Site Visit Report

Citrus Energy Corporation

Marcellus Shale Gas Operations

January 22, 2013
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1

2.0 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................................. 1

3.0 OVERVIEW OF SHALE GAS PRODUCTION ................................................................. 2

3.1 Company Background ................................................................................ 2

3.2 Permitting.................................................................................................... 3

3.3 Shale Gas Well Development ..................................................................... 4

3.3.1 Well Pad Construction .................................................................... 4

3.3.2 Drilling............................................................................................ 4

3.3.3 Hydraulic Fracturing....................................................................... 5

3.4 Wastewater Management............................................................................ 6

3.5 Solid Waste Management ........................................................................... 8

4.0 CITRUS SITES VISITED ............................................................................................. 8

4.1 P&G Source Water Withdrawal Site .......................................................... 9

4.2 Freshwater Impoundment ......................................................................... 10

4.3 Mattocks Well Site (Shut in)..................................................................... 11

4.4 Ruark Well Site (Production).................................................................... 12

APPENDIX A LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ON THE CITRUS SITE VISIT.............................................. 17

APPENDIX B MAP OF SITES VISITED ........................................................................................... 19

APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF COSTS PROVIDED BY CITRUS ......................................................... 21
ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 3-1. Citrus Active Shale Wells in Northern Pennsylvania ...................................................3

Figure 4-1. Proctor and Gamble Source Water Withdrawal Site Flow Diagram ............................9

Figure 4-2. Main Source Water Pump Housing.............................................................................10

Figure 4-3. Freshwater Impoundment............................................................................................11

Figure 4-4. Mattocks Well Pad ......................................................................................................12

Figure 4-5. Mattocks Fracturing Tanks .........................................................................................12

Figure 4-6. Production Separators .................................................................................................12

Figure 4-7. Production Site Flow Diagram....................................................................................13

Figure 4-8. Wellheads of Ruarck (left) and Sand Traps (right).....................................................14

Figure 4-9. Line Heater (left) and Gas-fueled Water Gas Separators (right) ................................14

Figure 4-10. Solar-Powered Well Monitors...................................................................................15

Figure 4-11. Produced Water Storage Tanks.................................................................................15

Figure A-1. Overview of Sites Visited in ArcGIS.........................................................................20
iii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 3-1. Shale Gas Wastewater Management Practices in Pennsylvania ....................................6

Table 3-2. Citrus Wastewater Management Costs...........................................................................7

Table 3-3. Citrus Solid Waste Management Costs..........................................................................8

Table 4-1. Ruark 1H Production Data ..........................................................................................16

Table 4-2. Ruark 2H Production Data ...........................................................................................16

Table A-1. List of Attendees..........................................................................................................18

Table A-2. Summary of Costs Provided by Citrus........................................................................22
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On June 19, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) met with Citrus

Energy Corporation (Citrus) and visited four sites in the Marcellus Shale Play in northern 

Pennsylvania. These sites included:

 Mattocks Well Site (shut in during fracturing)

 Ruark Well Site (production)

 Proctor & Gamble source water withdrawal site

 Freshwater impoundment

Meeting participants are listed below. Contact information is included in Appendix A.

U.S. EPA Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology Engineering and Analysis 

Division

Lisa Biddle

Erik Helm

Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) (EPA Contractor)

Meghan Camp

Casey MacQueen

Citrus Energy Corporation

Rick Fields

Entech Engineering, Inc. (Entech) (Citrus Contractor)

Heather Burkhart

2.0 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The Citrus Marcellus Shale site visit was the second in a series of site visits that the EPA 

plans for this industry. During the visits, the EPA planned to view a range of shale gas operations 

that demonstrate a variety of production and wastewater management options, including reuse, 

underground injection, centralized waste treatment (CWT), and publicly owned treatment works

(POTW).

The purpose of the site visit was to collect background information on the shale gas 

industry and observe wastewater management practices. To initiate site visits, the EPA reviewed

information about Marcellus shale gas producers and their wastewater management practices.

