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 RECOR D Incoming Outgoing Date: 11/10/10 Time: 10:00 am

pm

Company Name: GE ERG Staff Name: Brent Ruminski

Contact Name: Mark Wilson Contact Phone Number: 215

- 942

- 3598

General Subject: GE Power and Water Wastewater Treatment Technologies



### TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On 9/26/11 at 4:30PM, I called Patricia Garofalo. Patricia said that the information we are seeking would involve talking to several people from the company. She said she would contact those people and get proposed times they would be willing to talk to ERG on the phone. Patricia s aid she would reply with propos ed times

tomorrow (9/27/11)

.

On 10/25/11 at 11 AM, I called Beth Coffman at Masto Public Relations, Inc.

, who works for GE. I told her

about the information we are interested in and she said she would contact Renee Twardzik (at GE) and let her know to get in touch with me.

On 11/09/11 at 2 PM, I received a call from Mark Wilson from GE. We briefly discussed what kind of information I was looking for. We scheduled to talk tomorrow morning (11/10/11) at 10 AM so that he could

block out an hour for discussion.

On 11/10/11 at 10 AM, I received a call from Mark Wilson. The conversation lasted over an hour and we discussed the following topics:

General Industry Background: We discussed several aspects of the shale gas industry

.

1. In the f

ield, smaller companies tend to do the exploration and initial drilling. Then, they are likely to sell the well, well pad, lease, o r project to larger companies after making some initial profit on production.

The smaller companies’ profit comes from what t he larger companies pay them for the well, well pad, lease, etc., while t he larger companies make their profit from production.

2. “Lease holding”: often times the contract between the mineral rights owner and the operator states that a

certain level of act ivity (drilling or production ) must be occurring within a specific period of time. As a result, sometimes a company will drill a well they know will not be productive jus t to maintain the agreement in the contract.

3. Flowback may be considered water that ret urns within 30 days of fracturing. However, operating companies may determine what day the water becomes produced water instead of flowback for accounting reasons. However, Mark even said that the day can be rather arbitrary based on his experiences with o perators.

4. Mark confirmed that no company has the same criteria for the quality of fracturing fluid from flowback or produced water

. In general, m ost companies don’t seem to have set criteria at all.

5. NORM: Mark briefly discussed NORM and how GE has done a considerable amount of research on

NORM concentrations in wastewater for the natural gas industry. He provided general locations whereNeed to return call by / at/between and

. Signature:

___________________________

GE has found concentrations high enough to cause problems (specific con centrations were not mentioned): north central and southwest Pennsylvania. Mark suggested the problems have more to do with equipment scale and did not mention any impact on human health; however, concentrated solids

associated with NORM could result in a more expensive disposal scenario

. Mark categorized general shale gas infrastructure locations where NORM may cause problems:

1. Scaling in well and drilling equipment.

2. Scaling on treatment equipment (especially thermal).

3. Disposal holding tanks at landfill

.

Trucking: Mark talked about issues with trucking. He said the approximate upper volumetric limit for trucks is 5,000 gallons because of the weight

. If a well requires 5 million gallons of fracturing fluid , 1,000 truck loads are

needed to haul the make

- up w ater. A percentage of that water will then need to be trucked after flowback and produced water is collected. The presentation Mark provided me with presents a table of estimated number of

truck loads over the lifet ime of one for one well or wellpad.

Technologies Offered by GE and Infrastructure: Mark explained how GE manufactures RO, UF, NF, evaporation/ crystallization , EDR/ED units. However, most of the conversation involved GEs evaporation and crystallization units. Mark described two scenarios of w astewater treatment in the gas industry: above and below 35,000 mg/L TDS. Mark pointed out that below this threshold

, membrane technologies are options that

are more viable and above this threshold

, thermal technologies are options that are more viable

.

E vaporation

Operation: The GE mobile evaporator is a mechanical vapor compression unit. It also evaporates at lower than atmospheric pressure to facilitate higher rates of evaporation with reduced energy consumption.

Pretreatment: When I asked about pretrea tment requirements, Mark explained that you cannot cookie cut what practice should be used in the field. This is because of the variation in water quality from formation to formation. He briefly mentioned some of the pretreatment options including filtrat ion, clarification, and softening.

Energy: The mobile evaporator is hooked up to the grid for electricity if possible. In remote locations, which are typical, the unit uses a wellhead gas generator to produce electricity instead. Mark pointed out that

Wau kesha is a distributor of natural

- gas fired engines that is associated with GE

. Mark said these engines are reliable and good for use in oil and gas application s because they can run on wellhead gas

. Mark has specific energy consumption data in a presentation that he can send me

.

Costs: We did not discuss specific costs of GE evaporation units. However, Mark did give a ball park the cost
of this technology to be between $2.50 and $5.00 per barrel of treate d wastewater

. This cost does not include pretreatment but does include the disposal of brine. Mark did not specify how or where brine was typically disposed of (it varies as you move from state to state due to regulations and available options) , but one op tion which he provided more detail about was the use of a crystallizer for concentrating the brine waste stream.

Crystallization

GE has crystallization technologies, which results in zero liquid discharge ( Mark estimated 95 to 98% water recovery). GE has fixed systems globally, but does not have any mobile crystallization units at this time deployed for U.S. shale gas application

. W hen a crystallizer is used for the shale gas, industry it is likely the unit will be located in a central location for a group of leases/well pads. The brine stream from a mobileNeed to return call by / at/between and

. Signature:

___________________________ evaporator (located on site ) or an upstream central evaporator would be trucked to the centrally located crystallizer unit, which would treat the brine, result ing in a treated wastewater stream and salt crystals.

Salt Reuse: GE is currently working with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ( Penn DOT ) , who recently approved the quality of salt generated by GE from produced water for road use. Mark offered to set me up with a contact wit h more knowledge on this work. Mark said that potential constituents in the salt , which may prevent reuse for road salt

, include metals, NORM, and toxic chemicals.

Follow up: Mark gave me his email ( MarkR.Wilson@ge.com ) . Following our phone conversation, we exchanged email s . Mark provided me with a presentation on the evaporation and crystallization units (see attachment). Mark also said he would be a good contact to start with when we want to collect confidential

information.

On November 18, 2011, Mark e mailed me back with contact information for Joseph Tinto (see email attachment) . Mark informed me this contact could give ERG more information on NORM and trucking data.