DOCSLIB.ORG

Fracture Design in Horizontal Shale Wells – Data Gathering to Implementation”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Note: this document may contain some elements that are not fully accessible to users with disabilities. If you need assistance accessing any information in this document, please contact [email protected]. EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Workshop March 10th - 11th, 2011 “Fracture Design in Horizontal Shale Wells – Data Gathering to Implementation” Tim Beard Sr. Engineering Advisor - Completions Chesapeake Energy Corporation 6100 N. Western Avenue ı Oklahoma City, OK 76118 ı 405-935-8000 [email protected] ı chk.com ı NYSE: CHK 2 Presentation Overview Goal Planning • Data • Measuring • Validating • Properties Needed in Modeling • Designing the Hydraulic Fracture • Frac Models in Vertically Heterogeneous Formations Execution 3 CHK’s Operating Areas Low-risk, U.S. onshore asset base; Not exposed to economic, geopolitical or technological risks internationally or in the Gulf of Mexico 4 Shale Information Shale Play Fayetteville Barnett Eagle Ford Haynesville Marcellus Average Depth From 4,500 7,400 9,000 11,500 7,100 Surface (ft) Bottom Hole 130 190 260 320 145 Temperature (F) Bottom Hole 2,000 2,900 6,200 10,000 4,600 Pressure (psi) 5 What is the Goal of Hydraulic Fracturing? Maximize the Stimulated Reservoir Volume (SRV) along the horizontal wellbore for a given well spacing to maximize hydrocarbon production within the zone of interest. Orientation and lateral length Vertical placement within flow unit Rock Properties/Mechanics Stages/Perf Clusters/Isolation Fluid and proppant selection 6 Planning 7 What data do we use? What are the main variables that need to be factored into each frac design? • Porosity and Permeability • Maximum Principle Stress Direction • Lateral Length • Lithology of Pay • Brittleness vs. Ductility • Young’s Modulus • Stress Anisotropy • Poisson’s Ratio • Natural Fractures • Fracture Toughness • Gas or Liquids Reservoir • Thickness • Temperature • Barriers • Reservoir Pressure • Depth • In-Situ Stress 8 Wireline Log Data Logs are run in regionally representative pilot wells over the zone(s) of interest. Triple Combo Log, Spectral Gamma Ray, Dipole Sonic Log, Formation MicroImager The data gathered from the logs is utilized to do a petrophysical analysis and to calculate the rock mechanical properties of the reservoir to determine pay intervals, barriers, etc. FMI and multi-caliper log data are also used to determine a maximum and minimum principle stress direction and to determine if there are natural fractures present. 9 Lateral Orientation Maximum Principle Stress Direction ● Perpendicular to maximum principle stress ● Optimize transverse fracturing ● Slight variations for more efficient pattern development Lateral Placement 10 Lateral PlacementComposite Well: PROCKO_MARTIN_WHITMAN_625599 COMPANY: CHK DATUM FOR ELEVATION: GR LOCATION: TWP - Range - Sec SURFACE ELEVATION: 15.00 LATITUDE: 39.0000 MEASUREMENT REF.: LONGITUDE: 80.0000 ELEVATION MEAS. REF.: - X COORDINATE: 1745180.06 DRILLED DEPTH: 7780.00 Y COORDINATE: 14416529.67 VERTICAL UNITS: FEET HORIZONTAL UNITS: FEET DATE LOGGED: 31-Jul-2007 DATE PLOTTED: 27-Oct-2008 VERTICAL SCALE: 1:240 CPHI_GAS_1 DEPTH (FEET) RM RMC 20 V/V 0RMF DFD BHT SHT BIT SIZE CPHI_1 7120.00-7429.00 - @ - - @ - 20 V/V 0 - @ - - - - - RESERVOIR_INT.VOL_TOC_AM pign kintx RESERVOIR_INT.CKPERM_AM RESERVOIR_INT.RHOBC_AM RESERVOIR_INT.VCLAY_AM 1.e-06 MD 1 0.2 V/V 0 RESERVOIR_INT.CKPERMH PEFZ_1 VP_TOC_2 RESERVOIR_INT.BVH_AV KH_PRO_1 RESERVOIR_INT.SW_AV CORE_TRA.SAMPLE_ID 10 B/E 0 0 V/V 40 1.e-06 B/E 1 RESERVOIR_INT.NET HDRA_1 TREATMENT.STAGE TENS_1 crhob VP_TOC_1 PERM_DENONLY_1 0.75 G/C3 -0.25 10000 LBF 3000 2.18 FEET 2.88 0 V/V 0.4 1.e-06 MM2/MS 1 GR_1 RLA5_1 CDEN_1 VOL_TOC_3 CKPERM_3 0 GAPI 200 PERFS.PERFS 0.2 OHMM 2000 2.18 G/C3 2.88 0 V/V 0.4 1.e-06 B/E 1 TOTAL_GAMMA_1 RLA4_1 RHOBC_4 vol_toc CSO_1 cperm ● Target highest quality rock with 0 GAPI 200 0.2 OHMM 2000 2.18 G/C3 2.88 0 V/V 0.4 0 F/MN 100 1.e-06 V/V 1 DCAL_1 RLA3_1 RHOZ_1 PHIE_3 VP_VCLAY_1 suwi CPERM_COMPOSITE_1 0 IN 10 0.2 OHMM 2000 2.18 G/C3 2.88 0.2 V/V 0 0 V/V 100 1 V/V 0 1.e-06 V/V 1 HCAL_1 DEPTH RLA2_1 NPHI_N_3 PERFS.COMPLETIONPETRO.FORMATIONBVH_RHOB_TRS_3 vcl_grlim CSW_1 CPERM_12_20_1 4 IN 24 FEET 0.2 OHMM 2000 0.3 MV -0.1 0.2 V/V 0 0 V/V 1 100 V/V 0 1.e-06 V/V 1 bs RXO8_1 NPHI_1 BVH_3 VCLAY_3 SW_3 CPERM_1 consideration given to stress profile 6 IN 16 0.2 OHMM 2000 0.3 V/V -0.1 0.2 V/V 0 0 V/V 1 1 V/V 0 1.e-06 V/V 1 7120.0 4 5 6 7 98 10 11 12 and fracture geometries 13 1514 16 7150 1817 19 20 21 22 2423 2625 27 2928 T_FLOW UNIT 30 31 32 3433 35 36 Preferred lateral placement in upper to 37 ● 3938 40 4241 7200 43 44 4645 47 48 middle portion of target zone to 49 50 51 5352 54 5655 57 58 59 optimize proppant placement 60 61 62 63 64 65 7250 6766 68 7069 71 72 7473 75 7776 209.0 78 2.55 0.060 0.056 0.429 0.127 0.1012 0.000484 8079 81 82 83 Toe high with option of traversing the 84 ● 8685 87 88 9089 91 7300 92 93 94 95 entire section 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 105104 107106 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 7350 116115 118117 119 120 122121 123 124 126125 127 128 129 130 131 T_ONONDAGA 133132 134 135 136 137 139138 7400 140 142141 143 144 145 146 148147 149 151150 T_HUNTERSVILLE 152 7429.0 153 154 11 Mechanical Properties and Stress Estimation from Acoustic Logs Elastic Moduli Estimated from Acoustic Logs Several Stress Equations are Appropriate Uniaxial Transverse Isotropic Equation (Lateral Strain Model): σHmin = (Eh/Ev)(νv/(1-νh))(σv-αPp) + 2 αPp + (Eh/(1-vh ))εhmin + (Ehvh/(1- 2 vh ))εhmax This equation expands the σtectonic to incorporate lateral strain. Tectonic strain creates greater stress in stiff sandstone/limestone beds and less stress in organic-rich shales. Estimated Stress Calibrated with Well Test 12 Pump-In Testing: Key Calibration Pump-In Tests Conventional Pump-In Tests in Cased Hole ― Closure Stress is Determined ― After Closure Analysis MDT Pump-In Tests in Open Hole ― Closure Stress is Determined Core Data The pump-in tests along with the core data calibrate mechanical properties data. 13 Fracture Model – Mechanical Properties Petrophysics processes the Dipole Sonic log for rock mechanical properties and that data is utilized in the frac model. 14 Fracture Model – Fluid Flow and Leakoff The fluid loss data input into the model. 