Progress 07/01/12 to 06/30/15
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience for this projectcan be broken into three categories: (1) ranchers and farmers in northeast Colorado that are in oil and gas producing regions, (2) water management companies that are currently disposing of produced water through injection into deep wells and (3) oil and gas operators in the Denver-Julesburg Basin that are responsible for managing the frac flowback and produced water from their oil and gas wells. In addition, we have made multiple presentations to community groups that are concerned about the excessive use of fresh water for hydraulic fracturing in the oil and gas industry.The first category has been addressed through multiple presentations at agricultural events including the conferences and expositions. We also were able to interact with farmers and ranchers through the West Greeley Conservation District and the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District. The second target audience category has included Watertectonics, Inc., a water treatment equipment manufacturer from Everitt, WA. We have worked with them and Halliburton Water Services to conduct bench and pilot scale testing on the efficacy of the electrocoagulation process for treating produced water in the DJ Basin.Noble Energy (oil and gas operator) has aslo been involved since we collected water from their well-fields and discussed the findings with their engineers. We also conductedpilot tests on their property with there water and a treatment trailer from Halliburton and Watertectonics. Changes/Problems:The initial scope of work called for CSU and East China Normal University researchers to collaborate on a project that would evaluate the use of membrane capacitive deionization for treating oil and gas related produced water. We visited ECNU and signed a memorandum of understanding regarding this and other collaborations. It became apparent during the first year of the project that ECNU was having trouble gettin their part of the project approved and therefore we shifted the scope of work to evaluate another advanced technology that could possibly be used to treat produced water. The change in scope did not cause the project to not meet the original schedule and goal evaluating methods that can be used to treat oilfield wastwater for agricultural use. This project has led to another NIFA sponsered project and a $200K NSF funded study to conduct a field trial irrigating non-food crops. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The major opportunities for training and professional development with the project has been with the two graduate students who have conducted the experiments, completed the data analysis and presented the results. Both students (one PhD, one MS) have had multiple meetings with Halliburton and Noble engineers and part of the experimentation was conducted in the Halliburton labs. They have also worked closely with engineers from Watertectonics, Inc. and visited there facility in Everitt, WA for additional training.We have also had the opportunity to collect samples from operating oil and gas wells requiring a significant amount of safety training. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Three journal articles have been published resulting from this work and we expect that to be the most effective way to disseminate the information to a wide audience. In addition, we have presented the results to both Halliburton and Noble Energy personnel and the information has been circulated through each of these companies.We have also had opportunties to interact with the agricultural community of northeast Colorado on multiple occasions. This includes the Colorado Soil and Water Conservation District conference, the Colorado Agricultural Exposition, the board of the West Greeley Conservation District and several other smaller meetings with landowners. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
The goals of the project changedduring the first year shifting CSU's focus to studying electrocoagulation for treating oil and gas produced water. East China Normal University was toconduct parallel studies with MCDI to treat produced water but the collaboration never really developed as we had hoped so there was very little communication between the two research teams. The goal of the first set of tasks of the project was to establish electrocoagulation testing capability for the CSU research team. We set-up an agreement with Halliburton, Inc. that we would use theirlab scale electrocoagulation equipment that was provided by Watertectonics. Using Noble Energy produced water, we demonstrated that theelectrocoagulation (EC) treatment process was feasible for produced water that had flowed back for at least 15days. The early flowback water (< 10 days) had a very high load of organic matter (>1500 mg/L as carbon) and could not overcome this coagulant demand without very high current levels. The first year of the project resulted in defining the operation range of EC and compared the results to the main alternative,chemical coagulation with ferric chloride.There is a time component to water quality changes over the life of an oil and gas well. Early flowback typically has higher concentrations of aluminum, solids, and total organic carbon (TOC) as it is influenced mostly by the makeup of the fracturing fluid. At some point around the 15-day mark, a transition in water quality begins. The formation water seems to have a greater influence on water quality than does the fracturing fluid. Treatment seems to correlate to the changing water quality, as treatment is less effective on the early flowback compared to produced water. TOC and low ionic strength may be the reason early flowback is more difficult to treat. Also, chemical coagulation is more effective than EC at removing TOC, and there is more aluminum in early flowback water compared to EC, while EC is more effective at removing iron. However, both treatments are effective after day 15. Aluminum removal could possibly serve as an indicator of treatment success as it correlates to observations during treatment, where it was visibly restablilized during unsuccessful treatments. 