EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Technical Workshop #4

Water Resources Management

March 29-30, 2011
2

Chesapeake Energy Corporation

6100 N. Western Avenue ı Oklahoma City, OK 76118 ı 405-935-8000

AskChesapeake@chk.com ı chk.com ı NYSE: CHK

Matthew E. Mantell, P.E.

Environmental Engineer

Engineering Technology Group

Produced Water Reuse and 

Recycling Challenges and 

Opportunities Across Major 

Shale Plays
3

Presentation Overview

Introduction

 Chesapeake Operating Areas

 Water Use by Shale Play

Produced Water Management

 Produced Water Naming Conventions

 Generation of Produced Water by Play

 Produced Water Quality and Issues

Produced Water Management Options

 Direct Filtration and Reuse

 Deep Well Disposal

 Advanced Treatment for Reuse

CHK Experience with Water Reuse/Recycling

Criticisms of Shale Gas Water Use

Closing Thoughts

Additional information on water efficiency of shale gas presented in Appendix
4

Chesapeake Energy Operating Areas
5

Current Chesapeake Water Use by 

Shale Play

Barnett Shale*

250,000 Gallons used for Drilling

3,800,000 Gallons used for Fracturing

~ 4.0 Million Gallons Used Per Well

Haynesville Shale

600,000 Gallons used for Drilling

5,000,000 Gallons used for Fracturing

~ 5.6 Million Gallons Used Per Well

Fayetteville Shale

65,000 Gallons used for Drilling

4,900,000 Gallons used for Fracturing

~ 4.9 Million Gallons Used Per Well

Marcellus Shale*

85,000 Gallons used for Drilling

5,500,000 Gallons used for Fracturing 

5.6 Million Gallons Used Per Well

* Portion of play contains some NG liquids

Eagle Ford Shale

125,000 Gallons used for Drilling

6,000,000 Gallons used for Fracturing

~ 6.1 Million Gallons Used Per Well

Niobrara

300,000 Gallons used for Drilling

3,000,000 Gallons used for Fracturing

~ 3.3 Million Gallons Used Per Well

Gas Shales (Dry Gas)

Liquid Shales (Gas, Oil, Condensate)
6

Produced Water 

Management
7

“Produced Water”

ALL water that is returned to the surface through a well borehole

Made up of water injected during fracture stimulation process as well as 

natural formation water

Typically is produced for the lifespan of a well (quantities vary significantly by 

play) 

Produced water is chemically analyzed prior to reuse / recycling or disposal 

― Analyzed for hydrocarbons, metals, and naturally occurring elements

Water quality varies:

― “Brackish” (5,000 to 35,000 ppm TDS) 

― “Saline” (35,000 to 50,000 ppm TDS) 

― “Brine” (50,000 to 150,000+ ppm TDS)

Produced Water Naming Conventions
8

“Flowback” Process

Term associated with the PROCESS

Process allows the well to flow back excess fluids and 

sand

― Once sand and fluid have been removed, gas and/or 

petroleum liquids begin to flow (the purpose)

― Flowback process equipment is designed to handle heavy 

solids

― Permanent equipment put in place when process is 

complete

Actual duration of the process varies from well to well 

and play to play

The distinction of “flowback water” and “produced water” 

has nothing to do with water quality.

ALL “flowback water” IS “produced water”

Produced Water Naming Conventions
9

Quantities and Rates of Water Production 

Important for Reuse

Need large volume of water over short time 

period

― Helps ensure the effectiveness of the process

“Initial” defined here as first 10 days of 

Flowback and Production Process

Barnett, Fayetteville, and Marcellus Shales

“Initial” volume of water significant 

― 500,000 to 600,000 gallons per well in first 10 

days  ~ 10% to 15% of total water need to frac 

new wells

Haynesville Shale

“Initial” volume of water less significant

― 250,000 gallons per well in first 10 days  ~ 5% 

of total water needed to frac new well

Produced Water Generation by Shale Play: 

Initial Produced Water

Still collecting data on “initial” water production data on Niobrara and Eagle Ford Wells
10

High “Long Term” Produced Water Generating Play (> 1,000 Gallons Per MMCF)

Barnett Shale:

― Formation characteristics result in high produced water generation

― Higher volumes of natural formation water present in / near shale

Moderate “Long Term” Produced Water Generating Plays (200 – 1,000 Gallons Per MMCF)

