Final Report to

Barnett and Appalachian Shale 

Water Management and Reuse 

Technologies

Report No. 08122-05.FINAL.1

Contract 08122-05 

March 30, 2012

Principal Investigator

Tom Hayes, Ph.D.

Coordinator, Environmental 

Engineering Solutions

Gas Technology Institute

1700 S. Mount Prospect Rd. 

Des Plaines, IL

Blaine F. Severin, Ph.D., P.E.

Senior Process Engineer

Environmental Process Dynamics, Inc.

4117 Spinnaker Ln.

Okemos, MI
i

LEGAL NOTICE

This report was prepared by the Gas Technology Institute as an account of work sponsored by 

the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America, RPSEA. Neither RPSEA members of 

RPSEA, the National Energy Technology Laboratory, the U.S. Department of Energy, nor any 

person acting on behalf of any of the entities:

a. MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WITH 

RESPECT TO ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, OR USEFULNESS OF THE INFORMATION 

CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT, OR THAT THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, 

APPARATUS, METHOD, OR PROCESS DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT 

INFRINGE PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, OR

b. ASSUMES ANY LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF, OR FOR ANY AND ALL 

DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE USE OF, ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, 

METHOD, OR PROCESS DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT. 

THIS IS A FINAL REPORT. THE DATA, CALCULATIONS, INFORMATION, CONCLUSIONS, AND/OR 

RECOMMENDATIONS REPORTED HEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY.

REFERENCE TO TRADE NAMES OR SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS, COMMODITIES, OR 

SERVICES IN THIS REPORT DOES NOT REPRESENT OR CONSTIITUTE AND ENDORSEMENT, 

RECOMMENDATION, OR FAVORING BY RPSEA OR ITS CONTRACTORS OF THE SPECIFIC 

COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, COMMODITY, OR SERVICE. 
ii

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

iv

Table of Contents

Abstract................................................................................................................................................................ xi

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................. xii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations.................................................................................................................... xvi

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................1

2 Program Overview........................................................................................................................................4

Overall Objective.......................................................................................................................................................4

Scope of Work ...........................................................................................................................................................4

Reporting Deliverables..............................................................................................................................................6

Accomplishments......................................................................................................................................................7

Significant Findings...................................................................................................................................................8

3 Organization of Report .................................................................................................................................8

4 Characterization of Flowback Waters from the Marcellus and the Barnett (Task 4)................................... 10

Rationale.................................................................................................................................................................10

Objectives................................................................................................................................................................10

Goals.......................................................................................................................................................................10

Approach.................................................................................................................................................................10

Results from the Marcellus .....................................................................................................................................11

Results from the Barnett.........................................................................................................................................21

Deliverables.............................................................................................................................................................29

Impact to Producers................................................................................................................................................30

Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................................................................30

Outlook ...................................................................................................................................................................34

Value .......................................................................................................................................................................34

Future Considerations.............................................................................................................................................35

References...............................................................................................................................................................35

5 Feasibility of Early Flowback Capture ......................................................................................................... 36

Rationale.................................................................................................................................................................36

Objective .................................................................................................................................................................36

Goals.......................................................................................................................................................................36

Approach.................................................................................................................................................................36

Deliverables.............................................................................................................................................................43
v

Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................................................................44

Outlook ...................................................................................................................................................................46

Future Considerations.............................................................................................................................................46

Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................47

References...............................................................................................................................................................48

6 Feasibility of Using Alternative Water Sources for Shale Gas Well Completions......................................... 49

Rationale.................................................................................................................................................................49

Goals.......................................................................................................................................................................49

Objectives................................................................................................................................................................49

Approach.................................................................................................................................................................49

Results and Discussions...........................................................................................................................................51

Deliverables.............................................................................................................................................................53

Impact to Producers................................................................................................................................................53

Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................................................................53

Future Considerations.............................................................................................................................................54

7 Engineering Decision Tool for the Evaluation of Mechanical Vapor Recompression for the Treatment of 

Shale Gas Flowback Water................................................................................................................................... 55

Rationale.................................................................................................................................................................55

Objectives................................................................................................................................................................55

Goals.......................................................................................................................................................................55

Approach.................................................................................................................................................................55

Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................................................56

Fate of Various Chemical Constituents ...................................................................................................................65

Impact to Producers................................................................................................................................................66

Deliverables.............................................................................................................................................................68

Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................................................................68

Implications.............................................................................................................................................................69

Outlook ...................................................................................................................................................................69

Value .......................................................................................................................................................................69

8 Evaluation of Electrodialysis for the Desalinization of Flowback Waters from Shale Fracture..................... 71

Rationale.................................................................................................................................................................71

Objectives................................................................................................................................................................71

Goals.......................................................................................................................................................................71

Approach.................................................................................................................................................................72
vi

Results and Discussions...........................................................................................................................................76

Deliverables.............................................................................................................................................................80

Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................................................................82

Implications.............................................................................................................................................................82

Outlook ...................................................................................................................................................................83

Value .......................................................................................................................................................................83

Future Consideration...............................................................................................................................................83

9 Novel Fouling—Resistant Membranes for Barnett Shale Water Management and Reuse Technologies..... 84

Approach.................................................................................................................................................................84

Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................................................86

Deliverables.............................................................................................................................................................91

Impact to Producers................................................................................................................................................91

Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................................................................92

References...............................................................................................................................................................93

10 Field Assessment of Anti-Fouling Polymeric Membrane Coatings for Treatment of Barnett Shale Flowback 

and Produced Waters.......................................................................................................................................... 94

Rationale.................................................................................................................................................................94

Objective .................................................................................................................................................................94

Approach.................................................................................................................................................................95

Performance Evaluation..........................................................................................................................................97

Results.....................................................................................................................................................................97

Deliverables...........................................................................................................................................................102

Impact to Producers..............................................................................................................................................102

Conclusions and Recommendations......................................................................................................................103

Implications...........................................................................................................................................................103

Value .....................................................................................................................................................................104

Outlook and Future Considerations ......................................................................................................................104

11 Systems and Life Cycle Analysis................................................................................................................ 106

Rationale...............................................................................................................................................................106

Objectives..............................................................................................................................................................106

Goals.....................................................................................................................................................................106

Approach...............................................................................................................................................................106

Results and Discussion ..........................................................................................................................................107

Deliverables...........................................................................................................................................................119
vii

Conclusions and Recommendations......................................................................................................................120

12 Technology Transfer ................................................................................................................................. 121

13 Corporate Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................... 125

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Shale Gas Basins in the U.S..................................................................................................................1

Figure 2-1: Industry Needs Addressed by Project Tasks ........................................................................................5

Figure 4-1: Distribution of Observations for 70 Volatile Organics in 60 Samples from the Marcellus................... 16

Figure 4-2: Distribution of Observations of Semi-Volatiles in all 60 Marcellus Flowback Samples from 19 Sites.. 19

Figure 4-3: Number of Detectable and Non-Detectable Tests for Volatile Compounds........................................ 25

Figure 4-4: Distribution of Observations of Semivolatile Organics in 16 Barnett Site Samples ............................. 27

Figure 4-5: Median Conventional Components of Flowback Water from the Marcellus Samples......................... 30

Figure 4-6: Median Observations of Conventional Contaminants in the Barnett Samples ................................... 31

Figure 4-7: Relative Abundance of Cations in Flowback Waters........................................................................... 33

Figure 4-8: Relative Abundance of Anions in Flowback Waters............................................................................ 34

Figure 5-1: Cumulative Probability Plot for the Kinetic coefficients and Percent Water Recovery for the Barnett 

Database .................................................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 5-2: Cumulative Probability Plot for the Kinetic coefficients and Percent Water Recovery for the Combined 

Marcellus Database (Horizontal and Vertical Drilling)................................................................................. 40

Figure 5-3: Wellhead Concentrations versus Recovered Volumes for Six Sites in the Marcellus Fitted to 

Exponential Curve....................................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 5-4 Model Projected Salt Generation at Seven Marcellus Sites ................................................................. 43

Figure 5-5: Projected Recovery Rate and Cumulative Volumes for the Mean (plus 1 standard deviation) Barnett 

Flowback Event as a function of Pump Days after Fracture......................................................................... 45

Figure 5-6: Projected Salt Mass, Wellhead Concentration, and Average Impoundment Concentration for the 

Mean Barnett Event (+1 Standard Deviation) ............................................................................................. 45

Figure 5-7: Hypothetical Flowback Measurement, Separation and Segregation System ...................................... 47

Figure 7-1: MVR Process Flow Sheet, Maggie Spain Facility ................................................................................. 57

Figure 7-2: Simplified Flow Diagram for the Aqua Pure Mechanical..................................................................... 62

Figure 7-3: Water Distribution between Distillate and Concentrate..................................................................... 63

Figure 7-4: Distribution of Dissolved Salts between the Distillate and the Condensate Streams During 60 Day 

Sample Period ............................................................................................................................................ 64

Figure 7-5: Daily Natural Gas Demand Versus Influent Loading and Distillate Product Yield ............................... 64

Figure 7-6: Fate of Total BETEX in the Maggie Spain Facility ................................................................................ 66

Figure 7-7: Fate of Total Dissolved Solids in the Maggie Spain Facility ................................................................. 66

Figure 8-1: Conceptual Placement of Electrodialysis (Concentrating Membrane System) in a Water Treatment 

Process....................................................................................................................................................... 73

Figure 8-2: Ion Flow in an Electrodialysis Stack .................................................................................................... 74

Figure 8-3: Photograph of the Eurodia Pilot ED Skid ............................................................................................ 75

Figure 8-4: Summary of All ED Runs, Energy Utilization (Work) Required Per Pound of TDS Transferred ............. 76

Figure 8-5: Capital Costs as a Function of Daily Salt Removal (right) .................................................................... 78

Figure 8-6: Operating Costs as a Function of Salt Removal (left) .......................................................................... 78

Figure 8-7: Breakdown of Operating Costs ($/1000 lb salt) as a Function of Daily Salt Removal .......................... 79

Figure 8-8: Amortized Capital Normalized ($/1000 Lb Salt Treated) versus Daily Treatment. .............................. 80

Figure 9-1: Conversion of dopamine to polydopamine (PDOPA).......................................................................... 85
viii

Figure 9-2: Constant TMP crossflow filtration system .......................................................................................... 86

Figure 9-3: Permeate flux as a function of time in soybean oil/water emulsion filtration using unmodified, 

PDOPA-modified, and PDOPA-g-PEG-modified membranes. a. PS-20 UF, b. PES UF, c. NF-90, and d. PA

XLERO membranes. Rejection values (organic rejection for UF membranes, salt rejection for NF and RO 

membranes) were measured at the end of filtration. ................................................................................. 87

Figure 9-4: a. Pure water flux as a function of dopamine concentration used during PA XLERO membrane 

modification; b. Permeate flux as a function of time in soybean oil/water emulsion filtration using PA 

XLERO membranes unmodified and PDOPA-mcodified at different dopamine concentrations (with 60 

minutes deposition time and tris-HCl buffer initial pH at 8.8)..................................................................... 88

Figure 9-5: a. Pure water flux as a function of deposition time used during PA XLERO membrane modification, b. 

Permeate flux as a function of time in soybean oil/water emulsion filtration using PA XLERO membranes 

unmodified and PDOPA-modified at different deposition times (with 2 mg/mL dopamine concentration 

and tris-HCl buffer initial pH at 8.8). ........................................................................................................... 89

Figure 9-6: a. Pure water flux as a function of Tris-HCl buffer initial pH used during PA XLERO membrane 

modification, b. Permeate flux as a function of time in soybean oil/water emulsion filtration using PA 

XLERO membranes unmodified and PDOPA-modified at different initial pH of Tris-HCl buffer (with 2 

mg/mL dopamine concentration and 60 minutes deposition time). ........................................................... 90

Figure 10-1: UF-RO Site at the Maggie Spain Water ............................................................................................. 95

Figure 10-2: Pilot test schematic showing UF and RO systems............................................................................. 96

Figure 10-3: Water Flux on the UF Filters: Coated versus Conventional Membranes ........................................... 98

Figure 10-4: Trans-membrane pressure (TMP) data for two side-by-side UF........................................................ 99

Figure 10-5: Specific flux data for two side-by-side UF hollow-fiber elements..................................................... 99

Figure 10-6: Specific flux data for two side-by-side RO hollow-fiber elements................................................... 100

Figure 10-7: Normalized TDS Rejection, Coated and Non-Coated RO Membranes............................................. 101

Figure 11-1: Anticipated Flowback Recovery Rates and Cumulative Volumes for a Single Well Calculated with the 

Median Marcellus Parameters.................................................................................................................. 107

Figure 11-2: Anticipated Wellhead Concentration, Impoundment Concentration, and Total Salt Recovered as a 

Function of Recovered Volume, Calculated as the Median Marcellus Event. ............................................ 108

Figure 11-3: Planned Initial Fracture and Three Refractures One Field of 16 Wells (1000 Days Between Fractures)

................................................................................................................................................................. 109

Figure 11-4: Cumulative Fracture and Process Water Recovery vs Projected Reuse Capacity in a 19,200 Fracture 

Play Assuming 33% Blend of Recovered Water in Each Fracture............................................................... 111

Figure 11-5: Comparison of the Rate of Fracture and Process Water Recovery vs Rate of Reuse Capacity in a 

19,200 Fracture Play Assuming 33% Blend of Recovered Water in Each Fracture ..................................... 112

Figure 11-6: Sensitivity Analysis; Onset of Cross-Over Points Based on the Number of Planned Refractures per 

Well.......................................................................................................................................................... 113

Figure 11-7: Sensitivity Analysis: Onset of Cross-Over Points Based on the Ability to Reuse Recovered Water in 

the Next Fracture...................................................................................................................................... 114

Figure 11-8: Sensitivity Analysis, Definition of the Cross-Over Years in Total Reuse Capacity and Rate of Capacity 

Use vs Produced Water Flow per Well...................................................................................................... 115

Figure 11-9: Sensitivity Analysis, Effect of Refracture Schedule on Utilization of Reuse Capacity....................... 116

Figure 11-10: Truck Utilization with Deep Well Injection Off-site....................................................................... 117

Figure 11-11: Indirect Costs: Carbon Relative to Diesel ...................................................................................... 118

Figure 11-12: Cost of Road Repairs .................................................................................................................... 118
ix

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Tasks of the GTI Project and Performing Organizations.........................................................................4

Table 2-2: Deliverable Reports that Are Referenced in the Final Report. ..............................................................6

Table 3-1: Authorship of the Technical Chapters of the Final Report.....................................................................8

Table 4-1: Summary of Chemical Characteristics of Water Used for Hydraulic Fracture Marcellus Samples......... 12

Table 4-2: Range of Results from 1 and 14 Day Samples ...................................................................................... 13

Table 4-3: Influent Water (Fracture Water) Day 0 (minus sand) from Marcellus Database .................................. 14

Table 4-4: Number of Observations of 70 Volatile Compounds in All 60 Marcellus Samples (Days 1-90) ............. 15

Table 4-5: Semi-Volatile Content in 19 Marcellus Influent Samples (Fracture Water) .......................................... 17

Table 4-6: Number of Observations of 116 Semi-volatile Compounds in All 60 Marcellus Samples...................... 18

Table 4-7: Metals Data in Raw Water and Source Water with Additives.............................................................. 20

Table 4-8: Metals Data for Marcellus Flowback Days 1 and 14............................................................................. 21

Table 4-9: Sample Dates (Days after Fracture) for 5 Sites in the Barnett.............................................................. 22

Table 4-10: Summary of Chemical Characteristics of Influent Water Used for Hydraulic Fracturing after Additives 

were Blended ............................................................................................................................................. 22

Table 4-11: General Chemical Parameters, Barnett Day 1 and Day 3 ................................................................... 23

Table 4-12: Volatile Organics in the Influent Water Samples ............................................................................... 24

Table 4-13: Summary Volatiles Data; All Site Samples (Days 1-12, Total = 16 Samples) ....................................... 24

Table 4-14: Semivolatile Compounds in the Influent Water Barnett Samples ...................................................... 25

Table 4-15: Semi-volatiles Data from 16 Site Samples (Days 1-23) All Five Sites .................................................. 26

Table 4-16: Total Metals in Influent Water Samples ............................................................................................ 28

Table 4-17: Metals Data in the Barnett Samples.................................................................................................. 29

Table 4-18: Comparisons of Median Metals Levels in Shale Gas Waters with ...................................................... 31

Table 5-1: Regression Results for First Order Rate Approximation; Barnett......................................................... 38

Table 5-2: Fitted Model Parameters from 6 Vertical Sites in the Marcellus.......................................................... 38

Table 5-3: Fitted Model Parameters from 7 Horizontal Sites in the Marcellus ..................................................... 38

Table 5-4: Summary of Hydraulic Parameters for the Barnett and Marcellus Databases ..................................... 40

Table 5-5: Fitted Concentration Profile Parameters From Six Sites in the Barnett................................................ 41

Table 5-6: Concentration Profile Coefficients From 12 Sites in the Marcellus....................................................... 42

Table 6-1: Summary of Results: Water Availability Distribution........................................................................... 54

Table 7-1: Influent and Post Clarifier Water Analysis........................................................................................... 58

Table 7-2: Chemical Analysis of the Distillate and Concentrate Streams.............................................................. 63

Table 9-1: Commercial Membranes Used in the Fouling Tests ............................................................................. 85

Table 10-1: Specific Ion Rejection of Coated and Uncoated RO Membranes...................................................... 101

Table 11-1: Parameters Used in Most Model Analyses (Base Case).................................................................... 108

Table 11-2: Model Assumptions of Initial Completions And Refractures in a Hypothetical 4800-Well Play 

Containing 300 Fields, Each with 16 Wells ................................................................................................ 110

Table 11-3: Estimated Carbon Costs per Truck Mile by Flow Scheme (Marcellus Shale)* ................................... 117

Table 12-1: List of Presentations (Technology Transfer).................................................................................... 121

Table 12-2: Complete List of Deliverables from Contract 08122-05................................................................... 122

Table 12-3: 14 Publications Arising from the Project......................................................................................... 124
x

List of Photos

Photo 7-1: Flash Mixer and Clarifier..................................................................................................................... 59

Photo 7-2: Details of the Lamella ......................................................................................................................... 59

Photo 7-3: Filter Presses & Tote........................................................................................................................... 59

Photo 7-4: NOMAD Skid Unit .............................................................................................................................. 60

Photo 7-5: Compressor Engine Skid..................................................................................................................... 60

Photo 7-6: Evaporator Skid ................................................................................................................................. 60
xi

Abstract

During the fracture process, between 1 and 5 million gallons of water and sand is expended 

―down hole‖ into each extraction well to aide in the fracture. A portion of this water is recovered 

during the initial extraction of the gas. With proper management, recovered flowback water can 

represent a significant resource. Conversely, flowback water can represent a costly disposal 

problem. The nature of the chemistry and dynamics of recovered flowback water is of vital 

interest for effective environmental stewardship of a gas field. The objectives of this report are

to better understand the chemical character of flowback water, its treatability, and long term 

sustainability issues associated with flowback water management. 

This project approaches flowback water management at shale gas sites from several distinct 

levels, from broad management issues, to testing of potential treatment technologies, to fullscale verification of a commercially available technology. Alternative water sources and 

treatment options are presented to reduce impact and provide potential cost savings. The 

scientific, engineering, and economic data presented in this report may be used to form the 

basis of rational engineering and sustainability management tools. This final report 

summarizes these findings, with references to more detailed topical reports and (publication 

ready) papers that will be available from the RFSEA website.

Perhaps the broadest findings of this project are presented in the final task, Task 11; 

Preliminary Engineering Systems Analysis of Shale Gas Water Management, in which the water 

collection and salt generation at a hypothetical Marcellus gas play with 16 wells per field and 

300 fields (4,800 wells) is projected for a period of 45 years into the future. In the early years of 

the play (its youth), the active fracture of new wells provides ample opportunity for the reuse of 

recovered flowback water within the play. As rates of fracturing of new wells and the 

refracturing of existing wells decline, the play enters middle age (first cross-over year) and the 

planned recovery volume exceeds the planned reuse volume. Segregation and pre-treatment of 

recovered water is at a premium. At some more future time, the rate of collection of produced 

water exceeds the rate of reuse (second cross-over) and the play is in old age. Water treatment 

and waste disposal become over-arching management issues. These findings put the 

remaining chapters into the perspective of these management needs.

Chapter 4 investigates the chemistry of 19 flowback events in the Marcellus and 5 flowback 

events in the Barnett. These data suggest that the organic nature of the flowback water is very 

similar to produced water from oil wells. Heavy metals are not an issue. The major disposal 

issue appears to be inorganic scale formers. The initial 30% of the recovered water is much 

less salty than the final 70%, suggesting that one viable option for management of these waters 

is simple segregation (Chapter 5). Treatment of mid-range waters (TDS 10,000-60,000 mg/l) 

with advanced innovative reverse osmosis membrane technology is investigated in Chapters 9-

10 and with enhanced electrodialysis in Chapter 8. The treatment of heavy brine (60,000-

100,000 mg/l) with distillation (mechanical vapor recompression) is verified in a report on a fullscale facility in the Barnett (Chapter 7). Alternate water sources in the Barnett are examined in 

Chapter 6.
xii

Executive Summary

The Hydrofracking of shale for the development of natural gas sources has such great potential 

that it is often touted as an energy revolution. Good water management is essential to the 

economic sustainability of the industry. The purpose of this project was to address water 

management issues by elucidating the chemical nature, and treatability of flowback waters, and 

to help develop sustainable water management plans. 

Task 4: Water Characterization: This report covers recent sampling of flowback water from 19 

sites in the Marcellus region and 5 sites from the Barnett. The database includes flowback rates, 

volumes, and chemical analyses of the injected water and the recovered flowback water. 

Chemical analyses include general chemical information typically used for drinking water 

analyses. The waters were tested for 70 volatile organics, 116 semi-volatile organics, 22 

pesticides, PCB’s, and 27 metals. The main salt composition appears to be sodium chloride. 

Chloride accounts for more than 93% of the anionic content. Some sulfate (500-1000 ppm 

range) is present in the Barnett samples, but is very low in the Marcellus samples (<100 ppm). 

Carbonate alkalinity, is quite low (<150 ppm). The commonly observed cations are sodium, 

calcium, barium, strontium, and iron. Heavy metals (other than iron) are generally either not 

detected, or in very trace concentrations. The aromatics such as benzene, toluene, ethyl 

benzene, and toluene (BTEX) and other organic compounds, such as naphthalene, that are

commonly associated with petroleum sites tend to be present only in low to trace concentrations 

(μg/l to mg/l). Heavier poly aromatic compounds (PAH’s) such as commonly seen in petroleum 

wastewater are generally not present in the flowback water, and occur occasionally in only very 

trace concentrations. Compounds that originate from human sources, such as pyridine and 

phthalate esters, are found in less than 50% of the samples. Methylated phenols are more 

commonly encountered, but only in concentrations between 10 to 100 ppb. Halogenated 

compounds are rarely encountered. Most of the organic chemical analyses performed resulted 

in ―non-detects.‖ 

Task 5: Feasibility of Capture of Early Flowback Waters: Flowback waters from eleven 

shale gas well completions in the Barnett Shale were characterized for cumulative volume, 

electrical conductivity and selected constituents of interest (inorganic salts) as a function of time. 

Approximately one third of the fracwater used for a typical Barnett Shale well is recovered from 

the initiation of blowback until the time that the well produces salable volumes of natural gas. It 

was found at the field scale that a substantial portion of recovered flowback could be recycled 

for subsequent well completions across a wide range of TDS reuse thresholds. This finding 

stems from the observations that: 1) Only a portion (roughly a third) of the fracwater used to 

complete a well is typically recovered as flowback during the first several weeks following well 

completion, and 2) The volume–weighted TDS concentration is low enough so that the 

recovered flowback can be diluted for effective reuse. Thus, the substantial recovery of a useful 

fraction of flowback water for reuse is technically feasible and logistically achievable. The 

primary benefits of recycling flowback water include a potentially substantial reduction in the 

volume of freshwater needed to complete future wells as well as a concomitant reduction in the 

volume of wastewater that must otherwise be disposed. Empirical models describing flow rates 

and salt concentration are developed.
xiii

Task 6: Alternative Water Sources: The study investigates alternative sources of water to be 

used in the last completion phase (so-called ―fracing‖) of gas wells in the Barnett Shale play. It 

focuses on more rural counties (Montague, Jack, Palo Pinto, Parker, Erath, Hood, Somervell, 

Bosque, and Hill) located to the west of the core area (Denton, Johnson, Tarrant, and Wise 

Counties) where the Trinity aquifer is thin or absent. As gas production moves away from the 

core area toward the north, south, and west to access the remainder of the play, gas operators 

are faced with two challenges: (1) increased water scarcity and (2) measured reluctance to 

impact domestic and public water supplies. The study analyzes three sources with the potential 

to meet those goals: (1) treated wastewater outfalls from waste water treatment plants; (2) small 

water bodies outside the State regulation of surface water, and (3) smallish groundwater 

aquifers in Paleozoic-age disconnected sand bodies west of the more plentiful Trinity aquifer. 

An Arc-GIS tool was developed to determine the amount of water available at any point of the 

study area from the three characterized water sources within a given radius (note that water 

might be available too from more common sources such as large reservoirs). They were chosen 

at 5, 10, and 15 miles. To understand the adequacy of the resource, ~1000 points were 

selected on a regular grid covering the area of interest and statistics on water availability were 

then derived. To allow for comparison of water availability all sources use the same reference 

unit of million gallons per month. Results suggest that, assuming a dense development of the 

gas resource, in most cases, enough water is theoretically available on average (~40 million 

gallons available vs. ~10 million gallons used per month in a 5-mile radius). However, more than 

half of the total is surface water making it very susceptible to droughts. Droughts will do more 

than drying up the surface water resource, it will also limit access to treated waste water and 

groundwater as conservation takes place and as more users rely on groundwater, respectively. 

From an economic standpoint all the alternative sources described in the study are very 

fragmented leading to a diffuse ownership and a likely expensive water gathering system. 

Task 7: Mechanical Vapor Recompression: This report presents process data on a full-scale 

(6,000-6,800 bbl/day) mechanical vapor recompression distillation (MVR) processing plant 

treating shale gas hydro-fracture flowback and produced water in North Central Texas (Barnett 

shale region). Process data were collected during a 60 day period. The pretreatment at this 

plant included caustic addition and clarification for total suspended solids and iron control. 

Pretreated water was distilled with three Aqua Pure MVR units, each rated at 2,000-2500 

bbl/day. Distilled water recovery averaged 72.5% of the influent to the MVR’s. The influent total 

dissolved solids (TDS) fed to the MVR’s averaged just under 50,000 mg/l. More than 97.5% of 

the TDS was captured in the concentrate stream. The distillate averaged less than 1,900 mg/l 

TDS. The overall treatment (entire facility) required 72 SFC per barrel treated, or 100 SCF per 

barrel distillate produced. Fountain Quail estimates that recycling must be simple, rugged,

proven and cost-effective. ROVER treatment (suspended solids removal only) is generally 

<$1/bbl and NOMAD treatment (MVR technology) can be from $3-$5/bbl, including labor, 

chemicals and equipment.

 

Task 8: Evaluation of Electrodialysis for Desalination of Flowback Waters: The treatment 

of flowback waters from shale gas hydrofracture with electrodialysis represented a dual 

technical challenge. Normal operation of electrodialysis is in the range of several thousand mg/l 

TDS and limited to several hundred mg/l calcium and magnesium. A number of problems were 

encountered that were systematically addressed as the project proceeded from the treatment of 

water containing pure sodium chloride (30,000-60,000 mg/l) to the treatment of solutions with 

sodium, calcium (up to 4,000 mg/l), barium (up to 400 mg/l), iron (up to 50 mg/l), and 

magnesium (up to 600 mg/l), and finally to the treatment of field samples from the Barnett and 
xiv

the Marcellus. A series of improvements and process recommendations are presented. The 

implementation of electrodialysis into an engineered water reuse systems appears economically 

feasible with and estimated cost of about $1 per barrel for water at 50,000 mg/l treated to a 

target of 10,000 mg/l. This compares beneficially to other competing costs, such as 

transportation, disposal, or advanced treatment such as mechanical vapor recompression.

Task 9: Development of Advanced Membrane Coatings: Reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, 

and ultrafiltration processes are potentially useful technologies for the desalination of flowback 

waters. The challenge in using membrane technology for produced water purification lies in 

fouling. Fouling is the build-up of particulate matter on the membrane either externally or 

internally which eventually inhibits its activity. Unlike regular seawater or brackish water, 

produced water contains many particulates, such as emulsified oils and organics, which 

aggressively foul the membrane. Polydopamine (PDOPA) was found to be an effective antifouling surface coating for UF, NF, and RO membranes for produced water purification. The 

deposition of PDOPA improved the permeate flux for all types of membranes studied during 

simulated oil/water emulsion filtration. For UF membranes, additional grafting by using 

poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) further enhanced the fouling resistance. Energy savings were 

estimated for the PDOPA-modified UF and RO membranes in oil/water emulsion filtration by 

comparing power required per permeate volume. With the same amount of energy provided by 

the pump, the modified RO membrane produced 1.27 times more permeate volume than 

unmodified RO membrane after 1 hour oil/water emulsion filtration. The modified UF membrane 

permeate volume increased by a factor of 2.35 after 1 hour of oil/water emulsion filtration. By 

translating these benefits for industrial membrane applications, PDOPA modification is 

estimated to provide savings for 30% of the capital and 40-80% of the operating costs. 

Task 10: Field Evaluation of Advanced Membrane Coatings: A 30 day field test of Antifouling Polymeric Membrane Coatings (developed at the University of Texas at Austin and 

licensed and marketed by Advanced Hydro, Inc.) was performed on shale flow-back ―frac‖ 

produced water. Flow-back water collected from various shale wells in the Barnett Shale area 

was processed with ultra-filtration (UF) and reverse osmosis (RO) membranes. Membranes 

coated with polydopamine and PEG-amine were tested for their resistance to fouling due to 

organic and inorganic foulants in the feed water. Non-coated membranes were used as control 

for performance comparison. Poly-vinylidene Fluoride (PVDF) based spiral wound flat-sheet 

and polyacrylo nitrile (PAN) based outside-in hollow-fiber UF membranes were used in this pilot 

for pre-filtration for feed water prior to desalination using Polyamide RO membranes. Coated 

hollow-fiber UF elements outperformed non-coated elements, in terms of better cleaning 

efficacy (recovery) and higher flux, by almost 50%. In addition, coated spiral wound UF 

elements were easily maintained with daily chemical enhanced clean and fully recovered with 

regular acid-base cleaning operation. The coated spiral elements achieved 106 hours run time 

without using a strong oxidant. The autopsy study revealed that UF membranes were fouled 

with organic substances, which could be mainly removed by acid/base clean. No significant flux 

loss was observed for both coated and non-coated seawater RO membranes during the pilot. 

Coated RO membrane demonstrated much better salt rejection than non-coated under high 

salinity conditions. This brief project provided validation of the coatings technology and its 

benefit for produced water purification. In addition, with improved salt rejection during 

desalination, a two stage nanofiltration or nano/RO membrane system with an optimized ultrafiltration (UF) or micro-filtration (MF) membrane is expected to enable membrane based 

purification of produced water while maximizing water productivity and minimizing maintenance 

and energy costs. 
xv

Task 11: Systems Engineering and Life Cycle Analysis: The objective of this task was to 

better understand the chemical and hydraulic character of flowback water generated during the 

fracture of shale formations, and how these may influence the planning of gas generation 

facilities over a forty five year life cycle of individual wells, fields of wells, and plays of multiple 

fields. Data collected at 19 wells in the Marcellus shale were analyzed for total salt production, 

flowback rates, and extrapolations for long term water recovery. The median Marcellus event 

was used to interpret water recovery during the expected life of a projected play based on the 

particular needs of gas generation in the Marcellus. A Microsoft Excel Visual-Basic systems 

model was developed to incorporate a range of operating criteria on the projected life-cycle of 

the play. The core model tracks up to 32 wells per field at up to 350 fields per play. 

Concentrations and flow may be simulated by any reasonable set of parameters, such as the 

median Marcellus event. The projections are made on a daily basis for up to 45 years from the 

first completion. The variables include, but are not limited to, individual closure dates, number 

of wells per field, number of wells per field, number of refractures, installation rate, mobilization 

rate, days between refracture, number of drilling rigs mobilized, and recovered water rate. The 

analyses show that there are three distinct periods in the life of a play; young age, middle age, 

and old age. The water flow and salt generation during each period will likely dictate a different 

water management strategy for each period. The magnitude of water and salt generation is 

exceedingly high and early planning for each period in the life of the play is recommended.
xvi

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronym Definition

AF Acre-foot = 325,850 gallons 

ASWCMC Appalachian Shale Water Conservation and Management Coalition

BBL or bbl Barrel (42 gallons)

BCF Billion Cubic Feet

BSWCMC Barnett Shale Water Conservation and Management Committee

BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes

C0 Concentration at well head (mg/l)

Cavg Average impoundment concentration (mg/l)

CS Brine concentration in the groundwater (mg/l)

CW Wwell head concentration (mg/l)

Flowback Water Water recovered in the weeks following hydraulic fracture

Frac Hydraulic Fracture

Frac Job Well completion event involving hydraulic fracturing

FSAP Field Sampling and Analysis Plan

FX 0.00035 conversion factor (mg/l x FX = pounds/barrel) 

GAM Groundwater Availability Model

k1 First order rate coefficient (days-1)

KDa Kilo-Darcy, Unit of Permeability

M Mass of salt (lb) recovered between VR = V1 to V2

MWCO Molecular Weight Cut Off

mg/l Milligrams per liter

MSC Marcellus Shale Coalition

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit

PA-DEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl Compound

POGAM Pennsylvania Oil & Gas Association

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works (Sewage Treatment Facility)

PPB Part per billion (≈μg/l)

PPM Part per million (≈mg/l)
xvii

Q Flowback recovery rate (bbl-day-1)

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

t Variable representing time (days)

T Time (days)

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

TCF Trillion Cubic Feet

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

VA Total volume of flowback (bbl) at end of flowback period

VF Total volume of fracture water used (bbl)

vR Variable volume of flowback recovered (bbl) at time t

VR Volume of flowback recovered (bbl) at time T

VU Total volume of fracture water unrecovered (bbl)

WV-DEP West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection

WWDB Texas Water Development Board

μg/l Micrograms per liter

MVR mechanical vapor recompression

SCF cubic foot of natural gas at standard temperature and pressure

TDS total dissolved solids (mg/l)
1

1 Introduction

The Barnett and Marcellus Shales are among the largest and most active natural gas plays in 

the U.S. covering all or part of 20 counties in North Texas and large areas of Pennsylvania, 

Ohio, New York, and West Virginia. Eagle Ford has become notable as one of the most rapidly 

expanding development regions, growing in permits from 33 and 94 in 2008 and 2009, 

respectively, to 1,229 drilling permits in 2010. These natural gas shale basins are shown in 

Figure 1-1. The Barnett area has approximately 2.5 trillion cf3of natural gas reserves and is 

estimated to contain up to 27 trillion cf3of recoverable natural gas (USGS, 2004; Clouser, 

2006). The Marcellus Play of the Appalachian Shale Region is larger in comparison to the 

Barnett. These unconventional plays require pumping of significant volumes of water for 

hydraulic fracturing to initiate natural gas production. 

Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is 

a necessary step for economic 

well performance, requiring 

between 1 and 5 million gallons 

of water, sand and chemicals to 

be injected downhole under 

high pressure for successful 

well completion. Vertical wells 

require approximately 1 million 

gallons and horizontal wells 

require 3-5 million gallons

according to a recent survey 

among Barnett Shale 

Producers. The same per-well 

water use applies to the 

Appalachian Shale. Of the total 

water used by the industry, frac 

jobs represent about 89% and drilling represents 10%. Water demand poses a number of 

challenges for industry in developing the Barnett and Appalachian Shales for natural gas 

production. The industry must procure large volumes of the water, often amid drought 

conditions. For example, large per-well water amounts multiplied by the 2,000 or more wells 

completed in the Barnett Region each year requires the industry to find more than 6 billion 

gallons per year for well completion. In 2005 and 2006, more than half of the water used for well 

drilling and completion came from groundwater aquifers; the other half came from surface 

waters.

Because well completion requires very large volumes of water, the pace of development of the 

Barnett and the Appalachian (Marcellus Play) areas can be potentially constrained by water 

availability; the same can be stated for other shale gas plays in water-stressed areas. To 

illustrate, one of the most rapidly growing communities in the U.S. (Dallas-Fort Worth) is 

situated in the Barnett Shale Region that is naturally limited in precipitation potentially limiting 

expansion of Barnett Shale development. 

Figure 1-1: Shale Gas Basins in the U.S.
2

Another issue is the cost of managing large volumes of brines that flow back out of the well after 

completion; this problem is important to most shale gas areas. Water, in fact, is central to many 

of the environmental impacts of shale gas development. Downhole, flowback water picks up 

salts, oils, and completion chemicals, rendering the water unsuitable for surface discharge; 

therefore the water is often disposed of by subsurface injection. 

For most shale gas plays, the management of water for fracturing is so large that it comprises a 

major annual cost in terms of transportation, handling, and environmental control. The 

movement of a million gallons of water from surface water impoundments to the well pad 

requires 210 trucks. Delivery of 4 million gallons of water would require over 840 truckloads. 

Movement of the flowback and produced waters collected after well completion requires 210 

truckloads for every million gallons of wastewater transported, if off-site disposal of the collected 

flowback water is required. Water handling and transportation affect multiple environmental 

factors including emissions, carbon footprint, traffic congestion, perceived public nuisance, 

public safety, and frequency of emergency spills and releases. 

Predominantly, the industry prefers to dispose of flowback and produced waters using Class II 

deep well injection if such disposal capacity is locally available and economically accessible. In 

areas of the U.S. where Class II wells are sparse (the Marcellus Shale has only 7 Class II wells 

which represents a very low capacity to accept produced waters and flowback), water reuse has 

been a logical alternative to pursue as is done in the Pennsylvania portion of the Marcellus 

Shale. In areas of the U.S. where severe limitations of water availability can arise from frequent 

occurrences of drought, shale gas developers have considered water reuse as a means of 

significantly reducing demands on sources of fresh water that compete with community water 

supplies. 

Information on water flows in the shale gas industry indicate that although each well completion 

represents a potential significant flowback water output equivalent to 5-35% of the influent 

water, it is also true that future hydraulic fractures represent substantial opportunities for the 

reuse of these waters, especially during the growth phase of each shale gas development area. 

The median flowback water volume collected from 19 locations in the Marcellus Shale was 

approximately 24 percent of the influent water volumes used for each completion operation. 

In recent years, water reuse (i.e. the strategy of recycling flowback and produced waters 

collected from a completed well and blending the recovered water with freshwater to supply the 

influent water for the next hydraulic fracturing event for a future well completion) has been 

increasingly embraced by the industry for its benefits in water conservation and in significantly 

reducing transportation. Every barrel that is reused within a well field area is one barrel less of 

fresh water required for the next frack job. Every barrel that is reused is also one less barrel of 

water that requires transportation and disposal. Reduced transportation means reduced traffic 

and road wear, a lower visibility with the public, less air emissions and lower carbon footprint ----

comprising environmental benefits on multiple levels. 

Various energy developers are working to define the minimum water quality specifications for 

the influent water used for effective hydraulic fracturing. The Barnett Shale Water Conservation 

and Management Committee conducted its own Frack Job Expert Panel to discuss the 

minimum quality of water required for hydraulic fracturing (Hayes, 2007). Among the top 

concerns was salinity of the final water blend to be injected during the frac job because high salt 

concentrations caused existing friction reducers to lose their effectiveness; high salinity made it 

necessary to add more friction reducers to avoid having to apply excessive downhole pressures 

for the frack job. A number of developers have examined brine treatment processes to 

condition waters for reuse. In addition to conventional processing for removing suspended 
3

solids, oils and greases, and microbes, energy companies have also evaluated membranes and 

thermal distillation (i.e. mechanical vapor recompression) for their efficacy in achieving recovery 

of demineralized water for reuse. 

Where flowback and produced water reuse are pursued, there are mainly two schools of 

thought that exist in the shale gas industry regarding overall approach. Approach ―A‖ is 

comprised of conditioning the brines for the removal of suspended solids, oils and greases, 

bacteria, and scale forming ions (i.e. constituents that potentially interfere with equipment and 

infrastructure maintenance) with no demineralization (desalination) prior to reuse. Currently, 

this approach is being used within the Marcellus Shale as the predominant shale gas water 

management practice. A more rigorous treatment (―Approach B‖) is comprised of treating shale 

gas water all the way to the recovery of distilled or demineralized water with the concomitant 

generation of a small volume of concentrated brine; this rigorous treatment approach is usually 

capable of recovering demineralized water equivalent to 70-80% of the original 

flowback/produced water stream. 

Against this backdrop, the industry has been active in a cooperative manner in understanding its 

water management issues and in evaluating effective management solutions. In 2006, the 

developer companies of the Fort Worth Basin formed the Barnett Shale Water Conservation and 

Management Committee with a mission to develop best management practices to ensure water 

is managed in an environmentally responsible manner. In the same spirit, the Appalachian 

Shale Water Conservation and Management Committee was formed in 2008 to provide the 

means of developer companies to cooperate together in identifying effective approaches for 

sustainable water management in the Marcellus Shale Play; this industry group was later 

integrated into the larger Marcellus Shale Coalition which addresses a more comprehensive 

scope of challenges related to the shale gas industry. Through involvement with all three 

organizations, GTI has been able to become a part of an on-going conversation in the industry 

concerning water management challenges and potential solutions. Informed by industry 

perspective and priorities of the Barnett and Appalachian Shale Regions, GTI with the input of 

the BSWCMC and the ASWCMC prepared a proposal to RPSEA with a scope of work that 

addressed the key issues identified by the industry. 

This is the ―final‖ report that describes the GTI research project supported by the RPSEA-NETL 

program; the project was entitled, ―Barnett and Appalachian Shale Water Management and 

Reuse Technologies‖. The overall purpose of the project was to pursue a number of research 

directions that address the priority challenges of the industry in shale gas water management. 

The project, which was initiated in August of 2009, has generated thirteen reports that discuss 

the methods, data and findings in considerable detail. This Final Report presents the most 

important information and highlights from these reporting deliverables which are available in 

electronic format from RPSEA upon request. 
4

2 Program Overview

Contract 

Number

08122-05 Start Date August, 2009 End Date March, 2012

Total Months 32 RPSEA Share $2,500,000 Cost Share $640,000

Prime 

Contractor

Gas 

Technology 

Institute

(GTI)

Subcontractors Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG), 

The University of Texas, Texerra, 

GeoPure Hydro Technologies, 

Advanced Hydro, Inc., and 

Environmental Process Dynamics.

Overall Objective

The overall objective of this proposal is to develop water management methods and 

technologies that reduce demands for freshwater, reduce environmental impact of brine 

disposal, and ensure supplies of water for well drilling and completion for natural gas 

development in the Barnett and Appalachian Shale Plays.

Scope of Work

The project employed a balanced approach aimed at improving technologies for water treatment 

for demineralization, water reuse, and water conservation. Specific areas of emphasis included: 

1) Evaluation of promising commercially-available technologies for water reuse; 2) Development 

of novel coatings to improve performance and cost of ultrafiltration, nanofiltration and reverse 

osmosis treatment technologies in the demineralization of flowback waters; 3) Development of 

electrodialysis reversal for low-cost produced water and flowback water demineralization; and, 

4) Identification and evaluation of alternate sources of water that may be useful as replacements 

for groundwater or surface waters that serve as community water supplies. The tasks of the 

project are described in Table 2-1. 

Table 2-1 Tasks of the GTI Project and Performing Organizations

Task # Task Description Performing Organizations

1 Prepare Project Management Plan. GTI

2 Prepare Technology Status Assessment. GTI

3 Pursue technology transfer activities. GTI 

4 Develop shale flowback / produced water 

characteristics information base. 

GTI

5 Determine the feasibility of low salt content early 

flowback water capture. 

Texerra

6 Determine the feasibility of locating and developing 

alternate sources of water in the Barnett for shale gas 

production that do not compete with community water 

Bureau of Economic Geology
5

Figure 2-1: Industry Needs Addressed by Project Tasks 

Task # Task Description Performing Organizations

supplies.

7 Conduct engineering evaluation of the field 

performance and cost of a Mechanical Vapor 

Recompression distillation unit in the demineralization 

of flowback and produced waters for shale gas water 

reuse.

GTI, Environmental Process 

Dynamics (EPD)

8 Develop electrodialysis for fouling-resistant, 

demineralization (desalination) of shale gas flowback 

and produced waters. 

GTI, Environmental Process 

Dynamics (EPD)

9 Develop innovative coatings for the improvement of 

ultrafiltration (UF), nanofiltration (NF) and reverse 

osmosis (RO) in the demineralization of shale gas 

flowback and produced waters.

The University of Texas (UT)

10 Evaluation of field performance of innovative coatings 

for UF and RO membranes in the treatment of shale 

gas flowback and produced waters. 

UT, GeoPure, Advanced 

Hydro, 

11 Engineering systems analysis of a preliminary water 

based life cycle model to forecast water issues for 

development areas and well fields. 

GTI, EPD

12 Project coordination with shale gas industry companies 

and committees and participate in periodic review with 

industry of the progress of the key activities. 

GTI

13 Prepare Final Report. GTI

Technical tasks in the above table are shown in the shaded areas, Tasks 4-11. The methods 

and accomplishments of these tasks are described in Chapters 4-11 of this report. The 

activities and accomplishments 

that contributed to Tasks 3 and 12 

are described in Chapter 12. 

Tasks 1 and 2 are planning and 

project scoping tasks that were 

requested by RPSEA; these 

tasks were completed and the 

reports for these tasks were 

submitted to RPSEA in the first 

month of the project before work 

on the other tasks were initiated. 

The tasks of the project were 

designed and planned with the 

input of the shale gas industry 

through the advice of companies 

in the BSWCMC. The tasks of 

Table 2-1 address key industry 

needs as described in Figure 2-1. 

As see in the figure, the water 
6

issues of the industry are diverse, ranging from conservation to addressing questions on 

chemical additives and flowback water composition, from meeting water quality specifications 

for reuse to reducing brine volumes to achieve cost reductions in transportation. Prediction and 

forecasting of water management issues and the severity and nature of the challenges the 

problems present is a relatively new industry need that has important implications in business 

planning, cost control and liability management; this is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 11 

which describes the Water Based Life Cycle Model and analysis results. 

Reporting Deliverables

Each of the chapters to follow will cite certain topical reports that contain more detailed 

information and were submitted to RPSEA for distribution. These 14 deliverable reports are 

described in Table 2-2. 

Table 2-2: Deliverable Reports that Are Referenced in the Final Report.

Title Authors

Development of Electrodialysis for Shale Gas Water Reuse. 

RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.01. November 2010. 

Blaine Severin, Tom Hayes

Membrane Fouling Reduction Test Plan – Processing Shale 

Gas Flowback and Produced Water. RPSEA Report No. 

08122-05.02. December 2010. 

Steve Shiner, Robert Hayes

Dileep Agnihotri, Richard Li

Xiaofei Huang, Peach Sirirat

Albert Li

Innovative UF / NF / RO Membrane Performance Through the 

Use of Innovative Coatings: Selection of Membrane Supports 

and Coatings for Barnett Well Flowback Water Separations. 

RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.03. November 2010. 

Albert Li, Sirirat Kasemset

Daniel J. Miller, Benny D. Freeman, 

Mukul M. Sharma

Feasibility of Using Alternative Water Sources for Shale Gas 

Well Completions – A Preliminary Guidance Document on the 

Current Practices in the Barnett. RPSEA Report No. 08122-

05.04. February 2011. 

Jean-Philippe Nicot

Field Assessment and Anti-Fouling Polymeric Membrane 

Coatings for Treatment of Barnett Shale Flowback Produced 

Water. RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.05. March 2011. 

Xiaofei Huang, Dileep Agnihotri

Benny D. Freeman, Robert Hayes

Sirirat Kasemset, Albert Lee

Hua Li, Mukul Sharma, Steve Shiner

Feasibility and Design Approach for Automatic Classification 

and Segregation of Early Flowback Water for Reuse in Shale 

Gas Hydraulic Fracturing. RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.06. 

July 2011. 

L. Peter Galusky

Feasibility Assessment of Early Flowback Water Recovery for 

Reuse in Subsequent Well Completions. RPSEA Report No. 

08122-05.07. October 2011. 

L. Peter Galusky

Feasibility of Using Alternative Water Sources for Shale Gas 

Well Completions. RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.08. January 

2012. 

Jean-Philippe Nicot, Brad D. Wolavar, 

Yun Huang, Teresa Howard, Ruth A. 

Costley, Cari Breton, Steven Walden, 

Russell Baier, and Gil Strassberg

Characterization of Flowback Waters from the Marcellus and 

the Barnett Shale Regions. RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.09. 

February 2012. 

Thomas D. Hayes, Blaine F. Severin

Preliminary Engineering Systems Analysis of Shale Gas Water 

Management. RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.10. February 

2012. 

Thomas D. Hayes, Blaine F. Severin
7

Title Authors

Engineering Decision Tool for the Evaluation of Mechanical 

Vapor Recompression for the Treatment of Shale Gas 

Flowback Water. RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.11. February 

2012. 

Thomas D. Hayes

Blaine F. Severin

Evaluation of Electrodialysis in the Demineralization of Shale 

Gas Flowback Waters. RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.12. 

February 2012. 

Blaine F. Severin

Thomas D. Hayes

Novel Fouling-Resistant Membranes for Barnett Shale Water 

Management and Reuse. RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.13. 

February 2012.

Albert Lee, Sirirat Kasemset

Daniel J. Miller, Benny D. Freeman, 

Mukul M. Sharma

Final Report: Barnett and Appalachian Shale Water 

Management and Reuse Technologies. RPSEA Report No. 

08122-05.14. March 2012

Thomas D. Hayes, 

Blaine F. Severin

Accomplishments

In general, all goals that were established for the tasks of this project have been achieved. 

Looking across all activities of the project, the most important accomplishments are as follows:

1. Reduced energy demands for membrane-based demineralization of shale gas waters by 

more than 35% through the use of innovative coatings on the membrane surfaces of 

ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis. This was successfully demonstrated in the lab and in 

the field. 

2. Innovative coatings for RO are now commercially available from Advanced Hydro and 

applied in the shale gas production field by GeoPure. 

3. Reduced energy demands for electrodialysis (ED) demineralization of flowback water by 

more than 40% and chemical inputs by 65% compared to conventional ED processing. 

Improvements in design have led to three invention disclosures for robust, foulingresistant, processing of high-hardness flowback and produced waters. 

4. Verified the successful operation of a high-efficiency, mechanical vapor recompression 

(MVR) in the conversion of flowback and produced waters under actual field conditions 

over a prolonged period. 

5. Developed an integrated flowback water characteristics information base for the Barnett 

and Marcellus shale plays. 

6. Completed a GIS framework and protocol for locating and estimating significant alternate 

water sources of water for shale gas development that do not compete with community 

water supplies in the Barnett Shale Region. 

7. Developed a means of capturing low-salt-concentrated water through an automated water 

flow segregation method based on in-line conductance measurements and automatic 

switching of flows into separate basins as flowback water is generated from a frac job. 

8. Tech Transfer: Participated in six workshops and numerous technical forums with 13 

presentations (see listing). 
8

Significant Findings

Completed data collection for an 8-week detailed evaluation of a patented mechanical 

vapor recompression (MVR) process operated by Fountain Quail at a Devon Energy 

water reuse facility under highly varied influent conditions. Results indicated that the 

MVR technology was able to process produced water with salt concentrations up to 

60,000 mg/l while achieving demineralized water recovery efficiencies exceeding 74% at 

modest natural gas utilization levels averaging only 48 scf per barrel (42 gal) of brine fed 

to the process. 

Innovative polydopamine coatings from University of Texas (UT) applied to ultrafiltration 

(UF) and reverse osmosis (RO) membranes have significantly reduced fouling by more 

than half, doubled membrane life and have reduced energy requirements for produced 

water treatment (demineralization) by more than 35%. 

Using the UT coatings incorporated into commercial membrane modules, an 

Experimental Test Unit operated in the field by GeoPure (assisted by Advanced Hydro 

and UT) operated for more than 30 days on flowback and produced waters at a Devon 

water reuse facility. Under field conditions compared to conventional membranes, 

coated membranes substantially reduced fouling and enhanced salt rejection 

performance (< 99.9%) throughout the duration of field testing with brines at 

concentrations of up to 55,000 mg/l of total dissolved solids. 

Low-cost design modifications for electrodialysis (ED) implemented by GTI and 

Environmental Process Dynamics (EPD) have been successful at reducing energy costs 

by more than 40% while lowering chemical costs required for cleaning by more than 

65%. Several new design features (including an automated clean-in-place mechanism) 

that have been incorporated into the process have enabled electrodialysis to handle 

actual shale gas waters (from four locations in the Barnett and Marcellus Regions) of 

high hardness (elevated calcium, barium and magnesium) for extended periods without 

fouling. 

3 Organization of Report

The content of this report was provided by all of the subcontractor organizations that comprised 

the GTI Project Team. The Project Team consisted of GTI, the Bureau of Economic Geology 

(BEG), The University of Texas, Texerra, GeoPure Hydro Technologies, Advanced Hydro, Inc., 

and Environmental Process Dynamics. Specific chapter contributions to the Final Report were 

provided by the following authors and Affiliated organizations.

Table 3-1: Authorship of the Technical Chapters of the Final Report

Chapter # Chapter Description Authors

4 Characterization of Flowback 

Water

Thomas D. Hayes1and Blaine F. Severin2

5 Feasibility of Capture of Low-TDS 

Early Flowback Waters

L.Peter Galusky3 Thomas D. Hayes, and 

Blaine F. Severin
9

Chapter # Chapter Description Authors

6 Alternate Water Sources for the 

Barnett Shale

Jean-Philippe Nicot4, Brad D. Wolaver4, Yun 

Huang4, Teresa Howard5, Ruth A. Costley4, 

Cari Breton3, Steven Walden6, Russell Baier6, 

Gil Strassberg7, Ed McGlynn4, Mary Hingst4, 

Joy Mercier4, and Cliff Lam4 

7 Evaluation of Mechanical Vapor 

Recompression Under Field 

Conditions

Thomas D. Hayes and Blaine F. Severin

8 Evaluation of Electrodialysis for 

Desalination of Flowback Waters

Blaine F. Severin and Thomas D. Hayes

9 Development of Advanced 

Membrane Coatings

Albert Lee8, Sirirat Kasemset8, 

Daniel J. Miller8,

Dr. Benny D. Freeman8, and 

Dr. Mukul M. Sharma9

10 Field Evaluation of Advanced 

Membrane Coatings

Daniel J. Miller, Sirirat Kasemset, Albert Lee8, 

Mukul Sharma, Benny Freeman, 

Xiaofei Huang10, Hua Li10 , Dileep Agnihotri10

Steve Shiner11 and Robert Hayes11

11 Systems Engineering and Water 

Based Life Cycle Analysis

Thomas D. Hayes and Blaine F. Severin

 Affiliations 

1: Gas Technology Institute, Des Plaines, IL

2: Environmental Process Dynamics, Inc., Okemos, MI

3: Texerra, Monument, CO

4: Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, TX

5: Center for Space Research, The University of Texas at Austin, TX

6: Steve Walden Consulting, Austin, TX

7: Gil Strassberg Consultant, Austin, TX

8: Department of Chemical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, TX

9: Department of Petroleum & Geosystems Engineering, The University of Texas, Austin, TX

10: Advanced Hydro Inc., Austin, TX

11: GeoPure Hydro Technologies, Fort Worth, TX

Each of the above chapters contains concise descriptions of the rationale, approach, goals, 

achievements, deliverables, benefits and implications of each technical effort, as per the 

standard final report format requested by RPSEA. Each chapter corresponds to an individual 

task that was conducted within the GTI project. The details of each effort are provided by 

topical reports that were prepared and submitted during the performance of the project. The 

topical reports (thirteen total) are available upon request from RPSEA as they are approved for 

release to the public in 2012. The summary final report plus 13 topical reports allow a large 

amount of information, organized along tasks, to be electronically disseminated as pdf 

documents in file sizes (< 10 megs) that are easily downloaded from the RPSEA website or sent 

by email. 
10

4 Characterization of Flowback Waters from the Marcellus and the 

Barnett (Task 4)

Rationale

This report addresses water management needs by elucidating the chemical nature of flowback 

waters from 19 sites in the Marcellus region of Pennsylvania and West Virginia and 5 sites from 

the Barnett region of northern Texas. The database includes flowback rates, volumes, and 

chemical analyses of the injected water and the recovered flowback water. Chemical analyses 

include general chemical information typically used for drinking water analyses. Additionally, 

the waters were tested for 70 volatile organics, 116 semi-volatile organics, 22 pesticides, PCB’s, 

and 27 metals. The list of chemicals evaluated for this project was co-developed by industrial 

partners, and state environmental agency representatives. 

Objectives

The objective of Task 4 was to present a broad spectrum analysis of the water chemistry in 

flowback waters from two distinct geographical regions. It is hoped that these data will guide 

future development of reuse plans, treatment options, and water testing criteria being developed 

by industry and agencies. 

Goals

A major aim of the characterization study was to generate technically sound data. 

The field sampling and analysis plan and the quality assurance project plan together comprise 

the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) (Hayes and Severin, 2012). The SAP was designed to 

meet the following informational goals:

Identify specific constituents of interest (COI) associated with flowback water;

Determine whether hydraulic fracturing additives are a source of COI in the management 

of water associated with shale gas development; and, 

Provide sufficient information for the selection of proper water management and disposal 

techniques.

Approach

Seventeen member companies of the Marcellus Shale Coalition volunteered 19 locations for the 

sampling of influent and effluent water streams. Two companies provided access to five sites in 

the Barnett. At each location, a well completion was conducted using hydraulic fracturing 

procedures that involved the injection of an influent stream of water and the subsequent 

collection of a flowback water. Standard procedures were used to conduct sampling and 

analysis needed for the development of water characterization data. All sampling was 

performed by the GTI subcontractor, URS, following the same standard procedures. All sample 

analyses were performed by a single laboratory, Test America of Pittsburgh, PA. 
11

Prior to initiating the characterization study, the SAP was reviewed by regulatory officials from 

the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) and the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP). 

The original SAP proposed that four (4) grab samples from six (6) vertical or horizontal well 

locations throughout West Virginia and Pennsylvania. The following grab samples were 

proposed: 

One baseline fracturing water sample that includes the fracturing chemicals, excluding 

the sand;

Flowback water samples will be collected on days 1, 5 and 14 of the following the 

fracturing process (Marcellus samples) days 1, 3, 5 and 10 for sites in the Barnett.

Water from an existing producing well at 90 days (Marcellus) and day 10 (Barnett) 

following hydraulic fracturing.

The list of constituents recommended for the characterization study was developed from 

comments received from the PADEP, the WVDEP and members of the Appalachian Shale 

Water Conservation and Management Committee (ASWCMC). Because the recommended list 

of constituents was extremely extensive, it was decided that one sample from each site would 

be completed for the full list of recommended constituents. All other samples were collected 

and analyzed for a subset of these constituents, which was designed based on generator 

knowledge. A complete list of all the chemicals sought for in the analyses is presented in the 

full topical report for Task 4 (Hayes and Severin - RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.09, 2012).

Results from the Marcellus

The flow volumes and total salt concentration profiles for the Marcellus data base have been 

reviewed extensively elsewhere (see Hayes and Severin - RPSEA 08122-05.09, 2012) and are 

not reproduced, herein, for brevity. 

General Chemistry: A summary of the general chemical characteristics of the water influent 

streams (raw water) and the fracture water associated with the initiation of the fracing process 

are presented in Table 4-1. Raw Source water is compared against blended water containing 

conditioning chemicals (minus sand). Dissolved solids measurements for the influent waters 

used for hydraulic fracturing (with additives) had a median value of 735 mg/l, which is 

considered in the range of fresh surface water supplies. Oil and grease measurements had a 

median value of almost 30 mg/l with a range of 0.5 to 255 mg/l. Total organic carbon had a 

range of 5.6 to 1,260 mg/l with a median of 226 mg/l; elevated values in these measurements 

may be due to various degrees of blending of reused waters into frac job influent water supplies. 

Additives blended into the raw water, or reused water blended into the supply resulted in slight 

increases in some water quality parameters such as BOD, COD, total Kjeldahl nitrogen and 

ammonia.
12

Table 4-1: Summary of Chemical Characteristics of Water Used for Hydraulic Fracture 

Marcellus Samples

Parameter

Raw Source1 Water Blended3,4 Frac Water

Range Median Range Median Units

pH 6.7-7.3 7.1 6.0 - 8.9 7.2 No Units

Acidity < 5 – 5.5 < 5 < 5 - 1230 < 5 mg/l

Total Alkalinity 6.2 – 88.8 71.4 < 1 – 308 81.8 mg/l

Hardness as CaCO3 18 - 1,080 140 26 - 9,500 130.0 mg/l

Total Suspended Solids <2 – 24 9.6 < 2 - 5,290 155.0 mg/l

Turbidity 1.3 – 33.7 4.3 2.7 – 715 249.0 NTU

Chloride 4.1 – 3,000 42.3 18 - 10,700 90.2 mg/l

Total Dissolved Solids251 – 5,510 390 221 - 27,800 735.0 mg/l

Specific Conductance 54.8 – 10,100 466 177 - 34,600 726.0 umhos/cm

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen < 2.3 – 56.4 2.2 2.3 – 400 33.5 mg/l

Ammonia Nitrogen < 0.24 – 20.8 0.52 0.58 – 441 5.9 mg/l

Nitrate-Nitrite < 0.01 – 3.0 0.51 < 0.032 - 0.34 0.1 mg/l

Nitrite as N < 0.0032 – 4.9 < 0.0032 < 2.0 – 1740 271.0 mg/l

Biochemical Oxygen 

Demand < 2.0 – 110 < 2.0 < 4.3 - 47,400 1730.0 mg/l

Chemical Oxygen Demand < 4.3 – 924 18.4 5.6 - 1,260 226.0 mg/l

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 1.8 – 202 3.8 5 - 1,270 301.0 mg/l

Dissolved Organic Carbon 1.4 – 222 3.2 < 0.49 – 255 29.2 mg/l

Oil & Grease (HEM) - < 0.5 < 1.7 – 680 4.6 mg/l

Cyanide, Total < 1.7 – 625 < 1.7 < 0.005 - 0.87 < 0.005 μg/l

Amenable Cyanide < 0.005 - 0.3 < 0.005 < 0.014 – 107 0.9 mg/l

Bromide < 0.0014 – 1.9 0.14 < 0.004 - 58.3 0.004 mg/l

Fluoride < 0.004 - 1.2 < 0.004 < 1.2 - 8.8 < 1.2 mg/l

Total Sulfide 1.2 - 5.6 1.6 < 0.031 – 2920 50.3 mg/l

Sulfate 3.8 – 139 43.7 < 0.03 – 16 0.14 mg/l

Total Phosphorus < 0.03 – 0.1 0.044 < 0.0057 - 0.77 0.033 mg/l

Total Recoverable

Phenolics 0.0057 - 0.14 0.0065 0.05 – 0.50 0.05 mg/l

Methylene Blue Active 

Substances (MBAS)30.05 – 0.50 0.05 6.0 - 8.9 7.2 mg/l

1

 Water Supplies at 7 Locations: F, H, I, J, L, M, S. 2 Upper end concentrations in the TDS range may be due to 

implementation of flowback water reuse and blending into the influent stream. 3 Data analysis for 8 Locations: D, 

F, H, I, J, M, N, S. 4 Additives included corrosion inhibitors, scale inhibitors, friction reducers, biocides, and 

oxygen scavengers. Blended water samples were taken before the addition of sand. 

Results from Day 1 and Day 14 are presented in Table 4-2. Day 1 results, in general, show a 

huge range of values, indicating the rapid change in concentrations with initiation of flowback. 

By Day 5, most sites are demonstrating concentrations trending toward the maximum seen by 

Day 14 or Day 90. Day 14 results, in general, show a large range of values, based on one 

sample from Site K that was generally less concentrated than the 5 Day sample. Day 5 and 

Day 90 data may be found in the full report (See Hayes and Severin – RPSEA Report No. 

08122-05.09, 2012). 

All water samples show relatively modest alkalinity with median values of 85–120 mg/l, 

reflecting low carbonate concentrations which allows for very high concentrations of soluble 

calcium. This confers a very high hardness on the water as evidenced by median hardness 

values of 17,700 and 34,000 mg/l for the 5-day and 14-day sample sets, respectively. Cations 

are dominated by sodium and calcium in this water; anions are dominated by chloride. 
13

Table 4-2: Range of Results from 1 and 14 Day Samples

Levels of total organic carbon (TOC) in the flowback water samples at 5 and 14 days (with 

median values of 63 and 39 mg/l) are substantially lower (by about 75%) than the TOC of the 

blended influent water with additives; a possible reason for this is that the polyacrylamide friction 

reducers exert a TOC in the influent stream and are removed as water resides in the down-hole 

environment. The same observation is made in comparing biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) 

values in flowback water with the BOD of the influent water streams; in general, the BOD levels 

of the 5-day and 14-day flowback waters are less than half the influent BOD concentrations. 

The moderate levels of BOD in the influent waters may have resulted from carbonaceous algae 

growth in the source water or resulted from the biodegradable nature of the additives (e.g. 

polyacrylamide friction reducing compounds). The loss of friction reducing compounds due to 

adherence to surfaces downhole may be responsible for the lower BOD concentrations in 

flowback waters.

Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOC): Samples collected from Locations A through S were 

analyzed for 70 volatile compounds of highly varied chemical characteristics, including the 

General Chemistry Day 1 Day 14 (17 Sites Reporting)

Range Median Range Median Units

pH 5.9 - 7.9 7.4 4.9 - 6.8 6.2 No Units

Acidity ND 19.4 - 473 114 mg/l

Total Alkalinity 107 - 577 251 26.1 - 121 85.2 mg/l

Hardness as CaCO3 156 - 25,000 4,150 630 - 95,000 34,000 mg/l

Total Suspended Solids 6.8 - 522 71 17 - 1150 209 mg/l

Turbidity 10 - 461 52.1 10.5 - 1090 233 NTU

Chloride 64.2 - 151,000 9,890 1,670 - 181,000 78,100 mg/l

Total Dissolved Solids 680 - 122,000 18,900 3,010 - 261,000 120,000 mg/l

Specific Conductance 479 - 645,000 37,750 6,800 - 570,000 256,000 umhos/cm

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 14.2 - 158 52.9 5.6 - 261 116 mg/l

Ammonia Nitrogen 2.8 - 173 32 3.7 - 359 121 mg/l

Nitrate-Nitrite 0.01 - 2.8 0.5 0.025 - 0.92 0.25 mg/l

Nitrite as N ND - 6.7 3.1 1.7 - 77.4 18.75 mg/l

Biochemical Oxygen

Demand

27.6 - 1,440 327.5 2.8 - 2070 39.8 mg/l

Chemical Oxygen 

Demand

397 - 10,700 1,660 228 - 21,900 8530 mg/l

Total Organic Carbon 2.2 - 672 142 1.2 - 509 38.7 mg/l

Dissolved Organic

Carbon

20.2 - 657 253 5 - 695 43 mg/l

Oil & Grease (HEM) 5.7 - 53.9 13.7 7.4 - 103 30.8 mg/l

Cyanide, Total 6.6 - 177 21.5 1.9 - 7.4 5 ug/L

Bromide 35.5 - 376 120 15.8 - 1,600 704 mg/l

Fluoride 0.077 - 32.9 0.975 ND - 2 - mg/l

Total Sulfide 1.6 - 3.2 1.6 1.6 - 3.2 2 mg/l

Sulfate 10.7 - 348 46 0.078 - 89.3 40 mg/l

Total Phosphorus 0.037 - 21.8 0.18 0.035 - 2.2 0.115 mg/l

Total Recoverable 0.007 - 0.064 0.027 0.006 - 0.31 0.016 mg/l
14

volatile hydrocarbon constituents that are normally found in produced water (such as benzene, 

toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes – or BTEX, and naphthalene) as well as constituents not 

known to be associated with conventional produced water such as chlorinated solvents and 

halogenated aromatics. 

