08122 05 PR Techno Economic Assessment Water Management Solutions 04-26-11

Techno-economic Assessment of Water Management Solutions

Shale Gas Water ManagementMarcellus Initiative 2011

Dr. Radisav Vidic, University of PittsburghDr. Tom Hayes, Gas Technology InstituteSteve Hughes PE, Tetra Tech

22

Project deliverables

> A simplified way to organize water management system for unconventional gas plays

> Evaluate economic implications of different management alternatives

> Implications of potential regulatory changes> Analysis of conventional and emerging technology

options> Understanding of how solutions change as we enter each

phase of a development areas life-cycle.> Identify beneficial alternatives for solid waste disposal

33

Partners

Company Lead contacts General role

Gas Technology Institute Tom Hayes, Trevor Smith, Guy Lewis

Flow scheme analysis, project management, life-cycle modeling

Tetra Tech Steve Hughes Holistic economic assessment

Global Water Advisors Joe Zuback Global emerging solutions

Herschell Environmental Judith Herschell Regulatory Assessment

University of Pittsburgh Dr. Radisav Vidic Emerging solutions for water reuse

4Project participants

Company Type

Noble Energy Producer

Williams Energy Producer

Seneca Resources Producer

Chevron Producer

Shell Producer

Eni (Italy) Producer

EBN (The Netherlands) Producer

Orlen Upstream (Poland) Producer

Marathon Producer

Devon Energy Producer

Range Resources Producer

5Project participants

Company Type

National Oilwell Varco (NOV) Service company

Weatherford Service company

Schlumberger/MiSWACO Service company

Reserve Environmental Services Service company

212 Resources Technology and service provider

Aquatech Technology and service provider

Aqua-Pure/Fountain Quail Technology and service provider

Keppel O&M (Singapore) Technology and service provider

Ecosphere Technologies Technology and service provider

Clean Membranes Technology provider

66

Agenda

> Flow management options and water characteristics that define treatment requirements

> Water management cost envelopes> Key drivers and potential impacts of emerging solutions> Realities of the water life-cycle analysis> Q&A

Flow Schemes & Treatment Requirements

Dr. Tom Hayes, Gas Technology Institute

8Flow scheme 1: Conventional Water Management

Well 1

Class II WellDisposal

FreshWater

Flowback

Represents Maximum Water Demand

(No Water Reuse)

Conventional approach in Barnett and other plays

Difficult in Marcellus (only 7 Class II wells)

99

Flow scheme 2: On-Site Primary Treatment for Reuse

Well 1

Well 2

Blend

Makeup Water(Fresh Water)

On-SiteSettling

SS & FR Rem

High TDSReuse Water

1010

Flow scheme 3: Off-Site Primary Treatment for Reuse

Well 1

Rapid Mixw/ Caustic& Flocculant

Sedimenta-tion & Hard-ness Rem

Rapid SandFilter

Belt Press Disinfect(Ozone orPeroxide)

Solids to Landfill

On-SiteSettling SS Removal

Near-Field Primary Treatment

Well 2

Blend

Makeup Water(Fresh Water)

High TDS WaterFor Reuse

1111

Flow scheme 4: Off-Site Primary Treatment and Demineralization

Well 1

On-SiteSettling SS Removal

Well 2

Blend

Makeup Water(Fresh Water)

Distilled WaterFor Reuse

Near FieldPrimaryTreatment

Demineral-Ization

MechanicalVapor Recomp Disposal

(Class II Well)OrBy-ProductRecovery (Crystallizer)

ConcentratedBrine

1212

Water Treatment Functions Applicable to Shale Gas Water Mgt

> Friction Reducer Removal> Suspended Solids Removal> General Hardness Removal/Scale Control (Ca, Mg, Fe,

Mn)> Barium Scale Control (NORM)> Soluble Organics Removal> Microbial Control> Demineralization> Salt Mgt Options (By-Product Recovery, Class II Wells,

POTWs, Landfill, etc.)

