Shale Gas and Water

1. Shale Gas vs.
Water Treatment
ir. Philippe Tob
Conference:
SHALE GAS: Blessing or Dutch Disease?
21/02/2013, ESG Management School, Paris
Copyright, Tobco SA, 2013
This document contains copyrighted material that is used with the permission of the author. Please acknowledge sources
and references accordingly. Tobco also follows fair use of copyrighted material. Trademarks are indicated by capital letters.
Tobco does not necessarily endorse companies, products, technologies and services that appear in this document.
Contact : philippe@tobco.be

2. FEBRUARY 2013
NO WATER
NO HYDRO FRAC
NO SHALE GAS INDUSTRY

3. Shale Gas Controversy: Water
Source : various sources, retrieved from web February 2013

4. Reliable information, data ?
Source : various sources, retrieved from web February 2013

5. Shale Gas – why water ?

Shale gas: non–conventional gas : tight
low permeability→

Idea: increase permeability shale

Solution : Frac shale

Water function
– Lubricate: drilling mud
– Deliver chemicals to keep well clean and
increase permeability
– Pressure to fracture rock and enable gas
to flow into the well
– Carry sand (propant) to keep cracks open

6. Industry challenged

Shale Gas Industry:
– Natural Gas Price downward trend US
– Operators must reduce costs, risks impact
on environment and reputation
– Water has become major concern
– → Treat and re-use water : priority

Water Treatment Industry:
– Caveat : 'every well is different' !
– Flowback, Produced water treatment and
beneficial re-use
– Reduction costs and risks

7. Water Cycle: Quality, Quantity
Source : PennState : Cooperative Extension
Water
Quantity,
Quality
Influent
Effluent

8. Quantity: water use past
Source : (1) Jean Philippe Nicot et al., Environ Sci Technol. 2012, 43, 3580-3586 (2) Marie de Paris
website retrieved January 2013.

Per Well (US): 2.900 m³ – 20.700 m³
– Drilling
– Fracing

Cumulative water use prior 2011
– Texas : 170 Mm³

Barnett shale play yearly use:
– 28 Mm³
– → 14% yearly water use city of Paris

9. Quantity : water use future
Formation Use (Mm³) Wells Projected (Mm³)
Barnett 145 14.900 1.050
Haynesville 6,5 390 525
Eagle Ford 18 1.040 1.870
Other shales 889
Tight Formations 895
Source : Jean Philippe Nicot et al., Environ Sci Technol. 2012, 43, 3580-3586
Water Use and Shale Gas
Cumulative past use and cumulative estimated projected
use, Texas.

10. Quantity : Local water stress
County
Max. (Mm³) Max. (%) Max year
Denton 2,1 1,7 2010
La Salle 7,1 89 2019
San Augustine 4,1 136 2017
Shelby 5,8 55 2017
Source : Jean Philippe Nicot et al., Environ Sci Technol. 2012, 43, 3580-3586
Water Use and Shale Gas
Peak water use, counties in Barnett shale play region, absolute numbers and as a
% of total water use for the county, Texas, US. Model simulations suggest
potential water stress in e.g. La Salle county According to model see source.

11. Quantity : Nord-Pas-De-Calais ?
Source : (1) Agence de l'eau Artois Picardie, Données sur les volumes prélevés dans le bassin
Artois-Picardie, 15/02/2012, website retrieved february 2013 (2) Bulletin Industrie Pétrolière

Hypothetical scenario: for didactic
purpose !

Nord-Pas-De-Calais : 65 Bm³ shale gas
reserve (ref. 2)

Compare with 52 billion Mm³ shale gas
from Barnett play, Texas, in 2010.

Assume 35 Mm³ of frac water needed to
exploit reserves in one year. Research
may show much more water needed for
specific shale play.

Total fresh water withdrawals in Nord-
Pas-De-Calais in 2010: 533 Mm³ (1)

Therefore shale gas exploitation could
hypothetically require ~ 6% of total
fresh water withdrawal in 2010.

