AIPG Marcellus Shale
Hydraulic Fracturing Conference
Maximizing Friction Reduction Performance
Using Flow Back Water and Produced Water
for Waterfrac Applications
Jason Bryant, Ian Robb, Thomas Welton, and Johanna Häggström
Introduction
• Limited fresh water supply
• Stricter disposal regulations
for flowback/produced water (FBPW)
• High overall costs for disposal
Marcellus
Bakken
Haynesville
Woodford
Piceance
Introduction
Handling Flowback/Produced Water (FBPW)
Complicated
Chemistries
Process
1) Process Water
FBPW
Clean
Water
Waste
Complicated
Chemistries
2) Use Unprocessed
Water
FBPW
Develop
Frac
Fluid
WF
FBPW
Introduction
Water Usage in North America
for Hydraulic Fracturing Applications
35% - Conventional Fracturing
Stimulation Treatment
65% - Water Fracturing (WF)
Stimulation Treatment
Introduction
Abundance of FBPW
FBPW > WF requirements
Shortage of FBPW
FBPW < WF requirements
Background
Waterfrac in Shales
High Flow Rates
•High surface treating pressure
•Friction reducers are essential
© 2010 Halliburton. All Rights Reserved. For internal use only
6
Background
Waterfrac in Shales Using Flowback/Produced Waters
Friction Reducer
Biocide
Non-Fresh Water Source
Used for Waterfrac
Applications
Scale Inhibitor
Surfactant;
Breaker
Background
% Reduction vs. Time in 1/2-in smooth pipe at 77 ºF and 10 gpm
Comparing the effects of a scale inhibitor on the performance of a friction reducer
-20
-10
0
% Friction Reduction
10
20
Friction Reducer with Scale Inhibitor A
30
Friction Reducer with Scale Inhibitor B
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
2
4
6
8
10
Time (minutes)
12
14
16
18
Background
Turbulent Flow
Pipe Friction
80 – 100%
reduction
60 – 85%
reduction
0 – 25%
Roughness effects
75 – 100%
Internal turbulence
Polymer
At Rest
Polymer
Under Flow
Background
Non-Ionic Friction Reducer (FR) Polymer
Non-Ionic FR
•2.5 lb/Mgal provides 48%
average friction reduction
•10 lb/Mgal provides 50%
average friction reduction
Background
Anionic Friction Reducer (FR) Polymer
Anionic FR
•1.25 lb/Mgal provides
63% average friction
reduction
•2.5 lb/Mgal provides 68%
average friction reduction
Background
Anionic Friction Reducer (FR) Polymer
in the presence of Ca2+
Ca2+
Ca2+
Anionic FR with 2000
ppm Ca2+
Ca2+
Ca2+
Ca2+
Ca2+
Ca2+
•2.5 lb/Mgal provides 55%
average friction reduction
Ca2+
•5 lb/Mgal provides 60%
average friction reduction
Effects of Ca2+
Friction Loop Data:
Effects of Synthetic CaCl2 Brines
on the Performance of Friction Reducers
Used in the Industry
Effects of Ca2+
% Reduction vs. Time in 1/2-in Smooth Pipe
Looking at effects of Ca2+ on 2.5 lb/Mgal of Anionic FR
-20
-10
ppm Calcium
0
00
50
100
50
200
400
100
600
200
1000
1500
400
2000
% Friction Reduction
10
20
30
40
50
4000
600
10,000
60
16,000
1000
22,000
27,500
1500
34,000
43,300
2000
52,400
70
80
90
100
0
2
4
6
8
10
Time (minutes)
12
14
16
18
Effects of Ca2+
Average % Reduction vs. Time in 1/2-in Smooth Pipe
Looking at effects of Ca2+ on 2.5 lb/Mgal of Anionic FR
0
10
Calcium
(ppm)
Average % Reduction
20
0
0
50
100
50
200
400
100
600
1000
200
1500
2000
400
4000
600
10,000
16,000
1000
22,000
27,500
1500
34,000
43,300
2000
52,400
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Time (minutes)
1
1.2
1.4
Effects of Ca2+
Average % Reduction vs. Time in 1/2-in Smooth Pipe
Looking at effects of Ca2+ on 2.5 lb/Mgal of Anionic FR
-20
Friction Pressure
-10
-80 bpm
2.5 lb/Mgal Anionic FR
0
-TMD of 10,000 ft
2.5 lb/Mgal of Non-Ionic FR
Average % Reduction
10
-4.5” casing
2.5 lb/Mgal Anionic FR with 2000 ppm Ca(2+)
-20% difference = 3000 psi
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Time (minutes)
0.8
1
1.2
Addressing the Issue
Friction Reduction
Using Flowback
and/or Produced Water
Generates Waste
Use “As Is”
Fully
Fully Process
Process
Water
Water
Partially
Process
Partially Water
Process Water
Use Cationic
Use
Cationic
or
AMPS
FR
or AMP FR
Create
Create New
New
Chemistries
Chemistries
• Maximum FR
• Improved FR
performance
• Possibly higher
TDS
• Possibly higher
throughput
• Economical?
