Prepared For: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection PA DEP. Prepared By: The Shale Alliance for Energy Research, Pennsylvania SAFER PA

Transcription

1 LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT OF FUTURE WASTE CHALLENGES FOR SHALE DEVELOPMENT IN PENNSYLVANIA Final Report: July 10, 2015 Prepared For: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection PA DEP Prepared By: The Shale Alliance for Energy Research, Pennsylvania SAFER PA

2 Table of Contents Table of Contents... i Legal Notice and Disclaimer... ii Appendices... iii Executive Summary Introduction Shale Gas and Flowback and Produced Water Production Data ( ) Current and Potential Future Options for Addressing Excess Produced Water Drill Cuttings Production Data ( ) GTI Water Based Life Cycle Model Conclusions and Recommendations...68 References 66 Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page i

3 Legal Notice This document was prepared by SAFER PA for informational purposes only. Neither SAFER PA, members of SAFER PA, nor any person acting on behalf of all or any of them: a) makes any warranty or representation, express or implied with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report may not infringe privately-owned rights, or, b) assumes any liability with respect to the use of, or for any and all damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report. Disclaimer The information presented in this report is based on professional opinions from a review of existing published reports, oil and gas well databases, industry sources and other data sources. It should be recognized that this study was not intended to be a definitive investigation of the presented potential options for addressing waste challenges in Pennsylvania. The scope of services for this study was limited and should not be construed as a guarantee by SAFER PA that the potential options presented can be successfully developed for addressing waste challenges discussed in this study. The data presented in this study report are subject to change and a present-day download of the same data set from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection web site referenced in this report may be different than the data set used to complete this report. The contents of this report, including its findings and conclusions, do not represent the opinions of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page ii

4 Appendix A Backup Database Tables and Graphs Appendix B Figures 2-1 Flowback and Produced Water Generated in Regions in Pennsylvania Where Active Well Development is Occurring 3-1 Brine Disposal Wells and Drilled Marcellus and Utica Wells in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia 3-2 Existing and Proposed UIC IID Wells in Pennsylvania Appendix C Backup Model Information Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page iii

5 Executive Summary The Shale Alliance for Energy Research Pennsylvania (SAFER PA) conducted a study of projected future trends of wastes production from shale gas resources development in Pennsylvania in accordance with a PADEP grant. SAFER applied a life cycle modeling analysis to assess the magnitude and the long-term implications of wastes generated during shale gas development and production operations, and identify potential options for addressing the impacts of these wastes. This study can serve as a preamble to discussions of how Pennsylvania will address shale-related waste challenges, so that prudent decisions and action can be taken to proactively and effectively manage waste production from shale gas development over the decades of drilling to come. The primary focus of this study is on the challenge of excess (non-recycled) produced water generated when shale gas is produced. Solid wastes comprised mostly of drill cuttings are also considered, while air emissions are not quantified for the purposes of this study (this could be the topic of future study). The report includes recommendations for further investigation of the alternative waste management and treatment options. The findings generated from this study allow for some general, high-level conclusions and recommendations to be made regarding shale gas development waste management issues and solutions. However, because the extent and scope of the study did not afford a comprehensive investigation, it should be viewed as a good starting point to begin considering, in more detail, the implications of long-term shale gas development waste generation challenges. Additional analysis and alternative scenarios in sensitivity modeling should be considered to address specific scenarios and answer specific questions on this important topic. While this report cannot map exactly how Pennsylvania can or should address shale development waste generation, its findings suggests that a proactive, collaborative path forward for the development of a robust future waste management strategy should be pursued. The production of natural gas from shale has been an amazing success story in terms of resource production and economic impact in Pennsylvania, however, effective long-term environmental management of wastes from shale gas development must be achieved for the value of sustainable gas production to be fully realized without negatively impacting the environment. Since only about one-tenth of the potential shale gas acreage has been developed in the Marcellus, and the Utica and Upper Devonian Shales are in the very early stages of development, tens of thousands of wells will likely be developed over many decades in the Commonwealth. The long-term implications of water and other waste streams generated from this large number of wells will need to be characterized and effectively managed. This study begins to provide important information regarding characterization of wastes from shale development through modeling and analyses that enable stakeholders to anticipate challenges so collaborative solutions can be developed for prudent, safe and effective environmental management. Shale development areas are dynamic systems where significant year-to-year changes may occur in water demand, flowback water output, produced water generation and solid waste production. Well drilling and completion technologies are evolving rapidly such that improved efficiencies will continue to affect the wastes generated and magnitude of the challenges that need to be addressed by advanced treatment and disposal methods. In addition, industry economics will continue to cause cyclic well development patterns in response to gas pricing. Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 4

6 Multiple and interdependent factors of this complex shale gas development system requires comprehensive modeling and analyses to evaluate the environmental sustainability implications. The production of shale gas in Pennsylvania has grown almost 300% in the last four years and produced water generation has almost tripled in the same time frame. Currently, produced water generated by Marcellus and Utica wells in Pennsylvania is either recycled in subsequent well development operations or periodically disposed of in injection wells when there are interruptions or downturns in well development schedules due to factors such as low natural gas prices. The disposal wells used are mostly located in Ohio and, to a lesser degree, in West Virginia, since there are only nine disposal wells currently operating in Pennsylvania, with only three of these being commercial wells at one facility in northwestern Pennsylvania. To date, there have been misconceptions such as insufficient geologic conditions, inability to get a permit from EPA, etc., which among other factors have precluded saltwater disposal well development in Pennsylvania. There are actually substantial opportunities for saltwater disposal well development associated with converting depleted oil and gas reservoirs to brine disposal. Many of the most extensive and highly permeable potential injection intervals/areas are being utilized for natural gas storage. Natural gas storage typically requires a larger volume of available pore space than that needed for a disposal well project; therefore, even though a substantial volume of available pore space is tied up in gas storage, there remain significant opportunities for utilizing depleted reservoirs for brine disposal. As more shale gas wells go into production, produced water generated could reach a point where it consistently exceeds well development recycle demands, resulting in growing volumes of excess (non-recycled) produced water. Known as the Crossover Point year in a model simulation, this indicates a future date that can be used as a planning tool in determining when and where additional solutions including treatment plants and/or brine disposal wells will be needed to manage this wastewater stream. The Life Cycle Model applied in this study offers a useful tool for exploration and development companies, field service firms, as well as regulators and planners to enable them to work together to meet the challenges for sustainable deployment of shale gas production from planned development areas in the Commonwealth. Based on these early model scenarios, the following findings will inform additional studies and management plans being considered: While production of shale gas in Pennsylvania has grown almost 300 % in the last four years, produced water generation has almost tripled in the same time frame. In the most productive shale gas regions in Pennsylvania, more than 90% of flowback and produced water is currently being recycled. The base model simulation indicated that the Crossover Points for the NE Counties (Susquehanna and Bradford) and SW Counties (Washington and Greene) could occur within 14 and 9 years after 2015, respectively. Additional solutions including brine disposal wells and treatment plants that can generate beneficial products will be needed to effectively address this growing non-recycled produced water challenge and to significantly reduce truck transport requirements. Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 5

7 For drill cuttings generated during well development, alternatives to disposal in landfills will be needed and should include environmentally sound beneficial reuse options. Additional model simulations should be considered to include regional and statewide scenarios, and other parameters such as carbon emissions, energy consumption, landfill, and road impacts. Estimates of model simulation uncertainty should also be included. Future development of a probabilistic treatment of model inputs could lead to an improved capability for this predictive tool. It will be important to conduct more in-depth analyses to generate solutions that will be needed in the near- and medium-term including: Brine disposal wells in favorable geologic formations in proximity to active shale well development areas. Emerging technologies that can effectively treat produced water to a condition that allows environmentally sound surface discharge. Longer term, technologies and processes that could effectively generate beneficial products from produced water. Methods to characterize drill cuttings to minimize the volume disposed of in landfills and identify environmentally sound beneficial reuse options. 1.0 Introduction The Shale Alliance for Energy Research Pennsylvania (SAFER PA) conducted a comprehensive life cycle management study to assess the long-term implications of wastes generated during shale gas development and production operations in Pennsylvania and identify potential options for effective mitigation. The primary focus of this study is on the growing challenge of excess (non-recycled) produced water generated when shale gas is produced. Also addressed in the study are drill cuttings generated during well drilling operations. This report presents the study s findings, conclusions and recommendations that include potential next steps in addressing the excess produced water and drill cuttings challenge in the near-term and in the decades to come. Listed below are brief descriptions of terms relevant to the shale gas development and production operations described in this report: Shale Gas Shale gas is natural gas contained within tight geologic formations that have low porosity and permeability. The primary shale formations that are being developed for natural gas in Pennsylvania are the Marcellus and Utica, while additional shales, such as the Upper Devonian, are in the early stages of planning and development. These formations are typically located 5,000 to 10,000 ft. below ground surface. Natural gas produced from shale is also called unconventional gas and it is typically produced using hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling methods. Hydraulic Fracturing A well stimulation method in which shale is fractured by hydraulically pressurized water (frac water) containing proppant (typically sand) and water conditioning chemicals. The frac water is delivered to the shale formation though production casing and is isolated from fresh groundwater by additional well casings. The portion of the piping where the hydraulic fracturing occurs typically runs horizontally through the formation. The frac water s high-pressure creates cracks in the shale formation through which natural gas contained in the shale is Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 6

8 released and flows to the surface through the horizontal and vertical piping network. Flowback Water The portion of the frac water that flows to the surface with the initial surge of released shale gas. Flowback water is collected and typically recycled as frac water in follow-on hydraulic fracturing operations. (Note: the terms recycle and reuse are typically used interchangeably in the shale gas industry. Flowback water is only generated during and shortly after hydraulic fracturing operations before the well goes into production. Produced Water Once a well begins producing natural gas, the remainder of the frac water, called produced water, comes to the surface with the produced gas along with any additional natural formation water. Produced water is separated from the gas and, like the flowback water, may be recycled as frac water in hydraulic fracturing operations. An excess (non-recycled) produced water condition occurs when the quantities of produced water generated exceeds the volumes that can be recycled for hydraulic fracturing operations in a given area. Produced water continues to be generated as long as a well produces gas (estimated by industry sources to be potentially 20 to 30 years), but at declining volumes over time. Brine Disposal Wells Brine disposal wells in Pennsylvania are permitted under the USEPA UIC Class IID Program as produced fluid disposal wells. These wells are also called saltwater disposal wells (SWDW) or brine injection wells. Currently flowback and produced water not recycled is typically disposed of in these wells in Pennsylvania, or in UIC wells in Ohio and West Virginia. It should be noted that PADEP regulations require that wastewaters generated by oil and gas well operations are to be treated to essentially drinking water quality before discharge to surface water bodies. As a result, surface discharge of treated non-recycled flowback and produced water rarely occurs in Pennsylvania. Drill Cuttings Drill cuttings are produced as subsurface geologic formations are penetrated by a borehole created as a drill bit advances through rock layers vertically and horizontally. The cuttings are carried to the surface by drilling fluids that circulate up the annulus from the drill bit. The cuttings are then separated from the fluids and disposed of in licensed landfills or recycled as a beneficial product such as fill material upon regulatory approval. Listed below are brief descriptions of the information provided in the following sections of the report: Section 2.0 Shale Gas, and Flowback and Produced Water Production Data ( ) To provide a baseline overview of natural gas and flowback and produced water production in Pennsylvania from 2009 to 2014, several graphs are generated for Pennsylvania as a whole, the three main shale gas operating regions and the four counties exhibiting the highest levels of production. In Appendix A, backup database tables and graphs are provided. In Appendix B, Figure 2-1 presents an overview of flowback and produced water generated in individual Pennsylvania counties in 2014, and Figure 2-2 delineates the three regions where active shale gas well development is occurring. Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 7

9 Section 3.0 Current and Future Options for Addressing Excess Produced Water Current and potential future options are described for addressing the impact of the increasing volumes of excess produced water. Options considered include brine disposal wells and advanced water treatment systems that can generate beneficial products from the salt present in the produced water. Figure 3-1 (Brine Disposal Wells and Drilled Marcellus and Utica Wells in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia) and Figure 3-2 (Existing and Proposed UIC IID Wells in Pennsylvania) are provided in Appendix B. Section 4.0 Drill Cuttings ( ) Drill cuttings production graphs and tables from 2009 to 2014 are presented and a discussion on disposal requirements and reuse options are provided. Section 5.0 GTI Water Based Life Cycle Model An introduction of the GTI Water Based Life Cycle Model are provided to explain how it is used to predict future excess produced water volumes based on a range of inputs and operating scenarios. The model is then set up to simulate various future operating scenarios for the four counties that currently have the highest levels of shale gas production. The model outputs are then presented and discussed with an emphasis on determining the Crossover Point when an area containing a growing number of producing wells begins to consistently generate excess produced water in ever increasing quantities that must be managed with alternatives beyond recycling. Section 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the study s findings, conclusions are presented and recommendations put forth regarding follow-on steps that should be considered to further define the excess produced water and other waste challenges and potential mitigation management strategies. 2.0 Shale Gas and Flowback and Produced Water Production Data ( ) This section presents shale gas and flowback and produced water quantities generated from well development and production operations in Pennsylvania from July 2009 to The source of the data included in the following graphs is the PADEP Oil & Gas reporting website: The data used in this report were downloaded from the website on June 29, The graphs also show the portions of flowback and produced water that are recycled or disposed of in brine injection wells. The graphs are presented in the following three groupings: Pennsylvania as a whole. Three shale gas regions where active well development is occurring: Northeast/Central, Northwest and Southwest (see Figure 2-2 in Appendix B). Four counties where well development is the greatest (Greene and Washington counties in southwestern PA, and Bradford and Susquehanna counties in the northeastern PA). For the purposes of this report, drilling fluid quantities are included in flowback water quantities, and flowback and produced water quantities are presented in barrels (bbl), which are equivalent to 42 gallons. Natural gas volumes are typically presented in million cubic feet (MMCF). The data presented for year 2010 in the report s graphs also include data from the last six months of Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 8

10 year 2009, as reported in the PADEP website. Tables providing backup data from the PADEP website are located in Appendix A. Within the groupings, the graphs are listed in the following sequence: Shale gas produced trillion cubic feet (TCF). Produced and flowback water generated million barrels (MMbbl). Produced water generated per 1 million cubic feet of gas produced barrels per million cubic feet (bbl/mmcf). Produced and flowback water recycled (MMbbl). Produced and flowback water non-recycled (disposed) (MMbbl). 2.1 Pennsylvania Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 9

11 Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 10

12 Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 11

13 2.2 Three Regions (Northeast/Central, Northwest and Southwest) Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 12

14 Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 13

15 Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 14

16 3.0 Unconventional Produced/Flowback Water Generated in Northwest Pennsylvania 2.5 MMbbl Flowback Produced Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 15

17 Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 16

18 Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 17

19 Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 18

20 Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 19

21 2.3 Bradford and Susquehanna Cos. (NE) and Greene and Washington Cos. (SW) Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 20

22 Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 21

23 Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 22

24 Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 23

25 Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 24

26 Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 25

27 Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 26

28 Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 27

29 Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 28

30 Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 29

31 2.4 General Observations Based on a review of the graphs, the following general observations can be made regarding shale gas, and flowback and produced water production: Shale Gas Production Pennsylvania State shale gas production increased approximately 1 TCF each year from 2011 through 2014 to 4.1 TCF, making Pennsylvania the second largest producer of natural gas in the United States. It is noteworthy that this impressive production rate has occurred despite an estimated excess of 1,500 wells which were drilled but not currently put into production due to limited pipeline capacity. This excess capacity will eventually be brought on-line and further increase the production of both gas and produced water in the future. Three Regions For 2014, the Three Regions produced the following shale gas quantities and percentage of the Pennsylvania total: - Northeast/Central: 2.9 TCF (74%) - Northwest: 14.2 BCF (0.04%) - Southwest: 1.0 TCF (26%). Four Counties For 2014, the Four Counties produced the following shale gas quantities and percentage of the Pennsylvania total: - Bradford Co.: 0.82 TCF (21.0%) - Susquehanna Co.: 0.95 TCF (24.4%) - Greene Co.: 0.35 TCF (9.0%) - Washington Co.: 0.41 TCF (10.5%). Flowback and Produced Water Production, Recycled and Non-Recycled Pennsylvania Since 2011 annual produced water volumes have increased from approximately 10 to 27 MMbbl and flowback water volumes have remained relatively steady in the 10 to 12 MMbbl range. In the last three years, flowback water was recycled as frac water 92 to 97% of the time and produced water was recycled at a rate of 78 to 85%. Non-recycled produced water volumes trended upward from approximately 2.5 MMbbl (2011) to 4.2 MMbbl (2014) and for flowback water, 0.2 to 0.9 MMbbl. In discussions with representatives from several exploration & production companies across the state, it was determined that excess quantities of non-recycled produced water generated in Pennsylvania to date typically have been caused by temporary interruptions in operator drilling schedules that result in produced water not being able to be used as recycled frac water. Three Regions For 2014, the Three Regions recycled flowback and produced water in the following percentages and disposed of the following non-recycled quantities: - Northeast/Central: 92.4% recycled and 1.49 MMbbl disposed - Northwest: 43.2% recycled and 0.24 MMbbl disposed - Southwest: 81.7% recycled and 3.45 MMbbl disposed. Four Counties For 2014, the Four Counties recycled flowback and produced water in the following percentages and disposed of the following non-recycled quantities: Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 30

