Event Handbook • Agenda • Abstract • Attendee List

Two Events… ONE GREAT LOCATION!

Gaylord Texan -- July 9-11, 2013 – Grapevine, Texas

Stray Gas Incidence & Response Forum In July 2012 the Ground Water Protection Council, with funding support from the US Department of Energy, sponsored the nation’s first forum solely dedicated to the response, investigation, migration, and prevention of water contamination from stray gas in areas of natural gas development. The event, held in Cleveland, Ohio, focused on stray gas research and investigations in the Appalachian Basin and laid the groundwork for subsequent discussions in other natural gas producing regions of the United States and Canada.

This year’s Forum, in the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX area, is an opportunity for regulatory officials, the oil and gas industry, consultants and other interested parties in the Gulf Coast Region and Southwestern United States to learn, interact, and develop recommendations that will improve protocols for response to the prevention of stray gas incidents.

Unconventional Oil & Gas Water Management Forum

This event will focus on the challenges of managing and protecting water resources in areas where development of unconventional oil and gas resources is rapidly expanding. The Unconventional Oil & Gas Water Management Forum will spotlight the life cycle of water in exploration and production, including the status of current regulations and the potential risks and challenges associated with safe-guarding and managing water resources, well bore integrity, water quality monitoring, and waste handling and disposal.

EVENT PARTNER Acknowledgments: On behalf of the Ground Water Research &

Education Foundation, THANK YOU for helping make these events possible!

OCC - O&G Division

These events are part of the Spotlight Series, the technology transfer initiative of the

Ground Water Research & Education Foundation.

Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:00 Joint Opening General Session: Moderator: Mike Paque, GWPC Executive Director Room: Dallas 5-7

Modern Oil & Gas Production Water Management Issues & other Environmental Challenges Abstract 1 (opening session presenter bios) Industry Perspective – Lee Fuller, Independent Petroleum Association of America (15 min.) Environmental Perspective – Scott Anderson, Environmental Defense Fund (15 min.) Rural Landowner Perspective - Darrell Brownlow, San Antonio River Authority and South Texas Rancher (15 min.) Research Academia Perspective – Susan Stuver, Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources (15 min.) State Regulatory Agency Perspective – Joe Lee Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (15 min.) Event Primer (15 min.): Scott Kell Ohio Oil & Gas and Ann Smith, GSI

10:00- 12:20

Stray Gas Incidence & Response Forum Room: Dallas 3-4

Moderator – Scott Kell, Ohio Oil & Gas Welcome, & Charge to Participants: During the Forum in Ohio, it became clear that considerable progress had been made during recent years to improve response to stray gas incidents; however, regulators and industry representatives alike recognized the need to improve response protocols and prevention practices. In order to continue progress, this Forum is designed to draw upon the expertise and encourage input from all attendees. Therefore, each session will be followed by a Q&A session or panel discussion. After each session, attendees are encouraged to make recommendations regarding the following questions: • Is there a need for more research? • What factors should be considered in designing useful research? • Is there a standard or protocol we can agree on? • If not, who is developing draft protocols for consideration? • Is there something we are missing regarding this issue?

Introduction to Stray Gas Abstract 37 Fred Baldassare, Echelon Applied Geochemistry (30 min.) • Stray gas: its nature and occurrence • Properties and potential hazards of methane • Potential sources: Natural and anthropogenic (non-oilfield) • Site Characterization • Potential mechanism for migration if related to oil and gas exploration and production Discussion

Mitigation Measures to Protect Public Safety • Explosive gas detection systems • Confined space mitigation measures Abstract 21 Best Suggested Practices to Reduce and Mitigate Problematic Concentrations of Methane in Residential Water Well Systems - Kevin McCray, National Ground Water Association (25 min.) Abstract 30 Emergency Response Procedures and Protocol in Texas – Dale Kohler, TCEQ & Walter Gwyn, RRC of TX, Wichita Falls District Office, TBA (30 min.) Discussion

Unconventional Oil & Gas Water Management Forum Room: Dallas 5-7

Moderator – Leslie Savage, Railroad Commission of TX Welcome, & Charge to Participants

Overview of Water in the Drilling Life Cycle --Water Acquisition; Preventing Contamination at the Wellhead; Well installation and borehole integrity; Injection, Data Management and Reporting; Flowback and Produced Water Recycling/Disposal; Monitoring

Abstract 28 Exploring Environmental, Regulatory and Social Advantages of Produced Water Management/Treatment – Melinda Truskowski & Tekla Taylor, Golder Associates, Inc. (30 min.)

Abstract 26 Navigating Water Issues in Texas: Water Sourcing, Produced Water Management, Recycling, Spills, and Construction Issues - David Alleman, ALL Consulting (20 min.)

Abstract 4 Evaluating Federal, State, and Local Regulatory Trends in Shale Gas Development - Robert Horner, Argonne National Laboratory (20 min.) Discussion

Regulatory/Policy Issues and Updates • Review of recent regulatory changes • EPA hydraulic fracturing study update • Working with local concerns

Abstract 36 US EPA Overview - Michael Overbay, EPA Region 6 (15 min.)

Regulator Panel: Michael Overbay, EPA Region 6; Leslie Savage, Railroad Commission of TX; and Bob Patterson, Upper Trinity Groundwater Conservation District

12:30 Joint Luncheon Room: Texas 3-4

Mike Paque, GWPC Executive Director; Stan Belieu, Nebraska O&G, GWPC President, and GWREF Board Member; and Davie Bolin, Alabama Oil & Gas Board and GWREF President Abstract 48 Impact of Extraction and Electricity Generation Using Shale Gas on Water Resources in Texas, Bridget Scanlon, Texas Bureau of Economic Geology (25 min.)

Stimulation

Tuesday, July 9, 2013 2:00- 5:00 3:20 Break

Stray Gas Incidence & Response Forum Room: Dallas 3-4

Moderator – Scott Kell, Ohio Oil & Gas Emergency Response Priorities for Stray Gas Incidents • Importance of a written Emergency Operations Procedure (EOP) to coordinate multi-

agency efforts when a stray gas issue becomes an emergency • Importance of the initial citizen interview when evaluating conditions and determining

the preliminary response area • Reconnaissance surveys to define the preliminary area of investigation • Interpreting pre-drill data in light of methane concentration variability • Public and responder safety considerations Abstract 24 Working toward Rational, Consistent, Science-based Risk-assessment Protocols - Scott R. Kell, Ohio Oil & Gas (30 min.) Abstract 32 Responding to Stray Gas Incidents: Marcellus Shale Coalition Recommended Practice - Debby Yost, Chesapeake Energy (30 min.) Discussion State Regulator Panel: (30 min.)

- Pennsylvania - Ohio - Texas - Oklahoma - Colorado

Discussion

Unconventional Oil & Gas Water Management Forum Room: Dallas 5-7

Water Quantity Used, Acquisition & Planning Moderator – Jamie Crawford, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, (GWREF Board Member & GWPC Vice-President)

How Much Water is Used in the Oil & Gas Development Process? Abstract 6 Water Use for the Development of Texas Shale and Tight Plays - JP Nicot, Texas Bureau of Economic Geology (20 min.)

Abstract 34 Hydraulic Fracturing Faces Growing Competition for Water Supplies in Water-Stressed Regions – Ryan Salmon, Ceres (20 min.)

Abstract 19 Water Supply Planning, Availability and Opportunities in Oklahoma Kent Wilkins, Assistant Chief of Planning & Management, Oklahoma Water Resources Board (20 min.)

Abstract 23 Local Water Availability and Planning Related to O&G Development – Bob Patterson, Upper Trinity Groundwater Conservation District (20 min.)

Discussion

Resource Expansion Abstract 47 Traditional and Alternative O&G Production Water Sources (Resource Expansion) – David Alleman, ALL Consulting (20 min.)

Opportunities to Recycle/Reuse Abstract 10 Treatment Requirements for Produced or Flow Back Water. Treatment Options for Recycling Frac Water. D. Steven Tipton, Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc. (20 min.)

Abstract 45 State Water Recycle/Reuse Rules – Leslie Savage, Railroad Com. of TX (20 min.)

Discussion 5:30- 7:30

Room: Center Pre Function Joint Welcome Reception

** THANK YOU Event Sponsors and Contributors **

The Ground Water Research & Education Foundation (GWREF) is a not-for-profit 501(c) 3 corporation dedicated to promoting research and education related to the protection of ground water. Our mission is to promote and conduct research, education, and outreach, in the areas of development and application of technical systems, pollution prevention

efforts related to ground water protection, underground injection technology, and watershed conservation and protection. The foundation is comprised of a board made up of volunteers from government, institutes of higher education, and the public appointed through the Ground Water Protection Council.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013 8:00- 11:30

Joint Technical Session Characterization Aquifer Quality and Identification Oil & Gas Activity Influence Room: Dallas 5-7 Moderator – Scott Kell, Ohio Oil & Gas Pre-Drill Surveys and Samples: Maximizing the value of pre-drill assessments

• Pre-Drill Water Quality and Land Use Surveys • Pre-Drill Constituents of Concern (What to sample for) • Pre-Drill water system documentation • Pre-Drill field measurements – the importance of written protocols and sample documentation • Parameter selection considerations

Abstract 25 Potential Hazards of Horizontal Drilling and Recovery of Natural Gas & Oil from Tight Shale Formations in Areas of Historical Oil & Gas Development - Timothy M. Eriksen, P.G. Moody & Associates (20 min.) Abstract 33 Baseline Water Quality Sampling in Shale Gas Exploration and Production Areas – Debby Yost, Chesapeake Energy (20 min.) Abstract 16 The Occurrence of Methane in Shallow Groundwater from Extensive Pre-Drill Sampling - John Boulanger, AECOM (20 min.) Abstract 18 Real-Time Monitoring for Evaluating Long-Term Variability in Methane in Domestic Water Wells in Northeast Pennsylvania – John Rachel, GES (20 min.) Abstract 8 Overview of State Pre-drill Water Quality Testing - Robert W. Puls, Oklahoma Water Survey (20 min.) Discussion

11:30 Lunch – On your own 1:00- 3:20

Joint Technical Session (continued) Characterization Aquifer Quality and Identification Oil & Gas Activity Influence Room: Dallas 5-7 Moderator - Robert W. Puls, Oklahoma Water Survey Comprehensive Sampling Techniques , Analytical Techniques, Standards and Protocol • ASTM D18.26 committee on hydraulic fracturing • Analytical Methods for the presence of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids • Sampling techniques • Methods to determine if additional sampling is necessary • Interpretation of results Abstract 40 Analytical Protocol for Oilfield Waters- Johnny Robinson, Hach Company (20 min.) Abstract 35 Environmentally Focused Technologies for Oilfield Water Treatment, Carl J. Vavra, Global Petroleum Research Institute, Texas A&M University (20 min.) ASTM Sampling Techniques, Analytical Techniques, Standards and Protocol - Robert W. Puls, OK Water Survey (15 min.) Case Study Abstract 20 Evaluation of Common Cement and Bentonite Products used in Water and Monitoring Well Construction (or drilling) for Glycols, Alcohols, and Phenolic Compounds -Bert Smith, Chesapeake Energy (20 min.) Discussion

After-Drill Surveys and Samples: Practical and efficient post-activity assessments Abstract 27 Communicating With the Water Well Owner when Oil & Gas Production is Nearby - Kevin McCray, NGWA (15 min.) Abstract 38 Investigations for Complaints Alleging Impacts to Groundwater Quality from Oil and Gas Operations in the Raton Basin, Colorado - Peter Gintautas, CO O&G Conservation Commission (20 min.) Discussion

Break 3:20-3:40

Wednesday, July 10, 2013 3:40- 5:30

Stray Gas Incidence & Response Forum Room: Dallas 3-4

Moderator – Scott Kell, Ohio Oil & Gas Stray Gas Technical Detail Abstract 15 A Geochemical Context for Stray Gas Investigations in the Northern Appalachian Basin: Implications of Analyses of Natural Gases from Quaternary-through-Devonian-Age Strata - Fred J. Baldassare, ECHELON Applied Geochemistry Consulting (45 min.) • The origin of gases in Neogene through Devonian Age Strata in N. Appalachian Basin • Gas origin interpreted from >2300 samples for isotope compositions of C1 and C2 • Isotope data reveals complexity of thermal history & gas migration in this part of the

basin • Complexity of system underscores the necessity to investigate alleged stray gas

incidents at the site specific level

Discussion Abstract 31 Microbially Mediated Association between Methane and Groundwater Geochemistry - Lisa Molofsky, GSI (30 min.) • Microbial Driven Association between methane and Groundwater • Inorganic chemical changes that may be associated with stray gas Abstract 17 Evaluation of the Relationship between pH and Dissolved Methane Concentrations in Groundwater from Wells in Northeastern Pennsylvania - Debby Yost, Chesapeake Energy (20 min.)

Discussion

Unconventional Oil & Gas Water Management Forum Room: Dallas 5-7

Moderator – Charles Lord, Oklahoma Corporation Commission

Hydraulic Fracturing Flowback, Drilling Fluid and Produced Water Management, Treatment and Disposal Options • Reuse and Recycling • Zero liquid discharge • UIC Class II and Other common disposal methods for hydraulic fracturing wastewaters and

produced water. • Disposal of solids (treatment residuals) in landfills. • Energy/water nexus. • Effects of radioactivity and salt in effluents on downstream drinking water treatment

processes. • Use of other water management methods (e.g., ponds). Discussion Topics

o What is currently known about the frequency, severity and causes of spills of flowback and produced water?

o If spills occur, how might hydraulic fracturing wastewaters and produced waters contaminate drinking water resources?

Abstract 11 Mid-Continent Water Management for Stimulation Operations. D. Steven Tipton, P.E., Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc. (20 min.)

Abstract 22 Risk Concerns Associated with Waste Disposal of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids by Deep Well Injection - F. Paul Bertetti, Geosciences and Engineering Division, Southwest Research Institute (20 min.)

Abstract 2 A Cost-Benefit and Environmental Impact Analysis of Implementing Distributed Energy Sources to Treat Hydraulic Fracturing Wastewater in Texas’ Permian Basin. Authors: Yael R. Glazer, University of Texas at Austin (20 min.)

Abstract 5 Fracturing Fluids from Produced Water - Frank Zamora, Trican Well Service (20 min.)

Discussion

Thursday, July 11, 2013 8:00- 10:20 8:40-10:20

Joint Technical Session Room: Dallas 5-7 Moderator: Mike Paque, GWPC Executive Director Abstract 42 Remarks from David Porter, Railroad Commissioner of Texas (10 min.) Abstract 39 Reducing the Environmental Impact of Gas Shale Development Ann Smith, GSI & Susan Stuver, Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources (20 min.) Well Installation & Wellbore Integrity Abstract 12 Summary of Recent Advances in Well Integrity Analysis for Wellbore Gas Intrusion - J. Daniel Arthur, ALL Consulting Abstract 9 Well Cementing - D. Steven Tipton, Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc. (20 min.) • Well construction standards • Monitoring to verify integrity • Investigations and remediation when integrity failure is verified • GWPC well bore modeling tool • Surface casing depths to protect usable quality water Discussion

Break 10:20-10:40 10:40- 12:00

Stray Gas Incidence & Response Forum Room: Dallas 3-4

Moderator – Scott Kell, Ohio Oil & Gas Stray Gas Prevention: Industry Initiatives Abstract 46 Glen Benge, Benge Consulting Diagnosis of Well Problems Direction and Focus of Industry Groups Addressing Best Practices • API standards for wellbore integrity • API Standards for sustained annular pressure • API standards for isolating potential flow zones Detection and Remediation of Failed Cement Jobs Discussion

Unconventional Oil & Gas Water Management Forum Room: Dallas 5-7

Data Management and Public Availability Moderator – Paul Jehn, GWPC • State and Regional Water Well/Water Quality Data • Chemical registry • Overview of FracFocus • RBDMS Hydraulic Fracturing module • RBDMS Environmental: data management and tracking for analysis

Abstract 41 The FracFocus 2.0 System: A Better Way to Disclose Chemical Information - Mike Nickolaus, Ground Water Protection Council (20 min.)

