MEMORANDUM

TO: Lisa Biddle, US EPA/OW/EAD

Brian D’Amico, US EPA/OW/EAD

FROM: Meghan Camp, ERG

DATE: 24 April 2012

SUBJECT: 2012 Shale Gas Water Management Conference Notes

On March 28 and 29, ERG attended the Shale Gas Water Management: Marcellus

Initiative 2012 in Canonsburg, PA. This memorandum summarizes information presented at the 

conference on the following topics:

 Section 1 describes and compares factors driving decisions to reuse wastewater for 

different shale plays across the U.S.;

 Section 2 describes Marcellus wastewater management practices and trends;

 Section 3 describes wastewater treatment options;

 Section 4 describes water transportation and storage options;

 Section 5 describes fracturing fluid additives and additive alternatives;

 Section 6 describes a Marcellus beneficial reuse case study; and

 Section 7 describes an Eagle Ford CWT case study.

Attachment 1 provides additional information on electro coagulation and forward osmosis 

treatment technologies. Table 1 lists the presentations that ERG referenced in this summary. All 

presentations are available online1and were provided to EPA in a 09 April 2012 memorandum.

 

1

http://www.shale-gas-water-management-2012.com/14/presentation-materials/79/presentation-materials/
Memorandum

24 April 2012

Page 2 of 16

Table 1. Marcellus Initiative 2012 Presentations Referenced in Summary

Reference Presentation File Name Presenter Name and Affiliation Presentation Title

Chesapeake – McCurdy, 2012 10-rick-mccurdy-keynotechesapeakeRick McCurdy, Chesapeake Energy The What, Why, Which and How of Water 

Reclamation in the Marcellus Shale

Talisman – Webb, 2012 17-christie-webb Christie Webb, Talisman Energy USA, 

Inc.

Marcellus Water Beneficial Reuse Strategy

Hach – Tucker, 2012 18-scott-tucker-hach Scott Tucker, Hach Company On-site Field Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing 

Flowback and Produced Waters

GE – Tinto, 2012 19-joe-tinto-ge-power-and-water Joe Tinto, GE Water & Power Flowback and Produced Water Treatment 

Overview: Thermal Solutions for Shale Gas 

Wastewaters

Worley Parsons – Ritts, 2012 20-dean-ritts-worleyparsons Dean Ritts, Worley Parsons Resources & 

Energy

Re-use: Treatment Technologies

Talisman – Minnich, 2012 22-keith-minnich-talisman Keith Minnich, Talisman Energy, Inc. Project to Develop Flowback Water Reuse 

Guidelines for Hydraulic Fracturing 

Operations

Chesapeake – McCurdy, 2012a 23-rick-mccurdy-chesapeakeenergyRick McCurdy, Chesapeake Energy Chemical Additives and GreenFracTM Overview

Anadarko – Peloquin, 2012 24-matthew-peloquin-anadarko Matthew Peloquin, Anadarko Petroleum 

Corporation

Trucking, Piping: a Comprehensive Approach 

to Water Transportation

Range – Burket, 2012 31-bill-burket-range-resources Bill Burket, Range Resources Minimizing Risk with Water Storage and 

Transportation

PADEP – Kilne, 2012 32-jim-kline-dep Jim Kline, PA DEP Examining the Regulations and Restrictions Set 

by the DEP to Determine the Operational 

Feasibility of Disposal

PennState – Yoxtheimer, 2012 33-david-yoxtheimer-penn-statemarcellus-center-for-outreach-andresearchDave Yoxtheimer, The Pennsylvania State 

University

Flowback Management Trends and Strategies
Memorandum

24 April 2012

Page 3 of 16

1. KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR WATER MANAGEMENT

 Decision drivers for water management (GE - Tinto, 2012; Worley Parsons - Ritts, 2012):

o Availability of freshwater: typically a western issue

o Quality of flowback water

o Proximity/availability of treatment or disposal wells/sites: Big issue for Marcellus wells 

as out-of-state disposal options become more costly

o Environmental sensitivity of the region

Figure 1. Water Management Considerations by Basin

Source (GE - Tinto, 2012)
Memorandum

24 April 2012

Page 4 of 16

2. MARCELLUS WATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND TRENDS 

 Offsite Treatment and Disposal:

o Discharge to POTW – was not discussed much at the conference, except to mention that 

the practice is frowned upon

o Discharge to CWT 

 7 facilities in PA treat brine for removal of scaling agents; 

