 So I'd like to start by letting each of you give your name and affiliation, and then we'll more extended discussion of your particular areas of interest. Start, why don't we start with you, Angie? Okay, hello, I'm Angie Rosser. I'm the executive director of the West Virginia Rivers Collet, Carlson, West Virginia. Hi, my name is Carlson Fungsy, and I'm with Chevron. Good afternoon, I'm Dave Spiegelmauer. I'm the president of the Marcell Shield Coalition here in Pittsburgh. Hi, my name is Denise Acob, I'm with the US Geological Survey and Western Virginia. It's a vintage University of Pittsburgh, thank you. All right, what I think we're going to do now is let each of you, reflecting on your talk a little bit about what brings you to the table today in the area of produce water, and any order you want, or I'll just go down the table. So, I'm gonna go down the table, you had a chance, so we'll turn to our next speaker. I can go for another 10 minutes. I know, you can go in Q and A. So, I am a microbiologist and biogeochemist. I, that's my background, and I've been working in the area of hydraulic fracturing and produce waters for the past six years. The USGS is the agency, Paul is doing research in the areas of produce waters and hydraulic fracturing, across a number of different topics. So, we're looking at both how, what is the composition of produce waters across the nation, and the question, specifically produce water spills on water quality, environmental health, and ecosystem impacts. My research in particular has been focusing on the environmental health and water quality impacts of produce water spills. So, I've been trying to understand what the actual impacts of produce water spills are and what the time frames of those impacts are. So, how long will a produce water spill persist in the environment and how will it affect either water quality, environmental health, or the ecosystem. So, we've been using case studies, as Sue mentioned in her talk earlier, that case studies are an important part of understanding what these impacts are. And I agree with Radisab that there has not been widespread systematic effect on water quality and water resources, but we are seeing in case studies that there are definitive impacts and risks to the environment. So, our case studies are across the United States in different basins, and we're doing that to provide a national scale understanding of what the impacts are. The geography and ecosystems in the East Coast are not gonna be the same as in California or in the Permian Basin. So, we need this widespread approach to understanding what the impacts are. We are also using an interdisciplinary collaboration to really fully understand whether alterations in water quality result in some type of health impact or an ecological disturbance. So, my work was the first to show that there is a definitive impact to streams. So, we're working at a West Virginia wastewater injection disposal facility, and we saw that releases of produce water due to activity that that disposal facility resulted in geochemical changes that were correlated with potential robotic health impact. We followed that up with some work in North Dakota where there was a large amount of wastewater leak due to a pipeline break, and we were able to definitively show again that changes in biogeochemistry due to this water spill led to aquatic health impacts. So, we're continuing that work in a variety of different basins, and some of the key aspects of our approach is that we've identified a robust trace of the produce water spills along with this interdisciplinary approach that can link changes in geochemical to actual health impacts of action. And we are also, I should mention, working across scales to taking a laboratory approach all the way up to a regional watershed approach to our standards. Good afternoon, I'm Dave Spiegelmauer with the Marcello-Shale Coalition. Around the room, I see a number of friendly faces, but I also see a lot of technical acumen. I'm gonna come here speaking from a scientific standpoint, but wanted to provide you some demographic information. I think it'll be helpful to put some of all, some of this in perspective, if I may. How many of you know how many wells were historically drilled conventionally-intensive? If I have an idea. About 4,000 wells were drilled conventionally-intensive. At our peak in 2008, we produced about 180 billion cubic feet of natural gas. Today, after about 10 years of robust development of unconventional natural gas development, we've drilled about 10,600 wells. About 8,600 of those wells were in production today. And we're no longer just producing a quarter of Pennsylvania's demand that we produced in 2008. We're now producing more than 20% of America's natural gas demand coming out of Pennsylvania. Had the 2,300 wells that have been drilled in Ohio and the 2,000 wells that have been drilled in West Virginia. And today, nearly 30% of America's natural gas demand is Appalachian-based unconventional-shale domestic development and economic winter for our country's energy supply and enormous winter. But we're gonna talk a little bit about rig count and where we're going on from an efficiency standpoint. While we hit a high water mark in 2011 with active rig count here in this basin in Pennsylvania, more than 111 active rigs, today we're extended 45 rigs in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Back in 2011, average lateral length or horizontal development was averaging 2,000 to 2,500 feet of lateral length today through technology and innovation. An hour averaging over 8,000 feet, many wells in the Pacific, about 10,000 feet of production in many of those locations. While water use is certainly grown dramatically as well, our production is grown dramatically and it's changed the outlook for natural gas supply. We're using about 300 barrels per frack stage. Frack stage have been reduced from about 300 feet to 200 feet. We used about a million and a half gallons of water per 1,000 foot of horizontal development. So an 8,000 foot lateral, we're using about 12,000 or 12 million gallons of water and I would share with you, while we're two and a half times the amount of water that we may have used in 2008, we're now producing three times the amount of natural gas chemically as Americans. From an efficiency standpoint, again, it takes us today about a gallon 1.05 to 1.5 gallons of water for MMBTUs of energy produced compared to 2,500 gallons of water used to produce one amount of energy with irrigated corn ethanol. From a transportation comparison, since that's one that we can all have a touch point with every single day, it takes about three gallons of water to go 100 miles driven with compressed natural gas. It takes 200 gallons of water to produce that equivalent amount of energy with the gasoline we put in our car today with irrigated corn ethanol. As for disposal of water, I know there's a lot of discussion around that matter today. About 10 to 20% of the water that goes down into a well today comes out in the first six to 10 months of production. That water over the lifetime of that well will produce about 50% of the water that goes into the grant. Recycle operations today, as Radazov mentioned, is equivalent to more than 90% of the produced water in Pennsylvania, meaning water's taken to a treatment facilities in many cases, the metals are knocked out and that water is then blended back with fresh water at the next hydraulic fracturing operation, lessening the need for fresh water and also share that many operators to use acid mine drainage water today of source water for hydraulic