During this review, the EPA identified Citrus as a small producer in terms of number of wells 

and gas production, active in the Marcellus Shale Play.

Rick Fields, Citrus’s drilling and completions manager, led the discussion of the 

company’s Marcellus operations and the site tour. Heather Burkhart of Entech, contractor to 

Citrus, provided input on relevant national and state environmental requirements during the 

discussion. The remainder of this report summarizes the site visit, including a general discussion 
2

held with Citrus prior to going into the field (Section 3.0) and information provided by Citrus

during the tour (Section 4.0).

3.0 OVERVIEW OF SHALE GAS PRODUCTION

Prior to a tour of operations near Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania, the EPA and Citrus

discussed general shale gas operations. At this time, Citrus provided an overview of shale gas 

extraction. Topics discussed include:

 Company background

 Permitting

 Shale gas well development (well pad construction, drilling, and fracturing)

 Wastewater management

3.1 Company Background

Citrus is a closely held private corporation with two owners. Prior to drilling in the 

Marcellus region, Citrus was active in the Anadarko basin in Oklahoma and Barnett Shale in 

Texas. In 2010, Citrus moved all of its assets to Pennsylvania to focus on Marcellus shale gas 

and is no longer active in Oklahoma or Texas. They have acquired 26,500 acres in Wyoming 

county in northern Penneylsvania. According to Citrus’s website, the company plans on drilling 

and fracturing 20 wells during 2011 and 2012.1

Figure 3-1 shows Citrus’ active Marcellus wells in northern Pennsylvania using the 

EPA’s GeoPlatform mapping tool and coordinates from Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection’s (PA DEP) database. Currently, Citrus operates 14 producing wells 

and is waiting to complete hydraulic fracturing of seven drilled wells. 

 

1

Information from Citrus’s website was accessed July 2, 2012. Available online at: 

http://www.citrusenergy.com/regions.htm
3

Source: EPA’s GeoPlatform mapping tool.

Figure 3-1. Citrus Active Shale Wells in Northern Pennsylvania

3.2 Permitting

Citrus provided general information on the well pad design and permitting process for an 

existing lease. Before construction or excavation may begin, PA DEP requires operators to 

obtain a drilling permit. Issuance of a drilling permit requires operators to:

 Conduct baseline groundwater quality testing

 Prepare and obtain approval of an Erosion, Sediment and Stormwater Control 

Plan (E&S Permit)

 Prepare and obtain approval of a Water Management Plan 

Baseline groundwater quality testing documents the presence of water contaminants such 

as methane in existing wells within a 3,000-foot radius of a planned wellbore. PA DEP requires 

sampling of a list of select analytes.

The Erosion, Sediment and Stormwater Control Plan documents the presence of 

wetlands, existing structures (e.g., power lines), and endangered species (e.g., rattlesnakes) in 

proximity of the planned well site. 

The Water Management Plan documents planned source water withdrawal methods. This 

plan is reviewed for approval by either the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) or 

Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), depending on the planned withdrawal location.
4

Citrus withdraws water from the Susquehanna River, and is therefore within the SRBC’s 

jurisdiction. 

3.3 Shale Gas Well Development

The following subsections summarize general information Citrus provided on shale gas 

well development. Citrus estimated the total cost to construct a well pad and associated pipeline 

and water infrastructure, drill a horizontal well, and complete using hydraulic fracturing is 

approximately $7.6 million. A typical well of this type would have an 8,000-foot depth, 4,000-

foot lateral, and 16 fracturing stages. Citrus is unsure of the expected production lifetime of each 

Marcellus well. 

3.3.1 Well Pad Construction

Citrus contracts well pad design to Entech, headquartered in Reading, Pennsylvania. 

Construction of a well pad takes place over three to four weeks and costs between $400,000 and 

$600,000. Construction costs include excavation, access roads, well pad containment, and 

permits. Entech typically designs each Citrus well pad to accommodate two to four horizontal 

wells on approximately two acres. The default minimum well pad size is 300 by 300 feet for one

well. For each additional well, 15 feet is added to both dimensions, and wells are spaced 12 to 15 

feet apart. 

