## W

A T E R 

## T R E A T M E N T 

## T E C H N O L O G Y



## F A C T 

## S H E E T

Note: Information is from vendor, however specifications may have changed. Contact vendor for updates. Water Treatment Catalog and Decision Tool 

### T H E R M A L E V A P O R A T I O N /

D I S T I L L A T I O N

Process Description

Modern distillation /evaporation processes being utilized in the shale gas industry include the use of Thermal Vapor Recompression (TVR) and Mechanical Vapor Recompression (MVR). In principle, both technologies distill water in a similar overall process but differ in how

increases to st eam pressure and temperatures are applied. With TVR, steam jet ejectors are used to raise the pressure and temperature of vapors whereas; with MVR, mechanical compressors are used instead of steam jet

ejectors.

Click on Vendor’s name for Profile sheet.

With MVR for instance, heat generated during the thermal evaporation and distillation process is derived from the compression of vapor rather than the direct exchange of heat produced from stream produced in a

boiler

. This approach effectively reduces the temperature required to boil water relative to t he atmospheric boiling point and subsequently, reduce s the energy demands of the treatment process. In the shale gas industry

, mechanical compression is more widely used and is therefore, focused on in the remaining discussion. Technical Capabilities

The t hermal evaporation / distillation process is most effective at desalinating brine, removing inorganic compounds

, such as heavy metals and nitrate; total dissolved solids, hardness (calcium and magnesium); and in some cases, organic material such as bacteria, through the boiling process. When usin g MVR, the treatment of raw water (or brine) with TDS concentrations of 60

, 000

- 80,000 mg/L will result in fresh water recovery rates of approximately 70%

- 85% at flow rates exceeding 2,500

BPD

. Treatment Company Thermal Distillation/ Evaporation Shale Gas Basin Marcellus Barnett Haynesville Fayetteville Woodford

212 Resources √ √

Fountain Quail √ √ √
Aquatech √ √ √

Veolia √

INTEVRAS √ √

GE Water &

Process Tech. √ √

Total Separation

Solutions √ KEY CONSIDERATIONS

 TDS concentrations of 60

, 000

- 80,000 mg/L will result in fresh water recovery rates of approximately 70%

- 85%.

 To include, transportation , power consumption, labor and treatment, cost estimates range from $3.00 to $5.00 per Bbl.

 Currently, t hermal processes

, such as MVR, are the only practical treatment option for treating flowback and produced water with TDS

concentrations above 40,000

– 45,000 mg/L.

Fountain Quail MVR NOMAD Facility
ALL Consulting

## W

A T E R 

## T R E A T M E N T 

## T E C H N O L O G Y



## F A C T 

## S H E E T

Note: Information is from vendor, however specifications may have changed. Contact vendor for updates. Water Treatment Catalog and Decision Tool Technical Limitations MVR systems are capable of treating produced water with high TDS
concentrations, but in general, levels above 80,000 mg/L

– 100,000 mg/L result in loss of
water recovery (or

increased brine concentrate) and an

increase to treatment

costs due to the additional energy required for treatment.
Based on available data,
MVR systems are limited to treating

unblended water with

TDS concentrations of 150,000 mg/L with a water recovery rate of approximately 50%

, although some newer technologies are indicating higher water recovery rates are obtainable . Problems associated with this technology include fouling with organic deposits

and corrosion with in the heat exchanger that is caused by the recirculation of brine, which is used for heat recovery in the evaporator . Pre

- treatment of the feed water (e.g., flocculation, cartridge filtration, settling) is required to

minimize such issues.

Costs

To inclu de, transportation , power consumption, labor
and treatment, cost estimates range from $3.00 to $5.00 per Bbl (d isposal costs not built

- in to the overall cost ) . To only process or treat the water, costs estimates equate to

less than $3.00 per barrel, as com pared to an estimated $2 to $2.50 per barrel for typical water disposal into an injection well in the Barnett, or approximately 50 to 75

percent more

.

References National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Produced Water Management Information System (PWMIS). Produced Water Management Descriptions

Thermal Distillation.

AquaPure. NOMAD

2000 Mobile Oilfield Evaporator Fact Sheet.

A.W. Gaudlip, L.O. Paugh, SPE, Range Resources Appalachia LLC., T.D. Hayes, Gas Technology

Institute. 2008.

Marcellus Shale Water Management Challenges in Pennsylvania. SPE

119898.

Dale, Jim. 2009. Clean Water Visionary. Reproduced with permission of Alfa Laval 'Here' magazine and Spoon Publishing (March 17, 2009).

STW Resources. 2009. Marcellus Shale Water Reclamation. Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Halldorson, Brent. 2009. Personal Communication on July 7 th , 2009. Fountain Quail Water Management.

Ft. Worth Basin Oil & Gas Magazine. 2009. The Future

of Water Recycling. Issue No. 19. July 2009.

Smith, Anthony. 2009. Personal Communication on July

24 th , 2009. Devon Energy Corporation.

Veil, John. 2008. Argonne National Laboratory. Thermal Distillation Technology for Management of Produced

Water and Frac Flowb ack Water. Water Technology

Brief #2008

- 1.

Colorado School of Mines. Produced Water Treatment

and Beneficial Use Information Center. Treatment Options. Enhanced distillation/evaporation

. Aqua

- Pure NOMAD MVR Process Diagram Courtesy of Fountain Quail