 2 facilities in PA desalinate wastewater:

 Approximately 30 facilities in PA are in various stages of the permitting process

 In 2011, there was more field recycling than centralized treatment in PA

Table 2. Pennsylvania CWTs

Facility name County Technology Capacity 

(gpd)

Facilities treating for scaling agents*

TerrAqua Resource Mgt 

LLC

Lycoming Chem precip 400,000

Hydro Recovery LP Tioga Chem precip 300,000

Waste Management Inc. Lycoming Chem precip 576,000

EOG Resources Inc. Clearfield Blending 3,150,000

Chesapeake Energy Bradford Chem precip 940,000

Reserved Env Services Westmoreland Chem precip 1,300,000

Somerset Regional Water 

Resources

Wyoming Chem precip 250,000

Desalination facilities**

Eureka Resources Lycoming Chem precip and 

Evap/Dist

820,000

Clean Streams LLC Lycoming Chem precip and 

Evap/Dist

105,000

Source: (PADEP – Kline, 2012)

*Facilities that only treat to remove scaling agents treat wastewater for recycle – not 

discharge.

**Thermal treatment facilities are designed to meet the PA discharge standards (500 

mg/L TDS, 250 mg/L Chlorides, 10 mg/L Strontium, and 10 mg/L Barium) – from 

PA Chapter 95 adopted August 2010. (Penn State - Yoxheimer, 2012)

o Underground Injection 

 Number of wells that accepted SGE wastewater from PA in 2011: Ohio – 45, PA 

– 5, WV – 8. (Penn State - Yoxtheimer, 2012)

 Several presenters stated that there are only 7 or 8 underground injection wells in 

PA that are suitable for SGE wastewater:

 PA injection capacity ~5,000 bpd

 Difficult to find suitable target injection reservoirs in PA

 2 UICs were recently approved in Warren County (EPA has primacy for 

UIC permits in PA) (Penn State - Yoxtheimer, 2012)

 Transportation considerations for reinjection (Chesapeake - McCurdy, 2012)

 Need to transport wastewater to OH or WV for injection
Memorandum

24 April 2012

Page 5 of 16

 Estimate ~$14/bbl for injection costs (mostly due to transportation). 

Some operators claim costs are as high as $25/bbl, but Chesapeake uses 

the $14.00/bbl figure. (Chesapeake - McCurdy, 2012)

 Therefore a 1 mcf per day well that produces 215 bbl per day of 

produced water is not profitable if using injection for disposal (assumes 

$3.00/mcf gas and $14.00/bbl for injection) (Chesapeake - McCurdy, 

2012)

 Reuse

o In 2011 in PA, approximately 73% of produced water was recycled/reused and 27% was 

disposed (Penn State - Yoxheimer, 2012)

o When making decisions about reuse vs. disposal, transportation costs greatly outweigh 

any treatment costs associated with reuse or disposal (Anadarko - Peloquin, 2012). 

Treatment for reuse is estimated to be around $2.00/bbl compared to underground 

injection costs ($14.00/bbl - largely due to transportation) (Chesapeake - McCurdy, 2012)

o To achieve 100% reuse, need to understand water supply and demand (frac schedule):

Figure 2. Example Anadarko Multi-Year Water Forecast 

Source (Anadarko - Peloquin, 2012)

o Reuse Options:

 Direct reuse

 No treatment

 This is the current Talisman strategy for the Marcellus (see Section 6)

 Onsite treatment and reuse

 Offsite treatment and reuse

 Higher transportation costs

 Anadarko currently using 3rd party recycler, but wants to move to on-site 

treatment (Anadarko - Peloquin, 2012)
Memorandum

24 April 2012

Page 6 of 16

3. WASTEWATER TREATMENT OPTIONS

(Chesapeake - McCurdy, 2012)

 Treatment Technologies

o “Floc and Drop” filtration

 Used to remove TSS, hardness, Iron, Calcium, Magnesium, Barium, Strontium

 Treated water is suitable for road spreading or can be blended for reuse

o Electro-coagulation

 Used to remove TSS, hardness, microbials

o Evaporation/Distillation

 Produces distilled water that can be discharged via POTW or reused

 Distilled water quality could be overkill for reuse:

 Salt is not as big of a concern for reuse as industry originally thought.