• Maximum FR
performance?
• Possibly cheaper
than processing
water
• Operationally
easier
• Not maximum
FR performance
• Possibly best
case scenario
for performance
to cost ratio
• Easiest
operationally
performance
• Potentially
discharge
• Costly?
• High TDS?
• Throughput?
Addressing the Issue: Fully Process Water
Average % Reduction in 1/2-in smooth pipe
1 gal/Mgal FR in 10% NaCl or 10% CaCl2 DIW
-20
-10
0
no salt; anionic FR
Average % Reduction
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Time (minutes)
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Addressing the Issue: Partially Process Water
Average % Reduction in 1/2-in smooth pipe
1 gal/Mgal FR in 10% NaCl or 10% CaCl2 DIW
-20
no salt; anionic FR
-10
0
10% sodium
no salt;
chloride;
anionicanionic
FR
FR
Average % Reduction
10
10% calcium chloride; anionic FR
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Time (minutes)
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Addressing the Issue: Use Cat or AMPS FR
Average % Reduction in 1/2-in smooth pipe
1 gal/Mgal FR in 10% NaCl or 10% CaCl2 DIW
-20
no salt; anionic FR
no salt; anionic FR
-10
10% sodium chloride; anionic FR
Average % Reduction
0
10%
10% calcium
sodium chloride; anionic FR
10
10% calcium chloride; AMPS FR
20
10% calcium chloride; anionic FR
10% calcium chloride; cationic FR
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Time (minutes)
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Addressing the Issue: New Chemistries
Average % Reduction in 1/2-in smooth pipe
1 gal/Mgal FR in 10% NaCl or 10% CaCl2 DIW
-20
no salt; anionic
no salt;FR
anionic FR
-10
10% sodium chloride; anionic FR
10% sodium chloride; anionic FR
10% calcium chloride; anionic FR
10% calcium chloride; anionic FR
10% calcium chloride; AMPS FR
10% calcium chloride; AMPS FR
10% calcium chloride; cationic FR
0
Average % Reduction
10
10% chloride;
calcium chloride;
cationic
FRchemistry
10% calcium
anionic FR
w/ new
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Time (minutes)
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Effects of Other Constituents
Friction Loop Data:
Effects of “Other” Constituents in FBPW
on the Performance of Friction Reducers
Used in the Industry
Effects of Other Constituents
1-minute
100
4-minute
25-minute
Lines: 1 1gpt
in DTW,
the benchmark
gptFR-56
Anionic
FR in Fresh
Water, the benchmark
90
Time-Average % Friction Reduction
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
TDS = 10,800 mpl;
TH = 600 mpl
TDS = 17,700 mpl;
TH = 500 mpl
TDS = 33,300 mpl;
TH = 1000 mpl
TDS = 98,600 mpl; TDS = 144,000 mpl; TDS = 166,000 mpl; TDS = 252,000 mpl;
TH = 10,200 mpl
TH = 13,600 mpl
TH = 4,900 mpl
TH = 27,500 mpl
Performance of Cationic FR in Various Field Waters
Final Remarks
•Handling Flowback/Produced Water (FBPW)
-Processing water is expensive
-Generated waste could be 5 to 30% by weight of FBPW
-Using unprocessed FBPW → fully compatible WF chemistries
•Trends of FR Performance in FBPW
-Strong relation to dissolved inorganic salts; trends observed
in synthetic brines not completely obeyed in FBPW
-”Other” constituents affect FR performance
-Water analysis could be complicated
•Most Effective Strategy
-Reduce water production relative hydrocarbon production
-Use unprocessed water for WF applications