15 Fracture Model Methodology The actual deviation survey for the well that is being modeled, as well as the planned perforations for the well, are entered. A pump schedule is entered into the fracture model. Numerous iterations with different pump schedules, perforation schemes, and other variable modifications are run to “optimize” the design. What is the play specific “optimum” design? Covers the height of the pay interval Creates a sufficiently conductive propped fracture length that fits our well and perf spacing, with some overlap. Minimizes well interference. Provides the best production results based on reservoir flow simulation. 16 Example Frac Model Results As depicted in the model, the fracture propogates primarily only in the lower stress portion of the rock. The lower stress portion of the reservoir “contains” the frac High stress barriers exist above and below the fracture matching lithology changes. Vertical variations in stress exist throughout the sections depicted. 17 Example Frac Model Results Fracture is contained by lower stress interval and high stress barriers above and below the lower stress interval. Variable stress throughout section, matching lithology changes Greater height growth typically leads to less fracture length. Note, this is predicted fluid distribution, not predicted propped fracture length. 18 Perforation Clusters and Stage Spacing 50 ’– 100’ Cluster Spacing 250 ’– 500’ Stage Spacing Not To Scale 19 Fluid Selection Utilize core data and lab fluid-rock sensitivity testing to determine fluid additives Maximize slickwater volumes vs. gelled fluid volumes Utilize light gels/crosslink to place higher sand concentrations where necessary in gas shales In liquids rich plays, more gels or crosslinked gels are utilized to promote greater conductivity in the propped fractures Reservoir modeling suggests higher primary fracture conductivity required to improve well performance CHK Promotes development and leads in the use of “greener”, more environmentally friendly hydraulic fracturing additives 20 Green Frac Status – Chemical Additives Additive Barnett Fayetteville Haynesville Marcellus Eagle Ford Friction Reducer GF* Test GF Test GF Test GF Test GF Test Biocide GF Test GF Test GF Test GF Test GF Test KCl Substitute Eliminated GF Substitute GF Substitute Eliminated GF Substitute Scale Inhibitor GF Test GF Test X X Surfactant Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated X Gel X X Occasional X Cross-linker X X Breaker X X Occasional X HCl X X X X X * - Green Frac™ 21 Proppant Selection 100 mesh sand is typically used in the early portion of the job for enhanced distance and height, diversion, etching, and as a propping agent 40/70 and 40/80 mesh proppants are currently the predominant proppants used in gas shales 30/50 and 20/40 proppant used in some areas for fracture conductivity enhancement (especially important in the liquids rich plays) Resin Coated Tail-Ins - used where sand flowback is an issue or where more proppant strength and conductivity are needed Ceramic Proppants are utilized where higher conductivity and higher strength are required Increased proppant volumes and less fluid addresses conductivity and environmental issues 22 Execution 23 Hydraulically Fracturing the Shale Typical Hydraulic Fracturing Job: • 10-20 Pumps • 2-4 Sand Storage Units • Blender • Hydration Unit • Frac Tanks • Chemical Storage Truck • Data Monitoring Van • 20-30 Workers 24 Hydraulically Fracturing the Shale 6 layers of protection between the wellbore and groundwater aquifers during hydraulic fracturing operations.
Recommended publications
  • Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: a Primer

    Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: a Primer

    U.S. Department of Energy • Office of Fossil Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory April 2009 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe upon privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer Work Performed Under DE-FG26-04NT15455 Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy and National Energy Technology Laboratory Prepared by Ground Water Protection Council Oklahoma City, OK 73142 405-516-4972 www.gwpc.org and ALL Consulting Tulsa, OK 74119 918-382-7581 www.all-llc.com April 2009 MODERN SHALE GAS DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES: A PRIMER ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) under Award Number DE‐FG26‐ 04NT15455. Mr. Robert Vagnetti and Ms. Sandra McSurdy, NETL Project Managers, provided oversight and technical guidance.
  • Unconventional Gas and Hydraulic Fracturing Issue Briefing

    Unconventional Gas and Hydraulic Fracturing Issue Briefing

    Unconventional gas and hydraulic fracturing Issue briefing bp.com/sustainability Unconventional gas and hydraulic fracturing Issue briefing 2 How we operate At BP, we recognize that we need to produce energy responsibly – minimizing impacts to people, communities and the environment. We operate in around 80 countries, and our systems of governance, management and operation are designed to help us conduct our business while respecting safety, environmental, social and financial considerations. Across all BP operations, established practices support the management of potential environmental and social impacts from the pre-appraisal stage through to the operational stage and beyond – reflecting BP’s values, responsibilities and local regulatory requirements. BP’s operating management system integrates BP requirements on health, safety, security, social, environment and operational reliability, as well as maintenance, contractor relations, compliance and organizational learning into a common system. BP participates in a number of joint venture operations, such as in Algeria and Indonesia, to extract unconventional gas. Some of these are under our direct operational control, while others not. When participating in a joint venture not under BP control, we encourage the operator of the joint venture, through dialogue and constructive engagement, to adopt our practices. For more information bp.com/aboutbp bp.com/oms Cover image BP’s gas well drilling site in, Wamsutter, Wyoming, US. The BP Annual Report and Form 20-F may be downloaded from bp.com/annualreport. No material in this document forms any part of those documents. No part of this document constitutes, or shall be taken to constitute, an invitation or inducement to invest in BP p.l.c.
  • Fracking Fights Are Increasingly Becoming Local Law360, New York (July 02, 2014, 11:29 AM ET)

    Fracking Fights Are Increasingly Becoming Local Law360, New York (July 02, 2014, 11:29 AM ET)

    Portfolio Media. Inc. | 860 Broadway, 6th Floor | New York, NY 10003 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected] Fracking Fights Are Increasingly Becoming Local Law360, New York (July 02, 2014, 11:29 AM ET) -- On May 7, 2014, a petition to ban hydraulic fracturing was submitted to the city council in Denton, Texas. The petition aims to make fracking illegal within the boundary limits of Denton, which is believed to sit upon one of the largest natural gas reserves in the U.S. Currently, all oil and gas drilling is prohibited in the city, because the council voted in favor of a moratorium that will last until Sept. 9 of this year. If the city council ultimately adopts the permanent ban, Denton will become the first city in Texas to prohibit the practice. However, if the council votes against the ban, the initiative will likely find its way onto the ballot in November, allowing the public to decide the issue.[1] Fracking is the high-pressure injection of a mix of fluids and other substances into an oil or gas reservoir. The injection into the bottom of a well fractures the reservoir rock, unlocking hydrocarbons trapped in the reservoir formations. Other substances in the fracking fluid called “proppants” hold the cracks in the reservoir rock open Jeffrey D. Dintzer and allow the oil or natural gas to flow up and out of the reservoir through the well. Conventional fracking is a common practice that has been employed in oil and gas operations for over 60 years.
  • The Context of Public Acceptance of Hydraulic Fracturing: Is Louisiana

