Flowback and Produced Waters

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24620 SHARE

   
Flowback and Produced Waters: Opportunities and Challenges

for Innovation: Proceedings of a Workshop
DETAILS
100 pages | 7 x 10 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-45262-5 | DOI 10.17226/24620
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Ed J. Dunne, Rapporteur; Roundtable on Unconventional Hydrocarbon Development;

Board on Earth Sciences and Resources; Water Science and Technology Board;
Division on Earth and Life Studies; National Academies of Sciences,
FIND RELATED TITLES Engineering, and Medicine

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Flowback and Produced Waters: Opportunities and Challenges for Innovation: Proceedings of a Workshop
Ed J. Dunne, Rapporteur
Roundtable on Unconventional Hydrocarbon Development
Board on Earth Sciences and Resources
Water Science and Technology Board
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation under grant no. G-2015-14016, the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Foundation, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement under
contract no. E15PC00008, the Colorado School of Mines, The Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation, the
Environmental Defense Fund, Flinders University, GE Oil and Gas, The Ohio State University, Schlumberger
Limited, Texas A&M University, the U.S. Department of Energy under award no. DE-FE0027898, West
Virginia University, and XTO Energy Inc. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed
in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support
for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-45262-5

International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-45262-7
Digital Object Identifier: 10.117226/24620
Additional copies of this publication are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street,
NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2017 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Flowback and Pro-
duced Waters: Opportunities and Challenges for Innovation: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24620.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Con-

gress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution
to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are
elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia
McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the char-
ter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering
to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary
contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was

established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to
advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their
peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau
is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences,

Engineer ing, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and
advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems
and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage
education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and
increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
at www.national-academies.org.

Reports document the evidence-based consensus of an authoring committee of

experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations
based on information gathered by the committee and committee deliberations.
Reports are peer reviewed and are approved by the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Proceedings chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, sym-

posium, or other convening event. The statements and opinions contained in
proceedings are those of the participants and have not been endorsed by other
participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies,
please visit nationalacademies.org/whatwedo.

PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR THE WORKSHOP ON FLOWBACK AND

PRODUCED WATERS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR INNOVATION
STEVEN P. HAMBURG, Co-Chair, Environmental Defense Fund, Belmont, Massachusetts

KRIS J. NYGAARD, Co-Chair, ExxonMobil Upstream Research Co., Spring, Texas
BRIAN J. ANDERSON, West Virginia University, Morgantown
MELISSA BATUM, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC
SUSAN L. BRANTLEY (NAS), The Pennsylvania State University, University Park
AKHIL DATTA-GUPTA (NAE), Texas A&M University–College Station
JOE LIMA, Schlumberger Services, Inc., Denver, Colorado
DANIEL LIND, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, DC
JAN MARES, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
ELENA S. MELCHERT, Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC
BRIDGET R. SCANLON (NAE), Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin
CRAIG SIMMONS, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Staff

ELIZABETH A. EIDE, Director
ED J. DUNNE, Program Officer
CAMLY TRAN, Associate Program Officer
NICHOLAS D. ROGERS, Financial and Research Associate
COURTNEY R. GIBBS, Program Associate
ERIC J. EDKIN, Senior Program Assistant
BRENDAN R. McGOVERN, Senior Program Assistant

BOARD ON EARTH SCIENCES AND RESOURCES
GENE WHITNEY, Chair, Congressional Research Service (Retired), Washington, DC

R. LYNDON (LYN) ARSCOTT, International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (Retired),
Danville, California
CHRISTOPHER (SCOTT) CAMERON, GeoLogical Consulting, LLC, Houston, Texas
CAROL P. HARDEN, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
T. MARK HARRISON, University of California, Los Angeles
ANN S. MAEST, Buka Environmental, Boulder, Colorado
DAVID R. MAIDMENT, The University of Texas at Austin
M. MEGHAN MILLER, UNAVCO, Inc., Boulder, Colorado
ISABEL P. MONTAÑEZ, University of California, Davis
HENRY N. POLLACK, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
JAMES M. ROBERTSON, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, Madison
JAMES SLUTZ, National Petroleum Council, Washington, DC
SHAOWEN WANG, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

ELIZABETH A. EIDE, Director
ANNE M. LINN, Scholar
SAMMANTHA L. MAGSINO, Senior Program Officer
NICHOLAS D. ROGERS, Financial and Research Associate
YASMIN ROMITTI, Research Associate
COURTNEY R. GIBBS, Program Associate
ERIC J. EDKIN, Senior Program Assistant
RAYMOND CHAPPETTA, Program Assistant
vi

WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD
GEORGE M. HORNBERGER, Chair, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee

EDWARD J. BOUWER, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
DAVID A. DZOMBAK, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
M. SIOBHAN FENNESSY, Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio
BEN GRUMBLES, Clean Water America Alliance, Washington, DC
ARTURO A. KELLER, University of California, Santa Barbara
CATHERINE L. KLING, Iowa State University, Ames
LARRY LARSON, Association of State Floodplain Managers, Madison, Wisconsin
DINAH LOUDA, Veolia Institute, Paris, France
STEPHEN POLASKY, University of Minnesota, St. Paul
JAMES W. ZIGLAR, SR., Van Ness Feldman, Washington, DC

ELIZABETH A. EIDE, Acting Director
LAURA J. EHLERS, Senior Program Officer
STEPHANIE E. JOHNSON, Senior Program Officer
ED J. DUNNE, Program Officer
M. JEANNE AQUILINO, Financial and Administrative Associate
BRENDAN R. McGOVERN, Senior Program Assistant
vii


Acknowledgments
T
his Proceedings of a Workshop was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their
diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to
provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published
Proceedings of a Workshop as sound as possible and to ensure that the Proceedings of a Workshop
meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The
review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the delibera-
tive process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this Proceedings of a
Workshop:
Rosemary Capo, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Jean-Philippe Nicot, The University of Texas at Austin
Harry Zhang, Water Environment & Reuse Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions,
they did not see the final draft of the Proceedings of a Workshop before its release. The review of
this Proceedings of a Workshop was overseen by Barbara Schaal, Washington University, who was
responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this Proceedings of a Workshop
was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were
carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this Proceedings of a Workshop rests
entirely with the rapporteur and the institution.
ix


Contents
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Workshop Overview and Organization of the Proceedings, 2

2 SETTING THE STAGE: KEYNOTE SESSION 5
The Energy-Water Nexus, 5
Flowback and Produced Waters, 8
Beneficial Use of Produced Water from the Oil and Gas Industry: Approaches to
Manage, Treat, and Transport Flowback and Produced Water, 13
Moderated Discussion, 16
3 REGIONAL SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES: ENVIRONMENTAL AND

REGULATORY CONTEXT FOR POTENTIAL USE OF FLOWBACK AND
PRODUCED WATER 19
Panel Presentations, 20
4 TECHNOLOGIES FOR MANAGING FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WATERS

FOR POTENTIAL USE 29
5 CHARACTERIZATION OF FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WATERS FOR

POTENTIAL USE 39
xi

xii CONTENTS
6 RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION IN CONTEXT 51

7 FACILITATED DISCUSSION 57
Facilitated Discussion, 57
Policy and Regulations, 58
Data, 59
Water Quality, 59
Suggestions for Case Studies, 60
REFERENCES 63
APPENDIXES
A Workshop Agenda 65
B Members of the Roundtable on Unconventional Hydrocarbon Development 69
C Biographies of Workshop Planning Committee 71
D Biographies of Workshop Moderators and Presenters 77
E Workshop Participants 83
F Glossary 87

Introduction
P
roduced water—water from underground formations that is brought to the surface during oil
and gas production—is the greatest volume byproduct associated with oil and gas produc-
tion (Veil, 2015; see also EPA [2015] and DOE [2004] for definitions of produced water). It
is managed by some combination of underground injection, treatment, and subsequent use, treat-
ment, and discharge, or evaporation, subject to compliance with state and federal regulations (NRC,
2010). Management of these waters is challenging not only for industry and regulators, but also for
landowners and the public because of differences in the quality and quantity of produced water,
varying infrastructure needs, costs, and environmental considerations associated with produced
water disposal, storage, and transport (e.g., NRC, 2010).
Unconventional oil and gas development involves technologies that combine horizontal drilling
with the practice of hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is a controlled, high-pressure injec-
tion of fluid and proppant into a well to generate fractures in the rock formation containing the oil
or gas. These fractures allow the oil and gas to move from the formation into the well. “Proppant”
refers to sand or ceramics that help keep the fractures open after the fluid injection is completed.
The injected fluid can comprise a combination of water and small amounts of chemical additives
that reduce friction in the pipe and help to carry the proppant into the fractures (King, 2012; NRC,
2013, 2014). After the hydraulic fracture procedure is completed, the injected fluid is allowed to
flow back into the well, leaving the proppant in the newly created fractures. As a result, a portion
of the injected water returns to the surface and this water is called “flowback water,” which ini-
tially may mix with the naturally occurring produced water from the formation. The chemistry and
volume of water returning to the surface from unconventional oil and gas operations thus changes
during the lifetime of the well due to the amount of fluid used in the initial stage of well develop-
ment, the amount of water naturally occurring in the geologic formation, the original water and
rock chemistry, the type of hydrocarbon being produced, and the way production is conducted (Veil,
2015). The volume and composition of flowback and produced waters vary with geography, time,
and site-specific factors (EPA, 2015). Hereafter, in this Proceedings of a Workshop, both flowback
and produced water are referred to as “produced water” without differentiating the proportions of
flowback versus formation water that may be present.

2 FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WATERS
The challenge of managing produced water from these kinds of operations relates both to the
water quantity—use of surface and groundwater for hydraulic fracturing that may be permanently
removed from the water cycle through deep injection in disposal wells—and water quality in terms
of understanding the chemical characteristics of produced waters that could otherwise have a
potential, alternative use if treated to an appropriate standard. Produced water quantity and quality
also have bearing on mitigating concerns about spills or leaks to the environment when the waters
are either temporarily stored or transported. Although disposal wells are the primary management
practice for produced water from unconventional wells that use hydraulic fracturing (EPA, 2015),
alternative management approaches can include opportunities to use produced water. Options for
the potential use of produced water may include reuse in oil and gas fields, in a range of different
industrial settings, and for agriculture after appropriate treatment. Evidence suggests, however, that
the amount of produced water that is used for these or other types of beneficial purposes is low: less
than 1 percent (Veil, 2015). With increased concerns about water resource management, including
water availability, interest exists in considering produced water as a potential resource rather than
predominantly as a byproduct of oil and gas production.1
WORKSHOP OVERVIEW AND ORGANIZATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS

This workshop (agenda in Appendix A) was conducted under the auspices of the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s (National Academies’) Roundtable on
Unconventional Hydrocarbon Development to highlight the challenges and opportunities associ-
ated in managing produced water from unconventional hydrocarbon development, and particularly
in the area of potential beneficial uses for these waters (see Appendix B for the list of Roundtable
members). The workshop was organized by a planning committee assembled for the purpose of
developing the workshop program and convening the event, which was held on May 25 and 26,
2016, at the National Academies Keck Center (500 Fifth Street NW, Washington, DC) (see Appen-
dix C). The biographies of the workshop moderators and presenters are in Appendix D.
The workshop was organized around the topical areas noted in the statement of task (see
Box 1.1) with participants from universities, the private sector, federal and state government agen-
cies, and nongovernmental organizations. One hundred and five people attended in person and 123
people participated via webcast (see Appendix E).2 A glossary of terms is included in Appendix F.
Following welcoming remarks from Dr. Gregory Symmes, the Executive Director of the
National Academies’ Division on Earth and Life Studies, and from the Roundtable co-chairs,
Dr. David Dzombak and Dr. Wendy Harrison, three keynote presentations were provided to frame
topics and concerns associated with potential beneficial uses of produced water. The remainder of
the workshop focused on four panel discussions. The meeting concluded in plenary session with
time provided for questions and comment from participants on the overarching themes raised during
the workshop and identification of some next steps.
Chapter 2 summarizes keynote presentations on the energy water nexus, a description of
flowback and produced waters, and an industry perspective on approaches to manage, treat, and
transport produced water. Chapters 3 through 6 summarize panel presentations and the moderated
discussions. Chapter 3 focuses on regional perspectives of using produced waters in an environ-
mental and regulatory context. Chapter 4 covers technologies for managing flowback and produced
1 We note that, during the workshop, contributors variably employed the words “use,” “reuse,” and “recycle” with respect
to potential applications of produced water but without necessarily defining specifically how they employed those terms.
To the degree possible, we simply employed the word “use” or “uses” in this Proceedings of a Workshop when referring to
subsequent potential or actual applications of produced water unless the meaning of the speaker would be altered through
such a simplification.
2 The webcasts are available at http://nas-sites.org/uhroundtable/meetings (accessed September 21, 2016).

INTRODUCTION 3
BOX 1.1
Statement of Task
An ad hoc planning committee will organize a 2-day public workshop to discuss the options and chal-
lenges for managing produced and flowback waters from unconventional hydrocarbon development for
beneficial uses. The workshop will feature invited presentations, discussions, and breakout activities that
will include topics such as
1. Life-cycle overview of produced and flowback water management and use in unconventional
hydrocarbon development projects, including technologies for management and treatment;
2. Characterization of the quality and quantity of produced and flowback water;
3. Options and challenges for beneficial uses of treated produced and flowback water; and
4. Opportunities for research and technologic innovation.
The planning committee will develop the agenda for the workshop, select and invite speakers and other
participants, and moderate the discussion. The workshop will result in an individually authored workshop
summary, written by a designated rapporteur in accordance with institutional guidelines.
waters. Chapter 5 describes characteristics of produced waters for potential use. Chapter 6 discusses
research and technology, while Chapter 7 is a facilitated discussion on what is known about the
technologies and characteristics of produced water, what is not known, and how to fill the gaps.
Supporting material is provided in the references and appendixes.


Setting the Stage: Keynote Session
S
teve Hamburg, co-chair of the workshop planning committee, opened the keynote session
by stressing that the workshop is about a conversation. He said the structure of the agenda
was designed deliberately to provide opportunity for dialogue and emphasized several kinds
of questions: What is the nature of the problem? What is known? What is not known? How can
knowledge gaps be filled and what are the opportunities to benefit society?
Kris Nygaard, the workshop planning committee’s other co-chair, emphasized the importance
of the diverse group of stakeholders in the room sharing their range of opinions and knowledge
on the subject. He highlighted the major themes of the workshop including regional perspectives,
technologies for managing water, characteristics of produced water, and discussions on research
and technology gaps and opportunities.
The three keynote presentations at the start of the workshop provided background on produced
water and framed the major topics. The panel session was moderated by George King (Apache
Corporation).
THE ENERGY-WATER NEXUS

Diana Bauer, U.S. Department of Energy
Bauer introduced the audience to work being conducted on the energy-water nexus at the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) and the relationship of DOE’s activities to flowback and produced
water as part of its focus on technology research, modeling analysis, and data systems. She referred
to the 2014 DOE report The Water-Energy Nexus: Challenges and Opportunities (DOE, 2014)
when discussing the energy of water usage through the U.S. economy (see Figure 2.1). Focusing
first on overall withdrawals of water from surface and groundwater sources and their relationship
to energy production and infrastructure, she indicated that close to 50 percent of water withdrawals
nationally from fresh and saline sources are for thermoelectric cooling. Approximately one-third
of annual water withdrawals are used for agriculture and approximately 10 to 15 percent of with
drawals are used directly for a combination of public water supplies and industry applications.

FIGURE 2.1 Estimated magnitude of the U.S. energy-water flow for 2011. The Hybrid Sankey diagram
illustrates the interconnectivity of the flows of energy and water and their relative proportions. The widths of
the colored paths denote the amounts of water (billions of gallons/day) and energy (quads/year) for each use.
The largest demands for water are for thermoelectric cooling, followed by agriculture (blue lines of various
widths). The largest demands for energy are for electricity generation, transportation, and other industrial
purposes (green lines of various widths). The thin blue lines extending from fresh surface and groundwater
sources on the left side of the diagram up to petroleum, natural gas, and biomass show the relatively small
magnitudes of those water volumes compared to overall water uses in other sectors.
SOURCE: DOE, 2014.
Smaller percentages of withdrawals of groundwater and surface water are associated with oil and
natural gas production (see Figure 2.1).
Bauer noted that DOE is in the process of developing a set of diagrams similar to Figure 2.1 for
the state level and indicated that the quantities of produced water from oil and gas production are not
large relative to water volumes withdrawn and used for other purposes. Some of the strategy pillars
from the DOE 2014 report apply directly to the use of produced waters, Bauer noted. One example
included the strategy of increasing the safe and productive use of nontraditional water sources; in
this way, produced water could be considered a nontraditional water source in some regions.
In their congressional budget justification to Congress earlier this year, Bauer said that DOE
had identified a total of $96 million for work on the energy-water nexus, with a fair portion of that
funding oriented toward technology and investments on energy-optimized treatment, management,
and beneficial use of nontraditional waters. Desalination is a strong focus in the proposed DOE
budget for fiscal year 2017. In water-stressed regions, she said, delivering water becomes more
energy intensive because of the reliance on more marginal sources of water. In some regions of the

SETTING THE STAGE: KEYNOTE SESSION 7
country struggling with water availability, produced water may be another potential water source
following treatment.
Bauer noted a low-energy/low-carbon/low-cost desalination research and development hub as
another element in the proposed DOE budget for fiscal year 2017. This hub would be a multilevel,
multitiered effort with a scientific foundation in technologies and test beds in the area of desalina-
tion. DOE is interested in both treating and desalinating water from the ocean or from brackish
aquifers or brackish groundwater. Some of these desalination technologies may also be used to treat
produced water, she said. These technologies could contribute to identifying and pursuing opportu-
nities for using treated produced water to solve regional problems with respect to water availability.
Bauer referred to an example from the thermoelectric industry to illustrate ways new technology
could help to diversify the water sources used for thermoelectric cooling. Thermoelectric generation
is a substantial user of water and at present, she said, about 75 percent of thermoelectric cooling
systems use fresh surface water, with lesser amounts deriving from saline, brackish, and reclaimed
water sources (see Figure 2.2). To reduce dependence on surface water resources, and diversify
both the sources of water and the water type, potential exists to consider using produced water, after
appropriate treatment with various technologies, for thermoelectric cooling.
FIGURE 2.2 Existing and proposed water sources and water types for thermoelectric cooling.
NOTES: N/A = not applicable. These systems will not require water because they are dry cooling systems.
SOURCE: DOE, 2014.

Due to the importance of individual states in discussions about the energy-water nexus, Bauer
also indicated that DOE is developing a database of state water policies which affect energy. Thus
far, DOE has created such a database for electricity and plans to develop a similar one for oil and
gas. In addition, DOE is working with organizations such as the National Association of Regulatory
Utility Commissioners, the National Association of State Energy Officials, the National Council of
State Legislators, and the National Governors Association to frame an integrated policy analysis of
federal- and state-level policies and approaches to energy and water.
Bauer closed by mentioning that the energy-water nexus is a global issue. Lessons can be
learned from other countries such as China, countries in the Middle East, and Australia on topics
such as desalination, she said. One example is the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center where
the University of California, Berkeley, has led the U.S. contribution on treatment and management
of nontraditional water in collaboration with its Chinese counterpart, the Research Institute for
Petroleum Exploration and Development.
FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WATERS

John Veil, Veil Environmental, LLC
Veil opened his presentation by mentioning that produced water is quite variable over place
and time. The water contains many constituents at different concentrations. He suggested grouping
the main constituents in produced water into four broad categories:
1. Salt content, including salinity and total dissolved solids (TDS);

2. Oil and grease, the presence and composition of which are determined by analytical
measurements for different types of organic chemicals;
3. Toxicity, which includes chemical constituents that may have leached into the formation
water from the surrounding rock and the hydrocarbons with which the formation water
has been in contact for millennia; and
4. Naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM), which may exist in some rock for-
mations in the form of radioactive elements (e.g., uranium, radium, and radon), and which
may transfer into the formation water in small amounts.
Until last year, Veil said, the most complete publicly available reference on produced water
volumes and management was Clark and Veil (2009). He said that those authors examined the 2007
calendar year and estimated about 21 billion barrels of water were produced from all of the U.S.
oil and gas wells. Last year, a new report (Veil, 2015) was prepared for the Groundwater Protec-
tion Council (GWPC) to update the 2009 report. In this new report, the 2012 calendar year was
examined for data on produced water volume and management. Veil provided some of the findings
from this recent report in his presentation:
Between 2007 and 2012, the amount of crude oil produced in the United States increased by 29
percent and the amount of natural gas produced increased by 22 percent, he said. Although these
numbers would suggest that produced water volumes should also have increased by a similar amount
during the same period, they did not and rather increased by a smaller amount. He hypothesized
that the reasons may lie in the fact that in 2007, the production of oil and gas was primarily from
conventional (vertically drilled) wells. Conventional wells initially generate small amounts of pro-
duced water that tends to increase in volume over time. Between 2007 and 2012, he said, a number
of conventional wells were taken out service and were replaced by newer unconventional wells that
generate lower volumes of produced water compared to conventional wells when production begins,
and usually generate very low volumes later in the lifetime of the well. Thus, he suggested, a change

TABLE 2.1 Ranked Top 10 States in 2012 Water Production

2012 Water
Ranking State (bbl/yr) % of All U.S. Produced Water
1 Texas 7,435,659,000 35
2 California 3,074,585,000 15
3 Oklahoma 2,325,153,000 11
4 Wyoming 2,178,065,000 10
5 Kansas 1,061,019,000 5
6 Louisiana 927,635,000 4
7 New Mexico 769,153,000 4
8 Alaska 624,762,000 3
9 Federal Offshore 358,389,000 2
10 Colorado 320,191,000 2
NOTE: bbl = billion barrels.