fracturing operations. I just wanted to mention a case study in Pennsylvania in that it's probably 2010, the Marcello-Shale Coalition, the group that I have the honor of representing. We spent a fair amount of time taking a look at best management practices across our operations. We took a look at what was happening in terms of operators taking water to public treatment facilities and we saw bromide loading occurring downstream of those treatment facilities. We went to the DED and suggested that that practice stopped immediately and in early 2001, actually a moratorium was placed on taking any produced water from horizontal unconventional wells to public treatment facilities in May of 2011. So today, no volumes of water are taken to public treatment facilities. No waters are released in Commonwealth Pennsylvania unless they meet a 500 B.S. rule basically remembering water to carry a type of standard in the DED in terms of the operational stamp and the technology innovations daily to try and improve our practice of managing water. Thank you, Dave. Yeah, my name is Carlton Fence. I'm at Chevron, such as a brief background. I'm a chemical engineer. I have about 30 years of experience with oil and gas. 12 of which are with Chevron. I've had various roles within Chevron. Project management, strategy, and for the last three years I've been with Chevron Technology Ventures. At Chevron Technology Ventures, my focus has been on produced water and looking for innovative solutions to solve some of our business needs. Now for Chevron, we have multiple places that we have operations in California, Texas, New Mexico, Pennsylvania. So we have a lot of produced water. Some of the things that we noticed is there are some common themes across each. Problem is unique because you have different chemistries and different water. But there are also some common threats across all different regions where we can apply common solutions. So our role within CTV is to actually look for innovative solutions. What we do is we are trying to push the boundaries of where technology is today. We are thinking of what we can do for tomorrow. And we basically work with small startup companies because that's where a lot of innovation is happening. And that's the gap that we feel is missing between the research being done in the academia and what's been mostly available. So we work with small companies to actually do some field trials and commercialize those technologies for the industry. I mean, within Chevron we use them but also it's used for the industry. So we work with a lot of incubators, accelerators. We work with the innovation centers and various universities. We recently had a tech challenge which we sort of announced some prize and called for a specific solution to solve our problems. So there are various ways with which we actually work with the industry to sort of look for solutions. We basically monitor the trends that are happening in the technology. We see a lot of development out there. There are a lot of work in membranes. You have membranes, graphene membranes, graphene oxide membranes. There are some nanocub and nanotubes. There are a lot of different technologies, membrane dysplation technologies, some evaporation technologies, humidification, dehumidification technologies. So there's a lot of work that is happening. What I was mentioned is yes, we are recycling a lot of water today but tomorrow when all the fracking operations get over and we have a lot of extra produced water, we need to find solutions for those water and that's what we are sort of looking at. What are the solutions out there for tomorrow that we can commercialize? So most of these technologies which we work with are not yet commercialized but that's where we step in to sort of help them and get them into the commercialization stage. Okay, good afternoon again. Again, I'm Angie with the West Virginia Rivers Coalition. We are an NGO, statewide non-profit, funded by individual donations, private foundations. We do work around policy, advocacy, community education and organizing and when I got the invitation to be here, I was like, you must have the wrong person. I'm not a researcher but when I understood the intent of the surround table and panel, it was like, aha, this is exactly the message I've been thinking about is how do we bridge connections between researchers and community and policymakers and the industry? Because we are often operating in our own bubbles and that doesn't serve us well when we're having to address big problems like produced water. So I'm glad to see the format of this day and that I was invited to participate. And what I wanna share in my four minutes left is where my expertise lies and where I gather that expertise is really talking to people and this is a real experience is people who are living in our gas fields and being impacted by this industry. What these people who are often living in remote rural areas of West Virginia are seeing their lifestyle transform, their rural lifestyle transforming into a more highly industrialized scenario. And personally, I will never forget the day I got motivated to learn more about this issue when I was lobbying on a different issue at our state house. And there was a public hearing where a gentleman from Wetzel County talked about his family's tradition of stargazing at night. And that was the reason why they enjoy their rural culture and lifestyle. He said, when the well pad came in, the light pollution away the stars. And that just impressed upon me about how profoundly this can really have an impact on community life when families cannot enjoy stargazing anymore and that there's a lot more to talk about here. The two main questions I hear from communities are what is really going on here? I mean, we see images of tap water on fire and people start thinking the worst and they don't have access to the information being shared today, for example, in a way that they can understand it, right? So that's one of the things I think we have to figure out is how do we provide information, the research that you all are working on in ways that the public and policymakers can actually understand and apply to what their lived experience is. The other is, what about us? What about our health? What about our quality of life issues? And I think a lot of the people I talk to feel like they don't have much agency in the decision-making processes. And that's been a role of my organization is to facilitate people participating in those processes. There are two barriers I see to opening these conversations when it comes to the community. One is there is a great deal of mistrust. Some of the resistance to disclose, some of the chemicals being used and the fracturing processes has led to oh, these companies are hiding something from us. If you look at the front page of the Charleston, is that mail today, you see landowner and leaseholders who are challenging one particular gas company for trying to reduce the royalty payments they're receiving. So there's this perception that gas companies may be hiding something from us, that they're harming us in ways that we don't know, and they're just out there to profit off of us and aren't really taking us into consideration. There's also a barrier of helplessness, of feeling that we see a lot of pipelines coming through our communities using invoking eminent domain and feeling like people who don't own, only own surface rights and don't own their mineral rights, that they don't have any control over what is happening to their land or happening to their water. And certainly helplessness over the political