Water Management Cost Envelopes

Steve Hughes PE, Tetra Tech

1414

Major Cost Factors

Direct Costs Quantity and quality of flowback/produced Water Disposal or recycle Level of treatment required Transportation mode and distance to treatment or

disposal destinations

1515

Flow scheme 1 Deep Well Injection

Can be cost effective and environmentally responsible disposal method

Promoted by regulatory agencies Many E&Ps are considering converting existing shale

gas wells into injection wells Typical injection flowrates - 1,000 to 4,000 bbl/day Typical costs 1.50 to 3.50 $/bbl (transportation

costs not included) Transportation costs can be a major issue

1616

Flow scheme 2 On-site Primary Treatment for Reuse

Minimal treatment TSS removal and chemical disinfection

Mid-level treatment minimal treatment plus heavy metals removal

Full-level treatment mid-level treatment plus BA & Sr removal and possibly ozonation

Typical treatment flowrates - 2,400 to 14,400 bbl/day Typical range of costs 1.00 to 5.00 $/bbl Transportation costs are negligible since treatment

done at well site

1717

Flow scheme 3 Off-site Primary Treatment for Reuse

Similar treatment processes offered in Option 3, but at a larger fix-based treatment facility

Location typically within 20 miles of well field Typical treatment flowrates 12,000 to 48,000

bbl/day Typical treatment costs 0.50 to 4.00 $/bbl Transportation costs can be a issue

1818

Flow scheme 4 Off-site Primary Treatment and Demineralization

Fixed-based treatment facility that includes primary treatment processes and mechanical evaporation

Concentrated brine reject stream (~ 40%) will need to be disposed of or converted to salt cake for reuse

Recovered distillate can be reused as frac water or used in other industrial applications (e.g., power plant operations)

1919

Flow scheme 4 Off-site Primary Treatment and Demin. (cont.)

Typical treatment flowrates 12,000 to 48,000 bbl/day

Typical treatment costs 4.00 to 6.50 $/bbl

Brine reject stream disposal (landfill or injection well) or conversion to salt cake is an extra cost

Transportation costs can be a issue

2020

Transportation and Indirect Costs

Transportation Costs Truck transportation costs for a 1-hour round trip

well field to off-site treatment facility is ~1 $/bbl

For longer round trips, rail, barge or pipeline options can be more cost-effective

Indirect Costs Road Maintenance

Air emissions from diesel powered trucks and generators

Key Drivers and Potential Impacts of Emerging Solutions

Dr. Radisav Vidic, University of Pittsburgh

22

1. Develop Tools for Screening and Comparing Current and Emerging Solutions Information fields used

2. Recommend emerging solutions for each challenge for further investigation

a. Microbiological controlb. Demineralizationc. NORM removald. Control of Organics e. Salt management

Technology Description Benefits Drawbacks References Comments

Emerging Solutions Investigation Method

23

Categories1. Organic biocides/biostats (12)2. Inorganic biocides (6)3. Non-chemical biocide

Chemical addition (3) Physical treatment process (5)

4. Chemical Oxidants (3)

Total solutions investigated: 29

Microbial Control Solutions

24

Categories1. Evaporators (5)2. Osmotic Membrane (5)3. Electro Membrane (5)4. Mechanical Membrane (2)5. Ion Exchange (3)6. Hybrid IX + Membrane (1)7. Freeze-Thaw Demineralization (4)8. Hybrid NF Systems (2) 9. Evaporation Ponds (2)

Total solutions investigated: 29

Demineralization Solutions

25

Categories1. Precipitation (7)2. Regenerable Media (4)3. Non-regenerable Media

and Absorbents (7)

Total solutions investigated: 18

NORM Control Solutions

26

Categories1. Oxidation processes

a. Preformed oxidants (5)b. On-site formation (5)

2. Physical separation (6)3. Biological treatment (3)4. Hybrid solutions (4)

Total solutions investigated: 23

Control of Organics

27

Categories1. Offsite disposal (3)2. Salt recovery (8)3. Beneficial brine use (2)

Total solutions investigated: 13

Salt Management

Realities of the Life-cycle

Dr. Tom Hayes, Gas Technology Institute

2929

Preparing for the Future

Utility of Life Cycle Analysis Investigate available reuse capacity means

versus projected water generation Project transportation needs (trucks/miles) Estimate salt generation and concentration

profiles Guidance for treatment needs and options

3030

Resource Development Area1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3131

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40

TDS

PPM

BBL (

Mill

ions

/Yea

r)

Years

Flowback Recovery + Produced WaterReuse CapacityNon- Reuse OptionConcentration

Marcellus Life Cycle

3232

Why Care?

Water reuse opportunity is finite An enhanced toolkit is required to proactively

address future challenges Innovation and demonstration of sustainable

practices needed to reduce direct costs and uncertainly of indirect costs

Produced water is a sneak attack All 4 flow-schemes have a role Salts are a significant disposal challenge