Stormwater management practices are dictated by the approved E&S Permit. Citrus 

typically uses a vacuum truck to collect any precipitation captured in secondary containment on 

the well pad; collected fluid is added to fracturing makeup water. Secondary containment is 

constructed of 40-mil high density polyethylene liner and is left in place until all wells on the

well pad are in the production phase and no future wells are planned. Citrus routes all stormwater 

runoff away from the well pad and does not attempt to collect any for use. If spills occur within 

secondary containment, they may be collected via vacuum truck for treatment separately from 

precipitation.

From mid-2010 through the second quarter of 2011, Citrus used open pits for 

containment of drill cuttings and flowback, and reused the pits for fracturing makeup water 

storage. However, PA DEP later determined that this type of impoundment is considered a 

central impoundment which would require special permitting, and Citrus ceased its use of this 

type of storage.

3.3.2 Drilling

Constructing and drilling one well in the northern Marcellus requires 14 to 21 days on 

average. Citrus historically has contracted with Patterson Drilling to perform drilling. The 

average well in this region is drilled 8,000 feet deep, with horizontal laterals up to approximately 

6,000 feet long. Citrus currently plans to drill a 6,500 foot lateral on one future well. Citrus

estimated the cost to drill a single horizontal well is approximately $2.4 million. 
5

3.3.3 Hydraulic Fracturing

Citrus contracts hydraulic fracturing to a third-party service provider. Previously, Citrus 

contracted a company from Texas, but recently has contracted Universal Well Services of 

Meadville, Pennsylvania to perform fracturing. The cost for Citrus to fracture a single horizontal 

well is $4.8 million. Each Citrus well is fractured in stages of 250 to 300 lateral feet. The total 

lateral length is usually dictated by lease lines. Relatively short laterals comprise 8 to 10 stages, 

while longer laterals comprise 20 to 25 stages. Fracturing each stage requires 9 to 10 thousand 

barrels of water (378,000 to 470,000 gallons); for a horizontal well with 10 stages, this equates to 

approximately 3.8 to 4.2 million gallons of water. Typically, Citrus fractures between one and 

four stages per day, and does not operate 24 hours a day like some larger operators. The last full 

set of wells Citrus fractured included 50 stages for three wells and required 17 working days to 

complete. 

Although Citrus contracts hydraulic fracturing operations to a third party, Citrus provides 

the fracturing makeup water. Prior to fracturing, Citrus pipes freshwater directly from a storage

impoundment to fracturing tanks at the well pad (see section 4.2 for more information on the 

freshwater impoundment). Flowback or produced water from previously fractured wells, also 

stored in fracturing tanks, is hauled to the well pad prior to fracturing. Fracturing makeup water 

comprises up to 10 percent reuse water (all reuse water that is available) and the remainder 

freshwater. Fracturing tanks are rented at $40 to $50 dollars per tank per day. Each tank is 

capable of holding 500 barrels (21,000 gallons). 

Fracturing tanks located on the well pad and used for makeup water storage are 

connected via piping headers; one header connects approximately 15 tanks (see Section 4.3 for a 

site-specific photograph). During fracturing, makeup water is pumped through piping headers 

into a set of five “working tanks” which are connected to piping routed down the wellbore. 

Because the total volume of fracturing fluid required per well is greater than the combined 

capacity of well pad fracturing tanks, Citrus must replenish the fresh water in the storage 

impoundment during the fracturing process (see section 4.1 for more detail on freshwater 

withdrawal).

The fracturing company determines the mixture and concentrations of fracturing fluid 

chemicals and supplies the required chemicals. The chemical mix is dictated by formation

chemistry and geology, but usually includes biocides, friction reducers, and gels. Sand is fed by a 

belt into a hopper which controls the sand addition rate. Additives and sand are combined with 

fracturing makeup water in an in-line blender. Twelve pump trucks operating in parallel 

pressurize the fracturing fluid to 8,000 to 9,000 psi into a main header. From the main header, 

the fluid is pumped down the well at a rate of 80 barrels per minute. Fracturing is conducted in 

stages beginning at the end of the lateral and progressing toward the vertical wellbore, with plugs 

insert between each stage.

