Global HSE Conference | Sept 26 - 27 2013 | New Delhi, India

1. W E L L S E R V I C E S
Water Usage Optimization &
Management for Hydraulic Fracturing
Dr. Chris Fredd
Unconventional Reservoir Stimulation Advisor
Global HSE Conference, New Delhi, India, 26-27 September, 2013

2. Evolution of Reservoir Rock
Pre-Hydraulic
Fracturing
Hydraulic
Fracturing
Combination w/
Horizontal Drilling
Reservoir
Reservoir

3. Why Hydraulic Fracturing?
Vertical, Perforated Well Vertical, Perforated Well with Single Frac
Horizontal, Perforated Well with 15 Frac Stages
200 Ft High x 6” Wellbore 200 Ft High x (1) 200 Ft Frac with 2 Wings Each
200 Ft High x 6” Wellbore x (15) 200 Ft Frac with 2 Wings Each
315 Sq Ft 160,000 Sq Ft
2,400,000 Sq Ft

4. Impact of Reservoir Contact
 Increasing Reservoir Contact (surface area) improves production
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
CumulativeGas(MMscf)
Time (days)
Nf=1 Nf=2 Nf=3 Nf=4 Nf=5
Nf=6 Nf=7 Nf=8 Nf=9 Nf=10
Source: SPE 163975
Tight Carbonate (Khuff)
L = 3,000 ft
k = ~0.1 md

5. US Land Fracturing… Prop & Water by Stage

6. Concerns Faced
Long Term Energy Resources
– Large Resource Base
– Energy Security and
Independence
Economy Benefits
– Potential Jobs
– Local Business Growth
Conservation of Resources
– Surface Water & Agriculture
Protection
– Desire for Transparency
– Standards Needed
Long Term Presence and Impact
– Increased Infrastructure Strain
– Increased Traffic, Noise,
Emissions
Resource Opportunities VS
Unconventionals Development - Benefits v Pitfalls

7. Conservation of Water Resources
Water Usage Associated with Unconventional
Reservoir Development is a Major Area of Focus
Four Main Opportunities to Reduce Usage
- Better Field Development Planning
- Optimized Stimulation of Each Well
- Novel Completion Techniques
- Recycling / Reuse of Water
7

8. Surface Management with Direction DrillingSurface Management with Direction Drilling
10.50
kilometers
10.50
kilometers

9. HorizontalWellCount
VerticalWell Count
Impact of Technology on Production
Barnett Shale
0
500
1000
1500
2000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
InitialProduction(MSCF/D)
Average IP
Vertical Wells
Horizontal Wells
0
500
1000
1500
2000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
InitialProduction(MSCF/D)
AverageIP
2500
5000
7500
10000
19901980 2000

10. HaynesvilleBarnett WoodfordFayetteville Eagle FordMarcellus
Illite
CarbonateGas-filled
porosity
Kerogen
Source: Schlumberger
Not All Reservoirs are Created Equal

11. What about Effectiveness?
 29% of perforation clusters are not
contributing to production
 36% not contributing in Bakken shale
 50% not contributing if 6 clusters per stage
 Efficient operations,
but not effective use of water.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
1
8
15
22
% from Perf Cluster
PerfCluster
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Marcellus Haynesville Eagleford Fayetteville Barnett Woodford
29.6%
25.9%
21.3%
24.0%
26.9%
32.2%
13.5%
10.8%
14.1%
16.2%
17.8%
23.5%
9.6%
6.0%
7.3%
14.4%
19.4%
22.5%
29%
Not Producing
(All Stages)
20%
Not Producing
(Better Stages)
18%
Not Producing
(Best Stages)
Weighted Average
(All Basins)Production Log Analysis of Non-Producing Perforations in Shale Basins
11
Sources: SPE 144326, SPE160160

12. Complex Fracture ModelingProduction Modeling

13. 89% Perf Clusters Producing versus 64% Average Perf Clusters Producing
Perf. Clusters
Flow Rate
Results of Engineered Completion
Completion Quality (CQ) or “frac-ability”
Reservoir Quality (RQ)

14. Impact of an Integrated Workflow
Sources: SPE 158268, SPE 134827, SPE 146872
Geometric RQ + CQ
3MonthBOE
Eagle Ford Shale
>33%
increase
Geometric RQ + CQ
Marcellus Shale
75%
increase
Selectively placed perforation clusters
Rock quality legend
Stress legend
High
Low
Rock quality
Stress
Shale / Source Rock
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
3MonthOilProduction
Ordos Basin: Tight Oil
Tight Sandstone
>50%
increase

