Meeting Summary – Redacted Version

Topic: Meeting with Talisman Energy, Inc. about Unconventional Oil and Gas

Meeting Date: 06 August 2012

Participants: Lisa Biddle, Erik Helm, Brian D’Amico (EPA/EAD)

Meghan Camp, Brent Ruminski (ERG, EPA contractor)

John Sohn (McKenna, Long, and Aldridge, LLP)

Walt Hufford (Talisman Energy USA, Inc)

On 06 August 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) met with 

Talisman Energy USA, Inc (TEUSA) to discuss their operations in unconventional oil and gas. 

Discussion topics included:

 Talisman’s Current Production Activity;

 Well Completion and Production; and

 General Cost Information.

These meeting summary notes reflect TEUSA’s current operations at the time of this meeting. 

Attachment 1 lists the meeting participants. Attachment 2 provides a summary of costs that 

Talisman provided during the meeting.

Talisman’s 2012 Marcellus Production Activity

TEUSA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Talisman Energy, Inc., a global oil and gas 

production company headquartered in Calgary, Canada. TEUSA’s operations are headquartered 

in Warrendale, PA and have US unconventional operations in the Marcellus and Eagle Ford 

Shale formations.

Well Completion and Production

TEUSA provided information on the following fresh water and flowback/produced water

handling and management practices:

 Fresh Water Acquisition;

 Hydraulic Fracturing; and

 Flowback/Produced Water Management Practices 

Fresh Water Acquisition

TEUSA stated that all of their freshwater sources are within the Susquehanna River Basin 

Commission’s (SRBC) jurisdiction. Acquiring water costs [REDACTED] per every 1,000 
Meeting Summary

Page 2 of 6

gallons. Talisman currently operates approximately 12 to 13 withdrawal points. Each point is 

permitted for a specific withdrawal rate depending on the stream size, and source water 

management at each point depends on the permitted volume. For example, withdrawal points in 

smaller streams will have a slower withdrawal rate. TEUSA will typically store the water

withdrawn from these points in a large storage impoundment. In contrast, at some withdrawal 

points from larger streams TEUSA can fill a tank truck (approimately120 bbl) directly from the 

river. 

TEUSA’s Marcellus operations include several freshwater impoundments ranging in size 

from one million gallons to 15.5 million gallons. Construction costs for impoundments are 

typically [REDACTED]. TEUSA estimates that their total freshwater storage capacity is 

[REDACTED]. 

TEUSA stated that it has used temporary water lines to transport freshwater from 

impoundments to hydraulic fracturing sites. These water lines consist of six-inch flex steel line. 

The cost for installing the lines are [REDACTED] per mile, which includes the cost of 

construction and materials.

Hydraulic Fracturing

According to TEUSA, their typical Marcellus well is fractured in 10 to 15 stages and 

requires approximately 10,000 barrels of water per stage. Water sources for hydraulic fracturing 

include fresh river water and recycled flowback and produced water from other TEUSA

Marcellus wells. TEUSA explained that the freshwater to recycled water blending ratios depend 

on the amount of available reuse water, and as a result, can range from 90:10 to 70:30 or even 

50:50. 

Prior to reuse, TEUSA monitors recycled flowback and produced water for total 

dissolved solids (TDS), chlorides, and heavy metals: barium, strontium, and iron. TEUSA 

compares the quality of the recycled water to information that they have collected on the 

Marcellus formation chemistry to ensure that the recycled water will not add anything that would 

be incompatible with the formation.

TEUSA stated that chlorides and iron are important parameters to monitor throughout the 

well completion and production process:

 Iron can cause rusting, which can clog perforations and prevent the flow of gas to the 

well.

 Chloride concentrations can indicate well fouling and provide information about gas 

production levels. TEUSA explained that the flowback and produced water flow rates 

depend on the gas production rates. So when gas production is good, the water will 

flow faster. If gas production slows, then the water flow rate will slow. As a result, 

the water will have increased contact time with the formation and will dissolve more 

chlorides. Therefore higher chloride concentrations can indicate problems with well 

production levels.
Meeting Summary

Page 3 of 6

In addition, TEUSA clarified that it only uses Marcellus-generated flowback and produced water 

for fracturing Marcellus wells. 

EPA asked TEUSA whether using recycled flowback and produced water for hydraulic 

fracturing added to the fracturing costs, for example, by increasing costs for water storage and 

chemical usage. TEUSA explained that there are cost increases, but that these increases are on 

the order of pennies per barrel of recycled wastewater.