Abstract 3 Summary of FracFocus Public Disclosure Submittals: Process and Results. Bill Hochheiser, ALL Consulting (20 min.)

Abstract 44 FracFocus 2.0 Training – Rich Haut, Environmental Friendly Drilling (20 min.)

Abstract 29 RBDMS, RBDMS Wellfinder, Wellbore and Environmental: Integrating and Tracking Oil, Gas and Water Data - Paul Jehn, GWPC (20 min.)

Lunch – On your own

The Place to go for Hydraulic Fractruing

Informaiton

www.FracFocus.org

Thursday, July 11, 2013 1:30- 3:00

Stray Gas Incidence & Response Forum Room: Dallas 3-4

Moderator – Scott Kell, Ohio Oil & Gas Subsurface Gas Migration • Importance of understanding the three-dimensional geologic framework • Factors affecting subsurface gas migration (dissolved gas; free gas) • Identifying migration pathways • Identifying driving mechanisms

Abstract 7 Conducting a Stray Gas Investigation and the use of Downhole Videography as an Investigation Tool - Tom Tomastik, Geologist, Ohio Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management (20 min.) Discussion Stray Gas Prevention: Regulatory Agency Initiatives • Nature and Cause of Oil & Gas Related Stray Gas Incidences • State regulatory initiatives: well control • State regulatory initiatives: wellbore integrity • State regulatory initiatives: abandoned well

Discussion Stray Gas Incidence & Response Forum: Parting Comments - Scott Kell, Ohio Oil & Gas

Unconventional Oil & Gas Water Management Forum Room: Dallas 5-7

Moderator – Paul Jehn, GWPC Contamination Prevention: Site maintenance, inspections, investigations and remediation • Well site maintenance to prevent contamination • EPA Energy Extraction Inspections/Evaluations • State Inspection Programs Site Investigations Dealing with Historic Contamination -- Oilfield Clean-up Funds and Abandoned/Orphan Well Programs

Abstract 14 Well Site Spill Protection: Impacts, Trends and Technologies for Preventing Releases to Water Sources – Paul McNally, Golder Associates, Inc. (20 min.) Abstract 43 Comprehensive Oil, Gas and UIC Inspections in Oklahoma: Bob Griffith, OCC (20 min.) Abstract 13 Baseline Water Quality Characterization At Four USEPA Retrospective Case Study Areas for the EPA’s Study of Hydraulic Fracturing and Its Potential Impact on Drinking Water Resources. Tad Fox, Battelle (20 min.)

Discussion Unconventional Oil & Gas Water Management Forum: Parting Comments - Paul Jehn, GWPC

The Ground Water Research & Education Foundation’s Goals: • Support the Ground Water Protection Council in the fulfillment of its mission to improve government’s role in the protection and

conservation of ground water.

• Identify and facilitate research aimed at increasing our understanding of the science and policy of ground water protection and conservation.

• Develop education and outreach initiatives which increase the level of understanding of ground water resources in order to empower citizens to assume ground water protection roles.

• Provide tools and resources for ground water protection and conservation practitioners to better fulfill their goals.

Acknowledgements: Event Sponsors and Contributors

Thank you for caring about Groundwater!

Major Event Sponsors

Abstract 1 - Opening Session Bios

Lee Fuller, Vice President of Government Relations, joined the IPAA staff in 1998 and is responsible for coordination of legislative and regulatory activities. Fuller has 35 years of experience in federal policy issues. Fuller served as staff on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works from 1978 through 1986. In 1985 and 1986 he was the Minority Staff Director, serving under Senator Lloyd Bentsen. During this time, Fuller was involved with all major legislation developed by the Committee. Subsequent to his service in Congress, Fuller has served as a vice president of the Smith-Free Group (and its predecessor organizations, Walker-Free Associates and Charls E. Walker Associates) and of Jellinek, Schwartz and Connolly, Inc., and as a senior legislative associate with Van Scoyoc Associates. At these firms he concentrated on developing, implementing and advocating policy strategies for clients involved with environmental legislation including proposals to restructure the regulation of oil and gas production wastes, the application of Superfund to oil and gas production facilities, and the air toxic provisions of the Clean Air Act as they apply to oil and gas production facilities. Before coming to Washington, Fuller worked for Exxon Company, USA, at its Baytown, Texas, refinery providing technical support for process operations and managing environmental compliance issues. He graduated from Lehigh University as a Chemical Engineer. Scott Anderson spent many years in the oil and gas industry prior to joining Environmental Defense Fund. He is the former Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association (TIPRO). He was the long-time Secretary of the LIAISON Committee of Cooperating Oil and Gas Associations and was previously a member of the governing Council of the State Bar of Texas Oil, Gas and Mineral Law Section. Since 2005, he has served as EDF’s point person on policies relating to natural gas development and to the geological sequestration of carbon dioxide. Mr. Anderson works on a broad array of legislative and regulatory issues, and participates in stakeholder groups focused on reducing the environmental footprint of natural gas operations. Professional activities

• Member, State Bar of Texas, 1979-present • Member, Ground Water Protection Council CO2 Sequestration Committee • Member, World Resources Institute Stakeholder Group on CCS • Member, Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission Carbon Capture and Storage Task Force • Member, Federal Advisory Committee on Unconventional Resources Technology • Member, Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, 1986-87, 1990-present • Member, Texas Oilfield Cleanup Fund Advisory Committee, 2001-2003 • Council Member, State Bar of Texas Oil, Gas & Mineral Law Section, 1990-1993 • Member, State Bar of Texas Standing Advisory Committee on Administrative Law, 1982-88 • Former editor of the Texas International Law Journal

Education • B.S., University of Texas at Austin (Phi Beta Kappa); J.D., University of Texas School of Law

Dr. Darrell Brownlow has served as a member of the South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group (1998-2012) and from 2000 to 2010 he was Governor Perry’s Appointee to the Evergreen Underground Water Conservation District (Wilson, Atascosa, Frio, and Karnes counties). He currently serves as a Board Member of the San Antonio River Authority. Dr. Brownlow is a Principal in Intercoastal Inland Services and Carrizo Consulting. Prior to this, he was Vice President and Chief Geologist for Cemex USA, responsible for Resource Management of Aggregate and Cement operations across the United States. He has authored and coauthored several technical articles and publications on subjects ranging from CO2 capture and sequestration in the cement industry to availability of Carrizo Aquifer water for Eagle Ford Shale development. Dr. Brownlow earned his B.S. (1987), M.S. (1989), and Ph.D. (1992) in Geology from Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas. He is a landowner and cattle rancher in Wilson and La Salle counties and resides in Floresville, Texas.

Calvin Finch has recently assumed the position of Director of the Texas A&M Water Conservation and Technology Center after 22 years of water conservation related work. During his 12 years at the San Antonio Water System he served as Water Conservation Director, Water Resources Director, and Director of Special Programs and Regional Initiatives. The SAWS palette of water resources included groundwater, recycled water, aquifer storage, surface water, and desalination of brackish groundwater. Water Conservation has been and is an important part of meeting water supply needs. Dr Finch received his Ph.D. in horticulture from Texas A&M University Joe Lee is Manager of the Division of Compliance and Data Management, for the Bureau of Oil and Gas Management, in the Department of Environmental Protection for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and, he is a licensed professional geologist. His present area of work is in the development and implementation of compliance programs and data management for the state’s oil and gas management program. Prior to his present position, Mr. Lee managed the state’s development and implementation of various source water assessment, protection and treatment programs under the Safe Drinking Water Program. Mr. Lee began his career with the Bureau of Mining and Reclamation evaluating the impacts of coal mining and quarries on surface and ground water systems. Mr. Lee has served on the Board of Directors of the Ground Water Protection Council for over 10 years and is presently the immediate Past President. Abstract 2 A Cost-Benefit and Environmental Impact Analysis of Implementing Distributed Energy Sources to Treat Hydraulic Fracturing Wastewater in Texas’ Permian Basin. Yael R. Glazer, Jill B. Kjellsson, Kelly T. Sanders, Dr. Michael E. Webber Yael Glazer earned her B.S. in Bioengineering from the University of California at Berkeley in 2004. After graduating, she spent seven years working at Genentech, one of the world’s leading biotech companies, developing and optimizing manufacturing processes to bring medicines to patients with unmet medical needs. The biotech industry’s massive dependence on clean water drove her curiosity about the overall world water crisis. Her interest quickly developed into a passion and led her to pursue a Master’s in Environmental and Water Resources Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. Improvements in hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling have enabled rapid development of gas extraction from shale formations. As a result, the U.S. is experiencing a boom in domestic natural gas production that is projected to increase by approximately 25% over the next two decades. While natural gas is relatively clean at the point of combustion, its production presents substantial environmental challenges related to water and wastewater management given the large volumes of water required to fracture a shale formation. In Texas, the majority of wastewater from fracking is disposed via deep well injection, which effectively sequesters the water from future uses. Distributed onsite wastewater treatment is another technological option: it could decrease wastewater volumes and mitigate water scarcity, which is projected to intensify due to more frequent drought and rising competition among freshwater users, including gas producers. Here, we establish an analytical framework for evaluating the viability of onsite wastewater treatment (and reuse) within the gas sector. Using economic, energetic, and mass balance approaches, we consider the tradeoffs of integrated, co-located natural gas-, solar-, and wind-powered wastewater treatment to reduce water impacts of the energy sector in Texas’ Permian Basin. Abstract 3 Summary of FracFocus Public Disclosure Submittals: Process and Results Bill Hochheiser*; Mark A. Layne, Ph.D., P.E.; J. Daniel Arthur, P.E., SPEC (ALL Consulting) Mr. Hochheiser is an environmental scientist specializing in technical, environmental, and regulatory issues related to all facets of energy development. He has over 35 years of diverse experience that includes work in government and consulting. His work has primarily involved research and analysis on the potential environmental impacts of oil and gas development, including impacts to surface water, ground water, air, land, and wildlife. Mr. Hochheiser joined ALL Consulting in 2008, and has served in his present position since that time. Currently, he is taking the lead for ALL in training and communications for FracFocus, the national hydraulic fracturing chemical disclosure registry.

At ALL, Mr. Hochheiser has managed and conducted a number of analyses on the environmental and economic impacts of oil and gas, and especially shale gas, development, including the impacts of development and hydraulic fracturing on surface and ground water resources, as well as studies of relevant laws and regulations at the state and federal levels. He had a principal role in a major study by the National Petroleum Council on the prudent development of North American oil and gas resources. He has also recently managed the development of a baseline water testing program for Canadian producers.

Tens of thousands of individual submittals have been made to the FracFocus web site. This type of centralized industry disclosure model is unique and has required involvement from regulatory agencies, E&P companies, non-governmental agencies, service companies, consultants, and the public. This paper will present both information on the results of this massive nationwide effort from multiple viewpoints and will include some of the common challenges encountered by E&P companies and service companies as well as the technical developers of the FracFocus web site. Abstract 4 Evolving Federal, State, and Local Regulatory Trends in Shale Gas Development Robert Horner, Argonne National Laboratory

The regulatory landscape of shale gas development has been changing rapidly over the past several years. Most of these changes have occurred at the state level. Several factors, including a statutory exemption for hydraulic fracturing from EPA regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, have limited regulation on the federal level. However, federal regulation and policy are currently in the process of being crafted at the Bureau of Land Management, Environmental Protection Agency, and elsewhere. I addition, a number of local governing bodies have been exercising their own authorities to limit or regulate shale gas development, although the extent of local authority has been disputed in some states.

With tens, if not hundreds (counting local governments), of rulemaking and policy-creating entities participating, the evolving landscape of shale gas and hydraulic fracturing policy and regulation can be difficult to follow as a whole. Argonne National Laboratory will characterize this broad landscape of policy and regulation, focusing on recent developments. Instead of going point-by-point through recently enacted state legislation, Argonne will present common themes and regulatory strategies from enacted laws and proposed regulation. These trends and strategies will be analyzed and organized by the three levels of government involved (federal, state, and local), but will also include trends and strategies that cut across all levels of government. This analysis will be presented with a focus on the current and future regulatory trend of shale gas development in the United States rather than a focus on regulatory specifics in a particular area. Developers will always need additional information on regulations specific to their projects. The goal of this presentation will be to provide a wide range of people with interests in shale gas development a useful overview of the current state and trend of shale gas regulation in the U.S. Abstract 5 Fracturing Fluids from Produced Water Sarkis Kakadjian, Joseph Thompson, Robert Torres and Frank Zamora Environmental concerns and public opinion have increased attention regarding the use of fresh water in the hydraulic fracturing industry. Currently, oil companies, operators and service companies acquire fresh water for hydraulic fracturing treatments on the front end and pay to dispose or transport the flowback or produced water on the back end. A newly developed fracturing fluid system eliminates the upfront costs of purchasing fresh water and significantly reduces back-end costs by transporting flowback and/or produced water to locations for reuse rather than disposal wells located miles, sometimes even states, away from the wellsite.

This new system uses conventional gelling agents and crosslinkers already registered in the FracFocus chemical disclosure registry. The fluid system was developed for temperature ranges between 120°F and greater than 300°F, and field tests have proven shear stability and good proppant transport at 20 BPM through a 1.25 in. sliding sleeve

baffle. Breaker schedules can be tailored using instant or delayed crosslinkers in recycled waters with total dissolved solids exceeding 300,000 ppm with hardness exceeding 30,000 ppm. Unlike other fluid systems that are affected by boron, this system can be used in water that contains boron levels exceeding 500 ppm.

The code for recycled water has been broken with this new fracturing fluid system designed to conserve freshwater aquifers and recycle produced and flowback water, reducing disposal costs. This paper includes laboratory testing of the fluid characteristics in untreated produced water from the Bakken and Eagle Ford shales and the outcome of hybrid fluids in field applications. This paper also includes recommendations for field applications, including economic impacts on fracturing fluid systems.

Sarkis Kakadjian is currently a research manager at Trican Well Service LP in the Woodlands, TX. His current research interests are stimulation and completion, sand control and rheology. Before joining Trican in 2011, he worked for 6 years as Chief Research Scientist at Weatherford international, Elmendorf, TX. Kakadjian holds a BS degree in Polymer Science from the University of Simon Bolivar, Venezuela and a PhD degree in polymer science from the University of Leeds, England. Abstract 6 Water Use for the Development of Texas Shale and Tight Plays JP Nicot, Texas Bureau of Economic Geology

Hydraulic fracturing (HF) has a long history in the state of Texas where are located (1) several established plays, such as the Barnett Shale, (2) plays of recent interest, such as the Eagle Ford or the Wolfcamp, and (3) older plays being revisited such as the Spraberry or the Granite Wash. We compiled current water use for year 2011 (about 82,000 acre-feet) and compared it to an older analysis done for year 2008 (about 36,000 acre-feet). A database compiling state information and providing water use is complemented by industry data to access fresh water consumption, recycled water use, and brackish water use. Gas plays have been recently eclipsed by oil plays resulting in a geographic shift of major HF water use toward south and west of the state where drought periods are frequent. The amount of recycling is still relatively small but the interest in brackish water is growing.

