SPE-174118

SPE-174118-MSWater Management: What We Have Learned and

What We Need to Consider for Developing a Shale Play in Argentina

Juan Carlos Bonapace, Halliburton; Facundo Alric, Adrian Angeloni and Luciano Zangari, Total Austral

Slide 2

SPE-174118-MS • Water Management: What We Have Learned and What We Need to Consider for Developing a Shale Play in Argentina • Juan Carlos Bonapace

• Introduction

• Sources of Water

• Stimulation Treatments and Fluid Systems

• Water Logistics

• Use and Reuse Non Traditional Waters

• Clay Inhibition

• Fracturing Fluid

• Workflow – Reohology – Proppant Transport Capacity and Damage

• Conclusions

Agenda

Slide 3


Introduction

Cacheuta

Los MollesVaca Muerta

Agrio

Diadema-129

Hydraulic Fracture in Argentina•Oil and Gas reservoir since 1960•Conventional, Tight and Shale•Depth, 300 to 4,500 m•BHT, 100 to 300F•Reservoir pressure, subnormal to overpressure•Fm permeability, high, medium, low, and ultralow perm•Multilayer reservoir and multitarget wells

Type of treatments and fracturing fluid•oil-based systems, alcohol-water mixtures, foams, and water-based fluids currently used

Experiences •Mainly in Vaca Muerta, Los Molles, Cacheuta, D-129 and Agrio more recently•More than 40 wells (> 200 hydraulic fracture)

Slide 4


Sources of WaterSources of Water•Fresh water, rivers, lakes, water wells•Used for conventional reservoirs development

Particular Cases (shale)•Los Molles, a mixture of fresh water (85%) and produced water (15%) was used for hydraulic fracture (10 stages) in a horizontal well.•D-129, operator decided to use 100% produced water (low salinity < 10,000 TDS) for 5 hydraulic fracture in a vertical well

Neuquina Basin (Vaca Muerta) •Primary sources of water are rivers, Limay, Neuquén and Colorado).•Other sources are lakes as Cerro Colorado and Pellegrini•Groundwater sources, wells with low salinity (< 5,000 TDS), need a permit from regulatory authority and water is not suitable for human consumption or farmlanding.

Slide 5


Stimulation Treatments and Fluid Systems

Sources of fresh water•Neuquén river (samples 1 to 5)•Water wells in differents fields

Water Requirements•Values for water to use in fracturing fluids

Water characteristics•Underground water sources have higher values in terms of pH, TDS, total suspended solids (TSS), chlorides, sulphates, bicarbonates, and sodium.

Physical-Chemical Analysis - (Fresh Water)

Slide 6


Stimulation Treatments and Fluid SystemsStatistical Analysis (5 shale plays)•Cacheuta – Avg water p/stage 1,700m3•D-129 – Avg water p/stage 900m3•Los Molles – Avg water p/stage, 3,000m3

V.M. Statistical Analysis (6 fields)•Oil – Avg water p/stage, 1,300m3•WetGas – Avg water p/stage, 1,850m3•Gas – Avg water p/stage, 2,180m3

• SW: friction reducer and friction reducer breaker. • LG: gelling agent, buffer, and breaker.• XL: buffer, gelling agent, crosslinker, and breaker

• XL fluid: usually used a 20 lb/mgal, guar-borate fluid

• Additionally, each of the fluid systems typically contained a biocide, clay inhibition, and surfactant additives.

Storages Systems• Mobile fracture tanks (80 m3) - B• Circular tanks (1,000 to 5,500 m3) - A• Pits or dams

• small (15,000 m3) - C• large (35,000 m3) - D

Water Handling• Trucks • Piping System (tubing or aluminum pipe) from 300 m

to 1.5 Km - C• Centrifugal pumps (40 to 60 bpm) A-B

Slide 7


Water Logistic

Evaluation Non Traditional Water•Flowback-produced , untreated•Mixing dilution (FB+FW), untreated •Non traditional water, treated

Application for fracture fluid:•Clay swelling and inhibition testing•Evaluation a new crosslinked fluid •Damage by gel residue and TSS

Slide 8


Use and Reuse Non Traditional Waters

Flowback and Produced Water Field/Well G#1 A#1 B#1 C#1 D#1 E#1 F#1 B#2 D#2

Water Type PROD FB FB FB FB FB FB FB FB

Specific gravity (SG) 1.136 1.074 1.123 1.143 1.123 1.156 1.099 1.110 1.068

pH 6.48 6.74 5.06 5.25 4.65 4.82 5.59 4.50 6.31 Resistivity (ohms-cm) 0.026 0.067 0.030 0.023 0.024 0.035 0.049 0.040 0.051

