PPDM Houston Data Management Symposium 2012 The Data Management Requirements and Challenges of Reporting Chemicals used in Hydraulic Fracturing By: Dean M. Bilden March 7, 2012
Background U.S. Congress U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Energy and Commerce 2008 request for data The 3 largest hydraulic fracturing companies Wells treated from 2005-2007 2010 follow-up request for data Same 3 plus 11 additional hydraulic fracturing companies Wells treated from 2005-2007 & 2008-2009 Names and quantities all fracturing chemicals pumped Number of wells by state and type of well Oil vs gas, Shale gas, coalbed methane, tight sandstone gas Chemicals by year, state, and operator Chemical composition (MSDS data) 2
Background U.S. Congress Data requests key objectives Identify the use of diesel in fracturing fluids Identify the use of BTEX chemicals Cancer related chemicals Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene Identification of fracturing treatments near fresh water zones Identify fracturing of coalbed methane wells Volume and disposal details of fluids returned to the surface Service companies referred to the Operators Data requested from 10 major operators in 2010 Focus on fracturing fluid recovered and disposal 3
GWPC and FracFocus.org Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) Objective: complete transparency of chemicals used Voluntary reporting Developed data standard and standard reporting template http://hydraulicfracturingdisclosure.org Submission of data by operators http://fracfocus.org Display of data for the general public 4
GWPC Data Requirements General information Fracture Date State County API Number Operator Name Well Name Longitude Latitude Latitude / Longitude Projection True Vertical Depth Total Water Volume Production Type 5
GWPC Data Requirements Chemical information Trade Name Supplier Purpose (surfactant, biocide, gelling agent, etc) Ingredients (chemical scientific name) Chemical Abstract Number (CAS #) Ingredient Percentage in Additive by % Mass Ingredient Concentration in HF Fluid % by Mass 6
State Data & Reporting Requirements 14 states have enacted or are considering legislation Arkansas, California, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, & Wyoming Most states are accepting the FracFocus.org data Several states require different data and formats Unstructured data in.pdf format State specific forms requiring signatures Master lists of all approved hydraulic fracturing chemicals Time limitations have been imposed by some Require reporting to be completed within 15 30 days BHI averages reporting in 7 days from the end of the last fracturing treatment on a well 7
Hydraulic Fracturing Horizontal Drilling and Fracturing Technology advances are driving the increases in oilfield activity Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments Complex operations and very data intensive Dozens of trucks and people to operate them 1 to over 50 fracturing stages in a well Few hours to several days to complete a well From a few thousand to over a million gallons of base water From a few thousand to over a million pounds of proppant 1 to several chemical additives All water, chemicals, and proppants are mixed and pumped into the well on-the-fly Excess quantities of chemicals always taken to the job site 8
Hydraulic Fracturing Operation
Hydraulic Fracturing Example of fluid, chemicals, and proppant Fluid #1 2,000 Gals of 15% HCl Acid Additives: 4.0 gpt Corrosion Inhibitor 3.0 gpt Iron Control Agent 1.0 gpt Gelling Agent 1.0 gpt Particle Suspension Agent 1.0 gpt Non-Emulsifier Fluid #2 100,000 Gals. of Slick Water Additives: 1.0 gpt Clay Stabilization Product 0.75 gpt Friction Reducer 0.5 gpt Bacteria Control Agent 0.5 gpt Surfactant 0.5 gpt Gel Breaker 10
Hydraulic Fracturing Example of fluid, chemicals, and proppant May be several fluids Fluid defined as a unique combination of additives Very small concentration of chemicals Example here is 0.0054% by volume of the fracturing fluid Proppants Treated as a chemical additive to the fracturing fluid May be 1 to a few different types Example: 125,000 Lbs. of 40/70 Mesh White Sand 6,000 Lbs. of 100 Mesh White Sand Volume of proppant will vary Example here is 0.0225% by volume of the total fracturing fluid 11
GWPC Reporting 6. Ingredient Percentage in Additive by % Mass: The amount of ingredient within the additive (Trade Name) as a percent of the total mass of the additive. Because the % mass of the additive will be expressed as its maximum concentration, the total % mass of ingredient percentage may exceed 100%. Trade name additives often contain more than one ingredient Ingredient concentrations are expressed in ranges (ie: 5-7%) Example: Name: Supersurfactant Ingredients: 85 90 % ingredient A 10 15 % ingredient B Total = 105 % Values range from 1 to 100+ 12
GWPC Reporting 7. Ingredient Concentration in HF (Hydraulic Fracturing) Fluid % by Mass: The amount of ingredient as a percent of the total mass of the HF fluid including carrier fluid and additives. The total may not equal 100% due to the absence of non- MSDS ingredients that may or may not be listed, depending upon state reporting requirements. State specific modifications for non-msds ingredients Texas requires reporting of the name and CAS # of the ingredients Colorado will soon require the same plus the % mass BHI is proactively providing this data on all FracFocus reports for all wells regardless of state 13
Software Systems and Report Creation Process WellMaster Database Well Header Data Field Operations Management System Fracturing Treatment Data - Unique Job Number(s) - Customer - Well Data - Job dates - Total Fluid Pumped - Product ID #s - Chemical Volumes Pumped - Field Ticket Data (not used) 2 Enterprise Financial System - Unique Job Number(s) - Product ID #s - Chemical Volumes Invoiced 1 2 Reporting Software 1. Report is launched after all jobs completed - Date Range entered - API # entered 2. Data retrieved from systems 1 and 2 3. Results used to query system 3 4. Final Results are validated for completeness and accuracy and report created 5. Report sent to repository 6. Report delivered to operator Report generation time: approximately 3 minutes! 4 3 Product Management System - Product ID #s - Chemical Scientific Name - CAS Number - Concentrations of Chemicals in Additives 5 6 Email / Secure FTP Legal Audit Report Repository Operator
15 Example FracFocus Report
Future Direction Development and adoption of XML standard GWPC produced the first draft of XML report file Needs to be finalized and implemented Inherent benefits of using XML Will provide ability for operator to automate consolidation of data across service companies for a single well report Efforts must continue to drive as much standardization as possible into the data content and format across all states and federal regulatory agencies 16
Conclusion Fracturing chemical data is being reported to hundreds of operators across 14 states Demand is steadily growing and must be met Non-compliance with reporting requirements, Federal or State, is not an option 17