32 - Bradford Co.: 99.7% recycled and 11,271 bbl disposed - Susquehanna Co.: 100% recycled and 1,370 bbl disposed - Greene Co.: 83.4% recycled and 0.88 MMbbl disposed - Washington Co.: 84.7% recycled and 1.37 MMbbl disposed. Produced Water Generated per MMCF of Natural Gas Pennsylvania The produced water generated per MMCF of natural gas produced ratio from 2010 to 2014 (9 to 7 bbl/mmcf). Three Regions For the Three Regions, the produced water/natural gas ratio ratios were: - Northeast/Central: 2010 (4 bbl/mmcf); 2012 (7 bbl/mmcf); 2014 (5 bbl/mmcf) - Northwest: 2010 (86 bbl/mmcf); 2012 (50 bbl/mmcf); 2014 (13 bbl/mmcf) - Southwest: 2010 (19 bbl/mmcf); 2012 (11 bbl/mmcf); 2014 (11 bbl/mmcf). Four Counties For the Four Counties, the produced water/natural gas ratio ratios were: - Bradford Co.: 2010 (3 bbl/mmcf); 2012 (6 bbl/mmcf); 2014 (3 bbl/mmcf) - Susquehanna Co.: 2010 (0.1 bbl/mmcf); 2012 (2.5 bbl/mmcf); 2014 (3 bbl/mmcf) - Greene Co.: 2010 (20 bbl/mmcf); 2012 (11 bbl/mmcf); 2014 (9 bbl/mmcf) - Washington Co (9 bbl/mmcf); 2012 (18 bbl/mmcf); 2014 (13 bbl/mmcf). Based on the general findings presented above, the following observations can be made: The production of shale gas in Pennsylvania has grown almost 300% in the last 4 years. Produced water generation has almost tripled in the same time frame. In the most productive region (Central/Northeast), recycling of flowback and produced water is occurring at almost maximum capacity (92.4%). In the two most productive counties in the state (Bradford and Susquehanna Cos.), recycling has reached maximum capacity (100%). The quantities of non-recycled produced water generated in the Pennsylvania to date has typically been caused by temporary interruptions in drilling schedules that result in produced water not available for use as recycled frac water during a period of time when fewer or no wells are being developed. This is currently the case for some of the exploration & production companies that have curtailed well development operations due to low natural gas prices. The Pennsylvania s produced water/natural gas ratio from 2010 to 2014 showed a slight declining trend of approximately -22% from 2010 to For the three regions, the general trends from 2010 to 2014 were: Northeast/Central (+25%), Northwest (-85%) and Southwest (-42%). For the four counties: Bradford (0%), Susquehanna (+97), Greene (-55%) and Washington (-44%). The wide range of produced water/natural gas ratio results indicates that additional data collected over a longer operating period across the shale play will be needed to develop more meaningful conclusions regarding produced water trends beyond the general observation that they will decline over the operating life of a typical well. Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 31

33 As more and more wells are put into production, a Crossover Point will be reached and growing quantities of excess (non-recycled) produced water will continually be generated across the Commonwealth s shale gas development areas. 3.0 Current and Potential Future Options for Addressing Excess Produced Water In this section, a general overview of current and potential future options are described for addressing the impact of increasing volumes of excess (non-recycled) produced water. Options considered include brine disposal wells and advanced water treatment systems that can generate beneficial products from produced water brine. As noted in Section 2.0, most of the flowback and produced water generated to date in Pennsylvania is recycled in shale gas well development operations. However, there is an increasing trend in excess (nonrecycled) produced water generation, which is currently being addressed using brine disposal wells, since there are only a few treatment systems generating beneficial products currently in operation in Pennsylvania. 3.1 Brine Disposal Wells The UIC Class IID Well Program in Pennsylvania is administered by USEPA under the UIC Permit Application (USEPA Form ) for produced fluid disposal wells. To date, there have been over 8,000 unconventional shale wells developed in Pennsylvania, while there are only nine operating brine disposal wells in the state. [It should be noted that there are thousands of UIC Class IIR wells, which are typically utilized to inject water for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations for shallow oil reservoirs, mostly in the northwestern Pennsylvania.] In contrast to the small number of brine disposal wells in Pennsylvania, there are approximately 50 brine disposal wells operating in West Virginia and over 200 brine disposal wells operating in Ohio (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2 in Appendix B). As a result, a high percentage of the nonrecycled flowback and produced water from Pennsylvania is being shipped by truck or rail to commercial injection well facilities in Ohio and West Virginia. Brine disposal volumes in Ohio have increased from 12.5 million barrels in 2011 to over 19 million barrels in 2014, with out-of-state brine accounting for about 50% of the 2014 totals. Ohio DNR UIC Well Program staff believe most of this volume was shipped from Pennsylvania. The lack of available UIC Class IID wells in Pennsylvania near gas producing areas has resulted in substantial regional truck traffic and cost to Pennsylvania shale gas well operators in transporting flowback and produced water to brine disposal wells in neighboring states. Trucking costs are particularly high for operators in northeast Pennsylvania where a round trip to and from brine disposal wells in Ohio could take 10 to 12 hours. Currently the only commercial UIC Class IID wells in Pennsylvania are located in Warren County (northwestern Pennsylvania), which is a remote location relative to the main gas producing areas in northeastern and southwestern Pennsylvania. To reach the facility from the northeastern Pennsylvania producing area is an approximately 4 to 5 hour truck trip (8 to 10 hour roundtrip). Likewise reaching the facility from the southwestern Pennsylvania producing area is an approximately 3.5 to 4 hour truck trip (7 to 8 hours roundtrip). Assuming approximately $1/bbl/hr for trucking cost, the roundtrip cost of reaching this facility is approximately $7 to $10/bbl from the main producing areas. This situation points to the need for more strategically located commercial saltwater disposal wells in Pennsylvania. Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 32

34 Key factors limiting historical brine disposal well development in Pennsylvania prior to unconventional shale gas development (before 2008) include: A general lack of need for brine disposal wells due the availability of other options such as treatment in publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) and commercial facilities with a surface water discharge, and in certain areas, the ability to spread brine on roads for dust control and deicing.. Concern over the necessity to obtain a permit from the USEPA, which many viewed as very complex and time-consuming. The perception that geologic conditions were unfavorable for development of brine disposal wells in Pennsylvania, particularly when compared to Ohio. This perception is not accurate in that there are various geologic formations (e.g., certain Upper Devonian sandstone formations, Oriskany Sandstone, Medina Group, etc.) which can have sufficient porosity and permeability and capacity to function as viable injection intervals. There are numerous depleted wells to these and other formation, which have potential for conversion to brine disposal. Many of the most extensive and highly permeable potential injection intervals/areas in Pennsylvania are already being utilized for natural gas storage. While natural gas storage is generally considered the highest economic use of depleted reservoirs, the reservoir volume needed for a viable gas storage project would typically exceed that needed for a viable injection well project, resulting in available capacity for development of disposal wells. Key factors limiting current brine disposal well development in Pennsylvania include: Timeframe needed to obtain permits from USEPA Region 3, including the likelihood of permit appeals, which further extend permitting schedules. Public relation concerns related to the potential for earthquakes, groundwater contamination, truck traffic and a variety of other issues. Although the perception exists that the potential for induced seismicity from injection well operation in Pennsylvania is similar to that of eastern Ohio (e.g., the earthquakes in the Youngstown, Ohio area associated with the D&L Disposal Well), the potential for significant induced seismicity from injection well operation in Pennsylvania is much lower due to the greater distance between injection intervals and Precambrian basement, the overall lower seismic hazard risk (according to the USGS) and other factors. For many potential brine disposal well developers, lack of availability of well data (e.g., wireline logs, production information, coring data, etc.) sufficient to identify favorable candidate formations and specific areas for well development. Injectivity test results and existing brine disposal well operational data are not readily available. (It is noted that such information may be able to be obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests filed with USEPA Region III.) Many of the most extensive and highly permeable potential injection intervals/areas are being utilized for natural gas storage. As indicated above, natural gas storage typically Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 33

35 requires a larger volume of available pore space than that needed for a disposal well project; therefore, even though a substantial volume of available pore space is tied up in gas storage, there remain significant opportunities for utilizing depleted reservoirs for brine disposal. In northeastern Pennsylvania there has historically been less oil and gas production resulting in generally less opportunities for utilizing depleted reservoirs, although there are good opportunities for depleted wells within a couple of hours truck drive to the southwest and west. There are also candidate formations which may be suitable for injection, but which have not been historically developed for oil and gas. For many parts of the state, concern over the potential for poorly plugged or abandoned legacy oil or gas wells that may act as conduits for migration of injected fluids away from the geologic intervals permitted for disposal. In general, this pertains to the shallower potential injection formations. Currently there are only nine operating brine disposal wells in Pennsylvania that can be used to address the excess produced water challenge. Of these, only three are commercial brine disposal wells, which are located in northwestern Pennsylvania. Developing additional brine disposal wells near active shale gas development areas, instead of using Ohio disposal wells, reduces trucking-related impacts and costs, and therefore offers a more viable disposal option. It also presents the opportunity to pipe flowback and produced water from the well sites to disposal wells located in reasonably close proximity. The shale gas exploration and production companies, researchers and commercial disposal well operators working with regulatory agencies and other stakeholders will need to address the key factors listed above to assist the growth of brine disposal well development in the state. It should be noted that there are many opportunities in Pennsylvania to inject brine into existing conventional gas wells that are producing little or no gas from depleted reservoirs. As a result, such wells that are geologically suitable can be transformed from a potential plugging liability into a disposal asset in helping to address the need for more brine disposal wells in Pennsylvania. 3.2 Flowback & Produced Water Treatment Flowback and produced water typically contains constituents such as suspended solids, total dissolved solids (TDS) (mostly sodium chloride), organics and inorganics, metals and trace amounts of naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). These constituents are present in the shale formation, and are also initially contained in frac water. Treatment plants that process flowback and produced water for recycle in subsequent well completion activities and treatment facilities utilizing advanced treatment technologies to process excess produced water for surface discharge and beneficial products generation are described next. Treatment and Recycle Plants The majority of water treatment plants currently used by the shale gas industry in Pennsylvania are designed to treat flowback and produced water for recycle in subsequent hydraulic fracturing operations. These types of plants aren t permitted to discharge treated effluent to surface water bodies. The following diagram and process descriptions provide an overview of the typical steps required to process flowback and produced water for Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 34

36 recycle as frac water. Figure 3-3 Treatment and Recycle Plant Diagram Primary Treatment Typical processes included in this step achieve suspended solids and insoluble organics removal using equipment such as filters, clarifiers and skimmers. In some cases, dissolved metals removal (flocculant precipitation) is used if a higher treated water quality is specified by the well developer. Blending The treated water is typically blended with fresh water makeup to meet the frac water volume requirements for the hydraulic fracturing operations. Residual Waste Disposal The constituents removed from the recycled flowback and produced water during treatment are dewatered and disposed in a licensed landfill. The disposed residual waste will contain naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) that leached into the flowback and produced water from the geologic formation. Since the NORM in the residual waste is concentrated as it is dewatered, it is designated as technically enhanced NORM or TENORM. The PADEP closely monitors and controls the volumes of TENORM Pennsylvania landfills can accept over a given period of time. Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 35

37 These types of plants do not remove dissolved solids such as sodium chloride from flowback and produced water before it is recycled in hydraulic fracturing operations. Also, they are fixedbased centralized facilities located near active well development areas or mobile systems that can be located at the well sites. Once hydraulic fracturing operations are completed and all the shale gas wells are in full production at a given development area, treat and recycle plants are no longer needed to generate water for additional stimulation activities. It is estimated that over a dozen centralized flowback and produced water treat and recycle plants are currently in operation in Pennsylvania, with most located in the more active Northeast/Central and Southwest Regions. The number of mobile treat and recycle systems are difficult to estimate at any given time due to the relative ease of potential relocation to shale plays in other states, but there are estimated to be over twenty currently in operation in Pennsylvania based on anecdotal information from industry sources. Excess (Non-recycled) Produced Water Treatment and Beneficial Product Generation The treatment facilities typically considered for treating excess produced water include primary treatment and one or more sophisticated treatment technologies (including thermal treatment processes) that remove constituents not removed by the more basic primary treatment technologies. This includes dissolved solids (which are mostly made up of sodium chloride) as well as a mixture of other constituents (organic and inorganic). The following diagram and process descriptions provide an overview of the typical steps included in these types of systems. Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 36

38 Figure 3-4 Produced Water Treatment and Beneficial Product Generation Diagram Primary Treatment Similar treatment processes used in the treatment and recycle plants. Advanced Treatment Because of the high TDS levels in the produced water in Pennsylvania, mechanical evaporation (a thermal process) is required to remove TDS from the produced water stream, resulting in a high quality distillate with very low TDS concentrations, and a brine concentrate stream containing the remaining TDS. The brine concentrate can be disposed of in a brine disposal well, blended with solidification reagents such as Portland cement and landfilled, or undergo further processing such as crystallization to generate potentially beneficial products. The distillate can be used as frac water either by itself or blended with lower quality produced water or fresh water, when the blended water quality meets the required frac water specifications. Further treatment by additional advanced treatment processes is typically required for other uses (industrial water source such as boiler feed water and cooling tower makeup), or to receive a PADEP de-wasting designation to allow surface water discharge under a NPDES permit. Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 37

39 Crystallization An additional thermal process that removes any remaining water from the brine concentrate and generates a dry salt cake that can be landfilled or converted to a beneficial product such as a road salt that meets ASTM standards. Chemical Manufacturing The brine concentrate from the evaporation process can also be sent through an electrolysis process that can convert sodium chloride into industrial chemicals such as hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) and sodium hypochlorite (bleach). This process requires that the brine be treated to a high level of quality before entering the electrolysis unit, which would require enhanced primary treatment processes to remove additional constituents from the brine concentrate. Residual Waste Disposal The constituents removed from the flowback and produced water during primary treatment, and solidified and dried salt wastes from the evaporation and crystallization processes are disposed of in a licensed landfill. Currently there are approximately ten of these types of plants operating or in the planning stages in Pennsylvania, with most being in the planning stages. Almost all of them are located or planned to be located in the Central/Northeast Region to provide a potentially more cost effective alternative to trucking excess produced water to Ohio brine disposal wells. Currently the operating plants typically generate a brine concentrate that is disposed of in injection wells or in landfills after solidification, or manufacture beneficial products such as salt. The brine disposal well costs are currently in the $3.50 to 4.50/bbl range. Treatment of nonrecycled produced water to generate beneficial products is estimated currently to be two to potential three times the brine disposal costs. The range of these potential costs are difficult to predict at this time because there are several new emerging technologies being developed that could impact on this developing market. 4.0 Drill Cuttings Production Data ( ) This section presents drill cuttings data generated from shale gas well development operations in Pennsylvania from July 2009 to The data tables (see Appendix A) used to develop the following graphs are based on information from the PADEP Oil & Gas reporting website. As with the graphs in Section 2.0, the drill cuttings data are presented in the following groupings: Pennsylvania, the Three Regions with Active Well Development and the Four Counties with Greatest Well Development for the last 6 months of 2009 through The tons of cuttings generated per well are generally based on the length and diameter of the boreholes, both the vertical and horizontal sections. The scale shown on the graphs for the cuttings produced is one thousand tons per year (Mton/yr). Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 38

40 Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 39

41 Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 40

42 Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 41

43 Based on a review of the graphs, the following general observation can be made regarding drill cuttings production: Between 2012 and 2014, drill cuttings per year generated annually in Pennsylvania stayed within the 1.3 to 1.5 Mton range. Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 42

