POWER ACROSS TEXAS 2015 ENERGY INNOVATION CHALLENGE
Waste to Wealth: Reducing the Water Footprint of the Oil and Gas Industry
Texas Tech Energy Innovation Challenge Team
Ebru Unal
James Urban
Ritesh Sevanthi
Soraya Honarparvar

CHALLENGE
•
Water Stress
•
Water Use
•
Social Responsibility
•
Economics
 Existing Supply
 Limited Demand

CURRENT WATER LIFE CYCLE
Estimated
Total Cost
$4.30/bbl

ESTIMATES OF VOLUME
•
Rig counts of 2014 and 2015,used to postulate amount of water available from fracturing in 2015 -2021
•
40 billion gallons will be disposed in the Permian basin in the years 2015-2020. Currently only 5% is reused

RATIONALE FOR MULTIPLE USE APPROACH

CHALLENGES IN REUSE
•
Bacterial Growth
ClO
2
Disinfection
•
•
Oil and gas residue
Cation Interference
API Separators and induced gas flotation unit
ClO
2 oxidation and induced gas flotation
•
Scale formation an issue?

SUGGESTED TREATMENT & COST
To ensure every drop of water is efficiently used
Treatment
Storage Tank O&M Costs
API Separator
Gas Floatation
Oxidation Tank Air + ClO2
ClO
2
Disinfection
Total Treatment Cost
Cost $ /bbl
0.66
Cost per frac job FPW $
0.56
36440.63
0.00
104.00
0.07
4647.50
0.01
450.45
0.01
1300.00
42942.58
Chad Knutson and Seyed A. Dastgheib (PI). “Reuse of Produced Water from CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery, Coal-Bed Methane, and Mine Pool Water by
Coal-Based Power Plants”; (July 2012)

POWER ACROSS TEXAS 2015 ENERGY INNOVATION CHALLENGE
Reuse in Hydraulic Fracturing

REUSE IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
Sulfate Scaling
Scale formation
Carbonate
Scaling
Approach: e-NRTL a concentrated brine solution model under development
Barium sulfate
(BaSO
4
)
Strontium Sulfate
(SrSO
4
)
Calcium carbonate
(CaCO
3
)
Barium Carbonate
(BaCO
3
)
Strontium Carbonate
(SrCO
3
)

REUSE IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
1,2
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
Modeling results for reusing in hydraulic fracturing
The expected solutions are marginally scaling at the temperature and pressure of the formation but easily managed with anti-scalants
Saturation Indices of flowback produced water for hydraulic fracturing at 77 ˚F and 14.6 psi
BaSO4 SrSO4 BaCO3 SrCO3 CaCO3
Components
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
1,2
Solubility Indices of diluted flowback produced water at 150 ˚F and 10,000 psi
BaSO4 SrSO4 BaCO3 SrCO3 CaCO3
Components

REUSE IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
Cost estimation
•
Fresh water
Typical cost $0.85/bbl
•
Treated produced water
Treatment cost for reuse $0.66/bbl
Elimination of disposal cost

REUSE IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
Legal & public perception
Groundwater Rights :
 Mineral owner has “Reasonable Use” of surface estate
{which includes groundwater}
• On-lease operations is reasonable
•
Off lease use is unreasonable
Alternatives:
• Lease agreement or
•
Rule adoption as reasonable use by Railroad Commission
House Bill 40

POWER ACROSS TEXAS 2015 ENERGY INNOVATION CHALLENGE
Used in Cooling Towers for Power Generation

REUSE IN POWER PLANTS
Feasibility of reuse in power plants
2D Graph 1
50000
2X Sea Water
Permian Basin
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Na K Ca Mg HCO3 Cl
Major Ions in Solution
Data from California Energy Commission
SO4

REUSE IN POWER PLANTS
Modeling results for reusing in power plant
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
1,2
Saturation Indices of flowback & produced water used for power plant at
77 ˚F and 14.6 psi
1
BaSO4 SrSO4 BaCO3 SrCO3 CaCO3
Components
Solubility Indices of Diluted flowback
& produced water at 212 ˚F and 14.6 psi
1,2
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
BaSO4 SrSO4 BaCO3 SrCO3 CaCO3
Components
The expected solutions are marginally scaling at the temperature and pressure of the cooling water system but easily managed with anti-scalants

REUSE IN POWER PLANTS
Cost increase & challenges of reuse in power plants
Increased equipment costs
Data from California Energy Commission
•
•
•
• Reduction in Fresh Water Consumption 40 -80%
Minimal increase in O&M
Airborne particulate issues
Legal issues mirror the ones faced by reuse in hydraulic fracturing

