Authors:

B. Greg Casey, P.E.; J. Daniel Arthur, P.E., SPEC; Mark A. Layne, Ph.D., 

P.E.; and Dave Bockelmann, P.G.

Presented at

Ground Water Protection Council’s Annual UIC Conference

Sarasota, Florida, January 22-24, 2013
Abstract

As the development of shales has grown from early development in the Barnett and 

Bakken shales, the need for Class II Salt Water Disposal (SWD) wells has become a 

critical link in the success of shale gas and oil development. The vast majority of shale 

wells are hydraulically fractured using a water-based system with water volumes ranging 

from approximately 200,000 to 500,000 barrels of water per well. Depending on a 

variety of factors, such as the play and area within a specific play, 10 to 50 percent of 

the water used for fracturing may be produced during the flowback process with more 

produced throughout the life of the well. The combination of active drilling combined 

with large water production volumes in many areas has created a critical niche for 

disposal wells and has spawned a variety of issues. For example, some areas of the 

country do not have ideal geology for disposal wells causing produced water to be 

transported large distances for disposal, treatment has sparked questions relative to 

waste classification, induced seismicity has been alleged in some areas, permitting 

requirements have become more stringent in some areas, multiple state agencies have 

been overwhelmed with permit applications, trucks in some areas have had to wait 

multiple days simply to unload, questions regarding water tracking have arisen, and 

other issues. This paper will present information on the role of Class II SWDs with shale 

development and discuss several of the issues that have arisen through this process. 
Agenda

• Introduction

• Water Disposal

• Regional Diversity

• Acceptability of 

Commercial Waste 

Facilities

• Summary

January 2013 ALL Consulting 3
INTRODUCTION

High volume 

Hydraulic 

Fracturing

5 to over 50% of Water 

Used For Fracturing is 

produced During 

Flowback, Often High in 

TDS

Treatment 

Options are not 

Economically 

Feasible in 

Several Areas

Disposal Capacity 

Needed & Leads to 

Increased Demand 

for SWDs
The Role of Technology

• Obvious Technologies

– Deep horizontal 

drilling

– High volume 

hydraulic fracturing

• Other Lesser 

Recognized 

Technologies

– Water sourcing and 

transport

– Water reuse/recycling

– Expanded use of 

Class II SWDs

January 2013 ALL Consulting 5

Photo Source: ProPublica
US Injection Wells

• There has been about 

190,000 total Class II 

wells type wells.

• Roughly 150,000 

currently active.

• Historically, EOR type 

wells have been 

dominant.

• SWDs are currently 

dominating activity in 

the UIC Program

– Permitting

– New wells

– Etc.

Class II injection wells in the United States (2011)

Source: ALL Consulting

January 2013 ALL Consulting 6
WATER DISPOSAL

January 2013 ALL Consulting 7
Water Disposal

• Wastewater can be categorized

– Miscellaneous wastewater from drilling operations

– Water produced during flowback operations

– Produced water

– Concentrate from treatment operations

– Other Miscellaneous (from drilling, completion, operations)

• Disposal Options

– Private Class II SWDs

– Commercial Class II SWDs

– Reuse/recycling for drilling/completion activities

• Beneficial use where allowed (discharge for beneficial 

use not currently allowed by EPA Region VI)

January 2013 ALL Consulting 8
Evolving SWD Capacity 

Considerations

• As development activities 

progressed, commercial SWD 

capacity has been an issue.

• Permitting and development of 

new SWDs has occurred at a 

rapid pace.

• The need for additional SWDs 

is evident and expanded 

development of commercial 

SWDs as well as treatment 

facilities is occurring.

January 2013 ALL Consulting 9
Rapid Development Pace

• Commercial SWD facilities are 

being installed at a rapid pace. 

• Some facilities are being 

installed by groups with little 

experience.

• This can lead to facilities 

operating out of compliance.

• Potential liability for 

companies that use these sites.

January 2013 ALL Consulting 10
REGIONAL DIVERSITY
THE VOLUME

MYSTERY

• Produced Water Volumes 

tend to vary by play.

• Activity in development 

areas can vary substantially, 

especially with respect to 

oil & gas prices.

• Water handling will 

continue to be a key 

development issue in the 

US, but longer term growth 

in produced water 

management may be driven 

by international 

development activities.

• US strategies will see 

international application.

© ALL Consulting, 2009 12

HyanesvilleBossier

5.79

Fayetteville

Marcellus 5.17 -

Utica

4.38

Eagle Ford

4.29

Barnett

4.23

Bakken

1.96

Niobrara

0.55

Average Volume of Water Used Per Well

(In Million Gallons)

Source: ALL Consulting 

January 2013 ALL Consulting 12
HF Water Use by Shale Play

Copyright (c), ALL Consulting, 2012

Shale Play Range of Reported 

Water Usage (gal.)

Average Reported

Water Use (gal.)

