## Meeting Summary

T opic : Meeting with Purestream Technology a bout Treatment Technologies

Relevant to the U nconventional O il a nd G as Industry

Meeting D ate : 08 November 201 3

Participants : Lisa Biddle, Jesse Pritts , Karen Milam ( EPA/EAD )

Meghan Camp, Sarah Hays (ERG) Amy Hansen, Todd Ennenga ( Purestream )

On 08 November 201 3

, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) , along with EPA’s contractor, Eastern Research Group, Inc (ERG), held a meeting with Purestream Technology (Purestream) 1 to discuss treatment technologies relevant to the u nconventional oil and g as extraction industry. Todd Ennenga and Amy Hansen , represented Purestream Technology

. Discussion topics included :

 Water management options for the unconventional oil and gas (UOG) industry ;

 Comparison of treatment and reuse ; and

 Purestream Technology treatment options.

Attachment 1 lists the meeting participants

. Attachment 2 provides a presentation provided by
Purestream after to the call.

Purestream Technology Background

P urestream was founded in 2009 and operated wastewater disposal ponds in UT and WY.
Pures tream partnered with approximately 400 researchers at Utah State University, who are experts in thermal management, and created the AVARA mobile treatment unit, which uses vapor recompression technology to convert UOG wastewater to distillate ( low TDS treated wastewater) and concentrated brine (high TDS) . Purestream licensed the AVARA technology
and to

- date, the largest commercial installation of the AVARA treatment system is in the Fayetteville shale formation (AR). Purestream also offers induced gas f lotation technology ( IGF ) , which targets removal of suspended solids and organic compounds. Purestream offers IGF to operators for standalone treatment prior to reuse and as pretreatment prior to evaporation/condensation in the AVARA treatment unit.

1 More information on Purestream Technology is available online at: http://purestreamtec hnology.com/Meeting Summary Page 2 of 10

Total Water Management Scenario

Purestream presented the following three water management options used by unconventional oil and gas (UOG) operators:

 Once

- through use and subsequent disposal

– Operators have the option to dispose
of UOG wastewater at undergroun d injection disposal well s or cent ralized waste
treatment facilities (CWT s )

.

 Treatment and reuse in fracturing fluid

- Operators have the option to reuse UOG wastewater in subsequent fracture jobs , which sometimes requires mixing with
freshwater to obtain the correct water quality characteristics. Purestream noted
that o perators usually only need to remove solids and oil & grease to meet reuse water quality requirements

.

 Treatment and discharg e

– Operators have the option to treat UOG wastewater to
meet eff luent discharge limits set by the state or EPA and then discharge directly
to surface water 2

.

UOG Wastewater Treatment Considerations

Purestream recognizes that transferring UOG wastewater is typically the highest cost component associated with managing and/or disposing of UOG wastewater. However, Purestream focuses on the treatment component of managing and/or disposing of UOG

wastewate r. Purestream noted that treating UOG wastewater for reuse has the following benefits:

 Reduces the demands for fresh water;

 Reduces the amount of UOG wastewater requiring disposal 3 ; and

 Reduces transportation associated with transferring UOG wastewater to disposal
locations 4

.

However, Purestream noted that operators in the UOG industry ha ve the following
concerns with treating UOG wastewater :

 There are many treatment technologies and hundreds of water treatment vendors to choose from, so evaluating the opt ions can be challenging

.

 There is not one technology that fits every treatment need

. Each basin has different characteristics (e.g., economics, wastewater pollutants) and there are even different characteristics within some basins (e.g., Bakken).

 The cost of treatment must compete with the cost of underground injection disposal , which is typically the cheapest disposal option (except in Pennsylvania)

.

2 Treatment and discharge is the disposal method implemented at the Southwestern Energy facility in the Fayetteville shale formation (AR).

3 For example, western Texas, central Arkansas, and portions of the Marcellus shale formation have speci fic restraints on the quality and quantity of UOG wastewater that can be disposed of at underground injection disposal
wells.

