water management in shale developments -...
TRANSCRIPT
Water Management in Shale
Developments
John Walsh, PhD
Gary Crisp
GHD Consulting Services
Outline of Presentation
Some background
Definition of problem – water management
The five key drivers for water management in HF operations
High level assessment of options for water management
The cost model for refining the options
Background – Hydraulic Fracturing in Horizontal Wells
Horizontal section at
bottom of well running
through the shale
seam.
Well is cased.
Each "stage" (section)
is isolated by plugs.
Perf and HF is carried
out from the toe to the
heel one stage at a
time.
When all stages are HF, the plugs are drilled out.
Fractures are vertical. Well-to-well communication is minimized by vertical rather
than horizontal fractures.
Background – What does “Unconventional” mean?
Hydraulic fracturing has been practiced for decades.
Roughly 1 million wells have been hydraulically fractured in the US.
Roughly 1.5 million wells have been hydraulically fractured outside the US.
“Unconventional” refers to the reservoir type (extremely low permeability) and to the method of proppant placement (long horizontal wells with mechanical packers that allow fracturing of several zones that are isolated from each other).
(mD)
ref: G. King SPE 152596(2012)
Background – Water Volumes
Water Management for unconventional hydraulic fracturing is challenging because:
large volumes of water:
• Unconventional HF: 120,000 bbl (20 ML)/job
• Conventional HF: 2,000 bbl (320 kL)/job
the produced water is often “stranded,” but networks and distribution systems always develop where there is an economic incentive
from an industrial water treatment perspective, the segment has grown rapidly: 8 MBWPD (0.15 GL/day) in N Am in just a few years
local environmental and social issues.
Definition of Problem
Definition of problem:
The large volumes of water involved in hydraulic fracturing (HF) in shale development potentially adds significant cost if not properly managed
Proven technologies exist – this is not the problem
Making decisions early, and planning for water is critical
This is not a traditional area of oilfield strength, therefore many operators do not know how to do this
Water Issues and Challenges
Water treating challenges fall into four categories:
Source: Cost to obtain fresh water for hydraulic fracturing job
Re-Use: Cost and challenges to re-use the flow back water as hydraulic fracture make up water.
Recycle: Cost and challenges to upgrade the flow back water to required specifications for hydraulic fracture make up water. Cost of transportation.
Disposal: Cost and challenges to dispose of flow back and produced water. Includes transportation.
Developing a Water Management Strategy – Step One
There are five key drivers for water management. Step one in developing a water management strategy is to answer the questions associated with each key driver.
Key Drivers Simple Question Options
Hydrology Is fresh water available? Yes or No
Regulatory & Community Is injection disposal an
option?
Yes or No
Fracture Fluid Quality
Required
Can saline water be used for
HF fluid make-up
Yes or No
Flow back fluid
characteristics
In the flow back fluid saline? Yes or No
Stage of Field
Development
What kind of equipment
packaging is required or
appropriate?
Mobile, Modular, or
Centralized
First – Pass:
Hydrogeology: Is fresh water available, in the volumes needed, at reasonable cost, over the life of the project?
Regulations & Community: Can a permit be obtained to use injection wells, that are within 20 or so miles, for the volumes needed, over the life of the project?
If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then the water management strategy is straightforward and well-defined.
If the answer is no, then some form of re-use / recycle will be economically justified and the water management strategy needs some work.
1) is fresh water available?
2) is injection disposal an option?
3) is fresh water required?
4) is flow back saline?
1
2
3
Y
Y
N
N 4
R / R
No Water
Treatment
Required
Treat TSS,
No Desal
Desal Y
Y
N
N
Technology Selection:
If some form of water treatment is required (for re-use and recycling) then several other factors must be considered.
Selection of water technology starts with an understanding of:
the fluids injected
the fluids that are produced (flowed-back)
the quality of the fluids required if recycling is to be practiced
The technology options must also consider the stage of field development.
Types of fluids in the flow-back:
Dispersed light oil
Dissolved polymer
Dispersed / suspended polymer
Surfactant
Solids – organic, inorganic
Dissolved salt
1
3
Three Stages of Field Development:
(defined in terms of type of water treating equipment)
1) Remote and isolated well development –
mobile water treating systems
2) Well clusters with some in-field drilling and completions –
modular water treating systems
3) Extensive in-field development with infrastructure –
networked conveyance systems
centralized water treating plants
Stage of Field Development:
Mobile Technology
Fountain Quail / Aqua-Pure ROVER Mobile Clarifier –
TSS (solids and organics) are chemically
precipitated. Solids settle for later collection. Capacity
is 10 kBWPD.
