the use of odeling for lifecycle ater management lanning in shale development€¦ · ·...

THE USE OF MODELING FOR LIFECYCLE WATER

MANAGEMENT PLANNING IN SHALE DEVELOPMENT

Authors: David Alleman,

Dan Arthur, P.E., SPEC, Jeff Cline, Bill Hochheiser

ALL Consulting Tulsa, Oklahoma

GWPC’s 2013 UIC Conference

Sarasota, Florida

ABSTRACT Managing water through the shale development process can be more complicated than is often anticipated. In the process of developing shales, water must be sourced, tracked, transported, blended, staged, used, produced, and recycled/disposed. Operators must plan for the pace of development, water requirements for drilling and fracturing must be defined (volume and quality), water losses (e.g., evaporation) must be accounted for, water conditioning and/or treatment must be designed and planned, transportation must be arranged (e.g., trucking, overland piping, etc.), storage must be arranged, permitting must be completed, and many other tasks. The complexity of the planning process has created a demand for a variety of modeling techniques to be used to more easily facilitate the planning process and to allow for change management when drilling and/or completion plans are modified. Determining the pace of water and storage demand alone can be complicated, but when considering the volume of water required in a very short timeframe for high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF), planning must be spot on. As part of three separate U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) research projects, ALL Consulting (along with many cooperators) have developed models that ease the water management planning process. This includes the Water Planning Tool (originally developed for Coal Bed Methane water planning), Water Blending and Scale Affinity Model, Water Treatment Catalog, along with others. This paper will present these and other tools while also discussing the challenge of lifecycle water management.

Copyright (c), ALL Consulting, 2013 2 January 2013

4

3

1 Introduction

Water Model Examples

Closing Thoughts

Outline

3 Copyright (c), ALL Consulting, 2013 January 2013

INTRODUCTION


5

Water Management Considerations

Water Sourcing -Surface water -Groundwater

-Alternative Sources

Water Treatment

Road and Lease Construction

Well Drilling

Well Completions

Water Transportation

Water Storage & Evaporation

Produced Water

Frac Fluid Flowback

Disposal Well

Reuse

5

Land Owner Concerns

Evolving Regulations

Economics

Droughts

Compliance

Timing

Risks

Copyright (c), ALL Consulting, 2013 January 2013

Lifecycle Water Management Planning 6 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

November 2012 6 Copyright (c) 2012 ALL Consulting

Water Targets for Fracture Fluid Parameter Value Range

TDS 0 – 40,000 mg/L

pH 5.5 – 8.5

Chlorides 0 – 25,000

Total Hardness 0 – 500 mg/L

Iron 0 – 50 mg/L

Calcium 0 – 3,000 mg/L

Bi-carbonate 0 – 500mg/L Source: ALL Consulting from discussions with various operators, 2009 NOTE: The above is a representation of target water quality levels that several companies are considering and evaluating in an effort to use lower quality water for hydraulic fracturing. These targets are likely to change as technical feasibility continues to be analyzed in various basins.

7

• Shale development may have specific quantity and quality targets for fracture fluid water.

• Source water for fracturing may originate from multiple sources

Water Reuse & Blending Prod. Water TDS

(mg/L)

Theoretical Volume of PW that could be used

to create a blended water of 5,000 mg/L

TDS (gal)

Theoretical Volume of PW that could be used to

create a blended water of 40,000 mg/L TDS (gal)

30,000 508,474 900,000 (+)

50,000 303,030

900,000 (+)

100,000 150,753 900,000 (+)

150,000 100,334

802,675

200,000 75,187

593,984

NOTE: For example purposes only, the above data assumes 3-million gallon fracture fluid volume, 30% recovery of fracturing fluids, and combining that recovered water with fresh water having a TDS of 500 mg/L to create a blended water for fracturing totally 3 million gallons. Source: ALL Consulting

8 Copyright (c), ALL Consulting, 2013 8 January 2013

• In some plays, water blending is critical to meet both water sourcing demands and management of produced water

• Water blending can also be used to engineer water to reduce chemical additives in fracturing.

Managing Water Options

• Under active development scenarios, water management can be complex in any play.

• Planning must consider current and future development plans, locations, logistics, water sources, quality requirements, and more.

• Models become a beneficial means to effectively meet water management demands.

• Various models may be used for purposes such as: – Planning water needs and disposal alternatives, – Assessing treatment alternatives, – Staging and blending water – Etc.


Example Models • Models are available from a wide variety of

sources. • Model examples developed by ALL as part of

research with the U.S. DOE’s NETL, GWPC, IOGCC and industry include: – Water Assessment Tool (WAT) – Water Catalog and Decision Tool – Mixing and Scale Affinity Model

• Basic analytical models are also commonly used for planning and compliance.


WATER ANALYSIS TOOL


Water Assessment Tool (WAT)

• Rapidly analyze various water management portfolio options in the design phase.