Dr. Jean-Philippe “JP” Nicot, P.E., P.G. is a Research Scientist with the Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin. His areas of expertise include water resources and associated issues. He recently published several papers and reports detailing the amount of water used for hydraulic fracturing in the state of Texas and is currently researching topics such as natural methane migration to the shallow subsurface and understanding of physical and chemical processes impacting the composition of flow back water. Dr. Nicot holds a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from The University of Texas at Austin. Abstract 7 Conduction a Stray Gas Investigation and the Use of Downhole Videography ad an Investigation Tool Tom Tomastik, Geologist, Ohio Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management

Tom Tomastik has BS and MS degrees geology and worked in the Ohio oil and gas industry from 1982 to 1988. Since December of 1988, Tom has been employed by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management, Underground Injection Control Section. He is responsible for all of the Underground Injection Control (UIC) duties, which include performing independent reviews of applications for Class II saltwater injection and secondary recovery projects, and Class III salt-solution mining wells in Ohio. Additionally, Tom also has conducted several hundred highly complex groundwater conflict investigations involving oil and gas contamination and industrial aggregate mineral dewatering operations.

Stray gas investigations need to be accomplished with the highest level of expertise and experience and must evaluate all potential sources of methane gas migration. This type of investigation warrants a complete evaluation of the local geologic and hydrogeologic conditions, which would include detailed mapping of geologic features and groundwater flow, sampling events, protocols, and chain-of-custody, water well construction and aquifer identification, evaluation of localized oil and gas development and potential legacy issues, and oil and gas well construction and cementing practices.

When investigating a stray gas complaint, geologists must typically collect and evaluate information regarding the site-specific, three-dimensional, hydrogeologic framework in order to develop an understanding of potential stray gas migration pathways and driving mechanisms associated with potential or documented releases to the environment. In addition to defining a source of a stray gas release, the geologist must scientifically evaluate how the stray gas could travel from the source to the affected water supplies.

Since 2004, the Ohio Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management (Division) have found that downhole videography to be an extremely valuable investigative tool when evaluating stray gas complaints. The author has personally used the downhole video camera to document conditions in over 150 water wells and has assisted in the development of protocols and documentation forms for downhole videography. Downhole videography has proven invaluable in evaluating factors such as water well construction details, water well maintenance, aquifer depths, stratigraphy, and stray gas migration pathways.

Downhole videography has assisted the Division is defining local geologic structure, indentifying stray gas migration directions and pathways, developing stray gas migration strategies, and documenting stray gas sources. It is crucial that we rely on good science to thoroughly explain the different sources of stray methane gas and dispel the myth that these stray gas incidents are all directly related to hydraulic fracturing and shale development. Abstract 8 Recommendations for pre-drill water quality testing that is both reasonable and effective Robert W. Puls, Ph.D., Oklahoma Water Survey

Dr. Robert Puls is Director of the Oklahoma Water Survey and Associate Professor at the University of Oklahoma. Dr. Puls was employed by the USEPA for almost 25 years. He was the Technical Lead for the USEPA Study on Hydraulic Fracturing and Drinking Water Resources prior to his retirement in early 2012. As Technical Lead, he met with numerous industry representatives, non-governmental organizations, federal and state agencies responsible for oil and gas regulatory oversight as well as private citizens. He has a Ph.D. from the University of Arizona and degrees from the University of Washington and the University of Wisconsin.

Several states and other groups have recently put forward guidelines for sampling private water wells where oil and gas operations are occurring as public service information (e.g. Penn State Agricultural Extension; Oklahoma State Agricultural Extension; NGWA/GWPC; Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals). Several states have recently promulgated regulations that address pre-drill sampling of drinking water supplies/wells (CO, OH, PA, WV). While these are steps in the right direction, there continues to be variation in what is covered under these rules and guides as well as gaps. While leading the field technical portion of the USEPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study in 2010 and 2011, the single most glaring deficiency I noticed in all state programs for oil and gas operations was the absence of any rules or guides for baseline water sampling. When complaints were lodged with state agencies, there was almost never any pre drill data to compare to post drill suspected impacts. The best available data was typically historical regional water quality collected by the USGS, some of which could be decades old. Because of the natural variability of subsurface systems, this data was usually insufficient to allow for comparisons between pre and post drill water quality data. This presentation will compare and contrast some current state requirements related to the collection of baseline water quality and identify additional needs. The presentation will highlight the following issues:

• Who is paying for and responsible for data collection? • Who receives the data? • Who collects the samples? • What are the sampling objectives? • What constituents are sampled for? • Where are the samples collected? • When are the samples collected? • How are the samples collected?

Abstract 9 Oil and Gas Well Cementing D. Steven Tipton, P.E., Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc.

Mr. Tipton earned a professional degree in Chemical and Petroleum Refining Engineering from Colorado School of Mines in 1967 and an MS in Petroleum from the University of Tulsa in 1974. He is a Registered Professional Engineer in Texas and Oklahoma He has more than 45 years’ experience primarily in drilling, completion, and production operations throughout the US, Canada, Trinidad and Yemen. He is currently employed by Newfield Exploration in Tulsa, Oklahoma. His primary responsibility is water management for the company’s completion operations in the Mid-Continent. He has made presentations at numerous technical meetings and conferences on water management including SPE Advanced Technology Workshops, The University of Tulsa, the Environmental Protection Agency – Technical Workshops for Hydraulic Fracturing, the OIPA Unconventional Resource Forum, Oil Sands Water Management Initiative, Water Management for Shale Plays, and in house training at Newfield for our new engineers and geoscientists. Introduction: Cementing is one of the most critical steps in the drilling and completion (construction) of an oil or gas well. Well cementing technology is a combination of many scientific and engineering disciplines, including chemistry, geology, and physics and petroleum, mechanical and electrical engineering. Each is essential to achieve the primary goal of well cementing – durable zonal isolation. Primary Cementing: Primary cementing is the process of placing cement in the annulus between the casing and the formations exposed to the wellbore. The major objective of primary cementing has always been to provide zonal isolation in wells to exclude fluids in one formation from migrating to another formation. To achieve this objective, a hydraulic seal must be created between the casing and the cement and between the formation and the cement, while at the same time preventing fluid channels in the cement sheath. Without complete isolation in the wellbore, the well may never reach its full producing potential. Sufficient cement slurry must be pumped into the wellbore’s annular space to fill it from the bottom to above the top of the productive formations. Typically, the cement slurry is brought to higher intervals to exclude undesirable fluids from the wellbore, to protect freshwater zones, and to protect the casing from corrosion. Primary cementing requires detailed engineering and application of the best available technology to achieve the desired operational results. Remedial Cementing: Remedial cementing operations are performed for various reasons. Some of which are to repair a faulty primary cement job, alter formation characteristics such as stopping lost circulation, repairing casing problems, shutting off water production, or abandoning a zone or well. Setting cement plugs may be required when drilling a well and there is a need to side track the original wellbore or to abandon a noncommercial zone. Cementing Design Considerations

Wellbore Configuration: Vertical; Directional; Horizontal Casing Sting Being Cemented: Surface; Intermediate; Production/Liner; Combination Casing Strings Mud System: Water Based; Oil Based Wellbore Environment: Depth of Freshwater; Formation Temperature; Formation Pressure; Hole Stability; Potential for Lost Circulation; Potential Fluid Production

Cement Placement Mechanics Casing Hardware: Float Equipment; Stage Tools; Centralizers; Wiper Plugs Spacers and Chemical Washes Hole Conditioning Casing Rotation and Reciprocation Placement Procedures: Single Stage; Multistage; Liners

Cement Job Evaluation Hydraulic Testing: Pressure Testing; Inflow Testing

Log Evaluation: Temperature; Nuclear; Acoustic Conclusion: This abstract is an overview describing the things to consider in order to achieve the best cementing practices for both primary and remedial cementing operations and focus on the type of wells being drilled in the shale and tight formation resource plays.

Abstract 10 Treatment Requirements for Produced or Flow Back Water D. Steven Tipton, P.E., Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc. Mr. Tipton earned a professional degree in Chemical and Petroleum Refining Engineering from Colorado School of Mines in 1967 and an MS in Petroleum from the University of Tulsa in 1974. He is a Registered Professional Engineer in Texas and Oklahoma He has more than 45 years’ experience primarily in drilling, completion, and production operations throughout the US, Canada, Trinidad and Yemen. He is currently employed by Newfield Exploration in Tulsa, Oklahoma. His primary responsibility is water management for the company’s completion operations in the Mid-Continent. He has made presentations at numerous technical meetings and conferences on water management including SPE Advanced Technology Workshops, The University of Tulsa, the Environmental Protection Agency – Technical Workshops for Hydraulic Fracturing, the OIPA Unconventional Resource Forum, Oil Sands Water Management Initiative, Water Management for Shale Plays, and in house training at Newfield for our new engineers and geoscientists. Water, its use and management is critical to the petroleum industry. It is the most common and heavily used fluid in our business. In every jurisdiction in this country its use is regulated in some manner. The regulations and ownership of water is different in each area in which the industry works. In many areas of the country the use and handling of water have become emotionally charged. For this presentation, I will be concentrating on the water use and reuse in general terms and an overview of water cleanup technologies available to the industry. Water Recycling Considerations: Drilling and Completion Program Storage Capacity

Exploratory Untreated water Development Processed water Infrastructure Frac Fluid Chemistry Frac pits (Fresh Water) Slick water Recycle pits (Flow Back or Produced Water Fresh water linear or cross linked gel Storage for processed water High salt tolerant gel Transfer lines

Review of Eight Basic Technologies: Dilution Settling Filtration Chemical Precipitation Electro Coagulation Distillation

Conclusion: This paper will show how can the industry move from using fresh water to 100% recycled or produced (saline) water? This will be a review of the available technologies that can be used to clean up produced water for reuse.

Abstract 11 Mid-Continent Water Management for Stimulation Operations D. Steven Tipton, P.E., Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc.

Mr. Tipton earned a professional degree in Chemical and Petroleum Refining Engineering from Colorado School of Mines in 1967 and an MS in Petroleum from the University of Tulsa in 1974. He is a Registered Professional Engineer in Texas and Oklahoma He has more than 45 years’ experience primarily in drilling, completion, and production operations throughout the US, Canada, Trinidad and Yemen. He is currently employed by Newfield Exploration in Tulsa, Oklahoma. His primary responsibility is water management for the company’s completion operations in the Mid-Continent. He has made presentations at numerous technical meetings and conferences on water management including SPE Advanced Technology Workshops, The University of Tulsa, the Environmental Protection Agency – Technical Workshops for Hydraulic Fracturing, the OIPA Unconventional Resource Forum, Oil Sands Water Management Initiative, Water Management for Shale Plays, and in house training at Newfield for our new engineers and geoscientists.

Introduction: Water, its use and management is critical to the petroleum industry. It is the most common and heavily used fluid in the oil and gas business. More than ever, water is an integral part of the success of oil and gas operations. Keep this in mind: NO WATER - NO FRACTURING - NO RESOURCE PLAY. In every jurisdiction in this country water use is regulated in some manner. The regulation and ownership of water is different in each area in which the industry works. In many areas of the country the use and handling of water have become emotionally charged. For this presentation I will concentrate on water use and reclamation for the stimulation of the Granite Wash tight oil and gas reservoirs in the Anadarko Basin, Woodford Shale gas reservoirs in the Arkoma Basin, and Cana Woodford oil reservoirs in the Anadarko Basin. At the beginning of Newfield’s operations in each area little or no infrastructure existed to support its operations. As our drilling programs progressed, infrastructure has been built to support the operations and the demand for water. Water Management Cycle: Any operator conducting drilling and completion operations will use some type of water management cycle. They must first locate and acquire the water needed for the operation they are performing. In Newfield’s case ground water is the primary source of water for the Granite Wash. Surface ponds that collect runoff are used for the Woodford Shale. A combination of ground water, surface ponds, streams and lakes are being used for the Cana Woodford.

No matter what water source is being used or the quality of the water, it must be transported to a storage facility for use during the drilling or completion operations. Fresh water is pumped through aluminum, poly pipe, PVC pipe, and lay-flat hose or trucked to the storage or well site. Recycled or produced water is pumped through poly pipe, lay-flat hose or trucked to the storage site.

Since water is the base fluid for most drilling muds and hydraulic fracturing fluids, it must be stored near the well operations in sufficient quantities to complete a job in a manner that is both economically and environmentally sound. The primary use for water on a well operation is the hydraulic fracturing during the completion of the well. Newfield’s fracturing designs range in size from 100,000 to 500,000 barrels per well. The completions are generally pumped at rates from 80 to 100 barrels per minute. Depending on the soil conditions and the type of fluid being stored, both lined and unlined in-ground storage pits are used for the majority of our completions. In areas where water is being recycled there has to be enough storage capacity for both used (flowback or produced) water and processed clean water.

During the completion operations water is transferred from our storage facilities to the well site through pipe using pumps. Once the water arrives at the well site it is stored in frac tanks and a stimulation company mixes the water with proppant and other chemicals and pumps it into the well to hydraulically fracture the reservoir.

After the well has been fractured and clean out operations are underway, flow back of the well begins. Flowback water is separated from any hydrocarbons at the well’s test or production facilities. The produced or flowback water is then pumped or trucked to a recycle pit or a disposal well.

At the recycle facility the flowback and/or produced water is processed and cleaned for reuse. The amount and type of water processing that is required depends on the water quality being produced from the well(s) and the type of fluid being used for the fracturing operation. The water that is not reused will be taken to a disposal well.

NFX Granite Wash Operations: Newfield’s Britt Ranch and Briscoe fields were originally drilled for deep Morrow gas during the 1980’s. The Morrow in Western Oklahoma and the Texas Panhandle is a conventional gas condensate reservoir. The Granite Wash in the same area is composed of very tight laminated reservoirs that produce both oil and gas. From 2001 until 2008, we drilled over 150 vertical Granite Wash wells in the Britt Ranch and Briscoe Fields located in Wheeler County, Texas. Since 2008, all of the wells Newfield has drilled in the Granite Wash have been horizontal. Early in the drilling of the vertical wells, frac tanks or frac pits were used at each well site for the completion operation. It soon became apparent that having central water supply pits was more efficient and economical. As the amount of water being used grew and the cost of potassium chloride increased significantly, it made economic sense to begin recycling flowback water. As the company transitioned from drilling and completing vertical wells to horizontal wells in this area, water usage went from approximately 80,000 barrels per completion to over 250,000 barrels per completion.

Since most of the water being used for completions in our Granite Wash fields is recycled, Newfield uses its own High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) to transport water to and from its storage pits. Newfield owns 38 miles of 8” poly, 4 miles of 12” poly, and 10 miles of 4” poly to move water from the pits to the wells being stimulated, from pit to pit, and from the wells back to the recycle pits. Generally two or three lines are used to pump water from the frac pits to the well being completed. In these fields both fresh and recycled water is transported through either 8” or 12” HDPE pipe. Once the completion is finished and the well begins to flow back one poly line is left in place to pump flowback water to the recycle pits. The company also owns 6 water transfer pumps to move water from the flowback or production tanks to the recycle pits.

The water being produced back into the recycle pits contains approximately the same Total Dissolved Solids as the Potassium Chloride water that was initially used during the completion operations (15,000 to 20,000 mg/l) and is relatively clean. Any solids produced with the water drop out in the flow back pits. By reusing water, Newfield saved a significant amount of money and millions of barrels of fresh water during the last 5 years. Any hydrocarbons not caught in the production equipment (less than 100 mg/l) are skimmed from the pits as necessary and recycled through Newfield’s disposal facilities.

