This document summarizes strategies and technology needs for produced water management in unconventional oil and gas resource plays. It notes that 1-3 million additional wellbores will be needed to fully develop US shale resources, requiring increased use of brackish water, treatment technologies, and centralized facilities. Produced water management options include disposal via injection wells, surface discharge, beneficial use, and reuse. Reuse is increasingly common where fresh water is limited and injection well capacity is restricted. Produced water quality and volume varies between plays. Treatment goals include reducing dissolved solids for discharge/reuse and reducing volume for disposal. As fresh water demands grow, more reuse of produced water and saline groundwater is expected, requiring technologies to make these strategies

1. PRODUCED WATER MANAGEMENT IN
UNCONVENTIONAL RESOURCE PLAYS:
STRATEGIES AND TECHNOLOGY NEEDS
Atlantic Council Workshop
Fossil Fuel Produced Water: Asset or Waste
Washington, DC
June 24-25, 2013
Authors:
J. Daniel (Dan) Arthur, P.E., SPEC
David Alleman

2. The Future of Shale…
• To fully develop US shales, something on the order of 1-3 million additional
wellbores will be needed. This will NOT be easy! We can expect:
− Increased use of brackish/saline water
− Increased use of treatment technologies
− Multi-well fluid management pits/impoundments
− Centralized facilities and overland piping of produced water
− and much more...
• Oil imports have dropped from a high of about 65% to approximately 40% of
demand
• Several sources suggest that US oil production could rise 50-75% over the
next 10 years, causing imports to drop to 5%.
• Another study suggests the shale gas boom will account for ~1.5 million new
jobs by 2015 (June 2012) – including recognition of the downturn in gas
prices.
June 2013 2Copyright (c) 2013 ALL Consulting

3. WATER MANAGEMENT EVOLUTION
• Surface Discharge
– Salt Creek & Elk Basin (1920s)
– Black Warrior Basin (1989)
– Powder River Basin CBM (1990s)
• Reuse/Recycling of PW
– Barnett Shale (2001)
– Marcellus (2009)
• Treatment
– Powder River Basin CBM (2001)
– Barnett Shale (2002/2008)
– San Juan Basin (2003)
– Woodford Shale (2008)
– San Ardo (2008)
– Piceance Basin (2009)
– Fayetteville Shale (2009)
– Eagle Ford (2011)
June 2013 3Copyright (c) 2013 ALL Consulting

4. Technology: the “Game Changer”
• Deep horizontal drilling
• High volume hydraulic
fracturing
• 3-D Seismic Analysis
• Multi-well drilling pads
• Water sourcing and
transport
• Water treatment
• HF Additives
4Copyright (c) 2012 ALL ConsultingJune 2013

5. Lifecycle Water Management Planning
• A lifecycle approach is
needed to address the
many issues important to
industry:
– Regulatory timing &
vulnerabilities
– Legislative changes
– Public opposition
– Historical Activities
– Competition for
resources
– Flowback recovery
– Third-party options
and risks
– Environmental risks
– Cumulative Impacts
– Etc…
• Pre-Development Assessment
• Water Sourcing Availability & Issues
• Well Site Construction & Drilling
• Water Conditioning/Pre-Treatment
• Well Completion/Fracturing
• Flowback/Produced Water
• Reuse/Disposal/Beneficial Use
March 2013 5Copyright (c) 2013 ALL Consulting

6. Produced Water (PW) Management
Four Primary Options
• Injection: This has been the preferred option of most
operators and regulatory agencies.
• Surface Discharge: Infrequently used due to high
treatment costs, liability concerns, and company policy.
• Beneficial Use: Limited use due to water quality and
quantity issues.
• Reuse: Increasingly popular option, especially in areas
of limited fresh water availability.
June 2013 6Copyright (c) 2013 ALL Consulting

7. PW Management Considerations
• Availability/Cost of Fresh Water: Fresh water is typically
the preferred option when it is readily available, however a
number of factors may make reuse of PW attractive
• Availability of Injection Wells: Where injection wells are
limited or distant, reuse is more common.
• Volume of PW Available: Volumes of PW vary significantly
between plays and within plays - smaller volumes can make
blending for reuse more economic
• Quality of PW : Quality of PW can vary significantly
between plays and within plays – lower TDS concentrations
can make blending for reuse more economic
June 2013 7Copyright (c) 2013 ALL Consulting