POWER ACROSS TEXAS 2015 ENERGY INNOVATION CHALLENGE
Used in Solar Ponds

SALT GRADIENT SOLAR PONDS
Capturing solar energy and storing thermal energy
Applications:
•
Electricity generation
•
Industrial process heating
•
Aquaculture
•
Desalination

SALT GRADIENT SOLAR PONDS
•
Upper Convective Zone
• Non-Convective Zone
•
Lower Convective Zone
Increasing salinity and temperature gradient
UCZ
NCZ
LCZ

SALT GRADIENT SOLAR PONDS
Salt diffusion and heat diffusion

SALT GRADIENT SOLAR PONDS
UCZ NCZ LCZ
Density of the zones (kg/m 3 ) 1000-1020 1030-1150 1170-1200
Salinity (%) 3.03
11.31
22.58
(Bozkurt et.al., 2015)
Calculated criteria of the flowback and produced water
Density of the zones (kg/m 3 ) 1021.49- 1110.48
Salinity (%) 3.07- 14.85

40
25
20
15
10
35
30
5
0
SALT GRADIENT SOLAR PONDS
Solar radiation
Cairo Riyadh Texas Permian Basin
(https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/sse/)

SALT GRADIENT SOLAR PONDS
•
70 kW power generation in El Paso
•
15 kW power generation in Australia

SALT GRADIENT SOLAR PONDS
Salt Savings from Produced Water
(Newel, 1990)
(Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator-Bureau of Labor Statistics)
•
Salt costs: $69,375
• Electricity generation costs: $36,792

SALT GRADIENT SOLAR PONDS
Legal & public perception
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
 Regulatory and Permitting Process
Texas Interconnection power grid


North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)
Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)
Public Perception Concerns


Environmental, Health, Economic, and Social
Public opinion research and public input

POWER ACROSS TEXAS 2015 ENERGY INNOVATION CHALLENGE
Used for Anti-Icing

ANTI-ICING OF ROADWAYS
Creating a chemical layer ahead of the event to:



Prevent freeze bond
Prevent frost or black ice formation
Increase needed response time
Anti-icing chemicals
 Liquids (Sodium Chloride & Magnesium Chloride)

ANTI-ICING OF ROADWAYS
Typical oil-field brine
Data from University Transportation Research Center

ANTI-ICING OF ROADWAYS
Cost reduction
Data from Iowa Department of Transportation
Cost Reduction by using Flow-back & Produced Water
~50%

ANTI-ICING OF ROADWAYS
Legal & public perception
Public Concerns:



Vehicle Damage
Effects of runoff
Roadway Deterioration

PROPOSED WATER CYCLE

POWER ACROSS TEXAS 2015 ENERGY INNOVATION CHALLENGE
Questions

Water use & Disposal Estimates
Data from USGS

Reuse in Hydraulic Fracturing
Availability of flowback and produced water in Permian Basin
 High flowback and produced water level
 Total Dissolved Solid (TDS) of flowback and Produced water is
100,000 mg/l
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
93,54
Ba+2
Average Concentration of flowback and produced water over 22 counties in
Permian basin
59927,98
4226,89
Ca+2
686,36
K+
1348,31
Mg+2
30220,17
Na+
329,54
Sr+2
Ions
Cl-
670,83 555,31
1816,26
CO3-2 HCO3SO4-2

Reuse in Hydraulic Fracturing
Environmental concern of large water withdrawal for Hydraulic fracturing

Local water shortage
 Change in groundwater and surface water quality and quantity

Aquifer compaction

Aquifer depletion
 Increasing bacterial growth
DO we really need fresh water for hydraulic fracturing?

Reuse in Hydraulic Fracturing
Thermodynamic Modeling

Aspen 8.4 simulator
 e-NRTL thermodynamic model with updated parameters

Fracturing a single well with fresh water
Water required for a single frack job
Cost of fresh water
Cost of fresh water for a frac job
Time for hauling the water
Cost of Hauling the water in a truck
Cost of hauling water for a frac
Capacity of each truck
No of trucks required
Flowback water 65% in a year
No of trucks required to haul FPW
Time to haul FPW
Cost to Haul FPW
Water dispossal/ injection cost 1st party
Cost of disposal/ injection
Total cost of water
Cost of water
100000 bbl
0.85 $/bbl
85000 $
2 hrs
90 $
180 $
3500 gal
1200 trucks
65000 bbl
780 trucks
1 hrs
70200 $
0.85 $/ bbl
55250 $
426450 $
4.2645 $/bbl
Oil and Gas Water Management; “Shale Play Water Management”; (January/ February 2014)