water usage optimization & management for hydraulic fracturing | dr. chris fredd, unconventional...
DESCRIPTION
Global HSE Conference | Sept 26 - 27 2013 | New Delhi, IndiaTRANSCRIPT
W E L L S E R V I C E S
Water Usage Optimization & Management for Hydraulic Fracturing
Dr. Chris FreddUnconventional Reservoir Stimulation AdvisorGlobal HSE Conference, New Delhi, India, 26-27 September, 2013
Evolution of Reservoir RockPre-Hydraulic Fracturing
Hydraulic Fracturing
Combination w/ Horizontal Drilling
Reservoir
Reservoir
Why Hydraulic Fracturing?Vertical, Perforated Well Vertical, Perforated Well with Single Frac
Horizontal, Perforated Well with 15 Frac Stages
200 Ft High x 6” Wellbore 200 Ft High x (1) 200 Ft Frac with 2 Wings Each
200 Ft High x 6” Wellbore x (15) 200 Ft Frac with 2 Wings Each
315 Sq Ft 160,000 Sq Ft
2,400,000 Sq Ft
Impact of Reservoir Contact
Increasing Reservoir Contact (surface area) improves production
0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
Nf=1 Nf=2 Nf=3 Nf=4 Nf=5Nf=6 Nf=7 Nf=8 Nf=9 Nf=10
Time (days)
Cum
ulat
ive
Gas
(MM
scf)
Source: SPE 163975
Tight Carbonate (Khuff)
L = 3,000 ftk = ~0.1 md
US Land Fracturing… Prop & Water by Stage
Concerns Faced
Long Term Energy Resources– Large Resource Base– Energy Security and
Independence
Economy Benefits– Potential Jobs– Local Business Growth
Conservation of Resources– Surface Water & Agriculture
Protection– Desire for Transparency– Standards Needed
Long Term Presence and Impact– Increased Infrastructure Strain– Increased Traffic, Noise,
Emissions
Resource Opportunities VS
Unconventionals Development - Benefits v Pitfalls
7
Conservation of Water Resources
Water Usage Associated with Unconventional Reservoir Development is a Major Area of Focus
Four Main Opportunities to Reduce Usage- Better Field Development Planning- Optimized Stimulation of Each Well- Novel Completion Techniques- Recycling / Reuse of Water
Surface Management with Direction DrillingSurface Management with Direction Drilling
10.50
kilometers
10.50
kilometers
Horizontal Well Count
Vertical Well Count
Impact of Technology on ProductionBarnett Shale
0
500
1000
1500
2000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Initi
al P
rodu
ction
(MSC
F/D
)
Average IP
Vertical WellsHorizontal Wells
0
500
1000
1500
2000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Initi
al P
rodu
ction
(MSC
F/D
)
Average IP
2500
5000
7500
10000
19901980 2000
HaynesvilleBarnett WoodfordFayetteville Eagle FordMarcellus
Illite
CarbonateGas-filled porosity
Kerogen
Source: Schlumberger
Not All Reservoirs are Created Equal
What about Effectiveness? 29% of perforation clusters are not
contributing to production 36% not contributing in Bakken shale 50% not contributing if 6 clusters per stage Efficient operations,
but not effective use of water.
16
1116
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%% from Perf Cluster
Perf
Clu
ster
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Marcellus Haynesville Eagleford Fayetteville Barnett Woodford
29.6%
25.9%
21.3%
24.0%
26.9%
32.2%
13.5%
10.8%
14.1%
16.2%17.8%
23.5%
9.6%
6.0%7.3%
14.4%
19.4%
22.5%
29%Not Producing
(All Stages)
20%Not Producing(Better Stages)
18%Not Producing(Best Stages)
Weighted Average(All Basins)Production Log Analysis of Non-Producing Perforations in Shale Basins
11 Sources: SPE 144326, SPE160160
Complex Fracture ModelingProduction Modeling
89% Perf Clusters Producing versus 64% Average Perf Clusters Producing
Perf. Clusters
Flow Rate
Results of Engineered Completion
Completion Quality (CQ) or “frac-ability”
Reservoir Quality (RQ)
Impact of an Integrated Workflow
Sources: SPE 158268, SPE 134827, SPE 146872
Geometric RQ + CQ
Eagle Ford Shale
3 M
onth
BO
E
>33% increase
Geometric RQ + CQ
Marcellus Shale
75% increase
Selectively placed perforation clusters
Rock quality legend
Stress legendHigh
LowRock quality
Stress
Shale / Source Rock
Vertica
l Ave
rage
Horizo
