6

Research and Technology Innovation in Context

The fourth panel session on the morning of the second day of the workshop provided an overview of research and technology innovation. Three 10-minute presentations by the panelists were followed by a moderated discussion led by Wendy Harrison (Colorado School of Mines), who is also the co-chair of the Roundtable on Unconventional Hydrocarbon Development.

Harrison opened the panel session by stating the title of the session was “What is it you’d like to do, but you can’t do today and why?” This context for research and technology is important, she said, because it opens the question—what are the next steps? She thought the first day of the workshop included a lot of discovery and that the second day could focus on the research and development needs in local, state, and federal contexts. She emphasized the need not to forget outreach to different audiences; the importance of 1- and 2-year time frames as well as the longer-term investments in science and engineering advances; and sequencing and prioritization. With regard to the last, she underscored the importance of considering limited budget scenarios and what actions, proposals, or activities could have the most impact. She asked what short-term needs build the case for longer-term investments in basic science and engineering, as well as changes to policy.

PANEL PRESENTATIONS

Oklahoma Office of Energy and Environment Perspective

Secretary Michael Teague, Oklahoma Office of Energy and Environment

Teague opened his presentation by commenting on the “why.” The “why” for Oklahoma is the existence of a freshwater shortage. He stressed that solving the water shortage is a major, multidisciplinary issue that requires alternative approaches. Following the “why,” Teague continued, is the “how,” which cannot be considered without discussing the importance of “who.” Oklahoma Governor Fallin announced a water working group last December, Teague said. The working group brings water users together to talk about their needs. Entities at the table include agriculture,

utilities, oil and gas, a mineral rights royalty owner’s lawyer, General Electric, and a municipality. Teague stressed the importance of including several representatives from the key sectors at the table in order to establish the primary goals and pathways.

Teague stressed that, in terms of treating the water, drinking water standards are not the goal; rather, the standards are “fit for purpose.” For example, one does not need to meet drinking water standards if water is being used for cooling water in a gas-fired power plant. He elaborated further on the importance of water quality needs appropriate for each purpose. In Oklahoma, a working group was brought together to examine this issue and the first questions asked were: What kind of water do you need for cooling or for an industrial use? What do you need for agriculture? Is there a difference between water needs for nonedible crops and edible crops and ranching?

Teague also suggested the need to analytically test water more quickly. If analyses to identify every constituent in a sample take 2 years, the usefulness is reduced. He mentioned that during the first day of the workshop, many people mentioned the need for more data. He said it is important to clarify not just a need for more data, but the need to define data requirements. For example, knowing the water quality of produced water emerging from an oil and gas well is incredibly important for specific treatments and potential applications. At this point, however, knowing the quality of water going into the well may not need to be characterized at the same level of detail because the needs are a bit broader, he said. He emphasized the importance of taking into account the long-term potential health impacts, but at the same time being able to test samples more quickly to be relevant to the water resource solution. Teague stressed the importance of pertinent case studies and appropriate solutions.

He noted that during his presentation, he had not yet mentioned produced water because produced water is not the problem. In Oklahoma, the water shortage is the problem and he sees produced water instead as an opportunity. The problem in Oklahoma is different from that in Pennsylvania, he said, where a big issue is how to reduce disposal costs.

Teague then discussed the issue of public perception. He suggested that the oil and gas industry is innovative and can find solutions for treating produced water to help with water shortages such as those caused in Oklahoma. However, he said, the oil and gas industry has a public perception problem: a solution proposed by the oil and gas industry would not be as well received as a solution developed by the Department of Energy (DOE) along with the engagement of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. He emphasized the need for third-party engagement in these discussions to help innovation move forward.

Teague concluded his remarks by discussing when the solutions to water shortages are needed. He reiterated that Oklahoma and other western states have consistent freshwater shortage problems that can last for several years at a time. He also suggested that solutions to these shortages exist and he views produced water as representing an opportunity to be part of those solutions. A 5- to 10-year time frame to develop a good solution would be acceptable, he indicated, but only if the work on the solution begins now.

