Reuse of Flowback Produced Water For Hydraulic Fracturing

DISCLAIMER: PTAC does not warrant or make any representations or claims as
to the validity, accuracy, currency, timeliness, completeness or otherwise of the

information contained in this report , nor shall it be liable or responsible for any
claim or damage, direct, indirect, special, consequential or otherwise arising out of
the interpretation, use or reliance upon, authorized or unauthorized, of such
information.
The material and information in this report are being made available only under the
conditions set out herein. PTAC reserves rights to the intellectual property
presented in this report, which includes, but is not limited to, our copyrights,
trademarks and corporate logos. No material from this report may be copied,
reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted or distributed in any way,
unless otherwise indicated on this report, except for your own personal or internal
company use.
test
2012
REUSEOFFLOWBACK&PRODUCEDWATERFOR
HYDRAULICFRACTURINGINTIGHTOIL
SUBMITTEDBY;
R.WASYLISHEN&S.FULTON
PREPAREDFOR:
PREPAREDBY:

DATE:
THEPETROLEUMTECHNOLOGYALLIANCECANADA(PTAC)
ROBERTAWASYLISHEN,WASTEWATERTECHNOLOGIST
SARAHFULTON,WATERCOORDINATOR,ENVIRONMENTANDRECLAMATION
JUNE28,2012
JUNE28,2012 REUSEOFFLOWBACK&PRODUCEDWATERFORHYDRAULICFRACTURINGINTIGHTOIL

ABSTRACT
TheobjectiveoftheReuseofFlowback&ProducedWaterforHydraulicFracturinginTightOilassessmentistoevaluate
potentialopportunitiestoreducefreshwaterconsumptionandwastethroughreuseofproducedand/orflowbackwatersas
sourcesofbasefluidforhydraulicfracturing.Theevaluationrequiresquantificationandcharacterizationofvarioustightoil
hydraulicfracturingflowbackandproducedwatersandcharacterizationofthedesiredqualityofthebasefluidforreuse.
This information is used to evaluate integrated treatment technology objectives for water reuse in multistage hydraulic
fracturing applications within tight oil resource plays. This evaluation framework will assist industry peers in developing
enhancedwatertreatmentandrecyclingbestpracticesinsimilarapplications.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ThispaperwascompletedaspartofaresearchprojectfundedbythePetroleumTechnologyAllianceofCanada(PTAC)and
Penn West Exploration. PTAC and Penn West Exploration wish to acknowledge the contributions of the following
individualsforprovidingguidanceandpeerreview:
KeithMinnich,TalismanEnergyInc.
ScottHillier,ConocoPhillips
ArianeBourassa,ApacheCorporation
RudyTamayo,HuskyEnergy
JohnDelorey,BakerHughes
KentDawson,BakerHughes
BrettChandler,BakerHughes
KoreyConroy,TSGI
JanaVanderKloet,SouthernAlbertaInstituteofTechnology
DeanTymko,PennWestExploration
JamesWild,PennWestExploration
BradYoungs,PennWestExploration
CameronSchultz,PennWestExploration
DalbirDeo,PennWestExploration
PENNWESTEXPLORATION |R.WASYLISHEN&S.FULTON

PREFACE
The findings of this paper are intended to specifically appeal to individuals with a completions background seeking to
expandtheirunderstandingofflowbackandproducedwaterreuseasitpertainstohydraulicfracturingintightoilaswellas
individualswithawatertreatmentbackgroundseekingtofurtherexpandtheirunderstandingofthehydraulicfracturing
requirementswithintightoil.Additionalaudiencesthatmaybenefitfromtheresearchfindingsincludehydraulicfracturing
servicecompanies,chemicalmanufactures,watertreatmentservicecompanies,regulatorsandotherstakeholderswitha
generalinterestinwatermanagementasitpertainstohydraulicfracturingwithintightoil.

TABLEOFCONTENTS

ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................................................................2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......................................................................................................................................................................2
PREFACE .....................................................................................................................................................................................3
1.0
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................................6
2.0
TIGHTOILINDUSTRYOVERVIEW..........................................................................................................................................6
3.0
HYDRAULICFRACTURINGPROCESS.......................................................................................................................................7
4.0
HYDRAULICFRACTURINGFLUIDSELECTION............................................................................................................................8
5.0
METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................................................................................9
5.1
WATERREQUIREMENTS............................................................................................................................................9
5.2
FLOWBACK...........................................................................................................................................................10
5.3
FLUIDCOMPOSITION..............................................................................................................................................11
5.4
TARGETCONSTITUENTSREQUIRINGTREATMENT.........................................................................................................11
5.5
ANALYTICALRESULTS.............................................................................................................................................16
6.0
TECHNOLOGYEVALUATION...............................................................................................................................................20
7.0
PHASEI:LESSONSLEARNED..............................................................................................................................................23
8.0
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................................................24
9.0
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................................................25
10.0
APPENDIX.....................................................................................................................................................................27
10.1
INDUSTRYTERMINOLOGY........................................................................................................................................27
10.2
FLUIDCHARACTERIZATIONFORCOLORADOGROUP(VIKING).........................................................................................30

LISTOFTABLES
TABLE1:WESTERNCANADASEDIMENTARYBASINTIGHTOILFORMATIONS................................................................................................6
TABLE2:EXAMPLESOFFRACTURINGFLUIDS&CONDITIONSFORTHEIRUSE................................................................................................8
TABLE3:PENNWESTEXPLORATIONTIGHTOILDEVELOPMENTSUMMARY&HYDRAULICFRACTURINGWATERREQUIREMENTS...........................9
TABLE4:PENNWESTEXPLORATIONSHALEGASDEVELOPMENTSUMMARY&HYDRAULICFRACTURINGWATERREQUIREMENTS.......................10
TABLE5:PENNWESTEXPLORATION2011TIGHTOILDEVELOPMENTWATERBASEDHYDRAULICFRACTURINGOVERVIEW...............................10
TABLE6:WATERQUALITYGUIDELINESTOMITIGATEHYDRAULICFRACTURINGFLUIDCOMPATIBILITYISSUESFORCROSSLINKEDFLUIDS................12
TABLE7:WATERQUALITYPARAMETERSCONTRIBUTINGTOFOULING,SCALING&CORROSIONCONCERNS.....................................................15
TABLE8:ANALYTICALMETHODSUTILIZEDTOEVALUATEFRACWATER,FLOWBACK&PRODUCEDWATERSAMPLES.........................................16
TABLE9:PENNWESTEXPLORATIONTIGHTOILDEVELOPMENTFRACWATERSAMPLESUMMARY.................................................................17
TABLE10:PENNWESTEXPLORATIONTIGHTOILDEVELOPMENTFLOWBACKWATERSAMPLESUMMARY.......................................................18
TABLE11:PENNWESTEXPLORATIONTIGHTOILDEVELOPMENTPRODUCEDWATERSAMPLESUMMARY.......................................................19
TABLE12:FLOWBACK&PRODUCEDWATERTREATMENTTECHNOLOGYEVALUATION.................................................................................22
TABLE13:PENNWESTEXPLORATIONTIGHTOILDEVELOPMENTFRACWATERSAMPLESUMMARYFORCOLORADOGROUP(VIKING)..................30
TABLE14:PENNWESTEXPLORATIONTIGHTOILDEVELOPMENTFLOWBACKWATERSAMPLESUMMARYFORCOLORADOGROUP(VIKING)..........31
TABLE15:PENNWESTEXPLORATIONTIGHTOILDEVELOPMENTPRODUCEDWATERSAMPLESUMMARYFORCOLORADOGROUP(VIKING)..........32
LISTOFFIGURES
FIGURE1:MAPOFWESTERNCANADASEDIMENTARYBASINTIGHTOILFORMATIONS...................................................................................7
FIGURE2:MULTISTAGEHYDRAULICFRACTURINGINAHORIZONTALWELL.................................................................................................8
FIGURE3:TIGHTOILDEVELOPMENTWATERBASEDCROSSLINKEDHYDRAULICFLUIDCOMPOSITION.............................................................11
FIGURE4:FLOWBACK&PRODUCEDWATERTREATMENTDECISIONTREE.................................................................................................21
FIGURE5:FLOWBACKWATERQUALITYVARIABILITY.............................................................................................................................22

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Technological advances in horizontal drilling and multistage hydraulic fracturing are the primary mechanisms facilitating
tightoilproductionwithinlowpermeabilityreservoirsthroughouttheWesternCanadaSedimentaryBasin(WCSB)(National
Energy Board, 2011). The combination of technological innovation, an improved royalty scheme within Alberta and
regulatorychangespermittingtighterdownspacingofwellshasacceleratedindustrysinterestinthedevelopmentoftight
oilreserves(Stonehouse,2011).However,theexpeditedrateoftightoildevelopmentiscreatingnewchallenges,including
identifying sustainable supplies of source water for hydraulic fracturing and management of waterbased hydraulic
fracturing flowback fluids. Recycling flowback can offset hydraulic fracturing fresh water source requirements while
avoidingthecostassociatedwithflowbackdisposal.Ingeographicareaswherehydraulicfracturingcoincideswithexisting
oil production, the opportunity to incorporate produced water recycling may further reduce industrys reliance on fresh
sourcewatersforhydraulicfracturing.
Themagnitudeoftreatmentrequiredtofacilitatewaterreuseisdefinedbythedifferencebetweenthequalityoftheinitial
flowback and/or produced waters in comparison to the desired hydraulic fracturing source water specifications. By
characterizing the quality of these fluids in detail and evaluating the technologies available to achieve the treatment
objective,thisassessmentidentifiesvarioustreatmentapproachesforreuseoftightoilhydraulicfracturingflowbackand
producedwaterswithintheWCSB.
2.0 TIGHTOILINDUSTRYOVERVIEW
Theadvancementsinbothhorizontaldrillingandmultistagefracturingtechnologiescombinedwithhigheroilpriceshave
given new life to previously lowproducing or unproductive (tight) oil reservoirs in the WCSB (National Energy Board,
2011). At present, the key resource plays targeted for tight oil development within Canada spanning across the WCSB
includetheBakken/Exshaw,Cardium,Viking,LowerShaunavon,Montney/Doig,Duvernay/Muskwa,BeaverHillLakeGroup
andLowerAmaranth.Therespectiveformationlocations,typicaldepths,reportedreservesandtypicalproductionrates
perwellareoutlinedbelowinTable1.
TABLE1:WESTERNCANADASEDIMENTARYBASINTIGHTOILFORMATIONS
MB,SK,AB&BC
TYPICALDEPTHS
(M)
9002,500
REPORTEDRESERVES
(MILLIONBARRELS)
225
TYPICALINITIALPRODUCTIONRATESPERWELL
(BARRELSPERDAY)
120250
AB
1,2002,300
130
150500
AB&SK
600900
58
100200
TIGHT
SK
1,3001,600
93
100250
TIGHT
AB
8002,200
NR
200600
FORMATIONS
TYPE
LOCATION
BAKKEN/EXSHAW
TIGHT
CARDIUM
TIGHT
VIKING
TIGHT
LOWERSHAUNAVON
MONTNEY/DOIG
1
DUVERNAY/MUSKWA
SHALE
AB
2,000+
NR
UNKNOWN
BEAVERHILLLAKEGROUP
TIGHT
AB
2,0002,900
NR
2502,000
LOWERAMARANTH
TIGHT
MB
8001,000
NR
100200
DUVERNAY/MUSKWAFORMATIONEXPANDSINTOBC,ALTHOUGHTHESHALEOILPORTIONOFTHEFORMATIONRESIDESPREDOMINANTLYWITHINAB
BC:BRITISHCOLUMBIA
AB:ALBERTA
SK:SASKATCHEWAN
MB:MANITOBA
NR:NOTREPORTED
SOURCE:
NATIONALENERGYBOARD.(2011,DECEMBER).TIGHTOILDEVELOPMENTSINTHEWESTERNCANADASEDIMENTARYBASIN.RETRIEVEDJANUARY13,2012,FROMNATIONALENERGYBOARD:HTTP://WWW.NEB
ONE.GC.CA/CLFNSI/RNRGYNFMTN/NRGYRPRT/L/TGHTDVLPMNTWCSB2011/TGHTDVLPMNTWCSB2011ENG.HTML.REPRODUCEDWITHTHEPERMISSIONOFPUBLICWORKSANDGOVERNMENTSERVICES,2012.

Asthedevelopmentoftightoilresourcesprogresses,itisanticipatedthatadditionalformationwillbetargeted.Further
prospective tight oil formations as outlined by the National Energy Board include Second White Specks, Nordegg, and
Pekisko.Figure1outlinesthegeographiclandscapeofcurrenttightoildevelopmentactivities.
FIGURE1:MAPOFWESTERNCANADASEDIMENTARYBASINTIGHTOILFORMATIONS
SOURCE:
NATIONALENERGYBOARD.(2011,DECEMBER).TIGHTOILDEVELOPMENTSINTHEWESTERNCANADASEDIMENTARYBASIN.RETRIEVEDJANUARY13,2012,FROMNATIONALENERGYBOARD:HTTP://WWW.NEB
ONE.GC.CA/CLFNSI/RNRGYNFMTN/NRGYRPRT/L/TGHTDVLPMNTWCSB2011/TGHTDVLPMNTWCSB2011ENG.HTML.REPRODUCEDWITHTHEPERMISSIONOFPUBLICWORKSANDGOVERNMENTSERVICES&THE
UNIVERSITYOFREGINA,2012.
Although exploration of tight oil reservoirs in Canada remains in its infancy, preliminary data suggests more than 506
million barrels of reported reserves remain within the WCSB Bakken/Exshaw, Cardium, Viking and Lower Shaunavon
formations (National Energy Board, 2011). As tight oil developments evolve and additional information is compiled, the
projectedtightoilreservesinplacemayverywelladdbillionsofbarrelstoCanadasoilreserves(U.S.EnergyInformation
Administration,2011).
3.0 HYDRAULICFRACTURINGPROCESS
Thepurposeofhydraulicfracturingistoincreasetheexposedflowareaoftheproductiveformationandtoconnectthis
areatothewellbycreatingahighlyconductivepathextendingacarefullyplanneddistanceoutwardfromthewellbore
into the targeted hydrocarbonbearing formation (American Petroleum Institute, 2010, p. 6). This may be achieved by
pumping a base fluid consisting of water, foam or oil containing small concentrations of chemical additives as well as
proppantmaterial.
As the pressurized fluid is pumped into the well, narrow cracks (fractures) expand outward that serve as flowing
channelsforhydrocarbonstrappedintheformationtomovetothewellbore(AmericanPetroleumInstitute,2010,p.6).
The newly formed fractures are supported by the proppant material which ensures enhanced permeability as the well
transitions to production mode (American Petroleum Institute, 2010, p. 5). Once the hydraulic fracture stimulation is
complete,aportionoftheoriginalfracfluidcombinedwithcomingledconstituentsfromtheformationwaterflowsbackto
the surface where it is either treated for reuse or trucked off site for disposal. The process of multistage hydraulic
fracturingasitappliestohorizontalwellsisoutlinedinFigure2.