Eagle Ford Shale

Haynesville Shale

Fayetteville Shale

― Formation characteristics allow less fluid production per MMCF

― Relatively desiccated formations (dry)

Low “Long Term” Produced Water Generating Play 

(< 200 Gallons Per MMCF)

Marcellus Shale

Higher water production in South (West Virginia), lower in North (Pennsylvania)

― Shale formation characteristics tend to “trap” fluids

― Highly desiccated formations (very dry)

― Capillary pressure difference “binds” water to formation (known as imbibition)

Produced Water Generation by Shale Play: 

Dependant on Geology of Shale Formation

Salt Water Disposal wells may still be needed to manage and dispose of long term produced water
11

Dissolved Parameters  Blending for Reuse

Chlorides and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

Generally not looking at removal, determines freshwater 

blending ratios

Very high TDS increases friction in hydraulic fracturing process 

(bad)

Suspended Parameters  Filtering Prior to Reuse

Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Can determine filtration rates, size of filter, performance

High solids can plug well and decrease biocide effectiveness

Other Parameters of Concern

Water “hardness” compounds (e.g. Calcium and Magnesium)

Sulfates can be used by bacteria to create hydrogen sulfide

Barium can combine with sulfates to create scale

High iron can drop out creating emulsions and plugging

Bacteria is always a concern

Water Quality and Treatment / Reuse

“Frac Tanks” on location
12

Barnett Shale

Significant increase over time in TDS (50,000 

140,000 ppm) and Chlorides (25,000  80,000 

ppm); initial produced water is relatively low

Relatively low TSS, no problem for filtration

Iron values are relatively low compared to other 

plays, but still pose concern

Fayetteville Shale

“Good Quality Water” on both initial and long-term 

 very low Chlorides (~ 10,000 ppm), low TDS (~ 

15,000 ppm)

Lower scaling tendency (low Calcium, low 

Magnesium) 

Excellent potential for reuse of both initial and long 

term produced water

Initial and Produced Water Quality Data: 

Barnett and Fayetteville Shales
13

Initial and Produced Water Quality Data: 

Haynesville and Marcellus Shales

Haynesville Shale

Immediately after frac, very poor quality water 

high TDS, high Chlorides, high TSS (~350 ppm)

High scaling tendency  high calcium (~8,000 

ppm) and high magnesium (~500 ppm)

Relatively unattractive reuse potential

Marcellus Shale

Immediately after frac, high TDS (40,000 ppm --

90,000 ppm with long term > 120,000 ppm)

However, lower TSS values (~160 ppm) make 

filtration reasonable

Moderate to high scaling tendency (high Ca, Mg)

Quality is manageable and attractive for reuse

Eagle Ford Shale and Niobrara currently being evaluated for reuse: definite potential!
14

Produced Water 

Management Options
15

Process

1. Produced water during “flowback” process collected and stored in holding tanks onsite

2. Produced water pumped from tanks through a 100-micron filter followed by a 20-micron 

filter

― Filter is designed to remove suspended solids in fluid (not salts)

3. Filtered fluid is pumped into a clean storage tank and transported to next well to be 

hydraulically fractured

― Filters and solids collected are disposed of by a licensed contractor and sent to an 

approved landfill

4. Prior to use in frac, the water is tested for remaining constituents (TDS/Salts, Scaling 

Compounds) that were not removed in filtration process

― Test results determine blending ratios

― Robust scale inhibition and bacteria elimination programs implemented which 

require substantial management and testing prior to frac

5. Fresh “make-up” water is still required to ensure adequate quality and quantity of fluids

Preferred Practice: Filtration and Reuse

CHK’s Marcellus Shale Program Example
16

Benefits

1. Reduction in the volume of wastewater 

― Less sent offsite for disposal

2. Less fresh water needed for hydraulic fracturing 

operations 

― Reduced impact on local supplies

3. Reduced truck traffic on public roads (less fresh 

water hauled) 

― Lower impact on public roads, noise, air quality

4. Filtration process used is inexpensive and does 

not require substantial amounts of energy like 

other processes that remove salts (i.e. reverse 

osmosis membranes, distillation)