 Hardness is more problematic than salt

 Chesapeake recently fracked an OK well using 100% treated produced 

water (~160,000 mg/L TDS). On-going pilot testing occurring in the 

Utica Shale.

 GE presented on mobile evaporation treatment unit (GE - Tinto, 2012)

 Horizontal shell and tube forced circulation evaporator, continuous 

operation

 Entire unit and ancillary equipment contained within the trailer

 Feed rate = 50 gpm

 Influent concentration range = 50,000 – 150,000 ppm TDS

 Effluent concentration not provided

 Promising Technologies

o “Old Thinking” (3 years ago) included large-scale desalinization plants and reverse 

osmosis

 Large scale treatment plants required large influent volumes, which meant lots of 

trucking. Therefore, does not address the transportation issues.

 RO not effective for high TDS wastewater.

o “Newer Thinking” Includes:

 Smaller scale evaporation/distillation (1,000 – 2,500 bbl/day) systems to produce 

distilled water for disposal via POTW or reuse

 Selective Ion removal (e.g., floc and drop, electro-coagulation) systems to 

produce clean brine for reuse

 Crystallization is still on the table as wells as Forward Osmosis, which may work 

around high TDS issues associated with RO.
Memorandum

24 April 2012

Page 7 of 16

4. WATER TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE OPTIONS

 Water Transportation (Anadarko - Peloquin, 2012)

o Trucking: Anadarko discussed need for establishing a dedicated logistics center for 

managing trucking logistics:

 They have up to 120 trucks on the road at any given time in Marcellus region

 Use separate trucks for handling freshwater and wastewater

 Dedicated water command center to ensure trucks are used as efficiently as 

possible. Trucking charges are by the hour.

 GPS Asset Tracking shows locations of all trucks, what they are hauling and how 

much, and truck’s destination

Figure 3. Example Anadarko GPS Asset Tracking

Source ( Peloquin, 2012)

o Pumping Solutions (Anadarko - Freshwater Only)

 Withdrawal Pipeline  Impoundment  Well Pads

 Reduces trucking dependency

 Can add freshwater pipeline infrastructure when you lay gas lines

 Bull Run Example (Pine Creek #1):

 7 Pads – 39 Wells

 1 20-MGal Impoundment

 2 4-MGal Storage Tanks

 Total Storage = 28 MGal

 Payout was less than 2 months

 Pumped >50 MGal since 4th Quarter 2011 - Eliminated >10,000 truck trips

 Fully automated control monitored remotely via satellite

 Remote Start/Stop

 Tank and impoundment level monitoring

 Water withdrawal tracking system tracks daily withdrawals and helps with 

SRBC reporting
Memorandum

24 April 2012

Page 8 of 16

 Water Storage (Anadarko – Peloquin, 2012)

o Freshwater storage options:

 Impoundments: 10, 15, 20 MGal

 Site planning: Study topography and shape to existing contour

 Operate year round: Include bubbler systems to discourage ice formation

 Level sensors

 Security fencing

 Above ground storage tanks (ASTs)

o Flowback storage options: Flowback is considered residual waste

 On-location storage tanks (Anadarko)

 Centralized impoundments or ASTs (WPX): Storage tanks need secondary 

containment

o Produced Water storage: ASTs with secondary containment

o Recycled water storage options:

 On-location in Frac Tanks (Anadarko): If flowback is reused, it is considered a fluid 

and handled as a fracturing fluid

 Centralized impoundments

 ASTs with secondary containment

 Note: If flowback is treated to freshwater standards, can be handled as freshwater 

(Kline, 2012)

o Storage Considerations (Range – Burket, 2012):

 Impoundments are good in terms of cost, but bad for risk management (easy to tear)

 Secondary containment needs to be set up to allow truck traffic in and out without 

compromising integrity of the containment

 PADEP requests notification of all spills – even if they occur within secondary 

containment area
Memorandum

24 April 2012

Page 9 of 16

5. FRACTURING FLUID ADDITIVES AND ALTERNATIVES

(Chesapeake - McCurdy, 2012a)

Chesapeake presented on chemical additives used in fracturing fluids and described their GreenFrac 

program.