SOURCE: Veil, slide 9.
in production strategies may have contributed to lower volumes of produced water relative to the
overall increase in volumes of oil and gas produced over this period.
Veil showed a table indicating the 10 states that had the highest produced water volumes
for 2012 (see Table 2.1). Texas generated more than one-third of all the U.S. produced water.
California, Oklahoma, and Wyoming each recorded 10 percent or more of all the U.S. produced
water in 2012. Produced water volumes from federal offshore leases in the Gulf of Mexico, also
included in Table 2.1, were not large relative to most other states and represented just 2 percent of
total U.S. produced water volumes.
Veil emphasized the importance of the ratio of water to oil production as a way to compare
water production volumes from different states.1 He noted that when he collected these data from
states, not every state had data distinguishing how much water derived from oil wells and how much
water was from gas wells. However, 21 states could share useful data and, from this information, he
calculated a weighted average and found 9.2 barrels of water were produced for every barrel of oil
in 2012. Oklahoma and Texas were not included in the list and he suggested that volumes of pro-
duced water relative to oil in these states may be much larger than in the other states. Veil suggested
that if he had access to all of the data, a ratio of produced water to oil might be closer to 10 to 1.
The remainder of Veil’s presentation covered four topics: produced water management practice,
produced water treatment, reusing produced water, and barriers and possible solutions/opportunities
to increasing use of produced water.
Produced Water Management Practice

Work conducted to develop the Veil (2015) report included surveys of each of the states with
oil and gas production for information on how produced water was managed. Veil said that he
found that 45 percent of produced water was injected back into the formation for enhanced recovery
1 Water-to-oil ratios can be used to evaluate the relative production age of oil within the production lifetime. For example,
the volume of water produced from oil wells does not remain constant with time. The water-to-oil ratio can increase with
well age (Clark and Veil, 2009).

operations; about 39 percent was injected into disposal wells; and 7 percent was addressed through
offsite commercial disposal, mostly injected via disposal wells. Thus, about 91 percent of all pro-
duced water was injected back into the ground, he indicated. The remaining management practices
included surface discharge at 5.5 percent and evaporation at 3.5 percent. Based on the study, Veil
estimated that only about six-tenths of 1 percent of produced water was used for further applica-
tions. Of the states that collected data on volumes of produced waters that were used for subsequent
applications (most states do not collect this type of data), he noted the following in:
• Arkansas, 2 million barrels (volume in units) of produced water per year were used to
make new hydraulic fracturing fluids.
• California, 46 million barrels per year of produced water were used but the state did not
report explicitly how it was being used. Veil further elaborated that in places like in the San
Ardo field in California, where some of the produced water is treated to very high standards,
the treated produced water may be used for irrigation or for cooling tower boiler feed.
• Colorado, 47 million barrels of produced water were used, mostly for hydraulic fracturing
fluids.
• Ohio, 750,000 barrels of produced water were used for new hydraulic fracturing fluids or
used for ice control on roads. This latter type of use is not done in every state, but a few
states do allow spreading of produced water on road surfaces for ice control during winter
periods, Veil noted.
• Pennsylvania, 29 million barrels of produced water were used for new hydraulic fracturing
and other drilling fluids.
Produced Water Treatment

Veil briefly introduced treatment aspects of produced water, stating that, even if water is
injected for disposal, treatment may be necessary. The goal, he said, is to ensure the water being
injected to the subsurface is compatible with the rock formation and water already present to avoid
chemical reactions that cause precipitates to clog the rock porosity. Characteristics of concern
include solids, dissolved oil, microbial activity, and chemical compounds that create corrosion. Veil
aggregated treatment technologies into three groups:
• Metal and organic removal. The traditional way to remove these constituents is to raise
pH, add a flocculent, and use the clarification process to allow the floc and suspended
material to settle out. He indicated that electrocoagulation can also be used as can certain
membrane processes with varying filtration pore sizes.
• Salt removal. Reverse osmosis is commonly used to remove salts, but above about 50,000
parts per million TDS reverse osmosis loses effectiveness and thermal processes are a
better option. Forward osmosis and membrane distillation are methods that are beginning
to enter the marketplace, Veil said.
• Oil, grease, and other organic chemical removal. The most common treatment for these
constituents is simple gravity settling through separators or filtration.
Reusing Produced Water

Veil suggested the technique for reusing water that is not receiving enough attention is the
45 percent of produced water that is being injected back into geologic formations to help produce
more oil. That water serves a very valuable purpose, he said, because without it, the incremental
oil would not be produced. If produced water cannot be used for this purpose then surface and

groundwater supplies would be used instead. In many states, flowback and produced waters are
being used to make new hydraulic fracturing fluids and other drilling fluids. He showed an example
from Pennsylvania in 2012 with volume and percent data illustrating the different categories of
flowback and produced water management practices (see Table 2.2).
The centralized approach for use of produced water in Pennsylvania is to transport the water
off site, treat it, and then transport it back to the well sites. About 98 percent of all flowback water
and about 78 percent of the produced water in Pennsylvania were being used in the oil field in
2012, Veil said. He stressed that the driving factor for this high degree of produced water use for
other applications was economic more so than regulatory. However, similar economic conditions
do not necessarily apply in other fields across the country. Veil then described additional potential
uses of produced waters.
Industrial Use
A variety of ways exist to use produced water for industry. Veil indicated that one example is
the use of produced water to wash the trucks leaving production sites; another is the use of produced
water as cooling water for industrial purposes, although he said this is done infrequently.
Roadway Use
Some states allow spraying of produced water onto roads to keep dust down on unpaved roads
or for ice and snow control during winter.
Agricultural Use
In most cases, produced water is very salty. In some circumstances, produced water may have
low or moderate salinity and, when this occurs, salt can be removed economically and the waters
then used for irrigating agricultural crops or watering livestock or wildlife.
TABLE 2.2 Flowback and Produced Water Management Practices in the Pennsylvania
Portion of the Marcellus Shale During 2012
Percent of Total
Flowback Produced Total Water Water Volume
Water Volume Water Volume Volume Managed by
Practice (bbl/year) (bbl/year) (bbl/year) That Practice
Centralized treatment for reuse 1,398,438 2,131,496 3,529,934 13
Injection-disposal 70,679 3,493,527 3,564,206 13
Residual waste processing and reuse 30,612 105,358 135,970 0.5
Reuse other than road spreading 8,149,339 11,418,150 19,567,489 72
Storage waiting for disposal or reuse 63,981 256,948 320,929 1.2
Landfill 6,366 278 6,644 <0.1
Discharge 105 105 210 <0.1
Road spreading 425 425 850 <0.1
Total 9,719,945 17,406,287 27,126,232 100
NOTE: bbl = billion barrels.

SOURCE: Veil, slide 20. Note that Veil employed the term “reuse” when presenting this table.

Mobile Technologies
Veil outlined research and applications being undertaken by a researcher at Texas A&M Uni-
versity who has investigated different types of mobile treatment technology that could be brought to
an oil well to clean produced water onsite. Veil was not aware of anyone in Texas actually using that
treated water for drinking water supplies as yet, but he suggested that the technology exists to do so.
Secondary Use
Veil has discussed this type of use for several years. He said that produced water at the land
surface contains dissolved minerals and thus may have heat associated with it. Therefore, the water
may have a secondary value, for example, to generate geothermal electricity from hot produced
water. In other situations, he suggested, produced water may have very high concentrations of dis-
solved minerals with economic value if they can be extracted.
Why Produced Water Is Not Used More: Barriers and Possible Solutions/Opportunities
One main barrier to increasing the use of produced water, Veil said, is an economic one.
Removing salt from produced water is currently expensive, although the technology exists to do
so and, in many applications, salt has to be removed from produced water before the water can be
used. In addition, water is heavy and moving large amounts over any distance incurs energy and
transport costs, he said. Another barrier is a social one because of the concerns many people may
have about drinking water that began as produced water, even after treatment. Veil said he did not
have a simple way to address the social barrier other than perhaps creating case study examples
and making that information broadly available. To share the results of case study examples, inter-
mediate parties, whether academics, national laboratories, or others, would be necessary to carry
out the work. Finally, Veil discussed policy barriers, which he said he has highlighted for about a
decade. Policy barriers include water rights and liability. Every state has the ability to set its own
water rights laws and regulations, and as long as produced water is considered a waste product, he
said, the water rights holder may not be concerned. However, if produced water is treated with a
plan to sell to an end user, the water attains an economic value which may change the approach to
produced water by the water rights holder and other parties.
In the past, Veil said he has asked questions of the major oil and gas companies about the
liability of using produced water for a greater array of secondary purposes. His question is “If you
could find a way to treat produced water at a very low cost, would your attorneys allow you to sell
it or distribute it to end users?” He indicated that the companies generally respond that they would
not be able to sell or distribute the treated water because of legal concerns. Veil is aware that some
companies are examining this kind of approach, but he suggested that those who try it may often
be the small- or medium-sized companies.
In terms of opportunities and solutions, Veil emphasized access to databases and clearinghouses
for information, which could provide opportunities to match generators of produced water with
potential water users. He knows of one company that has started a business following this approach.
Veil also indicated that he would like to see movement toward involving third parties that are not
the producers or end users to take the water, make sure it is clean, and distribute it to the end water
user. In this scenario, the liability for the oil and gas companies might be removed.
Veil concluded by stating that a lot of produced water is generated on a daily basis, with a mil-
lion oil and gas wells in the country producing about 2.3 billion gallons of water per day. Currently,
the majority of produced water is injected back into the ground, while a very small percentage is
being used for subsequent applications. However, he believes use of produced water is increasing.

BENEFICIAL USE OF PRODUCED WATER FROM THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY:
APPROACHES TO MANAGE, TREAT, AND TRANSPORT
FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WATER
Jill Cooper, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Cooper opened her presentation by asking a question: Why are oil and gas companies present
at a meeting discussing potential beneficial uses of produced water? She suggested that factors
such as risk, cost, and liability have made the practice of managing produced water by injection
into deep disposal wells the most common approach. However, she said that about 3 or 4 years
ago the industry engaged in conversations about other ways to manage produced water because
Secretary Teague (the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment) and others were asking
what might be done to keep water at the surface for other uses. She noted different kinds of water
rights implications for different types of water associated with oil and gas production. The oil and
gas producer owns flowback water, she said. However, Cooper mentioned that geologic formation
water and produced water are a little different.
If produced water can be a usable byproduct, a cost and benefit analysis has to be undertaken to
understand how much energy it takes to treat the water and make it useful for a given purpose. She
noted that over-treating the water is not efficient because it can waste energy and other resources.
A critical aspect of evaluating potential beneficial uses, she said, is to understand the eventual pur-
pose of the treated water; therefore, analyzing the water and treating it for the appropriate purpose
is important. For example, use of produced water for agriculture is different than use of produced
water for drinking water. Each would require different levels of treatment.
She described the collaborative work of a group of 18 companies to produce a drilling and
completion production water life cycle (see Figure 2.3). Details of the cycle include production,
recovery of water, storage, disposal, treatment, recycling, and use in predrill construction. She said
that when water leaves industrial operations and is released into the environment as a discharge,
regulators and stakeholders are concerned. Regulators work very hard with industry, she said, to
identify the appropriate permit limits for water that leaves the operation cycle. Cooper then asked
a question of the audience: In terms of the water life cycle, where are the key risks, costs, and
liabilities located?
Cooper noted that the oil and gas industry is nimble, having learned how to use produced water,
brackish water, and nonfreshwater in operations. For example, in Colorado, the oil and gas industry
uses less than 0.08 percent of the total water used in the state (see Figure 2.4). This figure may
be even less now because not as much hydraulic fracturing is presently occurring in the state, she
said. Although this percentage is not high, she indicated that representing the number on a county-
by-county basis could highlight regional differences in water use. In Pennsylvania, for example,
the oil and gas industry uses 0.2 percent of all water used in the state, and in the Environmental
Protection Agency’s draft hydraulic fracturing report (EPA, 2015), water use is less than 1 percent
of total water use across the United States on an annual basis, she said. Despite these low relative
volumes, industry still has a role to play in reducing the overall use of water, Cooper emphasized.
In her discussion of the movement and management of water, Cooper said that as the price
of oil and gas has decreased in recent years, industry has become more cost effective in drilling
and fracturing wells. In such a situation, the relative cost of water management increases. Thus,
motivation exists to reduce the costs associated with produced water and water management, in
general. She noted that produced water is generated from most active wells, although every oil or
gas play has a different water profile and a different quantity of water produced depending on the
life of the well. The variability among plays is challenging for water recycling efforts, as it really
depends on the specific site, she said.

FIGURE 2.3 Life cycle of water in upstream operation.

NOTE: AMD = abandoned mine drainage; D&C = drilling and completion; DC = dust control; POWT =
publicly owned wastewater treatment plant; SU = sanitary utility; UIC = underground injection control; WD
= wash decontamination.
SOURCE: Cooper, slide 3.
Sector Breakdown of “All Others”

7%
8% 0.1% O&G
85%
Recreation
Large Industry
Thermoelectric Power Generation
Agriculture Municipal & Industrial Total of All Others Hydraulic Fracturing
Snowmaking
Coal, Natural Gas, Uranium & Solar Development
FIGURE 2.4 Projected water usage by the oil and natural gas (O&G) industry in Colorado.
SOURCE: Cooper, slide 4.

Cooper highlighted that the oil and gas industry is one of the few industries that can bring
water to the surface as a byproduct of operations. The industry is not drilling groundwater wells
for water; rather, a well is drilled for natural gas and oil, and water that had been trapped under-
ground together with the oil and gas is brought to the surface in the process. This could be viewed
as a net gain of water at the surface and thus as a potential benefit, she said. Because water profiles
differ from one oil or gas play to another, water can be produced in large amounts initially and then
can drop off with time. Thus, it may not be economical for a municipality to invest money in a water
system if the source has a short time frame and is one of the reasons why agriculture is seen as a
potential partner with the oil and gas industry in terms of potential end users for treated, produced
water. The agricultural sector has somewhat greater flexibility than a municipality and agriculture
often operates near the locations of oil and gas operations.
Cooper then discussed ways to identify and maximize opportunities for potential uses of pro-
duced water. The Energy Water Initiative—a collaboration within the oil and natural gas industry to
study, describe, and improve produced water use and management in unconventional oil and natural
gas exploration and production—has worked together for over 4 years. She said the group meets
four times per year to discuss technical issues and recently released a report on produced water
management case studies (EWI, 2015). Twelve of the 18 companies involved in the collaborative
effort undertook site visits to see one another’s water treatment systems. The experience was valu-
able and an outcome of the site visits was an insight into industry trends that suggested the industry
is developing new innovations for water treatment.
Cooper then referred to an effort by Anadarko, also a member of the collaborative project, to
replicate the collaborative group’s effort. One outcome was the development of a five-part strategy
for potential produced water use:
• Assurance,
• Prudent use,
• Technology development,
• Communication, and
• Advocacy.
Information on what Anadarko is learning from their effort is shared on a regular basis and is
included in their annual report, she noted.2 An important component of Anadarko efforts is com-
munity and stakeholder engagement, including, for example, a strong ambassador program in
Colorado. Cooper mentioned that they have trained more than 1,200 people to communicate with
the public and work with the company’s stakeholders and answer questions about produced water
and other topics.
Cooper closed by highlighting a case study that described collaborative efforts on a freshwater
transport system that Anadarko built in Colorado. Anadarko worked closely with agricultural part-
ners because Anadarko was operating on agricultural lands. They designed and built infrastructure
with the agricultural partners in the operating area and, when industry operations are complete, they
will give the system to their agricultural partners. She noted that the agricultural partners know a
lot about moving freshwater and both parties benefited from working together.
2 Available at http://www.anadarko.com/Responsibility/Sustainable-Development/HSE/Water-Management (accessed

August 29, 2016).

MODERATED DISCUSSION
Following Cooper’s presentation, George King opened the floor for questions and discussion. A
workshop participant asked about the implications of moving water at the surface and the potential
for unintended impacts. Bauer commented that a better collective understanding of the extent of
water movement at the surface and unintended impacts, as well as an array of solutions, is needed.
Creating a dialogue with decision makers and engaging with various stakeholders at a broader scale
would be helpful to advance the possibility for further use of treated produced water, Bauer said.
Another participant commented that they found the oil-to-water ratio, raised by Veil in his presen-
tation, to be interesting and asked if data exist to look at the ratios in further detail and undertake
analysis. If not, are additional data needed? Veil responded by indicating that good analytical insight
exists about produced water and that industry generally has these numbers.
Another participant noted a technology challenge in treating the water appropriately for a
given use and the potential need for storage of water for later use. A follow-on question was raised
about recharging groundwater aquifers with produced water. Cooper mentioned that it is possible
to recharge a groundwater aquifer that is being used for public use or multiple uses; however, the
water used for recharge has to meet drinking water quality standards. Veil cited an example in
Wellington, Colorado, where an agreement was brokered between a small community and an oil
and gas company. For some period, the oil and gas company provided the community with treated
produced water. The treated water was then injected into a shallow aquifer to serve as a future water
supply for the community.
Another question raised by a participant related to whether DOE had any projects that look
at alternatives to hydraulic fracturing fluids. Bauer responded that there is at least one project at
Berkley National Laboratories that DOE is supporting.
Directing a question to King and Veil, a participant asked if they could give any range of the
costs to process produced water (not including the transportation cost) using today’s technologies?
Veil disagreed that one could exclude transportation costs because they are a substantial part of
managing and treating produced water. Veil suggested processing costs to treat and manage pro-
duced water, including transport, can range from $5 to $10 per barrel of water. This depends on the
initial quality of the water and the desired quality of treated water. King followed by mentioning
that costs vary from cents on the barrel for simple filtration projects, to options such as desalination,
which can range up to $15 per barrel of water. He further elaborated that in the Barnhart area of
Texas, Apache Corporation has produced water recycling operations in the middle of their densest
well development program. One hundred percent of the water used in hydraulic fracturing in that
area is recycled. This has advantages, he said, in terms of recycling water onsite and having a short
transportation distance and adequate pipeline capacity to transport the water to the wells. At the
Apache site, 80,000 semi-truck loads of water were removed from the road in 1 year and they were
successful in getting the cost of recycled water below the cost of purchasing freshwater. Cooper
followed up by indicating that the cost of treatment is beginning to decline in comparison to the
cost of downhole injection. Over the entire life cycle of water management, she said, the cost may
be anywhere from $1.50 to $15 per barrel of water.
Another participant brought forward the idea of groundwater banking and the case of California,
which is presently using treated produced water to supplement groundwater supplies in some
areas. The participant noted interest in recycling produced water into groundwater banking projects
although significant data about the quantity and quality of produced water would be required to man-
age availability. The participant commented that a role may exist for some organization to become
a data clearinghouse for this kind of information.
Regarding the use of produced water in agriculture, one participant remarked on the importance
of case studies. An example mentioned was the field-scale irrigation of nonfood crops such as bio-

fuel crops. Many companies are presently treating produced water and using it for agricultural and
other purposes, the participant suggested, and the process is very well permitted. California is one
example, the participant noted, and the state has stringent permit programs.
Another participant commented on the chemistry of produced waters and that potential long-
term impacts of the chemical constituents are not understood. We do not have a set of common
definitions for what “clean” water is for different uses, the participant said. In terms of determining
water quality, no reference materials exist for testing, the analyses can be very expensive, and no
common agreement exists regarding laboratory approaches or standards. At present, the participant
noted, the full chemistry of these waters is not understood. King followed with a comment on the
water quality of natural systems which changes during the year because of issues such as seasonal
variations and recharge sites. Thus, water quality is a moving target and needs to be evaluated in
the context of a specific use, he said. Veil suggested that the degree of water treatment depends
upon the final use, with most treatments designed to remove one ideal pollutant but which may
also remove additional ones.
A participant asked about the potential added value of particular salts in the water and whether
work is ongoing in this area of research beyond the conceptual stage. Veil was not aware that this
kind of work has taken place commercially, but has heard of experiments. Bauer also said that
DOE is supporting some research in this area. Another participant noted that one commercially
profitable operation is iodine extraction. In the state of Oklahoma there are several operations that
are taking produced water, selectively extracting iodine, and returning the water back to the opera-
tor. There was a follow-on question regarding building a business case to view water as a product.
King responded that in the Barnhart area, for example, Apache targeted waters with salt content of
30,000 to 50,000 parts per million to use as fracturing fluid. Veil further elaborated on trying to use
produced water as a product for agricultural use or for drinking water. Regulation standards will
be needed at every application level, he said. Regulatory standards, such as discharge standards
for the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), have to be taken into account.
Operational standards also exist that are not driven by regulation but set by companies to protect
their assets. In an agricultural context, the agricultural community or the farmer will have to be
part of the standard development.
A participant outlined a study on hydraulic fracturing that was done for the state of Califor-
nia. The report3 yields 25 recommendations that are being adopted by the state. The report was
done by the California Council on Science and Technology and the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory Pacific Institute (CCST and LBNLPI, 2014). The recommendations included one that
suggested that no chemicals should be used in hydraulic fracturing fluids unless there is a basic
environmental profile of those chemicals. Finally, the participant asked the panel to comment on a
specific recommendation in the CCST and LBNLPI (2014) report, which suggested that the state
work with industry to reduce the number of chemicals that are being used in hydraulic fracturing
fluids. King responded by indicating that Apache Corporation is undertaking efforts to source safe
chemicals in its fluids.
In discussion with another participant, Cooper noted that different legal constraints exist for
various stakeholders in terms of using and treating produced water. Industry is constrained by the
definition of “clean” water, for example, and water quantity is viewed as a state purview while water
quality is viewed as a mixed federal and state responsibility.
3 Available at https://ccst.us/publications/2014/2014wst.pdf (accessed August 30, 2016).


Regional Similarities and Differences:

Environmental and Regulatory Context for
Potential Use of Flowback and Produced Water
T
he first panel of the workshop provided an overview of the environmental and regulatory
context for potential use of flowback and produced water in a regional context. Three
10-minute presentations by three panelists (Danny Reible, Texas Tech University; Radisav
Vidic, University of Pittsburgh; and James Silva, GE Global Research [retired]) were followed by
a panel discussion moderated by William Stringfellow (University of the Pacific and Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory).
In his opening remarks to begin the panel, Stringfellow shared some information from
California, where hydraulic fracturing is applied in already developed oil and gas areas and, as a
result, “flowback” water does not exist. California thus approaches produced water as a blended
material, representing some naturally occurring and anthropogenic materials. Because of the
existing infrastructure, water from oil and gas wells is typically put directly into the produced
water system after hydraulic fracturing. He commented that relative to the 10:1 water-to-oil ratio
previously mentioned, the ratio in California is about 15:1 (barrels of water to oil) and this water
needs managing. And a great deal of interest exists in using produced water because of recent
droughts in the state. At a state scale, the amount of produced water may not be a lot in a rela-
tive sense of overall use, but volumes may be locally important. Another reason for interest in
produced water in California is the water’s salt content. Produced water in California currently
does not have a lot of salt in it; desalinization is not a big issue. If the oil and other materials are
removed, produced water may be (and is already being) used for agriculture. Other uses include
flooding and steaming, pressure mitigation, subsidence mitigation, cooling, and steam generation.
However, he said, the rules of operation are changing in California and the current approach is
probably not going to continue. For example, disposal practices such as shallow reinjection and
percolation ponds to infiltrate water back to the groundwater are being examined as an opportunity
to use produced water.
19

PANEL PRESENTATIONS
Use of Flowback and Produced Waters in Permian Basin, Eagle Ford, and Barnett Shale
Danny Reible, Texas Tech University
Reible emphasized the importance of regional differences in considering water quality, quan-
tity, and potential use of produced waters. For example, in Texas, produced water does not have
similar quality advantages that exist in California. Thus, recognizing differences and recognizing
where opportunities exist is extremely important. He suggested an approach that considers water
fit for a specific use that can thereby target water treatment; such an approach requires us to adapt
to the water, rather than trying to get the water to adapt to us. Reible’s remarks then reviewed
the characteristics of flowback and produced water in Texas; the regulation of produced water; the
importance of regional context to identify opportunity, logistical, and economic considerations; and
the nature of fracturing fluids.
Reible noted a large volume of produced water generated relative to oil production in Texas
plays; however, the quality of the produced water is typically bad. He mentioned total dissolved
solids (TDS) concentrations of 100,000 milligrams per liter. This high level of salinity excludes a
lot of uses and raises some barriers for using produced water. He suggested that the primary viable
option for that high-salinity water is direct use in hydraulic fracturing or in the development of
oil and gas fields to enhance recovery. He also emphasized that the volume of water produced is
actually relatively small, adding a further barrier to a range of potential uses because of a set of
alternative, low-cost water resources that may also be available. For example, quite a lot of brack-
ish water (from perhaps 1,000 to 10,000 milligrams TDS per liter) is available in Texas near the
surface; however, the amount that can be withdrawn compared to the total volume is small, at most
a few percent. In the Southwest, approximately 10 Great Lake volumes of brackish water have been
estimated as being near the surface and potentially available for use, he said. These volumes could
serve as alternative source waters for small communities following desalination, as makeup water
for agriculture, and as waters used directly for hydraulic fracturing.
In Texas one of the biggest differences, especially compared to the Marcellus shale play in the
northeastern United States, is that there are 12,000 saltwater disposal wells providing a relatively
low-cost water disposal option. If the disposal wells are owned by the operator, the disposal costs
can be as little as $0.10 per barrel of water. This cost may increase if the water has to be transported
by truck to dispose of it in a commercial well.
Until recently in Texas, Reible noted, it was quite difficult to transfer produced water to other
users due to water rights and ownership issues. Freshwater is the property of the surface land owner
and selling water is a potential source of income to the land owner. As a result, any transfer of that
produced water to another nearby operator had been quite difficult although recent efforts have
worked to try to alleviate this issue.
Reible also noted incentives to use produced water given water’s regional importance in central
and west Texas. The worst single-year drought in Texas history was 2011. The drought occurred
during a period of growth in the oil and gas industry and hydraulic fracturing. The image of tens of
thousands of trucks transporting freshwater per year and pumping it down a hole was not a good
image for the oil and gas industry when farmers did not have enough water and cities were within a
few months of running out of drinking water, he said. A good example of using produced water was
the Apache Corporation experience (previously discussed; see Chapter 2, Moderated Discussion),
where produced water was used in a large interconnected wellfield. Thus, the need for water for
hydraulic fracturing was balanced by the adjacent wells where produced water was coming to the
surface. Reible also said that transportation costs (putting water into trucks or pipelines and trans-

REGIONAL SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES 21
porting water off site) dramatically increase the cost of managing produced water. In the Apache
Corporation example, the use of produced water onsite overcame many of these types of logistical
and economic constraints.
Reible remarked further that the management and use of produced water is not governed by
technology but by logistical and economic concerns. Large interconnected wellfields present an
opportunity for using produced water. The use of water onsite avoids transportation costs and
associated issues, such as impacts on the local community road infrastructure. As an example, the
lifetime of many rural roads in west Texas went from a design life of 50 years to less than 10 years
when truck activity (associated with oil and gas) to transport produced water increased.
There is a trend in industry throughout the United States and Texas to make fracturing fluid
compositions simpler. For example, a recent increase in the amount of slickwater1 fracturing makes it
easier for operators to use very high TDS waters in hydraulic fracturing activities. Reible emphasized
that although saltwater disposal wells in Texas will continue to be used for disposal, a feasible goal
is to maximize direct use of produced water and that many opportunities exist to do that. For every
barrel of produced water that is applied to subsequent uses within an oil field, one less barrel of water
has to be transported for disposal, he said.
Radisav Vidic
University of Pittsburgh
Vidic noted that the potential use of flowback and produced water is a difficult topic to address
because of many regulatory and environmental concerns that are constantly changing. He indicated
that the American Petroleum Institute (API) recommends operators consider options for recycling
fracture treatment flowback fluid. The API also discusses management and disposal options for such
waters which include land spreading, road spreading, onsite burial, onsite pits, annular injection,
underground injection wells, regulated and permitted discharge of this fluid, and offsite commercial
facilities. Underground injection wells for water from oil and gas activities are Class II-D2 wells.
Such disposal wells are by far the cheapest option to dispose of produced water and are also the
least troublesome; the combination of logistical and economic practicalities are drivers for a lot
of decisions being made with respect to produced water, Vidic said. He began his discussion by
describing some of the regulatory framework that governs disposal of produced water in various
states and followed that with the example of produced water management in Pennsylvania.
All states, he said, except for North Carolina, permit injection and Class II-D disposal wells.
States like Montana and Ohio actually require that any water above 15,000 milligrams TDS per
liter has to be injected into a disposal well unless a regulatory hearing determines otherwise. A lot
of states are cognizant of produced water disposal wells and the associated potential to generate
earthquakes. In some instances, these concerns have led to limiting the use of disposal wells that lie
within a certain distance from known faults. Induced seismicity3 is becoming much more prominent
in the public context with the result that greater pressure exists to reduce the use of disposal wells
and provide alternative solutions to managing produced water.
Pennsylvania has a unique regulatory environment, Vidic said, as there is no ability for the state
to permit Class II wells. This regulatory capacity lies with the federal government, and the Envi-
1 Slickwater is a type of fracturing fluid that contains a friction reducer (HexionFracline, 2012). Available at http://www.
hexionfracline.com/fracturing-fluids-101 (accessed August 30, 2016).
2 Class II wells are used to inject fluids associated with oil and natural gas production. These fluids are primarily brines
that are brought to the surface while producing oil and gas. SOURCE: EPA, 2016a. Underground Injection Control (UIC).
Available at https://www.epa.gov/uic/class-ii-oil-and-gas-related-injection-wells (accessed August 17, 2016).
3 “Earthquakes attributable to human activities are called induced seismic events or induced earthquakes” (NRC, 2013, p. 1).