FIGURE2:MULTISTAGEHYDRAULICFRACTURINGINAHORIZONTALWELL
0m
Base of Groundwater
Surface Casing
500 m
Cement Casing
Stage 4
Stage 3
Stage 2
Stage 1
Production Casing
1,000 m
1,500 m
Horizontal Well
2,000 m
Fracturing
2,500 m
3,000 m
SOURCES:
ADAPTEDFROMNATIONALENERGYTECHNOLOGYLABORATORY.(2000,AUGUST24).HYDRAULICFRACTURING.RETRIEVEDMAY17,2012FROMNETL:
HTTP://WWW.NETL.DOE.GOV/TECHNOLOGIES/OILGAS/PUBLICATIONS/EORDRAWINGS/BW/BWHF.PDF
CANADIANSOCIETYFORUNCONVENTIONALRESOURCES.(2012,MAY9).UNDERSTANDINGHYDRAULICFRACTURING.RETRIEVEDMAY17,2012FROMCSUR:
HTTP://WWW.CSUR.COM/IMAGES/CSUG_PUBLICATIONS/HYDR_FRAC_FINAL_CSUR.PDF
4.0 HYDRAULICFRACTURINGFLUIDSELECTION
Selection of the base fluid for hydraulic fracturing is dependent upon numerous variables including, but not limited to:
reservoirtemperature,reservoirpressure,theexpectedvalueoffracturehalflength,andadeterminationifthereservoiris
watersensitive(U.S.DepartmentofEnergy,2004,p.16).Examplesoffracturingfluidsandconditionsfortheirusehave
beensummarizedbelowinTable2.
TABLE2:EXAMPLESOFFRACTURINGFLUIDS&CONDITIONSFORTHEIRUSE
BASEFLUID
WATER
BASED
FOAM
BASED
OIL
BASED
FLUIDTYPE
LINEARFLUIDS
CROSSLINKEDFLUIDS
ENERGIZEDCROSSLINKEDFLUIDS
POLYMERFREEFLUIDS
SLICKWATERFLUIDS
WATERBASEDFOAM
ACIDBASEDFOAM
ALCOHOLBASEDFOAM
LINEARFLUIDS
CROSSLINKEDFLUIDS
WATEREXTERNALEMULSIONS
MAINCOMPOSITION
GELLEDWATER,GUAR,HPG,HEC,CMHPG
CROSSLINKER+GUAR,HPG,CMHPG,CMHEC
FLUIDSWITHUPTO40%N2ORCO2
WATER+VESSURFACTANT
WATER+POLYACRYLAMIDE
WATERANDFOAMER+N2ORCO2
ACIDANDFOAMER+N2
METHANOLANDFOAMER+N2
OIL,GELLEDOIL
PHOSPHATEESTERGELS
WATER+OIL+EMULSIFIER
USEDFOR
SHORTFRACTURES,LOWTEMPERATURES
LONGFRACTURES,HIGHTEMPERATURES
IMPROVEDFLOWBACK
REDUCEDFRACTUREFACEDAMAGE
MULTIPLEFRACTURES
LOWPRESSUREFORMATIONS
LOWPRESSURES,WATERSENSITIVEFORMATIONS
LOWPRESSUREFORMATIONSWITHWATERBLOCKINGPROPERTIES
SHORTFRACTURES,WATERSENSITIVEFORMATIONS
LONGFRACTURES,WATERSENSITIVEFORMATIONS
GOODFORFLUIDLOSSCONTROL
HPG:HYDROXYPROPYLGUAR
HEC:HYDROXYETHYLCELLULOSE
CMHPG:CARBOXYMETHLYHYDROXYPROPYLGUAR
CMHEC:CARBOCYMETHYLHYDROXYETHYLCELLULOSE
SOURCE:
ADAPTEDFROMUNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYAPPENDIXAHYDRAULICFRACTURINGWHITEPAPEREPA816R04003,P.A6

Theoptimumhydraulicfracturingfluidforeachwellisnormallydeterminedafterreviewingthetreatmentobjectivesand
evaluating the adequacy of the fluid systems performance in fluidloss control, fracture conductivity, and proppant
transport,aswellasintheamountofformationpermeabilitydamage(Dusterhoft,McGowen,&Ghalambor,2009,p.33).
Ideally, the selected fluid system should promote placement of the fracpack treatment, minimize associated risks, and
maximizeposttreatmentproductioneconomics(Dusterhoft,McGowen,&Ghalambor,2009,p.33).
Althoughbothfoamandoilbasedhydraulicfracturingfluidsmaybeutilizedwithintightoildevelopments,forthepurpose
ofthispaper,theauthorswillbefocusingexclusivelyontheusageofwaterasthebasefluidforhydraulicfracturingasit
applieswithintightoildevelopmentsthroughouttheWCSB.
5.0 METHODOLOGY
Inordertoevaluatethereuseofflowbackandproducedwaterforhydraulicfracturingintightoilasitappliestoindustry,
theauthorsofthispaperfocusedonPennWestExplorationsfourprimarytightoilresourceplays:Cardium,Carbonates
(SlavePoint),ColoradoGroup(Viking),andWaskada/Spearfish(LowerAmaranth).Themethodologyappliedencompasses:
Quantificationoftightoilwaterbasedhydraulicfracturingwaterrequirements
Quantificationofanticipatedflowbackvolumesperresourceplay
Characterizationofwaterbasedcrosslinkedhydraulicfluids
Evaluationoftargetconstituentsrequiringtreatment
Characterizationoffrac(source),flowbackandproducedwaters
5.1 WATERREQUIREMENTS
Understanding that the volume of water required for hydraulic fracturing throughout the WCSB will vary extensively
depending on the formation depth, formation permeability, insitu stresses in the pay zone, insitu stresses in the
surroundinglayers,formationmodulus,reservoirpressure,formationporosity,formationcompressibility,andthethickness
ofthereservoir(U.S.DepartmentofEnergy,2004,p.3),theaveragetightoildevelopmentwaterrequirementsutilizedby
PennWestExplorationareprovidedinTable3.
TABLE3:PENNWESTEXPLORATIONTIGHTOILDEVELOPMENTSUMMARY&HYDRAULICFRACTURINGWATERREQUIREMENTS
RESOURCEPLAY
CARDIUM
CARBONATES
(SLAVEPOINT)
FORMATION
TIGHT
SANDSTONE
TIGHT
CARBONATES
COLORADOGROUP
TIGHT
(VIKING)
WASKADA/SPEARFISH
(LOWERAMARANTH)
SANDSTONE
TIGHT
SANDSTONE
AVERAGE
API
O
()
90DAYEXIT
RATE
BOE/D/WELL
10
40
165
2,400
40
40
190
10
500
85
34
55
700
95
31
95
FRACREQUIREMENTS
TONSPER
WATER
3
STAGES
STAGE
(M /WELL)
VERTICAL
DEPTH
(M)
PAY
THICKNESS
(M)
HZLATERAL
LENGTH
(M)
1,800
20
1,400
20
20
1,000
2,300
NR
1,400
20
30
700
15
800
14
900
2530
800
20
#OF
2011
HZWELLS
DRILLED
ATOTALOF100HORIZONTALWELLSWEREDRILLEDWITHINTHECARDIUMIN2011,HOWEVERONLY10OFTHESEWELLSWERECOMPLETEDWITHWATERBASEDFLUIDS.
HZ:HORIZONTALWELLS
BOE/D/WELL:BARRELOFOILEQUIVALENTSPERDAYPERWELL
NR:NOTREPORTED
TONSPERSTAGE:PROPPANTONLY

For comparative purposes, Penn West Explorations average shale gas hydraulic fracturing water requirements for the
CordovaresourceareoutlinedinTable4.
TABLE4:PENNWESTEXPLORATIONSHALEGASDEVELOPMENTSUMMARY&HYDRAULICFRACTURINGWATERREQUIREMENTS
RESOURCEPLAY
FORMATION
VERTICAL
DEPTH
(M)
PAY
THICKNESS
(M)
HZLATERAL
LENGTH
(M)
1,800
150
2,000
TIGHT
CORDOVA
SHALE
HZ:HORIZONTALWELLS
BOE/D/WELL:BARRELOFOILEQUIVALENTSPERDAYPERWELL
NR:NOTREPORTED
TONSPERSTAGE:PROPPANTONLY
1
DryGas
FRACREQUIREMENTS
TONSPER
WATER
3
STAGES
STAGE
(M /WELL)
20
250
DRILLED
AVERAGE
API
O
()
90DAYEXIT
RATE
BOE/D/WELL
24
N/A
500
2011
HZWELLS
#OF
70,000
Althoughthehydraulicfracturingwaterrequirementspertightoilwellaresignificantlylessthanthoseforshalegas,the
increasedtightoildevelopmentactivityrepresentsapotentiallysignificantopportunityforinnovationinalternativesources
ofwater.Consequently,considerationofdevelopingflowbackandproducedwatertreatmentstrategiestofacilitatereuse
inhydraulicfracturingrepresentsaconsiderableopportunitytofurtherreducePennWestExplorationsrelianceonfresh
waterresources.
5.2 FLOWBACK
The volume of water and sand (flowback) that returns through the borehole to surface from hydraulic fracturing
stimulationsvariespredominantlyduetothetypeoffracturingfluidused,theformationsgeologyandthelengthofwell
shutintimebetweenwhenthewellisstimulatedandwhenfluidsareflowedback(Environmental&RegulatorySubgroup
of the Operations & Environment Task Group, 2011, p. 11). Across Penn West Exploration operations, these flowback
volumes range between 5 and 50% of the original fluid volume. Based upon the combination of average water
requirementsandaverageflowbackvolumesperresourceplay,thecumulativewaterrequirementsandflowbackvolumes
anticipatedfromeachtightoilresourceplayaresummarizedinTable5.
TABLE5:PENNWESTEXPLORATION2011TIGHTOILDEVELOPMENTWATERBASEDHYDRAULICFRACTURINGOVERVIEW
RESOURCEPLAY
2011HZ
WELLS
AVERAGEWATER
REQUIREMENTS
(M /WELL)
CUMULATIVEWATER
REQUIREMENTSPERRESOURCE
PLAY
3
(M )
CARDIUM
10
1,000
CARBONATES
(SLAVEPOINT)
40
(VIKING)
WASKADA/SPEARFISH
(LOWERAMARANTH)
TOTAL
CUMULATIVEFLOWBACK
VOLUMESPERRESOURCEPLAY
WATERBASED
FRACFLUIDTYPE
(M /WELL)
(M )
10,000
500
5,000
2,400
96,000
960
38,400
85
500
42,500
100
8,500
95
700
66,500
35
3,325
230
215,000
55,225
COLORADOGROUP
AVERAGEFLOWBACK
2
VOLUMES
ENERGIZED
CROSSLINKED
CROSSLINKED
ENERGIZED
CROSSLINKED
CROSSLINKED
1
2
ATOTALOF100HORIZONTALWELLSWEREDRILLEDWITHINTHECARDIUMIN2011,HOWEVERONLY10OFTHESEWELLSWERECOMPLETEDWITHWATERBASEDFLUIDS.
BASEDONAVERAGEFLOWBACKVOLUMEPERRESOURCEPLAY
Fromthisdata,theCarbonates(SlavePoint)suggeststhegreatestpotentialopportunityforflowbackreuseasthisresource
play presently represents the largest cumulative water requirements and the greatest volume of cumulative flowback.
Assuming 2011 drilling activities are representative of future operations, implementation of a flowback water reuse
strategy within the Carbonates (Slave Point) suggests a potential opportunity to reduce Penn West Explorations overall
freshwaterdependencyforhydraulicfracturingbyupto18%1,assumingreuseofallflowback.
1
100
10