4 For example, an operator would need approximately 300 truck trips to transfer half of the volume of flowback from a 125,000 bbl fracture job to a disposal location.Meeting Summary Page 3 of 10

 Although l ong term contracts are attractive to water treatment providers, they are
not attractive to UOG o perators.

The following describes some of the major drivers for operators when deciding whether or not to reuse UOG wastewater in subsequent fracture jobs:

 Quality of influent water

- Purestream noted that the most common problem with the quality of influ ent water is the elevated concentration of TDS

, treatment of
which may require brine handling and disposal. Other pollutants of concern include hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S), bacteria, and oil & grease.

o TDS

- The AVARA treatment unit’s maximum influent TDS
concentration is 280 ,000 mg/L, which is the threshold for keeping solids saturated so that brine handling and disposal is not necessary (i.e., disposal via UIC is still appropriate). An alternative to brine disposal is to use the
brine in other UOG process es (e.g., as a kill fluid) 5

.

o Hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S), bacteria, and oil & grease

- These constituents may require a pretreatment step (e.g., oil/water separator, UV disinfection) upstream of the AVARA treatment unit to remove these constituents 6

.

 Required q uality criteria for reuse

 Volume of wastewater available for reuse

 Chemical costs for treatment

 Energy availability and costs

 Alternative management strategy costs

 T ransportation costs

Purestream also identified the following variable drivers that may or may not play into the UOG operator’s decision about whether or not to reuse UOG wastewater :

 Location of F ield

– Operators may have the option of managing and/or disposing of UOG wastewater via existing infrastructure in the field.

 Existing R egulation s

– O perators may need to consider the regulations that apply to surface discharge, above ground storage pits, in

- ground storage pits, etc.

 Reuse Options

– Operators in different locations may have different infrastructure and options in place to aid in reusing UOG wastewater. For example, in the Eagle
F ord

, Fayetteville, and western Texas shale formations

, o perators are pursuing the hub and spoke concept (i.e., centralized waste tr eatment with piping and/or trucking of treated water back out into the field for reuse).

Depending on the quality of the wastewater and the type of treatment implemented ( if

any ) , operators may consider blending untreated wastewater with freshwater prior to reuse in a subsequent fracture job. Operators also consider which storage and transportation methods they

5 Purestream described that an operator frac ture s a well and as they’re plugging each frac ture stage, they use a heavy
brine to act as a barrier and prevent water from flowing back up before they set the plug . Typically, operators

pur chase this heavy brine (KCl), but brine generated as a result of treatment can be used as an alternative.

6 In the Fayetteville shale installation, aerated pits containing aerobic bacteria naturally remove ammonia in
wastewater pr ior to treatment in the AVARA system.Meeting Summary Page 4 of 10

will use during reuse. Operators may store wastewater in above

- or in

- ground storage tanks,
which may have their own set of regulations in certain states (e.g., leak detection system and/or lining requirements). Operators must a lso transfer wastewater to and from treatment and from the producing well to the next well to be fractured. Finally, operators must determine which disposal options they will need for the generated waste streams (e.g., solid waste, concentrated brine,
slud ge).

Purestream identified multi

- site water balance as another important component of UOG

wastewater reuse. Operators must consider the following components when evaluating the water
balance: on

- site fracturing fluid storage, fracturing fluid demand, on

- si te flowback storage, transportation (e.g., percentage transported by truck versus by pipe), availability of off

- site storage (e.g., percentage stored in water tanks versus impoundments versus brine tanks), and fresh water supply options (e.g., groundwater, surface water). All of these components play into an operator’s decision about whether they will recycle or dispose of UOG wastewater. Purestream acknowledged that it takes time and effort for operators to decide what reuse option
works best for them. How ever, Purestream stated that it is becoming easier for operators to reuse because reuse now offers a low liability and low cost option for obtaining water.