ronmental Protection Agency is the ultimate permitting agency for disposal wells in Pennsylvania.
The state has 200,000 oil and gas wells, many of which are legacy conventional oil and gas wells,
with unknown locations, he noted. This number of legacy wells creates complications for disposal
wells. These considerations compromise the use of Class II disposal wells as a primary management
solution for Pennsylvania, like they are for Texas, and for this reason, Pennsylvania developed an
approach to use produced water. Vidic noted the efforts of the industry sector in Pennsylvania in
trying to identify alternative approaches to disposal of produced water in deep injection wells. He
emphasized that use of produced water in hydraulic fracturing jobs actually works better than use
of tap water or river water where potassium chloride must be added to the water to prevent sub-
surface swelling in the rock formation. He mentioned in Pennsylvania that about 90 percent of the
produced water is used again for subsequent hydraulic fracturing activity. This proportion makes
up a small fraction of the amount of water needed for the next hydraulic fracturing job. Vidic did
provide a caveat by indicating that using produced water in this way only works if another well is
available for hydraulic fracturing. Once hydraulic fracturing of wells ceases, the water cannot be
used further for that purpose. He noted that this potential situation is not an immediate concern in
Pennsylvania because approximately 10,000 wells have been hydraulically fractured to date with
the future total estimated to be much higher if production of oil and gas from shale and other tight
formations continues.
Pennsylvania regulates produced water from oil and gas operations in a two-part system. Con-
ventional wells and the conventional oil and gas industry have been grandfathered and permitted
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) facilities exist to dispose of produced
water from these activities into streams. This kind of practice has been done for decades and was
not a major issue when small amounts of produced water were being generated in Pennsylvania
from conventional fields. Such produced waters are permitted for discharge at 500 milligrams TDS
per liter. Water with that quality has value, he said, and for that reason, produced water from con-
ventional oil and gas wells is permitted differently than produced water from unconventional wells.
Although their salinities are similar, some differences exist, for example, in ratios of strontium
isotopes, Vidic said.
Various potential uses for treated produced water in Pennsylvania each offer different kinds of
challenges, Vidic said. Use of treated produced water for agriculture is not an option in Pennsylvania
because the state does not have irrigated agriculture. Other uses for produced water are limited to
industrial and livestock use. Produced water use for hydraulic fracturing is also not straightforward
because of the complications in terms of fracture fluid design. For example in Texas, gel-based frac-
ture fluids are used, while in Pennsylvania slickwater fracturing is generally used. Texas is moving
toward slickwater fracturing.
Recovery of valuable products from produced water is an attractive option, Vidic indicated,
but that process is incredibly complex because one is trying to extract milligrams or micrograms
per liter of compounds from produced water that has hundreds of thousands of milligrams per
liter of sodium chloride. From an engineering standpoint, this kind of extraction is difficult
to do. Even if sodium chloride is extracted as a byproduct, Pennsylvania could be making 8 to
10 million tons of sodium chloride. For context, the entire United States uses 15 million tons
of sodium chloride for deicing roads to make roads safe during cold periods; thus, a market for
excess sodium chloride extracted through treatment of produced water may not exist.
Another problem in Pennsylvania is the naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM)
already in the subsurface rock formations; because of the existence of NORM, the state has pro-
duced water containing radiogenic nuclides produced from radioactive decay of these materials.
Thus, any effort to recover, treat, or use produced water also has to address NORM. At the moment,
Pennsylvania allows NORM to go into landfills. Once Pennsylvania reaches about 30,000 unconven-
tional wells, however, the quantity of NORM will exceed what Pennsylvania landfills can handle.

James Silva
GE Global Research (retired)
Silva noted that one-quarter of the nation’s gas is from unconventional sources. Unconven-
tional sources were not even considered 10 or even 20 years ago, he said. Some of the big differ-
ences among the different shale plays revolve around water. Source water for hydraulic fracturing
to develop shale plays like the Marcellus in the northeastern United States is not an immediate
problem because of the relative abundance of natural surface water and precipitation; the bigger
question in states like Pennsylvania is rather what to do with the produced water. In contrast, the
Barnett play in Texas has a source water problem for hydraulic fracturing due to the relative scarcity
of surface water and competing needs for groundwater resources. However, disposal of produced
water is relatively straightforward due to the existence of many underground injection wells. In the
remainder of his remarks, Silva focused on experiences he had gained through his work with GE
in examining the issue of produced water in Pennsylvania.
In the past 8 years, Silva said, the approach toward produced water has changed. In 2008 when
he first began examining the issues associated with hydraulic fracturing and the use of produced
water, the standard approach was to use freshwater for all hydraulic fracturing rather than taking
risks (at surface levels in terms of transportation and in the subsurface with equipment) in using
high-TDS produced water. Initially, he said, work was thus focused on ways to recover and use
clean water out of high-TDS produced water from Marcellus shale. At the same time, articles were
just starting to be published on the use of high-TDS water for hydraulic fracturing.
Silva mentioned that every kind of wellfield area has a life cycle of about 50 years. Within
that life cycle are a peak and a decline in generation of oil or gas and produced water. Similarly,
if management of produced water is focused on the use in hydraulic fracturing of new wells, the
number of new wells where such water may be used is not always guaranteed to meet the produced
water supply. At some point, large-scale, high-TDS produced water desalination capabilities will
be necessary, he suggested. Technologies exist for this type of desalination and they may be more
economical than some other options (e.g., trucking to offsite facilities and deep-well injection).
Silva indicated that he has always viewed deep-well injection of produced water as a last resort.
For low-TDS produced water, for example from the shales in the western United States, some
success stories are worth noting, Silva said. A 1 million gallon per day desalination plant is in
operation in Wyoming, for example. The shale gas produced water is desalinated at that facility
essentially to drinking water standards. The water is then discharged where it could be potentially
repurposed for aquifer recharge.
For high-TDS waters, Silva noted a couple of choices to consider:
• Desalinate the water to a point just prior to sodium chloride crystallization, and
• Crystallize sodium chloride to get a greater percentage of water recovery.
With these considerations in mind, Silva mentioned a possibility to evaporate the water and then
collect the concentrated salt. If water begins with 180,000 milligrams TDS per liter, for example,
about 40 percent of the water can be recovered which is a sizable reduction in the amount of
water that has to be managed. The remaining water could be disposed through deep-well injection
although the water is desirable from a well management standpoint, as it could be used onsite. To
achieve 90 percent water recovery, sodium chloride has to be crystallized. Although this option
offers the great advantage of almost complete water recovery, it introduces other challenges of
management of the crystallized sodium chloride, including the economics and regulation of the
new product stream.

In terms of regulating recovered sodium chloride, Silva said, Pennsylvania has a co-product
status for minerals recovered from produced water. If sodium chloride is crystallized from produced
water, the sodium chloride has to be no less harmful to human health than a product that is inten-
tionally mined or manufactured for that same purpose, he indicated. Thus, for road salt, the com-
parison would be made to mined rock salt. From a Pennsylvania perspective, produced water can be
rich in barium and trace amounts of radium which can affect regulation of subsequent byproducts
of water treatment. Silva emphasized that all of these considerations have to be taken into account,
managed, and economically modeled to consider any potential alternative use of treated produced
waters. The comparison from an economic standpoint is made relative to the $12 per barrel trans-
portation cost for water to dispose of it in a deep injection well.
Silva closed his comments by emphasizing the uniqueness of every kind of produced water and
every local economy. Thus, approaches for using produced water have to be specifically addressed.
What is right for produced water in the Barnett shale in Texas may be absolutely wrong for the
Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania, and vice versa.
Stringfellow opened the moderated discussion with a question to all of the panelists about
water quality standards associated with the various uses of produced water. Reible responded by
stating that standards would depend on the intended use, for example, whether the water is intended
for drinking or for irrigation. Vidic commented that the guidelines or standards are actually set by
whoever is going to use that water, with the idea to seek regulatory approval to use water for a
specific application such as irrigation, livestock, or industry. In a social context, water that comes
from the oil and gas industry has a negative connotation requiring communication and education
to overcome if such water is to be used for other purposes, Vidic said.
A participant then raised a question about NORM and asked whether evaporation, precipitation,
or flocculation of the produced water could increase the amount of NORM in the water, thereby
making disposal of water difficult. The participant asked further what avenues exist to treat produced
water that contains NORM.4 Silva suggested that because NORM is soluble species, an approach
would be to evaporate the produced water so it is free of NORM, and then deal with the remaining
concentrate. Vidic noted that in Pennsylvania, NORM can be recovered together with barite and that
barite can meet the specifications for drilling mud to be used in drilling subsequent wells.
Another participant asked the panel about the current state of the art for characterizing con-
stituents in produced water and for assessing their toxicity. The participant used ethylene glycol
as an example and stated that there are currently no drinking water standards for ethylene glycol,
which can be found in produced water. To set a drinking water standard, one needs to know what is
in the water, to know the exposure pathways, and to know the toxicities of the various constituents.
Stringfellow responded by stating that the analytical capacity for a lot of anthropogenic chemi-
cals is not robust and constitutes a science gap. Reible agreed that we do not know as much as we
could about characterizing the constituents in produced water and that this area offers some really
good science opportunities. Additional areas where scientific understanding is weak include the
fluid and fluid-rock chemical reactions occurring in the deep subsurface that are under both high
pressure and high temperature.
Another participant asked panelists to comment on current management practices (storage,
treatment, transport, and use of the produced water). Reible indicated that much opportunity
remains to consider direct use of produced water for other oil and gas activities. A lot of produced
4 NORM also includes radon gas, which could accumulate in enclosed produced water storage tanks due to radioactive
decay of uranium in drilling waste and radium in produced water.

water goes directly to disposal wells because that is a simpler option, he said. When moving pro-
duced water off site for treatment or storage, one of the immediate concerns from the public is some
sort of brine spill that impacts the environment. Direct onsite use of produced water can minimize
some of these potential impacts because the water is generally not being handled multiple times.
A participant commented that a lot of opportunity exists for technologic solutions in treat-
ing water and reducing volume. The person then asked if any studies have analyzed the value of
freshwater when a city (e.g., San Antonio) is 2 months away from running out of water or when a
town loses its only freshwater well and has to truck freshwater in to supply the residents, or when
the Ogallala aquifer is dropping and farmers’ wells are going dry. Reible responded by saying that
water is not currently valued as a resource and people are not willing to pay for water. Another
participant thought that this lack of valuing water was a fundamental problem to advancing use of
produced water for alternative purposes.
A participant asked the panel to assess the capacity, regionally and as a nation, to undertake
studies needed to understand more about the management, treatment, and use of produced water.
What is needed to move forward? Vidic responded by emphasizing there is a need to share data and
also noted the problem of a lack of common standards. Industry sometimes shares data among its
own, but broader data sharing among academics, citizens, and industry does not often take place.
Furthermore, he said, without produced water standards, meeting the needs of a user will be difficult
because produced water from one field may have a different composition relative to another field
and the quality needed even for use in one oil or gas operation may differ from that of another. The
operators are not necessarily trying to meet the same standards. He illustrated this point further
through an example in which the Department of Energy (DOE) was examining mercury emissions
from power plants; little progress was made until DOE defined standards for flow gas composi-
tion. After the standards were defined, everybody was able to work on the basis of a similar set of
expectations. In the case of produced water, a standard of produced water for subsequent uses could
be established for different applications such as agriculture.
A participant said that one big difference between states in handling produced water is the
design of pits (storage systems to protect groundwater) (e.g., Kuwayama et al., 2015). In terms of
protection of groundwater, the practices seem to differ substantially; in some states, pits are triple
lined with sensors between the linings, while in other states, linings are not required at all. The
person asked the panelists whether states really differ so much in this practice or if the regulations
are simply older and have been selectively adapted over time. Reible suggested that these regula-
tions are historical and they change slowly, if at all. Another participant made a point that industry
has at times taken a proactive approach to regulatory requirements and exceeded the state or federal
regulation; the example provided was with regard to sampling water in wells in a community where
oil and gas drilling may take place. In some cases, the federal or state regulation may only require
the company to sample water at 2,500 feet prior to drilling the oil or gas well, but some companies
will sample groundwater at 4,000 to 5,000 feet to provide a more complete dataset for comparison
to groundwater samples after drilling for oil or gas has commenced.
A comment from another participant related to the need for standards for evaporation and per-
colation pits and the areas around wellheads and the potential for air quality issues in evaporation
pits. Stringfellow indicated that air quality issues do exist with evaporation and percolation pits but
that he was unsure if specific regulations were currently in place to address the issue. Another par-
ticipant added a question about the state of standards and practices around the wellheads that would
preclude effects on shallow aquifers. Silva responded by sharing information about his experience
in visiting some of the wellheads where he said a wide range of provisions were put into practice
to avoid any leakage of water into the ground.
Stringfellow asked panelists about calculating the water balance on oil and gas activities?
What kinds of data are needed and what data are available? Reible added that operators are prob-

ably focused on a water balance for their individual fields and wells. It may be difficult, given
regional differences, to make decisions based on larger-scale overall water balance calculations.
Silva mentioned that he calculated a water balance on a past project located in Bradford County,
Pennsylvania. He found that the use of produced water in subsequent fracturing jobs was increasing
the TDS content of produced water in a predictable manner. The water balance calculations were
doable when information was accessible. Vidic gave another example of the Susquehanna River
Basin Commission, which accounts for every drop of water in the entire watershed because they
have a mandate to do so. Every drop of water taken out of the river basin is reported, as is what is
done with that water and where it went after it was removed. He also described an example from
the Ohio River Basin where the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission has no regulatory
or permitting authority, so anybody can go to the Ohio River and take whatever water they need.
Regarding data availability to estimate water usage, one participant added that a number of
companies routinely cite water volumes in their corporate responsibility reports. This information
may include gallons of freshwater and produced water used annually in their operations, often
reported by geographic area.
A participant mentioned that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a Produced Waters
Database5 that contains approximately 165,000 data points and is freely available to the public as a
Web-based tool. The current version is 2.2 and they are continually working to update the database
with version 2.3 in progress. The database is designed to accept any water quality data, whether they
derive from academia or industry or some other entity. USGS conducts studies and populates the
database with some of those studies as well. They are also trying to incorporate radionuclide data,
as well as trace metals and trace elements that might be of concern. The data are quality assured
and quality controlled.
Vidic commented further on the topic of data sharing by outlining a Pennsylvania example.
For the past 5 years in Pennsylvania, an effort was made to bring people, industry, regulators,
academics, and others who expressed a concern about water quality together via running work-
shops. In the first year, a few citizens attended. The following year, more regulators came. Last year,
all stakeholders—regulators, industry, and citizens—participated in the workshop. A participant
involved in the effort said that it had initially been funded by the National Science Foundation from
a Research Coordination Network proposal; the effort is currently being supported by Penn State
University with some funding from the University of Pittsburgh, as well.
Returning to the discussion about water budgets, one participant noted that the Bureau of
Economic Geology in Texas compared produced water numbers to the water that is injected into
producing horizons and nonproducing horizons for direct saltwater disposal. In different fields, for
example in the Permian Basin, the data showed that produced water was volumetrically 20 percent
less than the volumes for saltwater disposal and injection wells. The participant also mentioned that
produced water quality data are not good. In Texas, data reporting for oil is done on a lease-by-lease
basis. Such data are going to be very important for designing treatment systems, the participant said.
Discussion then centered around a participant’s question about the value of water and water
markets. Specifically, the participant asked the panel to comment on how quickly the country is
moving toward a combined examination of water content and pricing of water, which would lead
toward markets in water trading. Stringfellow indicated that some water trading is already o ngoing
in California and Reible said that drought in California and Texas started a lot of innovation in terms
of getting water to where it is most needed and valued. Vidic mentioned an effort in P ennsylvania
to establish a clearinghouse for water needs within the oil and gas industry but that it was compli-
5 Produced Waters—Homepage, USGS. Available at http://energy.usgs.gov/EnvironmentalAspects/EnvironmentalAspectsof

EnergyProductionandUse/ProducedWaters.aspx (accessed November 10, 2016).

cated by concerns related to moving water from one company’s operation to another and potential
liability issues.
A data-sharing and relationship-building example was described by a participant. The person
noted that in the last legislative session in Texas, the legislature put forward a bill that required the
Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) to map brackish water aquifers throughout the state. The
Texas Oil and Gas Association met with the TWDB and talked about specific needs. A process was
developed where operators provided data to TWDB to help them map brackish aquifers. Initially
TWDB was going to look at brackish groundwater up to 10,000 milligrams TDS per liter. The
Association proposed examining brackish groundwater up to 30,000 milligrams of TDS per liter
because industry could use that water in place of freshwater in hydraulic fracturing operations and
the TWDB agreed to expand its mapping to include water with 30,000 milligrams of TDS per liter.
An online participant asked the panel to comment on the seismic effects of drilling more dis-
posal wells near the San Andreas Fault. Stringfellow said his understanding is that a disposal well
would not be placed near a fault zone like the San Andreas and that studies are being conducted
across the country to examine potential seismic impacts from deep disposal wells. Vidic explained
that in Arkansas there are regulations regarding where disposal wells can be placed relative to
proximity to known faults. In Ohio, injection wells were closed at least temporarily because of
induced seismicity and public concern. A participant mentioned that one has to recognize that there
are known faults in the subsurface as well as many faults that are not known, making it difficult to
guarantee that a disposal well would not be completed in the vicinity of a fault. A response to this
lack of complete knowledge of the presence and orientation of faults in the subsurface would be to
monitor pressure in the well during disposal.
Another example of shared experiences and collaborative effort was described by a participant
related to the induced seismicity issue. Through the States First Initiative, the Ground Water Pro-
tection Council convened a work group to share practices across states that were having concerns
about induced seismicity from disposal wells. Through that convening process, the group brought
together about 80 subject-matter experts, technical experts, state regulators, industry, academia, and
researchers from the federal government to develop a document about practices and approaches for
managing risk, considering issues such as local variability, including local geology.6 Previously, the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine did a report on induced seismicity in
the 2011-2012 time frame that really drove the conversation of broad stakeholder groups to con-
tinue a dialogue.7 From an industry perspective, that document was tremendously valuable to get a
range of industry groups recognizing the issue and proactively engaging on the topic, the participant
added. Stringfellow commented on the SB4 study, which was mandated by legislation in California
as part of regulation of hydraulic fracturing. This forced industry, regulatory agencies, and scientists
into productive discussion, he said. The report is publicly available.8
Another participant added that, partly a result of earthquakes to the north of Texas and in
Oklahoma, the state of Texas put close to $5 million into a program called TexNet. This program
was followed by the development of an industry consortium called the Center for Integrated
Seismicity Research to look at an integrated set of studies, including seismology, structural geology,
reservoir engineering, civil engineering, impacts, risks, and social aspects. This kind of integrated
research program that brings science and engineering together with industry and regulators is
potentially very powerful. These examples from the induced seismicity issue may provide a good
lesson for those working on water; many voices are needed to join together and work through the
questions and issues in a thoughtful, disciplined way.
6 Available at http://www.statesfirstinitiative.org/#!induced-seismicity-work-group/cwed (accessed July 14, 2016).

7 Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13355 (accessed July 14, 2016).
8 Available at http://ccst.us/projects/hydraulic_fracturing_public/SB4.php (accessed July 14, 2016).

In closing the session, Stringfellow asked the panel to comment on the kinds of temporal varia-
tion in produced water quality that may be anticipated from different oil and gas fields in order to
help design the right treatment systems. Specifically, he asked if panelists had thoughts regarding
daily variations in TDS per liter and whether we have consistent information to be able to address
those kinds of issues related to treatment. Vidic indicated that some information is available to
understand how water quality evolves in different wells in different regions but that the treatment
needs may change after the water has moved to the treatment plant; different water streams from
different fields or even from the same field over time may have different chemical components,
leaving a single treatment approach invalid or less useful. Resilience and flexibility in the water
treatment systems is important, another participant added.

Technologies for Managing Flowback and

Produced Waters for Potential Use
T
he second panel session of the workshop provided insights into technologies for manag-
ing flowback and produced waters for potential use. Three 10-minute presentations by the
panelists were followed by a moderated discussion. The discussion was moderated by Linda
Capuano, Baker Institute for Energy Studies (Rice University).
PANEL PRESENTATIONS
Technologies for Managing Flowback and Produced Waters for Potential Use
Tzahi Cath, Colorado School of Mines
Cath opened his presentation with some background information on water use. About 335 bil-
lion gallons of water per day are withdrawn for use in the United States and data indicate the largest
share is for thermoelectric cooling, followed by irrigation, he said (see Figure 4.1). Differentiating
these uses further by state and region, he noted that in the west, water is mainly used for irrigation,
while in the east water is used more for thermoelectric cooling purposes. In terms of states, both
California and Texas are large producers and users of water.
Many opportunities exist for increasing use of produced water in the United States, Cath
suggested. Currently, produced water use is about 2 billion gallons per day (less than 1 percent
of withdrawals) while 32 billion gallons per day of municipal wastewater effluent is discharged
nationwide, of which 12 billion gallons per day are discharged to an ocean or estuary. Cath then
used the remainder of his time to discuss oil and gas water use, various approaches to water treat-
ment, including desalination and pretreatment, and a decision support tool developed in his group
to help determine the kind of treatment options that would be most appropriate for a given intended
end use.
In the oil and gas industry, about 2.3 billion gallons per day of produced water is generated, with
a very small percent (less than 10 percent) currently used, Cath said. With drinking water available
at a relatively low price, little monetary incentive exists to use water. Thus, economics is a driving
29

FIGURE 4.1 Estimated water use in the United States in 2010.

SOURCE: Maupin et al., 2014. Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2014/3109/pdf/fs2014-3109.pdf (accessed
August 11, 2016).
factor along with regulations, liability, and the lack of low-cost treatment technologies to keeping
the amount of use of produced water in the country at relatively low volumes. Cath outlined both
nonpotable and potable uses of produced water with opportunities growing for potable use, particu-
larly in California, Colorado, and Texas. A great opportunity for reusing produced water is during
drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations, especially in regions where water is scarce, he said.
When thinking about produced water use and water treatment in general, a multibarrier or
treatment train system is used to address the many challenges in treating water. Cath emphasized
that if the characteristics of the water are known, then water can be treated. Waters may have high
salinity—greater than 100,000 parts per million—and may contain various organics such as oil and
grease, inorganics such as borates and naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM), and vari-
able flows. The treatment process goals have to be fit for purpose, cost effective, and compatible
with hydraulic fracturing fluids and geochemistry.
Cath briefly discussed desalination because of the importance of removing salts from produced
water. Technologies he mentioned include membranes, thermal, and membrane brine concentrators.
The energy required for reverse osmosis desalination is close to the thermodynamic limit and the
reverse osmosis process is thus currently limited to low-salinity water. For example, the desalina-
tion of seawater is limited to about 60 percent recovery. To conduct seawater desalination, very
efficient seawater desalination plants are required. A new desalination plant in San Diego was an
investment of more than $1 billion, he said. The plant can treat water for $1.70 per cubic meter. By
comparison, Cath mentioned that the cost of desalinating produced water might be about $11.00 per
cubic meter. The challenge for produced water is that one needs to pretreat water before desalina-
tion can be conducted.
Pretreatment is important to protect downstream processes or production of water for direct
use in the field. Cath noted that his research group focuses on pretreatment to protect downstream
desalination. They focus on physical, chemical, and biological processes, which include filtration,
coagulation, adsorption, disinfection, biologically active filtration, and sequencing-batch membrane
bioreactor processes coupled with ultrafiltration and nanofiltration. The question becomes, how
does one use the different processes to achieve good pretreatment? He described an example of a
hybrid biological and membrane treatment process, which has applications for industrial wastewa-

TECHNOLOGIES FOR MANAGING FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WATERS FOR POTENTIAL USE 31
TABLE 4.1 Comparing Natural Evaporation to Membrane Distillation

Natural Evaporation Membrane Distillation
Water flux 0.6 m/yr 12 L/m2-hr
Water flux, mm/d 1.644 288 (175x NE)
Time 1,100 days 6.5 days
Footprint 1 acre (43,560 ft2) 250 ft2
NOTE: NE = natural evaporation.

