DCN: SGE00607

Meeting Summary

Topic: Conference Call with Quicksilver Resources, Inc. about shale gas 

operations

Meeting Date: 11 October 2012

Participants: Lisa Biddle, Ahmar Siddiqui, Brian D’Amico (EPA/EAD)

Meghan Camp, Brent Ruminski (ERG)

Todd Hutson, Keith Mouser, James Segars, Carl Bowers (Quicksilver)

On 11 October 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a conference 

call with Quicksilver Resources Inc. (Quicksilver) to discuss their shale gas operations in Texas 

and Colorado. Discussion topics included:

 Current shale gas activity;

 Well development;

 Source water management;

 Wastewater volumes; and

 Wastewater management.

Attachment 1 lists the meeting participants.

Current Shale Gas Activity

Quicksilver is an oil and gas producer that operates approximately 900 shale gas wells in 

Texas and Colorado.

1 According to their website, Quicksilver focuses on developing 

unconventional formations with most of their production in the Barnett. During the call, 

Quicksilver indicated that, due to low gas prices, they are investing in new liquid rich formations 

in Colorado. The liquid rich formations in these areas include the Niobrara and Mancos. At the 

end of 2011, their proven reserves included 77 percent natural gas, 22 percent natural gas liquids, 

and one percent oil.2

Table 1 provides the number of Quicksilver shale gas wells in the Barnett, Mancos, and 

Niobrara formations from Drillinginfo, Inc’s HPDI database.3 Quicksilver currently uses slick 

water fracturing for all of their Barnett shale gas wells. In the Mancos and Niobrara, they are still 

evaluating their development approach, and have tried several types of fracturing techniques 

including slick water, gel, and gas. Quicksilver is monitoring the performance of the wells they 

fractured using each technique before selecting a technique for large scale development. In 

 

1

Shale gas well count from Drillinginfo, Inc’s HPDI database.

2

Information available online at: http://www.qrinc.com/about/company_fact_sheet/

3 HPDI database last updated in December 2011 and includes wells through the end of 2010.
Meeting Summary

Page 2 of 8

general, gas fracturing is the most expensive technique, involves more hazards, and generates the 

least wastewater requiring disposal. 

Table 1. Quicksilver’s 2010 Shale Gas Well Count by 

Formation 

Formation States Type of Fracturing 

Number of 

Wells

Barnett TX Slick water 891

Niobrara CO

Gel Oil, Gel Gas, 

Slick Water-Gel, 

Slick Water

11

Mancos CO Slick Water 2

Source: Drillinginfo, Inc’s HPDI database

Liquid rich formations produce a mixture of oil, condensate, and gas. If gas pipelines are 

already available at a particular location, Quicksilver captures and sells the gas. If gas pipelines 

are not already available, the gas may be flared or incinerated until the company determines it is 

economical to install a gas pipeline. When asked how liquid rich formation wells are defined

(i.e., as an oil or gas well), Quicksilver deferred to the applicable state definition. The oil and gas 

wells in Texas and Colorado are defined as follows:

 Texas—Gas well is defined as any well where gas to oil ratio is more than 100 

MCF to 1 barrel of oil.4

 Colorado—Gas well is defined as a well where the principal production is gas, as 

defined by the Act.5

Figure 1 shows all Quicksilver Barnett wells in the Fort Worth, Texas area using EPA’s 

Geoplatform and coordinates from Drillinginfo, Inc’s HPDI database.

6 Quicksilver’s Barnett

wells are located in the south eastern portion of the Barnett formation in the counties of Hood, 

Tarrant, Somervell, Denton, Hill, and Johnson. According to the Texas Railroad Commission, 

the south eastern portion of the Barnett formation tends to produce less liquids and more dry gas 

compared to the north western portion.

7

 

4 Texas Administrative Code. Title 16. Part 1 Chapter 3, Rule 3.79. Available online at: 

http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p

_tac=&ti=16&pt=1&ch=3&rl=79 

5 Definition available online at: http://cogcc.state.co.us/RR_Asps/100Series.pdf

6 HPDI database last updated in December 2011 and includes wells through the end of 2010.

7

Information available online at: http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/barnettshale/countyproducing.php
Meeting Summary

Page 3 of 8

Source: Developed using EPA’s Geoplatform tool using coordinates from 

Drillinginfo, Inc’s HPDI database.

Figure 1. Quicksilver Barnett Shale Gas Wells Through 2010

Well Development

According to Quicksilver, the timeline for well development varies by state, county, and 

season. The first step in the process is to obtain the necessary drilling permit and leases. The time

for acquiring a permit will depend on the area and amount of experience Quicksilver has in 

working with the permitting authorities in that area. In areas where Quicksilver has more 

experience working with particular permitting authorities, permit acquisition is relatively quick. 

In areas where Quicksilver has less experience working with permitting authorities (e.g., 

Colorado), the process tends to take more time.