Temp (°C) 20.2 26.0 23.0 24.0 24.0 20.7 20.5 20.8 20.0

Carbonate (mg/L) 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Bicarbonate (mg/L) 146.4 1,196.0 131.8 107.4 0.0 61.0 329.5 61.0 500.4

Chloride (mg/L) 118,546.8 67,026.5 106,041.9 131,051.8 135,051.8 148,058.5 87,034.4 92,536.5 63,525.1

Sulfate (mg/L) 0.0 10.0 262.5 137.5 100.0 0.0 233.3 265.0 400.0

Calcium (mg/L) 21,643.0 7,134.2 23,406.7 17,955.8 30,781.4 35,671.2 18,036.0 27,655.2 5,210.4

Magnesium (mg/L) 2,140.2 1,702.4 3,988.5 2,723.8 4,669.4 2,432.0 2,918.4 1,216.0 8,755.2

Barium (mg/L) 800 800 0 0 0 1,275 2.5 0 0

Strontium (mg/L) 2,078.0 n/a 2,120.0 4,210.0 3,170.0 2,900.0 385.0 1,000.0 740.0

Total Iron (mg/L) 21.25 575.00 243.75 6.50 150.00 68.00 98.00 196.25 185.00

Aluminum (mg/L) 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.002 0.020 0.002 0.500

Boron (mg/L) 29.8 24.2 10.4 17.2 24.2 15.5 29.2 12.6 5.0

Potassium (mg/L) 2,750.0 250.0 998.0 2,130.0 1,700.0 2,905.0 504.0 1,250.0 562.5

Sodium (mg/L) 45,234.5 32,225.5 34,489.0 59,261.3 40,819.0 47,526.9 29,913.7 24,832.7 18,447.2

TDS (mg/L) 190,562 110,920 171,682 217,584 212,982 237,998 139,070 149,713 97,586

TSS (mg/L) 714.5 163.0 310.4 235.6 240.0 120.0 517.2 194.0 551.7

Table 2—Summary of flowback and produced water from various fields and wells.

Physical-Chemical Analysis - (Flowback & Produced)

Slide 9


Use and Reuse Non Traditional WatersPhysical-Chemical Analysis - (Treated FB-PD Water)

Field/Well A#1T B#5T B#4T G#1T

Water type FB FB FB PRO

Treated method I II III IV

Specific gravity (SG) 1.060 1.094 1.070 1.125

pH 7.84 5.87 7.32 9.12

Resistivity (ohms-cm) 0.075 0.049 0.047 n/a

Temperature (°C) 19.5 21.1 18.1 n/a

Carbonate (mg/L) 0 0 0 66.5

Bicarbonate (mg/L) 219.7 170.9 244.1 0.0

Chloride (mg/L) 59,523.5 85,033.6 61,524.3 104,687.0

Sulfate (mg/L) 0.0 325.0 6,375.0 5.0

Calcium (mg/L) 6,332.6 14,909.8 3,206.4 155.0

Magnesium (mg/L) 729.0 1,167.4 1,945.6 857.0

Barium (mg/L) 110 0 0 874

Strontium (mg/L) 1,400.0 1,080.00 177.00 1,846.0

Total Iron (mg/L) 0.45 11.00 2.60 1.32

Aluminum (mg/L) 0.020 0.002 0.002 0.920

Boron (mg/L) 12.0 13.7 8.2 22.8

Potassium (mg/L) 16.0 1,945.0 253.1 2,066.0

Sodium (mg/L) 29,984.4 34,054.7 35,389.8 47,182.0

TDS (mg/L) 96,916 137,617 108,940 172,097

TSS (mg/L) 4.4 34.6 4.3 10.1

Table 3—Physical and chemical results for four samples of flowback and produced water.

Treatment methods:•I to III, chemical coagulation, flocculation, and separation

•IV, electrocoagulation, pH adjustment, weir tank separation, and multimedia filtration.

Treatment effect:•amount reduction of iron and TSS

•pH values ranging from slightly acidic to neutral to slightly alkaline

Slide 10


Clay InhibitionType Field/Well Percentage

(%) TDS

(mg/L) Clay Stabilizer

DI — 100 0 1.4 gpt

Freshwater B#a — 2,014 No

Blend B#a + G#1 50:50 96,288 No

Produced G#1 100 190,562 No

Treated B#4T 100 108,940 No

*Clay stabilizer (quaternary ammonium salt), blend: fresh water + produced, treated: flowback treated

Table 5—Breakdown of the water.

