The Barnett is where the shale revolution began, and its development is one of the great David and Goliath stories of our time. North American gas production was in steady decline in the mid-1990s, and the large multinational producers (Goliath) were out looking for resources anywhere but in North America. Small independents (David) continued to operate domestically, often with very small teams and limited resources. Enter George Mitchell with a plan to harvest gas from the source rock itself, the virtually impermeable shale rock. With stubborn persistence he succeeded, and the next five years saw an explosion of growth and development across North America.

Hydraulic stimulation and ever-longer pinpoint accurate laterals capable of targeting the thin shale layer combined to unlock a tremendous treasure trove resource that was there all along. When the dust settled, proposed LNG import facilities were being looked to for export, and domestic natural gas prices were collapsing with the realization that the U.S. had 200 years of low-cost recoverable natural gas within its borders.

Natural gas prices collapsing in 2008 led to a subsequent collapse in shale gas drilling. Rather than give up, the independents applied the same development techniques that opened up shale gas to “liquids-rich” formations. The Haynesville and other dry gas plays were put on hold, and the development migrated into regions like the Bakken, Eagle Ford and Permian Basin.

Throughout this rapid development period, water recycling companies were learning and adapting to the changing needs of the energy producers. They had to learn the nuances involved with treating produced water generated from liquids-rich formations vs. the dry gas shales. While energy producers have been busy adapting, water recycling companies have likewise been pushing to lower costs while simultaneously increasing throughput and performance.

There are several reasons for optimism about the future of water recycling in unconventional oil and gas development.

Performance metrics

In the early days of water recycling the big question on everybody’s mind was “how much recycling is needed?” It sounds like a simple question, but there are numerous considerations that make it a complicated one. If a producer uses excessive treatment, it might be wasting money. No treatment or very minimal treatment could impact well performance by depositing scale and/or solids downhole. A negative impact to the well decline curve will far outweigh the savings achieved by not treating the water.

Early on there was no yardstick to measure performance—often an energy producer would take treated water and have it evaluated by its frack service provider to determine if the water was suitable. The reasons for the water passing or failing were often unclear.

The industry has progressed to a point where producers now see the need for defined performance metrics. This gives recyclers a goal to meet, and it gives the producers a metric to determine if they are getting what they pay for. For example, many producers using clean brine will specify the removal of total suspended solids and iron and state a goal for turbidity and bacteria kill as a minimum recycling performance target.

Experience trumps promises

It has been painful to watch the onslaught of water treatment entrepreneurs that have rushed in to try to address the perceived need. One of the unfortunate side effects comes with the overzealous nature of these treatment companies. Knowing virtually nothing of the oil and gas industry they tend to overpromise and underdeliver.

This water is extremely hard to treat. Optimism alone will not solve the complex issues; hard-won experience is needed. Producers have recognized this and are no longer willing to listen to vague promises of performance. Now they are starting to ask what experience a recycler has, and this is separating the wheat from the chaff.

More to it than price

The cost of water recycling has often been compared directly to disposal and/or supply costs. While this gives an indication of whether the recycling cost is competitive, it only tells part of the story.

Public perception, reducing risk by limiting transfer distance, reducing road wear and other similar factors are beginning to be recognized as a part of the value proposition in favor of recycling. It is often hard to place a dollar-per-barrel figure on these factors; however, they are being considered by the producers.

Recyclers strive to lower the volumetric unit cost for water recycling. They achieve this by becoming more efficient and also by raising the volumes and throughput of their systems. Often it takes the same labor to recycle 5,000 bbl/d as it does for 20,000 bbl/d, so there is an economy of scale to be achieved as the system size increases. When customers are satisfied with the recycling operation and want to know how to drive future costs down, they are often surprised to hear they should increase the amount of recycling. It is not uncommon to be able to drop the per-barrel price of recycling by as much as 25% if the throughput is doubled.

Energy producers have become experts at managing the entire life cycle of water in their operations, including sourcing, transfer, containment, recycling/reuse and the eventual disposal of residuals (brine and/or solids). They recognize that a slightly higher per-barrel recycle cost may still be lower cost overall if it reduces overall water acquisition, disposal, transfer and containment costs.