SOURCE: Cath, slide 43.
ter and drinking water. Treatment trains described included biological active filtration, membrane
bioreactors, ultrafiltration, and nanofiltration.
Cath also outlined examples of new desalination technologies that included high-recovery
desalination options such as membrane distillation. He compared natural evaporation to membrane
distillation using several criteria including time and footprint (see Table 4.1). The membrane dis-
tillation technology has substantial treatment time savings and a reduced landscape footprint—a
1-acre evaporation pond relative to 250 square feet of membrane.
Cath then illustrated a decision support tool (see Figure 4.2) that was developed with financial
support from DOE. The support tool helps users select appropriate treatment processes to optimize
beneficial use. The tool has four modules:
• Water quality,
• Treatment selection,
• Beneficial use screening, and
• Beneficial use economics.
FIGURE 4.2 Integrated decision support tool.

SOURCE: Cath, slide 47.

Frac Water: Recycling Objectives

Pele Okullo, Newfield
Okullo discussed water recycling from an exploration and production company perspective
and noted that industry views produced water as a heterogeneous mixture of several components
(e.g., dissolved solids, salinity, suspended solids, iron sulfide, and oil and grease). He mentioned
that, before a saltwater disposal well is created, the company will examine the compatibilities of
this heterogeneous water and the reservoir. They also look at other aspects of the rock, fluid, and
technical system that include porosity, pumping characteristics, and equipment integrity.
In the past couple of years, Okullo said, Newfield did some trials looking at various water treat-
ment technologies with their existing infrastructure. They examined dilution, where produced water
was diluted with freshwater. The cost was about $2 per barrel (see Figure 4.3). Okullo emphasized
that the overriding factor was the pretreatment cost, for example, pretreating the water to separate
oil from water or to address high suspended solids or high bacterial counts. After dilution, they
looked at settling water in impoundments for a few days as a treatment option. After solids settle out
of the water, the water could then be used for other purposes. The treatment cost was about $2.50
per barrel of water. He and his colleagues also looked at natural filtration processes that resulted in
costs at about $2 per barrel of water. Other technologies that were tested included chemical precipi-
tation with polymers and flocculation, clarification, and electrocoagulation (a process where anodes
Treatment Options
T h e r e a r e a n u m b e r o f t r e a t m e n t o p t io n s a v a ila b le t o p r o du c e r s , w it h o pt io n s in c lu d in g d ilu t io n , s e t t lin g ,
c h e m ic a l t r e a t m e n t , filt r a t io n , c la r ific a t io n , e le c t r o -c o a g u la t io n , a n d d is t illa t io n .
•Involves blending flowback or produced water with freshwater during fracturing.

~$1.50 - •Not free - has a handling cost for frac tanks, containment, water transfer, etc.
$2.00/bbl Dilution
•Must allow enough residence time in flow back pits or frac tanks for solids to settle.
~$2.00 - •Risks associated with storing raw water on location for long periods of time.
$2.50/bbl Settling
•Bag filters, disk filters, or sand filters can be used. Other types available.
•Issues can arise from expended filter sock disposal and bacteria introduction.
~$2.00 -
$3.00/bbl Filtration •Water sources for back flushing system can be logistically difficult.
•Involves pH adjustment and the addition of polymers or other flocculants.

•Issues can arise from excess sludge formation and sludge disposal.
~$2.50 -
Chemical •Chemical drum or tote management can be logistically difficult on location.
$4.00/bbl
Precipitation
•Involves the use of equipment including DAFs or clarifiers.
•Typically involves chemical precipitation in conjunction with clarification equipment.
~$3.50 -
Clarification •Advantages include few moving parts and less downtime.
$4.50/bbl
•Sacrificial plates create a hydrolyzed metal sweet floc that significantly lowers total suspended solids (TSS), greases and oil,
~$4.50 - and in some cases metals count.
$5.50/bbl Electro- •High operating costs relative to other TSS treatment systems.
Coagulation
•Highest effluent water quality. Can potentially be handled in freshwater impoundments with approved NPDES permits.
•Highest operating costs due to energy requirements.
~$5.50 -
$8.00/bbl Distillation •Energy cost can be mitigated by running off of compressor station waste heat or natural gas.
FIGURE 4.3 Economic costs of different treatment options available to oil and gas producers.
NOTE: bbl = billion barrels; DAF = dissolved air flotator; NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System.
SOURCE: Okullo, slide 4.

are used to oxidize metals, which is followed by metals settling out of the water). Treatment costs
varied between $2 and $4 per barrel. Treatment using distillation was $8 per barrel. Okullo stressed
that many of these costs were calculated on the basis of using existing onsite infrastructure, and if
one had to truck or transport water, costs would increase substantially.
Next, Okullo discussed water compatibility with a particular end use or uses, and illustrated
this idea using a case study from the Uinta Basin Water. Produced water in the Uinta had 315 mil-
ligrams per liter of calcium. Options to reduce that content included sinking a water well on the
oil field site, laying a pipe to a nearby river (the Green River), or bringing in utility water that was
about 10 miles away. The aquifer water itself was deemed incompatible with the produced water
because of the high barium concentrations in the latter. Concern was also expressed about NORM
and the potential for barium to precipitate with sulfates. River water was also incompatible—one
can comingle waters, but additional treatments with associated cost were needed—with produced
water, he said. The sulfate content of the Green River water was 434 milligrams per liter of sulfate,
which is problematic for operators. Okullo noted that when one selects a vendor for recycling
water, one has to make sure that the vendor is economically sound because hydraulic fracture water
chemistry changes. For example, for many of the pilot trials Okullo mentioned, from initial bench
testing to larger-scale facilities, the water chemistry changed considerably.
Okullo concluded by stating that Newfield saved about 10 million barrels per year of freshwater
by recycling produced water and saved about $30 million in the past 3 years by not purchasing
potassium chloride, which would otherwise be purchased if freshwater were used in fracturing.
Other gains mentioned included the reduced need for produced water disposal and associated
transportation costs.
Use of Flowback and Produced Water: Opportunities and Challenges for Innovation
Rick McCurdy, Chesapeake Energy
McCurdy introduced his presentation by emphasizing that the oil and gas industry was in a
downturn. He discussed current technologies that help get to a dischargeable water quality, promis-
ing technologies that are on the horizon, and hindrances to the beneficial use of produced water.
McCurdy touched on economics (see Figure 4.4), power demand, and waste/product generation
in relation to current treatment technologies. To treat produced water to a freshwater quality, there
are presently three primary processes, he said:
• Reverse osmosis (RO; once above 50,000 milligrams total dissolved solids [TDS] per liter,
RO becomes economically inefficient),
• Vacuum distillation/mechanical vapor recompression, and
• Crystallization to achieve freshwater quality from produced water, which costs between
$7 and $12 per barrel depending on the initial water characteristics.
From a power demand perspective, to treat produced water to freshwater quality using distil-
lation or mechanical vapor recompression required about 6 to 8 kilowatt hours per barrel of water
processed, McCurdy said. This means that if one has a 50,000-barrel-per-day plant one needs about
110 and 146 gigawatt hours of electricity per year to operate the plant. As context, he noted the
average household consumption is about 11 megawatt hours of electricity per year. Thus, this is
equivocal to an energy demand of 25,000 and 34,000 people.
McCurdy discussed plant capacities for treating produced water that range between 5,000 and
300,000 barrels per day (see Table 4.2). The table also showed barrels per day of products and waste
such as filter cake, distillate, salt, and CaCl2 brine. If 50,000 barrels per day of water are treated,

$11
$10
$9
$8
Crystallization
$7
$/BBL
$6
$5
VD/MVR
$4
$3
$2
RO
$1
50K 100K 150K 200K 250K 300K

Total Dissolved Solids
FIGURE 4.4 Economic costs per barrel of water as a function of total dissolved solids in water.
NOTES: Treatment technologies include reverse osmosis (RO), vacuum distillation/mechanical vapor recom-
pression (VD/MVR), and crystallization. BBL = billion barrels of liquid.
SOURCE: McCurdy, slide 4.
TABLE 4.2 Waste/Product Generation

Capacity Products and Waste
Filter Cake Distillate Salt CaCl2 Brine
bbl/day MGD (tons/day) (bbl/day) (tons/day) (bbl/day)
5,000 0.2 53 4,000 107 1,000
50,000 2.1 533 40,000 1,066 10,000
100,000 4.2 1,066 80,000 2,132 20,000
200,000 8.4 2,132 160,000 4,264 40,000
300,000 12.5 3,198 240,000 6,396 60,000
NOTE: bbl = billion barrels; MGD = million gallons per day.

SOURCE: McCurdy, slide 6.
one can generate 40,000 barrels per day of a clean distillate or water that could have beneficial use,
he indicated. At that level, about 533 tons of a filter cake per day will go to a landfill. For context,
an average double- or triple-axle dump truck can carry about 10 tons of material; therefore, about
every 25 minutes, a dump truck would leave the site and go to the landfill. In addition to the filter
cake, a little over 1,000 tons of salt per day would be generated as would 10,000 barrels of calcium
chloride; a good market exists for this latter product.

McCurdy then discussed specific treatment technologies in further detail, including acid-base
generation, membrane distillation, and plasma-arc generation. In the acid-base generation pro-
cess, the sodium and the chloride in salt brine are separated into a sodium ion and a chloride ion.
The water is disassociated into a hydrogen ion and a hydroxyl ion. When combined, this yields
hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide. The hydrochloric acid is used in oil and gas operations.
An anolyte biocide is also generated through this process, he said. Acid-base generation is energy
intensive—2 to 4 kilowatt hours per barrel treated, McCurdy noted. In a 5,000-barrel-per-day
plant, 75,000 gallons of 15 percent hydrochloric acid, 40,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide, and
10,000 gallons of biocide can be generated every day. If extensive oil and gas operations are in
place in an area, some of these products may be used in hydraulic fracturing. If not, a market has
to be identified for the products, he said.
Membrane distillation requires little pretreatment as the membrane is resistant to fouling,
McCurdy continued. Successful trials have treated waters with up to 120,000 to 200,000 milligram
of TDS per liter, with good results. This technology can provide recovery of a distillation unit
at the cost equivalent to reverse osmosis. The process also has a low energy demand and might
be economically feasible in a few areas, he said. Industry and academia are working together on
improvements to this technology. McCurdy suggested that this method may be a step changer for
treatment in the future. The disadvantages of membrane distillation include the fact that oil can foul
the membranes. Thus, oil has to be removed from the system.
Plasma arc is a new system, McCurdy explained, where a plasma of 6,000 to 8,000 degrees
centigrade evaporates water and has the potential to remove organics from the water. It can handle
any TDS-containing water with minimal pretreatment. Disadvantages to this technology include
insufficient data on air emissions and various aspects of field pilots that have not yet been evalu-
ated, he said.
In his closing remarks, McCurdy tried to stimulate discussion by posing three questions to
the audience: How will the water be used, what is in the water, and where will it be used? He sug-
gested that one could extract minerals such as iodine from the produced water or that the water
could also be used for feedstock in chlor-alkali plants, for agriculture, and for direct discharge to
surface waters and aquifer.
Regarding what is in the water, he mentioned that analytical techniques are lacking for many
of the organic compounds in produced waters. He noted another question about chemical analysis,
asking the audience if thousands of chemicals need to be analyzed and, if so, how many times, to
consider potential use of produced water.
McCurdy mentioned the Clean Water Act and made reference to the 98th meridian. West of the
98th meridian, some leeway exists in existing regulations to put produced water to some beneficial
uses. East of the 98th meridian, the same flexibility does not exist, he said. He concluded by asking
the audience if this regional issue also needed to be addressed.
Capuano moderated the discussion and led with a question to the panelists: Because many
of the processes described by the panelists were individual techniques, does an activity exist that
integrates across processes and looks at reducing water treatment costs from a holistic perspective?
McCurdy said that he would really encourage either an academic group or a national laboratory
to take up that challenge. He described that industry is already addressing some aspects of this
approach with certain waste streams and is looking at the concept of tailored produced water use.
This latter approach examines how one system can be used and then tailored with slight changes
in the operating conditions to produce water of differing qualities at different times. Thus far, the
approach seems to work with waste streams that are not very complex and preferably do not have

the combination of organic, inorganic, and radionuclide components, he added. Cath followed that
response by mentioning that his research group is trying this approach with well-known and char-
acterized waste streams. A workshop participant added comments about the work at his university
to address some of the same issues, noting differences between his team’s work and that of Cath’s.
The participant’s own research group focuses on the system, including transportation and storage
costs. The next step is really to achieve better integration (of technology treatment with the system,
across a range of different produced water types).
Another participant noted that the suite of technologies discussed by the panelists referred
mostly to those that use traditional chemical engineering and a direct cost-only approach. The
participant noted that the panel discussion had raised questions about some of the economic exter-
nalities and some of the environmental benefits such as saving water and reducing truck trips, but
no explicit quantification of those aspects had been provided. The participant asked if the panel
could comment on how some nondirect costs are being addressed. Cath responded by indicating
that some of the new versions of the decision support tools he had described do try to incorporate
externalities. Other tools that are increasingly being used are life-cycle assessment tools that look
at different impacts on the environment. They have performed life-cycle assessment on some tech-
nologies that compare new technologies to conventional ones.
McCurdy added that different corporations look at similar technologies in different ways.
For example, from a field operational standpoint, technologies are viewed on a cost basis. From a
corporation standpoint, other costs are included such as public relations costs, sustainability costs,
and stakeholder costs. When it comes to cost accounting, the commercial aspects also have to be
incorporated, he said. For example, many times a technology may perform wonderfully in the field,
but may fail on the commercial side because, for instance, the proper permits were not in place or
a cooperative agreement was not finalized with other producers who could use the water.
A participant asked McCurdy to comment on the status of the three technologies he described.
Are they at a pilot plant stage or are further developments needed? McCurdy said that acid-base
generation is not a new technology and has been around for some time. The issue is establishing a
market for the products and the associated economics. He noted that many companies are working
to develop membrane distillation and that the technique is in the field pilot phase. The downturn in
the oil and gas industry is preventing funding to push it to the next level.
A participant commented on decentralizing water treatment or moving toward mobile onsite
water treatment. Mobile onsite water treatment may make sense, the participant continued, when
an onsite or nearby use for the water already exists. Mobile onsite water treatment may not make
sense if water has to be transported off site for an intended use, the participant added. Cath agreed
with the participant’s assessment because moving water is expensive. The industry is still struggling
with economies of scale, he said, and small systems are usually more expensive. Okullo followed
by saying that during exploration mobile treatment may be useful; however, if the site is fully
developed, building a full onsite facility may be more effective.
Capuano raised a point regarding infrastructure retrofitting and noted the challenges regarding
attempting to retrofit new or specialized technologies into an old infrastructure. She suggested there
is potential to examine existing infrastructure and what is needed to adapt it to managing produced
water. Capuano indicated a need to have centralized facilities that can treat water, and that these are
often older facilities located close to large cities which have grown around them. Thus, the question
is complex and not simply about technology. The technology often has to fit into an infrastructure
that is well established, she said.
McCurdy emphasized that it makes a difference if a use for the treated water exists onsite or if
water has to transported off site. He noted further the importance of how much water may be available
at one location. For example, a good place to put a treatment plant may be in the M ississippi Lime
in Northwest Oklahoma where disposal wells are handling 40,000 to 60,000 barrels of water per day.

A participant commented on the geographical differences and differences between geologic

plays as a factor in considering produced water. The participant emphasized that even within one
play across different states major differences exist in local conditions. Capuano said that more
conversation around water demand and the potential applications for the water is needed to match
the water (and its characteristics) with the demand.
A participant emphasized the difficulties in modeling the full range of heterogeneities of pro-
duced water across all regions and formations. Any model would need portions dedicated to specific
input data (e.g., input data from the Marcellus).
Another participant asked the panel to comment on current technologies that may incorpo-
rate selective ion removal, especially for constituents like boron or uranium or other radioactive
materials. Cath responded by describing what he indicated is a big problem with complex waste
streams—that of the interaction between different constituents in the water. Boron is a huge prob-
lem for irrigated agriculture, he noted. Boron from an oil and gas perspective is also a big concern
with regard to crosslinked gels used in hydraulic fracturing. Emerging technologies can selectively
extract boron, he said.
A participant then asked what is known about the brine in the subsurface and whether any
research is being conducted on what can be done during hydraulic fracturing to keep the brine in
the subsurface and extract the gas preferentially. McCurdy said industry began to look at this issue
a few years ago and has been examining the natural process of negative capillary suction pressure
in the shale plays which allows the water that is put into the well to be pulled into the shale, much
like the way the capillaries in a paper towel dipped into water pull the water into the paper towel. In
the shale play, when the water is pulled into the shale, the same process generally kicks out the gas
or oil back up the well. Industry has tried experimenting with shutting wells in for longer periods of
time after hydraulic fracturing and waiting to bring them on online; this process has generally led
to less water production and increased oil or gas production. The optimal approach with this kind
of operational procedure is still a question as the operators try to balance the economics of wells
being offline for a period of time with the potential for less water production and greater oil or gas
production. The participant thought that keeping water in the ground for longer periods of time
could be a piece of the solution to produced water concerns and reinforced McCurdy’s comments
that fundamental questions remain in this area.
A participant noted the challenge of identifying end users for treated, produced water and the
need to do so before discussing the treatment options or infrastructure needs in detail. The end use,
the participant suggested, will guide the treatment steps taken. To look at this issue, a participant
suggested selecting a few representative places in the country and then looking at a range of poten-
tial water uses and treatment technologies and associated analytics. They asked if this could be an
appropriate framework to move the conversation from the general to the specific. To move things
forward, Capuano followed up by mentioning the importance of bringing participants from diverse
backgrounds together in an effort to elevate and move the conversation forward.
Another participant emphasized the downturn in the oil and gas economy and the implications
for produced water management. The Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC) is starting to match
water users with the availability of produced water in areas such as those drought-impacted regions
of the western United States.
A participant asked the panelists if they thought about 3D printing, citizen science, or doing
grant challenges to help increase engagement and awareness about produced water and how
the water is treated and managed. Cath responded, saying that treatment technologies need to
go to the piloting level, then long-term testing and demonstrating. He emphasized that it is not
easy to do piloting of new technologies. Industry needs convincing that a given technology can go
to full scale and the time scale for many pilot studies maybe inadequate. Cath further commented
about water quality regarding analytical capacity and the difficulty in analyzing complex organics.

If there are residual contaminants in the water, even a very low concentration, how does this impact
process performance? There is not enough research on that. Furthermore, there is no discussion
about variable water streams. He stressed that it is not just treatment but also water storage, and
there has been no discussion about storage technologies. McCurdy mentioned that some of the
hurdles to developing technologies to treat the water are not having the tools to know what is in
the water. There was a follow-on comment about possible short- and long-term impacts of residual
contaminants on treatment processes and that produced water is a variable stream, in terms of both
quality and quantity. McCurdy emphasized the importance of storing produced water and noted
that there was little discussion on this topic.
There was a final comment from a participant who emphasized the importance of pilot-scale
testing of technologies. They described past work illustrating the short time scales (e.g., days to a
few weeks) of many pilot studies and emphasized the benefit of sustained piloting of technologies
for longer periods.

Characterization of Flowback and

Produced Waters for Potential Use
T
he third panel session of the workshop discussed the characterization of flowback and
produced waters for potential alternative uses. Three 10-minute presentations by the panel-
ists were followed by a moderated discussion. The discussion was moderated by Bridget
Scanlon, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG), The University of Texas at Austin.
Scanlon opened the session with an overview of several unconventional plays on which the
BEG is currently working from the perspective of produced water. These included the Bakken and
Eagle Ford shale plays. In the Bakken, the research group found that average water volumes used
per well total 2.4 million gallons. Water demand for hydraulic fracturing jobs between 2005 and
2014 has increased by about a factor of 10, she noted, for the Bakken. Part of this increase may be
due to changes in operational approaches where slickwater fracturing fluids are being used more
frequently than hydraulic fracturing gels, she said.
To date, Scanlon noted, water use for hydraulic fracturing in the Bakken is about 24 billion
gallons (see Figure 5.1). In the Bakken, more water is produced from the formation than is used for
hydraulic fracturing. Nonetheless, she said, in the Bakken area, operators initially had water short-
ages because of the difficulties in moving water to the locations where it was needed for hydraulic
fracturing. Produced water from the Bakken has very high salinity—up to 520,000 milligrams
of total dissolved solids (TDS) per liter, she indicated. Freshwater is plentiful in the area, so no
incentive exists to reuse the highly saline produced water. Thus, most of the produced water goes
to saltwater disposal wells in the Dakota Formation, which is located at a depth of about 5,000 feet.
The Bakken itself is at a depth of about 10,000 feet. Some concerns exist about over-pressuring
in the Dakota (due to the volumes of injected water for disposal) because one would have to drill
through that formation to get to the Bakken.
The Eagle Ford shale play in Texas produces oil, condensate, wet gas, and dry gas. The aver-
age water use for hydraulic fracturing per well is 4.8 million gallons, or about twice that used for
hydraulic fracturing in the Bakken. Water demand for hydraulic fracturing has also increased with
time in the Eagle Ford. From 2009 through 2014, 78 billion gallons of water were used for fractur-
ing, she noted, while 24 billion gallons of water and 45 billion gallons of oil were produced. Thus,
produced water volumes are low, or roughly one-third of what is actually required for hydraulic
39

FIGURE 5.1 Project oil, flowback produced water, and water used in hydraulic fracturing in the bakken
shale play.
NOTE: TDS = total dissolved solids.
SOURCE: Scanlon, slide 3.
fracturing. Logistically it is almost impossible to reuse water for hydraulic fracturing in the Eagle
Ford, she said.
The projected water demand for hydraulic fracturing in the Eagle Ford over the next 20 years
is 300 billion gallons (see Figure 5.2), Scanlon noted. She then showed freshwater storage in the
aquifer to be about 10 trillion gallons, with brackish water storage at about 80 trillion gallons. On
a square-mile grid scale, the water demand for hydraulic fracturing over 20 years is less than 2 per-
cent of the water available, with the exception of a couple of counties where 90 percent of the water
demand is for irrigation. In the region, decision makers are incentivizing brackish groundwater use
by conservation districts, she said.
PANEL PRESENTATIONS
Characterizing Injected and Produced Waters

Tanya Gallegos, U.S. Geological Survey
Gallegos presented some recent work by her and colleagues at the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) on injected fluids for hydraulic fracturing. Both volumes of water used in hydraulic fractur-
ing and the type of fracturing fluid used in the process vary regionally across the United States, she
said. Their work found that the highest water use areas coincide with areas of shale gas production
(for example, in the Appalachian and Arkoma areas). In areas with water use in the 264,000 to
2.64 million gallons per well range such as the Williston Basin and the Permian Basin, water use
is primarily tied to hydraulic fracturing for tight oil production. For water usage in the hundreds