Purestream stated that there is untapped potential in reusing water for beneficial reuse. For exampl e, Arkansas could use treated UOG wastewater for agriculture, irrigation, or cattle water. EPA noted that they are aware of conventional oil and gas wastewater that is used for beneficial reuse, but not UOG wastewater. Purestream agreed that they are also not aware of any UOG wastewater that is beneficially reused. EPA asked Purestream if there are other industries where there are roadblocks to reuse. Purestream responded by saying that there are not roadblocks to reuse in other industries, the problem is t hat operators do not know all of their options for reuse until they become more popular options.

T echnology History and Overview of Purestream Treatment Technologies

Purestream provided a brief overview of the history of UOG wastewater treatment technolog ies. Three years ago, technology focused on large desalination plants using reverse osmosis. Reverse osmosis is only effective with low influent TDS concentrations (e.g., maximum of 50,000) , so they are not always feasible for UOG wastewater. Beginning

app roximately eighteen months ago, technology shifted focus to suspended solids and organic compounds removal technologies, selective ion removal technologies, smaller scale evaporators, and crystallization (see descriptions below).

 Suspended solids and organ ic compound re moval tec hnologies are used to target suspended solids and organic compounds.

 Selective ion removal technologies are used to target and remove specific ions from an influent stream. One example of this type of technology is electrocoagulation

.

 Smaller scale evaporators are capable of treating between 1,000 to 2,500 barrels per day and create distilled quality effluent water as well as a concentrated brine stream. The evaporators can be constructed as mobile or semi

- mobile units andMeeting Summary Page 5 of 10

therefore, reduce the amount of trucking associated with transferring water to
treatment locations.

 Crystallization treatment is capable of treating less than 10,000 barrels per day of wastewater and requires a market for the byproduct (e.g., road salt), otherwise it is not a cost effective treatment option. Purestream noted that crystallization is popular in the Marce llus shale formation.

Purestream introduced three levels of their treatment technologies in terms of costs and pollutant removals : high end, middle of the spectrum, and low end. Purestream noted that they have not focused on treatment technologies that lie in the middle of the spectrum (e.g., electrocoagulation, reverse osmosis). More details about the treatment technologies Purestream has offered to UOG operators are described below.

IGF Treatment Process

Purestream’s IGF treatment unit is at the low end of the treatment level spectrum. These treatment units are capable of reducing the concentrations of TSS, oil and grease, and iron while producing an effluent water quality that is typically acceptable for reuse or acceptable as feed
wastewater to the AVARA treatment process. The fully automated technology uses air flotation and polymer addition . Purestream designs a typical IGF to treat 2,500 barrels of UOG wastewater per day

. 7 As the air bubbles float to the top of the vessel, particles attach to them are skimme d off of the top of the column as sludge. Depending on influent concentrations, approximately 1 to 3 percent of the influent volume is converted to waste, which is typically disposed of at injection for disposal wells

. Purestream also offers a t reatment unit called IGF+,
which includes a nut shell filtration process after the IGF treatment.

On a rental/contract basis, Purestream typically charges operators approximately $0.50 per barrel of influent wastewater depending on energy costs, influent w astewater quality , and the
number of units on

- site

. Typical e nergy consumption is approximately 0.144 kWh 8 per barrel of
influent wastewater

. Purestream also noted that about half of their customers desire to purchase
the IGF treatment unit. Total IGF purc hasing cost ranges from $ 250,000 to $350,000 for a 2,500 barrel per day unit. Total IGF+ purchasing cost ranges from $350,000 to $400,000 for a 2,500 barrel per day unit.

Purestream provided some qualitative information on IGF pollutant removal efficiencies for TSS and oil and grease. Purestream reported that the IG F can treat UOG wastewater with a
maximum influent TSS concentration of 500 mg/L . Typical effluent TSS concentrations are approximately 10 mg/L but can vary with influent concentration

. The IGF+ treatment unit produces a more consistent effluent TSS concentration of 5 mg/L. Purestream reported typical
influent oil and grease concentrations of a pproximately 150 mg/L and typical effluent oil and grease concentrations are less than 10 mg/L. Purestream also noted t hat oil and grease
concentrations var y significantly across UOG formations . Oil and grease can be as high as 20,000 mg/L immediately afte r UOG wastewater leaves the oil/gas/water separator at the well

7 Purestream can design IGF treatment units with varying capacities. For example, they have designed units for offshore applications to treat 80,000 barrels per day.