Recycling, disposal not mutually exclusive

The old paradigm with handling produced water was “recycling or disposal.” The new solution might often be “recycling and disposal.” Fountain Quail has pioneered several recycling projects co-located at saltwater disposal (SWD) facilities. This allows the company to use the existing SWD gathering infrastructure (buried/surface transfer lines, gunbarrel separator and SWD tanks). By sharing gathering and de-oiling infrastructure, the producer can become very pragmatic about recycling.

Speaking up

Water recycling has a voice in the debate. Water usage by the energy sector is a very polarizing issue. People are finding themselves marshaled into one of two camps, pro-fracking or anti-fracking. The deciding factor is often water and concern over its usage and protection. Regulators and legislators are concerned as there is a public outcry to “do something” without adequately defining what the issues are.

Energy companies speaking about water are often judged as being biased by the public. Speaking as a recycler can help find common ground. Recycling companies have a voice that resonates with both the pro-fracking camp (domestic energy production is critical to our economy and security) and the anti-fracking camp (water must be protected and we cannot develop energy at the expense of water).

John Tintera is the president of the Texas Water Recycling Association and recently co-authored a white paper titled “Sustainable Water Management in the Texas Oil and Gas Industry.” This is the type of discussion that is helping push past the rhetoric and emotion to address the real concerns regarding water management practices.

System integration saves time, money

By Marc Bellanger, Bosque Systems

Bosque Systems has recently combined the efficacy of its chlorine dioxide-based biocide (DIONIX) with a proprietary scale inhibitor (ScaleStop) to provide a more complete surface water treatment before it goes downhole for fracturing. By combining those services, customers can realize further savings by making use of a single operation crew for multiple services, an advantage vs. separate treatments.

Hydraulic fracturing an oil or gas well can require between 25,000 and 300,000 bbl of water per well, and that’s not counting the many barrels of flowback water that need to be handled after the frack is complete. It’s a big expense and a logistical headache for operators in every play where horizontal fracturing is gaining in popularity. In addition, water shortages in many oil and gas producing regions in the past five years have brought the spotlight on this technique. The use of recycled produced and flowback water has made progress among operators, but with it come the limitations and challenges of using high-salinity and contaminated water that may jeopardize the well integrity and the play as a whole. Among other issues, water from fracturing operations is exposed to millions of naturally occurring microbial contaminants, which can cause souring; corrosion; plugging of formation and fractures, pumps and filters; and emulsion problems. DIONIX uses chlorine dioxide that achieves safe and 99.9% effective kills of all microorganisms, including sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) and acid-producing bacteria (APB). It is the most effective biocide and reacts within seconds, allowing operators to frack with clean water, and is recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency as an environmentally friendly broad-spectrum biocide. Having mobile water treatment units allows Bosque Systems to integrate with the frack crew and move seamlessly from job to job.

Fracturing fluid is treated onsite using a custom header prior to being blended with other fracking compounds for proper mixing. The injection method is a metered, controlled and supervised process.

Walter Dale, executive director of solutions business development for Bosque Systems, oversees the infrastructure, logistics and technology applications for Bosque Systems. “Recycle should continue to gain momentum as customers look to decrease total costs. The total costs of water can be as much as 30% of well completion costs for our customers, with logistics being the largest component of the total water costs,” he said. Bosque Systems’ solutions are designed around complex field water assessments and detailed recommendations based on water quality needed, technologies available and total economics.

The company is introducing a stationary DIONIX for saltwater disposal facilities. It has designed a solution to treat water before disposal, achieving safe and effective kills of all microorganisms, including SRB and APB, preventing microbial-influenced souring and corrosion. The unit also reduces the level of iron sulfide and drops out high levels of ferric iron in the water, which can prevent downhole pressure issues. Robert Mitchell, vice president of technology for Bosque Systems, said, “The biggest advantage of this unit is its ability to decrease surface tension of the water and increase the amount of recoverable oil at a saltwater disposal site, allowing for a better economic return on our customers’ investments.”