• Three components – Water Balance Module – Economic Analysis Module – Water Mixing Model.

• Components can be utilized individually or in tandem.

• The WAT is an advanced planning tool that incorporates development needs with water requirements.


WAT Modules • Water Balance -

– Determine the viability of a conceptual water management portfolio. – Allows the user to rapidly assess the ability of a potential water

management portfolio to handle the estimated peak volume of produced water

– The water management portfolio can be adjusted through an iterative process until a satisfactory water management portfolio is determined

• Economical Analysis – Estimate and compare costs, both capital and operational, associated

with the different water management portfolios chosen in the water balance model.

– Compare estimated total cost of multiple potential water management portfolios for a project on a relative basis

• Water Mixing – Estimate the change in water quality values of a receiving body of

water when produced water discharge (whether it be raw water or treated water) into a surface water (such as a river) is anticipated.

– Calculates mix ratios of electrical conductivity (EC) and sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) after mixing of treated water with untreated raw water and average historical surface water data.


WATER MIXING & SCALE AFFINITY MODEL


Scale Affinity and Mixing Model • Predicts resultant chemical composition of

mixed waters, allowing the user to see how waters are predicted to react when mixed.

• Addresses the mixing of multiple source waters, identifying the affinity for scale formation and the potential species of scale formed.

• Provides the ability to analyze multiple water sources and mixing ratios to identify the most favorable mix ratio of available waters to meet specified targets for quality parameters.

• Allows the development of an engineered water by specifying the desired limits for various constituents and then determining the optimum mix of up to three different waters


The Water Blending Model • Uses an established and verified aqueous

geochemical model developed by the US Geological Survey (PHREEQC).

• Allows user to input multiple source water compositions and analyze the resultant chemical composition of water by mixing of different ratios of these fluids.

• The program predicts speciation formation through the calculation of saturation-indices, allowing the user to identify potential for the formation of the most common Carbonate and Sulfate scale-forming species.

• Model reacts mixed water solutions by allowing water chemistry to come to equilibrium on select species and then allows user to use that reacted water in subsequent modeling.


Scale Affinity Indices Calculated • Skillman Index

– Analysis for CaSO4Scale – Model Limited to Temp of

25oC • Larson-Skold Index

– Addresses Chlorides, Sulfates, and Alkalinity

– Developed for Great Lakes quality cooling water

• Ryznar Stability Index – Analysis for CaCO3 Scale – Multiple interpretation

regimes Ryznar Interpretation(1942), Carrier Interpretation (1965)

• Puckorius Scaling Index – Analysis for CaCO3 Scale

• Langelier Saturation Index – Analysis for CaCO3 Scale – TDS Limit <10,000 ppm – Total Hardness <4,000 ppm

• Stiff-Davis Stability Index – Analysis for CaCO3 Scale – Works for TDS >10,000 ppm – Temp Limit <90o C

• Oddo-Tomson Scale Index – Analysis for CaCO3 Scale – Corrects for multiple phases

(water, gas, and oil) – Model limits Temp to 25oC

• Aggressive Index – Analysis for CaCO3 Scale

• Driving Force Index – Analysis for CaCO3 Scale


Mixed Water Quality Outputs Scale Model

Output Example

Mixed Water Composition Output Example

Mineral Saturation Indices Example Outputs


WATER TREATMENT CATALOG (FOR SHALES)


Water Treatment Catalog • Provides a description of the water

treatment technologies applicable to shale gas development, profiles of the known vendors that are active in the project basins, and links to vendor sites.

• Provides a system that guides users to the treatment technologies that best fit the users’ water quality, water management and regulatory situation.

• Provides a tool to predict the detailed chemical reactions that will take place when the users’ produced water sources are mixed with their fresh water and provides relevant scale indices.

• Provides federal, state, or river basin commission agencies that regulate shale gas produced water management as well as links to both the regulations and to the agency web-sites.


Treatment Companies by Play

Treatment Technology

Shale Play Where company is Active

Barnett Marcellus Fayetteville Woodford Eagle Ford Bakken

Thermal Evaporation/ Distillation

Fountain Quail INTEVRAS

Technologies GE Water &

Process Technologies

212 Resources Fountain Quail

Altela Aquatech Intevras

Technologies GE Water & Process

Technologies Eureka Resources

Fountain Quail

INTEVRAS

GE Water & Process

Technologies

Fountain Quail 212 Resources

Purestream 212 Resources

Reverse Osmosis Geopure Water Technologies Ecosphere

MI SWACO GreenHunter Water

Veolia Water Solutions

Ecosphere Geopure Ecosphere Ecosphere Ecosphere

Crystallization Intevras Technologies

Veolia Water Solutions

Crystallization Aquatech

Eureka Resources

UV Light and Ozone Ecosphere Halliburton Ecosphere Ecosphere Ecosphere Ecosphere

Technology Highlights • Feed water stream divides – Flows through distillate and concentrate preheat exchangers that recapture

process heat (sensible heat) from recirculating/treated distillate and concentrated brine • Flows are recombined – Enters a recirculation loop that moves fluid from a separator vessel through a

circulation pump to the evaporator exchanger and back to the separator vessel • Steam moves to evaporator exchanger – Condenses into distilled water