influence that people see that the oil and gas industry has in places like West Virginia. We had a major drinking water crisis happen in 2014 that resulted in a regulation around above ground storage tanks. Well, last year, the oil and gas industry was successful in getting all of their tanks exempt from that law. So no longer oil and gas tanks are regulated under that state law. So those examples are, I feed that distrust, that helplessness that I think prohibits us from having the community conversations with the industry, with researchers and policymakers that need to happen. And I think the other thing that I see in working in policy in West Virginia, and this has been mentioned before, is that we're looking at huge increases in volume of produced water. And where is the plan for this? Because we're not seeing, and I think that's adding to the anxiety of what mistakes are we making now that we'll regret later, or where is the forethought for how are we going to handle this problem, that as we saw in some of the graphs has the potential to really overwhelm this region. Thank you all. I think it's at the stage for some topics to be picked up and continued. I could say, well, what would you like to pick for starters, or I can give you an issue to start with? Do you have a preference? What's burning at the top of your minds that right now is a result of these introductions? And if nothing, or someone's afraid to speak? All right, so you would like to- Well, I was inspired by Inju's comments there because we should come to our Shell network conference because, and I'm not putting a plug into the conference, just what happened over the last six years that we've ran the conference. Initially, we just had concerned citizens who were trying to find information. Later on, we were able to get a DEP and we're able to get, because academics are coming in and out. And then finally, we had industry DEP, citizens, academics, talking about openly with the interest of understanding what's going on. And that, I feel, is a fantastic model that could be implemented elsewhere to try to initiate these discussions that you're so longing for, to answer for the people that are living in these communities. And somebody has to take the lead and work through it and has a passion for it to organize this music. Eventually, if you build it, they will come kind of thing and then people will start talking about these issues and that goes a long way to understanding what's going on. I know that there's need to communicate the science that we at the US Geological Survey are producing in this topic, but what is the platform to discuss that and with the public, with concerned citizens or local policymakers? For me, the main place that I'm communicating my science is through peer-reviewed literature and conferences. And while we have a major focus and initiative to put out there, science features that give kind of the key points of our science, something like the Shale Network Conference which I've attended, it's fantastic. That would be a great thing to have in the state of West Virginia where we've done work, that there was a platform where scientists like myself could come and talk more freely and openly to the public and answer questions. So for me, it's not having a clear way that I can. There's not a clear platform for me to do that. We know that I would like you to have that opportunity. I agree we need the platform and I was talking to my neighbor Jean back there about this and as researchers, the stuff he says, I mean, some of the stuff has just gone over my head today, all right? How is there training for researchers to be able to write in a non-journalistic way to communicate with the general public? Media training, that's so important because that's where people are getting a lot of their information. Where are they getting their information? Not through their journal subscriptions. They're getting it through mainstream media and where are, where is the researchers there and how part of it again is being able to communicate your work and the implications and the ways that community understands and I think as importantly as policy makers, these are not scientists who are making these decisions and it's often our challenge to try to understand what you all have come up with and through our lobbying efforts educate them in three minutes about the vote they're about to cast. So, platform and communication style. I don't think I would steal from our elected officials that they're required to find the best available science in that making it their decision making. I would just say that our industry's been focused from day one to make sure we get this equation right. We've watched technical innovation round us off talking about where the beginning of recycling came from. The industry took the changes to wastewater disposal in Pennsylvania to reuse to new technical innovation and crystallization and different disposal techniques. We took it to the legislature to disclose frac chemicals and fracfocus.org a public database for release of frac chemical usage broadly across Pennsylvania that every truck that's hauling chemicals has MSD sheets with full disclosure of what's on board. I mean, this has been while we're accused of not being transparent I would share with you that our industry is focused on transparency. I represent a coalition and many folks think it's comprised of folks from Texas and outside our state. I would say 95% of our board members are Pennsylvanians. They like to hike and bike and hunt and fish and camp and do all the things that Pennsylvanians want to do. We want to make sure we get it right in Pennsylvania and we're not leaving a legacy of destruction behind us. I think we've been pretty successful there when we've changed the outlook for domestic energy supply with every utility in Pennsylvania today having natural gas rates anywhere from 57 to 81% less than what those costs were in 2008. It's been an enormous winner for all citizens but especially those low income consumers that struggle to pay energy bills that put money directly into their pockets. Can I add, would you, Angie pick up a little bit on communication with the general public because I know that that's an issue of responsibility for the USGS and I know that you have some ways you do that and I think it partly adds to Angie. So Denise, what do you think? Yes, I mean, we have an excellent communications department at our headquarters and there's a communication specialist at many of our regional offices. So, I have partnered with them to get training on how to talk to the media but we also gather doing fact sheets and science features where we're working with someone who's trained in public communication to help us put the information out there in an accessible manner. We also, we've also made it for the project that I co-lead with two other colleagues. We've made it a commitment to make all of our publications open access immediately. I know that that, again, is not gonna be communicating it at a public level but at least the data is there and I would just say that I as a scientist can communicate effectively to someone, to a reporter but how they're gonna interpret the information I've provided is out of my control. So I would encourage anyone if you have questions about our science or just an email away and we have on many occasions spent an hour talking to a concerned citizen about what the implications of our studies mean and what the balance is between the environmental impacts and the economic needs of that science, of energy production. But it's not simple and it's definitely, I