After fracturing, the plugs separating each fracture stage are drilled through, releasing 

pressure at the wellhead and allowing flowback to begin. Citrus routes flowback through test 

separators which separate the water and gas phases to identify when the wells are producing gas 

(see section 4.3 for a site-specific photograph). Initially, the flowback is composed of nearly 100 

percent water. As the flowback phase progresses, the stream becomes increasingly rich in gas 

content. Significant gas production may occur in as little as two days, but typically begins a week 
6

after flowback begins. When the gas pressure increases enough to trigger a pressure relief valve

in the test separators, the gas stream is routed to a flare for combustion or piped to a sales line if 

available. Flaring is only employed when production infrastructure (e.g., gas pipeline, 

dehydrators, separators) has not been installed before the operator releases the wellhead 

pressure.2 To date, Citrus has employed flaring for 3 of its 14 northern Marcellus wells. 

Citrus estimated that for horizontal wells in the northern Marcellus region, before the 

well starts gassing, approximately eight percent of the total volume of injected fracturing fluid 

returns to the surface as flowback. The flowback wastewater is routed from the test separator into 

fracturing tanks. Citrus is allowed to store flowback in fracturing tanks for up to 12 months 

under current PA DEP regulations. 

3.4 Wastewater Management

Following the flowback period, each well produces approximately two to three barrels of 

water per day, according to Citrus. As described in Section 4.4 regarding one of Citrus’s 

producing well sites that EPA visited, each produced water tank has a 300-barrel (12,600 gallon) 

capacity. Under these conditions, a water truck must empty the tanks every two to four months.

According to the PA DEP’s oil and gas reporting data, Citrus managed 100 percent of its 

wastewater through reuse in 2011, compared to 35 percent statewide (PA DEP, 2012). Table 3-1

provides an overview of statewide management practices.

Table 3-1. Shale Gas Wastewater Management Practices in Pennsylvania

Management 

Practice

Citrus

All Other PA Marcellus 

Operators

Percentage 

(%) Volume (bbl)

a

Percentage 

(%) Volume (bbl)

a

Direct Reuse 100 24,911 35 11,161,367

Underground Injection 0 0 7 2,252,615

Centralized Waste 

Treatment (CWT) 0 0

56 17,630,923

Publicly Owned 

Treatment Works 

(POTW)

0 0

< 1 47,629

Other (unknown) 0 0 1 397,318

Landfill 0 0 <1 33,216

Total 100 24,911 100 31,523,069

a—Wastewater volumes include produced water, flowback, and drilling fluids.

Source: PA DEP’s Oil and Gas Reporting Database.

bbl—Barrels. 

For 2012, Citrus plans to continue reusing all flowback and produced water. At present, 

Citrus tests for salinity and total dissolved solids (TDS) content of wastewater. To use flowback 

for blending with fresh water for reuse as fracturing fluid makeup, Citrus typically adheres to a 

flowback TDS limit of no higher than 80,000 ppm; typical TDS content is 50,000 to 60,000 ppm. 

 

2 The National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants require reduced emission completion (based on 

gas recovery) for certain sources constructed after January 15, 2015. 
7

After blending, typical TDS content is less than 20,000 ppm. According to Citrus, the northern 

Marcellus shale formation is not particularly sensitive, and the fracturing contractor likely 

conducts minimal, if any, testing of reused makeup water. However, Citrus noted that the PA 

DEP recently requested information about the concentration of certain constituents (completion

of Form 26-R, “Chemical Analysis of Residual Waste – Annual Report Form by the Generator”

3

) in flowback wastewater that is disposed. The instructions for the Form 26-R require operators 

to submit test results for 51 analytes. Citrus typically completes Form 26-R annually for each 

waste stream.

