### 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)

8 ALL Consulting January 2013

# 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 9 ALL Consulting

# 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

# T HE 

# V OLUME 

# M YSTERY

• 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 Hyanesville

Bossier

5.79

Fayetteville 5.17 Marcellus

- 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

- Baxter

Mancos 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 14 Copyright (c), ALL Consulting, 2012

# 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 STUDYJanuary 2013 ALL Consulting 17 Private & Commercial SWDs in the Eagle FordDepth of SWDs

<2,500’

2,500’ to 5,000’

>5,000’Analyzing Commercial SWD Inj. CapacityAnalyzing 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 22 ALL Consulting

# 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.

23 January 2013 ALL Consulting 

### 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 24Authors: 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 27 ALL Consulting * 40 total events, 10 limited to SWDs