Source water (fracture water) data (Day 0 minus sand) are presented in Table 4-3. Of 1330 

measurements, only 92 observations of volatile compounds were made. Acetone was 

measured in 12 samples, representing the use of acetone as a component of the additives. 

BTEX and alkylated benzene isomers likely represent a component of water reuse from 

previous sites. Traces of halogenated solvents occasionally occur at the part per billion level. 

Apparently, the additives used in the fracking process do not manifest themselves amongst the 

most problematic volatile components. 

Table 4-3: Influent Water (Fracture Water) Day 0 (minus sand) from Marcellus Database

The organic components, unlike total salts, do not follow a timed based profile. In general, their 

appearance in the flowback waters appears anywhere from low and constant or intermittent and 

random. As such, the best means of presenting the volatile data for the 19 sites is to present 

tablulated distributions, ie., the number of observations within a stated concentration range. 

Table 4-4 shows the distribution of observations for all 60 samples. As an example, pIsopropyltoluene was observed once at a concentration between 50–99 μg/l, twice between 10–

49 μg/l, once between 1-4.9 μg/l, and undetected (ND) in 56 samples. Many of the compounds 

were observed only once in sixty samples, making them either incidental or mistaken. No 

compound was encountered in all sixty samples. The chemical most likely to be observed was 

Volatiles Observations Range μg/l Median μg/l

Naphthalene 7 0.55- 820 3.8

n - Propylbenzene 1 ND- 2

1, 2, 4 - Trimethylbenzene 10 0.72- 140 9.15

1, 3, 5 - Trimethylbenzene 7 2.8- 100 7.7

Isopropylbenzene 2 0.95- 0.95 0.95

2 - Butanone 2 3.6- 7.5 5.55

Xylenes (total) 11 2.6- 210 18

sec - Butylbenzene 2 3.2- 84 43.6

Acetone 12 5.4- 170 17.5

Benzene 4 2.2- 6.7 6.7

Bromodichloromethane 1 ND- 2

Bromoform 4 7.8- 9.3 8.55

Carbon disulfide 4 1.6- 54,000 12,250

Chloroform 1 ND- 2.4

Dibromochloromethane 1 ND- 2.1

1, 2 - Dichloroethane 1 ND 2.6

Ethylbenzene 5 0.81- 19 1.7

Methylene chloride 1 ND- 13

Tetrachloroethene 2 1.3- 1.4

Toluene 13 0.93- 81 5.6

Trichloroethene 1 ND- 0.81

Total Observations 92 of 1330 measurements
15

acetone in 48 of sixty samples. Thirty-five of the compounds from the volatiles list were never 

observed. In total, 4200 measurements were taken and 3710 of them were ―non-detects.‖

Table 4-4: Number of Observations of 70 Volatile Compounds in All 60 Marcellus Samples 

(Days 1-90)

Number of Observations

>1000

500-

999

100-

499

50-

99

10-

49

5-

9.9

1-

4.9

NDBetween Limits, ug/l 1 ND 

p - Isopropyltoluene 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 56

Naphthalene 0 2 1 0 2 0 8 3 44

n - Propylbenzene 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 58

1, 2, 3 - Trichlorobenzene 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 58

1, 2, 4 - Trichlorobenzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 59

1, 2, 4 - Trimethylbenzene 0 4 1 5 8 2 14 5 21

1, 3, 5 - Trimethylbenzene 0 3 2 1 7 6 7 2 32

Isopropylbenzene 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 2 53

2 - Butanone 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 55

Xylenes (total) 4 1 8 0 8 7 7 0 25

n - Butylbenzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 59

sec - Butylbenzene 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 58

Acetone 4 1 9 2 26 5 0 0 12

Acrylonitrile 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 59

Benzene 3 1 7 1 2 7 7 1 31

Bromoform 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 59

Bromomethane 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 59

Carbon disulfide 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 55

Chloroform 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 58

Chloromethane 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 57

Ethylbenzene 0 1 4 1 6 1 5 3 39

Methylene chloride 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 57

4 - Methyl - 2 - pentanone (MIBK) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 59

Styrene 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 59

Tetrachloroethene 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 59

Toluene 5 4 4 2 3 2 19 2 19

All 35 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2450

Total 18 17 42 17 69 38 79 19 3710

Constituents that exceeded 100 ppb included components that are commonly present in 

conventional produced water, such as naphthalene, BTEX, several methylated benzene 

compounds and an alkylated toluene (p-isopropyltoluene). Few determinations of these 

compounds exceeded 1 ppm and only one occurrence was above 2 ppm. In the locations 

where BTEX was measured at levels above 100 ppb, BTEX levels in the 5-day and 14-day 

flowback waters that were in contact with the natural gas producing formation were generally 

higher than BTEX concentrations in the influent water streams, indicating that these compounds 

are naturally occurring and not the result of additives. Levels of BTEX and methylated 

aromatics vary from location to location. Determination of factors that control levels of these 
16

compounds could potentially be determined through a correlation of the composition of volatiles 

and other flowback water characteristics with the key shale gas development parameters of 

geographic area, depth of wells, completion methods, etc. 

In total, 4200 chemical tests for VOC’s were performed in the 60 sample data set. Of these 

observations, 3710 were below detection limits and 472 were below 1 ppm (μg/l). Those 

samples (18 total) above 1 ppm included acetone, xylenes, carbon disulfide, and toluene. 

Figure 4-1 is a distribution plot showing these basic trends.

Semivolatile Compounds: A total of 112 semivolatile organic compounds were included in the 

analysis of influent water and in flowback water samples. A summary of the results for the 

semivolatile determinations on hydraulic fracturing influent water samples (consisting of the 

influent water plus chemical additives minus sand) is presented in Table 4-5. The most 

commonly-encountered semivolatiles belong to the phthalate ester group, probably representing 

trace compounds introduced as plasticizers. Pyridine is commonly encountered and possibly 

represents a trace residue from the manufacture of some of the polymeric additives (such as 

friction reducers). 

Observations in 60 Samples from the Marcellus 4200

3710

472

18

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

All Samples ND <1PPM > 1PPM Number of Observations

Figure 4-1: Distribution of Observations for 70 Volatile Organics in 60 Samples from the Marcellus
17

Table 4-5: Semi-Volatile Content in 19 Marcellus Influent Samples (Fracture Water)

For all flowback waters (days 1-90), semi-volatile compound determinations that were 

detectable are listed in Table 4-6. As seen in this table, only four semivolatile constituents were 

measured in any of the samples at levels exceeding 10 ppb. Acetophenone and aniline are 

commonly associated with fossil fuels, as are the methylated phenols. The only compound that 

was measured above 1 ppm was pyridine. Pyridine is a nucleophile used widely in the 

manufacture of certain chemicals and pharmaceuticals. Its presence may be due to its use as a 

precursor in the manufacture of one of the hydraulic fracturing additives. Most of the 

semivolatile determinations were either non-detect (> 96% of the measurements) or at low trace 

levels (Figure 4-2). 

Source Water Day 0

Observations

In 19 Samples Range, μg/l

Median of

Observations, μg/l

Acetophenone 1 ND - 0.97 0.97

Benzo (a) anthracene 1 ND - 1.1 1.1

Benzo (a) pyrene 1 ND - 6.9 6.9

Benzo (b) fluoranthene 1 ND - 11 11

Benzo (ghi) perylene 1 ND - 7.4 7.4

Benzo (k) fluoranthene 1 ND - 6.7 6.7

Benzyl alcohol 2 74 - 74 74

bis (2 - Chloroethyl) - ether 1 ND - 4300 4300

bis (2 - Ethylhexyl) phthalate 11 2 - 21 9.4

Butyl benzyl phthalate 1 ND - 5.1 5.1

Chrysene 1 1.7 - 1.7 1.7

Dibenz (a, h) anthracene 1 ND - 12 12

Di - n butyl phthalate 9 0.29 - 1.7 0.6

1, 2 - Dichlorobenzene 1 ND - 0.68 0.68

1, 4 - Dichlorobenzene 1 ND - 0.6 0.6

2, 6 - Dichlorophenol 1 ND - 2 2

Diethyl phthalate 2 0.49 - 1.8 1.145

2, 4 - Dimethylphenol 1 ND - 0.39 0.39

Fluoranthene 1 ND - 5.5 5.5

Fluorene 2 0.83 - 1.2 1.015

Indeno (1, 2, 3 - cd) pyrene 2 10 - 10 10

2 - Methylnaphthalene 7 1.3 - 300 7.5

Naphthalene 6 0.61 - 1800 4.3

Phenanthrene 7 0.28 - 24 1.3

2 - Picoline 1 ND - 5.3 5.3

Pyrene 3 0.19 - 0.54 0.22

Pyridine 9 0.91 - 510 17

All 89 Other Chemicals 0 ND ND
18

Table 4-6: Number of Observations of 116 Semi-volatile Compounds in All 60 Marcellus 

Samples

Number of Observations

>1000

500-

999

100-

499

50-

99

10-

49

5-

9.9

1-

4.9

NDBetween Limits ug/l 0.99 ND 

Diphenylamine 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 58

1, 4 - Dioxane 1 0 0 0 15 9 4 2 29

Acenaphthene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 57

Acenaphthylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 59

Acetophenone 0 0 0 0 6 3 6 9 36

Aniline 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 58

Benzo (a) anthracene 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 58

Benzo (a) pyrene 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 58

Benzo (b) fluoranthene 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 58

Benzo (ghi) perylene 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 57

Benzo (k) fluoranthene 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 58

Benzyl alcohol 0 0 1 0 2 3 1 0 53

bis (2 - Chloroethyl) - ether 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 59

bis (2 - Ethylhexyl) phthalate 0 2 0 0 8 9 15 1 25

Butyl benzyl phthalate 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 56

Chrysene 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 58

Dibenz (a, h) anthracene 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 58

Di - n butyl phthalate 0 0 1 1 3 2 5 10 38

1, 2 - Dichlorobenzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 58

1, 3 - Dichlorobenzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 59

1, 4 - Dichlorobenzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 58

Diethyl phthalate 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 4 47

2, 4 - Dimethylphenol 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 2 50

Dimethyl phthalate 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 59

Di - n - octyl phthalate 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 0 52

Disulfoton 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 59

Ethyl methanesulfonate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60

Fluoranthene 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 53

Fluorene 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 8 48

Hexachlorobenzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 58

Indeno (1, 2, 3 - cd) pyrene 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 58

2 - Methylnaphthalene 0 0 3 2 0 0 9 6 40

2 - Methylphenol 0 0 0 0 3 6 2 3 46

3 - Methylphenol & 4 - Methylphenol 0 0 0 0 7 3 3 13 34

Naphthalene 1 1 0 0 3 1 5 5 44

4 - Nitroaniline 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 59

N - Nitrosodiphenylamine 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 59

Phenanthrene 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 7 46

Phenol 0 0 0 0 5 0 4 2 49

2 - Picoline 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 58

Pyrene 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 5 51

Pyridine 2 2 21 4 5 3 6 0 17

1, 2, 4 - Trichlorobenzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 58

All 74 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4440

Total 4 5 26 7 69 57 109 90 6593
19

Pesticides: Determinations of the 20 chlorinated pesticides and three organophosphorus 

pesticides were conducted on the influent and 14-day flowback water streams (Hayes and 

Severin, RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.09, 2012). None of these pesticides were detected. This 

would suggest that no chlorinated pesticides were introduced with the additives with the influent 

water during well completions. 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) : Determinations of the 7 polychlorinated biphenyl 

compounds were conducted on the influent and 14-day flowback water streams; the specific 

arochlors measured in samples are listed in a previous topical report to RPSEA (Hayes and 

Severin, RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.09). All determinations for PCBs were measured as nondetect. This would suggest that no PCBs were introduced with the additives with the influent 

water during well completions. 

Metals: Total metals data for the six raw water samples and the 19 influent water samples with 

additives are presented in Table 4-7. For the most part, the differences in the ranges of 

concentration between the two sample sets can be explained by the differences expected for 

the different population (6 vs 19 samples). There is an added unknown statistical bias in the 

subset of the number of samples in the influent utilizing blended (reused) water versus the 

number of raw water sources utilizing fresh water. 

Distribution of Semi-Volatile Concentrations in

 60 Marcellus Flowback Samples

6960

6593

363

4

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

All Tests ND <1 ppm >1ppm Number of Observations

Figure 4-2: Distribution of Observations of Semi-Volatiles in all 60 Marcellus Flowback Samples from 19 Sites
20

Table 4-7: Metals Data in Raw Water and Source Water with Additives

Concentrations in

μg/l

Raw Water day 0

6 Samples

Influent with Additives

19 Samples

Obs Range Median Obs Range Median

Aluminum 4 0.122 - 0.264 0.213 5 0.177 - 2 0.4

Antimony 2 0.0146 - 0.0154 0.015 1 0.015 - 0.0154 0.0154

Arsenic 0 0

Barium 6 0.243 - 5.48 0.589 6 0.108 - 87.1 1.005

Beryllium 0 0

Boron 5 0.0189 - 2.45 0.0343 5 0.019 - 2.58 0.0433

Calcium 6 4.88 - 40.1 31.75 6 6.69 - 241 32.2

Cadmium 1 0.0017 - 0.0017 0.0017 1 0.002 - 0.0017 0.0017

Cobalt 0 ND 0 ND

Chromium 0 ND 0 ND

Chrome III 0 ND 0 ND

Copper 0 ND 1 0.045 - 0.0445 0.0445

Iron 6 0.192 - 4.31 0.4995 6 0.137 - 3.56 0.4455

Lead 0 ND 0 ND

Lithium 3 0.0338 - 2.24 0.0422 3 0.03 - 2.34 2.05

Magnesiium 6 1.08 - 183 5.845 6 1.25 - 183 13.87

Manganese 6 0.0087 - 0.237 0.0817 5 0.008 - 0.395 0.127

Molybdenum 0 ND 0 ND

Nickel 1 ND 0.0111 0.0111 1 0.02 - 0.0195 0.0195

Potassium 4 2.36 - 53.6 2.89 4 2.25 - 57.4 7.265

Sodium 6 4.2 - 1380 31.05 6 32.6 - 1460 59.5

Selenium 0 ND 1 0.035 - 0.0353 0.0353

Tin 0 ND 0 ND

Strontium 6 0.352 - 76.2 0.6785 6 0.206 - 78.5 0.919

Titanium 1 ND 0.0299 0.0299 2 0.019 - 0.0271 0.0233

Thallium 0 ND 0 ND

Zinc 6 0.0257 - 0.172 0.0486 6 0.035 - 0.176 0.0635

Mercury 3 5E-05 - 0.00061 5E-05 3 4E-05 - 6E-05 5E-05

Metals data, especially the top five cations, sodum, barium, iron, strontium and magnesium, 

tend to follow a timed profile. These data are presented by collection day to better show the 

trends. Summary data for days 1 and 14 are presented in Table 4-8. The 90-day data present 

a much smaller database (5 sites compared to 17-19 samples in the other sets). The top six 

metal ions in flowback water are sodium, calcium, magnesium, strontium and iron and 

potassium. These ions, and most others listed, increase from day 1 to day 90 and represent a 

significant increase over the raw water and influent water data in the Table 4-8.
21

Table 4-8: Metals Data for Marcellus Flowback Days 1 and 14

Day 1 (19 Samples) Day 14 (17 Samples)

Metals (mg/l) Obs Range Median Obs Range Median

Aluminum 17 0.165 - 4.03 0.507 5 0.173 - 1.04 0.37

Antimony 13 0.0089 - 0.0378 0.0247 0

Arsenic 12 0.0133 - 0.0551 0.0333 4 0.0462 - 0.114 0.0726

Barium 19 0.332 - 1450 37.6 5 133 - 4220 1440

Beryllium 0 0

Boron 19 0.0181 - 13.1 6.68 5 13 - 145 25.3

Calcium 19 35.2 - 19700 833 5 8500 - 24000 18300

Cadmium 4 0.0002 - 0.0029 0.00235 4 0.0025 - 0.0077 0.00255

Cobalt 3 0.0045 - 0.0105 0.0057 0

Chromium 16 0.0075 - 0.359 0.0318 3 0.0135 - 0.021 0.0177

Trivalent 

Chromium 6 0.0075 - 0.0491 0.0293 1 ND - 0.0175 0.0175

Copper 11 0.0096 - 0.255 0.0571 2 0.0272 - 0.0515 0.03935

Iron 19 2.68 - 67.2 13.9 5 69.7 - 158 93

Lead 12 0.0017 - 0.0709 0.02565 3 0.0456 - 0.97 0.068

Lithium 18 4.06 - 129 14.05 5 44.5 - 137 88.6

Magnesiium 19 16 - 1320 89 5 933 - 1790 1710

Manganese 19 0.146 - 5.96 0.782 5 2.13 - 9.77 4.72

Molybdenum 19 0.0089 - 0.372 0.0356 1 0.017 - 0.017 0.017

Nickel 17 0.0106 - 0.203 0.0286 0

Potassium 19 2.69 - 923 109 5 191 - 3950 548

Sodium 19 63.8 - 34700 6290 5 26900 - 75800 39700

Selenium 1 ND - 0.0043 0.0043 1 ND - 0.044

Tin 3 0.0038 - 0.007 0.0051 0

Strontium 19 0.58 - 4330 167 5 1220 - 8020 3480

Titanium 11 0.0151 - 0.092 0.0385 4 0.13 - 0.242 0.173

Thallium 3 0.0049 - 0.0272 0.0054 1 0.168 - 0.168 0.168

Zinc 18 0.0561 - 0.665 0.191 5 0.0293 - 0.811 0.178

Mercury 6 4E-05 - 0.000074 5.05E-05 1 ND - 0.000068

Results from the Barnett

Five sites were sampled in the Barnett. Flowback water samples were collected at the time 

intervals indicated in Table 4-9. Initial raw water for Sites LPG1 and LPG2 was from the same 

source and is represented by a single sample. Initial raw water for Sites LPG 3, LPG 4, and 

LPGX was from the same source and is represented as a single sample. Four of five sites 

reported on Day 1. Three sites reported on Day 5 and one site reported on Day 6. These four 

samples dates are treated together in discussions of Day 5-6 events. Three sites reported on 

Day 10 and one site reported on Day 12. These sample dates are treated together in 

discussions of Day 10-12 events. The flow volumes and total salt concentration profiles for the 

Marcellus data base have been reviewed extensively elsewhere (See Hayes and Severin –

RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.09, 2012) and are not reproduced, herein, for brevity. 
22

Table 4-9: Sample Dates (Days after Fracture) for 5 Sites in the Barnett

General Chemistry: A summary of the general chemical characteristics of the two water 

influent samples presented in Table 4-10. The pH of these streams ranging from 7.7 to 8.5 

seems to be normal for surface waters. Dissolved solids measurements for the influent waters 

used for hydraulic fracturing (with additives) had a range of 200-800 mg/l, which is considered in 

the range of fresh surface water supplies. Interestingly, oil and grease measurements had a 

range of 17-22 mg/l and total organic carbon had a range of 124-143 mg/l; elevated values in 

these measurements may be due to various degrees of blending of reused waters into frac job 

influent water supplies. 

Table 4-10: Summary of Chemical Characteristics of Influent Water Used for Hydraulic 

Fracturing after Additives were Blended

General Chemistry LPG 3,4,X LPG 1,2 Average Units

pH 7.7 8.5 No Units

Acidity ND ND ND mg/L

Total Alkalinity 251 236 243.5 mg/L

Hardness as CaCO3 28 100 64 mg/L

Total Suspended Solids 360 80 220 mg/L

Turbidity 265 116 190.5 NTU

Chloride 151 21.6 86.3 mg/L

Total Dissolved Solids 800 203 501.5 mg/L

Specific Conductance 1550 484 1017 umhos/cm

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 36 21.9 28.95 mg/L

Ammonia Nitrogen 3.9 8 5.95 mg/L

Nitrate-Nitrite 0.048 0.036 0.042 mg/L

Nitrite as N 0.57 0.14 0.355 mg/L

Biochemical Oxygen Demand 130 245 187.5 mg/L

Chemical Oxygen Demand 829 559 694 mg/L

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 143 124 133.5 mg/L

Dissolved Organic Carbon 84.3 281 182.65 mg/L

Oil & Grease (HEM) 22.2 17 19.6 mg/L

Cyanide, Total ND 1.9 1.9 mg/L

Amenable Cyanide ND ND ND mg/L

Bromide 0.7 ND 0.7 mg/L

Fluoride 1.00 0.096 0.548 mg/L

Total Sulfide ND ND ND mg/L

Sulfate 107 28 67.5 mg/L

Total Phosphorus 3 0.11 1.555 mg/L

Total Recoverable Phenolics ND 0.014 0.014 mg/L

Day 0 Day1 Day 3 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 10 Day 12

LPG1 X X X X

LPG2 X X X X

LPG3 X X X X

LPG4 X X X

LPG X X
23

Characteristics of flowback water sampled at 1 day and 10-12 days following the hydraulic 

fracturing event are presented in Table 4-11. The water is elevated in alkalinity with median 

values ranging from 725-1,200 mg/l. The water remains imbalanced with high levels of calcium 

and magnesium. Cations are dominated by sodium and calcium in this water. Anions are 

dominated by chloride. However, there is a fairly large sulfate component to the anionic 

balance, which has importance in the relative value of barium and strontium in the water. This 

topic is evaluated further in the discussion section.

Table 4-11: General Chemical Parameters, Barnett Day 1 and Day 3

LPG1,2,3,X

Day 1 

LPG 1,2,3,4

Day 10-12 General Chemistry

Parameter Range Median Range Median Units

pH 6.7 - 8 7.2 6.5 - 7.2 7.05 No Units

Acidity ND ND ND ND mg/L

Total Alkalinity 482 - 1,590 980 215 - 1,240 725 mg/L

Hardness as CaCO3 840 - 2,800 2,200 3,500 - 21,000 5,800 mg/L

Total Suspended Solids 48 - 237 153 120 - 535 242 mg/L

Turbidity 37 - 266 130 144 - 314 239 NTU

Chloride 3,330 - 17,900 11,405 9,600 - 60,800 34,700 mg/L

Total Dissolved Solids 5,850 - 31,400 25,050 16,400 - 97,800 50,550 mg/L

Specific Conductance 11,300 - 59,000 55,550 34,800 - 179,000 111,500 umhos/cm

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 16 - 203 155 26 - 298 171 mg/L

Ammonia Nitrogen 9 - 223 186 18 - 486 303 mg/L

Nitrate-Nitrite 0.024 - 0.024 0.024 0.018 - 0.035 0.0265 mg/L

Nitrite as N 81.9 - 107 94.45 3.5 - 38.1 4.7 mg/L

Biochemical Oxygen Demand 89 - 1,480 311 101 - 2,120 582 mg/L

Chemical Oxygen Demand 850 - 4,280 1,485 927 - 3,150 2,945 mg/L

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 34.7 - 99.1 47.5 6.2 - 36.2 9.75 mg/L

Dissolved Organic Carbon 30.6 - 91.3 53.55 5.5 - 65.3 11.2 mg/L

Oil & Grease (HEM) 5.6 - 1720 862.8 88.2 - 1430 163.5 mg/L

Cyanide, Total 15.6 - 15.6 15.6 6 - 6 6 ug/L

Amenable Cyanide ND - ND ND ND ND ND mg/L

Hexavalent Chromium 0.014 - 0.16 0.0165 0.0085 - 0.11 0.071 mg/L

Dissolved Hexavalent 

Chromium 0.01 - 0.08 0.03 ND - 0.21 0.21 mg/L

Bromide 34.3 - 532 303.5 117 - 798 589 mg/L

Fluoride 1.6 - 30.6 4.75 3.5 - 12.8 3.8 mg/L

Total Sulfide ND - ND ND ND - ND ND mg/L

Sulfate 259 - 972 669 120 - 1,260 709 mg/L

Total Phosphorus 0.37 - 3.4 0.79 0.19 - 0.7 0.395 mg/L

Total Recoverable Phenolics 0.034 - 0.45 0.08 0.0093 - 0.23 0.11965 mg/L

Volatile Compounds: The Barnett samples collected were analyzed for 70 volatile 

compounds of highly varied chemical characteristics, including the volatile hydrocarbon 

constituents that are normally found in produced water (such as benzene, toluene, 

ethylbenzene, and xylenes—or BTEX, and naphthalene) as well as constituents not known to 
24

be associated with conventional produced water such as chlorinated solvents and halogenated 

aromatics. The volatile organic content from the two raw water samples are presented in Table 

4-12. Only traces of napthlene, toluene, and benzene were identified in the sample for Sites 

LPG 1 and LPG2. 

Table 4-12: Volatile Organics in the Influent Water Samples

Volatiles (μg/L) LPG 3,4,X LPG 1,2 Average Units

Naphthalene ND 1.3 NA μg/L

Benzene ND 2 NA μg/L

Toluene ND 3 NA μg/L

A summary of the results for volatile compound determinations performed recovered flowback 

water is shown in Table 4-13. Traces of benzene and other alkylated benzyl isomers were 

present in the recovered water. The relative concentrations did not appear to change with time 

after fracture and appeared to fluctuate fairly randomly. All data were, therefore, consolidated to 

present the range of results encountered in all 16 samples. It is important to note that of all the 

components measured in the test protocol, only 8 compounds common to waters generated 

from petroleum and gas sites were detected. No compound was observed in all 16 samples. 

The most commonly encountered materials were the BTEX and similarly related alkyl-benzene 

isomers. Traces of acetone, a commonly used cleaning fluid, were also found at measurable 

concentrations. 

Table 4-13: Summary Volatiles Data; All Site Samples (Days 1-12, Total = 16 Samples)

Volatiles Data (μg/L)

Number of

Observations Range Median Average

Isopropylbenzene 2 0.8 - 69 35 35

Acetone 9 27 - 540 110 145

Naphthalene 12 8.3 - 84 22 27

1, 3, 5 - Trimethylbenzene 12 6.4 - 300 15 59

1, 2, 4 - Trimethylbenzene 13 6.9 – 1,200 37 173

Xylenes (total) 14 43 – 1,400 360 425

Benzene 15 49 – 5,300 680 1,198

Ethylbenzene 15 2.2 - 670 29 74

Toluene 15 79 – 8,100 760 1,246

The concentrations of 70 compounds were evaluated in the 16 test samples for a total of 1120 

evaluations. Most tests were reported as non-detectable (1013 evaluations). Ninety-two 

observations were below 1 ppm and only 15 observations were above 1 ppm. Chlorinated, 

brominated, or other man-made compounds were not detected. More than 90 percent of all 

constituent determinations, on average, were at non-detectable levels and less than 1.5 percent 

of all constituent determinations were above 1 ppm (Figure 4-3). 
25

Semivolatile Compounds: A total of 112 semivolatile organic compounds were included in the 

analysis of influent water and in flowback water samples. A summary of the results of 

semivolatile determinations in the two raw water samples is presented in Table 4-14. The 

sample from Sites LPG 3, 4,and X had traces of PAH, and traces of two phthalate esters and 

two chlorinated hydrocarbons. Water from Site LPG 1 and 2 water had only a single report of 

pyridine.

Table 4-14: Semivolatile Compounds in the Influent Water Barnett Samples

Semi-Volatiles (μg/l) LPG 3, 4, X LPG 1,2 Average

Benzo (a) anthracene 1.3 ND NA

Benzo (a) pyrene 1.1 ND NA

Benzo (b) fluoranthene 1.3 ND NA

Benzo (ghi) perylene 1.1 ND NA

Benzo (k) fluoranthene 0.95 ND NA

bis (2 - Ethylhexyl) phthalate 36 ND NA

Butyl benzyl phthalate 2 ND NA

Chrysene 1.2 ND NA

Dibenz (a, h) anthracene 0.98 ND NA

Di - n butyl phthalate 1.9 ND NA

2, 6 - Dichlorophenol 2 ND NA

Fluoranthene 1 ND NA

Hexachlorobenzene 0.8 ND NA

Indeno (1, 2, 3 - cd) pyrene 0.91 ND NA

Pentachlorophenol 0.69 ND NA

Phenanthrene 1.2 ND NA

Pyrene 1 ND NA

Pyridine 0.96 40 20.5

Observations of Detectable Volatiles

 in 16 Site Samples

1120

1013

92

15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

All Tests Non-Detects Trace

(<1ppm)

>1 ppm Observations

Figure 4-3: Number of Detectable and Non-Detectable Tests for Volatile 

Compounds
26

A summary of the results for semi-volatile compound determinations performed on the 16 site 

samples is shown in Table 4-15. Of the 112 compounds in the sample set, about 70% were not 

detected in any sample. Of the 32 compounds observed, about 1/3 of these were incidental 

detections in one of the 16 samples. All compounds detected are naturally occurring in 

petroleum. Pyridine is a nucleophile that is used widely in the manufacture of certain types of 

chemicals and pharmaceuticals and its presence may be due to its use as a precursor in the 

manufacture of one of the hydraulic fracturing additives. In general, nearly all of the 

semivolatile determinations were either non-detect (> 96% of the measurements) or at low trace 

levels (Figure 4-4). 

Table 4-15: Semi-volatiles Data from 16 Site Samples (Days 1-23) All Five Sites

Semi-volatiles (μg/l)

Number of 

Observations Range Median Average

Diphenylamine 2 0.6 - 10.0 5.3

Benzidine 1 ND - 35

1, 4 - Dioxane 7 3.1 - 12 5.4 6.5

1, 2 - Diphenylhydrazine 2 0.5 - 7.8 4.2

Acetophenone 1 ND - 4.6

Benzo (a) anthracene 1 ND - 17.0

Benzo (a) pyrene 1 ND - 130.0

Benzo (b) fluoranthene 2 0.5 - 84.0 42.2

Benzo (ghi) perylene 2 0.7 - 84.0 42.3

Benzo (k) fluoranthene 2 0.6 - 65.0 32.8

Benzyl alcohol 8 14.0 - 200 27.0 81.5

bis (2 - Ethylhexyl) phthalate 5 4.8 - 490 33 210

Butyl benzyl phthalate 4 1.9 - 110 12.6 34.3

Chrysene 2 0.57 - 240 120

Dibenz (a, h) anthracene 2 3.2 - 150 77

Di - n butyl phthalate 4 1.5 - 120 22 41

2, 4 - Dichlorophenol 1 ND - 15

2, 4 - Dimethylphenol 8 8.3 - 21 15.5 14.5

Di - n - octyl phthalate 1 ND - 270

Fluoranthene 1 ND - 0.18

Fluorene 6 0.46 - 1.3 0.725 0.8

Indeno (1, 2, 3 - cd) pyrene 2 2.9 - 140 71

2 - Methylnaphthalene 16 5.4 - 20,000 22.5 1362

2 - Methylphenol 15 5.8 - 76 31 28.3

3 - Methylphenol & 4 - Methylphenol 15 7.8 - 100 44 41

Naphthalene 16 4.8 - 3100 22 238

N - Nitrosodiphenylamine 2 7.8 - 10 8.9

N - Nitrosomethylethylamine 1 ND - 410

Phenanthrene 14 0.52 - 1400 1.3 107

Phenol 7 17 - 93 68 63

Pyrene 1 ND - 0.18 0.2

Pyridine 15 100 - 670 500 413
27

Pesticides: Determinations of the 20 chlorinated pesticides and 3 organophosphorus pesticides 

on 5 site samples and two source waters (Day 0) were performed. A single incidental 

measurement of less than 0.1 ppb was detected on day 1 from LPG 1. All other determinations 

for chlorinated pesticides were measured as non-detect. This would suggest that no chlorinated 

pesticides were introduced with the additives with the influent water during well completions. 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Determinations of the 7 polychlorinated biphenyl 

compounds (arochlors) were conducted on the two influent waters and Sites 2,4, and 5. All 

determinations for PCBs were measured as non-detect. This would suggest that no PCBs were 

introduced with the additives with the influent water during well completions. No PCBs were 

recovered in six samples recovered at three sites between days 1 and 7 after fracture.

Metals: Unlike the organic constituents, that do not change much with time, the metals 

concentrations tend to increase with time from fracture. A summary of metal concentrations in 

the two influent water samples is presented in Table 4-16. The total metals content of the Day 1 

and Day 10-12 samples are summarized in Table 4-16. As seen in this table, sodium is the 

major cation in all of the samples, followed by concentrations in some samples of calcium, 

magnesium and barium that will need to be monitored for purposes of scale control in some 

locations. 

Since strontium is present in flowback waters at concentrations between 345 to 4,830 mg/l in 

the 5-day flowback samples, it will be important for operators to implement procedures to 

prevent the formation of strontium-bearing scale. Iron levels in the range of 10 to 180 mg/l may 

also need to be watched and mitigated in order to prevent operational difficulties at a number of 

well completion locations. Heavy metals of toxicological concern that are often associated with 

urban industrial activity (including chromium, copper, nickel, zinc, lead, cadmium, mercury and 

arsenic) are at very low levels in all of the shale gas water samples. 