5.3 FLUIDCOMPOSITION
From evaluation of various frac programs for each Penn West Exploration tight oil play, the most commonly applied
stimulationchemistryconsistsofawaterbasedcrosslinkedfluid.Onaverage,thewaterbasedcrosslinkedhydraulicfluid
compositionwasdeterminedtoconsistofapproximately90.63%water,8.22%proppant(sand)withtheremaining1.15%
fluid volume consisting of additional frac fluid chemistries. The additional fracturing fluid chemistries may include any
combinationofthefollowing:gellingagents,crosslinkers(boron,zirconium,ironortitanium),surfactants,scaleinhibitors,
pH buffers, breakers, iron control agents, corrosion inhibitors and/or biocides (Canadian Society for Unconventional
Resources, 2012, p. 23). A summary of the Tight Oil Development WaterBased Crosslinked Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid
CompositionisprovidedinFigure3.
FIGURE3:TIGHTOILDEVELOPMENTWATERBASEDCROSSLINKEDHYDRAULICFLUIDCOMPOSITION
SURFACTANTS
0.25%
SAND
8.22%
OTHER
1.15%
CROSSLINKER
0.31%
BREAKERS
0.10%
WATER
90.63%
GELLINGAGENT
0.49%
Althoughtheoverallpercentagesofwaterbasedcrosslinkedhydraulicfluidchemistriesarequitelow,theimpactofthese
residualchemistrieswithinflowbackwatersmustbeconsidered.Recycledflowbackcontainingresidualcrosslinkerand/or
breakerchemistriesmayresultingeldegradationpotentiallycompromisingthedesiredhydraulicfracturingfluidintegrity
required for subsequent stimulations. In addition to fluid compatibility concerns, residual gelling agents present within
flowbackwatersmayimpedethetechnologicalefficienciesofthewatertreatmentequipment.
5.4 TARGETCONSTITUENTSREQUIRINGTREATMENT
Thedecisionregardingwhichwaterconstituentsshouldbetargetedforflowback/producedwaterreuseisdrivenbytwo
factors.Firstly,anytreatedwatersourcemustremaincompatiblewiththedesiredfluidsystemfortherespectivetightoil
developmentarea.Secondly,removalofconstituentswithintheflowbackandproducedwatersourcesmayberequiredto
mitigatethefouling,scalingandcorrosionpotentialcertainspeciesmayhavebothwithinthereservoiraswellasonthe
selectedwatertreatmentequipment.
Presently, where hydraulic fracturing operations rely solely on fresh water sources, limited pretreatment is required to
ensure hydraulic fracturing fluid compatibility. In most cases, pretreatment is limited to the application of biocide and
filtration to eliminate bacteria and remove suspended solids that may be present within the fresh water. During the
stimulation process, the hydraulic fracturing fluids comingle with the formation water to create a flowback water
containing potentially elevated concentrations of contaminants. The potential flowback water contaminants include
residual hydraulic fracturing fluid chemistries, iron, total hardness, alkalinity, silica, bacteria and solids. The increase in
concentrationofthesespeciesisknowntohavedetrimentalimpactsonthefluidcompatibilityofwaterbasedcrosslinked
hydraulicfracturingfluidsystems.Inmostcases,thedesiredviscosityandthermalstabilityofthewaterbasedcrosslinked
11

fluidiscompromisedeitherthroughchemical,mechanicalorbiologicaldegradationresultinginhinderedproppantcarrying
capacityofthehydraulicfracturingstimulationfluid(Aqualon,2007,pp.1524).Aninabilitytoachievethedesiredfluid
viscosityandtherequiredproppantcarryingcapacityofthewaterbasedcrosslinkedfluidwillhindertheeffectivenessof
thestimulation.Withouttheappropriatedistributionofproppantintotheopenedfractures,thenewlyformedfractures
may close once the fracturing pressures are released (LaFollette, 2010, p. 13). Consequently, to mitigate waterbased
crosslinkedfluidcompatibilityconcerns,Table6outlineswaterqualityguidelinesforpreventingundesiredhydrationrate
reactions,overcrosslinking,delayedcrosslinking,thermaldestabilization,viscosityinhibition,gellingagentprecipitationas
wellaschemicalandbiologicaldegradation.
TABLE6:WATERQUALITYGUIDELINESTOMITIGATEHYDRAULICFRACTURINGFLUIDCOMPATIBILITYISSUESFORCROSSLINKEDFLUIDS
WATERQUALITY
PARAMETER
UNITS
TARGET
RATIONALE
pH
N/A
68
pH>8mayimpedetherateandqualityofhydrationofthewaterbasedcrosslinkedfluid.
pH<6mayacceleratetherateofhydrationofthewaterbasedcrosslinkedfluid,creatinggelballs,
lumpingorfisheyes.
mg/L
<25
>25ppmironmayalterthevalencestateofcertaincrosslinkersoractasacatalystforoxidizing
polysaccharide gelling agents resulting in chemical degradation of the waterbased crosslinked
fluid.
Excessiveironconcentrationsmayalsoresultinovercrosslinkingofthefluid,prematurebreaking
ofoxidativebreakers,and/orlossofthermalstabilityofthewaterbasedcrosslinkedfluid.
TotalHardness
mg/L
(asCaCO3)
<15,000
Total hardness concentrations >15,000 ppm may prevent desired waterbased crosslinked fluid
viscosity,crosslinkingeffectiveness,aswellasthermalandshearstability.
OxidizingAgents
N/A
Mayresultinchemicaldegradationofthewaterbasedcrosslinkedfluid.
Oxidizingagentsmayincluderesidualbreakerchemistries(sodiumhypochlorite)presentwithinthe
flowbackwaters.
ReducingAgents
N/A
Mayresultinchemicaldegradationofthewaterbasedcrosslinkedfluid.
Reducing agents may include residual crosslinker chemistries (boron, iron, titanium, zirconium,
etc.)presentinflowbackwaters.
Carbonate
mg/L
(asCaCO3)
<600
CO3 >600ppmmaydelaycrosslinkingofsomefluids.
Bicarbonate
mg/L
(asCaCO3)
<600
HCO3 >600ppmmaydelaycrosslinkingofsomefluids.
Silica
mg/L
<35
Mayinhibitthecrosslinkingeffectivenessofwaterbasedcrosslinkedfluids.
Iron
Bacteria
CFU/mL
Mayresultinbiologicaldegradationofwaterbasedcrosslinkedfluids.
o
Fluids are generally heated to temperatures of 3035 C to enhance gel hydration, however this
temperaturerangeisalsoidealforpromotingbacteriagrowth.Bacteriaarecapableofingesting
polysaccharide gelling agents as a food source and can double in population in as little as 20
minutes.
TotalDissolved
Solids
mg/L
50,000
Excessive total dissolved solids concentrations may prevent the gellingagent from fully uncoiling
andhydratingwhichinturnmayresultintheformationoffisheyes,insolubilitiesofthegelling
agentsand/orpotentialprecipitationwithinthewaterbasedcrosslinkedfluid.
TotalSuspended
Solids
mg/L
50
Solidsareoftenasourceofbacteriawhichmayresultinbiologicaldegradationofthewaterbased
crosslinkedfluid.
SOURCES:
UNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY.(2004,JUNE).APPENDIXAHYDRAULICFRACTURINGWHITEPAPEREPA816R04003.RETRIEVEDJANUARY23,2012,FROMUNITEDSTATES
ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY:WWW.EPA.GOV/.../UIC/.../CBMSTUDY_ATTACH_UIC_APPEND_A_DOE_WHITEPAPER.PDF
VANGIJTENBEEK,K.,PAVLYKUCHENKO,V.,RUDNITSKY,A.,&PONGRATZ,R.(2006).STRINGENTQUALITYCONTROLANDQUALITYASSURANCEPROCESS:KEYTOSUCCESSFULFRACTURINGTREATMENTSINWESTERN
SIBERIA.SPE100772.SOCIETYOFPETROLEUMENGINEERS.
PIKE,M.(2003,DECEMBER15).FRACTURINGFLUIDPROPERTIES.RETRIEVEDFEBRUARY7,2012,FROMTRICANWELLSERVICELTD.:
HTTP://WWW.TRICAN.CA/PDF/SERVICES_TECHNOLOGY/TECH_PAPERS/FRACFLUID_PROPERTIES.PDF
AQUALON.(2007).GUARANDGUARDERIVATIVESOILANDGASFIELDAPPLICATIONS.RETRIEVEDAPRIL18,2012,FROMASHLAND:HTTP://WWW.ASHLAND.COM/ASHLAND/STATIC/DOCUMENTS/AAFI/PRO_250
61_GUAR.PDF
MISWACO.(2012,MAY17).FRACTUREWATERRECYCLINGFEASIBILITYSTUDYANDDECISIONTOOL.
12

Furthermore,tomitigatepotentialwaterbasedcrosslinkedfluidcompatibilityconcerns,otherconstituentspresentinthe
frac (source), flowback and produced waters may contribute to the fouling, scaling and corrosion potential these waters
mayhavebothwithinthereservoirandtheselectedwatertreatmentequipment.Theseconstituentsare:
TotalDissolovedSolids(TDS)
TotalSuspendedSolids(TSS)
Emulsions
DissolvedGases
TOTALDISSOLVEDSOLIDS
Formation waters contain dissolved solids concentrations ranging from brackish (5,000 mg/L to 35,000 mg/L) to
supersaturatedbrines(50,000mg/Lto>200,000mg/L)(Collins,1977,p.4;AmericanPetroleumInstitute,2010,p.27).So
longasthereservoirpressure,temperatureandfluidcompositionremainconstant,thedissolvedsolidsconcentrationsof
theformationwaterswillremaininsolution(Collins,1977,p.4&7).However,duringthehydraulicfracturingstimulation
process, the comingling of fresh water, and/or recycled waters including flowback and/or produced waters with the
formation waters under increased pressures represents the potential for a shift in subsurface water compatibility.
Consequently,thecominglingofwaterscontaininglowerdissolvedsolidsconcentrationswiththoseofelevateddissolved
solidsconcentrationsmayresultintheprecipitationofvarioussolids(Collins,1977,p.4).Commonionsfrequentlypresent
withinformation,frac(source),flowbackandproducedwatersthatarelikelytocontributetoprecipitationinincompatible
waters include calcium (Ca2+), strontium (Sr2+), barium (Ba2+), iron (Fe2+), bicarbonate (HCO3) and sulphate (SO42). The
reactionoftheseionsmayresultinthefollowingprecipitants(Collins,1977,p.9):
Na2SO4
2NaCl
CaSO4
CaCl2
CaCl2
Ca(HCO3)2
MgSO4
CO2
MgCl2
CaSO4
H2O
CaCO3
CaCl2
2NaHCO3
2NaCl
CO2
SrCl2
Na2SO4
2NaCl
SrSO4
SrCl2
MgSO4
MgCl2
SrSO4
BaCl2
Na2SO4
2NaCl
BaSO4
BaCl2
MgSO4
MgCl2
BaSO4
Fe
H2S
H2
FeS
2Fe2O3
6H2S
6H2O
2Fe2S3
H2O
CaCO3
The precipitation of the species outlined above have the potential to hinder both the well production as well as
downstream water treatment equipment. Depending on the concentration of the scaling constituents, the treatment
approachmaybemanagedeitherbytheapplicationofscaleinhibitorchemistriesorbydepressingtheconcentrationofthe
scalingspeciesofgreatestconcernbyintegratingionselectivewatertreatmenttechnologies.
Anotherchallengeassociatedwithelevatedconcentrationsofdissolvedsolidsiswatertreatmenttechnologicallimitations.
Astheconcentrationofdissolvedsolidsincreases,thenumberoftreatmenttechnologiescapableofeffectivelyprocessing
thecomingledwaterstothedesiredwaterqualityparametersasoutlinedinTable6becomesmorelimited.
13

TOTALSUSPENDEDSOLIDS
In addition to dissolved solids concentration concerns, the second parameter of interest likely to impact the fouling
potentialwithinboththereservoirandtheselectedwatertreatmentequipmentisthetotalsuspendedsolidsconcentration
andcomposition.Suspendedsolidsincludeprecipitatedsolidsasoutlinedabove,sand,clay,plantmatter,animaldebris,
andbacteria.Ideally,anywaterinjectedsubsurfaceshouldbefreeofallparticlesinsuspensiontomitigatethepotential
forformationdamage(Collins,1977,p.6).Inthecaseofhydraulicfracturing,anexcessconcentrationoftotalsuspended
solidsmayresultindamagetotheproppantpack,inhibitingreservoirpermeability.Inmostcases,totalsuspendedsolid
concentrationsmaybemitigatedbymixingthewaterswithanalternatesourcecontainingalowertotalsuspendedsolids
concentration, allowing the suspended solids to settle by using ponds or tanks, or removing the suspended solids by
applyingfiltrationtechnologies.Shouldthecompositionofthesuspendedsolidsbemicrobiologicalinnature,acombined
treatment approach encompassing biocide application and filtration may be required to mitigate the fouling,
microbiologicalinfluencedcorrosionandsouringpotentialthemicrobesmayhavewithinthereservoir.
EMULSIONS
Specifictothehydraulicfracturingoftightoilwells,thethirdparameterofinterestlikelytoimpactthefoulingpotential
withinboththereservoirandtheselectedwatertreatmentequipmentistheconcentrationandcompositionofemulsions.
Asthehydraulicfracturingfluid(fresh,recycledflowbackand/orproducedwater)comingleswiththeformationwater,the
fluidislikelycomeintocontactwithoilwithinthereservoir.DependingontheAPIgravityoftheoil,theconcentrationand
composition of suspended solids present, the basefluid of the hydraulic fracturing fluid being used, and the turbulence
encountered,theoilmayformanormalorreverseemulsionwiththefracfluid.Emulsionscandamagetheproppantpack,
inhibit formation permeability and cause formation damage. At the surface, these emulsions require treatment prior to
processingthefluidthroughdownstreamwatertreatmentequipment.Dependingontheoildropletsize,oilandgrease
concentration,concentrationofsuspendedsolids,andnatureoftheemulsion,theoilmayseparatewithgravityseparation
withineitheraretentionpondortank.Forstableemulsionscontainingsmalleroildroplets,lowerconcentrationsofoiland
higherconcentrationsofsuspendedsolids,combinationsofmechanical,chemicalandthermaltreatmentmayberequired
to liberate the oil from the fluid. Ideally, it is in the companys best interest to recover this oil and transport to a local
batteryforfurtherprocessingasopposedtodisposingtheisolatedoilasawastestreamandtherebyfailingtorecoverits
economicvalue.
DISSOLVEDGASES
Thefourthparameterofinterestlikelytoimpactboththecorrosionandfoulingpotentialwithinthereservoirandselected
water treatment equipment is the concentration of dissolved gases. Formation, frac (source), flowback and produced
watersarealllikelytocontaindissolvedgasesincludingoxygen(O2),hydrogensulfide(H2S)andcarbondioxide(CO2).The
corrosion potential of these waters increases under conditions where either or both the dissolved solids and dissolved
gases concentrations increase. In subsurface situations, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide are anticipated to be of
greaterconcern.Thedegreeofsolubilityforbothcarbondioxideandhydrogensulfideisdependentupontemperature,
pressure and dissolved solids concentration (Collins, 1977, p. 8). When dissolved in water, both carbon dioxide and
hydrogensulfidearepresentascarbonicandsulfuricacids,respectively.Astheconcentrationofdissolvedgasesincreases,
thegreaterthepotentialforashiftinformationwaterpH.Inwaterswithagreaterconcentrationofbicarbonatealkalinity,
ashiftinpHmaybeenoughtoconvertthebicarbonatealkalinitytocarbondioxide,furtherincreasingthecorrosivityofthe
formation water (Collins, 1977, pp. 78). Alternatively, if the pH of the water is adjusted to above 7 to compensate for
elevatedconcentrationsofbothcarbondioxideandbicarbonatealkalinity,theendresultmayequatetoincreasedriskof
scaling, precipitated carbonates, and clay swelling within the reservoir (Collins, 1977, pp. 78). In both situations, the
corrosionpotentialforsubsurfaceequipmentanddownstreamwatertreatmentequipmentincreasesasthedissolvedgas
concentrations increase. Consequently, the corrosion byproducts produced can damage the proppant pack, inhibit
formationpermeabilityandcauseformationdamage.
Thefavourablesolubilityofhydrogensulfideinwaterpresentsadditionalsafetyconcernswhenthesewatersarepumped
tothesurfaceasflowbackorproducedwater.Hydrogensulfideisnotonlyextremelycorrosive;itishighlytoxic.Liberation
ofthehydrogensulfidefromtheflowbackandproducedwatersisthereforeapotentiallysignificantconcern.Toensure
the safety of all personnel, the concentration of hydrogen sulfide should be closely monitored and treated accordingly,
particularlyifthesewatersarebeingconsideredforreuseinsubsequenthydraulicfracturingstimulations.Thetreatment
14

