4.2.1 Oil Shale

................................ ................................ .............. 17
4.2.2 Gas Shale

................................ ................................ ............ 17
4.2.3 Tight Sands Gas

................................ ................................ .. 17
4.2.4 Coalbed Methane

................................ ................................ 17
4.3 Geographic Distribution of Produced Water Generation

................ 20
5. Beneficial Uses of Produced Water

................................ ........................ 23
5.1 Produced Water Use

................................ ................................ ....... 24
5.2 Produced Water Volumes Compared to Use Demands

.................. 24
5.3 Beneficial Uses of Produced Water

................................ ................ 26
5.3.2 Livestock Watering

................................ ............................. 27
5.3.3 Irrigation

................................ ................................ ............. 29
5.3.4 Stream Flow Augmentation

................................ ................ 31
5 .3.5 Rangeland Restoration

................................ ........................ 33
5.3.6 Industrial Uses

................................ ................................ .... 33
5.3.10 Domestic

................................ ................................ ............. 37

6. Produced Water Quality Characterization

................................ ............... 41
6.1 Salt Concentration and Composition

................................ .............. 42
6.2 Inorganic C onstituents

................................ ................................ .... 49
6.2.1 Major Ions

................................ ................................ ........... 49
6.2.2 Minor Ions

................................ ................................ ........... 53
6.3 Organic Constituents

................................ ................................ ....... 56
6.3 Organic Constituents

................................ ................................ ....... 56
6.4 Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials

................................ .... 58
6.5 Chemical Additives

................................ ................................ ......... 60

6.6 Beneficial Use Potential

................................ ................................ .. 60viii Contents (continued)

Page

7. Assessment of Technologies for Trea tment of Produced Water

............. 69
7.1 Organic, Particulate, and Microbial Inactivation/ Removal Technologies

................................ .............................. 70
7.1.1 Biological Aerat ed Filters

................................ ................... 70
7.1.2 Hydrocyclone

................................ ................................ ...... 72
7.1.3 Flotation

................................ ................................ .............. 73
7.1.4 Adsorp tion

................................ ................................ ........... 74
7.1.5 Media F iltration

................................ ................................ .. 75
7.1.6 Oxidation

................................ ................................ ............. 75
7.1.7 Settling

................................ ................................ ................ 76
7.1.8 Air Stripping

................................ ................................ ....... 76
7.1.9 Surfactant Modified Zeolite Vapor Phase Bioreactor

......... 77
7.1.10 Constructed Wetlands

................................ ......................... 78
7.1.11 Granular Activated Carbon

................................ ................. 78
7.1.12 Ultraviolet Disinfection

................................ ...................... 80
7.1.13 Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration

................................ ............. 81
7.2 Desalination Technologies

................................ .............................. 84
7.2.1 Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration

................................ .. 85
7.2.2 Electrodialysis/Electrodialysis Reversal

............................. 85
7.2.3 Forward Osmosis

................................ ................................ 86
7.2.4 Hybrid Membrane Processes

................................ .............. 86
7.2.5 Thermal Processes

................................ .............................. 87
7.2.6 Alternativ e Desalination Processes

................................ ..... 88
7.3 Commercial Processes

................................ ................................ .... 89
7.3.2 CDM Produced Water Technology

................................ .... 89
7.3.3 Veolia OPUS TM

................................ ................................ ... 91
7.3.4 Altela Rain SM (Dewvaporation)

................................ .......... 91
7.3.5 212Resources

................................ ................................ ...... 91

7 .4 Implications of Water Quality for Treatment Technologies

........... 92
8. GIS

- Based Approach to Produced Water Management

.......................... 93
8.1 Produced Water GIS Database

................................ ........................ 93
8.1.1 Base Map and Reference Data

................................ ............ 93
8.1.2 Oil and Gas Distribution, Well and Basin Data

.................. 93
8.2 Examples of GIS

- Based Approach

................................ ................. 97
8.2.1 Denver Basin Example

................................ ....................... 98
8.2.2 Powder Ri ver Basin Example

................................ ............. 101
8.2.3 Uinta

- Piceance Basin Example

................................ ........... 102

9. References

................................ ................................ ............................... 107ix 

### Tables

Page

Table 1 CBM recoverable gas reserves and water quality

.................. 5
Table 2 Geographic location of conventional oil and gas resources in the Western United States

........................... 16
Table 3 Geographic location of unconventional oil and gas
resources in the Western United States

................................ .. 18
Table 4 Water use and produced water generation in the
Western United States

................................ ............................ 26
Table 5 Water intake volumes for livestock

................................ ....... 27
Table 6 National Science Foundation recommended levels of specific constituents for livestock drinking water

............ 28
Table 7 TDS categories for livestock water

................................ ........ 29
Table 8 Crop tolerance to boron in irrigation water

............................ 31
Table 9 Constituent limits for irrigation wat er

................................ .... 32
Table 10 Acute and chronic concentration levels by hardness

............. 34
Table 11 USEPA drinking water standards

................................ .......... 38
Table 12 Conventional basins TDS and SAR statistics

........................ 51
Table 13 Common inorganic constituents in conventional produced water

................................ ................................ ....... 52
Table 14 Ranges of inorganic constituents in produced water

............. 55
Table 15 Organic material in produced water from oil operations

....... 58
Table 16 Volatile organics in produced water from gas operations

................................ ................................ ......... 58
Table 17 Chemicals added for treatment of produced water

................ 61
Table 18 Suitability statistics for produced water for agricultural uses

................................ ................................ ..... 64
Table 19 Constituents with the potential to be detected above requirem ents

................................ ................................ 67
Table 20 Comparison of organic contaminant and particulate removal technologies for treatment of produced water

................................ ............. follows page 70
Table 21 Comparison of desalination technologies for treatment of produced water

............................. foll ows page 84



### Figures

Page

Figure 1 Typical water and gas pro duction for CBM

.......................... 6 Figure 2 Geographic location of major oil and gas produ cing
wells a nd basins in the United States

................................ .... 14 Figure 3 Geographic distribution of oil wel ls in the Western
United States

................................ ................................ .......... 15x Figures (continued)

Page

Figur e 4 Geographic distribution of conventional gas wells
in the Western United States

................................ .................. 15 Figure 5 Conventional and unconventi onal well distribution by State

................................ ............................... 21 Figure 6 Produced water quantities by State in the Western
United States

................................ ................................ .......... 22 Figure 7 Overlay of oil and gas pr oducing basins and areas
with a potential for water con flict

................................ .......... 23 Figure 8 Fresh water usa ge in the Western United States

.................... 25 Figure 9 Suitability of water for irrigation (adapted from Ayer s and Westcot 1994)

................................ ....................... 30 Figure 10 Distribution of TDS for conventional basins

......................... 43 Figure 11 Distribution of TDS concentration for conv entional oil and gas

................................ ................................ .............. 45 Figure 12 Distribution of TDS concentration for unconventional
CBM basins

................................ ................................ ............ 45 Figure 13 Major cations and an ions for produced water

........................ 47 Figure 14 Domina nt salt types of produced water

................................ . 48 Figure 15 Western United States oil and gas basins: d ominant salt type distribution

................................ ............................... 48 Figure 16 Geochemical fingerprints of conventional and
unconventional basins

................................ ............................ 52 Figure 17 Wester n United States oil and gas basins: water geochemistry

................................ ................................ .......... 54 Figure 18 Radioactive oilfield equipment (USGS Fact
Sheet 0142

- 99)

................................ ................................ ....... 59

F igure 19 Conventional versus unconventional well
distribution in the TDS requirement categories for
each beneficial use

................................ ................................ . 62 Figure 20 Western United States oil and gas basins: percentage
of w ells in various beneficial use categories

.......................... 63 Figure 21 Conventional versus unconventional well distribution in the irrigation requirement categories for SAR

................................ ................................ . 65 Figure 22 Western United States oil and gas basins: percentage
of wells in SAR irrigation categories

................................ ..... 66 Figure 23 Dead

- end versus cross flow filt ration

................................ .... 81 Figure 24 Schematic diagram of CDM produced water
treatment process

................................ ................................ ... 91 Figure 25 Base map with reference data a nd sources

............................ 94 Figure 26 Location of oil and gas producing basins and the top 100 producing oil and gas wells in the Western
United States

................................ ................................ .......... 95xi Figures (continued)

Page

Figure 27 Geographic relationship between hydrologic units and petroleum basins

................................ .............................. 95 Figure 28 Potential water conflict and produced water generation

........ 96 Figure 29 Areas of irrigated agriculture compared to produced water generation

................................ ..................... 97 Figure 30 Selection of top 100 producing well in the
Denver basin

................................ ................................ .......... 98 Figure 31 Agricult ural data within the study area

................................ .. 99 Figure 32 Oil and gas well location data within the study area

............. 100 Figure 33 Irrig ated land within the study area

................................ ....... 100 Figure 34 Powder River basin example area

................................ .......... 101 Figure 35 Location of oil and gas wells within 5

- mile radius of top producing well in the Powder River basin

....................... 102 Figure 36 Irrigated and nonirrigated agriculture within the study area

................................ ................................ ............... 103 Figure 37 Uinta

- Pi ceance basin example study area

.............................. 103 Figure 38 Five

- mile study ra dius for Piceance basin example

............... 104 Figure 39 Surface discharge beneficial use option for
Uinta

- Piceance study area

................................ ...................... 10 41 

# 1. Executive Summary

Due to increasing demand on fresh water sources, there is a need to develop new water supplies in the Western United States. Large volumes of water produced during oil and gas extraction, called produced water, are generated in drought prone locations that are also experiencing an increase in population. Produ ced water is a waste byproduct of the oil and gas industry; however, with appropriate treatment and application to beneficial use, produced water can serve as a new water supply in the Western United States.

The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Technica l Service Center gathered data from publically available sources to describe the water quality characteristics of produced water, performed an assessment of water quality in terms of geographic location and water quality criteria of potential beneficial us es, identified appropriate treatment technologies for produced water, and described practical beneficial uses of produced water.

Produced water quality varies significantly based on geographical location, type of hydrocarbon produced, and the geochemistr y of the producing formation. In general, the total dissolved solids concentration can range from 100 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to over 400,000 mg/L. Silt and particulates

, sodium, bicarbonate, and chloride are the most commonly occurring inorganic con stituents in produced

water. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) compounds are the most commonly occurring organic contaminants in produced water. The types of contaminants found in produced water and their concentrations have a large impac t on the most appropriate type of beneficial use and the degree and cost of treatment required.

Many different types of technologies can b e used to treat produced water; however, the types of constituents removed by each technology and the degree of

remova l must be considered to identify potential treatment technologies for a given application. For some types of produced water

, more than one type of treatment technology may be capable of meeting the contaminant removal target ; and a set of selection criter ia must be applied to narrow down multiple treatment options.

Beneficial uses of produced water include crop irrigat ion, livestock watering,

strea m flow augmentation, and municipal and industrial uses. Produced water also can be placed in aquifer storage f or future use. The type of beneficial use most appropriate for a produced water application depends on the geographical location of the produced water generation, the location of the beneficial use, and the constituent concentrations in the produced water

.2 Given the large volumes of produced water generated in the Western U nited
S tates and the growing need for new water supplies, produced water has the potential to augment conventional water supplies. Produced water, if managed as

a resource rather than a waste for disposal

, has the potential to be used beneficially.3 

# 2. Background

Produced water is defined as the water that exists in subsurface formations and is brought to the surface during oil and gas production. Water is generated from
conventional oil and gas production, as well as the production of unconv entional
sources such as coal bed methane, tight sands, and gas shale. The concentration of constituents and the volume of produced water differ dramatically depending on the type and location of the petroleum product. Produced water accounts for the largest waste stream volume associated with oil and gas production.



### 2.1 Petroleum Resource Formation and P roduction

2.1.1 Conventional Oil and Gas
Oil is formed from plant and animal material that accumulates at the bottom of a water supply such as an ocean, river, lake, or coral reef. Over time, this material is buried by accumulating sediment and is pushed deeper into the earth’s surface where the pressure increases from the weight of the overly ing sediment and the temperature increases due to heat from the earth’s core. Oil and gas reservoirs are created when hydrocarbon pyrolysis occurs in a confined layer of porous reservoir
material. The confined material restrains the fossil fuel in the su bsurface, while the permeable and porous reservoir material allows for accumulation. Oil exists underground as small droplets trapped inside the small void spaces in rock. When a well is drilled into an oil reservoir, the high pressure that exists in the reservoir pushes oil out of the small voids and to the surface.

2.1.2 Unconventional Petroleum Resources
Oil shale, gas shale, tight sands, and coal bed methane are considered unconventional petroleum resources. Oil shale reservoirs are confined in
sedim entary formations. Oil shale formations do not convert hydrocarbons into crude oil. Oil shale commonly is refined to produce a cleaner energy product for high grade fuel use. Tight sedimentary formations retain the hydrocarbons requiring energy and wate r intensive well development. Fracturing polymers in combination with water are injected at high pressures into the reservoir formation. Fracturing is necessary to produce sufficient effective aquifer conductivity to allow the production of economical qu antities of oil and gas. The United States has the largest oil shale deposits. The Green River formation in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah contains the largest oil shale deposit in the United States. Seventy percent of the commercially attractive resource in the Green River formation resides on land managed by the United States Federal Government.

Gas shale also is produced naturally from the shale formation. Gas is stored in fractures, pore space, and adsorbed to the organic reservoir material. Gas shale4 was first developed by producing it from large fractures in the formations that provided sufficient gas flow for economic development. Recent advances in well completion technology and artificial fracturing have increased the exploration of
this resource . S hale gas has been produced for extend periods in the U nited S tates in the Illinois and the Appalachian b asin s. Due to recent advances in technology

, the Barnett Shale in Texas also has been highly economical.

Tight sands gas are an unconventional na tural gas resource produced from low permeability compacted sediments. Similar to gas shale, advancements in technology have increased the development of tight sands into an economic resource. Gas is tightly contained in the low permeability reservoir fo rmation

, and wells must be stimulated to produce from the reservoir formation. Tight
sands basins in the U nited S tates overlap certain gas shales basins, but there is no coincidence of tight sands in shale gas basins. Tight sands production occurs in
the Great Plains, Rocky Mountains, the Four Corners region, onshore g ulf c oast

, and in Arkansas/Oklahoma.

Coal bed methane or coal bed natural gas is an unconventional natural gas
resource extracted from coal bed s. Methane ( CH 4 ) is formed in the coal seam as a result of both the bacterial processes (biogenic) and the chemical reactions that occur with high temperature and pressure during the bituminization phase (thermogenic). Methane from higher ranking coals is formed by thermogenic production

, and lower rank coals produce methane by biogenic production. Additionally, the volume of gas increases with coal rank, depth, and reservoir pressure. Coal has a large surface area per volume

, so that coal seams can contain large volumes of gas. Coal seams are ca pable of containing six to seven times more gas than conventional gas reservoirs of comparable size ( Taulis 2007 )

.

Because of the way in which coal is formed, large amounts of coal bed methane exist at shallow depths. The shallow depths make drilling wells for coal bed methane production relatively inexpensive. At greater depths, higher pressure
causes fractures in the coal seam to close

, making the formations less permeable and more difficult for gas to move through the coal. Many of the coal bed methane basins in the Rocky Mountain regi on, including the Powder River and
the San Juan b asin s contain subbituminous coals. Sub bituminous coal is soft enough that conventional well bores can be used

, and the well is drille d to the top of the target coal seam.

The Energy Information Administration publishes estimates of the proved
reserves of coal bed methane

. The proved reserves represent estimated quantities
of coal bed methane (CBM) 1

United States Energy Information Administ ration 2007 that analysis of geological and eng ineering data
demonstrate

, with reasonable certainty

, to be recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing economic and operat ing conditions ( )

. Actual coal bed methane production data, formation testing, coal core analyses, and other data are used to

1 Also known as coal bed natural gas.5 determine the economic production capacity of the coal formations

. It is not necessary that production, gathering, or transportatio n facilities be installed or operative for a reservoir to be considered proved

. Table 1 contains estimates of total and proved reserves for the major coal bed methane producing basins in the

Western U nited S tates

. In general, as more data becomes available and technology advances, the estimated recoverable reserves of CBM increase

. Between 2002

– 2007

, the estimated total U nited S tates reserves increased by
18 percent ( % ) based on historical data provided by the U. S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA)

.

Table 1 . CBM recoverable gas reserves and water quality

Basin Cumulative Production (BCF) 1 Proved CBM
Reserves

(BCF) 1 2008 Average

Water
P roduction

(million barrels) 2 Water to
Gas R atio (bbl/MCF) 2

Powder R iver 2,314 2,418 718 2.75

Raton 625 2,486 131 1.34

San Juan 13,147 8 ,446 46 0.031

Uinta 758 1,995 31 0.42

Piceance 41 NA 0.30 1.2

NA

– information not available

1 United States Energy Information Administration 2007 ; BCF = billion cubic feet.

2 National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Management and Effects of Coalbed Methane Development and Produced Water in the Western United States 2010 ; bbl/MCF = barrels per million cubic feet.



### 2.2 Produc ed Water Generation a nd Production

2.2.1 Conventional Oil and G as On average, about 7 to 10 barrels, or 280 to 400 gallons

, of water are produced for every barrel of crude oil. Formation water (or connate water) exists naturally in the porous aquifer with the hydrocarbons . Formation water generally reflects the water quality associated with the depositiona l environment for the reservoir

— marine, brackish

, or continental fresh water. Oil reservoirs commonly contain larger volumes of water then gas reservoi rs . This is due to the higher compressibility and sorption capacity of gas. Gas is stored and produced from less porous reservoirs that contain source rock with a lower water capacity. Produced water generation commonly increases over time in convention al reservoirs as the oil and gas is depleted during hydrocarbon production.6 2.2.2 Unconventional R esources Produced water from most unconventional resources is minimal due to tighter reservoir formations, such as in tight sands, oil shale

, and gas shale re servoirs. Producers commonly import water to these operations for onsite use in drilling, fracturing

, and production. Fresh water used in drilling applications and reservoir fracturing is contaminated by the saline terrestrial water associated with the

r eservoir depositional environment. Fresh water brought onsite for use in operations, such as flow back or frac water returning from fracturing applications,
also is managed as a waste stream. This waste stream commonly is associated with the initial phas e of well development and production. In most unconventional oil and gas operations

, frac water is consider ed the largest waste stream of production.

Alternatively, coal bed methane produces the largest volumes of water during gas production as compared t o other unconventional hydrocarbon production. The water in coal beds contributes to the pressure in the reservoir that keeps methane gas adsorbed to the surface of the coal. The water must be removed by pumping to lower the pressure in the reservoir and stimulate desorption of methane from the coal. Generally

, as the gas production increases, the water production
decrease s; therefore

, the volume of CBM

- produced water generated decreases
over time. Figure 1 shows the typical water and gas production pro file for
CBM producing gas wells.

Figure 1 . Typical water and gas production for CBM.7 Coal beds contain fractures and pores that can transmit large volumes of water. In some areas, coal beds may function as local or re gional aquifers and are important sources for ground water ( Rice and Nuccio 2000 ) . The volume of water varies significantly from basin to basin. These variations can occur for many dif ferent reasons depending on the part the CBM development cycle play s , the rank of the coal, the depth of the coal, and the hydrologic connectivity to other water bearing aquifers. Generally , deeper coal seams will contain less water, but the salinity of

t he water will be higher. Water to gas ratios are used to describe the volume of water produced per million cubic feet of natural gas. Water to gas ratios are used

, along with the estimated recoverable reserves of natural gas

, to predict the volume
of wat er that will be generated in each producing basin.



### 2.3 Current Produced Water Management Practices

Water is considered a by product of oil and gas production and generally is treated by the oil and gas industry as a waste for disposal. Produced water man agement practices are driven by the cost of the hydrocarbon resource. Produced water is the largest volume waste stream associated with oil and gas production. Because produce d water is viewed as a waste by product to the oil and gas industry,
historicall y , the most commonly practiced management s trategies are aimed at disposal rather than beneficial use. The most common practices for produced water disposal include lan d application or discharge, subsurface injection, and
off site trucking.

**•** Land applicat ion or discharge is a relatively inexpensive method of disposal for produced water. However, this is only an option for relatively high quality produced waters. If the water is of poor quality, contamination of the surrounding soil, water, and vegetation can occur. Regulatory guidelines also must permit land applications.

**•** Sub surface injection is the industry preferred alternative to produced water disposal. In some cases, re

- injection of produce waters is not feasible
because the subsurface formation do es not have the capacity to receive the

water.

**•** In the event that land application or re

- injection is not feasible, the water may be trucked to off site

, re

- injection facilities. Re

- injection facilities commonly are located around a feasible accepting geo logic formation for injection. These facilities sometimes include minor treatment applications aimed at lowering the scaling potential of the reinjection water or modify the chemistry of the water to aid in disposal.

Typically, produce r s have limited wa ter treatment experience and are hesitant to employ produced water treatment technologies given their negative past experiences. From an oil and gas producer’s perspective

, the primary concern of beneficial use of produced water as a management strategy i s liability ; therefore,8 re

- injecting the water into the subsurface formation is the preferred disposal/ management method. However, in some areas, disposal is not possible because the geology of the subsurface formation cannot accommodate the water

, or re

injection may cause contamination of other subsurface water supplies. Off site trucking is another water management strategy preferred by producers from a liability standpoint ; however, it is very costly.



### 2.4 Environmental I mpacts C aused by
P roduced W a ter

Environmental impacts caused by the disposal of produced water have been reported since the mid

- 1800s when the first oil and gas wells were drilled and operated. The most commonly reported environmental concerns are as follows: degradation of soils, ground water, surface water, and ecosystems they support ( Otton 2006 ) . Because many produced waters contain elevated levels of dissolved ions (salts), hydroc arbons, and trace elements, untreated produced water discharges may be harmful to the surrounding environment.

Large water volumes also can cause environmental impacts through erosion, large land area disposal basins, and pipeline and road infrastructure . Water hauling spills and unplanned discharges are all risks when managing produced water. The volume of the receiving body is critical in determining environmental impacts as ocean discharge offers substantive dilution, while small streams offer low di lution capacity. Physical water properties of concern include temperature, effervescence, low dissolved oxygen concentrations, as well as high and low pH depending on the well type.