Number of Observations

 from 16 Site Samples

All Tests, 1792

Non-Detects, 

1595

Trace(<1ppm), 

163

>1ppm, 4

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

All Tests Non-Detects Trace(<1ppm) >1ppm

Observations

Figure 4-4: Distribution of Observations of Semivolatile Organics in 16 Barnett Site 

Samples
28

Table 4-16: Total Metals in Influent Water Samples

Total Metals LPG 3,4,X LPG 1,2 Average Units

Aluminum 0.525 0.604 0.564 mg/L

Antimony ND ND mg/L

Arsenic ND ND mg/L

Barium 0.0527 2.66 1.356 mg/L

Beryllium ND ND mg/L

Boron 0.509 0.124 0.317 mg/L

Calcium 13.1 17.1 15.1 mg/L

Cadmium ND ND mg/L

Cobalt ND ND mg/L

Chromium ND 0.0064 0.0064 mg/L

Trivalent Chromium ND 0.0026 0.0026 mg/L

Copper ND ND mg/L

Iron 1.68 1.18 1.43 mg/L

Lead 0.0127 ND mg/L

Lithium 0.0464 ND mg/L

Magnesium 1.57 11.5 6.535 mg/L

Manganese 0.0359 0.0478 0.042 mg/L

Molybdenum ND ND mg/L

Nickel ND ND mg/L

Potassium 3.5 4.46 4 mg/L

Sodium 278 81.3 179.6 mg/L

Selenium ND ND mg/L

Tin ND ND mg/L

Strontium 0.244 1.3 0.77 mg/L

Titanium ND ND mg/L

Thallium ND ND mg/L

Zinc 0.0281 ND mg/L

Mercury ND ND mg/L
29

Table 4-17: Metals Data in the Barnett Samples

Metals Data (mg/l)

LPG1,2,3,X

Day 1

LPG 1,2,3,4

Day 10-12 

Range Median Range Median

Aluminum 0.114- 0.572 0.495 0.37 - 2.21 0.43

Antimony ND ND ND

Arsenic ND ND ND

Barium 0.053 - 3.31 1.50 0.93 - 17.9 3.6

Beryllium ND ND ND

Boron 0.51 - 39.1 23.5 7.0 - 31.9 30.3

Calcium 13 - 768 564 1,110 - 6,730 1,600

Cadmium ND - 0.000 ND

Cobalt 0.006 - 0.028 0.014 0.01 - 0.01 0.01

Chromium 0.011 - 0.066 0.030 0.01 - 0.12 0.03

Trivalent Chromium 0.003 - 0.014 0.008 ND 0.03 0.01

Copper 0.087 - 0.131 0.109 0.06 - 0.52 0.29

Iron ND 12.1 - 93.8 24.9

Lead 0.013 - 0.034 0.013 0.01 - 0.02 0.02

Lithium 0.046 - 10.8 9.01 2.56 - 37.4 19.0

Magnesiium 2 - 116 89 149 - 755 255

Manganese 0.036 - 1.98 0.711 0.25 - 2.20 0.86

Molybdenum 0.015 - 0.066 0.043 0.02 - 0.03 0.02

Nickel 0.029 - 0.036 0.033 0.03 - 0.05 0.04

Potassium 4 - 216 111 80 - 750 316

Sodium 278 - 12,200 7805 4,370 - 28,200 18,850

Selenium ND 0.03 - 0.04 0.03

Tin 0.004 - 0.004 0.004 ND

Strontium ND - 206 132 48 - 1,550 529

Titanium ND 0.02 - 0.03 0.02

Thallium ND ND - 0.14

Zinc 0.028 - 0.560 0.202 0.10 - 0.36 0.15

Mercury ND ND

Deliverables

Topical Report: Hayes, T.D., and Severin, B.F., (2012) Characterization of Flowback Waters 

from the Marcellus and the Barnett, RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.09.

Completed Manuscripts to be Submitted to SPE for Publication in 2012:

Severin B.F., Galusky, L.P and Hayes, T.D., Empirical Interpretation of Barnett and 

Marcellus Flowback Events: Part I, Hydraulic Considerations

Severin B.F., Galusky, L.P and Hayes, T.D., Empirical Interpretation of Barnett and 

Marcellus Flowback Events: Part II, Brine Profiles

Severin B.F., and Hayes, T.D., Empirical Interpretation of Barnett and Marcellus Flowback 

Events: Part III, Projection of Wellhead Profiles
30

Impact to Producers

An understanding of the composition of flowback and produced waters is a highly important 

body of information to the development of strategies for near term and long term management. 

Furthermore, the work started by the GTI project in measuring the profiles of flow and salt 

output from wells in the Marcellus and Barnett is critical to modeling and predicting water 

management issues associated with shale gas plays. The overarching goal of this project is to 

provide the producers with information that helps to 1) minimize fresh water utilization, 2) 

maximize water reuse, 3) minimize disposal costs, and 4) reduce truck traffic (carbon footprint) 

throughout a gas play. The major implication of this work is the development of a database 

from which water management and water treatment options may be rationally implemented. 

Conclusions and Recommendations

Implications 

Measurements on water composition taken in the Marcellus and Barnett plays clearly show that 

the monitoring of waters can be greatly simplified to a small fraction of the parameters 

measured in the project. Since chlorinated hydrocarbons were at or near non-detect levels, it 

does not make sense to specify any of this category for future water composition work; this 

could save the industry more than 80 percent of the analysis costs. This is also true for PCB’s, 

pesticides and organopesticides which are also at non-detect levels. Monitoring costs can be 

greatly reduced by making this simplification.

Non-radioactive heavy metals are also at demimus levels, about 3-4 times lower in 

concentration than metals levels found in sewage sludges. The only metals that need to be 

measured are those few constituents that form scale (such as calcium, magnesium, iron and 

barium). Accordingly, metals analysis does not need to include an exhaustive list. This 

category of analysis can be greatly simplified. 

The data from this effort have implications concerning how flowback waters can be managed. 

Conventional treatment needs may be estimated from parameters such as biological oxygen 

demand, total carbon, total kjdehal nitrogen, oil and greases, etc. The following two plots show 

the median observed conventional pollutants for the Marcellus samples (Figure 4-5) and for the 

Barnett samples (Figure 4-6). 

Median Observed Conventional Contaminants

Marcellus

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Influent Day 1 Day 5 Day 14 Day 90

mg/l

BOD TOC Oil & Grease TKN

Figure 4-5: Median Conventional Components of Flowback Water from the Marcellus 

Samples
31

Heavy metals of toxicological concern that are often associated with urban industrial activity 

(including chromium, copper, nickel, zinc, lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic) are at very low 

levels in all of the shale gas water samples compared to levels reported for municipal 

wastewaters. Table 4-18 presents median values from the 5-Day Marcellus flowback samples 

compared to median heavy metals concentrations measured in sewage sludges (biosolids) 

generated by Penn State for the State of Pennsylvania (Stehouwer, 2000). The comparison 

shows that the levels of heavy metals of concern are 100 to 10,000 times higher in municipal 

biosolids (sewage sludges that are routinely transported across communities to disposal sites) 

than the levels measured in shale gas waters. 

Table 4-18: Comparisons of Median Metals Levels in Shale Gas Waters with 

Municipal Biosolids (Sewage Sludge)

Metal 5-day Flowback Sewage Sludge* Units

Chromium 0.015 35 mg/l

Copper 0.029 511 mg/l

Nickel < 0.0004 22.6 mg/l

Zinc 0.156 705 mg/l

Lead < 0.0021 65 mg/l

Cadmium < 0.0001 2.3 mg/l

Mercury <0.0002 1.5 mg/l

Arsenic 0.029 3.6 mg/l

* Penn State study reporting median heavy metal content values for Pennsylvania publicly owned 

treatment works (POTW) biosolids. Stehauwer, et al., 2000. 

Median Observed Conventional Contaminants

Barnett

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Influent Day 1 Day 3 Day 5-6 Day 10-12

mg/l

BOD

TOC 

Oil $& Grease

TKN

Figure 4-6: Median Observations of Conventional Contaminants in the Barnett Samples
32

The tendancy for the flow rate to decrease, and the total dissolved solids content to increase 

with time, provides opportunity to capture and reuse early flowback for reuse. The major 

challenge to the realization of this opportunity is the ultra-high concentration of divalent cations, 

which have tendencies to cause precipitates and scale in process equipment. The seven major 

cations encountered in the flowback waters are sodium, calcium, strontium, potassium, 

magnesium, iron, barium, and lithium. Of these cations; calcium, barium, strontium, 

magnesium, and iron are notorious scale formers. The seven major anions measured in these 

waters are chloride, bicarbonate, bromide, fluoride, sulfide, sulfate, and phosphate. Of these 

anions, carbonate species, sulfate, and phosphate are known to be potential scale formers. 

Likewise, sulfate is biologically active, being reduced to either sulfur or hydrogen sulfide. 

Figure 4-7 is a distribution profile of the relative abundance of the major cations in all samples 

from the Marcellus and the Barnett. Figure 4-8 is a distribution of the relative abundance of the 

anions. The calculation for these figures was as follows. Most of the cation charge is carried by 

sodium. The proportion of sodium (87% of cation equivalents) in the Barnet samples is 

somewhat higher than the Marcellus samples (74% of cation equivalents). Chloride is the most 

common anion, representing more than 93% of the anionic content in the Barnett and 99% in 

the Marcellus samples. Sodium and Chloride are not shown in Figure 4-8 in order to better 

observe the trends in the less concentrated species.

Calcium is the second most abundant cation, representing about 22% of the cationic charge in 

the Marcellus and about 9% in the Barnett samples. This difference may, in part be due to the 

relatively higher content of carbonate alkalinity in the Barnett than in the Marcellus. Calcium 

also precipitates as a sulfate. The relative sulfate concentration in the Barnett 30 times greater 

than in the Marcellus. This also suggests a reasonable expectation why the calcium in the 

Barnett is less abundant than in the Marcellus samples. Calcium is stable at pH< 6. One 

potential means of handling calcium is by addition of acid to stabilize the calcium. The modest 

bicarbonate concentration in both sample bases indicates that there is a relatively low buffering 

capacity. A small acid addition should be sufficient to perform this procedure. 

Strontium carries 1-2 % of the cationic charge in the flowback waters. Strontium is known to coprecipitate with calcium and barium, either as a carbonate or a phosphate, or a sulfate. Any 

pretreatment or reuse option should be designed to handle strontium.

Iron (calculated herein as the ferrous form) will precipitate at pH 5 as a hydroxide. With oxygen 

present, iron will convert to the ferric form and more readily precipitate at lower pH. A standard 

means of controlling iron is aeration followed by caustic addition and settling. Iron is also 

biologically active, inviting many different types of surface active bacteria that catalyze many 

redox reactions. These reactions may involve oxygen, carbonate, organic carbon, sulfate, 

sulfur, and sulfide. 

Barium readily precipitates as a sulfate. It is interesting to note that the Barnett water contains 

much more sulfate than the Marcellus water. This may be one reason why the barium content 

of the Barnett water has relatively less barium than the Marcellus water. 
33

Potassium is the fourth most abundant cation, but should not pose any treatment problems. 

Magnesium is about as abundant as potassium. Magnesium precipitates at high pH (>11) as a 

hydroxide, or in phosphate and ammonia rich waters as struvite. These conditions will not likely 

be found in these waters. Lithium is present in these waters, but should not interfere with any 

treatment process. 

Relative Abundance (%) of Cation Equivalence 

0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

100.00

Calcium

Strontium

Potassium

Magnesiium

Iron

Lithium

Barium

Percent of Cationic Charge (equivalents)

Barnet (Note: Sodium = 87%)

Marcellus (Note: Sodium = 73.5%)

Figure 4-7: Relative Abundance of Cations in Flowback Waters
34

Outlook

The comprehensive chemical data sets from the Marcellus and Barnett provide an opportunity 

to rationally discuss water management issues within these two geographic regions. Important 

observations on the presence and absence of certain classes of compounds will guide 

discussions of permitting, and compliance testing, reuse, and treatment options. These 

observations will also guide data base generation within other shale gas regions, such as the 

Eagle Ford.

Value

The results of this effort strongly suggest that monitoring of constituents of significance and/or of 

concern can be greatly simplified; if this can be done, sampling and analysis costs can be 

reduced by more than half without posing significant risk to human health or the environment. 

In addition, the value of this development effort was to open a new dialogue concerning the long 

term water management issues facing the development of shale gas plays. These data 

establish trends in the chemical nature of flowback waters. Most notably, heavy metal 

contamination is minimal. The major classes of recovered organic matter include some of those 

input as additives (such as acetone, pyridine, and phthalate esters) and the classic 

contaminants encountered in the petroleum and gas industries (PAHs, and BTEX). These are 

fairly typical wastewater components and do not present treatment problems. The major 

challenge appears to be the presence of high concentrations of divalent cations. Segregation 

and treatment options for these salt components are presented in other sections of this report 

(Task 5 Feasibility of Early Flowback Capture, Task 7 Mechanical Vapor Recompression, Task 

8 Electrodialysis, and Task 10 Field Experiment on Coated Membranes). 

Relative Abundance (%) of Anion Equivalence

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

Sulfate

Bicarbonate

Bromide

Fluoride

Sulfide

Phosphate

Percent of Anionic Charge

Barnett (Note Chloride > 93%)

Marcellus (Note: Chloride >99%)

Figure 4-8: Relative Abundance of Anions in Flowback Waters
35

Future Considerations

The testing and quality plans developed for this project may be easily duplicated for the 

collection of other databases for other geographic regions. More likely, however, these results 

will guide the streamlining and focusing of data collection in future sites. 

References

Stehouwer, R.C., A.M. Wolf, and W.T. Doty. 2000. ―Chemical Monitoring of Sewage Sludge in 

Pennsylvania: Variability and Application Uncertainty.‖ J. Environ. Qual. 29: 1686–1695. 

Hayes, T.D. 2009. Sampling and Analysis of Water Streams Associated with the Development 

of Marcellus Shale Gas, Final Report to the Marcellus Shale Coalition. Gas Technology 

Institute, Des Plaines, Il.
36

5 Feasibility of Early Flowback Capture

Rationale

Fresh water is critical for natural gas production in the Barnett Shale, where in excess of 1 to 5 

million gallons are required for the completion of each gas well. The financial costs, logistical 

challenges and public relations concerns over the use of fresh water supplies thus impel Barnett 

gas producers to use less fresh water and to use it more efficiently. One source of relatively 

fresh water is represented by the early flowback waters recovered during the first few days after 

each hydraulic fracture. Methods for predicting the recovered volume and salt concentrations 

are needed in order to better plan for the best use of this type of water.

Objective

The objectives of this work were to develop a simple, empirical modeling approach for 

characterizing and forecasting flowback water rates and total dissolved solids (TDS) and to use 

such models to characterize the efficacy of flowback water recycling based on predefined TDS 

reuse criteria. A simple flowchart is presented to demonstrate one approach to the separation 

and segregation of flowback waters based on conductivity.

Goals

As the project developed, the specific goals were refined and refocused to develop a general 

engineering analysis and complimentary computer model for the newly collected Barnett 

database, as well as an existing Marcellus database. Specific goals included the following:

1. Collect timed flowback recovery and salt concentration data for a series of well 

completions in the Barnett. 

2. Determine underlying trends in the data, and develop a general hydraulic model. 

3. Develop a simplified flow sheet to take advantage of flow segregation. 

Approach

Hayes (2009) presented some of the first data collected on flow and salt profiles of flowback 

water from the Marcellus (Appalachian area, Pennsylvania and West Virginia) formation. The 

volume of flowback collected on calendar days 1, 5, 14, and 90 after the fracture event were 

collected from 19 wells. Two important conclusions concerning the hydraulics were discovered 

from these data.

1. The ultimate recovery of water is less than 35% of the initial charge on a weighted basis 

of flow from all wells.

2. The flow rate from the wells decreases rapidly with time, such that most of the water 

(80%) is collected within the first 14 days after fracture. Usually, less than 20% of the 

flowback water is recovered between days 15 and 90.

 

Galusky and Hayes (October 2011) presented data from eleven shale gas well hydraulic 

fracturing events in the Barnett shale region. Figures in the Gausky and Hayes report were 

analyzed and representative data were tabulated for the current summary. These data include 

daily flow rates data and cumulative flow. These data suggested similar immediate conclusions 

to those described in the previous Hayes (2009) report. The combined information in Hayes 
37

(2009) and Galusky and Hayes (October 2011) allow for a deeper understanding the flowback 

events from two different geographic regions.

Summary of the Hydraulic Model: The hydrofracture event (Severin, et al. 2012a) is 

presented as follows. A total volume of up to three hundred thousand barrels, VF (Fracture 

Volume, barrels) is expended down-hole. A certain amount of this water, VU (Unrecovered 

barrels) is unrecoverable. This leaves a potential volume available for recovery, VA (Available 

barrels):

The available volume is recovered over a period of time, T (days). As time approaches a long 

period, typically 90 to 120 days, then the volume recovered, VR (recovered barrels) approaches 

the available volume, VA:

The rate of flowback recovery, Q (Barrels/day), is by definition,

where vR is the recovered flowback volume. If the available volume for recovery is viewed as a 

reservoir of fluid under pressure, and if the pressure is relieved by the release of fluid, then 

simple Darcy kinetics may be envisioned. As written for this presentation, where k1 (per day) is 

a first order rate coefficient:

This suggests in general terms, that there is an unknown empirical relationship between the rate 

of flowback recovery and the driving force for recovery, where (VA-vR) is used as a surrogate for 

pressure differential.

The cumulative volume of recovered flowback water is the integral over time, T, which is 

immediately recognized as the asymptotic exponential function.

The site data from the Barnett included both hydraulic rate data and cumulative volume data. 

Equation 3 indicates that rate data should correlate linearly with cumulative volume, with the 

slope = -k1, and the X-intercept = VA/k1. Table 5-1 summarizes the results of the linear analysis 

for ten Barnett sites. LPG9 had insufficient data for this detailed analysis.

dt

dv Q

R

2)

VF VU VA 1)

V V as T to days R A 90 120
38

Table 5-1: Regression Results for First Order Rate Approximation; Barnett

Site VF Total Fracture

Volume (bbl)

VA Recovered 

Volume (bbl)

k1 (day-1) r

2

LPG1 198,760 75,900 0.029 0.953

LPG2 183,750 28,300 0.043 0.965

LPG3 237,040 46,100 0.026 0.973

LPG4 64,050 20,700 0.030 0.929

LPG5 120,890 45,500 0.027 0.961

LPG6 170,900 53,100 0.018 0.915

LPG7 100,610 33,900 0.084 0.984

LPG8 155,360 33,000 0.062 0.938

LPG10 239,230 56,400 0.027 0.967

LPG11 140,700 51,900 0.017 0.971

The site data from the Marcellus included cumulative volumes as a function of time at days 

1,5,14, and occasionally 90 days after fracture. Data from the Marcellus were from six vertical 

wells (Table 5-2) and seven horizontal wells (Table 5-3). Equation 4 demonstrates the expected 

relation between the kinetic coefficient and recovered volume from cumulative flow data. Tables 

5-2 and 5-3 present the results of this analysis for the twelve Marcellus sites. Due to the 

relatively few data points, regression coefficients were not calculated. 

Table 5-2: Fitted Model Parameters from 6 Vertical Sites in the Marcellus

Fracture

Water 

Flowback Recovered (bbl)

Days after Fracture

Model Fitted

Available 

volume

First Order 

Coefficient

Site VF (bbl) 1 5 14 90 VA (bbl) k1(day-1

)

A 40,046 3,950 10,456 15,023 16,100 0.21

B 94,216 1,095 10,782 13,718 17,890 18,100 0.13

H 36,035 3,988 16,369 21,282 22,500 0.23

N 11,435 2,432 2,759 3,043 3,535 3,600 0.18

Q 23,593 1,315 3,577 5,090 5,500 0.24

S 16,460 2,094 7,832 9,345 10,723 10,800 0.21

Table 5-3: Fitted Model Parameters from 7 Horizontal Sites in the Marcellus

Fracture

Water 

Flowback Recovered (bbl)

Days after Fracture

Model Fitted

Available 

volume

First Order 

Coefficient

Site VF (bbl) 1 5 14 90 VA (bbl) k1(day-1

)

C 146,226 3,308 9,652 15,991 18,900 0.14

D 21,144 2,854 8,077 9,938 11,185 11,300 0.15

E 53,500 8,560 20,330 24,610 25,680 25,800 0.26

F 77,995 3,272 10,830 12,331 17,413 17,700 0.12

G 123,921 1,219 7,493 12,471 31,735 33,000 0.09

M 99,195 16,419 17,935 19,723 20,500 0.45

K 70,774 5,751 8,016 9,473 11,000 0.20
39

There are insufficient data in the hydraulic databases to discern any correlations between 

fracture volume, recovered volume, or the kinetic coefficient. Recovered volume versus fracture 

volume, percent recovery versus fracture volume, and kinetic coefficient versus fracture volume 

all appear to be random populations. There also did not appear to be any significant differences 

between horizontal and vertical wells in the Marcellus data.

Hydraulic data were, therefore, analyzed as independent, random variables. Figure 5-1 shows 

the Barnett kinetic coefficients and percent water recovery databases (from Table 5-1) as 

cumulative probabilities. Figure 5-2 gives a similar analysis for the Marcellus database. Table 

5-4 is a summary of the average and standard deviations of the hydraulic parameters for the 

databases (Tables 5-1 and 5-2).

Barnett Database

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0 20 40 60 80 100

Cumulative Probability (%)

Kinetic Coefficient k (per dy)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Percent Fracture Volume Recovered

kinetic coefficient k

% Recovery 

Figure 5-1: Cumulative Probability Plot for the Kinetic coefficients and Percent Water Recovery for 

the Barnett Database
40

Table 5-4: Summary of Hydraulic Parameters for the Barnett and Marcellus Databases

Summary of the Concentration Profiles: Cumulative flow and wellhead concentrations for 

twelve of the thirteen Marcellus sites and six of the Barnett sites were previously presented 

(Severin et al., 2012b). Most data sets show a rapid rise in the wellhead concentrations 

between days 1 and the final day of recorded data. Figure 5-3 is an example of data from six 

sites in the Marcellus showing a typical relationship between the wellhead concentration, CW 

(mg/l) and recovered volume, VR. Data correlate well to an exponential model. In this 

equation, the constant (a) has units (mg/l) and (b) has units (barrels).

 n k (day-1)

Standard

Deviation k

Recovery

%

Standard 

Deviation %

Barnett 10 0.04 ±0.021 28.9 ±8.3

Marcellus vertical 6 0.20 ±0.040 40.4 ±19.7

Marcellus horizontal 7 0.20 ±0.123 28.6 ±15.9

Marcellus combined 13 0.20 ±0.091 34.0 ±18.1

n = samples in database

bVR

5) CWae

Marcellus Database

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Cumulative Probability (%)

Kinetic Coefficient k (per dy)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percent Fracture Volume Recovered

kinetic coefficient k

% Recovery 

Figure 5-2: Cumulative Probability Plot for the Kinetic coefficients and Percent Water Recovery 

for the Combined Marcellus Database (Horizontal and Vertical Drilling).
41

A summary of the concentration coefficients are presented in Table 5-5 (Barnett) and Table 5-6 

(Marcellus). No mechanistic explanation can presently be made to rationalize the good fit to the 

exponential curve; this is simply an empirical observation. However, the parameters in the 

exponential equation have physical meaning. The constant a(mg/l) closely represents the 

concentration at the wellhead on day zero, C0(mg/l). The constant b(barrels-1) represents a 

characteristic volume at a representative concentration. All of the curves trend toward a 

concentration that cannot exceed the background concentration, CS (mg/l). Therefore, the 

characteristic volume, b, approaches a value approximately near the end of the recoverable 

fluid, VA. 

Table 5-5: Fitted Concentration Profile Parameters From Six Sites in the Barnett

Site a (mg/l) b (bbl-1)

r

2

LPG1 32,970 1.7 x 10-5 0.86

LPG2 19,750 8.6x 10-5 0.93

LPG3 12,800 5.4x 10-5 0.93

LPG7 11,500 5.3 x 10-5 0.87

LPG10 45,600 2.2 x =10-5 0.90

LPG11 45,000 2.8x 10-5 0.80

6 Sites in the Marcellus Fitted to Exponential

TDS mg/l = a exp(bVR)

VR = (barrels)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Recovered Flowback Volume (bbl)

Wellhead Concentration (mg/l)

Site A

Site B

Site C

Site E

Site G

Site H

Figure 5-3: Wellhead Concentrations versus Recovered Volumes for Six Sites in the 

Marcellus Fitted to Exponential Curve
42

Table 5-6: Concentration Profile Coefficients From 12 Sites in the Marcellus

Equation 5 is further developed to compute the total salt mass, M (lbs), or the average 

concentration, Cavg (mg/l), for any partial volume, from VR from V1 to V2 (bbl), during the 

recovery period as shown in Equations 6 and 7. The constant, FX = 0.0035, is the conversion 

factor from mg/l to pounds per barrel. 

By example, Figure 5-4 shows projections for total salt production at seven sites in the 

Marcellus from day 1 (V1= 0) projected out to 90 days. The curves were generated using the 

fitted parameters in Table 5-5 and the integrated mass equation with V1 =0

Site a (mg/l) b (bbl-1

) r

2

A 7,500 0.000185 >0.98

B 23,658 0.000117 0.98

C 2,250 0.000254 0.98

D 1,889 0.0004 0.98

E 500 0.000228 0.98

F 43,800 0.0001 0.97

G* 61,000 0.000049

H 8,500 0.000165 0.97

K 2,765 0.00033

N 700 0.00165

Q 2,100 0.00079 0.96

S 225 0.00065 0.98

*G parameters set to not exceed 270,000 mg/l on or before day 90

8) ( 1)

2

2

1

0

b V V

V

x W R X

e

b

a

M F C dv F
43

Deliverables

Topical Reports

Galusky, L.P,Jr., and Hayes, T,D., (August 2011) Feasibility and Design Approach for 

Automated Classification and Segregation of Early Flowback Water for Reuse in Shale-Gas 

Hydraulic Fracturing, Barnett and Appalachian Shale Water Management and Reuse 

Technologies, Report 08122-05-06, RPSEA Contract 08122-05 

Galusky, L.P,Jr., and Hayes, T,D., (October 2011) Feasibility Assessment of Early Flowback 

Water Recovery for Reuse in Subsequent Well Completions, Barnett and Appalachian Shale 

Water Management and Reuse Technologies, Report 08122-05.07, RPSEA Contract 

08122-05

7 Sites from Marcellus

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

Flowback Recovery Projected to 90 Days (bbl)

Pounds Salt Recovered

Site A

Site B

Site C

Site E

Site F

Site G

Site H

Figure 5-4 Model Projected Salt Generation at Seven 

Marcellus Sites
44

Completed Manuscripts to be Submitted to SPE in 2012

Severin, B.F., Galusky, L.P,Jr., and Hayes, T,D., (2012a) Empirical Interpretation of 

Barnett and Marcellus Flowback Events: Part I, Hydraulic Considerations

Severin, B.F., Galusky, L.P,Jr., and Hayes, T,D., (2012b) Empirical Interpretation of 

Barnett and Marcellus Flowback Events: Part II, Brine Profiles

Severin, B.,F, and Hayes, T.D., (2012c) Empirical Interpretation of Barnett and Marcellus 

Flowback Events: Part III, Projection of Wellhead Profiles

Hayes, T.D., and Severin, B.F., (2012) Empirical Interpretation of Barnett and Marcellus 

Flowback Events: Part IV, Life Cycle Projection of a Marcellus Play 

Conclusions and Recommendations

Impact to Producers: The empirical hydraulic and concentration profiles presented in 

Equations 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 may be utilized, along with the hydraulic databases in Figures 5-1 

and 5-2, to make engineering and management projections for flowback events from planned 

fracture events. Figure 5-5 shows the projected relation of rate of flowback recovery and 

cumulative flowback volume as a function of pumping days after fracture for the median Barnett 

event. These curves show the characteristic rapid decrease in flowback rate during the initial 

recovery period and the asymptotic approach to a final volume. Figure 5-6 shows the projected 

relation between the total mass of salt recovered, the wellhead concentration and the 

impoundment concentration as a function of the recovered volume for the median Barnett event. 

Value: Simple mathematical relations between brine concentrations and flowback recovery 

have been developed for preliminary databases for the Barnett and the Marcellus. It is telling 

that both data sets follow the same trends, possibly leading to a better understanding of the 

mechanisms of flowback. These simple tools may be immediately employed in site projection, 

management, and form a preliminary tool for future database generation and analysis. 

One current management strategy for flowback control is to hold the water down-hole for 

extended periods of time. In the Barnett, the goal is a water retention strategy aimed at saving 

water for reuse in the next fracture. In the Marcellus, this strategy is employed in an attempt to 

dissipate the water to minimize the recovered volume. In either case, there is a concern that 

holding the water down-hole for extended periods will increase the concentration of the flowback 

water by dissolution of subsurface salts. This investigation partially addresses these questions. 

Equations 2 and 3 are based on the concept that the rate of flowback is dependent on the 

recovered volume. In the initial data set for the Barnett (Galusky and Hayes, T,D., 2011) three 

sites were described that had were subjected to shut-in periods of up to 65 days. The analysis 

of these data with the present model (Severin et al. 2012a) indicated that the shut-in period did 

not influence the recovery rate. The data suggest that the rate of flowback is more dependent 

on the total volume of recovered water than on the time of recovery. Recovery shutdown 

periods of up to 65 days had little bearing on the kinetics of recovery. 
45

Figure 5-5: Projected Recovery Rate and Cumulative Volumes for the Mean (plus 1 standard deviation) 

Barnett Flowback Event as a function of Pump Days after Fracture.

Projection for Barnett (Mean + 1 Std Deviation)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pumping Days After Fracture

Recovery Rate bbl/day

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

Cumulative Volume (bbl)

Recovery Rate

Cumulative Volume

Figure 5-6: Projected Salt Mass, Wellhead Concentration, and Average Impoundment Concentration for 

the Mean Barnett Event (+1 Standard Deviation)

Projection for Barnett (Mean + 1 Std Deviation)

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000

Recovered Flowback Volume VR, (Barrels)

Salt Recovery (lbs)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

Concentration (mg/l)

Mass Salt Recovered

Wellhead Concentration

Average Impoundment

Concentration
46

The empirical correlation between wellhead concentration and recovered flowback volume 

(Equation 5) is also not directly based on time. This is contrary to a dissolution mechanism, 

suggesting that additional salts do not dissolve into the shut-in water. Equation 5 is more 

reminiscent of an elution model, in which saturated ground water is initially flushed away from 

the well by the influx of relatively fresh fracture water. Recovery of the flowback water includes 

back-elution of the brine. In the initial data set for the Barnett (Galusky and Hayes, T,D., 2011) 

three sites were described that had were subjected to shut-in periods of up to 65 days. The 

analysis of these data with the present model (Severin et al. 2012b) indicated that the shut-in 

period did not influence the wellhead concentration. The data suggest that the concentration of 

flowback is more dependent on the total volume of recovered water than on the time of 

recovery. Recovery shutdown periods of up to 65 days had little bearing on the wellhead 

concentration. 

Outlook The preliminary model suggested in this report points to several interesting 

differences between the Marcellus and the Barnett databases. Fractures in the Barnett region 

tend to show high initial salt concentrations and large initial fracture volumes, possibly due to 

water reuse practices within the region. The rate of flowback recovery in the Marcellus tends to 

occur more rapidly than in the Barnett. The empirical kinetic coefficients (k day-1) in the 

Marcellus appear to be eight times greater than in the Barnett. A number of conjectures may be 

forwarded to explain this difference and include, perhaps, fundamental differences in the 

porosity of the fractured shale, differences in regional fracture technique, or differences in 

management style. The saturated background water concentration, CS, appears to be higher in 

the Marcellus region than in the Barnett. This is likely a difference in the subsurface chemistries 

in the two regions. It may be further speculated that other geographic regions will also show 

important and interesting differences in the hydrofracture data. 

Future Considerations Specific conductance can be readily measured, calibrated and 

automated. The close correlation between TDS and conductance indicates that operators 

should be able to measure, separate and segregate flowback waters in real time using in-line 

conductivity transducers more or less according to the scheme presented below in Figure 5-7. 

In simple terms, flowback water would be analyzed in real time using an electronic, recording 

electrical conductivity sensor. This would be coupled to an electronically operated valve that 

would shunt water to different storage facilities according to programmed levels of measured 

conductivity. The numeric criteria for determining number and levels of measured conductivity 

would be determined based upon operational needs and logistical constraints.

In the example shown in Figure 5-7, the lowest TDS waters would presumably be the most 

valuable to recover and recycle since these pose the least restraints and requirements with 

respect to handling, treatment and re-use. Yet, given the rapid rise in TDS it may not be 

realistic to capture nearly fresh (less than 3,000 TDS mg/kg) from Barnett shale gas flowback 

waters. However, if more realistic thresholds are set (say 10,000 mg/kg for low TDS waters and 

25,000 mg/kg for high TDS waters) then such a system may afford realistic potential to recover 

and recycle early flowback waters and thus significantly reduce the total quantity of ―new‖ water 

used to fracture subsequent wells.
47

Figure 5-7: Hypothetical Flowback Measurement, Separation and Segregation System

Conclusions

Water management at hydraulic fracturing sites is becoming an important consideration in the 

economics and longevity of active wells. This paper presented a simplified hydraulic model 

based on the rate of flowback recovery as a function of recovered volume for 10 sites in the 

Barnett. Data suggested that recovery shut-down for the purposes of minimizing water recovery 

does not mitigate the flowback event. The simplified hydraulic model fit cumulative volume data 

from 13 sites in the Marcellus. The median projected recovered volume in the Barnett data set 

was several times greater per event, than in the Marcellus data set. The median kinetic 
48

coefficient for the Marcellus was eight times greater than for the Barnett. This suggests a 

different management strategy might be beneficial for the different geographic regions. 

The preliminary model may be used as a tool for water reuse and water process selection. In 

the most rudimentary utility, the model may be used as a guide for segregation and isolation of 

relatively clean initial flowback water from heavy brine in late flowback waters. This selection 

tool may also be used to establish projections for the transportation costs, treatment process 

equipment, and treatment costs. The value of the modeling exercise is demonstrated as the 

basis for a broader life cycle analysis, as presented in another chapter of this report. (See 

Chapter 11: Systems Engineering and Life Cycle Analysis) and in a previously prepared topical 

report available from RPSEA (Hayes and Severin, 2012).

