### 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 28 th 

### and 29 th



### , 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 informati on ; 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

- dewitt

dees

- heckman

- water

resources .pdf DeWitt De e s, Heckman Water Resources Freshwater Sourcing and Recycling Economics

Dale, 2012 114

- day

- 1

- sessoin

- 4

- 2

- walter

dale

- halliburton.pdf Walter Dale, Halliburton Water Solutions Sustainable Development of Completions

Horn, 2009 119

- day

- 1

- session

- 6

- 4

- aaron

horn

- hydrozonix.pdf Aaron Horn, Hydrozonix Examining Techniques and Chemistries For Managing Bacteria, Scaling And Corrosion Kuijvenhove, 2012 120

- day

- 1

- session

- 7

- cor

kuijvenho ven

- shell.pdf Cor 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, 2012 a CBI. 132

- day

- 1

- session

- 2

- 3

- joe

tinto

- ge

- power

- and

- water.pdf Joseph 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

- dan

schilling

- linn

- energy.pdf Dan Schilling, Linn Energy Develop a W ater D elivery and R ecycle S ystem to S upport LINN En ergy’s Granite Wash Horizontal F rac (drilling) P rogram L ocated in Wheeler County and Hemphill County, Texas Panhandle. Dunkel, 2012 138

- day

- 1

- session

- 2

- 1

- michael

dunkel

- pioneer

- natural

r esources.pdf Michael Dunkel, Pioneer Natural Resources The Economics of Water Management

Cunningham, 2012 143

- day

- 2

- session

- 3b

- julie

cunningham

- oklahoma.pdf Julie Cunningham, Oklahoma Water Resources Board Regulatory Update

— Oklahoma Water Rights Permitting and Water Planning

White, 2012 147

- day

- 2

- session

- 5

- keith

white

- chaparral

- energy.pdf Keith 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

- merril

212

- resources.pdf Leslie 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

- mark

mazoch

- southwestern

- energy.pdf Mark Mazoch, Southwestern Energy Fayetteville Shale

a

— This presentation is makred as confidential business information (CBI). Information from this presentation is not presented in thi s 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

 Conde nsate/oil removal: $1 to $4/bbl

 Hardness removal: $3 to $5/bbl

 Desalination: $3 to $12/bbl

 Base Fluid Concentration C riteria for Fracturing (Dale, 2012; Kuinvenhoven, 2012 ; Dunkel , 2012 )

o The o n

- 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 f reshwater ( 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 )

— P rovided 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 f racturing in the Permian Basin and water quality for an example base fluid used with a fresh water 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 Basin c 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 16 1 168 600 281
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 Marcellus a Fayetteville b

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

— S ource: Horn, 2012

. b

— Source: Mazoch, 2012



### . Table 4

. Produced Wastewater Quality

Parameter Permian a Eagle Ford a Barnett a Fayetteville b

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 c ost: $0.25 to 2 /bbl ( Dale , 2012)

 Electroc oagulation

o Electrocoagulation is consistent in removing : TSS, THC, iron, and h eavy metals

. Treatment efficiency for these pollutants typically rang es 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 cost s for t he treatment of 1,448,0 0 0 bbls using AcroClear TM 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 c ost for 1,448,000 bbls : $1 75,371

 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 fracturi ng

 RO (Dale, 2012)

o General overall c ost: $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 volu me 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 (20 12) and Horn (2012) provided example s 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 / well 2

2 Available online at: http://www.owrb.ok.gov/supply/ocwp/pdf_ocwp/WaterPlanUpdate/WaterDemandForecastReport.pdf

### 7 o Table 5 provides W oodford shale drilling forecast.

Table 5

. Woodford Shale Drilling Forecast

Year Number of Wells

Dilled Fracturing Volume

Required a
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 , 2011 2



###  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 m anagement

 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 Ene rgy collects 5,000 to 15,000 bp d 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 remain ing 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 b bls) Approximate

Reuse Percent of Fracturing Volume (%) Approximate

Fracturing Volume per Wells ( b bls) Wastewater

Generated (Million b bls) 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, 201 2