After Quicksilver obtains the necessary drilling permit and leases, they construct the well 

pad and drill the well. Quicksilver estimates one to two weeks for pad development. Drilling 

schedules depend on a number of outside forces, such as lease holds, regulations, drilling rig 

movement, seasonality, and population factors. For example, in the urban setting of Fort Worth, 

drilling schedules are restricted to 12 hour work days. In general, Quicksilver estimates three to 

seven days to move the drilling rig onsite, seven to ten days to drill the well, and three to seven 
Meeting Summary

Page 4 of 8

days to move the rig offsite. Therefore, the total drilling process may take approximately three to 

four weeks to complete. When Quicksilver first drilled in the Barnett, the average well required 

30 days to drill. Today, the average well requires 13 to 24 days (including rig mobilization) to 

drill due to an increase in drilling efficiency.

Quicksilver’s average Barnett well pad requires 2.5 to 4.5 acres, holds 2 to 8 wells, and 

costs $75,000 to $150,000 to construct. Quicksilver drills most of their Barnett wells 6,000 to 

7,000 feet deep with 3,000 to 9,000 foot laterals. 

Source Water Management

Quicksilver obtains water from the following sources to use in the hydraulic fracturing

processes:

 Non-jurisdictional freshwater ponds;

 Groundwater wells;

 Surface water from river authorities; or

 Surface water from private property.8

Source water is trucked from the water source to the well pad. Quicksilver reported 

transporting the water from the source to the well pad typically requires a 1 to 3 hour round trip

in the Barnett and 2 to 4 hour round trip in Colorado. The trucking companies charge $90 to 

$110 per hour on the road and each truck holds approximately 120 barrels. These rates also apply 

to trucking wastewater. Table 2 provides typical costs Quicksilver’s pays for source water not 

including trucking.

Table 2. Quicksilver’s Source Water Acquisition Costs

Formation Source

Acquisition Costs 

($/bbl)

Barnett

Non-jurisdictional freshwater ponds $0.20 to $0.30

Groundwater wells $0.20 to $0.30

Surface water from river authorities $0.20 to $0.30

Surface water from private property $0.20 to $0.30

Mancos/Niobrara

Non-jurisdictional freshwater ponds $0.20 to $0.30

Groundwater wells $0.20 to $0.30

Surface water from river authorities $0.20 to $0.30

Surface water from private property $0.20 to $0.30

 

8

Some operators may use municipal wastewater in the Barnett area. Some permits even require the use of municipal 

wastewater. 
Meeting Summary

Page 5 of 8

Wastewater Volumes

During hydraulic fracturing, Quicksilver injects 30,000 to 40,000 barrels per 1,000 feet of 

lateral in the Barnett. Injection volumes in Colorado are not as defined since Quicksilver is still 

evaluating fracturing techniques in that region. After the hydraulic fracturing process is 

complete, a percentage of the injected volume returns the surface as flowback water at high flow 

rates. In the Barnett, initial flowback flows at approximately 1,500 to 2,000 barrels per day and 

decreases to 800 to 1,000 barrels per day after a week. After the initial flowback, water flow 

rates decrease to less than 100 barrels per day for the remaining life of the well. However, if the 

fractures at the well bore entered a water-containing formation above or below the Barnett 

formation, produced water volumes may remain high. Quicksilver typically shuts in a well in this 

situation because they are uneconomical.

Table 3 summarizes injected wastewater volumes, flowback recovery percentage, and 

produced water flow rates for the Barnett, Mancos, and Niobrara formations. However, 

Quicksilver noted that Mancos and Niobrara estimates are only based on a few wells. 

Table 3. Typical Hydraulic Fracturing and Wastewater Volumes

Formation

Hydraulic 

Fracturing 

Volume (million 

gallons)

Flowback 

Recovery 

Percentage a

Produced 

Water Flow 

Rate 

(bbl/day) Notes

Barnett 

(slick water) 3 to 7 b

5 to 15 < 100

The recovery over the lifetime 

of the well is between 35 and 

65 percent.

Mancos

(slick water) 1.3 20 to 25 ~100

Quicksilver noted that they 

have not fractured with LPG or 

Gel gas in the Mancos

formation.

Niobrara

(slick water) 1.3 30 to 50 25 to 50

Niobrara

(LPG) .0025 0 0

This type of fracturing produces 

no wastewater.

Niobrara

(Gel) .0025 0 0

This type of fracturing produces 

no wastewater.

a—Recovery percentage is the percent of injected fracturing fluid that returns to the surface.

b—Calculated based on volumes of 30,000 to 40,000 per 1,000 feet of lateral and 3,000 to 9,000 foot laterals.