should say, I would say from the scientific community it's changing our commitment to communicating effectively at all levels is definitely something that we're getting much better at and in my 15 year career as a scientist it's much more of a focus now than it was at the beginning. We can't share what we've learned than what's the value of it. We need to be able to do that. So let me, having, this is an excellent introduction to some science and technology because it is important to us as practices in that field whether we're in industry or whether private consulting or whether we're academics or administrators it is important to communicate science principles, engineering principles. And so let me change your direction and this will give a couple of other people opportunity to speak. What are the limiting technologies that we need to change the problems that we've talked about this morning? So if one of you would like to jump in the deep end I think we'd enjoy that conversation. Well, I think Gautam gets sales pitches all the time he can take a shot. I didn't want to say that, but I was hoping you would say that. Well, that is, of course everything I talk about is there's no business aspect to it at this point because I'm only worried about science engineering. Where does it fit in the overall scheme of things that is something that the oil and gas companies and water management companies are much better equipped to talk about. In terms of technologies, we do have some solutions that are already available to the industry and there are some plants that are producing in Pennsylvania, they're producing drinking water quality out of produced water at a cost of course. And so of course that's a small plant and it includes everything from mechanical vaporry compression to crystallization to biological treatment. We have a plant in West Virginia that's gonna do the same thing. So the technology is already available. The only thing that needs to be implemented is the driver driving forces to actually develop these technologies. As long as there is a reuse option that's the least cost alternative, nobody is going to go after these treatment processing unless they're forced to do that. Right now, industry in Texas is gonna inject in the ground as much as they can because that's the least cost option. Industry in Pennsylvania is gonna recycle as much as they can, that's the least cost option. But if there is a some way of doing the analysis and predicting what is the water quality management going to cost in three years and five years and 10 years then I can figure out where my technology comes into play, where it becomes relevant and I can gear up my demonstration plan to say in seven years when the cost comes to be $6 a barrel then I will be competitive at $5.50 so I wanna be at the market. That is a very, that's a missing piece in this whole alternative of managing produced water at the current approaches that's missing, that's stifling innovation because right now there are a lot of companies that have been set up to look at these technologies and then the opportunities are not materialized and they go bankrupt because they're too early to the market and so it needs to be some prediction as to but honest prediction where everybody actually says here's where we think volumes are going, here's where we think our management options are going so that we can kind of estimate where the prices are going to be and then come in with a technological solution. I'd like to add to that that it's not just the volumes or types of produced waters that are being produced but it's also the water withdrawal needs so the USGS is actually working on a water availability and use related oil and gas development because in certain areas water availability is highly limited and that's going to make reuse even more cost effective and so as our water needs become more and more dire in very arid areas of places where you're affected by drought that need for those technologies is going to become more and more economical. And what is that? So it could be an original level kind of studies in this region, this is what we see developing that region so that kind of analysis could be done and made available publicly so that all these industries that have brilliant solutions and ideas we mentioned graphene oxide, carbon nanotubes all these technologies are brilliant but the question is what the cost and when do they become competitive? So I think you'll have sort of hit the nail on the head because there's no one single solution for everything, right? If you look at across the US you can look at across Pennsylvania you can look at the different areas in Pennsylvania the challenges are unique you've got different chemistries for water and it's going to look for different solutions. And that's what makes this more challenging and makes it much more sort of interesting. There are certain technologies that are there as you pointed out, which are existing today but I think the key is they should be cost effective. You're going to be looking at what's the alternate solutions and can these compete with the alternate solutions? And that's sort of the drive towards technology can we make these compete with the existing solutions? Technologies which are there we have reverse osmosis which is well-established but there are limitations in terms of the tedious it can sort of process. There are the technologies that are coming up again, they're not yet commercialized but they are there, they are there in the background and I think there's a lot of both going on by different companies and different individuals to sort of get these technologies. So it's not a single solution but I think the industry is going in that direction. Can you tread lightly and explain what these technologies are in terms of the audience we have connected here today as well as our online participants and our very important community advocate? Yeah, I know you can do it. So if I look at what's happening some membranes are used effectively to sort of remove the constituents of the water. So you have various constituents in the water you have various ions in the water the basic assaults are in chloride but you have calcium chloride and other constituents in water. You mainly have initially when produce water comes out you have a mixture of oil, sand and all these various constituents. So you have technologies to remove first the sand and the oil and those are very standard technologies you can use a gravitational separation to separate the sand. You can use things like Wallachial filter and flotation sort of technologies to remove the oil but once you go down from there you have to use more advanced technologies to get the oil out to less than one PPM and get the individual constituents out to where you can actually discharge water. So there is a lot of development in membranes graphing and graphing outside membranes the advantage of those is that these are very thin membranes so you can do it in a very energy efficient way to separate it out which reduces dust. You have carbon nanotubes again you can have thin membranes and it's again an energy efficient way but again these are not yet commercialized so a lot of work has been going on in the academia and some of these small companies to sort of develop these. But when you look at the technologies I mentioned reverse osmosis is one technology forward osmosis is another technology which you can use to clean up the water or desalinate it and discharge the water. You have membrane distillation technology which is more efficient than the other technologies then you have