5. Helps reduce the cost of operations 

― Reduces wastewater disposal costs, water supply 

costs, and transportation costs

Preferred Practice: Filtration and Reuse

CHK’s Marcellus Shale Program Example
17

Advanced Treatment and Reuse Not 

Always the Environmental Option

Environmental and Economic benefits may 

directly correlate when evaluating reuse versus 

disposal

REUSE $$ = ENERGY $$ + TRANSPORT $$ + 

CONCENTRATED WASTE DISPOSAL $$ 

DISPOSAL $$ = TRUCKING $$ + DISPOSAL $$

Where Direct Reuse is Not Feasible Due to Water 

Quality, Logistics

Injection Wells are low cost, low energy, safe, and 

effective

Energy requirements for treating some fluids make 

these techniques economically unfeasible, and 

ALSO environmentally undesirable

― Air Emissions 

― Water use

― Waste 

Chesapeake Energy does not surface discharge any produced water either directly, or 

via wastewater treatment plants
18

Advanced Produced Water Treatment 

Options

Thermal Distillation

Ability to treat produced water and recapture distilled water

Beneficial in times of drought or in arid areas

Very energy intensive (and costly)

Most distillation systems are designed for treatment of 

large volumes of water

 Larger Centralized Facilities

 Long Hauling Distances

Membrane Systems (Reverse Osmosis)

Very prone to scaling without comprehensive pretreatment

Need very experienced operators

Technology is improving  coatings, etc

Energy intensive  but less than Thermal Distillation

Chemical Precipitation and Electro-Coagulation

Less expensive but still requires relatively experienced 

operators

Beware of the Black Box!
19

Produced Water Reuse and Recycling: 

The Chesapeake Experience

Intevras’ EVRAS unit at the Brentwood site in east Fort Worth
20

Barnett Shale Reuse / Recycling

Blessed with Extensive SWD Infrastructure

Injection into Ellenberger formation

Currently Reusing Approx 230,000 Gallons Per 

Well in southern portion of the play

Partial Reuse Makes Economic Sense

Reuse makes up ~ 6% of total water needed to 

hydraulically fracture a new well

Logistics and economics are the main limiting factor 

in preventing higher levels of reuse

CHK Pioneering Use of Evaporative Technologies 

that Utilize Waste Heat in the Barnett

INTEVRAS Evaporative Unit

Less water (as concentrated brine) injected in 

SWD well onsite
21

Fayetteville Shale

Very good water quality (low TDS, chlorides) as 

compared to other plays

TDS in 10,000 to 20,000 ppm range

Currently reusing approx 250,000 gallons 

(80% of initial produced water) per well 

Reuse makes up ~ 6% of the total water 

needed to hydraulically fracture a new well

Good produced water quality makes reuse of 

long term produced water possible if logistics 

make sense
22

Haynesville Shale

Extensive SWD Infrastructure in East Texas

Currently, CHK is not reusing HS produced water

Poor produced water quality (even initially)

High TDS, high solids, high scaling tendencies 

Relatively low volume of initial produced water

250,000 gallons over 1st ten days (low)

Water production falls off quickly

Large volumes and higher quality drilling 

wastewater currently make it a more feasible 

reuse candidate
23

Marcellus Shale

Currently recycling / reusing nearly 100% of 

initial produced water via improved filtering 

processes

Reduces produced water disposal volumes by approx 

85% to 100%

Tremendously successful program

Remaining fluids (long term produced water, etc) sent 

to Salt Water Disposal wells

Small volume (<1%) sent to advanced treatment and 

reused

Reuse makes up ~ 10% of the total water 

needed to hydraulically fracture a new well

Use closed loop synthetic oil based muds

Significantly reduces wastewater generated from 

drilling

Chesapeake Energy does not surface discharge any produced water either directly, or 

via wastewater treatment plants
24

Oil and Natural Gas 

Water Use Concerns
25

Concerns of the so called “permanent 

removal of water from the effective 

hydrologic cycle

Most water used in shale gas development 

either remains in the formation or returns as 

produced water

The preferred method for disposal of 

produced water is through permitted Class II 

SWDs

Argument that this is a different type of 

“consumption” than the evaporation of water 

from a power plant and other types of 

“consumption”

Criticism of Oil and Natural Gas Water Use
26

Balanced Methane Combustion Reaction: 

CH4 + 2O2  CO2 + 2H2O

Volume of Water Vapor Produced per Million Cubic Feet of Natural 

Gas:

10,675 gallons 

Need to combust 525 MMCF of natural gas to produce an equivalent 

amount of water (as vapor) used to drill and complete a typical 

Marcellus Shale well

Based on current production trends, it takes an average CHK Marcellus 

Well < 6 months to produce 525 MMCF of Natural Gas 

Natural Gas Combustion:

Water Vapor Generation

* Not all natural gas that is consumed is combusted. According to 1995 DOE Topical Report, approximately 3.5% of natural gas is

used as feedstock for ammonia, methanol, and ethylene production.
27

Closing Thoughts

1. U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Industry is REDUCING* 

the volume of freshwater used in operations 

reducing the need to compete with other 

freshwater users

2. Feasibility of Produced Water Reuse is 

dependent on 3 factors: quantity, duration, and 

quality

3. All three factors (quantity, duration, quality) can 

vary considerably between / within shale plays

4. Environmental and Economic Benefits may 

directly correlate when evaluating reuse versus 

disposal options

5. Volume of water “removed” from hydrologic cycle 

during fracturing or deep well disposal is more 

than offset during the combustion of fuel

* More importantly the industry is improving the efficiency of fresh water use (i.e. more 

hydrocarbon production per unit of fresh water utilized)
Matthew E. Mantell, P.E.

Corporate Environmental Engineer

Chesapeake Energy Corporation

6100 N. Western Avenue ı Oklahoma City, OK 76118 ı 405-935-8000

AskChesapeake@chk.com ı chk.com ı NYSE: CHK

Produced Water Reuse and 

Recycling Challenges and 

Opportunities Across Major 

Shale Plays
29

Appendix:

Water / Energy Nexus: 

The Water Efficiency of 

Energy Resources
30

“Water is Essential for Energy Resource Development”

Fuel Extraction

Fuel Processing

Power Generation Cooling

“Energy Resources are Needed for Water”

Development (raw water pumping)

Processing (treatment)

Distribution (potable water pumping)

“Balance” or “Nexus” is Critical but Often Overlooked when evaluating 

Energy Resources

Many discussions on air quality and surface pollution impacts

Limited discussion on water availability

Improve One  Improve the Other

The Water / Energy Nexus
31

Water Use Efficiency in Natural Gas Plays

Shale Play Average Water Use 

Per Well 1

CHK Est. Avg. Natural 

Gas Production Over 

Well Lifetime 2

Resulting Energy From

Natural Gas Production 

Per Well

(based on 1,028 Btu per Cubic Feet )

3

Water Use Efficiency

(in gallons per MMBtu)

Haynesville 5.6 million gallons 6.5 billion cubic feet 6.68 trillion Btu 0.84

Marcellus 5.6 million gallons 5.2 billion cubic feet 5.35 trillion Btu 1.05

Barnett 4.0 million gallons 3.0 billion cubic feet 3.08 trillion Btu 1.30

Fayetteville 4.9 million gallons 2.6 billion cubic feet 2.67 trillion Btu 1.84

Source: 1Chesapeake Energy 2009b, 2Chesapeake Energy 2009c, 3USDOE 2007

British Thermal Unit (Btu)

Million British Thermal Units (MMBtu)

Chesapeake’s Four Major Deep Shale Plays
32

Energy resource Range of gallons of water used 

per MMBtu of energy produced

Chesapeake deep shale natural gas * 0.84 – 1.84

Conventional natural gas 1 – 3

Coal (no slurry transport)

(with slurry transport)

2 – 8

13 – 32

Nuclear (processed uranium ready to use in plant) 8 – 14

Conventional oil 8 – 20

Synfuel - coal gasification 11 – 26

Oil shale petroleum 22 – 56

Oil sands petroleum 27 – 68

Synfuel - Fisher Tropsch (Coal) 41 – 60

Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) 21 – 2,500

Biofuels (Irrigated Corn Ethanol, Irrigated Soy Biodiesel) > 2,500

Source: USDOE 2006 (other than CHK data)

*Does not include processing which can add from 0 - 2 gallons per MMBtu

Solar and wind not included in table (require virtually no water for processing)

Values in table are location independent (domestically produced fuels are more water efficient than imported fuels)

Raw Fuel Source Water Use Efficiency
33

Wind and solar notes

Solar and wind power not included in previous table

Require virtually no water for processing

Most water efficient

Currently not “baseload” worthy

― Wind: 0.5% of all U.S. energy in 2008

― Solar: 0.1% of all U.S. energy in 2008

Fuel Source Water Use Efficiency
34

Geography Plays Important Role in Fuel 

Source Water Efficiency

Values in table are location independent

Energy demands of fuel transport not 

considered

If considered:

― Locally produced fuels would be given higher 

“value”

― Imported fuels less water efficient  lower “value”

