# Oil & Natural Gas Technology

DOE Award No.: FWP 49462 

# Final Report
Water Management T echnologies Used by Marcellus Shale Gas Producers

Submitted b y:

John A. Veil Argonne National Laboratory Argonne, IL

Prepared for:

United States Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory

July 2010



## Office of Fossil Energy

### T

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 1



## Chapter 1

– Introduction

Natural gas represents an important energy source for the United States. According to the
U.S. Department of Energy’s ( DOE’s ) Energy Information Administration (EIA), about 22% of the country’s energy needs are provided by natural gas. Historically, natural gas was produced from conventional vertical wells drilled into porous hydrocarbon

- containing formations. During the past decade, operators have increasingly looked to other unconventional sources of natural gas, such as coal bed methane, tight gas sands, and gas shales.

Figure 1 shows EIA projections of the source of natural gas supplies through 2030. Unconventional gas supplies are anticipated to play an increasingly important role. Some of the busiest and most productive oil and gas activiti es in the country today are shale gas plays.

Figure 1

– U.S. Natural Gas Supply by Source

Source: DOE/EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2009

. Note that Tcf refers to trillion cubic feet.



### Shale Gas Resources in the United States

Important shale gas formations are found in many parts of the United States, as shown on the

map in Figure 2 . Much of the early rapid growth in shale gas production took place in the Barnett
Shale formation near F or t Worth, Texas. As the technology evolve d, operators began to explore other large shale formations in other parts of the country. The most active shales to date are the Barnett Shale, the Fayetteville Shale

, the Antrim Shale, the Haynesville Shale, the Marcellus Shale, and the Woodford Shale. A 2009 Shale Gas Primer, sponsored by DOE, includes a chart

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 2

showing the gas production from several major shale gas formations (GWPC and ALL 2009

– see page 10).

Figure 2

– U.S. Shale Gas Plays

Source: Provide d by staff from DOE ’s Office of Fossil Energy

.



### Technologies That Enable Shale Gas Production

Unlike conventional natural gas, which has been produced for more than a century, shale gas is more difficult to remove from the ground. Shale formations contain very tight rock, with less pore spac e than traditional oil and gas formations

, such as sandstone and limestone. Conventional drilling and production methods typically cannot produce enough natural gas from shale formations to make the wells economically viable.

Because of the tight nature of the shale formations, gas producers have relied on more advanced technologies in order to extract sufficient volumes of natural gas to make the wells profitable. The two technologies that have lead the way in allow ing economical production of shale gas are horizontal drilling and multistage hydraulic fracturing.

Horizontal drilling is an advanced technology that allows a well to be drilled vertically to a desired depth, then turned sideways to reach out hundreds to thousands of feet laterally.
Horizonta l drilling is critical for producing shale gas because it creates a well that penetrates

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 3

through a long section of the shale formation, allowing for the collection of gas throughout a much longer horizontal run.

The hydraulic fracturing proces s (a “ frac job ” ) injects water, sand, and other ingredients at very high pressure into the well. The high pressure creates small fractures in the rock that extend out as far as 1,000 f ee t away from the well. After the fractures are created, the pressure is reduced.
Water from the well returns to the surface (known as flowback) , but the sand grains remain in the rock fractures, effectively propping the fractures open and allowing the gas to move. Frac jobs
on traditional vertical wells are usually done in on e stage. However, given the length of horizontal wells, the frac jobs are often conducted in limited linear sections of the well known as stages. In a long horizontal well, stages are fractured sequentially, beginning with the outermost
section of the we ll. There is a useful video animation clip at http://www.pamarcellus.com/web/ that shows how horizontal wells are drilled and then hydraulically fractured.

Various types of “ frac fluids ” and additives have b een used. Most frac fluid used in shale gas wells consists of water, a proppant (generally sand), a friction reducing agent (“ slick water ”

— water containing some surfactant additives to h elp the flow

- back water return f rom the well at
the end of the frac job), and other chemicals used to protect the well and to optimize performance. GWPC and ALL (2009) lists the major additives, the types of chemicals found in the additives, and their function s

. DOE/NETL Research Program

DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory ( NETL ) administers an Environmental Program
that aims to find solutions to environmental concerns by focusing on the following program
elements:

1. P roduced water and fracture flowback water management, particularly in gas shale development areas

, 2. W ater resource management in oil and gas basins

, 3. A ir quality issues associated with oil and gas exploration and production ( E&P )
activities

, 4. S urface impact issues associated with E&P activities

, 5. W ater resource management in Arctic oil and gas develop ment areas

, 6. D ecision making tools that help operators balance resource development and environmental protection

, and
7. O nline information and data exchange systems that support regulatory streamlining.

There are currently 27 extramural projects in the En vironmental Program, with a total value of roughly $32 million (not including participant cost

- share). Approximately $10 million of this total is directed toward projects led by industry, $9 million to projects led by universities, $11 million to state agencies and national non

- profit organizations, and $2 million to national laboratories for technical support to other project partners. The project portfolio is balanced between projects focused on technology development, data gathering, and development o f data management software and decision support tools.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 4

Some of these projects are referenced in this report. Program and individual project information can be found at the following NETL links:

**•** Technology Solutions for Mitigating Environmental Impacts of Oil and Gas E&P Activity http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/program/Prog101.pdf

**•** Natural Gas and Petroleum Projects, Environmental Solutions, Produced Water Management http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil

- gas/Projects/ENV_TOC.html#Produ ced

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 5



## Chapter 2

– Water Issues Associated with Shale Gas Production

Water plays a role in different aspects of shale gas production. Three important water issues are discussed in this chapter.

Stormwater Runoff from Disturbed Areas

In order to create an area for drilling a new well, the operator clears and grades an area that can
accommodate one or more wellheads ; several pits for holding water , drill cuttings, and used drilling fluids ; and space for the many trucks used to complete a frac job. Typically

, this space will be 3 to 5 acres in size, plus any area disturbed to create an access road from the nearest public road to the well pad. Most of the figures in this chapter are photos taken by the author at several different Marcellus Shale well sites in southwestern Pennsylvania on a rainy day in May 2009 (photos from other locations are identified)

. Figure 3 shows a well pad while the well is being drilled

, Figure 4 shows a pad while the well is undergoing a frac job , and Figure 5 shows a p ad with a completed w ellhead

. Figures 6 and 7 show examples of access roads at well sites in the same area. Figure 6 is taken at a recently completed well, while Figure 7 is taken at a much older well.

Figure 3

– Well Pad Showing Drilling Rig

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 6

Figure 4

– Well Pad Showing Equipment Used for Frac Job

Figure 5

– Well Pad Showing Completed Well head

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 7

Figure 6

– Access Road at Recently Completed Well

Figure 7

– Access Road at Older Well

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 8

These photos give an idea of the amount of disturbed l and there is at a well site

. Most o perators employ appropriate management practices to control stormwater runoff. Figure s 8 through 10
show some of the stormwater management structures that are used to capture offsite stormwater
and divert it around the disturbed well pad area. This reduces the amount of water that carries sediment. The water falling on disturbed areas of the site can be controlled through the application of gravel to the well pad and road surfaces or through onsite collection pits. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), Bureau of Oil and Gas Management website contains presentations from a January 2010 training course ( http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/new_forms/Marcellus/2010%20Marcellu sTraining.htm ). Several of the presentations relate to erosion and sediment control plans. The information and graphics contained in the presentation are useful.

Figure 8

– Stormwater Diversion Ditch to Collect Offsite Water

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 9

Figure 9

– Lower End of Stormwater Diversion Ditch

Figure 10

– Stormwater Control Structure

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 10

Water Supply f or Drilling and to Make Up Frac Fluids

The second important water issue involves finding an adequate and dependable supply of water to support well drilling and completion activities. Water used for drilling and making up frac fluids can come from several sources: surface water bodies, groundwater, municipal potable water supplies, or reused water from some other water source (most commonly this is flowback water from a previously fractured well).

GWPC and ALL (2009) provide estimates of water requirements for four of the major shale gas plays. The water required for drilling a typical shale gas well ranges from 1,000,000 gallons in the Haynesville Shale to 60,000 gallons in the Fayetteville Shale , depending on the types of drilling fluids used and the depth and horizontal extent of the wells . The Marcellus Shale drilling volume falls near the lower end of this range at 80,000 gallons per well. The volume needed to fracture a well is considerably larger. According to GWPC and ALL (2009)

, the frac fluid volume ranges from 3,800,000 gall ons per well in the Marcellus Shale to 2,300,000 gallons per well in the Barnett Shale.

Another source of information on the amount of water used per well is a presentation given by

a representative of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) on vo lumes of water withdrawn for Marcellus Shale gas well development. A large portion of the Marcellus Shale underlies the Susquehanna River basin watershed. Any water usage within the watershed is subject to oversight by the SRBC. Hoffman (2010) notes

, th at as of January 2010, the SRBC
had data for 131 wells. The total volume of water withdrawn through that date is 262 million gallons, with 45% coming from public water supplies and the other 55% coming from surface water sources. The average total volum e of fluid used per well is 2.7 million gallons, with
2.2 million gallons of that coming from freshwater sources and 0.5 million gallons coming from recycled flowback water. No information was provided by Hoffman (2010) concerning whether
the wells in the SRBC data set were vertical or horizontal wells (a vertical well requires much less water for a frac job than does a horizontal well).