the thermal technologies have the different evaporation technologies where you can distill the water to make it pure before discharging it. Mechanical vapor compression has been sort of mentioned over here you have humidification, dehumidification technologies. So there are a lot of different technologies that are being developed. Again it's a question of are these cost effective? Can you improve the efficiencies of these technologies so that they are competitive with the existing alternatives? So to summarize I mean there's a lot of work going on in this to sort of plan address this. So there's been a question about the ability of the industry to technically innovate and I would just share that the reason we're sitting here today is the fact that the industry is highly technically innovative and the fact that in 2007 and eight we were a conventional industry that drilled vertically in Pennsylvania that we learned how to drill wells horizontally and it would have taken us 60 days to drill well with a 2000 foot lateral. I hear our public spokesperson on my left and your right talk about light interference. I would share with you that a well with an 8000 foot lateral today is being drilled in 20 days so that we can drill a pad out with five or six wells in a couple of months. And those are a single well today will provide enough energy to fuel 175,000 homes. We've gone from a period in the 70s of tight supply I would share with you in the Carter administration years we put the fuel use act in place because of what we viewed was a tight supply at high price. Today a period of abundance and affordability that's multi-generational I believe and it's been driven by technical innovation when there are challenges in this industry and I would share that we have a research collaborative that we invite folks from academia they don't have to be members of the MSA to participate in that but I would share with you that the FLIR camera that's now being used by regulators across the country to detect methane was developed in our research collaborative at the MSC that was those were ideas that were brought forth by technical innovation to capture methane. Folks are making strong claims about methane contamination, we sell methane that's our product that we take to the meter we have every incentive in the world to capture every molecule and stuff and I would share with you today the fact that we're burning natural gas and power generation we're at a 25 year low in carbon dioxide emissions you don't read that anywhere we're gonna meet the demands of Paris because of the fact we're using natural gas and power generation and more rapidly in our economy today. So we've reduced not only carbon dioxide emissions but sulfur dioxide emissions nitrogen dioxide emissions particulate emissions by displacing now much of our coal supply to use natural gas for about 38% of the electrons being produced in Pennsylvania. So this topic of technology very well provided by you is important I think because it's easy for communities and also people who are not thinking at the level of communities but others in policy making at all levels sometimes shut the door on their open thinking because they don't understand and so would anybody else within your particular field of knowledge like to comment on what is the future what's been innovative and what's made a big change? Just the ability to turn a droplet horizontally has been a generational change that have opened up vast supplies of natural gas for generations to come. It's technical innovation and I see people from our university systems our students today are highly technically innovative and have made game changing contributions our industry. We were actually lucky that Mr. Mitchell was doing these experiments when the oil was fairly expensive gas was $12 instead of two and so forth so that all fell into place plus we had an infrastructure here. A lot of the countries outside the United States are looking at our example and are thinking well we're gonna go ahead and do the same thing like the US we have the shell formations and whatnot but they don't have the infrastructure and know how to actually implement that and so that was set of circumstances that I think was pretty unique in the US when that revolution occurred. I think as I mentioned that 90% of the water is recycled in Slovenia and I think people don't realize it but that's a big change for the oil and gas industry I think that's a big innovation for oil and gas I mean it really was something that they had not done before they were not sure how to do it they were not sure what the impact would be and to actually make it happen is a big change. Let's change directions a little bit. We want it to touch on area building and it's easy for us to say the water composition varies but can we think a little bit about what that really means in terms of either impact or treatment or to an individual who's worried about how does this impact me? They don't necessarily know what the details of this composition are what does variability mean both technically and to a end user? Well I can address that I did some work looking at 13 shale gas wells in Pennsylvania and my colleagues and I were both looking at organic compounds, volatile organic compounds and total dissolved solids and while the total dissolved solids are pretty consistent across those produced water samples this was in North Central Pennsylvania and they were much, much higher than what is being measured in Southwestern Pennsylvania so I think it's important for people to realize that the treatment technologies that need to be applied in North Central Pennsylvania are gonna be different than even Southwestern even another really important part of that study was looking at volatile organic compounds they were not abundant in every single they weren't measurable detectable or even at any measurable concentration in the majority of those wells I'm sorry produce water samples from wells so if only three out of 13 have volatile organic compounds those are VOCs that have the potential to have a health impact those three waters are gonna need a very different type of treatment or handling practice than the rest of them so that variability is a really important part of thinking about how do stakeholders manage these waters what is the needs for different types of storage tanks do they need to be open, do they need to be closed and so understanding that not all wells are gonna be having the same produced water composition is important I think for the public to know because that's gonna change how we need to deal with those components but I would ask Angie to perhaps comment on what would public need to know and in what format and how to be able to say okay we are okay with it I remember when we were early on in this 2009 or 2008 or 2009 in Pennsylvania I went to public meeting in a public forum in rural Pennsylvania the people there were saying you know what we kind of know this is good it's a good industry and so forth but can you guys make sure we don't get the short end of the stick in all of this because they didn't understand what are the issues that are coming to Roost, you know, in their neighborhoods and so they just say well we're all for it it's great I'm gonna be able to buy a new truck and whatnot but you know I wanna make sure the long term we don't get at the short end of the stick and so I don't know how to convey that information to the public and perhaps you know Angie works with the people all the time maybe can tell us what to do Well, it's difficult and I think the unfortunate reality and it's probably true