W E L L S E R V I C E S
Water Usage Optimization &
Management for Hydraulic Fracturing
Dr. Chris Fredd
Unconventional Rese...
Evolution of Reservoir Rock
Pre-Hydraulic
Fracturing
Hydraulic
Fracturing
Combination w/
Horizontal Drilling
Reservoir
Res...
Why Hydraulic Fracturing?
Vertical, Perforated Well Vertical, Perforated Well with Single Frac
Horizontal, Perforated Well...
Impact of Reservoir Contact
 Increasing Reservoir Contact (surface area) improves production
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000...
US Land Fracturing… Prop & Water by Stage
Concerns Faced
Long Term Energy Resources
– Large Resource Base
– Energy Security and
Independence
Economy Benefits
– Pote...
Conservation of Water Resources
Water Usage Associated with Unconventional
Reservoir Development is a Major Area of Focus
...
Surface Management with Direction DrillingSurface Management with Direction Drilling
10.50
kilometers
10.50
kilometers
HorizontalWellCount
VerticalWell Count
Impact of Technology on Production
Barnett Shale
0
500
1000
1500
2000
1990
1991
199...
HaynesvilleBarnett WoodfordFayetteville Eagle FordMarcellus
Illite
CarbonateGas-filled
porosity
Kerogen
Source: Schlumberg...
What about Effectiveness?
 29% of perforation clusters are not
contributing to production
 36% not contributing in Bakke...
Complex Fracture ModelingProduction Modeling
89% Perf Clusters Producing versus 64% Average Perf Clusters Producing
Perf. Clusters
Flow Rate
Results of Engineered Comp...
Impact of an Integrated Workflow
Sources: SPE 158268, SPE 134827, SPE 146872
Geometric RQ + CQ
3MonthBOE
Eagle Ford Shale
...
Downward trend in water per stage
Downward trend to ~40 bbls/min
Technology has an Impact
 Trends in the Eagle Ford Shale...
Downward trend in water per stage
Downward trend to ~40 bbls/min
Technology has an Impact
 Trends in the Eagle Ford Shale...
Channel Fracturing
- >18,000 Treatments in >1,500 Wells in 19 Countries
- Variety of Formations (Carbonate, Sandstone, Sha...
Water Sources – Water Management
 Fresh Water
– Municipal
– Water wells: shallow and deep
– Ponds, Streams and Rivers
– A...
Brackish Water Applications in North America
 New Mexico (SPE 133379)
- 100% produced water treated
with fluid stabilizer...
- Electrolytic Cell Generates a Mixed Oxidant
Solution (MOS) onsite to Disinfect Frac Fluid
- Generates Hypochlorite Speci...
Main Generator
(480V, 200A, 215kVA)
Standby Generator
(480V, 30A, 25kVA)
Mixed Oxidant Generator Skid
(40 ft Container)
Fe...
Source: From Chesapeake Fact Sheet with Data from GWPC, DOE
Energy Resource Range of Gallons of Water
Usedper MMBTU of Ene...
Summary
 Technology can have a significant impact
– Leverage technology to maximize production
from resource investment
–...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Water Usage Optimization & Management for Hydraulic Fracturing | Dr. Chris Fredd, Unconventional Reservoir Stimulation Advisor

3,924 views

Published on

Global HSE Conference | Sept 26 - 27 2013 | New Delhi, India

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,924
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
33
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
24
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 8000 bbls x 10 stages = 80,000 bbls or 3,360,000 gals water/well & 3,000,000 lbs prop/well
  • Water Usage Optimization & Management for Hydraulic Fracturing | Dr. Chris Fredd, Unconventional Reservoir Stimulation Advisor

    1. 1. W E L L S E R V I C E S Water Usage Optimization & Management for Hydraulic Fracturing Dr. Chris Fredd Unconventional Reservoir Stimulation Advisor Global HSE Conference, New Delhi, India, 26-27 September, 2013
    2. 2. Evolution of Reservoir Rock Pre-Hydraulic Fracturing Hydraulic Fracturing Combination w/ Horizontal Drilling Reservoir Reservoir
    3. 3. 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
    4. 4. Impact of Reservoir Contact  Increasing Reservoir Contact (surface area) improves production 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 CumulativeGas(MMscf) Time (days) Nf=1 Nf=2 Nf=3 Nf=4 Nf=5 Nf=6 Nf=7 Nf=8 Nf=9 Nf=10 Source: SPE 163975 Tight Carbonate (Khuff) L = 3,000 ft k = ~0.1 md
    5. 5. US Land Fracturing… Prop & Water by Stage
    6. 6. 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. 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 7
    8. 8. Surface Management with Direction DrillingSurface Management with Direction Drilling 10.50 kilometers 10.50 kilometers
    9. 9. HorizontalWellCount VerticalWell Count Impact of Technology on Production Barnett Shale 0 500 1000 1500 2000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 InitialProduction(MSCF/D) Average IP Vertical Wells Horizontal Wells 0 500 1000 1500 2000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 InitialProduction(MSCF/D) AverageIP 2500 5000 7500 10000 19901980 2000
    10. 10. HaynesvilleBarnett WoodfordFayetteville Eagle FordMarcellus Illite CarbonateGas-filled porosity Kerogen Source: Schlumberger Not All Reservoirs are Created Equal
    11. 11. 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. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 1 8 15 22 % from Perf Cluster PerfCluster 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
    12. 12. Complex Fracture ModelingProduction Modeling
    13. 13. 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)
    14. 14. Impact of an Integrated Workflow Sources: SPE 158268, SPE 134827, SPE 146872 Geometric RQ + CQ 3MonthBOE Eagle Ford Shale >33% increase Geometric RQ + CQ Marcellus Shale 75% increase Selectively placed perforation clusters Rock quality legend Stress legend High Low Rock quality Stress Shale / Source Rock 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 3MonthOilProduction Ordos Basin: Tight Oil Tight Sandstone >50% increase
    15. 15. Downward trend in water per stage Downward trend to ~40 bbls/min Technology has an Impact  Trends in the Eagle Ford Shale… 15
    16. 16. 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 2 Water ProppantCum 25 day production Channel Frac Hybrid Slickwater RelativeWaterperstageor RelativeProppantperstageor Relativeproduction  Less Proppant  Less Water  More Production Source: SPE 145403 Source: www. petrohawk.com Channel Frac – Gross Gas
    17. 17. 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
    18. 18. 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 WaterTreatmentoptions
    19. 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 19
    20. 20. - 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 HClO ClO· ClO- Cl· HO2 · HO2 OH· H· H2O2 O3 O2 · ½ O2 O· Anode Reaction 2 Cl- → Cl2 + 2e- Cathode Reaction 2 H2O + 2e- → H2 ↑ + 2 OH- Chlorine Hydrolysis Reaction Cl2 + H2O ↔ HOCl + Cl- + H+ HOCl ↔ OCl- + H+ Mixed Oxidant SolutionSalt Water Power Water Disinfection
    21. 21. 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
    22. 22. Source: From Chesapeake Fact Sheet with Data from GWPC, DOE Energy Resource Range of Gallons of Water Usedper MMBTU of Energy Produced MarcellusGas Well 1.30 Coalwith No Slurry Transport 2 to 8 Coalwith Slurry Transport 13 to 32 Nuclear(Uranium Ready to Use in a Power Plant) 8 to 14 ConventionalOil 8 to 20 Synfuel – Coal Gasification 11 to 26 OilShale 22 to 56 Tar Sands 27 to 68 Synfuel – Fischer Tropsch Synthesis(from Coal) 41 to 60 EnhancedOil Recovery 21 to 2,500 Biofuels(Irrigated Corn Ethanol,Irrigated Soy Biodiesel) >2,500 Water Requirements by Energy Resource
    23. 23. 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 What is your KPI? BTU / gal Water, … ?

    ×