    The Context of Public Acceptance of Hydraulic Fracturing: Is Louisiana

    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2012 The context of public acceptance of hydraulic fracturing: is Louisiana unique? Crawford White Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Recommended Citation White, Crawford, "The onc text of public acceptance of hydraulic fracturing: is Louisiana unique?" (2012). LSU Master's Theses. 3956. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/3956 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: IS LOUISIANA UNIQUE? A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in The Department of Environmental Sciences by Crawford White B.S. Georgia Southern University, 2010 August 2012 Dedication This thesis is dedicated to the memory of three of the most important people in my life, all of whom passed on during my time here. Arthur Earl White 4.05.1919 – 5.28.2011 Berniece Baker White 4.19.1920 – 4.23.2011 and Richard Edward McClary 4.29.1982 – 9.13.2010 ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank my committee first of all: Dr. Margaret Reams, my advisor, for her unending and enthusiastic support for this project; Professor Mike Wascom, for his wit and legal expertise in hunting down various laws and regulations; and Maud Walsh for the perspective and clarity she brought this project.
  • Untested Waters: the Rise of Hydraulic Fracturing in Oil and Gas Production and the Need to Revisit Regulation

    Untested Waters: the Rise of Hydraulic Fracturing in Oil and Gas Production and the Need to Revisit Regulation

    Fordham Environmental Law Review Volume 20, Number 1 2009 Article 3 Untested Waters: The Rise of Hydraulic Fracturing in Oil and Gas Production and the Need to Revisit Regulation Hannah Wiseman∗ ∗University of Texas School of Law Copyright c 2009 by the authors. Fordham Environmental Law Review is produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/elr UNTESTED WATERS: THE RISE OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND THE NEED TO REVISIT REGULATION Hannah Wiseman * I. INTRODUCTION As conventional sources of oil and gas become less productive and energy prices rise, production companies are developing creative extraction methods to tap sources like oil shales and tar sands that were previously not worth drilling. Companies are also using new technologies to wring more oil or gas from existing conventional wells. This article argues that as the hunt for these resources ramps up, more extraction is occurring closer to human populations - in north Texas' Barnett Shale and the Marcellus Shale in New York and Pennsylvania. And much of this extraction is occurring through a well-established and increasingly popular method of wringing re- sources from stubborn underground formations called hydraulic frac- turing, which is alternately described as hydrofracturing or "fracing," wherein fluids are pumped at high pressure underground to force out oil or natural gas. Coastal Oil and Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust,1 a recent Texas case addressing disputes over fracing in Hidalgo County, Texas, ex- emplifies the human conflicts that are likely to accompany such creative extraction efforts. One conflict is trespass: whether extend- ing fractures onto adjacent property and sending fluids and agents into the fractures to keep them open constitutes a common law tres- pass.
  • UCS TIGHT OIL.Indd

    UCS TIGHT OIL.Indd

    The Truth about Tight Oil Don Anair Amine Mahmassani Methane from Unconventional Oil Extraction Poses Significant Climate Risks July 2013 Since 2010, “tight oil”—oil extracted from hard- to-access deposits using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking)—has dramatically changed the US oil industry, reversing decades of declining domestic oil production and reducing US oil imports (EIA 2015a). In 2015, tight oil comprised more than half of US oil produc- 10,000 feet to reach sedimentary rock and then sideways or tion, bringing total production close to 10 million barrels per horizontally for a mile or more. Next, a mixture of water, day—a peak not seen since the 1970s (see Figure 1). But this sand, and chemicals is pumped at high pressure into the wells sudden expansion has also led to an increase of global warm- to create fractures in the rocks, which frees the oil and gas ing emissions due, in large part, to methane—an extremely potent heat-trapping gas that is found in larger concentra- tions in tight oil regions. Although most of the emissions associated with the con- sumption of oil are a result of burning the finished fuel (for example, in a car or truck), the emissions from extracting, transporting, and refining oil add, on average, 35 percent to a fuel’s life cycle emissions. These “upstream” emissions can- not be overlooked when seeking to mitigate emissions from oil use overall. Recent scientific evidence highlights major gaps in our knowledge of these large and rising sources of global warming pollution (Caulton et al.
  • Advancing Understanding of Resource Recovery and Environmental Impacts Via Field Laboratories

