Project No.: 0317.03.038.040 Page 1 of 4

Project 

Name:

Unconventional Oil and Gas (UOG) CBI?

Yes

No

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Incoming

Outgoing

Call Date: 10/15/2015 Time: 1:30 am

pm

Company 

Name:

Veil Environmental, LLC ERG Staff Name: James K. O’Connell

Contact 

Name:

John Veil Contact Phone Number:

General 

Subject:

Discussion of John Veil’s 2015 Report, U.S. Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices in 2012

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

Call Participants

John Veil, Veil Environmental, LLC

Lisa Biddle, EPA

Jesse Pritts, EPA

Karen Milam, EPA

Sarah Yates, ERG

Cortney Itle, ERG

James K. O’Connell, ERG

Notes

Introduction

ERG initiated this call to ask John Veil questions about his 2015 Report, U.S. Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices in 

2012 (DCN SGE01128)1. John Veil is a former employee of Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), and he now works as a consultant 

with Veil Environmental, LLC. To start the call, Lisa Biddle provided an overview of the unconventional oil and gas (UOG) 

rulemaking effort, and Jesse Pritts provided an overview of the Central Waste Treatment (CWT) study.

Questions

ERG Question: 

Please clarify the difference between “Injection for disposal” and “Offsite commercial disposal.” What types of facilities are 

included in the latter? Are there specific facility names available for these “offsite commercial disposal” facilities in any of the data 

provided by the states?

Veil Response: 

 Injection for disposal – Wastewater injected into non-hydrocarbon-bearing formations for disposal.

 Offsite commercial disposal – operator chooses not to manage the wastewater, but pays for someone else to take it.

ERG Question: 

How are operators handling water?

Veil Response: 

The majority of operators use disposal wells. Some operators use land treatment, and rarely, operators use a CWT facility. 

Pennsylvania has a few CWT Facilities, as does California.

ERG Question: 

Colorado seems to have provided detailed data on hydraulic fracturing fluid volumes and reuse/recycle. Can you provide any of the 

raw data from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) to us? Is there any way to distinguish between 

conventional oil and gas (COG) and UOG in the data from COGCC (e.g., did they provide the data at the well-level with associated 

API numbers)? Operators reported that in 2012, 77,910,189 bbl of frac fluids were used to stimulate wells in Colorado. About 35% of 

that volume (27,039,785 bbl) was returned to the surface as flowback water. Sixty one percent (61%) of the frac fluids (47,648,287 

bbl) were made from recycled flowback and produced water. See page 59 of the 2015 Veil Report (DCN SGE01128).

Veil Response: 

Mr. Veil extracted some data from COGCC’s website with the help of Thom Kerr. Colorado only provided total wastewater

volume data (i.e., coal bed methane (CBM), COG, and UOG together).

 

1 Tables and figures referenced in italics in these call notes can be found in the 2015 Veil Report (DCN SGE01128).
ERG Question: 

Can you clarify what all is considered in the “surface discharge” management practice? Digging into the data for each state, it looks 

like often times this is associated with CBM (e.g., Alabama) or conventional (e.g., California) wells. It also appears that sometimes 

“surface discharge” is really indicating beneficial use (e.g., Texas, West Virginia). Are there other instances of “surface discharge” not 

captured in these examples? Please explain where the “surface discharge” in Colorado and Utah are coming from/going to. Please 

confirm that you identified no direct discharges from oil and gas operators to POTWs. See second paragraph on page 10 of the 2015 

Veil Report which says “...3% of onshore produced water was discharged.”

Veil Response: 

Colorado has a general permit for surface discharge through the state agency for the environment and/or public health. Mr. 

Veil does not have any more data than what appears in the report. It was difficult to get data from Texas. Texas has a limited 

number of wells along the Gulf Coast that are allowed to discharge, but it would be best to follow up with Texas Railroad 

Commission (TX RRC), EPA Region 6, or the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) about that.

ERG categorized the “surface discharges” reported by Mr. Veil to indicate the type of oil and gas resource type they were associated 

with. 

Surface Discharges

2 by State:

 AL – CBM

 AK – Conventional (Cook Inlet)

 CA – Coastal

 CO – Unknown (General permit)

 IN – Unknown

 MT – Unknown (Individual or general permits)

 PA – CWT Facilities

 TX – Unknown (Low salinity coastal discharge)

 UT – Unknown

 WV – Unknown (Land application)

ERG Question: 

Please confirm that all produced water that was reused/recycled for hydraulic fracturing would have been included in the 

“beneficial reuse” category, but that the “beneficial reuse” category would also include other types of practices (e.g., irrigation, dust 

and ice control).

Veil Response: 

Almost no states are tracking reuse/recycle practices, even though reuse/recycle is a prominent wastewater management 

practice in many states. Dust control and other uses are simply not being reported to states. In Table 4-8 of the report, the number 

is listed as 0.6%. Mr. Veil believes it is likely less than 5%, but more than 0.6%.

ERG Question: 

Related to Oklahoma and a few other states, in Sections 3.4 and 6.1 of the report, can you explain how wells located on tribal lands 

are covered in the state data you present?