99% turbidity removal can be expected for either treatment after 15days of flowback. More research should be completed in order to determine what raw water characteristics, if any, could serve as a surrogate to indicate treatment effectiveness. Also, a better understanding of the components that make up the TOC concentration in the samples could be instrumental in determining why treatment is more difficult for early flowback, and could uncover what is causing interference in treatment. This initial work led to one complete thesis and has partially contributed to a PhD dissertation. After demonstrating what conditions EC wereeffective as a treatment process, the second phase was optimizing the process to reduce costs. The first part of this phase was understanding what effect the sequence of processing had on organic matter and suspended solids removal. The softening process was tested before and after EC and the efficacy of adding anoxidant (KMnO4 and HOCl wastested). A journal article was published on these results in the Journal of Hazardous Materials.The secondpart of this phase focused on the impact of pH on the process and in particular, metals (Ca, Mg, Ba, Sr) removal. A major outcome of this work was how much chemicals could be saved if the pH target was lowered from 10.5 to 9.5. A journal article was published in 2015 in Society of Petroleum Engineers - Oil and Gas Facilities. More details on the methods and results of these studies can be found in the journal articles and thesis that has been published. The final phase of the project involved conducting a pilot scale test of the EC and ancillary processes at a Noble Energy well site. Watertectonics supplied the pilot trailer and Halliburton operated the pilot including colleccting the water, treating it to a standard that could be further processed with reverse osmosis and used to supplement agricultural irrigation water. The field trial lasted approximately 60 days and included treating both early flowback and produced water. Since high organic matter early flowback water needed to be treated, we decided to use both ferric chloride and EC with this type of water.At the start of the field trial it was thought that a pretreatment tank may be necessary to allow sufficient time for the ferric chloride coagulation process to take place ahead of EC. During bench scale testing it was not feasible to operate asa continuous process due to lab equipment limitations so all testing was performed in batch. To ensure that we would not run in to a residence time issue in the field a pretreatment tank was rigged in. After determining that we were having settling issues in the pretreatment tank it was decided to bypass the tank and to evaluate the results. Upon bypassing the pretreatment tank improved water quality was measured.In bench scale lab testing it was determined that ferric chloride and caustic injection before EC was the most effective order. However, during the field trial it was determined that although this gave the lowest chemical loading, coagulation prior to EC caused EC cell plugging and would not be a feasible method to operate at full-scale.This iteration was tried because without a pH adjustment the coagulation reaction typically does not take place. In this configuration the cell plugging is avoided and the lowered pH from the ferric chloride injection solubilizes more iron from the EC cells. However, through lab testing this configuration was shown to require higher chemical loading than a two-step coagulation process.Post EC ferric chloride injectionwas determined to be the best configuration for field operations because it optimized chemical use while reducing EC cell plugging. This method was used for the remainder of the field trial. Overall, much knowledge was gained from the field trial and successful systems for treating Noble Energy's DJ Basin various water qualities were establish. During the trial 14,418 bbl of water was treated including 1,000 bbl of coil tubing water and approximately 1,500 bbl of the early flowback water. The coil tubing water (produced when they clean out the well immediately after drilling and fracking)was comingled with produced water during treatment due to chemical delivery limitations on site such as having too small of a ferric chloride pump. The early flowbackwater was treated without commingling, however due to belt press sizing a max of rate of 3 bpm was achieved. Once it was established that the improved ECprocess could treat the various water qualities the trial was ended. The reason for this is that many pieces of system needed to be resized for the process to be economical and it was decided that an almost complete rig down would be needed to swap out the various pieces including the need for a smaller generator, improved weir tanks anda larger belt press. The field trial was seen as a success for treating various oil and gas produced waters to a quality that could be processed through reverse osmosis filters and reused for agricultural purposes.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Esmaeilirad, N., Li, G., Kennedy, H., Terry, C., Carlson, K.H., 2015. Optimizing Metal Removal Processes for Produced Water with Electrocoagulation. Jour. SPE Oil and Gas Facilities, 04/2015; 4(02):087-096. DOI:10.2118/173899-PA.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Esmaeilirad, N., White, S., Terry, C., Prior, A., Carlson, K.H., Influence of inorganic ions in recycled produced water on gel-based hydraulic fracturing fluid viscosity, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 139 (2016) 104111.