Groundwater Protection Council Perspective

Mike Paque, Groundwater Protection Council

Paque opened his remarks by discussing some of the Groundwater Protection Council’s (GWPC’s) activities that have been filling some research voids. He indicated the occurrence of numerous produced water workshops over the past decade and that some of the discussions today are similar to those that took place back in the early 2000s when GWPC produced a report on the beneficial uses of produced water. The difference today, he said, is that we have more information and the technology has really improved.

He said that his primary message is about water, rather than produced water or oil and gas. Half of the GWPC board works in the oil and gas industry and half are drinking water administrators from across the country. GWPC is drawn to this topic to help water users. Paque continued by suggesting that water be considered a resource, rather than a waste, and commented on the need for food by 2030 to sustain the increasing human population. The United States produces a lot of food in inappropriate places, he said. Increased food production, he suggested, will produce a greater need for water. Droughts will also continue to occur. In GWPC’s produced water report,¹ Paque said they asked the question: How much produced water exists? From various sources, they estimated about 22 billion barrels of produced water are generated annually, which is equivalent to about 1 trillion gallons that are derived from the subsurface. Some of the water was dispatched before it emerged from the ground, but Paque asked the question: Is the water that returns to the surface really a waste? He also noted that the public perception of produced water is not always in keeping with an emphasis on recycling and reusing water.

Paque then discussed the produced water primer that GWPC is developing with DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy. The primer will include

• A thorough discussion of produced water,
• A full examination of the issues,
• Discussions about water quality and quantity, and
• Discussions about chemistry and toxicology.

Paque encouraged anyone present at the workshop to become engaged with GWPC as they develop the water primer. He concluded his remarks by indicating that he agrees with Secretary Teague that the problem is water, rather than just produced water. Water is needed and efforts have to be made to take advantage of the resource—1 trillion gallons of water.

Workshop on Uses of Flowback and Produced Water: Opportunities and Challenges for Innovation

Becky Tomasek, CH2M

Tomasek opened her remarks by discussing different types of water, and particularly waters with different total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations. For municipal effluent, Tomasek cited an average of about 500 milligrams TDS per liter; mineral water, she said, is about 1,000 milligrams TDS per liter, and the human body is about 5,000 milligrams TDS per liter. Brackish water is water that is too salty to drink or to use for irrigation and begins at about 10,000 milligrams TDS per liter. Finally, ocean water is about 35,000 milligrams TDS per liter.

In the context of an oil field, she showed TDS concentration ranges for the percent of water returned as produced water (see Figure 6.1). She compared various basins around the United States and highlighted that produced water from the Niobrara formation in Colorado has TDS similar to ocean salinity at about 20,000 to 40,000 milligrams TDS per liter. The Eagle Ford has a greater concentration of TDS, ranging from about 60,000 to 100,000 milligrams TDS per liter. Produced water in the Delaware Basin can range up to 200,000 milligrams TDS per liter. The Bakken and the Marcellus can reach about 300,000 milligrams TDS per liter. She also showed the percent of returned water and its average composition (see Figure 6.1). The Marcellus and the Bakken have a lot of salt in their produced water, but only 10 to 20 percent is returned as produced water. This water can be treated minimally and recycled if additional hydraulic fracturing is taking place. The

___________________

¹ Available at http://www.gwpc.org/resources/publications (accessed September 18, 2016).

other extreme is the Delaware Basin, where a lot of water comes back to the surface and that water needs to be either disposed or recycled. Tomasek showed some options for treating and using produced water (see Figure 6.2). For the purpose of using produced water again at the well site, industry is removing total suspended solids (TSS), organics, iron, and hydrogen sulfides. They then use that water for the next hydraulic fracturing job, Tomasek said. From the standpoint of technology innovations, she indicated that removal of boron from produced water is a key need. Industry has been moving away from using boron in hydraulic fracturing fluids.

Another option for treating water includes hardness removal. Hardness in water can impact oil and gas reservoirs. In remote drilling locations where water needs to be softened, lime or soda ash is used, Tomasek said. However, this approach can create waste and does not aid in removing transportation trucks from the road.

