W E L L S E R V I C E S

Water Usage Optimization & Management for Hydraulic Fracturing

Dr. Chris FreddUnconventional Reservoir Stimulation AdvisorGlobal HSE Conference, New Delhi, India, 26-27 September, 2013

Evolution of Reservoir RockPre-Hydraulic Fracturing

Hydraulic Fracturing

Combination w/ Horizontal Drilling

Reservoir

Reservoir

Why Hydraulic Fracturing?Vertical, Perforated Well Vertical, Perforated Well with Single Frac

Horizontal, Perforated Well with 15 Frac Stages

200 Ft High x 6” Wellbore 200 Ft High x (1) 200 Ft Frac with 2 Wings Each

200 Ft High x 6” Wellbore x (15) 200 Ft Frac with 2 Wings Each

315 Sq Ft 160,000 Sq Ft

2,400,000 Sq Ft

Impact of Reservoir Contact

Increasing Reservoir Contact (surface area) improves production

0 200 400 600 800 1000 12000

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

Nf=1 Nf=2 Nf=3 Nf=4 Nf=5Nf=6 Nf=7 Nf=8 Nf=9 Nf=10

Time (days)

Cum

ulat

ive

Gas

(MM

scf)

Source: SPE 163975

Tight Carbonate (Khuff)

L = 3,000 ftk = ~0.1 md

US Land Fracturing… Prop & Water by Stage

Concerns Faced

Long Term Energy Resources– Large Resource Base– Energy Security and

Independence

Economy Benefits– Potential Jobs– Local Business Growth

Conservation of Resources– Surface Water & Agriculture

Protection– Desire for Transparency– Standards Needed

Long Term Presence and Impact– Increased Infrastructure Strain– Increased Traffic, Noise,

Emissions

Resource Opportunities VS

Unconventionals Development - Benefits v Pitfalls

7

Conservation of Water Resources

Water Usage Associated with Unconventional Reservoir Development is a Major Area of Focus

Four Main Opportunities to Reduce Usage- Better Field Development Planning- Optimized Stimulation of Each Well- Novel Completion Techniques- Recycling / Reuse of Water

Surface Management with Direction DrillingSurface Management with Direction Drilling

10.50

kilometers

10.50

kilometers

Horizontal Well Count

Vertical Well Count

Impact of Technology on ProductionBarnett Shale

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Initi

al P

rodu

ction

(MSC

F/D

)

Average IP

Vertical WellsHorizontal Wells

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Initi

al P

rodu

ction

(MSC

F/D

)

Average IP

2500

5000

7500

10000

19901980 2000

HaynesvilleBarnett WoodfordFayetteville Eagle FordMarcellus

Illite

CarbonateGas-filled porosity

Kerogen

Source: Schlumberger

Not All Reservoirs are Created Equal

What about Effectiveness? 29% of perforation clusters are not

contributing to production 36% not contributing in Bakken shale 50% not contributing if 6 clusters per stage Efficient operations,

but not effective use of water.

16

1116

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%% from Perf Cluster

Perf

Clu

ster

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Marcellus Haynesville Eagleford Fayetteville Barnett Woodford

29.6%

25.9%

21.3%

24.0%

26.9%

32.2%

13.5%

10.8%

14.1%

16.2%17.8%

23.5%

9.6%

6.0%7.3%

14.4%

19.4%

22.5%

29%Not Producing

(All Stages)

20%Not Producing(Better Stages)

18%Not Producing(Best Stages)

Weighted Average(All Basins)Production Log Analysis of Non-Producing Perforations in Shale Basins

11 Sources: SPE 144326, SPE160160

Complex Fracture ModelingProduction Modeling

89% Perf Clusters Producing versus 64% Average Perf Clusters Producing

Perf. Clusters

Flow Rate

Results of Engineered Completion

Completion Quality (CQ) or “frac-ability”

Reservoir Quality (RQ)

Impact of an Integrated Workflow

Sources: SPE 158268, SPE 134827, SPE 146872

Geometric RQ + CQ

Eagle Ford Shale

3 M

onth

BO

E

>33% increase

Geometric RQ + CQ

Marcellus Shale

75% increase

Selectively placed perforation clusters

Rock quality legend

Stress legendHigh

LowRock quality

Stress

Shale / Source Rock

Vertica

l Ave

rage

Horizo

ntal A

verag

eHori

zonta

l: RQ +

CQ

0

20

40

60

80

100

120Ordos Basin: Tight Oil

3 M

onth

Oil

Prod

uctio

n

Tight Sandstone

>50% increase

Downward trend in water per stage

Downward trend to ~40 bbls/min

Technology has an Impact Trends in the Eagle Ford Shale…

15

Downward trend in water per stage

Downward trend to ~40 bbls/min

Technology has an Impact Trends in the Eagle Ford Shale…

16

Moving away from slickwater…

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2Channel FracHybridSlickwater

