DOE Award No.: DE-FE0001466

Quarterly Report 4 (7/1/10 – 9/30/10)

Zero Discharge Water Management for Horizontal Shale Gas Well Development

Submitted by: 

West Virginia Water Research Institute

West Virginia University

PO Box 6064

Morgantown, WV 26506

Authors: 

Jennifer Hause

Paul Ziemkiewicz, PhD

Doug Patchen, PhD

David Locke

Harry Johnson

Ray Lovett, PhD

Prepared for: 

United States Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory
Acknowledgment: 

"This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number 

DE-FE0001466." 

Disclaimer: 

"This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States 

Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their 

employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or 

responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, 

product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. 

Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The 

views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the 

United States Government or any agency thereof." 

Executive Summary:

Shale gas production depends on the creation of permeability within an otherwise nearly 

impermeable rock formation. Two technologies have been applied to the shale formations to 

bring about revolutionary changes in the economic production of natural gas –

directional/horizontal drilling and massive hydraulic fracturing, the most common of this latter 

technique being what is known as “slickwater” fracturing. To produce shale gas, slickwater 

fracturing uses large volumes of water to create multiple, long fractures in the shale formation. 

Sand is pumped with the water and left to prop open the fractures, thus providing multiple, 

permeable flow paths for the natural gas. 

The use of the large volumes of water often stresses local fresh water supplies, and the water 

flowing back from the well after fracturing is a briny mixture, creating a water disposal problem. 

Previous attempts to mitigate these issues have had only limited success. The West Virginia 

University (WVU) project team has undertaken to recover and convert the briny waste into a 

suitable, partial replacement of the fresh water that is currently used as the fracturing fluid of 

choice. This will include a substantial removal of suspended solids from the frac return water 

(FRW) as well as the complete or partial removal of certain dissolved solids that could create 

problems with subsequent hydraulic fracturing treatments and/or natural gas production 

operations.

Project objectives for Phase I included:

Determination of water quality requirements for hydraulic fracturing the Marcellus Shale 

by compiling information on hydraulic fracturing practices, shale gas production 

practices, and associated problems for the Appalachian Basin shale formations, and
Development and adaptation of advanced water treatment and filtration technologies that 

would convert the frac return water into a usable substitute of fresh water for hydraulic 

fracturing.

The major focus during the 4th quarter of Phase I involved the continued testing of the 

technologies needed to produce a water quality suitable for the next fracture activity. A 1 gallon 

per minute (gpm) electro-coagulation (EC) process development unit was installed in the 

laboratory to pretreat frac return water (FRW) prior to filtration. Raw water samples from 

various Marcellus wells were subjected to the EC process followed by the FilterSure filtration 

system. In addition to the significant reductions in concentrations of the divalent ions (e.g., 

calcium reduced by approximately one-third), total suspended solids (TSS) were reduced by up 

to 76%, with retention of 100% of particles larger than 3 microns. Excellent cooperation of the 

Industry Contact Group providing frac water samples allowed the completion of all water 

treatment tests ahead of schedule, enabling the project to proceed forward to the proto-type 

design and fabrication phase for field deployment in Spring 2011.
Progress Report 4 - Phase I Review Discussion and Results:

This report summarizes task activities and progress of the Phase I effort from 7/1/10 to 9/30/10, 

completing Phase I of the project. The report is organized by task as listed in the Statement of 

Project Objectives. Phase I objectives have been completed. Discussion, along with highlights of 

significant activities over the course of Phase I follow. Phase I Budget Review is included as 

Appendix A.

Task 1.0 Project Management and Planning

Project management and planning is a continuous, ongoing task throughout the project period 

that includes keeping activities on task and within budget, and coordinating the project team 

members.

The National Research Center for Coal and Energy (NRCCE) led an internal kick-off meeting 

at WVU on November 17, 2009, attended by the WVU research team and representatives from 

subcontractors FilterSure and ShipShaper. Discussions included schedule and milestone 

updates, specific task assignments, identification of a suitable engineering firm, formation of an 

Industry Contact Group, and subcontract status. Plans were also made for a FilterSure 2 gallon 

per minute (gpm) Process Development Unit (PDU) installation including improvements to the 

electrical and plumbing systems in NRCCE’s high bay and preparation for shipment to WVU 

from the unit’s New Jersey location. 