Sodium is the most commonly occurring dominant cation in produced water. High sodium levels compete with calcium, magnesium, and potas sium for uptake by plant roots; t herefore, excess sodium can prompt deficiencies of other c ations.
Elevated levels of sodium also can cause poor soil structure and inhibit water
infiltration in soils ( Davis, Waskom et al. 2007 ) . Infiltration into shallow ground water sources is also a concern when water is applied for irrigation use. Mineral accumulation due to subsurface ion exchange can change the w ater quality of
shallow

, underlying aquifers.

Trace elements, including boron, lithium, bromine, fluorine, and radium, also occur in elevated concentrations in some produced waters

. Many trace elements are phytotoxic and are adsorbed in the soil. These e lements may even remain in soils after the saline water has been flushed away

. Radium

- bearing scale and sludge found in oilfield equipment and discarded on soils pose additional hazards to human health and ecosystems . Meteoric water applied to contaminat ed soils has the potential to solubilize metals and transport them through the subsurface. Precipitation of metals and metal solubility are import ant considerations in applying these constituents to soils.9 

### 2.5 Study Objectives

The objectives of this proje ct are as follows:

(1) Describe the characteristics of produced water: constituent concentration and volumes produced.

(2) Identify potential beneficial uses of produced water and the geographical relationship between produced water generation and poten tial beneficial uses. Three case studies are presented.

(3) Identify constituents in produced water that exceed water quality requirements of beneficial uses and constituents that will be problematic for treatment of produced water

(4) Evaluate produced w ater treatment technologies (organic/particulate removal technologies, desalination, brine management technologies, and
post

- treatment or stabilization technologies) and describe benefits and limitations of each technology based on produced water specific design requirements.11 

# 3. Conclusions and Recommendations

Produced water is generated in large volumes across the Western U nited S tates from both conventional and unconventional petroleum production with the majority of the water produced in Texas, Oklah oma, Kansas, California, and the Rocky Mountain region including Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado

, and New Mexico. Given the large volume of water generated during operations, produced
water could be considered an alternative water resource in locations e xperiencing water shortage.

Produced water could be used to augment conventional water supplies for use in irrigation and livestock watering, stream flow augmentation, and industrial applications. Water quality issues may need to be addressed for produc ed water to be used for these beneficial uses. For agricultural purposes, most produced water sources contain elevated levels of sodium and high conductivity that require treatment to eliminate the possibility of damage to crops and livestock. In some

st ates, produced water volumes are large enough to make a significant contribution to the water demand for irrigation and livestock.

Numerous treatment technologies have been suggested for produced water. This document provides a qualitative comparison of the different technologies and provides guidance on the benefits and limitations of each technology. Water quality constraints and site

- specific design criteria should be used to select the most appropriate treatment technology for a given produced water source and
desired beneficial use.

Three case studies were presented

, which illustrate the large potential for
beneficial use in the Western U nited S tates for different types of applications: agriculture, stream low augmentation, and industrial use. App ropriate management techniques will allow produced water to be used as a resource rather than treated as a waste to meet the growing water demand in the Western U nited
S tates

.

This work, along with research conducted by others (through the Department of

En ergy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, and the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America)

, has thoroughly evaluated produced water occurrence, quality, quantity, beneficial uses of produced water, and produced water treatment technologies. F uture work should focus on simultaneously considering all of this information to develop site

- specific produced water management strategies that are both environmental ly and economically efficient.13 

# 4. Geographical Occurrence of
Produced Water

4

. 1 Convent ional Oil and Gas Resources

Conventional oil and gas resources are explored across the United States. In 2008, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated that 363,107 oil wells and 460,261 gas wells were producing in the United States. Of the w ells in operation, 78% of the oil wells and 65% of the gas wells prod uced 10 barrels of energy (BOE) per day or less. Conventional resources are not commonly produced by a few wells with excellent production numbers. Instead

, since a majority of wells pr oduce less energy per day

, production is compensated by drilling dense well populations to increase production in a field. The large quantity of wells also contributes to a large volume of produced water generated. The geographic location of oil and gas wells within the United States is shown in the context of the major producing basins and the top producing oil and gas wells; see figure 2.

Convent ional oil and gas wells in the W estern U nited S tates represented 86% of
the total oil and 72% of the total ga s wells nationwide in 2008. States in the
Western United States containing more than 25,000 oil wells include California,

Kans as, Oklahoma, and Texas, while S tates containing more than 25,000 gas wells include Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming.
Convent ional oil and gas wells in the Western S tates are presented in figures 3 and 4. As mentioned previously

, oi l reservoirs commonly contain larger volumes
of water then gas reservoirs . For conventional wells , S tates with the largest

vo lumes of produced water quantities should include California, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Conventional well fields across this Western United States are tabulated in
table 2. The 22 basins recognized are included based on the number of wells
associated w ith each basin. This table is not comprehensive to all oil and gas basins, which exist in this region. Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington are not included in the State distribution in table 2, due to the absence or small number of oil and gas wells in these locations. The USEIA does report that
20 gas wells exist in the State of Oregon and 73 oil wells in the State of Nevada. It also should be noted that oil and gas operations also exist off shore in the Gulf of Mexico, off of Texas

- Louisiana, and th e Pacific Ocean off the coast of
California. These wells and basins are not included in this assessment of Western State resources; however, information on these coastal basins and wells is available through the USEIA.14Figure2. Geographic location of major oil and gas producing wells and basins in theUnited States.15 Figure 3

. Geographic distribution of oil wells in the Western United States.

Figure 4 . Geog raphic distribution of conventional gas wells in the Western
United States. 16% 2%

0%

15%

1% 5%

1% 11% 45% 1% 0%

3%

Oil Wells Arizona California

Colorado Idaho

Kansas Montana

Nebraska Nevada

New Mexico North Dakota

Oklahoma Oregon

South Dakota Texas

Utah Washington

Wyoming

1%

11% 0%

8%
2%

12%

18% 36% 2% 0%
10%

Gas Wells Arizona California

Colorado Idaho

Kansas Montana

Nebraska Nevada

New Mexico North Dakota

Oklahoma Oregon

South Dakota Texas

Utah Washington
Wyoming1617 

### 4.2 Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources

Unconventional oil and gas resources are produced nationwide. The unconventional resources focused upon in this report include oi l shale, gas shale, tight sands gas, and coalbed methane. Table 3 summarizes the locations of 5 oil shale, 16 gas shale, 8 tight sands gas, and 6 co albed methane basins in the

W estern U nited S tates . Again

, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon

, and Wash ington are not
in cluded in the S tate distribution in table 3 , due to the absence or small number of wells in these locations. General summaries of the geographic distribution of unconventional wells are provided by unconventional resource in the following

text.

4.2.1 Oil Shale

Oil shale basins in the W estern U nited S tates are limited to Colorado, Utah

, and Wyoming. The large water volumes associated with oil shale production originate from fracture watering. Fracturing water is primarily used during well development. Th is water represents a large volume over a small period of time, which is often difficult to manage.

4.2.2 Gas Shale

Basins occur in the Western United States in 10 states. Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Montana

, and Utah contain the largest number of indi vidual basins. Gas shale basins commonly overlap other unconventional resources such as coalbed methane. Gas shale layers commonly act as aquitards and confining layers to coal seams. The Raton, San Juan, Uinta

, and Piceance all contain both

resources. Specific gas plays are recognized in table 3 to differentiate these
unconventional resources.

4.2.3 Tight Sands Gas
Basins are located in eight Western S tates and do not extend north of Wyoming or west of Utah. Colorado and Texas include the greatest num ber of basins. Specific gas plays are recognized in table 3 for tight sands gas as well. Similar to oil shale and gas shale

, water production during gas production in this resource is low. Water is primarily associated with well development during artif icial reservoir fracturing.

4.2.4 Coalbed Methane
Western basins are located along the Rocky Mountain regions of the United States in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming

, and Montana. The coal formations are commonly associated with conventional oil and g as as well as unconventional181920 resources such as gas shale. Coal formations specific to coalbed methane production are provided in t able 3 . Coalbed methane represents the largest water
contributor over a well lifetime of all the unconventional reso urces. Produced
water volumes from unconventional resources are primarily from coalbed methane well production. In further sections

, produced water from
unconventional resources will be limited to coalbed methane.



### 4.3 Geographic Distribution of Produce d Water
Generation

Over 80% of the produced water generated nationwide is produced in the Western United States. Conventional and unconventional resources contribute to produced
water volumes. Figure 5 relates co nventional and unconventional well numbers to one another by State locations. The geographic distribution of water volumes should follow a similar trend the well population of each State. It is expected that conventional oil wells will have a larger impa ct than conventional gas wells on produced water volumes. Therefor e, it is expected that California, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas will produce large amounts of produced water due to the number of conventional wells present in these States.

Coalbed methan e wells in Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, and Colorado also contribute to the produced water volumes generated by each State.

Figure 6 summarizes the produced water quantities by State. Wyoming is
associated with the second highest volumes for produced water in the Western United States. Wyoming generates substantial quantities of water due to the large
number of coalbed methane wells in the Powder River basin. Conventional oil and gas wells supplement this volu me; however, the unconventional wells represent a significant contribution. Texas dominates total well numbers in conventional resources with 45% of the gas and 36% of the oil wells in the Western United States. Texas also dominates the produced water ge neration at 44% or 236,914 thousand acre

- feet per year. This is a significant water volume for the State. If produced water is managed as a water resource instead of a waste product, the volumes generated annually in each State could supplement the water supply required.21 Figure 5 . Conventional and unconventional well distribution by State.22 Figure 6 . Produced water quantities by State in the Western United States.23 

# 5. Beneficial Uses of Produced Water

The Nation faces an increasing set of water resource challenges: aging infrastructure, rapid population growth, depletion of ground water resources, impaired water quality associated with particular land uses and land covers, water
needed f or human and environmental uses, and climate variability and change

. A ll play a role in determining the amount of fresh water available at any given place and time (WaterSMART)

. Figure 7 shows the areas of the Western U nited
S ta tes that have the potential for conflict over water. With appropriate treatment and management strategies, produced water has the potential to augment conventional water supplies.

Figure 7 . Overlay of oil and gas producing b asins and areas with a potential for water
conflict.24 

### 5.1 Produced Water Use

Although produced water from oil and gas wells commonly is considered a high volume, high salinity waste stream, produced water has the potential to be used to offset water de mands and over allocation of water supplies. Waste stream management is necessary to continue hydrocarbon production from oil and gas wells. Therefore, for use of produced water for beneficial purposes to be
effective

, the value of produced water must be assessed in each use scenario. The value of treating and managing produced water to be used for beneficial purposes will, therefore, depend on the specific situation including the water volume, water
characteristics

, and proposed use.

Produced water oper ators include extensive costs in the handling and management of produced water. Costs include bringing the water to the surface, re

- injecting the water into the formation for disposal, and transporting the large amounts of water to injection wells. Often

, transportation of large water volumes is so expensive that p roduced water may be treated on site, including desalination, for
less cost. Treatment on site , even with the creation of a brine or concentrate waste stream, minimizes the total waste volume tha t requires injection. Furthermore, treatment creates a product of sufficient quality to alleviate dependences on local fresh water sources for many applications. Water volumes available from oil and gas production and potential beneficial uses of produce d water are outlined in this chapter.



### 5.2 Produced Water Volumes Compared to Use
Demands

To determine how produced water volumes compare relative to water use in the

U nited S tates, information from two studies was used . The first study provided comprehens ive informatio n on produced water in a report from the
U.S Department of Energy (DOE), en titled “A White Paper Describing Produced Water from Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal Bed Methane

. ” This publication estimated the annual onshore U

. S

. p roduced water volumes for 1985,
1995

, and 2002. The U

. S

. Geological Survey (USGS) also has done comprehensive studies on water use in the U nited S tates for 2000 and 2005. Combining the data provided in those studies

, the following inf ormation was

extract ed for the W estern U nited S tates

.

Volumes of fr esh water used annually in the Western S tates range from an
estimated 600 thousand acre

- feet per year ( AFY ) in South Dakota to 43,000 thousand AFY in California. Wat er supply uses are presented by S tate in
fi gure 8

. Water usage in the W estern U nited S tates is dominated by irr igation in
most S tates. State specific trends in water use include elevated water consumption for thermoelectric power generation in Kansas, Nebraska, and25 Figure 8 . Fresh water usage in the Western United States.

Texas. Texas also uses significant water quantities for mining applications. California and Texas, meanwhile, use more water for publ ic supply and consumption than Western S tates such as Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, use annually.

Significant oil and gas production takes place in the arid regions of the Western United States, consequently, producing large annual quantities of produced water.
In the Western United States, produced water volumes have the potential to contribute to the overall water supplies utilized by each State. Produced water production was estimated in 2002, to be 1,487 AFY in the Western United States

. The largest produced water production, i n Texas, is almost double the quantity
used in the state for livestock and agriculture (table 4). Due to arid to semi arid climates in these regions, there is an increased value for new water sources.

Although a potential value exists for treated water sources, i n the U nited S tates, more than 98% of produced water from onshore wells is re

- injected ( Clark and
Veil 2009 ) . A number of options are available locally as potential uses of this

water

. The following section outlines potential beneficial uses of produced water
and includes information on water quantities and quality requirements.26 Table 4 . Water use and produced water generation in the Western United States

State Public Supply Irrigation Livestock
and Agriculture Industrial, Mining,
Thermo

electric Total
Water Use Produced
Water
Generated

Arizona 1,242 6,060 230 7,533 0.01

California 7,180 34,200 1,061 632 43,073 168

Colorado 1,085 12,800 290 14,174 17

Idaho 370 19,100 2,249 62 21,781 0

Kansas 490 4,160 130 2,628 7,409 153

Montana 188 8,920 192 9,300 14

Nebraska 424 9,860 105 3,347 13,737 7

Nevada 730 2,360 53 3,143 0.4

New Mexico 367 3,210 75 3,652 15

North Dakota 85 163 1,031 1,278 10

Oklahoma 786 804 187 196 1,972 163

Oregon 720 6,810 236 7,765 0

South Dakota 116 418 47.1 12 592 0.4

Texas 4,887 9,680 346 12,880 27,793 654

Utah 733 4,330 130 147 5,340 11

Washington 1,280 3,400 1,229 5,909 0

Wyoming 126 5,050 368 5,544 276

TOTAL 20,808 131,325 4,256 23,608 179,996 1,487

Note: Water volumes are in 1,000 AFY

.



### 5.3 Beneficial Use s of Produced Water

The following outlined beneficial uses of produced water do not represent a comprehensive list but are provided as examples of application scenarios for produced water. These examples were chosen due to the variable nature of the

consu mer, water quantity requirements

, and water quality criteria. Although not discussed in detail within this report, ownership of produced water first must be
assessed

, and proper permitting must be acquired to execute a beneficial use of produced water. I nformation on regulatory guidelines and permitting is available through the DOE’ s National Energy Technology Laboratory online W eb site27 “ Produced Water Management Information System ” created by Argonne National
Laboratories as a resource for technical and regulatory information for managing produced water , including current practices, State and F ederal regulations, and guidelines for optimal management practices ( Veil )

.

5.3.2 Livestock Watering

In 2000, it was estimated that livestock water use represented for livestock watering, feedlots, dairy oper ations, and other on

- farm needs such as cooling of facilities for the animals and products, dairy sanitation and wash down of facilities, an imal waste

- disposal systems, and incidental water losses constituted 1,760 million gallons per day o f fresh water ( USGS 2005 )

. This represent ed less
than 1% of the total water use in the U nited S tates in 2000; however, 50% of that consumption was used by California, Texas, and Oklahoma ( USGS 2005 ) . These states represented 53% of the produced water produ ction in 2002 nationally ( Clark and Veil 2009 )

.

Livestock water requirements depend on the animal and are influenced by several
facto rs such as activity, feed intake and environmental temperature ( Lardy,
Stoltenow et al. 2008 )

. Table 5 is a summary of water volumes required for different species. Water requirements vary throughout th e year ; and the gender and size of an animal also impacts the estimated water consumption. To encompass these variations , table 5 provides an estimated range of daily water consumption for each livestock species. For grazing species, such as cows and
hor ses, water sources throughout graz ing land are important in ranching regions.

Table 5 . Water intake volumes for livestock

Livestock Water Intake Units

Cattle 3.5 to 23.0 Gallons per day

Sheep 1.5 to 3.0 Gallons per day

Swine 0.5 to 5.5 Gallons per day

Horses 6.0 to 18.0 Gallons per day

While livestock can tolerate water of a lesser quality than humans, some important considerations must be made evalu ating a potential water source. High levels of specific ions and salinity can harm the animals. The National Academy of Sciences offers upper limit s for toxic substances in water ( see table 6)

. Additional constituent concentrations and maximum levels that should be noted include sulfate and alkalinity not to exceed 2,000 mg/L and pH ranging betwee n 5.5

– 8.5 for livestock watering.28 Table 6 . N ational S cience F oundation recommended levels of specific constituents for livestock drinking water

Constituent Upper Limit (mg/L)

Aluminium 5

Arsenic 0.2

Beryllium No data available.

Boron 5.0

Cadm ium 0.05

Chromium 1.0

Cobalt 1.0

Copper 10.5

Fluorine 2.0

Iron No data available

Lead 0.1

Manganese No data available

Mercury 0.01

Molybdenum No data available

Nitrate + nitrite 100

Nitrite 10

Selenium 0.05

Vanadium 0.10

Zinc 24

Total dissol ved solids 10,000

The total dissolved solid ( TDS ) cutoff concentration listed in table 6 of 10,000 mg/L is the maximum concentration in water above which it is not recommended for livestock watering use

. Table 7 includes additional
information on TDS l evels for livestock ( Lardy, Stoltenow et al. 2008 ) . Specific TDS categories are outlined in table 7 because TDS requirem ents vary between species, with certain species being more susceptible to the impac ts of saline

water consumption than others. Also, table 7 notes the relative time periods

water of certain quality may be utilized. It is important to consider not only
the water quality but also the duration of consumption when predicting adverse
effect s.29 Table 7 . TDS categories for livestock water

TDS Category TDS Range 1 Description

Level 1 < 1,000 Satisfactory

Level 2 1,000 to 2,999 Satisfactory, slight temporary illness

Level 3 3,000 to 4,999 Satisfactory for livestock, increased poultry

mort ality

Level 4 5,000 to 6,999 Reasonable for livestock, unsafe for poultry

Level 5 7,000 to 10,000 Unfit for poultry and swine, acceptable short
term for livestock

Level 6 > 10,000 Not r ecommended

1 < = less than; > = greater than.

Water quality is a n important consideration for livestock watering. Meeting limits for specific constituents is necessary to provide protection of livestock consuming produced water

, and treatment is often necessary to meet requirements. Although water requirements for li vestock watering are relatively low, oil and gas wells drilled on property leased from farmers and ranchers represent a local source of
water available for use . The use of produced water for livestock watering is
convenient

, given large ranching areas in areas producing large volumes of produced water. These overlapping areas include S tates such as Oklahoma, Wyoming, Texas

, and California.

5.3.3 Irrigation

In most S tates

, irrigation represents the majority of fresh water use. In estimates
for the Western United States in 2000, irrigation represented over 70% of total
state water usage ( USGS 2005 ) . Water used for irrigation is less easily recovered than water used for public consumption. Water loss occurs through transpiration from plants and through evaporation, while irrigating or during transport. Nationally

, 59% of irrigation water is supp lied from s urface water sources; while
in the Western United States

, 64% is supplied from surface water resources. Almost a quarter of the 5% discrepancy between the Western United States and
the N ation reliance on surface water sources could be supplied by produced water resources discharged into streams and channels to be used downstream for uses such as irrigation.

Irrigation not only requires large water volumes, but also has stringent water quality criteria. Specifically for produced water, parameters such as t he sodium adsorption ratio are important criteria for ensuring that the water quality is sufficient to not damage crops. The s odium absorption ratio (SAR) is a calculation of the suitability for a water source for irrigation

. The equation for the
calcula tion is:30 2 ]] [ ] [ ] [

2 2 **+ +**  **+**

**+ =**  Mg Ca Na SAR (1 )

The concentrations of sodium (Na + ), calcium (Ca +2 ), and magnesium (Mg +2 ) are
in milliequivalents per liter. When irrigation water has high SAR values, above three, then much more control of salt accumulation is needed. Water with high SAR can be used if enough water is applied to wash the salts down below the root zone of the crops.

The SAR and electrical conductivity (EC
w ) of the water must be considered together to determine the probab le affect of using the water for irrigation ( Ayers
and Westcot 1994 ) (see figure 9). When the source water has a higher conductivity, then there is a greater potential for sa lt damage at lower SAR levels.
EC
w normally is expressed as decisiements per meter (dS/m), which is the same
as siemens per centimeter (S/cm). Given the saline nature of produced water with
h igh sodium content the SAR and EC
w are both important parameters to consider
before use.

Figure 9

. Suitability of water for irrigation (adapted fro m Ayers and Westcot 1994).

