Latest insights in shale gas technology and environmental impacts

Transcription

1 Latest insights in shale gas technology and environmental impacts Jan ter Heege TNO Petroleum Geosciences, the Netherlands EERA Shale Gas JP Knowledge Sharing Event, Krakow, Part of this presentation is based on research performed in the M4ShaleGas project. This project has received funding from the European Union s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No

2 Shale gas research and development economics resource estimates characterization sweet spots smart development safe production public perception regulations networks

3 Recent US developments Decline in US natural gas price drives technology development for efficient shale gas production OECD/IEA 2014

4 Recent US developments Higher gas production per rig and focus on sweet spots compensate for decreasing number of rigs Example Marcellus shale: IEA 2015 Strong decrease in number of gas rigs tough business service companies Increasing gas production per rig technological development (efficient production as well as sweet spot focus) Decrease in overall gas production some effects of lower gas prize IEA 2015 Lack of infrastructure (pipelines, gas treatment plants) main limiting factor for Marcellus gas production Future outlook: LNG export (gas price )

5 Current status Europe Shale gas production in Europe largely on hold with unsure potential for economic production UK: 4 wells, supportive government expects (fracced) wells in next 5 years NL: licenses not continued - no commercial shale gas in next 5 years. FR: ban on commercial hydraulic fracturing DK: 1 exploration well abandoned in 2/2015 LIT: no new shale tender round. Chevron pulled out previous one PL: over 60 wells, continuing efforts - economic shale gas production unsure. ES: several new exploration permits. Court overruled regional ban. DE: proposed law to allow fracking under tight restrictions after moratorium of 4 years RM: lifted ban on fraccing in 2013, few wells.

6 Shale gas research and development economics resource estimates characterization sweet spots smart development safe production public perception regulations networks

7 Resource estimates Technically recoverable shale gas reserves in Europe could approach that of US (EIA estimates) Sources: Energy Economic Developments in Europe (EC 2014) based on analysis by the Energy Information Administration (EIA 2011, 2013)

8 Resource estimates Strong need for updated resource estimates EU as geological basis current estimates is questionable? EIA 2011

9 Resource estimates Main uncertainties in current resource estimates EU are in gas saturation and recovery factors Expected Ultimate Recovery (EUR, Reserves) Field development Economically recoverable (ERR) Exploration drilling Technically recoverable (TRR) Geological analysis Total Gas Volume (GIP) Current research estimates (EIA): Determination of total GIIP (= Free Gas + Adsorbed Gas): GIIP free = A x T x tot x S gas x F e GIIP ads = A x T x V ads Technically Recoverable Resources: TRR = R f x GIIP tot Monte Carlo simulations using probability density functions for input parameters Range of input parameters (e.g., S gas, R f ) are mainly from US analogues with questionable relevance to EU shales

10 Resource estimates European Unconventional oil and gas assessment by members of EuroGeoSurveys (EUOGA project) The EC s EUOGA project: Data compilation of European shales Consistent pan-european data sets Common resource assessment methodology Dissemination of results using GIS database and website Coordinated by GEUS & TNO Kickoff with country overview on December 7 th 2015

11 Shale gas research and development economics resource estimates characterization sweet spots smart development safe production public perception regulations networks

12 Sweet spot identification Sweet spots US shales need good potential for hydrocarbon generation, storage & flow stimulation Barnett (Browning et al. 2013) Marcellus Bakken Haynesville

13 Sweet spot identification Key performance indicators based on reservoir properties used to indicate shale prospectivity Hydrocarbon generation Hydrocarbon storage Efficient flow stimulation Performance indicator 1 (PI g ): PI g = R min 0 R 0 R max min 0 R 0 R 0 - Vitrinite reflectance Performance indicator 2 (PI s ): PI s = SC min tot SC tot SC max tot SC tot SC Storage capacity min Performance indicator 3 (PI f ): PI f = 1 2 min BI min BI min BI max min BI min BI Brittleness Index min min + BIdyn BI dyn BI max min dyn BI dyn Mean performance indicator (PI mean ): PI mean = 3 PI g 1 + PI s 1 + PI f 1 arithmetic mean of 3 PI s

14 Sweet spot identification The mean performance indicator is mapped across a shale basin to indicate sweet spot locations Ter Heege et al. 2015

15 Shale gas research and development economics resource estimates characterization sweet spots smart development safe production public perception regulations networks

16 Smart development Synergies between hydraulic fracturing & alternative drilling techniques (radial, fishbone wells) Main aspects: Fishbone wells (100 s of holes m long) Relatively cheap Strongly increase contact with the reservoir High redundancy Fishbones.as m-long laterals kx~0.1md, kz~0.001md m-long laterals Hydraulic fracturing (10-20 stages 100 s m long) Public resistance Less control on dimensions More stable? Horizontal well only

17 Smart development Hydraulic fracturing can be optimized using stress shadows around fractures & perforation locations stress shadows Simultaneous or sequential stimulation (modified after Nagel et al. 2013) Interference fracturing using stress shadow effects (Pierce and Bunge 2015)

18 Smart development Hydraulic fracturing can be optimized (fracture complexity) by varying injection rates Simulation (DDM) of the interaction between hydraulic and natural fractures at different flow conditions (Zhang et al. 2015) Changes in fracture complexity during cyclic injection in two horizontal wells (Urbancic et al. 2014)

19 Shale gas research and development economics resource estimates characterization sweet spots smart development safe production public perception regulations networks

20 wells Safe production surface impacts fraccing faults & induced seismicity Top 5 concerns US (Environmental Defense Fund): 1. General safety: Traffic & transport around well site 2. Methane emissions 3. Improper drilling, completion, operation or abandonment of wells 4. Surface spills and leaks 5. Produced water disposal Modified from Althous et al & EERA Shale gas JP Others: Changing landscape (wildlife, biotopes) Availability water resources Induced seismicity: Hydraulic fracturing & waste water injection

21 Safe production Measuring, Monitoring, Mitigating, Managing the Environmental Impact of Shale Gas 10-country Consortium

22 Safe production Growing concern induced seismicity high volume hydraulic fracturing and waste water disposal Waste water disposal: M w = 5.7 (2011) Prague, Oklahoma (Keranen et al. 2014) Hydraulic fracturing: M L = 4.4 (M w = 3.9, 2014) Fox creek, Duvernay Shale, Canada (Schultz et al. 2015)

23 Safe production Injection volume is a key factor controlling earthquake magnitudes (mitigation options)

24 Safe production Seismic hazard (damage) is controlled by peak ground acceleration rather than EQ magnitudes natural seismicity! Giardini et al (EC SHARE project)

25 Safe production Microseismic monitoring is crucial for optimum production as well as mitigating subsurface risks De Pater & Baisch 2011 Microseismic monitoring of hydraulic fracturing in the Preese Hall -1 well (top) and historical seismicity (right) in the Blackpool region British Geological Survey 2011

26 Thank you for your attention Green River Formation, Colorado, USA Photo: Susanne Nelskamp (TNO)