Water can be brought to the site by numerous tank trucks or, where another source of water is
available within a m ile or so, it can be piped to the site. Figure 11 shows tank truck s similar to
those used to haul water. Th e photo on the left of a large semi

- style tank truck was taken in the Barnett Shale region of Texas , and the photo on the right of two smaller tank trucks was taken in western Pennsylvania . Figures 1 2 through 14 show pipes conveying water to a well undergoing a frac job. Figures 12 and 13 were taken in southwestern Pennsylvania. Figure 12 shows a pump withdrawing water from a storage pond and the rubber hose used to convey it up a hill to a well site. Figure 13 shows the same pipe near the top of the hill approaching the well site

. Figure 14 shows aluminum pipes used to convey water at a site in the Fayetteville Shale region
of Arkansas.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 11

Fi gure 11

– Tank Truck s Similar to Those Used to Deliver Water to a Well Site

Figure 1 2

– Pumping Unit Used to Move Water to Next Well Site

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 12

Figure 1 3

– Pipe Shown at the top of a Hill after Pumping

Figure 14

– Aluminum Pipe Used to Convey Water

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 13

Management of Water Flowing to the Surface from the Well

The third important water issue involves managing the water that comes to the surface from the gas well. During the frac job, the operator injects a large volume of water into the formation.
Once t he frac job is finished, the pressure is released, and a portion of the injected water flows
back to the surface in the first few days to weeks . This water is referred to as flowback or flowback water. Over a much longer period of time, additional water that is naturally present in
the formation (i.e., produced water) continues to flow from the well

. While some authors consider flowback to be just one part of the produced water, this report distinguishes flowback from the ongoing produced water. Both flo wback and produced water typically contain very high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) and many other constituents. Over an extended period
of time , the volume of produced water from a given well decreases

. Not all of the injected frac fluid returns to the surface. GWPC and ALL (2009) report that from 30% to 70% of the original frac fluid volume returns as flowback

. However, anecdotal reports from Marcellus operators suggest that the actual percentage is at or below the lower end of that

range. The rest of the water remains in pores within the formation. The SRBC data set described in the previous section shows that about 13.5% of the injected frac fluid is recovered (Hoffman 2010).

Operators must manage the flowback and produced water in a cost

- effective manner that complies with state regulatory requirements. The primary options are:

**•** Inject u nderground through a disposal well (onsite or offsite)

,

**•** D ischarge to a nearby surface wate r body,

**•** H aul to a municipal wastewater treatment plant (often referred to as a publicly owned treatment works or POTW)

,

**•** H aul to a commercial industrial wastewater treatment facility, and

**•** R euse for a future frac job either with or without treatment.

C hap ter 3 describes each of these different processes in more detail and identifies those options
that are actually being used by gas operators in the Marcellus Shale region.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 14



## Chapter 3

– Water Management Technologies Used in the Marcellus
Shale

The last port ion of C hapter 2 describes the range of potential options for managing flowback and produced water from shale gas wells. Th is chapter reviews these options and identifies which of the options are currently being used by Marcellus Shale gas operators.

Data Collection Approach

In order to identify the water management options that are actually being used, Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) contacted the Marcellus Shale Coalition, a group of companies involved with natural gas production in the Marcell us Shale region. Although the Coalition is primarily focused on gas development in Pennsylvania, many of the companies are currently working in or plan to work in the other Marcellus Shale states too

. A representative of the Coalition provided a
list of eight major companies operating in the Marcellus Shale along with the names of contact persons. Argonne wrote to each of these companies, plus another three companies with which Argonne is currently working on other Marcellus water projects. Argonne rece ived r eplies from eight companies , including one reply that indicated the company’s water management practices
were confidential at that point

. In addition, the author made visits during May 2010 to four commercial industrial wastewater
treatment facilit ies that accept water from Marcellus Shale gas wells. These facilities employ different processes to treat the flowback and produced water. The facilities are described in Chapter 4

. Underground Injection

GWPC and ALL (2009) list the water management o ptions employed at several different shale gas plays. All of the plays employ injection wells as a primary means of disposal except for the
Marcellus. Few

, if any

, onsite injection wells are used in Pennsylvania or New York , nor are there any commercial disposal wells used for Marcellus Shale flowback and produced water located in these states

. Where injection is available (e.g., at the other shale gas plays and in portions of Ohio or West Virginia for Marcellus Shale flowback and produced water )

, t he injection wells can be either onsite wells operated by the gas producer or offsite third

- party commercial disposal wells. To give readers a sense of what a commercial disposal well looks like, Figure 15 shows a
commercial flowback and produced water disposal well in the Barnett Shale region of Texas

. Flowback and produced water are delivered by tank truck and are transferred into the storage tanks. As necessary, the flowback and produced water are injected into a deep formation that has
sufficient porosity and injectivity to accept the water.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 15

Figure 1 5

- Injection Well and Tank Battery at Commercial Disposal Facility in Texas

A t least some of the Marcellus Shale gas operators a re sending flowback and produced water to commercia l disposal wel ls located in Ohio

. The author contacted the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mineral Resources Management (DMRM)

, to learn which
commercial waste water disposal companies were operating injection wells in eastern and central
Ohio to recei ve flowback and produced water from Pennsylvania. Tom Tomastik, an Underground Injection Control program manager with the Ohio DMRM

, replied:

“ Ohio does not distinguish between commercial and non

- commercial Class II injection wells. So basically, it ’ s the operator who determines if they will take other operator ’ s oil and gas fluids. Although we track brine hauling from cradle to grave, it would be a huge process right now to go through and delineate the fluids from the Marcellus. Starting on June 30th, how ever, passage of Ohio Senate Bill 165 will require a 20 cent per barrel fee
for out

- of

- district oilfield fluids to be paid to us, so we will start tracking out

- of

- state fluids more closely (mostly Marcellus) then .” ( Tomastik 2010).

Mr. Tomastik provided t wo tables listing Ohio’s permitted injection wells. The first table listed companies that operate commercial disposal wells. The second table listed all permitted Class II injection wells (those used for injecting oil and gas fluids)

. This i nformation w as combined into
Table 1 , which shows th e companies that operate commercial saltwater ( flowback and produced water) injection wells and the counties in which those wells are located

.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 16

Additional information on 2009 injection volumes was provided by Gregg Miller of the Ohio DMRM (Miller 2010). That information

, for each injection well, is shown in the right

- hand
column of Table 1.

Table 1

– Commercial Saltwater Disposal Wells in Ohio and 2009 Injection Volume

County Operator Lease 2009 Disposal Volume (bbl/yr)

Ashtabula B & B Oilfield Services, Inc. Miller & Co. #3 75,212

Ashtabula B & B Oilfield Services, Inc. Clinton Oil SWIW #2 75,211

Athens Carper Well Service H. Ginsburg #1 49,163

Guernsey David R. Hill, Inc. Devco Unit #1 312,753

Guernsey Dover Atwood Corp. Kopolka #1 76,311

Guernsey Arvilla Oilfield Services LLC Slifko #1 14,835

Holmes OOGC Disposal Company Killbuck Disposal Well #1 164,202

Holmes Mac Oilfield Service, Inc. F. Hawkins #1 95,061
Licking OOGC Disposal Company Ronald F. Moran #1 190,437
Mahoning Brineaway, Inc. Salty Dog #1 26,940
Mahoning Brineaway, Inc. Salty Dog #3 45,019
Mahoning Brineaway, Inc. Jenkins #1 52,181

Morgan Broad Street Energy Cook #2

- A 15,442

Morrow Fishburn Producing, Inc. J.F. Mosher #1 11,585

Morrow Fishburn Producing, Inc. Fishburn #1 90,739

Morrow Fishburn Producing, Inc. Clinger Unit #1 47,250

Morrow Fishburn Producing, Inc. Power (Fegley) #1 20,853

Noble Arvilla Oilfield Services LLC H. Dudley #1 153,307

Noble Triad Resources, Inc. Warren Drilling #1 230,731

Noble Carper Well Service Bryan

- Smith Unit #1 188,055

Perry R.C. Poling Rushcreek Partners et at #1 181,470

Portage Ray Pander Trucking, Inc. J. & D. Blazdek #2 81,206

Portage Ray Pander Trucking, Inc. Plum Creek #1 59,362

Portage William S. Miller, Inc. Wilcox #1 245,519

Portage Salty’s Disposal Wells, LP Myers #1 Unit 206,535

Portage Salty’s Disposal Wells, LP Groselle #2 176,989

Portage B & B Oilfield Services, Inc. Long #1 103,438

Stark Ray Pander Trucking, Inc. Belden & Blake Corp. SWDW #5 96,127

Stark Ray Pander Trucking, Inc. Ed Lyons (Genet) #1 171,790

Stark Brineaway, Inc. The Salty Dog #2 187

Stark Brineaway, Inc. J & E Walker #2 30,645

Stark Brineaway, Inc. Kolm #1 30,645

Trumbull Ray Pander Trucking, Inc. Eva Root Wolf #1 8,323

Trumbull Ray Pander Trucking, Inc. Wolf #2 104,443

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 17

Table 1

– Commercial Saltwater Disposal Wells in Ohio and 2009 Injection Volume (Cont.)