CHARACTERIZATION OF FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WATERS FOR POTENTIAL USE 41
FIGURE 5.2 Projected and to-date water demand for hydraulic fracturing in the eagle ford shale play.
NOTE: HF = hydraulic fracturing.
SOURCE: Scanlon, slide 4.
of cubic meters per well, such as the San Juan and Raton Basins, and areas of the Black Warrior
Basin, water usage coincides with areas that are historically produced for coal-bed methane, she
said. Further examination of the fluid types used in the hydraulic fracturing operations in the various
basins also yielded regional patterns, she indicated.
Using the commercial IHS database, their work found that the top 95 percent of fluid types
that were reported to be injected into wells were gels, foam-based fluids, and slickwater. In areas
associated with shale gas production, the majority of fluids reported were actually slickwater-based
fluids, she said. In other areas, which were primarily producing tight oil, they saw that the fluid
types were mostly gel-based fluids, while in coal-bed methane areas, injected fluids were largely
foam-based fluids, often created using carbon dioxide and nitrogen gases. What is injected into a
well during hydraulic fracturing is important when examining the potential use of flowback waters,
Gallegos noted.
The USGS describes “produced water” as well fluid that is co-produced with oil or gas,
Gallegos continued. Generally, the fluid collected at the wellhead shows three phases. The head
space contains gas, which is largely methane. Below the head space is an oil phase, which is
separated from an underlying layer of water. The water contains a variety of different constituents,
she said. One of the big challenges when examining produced waters is the ability to measure the
constituents. Waters have very high salinity and a high specific gravity, and they are also very corro-
sive. The range of constituents makes the fluids challenging analytically—instruments tend to clog,
tubing can corrode, and dilution of water is required, Gallegos said. Dilution presents a problem
when trying to detect the presence of trace elements, for example, arsenic or radium.
Another aspect regarding analytical characterization of the fluids is the difficulty in obtaining
basic parameters, for example, pH. Calibration is difficult due to lack of comparable buffer solu-

tions, which generate interferences that impact instruments. Difficulties with measuring organics
and inorganics are similarly challenged as analytical standard solutions are not in an equivalent
matrix. The USGS is trying to develop a brine laboratory to specialize in measuring high-salinity
solutions, she indicated.
Gallegos then described various aspects of the USGS produced waters database. The data-
base contains about 165,000 different samples from different wells across the United States and
is essentially a collection of about 33 different databases that have been compiled with quality
assurance and control over the years. The database has recently added trace elements and is also
beginning to include isotopes. Initially, the database consisted of conventional wells, but uncon-
ventional wells including coal-bed methane, shale gas, tight oil, tight gas, and some geothermal
wells have been incorporated, she said. Not every constituent is available for each data point, but
the data often include TDS, pH, calcium, and trace metals such as arsenic, mercury, and cadmium.
Other constituents in the database are boron, calcium, magnesium, chloride, and sodium. One of
the take-home points Gallegos emphasized was the range of concentrations for a given constituent
from produced wells regionally, or even within the same basin. Two of the constituents that are
not as well populated in the produced waters database are radium and organics. A wide range of
radium concentrations is evident, for example, in the Permian Basin from formation to formation,
and the same phenomenon occurs in the Williston Basin, where there is a twofold difference in
radium concentrations from one formation to another. The Marcellus shale has the highest radium
concentrations among the analyzed shales in basins across the United States at 9,500 picocuries
per liter, she said.
To conclude, Gallegos emphasized much work remaining in terms of understanding the water
quality associated with produced waters. Based on the USGS studies, they see differences in con-
stituents in produced waters
• As a function of time from hydraulic fracturing and through the life of the well;
• From one formation to another, even within the same basin;
• From one wellfield to another within the same formation; and
• Between conventional, tight oil, shale gas, and coal-bed methane wells.
Workshop on Uses of Flowback and Produced Water:

Opportunities and Challenges for Innovation
Ken Carlson, Colorado State University
Carlson began by stating that the goal of his projects is to reduce reliance on saltwater dis-
posal wells for produced water. Colorado had an earthquake a year and a half ago and it shut down
saltwater disposal for 3 months or more. He stressed that the work he and his colleagues conduct
is not designed to eliminate disposal wells, but rather reduce reliance on them. At present, he sug-
gested that oil and gas operations in Colorado are 100 percent reliant on saltwater disposal wells
for managing produced water. He described the basic process for unconventional oil or gas well
development as one that includes the transport of freshwater to a site, drilling, hydraulic fracturing,
and disposing of water in the nearest disposal well. He offered that opportunities for innovation
may exist in the areas of treatment and recycling.
Carlson described a vision or a future scenario that might include a black box to take local
produced water and then transform it into a locally beneficial resource. The only way this kind of
vision might be realized is to trade transportation costs for treatment costs, he said, because water
is currently being transported to a disposal well at around $2.50 per barrel and $0.50 per barrel for
downhole costs: most of the monetary costs are in transportation. If water could be treated and then

distributed locally, transportation costs would be minimal. He elaborated further on some grant-
funded work that uses a geographic information system (GIS)-based model to select a radius—30,
15, or 10 miles—within which it is reasonable to transport water. The model then identifies all
the potential water users within that area. Users could include, for example, agriculture process-
ing facilities. He and his colleagues have adapted the model to help understand water quality
needs, transportation costs, and what water volume is for surface use. By identifying all of these
parameters in the model, the cost of a particular alternative can be calculated, he said.
Carlson then described alternative surface uses for produced water, which included using
water to irrigate agriculture. He said Anadarko has some data on this approach, as does the
Colorado School of Mines. He elaborated upon a recently completed greenhouse study at his own
university where two biofuel crops were tested (broadleaf canola and switchgrass); five different
water types were then used to irrigate both biofuel crops. One water type was a control reservoir
water and another was produced water with 2,000 milligrams total organic carbon (TOC) per
liter and 25,000 milligrams TDS per liter. In terms of TOC and TDS removal, concentrations
were reduced to less than 5 milligrams TOC per liter and 400 milligrams TDS per liter. Thus, the
water used to irrigate the crops met the requirements to be discharged. Another water type started
at 3,500 milligrams TDS per liter with low organic content from which everything was removed
by the biofuel crops. The third and fourth water types were high in organic content, for example
with high concentrations of BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes). The fifth water
type tested was a clean brine. He emphasized that their research to date showed the real need for
various types of data when considering produced water for a range of potential alternative uses.
To use such waters for agriculture, for example, data are needed not only on the water chemistry,
but also on the plants, such as plant productivity and soil data. Different data and analytical needs
also require a multidisciplinary approach that includes water chemists to understand what is in
the final produced water, agronomists to help understand crop management and soil science, and
computer scientists to integrate information and provide decision support analysis.
He concluded by saying that some areas of the country are appropriate for the use of produced
water for agriculture, while other areas are not. To move forward in this arena, he said that case
studies will be important, as will be the understanding of the regulatory context.
Produced Water: The Oklahoma Perspective

Kyle Murray, Oklahoma Geological Survey
Expanding upon Bridget Scanlon’s overview of quantities of produced water in his presenta-
tion, Murray opened his remarks by indicating that the increased frequency of induced seismic
events in Oklahoma was one factor motivating efforts to find solutions to the management of large
volumes of produced water in the state. The reduction of saltwater disposal volumes, which have
been linked in some cases to induced seismicity, is one goal and is becoming a part of the regulatory
framework used by the Corporation Commission (which regulates oil and gas activities in the state).
Seismicity in Oklahoma began to escalate in 2009 (see Figure 5.3). Prior to 2009, Oklahoma had
about two earthquakes of magnitude 3 or higher per year. In 2014 and 2015, more than two or three
magnitude 3 earthquakes occurred per day in some parts of the state, Murray said. This upward
trend in the number of larger-magnitude earthquakes is also illustrated when measurements of the
seismic moment1 in the state are plotted over time (see the bottom of Figure 5.3).
1 Seismic moment is the measure of the size of an earthquake based on the area of fault rupture, the average amount of
slip on a fault, and the force that was required to overcome the friction along a fault. Available at https://earthquake.usgs.
gov/learn/glossary/?term=seismic%20moment (accessed October 16, 2016).

FIGURE 5.3 Map of earthquakes with magnitudes (eq mag) greater than 3.0 in Oklahoma between 2009
through May 18, 2016. Lower chart shows the number of earthquakes of magnitude greater than or equal to
magnitude 3.0 (blue bars) and the seismic moment (green dashed line), which shows an overall upward trend
since 2009.
SOURCE: Murray, slide 2.
Murray suggested that conventional oil and gas production in Oklahoma relies upon vertical
wells that produce gas and/or oil that overlies subsurface contained within a geologic formation
(reservoir) (see Figure 5.4). In general, the gas or oil has migrated from a source rock to the geo-
logic formation being drilled. In Oklahoma, the main source rock is the Woodford shale. He said
that unconventional oil and production often targets the source rock itself or a nearby, tight rock
formation into which hydrocarbons have migrated, with production achieved through a combination
of horizontal or directional wells that have been hydraulically fractured (see Figure 5.4).
In Oklahoma, oil or gas production in some areas is achieved through the addition of another
technique—dewatering2—for some oil and gas plays. The saltwater (produced water) that returns to
the surface from these kinds of operations leads to an associated data need, Murray indicated, that
can indicate how water production changes with time from these wells. A water production decline
2 Dewatering allows water or condensate-rich, hydrocarbon-containing reservoirs to be produced for their gas or oil
through technologies that remove water from the hydrocarbons. The presence of high water content in the lower parts of
the well can impede passage of the hydrocarbon to the surface. In Oklahoma, certain formations containing oil or gas are
particularly water rich and dewatering techniques are applied to aid production.

FIGURE 5.4 Schematic of conventional and unconventional oil and gas production from Murray’s presentation.
SOURCE: EPA, 2015. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tight_oil (accessed August 24, 2016).
curve, similar to what petroleum geologists or petroleum engineers might develop for oil and gas
decline from a production well, is the desired result. He illustrated how a dewatering project might
take place in which a lot of water is generated at the start of gas or oil production from the well and
then declines through time. In the absence of these kinds of data, Murray said he relies on the water-
to-oil and water-to-gas ratios, similar to those described in past reports (e.g., Clark and Veil, 2009).
He also mentioned some previous work in which he tried to quantify how much water is being
used for hydraulic fracturing, how much water is co-produced with oil and gas (conventional and
unconventional wells), and where the water is injected in the subsurface (see Figure 5.5). In the year
2000, Murray said, vertical wells were the predominant form of production in Oklahoma. In 2011,
horizontal well completions comprised about 44 percent of the total in the state. Today, he indicated,
hydraulic fracturing likely represents more than 50 percent of all oil and gas wells in Oklahoma. He
then outlined what the data suggest in terms of water production as the Woodford Shale has been
developed since 2005. Overall, he said, water used to produce these wells has increased signifi-
cantly. To put the water use for drilling and fracturing in perspective to produced water volumes,
Murray indicated that Oklahoma used about 100 million barrels in 2011 to develop all oil and gas
wells (see Figure 5.5). Produced water volumes on a statewide basis are quite a bit higher.
In the Clark and Veil (2009) publication and the recently published update through the Ground-
water Protection Council (Veil, 2015), the water-to-oil ratio on a per-state basis is used to approxi-
mate produced water volumes (where the actual volume data themselves are not available). Murray

FIGURE 5.5 Estimated water use in Oklahoma to produce oil or gas from horizontal and vertical wells (HW
and VW, respectively) between 2000 and 2011.
attempted to refine these estimates for Oklahoma with the goal to identify the geologic zone from
which oil and gas was produced. He reorganized or recategorized producing geologic zones or
formations in Oklahoma from an initial number of about 450 formations down to 10 zones and 2
miscellaneous categories. The zones ranged from the Permian-aged geologic formations (young-
est in the sequence) to the Arbuckle formation (oldest sedimentary rocks in the sequence) and the
underlying basement or crystalline rock, where a small amount of production and some disposal
of wastewater occur. He considered conventional resources such as the sandstones in the Granite
Wash Region of Oklahoma, which is in the Anadarko Basin. The zones that have been developed
more recently, including the unconventional plays such as the Woodford shale, the Hunton forma-
tion, and others that are deeper (older) in the stratigraphic section, tend to yield a lot more water.
Murray then showed the evolution of oil and gas production from the state relative to various
geologic zones. He applied the methodology from Clark and Veil (2009) to the formation or zone
level and refined the results to the county scale for a 6-year time frame (2009-2015). The analysis
showed a lot of oil production in northern and southern Oklahoma initially, while gas produc-
tion was in the Woodford shale in southeastern Oklahoma, southern Oklahoma, and also in the
Anadarko Basin. Prior to mid-2011, the Granite Wash zone in western Oklahoma was the primary
gas-producing zone, whereas now gas is produced primarily from the Woodford shale. Some gas
production also occurs from the Mississippian-aged formations in the north of the state.

Murray used these production data to generate water-to-oil and water-to-gas ratios. The median
value for the ratio of water to oil in the Mississippian zone was 12, while it was about 17 for water
to gas. He then showed produced water estimates for the state divided into county and production
zones (see Figure 5.6). The produced water volumes increased significantly in 2012 when the
Mississippian zone began to be a major producer, he said.
Murray then showed the saltwater disposal rate on a monthly time scale for every zone in
Oklahoma. Most of the saltwater disposal occurs in the Arbuckle zone, which sits directly above the
basement rock. Thus, it is important to understand the Arbuckle group and disposal into that zone if
one wants to understand seismicity. He also showed the presence of about 1,000 disposal wells out
of 3,500 total saltwater disposal wells in the state that inject water into the Arbuckle. The Arbuckle
disposal wells are predominantly in the Cherokee platform and the Anadarko shelf, he noted.
In conjunction with different Oklahoma workshops on sourcing and transport of water, and
volumes of flowback and produced water, Murray has compiled data based on hydraulic fracturing
and completion water use values which show that flowback water has to be less than about 100 mil-
lion barrels per year in Oklahoma. Produced water estimates, he said, are about 3 billion barrels
per year, so the water used for hydraulic fracturing and the flowback water are a small fraction of
what is brought back to the surface as produced water. Most of the produced water derives from the
geologic formation itself, he continued. Half of that produced water is managed through saltwater
FIGURE 5.6 Produced water by county and by production zone in Oklahoma from 2009 to 2014.
NOTE: MMbbl = one million barrels.

disposal wells; the other half presently goes to water floods to enhance oil production in existing
fields. There are 5,000 enhanced oil recovery wells currently active in Oklahoma.
He concluded by emphasizing a long-term goal to identify more potential water users for pro-
duced water that would otherwise be injected into disposal wells. Users are a very important part
of produced water management, Murray said.
A participant commented on the idea of identifying water users. Oil and gas is often produced
in locations with a limited number of potential water users. Using water locally is desirable, but
may be problematic in many locations. The participant then asked a question: Could water banking
be an option for industry in the future, especially in areas that are dry and getting drier? C arlson
responded that, currently, water has no value. In the future, opportunities may arise to create
value. Presently, the perspective is oriented around identifying places where produced water can
be managed in ways that are permitted and do not cause environmental harm. Scanlon mentioned
that water banking is traditionally used in Arizona and California to resolve temporal disconnects
between water supply and demand during droughts and wet periods. The problem with storage is
that it offers the potential for contamination, she said. During the discussion, Murray commented
on identifying the end users and bringing them together with oil and gas producers. One resource
that may be helpful in moving forward with these kinds of discussions is the Estimated Water Use
Report3 released by the USGS every few years. The report shows the use of fresh and brackish
water throughout the United States by type and sector, and differentiates between groundwater
and surface water. Murray said that he has overlain groundwater used for irrigation with a map
of produced water in Kansas and Oklahoma; the map shows co-location of irrigated agricultural
areas and oil- and gas-producing areas with significant produced water, suggesting opportunities
for potential alternative use.
Regarding banking, Murray mentioned that San Antonio has put into place an aquifer storage
and recovery system. The city withdraws water from the Edwards aquifer and puts it into the
Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer. Concerns exist about the compatibility of the Edwards aquifer water chem-
istry with the Wilcox aquifer water and comparative analyses have to be conducted, he indicated.
Similarly, if produced water is desired as a source for water in a hydraulic fracturing job the water
that is to be injected has to be compatible with the water in the formation and the operational
parameters of the well. Murray further indicated that aquifer storage and recovery are great ideas
because water would not be lost to evaporation; he did indicate some potential regulatory hurdles
to implementing an aquifer storage and recovery arrangement in some areas.
Another participant noted the potential to use produced water for food crops in California. A lot
of high-quality produced water with low salinity directly approximates the quality water used by agri-
culture in the state, resulting in a lot of interest in using this water for irrigation. Gallegos commented
that other constituents besides TDS (e.g., radionuclides, organics, and trace metals) may be associated
with produced fluids and need to be considered prior to agricultural applications. If some of these
constituents exist in produced water that is applied to the land, the constituents could accumulate in
soils which could result in potential inhalation exposure and leaching to surrounding waters. If these
waters are instead injected into the subsurface, the presence of these constituents could create dis-
equilibrium relative to groundwater. Site-specific studies could help address some of these scenarios.
A specific question was directed by one participant to Murray. The participant noted that in
many cases, induced seismicity is associated with particular wells and particular faults, but such an
association does not appear to be the case in Oklahoma. The participant asked about determining
3 Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1405 (accessed September 17, 2016).

factors such as the density of faults, density of wells, or sparsity of the seismic monitoring network?
Murray responded by saying that many factors can contribute to the occurrence of induced seismic
activity that can be felt by people at the surface and that difficulties arise in associating a particular
event with one causative factor. In Oklahoma, he said, about 3,500 wells are actively disposing
of produced water. Nine hundred or more of these wells are in the Arbuckle. The fault map that
he showed during his presentation is one of the latest publications from the Oklahoma Geological
Survey, but he noted that thousands of faults are not yet mapped and may never be.
Another participant viewed management of produced water as a resource problem. Billions
of dollars are spent trying to move water from one part of the country to another, the participant
said. Water has value, especially when billions of dollars are being spent to build canals to trans-
port water in the country and when California is looking at Missouri River water as a potential
water source; these factors provide an incentive to consider water as a valued resource. The par-
ticipant emphasized potential for government involvement in valuing water, using wind energy as
an example: Where would wind energy be without government subsidies? Presently, competition
for water does exist and if a 1930s-type drought was to occur, discussions would focus on which
stakeholder might get first access to existing water. The participant concluded by saying that the
produced water topic is important enough to continue moving forward to find solutions, even if all
the necessary information is not available.
A question from an online participant asked panelists what must be done to gain greater trust
and acceptance from the public and potential end users of treated produced water so that produced
water would be considered a resource and not a waste. Carlson suggested the use of case studies,
additional data, and additional science to improve understanding of the processes.
The importance of partnerships and the value of drawing together different sectors to solve
produced water problems and to match supply with demand was highlighted by one participant.
When partners come together, each one has a different level of resources to contribute, the partici-
pant said. Not all sectors can invest at the same level so a need exists for assistance and funding
from government and private sectors.
A participant asked Gallegos how long it may take until enough robust analytical methodolo-
gies and approaches exist to generate case studies that could be generalized and applied across the
spectrum of produced water situations. The participant also asked about how best to scale up from
individual field studies to broader implications and results. Gallegos responded by saying that the
first step is the ability to analyze produced water compositions. One main problem is the lack of
officially accepted laboratory reference materials (e.g., those generated by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology). One can check analytical methods against standard reference material
to understand analytical recovery for produced waters; this kind of check against standards could
also be applied to the range of organic constituents in produced waters. Analytic and instrument
capability constraints certainly exist, she said, but capabilities are improving. The USGS brine
laboratory currently being established will be operational in the near future. When up and running,
the laboratory will be able to systematically work through each of the oil- and gas-producing basins
and gain an understanding of the water chemistries from those basins and plays, Gallegos said.
A participant asked Murray if he was able to obtain injection water volumes and rates that
would help understand injection scenarios and the genesis of earthquakes. Murray mentioned
that the Oklahoma Corporation Commission has asked operators to submit daily injection rates and
pressures on a weekly basis; these data are then processed on a monthly basis. Currently, data exist
for about 700 wells. Murray noted that analysis of incoming data is very cumbersome because the
data are in different formats and require a lot of processing time. He also mentioned that he has
a summary of the changes in saltwater disposal volumes over time, and they started declining in
October 2014. There was a comment from one participant on recent changes in reporting require-
ments, which made reporting more frequent.

The Ground Water Protection Council and the Department of Energy (DOE) were commended
by a participant for working together to develop a database for the Oklahoma Corporation Com-
mission that draws on seismic data from the Oklahoma Geological Survey’s catalog and the water
volume data. The database is specific to what are called the “areas of interest,” which are areas
where earthquakes are occurring in Oklahoma; these areas primarily correspond to the Mississippi
limestone play. The whole idea of this database is not just to put the data in a form that can be used,
but to make it easy for operators to submit data in an electronic format.
Scanlon posed a question to panelists on the regulatory barriers to surface reuse of produced
water. Carlson responded by saying he thinks the issue is being addressed on a state-by-state basis.
Colorado actually has a state bill that allows surface reuse of produced water. The state already
provides permits for discharge of produced water into receiving waters. Gallegos mentioned that
better data are part of what is needed to move forward. She emphasized that the USGS is happy
to accept data from a range of stakeholders to include in the Produced Waters Database and make
this information available to the public.
A participant asked what is needed to ensure that information learned about the content of
produced water is incorporated into pilots or other projects that are examining produced water
treatment. Gallegos responded that one of the projects on which she is working includes making
data on water quality from oil and gas wells available to the public. Other researchers can use this
information in designing treatment studies, she said. A follow-on comment emphasized the impor-
tance of time-series data and building relationships with operators to gain access to more detailed
information on water quality and quantity.
Another participant mentioned that much of the public outcry on oil and gas development was
related to water quality concerns. The participant had looked at some of the data and the frequency
of water quality problems was not high compared to the number of shale gas wells; however, the
participant noted the difficulty in having a complete overview because of the difficulty in obtaining
data. Pennsylvania’s data are made public, the participant said, with groundwater data collected
prior to drilling by the companies in Pennsylvania. This information is released to the state as PDF
files. The state does not have the resources to provide the data online, however. After negotiations
over more than 1 year, Penn State University and the state of Pennsylvania formed an agreement
to release the groundwater data to Penn State. After that, students were paid to redact the data and
put it online. Penn State has released 1,700 groundwater data points in Bradford County, which is
one of the most extensively drilled counties in Pennsylvania. To put the data online, which includes
redacting the data and putting it in an electronic format, costs approximately $4 per data point. The
state is trying to move toward a more efficient system.

Research and Technology Innovation in Context
T
he fourth panel session on the morning of the second day of the workshop provided an
overview of research and technology innovation. Three 10-minute presentations by the
panelists were followed by a moderated discussion led by Wendy Harrison (Colorado
School of Mines), who is also the co-chair of the Roundtable on Unconventional Hydrocarbon
Development.
Harrison opened the panel session by stating the title of the session was “What is it you’d like
to do, but you can’t do today and why?” This context for research and technology is important,
she said, because it opens the question—what are the next steps? She thought the first day of the
workshop included a lot of discovery and that the second day could focus on the research and
development needs in local, state, and federal contexts. She emphasized the need not to forget out-
reach to different audiences; the importance of 1- and 2-year time frames as well as the longer-term
investments in science and engineering advances; and sequencing and prioritization. With regard to
the last, she underscored the importance of considering limited budget scenarios and what actions,
proposals, or activities could have the most impact. She asked what short-term needs build the case
for longer-term investments in basic science and engineering, as well as changes to policy.
PANEL PRESENTATIONS
Oklahoma Office of Energy and Environment Perspective

Secretary Michael Teague, Oklahoma Office of Energy and Environment
Teague opened his presentation by commenting on the “why.” The “why” for Oklahoma is the
existence of a freshwater shortage. He stressed that solving the water shortage is a major, multi
disciplinary issue that requires alternative approaches. Following the “why,” Teague continued, is
the “how,” which cannot be considered without discussing the importance of “who.” Oklahoma
Governor Fallin announced a water working group last December, Teague said. The working
group brings water users together to talk about their needs. Entities at the table include agriculture,
51

utilities, oil and gas, a mineral rights royalty owner’s lawyer, General Electric, and a municipality.
Teague stressed the importance of including several representatives from the key sectors at the table
in order to establish the primary goals and pathways.
Teague stressed that, in terms of treating the water, drinking water standards are not the goal;
rather, the standards are “fit for purpose.” For example, one does not need to meet drinking water
standards if water is being used for cooling water in a gas-fired power plant. He elaborated further
on the importance of water quality needs appropriate for each purpose. In Oklahoma, a working
group was brought together to examine this issue and the first questions asked were: What kind of
water do you need for cooling or for an industrial use? What do you need for agriculture? Is there
a difference between water needs for nonedible crops and edible crops and ranching?
Teague also suggested the need to analytically test water more quickly. If analyses to identify
every constituent in a sample take 2 years, the usefulness is reduced. He mentioned that during the
first day of the workshop, many people mentioned the need for more data. He said it is important to
clarify not just a need for more data, but the need to define data requirements. For example, know-
ing the water quality of produced water emerging from an oil and gas well is incredibly important
for specific treatments and potential applications. At this point, however, knowing the quality of
water going into the well may not need to be characterized at the same level of detail because the
needs are a bit broader, he said. He emphasized the importance of taking into account the long-
term potential health impacts, but at the same time being able to test samples more quickly to be
relevant to the water resource solution. Teague stressed the importance of pertinent case s tudies
and appropriate solutions.
He noted that during his presentation, he had not yet mentioned produced water because
produced water is not the problem. In Oklahoma, the water shortage is the problem and he sees
produced water instead as an opportunity. The problem in Oklahoma is different from that in
Pennsylvania, he said, where a big issue is how to reduce disposal costs.
Teague then discussed the issue of public perception. He suggested that the oil and gas industry
is innovative and can find solutions for treating produced water to help with water shortages such
as those caused in Oklahoma. However, he said, the oil and gas industry has a public perception
problem: a solution proposed by the oil and gas industry would not be as well received as a solution
developed by the Department of Energy (DOE) along with the engagement of the National Acad-
emies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. He emphasized the need for third-party engagement
in these discussions to help innovation move forward.
Teague concluded his remarks by discussing when the solutions to water shortages are needed.
He reiterated that Oklahoma and other western states have consistent freshwater shortage problems
that can last for several years at a time. He also suggested that solutions to these shortages exist
and he views produced water as representing an opportunity to be part of those solutions. A 5- to
10-year time frame to develop a good solution would be acceptable, he indicated, but only if the
work on the solution begins now.
Groundwater Protection Council Perspective

Mike Paque, Groundwater Protection Council
Paque opened his remarks by discussing some of the Groundwater Protection Council’s
(GWPC’s) activities that have been filling some research voids. He indicated the occurrence of
numerous produced water workshops over the past decade and that some of the discussions today
are similar to those that took place back in the early 2000s when GWPC produced a report on the
beneficial uses of produced water. The difference today, he said, is that we have more information
and the technology has really improved.

