Environmental Costs of Managing 

Geological Brines Produced or Extracted 

During Energy Development

Christopher B. Harto

Argonne National Laboratory

Groundwater Protection Council Annual Forum 

Atlanta, GA

September 24-28, 2011
Acknowledgments

 DOE/NETL provided funding to support the work

 Andrea McNemar - NETL

 John Veil – Veil Environmental
Topics Addressed

 Energy systems that produce brines

 Composition of typical geological brines

 Water management options

 Environmental costs of water management
Sources of Geological Brines

 Produced and Flowback Water from 

Oil and Gas Operations

 Water Extracted from Deep Saline 

Aquifers used for Carbon 

Sequestration

 Spent Geofluid from Geopressured

Geothermal Systems

Photo by Corrie Clark 

Photo by John Veil

Diagram by John Veil
Water Composition

 Examples of the 

geochemical data

– Formation TDS varies 

significantly by location

– Formation pH ranges from 

slightly acidic to slightly 

basic

 Management solution 

must be targeted to 

unique local brine 

chemistry

 Note: data for geological 

formations of interest for 

carbon sequestration

Source: Harto and Veil 2011
6

Variation in TDS Between Regions

Source: Harto and Veil 2011
Water Management Options

 Reuse 

 Use as is

– Injection for recovering more oil

– Hydraulic fracturing or drilling fluid

– Enhanced geothermal systems makeup water

– Injection for hydrological purposes

 Use after treatment

– Industrial

– Cooling water

– Dust control 

– Agricultural

– Irrigation

– Livestock

– Drinking

Source: USFWS
Water Management Options

Thermal Treatement

Membrane 

Processes

Photo by John Veil

Photo by John Veil

Photo by Chris Harto

Treatment Technologiesfor TDS/Salt Removal
Water Management Options

 Disposal of Extracted Water

– Injection to non-hydrocarbon producing formation 

(UIC class II)

– Evaporation

Photo by John Veil Photo by John Veil
Balancing Environmental Costs and Benefits

 When selecting a water management you must weight the costs 

and benefits of the alternatives

 Hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) approach used to compare

– Energy consumption

– GHG emissions

– Net water savings

Source: EPA 2006
Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment

 Combines process based LCA approach with economic inputoutput LCA approach (EIOLCA). 

 Process approach

– Ideal for well characterized processes 

– Requires lots of specific data

– Suffers from cut-off error

 EIOLCA approach

– Suitable for more general processes

– Only requires capital costs

– Suffers from aggregation error

 Process approach utilized for direct process inputs

 EIOLCA approach used to consider capital equipment impacts
Example Scenario: Marcellus Shale

 Analysis for a single well in Marcellus Shale

 4 options considered

– Thermal treatment on site

– Thermal treatment at centralized facility

– Thermal treatment at centralized facility utilizing waste heat

– Transport to UIC injection well

 Key Scenario Parameters

– Transportation distance (0, 30, 150 miles for on site, centralized 

facility, injection)

– All transportation by truck

– Concentrate disposed of through UIC class II injection in Ohio
Results

 Higher efficiency of 

central location 

outweighs the energy for 

transportation for energy 

and GHG

 Thermal treatment more 

energy intensive than 

injection unless waste 

heat used

 Net water savings

– Treatment system returns 

0.66 bbl of clean water 

for every 1 bbl treated

 Other considerations

– Availability

– # of truck trips

– costs

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

On Site Central Central/Waste 

Heat

Injection

Life cycle energy BTU/bbl

Life Cycle Energy Consumption

Waste Disposal

Tranportation

Capital

Operations

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

On Site Central Central/Waste 

Heat

Injection

Life cycle GHG emissions g CO2e/bbl

Life Cycle GHG Emissions

Waste Disposal

Tranportation

Capital

Operations
Further study in progress

 Management options will be included for further study

– Reuse without treatment for TDS

– Treatment to remove TDS

• At least one reverse osmosis system

• At least two thermal treatment systems

– Disposal

• Deep well injection

• Evaporation

 Consider alternative transportation parameters

– Truck vs. Pipeline

– Transportation distance

 Explore impact of water quality (TDS)
Final Thoughts

 A number of energy development activities can result in 

the production of large quantities of salty water. 

 Managing these brines can be a challenging, but must be 

done in environmentally responsible manner.

 When selecting the best management practices a number 

of factors should be considered in addition to cost. 

 LCA is one useful tool for comparing the environmental 

footprint of competing options.