GE Mobile Evaporation – Truck-mounted MVR with
horizontal shell in tube Hex. Capacity 1 BWPM.
WaterTectonics & Halliburton – electrocoagulation in
mobile units.
Semi – Centralized / Modular Treatment Facilities
Barnett Shale: Semi – Permanent
evaporation facilities using Fountain Quail
NOMAD MVR evaporation technology.
Capacity ~ 20 kBWPD.
Marcellus Eureka Resources Facility:
Semi – Permanent facilities NOMAD.
Networked Water
a few large scale treatment sites
Centralized
Processing
CWT / POTW
Full Treating is an
Option
Lower treatment cost
Higher gathering cost
Requires a network
Facilitates fill re-cycle
Centralized
Distance to treatment facility
> 20 miles
Field development timeline
Networked Water Stranded Water Clustered Water
Wa
ter
Tre
atm
en
t C
ost
Co
nn
ecte
dn
ess o
f W
ate
r S
yste
m
Nu
mb
er
of T
rea
tme
nt O
ptio
ns
Cost
Water Network Connectedness
Number of Treatment Options
Cost versus Stage of Field Development:
Flow Back Water Disposition
The Options:
Reuse as frac water – reuse implies minimal treatment such as filtration and
chemical injection.
Recycle – recycle implies some form of water treatment in order to reduce
suspended solids or, in the most advanced case, to reduce both suspended
solids, salinity and specific ions. Recycle treatment local or centralized.
Discharge to Surface – typically requires extensive treatment, possibly
desalination. See Marcellus case.
Discharge to POTW – limitations in some states. Typically requires some
treatment, may require extensive treatment in some states.
Discharge to Commercial WTP – commercial industrial water treatment plant.
Inject into Disposal Well – usually primary (TSS/polymer/Oil) treatment is
required. Plugging and scaling of the deep well formation dictates the treatment
requirement.
Aquifer Recharge – not practiced in the US. But is practiced overseas.
Salt content of produced water from various plays
In addition to salinity, specific ions may need to be removed.
The Transition from Flow Back to Produced Water
ref: EP Mag (Dec 2011)
Removal of suspended and dissolved components:
Removal to ppm levels or less. Heavy metal and NORM component
removal. Any physical separation technology can only be carried out if the
polymer is removed.
Technologies that are typically used here include:
o Chemical precipitation processes
o Fine, Micro- and Ultrafiltration
o Ceramic membranes
o Specific ion exchange
o Osmotic membranes
o Distillation
Treatment applied to Hydraulic Fracture Flowback & Produced Water:
Ref.: after Metcalf & Eddy
The starting point for developing a Water Management Strategy involves answering five questions defined by the Key Drivers.
The first two questions define whether or not reuse or recycle of flow back fluids is needed at all.
If the flow back fluids are to be recycled, the stage of the development will define whether mobile, modular, or centralized facilities are to be used.
Mobile technologies are necessarily simple and compact.
Modular technologies offer greater flexibility in treatment options.
Centralized facilities offer the greatest number of treatment options and the lowest per barrel costs.
