Shale Gas Water Modeling
and Sustainability Planning
Atlantic Council
Produced Water Workshop
Washington D.C.
June 24-25, ...
22
An Assertion
The sustainable production of energy from shale gas
wells is dependent on the economics and environmental
...
33
Today’s Discussion
 Variable and Complex Nature of Shale Gas Industry
Operations
 Large Opex Expenditures Involved in...
44
Nature of the Shale Gas Industry:
Dynamic – Not Steady State
 Not like Brick and Mortar Factories
 Total Life Cycle o...
55
Variable Annual Impacts
 Demand for fresh water
 Water storage footprint
 Transportation of water
 Truck Traffic
 ...
66
Potential Regional Constraints
to Shale Gas Development
 Droughts (e.g. Barnett, Eagle Ford, Western Shale Gas
Plays)
...
7
Water Based Life Cycle Model
Tracking of a Dynamic System
 Brine Generation
 Solid Waste Output
 Salt Output
 Enviro...
88
Life Cycle Analysis
• Purpose: Examine long term (30+ years) water
management strategies for a development area.
• Appr...
9
1010
Typical Flowback Water Characteristics
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
0 20 40 60 80 100
Days from Hydraulic Fracture Ev...
1111
Example Run of the Model
More than 30 Data Inputs
Base case assumed:
• County size development area
• 300 Well Fields...
1212
Water-based Life Cycle (Marcellus Shale)
Crossover
Point
Good Level of
Water Reuse
Opportunities
Diminished
Water Reu...
13
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 10 20 30 40 50
CumulativeBarrels(million)
Years
Flowback + Produced Water (Cumulati...
14
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
0 10 20 30 40 50
CumulativeSalt,MillionsPounds
Years
Pr...
15
Annual Solid Waste Output from a
Development Area
Residential Solid Waste
Generation from Ave
PA County
LF Planning Iss...
1616
GTI Life Cycle Analysis Model
Addresses Multiple Dynamic Issues
 Flowback and Produced Water Management
 Timing of ...
1717
GTI Life Cycle Model
Development Continues
 Customized Database Management for Flowback and
Produced Water Managemen...
1818
Summary
 Shale Gas: Dynamic - Not Steady State
 There Are Substantial Year-by-year changes:
 Numbers of wells dril...
Thank You
Tom Hayes
Environmental Engineering
Gas Technology Institute
847-768-0722
Tom.hayes@gastechnology.org
Trevor Smi...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Produced Water | Session IX - Hayes