8 Calculated based on 15 kW power source and 2,500 barrel per day capacity reported by Purestream assuming 24 hours of operation.Meeting Summary Page 6 of 10

pad. If oil and grease is this high in a particulate area, o perators typically remove the bulk of it themselves prior to IGF treatment so they can recover the product for sale

. As a result, th e oil and grease content, by the time Purestream treats the wastewater, is much less.

AVARA Treatment Process

Purestream’s AVARA treatment unit is at the high end of the treatment level spectrum. The AVARA treatment is capable of reducing the concentratio ns of TDS and heavy metals while producing a distilled quality effluent. 9 The AVARA treatment process is a low pressure, light weight, low energy vapor recompression unit. The AVARA unit boils water to concentrate salts, but keeps the solids saturated in t he liquid phase by running just below the 260,000 to 280,000 mg/L concentration of TDS, which is the typical dissolved solids precipitation point for UOG

wastewater . The AVARA treatment is remote controlled.

On a rental/contract basis, Purestream typically charges operators between $2.00 and $3.00 per barrel tr eated depending on energy costs, influent wastewater quality , and the number
of units on

- site

. Purestream also noted that about half of their customers desire to purchase the
AVARA treatment unit. Tot al purchasing cost ranges from $2.2 to $2.3 million for a unit that will generate 1,000 barrels per day of treated wastewater (i.e., distillate). The influent capacity
for this unit depends on the influent TDS concentration . As the influent TDS concentration increases, the distillate recovery of the treatment unit decreases. At an influent TDS
concentration of 40,000 mg/L, distillate recovery is approximately 8 0 percent of the influent
volume. At an influent TDS concentration of 100,000 mg/L, the distillate recovery drops below
60 percent of the influent volume.

Energy consumption is approximately 5 kWh per barrel of influent wastewater using a 300 kW power source. However, this energy consumption may be higher for higher influent TDS
concentrati ons.

AVARA Treatment Application in the UOG Industry

As of March 2014, Purestream has several on

- going pilot projects as well as several deployments of their treatment systems. The following provides additional information about
these pilot and full scale deployments. 10 Although Purestream is capable of obtaining permits that would allow them to treat UOG wastewater from multiple operators at one site, none of their full scale projects are currently accepting UOG wastewater from multiple operators.

Fayettev ille (shale gas)

Purestream has a full scale operation for Southwestern Energy (Southwestern) in the Fayetteville shale formation in Arkansas. The system includes both the IGF and AVARA

9 Purestream also noted that they were awarded a DOD grant to use this treatment for military applications to treat groundwater to potable water quality. The treatment system created for this purpose is very small (10’ x 8’ x 6’).

10 Purestream noted that they are also working with ethanol plants, hog farms, poultry producers, distilleries, and the nuclear industry to see if their treatment technologies are a good fit for these industries.Meeting Summary Page 7 of 10

treatment unit s . Southwestern is treating a portion of their wastewat er using the AVARA treatment unit and discharging the distillate to a nearby surface water. Southwestern uses this treatment system for the portion of wastewater that they are unable to reuse. Purestream noted that the AVARA treatment facility is less expe nsive for Southwestern to operate than the cost of trucking wastewater to injection wells because there are only a few underground injection wells located nearby. Purestream also noted that the Southwestern AVARA facility is the only
Purestream treatment s ystem that is discharging directly to surface water.

Marcellus (shale gas)

Purestream has completed one full scale deployment in the Marcellus region that has been in place for one year. The system includes the IGF treatment unit. The operator recently
ord ered a second unit to increase capacity to 5,000 barrels per day. All treated UOG wastewater is returned to the operator for reuse in fracturing.