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION IN CONTEXT 53
He said that his primary message is about water, rather than produced water or oil and gas.
Half of the GWPC board works in the oil and gas industry and half are drinking water administra-
tors from across the country. GWPC is drawn to this topic to help water users. Paque continued by
suggesting that water be considered a resource, rather than a waste, and commented on the need
for food by 2030 to sustain the increasing human population. The United States produces a lot
of food in inappropriate places, he said. Increased food production, he suggested, will produce a
greater need for water. Droughts will also continue to occur. In GWPC’s produced water report,1
Paque said they asked the question: How much produced water exists? From various sources, they
estimated about 22 billion barrels of produced water are generated annually, which is equivalent
to about 1 trillion gallons that are derived from the subsurface. Some of the water was dispatched
before it emerged from the ground, but Paque asked the question: Is the water that returns to the
surface really a waste? He also noted that the public perception of produced water is not always in
keeping with an emphasis on recycling and reusing water.
Paque then discussed the produced water primer that GWPC is developing with DOE’s Office
of Fossil Energy. The primer will include
• A thorough discussion of produced water,

• A full examination of the issues,
• Discussions about water quality and quantity, and
• Discussions about chemistry and toxicology.
Paque encouraged anyone present at the workshop to become engaged with GWPC as they
develop the water primer. He concluded his remarks by indicating that he agrees with Secretary
Teague that the problem is water, rather than just produced water. Water is needed and efforts have
to be made to take advantage of the resource—1 trillion gallons of water.
Workshop on Uses of Flowback and Produced Water:

Opportunities and Challenges for Innovation
Becky Tomasek, CH2M
Tomasek opened her remarks by discussing different types of water, and particularly waters
with different total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations. For municipal effluent, Tomasek cited an
average of about 500 milligrams TDS per liter; mineral water, she said, is about 1,000 milligrams
TDS per liter, and the human body is about 5,000 milligrams TDS per liter. Brackish water is water
that is too salty to drink or to use for irrigation and begins at about 10,000 milligrams TDS per liter.
Finally, ocean water is about 35,000 milligrams TDS per liter.
In the context of an oil field, she showed TDS concentration ranges for the percent of water
returned as produced water (see Figure 6.1). She compared various basins around the United States
and highlighted that produced water from the Niobrara formation in Colorado has TDS similar to
ocean salinity at about 20,000 to 40,000 milligrams TDS per liter. The Eagle Ford has a greater
concentration of TDS, ranging from about 60,000 to 100,000 milligrams TDS per liter. Produced
water in the Delaware Basin can range up to 200,000 milligrams TDS per liter. The Bakken and
the Marcellus can reach about 300,000 milligrams TDS per liter. She also showed the percent of
returned water and its average composition (see Figure 6.1). The Marcellus and the Bakken have
a lot of salt in their produced water, but only 10 to 20 percent is returned as produced water. This
water can be treated minimally and recycled if additional hydraulic fracturing is taking place. The
1 Available at http://www.gwpc.org/resources/publications (accessed September 18, 2016).

FIGURE 6.1 Plot of percent of water returned as produced water against total dissolved solids concentration
(mg/l) in various plays and water type.
SOURCE: Tomasek, slide 3.
other extreme is the Delaware Basin, where a lot of water comes back to the surface and that water
needs to be either disposed or recycled. Tomasek showed some options for treating and using
produced water (see Figure 6.2). For the purpose of using produced water again at the well site,
industry is removing total suspended solids (TSS), organics, iron, and hydrogen sulfides. They then
use that water for the next hydraulic fracturing job, Tomasek said. From the standpoint of technol-
ogy innovations, she indicated that removal of boron from produced water is a key need. Industry
has been moving away from using boron in hydraulic fracturing fluids.
Another option for treating water includes hardness removal. Hardness in water can impact
oil and gas reservoirs. In remote drilling locations where water needs to be softened, lime or soda
ash is used, Tomasek said. However, this approach can create waste and does not aid in removing
transportation trucks from the road.
Tomasek said that the oil and gas industry does not require desalinated water; rather, they can
recycle their water from hydraulic fracturing and use the water for future fracture jobs. The current
desalination technology is for ocean water–like salinities. To treat brines, a thermal treatment step
maybe needed and this is where additional technology innovations are needed.

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION IN CONTEXT 55
Opons for Recycling O&G Produced Water

As water; does not include electrochemical unit options
TSS, Organics, Iron, and Clean Brine

H2S removed
Clean Brine
TSS, Organics, Iron, and Boron
H2S removed + Removal
with Boron
Removed
TSS, Organics, Iron, and Hardness

H2S removed + Removal
Softened
Clean Brine
Necessary pre-
treatment + TDS removal Freshwater
FIGURE 6.2 Options for recycling oil- and gas-produced water with end products being brines and freshwater.
NOTE: H2S = hydrogen sulfide; TDS = total dissolved solids; TSS = total suspended solids.
SOURCE: Tomasek, slide 4.
A participant commented on water types and water fit for purpose. They also emphasized that
the constituents of water need to be known through use of quick, accurate methods and that the
understanding of environmental exposure and toxicity are also required. Secretary Teague agreed
with the comment and suggested that the time scale of solutions may be 5 to 10 years.
A participant asked about economics and the incentive to use produced water for subsequent
purposes. For example, if produced water can be put down a well for 10 to 20 cents per barrel,
what is the economic incentive to do otherwise? The participant also noted the discussions about
treatment technologies and the reduction in treatment costs, but doubted that costs could ever get
to the 10 to 20 cents per barrel range. The participant then asked the panelists how to incentivize
the beneficial use of produced water in the presence of such a disparity in costs? Secretary Teague
replied by posing a broader question: Will a utility in the panhandle of Oklahoma put money into
identifying a solution about where to source cooling water? Within Oklahoma, Enid is the biggest
community that relies primarily on groundwater. Two years ago, all of their groundwater wells
were dry and they needed a backup water supply system. Teague also commented on the best use
of monetary funds. At a state level, no ability exists to do research. However, states could prob-
ably figure out how to add financial incentives to build infrastructure. Teague also emphasized the
complementary roles of state and federal government. Paque followed with a comment on the need

for more collaboration to look at produced water in a more holistic context. He stated that water
is inexpensive regardless of whether one is producing oil or managing water for a municipality.
A participant clarified a concern about moving the science and engineering forward in the
face of a dichotomy. The biggest problem is how to convince federal agencies to fund research on
produced water and projects that demonstrate what can be done with produced water. Secretary
Teague responded by describing the regional differences to approaches to water even within one
federal agency: the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In the eastern part of the United States, he said,
the Corps is most concerned about flooding. In the western part of the United States, however, every
drop of water is important for potential uses. For the conversation to move toward action, agencies
across the federal government, such as the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the
Interior, also need to be involved. He also indicated that engaging various divisions of the National
Academies is also important because the problem is broad. Paque added that Secretary Moniz of
DOE has stated a number of times in the past year about the importance of water issues to the
agency. In terms of moving forward, Paque then described aspects of GWPC’s water primer. The
primer will include some examining of who is drawing water permits and who is using the water.
A goal is to identify users in drought-stricken areas and bring them into the conversation. Users
need to understand the opportunity to use produced water, Paque said.
Harrison commented that research and development are pertinent across many federal agencies
and from a university perspective; a group of researchers could present a case for multiple agency
funding initiatives. Groups like the Roundtable could potentially play a role in defining what the
research needs are, regardless of whom in the end will pay, she said.
Another participant commented on the need for more analytical methods, although more than
enough is known to do multiple field-based projects at the present time. California and Texas have
done field case studies. Continuing field projects is going to make the management of produced
water more understandable to the public. The participant further emphasized the need to continue
making advances even though there is a lack of information on the composition of produced water.
Several participants discussed disclosure of the composition of various constituents used in the
hydraulic fracturing process. One participant then noted that industry has disclosed products used
in the hydraulic fracturing process through FracFocus,2 which is managed by the GWPC and the
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.
A participant mentioned that the local nature of water provisions has not been discussed and
emphasized that water is very expensive to transport. Secretary Teague followed up on the comment
by noting that in Oklahoma many oil and gas pipelines exist though they are not currently used,
and he posed a question about repurposing some of these pipelines to move water. He stated that
several companies are actively pursuing this possibility. Tomasek agreed that moving water is very
expensive and that CH2M is seeing a trend toward using more existing pipelines to move water to
reduce water transport costs. Related to transporting water is the user of that water. Paque said that
a map of water users is needed and he mentioned particularly the need to map rural water districts
and small communities relative to produced water areas.
A panelist commented that they see a really strong role for government to do independent
technology evaluation and elaborated on the role of demonstration projects. Teague responded
by saying that in defining studies, who does the study is also important and reiterated the need to
include a third party to validate research being conducted in this arena.
2 FracFocus is the national hydraulic fracturing chemical registry. Available at https://fracfocus.org (accessed Novem-
ber 11, 2016).

Facilitated Discussion
FACILITATED DISCUSSION
Kris Nygaard and Steve Hamburg (Workshop Co-Chairs)
In his remarks to start the facilitated discussion, Nygaard emphasized the wish of the planning
committee to obtain broad input to three questions:
1. What is known with confidence regarding technologies and chemical characterization of

flowback and produced waters for beneficial use?
2. What do we need to know?
3. How do we fill those gaps?
Regarding the first question, one point that was raised by several participants was the v ariability
in geologic formations across the United States, which drives large variability in flowback and pro-
duced water chemical compositions. The temporal variability in water volumes and composition is
coupled to these regional differences. Treatment technologies have to be able to address these varia-
tions, Nygaard continued. He also indicated that the workshop discussions had emphasized a lot of
uncertainty in the chemical characterization of flowback and produced water, especially with regard
to organics, and that analytical methods regarding reference standards could benefit from improved
approaches. Another theme that emerged, he said, was technology development at a local scale
(including socioeconomics) and produced water use that was fit for the purpose of a given water
user. Nygaard also noted a key point that was reinforced through various panel discussions regard-
ing the importance of communication and outreach and that work in this arena has to be perceived
as being transparent.
Hamburg, the planning committee’s other co-chair, followed this comment by suggesting that
forward movement on potential beneficial uses of produced water to serve society requires a trans-
parent conversation. He suggested that a related topic is data transparency. During the workshop,
discussions were raised about access to usable data. Currently, no mechanism exists to communicate
57

data effectively and in a transparent manner, he said; this represents another opportunity to move
forward.
Hamburg then mentioned the point raised by several participants about case studies and asked
what is needed to do an effective set of case studies in terms of defining the necessary research and
describing a plan to move research forward. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine and the Roundtable, he offered, could contribute in this area.
To help illustrate the multidimensional challenge and guide the remainder of the discussion,
Nygaard suggested a Rubik’s cube analogy with six dimensions to consider:
• Localized composition—what is the composition of the flowback and produced water?

• Localized volume—what is the variability in space and time?
• Technology—what is the full range of technology solutions?
• What are the end-user needs, who are the water users, and how can they be brought together?
• Regulatory element—what is the status of existing regulations in different states that may
allow or prohibit certain approaches?
• Social acceptance—what is acceptable to a local community and may this differ from
another community?
A participant asked how much water is available for other beneficial uses and how large the
need really is. Another participant referred to a California example where produced water is used
for irrigation. For such a purpose, this participant continued, the need exists to know what is in the
water and what treatments are needed. Regarding the use of produced water, the participant noted,
the larger issue may be related to water infrastructure, rather than the acceptance of the general use
of oil field water for other purposes.
Hamburg asked for a comment on produced water quantity through time. One participant
mentioned that their own studies had examined produced water volumes in the Eagle Ford play
and that produced water volumes appeared to be about one-third of the water required for hydraulic
fracturing. In the Bakken, produced water volumes are increasing through time relative to oil pro-
duction. In the Permian most (95 percent) of the produced water is from old conventional wells.
In conventional wells, the intensity is about 12 barrels of water per barrel of oil, while in the
unconventional wells the ratio is 2 or 3 barrels of water per barrel of oil, the participant continued.
As the production increases from unconventional wells, one may see a change in produced water
volumes. Hamburg followed by asking the participant if national-scale projections are available.
The participant described use of the Indian Health Service (IHS) database, comparing those values
to available saltwater disposal volumes and injection volumes as a cross-check. The participant
noted a 20 percent underestimation of produced water from the Permian and an overestimation in
the Eagle Ford (e.g., Scanlon et al., 2014a, 2014b). Another participant emphasized the importance
of linking water quantity to water quality. To help illustrate, the participant described the varying
energy needs to reduce total dissolved solids (TDS) content in different types of water.
POLICY AND REGULATIONS

A participant commented on policy needs in addition to the research needs and the need for a
federal response. The participant then noted that groups within the federal government are designed
to bring federal entities together and could contribute to the conversation.
Another participant noted that the workshop did not discuss regulation in any detail and sug-
gested the regulatory community needs to be brought into the conversation. A good venue to com-
municate with all of the regulators across the nation is through the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact
Commission and the Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC).

FACILITATED DISCUSSION 59
DATA
A participant commented on data, third parties, and pollution. Everyone has a reason not to
share their data, and yet access to data is needed, the participant said. A host of issues associated
with this include inability to share data. Creating cyberinfrastructure to store and share data is an
opportunity for government and industry to pool resources and create something useful. Govern-
ment entities (e.g., the U.S. Geological Society and the Environmental Protection Agency) already
do this well, the participant added. A related comment was that the National Groundwater Associa-
tion participated in a federal advisory committee on water information that has successfully created
a portal for groundwater data. It is a federal–state–private-sector group effort that is getting started
and making data available. GWPC has built a database called Risk Based Data Management. It was
constructed originally to help states review underground injection control wells. They have installed
the database in 25 states, and are currently installing it in West Virginia, Wyoming, and beginning
in California. In that database, locations of production wells and injection wells are known loca-
tions. The participant then commented on opportunities to overlay and aggregate this information.
A participant noted the many discussions on data. Yet they did not hear a plan on how to
obtain and collate the data. He suggested that a third party like GWPC, who is already moving in
this direction, reach out to either the American Petroleum Institute or the Energy Water Initiative
and ask for some parameters they would be willing to share to build a produced water map of the
United States, showing salinity and volumes of water.
Another participant wanted to address some of the questions on data, noting that the Health
Effects Institute (HEI) has an effort under way along those lines. This would address some ques-
tions regarding how the produced water is used and how to make sure that the environment and
public health are protected. The HEI research program is trying to build on this topic. Some pri-
vate foundations asked the HEI to do a review of research needs in unconventional oil and gas.
The HEI recently completed that report1 and is now working on a research program to implement
recommendations.
WATER QUALITY
A participant commented that there is a lot of water quality data; the question is not the amount
of data, but rather the type of information on the different constituents in produced water. The
participant asked about developing methods to figure out what are the constituents and how they
will impact the environment.
This participant also emphasized economics and how water may be subsequently used in other
sectors. In California, one of the drivers to move to direct potable reuse, for example, is the huge
infrastructure built to move reclaimed water. Part of the year, this infrastructure is idle. When one
looks at it economically, it may be better to treat the water to a high quality and use a single distri-
bution system. This is what California calls “One Water.”2 In Singapore, it is called “NEWater.”3
There was a follow-on comment about using treated water to flush toilets and there are a lot of
efficiencies that come with treating to one water quality standard. There is a lot of inefficiency in
treating to multiple qualities and distributing the water to multiple users. A participant stressed
1 Strategic Research Agenda on the Potential Impacts of the 21st Century Oil and Natural Gas Development in the
ppalachian Region and Beyond. Available at https://www.healtheffects.org/publication/strategic-research-agenda-potential-
A
impacts-21st-century-oil-and-natural-gas-development (accessed September 20, 2016).
2 Information on One Water available at http://www.fwea.org/docs/FWRC.2015.Water_ResearchFoundation.IWM_1.pdf
(accessed November 9, 2016).
3 Information on NEWater available at https://www.pub.gov.sg/watersupply/fournationaltaps/newater (accessed Novem-
ber 9, 2016).

that they do not think there is any way to have one quality of water across the United States. They
suggested sticking with multiple focuses on the individual situation.
Another participant noted a research opportunity is to develop fracking fluid systems that are
economically profitable and minimize environmental impacts.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CASE STUDIES

Workshop participants heard a number of suggestions for case studies and demonstrations. A
participant wanted to hear some specific goals from the group and noted a suggestion from earlier
discussions, to conduct demonstrations of technology that produce high-quality water that would
address public concerns.
A participant remarked on a previous comment from Secretary Teague, who noted that from
an Oklahoma context the state needs about 10 percent of the produced water. This scenario is very
different than what the workshop generally discussed—treating all of the produced water. He thinks
there is an opportunity for inexpensive, low-tech approaches to recover 10 percent of produced water.
In terms of a big-picture case study, one could broadly think of the different geologic plays as
sort of a case study, one participant noted. The plays are widely varying in produced water quality
and quantity. For example, the Permian has a lot of conventional production and a large volume of
produced water from aging conventional wells. Right now, about 75 percent of produced water is
being disposed of in saltwater disposal wells. The participant suggested that a study could look at
a co-located conventional and unconventional production scenario.
In terms of a real example, a participant highlighted that there is a 1-million-gallons-per-day
produced water treatment facility that went into operation last year. The produced water is pre-
treated and then undergoes reverse osmosis. A good fraction is recovered and the treated water has
low TDS, enabling discharge of most of that water. The participant also commented on desaliniza-
tion and what to do with the salts that remain. The participant proposed, instead of treating pro-
duced water with the goal of generating water of better quality, producing a different end product
(i.e., chlorine or hydrochloric acid). For example, The Dow Chemical Company takes water from
the Brazos River (Texas), puts it in salt domes, and creates a very high TDS stream for other uses.
There were numerous suggestions from participants on case studies and their components.
These included the following:
• California may be a good location for a case study because the drought has focused every-
one’s attention on water. Things are now possible that were not possible before. There are
groups in California that have the need for water and for alternative practices.
• By examining changes over time in flowback water quality at three wells in different
geologies across the country, the aim would be to evaluate viability and treatability of
produced water.
• Whatever case studies are undertaken, the importance of working with communities was
emphasized by many participants. One of the problems with a case study is the length of
time to do the study. There is some benefit in looking at analog studies, for example, using
saline water for irrigation.
• Is there a future niche from an engineering capacity to transport water in conjunction
with something else, such that the transport infrastructure is shared? A related comment
pertained to scalable mobile treatment and the thought that shared infrastructure was a
realistic opportunity.
• A useful case study may be to understand both the quantities and qualities of water and the
geologically different types of areas where different resources are found. The importance
of time-series studies was also mentioned.

FACILITATED DISCUSSION 61
• It would be useful for case studies to look at both conventional and unconventional well-
fields due to the variability in water profiles. The use of mature fields with high water-to-oil
ratios was also emphasized. Most of those old fields are in arid, drought-prone areas, like
the Permian Basin in western Oklahoma.
• Identify and gather information on water that has low TDS and hardness.
• Case studies across the industry could be performed on wellhead practices, and how those
practices are protective of the local groundwater.
Hamburg mentioned that there is a commitment on the part of the Roundtable to synthesize
some potential next steps and aspects the Roundtable can help move forward. From his perspec-
tive, Hamburg noted that most workshop participants saw a need to move forward and that issues
require collective action.
To conclude the session, Nygaard described the 5-month planning phase associated with
the Roundtable workshop. He found the breadth of issues discussed informative. These included
understanding what is not known and the clear message moving forward on many of these topics.


References
Camacho, L. M., L. Dumée, J. Zhang, J. Li., M. Duke, J. Gomez, and S. Gray. 2013. Advances in membrane distillation for
water desalination and purification applications. Water 5:94-196.
CCST (California Council on Science and Technology) and LBNLPI (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Pacific
Institute). 2014. Advanced Well Stimulation Technologies in California. An Independent Review of Scientific and
Technical Information. Funded by U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Sacramento, CA.
Chapman S., G. Leslie, and I. Law. n.d. Membrane bioreactors (MBR) for municipal wastewater treatment—An Australian
perspective. Available at http://www.sswm.info/sites/default/files/reference_attachments/CHAPMAN%20et%20al%20
ny%20MBR%20for%20Minicipal%20Wastewater%20Treatment.pdf (accessed November 10, 2016).
Cheryan, M. 1998. Ultrafiltration and microfiltration handbook (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Chesapeake Energy Corporation. 2009. Dewatering projects. Pursuing opportunities presented by dewatering projects in
northern Oklahoma. The Play (Summer):10.
Clark, C. E., and J. A. Veil. 2009. Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices in the United States. Prepared for
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. Argonne, IL: Argonne
National Laboratory.
CSUR (Canadian Society for Unconventional Resources). 2016. Understanding Tight Oil. Available at http://www.csur.com/
sites/default/files/Understanding_TightOil_FINAL.pdf (accessed November 8, 2016).
DOE (Department of Energy). 2004. A white paper describing produced water fromin production of crude oil, natural
gas, and coal bed methane. Lemont, IL: Argonne National Laboratory. Available at http://www.ipd.anl.gov/
anlpubs/2004/02/49109.pdf (accessed November 9, 2016).
DOE. 2014. The Water-Energy Nexus: Challenges and Opportunities. Available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/07/
f17/Water%20Energy%20Nexus%20Full%20Report%20July%202014.pdf (accessed August 23, 2016).
DOE. n.d. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Independent Statistics and Analysis. Glossary. Available at http://www.
eia.gov/tools/glossary/index.cfm?id=V (accessed November 10, 2016).
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. 2012 Guidelines for Water Reuse. EPA/600/R-12/618. Available at https://
nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P100FS7K.pdf (accessed November 22, 2016).
EPA. 2015. Assessment of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on drinking water resources.
Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development.
EPA. 2016a. Class II Oil and Gas Related Injection Wells. Available at https://www.epa.gov/uic/class-ii-oil-and-gas-related-
injection-wells#well_types (accessed November 9, 2016).
EPA. 2016b. Water Recycling and Reuse: The Environmental Benefits. Available at https://www3.epa.gov/region9/water/
recycling (accessed November 22, 2016).
EPA. n.d. Biological Filtration. Available at https://iaspub.epa.gov/tdb/pages/treatment/treatmentOverview.do?
treatmentProcessId=1174340674 (accessed November 10, 2016).
63

EWI (Energy Water Initiative). 2015. U.S. Onshore Unconventional Exploration and Production Water Management Case
Studies. Prepared by CH2M Hill.
Gallegos, T. J., and B. A. Varela. 2015. Trends in hydraulic fracturing distributions and treatment fluids, additives, proppants,
and water volumes applied to wells drilled in the United States from 1947 through 2010—Data analysis and compari-
son to the literature. USGS Report 2014-5131.
GSTC (Gasification and Syngas Technology Council). n.d. Plasma Gasification. Available at http://www.gasification-syngas.
org/technology/plasma-gasification (accessed November 22, 2016).
Halliburton. 2013. Fracturing Fluid Systems. Broad Variety of Systems Enables Customizing the Treatment Fluid to
Reservoir Requirements. Available at http://www.halliburton.com/public/pe/contents/Data_Sheets/web/H/H05667.
pdf (accessed November 9, 2016).
HexionFracline. 2012. Fracturing fluids 101. Oilfield Technology Newsletter. Spring 2012. Available at http://www.
hexionfracline.com/spring2012 (accessed on January 12, 2017).
Ibáñez, R., A. Pérez-González, P. Gómez, A. M. Urtiga, and I. Ortiz. 2013. Acid and base recovery from softened reverse
osmosis (RO) brines. Experimental assessment using model concentrates. Desalination 309:165-170.
King, G. 2012. Hydraulic Fracturing 101: What every representative, environmentalist, regulator, reporter, Investor, Univer-
sity Researcher, Neighbor and Engineer Should Know about Estimating Frac Risk and Improving Frac Performance in
Unconventional Gas and Oil Wells. Presentation at the Society of Petroleum Engineers Hydraulic Fracturing Confer-
ence, The Woodlands, TX, February 6-8 (SPE 152596).
Kuwayama, Y., S. Roeshot, A. Krupnick, N. Richardson, and J. Mares. 2015. Pits Versus Tanks: Risks and Mitigation O ptions
for On-site Storage of Wastewater from Shale Gas and Tight Oil Development. Resources for the Future. Available at
http://www.rff.org/files/document/file/RFF-DP-15-53.pdf (accessed September 12, 2016).
Martin, L. 2014. Electrocoagulation: A Shocking Approach to Wastewater Treatment. Available at http://www.wateronline.
com/doc/a-shocking-approach-to-wastewater-treatment-0001 (accessed November 21, 2016).
Maupin, M. A., J. F. Kenny, S. S. Hutson, J. K. Lovelace, N. L. Barber, and K. S. Linsey. 2014. Estimated Use of Water in
the United States in 2010. USGS Circular 1405. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
Murray, K. 2013. State-scale perspective on water use and production associated with oil and gas operations, Oklahoma,
U.S. Environmental Science & Technology 47:4918-4925.
NGWA (National Groundwater Association). 2010. Brackish Groundwater. NGWA Information Brief. Available at http://
www.ngwa.org/media-center/briefs/documents/brackish_water_info_brief_2010.pdf (accessed November 21, 2016).
NRC (National Research Council). 2010. Management and effects of coalbed methane produced water in the western United
States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2013. Induced seismicity potential in energy technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2014. Development of unconventional hydrocarbon resources in the Appalachian basin: Workshop summary.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2016. Water withdrawals. Available at https://data.
oecd.org/water/water-withdrawals.htm (accessed November 10, 2016).
Scanlon, B. R., R. C. Reedy, and J. P. Nicot. 2014a. Will water scarcity in semiarid regions limit hydraulic fracturing of
shale plays? Environmental Research Letters 9:1-14.
Scanlon, B. R., R. C. Reedy, and J. P. Nicot. 2014b. Comparison of water use for hydraulic fracturing for unconventional
oil and gas versus conventional oil. Environmental Science & Technology 48:12386-12393.
Scanlon, B. R., R. C. Reedy, F. Male, and M. Hove. 2016. Managing the increasing water footprint of hydraulic fracturing
in the Bakken Play, United States. Environmental Science & Technology 50:10273-10281.
Shon, H. K., S. Phuntsho, D. S. Chaudhary, S. Vigneswaran, and J. Cho. 2013. Nanofiltration for water and wastewater—a
mini review. Drinking Water Engineering Science 6:47-53.
SPE International. 2016. Fracturing Fluids and Additives. Available at http://petrowiki.org/Fracturing_fluids_and_additives
(accessed November 10, 2016).
Veil, J. 2015. U.S. Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices in 2012. A report prepared for the Groundwater
Protection Council. Available at http://www.gwpc.org/sites/default/files/Produced%20Water%20Report%202014-
GWPC_0.pdf (accessed November 9, 2016).
Water Research Foundation. 2015. Past, Present, and Future Support for One Water. Available at http://www.fwea.org/docs/
FWRC.2015.Water_ResearchFoundation.IWM_1.pdf (accessed November 10, 2016).
WateReuse. n.d. Water reuse 101. Glossary. Available at https://watereuse.org/water-reuse-101/glossary (accessed Novem-
ber 22, 2016).
WRI (World Resources Institute). 2013. What’s the Difference Between Water Use and Water Consumption? Available at
http://www.wri.org/blog/2013/03/what%E2%80%99s-difference-between-water-use-and-water-consumption (accessed
November 22, 2016).

