Produced Water | Session XI - Alleman

PRODUCED WATER MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL RESOURCE

PLAYS: STRATEGIES AND TECHNOLOGY NEEDS

PRODUCED WATER MANAGEMENT IN UNCONVENTIONAL RESOURCE

PLAYS: STRATEGIES AND TECHNOLOGY NEEDS

Atlantic Council WorkshopFossil Fuel Produced Water: Asset or Waste

Washington, DCJune 24-25, 2013

Atlantic Council WorkshopFossil Fuel Produced Water: Asset or Waste

Washington, DCJune 24-25, 2013

Authors: J. Daniel (Dan) Arthur, P.E., SPEC

David Alleman

The Future of Shale…The Future of Shale…• To fully develop US shales, something on the order of 1-3 million additional

wellbores will be needed. This will NOT be easy! We can expect:− Increased use of brackish/saline water

− Increased use of treatment technologies

− Multi-well fluid management pits/impoundments

− Centralized facilities and overland piping of produced water

− and much more...

• Oil imports have dropped from a high of about 65% to approximately 40% of

demand

• Several sources suggest that US oil production could rise 50-75% over the

next 10 years, causing imports to drop to 5%.

• Another study suggests the shale gas boom will account for ~1.5 million new

jobs by 2015 (June 2012) – including recognition of the downturn in gas

prices.

June 2013 2Copyright (c) 2013 ALL Consulting

WATER MANAGEMENT EVOLUTIONWATER MANAGEMENT EVOLUTION• Surface Discharge

– Salt Creek & Elk Basin (1920s)– Black Warrior Basin (1989)– Powder River Basin CBM (1990s)

• Reuse/Recycling of PW– Barnett Shale (2001)– Marcellus (2009)

• Treatment– Powder River Basin CBM (2001)– Barnett Shale (2002/2008)– San Juan Basin (2003)– Woodford Shale (2008)– San Ardo (2008)– Piceance Basin (2009)– Fayetteville Shale (2009)– Eagle Ford (2011)


Technology: the “Game Changer”Technology: the “Game Changer”• Deep horizontal drilling• High volume hydraulic

fracturing• 3-D Seismic Analysis• Multi-well drilling pads• Water sourcing and

transport• Water treatment• HF Additives

4Copyright (c) 2012 ALL ConsultingJune 2013

Lifecycle Water Management PlanningLifecycle Water Management Planning• A lifecycle approach is

needed to address the many issues important to industry:– Regulatory timing &

vulnerabilities– Legislative changes– Public opposition– Historical Activities– Competition for

resources– Flowback recovery– Third-party options

and risks– Environmental risks– Cumulative Impacts– Etc…

•Pre-Development Assessment

•Water Sourcing Availability & Issues

•Well Site Construction & Drilling

•Water Conditioning/Pre-Treatment

•Well Completion/Fracturing

•Flowback/Produced Water

•Reuse/Disposal/Beneficial Use

March 2013 5Copyright (c) 2013 ALL Consulting

Produced Water (PW) Management Produced Water (PW) Management

Four Primary Options• Injection: This has been the preferred option of most

operators and regulatory agencies. • Surface Discharge: Infrequently used due to high

treatment costs, liability concerns, and company policy.• Beneficial Use: Limited use due to water quality and

quantity issues.• Reuse: Increasingly popular option, especially in areas

of limited fresh water availability.


PW Management Considerations PW Management Considerations • Availability/Cost of Fresh Water: Fresh water is typically

the preferred option when it is readily available, however a number of factors may make reuse of PW attractive

• Availability of Injection Wells: Where injection wells are limited or distant, reuse is more common.

• Volume of PW Available: Volumes of PW vary significantly between plays and within plays - smaller volumes can make blending for reuse more economic

• Quality of PW : Quality of PW can vary significantly between plays and within plays – lower TDS concentrations can make blending for reuse more economic


Water Use Varies Between PlaysWater Use Varies Between Plays


Shale Basin/Play

Minimum Reported

Water Usage (gal.)

MaximumReported

Water Usage (gal.)

Average Reported

Water Use (gal.)

