1

MEMORANDUM

TO: Lisa Biddle, US EPA/OW/EAD

Brian D’Amico, US EPA/OW/EAD

FROM: Brent Ruminski, ERG

DATE: 31 December 2012

SUBJECT: 2012 Shale Gas Water Management Conference Notes

On November 28th and 29th, EPA attended the 2012 Shale Gas Water Management 

Conference in Dallas, Texas. This memorandum summarizes information presented at the 

conference:

 Section 1 describes general information including wastewater management;

 Section 2 describes treatment technology specific information; and

 Section 3 describes formation specific information.

Table 1 lists the presentations referenced from the Shale Gas Water Management 

Conference. These presentations are included as an attachment in a 31 December 2012 

memorandum to the record.

Table 1. Presentations Referenced at the 2012 Shale Gas Water Management Conference

Reference

Presentation Number and File 

Name

Presenter Name and 

Affiliation Presentation Title

Dees, 2012 108-day-1-session-2-2-dewittdees-heckman-waterresources.pdfDeWitt Dees, Heckman 

Water Resources

Freshwater Sourcing and Recycling 

Economics

Dale, 2012 114-day-1-sessoin-4-2-walterdale-halliburton.pdfWalter Dale, 

Halliburton Water 

Solutions

Sustainable Development of 

Completions

Horn, 2009 119-day-1-session-6-4-aaronhorn-hydrozonix.pdfAaron Horn, 

Hydrozonix

Examining Techniques and Chemistries 

For Managing Bacteria, Scaling And 

Corrosion

Kuijvenhove, 

2012

120-day-1-session-7-corkuijvenhoven-shell.pdfCor Kuijvenhoven, 

Shell Global Solutions 

Inc.

Examining Innovative Primary 

Treatment Technologies for Removing 

Hydrocarbon and Solids from Flowback 

and Produced Water When Residual 

Polymer is Present for Unconventional 

Gas Production

Tinto, 2012a CBI.132-day-1-session-2-3-joetinto-ge-power-and-water.pdfJoseph Tinto, GE 

Power & Water

Recycling Economics: Flowback & 

Produced Water Treatment Overview
2

Table 1. Presentations Referenced at the 2012 Shale Gas Water Management Conference

Reference

Presentation Number and File 

Name

Presenter Name and 

Affiliation Presentation Title

Schilling, 2012 134-day-2-session-1-1-danschilling-linn-energy.pdfDan Schilling, Linn 

Energy

Develop a Water Delivery and Recycle 

System to Support LINN Energy’s 

Granite Wash Horizontal Frac (drilling) 

Program Located in Wheeler County 

and Hemphill County, Texas Panhandle.

Dunkel, 2012 138-day-1-session-2-1-michaeldunkel-pioneer-naturalresources.pdfMichael Dunkel, 

Pioneer Natural 

Resources

The Economics of Water Management

Cunningham, 

2012

143-day-2-session-3b-juliecunningham-oklahoma.pdfJulie Cunningham, 

Oklahoma Water 

Resources Board

Regulatory Update— Oklahoma Water 

Rights Permitting and Water Planning

White, 2012 147-day-2-session-5-keithwhite-chaparral-energy.pdfKeith White, Chaparral 

Energy

Best Practices for Preventing and 

Monitoring Spills and Leaks From Frac 

Water Containments to Avoid Surface 

Damage

Merrill, 2012 154-day-1-session-8-les-merril212-resources.pdfLeslie Merril, 212 

Resources

An Evaluation of Current Water Issues 

in Unconventional Oil and Gas And Best 

Practices to Reduce Costs & Improve 

Productivity in Flowback & Produced 

Water

Mazoch, 2012 157-day-2-session-7-markmazoch-southwestern-energy.pdfMark Mazoch, 

Southwestern Energy

Fayetteville Shale

a—This presentation is makred as confidential business information (CBI). Information from this presentation is not 

presented in this memorandum. 
3

1. General Information

 Kuinvenhoven (2012) estimated that an operator may actively drill and complete wells 

within a formation for approximately 20 years.

 Wastewater Management Options (Dees, 2012)

o Underground Injection

 General overall cost: $1 to $3/bbl 

 Evaporation ponds are currently under public scrutiny to not be used and 

under increasingly stringent regulatory pressure.

o Evaporation Ponds

 General overall cost: $1 to $3/bbl 

 Evaporation ponds are currently under public scrutiny to not be used and

under increasingly stringent regulatory pressure.