Boron is also important to consider when identifyi ng the healthy range for most plants. The F ood and A griculture O rganization publication, Water Quality for Agriculture

, outlines boron concentration considerations for various types of

crops ( Ayers and Westcot 1994 ) . Boron concentration limits are summarized in
table 8

. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Salinity (ECsin dS/m)SAR

No Restriction on Use

Slight to

Moderate

Restriction Severe Restriction31 Table 8. Crop tolerance to boron in irrigation water

Tolerance
Level Range of
Boron Concentration Crops

Very Sensitive < 0.5 mg/L Lemon, blackberry

Sensitive 0.5

– 0.75 mg/L Avocado, grapefruit, orange, apricot, peach, cherry, plum, persimmon, fig, grape, walnut, pecan, cowpea, onion

Sensitive 0.75

– 1.0 mg/L Garlic, s weet potato, wheat barley, sunflower, mung bean, sesame, lupine, strawberry, jerusalem artichoke, kidney bean, lima bean, peanut

Sensitive 1.0

– 2.0 mg/L Red pepper, pea, carrot, radish, potato, cucumber

Moderately

t olerant 2.0

– 4.0 mg/L Lettuce, cabbage, c elery, turnip, kentucky bluegrass, oats, maize, artichoke, tobacco, mustard, sweet clover, squash, muskmelon

Tolerant 4.0

– 6.0 mg/L Sorghum, tomato, alfalfa, purple vetch, parsley, red beet, sugarbeet

Very t olerant 60

– 15.0 mg/L Cotton, asparagus

Specif ic constituent criteria for irrigation waters are outlined in table 9 . The table outlines minor constituents that may be prohibitive to plant growth used at
concentrations above those listed for short

- and long

- term applications. In
addition to these con stituents

, the following constituents and parameters also are identified as potentially detrimental at high concentrations to crops ( Texas Coorperative Extension 2003 ) :

**•** pH normal range 6.5

– 8.4

**•** Chloride < 70 parts per million ( ppm ) generally safe for all plants

**•** Nitrate < 10 ppm nitrate nitrogen ( NO 3 - N ) , 45 ppm nitrate ( NO 3 )

5.3.4 Stream Flow Augmentation
Although previously discussed in the context of irrigation, the discharge of produced water into streams provides more benefits than just the use of a surface water body as a conduit . Streamflow augmentation i s the addition of waters to surface bodies to supplement low flows, thereby sustaining the surface body ecosystem. When not provided by precipitation or runoff, surface bodies are primarily derived from ground water. Urbanization has lead to changes in t he ground water gradient, which may result in streams shifting from perennial, biologically rich streams to ephemeral streams ( Shaver, Horner et al. 2007 )

. Additionally, climate variations also affect surface water flows. Produced water may be u sed to sustain stream flow levels during low flow periods.32 Table 9 . Constituent limits for irrigation water (adapted
from Rowe a nd Abdel

- Magid, 1995)

Constituent Long

- term U se (mg/L) Short

- term U se (mg/L)

Aluminum (Al) 5 20
Arsenic (As) 0.1 2
Beryll ium (Be) 0.1 0.5
Boron (B) 0.75 2
Cadmium (Cd) 0.01 0.05
Chromium (Cr) 0.1 1
Cobalt (Co) 0.05 5
Copper (Cu) 0.2 5
Fluoride (F) 1 15
Iron (Fe) 5 20
Lead (Pb) 5 10
Lithium (Li) 2.5 2.5
Manganese (Mn ) 0.2 10
Molybdenum (Mo) 0.01 0.05
Nickel (Ni) 0.2 2
Selenium (Se) 0.02 0.02
Vanadium (V) 0.1 1
Zinc (Zn) 2 10

The quantity of water required to augment low stream flows is specific to the water body of application and the natural variations in water flow. For instance,
creation of a perennial stream from a historically ephemeral stream using produced water flows may create an unsustainable ecosystem, because

, as wells
are abandoned

, water sources will no longer be available. Over allocated water

resources , where water taken fro m a surface body exceeds the flow or water
sources where downstream users are in need of additional flow when available

, are ideal situations for produced water augmentation. Produced water could be
used to offset water use in surface bodies downstream fr om production, resulting in cheap transport of the water along a watershed and further dilution of the water through mixing with existing flow.

Important parameters to consider for this water management technique include impacts of elevated flows, which ma y include adverse affects such as erosion, total quantity losses due to evaporation, and impacts on the ecosystem based on water quality and physicochemical characteristics. Physical characteristics of the water that have potential to impact the ecosystem and aquatic life in a surface water body include temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) levels resulting in high biological and chemical oxygen demand (BOD and COD). Depending on the species and application

, water is expected to have DO levels from 3.0 to above 7.0 mg/L prior to discharge ( Shaver 2007

, #88 ) . Additionally

, salinity and33 specific constituents also must be managed to protect the ecosystem. Table 10 outlines constituents for aquatic life requirements and includes values for both
chronic and a cute toxicity, which are commonly dictated by the water hardness ( Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 2010 )

.

5.3.5 Rangeland Restoration
Rangelands consist of shrubs and grasses and covers approximately 50% of the land surface in the United States. The most common use for rangelands is livestock grazing. Overstocking and drought are two of the causes of rang eland degradation. Degradation of rangeland also is caused by improper use of vehicles and other industrial activity and changing weather patterns resulting in drought.

Produced water can be applied to rangeland to help the natural biotic community

to ree stablish vegetation and to increase the response of the native species ( Fox
and Burnett 2002 ) . SAR is an important criterion for using produced water for rangeland restoration. Similarly to irrigation water, high SAR values can further damage soils; therefore, treatment may be required for some produced water

sources to be used for rangeland restoration.

5.3.6 Industrial Uses

5.3.6.1 Reuse in Oil and Gas Operations Reuse of produced water on site at oil and gas operation includes multiple applications, such as well drilling, hydraulic fracturing, secondary oil recove ry, and sustaining aquifer pressure, which require large water volumes. Use of fresh water supplies in these practices may be minimized by treating and recycling produced water resources. Well head generation makes the resource available on site lowering transportation and trucking costs. Therefore, the market for treating produced water on site to meet water quality standards for use becomes economical as costs are compared to the cost of trucking fresh water on site at the volumes required for these op erations. Water treated at a produced water collection point in a well field represents a local source of water commonly in closer proximity to most wells than fresh water sour ces. Although many on site uses exist, two uses, well development through hydra ulic fracturing and secondary recovery through enhanced oil recovery techniques, are described here
in more detail.

Fracturing Water.

— Unconventional resources commonly exist in subsurface formations with low permeability. Stimulation, in the form of hydra ulic fracturing, is required to enhance permeability and allow for commercial production of the hydrocarbon resource. Hydraulic fracturing is the creation or
extension of natural fractures in the formation material. Fractures increase the formation perme ability as gas may flow unabated through these conduits to the wellhead. To create or extend naturally occurring fractures, pressurized hydraulic343536 fluid is pumped into the geologic formation through the well bore into the target
formation

. When the pressure exceeds the rock strength, the fluids open or enlarge fractures that can extend several hundred feet away from the well

. Current fracturing processes use “Slick Water” or “Light Sand” fracturing, which

uses larger volumes of water than historica lly used to complete the process ( R.W. Harden & Associates 2007 )

.

This hydraulic fluid is composed mainly of water and a proppant material, such a s sand or ce ramic beads, and is used to maintain openings after fracturing has
concluded ( R.W. Harden & Associates 2007

, #8 )

. Fracturing fluids can be up to
99% water ( USEPA 2010 )

. Water used for fracturing (frac water) is usually fresh water containing low salt concentrations and low concentrations of sparingly soluble salt products such as barium and silic a . Lower soluble salts are important
considerations because precipitation of these salts in the formation would block fractures and lower formation permeability. Numerous chemical additives also

are present in the hydraulic fluid mixture at low volume pe rcentages as compared to the water/proppant mixture. Specific chemical additives can include friction reducers, biocides

, and scale inhibitors.

F rac water is usually trucked on site to the well head. Limited fresh wa ter reservoirs are available on site tha t provide suffic ient quality and volume for
the frac water mixture. Deep horizontal wells ca n require anywhere from 2

– 10 million gallons of frac water to complete the well hydraulic fracturing ( ProchemTech, 2008 #3 ) . In the Barnett Shale in Texas, wells require 1.2 to
3.5 million gallons of water for hydraulically fracturing, usually spanning an
interval o f about one month per gas well ( R.W. Harden & Associates 2007 )

. After frac water is injected , the internal pressure of the geologic formation causes the injected fracturing fluids to rise to the surface and recovered fracturing fluid is
referred to as flowback water ( USEPA 2010 )

. Not all fracturing fluids injected during hydraulic fracturing are recovered

. Estimates of the fluids recovered range
fr om 15

– 80% of the volume injected depending on the site ( USEPA 2010 )

.

Hydraulic fracturing can occ ur repe atedly throughout the well life time. Some companies reuse flowback to hydraulically fracture more than one well as a way of conserving water and recycling the fluids ( USEPA 2010 ) . Flowback water represents only a portion of the water injected into the formation, making this option sustainable only as long as the water qua nt ity is sufficient for continued fracturing . Unlike the intermittent production of flowback water from fracturing operations, produced water is generated continuously as long as gas production is occurring. Treated produced water used to supplement water quantities for hydrau lic fracturing lowers the use of fresh water sources for well development and creates a more sustainable water use cycle within the well drilling operation.

Enhanced Oil Recovery

. — Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is used to extract additional oil in place i n a reservoir, since only 20

– 40 % of the total amount of oil in place can be recovered by standard extraction methods ( Petroleum Technology
Transfer Council ) . A number of EOR techniques exist as secondary recovery37 mechanisms. Water injection into an aquifer will displace oil towards the production well. EOR involving the injection of water and carbon dioxide into depleted oil fields can extract up to 10 % of the remaining oil. Meanwhile,
chemical EOR uses a fluid injection consisting of chemicals that promote the hydrocarbon movement through the formation to aid in recovering more products
from a well ( Petroleum Technology Transfer Council ) . Volumes of water used depend on the reservoir, while water quality concerns for injection include lowering divalent cation and silica levels to min imize scaling. Ten barrels of water are produced for each barrel of crude oil during EOR, which can be treated
and re

- used for further EOR ( Pet roleum Technology Transfer Council )

. Produced water generated at alternative well sites during well production may be used and treated for EOR applications.

5.3 .6.2 Dust Suppression Produced water is often generated in arid regions that are dust

- prone. Produced water can be used for dust suppression on unpaved lease roads in oil and gas fields. Typically, the spray of produced water for dust suppression is well controlled so that the water is not applied beyond the road boundaries or within
buffer zon es around stream crossings and near buildings ( Veil ) . Produced water has also been used for dust suppre ssion in surface coal mining operations.

5.3.6.3 Fire Protection Produced water could potentially be used for wild

- land firefighting or municipal fire hydrants and sprinkler systems. Often drinking water is used for fire fighting, however, water quality requirements for water used in fire fighting are not stringent

, and the use of alternative water sources does not adversely affect drinking water supplies.

In order to use produced water for fire protection, the water supply needs to be easily accessible and contain a sufficient volume. In 2002, CBM produced water stored in impoundments from the San Juan Basin was used effectively to fight a wildfire near Durango, Colorado ( ALLConsulting 2003 )

.

5.3.6.4 Cooling T owers Cooling towers for power plants required large volumes of water. As water demands increase, alternative water sources are sought for use in cooling towers. In some cases, it may be possible to use produced water for a portion of th e cooling water de mand at powerplants located near produced water generation ( Veil )

.

5.3.10 Domestic

In some cases

, pro duced water is of sufficiently high quality that it could be considered for municipal drinking water (table 11)

.38 Table 11. USEPA drinking water standards

Inorganic Constituent (μg/L) Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)

California Department of
Health Services Environmental Protection Agency Limits

Regional Water Quality
Board Limits Primary

MCL Secondary MCL US EPA Primary

MCL USEPA Secondary
MCL

Aluminum 1,000 200 50 to 200 200

Antimony 6 6 6

Arsenic 50 50 50

Asbestos 7 MFL 7 MFL 7 MFL

B arium 1,000 2,000 1,000

Beryllium 4 4 4

Cadmium 5 5 5

Chloride 250 mg/L 250 mg/L 10
Chromium (total) 50 100 50

Color 15 units 15 units 15 units
Copper 1,300 1,000 1,300 1,000 1,000
Corrosivity Noncorrosive Noncorrosive Noncorrosive
Cy anide 150 150 150

Fluoride 2,000 2,000 2,100

Iron 300 300 300

Lead 15 15 50
Manganese 50 50 50

Mercury, inorganic 2 2 2

Nickel 100 45

Odor 3 threshold units 3 threshold
units 3 threshold
units

pH 6.5 to 8.5 6.0 to 9.0

Radioacti vity, Gross Alpha 15 pCi/L 15 pCi/L 15 pCi/L

Radioactivity, Gross Beta 50 pCi/L 4 mrem/yr Zero

Radium

- 226 +
Radium

- 228 5 pCi/L 5 pCi/L 5 pCi/L

Selenium 50 50 5

Silver 100 100 50
Specific Conductance (EC) 900 umhos/cm

Strontium

- 90 8 pCi/ L 8 pCi/L

Sulfate 250 mg/L 500 mg/L 250 mg/L 20 mg/L

Thallium 2 2 239 Table 11. USEPA drinking water standards (continued)

Inorganic Constituent (μg/L) Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)

California Department of
Health Services Environmenta l Protection Agency Limits

Regional Water Quality
Board Limits Primary

MCL Secondary MCL USEPA Primary

MCL USEPA Secondary
MCL

Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/L 500 mg/L 300 mg/L

Total Hardness as CaCO 3 225 mg/L

Total Nitrogen (TN) 5,000

10 ,000

Tritium 20,000 pCi/L 20,000 pCi/L

Turbidity 5 NTU 1.0/0.5/0.1
NTU 5 NTU

Uranium 20 pCi/L 20 pCi/L Zero 20 pCi/L

Zinc 5,000 5,000 5,000

1 MFL = million fibers per liter ; μg /L = microgram per liter; pCi/L = picocuries per l iter ; mrem/yr = millirem per year ; CaCO 3 = calcium carbonate.41 

# 6. Produced Water Quality Characterization

Produced water is in contact with the hydrocarbon

- bearing formation for centuries
before it is produced and contains some of the chemical characteristics of the
formation an d the hydrocarbon (Veil et al. 2004). Additionally, naturally present water in the pore structure also reflects characteristics of the hydrocarbon depositional environment. Conventional and unconventional resources vary in depositional environment from continental fresh water deposits to brackish or
marine water deposits . Resulting water quality of the produced formation water is
a blend of the fresh to marine source environ ment origin and dissolved mineral species characteristic to source formation dissolution. To generalize the characteristics of produced water quality, information has been gathered from public resources on salt concentrations and composition, major and mi nor inorganic constituents, organic constituents, naturally occurring radioactive material, and chemical additives used during well development and well production.

The USGS has published an extensive on line database of produced water quality for producing basins across the U nited S tates . This database contains major ion analysis and TDS concentrations for over 27,500 oil and gas wells nationwide.
The database is limited in certain areas because it does not explicitly state which wells produce oil or natu ral gas, the age of the wells, the flow rate of water from the well at the time of the sampling, the sampling technique used or the analytical method. The database is best used to draw general conclusions about produced water generated by the petroleum in dustry as a whole. For the purpose of this
report

, data collected and analyzed from this source is considered to reflect conventional produced water quality. To supplement this database general water quality summary, studies on conventional oil and gas w ater quality su ch as
Fakhru’l

- Razi et al. (2009), Fillo an d Evans (1990), Shepard et al. (1992) and Tibbetts et al. (1992) are used to provide general information on minor ions, organics, and radionuclides.

State governing entities on oil and gas product ion also keep produced water quality records for conventional and unconventional resources. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) keeps public records of both major
and minor ions associated with conventional and unconventional oil and gas resources. Due to the extent of coal bed natural gas production in the Rocky Mountain region, the COGCC keeps categorized w ater quality information on
CBM . Major CBM basins in Colorado include the San Juan and Raton basins of
southern Colorado and th e Piceance basin in western Colorado. Data var ies in completeness by well log; but major ions, total dissolved solids data, and certain minor ions are available for 1,455 unconventional well in Colorado. This42 well data in combination with case studies in the Powder River and other national basins is used to draw general conclusions for unconventional gas produced water quality.

For the purpose of this report

, unconventional water quality data is categorized as
CBM produced water. Information on CBM p roduced water quality is more easily found in the public domain than information on flowback water ; however,
an effort was made to distinguish water quality from initial production of flowback water during hydraulic fracturing operations in various unconve ntional resources from produced water quality information. The following sections describe the characteristics of both conventional and unconventional produced water quality. Information presented represents a general summary of water compositions report ed in produced water quality databases and previous studies. A list of relevant resources, for specific wellhead database data or case studies on produced water, is provided at the end of this section.



### 6.1 Salt Concentration a nd Composition

Produced wat er is a mixture of inorganic and organic c ompounds (Fakhru’l

- Razi
et al. 2009). Salinity is a general attribute of produced water. The properties of produced water vary depending on the geographic location of the field, the geological host formation, and the type of hydrocarbon prod uct being produced (Veil et al. 2004). Salinity or salt concentration, described as TDS, can vary in conventional oil and gas well produced waters from 1,000

– 400,000 mg/L ( United States Geological Survey 2002 ) . Variations in TDS are related to geologic variations between basins, well location in a well field

, and the resourc e produced. The USGS and COGCC databases are used to describe distinctions in TDS between wells p roducing conventional or unconventional resources.

The large range of TDS observed in the USGS database for conventional wells is
broken down into basin entries in figure 10 ( USGS 2005 )

. Figure 10
demonst rates the variations of TDS in W estern U nited S tates basins through using of a box and whisker plot. The top and bottom of the box represent the 75 th and
25 th percentiles

, respectively. The midline through the box represents the
50 th percentile. The up and down bars, or whiskers, represent the minimum and
maximum concentrations observed in the basins. The basins in figure 10 have been arranged to depict basin locations from north (left side of graph) to south (right side of graph).

The range of TDS, from minimum to maximum concentrations, in entries for the Western United States basins are extensive, spanning more than 150,000 mg/L in
all basins and over 300,000 mg/L in more than half. The statistical percentiles, however, confine the expected span of water quality to more specific regions. For example, the Sweetgrass, Powder River, Big Horn, Wind River, Green River,43Figure10. Distribution of TDS forconventionalbasins.44 Denver, Piceance, and San Juan are all comprised of 75 th percentile TDS values below 50,000 mg/L; and a majority of these wells have a TDS of 35,000 ppm or
less. Trends in TDS can be observed as the ba sins are located more southerly.
Basin TDS concentrations in the southern basins

— with the exception of the Williston basin in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota that also have higher TDS

– contain a majority of entries above 50,000

– 100,000 mg/L. The
f

ormation environments as well as the formation material contribute to the overall salinity of the produced water in both conventional and unconventional wells. Increased salinity in the southern basins could be attributed to marine type depositional envir onments during the late cretaceous period. Reservoirs in these regions were formed in brackish to marine environments, while continental
reservoirs such as the Powder River basin were formed in fresh water environments (Van Voast 2003).

Comparing conven tional wells to unconventional wells

, a large distinction can be made in well type based on the observed range of TDS concentrations. While conventional wells can approach TDS concentrations of 400,000 mg/L,
CBM wells are generally less than 50,000 mg/L ( Benko and Drewes, 2008). Figure 11 depicts the distribution of TDS in conventional wells

, and figure 12
shows the distribution in unconventional wells . The histogram charts use
TDS bins to differentiate wells of different concentrations. The percentage of wells in each bin dictates the height of each bar. Note the difference in scale of
the TDS concentrations for conventional versus unconventional well water qualities.

Distinct differences in the histogram shapes exist between conventional
and unconvent ional wells in the distribution of TDS. Conventional wells consistently span the TDS range between 5,000

– 200,000 mg/L, but the percentage of wells in higher TDS ranges tends to decrease as TDS concentrations increase beyond 200,000 mg/L. The distribution of wells above 200,000 mg/L
is 18%, while 53%, or the majority of wells, range from 50,000

– 200,000 mg/L; and 29% exhibit TDS concentrations below 50,000 mg/L. Conversely, 99% of
the unconventional wells in the COGCC database exhibit TDS concentrations
be low 50,000 mg/L. Furthermore, 86% of unconventional wells exhibit a TDS of 5,000 mg/L or less. Close to three times as many unconventional wells (86%) display TDS concentrations less than 5,000 mg/L as compared to conventional wells (29%) with TDS values less than 50,000 mg/L. Salt concentration, signified by TDS, represents a clear distinction in composition between waters produced
from conventional wells versus CBM wells.

In addition to salt concentration, salt composition or makeup is equally importan t in distinguishing between produced water types. The dominant
cations observed for both conventional and unco nventional produced water
types include sodium, calcium, magnesium, and potassium. The dominant
anions are most commonly bicarbonate, chloride, and sulfate. Significant
differences exist in the dominant ions of conventional and unconventional45 Figure 11 . Distribution of TDS concentration for conventional oil and gas.

Figure 12 . Distri bution of TDS conce ntration for unconventional CBM basins.46 produced water. Salinity in conventional resources is due mainly to dissolved sodium and chloride, with fewer contributions from calcium, magnesium, and potassium (Fakhru’l

- Razi et al. 2009). Meanwhile, Rice and Nuccio (2000) reported that TDS concentrations at CBM wellheads ranged from 370 to

1 ,940 mg/L, generally a result of increased sodium and bicarbonate.

To verify the existence of significant cation and anion variations, the USGS and
COGC C databases were used to create cation and anion makeup compositions for comparison of conventional and unconventional resources. These cations (calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium) and anions (bicarbonate, chloride, and sulfate) were present for most w ells in both the USGS and COGCC databases. In figure 13, conventional and unconventional produced water compositions are compared through pie charts relating the percentage concentrations of major cations and anions. These charts are separated for compar ison purposes with conventional well compositions on the top and unconventional compositions on the bottom. The values plotted in these charts represent average cation and anion values for all basins in each database category.

Sodium is the dominant cat ion for water produced from both conventional and
unconventional wells. For conventional wells, sodium makes up 81% of the cations, but calcium also represents 14% of the cation makeup, while magnesium and potassium account for 5%. The unconventional wel ls are almost completely sodium dominated with calcium, magnesium, and potassium representing 5% of the cations. Distinict differences can be observed between the anion makeup in conventional and unconventional wells. Conventional wells are mainly chlori de anions, which represent 97% of the total anions present. In unconventional wells, bicarbonate makes up 66% of the anions, while chloride makes up 32%.

Domina n ce of chloride in conventional wells may be attributed to marine influence in the hydrocarbo n depositional environment as aforementioned during the discussion of salt concentration. Bicarbonate concentrations, however, are likely attributes of subsurface anaerobic methanogensis or the creation of biogenic methane, which result in increased bicar bonate concentrations in CBM wells resulting in the precipitation of calcium and magnesium from solution ( Van Voast
2003 )

. Low concentrations of sulfates also indicate that the coal reservoir has undergone, or is undergoing, methanogenesi s ( Rice, Flores et al. 2008 )

. This subsurface process dic tates anion dominance in the unconventional CBM water quality.