Veil Response: 

Mr. Veil was not able to get a clear answer from federal or tribal contacts about whether or not tribal wells were included in 

specific data sets. Table 5-47 of the report includes some tribal wells. To avoid double-counting tribal wells in his totals, Mr. 

Veil did not include separately identified tribal wells. He assumed that all tribal wells were already included in the data provided 

by the states that are summarized and presented in the report.

ERG Question: 

Did any states provide comprehensive produced water management data (e.g., data by API number, specific to UOG only)? We are 

only aware of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) who does this but we are looking for others.

Veil Response: 

No.

 

2 Note that the term “surface discharge” as used by Mr. Veil does not necessarily constitute a discharge to waters of the United States 

as defined in the Clean Water Act.
ERG Question: 

Are there any produced water management trends that surprised you in the 2012 data (or any changes between the 2007 and 2012 

practices that were surprising)?

Veil Response: 

Mr. Veil was not surprised by the trends he saw, but he noticed that others were surprised. Despite an increase in production, the 

industry-wide water use increased very little. Crude oil and natural gas production each increase by about 20% between 2007 and 

2012, but water use increased only about 1% in the same time period. There was a huge increase in UOG production leading up to 

2012. UOG operations generate large volumes of flowback wastewater initially, but then the wastewater volumes decrease 

significantly. Essentially, UOG operations are more efficient, producing less wastewater per barrel of produced oil and gas. 

Final Thoughts

Mr. Veil found it challenging to get data from states to compile his report. He suggested researching Energy Water Initiative 

(EWI) to possibly get more answers from their stakeholders about specific data sets that may be of use to us. Mr. Veil has no current 

plans for future reports.

Additional Information

ERG reviewed and compiled supplemental information for these call notes. Regarding the surface discharge data Mr. Veil 

presents in his 2015 report, ERG researched 40 CFR 435, Subpart E permits in Colorado and oil and gas surface discharges in Texas. 

40 CFR 435, Subpart E Permits in Colorado

ERG found a general permit (expired 08/2014) for Colorado, issued by the Department of Public Health and Environment. COG840000 is the first separate general permit for discharge of treated produced water to surface water. Previously these discharges were 

covered under a variety of permits including the Minimum Industrial Discharge (MINDI) general permit (COG-600000) and 

individual permits.

On page 6 of the permit, there are oil and grease limits of 35 mg/L and 10 mg/L. The “Basis for Limitation” listed for 

“Conventional oil and gas operations subject to Federal ELG” is “40 CFR 435 (ELG).” This corresponds to the oil and grease daily 

maximum limit of 35 mg/L in 40 CFR 435.52. This is the only place 40 CFR 435 is referenced in the permit, which is consistent with 

oil and grease being the only regulated parameter in Subpart E (where 40 CFR 435.52 falls). 

ERG was unable to find specific information for dischargers permitted under this general permit, or the previous permits. 

Oil and Gas Surface Discharges in Texas

ERG was able to identify permits for two facilities that listed “produced water” as one of the waste types that they 

recycle/reclaim. STF-040 (expires 05/2018) and STF-026 (expired 01/2011) authorize the facilities to receive, store, handle, and treat 

certain oil and gas wastes, but they do not authorize discharge or discuss levels of regulated parameters for discharge.

Information on Commercial Surface Waste Facilities

Commercial facilities may use pits to store or dispose of oil and gas wastes or they may landspread or landtreat oil and gas wastes 

or treat oil and gas wastes. Texas Rule 78 defines Commercial Facility as “A facility whose owner or operator receives compensation 

from others for the storage, reclamation, treatment, or disposal of oil field fluids or oil and gas wastes that are wholly or partially 

trucked or hauled to the facility and whose primary business purpose is to provide these services for compensation if:

 the facility is permitted under §3.8 of this title (related to Water Protection);

 the facility is permitted under §3.57 of this title (related to Reclaiming Tank Bottoms, Other Hydrocarbon Wastes, and Other 

Waste Materials);

 the facility is permitted under §3.9 of this title (related to Disposal Wells) and a collecting pit permitted under §3.8 is located 

at the facility; or

 the facility is permitted under §3.46 of this title (related to Fluid Injection into Productive Reservoirs) and a collecting pit 

permitted under §3.8 is located at the facility.

The list of commercial recycling and surface disposal facilities can be found on the TX RRC’s website.

3

Information on Surface Discharges

Although the TRR has the jurisdiction to regulate the disposal of all oil and gas wastes, very few such wastes are discharged to 

surface water in the state. The Railroad Commission regulates three major categories of discharges to surface waters: discharge of 

hydrostatic test water; discharge of oil and gas wastes from a gas plant; and discharge of produced water.4

 

3 http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/oil-gas/applications-and-permits/environmental-permit-types-information/commercial-surface-wastefacilities/

4 http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/oil-gas/applications-and-permits/environmental-permit-types-information/discharges/
Regarding produced water discharge, historically, no form has existed for making application for a produced water discharge 

permit. A permit application to discharge produced water to inland waters and a permit application to discharge produced water to the 

Gulf of Mexico are each by letter of request. An individual permit application is also required if operators want to apply to land-apply 

produced water.