County Operator Lease 2009 Disposal Volume (bbl/yr)

Trumbull Ray Pander Trucking, Inc. Pander #1 113,941
Washington Carper Well Service Davis

- Huffman #2 1,744
Washington Carper Well Service Davis

- Huffman #3 9,180
Washington Virco, Inc. Helen Hall #1

- 19 121,978
Washington Broad Street Energy H.L. Flower #1 147,728
Washington OOGC Disposal Company Long Run Disposal #1 611,725

Wayne Mac Oilfield Service, Inc. Weldon Mohr #2 29,651

Total Injected Volume 4,467,913



### Note that Ohio has active oil and gas production from many wells that are not part of the
Marcellus Shale. Some of the injection wells in Table 1 may dispose of water from these other oil and gas wells rather than from Marcellus Shale wells.

Figure 16 is a map of Ohio with the count y boundari es delineated. Each county that has a permitted commercial saltwater disposal well is indicated with a star. Nearly all of the counties in which the disposal wells are located are in the eastern half of the state.

Argonne asked for similar information concerning commercial injection wells from the West Virginia D epartment of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) but did not receive any information. Puder and Veil (2006) report that three facilities in West Virginia operated commercial injection wells that accepted produced water in the time period between
O ctober 2005 and April 2006. However, only two of them provided information that could be used in that study. These were Base Petroleum in Charleston, West Virginia , and Danny Web Construction in Brenton, West Virginia

. Current Practices from Surveyed Gas Companies : Four of the surveyed gas companies indicated that they have sent produced water to commercial disposal wells. Three of the replies mentioned disposal wells in Ohio, while the fourth reply did not specify any location.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 18

Figure 1 6

– Ohio C ounties in Which Commercial Disposal Wells Are Located (indicated by star)

Source: Ohio Department of Transportation website at http://www.dot.state.oh.us/maps/Pages/CountyMap.aspx ; accessed May 28, 2010

.



### Discharge to Surface Water Body

Many types of industrial wastewater are discharged to streams, rivers, and other surface water bodies. Permission to discharge wastewater is made through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys tem (NPDES) permit s issued by state agencies. However, discharging flowback

or produced water directly from a well site presents various challenges. First, the water typically contains high levels of TDS (salinity) and other constituents that would requi re treatment. In response to concern over flowback and produced water discharges, the PADEP

, in April 2009

, proposed a new strategy that would a dd effluent standards for oi l and g as wastewaters of 500 mg/L for TDS , 250 mg/L for sulfates

, 2 50 mg/L for chlorides , and 10 mg/L for t otal b arium

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 19

and total s trontium

. 1 

### On May 17, 2010, the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board approved the new discharge requirements as revisions to the Pennsylvania regulations

. 2 

### According to the material released on that date , t h 

### ese revisions will go into effect upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin as final rulemaking (as of June 3 0, that publication has not yet occurred).

Second, the U.S. Environmental Protection A gency (EPA) has adopted national discharge standards for many industries (know n as effluent limitations guidelines or ELGs) . The ELGs for the oil and gas industry are promulgated at 40 CFR Part 435 ( Title 40, Part 435 of the Code of Federal Regulations ). The ELGs specify zero discharge of produced water from onshore wells, but do allow two exceptions. The first applies to facilities located west of the 98 th meridian (roughly the western half of the country) and the second applies to oil wells with very l ow production (less than 10 barrels of crude oil per day). Since all Marcellus Shale wells are located in the eastern United States and produce gas rather than oil, neither of these exceptions applies.

The May 17 rule revisions state that no discharge o f oil and gas wastewater can be made directly from an oil and gas site to surface waters. Oil and gas wastewater can be sent to either a centralized treatment facility (referred to in this report as a commercial industrial wastewater treatment plant) or t o a POTW. Those POTWs that accept wastewater from this category will be required to have an EPA

- approved pretreatment program, which addresses TDS through local
limits on these sources and at the above standards.

Reportedly, representatives of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection announced on May 19 , 2010, that the agency would soon propose a new water quality standard
for TDS of 500 m g/L

. 3



### Current Practices from Surveyed Gas Companies : Argonne did not identify any Marcellus Shale

gas producers that are directly discharging flowback or produced water from their well sites. There are several commercial wastewater disposal facilities that accept flowback and produced water, treat it, and discharge the water under their own NPDES permits . These facilities are
discussed in a later section.

Haul to POTWs

Prior to the recent rapid development in the Marcellus Shale region, the oil and gas development activities in the region generated relatively small volumes of produced water. Some POTWs accept ed limited quantities of produced water from oil and gas operators. The produced water was trucked from tanks or pits at the well site and discharged into the treatment facility. The

1 The draft strategy can be downloaded at http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/Wastewater%20Management/WastewaterPortalFiles/Marcel lusShaleWastewaterPa rtnership/high_tds_wastewater_strategy_041109.pdf ; accessed April 29, 2010.

2 The May 17 revisions to the rule can be downloaded at http://files.dep.state.pa.us/PublicParticipation/Advisory%20Committees/AdvCommPortalFiles/WRAC/Preamble%2 0TDS%20Final%20Rulemaking%20to%20WRAC.pdf ; accessed May 20, 2010.

3 This informati on was reported in a May 19 article in the Charleston Gazette ; http://wvgazette.com/News/201005190834 ; accessed May 21, 2010.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 20

treatment processes found at most POTWs are designed to remove s uspended solids and biodegradable materials, but not salinity or TDS.

As the Marcellus Shale development grew in popularity, operators sought permission to bring more truckloads of salty flowback and produced water to the treatment plants. The increased input of TDS resulted in increased levels of TDS in the discharge. The May 17 revisions to the PADEP discharge regulations mentioned in the previous section will place restrictions on the
volume of flowback and produced water that POTWs can accept

. Argo nne obtained a list from PADEP of the POTWs and other commercial wastewater treatment
facilities that currently accept or have applied for permits to accept f lowback and produced water (Furlan 2010 )

. A version of that table (edited to fit on a single

- page width) is provided as Appendix A of this report. The table lists 15 POTWs that currently receive oil and gas water or have received it in the past. Many of those POTWs have conditions in their NPDES permits requiring that the volume of wastewater from o il and gas sources may not exceed 1% of the average daily flow. The table lists 4 other POTWs that receive treated water from commercial wastewater treatment companies that discharge to the municipal sewer system rather than discharging directly into surf ace water bodies.

Current Practices from Surveyed Gas Companies : Three of the surveyed gas companies are currently sending flowback and produced water to POTWs or have done so in the past. One of the replies indicated that it had sent its flowback and pro duced water to the New Castle, Pennsylvania

, wastewater treatment plant

. The other t wo replies did not identify the municipality receiving the water.

Haul to Commer ci al Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant

Several Pennsylvania companies have provided wastewater disposal service to the oil and gas community for many years. As the volume of flowback and produced water has increased rapidly over the past few years, new commercial disposal companies are opening their doors, while still others are applying for permits from PADEP.

Argonne obtained a list of commercial industrial wastewater treatment plants that currently accept flowback and produced water from the PADEP (Furlan 2010)

. This list is part of the large table provided in Appendix A. Twenty

- seven commercial wastewater treatment facilities (noted as CWT in Appendix A) are permitted by the PADEP to treat flowback and produced

water and then discharge the treated water to surface water bodies

. Four other commercial
facilities treat the w ater and then discharge it to municipal sewers that flow to POTWs. The PADEP list also includes 25 other commercial wastewater treatment facilities that have applied for permits but have not yet received permission to operate and discharge.