for a lot of industries is that one bad actor colors a whole industry and Denise I'm curious were you in Lockgelly is that where you did Yes, that's where I did the work You know about that, right? Everyone knows about it It's an example of an operator who was just awful I mean, time after time, just nasty and I think it was mainly the spills and mishandling of the produced water Well, I will just say that we never were not able to identify the direct route to the environment of those waste waters but that was a real key part of what we walked away not knowing we tried to go back and do some studies find out how was that impact occurring you know, was it some type of minor spill that just happened repeatedly where there's some kind of more major thing that had happened and we lost site access and that's a real key part not only to the environment but also the people who are working at these facilities you know, what is their day-to-day operation how can it be improved or adjusted Right, but the local community you know, they were pointing the finger at this one operator No, no question who kept getting his permit renewed and so I think to try to answer this question is what the public needs to see is a coordinated effort between the industry, the scientists, the technology and the regulators I mean, they need to hold these bad actors accountable and when there's not that accountability and not that enforcement of the laws then you know, there's just no trust across the board so if you've got to have all the pieces working together I think to really instill that public trust General Wood on the street is of course that academics are free to release information out of our whole existence and many industries not all of them and may not be the ones you sit at the table on behalf of have restricted distribution information for a variety of reasons including their interest in commercialization and conflict of issue, interest kinds of things so as a group, do you think that information data approaches are not well understood or released in some areas or is this a very open community where a lot is known? I found early on that there was a lot of I don't want to use a strong word here but a lot of companies are selling these additives and chemicals and we got the best thing you use our FR 300 and it's gonna be the best and whatnot without releasing what's in there thinking that that's their competitive advantage and I seriously doubt that that was a competitive advantage I think there's a lot more advantage to be gained if you actually disclose what's in there because you're already making it and you already have your customers and so forth and I don't know that hiding what's exactly in that chemical formulation is going to hurt you in other words, you have a ingredients but you don't give them the recipe and therefore you keep your competitive advantage but at least if you tell the ingredients are in there that will go a long way towards building a trust and we would know what to look for in this produce water samples so if you don't have to tell me what the recipe is exact measures and mixtures or whatever but just what to look for that I think is one way to overcome this public trust issue I think it's sad that I get a chance to watch a number of technical committees in operation pretty regularly and I see an incredible amount of information sharing now there may be competitive information in terms of folks working on innovative solutions that may not be shared with different technology challenges but I've seen an industry come together pretty rapidly to address specific issues and try and make sure they have innovative solutions to manage those properly in the public interest and usually public interest becomes a corporate interest as well because if you're doing something right you're gonna sell a technology that creates a business opportunity for your company as well. I would tell you we wouldn't be sitting here today if it wasn't for the advanced technical innovation that's industry's displayed over the last decade. So I'm mindful a little bit of the time and we don't know how many people would like to ask questions. We've got some pretty big issues on the table. So what I'd like to do is open this up for questions and then if we have not so many I'm gonna come back to you with a couple of final challenges. So if you have a question please come to the microphone and will somebody keep an eye on the online questions for me please? Please introduce yourself. I will do that. I am Rick McCurdy with Just Speak Energy and I wanna touch base on this confidential business information thing because this thing just always gets underneath my skin. Number one, the idea that the industry is being deceptful and not willing to disclose what's in these products we don't control that information. We don't create those products. We buy those products from vendors that make those products. If they're claiming confidential business information or trade secrecy for an ingredient in that that there's nothing we can do about that. And that is a federal and state trade law. That applies to every industry not just people supplying the oil and gas industry. Those products to get that trade secret disclosure they have to put the entire recipe the entire ingredient list before the EPA and say this is what's in here this is why we wanna consider this confidential business information and the US EPA has to approve that. And you still have to list if there's health hazards associated with that ingredient they still have to be on the safety data sheet. So there are provisions in place and that's not something that's unique to the oil and gas industry. Now, Wendy you started out by saying what is the one thing that you wanna see come out of this, right? One thing. All right, here's my one thing. I'm a huge advocate at some point in the future of recovering some volume of fresh water out of oil and gas, Brian and returning it some beneficially to the environment. One concern we have and there's people in this room that have that concern is how do we know that's as safe as it can possibly be? How do we know there's some ingredient that's in there that we don't know how to measure far we don't have an analytical technique. And if you say, well, we're gonna let you do that. But we want you to analyze 200 different items every hour on that discharge. Well, it's never gonna happen. So what can we do to ensure the public if that Brian or if that treated water is gonna be reintroduced to the environment how can we assure the public that it's gonna be safe? So I would say that's a good question for you. It's a challenge, Rick. I'll take a stab at it though. I think the key point is that you identify that set that we need to be measuring specific compounds. And I think that's the wrong approach. What we need to be doing is bioassays. We need to be thinking about a whole mixture because you can have five, one individual compound by itself and it might not have an effect. But if you put 10 separate compounds together and synergistically affect an organism, all kind of glob together for a bigger effect. And we have some really advanced technologies that are coming out just in this field that are gonna allow us to do that. So high throughput bioassays are a major component of where toxicology is moving where we can use genetic receptors and cell lines to look at these potential health effects. Those are gonna be the key thing in my opinion for being able to answer whether or not these waters are safe. Then we can even be doing whole animal studies. Those are still more challenging to