References

Hayes, T.D., (2009) Sampling and Analysis of Water Streams Associated with the Development 

of Marcellus Shale Gas, Final Report to the Marcellus Shale Coalition. Gas Technology 

Institute, Des Plaines, IL.

Hayes, T.D. and B.F. Severin (February, 2012) Preliminary Engineering Systems 

Analysis of Shale Gas Water Management. RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.10. 
49

6 Feasibility of Using Alternative Water Sources for Shale Gas Well 

Completions

Rationale

The study presented in this chapter investigates alternative sources of water to be used in the 

last completion phase (so-called ―fracking‖) of oil and gas wells in the Barnett Shale play. It 

focuses on more rural counties (Montague, Jack, Palo Pinto, Parker, Erath, Hood, Somervell, 

Bosque, and Hill) located to the west of the core area (Denton, Johnson, Tarrant, and Wise 

Counties). Millions of gallons are needed to perform the completion phase before oil and gas 

wells are put online, and, in the past years, operators have mostly used (1) groundwater from 

dedicated supply wells tapping the Trinity Aquifer, a major aquifer; (2) surface water from large 

reservoirs and rivers, purchasing it from water-rights owners (private or state agencies such as 

river authorities); and, to a lesser extent, (3) surface water from private ponds and other water 

bodies; (4) treated water from municipalities and industrial users; and (5) water recycled from 

previous fracking operations. As gas production moves away from the core area toward the 

north, south, and west where the Trinity aquifer is thin or absent to access the remainder of the 

play, Barnett Shale operators are faced with two challenges: (1) increased water scarcity and 

(2) measured reluctance to impact domestic and public water supplies. As a result, there is a 

need to assess the amount of water available and accessible to the industry.

Goals

The overall goal of the study is to quantify the amount of make-up water available from nonconventional sources (that is, not from large reservoirs, lakes, and rivers and major productive 

aquifers) in the footprint of the Barnett Shale, particularly outside of the core area. Recycling and 

treatment are not discussed in this chapter.

Objectives

The specific objectives of the study were to:

1. Gather baseline data and determine current and projected water use for fracking 

purposes,

2. Review water-quality specifications required to perform frac jobs developed by the 

Barnett Shale Water Conservation and Management Committee Frac Job Expert Panel,

3. Inventory alternate sources of water with the potential of meeting industry needs: (a) 

treated wastewater outfalls from waste water treatment plants; (b) small water bodies 

outside the State regulation of surface water, and (c) smallish groundwater aquifers in 

Paleozoic-age disconnected sand bodies west of the more plentiful Trinity aquifer.

4. Determine water compositions of alternate water sources by searching existing 

databases. 

5. Determine technical and economic feasibility of utilizing alternate sources of water

Approach

Bullet (1) was accomplished through a synergetic parallel project funded by the State of Texas. 

Water use amounts were obtained from company records provided through a private vendor 

database. Water use projections for fracking were established by interacting with industry experts. 

Bullet (2) consisted in assessing the consistency of matter experts’ opinions (captured in a report 
50

and through discussions). The bulk of the work addressed bullets (3) and (4) and is described in 

more details below. Bullet (5) refers to the conclusion of this work.

Investigating the three main alternate water sources required the implementation of several 

distinctively unique approaches:

Treated waste water amount and chemical quality was obtained by mining state (TCEQ) and 

federal databases (although not very straightforward). 

All non-State surface water bodies were inventoried through satellite orthoimagery 

coverage. They were sorted into six size categories (<0.25 acres to >50 acres) and 

computed for two selected years assumed to be representative of Texas climate cyclicity 

(―normal‖ wet and ―normal‖ dry). The study assumes that the only water available from the 

surface water bodies is the balance between wet and dry conditions and that that volume is 

to be spent in the course of two years. Another important assumption applicable to smaller 

stock ponds is that they are filled up only through run-off and rainfall, not through 

groundwater pumping. Another concern was that the opportunity of selling water to the 

industry would incite landowners to create stock ponds filled with groundwater. This concern 

does not seem to bear out as comparison in water body count and total surface area 

between the reference years chosen as wet (1997) and dry (1999) (still early in the history of 

the Barnett play at which time gas production was restricted to the core area East of the 

zone of interest) and later years (2003 to 2010) shows no difference in water body coverage 

and count. Because depth of the surface water bodies is not well-know there is some 

uncertainty in the amount of water available. However, minimum and maximum depths as a 

function of water body size are relatively well known. A sampling of reservoirs present in the 

same area with known average depth was used to constrain water volume.

Little is known about the Paleozoic aquifers in the footprint of the Barnett Shale (outside of 

the Trinity Aquifer). Although part of a larger hydrological system, most of them are small in 

size, barely covering a fraction of a county. Some are used for municipal water use 

(Montague County) but overall there is a need to determine what their capacity (how much 

water they hold), their yield (how much water can be produced from them), and water quality 

(fresh or brackish). Groundwater availability was inferred from the construction and running 

of a 4-layer numerical model of aquifers covering pre-Trinity Paleozoic formations present in 

the subsurface of the area of study. The development of the model was done following 

informal guidelines set by the state of Texas Groundwater Availability Model (GAM) program 

and entailed (1) development of a conceptual model that consists of a shallow flow system 

quickly discharging baseflow water to the streams with a general head gradient to the north; 

(2) a thorough and lengthy phase of data gathering (top and bottom of layers, hydraulic 

conductivity values) from the literature and from public-domain databases; and (3) a 

calibration phase of matching modeled heads to observed heads. The amount of water 

available for pumping was computed by taking into account projected water use from all 

other users and assuming that an average cumulative drawdown of 5 feet across the entire 

study area in the next 50 years was acceptable to all stakeholders. This value is consistent 

with values accepted in the State for other small aquifers. With the help of the aquifer 

numerical model, we were able to determine the level of pumping that would generate such 

an average drawdown. Although aquifers do contain immense amounts of water, the 

amount that can be withdrawn is quickly limited by negative environmental and other 

impacts consequences (drying of springs, no base flow, disappearance of phreatophytes, 

subsidence, necessary lowering of pumps, etc).
51

BEG’s team developed an Arc-GIS tool to determine the amount of water available at any point of 

the study area from the three characterized water sources within a given radius, chosen at 5, 10, 

and 15 miles. To understand the adequacy of the resource, ~1000 points were selected on a 

regular grid (∆x= 4406 m and ∆y=4530 m) covering the area of interest and statistics on water 

availability were then derived. Points are numerous enough to be representative of any point in the 

area of interest. The tool could be used at any given point outside of the chosen set and is accurate 

for treatment plants, somewhat less accurate for surface water bodies (because of the uncertainty 

on depth), and the uncertainty is higher for groundwater use because the model is regional in 

nature (that is, acceptable in its general behavior but not necessarily accurate at the local scale). 

Although the three categories have their own units of convenience, we need to express them under 

a unique system in order to compare them. Several approaches can be devised to reach such 

objective. The approach chosen in this work is to notice that operators store most of the needed 

frac water on site in the few weeks leading to the fracking of the well. We assumed that that lead 

time is one month (1/12th of a year). Treatment plant data is expressed as a rate and represents an 

annual average expressed as an average daily rate. We assume such water source is available 

year-round. Surface water body reference characteristic is volume. However, not all of the water is 

necessarily available. The primary purpose of the ponds / water bodies is irrigation, cattle, and for 

the smallest stock ponds fish farming. We assume that the true water available is the volume 

difference between wet and dry years. How much can be withdrawn from them in a short period of 

time is more related to pump power. Another, maybe more relevant, factor is how fast the ponds 

can be replenished. Making the assumption that Texas weather oscillates between ―normal‖ dry and 

―normal‖ wet years on average, this volume of water can be used up over a period of 24 months. 

Pumping from aquifers is determined by the model and assumed constant through time. 

Results and Discussions

Current and projected water use by county is documented in a report in the public domain 

(http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/RWPG/rpgm_rpts/0904830939_MiningWaterUse.pdf). The amount of 

water used across the play is variable from one year to the next but is in the tens of thousands of 

acre-feet (AF) per year (~25,000 AF in 2008) corresponding to thousands of wells being fracked 

(~2500 in 2008). The amount of water used per unit length of lateral is approximately 1000 gal/ft. 

The split between surface water and groundwater is unknown but thought to be relatively even. The 

industry has made significant progress in the behavior of additives since the initial expert meeting in 

2008. The additives can now handle brackish water (<10,000 mg/L) without problem.

BEG now discusses the three alternate water sources. There are approximately 160 waste water 

treatment plants in the area of study, 5 of them are very large (>100 million gallons per day -MGD) 

and not included in the study. Most of them are small to very small. Not considering the large 

plants, average outfall flow is 0.689 MGD but median is much lower at 0.087 MGD. Percentiles are 

as follow: 95th = 4.3 MGD, 75th= 0.37 MGD, 50th = 0.087 MGD, 25th = 0.01; 5th = 0.002; minimum 

<0.001 MGD. Those rates and chemical quality of treated waste water (< 1000 mg/L) are fairly 

constant throughout the year. Numerous water bodies are present and represent a substantial 

amount of water even without including large lakes. Overall there was ~31,200 and ~12,400 small 

water bodies totaling ~51,000 and 23,500 acres in wet and dry conditions of the selected years, 

respectively. The corresponding water volume are then approximately 0.54 million acre-feet (AF) in 

wet conditions and 0.2 million AF in dry conditions, again not including large reservoirs. The surface 

water quality is understood to be fresh.

Paleozoic aquifers are sometimes the only water source in large sections of the Barnett Shale 

footprint, with no surface water bodies and no water treatment plant in those sparsely populated 

areas. Those aquifers provide fresh to brackish water from generally low-yield wells. An evaluation 
52

of water well characteristics in our 2,474-well database reveals median values for depth of 200 feet, 

discharge rate of 11 gallons per minute, and screen length of 35 feet. The fact that the state of 

Texas has never catalogued North-Central Texas Paleozoic aquifers even as minor aquifers 

strongly suggests that they can only provide small amounts of water. This, in turn, suggests that 

obtaining meaningful amounts of water will require long and deep screened intervals tapping into 

more brackish sections and producing a degraded water quality. Groundwater total dissolved solids 

are generally potable <300 feet, but increase rapidly down dip. The modeling suggests that 

approximately 15 MGD of groundwater is available across the area. 

Treatment plant outfall, surface water bodies, and aquifers represent vastly different water source 

types. Considering a unifying concept helps in characterizing them. We used two parameters: 

capacity of storage and yield. The former addresses how much water is available at a given time, 

the latter informs on how fast the water can be accessed. Treatment plant outfalls have no capacity 

but sustained known yield. If the water is not used immediately it is discharged into streams or 

lakes, becomes water of the state, and is lost for the purpose of this work. Aquifers have a large 

storage capacity but delivery of the water is constrained by the maximum well yield and the ability of 

the aquifer to recover. Surface water bodies are relatively numerous and widespread across the 

area of interest but most of them are small with limited capacity even few large bodies exist. The 

following summarizes these qualifiers across example categories: 1) Treatment plants: no capacity, 

possibly large yield; 2) Surface water bodies: large capacity, medium to large yield; and 3) Aquifers: 

medium capacity, small yield. A third qualifier (distance) can be added and considered. Treatment 

plants exist only at very well-defined locations and are not that common whereas aquifers are 

ubiquitous even if not necessarily productive at every location. Surface water bodies are relatively 

common but mostly small.

Not surprisingly the amount of water available increases as the search radius increases. For 

treatment plants, from none (in most cases) or less than 5 million gallons per month (8-km 

radios case) to none (~30% of cases) to less than 15 million gallons per month in the 16-km 

radius case to none (in ~15% of cases) to a solid 5 to 10 million gallons per month and a large 

spread all the way to 180 million gallons per month in the 24-km radius case. Surface water is 

generally available (except at 10 to 15% of the locations) with a large spread and no clear mode 

to 150, 400, and 800 million gallons per month in the 8-, 16-, and 24-km radius case, 

respectively. Groundwater is not available from wells with sufficient yield at 50%, 33%, and 21% 

of the locations in the 8-, 16-, and 24-km radius case, respectively. When it is available amount 

ranges from a few million gallons per month to ~30, ~80, and ~150 million gallon per month in 

the 8-, 16-, and 24-km radius case, respectively. The combined amount displays a clear mode 

at ~35 million gallons per month with a long tail to ~150 million gallons per month in the 8-km 

radius case but is more uniformly distributed in the 16- and 24-km radius case ranging from 

almost nothing to 500 and 950 million gallons per month, respectively. Detailed results are 

presented in the deliverables itemized below.

Results indicate that, assuming a dense development of the oil and gas resource, in most cases 

enough water is theoretically available on average (~40 million gallons available vs. ~10 million 

gallons used per month in a 5-mile radius). However, more than half of the total is surface water 

making it very susceptible to droughts. Droughts will do more than drying up the surface water 

resource, it will also limit access to treated waste water and groundwater as conservation takes 

place and as more users rely on groundwater, respectively. From an economic standpoint, all the 

alternative sources described in the study are very fragmented leading to a diffuse ownership and 

likely expensive water gathering system. 
53

Deliverables

Topical Reports

Nicot,J-P., and Hayes, T.D. (2010) Feasibility of Using Alternative Water Sources for 

Shale Gas Well Completions —A Preliminary Guidance Document on Current Practices in 

the Barnett, Report No. 08122-05.01, Barnett and Appalachian Shale Water Management 

and Reuse Technologies, RPSEA Contract 08122-05.

Nicot,J-P., Wolaver B.D, Huang, Y.,Howard, T., Costley, R.A., Breton ,C., Walden S., 

Baier R., Strassberg G., McGlynn E., Hingst M., Mercier J., Lam, C. and Hayes, T.D. 

(2012) Feasibility of Using Alternative Water Sources for Shale Gas Well Completions —

Final Report, Report No. 08122-05.02, Barnett and Appalachian Shale Water 

Management and Reuse Technologies, RPSEA Contract 08122-05.

Impact to Producers

The main result of the study is that water is present in quantities sufficient to cover fracking needs 

but is unequally spatially distributed, prone to droughts, and very fragmented. Producers who are 

willing to consider expenditures that reduce uncertainties of water availability would be better off 

relying on more distant but more abundant water sources. 

Conclusions and Recommendations

A summary of the water availability distribution in the rural-county area-of-interest of the Barnett 

Shale is shown in Table 6-1. This table suggests that, in 50% of cases, at least 42.7 million 

gallons will be available per month in any 5-mile radius. To put the matter in perspective, 

assuming a spacing between laterals of 1,000 feet, an average water intensity of 1000 gal/foot, 

and a maximum coverage of laterals for gas production yields 5280×5280 ft2/ 1000 ft × 1000 

gal/ft, that is, a maximum water use of 27.9 million gallons per square mile or 2190 million 

gallons to be distributed through time. Assuming an active life of 20 years of fracking in a given 

development area, this level of water use amounts to a water use of 9.1 million gallons per 

month, or 21% of the median of water availability. 

Taking the analysis further, in ―normal conditions‖ with wet and dry cycles the amount of water 

seems adequate, however it is very dispersed and distributed spatially, at the exception of a few 

larger waste water treatment plants. In addition, surface water does represent a significant 

fraction of the available water. In times of sustained drought (>2 years), there is no surface 

water available and the groundwater resource is somewhat reduced as all users relying on 

surface water will fall back on groundwater. Waste water treatment plant outfall availability will 

also be reduced because water conservation will be emphasized and because cities and towns 

may preempt the use of the treated water. 

Table 6-1: Summary of Results: Water Availability Distribution

Table 6-1 also suggests that a drought scenario will prevent operators from using local water. 

The median for the 5-mile radius case shows that only surface water is a plausible source of 

water, though it will not be available during a drought. Operators would have to go further out 

from the well location to access the needed water. The median available water for the 10 mile 

case is 223 million gallon per month of which ~80% is surface water not accessible in time of 

drought, the remainder of about 30 million gallons consists of approximately 60% groundwater 
54

and 40% treatment plant outfall (note that the median of the sum is not necessarily the sum of 

the medians). Because all of it will not be accessible, the amount of water theoretically available 

becomes very close to the amount required by operators.

What is missing from this document is a detailed economic analysis, the discussion above does 

not include the possibility that not all the water is actually accessible to operators because of 

land ownership or other factors. The extreme fragmentation of the resource also suggests a 

pipeline gathering system greater than 60 miles per well or equivalently trucking the water from 

many different places, many undoubtedly without easy road access. 

Table 6-1: Summary of Results: Water Availability Distribution

Future Considerations

Overall, in normal conditions, operators should find enough water from surface water bodies 

complemented by groundwater and possibly waste water treatment plant outfall to sustain . The 

major issue is the extreme fragmentation of the resource among many small water bodies, lowyield water wells, and some waste water streams, generating a collection cost that may not be 

overcome in the less productive areas of the play. In addition, drought conditions will seriously 

handicap production of these western counties of the Barnett play unless water is brought in 

from far away from either conventional or possibly alternative resources. 

 

Treatment 

Plant

(Mgal/

month)

Surface 

Water

(Mgal/

month)

Groundwater

(Mgal/

month)

Combined

(Mgal/

month)

Average 

Weighted 

Distance

(miles)

Groundwater 

Discharge 

Median

(gpm)

Groundwater 

Discharge 

95th 

Percen.

(gpm)

Transmissivity

Median

(ft2/day)

Transmissivity

95th 

Percen.

(ft2/day)

5 miles (8 km) radius

5

th

Percen. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 2.7 8.8 14.8 3.3 35.2

Median

0.0 35.9 0.0 42.7 3.3 27.6 33.4 301 767

95th

Percen. 45.6 98.3 22.6 118 4.0 42.6 49.4 1675 3799

10 miles (16 km) radius

5

th

Percen. 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.6 5.7 9.4 18.6 4.6 158

Median 7.1 183 8.9 223 6.6 27.5 36.2 316 1239

95th

Percen. 117.1 358 70.6 447 7.6 39.4 49.6 1195 3859

15 miles (24 km) radius

5

th

Percen. 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.4 8.8 10.0 21.2 5.7 297

Median

44.7 382 31.5 462 10.0 27.4 37.8 316 1750

95th

Percen. 167.7 682 121 838 11.1 37.2 52.5 744 3315
55

7 Engineering Decision Tool for the Evaluation of Mechanical Vapor 

Recompression for the Treatment of Shale Gas Flowback Water

Rationale

Long-term water management in the shale gas industry will depend heavily on maximizing water 

reuse while minimizing disposal volume. Certain treatment processes, such as mechanical 

vapor recompression (MVR), will be employed by the industry to meet these needs. MVR is an 

energy efficient distillation process that provides a large volume of (nearly) deionized water and 

a small volume of highly concentrated brine. This task was undertaken to provide an 

engineering analysis of a full scale pre-treatment and MVR plant actively treating 6,000–6,800 

barrels per day of flowback water in the Barnett. Chemical data, energy utilization, and 

economic data are provided. 

Objectives

The purpose of this project was to document the field performance of the NOMAD MVR system 

in the demineralization of shale gas waters in a near-field brine processing facility owned by 

Devon Energy and operated by Fountain Quail. Performance characterization included 

determination of mass flows, energy flows, fate of constituents of interest, product water yield 

and product water quality. This report has been prepared by GTI to provide managers and 

engineers with a technical information base for decision making regarding the value and 

potential role of the MVR process in the long range management of brines and salts throughout 

the water-based life cycle of each shale gas development area. 

Goals

Testing under real world conditions allowed the determination of actual field conditions 

(including feed water quality) on the stability and performance of the entire MVR system, 

including pretreatment and thermal skid units. Test plan development, coordination and data 

compilation and analysis were all coordinated by the Gas Technology Institute to provide a third 

party assessment of the MVR system in the demineralization of a blend of flowback and 

produced water from shale gas well fields in the Barnett. 

Approach

Mechanical vapor recompression is a highly efficient distillation process. A mechanically-driven 

blower or compressor is used to increase the pressure of the vapor that is produced from the 

boiler in order to improve heat transfer efficiencies. An increase in the water vapor pressure 

increases the condensation temperature of the steam rendering it useable for heating the 

original mixture (in the boiler) in a heat transfer device or heat exchanger. The major 

advantage of mechanical recompression over conventional distillation is the ability to recycle the 
56

latent heat of flashed vapors to the bottom fluids, saving 10-15 % of the total energy of 

distillation. 

Mechanical vapor recompression has become a standard method of distillation since its 

commercial introduction in the 1960’s. The process has been employed at thousands of 

facilities for the desalination of sea water (Veil, 2008), the crystallization of sugars in the food 

industry, dewatering of products in the chemicals and pharmaceuticals industries (Becker and 

Zakak, 1985), and more lately, in the recovery of industrial wastewaters. 

Veil (2008) presented a cursory evaluation of the Aqua Pure MVRs at the Devon Energy water 

reclamation facility in Decatur, Texas. This site (also called the ―Maggie Spain Facility‖ which is 

the subject of the present report) treats flowback water and process water from Devon’s shale 

gas wells located at multiple well fields in Denton County. 

This report provides a detailed description of the Maggie Spain process train and its 

performance during a 2-month period. Water chemistry samples and measurements were 

taken to characterize mass and energy flows throughout the entire treatment system. 

Results and Discussion

Maggie Spain Facility: The Maggie Spain Facility (Figure 7-1) is comprised of an influent 

impoundment and a water preconditioning train followed by multiple mechanical vapor 

recompression (MVR) modules. The MVR’s are operated in parallel to generate a 

demineralized product water stream and a concentrate stream. The diluate, representing >70% 

of the water flow is discharged to a product water impoundment. The concentrate, representing 

less than 30% of the water flow and greater than 99% of the TDS is collected in effluent storage 

tanks for future disposal. Figure 7-1 shows the locations in the flowsheet where water samples 

were taken for analysis (sampling twice weekly). Analyses included conductance, total organic

carbon, BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes), TPH (total petroleum 

hydrocarbons), total heavy metals, total dissolved solids (TDS), suspended solids, pH, alkalinity, 

sulfate, total ammonia, and phosphorus. 

All of the energy required by the facility is supplied by natural gas that is provided by the shale 

gas wells of Devon Energy. The electricity required for pretreatment, and general site needs is 

supplied by two natural gas driven generators. Each NOMAD MVR skid is powered by an 

internal combustion engine fueled by natural gas (each engine capable of delivering up to 700 

hp). Total energy demand measurements were obtained from daily readings of the natural gas 

utilization at the facility. 
57

Preconditioning: The preconditioning section of the Maggie Spain facility provides suspended 

solids removal, oil & grease control, iron removal, and calcium-stable water. Water is delivered 

daily by truck at a rate of 4,000 to 6,000 bbl/d to a 1.4 acre storage reservoir. The chemical 

analysis of the water leaving the reservoir, (representing influent water to the clarifier) is 

presented in Table 7-1. The average total dissolved solids are about 50,000 mg/l. The raw 

water contains a number of scale forming cations, including calcium, iron, strontium, magnesium 

and barium. Small amounts of total petroleum hydrocarbons and BTEX are also present. 

3 MVR Units

Flowback Delivery Storage Reservoir Flash Mixer

Lime and 

Polymer, pH 10 

Lamella

Separator

Concentrated Brine 

to Deep Well or 

Reuse

Surge Tank 

Acid to pH 4

2 Filter Presses

Product Water 

Storage

Product Water to 

Reuse or Discharge

Sludge Cake to Landfill

Filtrate 

Influent 

Sample

Post 

Clarifier 

Sample

Distillate 

Samples

(3)

Condensate 

Samples (3)

Figure 7-1: MVR Process Flow Sheet, Maggie Spain Facility
58

Table 7-1: Influent and Post Clarifier Water Analysis

All units are in mg/l except 

pH and Conductance 

(mS/cm)

Influent Water Post Clarifier 

Average Median Standard 

Deviation

Average Median Standard 

Deviation

Specific Conductance 55,835 55,650 24,890 57,989 61,050 24,243

Total Dissolved Solids 49,550 44,900 10,959 49,133 46,900 9,921

Total Suspended Solids 1,272 357 3,443 140 132 45

pH NA 6.9 6.7 - 7.7 NA 3.7 3.1 - 4.6

Alkalinity 405 385 126 12 4 14

Total Organic Carbon 42 12 118 10 9 5

TPH* 388* 19 1,363 5 4 2

BTEX 3.3 2.9 1.4 2.3 2.1 0.8

Ammonia 84 84 26 81 84 24

Sulfate 309 316 153 221 205 123

Phosphorus 3 3 2 2 2 1

Barium 15 7 19 13 6 17

Boron 17 18 4 16 16 3

alcium 2,916 2,570 975 2,876 2,705 922

Iron 28 27 10 3 2 3

Lithium 12 11 3 12 11 3

Magnesium 316 291 131 319 296 114

Potassium 484 296 524 504 349 494

Sodium 10,741 10,700 3,622 12,400 12,100 2,821

Strontium 505 467 182 528 483 161

Note(*) TPH data overwhelmed by a single event of 5,893 mg/l. 

The TPH average is 38 ± 43 when this event is disregarded.
59

Flash Mixer and Clarifier

Details of the Lamella Clarifier

Filter Presses & Tote Systems

Photo 7-1: Flash Mixer and Clarifier

Photo 7-2: Details of the Lamella

Photo 7-3: Filter Presses & Tote

Water from the storage reservoir is sent to a 

clarifying process unit containing a flash-mix 

chamber and a lamella clarifier (Photo 7-1). 

Caustic (NaOH) is added at the flash mixer 1 to 

increase in the pH of the water to about pH10. 

The shift in pH causes much of the iron to 

precipitate. Polymer is occasionally added to 

aide in the coagulation of the solids. 

Precipitated iron and other suspended solids 

are removed across a lamella plate clarifier 

(Photo 7-2). The clarifier removes about 90% 

of the suspended solids, including 90% of the 

influent iron. The chemical analysis of the post 

clarifier water is presented in Table 7-1.

The solids from the clarifier are dewatered with 

a pair plate and frame filter presses (Photo 7-

3). The solids contribution from the clarifiers to 

the filter is about 2,500 dry pounds per day. 

The cake solids produced from the presses are 

about 20-25% dry matter, yielding a wetted 

solids stream of 10,000 to 12,500 pounds wet 

solids per day. A 20 yard tote is removed from 

the site about once per week. The solids are 

sent to a landfill. 

Clarified water is sent to a surge tank where the 

pH is adjusted to pH 4 to stabilize the scale 

forming cations, such as calcium. The pH 

adjusted water is the feed to the MVR units.
60

Photo 7-4: NOMAD Skid Unit 

View of a Single Nomad System

Photo 7Evaporator Skid -6: Evaporator Skid

Photo 7Compressor Engine Skid -5: Compressor Engine Skid

Mechanical Vapor Recompression: 

Mechanical vapor recompression (MVR) process 

is viewed by a number of shale gas companies as 

one of the most reliable methods of recovering

demineralized water from concentrated brines. 

For this reason, Devon Energy has supported the 

demonstration of three modular NOMAD units that 

are manufactured by Aqua-Pure Ventures and 

operated in the field by Fountain Quail Water 

Management. The Maggie Spain facility has 

three mechanical vapor recompression modules 

(Aqua Pure NOMAD systems). These units are 

powered by natural gas, including the boiler that is 

used to bring the module up to temperature during 

startup and the 700 hp natural-gas-fueled internal 

combustion engine that drives the compressor. 

Electricity used for ancillary lighting, controls and 

data acquisition is supplied by one of the on-site 

generators. The footprint of the NOMAD facility is 

modest; a three NOMAD processing facility occupies an area of about 250’ x 250’ (about 1.4 

acres). Each module (Photo 7-4) has a 

processing capacity of up to 2,800 bbl/d of influent 

brine. 

Each Aqua Pure NOMAD system consists of 

chemical conditioning plus three skids; 1) 

Pretreatment 2) Engine and, 3) Evaporator Heat 

Exchanger Skids. Chemical conditioning consists 

of anti-foam agents and corrosion control. The 

pretreatment skid provides 5μ bag filtration and 

pre-heating economizers. The engine skid (Photo 

7-5) houses a mechanical compressor driven by 

an internal combustion engine that is operated on 

natural gas. The evaporator skid (Photo 7-6) 

provides the liquid-vapor heat exchangers, 

evaporator tank, and distillate collection tank. 
61

The process (Figure 7-2) is initiated by heating a portion of water from the distillate collection 

tank with an auxiliary start-up boiler. When the process comes-up to temperature, the boiler is 

extinguished. 

The mechanical compressor (Photo 7-5) is fed a balanced mixture of vapor (fresh distillate) from 

the vapor separating concentrate tank and water (existing distillate) from the distillate collection 

tank. The compressor increases the fluid pressure creating a saturated vapor. 

The saturated vapor enters a liquid/vapor heat exchanger on the exchanger skid (Photo 7-6). 

The hot side of the exchanger is the saturated distillate vapor. The cool side of the exchanger is 

concentrated liquor fed from the vapor separating concentrate tank. The process is designed to 

vaporize about 10% of the concentrate liquor. 

The overall water balance for typical operation was generated by examining distribution of water 

between the distillate and concentrate of the individual MVR units (Table 7-2). Figure 7-3 is a 

plot of distillate and concentrate volume versus the volume fed to each unit. The slope of each 

line represents the fraction of the influent recovered. The MVRs, as operated in this process 

period, generated 72.5% distillate and 27.5% concentrate. 

The overall salt balance for typical operation was generated by examining the distribution of 

TDS between the distillate and concentrate of the individual MVR’s. This evaluation is 

presented in Figure 7-4. The slope of each line represents the fraction recovered in that 

process stream. The plot shows that the concentrate reliably contains >99.7% of the total salts 

while less than 0.3% remains in the distillate.
62

Total daily natural gas consumption (SCFD) was measured for the entire Maggie Spain facility. 

Energy consumption for individual Nomad MVRs was unavailable. Total natural gas demand 

was plotted as a function of overall influent loading and product water yield to determine the 

overall energy requirement for the facility (including MVR operation plus electricity generation). 

Figure 7-5 is a graph of total SCF gas utilization as a function of treated water or distillate 

generated. The plots appear linear with respect to either total volume of water treated, or the 

volume of distillate produced. The slopes of the lines in this plot indicate that the process 

requires about 48 SCF/bbl influent or 60.5 SCF/bbl distillate produced above the base loading. 

Mechanical 

Compressor

Liquid-Vapor

Heat Exchanger

Distillate Tank

Start-up Boiler

Start-up 

Feed 

Condensing 

Steam 

Return 

Distillate 

Return 

Distillate 

Cooling 

Vapor SeparatorConcentrate Tank 

Economizers

PreHeated 

Feed 

Vapor 

Feed

Concentrate 

Discharge 

Concentrate 

Liquor

Concentrate

110% Vapor 

Distillate

Discharge 

Figure 7-2: Simplified Flow Diagram for the Aqua Pure Mechanical

Vapor Recompression Process
63

Table 7-2: Chemical Analysis of the Distillate and Concentrate Streams 

Combined Data from Three MVR’s

All units (mg/l) except pH

And Conductance (mS/cm)

Nomad MVR Distillate* Nomad MVR Concentrate

Average Median Standard 

Dev

Average Median Standard 

Dev

Specific Conductance 267 161 280 162,818 158,500 83,327

Total Dissolved Solids 171 103 179 168,465 162,000 29,239

Total Suspended Solids 9 4 12 617 519 319

pH NA 10.7 10.5-10.9 NA 6.7 6.3-6.8

Alkalinity 263 248 85 162 143 73

Total Organic Carbon 22 16 17 12 12 4

TPH 4.6 4.0 2.3 4.3 4.0 1.1

BTEX 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ammonia 68 64 26 113 114 50

Sulfate 6 5 2 887 793 631

Phosphorus 0.1 0.1 0.2 7 6 8

Barium 0.1 0.1 0.0 27 5 48

Boron 0.4 0.4 0.1 63 62 13

Calcium 3.2 0.8 6.8 9,699 8,960 2,485

Iron 0.1 0.1 0.0 4 2 4

Lithium 0.1 0.1 0.0 42 38 11

Magnesium 0.4 0.1 0.8 1,132 1,055 355

Potassium 0.5 0.1 1.4 2,028 1,675 1,576

Sodium 14.3 3.6 31.6 41,302 39,000 8,046

Strontium 0.5 0.1 1.0 1,739 1,735 430

*Distillate TDS calculated from specific conductance

Distillate

 Concentrate

Flow Distirbution

 Distillate = 72.5%

 Concentrate = 27.5% 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

Barrels/Day Fed Per MVR Unit Barrels/Day Recovered Per MVR.

Nomad 2 Distillate

Nomad 3 Distillate

Nomad 9 Distillate

Nomad 2 Concentrate

Nomad 3 Concentrate

Nomad 9 Concentrate

Figure 7-3: Water Distribution between Distillate and Concentrate

 During 60 Day Sample Period
64

TDS Distribution

0.25% Distillate

99.75% Concentrate

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

Pounds Salt (TSD) Per Day in Feed TDS in Concentrate or Distillate (lb/day)

Nomad 2 Distillate

Nomad 3 Distillate

Nomad 9 Distillate

Nomad 2 Concentrate

Nomad 3 Concentrate

Nomad 9 Concentrate

Figure 7-4: Distribution of Dissolved Salts between the Distillate and the Condensate 

Streams During 60 Day Sample Period

Natural Gas Utilization

SCF = 48 x Barrels + 120,000

SCF = 60.5 x Barrels + 143,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

MVR Loading or Distillate Yield (Barrels/Day)

Natural Gas Demand, SCFD

Treated Influent

Distillate Yield

Figure 7-5: Daily Natural Gas Demand Versus Influent Loading and Distillate 

Product Yield

(Composite of Three MVR Units
65

Some of the scatter in the data is inevitably due to other process loads on the generators, such 

as drive motors and hydraulic pumps on the clarifier and filter press skids, site lighting, and 

miscellaneous office and maintenance activities. The raw gas numbers also include 

inefficiencies in electricity generation and transmission. Assuming that the field efficiency of the 

gas generators is about 35% to produce the required electricity, then the value of 60.5 SCF/bbl 

distillate is equivalent to 6.4 kWh/bbl distillate. This is convincingly within the range of results 

reported for electrically driven MVR’s (Letterman, 1983; Gallarani et. al., 2002). If the apparent 

base load is added to the incremental processing energy requirements, the overall treatment

requires 72 SFC per barrel treated, or 100 SCF per barrel distillate produced. 

