Water management

“In time and with water, everything changes” – Leonardo Da Vinci

Let’s take a brief look back at how the Permian basin got started. You’ve all heard stories of the famous Santa Rita No. 1—it’s near Big Lake, the town of two lies—“it ain’t big and there’s no lake,” as it was explained to me about six years ago.

Anyway, back to Santa Rita No. 1, the well that launched the Permian basin. It all starts in 1919 with Rupert Ricker a University of Texas (UT) graduate and World War I veteran, leasing land from UT, who sets out to raise money for the filing fee by selling leases. With no takers, he sells his plans, maps and preliminary lease to Frank T. Pickrell, an old army buddy, for $2,500.

Frank has about the same luck with the same plan, so with his partner, Haymon Krupp, they decide to develop the acreage themselves. The two partners then proceed to sell stock to raise capital, but the process was moving too slowly. The pair then convinces their board to sell certificates of interest in their leases. They raise about $100,000 and buy some used drilling equipment. With no experience they hire an experienced driller named Carl Cromwell.

Cromwell moves his family from Pennsylvania to the site, and the well is spudded on the last day before the drilling permit expires. About three years earlier in Mitchell County, Texas, Pacific Abrams No.1 starts producing, but not as prolifically as Santa Rita No.1, but that’s a story for another day. The lessons here are many, but at its core, its really about perseverance and gumption. In todays world of making a quick buck, it is likely this may never had occurred; how do you explain return on investment (ROI), when you have no historical data to support anything? Santa Rita No.1, named after the patron Saint of the Impossible. Looking back today, this was a remarkable feat and truly something to be proud of.

Waterflooding. So, what does this have to do with water management? Well, everything. In the earlier days of produced water management, waterflooding became the most practiced management method. As oil comes out of the reservoir, you pump water back in to increase production— this is also referred to as enhanced oil recovery (EOR) or secondary recovery. The problem is that this practice doesn’t work in unconventional shales, or at least is not widely practiced—I hear some people are trying. The unconventional market will change the landscape of water management in the oil field and, as Leonardo Da Vinci put it, “in time and with water, everything changes.” Let me tell you, there will be water, and it will require changes. Changes in how we manage produced water, reuse it and ultimately dispose of it.

As the Santa Rita gave rise to the Permian, along came waterflooding, which got it’s start in Pennsylvania, in the 1920s. This was around the time that Cromwell was moving his family from Pennsylvania to Texas. But it really wasn’t until the 1940s to 1960s that waterflooding became common.

By the mid-1940s, onshore conventional primary oil production was declining significantly, and producing water. Waterflooding helped boost production in these declining wells, and the popularity took off. Another key point is these waterflood or injection wells are typically much shallower than disposal wells and are not considered a contributor to induced seismicity (earthquakes). In the Permian, injection wells outpace disposal wells 7:3, so of the total wells used for produced water management, 70% are injection or waterflood wells, and 30% are disposal wells.

Unconventional produced water needs its waterflood, a cost-effective option that doesn’t contribute to seismicity. Disposal wells have been, and always will be, the backbone of any produced water management program. Reuse of produced water as a completion fluid has become cheaper than disposal, but with completion programs being impacted by oil price, takeaway capacity and capital restrictions (due to pressure from Wall Street), they are an unreliable outlet for produced water.

You also have landowners restricting movement of produced water across their properties or requiring you to buy freshwater from them, in exchange for access to their lands. This diminishes the opportunity to reuse. Don’t get me wrong, reuse will grow significantly during 2019, but we will not see it replace the use of fresh or brackish water completely. Between landowner restrictions or requirements and logistics (having the right amount of produced water in the right place), we will see, at most, 75% of completions demand come from produced water and 25% from other sources, including municipal discharge, brackish wells and freshwater wells or surface water sources. Maybe this is generous—I see this as a maximum goal.

With induced seismicity rearing its head in the Delaware basin, where the water cut is higher (as high as 8-10:1) than the Midland basin (around 1-2:1), and drilling activity shifting to the Delaware, we will see more water in an area where there may be disposal restrictions and no waterflood option to save the day. Even at 75% reuse, there is over double the produced water generated than is needed for completions. So, there remains a tremendous surplus. Yes, reuse will grow, but without a reliable completion program, you can’t rely on reuse, alone.

So, what’s next? Will someone finally develop discharge-quality water for under $1/bbl, and what about all the salt? I think evaporation can be the next low-cost reliable option, the waterflood for unconventional shale, but you will still have salt or a concentrated brine to deal with. This brine could be used in drilling programs but is likely to need another option to manage the volume. I believe, with the same gumption that brought in the Santa Rita and the Patron Saint of the Impossible, we will figure it out.

About the Authors

Mark Patton

Hydrozonix

Mark Patton is president of Hydrozonix and has more than 30 years of experience developing water and waste treatment systems for the oil and gas industry. This includes design, permitting and operation of commercial and private treatment systems, both nationally and internationally. He has seven produced water patents and two patents pending. He earned his B.S. in chemical engineering from the University of Southern California (USC) in 1985.