Well Sample

Barnett 1,004,556 11,970,504 3,961,550 1,247Bakken 1,005,064 9,597,540 2,101,984 638

Eagle Ford 1,098,846 13,659,7904,295,282

1,523Fayetteville 1,730,415 11,282,621 5,294,829, 456

Haynesville 1,023,414 14,850,6125,824,728

931Marcellus/Utica 1,006,004 10,781,652 4,423,310 1,514Woodford 1,017,828 11,782,600 4,181,026 369

WATER USE FOR SELECT PLAYS (2011)

WATER USE VARIES SPATIALLYWATER USE VARIES SPATIALLY


PW QUALITY AND VOLUME VARIATIONPW QUALITY AND VOLUME VARIATION


Shale PlayProduced Water TDS Concentration (mg/L)

Percent of Fracture Fluid Volume Typically Recovered

During Flowback

Barnett 40,000 – 240,000 40 – 50 %

Eagle Ford 10,000 – 200,000 15 – 40%

Fayetteville 8,000 – 30,000 30 – 50 %

Haynesville 150,000 – 250,000 30- 50 %

Marcellus 50,000 – 300,000 5 – 30 %

Utica 40,000 – 200, 000 15 – 20%

PW Treatment GoalsPW Treatment Goals• Three primary treatment

goals– Reduce TDS (desalination)

for discharge/beneficial use– Reduce volume for disposal– Reduce solids, scaling, and

bio-fouling for reuse


Treatment of Produced WaterTreatment of Produced Water

• Water quality requirements for reuse can vary and may depend on factors such as:– Composition of the target formation– The specific chemicals being used (especially friction reducers)

• Common treatment goals – Remove suspended solids– Prevent scale formation and bio-fouling– Reduce dissolved solids (desalination)– Reduce disposal volumes

• Most operators do not desalinate• PW disposal strategies vary by play


PW Management StrategiesPW Management Strategies

• Bakken: Most PW is disposed of via injection wells

• Marcellus/Utica: Many operators in PA reuse PW due to a lack of injection wells – Low PW volumes facilitate this approach– Operators in Ohio (Utica) typically use injection wells– Operators in Western PA may truck water to Ohio for

disposal

• Barnett: Both reuse and disposal via injection wells are common

• Eagle Ford: Most PW is disposed of via injection wells even though the climate is semi-arid– Reuse in many areas is inhibited by land-owner water

agreements

• Fayetteville: UIC disposal is common but limited in some areas due to induced seismicity concerns


Bakken

Barnett

Marcellus

PW Technology NeedsPW Technology Needs• As demands on fresh water grow, expect to see increased reuse

and use of saline groundwater• New technologies are needed to ensure that these strategies are

economic• Major technology breakthroughs in water treatment seem unlikely

– Expect some continued incremental improvements– Primary gains will likely come from tailoring treamtment to play-

specific needs• HF chemicals that allow use of lower quality water seem to be a

likely technology that will allow increased reuse of PW– Enhanced friction reducers have already become widely used– New friction reducers are being developed that will allow use of

water with up to 200 ppm Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)– As costs come down, these friction reducers should allow more

operators to reduce their fresh water demands


Citation Information: Arthur, J.D., and David Alleman (ALL Consulting). Produced Water Management in

Unconventional Resource Plays: Strategies and Technology Needs”. Presented at the Atlantic Council Workshop on Produced Water: Asset or Waste?, June 24-25, 2013.

Citation Information: Arthur, J.D., and David Alleman (ALL Consulting). Produced Water Management in

Unconventional Resource Plays: Strategies and Technology Needs”. Presented at the Atlantic Council Workshop on Produced Water: Asset or Waste?, June 24-25, 2013.

Contact Information

David Alleman Environmental Manager [email protected]

ALL Consulting 1718 S. Cheyenne Ave. Tulsa, OK 74119 www.all-llc.com

Contact Information

David Alleman Environmental Manager [email protected]

ALL Consulting 1718 S. Cheyenne Ave. Tulsa, OK 74119 www.all-llc.com


Produced Water | Session XI - Alleman

Education

Transcript of Produced Water | Session XI - Alleman