Fate of Various Chemical Constituents

Suspended solids removal occurs at the clarifier with about 90% removal by settling. The 

remaining suspended solids are removed to the concentrate stream. It is also possible that 

certain cations, such as barium and strontium, reach saturation equilibrium within the MVR 

concentrate stream and generate excess suspended material. 

The fate total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) is apparently intimiately tied to the initial 

suspended solids. More than 84% is removed by clarification, and presumably is removed with 

the sludge cake from the filter press. Note that TPH data are overwhelmed by a single event of 

5,893 mg/l. The TPH average is 38 ± 43 when this event is disregarded. 

Total BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene) represents a volatile fraction of the 

organic matter in the water stream (Figure 7-6). Some (30%) of the BTEX is removed between 

the influent and the end of the clarification process. 

Presumably, much of this removal occurs at the rapid mix tank from suface volatility. Much of 

the remaining BTEX is removed (additional 90-95%) in the MRV process. It is likely that these 

organic components are volatilized and expelled at degassing or pressure relief valves 

throughout the separator tank. Notably, the remaining BTEX is prefferentially found in the 

distilate, indicating that these volatile compounds remain with the vapor side of the MRV 

process.

Figure 7-7 re-examines the overall fate of total dissolved solids. The storage reservoir and 

clarification have no affect on TDS concentrations. The MVR’s concentrate the TDS, removing 

most salts from the distillate stream. The fate of calcium, magnesium, strontium, barium and 

boron follows that of the general TDS with most removal in the concentrate stream. Iron, 

however, is precipiated by the initial caustic addition in the rapid mix tank and much (90%) is 

removed by the clarifier. Any remaining iron is prefferentially removed in the MVR condensate. 
66

Impact to Producers

Mechanical vapor recompression has been touted as an attractive alternative for the treatment 

of various wastewaters, expecially when water or other resource recovery is paramount. This is 

the case in most Barnett well fields, where fresh water is precious and deep well injection is at a 

premium. 

Total BTEX

Benzene, Ethylbenzene, 

Toluene, Xylene

3.3

+/- 

1.4

2.3

+/-

0.8

0.15

+/-

0.17

0.00

+/-

0.01

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Influent Post Clarifier Distillate Concentrate

Total BTEX (mg/l)

Total Dissolved Solids

168,500

+/-

29,200

1,880

+/-

1470

49,130

+/-

9,900

49,550

+/- 

11,000

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

Influent Post Clarifier Distillate Concentrate

TDS (mg/l)

Figure 7-6: Fate of Total BETEX in the Maggie Spain Facility

Figure 7-7: Fate of Total Dissolved Solids in the Maggie Spain Facility
67

The Maggie Spain facility discussed in this report is an excellent example of the MVR process 

as it pertains to the shale gas industry. All unit processes are mobile and can be operated on 

natural gas, an obvious advantage in a natural gas field. A case-in-point, this facility was moved 

to a new location prior to the completion of this report.

Advantages of the process are obvious from perusal of the analytical data. Most constituants of 

interest, including trace organics and multivalent metals, are effectively removed either in 

pretreatment, or in the distillation process. The distillate is sufficiently pure to be reused in place 

of fresh process water, or could be discharged to a receiving stream with little or no additional 

conditioning. The concentrate volume represents less than 28% of the original volume, 

resulting in lowered ultimate disposal costs.

One disadvantage of the process is the production of solid waste generated from the clarifier 

solids. This requires some operational expertise and maintenance time, plus additional landfill 

costs. 

The overall treatment (entire facility) requires 72 SFC per barrel treated, or 100 SCF per barrel 

distillate produced. MVR costs are more difficult to detail from the data as collected. However, 

best-fit correlations indicate that there is a base natural gas load to the facility requiring 120-140 

thousand SCF per day. Energy need per incremental barrel of treating influent water and per 

barrel of distillate generated was estimated to be 48 SCF and 60.5 SCF, respectively. 

Assuming 35% efficiency of electrical power generation from natural gas, the energy 

requirement is about 6.4 kWh/barrel distillate. The Maggie Spain Facility energy demand in the 

processing of shale gas waters appears to be as favorably low as the most efficient MVR 

processing cited in the literature for the treatment of far less aggressive waters in terms of 

organics and scale forming constituents. 

As with the implementation of many water treatment processes, the ―per-barrel‖ pricing for 

shale gas water treated in the mechanical vapor recompression water reclamation facility 

depends upon setting and a number of factors (e.g. overall water quality, average salinity of 

feed waters, actual deliveries of water versus capacity, year-by-year projection of flowback and 

produced water deliveries, etc.) that affect the efficiency and nature of the operation. 

Fountain Quail pioneered shale gas water recycling in the Barnett Shale alongside some of the

earliest pioneers in shale gas development. Devon Energy acquired Mitchell Energy and 

George Mitchell is recognized as the spark that ignited the explosive shale development in 

North America. The ability to adapt and react to the changing needs of this rapidly developing 

new industry is critical. 

In order to make recycling cost competitive to disposal in the Barnett Shale (recognized as one 

of the lowest cost shale plays for disposal), Fountain Quail evaluates each and every cost 

associated with recycling in an effort to reduce costs and increase efficiency. As such, Fountain 

Qail often reduces the chemical costs and increases the cleaning frequency to achieve a lower 

cost of operation. 

A very practical "oilfield-type" approach to recycling as been enacted: the equipment must be 

rugged, durable and easy to clean. One cannot afford to complain to the customer when an 

upset occurs (unexpected water composition, etc). The name of the game is to get back 

operational quickly. The equipment is designed with this in mind. For example, compressor 

efficiency was sacrificed by intentionally selecting a low speed engine-driven compressor which 

is very rugged and durable. 

Continuous improvement has also been made. If a certain piece of equipment (i.e.: pump) 

causes significant downtime then it is replaced with a different design so that the overall runtime 
68

and efficiency of the system is improved. By remaining competitive in the Barnett Shale, 

Fountain Quail has developed a wealth of experience and knowledge that has allowed the 

company to expand into the Marcellus and Eagle Ford shales with NOMAD technology. For 

example, a new TSS-removal system called the ROVER has been developed, which is able to 

clean up brine for re-use where customers do not require fresh (distilled) water. The design for 

the ROVER is based on all the years of testing and trials of different equipment with Devon 

Energy in the Barnett Shale. Fountain Quail maintains that recycling must be simple, rugged, 

proven and cost-effective. ROVER treatment is generally <$1/bbl and NOMAD treatment can 

be from $3-$5/bbl, including labor, chemical and equipment.

Deliverables

Topical Report: Hayes, T.D., and Severin, B.F., Engineering Decision Tool for the Evaluation 

of Mechanical Vapor Recompression for the Treatment of Shale Gas 

Flowback Water. RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.11. February 2012. 

Completed Manuscript to be Submitted to SPE in 2012

Hayes, T.D., B. Halldorson, P. Horner, J. Ewing, J.R. Werline, and B.F. Severin. 

Evaluation of Mechanical Vapor Recompression for the Treatment of Shale Gas Flowback 

Water.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The Fountain Quail design of mechanical vapor recompression represents a highly reliable 

process for the efficient recovery of demineralized water from concentrated shale gas brines. A 

demineralized water recovery averaging 72.5% or more may be operationally sustained with 

minimal down time due to fouling. The strength of this process is in its ability to handle influent 

brines of a wide concentration range. The process will achieve good recoveries of 

demineralized water at influent brine levels that are well above 70,000 mg/l, far above levels 

that are not treatable with membrane processes. This report is part of an overall effort to advise 

and support the natural gas industry in the evaluation and selection of treatment equipment and 

processes for the treatment and reuse of water used and generated by the industry. This report 

presents process data on a full-scale (6,000-6,800 bbl/day) mechanical vapor recompression 

distillation (MVR) processing plant treating shale gas hydro-fracture flowback and produced 

water in North Central Texas (Barnett shale region). 

This investigation provided meaningful chemical and economic data concerning the MVR 

process. Process data were collected during a 60 day period during summer 2011. The 

pretreatment at this plant included caustic addition and clarification for total suspended solids 

and iron control. Pretreated water was distilled with three Aqua Pure MVR units, each rated at 

2,000-2500 bbl/day. Distilled water recovery averaged 72.5% of the influent to the MVR’s The 

influent total dissolved solids (TDS) fed to the MVR’s averaged just under 50,000 mg/l. More 

than 99% of the TDS was captured in the concentrate stream. The distillate averaged 171 mg/l 

TDS. The fate of multivalent cations, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and BTEX) was 
69

followed. Most of the iron (90%) and TPH removal (84%) occurred in the clarification step. The 

removal of iron, magnesium, calcium, barium, and boron from the distillate exceeded 99%. 

BTEX removal from the distillate exceeded 95%. 

The power at the facility was provided by two natural gas generators, making isolation of the 

MVR energy requirements problematic. The overall treatment (entire facility) required72 SFC 

per barrel treated, or 100 SCF per barrel distillate produced. Best-fit correlations between 

treated water and distillate production versus natural gas utilization indicated that there was a 

base power load throughout the facility of about 120-140 thousand standard cubic feet of gas 

per day. Incremental power requirements above the baseline were approximately 48 SCF per 

barrel influent water treated (or 60.5 SCF per barrel distillate produced). 

Implications 

Outlook The implementation of MVR technology for shale gas development appears to 

becoming more widespread. Since the writing of this report, the mobile Maggie Spain facility 

has moved elsewhere within the Barnett region to provide treatment services. A similar 

NOMAD MVR system has begun operation in the Marcellus. Competing companies are 

beginning to provide similar services.

Value This report presents process data on a full-scale (6,000-6,800 bbl/day) mechanical 

vapor recompression distillation (MVR) processing plant treating shale gas hydro-fracture 

flowback and produced water in North Central Texas (Barnett shale region). The data

generated in this project are available for industry engineers to peruse and evaluate to make 

rational process decisions regarding MVR implementation and costing.

The MVR process may also have substantial value in plays, such as the Marcellus, where 

limited availability of Class II wells and long distances to the disposal wells of Eastern Ohio are 

already incurring costs of more than $11/bbl for disposal for brines. When reuse opportunities 

are depleted in many of the development areas of Pennsylvania (due to declining completions in 

the future), MVR processing will become of high value in achieving efficient reductions in 

volumes of concentrated brines, requiring only a few dollars to achieve even greater savings in 

reduced transportation and disposal expenditures. 

Future Considerations: The Maggie Spain facility represents one solution to some of the 

water treatment challenges facing the natural gas industry going forward. This facility 

implemented preconditioning and mechanical vapor recompression as the sole demineralization 

process. In the future, improved membrane technologies, such as reverse osmosis or 

electrodialysis, may be beneficial in terms of achieving very low cost dewatering of moderate 

TDS brines before processing with the more energy-intensive MVR; this hybrid process would 

further reduce the overall cost of demineralizing shale gas brines. 
70

References

Becker, F.E., and Zakak, A.I., (1985). Recovering Energy by Mechanical Vapor 

Recompression, Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol. 81, no. 7, pp. 49-53.

Concurrent Technologies (2001). Environmental Technology Verification Program for the Metal 

Finishing Pollution Prevention Verification Test Plan for the Evaluation of Hadwaco MVR 

Evaporator for the Metal Finishing Industry, U.S. EPA Testing and Verification Program 

(CR826492-01-0).

Gallerani, P.A., Brown,D., and Moore, G., Concurrent Technologies (2002). 

Environmental Technology Verification Program for the Metal Finishing Pollution Evaluation of 

Hadwaco MVR Evaporator for the Metal Finishing Industry, US EPA Testing and Verification 

Program (VR P2 01-04)

Leatherman, H.R.(1983). Cost Effective Mechanical Vapor Recompression, Chemical 

Engineering Progress, Vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 40-42.

Razzaghi, M., and Spiering, R., (2002). Mechanical Vapor Recompression Separation Process, 

U.S. Patent 6,375,803.

Veil, J.A., (2008). Thermal Distillation Technology for Management of Produced Water and Frac 

Flowback Water, Argonne National Laboratory, Water Technology Brief # 2008-1.
71

8 Evaluation of Electrodialysis for the Desalinization of Flowback 

Waters from Shale Fracture

Rationale

Long-term water management in the shale gas industry will depend heavily on water reuse. 

Certain treatment processes, such as electrodialysis, will eventually be employed by the 

industry to meet this need. This task was undertaken to provide initial insights into the 

engineering challenges, process requirements, and economic viability to treat a targeted fraction 

of flowback waters with electrodialysis. 

Objectives

Electrodialysis is an electronically driven membrane process for the separation of salts from 

water. Flowback waters present unique chemical characteristics, such as extremely high 

concentrations of dissolved solids including calcium, barium, magnesium, and iron, not normally 

treated by the electrodialysis process. Electrodialysis is known to be highly susceptible to these 

scale forming cations. The objective of this task was to determine the technical and economic 

feasibility of using electrodialysis as a desalination process in such an aggressive environment. 

This necessitated the development of a series of engineered strategies and process 

improvements in order to maintain process efficiency. 

Goals

As the project developed, the specific goals were refined and refocused to develop a general 

engineering analysis of this technology as applied to treating flowback water. Specific problems 

were addressed as they were encountered, and several process improvements were developed 

as intellectual property (see Severin and Hayes – RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.12, 2012). The 

generic goals and summary findings are presented below.

1. Determine baseline operation in salt solutions of 30,000 to 60,000 mg/l TDS.

2. ED is capable of routinely removing 20,000 – 40,000 mg/l from the diluate stream.

3. Determine an operation range at acceptably low energy utilization. An energy utilization 

of 0.1-0.14 kWh/lb salt removed can be routinely met under laboratory conditions.

4. Determine any process improvements to increase production. Increasing the electrolyte 

concentration and minimizing the overvoltage can result in up to 30% rate 

improvements. Temperature control of the electrolyte can result in an additional 15% 

rate improvement.

5. Determine potential operational problems and provide engineering solutions. Using field 

water samples from the Marcellus and the Barnett and lab generated waters, it was 

determined that calcium interference can be mitigated by protecting the cathode with a 

multivalent cation exclusionary membrane. Barium can be mitigated with a clean-inplace pole reversal process.
72

6. Establish the niche for ED in a treatment process. Pretreatment is essential to remove 

suspended solids and iron. With improved electrolyte, cathode protection, and clean-in 

place technology, the ED process can routinely provide a concentrate stream at 60,000

mg/l and diluate at 10,000 mg/l. Calcium, barium, magnesium, and iron are 

preferentially concentrated in the concentrate stream.

7. Establish scale-up and economic information for field application:

8. Operational costs of $35-40 and capital costs of $30-45 per 1000 lb salt removed are 

expected. The majority of the operational cost (75%) was determined to be electric 

power to operate the electrodes. Capital costs were dominated (>80%) by the cost of the 

ED stacks.

Approach

The general approach to the project was taken in four broad phases:

Phase I: Provide theoretical modeling specific to the lab scale pilot ED unit sufficient to guide 

the direction of the initial experiments. Predetermine the operating conditions to meet an 

aggressively low energy demand (0.1-0.15 kWh/lb TDS removed) for a range 30,000 – 60,000 

mg/l sodium chloride. 

Phase II: Determine the influence of extreme concentrations of soluble calcium (1000-4000 

mg/l) as surrogate for barium and magnesium and other multivalent cations on the 

electrodialysis process. 

Phase III: Investigate any operational problems and pretreatment needs associated with 

increased salt complexity, culminating in the treatment of field waters from the Marcellus and 

the Barnett. 

Phase IV: Provide systems modeling for guidance in the placement of ED within a treatment 

train. Provide economic data sufficient for preliminary engineering.

The use of ED as a treatment option is being considered in context to a treatment train, such as 

the simplified flowchart in Figure 8-1. In this example, moderately concentrated waters of 3% to 

5% TDS are treated with a membrane, such as reverse osmosis, or electrodialysis to produce a 

diluate stream for reuse. The concentrate stream is sent to an evaporator. The concentrate 

from the evaporator could be deep well injected. 
73

Electrodialysis is an electrically driven membrane separation technology containing four distinct 

operational components; 1) Multiple pairs of cation and ion selective membrane are collectively 

called the stack; 2) A pair of hydraulic paths to collect demineralized water (the diluate stream) 

and the concentrated water (the concentrate stream); 3) A pair of electrode cells; one containing 

the anode and the second containing the cathode; and 4) An electrolyte reservoir and hydraulics 

to provide anolyte and catholyte. A generic depiction of the electrodialysis process is presented 

in Figure 8-2. As shown here, the cathode is to the right and the anode to the left. Therefore, 

the cations move toward the right while anions move toward the left. The pattern of alternating 

cation and anion selective membrane creates a pattern of alternating concentrate and diluate 

streams. 

Equipment:

This project was performed using an Eurodia Industrie, S.A (Rungis, France) Ameridia Eur2B10 electrodialysis pilot plant (Figure 8-3). The main component is the Eur2B-10 Electrodialysis 

Dialysis Stack that consists of twenty-one alternating cationic and anionic selective membranes, 

beginning and ending with cationic selective membranes. All anionic selective membranes 

were supplied by the vendor. In the first portion of this project, all cationic selective membranes 

were supplied by the vendor. In the final portion of this project, the single cation selective 

Figure 8-1: Conceptual Placement of Electrodialysis (Concentrating Membrane System) in a 

Water Treatment Process
74

membrane at the cathode boundary was replaced with a cation selective, multi-valent 

exclusionary membrane. Individual membranes have an area of 200 cm2.

The ED unit is operated in a semi-batch mode. At initiation, feed water is distributed equally to a 

diluate tank and a concentrate tank, each with 10 L operating volume plus associated 0.5L pipe 

and pump volumes. As the water is treated, salt is transferred from the diluate to the 

concentrate. 

The electrolyte is recycled through the stack from a common pump that distributes both the 

anolyte feed and the catholyte feed. The returned anolyte and catholyte pass through a split 

tank (total active volume 10 L + 1L) with stilling wells to dissipate collected hydrogen gas 

(catholyte side) and oxygen gas (anolyte side). 

Anolyte Flow Catholyte Flow

Cation Selective Membrane

Anion Selective Membrane

Diluate Flow Manifold

A

N

O

L

Y

T

E

C

E

L

L

C

A

T

H

O

L

Y

T

E

C

E

L

L

Na

+

Na+

Na+

Na+

Na+

ClClNa+

ClClClClNa+

A

N

O

D

E

(+)

C

A

T

H

O

D

E

(-)

Concentrate Flow Manifold

Figure 8-2: Ion Flow in an Electrodialysis Stack
75

Continuous runs were performed by filling the diluate and concentrate tank each with about 10.5 

liters of the desired feed water. The electrolyte tank was filled with 10.5 liters of the desired 

electrolyte. In the tests reported, herein, the electrolyte was 90 g/L disodium sulfate, or as noted 

otherwise. 

When in continuous-mode, the instruments were polled once every minute by data collection 

software. The master software was Labview (National Instruments) written by a GTI engineer. 

Oakton Instruments Con 110 meters (Oakton Instrument Company, Vernon Hills, IL) were used 

to continuously measure conductivity and temperature in the diluate and concentrate tanks. 

The conductivity meters were calibrated by setting all meters to a 12.50 mS/cm (milli-Semens 

per centimeter) standard (Oakton Instruments). Subsequently, a series of sodium chloride 

solutions ranging from 120,000 mg/l to about 8000 mg/l NaCl were prepared. Calibrations were 

regenerated each week of testing and spot checked against a single solution daily during a 

week of testing. Three Oakton Instruments pH 110 meters (Oakton Instrument Company, 

Vernon Hills, IL) were occasionally used to measure the pH of the diluate, the concentrate, and 

the electrolyte. The power source was equipped with a computer interface. The potential (DC 

volts) and current (amperage) were polled every minute by the Labview software. All 

continuous runs were performed at 5 V stack potential.

Chemical tests for specific cations and anions were performed under contract with an outside 

contractor (STAT Analysis Corportion, Chicago, IL). The samples were tested by ion 

chromatography for sodium, barium, chloride, sulfate, and calcium, magnesium, manganese, 

and iron. 

Figure 8-3: Photograph of the Eurodia Pilot ED Skid
76

Results and Discussions

Define a Range of Operation: An arbitrary energy utilization limit (0.1 to 0.15 kWh/lb TDS 

removed) was established to keep the electrical costs of electrodialysis at less than $0.18 per 

barrel of flowback water treated. Energy utilization was calculated for 33 electrodialysis runs, 

including 11 tests with field samples from the Marcellus and the Barnett (Figure 8-4). The 

average energy expended was 0.12 kWh/lb TDS with a range from 0.1 to 0.148 kWh/lb. 

Chemistry of the Electrolyte: The chemistry of the electrolyte solution was investigated as 

a means of improving the rate of salt transfer at the desired stack potential. Increasing the 

electrolyte concentration to an ionic strength similar to the water being improved the process by 

as much as 24%. 

Mitigating the Effects of Calcium: Calcium concentrations greater than several 

hundred mg/l have traditionally been a problem with electrodialysis. Flowback water contains 

calcium at levels exceeding several thousand mg/l. The apparent calcium fouling (in and 

around) the electrode cells was indicated by a rapid degradation of process efficiency. The 

single cathode boundary membrane was replaced with a membrane that selected against 

multivalent cations. Calcium flux into the electrolyte was reduced by 66-73%, with an 

improvement in ion flux of about 40% compared to the baseline observations.

Interference and Fate of Multivalent Cations: Flowback water contains a variety 

multivalent cations, in addition to calcium, that can potentially adversely affect electrodialysis. 

Iron caused an immediate loss of process efficiency, likely by precipitation at all membrane 

surfaces. Calcium, barium, and magnesium caused a slower degradation of ion flux. Barium, 

iron, magnesium, and calcium were preferentially transported from the diluate to the 

concentrate. Calcium and magnesium were transported slowly into the electrolyte. Barium and 

iron were either not readily transported, or not readily measured in the electrolyte.

Figure 8-4: Summary of All ED Runs, Energy Utilization (Work) Required Per Pound 

of TDS Transferred

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000

 Initial Concentration (TDS mg/l) kWh/lb TDS Transferred 

Lab Salt Mixes

Mcadoo (The Marcellus)

Marcellus UL (The Marcellus)

Taylor Dooley (The Barnett)

Maggie Spain (The Barnett)
77

Clean-in-Place: Loss of process efficiency was observed when calcium, iron, and barium 

were present in the test water. To overcome this problem, a rapid clean-in-place regime was 

developed. Short pulses (15 seconds to one minute duration at intervals of 15 minutes to one 

hour) of pole reversal (cathode to anode) at elevated voltages (5-15 V) improved total ion flux. 

Tests were conducted with mixed salt solutions and field waters from the Barnett and Marcellus. 

Flux improvements of up to 37% were measured for waters treated using a CIP regime. 

Field Waters from the Barnett and the Marcellus: Samples were received from two field 

sites in each the Barnett and the Marcellus (total four field samples). Pretreatment consisting of 

pH adjustment to neutrality, aeration, and filtration with a 5 μ cartridge filter, was sufficient to 

create treatable waters. In three of four cases, the water was deemed beyond the concentration 

suitable for effective electrodialysis (150,000 – 270,000 mg/l TDS), and likely represented water 

collected from late in the flowback periods at these sites. These waters were diluted with tap 

water for the tests with ED. 

Effect of Temperature: The design of the electrodialysis process creates two co-dependent, 

rate limiting reaction sites; the electrode cell reactions, and the transport of ions within the 

membrane stack. The Arrhenius equation for temperature dependency was modified for two codependent rates over a temperature range of 8°C to 33°C. Independent temperature 

coefficients for the electrode cells and the stack were obtained. These tests predict that field 

operation can be improved with increased operating temperature. Significant improvements 

(>15%) may be made by increasing the electrolyte temperature. 

Process Recommendations: Iron should be aggressively removed in pre-treatment. 

Increased concentration of electrolyte can improve the process by around 24%. If the level of 

calcium and iron is fairly low, then the pH of the electrolyte can be increased to pH 11 for an 

additional 15% improvement in the rate of the process. With high concentrations of calcium, 

protection of the cathode barrier membrane with a multivalent cation exclusionary membrane is 

imperative. Improvements of 40% are possible. Clean-in-place technology will be needed to 

keep the ED unit operational. For very little expenditure, 35% process improvement can be 

realized using a simple pulsed pole reversal. The use of waste heat to increase the 

temperature of the electrolyte, the water, or both, can improve the rate of the process by at least 

15%. 

Process Economics: Eurodia provided a set of capital and operational parameters for 

specific design examples (Table 8-1). The design parameters were converted, with additional 

assumptions, into cost estimates. A typical design case resulted in an operational cost of about 

$35-40/ 1000 lb salt removed. The majority of the operational cost (75%) was determined to be 

electric power to operate the electrodes. Power costs were estimated at $0.10/kWh. 

Membrane replacement and labor accounted equally for 20-25% of the costs. Pumping costs 

and chemical cleaning agents were nominal, compared to the other operational costs. Figure 8-

5 suggests that operating costs are linear with respect to the mass of salt removed per day. 
78

Table 8-1. Test Cases for Economic Analysis

Test Case A3 A4 A5 A6 B1 B2 B3

Inlet TDS 70,000 40,000 20,000 10,000 40,000 40,000 40,000

Effluent TDS 40,000 10,000 10,000 1,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

BBL/d treated 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 20,000 2,000

1000 Lb Salt/Day removed 117 117 40 34 586 234 23

Capital costs were amortized for 7 years and 7% interest to estimate a capital cost per 1000 

pounds salt removed. A typical design case resulted in a capital cost of $30-45/1000 lb salt 

removed. Capital costs were dominated (>80%) by the process equipment for the electrodialysis 

unit. Placeholder costs estimates for generators and construction (building and site preparation) 

accounted for about 20% of the required capital. Figure 8-6 suggests that capital costs are 

linear with respect to the mass of salt removed per day. A further comparison between the 

process data in this report and the estimates from Eurodia suggests increased capital costs 

(dominated by the cost of the electrodialysis equipment), can be offset by lower operating costs 

(dominated by energy requirements). 

Operating Costs

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

0 50 100 150 200 250

Pounds Salt Removed/Day (Thousands)

$/Day

Capital Costs

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

0 50 100 150 200 250

Pounds Salt Removed/Day (Thousands)

$ (Millions)

Figure 8-5: Capital Costs as a Function of Daily Salt Removal (right)

Figure 8-6: Operating Costs as a Function of Salt Removal (left)
79

Operating costs are shown in Figure 8-7 for five of the test cases. Pumping and cleaning 

chemical costs were combined, being minimal compared to the other costs. When presented in 

this manner, it can be seen that the stack power and membrane replacement costs are nearly 

constant on a basis of $/lb salt treated. The economy of scale appears to be in labor. Labor is 

a placeholder value for this evaluation.

Capital costs are shown on a case-by-case basis as a function of salt removal in Figure 8-8. 

Recall that these values are based on amortized capital (7 years, 7%). Economy of scale 

appears to stabilize between Cases A3 and A4 and Case B3, indicating that the most efficient 

capital use appears to be for cases that exceed 117,000 pounds of salt per day. 

Case B3 Case A6 Case A5

Cases A3 & A4 Case B2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

$/1000 Lb Salt

23 34 40 117 234

1000 Lb Salt/Day

Operating Costs ($/1000lb salt) vs (1000lb salt/day)

Stack Power Labor Membranes Pumping-Cleaning

Figure 8-7: Breakdown of Operating Costs ($/1000 lb salt) as a Function of Daily Salt Removal
80

Deliverables

Topical Reports

Severin, B.F., and Hayes, T.D., Development of Electrodialysis for Shale Gas Water 

Reuse. RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.01. November 2010.

Severin, B.F., and Hayes, T.D., Evaluation of Electrodialysis in the Demineralization of 

Shale Gas Flowback Waters. RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.12. February 2012. 

Completed Manuscripts to be Submitted to a Refereed Journal in 2012

Hayes, T.D.,and Severin, B.F., Evaluation of Electrodialysis for the Desalinization of 

Flowback Waters from Shale Fracture: Part I, Problem Definition.

Hayes, T.D., and Severin, B.F, Evaluation of Electrodialysis for the Desalinization of 

Flowback Waters from Shale Fracture: Part II, Field Samples.

Figure 8-8: Amortized Capital Normalized ($/1000 Lb Salt Treated) versus Daily Treatment.

Case B3 Case A6 Case A5

Cases A3 & A4

Case B3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

$/1000 Lb Salt

23 34 40 117 234

1000 Lb Salt/Day

Amortized (A/P 7%,7year)Capital Costs ($/1000lb salt) vs (1000lb salt/day)

Stacks Building UTILITIES
81

Hayes, T.D. and Severin,B.F., Evaluation of Electrodialysis for the Desalinization of 

Flowback Waters from Shale Fracture: Part III, Interference and Fate of Multivalent 

Cations.

Severin, B.F.,and Hayes,T.D. Evaluation of Electrodialysis for the Desalinization of 

Flowback Waters from Shale Fracture: Part IV, Effect of Temperature 

Invention Disclosures

Intellectual Property Disclosure I: Hayes, T.D., and Severin, B.F., Clean-in-Place Method 

for Electrodiaslysis Electrode Cells.

Intellectual Property Disclosure II: Severin, B.F., and Hayes, T.D., High Rate 

Electrodialysis by Electrolyte Temperature Control.

Intellectual Property Disclosure III: Severin, B.F., and Hayes, T.D., Divalent Cation 

Exclusion from Electrolyte Solutions in the Electrodialysis Process; The Scavenger Cell

Intellectual Property Disclosure IV: Hayes, T.D., and Severin. B.F., Mitigation of High 

Calcium and Other Multivalent Cation Concentrations on the Treatment of Highly 

Concentrated Brines with Electrodialysis.

Intellectual Property Disclosure V: Hayes, T.D., and Severin, B.F. Electrolyte Chemistry 

Improvements for Electrodialysis of Heavy Brine

Impact to Producers

The overarching goal of this project is to provide the producers with information that helps to 1) 

minimize fresh water utilization, 2) maximize water reuse, 3) minimize disposal costs, and 4) 

reduce truck traffic (carbon footprint) throughout a gas play. Other tasks in this project 

investigated the chemical composition of flowback waters (Task 4 Water Characterization), the 

feasibility of early flowback capture (Task 5 Feasibility of Early Flowback Capture), and the long 

term management challenges (Task 11 Systems and Life Cycle Analysis) and how these 

systems impact an engineered solution, such as the flow sheet presented in Figure 8-1. 

Some early flowback water may be reused directly with minimal pretreatment. A second 

fraction of water, with mid-range conductivity 20,000 – 50,000 mg/l, may need to receive 

intermediate ion separation, such as presented in this Task 8, or by other means, such as 

reverse osmosis (Task 9 and Task 10 Field Experimental RO Membranes). The diluate fraction 

from electrodialysis or reverse osmosis can be targeted to provide the quality necessary for 

reuse. The concentrate from electrodialysis or reverse osmosis may be further treated in a 

more costly process, such as mechanical vapor recompression (Task 7 Mechanical vapor 

Recompression). 
82

Electrodialysis is a readily available and widely used desalination process. Results generated in 

this task (Task 8 Electrodialysis) suggest modifications and pretreatment needs necessary to 

implement this particular technology within an engineered system, such as Figure 8-1. A 

series of treatment cases were analyzed by the manufacturer. A typical design case resulted in 

an operational cost of about $35-40/1000 lb salt removed and a capital cost of $30-45/1000 lb 

salt removed. This yields, for example, a cost of about $1 per barrel for water at 50,000 mg/l 

treated to a target of 10,000 mg/l. This compares beneficially to other competing costs, such 

as transportation, disposal, or advanced treatment such as mechanical vapor recompression.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The treatment of flowback waters from shale gas hydrofracture with electrodialysis represented 

a dual technical challenge. Normal operation of electrodialysis is in the range of several 

thousand mg/l TDS and limited to several hundred mg/l calcium and magnesium. This project 

centered on 1) keeping the operating costs under a controlled limit and 2) finding opportunities 

to maximize process output. A number of problems were encountered that were systematically 

addressed as the project proceeded from the treatment of water containing pure sodium 

chloride (30,000-60,000 mg/l) to the treatment of solutions with sodium, calcium (up to 4,000 

mg/l), barium (up to 400 mg/l), iron (up to 50 mg/l), and magnesium (up to 600 mg/l), and finally 

to the treatment of field samples from the Barnett and the Marcellus. Some of these 

improvements represent potentially scalable means for cost savings. Others of these 

improvements represent critical changes needed to keep the electrodialysis unit operational. 

Implications

The major implications of this development effort relate to the process needs and changes 

required to meet the aggressive water chemistry in flowback waters. 

Iron appears to be the most likely cation to cause fouling of the ED process. Iron must be 

aggressively removed in pre-treatment.

Increase the concentration of electrolyte to reduce resistance at the electrodes. This can 

improve rate of the ED process. 

If the level of calcium and iron is fairly low, then the pH of the electrolyte can be increased

to pH 11. This reduces the overvoltage applied to the anode and can account for an 

additional improvement in the rate of the process.

With high concentrations of calcium, protection of the cathode barrier membrane with a 

multivalent cation exclusionary membrane is imperative. Without this improvements, 

expect a 40% decrease in process. 

Clean-in-place technology will be needed to keep the ED unit operational for very little 

expenditure. If not implemented, expect a 35% decrease in process. 

The use of waste heat to increase the temperature of the electrolyte, the water, or both, 

can improve the rate of the process by at least 15%.
83

Outlook The implementation of electrodialysis into an engineered water reuse systems 

appears economically feasible with and estimated cost of about $1 per barrel for water at 

50,000 mg/l treated to a target of 10,000 mg/l. Globally, electrodialysis is increasingly used for 

demineralization purposes in the food, chemicals and water reclamation industries; it is likely 

that the process will gain greater visibility in the handling of produced and flowback waters of 

the shale gas industry, as well. Successful entry into the shale gas market will depend on the 

completion of development of the ED process to incorporate the five process improvements that 

were developed in this project. Further R&D will enhance the technology’s probability of 

success. 

