REDUCING THE FRESHWATER FOOTPRINT ASSOCIATED WITH SHALE OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT

Transcription

1 REDUCING THE FRESHWATER FOOTPRINT ASSOCIATED WITH SHALE OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT Stephen D. Richardson, Ph.D., P.E. Ann P. Smith, P.E., BCEE GSI Environmental Inc., Austin TX Water Management Utica and Marcellus Shale June 10, 2015

2 SHALE O&G ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Water Use for Drilling & Construction Eagle Ford Shale Play Total Water Use ( ) 40 bgal (Scanlon et al., 2014)

3 SHALE O&G ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Water Use for Drilling & Construction Hydraulic fracturing of horizontal wells uses 10 to 20x more water than conventional wells Water Needs for Shale Gas Wells (GWPC/ALL Consulting, 2009) 3

4 SHALE O&G ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Water Use vs. Other Demands Eagle Ford Shale Play KEY POINT: Higher water use, but low relative to competing water demands (Scanlon et al., 2014) 4

5 SHALE O&G ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Water Use Over Lifetime of Well Water to Oil Ratio: Bbls of Water / Bbls of Oil 3.6 In terms of water per bbl of oil produced, HF wells use 10x LESS water than conventional oil wells. (Scanlon et al., 2014b) Bakken Oil Play Eagle Ford Gas Play Eagle Ford Oil Play Conventional Oil Play KEY POINT: MORE water short-term, LESS water long-term per bbl or oil. 5

6 SHALE O&G ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Public Perception Regarding Water Use KEY QUESTION: Will public concerns result in legislative action to reduce water use, promote recycling?

7 SHALE O&G ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Water Stressed Regions (CERES, Freyman, 2014)

8 SHALE O&G WATER USE Regional Impact? 8 Available Groundwater Supply vs. Demand Remaining Available Fresh Water 20-Year supply of fresh water far exceeds demands. (Scanlon et al, 2014b) Eagle Ford Shale Agriculture, Municipal, Power: 10% Hydraulic Fracturing: 3%

9 SHALE O&G WATER USE Local Impact? Effect of Water Use on Groundwater Levels in Local Wells Water levels in local wells have been dropping for 40 years, but now more steeply. (Scanlon et al 2014b) Eagle Ford Shale KEY POINT: Water Demand only Recently Peaked and is Projected to Continue at the Current Rate for 20 More Years 9

10 SHALE O&G WATER SOURCING Are We Doing a Good Job? AQUIFERS IN EAGLE FORD FRESH VS. BRACKISH USE Carrizo: Fresh Queen City/ Sparta: Brackish 20% 5% TBEG survey indicates that fresh water remains the key water source in Eagle Ford and Barnett (Nicot et al, 2012).

11 SHALE O&G WATER SOURCING Are We Doing a Good Job? Eagle Ford Shale: Fresh vs. Saline Water Supplies 20-YEAR WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND (BGAL) 80K 11K 0.3K Available saline water supply exceeds fresh water, as well as HF demand. Scanlon et al, TBEG, 2014b Saline Groundwater Fresh Groundwater HF Water Demand 11

12 SHALE O&G WATER RECYCLING Are We Doing a Good Job? PERCENT OF FLOWBACK WATER REUSED 90% Very limited reuse or recycling of flowback water in Eagle Ford. 5% 0% IMPEDIMENTS: Inconsistent flow/composition Low volumes in the Eagle Ford Can be more costly than raw water SOURCES: PADEP, 2013; Nicot et al., 2014; TBEG, 2012

13 SHALE O&G WATER MANAGEMENT Some Considerations Freshwater Use Will Likely Become an Issue in the Eagle Ford Available Supplies of Brackish Groundwater with No Current Competing Demand Issues to Consider: Technical and Legal Water Play Agreements Operator Awareness Next Steps: Develop a long-term water management plan that includes outreach and modeling both fresh and brackish water resources over the life of the play. 13

14 WATER MANAGER S CHALLENGE Get Right Amount to Right Place at Right Time. Few Locations: Easy Water Supply Fresh Water Drilling, Completions, Storage Well Sites Salt Water Recycling, Disposal Lots of Locations: Not So Easy KEY POINT: Time, distance, and costs complicate water management for multiple sites but offer opportunities to optimize. 14

15 IMPROVED WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIRES PLANNING WHAT WE WANNA DO Lower Fresh Water Use (Not easy) More Recycling / Reuse (Harder) Fewer Trucks WATER NEEDS HOW ARE WE GONNA DO IT? Long-Term, Field-Scale Planning: Define infrastructure for water supply, transport, storage and disposal needs. Daily, Rig-Level Planning: Optimize use of that infrastructure to support daily operations to meet water mgm t goals.