1,404

Published on

Shale Gas Water Modeling and Sustainability Planning

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,404
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Good morning, my name is Trevor Smith and I am the Program Manager at GTI, looking at new technologies that can improve the sustainability of unconventional gas development. When we look at sustainability and shale gas development, a principle resistance to the development of these resources is the perceived long-term environmental impacts, particularly hydraulic fracturing and the management of waste streams. What is missing is effective assurance of life cycle management strategies for water and waste streams in a manner that provide assurance of sustainable economics and protection of human health and the environment.
  • Our focus in this space is to ensure the stability of water supply and the acceptable management of water and solid waste streams.If there is a risk of a fatal flaw in the sustainable development of shale gas, we think it is the management of brines, salt, and solid waste.I don’t know how many of you are familiar with the processes involved with water management.So I want to provide some basic context before I get the point of presentation.This is the poster child image of the industry.Lot’s of land, lots of trucks, an industrial process using a lot of water.It typically takes between 3-5 million gallons of water to frac treat a single horizontal well.
  • There are environmental impacts that include:These are the source of some of the public angst regarding shale gas development.
  • This is a computer generated simulation of the geospacial landscape of a shale gas development area.We assumed a 25 mi x 25 mi development area.Each square is an individual 1 mi x 1 mi well field.We assumed a 40% coverage rate and the computer randomly selected the location of the well fields.We attempted to choose representative but conservative assumptions.
  • New Figure 3. Salt Concentration and Flowback Water Flow Versus Time from Location B.
  • Ourbase case included 30 data inputsWe assumed 4800 wells in the development area, 3 refracs per well, and that 33% of the total frac volume would be reused water. Simple month-by-month rollup computations showed that the annual generation and quality of water to be handled as well as annual output of solid waste (including drilling waste) becomes highly dynamic --- constantly increasing and decreasing each year. The results showed that water reuse is a finite water management solution.
  • Waters start to have significantly higher TDS levels because they become dominated by produced water from the formation rather than the frac fluids.When reuse capacity is exceeded by the generation of flowback and produced water brines (the crossover point), reuse opportunities decrease and become scarcer and the need for non-reuse options for brine disposal become increasingly important. GTI’s model also showed that much of the water flow and more than two thirds of the salt output occurs in the last half of the life of a development area, posing significant potential challenges to economic and environmental sustainability.
  • Cumulative Water Generation:350 -725 Million barrels of water cumulative depending on the number of refractures performed.
  • 14 - 21 Million tons of salt are generated (cumulative) depending on the number of refractures.Remember, this is from one county sized development area.Averaged on an annual basis, one county’s salt generation may be 3 times more than the annual road salt requirement of the entire State of PA.To put these salt volumes into another perspective, taking the low range of 14 million tons of dry salt generated during the life cycle of this development area would fill over 100 football field sized pits to a depth of30 feet each.Between 5 and 6 football field sized pits would be filled each year. Solid waste:Considering the impact of solid waste, the 792 wells drilled and completed in the Marcellus in Pennsylvania in 2010 likely generated 1.4 million tons for the state.Published projections for wells drilled in Pennsylvania in the year 2015 range from 2400 to 2900 and this would be expected to generate 4.2 to 5.1 million tons of solid waste requiring disposal in 2015.Total Pennsylvania state municipal waste is currently about 25 million tons.The implication is that shale development could generate solids waste equivalent to 20% or more of the total current municipal waste.
  • Solid waste:The total solids generated over the life cycle of this one 25 mile by 25 mile development area is 8.4 million tonsTo put these solid waste volumes into perspective, this 8.4 million tons generated during the life cycle of this development area would fill 65 football field sized pits to a depth of 30 feet each.Between 5 and 6 football field sized pits would be filled each year.Considering the impact across a larger region, the 792 wells drilled and completed in the Marcellus in Pennsylvania in 2010 likely generated 1.4 million tons for the state.Published projections for wells drilled in Pennsylvania in the year 2015 range from 2400 to 2900 and this would be expected to generate 4.2 to 5.1 million tons of solid waste requiring disposal in 2015.Total Pennsylvania state municipal waste is currently about 25 million tons.The implication is that shale development could generate solids waste equivalent to 20% or more of the total current municipal waste.
  • Produced Water | Session IX - Hayes