do, but analytically we will never be able to measure or it'll be years before we can measure every little thing and we can't measure something if we can't find it. But you can measure an impact or sorry, an effect on a receptor. And I think these high throughput bioassays are the key part of being able to inform the public. So not only does that need to be a second. Let me, I'm limiting you to one question. And I want to make sure we're still on your question. What, who else on the panel would like to answer? I mentioned that risk quotient, which is a risk-based based on the impact on the living organisms as a concept rather than trying to identify every little compound and we can go to nanogram and picogram, per liter levels and so forth and still not know what does it mean. So I think the risk-based type approach to discharge limitations is much better suited for this soup of chemicals that are out there rather than going out for a specific one. The other thing that you can argue is that organics are likely to degrade over time. Interorganics are likely to stay in effect, the grass or vegetation or whatnot. And so that also ought to be taken into account if that happens, what is the fate of these organics and how long do you feel this risk effect over time for discharge? Can I just have one more thing? Absolutely. One of the things we're talking about is proprietary chemicals and what's going in is hydraulic fracturing fluid. And now we don't know what comes back out. These fluids are pumped in at very high pressure to the deep, deep subsurface. You're dealing with pressures and temperatures and chemical reactions are occurring. And there's not been a systematic mass balance of what goes in and what comes out in terms of the organics. And many of the studies that are out there have looked at a neat compound and shown that it can have a biological effect. But that biological effect has not been measured in that mixture and that has also not been, if that compound disappears or is degraded in the deep subsurface, that's one less component in that produced water that needs to be of concern. Right now the USGS is working on that. We're trying to do a mass balance where we've had hydraulic fracturing fluids and we're following the life cycle of the water to be able to understand what goes in and what comes back out and how does that translate to a risk if there is one. Dave, do you have some perspective at this from the religion? I see there's other questions here, but I would just tell you continuing to look every day at challenges of what comes out of the ground. What we're doing to inspect and get analytics on water, I think Denise made it clear that clearly the chemical composition of water that's returned to the surface in the northern part of Pennsylvania may be different than in the southwestern part of Pennsylvania. We got an under-pressured area in the shale that produces a heavy hydrocarbon base in the southwest. When we have a very high-quality dry gas play in the northeast, it's one of the few places in the country where we have a dramatically different play 250 miles apart. We don't have a heavy oil play in the western part of Pennsylvania, but we have ethane, pentane, butane, isobutane, propane, and NGLs being produced here that are non-existent in the northern part of the play. It's a dramatically different play in the north and it's in the southwest. And along with that variability in different basins, you can be producing from more than one strata. So you could have very different chemistries in a vertical space. And that's a situation we're dealing with in the Permian basin and trying to identify what environmental effects could there be. Okay, but the produce waters from four different strata are not created equal because of the different histories. So that's an important part of that. Very good. So a good question, but that opened quite a lot of new doors. Yes, please give your name. John Stoltz, Duquesne University. I'd like to refocus on the brines. And start with saying that not all brines are created equally and the ones coming from the Marcellus are, or in shales in general, because of the nature of radium is naturally far more enriched in radium than standard coal bed mines, brines, and even conventional brines because of where they're coming from. And why this is important is because of the efforts at beneficial reuse of the brines and even that our own Harrisburg legislatures is considering redefining brine as a natural product and will no longer be regulated by the DEP. Why this is a concern is because there's a product on the shelves of Lowe's and other hardware stores in Ohio called Aquasulina, it's a de-icer. The ODNR recently did a study and found that at least one of the products had over 2,500 picacuries of radium in the product itself. We just got a sample, we're testing it right now, but I can also tell you in addition to the ancient seawater that's on the label as what it's made from, it has high levels of arsenic and lithium and a number of other things. So again, I caution and question that in particular the brines coming from the shales that they're enriched in things that haven't been seen in more traditional extractive industries and making sure that as far as even with the Marcellus Shale coalition that your members are aware of these things and are keeping an eye on it. Thank you. So your question. My question is what is the industry doing and even the science to address the radioactivity issue? Thank you, that's a great question. It's all yours. I would just say that we've taken a very hard look at radium, we've worked closely with the DEP. Our primary issue is in sludges, not in the produced water. There are sludges, condensed sludges, those are areas where you have potential concentrations that need to be managed. I would also just share that our industry is not advocated for placing brines on public highways. I know some have made a presentation this weekend, this week on public health made a presentation about applying brines to dirt roads. We've not advocated for that as a shale coalition. Certainly if you use a crystallization process that can render a pure salt, potentially there's an opportunity there, but it's not something we've advocated for. I know that there's a comment made that there's legislation pending. I would tell you that there's no serious legislation pending to release brine water to aquifers, to put it on roads. There's no serious consideration in Pennsylvania legislature to do that. And we've not advocated for it. Thank you. So do I have any questions from the remote audience? Nope, okay, please. I'm Ron Zagraki from Bucard Horn. I'm an engineer, often work with municipalities. One of the worries with sort of an uncertainty on what chemicals would be in these waters is often, if something does show up, how do I trace it back to the creator of the problem or if I think there might be a problem, what am I looking for? And I know in produced natural gas, you have a tracer chemical added to give it a smell. In potable water, most places add fluoride so they can distinguish a water leak from groundwater. Has there been any research into any kind of a tracer additive that would be a non-harmful indicator that we could use and say, aha, this is from a well? There, I mean, in Radoslav probably as good as this is any and we have folks in the audience that know this as well. There's a thermogenic makeup to gas in various hydrocarbon variant stratas. They know gas that's coming out of the Devonian shales differ from those that come out of the Marcellus, that differs from those that