44 If future annual volumes of drill cuttings remain in this general operating range, it is expected that Pennsylvania landfills will have adequate capacity to address these projected disposal demands, particularly when some of the cuttings will not be disposed but used as beneficial products. 5.0 GTI Water Based Life Cycle Model In this section the GTI Water Based Life Cycle Model uses the data provided in the previous sections to conduct an analysis that predicts potential challenges associated with waste streams from shale well development. The Life Cycle Model performs predictive forecasts of water demands and generation of brine volumes and salts from shale gas wells; and estimates the total generation of drilling wastes that occur year-by-year over the life cycle of each of the two bi-county development areas targeted for examination in the Commonwealth. This effort utilized an updated version of the GTI Water Based Life Cycle Model that was previously developed under a Techno-Economic Assessment Project (Hayes and Severin, 2012). This modeling forecasting approach has the advantage of dealing with the complexities of different development areas within Pennsylvania based upon the most up-to-date data provided by industry, the PADEP database, and other pertinent inputs. The purpose is to provide a more complete view of the issues, timing of issues, logistical requirements, and technology needs that will potentially result from each development area considered in the analysis. The current model is also capable of handling varied inputs to perform the types of what if analyses and sensitivity assessments, as needed, to improve deployment strategies for water management, waste treatment and disposal systems in the course of regional solution application. Water Based Life Cycle Model Description The Life Cycle Modeling computer program was designed to allow future projections of mass flows related to water demand, brine generation and solid waste production (e.g. drill cuttings, drilling mud, salt, etc.) to be made based on the most applicable demographic and water characterization information. The concept behind the model is to establish the relative dates for initiation of drilling, completion, and closure for each well. The results for a single well are then reproduced for all wells in a drilling unit based on the initiation of each individual well. The initiation of drilling date of a well is based on a series of estimates including the number of drill teams mobilized, the time to complete a well, the time to start a new well, and the time to remobilize a drill team to a new drilling unit. Typically, shale energy development is pursued drilling unit by drilling unit. It is estimated that each drilling unit has a well pad structure that supports the drilling and completion of multiple horizontal wells (usually 8 to 16 or more) that effectively access the gas from shale in an area approximately 1 to 3 square miles. It should be noted that the model is based on the development of the Marcellus Shale Play and does not factor in the full scale development of other shale plays such as the Utica and Upper Devonian. Mass flows are added up among the wells of a typical drilling unit with a defined number of wells. Drilling units are developed at a pace consistent with available resources of drill rigs and completion crews. The results for an entire development area are computed from mass flows around the multiple drilling units that are developed and operating in a particular year of the life cycle. The program then adds up all the water demands for drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations that occur during a single year; shale gas water demand is largely driven by hydraulic fracturing operations. Likewise, the number and timing of hydraulic fracturing events largely determine the volume of flowback water recovered. Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 43

45 In the accounting of water mass, an initiated well is assigned ½ year of produced water during the first year. The number of active wells is the sum of all prior completions minus the sum of number of closures. The volume of produced water is estimated from the number of active wells plus ½ year of produced water flow for each newly initiated well. During the first year of each well, it is reasonable to assume that, on average, it takes about 6 months to drill and complete the well and collect flowback for the initial few months before we start the collection of produced water. This is only assumed for the first year of each well. The salt, which for this model is defined as the dissolved solids in the flowback and produced waters, is based upon the water volumes times the respective average TDS concentrations in the waters. The average salt in the recovered flowback water is an integrated value based upon the initial flowback water concentration and the salt concentration in flowback water collected in a month. Water reuse is based upon a reasonable estimate of the blend ratio of freshwater to brine, or the amount of recovered water (flowback plus produced water) to the total water blend volume (recovered plus fresh water) used as the frac water for hydraulic fracturing. Truck trips and truck-miles are calculated for each type of water hauling requirement based on a truck capacity of 100 barrels of water. The result is a compilation of the significant dates and mass generation reuse, and truck traffic for multiple wells per drilling unit and multiple drilling units per development area. The model can be configured to handle up to 32 wells per drilling unit at up to 1000 drilling units per development area tracking mass flows on a yearly basis for up to 60 years. In this simulation, two counties (Washington and Greene) constituted the development area of interest in SW Pennsylvania, while two counties (Susquehanna and Bradford) constituted the development area of interest in NE Pennsylvania for purposes of analysis. The round trip distances to and from brine disposal wells assume that the Class II disposal wells are located in Ohio. The base model was modified for this project by the addition of the number of existing wells present in the target counties in model Year 0 (2015). These initial wells, which may represent some that were placed in production since 2008, are assumed to be taken out of service on a prorated basis (percent per year) until all of the initial (Year 0) wells are closed. The model allows the user to define the numbers of existing wells at Year 0 and to set the percentage of those wells that will be decommissioned each year going forward. Variables and inputs for the model are presented in Table 5-1 for the two large development areas located in Northeast and Southwest Pennsylvania. Flowback water, produced water and solid waste information from the PADEP website associated with shale development in the aforementioned counties provided much of the baseline data used for the model parameters. Data contributing to the inputs of the model are presented in Appendix C and model parameters are outlined in the following Tables 5-1 through 5-3. Parameters not showing specific references are based on information provided by industry sources or developed in similar modelling events. Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 44

46 Table 5-1: Parameters Used to set the completion and closure rates SW Counties NE Counties Reference Greene and Washington Bradford and Susquehanna Duration of typical well field (drilling unit) operation 60 years 60 years Closure (years after final wells go into production) 30 years 30 years Number active wells (initially completed before Year 0) 1,987 2,145 Fig. C-1 Number of wells in a typical drilling unit Number of potential drilling units in development area Total projected new wells (starting at Year 0) 5,620 8,450 Saturation number of total wells in development areas 7,607 10,595 Estimated shale well coverage in development area 80% 80% Table 5-2: Parameters dealing with water use and waste generation SW Counties NE Counties Reference Greene and Washington Bradford and Susquehanna Produced water generated daily per well (median-mean) bbl/day bbl/day Fig. C-2 Avg. concentration of TDS in produced water 250,000 ppm 250,000 ppm Hayes(ref) Total water used per hydraulic fracture 240,000 bbl 240,000 bbl Hayes(ref) Recovered total fracture water (flowback water) 11% 11% Blend Ratio (total reused recovered water/fracture) 25.5% 25.5% Calculated TDS average maximum in blended fracture water 30,000 ppm 30,000 ppm Spent drilling mud per well 53 ton 53 ton Drill cuttings per well 905 ton 1,202 ton Figs. C-3 & 4 Table 5-3: Parameters used to determine transportation impacts SW Counties NE Counties Reference Greene and Washington Bradford and Susquehanna Truck round trip to brine disposal wells in Ohio miles 580 miles Fig C-2 Truck round trip to next drilling unit 12 miles 12 miles Truck round trip to fresh water source 35 miles 35 miles Truck round trip to secure landfill 58 miles 60 miles Miles per hour average transport speed 20 miles/hr 40 miles/hr Idle time - wait times for pickup and delivery 1.0 hrs 1.0 hr Truck load Solids 40 tons 40 tons Truck load liquids 100 bbl 100 bbl Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 45

47 The water generation, salt content with time, and water demands are characterized for a single well based on statistical analysis of shale well water characterization performed by GTI for the MSC in the completion and operation of 19 wells of the Marcellus Shale. The mass flows of water, brines and salt mass for multiple wells are rolled up by the model and mass flows are described on a year by year basis (Hayes and Severin, 2012). Model Simulation Results Mass flow projections from the two shale gas development areas were forecasted using the inputs of the above tables for the configuration of the GTI Water Based Life Cycle Model to describe the combined areas of Washington and Greene Counties in SW Pennsylvania and Susquehanna and Bradford Counties in the NE section of the Commonwealth. The simulation results represent the pace of development and detailed logistical characteristics of the two development areas selected from two very different sectors of the state. The model s simulation results provides a view of the magnitude and timing of the major waste challenges that face exploration and production companies, regulators and planners in the two development areas of this simulation. NE Counties: Susquehanna and Bradford In the simulation of the NE development area, it is assumed that over a period of 28 years, an average of 39 drill rigs will be at work at approximately 562 drilling units; each drilling unit will drill and complete 10 horizontal wells so that a total of 5,620 wells will be completed over a period of 28 years in this example. In the course of drilling unit construction and operation, it is assumed in the Base Case that one completion and no refractures will be performed on each well. While it is recognized that over the 28-year period there may be interim periods of decreased or increased drilling and completion activity, a forecast based on average year actions can achieve the overall initial purpose of the simulation, which is to determine an order of magnitude estimate of mass flows of water, salt, and solid wastes generated over the life of the NE Development Area of interest (i.e., Susquehanna and Bradford Counties). Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 46

48 Profiles of the number of active wells, completions and closures of wells by year are shown in Figure 5-1. It should be noted that the graph recognizes that approximately 1,980 active wells exist in the initial year (2015) of the model development (each of these wells are generating produced water which is taken into account in the model). New completions quickly rise from Year 0 to Year 2 to approximately 300 per year which continues over the 28-year period. Total active wells increase rapidly to approximately 9,400 wells by Year 28 as seen in Figure 5-1. Each well is assumed to have a finite life-span (30 years) such that the number of active wells begins to decrease in year 30. NE Counties: Active Wells,Completions, and Closures by Year 10, Active Wells 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2, New or Closed Wells per Year 1, Years Total Active Wells Closures New Completions Figure 5-1. NE Counties: Active Wells, Completions and Closures by Year Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 47

49 At the above described rate of drilling and completions, the total water demand to support this development will exceed 70 million barrels per year, about a quarter of which will be provided through the reuse of flowback and produced waters (Recovered Water); actual freshwater demand will then be approximately 55 million barrels per year as shown in Figure 5-2. Freshwater demand at this level averages 6.3 million gallons per day (MGD) equivalent to residential water demand from about 60,000 people. NE Counties: Water Sources Required Yearly Basis 80 Million Barrels per Year Total Water Fresh Water Recovered Water Years Figure 5-2. NE Counties: Water Sources Required on a Yearly Basis Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 48

50 One issue that may arise quickly in the NE Development Area is seen in the yearly generation of brines (flowback and produced waters) even in the initial years of the development area. Figure 5-3 introduces the concept of Planned Reuse Capacity. This concept is based on the premise that each well that is planned throughout the entire development period can accept a finite volume of recovered brine water (i.e. flowback plus produced water) based upon the ability to blend recovered water with fresh water. Once a well is completed, it has no further capacity to accept recovered brine water. In this figure the reuse capacity is presented as the Dynamic Capacity, or the rate of capacity generation based upon the completion rate. However, the rate of collection of produced waters generated from nearly 2,000 (already existing) wells quickly boost brine output to 10 million barrels in the first few years. Thus, the brine generation (Yearly Water Recovered) is comparable (within 15%) to the reuse capacity generation for most of the initial ten years of the development. Beyond this initial period, however, the magnitude of brine reuse becomes far less than the brine generation beyond Year 20. Therefore, the need for transportation, waste handling and waste disposal, already at a critical juncture, will only increase with each passing year and will only begin to diminish as the drilling units in the development area reach maturity and are closed out after 20 to 30 years of operation. NE Counties: Yearly Planned Recovery Versus Reuse 35.0 Million BBL/Year Yearly Water Recovered Yearly Planned Reuse Capacity Years Figure 5-3. NE Counties: Yearly Planned Recovery Versus Reuse of Brines (Flowback and Produced Water) Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 49

51 Another way to look at the decrease of reuse capacity versus produced and flowback water generation is to look at the cumulative totals as a function of time. The Finite Capacity for reuse is calculated by considering the total number of wells projected within the development area and the blend ratio. As each well is completed, the capacity for that well is subtracted from the total. In Figure 5-4, this is shown with an initial Finite Capacity of nearly 500 million barrels with a linear decrease until cessation of well development in about year 28. In opposition to this curve is the cumulative generation of recovered water. This curve shows a modest acceleration in the initial years followed by tapering to a plateau maximum as the development area reaches maturity. When comparing the cumulative generation of brine compared to the decrease of reuse Finite Capacity, the two curves cross over each other at around Year 14, as shown in Figure 5-4. This is the finite or ultimate Crossover Point, which is specific for the rate of completions and the total number of wells planned. This plot is a useful tool when approximating when the generation of excess brines far exceeds reuse opportunities. The use of this plot to locate the timing of the Crossover Point would indicate that alternate disposal/treatment options will be needed in about a decade. Comparison of the slopes of these curves within any year, however, shows that the yearly production of brines nearly equals the yearly capacity to reuse the water within the first four years, consistent with the plots of Figure 5-3. Figure 5-4. NE Counties: Total Planned Reuse Capacity Versus Planned Recovery of Flowback and Produced Waters Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 50

52 As water generation proceeds with the years of development and operation, the resultant salt mass that emerges from the shale wells and pre-existing natural gas wells appears to increase in rate of production after the Year 11 Crossover Point as shown in Figure 5-5. The total cumulative mass of salt (TDS) generated by the entire life of the shale gas development area is about 30 million tons. Less than 35 percent of that salt mass can be disposed of down hole with the reuse of flowback and produced waters in water blends used for hydraulic fracturing. This means that alternate disposal needs to be identified for about 20 million tons of salt; alternate options for disposal that are capable of handling 0.75 million tons of salt per year will be needed before Year 20. For the NE counties, this may represent a significant amount of solids needing disposal, most likely via brine disposal wells (Class II), or through an alternate brine handling and salt disposal method such as beneficial products generation where shown to be environmentally sound. Figure 5-5. NE Counties: Salt Recovery and Disposal by Year Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 51

53 Another significant solid waste disposal challenge is represented in the output of drill cuttings and drilling muds that are usually placed into landfills. As shown in Figure 5-6, over 10 million tons of drill cuttings and spent drilling mud will be generated over the first 30 years of the development period. During this period, approximately 0.33 million tons of solid waste (over 95 percent of which is drill cuttings) will be generated per year and will need to be landfilled in or near the NE counties. NE Counties: Cumulative Landfill Load from Drill Cuttings and Mud 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 Tons 6,000,000 Drill Cuttings Drill Mud 4,000,000 2,000, Years Figure 5-6. NE Counties: Cumulative Landfill Load from Cuttings and Mud Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 52

54 The movement of drilling solids (This includes drill cuttings and dewatered solids from the spent drilling muds.) to the landfills as well as trucking of freshwater and brines in support of the construction and operation of the shale gas well fields requires a substantial number of truck trips. For most of the life cycle of the development area, most of the trucks will be hauling fresh water, though many of the trucks will be hauling produced water to disposal after the Crossover Point. A projection of truck trips for various purposes as well as the total truck trips that are performed each year are shown in Figure 5-7. NE Counties: Truck Trips per Year Truck Trips per Year 900, , , , , ,000 Fresh Water Recovered Flowback Produced Water to Disposal Total Truck Trips Trucks to Landfill cuttings and mud 300, , , Years Figure 5-7. NE Counties: Truck Trips per Year Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 53

55 The extent of trucking required for the transfer of cuttings and spent muds from well pads to the landfills is indicated in the plot of Figure 5-8. The trucking of drilling wastes to landfills will amount to approximately 23 million ton miles per year from Year 1 to Year 28 of the life cycle of the development area. As shown in Figure 8, the cumulative trucking effort will reach about 0.6 billion ton-miles by Year NE Counties Cumulative Landfill Trips (Ton-Miles) Cuttings and Mud 600 Million Ton-Miles Cumulative Years Figure 5-8. NE Counties: Cumulative Landfill Trips for Disposal of Drill Cuttings and Drilling Muds Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 54

56 The 23 million ton miles/year of trucking expended for the disposal of solid waste, however, will be far exceeded by the transport of water over the life cycle according to projections given in Figure 5-9. Water hauling is often measured in barrel miles. One barrel of fluid hauled one mile is one barrel mile; each 42-gallon barrel of water weighs approximately 350 pounds if containing freshwater or 420 pounds if containing concentrated produced water. Long haul trucking of produced water from the NE Counties to Ohio start at around 2,000 million barrel miles per year or 330 million ton miles per year and ramps up 12,000 million barrel miles per year (2,000 ton miles per year) in Year 30 as shown in Figure 5-9. From Year 30 to Year 58, the long haul transportation parameter decreases linearly to zero as the wells of the development area are decommissioned and shut in. By comparison, the trucking required for short haul recycle is only 16 million barrel miles per year. The assumption here is that most of the water reuse occurs at site with only a small fraction (10%) being hauled a short distance (12 miles round trip) to an adjacent drilling unit. The transportation needs for freshwater amount to only 2,000 million barrel miles per year for the same 30 year period. While the volume of fresh water required is significant, most of the water is collected from freshwater sources near the developing drilling unit (35 miles round trip). NE Counties: Barrel Miles per Year 14,000 12,000 Fresh Water Long Haul to Disposal Short Haul Recycle Mllion Barrek-Miles per Year 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2, Years Figure 5-9. NE Counties: Trucking of Freshwater and Brines Per Year in Barrel Miles Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 55