Appendix A
Workshop Agenda
Keck Center
500 Fifth Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
Wednesday, May 25
7:45 REGISTRATION, CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST AVAILABLE
8:30 WELCOME
Gregory Symmes, Executive Director, Division on Earth and Life Studies
8:35 INTRODUCTION TO THE ROUNDTABLE

David Dzombak and Wendy Harrison, Co-Chairs, Roundtable on Unconventional
Hydrocarbon Development
8:45 WORKSHOP OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES

Steve Hamburg and Kris Nygaard, Co-Chairs, Workshop Planning Committee
KEYNOTE PRESENTATIONS: SETTING THE STAGE

Moderated by George King, Apache Corporation
9:00 KEYNOTE 1: THE ENERGY-WATER NEXUS

Diana Bauer, Department of Energy
9:20 KEYNOTE 2: BENEFICIAL USE OF PRODUCED WATER FROM THE OIL AND
GAS INDUSTRY
John Veil, Veil Environmental, LLC
9:40 KEYNOTE 3: APPROACHES TO MANAGE, TREAT, AND TRANSPORT

PRODUCED AND FLOWBACK WATER FOR BENEFICIAL USE
Jill Cooper, Anadarko Corporation
65

10:00 MODERATED DISCUSSION
10:40 BREAK
11:00 PANEL DISCUSSION

Regional Similarities and Differences: Environmental and Regulatory Context for
Potential Use of Flowback and Produced Water

Moderated by William Stringfellow, University of the Pacific and Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory
• Danny Reible, Texas Tech University
• Radisav Vidic, University of Pittsburgh
• James Silva, GE Global Research (retired)

12:45 LUNCH
1:45 MODERATED PANEL DISCUSSION

Technologies for Managing Flowback and Produced Waters for Potential Use
Moderated by Linda Capuano, Baker Institute Center for Energy Studies, Rice University
• Tzahi Cath, Colorado School of Mines
• Pele Okullo, Newfield Exploration Company
• Rick McCurdy, Chesapeake Energy Corporation
3:30 BREAK

Characterization of Flowback and Produced Waters for Potential Use
Moderated by Bridget Scanlon, Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas

at Austin
• Tanya Gallegos, U.S. Geological Survey
• Ken Carlson, Colorado State University
• Kyle Murray, Oklahoma Geological Survey
5:30 ADJOURN
5:30- RECEPTION
7:00
Thursday, May 26
8:00 REGISTRATION, CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST AVAILABLE
8:30 WELCOME AND PLANS FOR THE DAY


APPENDIX A 67

Research and Technology Innovation in Context: What is it that you’d like to do but you
can’t do today, and why?
Moderated by Wendy Harrison, Colorado School of Mines

• Secretary Michael Teague, Oklahoma Office of Energy and Environment
• Mike Paque, Groundwater Protection Council
• Becky Tomasek, CH2M
9:45 BREAK
10:05 FACILITATED DISCUSSION

What do we know with confidence regarding technologies and chemical characterization

of flowback and produced waters for beneficial uses? What do we need to know? How
might we fill those gaps?
11:50 NEXT STEPS

Dave Dzombak and Wendy Harrison, Co-Chairs, Roundtable on Unconventional
12:00 WORKSHOP ADJOURNS


Appendix B
Members of the Roundtable on Unconventional

DAVID A. DZOMBAK (NAE), Co-Chair, Carnegie Mellon University

WENDY J. HARRISON, Co-Chair, Colorado School of Mines
BRIAN J. ANDERSON, West Virginia University
MELISSA BATUM, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Department of the Interior
SUSAN L. BRANTLEY (NAS), The Pennsylvania State University
JEFFREY J. DANIELS, The Ohio State University
AKHIL DATTA-GUPTA (NAE), Texas A&M University–College Station
DAVID GLATT, North Dakota Department of Health and Environmental Council of the States’
Shale Gas Caucus
JULIA HOBSON HAGGERTY, Montana State University
STEVEN P. HAMBURG, Environmental Defense Fund
MARILU HASTINGS, The Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation
MURRAY HITZMAN, U.S. Geological Survey
JOE LIMA, Schlumberger Services, Inc.
DANIEL LIND, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Department of the Interior
PETER MacKENZIE, GeoStabilization International
JAN MARES, Resources for the Future
ELENA S. MELCHERT, Department of Energy
EVAN S. MICHELSON, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
C. MICHAEL MING, GE Global Research Oil & Gas Technology Center
KRIS J. NYGAARD, ExxonMobil Upstream Research Co.
AMY PICKLE, Duke University
CRAIG SIMMONS, Flinders University
TIMOTHY R. SPISAK, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior
BERRY H. (NICK) TEW, JR., Geological Survey of Alabama, State Oil and Gas Board, and
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and Groundwater Protection Council
SCOTT W. TINKER, Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin
69


Appendix C
Biographies of Workshop Planning Committee
Steven P. Hamburg (Workshop Planning Committee Co-Chair) is chief scientist at the Environ-
mental Defense Fund (EDF). In this role, he works to ensure that EDF’s advocacy is based on
the best available science. He is currently coordinating 16 studies on methane emissions from
along the natural gas supply chain. Prior to joining EDF he spent 25 years on the faculty at Brown
University and the University of Kansas, published extensively on biogeochemistry, climate change
impacts on forests, and carbon accounting, and served as a lead author for the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. He currently co-chairs the Solar Radiation Management Governance
Initiative (joint project of The Royal Society, the World Academy of Sciences, and EDF) and
serves on the Hubbard Brook Research Foundation; the Environmental Protection Agency’s Science
Advisory Board; and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Board on
Environmental Science and Toxicology, as well as many university and government advisory bod-
ies. EDF is a sponsor of the Roundtable.
Kris J. Nygaard (Workshop Planning Committee Co-Chair) is senior stimulation consultant, Exx-
onMobil Upstream Research Co. In his senior technical professional role, Dr. Nygaard is the cor-
poration’s recognized expert on hydraulic fracturing and related well construction technologies. Dr.
Nygaard advises the research and development program at ExxonMobil’s Upstream Research Com-
pany and works with ExxonMobil’s business units on technology strategy, deployment, and applica-
tions. He began his career at Exxon Production Research in 1992 following a postdoctoral research
and teaching assignment at the University of Arizona. During his 23 years with E xxonMobil, he
has held technical and management positions in the areas of drilling, subsurface engineering, well
completions, and unconventional resources. In 2010, he was assigned to lead the Upstream Frac-
turing Center of Excellence, coordinating ExxonMobil’s worldwide hydraulic fracturing resources
and fracturing related technical interfaces. During the past 3 years he has also led ExxonMobil’s
efforts to address risks of induced seismicity, serves as chair of the American Petroleum Institute’s
induced seismicity workgroup, and is currently a technical advisor to several oil and gas regulators
in the United States (via the StatesFirst initiative). In addition, he has served as consultant to the
Environmental Protection Agency related to studies associated with hydraulic fracturing and under-
71

ground injection. He is a member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, and the Seismological Society of America. He holds a BS in mechanical
engineering, an MS in aerospace engineering, and a PhD in mechanical engineering, all from the
University of Arizona. ExxonMobil is a sponsor of the Roundtable.
Brian J. Anderson is the director of the West Virginia University (WVU) Energy Institute and the
GE Plastics Materials Engineering Professor in Chemical Engineering at WVU. The WVU Energy
Institute is the central university organization coordinating and facilitating collaborative research
projects at WVU in fossil energy, sustainable energy, energy policy, and environmental stewardship
related to energy. Dr. Anderson was awarded the 2012 Presidential Early Career Awards for Scien-
tists and Engineers, the highest honor bestowed by the U.S. government on science and engineering
professionals in the early stages of their independent research careers, and a 2014 Kavli National
Academy of Science Frontiers of Science Fellow. He has been a National Energy Technology
Laboratory (NETL)-Regional University Alliance Faculty Fellow at the NETL since 2008, where
he is the coordinator of the International Methane Hydrate Reservoir Simulator Code Comparison
study. In 2011, he was awarded a Secretary Honor Achievement Award from the Secretary of the
Department of Energy for his role in the Flow Rate Technical Group, a team spanning multiple
National Laboratories that worked in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. After joining the
faculty at WVU in January 2006, he co-authored the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
report The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the
United States in the 21st Century, considered the seminal report on EGS and the future of geo
thermal energy. He serves on the technical advisory board of AltaRock Energy and in 2011, along
with colleagues from Stanford University, MIT, Cornell University, University of Utah, Southern
Methodist University, and the University of Nevada, he co-founded the National Geothermal Acad-
emy. His research interests include molecular, reservoir, and multiscale modeling applied to energy
and biomedical systems. Dr. Anderson received his BS in chemical engineering at WVU and his
MS and PhD in chemical engineering from MIT. WVU is a sponsor of the Roundtable.
Melissa Batum is a senior program analyst and technical subject matter expert for the Department
of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). As a senior analyst she manages
complex program issues and initiatives, drives strategic planning, and influences policy decisions
and procedure development. With her education in geology, she serves as the BOEM principal
representative for policy and technical issues regarding subseabed CO2 use and sequestration on
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). She is a liaison for and within the Department and Bureau
and works collaboratively across other federal agencies, state and local governments, foreign
governments, and international groups. She also works on policy and technical issues regarding
hydraulic fracturing on the OCS. She received her BS in geology from the University of Alabama
at B
irmingham and her MS in geology from Texas Tech University. She is also a Licensed Profes-
sional Geologist (PG) in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Department of the Interior is a sponsor
of the Roundtable.
Susan L. Brantley (NAS) is the Distinguished Professor of Geosciences in the College of Earth
and Mineral Sciences at The Pennsylvania State University, where she is also the director of the
Earth and Environmental Systems Institute. She has been on the faculty at Penn State since 1986.
Dr. Brantley’s career as a geochemist focuses on the chemistry of natural waters both at the sur-
face of Earth and deeper in the crust. Dr. Brantley and her research group investigate chemical,
biological, and physical processes associated with the circulation of aqueous fluids in shallow
hydrogeologic settings. She has published more than 160 refereed journal articles and 15 book
chapters. Dr. Brantley is a fellow of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), the Geological

APPENDIX C 73
Society of America (GSA), the Geochemical Society, the European Association of Geochemistry,
and the International Association for GeoChemistry. She was president of the Geochemical Society
from 2006 to 2008. Dr. Brantley was awarded the Arthur L. Day Medal from GSA in 2011, the
Presidential Award from the Soil Science Society of America in 2012, and an honorary doctorate
from the Paul Sabatier University (Toulouse III, France) in 2012. Dr. Brantley was appointed to the
U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board on September 21, 2012, by President Barack Obama.
Also in 2012, she was elected to membership in the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Brantley
received her AB in chemistry (1980) and her MA and PhD in geological and geophysical sciences
in 1983 and 1987, respectively, all from Princeton University.
Akhil Datta-Gupta (NAE) is Regents Professor and holder of the L.F. Peterson ‘36 Endowed Chair
in Petroleum Engineering at Texas A&M University in College Station. Dr. Datta-Gupta is known
for his contributions to high-resolution flow simulation and inverse modeling related to petro-
leum reservoir characterization, management, and calibration of geologic models. Dr. Datta-Gupta
received two of the top three technical awards (Carll Award, 2009; Uren Award, 2003) given by
the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) and the 2015 SPE distinguished achievement award for
petroleum engineering faculty. Dr. Datta-Gupta co-authored the SPE textbook Streamline Simula-
tion: Theory and Practice. His second book, Subsurface Fluid Flow and Imaging, is scheduled for
publication by the Cambridge University Press in early 2016. In addition to his SPE awards, he is
recipient of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers’ Rossiter W.
Raymond award (1992) and the Department of Energy (DOE) Award for Outstanding Contributions
to Basic Research in Geosciences (2008), and he served as member of the Polar Research Board of
the National Research Council (2001-2004) and the Technology Task Force of the National Petro-
leum Council (2007). His research program is funded by the National Science Foundation, DOE,
and oil companies worldwide. Dr. Datta-Gupta was elected to the National Academy of Engineering
and The Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas in 2012. Texas A&M University
is a sponsor of the Roundtable.
Joe Lima is the global environmental solutions manager and director of environmental sustain-
ability for Schlumberger Services, Inc. Before this role, Mr. Lima served as the unconventional
resources theme manager for North America, where he was responsible for directing technology
development and application throughout the region specifically for shale and tight gas environ-
ments. From 2004 through 2008 he was the Oilfield Services Marketing Manager for the western
United States, developing strategic growth plans for Schlumberger as well as managing the sales
organization and executive-level client relationships. Previously, he was the business development
manager for Schlumberger’s multistage hydraulic fracturing technologies. Mr. Lima also served
in various management roles for Well Services facilities throughout the U.S. hydraulic fractur-
ing markets, including the San Juan, Anadarko, and Arkoma Basins. He spent 4 years as an in-
house completions engineer for various Schlumberger clients and has served on the boards of the
Colorado Oil and Gas Association, the Interstate Petroleum Association of Mountain States, and
the California Independent Petroleum Association. He holds a BS in petroleum engineering from
Marietta College, Marietta, Ohio. Schlumberger is a sponsor of the Roundtable.
Daniel Lind is an engineer for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE)
and is currently on detail as the BSEE liaison to the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals
Management. Before joining BSEE, Mr. Lind was a Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute
Graduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics fellow in Washington, DC, where he
worked at the American Petroleum Institute and in the U.S. Senate. Mr. Lind has also worked for
the Department of Homeland Security, ExxonMobil, GE, and Toyota across a variety of different

positions from manufacturing trains to conducting Hispanic outreach in the state of Montana. He
is a mechanical and automotive engineer, earning his BS degree from the University of Miami in
Florida and his MS degree from Clemson University in South Carolina. The Horatio Alger Asso-
ciation awarded Mr. Lind a scholarship to be able to attend college, and he has remained involved
with the Association ever since. He has also been a member of the Society of Hispanic Professional
Engineers for almost a decade. The Department of the Interior is a sponsor of the Roundtable.
Jan Mares is a senior policy advisor at Resources for the Future. He was previously a business
liaison and deputy director at the Private Sector Office of the Department of Homeland Security.
During the Reagan administration, Mr. Mares was an assistant secretary of commerce for import
administration and a senior policy analyst at the White House, where he was involved with envi-
ronment, energy, trade, and technology issues. He also served as assistant secretary of energy for
international affairs and energy emergencies; assistant secretary of energy for policy, safety, and
environment; and assistant secretary of energy for fossil energy. For 6 months, he was the acting
under secretary of energy. Before entering federal service, Mr. Mares was with Union Carbide Cor-
poration for 18 years, half in the Law Department, working on antitrust compliance and purchasing
issues, and half in its chemical business, including leading an effort for 3 years to create a chemicals
joint venture with a Middle East government company and being the operations/profit manager for
several groups of industrial chemicals. Subsequent to his service in the Reagan administration, he
worked with the Washington, DC, law firm Shaw Pittman, the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manu-
facturers Association, and the EOP Group (a Washington, DC, environment, energy, and budget
consulting firm). He received his BA in chemistry from Harvard College, his MS in chemical engi-
neering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and his LLB from Harvard Law School.
Elena S. Melchert is a petroleum engineer with more than 30 years of experience in the oil
and gas sector including exploration and production, field operations, research and development, and
domestic and international policy development (Latin America). She is currently the Department of
Energy’s (DOE’s) Director for the Upstream Oil and Gas Research Division, which includes shale
development and offshore spill prevention. She was a program manager at DOE headquarters from
1990 to 2013, and led the development of several DOE technology research plans and research pro-
grams, including the Advanced Drilling, Completion and Stimulation Research Program Plan and the
Offshore Technology Roadmap. Starting in 1985, she was a production engineer at DOE’s commer-
cial oilfield, producing oil and natural gas for 4 years, after spending 5 years in field operations for
Getty Oil/Texaco, all in California. From 1995 through 2000, she served as DOE’s U.S. coordinator
for natural gas in the Western Hemisphere under the President’s Summit of the Americas/Western
Hemispheric Energy Initiative. In 2001, she served as a member of the Senior Professional Staff for
oil and gas technology at the Executive Office of the President of the United States/National Energy
Policy Development Group, and provided subject-matter expertise for the President’s National
Energy Policy. In 2010, she served as the committee manager for the President’s National Com-
mission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, where she also served as
the Designated Federal Officer for several of the Commission’s subcommittees, and at times for
meetings of the full Commission. In 2011, she supported the Shale Gas Subcommittee, Secretary of
Energy Advisory Board. In 2012, she served as a subject-matter expert on the Spill Prevention Sub-
committee of the Department of the Interior’s Ocean Energy Safety Advisory Committee. In 2014,
she led the development of the “fuels” section of the Department’s Quadrennial Technology Review.
A lifelong learner, her education includes a BS in soil science at California Polytechnic State Uni-
versity, San Luis Obispo, an MSC in petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California
in Los Angeles, and an Executive Certificate in International Business at Georgetown University,
Washington, DC; she is a graduate of the Federal Executive Institute, Charlottesville, Virginia.

APPENDIX C 75
Bridget R. Scanlon (NAE) is a senior research scientist in the Bureau of Economic Geology and
also teaches courses in the geology and civil engineering departments at The University of Texas
at Austin. Her expertise lies in evaluating the impact of climate and land use change on ground-
water resources, application of numerical models for simulating saturated flow and transport, and
assessment of natural and anthropogenic contamination of aquifers. She served on various National
Research Council committees. These include Spatial Data Enabling U.S. Geological Survey Stra-
tegic Science in the 21st Century and Integrated Observations for Hydrologic and Related Sci-
ences, and Subsurface Contamination at Department of Energy Complex Sites. She has served as
a consultant to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and associate editor for Hydrogeology
Journal. She was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 2016. Dr. Scanlon received
her PhD in geology at the University of Kentucky.
Craig Simmons (FTSE) is the Matthew Flinders Distinguished Professor of Hydrogeology and
Schultz Chair in the Environment at Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia. He is a leading
groundwater scientist, recognized for major national and international contributions to groundwater
science, education, and policy reform. As director of the National Centre for Groundwater Research
and Training, he is one of Australia’s foremost groundwater academics and has been a significant
contributor to global advances in the science of hydrogeology for many years. He is a fellow of the
Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering and is a member of the Statutory
Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Develop-
ment. Professor Simmons’s work has been recognized by numerous national and international
research and teaching awards, including the Anton Hales Medal for outstanding contributions
to research in the Earth Sciences by the Australian Academy of Science. He was named the 2015
South Australian Scientist of the Year. Professor Simmons has served as an editor and associate
editor for numerous major international journals, including Water Resources Research, Journal of
Hydrology, Hydrogeology Journal, Groundwater, Environmental Modeling and Assessment, and
Vadose Zone Journal. He received his BE in electrical and electronic engineering from the Univer-
sity of Adelaide, his BSc double major in theoretical and experimental physics from the University
of Adelaide, and his PhD in hydrogeology from Flinders University/Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation. Flinders University is a sponsor of the Roundtable.