ntal A
verag
eHori
zonta
l: RQ +
CQ
0
20
40
60
80
100
120Ordos Basin: Tight Oil
3 M
onth
Oil
Prod
uctio
n
Tight Sandstone
>50% increase
Downward trend in water per stage
Downward trend to ~40 bbls/min
Technology has an Impact Trends in the Eagle Ford Shale…
15
Downward trend in water per stage
Downward trend to ~40 bbls/min
Technology has an Impact Trends in the Eagle Ford Shale…
16
Moving away from slickwater…
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2Channel FracHybridSlickwater
Rela
tive
Wat
er p
er s
tage
or
Rela
tive
Prop
pant
per
sta
ge o
r Re
lativ
e pr
oduc
tion
Less Proppant Less Water More Production
Source: SPE 145403
Source: www. petrohawk.com
Channel Frac – Gross Gas
Channel Fracturing - >18,000 Treatments in >1,500 Wells in 19 Countries- Variety of Formations (Carbonate, Sandstone, Shale)- Unprecedented Proppant Placement Rate (>99.96%)
… ~450 Screen-outs Prevented to Date
Significant Increase in Production- Typically > 20%
Significant Reduction in Logistics, Safety Risks and Environmental Footprint- Typical Water Consumption Reduction of 25%- Typical Proppant Consumption Reduction of 42%- Savings:
- Greater than 400,000,000 gals of Water- Greater than 1,200,000,000 Lbs of Proppant- 52,000 Hauling Trips- Greater than 12,000,000 lbs of CO2 Emissions
Novel Completion Techniques
Water Sources – Water Management Fresh Water
– Municipal– Water wells: shallow and deep– Ponds, Streams and Rivers– Aquifer
Brackish Water[loose definition: more saline than fresh water, less saline than sea water]
– Produced water– Aquifer– Lake or Sea– Waste waters
Sea water
18
Water Treatm
ent options
Water Sourcin
g
Transportation
Fresh Water
Storage
Water Treatme
nt
Recycled Water
Storage
Disposal
19
Brackish Water Applications in North America New Mexico (SPE 133379)- 100% produced water treated
with fluid stabilizer additive- Guar with Titanate crosslinker- CO2 Energized Frac Piecance- 100% produced water- slickwater Uintah and Jonah/Mesa- 100% produced water- Slickwater/Crosslinked
- Electrolytic Cell Generates a Mixed Oxidant Solution (MOS) onsite to Disinfect Frac Fluid
- Generates Hypochlorite Species Predominantly- Only Require Water, Salt and Energy onsite to
Generate the MOS Disinfection Stream
Mixed Oxidants
HClOClO·
ClO- Cl· HO2
· HO2
OH· H·
H2O2
O3 O2
· ½ O2 O·
Anode Reaction2 Cl- → Cl2 + 2e-
Cathode Reaction2 H2O + 2e- → H2 ↑ + 2 OH-
Chlorine Hydrolysis ReactionCl2 + H2O ↔ HOCl + Cl- + H+
HOCl ↔ OCl- + H+
Mixed Oxidant SolutionSalt Water Power
Water Disinfection
Main Generator(480V, 200A, 215kVA)
Standby Generator(480V, 30A, 25kVA)
Mixed Oxidant Generator Skid(40 ft Container)
Feed Water Pre-treatment Skid(20 ft container)
Design Capacity: FAC dose = 20 ppm. Pump rate = 120 bbl/min. Water volume = 120,000 bbl.
(10 stages @ 12,000 bbl/stage)
MOS Generation
Source: From Chesapeake Fact Sheet with Data from GWPC, DOE
Energy Resource Range of Gallons of Water Used per MMBTU of Energy
Produced
Marcellus Gas Well 1.30
Coal with No Slurry Transport 2 to 8
Coal with Slurry Transport 13 to 32
Nuclear (Uranium Ready to Use in a Power Plant) 8 to 14
Conventional Oil 8 to 20
Synfuel – Coal Gasification 11 to 26
Oil Shale 22 to 56
Tar Sands 27 to 68
Synfuel – Fischer Tropsch Synthesis (from Coal) 41 to 60
Enhanced Oil Recovery 21 to 2,500
Biofuels (Irrigated Corn Ethanol, Irrigated Soy Biodiesel) >2,500
Water Requirements by Energy Resource
Summary
Technology can have a significant impact– Leverage technology to maximize production
from resource investment– Optimize designs for the Reservoir to
avoid waste(one solution does not “fit” all)
– Novel technologies to reduce water requirements
Water Management strategies– Recycle / re-use / treat-for-purpose– & technologies more tolerant of
poorer water quality
Water Sourcin
g
Transportation
Fresh Water
Storage
Water Treatme
nt
Recycled Water
Storage
Disposal
What is your KPI? BTU / gal Water, … ?