16 WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING: LONG-TERM AND NEAR-TERM PLANNING ELEVATION 10,000 FT LONG-TERM, FIELD- SCALE PLANNING: Total water demand Storage facilities Trucking contracts Recycling options 10 FT WELL 1 WELL 2 WELL 3 DAILY, RIG-SCALE PLANNING: Daily supply/ storage Water delivery Recycling transfers Disposal

17 WATER MANAGEMENT: COOL PLANNING TOOLS MODULE WHAT WHO WHEN INPUT OUTPUT LONG-TERM, FIELD- SCALE PLANNING EXCEL Worksheet Regional Water Mgr. 6 mos. 1 year Average water demand, transport distances and unit costs Total demand for water supply, storage, transport, disposal, recycling DAILY, RIG-SCALE PLANNING GIS + Database Operations Mgr. 2 4 weeks Real-Time water demand, transport distances and unit costs Daily demand for water supply, storage, transport, disposal

18 WATER BALANCE BASICS: MINDING YOUR V S AND Q S NERD SPEAK V t = ΣQ in ΣQ out Easy! PLAIN ENGLISH Flow In Rate of change in water storage equals total inflow minus total outflow. Flow Out Q in Storage Volume V Q out Key Point: Flow balance is basis for water mgm t optimization.

19 WATER MANAGEMENT TOOLS: START TO FINISH WATER BALANCE

20 MODULE 1: LONG-TERM PLANNING TOOL: MINIMAL INPUT INJECTION DEMAND AND FLOWBACK CHARACTERISTICS INJECTION WATER DEMAND Primary Input Total number of well pad sites to be serviced (#) 60 Pad sites serviced simultaneous (No. of frac spreads) (#) 3 Number of wells to be serviced at each well pad (#) 8 Total volume of water injected per well (bbl) 85,000 Max. salinity or chem conc. in pre-injection water (ppm) 50,000WATER SUPPLY, STORAGE, AND TRANSPORT Duration of injection (all stages) for one well (days) 7 Total water demand - concurrent operations (bbl/day) 56,918 FLOWBACK CHARACTERISTICS User Input Percent injected water that returns as flowback (%) 20% Time required for 95% of flowback to return (days) 21 Average salinity or chem conc. (ppm) 200,000 WATER SOURCES Secured Availability Unsecured Avail. (bbl/day) (bbl/day) (ppm) ($/bbl) Re-use from prior operations 10, ,833 $0.00 Groundwater 15,000 1,000 12,000 $1.25 Surface water 15,000 2,500 15,000 $1.01 Other sources 10,000 2,500 9,500 $1.12 Additional w ater required 68 Salinity/ Conc. Unit Cost View Secondary Inputs Help Close Total/Effective Supply (all sources) 50,850 6,000 0 $0.00 Key Point: Fewer than 30 inputs req d to assess alternative field mgm t scenarios. PAD SITE AND REMOTE STORAGE Storage in pits/impoundments 10% 75% Storage in tanks 90% 25% WATER TRANSPORT at Well Pad Sites Percentage at Remote Location Average travel distance (mi.) Transport by truck (bbl/day) 50% 16.1 Req'd hydraulic lift (ft) Transport by pipline (bbl/day) 50% View Secondary Inputs Help Close Use average Specify by route

21 MODULE 1: LONG-TERM PLANNING TOOL: OUTPUT WATER PLANT INFRASTRUCTURE KEY QUESTION: Necessary infrastructure to handle multiple fracs? CAPACITY FOR SIMULTANEOUS FRACS Incoming Brine Tanks: 6 Treatment Plant: 3 Truck Traffic: 3 ASSUMPTIONS: Flowback from 1 frac = 20% of 5 Mgal/14 days = 1700 bbl/d. Incoming Brine tank capacity = 25,000 bbl. Treatment throughput = 120 gpm. Truck daily capacity = 325 trucks/day. Disposal well limit = 5,000 bbl/d (1 day limit 20,000 bbl). Q IB V IB Incoming Brine Tanks Q DW Disposal Well Q CW Treatment System Q sl Sludge Disposal Water Management Facility Q E V OB Fresh Water Supply Q W V WP Empty Incoming Full Incoming Full Outgoing Pipeline to Well Site(s) Empty Outgoing Q FWP

22 MODULE 1: LONG-TERM PLANNING TOOL: OUTPUT WATER MGM T OPTIMIZATION TOTAL WATER MANAGEMENT SUMMARY KEY PERFORMANCE METRICS User Result Total-Water-Re-use (bbl/day) 10,767 Total-Truck-Transport (road mi/day) 16,256 Total-Water-Cost ($/bbl) $4.92 OUTPUT: Compares user-input and optimized scenarios for supply, transport, recycling, and cost

23 WRAP UP: DOING BETTER BY PLANNING SMARTER DO LESS DO MORE FRESH WATER USE TRUCKING BRINE USE RECYCLING KEY POINT: Water management tools can help to optimize water sourcing, transport, recycling, and costs.