- Type:
Theses/Dissertations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
John Ryan Hutcherson, A Comparison of Electrocoagulation and Chemical Coagulation Treatment Effectiveness on Frac Flowback and Produced Water. Master's Thesis, May, 2015. Colorado State University.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Esmaeilirad, N., Omur-Ozbek, P., Carlson, K.H., 2014, Influence of Softening Sequencing on Electrocoagulation Treatment of Produced Water. Jour. Haz. Mat., 283(2015)721729.
|
Progress 10/01/13 to 09/30/14
Outputs
Target Audience: The target audience for this period can be broken into three categories: (1) ranchers and farmers in northeast Colorado that are in oil and gas producing regions, (2) water management companies that are currently disposing of produced water through injection into deep wells and (3) oil and gas operators in the Denver-Julesburg Basin that are responsible for managing the frac flowback and produced water from their oil and gas wells. The first category has been addressed through multiple presentations at agricultural events including the conferences and expositions. We also were able to interact with farmers and ranchers through the West Greeley Conservation District and the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District. The second target audience category was involved with some of the testing as utilized pilot scale information from Halliburton Water Services using the technology we completed lab scale testing with. Noble Energy (oil and gas operator) was involved since we collected water from their well-fields and discussed the findings with their engineers. Changes/Problems: We orginally did not have a focus on the economics of using the technology for reuisng produced water. It became apparent early in the project that any technology for reusing water would have to be cost competititve with existing practice of deep well injection. The final segment of the project that was not originally planned is an economic analysis of electrocoagulation compared with deep well injection. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? The major opportunities for training and professional development with the project has been with the two graduate students who have conducted the experiments, completed the data analysis and presented the results. Both students (one PhD, one MS) have had multiple meetings with Halliburton and Noble engineers and part of the experimentation was conducted in the Halliburton labs. We have also had the opportunity to collect samples from operating oil and gas wells requiring a significant amount of training and safety precautions. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? We have presented the results to both companies involved (Halliburton and Noble Energy) on multiple occasions and had the chance to interact with different groups. We have also had opportunties to interact with the agricultural community of northeast Colorado on multiple occasions. This includes the Colorado Soil and Water Conservation District conference, the Colorado Agricultural Exposition, the board of the West Greeley Conservation district and sevral other smaller meetings woth landowners. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? A large demonstration of the technology has been scheduled to be conducted with a trailer based unit at a Noble well site. Halliburton will conduct the field trial but our team will be involved in collecting data and comparing the results to what has been found at the lab scale. Some of the results from the lab testing has been included in the design of the field unti and we will be involved with evaluating the economic feasibility of using the new technology for reusing frac flowback and produced water.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
After showing that the electrocoagulation process was feasible for treatment of produced water in the previous period, the focus was on proving economic viability relative to other alternatives including deep well disposal. One of the accomplishments toward this goal was the determination of the impact of pH on metals removal and the associated quantity of chemicals that could be saved. We utilized lab scale experimentation along with chemical equilibrium modeling (OLI Systems) to optimize the chemical doses for metals removal while maintaining the overall elecetrocoagulation objectives. Raw water quality was used as input values for the OLI model and simulations were carried out to observe the efficacy of each treatment process. The OLI model was used to simulate an over-saturated condition (scaling tendency higher than 1 by allowing precipitation of solids at high pH values. The removal rates are based on the assumption of 100% solid-liquid separation. Calcium carbonate precipitation and therefore removal rate dramatically increases from 5% to 85% when pH was increased from 6.7 to 8.5. Above this pH, the equilibrium removal rate for calcium flattens out considerably but kinetics of reaction will also need to be considered when designing a treatment operation. Equilibrium chemical modeling predicts that removal of calcium at pH values as low as 9.0 can be