Prior to 2011, Citrus hauled a portion of their wastewater to Ohio for underground 

injection and to Pennsylvania centralized waste treatment facilities (CWTs) for disposal. After 

the PA DEP promulgated new discharge requirements in August 2010, Citrus stopped 

discharging wastewater to CWTs. Table 3-2 provides a summary of Citrus’s wastewater 

management costs, including costs for CWTs that Citrus no longer uses. 

Table 3-2. Citrus Wastewater Management Costs

Management Option

Wastewater Management Costs (Dollars per 

bbl, unless otherwise noted)

Disposal Cost Notes

Trucking 

Cost Total Cost

Direct reuse in 

fracturing None 2.00 4.00-10.00

Total wastewater storage cost

depends on duration of storage time

(see fracturing tank rental cost in 

Section 3.3.3).

Underground injection 

well in Ohio 3.00-4.00 10.00-12.00 13.00-16.00

Sunbury Generation 

Facility (CWT in 

Pennsylvania)a

Not Available 6.00-7.00 Not Available

Citrus Energy states that they did 

not have enough volume of 

flowback water to constitute 

business with Sunbury, though the 

time period referred to is unclear.

Clean Harbors (CWT

in Baltimore, 

Maryland)

3.00-4.00 15.00-18.00 18.00-22.00

Trucking costs include the 

following: Storage tanks from 

Clean Harbors, transfer from 

storage tanks for disposal vehicles.

Terraqua Resource 

Management (CWT in 

Pennsylvania) a

Not Available 6.00-9.00 Not Available

Fracturing tank rental N/A N/A

40 to 50 

dollars per 

day per tank

a—Total cost is unknown for these facilities because a quote for disposal cost was not currently available, according 

to Citrus.

bbl—Barrels.

N/A—Not applicable.

 

3

Form 26-R is available online at: http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document80512/01%20Instructions%202540-PM-BWM0347.pdf. Chemical analysis requirements are located on Page 3 of 

the form. 
8

3.5 Solid Waste Management

Solid waste generated during well development includes drill cuttings and sediment that 

settles out of stored wastewater. Drill cuttings are removed from oil-based reusable drilling fluid 

using a shaker screen, drying shaker, and desilters/desanders. All drilling fluid is returned to the 

drilling service provider. To solidify cuttings for handling purposes, Citrus mixes the cuttings

with woodchips, saw dust, or lime. Solid waste is hauled to a Pennsylvania landfill or transported 

via rail to an Ohio landfill. Citrus stated that it is easier and more affordable to dispose of solid 

waste in Ohio landfills rather than obtaining approval to dispose in Pennsylvania landfills.

Currently, Citrus only hauls solid waste to Ohio landfills. Once previously, due to time 

constraints, Citrus contracted to dispose of solid waste in a landfill in New York. Table 3-3

summarizes Citrus solid waste management costs.

Table 3-3. Citrus Solid Waste Management Costs

Management Option

Solid Waste Management Costs (Dollars per 

ton, unless otherwise noted)

Disposal Cost Notes

Trucking or 

Rail Cost Total Cost

Clean Earth of 

Carteret Landfill

(Pennsylvania)

200-210 100 300-310

Cuttings are trucked to disposal 

facility, 24 tons per load.

Tunnell Hill 

Reclamation Landfill

(Ohio)

100 75 175

Cuttings are railed to disposal 

facility, 110 tons per car.

Keystone Sanitary 

Landfill

(Pennsylvania)

175-200 100 275-300

Cuttings are trucked to disposal 

facility, 24 tons per load.

N/A—Not applicable.

Citrus discussed recent state regulatory requirements related to solid waste generation 

and disposal. The disposal facility dictates analytical parameters required for solid waste 

disposal. According to Citrus, landfills typically require the analytical parameters listed in PA 

DEP Form U.4For disposal of drill cuttings, landfills typically require sampling for lime, pH, 

heavy metals, and toxics content. 

4.0 CITRUS SITES VISITED

This section describes the three sites that the EPA visited during the June 19 tour. The list 

below includes the sites visited in the order of the well development process.

