Water in the Oil and Gas Cycle, Including Hydraulic Fracturing

Water in the Oil and Gas Cycle, including Hydraulic Fracturing

Mark Engle and *Bridget R. Scanlon

U.S. Geological Survey *Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, Univ. of Texas at Austin, Texas

1 CUAHSI's Spring 2016 Cyberseminar Series Water Energy Nexus

2 https://www.cuahsi.org/cyberseminars Outline

• Background (conventional and unconventional reservoirs) • Water use for oil and gas production from conventional reservoirs • Water use for hydraulic fracturing – Trends and controls – Water intensity per unit of energy • Water demand for hydraulic fracturing relative to water supplies

3 Unconventional vs. Conventional Hydrocarbon Reservoirs

Unconventional resources (continuous resources): oil and natural gas in the source rock. Conventional resources: oil and natural gas that have migrated from source rock into a structural or stratigraphic trap with distinct oil water interface.

4 Modified from Schenk and Pollastro, 2002 5 Shale Oil and Gas Plays in the U.S.

Bakken

Niobrara

Marcellus

Woodford Fayetteville

Permian Barnett Basin Haynesville

Eagle Ford

6 Base map: National Geographic U.S. Shale Oil Production

/day) 4 bbl 6 Eagle Ford 3

Bakken 2

1 Permian US tight oil production (10 oilproduction US tight Niobrara 0 Rest US 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Shale and tight oil production accounted for ~ 50% of U.S. crude oil production in 2014.

7 Energy Information Administration U.S. Shale Gas Production

30 Marcellus 25

15 Haynesville Eagle Ford 10 Fayetteville 5 Barnett US dry shale gas production (BCF/day) production US dry shalegas Utica 0 Rest of US Shale 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Shale gas production accounted for ~ 50% of U.S. natural gas production in 2014.

8 Energy Information Administration Outline

9 Water Use for Oil and Gas Production from Conventional vs Unconventional Reservoirs • Conventional Reservoirs: – Water use: well drilling – Secondary recovery (water flooding) or tertiary recovery (steam or CO2 injection) – There is no secondary or tertiary recovery for gas production • Unconventional Reservoirs: – Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing – Water and proppant injected to produce oil and gas – We are recovering 5 – 10% of the resource in place; future enhanced recovery techniques may require more water

Lampert et al., 2015 10 Scanlon et al., 2015 Example of Water Use and Oil Production in a Conventional Reservoir Primary Secondary 25

20 Water flooding

bbl/d) 15 6

10 Volume (10 Volume 5 Oil production

0 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Primary production until mid 1960s, water flooding ->secondary production of oil

Denver Unit of the Wasson Field, Permian Basin, Texas 11 Modified National Energy Technology Lab, 2010; Healy et al., 2015 Example of Water Use and Oil Production in a Conventional Reservoir Primary Secondary 25

20 Water

/d) flooding

bbl 15 6 Water production

10 Volume (10 Volume 5 Oil production

0 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Increased volumes of produced water lags water flooding. Water for flooding in the Permian Changed from 75% freshwater in 1995 to 20% freshwater in 2010. 12 Modified National Energy Technology Lab, 2010; Healy et al., 2015; Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2014 ES&T Example of Water Use and Oil Production in a Conventional Reservoir Primary Secondary Tertiary 25 0.6 CO2 injection 0.5

) 3

/d) Water ft

0.4 9

bbl flooding

6 15 Water 0.3

10 prod.

injection (10 injection 2

Volume (10 Volume 0.2 CO 5 Oil production 0.1

0 0 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

13 Comparison of Conventional and Unconventional Oil Production in the Bakken

Conventional Unconventional

1.6 20 1.6 20 )