    1. 1. Shale Gas Water Modeling and Sustainability Planning Atlantic Council Produced Water Workshop Washington D.C. June 24-25, 2013 Tom Hayes Environmental Engineering Gas Technology Institute
    2. 2. 22 An Assertion The sustainable production of energy from shale gas wells is dependent on the economics and environmental impact of water and solid waste management.
    3. 3. 33 Today’s Discussion  Variable and Complex Nature of Shale Gas Industry Operations  Large Opex Expenditures Involved in Movement of Water and Wastes  Life Cycle Modeling Tracks Rollups of Large Mass Flows and Offers Capability to Predict Future Challenges and Solutions  Examples of Year By Year Variable Flows of Water, Salts and Solid Waste  Future Outlook: Life Cycle Analysis Importance to Sustainability Planning
    4. 4. 44 Nature of the Shale Gas Industry: Dynamic – Not Steady State  Not like Brick and Mortar Factories  Total Life Cycle of Development Areas: 30 to 50 yrs  Substantial Year-by-year changes:  Numbers of wells drilled (ramp up/plateau/ramp down)  Perturbations in pace of development (e.g. var rig counts)  Changing Water and Solid Waste Outputs  Changing Regional Demands Year by Year  Water  Transportation  Infrastructure
    5. 5. 55 Variable Annual Impacts  Demand for fresh water  Water storage footprint  Transportation of water  Truck Traffic  Air Emissions  Carbon Footprint  Road Wear & Damage  Noise  Wildlife  Well Field Air Emissions (Very Transient)  VOC Emissions from hydraulic fracturing sites.  MACT Emissions from On-Site Diesels
    6. 6. 66 Potential Regional Constraints to Shale Gas Development  Droughts (e.g. Barnett, Eagle Ford, Western Shale Gas Plays)  Need: > 4 MG per horizontal well completion  Water sourcing often competes with community supplies  Lack of Class II well disposal for brines (e.g. Marcellus, Western Shale Gas Plays)  Increases transportation distances and costs  Perceived & Real Environmental Impacts  Increased Regulatory Pressures  Watershed allocations of water  USEPA: VOC Issues / Fracking Impacts
    7. 7. 7 Water Based Life Cycle Model Tracking of a Dynamic System  Brine Generation  Solid Waste Output  Salt Output  Environ Impacts  Water Demands Data-Driven Decisions for Improved Long Term Planning Water Based Life Cycle Model Useful Projections Flowback and PW Generation and Characteristics Well Drilling & HF Schedules Water Reuse Opportunities Water Treatment & Disposal Options Uncertainties & Real Time Data Analysis
    8. 8. 88 Life Cycle Analysis • Purpose: Examine long term (30+ years) water management strategies for a development area. • Approach: Use field data (from more than 25 well locations) and current management practices to project water reuse capacity, water generation, salt generation, solid waste output and salt concentration profiles • Spreadsheet Model was developed to simulate year by year water and solid waste flows & characteristics through the life cycle of a development area
    9. 9. 9
    10. 10. 1010 Typical Flowback Water Characteristics 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 0 20 40 60 80 100 Days from Hydraulic Fracture Event Flowback Water Total Dissolved Solids, mg/l 1000 0 3000 AveFlow*intheInterval,Bbl/d 200014 - 90 Day Interval •Average Daily Flow of the Flowback Water Output within Each Interval
    11. 11. 1111 Example Run of the Model More than 30 Data Inputs Base case assumed: • County size development area • 300 Well Fields, 16 Wells/Field 4800 wells, • Completion + 3 refractures per well (3 yr spacing) • 33% Reuse Water/ Total Fracture Volume • Ave PW generation = 7 bbl/d Results: • Cross Over starts going critical in year 12 • Logistical difficulty with reuse in about a decade
    12. 12. 1212 Water-based Life Cycle (Marcellus Shale) Crossover Point Good Level of Water Reuse Opportunities Diminished Water Reuse Opportunities 2/3 of salt output
    13. 13. 13 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 10 20 30 40 50 CumulativeBarrels(million) Years Flowback + Produced Water (Cumulative Volumes) 3 Refractures 2 Refractures 1 Refracture 0 Refractures Cumulative Water Output from a Development Area Shaded Area = Post Crossover
    14. 14. 14 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 CumulativeSalt,MillionsPounds Years Produced Salt 3 Refractures 2 Refractures 1 Refracture 0 Refractures Cumulative Salt Output from a Development Area Shaded Area = Post Crossover Planning Issue?
    15. 15. 15 Annual Solid Waste Output from a Development Area Residential Solid Waste Generation from Ave PA County LF Planning Issue?
    16. 16. 1616 GTI Life Cycle Analysis Model Addresses Multiple Dynamic Issues  Flowback and Produced Water Management  Timing of Issues and Required Changes in Water Management  Predicting Regional Infrastructure Required to Support Shale Gas Industry Growth  Road Wear / Traffic  Landfill Capacity Plans and Alternative Solutions  Regional Environmental Impact in Future Years  Wellfield Emissions: VOC / GHG / NOx  Transportation Impacts: MACT  Other Environmental Impacts
    17. 17. 1717 GTI Life Cycle Model Development Continues  Customized Database Management for Flowback and Produced Water Management  GIS Positioning Data Inputs  VOC Data Management, Forecasts of Emissions and Atmospheric Model Interface  Wellfield Gas Generation Data vs. Time  Probabilistic Analysis to Manage Data Limitations, Uncertainties, and Risk.  Multi-client program. Seeking cooperators/supporters.
    18. 18. 1818 Summary  Shale Gas: Dynamic - Not Steady State  There Are Substantial Year-by-year changes:  Numbers of wells drilled (ramp up/plateau/ramp down)  Non-steady pace of development (e.g. var rig counts)  There are Changing Water & Solid Waste Outputs  Regional Demands Change from Year to Year  Water / Transportation / Infrastructure / Landfills  GTI’s Life Cycle Model is Data Driven, and an Effective Decision Tool to Improve Planning for Sustainable Shale Gas Development - Valuable to Industry, Policy Makers, and Regional Planners.
    19. 19. Thank You Tom Hayes Environmental Engineering Gas Technology Institute 847-768-0722 Tom.hayes@gastechnology.org Trevor Smith Business Development Gas Technology Institute 847-768-0795 Trevor.smith@gastechnology.org
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×