Table 3. Typical Fracturing Fluid Additives

Additive Purpose Example

Typical Concentration in 

Fluid

Friction Reducer Polymers added to reduce energy 

needed to pump fracturing fluid

polyacrylamide 500 – 2000 ppm

0.05 – 0.2% of volume

Biocides Reduce or eliminate presence of 

bacteria.

Bacteria can prevent gels from 

functioning properly and can cause 

corrosion downhole and in surface 

equipment

Gluteraldehyde

Sodium hypochlorite

75 – 500 ppm

0.0075 – 0.05% of volume

KCl Substitute Prevents clay swelling TMAC

Choline chloride

500 ppm

0.05% of volume

Scale inhibitor Prevent mineral scale formation Polymers

Carboxillic acid

Acrylic acid

75 – 120 ppm

0.0075 – 0.02% of volume

Surfactants Reduce interfacial tension in the 

formation and enhance water recovery 

after fracturing.

Can improve oil recovery.

Thousands of possibilities 500 – 1000 ppm

0.05 – 0.1% of volume

Non-emulsifier Prevent oil/water emulsions Nonylphenols

Anionic more common 

than cationic

500 – 1000 ppm

0.05 – 0.1% of volume

Linear Gel Oil plays require heavier proppant. 

Therefore linear gels are needed to 

suspend the proppant.

Guar gum 1800 – 3000 ppm

0.18 – 0.3% of volume

Crosslinker Creates molecular binding of guar 

gum to increase viscosity of fluid

Sodium tetraborate 500 – 2000 ppm

0.05 – 0.2% of volume

Breaker Needed to break down the crosslinks 

to reduce viscosity for flow back

Oxidizers

Enzymes can provide 

more control to delay 

breaker activity

60 – 240 ppm

0.006 – 0.024% by volume

Acid Dissolves contaminants in casing and 

dissolves acid-soluble minerals in 

formation

HCl

Acid corrosion 

inhibitor

Reduce corrosion of steel from acid Formic acid 2,000 – 5,000 ppm of acid 

volume

Iron control Prevents formation of iron precipitates 

that can result from acid addition

Citric acid

Acetic acid

5,000 ppm of acid volume

 GreenFrac® program

o Initiated in 2009

 Reduce exposure risks to workers during hydraulic fracturing activities

 Reduce environmental impact of surface spills
Memorandum

24 April 2012

Page 10 of 16

o Evaluate chemical additives and identify chemicals to eliminate or replace

 Developed scorecard to evaluate additives, based on research of 

 U.S. regulations (e.g., CERCLA, CWA, SDWA, U.N. hazard 

classification)

 International regulations (e.g., OSPAE)

 NGO concerns (e.g., Endocrine Society)

 Initial evaluation included 14 chemicals used by Chesapeake as of 2009 and 4 

potential new additives

 None of the 14 chemical additives used as of 2009 were found to be 

acceptable

 3 of the 4 new additives met “green” definition

 Since 2009, have evaluated ~280 products

 Figure 4 compares the chemical additives historically used in each shale play, 

and Chesapeake’s evaluation and modifications of the additives as a result of the 

GreenFrac® program.
Memorandum

24 April 2012

Page 11 of 16

Historical Additives by Play

GreenFrac® Chemical Additives by Play

Figure 4. Historical and GreenFrac® Chemical Additives by Shale Play

Source (Chesapeake – McCurdy, 2012a)
Memorandum

24 April 2012

Page 12 of 16

6. MARCELLUS BENEFICIAL REUSE CASE STUDY 

(Talisman Energy - Webb, 2012, Minnich, 2012)

 Talisman’s Marcellus strategy is 100% reuse of flowback and produced water without any 

pretreatment. Their biggest concern for reuse was the formation of barium sulfate precipitates. 