Additional inf ormation about the commercial wastewater treatment industry in Pennsylvania was obtained from an earlier Argonne report. Puder and Veil (2006) report that eight facilities in Pennsylvania were accepting produced water in the time period between October 20 05 and April
2006. However, only f our of them provided infor mation that could be used in that study. Table 2 shows the Pennsylvania facilities that were listed in Puder and Veil (2006). The costs listed in Table 2 represent the costs during 2005

- 2006 and may not be representative of costs now.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 21

These four companies are still providing wastewater disposal service to the oil and gas industry. The May 17 revisions to the PADEP discharge regulations include an important provision relating to existing commerci al industrial disposal companies. Any commercial industrial disposal company with a valid NPDES permit as of the date on which the rule revisions are finalized (presumably during the summer of 2010) is allowed to continue discharging at the permitted leve ls until such time as the facility seeks an increase in discharge allowance. This provision was included in the rule revisions to allow the existing disposal capacity to remain in place. Each facility has permit limits that were calculated to allow TDS d ischarges without violating surface water quality.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 22

Table 2

– Commercial Disposal Facilities in Pennsylvania that Accepted Produced Water in
the 2005

- 2006 Time Frame (based on Puder and Veil 2006)

Disposal Facility Name Location Disposal

Cost Comments Throughput Capacity*

Castle
Environmental

Inc. (name changed to
Advanced

Waste Services of Pennsylvania in 2010) New Castle, PA $0.025

– $0.050/gal The facility operates a nonhazardous wastewater processing facility.
Treatment involves chemical precipitation and filtration. The
result ing water from the process is discharged to the New Castle Sanitation Authority’s Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Daily vo lume on 6/28/10 was
~260,000 gal/day; this was slightly lower than average

Hart Resource Technologies Creekside,

PA $0.0525/gal Treatment involves chemical precipitation and removal of oils and heavy metals. Surface water discharge
occurs under an NPDES permit issued by PADEP

. 18,000 gal/day of produced water; 45,000 gal/day of flowback; total from 11/08 to 10/09 = 23.2 million gal Pennsylvania

Brine

Treatment Franklin,

PA $ 0.055/gal Facility uses chemical precipitation and generates nonhazardous residual sludge that is land

- filled offsite at a

PADEP

- permitted facility. The treated water is then discharged to surface waters under an NPDES permit. 140 gpm; total from 11/08 to 10/09 = 53 million gal

Tunnelton Liquids Saltsburg,

PA $0.045/gal Facility uses an innovative process to treat pit water (containing some oil

based muds and cuttings). It combines acid mine drainage from an
abandoned coal mine with the produced water. Sulfates in the mine drainage help remove contaminants from the produc ed water. Following several treatment steps, the treated water is discharged to a river under the authority of an NPDES permit. Total of 1 million gal/day;
~100,000 gal/day of oil and gas water; ~900,000 gal/day of acid mine drainage



### * Th e estimate for Castle Environmental was provided by phone on June 29, 2010 (Meahl 2010) . The other estimates were provided during the May 2010 site visits described in Chapter 4.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 23

To get a first

- hand look at how some of these facilities operate, the author visited four facilities located in different parts of Pennsylvania during May 2010. Those site visits are described in Chapter 4.

Current Practices from Surveyed Gas Companies : Five of the companies noted that they are currently sending some of their flowback and produced water to commercial disposal companies. Most of the disposal companies are located in Pennsylvania, but one was located in West Virginia.

Reuse for a Future Frac Job

The gas companies are interested in finding water to use in frac jobs and in managing the subsequent flowback and produced water from those wells in ways that minimize costs and environmental impacts. One way to accomplish this goal is to collect the flowback water and
reuse it for frac fluids in other wel ls. Several gas companies are currently using this approach.

The May 17 revisions to the PADEP discharge regulations also include a requirement that any oil and gas wastewater having TDS of less than 30,000 mg/L cannot be discharged but must be recycled and reused.

The chemical composition of frac fluids is designed to optimize the performance of the frac job. Generally, the TDS concentration of the flowback and produced water is higher than the desired TDS range for new frac fluids. Several Marcellus Shale operators start with flowback and produced water and blend it with enough freshwater from some other source to reduce TDS and other constituents to fall within an acceptable concentration range. At least one other Marcellus Shale operator is using a thermal distillation process to treat the salty flowback and produced water to make very clean water. After passing through the treatment unit (known as the
AltelaRain ® 

### system

— described in Veil [2008]), the water is segregated into a freshwater stream and a concentrated brine stream. The concentrated brine stream is hauled offsite for disposal at a commercial disposal facility while the clean water can be reused for a future frac job or possibly
some other use.

Other technology providers are attempti ng to find niches in the Marcellus Shale water treatment market. For example, several Aqua

- Pure thermal distillation units (described in Veil [2008])
were licensed in 2009 by Eureka Resources, a commercial wastewater treatment facility in northern Pennsyl vania

, to provide a high degree of TDS removal when needed. Another
flowback and produced water treatment operation was opened for business in 2009 in West Virginia by AOP Clearwater. Its w eb site 4 

### does not provide any details about the actual

t reatment process, but it does indicate that the process results in “distilled water

, ” suggesting that some type of thermal distillation process is used.

In April 2010, the PADEP issued general permit WMGR121 for Processing and Beneficial Use of Gas Well Wastewater from Hydraulic Fracturing and Extraction of Natural Gas from the

4 http:// aopclearwater.com/The_Clearwater_Process.html ; accessed May 3, 2010.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 24

Marcellus Shale Geological Formation

. 5 

### The PADEP list included in Appendix A shows two facilities that operate under authorization by the general permit.

One of the projects funded by the DOE / NETL in September 2009 will assemble a trailer containing various types of flowback and produced wate r treatment devices. The trailer will be deployed to several Marcellus Shale locations for tests on the flowback and produced water from gas wells. The project is headed by Texas A&M University. This research, when completed

, will contribute additional data and experience with other types of treatment processes

. Current Practices from Surveyed Gas Companies : Six of the seven companies indicated that they are reusing at least some of their flowback and produced water for future frac jobs. Several
of th ese companies are attempting to recycle all of the flowback and produced water they generate. The seventh company is operating only a single Marcellus Shale well at this time. That company noted that it plan s to recycle its flowback and produced water in the future as it develop s more wells.

Results from Operator Survey

The options actually used by Marcellus Shale gas operators were briefly mentioned at the end of each of the previous sections. In this section, more detailed information is attributed to particular operators and is compiled into a single table (Table 3 ).

Table 3

– Water Management Options Used by Selected Marcellus Shale Operators

Company Information Provided by the Company Contact Chesapeake Energy Chesapeake Energy manages its flowback and produced water generated in
accordance with local, state

, and F ederal regulations applicable in each state within the Marcellus Play. It conduct s ongoing research to identify environmentally safer methods of byproduct management. At various locations, Chesapeake has transported flowback and produced water offsite to a
commercial waste water disposal company, transported it offsite to a sewage treatment plant, and has treated the water for reuse. Injection wells are also used where practical ; however these wells are not on the same location as the producing well (Gillespie 2010).

5 http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Waste/Burea u%20of%20Waste%20Management/WasteMgtPortalFiles/ SolidWaste/Residual_Waste/GP/WMGR121.pdf ; accessed July 3, 2010.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 25

Table 3

– Water Management Options Used by Selected Marcellus Shale Operators (Cont.)

Company Information Provided by the Company Contact
Range Resources Range Resources is trying to reuse 100% of its flowback, production brine

, and drill pit water. The only “processes” involved are settling and dilution. Working backwards from the well performance it see s that it get s just as good of a result
with diluted reu se water as with all freshwater. Range Resources has no indication of issues with frac fluid stability, scaling

, or bacteria growth downhole.

It use s conventional slickwater fracturing additives and design s its fracs based upon the final diluted fluid (G audlip 2010a).

During 2009, Range Resources completed 44 wells and did frac jobs involving 364 stages. The total volume of frac fluid used was 158 million gallons, with 28% of the volume made up of recycled water from a previous well. The estimated

co st savings from avoided disposal fees, less freshwater purchased, and less trucking costs was $3.2 million. The wells that included recycled water accounted for 17% of Range Resources’ Marcellus wells. Fifty percent of the wells that used recycled water are in the company’s top 25 producing wells (Gaudlip 2010b).

EQT EQT reuses all of its flowback water without treating it. Flowback water is trucked
to the next well location where it is blended with freshwater. Some of the ongoing produced water is hauled to a commercial disposal facility in West Virginia (AOP Clearwater), while other produced water is hauled to a commercial disposal well in Ohio (Babich 2010).

East Resources East Resources recycles all of its produced water and drilling pit fluids into frac fluids used in other wells. The produced water is not treated for TDS but is blended with freshwater. A typical well uses 3.5 million gallons of water in frac fluids. East Resources g enerally gets 18% to 20% of the water back to the surface. The company is looking at alternate sources of freshwater such as mine water, produced water from shallow formations, and treated POTW effluent (Blauvelt 2010).

BLX BLX is a small produc er and does not drill as many wells as some larger companies. Therefore

, the treatment of water for reuse does not work for them because of the length of time between frac jobs. BLX has hauled water to another site, if available, and basically diluted it w ith freshwater . The rest of the water goes to a disposal well, a sewage plant in New Castle, Pennsylvania, or one of the offsite commercial disposal facilities (Berdell 2010).

BLX is involved with at least two wells that are using the AltelaRain® thermal distillation technology to treat produced water. One of these wells is described in a presentation made to the Pennsylvania Senate (Kohl 2010). The other well is part of a DOE/NETL funded project that will characterize the results of the
AltelaRain treat ment process when used to treat flowback and produced water
from a Marcellus Shale well.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 26

Table 3

– Water Management Options Used by Selected Marcellus Shale Operators (Cont.)

