Layer | Fill | Outline |
---|
Map layers
Theme | Visible | Selectable | Appearance | Zoom Range (now: 0) |
---|
Fill | Stroke |
---|---|
Collaborating Authors
This is the third article of a series covering water management in hydraulic fracturing (HF) in unconventional resources. In the first article, published in June, water management and planning was discussed. Fluid properties and characterization were discussed in the second article, published in August. This month, water treatment technologies are introduced, beginning with the removal of suspended solids by coagulation/flocculation and electrocoagulation for recycling HF flowback fluids. Water treatment for HF includes desalination of aquifer water, biological and corrosion control, control of mineral precipitation, treatments to break the polymer gel, and a number of technologies for recycling the HF flowback fluid. Technologies developed for these applications (American Water Intelligence 2013) such as ozone generation and treatment, chlorine and hypochlorite generation and treatment, ultraviolet radiation, oxygen scavengers, and scale inhibitors will be discussed in future articles. Regardless of the technology that occurs downstream, it is almost always advantageous to apply coarse filtration as an initial treatment step. This pretreatment step is usually carried out with coarse screens or sock filters to remove the large particles and reduce the load on downstream units. After coarse filtration has been carried out, the removal of mineral and organic suspended solids is carried out.
- Water & Waste Management > Water Management > Lifecycle > Treatment (1.00)
- Energy > Oil & Gas > Upstream (1.00)
- North America > United States > Texas > Permian Basin > Yeso Formation (0.94)
- North America > United States > Texas > Permian Basin > Yates Formation (0.94)
- North America > United States > Texas > Permian Basin > Wolfcamp Formation (0.94)
- (24 more...)
Produced Water Treatment: Review of Technological Advancement in Hydrocarbon Recovery Processes, Well Stimulation, and Permanent Disposal Wells
Eyitayo, S. I. (Texas Tech University (Corresponding author)) | Watson, M. C. (Texas Tech University) | Kolawole, O. (New Jersey Institute of Technology) | Xu, P. (New Mexico State University) | Bruant, R. (B3 Insight) | Henthorne, L. (Water Standard)
Summary Produced water (PW) is the most significant waste product in oil and gas exploitation, and numerous challenges are associated with its treatment. For over half a century, PW treatment and handling have evolved from a waste product to a reusable stream for the petroleum industry. PW is reused and recycled for hydrocarbon recovery processes, well completion, stimulation, drilling, etc. Despite this usage, enormous volumes are still required to be disposed of in the subsurface aquifers or surface water bodies after treatment. Challenges to PW treatment are related mainly to widely varying PW characteristics, nonuniformity of water treatment systems for different fields, and difficulty in designing novel technology due to changing production rates and other design parameters. This paper focuses on purpose-specific water treatment units used in various activities within the oil and gas industries and technological advancement. A detailed account of the historical development of current water treatment practices, disposal, available technology, and challenges in implementation are presented. Forward-looking recommendations are given on how emerging technologies can be integrated into everyday oil and gas activities to achieve the purpose-specific treatment goal.
- Asia > Middle East (1.00)
- Africa (0.93)
- North America > United States > Texas (0.46)
- (2 more...)
- Geology > Mineral (1.00)
- Geology > Petroleum Play Type > Unconventional Play (0.68)
- Water & Waste Management > Water Management > Lifecycle > Treatment (1.00)
- Energy > Oil & Gas > Upstream (1.00)
Produced Water Treatment: Review of Technological Advancement in Hydrocarbon Recovery Processes, Well Stimulation, and Permanent Disposal Wells
Eyitayo, S. I. (Texas Tech University (Corresponding author)) | Watson, M. C. (Texas Tech University) | Kolawole, O. (New Jersey Institute of Technology) | Xu, P. (New Mexico State University) | Bruant, R. (B3 Insight) | Henthorne, L. (Water Standard)
Summary Produced water (PW) is the most significant waste product in oil and gas exploitation, and numerous challenges are associated with its treatment. For over half a century, PW treatment and handling have evolved from a waste product to a reusable stream for the petroleum industry. PW is reused and recycled for hydrocarbon recovery processes, well completion, stimulation, drilling, etc. Despite this usage, enormous volumes are still required to be disposed of in the subsurface aquifers or surface water bodies after treatment. Challenges to PW treatment are related mainly to widely varying PW characteristics, nonuniformity of water treatment systems for different fields, and difficulty in designing novel technology due to changing production rates and other design parameters. This paper focuses on purpose-specific water treatment units used in various activities within the oil and gas industries and technological advancement. A detailed account of the historical development of current water treatment practices, disposal, available technology, and challenges in implementation are presented. Forward-looking recommendations are given on how emerging technologies can be integrated into everyday oil and gas activities to achieve the purpose-specific treatment goal.