Agriculture water use Artois Picardie in
2010 : 35 Mm³
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Agriculture Drinking Industry Other
WaterWithdrawalUsages(Mm³)
Water Withdrawal Water Agency Artois Picardie
Breakdown by Usage, 2003-2010

12. Quantity : Produced Water

Produced water: (def. gas and oil
industry): water flowing to surface
through borehole.
– Flowback frac fluid: 20%-70%
– Formation water:
• Varies according to shale rock
• e.g. Marcellus shale, rock, drier than
Barnett

Large water volumes to manage
– → Protect natural environment
– → Cut natural water withdrawals, return
clean water to nature.

13. Quality : Frac Fluid
Fracturing fluid
Typical composition for the Northern Marcellus Shale Play ; Fresh water: ground
and surface water Total Disolved Solids < 1000 ppm ; Brackish water : ground watrer
Composition chemicals dosed may change up to operator experience, shale play,
specific well (ref. source).
Source : Mathew E. Mantell, Introductory Description of Hydraulic Fracturing, Sept. 2011,
Chasapeake Energy

14. Quality : Flowback frac fluid
Flowback frac fluid
Frac fluid flowing back to the surface. Samples collected from (1) Woodford shale site 1-
14 days (2) Marcellus shale site 1-8 days.
Source : Harish R. Acharya, Ph.D, GE,. 'Cost Effective Recovery of Low-TDS Frac Flowback Water
for Re-use', Pittsburg, Sept, 2010 ; retrieved from website Jan 2013

15. Water Management : Solutions

Solutions
– Use brackish water, not fresh water
– Off-site
• Haul and inject
• Treat, dispose and re-use produced water
– On-site
• Treat, stock, re-use produced water
– Future : waterless exploitation ?

Technology alone not panacea: multi-
disciplinary approach needed:
engineering, ecology, regulatory,...

16. Treatment and Re-use
Source : Harish R. Acharya, Ph.D, GE,. 'Cost Effective Recovery of Low-TDS Frac Flowback Water
for Re-use', Pittsburg, Sept, 2010 ; retrieved from website Jan 2013
Treat and re-use solutions
Purification concept and % frac fluid re-used.

17. Treat and Re-Use: Benefits
Source : Robbie Cathey et all, Ecosphere Energy Services 'Game Changing Technology for Treating and
Recycling Frac Water', SPE SPE-145454-PP, SPE Annual Technical Conference, Denver, Oct. 2011
Reuse benefits
Savings for re-use solutions according to ECOSPHERE Energy Services

18. Technologies: available ?
http://aqwatec.mines.edu/produced_water/treat/index.htm
Source : (1) Colorado School of Mines and Aqwatec Website, January 2013 (2) Pei Xu et all, Novel
and Emerging Technologies for Produced Water Treatment, ES EPA Workshop, March 2011.

19. Technology (1) : VEOLIA
Source : VEOLIA, retrieved from company website, January 2013

20. Technology (2): EPURAMAT
EPURAMAT, ExSep
Patented oil/water and suspended
solids/water separation equipment.
Source : EPURAMAT, Company and product presentation, provided by Senior Managers.
EPURAMAT, Hydrocarbons removal
Deep separation of hydrocarbons in produced
water treatment. Technology : ExSep and
proprietary membrane separation.

21. Technology (3): AQUATECH
Source : AQUATECH company brochures and communication by Charles Kozorac
AQUATECH MoVap, MoTreat equipment
Aquatech offers Zero Liquid Discharge solutions
for floback and produced water treatment.
AQUATECH
Integrated produced water treatment solution.

22. Technology (4): ECOSPHERE
Source : R. Cathey, CEO ECOSPHERE, 'DUG East : Water Workshop : Return and Reuse Panel',
November 2012
ECOSPHERE: Ozonix, Hydrozonixs technology
Feedback frac fluid and produced water treatment and
re-use solution. Ozone and Elelctro-Oxidation based
solution.