Company Information Provided by the Company Contact
Norse Energy Norse Ener gy operates in New York and currently has only one operating Marcellus well. Additional wells have been proposed, but are being delayed, awaiting approval from the New York Department of Environmental Control. For its existing Marcellus well, Norse has d isposed of the fluid at two facilities located in Warren, Pennsylvania and Franklin, Pennsylvania

. Norse is looking at additional disposal sites in the Williamsport, Pennsylvania, area for future wells. Regardless of the current facility Norse is using, trucking costs are a major portion of the total disposal cost. Norse would also consider transporting the flowback and produced water to a sewage treatment plant, if available, in order to reduce transportation costs (Keyes 2010).

Norse Energy would c onsider several other options. If injection were possible,

Norse would most likely use a centralized injection well with a water

- gathering system from several producing wells or pads . Norse is also looking at t reat ing and reusing the water in future well s (Keyes 2010)

.



### To summarize, many options are currently being employed to manage flowback and produced

water. Most of the operators are recycling some

, to all

, of their flowback and produced water. The flowback and produced water that is not being recycled is hauled offsite to POTWs

, commercial wastewater disposal facilities, or commercial injection wells.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 27



## Chapter 4

– Site Visits to Commercial Wastewater Disposal Facilities

During May 2010, the author visited four commercial wastewater disposal f acilities in Pennsylvania. All of these facilities accept flowback and produced water from Marcellus Shale gas production. Figure 17 shows the location of e ach facility

. Figure 1 7

– Location s of Commercial Wastewater Treatment Facilities Visited

Eureka Resources

Eureka Resources operates a commercial wastewater treatment facility in Williamsport, Pennsylvania . Dan Ertel provided a tour of the facility on May 10. Figures 1 8 through 23 are photos taken during the tour. Trucks unload into one of f our settling tanks to allow settling of heavy solids and removal of any free oil. The water is sent to treatment tanks where the pH is raised using sodium sulfate (Na 2 

### SO 4 

### ) or lime to facilitate the removal of dissolved barium and
other metals . Coagulants are added to aid in settling ; then the water flows to clarifiers to settle

. Solids are dewatered in a type of filter press called a “membrane squeeze press

. ” The
treated water is discharged to the Williamsport municipal sewer system and sent to the cit y’s wastewater treatment plant. The current process remove s metals, but it does not remove TDS. The throughput of the plant is 300,000 gallons per day.

Eureka Resources is in the process of installing two Aquapure NOMAD evaporators that are expected to g o into service during June 2010. The NOMAD units (Veil 2008) will remove nearly all of the TDS from the water. The concentrated brine solution produced by the NOMAD
units will be either transported to a disposal well in Ohio or sent to a local company that will evaporate the brine to produce salt.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 28

Figure 1 8

– Unloading Area

- Eureka Resources

Figure 1 9

– Treatment Tanks

– Eureka Resources

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 29

Figure 20

– Additional Treatment Tank

– Eureka Resources

Figure 21

– Filter Press

– Eureka Resources

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 30

Figure 2 2

– View of Part of NOMAD Unit

– Eureka Resources

Figure 2 3

– Additional View of NOMAD Unit

– Eureka Resources

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 31

Pennsylvania Brine

Pennsylvania Brine operates two commercial wastewater treatment facilities in western Pennsylvania (in the towns of Franklin and Josephine )

. Elton Delong provided a tour of the Franklin facility on May 10. Figures 2 4 through 27 are photos taken during the tour. The facility was not processing any water that day as it was under going renovations. Mr. Delong described the process units that will be in place once the renovations are completed.

Trucks unload on a pad. The flowback and produced water is screened to remove large objects, then flows into a settling tank to allow s ettling of heavy solids and removal of any free oil. The water continues to an aeration tank, then moves to another tank where lime is added. Following the renovations, Na 2 

### SO 4 

### will be added to the water, prior to moving it to the lime tank. Next

, the w ater flows to a tank where polymers are added to promote coagulation ; then it moves to a clarifier to settle. Solids are dewatered in a filter press. Acid is added to the treated water to return the pH to a neutral range. Finally

, the treated water is d ischarged to the Allegheny River under an NPDES permit issued by the PADEP. The current throughput of the plant is about 140 gallons per minute

. According to data supplied by the company, in the one

- year period from November 2008 to October 2009, the f acility processed about 53 million gallons of water. The process removes metals, but does not remove TDS.

Figure 2 4

– Unloading Area

– Pennsylvania Brine

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 32

Figure 2 5

– Settling Tank

– Pennsylvania Brine

Figure 2 6

– Treatment Tank

– Pennsylvania Brine

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 33

Figure 2 7

– C larifier

– Pennsylvania Brine

Tunnelton Liquids

Tunnelton Liquids operates a commercial wastewater treatment facility in Saltsburg, Pennsylvania . The facility was originally constructed to treat acid mine drainage f rom a coal refuse pile located uphill from the treatment plant. Bruce Bufalini provided a tour of the facility on May 14. Figures 2 8 through 33 are photos taken during the tour.

Trucks unload at two different pads. Flowback and produced water are sent to an oil/water separator first to remove any free oil. The separator effluent flows to a large pond called the “raw pond

. ” W a ter from onsite pits flows directly to the raw pond as does leachate from the coal refuse pile. Water is pumped from the raw po nd to a treatment plant. The first stage at the plant is an aeration tank where lime is added. If the aeration creates excessive foaming, an anti

foaming chemical is added to the tank. The water then flows to a clarifier. The collected solids

are remov ed periodically and they are disposed of in a deep mine where they help to neutralize the acidic mine pool water. The treated water flows to a final polishing basin that has several days of retention time. Finally

, the treated water is discharged to the Conemaugh River under an NPDES permit issued by the PADEP.

The plant has an average discharge of about one million gallons per day. Only about 100,00 0 gallons are oil and gas flowback and produced water

— the rest is acid mine drainage. The pro cess removes metals, but does not remove TDS.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 34

Figure 2 8

– Unloading Area

– Tunnelton Liquids

Figure 2 9

– Oil/Water Separator

– Tunnelton Liquids

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 35

Figure 30

– Raw Pond

– Tunnelton Liquids

Figure 31

– Aeration Tank

– w ith and w ithout Anti

- Foaming Chemical

– Tunnelton Liquids

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 36

Figure 3 2

– Clarifier

– Tunnelton Liquids

Figure 3 3

– Polishing Pond (visible behind trees)

– Tunnelton Liquids

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 37

Hart Resource Technologies

Hart Resource Technologie s operates a commercial wastewater treatment facility in Creekside, Pennsylvania . Like the Tunnelton facility, the Hart facility was originally constructed to treat acid mine drainage. Paul Hart and Becky Snyder provided a tour of the facility on May 14. Figures 3 4 through 37 are photos taken during the tour. The plant operates two separate

, but equivalent

, treatment systems . One system treats “low

- salt” water (defined as lower than about 40,000 mg/L TDS) and the other system treats “high

- salt” water.

F

rom the unloading pad, the flowback and produced water passes through a strainer to remove large debris. It then flows to a settling pit, followed by an oil/water separator. If any of the

water c ontains oil/water emulsions, it is further treated by some combination of heat, demulsifying chemical, and increased retention time. W ater next moves into a storage tank where blending of water from several truckloads occurs. From here

, the water is treated in batches in a treatment tank. Several sequential ste ps occur in the treatment tank (agitation, aeration, and pH adjustment with lime). The low

- salt treatment system receives a flocculant, while the high

- salt system receives Na 2 

### SO 4 

### . Following these steps, the water is allowed to settle
in the same tank. T he water then flows to a clarifier. The sludge from the settling processes and
the clarifier are treated in a thickener and then dewatered in a filter press. Solids are sent to a
local landfill.

Finally

, the treated water is discharged to McKee Run under an NPDES permit issued by the PADEP. The pH is not neutralized

— the high pH in the discharge helps to neutralize the low instream pH caused by local acid mine drainage. The plant has an average discharge of about 18,000 gallons per day of produced wate r and 45,000 gallons per day of flowback water. The process removes metals but does not remove TDS. Mr. Hart and Ms. Snyder indicated that the facility processed more water from shallow gas wells in the region than water from Marcellus
Shale wells.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 38

Figure 3 4

– Unloading Area , Settling Pit, and Blending Tank

– Hart Resource Technologies

Figure 3 5

– Treatment Tank

– Hart Resource Technologies

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 39

Figure 3 6

– Clarifier

– Hart Resource Technologies

Figure 3 7

– Filter Press for Solids

– Hart Resource Technologies

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 40



## Chapter 5

– Findings and Conclusions

Findings

There is a great deal of interest in natural gas production in the Marcellus Shale. The Marcellus offers hope of substantial energy resources and economic benefits, but also creates v arious environmental and societal issues. This report describes three types of water issues that arise from shale gas development in the Marcellus Shale. Those three issues are:

**•** Controlling the stormwater runoff from disturbed areas

,

**•** Obtaining sufficient freshwater supply to conduct frac jobs on new wells , and

**•** Managing the flowback water and produced water from the well.

In particular, the report focuses on the third of these issues. Some of the key findings are listed
below:

1. Marcellus Shale frac jobs typically inject several million gallons of frac fluids (which are mostly water). In some of the other shale gas plays around the country, the flowback
volume can be 30% to 70% of the initial volume of injected fluids. But in the Marcellus, the flowback volume appears to be lower than that

— often lower than 25%.

