CivilAg10, would like to hear more about what you are seeing in the water mgmt sub-industry... its an area I have interest (and some relevant experience) in. Can I contact you offline?

TIA

To expand on the produced water issue:

C&EN magazine (produced by ACS) has had quite a few articles on fracking water and the issues surrounding it. One of their cover stories, Volume 93 Issue 11 | pp. 8-12, talks about a few of the issues. To summarize, The Great Unknown (chemicals degrade into what?), the Less Unknown (stuff we know about, but how much comes up) and the Radioactive component (self-explanatory).

I can't link that article as it is a cover story; other shorter articles I can link to. I can try to find a pdf and drop it somewhere for others to read.

USGS report and summary of the injection wells and earthquakes
Article

Another issue is disposal and future use for drinking (or industrial water use)
Article

A lot is due to lack of communication and understanding. Or relying on someone else to do the work.
Chemicals and how 'bad' they are

Biocides might not be needed, but would require a case-by-case instead of a blanket use
Article

Some hopefully interesting information about this process.

~egon

quote:

---

http://www.wsj.com/articles/apache-has-high-hopes-for-new-oil-field-discovery-in-texas-1473245702

quote:

---

Apache Corp.[url=http://quotes.wsj.com/APA][/url] says it has discovered the equivalent of at least two billion barrels of oil in a new west Texas field that has the promise to become one of the biggest energy finds of the past decade.

The discovery, which Apache is calling "Alpine High," is in an area near the Davis Mountains that had been overlooked by geologists and engineers, who believed it would be a poor fit for hydraulic fracturing. It could be worth $8 billion by conservative estimates, or even 10 times more, according to the company.

---

---

Wow, big find!

I don't disagree it has a place but what recent play requires it? Definitely nothing I know of in the Permian, Eagle Ford, or Bakken.

Ah - you bring up a good point. I found that we needed to use powder FR as opposed to liquid.

I did some field tests where we went back and forth between the two and it was clear as day the liquid wasn't working and the powder was.

quote:

---

I don't disagree it has a place but what recent play requires it? Definitely nothing I know of in the Permian, Eagle Ford, or Bakken.

---

That all depends on the operator. Some definitely still think that gels/hybrids are the best option in those plays.

I am fully aware..... but it isn't necessary. That's been proven in every play I've analyzed. More and more companies are figuring out gel and high strength proppant are a waste of money. The Halliburton disciples still think those two things are necessary in most plays but they also make more money when you pump resin and gel.... so I'm going to put my faith in the data and not the sales pitch/"theory".

Of all people, you should know that. Your company pumps 100% slickwater as far as I can tell.

Pump gel and 800PPF for best results.

Also, all the rock is different and requires a frac uniquely designed for that formation.

Also, every well has it's own personality.

quote:

---

Also, every well has it's own personality.

---

I would say that this one is actually true, at least once you get them producing.

All I'm trying to say is some operators find that they get better results with it. Most I debate this with have tried all the different ways multiple times and they swear hybrid/gel gives them the best well.

Do I agree with them? Not necessarily, but I don't look at their specific data, and maybe they're wanting something different than what a slickwater frac gives them. There definitely are applications for gel/hybrid even within unconventionals.

quote:

---

All I'm trying to say is some operators find that they get better results with it. Most I debate this with have tried all the different ways multiple times and they swear hybrid/gel gives them the best well.

Do I agree with them? Not necessarily, but I don't look at their specific data, and maybe they're wanting something different than what a slickwater frac gives them. There definitely are applications for gel/hybrid even within unconventionals.

---

Just best well? Or best well for the cost?

Toaster, the .ppt and paper at the link below address your question.Note the paper addresses flowback, but there's considerable overlap between flowback and produced water on this issue.

Shale Frac Sequential Flowback Analysis and Reuse Implications

Basically, they worry that high tds water will negatively impact the polymers added, and the water can react with the formation causing scaling.