We recycle nearly 100% of the water recovered during the flowback. The recycle pits in this area are permitted only for fresh or flowback water, so once the entire load is recovered the produced water must be trucked or piped to a salt-water disposal well. In the Britt Ranch area, the company has seven recycle pits with a total capacity of 2.4 million barrels and ten fresh water pits with a total capacity of 1.3 million barrels. In the Briscoe area there are two recycle pits with a total capacity of 900,000 barrels. Due to the soil conditions and to protect the environment all of the pits are lined with Geomembrane liners.

The Texas Railroad Commission permits each of the recycle pits. The pits are inspected before they are put into service and then maintained per the permit requirements. Some of the pits have been in use for more than five years without a leak or failure. Depending on the recycle pit permit, some type of monitoring must be done on a routine basis. Once a project has been completed the pit will have to be closed or the pit maintained per Commission rules.

As stated above, Newfield has a long history of drilling vertical wells in the Granite Wash. Since the Granite Wash has multiple productive horizons, the focus was on drilling vertical wells and completing most of the zones using multiple frac stages. Using this approach the best vertical well in the area had an initial production rate of 9.2 MMCFD and 48 BOPD with over a 90% initial decline rate when completing eight of the zones. An average vertical well initially produced at a rate of approximately 5 MMCFD with eight zones completed. After much work, our first horizontal well was drilled and completed in an upper member of the Granite Wash during the fall of 2008. That well initially produced at a rate of 25 MMCFD and 1500 BOPD and produced 2 BCF and 100,000 BO in its first four months. Since that time eleven individual zones have been tested in the Granite Wash with horizontal completions. The horizontal wells had an average initial production rate of 17 MMCFD with a much lower decline rate than the vertical wells. As can be seen with these numbers, horizontal wells have substantially improved both the initial productivity and recoverable reserves from the Granite Wash.

With the horizontal wells has come the demand for much more water. The average vertical well was completed using 80,000 to 100,000 barrels of water. The average horizontal well is using 250,000 barrels of water or 25,000 barrels per frac stage. Experiments have been conducted using different perforating schemes, water volumes (from 5,000 barrels to up to 55,000 barrels per stage) and pumping rates (from 40 to over 100 barrels per minute). Since some of the zones are up to 600 feet thick, attempts have been made to see if the zones could be drilled with just one lateral and get sufficient height from the frac to recover the reserves efficiently. Based on the frac mapping, we have not been able to achieve the frac height desired. These attempts to intentionally increase the frac height have proven that in most cases getting more than 250 feet of height growth is very difficult. This shows that the probability of fracturing into a fresh water zone more than 10,000 feet above the Granite Wash is very implausible.

Due to the large amount of water required to complete some of the wells, the pits have been “daisy chained” together using poly pipe so that water can be moved from pit to pit. Using this approach two wells were recently completed on the same pad using over 800,000 barrels of water with the fracs being pumped at over 100 barrels per minute and water moved up to nine miles.

Our approach to water management in the Granite Wash is being used as a model for the company’s new projects in Cana Woodford, the Eagle Ford in South Texas, the Wasatch in Eastern Utah, and the Bakken in North Dakota. Because of the success we have had with our water management program, representatives from other companies have made tours of our water recycling facilities so that they could learn and improve their water management practices.

NFX Woodford Shale Operations: Newfield’s Woodford Shale operations are conducted over a 900 square mile area in the Arkoma Basin. The Woodford Shale was initially developed with vertical wells with the best initial production being 1,600 MCFD and the average well’s initial production ranged from 300 to 400 MCFD. Newfield began drilling and completing horizontal Woodford wells during the spring of 2005. During the last six years the lateral lengths have increased from 2500 feet to over 10,000 feet with corresponding increases in initial production rates. The average initial producing rate for Newfield’s Woodford wells is 7.0 MMCFD.

Fracturing volumes on the vertical wells was generally small (less than 10,000 bbl) and could be done from frac tanks or a small fresh water pond. To achieve higher producing rates from the Woodford wells, much larger fracture stimulations with volumes increasing up to 300,000 barrels per well were required. Some of Newfield’s four well pads have used up 1.2 million barrels of water during the completion operations.

As the horizontal play developed Newfield build over 60 fresh water ponds to collect run off from rain water. The ponds ranged in size from 50,000 to over 750,000 bbls with a total capacity of over 8 million barrels. Fresh water is transferred from the pond to the well sites through 10” aluminum irrigation pipe. In cases where there is not enough fresh water in one pond they may be connected together using irrigation pipe and the water moved from pond to pond. Fresh water has been moved up to 2.5 miles during the frac operations. Recycled high chloride water is trucked from our Ecosphere water treatment facility to the well site where it is stored in frac tanks. Fresh water is then mixed with the recycled water through the frac blender to make an equivalent of 1 percent chloride water.

Newfield uses third party technology to clean its flowback water in the Arkoma Basin for use as a potassium chloride substitute. The technology removes hydrocarbons, residual chemicals and heavy metals in the flowback water. This process also kills any bacteria in the water, reduces the surface tension of the water and reduces sulfate and carbonate scaling tendencies. By using recycled water, we have saved a considerable

amount of money each year in reduced potassium chloride usage. Recycled water was trucked from Newfield’s water treatment facility to the well site where it was stored in frac tanks. Fresh water was then mixed with the recycled water through the frac blender to make an equivalent of one percent potassium chloride water.

Once the completion was finished and the well flowing back, the produced water was trucked to a salt water disposal facility. The water recycling equipment is located at one of Newfield’s salt-water disposal wells and uses the water from the salt-water disposal facility as its water source. After the water is processed, it is stored in frac tanks until it is needed for a completion.

At the time Newfield suspended its operations in the Arkoma Basin due to low gas prices, we were searching for locations to build recycle pits and investigating the feasibility of using higher chloride water as a frac fluid so that more produced water could be recycled.

NFX Cana Woodford Operations: For the last two years Newfield has been in the exploration phase of a program in an oil rich area of the Cana Woodford Shale covering 10,000 square miles in Central Oklahoma. We have drilled more than 35 wells in the Cana Woodford, with wells yielding high volumes of oil and natural gas liquids. Only fresh water is currently being used for our frac fluids. We have been able to cut our fresh water use by two thirds and improve our well performance by changing from slick water to cross-linked gel frac’s.

With the company’s current drilling plans and the drought in Oklahoma, it is apparent that another source of water must be found and used. As we move from the exploration phase of our drilling program into the development phase, water demand will increase significantly. We are working toward recycling frac water in areas where our infrastructure has grown to a point that it makes economic sense. As part of our evaluation to recycle water, we have to compare the cost of treating produced water to the cost of the acquisition and disposal of fresh water. Reuse of the cross-linked gel water presents greater challenges than reuse of the slick water. Newfield and its vendors are in the process of working out frac fluid chemistry, water cleanup technology, and acquiring permits that will allow us to use pits to store large volumes of recycled water.

Conclusion: Newfield has recycled millions barrels of water and saved a considerable amount of money in completion costs in its Britt Ranch operations over the last 5 years. Our Granite Wash operation is a prime example of where recycling frac water is environmentally responsible and economically feasible at the same time. This is a win-win for the landowners, the community, and the company. We are working with our vendors so that this recycling model can be used in other areas of the company. Abstract 12 Summary of Recent Advances in Well Integrity Analysis for Wellbore Gas Intrusion J. Daniel Arthur, P.E., SPEC* (ALL Consulting)

Mr. Arthur is a registered professional petroleum engineer specializing in fossil energy, planning/engineering analysis, and environmental issues. He has over 25 years of diverse experience that includes work in industry, government, and consulting. Mr. Arthur is a founding member of ALL Consulting and has served as the company’s President since its inception in 1999. In 2010, Mr. Arthur was appointed to serve as a Sub-Group Leader for a National Petroleum Council study on North American Resource Development. His Sub-Group focuses on technology that is and will be needed to address development and environmental challenges through the year 2050. Mr. Arthur was also appointed to a U.S. Department of Energy Federal Advisory Committee on Unconventional Resources. Further, Mr. Arthur was nominated by the U.S Department of Energy to serve on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Advisory Committing on Hydraulic Fracturing.

Methods used for assessing the integrity of injection wells has been the subject of evaluation by state and federal regulatory officials for decades. Further, assessing the integrity of various other types of wells has been the subject of professionals that range from engineers to geophysics specialists. However, as technology has advanced and where circumstances involve the evaluation of stray gas, utilizing appropriate methods is critical as well as understanding how the presence of gas may impact analysis methods. Failure to use appropriate methods may have disastrous results or likewise may result in unnecessarily compromising protective casing strings in attempts to remediate. This paper will summarize testing and analysis methods and with an emphasis on how methods have advanced.

Abstract 13 Baseline Water Quality Characterization At Four USEPA Retrospective Case Study Areas for the EPA’s Study of Hydraulic Fracturing and Its Potential Impact on Drinking Water Resources -- Tad Fox, Andrew Barton, Alan Tilstone, and Bernhard Metzger

• Tad Fox is a Research Leader at Battelle with over 23 years experience conducting investigations to characterize and restore groundwater resources. • Andrew Barton is a Senior Research Scientist at Battelle with over 15 years experience in characterizing and remediating soil, surface water, and groundwater contamination. • Alan Tilstone is a Principal at Battelle with over 35 years experience providing environmental and earth science and engineering consulting services to the oil and gas industry

sector. • Bernhard Metzger is Battelle’s Oil & Gas Practice Leader with over 30 years in oil & gas and environmental consulting.

An initial baseline characterization of surface water and groundwater quality was performed at four USEPA retrospective case study areas. Retrospective case study areas encompass individual or groups of sites under investigation by USEPA in response to alleged water quality impacts resulting from hydraulic fracturing. Baseline characterization focused on two areas within the Marcellus Shale (Washington County and Bradford-Susquehanna Counties, PA) and one each in the Barnett Shale (Wise-Denton Counties, TX) and in the Bakken Shale (Dunn County, ND). Readily available data on applicable regulations, land use, water resources and water quality data were compiled, reviewed and documented for each area. Information pre-dating the onset of unconventional drilling and multi-stage hydraulic fracturing were used to provide an initial characterization of baseline conditions prior to substantial resource development using horizontal hydraulic fracturing. The compiled historical water quality data indicates preexisting widespread distribution of parameter concentrations higher than relevant screening criteria (e.g.; MCLs, SMCLs). Natural conditions and historical anthropogenic influences (i.e.; land uses) account for the results above the screening criteria. Many of the organic and metal parameters included in the USEPA investigation had no or very limited available water quality information prior to unconventional resource development in the four areas studied. The initial characterization of baseline conditions provides a framework for supporting and assessing information collected by industry or USEPA from the four retrospective case study areas. Available area specific historical water-quality data, land use information, and the application of sound hydrogeochemical principles should be used to inform EPA’s research and prioritization of resources. However, rigorous investigations would be required to differentiate potential natural and anthropogenic (including hydraulic fracturing) water quality impacts. Abstract 14 Well Site Spill Protection: Impacts, Trends and Technologies for Preventing Releases to Water Sources Tekla Taylor, R.G., CESM, U.S. Energy Services Leader, Golder Associates, Inc.

Tekla Taylor has over 18 years of experience in environmental and water resources management, planning and permitting. She has served on various regulatory stakeholder committees and public outreach committees related to water and environmental protection, and has worked with the oil and gas industry, conducting regulatory reviews and evaluating, developing and implementing strategies and tools for management of flowback and produced water. Ms. Taylor is a member of Western Energy Alliance, Marcellus Shale Coalition, Society of Petroleum Engineers, American Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation and is actively engaged in supporting and promoting innovative water treatment, reuse, and planning.

While there continues to be a significant concern for the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on local water sources, studies and data have shown that most incidents of shale gas drilling contamination are the result of above-ground spills or mishandling of wastewater. These incidents and the fear of their impacts on local communities have resulted in drilling restrictions or bans, increased or evolving regulations and the need for more sophisticated spill control and prevention design. The impact on development not only varies among plays, but can vary from one wellfield to the next in response to local concerns and/or requirements. In response to these concerns many innovative technologies have been designed and implemented in the field as preventive measures. These include the use of mobile water impoundments with secondary leak detection, temporary tanks, alternative transportation and infrastructure and engineered geosynthetic wellpad liners. This presentation will include a discussion of the incidents that have shaped public opinion, the evolution of regulations within the plays to address surface contamination risks, future trends and the technologies that are being implemented to mitigate environmental impacts.

Abstract 15 A Geochemical Context for Stray Gas Investigations in the Northern Appalachian Basin: Implications of Analyses of Natural Gases from Quaternary-through-Devonian-Age Strata Fred J. Baldassare1, Mark A. McCaffrey, PhD2, John A. Harper, PhD3 -- 1 ECHELON Applied Geochemistry Consulting, 1229 Twelve Oaks Ct., Murrysville, PA 15668; 2 Weatherford Laboratories, 3500 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 205, Dallas, TX 75215; 3 Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 400 Waterfront Dr., Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Fred J. Baldassare is a Sr. Geoscientist and the owner of ECHELON Applied Geochemistry Consulting. He has 20 years of experience investigating more than 200 incidents of stray gas migration. He previously served as the statewide consultant on stray gas characterization for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Fred is an experienced researcher who has helped pioneer the application and advancement of isotope geochemistry to identify and distinguish the origin of different gases. Fred has taught and lectured nationally, and at his alma mater, the University of Pittsburgh, and has co-authored professional papers for peer reviewed journals on the application of isotope geochemistry.

Mark A. McCaffrey is a Senior Technical Advisor at Weatherford Laboratories. He has 22 years of petroleum geochemistry experience, including 11 as founder and President of OilTracers LLC, a firm which Weatherford acquired in 2010. Mark has a BA in Geology (1985) from Harvard University and a Ph.D. (1990) in Chemical Oceanography from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology / Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Join Program. As an Expert Witness in gas fingerprinting, he has testified (i) in Mississippi State Court, (ii) in Ohio Federal Court, (iii) before the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, and (iv) before the Railroad Commission of Texas.

John A. Harper received an M.S. degree in geology from the University of Florida 1n 1972 and a Ph.D. in paleontology from the University of Pittsburgh in 1977. He joined the Pennsylvania Geologic Survey in the Pittsburgh office in 1977 where he has been involved primarily in data collection and dissemination, and studies of the subsurface geology and reservoir characteristics of Pennsylvania’s oil and gas fields. He currently serves as Chief of the Geologic Resources Division, overseeing programs responsible for research, data collection, and evaluation of petroleum geology and engineering, industrial minerals, coal, and both organic and inorganic geochemistry. As the pace of drilling activity to the Marcellus Formation in the northern Appalachian Basin has increased, so has the number of alleged incidents of stray natural gas migration to shallow aquifer systems. Prior to the present study, the occurrence and origin of natural gas in the strata above the Marcellus Formation in the Northern Appalachian basin has not been well defined. More than 2,300 gas and water samples were analyzed in the present study for (1) molecular composition, (2) stable carbon and hydrogen isotope compositions of methane and (3) stable carbon isotope composition of ethane. The samples are from Neogene to Middle Devonian-age strata in a five-county study area in northeastern Pennsylvania. Evaluation of this geochemical database reveals that microbial, mixed microbial/thermogenic, and thermogenic gases occur in some shallow aquifer systems, and that the gas occurrences pre-date Marcellus Formation drilling activity. The isotope data reveal that thermogenic gases in the Neogene and Upper Devonian strata are typically distinct from gases from deeper Middle Devonian strata (including the Marcellus Fm.). Significantly, however, a more detailed review of the geochemistry at the site-specific level also reveals a complex thermal and migration history with gas mixtures indicated by partial isotope reversals (δ13C1>δ13C2) in some areas throughout the stratigraphic section above the Marcellus Formation. Defining a specific source for stray natural gas requires the investigation and synthesis of several data types at the site-specific level. Molecular and isotope geochemistry provide evidence of gas origin and evidence of secondary processes that may have affected the gases. Such data provide focus for investigations where the potential sources for stray gas include multiple naturally occurring and anthropogenic gases. Additional investigation to delineate migration pathways and the mechanism of migration are necessary to further constrain and identify specific stray gas source(s).