Although cations and anions makeups provide insight into the relative makeup of well water quality, the dominant salt is also an important descriptive factor. This descriptive factor differs f rom the cation and anion contributions previously presented. For example, although the average chloride concentrations may indicate chloride as 32% of the anion makeup in unconventional wells, dominant salt type of a well may not directly reflect these va lues. The dominant salt type represents the salt formed by the dominant anion and cation for each individual47 Figure 13 . Major cations and anions for produced water.

well. Using the databases

, figure 14 was created to compa re the salt make up of
individual conventional and unconventional wells. The salt types include sodium chloride and sodium bicarbonate type, while sodium sulfate, calcium sulfate,
calcium chloride

, and others are included in the category

, “Other

. ”

The sa lt type can reflect the formation environment as well as the system processes, such as the impacts of methanogenesis in CBM reservoirs. The
dominant salt makeup of conventional produced water is mainly sodium chloride type. Sodium bicarbonate type exists for 4% of the conventional wells, but sodium bicarbonate type waters do not exceed the combined occurance of other salt types of which sodium sulfate and calcium chloride occur at 4 and 6%, respectively. The uncnventional CBM wells, alternatively, are ma de up primarily of sodium bicarbonate type waters at 82% and sodium chloride type waters at 17%. The occurance of produced water from unconventional CBM wells falling under the “Other” category is only 1%.

Dominant salt types also are variable based on their geographic location. Dominant salt type charts are included for the Western United States basins in figure 15. Data was obtained from the USGS database for each basin. This figure depicts the percentage of wells within each basin of the USGS datab ase that were48 Figure 14 . Dominant salt types of produced water.

Figure 15 . Western United States oil and gas basins: dominant salt type distribution.49 dominated by each type of salt. The salt types include, in clockwise order on the pie charts, sodium chloride, calcium sulfate, calcium chloride, sodium bicarbonate, sodium sulfate, calcium bicarbonate, and other as any remaining salts
unlisted.

Observed from figure 15, sodium chloride is the dominant salt in nearly all of the Western United States basins. The Big Horn and Sweetgrass Arch basins are the two main exceptions. The Big Horn basin has the largest makeup of sodium sulfate type waters; although the basin exhibits a variety of d ominant salt types. Sodium bicarbonate is the dominant salt type in the Sweetgrass Arch, similar to the unconventional CBM basins. Kansas, Anadarko, and Permian basins show the least amount of subsequent salt types with most wells in those basins
exhibit ing sodium chloride type waters. The most common salts following
sodium chloride across the Western United States basins include sodium bicarbonate and sodium sulfate. Dominant salt type is an important descriptive feature for produced water quality; how ever, other inorganic and organic constituents also exist at measurable concentrations in produced water.



### 6.2 Inorganic C onstituents

Produced water has high concentrations of dissolved constituents that build up during extended contact with formation mat erial. Produced water contains some of the chemical characteristics of the formation waters originally associated with the formation environment as well as manipulations to the water by subsurface

processes ( Van Voast 2003 ) . Produced water is in contact with the formation
environment for centuries

, suggesting that mineral characteristics of the formation material will be reflected in the produced water quality ( Veil 2004 ) . These
ref lections can be in the form of mineral types, such as carbonate or silicate systems, but also can include minor heavy metals present in the subsurface including arsenic, lead, organic constituents

, and naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM). Thi s section focuses on the inorganic characteristics of produced water

, specifically commonly occurring

, or major ions and lower concentration inorganic and organic constituents or minor ions.

6.2.1 Major I ons Based on the salt composition observations fro m the previous sections sodium
is consistently present in both conventional an d unconventional produced

water types. There is potentional, due to produc ed water composition, that high ranges of SAR likely are associated with each water type. SAR represen ts the ratio of specific cations to one another, focusing on the relationship of sodium with calcium and magnesium. The higher the calcium and magnesium concentrations with respect to the sodium, the lower the value of SAR becomes. High TDS concentration s associated with conventional wells translate to a high
SAR when sodium is the dominant cation in the wells . Although unconventional50 wells have lower overall TDS concentrations, the lack of calcium a nd magnesium
in the cation make up also suggest ele vated SAR values in unconvention al wells.

To determine the impact of TDS on the SAR, SAR values were calculated for
well s u sing the USGS database. These values were calculated by ba sin as, in conjunction with TDS; the SAR is also highly variable between basi ns. For the
conventional basins included in figure 15, table 12 provides the median TDS and SAR values with the standard deviations for each basin. Large standard deviations in the data are a result of the variability associated with wells in each basin, while variations exist in TDS and SAR data for each basin may also be
observed.

Trends in SAR with respect to TDS are present at the higher TDS concentrations. At higher TDS concentrations (> 50,000 mg/L), the SAR increases with
TDS concentration. For example the Williston basin in North Dakota has the highest average TDS concentration of the basins, while it also has the highest average SAR. This trend suggests that, at TDS above 50,000 mg/L, increases in TDS are caused by the sodium cation. TDS conc entrations also can be significantly different between regions or States that are contained within the same basin. For example, wells in the South Dakota portion of the Williston basin have very low TDS concentrations compared to the North Dakota portion. Geographic location within the basin influences the produced water quality. This may be due to the presence of a recharge zone along outcrops, confined areas of formation water, or the transmission of fresh water into the hydrocarbon bearing
formation ( Rice and Nuccio 2000 ; Clearwater, Morris et al. 2002 )

.

Major inorganic constiuents identified in produced water include sodium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, chloride, bicarbonate, and sulfate. Barium and stronium also occur in produced water, although the concentration ranges can span from nondetect to elevated concentrations such as 850 mg/L for barium and 6,250 mg/L for strontium in conventional basins. R anges of these prevalent inorganic constituents in produced water are presented i n table 13 for
conventional wells.

CBM water traditionally has lower sulfate concentrations than conventional wells. Barium sulfate forms a sparingly soluble salt, controlled by the amount of barium or sulfate present in the water. Since the sulfate conc entration in CBM wells
is relatively low, the barium concentrations in the water can remain relatively high. The barium concentration in conventional produced water has a range
of 0

– 850 mg/L ( Fillo, Koraido et al. 1992 ) . The COGCC database reports a barium range from 0.5

– 125 mg/L. This trend is consistent for other ions as well. For instance, maximum calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sulfate concentrations are one to two orders of magnitude lower in CBM wells than conventional wells. Due to lower TDS concentrations, unconventional wells tend
to have lower concentrations of all major ions.51 Table 12. Conventional basins TDS and SAR statistics

Basin State TDS (mg/L) SAR

Median Standard
Deviation Median Standard
Deviation

Williston Montana 74,300 113,200 127.7 144.4

North Dakota 253,000 122,400 179.8 107.4

South Dakota 8,200 36,000 35.5 45.8

Sweetgrass Arch Montana 4,000 21,100 36.8 33.4

Powder River Montana 7,000 5,400 70.3 42.1

Wyoming 7,400 35,300 76.8 204.1

Big Horn Montana 3,200 8,300 16.9 45.0

Wyoming 4,900 12,900 10.5 31.3

Wind River Wyoming 5,300 1 4,800 52.5 55.3

Green River Wyoming 10,000 22,000 64.4 36.9

Colorado 7,500 16,800 76.5 46.3

Denver Colorado 10,100 19,600 96.8 56.1

Nebraska 10,300 32,300 151.9 70.5

Piceance Colorado 15,000 34,900 79.0 41.2

Paradox Colorado 137,900 102,600 95.6 41 .0

Utah 55,700 87,300 62.2 98.1

Central Kansas Kansas 58,400 70,500 65.4 46.8

San Juan Colorado 14,900 37,000 103.9 90.6

New Mexico 15,900 34,100 77.9 55.1

Anadarko Kansas 108,300 81,300 98.0 50.6

Oklahoma 142,000 90,500 112.3 29.8

Texas 124,600 84,200 n/a 1 n/a

Permian New Mexico 63,300 83,100 81.5 98.8

Texas 99,600 73,500 93.4 64.7

1 n/a = data not available.52 Table 13. Common inorganic constituents in conventional produced

water

Constituent Units Concentration Range

Reference Low Hi gh Median

TDS mg/L 100 400,000 50,000 USGS produced
water database

Sodium mg/L 0 150,000 9,400 USGS produced
water database

Chloride mg/L 0 250,000 29,000 USGS produced
water database

Barium mg/L 0 850 Not
Available Fillo 1992

Strontium mg/L 0 6,250 Not
Available Fillo 1992

Sulfate mg/L 0 15,000 500 USGS produced
water database

Bicarbonate mg/L 0 15,000 400 USGS produced
water database

Calcium mg/L 0 74,000 1,500 USGS produced
water database

Inorganic chemical composition information can be repr esente d graphically in the
form of a S tiff diagram . A S tiff diagram plots the concentrations of major cations and anions of a water type. The diagrams in figure 16 represent cations on the right and anions on the left of the center axis. The distance of each point representing an ion type from the center access is the ions ’ equivalent concentration. The points are connected to outline a chemical pattern. By comparing the shape of the outlined figure

, water types can be compared easily in
a visual manne r. Note that the scales are different on the conventional and unconventional diagrams and the concentrations compared are in milliequivalents per liter (meq/L).

Figure 16 . Geochemical fingerprints of conventional and

unconv entional basins

. Na HCO 3 Mg + K SO 4

Ca

Cl

2,000 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 meq/L Conventional

Na HCO 3 Mg + K SO 4

Ca

Cl

60 40 20 0 20 40 60 meq/L Unconventional53 Both cation sides of the diagrams are bottom heavy where s odium is the dominant
cation . Calcium, magnesium

, and potassium have a higher contribution, or
deviation fro m the center axis in convention produced water. Bicarbonate is
relativ ely absent by comparison to chloride in conventional produced water. Bicarbonate and chloride both exist in the unconventional system, where
bicarbonate is more often the dominant anion . This diagra m can be applied to the

W estern basins to observe variat ions and similarities between basins. Figure 17
shows the major W estern conventional b asins with the subsequent basin wide S tiff diagrams.

As a general theme

, the geographic spatial distributions are similar across most basins. Generally, the conventional basin diagrams are bottom heavy with their sodium chloride type waters and small relative influences from other ions. In certain basins, such as the Permian, Central Kansas, and Paradox, cations such as potassium, magnesium, and calcium occur at visible concentrations on the S tiff diagrams. These three diagrams share the same scale and, therefore, comparable concentrations. Sweetgrass Arch and Big Horn also contain visible concentrations of the alternate cations; however, the smaller scale suggests thes e concentrations may be visible on the diagram due to relatively lower
concentrations of sodium. The same is true in these basins for the bicarbonate
and sulfate anions.

The Williston and Anadarko basins have the highest ion concentrations, although
both are dominated by sodium chloride type waters. The lowest ion concentrations are found in the Sweetgrass Arch, Big Horn, and Wind River
b asins. The overall trends for S tiff diagrams over the Western United States include a general increase in diagram scal e, which is consistent to the increase in ion concentrations or TDS towards the Southern United States. Again, the exception to this trend is the Williston basin in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Although occurring at higher relative concentrat ions, these major ions are a small subset of the inorganic constituents present in produced water. The following section focuses on the remaining inorganic constituents, or minor ions, present in conventional and unconventional CBM produced waters.

6.2.2 Minor Ions
Minor ions present in produced waters include inorganic constituents such as metals at varying ranges of concentrations as well as nonmetals such as fluoride and boron. These minor ions are found at relatively lower concentrations than the majo r ions, mentioned previously, in most wells ( McBeth and Reddy 2003 )

. Ranges of ions may reflect wells with elevated concentrations of certain constituents, but overall minor ions make up less than 1% of the overall
constituent contribution to di ssolved solids. Minor ions are of interest for a number of reasons including their regulation in beneficial use standards, potential hazardous nature if concentrated during treatment, recoverable quantity for constituents of value, and preserving natural systems during practices such as water application to soils in irrigation.54 Figure 17 . Western United States oil and gas basins: water geochemistry.

Interest exists to beneficially use CBM water for various applications due t o lower TDS. These applications include irrigation , livestock watering, and stream flow augmentation. Dissolved chemicals in CBM produced water can differ great ly
from those in surface waters because of their origin within coal seam aquifers (Clearwater, 2002 #80);(Van Voast, 2003 #45) . Therefore, it is important to determine the coal seam water quality

, particularly that of minor ions that may precipitate or concentrate upon release to the surface. McBeth et al. (2003)
collected CBM product water sample s from discharge points and associated discharge ponds. This study focused on identifying changes in CBM produced water quality upon release to surface ponds. Although this report does not go into detail regarding downstream changes in water quality, the values analyzed by that study for discharge points, which included aluminium ( Al )

, arsenic ( As ) , b oron (B)

, barium ( Ba )

, chromium ( Cr )

, copper ( Cu )

, fl u o rine ( F )

, iron ( Fe )

, manganese ( Mn )

, molybdenum ( Mo )

, lead ( Pb )

, selenium ( Se ) , and zinc ( Zn )

, which a re also
included in table 14 to supplement COGCC database values for minor ion
concentrations.

Table 14 includes a comprehensive list of inorganic constituents. Minor ion concentrations for conventional wells are provided from numerous studies in

cooper ation with the USGS database values. Fakhru’l

- Razi et al. (2009) summarized oil and gas conventional water qualities separately ( Fakhru'l

- Razi,
Pendashteh et al. 2009 ) . Although those ranges have been combined for the55 Table 14. Ranges o f inorganic constituents in produced water 1

Constituent List Units Conventional Unconventional
Antimony mg/L n/a ND

– 0.005 e

Aluminum mg/L < 0.50

– 410 b ,d 0.005

– 1.52 f, g

Arsenic mg/L 0.004

– 151 a,b ,d ND

– 0.158 e

Barium mg/L ND

– 1740 a,b ,d 0.44 5

– 125 e, g

Beryllium mg/L < 0.001

– 0.004 d n/a

Bicarbonate mg/L ND

– 14,750 h 4.53

– 49,031 g

Boron mg/L ND

– 95 a ,d 0.05

– 30.6 e

Bromide mg/L 150

– 1,149 a,b ND

– 41.1 e

Cadmium mg/L < 0.0 05

– 1.21 a,b ,d ND

– 0.076 e

Calcium mg/L ND

– 74,185 h N D

– 5,530 e, g

Chloride mg/L 2

– 254,923 h ND

– 52,364 e, g

Chromium mg/L ND

– 1.1 a ,d ND

– 3.71 e, g

Cobalt mg/L n/a ND

– 0.010 e
Copper mg/L < 0.0 0 2

– 5 b ,d 0.001

– 1.448 e

Fl uo ride mg/L n/a 0.57

– 20 f, g

Iron mg/L ND

– 1,100 a 0.001

– 258 e, g

L ead mg/L 0.002

– 10.2 b ,d ND

– 0.098 e

Lithium mg/L 3

– 235 b ,d ND

– 1.50 g
Magnesium mg/L ND

– 46,656 h 1.2

– 918.9 e
Manganese mg/L < 0.004

– 175 d ND

– 3.11 e, g

Mercury mg/L < 0.001

– 0.002 d ND

– 0.014 e
Molybdenum mg/L n/a ND

– 0.448 e

Nickel m g/L < 0.08

– 9.2 b ND

– 0.082 e
Nitrogen, a mmoniacal (N

- NH 3 ) mg/L 10

– 300 d n/a
Nitrate (N

- N0 3 ) mg/L n/a ND

– 26.1 g

Potassium mg/L 0

– 14,840 h ND

– 1,100 g

Selenium mg/L n/a ND

– 1.27 e

Silver mg/L < 0.001

– 7 b ,d ND

– 0.14 g

Sodium mg/L 1

– 149,8 36 h 97.3

– 32,013 e

Strontium mg/L 0.02

– 6

, 2 00 a, d ND

– 47.9 g

Sulfate mg/L ND

– 1 4

, 900 h ND

– 2,200 e, g

Tin mg/L ND

– 1.1 a n/a

Titanium mg/L < 0.01

– 0.7 d n/a

Uranium mg/L n/a ND

– 2.5 g

Vanadium mg/L n/a ND

– 0.290 e

Zinc mg/L 0.01

– 35 d 0.0 05

– 5.639 e

1 ND = nondetect; n/a = data not available ; a = Fillo and Evans 1990 ; b = USEPA 2000 ; c = Shepard, Shore et al. 1992 ; d = Tibbetts, Buchanan et al. 1992 ; e = Cheung, Sanei et al. 2009 ; f = McBeth, Reddy et al. 2003 ; g = Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 2010 ; h = U SGS

2002

.56 purpose of this r eport, the separated values can be found in table 1, natural gas produced water, and table 2, oilfield produced water, of that study.

In general, concentrations of minor ions are greater in conventional than unconventional CBM wells. Exceptions include bi carbonate as well as chromium and silver, although limited data is available for chromium and silver in conventional wells. Marine influences from the depositional environment may include boron, bromide, and chloride due to elevated concentrations in the source water. Conventional produced waters reflect marine influences containing elevated chloride and bromide concentrations ranging from 80

– 200,000 mg/L and
150

– 1,149 mg/L, respectively. Minor ions generally originate from natural sources in the system such as prolonged contact with source rock or depositional environment characteristics, such as those marine water types.

In addition to naturally occurring minor inorganic compounds, organic compounds and NORM also exist in produced water samples. These compounds also are naturally occurring and are significant in meeting regulations and treatment for use. The minor ions addressed in the following sections are attributes of the reservoir system, subsurface processes, and producing hydrocarbons. Byproduc ts of drilling or additives to aid in well production or completion are addressed in the section following NORM.



### 6.3 Organic Constituents

This section focuses on an explanation and overview of organic constituents present in produced water. Produced wat er is removed from an inherently organic system, where carbon sources have been converted to hydrocarbons over geologic time. This section will focus on organic constituents present from natural processes. Organic matter in produced water exists in two f orms: dispersed oil
and non

- hydrocarbon organic material. Dispersed oil is small, discrete droplets suspended in the water. Nonhydrocarbon organic material is dissolved in the

water ( Stephenson 1992 )

.



### 6.3 Organic Constituents

This section focuses on an explanation and overview of organic constituents present in produced water. Produced water is removed from an inherently organic system, where carbon sources have been converted to hydrocarbons over geologic
time. This section will focus on organic constituents present from natural processes. Organic matter in produced water exists in two forms: dispersed oil
and non

- hydrocarbon organic material. Dispersed oil is small, discrete droplet s suspended in the water. Non hydrocarbon organic ma terial is dissolved in the

water ( Stephenson 1992 )

.57 The amount and nature of soluble oil, or nonhydrocarbon organic materials in produced water is dependent on several factors: type of hydrocarbon being produced, volume of water production, a rtificial lift te chnique, and age of production. The only factor studied to any extent is the type of oil (paraffinic, asphaltenic, or gas condensate) ( Stephenson 1992 ) . Analysis of the organic content in produced water is complicated by interf erences in the d etection or
measurement method. High inorganic content has been found to cause spectral interference and sample crystallization during the acid digestion process of metal analyses. Sample dilution is most often used to alleviate this prob lem.

Total organ ic carbon (TOC) ranges from non de tect concentrations to almost

2 ,000 mg/L

. TOC includes suspended carbon or carbon that is not dissolved. Suspended carbon could include oils or high carbon mass particles that can be removed by filtration. The chemical oxygen demand is a measure of the oxygen consumed per liter of solution. Due to the deep confined nature of produced

water

, reservoirs systems are anoxic, although oxidation may occur during pumping and transport if the water comes in conta ct with the atmosphere. COD is a reflection of this anoxic system, but it also indicat es the high carbon content.
Table 15 lists the concentration ranges of organic material commonly found in produced water from oil operations ( Tibbetts, Buchanan et al. 1992 )

.

Insoluble carbon commonly identified as a part o f total suspended solids ( TSS ) or total o il also is provided with concentrations in table 15. The total oil content in water generated from conventional crude oil extraction can range from 40

– 2,000 ppm depending on the water retenti on time in the three

- phase separator (no
chemical s or additional separation equipment used to generate these figures). Generally, polar water soluble organics found in produced water are distributed
between the low an d midrange of carbon content. The factor that most controlled
the total water soluble organic content in produced water was aqueous phase pH. This study, conducted with water from oil operations, found that salinity had the
least affect on the chemical character or the carbon size of water sol uble organics in produced water

.

Volatile compo unds, compounds with low boiling points, include compounds such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, and methane. These compounds likely are to be present at producing wells, but they also may be remnant as dissolved compounds in produced water . The organic components with the largest range of concentrations are the volatile fatty acids, which include acetate, propionate, and butyrate. Table 16 provides a breakdown of the volatile organics commonly found in produced water from natural gas extr action. These ranges of volatile organics were found in 75 to 80% of all gas produced water samples ( Fillo, Koraido et al. 1992 ) . Volatile organics concentrations were not reported for water from oil extraction, because the concentrations are typically low or not observed. Conversely, semivolatile organics are rarely found in gas produced water and are much more prevalent in oil produced water. Semivolatile organics concentrations were not reported for water from gas extraction, because the concentrations are typically low or not observed.58 Table 15. Organic material in produced water from oil operations 1

Constituent Units Concentration Range Technique (Method) Low High Median

TOC mg/L ND 1

, 700 NA UV Oxidation/IR ( USEPA 415.1)

COD mg/L 1

, 220 NA Redox Titration ( USEPA 410.3)

TSS mg/L 1.2 1

, 000 NA Gravimetric ( USEP A 160.2)

Total Oil mg/L 2 565 NA Gravimetric ( USEPA 413.1)

Volatiles mg/L 0.39 35 NA GC/MS ( USEPA 1624 Rev
B and USEPA 24 & CLP)

Total Polars mg/L 9.7 600 NA Florisil column /IR

Phenols mg/L 0.009 23 NA Silylation GLC/MS

Volatile Fatty
Acids mg/L 2 4

, 9 00 NA Direct GLC/FID of water

1 ND = below detection limit ; NA = not available

.

Table 16. Volatile organics in produced water from gas operations 1

Constituent Units Concentration Range Analytical
Method Reference Low High Median

Benzene mg/L ND 27 NA USEPA
Method 1624
and 624 Fillo, 1992

Bis (2

- chlorethyl)
ether mg/L ND 0.03 NA NA GRI report,
1988
Ethylbenzene mg/L ND 19 NA USEPA
Method 1624
and 624 GRI report,
1988

Phenol mg/L ND 2.6 NA NA GRI report,
1988

Toluene mg/L ND 37 NA USEPA
Method 1624
and 624 Fillo, 1992

2

- Butanone mg/L ND 0.37 NA NA GRI report,
1988

1 ND = below detection limit ; NA = not available

.