Appendix D
Biographies of Workshop Moderators and Presenters
Diana Bauer is the director of energy systems integration analysis within the Office of Energy
Policy and Systems Analysis at the Department of Energy (DOE). She led the DOE team that pub-
lished The Water-Energy Nexus: Challenges and Opportunities in 2014. She currently co-chairs
DOE’s Water-Energy Tech Team. Earlier, she led the team that drafted DOE’s 2010 and 2011
Critical Materials Strategy reports. Prior to joining DOE, she directed extramural sustainability
research at the Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. Bauer has a PhD in mechanical engineering
from the University of California, Berkeley, and a BSE in mechanical engineering from Princeton
University.
Linda A. Capuano is the fellow in energy technology at the Rice University’s Baker Institute
Center for Energy Studies. Her research interests focus on the energy–water–food stress nexus. She
is also an instructor in Operations Strategy at Rice University’s Jones Graduate School of Business.
Ms. Capuano’s career has centered on commercializing technology innovation through her network
and experience in high-tech companies, where she has navigated new technologies from design
to successful commercialization. She previously served as company officer and vice president of
technology at Marathon Oil Corporation; senior vice president of engineering design at Solectron
Flextronics; executive vice president and chief technology officer at Advanced Energy Industries;
corporate vice president of technology strategy at Honeywell; general manager of wide body air-
craft auxiliary product units at AlliedSignal Aerospace; and manager in computer memory product
development at IBM. She was co-founder and served as chief financial officer of C onductus, a
Silicon Valley startup that commercialized ceramic superconductor technology discovered in the
1980s. She currently serves on the board of directors of Peak Reliability, providing bulk electricity
system oversight within the Western Electricity Coordinating Council’s footprint. She is also a tech-
nical advisor to Green Earth Greens Ecopia Farms, dedicated to urban food sustainability, and an
associate member of the National Academy of Sciences, an elected lifetime position. Ms. Capuano
was awarded the Technical Excellence Award by the Society of Women Engineers and the IBM
Outstanding Achievement Award, recognizing contributions to computer memory storage. She
received her PhD in materials science and engineering and an MS in engineering management from
77

Stanford University; an MS in chemistry and a BS in chemical engineering from the University of

Colorado Boulder; and a BS in chemistry from the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
Kenneth Carlson is professor of civil and environmental engineering at Colorado State University
with more than 25 years of experience addressing water- and wastewater-related issues. He is direc-
tor of the Center for Energy Water Sustainability (CEWS) and in this role directs research related
to optimizing the synergies between water and energy. Current projects include reducing the cost
of produced water recycle treatment technologies, real-time groundwater monitoring in oil and
gas fields, and geographic information system (GIS)-based decision support tool development for
managing water and wastewater in spatially diverse oil and gas operations. In addition, the CEWS
is conducting research on using treated produced water for agricultural irrigation, a project that is
using five different produced water qualities (different levels of treatment) to grow biofuel crops in
a greenhouse and analyzing impacts on soil, crop productivity, and plant tissue chemical uptake.
Additional CEWS research projects include wastewater deammonification, sewage heat recovery,
and wastewater nutrient recovery. He has a BS in chemical engineering from the University of
Wisconsin, an MS in civil engineering from Colorado State University, and a PhD in environmental
engineering from the University of Colorado Boulder.
Tzahi Cath is a professor of environmental engineering at the Colorado School of Mines. His main
field of research is membrane processes for wastewater treatment, desalination of saline and hyper-
saline brines, reclamation of impaired water for potable reuse, and energy from water and waste-
water. Dr. Cath is a principal investigator on many research projects focusing on the integration
of membrane contactor processes in seawater and brackish water desalination, in domestic and
industrial wastewater treatment (including oil and gas wastewater), and in life support systems.
He is currently the director of the Advanced Water Technology Center at the Colorado School of
Mines and until recently he led the Efficient Engineered Systems projects of the National Science
Foundation Engineering Research Center ReNUWIt.
Jill Cooper is a corporate HSE manager of reporting and advocacy for Anadarko Petroleum Corpo-
ration and works on global health, safety, and environmental matters for the company. She received
her MBA in international business at Thunderbird School of Global Management and continued
on to receive her JD in environmental law at the University of Colorado Law School (1996). She
has since held several positions including the senior advisor to the executive director on environ-
mental matters, director of the Sustainability Division, and legal administrator for the Air Pollution
Control Division at the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment. She also practiced
environmental, natural resource, and sustainability law as an attorney with Faegre & Benson LLP.
Ms. Cooper was the group lead in the divisional environmental program for Encana Oil & Gas Inc.,
which included air, water, waste, land, wildlife, and sustainability. She specializes in sustainability,
environmental and regulatory legal, management, as well as oil and natural gas.
Tanya J. Gallegos is a research engineer with the Eastern Energy Resources Science Center at the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Reston, Virginia. She joined the USGS in 2007 as a M endenhall
Research Fellow after receiving a PhD in environmental and water resources engineering from
the University of Michigan. Dr. Gallegos is a registered professional engineer in the state of New
Mexico, where she was formerly employed by CH2M Hill. Her research encompasses field and
lab studies to understand environmental implications of energy development on natural resources
throughout the hydraulic fracturing and uranium mining and milling life cycles. Research topics
include geochemistry, solid-phase characterization, geochemical and isotopic signatures of tight oil-
and uranium-related waters, development of novel methods for groundwater remediation of trace

APPENDIX D 79
elements and inorganics, identification of metrics for integrated assessments for energy resource
development, and assessing water use in energy resource development.
George E. King is a registered professional engineer with 45 years of oil field experience since
starting with Amoco Production Research in 1971. He is currently Apache Corporation’s dis-
tinguished engineering advisor. His technical background includes basic research on energized
fracturing, workovers, chemicals, acidizing, well integrity, horizontal well completions, and uncon-
ventional formations and includes 75 presented and published papers and articles. His education
includes a BS, majoring in chemistry from Oklahoma State (1972), and a BS in chemical engineer-
ing and an MS in petroleum engineering from the University of Tulsa (1982).
Rick McCurdy currently leads the team that oversees Chesapeake’s production and comple-
tion chemical usage. He is also one of the primary architects of Chesapeake’s industry-leading
GreenFrac® program that focuses on environmentally friendly hydraulic fracturing additives and
Chesapeake’s initiative championing reuse of produced water: AquaRenew®. During his career,
Mr. McCurdy has worked with chemical and water issues from the North Slope of Alaska to the
Gulf of Mexico and from offshore California to the northern Marcellus shale. Mr. McCurdy is an
active member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), NACE International, and Mensa Inter-
national, has served as a technical expert during the Environmental Protection Agency workshops
on hydraulic fracturing, and has presented to the National Academy of Sciences, the Government
Accountability Office, and the Department of Energy regarding water use in the energy sector.
Mr. McCurdy has an AAS degree in petroleum technology.
Kyle Murray is a hydrogeologist for the Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS) and adjunct faculty
for the ConocoPhillips School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma. As the
OGS hydrogeologist, he investigates physical and chemical properties of geologic materials that
store and produce fluids, and conducts regional-scale studies of water, earth, and environmental
resources. Water management in the energy industry is his current primary research area, which
includes study of water use in exploration and production, co-production of petroleum and water,
saltwater management, disposal, recycle, and reuse. Because of the recent increase in seismic
activity in Oklahoma, Dr. Murray is partnering with other geoscientists to understand relationships
between geologic factors, resource management, and seismicity. He earned a BA in geography/
environmental from Shippensburg University in his home state of Pennsylvania, an MS in hydro-
geology from Wright State University of Ohio, and a PhD in geological engineering from the
Colorado School of Mines.
Pele Okullo is a chemical engineer with the Newfield Exploration Company. He is a subject-
matter expert on oil, water, gas production, separation, and processing; flow assurance in oil and
gas production; facility, pipeline, producing wells, integrity design, and monitoring; and recycled
water processing for beneficial use. He received his MS degree in material science from Auburn
University and his MS degree in petroleum engineering from the University of Houston.
Mike Paque has served as executive director of the Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC)
for 30 years. The GWPC mission is to promote the protection and conservation of groundwater
resources for all beneficial use, recognizing groundwater as a critical component of the ecosystem.
Mr. Paque has overseen the implementation of the GWPC mission through a variety of initiatives,
including “The Ground Water Report to the Nation,” presentations and issue resolution on oil and
gas regulation and groundwater protection with U.S. federal government agencies and the U.S.
Congress, while promoting the use of a sound science approach to issue resolution. Mr. Paque

has served on numerous federal government committees involving groundwater and oil- and gas-
related topics and issues such as chemical fate and transport of injection waste, federal regulations
related to the injection and disposal of oil- and gas-produced water, aquifer exemptions, and aqui-
fer storage and recovery among others. Mr. Paque has overseen the implementation of a 27-state
Risk Based Data Management System for state energy and water agencies to use in oil and gas
production and water protection areas, the widely used chemical disclosure system, FracFocus.
org, and an induced seismicity public website in Oklahoma. Mr. Paque has served as a member on
public boards and commissions, including the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality’s
Environmental Board, the Water Quality Monitoring Advisory Council, the Interstate Oil and Gas
Compact Commission, the U.S. Secretary of Interior Advisory Committee on Water Information,
and the National Petroleum Council, among others. He holds a BS degree and an MS degree from
the University of Wisconsin.
Danny Reible is the Donovan Maddox Distinguished Engineering Chair in the Department of Civil,
Environmental, and Construction Engineering and the Department of Chemical Engineering at
Texas Tech University. He is also professor and director emeritus at Louisiana State University and
adjunct professor at The University of Texas at Austin. He holds a BS in chemical engineering from
Lamar University and an MS and a PhD in chemical engineering from the California Institute of
Technology. Dr. Reible’s research career has been focused on understanding the fate and transport
of contaminants in the environment, evaluating the risks posed by these contaminants, and devising
effective management approaches. More recently he has been active in research to manage both
water availability and quality at the food-energy-water nexus. Dr. Reible is a fellow of the American
Institute of Chemical Engineers and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He
is a board certified environmental engineer, a professional engineer (LA), and in 2005 was elected
to the National Academy of Engineering for the “development of widely used approaches for the
management of contaminated sediments.”
Bridget R. Scanlon. See Appendix C.
James (“Jim”) Silva received his BS and PhD degrees in chemical engineering from the University
of California, Berkeley, in 1971 and 1978, respectively. He joined General Electric’s (GE’s) Global
Research Center in 1977 and retired on May 1, 2016. Dr. Silva spent the first 30 years at GE con-
ducting chemical process research and development for GE Plastics, during which time he helped
bring several processes and products from the idea stage through commercialization, including
extensive work in polycarbonates (for optical-quality resin production) as well as brine purification
(for chlor-alkali production). Since 2008, he has focused on water recovery from tough-to-treat
brines, particularly shale gas–produced water. He served as the principal investigator (PI) for two
Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America–funded projects. These projects helped define
the importance of naturally occurring radioactive material in produced waters, particularly from the
Marcellus, and identified cost-effective pretreatment processes. Recently, he served as co-PI on a
Department of Energy project to desalinate brines extracted from deep saline formations in support
of carbon sequestration. Dr. Silva holds 54 U.S. patents.
William T. Stringfellow is a professor and director of the Ecological Engineering Research Pro-
gram at the School of Engineering & Computer Science at the University of the Pacific in Stockton,
California. He also has a joint appointment with the Geochemistry Department, Earth & Environ-
mental Sciences Area at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California. He
received his BS in environmental health from the University of Georgia, his master’s degree in
microbial physiology and aquatic ecology from Virginia Tech, and his PhD in environmental sci-

APPENDIX D 81
ences and engineering from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Stringfellow is an
expert in water quality, water treatment, and the microbiology of engineered systems. He has more
than 35 years research and consulting experience in wastewater treatment and management in both
the United States and Europe. Dr. Stringfellow’s current projects include an extensive examination
of water and chemical use during oil and gas development and the treatment and reuse of oil field
wastewater. Dr. Stringfellow is currently a member of the Food Safety Advisory Panel examining
the beneficial reuse of produced water for irrigation in California.

Secretary Michael J. Teague, Oklahoma Office of Energy and Environment. The Office of the
Secretary of Energy and Environment helps develop and advance policies that encourage energy
exploration and production as well as responsible environmental stewardship throughout Oklahoma.
The Secretary of Energy and Environment serves as the governor’s chief advisor on energy and
environmental policy and is the governor’s cabinet office with oversight over Oklahoma’s energy
and environmental agencies. Prior to his appointment, Secretary Teague served in the U.S. Army for
nearly 30 years before retiring with the rank of colonel. Teague served in many capacities during his
time in the Army, including commander for the Tulsa District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
where he was responsible for a civil works program encompassing all of Oklahoma, a large portion
of southern Kansas, and the panhandle of northern Texas. He oversaw more than 700 employees in
engineering, construction, and operations, as well as an annual budget of $700 million. Throughout
his career, Secretary Teague has dealt with power generation and distribution, water desalinization,
and environmental impact studies. He has facilitated and negotiated numerous solutions regarding
federal and state agencies, tribes, and local stakeholders and has acted as a liaison between the Tulsa
District and the U.S. Congress. Secretary Teague also served in operational assignments in Egypt,
Germany, Honduras, and Saudi Arabia, and numerous stateside duty stations. He deployed several
times to the Middle East and central Asia, including commanding the 52nd Engineer Battalion in
Mosul, Iraq, in support of the 101st Airborne Division as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003.
Secretary Teague received a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Norwich University. He
also received master’s degrees in operations analysis from the Naval Postgraduate School and in
national security and strategic studies from the Naval War College.
Becky L. Tomasek is the shale director and upstream water general manager at CH2M. Ms. Tomasek
joined the firm in December 2013 and has spent much of her career focused on chemical and water
use in the oil and gas industry. Prior to joining CH2M HILL Ms. Tomasek served as the vice presi-
dent of strategy, research and development, and business development for Swire Oilfield Services,
where she identified and analyzed produced water treatment technologies and led water reclamation
field trials utilizing those technologies. Ms. Tomasek spent 20 years with The Dow Chemical Com-
pany, where she was a founding leadership team member of the Oil & Gas business group, serving
first as the finance leader and then as the global strategic marketing director. In these roles she led
the development of innovative chemicals to increase production, reduce costs, and minimize emis-
sions for the oil and gas industry. Prior to these roles, Ms. Tomasek served in a variety of production
engineering, finance, auditing, and strategy roles within The Dow Chemical Company. Ms. Tomasek
has a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from Texas A&M University and an MBA from the
University of Houston.
John Veil founded Veil Environmental, LLC, a consulting practice specializing in water issues
affecting the energy industries, upon his retirement from Argonne National Laboratory in January
2011. Mr. Veil spent more than 20 years as the manager of the Water Policy Program for Argonne
National Laboratory in Washington, DC, where he was a senior scientist. He analyzed a variety
of energy industry water and waste issues for the Department of Energy. Before joining Argonne,

Mr. Veil managed Maryland’s programs for industrial water pollution control permitting through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and Underground Injection Control. Mr. Veil
also served as a faculty member of the University of Maryland, Department of Zoology, for several
years. Mr. Veil has a BA in earth and planetary science from Johns Hopkins University and two
MS degrees in zoology and civil engineering from the University of Maryland. Mr. Veil was rec-
ognized by the Society of Petroleum Engineers as a Distinguished Lecturer in 2008-2009, and as
the recipient of the 2009 international award for Health, Safety, Security, Environment and Social
Responsibility. Mr. Veil has published many articles and reports and is frequently invited to make
presentations on environmental and energy issues.
Radisav Vidic is a professor of environmental engineering in the Department of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering at the University of Pittsburgh. His areas of specialization include physical and
chemical processes for water, wastewater, hazardous waste and air treatment; adsorption technolo-
gies for water treatment; molecular interactions on carbonaceous surfaces; development of activated
carbon-based adsorbents for the control of vapor-phase mercury emissions; and application of novel
disinfection technologies for the control of waterborne pathogens in water distribution systems. Past
and present research projects include pretreatment of industrial wastewater and the Water Reuse
project. He received his PhD in environmental engineering at the University of Cincinnati.

Appendix E
Workshop Participants
IN-PERSON PARTICIPANTS
David Alleman Grant Bromhal

ALL Consulting Department of Energy
Edie Allison Susan Burden

American Association of Petroleum Geologists Environmental Protection Agency
Allyson Anderson Kyle Carey

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Environmental Protection Agency
Scott Anderson Corrie Clark

Environmental Defense Fund Argonne National Laboratory
Patrick Baldoni Leland Cogliani

TOTAL Lewis-Burke Associates
Time Bartholomew Isabelle Cozzarelli

Carnegie Mellon University U.S. Geological Survey
Lindsay Bass Cloelle Danforth

XTO Energy Environmental Defense Fund
Laura F. Beer Paul Doucette

Chevron General Electric
Michael Bergstorm Amy Emmert

Shell Exploration & Production Co. American Petroleum Institute
83

Jeff Frithsen Margaret MacDonell

Office of Research and Development Argonne National Laboratory
Environmental Protection Agency
Ben Mandler
Carol Frost American Geosciences Institute
National Science Foundation
Micah McMillan
Patti Giglio Government Accountability Office
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
Sally Mouakkad
Rowlan Greaves Embassy of Australia
Southwestern Energy
Neelesh Nerurkar
Dan Greenbaum Department of Energy
Health Effects Institute
Colleen Newman
Walter Guidroz American Association of Petroleum Geologists
U.S. Geological Survey
Dennis Newman
Doug Hollett Occidental Oil & Gas Corp
Office of Fossil Energy
Department of Energy Molly Palmer
ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company
Alexandra Isern
National Science Foundation Diana Pankevich
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Kristen Jenkins
Southern Research Kelly Poole
Environmental Council of the States
Charles Job
National Ground Water Association Benjamin Preis
Lewis-Burke Associates
Rachel Jones
National Association of Manufacturers Cassaundra Rose
Critical Issues Program
Bhavana Karnick
Chevron David Russ
U.S. Geological Survey
Subramanian Kesavan
Solvay James Rustad
Office of Science
Robert Kleinberg Department of Energy
Schlumberger Services, Inc.
Nichole Saunders
Karen Knee Environmental Defense Fund
American University
Amit Sehgal
Jane Long Solvay
Environmental Defense Fund

APPENDIX E 85
Jhih-Shyang Shih Donna Vorhees

Resources for the Future Health Effects Institute
Antonio Marques Sierra Nathaniel Warner

Oviedo University Penn State Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
James Slutz
National Petroleum Council Kasey White
Geological Society of America
Stan Sokul
XTO Energy Maggi Young
Chesapeake Energy
Jeffrey Steiner
National Institute of Food and Agriculture Harry Zhang
Department of Agriculture Water Environment & Reuse Foundation
WEBCAST PARTICIPANTS
Steve Anderson John Ellis

Jesus Arenas Ray Embertson
Cyrus Ashayeri Nasim Esmaeilirad
Bill Barkhouse Aïda Farag
Abby Bazin Maria Ferentinou
Gary Bent Tori Frank
Marcy Berding Monika Freyman
Andrea Blaine Jay Fuhrman
Ben Blair Michael Fuller
William Bourcier Jessica Furey
Vero Bourg-Meyer Peter Godfrey
Lauren Boyd Julie Gorte
Michael Brown Anna Gray
Bret Bruce Laura Griffin
Patrizia Buttini Stephen Helmer
Elizabeth Casman Bob Hendricks
Andreas Charalambous Raul Uribe Hernandez
Terry Christensen Roxana Herrera
Corrie Clark Barbara Heydorn
Fred Constantino Chris Hill
Dave Cornue Haiying Huang
Dawn Coughlin Jacqueline Hyatt
Jared Dalebout Beatrix Jackson
Eric Daniels Du Jianting
Kc de la Garza Alberta Maura Jimenez
Francisco Domínguez Nancy Johnson
Rosa Dominguez-Faus Don Juckett
Weiquan Dong Amin Kiaghadi
Kevin Doran Todd Kiefer
Sarah Eisenlord Jonathan Koplos

Anna Kuchment Gregory Okolo

Yusuke Kuwayama Alberto Paludetto
Catherine Kyratzi James Payne
Ziv Lang Louelle Philander
Robert Lemmer Kelly Poole
Diane Lentakis Ken Price
Harold Leslie David Rindal
Ray Levey Jessica Rogers
Audrey Levine Coral Roig
Chuck Lieder Mat Rouleau
Eric Lundell John Schuenemeyer
Ann Maest Gudrun Scott
Matt Mahoney Ross Scott
Frank Maly Chi Ho Sham
Murli Manghnani Ramesh Sharma
Antonio Luis Marques Jhih-Shyang Shih
Mike Mathis A.J. Simon
Sean McCoy Lee Ann Sinagoga
Shael McDonald Jennifer Siskind
Michelle McGregor Bruce Smith
Micah McMillan Megan Smith
Jay Meegoda Steven Stendahl
Vivek Mehrotra Elaine Swiedler
Andres Mendez Bill Symington
Carlos Mendonca Jason Trembly
Alfio Mianzan Brett Walton
Briana Mordick Ian Walton
Mark Nanny Romany Webb
Eric Nichols Maggi Young
JP Nicot Kendra Zamz
Ulrich Ofterdinger

Appendix F
Glossary
Acid-base generation: A process where sodium and chloride in salt brine are separated into a
sodium ion and a chloride ion. The water is disassociated into a hydrogen ion and a hydroxyl
ion. When combined, this yields hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide. The recovery of HCl
and NaOH may be a valuable source of chemicals (Ibáñez et al., 2013).
Biological active filtration: Removes contaminants by biodegradation, adsorption of pollutants,
and filtration of the suspended solids (EPA, n.d.).
Brackish water: Salty water with a total dissolved solids concentration between 1,000 and 10,000
milligrams per liter (NGWA, 2010).
Crosslinked gels: Used in hydraulic fracturing and help transport proppant and increase viscosity
(Halliburton, 2013).
Dewatering: A process that allows water or condensate-rich, hydrocarbon-containing reservoirs to be
produced for their gas or oil through the removal water (Chesapeake Energy Corporation, 2009).
Disposal well: Primary management practice for produced water from oil and gas wells that use
hydraulic fracturing (Veil, 2015).
Electrocoagulation: Process that applies an electrical current to a solution to treat and coagulate
particles. It is a water treatment process that can be used in the oil and gas industry, construc-
tion, and mining industries (Martin, 2014).
Evaporation pits: Used to contain produced water, which evaporates into the atmosphere
(Kuwuyama et al., 2015).
Flowback water: After the hydraulic fracture procedure is completed, the injected fluid is allowed
to flow back into the well, leaving the proppant in the newly created fractures. As a result,
a portion of the injected water returns to the surface and this water is called flowback water,
which initially may mix with the naturally occurring produced water from the formation (Veil,
2015).
Foam-based fluids: Fracturing fluids composed mostly of water with added foam to help stimulate
shallow low-pressure zones (Gallegos and Varela, 2015; SPE International, 2016).
Gel-based fluids: Fracturing fluids that are water based with added gels to increase viscosity, which
helps fluid transport (EPA, 2015).
87

Hydraulic fracturing: A controlled, high-pressure injection of fluid and proppant into a well to
generate fractures in the rock formation containing the oil or gas. “It is a stimulation technique
used to increase production of oil and gas” (EPA, 2015).
Induced seismicity: “Induced seismicity associated with fluid injection or withdrawal is caused in
most cases by change in pore fluid pressure and/or change in stress in the subsurface in the pres-
ence of faults with specific properties and orientations and a critical state of stress in the rocks”
(NRC, 2013, p. 1).
Membrane bioreactors: A suspended growth-activated system that uses membranes for solid and
liquid separation (Chapman et al., n.d.).
Membrane distillation: A thermal driven process that uses the difference in vapor pressure to pass
water through a membrane to remove nonvolatile components in the inflow water (Camacho
et al., 2013).
Nanofiltration: A membrane filtration process that uses nanometer-sized pores in membranes to
help filter out pollutants (Shon et al., 2013).
One Water: A concept that all water sources are “managed holistically and collaboratively to meet
the public, environmental, and economic needs for these sources” (Water Research Founda-
tion, 2015, p. 1).
Percolation pits: Used to dispose of waste liquids via drainage or seepage through pits into sur-
rounding soils (Kuwayama et al., 2015).
Plasma arc generation or plasma gasification: A process that converts organic matter into a gas
and this gas can be used to generate power. Plasma is an ionized gas and plasma torches and
arcs convert energy into heat (GSTC, n.d.).
Produced water: Water from underground formations that is brought to the surface during oil and
gas production (Veil, 2015).
Proppant: Sand or ceramics that help keep hydraulic fractures open after fluid injection is com-
pleted. The injected fluid can comprise water and small amounts of chemical additives that
reduce friction in the pipe and help carry the proppant into the fractures (King, 2012; NRC,
2013, 2014).
Recycle: Water recycling can include the treatment of water and using that treated water for a
different use. Examples of beneficial purposes include agriculture, industry, and replenishing
groundwater (EPA, 2016b).
Reuse: Water reuse is the treatment of water and reusing that treated water for a secondary ben-
eficial use. The terms “reuse” and “recycled” are often used interchangeably (EPA, 2012;
WateReuse, n.d.).
Slickwater: A type of fracturing fluid that contains a friction reducer (HexionFracline, 2012).
Tight oil: Conventional oil found within reservoirs with low permeability (CSUR, 2016).
Ultrafiltration: A type of pressure-driven membrane filtration process (Cheryan, 1998).
Unconventional well: A well where oil and gas is extracted using hydraulic fracturing. Fracturing
is needed to extract economic quantities of oil and gas (EPA, 2015).
Use: As defined in these proceedings, refers to one or more subsequent applications of produced
water (usually after some treatment) following their return to the surface.
Vacuum distillation: “Distillation under reduced pressure (less the atmospheric) which lowers the
boiling temperature of the liquid being distilled. This technique with its relatively low tempera-
tures prevents cracking or decomposition of the charge stock” (DOE, n.d.).
Water consumption: Volume of water removed from a source and not returned back to that source
(WRI, 2013).
Water withdrawal: Volume of water removed from a source, i.e., groundwater, and conveyed to
a place of use (OECD, 2016).

Flowback and Produced Waters - Opportunities and Challenges For Innovation - Proceedings of A Workshop

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flowback and Produced Waters - Opportunities and Challenges For Innovation - Proceedings of A Workshop

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24620 SHARE

Flowback and Produced Waters: Opportunities and Challenges

100 pages | 7 x 10 | PAPERBACK

GET THIS BOOK Ed J. Dunne, Rapporteur; Roundtable on Unconventional Hydrocarbon Development;

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Roundtable on Unconventional Hydrocarbon Development

Board on Earth Sciences and Resources

Water Science and Technology Board

Division on Earth and Life Studies

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-45262-5

Copyright 2017 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Con-

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Reports document the evidence-based consensus of an authoring committee of

Proceedings chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, sym-

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR THE WORKSHOP ON FLOWBACK AND

STEVEN P. HAMBURG, Co-Chair, Environmental Defense Fund, Belmont, Massachusetts

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Staff

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

BOARD ON EARTH SCIENCES AND RESOURCES

GENE WHITNEY, Chair, Congressional Research Service (Retired), Washington, DC

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Staff

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

GEORGE M. HORNBERGER, Chair, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Staff

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Rosemary Capo, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

3 REGIONAL SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES: ENVIRONMENTAL AND

4 TECHNOLOGIES FOR MANAGING FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WATERS

5 CHARACTERIZATION OF FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WATERS FOR

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

6 RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION IN CONTEXT 51

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2 FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WATERS

WORKSHOP OVERVIEW AND ORGANIZATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Setting the Stage: Keynote Session

THE ENERGY-WATER NEXUS

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

6 FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WATERS

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

SETTING THE STAGE: KEYNOTE SESSION 7

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

8 FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WATERS

1. Salt content, including salinity and total dissolved solids (TDS);

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

3 REGIONAL SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES: ENVIRONMENTAL AND

4 TECHNOLOGIES FOR MANAGING FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WATERS

5 CHARACTERIZATION OF FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WATERS FOR