The latter is more of a general issue; we worry about the same thing when evaluating ASR projects (ie, will the non-native water react adversely with the storage formation and water).

Marley, shoot me an email at username at gmail. I saw your thread on the job board a few days ago, and then forgot about it before reaching out.

Yeah.... I know what you mean. I've just found that usually they are stubborn and stuck on the theory and will do anything possible like normalizing some non linear parameter linearly to make their design look the best. PXD is the only one that seem to show there isn't a lot of difference in their wells - so why pump gel?! Because they still have those theories that tell them it has to be better..... I know several operators who have switched over recently and are seeing uneconomic areas become economic. The stragglers will come around is my prediction.

Most of the folks I've talked to that are still pumping gel have said that the increase in performance they see is worth the extra $ for gel/hybrid.

I don't agree with them, but I don't have their full data sets or their rock.

We haven't pumped any gel since 2010, but I can see why it's needed in low rate situations. By moving from gel to slickwater, you use rate to carry proppant instead of viscosity. If you can't get rate because of pressure, such as in the toe of a long lateral, or just naturally high frac gradients, you may use gel. Also, some people like to tail in with a higher concentration of proppant than they can comfortably carry with slickwater which is another situation in which gel is used.

Some formations have high enough native pressure that they'll perform well in spite of unbroken gel. In which case, frac'ing with gel probably results in better proppant distribution throughout the frac and could very likely result in better EURs.

API reported a big draw of 12.1 m. Oil should spike tomorrow if EIA agrees

thats a helluva draw

I feel like there's an extra number there...

quote:

---

I feel like there's an extra number there...

---

I thought so too but either someone at the API had a typo and won't cop to it, or we just got a gift.

CivilAg, just emailed u... Thanks.

Loss of some gulf production contributing?

quote:

---

Loss of some gulf production contributing?

---

Thats what some are saying contributed, its the biggest draw since 1999. Cant believe that little storm we had would have done that

quote:

---

Yeah.... I know what you mean. I've just found that usually they are stubborn and stuck on the theory and will do anything possible like normalizing some non linear parameter linearly to make their design look the best. PXD is the only one that seem to show there isn't a lot of difference in their wells - so why pump gel?! Because they still have those theories that tell them it has to be better..... I know several operators who have switched over recently and are seeing uneconomic areas become economic. The stragglers will come around is my prediction.

---

As someone who's been frac'ing for operators for almost 20 years and written a few SPE papers on frac/completion designs, been in completion consortiums/exchanges with leading operators in unconventional reservoirs I can tell you: you dont know what you don't know.

The Eagleford and the Permian have operators that use gel and there is some science behind it. Although I'm a huge proponent of the cleanest frac fluid possible, there are applications for gel. Refrac, diversion, too many laterals in a unit: all applications.

If you are in Dallas, I'd be happy to show you over lunch sometime. Although

So if you pull water out of a muddy reservoir or river for frac water, are you rigging up an in-line filter or somehow trying to filter it for the "cleanest" frac fluid?

quote:

---

So if you pull water out of a muddy reservoir or river for frac water, are you rigging up an in-line filter or somehow trying to filter it for the "cleanest" frac fluid?

---

Sock filters and centrifugal separators.

Apache just discovered an estimated 3 BBO, 75 TCF in west Texas:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-07/apache-discovers-3-billion-barrel-field-in-texas-shale-country

I'm not saying there is no application for gel but I just haven't seen any significant unconventional play that requires it. Do you know of a rock in the Permian, Eagle Ford, or Bakken that will not take slickwater? Special applications.... ok - but not normal applications. Refracs are rare in the grand scheme and as far as I can tell, rarely successful to date. EOG is able to pump slickwater in every well in every play. Their wells look as good or better than competitors to me. Diamondback, Parsley and several other large operators pump slickwater in the Midland Basin and they are making great wells also. EOG went a full year pumping at 40 bpm with slickwater.