Talisman determined that although precipitation occurred, the precipitates did not cause any 

problems for well completion. In addition, they determined that pretreatment was not effective for 

reducing barium sulfate formation because the precipitates were forming naturally downhole 

regardless of pretreatment. In 2011, Talisman achieved 98% reuse. Two percent of wastewater 

was disposed of due to unexpected production downtime.

 Factors affecting feasibility of reuse:

o Completions activity:

 Understand source generation rates – yearly water production forecast

 Understand rate of water consumption for well completions

 Need storage and alternate disposal practices for when supply exceeds demand, 

or if there are unexpected shortfalls on the demand side

 Note: if flowback or produced water is stored for a long time prior to reuse, it 

requires treatment to avoid bacteria growth

o Reuse water characteristics:

 Recommend sampling to track characteristics over time (salinity, scaling 

constituents, bacteria) – Collect samples on a time-basis or on a per volume basis

 Assess compatibility with fracturing fluid additives: Biggest concern, 

historically, is salinity affect on friction reducers. Friction reducers have been 

modified to handle higher salinity. Industry has successfully used source water 

with TDS concentrations exceeding 100,000 ppm.

 Test blending ratios with fresh water to observe tendency for scale formation at 

different ratios

o Fresh make-up water characteristics: determine presence of scaling constituents and 

bacteria. 

o Reservoir characteristics: 

 Understand formation chemistry

 Study frac fluid equilibrium with the formation

 Downhole scaling considerations: Barium, Strontium, Calcium, Magnesium

o Treatment considerations

 Chemical additives: Is treatment system adding something that would make the 

fluid incompatible with source water, formation, or fluid additives?

 Proximity of treatment system to production site

 Storage considerations are different for desalinated water than for clean brine

(desalinated water is cleaner and can be stored using the same requirements as 

for fresh water)

 Talisman does not desalinate wastewater for reuse, and has approached 

distillation/crystallization as a disposal option (not for reuse)
Memorandum

24 April 2012

Page 13 of 16

7. EAGLE FORD CWT CASE STUDY 

(Worley Parsons – Ritts, 2012)

 Discussed a 16,000 bbl/day treatment system for flowback and produced water under 

development in Eagle Ford

 Reuse is needed due to limited availability of fresh water

 Operator uses GelFrac, which impacts treatment considerations in particular for flowback.

Speaker noted that gels are becoming more common in the Marcellus. Gel fluids contain:

o Water

o Proppant

o Salts, acids, and caustics to prevent clay swelling, promote movement of water from the 

formation, and avoid chemical changes at the fracture face that can reduce permeability

o Guar gums for suspension of proppant

o Crosslinker enhancer

o Biocides

o Breakers to degrade the guar gum gels

 Water quality requirements for reuse:

o Low TSS and turbidity

o Remove guar gum

o Remove free and emulsified oil

o Remove scale-forming metals

o Salt removal is not needed

 Differences in flowback and produced water characteristics

o Flowback is produced initially at larger volumes

o Flowback contains higher levels of polymeric gels than produced water (higher viscosity)

o Produced water contains residual dissolved gas (explosion hazard)

o Produced water has higher salt and scaling-metal content

 Due to differences in wastewater characteristics, flowback goes through slightly different 

treatment train than produced water

1. 3-Phase separator (gas, oil, and water and solids): This is the first treatment step for 

produced water. Flowback by-passes this step

2. Sand separation: Cyclone or clarifier is used to remove sand from produced water but 

may not be necessary for flowback. Sand content of flowback is highly variable on a 

case-by-case basis

3. Clarifier: Removes floating gel and oil as well as small amounts of sand and suspended 

solids. This is the first treatment step for flowback water. Important to remove gels prior 

to any treatment steps that involve mixing.

4. Equalization: Helps to level out variability in chemical composition and flow. 

Considerations include ensuring that wastewater receives adequate gel removal prior to 

mixing. Equalization tank may accumulate some sand, which will require periodic 

manual removal.