approachforhydrogensulfidewillvaryfromchemicaloxidationtodesorptiondependingontheconcentrationofdissolved
gaspresent.
Insummary,theidentifiedconstituentscommonlypresentintheformation,frac(source),flowbackandproducedwaters
most likely tocontributeto the fouling, scaling andcorrosion potentialwithin boththe reservoir and the selected water
treatmentequipmentaresummarizedinTable7.
TABLE7:WATERQUALITYPARAMETERSCONTRIBUTINGTOFOULING,SCALING&CORROSIONCONCERNS
WATERQUALITY
PARAMETER
DissolvedSolids
(TDS)
RATIONALE
Dissolvedinorganicconstituentshavethepotentialtoformprecipitatedsolids.
Elevatedconcentrationsoftotaldissolvedsolidsmaybelimitingtocertainwatertreatment/conditioningtechnologies.
PrecipitatedSolids
(Scales)
Ionsthatreacttoformprecipitateswhenpressure,temperatureorcompositionchangesincludeCaCO3,MgCO3,FeS,CaSO4,
BaSO4,andSrSO4.
Theseprecipitatedspeciesmayhaveascaling/foulingtendencyonboththeformation(lossofpermeability)aswellaswater
treatmentequipment.
SuspendedSolids
(TSS)
Thephysicalcharacteristicsandelectricchargeofthesuspendedsolidsmayresultinattractiontodispersedoildropletswhich
canresultinstabilizedemulsionspreventingcoalescenceandoilseparation.
Particlesizeofthesuspendedsolidsinadditiontototalsolidsloadingconcentrationwillpotentiallydamagetheformation;
resultinginlossofformationpermeabilityandimpactingwatertreatmenttechnologyselection.
Solids are often a source of bacteria, clays, ferric hydroxide, and/or soluble iron complexes and can create emulsions,
damagingtheproppantpackandformationpermeability.
DissolvedGases
OfparticularconcernisthepotentialpresenceofH2Sasitisextremelytoxic,corrosive,andcancauseironsulfidescaling.
Flowbackandproducedwatersbroughttothesurfaceandexposedtoatmospherewillabsorboxygenwhichmayleadto
severandrapidcorrosionaswellassolidsgenerationfromoxidationreactions.
Emulsions
DissolvedOil
Concentrations
Bacteria
SOURCES:
Canconsistofnormalemulsions(waterinoilemulsions)orreverseemulsions(oilinwater)ineitherunstableorstable
conditions.
Normalemulsionsconsistofwaterdropletsrangingfrom100to400micronsindiameterdispersedwithintheoilphase.
Reverseemulsionsconsistofoildropletstypicallyranginginlessthan150micronsindiameterdispersedwithinthewater
phase;thesmallertheoildroplet,themorechallengingthedispersedoilistoberemovedandrecoveredwithdeoiling
technologies.
Unstableemulsionsreadilybreakwithinafewminutesandtypicallydonotrequireanytypeoftreatment.
Stableemulsionsmayremainfordaysorweeksifleftuntreatedandoftenrequireacombinationofchemicals,heat,settling
timeandelectrostaticstreatmenttocausetheemulsiontobreakdown.
Oildropletsizedistributionmustbeconsideredwhenselectingandsizingdeoilingtechnologies.
Representsallhydrocarbonsandotherorganiccompoundsthathavesomesolubilityinflowbackandproducedwaters.
Severaltypesofbacteriacancauseformationdamage,microbiologicalinducedcorrosion,suspendedsolidbyproducts,and
H2Sgasproduction.
STEWART,M.,&ARNOLD,K.(2011).PRODUEDWATERTREATMENTFIELDMANUAL.WALTHAM:ELSEVIERINC.PP.413
MISWACO.(2012,MAY17).FRACTUREWATERRECYCLINGFEASIBILITYSTUDYANDDECISIONTOOL.
15

5.5 ANALYTICALRESULTS
Toevaluatethepotentialmagnitudeofwatertreatmentrequirements,sampleswerecollectedfromfrac(source),flowback
and produced water sources throughout 2011 & 2012 from Penn West Explorations Cardium, Carbonates (Slave Point),
ColoradoGroup(Viking),andWaskada/Spearfish(LowerAmaranth)operatinglocations.Frac(source)watersampleswere
collected from the shown Treater Manifold in Figure 2, flowback samples were collected from Testers Manifold and
producedwatersampleswerecollectedfromeithertheTreatersatvariousbatteriesand/orWellheads.
Thecollectedfrac(source),flowbackandproducedwatersampleswereanalyzedbyanaccreditedthirdpartylaboratory
utilizingtheanalyticalmethodologiesoutlinedinTable8.
TABLE8:ANALYTICALMETHODSUTILIZEDTOEVALUATEFRACWATER,FLOWBACK&PRODUCEDWATERSAMPLES
PARAMETER
MetalsandMetalloids
METHODS
DETECTIONLIMIT
st
StandardMethods21 ed.3120
B:MetalsbyPlasmaEmissionSpectroscopyInductivelyCoupledPlasma(ICP)Method
Sodium
0.0300mg/L
Potassium
0.1000mg/L
Calcium
0.0100mg/L
Magnesium
0.0300mg/L
Barium
0.0020mg/L
Strontium
0.0005mg/L
Iron
0.0070mg/L
Manganese
0.0020mg/L
Chloride
0.1000mg/L
Sulphate
0.1000mg/L
st
Alkalinity
B:AlkalinityTitrationmethod
Bicarbonate
2mg/LasCaCO3
Carbonate
2mg/LasCaCO3
Hydroxide
2mg/LasCaCO3
HydrogenSulfide
pH
st
2
A:S SulfideQualitativeTestsLeadAcetatePaper&SilverFoilTests
+
B:H pHValueElectrometricMethod
TotalDissolvedSolids
CalculatedValue
TotalSuspendedSolids
5mg/L
st
.001SU
N/A
st
o
D:SolidsTotalSuspendedSolidsDriedat103105 C
0.1mg/L
16

Therespectiveanalyticalresultscharacterizingthefrac(source),flowbackandproducedwatersareasfollows:
TABLE9:PENNWESTEXPLORATIONTIGHTOILDEVELOPMENTFRACWATERSAMPLESUMMARY
CARDIUM
FRACWATER
NUMBEROFSAMPLES
UNITS
TOTAL
COUNT
CATIONS
N/A
UNITS
1
AVERAGE
MIN.
MAX.
SODIUM(Na)
mg/L
1,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
POTASSIUM(K)
mg/L
18
N/A
N/A
CALCIUM(Ca)
mg/L
N/A
CARBONATES(SLAVEPOINT)
FRACWATER
TOTAL
1
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
COLORADOGROUP(VIKING) WASKADA/SPEARFISH(LOWERAMARANTH)
FRACWATER
FRACWATER
TOTAL
34
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
MIN.
MAX.
26
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
52
N/A
TOTAL
6
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
MIN.
MAX.
MIN.
MAX.
STND.DEV.
594
94
6,250
1,036
128
27
318
128
N/A
14,614
770
40,900
7,466
17
11
24
N/A
N/A
62
11
227
46
69
51
94
15
MAGNESIUM(Mg)
mg/L
N/A
N/A
N/A
18
N/A
N/A
N/A
64
384
89
43
22
59
15
BARIUM(Ba)
mg/L
1.50
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.04
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.36
0.03
7.70
1.29
0.06
0.05
0.09
0.01
STRONTIUM(Sr)
mg/L
0.50
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.20
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.10
0.10
42
7.44
0.26
0.18
0.36
0.07
IRON(Fe)
mg/L
17
N/A
N/A
N/A
<0.007
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.45
0.02
24
6.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.00
MANAGNESE(Mn)
ANIONS
mg/L
UNITS
0.17
AVERAGE
N/A
MIN.
N/A
MAX.
N/A
MIN.
N/A
MAX.
0.02
MIN.
2.20
MAX.
0.04
MIN.
0.04
MAX.
0.00
STND.DEV.
N/A
0.16
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
N/A
0.34
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
0.52
0.04
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
CHLORIDE(Cl)
mg/L
720
N/A
N/A
N/A
<0.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
13,855
896
35,728
6,184
16
11
25
SULPHATE(SO4 )
mg/L
270
N/A
N/A
N/A
21
N/A
N/A
N/A
566
15
4,150
887
331
137
720
265
101
BICARBONATE(HCO3 )
mg/L
520
N/A
N/A
N/A
305
N/A
N/A
N/A
471
<2
1,117
252
359
214
493
CARBONATE(CO 3 )
mg/L
<2
N/A
N/A
N/A
<2
N/A
N/A
N/A
28
<2
305
76
<2
<2
<2
<2
HYDROXIDE(OH)
mg/L
UNITS
<2
AVERAGE
N/A
MIN.
N/A
MAX.
N/A
MIN.
N/A
MAX.
<2
MIN.
224
MAX.
<2
MIN.
<2
MAX.
<2
STND.DEV.
FREQUENCYPRESENT(%)
0.00%
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00%
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00%
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00%
N/A
N/A
N/A
STANDARDUNIT(SU)
6.98
N/A
N/A
N/A
7.90
N/A
N/A
N/A
8.29
7.40
12.30
1.05
8.05
7.90
8.20
0.10
TOTALDISSOLVEDSOLIDS(TDS)
mg/L
2,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
425
N/A
N/A
N/A
30,263
2,363
78,774
13,834
963
508
1,701
513
TOTALSUSPENDEDSOLIDS(TSS)
mg/L
320
N/A
N/A
N/A
62
N/A
N/A
N/A
196
22
1,142
228
45
227
81
PHYSICALPROPERTIES
HYDROGENSULFIDE(H2 S)
pH
N/A
<2
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
N/A
8
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
38
<2
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
VALUESAREGREATERTHANTHEACCEPTABLEUPPERLIMITSOUTLINEDINTABLE6
MORELIKELYTOPROMOTEFORMATIONOFPRECIPITATEDSOLIDSOUTLINEDINTABLE7
SAMPLESCOLLECTED:JULY8,2011FEBRUARY18,2012
ADDITIONALNOTES:
Variabilityinpotassium&chlorideconcentrationsisduetohydraulicfracturingprogramscombiningupto4%KClwithfreshwatersources.
ThelargervariabilityinstandarddeviationasobservedfortheColoradoGroup(Viking)isdefinedintheAppendixwherethisdataisfurtherdisseminatedintoAvonHills,Dodsland,Esther
andProvost.
17