A chemical hygiene plan was developed for both the PDU filtration and the bench-scale work. 

Both were approved by the NRCCE Facilities Manager, the NRCCE Chemical Hygiene Officer, 

and WVU Environmental Health and Safety. 

A Technology Status Report was compiled. This report provided an overview of current 

industry practices and associated costs to treat and/or dispose of frac return water (FRW). The 

benefits and inadequacies of current practices and technologies utilized were outlined and 

showed why further research and development activities are needed to reduce costs and impacts 

to our water resources. Treatment and reuse of RFW for another drilling operation showed to be 

a promising area for further research.

Prospective members of an Industry Contact Group were identified and participation was 

confirmed. To enhance the value of input from the group, a detailed questionnaire was sent to the 

members of the industry group, yielding valuable information regarding FRW volumes and 

parameters necessary for recycling. The project team met with representatives from one 

company in the Industry Contact Group to demonstrate the FilterSure PDU, and discuss plans 

for obtaining data and FRW samples from wells around the region, as well as possibilities for 

deployment of the Mobile Treatment Unit in Phase II of the project. The Industry Contact 

Group consists of seven companies: Covalent Energy, Chesapeake Energy Corporation, 

Marathon Oil Company, Energy Corporation of America, Range Resources, Gastem USA, 

Abarta Energy, and Universal Well Services.

The Industry Contact Group provided access to well development sites, water samples for 

testing by the FilterSure PDU and invaluable advice regarding configuration of our fielddeployable technology to match the contingencies of field operations. Some key results from 

discussions with the Industry Contact Group included:

slickwater frac was confirmed as the dominant type of stimulation treatment being used;
frac sizes for most horizontal wells range from about 4 to 6 million gallons, with up to 10 

stages, and as much as 250 tons of sand per stage;

vertical well fracs are similar in size to a single horizontal well stage, 500,000+ gallons, 

usually in a single stage, with a total of 250 to 500 tons of sand;

frac return water is approximately 10-20% of the amount injected, measured during the 

first few days of water flow back and greatly reduced after the first week to 10 days, with 

flow back rates averaging 3,000 to 5,000 barrels per day (90 to 150 gpm); and

horizontal and vertical wells are successful upon stimulation, with horizontal wells 

appearing to provide better economics.

Several members of our Industry Contact Group expressed interest in hosting the field 

demonstration during Phase II of this project. Continued contact with the Industry Contact 

Group has been maintained throughout Phase I by providing electronic project update notices as 

the project progressed. Additionally, a one-half day workshop was planned and conducted 

during the 2010 West Virginia Water Conference. This workshop titled “Zero Discharge Water 

Management for Marcellus Shale Play Development,’ was held on October 6, 2010. Although 

conducted outside the reporting period of this progress report, a synopsis of the workshop can be 

found in Appendix B.

The 1,600-pound FilterSure PDU was delivered in February 2010 and testing was initiated. Test 

results were reviewed at a March 2010 project planning meeting held at WVU. These results 

were sufficiently encouraging (discussed in Task 2.4) to warrant testing Electro Coagulation 

(EC) as a second component, a pretreatment component, of a commercial process train. A 1 

gpm process-development-scale EC unit was installed to pretreat the FRW prior to passage through 

the FilterSure PDU. Two additional field samples of Marcellus Shale FRW were received from 

our Industry Contact Group to be tested with and without the use of EC prior to the FilterSure 

PDU. Results were evaluated and measured against the criteria to proceed to Phase II of the 

project (discussed in Task 2.4.) It was determined that the technical objectives to proceed to final 

design and fabrication of a proto-type water treatment unit were met and a high probability existed 

for the development of an economically viable process. 

