Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Evaluation of Produced Water Reuse within and outside the Energy Sector
Bridget Scanlon, Qian Yang, Robert Reedy, J.P. Nicot, and Svetlana Ikonnikova
Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of GeosciencesUniversity of Texas at Austin
Bureau of Economic Geology
Module 2: Produced Water Reusein Unconventional Oil and Gas Operations
Module 3: Produced Water Reuse and Research Needs Outside Oil and Gas Operations
950
440
860
300
Hydraulic Fracturing (HF)Produced Water (PW)
10,400
2,850
1,380
5801,960
2,620
Projected Totals - Billion galb)
Delaware Basin207,000 wells
Bakken 68,700 wells
Midland Basin113,000 wells
Eagle Ford105,000 wells
Marcellus 124,000 wells
• PW from oil reservoirs >> than that from gas reservoirsPermian PW = 50× Marcellus PW • Reuse PW for HF • Projected PW volumes = ~ 4×HF water demand in the Delaware
YES
Highlights• Irrigation demand exceeds produced water
(PW) volumes by 5× in the U.S.• PW volumes would not substantially
alleviate overall water scarcity.
• PW quality is variable with salinity up to 7 that of seawater.• Intensive treatment is required for PW use outside of energy.• Knowledge gaps related to PW quality preclude reuse outside of energy.
U.S. ~20% of global total production in oil and gasUnconventional production: 60% of U.S. oil and 70% of U.S. natural gas
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
109
L/d
106
bbl/d
Permian Bakken Eagle Ford
Niobrara Other
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
109
m3 /
d
109
ft3 /
d
Marcellus/Utica Permian Eagle FordHaynesville Barnett Fayetteville
Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020
Oil plays insemiarid regions
Gas plays inhumid regions
Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020
Basic Questions
1. What is the potential for reusing produced water within and outside the energy sector based on historical data?
2. What is the potential for reusing produced water within and outside the energy sector based on projections?
Data Types• Geology, hydrology• Reservoir data• Well completions• Production
Historical Trends • HF water • Produced water
Future Projections• Play lifetime HF, PW• 2018-2050 Outlook
Impacts• Water scarcity• GW depletion• PW management
Mitigation PW reuse for HF
Work Flow
Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020
130
24
49
Hydraulic Fracturing
110
34
30
Barnett
2009-2017 Billion gallons1 billion gal = 3.785 billion liters
Bakken
Eagle Ford
Permian
Oklahoma Fayetteville
Haynesville
64
Niobrara28
Marcellus-Utica
96
Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020
HF water demandin the Permian is ~ 20% of water usein the play (excludingmining) in 2017.
Salado
Castille
Ellenburger
Wolfcamp
SaladoDockum
San Andres
Ellenburger
UnconventionalDelaware
Basin
UnconventionalMidlandBasin
ConventionalCentral Basin
Platform
Permian Basin
PWEORI
HFOilPW
SWD
OilOil
PW
SWD SWDHF
ConventionalCentral Basin Platform
UnconventionalMidland Basin
UnconventionalDelaware Basin
Conventional reservoirBig recycle loop 11
Permian basin
-
50
100
150
200
250
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017To
tal H
F w
ater
use
(109
L/yr
)
Tota
l HF
wat
er u
se (1
09ga
l/yr)
Total Water Use for Hydraulic Fracturing by Play
HF water use increased by ~ 10× in Permian Basin (2011 – 2017)
Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020
Total Lateral Length Drilled= 4 x Earth’s circumference
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
Tota
l lat
eral
leng
th (1
06m
)
Tota
l lat
eral
leng
th (1
06ft
)
0
10
20
30
40
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
HF w
ater
use
(m3 /
m)
HF w
ater
use
(100
0 ga
l/ft)
HF water use/foot of lateral
Lateral length drilled peaked in 2017 in Permianand 2014 in many other plays
HF water use/length of lateral in Permian increased by 4× 2011 – 2017; ~300%
Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020
Water Use for Hydraulic Fracturing as a % of Total Water Use in the Play
HF water use (maximum annual): 3% to 22% of total non-mining water use (TWU; USGS 2015).HF water use in the Permian = 20% of water use in the play.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Permian
Eagle Ford
Bakken
Niobrara
Marcellus
Barnett
Haynesville
Fayetteville
HF WU (109 gal) or % of TWU
HF WU as % of TWUHF WU
Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020
Number of Water Wells Drilled to Supply Water for Hydraulic Fracturing
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
No.
wat
er su
pply
wel
ls fo
r HF
Permian Eagle Ford Haynesville Barnett
Total: 8,500 wells in the Permian; 2,500 wells in the Eagle FordScanlon et al., ES&T, 2020
180
75
Produced WaterSalt water disposal
61
16
Barnett 74
Produced Water2009-2017 billion gallons
Bakken
Eagle Ford
Permian
OklahomaFayetteville
Haynesville
480
Niobrara 5.4
Marcellus-Utica
9.4
Produced water from oil playsgenerally much higher than that from gas plays
PW in the Permian in 2017 = 50×PW in the Marcellus
Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020
-
50
100
150
200
250
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
Tota
l PW
(BL/
yr)
Tota
l PW
(Bga
l/yr)
Produced Water Volume in Plays
Oklahoma
PW volume ↑ 30 times in Permian Basin (2011 – 2017)Oil plays produce much more water than gas plays
0102030405060708090
100
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Decl
ine
rela
tive
to 1
stye
ar
Years of production
Bakken 3.5
Eagle Ford 2.3
Midland 3.0
Delaware 3.9
Marcellus 3.9
Decline Curves for Produced Water
Need to keep drilling wells to maintain production Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020
Produced water is mostly managed using Saltwater Disposal Wells
740 wells
1,750 wells
336 wells
250 wells
Bakken
Permian
Eagle Ford
Marcellus/Utica
Haynesville
11 wells in Pennsylvania
Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020
Bakken
OK
Permian
Eagle Ford
Haynesville
Fayetteville
Barnett
Marcellus/Utica
Induced seismicity highest in Oklahoma attributed to deeper disposal and larger volumes relative to Bakken, Permian, and Eagle Ford
UT-BEG
TexNet/CISR
Center for IntegratedSeismic Research
Recent study:EQs related to HF in Delaware Basin
Lomax & Savvaidis, 2019
Earthquake Events ≥ Magnitude 2 (monthly data; USGS Source)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0
5
10
15
20
25
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Num
ber o
f Eve
nts i
n O
K
Num
ber o
f Eve
nts
Permian Eagle Ford Barnett Fayetteville Oklahoma
Seismicity increasing in the Permian and Eagle Ford plays
22
Main Findings:
High levels of seismicity in Oklahoma related to deep disposal of wastewater near the crystalline basement
Much lower levels of seismicity in the Bakken, Eagle Ford and Permian Basin plays related to shallow disposal of wastewater.
Depth of Water Disposal Affects Seismicity
Scanlon et al., Seism. Res. Lett., 2019
Shallow disposal Deep disposalCould impact overlying aquifer Little or no impact on aquifers
Impact oil well drilling (over-pressuring, extra casing)
Little or no direct impact on oil well drilling
Can impact oil production Little direct impact on oil production
Less seismicity More seismicity
Under-pressured, high injectivity
Inexpensive, drill many Expensive, few wells, high rates
Reducing Tradeoffs Between Shallow and Deep Disposal
Scanlon et al., Seism. Res. Lett., 2019
137 177
24
7549
HFPWSWD
112 61
34
30 16
Barnett 74
2009-2017 Billion gals
Bakken
Eagle Ford
Permian
Oklahoma Fayetteville
Haynesville
48064
Niobrara2165.4
Marcellus-Utica
70 12
Potential for Reusing Produced Waterfor Hydraulic Fracturing
SWD= 8 × HF water use in OK
X
Temporal Variations in PW to HF Ratios by Play
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Eagle Ford Bakken Marcellus-Utica Midland Delaware Oklahoma
Volu
me
(109
L/yr
)
Volu
me
(109
gal/y
r)
HF water useProduced water
PW>>HFPW = 2 HF 2016
HF > PWHF >> PWPW ↑ relto HF
HF > PW
Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020
Options for Managing Produced Water
24
43
24Hydraulic Fracturing (2017)Produced Water (2017)
Irrigation (2015)
18 9
0.03
Barnett11
Billion galMarcellus
Eagle Ford
Raton
Fayetteville
Haynesville
7
Black Warrior
310
PowderRiver
7
148
Bakken198
9
58
0.61.0 0.7
7 1.41.0
Oklahoma AOI
2952
Delaware
187
Niobrara
1.8230
7
1.3 4.5
Uinta600.5
San Juan
1.5226
32
26
35
Midland
272.1
Irrigation = 5 x PW (UOG)Irrigation = 50 x PW (CBM)
Permian Basin: Water Use relative to Other Sectors
0.01
0.1
1
10
100An
drew
s
Cran
e
Croc
kett
Culb
erso
n
Ecto
r
Eddy
Gla
ssco
ck
How
ard
Irion Le
a
Lovi
ng
Mar
tin
Mid
land
Peco
s
Reag
an
Reev
es
Upt
on
War
d
Win
kler
Volu
me
(109
gal/y
r)
2017 PW 2017 SWD 2017 HF Irrigation Public Supply Livestock Industrial RC Cooling
Permian (19 county area)
Produced Water Quality: Total Dissolved Solids
USGS Produced Waters DatabaseLiterature
Produced Water Quality
WolfcampResevoir
~200 points
Wolfcamp Prod. Water TDS (g/L)
25
50
Industrial Uses
Clean Brine for
HF
>125
100
75
Agricultural Uses
Groundwater recharge, potable
uses
Separation of oil, grease, suspended
solids
• Hydrocyclone
• Gas flotation
• Oil/Water separator
• Settling tank• Media
filtration (sand, walnut shell, etc)
• Cartridge filtration
• Membrane filtration
Desalination -Removal of dissolved
solids
ED
Post-treatment and restabilization (e.g.,
B)
• Biological treatment
• Electrocoag. & flotation
• Adsorption (carbon, zeolite, etc)
• Chemical oxidation
• Disinfection (ClO2, UV, etc)
Removal of target constituents (e.g., organics, Fe, Ba, Ca, Mg, Sr, SiO2, SO4, microbes)
BWRO
SWRO
MVR
MVC
MED
Emerging
FO
MD
• Ion Exchange• AOP• pH adjust.&
remineral.• Disinfection (Cl2,
UV)
PW treatment costs increase with higher salinity in PW and product water quality improvement
Appl
icab
le T
DS
rang
e (g
/L)
NF
Basic Questions
1. What is the potential for reusing produced water for hydraulic fracturing based on historical data?
2. What is the potential for reusing produced water for hydraulic fracturing based on projections?
Projections of water demand for HF and produced waterProjections based on Technically Recoverable Resource Development: all potential future wells could be drilled using current technology over the life of the plays.
Plays: Permian Delaware (Wolfcamp [WC] A & B), Permian Midland (WC A & B), Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Marcellus. Scale: 1 square mile.
Remaining Drillable volume of reservoirs
Volume required per future well
Total drillable length/well inventory
Historical and Projected Drilling Density at grid scale
Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020
Bakken 68,700 wells
Eagle Ford 105,000 wells
440
860
Hydraulic Fracturing
Midland Basin 113,000 wells
1,900
Delaware Basin207,000 wells
Projected Totals – Bgal
2,800
Marcellus 124,000 wells
1,400
Permian: = 4,700 Bgal= ~14 maf
= TX total water use in 2017
Projections based on Technically Recoverable Resource development
Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020
Bakken 69,000 wells
950
300
10,400
Produced Water
2,620
Projected Totals – Billion gal
Marcellus 124,000 wells
580
Eagle Ford 105,000 wells
Delaware Basin192,000 wells
Midland Basin 106,000 wells
Projections based on Technically Recoverable Resource development
Permian Basin: PW, 40 maf= 3× TX total water use in 2017 Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020
Projected Produced Water at Grid Scale
Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020
Ratio of Produced Water to Hydraulic Fracturing Water Demand
Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020
Bakken 69,000 wells
950
300
10,400
Hydraulic Fracturing
Produced Water
2,620
Projected Totals – Bgal
Marcellus 124,000 wells
580
Eagle Ford 105,000 wells
Midland Basin 113,000 wells
Delaware Basin207,000 wells
Can we reuse PW for HF?
Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020
Bakken 69,000 wells
950
860
300
10,400
Hydraulic Fracturing
Produced Water
2,620
Projected Totals – Bgal
2,850
Marcellus 124,000 wells
1,380
580
440
1,960
Eagle Ford 105,000 wells
Midland Basin 113,000 wells
Delaware Basin207,000 wells
Can we reuse PW for HF?
Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020
Proposed Water Consortium at the Univ. TX Bureau of Economic Geology
Meeting HoustonFeb. 27 2020
Main Findings
Produced Water Management• Oil plays produce much more water than gas plays (Permian PW = 50 ×
Marcellus PW in 2017)• Potential issues with PW management (e.g. induced seismicity, disposal
capacity)Management strategies• Reusing PW for HF of new wells should mitigate water issues in most plays,
except Oklahoma or Delaware Basin where PW volume>>HF water demand• Beneficial reuse in other water sectors, problems with water quality, economics,
and regulations
Project Sponsors:
[email protected]: Bridget Scanlon