 Proctor & Gamble source water withdrawal site

 Freshwater impoundment

 Mattocks Well Site (shut in)

 Ruark Well Site (production)

 

4

Form U is available online at: http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document80512/01%20Instructions%202540-PM-BWM0347.pdf. Chemical analysis requirements are located on Page 5 of 

the form. 
9

4.1 P&G Source Water Withdrawal Site

Citrus currently operates a source water withdrawal site located on the property of The 

Proctor and Gamble Company (P&G) in Washington Township, from which it withdraws water 

from the North Branch of the Susquehanna River. A large diesel pump, located just onshore, 

pumps the fresh water via underground piping directly to the freshwater impoundment located 

approximately 0.7 miles from the withdrawal site. Figure 4-1 shows the flow diagram of water 

from the Susquehanna River to freshwater impoundment. A flow meter, located just downstream 

of the pump, measures the volume of water withdrawn from the river.

Figure 4-1. Proctor and Gamble Source Water Withdrawal Site Flow Diagram

The SRBC issued a permit to Citrus for this site in December 2008 which expires in 

December 2012.5 Citrus’s permit allows a maximum withdrawal of 1.944 million gallons per day 

at a maximum flow rate of 1.385 gallons per minute. Figure 4-2 shows the diesel pump. Citrus 

explained that the pump is designed to never exceed the SRBC limit, even if the pump were to

run at its highest flow rate for a full day. The pump intake is six to eight feet underwater and 

equipped with a self-cleaning suction intake screen. 

 

5

SRBC docket 20081205-1. Available online at: http://www.srbc.net/wrp/ApprovedSourceList.aspx and 

http://www.srbc.net/wrp/Details.aspx?ID=5055&num=2008-113
10

Figure 4-2. Main Source Water Pump Housing 

4.2 Freshwater Impoundment 

Figure 4-3 shows the freshwater impoundment that the EPA visited during the site tour.

Citrus routes all fresh water directly from the Susquehanna River withdrawal site to this fresh 

water impoundment via underground piping. From the impoundment, which is located from 500 

feet up to 8 miles from a typical well site, all fresh water is piped directly to the well pad for 

fracturing, eliminating all freshwater trucking. Citrus negotiated with P&G on the impoundment 

location, and eventually constructed it approximately 0.7 miles from the withdrawal site. This 

impoundment is lined with 60-mil high density polyethylene liner and has a capacity of 4.1

million gallons.

6,7 At a given time, the impoundment is typically filled to the 12-foot depth 

(Figure 4-3 shows a depth scale up to 14 feet, and a current depth level of 8 feet); the water 

volume at this typical depth does not typically provide enough fresh water to hydraulically 

fracture one well. During a fracturing job, Citrus simultaneously replenishes the impoundment 

with freshwater as water is pumped from the impoundment for fracturing (a typical fracturing job 

requires approximately 3.8 to 4.2 million gallons, as discussed in Section 3.3.3). 

 

6 Citrus reported this number as 98,000 barrels.

7 One mil is equal to 0.001 inches.
11

Figure 4-3. Freshwater Impoundment

4.3 Mattocks Well Site (Shut in)

The Mattocks well pad, located at Latitude N 41.576114o, Longitude W -75.999761o, 

includes four Citrus wells that were drilled but not fractured. Citrus explained that one of the 

wells was partially fractured (6 stages) in an effort to dispose of excess flowback. Citrus had 

fractured a 3-well pad in February 2012 and needed to dispose of some of the flowback due to 

storage limitations. Therefore, Citrus fractured the first six stages of one of the Mattocks wells in 

March 2012. After fracturing, Citrus collected flowback into a fracturing tank onsite and shut in 

the well. Citrus plans to finish fracturing this well and the other three wells on the Mattocks pad 

in September 2012. The main factors driving this schedule include pipeline availability, 

fracturing crew availability, and projected decline of existing producing wells. Recently, the low 

cost of gas has also caused Citrus to delay fracturing wells.