Conclusions:
May 12-14, 2013
Produced Water Treatment in the Alberta Oil Sands
David Pernitsky, Ph.D., P.Eng Suncor Energy
Outline
• Overview of oil sands water use – mining and SAGD
• Water quality and treatment challenges
• Highlights of current membrane / desalination initiatives
– Tailings pond water treatment
– SAGD de-oiling
– SAGD softening / desalination
– Waste brine concentration
• Opportunities for membrane and desalination technology development for oil sands applications
Athabasca Oil Sands
• Athabasca oil sands are a shallow deposit of bitumen, sand, clay, and water
• 3rd largest oil deposit in the world at 170 billion bbls
• 1926 hot water extraction process patented by Karl Clark
• 1967 first commercial operation at Great Canadian Oil Sands (now Suncor)
The Athabasca Oil Sands
Oil Sands Mining
• Truck and Shovel
• Each trucks carries almost 400 tons of oil sand
• Each shovel load is enough oil sand to fill your garage
Bitumen Extraction (Mining)
• Trucks deliver oil sand to the extraction process
• Hot water froth flotation is used to separate oil & sand
• Bitumen floats to the top and sand falls to the bottom
• Sand, fines and water are stored in tailings ponds
Extraction (Mining) Process Diagram HT SLURRY
Sep Cell
FROTH
DE- AERATED
FROTH To Froth
Storage
(IST)
Vent
FINAL TAILS To Ponds
De-aerator
Secondary
Flotation
Tertiary
Flotation
Hydro-cyclones
60% bitumen
30% water
10% mineral
0.2 – 0.5% bitumen
50 – 55% water
45 – 50% mineral
FLOTATION
FROTH
FLOTATION
FROTH 90 – 97% bitumen recovery
TERTIARY
TAILS To Ponds
Tailings Ponds (Mining)
• Water from extraction process stored in tailings ponds
• Fines settle out and water reused in extraction
• Suncor planning to reduce the number of tailings ponds at existing mine from 8 to 1
• In 2010, Suncor completed surface reclamation of a decommissioned tailings pond
• This 220-hectare site was Suncor’s first settling pond for oil sands tailings in 1967
• Re-use of tailings pond water for process water is part of this overall water-use reduction strategy
9 9
Cap Rock (shale & glacial t ill) 250m thickSteamChambers
UnrecoveredHeavy Oil
6mo6mo
2yr2yr5yr5yr
8yr8yr
10yr10yr
~ 1 kilometer~ 200m
40m
In Situ Recovery Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD)
Benefits of in situ: • Resource access • Staged growth • Reduced water use
10
SAGD – Typical Process Schematic
DILUENT FROM OS SALES
INDUCED STATIC FLOTATION UNIT
OIL REMOVAL FILTERS
PRODUCED WATER TANK
Water Treatment: Oil Removal & Softening
Ca (OH)2 MgO
MAKEUP WATER FROM
OS
LIME TO SLUDGE
CENTRIFUGES
WLS FILTER FEED TANK
LIME SOFTENER
FILTER (Removes
Solids Carry-over from WLS)
WEAK ACID CATION
PACKAGE (Removes Hardness)
WARM LIME SOFTENER (Precipitates
Hardness and Removes
Silica)
Steam Generation
INJECTION WELL
PRODUCTION WELL
PAD SEPARATOR
Field Facilities
Oil/Water Separation
STEAM
GENERATORS
RECOV / DISPOSAL
WATER
STEAM SEPARATOR
BOILER FEEDWATER
TANK
INLET SURGE VESSEL
TREATER
SALES TANK
PRODUCED GAS TO OTSG PROD. GAS SEP.
SKIM TANK
FWKO
DISPOSAL WATER
90% of the incoming
produced water is
recycled at Suncor’s
SAGD plants
11 11
FIREBAG PROJECT (SAGD)
Inlet
Separation &
De-oiling
Water Treatment
Steam Generation
Cogeneration
Typical Produced Water Quality
UT
SAGD PW = SAGD produced water
OSPW = Oilsands mining process affected water
Water Analysis SAGD PW OSPW
Parameter Units
pH mg/L 7-8 8.5-9.2
Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 75-200 400-700
TDS mg/L 1000-4000 1000-2500
TSS mg/L <30 60-100
Silica (as SiO2) mg/L 100-400 <10
Sulfate mg/L 10-60 10-150
Calcium mg/L 5-25 5-50
Magnesium mg/L 1-5 4-25
Chloride mg/L 500-1700 15-400
Sodium mg/L 200-450 10-600
Free and Emulsified Oil and
Grease
mg/L 500-2000 (skim tank inlet)
50-200 (skim tank outlet)
40-90
TOC mg/L 200-500 (after de-oiling) 100-150
Oil Sands Desalination Applications • Existing Applications
– RO desalination for utility steam boilers
– MVR Evaporators for SAGD boiler feed water
– Evaporators/crystallizers for brine concentration
• Applications in Development
– Evaporators/RO for tailings water re-use
– SAGD high-temperature membrane de-oiling
– RO desalination for SAGD boiler feed water
– Waste brine concentration
– Desalination of saline mine basal water