15. Downward trend in water per stage
Downward trend to ~40 bbls/min
Technology has an Impact
 Trends in the Eagle Ford Shale…
15

16. Downward trend in water per stage
Downward trend to ~40 bbls/min
Technology has an Impact
 Trends in the Eagle Ford Shale…
16
Moving away from slickwater…
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Water ProppantCum 25 day production
Channel Frac
Hybrid
Slickwater
RelativeWaterperstageor
RelativeProppantperstageor
Relativeproduction
 Less Proppant
 Less Water
 More Production
Source: SPE 145403
Source: www. petrohawk.com
Channel Frac – Gross Gas

17. Channel Fracturing
- >18,000 Treatments in >1,500 Wells in 19 Countries
- Variety of Formations (Carbonate, Sandstone, Shale)
- Unprecedented Proppant Placement Rate
(>99.96%)… ~450 Screen-outs Prevented to Date
Significant Increase in Production
- Typically > 20%
Significant Reduction in Logistics, Safety Risks and
Environmental Footprint
- Typical Water Consumption Reduction of 25%
- Typical Proppant Consumption Reduction of 42%
- Savings:
- Greater than 400,000,000 gals of Water
- Greater than 1,200,000,000 Lbs of Proppant
- 52,000 Hauling Trips
- Greater than 12,000,000 lbs of CO2 Emissions
Novel Completion Techniques

18. Water Sources – Water Management
 Fresh Water
– Municipal
– Water wells: shallow and deep
– Ponds, Streams and Rivers
– Aquifer
 Brackish Water
[loose definition: more saline than
fresh water, less saline than sea water]
– Produced water
– Aquifer
– Lake or Sea
– Waste waters
 Sea water
18
WaterTreatmentoptions

19. Brackish Water Applications in North America
 New Mexico (SPE 133379)
- 100% produced water treated
with fluid stabilizer additive
- Guar with Titanate crosslinker
- CO2 Energized Frac
 Piecance
- 100% produced water
- slickwater
 Uintah and Jonah/Mesa
- 100% produced water
- Slickwater/Crosslinked
19

20. - Electrolytic Cell Generates a Mixed Oxidant
Solution (MOS) onsite to Disinfect Frac Fluid
- Generates Hypochlorite Species Predominantly
- Only Require Water, Salt and Energy onsite to
Generate the MOS Disinfection Stream
Mixed
Oxidants
HClO
ClO·
ClO-
Cl·
HO2
·
HO2
OH·
H·
H2O2
O3
O2
·
½ O2
O·
Anode Reaction
2 Cl- → Cl2 + 2e-
Cathode Reaction
2 H2O + 2e- → H2
↑ + 2 OH-
Chlorine Hydrolysis Reaction
Cl2 + H2O ↔ HOCl + Cl- + H+
HOCl ↔ OCl- + H+
Mixed Oxidant SolutionSalt Water Power
Water Disinfection

21. Main Generator
(480V, 200A, 215kVA)
Standby Generator
(480V, 30A, 25kVA)
Mixed Oxidant Generator Skid
(40 ft Container)
Feed Water Pre-treatment Skid
(20 ft container)
Design Capacity:
 FAC dose = 20 ppm.
 Pump rate = 120 bbl/min.
 Water volume = 120,000 bbl.
(10 stages @ 12,000 bbl/stage)
MOS Generation

22. Source: From Chesapeake Fact Sheet with Data from GWPC, DOE
Energy Resource Range of Gallons of Water
Usedper MMBTU of Energy
Produced
MarcellusGas Well 1.30
Coalwith No Slurry Transport 2 to 8
Coalwith Slurry Transport 13 to 32
Nuclear(Uranium Ready to Use in a Power Plant) 8 to 14
ConventionalOil 8 to 20
Synfuel – Coal Gasification 11 to 26
OilShale 22 to 56
Tar Sands 27 to 68
Synfuel – Fischer Tropsch Synthesis(from Coal) 41 to 60
EnhancedOil Recovery 21 to 2,500
Biofuels(Irrigated Corn Ethanol,Irrigated Soy Biodiesel) >2,500
Water Requirements by Energy Resource

23. Summary
 Technology can have a significant impact
– Leverage technology to maximize production
from resource investment
– Optimize designs for the Reservoir to
avoid waste
(one solution does not “fit” all)
– Novel technologies to reduce water
requirements
 Water Management strategies
– Recycle / re-use / treat-for-purpose
– & technologies more tolerant of
poorer water quality
What is your KPI? BTU / gal Water, … ?