- Asia > Middle East (1.00)
- Africa (0.93)
- North America > United States > Texas (0.46)
- (2 more...)
- Geology > Mineral (1.00)
- Geology > Petroleum Play Type > Unconventional Play (0.68)
- Water & Waste Management > Water Management > Lifecycle > Treatment (1.00)
- Energy > Oil & Gas > Upstream (1.00)
Abstract This paper discusses technical drivers that influence the produced/flowback water management goals and decisions in unconventional hydrocarbon developments and then presents case studies and a decision tree chart for effective water treatment. Produced/flowback water quality in shale projects is influenced not only by the formation, but also by the fracturing fluid introduced to the formation during hydraulic stimulation. The water produced by shale wells can contain suspended solids, dissolved solids, organics including hydrocarbons and residual fracturing fluid chemicals, and bacteria. Furthermore the water composition can change rapidly during the short flowback period followed by gradual stabilization during the production phase. The clean-up treatment of water with complex and highly varying quality with an effective and robust treatment process presents specific challenges. Conventional oilfield water treatment technologies may not be always effective in unconventional gas projects due to specific constituents in produced/flowback water such as residual polymers. This paper describes the functional water treatment steps, which target the most common removal of suspended solids and oil/condensate from flowback water/produced water for recycling or disposal operations. In addition pilot tests were run to validate and assess the performance of solids and oil/condensate removal processes. One key learning is that residual guar gum polymer in the water has a major impact on treatment effectiveness and thus the equipment selection process.
- Geology > Mineral (1.00)
- Geology > Rock Type > Sedimentary Rock > Clastic Rock > Mudrock > Shale (0.92)
- Water & Waste Management > Water Management > Lifecycle > Treatment (1.00)
- Energy > Oil & Gas > Upstream (1.00)
Abstract A recent development in fracturing fluid technology is the introduction of a unique fracturing fluid that requires no internal breakers. The new system will be referred to as low molecular weight fracturing (LMWF) fluid. Despite very robust and stable rheological properties during pumping, LMWF fluid returns to its original low viscosity shortly after fracture closure. The distinctive properties of this fluid will be presented, along with a discussion of the influence that this system is expected to have on the effectiveness of fracture stimulation treatments. Case history information will also be reviewed and the paper will attempt to explain well performance as it relates to "effective" fracture geometry, and the effect that fracturing fluid properties can have on this important stimulation design parameter. Historical Information Hydraulic fracturing has enjoyed continuous development and improvement since the first treatment was performed over 50 years ago. The initial focus of fracturing fluid development was aimed at building systems that would permit successful placement of the planned proppant volumes, often with little regard to proppant transport or the impact of fluid rheology and fluid-loss properties on fracture dimensions. As fluid technology matured, researchers began to focus on various specific challenges to improve post-fracturing production and field operations. Early in the development of hydraulic fracturing, proppants were studied for long-term performance, embedment, fluid interactions, and economic considerations. Focus on developing new fluids to enhance rheological properties soon followed. These fluids were based on the gellation of water, oil, alcohol, and other base fluids, each with unique properties that made them desirable for specific formations. As fracture modeling became possible through ever-improved computing platforms, specific rheological properties were sought to maximize proppant transport and fracture geometry, and minimize tubular friction losses. Fluid loss-control agents were introduced to extend fracture treatments into higher-permeability reservoirs and naturally fractured formations. Although fluid-loss materials could allow placement of greater proppant volumes, they also usually resulted in large losses in fracture conductivity. Unfortunately, these materials were often considered the only option for getting the entire planned proppant volume placed without a screenout. As technology advanced through the Eighties, evidence from production and pressure analysis seemed to indicate that the "effective" fracture lengths contributing to post-fracture production were often much shorter than the predicted lengths from fracture simulations. As a result, research began to center on gel breaker developments in the hope that the fracture conductivity could be regained to near-undamaged potential. Despite the advancements made in breaker technology since that time, effective fracture cleanup of polymer-based fluids remains a significant challenge. In an attempt to reduce the impact that gel residues have on proppant permeability, several service companies have offered the industry surfactant-based fracturing fluids, which have properties that lessen proppant pack damage. Unfortunately, many of the beneficial rheological properties and fluid-loss performance characteristics of conventional polymer gels are significantly reduced or even nonexistent in surfactant-based fluids, as these fluids offer little spurt-loss control, and no wall building properties to reduce fluid losses from the fracture. This can result in: deep invasion of the filtrate into the formation, low fluid efficiencies (which limit fracture length and width), and potential difficulty in fluid recovery and filtrate cleanup. Ideally, a fracturing fluid that could combine the low-damage proppant pack performance of surfactant fluids with the rheological properties and fluid-loss control of conventional polymer-based gels could offer the industry significantly enhanced post-fracture production potential.