Task 2.1 Develop Conceptual Process Train

The conceptual process train was developed around the FilterSure equipment. To develop the 

conceptual process train, acceptable recycle water quality was identified by our Industry Contact 

Group. Information provided by Group members contained ideal water chemistry requirements 

for recycling FRW. Members of the Industry Contact Group also supplied FRW samples 

from shale wells in the region. The samples were processed (discussed in Tasks 2.2 and 2.4) to 

characterize raw water chemistry, suspended solids characteristics, processing requirements, and 

processing results.

The conceptual process train includes an EC unit followed by the FilterSure filtration system. 

The upstream component of the system will pretreat the FRW to enhance the filtration 

efficiency of the FilterSure system. This component will convert some of the dissolved solids 

to suspended solids, which can be accomplished either chemically or electrochemically. Early 

testing demonstrated the capability to remove 99+% suspended solids. The treatment process 

train has also demonstrated the ability to reduce certain important dissolved solids; therefore, 

the need for subsequent processing to reduce Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) does not appear to 
be necessary. FRW samples supplied by Industry were treated by the process train and results 

supported moving forward with the development and deployment of a mobile unit in the field.

Industry standards for acceptable recycle water quality standards continue to evolve, and now 

requires only a significant reduction in dissolved divalent ions and suspended solids. Although 

a downstream (conceptual) option could be to remove dissolved solids to 500 parts per million 

(ppm) or less (potable or otherwise usable water), the project objective is to only treat the FRW 

to make it readily acceptable for recycling. If the downstream conceptual component of the 

process train would become necessary for whatever reason, it would likely be a “polishing 

process” to remove or reduce a specific chemical or to achieve a specific particle size 

maximum. Normally, a post-treatment component should not be necessary because the effluent

TDS can be readily diluted when the FRW is recycled for the next frac job.

Task 2.2 Develop Process Flow Model

Based on the conceptual process train developed in Task 2.1, the Process Flow Model was 

developed along two parallel and complimentary lines: (1) a technical model and (2) an 

economic model. 

The technical model assumed an electro-coagulation (EC) pretreatment component of the 

process train feeding into the FilterSure filtration system. The technical model is relatively 

straight forward, incorporating variables associated with the FRW chemical make-up, particle 

size distribution, and suspended solids coupled with additional variables associated with the 

components of the process train and throughput rates. 

The economic model attempted to adapt a previously-developed computer code to the process 

train to assist in evaluating commercial potential of the evolving process. The model was

expanded to include input data from newer and/or somewhat less conventional processes such as 

electro-coagulation. The method shows promise in being able to help optimize system 

integration. Table 1 illustrates the results of a preliminary run of the augmented economic code. 

The initial run of the code looked at individual processes that might be steps of an integrated 

system for treating FRW, without regard to their applicability to the actual system contemplated. 

Some of the processes examined would be applicable only when executed as part of an 

extensively integrated system.
Table 1: Costs of various treatment methods

Treatment Method $/1000 gallons

Surface disposal $0.07

Deep injection well - existing $0.66

Evap/infil pond w/ spray $0.99

Spray Irrigation $1.08

Microfiltration $1.36

Evaporative pond - Lined-Spray $1.97

Electro-coagulation $2.00

Shallow injection/aquifer renewal $2.85

Evaporative pond/infiltration $2.98

Water hauling $4.82

Deep injection well - new $5.64

Nano-filtration $6.15

Reverse Osmosis $6.94

Evaporative pond - Lined $27.56

Task 2.3 Identify Recycling Operational Requirements

Using the data from the Industry Contact Group questionnaire, recycling operational 

requirements have been evaluated. Although this Task is considered to be 100% complete, the 

actual recycling requirements have been fluid in nature and have changed during the course of 

the project; therefore, we will continue to monitor the operational requirements and modify 

them as appropriate. The Industry Contact Group has kept the WVU project team informed 

throughout this project period. Any further changes in the operational requirements will not

have a significant effect on the project. Recycling operational requirements were evaluated 

based on data from Industry:

TDS should be < 50,000 mg/liter (may be subject to frequent revisions),

calcium should be < 250 mg/liter,

total water hardness should be < 2,500 mg/liter Ca CO3 equivalent,

segregated water storage will be required for separating treated and untreated FRW, 

and

for multiple horizontal wells on a single location (rapidly becoming the typical case in 

most of the region), it will be beneficial to clean up all of the FRW within a well’s 

initial flowback period providing a larger portion of FRW that can be reused in the 

next frac on location.