1.4 ) 1.4

bbl

bbl 9

1.2 15 9 1.2 15

(10 (10

1 1 prod. prod. 0.8 10 prod. 0.8 10 0.6 0.6

0.4 5 0.4 5

Cumulative oil oil Cumulative Cumulative oil oil Cumulative

0.2 drilled(1000s) wells Cumulative 0.2 Cumulative wellsdrilled (1000s) wellsdrilled Cumulative 0 0 0 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Similar oil production 60 yr from conventional reservoir vs 10 yr from unconventional reservoir Similar number of wells drilled in both conventional and unconventional reservoirs 14 Scanlon et al., ES&T, in rev. Outline

15 Data Sources

National Database Water use Well completion Oil, gas, & water production Water use for HF Well completion Oil, gas, & water production Disposal of produced water

National Database Water use for Hydraulic fracturing Chemicals used in HF

State Database: water use for HF Water sources State Databases: oil, gas & water production Permitting and regulations 16 Water Use for Hydraulic Fracturing (106 gal/well)

Bakken ~2

Niobrara ~0.4 Marcellus ~4.4

Woodford Fayetteville ~2 5.3 Permian Barnett Basin 3 - 5 ~1 Haynesville 5.1

Eagle Ford 4 - 5

17 Freyman et al., 2013; Nicot et al., 2014; Scanlon et al., 2014; Kondash & Vengosh, 2015 Controls on Water Use for Hydraulic Fracturing • Vertical vs horizontal wells • Length of laterals • Geology • Number of frac stages • Frac fluid types (slickwater, gels, hybrids) • Operator • Economics

18 Trends in Water use in the Bakken Play Water use/well ↑ 10 x 4

gal/well) 6 2 Water use/ft of lateral ↑ 8 x 450 1

Mean HF HF (10 Mean 400 350 0 300

250

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Lateral length ↑ 2 x 200 Mean HF HF (gal/ft) Mean 150 9 100 9 ) 50 ft 8 8 0

(1000 7

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 7 2005 6 length 2014 water use for HF: mean 3.7 mgal/well 6

5 median 3.0 mgal/well Mean 5 5th percentile 1.6 mgal/well

4 95th percentile 9.2 mgal/well

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2005 19 Scanlon et al., ES&T. in rev. Water Use per Unit of Energy in the Eagle Ford Shale Play

Zone HF Oil HF/Oil EUR HF/EUR

mgal/well mgal/well H2O/Oil mgal/well H2O/Oil Oil 4.6 3.0 1.52 13 0.34

HF: hydraulic fracturing EUR: Estimate ultimate recovery of oil mgal: million gallons Water use for hydraulic fracturing of oil wells similar to gas wells in Eagle Ford

20 Scanlon et al., ES&T. 2014 How does water use for shale oil production compare with conventional oil production?

Water use for hydraulic fracturing to produce oil is in lower range of water use for conventional production.

We are using more water for HF because we are producing more 21oil. Scanlon et al., ES&T. 2014; Wu et al., 2011 Outline

22 Water Scarcity Concerns for Hydraulic Fracturing

23 Schematic of Eagle Ford Shale Play

Water Sources: Freshwater Produced water Brackish GW

24 Scanlon et al., Env. Res. Lett. 2014 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010

0 IMPACTS

) ) ft 100

200

300 Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Depth to water ( water to Depth 400

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

0 ) ) 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 ft 20 0 40 Jasper Aquifer 100 60 200 80 300 ( water to Depth 100 Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer 400 Depth to water (ft) water to Depth 25 500 Potential for Reuse/Recycling of Flowback-Produced Water Eagle Ford Shale Play 10

2 Median FP/HF (%) FP/HF Median

0 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 Production month

Flowback-produced water volumes represent only 5 – 6% of the water required for hydraulic fracturing in the first couple of months. Marcellus: 90% of produced water recycled represents 10 – 30% of water used for hydraulic fracturing 26 Scanlon et al., ERL, 2014 Alternatives to Freshwater in the Eagle Ford: Brackish Groundwater WATER SUPPLY relative to 20-yr HF Water DEMAND (BGAL)

330 bgal ~ 1.0 million acre feet ~ 1.3 km3 ~ 10% of past GW depletion from irrigation 62,000 additional wells

80 K 0.3 K 10 K 20-yr Brackish Fresh HF water groundwater groundwater demand

27 Scanlon et al., Env. Res. Lett. 2014 Summary

• Water use for hydraulic fracturing is higher than that for conventional gas production but is in the low range of that for conventional oil production. • Water use for hydraulic fracturing varies among plays as a result of varying number of vertical vs horizontal wells, length of laterals, number of frac stages, and frac fluid types. • Water scarcity concerns need in depth evaluation of water demand relative to supplies at the local scale.