Tomasek said that the oil and gas industry does not require desalinated water; rather, they can recycle their water from hydraulic fracturing and use the water for future fracture jobs. The current desalination technology is for ocean water–like salinities. To treat brines, a thermal treatment step maybe needed and this is where additional technology innovations are needed.

MODERATED DISCUSSION

A participant commented on water types and water fit for purpose. They also emphasized that the constituents of water need to be known through use of quick, accurate methods and that the understanding of environmental exposure and toxicity are also required. Secretary Teague agreed with the comment and suggested that the time scale of solutions may be 5 to 10 years.

A participant asked about economics and the incentive to use produced water for subsequent purposes. For example, if produced water can be put down a well for 10 to 20 cents per barrel, what is the economic incentive to do otherwise? The participant also noted the discussions about treatment technologies and the reduction in treatment costs, but doubted that costs could ever get to the 10 to 20 cents per barrel range. The participant then asked the panelists how to incentivize the beneficial use of produced water in the presence of such a disparity in costs? Secretary Teague replied by posing a broader question: Will a utility in the panhandle of Oklahoma put money into identifying a solution about where to source cooling water? Within Oklahoma, Enid is the biggest community that relies primarily on groundwater. Two years ago, all of their groundwater wells were dry and they needed a backup water supply system. Teague also commented on the best use of monetary funds. At a state level, no ability exists to do research. However, states could probably figure out how to add financial incentives to build infrastructure. Teague also emphasized the complementary roles of state and federal government. Paque followed with a comment on the need

for more collaboration to look at produced water in a more holistic context. He stated that water is inexpensive regardless of whether one is producing oil or managing water for a municipality.

A participant clarified a concern about moving the science and engineering forward in the face of a dichotomy. The biggest problem is how to convince federal agencies to fund research on produced water and projects that demonstrate what can be done with produced water. Secretary Teague responded by describing the regional differences to approaches to water even within one federal agency: the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In the eastern part of the United States, he said, the Corps is most concerned about flooding. In the western part of the United States, however, every drop of water is important for potential uses. For the conversation to move toward action, agencies across the federal government, such as the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior, also need to be involved. He also indicated that engaging various divisions of the National Academies is also important because the problem is broad. Paque added that Secretary Moniz of DOE has stated a number of times in the past year about the importance of water issues to the agency. In terms of moving forward, Paque then described aspects of GWPC’s water primer. The primer will include some examining of who is drawing water permits and who is using the water. A goal is to identify users in drought-stricken areas and bring them into the conversation. Users need to understand the opportunity to use produced water, Paque said.

Harrison commented that research and development are pertinent across many federal agencies and from a university perspective; a group of researchers could present a case for multiple agency funding initiatives. Groups like the Roundtable could potentially play a role in defining what the research needs are, regardless of whom in the end will pay, she said.

Another participant commented on the need for more analytical methods, although more than enough is known to do multiple field-based projects at the present time. California and Texas have done field case studies. Continuing field projects is going to make the management of produced water more understandable to the public. The participant further emphasized the need to continue making advances even though there is a lack of information on the composition of produced water.

Several participants discussed disclosure of the composition of various constituents used in the hydraulic fracturing process. One participant then noted that industry has disclosed products used in the hydraulic fracturing process through FracFocus,² which is managed by the GWPC and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.

A participant mentioned that the local nature of water provisions has not been discussed and emphasized that water is very expensive to transport. Secretary Teague followed up on the comment by noting that in Oklahoma many oil and gas pipelines exist though they are not currently used, and he posed a question about repurposing some of these pipelines to move water. He stated that several companies are actively pursuing this possibility. Tomasek agreed that moving water is very expensive and that CH2M is seeing a trend toward using more existing pipelines to move water to reduce water transport costs. Related to transporting water is the user of that water. Paque said that a map of water users is needed and he mentioned particularly the need to map rural water districts and small communities relative to produced water areas.

A panelist commented that they see a really strong role for government to do independent technology evaluation and elaborated on the role of demonstration projects. Teague responded by saying that in defining studies, who does the study is also important and reiterated the need to include a third party to validate research being conducted in this arena.

___________________

² FracFocus is the national hydraulic fracturing chemical registry. Available at https://fracfocus.org (accessed November 11, 2016).