 Evaporation rates (Dunkle, 2012):

 Eagle Ford: 50.6 inches/year

 Barnett: 69.6 inches/year

 Permian: 75.5 inches/year

o Treatment Costs

 Solids removal: $1 to $3/bbl

 Condensate/oil removal: $1 to $4/bbl

 Hardness removal: $3 to $5/bbl

 Desalination: $3 to $12/bbl

 Base Fluid Concentration Criteria for Fracturing (Dale, 2012; Kuinvenhoven, 2012; 

Dunkel, 2012)

o The on-going development of advanced chemicals is allowing operators to use

lower quality water for base fluid in fracturing liquid rich formations 

(Kuinvenhoven, 2012).

o Not all operators require freshwater (i.e., TDS ≤ 500 mg/L) for fracturing liquid 

rich formations. TDS may range from 50 to 200,000 mg/L (Dale, 2012). 

o Table 2 shows fracturing concentration criteria reported in two presentations for 

crosslinked gel fracturing fluids:

1

 Dale (2012)—Provided past criteria and two recent examples of qualities 

used in fracturing to show that chemistry is advancing to allow more 

reuse.

 Drunkel (2012)—Provided general criteria for gel and cross link fracturing 

in the Permian Basin and water quality for an example base fluid used 

with a freshwater to reuse wastewater ratio of 80: 20.

 

1 More information on types of fracturing fluids is available online at: 

http://www.halliburton.com/public/pe/contents/Data_Sheets/web/H/H05667.pdf. 
4

Table 2. Base Fluid Concentration Criteria for Fracturing Liquid Rich Shale 

Formations

Parameter

Concentrations (mg/L, unless otherwise noted)

Halliburton (service provider)a Pioneer Natural Resources (operator)b

Past Criteria

Recent 

Example in 

the Delaware 

Basinc

Recent 

Example in 

the Permian 

Basin Past Criteria

Recent Example in 

the Permian

Basin

TDS 50,000 269,000 253,000 NR 26,625

Chlorides 30,000 but up 

to 90,000 179,469 159,266 NR 17,560

Bicarbonates 300 161 168 600 281

Calcium 2,000 18,877 22,000 2000 664

Magnesium 2,000 4,287 2,660 NR 256

Boron 1 21.9 20.4 10 10

Iron 10 typically 

but up to 20 4.2 0.7 100 15

Phosphates 5 NR NR NR NR

Sulfates 500 8 370 1,000 1,190

TSS 50 11.2 NR 25 116

Bacteria 105 NR NR NR NR

pH 6 to 8 S.U. 6.87 7.35 6 to 8 S.U. 7.7

Strontium NR NR 1,390 NR 87

a—Source: Dale, 2012.

b—Source: Dunkel, 2012.

c—The Delaware basin is located near the Permian Basin of west Texas and New Mexico.

NR—Not Reported.

 Wastewater Concentrations

o Table 3 and Table 4 provide flowback and produced water quality respectively.

Table 3. Flowback Wastewater Quality

Parameter Marcellusa Fayettevilleb

TDS 30,000 25,500

Chloride NR 13,320

TSS NR NR

Calcium NR 417

Alkalinity NR NR

Barium NR 15.1

Magnesium NR 167

Iron NR 67.1

Sulfate NR 50.4

Boron NR NR

Oils/Organics NR NR

NR—Not Reported.
5

a—Source: Horn, 2012.

b—Source: Mazoch, 2012.

Table 4. Produced Wastewater Quality

Parameter Permiana Eagle Forda Barnetta Fayettevilleb

TDS 91,541 42,817 137,800 56,000

Chloride 63,320 20,883 65,840 31,000

TSS 835 164 306 NR

Calcium 1,639 2,535 8,432 1,400

Alkalinity 354 522 231 NR

Barium 14 55 12 61

Magnesium 307 145 1,234 486

Iron 31 35 74 239

Sulfate 809 30 30 376

Boron 29 91 13 NR

Oils/Organics 40 170 44 NR

NR—Not Reported.

a—Source: Dunkle, 2012.

b—Source: Mazoch, 2012.

2. Technologies

 Filtration

o General overall cost: $0.25 to 2/bbl (Dale, 2012)

 Electrocoagulation

o Electrocoagulation is consistent in removing: TSS, THC, iron, and heavy metals. 