28 Sponsors:

SUTUR

Contact: Bridget R. Scanlon [email protected]

29 Reference Material

• Freyman, M. (2014), Hydraulic Fracturing & Water Stress: Water Demand by the Numbers: Shareholder, Lender & Operator Guide to Water Sourcing, CERES Report, www.ceres.org. • Gallegos, T. J., B. A. Varela, S. S. Haines, and M. A. Engle (2015), Hydraulic fracturing water use variability in the United States and potential environmental implications, Water Resources Research, 51(7), 5839-5845. • Healy, R. W., W. A. Alley, M. A. Engle, P. B. McMahon, and J. D. Bales (2015), The Water-Energy Nexus - An Earth Science Perspective, U.S. Geol. Surv. Circular 1407, 107 p. . • Lampert, D. (2015), Comment on “Comparison of Water Use for Hydraulic Fracturing for Unconventional Oil and Gas versus Conventional Oil,” Environmental Science & Technology, 48:12386-12393, September 18, 2014. • Nicot, J. P., B. R. Scanlon, R. C. Reedy, and R. A. Costley (2014), Source and fate of hydraulic fracturing water in the Barnett Shale: A historical perspective, Environmental Science & Technology, 48(4), 2464-2471. • Nicot, J. P., and B. R. Scanlon (2012), Water Use for Shale-Gas Production in Texas, US, Envir. Sci. & Technol. , 46(6), 3580-3586. • Kondash, A., and A. Vengosh (2015), Water footprint of hydraulic fracturing, Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 2(10), 276- 280. • Scanlon, B. R., R. C. Reedy, and J. P. Nicot (2014), Will water scarcity in semiarid regions limit hydraulic fracturing of shale plays?, Environmental Research Letters, 9, DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124011, 9(12). http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/12/124011 • Scanlon, B. R., R. C. Reedy, and J. P. Nicot (2014), Comparison of water use for hydraulic fracturing for unconventional oil and gas versus conventional oil, Environmental Science & Technology, 48(20), 12386-12393. • Scanlon, B. R., I. Duncan, and R. C. Reedy (2013), Drought and the water energy nexus in Texas, Environ. Res. Lett., 8(4), 045033, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045033. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045033 • Scanlon, B. R., R. C. Reedy, I. Duncan, W. F. Mullican, III, and M. Y. Young (2013), Controls on Water Use for Thermoelectric Generation: Case Study Texas, U.S., Env. Sci. & Tech., 47, 11326-11334, 47. • Scanlon, B. R., R. C. Reedy, and J. P. Nicot (2015), Response to Comment on "Comparions of Water Use for Hydraulic Fracturing for Unconventional OIl and Gas versus Conventional Oil", Envir. Science & Technol., 10.1021/acs.est.5b01497. • Wu, M., and Y. Chiu (2011), Consumptive Water Use in the Production of Ethanol and Petroleum Gasoline — 2011 Update, Argonne National Laboratory Technical Report ANL/ESD/09-Update 2011, 84 p. .