greater than 97%. A similar trend was observed for the strontium ion since aqueous complexation with the same ligand (carbonate) is expected to form strontium carbonate solids. Removal jumped from less than 1% to 95% by increasing the pH from 6.7 to 9.0 before leveling off. Minimal magnesium precipitation is predicted until the pH is raised to 10, a significantly higher value than the other cations examined. Magnesium precipitates most effectively as the hydroxide achieving a relatively modest removal of 72% at pH of 10.2. As discussed, barium solubility is lowest when precipitating solid barium sulfate and since this ligand is not acid-base active at the expected water quality conditions, the removal of the compound is not affected by pH. In summary, if treatment processes are being designed to reduce the concentration of divalent cations for either scaling index control or specific ion interactions with frac fluids, process optimization should be considered by using the approach determined in this study. For example, the sensitivity of frac fluid stability and scaling tendency of magnesium should be quantified to determine if acid and base chemical use can be reduced by operating at a lower pH. The required acid-base quantity for case studies (case I: Mg limited and case II Ca and Sr limited) based on OLI model results was determined. It was seen that there is a substantial difference in terms of chemical consumption between pH of 9.5 and pH of 10.2. Theoretically the required base (e.g. NaOH) at the pH of 10.2, base usage efficiency was 20% to 40% lower at pH of 9.5 compared to 10.2; likewise this amount was 21% and 48% for acid usage. The observed reduction for the experiments ranged from 10%-62% for base usage and 22%-73% for acid usage. Also it appears that there is a big difference between flowback water and produced water in terms of chemical usage. Much more chemical (acid and base) was used for the early flow back (water samples earlier than one month) versus produced water (later water flows). This observation was much visible particularly for base consumption in first 30 days.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Esmaeilirad, N., Omur,Ozbek, P., Carlson, K.H., 2014, Influence of Softening Sequencing on Electrocoagulation Treatment of Produced Water. Jour. Haz. Mat., 283(2015)721729
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Awaiting Publication
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Esmaeilirad, N., Li, G., Kennedy, H., Terry, C., Carlson, K.H., 2014. Optimizing Metal Removal Process for Produced Water with Electrocoagulation. Jour. SPE Oil and Gas Facilities, In Press.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Under Review
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Esmaeilirad, N., Li, G., Kennedy, H., Terry, C., Carlson, K.H., 2014. Use of Bentonite Clay for Organic Matter Adsorption with Electrocoagulation. Jour. SPE Oil and Gas Facilities, Under review.
|
Progress 01/01/13 to 09/30/13
Outputs
Target Audience: Water supply companies, agricultural water professionals, county and state officials assoicated with water and energy issues. In addition, oil and gas companies operating in northeast Colorado can benefit from the water management information that comes from the project. Changes/Problems: Originally, the project was conceived as a collaboration with East China Normal University (ECNU) in Shanghai. The goals of the project are being accomplished with ECNU personnel at this point due to a delay in the development of a formal research agreement. Although we will continue to pursue the collaboration, CSU is capable of completing the project on its own. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? The PI has benefited by hands on interaction with Noble Energy (water sampling and analysis) and Multi-Chem water treatment division of Halliburton. We have been involved with extensive field work at drill sites and have used a pilot scale electrocoagulation unit at Multi-Chem's site in Brighton, CO. In addition, two graduate students worked on the project and interacted with Noble Energy, Halliburton and agricultural water users in the state, learning technical as well as practical professional skills. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Results of the project have been presented to various audiences during the past year. This includes the South Platte Forum (water users on the South Platte River), the Colorado Farm Show (agriucltural interests throughout the state) and the West Greeley Consrvation District (water users in Weld county, an area with signficant oil and gas operations). In addition, two journal articles are being prepared for submission. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? The focus of the next reporting period will be objectives 2 and 3 (field scale testing of treatment process and cost estimation of implementation). Arrangements are being made with Halliburton and Noble Energy to scale up the electrocoagulation process such that it can tested at a drilling and hydraulic fracturing site. Based on field measurements and experience, overall life-cycle costs will be estimated and compared with current practice for managing the produced water.