Aqua-Pure Ventures Inc., Fountain Quail Water Management LLC

Copyright (c), ALL Consulting, 2012 22 December 2012

• Treatment Category – Thermal Distillation/Evaporation

• Treatment Subcategory – Mechanical Vapor Recompression

• Technology Name – NOMAD Mobile Evaporator • Surface Footprint – Approximately 2,500 ft2

• Feed Capacity – Approximately 2,500 bbls/day • Output – Approximately 2,000 bbls/day • Costs – Approximately $3.00 to $5.00 per bbl

(includes transportation, power consumption, and labor); approximately $3.00 per bbl to treat only.

Fountain Quail MVR NOMAD Facility

• Treatment Category – Reverse Osmosis/UV & Ozonation

• Treatment Subcategory – Membrane and Microbe Removal

• Technology Name – OzonixTM • Surface Footprint – Approximately 380 ft2 • Feed Capacity – EcoFracTM, 120 barrels per minute;

EcosBrineTM, 300 BBls per hour, Ozonix (to include RO), 100 gpm.

• Feed Water Quality – 20,000 – 30,000 mg/L, approximately 50%-70% water recovery

• Costs – EcosFrac™, $0.60 to $0.75 per bbl; EcosBrine™, approximately $2.00 per bbl; OzonixTM Process to include RO, $3.50 - $4.00 per bbl

Technology Highlights

• As part of the Ozonix process, super-saturated ozonated water is flash mixed with influent and dual-frequency ultrasonic transducers initiate the dissolved gas flotation of oils and suspended solids and the conversion of ozone to hydroxyl radicals

• Nano-cavitation bubbles imploding provide the liquid-gas interface that is instantaneously heated to approximately 900oF, which in turn oxidizes all known organic compounds.

• Ultrasonic cavitation cleaves larger particles into smaller particles for faster removal by flotation.

• The last step of the Ozonix process, if required, separates brine from fresh water by using RO technology

Ecosphere Technologies, Inc.


Ecosphere’s EcosFrac™ (EF-600) Tank


• Combination of pre-treatment, microfiltration, and RO are operated in series to treat produced water compositions and generate clean water stream that can then be discharged or reused for fracing

• Depending on the quality of the feed water, the process implements various pretreatment processes to remove dispersed oil, suspended solids, or dissolved hydrocarbons

• Pretreated water is then further purified with polymeric microfiltration and RO

GeoPure Hydrotechnologies


• Treatment Category – Membrane • Treatment Subcategory – Reverse Osmosis

and Micro-Filtration • Technology Name – AdvancedHydro

System™ • Surface Footprint – Not Reported

• Feed Capacity – 5,000 bbls/day • Feedwater TDS – Approximately 15, 000 mg/L,

approximately 50% water recovery • Costs – $0.94 bbl (based on costs reported for

Barnett Shale study)

GeoPure Water Treatment Site


• EVRAS utilizes low-grade waste heat (typically from compressors) to concentrate and/or crystallize large volume wastewater streams

• The EVRAS system has three main components: • Conventional heat exchanger • Direct contact floating bead (DCFB) heat exchanger • Crystallizing undulating film air contacting chamber

• The conventional heat exchanger uses a waste heat source to warm a coolant which then warms the system’s heat transfer liquid (HTL)

INTEVRAS Technologies, Inc.


• Treatment Category – Thermal Distillation/Evaporation

• Treatment Subcategory – Crystallization or ZLD

• Technology Name – EVRAS • Surface Footprint – 820 ft2

• Feed Capacity – 1,200 Bbls of fresh water can be evaporated out of 3,000 bbls of saltwater

• Feedwater TDS – 310,000 mg/L, % water recovery not applicable with technology.

• Costs – Not Reporte

EVRAS unit in the Barnett Shale

CLOSING THOUGHTS


Summary • Planning for the entire water management

lifecycle is essential (including compliance). • Water planning in any play is complicated when

development includes high drilling and completion activity.

• Water management considerations can be very complex with one decision affecting multiple other decisions.

• Use of models provides comprehensive, consistent consideration of options.

• Modeling also enables strategic innovative planning and incorporation of sustainable solutions.


David Alleman ALL Consulting

[email protected]

Citation Information: Alleman, David, D. Arthur, P.E., SPEC, J. Cline, W. Hochheiser, ALL Consulting. “The Use of Modeling for Lifecycle Water Management Planning in Shale Development”. Presented at the Ground Water Protection Council’s 2013 UIC Conference, January 22-24, 2013, Sarasota, Florida.


the use of odeling for lifecycle ater management lanning in shale development€¦ · ·...

Documents