    Advancing Understanding of Resource Recovery and Environmental Impacts Via Field Laboratories

    Advancing Understanding of Resource Recovery and Environmental Impacts via Field Laboratories Jared Ciferno – Oil and Gas Technology Manager, NETL Upstream Workshop Houston, TX February 14, 2018 The National Laboratory System Idaho National Lab National Energy Technology Laboratory Pacific Northwest Ames Lab Argonne National Lab National Lab Fermilab Brookhaven National Lab Berkeley Lab Princeton Plasma Physics Lab SLAC National Accelerator Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Lawrence Livermore National Lab Oak Ridge National Lab Sandia National Lab Savannah River National Lab Office of Science National Nuclear Security Administration Environmental Management Fossil Energy Nuclear Energy National Renewable Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Los Alamos Energy Lab National Lab 2 Why Field Laboratories? • Demonstrate and test new technologies in the field in a scientifically objective manner • Gather and publish comprehensive, integrated well site data sets that can be shared by researchers across technology categories (drilling and completion, production, environmental) and stakeholder groups (producers, service companies, academia, regulators) • Catalyze industry/academic research collaboration and facilitate data sharing for mutual benefit 3 Past DOE Field Laboratories Piceance Basin • Multi-well Experiment (MWX) and M-Site project sites in the Piceance Basin where tight gas sand research was done by DOE and GRI in the 1980s • Data and analysis provided an extraordinary view of reservoir complexities and “… played a significant role
  • Channel Fracturing

    Channel Fracturing

    new tech Unconventional ResoURces c hannel Fracturing Schlumberger’s stimulation technology aims for higher production and recovery rates In the fIercely com- technology, according to Peña. proppant pulses cohesive, with the right pulse duration and petitive world of unconventional these include a specialized preventing them from spread- with the right proppant concen- oil and natural gas production, pumping technique, advanced ing as they travel through the tration to deliver open channels. operators are constantly on the fibre technology, completion surface lines and down into the the most important aspects lookout for any new technolo- strategy (placement of perfora- completion. the fibre also helps of the technique are modelling gies that can help to provide tions) and engineering modelling. to improve the carrying and engineering, says Peña. that extra edge. Schlumberger uses its capacity of the fluid-proppant- A geomechanical model was Among those technologies is specialized blending equipment fibre mixture, making it easier developed specifically for the Schlumberger’s new hiWAy and control systems to pump for the fluid to transport the application and is now incorpo- flow-channel hydraulic proppant in pulses at a high proppant pulses. thirdly, the rated in Schlumberger's fracturing technique, which frequency within the fracture. fibre helps keep the pulses fracture design tools. the improves the ability of a fracture the proppants help hold the suspended within the fracture, proprietary Schlumberger to deliver increased oil and gas fracture open, servings as preventing them from settling fraccADe fracturing design production. “It’s a technique “columns” for the channels to while the fracture closes. and evaluation software is that changes radically the way in be developed around them.
  • Water Management

    Water Management

    SHALE FACTS Water management Conserving and protecting water resources Statoil is committed to using water responsibly during the life cycle of our development and operating activities. PROTECTING Water used in oil and gas production is sourced from rivers, creeks and GROUNDWATER lakes. This is done in compliance with regulations and permits. The amount of water used during hydraulic fracturing varies according We conduct baseline to geological characteristics. For example, a typical Marcellus horizontal deep shale gas well requires an average of 20.8 million litres (5.5 million assessments to evaluate the gallons) of water per well. The volume needed decreases as technology quality of the groundwater to and methods improve. ensure that our activities are not negatively affecting the freshwater sources in the area. Hydraulic fracturing in the Bakken, United States Freshwater impoundment, Marcellus, United States Statoil is piloting the use how THE water IS USED of returned (produced) Drilling water for hydraulic Drilling fluids (water combined with additives) are used during the drilling fracturing purposes, with process to transport drill cuttings to the surface, stabilise the formation around the wellbore, and clean, cool and lubricate the drillbit. the aim of reducing overall water consumption. Hydraulic fracturing Water is the main component of fracturing fluid; it is pumped into the well at high pressure to fracture the rock. Fracturing fluid is comprised of approximately 99.5% water and proppant (sand or ceramic pellets), and 0.5% chemical additives. Returned water After being injected into the well, a portion of the fracturing fluid will be produced back (returned) to the surface.
  • Focus on Hydraulic Fracturing