Abstract 16 The Occurrence of Methane in Shallow Groundwater from Extensive Pre-Drill Sampling John Boulanger, P.G., AECOM, Pittsburgh, PA, Elizabeth Perry, P.G., AECOM, Chelmsford, MA, Bert Smith, P.G., Chesapeake Energy, Oklahoma City, OK Mark Hollingsworth, Chesapeake Energy, Oklahoma City, OK

Mr. John R. Boulanger, a Professional Geologist licensed in Pennsylvania and Kentucky, currently serves as a Section Manager for Environmental Sciences in AECOM’s Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania office. Mr. Boulanger received his Bachelor’s Degree in Environmental Geology from the University of Pittsburgh and his Master’s Degree in Hydrology from New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology. He currently leads numerous water quality projects throughout the Appalachian Basin and is familiar with water quality issues associated with oil & gas exploration, mining and industrial processes.

On behalf of Chesapeake Energy Corporation, sampling of over 20,000 water wells has been conducted from 2009 to the present, from shale-gas development areas across Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. Sampling was conducted prior to Marcellus/Utica Shale-related exploration, drilling, and production activities in the vicinity of these water wells. The pre-drill samples have been analyzed for methane, ethane, and propane as well as many inorganic parameters. This presentation will explore the occurrence and distribution of methane in groundwater prior to unconventional gas development. GIS-based mapping and statistics will be used to evaluate the geographic distribution and relationship to bedrock geology. The relationships between methane and other parameters can also help explain methane occurrence, including parameters such as ethane and propane, alkalinity, TDS and major ions, barium, etc. Better understanding of methane in shallow groundwater will lead to better decision-making when evaluating potential impacts of shale-gas development on water supplies and stray gas occurrence Abstract 17 Evaluation of the Relationship between pH and Dissolved Methane Concentrations in Groundwater from Domestic Water Wells in Northeastern Pennsylvania Debby Yost, Nancy Pees Coleman, Ph.D, and Charles Olmsted, P.G.

Debby Yost (debby.yost@chk.com) is a Senior Environmental Specialist with Chesapeake Energy in Oklahoma City, OK. She is formerly the quality assurance/quality control manager for a large multi-office environmental consulting firm. She has bachelors and master’s degrees from Oklahoma State University.

Nancy Pees Coleman (environconsultants@sbcglobal.net) is Environmental Toxicologist with Environmental Consultants in Oklahoma City, OK. She has over 30 years experience as an environmental toxicologist and public health professional. She has B.S. from Old Dominion University and graduate degrees from the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center.

Charles Olmsted (charles.olmsted@chk.com) is an Environmental Supervisor and hydrogeologist with Chesapeake Energy in Harrisburg, PA. He has over 24 years experience as an environmental hydrogeologist. He has bachelors and master’s degrees from Utah State University.

Dissolved methane has been found in the groundwater from domestic water wells in many locations. The dissolved methane can be naturally-occurring thermogenic, diagnetic, or biogenic or sourced from anthropogenic activities. The presence of dissolved methane in groundwater has been reported to be associated with changes in groundwater geochemistry including changes in pH, alkalinity, and sulfate. Dissolved methane has been found to be temporally variable in domestic water wells regardless of its origin. These variations are attributed to several factors, including changes in atmospheric conditions, physical disturbances, anthropogenic source, the action of water well pumping, active or passive venting of the water well, etc.

It has been suggested by some that changes in pH may be indicative of methane from natural gas wells impacting water wells and therefore, could be used as a potential indicator parameter. The appropriateness of using pH or other water quality parameters as a surrogate were examined using comprehensive and frequent monitoring data for dissolved methane, pH and other water quality parameters available for three groups of domestic water wells from northeastern Pennsylvania. Data were available for (1) wells with no known impact from oil and natural gas drilling activities, (2) wells with known perturbation of natural gas from a natural gas production well, and (3) wells under investigation for complaints related to the presence of increased levels of dissolved methane. Analytical data for these domestic water wells were evaluated for short-term temporal variability in dissolved methane and corresponding pH measurements of the the groundwater at the time of sample collection. Abstract 18 Real-Time Monitoring for Evaluating Long-Term Variability in Methane in Domestic Water Wells in Northeast Pennsylvania Charles B. Whisman, P.E.1, Bert Smith, P.G.2, Debby Yost2, Charles Olmsted, P.G., CPG2, Denise Good, P.E.1, and Richard Wardrop, P.G.1

Charles Whisman, P.E. is GES’ Chief Technical Officer and has 18 years of industry experience. He leads GES’ business strategy, engineering, and technology initiatives. He holds a BS in civil engineering and a certificate in environmental engineering from the University of Pittsburgh ; Bert Smith, P.G. is a Hydrogeologist and Regulatory Specialist at Chesapeake Energy Corporation; Debby Yost is a Senior Corporate Environmental Specialist at Chesapeake Energy Corporation; Charles Olmsted, P.G. is the Supervisor of Regulatory Compliance at Chesapeake Energy Corporation; Denise Good, P.E. is a Principal Engineer at GES; and Richard Wardrop, P.G. is a Principal Hydrogeologist at GES.

Naturally-occurring methane is present in many domestic water wells in northeast Pennsylvania. A significant amount of data is currently being collected by the oil and gas industry as a result of sampling efforts and investigations, much of which is from pre-drilling (“baseline”) sampling conducted prior to any drilling activity. However, gaps remain in understanding and quantifying the natural temporal variation in methane concentrations in these wells. This is of significant importance in assessing claims of gas migration when there is nearby anthropogenic activity. This presentation will discuss a research project developed and implemented to gain an understanding of the long-term variability of methane in domestic water wells.

Real-time remote monitoring and data trend analyses are being utilized to understand natural dissolved methane fluctuations in groundwater and correlations between methane headspace concentration in the well annulus and other physical and chemical parameters which could correlate to changes in headspace concentration. Significant efforts were made to select, evaluate, and prepare the wells for the study including borehole geophysics, well equipment upgrades, and installation of water-treatment systems. Descriptions of the customized real-time remote monitoring equipment, array of well headspace and water-quality sensors utilized, and equipment setup will be presented, as well as the associated challenges and logistics. Barometric pressure, water use, water quality, well recharge, water-level fluctuations, and pump cycling are examples of the variables monitored. Interim results from the on-going study will be presented, including discussion of well construction, geologic settings, water quality, initial trends and findings, and real-time display of data. The usefulness of the data and the accuracy/precision of sensors will be discussed. The long-term study will provide further information to better understand the occurrence and potential causes of methane fluctuations in groundwater and associated water well quality issues in northeast Pennsylvania. 1Groundwater & Environmental Services, Inc. 2Chesapeake Energy Corporation Abstract 19 Water Supply Planning, Availability and Opportunities in Oklahoma Kent Wilkins, Assistant Chief of Planning & Management, Oklahoma Water Resources Board

Kent Wilkins is the Assistant Chief for the Planning and Management Division of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (Board). Mr. Wilkins has a BS degree in Geology and has been with the Board since 1990. Prior to 1990, Mr. Wilkins worked as a well-site geologist at numerous oil and gas drill sites and as a consulting geologist investigating leaking underground fuel storage tank sites. He is currently responsible for multiple programs at the Board including Water Right Permitting, Water Well Drilling, Floodplain Management,

Dam Safety and Technical Studies. Kent has performed technical investigations related to groundwater basin studies, water right permit inspections, groundwater remediation systems and numerous other water projects. He has been involved in environmental hydrogeology and geology for over 20 years. Mr. Wilkins is a Certified Remediation Consultant, Certified Floodplain Manager and a Registered Professional Environmental Specialist. He is a member of the Oklahoma Ground Water Association, National Ground Water Association, Oklahoma Floodplain Managers Association and the Association of State Floodplain Managers.

In 2012, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board completed the Update of the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP), the most thorough and inclusive water planning effort ever conducted by the state. The OCWP contains a wealth of technical data and policy recommendations bolstered by an unprecedented level of public input and cutting-edge water science. Serving as an indispensible planning resource for water providers, policy makers, and water users alike, the OCWP identified as priorities -- many currently in implementation -- such initiatives as water/wastewater infrastructure financing, regional planning, instream flows, resolution of state/tribal water conflicts, water conservation and efficiency, expanded monitoring and data collection, and the enhancement of tools to increase water supply reliability. Fifty-year water demand projections formed the basis of numerous OCWP studies that have identified planning basins that could experience future surface water gaps and groundwater depletions as well as specific options to mitigate these potential deficits.

Water required for the oil and gas industry was specifically projected by the OCWP. Numerous oil and gas companies as well as the Oklahoma Corporation Commission provided input regarding estimated demands over the next fifty years for drilling activities, including conventional and horizontal type completions. Because unconventional drilling techniques require more water per completion than do conventional methods, additional sources of water must be considered, including supplies that historically have not been tapped to meet demands. Therefore, expanded opportunities in the use of marginal quality water sources – such as brackish groundwater, treated wastewater effluent, production water from oil and gas operations, and stormwater runoff – have the potential to augment supply in many areas of Oklahoma for drilling and primary completion purposes. Abstract 20 Evaluation of Common Cement and Bentonite Products used in Water and Monitoring Well Construction (or drilling) for Glycols, Alcohols, and Phenolic Compounds Bert Smith (Chesapeake Energy), Donald Siegel (Syracuse University). Charlie Carter (TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc.), and Chuck Neslund (EurofinsLancaster Laboratories, Inc.)

Recently, much attention has been focused on the evaluation and testing for glycols, alcohols, phenols, benzoic acid, and 2-butoxyethanol in groundwater samples from water and monitoring wells during investigations of potential impacts. New analytical methods are being developed that have allowed the detection levels for many of these compounds to be achieved in the low parts per billion (ppb) range contrasted to the conventional methods’ parts per million (ppm) range. At least one analytical method that allows ppb-range measurement of glycols is not yet widely available in the commercial analytical sector. Most, if not all, of the materials deemed to be acceptable for use in environmental monitoring well or water well construction have either not been tested for these previously mentioned compounds of concern, or to the low ppb ranges now achievable. Such products include lubricants, drilling muds and additives, cement and bentonite annular sealants, and well development additives. Environmental sample preservatives, such as reagent-grade acids, have likewise not been tested for these parameters to the low ppb ranges. To prevent false-positives during investigations, it is necessary to determine the potential contribution these materials may exhibit during laboratory analyses of samples. This presentation will discuss preliminary finding from analytical testing of common bentonites and cements used in water and monitoring well drilling and completions. Further, information will be presented that discusses the testing of certain reagent-grade preservation acids for some of these compounds.

Abstract 21 Best Suggested Practices to Reduce and Mitigate Problematic Concentrations of Methane in Residential Water Well Systems Kevin McCray, National Ground Water Association

Bio: Kevin McCray, CAE, is the Chief Executive Officer of the National Ground Water Association (NGWA). In addition to executive director of NGWA, McCray is the chief executive of the National Ground Water Research and Educational Foundation.

McCray has served on a number of water-related advisory groups, including the U.S. Water Resources Export Council, Water Systems Council, U.S. Department of Commerce mission to Australia and New Zealand, U.S. EPA/AWWA Comprehensive Integrated Resource Cooperative Blue Ribbon Panel, Kellogg Foundation Ground Water Education Consortium, the Great Lakes Commission Ground Water Education Roundtable, The American Ground Water Trust and the Ground Water Remediation Technology Analysis Center Advisory Board.

At the National Ground Water Association he has led initiatives to develop industry standards, best suggested practices, and significant upgrades to the voluntary certification program. He led an award-winning effort to develop computer-based business management tools for water well drilling and pump installation contractors. Abstract: As a benefit to members of the National Ground Water Association and others, the Association is nearing completion, by means of a consensus process, a document to provide water well system professionals (WWSP) with basic knowledge for methane gases that may be encountered during well drilling/construction and suggested practices to reduce and mitigate elevated stray (or fugitive) gas levels. Because of varying geologic conditions and other factors, it is not practical to develop a totally prescriptive guideline.

Subsurface methane may occur dissolved in groundwater or as a gas in the head space of a water supply. Sometimes the concentrations of select gases will prove to be unacceptably high even after careful site selection and well construction, or after cleaning an existing well. The WWSP can recommend cost-effective options to mitigate such problems. For instance, it may be less expensive for the consumer to install an appropriate watertight vented well cap to lower concentrations of a gas than to replace or deepen an existing well or to use a more expensive drilling technology to emplace a new well. Such decisions are site-specific and, thus, based on careful analysis by the WWSP.

For the purposes of the best suggested practices document it is not essential for the WWSP to understand groundwater chemistry or how stray gases form, although there are extensive studies and related publications that document these processes. However, the WWSP will benefit from knowing the geologic settings, as well as the human-related activities that may contribute to gas presence in water well systems.

• Section 1 offers background on the health and safety issues related to stray gases commonly encountered by water well system professionals. • Section 2 is guidance about how geologic conditions and land-use settings may affect the concentrations of methane in groundwater. • Section 3 provides a description of well location and construction methodologies to minimize the buildup of methane. • Section 4 examines well function and stray gases. • Section 5 deals with post-drilling operations. • Section 6 describes groundwater sampling methods and treatment options.

Abstract 22 Risk Concerns Associated with Waste Disposal of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids by Deep Well Injection F. Paul Bertetti, Ronald Green, and Alan Morris, Geosciences and Engineering Division, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX Bio: F. Paul Bertetti is a principal scientist in the Geology and Geochemistry Group of the Geosciences and Engineering Division at Southwest Research Institute. Mr. Bertetti’s primary expertise is in field and experimental investigations that seek to evaluate, model, and understand the relationships between the aqueous geochemistry and hydrology of the subsurface. Mr. Bertetti has used hydrochemical data and modeling to understand the hydrogeology of regional aquifer systems and has conducted several studies of groundwater chemistry to characterize flow systems, recharge, and interconnectivity of major aquifers, such as the Edwards, Edwards-Trinity, and Carrizo-Wilcox aquifers in southwest Texas. In addition, he regularly plans and conducts field-based investigations of water quality. As principal investigator for activities related to Radionuclide Transport in the Saturated Zone as part of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s high-level waste repository safety program, Mr. Bertetti also conducts laboratory and modeling studies to examine the sorption and ion-exchange behavior of dissolved radionuclides and other constituents on mineral surfaces. Abstract: Developments in hydraulic fracturing technology have enabled the economic recovery of unconventional oil and gas from tight shale formations such as the Eagle Ford Shale in south Texas. While hydraulic fracturing promises to provide new supplies of oil and natural gas to meet energy demands, there have been several concerns raised regarding the environmental impact of this drilling technology. One potential area of concern is the disposal of liquid wastes. Recent analyses have postulated that the greatest threat posed by hydraulic fracturing activities is wastewater disposal, but assessments of underground injection are lacking. The most common disposal practice in Texas is by deep-well injection. Successful disposal is achieved when the wastewater is safely injected in the targeted horizon without loss of waste into non-targeted horizons and the injected fluids remain in the targeted horizon after injection. Threats to successful disposal of the liquid wastes are encountered when the targeted disposal horizons are former oil and gas formations into which previous exploration and production wells had been drilled but not properly abandoned and when structural features provide potential fast pathways for migration of fluids.

