Techno-economic Assessment of Water Management Solutions

Transcription

1 Techno-economic Assessment of Water Management Solutions Shale Gas Water Management Marcellus Initiative 2011 Dr. Radisav Vidic, University of Pittsburgh Dr. Tom Hayes, Gas Technology Institute Steve Hughes PE, Tetra Tech

2 Project deliverables > A simplified way to organize water management system for unconventional gas plays > Evaluate economic implications of different management alternatives > Implications of potential regulatory changes > Analysis of conventional and emerging technology options > Understanding of how solutions change as we enter each phase of a development area s life-cycle. > Identify beneficial alternatives for solid waste disposal 2

3 Partners Company Lead contacts General role Gas Technology Institute Tom Hayes, Trevor Smith, Guy Lewis Flow scheme analysis, project management, life-cycle modeling Tetra Tech Steve Hughes Holistic economic assessment Global Water Advisors Joe Zuback Global emerging solutions Herschell Environmental Judith Herschell Regulatory Assessment University of Pittsburgh Dr. Radisav Vidic Emerging solutions for water reuse 3

4 Project participants Company Noble Energy Williams Energy Seneca Resources Chevron Shell Eni (Italy) EBN (The Netherlands) Orlen Upstream (Poland) Marathon Devon Energy Range Resources Type Producer Producer Producer Producer Producer Producer Producer Producer Producer Producer Producer 4

5 Project participants Company Type National Oilwell Varco (NOV) Service company Weatherford Service company Schlumberger/MiSWACO Service company Reserve Environmental Services Service company 212 Resources Technology and service provider Aquatech Technology and service provider Aqua-Pure/Fountain Quail Technology and service provider Keppel O&M (Singapore) Technology and service provider Ecosphere Technologies Technology and service provider Clean Membranes Technology provider 5

6 Agenda > Flow management options and water characteristics that define treatment requirements > Water management cost envelopes > Key drivers and potential impacts of emerging solutions > Realities of the water life-cycle analysis > Q&A 6

7 Flow Schemes & Treatment Requirements Dr. Tom Hayes, Gas Technology Institute

8 Flow scheme 1: Conventional Water Management Fresh Water Flowback Class II Well Disposal Well 1 Represents Maximum Water Demand (No Water Reuse) Conventional approach in Barnett and other plays Difficult in Marcellus (only 7 Class II wells) 8

9 Flow scheme 2: On-Site Primary Treatment for Reuse Well 1 On-Site Settling SS & FR Rem High TDS Reuse Water Blend Well 2 Makeup Water (Fresh Water) 9

10 Flow scheme 3: Off-Site Primary Treatment for Reuse On-Site Settling SS Removal Rapid Mix w/ Caustic & Flocculant Sedimentation & Hardness Rem Rapid Sand Filter Well 1 Near-Field Primary Treatment Belt Press Disinfect (Ozone or Peroxide) Solids to Landfill Blend High TDS Water For Reuse Well 2 Makeup Water (Fresh Water) 10

11 Flow scheme 4: Off-Site Primary Treatment and Demineralization Well 1 On-Site Settling SS Removal Blend Near Field Primary Treatment Distilled Water For Reuse Demineral- Ization Mechanical Vapor Recomp Concentrated Brine Disposal (Class II Well) Or By-Product Recovery (Crystallizer) Well 2 Makeup Water (Fresh Water) 11

12 Water Treatment Functions Applicable to Shale Gas Water Mgt > Friction Reducer Removal > Suspended Solids Removal > General Hardness Removal/Scale Control (Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn) > Barium Scale Control (NORM) > Soluble Organics Removal > Microbial Control > Demineralization > Salt Mgt Options (By-Product Recovery, Class II Wells, POTW s, Landfill, etc.) 12

13 Water Management Cost Envelopes Steve Hughes PE, Tetra Tech

14 Major Cost Factors Direct Costs Quantity and quality of flowback/produced Water Disposal or recycle Level of treatment required Transportation mode and distance to treatment or disposal destinations 14

15 Flow scheme 1 Deep Well Injection Can be cost effective and environmentally responsible disposal method Promoted by regulatory agencies Many E&Ps are considering converting existing shale gas wells into injection wells Typical injection flowrates - 1,000 to 4,000 bbl/day Typical costs 1.50 to 3.50 $/bbl (transportation costs not included) Transportation costs can be a major issue 15