Treatment efficiency for these pollutants typically ranges 95 to 99% (Dale, 2012).

o Electrocoagulation is inconsistent in removing divalents (e.g. calcium). The 

technology may partially remove these pollutants but not always.

o General overall cost: $1 to 3/bbl (Dale, 2012)

o Waste generation by technology (by volume): 3 to 5% (Dale, 2012)

 Chemical Treatment

o General overall cost: $2 to 4/bbl (Dale, 2012)

o Waste generation by technology (by volume): 10 to 20% (Dale, 2012)

o Schilling (2012) provided cumulative operating costs for the treatment of 

1,448,000 bbls using AcroClearTM pit treatment at seven different permanent 

impoundments:

 AcroClear used (gals): 2,583

 Chemical cost: $157,136

 Pumping costs: $3,294

 Fuel costs: $8,085

 Labor costs: $3,150
6

 Total O&M cost for 1,448,000 bbls: $175,371

 O&M cost per bbl for 1,448,000 bbls: $0.12/bbl

 Advanced Oxidation (Horn, 2009)

o Designed to treat a blend of freshwater and wastewater “on the fly” to supply 

fracturing base fluid. 

o Removes 99% of bacteria

o Compatible with slick water and gel fracturing

 RO (Dale, 2012)

o General overall cost: $4 to 6/bbl

 Mobile Evaporation/Condensation (Tinto, 2012)

o Tinto (2012) provided specific cost data for using a mobile evaporator at the 

wellhead but the presentation is marked as CBI.

 Centralized Evaporation/Condensation Plant

o 212 Resources (Merril, 2012)

 Reported cost to operator: $5.59/bbl

o GE Water & Power (Tinto, 2012)

 Tinto (2012) provided specific cost data for centralized 

evaporation/condensation plants designed to treat shale wastewater but the 

presentation is marked as CBI.

3. Formation Specific Information

 Barnett

o Fracturing volume per well: 2.6 million gallons/well (White, 2012)

 Haynesville

o Fracturing volume per well: 5.5 to 6 million gallons/well (White, 2012)

 Permian

o Reuse— Drunkel (2012) and Horn (2012) provided examples of a fracturing fluid 

blending ratio of 80: 20 (freshwater to wastewater).

 Eagle Ford

o Fracturing volume per well: 6 to 6.5 million gallons (White, 2012)

 Woodford

o Fracturing volume per well: Approximately 150,000 bbls/well2

 

2 Available online at: 

http://www.owrb.ok.gov/supply/ocwp/pdf_ocwp/WaterPlanUpdate/WaterDemandForecastReport.pdf
7

o Table 5 provides Woodford shale drilling forecast.

Table 5. Woodford Shale Drilling Forecast

Year

Number of Wells 

Dilled

Fracturing Volume 

Requireda

2008 706 14,689

2010 987 21,329

2020 1,606 41,120

2030 987 29,229

2040 661 22,231

2050 336 12,627

2060 10 416

a—1 acre foot is equal to 7,750 barrels.

Source: Cunningham, 2012 and OWRB, 20112

 Fayetteville (Mazoch, 2012)—Information presented below for the Fayetteville is 

specific to Southwestern Energy, the largest operator in the Fayetteville formation.

o Typical blend ratio for fracturing base fluid: 

 70 percent is freshwater 

 30 percent is a combination of:

 “Encountered water” during oil and gas operations that is not 

produced water or flowback

 Flowback water

o Fracturing volume as a percentage of injected volume: 15 to 25% 

o Wastewater management

 100 percent of flowback is reused in fracturing. 

 No produced water is reused in fracturing. Company has treatment 

facilities permitted and/or in construction to desalinate produced water.

 While drilling occurs, the operator must collect all precipitation onto well 

pad and treat it as wastewater. In a typical year, Southwestern Energy 

collects 5,000 to 15,000 bpd of precipitation and reuses 100 percent of it.

o Produced water volume (for 2,300 wells that have produced for more than 60 

days):

 The top 300 water-producing wells generate 16,427 bpd or approximately 

55 bpd/well.

 The remaining 2,005 wells generate 7,311 bpd or approximately 3.6 

bpd/well.

 All 2,305 wells that have produced for more than 60 days generate 23,738 

bpd or approximately 10.29 bpd/well.

o Table 6 provides Southwestern Energy’s detailed drilling activity and water use in 

the Fayetteville.
8

Table 6. Large Operator Drilling and Wastewater Management Activity in the Fayetteville

Year

Drilling Completion Wastewater Management

Number 

of Wells 

Fractured

per Year

Average 

Lateral 

Length 

(feet)

Total 

Water Use 

(million 

bbls)

Approximate 

Reuse Percent 

of Fracturing 

Volume (%)

Approximate 

Fracturing 

Volume per Wells 

(bbls)

Wastewater 

Generated 

(Million 

bbls)

Commercial

Injection 

Wells (%

Managed)

Company 

Injection 

Wells (% 

Managed)

Reuse (% 

Managed)

2007 290 2,657 13 0 44,800 1 – 1.5 100 0 0

2008 357 3,619 30 0 84,000 3 – 3.25 40 60 0

2009 469 4,100 61 11 – 12 130,100 5 30 60 10

2010 528 4,528 68 15 – 20 128,800 11 10 50 40

2011 556 4,836 63 30 133,300 14.5 5 20 75

Source: Mazoch, 2012