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

Project No.: 0172.09.038.082 Page 1 of 2

Project Name: Shale Gas CBI?

Yes

No

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Incoming

Outgoing

Date: 9/26/2011 Time: 3:50 am

pm

Company Name: Global Petroleum Research Institute (GPRI) ERG Staff Name: Sarah Hays

Contact Name: David Burnett Contact Phone 

Number:

979-845-2274

General Subject: GPRI Reverse Osmosis Research

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On September 26, 2011 at 3:50pm I called David Burnett, the director of technology at the Global Petroleum 

Research Institute (GPRI) and let a message.

On September 27, 2011 at 9:00am David Burnett returned my phone call. We spoke for nearly an hour about 

the following topics. Burnett has been on the EPA Advisory Committee and was currently attending a fracturing 

workshop at the University of Wyoming (UW) in Laramie, WY, which was free, open to the public and a twoday event (September 26-27, 2011). See: http://www.uwyo.edu/ser/conferences/index.html.

Burnett first started to provide me with references I could look into (Argonne National Lab – John Veil). I told 

him we had looked into these references. He also mentioned Stewart Environmental Consultants (Dave Stewart) 

as a technical reference.

Burnett was very knowledgeable about thermal distillation and I think has tested thermal technology usage as 

well as reverse osmosis. He commented that thermal treatments are efficient and when you have 15 to 20

percent total dissolved solids (TDS) in wastewater, thermal techniques are good at reducing the volume of 

solids in the wastewater.

Burnett has been testing pretreatment options to use with reverse osmosis treatment. Burnett focused primarily 

on media filtration pretreatment, using membranes (microfilters, etc.) because they are good for reuse and can 

be used to treat specific contaminants found in different produced water. He has used filters to remove 

hydrocarbons, scaling contaminants, and suspended solids. He commented that microfilters are very efficient at 

solids removal, which is his main focus.

Burnett said there are more than 20,000 membrane options, and the biggest consideration for him right now is 

that they are commercially available. The main vendors he uses for membranes are: DOW, Hydronautics, and 

GE. Important characteristics are that they can operate at a low pressure and have high removal efficiencies as 

well as being chemically robust. He said that temperature variation is not a big issue with membranes.

Burnett commented briefly on membrane fouling. He uses microcapillary hollow filters (Zenon Environmental 

technology that GE bought) which have a downfall of having a high physical footprint (large surface areas). 

However, they can handle up to 40 MGD and don’t foul for years. They are able to separate solids from water 

using pressure differences. Municipal water treatment is starting to use this technology. Burnett is working on 

cleaning techniques for these membranes. Typically, Burnett says membranes can last approximately 1 year 

without fouling. This is another point of research for him: developing membranes/options that last longer than 1 

year. He estimated that the hollow fibers treat 2 gallons/minute and cost $1,000. He then went on to say that it 

would be a capital investment of approximately $1,000,000 per 1000 gallons of treated water, and that 

operating costs are low.
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: ___________________________

Burnett discussed alternative energy options available for RO treatment units. He said that mobile power 

sources, such as microturbines (which require low grade gas), solar panels (if system has low pressure 

requirements), and wind turbines (studied by Texas A&M’s Center for Applied Technology), are viable for 

powering pretreatment units. The osmotic pressure required by RO is too high for using these alternative energy 

options unless there is excess power or an additional power source. Burnett said that Texas A&M developed a 

wind turbine unit that is mobile and can provide 50 Amps of current, which is not enough to run an RO unit, but 

is enough for him to power media filters for pretreatment, which are capable of removing hydrocarbons. Burnett 

expects that over the next five years, this research will continue and a more viable alternative energy option for 

mobile units will be available, but that it is still in research stages. 

Burnett said he could release some of the information about his studies/trials in the Eagle Ford shale as well as 

the Marcellus shale after talking to his operators and getting them to approve the information release.

Burnett is currently working for the Department of Energy in New York, and one of the first oil and gas 

operations working in the Marcellus in New York. He directed me to the Marcellus Shale Coalition as an 

additional reference and to an unreleased report which provided flowback data for 17 companies operating in 

the Marcellus Shale. (see NYDEC document; Leff, 2011). He stated that he did not think RO would be a viable 

option in New York, and it was implied that this was because of the quality of the flowback water.

Burnett listed several thermal and reverse osmosis treatment technology vendors in the field: Altela, Fountain 

Quail, Siemens, University of Pittsburgh studies, and his own work.

Burnett discussed acid mine drainage, municipal wastewater, and industrial wastewater as potential water types 

that could be treated using an RO system. Burnett also said that these water types were viable options for reuse 

as fracturing water.

Burnett talked briefly about freeze-thaw evaporation (FTE) and the potential use for it in cold weather locations 

(i.e.: Wyoming, Canada, and North Dakota). He gave me a contact who would be helpful to talk to for more 

information about FTE (Lee Shafer at Integrity Production Services).

Burnett gave an example about treating brackish groundwater using RO treatment in order to produce drinking 

water in areas of Texas (Laredo, TX was his example) where there is a drought and they don’t have any 

drinking water. He then went on to say the waste stream from this RO treatment would be a viable option for 

fracturing water, however EPA says this waste must go to underground injection.