» Foreign Oil, Alaskan Oil and Gas, Off-Shore Oil and Gas

Raw Fuel Source Water Use Efficiency:

Geography / Location
35

100% Fuel 0% Flue Gas 67% Cooling Water

33% Electricity

100% Fuel

33% Flue Gas 33% Cooling Water

33% Electricity

100% Fuel

15% Flue Gas 35% Cooling Water

50% Electricity

100% Fuel 33% Cooling Water

15% Electricity 52% Unconverted Solar

100% Fuel

14% Flue Gas 36% Cooling Water

50% Electricity

Typical Efficiencies of 

Thermoelectric Power Plants

Source: Adapted from Stillwell et al. 2009

Natural Gas Combined Cycle 

SynGas (Coal) Combined Cycle 

Coal /Biomass Steam Turbine

Nuclear Steam Turbine

Concentrating Solar
36

Three of the power plant types evaluated emit CO2

Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC)

Integrated Gasification (SynGas from Coal) Combined 

Cycle (IGCC)

Coal / Biomass Steam Turbine

Believed technological solution is the use of carbon 

capture, (combined with deep geological 

sequestration)

Commonly overlooked in the discussion of carbon 

capture is the parasitic effect the carbon capture 

technology has on power generation efficiency

When the efficiency of a power plant is decreased, 

additional generating capacity must be brought online 

to maintain the plant’s previous electrical output

Results in a reduction of the water efficiency of power 

plants that incorporate carbon capture

Carbon Capture and the Parasitic Effect 

on Power Generation and Water Use
37

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Deep Shale Natural Gas 

Combined Cycle

Integrated Gasification 

(from Coal) Combined Cycle

Coal Steam Turbine Nuclear Steam Turbine Concentrating Solar

Avg Consumption for Fuel (gal / MWh)

Avg Consumption for Cooling (gal / MWh)

Consumption for CCS gal / MWh

*

Power Generation Water Use Efficiency 

Parasitic Effect of Carbon Capture

Consumption: Gallons of Water Per 

MWh Electricity Generated 

453

472

704

750

14

123

52

114

0

Source: USDOE 2006 (other than CHK data) and USDOE/ NETL 2007

*Average consumption for fuels; Chesapeake data

MWh = megawatt-hour

(Including raw fuel source and carbon capture input)

204

232

516

620
38

Conventional Petroleum and Gasoline Dominate U.S. Market

97% of all fuels

Some contain 10% ethanol blend to reduce air emissions

Currently Looking at “Unconventional” and “Alternative” Fuels

Non-Conventional Liquid Fossil Fuels (fuels from coal, oil shale, tar sands)

Biofuels (ethanol, biodiesel)

Compressed Natural Gas

Hydrogen (carrier source)

Major “Push” to Electric Vehicles

Major focus of research and development

Perceived to be “green” (how is electricity generated?)

Increase in water use “overlooked”

Transportation Fuels and Water Use
39

1 10 100 1,000 10,000

Biodiesel from Non-Irrigated Soybeans

CNG using NG Generator for Compression

Hydrogen from Natural Gas

CNG using Electricity for Compression

Diesel

Electric Vehicle (Electric from Shale NG)*

Gasoline

Electric Vehicle (Electric from Coal)*

Ethanol from Non-Irrigated Corn

Oil Shale Gasoline

Syn Diesel from Natural Gas

Oil Sands Gasoline

Electric Vehicle (Electric from Nuclear)*

Syn Diesel from Coal

Hydrogen via Electrolysis

Biodiesel from Irrigated Soybeans

Ethanol from Irrigated Corn

1.5

3

6

6.5

8

10

10.5

23

25

26

27.5

33

35

38.5

42

800

2,350

Consumption: Gallons of Water Per 100 Miles Driven

Water Intensity of Transportation Fuels

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)

Source: Adapted from King and Webber 2008a; 

*Adapted from King and Webber 2008b, combined with data from USDOE 2006

Non-irrigated biofuels not shown on plot above 

Gasoline with 10% irrigated 

ethanol blend: ~ 200 gallons 

water consumed per 100 miles 

driven
40

Chesapeake Energy Corporation

6100 N. Western Avenue ı Oklahoma City, OK 76118 ı 405-935-8000

AskChesapeake@chk.com ı chk.com ı NYSE: CHK

Matthew E. Mantell, P.E.

Corporate Environmental Engineer

Produced Water Reuse and 

Recycling Challenges and 

Opportunities Across Major 

Shale Plays