    Focus on Hydraulic Fracturing

    INTRODUCTION Focus on Hydraulic Fracturing We have been hydraulically fracturing, or fracking, wells to stimulate the production of natural gas and crude oil for decades. Our Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) Policy and Code of Business Ethics and Conduct mandate that wherever we operate, we will conduct our business with respect and care for the local environment and systematically manage local, regional and global risks to drive sustainable business growth. Our Hydraulic Fracturing Operations Our global governance structures, supported by proprietary policies, standards, practices and guidelines, are subject to performance assurance audits from the business unit and corporate levels. Action plans to outline commitments and support process improvements have been part Montney of our risk management process since 2009. This B R I T I S H COLUMBIA system allows us to effectively address the risks and opportunities related to our development operations through solutions that reduce emissions Bakken and land footprint, manage water sustainably and create value for our stakeholders. Wells MONTANA NORTH We are managing over 2,100 unconventional wells in our DAKOTA portfolio as of June 30, 2018. Niobrara Q2/2018 COLORADO Eagle Ford N E W MEXICO Eagle Ford Bakken Delaware Delaware Niobrara Montney TEXAS ConocoPhillips FOCUS ON HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 1 INTRODUCTION Global Social and Environmental Risk Management Standards and Practices Identify, assess and manage operational risks to the business, employees, contractors, HSE stakeholders and environment. Standard 15 HSE elements Identify, understand, document and address potential risks and liabilities related to health, safety, Due Diligence environment and other social issues prior to binding business transactions. Standard Due diligence risk assessment requirements Minimum, mandatory requirements for management of projects and Capital unconventional programs.
  • Coal Mine Methane Recovery: a Primer

    Coal Mine Methane Recovery: a Primer

    Coal Mine Methane Recovery: A Primer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency July 2019 EPA-430-R-09-013 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was originally prepared under Task Orders No. 13 and 18 of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Contract EP-W-05-067 by Advanced Resources, Arlington, USA and updated under Contract EP-BPA-18-0010. This report is a technical document meant for information dissemination and is a compilation and update of five reports previously written for the USEPA. DISCLAIMER This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). USEPA does not: (a) make any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or that the use of any apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report may not infringe upon privately owned rights; (b) assume any liability with respect to the use of, or damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report; or (c) imply endorsement of any technology supplier, product, or process mentioned in this report. ABSTRACT This Coal Mine Methane (CMM) Recovery Primer is an update of the 2009 CMM Primer, which reviewed the major methods of CMM recovery from gassy mines. [USEPA 1999b, 2000, 2001a,b,c] The intended audiences for this Primer are potential investors in CMM projects and project developers seeking an overview of the basic technical details of CMM drainage methods and projects. The report reviews the main pre-mining and post-mining CMM drainage methods with associated costs, water disposal options and in-mine and surface gas collection systems.
  • Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources

    Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources

    EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan November 2011 EPA/600/R-11/122 November 2011 Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources Office of Research and Development US Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. November 2011 EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan November 2011 Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan November 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... vi List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................. vii Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... viii 1 Introduction and Purpose of Study ..............................................................................................1 2 Process for Study Plan Development ...........................................................................................3 2.1 Stakeholder Input ............................................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Science Advisory Board Involvement .............................................................................................................