Value The value of the ED process lies in its ability to recover low TDS water from 

moderately concentrated brine before introducing the concentrated brine to the more energy 

and capital intensive thermal separations processes. The data generated in this project are

available for industry engineers to peruse and evaluate as a part of rational decision making.

Future Consideration A number of process improvements have been suggested to 

make electrodialysis field ready. These include intellectual property issues: 

1. A Clean-in-Place Method for Electrodiaslysis Electrode Cells.

2. Improved High Rate Electrodialysis by Electrolyte Temperature Control.

3. Divalent Cation Exclusion from Electrolyte Solutions in the Electrodialysis Process with a 

Scavenger Cell.

4. Mitigation of High Calcium and Other Multivalent Cation Concentrations on the 

Treatment of Highly Concentrated Brines with Electrodialysis.

5. Electrolyte Chemistry Improvements for Electrodialysis of Heavy Brine.

These IP positions were conceived based on work performed in this project. While some of 

these were reduced to practice in the small lab unit used in this project, a future consideration 

would be to more fully develop these concepts in this lab unit and potentially larger units robust 

enough for an evaluation under actual field conditions. 
84

9 Novel Fouling—Resistant Membranes for Barnett Shale Water 

Management and Reuse Technologies 

Rationale

Hydraulic fracturing, used in the production of natural gas from the unconventional gas shales, 

requires large quantities of water. Challenges for extensively employing hydraulic fracturing 

include, among others, the availability of water and the management of produced and flowback 

waters from well completion. These challenges can be mitigated by reusing produced and 

flowback waters. Long-term water management in the shale gas industry will depend heavily on 

water reuse. Certain treatment processes, such as electrodialysis, will eventually be employed 

by the industry to meet this need. This task was undertaken to provide initial insights into the 

engineering challenges, process requirements, and economic viability to treat a targeted fraction 

of flowback waters with electrodialysis. 

 

Objective

A major challenge in purifying produced water with membranes is fouling. Produced or flowback 

water is typically composed of dispersed oil, organics, salts, metals, and treatment chemicals[1], 

which badly foul the membranes. The accumulation of foreign materials on the membrane 

hinders the flow of water through the membrane, which in turn drives up the cost of operation[2]. 

Membrane surface modification can be used to improve fouling resistance of membranes[3]. By 

increasing surface hydrophilicity, reducing surface charge, and reducing surface roughness, 

membrane fouling can be reduced[3]. In this study, polydopamine, a hydrophilic surface 

modification material, was used to reduce membrane fouling by oil/water emulsions. Influence of 

the modification conditions on membrane performance was investigated.

Goals

The goals of this task were to:

1. Demonstrate the baseline performance of commercial ultrafiltration, nanofiltration 

and reverse osmosis membranes in the removal of constituents of interest from 

shale gas waters. 

2. Modify these membranes with coatings selected to minimize fouling and improve 

energy efficiency.

3. Demonstrate improved membrane performance under laboratory conditions.

Approach

Membrane Selection: Produced or flowback water often contains sufficient levels of salt to 

require desalination prior to reuse or surface discharge, and reverse osmosis (RO) membranes 

are commonly used to desalinate water. Pretreatment, employing ultrafiltration (UF) 

membranes, reduces fouling in RO membranes by removing oil, grease, suspended solids, and 

other large molecules prior to RO treatment. Commercial RO and UF membranes were, 

therefore, the major focus of this research; the specific membranes considered in this study are 

listed in Table 9-1.
85

Table 9-1: Commercial Membranes Used in the Fouling Tests

Classification Membrane 

Polymer Manufacturer Pore Size

Pure water 

Flux 

(LMH/bar)

Study ID

UF Polysulfone Sepro (PS-20) ~20 kDa1

MWCO2 1000 PS-20 UF

UF Polyethersulfone Sepro (PES-30) ~20 kDa 

MWCO 300 PES UF

NF Polyamide Dow (NF-90) N/A 12.3 PA NF-90

RO Polyamide Dow (XLE RO) N/A 7.7 PA 

XLERO

1. KDa = 1000 Daltons Pore Size

2. MWCO = Molecular Weight Cut Off. 

Membrane Surface Modification with Polydopamine (PDOPA): Surface coating with 

polydopamine (PDOPA) is a new approach to improve membrane fouling resistance. Dopamine 

in Tris-HCl buffer solution undergoes polymerization under slightly alkaline conditions to form 

polydopamine[4] as shown in Figure 9-1.

Polydopamine can non-selectively deposit onto virtually any surface due to its excellent 

adhesion properties[4]. Since the polydopamine layer is uncharged and very hydrophilic, it helps 

reduce oil/grease adhesion and, in turn, membrane fouling. Moreover, PDOPA-coated 

membranes can be used to covalently bind other molecules such as amine-terminated 

poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG-NH2) to the membrane to further help reduce membrane fouling[5]. 

Generally, the polydopamine can be coated as a very thin layer; thus, it has minimal effect on 

membrane flux. 

Membrane Modification Protocol: UF and RO membranes were pretreated with isopropyl 

alcohol (IPA) prior to membrane coating to ensure that the pores of the membranes were open 

and accessible during filtration tests. The membranes were coated with PDOPA by exposing 

their active layers to an aqueous solution of dopamine hydrochloride in 15 mM Tris-HCl buffer. 

Unless otherwise stated, a dopamine concentration of 2 mg/mL, Tris-HCl buffer pH of 8.8, and 

Figure 9-1: Conversion of dopamine to polydopamine (PDOPA)
86

60 minute deposition time were used. Following polydopamine deposition, the membrane was 

soaked in ethyl alcohol (for UF membranes) or 25% (v/v) IPA (for RO membranes) for 10 

minutes to remove any weakly-bonded polydopamine before being rinsed thoroughly with 

deionized water and stored in deionized water until used.

Methyl-terminated poly(ethylene glycol) amine (mPEG-NH2, MW = 5 kDa) was grafted to some 

PDOPA-coated membranes at 60°C for 60 minutes. The grafting solution was 1 mg/mL of PEGNH2 in 15 mM tris-HCl buffer at pH 8.8. Membranes with grafted PEG are denoted as PDOPAg-PEG-modified membranes in this report.

Emulsified Oil Fouling Tests: The fouling study was conducted using a constant

transmembrane pressure (TMP) crossflow filtration system, as shown in Figure 9-2. The model 

feed foulant solution was 1500 ppm soybean oil/DC193 (non-ionic surfactant) in deionized water 

emulsion (with an oil to DC193 ratio of 9:1). To study salt rejection of RO membranes, 2000 

ppm NaCl was added to the feed solution prior to adding the foulant solution. The UF 

membranes were tested at a TMP of 30 psi and a crossflow rate of 0.8 L/min (Re ~ 1000). The 

RO membranes were tested at a TMP of 150 psi and a crossflow rate of 3.8 L/min (Re ~ 4900).

Figure 9-2: Constant TMP crossflow filtration system

Results and Discussion

Experimental results are shown in Figure 9-3. The PDOPA-modified membranes exhibited 

higher permeate flux (at 24 hours filtration) than the unmodified membranes in all cases. 

Grafting PEG-NH2 onto the PDOPA coating slightly enhanced the permeate flux of the PS-20 

and PES UF membranes relative to the PDOPA-modified (ungrafted) membranes. The RO and 

NF membranes, however, yielded lower permeate flux after they had been grafted with PEGNH2. The PEG-NH2 coating generally increased the resistance to water transport through the 

membranes. For porous membranes, such as UF membranes, the increase in mass transfer 

resistance due to PEG grafting is small. However, membranes with very small or no pores, such 

as NF or RO membranes, suffer from large additional mass transfer resistance introduced by 

the PEG-NH2 grafting. 

Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3

Feed 

Tank Filter

Pulse

Dampener

Back Pressure 

Regulator

Flow Meter and

Pressure Gauge

Bypass

Valve

Water

Bath

Analytical

Balances

LabVIEW
87

Effect of Polydopamine Surface Modification Conditions: Various modification 

conditions were investigated: dopamine concentrations (0.1, 0.5, 2, 4, and 8 mg/mL), PDOPA 

deposition times (30, 60, and 120 minutes), and initial pH values of tris-HCl buffer solution (5, 

8.8, and 11). The fouling behavior of modified PA XLERO membranes was evaluated at each 

coating condition and compared with that of unmodified membranes. The oil/water emulsion 

fouling tests and NaCl rejection measurements were conducted as described in the earlier 

section. Modified membranes were also tested for pure water flux using dead-end filtration at a 

TMP of 150 psi.

Figure 9-3: Permeate flux as a function of time in soybean oil/water emulsion filtration using 

unmodified, PDOPA-modified, and PDOPA-g-PEG-modified membranes. a. PS-20 UF, b. PES 

UF, c. NF-90, and d. PA XLERO membranes. Rejection values (organic rejection for UF 

membranes, salt rejection for NF and RO membranes) were measured at the end of filtration.

20

40

60

80

100

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Flux [Lm-2

h-1

]

Time [h]

PDOPA-g-PEG (98.1% rejection)

PDOPA (98.3% rejection)

Unmodified (98.1% rejection)

a.

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Flux [Lm-2

h-1

]

Time [h]

PDOPA 

(98.2% rejection)

PDOPA-g-PEG

(98.2% rejection)

Unmodified 

(98.1% rejection)

b.

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

Flux [Lm-2

h-1

]

Time [h]

PDOPA (98.5% salt rejection)

Unmodified (98.9% salt rejection)

PDOPA-g-PEG (98.9% salt rejection)

c.

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

Flux [L m-2 h-1

]

Time [h]

PDOPA (99.1% salt rejection)

Unmodified (99.3% salt rejection)

PDOPA-g-PEG (99.5% salt rejection)

d.
88

As shown in Figures 9-4a and 9-5a, pure water flux decreased with increasing dopamine 

concentration and deposition time. Higher dopamine concentrations[6]-[8] and longer coating 

times[4],[6]-[10] yield thicker PDOPA layers on the membrane surface. This layer creates additional 

mass transfer resistance which reduces the pure water flux. However, all PDOPA-modified 

membranes exhibited improved permeate flux relative to the unmodified membranes during 

fouling tests as shown in Figures 9-4b and 9-5b. Figure 9-4b shows that the membranes 

modified with different dopamine concentrations displayed little variation in the permeate flux 

during oil/water emulsion filtration. The results indicated that the mass transfer resistance due to 

the PDOPA coating was insignificant compared to that from the foulant layer introduced by oil 

emulsion. 9. 5b shows that the membranes modified with 30 minutes deposition time produced 

a slightly lower permeate flux than those modified for 60 and 120 minutes. This result could be 

due to an incomplete coverage of the coating at short deposition time (i.e., 30 minutes).

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0 2 4 6 8 Pure Water Flux [Lm-2h-1

]

Dopamine Concentration [mg/mL]

a.

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

Unmodified

0.5 mg/mL

2 mg/mL

4 mg/mL

8 mg/mL

0.1 mg/mL

Flux [Lm-2h-1

]

Time [h]

b.

Figure 9-4: a. Pure water flux as a function of dopamine concentration used during PA XLERO 

membrane modification; b. Permeate flux as a function of time in soybean oil/water emulsion 

filtration using PA XLERO membranes unmodified and PDOPA-mcodified at different dopamine 

concentrations (with 60 minutes deposition time and tris-HCl buffer initial pH at 8.8). 
89

Figure 9-5: a. Pure water flux as a function of deposition time used during PA XLERO 

membrane modification, b. Permeate flux as a function of time in soybean oil/water emulsion 

filtration using PA XLERO membranes unmodified and PDOPA-modified at different deposition 

times (with 2 mg/mL dopamine concentration and tris-HCl buffer initial pH at 8.8).
90

As shown in Figure 9-6a, the pure water flux of membranes modified at pH 5 was similar to that 

of unmodified membranes while those modified at alkaline conditions (i.e., pH 8.8 and 11) 

showed a decrease in pure water flux. Figure 9-6b shows that the membranes modified at pH 5 

produced a similar permeate flux to unmodified membranes during oil emulsion fouling while the 

membranes modified in alkaline conditions showed improved permeate flux during oil emulsion 

fouling relative to that of unmodified membranes. These results suggest that polydopamine was 

not successfully coated on the membranes in acidic conditions while the coating proceeded well 

in alkaline conditions. All modified membranes showed minimal changes in true NaCl rejection 

from unmodified membranes.

Figure 9-6: a. Pure water flux as a function of Tris-HCl buffer initial pH used during PA XLERO 

membrane modification, b. Permeate flux as a function of time in soybean oil/water emulsion 

filtration using PA XLERO membranes unmodified and PDOPA-modified at different initial pH of 

Tris-HCl buffer (with 2 mg/mL dopamine concentration and 60 minutes deposition time).
91

Deliverables

Topical Reports

Li, A., S. Kasemset, D.J. Miller, B.D. Freeman, and M.M. Sharma. Innovative UF / NF / 

RO Membrane Performance Through the Use of Innovative Coatings: Selection of 

Membrane Supports and Coatings for Barnett Well Flowback Water Separations. 

RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.03. November 2010. 

Lee, A., S. Kasemset, D.J. Miller, B.D. Freeman, and M.M. Sharma. Novel FoulingResistant Membranes for Barnett Shale Water Management and Reuse. RPSEA Report 

No. 08122-05.13. February 2012. 

Impact to Producers

Reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration, and nano-filtration are commercially available membrane 

processes commonly utilized in the water and food industries. The use of these technologies 

for the treatment of flowback and produced waters requires that they be robust and economical. 

This project takes a preliminary laboratory-scale investigation of simple (and available) chemical 

pre-treatment of commercially available membranes to render them more resistant to fouling. 

Most of the energy consumed in a membrane-based process is the power required for the feed 

pumps. The ratios of energy used per unit volume of permeate of unmodified membranes and 

PDOPA-modified membranes were calculated[11] and compared (assuming that the pump 

efficiency and feed flow rates in both cases were the same). At the same transmembrane 

pressure difference and based on the flux after 1 hour of oil/water emulsion filtration, the 

modified PA XLERO membrane could produce 1.26 times more permeate than an unmodified 

membrane, and the modified PS-20 UF membrane could produce 2.35 times more permeate 

than an unmodified membrane. 

Preliminary test results indicate that the polydopamine coatings developed by UT can be 

economically implemented to reduce energy costs by more than 35% and extend membrane life 

by 2-3 fold. Improved membrane technologies can potentially reduce brine demineralization 

costs to well below $1/bbl. Impact to producers will consist of significantly lower costs for brine 

volume reductions and significant savings in reduced transportation and disposal expenditures. 
92

Conclusions and Recommendations

Implications: Reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, and ultrafiltration processes are potentially 

useful technologies for the desalination of flowback waters. The challenge in using membrane 

technology for produced water purification is fouling. Fouling is the build-up of particulate matter 

on the membrane either externally or internally which eventually inhibits its activity. Unlike 

regular seawater or brackish water, produced water contains many particulates, such as 

emulsified oils and organics, which aggressively foul the membrane. Polydopamine (PDOPA) 

was found to be an effective anti-fouling surface coating for UF, NF, and RO membranes for 

produced water purification. The deposition of PDOPA improved the permeate flux for all types 

of membranes studied during simulated oil/water emulsion filtration. For UF membranes, 

additional grafting by using poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) further enhanced the fouling resistance. 

Energy savings were estimated for the PDOPA-modified UF and RO membranes in oil/water 

emulsion filtration by comparing power required per permeate volume. With the same amount of 

energy provided by the pump, the modified RO membrane produced 1.27 times more permeate 

volume than unmodified RO membrane after 1 hour oil/water emulsion filtration. The modified 

UF membrane permeate volume increased by a factor of 2.35 after 1 hour of oil/water emulsion 

filtration. By translating these benefits for industrial membrane applications, PDOPA 

modification is estimated to provide savings for 30% of the capital and 40-80% of the operating 

costs. 

Outlook: The implementation of reverse osmosis or ultra filtration to the needs of gas and oil 

industry is under investigation. The present report suggests that this it is highly feasible to 

produce high quality water for $1-2/ barrel.

Value: The value of this development effort was to define the process capability of a standard 

and readily available process (reverse osmosis or ultra filtration) to a new application area 

(flowback water). The data generated in this project are available for industry engineers to 

peruse and evaluate to make rational process decisions.

Future Considerations: The data in this report were used for membrane selection and 

preparation for a 30 field test at a flowback water treatment facility in the Barnett. The results of 

this test are the subject of the next section of this report (Task 10: Field Assessment and AntiFouling Polymeric Membrane Coatings for Treatment of Barnett Shale Flowback Produced 

Water. RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.05. March 2011. 
93

References

Review of the Desalination and Water Purification Technology Roadmap, The National 

Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2004.

R.W. Baker, Membrane Technology and Applications, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., West 

Sussex, 2004.

J.S. Louie, I. Pinnau, I. Ciobanu, K.P. Ishida, A. Ng, M. Reinhard, Effects of polyether-polyamide 

block copolymer coating on performance and fouling of reverse osmosis membranes, J. Membr. 

Sci. 280 (2006) 762-770.

H. Lee, S.M. Dellatore, W.M. Miller, P.B. Messersmith, Mussel-inspired surface chemistry for 

multifunctional coatings, Science 318 (2007) 426-430.

B.D. McCloskey, Novel surface modifications and materials for fouling resistant water 

purification membranes, PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 2009.

J.H. Jiang, L.P. Zhu, L.J. Zhu, B.K. Zhu, Y.Y. Xu, Surface characteristics of a self-polymerized 

dopamine coating deposited on hydrophobic polymer films, Langmuir 27 (2011) 14180-14187. 

J. Ou, J. Wang, S. Liu, J. Zhou, S. Ren, S. Yang, Microtribological and electrochemical 

corrosion behaviors of polydopamine coating on APTS-SAM modified Si substrate, Applied 

Surface Science 256 (2009) 894-899. 

F. Pan, H. Jia, S. Qiao, Z. Jiang, J. Wang, B. Wang, Y. Zhong, Bioinspired fabrication of high 

performance composite membranes with ultrathin defect-free skin layer, J. Membr. Sci. 341 

(2009) 279-285. 

B.D. McCloskey, H.B. Park, H. Ju, B.W. Rowe, D.J. Miller, B.J. Chun, K. Kin, B.D. Freeman, 

Influence of polydopamine deposition conditions on pure water flux and foulant adhesion 

resistance of reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration, and microfiltration membranes, Polymer 51 (2010) 

3472-3485.

 

B. Li, W. Liu, Z. Jiang, X. Dong, B. Wang, Y. Zhong, Ultrathin and stable active layer of dense 

composite membrane enabled by poly(dopamine), Langmuir 25 (2009) 7368-7374.

M.P. Boyce et al. Section 10: Transport and storage of fluids, in Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s 

Handbook, R.H. Perry and D.W. Green (eds), McGraw Hill Co., New York, NY (2008).
94

10 Field Assessment of Anti-Fouling Polymeric Membrane Coatings 

for Treatment of Barnett Shale Flowback and Produced Waters 

Rationale

The purpose of this effort is to test the advanced coated membrane materials in membrane 

processes treating flowback waters under actual field conditions. This task is a companion 

effort with Task 9 which was the laboratory development of polymeric (polydopamine) coatings 

for the improvement of ultrafiltraion and reverse osmosis membranes for the low cost, 

dependable demineralization of moderate strength flowback and produced waters. Long-term 

water management in the shale gas industry will depend heavily on water reuse and brine 

volume reductions to control transportation and disposal costs. Reverse osmosis conceptually 

works well as a process to dewater moderately concentrated brines before the concentrated 

brines are introduced to the more capital and energy intensive thermal distillation processing to 

achieve further brine volume reductions. 

Energy efficiency and fouling resistance goals are key metrics in the improvement of 

membranes using innovative coatings. Efficient water recovery using low cost membrane 

technology can be used treatment can be achieved using membrane-based processes. A 

significant challenge to membrane processes tested on produced waters in the past has been 

membrane fouling. The development of a new generation of ultrafiltration (UF) and reverse 

osmosis (RO) membranes that could resist fouling, while achieving energy savings relative to 

conventional thermal treatment, would open opportunities for the use of low-energy-input 

membrane processes to recover a purified water stream from large volumes of produced water. 

This task (Task 10) is a field experimental evaluation of advanced membrane coatings 

developed in Task 9 of this RPSEA project.

Objective

Polydopamine (PDOPA) was found to be an effective anti-fouling surface coating for UF and RO 

membranes with laboratory simulated flowback waters (Task 9). The deposition of PDOPA 

improved the permeate flux for all types of membranes. These efforts projected savings of up to 

30% of the capital and up to 40-80% of the operating costs. The objective of this task (Task 10) 

was to determine if these projected savings would translate from the laboratory to field 

experience. A UF-RO test unit was operated at the Maggie Spain (See Task 7) water reuse 

facility region near Fort Worth, TX. The feedstock to the UF-RO unit was effluent from the 

clarifier at this the Maggie Spain. 

Goals

1. Upgrade a UF-RO test unit with commercial membranes improved with innovative 

coatings.

2. Demonstrate improved membrane performance compared to conventional membranes.

3. Identify clean-in-place (CIP) techniques.
95

UF-RO Site at the Maggie Spain Water

Reuse Facility

Figure 10-1: UF-RO Site at the Maggie Spain Water

Reuse Facility

Approach

Advanced Membrane Technology: Coating membranes with a thin layer of polydopamine 

improves their resistance to fouling and provides a versatile starting point for further surface 

chemical modifications, as needed. Previous laboratory results have shown improved fouling 

resistance of polydopamine-coated UF and RO membranes (See Task 9) with simulated 

flowback water. 

Field Test: A 30-day field test of a modified UF-RO unit was performed at the Maggie Spain 

water reuse facility (See Task 7) in the Barnett Shale region near Fort Worth, TX. Feed water to 

the membrane unit was generated under normal process conditions extant at the Maggie Spain 

facility, e.g., pH control, coagulation and sedimentation.

UF-RO Test Unit: The UF 

system was designed and built by 

Advanced Hydro Inc. (Figure 10-1). 

A schematic of the test unit is 

presented in Figure 10-2. Two 

hollow-fiber ultrafiltration elements 

were used: one element was 

treated with polydopamine and 

PEG, the second element was not 

treated (conventional UF 

membrane) and used as a control. 

Both elements were run in parallel 

during the test period. UF effluents 

were blended in a storage tank 

(middle buffer tank) that was 

subsequently fed to the RO 

system. 

Two trains of RO membranes, 

each with three elements in series, 

desalinated the water processed 

by ultrafiltration. Elements in one of 

the RO trains were treated with 

polydopamine while the elements 

in the other train were left uncoated 

(conventional membrane 

technology). The two trains of the 

RO system were run alternately 

every 12 hours. 

An Ultra-Flo U630C (Ultra-Flo PTE 

Ltd, Singapore) was used as the 

demonstration UF membrane 

module. The membrane fibers 

were modified poly(acrylonitrile) 

with a 1mm outer diameter 
96

(pressure side) and a 0.5 mm inner diameter (Filtrate side). The membrane surface area in each 

module was 323 ft2. Pore sizes reportedly ranged between 0.1 to 0.01 microns. The 

membranes were available off-the-shelf and typically used for water treatment with a 

recommended maximum feed turbidity of less than 5 NTU. Such membranes are not optimum 

for produced water pre-treatment; however, these were the only membranes available for the 

side-by-side testing.

A spiral-wound SWC3+ seawater RO membrane module (Hydranautics, Oceanside, California, 

USA) was used as the demonstration RO membrane. This membrane is a typical interfacial 

composite polyamide RO membrane with a nominal surface area of 400 ft2per membrane 

module.

Clean-in-Place: Due to the high fouling potential of the feed water, hollow fiber modules were 

back-flushed every 15 minutes with a 30-second air scour. To maintain the membrane 

performance, a daily hot water clean (110°F) was also performed on hollow fiber modules at the

beginning or end of each day’s operation. Fully automated real-time flow and pressure data 

were recorded every minute. 

Two types of membrane cleaning methods were employed to recover UF membrane 

performance: chemical-enhanced hot water clean (HWC) and standard chemical clean-in-place 

(CIP). RO permeate was used for the daily HWC. The membrane elements were first flushed 

with RO permeate. Heated (125 °F) caustic (pH 11) or citric acid (pH 2) solutions were 

circulated through the membranes for 30 minutes. After the HWC, membrane modules were 

flushed again with RO permeate. CIP was occasionally performed on ultrafiltration membranes 

as a more intensive cleaning procedure. During CIP cleaning, caustic cleaning with NaOH (1 

Feed

Reject

Air

UF filtrate 

storage

Permeate

Permeate

Permeate

Middle 

buffer 

tank

Reject

Reject

Coated RO

Uncoated RO

Uncoated UF Coated UF

Reject

Figure 10-2: Pilot test schematic showing UF and RO systems
97

wt.%) was performed first for 2 hours and followed with citric acid (2 wt.%) cleaning for 1.5 

hours. Cleaning solutions were also maintained at 125°F during circulation. The membranes 

were fully flushed with RO permeate. 

Performance Evaluation

Ultrafiltration membrane efficacy was evaluated by monitoring membrane permeate flux, applied 

transmembrane pressure difference, and cleaning frequency. These data and parameters were 

recorded during the filtration operation. Coated membrane performances were tracked and 

compared with that of the non-coated controls. 

Reverse osmosis membrane performance was characterized based on salt rejection and 

permeate flux. Overall productivity was also evaluated in terms of recovery and net driving 

pressure.

Results

Ultrafiltration: Hollow fiber UF membranes were tested in parallel to compare 

polydopamine/PEG-coated and uncoated (conventional) elements. All operating conditions and 

cleaning procedures were identical for both elements. During the approximately 60 hour run, 

coated membranes demonstrated significantly better performance than uncoated membranes. 

Coated elements generated more permeate (i.e., higher flux) than uncoated elements. This 

advantage in water productivity became more significant during the latter stages of the run, as 

the membranes fouled. 

Figure 10-3 presents the permeate water flux from the UF elements during the performance 

period. Pilot testing began with new membranes with the initial flux for both hollow fiber 

modules set at 25 gallons per square foot of membrane per day (GFD) (i.e., 42.4 liters/(m2hr) 

(LMH)). Flux of both membranes decreased gradually over time. Although both coated and 

uncoated control membranes experienced flux decline during the 60 hours of pilot operation, 

coated membrane provided nearly 50% higher flux than the uncoated control membranes. 

Irreversible losses from 25 to 15 GFD are due to the fact that membrane module is not optimal 

for high-turbidity water and had a very tight fiber geometry to achieve higher surface area. 
98

HWC 1

HWC 1

HWC 1

RO water 

back 

flush CIP

HWC1: caustic enhanced hot water 

clean, pH=11, 30 minutes circulation 

at 110 oF.

CIP: clean-in-place, with caustic 

clean first, pH=11, 2 hours circulation 

at 110 oF; followed with citric acid 

clean, pH=2, 1.5 hours circulation at 

110 oF. 

RO water back flush: UF membranes 

were flushed using demineralized 

water from the RO process. 

During the operation, chemical cleaning was performed on both elements at the intervals shown 

in Figure 10-3. Caustic-enhanced hot water cleaning (HWC 1 in Figure 10-3) was found to be 

effective to recover flux. During the final days of test period, the coated membrane produced 

approximately 50% more water than the uncoated control. In addition, HWC and CIP cleaning 

appeared to be more effective for the coated membrane than for the conventional membrane. 

The typical flux for the coated membrane was maintained at 12-16 GFD using only daily causticenhanced HWC. The typical flux for the uncoated UF membrane was maintained at between 7-

11 GFD.

Trans-membrane pressure difference (TMP) is a measure of the pressure difference across the 

feed and permeate sides of the membrane during the filtration process. When a fouling layer is 

present, the membrane becomes less permeable, leading to an increase in TMP. TMP was 

measured for both coated and uncoated membranes (Figure 10-4). The uncoated membrane 

consistently showed ~25% higher TMP than the coated membrane. The typical differences are 

on the order of 4-5 psi. 

Figure 10-3: Water Flux on the UF Filters: Coated versus Conventional Membranes
99

Figure 10-4: Trans-membrane pressure (TMP) data for two side-by-side UF

Despite nearly 25% lower TMP across the coated membrane, this membrane was generating 

about 40-50% higher flux during the second half of the pilot (post initial fouling). The ratio of flux 

to TMP, called the specific flux (GFD/psi), is presented in Figure 10-5. These data represent a 

direct measurement of productivity of the filtration process relative to its energy consumption. 

Notably, higher specific flux is obtained for the coated membrane. The coated membrane

operated at about 1.5 GFD/psi compared to the uncoated membrane at 0.8 GFD/psi.

Figure 10-5: Specific flux data for two side-by-side UF hollow-fiber elements
100

Reverse Osmosis: Permeate from the ultrafiltration membranes was collected in a common 

tank and supplied to the RO membrane modules as feed for subsequent removal of dissolved 

minerals (desalination). The feed flow rate was fixed at 15 GPM with an initial recovery at 50%. 

Antiscalant Flocon 260 was added to the feed line to prevent scaling in the concentrate side of 

the RO elements. Total dissolved solids (TDS) values, a measure of the mineral concentration 

of the feed, fluctuated greatly from day to day. The highest measured value for TDS reached 

about 63,000 mg/L. Since the RO feed pump was limited to 1000 PSI, recovery could only be 

maintained at 10-15% due to the high salinity of the feed. Specific permeate flux and rejection 

were normalized to 25oC and presented in Figure 10-6 and Figure 10-7.

As seen in Figure 10-6, no significant specific permeate flux advantage was observed for the 

coated SWC3+ membranes relative to the uncoated membrane. The normalized specific flux 

data show significant random variations for later half of the pilot when feed TDS was more than 

50,000 mg/L. This may appear unusual; however, such behavior is generally attributed to 

significant drop of net driving pressure across the RO membrane resulting from significantly 

increased TDS values.

Coated membranes showed improved and more stable salt rejection than uncoated membranes 

during the entire pilot (Figure 10-7). The uncoated membranes experienced a significant 

decrease in rejection when the feed TDS increased. Rejection of uncoated membranes started 

at 99.5% and dropped to a lowest value of 96.6%. However, for coated membranes, rejection 

was maintained above 99.5% throughout the pilot. 

Figure 10-6: Specific flux data for two side-by-side RO hollow-fiber elements
101

Chloride and hardness (Ca2+, Mg2+) concentrations were measured using on-site 

titration for feed and permeate RO water to evaluate the individual rejection of specific 

Chloride and hardness (Ca2+, Mg2+) concentrations were measured using on-site titration for 

feed and permeate RO water to evaluate the individual rejection of specific ions. Results are 

presented in Table 10-1. Rejection of chloride and hardness ions was higher for the coated 

membrane than for the uncoated membrane. This observation is also in agreement with the 

rejection data presented in Figure 10.7, which was evaluated using on-line conductivity 

measurement.

Table 10-1: Specific Ion Rejection of Coated and Uncoated RO Membranes

Figure 10-7: Normalized TDS Rejection, Coated and Non-Coated RO Membranes
102

Deliverables

Topical Reports

Shiner, S., R. Hayes, D. Agnihotri, R. Li, X. Huang, P. Sirirat, and A. Li. Membrane 

Fouling Reduction Test Plan – Processing Shale Gas Flowback and Produced Water. 

RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.02. December 2010. 

Huang, X., Agnihotri,D., Freeman, B.D., Hayes, R., Kasemset, S., Lee, A., Li, H., 

Sharma, M., and Shiner, S., Field Assessment and Anti-Fouling Polymeric Membrane 

Coatings for Treatment of Barnett Shale Flowback Produced Water. RPSEA Report No. 

08122-05.05. March 2011. 

Completed Manuscript to be Submitted to Journal of Membrane Science in 2012

Miller, D.J., X. Huang, H. Li, S. Kasemset, A. Lee, D. Agnihotri, T. Hayes, D.R. Paul, and 

B.D. Freeman. Anti-Fouling Membranes for the Treatment of Flowback Water from 

Hydraulic Shale Fracturing: A Pilot Study. (2012). 

Impact to Producers

The objective of this project was to determine if the previously discovered advantages (Task 9) 

of antifouling coatings applied to UF and RO membranes would translate in the field. These 

results demonstrated that, indeed, antifouling membranes show improved performance over 

their uncoated counterparts without any loss of flux. Coated hollow fiber UF membranes gave 

about 50-100% more water productivity than the uncoated ones. Cleaning operations were 

more efficient in recovering flux and pressure for the coated membranes. Coated seawater RO 

membranes achieved better salt rejection than uncoated membranes. Under the circumstances 

of very high salt concentrations, uncoated SWC3+ membranes experienced significant decline 

in salt rejection, while coated SWC3+ membranes maintained salt rejection values above 

99.5%. No noticeable flux decrease was observed on either coated or uncoated RO 

membranes. 
103

Conclusions and Recommendations

Operation of the field-based experimental test skid that employed commercial scale membrane 

modules to provide a side-by-side comparison of performance of coated and un-coated 

ultrafiltration (UF) and reverse osmosis (RO) membranes in the treatment of actual flowback 

waters was successfully completed over a 30 day period. Conclusions from the limited field 

trials are the following:

1. Polydopamine was successfully applied to modify commercial-sized ultrafiltration and 

reverse osmosis membrane modules. Ultrafiltration modules were further modified by 

grafting PEG to the polydopamine coating. Modified and unmodified modules were 

employed in a pilot-scale study for several days where they were challenged with 

flowback water from hydraulic fracturing operations in the Barnett shale gas basin. 

2. Modified UF membranes showed improved flux and decreased transmembrane pressure 

and, consequently, higher specific flux than their unmodified counterparts over the entire 

study. Further, both modified and unmodified UF modules were cleaned regularly with 

typical chemical cleaning regimens; the modified UF module showed enhanced flux 

recovery after cleaning. 