Flowback/Produced Water Management Practices

TEUSA’s current flowback/produced water management strategy is to recycle flowback 

and produced water without pretreatment. Talisman explained that they had previously pretreated 

their flowback/produced water at a cost of approximately [REDACTED]. Further analysis of the 

flowback/produced water indicated that direct reuse of these waters for further completion 

operations could be conducted. During the flowback period, flowback is collected in 500 bbl 

fracturing tanks, which TEUSA rents at a cost of [REDACTED]. The collected flowback is 

transported directly from the well pad to the next well pad where wells are scheduled to be 

completed. TEUSA estimates that the flowback period last appropriately one to two weeks. 

TEUSA explained that the decision to switch over to production is usually driven by flowback

flow rate. TEUSA uses equipment specifically designed to separate water and gas at high flow 

rates however the availability of this equipment is limited. Therefore, once the flowback rate 

decreases to 10 bbl/hr or less, TEUSA switches the well over to production mode to free up the 

flowback equipment.

Once the well is in production mode, the produced water is collected in 300 bbl above 

ground storage tanks owned by TEUSA. The collected produced water is periodically hauled 

from the well pad and transported to the next fracturing job via truck.

TEUSA explained that they previously sent flowback/produced water to Terra Aqua 

Resource Management (TARM) and HydroRecovery for disposal, but they currently do not send 

any flowback/produced water to CWTs. TEUSA estimated that CWT costs are approximately 

[REDACTED] for treatment. Transporting the flowback/produced water to the CWT was a 1.5 

to 2 hour trip at a cost of about [REDACTED] per truck (truck capacity: [REDACTED]).

TEUSA indicated they send approximately 7% of their flowback/produced water to underground 

injection wells. TEUSA stated that the UIC disposal costs are considerably cheaper than CWT 

disposal costs, but UIC disposal requires transportation costs more because of the increased 

distance. TEUSA estimates that the total cost for UIC disposal (including transportation) is 

approximately [REDACTED]. The cost of injection, alone, is about [REDACTED].
Meeting Summary

Page 4 of 6

ATTACHMENT 1

Table A-1. List of Teleconference Participants

Name Affiliation Phone Email

John Sohn McKenna, Long, and Aldridge 202-496-7642 jsohn@mckennalong.com

Walt Hufford TEUSA 724-814-6303 whufford@talismanusa.com

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

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

Brian D’Amico US EPA 202-566-0350 Damico.Brian@epa.gov

Meghan Camp ERG (EPA contractor) 703-633-1684 meghan.camp@erg.com

Brent Ruminski ERG (EPA contractor) 703-633-1701 brent.ruminski@erg.com
Meeting Summary

Page 5 of 6

ATTACHMENT 2

Table A-2. Summary of Costs Provided by TEUSA

[REDACTED]
Meeting Summary

Page 6 of 6

ATTACHMENT 3

MAP OF WELLS AS OF JULY 2012
The geographic features in this map are the sole interpretation of

Talisman Energy. Talisman Energy does not warrant the accuracy or

completeness of this map which was based upon the most recent

Steuben

County

B

r

o

o

m

e

C

o

u

nty

Tioga

County

Chemung

County

Bradford

County Tioga

County

S

u

s

q

u

e

h

a

n

n

a

C

o

u

nty

Wyoming

County Lycoming

County

Sullivan

County

NEW YORK

PENNSYLVANIA

335,281

335,281

350,521

350,521

365,761

365,761

381,001

381,001

396,241

396,241

411,481

411,481

4,602,4894,602,489

4,617,7294,617,729

4,632,9694,632,969

4,648,2094,648,209

4,663,4494,663,449

Path: Y:\GIS\M ap_Library \Operations\W ell_Pads\PA_SW EPI\PA_Wells_AsO f_J uly 2012_08x11_V1AA.mx d

New York

Pennsylvania

Notes:

Talisman Well

Projection: UTM Zone 18N Datum: North American 1983

Scale: Scale ratio only valid if printed at original size

Save Date: 2/24/2015 11:48:26 AM Created by: aatkins

Talisman Wells

1 inch equals 6.13 miles

0 2 4 6

Miles

Legend:

310 Horizontal Wells

Tioga, Bradford, and Susquehanna Counties