This risk of inadvertent release of hydraulic fracturing wastewater can be mitigated by: (i) avoiding injecting wastewater into depleted oil and gas formations, (ii) expanding the area of inspection to identify improperly abandoned wells, and (iii) developing a comprehensive database of all cases of “breakout” to allow comprehensive assessment of the risk posed by inadvertent wastewater releases. In Texas, groundwater conservation districts are responsible for management and protection of the groundwater resources within their jurisdictions. Effective monitoring of groundwater quality must be tailored to the characteristics of the aquifers of concern but must also account for the complex chemistries of flowback waters and waste brines mixed with drilling additives. Abstract 23 Local Water Availability and Planning Related to Oil and Gas Development Bob Patterson, Upper Trinity Groundwater Conservation District Education: B.S. in Agriculture, New Mexico State University M.S. in Agriculture, Texas Technological University Doctorate, Veterinary Medicine, Washington State University Spent last 25 years as Business Management Consultant for large land owners, hedge funds and Resolution Trust Corporation in matters of water rights, and issues affecting those rights. Former Director-At-Large for Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. For last 5 years, General Manager of Upper Trinity Groundwater Conservation in North Texas.

Abstract: For the previous 60-70 years, the need to increase production in oil and gas development has been recognized. The primary technology utilized for this increase has been hydrofracking. Following the exploration phase with the actual drilling, a borehole will be injected under pressure with a mixture of specific drilling fluids and fresh water. The process will create microfractures in shale rock so that the proppant (sand) particles will fill in the fractured lines and hold them open so that the oil/gas mixtures can flow more freely into the borehole.

To be sure, the process comingles many complex technologies of proppant selection, fluid and chemical choices and water quality. The very critical issue of borehole integrity is preeminent and will ensure that the extremely high pressures will be contained within the casing. The cementing process must ensure the safety of all freshwater zones. The hydrofracking process is being used in both new and existing wells in most of the lower 48 states with many wells receiving the process more than once per year. In many shale play zones, the average water use per frack would be greater than 5 million gallons. Without expanding our current technologies, this is not a sustainable situation. We must utilize some form of alternative water such as recycling, desalination or brackish water development to reduce overall fresh water loss. Without this process, the entire 5 million gallons per frack will be lost to the water cycle.

Mitigation of water loss can be accomplished utilizing metering, reporting and general compliance with groundwater districts and regional water planning groups. A substantial water monitoring system must be utilized as part of a complex effort to sustain a potable water supply for the future. Abstract 24 Working toward Rational, Consistent, Science-based Risk-assessment Protocols Scott R. Kell, Ohio Oil & Gas

Bio: Scott Kell is a consulting geologist focused on national energy and groundwater protection policy. Mr. Kell served thirty years as a geologist and administrator with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Oil and Gas Division. Prior to retirement from management in 2010, Mr. Kell served ten years on the Board of Directors of the Ground Water Protection Council, including two years as President. Mr. Kell earned a B.S. in Geology from Mount Union College and a M.S. in Geology from Kent State University.

Abstract: The occurrence or migration of stray gas in groundwater can manifest as a non-threatening condition or a serious threat to public safety if not mitigated. Stray gas incidents can escalate into multi-agency emergency response events that may require coordination between industry representatives, local and state emergency responders, state regulatory officials, as well as federal officials. When multiple parties respond to emergencies, it is critical they use consistent terminology and standards with regard to characterization of methane measurements and the associated level of risk. In 2001, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement released a report prepared by a team of national experts entitled Technical Measures for the Investigation and Mitigation of Fugitive Methane Hazards in Areas of Coal Mining. Based upon a comprehensive assessment of published standards and literature, the Methane Work Group proposed a set of Recommended Action Levels for Methane concentrations in various media. These recommended action levels provide a sound and defensible foundation that should enable multiple agencies to make consistent determinations regarding 1.) recommended actions, 2.) enforcement determinations, or 3.) communications with the public or media. Such consistency is critical to agency credibility and public confidence. Abstract 25 Potential Hazards of Horizontal Drilling and Recovery of Natural Gas & Oil from Tight Shale Formations in Areas of Historical Oil & Gas Development Timothy M. Eriksen, P.G. Moody & Associates In the last decade, technological advances have revolutionized the recovery of oil and gas that was previously unrecoverable from tight shale formations. Now tight shales are being drilled horizontally in formations that were previously penetrated during historical, conventional development of deeper oil and gas bearing sands. The vertical component of unconventional wells also penetrates oil and gas bearing formations that have been commercially produced in many instances. The migration of methane has occurred along migration pathways created by legacy oil and gas wells on multiple occasions during unconventional oil and gas development. Though unconventional development may not necessarily be the root cause of such incidents, drilling and completions processes of unconventional wells can be a trigger for these incidents to occur. These same migration pathways can also potentially serve as conduits for the migration of drilling fluids and produced waters. The locations of many legacy oil and gas wells are often undocumented. For example, in the Pennsylvania portion of the Marcellus Shale play, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection estimates:

• 325,000 oil and gas wells drilled historically, • 120,000 of these wells have permits on file with the PADEP, • Over 200,000 oil and gas wells largely unaccounted for in Pennsylvania.

In many cases, legacy oil and gas wells have not been properly abandoned and do not meet the modern abandonment standards of the state regulatory agencies or the industry. Legacy wells have been “creatively” abandoned with logs, brush, cannonballs or debris handy to the site at the time of abandonment. Unconventional oil and gas operators who operate in areas of historical development can protect their assets by initiating a pre-emptive plan. A legacy well program can range from monitoring of legacy wells during drilling and completions activities to geophysical surveys to locate and subsequently abandon previously undocumented wells prior to drilling and completions activities. The determination of background conditions in legacy areas is critical prior to the onset of unconventional drilling. Abstract 26 Navigating Water Issues in Texas: Water Sourcing, Produced Water Management, Recycling, Spills, and Construction Issues. David Alleman*; J. Daniel Arthur, P.E., SPEC; Damian Zampogna; Brian Bohm (ALL Consulting) Mr. Alleman is a Senior Environmental Scientist specializing in environmental issues related to fossil energy development. He has managed a wide array of projects involving produced water and the potential environmental impacts associated with fossil energy development, especially unconventional oil and gas resources. Mr. Alleman recently served as the project manager for three U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) research projects regarding the use of alternative water sources, water lifecycle management, and produced water treatment, re-use, and disposal related to shale resource development. He has also supported a number of projects that include water management, water treatment, waste disposal, permitting, compliance, safety, and regulatory issues in all of the major shale plays in North America. In 2013, there are very roughly 1,750 active rigs drilling wells in the United States. Nearly half of these rigs are drilling wells in one state – Texas! Companies are pursuing development of the Eagle Ford of South Texas, various plays in the Permian Basin, the North Texas Granite Wash, the Barnett Shale of the Fort Worth Basin, the Cotton Valley play of East Texas, and others. Water issues vary in each of these regions. This paper will review how water management issues vary throughout Texas and how industry and regulators are managing these complex issues.

Abstract 27 Water Wells in Proximity to Natural Gas and Oil Production: Communications to Water Well Owners Kevin McCray, National Ground Water Association Private water well owners express public concern about the potential impacts to their well systems from nearby natural gas and/or oil production, including that related to the use of hydraulic fracturing technologies. State regulatory agencies are contacted by private well owners with respect to the same issues, as well as appropriate regulatory oversight. The Ground Water Protection Council and the National Ground Water Association collaborated on an informational tool for state regulatory agencies to use when responding to calls from private well owners concerned about the quality of their water in areas of hydraulic fracturing or other natural gas and oil production. The resulting brochure provides information for water well owners about the importance of testing the water quality in their water wells prior to oil and gas drilling and completion activities. The brochure explains that if a problem is suspected following oil and gas drilling activities predevelopment testing can provide a baseline for water quality comparison.

Because of the complexity and cost of testing groundwater for evidence of hydraulic fracturing-related contamination, the brochure is designed to give private well owners simple steps to follow, and a relatively less expensive approach to follow-up testing by checking a handful of constituents that could serve as effective indicators of potential hydraulic fracturing-related contamination.

Kevin McCray, CAE, is the Chief Executive Officer of the National Ground Water Association (NGWA). In addition to executive director of NGWA, McCray is the chief executive of the National Ground Water Research and Educational Foundation. McCray has served on a number of water-related advisory groups, including the U.S. Water Resources Export Council, Water Systems Council, U.S. Department of Commerce mission to Australia and New Zealand, U.S. EPA/AWWA Comprehensive Integrated Resource Cooperative Blue Ribbon Panel, Kellogg Foundation Ground Water Education

Consortium, the Great Lakes Commission Ground Water Education Roundtable, The American Ground Water Trust and the Ground Water Remediation Technology Analysis Center Advisory Board.

At the National Ground Water Association he has led initiatives to develop industry standards, best suggested practices, and significant upgrades to the voluntary certification program. He led an award-winning effort to develop computer-based business management tools for water well drilling and pump installation contractors. Abstract 28 Exploring Environmental, Regulatory, and Social Advantages of Produced Water Management/Treatment Melinda Truskowski, and Tekla Trylor Golder Associates, Inc. Melinda is the Global Unconventional Oil and Gas Leader for Golder and is located in Golder’s Denver, Colorado office. She is responsible for building cross-discipline and cross-geography teams to deliver integrated technical and non-technical services for Golder's oil and gas sector clients in unconventional resource plays. Melinda has over 25 years of experience in oil and gas exploration and production, as well as environmental consulting, providing sound technical and business solutions. Ms. Truskowski holds both a B.S. and M.S. in Geophysical Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines. Management of produced water from unconventional resource development impacts a wide range of stakeholders in the petroleum industry, the regulatory community, and the general population. Consideration of the role of water in the local community and appropriate communication can influence operational decisions and a company’s social license to operate. In response to these issues, a number of jurisdictions have enacted regulations that add clarity to alternative sourcing and provide incentives for recycling and reuse. This presentation will provide an overview of the water management discussion both in the industry and the community, the overall philosophy of water management planning, and some approaches to develop a water management plan that balances the demands of stakeholders with fiscal constraint, while remaining compliant with applicable regulations. The conversation in popular and social media implies that the use of hydraulic fracturing takes water out of the hydrologic cycle, competing with other beneficial uses. Data will be presented that demonstrates the overall industry water balance, particularly when long-term associated water production is considered. Operators need to manage the costs associated with produced water management in an environment of constrained disposal options and increased pressure to recycle water. Produced water management planning should take into consideration the full water lifecycle from sourcing through disposition and draw from the various functions within the organization to ensure an implementable plan. A dynamic simulation tool will be described that considers the technical feasibility of a range of water transportation and storage what-if scenarios. Costs are developed for each of the scenarios, including phasing of the options over time. The scenarios can then be optimized using a Monte Carlo simulation on the basis of the project net present value. Fiscal period budgetary estimates can be developed over the life of the project for the selected water management scenario. Abstract 29 RBDMS, RBDMS Wellfinder, Wellbore and Environmental: Integrating and Tracking Oil, Gas and Water Data Paul Jehn, GWPC State regulatory agencies have the responsibility to oversee oil and gas operations. Those operations generate a large amount of data in various forms. Managing and making that data available in an effective and coordinated way presents challenges to the agencies and to other interested users in the private and research sectors. The GWPC’s Risk Based Data Management System (RBDMS) is installed in 23 states and successfully warehouses and manages millions of data points for oil, gas, water and UIC wells. RBDMS is a modular program which allows state to select and customize these modules to meet their particular regulatory environment. RBDMS and RBDMS modules include:

RBDMS.net data warehouse Online data mining Field inspection Electronic commerce; permitting and reporting RBDMS hydrofrac module RBDMS Environmental: electronically stores and manages air, water and soil data Wellbore schematic RBDMS/fracfocus link Smartphone wellfinder app: underdevelopment National oil and gas information gateway: underdevelopment

RBDMS is developed and maintained with funding from the US Department of Energy, state regulatory agencies, and other private funding sources. Abstract 30 Emergency Response Procedures and Protocol in Texas. Dale Kohler, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Dale Kohler is currently the Executive Assistant to the Executive Director at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Dale has worked at the TCEQ or its predecessor agencies for over 30 years and has worked in a variety of programs including UIC Class III permitting and enforcement, field operations, emergency response, and Homeland Security. Among other events, Dale has helped coordinate response and recovery efforts for Hurricanes Rita, Katrina, Dolly, and Ike, as well as for the Space Shuttle Columbia Recovery efforts in 2003, the Austin IRS Building plane crash in 2010, the Texas wildfires, and the fire and explosion in West, Texas in 2013. Dale is also the TCEQ representative on the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in Austin. Walter Gwyn is the District Director of the Texas Railroad Commission's Oil and Gas division for the Wichita Falls District 09 office. Walter graduated in 1979 from Texas A & M University at Kingsville with a bachelor’s degree in geology. He began his Railroad Commission career in 1981 in the Wichita Falls district office as the staff geologist, becoming the Assistant District Director in 1990 and then District Director in 2000. The Wichita Falls district office is staffed with 27 employees and its region encompasses 15 North Texas counties that include the Newark East, Barnett Shale formation. The oldest continuous regulatory agency in Texas, the Railroad Commission was established in 1891 to oversee the rail industry and in 1919, the oil and gas industry. Today, it regulates the state's oil and gas industry, gas utilities, pipeline safety and surface mining of coal and uranium”. Abstract: An emergency is the occurrence or imminent threat of a condition, incident, or event that requires immediate response actions to save lives; prevent injuries; protect property, public health, the environment, and public safety; or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster. However, an emergency can quickly turn into a disaster if proper and sometimes immediate steps are not taken. In Texas, Mayors and County Judges have responsibility for emergency preparedness and response within their local jurisdictions. But how did they get this authority? Emergency management policy tends to be reactive, with legislation, regulations, programs and policies created in response to a specific natural disaster or threat. And since the early 1900's the government's role has been expanding with nearly every Administration change. From the Great Galveston Storm of 1900 to the outbreak of devastating tornadoes in Oklahoma in May, certain "focusing events" cause the role of federal, state, and local government to evolve into what it is today. These major events drive changes in laws, regulations, systems and practices.