Figure 4-4 shows the four wellheads on the Mattocks well pad. The well with the tallest 

wellhead is the one that has been partially fractured. Figure 4-5 shows the fracturing tanks 

containing flowback wastewater from other well pads, connected by piping headers. Citrus 

currently stores all of their fracturing tanks at the Mattocks well pad in anticipation additional 

fracturing. Citrus pointed out that the different color tanks reflect different companies that own 

the tanks. Figure 4-6 shows the test separators that separate water and gas during flowback. 

Depth scale
12

Figure 4-4. Mattocks Well Pad

Figure 4-5. Mattocks Fracturing Tanks

Figure 4-6. Production Separators

4.4 Ruark Well Site (Production)

The Ruark well pad, located at Latitude N 41.583364o, Longitude W -76.019791o, 

includes two producing wells. Both wells have been producing for approximately one year. 

According to PA DEP data, production began in June 2011 (see Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 at the 
13

end of this section for well-specific gas and water production data). After the first couple of 

wells are drilled on a pad, Citrus performs basic cleanup of site; no reclamation is conducted 

until all wells are drilled (there is a DEP requirement to conduct reclamation within six months 

of the last well being drilled). At this time, Citrus thinks that future refracturing is likely and thus 

designs the well pad to accommodate this activity. Refracturing is popular in the Barnett shale 

play in Texas, but has not commonly been used in the Marcellus. 

Figure 4-7 provides a flow diagram of the production site. The mixture of produced water 

and gas enters adjacent sand traps. Citrus collects all sand in a small tank and periodically hauls

it to a landfill along with drill cuttings. The gas and water flow underground from both traps

through a line heater and into the gas/water separators. Produced water flows from the separators 

directly to the produced water storage tanks. Gas exits the separators and flows past a metering

station that measures gas flow eventually to the Tennessee Pipeline. The produced water storage 

tanks and the gas/water separators are located within secondary containment structures visible in 

Figure 4-9 and Figure 4-11.

Figure 4-7. Production Site Flow Diagram

Well 

1H

Water/gas 

separators

(2)

Well 

2H

Produced water 

storage tanks

Gas to sales 

line

Produced 

water

Gas

Produced 

water and gas

Produced 

water and gas

Sand storage tank

Sand 

traps

Sand

Well 

Meters

Line 

heater
14

Figure 4-8 shows the two Ruark wellheads on the left and two sand traps on the right.

The sand traps are typically used during flowback and early production to remove proppant from 

the produced fluid. When the sand traps are no longer needed, the system includes piping that 

allows the produced water to bypass the sand traps. The sand traps can be removed and used at a 

different location. Citrus encloses all producing wells and other equipment (e.g., separators,

storage tanks) inside a barbed-wired fence as shown in Figure 4-8. Figure 4-9 shows the water 

gas separators. Figure 4-10 shows solar-powered well monitors that calculate volumetric gas 

flow using measurements of differential pressure across the meter and temperature.

Figure 4-8. Wellheads of Ruarck (left) and Sand Traps (right)

Figure 4-9. Line Heater (left) and Gas-fueled Water Gas Separators (right)
15

Figure 4-10. Solar-Powered Well Monitors

Figure 4-11 shows the two produced water storage tanks equipped with vents to the 

atmosphere. Each produced water tank has a 300-barrel (12,600 gallon) capacity. According to 

Citrus, each well produces approximately two to three barrels of water per day. Water level in 

the tanks is monitored by visual inspection. Each time a tank is approximately 75 percent full, a

water truck collects water from all tanks located on close well pads (within approximately a fourto five-mile radius). Water trucks have a capacity of either 100 barrels or 120 to 130 barrels. 

Pennsylvania requires 20 percent freeboard (i.e., the volume of water in the truck takes up no 

more than 80 percent of available capacity). Citrus hauls this wastewater to fracturing tanks at a 

nearby well pad for storage until it can be reused. 

Figure 4-11. Produced Water Storage Tanks
16

Table 4-1and Table 4-2 provide production data for Ruark wells 1H and 2H, downloaded 

from PA DEP. Wells 1H and 2H have produced 2.3 and 0.9 billion cubic feet, respectively, since 

the beginning of production in June 2011 through the end of 2011. The Citrus tour guide

suggested that these wells are average in terms of gas production compared to other wells in the 

area.