TABLE10:PENNWESTEXPLORATIONTIGHTOILDEVELOPMENTFLOWBACKWATERSAMPLESUMMARY
CARDIUM
FLOWBACKWATER
NUMBEROFSAMPLES
UNITS
TOTAL
COUNT
CATIONS
N/A
UNITS
3
AVERAGE
MIN.
MAX.
SODIUM(Na)
mg/L
1,667
1,100
2,700
732
POTASSIUM(K)
mg/L
33
20
53
CALCIUM(Ca)
mg/L
45
31
MAGNESIUM(Mg)
mg/L
<0.03
FLOWBACKWATER
TOTAL
12
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
FLOWBACKWATER
FLOWBACKWATER
TOTAL
45
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
MIN.
MAX.
16,392
12,230
18,270
1,785
14
270
218
403
65
15
4,089
3,230
961
762
TOTAL
68
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
MIN.
MAX.
MIN.
MAX.
STND.DEV.
5,738
341
20,330
4,477
41,588
14,880
55,060
11,594
48
5,128
342
16,270
5,138
411
129
605
129
4,660
418
256
1,100
219
2,510
1,150
3,340
505
1,130
100
145
559
121
626
212
1,100
184
BARIUM(Ba)
mg/L
2.13
1.40
3.20
0.77
0.52
0.32
1.10
0.22
5.70
0.05
42.00
8.65
0.08
0.02
0.23
0.05
STRONTIUM(Sr)
mg/L
1.13
0.60
2.10
0.68
87.58
65.00
103.00
12.09
17.88
0.22
90.00
18.98
58.17
22.00
76.00
14.84
IRON(Fe)
mg/L
9.43
8.00
11.00
1.23
12.49
0.76
28.00
10.84
3.60
0.01
46.00
9.62
9.92
0.11
80.00
15.63
MANAGNESE(Mn)
ANIONS
mg/L
UNITS
0.15
AVERAGE
0.13
MIN.
0.18
MAX.
1.10
MIN.
2.50
MAX.
0.03
MIN.
4.00
MAX.
0.19
MIN.
2.80
MAX.
0.48
STND.DEV.
0.02
1.58
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
0.50
1.09
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
0.97
0.98
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
CHLORIDE(Cl)
mg/L
1,447
940
2,100
485
35,396
27,923
38,651
3,418
14,279
1,100
36,550
5,942
69,061
24,486
93,082
19,172
SULPHATE(SO4 )
mg/L
317
270
380
46
1,443
1,207
1,810
210
665
24
2,070
504
3,029
1,657
3,570
403
BICARBONATE(HCO3 )
mg/L
583
440
770
138
682
299
892
229
487
<2
995
228
446
133
1,134
124
CARBONATE(CO 3 )
mg/L
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
90
14
<2
<2
<2
<2
HYDROXIDE(OH)
mg/L
UNITS
<2
AVERAGE
<2
MIN.
<2
MAX.
<2
MIN.
<2
MAX.
<2
MIN.
150
MAX.
<2
MIN.
<2
MAX.
<2
STND.DEV.
FREQUENCYPRESENT(%)
66.67%
N/A
N/A
N/A
66.67%
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.22%
N/A
N/A
N/A
48.53%
N/A
N/A
N/A
STANDARDUNIT(SU)
7.47
7.42
7.52
0.04
6.87
6.60
7.10
0.18
7.92
7.10
11.90
0.70
6.84
5.20
7.80
0.60
mg/L
3,267
2,300
4,600
974
59,335
46,476
64,673
5,659
27,228
2,187
64,522
10,828
116,182
13,346
156,422
33,673
mg/L
433
340
500
68
454
214
686
157
3,628
34
55,130
9,906
882
61
6,763
1,251
PHYSICALPROPERTIES
pH
<2
<2
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
<2
3
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
22
<2
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
SAMPLESCOLLECTED:JULY9,2011MARCH2,2012
ADDITIONALNOTES:
andProvost.
Variabilityinflowbackwaterqualityisexpectedtobepredominantlyrelatedtovariabilityinformationgeologiesandcontactoffracfluidswithformationwaters.
Flowbacksamplefrequencythroughouttheevaluationwashighlyvariablewithasfewasonesamplebeingcollectedforsomehydraulicjobsanduptosixsamplesforothers.
Theaverageflowbackperiodperwellmaybegeneralizedasavariable(bothvolumeandcomposition)noncontinuousstreamoccurringovertwodays.
LimitednumbersofsampleswerecollectedfortheCardiumas90%ofthewellswithinthisresourceplayarehydraulicallyfracturedwithoilbasedfluids.
H2Spresencereportedmaybehigherthanactualfieldconcentrationsduetotheturnaroundtimebetweenwhenthesamplewascollectedandwhenitwasanalyzed.
18

TABLE11:PENNWESTEXPLORATIONTIGHTOILDEVELOPMENTPRODUCEDWATERSAMPLESUMMARY
CARDIUM
PRODUCEDWATER
NUMBEROFSAMPLES
UNITS
TOTAL
COUNT
CATIONS
N/A
UNITS
24
AVERAGE
MIN.
MAX.
SODIUM(Na)
mg/L
2,431
93
10,000
2,132
POTASSIUM(K)
mg/L
169
1,750
CALCIUM(Ca)
mg/L
934
MAGNESIUM(Mg)
mg/L
143
BARIUM(Ba)
mg/L
STRONTIUM(Sr)
mg/L
IRON(Fe)
MANAGNESE(Mn)
PRODUCEDWATER
TOTAL
4
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
PRODUCEDWATER
PRODUCEDWATER
TOTAL
22
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
TOTAL
14
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
MIN.
MAX.
37,325
32,400
50,000
7,333
358
503
336
639
11,000
2,346
11,793
9,270
858
229
3,053
1,910
10.49
0.01
120.00
24.23
0.34
0.27
0.41
0.05
29.64
0.02
74.40
22.56
0.08
0.05
0.11
0.02
26.06
0.35
307.00
62.12
250.75
170.00
335.00
76.98
52.50
1.09
124.00
35.68
59.09
45.30
63.30
4.45
mg/L
15.67
0.15
145.00
33.64
6.98
2.77
13.40
4.30
1.05
0.12
5.53
1.24
1.49
0.86
3.75
0.70
ANIONS
mg/L
UNITS
N/A
AVERAGE
N/A
MIN.
N/A
MAX.
N/A
MIN.
N/A
MAX.
N/A
MIN.
N/A
MAX.
N/A
MIN.
N/A
MAX.
N/A
STND.DEV.
N/A
N/A
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
MIN.
MAX.
MIN.
MAX.
STND.DEV.
15,547
1,710
35,900
9,007
53,593
38,300
61,900
6,220
131
208
10
442
98
585
236
758
132
14,100
2,091
641
33
1,760
460
2,551
1,890
2,920
264
4,050
807
367
865
242
746
356
990
160
N/A
N/A
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
N/A
N/A
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
CHLORIDE(Cl)
mg/L
5,104
211
24,130
5,883
88,435
74,450
107,500
12,114
27,000
2,805
62,660
16,045
93,581
65,200
106,000
11,295
SULPHATE(SO4 )
mg/L
226
<0.1
1,130
301
969
334
1,790
547
152
<0.1
3,190
663
2,104
143
3,840
1,499
BICARBONATE(HCO3 )
mg/L
1,098
240
2,700
758
164
14
290
99
463
210
800
184
389
170
520
73
CARBONATE(CO 3 )
mg/L
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
HYDROXIDE(OH)
mg/L
UNITS
<2
AVERAGE
<2
MIN.
<2
MAX.
<2
MIN.
<2
MAX.
<2
MIN.
<2
MAX.
<2
MIN.
<2
MAX.
<2
STND.DEV.
FREQUENCYPRESENT(%)
0.00%
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00%
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.55%
N/A
N/A
N/A
50.00%
N/A
N/A
N/A
STANDARDUNIT(SU)
7.36
5.47
8.24
0.60
6.33
5.97
6.71
0.27
7.52
6.78
8.20
0.33
6.59
5.35
7.36
0.52
mg/L
9,576
610
39,000
9,609
140,000
120,000
170,000
18,708
44,082
4,800
100,000
25,452
153,571
110,000
170,000
17,971
mg/L
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
PHYSICALPROPERTIES
pH
<2
<2
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
<2
<2
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
<2
<2
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
SAMPLESCOLLECTED:FEBRUARY10,2011FEBRUARY28,2012
ADDITIONALNOTES:
andProvost.
19

6.0 TECHNOLOGYEVALUATION
Asixstagetreatmentprocessforflowbackandproducedwaterisproposedbasedon:
Chemicalanalysesoffrac(source),flowbackandproducedwatersfrommultipleresourceplays
Fouling,scalingandcorrosionpotentialoffrac(source),flowbackandproducedwaters
Fracturingfluidchemistrycompatibilitywithresidualadditivesorotherwaterconstituents
Tightoilhydraulicfracturingwaterrequirements
Flowbackavailabilityforeachresourceplay
The six proposed treatment objectives include: deoiling and solids removal, pretreatment, solids and soluble organics
removal, selective ion reduction, desalination and disinfection. These treatment objectives are defined in the following
sections:
DEOILING&SOLIDSREMOVAL:Deoilingandsolidsremovalisproposedasthefirsttreatmentobjectiveinordertoreduce
thesolidsloadingandemulsionconcentrationtheflowbackandproducewatersmayhaveonthedownstreamtreatment
equipment.Byreducingthesolidsloadingandtargetingoilrecovery,theisolatedfluidmaybetransfertoalocalbatteryfor
furtherprocessingwithreducedriskofbatteryupset.Removaloffreeoil,dispersedoil(smalloildroplets),emulsionsand
suspended solids (>25 m particle size diameter) may be achieved using technologies like API separators, skim tanks,
treaters,clarifiers,plateorenhancedcoalescence,gasfloatation,hydrocyclones,andmicrofiltration(MF).
PRETREATMENT:Pretreatmentisproposedasthesecondtreatmentobjectiveduetotheneedtodegraderesidualgelling
agents and remove dissolved gases upstream of any water treatment equipment. Removal of light hydrocarbon gases,
carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, etc. may be achieved using technologies like desorption (air stripping), membrane
filtration (gas transfer membranes), biological treatment (suspended growth & fixed growth), and chemical oxidation
(ozone & hydrogen peroxide). Removal of residual gelling agents may be achieved using technologies like biological
treatment (suspended growth & fixed growth), chemical oxidation (ozone & hydrogen peroxide), and UV radiation. In
certainsituationswheredissolvedgases(H2S)concentrationsaregreaterthan25mg/L,considerationofincorporatingthe
pretreatmentobjectivebetweentheflowbackand/orproducedwaterstoragetanksandtheprimarydeoilingtechnology
maybebeneficial.Increasedturbulencewithinthedeoilingtechnologiesmayliberateexcessconcentrationsofhydrogen
sulfideandincreasetheatmosphericconcentrationcompromisingthesafetyoftheworkingenvironment.Byincorporating
the pretreatment objective upstream of the deoiling technologies like plate or enhanced coalescence, gas flotation,
hydrocylones,andmicrofiltration(MF),theatmosphericexposureriskisexpectedtobefurthermitigated.
SOLIDS&SOLUBLEORGANICSREMOVAL:Dependingontheparticlesizedistribution,thetargetedtotalsuspendedsolids
concentration and downstream water treatment equipment selection, a second phase of solids and soluble organics
removalmayberequired.Removalofdissolvedhydrocarbonsandsuspendedsolids(<25mparticlesizediameter)maybe
achievedusingtechnologieslikeelectrocoagulation,mediafiltration(quartzsand,silicasand&anthracitecoal),membrane
filtration(ultrafiltration),adsorptionfiltration(activatedcarbon&walnutshellmedia),andchemicaloxidation(ozone&
hydrogenperoxide).
SELECTIVEIONREDUCTION:Dependingontheflowbackandproducedwaterquality,certainspeciessuchasiron,calcium,
magnesium and bicarbonate alkalinity may require treatment. Reduction of these selective ions may be achieved using
technologies like ion exchange, iron filters, membrane filtration (nanofiltration), and chemical treatment (coagulation &
flocculation).
DESALINATION: Removal of dissolved solids and salts may be achieved using technologies like evaporation (mechanical
vaporrecompression&thermalvaporrecompression),distillation,andmembranes(sodiumMFI).
DISINFECTION:Removalofbacteria,viruses,microorganisms,algae,etc.maybeachievedusingtechnologieslikechemical
treatment (preferably nonoxidizing biocides such as gluteraldehyde, isothiazoline and/or DBNPA) and may be
supplementedwithUVsterilization.Disinfectionisexpectedtobearequiredtreatmentobjectiveinallhydraulicfracturing
applications,regardlessofthewatersourcebeingusedtopreventformationdamage,microbiologicalinducedcorrosion,
suspendedsolidbyproducts,andH2Sgasproductioncommonlyattributedtosulfatereducingandacidproducingbacteria.
20

Keeping in mind these six treatment objectives and the limitations of various treatment technologies, the following
Flowback&ProducedWaterTreatmentDecisionTreemethodologyisproposed:
FIGURE4:FLOWBACK&PRODUCEDWATERTREATMENTDECISIONTREE
DEOILING&SOLIDS
REMOVAL
APISEPARATORS
SKIMTANKS
TREATERS
CLARIFIERS
SOLIDS&SOLUBLE
ORGANICSREMOVAL
SELECTIVEION
REDUCTION
OIL&TSS
CONC
10,000PPMOIL
>1,000PPMTSS
OILDROPLET
DIAMETER&
H2SCONC
PRETREATMENT
DESALINATION
FLOWBACKOR
PRODUCEDWATER
<3,000PPMOIL
<1,000PPMTSS
PLATEORENHANCEDCOALESCENCE
GASFLOTATION
HYDROCYCLONES
MICROFILTRATION(MF)
50MOILDROPLET
10PPMOIL
500PPMTSS
25MPARTICLESIZE
25PPMH2S
150MOILDROPLET
1,000PPMOIL
500PPMTSS
DESORPTION
MEMBRANEFILTRATION(GTM)
BIOLOGICALTREATMENT
CHEMICALOXIDATION
25PPMH2S
H2SCONC&
RESIDUAL
GELLING
AGENTCONC
0 PPMH2S
1050MOILDROPLET
10PPMOIL
10PPMTSS
525MPARTICLESIZE
ELECTROCOAGULATION
MEMBRANEFILTRATION(UF)
ADSORPTIONFILTRATION
CHEMICALOXIDATION
IRONFILTERS
IONEXCHANGE
MEMBRANEFILTRATION(NF)
CHEMICALTREATMENT
10PPMIRON
>0PPMOXIDIZINGAGENTS
>0PPMREDUCINGAGENTS
PARTICLESIZE
&
TSSCONC
10MOILDROPLET
10PPMOIL
10PPMTSS
5MPARTICLESIZE
OXIDIZING&
REDUCING
AGENTSCONC
10PPMIRON
0PPMOXIDIZINGAGENTS
0PPMREDUCINGAGENTS
MECHANICALVAPORRECOMPRESSION(MVR)
THERMALVAPORRECOMPRESSION(TVR)
SODIUMMFIMEMBRANES
50,000PPMTDS
SALINITY
CONC
50,000PPMTDS
DISINFECTION
CHEMICALTREATMENT
UVSTERILIZATION
>0CFU/ML
BACTERIA
0CFU/ML
REUSABLEWATER
CONC:CONCENTRATION
21