57 SW Counties: Greene and Washington In the simulation of the SW development area (Greene and Washington Counties) it is assumed that over a period of 30 years, an average of 25 drill rigs will be at work at approximately 845 drilling units; this is the development pace and scope that was supported from permit data obtained from the website of the PADEP. In this simulation, it was assumed that each drilling unit will drill and complete 10 horizontal wells so that a total of 8,450 wells will be completed over a period of about 30 years. Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 56

58 In the course of drilling unit construction and operation, it is assumed in the Base Case that one completion and no refractures will be performed on each well. As was done for the NE Counties, profiles of the active wells, completions and closures of wells were projected for each year for the SW Counties; these plots are shown in Figure It should be noted that the graph recognizes that approximately 2,145 active wells exist in Year 0 (2015) of the model development (each of these wells are generating produced water which is taken into account in the model). New completions quickly rise from Year 0 to Year 2 to about 350 completions per year which continues over the 14 year period. Total active wells increase rapidly to approximately 7,000 wells by Year 28 as seen in Figure SW Counties: Active wells,completions, and Closures by Year 8, Active Wells 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, New or Closed Wells per Year Years Total Active Wells Closures New Completions Figure SW Counties: Active Wells, Completions and Closures by Year Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 57

59 As shown in Figure 5-11, since the phase of conducting new planned completions can be about 15 years out into the future, the total water demand of about 45 million barrels per year extends for only one and a half decades before a precipitous decline after Year 16. It should also be noted that since the average frac water is about 25% brine, the total freshwater demand per year is approximately 33 million barrels per year on the water demand plateau extending from Year 2 through Year 15. SW Counties: Water Sources Required Yearly Basis 50 Million Barrels per Year Total Water Fresh Water Recovered Water Years Figure SW Counties: Water Sources Required on a Yearly Basis Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 58

60 As with the NE Counties, in the initial years of the life cycle, the recovered flowback and produced waters come close in magnitude to the annual capacity to reuse these brines for hydraulic fracturing. Produced waters generated from over 2,000 wells quickly boost brine output to 10 million barrels in the first few years. Brine generation (Yearly Water Recovered) begins to match and/or exceed the reuse capacity within the initial five years of the development, about 75 to 85 percent of the brine can be reused. Beyond this period, however, this percentage of brine reuse dwindles to nearly zero in Year 18, as shown in Figure By this time, the development area will need to have alternate brine disposal options that will be able to handle more than 14 million barrels per year. This will be a challenge in planning and deployment for the industry in the SW Counties. SW Counties: Yearly Planned Recovery Versus Reuse 25.0 Million BBL/Year Yearly Water Recovered Yearly Planned Reuse Capacity Years Figure SW Counties: Yearly Planned Recovery Versus Reuse of Brines (Flowback and Produced Water) Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 59

61 The timing of the Crossover Point for the SW Counties Area is shown in Figure Compared to the NE Counties, the SW Counties will encounter the Crossover Point at a sooner time of about 9 years, versus 14 years for the NE Counties, since the planned pace of well drilling and completion for the SW Counties will reach development goals at an earlier date due to the smaller geographical area occupied by the SW Counties. For the SW Counties, the industry is already beginning to haul increasing shipments of brine water to Ohio and West Virginia for disposal via Class II well injection. Alternatives to reuse need to be implemented even before the Crossover Point at Year 9. Figure SW Counties: Total Planned Reuse Capacity Versus Planned Recovery of Flowback and Produced Waters Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 60

62 Following the Crossover Point, the total salt output recovered from the shale wells increases in generation rate to reach a cumulative production of over 20 million tons within 37 years as shown in Figure 5-14; this is about six times greater than the total salt that could be disposed of down hole through reuse. This means that more than 83 percent of the salt mass will need to be disposed of by either hauling the water by brine injection using Class II wells or through an alternate brine handling and salt disposal method such as beneficial products generation where determined to be environmentally sound. Figure SW Counties: Salt Recovery and Disposal by Year Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 61

63 Shown in Figure 5-15, drill cuttings generated from the SW Counties will total 5 million tons within 16 years. Landfill capacity will need to be identified to accommodate this output. During the 16 years, solid wastes from shale wells will average about 0.31 million tons per year, over 95% of which will be drill cuttings and 5% will be spent drilling muds. This annual output of solid waste is very similar to the 0.33 million tons/year solid waste generation from the NE County Development Area. SW Counties: Cumulative Landfill Load from Cuttings and Mud 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 Tons 3,000,000 2,000,000 Drill Cuttings Drill Mud 1,000, Years Figure SW Counties: Cumulative Landfill Load from Cuttings and Mud Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 62

64 The truck trips required for the movement of solid waste, freshwater and brines in support of the construction, completion and operation of the shale well development in the SW Counties are shown in Figure For most of the life of the development area in the SW Counties, most of the truck trips per year will be dedicated to the movement of freshwater and to brines taken to disposal. As with the NE Counties, the total number of truck trips peaks at almost 450,000 trips per year before falling during the latter half of the life cycle. SW Counties: Truck Trips per Year Truck Trips per Year 500, , , , , , , , ,000 50,000 0 Fresh Water Recovered Flowback Produced Water to Disposal Total Truck Trips Trucks to Landfill cuttings and mud Years Figure SW Counties: Truck Trips per Year Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 63

65 For the SW Counties, it was assumed that the average round trip for disposal of a ton of shale gas solid waste is approximately 58 miles. Cumulative hauling during the development of the SW Counties ramps up to 300 million ton miles by Year 16 as shown in Figure Trucking of drilling wastes to landfills in the SW Counties Development Area amounts to approximately 19 million ton miles per year from Year 1 to Year 16, which is reasonably comparable to the 23 million ton miles per year that will be transported in Year 1 to 30 in the NE Counties. 350 SW Counties Cumulative Landfill Trips (Ton-Miles) Cuttings and Mud Million Ton-Miles Cumulative Years Figure SW Counties: Cumulative Landfill Trips for Disposal of Drill Cuttings and Spent Drilling Muds Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 64

66 The 19 million ton miles per year of trucking expended for the disposal of solid waste is, however, greatly exceeded by the transport of water in the SW Counties over the life cycle according to projections given in Figure Long haul trucking of produced water from the SW Counties to Ohio starts at around 200 million barrel miles per year or 33 million ton miles per year and ramps up to more than 1,600 million barrel miles per year (267 million ton miles per year) in Year 17 as shown in Figure 18. From Year 30 to Year 46, the long haul transportation parameter decreases linearly to zero as the wells of the development area are decommissioned and plugged and abandoned. By comparison, the trucking required for short haul recycle (i.e. transportation of flowback and produced waters for reuse in hydraulic fracturing) is only 13 million barrel miles per year. The transportation needs for freshwater amounts to 1,140 million barrel miles per year for the same 30 year period. As with the NE Counties, while the volume of fresh water required is significant, most of the water is collected from freshwater sources near the developing drilling unit which keeps the average trucking trip to around 35 miles per round trip. SW Counties: Barrel Miles per Year Million Barrel-Miles per Year 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, Fresh Water Long Haul to Disposal Short Haul Recycle Years Figure SW Counties: Trucking of Freshwater and Brines Per Year in Barrel-Miles Summary The model base case simulation for the NE Counties (Susquehanna and Bradford) and the SW Counties (Greene and Washington) provides the following key model parameters and outputs: Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 65

67 Summary The model base case simulation for the NE Counties (Susquehanna and Bradford) and the SW Counties (Greene and Washington) provides the following key model parameters and outputs: Key Model Parameters and Outputs NE Counties SW Counties Estimated operating life of a typical well 30 years 30 years Existing Wells ( ) 2,145 1,987 Total estimated wells to be developed ( ) 8,450 5,620 Estimated wells to be developed annually ( ) approx. 300 approx. 200 Flowback/produced water to be recycled/year ( ) 15 million bbl 11 million bbl Estimated year Crossover Point will occur Cumulative non-recycled flowback/produced water (Crossover Point year to 2042) 580 million bbl 490 million bbl Cumulative salt (TDS) in non-recycled flowback/produced water 19 million tons ( ) 17.5 million tons ( ) 10.3 million tons 5.2 million tons Cumulative drill cuttings and mud Brine disposal trucking (peak year) ( ) 11.8 billion bbl-miles (2042) ( ) 1.7 billion bbl-miles (2031) Based on a general understanding of shale gas development in Pennsylvania since 2009 and the base model s parameters, values for the inputs were estimated based on existing data from the PADEP website and demographic information from the industry. Some of the important parameters that can affect the model s results include the following: The operating life of a typical shale gas well. The percentage of the total area that will be accessed by shale wells. Estimated number of wells that can realistically be placed in a development area. Number of years required to complete a development area. Number of wells drilled per year. Produced water generated per well over time. Produced and flowback water that can be recycled and reused in the hydraulic fracturing operations. How many re-hydraulic fracturing operations will be conducted during the estimated life of a typical well. What other shale formations would potentially be developed within the existing development areas. Understanding parameter values and assumptions used in the computations is helpful in explaining the results and how the performance of one development region might compare to another. In the examination of the NE and the SW Counties, it was found from the DEP website that both of these areas has about the same number of previously installed wells (approximately 2,000 wells). In both areas, the operational life of a typical well is expected to be about 30 years. Also, for both areas, the degree of coverage for shale wells is assumed to be about 80%. Since the SW Counties have a land area that is only two-thirds that of the two selected counties of the NE, the SW area is assumed to have only 67% of the new wells that are ultimately drilled and completed in the NE area (5,620 new wells in the SW Counties versus Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 66

68 8,450 new wells in the NE Counties). Assuming that in both areas, it will take about 28 years to drill and complete the required wells, approximately 300 wells will be constructed in the NE area and about 200 wells will be installed in the SW area to reach the goal of 80% access of the shale within the Marcellus layer over the 28-year period. It is noteworthy that though the two areas are quite different in size, they will reach a crossover at around the same time frame 9-14 years (the longer time required for the NE area due to its longer period of completions to install the larger number of wells). It is interesting that the magnitude of salt management for the shale gas industry will be comparable for both development areas; the cumulative generation of salt in non-recycled flowback/produced waters will be 19 million tons ( ) and 17.5 million tons ( ) for the NE and SW areas, respectively. However, the transportation costs to dispose of these salts in barrels of brine is about six times higher in the NE area (11.8 billion barrel miles) compared to the SW area (1.7 billion barrel miles) because the average round trip distance to disposal wells in Ohio is miles for the SW area versus 580 miles for the NE counties. The disposal of these large levels of brines and salt is a major operational expense for the shale gas industry in both development areas and technologies will be needed to control costs and impacts to the community. Lastly, the comparison of drill cuttings and spent mud residues requiring disposal add up to a cumulative level of 10.3 million tons for the NE Counties and 5.2 million tons for the SW counties. Again, an understanding of the input parameters is helpful in explaining the differences we observe in the forecasting results. The SW Counties generate only 75% the cuttings per well as the NE Counties according to the DEP website; perhaps due to depth differences and variations in drilling techniques. Also, the SW Counties have only 67% of the land mass of the NE Counties, so the number of wells is lower for the SW Counties by 33%. When multiplying the key factors of 0.67 x 0.75, we arrive at a factor of 0.5 reduced solid waste due to drilling in the SW Counties. These are examples of how the model and its input values can help to explain predicted results and comparative outcomes for two development areas in Pennsylvania. It should be noted that not all of the drill cuttings will require disposal, since cuttings from above the well surface casing seat, i.e., tophole cuttings, that are not contaminated with brine and drilling mud can be used at the well site as fill material. Changes to any or all of these criteria could have a significant effect on the model s output, which indicates that multiple model simulations incorporating revised parameters would be warranted to provide a broader understanding of potential scenarios that may occur in the future development of the shale plays in Pennsylvania. Such changes in energy pricing and shifting strategies for shale development make it even more important to have a model that can facilitate what if predictions of development trajectories and the implications for regional planning. Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 67

69 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations After a review of the findings generated from this study report, some general high-level conclusions and recommendations can be made regarding shale gas development waste management issues and solutions in Pennsylvania. Because the initial extent and scope of the study did not afford a more comprehensive investigation, it should be viewed as a good starting point to begin considering, in more detail, the implications of long-term shale gas development. More analysis and alternative assumptions in sensitivity modeling should be considered for subsequent studies to address additional scenarios that would include a larger portion of the well development areas across the Commonwealth. 6.1 Conclusions After a review of the existing shale gas development and operation data and information provided in Sections 1.0 through 4.0, and model outputs and interpretations based on an estimated potential future operating scenario for the four counties presented in Section 5.0, the following key high-level conclusions can be made: 1. Shale Gas Development in Pennsylvania Pennsylvania has transformed from producing an insignificant quantity of natural gas from conventional shallow wells in 2008 to producing almost 4 bcf of unconventional shale gas in 2014 using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing well development methods. With only a fraction of the potential Marcellus Play footprint in the state currently producing shale gas and other shale plays such as the Utica and Upper Devonian commencing development, it is estimated that significant quantities of shale gas and liquids could continue to be developed in the Commonwealth for many decades. Shale development areas are very dynamic systems where significant year to year changes may occur in water demand, flowback water output, produced water generation and solid waste production. 2. Non-recycled Produced Water Generation While production of shale gas in Pennsylvania has grown almost 300 percent in the last 4 years, produced water generation has almost tripled in the same time frame. In the most productive shale gas region (Central/Northeast), recycle and reuse of flowback and produced water is occurring at almost maximum capacity (92.4%). In the two most productive counties in the state (Bradford and Susquehanna Counties), recycling has reached maximum capacity (100%). Across the state, increasing quantities of produced water had to be disposed of in brine disposal wells in Ohio and West Virginia, since Pennsylvania currently has very few of these types of wells. The non-recycled produced water volumes requiring disposal have, to date, been caused by temporary interruptions or showdowns in drilling schedules. However, the base computer model simulation indicated that the Crossover Points for the NE Counties (Susquehanna and Bradford) and SW Counties (Washington and Greene) could occur within 14 and 9 years after 2015, respectively. The Crossover Point occurs when the quantity of produced water generated by producing shale gas wells exceeds recycle water demands (when produced water is used for subsequent well hydraulic fracturing operations). The model simulation estimates that by 2042, the NE and SW Counties will generate 580 million bbl and 490 million bbl of non-recycled produced water from the time of their Crossover Point years (2028 and 2023, respectively). Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 68

70 3. Addressing the Non-Recycled Produced Water Challenge As noted above, nonrecycled produced water is currently disposed of in injection wells in Ohio and, to a lesser extent, in West Virginia. This requires trucking the water long distances from the shale gas operating wells to the disposal wells, particularly for shale wells in NE Pennsylvania. It is critical that additional brine disposal wells and treatment plants be developed utilizing advanced processes to generate high quality distillate that will allow surface discharge. Resulting quality concentrated brine can be used to generate beneficial products. The disposal wells and advanced treatment plants need to be located near or within the active shale well areas to effectively address this growing nonrecycled produced water challenge and significantly reduce truck transport requirements. 4. Drill Cuttings Production - Between 2012 and 2014, drill cuttings per year generated in Pennsylvania stayed within the 1.3 to 1.5 Mton range. The model simulation indicated that the projected quantities of drilling cuttings generated in the NE and SW Counties are estimated to be 10.3 million tons ( ) and 5.2 million tons ( ), respectively, at a relatively consistent rate year over year. If future annual volumes of drill cuttings remain in this general operating range, it is expected that Pennsylvania landfills will have adequate capacity to address these projected disposal demands. Not all of the drill cuttings will require disposal, since cuttings from above the well surface casing seat that are not contaminated with brine and drilling mud can be used at the well site as fill material. Alternatives to disposal in landfills may need to be developed that might include identifying which cuttings do not require landfilling (with rapid on-site screening tools) and developing environmentally sound beneficial reuse options. 6.2 Recommendations Based on the conclusions addressing the key take-a-ways from this study report, the following actions are recommended: 1. Additional Model Simulations - Additional model simulations should be considered to address the following simulation scenarios: Expand the modeling to include regional and state-wide simulations. Expand the modeling to include other parameters such as carbon emissions, energy consumption, and landfill and road impacts. 2. Produced Water Management Alternatives Identify more detailed alternatives for the management and treatment/disposal of produced water and treatment wastes, including: Brine disposal wells in favorable geologic formations in proximity to active shale well development areas. Emerging technologies that can effectively treat produced water to a condition that allows environmentally sound surface discharge Technologies and processes that could effectively generate beneficial products from produced water brine. Methods to characterize drill cuttings to minimize the volume disposed of in landfills and identify environmentally sound beneficial reuse options. Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 69