Barnett 1,000,000 – 2,000,000 3,961,550

Barnett-Woodford 500,000 – 4,500,000 2,101,314 

Bakken 1,000,000 – 10,000,000 2,101,984 

Eagle Ford 1,000,000 – 13,500,000 4,295,282 

Fayetteville 1,700,000 – 11,000,000 5,294,829

Haynesville 1,000,000 – 14,800,000 5,824,728 

Hilliard-BaxterMancos 1,000,000 – 5,600,000 1,686.856

Marcellus/Utica 1,000,000 – 10,700,000 4,423,310

Woodford 1,000,000 – 11,800,000 4,181,026

Woodford-Caney 3,600,000 – 10,000,000 5,929,390

Source: FracFocus data for 2011

December 2012 13
Produced Water Quality and Volume

Shale Play Produced Water TDS 

Concentration (mg/L)

Percent of Fracture Fluid 

Volume Typically 

Recovered During 

Flowback 

Bakken 20,000 - 200,000 5 – 35%

Barnett 40,000 – 240,000 40 – 50 %

Eagle Ford 10,000 – 200,000 15 – 40%

Fayetteville 8,000 – 30,000 30 – 50 %

Haynesville 150,000 – 250,000 30- 50 %

Marcellus 50,000 – 300,000 5 – 30 %

Woodford 5,000 – 35,000 20 – 50%

Utica 40,000 – 200, 000 15 – 20%

December 2012 Copyright (c), ALL Consulting, 2012 14
Limited Disposal Capacity Areas

• Some areas have limited 

disposal capacity due to 

geologic or other conditions.

• Examples regions include:

• Marcellus Shale

• Utica Shale

• Fayetteville Shale

• Areas with limited disposal 

are seeing more aggressive 

water treatment activity.
EAGLE FORD CASE 

STUDY
January 2013 ALL Consulting 17

Private & Commercial 

SWDs in the Eagle Ford
Depth of SWDs

<2,500’

2,500’ to 5,000’

>5,000’
Analyzing Commercial 

SWD Inj. Capacity
Analyzing Commercial 

SWD Compliance
ACCEPTABILITY OF WASTE 

FACILITIES

January 2013 ALL Consulting 21
Acceptability Considerations

• BEFORE sending waste or 

wastewater to a facility, a 

determination should be made 

whether the facility meets minimum 

acceptability requirements.

• Inspection or auditing can avoid 

unanticipated problems.

• Not all facilities in the Eagle Ford 

meet the most stringent of 

environmental and compliance 

standards.

• Having standard processes in-place 

for evaluating and determining if a 

facility is “acceptable” is highly 

recommended.

January 2013 ALL Consulting 22
Assessing Compliance

• Compliance information is 

available throughout Texas 

and the Eagle Ford:

– Most violations are for late/no 

reporting (86%)

– MIT failures are next highest 

(5%)

– Breakout of injected fluid 

accounts for 3%

• Simple environmental ESAs 

are inadequate for 

evaluating SWDs

– Assessing Corrosion

– Well integrity/confinement

– Area of review/USDWs

– Communication/Containment

– Etc.

January 2013 ALL Consulting 23

SWD Violations (2011)

Reporting

MIT Failure

Breakout of Inj Fluid

Packer Depth

Injection Pressure

Confinement

Annular Pressure

Unauthorized Commercial 

Facility
Summary

• The Shale “Boom” has also created 

extremely high activity with waste handling 

and management, including the need for 

many new Class II disposal wells.

• Disposal demands vary regionally, with 

some areas having plentiful disposal 

capacity while others are limited.

• A critical aspect of the water management 

lifecycle is disposal and the combination of 

trucking, logistics, compliance, etc. can 

have substantial cost implications.

January 2013 ALL Consulting 24
Authors:

Greg Casey, P.E.

J. Daniel Arthur, P.E., SPEC

Mark Layne, Ph.D., P.E.

Dave Bockelmann, P.G.

Citation Information: 

B. Greg Casey, P.E.; Arthur, J.D.; Mark Layne, Ph.D., P.E.; Dave Bockelmann, P.G. (ALL 

Consulting). “The Evolution of Class II Salt Water Disposal (SWD) Wells as Part of the Shale 

Revolution”. Presented at the Ground Water Protection Council’s Annual UIC Conference, 

Sarasota, Florida, January 22-24, 2013.

Contact Information

ALL Consulting

1718 S. Cheyenne Ave.

Tulsa, OK 74119

www.all-llc.com

January 2013 ALL Consulting 25
EXTRA SLIDES
Possible Injection-Induced Seismicity

• HF implicated by the media, but there have 

been no documented instances of induced 

seismicity (IS) caused by HF in the U.S.

• SWDs possibly linked to IS in some cases

• IS may be caused by changes in pore fluid 

pressure and/or stresses in the subsurface 

coupled with the presence of faults in a critical 

state of stress.

• Only 10 instances of possible injection-induced 

seismicity related to SWDs in 50 years*

• No known environmental damage

January 2013 ALL Consulting 27

* 40 total events, 10 limited to SWDs