Produced water from gas production tends to have higher contents of low
molecular

- weight aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) than water from oil production. Studies indicate that the produced waters discharged from gas/condensate platforms are about 10 times59 more toxic than produced waters discharged from oil platforms ( Jacobs, Grant et
al. 1992 ) . The chemicals used in processing typically include dehydration chemicals, hydrogen sulfide removal chemicals, and chemicals to inhibit hydrates.
Well

- stimulation chemicals such as mineral acids, dense brines, and additives also can be found in gas produced water ( Stephenson 1992 ) . These additional compounds are discussed in a following section.



### 6.4 Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials

Naturally occurring radioactive elements include uranium, thallium, radium

, and
radon. These elements dissolve i nto wat er at low concentrations while water is in contact with rock or soil. Naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) in oil and gas producti on are primarily in the form of radon 226 and 228. Beneficial use of produced water containing NORM can contamin ate soil, ground water, and
surface water. NORM also is present in scale deposits that coat pipes and storage tanks conveying and containing produced water. Radium accumulation in equipment became apparent in the U nited S tates in the 1980 s when unaccepta ble levels of radioactivity were fou nd in oilfield pipe shipmen ts ( Zielinski and Otton
1999 ) . In 1999, the U S GS published Fact Sheet 0142

- 99 , which focuses on the occurrence, regulations

, and health con cerns dealing with NORM in produced

water. Figure 18 and the following information are summarized from this source.

Color Legend: White = no data; gray to yellow = at background or marginally detectable; blue =
less than five times the median backgr ound for all sites ; p ink = greater than five times the median background for all sites

.

Figure 18 . Radioactive oilfield equipment (USGS Fact Sheet 0142

- 99).60 Figure 18 demonstrates the severity of radioactivity geographically by categorizing United States basins through comparing radioactive concentrations in oilfield equipment to natural background concentrations. The sampling indicated that gamma ray radiation levels exceeded natural background radiation levels at 42% percent of the sites. Along the gulf coast, in Texas, Illinois, and Kansas, radioactivity levels were found to be greater than five times the median background, and these elevated areas represented 10% of the study sites.
Radon 226 and 228 were reported to range from 4.93

– 720 pCi/L and 22.2

– 723 pCi/L in produced water outfalls in the Gulf of Mexico ( Moatar, Shadizadeh
et al. 2010 )

.

Pipe, casing, fittings, and tanks with prolonged contact with produced water were more likely to contain radioactive deposits than other parts of the plumbing system. Leakage or spills of produced water in the vicinity of production sites may affect soils. Radon (226+228) is regulated at a maximum concentration of
5 pCi/L in drinking water sources; therefo re, most sources require treatment to lower levels in produced water to meet this standard.



### 6.5 Chemical Additives

In addition to naturally occurring compounds mentioned in previous sections

, chemical additives also are present in produced water. Chemical additives used in chemical treatments for produced water are commonly employed for problems such as hydrate formation, water vapor, mineral deposits, chemical corrosion, bacterial corrosion, emulsions, foaming, and paraffin. Table 17 contains a brief
des cription of each problem encountered, sources of the issue, treatment
chemicals

, and concentrations. The data in table 17 is not comprehensive but provides a general background on chemical treatment compounds that may be

pre sent in produced water streams ( Hayward Gordon Ltd. )

.



### 6.6 Beneficial Use Potential

Given the information on water quality for produced water from oil and gas as well as unconventional gas wells, it is apparent the treatment is required to meet most beneficial use scenarios. The following sections provide information on applicable scena rios for beneficial use given produced water quality. The section compares standards mentioned previously in the report, section 5. This
information is calculated based on database values and assimilated tables. Comparison to each scenario is based on u ntreated water quality. Specific technologies capable of meeting these beneficial use requirements are available in the following report section 8.

Generalizing the TDS requirements for five particular beneficial uses allows for comparing database wells t o the following TDS standards: drinking water
500 mg/L, ground water recharge 625 mg/L, surface water discharge 1,000 mg/L,61 Table 17. Chemicals added for treatment of produced water

Problem Cause Chemical
T reatment Chemical
C oncentrations

Chemical

cor rosion Hydrogen sulfide gas, carbon dioxide or oxygen Corrosion inhibitor: amine imidazolines,
amines and amine salts, quaternary ammonium salts, and nitrogen Activ e ingredient
concentration
3

– 40%

Bacterial
corrosion Sulfate reducing bacteria reducing s ulfate to hydrogen
sulfide Bactericides: quaternary amine salt, amine acetate, and gluteraldehyde Concentrations ranging from
10

– 50%

Hydrate
formation Natural ga s hydrates formed in the presenc e of water usually at high pressure and low temperature Hydra te inhibition: ethylene glycol and
methanol 5

– 15 gallons per million
cubic feet of produced gas

Water Vapor Water vapor present in natural gas is removed to meet sales specifications Dehydration: Triethylene glycol (TEG) n/a

Mineral deposits Inorganic mi neral compounds causing scale or deposits, such as calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate (gypsum), strontium sulfate,
and barium sulfate Scale inhibitor: phosphate esters, phosphonates, and acid polymers Treatment
concentrations
from 3

– 5 ppm, but depend on
th e water type

Emulsion (normal and reverse) Normal

– water droplets dispersed in the oil phase
Reverse

– oil droplets suspended in the continuous water phase Emulsion breakers: oxyalklated resins, polyglycol esters, and alkl aryl sulfonates Bulk

concentrat ions
of 30

– 50%

Foaming Oil froth Defoamers: silicones and polyglycol esters Treatment
concentrations
are 5

– 25 ppm

irrigation 1,920 mg/L, and agriculture livestock watering 10,000 mg/L . These
values are the least conservative concentrations allowable f or each use. Utilizing this breakdown, figure 19 was created to depict the percentage of wells in each
database suitable for each use. Th is chart is based purely on TDS concentration
and does not take into account SAR or minor ions.

Results from comparin g database TDS concentrations to use alternatives indicate that water quality of produced water from both conventional and unconventional wells is unsuitable for drinking or ground water recharge untreated. Only 4%
of the unconventional wells meet these c riteria. Meanwhile 10% of the unconventional wells meet the 1, 000

- mg/L surface criteria for discharge. In the Powder River basin in Wyoming, a significant amount of produced water is discharged into watersheds ( Clearwater, Morris et al. 2002 )

. Numerous studies62 Figure 19 . Conventional versus unconventional well distribution in the
TDS requirement categories for each beneficial use.

are available on the Powder River that consider effects beyond salinity of surface
d ischarges of produced water. Given the high maximum TDS concentration for livestock watering of 10,000 mg/L

, 18% of conventional wells and 88% of unconventional wells meet this requirement. For unconventional CBM wells

, 29% of that 88% also meets TDS sta ndards. Of the two databases

, 82% and 12%
of the conventional and unconventional wells

, respectively

, do not meet any of the above listed standards. These waters may meet subsequent beneficial use

opp or tunit i es such as dust control, hydraulic fracturing

, or enhanced oil recovery, but requirements for these processes are not explored or compared in this report.

Potential use for these wells in the previous categories varies by location of the basin as well. By grouping drinking, ground water and surface w ater requirements into a single category, due to the low percentage of wells capable of meeting these standards , figure 20 was created. Using the same bar chart format, with consolidated categories, red bars represent water requiring treatment or water

ex ceeding 10,000 mg/L TDS, yellow bars represent agriculture, green represents irrigation

, and blue represents drinking, ground water or surface discharge. T he results of the bar chart subsets are provided for the W estern U nited S tates basins
in figure 20.

Figure 20 shows that only four basins have a majority of wells with a TDS level unsuitable for use without treatment; Permian, Anadarko, Central Kansas, and Williston. Given the poor water quality in these basins, treatment is required to meet uses orig inating in this region. Recall Texas is also the largest generator of 0% 0% 0% 1% 18% 82%

1% 3% 10% 29% 88%

12%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Percentage of wells meeting TDS criteria(%) Conventional Unconventional63 Figure 20

. Western U nited S tates oil and gas basins: percentage of wells in various beneficial use categories.

produced water in the W estern U nited S tates ( Clark and Veil 2009 )

. Although water generation of poor quality may be representative of this dataset, the amount of oil and gas pro duction in the State suggests that on site uses for production,
enhanced well recover

, and hydraulic fracturing could be accomplished through
the treatment and use of produced water resources, there by limiting requirements
for fresh water resources in the S tate.

The Williston basin in Montana, North Dakota

, and South Dakota is also of poor quality; however, given the relatively lower TDS concentrati ons in South Dakota

, a small portion of the basins water resource does meet standards for agriculture livestock watering. The Denver, Piceance, Paradox

, and San Juan basins also
contain a certain number of wells fit for ag ricultural purposes, although a m ajority
of wells are unsuitable for the se uses without treatment. The Powder and Green
River basins all exceed unsuitab le wells with wells meeting TDS requirements for agriculture. The Big Horn, Sweetgrass Arch

, and Wind River basins are all dominated by agricultural type waters, with multiple wells meeting irrigation water qualities.64 TDS can be broken into subcategories based on specific irrigation and livestock requirements. Although the least conservative TDS values were used for the previous compar ison, ma n y less wells meet more stringent water quality requirements. For example, although 88% of the unconventional CBM wells meet the 10,000

- mg/L criteria for livestock water

, only 10% meet the satisfactory level preventing illness and mortality. Less than 1% of the conventional wells meet this satisfactory criterion. Although the TDS is acceptable in most wells for short periods of time

, treat ing or blending water with a fresh water resource would be required to sustain this application.

Table 18. Suitability statistics for produced water for agricultural uses

Irrigation TDS Categories % of Wells in TDS Range

Conventional Unconventional
Class 1 Excellent < 160 0 % 0 %

Class 2 Good 160

– 480 0 % 1 %

Class 3 Permissible 486

– 1,280 0 % 14 %

C lass 4 Doubtful 1

, 286

– 1,920 1 % 14 %

Class 5 Unsuitable > 1

, 920 99 % 71 %

Livestock Watering TDS Categories Conventional Unconventional

Level 1 Satisfactory < 1,000 0 % 10 %

Level 2 Satisfactory, slight temporary illness 1

, 000

– 2,999 4 % 37 %

Level 3 Satisfactory for livestock, increased poultry mortality 3

, 000

– 4,999 5 % 15 %

Level 4 Reasonable for livestock, unsafe for poultry 5

, 000

– 6,999 3 % 12 %

Level 5 Unfit for poultry and swine, acceptable
short term for
livestock 7

, 000

– 10,000 5 % 14 %

Level 6 Not r ecommended > 10

, 000 82 % 12 %

TDS concentration is not the only requirement specific for irrigation applications. SAR is as important as TDS when considering applications. Irrigation requirements for SAR can be split into four categorie s: low 1

– 9, medium 10

– 17, high 18

– 25, and very high > 26. Low SAR values may not be used on sodium sensitive crops; medium values require soil amendments such as gypsum; high values are generally unsuitable for continuous use; and very high values genera lly
are unsuitable for use ( Davis, Waskom et al. 2007 ) . Figure 22 compares
calculated SAR values for convention and unconventional wells to the aforementioned categories.65 Figure 21

. Conventional versus unconventional well distribution in the irrigation requirement categories for SAR.

Although 29% of CBM wells were suitable for irrigation based on TDS concentrations, only 10% meet the required low or medium SAR values. Conversely, although only 1% of the conventional wells met TDS requirements
6% meet the low or medium SAR criteria . Since SAR is a calculation of the ratio between sodium, magnesium, and calcium conventional wells with higher TDS, but also high calcium and magnesium concentrations

, increase the relative amount of wells meeting SAR standards.

A similar figure for SAR distribution of wells among basins was created for figure 22 . Utilizing SAR as the qualities for irrigation demonstrates that only the Sweetgrass Arch, B ighorn, Wind River and Powder River basins contain wells meeting the low or medium categorical value. The remainder of the basins contains mostly unsuitable waters for irrigation purposes. The mapping of these criteria is helpful to determine the geograp hic variation of not only water quality, but potential uses in the area. A combined prediction of wells meeting the full extent of concentrations for all constituents and parameters would be beneficial to targeting beneficial use applications in specific basins and areas.

Minor ions are regulated for a variety of types of beneficial uses. Table 19 denotes minor ions potentially present at concentrations that exceed beneficial use standards based on recorded concentration ranges for three common benefici al use applications

— drinking water, livestock watering, and irrigation. Drinking water standards consider primary and secondary national maximum contaminate levels in evaluation of water quality constituents. Note that not all wells will
exceed these sta ndards; but by using the range of concentrations spanning over66 Figure 22 . Western U nited S tates oil and gas basins: percentage of wells in SAR irrigation categories.

the maximum levels

, there is a potential for wells to exceed standard requirements. Only beryllium (conventional) and antimony (unconventional) standards are not exceeded for drinking water within the range of recorded concentrations, table 19 . For livestock watering

, mercury is not exceeded i n conventional wells ; while aluminium , cobalt, and zinc are the only constituents not exceeded in unconventional wells. All other constituent levels are potentially exceeded for livestock watering including TDS, pH

, and alkalinity as the recorded concentration ranges exceed standards.

TDS concentrations and SAR values exceed most standard requirements for beneficial use. To use these resources, more produced waters will require treatment. Treatment processes, particularly those focused on removing salt from the system to lower TDS concentration, concentrate rejected ions into a brine stream. Concentration of certain minor ions, such as heavy metals, challenges the easy disposal of a potentially hazardous waste stream. Metals also may
accumulate in soils. Metals at low c oncentrations in produced water, continuously applied to irrigation fields or streams, may deposit metals into the subsurface. These metals may concentrate in the subsurface contaminating the soil and also may be transported into potable shallow ground wa ter sources at concentrations exceeding standards for use. Concentrations of minor ions present67 in solution are important considerations for both treatment design and usage applications. The following section outlines a variety of treatment processes

currently applied or applicable to treating this water composition to meeting standards for beneficial use applications.

Table 19. Constituents with the potential to be detected above requirements 1

Constituent
List Conventional Unconventional

Drinking

Wa ter Livestock Watering Irrigation Drinking
Water Livestock Watering Irrigation

Antimony n/a

— — No

— —

Aluminum Yes Yes

— Yes No

—

Arsenic Yes Yes

— Yes Yes

—

Barium Yes

— — Yes

— — Beryllium No

— — n/a

— —

Boron

— Yes Yes

— Yes Yes

Cadmium Yes Yes

— Yes Yes

—

Chloride Yes

— Yes Yes

— Yes

Chromium Yes Yes

— Yes Yes

—

Cobalt

— n/a

— — No

— Copper Yes Yes

— Yes Yes

—

Fl u oride n/a n/a

— Yes Yes

—

Iron Yes

— — Yes

— —

Lead Yes Yes

— Yes Yes

— Manganese Yes

— — Yes

— — Mercury

— No

— — Yes

—

Nit rate (N

- N0 3 ) n/a n/a n/a Yes Yes Yes

Selenium n/a n/a

— Yes Yes

—

Silver Yes

— — Yes

— —

Sodium

— — Yes

— — Yes

Strontium

— — — — — —

Sulfate Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Uranium

— — — — — —

Vanadium

— n/a

— — Yes

—

Zinc Yes Yes

— Yes No

—

1 Considered with respect to the ranges provided in table 14

.69 

# 7

. Assessment of Technologies for
Treatment of Produced Water

Because produced water may contain many different types of contaminants and the concentration of contaminants varies significantly, numerous types of treatment technologies have been proposed to treat produced water. Most often

, an effective produced water treatment system will consist of many different types of individual unit processes used in series to remove a wide suite of contaminants
th at may not be removed with a single process. Organic and particulate removal, desalination, and disinfection are the major classifications of produced water treatment technologies.

A qualitative comparison of produced water treatment technologies is pre sented to provide an assessment of the benefits and limitations of each technology for produced water applications. The criteria used to compare the technologies are robustness, reliability, mobility, flexibility, modularity, cost, chemical and energy
dem and, and brine or residual disposal requirements.

**•** Robustness refers the ability of the equipment to withstand harsh environmental conditions, have high mechanical strength, and represent s a technology in which the failure of an individual component does not significantly affect the overall performance of the technology.

**•** Reliability means that the technology will require minimal down time, can produce consistent water quality, and is not prone to failure.

**•** Mobility measures the ease with which the equip ment can be moved from
one site to another.

**•** Flexibility is the measure of the capability of the technology to accommodate a wide range of feed water qualities and to handle an upset in water quality without failure or reduced product water quality.

**•** Modul arity refers to the ability to implement the technology as a unit process in a train of treatment technologies and the ability of ease with which the system can be modified to handle changing water volumes.

Based on industry research and communication wi th industry contacts, these
criteria were deemed most important for produced water applications.70 

### 7 .1 Organic, Particulate , and Microbial
Inactivation / Removal Technologies

Organic chemical and particulate removal is most often required as a pretreatment

s tep when desalination technologies must be employed to treat produced water. The technologies considered in this assessment are as follows: biological aerated filter, hydrocyclone, dissolved air flotation, adsorption, media filtration, oxidation, settli ng ponds, air stripping, surfactant modified zeolites, constructed wetlands, granular activated carbon, ultraviolet (UV) disinfection , and ceramic and polymeric micro

- and ultrafiltration.

The technologies were evaluated based on the whether they are an emerging technology or an established technology and whether they have previously employed for treatment of produced water. The size and type contaminants removed by the technology and the overall process recovery are presented. The technologies were the n compared qualitatively based on the following criteria:
chemical and ener g y requirements, maintenance requirements, ease of operation, cost, robustness, reliability, flexibility, mobility, modularity, volume of residuals generated, and the size of the pl ant or footprint.

The qualitative technology assessment and comparison is presented in tabular
format ; see table 20. A very brief summary of the current status of the technologies listed in the table is provided below; however, for more detailed
informati on on each technology

, please refer to other sources.

7 .1.1 Biological Aerated Filter s

The term biological aerated filter (BAF) refers to a class of technologies, including fix ed film and attached growth processes, roughing filters, intermittent
filters

, packed bed media filters, and conventional trickling filters. A BAF consists of permeable media, such as rocks, gravel, or plastic media

. The water to
be treated flows downward over the media and

, over time

, generates a microbial
fi lm on the surface of the media. The media facilitates biochemical oxidation/removal of organic constituents

. This is an aerobic process

, and aerobic conditions are maintained by pumps and fans in the system

. The thickness of the microbial layer continues to increase as the filter is used

. Eventually, the microbial layer becomes thick enough that part of the slime layer becomes anaerobic and the microbial layer begins to slough off in the filter effluent ( US EPA 1991 )

. Media should have high a surface area per unit volume, be durable, and inexpensive

. The type of media ofte n is determined based on what
materials are available at the site

. Media can be field stone or gravel

, and each
stone should be between 1

– four inches in diameter to generate a pore space that does not prohibit flow through the filter and will not clog whe n sloughing occurs ( EP A 1980 )

.

BAF can remove oil, suspended solids, ammonia, and nitrogen , chemical oxygen demand, biological oxygen demand , iron, manganese, heavy metals, soluble71 organics, trace organics, and hydrogen sulfide. Iron and manganese removal in BAFs is mainly d ue to chemical oxidation rather than a biological process. Since BAFs do not remove dissolved constituents, however, high concentrations of salts can decrease the effectiveness of this technology due to salt toxicity effects. At chloride levels below 6,6 00 mg/L, there is no diminished contaminant removal
with BAFs ; and at 20,000 mg/L chloride levels

, there will be a reduction in slime growth and BOD removal ( Ludzack and Noran 1965 ) . This technology can be used to treat water with much greater organic contaminant concentrations than typically found in CBM pr oduced water.

BAF is a well established technology and has been used for produced water treatment for many years ( Doran 1997 ; Su, Wang et al. 2007 )

. Because of this technology’s ability to remove oil and grease, it has been primarily used for
oil field produced water treatment ( Su, Wang et al. 2007 )

. Informal versions of BAFs require minimal equipment and can be made by flowing water over rock
beds

. These types of BAFs also have been used in CBM produced water treatment for iron removal and suspended solids rem oval.

B AF is m ost effective on waters with chloride levels below 6,600 mg/L ( Ludzack
and Noran 1965 ) , o il concentrations less than 60 mg/L; COD less than 400 mg/L

, and BOD less than 50 mg/L . The m aximum feed water constituent concentration for which this technology can be employed depend s on desired removal and target water quality requirements. Removal capability of BAFs is dependent on the hydraulic loading rate on the filter and the raw water quality. The following are approximate removal capabilities of this technology:

**•** 60 to 90% nitrification

**•** 50 to 70 % total nitrogen ( US EPA 1991 ; Ball 1994 )

**•** 70 to 80% oil ( Su, Wang et al. 2007 )

**•** 30 to 60% COD ( Su, Wang et al. 200 7 )

**•** 85 to 95% BOD ( Su, Wang et al. 2007 )

**•** 75 to 85% suspended solids ( Su, Wang et al. 2007 )

There is nearly 100% water recovery from this pr ocess. The residuals generated are from the settling of the microbial layer that sl oughs off the media. The residuals generation, which is highly dependent on the wate r quality, is approximately 0.4

– 0.7 pounds of dry solids per 1

, 000 gallons of water treated (for wastewater treatment) ( Ball 1994 )

. Solids disposal is required for the sludge that
accumulates in th e sedimentation basins

, and solids disposal can account for up to 40% of total cost of technology.

This technology has a long expected lifespan

. BAFs require upstre am and downstream sedimentation; therefore, they have a large footprint and are not very

mo bile or modular

. Very little monitoring is required, and occasional emptying of sedimentation ponds is required ; the use of this technology does not require72 skilled operators

. BAF can easily accommodate highly varying water quantity and quality

. There i s little down time or need for maintenance

. Electricity is required for pumps and for fans for aeration and circulating water . T he majority of the overall cost of this technology is capital , and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are very low.

Primary sedimentation should be employed upstream of BAFs to allow the full
bed of the filter to be used for removing nonsettling, colloidal, and dissolved particles if the water requires a large degree of contaminant removal

. Sedimentation also should follow BA Fs to remove the microbial layer that sloughs off of the filter

. In addition to pumps and fans for aeration , other equipment such as distribution nozzles may be required

. The estimated energy demand for BAFs is 1

– 4 kilowatt

- hours per day ( kWh/day )

. No c hemicals are

necessary for this treatment process ( US EPA 1980 )

.