2. After the initial return of flowback water

, within a few weeks following completion of the frac job , most wel ls continue generating formation water (produced water) at a lower rate for many years.

3. Historically, oil and gas operators in Pennsylvania transported their produced water offsite to disposal wells in Ohio, POTWs, or commercial industrial disposal facilities. These practices continue today . However, the increased volume of flowback and produced water from the expanding Marcellus shale gas industry has taxed the capacity of facilities to manage the water and has occasionally resulted in elevated levels o f TDS in some of Pennsylvania’s rivers and streams. As a result, more treatment facilities are coming on

- line or are being permitted.

4. In May 2010, Pennsylvania adopted new, more

- stringent discharge requirements for oil and gas flowback and produced water s. Commercial disposal companies that already hold discharge permits are grandfathered to discharge at their current levels. New dischargers face much more restrictive limits on TDS.

Conclusions

Gas production in the Marcellus Shale region is expanding rapidly. State agencies face new challenges in managing and regulating a growing number of wells. New policies and regulations continue to evolve (e.g., Pennsylvania’s May 2010 revisions to discharge regulations for oil and gas wastewater). This report examines the available flowback and water management technologies and methods used today and likely to be used in the next few years. Some of the conclusions that follow from the report include:

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 41

1. Unlike shale gas plays in arid states (e.g., the Barnett S hale play in Texas), the Marcellus Shale occurs in a part of the country that generally has sufficient water supplies. Obtaining water for frac jobs, while necessitating coordination with various agencies, including the SRBC and the Delaware River Basin C ommission ( DRBC ) , has not yet proven to be a barrier. If the number of new shale gas wells continues to rise rapidly, water supplies could become a barrier.

2. Several of the Marcellus gas operators have begun recycling their flowback water into
new frac fl uids. They have experimented with mixing the high

- TDS flowback with low

TDS freshwater to make intermediate

- TDS frac water. The early results from this work seem promising. If recycling can be practiced more widely throughout the region, companies can s ave costs on disposal fees and trucking fees, while reducing the volume
of freshwater used for new frac fluids.

3. The regulatory environment is contentious and evolving. Opponents of gas drilling, landowners hoping to gain substantial income from leasing m ineral rights, gas companies, and politicians seeking jobs for their constituents will continue to debate how and where gas should be produced within the Marcellus region.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 42



## References

Adams, R., 2010, email communication from Richard Adams, Chief Oil and Gas, to John Veil, Argonne National Laboratory, March 30.

Babich, M.A., 2010, email communication from Mary Anna Babich, EQT

- Production, to John Veil, Argonne National Laboratory , and a follow

- up phone conversation between Babich and
Veil

, both on March 30.

Berdell, S., 2010, email communication from Stan Berdell, BLX, to John Veil, Argonne National Laboratory, April 23.

Blauvelt, S., 2010, telephone conversation between Scott Blauvelt, East Resources, and John Veil, Argonne National Laboratory, A pril 6.

Furlan, R., 2010, email communication including a spreadsheet of wastewater disposal sites, from Ronald Furlan, PADEP, to John Veil, Argonne National Laboratory, June 30.

Gaudlip, T., 2010a, email communication from Tony Gaudlip, Range Resources, to John Veil, Argonne National Laboratory, March 12.

Gaudlip, T., 2010b, “ Preliminary Assessment of Marcellus Water Reuse ,” presented at Process

Affected Water Management Strategies conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, March 17.

Gillespie, E. , 2010, emai l communication from Eric Gillespie, Chesapeake Resources, to John Veil, Argonne National Laboratory, March 31.

GWPC and ALL, 2009, “Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer,” prepared by the Ground Water Protection Council and ALL Consu lting for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, April, 116 pp.

Hoffman, J., 2010, “Susquehanna River Basin Commission Natural Gas Development,” presented at the Science of the Marcellus Shale Symposium at Lycoming College , W illiamsport, PA, January 29. Available at http://www.srbc.net/programs/projreviewmarcellustier3.htm ; accessed April 27, 2010.

Keyes, S., 2010, email communication from Steve Keyes, No rse Energy, to John Veil, Argonne National Laboratory, March 31.

Kohl, D., 2010, presentation to Pennsylvania Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, January 27. Available at http://www.senatormjwhite.com/environmental/2010/012710/kohl.pdf ; accessed May 3, 2010.

Meahl, P., 2010, telephone conversation between Paul Meahl, Advanced Waste Service of Pennsylvania, and John Veil, Argonne National Laboratory, June 29.

Miller, G., 2010, email communication including a spreadsheet of injection well volumes from Gregg Miller, Ohio DMRM, to John Veil, Argonne National Laboratory, June 30.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 43

Puder, M.G., and J.A. Veil, 2006, Offsite Commercial Disposal of Oil and Gas Explorat ion and Production Waste: Availability, Options, and Costs , ANL/EVS/R

- 06/5, prepared by the Environmental Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and National Energy Technology Laboratory, Au gust

. Available at http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/dsp_detail.cfm?PubID=2006 ; accessed April 28, 2010.

Tomastik, 2010, email communication from Tom Tomastik, Ohio DMRM, to John Veil, Argonne National Laboratory, April 26.

Veil, J.A., 2008, Thermal Distillation Technology for Management of Produced Water and Frac
Flowback Water

, Water Technology Brief #2008

- 1, prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, May 13 , 12 pp. Available at http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/dsp_detail.cfm?PubID=2321 ; accessed May 3, 2010.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 44



## Appendix A

Pennsylvania Facilities Permitted to Accept Oil and Gas Wastewaters and Ot her Facilities that Have Applied for Permits to Accept Oil and Gas Wastewater

Source: Based on PADEP spreadsheet (Furlan 2010)

.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 45

Facility Name Permit
Number Receiving Stream Design
Flow (MGD) Oil & Gas

Wastewater Flow (MGD) County TYPE a Status / NOTES Facility Designation b

Clairton Municipal Authority PA0026824 Peters Creek 6.0 0.035 Allegheny POTW O&G waste flow limited to 1% of Avg Daily flow at POTW by DEP
order. O&G, MSW

Municipal Authority City of McKeesport PA0026913 Monongahela

River 11.5 0.102 Allegheny POTW O&G waste flow limited to 1% of Avg Daily flow at POTW by DEP
order. O&G, MSW

Allegheny Valley Joint Sanitary
Auth ority PA0026255 Allegheny River 5.5 0.025 Allegheny POTW Limiting O&G waste flow to 25,000 gpd and chlorides to 24,000 mg/l O&G, MSW

CNX Gas Co LLC PA0253588 Crooked Creek 0.15 0.15 Armstrong CWT n/a CBM

Somerset Regional Water

Resources PA0233901 N orth Branch Susquehanna 0.5 0.5 Bradford Proposed

CWT Metals precipitation, filtration (reverse osmosis)

, and thermal evaporation for RO concentrate. PMSW

Vavco LLC Approval

1009001
under GP

PAG310001 Little Connoquenessing
Creek 0.0009 0.0009 Butler Proposed

CWT Proposed facility to treat only oil well production fluids from own stripper oil wells. Approval issued 7/1/2009. Part II WQM application received 3/31/2010. Technical deficiency letter sent May 27, 2010. SW, PO&G

Johnstown Redevelopment Authority

- Dornick Point STP PA0026034 Conemaugh River 12.0 0.076 Cambria POTW Limiting O&G waste flow to 1% of

A vg D aily flow. O&G, MSW

Great Lakes Energy Partners,

LLC PA0253103 Clearfield Creek 0.2 0.2 Cambria CWT n/a CBM

Keystone
Clearwater Solutions, LLC PA0233951 Moshannon Creek 0.504 0.504 Centre Proposed

CWT Metals precipitation and filtration treatment (nanofiltration and RO). Had some land use issues
that are now resolved. This application was returned, but has
been resubmitted with appropriate treatment proposal. PMSW

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 46

Facility Name Permit
Number Receiving Stream Design
Flow (MGD) Oil & Gas

Wastewater Flow (MGD) County TYPE a Status / NOTES Facility Designation b

Clearfield Municipal Authority PA0026310 West Branch Susquehanna River 4.5 0.01 Clearfield POTW This facility has claimed to have historically taken O & G
wastewater. Submitted an amended NPDES application to
take wastewater until December 31, 2010

. O& G

Dannic Energy Corp. PA0233790 Hawk Run 0.25 0.25 Clearfield Proposed

CWT Metals precipitation and vacuum evaporator for treatment. PMSW

Keystone
Clearwater Solutions, LLC PA0233960 West Branch Susquehanna River 0.504 0.504 Clinton Proposed

CWT Metals precipitation and filtration treatment (nanofiltration and RO). This application was returned, but has been resubmitted with appropriate treatment proposal. PMSW

Dannic Energy Corp. PA0233781 West Branch Susquehanna River 0.25 0.25 Clinton Proposed