Tailings Water Treatment
• Investigated treatment of tailings pond water for re-use as onsite process water and/or SAGD make up water
• Treatment objectives:
– Suspended solids removal
– Free and emulsified oil and grease removal
– Various process configurations
• Coagulation and Coagulation/DAF, plus
• Media filtration or MF or UF, plus
• Evaporation or RO
Tailings Water Treatment Plant
0
200
400
600
800
1000
18-Nov-10 8-Dec-10 28-Dec-10 17-Jan-11 6-Feb-11 26-Feb-11 18-Mar-11 7-Apr-11 27-Apr-11 17-May-11
Un
tre
ate
d T
ail
ing
s W
ate
r T
urb
idit
y (
NT
U)
Turbidity spikes associated with:
• Wind
• Seasonal pond turnover
• Rapid withdraw
• Return of fresh tailings
Small, stable clays:
• D10-D90: 0.1-30 μm
Tailings Pond Turbidity
DAF Pilot • Pilot run between Dec. 2010 and Jun 2011
– Cold water (< 5oC)
• Ultrafiltration:
– Immersed PVDF membranes
– 10-15 gfd
– 80-90% recovery
• Reverse Osmosis:
– Low pressure brackish water membrane
– 10-15 gfd
– 80% recovery
Tailings Water Treatment Pilot
DAF Pilot • SAGD de-oiling typically consists of:
– Gravity skim tank / gas flotation
– Walnut shell oil removal filters
• Boiler Feed Water Treatment (Ca/Mg/Si):
– Hot or warm lime softening
– Desalination (thermal evaporation)
SAGD Treatment Applications
19
Once Through Steam Generator (OTSG)
Convective Section
Radiant Section
• Robust
• Tolerates higher TDS
• Suitable for lime-softened water
• Limited to 80% (wt) steam quality
20
Parameter Unit Limits
Sulphite (O2 scavenger) ppm >10
Dissolved Oxygen ppb <7
pH 8.0-10.5
Iron – Total ppb <250
Dissolved Hardness ppm as
CaCO3
<0.50
TDS ppm 8,000-12,000
Silica ppm as
SiO2
<75
Turbidity NTU <7.5
Bitumen in Water ppm <0.5
(hexane)
SAGD Boiler Feed Water Quality
DAF Pilot • Opportunities:
– Smaller footprint, modular construction
– Can maintain higher temperature and pressure
– Improved reliability
• Risks: – High levels of fouling in existing SAGD process train
– Frequent variations in oil content due to upstream process upsets
SAGD Membrane De-oiling
• Work completed: – 2011 ceramic membrane de-oiling pilot
– Q3 2013 polymeric and ceramic membrane de-oiling pilot
SAGD Desalination Applications
• Lifecycle costs of WLS/OTSG and Evap/drum boiler treatment similar – choice is site specific
• Opportunities: – Need for lower-energy desalination technologies
– Alternative evaporator designs? RO?
• Risks: – High levels of fouling in existing SAGD process train
– Si fouling
– Dissolved Organic Matter (DOM) fouling
– Need for high-temp membrane materials
Brine Management • Waste brines generated from:
– Utility boiler RO
– Tailings and/or basal water desalination
– SAGD boiler blowdown
– PW evaporator blowdown
• Current brine management techniques:
– Third-party truck-out
– Deep well / salt cavern disposal
– ZLD: evaporation / crystallization / drying
• Opportunities: low energy brine concentration/solidification
SAGD Crystallizer Brine: TOC = 25,000mg/L
MacKay River SAGD ZLD System • OTSG blowdown concentrated with evaporators/crystallizer
• Crystallizer brine thermally dried • Allows high levels of
water recycle, but
• High energy usage and GHG generation
• Mechanically complex
25 DRAFT
Decision Roadmap for Next Generation SAGD
“The need for
higher-efficiency
steam generation
drives advanced
water treatment”
Drivers: • Fuel gas OpEx • GHG emissions • Make-up water volumes • Disposal volumes • Reliability
Need: High Efficiency Steam Generation • Hybrid boiler, drum boiler
Need: Advanced Water Treatment • Dissolved Salt Reduction • Dissolved Organics Reduction • Evaporators, RO, oxidation, etc.
Need: Advanced De-oiling Pretreatment • Membranes, advanced adsorbants, separators, etc.
Alternatives: • Subsurface SOR reductions • Break-through ‘direct contact’ steam generation
Drivers for Future SAGD Process
SAGD Desalination Biggest OPEX and GHG reduction opportunities exist in steam generation area
Boiler Feed Water Quality
Life
Cycle
Cost
Threshold water quality
allowing step-change in
steam generation
technology?
Water Treatment
Steam Generation
Can we desalinate and use more efficient utility boilers?
– Additional water treatment allows more efficient steam generation – what is the optimum combination for lowest overall life-cycle cost?