7.1.2 Hydrocyclone
Hydrocyclones are used to separate solids from liquids based on the density of the materials to be separated

. Hydrocyclones normally have a cylindrical section at the top where the liquid is fed tangentially and a conical base

. The angle of the conical section determines the performance and separating capability of the hydrocyclone

. Hydrocyclones can be made from metal, plastic, or ceramic and
have no moving parts

. The hydrocyclone has two exits

— one at the bottom, called
the underflow or reject for the more dense fraction and one, called the overflow or product at the top for the less dense fraction of the original stream ( K. Wagner
1986 )

.

Hydrocyclones can be used to separate liquids and solids or liquids of different
densities

. Hydrocyclones can be used to remove particulates and o il from produced water. Depending on the model of hydrocyclone employed, they can

remove particles in the range of 5

– 15 micrometers ( μm ) ( NETL ) . Hydrocyclones will not remove soluble oil and grease components ( T. Hayes 2004 )

.

Hydrocyclones have been used extensively to treat produced water and are marketed by numerous companies for produced water treatment ( Veil ; Sinker
2007 ) . Hydrocyclones were used to treat fracturing brine in the Barnett Shale play ( Burnett 2005 ) . In this research study, hydrocyclones were used in combination with organo

- clays as a pretreatment to reverse osmosis.

Hyd rocyclones can be used to treat water with high solids and organic chemical concentrations and can reduce oil and grease concentrations to 10 ppm

. High product water recovery is possible with this technology

. The waste generated from a hydrocyclone is a slurry of concentrated solids

. This is the only residual that requires disposal.

Hydrocyclones do not require any pre

- or post

- treatment. The hydrocyclone itself does not require any chemicals or energy ; however, a forwarding pump may be73 necessary to de liver water to the hydrocyclone or to recover pressure lost through the hydrocyclone . The hydrocyclone is the only piece of equipment necessary. There are no energy requirements unless the plant setup requires a forwarding pump to deliver water to the hy drocyclone

. Depending on the size and configuration of the hydrocyclone, a large pressure drop can occur across the hydrocyclone.

Hydrocyclones have a l ong operational life due to the fact that they have no moving parts ; however, they may suffer from abra sion when treating water with high particulate concentrations. Solid material can block the inlet

, and scale formation can occur requiring cleaning ; however, typical cleaning is minimal.

7 .1.3 Flotation
Flotation is a process in which fine gas bubbles are used to separate small, suspended particles that are difficult to separate by set tling or sedimentation. Gas is injected into the water to be treated

, and particulates and oil droplets suspended
in the water are attached to the air bubbles

, and they both rise to the surface

. As a result, foam develops on the surface

, which is commonly removed by skimming

. The dissolved gas can be air, nitrogen, or another type of inert gas

. Dissolved air/gas flotation also can be used to remove volatile organics and oi l and grease

. Dissolved air flotation units have been widely used for treatment of produced

water ( Casaday 1993 ; Haye s 2004 ; Çakmakce, Kayaalp et al. 2008 )

.

Gas flotation technology is subdivided into dissolved gas flotation (DGF) and induced gas flotation (IGF)

. The two technologies differ by the method used to

gen erate gas bubbles and the resultant bubble sizes

. In DGF units, gas (usually air) is fed into the flotation chamber, which is filled with a fully saturated
solution

. Inside the chamber, the gas is released by applying a vacuum or by creating a rapid pres sure drop

. IGF technology uses mechanical shear or propellers to create bubbles that are introduced into the bottom of the flotation
chamber ( Veil )

. Coagulation can be used as a pretreatment to flotation.

The efficiency of the flotation process depends on the density differences of liquid
and contaminants to be removed

. It also depends on the oil drople t size and
temperature

. Minimizing gas bubble size and achieving an even gas bubble distribution are critical to removal efficiency ( Casaday 1993 )

. Flotation works well in cold temperatures and can be used for waters with both high and low
TO C concentrations

. It is excellent for removing natural organic matter (NOM)
and can be used to treat wat er containing TOC, oil and grease, and particulates <
7% solids ( Burke )

.

It is n ot ideal for high temperature feed streams

.

Disso lved air flotation (DAF) can remove particles as small as 25 μ m

. If coagulation is added as pretreatment

, DAF can remove contaminants 3

– 5 **μ** m in
size ( NETL )

. In one reported study, flotation achieved an oil removal of 93%74 ( ALL 2003 )

. Flotation ca nnot remov e soluble oil constituents from water

. Product water is nearly 100% with this technology.

Because flotation involves dissolving a gas into the water stream, flotation works best at low temperatures

. If high temperatures are present , a higher pr essure is required to dissolve the gas in the water

.

Energy is required to pressurize the system to dissolve gas in the feed stream

. Coagulant chemical may be added to enhance removal of target contaminants

. Chemical coagulant and pumping costs are the major components of O&M costs
for flotation

. Treatment costs are estimated to be $0.60 per cubic meter ( Çakmakce, Kayaalp et al. 2008 )

. Solids disposal will be required for the sludge generated from flotation.

7 .1.4 Adsorption
Adsorption can be accomplished using a variety of materials, including zeolites, organoclays, activated alumina, and activated carbon. Chemicals are not required for normal operation of adsorptive pro cesses. Chemicals may be used to regenerate media when all active sites are occupied. Periodically

, the media is backwashed to remove large particulates trapped between the voids in the media. Typically, these processes can be gravity fed and do not req uire an energy supply, except during backwash.

Adsorbents are capable of removing iron, mangan ese, total organic carbon,

BTEX compounds, heavy metals, and oil from produced water. Adsorption is generally utilized as a unit process in a treatment train r ather than as a stand

- alone process. The adsorbent can be easily overloaded with large concentrations of organics, so this process is best used as a polishing step rather than as a primary
treatment process ( Veil )

. Adsorption is capable of removing over 80% of heavy
metals ( Spellman 2003 ) and can accomplish n early 100% product water recovery.

Media usage rate is one of the main operational costs for adsorptive processes and may require frequent replacement or regeneration depe nding on media type and feed water quality. When all active site s of the adsorptive material have been consumed, the material must either be regenerated or disposed of

. Regenerating the materials will result in a liquid waste for disposal

. Solid waste d isposal is necessary when the material needs to be replaced entirely

.

There will be a pressure loss incurred across the filter ; however, depending on the plant configuration

, this may not require any additional pumps

. Pumps will be necessary to backwash the filters

. Adsorption is best used as a polishing step to avoid rapid usage of adsorbent material

. Waste disposal is required for spent media or the waste produced during regeneration of the media.75 7 .1.5 Media F iltration
Filtration can be accomplished using a variety of different types of media: walnut shell, sand, anthracite, and others

. Filtration is a widely used technology for produced water, especially walnut shell filters for removing oil and grease

. There are many vendors available that marke t filtration technologies specifically for produced water.

Filtration does not remove dissolved ions

, and performance of filters is not affected by high salt concentrations ; therefore fil tration can be used for all
TDS bins regardless of salt type

. Filtra tion can be used to remove oil and grease and TOC from produced water with greater than 90% oil and grease removal

. Removal efficiencies can be improved by employing coagulation upstream of the
filter

. Nearly 100% water recovery is achieved with filtrati on; some filtrate may
be used for backwashes.

Minimal energy is required for these processes. Energy is required for backwashing the filter. Coagulant may be added to the feed water to increase particle size and enhance separation. Chemicals may be requ ired for media regeneration. There will be a pressure loss incurred across the filter; however, depending on plant configuration

, this may not require any additional pumps. Pumps will be necessary to backwash the filters. Solid waste disposal is require d for spent media or the waste produced during regeneration of the media.

7 .1.6 Oxidation
Chemical oxidation treatment can be used to remove iron, manganese, sulphur

, color, tastes, odor, and synthetic organic chemicals

. Chemical oxidation relies on
oxida tion/reduction reactions

, which consist of two half

- reactions: the oxidation reaction in which a substance loses or donates electrons, and a reduction reaction in which a substance accepts or gains electrons

. Oxidation and reduction reactions will always occur together since free electrons cannot exist in solution
and electrons must be conserved ( AWWA 2005 )

. Oxidants commonly used in water treatment applicati ons include chlorine, chlorine dioxide, permanganate, oxygen, and ozone

. The appropriate oxidant for a given application depends on many factors including raw water quality, specific contaminants present in the water, and local chemical and power costs ( AWWA 2005 )

. Chemical oxidation is well established, reliable, and requires minimal equipment ( Reclamation 2003 )

. Oxidation can be employed to remove organics and some inorganic compounds (i.e., i ron and manganese ) from produced water . The removal or oxidation rate may be controlled by applied chemical dose and contact ti me between oxidants
and water with 100% feed water recovery.

Chemical metering is required. Energy usage usually accounts for approximately 18% of the total O&M for oxidation processes coupled with h igh chemical cost. Critical components of the oxidation process are the chemical metering pumps

. Chemical metering equipment can have a life expectancy of 10 years or greater

. Per iodic calibration and maintenance of chemical meter pumps are required

.76 Capital costs can be near to $0.01 per gallon per day ( gpd )

, and O&M costs can be approximately $0.05 per kilogallon ( kgal ) (>$0.01 per bbl)

. No waste is generated from oxidation proc esses

.

No pretreatment is required for oxidation. Solid separation post

- treatment might be required to remove oxidized particles. Chemical metering pumps are required for dosing. Some equipment may be requ ired to generate the oxidant on site , and

c hemica l costs may be high.

7.1.7 Settling
Settling can be achieved using a pond or a basin. In this process, particulates are removed by gravity settling. Settling ponds require a large footprint and environmental mitigation to protect wildlife. The volume of the settling basin required depends on the hydraulic residence time required for the desired level of
contaminant removal. Settling ponds most likely will be used in combination with other treatment processes. There are no chemical requirements

, but

c hemicals can be used to enhance sedimentation. Infrastructure requirements include liners. Settling ponds are used to remove large particulates from water sources. The degree of particle removal and size of particles removed depends on
the water detenti on time in the pond.

7 .1.8 Air Stripping
Air stripping primarily is used for removing volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), oxidizing contaminants such as iron and manganese, improving taste, or removing
odor. Air stripping is an USEPA BA T for some organic chemicals (VOCs) including benzene, toluene, xylene, tri/tetrachloroethylene, trihalomethanes, vinyl chloride and many others.

Air stripping is the process of transferring a contaminant from the liquid phase to the gas phase. In the air stripping process , air and water are contacted in a packed column designed to maximize the contact surface area between the water and air. Air stripping performance depends on factors such as :

**•** Characteristics of the volatile material (partial pressure, Henry’s constant,

g as

- transfer resistance, etc.) ( AWWA 2005, Water Treatment Plant Design )

**•** Water and ambient air temperature

**•** Turbulence in gaseous and liquid phases

**•** Area

- to

- volume ratio

**•** Exposure time

Appropriate design of the packed column is necessary to ensure the desired level
of contaminant removal based on the process operating temperature and the77 Henry’s Constant of the target contaminant

. Scaling can occur when calcium exceeds 40 mg/L, iron exceeds 0.3 mg/L, magnesium exceeds 10 mg/L, and manganese exceeds 0.05 mg/L. Biological fouling also may occur depending on the feed water quality (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2001.

Spray aerators dissipate water in a vertical or inclined angle breaking the water into small drops. Multiple

- tray aerators use uniquely designed tra ys to increase
the surface area for aeration. Cascade and cone aerators allow water to flow in a downward direction over a series of baffles or pans (AWWA 2005).

There are two m ain types of pressure aerators

— one that sprays water on top of a
tank that i s constant ly supplied with compressed air and one that injects compressed air directly into a pressurized pipeline adding fine air bubbles into the flowing water (AWWA 2005).

Diffusion type aerators are similar to pressure aerators but are designed to al low air bubbles to diffuse upward through the tank of water to help produce turbulence and mixing (AWWA 2005).

Mechanical aerators use a motor driven impeller to achieve air mixing. Occasionally, it also is used in combination with an air injection devi ce (AWWA).

Air stripping is a proven and widely used technology
, a ble to be a low profile addition to a treatment process
, with a h igh co ntaminant removal efficiency (> 99% ) (U

. S

. Army Corp of Engineers, 2001). Air stripping systems must be properly de signed to provide the proper air and water balance to prevent flooding or excess air flow (U

. S

. Army Corp of Engineers, 2001) ; scaling

, and biological fouling may impact the performance of the air stripper.

7.1.9 Surfactant Modified Zeolite Vapor Phase Bio reactor
Zeolites are naturally occurring hydrated aluminosilicates with a large surface area. Because of the natural shape and size of zeolites, they are suitable for flow through applications or media for fluidized beds. Treatment of zeolites with
catio nic surfactants changes the surface chemistry of the zeolites

, allowing them

to ab sorb nonpolar organic solutes. These materials also are capable of cation or anion exchange ; however, their usefulness as a desalination technology is questionable.

A substa ntial amount of research has been conducted on using surfactant modified zeolites for organic chemical removal from produced water. This research suggests that this process is a promising produced water treatment technology ( Ranck, Bowman et al. ; Bowman 2003 ; Altare, Bowman et al. 2007 )

.78 7 .1 .10 Constructed W etlands

One of the major benefits of constructed wetlands is that these systems have low

cons truction and operating costs. The estimated cost of constructed wetlands

tre atment is $0.01 to $0.02 per bbl. However, these systems are not efficient and
the treatment rate is slo w compared to other technologies. The average lifespan of a constructed wetland is approximately 20 years (Shutes, 2001).

A study was conducted to look at a hybrid reverse osmosis ( RO ) constructed wetland syste m for produced water treatment. This study s howed that

, while RO removes the majority of organic and inorganic constituents, it does not sufficiently remove dissolved organic compounds. These compounds were removed by the constructed wetland. Toxicity test s were conducted with a few different type s of bacteria. All species of bacteria experienced a greater survival rate with water that had been passed through the constructed wetland. Many water quality parameters were increased following the wetland construction, such

as TDS and calcium. SAR was decreased. Boron removal was not addressed in this study

, and mention was made that for irrigation, the levels of boron in the treated water may be too high (Murry

- Gulde 2003 )

.

7.1.11 Granular Activated Carbon

Granular activated carbon (GAC) can be used to remove the following
contaminants from produced water: mercury, c admium , natural o rganic matter,
BTEX compounds, synthetic organic c hemicals

— specifically benzo(a)pyrene, di(2

- ethylhexyl)adipate, di(2

- ethylhexyl)phthalate, hexachlorobenzene, d iox in

,

an d radionuclides.

For source water with a large amount of bacteria

, pretreatment in the form of filtration and disinfection prior to carbon treatment may be required . Filtration prior to GAC also may be required when dealing with high TSS waters.

GAC has a n extremely large amount of adsorption surface area , generally around
73 acre s per pound (acre /lb ) (650 square meters per gram [ m 2 /gram ]) to

112 acre s /lb (1

, 000 m 2 /gram) ( AWWA, 2005, Water Treatment Plant Design )

. GAC is made of tiny clusters of carbon at oms stacked upon one another and is produced by heating the carbon sour ce (coal, lignite, wood, nutshells

, or peat ) in
the absence of air

, which produces a high carbon content material. The adsorption isotherm for carbon and the source water will determin e the total contaminant removal capacity.

The physical removal of a contaminant by adsorption on to the carbon surface is
done in the mass transfer zone . Breakthrough is defined as the point at which the
concentration of a contaminant in the effluent a dsorption unit exceeds the treatment requirement ( AWWA, 2005, Water Treatment Plant Design ) . This breakthrough time is important to note so that tr eatment goals are not exceeded
and that backwashing rates can be optimized. Backwashing a GAC system
follow s the same general procedures as a conventional granular gravity filter79 system. The GAC typically will expand up to 75

– 100% in volume, but it may be only as much as 50% ( AWWA, 2005, Water Treatment Plant Design ) . Empty
bed contact time is the volume of t he empty bed divided by volumetric flow rate of water through the carbon. A typical bed depth can contain up to 50% freeboard excess capaci ty beyond the designed capacity to allow for bed expansion during backwashing. Surface loading rates, or the volume of water that is passing though a given area, typically range from 2

– 6 gallons per minute per square foot (5

– 15 m eters per hour ) ( AWWA, 2005, Water Treatment Plant Design )

.

Biological growth can be desirable within GAC, which results in what is known

as biologically active carbon (BAC). BAC can be beneficial by removing assimilable organic carbon (AOC) and o ther biodegradable compounds. If it is intended to have BAC, the GAC filters typically are preceded by ozonation that breaks down the organic carb o n into a more assimable form. This process can
enhance the overall contamin ant removal of the GAC process. However, the biological growth needs to be controlled with fre quent backwashing (once every
5 days). The use of chlorine prior to the beds will no t prevent growth, will produce DBPs that take up more GAC adsorption sites, and will make the carbon
more brittle. Disinfection is recommended after the GAC filters to prevent biological gr owth in the distribution system and to achieve the highest re moval of AOC within the plant. If biological growth is not controlled and anaerobic conditions develop, odor problems will occur

, and undesirable organisms will begin to grow. Significant head loss and shorter filter runs can occur wi th too much biological gr owth. These two factors will be impacted even with beneficial biological growth and should be accounted for in GAC design ( AWWA, 2005, Water Treatment Plant Design )

.

Regular reactivation or replacement of carbon media is required

. If a GAC plant is large enough , regeneration can be done on site, but it is typ ically performed off
site. On site regeneration is typically not effective unless the carbon exhaustion rate is larger than 910 kg/day ( AWWA, 2005, Water Treatment Plant Design )

. Reactivation frequen cy is dependent on contaminant type, concentration, rate of water usage, and type of carbon used

. Careful monitoring and testing to ensure
contaminant removal is achieved is nec essary around the time of startup and breakthrough. Flushing is required if th e carbon filter is not used for several days, and regular backwashing may be required to prevent bacterial growth ( AWWA, 2005, Water Treatment Plant Design )

.

Disposal of spent media is typically the responsibility of the contractor providin g the media repl acement or reactivation service. Backwash/flush water disposal is a required waste stream if it is included in the design of the filter ( AWWA, 2005, Water Treatment Plant Design )

.

Benefits :

**•** Well established treatment technique

**•** Suitable for many organic ch emicals, NOM , and trihalomethanes ( THMs )

.80 **•** Suitable for home use

.

**•** Able to improve taste and odor and removes chlorine

.

Limitations :

**•** Relatively expensive O&M cost for regeneration

.

**•** Effectiveness is based on contaminant type, concentration, rate of water

usag e, and type of carbon used

.

**•** Requires careful monitoring when nearing breakthrough times

.

7.1 .1 2 Ultraviolet Disinfection
Ultraviolet ( UV ) radiation disinfection is a popular form of primary disinfection because of its ease of use, no need of chemicals, and no formation of disinfection byproduct (DBP). Water is pumped through a UV reactor, which is equipped with an array of UV lamps providing disinfection dosages of 30

– 50 megajoules per square centimeter . As pathogens path through the reactor

, they are
ina ctivated. They are exposed to the UV light for a predetermined period of time, depending on the desired level of disinfection. UV reactors typically are closed channel for potable water treatment and are installed in open channel for

wastewater treatment . There are several types of UV lamps, with low pressure

high output and medium pressure mercury vapor lamps being the most commonly
used ( Reclamation 2003 ) . The lamps are housed inside of quartz lamp sleeves in the reactor to protect the lamp from breaking.

The mechanism of UV disinfecti on is inactivation through UV damage of the microorganism’s deoxyribonucleic acid ( DNA ) and/or ribonucleic acid ( RNA )

. Removal of suspended solids from the feedwater to UV is important to avoid shielding of microorganisms from the UV by suspended solids. This phenomenon
is called “shadow effect .” UV disinfection does not provide a disinfectant residual. Therefore, addition of chlorine or chloramine as a secondary disinfectant might be required ( Reclamation 2003 )

.

Disinfection is typically the last treatment step in most water treatment fa cilities, most suspended solids and/or dissolved ions, if any, should have been removed prior to disinfection. No waste is generated in UV disinfection. UV equipment including lamps must be properly checked to ensure they are working according
to technic al specifications. The lamps age with time and require periodic replacement. A cleaning system also must be installed on the lamp sleeves, because the sleeve itself reacts with compounds in water and would decrease the UV transmittance if they are not cl eaned ( Reclamation 2003 )

. This disinf ection
has a h igh capital cost ; with the USEPA estimated cost as $0.13 per gpd.81 7.1.1 3 Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration
Microfiltration (MF) has the largest pore size (0.1

– 3 **μ** m) of the wide variety
of membrane filtration systems. Ultrafiltration (UF) pore sizes range from

0.01

– 0.1 **μ** m. I n terms of pore size, MF fills in the gap between ultrafiltration
and granular media filtration

. In terms of characteristic particle size, the

MF range covers the lower portion of the conventio nal clays and the upper half
of the range for humic acids

. This is smaller than the size range for bacteria, algae

, and cysts, and larger than that of viruse s. MF also typically is used for turbidity reduction and removal of suspended solids, Giardia

, and Cryptosporidium . UF membra nes are used to remove viruses, color, odor, and some colloidal natural organic matter ( Technologies 2008 ) . Both processes require low trans membrane pressure (1

– 30 pounds per square inch [ psi ] ) to operate, and both now are used as a pretreatment to desalination technologies such as reverse osmosis, nano filtration, and electrodialysis but cannot remove salt
themselves ( Reclamation 2003 )

.

MF membranes can operate in either cross

- flow separation as shown in figure 23
and also dead

- end filtration where there is no concentrate flow. There are also

two pump configuration s , either pressure driven or vacuum

- t ype systems

.

Figure 23 . Dead

- end versus cross flow filtration.

Pressure driven membranes are housed in a pressure vessel

, and the flow is fed from a pump

. Vacuum

- type systems are membranes submerged in

non pressurized tanks

, and product water is extracted by a vacuum pump on the product side . Typical recoveries can range from 85

– 95% ( AWWA 2005 )

. Flux rates range from 20

– 100 ga llons per day per square foot depending on
the application. Backwash usually is used to clean the membranes

, and it
is carrie d out for short durations (3

– 180 seconds) in relatively frequent intervals (5 min utes to several hour s ) ( AWWA 2005 ) . The frequency and duration of backwash depend on the specific application. A clean in place (CIP) also

can be performed as a periodic major cleaning technique. Ty pical cleaning
agents are sodium hypochlorite, citric acid, caustic soda, and detergents. They can be initiated manually and automaticall y controlled. CIP is82 initiated when backwashing and chemically enha nced backwash are not
effective in restoring desirable p erformance ( Reclamation 2003 )

.