Eagle Ford (shale oil and gas)

Purestream has several on

- going pilot projects using the AVARA treatment unit at multiple locations in Texas. Purestream expects some of these systems to become full scale projects. Purestream has a mobile recycling permit #MR0012 11 issued by the Texas Railroad Commission that allows them to operate treatment systems statewide. All t reated UOG wastewater is returned to the operators for reuse in fracturing. Treatment locations include:

 Sonora, TX;

 Tilden, TX; and

 Wheeler County, TX.

Woodford (shale oil and gas)

Purestream recently began a pilot project for a UOG operator. The treatment system consists of a standalone IGF treatment unit

. All treated UOG wastewater is returned to the operator for reuse in fracturing.

Lance/Mes a ve r

de (tight gas)

Purestream has an on

- going pilot scale project in the Lance/ Mesaverde tight gas area of Wyoming. The treatment system consists of an AVARA evaporator and is located at an existing centralized waste treatment (CWT) facility. This existing CWT facility uses reverse osmosis (RO) to treatment UOG wastewater for direct discharge. Previously, t his facility disposed of the concentrated brine generated by the RO unit in on

- site injection for disposal wells. The AVARA will be utilized to treat the concentrated brine so that the facility can minimize the wastewater that is disposed of in the injecti on well.

11 Available online at: http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/environmental/environsupport/disposalf acilitypermits/MR0012.pdfMeeting Summary Page 8 of 10

Bakken (shale oil and gas)

Approximately 2 years ago, Purestream deployed an AVARA treatment unit to North Dakota for use in the Bakken shale formation. However, the high TDS concentrations in the Bakken wastewater (around 200,000 mg/L) proved di fficult for the AVARA unit

. The treatment system produced very small volumes of clean water compared to the large volu me of brine requiring disposal. As a result, the treatment unit is no longer operational.

Purestream noted that Bakken operators are begi nning to focus more heavily on the feasibility of reuse , and want to be reusing 70% of their UOG wastewater. Purestream is hopeful to deploy pilot scale IGF units to Bakken operators in order to focus on removing certain pollutants (e.g., hydrocarbons, TSS , oil and grease) to provide reuse quality water, rather than trying to achieve distilled water effluent quality.Attachment 1

Table A

- 1. List of Meeting Participants

Name Affiliation Amy Hansen Purestream Technology Todd Ennenga Purestream Technology
Lisa Biddle US EPA
Jesse Pritts US EPA

Karen Milam US EPA Meghan Camp ERG Sarah Hays ERGMeeting Summary Page 10 of 10

Attachment 2

Presentation Materials Provided by Purestream

# Purestream Technology

# Company History Purestream Technology



### 2 

## Purestream Technology was founded in 2009 and operated several wastewater disposal ponds in Utah and Wyoming.



# In conjunction with Utah State University’s leading scientists in thermal management, Purestream Technology designed and engineered AVARA vapor recompression technology.

# Space Technology Applied to Water Treatment

# T

otal W ater M anagement

 Once

- through use and disposal

 Treatment and reuse

• blended with freshwater to meet


# volume and water quality requirements.



#  Treatment and discharge Primary Oilfield Water Management Options

# T

otal W ater M anagement

Sourcing

Transfer

Storage 

# Treatment Tracking &

Logistics Disposal

#  Reduces demand for fresh water

• water acquisition challenges

 Reduces produced water disposal

• Disposal constraints

 Reduces transportation related to water movement:

• 50% flowback on a 125,000 Bbl frac would require

300 truck trips for disposal

 Ideally reduces overall production costs

– multiple 

# economies (disposal, trucking, water savings) 

# Why Treat in the first Place?

#  All water reuse technologies compete with the lowest cost

alternative, SWD wells or disposal facilities

 The “new guy” in the company gets the water project



#  “I can dispose of my water for $.50 per barrel all day long”, Understanding the true all

- in costs

 Too many technologies, cluttered marketplace, over 100 water treatment companies. Confusing to producers

