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 in altering the conventional procedures, techniques, and methodology in the development of tight reservoirs.” – Paul Branagan, SPE Distinguished MWX site, Piceance Basin in 1980s Lecturer* *Branagan, P., 2009, “An Accurate Physical Model: Essential for the Economic Development of Complex Reservoirs,” SPE Distinguished Lecture Series 4 Past DOE Field Observatories Appalachian Basin • Multiple well experiments carried out by DOE as part of the Eastern Gas Shales Program (EGSP) in the 1970s and 1980s • EGSP Appalachian Basin “firsts” include: • First nitrogen foam fracturing • First oriented coring • First high-angle shale directional wells • First air-drilled horizontal shale well • First large volume hydraulic fracturing • First CO2/Sand fracturing 5 FY14 DOE-FE Field Laboratory Initiative • Solicited in FY14 to advance UOG R&D objectives: reduce development intensity and fresh water use, enhance wellbore integrity, assess air and water impacts and investigate induced seismicity • Long-term access to shale development sites is required for long-term, multi-disciplinary, integrated, science-based research • Industry partnerships to obtain site and wellbore access can be a challenge to develop because: • DOE cannot accept liability for risks with field projects • Research can delay production and increase risks • Industry economics can hinder collaborative opportunities 6 Two Current Field Laboratories • Dedicated science wells; instrumented production wells • Baseline and real-time observation/monitoring • New technology testing and demonstration • Public and international training and outreach Marcellus Shale Energy and • Broad collaborative Environment Laboratory opportunities Hydraulic Fracture Test Site Marcellus/Dry Gas Liquid Rich West Virginia Univ. Gas Tech. Institute 7 Marcellus Shale Energy and Environmental Laboratory (MSEEL) Key Features of Site: • Partners: DOE-NETL, WVU, Northeast Natural Energy (operator), Schlumberger, Ohio State • Well-documented baseline of production and environmental data from two previous wells drilled at location • A dedicated vertical observation well to collect detailed subsurface data and to monitor hydraulic fracturing of project well 3H • Multiple events over the course of the five-year project, separated by periods sufficient to analyze data 8 Marcellus Shale Energy and Environmental Laboratory (MSEEL) Drilling Fracturing Location of horizontal wells and science well 9 MSEEL Project Elements • NNE drilled two wells (MIP 3H & 5H) in 2015 and obtained 111 feet of 4” whole core through the Marcellus and 50+ sidewall cores in the 3H well. • The 3H well was instrumented with fiber optic cable for distributed acoustic and temperature measurements throughout the full lateral length. • A dedicated vertical science well, situated between the two horizontal production wells, was drilled and logged with ~150 sidewall cores obtained. • The science well was instrumented with borehole microseismic sensors to gather data during the 3H well hydraulic fracture stimulation. • A surface seismic array was also used to monitor the stimulation. • Baseline noise, air and surface water data were collected before, during, and after operations. 10 MSEEL Subsurface Science MSEEL Project Team Additional Science (enabled by NETL/MSEEL) Geochemistry (Sharma, Weislogel, Donovan - WVU; Cole, Darrah - OSU) From NETL-ORD • Rock – Kerogen; TOC; C/N/S; XRD; FIB/SM; cryo-laser ablation; Hg porosimetry • Crandall (NETL): multi-scale CT imaging/micro-scale structure; MSCL • Fluids/Gases – Continuous monitoring S/C/O/H isotopes, organics, DOC, NORM, • Hakala (NETL): Sr/Li isotopes; major cation/anion/trace elements noble gases • Hammack (NETL): surface micro-science array; fracturing and relaxation • Soeder (NETL): SRA/TOC Microbiology (Mouser, Wrighton - OSU; Sharma - WVU) • Biomass; microbial lipids, metagenomics • Boyle (NETL): fracture modeling (FMI) ,# Petrophysics/Geomechanics (Aminian, Wang, Siriwardane – WVU) From Existing National Laboratory Contributors* • Steady-state permeability (in situ P/T); porosity; pore-size; adsorption dynamic • Xu (LANL): XRD, XRF, DSC/TG, SEM, TEM characterization and LBM modeling; SANS petrophysics f(P); vertical/lateral heterogeneity. hydrocarbon phase and flow behavior • Mechanical strength measurements (laboratory and well-log) • Carey (LANL): tri-axial core-flood w/tracers & AE in situ fracture formation and permeability; X-ray • FIB/SEM: pore and mineralogical structure tomography apertures and conductivity. • Log to core calibration; comparison to industry standard methods; • Wang (SNL): thermodynamics of CH4-CO2-H2O under nano-pore confinement; Hi T/P sorption • Real-time, actionable data for HF operations; comparative geometric (5H) and measurement methods. engineered (3H) completions • Moridis (LBNL): thermodynamic; X-Ray CT production strategies • natural fracture imaging; fiber-optics monitoring Multi-scale (nano-scale to SRV) numerical simulation. From Collaborating Federal Agencies • Orem (USGS): contaminants in drill cuttings – wastewater evaluations Geophysics (Wilson – WVU) • Borehole microseismic – SRV characterization in multi-well context From Shale Gas Cooperative Agreement Contributors*,+ • Zhu (TAMU): fracture conductivity • Daigle (UT-A): tri-axial compressive strength; ultrasonic velocity; NMR during fracture; SEM and FIB • Jessen (USC): shale-rock interactions • Puckett (Ok. St.): petrophysical protocols: shale-fluid interaction 11 MSEEL Findings (Water and Waste) • While produced water recycle rate is high (85%), there is still a need for efficient brine treatment/management • Secondary containment/casing integrity are effective in preventing off site contamination by produced water spills • Radium trends > 20,000 pCi/L several months into the produced water cycle • Ra precipitates as tank/pond precipitates-radioactive but low volume • Drill cuttings should be subject to TCLP testing and if pass, then handle as non- hazardous to save landfill space and cost. • Strong evidence that green drilling fluids can produce non hazardous drill cuttings that may be neither hazardous (per RCRA) nor radioactive (per WV policy) 12 MSEEL Findings (Well Completions) • Engineered completion design results in ~20% increase in production compared to standard NNE completion techniques based on data obtained at MSEEL. • EUR for future wells could be ~10-20% greater if we can exploit the technologic advantages observed at MSEEL in a cost-effective fashion. • DAS and DTS fiber-optic data can be used to better understand hydraulic fracture propagation. • At the MSEEL site, completion efficiency along the lateral is affected by preexisting fractures oriented at an angle to existing principal stresses and strongly influence hydraulic fracture propagation. • An Unconventional Fracture Model (UFM) approach appears to more accurately simulate hydraulic fractures. This approach combines geomechanics with natural fracture interactions for hydraulic fracture geometry estimation. 13 MSEEL Data Distribution • Interactive website has been operating since project launch • Physical samples distributed to 12 universities, 5 national labs, and USGS • Well over 100 publications and presentations to date • Hundreds of visitors and students have toured the field lab • Data on restricted portal being moved to publically accessible system on MSEEL.ORG and NETL-EDX • Core archived at NETL Morgantown 14 MSEEL Next Steps • Maintain MSEEL web application and data portal online at mseel.org • Continue air, surface water, and production monitoring activities • Publish results of portfolio of analyses • Plan and execute additional data gathering and experimental activities as appropriate 15 Permian Basin Hydraulic Fracturing Test Site (HFTS) Key Features of Site: • Partners: DOE-NETL, GTI, Laredo Petroleum (operator), seven other producers, Halliburton, CoreLabs, University of Texas at Austin, BEG • Location in Permian’s Reagan Co. is well characterized (87 nearby