Factors affecting membrane selection are :

**•** Cost

**•** Percent recovery

**•** Percent rejection

**•** R aw water characteristics

**•** Pretreatment

Factors affecting performance are :

**•** R aw water characteristics

**•** P ressure

**•** Temperature

**•** R egular monitoring and maintenance

A self

- backwashing 100

- **μ** m strainer is often used to protect the membranes and moderate particulate loading. Depending on the raw water quality, a coagulant may be added to form pin

- sized floc and help improve rejection ( Reclamation
2003 )

.

7.1.13.1 Ceramic MF/UF M embrane

Ceramic UF and MF membranes are made from ox ides, nitrides, or carbides of metals such as aluminum, titanium, or zirconium ( Mulder 2003 ) . Ceramic
membranes a re much more resilient than polymeric membranes and are mechanically strong, chemically and thermally stable, and can achieve high flux rates. Typically, a tubular configuration is used with an inside

- out flow path,
where the feed water flows inside the m embrane channels and permeates through the support structure to the outside of the module. These membranes typically are comprised of at least two layers

— a porous support layer and a separating layer.

Ceramic membranes are capable of removing particulates , organic matter, oil and grease, and metal oxides. Ceramic membranes alone cannot remove dissolved
io ns and dissolved organics. Pre coagulation, injection of a chemical coagulant upstream from the membrane, improves removal efficiencies of dissolved orga nic carbon and smaller particulates. As with conventional UF and MF , a strainer or cartridge filter is necessary as pretreatment for ceramic membranes.

Numerous research studies have been conducted on using ceramic membranes to
treat oil

- containing wastew ater and produced water ( Faibish and Cohen 2001 ; Faibish and Cohen 2001 ; Konieczny, Bodzek et al. 2006 ; Lobo, Cambiella et al.83 2006 ; Gutierrez, Lobo et al. 2008 ) . These research studies have shown that
ceramic membrane s perform better than polymeric membranes on oil

- containing
waters. Ceramic membranes also have been employed commercially to treat oil produced water ( Wallace 2005 ) . Ceramic membrane s are employed as part of a large treatment train consisting of a multiple unit process at the Wellington Water Works to treat oilfield produced water.

Energy requirements for ceramic membranes are lower than those required for polymeric membranes. Infr astructure requirements for ceramic membranes are similar to other membrane processes and include a break tank for the feed water, a feed pump, a rack for holding the membrane modules, a chemical metering system if necessary, a tank for the filtrate water

, and a pump and valves for the backwash and cleaning systems.

Ceramic membranes have a higher capital cost than polymeric membranes. The use of ceramic membranes is increasing as more research and pilot studies are conducted. The capital cost of ceramic membranes will continue to decrease as they become a more widely used technology. Ceramic membranes do require frequent backwashes; backwash waste will require disposal. If ceramic membranes are operated in a cross

- flow mode, then there will be a residua l process stream requiring disposal.

6.1.11 .2 Polymeric MF/UF M embrane Polymeric MF/UF membranes are made from materials like polyacrylonitrile (PAN) and polyvinylidene (PVDF). Because there is a large market for polymeric ultrafiltration membranes, ther e are many vendors and suppliers for these membranes. They also are relatively inexpensive. Typically, package systems are purchased and installed by the vendor.

An important consideration for polymeric MF/UF membranes is integrity testing
to ensure that the membrane is not damaged and is operating properly. Typically, the filtrate turbidity is monitored to give a rough indication of membrane integrity. Membrane integrity can be tested through a pressure decay test. In this test, pressurized air is app lied to the membranes at a pressure less than would cause the air to flow through the membrane, and the pressure decay is measured. Regular monitoring of membrane performance is necessary to ensure that the membrane system is operating at the most effecti ve loading rate and backwash regime. Membrane life typically is estimated at 7+ years with manufacturer warranties covering 5 years in municipal applications.

Product water is free of suspended solids

. DOC removal is approximately 10%

. Nearly all non dis solved organic carbon is removed , with 95% hydrocarbon
removal

— 85

– 100% depending on feed water quality an d mode of operation (dead

- end versus crossflow).

Waste includes p retreatment waste , backwash flow, retentate flow (if applicable),
and CIP waste. Wast e streams are either discharged to the sewer or treated if84 discharging to surface waters. Waste streams being discharged to surface waters typically are processed for turbidity removal through settling ponds or other treatment systems. CIP waste is neutr alized and usually combined with the rest of
the waste.

Capital cost for polymeric UF systems vary based on the size of the plant and feed water quality. Approximate capital costs will be near $1

– 2 per gpd

, and O&M

costs will be approximately $1

– 2 per k gal

.

Bierle et al . performed a three

- pass UF membrane pilot study to treat produced water at a temperature of 130 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to reduce the total organic carbon concentration of the produced water from 29 mg/L to 11.9 mg/L ( B ierle )

.



### 7.2 Desalina tion T echnologies

Desalination technologies are necessary to lower the total dissolved solids concentration and the concentration of ions that are too high for the desired
benef icial use of co

- produced water. Desalination technolog ies fall into the following categories: membrane, thermal, and alternative technologies. Desalination technologies

, combined together and called hybrid technologies

, are often employed to reduce the energy cost of the process or to enhance the product

wa ter recovery. The following membrane processes were evaluated: reverse osmosis

, nanofiltration, and electrodialysis (ED) . Hybrid membra ne processes considered are two pass nanofiltration, dual RO with chemical precipitation, dual RO with HEROTM, dual RO with seeded slurry precipitation, and high efficiency electrodialysis. The thermal desalination technologies included in this report are: membrane distillation, multist age flash distillation, multieffect distillation, vapor compression, and freeze

- thaw evaporation. Commercial processes evaluated are
as follows: CDM HERO process, Veolia OPUS, Altela Rain, and 212 Resources.

The technologies were evaluated based on the w hether they are an emerging technology or an established technology and whether they previously have been employed for treatment of produced water. The TDS range of applicability of these technologies and their salt rejection and product water recoveries are also presented. Specific sodium, organic, and heavy metal rejection capabilities are also presented. The technologies then were compared qualitatively based on the following criteria: pretreatment requirements, chemical and energy requirements,
main tenance requirements, ease of operation, cost, robustness, reliability, flexibility, mobility, modularity, volume of residuals generated, and the size of the plant or footprint.

The qualitative technology assessment and comparison are presented in tabular
format , see t able 21

. A very brief summary of the current status of each technology is described below ; however

, for more detailed information and a description of the technology

, please refer to other sources.85 7.2.1 Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration

Reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes also can be used to remove salt from produced water. Reverse osmosis membranes work on the premise that a pressure, greater than the osmotic pressure of the feed solution, must be applied to the system to force water through the membrane and reject the salt. The osmotic pressure is a function of the salinity of the water. For water with very high salinity, the osmotic pressure and, hence, the required system operating pressure are very high. For waters with h igh salinity, reverse osmosis is not a practical solution. Reverse osmosis generally is considered a cost effecti ve treatment technology to use with seawater or the salinity up to 40,000 ppm TDS.

Current research on the use of RO and NF membranes for prod uced water treatment emphasizes the tendency for organic fouling to increase the treatment cost and reduce the process efficiency ( Mondal and Wickramas inghe 2008 )

. Effect pretreatment technologies and appropriate membrane materials must be selected to make produced water treatment with RO and NF effective.

Melo et al

. investigate RO and NF use for treatment of produced water. They employed oil/water separation, warm softening, sand filters, ion exchange, and cartridge filtration as pretreatment to the RO and NF. The RO and NF were successful in meeting the treatment goals ; however, fouling data was not presented

, and further study is required to dete rmine suitability of the water for beneficial use, the optimum process operating conditions, and the effects of the product water on soil for irrigation purposes ( Melo, Schluter et al. )

.

Mondal, et al

. observed significant organic fouling on RO and NF membranes from treatment of produced water. They found that large MWCO, smooth, hydrophilic memb ranes experienced the least amount of fouling ( Mondal and Wickramasinghe 2008 )

.

Sagle, et al

. have been developing fouling resistant coatings for R O membranes to
mini mi ze the fouling potential of produced water using polyethylene hydrogels ( Sagle, Van Wagner et al. 2009 )

.

7.2.2 Electrodialysis /Electrodialysis Reversal
Electrodialysis is an electrically driven process consisting of a stack of alternat ing
cation

- transfer membranes and anion

- transfer membranes be tween an anode and a
cathode. An electrical current is passed through the water. The dissolved salts in the water exist as ions and migrate toward the oppositely charged electrode. The
anion

- t ransfer membrane only allows passage of negatively charged ions

, and the
cation

- transfer membrane only allows passage of positively charged ions. Alternating anion and cation transfer membra nes are arranged in a stack. The
membra nes are impermeable to wa ter. These systems are operated at a very low

pr essure, usually below 25 psi. Electrodialysis reversal also can be implemented where the charge on the electrodes is frequently reversed. This prevents buildup of scale, biofilm, and other foulants on the membrane surface.86 The energy required for ED treatment is r elated to the TDS of the water

— the higher the TDS, the more energy required for treatment. Current research suggests that ED is not cost competitive for treating water with a TDS greater than 1,5 00 mg/L. Sirivedhin et al

. tested ED on five simulated produced water types of high and low TDS using Neosepta ® membranes . They found that at 6.5
volts per stack , ED was not capable of producing water with an SAR that would be suitable for irrigation bec ause ED removes divalent ions to a greater extent
than monovalent ions ( Sirivedhin, McCue et al. 2004 ) . If ED, using divalent
selectiv e membranes, is to be used to treat produced water for beneficial use as irrigation water, calcium and/or magnesium will need to be added back to the
water to lower the SAR.

7.2.3 Forward Osmosis
Forward osmosis is an osmotically driven membrane process. Forward osmosis uses the feed water to be treated as the dilute process stream and water is moved
across the membrane from the dilute feed water stream to a concentrated brine stream with a high osmotic pressure. The concentrated brine stream is called a
draw solution. To enable forward osmosis to be cost effective, the components
that contribute to the high osmotic pressure in the brine stream must be removed easily to leave behind the fresh water product.

7.2.4 Hybrid Membrane Processes

7

.2.4.1 Two Pas s N anofiltration Two pass nanofiltration involves treating produced water with nanofiltration and then further treating the permeate water with nanofiltration again. This process is used to obtain a permeate stream with an even lower TDS than a single pas s NF process and is less energy intensive than reverse osmosis. Western Environmental pilot tested this process for produced water ( Bierle )

.

7.2.4.2 Dual RO with Chemical P recipitation Dual RO with chemical precipitation consists of a primary RO process. The concentrate from the first RO is further treated with lime softening and is then fed to a second stage RO. The permeate streams from both RO processes are collected and provide the product water from this process. Reported reco veries using this process are 95% and higher for brackish water applications. Utilizing this process enhances the recovery of the RO process but requires additional chemicals, additional equipment, and an increased footprint.

7

.2.4.3 Dual RO with Soften ing Pretreatment and Operation at H igh pH This patented process is called HEROTM and consists of chemical softening as a pretreatment step, primary RO, and ion exchange, degasification, and pH increase on the concentrate from the first RO stage. The treated concentrate stream then is
treated with a secondary RO. The product water from the primary and secondary87 RO units is combined to make up the product water for this process. As with
the dual RO with chemical precipitation, this proc ess is designed to increase
the product water recovery of the p rocess. Reported recovery rates ran ge from 90

– 95%.

7

.2.4.4 Dual RO with Slurry Precipitation and Recycling RO ( SPARRO ) In this process, a single stage reverse osmosis membrane unit is used

, and the concentrate from the RO process is treated using a see ded crystalline slurry to precipitate sparingly soluble salts from the water. The crystals then are separated from the concentrate process stream using a cyclone separator

, and the remaining

water then is recycled back to the RO feed.

7

.2.4.5 High Effi ciency Electrodialysis ( HEED ® )

HEED ® is an electro membrane process in which the ions are transported through a membrane from one compartment to another under the influence of an electrical potential. HEED ® consists of dual or multiple side

- by

- side ion exc hange membranes and contains an improved gasket design that results in greater efficiency than traditional ED processes ( Corporati on 2008 ) . HEED ® is more resistant to organic fouling than RO or NF.

7.2.4.6 Electro deionization

Electro deionization (EDI) involves ion exchange resins, ion exchange membranes, and a direct current electrical current

. The major difference between

ED and EDI is that desalting compartments of EDI are filled with an ion exchange
resin

. Ions are transported to the ion exchange resin by diffusion; they are then transported through the resin by the current

. The current flows through the ion exchange resin because this path is more electrically conductive

. This process is capable of removing weakly ionized species and desalting water to very low
concentrations

.

7 .2.5 Thermal P rocesses

7

.2.5.1 Multistage Flash D istillation

Multi stage flash distillation con verts water to steam at low temperatures in a vacuum. At vacuum pressures, the boiling point of water is lower than at atmospheric pressure, requiring less energy. The water is pre heated and then subjected to a vacuum pressure that causes vapor to flash off the warm liquid. The vapor then is condensed to form fresh water while the remaining concentrated brine that does not flash is sent to the next chamber where a similar process takes place. The multiple stages are designed to improve the recovery of t he process. Many of the older seawater desalination plants use the multi stage flash distillation

process.88 7.2.5.2 Multieffect D istillation

In multi effect distillation, vapor from the first evaporator is condensed in the second evaporator and the heat of condensation is used to evaporate the water in the second evaporator. Each evaporator in the series is called an “effect.”

7.2.5.3 Vapor C ompression In the vapor compression process, the feed water is preheated in a heat exchanger by the product and rej ect streams from the process. This process uses a still that
contains tubes. The water then is fed to the inside of the tubes, and the vapors
then are fed to the outside of the tubes to condense. The gases that do not
condense are removed from the steam

- condensation space by a vent pump or ejector. The mechanical pump or ejector is a requirement of this process and is necessary to increase the pressure of the vapor to cause condensation. Vapor compression has been used for produced water treatment

, and commercially available products currently are marketed for this application.

7

.2.5.4 Membrane D istillation Membrane distillation is a thermally driven membrane processes that uses the vapor pressure gradient between the feed solution and the product so lution as the driving force. The membrane is hydrophobic and microporous. The flux and salt rejection of this process is independent of feed water salinity. There are many different configurations for the application of membrane distillation.

7 .2.6 Alte rnative Desalination Processes
Alternative desalination processes do fall within the thermal or membrane categories and use other materials and mechanisms for desalination.

7

.2.6.1 Capacitive De ionization

In c apacitive de ionization, water is passed throug h pairs of high surface area carbon electrodes that are held at a potential difference of 1.2 volts. Ions and other charged particles are attracted to the oppositely charged electrode. When
the electrodes have become saturated with ions

, they must be reg enerated by removing the applied potential and rinsing the ions out of the system.

The carbon aero gel electrodes have a relatively high surface area ( 500 m 2 /g ) and provide high electrical conductivity

, and have a high ion permeability. The
electrodes are , however, expensive and have a relatively low ion storage capacity.

7

.2.6.3 Softening Softening can be used to remove hardne ss and silica from the water. Generally

, if the water is to be used for agricultural purposes, softening would not be advised
bec ause, like nanofiltration, the SAR will be higher following treatment due to

remov ing the divalent ions.89 7

.2.6.4 Ion Exchange

The Higgins LoopTM is a sodium ion exchange technology for water with a high

conce ntration of sodium. This process is beneficial if there are no other ions of
concern besides sodium and if SAR adjustment is necessary. The cation exchange resin in the Higgins LoopTM process exchanges sodium ions for hydrogen ions. Up to 90% exchange lev els are achieved. As the resin becomes
loaded with sodium, the flows to the adsorption portion of the process temporarily are interrupted. The resin then is advanced by a pulsing action through the loop in the opposite direction of the liquid flow. The loaded resin then is regenerated with hydrochlo ric acid and rinsed before being advanced back into the a dsorption portion of the loop. Treated water is slightly acidic because H+ ions are added to
the water. Therefore, the pH is raised

, and calcium is added by passing the treated water through a lime stone bed in the pH controlling process step.

For many produced waters, removing the sodium ions will have a large effect on
the total dissolved solids concentration to render the water suitable for beneficial

use.

Other ion exchange resins also may be employed to target specific ions for removal. The resin may or may not be able to be regenerated.



### 7.3 Commercial Processes

Numerous companies currently market package produced water treatment technologies. Most of these companies tailor their package pla nt to meet the specific treatment need for each individual application. The following sections contain a brief summary of some of the commercially available produced water
treatment systems.

7.3.1 Freeze

- Thaw/Evaporation (FTE ® ) BC Technologies and Crysta l Solutions utilizes the FTE ® process to treat produced water for full scale facilities. In this process, when the outdoor air temperature is less than 32 °F, the water to be treated is sprayed or dripped onto a freezing pad, forming a large pile of ice. This process exploits the fact that saline water has a lower freezing point than fresh water; therefore, at temperatures cooler than 32 °F, the runoff from the ice pile will be salty brine. When the temperature is such that melting occurs, the runoff wil l be fresh water.

This process has been used successfully to treat produced water and is considered an established process for produced water treatment.

7.3.2 CDM Produced Water Technology
CDM has developed a process for treating produced water containing TDS levels up to 20,000 mg/L . The technology is no t specific for coal bed methane produced water and has been pilot tested with tight sands produced water in the Piceance90 b asin and with CBM prod uced water in the Powder River b asin. CDM also is marketing the technology for treating flow

- back water from subsurface hydraulic fracturing.

The treatment process is comprised of a train of different technologies in series to
meet site

- specific treatment goals (figure 24) . The specific processes included in
the t reatment train are dictated by the feed water quality and the desired product water quality. Some of the technologies that may be used include: advanced
filtration , weak acid cation IX softener, UV disinfection, low

- pressure RO

, antiscalant addition, sea water/high pressure RO

, evaporation , and crystallization. The feed stream is kept anoxic to minimize oxi dation of iron and other metals and to reduce the fouling potential of the water. Depending on the feed water quality, the process can achieve more th an 97% recovery. A computer program was developed that assists in selecting the required technologies and predicts the performance and scale formation within the system based on feed water quality.

The pretreatment for the process consists of media filers and polymeric hollow
fiber UF membranes to remove particulates, silt, oil, grease, coal fines, clay, and bacteria. The filtration system is backwashed using RO permeate. A weak acid cation (WAC) IX softener is used to reduce hardness and other metals. The resin is regenerated using hydrochloric acid. The water is then disinfected using UV

. The calcium and magnesium

- rich WAC regeneration solution is combined with
the filter backwash and is either treated separately or combined with the product

streams from the membrane processes and discharged , depending on the scenario and the feed water quality

.

After pretreatment, low

- pressure RO (capable of achieving 85% recovery) is employed. The train size and type of membrane employed is tailored based on
the fe ed w ater quality. An antiscalant (approximately 10 mg/L) is added to the concentrate stream to stabilize the silica and to prevent scale formation in the next high

- pressure RO stage. The second RO stage consists of high

- pressure or seawater RO membranes t hat can achieve 80% water recovery. The RO permeate
is combined with the low

- pressure RO permeate for discharge or beneficial use.
The concentrate, approximately 2

– 3% of the initial feed volume, is either disposed of as a waste, or can be treated for zer o liquid discharge (ZLD)

.

Because many produced waters contain high levels of sodium and low levels of divalent ions, the SAR may be too high

, even after treatment

, for beneficial use of the water. In these cases, a limestone bed is used to add calcium to the water and
lower the SAR.

The following cost estimates were presented based on the pilot testing experience
in the Pow der River b asin: $0.14 per bbl or $3.33 per 1

, 000 gal (not incl uding energy or brine disposal); $0.08 per bbl or $1.90 per 1

, 000 gal for brine disposal. Cost estimates were not provided for the pilot test on tight sands produced water.91 To accommodate changing water volumes, modular systems can be designed to treat volumes from 5,000 bbl/day (200,000 gpd or 145.8 gpm) to 20,000 bbl/day (840,000 gpd or 583 gpm) with additional units added or removed , as necessary

. A schematic diagram of the CDM process is provided in figure 24.

Figure 24 . Schematic diagram of CDM produced water treatment process.

7.3.3 Veo lia OPUS TM
Veolia water currently is marketing their produced water treatment system, called OPUSTM, which stands for optimized pretreatment and unique separation. OPUSTM uses filtration and ion exchange as pretreatment to an RO system operated at a high pH. The process may be modified slightly depending on the specific water quality of produced water application.

7.3.4 Altela Rain SM (Dewvaporation)
This process utilizes a humidification

- dehumidification cycle to produce distilled water. Feed water is evapo rated by hot air on one side of a heat transfer wall

, and
fresh water is condensed on the other side. The condensate or dew collects on the other side of the wall represents the purified water stream. This process has been utilized for produced water tre atment and has undergone several pilot tests.

7.3.5 212 Resources

212 Resources is currently marketing a produc ed water treatment system.
The core component to the process is vapor comp ression. The package

treatment system also utilizes other unit processe s in a package treatment92 system; however, the specific details of the process are proprietary.

212 Resources claims the treatment system can produce clean water and

recover marketable hydrocarbons and methanol.



### 7.4 Implications of Water Quality for Tre atment
T echnologies

Many application specific and water quality specific factors should be taken into account when selecting a produced water treatment process. For example, the temperature of the feed water may help determine which type of desalination

t reatment should be employed since some technologies work more efficiently at high temperatures, while others use a low temperature feed stream. Also, if ion removal is necessary, one must consider the type of ions that need to be removed. Membrane proces ses most often remove divalent ions to a greater extent than monovalent ions, which may make the sodium adsorption ratio higher and render the water less suitable for beneficial use as irrigation water or surface discharge.93 

# 8

. GIS

- Based Approach to Pro duced Water Management

Produced water management strategies should consider the geographical relationship between the produced water source and potential beneficial uses. Ideally, beneficial use of produced water will require minimal water conveyance.
Ge ographic data can be used to describe the location of produced water and water

uses.



### 8.1 Produced Water GIS Database

A GIS database has been compiled to describe the location of oil and gas producing wells and the water quality of produced water associated with the wells. From this database, a series of maps has been generated to qualitatively describe the potential for different types of produced water beneficial use. The database was designed such that data of interest can be viewed by selecting the

corresponding data layers. Map layers were constructed to include a base map and reference data, petroleum basin and well locations, and water consumption by

use.