The process of combining mostly fresh water with a lesser amount of salty water will result in 

a relatively constant mix after a few reuses. For a given development region, the maximum 

salt concentration of the water mixtures used for subsequent frac jobs should stabilize by the 

3

rd repeat cycle as shown in Figure 1. The salt concentration would be the same for the 4th

frac cycle and remain constant for subsequent frac cycles at that site.
Figure 1: Frac Water Salt Content Stabilization

 

Task 2.4 Develop and Test Treatment Methods

The FilterSure filtration system has proven itself under a number of different water treatment 

situations; however, performance on FRW and its unique water chemistry was unknown. Media 

reports indicated FRW presented a major problem to the natural gas industry, presenting a challenge 

with cost-effective disposal or utilization. Three main problems were identified: 1) an abundance of 

scale-forming chemicals in the FRW, 2) the presence of heavy metals such as barium and possibly 

NORMS, and 3) high-salinity with TDS levels of greater than 200 mg/liter. Many enterprises 

offering services to the gas producers are conventional water treatment companies, well-qualified to 

turn the FRW into fresh water and to dispose of the solids or concentrated brines that resulted, at a 

cost that is arguably competitive with treating and hauling the FRW to a disposal well, which are 

both very expensive. FilterSure and WVU developed a mobile treatment system with a small 

footprint to address water quality concerns of recycling FRW for additional frac jobs at a lesser cost 

compared to current practices.

Samples of FRW were acquired from four natural gas producers in four different areas of production, 

with TDS ranging from 10,000 mg/liter to 185,000 mg/liter. WVU analyzed the chemical 

characteristics of these FRW samples, determining that radioactivity was at or below background 

levels. Total water hardness (a key parameter with a target value < 2,500 mg/liter) ranged from 4,000 

to 50,000 mg/liter. 

WVU analyzed particle size distributions (PSD) for the FRW samples, raw and filtered samples, and 

all samples subjected to electro-coagulation before and after filtration. Figure 2 shows an example of 

the results of filtering a Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale FRW sample. Results indicated the removal 

of all particles larger than 3 microns and approximately 40% of particles larger than 1.5 microns. 

There is no industry standard regarding acceptable particle size limits; but, some members of the 

Industry Contact Group have indicated that they are using 5-micron or 10-micron absolute filters. 
Other members have indicated that they are using conventional sand filters only. At the 3-micron 

level, the FilterSure filtration system easily met or exceeded industry requirements. 

Figure 2: Particle size distribution before and after FilterSure filtration

WVU submitted a sample of Marcellus Shale FRW to an electro-coagulation (EC) company for 

treatment. The sample was then processed through the FilterSure filtration system. As shown in 

Figure 3, this non-optimized EC test verified that EC was effective in coagulating many small 

particles to create much larger particles that could be readily removed by filtration. A visual 

indication of the filtration results is presented in Figure 4. It is expected that commerciallyavailable electro-chemical treatment will be the most cost-effective pretreatment method and 

post-filtration treatment will not be necessary in most cases.

To further verify this expectation, two additional Marcellus samples were processed through the 

treatment scheme of EC followed by the FilterSure filtration system. Table 2 summarizes the 

results of the tests ran on the three samples. Results indicate significant reductions with respect 

to the divalent ion concentration, one of the primary objectives of this project. In addition to the 

reductions in divalent ions concentrations, total suspended solids (TSS) were reduced by up to 

76%, with retention of 100% of particles larger than three microns.