16 Flow scheme 2 On-site Primary Treatment for Reuse Minimal treatment TSS removal and chemical disinfection Mid-level treatment minimal treatment plus heavy metals removal Full-level treatment mid-level treatment plus BA & Sr removal and possibly ozonation Typical treatment flowrates - 2,400 to 14,400 bbl/day Typical range of costs 1.00 to 5.00 $/bbl Transportation costs are negligible since treatment done at well site 16

17 Flow scheme 3 Off-site Primary Treatment for Reuse Similar treatment processes offered in Option 3, but at a larger fix-based treatment facility Location typically within 20 miles of well field Typical treatment flowrates 12,000 to 48,000 bbl/day Typical treatment costs 0.50 to 4.00 $/bbl Transportation costs can be a issue 17

18 Flow scheme 4 Off-site Primary Treatment and Demineralization Fixed-based treatment facility that includes primary treatment processes and mechanical evaporation Concentrated brine reject stream (~ 40%) will need to be disposed of or converted to salt cake for reuse Recovered distillate can be reused as frac water or used in other industrial applications (e.g., power plant operations) 18

19 Flow scheme 4 Off-site Primary Treatment and Demin. (cont.) Typical treatment flowrates 12,000 to 48,000 bbl/day Typical treatment costs 4.00 to 6.50 $/bbl Brine reject stream disposal (landfill or injection well) or conversion to salt cake is an extra cost Transportation costs can be a issue 19

20 Transportation and Indirect Costs Transportation Costs Truck transportation costs for a 1-hour round trip well field to off-site treatment facility is ~1 $/bbl For longer round trips, rail, barge or pipeline options can be more cost-effective Indirect Costs Road Maintenance Air emissions from diesel powered trucks and generators 20

21 Key Drivers and Potential Impacts of Emerging Solutions Dr. Radisav Vidic, University of Pittsburgh

22 Emerging Solutions Investigation Method 1. Develop Tools for Screening and Comparing Current and Emerging Solutions Information fields used Technology Description Benefits Drawbacks References Comments 2. Recommend emerging solutions for each challenge for further investigation a. Microbiological control b. Demineralization c. NORM removal d. Control of Organics e. Salt management 22

23 Microbial Control Solutions Categories 1. Organic biocides/biostats (12) 2. Inorganic biocides (6) 3. Non-chemical biocide Chemical addition (3) Physical treatment process (5) 4. Chemical Oxidants (3) Total solutions investigated: 29 23

24 Demineralization Solutions Categories 1. Evaporators (5) 2. Osmotic Membrane (5) 3. Electro Membrane (5) 4. Mechanical Membrane (2) 5. Ion Exchange (3) 6. Hybrid IX + Membrane (1) 7. Freeze-Thaw Demineralization (4) 8. Hybrid NF Systems (2) 9. Evaporation Ponds (2) Total solutions investigated: 29 24

25 NORM Control Solutions Categories 1. Precipitation (7) 2. Regenerable Media (4) 3. Non-regenerable Media and Absorbents (7) Total solutions investigated: 18 25

26 Control of Organics Categories 1. Oxidation processes a. Preformed oxidants (5) b. On-site formation (5) 2. Physical separation (6) 3. Biological treatment (3) 4. Hybrid solutions (4) Total solutions investigated: 23 26

27 Salt Management Categories 1. Offsite disposal (3) 2. Salt recovery (8) 3. Beneficial brine use (2) Total solutions investigated: 13 27

28 Realities of the Life-cycle Dr. Tom Hayes, Gas Technology Institute

29 Preparing for the Future Utility of Life Cycle Analysis Investigate available reuse capacity means versus projected water generation Project transportation needs (trucks/miles) Estimate salt generation and concentration profiles Guidance for treatment needs and options 29

30 Resource Development Area

31 Marcellus Life Cycle , ,000 BBL (Millions/Year) , , ,000 TDS PPM 10 50, Years Flowback Recovery + Produced Water Reuse Capacity Non- Reuse Option Concentration 0 31

32 Why Care? Water reuse opportunity is finite An enhanced toolkit is required to proactively address future challenges Innovation and demonstration of sustainable practices needed to reduce direct costs and uncertainly of indirect costs Produced water is a sneak attack All 4 flow-schemes have a role Salts are a significant disposal challenge 32