23. Technology (5): MemStill
Source : KEPPEL SEGHERS and AQUASTILL, Company documentation retrieved from Websites,
January 2013.
KEPPEL SEGHERS : MemStill desalination
(1) principle membrane distillation (2) demo plant Singapore. MemStill can be powered by
solar energy and waste heat streams.

24. Market Players

Players
– Majors: VEOLIA, GE,...
– SME: AQUATECH, RIDGELINE,...
– Promising : EVERETT, GASFRAC,...

US companies dominate market

Water treatment market US:
– Growth +28% annually, $9 billion value in
2020
– Partly driven by strong growth shale gas
market segment
Source : Brent Giles, Analyst, Luxresearch, 'Risk and Reward in the Frack Water Market March 2012,
State of the Market Report' comment on www.industryweek.com, webiste, 2013

25. Innovation: IP and Patents
Source : Cambridge IP, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, January 2013
Shale gas and water treatment
Innovations over time : (red) new patent families, (blue) :
cumulative patent families, period 1983-2011

26. Shale gas: Water Footprint
Source : Erik Mielke et all, Water Consumption of Energy Resource Extraction, Processing,and
Conversion', Harvard Kennedy School, October 2010
Water Consumption : gal/MMBtu- log scale
Fuel :Extraction+Processing
Shale Gas + GTL

27. Future: hydro frac obsolete ?
Source : (1) The New York Times, May 11, 2010 retrieved from NYT website Feb. 2013 (2) Danuta
Miedzi�ska et all. 'A new method of carbon dioxide underground storage coupled with shale gas
recovery', Journal of KONES Powertrain and Transport, Vol. 19, No. 3 2012

Case study Fracless, waterless shale gas
recovery.

Inventors team : Department of Mechanics and
Applied Computer Science of the Military Technical
University, Poland (2)

Invention: A new method of carbon dioxide
underground storage coupled with shale gas
recovery Patented technology→

Invention based on
– the mechanism of adsorption of CO2 and
desorbtion of CH4 to recover the shale gas
– Waterless fracturation with liquid CO2
– Economic advantage: potentially use only one
vertical borewell

Status : laboratory, modeling done. Researchers
awaiting to receive a new grant for piloting.
Shale gas Poland
Shale gas basin licensed for exploitation.

28. Blessing or Dutch Disease ?

Shale Gas: for the Water Industry
– New growth driver in mature US water
market
– Export markets growth: China, Northern
Africa (Tunisia, Algeria, Lybia,...), Poland,
Bulgaria, UK,...
– Innovations, Start-up companies,...

Sustainable, economic, proven water
management solutions available

Shale Gas exploitation should be a
blessing for the water industry.

29. Acknowledgments
The following Experts and Industry leaders provided valuable insights about recent
developments. Their contribution is greatly acknowledged.
January-February 2013
Name Function
Matt Mantell Engineering Advisor –
Environmental, Chesapeake
Energy, USA
Prof. Richard Davies Dean of Knowledge Exchange
and Impact & Director of
Durham Energy Institute. in
the Department of Earth
Sciences. Durham University.
United Kingdom
Grzegorz Pytel Polish energy expert based at
the Sobieski Institute, Poland

30. Acknowledgments
Name Function
Prof. Pei Xu Research Assistant
Professor, Water Group,
Environmental Science and
Engineering Division,
Colorado School of Mines,
USA
Dr. Karl Michael Millauer
Charles Kosorac
Senior Vice President,
Aquatech International,
USA Business
Development Manager,
Aquatech Pennsylvenia,
USA
Helena van der Vegt Senior Associate,
CambridgeIP, United
Kingdom
Eng. Danuta Miedzinska Researcher, Department of
Mechanics, Military
University of Technology,

31. Acknowledgments
Name Function
Dirk Martin Sales and Marketing Director
Epuramat, Luxembourg