CWT Hyner Drilling Fluid Recycling Facility. Metals precipitation and vacuum evaporator for

treatment. PMSW

Central PA Wastewater, Inc. PA0233706 U nnamed tributary
to West Branch Susquehanna River 0.4 0.4 Clinton Proposed

CWT Discharge is proposed to
intermittent stream less than 0.5
miles from the river. Metals precipitation is the proposed treatment technology. Application needs to be updated
to show advanced treatment to meet stringent TDS limits. PMSW

Ridgway Borough PA0023213 Clarion River 2.2 0.02 Elk POTW n/a O&G, MSW

ProChemTech
International

- Blue Valley Hydrofrac Recycle Facility PA0268305 Unnamed t rib utary to Brandy Camp
Creek 0.0125 0.3 Elk Proposed

CWT Proposed permit to accept 300,000 gallons per day of
Marcellus Shale wastewater for treatment and recycle. Proposing to discharge a maximum of 12,500 gallons per day of distilled

water. PM SW

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 47

Facility Name Permit
Number Receiving Stream Design
Flow (MGD) Oil & Gas

Wastewater Flow (MGD) County TYPE a Status / NOTES Facility Designation b

Veolia ES
Greentree Landfill

LLC PA0103446 Little Toby Creek 0.25 0.04808 Elk CWT Facility treats 48,000 gallons of natural gas well brine water per year from American Refining and Exploration, Inc. and 60

- 80 gallons of natural gas well brine water per year from Destiny, Inc.

- both n on Marcellus natural gas
wells. O&G

Shallenberger

Construction

– Rankin Run Facility PA0253669 Rankin Run 0.125 0.125 Fayette Proposed

CWT Facility not constructed

. Shallenberger Construction proposes to construct the facility to treat 125,000 gpd of tophole

water. The proposed method of treating the wastewater is a series of two detention ponds. The NPDES permit for this facility was issued by the Oil and Gas Program on September 12, 2008. The NPDES permit does not
contain effluent limitations for
TDS. The Water Quality Management Part II permit application was administratively
deficient and revisions were received. The Part II permit has not been reviewed, pending
resolution of TDS effluent
limitations. PMSW, PO&G

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 48

Facility Name Permit
Number Receiving Stream Design
Flow (MGD) Oil & Gas

Wastewater Flow (MGD) County TYPE a Status / NOTES Facility Designation b
Shallenberger

Construction

– Ronco Facility PA0253723 Monongahela

River 0.5 0.5 Fayette CWT Part II permit issued for Phase I of the treatment plant. Consent Order and Agreement (COA) includes compliance schedule. Water Quality Management Part II permit was issued on August 28, 2009 for the construction of Phase I of this treatment facility

, which does not include treatment units for TDS. An appeal of the issuance of the Part II permit and
the COA was filed on behalf of
Clean Water Action. The draft NPDES permit amendment, incorporating TDS and other
effluent limitations was sent for publication. Facility is currently in operation, with treated wastewater being hauled to the
next drill site. MSW, O&G

Shallenberger

Construction PA0253863 Youghiogheny

River 1.0 1.0 Fayette Proposed

CWT Oil and Gas wastewaters

- CWT

— Proposed Facility PMSW, PO&G

Municipal Authority of Belle

Vernon PA0092355
and

PA0092355

- A1 Monongahela

River 0.5 0.0 Fayette POTW O&G waste flow limited to 1% of Avg Daily flow at POTW by DEP
order. This facility no longer accepts large volumes of O&G

wastewater. O&G, MSW

Brownsville Municipal Authority PA0022306 Dunlap Creek 0.96 0.0 Fayette POTW O&G waste flow limited to 1% of Avg Daily flow at POTW by DEP
order. This facility no longer accepts large volumes of O&G

wastewater. O&G, MSW

Green Earth

Wastewater PA0253821 Dunkard Creek 0.25 0.25 Greene Proposed

CWT O&G wastewaters

- CWT

— Proposed Facility PMSW, PO&G

Waynesburg Borough PA0020613 South Fork
Tenmile Creek 0.8 0.0 Greene POTW O&G waste flow limited to 1% of Avg Daily flow at POTW by DEP
order. This facility no longer accepts large volumes of O&G O&G, MSW

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 49

Facility Name Permit
Number Receiving Stream Design
Flow (MGD) Oil & Gas

Wastewater Flow (MGD) County TYPE a Status / NOTES Facility Designation b

wastewater.

Franklin Township Sewer Authority/Tri

County Wastes (CWT) PA0046426 South Fork
Tenmile Creek 1.25 0.05 Greene POTW receiving
indirect discharge
from CWT O&G waste flow will be limited to 50,000 gpd by DEP order. Waste is pretreated but not for TDS or
Chlorides. O&G, MSW

CNX Gas Co LLC PA0252611 Blockhouse Run 0.007 0.007 Greene CWT n/a CBM

CNX Gas Co LLC PA0252832 Pennsylvania Fork
Fish Creek 0.0111 0.0111 Greene CWT n/a CBM

CNX Gas Co LLC

– Rogersville Treatment Facility PA0253286 South Fork
Tenmile Creek 0.202 0.202 Greene Proposed

CWT CNX proposes to construct the Rogersvil le Treatment Facility to

treat waters associated with natural gas production at its
Greenhill Production Area. The proposed plant will be able to treat 201,600 gpd. The site will
have two mobile reverse osmosis treatment plants on site along
with 12 conc entrate storage
tanks and one clean water impoundment. This is a recycle and reuse plant. The applicant
has not submitted an NPDES permit application for the
overflows from the impoundment. The application
does not meet the residual waste regulations. A technical deficiency letter will be sent to the applicant. PMSW, PO&G

PA Brine Josephine (Franklin Brine) PA0095273 Blacklick Creek 0.12 0.12 Indiana CWT O&G wastewaters. Currently under detailed compliance

review. O&G, MSW

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 50

Facility Name Permit
Number Receiving Stream Design
Flow (MGD) Oil & Gas

Wastewater Flow (MGD) County TYPE a Status / NOTES Facility Designation b

Hart Resource PA0095443 McKee Run 0.045 0.045 Indiana CWT O&G wastewaters. Currently under detailed compliance

review. O&G, MSW

Tunnelton Liquids PA0091472 Conemaugh River 1.0 1.0 Indiana CWT n/a O&G, MSW

Frontier Energy
Services PA0254207 Yellow Creek 0.9 0.9 Indiana Proposed

CWT Proposed 0.9 mgd CWT for drilling wastes. Applicant proposed to treat wastes through reverse osmosis and evaporation. PMSW, PO&G

Belden and Blake PA0219339 Blacklick Creek 0.6 0.6 Indiana CWT n/a CBM

CNX Gas Co LLC PA0253596 Blacklegs Creek 0.035 0.035 Indiana CWT n/a CBM

Canton Oil & Gas Company PA0206075 Blacklick Creek 0.48 0.48 Indiana CWT n/a CBM

CNX Gas Co LLC PA0253995 Kiskiminetas River 0.21 0.21 Indiana Proposed

CWT Application currently under review process. PMSW, PO&G

Punxsutawney Borough PA0020346 Mahoning Creek 2.2 0.02 Jefferson POTW O&G

Brockway Area Sewage Authority PA0028428 Toby Creek 1.5 0.014 Jefferson POTW Currently 14,000 GPD to POTW. Request to increase brine volume
withdrawn. NPDES renewal drafted 6/19/09. EPA issued a general objection letter and 90

- day time extension on July 17,

2009. O&G

Reynoldsville

Boro PA0028207 Sandy Lick Creek 0.8 0.011 Jefferson POTW Have taken in approx

. 14,000 gpd of brine to POTW for a long time. O&G

Dominion
Transmission Corp

- Div V PA0101656 Stump Creek 0.01008 0.0077 Jefferson CWT Facility only treats Dominion's own wastewater. Most likely no
Marcellus Shale water. O&G

New Castle City /
Advanced Waste

Services PA0027511 Mahoning River 17 0.55 Lawrence POTW receiving discharge
from CWT The CWT, Advanced Waste Services discharges O&G
wastewater to New Castle POTW. Possible expansion plans from 0.2

MGD to 2.2 MGD O&G, MSW

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 51

Facility Name Permit
Number Receiving Stream Design
Flow (MGD) Oil & Gas

Wastewater Flow (MGD) County TYPE a Status / NOTES Facility Designation b
Williamsport Sanitary Authority / Eureka

Resources PA0027057 West Branch Susquehanna River 8.4 0.12 Lycoming POTW receiving discharge
from CWT Town has an EPA approved
pretreatment program. Installing mechanical vapor recompression evaporation for

treatment summer 2010

. Is already pretreating for metals prior to discharge to WSA. WSA submitted application to take
limits in November 2009. MSW

Water Treatment
Solutions PA0233838 Daugherty's Run 0.05 0.05 Lycoming Proposed

CWT Metal precipitation and thermal distillation/crystallizer treatment;
limited information submitted. PMSW