Capillary suction time (CST) •Clay stabilizers tested and used in six fields:

• Quaternary ammonium salt - 1.4 gpt• Inorganic salt (KCL) – 1% to 2%• New ultralow-molecular-weight cationic organic

polymer (liquid)

• Vaca Muerta Fracture fluid• Guar-Borate (20ppt), BHT 120F (cooling effect), Pumping time: 30 to 45 minutes

• Guar-borate, 20ppt • 50% fresh water – 50% flowback water

• gel hydration and crosslinking problems • filaments, flocculants, and precipitates

• New CMHPG-Zr, 20ppt low pH • 50% fresh water – 50% flowback water

• Rheology Test (stability) for six fields • New CMHPG-Zr, 20ppt low pH

• 100% flowback water treated• Rheology Test (stability) for three water treated

• Proppant Transport Capacity – Comparative test Guar-borate and New CMHPG-Zr

• Damage by TSS – Comparative test Guar-borate and New CMHPG-Zr

Slide 11


Fracturing Fluid (Workflow)

Slide 12


Fracturing Fluid (Rehology)

Test No. Water Type* Field / Well Percentage (%)

TDS (mg/L)

1 Blend (fresh + flowback) B#a + A#1 50:50 56467

2 Blend (fresh + flowback) B#a + B#1 50:50 86848

3 Blend (fresh + flowback) B#a + C#1 50:50 109799

4 Blend (fresh + flowback) B#a + D#1 50:50 107498

5 Blend (fresh + flowback) B#a + E#1 50:50 120006

6 Blend (fresh + flowback) B#a + F#1 50:50 70542

8 Fresh water (guar.borate) B#a 100 2014

*For more details about water, refer to Tables 1 and 2; TDS = final value for the blend.

Table 6—Tested for mixtures of 50:50 fresh water with various flowback waters from different fields and wells.

Blend of Water - (Flowback Untreated)

Test No. Water Type/Treated Field/Well Percentage (%)

TDS (mg/L)

Treated I Flowback/treated I A#1T 100 96,916

Treated II Flowback/treated II B#5T 100 137,617

Treated III Flowback/treated III B#4T 100 108,940

Table 7—Fluid tested with the sources of water treated using Methods I, II, and III.

Treated Water - (Flowback).

Guar-borate (20 ppt)

Slide 13


Fracturing Fluid (Proppant Transport Capacity)

Static Condition (Settling Test)

System Water Type Fields/Wells Percentage (%)

TDS (mg/L)

20-ppt Guar.borate Fresh water B#a 100 2,014

20-ppt CMHPG-Zr Blend B#a+F#1 50:50 70,542

20-ppt CMHPG-Zr Treated B#4T 100 108,940

Table 8—Formulations of two sets of XL gel tested.

Conditions:•BHT 120F•Stability Test•8 hrs

Dynamic Condition (Slurry Viscometer)

Conditions:•BHT 120F•Break Test•3 hrs

Slide 14


Fracturing Fluid (Damage by TSS and gel residue)System Water Type Field Percentage

(%) TSS

(mg/L) DI-W DI — 100 0

Treated-W Treated B#4T 100 4

Blend-W Blend DI + G#1 66.6:33.3 238

Produced-W Produced G#1 100 714

FrW XL guar.borate Fresh water B#a 100 16

B XL CMHPG-Zr Blend B#a + F#1 50:50 267

T XL CMHPG-Zr Treated B#4T 100 4 *All XL gel systems are 20 ppt B = blend water T = treated water Table 9—Information on the samples tested.

• Most type of treatment are Hybrid jobs (SW-LG-XL)

• Average volume of water are for Vaca Muerta 1,500 m3

• More common water storage systems are mobile fracture tanks and circular tanks. Mainly water transfer systems are, trucks and pipeline systems

• Flowback and produced water have high levels of TDS, TSS, Ca, Mg, Fe and B. Treatment methods used reduce TSS and Fe

• Non traditional water• No need not use clay stabilizer• Need to be filtered (high content of TSS can impact negatively in proppant pack)

• A new fracture fluid can be formulated using blend of water or 100% non traditional water treated, have very good proppant transport capacity and less residue than traditional guar-borate fluid currently used

• Water reuse is a key factor for sustainable shale developments.

Slide 15


Conclusions

Slide 16

AcknowledgementsThe authors are grateful to the Management of TOTAL Austral and

Halliburton for permission to publish this work, in particular

Slide 17

Thanks you for your attention

Engineering

SPE-174118