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
7 6
2.5 /m) 20 6 30 3 5 2.0 15 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 gal/ (1000 ft 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 750 500 250 supply wells HF No.for water wells supply 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 15 250 200 10 150 Number of Events 5 100 Number of Events in OK 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
70 250 60
200 ) 50 HF water use yr L/ gal/yr)
Produced water 9 9 40 150 (10 30 100
20 Volume Volume (10 50 10
0 0 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 HF > PW PW ↑ rel HF >> PW HF > PW PW = 2 HF PW>>HF to HF 2016 Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020 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 Permian Basin: Water Use relative to Other Sectors
100 Permian (19 county area)
10 gal/yr) 9 1
0.1 Volume (10
0.01 Lea Irion Eddy Ector Ward Pecos Crane Upton Loving Martin Reeves Reagan Winkler Howard Midland Crockett Andrews Glasscock 2017 PW 2017 SWD Culberson 2017 HF Irrigation Public Supply Livestock Industrial RC Cooling Produced Water Quality: Total Dissolved Solids
USGS Produced Waters Database Literature Produced Water Quality
Wolfcamp Resevoir
~200 points
Wolfcamp Prod. Water TDS (g/L) PW treatment costs increase with higher salinity in PW and product water quality improvement Removal of target Separation of constituents (e.g., Desalination - Post-treatment and oil, grease, organics, Fe, Ba, Removal of dissolved restabilization (e.g., suspended Ca, Mg, Sr, SiO , solids B) solids 2 SO4, microbes)
• Hydrocyclon • Biological >125 e treatment • Gas • Electrocoag. & flotation flotation E 100 • Oil/Water • Adsorption M m separator (carbon, V e • Settling tank zeolite, etc) R r 75 • Media • Chemical g filtration oxidation M i V n (sand, • Disinfection C g 50 walnut shell, (ClO2, UV, etc) etc) F S • Cartridge B M O • Ion Exchange Applicable Applicable TDS range (g/L) 25 W filtration W E • AOP N R • Membrane E R D M • pH adjust.& F O D filtration D O remineral. • Disinfection (Cl2, Clean Industri Agricultur UV)Groundwater Brine for al Uses al Uses recharge, potable HF uses 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 water Projections based on Technically Recoverable Resource Development: all potential future wells could be drilled using current technology over the life of the plays. Remaining Drillable volume of reservoirs Total drillable length/well inventory Volume required per future well Plays: Permian Delaware (Wolfcamp [WC] A & B), Permian Midland (WC A & B), Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Marcellus. Scale: 1 square mile. Historical and Projected Drilling Density at grid scale
Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020 Projections based on Bakken 68,700 wells Projected Totals – Bgal Technically Recoverable 440 Resource development Marcellus 124,000 wells
Delaware Basin 1,400 207,000 wells 1,900 Midland Basin 2,800 113,000 wells Hydraulic Fracturing Eagle Ford 105,000 wells
Permian: = 4,700 Bgal = ~14 maf 860 = TX total water use in 2017 Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020 Projections based on Bakken 69,000 wells Projected Totals – Billion gal Technically Recoverable 950 Resource development Marcellus 124,000 wells
580
10,400 2,620 Delaware Basin Midland Basin 192,000 wells 106,000 wells
Eagle Ford 105,000 wells Produced Water Permian Basin: PW, 40 maf 300 = 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 Can we reuse PW for HF? Bakken 69,000 wells Projected Totals – Bgal 950 Marcellus 124,000 wells
10,400 2,620 580 Midland Basin 113,000 wells Hydraulic Delaware Basin Fracturing 207,000 wells Eagle Ford 105,000 wells Produced Water 300 Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020 Can we reuse PW for HF? Bakken 69,000 wells Projected Totals – Bgal 950 440 Marcellus 124,000 wells
10,400 2,620 1,380 1,960 580 Midland Basin 2,850 113,000 wells Hydraulic Delaware Basin Fracturing 207,000 wells Eagle Ford 105,000 wells Produced 860 Water 300 Scanlon et al., ES&T, 2020 Proposed Water Consortium at the Univ. TX Bureau of Economic Geology
Meeting Houston Feb. 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:
Contact: Bridget Scanlon [email protected]