come out of the Utica. So there is a way to use a chromatograph to be able to determine what the footprint of gas may be and if it's dissolved in water, you can certainly find out where it came from pretty quickly and that is a technology that's used pretty regularly in Pennsylvania today. It's used, your average municipality is not gonna be able to do any of that because it requires a very sophisticated equipment to analyze isotopic ratios and whatnot. But there are studies that have looked at, the ratios of elements and in the brines and be able to pinpoint where it came from. So it's possible, it's still, I would say more an academic realm in terms of tracing the waters, it is possible and requires a lot of work that an average municipality just simply cannot do. The USGS though has developed different tracers, light hydrocarbon signatures, which is similar to what you guys are talking about and that is closer to being applicable. That is an analysis that can be done for municipalities in that realm. Which is the gas or the water? This would be, oh, good point. I'm sorry, I should re-speak. These are tracers of the produced water and so looking at dissolved light hydrocarbons in streams are a way of tracing back even produced waters because that would be a signature that is dissolved in the produced water. We are using a lot of different isotopic ratios and specific elements. So a conductivity measurement is not going to provide you with a full answer of whether or not a produced water spill has occurred and what the source of that water is, you need more detailed chemistry and we'd be happy to talk more about that later. But we've been developing some kind of key elements, key constituents that are important to measure to help identify that. Any more questions? We have time for maybe one or two at most. Hi, I'm Leah Harper, I'm from Ohio and I'm an impacted community member that has pretty much closed the door on the industry from what I've seen is all the preemptive legislation that was introduced especially as the industry was trying to figure out how to get the gas out of the ground back in 2005. Did the industry say we've got to have these Halliburton loopholes that no other industry can have? And did the industry actually lobby to get those loopholes and do they continue to do so so that we don't have the bonding requirements or the severance taxes that we're going to need for the legacy cost of this industry will leave? Angie, can I ask you to begin that dialogue? Because I think that you are a good interface for us with community questions and then we'll see where it would like to be. Okay. Well, thank you for being here. I mean, it's so unusual that a person who probably has another day job can take a day off work to come to this kind of forum and be a voice. And there Halliburton loopholes is one example of where we've seen federally and in the state, it appears that laws are made to create loopholes or things that would compromise public safety. And what we heard in West Virginia last year when the industry wanted to exempt themselves under the above ground storage tank regulation is that most of our tanks are brine and brine is just saltwater and there's nothing to worry about. That was the message, which is a very different message than what I'm hearing on this panel today that there are things we acknowledge and are taking seriously. That is a different message than just nothing to see, hear nothing to worry about. We've got this covered. Along with that message, again, on what I brought up earlier about the regulators. I can speak for West Virginia. There's a lot of public criticism around the regulators either if they're not, they're not resourced in the way they need to be to provide the adequate oversight of this rapidly growing industry or that they are politically motivated to turn their heads the other way because this is such an economic driver for our state and economic hope for this region. So I think that's a good question. I would like to hear the responses of those criticisms and those perceptions that really lawmakers are kind of in the hands of the industry to do what they need to do to advance development as quickly as possible. So go ahead. Well, I don't speak for Ohio or West Virginia. I would share with you the industry in Pennsylvania in late 2011 and in the passage of Act 13 in 2012 put in place an impact fee that has spread broadly to all 67 counties of Pennsylvania that does not go into the general fund that today would nearly 100% of those funds would go into a failing pension system. Instead, those dollars are spread broadly to all counties and communities across Pennsylvania. I think it's been an enormous winner. It's generated nearly $1.5 billion of proceeds in the last six years. I would also share with you as part of Act 13 there were a significant number of environmental enhancements made to the regulatory platform in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Many of them were advocated for by the industry including disclosure of frat chemicals. It may not be the secret sauce, so to speak, of what the exact blends are, but the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania at every single location are disclosed and required to be disclosed under Act 13. There are additional environmental enhancements made broadly to Pennsylvania and the comment made of economic benefit to our region. There's no mistaking the economic benefit to our region. We've got our building trades at 100% buildout right now of their staff to modernize our infrastructure in Pennsylvania, to modernize the pipeline infrastructure so that we get affordable and abundant energy to consumers broadly across the region. We all use energy in one form or another. To have affordable energy delivered to their home is absolutely critical and I think shale development has been an enormous winner. It has saved 41% of wholesale power generation costs. 57% to 81% of the utility gas rates across Pennsylvania. Those are disposable income dollars that go directly back to every single consumer in the Commonwealth. All right, so we'll take one final comment and then we're gonna- I'm gonna stay away from this political discussion. No, that's okay, we'll- I wanna bring us back to the produced water issues because I think we are, you know, at least that's dear and dear to my heart, but I think that questions about norm, we can deal with it, we can solve it, there are technical solutions as long as we realize that they need to be addressed. The questions about produced water, valued and recovering fresh water, that's also feasible, you know, we have technologies and people working on it. The, what I would like to encourage people to think about as this produced water as a resource, if Department of Energy can put a lot of money in trying to find rare earth elements and a ban of coal mine drainage, I'm sure there is elements like that in produced water and we'd be able to provide that, you know, as a resource for our economy. And so think of the produced water as more of a opportunity, you know, for us to do some innovative solutions. And if you can deal with that water, you can deal with any water because I've never seen anything so bad in terms of contamination as a produced water. So if you figure out a way out to clean that up, then everything else is gonna be walking apart. So I don't think we'll possibly ask more in terms of wrapping up this particular panel than comments from our keynote speaker. So with that, I think we'll thank the panel and I believe we are moving on to a break and there's plenty to talk about. Thank you.