Evaluation of Produced Water Reuse Within and Outside the Energy Sector
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 Geosciences University of Texas at Austin Bureau of Economic Geology Module 2: Produced Water Reuse in Unconventional Oil and Gas Operations Module 3: Produced Water Reuse and Research Needs Outside Oil and Gas Operations • PW from oil reservoirs >> than that from gas reservoirs Permian PW = 50× Marcellus PW • Reuse PW for HF YES • Projected PW volumes = ~ 4× HF water demand in the Delaware b) Bakken 68,700 wells Projected Totals - Billion gal 950 440 Marcellus 10,400 124,000 wells 2,620 1,380 580 1,960 2,850 Midland Basin Hydraulic 113,000 wells Fracturing (HF) Produced Delaware Basin 860 Water (PW) 207,000 wells Eagle Ford 300 105,000 wells 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 gas Unconventional production: 60% of U.S. oil and 70% of U.S. natural gas 8 1.2 70 7 60 1.0 6 1.5 50 5 0.8 /d 40 3 /d L/d 3 m bbl/d 4 9 1.0 0.6 ft 9 6 9 10 30 10 10 3 0.4 10 20 2 0.5 1 0.2 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Permian Bakken Eagle Ford Marcellus/Utica Permian Eagle Ford Niobrara Other Haynesville Barnett Fayetteville Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020 Oil plays in Gas plays in semiarid regions humid 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? Work Flow Data Types • Geology, hydrology • Reservoir data • Well completions • Production Historical Trends Future Projections Impacts • HF water • Play lifetime HF, PW • Water scarcity • Produced water • 2018-2050 Outlook • GW depletion • PW management Mitigation PW reuse for HF Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020 Bakken 2009-2017 Billion gallons 1 billion gal = 3.785 billion liters 49 Marcellus-Utica Niobrara 28 96 Oklahoma Fayetteville 64 24 Hydraulic Fracturing Barnett HF water demand 34 130 in the Permian Haynesville is ~ 20% of water use Permian in the play (excluding 30 mining) in 2017. Eagle Ford 110 Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020 Permian Basin Unconventional Conventional Unconventional Delaware Central Basin Midland Basin Platform Basin Dockum Salado Salado Castille San Andres Ellenburger Wolfcamp Ellenburger Permian basin Unconventional Conventional Unconventional Delaware Basin Central Basin Platform Midland Basin EORI PW PW PW Oil Oil SWD Oil SWD SWD HF HF Conventional reservoir Big recycle loop 11 Total Water Use for Hydraulic Fracturing by Play 70 HF water use increased by ~ 10× in 250 ) ) Permian Basin (2011 – 2017) yr 60 yr L/ gal/ 200 9 9 50 (10 (10 40 150 30 100 20 50 10 Total HF water use Total HF water use 0 - 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020 Total Lateral Length Drilled HF water use/foot of lateral = 4 x Earth’s circumference 30 9 3.5 8 40 ft) 25 ) 3.0 m) 6 ft 7 6 2.5 /m) 20 6 30 3 5 2.0 15 gal/(1000 4 20 1.5 10 3 1.0 2 HF water use (m Total lateral length (10 10 Total lateral length (10 5 HF water use 1 0.5 0 0 0.0 0 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Lateral length drilled peaked in 2017 in Permian HF water use/length of lateral in Permian increased by 4× 2011 – 2017; ~300% and 2014 in many other plays Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020 Water Use for Hydraulic Fracturing as a % of Total Water Use in the Play Fayetteville Haynesville Barnett HF WU as % of TWU Marcellus HF WU Niobrara Bakken Eagle Ford Permian 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 HF WU (109 gal) or % of TWU 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. Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020 Number of Water Wells Drilled to Supply Water for Hydraulic Fracturing 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 supply wells HF for wells supply 500 250 No. water 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Permian Eagle Ford Haynesville Barnett Total: 8,500 wells in the Permian; 2,500 wells in the Eagle Ford Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020 Produced water from oil plays Bakken Produced Water generally much higher than that 2009-2017 billion gallons from gas plays PW in the Permian in 2017 = 50× 75 PW in the Marcellus Marcellus-Utica Niobrara 5.4 9.4 480 Oklahoma Fayetteville Barnett 74 Produced 180 Haynesville Water Permian Salt water 16 disposal Eagle Ford 61 Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020 Produced Water Volume in Plays Decline Curves for Produced Water 70 250 Oklahoma 100 60 90 Bakken 3.5 200 Eagle Ford 2.3 50 year 80 st 70 Midland 3.0 40 150 60 Delaware 3.9 30 50 Marcellus 3.9 100 40 Total PW (BL/yr) PW Total Total PW (Bgal/yr) 20 30 50 20 10 Decline relative to 1 10 0 - 0 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 Years of production PW volume ↑ 30 times in Permian Basin (2011 – 2017) Need to keep drilling wells to maintain Oil plays produce much more water than gas plays production Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020 Produced water is mostly managed using Saltwater Disposal Wells Bakken Marcellus/Utica 11 wells in Pennsylvania 740 wells Permian 1,750 wells Haynesville Eagle Ford 250 wells 336 wells Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020 Induced seismicity highest in Oklahoma attributed to deeper Bakken disposal and larger volumes relative to Bakken, Permian, and Eagle Ford Marcellus/ Utica Fayetteville OK Permian Haynesville Barnett Eagle Ford UT-BEG TexNet/CISR Center for Integrated Seismic Research Recent study: EQs related to HF in Delaware Basin Lomax & Savvaidis, 2019 Earthquake Events ≥ Magnitude 2 (monthly data; USGS Source) 25 450 400 20 350 300 15 250 Events in OK 200 10 150 Number of Events 5 100 Number of 50 0 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Permian Eagle Ford Barnett Fayetteville Oklahoma Seismicity increasing in the Permian and Eagle Ford plays Depth of Water Disposal Affects Seismicity 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. Scanlon et al., Seism. Res. Lett., 201922 Reducing Tradeoffs Between Shallow and Deep Disposal Shallow disposal Deep disposal Could impact overlying aquifer Little or no impact on aquifers Impact oil well drilling (over-pressuring, Little or no direct impact on oil well extra casing) 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 Scanlon et al., Seism. Res. Lett., 2019 SWD= 8 × HF water use Bakken Potential for Reusing Produced Water in OK for Hydraulic Fracturing 2009-2017 Billion gals 49 75 Marcellus-Utica Niobrara 216 5.4 70 12 480 Oklahoma Fayetteville X64 24 HF Barnett 74 PW 137 177 34 SWD Haynesville Permian 30 16 Eagle Ford 112 61 Temporal Variations in PW to HF Ratios by Play HF Ratios into by PW Variations Temporal Volume (109 gal/yr) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 2009 Eagle Ford 2010 HF >PW 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2009 to HF PW 2010 Bakken 2011 2012 ↑ 2013 rel 2014 2015 2016 2017 Marcellus-Utica 2009 Produced water HF water use HF >> PW HF 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2009 2010 HF > PW Midland 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2009 2016 PW = 2 HF Delaware 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2009 Oklahoma 2010 PW>>HF 2011 2012 2013 Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020 al., et ES&T, Scanlon 2014 2015 2016 2017 0 50 100 150 200 250 Volume (109 L/yr) Options for Managing Produced Water Irrigation = 5 x PW (UOG) Powder Bakken 198 River 8 14 Irrigation = 50 x PW (CBM) 310 Niobrara Billion gal 230 7 Marcellus 1.8 7 1.0 7 1.4 Uinta Barnett Oklahoma AOI 0.03 11 9 60 0.5 Raton 52 29 7 San Juan 27 Hydraulic 226 Fayetteville 2.1 24 Fracturing (2017) 1.5 Black Warrior Produced 1.3 4.5 Water (2017) Delaware Haynesville Irrigation 43 Midland 1.0 0.6 0.7 (2015) 26 187 18 9 24 35 32 Eagle Ford 58 Volume (109 gal/yr) 2017 PW Permian Basin: Water Use relative to Otherto Sectors Use relative Basin:Permian Water 0.01 100 0.1 10 1 Permian (19 county area) Andrews 2017 SWD Crane Crockett 2017 HF Culberson Ector Eddy Irrigation Glasscock Howard Public Supply Public Irion Lea Loving Martin Livestock Midland Pecos Industrial Reagan Reeves Upton RC Cooling Ward Winkler Produced Water Quality: Total Dissolved Solids USGS Produced Waters Database Literature Produced Water Quality Wolfcamp Resevoir ~200 points Wolfcamp Prod.