7

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 variability in geologic formations across the United States, which drives large variability in flowback and produced 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 variations, 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 regarding 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 transparent 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

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 production. 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 suggested the regulatory community needs to be brought into the conversation. A good venue to communicate with all of the regulators across the nation is through the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and the Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC).

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. Government 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 Association 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 locations. 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 questions 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 private 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 distribution 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 Appalachian Region and Beyond. Available at https://www.healtheffects.org/publication/strategic-research-agenda-potential-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 November 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 pretreated 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 desalinization and what to do with the salts that remain. The participant proposed, instead of treating produced 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 everyone’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.

• It would be useful for case studies to look at both conventional and unconventional wellfields 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 perspective, 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.

This page intentionally left blank.