24 QUESTIONS? Stephen D. Richardson, Ph.D., P.E. GSI Environmental Inc. (512)

25 MODULES 1 AND 2: WATER MGM T STRATEGY CASE 3 VARIABLE WATER SUPPLY VS. STORAGE Susquehanna River Seasonal Flow Variation Optimal Utilization: Utilize resources in reverse order of cost. Seasonal Constraints: Must stockpile water to meet demand during dry spells or low flow periods.

26 MODULES 1 AND 2: WATER MGM T STRATEGY CASE 3 VARIABLE WATER SUPPLY VS. STORAGE 8,400 bbl/d Average Demand DEMAND 590,000 bbl Peak Storage Requirement STORAGE 10,000 bbl/d 2,500 bbl/d Utilized SUPPLY Required Storage: 600,000 bbl (~20 ac. Pond or 1200 frac tanks)

27 MODULE 2: DAILY OPERATIONS TOOL: CASE 3: SCHEDULING DASHBOARD FRAC SPREADS Crew 13 Crew 5 Crew 20 MOBILE TREATMENT UNITS Mobile Recycling Unit 1 Mobile Recycling Unit 2 MOBILE WATER STORAGE Frac Tank Assembly 1 Baker Rich Jenkins Hughes Poly Tanks #340 SITES / WELLS Bravo 2 Bravo 51 Charlie 1 Charlie 8 Delta 10 Eagle 5 Eagle 6 Eagle 11 Foxtrot 6 Foxtrot 9 Date June July Bravo 51 Mobilize Eagle 11 Mobilize Mobilize Charlie 8 Mobilize Charlie 1 Bravo 2 Mobilize Eagle 5 Mobilize Delta 10 Charlie 1 Offline for Maintenance Bravo 9 Mobilize Eagle 6 On Loan to Pecos Field Frac - Crew 20 Flowback Workover Production Frac - Crew 13 Water Storage Schedule Flowback Workover Production Drilling Site Prep Frac - Crew 5 Site Prep Frac - Crew 5 Flowback Coordinated water Drilling Site Prep Frac - Crew 20 Site Prep Crew 20 Flowback demands for Well Shut In - Waiting for Available Workover Crew Drilling Site Prep Frac - Crew 13 Flowback Flowback Workover Production Flowback Workover Production DAILY SCHEDULE: multiple wells. Storage Need Storage Shortfall

28 TWDB WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS Water demand projections (acre-ft per year) Source: 28

29 SHALE GAS: LAND USE EFFICIENCY VS. OTHER ENERGY SOURCES Blue Wing Solar Farm, San Antonio, TX Shale Gas Well Fracking, Barnett Shale, TX SOLAR 214,000 panels, 113 ac, 27 K MW/yr 800 mmbtu/ year per acre SHALE GAS 94 wells, 62 ac, 1.4 billion mmbtu/ yr 23 million mmbtu/ year per acre 29

30 SHALE GAS: LAND USE EFFICIENCY VS. OTHER ENERGY SOURCES Blue Wing Solar Farm, San Antonio, TX SOLAR SHALE GAS LAND USE 4x more efficient than coal, conventional gas, oil. 10,000 x more efficient than biodiesel. 28,000 x more efficient than solar farm. 214,000 panels, 113 ac, 27 K MW/yr 800 mmbtu/ year per acre Shale Gas Well Fracking, Barnett Shale, TX SHALE GAS 94 wells, 62 ac, 1.4 billion mmbtu/ yr 23 million mmbtu/ year per acre 30

31 MODULE 1: LONG-TERM, FIELD-SCALE PLANNING TOOL Scenario: HYDRAULIC FRACTURING WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING & SCOPING MULTIPLE FRACTURING SPREADS Enter Primary Inputs CONTROL PANEL Define Objectives Help Show Results DISPOSAL Treated & Untreated Leftover Pre-Injection REMOTE WA MAIN SCREEN: Interface addresses each component of water balance stepby-step

32 PROJECT PLANNING AND SCOPING MODULE EXAMPLE - CASE 1: WATER PLANT INFRASTRUCTURE Disposal Well Flowback DAILY CAPACITY FOR SIMULTANEOUS FRACS Incoming Brine Tanks: 6 Treatment Plant: 3 Truck Traffic: 3 Treatment System Fresh Water FRESH WATER STORAGE POND Fresh Water Wells Water management analysis used to characterize throughput, identify bottlenecks, and size infrastructure components.

33 MODULE 2: DAILY OPERATIONS TOOL - INTERACTIVE MAP MAIN SCREEN: GISinterface tracks rig locations, demands in real time.

34 SHALE O&G WATER MANAGEMENT Objectives & Challenges OBJECTIVES Rig Support: Reliable, timely, flexible water supply. No lost rig time. Optimization: Optimal water supply, recycling, and disposal. Cost Control: Minimize life-cycle costs CHALLENGES Scheduling: Changes in rig schedule/ locations. Competition for Resources: Water source, trucking, water disposal. Public Perception: Excessive water use, road damage, etc.