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Treatment of flowback or produced water for reuse typically consists of removal of solids, some inorganic ions, and organic compounds. Historically, chemical coagulation (CC) has been the preferred treatment method. CC involves the addition of positively charged metal salts and polymers, typically aluminum or iron, to induce coagulation and flocculation. The mechanism for coagulation and flocculation involves charge neutralization of negatively charged particles, which are initially stable with respect to self-aggregation. The colloids are de-stabilized and subsequently aggregate or flocculate into particles (floc) that can be settled or filtered out of solution. Electro- coagulation (EC) is another form of treatment that involves running electric current across metal plates (typically iron or aluminum) submerged in a solution. The metals oxidize at the anode to form metal hydroxides in-situ, which act as the coagulant to destabilize charged particles and allow for flocculation and solid-liquid separation. This research characterized flowback and produced water quality and tested varying water qualities with both chemical and electro coagulation, and to identify and characterize limitations of both processes related to water quality conditions.Electrocoagulation tests were conducted with a WaterTectonics pilot unit at the Halliburton labs in Brighton. For the purposes of this research, a successful treatment was defined as having a final turbidity of ≤30 NTU. This is an arbitrary value and was based partly on current industry practices as well as coagulation and flocculation observations. There is currently no official industry standard for successful treatment of flowback and produced water. The changing water quality seemed to correlate to treatment effectiveness for both EC and CC. Early flowback proved to be more difficult to treat with the methods used in this study. However, as time increased, treatment became more effective for both treatment processes. Neither EC nor CC was successful on days 1, 2, and 17. However, at day 27 both treatments were successful in meeting the <30 NTU target on all samples except for EC on day 183, which had a turbidity of 35 NTU.Noticeable raw water characteristics that seemed to correlate to treatment effectiveness are TOC and TDS. Interference in treatment could be due to high levels of TOC present from the organic load related to the fracturing fluid and/or low ionic strength (TDS) causing an increased electric double layer (EDL). TOC concentration on day 1 and 2 was 2349 and 2309 mg/L, followed by an increase on day 17 to 3242 mg/L. TOC began a downward trend at day 27 with a concentration of 2027 mg/L, where the first successful treatment occurred, and continued to decline to an average of 1037 mg/L on days 70 to 183. In the early flowback, destabilization of negatively charged particles is observed with pin-floc formation after CC treatment was applied. However, the floc would not aggregate, as was observed in the successful treatments, where large floc formed quickly, aggregated, and settled out. In this case, the charge neutralization process could have been reversed due to the charged organic matter adsorbing to the surface of the newly formed metal oxides. This may have caused colloids to gain a net negative charge and re-stabilize, ultimately remaining suspended in solution. T While the majority of TOC is thought to be polysaccharides from the fracturing fluid, surfactants are also likely present. Surface-active compounds such as surfactants can result in colloid stabilization through steric and charge repulsion mechanisms. Analysis of organics was performed in an attempt to better understand the actual makeup of the 2000-3000 mg/L of TOC measured. Results suggest that about half (50.7%) of the early flowback is made up of carbohydrates (polysaccharides), TPH accounts for 1.4%, and VOCs and SVOCs totaled 0.3%. The makeup of the remaining 47.6% is currently unknown. More research is being completed to better understand this unknown portion, which could help determine what characteristics of TOC are causing interference in treatment.EC resulted in minimal floc formation in the early flowback samples suggesting an insufficient delivery of coagulant dose to achieve particle destabilization. However, EC was successful after TOC levels dropped below 2000 mg/L. CC was more effective at removing TOC with an average removal of 51% compared to EC with an average of 19%. Even with 51% removal, there is a considerable amount of TOC remaining after treatment. The lowest final TOC concentration was 368 mg/L on day 151 with CC treatment. Another possible explanation for the unsuccessful treatment of the early flowback is a relatively low ionic strength. Ionic strength is a measure of the total concentration of ions in a solution. When ionic strength is low the electric double layer (EDL) around particles can extend further into the solution. An EDL is the electrostatic potential surrounding a charged particle, consisting of a layer of counter ions on the surface of a particle and a diffuse layer