Table 4-1. Ruark 1H Production Data

Time

Gas

Production 

Days

Gas

Production 

(Mcf)

Gas

Production 

(Mcf/day)

Wastewater 

(bbl)

2010 (1st half) -- -- --

704

2010 (2nd half) -- -- --

2011 (1st half) 20 305,648 15,282

611

2011 (2nd half) 142 2,042,335 14,383

Totals 162 2,347,983 14,494a1,315

Source: PA DEP’s Oil and Gas Reporting database.

a—Two-year average production rate.

Mcf—Million cubic feet.

bbl—Barrels.

Table 4-2. Ruark 2H Production Data

Time

Production 

Days

Gas 

Production 

(Mcf)

Gas 

Production 

(Mcf/day)

Wastewater 

(bbl)

2010 (1st half) -- -- --

704

2010 (2nd half) -- -- --

2011 (1st half) 6 29,579 4,930

212

2011 (2nd half) 109 881,758 8,090

Totals 115 911,337 7,925 a916

Source: PA DEP’s Oil and Gas Reporting database.

a—Two-year average production rate.

Mcf—Million cubic feet.

Bbl—Barrels.
17

APPENDIX A

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ON THE CITRUS SITE VISIT
18

Table A-1. List of Attendees

First Name Organization Phone Number Email

Lisa Biddle U.S. EPA, SGE Engineer (202) 566-0350 Biddle.Lisa@epa.gov

Erik Helm U.S. EPA, SGE Economist (202) 566-1049 Helm.Erik@epa.gov

Rick Fields Citrus Energy Corp., 

Drilling & Completions

Manager

(540) 836-7491 Rick@citrusenergy.com

Heather Burkhart Entech Engineering, Inc.,

Environmental Specialist

(610) 373-6667 Hburkhart@entecheng.com

Meghan Camp ERG, Senior Chemical 

Engineer

(703) 633-1684 Meghan.Camp@erg.com

Casey MacQueen ERG, Chemical Engineer (703) 633-1686 Casey.Macqueen@erg.com 
19

APPENDIX B

MAP OF SITES VISITED
20

Source: Generated by ArcGIS using base map information from Bing MapsTM.

Figure A-1. Overview of Sites Visited in ArcGIS

1. Mattocks well site

4. Freshwater intake

3. Freshwater impoundment

2. Ruark well site

Susquehanna 

River
21

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY OF COSTS PROVIDED BY CITRUS
22

Table A-2. Summary of Costs Provided by Citrus

Process Cost Notes

Well Construction and Development

Well pad construction $400,000 to $600,000 Includes excavation, access roads, 

well pad containment, and permits.

Drilling (one horizontal well) $2.4 million Cost to drill a horizontal well ready 

for fracturing.

Hydraulic fracturing (one 

horizontal well) $4.8 million Cost to hydraulically fracture a horizontal well.

Total cost (one horizontal 

well) $7.6 million Total cost of excavation, drilling, and fracturing.

Wastewater Management

Direct reuse in fracturing $4.00 to $10.00 per bbl Since 2011 all flowback and 

produced water has been reused.

Underground injection well 

in Ohio $13.00 to $16.00 per bbl

Total cost for disposal and 

transportation.

Sunbury Generation Facility 

(CWT in Pennsylvania)

Not available Quote not available.

Clean Harbors (CWT) $18.00 to $22.00 per bbl Total cost for disposal and 

transportation.

Terraqua Resource 

Management (CWT in 

Pennsylvania)

Not available Quote not available.

Freshwater Acquisition and Storage

Fresh Water $0.21 per 1,000 gallons plus 

permitting fees

Cost for freshwater acquisition to 

SRBC.

Other General Costs

Flowback storage tanks $40,000 Cost to buy one 500 barrel tank.

Flowback storage tanks $40 to 50 per day Cost to rent one 500 barrel tank per 

day.

Trucking $110 per hour

Cost per hour. Each truck holds 100 

to 130 bbl of fresh water or 

wastewater.