8. Water Use Varies Between Plays
June 2013 8Copyright (c) 2013 ALL Consulting
Shale Basin/Play
Minimum
Reported
Water Usage
(gal.)
Maximum
Reported
Water Usage
(gal.)
Average
Reported
Water Use
(gal.)
Well
Sample
Barnett 1,004,556 11,970,504 3,961,550 1,247
Bakken 1,005,064 9,597,540 2,101,984 638
Eagle Ford 1,098,846 13,659,790 4,295,282 1,523
Fayetteville 1,730,415 11,282,621 5,294,829, 456
Haynesville 1,023,414 14,850,612 5,824,728 931
Marcellus/Utica 1,006,004 10,781,652 4,423,310 1,514
Woodford 1,017,828 11,782,600 4,181,026 369
WATER USE FOR SELECT PLAYS (2011)

9. WATER USE VARIES SPATIALLY
June 2013 9Copyright (c) 2013 ALL Consulting

10. PW QUALITY AND VOLUME VARIATION
June 2013 10Copyright (c) 2013 ALL Consulting
Shale Play
Produced Water TDS
Concentration (mg/L)
Percent of Fracture Fluid
Volume Typically Recovered
During Flowback
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 %
Utica 40,000 – 200, 000 15 – 20%

11. PW Treatment Goals
• Three primary treatment
goals
– Reduce TDS (desalination)
for discharge/beneficial use
– Reduce volume for disposal
– Reduce solids, scaling, and
bio-fouling for reuse
June 2013 11Copyright (c) 2013 ALL Consulting

12. Treatment of Produced Water
• Water quality requirements for reuse can vary and may depend
on factors such as:
– Composition of the target formation
– The specific chemicals being used (especially friction reducers)
• Common treatment goals
– Remove suspended solids
– Prevent scale formation and bio-fouling
– Reduce dissolved solids (desalination)
– Reduce disposal volumes
• Most operators do not desalinate
• PW disposal strategies vary by play
June 2013 12Copyright (c) 2013 ALL Consulting

13. PW Management Strategies
• Bakken: Most PW is disposed of via injection wells
• Marcellus/Utica: Many operators in PA reuse PW due to a
lack of injection wells
– Low PW volumes facilitate this approach
– Operators in Ohio (Utica) typically use injection wells
– Operators in Western PA may truck water to Ohio for
disposal
• Barnett: Both reuse and disposal via injection wells are
common
• Eagle Ford: Most PW is disposed of via injection wells
even though the climate is semi-arid
– Reuse in many areas is inhibited by land-owner water
agreements
• Fayetteville: UIC disposal is common but limited in some
areas due to induced seismicity concerns
June 2013 13Copyright (c) 2013 ALL Consulting
Bakken
Barnett
Marcellus

14. PW Technology Needs
• As demands on fresh water grow, expect to see increased reuse
and use of saline groundwater
• New technologies are needed to ensure that these strategies are
economic
• Major technology breakthroughs in water treatment seem unlikely
– Expect some continued incremental improvements
– Primary gains will likely come from tailoring treamtment to play-
specific needs
• HF chemicals that allow use of lower quality water seem to be a
likely technology that will allow increased reuse of PW
– Enhanced friction reducers have already become widely used
– New friction reducers are being developed that will allow use of
water with up to 200 ppm Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
– As costs come down, these friction reducers should allow more
operators to reduce their fresh water demands
June 2013 14Copyright (c) 2013 ALL Consulting

15. Citation Information:
Arthur, J.D., and David Alleman (ALL Consulting). Produced Water Management in
Unconventional Resource Plays: Strategies and Technology Needs”. Presented at the
Atlantic Council Workshop on Produced Water: Asset or Waste?, June 24-25, 2013.
Contact Information
David Alleman
Environmental Manager
dalleman@all-llc.com
ALL Consulting
1718 S. Cheyenne Ave.
Tulsa, OK 74119
www.all-llc.com
June 2013 15Copyright (c) 2013 ALL Consulting