 No single technology fits every need

 Don’t over promise and under deliver (manage expectations)

 Long term contracts; Attractive to providers not to producers 

# What We Have Learned... So Far

# Major Drivers

 Quality of influent water
 Required quality of effluent water
 Volume of water to be treated
 Chemical costs
 Energy source


#  Disposal, Sourcing and Transportation costs

Variable Drivers
 Field Location
 Regulation

• Surface discharge

• Above ground storage

• In ground pits


#  Re

- use options 

# Planning for Reuse

- Economics

#  Centralized vs. Mobile
 Transportation (Trucking vs. Piping)
 Available space for equipment


#  Reusable water recovered

• Quality needed

– blending
 Storage (permitting and regulation)
 Disposal options (solids, concentrated brine or sludge)

 And Finally... Cost

• Perfect is the enemy of good; is a lower cost solution good enough? 

# Planning for Reuse

- Logistics

# Good Calculus = Effective Water Management

The Problem
 Right Amount, Right Place, Right Time (flow balance)



# The Answer
 No Operational Disruptions
 Optimize Value
 Minimize Risk 

# E=MC 2 (The Big Math Equation)

# Multi Site Water Balance: The Calculus Equation

# Planning for Reuse

– Regulation

Accessibility to New Technologies

- State and Federal

Environmental Discharge
 De

- wasting

• Would make it easier and less expensive to transport
and store

• Would allow other industries to use (agriculture )



# • Typically cleaner than source water.

Reuse
 Improved permitting timeline for reuse
 Clarity in storage permits

• Lined vs. unlined pits

• Freshwater vs. flowback pits

# A look at Technology

– The playing field



# Ancient History (3 years ago)

 Large Desalinization Plants

• 60

– 80 Million Dollars

• Focused on distillation and brine concentration

• Some Crystallization

 Reverse Osmosis

• Lower initial capex



# • Lower operating cost

• Limited application in high TDS

environments

# A look at Technology

– Today



# Last 18 months to Today

 Smaller Scale Evaporators

• 1000

– 2500 bpd

• Mobile and semi mobile

• Reduced Trucking

• Distilled water (reuse or discharge)

• Clean concentrated Brine



#  Selective Ion Removal

• F&D pre

- treatment systems

• Electro

- coagulation

• Effluent streams are clean enough for reuse

# A look at Technology

– Today Cont.



# Last 18 months to Today

 Crystallization

• <10,000 bpd

• Need market for byproduct (road salt)
to be cost effective

# Purestream Solutions

– The Book End Concept Purestream Technology 

### Description Functional considerations Other considerations

• Waste water reclamation via vapor recompression

• Flow

- back/produced



### water can be used for fracking or discharge

• Low pressure/low temp. • Compact size; quick and easy deployment near
well

- head or fixed

• Ability to concentrate


### waste water brine to TDS of 225,000 ppm

• Scalable • 20%+ hard cost savings
vs. traditional solutions

• Successful active deployments

• Waste water
reclamation via induced gas flotation



### • Reduce total suspended solids (TSS) • TSS floatable hydrocarbon levels <10 ppm

• Removal of 97% of TSS, 

### including oil & condensate

• 2,500

- 115,000 bbl/day • Lower cost approach for applications where

TDS is not a concern 

## EC RO Filtration

# Powerful Tools for use in Water Treatment

Level I

– Recycle/Reuse

Reduces: TSS

Removes: Hydrocarbons for Re

- use

Level II

– Recycle/Reuse



# Produces: Distilled Water for Re

- use, Blend, or Discharge



#  Highly Mobile or Adaptable to Fixed Locations


#  Easily Scalable
 Readily Combined Providing Systemic Solution
 Dynamically Responsive to Feed Variations
 Professionally Engineered for Oil & Gas Field Deployment