5. Dissolved air flotation: System capable of handling a wide variety of contaminants

6. Polishing filters: Used to remove remaining solids and oils

7. Storage Pond or Tank: Biocides to control bacterial growth

8. Cartridge filtration: Treatment needed at injection well – not necessary if reused for 

fracturing
Memorandum

24 April 2012

Page 14 of 16

ATTACHMENT 1

Additional Notes on Electro Coagulation and Forward Osmosis Treatment
Memorandum

24 April 2012

Page 15 of 16

15

Electro coagulation and forward osmosis were mentioned in multiple presentations as 

potential “promising” treatment technologies. Since these technologies were not covered in the 

SGE Treatment Technology report, ERG briefly reviewed available information on these 

technologies, which is summarized below. Information indicates that electro coagulation has 

been used in the SGE industry, but ERG did not find any examples of forward osmosis use for 

SGE wastewater treatment.

Electro Coagulation (EC)

Electric current is applied to the influent wastewater to free up hydrogen and oxygen atoms via 

electrolysis. The free hydrogen and oxygen atoms in combination with added chemicals (Fe/Al) react 

with pollutants to create insoluble compounds that precipitate out of the solution. The separation process 

includes gravity settling or dissolved air flotation. 

EC Performance

 Removals with post filtration (comprehensive data is available on the Ecoltron, Inc fact sheet2) 

o TSS: 99% (976 mg/L influent)

o Benzene: 72% (125 mg/L influent)

o Calcium: 92% (516 mg/L influent)

o Strontium: 68% (74.8 mg/L influent)

o TDS: 31% (38,700 mg/L influent), 14% (114,200 mg/L influent)

EC Vendors

 Water Tectonics 3(Centralized plants in Marcellus, Piceance, Barnett, Uinta)

 MI SWACO (mobile unite)

 Ecolotron, Inc 4(Eagle Ford shale oil)

Documents

Houghton, Steve. 2011. Telephone Communication with Steve Houghton, MI SWACO, and Brent 

Ruminski, Eastern Research Group, Inc. “MI-SWACO RO and Evaporation Technology.” (September 

26).

Ecolotron Water Recovery Systems. 2011. Treatment of Flow Back and Produced Water from the 

Hydraulic Fracturing of Oil—Shale. Ecolotron Water Recovery Systems. 

Ziemkiewicz, Paul. 2010. Field Operation Plan to Recycle Marcellus Shale Flow Back Water. West 

Virginia University. DOE. 

 

2 More information on Ecolotron, Inc. is available online at: http://www.ecolotron.com/

3 More information on Water Tectonics is available online at: 

http://www.watertectonics.com/projects?industry=3&sort_by=field_dates_value&sort_order=DESC&=Apply

4 More information on Ecolotron, Inc. is available online at: http://www.ecolotron.com/
Memorandum

24 April 2012

Page 16 of 16

16

Forward Osmosis (FO)

The influent wastewater that must be treated is considered to have low osmotic pressure. A concentrated 

draw solution must have significantly higher salinity than the influent wastewater, which results in a 

higher osmotic pressure. This creates a natural pressure gradient across the membrane. As a result, pure 

water will flow from the influent wastewater (low osmotic pressure) across the membrane into the 

concentrated solution (high osmotic pressure) leaving pollutants behind. During FO, the freshwater is 

comingled with the concentrated draw solution requiring a downstream separation process. A popular 

method for this process is an RO subsystem. In this setup, the concentrate stream from the RO unit is 

recycled back to the FO unit as concentrated draw solution.

Source: CSM, 2009.

Combined FO and RO System Performance 

 Influent TDS: 500 to more than 35,000 mg/L

 TDS removal: 99%

 Costs: unknown but suspected to be comparable to RO

 Recovery: > 96%

 Energy Input: 5.68 to 11.36 kWh/kgal

Comparison of RO and FO

 No major pumping requirements

 Concentrated draw solution is required

 The membranes are similar to membranes used in RO and NF

o Less resistant to pH change

o More resistant to fouling

Documents

Colorado School of Mines (CSM), 2009. An Integrated Framework for Treatment and Management of

Produced Water, 1st edition. (November).