Dannic Energy Corp. PA0233765 Pine Run 0.25 0.25 Lycoming Proposed

CWT Pine Run discharges to W. Branch Susquehanna. Metals precipitation and vacuum evaporator for treatment. PMSW

TerrAqua

Resource Management A0233650 West Branch Susquehanna River 0.4 0.4 Lycoming Proposed

CWT Metals precipitation and thermal distillation is the proposed treatment technology. Part I NPDES permit issued; awaiting Part II WQM application PMSW

TerrAqua

Resource Management LLC WMGR121 None 0.4 0.4 Lycoming RW Processing Batch chemical processing

- treated wastewater returned to
well sites for reuse MSW

Minard Run Oil Company PA0105295 Lewis Run 0.016 0.004 McKean CWT Existing f acility which treats only oil well production fluids from
own wells. NPDES renewal issued 10/28/2009. O&G

Sunbury

Generation PA0008451 Susquehanna River 3.7 0.08 Snyder CWT Taking 80,000 gpd, approved by letter. Application submitted in 10/ 09 to accept up to 250,000 gpd. Proposing to cease taking wastewater by 12/31/2010. The NPDES amendment application
was withdrawn 5/10 and may be
resubmitted. MSW

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 52

Facility Name Permit
Number Receiving Stream Design
Flow (MGD) Oil & Gas

Wastewater Flow (MGD) County TYPE a Status / NOTES Facility Designation b

Somerset Regional Water Resources, LLC (SRWR) PA0253987 East Branch Coxes
Creek 1.0 1.0 Somerset Proposed
CWT with 500 mg/L

TDS
limitation in the permit The NPDES permit for this facility was issued on December 17, 2009. The Water Quality Management Part II permit application was deficient. The applicant supplied additional
information

, and the Part II permit is currently under review. SRWR plans to tre at for TDS. RO and evaporators are proposed to

treat O&G and mine drainage. PMSW, PO&G

Penn Woods Enterprises, LLC PA0254037 Casselman River 0.5 0.5 Somerset Proposed

CWT This application is for issuance of an NPDES permit to discharge treated process water from the
Casselman Waterworks Water
Treatment Plant in Summit Township, Somerset County. PO&G, PMSW

Dannic Energy Corp. PA0233773 Tioga River 0.25 0.25 Tioga Proposed

CWT Metals precipitation and vacuum evaporator for treatment. PMSW

Big Sandy Oil Company PA0222011 Allegheny River 0.006 0.004 Venango CWT Existing facility which treats only oil well production fluids from
own wells. O&G

Titusville Oil and Gas Associates,

Inc.

- Hilton Hedley Lease Approval

6106001
under GP

PAG310001 Allegheny River 0.002 0.002 Venango Proposed

CWT Proposed facility to treat only oil well production fluids from own wells. Approval under general NPDES issued 1/16/2007, no Part II issued and facility not built. SW, PO&G

PA Brine

Treatment

- Franklin Facility PA0101508 Allegheny River 0.205 0.144 Venango CWT Renewed permit issued 2/27/2009 authorizing increased discharge rate to 300,000 gpd while maintaining same load limits for chlorides. WQM Permit
amendment to reflect modifications necessary to increase discharge rate to 300,000 gpd issued 10/23/2009.
The 10/09 Amendment No. 1 to Water Quality Management O&G, PMSW

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 53

Facility Name Permit
Number Receiving Stream Design
Flow (MGD) Oil & Gas

Wastewater Flow (MGD) County TYPE a Status / NOTES Facility Designation b

Permit No. 6182201

- T3
authorized the modification and operation of the O&G wastewater treatment facility.

PA Brine

Treatment

- Rouseville Facility PA0263516 Oil Creek 0.08 0.08 Venango Proposed

CWT Second draft of permit published in PA Bulletin 3/13/2010. EPA withdrew general objection 3/17/2010 based on redraft. Water quality protection report (WQPR) currently being redrafted to reflect proposed TDS regulation changes

. PO&G

ARMAC

Resources Approval

6295001
under GP

PAG310001 Brokenstraw Creek 0.001 0.001 Warren CWT Existing facility which treats only oil well production fluids from
own wells. SW, O&G

Waste Treatment Corporation PA0102784 Allegheny River 0.213 0.199 Warren CWT Renewal application received 10/14/08. Request to increase discharge rate to 400,000 gpd withdrawn. Draft permit published for 30 day comment 1/30/2010. O&G, PMSW

Mon Valley Brine PA0253782 Monongahela

River 0.2 0.2 Washington Proposed

CWT O&G wastewaters

- CWT PMSW, PO&G

Borough of
California PA0022241 Monongahela

River 1.0 0.0 Washington POTW O&G waste flow limited to 1% of Avg Daily flow at POTW by DEP order. This facility no longer accepts large volumes of O&G

wastewater. O&G, MSW

Authority of the Borough of
Charleroi PA0026891 Monongahela

River 1.6 0.0 Washington POTW O&G waste flow limited to 1% of Avg Daily flow at POTW by DEP order. This facility no longer accepts large volumes of oil and
gas wastewater. O&G, MSW

The Washington

East Washington

Joint Authority PA0026212 Chartiers Creek 9.77 0.0977 Washington POTW Limiting O&G waste flow to 1% of

A vg D aily flow. O&G, MSW

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 54

Facility Name Permit
Number Receiving Stream Design
Flow (MGD) Oil & Gas

Wastewater Flow (MGD) County TYPE a Status / NOTES Facility Designation b

Reserved
Environmental Services, LLC (RES) PA0254185 Sewickley Creek
and Belson Run Phase I

- No Discharge

. All water
will be recycled
to well

site.
Phase II

- 1.0 MGD 1.0 Westmoreland CWT CWT using municipal drinking water as dilution with recycle
back to well sites. RES has a
contract with the Westmoreland Water Authority to purchase up

to three million gal lons of potable water per day to be used as
“make

- up” water to adjust the
concentration of chlorides in the recycled water. RES intends, in Phase I, to treat drilling fluids at the facility and produce an “engineered” controlled fluid/water for recycle to the drilling sites. MSW, O&G

CB Energy PA0252646 Conemaugh River 0.2 0.2 Westmoreland CWT n/a CBM

CNX Gas Co LLC PA0252867 Youghiogheny

River 0.08 0.08 Westmoreland CWT n/a CBM

CNX Gas Co LLC PA0253049 Crawford Run / Youghiogheny

River 0.08 0.08 Westmoreland CWT n/a CBM

CB Energy Inc PA0219312 Sewickley Creek 0.2 0.2 Westmoreland CWT n/a CBM

Belden and Blake PA0218898 Conemaugh River 0.6 0.6 Westmoreland CWT n/a CBM

CB Energy Inc PA0219452 Crabtree Creek 0.2 0.2 Westmoreland CWT n/a CBM

Belden and Blake PA0218073 Jacobs Creek 0.6 0.6 Westmoreland CWT n/a CBM

Kiski Valley WPCA/McCutche on Enterprises (CWT) PA0027626 Kiskiminetas River 7 0.09 Westmoreland POTW receiving discharge
from CWT Existing CWT facility (McCutcheon Enterprises, which is treating

O&G wastewater for discharge to the Kiski Valley WPCA. PO&G, PMSW

Reserved
Environmental

Services LLC WMGR121

SW001 Sewickley Creek 1.0 0.25 Westmoreland RW Processing Batch physical & chemical processing

– treated wastewater
returned to well sites for reuse

. MSW

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 55

Facility Name Permit
Number Receiving Stream Design
Flow (MGD) Oil & Gas

Wastewater Flow (MGD) County TYPE a Status / NOTES Facility Designation b

North Branch Processing, LLC (NBP) PA0065269 Susquehanna River 0.5 0.50 Wyoming Proposed

CWT NPDES d raft permit mailed 8/4/09. Public hearing held 10/6/09. Working on comment response document. NBP anticipate s r edraft ing and republish ing the NPDES permit upon completion of the comment response document. PMSW

Wyoming

Somerset Regional Water

Resources LLC (W

- SRWR) PA0065293 Meshoppen Creek at the SR 29 Bridge 0.38 0.38 Wyoming Proposed

CWT NPDES draft permit mailed 8/4/09. Public hearing held 10/20/09. Working on comment response docum ent. W

- SRWR anticipate s redraft ing and republish ing the NPDES permit upon completion of the comment response document. PMSW

a POTW

– publically

- owned treatment works; CWT

– commercial wastewater treatment facility ; RW

– residual waste.

b MSW

– Currently accepts Marcellus Shale wastewater; O&G

– Currently accepts oil and gas wastewater from formations other than Marcellus Shale; P

– proposed facility;

CBM

– coal bed methane wastewater; SW

– water from stripper wells.

### Water Management in the Marcellus Shale Page 56

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

3131 Dairy Ashford, Suite 225 Sugarland, TX 77478

1450 Queen Avenue SW Albany, OR 97321

- 2198

539 Duckering Bldg./UAF Campus P.O. Box 75017 2 Fairbanks, AK 99775

- 0172

Visit the NETL website at:

www.netl.doe.gov

Customer Service:

1

- 800

- 553

- 7681