A federal document called the National Response Framework (NRF) currently guides how the nation conducts a national response -- not just a federal response -- to all-hazards incidents. The NRF identifies response principles through the use of the National Incident Management System or NIMS, which is an organizational system that describes how first responders from different jurisdictions and disciplines can work together. It is flexible, scalable, and adaptable to the size and nature of the incident to organize at the right level—local, then state, then federal. Throughout its history, Texas has endured numerous disasters and catastrophic incidents, the latest of which was the tragic fire and explosion in West, Texas in April. The impact of that incident, as well as all the others will be long-felt and they have become poignant chapters in the history of the state. But they also serve as a testament to the enduring spirit of humans to overcome and learn from hardship. This characteristic is the very core doctrine of emergency response and management. Abstract 31 Microbially Mediated Association between Methane and Groundwater Geochemistry Lisa Molofsky, GSI Abstract: Over the past two decades, numerous publications have shown that hydrocarbon degrading microorganisms are ubiquitous in the subsurface environment, and that in fact, approximately 85% of dissolved petroleum hydrocarbon plumes are at steady state conditions because of intrinsic bioremediation. Lessons learned from the expansive literature on the nature and effects of the biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons can be applied to improve our understanding of the microbially driven degradation of methane and the associated changes in groundwater geochemistry. This talk will discuss the prevailing redox conditions naturally observed in groundwater in northeastern Pennsylvania, and how groundwater geochemistry changes as a result of a sudden influx of new methane. Bio: Ms. Molofsky received an M.S. degree in Geochemistry from the University of Arizona in 2009, and since joining GSI Environmental as a Geologist, has been involved in numerous site investigation, research, and litigation support projects. Ms. Molofsky research interests are focused on water resource management issues associated with hydraulic fracturing and the identification and quantification of sources of variability in groundwater monitoring. Prior to joining GSI, Ms. Molofsky conducted research in the use of stable and radiogenic isotopes as tracers. Abstract 32 Responding to Stray Gas Incidents: Marcellus Shale Coalition Recommended Practice Debby Yost, Chesapeake Energy Debby Yost serves as the co-chair of the Environmental Stewardship Subcommittee of the Technical Committee of the Marcellus Shale Coalition. She is a Senior Environmental Specialist in the Environmental Compliance Group for Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Oklahoma City, OK. She was the quality assurance manager for a full-service environmental consulting firm prior to joining the staff of Chesapeake. She has B.S. and M.S. degrees from Oklahoma State University. Investigation of stray gas incidents requires careful planning and consideration of the complex issues which surround these events. The Environmental Stewardship Subcommittee of the Technical Committee of the Marcellus Shale Coalition has developed a publically-available Recommended Practice (RP) which outlines a framework to approach the investigation of a stray gas incident. The RP was developed by a committee which included representatives of oil and gas operators, supply chain partners, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). Several subcommittee members had a considerable experience in investigation of stray gas incidents. The RP defines response elements including initial response actions, conduct of site reconnaissance survey, development of an action plan, and both initial and longer-term mitigation and corrective actions. The presentation will step through the RP elements and include a discussion of some lessons learned from prior stray gas incident investigations.

Abstract 33 Baseline Water Quality Sampling Programs in Shale Gas Exploration and Production Areas Debby Yost, Mark Hollingsworth, and Nancy Pees Coleman

Debby Yost is a Senior Environmental Specialist in the Environmental Compliance Group for Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Oklahoma City, OK. She was the quality assurance manager for a full-service environmental consulting firm prior to joining the staff of Chesapeake. She has B.S. and M.S. degrees from Oklahoma State University. Debby.Yost@chk.com; 405-935-4179. Mark Hollingsworth is the Environmental Manager of the Baseline Sampling Program for Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Oklahoma City, OK. Prior to joining Chesapeake, he was a Program Manager for Test America, Inc. in Nashville, Tennessee. Mr. Hollingsworth has a B.S. degree in Chemistry from David Lipscomb University. Mark.Hollingsworth@chk.com; 405-935-2417. Nancy Pees Coleman is an environmental toxicologist and owner of Environmental Consultants in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. She has over 30 years experience in evaluation of environmental data and risk assessment. Prior to entering consulting, she was toxicologist/epidemiologist for the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. She has a B.S. degree from Old Dominion University and M.P.H. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. r-n-coleman@sbcglobal.net; 405-935-7523. Over 37,000 baseline or “pre-drill” samples of groundwater from privately-owned domestic water wells and surface water resources have been collected in seven shale plays within the United States where active exploration for natural gas and natural gas liquids is being conducted. There are a number of challenges associated with the volume of sampling and analyses involved in baseline sampling programs. The experience gained from a large baseline sampling program will be presented. The major challenge is that the future need for any specific piece of baseline data is rarely known at time that the baseline sample is collected and analyzed. Recognition of the purpose and limitations of single-sample baseline sampling regimens is critical to operation of a baseline sampling program. This is particularly challenging when using the baseline sampling data to interpret findings in “post-completion”, that is samples taken after drilling has been conducted. Issues related to analytical parameter selection and criteria for isotopic analysis of light gases as well as electronic data delivery and management will be discussed. Challenges related to light gas sampling methods and sampling personnel training issues will also be presented. Baseline sampling programs must have in place a procedure for rapid notification of the client regarding exceedences of standards or benchmark values for analytical parameters, especially for dissolved light gases. Abstract 34 Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Stress: Growing Competitive Pressures for Water Ryan Salmon, Oil & Gas Program Manager, Ceres, Inc. Ryan Salmon is a Manager in the Oil & Gas Program at Ceres, Inc., a nonprofit organization that leads a network of over 100 institutional investors representing $11 trillion in assets focused on environmental, social, and governance issues. Ryan works with investors, companies, and policymakers to address the environmental and social risks of oil and gas development. He focuses on engaging with companies in the sector to improve their disclosure and performance related to key sustainability challenges, including air and water quality, public health, and worker safety. Prior to joining Ceres, Ryan was an Energy Policy Advisor for the National Wildlife Federation. He holds an M.S. in environmental management from the University of Vermont.

Using data from FracFocus and water stress indicator maps from the World Resources Institute, Ceres analyzed water use in hydraulic fracturing operations across the US and the extent to which they are taking place in water stressed regions. Data were analyzed for more than 25,000 shale gas and tight oil wells in operation from January 2011 through September 2012. The results showed the number of wells hydraulically fractured and the volume of water injected by state and level of water stress. Nearly half of the wells were in areas of high to extremely high water stress, meaning that much of the available water is already withdrawn for municipal, agricultural, industrial, and other uses. Many important efforts and innovations are taking place to reduce the use of freshwater in hydraulic fracturing operations. The use of recycled water and alternative sources such as wastewater, saline water, seawater, or acid-mine drainage is growing. But considering the projected sharp increases in shale energy production in the coming years, much of which is projected to occur in water stressed regions, competition and conflicts over water should be a growing concern. Working with investors, companies, policymakers, and other NGOs, Ceres work in this area aims to improve measurement, disclosure, and management of water resources, as well as community engagement practices. Abstract 35 Environmentally Focused Technologies for Oilfield Water Treatment Carl J. Vavra, Research Scientist, GPRI – Global Petroleum Research Institute, Texas A&M University Carl Vavra has BS and MS degrees from Texas A&M University and has worked with treatment of oilfield wastewaters for 15 years. He has been employed at Texas A&M for 25 years with experiences in food, chemical, biofuels, environmental and water/wastewater treatment and processing. Carl is responsible for conducting research and testing new technologies for applications in treating oilfield (oil & gas) wastewaters for reuse. Testing includes pilot testing and field testing in the US. Additionally, Carl organizes two Water/Wastewater Short Courses each year at Texas A&M University. Shale is known as a "tight" gas reservoir, indicating that the gas is not easily extracted. The shale is very hard, and it was virtually impossible to produce gas in commercial quantities from this formation until recent improvements were made in hydraulic fracturing technology and horizontal drilling, and there was an upturn in the natural gas price. Large amounts of water are used for successfully fracturing the reservoirs. Many of the areas where development is occurring are already water “stressed” due to population and drought conditions. There are also environmental concerns with the amounts of water being used and the water sources (lakes, streams, aquifers). Certain amounts of these wastewaters can be treated for re-use successfully and economically. Technologies are available for use in treating these wastewaters to an acceptable level of purity for reuse. Shale gas development relies heavily on multi-stage hydraulic fracturing to maximize the economic viability of each new well. In recent years, the industry is aiming at re-use of frac flow back brine to reduce costs and environmental impact of operations. The challenge is to identify technologies and approaches for treating the frac water that returns to the surface following a frac job (frac flowback water) for beneficial re-use in other applications, thereby conserving other local freshwater supplies. Field trials have been conducted to test new technology to treat brines and make them amenable for re-use in subsequent oil field operations. Objectives are (1) to integrate developing technologies into systems that lower cost and improve performance of unconventional gas shale development, (2) to bring new technologies to a “proving ground” where they can be evaluated for commercial potential, (3) to demonstrate technology to reduce the environmental footprint of O&G operations and (4) to disseminate the information. The Texas A&M GPRI produced water treatment program began in the year 2000. In the past decade we have shown that produced water and frac flowback brine from shale gas and tight gas well drilling operations can be treated and reused instead of tapping in to additional fresh water resources. Now the program is working to demonstrate that low cost, mobile units can be deployed in field operations to replace the more costly and environmentally questionable practices currently being employed in field operations.

Abstract 36 EPA Water Management Issues Michael Overbay, P.G., USEPA Region 6

Michael began his career in the mid 1980’s with a short stint as an off-shore mud logger before moving to an independent oil and gas producer in Fort Worth. Unfortunately, oil went to $8/barrel and he had to find a new career. In 1987, he began his EPA career in the Water Quality Section, and in 1990 transferred to the Hazardous Waste Division, where he spent the next 18 years investigating soil, ground water and surface water contamination at both RCRA and Superfund sites. These included chemical plants, refineries, plating operations, mining sites, landfills, ordnance ranges, and military bases. In 2008, he transferred back to the Water Division, where he now leads their Ground Water Center, working primarily on oil and gas issues, including providing technical support to the EPA national study of hydraulic fracturing.

Natural gas development is increasing across the country. Responsible development of America's shale gas resources offers important economic, energy security, and environmental benefits. EPA is working to improve our scientific understanding of hydraulic fracturing and provide regulatory clarity with respect to existing laws to enhance health and environmental safeguards. This presentation will include an update on two EPA efforts to protect drinking water resources related to natural gas development. First, an update on the draft UIC Permitting Guidance for Hydraulic Fracturing Activities using Diesel Fuels. Second, an overview of the Office of Research and Development’s study on the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources. The scope of the study traces the water lifecycle of hydraulic fracturing from acquisition to disposal. Abstract 37 Stray Gas Incident Response Fred Baldassare, P.G.

Fred Baldassare is a Sr. Geoscientist and owner of Echelon Applied Geoscience Consulting. He has 19 years of experience investigating approximately 200 incidents of stray gas migration. Fred previously worked for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection where he developed the agency’s stray gas investigation protocol and served as the statewide consultant for characterizing source(s) of stray carbon dioxide and methane. Fred has helped to pioneer the application and advancement of isotope geochemistry to characterize microbial and thermogenic gases. He has authored and co-authored peer reviewed manuscripts and guidance documents on the application of isotope geochemistry and stray gas response.

Incidents of alleged stray gas migration often require the evaluation of multiple potential sources in the area of investigation. The source of stray gas may be the result of a natural condition or due to anthropogenic activity. Incidents can manifest as non-threatening or as a potential risk to public health and safety. Incident response must, therefore, be prioritized to include assessment and monitoring protocols that are prioritized to identify and mitigate potential threats to public health and safety. Following this response, a more deliberate investigation is necessary to identify the potential stray gas source(s) and to identify the mechanism of migration.

Stray gas samples analyzed for molecular composition and isotope geochemistry provide evidence to constrain gas origin and narrow the focus on potential sources early on in the investigation; however, similarities in stable carbon and hydrogen isotope compositions between a receptor and potential source are not, exclusively, sufficient evidence to identify the stray gas source. Forensic evidence determined from additional isotope analyses, time series geochemical data, time series monitoring data, and investigation to identify mechanism of migration are necessary to provide further lines of evidence to identify the stray gas source(s).

Abstract 38 Investigations of Complaints Alleging Impacts to Groundwater Quality from Oil and Gas Operations in the Raton Basin, Colorado Peter Gintautas, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

Gas composition, gas and water isotopic composition, overall inorganic composition and analysis of specific chemicals used in drilling and completion and can be and are utilized in investigations of potential impacts to individual water wells. Case studies from investigation of three complaints in the Raton Basin with alleged impacts to groundwater quality from nearby CBM well operations including a produced water spill from a lined pit, as well as from drilling and completion operations will be used to illustrate the complaint investigation framework COGCC staff have developed and effectively utilized. Baseline and continuing groundwater monitoring in areas of coal bed methane (CBM) development has been required for more than 10 years in the San Juan Basin and has been required as part of CBM development in all of Colorado since 2009. Impacts to groundwater quality from spills and drilling activities were observed in two of the three cases presented. No impacts to groundwater quality from a nearby hydraulic fracture CBM well stimulation were observed in the third case.

Peter Gintautas is an Environmental Protection Specialist at the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Peter has more than 30 years of experience in geology, geochemistry and environmental chemistry. Peter has performed research on the interaction and transport of metals and organic compounds from natural and anthropogenic sources in ground waters, soils, sediments and surface waters. Peter has investigated numerous instances of potential groundwater contamination and the relationships between oil and gas exploration and production activities in Colorado. He performs both prospective (baseline) and retrospective studies of groundwater chemistry in areas with ongoing development of unconventional oil and gas resources. Peter earned a BS in Geology from the University of Minnesota, an MSc in Geology with a specialization in applied geochemistry from the University of Calgary and a Ph.D. in Geochemistry with a minor in Geology from the Colorado School of Mines. Abstract 39 Reducing the Environmental Impact of Gas Shale Development Ann Smith, GSI

Ann P. Smith, P.E. is a Vice-President with GSI Environmental Inc. (GSI), in Austin, Texas. She has 30 years of experience on projects focusing on soil and groundwater contamination for O&G, Government, and commercial clients. Ms. Smith supports the O&G industry on environmental permits and regulations, development of water balance tools to quantify and manage flowback, recycling, and disposal activities, evaluation of stray gas incidents and sustainability. Currently, she is managing a RPSEA project to develop practical guidelines for baseline groundwater sampling and stray gas investigations, air emissions, and on-site analysis of produced water at shale gas development sites.

GSI Environmental Inc. (GSI) and Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources (IRNR) and Global Petroleum Research Institute (GPRI) have been awarded the first phase of a $3.5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA) program. This project is developing scientifically based protocols for assessing three important environmental issues associated with shale gas development. The GWPC presentation will focus on project background, strategies, team members, goals, next steps and how to get involved. Stray Gas Impacts and Baseline Sampling To develop practical guidelines for baseline groundwater sampling and stray gas investigations, we will evaluate the effects of sampling methodologies, temporal variability and groundwater geochemistry on water quality and dissolved gas concentrations and composition. Air Emissions To advanced field site measurement tools and models to assess potential air emissions from flowback impoundments and provide guidelines for measurement of air emissions and effective methods for control of hydrocarbon vapors and ozone precursors. Produced Water To facilitate cost-effective reuse, treatment and/or disposal of flowback water, we will evaluate tools and techniques for on-site analysis of the key chemical and microbial constituents of produced water.

Abstract 40 Analytical Protocols for Oilfield Waters Johnny Robinson – Oil & Gas Market Manager, Hach Company Johnny has 23 years experience in analytical chemistry research and development with a focus in the Oil and Gas Industry. He helped to develop new products and test methods for the analysis of flowback, produced, and source water. Prior to joining Hach Company, Johnny worked for the Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M. University, UT Health Science Center – San Antonio. Johnny is a 1983 graduate of Texas A&M University with degrees in microbiology and chemistry. Hach Company, a Danaher company, is the global leader in products and services for water analytics. Analyzing matrices with high total dissolved solids is difficult for any methodology, especially ones where on-site field analysis is critical. Oilfield waters are a complex mixture of chemical additives and naturally occurring compounds from the wellbore that require an innovative development approach. Hach’s application team modified currently accepted methods to precisely analyze these difficult matrices by eliminating chemical interferences with reagent additions and altering sample volumes. These new modified methods are used on Hach’s current colorimetric, titration and electrochemistry platforms. The new methods have simple step-by-step procedures that allow the operator to select the sample concentration range of LR, MR, and HR for the colorimetric and sample volume for the titrametric methods; making it easy to analyze extremely high analyte concentration ranges. Abstract 41 The FracFocus 2.0 System: A Better Way to Disclose Chemical Information Mike Nickolaus, Ground Water Protection Council Mike Nickolaus received his Bachelor’s degree in Geology from Indiana University and has been a Licensed Professional Geologist since 1986. He is also a member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Mike has worked as the Special Projects Director for the GWPC since May, 2005. In this capacity he is responsible for development and management of projects related to water/ energy issues and underground injection control. Prior to joining GWPC, Mike worked for the Indiana Division of Oil and Gas for nearly 20 years in program enforcement, permitting, and underground injection control. In his final two years with the division, Mike served as the state Director of Oil and Gas. This presentation will be used to discuss the history of the FracFocus system, the rationale behind upgrades made to the system and the way the FracFocus 2.0 system currently works. It will include a discussion of the specific changes made to FracFocus, the new user categories, the utilities and forms available to users and the advantages of the new capabilities of the system. The presentation will cover the public and private sides of the system and include a discussion of the public site including its informational functions and data searching and presentation capabilities. Attendees will learn the basics of the FracFocus 2.0 data entry system and how to access, validate, correct and submit a disclosure record. Abstract 42 David J. Porter was elected to serve a six-year term as Texas Railroad Commissioner in November 2010. Since taking office, Commissioner Porter has been appointed to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission as the Official Representative of Texas by Texas Governor Rick Perry. He has also been appointed as Governor Perry’s official representative on the Interstate Mining Compact Commission and currently serves as an advisory board member for the Texas Journal of Oil, Gas, and Energy Law.