71 References Hayes, T.D. and B.F. Severin Engineering Systems Analysis of Shale Gas Water Management, RPSEA-NETL Report Hayes, T.D. and B.F. Severin Characterization of Flowback Waters from the Marcellus and the Barnett Shale Regions. RPSEA-NETL Report Hayes, T.D Sampling and Analysis of Water Streams Associated with the Development of Marcellus Shale Gas. Final Report to the Marcellus Shale Coalition. Gas Technology Institute, Des Plaines, IL. Life Cycle Management of Future Waste Challenges for Shale Development in Pennsylvania Page 70

72 Appendix A Backup Database Tables and Graphs

73 Year Unconventional Natural Gas Production (MMCF) Northeast/Central Northwest Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Southwest Pennsylvania Year Drill Cuttings Generated (ton) Northeast/Central Northwest Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Southwest Pennsylvania July 2009 to July 2009 to 464, , ,504 December 2010 December , , , ,064, , , , ,679 1, , ,041,503 1,530,216 2, , ,447, ,634 32, , ,101,088 2,300,310 6, , ,294, ,401 47, , ,934,605 2,903,508 14,229 1,016, ,468, ,189 4, ,218 Total 10,605,977 7,800,608 24,048 2,781,321 Total 5,255,658 3,406,583 86,954 1,762,121 Year Unconventional Natural Gas Production (MMCF) Bradford County Susquehanna County Greene County Washington County Year Bradford County Drill Cuttings Generated (ton) Susquehanna County Greene County Washington County July 2009 to July 2009 to 113, ,911 56,066 72,453 December 2010 December , , , , , , , ,524 20,965 4, , , , , , ,913 73, , , , , , , ,273 59, , , , , , , , , ,717 Total 2,452,992 2,374,467 1,020,011 1,036,246 Total 626,569 1,053, , ,867

74 Pennsylvania - July 2009 to December 2010 Pennsylvania - Drill Cuttings Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Time Period Generated (ton) Flowback Water* 7,215,966 6,169, % 1,046, % July 2009 to December ,094 Produced Water 4,435,822 3,221, % 1,214, % ,213 Total 11,651,789 9,391, % 2,260, % ,447, ,294,287 Pennsylvania ,468,980 Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Total 5,255,658 Flowback Water* 10,614,970 10,402, % 212, % Produced Water 9,752,898 7,252, % 2,500, % Pennsylvania - Produced Water vs. Gas Total 20,367,868 17,654, % 2,713, % Time Period Produced Water (bbl) Gas Production (MMCF) Produced Water per Gas (bbl/mmcf) July 2009 to December ,435, , Pennsylvania ,752,898 1,064, Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed ,403,650 2,041, Flowback Water* 11,688,096 11,362, % 325, % ,574,570 3,101, Produced Water 17,403,650 13,652, % 3,750, % ,731,340 3,934, Total 29,091,746 25,015, % 4,076, % Total 80,898,280 10,605, Pennsylvania Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Flowback Water* 10,192,847 9,635, % 557, % Produced Water 22,574,570 19,167, % 3,407, % Total 32,767,417 28,802, % 3,964, % Pennsylvania Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Flowback Water* 12,025,712 11,097, % 928, % Produced Water 26,731,340 22,487, % 4,243, % Total 38,757,052 33,584, % 5,172, % * Includes drilling fluids

75 Northeast/Central Pennsylvania - July 2009 to December 2010 Northeast/Central Pennsylvania - Drill Cuttings Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Time Period Generated (ton) Flowback Water* 3,376,214 3,047, % 329, % July 2009 to December ,681 Produced Water 1,342,852 1,243, % 98, % ,679 Total 4,719,066 4,291, % 428, % , ,401 Northeast/Central Pennsylvania ,189 Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Total 3,406,583 Flowback Water* 5,601,642 5,499, % 102, % Produced Water 4,055,167 3,163, % 891, % Northeast/Central Pennsylvania - Produced Water vs. Gas Total 9,656,809 8,662, % 993, % Time Period Produced Water (bbl) Gas Production (MMCF) Produced Water per Gas (bbl/mmcf) July 2009 to December ,342, , Northeast/Central Pennsylvania ,055, , Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed ,355,390 1,530, Flowback Water* 4,614,010 4,517, % 96, % ,562,783 2,300, Produced Water 11,355,390 9,236, % 2,118, % ,256,710 2,903, Total 15,969,401 13,754, % 2,214, % Total 43,572,902 7,800, Northeast/Central Pennsylvania Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Flowback Water* 3,168,890 3,146, % 21, % Produced Water 12,562,783 10,918, % 1,643, % Total 15,731,673 14,065, % 1,665, % Northeast/Central Pennsylvania Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Flowback Water* 5,245,343 5,203, % 41, % Produced Water 14,256,710 12,812, % 1,444, % Total 19,502,053 18,016, % 1,485, % * Includes drilling fluids

76 Northwest Pennsylvania - July 2009 to December 2010 Northwest Pennsylvania - Drill Cuttings Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Time Period Generated (ton) Flowback Water* 82,439 82, % 0 0% July 2009 to December Produced Water 47,037 36, % 10, % ,871 Total 129, , % 10, % , ,833 Northwest Pennsylvania ,573 Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Total 86,954 Flowback Water* 192, , % 7, % Produced Water 30,599 19, % 11, % Northwest Pennsylvania - Produced Water vs. Gas Total 223, , % 19, % Time Period Produced Water (bbl) Gas Production (MMCF) Produced Water per Gas (bbl/mmcf) July 2009 to December , Northwest Pennsylvania , Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed ,731 2, Flowback Water* 354, , % 8, % ,050 6, Produced Water 116,731 53, % 63, % ,629 14, Total 470, , % 71, % Total 664,046 24, Northwest Pennsylvania Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Flowback Water* 537, , % 160, % Produced Water 269,050 44, % 224, % Total 806, , % 385, % Northwest Pennsylvania Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Flowback Water* 218,778 97, % 120, % Produced Water 200,629 83, % 117, % Total 419, , % 238, % * Includes drilling fluids

77 Southwest Pennsylvania - July 2009 to December 2010 Southwest Pennsylvania - Drill Cuttings Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Time Period Generated (ton) Flowback Water* 3,757,314 3,040, % 716, % July 2009 to December ,414 Produced Water 3,045,933 1,941, % 1,104, % ,662 Total 6,803,247 4,981, % 1,821, % , ,054 Southwest Pennsylvania ,218 Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Total 1,762,121 Flowback Water* 4,820,816 4,718, % 102, % Produced Water 5,667,132 4,069, % 1,598, % Southwest Pennsylvania - Produced Water vs. Gas Total 10,487,948 8,787, % 1,700, % Time Period Produced Water (bbl) Gas Production (MMCF) Produced Water per Gas (bbl/mmcf) July 2009 to December ,045, , Southwest Pennsylvania ,667, , Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed ,931, , Flowback Water* 6,720,027 6,499, % 220, % ,742, , Produced Water 5,931,529 4,362, % 1,569, % ,274,001 1,016, Total 12,651,556 10,861, % 1,790, % Total 36,661,332 2,781, Southwest Pennsylvania Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Flowback Water* 6,486,577 6,112, % 374, % Produced Water 9,742,736 8,204, % 1,538, % Total 16,229,313 14,316, % 1,913, % Southwest Pennsylvania Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Flowback Water* 6,561,591 5,796, % 765, % Produced Water 12,274,001 9,591, % 2,682, % Total 18,835,592 15,387, % 3,447, % * Includes drilling fluids

78 Bradford County, Pennsylvania - July 2009 to December 2010 Bradford County, Pennsylvania - Drill Cuttings Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Time Period Generated (ton) Flowback Water* 502, , % 0 0% July 2009 to December Produced Water 388, , % 14, % ,862 Total 891, , % 14, % , ,433 Bradford County, Pennsylvania ,937 Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Total 626,569 Flowback Water* 2,038,808 2,029, % 9, % Produced Water 447, , % % Bradford County, Pennsylvania - Produced Water vs. Gas Total 2,486,524 2,476, % 9, % Time Period Produced Water (bbl) Gas Production (MMCF) Produced Water per Gas (bbl/mmcf) July 2009 to December , , Bradford County, Pennsylvania , , Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed ,011, , Flowback Water* 549, , % 3, % ,662, , Produced Water 3,011,169 2,923, % 87, % ,004, , Total 3,560,969 3,469, % 91, % Total 8,514,410 2,452, Bradford County, Pennsylvania Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Flowback Water* 333, , % % Produced Water 2,662,946 2,660, % 2, % Total 2,996,872 2,993, % 3, % Bradford County, Pennsylvania Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Flowback Water* 1,406,063 1,405, % % Produced Water 2,004,178 1,993, % 10, % Total 3,410,241 3,398, % 11, % * Includes drilling fluids

79 Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania - July 2009 to December 2010 Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania - Drill Cuttings Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Time Period Generated (ton) Flowback Water* 1,186, , % 293, % July 2009 to December ,546 Produced Water 36,737 36, % 0 0% ,524 Total 1,222, , % 293, % , ,273 Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania ,269 Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Total 1,053,525 Flowback Water* 1,317,147 1,288, % 28, % Produced Water 174, , % 0 0% Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania - Produced Water vs. Gas Total 1,491,160 1,462, % 28, % Time Period Produced Water (bbl) Gas Production (MMCF) Produced Water per Gas (bbl/mmcf) July 2009 to December , , Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania , , Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed ,061, , Flowback Water* 1,213,811 1,162, % 51, % ,739, , Produced Water 1,061,784 1,059, % 2, % ,838, , Total 2,275,595 2,221, % 53, % Total 5,851,138 2,374, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Flowback Water* 1,070,906 1,070, % 0 0% Produced Water 1,739,803 1,739, % 0 0% Total 2,810,709 2,810, % 0 0% Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Flowback Water* 2,472,455 2,472, % 0 0% Produced Water 2,838,801 2,837, % 1, % Total 5,311,256 5,309, % 1, % * Includes drilling fluids

80 Greene County, Pennsylvania - July 2009 to December 2010 Greene County, Pennsylvania - Drill Cuttings Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Time Period Generated (ton) Flowback Water* 646, , % 173, % July 2009 to December Produced Water 1,121, , % 302, % ,965 Total 1,767,158 1,291, % 475, % , ,915 Greene County, Pennsylvania ,175 Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Total 410,322 Flowback Water* 1,652,543 1,604, % 48, % Produced Water 2,017,603 1,409, % 608, % Greene County, Pennsylvania - Produced Water vs. Gas Total 3,670,147 3,013, % 656, % Time Period Produced Water (bbl) Gas Production (MMCF) Produced Water per Gas (bbl/mmcf) July 2009 to December ,121,006 56, Greene County, Pennsylvania ,017, , Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed ,012, , Flowback Water* 2,082,750 1,998, % 83, % ,265, , Produced Water 2,012,427 1,606, % 405, % ,294, , Total 4,095,176 3,605, % 489, % Total 11,711,066 1,020, Greene County, Pennsylvania Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Flowback Water* 1,334,325 1,300, % 34, % Produced Water 3,265,099 3,008, % 256, % Total 4,599,424 4,308, % 290, % Greene County, Pennsylvania Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Flowback Water* 1,994,893 1,769, % 225, % Produced Water 3,294,931 2,643, % 651, % Total 5,289,824 4,412, % 876, % * Includes drilling fluids

81 Washington County, Pennsylvania - July 2009 to December 2010 Washington County, Pennsylvania - Drill Cuttings Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Time Period Generated (ton) Flowback Water* 595, , % 145, % July 2009 to December ,136 Produced Water 663,282 40, % 622, % ,716 Total 1,258, , % 767, % , ,311 Washington County, Pennsylvania ,717 Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Total 649,867 Flowback Water* 1,118,404 1,109, % 8, % Produced Water 1,992,913 1,725, % 267, % Washington County, Pennsylvania - Produced Water vs. Gas Total 3,111,317 2,835, % 276, % Time Period Produced Water (bbl) Gas Production (MMCF) Produced Water per Gas (bbl/mmcf) July 2009 to December ,282 72, Washington County, Pennsylvania ,992, , Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed ,281, , Flowback Water* 1,593,794 1,540, % 53, % ,586, , Produced Water 2,147,571 1,812, % 335, % ,872, , Total 3,741,365 3,352, % 389, % Total 13,396,727 1,036, Washington County, Pennsylvania Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Flowback Water* 2,039,649 2,021, % 18, % Produced Water 3,586,965 3,362, % 223, % Total 5,626,614 5,384, % 242, % Washington County, Pennsylvania Generated (bbl) Recycled (bbl) Percent Recycled Disposed (bbl) Percent Disposed Flowback Water* 3,076,346 2,696, % 379, % Produced Water 5,872,232 4,884, % 987, % Total 8,948,579 7,581, % 1,367, % * Includes drilling fluids

82 SUMMARY OF FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WATER MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Gas Production Fluid Type Disposition of Fluid Area County Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2014 Drilling Fluid Waste (bbl) Fracing Fluid Waste (bbl) Produced Fluid (bbl) Total Fluid** (bbl) Reused (bbl) To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (bbl) Northeast/Central PA Northwest PA Southwest PA Total Updated: 2/18/2015 Waste Type To Injection Drill Cuttings Well (bbl) (ton) Susquehanna 948,057 1, ,886 2,341,569 2,838,801 5,180, ,236 4,263, ,269 Bradford 818,020 1,100 41,108 1,364,955 2,004,178 3,369,133 3,154, ,775 2, ,937 Tioga 207, , ,144 1,129,890 1,300,035 1,093, , ,238 Potter 6, , ,982 33,811 9,968 80,203 - McKean 11, , , ,869 4, ,859 5,175 Elk 11, , , , ,880 1,044 59,654 19,382 Cameron 2, , , , , ,796 9,385 11,921 25,768 Clinton 20, , , ,704 92,022 76,893 32,789 2,967 Lycoming 521, , ,160 3,020,803 3,230,963 2,177, , , ,861 Sullivan 83, , , , , ,353 18, ,005 Wyoming 248, , ,404 2,399,060 2,741, ,312 1,789,083-80,776 Clearfield 20, ,866 71,837 1,255,898 1,327, ,587 38, , Centre 3, ,300 45,276 48,576 12,927 6,640 29,009 1,432 Subtotal 2,903,508 4, ,123 4,807,220 14,256,710 19,063,930 10,088,853 7,495,520 1,388, ,189 Erie Warren Crawford ,008 4, ,008 - Venango ,778 Forest 1, ,781 69,781 40, ,995 - Mercer 2, ,354 53,703 9,747 63,450 2,658 1,030 53, Clarion 3, ,820 89, , , ,734 22,513 62,950 1,782 Lawrence 7, ,650 14,378 13,910 28, ,147 15, Subtotal 14, , , , , ,632 27, ,420 4,573 Beaver 6, ,861 54, , ,457 21, ,557 5,460 Butler 92, , , ,557 1,264,438 26, , , ,758 Armstrong 27, , , , , ,527 51, ,716 12,691 Jefferson 5, ,012 89, , , ,782 3, ,927 16,572 Indiana 5, , , , ,514 22,931 4, Washington 412,837 1, ,597 2,658,749 5,872,232 8,530,982 6,837, , , ,717 Allegheny 26, , , , , ,310 24,247 82,478 36,751 Westmoreland 61, , , ,799 1,273, , ,907 53,383 6,499 Greene 347, ,041 1,394,852 3,294,931 4,689,782 3,782,089 75, , ,175 Fayette 28, ,742 55, , , ,510 24,055 58,645 14,815 Somerset 1, ,406 25,406 23,702-1,704 - Cambria Subtotal 1,016,869 3,157 1,192,816 5,368,775 12,274,001 17,642,776 12,647,674 1,767,043 2,921, ,218 3,934,605 7,679 1,691,763 10,333,949 26,731,340 37,065,289 22,886,159 9,289,573 4,475,726 1,468,980 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website: ** Total waste fluids for the types reported in this table does not include drilling