By applying the decision tree (Figure 4) with the analytical data obtained from each Penn West Exploration tight oil
development play (Tables 9, 10 & 11); the authors evaluated which treatment objectives are potentially required to
condition the flowback and produced waters for reuse in tight oil hydraulic fracturing throughout the various resource
plays.ResultsfromtheFlowback&ProducedWaterTreatmentTechnologyEvaluationareoutlinedinTable12.
TABLE12:FLOWBACK&PRODUCEDWATERTREATMENTTECHNOLOGYEVALUATION
RESOURCE
PLAY
CARDIUM
REUSE
SOURCE
DEOILING&SOLIDS
REMOVAL
PRETREATMENT
SOLIDS&SOLUBLE
ORGANICSREMOVAL
SELECTIVEION
REDUCTION
DESALINATION
DISINFECTION
FLOWBACK
PRODUCEDWATER
CARBONATES
(SLAVEPOINT)
FLOWBACK
PRODUCEDWATER
COLORADOGROUP
(VIKING)
FLOWBACK
PRODUCEDWATER
FLOWBACK
PRODUCEDWATER
WASKADA/SPEARFISH
(LOWERAMARANTH)
TREATMENTOBJECTIVEISEXPECTEDTOBEREQUIRED
TREATMENTOBJECTIVEISNOTEXPECTEDTOBEREQUIRED
Flowback and produced waters from tight oil development plays in the WCSB region are expected to contain residual
solubleandinsolublehydrocarbons,suspendedsolids(particlediametergreaterthan25m)andbacteria.Asaresult,itis
expectedthatsolidsandsolubleorganicremovaltechnologiesaswellasdisinfectionwillbecriticaltreatmentstepsbefore
thesewaterswillbesuitableforreuseinsubsequenthydraulicfracturingapplications.
Whileaveragevaluesoffluidcharacterizationwereusedtodevisethewatertreatmenttechnologyevaluation,itisvaluable
to note the degree of visual water quality variability that can be expected. Figure 5 shows a set of samples that were
obtained during variousphases of the hydraulic fracturing process inOctober of2011 from the Carbonates(Slave Point)
resourceplay.
FIGURE5:FLOWBACKWATERQUALITYVARIABILITY
SampleArepresentsfreshwaterthathasbeenfilteredanddisinfectedwithbiocidepriortotheadditionofthehydraulic
fracturingcrosslinkedchemistries.Thissampleprovidesabaselinerepresentingthecurrentqualityofwatertypicallybeing
utilized for tight oil hydraulic fracturing across the WCSB. The wide range in flowback water quality is observed with
samplesBthroughF.SampleBisflowbackwaterwithverylittleoilandgreasecontent,howevertheresidualgellingagent
concentrationispreventingtheveryfinesuspendedsolidsfromsettlingoutofthesolution.SimilartosampleB,sampleCis
observedtohaveanevengreaterconcentrationofoilcoatedsolidsremaininginsolutionwhichisalsolikelyattributedto
22

an excess concentration of residual gelling agent present within the flowback water. In contrast to samples B & C, the
distinctstratificationlayersofsampleDsuggestverylittleresidualgellingagentpresentwithintheflowbacksample.The
solids present in sample D readily settled out of solution and the free oil has accumulated as the top layer within the
sample.ThelayerofoilandfinesolidsatthesurfaceofsampleE,combinedwiththedistinctlayerofoilcoatedsolidsat
thebottomofthesample,suggestsalesserconcentrationofresidualgellingagentwithinthisflowbacksamplecompared
tosamplesBandC.Lastly,thehomogenousnatureofsampleFsuggestsaverystablereverse(oilinwater)emulsion.
Themagnitudeoffluidvariabilitymustbetakenintoconsiderationasfluctuationsinresidualgellingagentconcentration,
solids loading, particle size, oil content, oil droplet size, and general water quality will add further strain to downstream
watertreatmenttechnologies.Processingafluidofaknownqualityisfarmoremanageablethantreatingafluidthatisina
constantstateofflux.WhenapplyingthedecisiontreemethodologyoutlinedinFigure4,itisrecommendedtocollectand
retain multiple samples from various phases during the hydraulic fracturing stimulation for both analytical and visual
assessment.Thecombinationofresultsobtainedfromtheanalyticalandvisualassessmentswillaidinensuringallofthe
necessarytreatmentobjectivesareincorporated.
Insummary,itisapparentthatthetreatmentobjectivesthroughoutthevarioustightoildevelopmentsacrosstheWCSB
arevariable,demandingslightlydifferenttechnologicaltreatmentapproacheswithineachrespectiveresourceplay.Similar
watertreatmentregimesmaybeeffectiveforboththeCarbonates(SlavePoint)andWaskada/Spearfish(LowerAmaranth)
whereas a slightly less technologically demanding treatment approach may be applicable to both the Cardium and the
ColoradoGroup(Viking).Adecisiontoapplyastandardizedtreatmentapproachacrossallfourtightoildevelopmentplays
wouldresultinunnecessaryovertreatmentofsomewatersandthepotentialundertreatmentofothers.Ineithercase,
failure to modify the technological treatment approach for each area may result in either the unnecessary allocation of
OPEXandCAPEXcostsoralternatively,acompromiseinthequalityofrecycledflowbackandproducedwaterspotentially
impedingtheeffectivenessofsubsequenthydraulicfracturingstimulations.
7.0 PHASEI:LESSONSLEARNED
Throughout the preparation of this paper, numerous lessons have been learned that will add value to both Penn West
Explorationandourindustrypeersshouldthefindingsofthisevaluationbefurtherexpandedupon.Thelessonslearned
includethefollowing:
1. SAMPLECOLLECTION
Ensuring data quality was a challenge in this study and would be remedied by refining the current sampling
protocol.Arefinedprotocolwouldincludeenhancedtrainingforthosecollecting/labelingsamples,acombination
of field and laboratory analysis, as well as a chain of custody system to ensure timely delivery of samples and
results.
2. SAMPLEANALYSIS
Duetoanabsenceofpeerrevieweddataonwatertreatmentcriteriafortightoilhydraulicfracturing,thespecies
selectedforanalysiswerebaseduponthewaterqualityparametersoutlinedbytheUSEPAforCoalbedMethane
andShaleGashydraulicfracturingapplications(Table6).Futurestudieswouldalsoincludethefollowinganalysis:
oil & grease, residual crosslinker concentration, residual gelling agent concentration, bacteria, H2S, silica, oil
dropletsizeanddistribution,particlesizeanddistributionandsampleprofilesovertime.Theextendedanalysis
will further aid in the selection of specific treatment objectives outlined in the Flowback & Produced Water
TreatmentDecisionTree(Figure4).
3. TECHNOLOGYEVALUATION
Additionalconsiderationswithinthetechnologyevaluationincludehowwellsuitedthetechnologyisatprocessing
the flowback and produced water volumes (Table 5) to satisfy waterbased hydraulic fracturing requirements
within the WCSB. With flowback volumes occurring in batches, certain water treatment technologies are
anticipated to have greater sensitivities to flow fluctuations and may not be considered suitable for flowback
treatmentapplications.Thelogisticsofwatertreatmentasitappliestohydraulicfracturinghasnotbeenassessed
in this study, but is a fundamental factor for consideration in commercial field application of technology.
23

Equipmentthatcannotprocessvolumesinatimelyandcosteffectivemannertofacilitatereusewillnotfindbroad
application,despitetheirabilitytomeetthetreatmentqualityobjectives.
Once the technological selection is further refined, evaluation of variables including percent recovery, CAPEX,
OPEX, scalability, footprint, energy requirements, percent uptime, mobility, degree of Operator intervention
required,andlevelofOperatorknowledgerequiredtooperatetheequipmentwillrequireevaluation.
8.0 CONCLUSION
InsummaryoftheReuseofFlowback&ProducedWaterforHydraulicFracturinginTightOilevaluation,theauthorshave
identifiedthetechnologicaltreatmentintensityanticipatedtotreatflowbackandproducedwatersforreuseinmultistaged
hydraulicfracturingoperationswithintightoilresourceplays.ThisevaluationsuggestsboththeCardiumandtheColorado
Group (Viking) require less intense water treatment of both flowback and produced waters than the Carbonates (Slave
Point)andWaskada/Spearfish(LowerAmaranth).Withthecombinedtechnologyevaluation,analyticalresults,cumulative
hydraulicfracturingwaterrequirementsandflowbackvolumes,PennWestExplorationisfavorablypositionedtoprioritize
aflowbackandproducedwatertreatmentstrategywithineachrespectivetightoilresourceplay.
Theconclusionsofthispaperareconstrainedbytheauthorsinterpretationofalimitednumberoftechnicalpaperswhich
examinethewaterreuserequirementsforflowbackandproducedwaterasitappliestohydraulicfracturingstimulations.
From the limited technical information available within the public domain, the authors strived to identify additional
parameters,waterconstituents,andtreatmentchallengesthatmaybeuniquetowaterreuserequirementsforhydraulic
fracturing in tight oil. Based upon Penn West Explorations preferred hydraulic fracturing fluid programs, the research
findings of this paper focused exclusively on the water reuse requirements for waterbased crosslinked fluids in tight oil
resourceplays.
Future research evaluating the reuse requirements of flowback and produced waters for hydraulic fracturing in tight oil
mightexaminethereuserequirementsforalternatewaterbasedhydraulicfracturingfluidsystems(Table2).Indoingso,
theresearcherwillbeabletoidentifypotentialvariancesintreatmentintensityrequirementsformultiplewaterbasefluid
systems. Additional research might also choose to investigate the validity of the proposed Flowback & Produced Water
TreatmentDecisionTree(Figure4).Thevalidityoftheproposedtreatmentapproachmightbeinvestigatedbyconducting
fieldbased water reuse trials incorporating various treatment technologies. Through fieldbased water reuse trials,
additional treatment challenges and alternate treatment approaches are anticipated to become more apparent. An
additional research outcome anticipatedto be achievable throughtheapplication offieldbased water reuse trials is the
refined examination of the identified constituents expected to have the greatest impact on hydraulic fracturing fluid
compatibility.Fieldbasedwaterreusetrialsareanticipatedtoprovidetheresearchplatformnecessarytodetermineother
potential constituents that may hinder hydraulic fracturing fluid compatibility while either confirming or disproving the
currentparametersandupperthresholdlimitsasidentifiedwithinthispaper.
24

9.0 REFERENCES
AlbertaEnergyandUtilitiesBoard.(2006,March28).Bulletin200611.RetrievedFebruary22,2012,fromERCB:
www.ercb.ca/docs/documents/bulletins/Bulletin200611.pdf
AmericanPetroleumInstitute.(2010,June).WaterManagementAssociatedwithHydraulicFracturing.RetrievedJanuary
24,2012,fromAmericanPetroleumInsitute:www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/HF2_e1.pdf
Aqualon.(2007).GuarandGuarDerivativesOilandGasFieldApplications.RetrievedApril18,2012,fromAshland:
http://www.ashland.com/Ashland/Static/Documents/AAFI/PRO_25061_Guar.pdf
ArgonneNationalLaboratory.(2009,September).ProducedWaterVolumesandManagementPracticesintheUnited
States.RetrievedFebruary8,2012,from
www.evs.anl.gov/.../ANL_EVS__R09_produced_water_volume_report_2437.pdf
Arthur,J.D.,Bohm,B.,Coughlin,B.J.,&Layne,M.(2008).EvaluatingtheEnvironmentalImplicationsofHydraulicFracturing
inShaleGasReservoirs.RetrievedJanuary22,2012,fromALLConsulting:www.all
llc.com/publicdownloads/ArthurHydrFracPaperFINAL.pdf
Arthur,J.D.,Langhus,B.G.,&Patel,C.(2005,March).TechnicalSummaryofOil&GasProducedWaterTreatment
Technologies.RetrievedFebruary15,2012,fromALLConsulting,LLC:www.allllc.com/.../ALLConsulting
WaterTreatmentOptionsReport.pdf
Arthur,J.D.,Langhus,B.G.,&Patel,C.(2005,March).TechnicalSummaryofOil&GasProducedWaterTreatment
Technologies.RetrievedFebruary15,2012,fromALLConsulting,LLC.:www.allllc.com/.../ALLConsulting
WaterTreatmentOptionsReport.pdf
CanadianAssociationofPetroleumProducers.(2010,February5).CanadasOil&GasStateoftheIndustryandOutlookfor
2010.RetrievedSeptember27,2011,fromCAPP:CanadianAssoiciationofPetroleumProducers:
http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?dt=PDF&docID=164491
CanadianSocietyforUnconventionalResources.(2012,May5).UnderstandingHydraulicFracturing.RetrievedMay17,
2012,fromCSRU:http://www.csur.com/images/CSUG_publications/Hydr_Frac_FINAL_CSUR.pdf
CanadianSocietyforUnconventionalResources.(2012,May9).UnderstandingTightOil.RetrievedMay17,2012,from
CSUR:http://www.csur.com/images/CSUG_publications/Understanding_TightOil_FINAL.pdf
Collins,A.(1977).EnhancedOilRecoveryInjectionWaters.InC.Wright,D.Cross,A.Ostroff,&J.Standord,STP641OilField
SubsurfaceInjectionofWater(pp.223).LuthervilleTimonium:ASTMInternational.
Dusterhoft,R.,McGowen,J.,&Ghalambor,A.(2009).FracPakcFluids.InA.Ghalambor,S.A.Ali,&N.W.David,Frac
PackingHandbook(pp.3364).Richardson:SocietyofPetroleumEngineers.
Environmental&RegulatorySubgroupoftheOperations&EnvironmentTaskGroup.(2011,September15).NPCNorth
AmericanResourceDevelopmentStudyPaper#21Water/EnergyNEXUS.RetrievedJanuary18,2012,from
NationalPetroleumCouncil:www.npc.org/Prudent...Papers/21_Water_Energy_Nexus_Paper.pdf
Environmental&RegulatorySubgroupoftheOperations&EnvironmentTaskGroup.(2011,September15).NPCNorth
AmericanResourceDevelopmentStudyPaper#21Water/EnergyNEXUS.RetrievedJanuary18,2012,from
NationalPetroleumCouncil:www.npc.org/...Development...Papers/21_Water_Energy_Nexus_Paper.pdf
Fitzgerald,M.,&Wollmann,R.(2011,September20).TightOilDevelopment.RetrievedJanauary21,2012,fromPennWest
Exploration:www.pennwest.com/investors/documents/092011_AnalystDay_part2.pdf
Glover,P.(2001,February19).Chapter2:ReservoirFluids.RetrievedFebruary8,2012,fromUniversitLaval:
www2.ggl.ulaval.ca/.../Formation%20Evaluation%20English/Chapter%202.PDF
LaFollette,R.(2010,September9).KeyConsiderationsforHydraulicFracturingofGasShales.RetrievedApril25,2012,from
PetroleumTechnologyTransferCouncil:http://www.pttc.org/aapg/lafollette.pdf
25