“94% fuel to steam
Super Boiler
developed”
“Desalination Costs Dropping”
• Maintain a high-temperature, high-pressure system
• Improve heat integration, reduce footprint
Possible Next-Generation SAGD
FWKO Diluted
Bitumen Treater
High-
Temperature
RO
Pressurized
Deoiling
High
Efficiency
Steam
Generation
Membrane
Brine
Concentrator
From Pads To Upgrader
Steam To Pads
To Disposal
Technology Needs De-oiling Membranes
• Temperature tolerance (85 to 160oC)
• Resistance to fouling by upsets of viscous oil
Desalination Membranes
• Temperature tolerance (85 to 160oC)
• Organic-fouling resistance
Brine Concentration Membranes
• Temperature tolerance (60 to 105oC)
• Organic-fouling resistance
Technology Development Challenges
• High costs of pilot construction and operation at remote sites
• Strict safety environment
• Mandate of site is bitumen production, not technology testing
• Chemical changes in water samples affect off-site testing*
• Gated industry approach:
– Rigorous desk-top analysis
– Extensive bench-scale testing
– Proof-of-concept off-site piloting
– Lastly, onsite piloting
* Ku et al,. Aging of Water From Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) Operations… Industrial and Engineering Chemical Research, 2012, 51 (21), pp 7170-7176.
• Producers recognized need for dedicated technology testing facility that would provide safe access to hot-coupled process fluids and allow technology testing in a safe, cost-effective environment
• Stimulate and accelerate development, qualification & introduction of better fluid management technologies.
• Water Technology Development Centre (WTDC) proposed to be built at Suncor’s Firebag site
– Multiple producers partnering through a COSIA joint industry partnership
– Project sanctioning 2013
– Operation in 2015
Water Technology Development Centre
30
The Concept
31
• Provide space, infrastructure and resources to: – conduct pilot testing on live process fluids from host site
– import fluids from other sites for batch or semi-batch testing
– concurrently test multiple technologies in parallel or series, but not replicate a full SAGD plant
32
Project Scope
Flexible test set up: • 1 test of
500m3/d • Or up to 5 tests
of 50 m3/d
May 12-14, 2013
Oil Sands Mining & Water Quality Basics
Darrell Martindale P.Eng., M.Sc. Manager Environmental Performance Improvement
Shell Canada
May 12-14, 2013
Oil Sands Mining Overview
Truck and Shovel Mining
Oil Sand Mining
Mining and Water
Warm
Water Surge
Bin
Double
Roll
Crusher Rotary
Breaker
Rejects
Raw Oil
Sand Feed
Conditioning Pipeline
Slurry Feed to
Extraction
Warm Water Air
Extract and Process Bitumen!!
Oil Sands Processing
Bitumen
Sand
Water
Clay
If the process is this simple, what’s the problem?
River water
Oil Sands
85% Recycled Water
Water
Water
Clay
Sand
Clay
Water
Water (Reuse)
+
+
+ Bitumen (Product)
+
Water
Tailings Challenges
8
• Surface area impact
• Reclamation confidence and pace
• Water quality
• Groundwater protection
Over $400M spent across industry on tailings research and improvement Challenge: Finding solutions that effectively optimize both environmental and cost performance
Aerial view of tailings facilities - 170 km
2
Shell: MRM Shell: JPM
Syncrude Aurora North
CNRL: Horizon
Syncrude: Mildred Lake
Suncor
2
Mature Fines Treatment & Drying
9
~35 wt.%
~65 wt.%
Shell: Atmospheric Fines Drying Suncor: TRO process
February 23, 2010
Mine Depressurization
Pit Wall Failure
Athabasca River
Raw Water Pond (135,000 m3 volume)
RCW Pond (330,000 m3 volume)
Salinity: 270 ppm Na+ 150 ppm Cl-
JPM ETF Salinity:
260 ppm Na+ 140 ppm Cl-
JPM Plant
Utilities
Froth (HTFT & LTFT)
MRM Plant
MRM ETF Salinity:
280 ppm Na+ 130 ppm Cl-
Gland Water & FAS 400 m3/hr
HTFT TSRU & Froth 200 m3/hr
Gland Supply 700 m3/hr
Net Recycle 9,000 m3/hr
MRM Reclaim 4,500m3/hr
JPM Reclaim Barge 5,000 m3/hr
Recycle to Plant 4,500 m3/hr
River Water >100 m3/hr
Total River Water
1,800 m3/hr
Water in CST 4,000 m3/hr
Cooling Tower 150 m3/hr
Cogen 500 m3/hr
Gland Supply* 400 m3/hr
Other Uses
Net Reclaim 3,500 m3/hr
Plant Supply 1,500 m3/hr
Waste Streams
Recycle to HTFT 300 m3/hr
l
Represents average week of mine operations
IPC Transfer 4,500 m3/hr
Salinity: 25 ppm Na+
20 ppm Cl-
Water Quality
pH Dis-Ca Dis-Mg Dis-Na Cloride Conductivity TDS Sulfate
Muskeg River 6.5 40 11 10 3 300 20-45 20-46
Reclaim water 8 20-40 10-18 290-310 230 1400-1800 1000 150-200
Groundwater #1 7.3 60 35 800 800 2000-4000 2500 10-20
Groundwater #2 7 50 5 350 3.0 1000-1500 1000-2000 <0.5
May 12-14, 2013
Regulatory Overview of Water Disposal and Reuse in Unconventional Oil and
Gas Development
Melinda Truskowski, Tekla Taylor, Hugh Abercrombie
May 12-14, 2013
What Was Unconventional Has Become Conventional… Practically, “unconventional oil and gas” can be thought of as a of a water management program with an oil and gas byproduct.