83 SUMMARY OF DRILLING FLUID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Updated: 2/18/2015 Gas Production Waste Type Disposition of Drilling Fluid Waste Area County Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2014 Drilling Fluid Waste (bbl) Reused (bbl) To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (bbl) To Injection Well (bbl) Northeast/Central PA Northwest PA Southwest PA Total Susquehanna 948,057 1, , ,781 - Bradford 818,020 1,100 41, ,059 - Tioga 207, ,047 23,139 1,907 - Potter 6, McKean 11, Elk 11, ,900 5, Cameron 2, ,410 2,220-2,190 Clinton 20, Lycoming 521, ,231 8,157 39,193 - Sullivan 83, ,203-62,203 - Wyoming 248, , ,286 - Clearfield 20, ,866 6, Centre 3, Subtotal 2,903,508 4, ,123 47, ,684 2,268 Erie Warren Crawford Venango Forest 1, Mercer 2, ,354 1,333-22,021 Clarion 3, ,820 1, Lawrence 7, ,650 1,388-34,262 Subtotal 14, ,824 4,381-56,443 Beaver 6, , ,861 Butler 92, ,602 1,347 4,580 18,371 Armstrong 27, ,190 4,376 2,958 2,856 Jefferson 5, ,012 10,532-1,090 Indiana 5, Washington 412,837 1, , ,980 65,003 95,647 Allegheny 26, ,321 37,022 3,998 3,517 Westmoreland 61, , ,322 - Greene 347, , ,409 13,670 13,886 Fayette 28, ,742 6,882 1,860 - Somerset 1, Cambria Subtotal 1,016,869 3,157 1,192, , , ,267 3,934,605 7,679 1,691, , , ,978 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website:

84 SUMMARY OF FRACING FLUID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Updated: 2/18/2015 Gas Production Waste Type Disposition of Fracing Fluid Waste Area County Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2014 Fracing Fluid Waste (bbl) Reused (bbl) To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (bbl) To Injection Well (bbl) Susquehanna 948,057 1,068 2,341, ,523 1,736,046 - Bradford 818,020 1,100 1,364,955 1,270,670 94,285 - Tioga 207, , ,854 44,275 - Potter 6, McKean 11, Elk 11, Northeast/Central PA Cameron 2, , , ,170 Clinton 20, ,782-4,218 30,564 Lycoming 521, ,160 37, , Sullivan 83, , ,384 14,885 - Wyoming 248, , ,678 36,726 - Clearfield 20, ,837 71, Centre 3, ,300-3,300 - Subtotal 2,903,508 4,390 4,807,220 2,665,683 2,105,998 31,954 Erie Warren Crawford Venango Northwest PA Forest 1, Mercer 2, ,703 2,658 1,030 43,691 Clarion 3, ,113 88, Lawrence 7, , ,217 Subtotal 14, ,954 91,206 2,255 47,972 Beaver 6, ,089 21,300-32,789 Butler 92, ,881 25, ,437 32,245 Armstrong 27, ,393 69,310 30,628 1,345 Jefferson 5, ,323 86, ,680 Indiana 5, ,233 28, Washington 412,837 1,104 2,658,749 2,242, ,419 9,012 Southwest PA Allegheny 26, ,458 39,930 16,980 - Westmoreland 61, , , , Greene 347, ,394,852 1,163,547 51, ,779 Fayette 28, ,161 43,951 11,210 - Somerset 1, Cambria Subtotal 1,016,869 3,157 5,368,775 4,131, , ,119 Total 3,934,605 7,679 10,333,949 6,888,163 2,799, ,045 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website:

85 SUMMARY OF PRODUCED FLUID MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Updated: 2/18/2015 Gas Production Waste Type Disposition of Produced Fluid Area County Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2014 Produced Fluid (bbl) Reused (bbl) To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (bbl) To Injection Well (bbl) Susquehanna 948,057 1,068 2,838, ,713 2,527,718 - Bradford 818,020 1,100 2,004,178 1,883, ,490 2,594 Tioga 207, ,129, , , Potter 6, ,982 33,811 9,968 80,203 McKean 11, , ,869 4, ,859 Elk 11, , ,028 1,044 59,654 Northeast/Central PA Cameron 2, , ,357 9,055 10,751 Clinton 20, ,923 92,022 72,676 2,225 Lycoming 521, ,020,803 2,139, , ,769 Sullivan 83, , ,969 4, Wyoming 248, ,399, ,634 1,752,357 - Clearfield 20, ,255, ,165 38, ,371 Centre 3, ,276 12,927 3,340 29,009 Subtotal 2,903,508 4,390 14,256,710 7,423,170 5,389,522 1,356,834 Erie Warren Crawford , ,008 Venango Northwest PA Forest 1, ,781 40, ,995 Mercer 2, , ,747 Clarion 3, ,134 18,200 22,048 62,886 Lawrence 7, ,910-2,147 11,763 Subtotal 14, ,629 58,426 24, ,448 Beaver 6, , ,768 Butler 92, , , ,628 Armstrong 27, , ,217 20, ,371 Jefferson 5, , ,601 3,049 98,247 Indiana 5, ,487 95,281 22,931 4,275 Washington 412,837 1,104 5,872,232 4,595, , ,328 Southwest PA Allegheny 26, , ,380 7,267 82,478 Westmoreland 61, , , ,281 53,113 Greene 347, ,294,931 2,618,542 24, ,842 Fayette 28, , ,559 12,845 58,645 Somerset 1, ,406 23,702-1,704 Cambria Subtotal 1,016,869 3,157 12,274,001 8,516,400 1,075,439 2,665,400 Total 3,934,605 7,679 26,731,340 15,997,996 6,489,716 4,139,681 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website:

86 SUMMARY OF DRILL CUTTINGS MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Updated: 2/18/2015 Gas Production Waste Type Disposition of Drill Cuttings Area County Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2014 Drill Cuttings (ton) Reused (ton) To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (ton) To Injection Well (ton) Susquehanna 948,057 1, , Bradford 818,020 1, ,937-4,627 - Tioga 207, ,238-12,133 - Potter 6, McKean 11, , Elk 11, ,382-6,724 - Northeast/Central PA Cameron 2, ,768-10,196 - Clinton 20, ,967-2,967 - Lycoming 521, ,861-26,337 - Sullivan 83, ,005-1,281 - Wyoming 248, ,776-13,172 - Clearfield 20, Centre 3, ,432-1,432 - Subtotal 2,903,508 4, ,189-79,286 - Erie Warren Crawford Venango , Northwest PA Forest 1, Mercer 2, Clarion 3, , Lawrence 7, Subtotal 14, , Beaver 6, , Butler 92, , Armstrong 27, , Jefferson 5, , Indiana 5, Washington 412,837 1, , Southwest PA Allegheny 26, ,751 1, Westmoreland 61, , Greene 347, , Fayette 28, , Somerset 1, Cambria Subtotal 1,016,869 3, ,218 1, Total 3,934,605 7,679 1,468,980 1,186 79,286 - * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website:

87 SUMMARY OF FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WATER MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Gas Production Area County Northeast/Central PA Northwest PA Southwest PA Total Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2013 Drilling Fluid Waste (bbl) Fracing Fluid Waste (bbl) Fluid Type Produced Fluid (bbl) Total Fluid** (bbl) Reused (bbl) Disposition of Fluid To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (bbl) Updated: 1/9/2015 Waste Type To Injection Drill Cuttings Well (bbl) (ton) Susquehanna 692, , ,070 1,739,803 2,668, ,796 2,264, ,273 Bradford 713,571 1, , ,773 2,662,946 2,879,719 2,519, ,012 2, ,433 Tioga 219, , ,600 2,014,769 2,742,369 2,303, ,119 4,655 37,691 Potter 7, , ,875 45,323 31, ,627 - McKean 5, , , ,255 31,454 22, ,736 12,082 Elk 7, ,262 58, , , ,436 2,392 91,059 6,419 Cameron 1, ,248 38,248 29,090 5,064 4, Clinton 27, , , , , ,136 13,464 3,931 Lycoming 413, , ,956 3,322,404 3,593,360 2,437, , , ,678 Sullivan 35, ,188 47, , , ,054 11,497-12,713 Wyoming 151, , , , , , ,084-71,248 Clearfield 21, , ,310 1,235,569 1,361, ,152 43,961 1,017,657 2,995 Centre 4, ,272 57,931 60,203 14,597 2,536 42, Subtotal 2,300,310 3, ,490 2,613,400 12,562,783 15,176,183 9,076,721 4,436,392 1,613, ,401 Erie Warren ,166 1, ,115 1, Crawford ,218 38,846 29,247 68,093 2, ,335 2,523 Venango ,283 9, ,834-9, ,083 Forest ,609 63,369 64, ,983 39,387 45,283 43,313 5,876 Mercer ,151 41,198 51,633 92,831 14,782 9,285 68,762 30,300 Clarion 1, , ,011 93, , ,621 18,169 31,199 3,718 Lawrence 3, , ,957 29, ,403 30,063 2,393 98,948 1,959 Subtotal 6, , , , , ,676 85, ,445 47,833 Beaver 1, ,856 16,744 30,376 47,120 29,262 2,220 15,638 10,242 Butler 38, , , , ,110 77,253 93, , ,024 Armstrong 23, , , , , ,521 67, ,275 3,928 Jefferson 5, , , , , ,246 30,664 93,334 - Indiana 6, ,413 89, ,903 84,339 40,700 21,641 4,144 Washington 259, ,806 1,760,843 3,586,965 5,347,808 4,880, , , ,311 Allegheny 23, , , , , ,605 3,981 5,627 2,557 Westmoreland 68, ,122 1,025, ,788 1,812,520 1,266, , ,964 45,748 Greene 317, ,469 1,034,856 3,265,099 4,299,955 3,941,364 90, ,655 59,915 Fayette 47, , , ,801 1,389,471 1,067, ,233 43,354 38,643 Somerset 2, ,918 37,426 54,644 92,070 62,897 26,906 2,267 6,540 Cambria Subtotal 794,548 2, ,821 5,578,756 9,742,736 15,321,492 12,268,585 1,200,804 1,784, ,054 3,101,088 6,315 1,558,839 8,634,007 22,574,570 31,208,578 21,603,983 5,722,321 3,705,631 1,294,287 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website: ** Total waste fluids for the types reported in this table does not include drilling

88 SUMMARY OF DRILLING FLUID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Updated: 1/9/2015 Gas Production Fluid Type Disposition of Drilling Fluid Waste Area County Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2013 Drilling Fluid Waste (bbl) Reused (bbl) To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (bbl) To Injection Well (bbl) Susquehanna 692, ,836 1, ,903 - Bradford 713,571 1, ,153 39,622 77,485 - Tioga 219, ,684 38,018 19, Potter 7, McKean 5, ,986 2,760 1,049 2,177 Elk 7, ,262 8, Northeast/Central PA Cameron 1, Clinton 27, Lycoming 413, ,123 38,186 71, Sullivan 35, ,188 8,027 9,161 - Wyoming 151, ,215 10,490 64,725 - Clearfield 21, ,335 20, Centre 4, Subtotal 2,300,310 3, , , ,912 2,504 Erie Warren ,166 1,970 1,018 1,179 Crawford ,218 6, ,674 Venango ,283 1,607 21,676 - Northwest PA Forest ,609 4,947 3,115 5,493 Mercer ,151 8,990 11,837 6,324 Clarion 1, , ,480 - Lawrence 3, , ,530 2,367 Subtotal 6, ,529 23,979 53,135 18,035 Beaver 1, ,856 7,850 8,132 5,874 Butler 38, ,064 2,168 19,933 15,963 Armstrong 23, ,778 7,105 12,513 1,160 Jefferson 5, ,235 19, Indiana 6, Washington 259, , , ,832 3,415 Southwest PA Allegheny 23, ,802 13, Westmoreland 68, ,122 1, , Greene 317, , ,695 65,753 16,666 Fayette 47, ,651 8,012 95,639 - Somerset 2, ,918 1,200 5,718 - Cambria Subtotal 794,548 2, , , ,222 43,119 Total 3,101,088 6,315 1,558, , ,269 63,658 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website:

89 SUMMARY OF FRACING FLUID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Updated: 1/9/2015 Gas Production Fluid Type Disposition of Fracing Fluid Waste Area County Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2013 Fracing Fluid Waste (bbl) Reused (bbl) To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (bbl) To Injection Well (bbl) Susquehanna 692, ,070 21, ,817 - Bradford 713,571 1, , ,201 75,335 - Tioga 219, , ,852 71, Potter 7, McKean 5, Elk 7, ,001 56,493 1,508 - Northeast/Central PA Cameron 1, Clinton 27, , ,871 8,134 Lycoming 413, ,956 74, ,183 5,473 Sullivan 35, ,523 42,181 5,342 - Wyoming 151, , ,218 70,597 - Clearfield 21, , ,370 11,793 2,147 Centre 4, ,272-2,272 - Subtotal 2,300,310 3,788 2,613,400 1,202,813 1,391,459 16,009 Erie Warren ,010 1, Crawford ,846 2, ,087 Venango ,460-9, Northwest PA Forest ,369 17,083 44,969 1,317 Mercer ,198 14,782 8,505 17,909 Clarion 1, , ,563 17,883 2,723 Lawrence 3, ,957 28, ,201 Subtotal 6, , ,877 81, ,647 Beaver 1, ,744 12,050 1,230 3,464 Butler 38, ,731 77,057 22, ,598 Armstrong 23, ,023 72,575 53,968 22,480 Jefferson 5, , ,990-3,727 Indiana 6, ,413 41,156 28, Washington 259, ,760,843 1,647, ,371 3,047 Southwest PA Allegheny 23, , ,874 1, Westmoreland 68, ,025, , ,372 50,760 Greene 317, ,034, ,811 53,813 3,009 Fayette 47, , , ,963 - Somerset 2, ,426 11,120 26,306 - Cambria Subtotal 794,548 2,441 5,578,756 4,532, , ,605 Total 3,101,088 6,315 8,634,007 5,952,745 2,206, ,261 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website:

90 SUMMARY OF PRODUCED FLUID MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Updated: 1/9/2015 Gas Production Fluid Type Disposition of Produced Fluid Area County Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2013 Produced Fluid (bbl) Reused (bbl) To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (bbl) To Injection Well (bbl) Susquehanna 692, ,739, ,543 1,356,260 - Bradford 713,571 1,007 2,662,946 2,378, ,677 2,720 Tioga 219, ,014,769 1,650, ,431 4,448 Potter 7, ,875 45,323 31, ,627 McKean 5, ,383 30,684 21, ,688 Elk 7, ,981 73, ,059 Northeast/Central PA Cameron 1, ,248 29,090 5,064 4,094 Clinton 27, , , ,265 5,330 Lycoming 413, ,322,404 2,362, , ,123 Sullivan 35, , ,873 6,155 - Wyoming 151, , ,380 71,487 - Clearfield 21, ,235, ,782 32,167 1,015,510 Centre 4, ,931 14, ,616 Subtotal 2,300,310 3,788 12,562,783 7,873,908 3,044,932 1,597,216 Erie Warren Crawford , ,247 Venango Northwest PA Forest ,614 22, ,996 Mercer , ,853 Clarion 1, ,631 17, ,476 Lawrence 3, ,446 1,438 2,262 25,747 Subtotal 6, ,050 40,799 3, ,798 Beaver 1, ,376 17, ,174 Butler 38, , , ,145 Armstrong 23, , ,946 13, ,795 Jefferson 5, , ,256 30,664 89,607 Indiana 6, ,490 43,183 11,809 21,275 Washington 259, ,586,965 3,233, , ,958 Southwest PA Allegheny 23, , ,731 2,497 5,472 Westmoreland 68, , , , ,204 Greene 317, ,265,099 2,972,553 36, ,646 Fayette 47, , ,177 17,270 43,354 Somerset 2, ,644 51, ,267 Cambria Subtotal 794,548 2,441 9,742,736 7,736, ,513 1,486,356 Total 3,101,088 6,315 22,574,570 15,651,237 3,516,087 3,260,370 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website:

91 SUMMARY OF DRILL CUTTINGS MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Updated: 1/9/2015 Gas Production Waste Type Disposition of Drill Cuttings Area County Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2013 Drill Cuttings (ton) Reused (ton) To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (ton) To Injection Well (ton) Susquehanna 692, , Bradford 713,571 1, ,433 8,373 5,117 - Tioga 219, , Potter 7, McKean 5, , Elk 7, , Northeast/Central PA Cameron 1, Clinton 27, , Lycoming 413, ,678 9,831 21,743 - Sullivan 35, , Wyoming 151, ,248-8,738 - Clearfield 21, , Centre 4, Subtotal 2,300,310 3, ,401 18,204 36,462 - Erie Warren Crawford , Venango , Northwest PA Forest , Mercer , ,124 Clarion 1, , Lawrence 3, , Subtotal 6, , ,124 Beaver 1, , Butler 38, , Armstrong 23, , Jefferson 5, Indiana 6, , Washington 259, , Southwest PA Allegheny 23, , Westmoreland 68, , Greene 317, , Fayette 47, , Somerset 2, , Cambria Subtotal 794,548 2, , Total 3,101,088 6,315 1,294,287 18,204 36,462 20,124 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website:

92 SUMMARY OF FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WATER MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Gas Production Area County Northeast/Central PA Northwest PA Southwest PA Totals Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2012 Drilling Fluid Waste (bbl) Fracing Fluid Waste (bbl) Fluid Type Produced Fluid (bbl) Total Fluid** (bbl) Reused (bbl) Disposition of Fluid To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (bbl) Updated: 1/9/2015 Waste Type To Injection Drill Cuttings Well (bbl) (ton) Susquehanna 430, ,422 1,045,389 1,061,784 2,107,173 1,850, ,312 2, ,913 Bradford 520, , ,170 3,011,169 3,450,338 3,147, ,648 80, ,338 Tioga 201, ,318 1,840,880 1,496,392 3,337,271 2,381, ,049 65, ,801 Potter 8, , , ,528 68, , ,213 2,052 McKean 6, , ,301 54, , ,478 6,413 Elk 7, ,736 24, , , ,569 32, , Cameron ,728 11,728 6,848-4,880 1,451 Clinton 32, ,826 56, , , ,211 56,357 17,446 16,841 Lycoming 230, , ,243 2,324,783 2,731,027 1,815, , , ,640 Sullivan 1, ,415 31,811 59,617 91,428 89,128 2,300-29,083 Wyoming 66, ,329 30, , , ,306 2,670-51,285 Clearfield 18, , ,655 1,596,885 1,730, ,079 45, ,490 37,365 Centre 5, ,170 28, , ,870 15,318 84,380 36,352 1,466 Subtotal 1,530,216 3, ,138 4,040,872 11,355,390 15,396,262 10,576,902 2,658,529 1,912, ,634 Erie Warren ,539 1,401 29,940 14,720 14, Crawford ,377-18,377 17,282-1,095 2,354 Venango ,144-1,225 1, Forest ,571 1,865 48,507 50,372 8,427 6,616 35,329 10,866 Mercer - 5 2, ,182 Clarion 1, , ,463 63, , ,888 7,222 15, Lawrence ,487 81,614 1,819 83,433 49,219 29, ,587 Subtotal 2, , , , , ,513 58,576 53,457 32,676 Beaver 1, ,264 74,033 72, , , ,563 21,421 Butler 20, , , , ,433 59, , ,982 52,301 Armstrong 17, , , , , ,419 87, ,319 11,300 Jefferson 2, ,120 18,478 46,719 65,197 13,960 2,622 40,881 17,988 Indiana 4, ,353 71,251 89, ,894 46,990 59,402 54,401 1,377 Washington 179, ,459 1,281,335 2,147,571 3,428,906 3,077,889 14, , ,986 Allegheny 8, ,975 36,769 13,211 49,980 37,549 9,423 3,008 10,939 Westmoreland 59, , , ,710 1,029, , ,355 77,672 47,045 Greene 180, ,051 1,703,699 2,012,427 3,716,126 3,206,421 70, ,618 73,993 Fayette 34, , , ,958 1,328, , , ,043 24,908 Somerset ,608 17,866 11,668 29,534 8,892 13,645 6,997 1,830 Cambria Subtotal 508,991 1,928 1,357,823 5,362,204 5,931,529 11,293,733 8,687, ,224 1,598, ,773 2,041,503 5,164 1,980,162 9,707,933 17,403,650 27,111,583 19,558,503 3,660,329 3,564,753 1,447,083 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website: ** Total waste fluids for the types reported in this table does not include drilling

93 SUMMARY OF DRILLING FLUID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Updated: 1/9/2015 Gas Production Fluid Type Disposition of Drilling Fluid Waste Area County Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2012 Drilling Fluid Waste (bbl) Reused (bbl) To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (bbl) To Injection Well (bbl) Susquehanna 430, ,422 94,543 22,326 - Bradford 520, ,631 98,393 12,238 - Tioga 201, ,318 3,305 13,843 - Potter 8, McKean 6, Elk 7, ,736 7, Northeast/Central PA Cameron Clinton 32, ,826-12,826 - Lycoming 230, ,672 25, , Sullivan 1, ,415 21,232 2,183 - Wyoming 66, ,329 5, Clearfield 18, ,036 32,235 6,801 - Centre 5, ,170-5,170 - Subtotal 1,530,216 3, , , , Erie Warren Crawford Venango ,144-6,144 - Northwest PA Forest ,571-4,571 - Mercer - 5 2,040-2,040 - Clarion 1, ,830 18,775 2,955 - Lawrence ,487-11,487 - Subtotal 2, ,202 18,775 27,327 - Beaver 1, ,264 22,956 2,592 1,225 Butler 20, ,285-27, Armstrong 17, ,665 29,669 24,205 4,791 Jefferson 2, ,120 24, Indiana 4, ,353-24, Washington 179, ,459 59, , Southwest PA Allegheny 8, ,975 6,601 5,553 - Westmoreland 59, ,345 21, ,555 - Greene 180, , ,112 71,880 38,770 Fayette 34, ,698 23, ,720 2,640 Somerset ,608 1,770 9,838 - Cambria Subtotal 508,991 1,928 1,357, , ,139 48,677 Total 2,041,503 5,164 1,980, ,164 1,045,446 49,665 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website:

94 SUMMARY OF FRACING FLUID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Updated: 1/9/2015 Gas Production Fluid Type Disposition of Fracing Fluid Waste Area County Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2012 Fracing Fluid Waste (bbl) Reused (bbl) To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (bbl) To Injection Well (bbl) Susquehanna 430, ,045, , ,371 - Bradford 520, , ,811 27, Tioga 201, ,840,880 1,386, ,637 2,438 Potter 8, ,516 1, ,628 McKean 6, Elk 7, ,124 24, Northeast/Central PA Cameron Clinton 32, ,304 18,570 34,612 3,111 Lycoming 230, , ,024 47,456 6,902 Sullivan 1, ,811 31, Wyoming 66, ,378 30, Clearfield 18, , ,379 4,172 - Centre 5, ,403 5,597 22,806 - Subtotal 1,530,216 3,184 4,040,872 3,188, ,508 15,279 Erie Warren ,539 13,319 14, Crawford ,377 17,282-1,095 Venango Northwest PA Forest ,865 1, Mercer Clarion 1, , ,547 6,916 - Lawrence ,614 49,112 28,596 - Subtotal 2, , ,945 50,572 1,435 Beaver 1, ,033 74, Butler 20, ,882 58,778 48,241 14,863 Armstrong 17, , ,501 71,999 5,543 Jefferson 2, ,478 11, Indiana 4, ,251 34,191 36, Washington 179, ,281,335 1,268,879 10,929 1,527 Southwest PA Allegheny 8, ,769 36, Westmoreland 59, , , ,603 - Greene 180, ,703,699 1,614,977 55,920 31,981 Fayette 34, , , , Somerset ,866 7,813 10,053 - Cambria Subtotal 508,991 1,928 5,362,204 4,703, ,649 54,706 Total 2,041,503 5,164 9,707,933 8,140,436 1,425,729 71,420 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website:

95 SUMMARY OF PRODUCED FLUID MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Updated: 1/9/2015 Gas Production Fluid Type Disposition of Produced Fluid Waste Area County Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2012 Produced Fluid (bbl) Reused (bbl) To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (bbl) To Injection Well (bbl) Susquehanna 430, ,061,784 1,028,478 30,941 2,365 Bradford 520, ,011,169 2,739, ,249 80,373 Tioga 201, ,496, , ,412 62,843 Potter 8, ,011 66, , ,586 McKean 6, ,301 54, , ,478 Elk 7, ,936 85,445 32, ,317 Northeast/Central PA Cameron ,728 6,848-4,880 Clinton 32, , ,641 21,745 14,335 Lycoming 230, ,324,783 1,485, , ,677 Sullivan 1, ,617 57,317 2,300 - Wyoming 66, , ,928 2,670 - Clearfield 18, ,596, ,700 41, ,490 Centre 5, ,467 9,721 61,574 36,352 Subtotal 1,530,216 3,184 11,355,390 7,388,857 1,848,020 1,897,694 Erie Warren ,401 1, Crawford Venango , Northwest PA Forest ,507 6,742 6,436 35,329 Mercer Clarion 1, ,778 36, ,995 Lawrence , , Subtotal 2, ,731 45,569 8,004 52,022 Beaver 1, ,435 62, ,563 Butler 20, , , ,119 Armstrong 17, ,457 62,918 15, ,776 Jefferson 2, ,719 2,775 2,026 40,881 Indiana 4, ,643 12,799 22,634 54,109 Washington 179, ,147,571 1,809,010 3, ,311 Southwest PA Allegheny 8, , ,423 3,008 Westmoreland 59, , , ,753 77,672 Greene 180, ,012,427 1,591,444 15, ,637 Fayette 34, , ,594 54, ,543 Somerset ,668 1,079 3,592 6,997 Cambria Subtotal 508,991 1,928 5,931,529 3,983, ,575 1,543,616 Total 2,041,503 5,164 17,403,650 11,418,067 2,234,600 3,493,332 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website:

96 SUMMARY OF DRILL CUTTINGS MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Updated: 1/9/2015 Gas Production Waste Type Disposition of Drill Cuttings Area County Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2012 Drill Cuttings (ton) Reused (ton) To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (ton) To Injection Well (ton) Susquehanna 430, , Bradford 520, , Tioga 201, ,801-15,029 - Potter 8, , McKean 6, , Elk 7, Northeast/Central PA Cameron , Clinton 32, , Lycoming 230, , Sullivan 1, , Wyoming 66, , Clearfield 18, , Centre 5, , Subtotal 1,530,216 3, ,634-16,552 - Erie Warren Crawford - 3 2, Venango Northwest PA Forest , Mercer - 5 1, Clarion 1, Lawrence ,587-10,949 - Subtotal 2, ,676-10,949 - Beaver 1, , Butler 20, ,301-6,053 7,463 Armstrong 17, , Jefferson 2, , Indiana 4, , Washington 179, , Southwest PA Allegheny 8, , Westmoreland 59, , Greene 180, , Fayette 34, , Somerset , Cambria Subtotal 508,991 1, ,773-6,053 7,463 Total 2,041,503 5,164 1,447,083-33,554 7,463 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website:

97 SUMMARY OF FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WATER MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Gas Production Area County Northeast/Central PA Northwest PA Southwest PA Totals Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2011 Drilling Fluid Waste (bbl) Fracing Fluid Waste (bbl) Fluid Type Produced Fluid (bbl) Total Fluid** (bbl) Reused (bbl) Disposition of Fluid To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (bbl) Updated: 1/9/2015 Waste Type To Injection Drill Cuttings Well (bbl) (ton) Susquehanna 201, , , ,014 1,062, , ,143 2, ,524 Bradford 287, ,987 1,623, ,716 2,071,537 1,517, ,892 9, ,862 Tioga 125, , , ,025 1,556,719 1,144, ,280 11,736 79,561 Potter 9, , , , , , , ,145 12,734 McKean 5, , , , , ,156 42, ,283 24,206 Elk 2, ,522 60,864 86, , ,886 19,601 11,739 8,447 Cameron ,567 19,317 20,998 40,315 27,273 13,042-2,518 Clinton 13, ,151 20,194 18,725 38,919 4,647 33,144 1,128 30,435 Lycoming 80, , , ,944 1,062, , , , ,113 Sullivan ,081 19,706-19,706 3,903 15,803-4,721 Wyoming 14, ,600 75,955-75,955 73,742 2,213-41,906 Clearfield 15, , , , , , , ,035 37,334 Centre 5, , ,553 80, , ,018 58,667 16,546 5,318 Subtotal 760,983 2,504 1,355,433 4,246,209 4,055,167 8,301,376 5,072,830 2,275, , ,679 Erie Warren Crawford Venango ,705 2, , Forest ,431 2, ,089 - Mercer Clarion , ,865 25, , ,929 64,778 12, Lawrence Subtotal , ,184 30, , ,929 65,439 17,415 1,871 Beaver Butler 11, , , , , ,288 68,475 25,000 Armstrong 6, , , , ,969 71, ,112 85,752 - Jefferson ,095 77, , ,597 60, , ,025 3,017 Indiana 2, , ,312 97, , ,908 35,828 60,758 4,034 Washington 112, , ,760 1,992,913 2,856,673 2,170, , ,463 4,716 Allegheny 2, ,410-16,199 16,199 1,090 11,132 3,977 - Westmoreland 21, , , , , , , ,889 25,922 Greene 118, ,999 1,282,545 2,017,603 3,300,148 2,014, , ,180 20,965 Fayette 25, , , ,410 1,208, , , ,323 8,941 Somerset ,602 15,380 20,788 36,168 1,138 18,460 15,378 5,165 Cambria , ,903 Subtotal 302,409 1,426 1,115,159 3,705,657 5,667,132 9,372,789 5,145,297 2,584,658 1,322, ,662 1,064,139 3,951 2,489,920 8,125,050 9,752,898 17,877,948 10,339,056 4,925,357 2,183, ,213 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website: ** Total waste fluids for the types reported in this table does not include drilling

98 SUMMARY OF DRILLING FLUID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Updated: 1/9/2015 Gas Production Fluid Type Disposition of Drilling Fluid Waste Area County Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2011 Drilling Fluid Waste (bbl) Reused (bbl) To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (bbl) To Injection Well (bbl) Susquehanna 201, , , ,628 - Bradford 287, , ,590 23,397 - Tioga 125, ,482 17,954 22, Potter 9, ,002 1,321 32, McKean 5, ,776-10,776 - Elk 2, ,522 6,196 10,380 10,946 Northeast/Central PA Cameron ,567 1,695 1,872 - Clinton 13, ,151 2,640 5,511 - Lycoming 80, ,824 7, ,454 2,295 Sullivan ,081 87,281 3,800 - Wyoming 14, ,600 30,870 18,730 - Clearfield 15, , ,309 1,088 Centre 5, ,036 6,967 28,969 - Subtotal 760,983 2,504 1,355, , ,261 15,311 Erie Warren Crawford Venango Northwest PA Forest Mercer Clarion ,199 4,905 12,537 1,757 Lawrence Subtotal ,328 4,905 12,666 1,757 Beaver Butler 11, , ,345 - Armstrong 6, ,862 4,596 19,106 6,808 Jefferson ,095 4,152 31,943 - Indiana 2, ,868 20,829 18,039 - Washington 112, , ,665 91,938 - Southwest PA Allegheny 2, ,410 13, Westmoreland 21, ,066 3,665 74, Greene 118, ,999 95, ,597 36,062 Fayette 25, ,755 15, ,936 - Somerset , ,232 - Cambria , ,252 - Subtotal 302,409 1,426 1,115, , ,139 43,520 Total 1,064,139 3,951 2,489,920 1,108,877 1,281,065 60,588 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website:

99 SUMMARY OF FRACING FLUID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Updated: 1/9/2015 Gas Production Fluid Type Disposition of Fracing Fluid Waste Area County Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2011 Fracing Fluid Waste (bbl) Reused (bbl) To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (bbl) To Injection Well (bbl) Susquehanna 201, , , ,893 2,513 Bradford 287, ,623,821 1,344, ,115 9,776 Tioga 125, , ,327 92,776 7,557 Potter 9, ,522 26,194 78, McKean 5, , ,056-4,654 Elk 2, ,864 45,129 7,250 8,485 Northeast/Central PA Cameron ,317 19, Clinton 13, ,194 4,647 15,547 - Lycoming 80, , , ,460 10,650 Sullivan ,706 3,903 15,803 - Wyoming 14, ,955 73,742 2,213 - Clearfield 15, , ,082 9, Centre 5, , ,650 3,803 - Subtotal 760,983 2,504 4,246,209 3,395, ,896 44,900 Erie Warren Crawford Venango Northwest PA Forest Mercer Clarion , ,652 52,315 5,898 Lawrence Subtotal , ,652 52,315 6,217 Beaver Butler 11, , ,031 1,137 Armstrong 6, ,750 60,118 56,909 21,361 Jefferson ,541 58,691 18,850 - Indiana 2, ,312 96,693 4, Washington 112, , , ,462 4,308 Southwest PA Allegheny 2, Westmoreland 21, , , ,440 - Greene 118, ,282,545 1,013, ,264 5,920 Fayette 25, , , , Somerset , ,445 - Cambria Subtotal 302,409 1,426 3,705,657 2,525,674 1,135,259 33,133 Total 1,064,139 3,951 8,125,050 6,035,629 1,976,470 84,250 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website:

100 SUMMARY OF PRODUCED FLUID MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Updated: 1/9/2015 Gas Production Fluid Type Disposition of Produced Fluid Area County Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2011 Produced Fluid (bbl) Reused (bbl) To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (bbl) To Injection Well (bbl) Susquehanna 201, , , Bradford 287, , , , Tioga 125, , , ,504 4,179 Potter 9, , , , ,650 McKean 5, , ,100 42, ,629 Elk 2, ,362 70,757 12,351 3,254 Northeast/Central PA Cameron ,998 7,956 13,042 - Clinton 13, ,725-17,597 1,128 Lycoming 80, , , , ,953 Sullivan Wyoming 14, Clearfield 15, , , , ,265 Centre 5, ,292 5,369 54,864 16,546 Subtotal 760,983 2,504 4,055,167 1,677,527 1,486, ,804 Erie Warren Crawford Venango , ,705 Northwest PA Forest , ,770 Mercer Clarion ,348 6,277 12,463 6,608 Lawrence Subtotal ,599 6,277 13,124 11,198 Beaver Butler 11, , ,257 67,338 Armstrong 6, ,218 11,314 47,203 64,391 Jefferson ,056 2, , ,025 Indiana 2, ,271 5,215 31,436 60,531 Washington 112, ,992,913 1,579, , ,155 Southwest PA Allegheny 2, ,199 1,090 11,132 3,977 Westmoreland 21, ,283 5, , ,889 Greene 118, ,017,603 1,001, , ,260 Fayette 25, ,410 12, , ,143 Somerset ,788 1,023 4,015 15,378 Cambria Subtotal 302,409 1,426 5,667,132 2,619,623 1,449,399 1,289,311 Total 1,064,139 3,951 9,752,898 4,303,427 2,948,887 2,099,313 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website:

101 SUMMARY OF DRILL CUTTINGS MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Updated: 1/9/2015 Gas Production Waste Type Disposition of Drill Cuttings Area County Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2011 Drill Cuttings (ton) Reused (ton) To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (ton) To Injection Well (ton) Susquehanna 201, , Bradford 287, , Tioga 125, , Potter 9, , McKean 5, , Elk 2, , Northeast/Central PA Cameron , Clinton 13, , Lycoming 80, , Sullivan , Wyoming 14, , Clearfield 15, , Centre 5, , Subtotal 760,983 2, , Erie Warren Crawford Venango Northwest PA Forest Mercer Clarion Lawrence Subtotal , Beaver Butler 11, , Armstrong 6, Jefferson , Indiana 2, , Washington 112, , Southwest PA Allegheny 2, Westmoreland 21, , Greene 118, , Fayette 25, , Somerset , Cambria , Subtotal 302,409 1, ,662-1,187 - Total 1,064,139 3, ,213-2,243 - * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website:

102 SUMMARY OF FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WATER MANAGEMENT FROM JULY 2009 TO UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Gas Production Fluid Type Area County Northeast/Central PA Northwest PA Southwest PA Totals Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2010 Drilling Fluid Waste (bbl) Fracing Fluid Waste (bbl) Produced Fluid (bbl) Total Fluid** (bbl) Reused (bbl) Disposition of Fluid To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (bbl) Updated: 1/9/2015 Waste Type To Injection Drill Cuttings Well (bbl) (ton) Susquehanna 101, , ,433 36, , ,889 70,065-79,546 Bradford 113, , , , , , , Tioga 57, , , ,653 1,160, , ,588-24,036 Potter 3, ,793 36, , ,772 38, ,090-16,195 McKean 1, ,685 8,889 18,103 26,992 24,625 2,367-7,662 Elk 1, ,292 92, ,440 45,042 72,788-2,691 Cameron ,149 41,324 67,473-67, Clinton 2, ,715-7,400 7,400 1,354 2,877-27,126 Lycoming 15, , ,508 94, ,265 9, ,011 7,966 38,174 Sullivan ,855 2, ,602-2, Wyoming 3, ,040 11,249 12,289-12,289-5,905 Clearfield 4, ,149 80, , ,217 57, , Centre 1, ,870 14,890 19,531 34,421 35,375 29, ,345 Subtotal 305,591 1,338 1,277,920 2,098,294 1,342,852 3,441,146 1,927,975 1,416,830 8, ,681 Erie Warren Crawford Venango Forest ,349 50,919 29,425 80,344-71, Mercer Clarion ,184 22,987 17,612 40,599-38,240 1,417 - Lawrence Subtotal ,533 73,906 47, , ,064 1,417 - Beaver - 1 4, Butler 3, , ,611 56, , ,208 10,048 6,058 Armstrong 1, ,969 87,134 82, ,220 39, , Jefferson ,578 14,826 3,989 18, , Indiana 1, , ,099 96, ,615 6, , Washington 72, , , , ,615 54, , ,023 2,136 Allegheny 1, ,699 20,699-20, Westmoreland 9, , , , ,653 6, ,223-4,582 Greene 56, , ,024 1,121,006 1,639, ,112 1,004,945 3, Fayette 11, , , ,867 1,554,084 69,928 1,134, Somerset ,442 97,429 26, ,233-84, Cambria ,183 1,423-1, Subtotal 158, ,066 2,855,248 3,045,933 5,901, ,454 3,818, ,645 13, ,643 2,291 2,188,519 5,027,448 4,435,822 9,463,270 2,293,428 5,345, , ,094 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website: ** Total waste fluids for the types reported in this table does not include drilling

103 SUMMARY OF DRILLING FLUID WASTE MANAGEMENT FROM JULY 2009 TO DECEMBER UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Updated: 1/9/2015 Gas Production Fluid Type Disposition of Drilling Fluid Waste Area County Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2010 Drilling Fluid Waste (bbl) Reused (bbl) To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (bbl) To Injection Well (bbl) Susquehanna 101, , ,289 - Bradford 113, , ,640 - Tioga 57, ,741-48,741 - Potter 3, ,793-59,793 - McKean 1, ,685-37,685 - Elk 1, Northeast/Central PA Cameron Clinton 2, ,715-13,570 - Lycoming 15, , ,045 - Sullivan ,855-3,855 - Wyoming 3, Clearfield 4, ,149-27,149 - Centre 1, ,870 32,716 22,382 16,816 Subtotal 305,591 1,338 1,277,920 32, ,218 16,816 Erie Warren Crawford Venango Northwest PA Forest ,349-2,349 - Mercer Clarion ,184-6,184 - Lawrence Subtotal ,533-8,533 - Beaver - 1 4,600-1,780 - Butler 3, ,565-51,175 - Armstrong 1, ,969 6,450 21,096 2,423 Jefferson ,578-10, Indiana 1, ,951-37,951 - Washington 72, , ,830 - Southwest PA Allegheny 1, Westmoreland 9, , ,443 - Greene 56, ,128 3,031 98,350 1,044 Fayette 11, , ,620 - Somerset ,442-4,816 - Cambria Subtotal 158, ,066 9, ,150 3,677 Total 464,643 2,291 2,188,519 42,197 1,752,901 20,493 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website:

104 SUMMARY OF FRACING FLUID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN FROM JULY 2009 TO DECEMBER UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Updated: 1/9/2015 Gas Production Fluid Type Disposition of Fracing Fluid Waste Area County Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2010 Fracing Fluid Waste (bbl) Reused (bbl) To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (bbl) To Injection Well (bbl) Susquehanna 101, , ,782 67,435 - Bradford 113, , ,387 45,579 - Tioga 57, , ,174 12,911 - Potter 3, , ,306 - McKean 1, ,889 8, Elk 1, ,292 12,205 24,087 - Northeast/Central PA Cameron ,149-26,149 - Clinton 2, Lycoming 15, ,508 9, ,444 - Sullivan ,280-2,280 - Wyoming 3, ,040-1,040 - Clearfield 4, ,377-77,447 - Centre 1, , ,690 - Subtotal 305,591 1,338 2,098,294 1,524, ,626 - Erie Warren Crawford Venango Northwest PA Forest ,919-50,919 - Mercer Clarion ,987-22,987 - Lawrence Subtotal ,906-73,906 - Beaver Butler 3, , ,231 - Armstrong 1, ,134 31,402 54, Jefferson ,826-14,826 - Indiana 1, ,099 6, ,813 - Washington 72, ,333 47, ,442 - Southwest PA Allegheny 1, Westmoreland 9, , ,987 - Greene 56, ,024 6, ,384 3,350 Fayette 11, ,217 6, ,508 - Somerset ,429-63, Cambria Subtotal 158, ,855, ,064 2,132,630 4,574 Total 464,643 2,291 5,027,448 1,624,586 2,750,161 4,574 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website:

105 SUMMARY OF PRODUCED FLUID MANAGEMENT FROM JULY 2009 TO DECEMBER UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Updated: 1/9/2015 Gas Production Fluid Type Disposition of Produced Fluid Area County Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2010 Produced Fluid (bbl) Reused (bbl) To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (bbl) To Injection Well (bbl) Susquehanna 101, ,737 34,107 2,630 - Bradford 113, , , Tioga 57, , , ,676 - Potter 3, ,388 38,604 74,784 - McKean 1, ,103 15,993 2,110 - Elk 1, ,148 32,837 48,701 - Northeast/Central PA Cameron ,324-41,324 - Clinton 2, ,400 1,354 2,877 - Lycoming 15, ,757-82,567 7,966 Sullivan Wyoming 3, ,249-11,249 - Clearfield 4, ,840 57,954 92,245 - Centre 1, ,531 2,460 14, Subtotal 305,591 1,338 1,342, , ,204 8,756 Erie Warren Crawford Venango Northwest PA Forest ,425-20,905 - Mercer Clarion ,612-15,253 1,417 Lawrence Subtotal ,037-36,158 1,417 Beaver Butler 3, ,183-38,977 10,048 Armstrong 1, ,087 1,431 78,848 - Jefferson , ,769 - Indiana 1, ,516-95,655 - Washington 72, ,282 6,758 33, ,023 Southwest PA Allegheny 1, ,699-20,699 - Westmoreland 9, ,318 5, ,236 - Greene 56, ,121, , ,561 - Fayette 11, ,867 63, ,704 - Somerset ,804-21,167 - Cambria ,183-1,183 - Subtotal 158, ,045, ,909 1,685, ,071 Total 464,643 2,291 4,435, ,646 2,594, ,244 * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website:

106 SUMMARY OF DRILL CUTTINGS MANAGEMENT FROM JULY 2009 TO DECEMBER UNCONVENTIONAL WELLS* Updated: 1/9/2015 Gas Production Waste Type Disposition of Drill Cuttings Area County Gas Produced (MMCF) Wells Spud Between 2008 and 2010 Drill Cuttings (ton) Reused (ton) To Centralized Treatment System for Recycle (ton) To Injection Well (ton) Susquehanna 101, ,546-22,812 - Bradford 113, Tioga 57, , Potter 3, , McKean 1, , Elk 1, , Northeast/Central PA Cameron Clinton 2, , Lycoming 15, , Sullivan Wyoming 3, ,905-2,220 - Clearfield 4, Centre 1, , Subtotal 305,591 1, ,681-25,157 - Erie Warren Crawford Venango Northwest PA Forest Mercer Clarion Lawrence Subtotal Beaver Butler 3, ,058-6,058 - Armstrong 1, Jefferson Indiana 1, Washington 72, , Southwest PA Allegheny 1, Westmoreland 9, , Greene 56, Fayette 11, Somerset Cambria Subtotal 158, ,414-6,308 - Total 464,643 2, ,094-31,465 - * Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website:

107 Appendix B Figures

108 PGH P:\GIS\SAFERPA\MAPDOCS\MXD\TOTAL_FLUIDS_GENERATED_2014.MXD 02/25/15 SP Data Source: PADEP oil and gas reporting website ERIE CRAWFORD WARREN MCKEAN POTTER TIOGA BRADFORD SUSQUEHANNA WAYNE FOREST WYOMING MERCER VENANGO ELK CAMERON LYCOMING SULLIVAN LACKAWANNA PIKE CLARION CLINTON LUZERNE LAWRENCE BUTLER JEFFERSON CLEARFIELD CENTRE UNION COLUMBIA MONTOUR CARBON MONROE BEAVER ARMSTRONG INDIANA MIFFLIN SNYDER NORTHUMBERLAND SCHUYLKILL NORTHAMPTON LEHIGH ALLEGHENY WESTMORELAND CAMBRIA BLAIR HUNTINGDON JUNIATA PERRY DAUPHIN LEBANON BERKS BUCKS WASHINGTON MONTGOMERY CUMBERLAND GREENE FAYETTE SOMERSET BEDFORD FULTON FRANKLIN ADAMS YORK LANCASTER CHESTER DELAWARE PHILADELPHIA Miles DRAWN BY: S. PAXTON 01/30/15 CHECKED BY: R. DURSO 02/25/15 APPROVED BY: Total Fluids (Barrels) NOTES: FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WATER > 5,000,000-10,000, Unit outlines based on thickness and depth GENERATED IN 2014 > 2,500,000-5,000,000 considerations (i.e. > 2500-ft). CONTRACT NUMBER: 112C07076 > 500,000-2,500, Formation extent based on available data; eastern boundaries > 100, ,000 not well LIFE defined CYCLE MANAGEMENT for units deeper OF than FUTURE Upper WASTE Devonian , REVISION 0 25 Pennsylvania Counties CHALLENGES FOR SHALE DEVELOPMENT FIGURE Miles

109 PGH P:\GIS\SAFERPA\MAPDOCS\MXD\PA_COUNTY_GAS_STORAGE.MXD 01/30/15 SP Data Source: PADEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website Erie New York ³ Crawford Warren Mckean Potter Tioga Bradford Susquehanna Wayne Forest Wyoming Mercer Venango Elk Cameron Lycoming Sullivan Lackawanna Pike Clarion Clinton Luzerne Lawrence Butler Jefferson Clearfield Centre Union Montour Columbia Carbon Monroe Ohio Beaver Armstrong Indiana Mifflin Snyder Northumberland Schuylkill Lehigh Northampton Allegheny Westmoreland Cambria Blair Huntingdon Juniata Perry Dauphin Lebanon Berks Bucks New Jersey Washington Montgomery Cumberland Greene Fayette Somerset Bedford Fulton Franklin Adams York Lancaster Chester Delaware Philadelphia Delaware West Virginia West Virginia Maryland Miles Legend Northeast/Central Northwest Southwest REGIONS IN PENNSYLVANIA WHERE ACTIVE WELL DEVELOPMENT IS OCCURRING LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT OF FUTURE WASTE CHALLENGES FOR SHALE DEVELOPMENT DRAWN BY: S. PAXTON 01/30/15 CHECKED BY: A. CELMO 1/30/2015 APPROVED BY: CONTRACT NUMBER: 112C07076 FIGURE 2-2 REVISION 0

110 ! ( Ohio Virginia Pennsylvania Kentucky West Virginia Maryland New York Michigan Delaware New Jersey Indiana New Jersey District of Columbia Lake Erie Lake St. Clair Keuka Lake Seneca Lake PGH P:\GIS\SAFERPA\MAPDOCS\MXD\BRINE_DISPOSAL_WELLS_OH_WV_MARCELLUS_MARCH15.MXD 03/05/15 SP NOTES: 1. Unit outlines based on thickness and depth considerations (i.e. > 2500-ft). 2. Formation extent based on available data; eastern boundaries not well defined for units deeper than Upper Devonian Miles DRAWN BY: S. PAXTON 03/05/15 CHECKED BY: D. SKOFF 03/05/15 APPROVED BY: CONTRACT NUMBER: 112C07076 BRINE DISPOSAL WELLS AND DRILLED MARCELLUS AND UTICA WELLS IN OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WEST VIRGINIA LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT OF FUTURE WASTE CHALLENGES FOR SHALE DEVELOPMENT Legend Injection Well Drilled Marcellus Well Drilled Utica Well FIGURE 3-1 REVISION 0