Porter created the Eagle Ford Shale Task Force, the first of its kind at the Texas Railroad Commission, to establish a forum that will bring the community together and foster a dialogue regarding drilling activities in the Eagle Ford Shale. The Task Force is comprised of local community leaders, elected officials, industry representatives, environmental groups, and landowners. The goal of the group is to open the lines of communication between all parties involved, establish recommendations for developing the Eagle Ford Shale, and promote economic benefits locally and statewide. Before taking office, Commissioner Porter built a successful small business around his CPA practice in Midland Texas, providing accounting and tax services to oil and gas producers, royalty owners, oil field service companies, and other small businesses and individuals. Porter was born in Fort Lewis, Washington in 1956 while his father was serving in the US Army. He graduated magna cum laude from Harding University in May of 1977 with a bachelor’s degree in accounting. He passed the CPA exam on his first attempt in November of 1977 and became a Texas CPA in September 1981, the same year he moved to Midland. David met his wife, Cheryl, while attending Harding University, and they were married in 1979. They are the proud parents of one daughter and are also the proud grandparents of a three-year old granddaughter. Abstract 43 Bob Griffith has over 20 years experience in the Oil & Gas industry. His experience ranges from transportation, drilling, and production. In 2002, he received a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and holds certifications from Microsoft and Comptia for A+, Net+, MCSA, MCSE & Mcdba. Bob joined the Oklahoma Corporation Commission in 2004 as a field inspector. He was soon promoted to join a project management and development team which moved the Oil & Gas Division into the 21st century. One key project is the RBDMS system that covers a variety of applications from electronic filing to field inspection, and web based data mining. It also modernized OCC Field Inspectors to work remotely with laptops, broadband wireless Air cards, Eforms, GIS capability onsite which increased efficiency and productivity. His current project involves the completion, implementation, and training for the State of Oklahoma’s GWPC RBDMS system. This unique project has allowed Bob to speak to agency leaders from other states concerning their interest in this system. Bob holds memberships with the Ground Water Protection Council, RBDMS Technical Committee, Professional Petroleum Data Management, IEEE Society and Petroleum Technology Transfer Council. Abstract 44 FracFocus 2.0 Training Rich Haut, Houston Advanced Research Center Dr. Richard Haut is currently a Senior Research Scientist at the Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC) where he serves as the program director for the Environmentally Friendly Drilling (EFD) program in partnership with Texas A&M University, other universities, industry and environmental organizations with the objective of providing unbiased science to address environmental issues associated with petroleum drilling and production. The effort was recognized by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, receiving their Chairman’s Environmental Partnership award in 2009. Dr. Haut’s technical background includes a Master’s degree and a Ph.D. in Engineering. He has over 25 years of industry technical and management experience prior to joining HARC in June 2002. Shortly after the launch of FracFocus, users of the site noted some difficulty in entering, uploading and storing data in The Chemical Registry. In 2012, the GWPC and IOGCC began work on a newer version of FracFocus called FracFocus 2.0 in order to use more efficient mechanisms for the growing number of Registry entries as well as ease of use.

Training on the new system will be needed, so a training webinar was created and is found on FracFocus’ website (www.fracfocus.org) as well as the Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems website (www.efdsystems.org/fracfocus). Whereas FracFocus 1.0 utilized an Excel spreadsheet template that had to be loaded on each individual computer, FracFocus 2.0 incorporates Extensible Markup Language (XML). This new platform allows the FracFocus system to check many more data elements for errors than the Excel spreadsheet could. Because it is a new format, the training webinar explains the processes involved in XML and affords those utilizing FracFocus 2.0 the opportunity to review as often as they need. Features in this training module such as an index so users can select the slides they wish to review and closed caption in the event the narration is not ideal have been incorporated in this webinar. The approaches for data review, editing, and uploading used in FracFocus 2.0 are different from those in FracFocus 1.0. This training presentation was developed based on the features and mechanisms included in FracFocus 2.0 as of December 2012. The webinar has options designed to accommodate viewers’ schedules. New terminology, data flow paths, and a case example is presented. Screenshots of the four user categories and icons that represent the varying tasks are provided along with step by step instructions on entering, reviewing and editing data. The guidance manual and training presentations can be updated as new features and mechanisms become part of FracFocus 2.0. Abstract 45 Bio for Leslie Savage

Leslie Savage is the Chief Geologist for the Oil and Gas Division of the Railroad Commission of Texas. Over her almost 30 years of employment with the Commission, Ms. Savage helped develop and/or supervised the Commission’s programs for underground injection control, surface waste management, hazardous oil and gas wastes, naturally occurring radioactive material, waste minimization, and geologic storage of carbon dioxide. Ms. Savage currently is responsible for coordinating rulemaking for the division, coordinating with federal and other state agencies, and water quality certification of federal permits. Ms. Savage has represented the Commission in several state and national organizations, including the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, and currently is on the board of the national Ground Water Protection Council. Ms. Savage graduated from the University of Texas at Austin in 1982 with a B.S. in Geology.

Abstract 46 Stray Gas Prevention: Industry Initiatives Glen Benge, Benge Consulting

Glen Benge recently retired from ExxonMobil where he spent over 24 years working as a technical advisor in drilling. While at ExxonMobil he oversaw the cementing and wellbore isolation technologies for their global drilling operations. He has 35 years of experience associated with all aspects of oil field cementing and has authored numerous papers and texts on all aspects of cementing design and application. He is past Chairman of API Subcommittee 10 on Cementing, and has been an active member of API SC10 for over 30 years.

Most recently, Mr. Benge has authored technical papers on zonal isolation in Carbon Capture and Sequestration projects. He is a technical editor for SPE Drilling and Completion Journal and has served as Technical Session Chairman for the National AADE Conference, and on the steering committee for the SPE Forum on Advanced Drilling Techniques. He serves on industry advisory groups for the US Department of Energy and the U.S. National Energy Testing Laboratory. He is past president of the New Orleans Chapter of the American Association of Drilling Engineers, and has been a member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers for 35 years.

Proper wellbore construction and assurance potential flow zones are properly sealed are critical aspects of any successful operation. In December 2010, the API issued an updated industry best practice that addresses the isolation of potential flow zones for all wells. API Standard 65-2 contains industry recognized best practices for wellbore construction, installation of barriers within the well, and presents evaluation criteria to assure the various aspects of well construction are addressed. The Standard serves as a template for

discussion between industry and regulatory agencies. This presentation will look at the highlights of API Standard 65-2 and how it relates to proper well construction. Good cementing practices from well design through operational procedures and final evaluation of the well are covered. Abstract 47 Alternative Water Sources for Unconventional Resource Development Authors: David Alleman, ALL Consulting; J. Daniel Arthur, P.E., ALL Consulting, Nathan Alleman, ALL Consulting David Alleman is an Environmental Manager/Ecologist with ALL Consulting (www.all-llc.com). Mr. Alleman earned his Bachelors degree in Wildlife Ecology and his Masters degree in Plant Ecology from Oklahoma State University. He has a long history of environmental research related to energy production in the United States. Mr. Alleman’s energy and environmental experience includes both conventional and unconventional oil and gas development, with a focus on water issues. As a former research manager with the U.S. Department of Energy, he has been involved in many of the significant technical and regulatory environmental issues affecting industry over the last 25 years. Across the nation, availability of useable water supplies is becoming a significant concern for many communities. In some areas of the United States, limited fresh water supplies threaten to limit oil and gas development. As shale development increases, it will become more important to manage produced water in a way that reduces costs, protects the environment, and meets local needs. In an effort to reduce demands on fresh water resources, many operators have begun to evaluate alternate sources of water to supplement or replace their fresh water sources. This presentation will examine some of the alternate water sources available as well as some of the considerations affecting their use. Abstract 48 (bio) Bridget Scanlon Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin Bridget Scanlon is a Senior Research Scientist at the University of Texas at Austin. Bridget has 25 years of experience in many aspects of hydrology and has authored ~50 refereed journal articles. Her research focuses primarily on water resources, including impacts of land use and climate on water availability. More recently she has been evaluating the interdependence of water and energy, particularly within the context of extreme droughts and implications for water and energy security in Texas.

List of Attendees First_Name Last_Name Organization

David Alleman ALL Consulting

Scott Anderson Environmental Defense Fund

James Arthur ALL Consulting, LLC

Roy Arthur ALL Consulting, LLC

Carlos Aya Shell

mary anna babich Dawood Engineering, Inc.

Gerry Baker IOGCC

Fred Baldassare ECHELON Applied Geosciences Consulting

Chris Balough Hull & Associates, Inc.

Lindsay Bass XTO Energy, Inc.

Stan Belieu Nebraska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

Lawrence Bengal Arkansas Oil & Gas Commission

Glen Benge Benge Consulting

Laurie Benge Benge Consulting

Michael Bergstrom Shell

Paul Bertetti Southwest Research Institute

Cary Betz Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Michael Bevan Alberta Energy Regulator

Dave Bolin Alabama State Oil and Gas Board

John Boulanger AECOM

Brent Bowerman Baseline Water Resource Inc.

Greg Bronson Baseline Water Resource Inc.

Darrell Brownlow Carrizo Consulting & Intercoastal Inland Services

Ryan Bruner Noble Energy, Inc.

Michael Caldwell Waste Management

Geraldine Camilli Horsley Witten Group

Adam Carpenter American Water Works Association

Teddy Carter Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Assoc

Hector Casablanca Abengoa Water

Stan Casey Concho Resources

Tim Champagne Michael Covert Terracon

Jamie Crawford Mississippi Dept of Environmental Quality

Dominic Digiulio USEPA

Jeanne Eckhart The University of Texas At Austin

Timothy Eriksen Moody and Associates, Inc.

Calvin Finch Texas A&M Water Conservation and Technology Center

Tad Fox Battelle Memorial Institute

JEROME FRANK Bridgeport Economic Development Corporation

Kevin Frederick Wyoming Department Of Environmental Quality

Lee Fuller IPAA

Peter Gintautas Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission

Yael Glazer The University of Texas at Austin

Bob Griffith Oklahoma Corporation Commission

Nick Groves EOG resources, Inc.

Ben Grunewald Ground Water Protection Council

Keith Hackley Isotech Laboratories

Jonathan Hafer Chief Oil & Gas LLC

Cliff Harris INFICON

Richard Haut Houston Advanced Research Center

Deborah Hemple-Medina The University of Texas at Ausin

Roxana Herrera BP America Production Company

H. William Hochheiser ALL Consulting

David Holt Permian Basin Petroleum Association

Robert Horner Argonne National Laboratory

Roy Horton Railroad Commission of Texas

Paul Jehn Ground Water Protection Council

Mimi Johnson Mimi D Johnson

Scott Kell Ohio DNR Division of Oil&Gas Resources Management

Matt Kellogg IPAA

Wendy Kirchoff Noble Energy, Inc.

Jill Kjellsson University of Texas at Austin

Dale Kohler Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Jonathan Koplos The Cadmus Group, Inc.

Steven Lakeman INFICON

Terry Lauck ConocoPhillips

David Leavitt Oklahoma Corporation Commission

Joe Lee Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protectio

Matt Lewis Swire Oilfield Services

Zichang Li University of Pittsburgh

Dianne Lincicome Southwestern Energy

Anna Linhoss Mississippi State University

Charles Lord Oklahoma Corporation Commission

Ralph Ludwig USEPA

Kevin McCray National Ground Water Association

Paul McNally Golder Associates

Kathleen Mihm S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.

Kelly Mills Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Lisa Molofsky GSI Environmental Inc.

Richard Morgan Abengoa

Dan Mueller Environmental Defense Fund

J.T. Murrey Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc.

Steve Musick Musick Groundwater Consulting

Mary Musick Musick Groundwater Consulting

Mike Nickolaus Ground Water Protection Council

JP Nicot University of Texas

Jemine Oakes EOG Resources, Inc.

Willaim O'Connell NRWA

John O'Donnell Trican

MICHAEL OSBORN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION OF UTAH

Michael Overbay USEPA

Virginia Palacios Environmental Defense Fund

Mike Paque Ground Water Protection Council

Nicolaus Pargaetzi INFICON

Bob Patterson Upper Trinity Groundwater Conservation District

Steve Pelphrey Isotech Laboratories

Adam Peltz Environmental Defense Fund

Elizabeth Perry AECOM

David Porter Texas Railroad Commission

Robert Puls University of Oklahoma

John Rachal GES

Pamela Rainey Chevron

Katherine Randon Alberta Energy Regulator

Stephen Richardson GSI Environmental Inc.

Josh Richardson Ohio University

Johnny Robinson Hach Company

John Ryan Eco-Systems, Inc.

Ryan Salmon Ceres, Inc.

Kelly Sanders Universiy of Texas at Austin

Leslie Savage Texas Railroad Commission

Bridget Scanlon University of Texas at Austin

Brenda Short Ground Water Protection Council

Erik Shuster US DOE/National Energy Technology Laboratory

Ann Smith GSI Environmental Inc.

Bert Smith Chesapeake Energy Corporation

Mark Snow Michigan Dept of Environmental Quality

Douglas Spicuzza Cummings/Riter Consultants "a Woodard & Curran Co

Nicole St Amand Shell Exploration & Production Company

Mary Starkey Jetta Operating Company Inc

Ed Steele Swift Worldwide Services

Bill Stevens Texas Alliance of Energy Producers

Susan Stuver Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources

Amanda Taylor Watermex

Steve Tipton Newfield Exploration Company

Bridget Todd Baker Hughes

Thomas Tomastik Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Melinda Truskowski Golder Associates

William Turley Hull & Associates, Inc

Nicole Twing Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

EMILIA UGWU Trican Well Service

Carl Vavra Texas A&M University--GPRI

Scott Walker Crosstex Energy

Jenifer Wehner Southwestern Energy

Kent Wilkins Oklahoma Water Resources Board

Lynnae Willette BHP Billiton

Steve Wright SWEPI LP

Dan Yates Ground Water Protection Council

Debby Yost Chesapeake Energy

Frank Zamora Trican

2013 GWPC Annual Forum CALL FOR ABSTRACTS… Extended through JULY 26th…

See www.gwpc.org/events

Come and celebrate with us… in the exact location where GWPC began… 30 years ago!

Chase Park Plaza Hotel St. Louis, Missouri

The GWPC provides a forum for stakeholder communication and research in order to improve

governments’ role in the protection and conservation of groundwater.

Ground Water Protection Council * 13308 N. MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73142 405 516 4972 * www.gwpc.org