Rela

tive

Wat

er p

er s

tage

or

Rela

tive

Prop

pant

per

sta

ge o

r Re

lativ

e pr

oduc

tion

Less Proppant Less Water More Production

Source: SPE 145403

Source: www. petrohawk.com

Channel Frac – Gross Gas

Channel Fracturing - >18,000 Treatments in >1,500 Wells in 19 Countries- Variety of Formations (Carbonate, Sandstone, Shale)- Unprecedented Proppant Placement Rate (>99.96%)

… ~450 Screen-outs Prevented to Date

Significant Increase in Production- Typically > 20%

Significant Reduction in Logistics, Safety Risks and Environmental Footprint- Typical Water Consumption Reduction of 25%- Typical Proppant Consumption Reduction of 42%- Savings:

- Greater than 400,000,000 gals of Water- Greater than 1,200,000,000 Lbs of Proppant- 52,000 Hauling Trips- Greater than 12,000,000 lbs of CO2 Emissions

Novel Completion Techniques

Water Sources – Water Management Fresh Water

– Municipal– Water wells: shallow and deep– Ponds, Streams and Rivers– Aquifer

Brackish Water[loose definition: more saline than fresh water, less saline than sea water]

– Produced water– Aquifer– Lake or Sea– Waste waters

Sea water

18

Water Treatm

ent options

Water Sourcin

g

Transportation

Fresh Water

Storage

Water Treatme

nt

Recycled Water

Storage

Disposal

19

Brackish Water Applications in North America New Mexico (SPE 133379)- 100% produced water treated

with fluid stabilizer additive- Guar with Titanate crosslinker- CO2 Energized Frac Piecance- 100% produced water- slickwater Uintah and Jonah/Mesa- 100% produced water- Slickwater/Crosslinked

- Electrolytic Cell Generates a Mixed Oxidant Solution (MOS) onsite to Disinfect Frac Fluid

- Generates Hypochlorite Species Predominantly- Only Require Water, Salt and Energy onsite to

Generate the MOS Disinfection Stream

Mixed Oxidants

HClOClO·

ClO- Cl· HO2

· HO2

OH· H·

H2O2

O3 O2

· ½ O2 O·

Anode Reaction2 Cl- → Cl2 + 2e-

Cathode Reaction2 H2O + 2e- → H2 ↑ + 2 OH-

Chlorine Hydrolysis ReactionCl2 + H2O ↔ HOCl + Cl- + H+

HOCl ↔ OCl- + H+

Mixed Oxidant SolutionSalt Water Power

Water Disinfection

Main Generator(480V, 200A, 215kVA)

Standby Generator(480V, 30A, 25kVA)

Mixed Oxidant Generator Skid(40 ft Container)

Feed Water Pre-treatment Skid(20 ft container)

Design Capacity: FAC dose = 20 ppm. Pump rate = 120 bbl/min. Water volume = 120,000 bbl.

(10 stages @ 12,000 bbl/stage)

MOS Generation

Source: From Chesapeake Fact Sheet with Data from GWPC, DOE

Energy Resource Range of Gallons of Water Used per MMBTU of Energy

Produced

Marcellus Gas Well 1.30

Coal with No Slurry Transport 2 to 8

Coal with Slurry Transport 13 to 32

Nuclear (Uranium Ready to Use in a Power Plant) 8 to 14

Conventional Oil 8 to 20

Synfuel – Coal Gasification 11 to 26

Oil Shale 22 to 56

Tar Sands 27 to 68

Synfuel – Fischer Tropsch Synthesis (from Coal) 41 to 60

Enhanced Oil Recovery 21 to 2,500

Biofuels (Irrigated Corn Ethanol, Irrigated Soy Biodiesel) >2,500

Water Requirements by Energy Resource

Summary

Technology can have a significant impact– Leverage technology to maximize production

from resource investment– Optimize designs for the Reservoir to

avoid waste(one solution does not “fit” all)

– Novel technologies to reduce water requirements

Water Management strategies– Recycle / re-use / treat-for-purpose– & technologies more tolerant of

poorer water quality

Water Sourcin

g

Transportation

Fresh Water

Storage

Water Treatme

nt

Recycled Water

Storage

Disposal

What is your KPI? BTU / gal Water, … ?