Maley,D.,&O'Neil,B.(2010,October19).BreakerEnhancerforCrosslinkedBorates:NovelSelfGeneratingAcidSPE
137490.RetrievedJanuary18,2012,fromSocietyofPetroleumEngineering:
www.trican.ca/pdf/services_technology/tech_papers/SPE%20137490.pdf
MISWACO.(2012).FractureWaterRecyclingFeasibilityStudyandDecisionTool.Calgary.
NationalEnergyBoard.(2011,November).Canada'sEnergyFuture:EnergySupplyandDemandProjectionsto2035.
RetrievedJanuary16,2012,fromNationalEnergyBoard:http://www.nebone.gc.ca/clf
nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/l/tghtdvlpmntwcsb2011/tghtdvlpmntwcsb2011eng.html#nnx2
NationalEnergyBoard.(2011,December).TightOilDevelopmentsintheWesternCanadaSedimentaryBasin.Retrieved
January13,2012,fromNationalEnergyBoard:http://www.nebone.gc.ca/clf
nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/l/tghtdvlpmntwcsb2011/tghtdvlpmntwcsb2011eng.html
NationalEnergyTechnologyLaboratory.(2000,August24).HydraulicFracturing.RetrievedMay17,2012,fromNETL:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oilgas/publications/eordrawings/BW/bwhf.PDF
PennWestExploration.(2012,February16).FourthQuarter2011.RetrievedFebruary24,2012,fromFinancialReports&
PublicFilings:http://www.pennwest.com/investors/financialreports.asp
PennWestEnergy.(2011,March17).2010AnnualReport.RetrievedJanuary13,2012,fromPennWestExploration
FinancialReports&PublicFilings:http://www.pennwest.com/investors/financialreports.asp
Pike,M.(2003,December15).FracturingFluidProperties.RetrievedFebruary7,2012,fromTricanWellServiceLtd.:
http://www.trican.ca/pdf/services_technology/tech_papers/FracFluid_Properties.pdf
Sorensen,J.(2011,April27).FutureofDomesticOil:EnergyInformationAdministrationAnnualConference.Retrieved
January16,2012,fromEnergy&EnvironmentalResearchCenter:
http://www.eia.gov/conference/2011/pdf/presentations/Sorenson.pdf
Stewart,M.,&Arnold,K.(2011).ProduedWaterTreatmentFieldManual.Waltham:ElsevierInc.
Stonehouse,D.(2011,September19).PerfectStorm:Technological,royaltyandregulatorychangescreateflashfloodof
conventionalandtightoilprojectsacrosscentralAlberta.RetrievedJanuary13,2012,fromJuneWarrenNickle's
EnergyGroup:http://www.junewarrennickles.com/feature.aspx?id=8913
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.(2004,June).AppendixAHydraulicFracturingWhitePaperEPA816R04003.Retrieved
January23,2012,fromUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency:
www.epa.gov/.../uic/.../cbmstudy_attach_uic_append_a_doe_whitepaper.pdf
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.(2011,August2).HyraulicFracturingTechnology.RetrievedJanuary20,2012,fromU.S.
DepartmentofEnergy:http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/shalegas/hydraulicfracturing.html
U.S.EnergyInformationAdministration.(2011,April).CanadaShaleOil.RetrievedJanuary16,2012,fromU.S.Energy
InformationAdministration:http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=CA
vanGijtenbeek,K.,Pavlykuchenko,V.,Rudnitsky,A.,&Pongratz,R.(2006).StringentQualityControlandQualityAssurance
Process:KeytoSuccessfulFracturingTreatmentsinWesternSiberia.SPE100772.SocietyofPetroleumEngineers.
Veil,J.A.(2010,July).WaterManagementTechnologiesUsedbyMarcellusShaleGasProducers.RetrievedJanuary20,
2012,fromU.S.DepartmentofEnergyEnvironmentalScienceDivision(EVS):
www.evs.anl.gov/pub/.../Water%20Mgmt%20in%20Marcellusfinaljul10.pdf
26

10.0 APPENDIX
10.1 INDUSTRYTERMINOLOGY
Inanefforttoensurenomenclatureconsistency,thefollowingarealistofindustrydefinitionsasprovidedbytheAmerican
Petroleum Institute (API), U.S. Department of Energy, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, Canadian Society for
UnconventionalResources,AqualonandtheNationalEnergyBoard:
BASEFLUID
Thefamilyoffracturefluidsavailableconsistsofwaterbasedfluids,oilbasedfluids,acidbasedfluidandfoamfluids(U.S.
Department of Energy, 2004, p. 12). For most reservoirs, water based fluids with appropriate additives will be fluid of
choice(U.S.DepartmentofEnergy,2004,p.12).
BIOLOGICALDEGRADATION
The presence of microorganisms such as bacteria may result is the loss of water soluble polymer solution viscosity
(Aqualon,2007,p.23).Astheviscosityofthewatersolublepolymersolutiondeclines,theproppantcarryingcapacityof
thefluidbecomesfurtherinhibited(Aqualon,2007,p.23).Biologicaldegradationofwatersolublepolymersolutionscan
beminimizedbytheapplicationofanappropriatebiocide(Aqualon,2007,p.23).
BRACKISHWATER
Water containing salinity within the range of 5,000 parts per million (ppm) to 35,000 ppm Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
(AmericanPetroleumInstitute,2010,p.27).
CHEMICALDEGRADATION
Thechemicalconditionsofwatersolublepolymersolutionsmayinhibitthedesiredfluidviscosityandconsequentlyresult
inreducedproppantcarryingcapacityofthefluid(Aqualon,2007,p.23).Thefirstmodeofchemicaldegradationisthe
hydrolysis of glycosidic linkage resulting in the severing of polysaccharide chains present within water soluble polymer
solutions (Aqualon, 2007, p. 23). The rate of chemical degradation by hydrolysis of glycosidic linkage is dependent on
reactiontime,systempHandtemperature(Aqualon,2007,p.23).Assuch,chemicaldegradationbyhydrolysisofglycosidic
linkage may be mitigated by managing system pH and alkalinity with the addition of pH control agents which may be
blended with the polymer or added to the aqueous medium (Aqualon, 2007, p. 15; Aqualon, 2007, p. 23). The second
mode of chemical degradation is the oxidative/reductive depolymerization (ORD) of water soluble polymer solutions
(Aqualon, 2007, p. 23). The combination of residual breaker chemistries and/or oxygen (oxidizing agents) and residual
crosslinkersand/ortransitionmetalssuchasiron(III)andiron(II)(reducingagents)withinsourceand/orflowbackwaters
has the potential to promote chemical degradation oxidative/reductive depolymerization reactions within water soluble
polymersolutions.Assuch,chemicaldegradationbyoxidative/reductivedepolymerizationmaybemitigatedbymanaging
theconcentrationofoxidizingandreducingreagentspresentwithinsourceandflowbackwatersources(Aqualon,2007,p.
23).
CROSSLINKING
Aqueoussolutionsofguarandguarderivativesdevelopincreasedviscositybythechemicallinkingoftwoormorepolymer
chains achieved by the addition of various metal ions (Aqualon, 2007, p. 19). Numerous metal ions (boron, titanium,
aluminum,antimony,zirconiumandchromium)havebeenfoundtobeeffectivecrosslinkingagentstoformcomplexguar
products(Aqualon,2007,p.20).TheaffinityofametalionforthepolymercrosslinksitesisdependentuponsystempH,
theassociatedligandsattachedtothemetalcrosslinkingagent,andtemperature(Aqualon,2007,p.20).Eachcrosslinking
agent has an optimum metal ion concentration for a given polymer concentration (Aqualon, 2007, p. 20). Excess
crosslinkingagentmaylimittheshearandtemperaturestabilityofthewatersolublepolymerfluidandinsomecasescause
thepolymertoprecipitateoutofsolution(Aqualon,2007,p.20)
DISPERSIBILITY
Asthedryguarpowdersaremixedwithsolvent(water),individualparticlescontacttheaqueousphase,absorbwaterand
swell(Aqualon,2007,p.15).Thedegreeofdispersibilityisdefinedbyhowwelleachindividualguarparticleiswettedby
thesolvent(water)beforethehydrationprocessbegins(Aqualon,2007,p.15).
27

FRAC(SOURCE)WATER
Frac (source) water used for hydraulic fracturing may include surface water, ground water, municipal water supplies,
treatedwastewaterfrommunicipalandindustrialtreatmentfacilities,powerplantcoolingwaterand/orrecycledproduced
and/orflowbackwater(AmericanPetroleumInstitute,2010,p.23).
FISHEYES
Asthedryguarpowdersaremixedwiththesolvent(water),poorlyseparatedparticlesinhibitthedegreeofdispersibility
(Aqualon,2007,p.15).Consequently,exteriorparticlesmaybegintohydratebeforeinteriorparticlesarefullydispersed
creating fish eye clumps and decreasing the overall viscosity potential of the solution. The fish eye clumps may also
causeformationdamageand/orproppantbedplugginginhibitingtheflowbackofoilorgas(Aqualon,2007,p.15).
FLOWBACK
Flowback is the total volume of recovered fluids and sands that return through the borehole to surface from hydraulic
fracturingstimulations(Environmental&RegulatorySubgroupoftheOperations&EnvironmentTaskGroup,2011,p.11).
Forthepurposeofthispaper,flowbackdefinedasbeingequaltoorlessthantheoriginalvolumeoffracturingfluidusedfor
thestimulation.Thetotalvolumeofflowbackwillvaryingdependingonthetypeoffracturingfluidused,theformations
geology,andthelengthofwellshutintimebetweenwhenthewellisstimulatedandwhenfluidsareflowedback.
FORMATIONWATER
Mayoccurasextensiveaquifersunderlyingorinterlockedwithinhydrocarbonbearinglayers,butalwaysoccurringwithin
the hydrocarbon layers as connate water (water trapped in the pores of the rock) and are commonly saline in nature
(Glover,2001,p.2).
FRACTURINGFLUIDS
Amixtureofbasefluid(oftenwater),proppant(oftensand),andadditivesusedtohydraulicallyinducecracksinthetarget
formation(AmericanPetroleumInstitute,2010,p.12).
FRESHWATER(NONSALINEWATER)
Groundwater and surface waters containing salinity less than 4,000 parts per million (ppm) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
(AlbertaEnergyandUtilitiesBoard,2006,p.3).
HORIZONTALDRILLING
Adrillingprocedureinwhichthewellboreisdrilledverticallytoakickoffdepthabovethetargetformationandthenangled
through a wide 90o arc such that the producing portion of the well extends horizontally through the target formation
HYDRATION
Oncetheguarparticlesaredispersed,thedegreeinwhichtheparticlesareabletoabsorbwaterandtherateinwhichthe
absorptionoccursisdefinedastheprocessofhydration.ThehydrationprocessisimpactedbypHofthefluid,theamount
ofmechanicalshearappliedduringtheinitialmixingphase,theconcentrationofthesalts(salinity),andthepolymer(guar)
concentration(Aqualon,2007,p.15).
HYDRAULICFRACTURING
InjectingFracturingfluidstypicallywithsandintothetargetformationataforceexceedingthepartingpressureoftherock
thusinducingfracturesthroughwhichoilornaturalgasflowtothewellbore(AmericanPetroleumInstitute,2010,p.12).
MECHANICALDEGRADATION
Theapplicationofcriticalstressmayresultinchainscissionofwatersolublepolymersolutions(Aqualon,2007,p.23).As
thewatersolublepolymersolutionchainsaresevered,theviscosityofsolutiondeclinesandtheproppantcarryingcapacity
ofthefluidbecomesfurtherinhibited(Aqualon,2007,p.23).Mechanicaldegradationofwatersolublepolymersolutions
canbeminimizedbyusingproperlyengineeredsurfaceequipment(Aqualon,2007,p.23).
28