The treatment system design proposed by WVU project team and verified through analyses has 

the capability to achieve the technical goals of low water hardness; minimal, environmentallysafe concentrations of heavy metals; and lower TDS for the water to be readily-used by frac 

service companies for the next frac job. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Relative PSD, Pct

Particle Size, microns

Particle Size Distribution Comparison, Sample #2, Marcellus Shale 

Before & After FilterSureTM

BEFORE

Over 40% particulate AFTER

removal from 

1.5 to 3 microns

Complete particulate 

removal above 3 microns
Figure 3: Particle size distribution before and after EC

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0.01 0.1 1 1 0 100 1000

Particle Size Distributions, pct

Particle Size, microns (logarithmic Scale)

Particle Size Distribution, Sample #3 & 3EC, Marcellus Shale

Before and After Electrical Coagulation

PSD of Raw Water, before EC treatment

PSD of Water after EC Treatment

Figure 4: Effluent (left) following EC treatment and FilterSure filtration of Marcellus 

Shale FRW (right)
Table 2: Results of Marcellus Shale FRW samples with EC pretreatment followed by 

FilterSure filtration

3.5.4

 Solute Raw Treated Change Raw Treated Change Raw Treated Change

Concentration

Cl 17100 12600 -26% 65000 62400 -4% 107000 89600 -16%

N a 8530 4960 -42% 32800 22600 -31% 41900 31100 -26%

Ca 1610 1040 -35% 12800 10600 -17% 21200 14600 -31%

Sr 280 214 -24% 1340 1250 -7% 2850 3090 8%

K 243 207 -15% 398 357 -10% 668 595 -11%

Mg 188 121 -36% 1200 933 -22% 1930 1120 -42%

Ba 172 71 -59% 201 120 -40% 1280 741 -42%

Fe 32 0 -99% 6 na na 41 na na

SO4 28 13 -52% 414 88 -79% 49 na na

TDS 38700 26800 -31% 114200 98400 -14% 189000 166000 -12%

TSS 40 34 -15% 570 138 -76% 882 302 -66%

Hardness 4890 3960 -19% 38000 25200 -34% 63,400 42,200 -33%

pH 7.4 7.9 7% 5.3 6.0 11% 5.5 5.5 1%

Results of experimental treatments on three Marcellus frac return water samples

Sample A, 40,000 ppm TDS Sample B, 110,000 ppm TDS

milligrams/liter milligrams/liter

Sample C, 190,000 ppm TDS

milligrams/liter

Removal of salts through the use of solvents

Research on methods for removal of salts using solvents has been initiated and includes the use 

of mixed solvent systems. The solubility for KCl was determined to be 34.5 gm/100 gm of 

water. Investigations of mixed solids beginning with the use of 2-propanol followed to evaluate 

solubilities and conductivities. The solubility of KCl in 2-propanol/water mixtures showed that 

the initial 26% KCl by weight dropped to nearly 1% when the solvent was 80% 2-propanol by 

weight. The concentration, referenced to the original water, decreased from 345,000 mg/liter to 

approximately 40,000 mg/liter. Removal of the precipitated salt followed by removal of the 2-

propanol resulted in an 88% reduction of salt.

Experiments with K2SO4 showed 90% less solubility with 20% (w/w) 2-propanol than pure 

water. Solubility of K2SO4 is shown in Figure 5. Determinations below 1 gm/100 gm are 

difficult to perform; thus, higher amounts of 2-propanol were not used. The data conform to 

other experimental data as seen in Figure 6. 
Figure 5: Solubility of K2SO4 in water and water-2-propanol mixtures 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 5 10 15 20 25

g/100g K2SO4

g/100g K2SO4

Percent 2-propanol

Figure 6: Ternary diagram of the solubility of K2SO4 in the water/2-propanol system

Although the analyses displayed in Figure 5 were conducted at 22oC, not 50oC as in Figure 6, 

K2SO4 was more soluble at the higher temperature. Figure 6 also indicated that less salt was 
dissolved at higher 2-propanol contents. The water solubility, 11.2 gm salt/100 gm water, is 

roughly 112,000 mg/liter as TDS. The solubility at 20% 2-propanol is 1.06 gm salt/100 gm 

water, a TDS of 10,600 mg/liter. 

Samples of frac water were treated with 2-propanol. The method is the obverse of the solubility 

experiments where 2-propanol was added to an existing solution. The behavior was tracked 

using conductivity as seen in Figure 7. Lower conductivity is a complex function of solution 

dielectric changes and salt loss. The solution was recovered through filtering after addition of 80 

gm of 2-propanol. The 2-propanol was evaporated, regenerating an aqueous solution that had a 

conductivity of 97 mS/cm, 50.5% of the original 92 mS/cm. Comparison of salt content of the 

original and final solutions showed 24% of the original sodium (55,000 mg/liter) and 37% of the 

original chloride (100,000 mg/liter) were removed, yielding 41,800 mg/liter sodium and 63,000 

mg/liter chloride. The final added 2-propanol, 80 gm, corresponds to a solution that is 44% 2-

propanol. When converted to molar concentration, 0.57M of sodium is removed and 1M of 

chloride. Other ions must be involved in chloride removal, 1:1 Molar removal is expected for 

NaCl. Other analyses are in progress and will continue through the first quarter of Phase II.

Task 2.5 Preliminary Cost Estimate and Development of Decision Criteria

Three separate laboratory tests using a 1 gpm EC unit preceding the FilterSure filtration unit 

confirmed the ability of the combined system to remove suspended and dissolved solids from 

FRW.

Preliminary cost estimates were completed and presented to DOE in September 2010. Figure 8

shows the mobile treatment system to be potentially profitable at the 30 gpm prototype size. 

However, net profits before taxes are increased using a 70 gpm system. Both units will pay back 

the investment in less than two years. 

0

50

100

150

200

0 20 40 60 80 100

Conductivity

After evaporation

Conductivity

g 2-propanol added

Figure 7: Frac water treatment with 2-propanol
The mobile unit is expected to be highly-competitive with any other system that can be 

developed, and well below the cost of the current common method of trucking and disposal of 

the FRW at $2.00 to $8.00 per barrel ($47 to $190 per 1000 gallons). Because this system can be 

placed on-site and can treat the FRW without the need for long settling times, the FRW can be 

reused immediately, on-location, eliminating trucking from site to site.

Research results to date confirm the system will meet the technical goals stated throughout this 

discussion. Specifically, the system will remove water hardness chemicals to less than 2,500 

mg/liter, calcium to less than 250 mg/liter, and heavy metals to near-zero presence when blended 

with fresh water. Both the economic and technical criteria were shown to be favorable and the

decision to proceed to Phase II was made. 

Figure 8: Potential profitability of 30 gpm mobile treatment unit

Task 2.6 Go-No-Go Decision to Proceed to Phase II

Based on results obtained through project tests of Marcellus FRW samples, including the 

separate tests applying electro-chemical technology in concert with FilterSure technology on 

FRW samples of 40,000, 110,000, and 190,000 mg/liter, the final composite system met both 

technical and economic criteria, fully justifying the forward movement into Phase II. Phase II 

will consist of the design and fabrication of a commercial-scale prototype system that will be 

taken into the field for verification and validation that it will treat FRW to a level that the water 

can be recycled and reused again during the drilling process. 
Issues & Challenges:

The excellent cooperation of our Industry Contact Group in providing frac water samples has 

resulted in the completion of all treatment and analyses ahead of schedule. The project is 

proceeding to the design and fabrication stage of the prototype unit for field deployment in 

spring 2011. 

Milestone Report:

All milestones for Phase I were completed. Table 3 provides a log of all milestones for Phase I 

and II, including actual start and completion dates for Phase I milestones and anticipated start 

and completion dates for Phase II milestones.

Cost Status Report:

Project costs associated with Phase I are detailed in Appendix A.

Summary of Accomplishments:

The project remained within budget and schedule. Significant accomplishments this quarter 

included:

A 1 gpm EC process development unit was installed in the laboratory to test its use in 

pretreating FRW prior to filtration. The testing proved successful.

Industry Contact Group members provided additional flowback frac water samples that 

were subsequently processed through the EC unit and the FilterSure filtration system. The 

WVU Radiation Safety Department tested these samples for radioactivity and again found 

them to be at or below background values. A faculty member in the WVU Department of 

Civil and Environmental Engineering determined particle size distribution measurements 

for each sample received and tested. A commercial lab was used for the chemical 

analyses of the samples.

Tests of the combined EC and filtration system verified previous results showing 

significant reductions in concentrations of the divalent ions and TSS. Divalent calcium 

was reduced by approximately 30% and TSS was reduced by up to 76% while retaining 

100% of the particles larger than 3 microns.

All task objectives and milestones, both economic and technical, for Phase I were 

completed and within budget.

The decision to proceed to Phase II of the project was made based on the tests yielding 

positive technical and economical results.
Table 3: Project task and milestone log for Phases I and II

Task/ 

Subtask 

#

Project Milestone 

Description

Planned 

Start 

Date

Planned 

End 

Date

Actual/

Projected

Start 

Date

Actual/

Projected

End Date

2.1/2.2

Complete Conceptual 

Process Train and Flow 

Model

2/1/10 5/31/10 2/1/10 7/31/2010

2.3 Recycling Requirement 

Identification 2/1/10 4/30/10 2/1/10 4/30/10

2.4

Treatment Method 

Development 

Preliminary Findings

2/1/10 7/31/10 2/1/10 7/31/10

2.4/2.5

Treatment Method 

Development Final 

Recommendations 

including Preliminary 

Cost Estimate

2/1/10 8/31/10 2/1/10 9/30/10

2.6 Go/No Go decision to 

proceed to Phase II 9/1/10 9/30/10 9/1/10 9/30/10

3.1/3.2

Mobile Treatment Unit 

(MTU) Design and 

Fabrication 

10/1/10 3/31/11 10/13/10 3/31/11

3.4 MTU Installation & 

Startup 4/1/11 4/30/11 4/1/11 4/30/11

3.5 MTU Field Test 5/1/11 7/31/11 5/1/11 7/31/11

3.6 MTU Decommissioning 8/1/11 8/31/11 8/1/11 8/31/11

3.7 MTU Demonstration 

Report 9/1/11 9/30/11 9/1/11 9/30/11
Appendix A: Cost Status Report (as of 10/25/10)

Current 

Budget Encumbrances

Expended to 

Date

Unobligated 

Balance

Salaries 40,771.94 0.00 57,549.98 -16,778.04

Fringe 9,142.55 0.00 10,859.71 -1,717.16

General Expenses 19,821.00 62.00 24,640.95 -4,881.95

Subcontracts/Pro 

Services 169,237.00 17,212.34 125,457.88 26,566.78

Travel 1,000.00 0.00 172.47 827.53

F & A 65,618.51 443.60 66,598.82 -1,423.91

Totals 305,591.00 17,717.94 285,279.81 2,593.25

Cost Share

Current 

Budget

Expended to 

Date

Unobligated 

Balance

WRI/NRCCE/WVU 

Direct 7,088.12 8,264.93 -1176.81

F & A 3,295.88 3,843.19 -547.31

External 29,600.00 32,762.50 -3162.5

Totals 39,984.00 44,870.62 (4,579.50)
Appendix B: PTTC Workshop Summary Report

Eastern Region – Appalachian Basin

Title/Topic: Zero Discharge Water Management for Marcellus Shale Play Development

Date: October 6, 2010

Location: Morgantown, WV

Co-Sponsor: West Virginia Water Research Institute

Speaker(s): Kristin Carter, Carbon Sequestration Section, Pennsylvania Geological Survey

Paul Ziemkiewicz, Director, West Virginia Water Research Institute

Ronald McIlwain, President, FilterSure, Inc.

C. David Locke, Principle Petroleum Engineer, Marcellus Shale Fracwater Cleanup Project

Attendees: Industry: 25

Others: 22

Total: 47

Synopsis/Overall Assessment: 

This half-day workshop was designed to alert the oil and gas industry and those concerned with water 

management issues in the northeast with the results of a DOE-funded research project to treat flowback 

water from large frac jobs in Marcellus Shale wells. The goal of the project is to treat and reuse 100% of the 

flow back water (i.e., zero discharge to surface streams) in the next frac job.