• Water Source • Use • Treatment • Recycle • Dispose
Golder Associates Inc., ICBTM
May 12-14, 2013
LIFECYCLE APPROACH TO SHALE GAS WATER MANAGEMENT
May 12-14, 2013
WATER USE FOR SHALE DEVELOPMENT
Availability
Shale Gas Represents
~1% of Total Water Use
Timing and Location
Competition
Current and future industrial,
domestic, recreational, and
habitat uses
Drought conditions limit the
supply available for all
Ownership
Water is a right
Water is a commodity
May 12-14, 2013
RESPONSIBLE WATER MANAGEMENT
May 12-14, 2013
MANAGING REUSE AND DISPOSAL
• Water Quality • Identified End Use and Treatment Costs • Location and Transportation Costs • Environmental Concerns (Drought, Induced
Seismicity, Surface Water or Groundwater Impacts) • Public Concerns (Truck Traffic, Source Water
Protection) • Regulations
May 12-14, 2013
US REGULATORY PROGRAM
• Clean Water Act is promulgated federally but administered by each State • Regulates discharges to surface waters • The states must develop regulations that are equal to or more
stringent than the federal regulation • The Safe Drinking Water Act is a federal law administered by the EPA or
by States with Primacy • Regulates underground injection wells • The States’ regulations must be equally or more stringent than the
federal regulation
Spills are regulated under various federal programs under the jurisdiction of various state agencies
May 12-14, 2013
US SHALE GAS BASINS
May 12-14, 2013
REUSE IN PENNSYLVANIA
• Approximately 2/3 of the wastewater generated in the Marcellus is reused • In April 2011, PA DEP Secretary Michael Krancer
requested that by May 19, 2011, Marcellus Shale natural gas operators stop sending wastewater from shale gas extraction to wastewater treatment facilities.
• In 2012, the SRBC suspended 64 surface water withdrawal permits.
• The PADEP allows, under a general permit, the processing, transfer and beneficial use of produced water for hydraulic fracturing
May 12-14, 2013
DISPOSAL IN PENNSYLVANIA
• Pennsylvania has 5 operating injection wells
• April 2012: EPA issues a draft permit for a Class II Injection Well in northern Pennsylvania
• March 28, 2013. In Re: Stonehaven Energy Management. EPA Environmental Appeals Board finds EPA failed to demonstrate Class II UIC permit for injection well in Venango County, PA adequately considered possible seismic impacts.
May 12-14, 2013
REUSE IN COLORADO
COGCC Rule 907.a.3 Reuse and recycling. To encourage and promote waste minimization, operators may propose plans for managing E&P waste through beneficial use, reuse, and recycling by submitting a written management plan to the Director for approval on a Sundry Notice, Form 4, if applicable. Such plans shall describe, at a minimum, the type(s) of waste, the proposed use of the waste, method of waste treatment, product quality assurance, and shall include a copy of any certification or authorization that may be required by other laws and regulations. The Director may require additional information.
May 12-14, 2013
REUSE IN COLORADO
COGCC Rule 907.c.3 Produced water reuse and recycling. Produced water may be reused for enhanced recovery, drilling, and other approved uses in a manner consistent with existing water rights and in consideration of water quality standards and classifications established by the WQCC for waters of the state, or any point of compliance established by the Director pursuant to Rule 324D.