of ions forming a net charge around the particle. The surface charge and the ionic cloud form a diffusive electrical double layer. Electrostatic repulsion between the EDL of particles drives them apart while van der Waals forces attempts to bring them together. Increasing concentration of electrolytes, which support flocculation and coagulation, can decrease repulsion. If the repulsive force of the EDL is greater than van der Waals force, particles will remain stable, preventing coagulation and flocculation. The EDL is inversely proportional to ionic strength, so as ionic strength increases the EDL compresses.In days 1 and 2, the EDL thickness was estimated to be 6.83 and 6.97 Å, while TDS concentration was 11,376 and 10,966 mg/L, respectively. As TDS increased to 23,114 mg/L on day 17, the EDL thickness decreased to 4.78 Å. Together, low ionic strength and TOC can prevent charge neutralization and flocculation, which seems to be the case on day 17. While the EDL decreased on day 17, TOC concentration increased by 40%. Day 27 had a higher average EDL thickness of 5.55 Å compared to day 17, but TOC concentration dropped significantly to 2027 mg/L from3242 mg/L. All remaining samples had successful treatment and an average EDL thickness of 4.02 Å. Results suggest that ionic strength can impact particle aggregation or floc formation and a combination of TOC concentration and ionic strength are responsible for treatment effectiveness of early flowback. Flowback and produced water quality changes significantly over the life of a well. Early flowback typically has higher concentrations of aluminum, solids, and TOC, likely due to residuals from the frac fluid. At approximately the 30-day point, a transition in water quality occurs as the formation has a greater influence on water quality. Treatment seems to correlate to the changing water quality, as treatment is less effective with the early flowback compared to the later stage produced water. Elevated TOC concentration and/or low ionic strength may be the reason early flowback is more difficult to treat. Both EC (CleanWave) and chemical coagulation showed unacceptable results for early flowback and similarly successful results for time periods near 30 days and greater. Future research should focus on refining the CleanWave process for early flowback conditions by understanding the components that make up the TOC concentration in the samples that are challenging to treat with either approach.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Goodwin, S., Carlson, K.H., Water Intensity Assessment of Shale Gas Resources in the Wattenberg Field., accepted for publication in Env. Sci Tech.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Submitted
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Esmaeilirad, N., Carlson, K.H., Influence of Softening Sequencing on Electrocoagulation Treatment of Produced Water for Reuse, submitted to Water Research.
|
Progress 07/01/12 to 12/31/12
Outputs
OUTPUTS: The project was begun on 7/1/12 and therefore the reporting period is only six months. The primary objective of this project is to more thoroughly understand the mechanisms of contaminant removal and optimize the electrocoagulation (EC) process for the range of water quality found in the Denver-Julesberg Basin for the desired outcomes. For this reporting period, the specific objectives include: (1) Determine speciation of contaminants of concern (e.g. Ca, Mg, Ba, Sr, Fe, B) in produced water and treated water over a range of EC operating conditions. (2) Optimize chemical use and electrocoagulation process conditions to achieve DJ Basin water quality goals at minimum costs. The research team has been working with Noble Energy engineers to identify the sources of produced water that will most likely be a candidate for treating to irrigation water standards. Training classes pertaining to safety and field operations have been completed allowing the research team to go on-site and collect samples. In addition, access to the electrocoagulation process equipment has been secured and initial experiments have been conducted. Several producing oil and gas wells in the Wattenberg field have been sampled and the water quality analyzed. Currently, the research team is working with Noble Energy to collect actual produced water samples that can be used for the first experiments. PARTICIPANTS: PI - Ken Carlson, Associate Professor; Nasim Esmaeilirad, PhD Student TARGET AUDIENCES: Energy companies, agricultural water users, state regulators PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.
Impacts
Most of the project activities to date have been focused on project start-up. Assembling the research team which involves Colorado State University students, electrocoagulation equipment manufacturer (Watertectonics), oil and gas producer (Noble Energy), and Chinese university (East China Normal University) has been challenging. We are still working with ECNU to incorporate their membrane capacitive de-ionization process into the experimental plan. It is expected that first experiments to recycle produced water will begin in February, 2013.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|
|