Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: ___________________________

Project No.: 0172.09.038.082 Page 1 of 3

Project Name: Shale Gas

CBI?

Yes

No

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Incoming

Outgoing

Date: 10/14/11 Time: 10:30 am

pm

Company Name: 212 Resources ERG Staff Name: Brent Ruminski

Contact Name: Barry Mertz Contact Phone Number: 435-640-7190

General Subject: 212 Resources VACOM Technology.

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

I called 212 Resources HQ at 4:15 PM on 9/26/11 and asked the operator to talk to someone about their 

crystallization system. The operator redirected me to call Brad, an Engineer, at 248-417-5779.

I called Brad at 4:30 PM on 9/26/11 and left a voicemail with my contact information and a brief statement of 

why I called.

I called 212 Resources HQ again on 10/14/11 at 10:30 AM to follow up since I never got a call back from Brad. 

The operator gave me a cell phone number of Barry Mertz at (435-640-7190). 

I called Barry Mertz on 10/14/11 at 10:45 AM. I explained I work for ERG and we are under contract with the 

U.S. EPA to write a report of wastewater treatment technologies for the natural gas industry. The conversation 

lasted just under an hour it included the following topics:

System Design Overview: The VACOM system is a mechanical vapor compression (MVR)

evaporation/condensation technology that can treat up to 2,500 barrels per day of wastewater. The entire system 

includes an oil/water, separator, “conventional” filtration, and the main MVR unit. The entire treatment train is 

mobile and it may take up to two weeks to become fully operational once it is delivered on site.

The main unit operation includes a circulation pump that circulates the concentrated brine/influent wastewater 

through a shell and tube heat exchanger at approximately 4 to 5 psi gauge pressure (18 – 19 absolute psi). The 

water is kept under pressure so that the wastewater does not boil. The wastewater temperature will increase to 

about 230°F. He explained that this is done for two reasons:

1. To reduce scaling within the pipes, pumps, and heat exchanger; solids will not precipitate and form scale 

if boiling does not occur; and

2. To flash the water as it enters the main vessel; the sudden drop in pressure from the pipe to the vessel 

allows a portion of the water to flash into water vapor. Barry clarified that the pressure within the vessel 

is not actually less than atmospheric pressure, but rather maintained at atmospheric pressure by 

blowers/vents.

Brine Characteristics and Water Recovery Percent: Barry spoke how the water recovery percent is affected 

by the influent TDS concentration and the supersaturation TDS concentration of the brine. The supersaturation 

TDS concentration of brine is usually around 300,000 to 350,000 mg/L. Table 1 gives examples to illustrate 

how as influent TDS concentrations increase, the water recovery percent decreases. This table assumes that 

supersaturation concentration is 300,000 mg/L TDS. 
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: ___________________________

Influent TDS 

(mg/L)

Percent Water 

Recovery (%)

50,000 83

100,000 67

150,000 50

Energy Usage: The unit is powered by a generator, which may run on wellhead gas or diesel. If possible, the 

unit can also be powered by electricity from the grid. Electrical costs range from 30 -50 cents per barrel of 

treated wastewater.

Costs: Barry commented that 212 Resources is well known for their system and services. Typically, the cost is 

in the range of $3 to $4 per barrel (just a ballpark number) of wastewater treated. He said that customers can 

either buy or rent the unit.

1. The rental costs include onsite operators from 212 Resources and it is on a dollar per barrel basis. He 

clarified that there is no charge to the customer until treated wastewater is generated (i.e., no major 

mobilization fee).

2. To buy the unit, a typical agreement will be that 212 Resources offers onsite “support” for a period of 

time until the customer feels comfortable operating the unit. They still offer support after this period 

(e.g., maintenance problems). This suggests that the units are too complex to operate without sufficient 

training.

Perspective on Industry: A portion of the conversation was focused on the industry in terms of wastewater 

management. He pointed out that operators have three options to manage their wastewater (his customers are in 

Western Colorado and they are shale gas operators).

1. Saltwater (Deep) Well Injection.

2. Kill fluid.

3. Reuse or Recycle. Wastewater for reuse is often treated through conventional methods such as chemical 

precipitation and filtration. This only reduces the pollutants, unlike RO and evaporation/distillation.

Barry commented on a wastewater treatment technology called “snow blowing.” He says this has been one of 

212 Resource’s biggest competitors. It occurs at large evaporation ponds (he thinks in Utah) where high TDS 

wastewater is simply blown over the pond to increase the surface area.

Another big competitor to 212 Resources are new chemical additives (e.g., scale inhibitors) that chemical 

companies offer to fracking operators. Barry said that these chemicals are becoming more effective allowing 

higher TDS wastewater to be reused without extensive treatment. This decreases the demand for technologies 

like RO and evaporation/condensation.

Barry commented on reuse concentration criteria. He says you cannot “cookie cut” this industry. Every 

company is different in terms of criteria. He says some companies have a fresh water only policy and some will 

use high TDS wastewater (gave an example range of 30,000 to 50,000 mg/L).
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: ___________________________

Perspective on Crystallization Technology: Barry does not think Crystallization will have any major role in 

treating natural gas wastewater. He thinks if it does, it would happen in Pennsylvania because of how strict 

regulations are. He pointed out the following disadvantages to the technology:

1. There may not be a brine solution but the solid crystals must be kept dry or they will turn into a brine.

2. Handling the solids is not as easy as it sounds. Using “roll off” dumpsters is not efficient. 

3. There are additional energy costs. He estimated the additional cost to be $1 to $3 per barrel (just a 

ballpark number) of wastewater treated over evaporation/condensation treatment.

4. There is a lot of “talk” of reuse of the solids but he doesn’t think it would be possible on any kind of 

large scale. He heard of a case or two where they solids were sold to another industry but that is rare. He 

also commented that no solid would ever be used for road salt because of the constituents of the solids

(e.g., strontium, barium).

Other: At one point we talked about the difference between flowback and produced water. He went on to say 

that based on what is popular in industry; his company uses time to differentiate the two. He stated that 

flowback occurs in the first 30 days and produced water flows after the first 30 days of fracturing.