ENGINEERED ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS 

### THE EVOLUTION OF TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES IN THE MARCELLUS


### SHALE

Presented by Quay Schappell Manager Technical Services NEWALTA• W ater quality and associated treatment technologies for

water reuse/recycle.

• H ow these have changed over the development of the play

• B usiness decisions E&P companies face when deciding how to move forward with water recycle. Mobile vs.

F ixed asset, Customer owned or Merchant plant or some other business arrangement with supplier

• Marcellus case study of one service provider’s approach to the ever changing business and regulatory climate in meeting the customers water supply requirements 2



### Discussion Topics

### Water Quality Needed

– the changing variable 3

• Most suppliers have the before and after photos of a specific process

and how the water can be treated and reused

• Over the development of the play the exact quality of water needed has been a moving target as producers gain more operating experience

• Initial thoughts were that evaporation was needed to get the flowback and produced water as pure as possible.

• With the advent of reuse with minimal treatment and blending with fresh makeup the treatment required has varied from simple solids removal to potential crystallization.

### Challenges in treatment selection

Changing economics with fluctuations in natural gas and oil prices

TDS, TSS variations from field to field

Frac chemical variation
Flow back vs. produced water quantities
Oil and other organics present

Intended use for treated water

– reuse or disposal

Mobile vs. fixed assets
Producer owns and operates vs. working with service provider

### The Facts on Water Usage

Water requirements average approx. 3

– 5 million gallons per well in the Marcellus and Utica.
About 89% is applied to hydraulic fracturing, a critical

step for stimulating natural gas production.

Four million gallons of water is 1.8 inches of rain over

80 acres. Pennsylvania receives about 40 inches of rain
annually

.

Source : Barnett Shale Water Conservation and Management Committee www.bswcmc.org

— Ray Walker, Range

Resources6

### Typical Treatment Options

Source: Gas Technology Institute

### Current treatments vary and can range from $2

- $20/BBL 8Location: TARM

- WTS Permit: WMGR123D001

Located: Lycoming County, Williamsport, PA Physical/Chemical Treatment, Storage: 48,000 bbl, Mud Processing

Note: TARM

- WTS also has secured a NPDES permit: PA 0233650TARM

- WTS; existing facility

TARM locations with land development approval or location under option

TARM locations for Operator

- led water warehouse equivalent FUTURE: TARM ASSETS, PROPOSALS, PROJECTS, & DEVELOPING TRENDS

10

# Conclusions

 Flow back and produced water treatment can be a potential obstacle to producers when developing shale plays

 Water quality required continues to change as Operators gain more knowledge.

 Because of this one technology is not the answer

 Working together

– suppliers and producers can develop a water management program to bring operation costs down and reduce fresh water demandQuay Schappell | Manager Technical Services | NEWALTA

Montgomery | 145 Miller Ave. | Montgomery, PA 17752

570.547.0429 Phone

570.220.6536 Cell

570.547.0462 Fax

www.newalta.com