May 12-14, 2013 COGCC Rule 907.C.2.A Produced water disposal. Produced water may be disposed as follows: A. Injection into a Class II well, permitted in accordance with Rule 325
Class II UIC wells (for injection of fluids from oil and gas production, 40 CFR § 144.6(b)) are permitted by COGCC Rules 325 and 326 establish requirements for Class II well permit application, well integrity testing, public notice, and record keeping (Form 26)
Other disposal options: 907.c.2.B: Evaporation/percolation in a properly permitted pit 907c.2.C: Disposal at a commercial facility 907c.2.D: Road spreading 907.c.2.F: Evaporation in a properly lined pit at a centralized E&P waste management facility permitted in accordance with Rule 908
DISPOSAL IN COLORADO
May 12-14, 2013
DISPOSAL IN TEXAS
• > 8,000 active disposal wells • > 25,000 wells that accept waste fluids
and enhance recovery • In 2012, the Railroad Commission
approved 72% of the applications for disposal well permits
May 12-14, 2013
REUSE IN TEXAS
March 26, 2013. New Texas Railroad Commission Rules make non-commercial recycling of produced water and flowback fluids (16 TAC § 3.8) easier – no permit for treated fluids reused in the well bore.
May 12-14, 2013
CANADIAN REGULATORY PROGRAM
• Federal and provincial/territorial governments share responsibility for environmental regulation: • Federal environmental laws are based on jurisdiction in matters of
interprovincial, national and international scope • Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) • Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) • National Energy Board Act (NEBA)
• Provincial and territorial environmental laws are based on areas of provincial jurisdiction including municipalities, natural resources and public lands
• Water use, from sourcing to disposal, is subject to provincial regulation
administered through: • Provincial departments of energy, environment • Oil and gas regulatory boards and commissions
May 12-14, 2013
CANADIAN SHALE GAS BASINS
May 12-14, 2013
WINTER DRILLING, HORN RIVER BASIN, B.C.
CSUG
May 12-14, 2013
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Disposal • The BC MOE and Oil and Gas Commission (OGC) are involved in oilfield
waste discharge under the Oil and Gas Waste Regulation (OGWR) of the Environmental Management Act (EMA)
• Under Section 7(1) of the OGWR, produced water from oil & gas wells must be disposed by deep well injection, subject to OGC approval and EMA permit
Reuse • Dual water source and water disposal wells must obtain disposal well
approval orders (e.g., Debolt Formation, Horn River Basin) • “The Commission encourages the use of practices and technology that
minimize surface impacts and minimize withdrawals from potable water sources. “
Disposal • Non-saline groundwater protected in Alberta • Under OGCA, Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) approval
required for disposal of oilfield produced waters • ERCB Directive 58 sets out oilfield waste disposal practices, including
deep well injection; no surface release
Reuse • ERCB discussion paper December 2012 Regulating Unconventional Oil
& Gas in Alberta; new play-focused, risk-based regulation • Operators to address, “opportunities to recycle and reuse flow-back or
other produced water, including economic and/ or technology constraints if present”
• May require EPEA approval
May 12-14, 2013
ALBERTA
OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Saskatchewan • Oil & gas industry regulated under Oil and Gas Conservation Act
(OGCA) and regulations; • Under s. 76 of the OGCR, without approval otherwise, all wastes
to be disposed into a subsurface formation
Quebec (under moratorium) • Deep well injection not practiced; possible use of industrial waste
water treatment facilities
New Brunswick • One operator (2012); produced water trucked to other
jurisdictions for disposal
May 12-14, 2013
WATER MANAGEMENT IN CANADA
“Safeguard the quality and quantity of regional surface and groundwater resources, through sounds wellbore construction practices, sourcing freshwater alternatives where appropriate and recycling water for reuse as much as practical”
May 12-14, 2013
Hugh Abercrombie Ph.D. P.Geol. – Associate, Senior Geochemist, Calgary
+1 (403) 216 8991
Melinda Truskowski – Associate, Global Unconventional Gas Leader, Denver
+1 (720) 962-3431
Tekla Taylor, R.G. – US Energy Services Leader, Denver
+1 (303) 980-0540
THANK YOU!
May 12-14, 2013
Where is the market now?