PERMEABILITY
Arockscapacitytotransmitafluid;dependentuponthesizeandshapeoftheporesandtheinterconnectingporethroats.
A rock may have significant porosity (many microscopic pores) but have low permeability if the pores are not
interconnected(AmericanPetroleumInstitute,2010,p.3).PermeabilityismeasuredinaunitcalledDarcies.Conventional
reservoirsmayhavepermeabilitiesinthe10sto100sofmilliDarcieswhereasunconventionalortightreservoirsusually
have permeabilities in the micro to nanoDarcy range (Canadian Society for Unconventional Resources, 2012, p. 19).
Permeabilitymayalsoexistorbeenhancedthroughfracturesthatconnectthepores(AmericanPetroleumInstitute,2010,
p.3).
POROSITY
Thevoidsoropeningsinarockcontainingoil,gasand/orformationwater,generallydefinedastheratioofthevolumesof
alltheporesinageologicalformationtothevolumesoftheentireformation(AmericanPetroleumInstitute,2010,p.3;
CanadianSocietyforUnconventionalResources,2012,p.3&19).
PRODUCEDWATER
A byproduct of oil and natural gas development encompassing all waters returned to surface through a well borehole.
ProducedWatersincludewaterinjectedduringthefracturestimulationprocess(i.e.:flowback)aswellasnaturalformation
waters(Environmental&RegulatorySubgroupoftheOperations&EnvironmentTaskGroup,2011,p.11).Producedwater
qualityandquantityvarysignificantlybyregionandcanrangefrombrackish(notfresh,butlesssalinethanseawater)to
saline (similar salinity to seawater) to supersaturated brine (which can have salinity levels multiples times higher than
seawater)(U.S.DepartmentofEnergy,2004,p.11).Variabilityinwaterqualityandquantityisalsonoticeableovertime
withflowbackproducedwatersourcesaswell.Inadditiontohighlevelsofnaturalsalinity,producedwatermaycontain
suspended solids, hydrocarbons, dissolved minerals and other compounds that have dissociated from the target
hydrocarbonreservoir(U.S.DepartmentofEnergy,2004,p.11).
PROPPANT
Silicasandorothernaturaland/ormanmadeparticlesarepumpedintoaformationduringahydraulicfracturingoperation
tokeepfracturesopenandmaintainpermeability(AmericanPetroleumInstitute,2010,p.13).
SALINEWATER
Water containing salinity within the range of 35,000 parts per million (ppm) to 50,000 ppm Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
STIMULATION
Any of several processes used to enhance near wellbore permeability and reservoir permeability, including hydraulic
fracturing(AmericanPetroleumInstitute,2010,p.14).
SUPERSATURATEDBRINE
Watercontainingsalinitywithintherangeof50,000partspermillion(ppm)to>200,000ppmTotalDissolvedSolids(TDS)
THERMALSTABILITY
Thermalstabilityisdefinedasthedegreeofviscositystabilityofawatersolublepolymersolution(waterbasedcrosslinked
hydraulicfracturingfluid)asafunctionoftimeandtemperature(Aqualon,2007,p.23).Thedegreeofthermalstabilitya
watersolublepolymersolutionhasisofincreasedimportanceforwellshavinghighbottomholetemperatures(Aqualon,
2007,p.23).Asthermalstabilitydegrades,theviscosityofthewatersolublepolymersolutiondeclinesandtheproppant
carryingcapacityofthefluidisinhibited(Aqualon,2007,p.23).
TIGHTOIL
Oilproducedfromorganicrichshalesorfromlowpermeabilitysandstone,siltstone,limestoneordolostonereservoirsthat
typicallyrequirethecombinationofhorizontaldrillingandmultistagehydraulicfracturingtoestablishsufficientfluidflow
toachieveeconomicratesofrecovery(NationalEnergyBoard,2011).
29
JUNE28,2012 REUSEOFFLOWBACK&PRODUCEDWATERFORHYDRAULICFRACTURING INTIGHTOIL

10.2 FLUIDCHARACTERIZATIONFORCOLORADOGROUP(VIKING)
TABLE13:PENNWESTEXPLORATIONTIGHTOILDEVELOPMENTFRACWATERSAMPLESUMMARYFORCOLORADOGROUP(VIKING)
AVONHILLS
FRACWATER
NUMBEROFSAMPLES
UNITS
TOTAL
COUNT
CATIONS
N/A
UNITS
14
AVERAGE
MIN.
MAX.
SODIUM(Na)
mg/L
734
144
6,250
1,537
POTASSIUM(K)
mg/L
12,643
770
18,340
4,938
CALCIUM(Ca)
mg/L
60
20
227
MAGNESIUM(Mg)
mg/L
31
134
DODSLAND
FRACWATER
TOTAL
6
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
ESTHER
FRACWATER
TOTAL
3
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
PROVOST
FRACWATER
TOTAL
MIN.
MAX.
224
156
426
92
12,128
9,870
13,880
1,281
50
65
28
190
56
45
11
112
32
18
29
158
45
384
11
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
MIN.
MAX.
MIN.
MAX.
908
644
1,260
259
533
94
1,330
STND.DEV.
399
12,710
11,400
13,780
986
18,998
6,390
40,900
10,563
47
69
27
116
29
160
98
294
95
BARIUM(Ba)
mg/L
0.70
0.04
7.70
1.95
0.17
0.05
0.67
0.22
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.13
0.05
0.35
0.10
STRONTIUM(Sr)
mg/L
4.46
0.12
42.00
11.17
0.38
0.10
1.40
0.46
0.62
0.13
1.60
0.69
0.43
0.15
0.92
0.20
6.28
0.54
0.04
1.50
0.68
0.07
0.03
0.14
0.05
3.82
0.03
24.00
7.24
0.08
MIN.
0.23
MAX.
0.02
MIN.
0.02
MAX.
0.10
MIN.
1.20
MAX.
0.30
STND.DEV.
IRON(Fe)
mg/L
2.50
0.02
22.00
MANAGNESE(Mn)
ANIONS
mg/L
UNITS
0.45
AVERAGE
0.05
MIN.
2.20
MAX.
0.71
0.16
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
0.06
0.02
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
0.00
0.31
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
CHLORIDE(Cl)
mg/L
12,714
896
16,379
3,760
11,309
8,063
12,880
1,602
12,270
11,112
13,409
938
17,129
5,804
35,728
9,053
SULPHATE(SO4 )
mg/L
204
72
870
217
120
83
189
35
2,157
1,130
4,150
1,410
835
15
2,940
889
BICARBONATE(HCO3 )
mg/L
400
<2
812
225
354
<2
743
215
533
460
586
53
607
198
1,117
269
CARBONATE(CO 3 )
mg/L
13
<2
173
44
20
<2
117
44
209
35
305
123
<2
31
HYDROXIDE(OH)
mg/L
UNITS
3
AVERAGE
<2
MIN.
43
MAX.
<2
MIN.
224
MAX.
<2
MIN.
<2
MAX.
<2
MIN.
<2
MAX.
<2
STND.DEV.
FREQUENCYPRESENT(%)
0.00%
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00%
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00%
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00%
N/A
N/A
N/A
STANDARDUNIT(SU)
8.23
7.50
11.90
1.04
8.68
7.60
12.30
1.63
9.23
8.50
9.60
0.52
7.91
7.40
8.50
0.25
mg/L
26,807
2,363
36,294
8,224
24,273
18,800
27,185
2,769
28,992
28,123
29,937
743
38,276
12,987
78,774
20,043
mg/L
277
44
1,142
314
133
28
309
85
88
65
101
17
153
22
403
115
PHYSICALPROPERTIES
pH
11
37
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
83
<2
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
<2
<2
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
SAMPLESCOLLECTED:JULY8,2011FEBRUARY18,2012
PENNWESTEXPLORATION |R.WASYLISHEN&S. FULTON
30

TABLE14:PENNWESTEXPLORATIONTIGHTOILDEVELOPMENTFLOWBACKWATERSAMPLESUMMARYFORCOLORADOGROUP(VIKING)
AVONHILLS
FLOWBACKWATER
NUMBEROFSAMPLES
UNITS
TOTAL
COUNT
CATIONS
N/A
UNITS
16
AVERAGE
MIN.
MAX.
SODIUM(Na)
mg/L
6,927
412
20,330
5,896
POTASSIUM(K)
mg/L
5,932
641
14,800
CALCIUM(Ca)
mg/L
287
21
MAGNESIUM(Mg)
mg/L
161
BARIUM(Ba)
mg/L
DODSLAND
FLOWBACKWATER
TOTAL
11
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
ESTHER
FLOWBACKWATER
TOTAL
7
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
MIN.
MAX.
5,291
507
15,040
4,039
5,010
4,977
342
16,270
1,100
287
178
12
559
154
104
7.82
0.15
42.00
10.49
PROVOST
FLOWBACKWATER
TOTAL
11
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
MIN.
MAX.
MIN.
MAX.
STND.DEV.
5,243
3,040
6,120
956
4,771
341
9,170
3,343
5,730
2,143
651
8,070
2,449
6,010
465
15,350
5,238
676
186
280
119
350
75
271
26
566
177
445
122
158
124
205
26
155
20
277
86
7.75
0.22
33.00
10.13
2.58
0.37
7.10
2.58
2.56
0.05
13.00
3.53
STRONTIUM(Sr)
mg/L
22.83
0.33
90.00
24.24
16.59
0.60
72.00
19.60
13.54
6.70
19.00
4.22
14.73
0.22
36.00
12.79
IRON(Fe)
mg/L
2.27
0.04
19.00
4.59
10.24
0.01
46.00
17.16
0.57
0.17
1.60
0.52
0.87
0.04
4.00
1.16
MANAGNESE(Mn)
ANIONS
mg/L
UNITS
1.48
AVERAGE
0.04
MIN.
3.90
MAX.
0.12
MIN.
1.40
MAX.
0.03
MIN.
1.30
MAX.
0.08
MIN.
4.00
MAX.
1.13
STND.DEV.
3,109
1.10
0.65
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
0.45
0.75
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
0.42
1.20
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
CHLORIDE(Cl)
mg/L
17,330
10,425
36,550
7,122
13,611
1,100
28,746
6,214
10,697
8,499
12,449
1,244
13,065
7,542
17,677
SULPHATE(SO4 )
mg/L
401
149
899
213
553
52
934
238
1,115
24
2,070
713
850
159
1,850
552
BICARBONATE(HCO3 )
mg/L
387
231
683
120
439
170
748
175
579
415
995
177
614
<2
991
316
<2
<2
27
10
<2
<2
<2
<2
10
<2
90
26
<2
MIN.
<2
MAX.
<2
MIN.
<2
MAX.
<2
MIN.
150
MAX.
43
STND.DEV.
CARBONATE(CO 3 )
mg/L
<2
<2
<2
HYDROXIDE(OH)
mg/L
UNITS
<2
AVERAGE
<2
MIN.
<2
MAX.
FREQUENCYPRESENT(%)
0.00%
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00%
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00%
N/A
N/A
N/A
9.09%
N/A
N/A
N/A
STANDARDUNIT(SU)
7.61
7.10
8.10
0.33
8.06
7.50
8.80
0.35
7.90
7.70
8.00
0.11
8.22
7.40
11.90
1.21
mg/L
31,059
22,431
60,098
10,054
27,919
2,187
64,522
15,476
20,233
16,912
26,130
2,816
25,764
15,439
31,205
5,729
mg/L
5,664
103
37,872
9,433
570
34
1,892
576
334
73
1,263
395
5,823
45
55,130
15,635
PHYSICALPROPERTIES
pH
<2
<2
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
<2
<2
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
<2
14
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
SAMPLESCOLLECTED:JULY9,2011MARCH2,2012
31

TABLE15:PENNWESTEXPLORATIONTIGHTOILDEVELOPMENTPRODUCEDWATERSAMPLESUMMARYFORCOLORADOGROUP(VIKING)
AVONHILLS
PRODUCEDWATER
NUMBEROFSAMPLES
UNITS
TOTAL
COUNT
CATIONS
N/A
UNITS
16
AVERAGE
MIN.
MAX.
SODIUM(Na)
mg/L
16,614
4,690
35,900
9,442
POTASSIUM(K)
mg/L
213
81
442
88
CALCIUM(Ca)
mg/L
692
56
1,760
MAGNESIUM(Mg)
mg/L
378
39
865
DODSLAND
PRODUCEDWATER
TOTAL
5
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
ESTHER
PRODUCEDWATER
TOTAL
1
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
PROVOST
PRODUCEDWATER
TOTAL
0
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
MIN.
MAX.
MIN.
MAX.
13,782
1,710
21,500
7,164
MIN.
MAX.
7,300
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
STND.DEV.
227
10
298
109
N/A
43
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
497
544
33
893
315
297
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
252
364
604
223
205
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
BARIUM(Ba)
mg/L
32.16
2.95
74.40
24.03
27.48
0.89
39.30
13.77
0.02
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
STRONTIUM(Sr)
mg/L
54.09
5.92
124.00
36.74
55.02
1.09
87.70
31.24
14.40
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
IRON(Fe)
mg/L
1.21
0.12
5.53
1.41
0.68
0.18
1.12
0.33
0.43
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MANAGNESE(Mn)
ANIONS
mg/L
UNITS
N/A
AVERAGE
N/A
MIN.
N/A
MAX.
N/A
MIN.
N/A
MAX.
N/A
MIN.
N/A
MAX.
CHLORIDE(Cl)
mg/L
28,974
7,939
62,660
16,681
24,257
2,805
37,280
12,587
9,118
N/A
N/A
N/A
SULPHATE(SO4 )
mg/L
<0.1
35
11
<0.1
31
12
3,190
N/A
N/A
N/A
BICARBONATE(HCO3 )
mg/L
439
210
800
197
482
360
590
84
740
N/A
N/A
CARBONATE(CO 3 )
mg/L
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
N/A
N/A
HYDROXIDE(OH)
mg/L
UNITS
<2
AVERAGE
<2
MIN.
<2
MAX.
<2
MIN.
<2
MAX.
N/A
MIN.
N/A
MAX.
FREQUENCYPRESENT(%)
0.00%
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00%
N/A
N/A
N/A
100.00%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
STANDARDUNIT(SU)
7.41
6.78
7.95
0.29
7.88
7.66
8.20
0.20
7.52
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
mg/L
47,000
13,000
100,000
26,690
39,360
4,800
61,000
20,362
21,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
mg/L
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
PHYSICALPROPERTIES
pH
N/A
N/A
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
<2
<2
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
N/A
N/A
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
<2
<2
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MIN.
N/A
MAX.
N/A
STND.DEV.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MIN.
N/A
MAX.
N/A
STND.DEV.
N/A
N/A
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
N/A
N/A
STND.DEV. AVERAGE
SAMPLESCOLLECTED:FEBRUARY10,2011FEBRUARY28,2012
32

Reuse of Flowback Produced Water For Hydraulic Fracturing

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Reuse of Flowback Produced Water For Hydraulic Fracturing

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

DISCLAIMER: PTAC does not warrant or make any representations or claims as

to the validity, accuracy, currency, timeliness, completeness or otherwise of the

JUNE28,2012 REUSEOFFLOWBACK&PRODUCEDWATERFORHYDRAULICFRACTURING INTIGHTOIL

PENNWESTEXPLORATION |R.WASYLISHEN&S. FULTON

JUNE28,2012 REUSEOFFLOWBACK&PRODUCEDWATERFORHYDRAULICFRACTURING INTIGHTOIL

PENNWESTEXPLORATION |R.WASYLISHEN&S. FULTON

JUNE28,2012 REUSEOFFLOWBACK&PRODUCEDWATERFORHYDRAULICFRACTURING INTIGHTOIL

PENNWESTEXPLORATION |R.WASYLISHEN&S. FULTON

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi