Water consumption for fossil fuel exploration and production

Christopher Harto, Corrie Clark, Todd Kimmell, and Robert Horner

Argonne National Laboratory

Groundwater Protection Council Annual Forum St. Louis, MO

September 23-25, 2013

Acknowledgments

DOE/NETL provided funding to support the work Debbie Elcock- ANL Dave Murphy - ANL James Shupryt – University of Wisconsin Vince Tidwell – Sandia National Laboratory Barbie Moreland - Sandia National Laboratory

Topics Addressed

Life Cycle Water Consumption for Shale Gas vs. Conventional Natural Gas

Geospatial Analysis of Water Consumption for Energy Extraction in the Western US

The Water Life Cycle in the Bakken Shale

Life Cycle Water Consumption for Shale Gas and Conventional Natural Gas Study used a process LCA approach to estimate water

consumption for natural gas from conventional and shale wells for both transportation and electricity production

Hydraulic fracturing data obtained from FracFocus and compared with other sources

Water consumption estimated for 4 plays: – Barnett – Haynesville – Fayetteville – Marcellus

Well Infrastructure Natural Gas Recovery

Processing Transmission and Distribution

End Use

Key Parameters

Parameter

unit

Shale Play

conventional

source

Barnett

Fayetteville

Haynesville

Marcellus

Well lifetime years 30 30 30 30 30 Industry and Argonne Assumption

Bulk gas methane content % 80 (40–97) 80 (40–97) 80 (40–97) 80 (40–97) 85 (69–95) Ref. 4

Hydraulic fracturing jobs per well jobs/well

1 for low EUR 3 for high

EUR 1 for low EUR, 3 for high EUR

1 for low EUR, 3 for high EUR

1 for low EUR, 3 for high EUR –a Argonne

assumption

Estimated ultimate recovery BCF/well 1.4–3.0 1.7–2.6 3.5–6.5 1.4–5.2 0.79–1.25

Shale: Refs. 5, 6 Conv.: Refs. 7, 8

Water for drilling gal/well 240,000 170,000 280,000 180,000 78,000–110,000

Assumptions based upon well designs: Refs. 9, 10

Water for cement gal/well 27,000 19,000 37,000 24,000 7,200–9,800 Assumptions based upon well designs: Refs. 9, 10

Water for hydraulic fracturing gal/job 1,800,000–

6,200,000 3,700,000–6,700,000

3,400,000–8,800,000

2,600,000–5,800,000 –a Sampled from:

Ref. 11 Flowback fraction (0–10 days)

gal flowback/ gal/job 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.1 –a Ref. 12

Recycled fraction gal recycled /gal flowback 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.95 –a Ref. 12

Water for gas processing gal/mmBtu 1.67 Ref. 13

Water for pipeline operation gal/mmBtu 0.84 Ref. 13

Water for electricity for gas compression gal/SCF 0.005–0.007 Ref. 14

a Not applicable. Hydraulic fracturing was not assumed for the conventional natural gas life cycle pathway.

See Paper linked on slide 10 for references

Water For Hydraulic Fracturing

0

50

100

150

200

250

Freq

uenc

y

Water Consumption for Hydraulic Fracturing (gal)

Haynesville

050

100150200250300350400450500

Freq

uenc

y

Water Consumption for Hydraulic Fracturing (gal)

Marcellus

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Freq

uenc

y

Water Consumption for Hydraulic Fracturing (gal)

Fayetteville

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Freq

uenc

y

Water Consumption for Hydraulic Fracturing (gal)

Barnett

Results - Fuel

Variability and uncertainty within plays is as great or greater than between plays While recycling is important in many plays from a water management standpoint,

low flowback rates limit the impact on total water requirements

Results - Transportation

While water consumption is greater for shale than conventional natural gas, all sources of natural gas are more water efficient than competing transportation fuels

Results - Electricity

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

NG ST RC NG ST OT NG CT NG CC RC NG CC OT

Wat

er C

onsu

mpt

ion

(gal

/kW

h)

Fuel - Marcellus

Fuel - Haynesville

Fuel - Fayetteville

Fuel - Barnett

Fuel - Conventional

Cooling

NG – Natural Gas ST – Steam Turbine CT – Combustion Turbine CC – Combined Cycle RC – Recirculating Cooling OT – Once Through Cooling

For power production, power plant design and cooling far are more important factors in overall water consumption than fuel source

Most natural gas power plants are significantly more water efficient than competing conventional fossil fuel technologies (NGCC ~1/2 water consumption of coal and 1/3 water consumption of nuclear w/ RC)

On net, while shale resources require more water than conventional natural gas, the increased supply of natural gas from shale resources has resulted in an increase in construction of NGCC power plants, which are displacing older, less efficient coal plants, resulting in a significant net water savings over the life cycle

Shale Water LCA Conclusions

The production of shale gas is more water intensive than conventional natural gas due to water required for hydraulic fracturing

The primary factors affecting water consumption on a life cycle basis are: – Quantity of water required per hydraulic fracturing job, – Productivity of the well – Number of times a well is refractured, and – Quantity of flowback water recycled.

Life cycle water consumption from shale gas development is less than most other fuel production practices and is not the largest consumer of water in the natural gas electricity generation life cycle, however it is possible that at the local watershed scale, temporal and spatial impacts from shale gas development could be significant and require further study.

Paper available this month in ES&T: – Clark, C.E, R.M Horner, C.B. Harto, 2013 “Life Cycle Water Consumption for Shale

Gas and Conventional Natural Gas,” Environmental Science and Technology, in press.

– http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es4013855

Water Consumption for Energy Extraction in the Western US

Objective: To estimate water consumption from energy extraction on a fine spatial scale (counties)

Approach: – Annual fuel production data (Coal, Natural Gas, Oil) were obtained for

each state by county – Fuel production was multiplied by water consumption factors based

upon literature estimates on a water consumption per unit of energy basis

Study Limitations: – It ignores temporal effects – Water consumption factors used were not location specific so it

doesn’t fully take into account differences in production practices by region or play

Water Consumption Factors

Coal – Surface mining: 12 gal/ton – Underground mining: 120 gal/ton

Oil – Conventional: 0.2 gal/gal – Steam EOR: 5.3 gal/gal (9% of all US onshore oil production) – Water for water floods not included (assume produced water is used)

Natural Gas State Percent Shale Average Water Consumption Factor (gal/MCF) AZ 0% 2.7 CA 40% 4.1 CO 13% 3.1 KS 0% 2.7 MT 16% 3.3 NE 0% 2.7 NV 0% 2.7 NM 7% 3.0 ND 73% 5.3 OK 24% 3.5 SD 0% 2.7 TX 39% 4.1 UT 0% 2.7 WY 0% 2.7

Coal Results

Oil Results

Natural Gas Results

Combined Results

Water Consumption for Energy Extraction in the Western US - Conclusions

Overall energy extraction does not appear to be a major water user in most areas in the Western US. – According to USGS, in 2005 all mining, including energy extraction,

accounted for only 1% of total US water withdrawals

However water use does appear to be concentrated in relatively few areas

Even these relatively small volumes can still result in conflicts between the energy industry and agricultural and/or municipal water users in areas with high water stress/low water availability or in times of drought.

Bakken Shale Water Life Cycle Study

Objective: To explore life cycle water management in the Bakken shale play.

Key aspects of the water life cycle to be analyzed: – The quantity and source of water required for drilling and hydraulic

fracturing new wells – The management, recycling and/or disposal of flowback and produced

water – Explore potential watershed level impacts

Data Sources: – State of ND databases – FracFocus – Industry contacts – Literature

Bakken Shale Preliminary Results

Year Total Water Injected (millions of gal) Number of Wells Average Volume per Well

(millions of gal) 2008 680.0 401 1.695 2009 851.2 465 1.831 2010 1364.9 758 1.800 2011 2589.1 1199 2.159 2012 4289.9 1801 2.381

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

Hydr

aulic

Fra

ctur

ing

Wat

er C

onsu

mpt

ion

(1

06 gal

/wel

l)

County

Average Water Consumption Per Well by County

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Tota

l wat

er in

ject

ed (1

09 gal

)

Cumulative Water Consumption by HUC 8 Basin

Bakken Annual Water Consumption Statistics

Bakken Shale Remaining Questions

How does water consumption compare with oil production and water availability?

What are the primary water sources? What do flowback rates and recycling rates look like? What are the major produced water management practices?

– Is anything other than injection and recycling taking place?

Summary Conclusions

Hydraulic fracturing does significantly increase the water consumption for natural gas production, however natural gas is still the most water-efficient fossil fuel for both electricity production and transportation.

Overall water consumption for energy extraction appears to be relatively low and manageable, but impacts may still be significant at a local level.

Average water consumption per well in the Bakken Shale is on the low end for shale resources, but most of the water consumption appears to be concentrated within a single USGS HUC 8 sub-basin.