Christopher Gasson Global Water Intelligence
May 12-14, 2013
A tale of three charts: Gas prices
May 12-14, 2013
What does this mean? • The expansion of shale gas development in the US slowed
during 2012 • There has been considerable pressure to cut costs: flow
back water storage and reuse of high TDS water has become the norm
• Massive investment in LNG plants is underway: these have some complex water treatment demands
• The Australian CSG market has been strong
Unconventional gas resources
May 12-14, 2013
A tale of three charts: US oil production
May 12-14, 2013
What does this mean? • US Oil/Water separation market remains buoyant • The focus of US frac water services has largely switched
from gas to liquids • Shale oil production costs have been falling • The shale boom has created an interesting clash of business
models: light capex vs heavy capex • US light crude production is replacing light crude imports
and starting to be limited by light crude refining capacity • Demand for heavy crude is falling
May 12-14, 2013
A tale of three charts: tar sands discount P
rice
per
bar
rel
May 12-14, 2013
Alberta oil sands quarterly outlook
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000 1
99
7
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
Other / unknown
Lime softening/ion exchange
Evaporator
New
Sag
d p
rod
uct
ion
mill
ion
bar
rels
pe
r d
ay
May 12-14, 2013
How has the outlook changed?
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029
April 2012 April 2013
New
Sag
d p
rod
uct
ion
mill
ion
bar
rels
pe
r d
ay
GWI’s market forecast
May 12-14, 2013
Oil and gas ($ million) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Shale gas: conventional treatment 30.7 57.1 68.3 80.4 87.1 100.9 139.4 Shale gas high recovery desal 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 35.0 CBM high recovery desal 112.7 165.0 126.0 132.0 160.0 170.0 164.4 SRP/low salinity systems 105.0 147.5 253.8 230.6 337.5 487.5 783.5 High recovery desal for steam EOR 291.2 385.3 502.1 602.5 556.8 454.2 519.6
Updated 291.2 185.3 140.0 229.6 452.3 502.1 602.5 Produced water polishing 504.7 562.7 609.7 649.1 683.0 741.1 799.0 Produced water RO/evaporation 105.0 119.4 135.8 154.5 175.7 199.8 227.3
What is the forecast now?
May 12-14, 2013
Where is the money for water?
Source: IEA 2008
May 12-14, 2013
Thank you and buy the report!
May 12-14, 2013
Advanced Treatment Technologies in the
Upstream Oil & Gas Industry
Tom Pankratz, Water Desalination Report
Advanced Technologies
Technologies that historically have not been used, or seen widespread use, in the oilfield, and which provide a higher level of treatment and/or volume reduction.
Advanced Technologies
Technologies that historically have not been used, or seen widespread use, in the oilfield, and which provide a higher level of treatment and/or volume reduction. Advanced technologies usually employ membranes or evaporative treatment techniques…
Advanced Technologies
Technologies that historically have not been used, or seen widespread use, in the oilfield, and which provide a higher level of treatment and/or volume reduction. Advanced technologies usually employ membranes or evaporative treatment techniques…and in most cases, must be preceded by some conventional produced water treatment technologies.
Gas Outlet
Recovered Oil
Water
Well
Fluids
Bulk Oil Gas Outlet
to Oil
Processing
Recovered Oil
Clean
Water
Gas Outlet
Bulk Oil
Separator
Free-water Knockout
Degasser
Hydrocyclone
source: NOV
Conventional Technologies
Induced Gas Flotation (IGF)
Rotor
Shaft
Seals
Bearing
Housing
Roller
Bearings
source: Cameron/Wemco
Corrugated Plate Interceptor
source: Natco
Walnut Shell Filtration
source: Veolia
Coalescer
Outlet
Heavy Oil Sump
Light
Hydrocarbon Sump
Pre-conditioning
Filters
Coalescer
Inlet
source: Pall
Separator Type Removal Mechanism Oil Droplet
Size Removal
API Separator Gravity >150 m
CPI / TP Separator Gravity w/Coalescer >50 m
DGF / IGF Gas Flotation Gas Flotation >20 m
De-oiling Hydrocyclone Centrifugal Force >10 m
Coalescing Media Filtration Adsorption >2 m
Absorption Media Filtration Absorption 2 m
Membrane Filtration Barrier 1 m
Produced Water Technologies
Produced Water Dynamics
• New production techniques
• Higher volumes of PW generated
• Higher quality water often required
• Increasing energy costs
• Stricter environmental regulations
• Conventional disposal often not viable
• Water treatment companies don’t know oilfield
Advanced Technologies
• Electrocoagulation
• Thermo-ionic separation
• Membrane filtration (MF/UF)
• Reverse osmosis (RO)
• Forward Osmosis (FO)
• Electrodialysis (EDR)
• Evaporation/crystallization
• Humid-dehumidification (HDH)
Summary
• > Opportunities for Conventional Technologies
• > Opportunities for Advanced Technologies
• Key is figuring out how to make oil & water mix