3. The polydopamine-coated RO membranes did not show enhanced flux or depressed 

transmembrane pressure relative to the unmodified module. Following pretreatment 

with UF, the flowback water stream had very low levels of oils and greases and 

suspended solids that challenge RO membrane operation. Longer field trials are 

needed to demonstrate the long term reduction in pressure drop requirements that were 

observed in the lab with the corresponding RO membrane treatment units. 

4. Salt rejection, however, was both higher and more stable in the coated RO membrane 

modules than in unmodified modules, presumably due to caulking of minor defects in the 

thin polyamide separation layer. Previous work on polydopamine membrane coatings 

has focused on laboratory-scale filtrations; this study demonstrated that polydopamine 

and PEG can be employed in the modification of industrial membrane modules and 

improved the fouling behavior of those modules when challenged with complex, highlyfouling feedwater. Polydopamine and polydopamine-g-PEG modifications can improve 

the quantity and quality of permeate from membrane-based industrial water purification.

Implications

The major implications of this development effort relate to the process needs and changes 

required to meet the aggressive water chemistry in flowback waters. 

UF-RO systems appear to be an alternative treatment process for early flowback waters, 

with only minimal pretreatment (coagulation and settling) required. 
104

These systems can be improved, in both rate and robustness, by the application of 

antifouling coatings to the membranes.

The antifouling coatings represent a simple chemistry applied to readily applicable to 

commercially available membranes.

The advanced coatings maintained activity (at least) during the 30 day test period. 

Standard clean-in-place technology was sufficient to maintain the process advantage 

imparted by the advanced coatings. 

Value The polydopamine coating technology evaluated in the field during this effort has 

considerable value in reducing energy costs and extending membrane life in UF-RO treatment 

systems. UF-RO is a standardized, commercially available process. Advanced Hydro is 

working on the development of a service to provide enhancement coatings to UF and RO 

membrane modules in the field through ―in-situ‖ coating applications. This project shows the 

industry a pathway to apply, maintain, and improve membrane processes specifically for the 

treatment of flowback waters.

Outlook and Future Considerations With successful demonstration of the Ultra and 

Micro filtration with Polydopamine coating and PEG coatings along with salt rejection 

improvements on RO membranes, Advance Hydro Inc. actively pursued commercialization 

efforts since beginning of 2011. During a period of one year, significant progress toward the 

commercialization of this technology included the following milestones –

1. Advanced Hydro Inc. (AHI) and Geopure Hydro Technologies (GHT) formed an 

exclusive partnership to market a turn-key solution for reuse of Frac and produced water 

in the E&P space.

2. As part of the agreement, AHI will provide a complete solution that includes coated 

MF/UF membranes along with additional technology component such as TSS removal, 

softening, UF/MF as well as RO.

3. GHT is now offering AHI’s turn-key solution to their potential customers. This solution is 

based on a service based model where customer can treat their water on a $/BBL basis. 

4. In parallel with a turn-key solution, AHI also validated an additional polymer technology 

to remove light petroleum hydrocarbons that are abundantly and commonly found in the 

Frac and Produced water as TOC. A significant R&D effort was put in place to evaluate 

polymers that have capability to replace activated carbon, resulting in a pilot scale skid 

development. 

5. Additional pilot testing of AHI’s turn-key solution was recently completed in Dallas Fort 

Worth during Feb. 2012. Three major E&P companies attended the batch-scale 

simulation and piloting of our turn-key continuous treatment process.

6. A fully automated, commercial scale (250 gallons per minute, >5000 BBL/day) system is 

currently under integration. This system will be available for product-scale evaluation for 
105

a customer in Texas during this summer. Permit application for this treatment system 

has been in process with TCEQ/Texas Railroad Commission. 

7. The treatment solution is now available as a commercial product (5000 BBL/day system) 

including a TSS removal process, followed by softening process, followed by polishing 

based on coated MF/UF technology. The final stream can be desalinated using RO or 

reused as it is for Hydraulic Fracturing.

8. Designs are in progress for a 2-3x longer membrane cycle-life with the coatings 

technology for use with these challenging waters. In addition, other technologies for 

removal of light hydrocarbon targeted. 

9. A series of several field pilots (250 BBL/day) with continuous process stream are 

planned during March – May 2012 followed by demonstration of a commercial scale 

system. 
106

11 Systems and Life Cycle Analysis

Rationale

Water management issues within a multiple-well, multiple-field gas play are time dependent. 

The time-frame for comprehensive water management may span several decades; from the 

drilling of the first well; to the completion of the first field; to the integration of multiple fields 

within the play; to the closure of the last well. Different problems arise, and different solutions 

need to be developed at every phase of the life-cycle of the play. This task describes a first look 

at the water and waste management issues spanning a 45 year development period based on a 

projected 4800 well play. The results of a computer model, based on a hypothetical play within 

the Marcellus, suggest that there are three distinct management periods; young play, middleage, and old-aged play. 

Objectives

The objective of Task 11 was to investigate the known database of single well flowback events, 

and to project these results throughout a 45 year life-cycle of a multiple field play. Key 

problems addressed included projected flowback and produced water generation, salt 

concentration and salt mass generation, truck traffic, drilling spoil production, disposal and 

landfill costs, and transportation and carbon footprint costs. 

Goals

As the project developed, the specific goals were refined and refocused to develop a general 

engineering analysis and supporting computer model sufficient to identify the broad 

management issues facing the development of a gas play. Specific issues were identified and 

sensitivity tests were run to present a rational projection as to the criticality of these issues (see 

Hayes and Severin – RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.10). The generic goals and summary 

findings are presented below.

1. Determine baseline operation in the development of a single wellhead. 

2. Determine a sequence of operations typical for the development of a multiple well field 

with accommodation for multiple re-fractures at each well. 

3. Determine a sequence expected for the development of multiple well fields within a play. 

4. Integrate goals 1–3 into a rationale suitable for computer projection. 

5. Identify key operational and situational parameters, and determining the sensitivity of 

these parameters on overall life of the play. 

6. Integrate these projections with rational costs estimates.

Approach

The initial flowback rates and salt concentrations from series of tests from the Barnett and the 

Marcellus were analyzed (See Hayes and Severin – RPSEA Report 08122-05.09, 2012; and, 
107

Hayes and Severin – RPSEA Report 08122-05.10, 2012). Figure 11-1 shows the anticipated 

flowback recovery rate and recovered flowback volume as a function of pumping days past 

fracture for the median Marcellus event. Figure 11-2 gives the projections for the wellhead 

concentration, impoundment concentration, and total salt recovered as a function of the 

recovered flowback volumes for the anticipated median Marcellus flowback event.

A computer model was written in Microsoft Excel Visual Basic. The concept behind the model 

was to establish the relative dates for initiation, completion, refracture(s), and closure for a 

single well. The results for a single well were then reproduced for all wells in a field based on 

the initiation date of each individual well. The results for the entire play were then reproduced 

by duplicating the dates for the field, offset as dictated by a number of operational variables. 

The result is a compilation of the significant dates for up to 32 wells per field at 500 fields per 

play on a daily basis for up to 45 years. The variables in the model are presented in Table 11-1. 

The parameters in Table 11-1 represent the simulation used for the Median Marcellus event 

with an estimated long term water recovery of 7 barrels/day (produced water). The base case 

assumed initial fracture plus three additional refractures during the life of each well.

Results and Discussion

Observations on the Base Case: The base case (Table 11-1) is 16 wells per field and 300 

fields per play for a total of 4800 wells. With a drilling rate of 25 days per well and an installation 

delay of 7 days between wells, the first field takes about 1.5 years to complete. The final 

refracture in the first field is completed by year 10 (Figure 11-3).

Projection for Median MarcellusEvent

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pumping Days After Fracture

Recovery Rate bbl/day

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Cumulative Volume (bbl)

Recovery Rate

Cumulative Volume

Figure 11-1: Anticipated Flowback Recovery Rates and Cumulative Volumes for a Single 

Well Calculated with the Median Marcellus Parameters
108

Table 11-1: Parameters Used in Most Model Analyses (Base Case)

Define the duration of play in years 45 years

Closure (days after final refracture) 8000 days (29.1 years)

Number of wells in a field 16

Number of fields in development 300 (48% coverage)

Total Projected wells in play 4,800 wells

Concentration of the produced water ppm 250,000 mg/l

Number of refractures expected 3

Days to install a single well 25 days

Days between install and next well start 7 days day

Days to mobilize to new field 3 days day

Days between completion and refracture 1,000 daydays

Produced water bbl/day 7 barrels day

Number of driller teams bbl/day 12

Spent Drilling Mud Recovered per well 53 tons per well

Rock Cuttings per well drilled 873 tons per well

Projection for Median Marcellus Event

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Recovered Flowback Volume VR, (Barrels)

Salt Recovery (lbs)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Concentration (mg/l)

Mass Salt Recovered

Wellhead Concentration

Average Impoundment

Concentration

Figure 11-2: Anticipated Wellhead Concentration, Impoundment Concentration, and Total Salt 

Recovered as a Function of Recovered Volume, Calculated as the Median Marcellus Event.
109

Many drilling companies plan to reuse much of the flowback water for drilling the subsequent 

well. Since within a single well field, numerous completions and re-fractures are conducted over 

the construction and operation of the field, the observed daily output of brines from the well 

group can vary considerably. Each of the 16 wells are completed on separate days; each of 

these wells are re-fractured on separate days separated by weeks of time. This leads to a 

highly varied output of brine from each wellfield as shown in Figure 11-3. This wide daily 

variability of the flow rate and quality of the flowback water will impact the choice of on-site 

pretreatment processes (such as suspended solids, iron control, and other quality issues) 

needed to process the flowback for reuse. 

The end of easy on-site reuse begins at the completion of the final well on or about 1.5 years. 

Water generated past 1.5 years at this field becomes more and more concentrated based on 

the assumptions for the processed water (7 barrels per day per well). Ultimately about 100 

bbl/day of concentrated brine is generated as produced water from the field. Under certain 

conditions, refracturing is applied to wells to improve natural gas production rates in later years. 

The model allows for three or more refractures planned for each well during the life of the play. 

It is obvious from this figure that provisions must be made at the field level to accommodate the 

capture of a very wide range of flows throughout the life of the well field. 

Long term water management becomes even more complex when the life-time of the play is 

considered. Some planners are considering the creation of up to 300 fields, each with 16 wells, 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

Year Concentration PPM

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000 Barrels Water/day

Concentration PPM Flow BBL/day

Figure 11-3: Planned Initial Fracture and Three Refractures One Field of 16 Wells (1000 Days 

Between Fractures)
110

for a 25 mile x 25 mile area, with upwards of 50% cover of the play. The model was used to 

define event dates for the activity needed to support 4800 wells. The assumptions in Table 11-1 

concerning the mobilization of up to twelve drilling teams were used to generate a table of 

fracture events. Based on these assumptions, fracture activity occurs for up to 21 years. The 

water management plan for the play needs to incorporate 19,200 fractures with control of 

flowback and produced water recovery from each of the 4800 wells (Table 11-2). 

Table 11-2: Model Assumptions of Initial Completions And Refractures in a Hypothetical 4800-

Well Play Containing 300 Fields, Each with 16 Wells

Year Initial 

Drilling

Refracture 

Events

Total 

Fractures

Year Initial 

Drilling

Refracture 

Events

Total 

Fractures

1 141 0 141 16 0 904 904

2 391 0 391 17 0 832 832

3 416 8 424 18 0 690 690

4 419 220 639 19 0 441 441

5 416 412 828 20 0 409 409

6 418 455 873 21 0 193 193

7 416 711 1127 22 0 4 4

8 419 836 1255 23 0 0 0

9 416 917 1333 24 0 0 0

10 418 1193 1611 25 0 0 0

11 416 1248 1664

12 385 1255 1640

13 129 1248 1377

14 0 1255 1255

15 0 1169 1169

The Marcellus area has some unique water management issues, namely the dearth of deepwell injection resources for final disposal of flowback and produced water. Most non-reuse 

water is presently trucked to sites in central Ohio. A current practice in the Marcellus is to use 

as much of the recovered flowback water, as possible, as part of the feed water for the next 

fracture. 

A common fracture event requires about 4 million gallons, or about 95,000 barrels of water. A 

typical recovery of flowback water is 1 million gallons, or about 24,000 barrels. Each 

subsequent fracture would require 3 million gallons fresh water plus the 1 million gallons 

collected from the previous fracture. Therefore, if 19,200 fractures are planned in a 300 field 

play, then each fractures represents 25% of 4 million gallons, for a total planned reuse capacity 

of 19,200 x 24,000 = 461,000,000 barrels of reuse capacity. As each fracture occurs, the reuse 

capacity of that fracture is used-up. It is a matter of book-keeping to compare the total planned 

reuse capacity of 19,200 fractures versus the total of the flowback water plus produced water 

collected. 

Figure 11-4 is an example of a 19,200 fracture Marcellus play assuming that an even larger 

percent reuse (33%) than described above is assigned to each fracture. The red line represents 

the planned reuse capacity. The blue represents the recovered flowback plus produced water. 

The green line represents the average concentration of the recovered water. The planned 

capacity curve crosses the recovered water curve at about 11.5 years into the life of the play. 

For reference, this will be termed the first cross-over point.
111

The first cross-over point demarks the transition between a young play and a middle-aged play. 

In the years up to the cross-over, the axiom holds that ―all the recovered water can be sent back 

down-hole‖. At year 11.5, however, there remains less reuse capacity available than the 

projected future recovery. At year 11.5 it becomes difficult to schedule enough reuse to keep up 

with the recovery. 

Figure 11-5 shows the rate of total water recovery versus the rate of reuse capacity. Once 

again, a generous ratio of 33% blend of recovered water to total water use in the fracture is 

assumed. The red curve represents the rate of creation of reuse capacity and essentially 

mimics the rate of fracture events. The blue curve represents the rate of collection of flowback 

water and produced water. The green line is a reference line for the concentration of the 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 10 20 30 40

Years

Cumulative Volume (Million BBL).

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000 TDS PPM

Flowback Recovery + Produced Water

Disposal Capacity; Planned Fractures

Concentration

First Cross-Over

Planned Volume Recovery 

Exceeds

Planned Reuse Capacity 

Figure 11-4: Cumulative Fracture and Process Water Recovery vs Projected Reuse Capacity in a 19,200 

Fracture Play Assuming 33% Blend of Recovered Water in Each Fracture
112

collected water. The plum colored curve is the rate of necessity for non-reuse options. The rate 

of depletion of reuse capacity (red curve) crosses the rate of flowback generation (blue curve) at 

about year 15.5 into the life of the play. This cross-over, termed the second cross-over, 

represents the critical point in the life of the play where the rate of generation of flowback and 

produced water exceeds the production of reuse options. The life of the play has crossed from 

middle-age, where water management was difficult, to old-age, where water management is 

impossible without intervention.

Second Cross-Over

Planned Volume Recovery 

Exceeds

Planned Reuse Capacity 

Figure 11-5: Comparison of the Rate of Fracture and Process Water Recovery vs Rate of Reuse 

Capacity in a 19,200 Fracture Play Assuming 33% Blend of Recovered Water in Each Fracture
113

Sensitivity Analysis: Number of Refractures per Well: One operational strategy to 

improve the efficiency of gas production is to hydraulically refracture the well several times 

throughout its life. Figure 11-6 is a sensitivity analysis using the assumptions of Table 11-1, 

with the only variable being the number of planned hydraulic refractures per well, ranging from 0 

to 4. While planning fewer refractures per well diminishes the magnitude of the water 

management problem, it does not change the premise that the play will pass from young, to 

middle-age to old-age. In fact, planning fewer refractures per well causes the onset of middleage and old-age to accelerate. Paradoxically, the development of the play is dependent upon 

continued refracture. The place to put recovered water (flowback and produced water) is in the 

next fracture. The larger the number of fractures planned, the easier it is to reuse the produced 

water. 

Figure 11-6: Sensitivity Analysis; Onset of Cross-Over Points Based on the Number of 

Planned Refractures per Well
114

Sensitivity: Water Reuse Blend Ratio: In the base case the assumption is made that 

recovered water (flowback and produced water) may be blended with fresh water to formulate 

the hydraulic fluid for the subsequent fracture. The base case assumes a 33% reuse ratio, i.e., 

100,000 barrels of fracture fluid may be prepared with 33,000 barrels of recovered water 

blended with 67,000 barrels of fresh water. This is an aggressive assumption, as current field 

practice is a reuse ratio of about 25%. Figure 11-7 is a sensitivity analysis based on the ability 

to reuse water in a subsequent fracture. The point of this plot is that even if 100% of the total 

water used for fracture could be recycled water, there will come a point in the life cycle of the 

play were there is more water collected than can be reused. Essentially, produced water is 

recovered but no more fractures are planned. The play passes from middle-age to old-age, 

regardless of the ability to reuse captured water. Increasing the reuse blend ratio delays the 

inevitable.

Figure 11-7: Sensitivity Analysis: Onset of Cross-Over Points Based on the Ability to Reuse 

Recovered Water in the Next Fracture
115

Sensitivity: Rate of Produced Water Recovery: The generation rate of produced water 

is a variable in the model. In the base case, this is set at 7 barrels per day per well and a 

concentration of 250,000 ml/l TDS. Figure 11-8 shows the cross-over years as a function of 

produced water flow. The grace period leading to the point where the rate water recovery 

exceeds the rate of reuse capacity generation is about 21 years if the produced water flow is 1 

barrel/well/day. This steadily decreases to 13 years at a rate of 15 barrels per day. Even if the 

produced water is only one barrel/day, the life cycle events caused by water management 

issues still occur.

Figure 11-8: Sensitivity Analysis, Definition of the Cross-Over Years in Total Reuse Capacity and Rate of 

Capacity Use vs Produced Water Flow per Well
116

Sensitivity: Scheduled Refracture: Water management in the Marcellus has the potential 

to dictate the rate of refracture if an effective strategy that allows for contingencies is not in 

place. Assuming 4800 wells with three refractures per well, and 7 barrel per day per well of 

produced water after the flowback event, the grace years until the first cross-over (booked 

capacity) and critical years (rate of water recovery versus rate of capacity generation) are also a 

function of the scheduled period between refractures. Figure 11-9 is a sensitivity analysis of the 

years to cross-over versus the number of days a well operates between refracture events. 

Based on this plot, there is an optimum rate of refracture that occurs at around 2125 days 

between refractures at a given well. The driver creating this optimum is the delicate balance 

between the initiation of refracture and the completion of the last well. 

Figure 11-9: Sensitivity Analysis, Effect of Refracture Schedule on Utilization of Reuse Capacity
117

Year-by-Year Indirect Cost Estimates for the Base Case: The Life Cycle model can 

be modified to track indirect costs on a year-by-year basis. Hayes and Smith (2011) prepared 

indirect the cost estimates for carbon footprint, and fuel costs for several management options in 

the Marcellus. A single case, that in which all non-reuse water is trucked to a deep well requiring 

a 160 mile round trip is reproduced in Table 11-3. Figure 11-10 shows that the play will generate 

up to 350,000 truck trips per year with costs up to $31 million in indirect costs (Figure 11-11), and 

with road repair costs highly dependent on the number of refractures planned (Figure 11-12). 

These costs grow and then decline along with field activity. In the case of road maintenance, 

these costs may add 6-7% to the annual hauling costs during peak activity. 

Table 11-3: Estimated Carbon Costs per Truck Mile by Flow Scheme (Marcellus Shale)*

Miles Traveled per Trip 160 

Diesel Used (gal) 21.6 

CO2Emissions (lb) 480 

CO2Emissions (ton) 0.240 

Carbon Cost per Trip $6.24 

Carbon Cost per Barrel $0.0524 

Carbon Cost per Truck Mile $0.0390 

Carbon Cost per Ton CO2 Emitted $26

*Hayes and Smith (2011)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0

Truck Miles/Yr (Thousands)

Truck Trips (RT)/Yr (Thousands)

Year

Truck Trips (RT)/Yr

Truck Miles/Yr

Figure 11-10: Truck Utilization with Deep Well Injection Off-site
118

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 10 20 30 40 50

$/Yr (Millions)

Years

Deisel Costs

Carbon Costs

Total

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 10 20 30 40

$/Yr (Millions)

Years

Completions Only

Refractures

Total

Figure 11-12: Cost of Road Repairs

Figure 11-11: Indirect Costs: Carbon Relative to Diesel
119

Deliverables

Topical Report: Hayes, T.D., and Severin, B.F., Preliminary Engineering Systems Analysis of 

Shale Gas Water Management. RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.10. February 

2012. 

Completed Manuscripts to be Submitted to SPE in 2012

Severin B.F., Galusky, L.P and Hayes, T.D., Empirical Interpretation of Barnett and 

Marcellus Flowback Events: Part I, Hydraulic Considerations

Severin B.F., Galusky, L.P and Hayes, T.D., Empirical Interpretation of Barnett and 

Marcellus Flowback Events: Part II, Brine Profiles

Severin B.F., and Hayes, T.D., Empirical Interpretation of Barnett and Marcellus 

Flowback Events: Part III, Projection of Wellhead Profiles

Hayes, T.D., and Severin, B.F., Empirical Interpretation of Barnett and Marcellus 

Flowback Events: Part IV, Life Cycle Projection of a Marcellus Play 

Impact to Producers

The overarching goal of this project is to provide the producers with information that helps to 1) 

minimize fresh water utilization, 2) maximize water reuse, 3) minimize disposal costs, and 4) 

reduce truck traffic (carbon footprint) throughout a gas play. This task (Task 11 Systems and 

Life Cycle Analysis) takes a first look at the broad water management issues in the development 

of a hypothetical play during its development over a 45 year period. The major implication of 

this development effort is the realization that the water management issues differ throughout the 

life of the play as the play goes from its youth, to middle-age, to old-age. 

In the early development years, water management can be as simple as pre-treatment and 

reuse in subsequent fractures, as reuse capacity is generated by the fracture of the next well. 

At some point (first cross-over year), the planned recovery of water exceeds the planned 

generation; and the play passes into middle-age. The recovered water is, on average, more 

salty. It would be beneficial to implement more aggressive water treatment methods to 

minimize disposal costs and better match reuse capacity to planned fractures. At another point, 

not too distant in the future (second cross-over year), comes the realization that the rate of 

water recovery (mostly produced water) exceeds the rate of generation of reuse capacity. The 

play is in its old age with respect to water management. It is now critical that treatment 

alternatives are in-place. 
120

Conclusions and Recommendations

Implications: Life cycle analysis of water management issues in shale gas plays is in its 

infancy. Simplistic projections show that there is a real possibility that water management 

issues will dictate most of the important decisions in a life of a play. Water management has the 

potential to dictate how many wells are drilled, the number of refractures planned, the periodicity 

of the refractures, the need and desirability to reuse recovered water, and ultimately the close-in 

date of individual wells. This infers that management, economic, and engineering decisions 

concerning the play should be considered before the first well is drilled.

Outlook: The life cycle and the major events in each play will be unique. It is seen in this 

simple analysis that the water management concerns in the Marcellus lead to one set of 

projections. These will be different than in the Barnett, where fresh water is limited; while deepwell injection potential is plentiful. These life cycle implications will also differ for the Eagleford 

where the baseline groundwater salt concentration appears to be much less than in either the 

Marcellus or the Barnett. The life-cycle model can be applied to these broad regions, or to 

specific well fields, based on the availability of the hydraulic and salt databases. These 

operational profiles may be taken into account in the fine tuning of a life cycle analysis and will 

yield different projections. 

Value: The value of this development effort was to open a new dialogue concerning the long 

term water management issues facing the development of shale gas plays. New terminology 

was established to define the progression of the play from its youth to middle age to old age, 

with definable cross-over years. These clearly defined management periods also connect the 

water engineering needs to the projected events in the field. These events can be forecast in 

economic terms, allowing for more rational and informed business decisions. Since water 

management can amount to tens of millions of dollars per year for a single county-sized 

development area, it is well advised that companies use water management forecasting as one 

additional tool in their sustainability planning and in accounting pro-forma analyses in the 

financial management of shale gas business operations and future investment decisions. 

Future Considerations: The life cycle model is amenable to inclusion of new data bases. 

The model may be modified, as needed, for other regions of the world. Fore-knowledge of 

expected water conditions will allow for better engineering and implementation of water 

treatment technologies.
121

12 Technology Transfer

In parallel with the performance of the tasks of this project, GTI and its team have pursued 

opportunities for technology transfer through presentations at workshops and technical 

meetings, generation of topical reports to be disseminated by RPSEA and through the creation 

of publications in journals. 

During the project, presentations were made at 12 technology transfer events as listed in Table 

12-1. These forums included five workshops. The workshops accomplished timely transfer of 

information of the RPSEA project to the state regulators attending the Groundwater Protection 

Council Water/Energy Events in 2010 and 2011, to the water management utility stakeholders 

attending the American Water Works Research Foundation in 2011, and the Federal regulators 

attending the USEPA Workshop on Shale Gas Water Management in 2011 at which GTI served 

as facilitator of the water treatment session of the 4th Workshop. Copies of all of the 

presentations of Table 12-1 have been uploaded to the RPSEA Website. Presentations were 

also given at three workshop forums that were sponsored by RPSEA. 

Table 12-1: List of Presentations (Technology Transfer)

Title of Presentation Forum Date

1. Produced Water Challenges and 

Opportunities

Houston Gas Processors 

Association Meeting 

January 20, 2010

2. Produced Water Research Projects RPSEA Unconventional Gas 

Conference 2010, Golden 

CO

April 7, 2010

3. Development of Technologies for the 

Reuse of Flowback and Produced 

Waters Associated with Shale Gas 

Production

International Coalbed & 

Shale Symposium, 

Tuscaloosa, Alabama

May 20, 2010

4. Panel and Discussion - Shale Gas and 

Water: Myth Versus Reality

GTI Global Unconventional 

Gas Symposium, 

Amsterdam

June 17, 2010

5. Shale Gas Water Management 

Consortiums: Marcellus and Barnett

Groundwater Protection 

Council (GWPC) 

Water/Energy Workshop, 

Pittsburgh

September 27, 

2010

6. Workshop on Natural Gas Development 

Issues for Drinking Water Utilities 

American Water Works 

Association Research 

Foundation (AwwaRF), 

Baltimore, MD

October 18, 2010

7. Shale Gas Water Management 

Consortiums: Marcellus and Barnett 

Regions 

Groundwater Protection 

Council (GWPC) UIC 

Workshop, Austin, TX

January 24, 2011

8. Characterization of Marcellus and 

Barnett Shale Flowback Waters and 

Technology Development for Water 

Reuse

USEPA Workshop on Shale 

Gas Water Management, 

Arlington, VA

March 30, 2011

9. Techno-Economic Assessment of Water Shale Gas Water April 13, 2011
122

Title of Presentation Forum Date

Management Solutions Management Initiative, 

Canonsburg, PA

10. Overview of RPSEA Water 

Management Programs

WSCOGA Environmental 

Summit, Grand Junction, CO

October 27, 2011

11. Issues and Challenges Associated with 

the Management of Flowback Water 

Associated with Shale Gas 

Development 

18th Annual International 

Petroleum & Biofuels 

Environmental Conference, 

Houston, TX

November 8, 

2011

12. Key Note Presentation on Shale Gas 

Water Management 

DUG East Technical 

Workshop: Water 

Management and 

Environmental Procedures, 

Pittsburgh, PA

November 15, 

2011

The GTI project has also made all of its topical reports, monthlies and the Final Report available 

in electronic format to facilitate distribution; reports have been designed to not exceed 8 megs 

in size to allow easy downloading and transfer via email to promote ease of technology transfer. 

A complete list of deliverables from Contract 08122-05 is presented in Table 12-2. All of these 

products have been uploaded to the RPSEA SharePoint Site for eventual distribution through 

the RPSEA Website. Further, the project has supported the improvement of the website of the 

Barnett Shale Water Conservation and Management Committee (BSWCMC) to promote 

communication of best practices to the industry and to stakeholders and to serve as an industry 

portal through which the most relevant topical reports from the GTI project can be distributed. 

Reports have been transferred to the BSWCMC for informal industry review; upon approval 

from RPSEA, the reports will be made available for distribution from the BSWCMC website 

(www.barnettshalewater.org) . 

Table 12-2: Complete List of Deliverables from Contract 08122-05 

Order Description / Title Task Authors

A Project Management Plan 1 Thomas Hayes

B Technology Status Assessment 2 Thomas Hayes

C Water Characterization Information Base in 

Excel Spreadsheet.

4 Thomas Hayes

1 Development of Electrodialysis for Shale Gas 

Water Reuse. RPSEA Report No. 08122-

05.01. November 2010. 

8 Blaine Severin 

Thomas Hayes

2 Membrane Fouling Reduction Test Plan –

Processing Shale Gas Flowback and 

Produced Water. RPSEA Report No. 08122-

05.02. December 2010. 

10 Steve Shiner

Robert Hayes

Dileep Agnihotri

Richard Li

Xiaofei Huang

Peach Sirirat
123

Order Description / Title Task Authors

Albert Li

3 Innovative UF / NF / RO Membrane 

Performance Through the Use of Innovative 

Coatings: Selection of Membrane Supports 

and Coatings for Barnett Well Flowback Water 

Separations. RPSEA Report No. 08122-

05.03. November 2010. 

9 Albert Li

Sirirat Kasemset

Daniel J. Miller

Benny D. Freeman

Mukul M. Sharma

4 Feasibility of Using Alternative Water Sources 

for Shale Gas Well Completions – A 

Preliminary Guidance Document on the 

Current Practices in the Barnett. RPSEA 

Report No. 08122-05.04. February 2011. 

6 Jean-Philippe Nicot

5 Field Assessment and Anti-Fouling Polymeric 

Membrane Coatings for Treatment of Barnett 

Shale Flowback Produced Water. RPSEA 

Report No. 08122-05.05. March 2011. 

10 Xiaofei Huang

Dileep Agnihotri

Benny D. Freeman

Robert Hayes

Sirirat Kasemset

Albert Lee

Hua Li

Mukul Sharma

Steve Shiner

6 Feasibility and Design Approach for Automatic 

Classification and Segregation of Early 

Flowback Water for Reuse in Shale Gas 

Hydraulic Fracturing. RPSEA Report No. 

08122-05.06. July 2011. 

5 L. Peter Galusky

7 Feasibility Assessment of Early Flowback 

Water Recovery for Reuse in Subsequent 

Well Completions. RPSEA Report No. 08122-

05.07. October 2011. 

5 L. Peter Galusky

8 Feasibility of Using Alternative Water Sources 

for Shale Gas Well Completions. RPSEA 

Report No. 08122-05.08. January 2012. 

6 Jean-Philippe Nicot

9 Characterization of Flowback Waters from the 

Marcellus and the Barnett Shale Regions. 

RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.09. February 

2012. 

4 Thomas D. Hayes

Blaine F. Severin

10 Preliminary Engineering Systems Analysis of 

Shale Gas Water Management. RPSEA 

Report No. 08122-05.10. February 2012. 

11 Thomas D. Hayes

Blaine F. Severin

11 Engineering Decision Tool for the Evaluation 

of Mechanical Vapor Recompression for the 

7 Thomas D. Hayes

Blaine F. Severin
124

Order Description / Title Task Authors

Treatment of Shale Gas Flowback Water. 

RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.11. February 

2012. 

12 Evaluation of Electrodialysis in the 

Demineralization of Shale Gas Flowback 

Waters. RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.12. 

February 2012. 

8 Blaine F. Severin

Thomas D. Hayes

13 Novel Fouling-Resistant Membranes for 

Barnett Shale Water Management and Reuse. 

RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.13. February 

2012.

9 Albert Lee

Sirirat Kasemset

Daniel J. Miller

Benny D. Freeman

Mukul M. Sharma

14 Final Report: Barnett and Appalachian Shale 

Water Management and Reuse Technologies. 

RPSEA Report No. 08122-05.14. February 

2012

13 Thomas D. Hayes

Blaine F. Severin

Lastly, the results of the RPSEA-NETL supported work has led to the preparation of 14 

publications that will be submitted to the scientific journals in 2012. These publications 

are listed in Table 12-3; all but two of the manuscripts have been prepared. These 

manuscripts will be submitted for RPSEA review in first half of 2012. 

Table 12-3: 14 Publications Arising from the Project

Team Organizations Description of Publication Project Task Status

GTI and

Range Resources

Characteristics of Shale Gas 

Flowback Water in the 

Marcellus Play

4 Completed Draft Under 

Review by Marcellus 

Industry

GTI and EPD Five Publications on ED 

Research Findings

8 Completed 

GTI and EPD Four Publications on Water 

Based Life Cycle Modeling

11 Completed

GTI, EPD, and 

Industry Cooperators

Field Evaluation of

Mechanical Vapor 

Recompression in the 

Treatment of Flowback 

Water

7 Completed and Under 

Review. 

UT, Advanced Hydro Innovative Coatings for 

Ultrafiltration and Reverse 

Osmosis Treatment of Shale 

Gas Waters

9 Pending
125

Team Organizations Description of Publication Project Task Status

UT, GeoPure, 

Advanced Hydro, GTI

Field Evaluation of Coated 

Membranes in the 

Treatment of Flowback 

Water

10 Completed

BEG, GTI Development of Alternate 

Water Sources for 

Sustainable Shale Gas 

Development in the Barnett

6 Pending

13 Corporate Acknowledgments

The Gas Technology Institute appreciates the contributions to this project provided by the 

following corporations:

Advanced Hydro Inc., Austin, TX

Ameridia, Somerset, NJ

AquaPure, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Devon Energy, Ft Worth, TX

Fountain Quail, Ft Worth, TX

GeoPure Hydro Technologies, Fort Worth, TX

Stat Analytical, Chicago

Test America, Pittsburgh, PA

Texerra, Monument, CO

Xenco, Ft Worth, TX 

In-kind cost share was provided by Devon Energy. Mechanical vapor recompression (MVR) 

equipment evaluated in the field was manufactured by AquaPure and operated by Fountain 

Quail. Commercial partner of the University of Texas is Advanced Hydro for the commercial 

introduction of coated membranes based on UT’s IP. GeoPure is a skid equipment testing 

company that is continuing to use the coated membrane products in their shale gas water 

treatment operations.