30 Produced Waters and their Management • Produced water volumes from conventional and continuous hydrocarbon plays • Chemistry and quality of produced waters • Disposal, re-use, and recycling options

1 Photo: Tanya Gallegos Photo: Tanya Gallegos Produced Water Definition • Definition: Any water produced from a hydrocarbon well, including flowback water, formation water, injected fluids, water condensing from the gas phase, and mixtures thereof (also referred to as co- produced water). Source: USGS Fact Sheet 2014-3104

2 Origin of produced water-Marcellus Shale • δ18O shift in produced water over time • Oxygen-isotope exchange reactions not that fast • Mixing between injected water and formation

Rowan et al., 2015 fluid 3 National Scale Produced Water Volumes – 2007 vs. 2012

2007 Data 2012 Data Reference Clark and Veil, 2009 Veil, 2015 Total US Prod. Water 21 billion BBL 21.2 billion BBL Volume Total US Oil Production 1.75 billion BBL 2.26 billion BBL Total US Gas Production 24.4 TCF 29.7 TCF

Nat’l water-oil ratio 7.6 BBL/BBL 9.2 BBL/BBL Nat’l water-gas ratio 260 BBL/MMCF 97 BBL/MMCF

• Oil production increased 29% 1 BBL = 42 gallons 1 MMCF = 106 ft3 • Gas Production increased 22%

• Produced water volume did not increase 4 Produced Water Volumes by State (2012 Data) • Top 5 states generate >75% of produced waters • No basin-level data available • Voluntary data only – Texas and Oklahoma provide no public data Data source: Veil, 2015 5 Basin-level trends: Natural gas production in Pennsylvania

• From 2008 to 2013 – Natural gas withdrawals increased ~1600% – By Dec. 2013, 94% of that from shale gas – Produced water increased ~900%

Data Source: Energy Information Administration (eia.gov) 6 Water-Oil Ratios in the Eagle Ford Shale

• National WOR = 9.2 BBL/BBL – Veil, 2015 • Eagle Ford Shale Modified from Dubiel et al., 2012 (n=47) – Median = 0.42 BBL/BBL 7 Decline Curves – A source of complexity to water management

8 Healy et al., 2015 Geochemistry of produced waters

• Salts • Oil and grease – Up to and exceeding 400 g/L – Try to minimize • Trace elements • Suspended sediment – Everything • Organics – Can include proppant – Rather variable • Bacteria and • 100-5,000 mg/L • Naturally-occurring microbes radioactive material – 228Ra (Th-decay chain) – 226Ra (U-decay chain)

9 Total Dissolved Solids Map

Bulk Source: USGS Produced Waters Geochemical Seawater Database, Version 2.2 (35 g/L)

10 Trends in major ion composition with salinity

Cations: Ca/Na ratio increased with salinity • Halite saturation, ion exchange and albitization play a role K and Sr abundance increase with salinity

Anions: Cl is the only major anion at TDS > 50 g/L

• SO4 loss due to sulfate reduction and gypsum ppt. - • HCO3 loss due to carbonate ppt. 11 Elemental Abundance in Produced Waters

Source: USGS Produced Waters Geochemical Database, Version 2.2 12 Changes in solute concentrations over time Time series from 3 Marcellus Shale wells

Rowan et al., 2015

• Most solutes increase over the first few weeks – Mixing with formation brine +/- water-rock interaction

• DOC, SO4, and a few others may decrease 13 Organic compounds Extractable Hydrocarbon GC/MS Total Ion Current Chromatograms Marcellus Shale Well • Natural Compounds Day 1 – Alkanes, PAHs, ) heterocyclic compounds • Injected Compounds

– Friction reducers, Day 243 biocides, scale inhibitors, etc. 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-Pentanediol – Decreases with production Units Intensity (Relative Response Time (min) Source: Orem et al., 2014 14 Carboxylic acid Sum of C2-C5 carboxylic acid anions anions • Anions of carboxylic acids can be in very high concentration – 80-120 °C max • Primarily acetate – At <80 C, propionate is dominant

Kharaka et al., 1988 15 Disposal methods for U.S. onshore produced waters (2012 Data) • >85% of water is injected • Surface discharge acceptable for some CBM plays • Beneficial reuse still <1%

Data source: Veil, 2015 16 Regional variations by type - California

Predominantly hydraulically Predominantly not fractured pools hydraulically fractured pools