# • Technology refined over decades of live deployments

• Low and Efficient residence time



# • Minimal Maintenance and Operator required

– Few Moving Parts

• TSS and floatable hydrocarbon output < 10 ppm or 1 ppm with IGF+

• Easily Scalable from 2,500 bpd and up

– Small Footprint

• Recycles low TDS water for beneficial reuse as a Stand Alone Unit



# PST Level I Treatment

Single Cell IGF

- Water Clarification: Level I Treatment

# PST Level I Treatment Approach

IGF

- Water Clarification: Low Level Treatment

# Mobile recycling and re

- use of flowback/produced water

 Low Energy: 3 phase 480 V

- 300 kW power source (AVARA 1000)

 Wireless uplinked : remote oversight and control



##  Durable , Resilient, Reliable

– Oil & Gas Field Tough  Rapid deployment: Smaller footprint, no massive setup

 Self

- contained : Ready to go, connect and play

 Power Flexible: adaptable to any on

- site

power source

 Robust : Instantly 

## configures to dynamic feed water conditions 

# PST Level II Treatment

# Remote Operation and Management

## Sonora, TX Tilden, TX



# AVARA Texas Deployments

Field tested in Texas

Wheeler County, TX

# Variable Feed Water Results (In PPM)

Location: Source: Feed TDS: AVARA TDS:

Colorado CBM 6,870 20

Canada Produced 42,900 98

Wyoming Produced 59,440 20

Arkansas Flowback 10,000 ND



## Colorado / Utah Produced / Flowback 37,900 14

Oklahoma Flowback 22,000 58

Arkansas Produced 23,500 ND

North Dakota Produced/ Flowback 198,000 30



## Texas Flowback 55,700 10 

## Various Samples

*See online database for complete water analysis

**AVARA capable of handling a wide array of water types

# 2500 Bpd System: Fixed Facility Example

Storage Pond

Verification Tanks



# AVARA System

Discharge Pond Settling pits

# 2500 Bpd System: White County, AR

AVARA system 4000 Bbl Discharge Tank

# Space Technology Applied to Water Treatment

# Technology Transition

- DOD Potable Water

UNCLASSIFIED REVISED 25SEP2012 UNCLASSIFIED: Distribution Statement A. Approved for public release

"Logan, UT: The Department of Defense (DOD) has awarded Thermal Management Technologies a $2.1 million contract to modify Purestream Technology's AVARA Accelerated Vapor Recompression system for military 

### applications.

Headed by Dr. Clair Batty, PhD, , Thermal Management Technologies (TMT) began as a Centers of Excellence program through the Utah State University Research Foundation (USURF) in 2008. Prior to starting TMT, Dr. Batty was Head of Utah State University's Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department.

One of Dr. Batty's most recent and notable contributions in the area of heat transfer is the thermal link technology 

### currently utilized by the MARS ROVER "Curiosity" Space Program. Dr. Batty's theories and expertise in thermal management is the basis for energy efficiencies utilized in the AVARA system.

Purestream Technology, LLC owns the AVARA technology which provides economically viable, mobile water management solutions for the oil and gas industry. Purestream Technology solutions are geared towards the
treatment and re

- use of produced and hydraulic fracture ( frac ) flow

- back water.

Over the next 24 months, the project will focus on adapting Purestream's AVARA Technology for use in military field operations.

# Technology Transition

- DOD Potable Water

# Key Takeaways

 Industry vetting process

– Educating producers to reach an economic solution

 Technology has become the lower cost alternative in

many areas

 Economics

– Working through the numbers to understand 

# the Total Water Management of the water

 Regulatory

– Understanding the overall picture

 Logistics

– Devil is in the details. Solutions must fit 

# regulation and vice versa

## Amy Hansen :: Permitting & Regulatory

ahansen@pstrep.com

Todd Ennenga :: Vice President of Business Development tennenga@pstrep.com



# Corporate Office ::

510 South 600 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 www.purestreamtechnology.com 

# Thank You