8.1.1 Bas e Map and Reference D ata
Shape files for S tate boundaries, city/town data, rivers, and lakes are contained within the database to provide a base map and to serve as a reference for the oil and gas data

. City and town location data were obtained from ESRI Redlands, California, ( www.esri.com )

, and population data were gathered from the

U

. S

. Geological Survey ( http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp

- na.html )

. Shape files for rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs were obtained from the U

. S

. Geological Survey ( http://edc2.usgs.gov/geodata/index.php ). Figure 25 shows the base map
with reference data

.

8.1.2 Oil and Gas Distribution, Well and Basin Data
USEIA collects, analyzes, and publishes unbiased energy information for policymaking, market studies, and public knowledge. These data, which include energy production values, stock prices, energy dema nd, import and export volumes, and current prices, are intended to improve the understanding of energy and interaction with the economy and environment.

Each year, USEIA publishes a list of the top 100 producing oil and gas well, based on proved reserves . We have used these data to identify areas with substantial amounts of petroleum production and, therefore, water production. USEIA also gathers data on the distribution of oil and gas production within the94 Figure 25 . Base m ap with reference data and sources.

United States. This data can be used to infer information about the general distribution of petroleum from all wells, not only the top producing wells. Many basins produce both oil and gas. The latitude and l ongitud e data for these top
100 wells and the shape files for the distribution data are available by request
from US EIA ( www.eia.doe.gov ). Figure 26 shows the top producing wells, petroleum basin boundaries, and distribution of oil and gas wells for the Western United States along with the base map with the reference data.

8.1.3.1 Hydrologic Units Hydrologic units represent natural and manmade watersheds. A watershed is a geographic area of land, water, and biota within the confines of a drainage divide.

Wate rshed boundaries define the aerial extent of surface water drainage to a specific location. These watersheds divide regions based on the area drained by a river system, section of river, and its tributaries. Different levels of hydrologic
units are defin ed based on the scale at which the drainage is evaluated. Hydrologic data was used as a layer on the base map.95 Figure 26 . Location of oil and gas producing basins and the top 100 producing oil and gas
wells in the Western U nited States.

Figure 27 . Geographic relationship between hydrologic units and petroleum
basins.96 Hydrologic units are important for employing watershed approaches to water management. A watershed approach is a comprehensive interrelated approach to watershed and natural resources management because it is sensitive to the needs of all resources: soil, water, air, plants, animals, and people in relation to local social, cultural, and economic factors ( 2007 ) . Most watershed efforts are focused

on an eight

- digit hydrologic unit basis.

8 .1.3.2 Overall Need for A dditional Water Supplies Water shortage and water

- use conflicts have become increasingly common in many areas of the United States, even in normal water years. As competit ion for
water resources grows

— for irrigation of crops, growing cities and communiti es,

energy production , and the environment

— the need for information and tools to aid water resource managers also grows. Water issues and challenges are increasing across the Nation but particularly in the West and Southeast due to prolonged drought.

Thes e water issues are exacerbating the challenges facing traditional water management approaches

, which by themselves no longer meet today’s needs. Beneficial use of produced water is new tool that can be used in the Western
United States to increase water s upplies. Additionally, produced water often occurs in areas that also have a high potential for water conflict, as identified by Water 2025, figure 28

.

Figure 28 . Potential water conflict and produced water generation.97 8 .1.3 .3 Agricultural Water D emand Produced water, which can be generally described as brackish ground water, could easily be put to use as agricultural water for irrigation or livestock watering.
Data was obtained for the U

. S

. Department of Agriculture to des cribe the amount of irrigation in the Western United States. These data were mapped on the base

map, figure 29

.

The maps presented in figures 28 and 29 can be used to draw general conclusions about the use of produced water for streamflow augmentation, mu nicipal uses, general water supply augmentation, and agricultural uses. At the macroscopic level, it does appear that there is a geographical relationship between produced water generation and beneficial uses of produced water.

Figure 29 . Areas of irrigated agriculture compared to produced water generation.



### 8.2 Examples of GIS

- Based Approach

The Geographic Information System ( GIS ) database was used to identify produced water management options for three different geographic l ocations:
conventiona l oil production in the Denver b asin, coal bed methane production in
the Powder River b asin, and conventional gas production near a tributary of the Colorado River. This section is intended to illustrate the potential for use; legal98 and regulatory considerations are outside of the scope of this study. The need for treatment to render the produced water to the quality dictated by the different
beneficial uses was not considered

, since this is purely a conceptual analysis. In

many cas es , the actual beneficial use for produced water would be dependent upon the raw water quality of the produced water and the degree and cost of treatment required for the water to meet beneficial use water quality standards.

8.2.1 Denver Basin Example

Prod uced water generated in the Denver b asin could potential ly be used to augment the water supply in an urban area. The Denver b asin falls within one of the areas outlined in the Water2025 study that has a large potential for water
conflict by the year 2025. The Denver b asin contains one of the US EIA top producing oil wells and a top producing gas well, figure 30

.

Figure 30 . Selection of top 100 producing well in the Denver b asin.

Within the study area, the conventional wate r supply is from t he Colorado

- Big Thompson (CBT) P roject. The Colorado

- Big Thomps on Project is the largest

trans mountain water diversion project in Colorado and is used to supplement the water supplies of 30 cities east of the Continental Divide with wate r from the west
of the Continental Divide. The Colorado

- Big Thompson P roject annually delivers 213,000 acre

- feet of water to northeastern Colorado for agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses. For the purposes of this analysis, we will consider the u se of produced water only to augment conventional supplies, not to replace or compete with conventional supplies. Therefore, it is important to note that

, within the study area, it is not possible to purchase additional water (that is not already99 allocate d) from the Colorado

- Big Thompson P roject. Therefore, to render produced water useful as a new water source, it does not need to be compared on
the same cost basis as water fr o m the Colorado

- Big Thompson P roject.

The boundary conditions for this example are a 5

- mile radius surrounding the well of interest. Agricultural data was obtaine d for this study area from the N ational Agr icultural Imagery Program

, figure 31

.

Figure 31 . Agricultural data within the study area.

Oil a nd gas well locations were obtained from the Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission , figure 32. Abandoned wells are identified by a black

cross , and producing wells are identified by a red cross. It is important to note that not only is there a top 100 producing gas well s , but also a top 100 producing
oil well s and over 1

, 000 other producing wells within the study area.

The next layer added to the study area map shows the type of irrigation used

— sprinkler and flood, figure 33. Each sprinkler irriga ted circle on the map is roughly 130 acres. Within the study area, there are 5,565 acres of flood irrigated land and 10,809 acres of sprinkler irrigate land.100 Figure 32 . Oil and gas well location data within the study area.

Figure 33 . Irrigated land within the study area.101 Within the study area, the most likely use for produced water is irrigation water. As can be seen from figure 33, there are approximately four producing wells within the spri nkler irrigated areas. Depending on the quality of the produced water, treatment may be required to treat the water to irrigation water standards. Another option is to use a pipeline to transport the produced water to the irrigations canal within the stu dy area. The irrigation canals are shown as blue lines in figure 33.

8.2.2 Powder River Basin Example
Another example looked at the top 100 producing well location s within the
Powder River b asin in n ortheastern Wyoming, figure 34

.

Figure 34 . Powder River basin example area.

Well location data was obtained from the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission; producing wells are shown with a red cross, and abandoned wells are identified by a black cross, figure 35.102 Figu re 35 . Location of oil and gas wells within 5

- mile radius of top producing well
in the Powder River basin.

Irrigation data was obtained from the Wyoming Water Resources Center to identify irrigated agriculture and nonirrigated a griculture within the study area, figure 36. Within the 5

- mile radius study area, there are 1,075 acres of irrigated agriculture and 6,219 acres of nonirrigated agriculture.

Based on the map data, produced water could be used locally within the study

area to irrigate land or to convert nonirrigated land to irrigated land. It also could be possible to use pipelines to transport water to streams and rivers, identified by blue dashed lines in figure 36. There is also municipal and industrial water use
withi n the study area that could be augmented with produced water.

8.2.3 Uinta

- Piceance Basin Example
The map example was conducted within the Uinta

- Piceance basin in eastern Utah, figure 37.

Oil and gas well location data for this study area was obtained from the Utah Department of Natural Resources

– Oil, Gas, and Mining Division, figure 38.

There is limited agricultural water use in this area, so the most realistic beneficial use of produced w ater in this area is for stream flow augmentation by discharge
from a pipeline, see figure 39. Surface discharge in this area falls within the Colorado River Basin and, therefore, has important implications for water managers within the Colorado River Basin.103 Figure 36 . Irrigated and non irriga ted agriculture within the study area.

Figure 37 . Uinta

- Piceance basin example study area.104 Figure 38 . Five

- mile study radius for Piceance basin example.

Figure 39 . Surface discharge beneficial use option for Uinta

- Piceance study area.105 While the maps presented in this section do not provide quantitative information regarding the feasibility or economics of treating and reusing produced water for beneficial uses, they do provide evidence that there is potential for multiple beneficial use options in many areas throughout the Western United States.107 

# 9. References

ALL Consulting . 2003

. Handbook on Coal Bed Methane Produced Water: Management a nd Beneficial Use Alternatives

. Prepared by ALL Consulting for the Ground Water Prote ction Research Foundation,
U.S. Department of Energy, and U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
Accessed from http://www.a ll

- llc.com/CBM/BU/index.htm

.

Altare, C.R., R.S. Bowman, et al. 2007

. “ Regeneration and long

- term stability of
surfactant

- modified zeolite for removal of volatile organic compounds from produced water.” Microporous and Mesoporous Materials 105 (3):
305

– 3 16.

AWWA . 2005

. Water Treatment Plant Design

. New York, McGraw

- Hill.

Ayers, R.S., and D. W. Westcot

. 19 94

. “ Water quality for agriculture. ” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

.

Ball, H.L. 1994

. Nitrogen Reduction in an On

- Site Tr ickling Filter/Upflow Filter Wastewater Treatment System

. Seventh International Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems.

Bierle, A. Produced Water Membrane Technology

.

Bowman, R.S. 2003. “ Applications of surfactant

- modified zeolite s to environmental remediation.” Microporous and Mesoporous Materials
61 (1

– 3): 43

– 56.

Bureau of Reclamation. 2003. Water Treatment Primer for Communities in
Need . Accessed at www.usbr.gov/pmts/water/media/pdfs/report068.pdf.

Burke, D. Application of the Anoxic Gas Flotation Process

.

Burnett, D., and M. Barrufet. 2005

. Membranes used in Produced Brine
Desalination

. DOE/PERF Project Review, Annapolis, MD.

Ça kmakce, M., N. Kayaalp, et al. 2008

. “ Desalination of produced water from oil production fields b y membrane processes.” Desalination 222 (1

– 3):
176

– 186.

Casaday, A.L. 1993

. Advances in Flotation Unit Design for Produced Water

Treatment , Society of Petroleum Engineers. SPE #25472

.108 Cheung, K., H. Sanei, et al. 2009

. “ Produced fluids and shallow groundwater in coalbed methane (CBM) producing regions of Alberta, Canada: Trace
element and r are earth element geochemistry.” International Journal of Coal Geology 77 : 338

– 349.

Clark, C. E. , and J. A. Veil . 2009

. Produced Water Volumes and Management

Pra ctice s in the United States . A. N. Laboratory.

Clearwater, S.J., B.A. Morris, et al. 2002

. “ A comparison of coalbed natural gas product water quality versus surface water quality in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, and an assessment of the use of stand ard aquatic toxicity testing organisms for evaluating the potential effects of coalbed natural gas product waters. ” The Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming : 135 , Laramie, Wyoming

.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment . 2010

. “ The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water. ” 5 CCR 1002

- 31

. Water Quality Control Commission.

Colorado Oil an d Gas Conservation Commission. 2010

. Colorado Oil and Gas Information System (COGIS)

. Accessed at http://cogcc.state.co.us/

.

Corporation, E. 2008. HEED Summary

. Accessed at http://www.eetcorp.com/lts/HEEDsumm.htm.

Davis, J.G., R.M. Waskom, et al. 2007 . “ Managing Sodic Soils. ” Crop Series

.

Doran, G. 1997. Developing a Cost Ef fective Environmental Solution for Produced Water and Creating a New Water Resource

. Department of Energy DE

- FC22

- 95MT95008 Report.

Faibish, R. S.

, and Y. Cohen . 2001

. “ Fouling

- resistant ceramic

- supported polymer membranes for ultrafiltration of oil

- in

- w ater microemulsions. ” Journal of Membrane Science 185 (2): 129

– 143.

Faibish, R. S. and Y. Cohen . 2001

. “ Fouling and rejection behavior of ceramic and polymer

- modified ceramic membranes for ultrafiltration of oil

- in

water emulsions and microemulsions.” Co lloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 191 (1

– 2): 27

– 40.

Fakhru'l

- R azi, A., A. Pendashteh, et al. 2009

. “ Review of technologies for oil

an d gas produced water treatment.” Journal of Hazardous Materials
170 (2

– 3): 530

– 551.

Fil lo, J. P. and J. M. Evans. 1990

. “ Characterization and management of produced waters from underground natural gas storage reservoirs. ” American Gas Association Sction Proceedings : 448

– 459.109 Fillo, J.P., S.M. Koraido, et al. 1992

. “ Sources, characteristics, and management of produced waters from natural gas pro duction and storage operations.”

P roduced Water

. J.P. Ray and F R. Engelhardt. New York, Plenum Press.
46

.

Fox, W. E.

, and D. Burnett . 2002

. Produced Water: An oasis for arid and semi

arid rangelan d restoration . Groundwater Protection Council.

Gutierrez, G., A. Lobo, et al. 2008

. “ Influence of Coagulant Salt Addition on the
Treatment of Oil

- in

- Water Emulsions by Centrifugation, Ultrafiltration, and Vacuum Evaporation. ” Separation Science and Techn ology 43 (7):
1884

– 1895.

Hayes, T., and D. Arthur . 2004

. Overview of Emerging Produced Water Treatment Technologies . 11 th Annual International Petroleum Conference, Albuquerque, N ew M exico

.

Hayward Gordon Ltd. “ Oil & Gas Industry

- Produced Water Chemica l
Treatment 101. ” Accessed at http://www.haywardgordon.com/documents/ PRODUCED_WATER_CHEMICAL_TREATMENT_101.pdf.

Jacobs, R.P. W.M., and R.O.H. Grant, et al. 1992

. “ The composition of produced water from Shell operated oil and gas production in the North Sea. ”
Produced Water . J.P. Ray and F. R. Engelhardt. New York, Plenum

Press. 46

.

Ko nieczny, K., M. Bodzek, et al. 2006

. “ A coagulation

- MF system for water treatment using ceramic membranes. ” Desalination 198 (1

- 3): 92

– 101.

Lard y, G., C. Stoltenow, et a l. 2008

. Livestock and Water . N.D. S.U. E. Service. Fargo, North Dakota State University : 8.

Lobo, A., A. Cambiella, et al. 2006

. “ Ultrafiltration of oil

- in

- water emulsions
with ceramic membranes: Influence of pH and crossflow velocity. ” Journal of Mem brane Science 278 (1

– 2): 328

– 334.

Ludzack, F. J. and D. K. Noran (1965). “ Tolerance of high salinities by conventional wastewater treatment processes. ” Water Environment
Federation

.

McBeth, I. , and K. J. Reddy . 2003

. “ Chemistry of trace elements in coalbe d methane product water. ” Water Research 37 (4): 884

– 890.

Melo, M., H. Schluter, et al. “ Advanced performance evaluation of a reverse osmosis treatment for oilfield produced water aiming reuse. ” Desalination
250 (3): 1016

– 1018.110 Moatar, F., S.R. Shadizadeh, et al. 2010

. “ Determination of naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) in formation water during oil exploration. ”

R adioanal Nucl Chem 283 : 3

– 7.

Mondal, S. , and S.R. Wickramasinghe. 2008

. “ Produced water treatment by
nanofiltration and rever se osmosis membranes. ” Journal of Membrane

Science 322 (1): 162

– 170.

Mulder, M. H.V. 2003

. Basic Principles of Membrane Technology

. Norwell,
Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Murry

- Gulde, C. 2003. “ Performance of a hybrid reverse

- osmosis

- constructed
wetland treatment system for brackish oil field produced water.” Water
Research , Volume 37, Issue 3, pp. 705

– 713.

National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Management and Effects of Coalbed Methane Development and Produced Water in the Western
United States

. 2010

. Management and Effects of Coalbed Methane
Produced Water in the United States . Washington, D C, The National
Academies Press.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. Watersheds, Hydrologic Units, Hydrologic Unit Cose, Watershed Approach, and Rapid Watershed Assessments. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resoures
Conservation Service.

NETL. “ Produced Water Management Technology Descriptions Fact Sheet .”
Accessed at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/pwmis/techdesc/

.

Otton, J. K. 2006

. Environmental Aspects of Produced

- water Salt Releases in
Onshore and Coastal Petroleum

- producing Areas of the Conterminous

U.S.

– A Bibliography

. U.S. Geological S urvey . U.S. De partment of the Interior. Reston, Virginia

. Open

- File Report 2006

- 1154

.

Petroleum Technology Transfer Council Enhanced Oil Recovery.

R.W. Harden & Associates, I. 2007

. Northern Trinity/Woodbine Aquifer Groundwater Availability Model. Accessed at
ht tp://www.twdb.state.tx.us/gam/trnt_t/trnt_n.asp. T exas Water Development Board.

Ranck, J.M., R. S. Bowman, et al. Removal of BTEX from produced water using surfactant

- modified zeolite

. National Ground Water Association.

Rice, C.A., R.M. Flores, et al. 2 008

. “ Chemical and stable isotopic evidence for water/rock interaction and biogenic origin of coalbed methane, Fort Union Formation, Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana U.S.A. ” International Journal of Coal Geology 76 (1

– 2): 76

– 85.111 Rice, C. A. , and V. Nuccio. 2000

. Water Produced with Coal

- Bed Methane. United States Geological Survey. Denver, Colorado, U.S. Department of
the Interior. USGS Fact Sheet FS

- 156

- 00

.

Sagle, A.C., E.M. Van Wagner, et al. 2009

. “ PEG

- coated reverse osmosis
membranes: Desal ination properties and fouling resistance. ” Journal of
Membrane Science 340 (1

– 2): 92

– 108.

Shaver, E., R. R. Horner, et al. 2007

. Fundamentals of Urban Runoff Management: Technical and Institutional Issues

.

Shepard, M.C., F.L. Shore, et al., eds. 1992

. Characterization of produced waters from natural gas production and storage operations: regulatory analysis of complex matrix . Produced Water: Technological/
Environmental Issues and Solutions. New York, Plenum Publishing Corp.

Sinker, A. 2007

. Produce d Water Treatment Using Hydrocyclones: Theory and Practical Applications

. 14 th Annual International Petroleum Environmental Conference, Houston

, T exas

.

Si rivedhin, T., J. McCue, et al. 2004

. “ Reclaiming produced water for beneficial use: salt removal by electrodialysis. ” Journal of Membrane Science
243 (1

– 2): 335

– 343.

Spellman, F.R. 2003. Handbook of water and wastewater treatment plant operations

. CRC Press.

Stephenson, M.T. 1992

. A surve y of produced water studies. Produced Water

. J.P. Ray and F. R. Engelhardt. New York, Plenum Press. 46

.

Su, D., J. Wang, et al. 2007

. “ Kinetic Performance of Oil

- field Produced Water Treatment by Biological Aerated Filter. ” Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering 15 (4): 591

– 594.

Taulis, M. 2007

. “ Groundwater characterization and disposal modelling for coal

seam gas recovery. ” Environmental Engineering

. Christchurch, New Zealand University of Canterbury. PhD: 334.

Trussel Technologies. 2008

. “ Des alination Technologies. ” Accessed at http://www.trusselltech.com/tech_desalination.asp.

Texas Coorperative Extension . 2003

. Irrigation Water Quality Standards and Salinity Management Strategies.

Tibbetts, P.J.C., I. T. Buchanan, et al. 1992

. “ A compre hensive determination of produced water composition. ” Produced Water

. J.P. Ray and

F.R. Engelhardt. New York, Plenum Press. 46

.112 United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2001. Engineering and Design: Air Stripping . Design Guide No. 1110

- 1

- 3.

United Sta tes Energy Information Administration . 2007

. U

. S

. Coalbed Methane Past, Present, and Future

. U

. S

. Energy Information Administration.

USEPA. 1980. Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems Design Manual. EPA. Washington, DC, U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency.
EPA/625/1

- 80

- 012

.

USEPA. 1991. Assessment of Single Stage Trickling Filter Nitrification

. Washington DC, EPA Office of Water. EPA 430/09

- 91

- 005

.

US EPA . 2000

. “ Profile of the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry. ” EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project EPA/310

- R

- 99

- 006

.

US EPA. 2010

. “ Hydraulic Fracturing. ” Accessed at http://water.epa.gov/type/ groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydrowhat.cfm.

USEPA. (2010). “ Hydraulic Fracturing Research Study. ” EPA/600/F

- 10/002

. Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/pdfs/hfresearchstudyfs.pdf

.

USGS. 2002. Produced Waters Database. U.S. Department of the Interior.

USGS. 2005

. “ Water Use in the Un ited States. ”

Van Voast, W. A. (2003). “ Geochemical signature of formation waters associated
with coalbed methane. ” AAPG Bulletin 87 (4): 667

– 676.

Veil, J. “ Produced Water Management Technology Descriptions. ” Accessed at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/pwmis/techdesc/physep/index.html

.

Veil, J. A. “ Produced Water Management Information System, Fact Sheet

- Industrial Use. ”

Veil, J. A., M.G. Pruder , D. Elcock, R.J. Redwe ik, Jr. 2004. A White Paper Describing Produced Water from Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal Bed Methane, Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory.

Wagner, K. et al.. 1986. Remedial Action Technology for Waste Disposal S ites

, William Andrew Inc.

Wallace, B. 2005

. Project Example: Wellington Water Works

- Production

Water Reuse . FIDIC Annual Conference, Beijing, China.113 Zielinski, R. A. , and J.K. Otton. 1999

. Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) in Produced Water and Oil

- Field Equipment

— An Issue for the Energy Industry . USGS.