At the beginning of the project, industry advised the research team that they were achieving 60-80% water 

returns from frac jobs in vertical wells and short lateral horizontal wells. Therefore, the team began to 

design an integrated approach to remove all suspended solids (TSS) and reduce dissolved solids (TDS) to an 

acceptable level. However, after the research began, industry advised the team, through responses to a 

questionnaire sent out by the team, that total frac water returns were as low as 20% in longer laterals. This 

essentially eliminated the need for expensive treatments to reduce TDS; simple mixing of filtered frac water 

with four parts of fresh water would produce enough water of sufficient quality for the next frac job.

Successful filtering of the flow-back water has been achieved by modifying filters provided by FilterSure, a 

member of the research team. This process involves customizing a series of five filters to meet the specific 

needs of the water sample, based on a pre-treatment size distribution analysis. Simple filtration alone can 

remove 99% of the TSS.

Filtering combined with electrocoagulation (EC) has proven to be effective in removing a significant percent 

of TDS as well. The EC process produces larger flocs of what were smaller TDS, and these flocs are then 

removed by the filtering process. The end product is a clear liquid with TDS reduced to levels that are 

acceptable for makeup water in the next frac job.

Kristin Carter, Section Chief of the Pittsburgh office of the Pennsylvania Geological Survey, set the stage for 

the research talks that followed by presenting an excellent summary of the regional geology and production 

history of the Marcellus Shale play, with an emphasis on the water needs and resulting water-associated 

problems inherent in the play. Paul Ziemkiewicz, Director of the West Virginia Water Research Institute, 

followed with a summary of project goals and the results of Phase 1, the lab phase that incorporated EC 

technology with FilterSure technology. 

Ronald McIlwain, President of FilterSure, Inc., presented a more detailed examination of the technology 

developed by his company, including a case study of using this technology for twenty years on the Potomac 

River near Baltimore.
C. David Locke, the Principle Petroleum Engineer on the Marcellus Shale Fracwater Cleanup Project, 

concluded the session with a presentation of the Zero Discharge Project team’s plan for Phase II, a field 

demonstration phase. During Phase II, a mobile unit will be designed and constructed, consisting on an EC 

unit and a FilterSure filtration system, designed to treat flowback water on-site.

The workshop ended following a 30 minute period in which attendees could ask questions of any speaker. 

Interaction between speakers and registrants was dynamic throughout the workshop, as several of those 

present seemed truly interested in applying this technology to their wells.

Participant Feedback:

Because the workshop topic involved treatment of flow-back water, and the theme of the WV Water 

Conference was “West Virginia’s Water Resources: Threats and Opportunities,” we decided that 

incorporating our PTTC workshop into their meeting would bring gas operators and water experts together to 

discuss the results of this research. This proved to be a successful approach, as the audience was essentially 

split fifty-fifty between gas producers and those professionals who worked in water-related fields.

However, this did cause a few problems for us. Because the workshop was one of three concurrent sessions, 

we could not charge a separate registration fee, and we had no control over who attended the workshop, or if 

they attended the entire session or just one or two talks. Because of this, we circulated a sign-in sheet before 

each talk in an attempt to capture the names of those who attended at least part of the workshop. The final 

list may not have included everyone who was in the room at one time or another, but it was close.

It also was difficult to distribute an evaluation sheet and get it back at the end of the day, so we gave up on 

this endeavor. We can only report that for a workshop that competed with two other sessions, we had more 

than 40 of the 100 total registrants in the room at all times, and those in the room followed up each talk with 

multiple questions, and stayed at the end to speak individually with the key speakers.
National Energy Technology Laboratory 

626 Cochrans Mill Road 

P.O. Box 10940 Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940 3610 Collins Ferry Road 

P.O. Box 880 Morgantown, WV 26507-0880 

One West Third Street, Suite 1400 Tulsa, OK 74103-3519 

1450 Queen Avenue SW Albany, OR 97321-2198 

2175 University Ave. South Suite 201 Fairbanks, AK 99709 

Visit the NETL website at: www.netl.doe.gov 

Customer Service: 1-800-553-7681