Esser et al., 2015 Jan 2011-June 2014 Data 17 Regional variations with time and laws – Pennsylvania, 2008-2011

• PA has very few class II UIC wells • Changes in regs – 2010: PA limited effluent to <250 mg/L; 27 grandfathered sites – May 2011: All POTWs asked to stop accepted shale gas waste water

Wilson and VanBrieson, 2012 18 Recycling of produced water for hydraulic fracturing Frac fluid formulations increasingly tolerant

Can’t recycle when you’re not drilling

Chen and Carter, 2016 19 Produced Water Summary

• Despite increased hydrocarbon production, produced water volumes are not increasing • Salinity increases with time • Organics tend to decrease with time – Anions of carboxylic acids can be high • Most produced waters are dominated by Na, Ca, and Cl • Most water is disposed of by injection • Disposal methods vary by region and with time

20 Questions?

Contact info: Mark Engle Eastern Energy Resources Science Center U.S. Geological Survey Located in Dept. of Geological Sciences University at Texas at El Paso [email protected]

21 Useful Links

• USGS Produced Waters Geochemical Database, Map Viewer – http://eerscmap.usgs.gov/pwapp/

• USGS Produced Waters Webpage: – http://energy.usgs.gov/EnvironmentalAspects/Env ironmentalAspectsofEnergyProductionandUse/Pro ducedWaters.aspx

22 References Cited Clark, C. E., & Veil, J. A. (2009). Produced water volumes and management practices in the United States. Argonne National Laboratory Report ANL/EVS/R-09/1, 60 p.

Chen, H., & Carter, K. E. (2016). Water usage for natural gas production through hydraulic fracturing in the United States from 2008 to 2014. Journal of Environmental Management, 170, 152–159. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.01.023

Dubiel, R. F., Pitman, J. K., Pearson, O. N., & Pearson, K. (2012). Assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources in conventional and continuous petroleum systems in the Upper Cretaceous Eagle Ford Group, U.S. Gulf Coast Region, 2011. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2012-3003, 2 p.

Engle, M. A., Cozzarelli, I. M., & Smith, B. D. (2014). USGS investigations of water produced during hydrocarbon reservoir development. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2014-3104, 4 p.

Esser, B. K., Beller, H. R., Carroll, S. A., Cherry, J. A., Gillespie, J., Jackson, R. B., Jordan, P. D., Madrid, V., Morris, J. P., Parker, B. L., Stringfellow, W. T., Varadharajan, C., & Vengosh, A. (2015). Recommendations on model criteria for groundwater sampling, testing, and monitoring of oil and gas development in California (Draft Report). Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report LLNL‐TR‐669645, 286 p.

23 References Cited

Healy, R. W., Alley, W. M., Engle, M. A., McMahon, P. B., & Bales, A. J. D. (2015). The Water- Energy Nexus—An Earth Science Perspective. U. S. Geological Survey Circular 1407, 108 p.

Kharaka, Y. K., Gunter, W. D., Aggarwal, P. K., Perkins, E. H., & Debraal, J. D. (1988). SOLMINEQ.88: A computer program for geochemical reaction modeling of water-rock interaction. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4227, 420 p.

Orem, W., Tatu, C., Varonka, M., Lerch, H., Bates, A., Engle, M., Crosby, L., & McIntosh, J. (2014). Organic substances in produced and formation water from unconventional natural gas extraction in coal and shale. International Journal of Coal Geology, 126(0), 20–31.

Rowan, E. L., Engle, M. A., Kraemer, T. F., Schroeder, K. T., Hammack, R. W., & Doughten, M. W. (2015). Geochemical and isotopic evolution of water produced from Middle Devonian Marcellus shale gas wells, Appalachian basin, Pennsylvania. AAPG Bulletin, 99(02), 181–206.

Wilson, J. M., & VanBriesen, J. M. (2012). Oil and gas produced water management and surface drinking water sources in Pennsylvania. Environmental Practice, 14(04), 288–300.