Wastewater Management

In the Barnett, Quicksilver currently manages all of their wastewater via Quicksilverowned underground injection wells. In the past, Quicksilver attempted to treat their wastewater 

for reuse in fracturing but the total cost was three to four times higher than the cost for 

underground injection. As a result, they currently only use underground injection. Quicksilver 

stated that they do not discharge any wastewater to publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) 

because the Barnett Shale wastewater is not suitable for treatment at a POTW and POTWs are 

not available. Quicksilver is also unaware of any third party waste treatment facilities in the 

Barnett area. In order to reuse wastewater, Quicksilver suggested that they would need to first 
Meeting Summary

Page 6 of 8

remove total suspended solids (TSS) and metals and then blend with freshwater. In addition, the 

blending ratio would be limited to 30 percent wastewater given the cost effectiveness of friction 

reducers and the increase in horsepower required for fracturing.

Quicksilver transports wastewater from approximately 60 percent of their wells to their 

underground injection wells via disposal piping and truck wastewater to injection wells from the 

remaining 30 percent of wells. Trucking the wastewater from the gas well to the underground 

injection well typically requires a five to 15 mile one way trip in the Barnett. 9 As previously 

stated, trucking companies typically charge $90 to $110 per hour on the road and each truck 

holds approximately 120 barrels. When using disposal piping, Quicksilver is able to reduce 

trucking miles, risk for trucking accidents, dust, and local traffic. Quicksilver pays approximately 

$90,000 per mile of disposal pipeline materials and installation. Disposal pipelines are not shared 

between companies.

During the flowback process in the Barnett, Quicksilver collects wastewater in 500 barrel 

fracturing tanks with secondary containment. These tanks are used to initially collect the high 

volume wastewater exiting the well. If the well is connected to an injection well by disposal 

piping, the fracturing tanks will feed the wastewater to the disposal lines. The disposal lines are 

in place at the onset of flowback. If disposal lines are not used, then the wastewater is collected 

in fracturing tanks and trucked to the injection well. Quicksilver stated that they usually rent 

fracturing tanks that are used at the site for flowback storage, which typically cost between $35 

and $50 per day.

During production in the Barnett, Quicksilver will remove the fracturing tanks from the 

pad. If the well is connected to an injection well by disposal piping, then wastewater will flow 

directly from the well into the disposal lines. Quicksilver does not use any onsite storage tanks at 

well pads that are equipped with disposal piping to an injection well. If disposal piping is not 

used at the well, then Quicksilver collects the produced water in 400 barrel above ground storage 

tanks, which typically cost $15,000 per tank. A typical well pad will have one to four above 

ground storage tanks for produced water management. Trucks periodically empty the tanks and 

haul the wastewater to Quicksilver’s underground injection wells. 

In the Mancos and Niobrara formations of Colorado, Quicksilver does not have a 

consistent wastewater management plan because they are still evaluating fracturing techniques. 

The fracturing technique will impact the amount of water that the wells will produce. Quicksilver 

noted that some formations are difficult to treat with slick water and require gels or clay 

stabilizers. Quicksilver is also evaluating liquid petroleum gas (LPG) fracturing techniques in 

Colorado. Quicksilver indicated that underground injection capacity is limited in Colorado. At 

the time of the teleconference, Quicksilver has managed all wastewater generated by their 

Colorado wells using third-party evaporation ponds. However, Quicksilver noted that these 

evaporation ponds will not provide sufficient disposal capacity for high volume production. 

 

9

In one of their areas in the Barnett, the average well is five to six miles from their nearest underground injection 

well. In the other area in the Barnett, the average well is ten to 15 miles from their nearest underground injection 

well.
Meeting Summary

Page 7 of 8

Table 4. Quicksilver’s Wastewater Management Costs

Formation Cost Type

Transportation 

Type

Disposal or 

Treatment 

Cost ($/bbl) Notes

Barnett

Underground injection

Disposal 

pipeline or 

truck

~ $1.50

Reuse after onsite 

chemical treatment ~ $4.00 to $5.00 Minimal Activity

Mancos/Niobrara

Evaporation pond Truck $5.50 Includes trucking

Underground injection Truck $5.50 Includes trucking

Centralized wastewater 

treatment facilities Truck N/A

Quicksilver noted that 

they do not use this type 

of management

Reuse after onsite 

chemical treatment Truck N/A

Quicksilver noted that 

they do not use this type 

of management

N/A—Not available; Bbl—Barrel.
Meeting Summary

Page 8 of 8

Attachment 1

Table A-1. List of Meeting Participants

Name Affiliation Phone Email

Todd Hutson Quicksilver 817-665-5434 thutson@qrinc.com

Keith Mouser Quicksilver 817-665-4199 kmouser@qrinc.com

James Segars Quicksilver N/Aa N/Aa

Carl Bowers Quicksilver 817-665-4013 cbowers@qrinc.com

Brian D’Amico US EPA 202-566-1069 Damico.Brian@epamail.epa.gov

Lisa Biddle US EPA 202-566-0350 Biddle.Lisa@epamail.epa.gov

Erik Helm US EPA 202-566-1049 Helm.Erik@epa.gov

Meghan Camp ERG 703-633-1684 meghan.camp@erg.com

Brent Ruminski ERG 703-633-1701 brent.ruminski@erg.com

a—This employee no longer works for Quicksilver.