Argentina Water Management for Hydraulic Fracture From Conventional to Unconventional Reservoirs. What we have learned and what we need to consider

1. Lima, Peru
3 – 4 September 2015
Argentina Water Management for Hydraulic Fracture
From Conventional to Unconventional Reservoirs.
What we have learned and what we need to consider
SPE Water Management for Oil and Gas:
Best Practices and New Technologies Workshop
Juan C. Bonapace - (Halliburton)

2. Presentation Outline
• Introduction
• Water reuse—recent history
– Conventional (case history GSJ)
– Unconventional
• Water recycling
• Sources of water
• Type of treatments
• Unconventional water logistic
• No traditional waters
– Clay inhibition, Fracture fluid, damage by pH and total
suspended solids (TSS)
• Conclusions

3. Introduction
Hydraulic fracturing in Argentina
• Oil and gas reservoirs since 1960
• Conventional, tight, and shale
• Performed at the five productive basins
• Depths: 300 to 4500 m
• Bottomhole temperature (BHT): 100 to 300°F
• Reservoir pressures: subnormal to overpressure
• Formation permeability: high, medium, low, and ultralow
perms
• Multi-layer reservoirs and multi-target wells
Type of treatment
• Conventional fracture, slickwater, water-frac, and special
treatments for proppant flowback or high-water-cut zones
Type of fluid
• Oil-based systems, alcohol-water mixtures, foams, and
water-based fluids currently used

4. Reuse of Water: Recent History
Conventional Reservoirs
• 2004—Neuquén Basin
– Have performed an evaluation project using water from water wells (low salinity) to
adjust the formulation of standard fracturing fluid used (low temperature, guar-
borate)
• 2005—Gulf of San Jorge Basin
– Initiated a project to identify alternative sources of water for use in the fracturing fluid
used in regular operations (low to medium temperature, guar-borate)
– More than 2,000 fracture stages were completed using this water.
– In 2012, 90 to 100% of treatments were performed with produced water.
SPE-151819. “Water Conservation: Reducing Fresh Water Consumption by Using Produced
Water for Base Fluid in Hydraulic Fracturing Case Histories in Argentina”

5. Case History: Gulf of San Jorge
• Sources of water: Muster lake
• Cities:
– Comodoro Rivadavia
– Rada Tilly
– Sarmiento
– Caleta Olivia
• Population: 280,000
• Water consumption: 78 512 m3/D Fracturing activity
History of field production

6. Initial Phase (2005 to 2007)
• Identifying different sources in the field
• Water analysis
• Fracturing-fluid analysis
• First fracturing treatment performed
• Water loading platforms
Sources of water Water analysis tests
Fracturing fuid tests

7. Pilot: Implementation Phase (2007 and 2008)
• Work procedure
• Fracturing fluids analysis
• Water chemical-physical analysis
• Water-bacteriologist analysis
• Only one loading platform
> 1,790 Total fracturing stages
17% Fresh water reduction
6994 m3 Produced water consumption

8. Development Phase (2009 and 2010)
• New water source identification
• Introduction of pre-blender mixing units
• Water and fluid analysis
• Reformulation of fracturing fluids
• Construction of new loading platforms
840 Total fracturing stages
35% Fresh water reduction
13 176 m3 produced water
consumption
2009
763 Total fracturing stage
55% Fresh water reduction
21 805 m3 produced water
consumption
2010
Pre-blender unit
New loading platforms

9. Case History Summary: Gulf of San Jorge
Updated information:
• In 2011, 80% of the hydraulic fracturing was performed with produced water.
• From 2012 to present, a fresh water reduction of approximately 90 to 100% has been
maintained.
• Currently, this practice is the standard with this operator.

10. Reused Water: Recent History
Unconventional reservoirs
• 2011—Neuquén Basin
– Los Molles Formation: A mixture of fresh water
(85%) and produced water (15%) was used for
hydraulic fracture (10 stages) in a horizontal
well.
• 2013—Gulf of San Jorge Basin
– D-129 Formation: Operator decided to use
100% produced water (low salinity < 10,000
TDS) for five hydraulic fracturing stages in a
vertical well.
• 2014—Neuquén Basin
– Vaca Muerta Formation: One operator started to use flowback water in regular
treatments. 30 to 50% fresh water consumption has been decreased in the
fracturing stages (flowback water is used in slickwater and linear gel system in
hybrid fracturing design).

11. Water Recycling
2. Economic
Total Cost of Water = acquisition + transfer to
well + transfer from well to disposal +
disposal
• Bakken = 6 to 15 US$/bbl
• Eagle Ford = 2 to 6 US$/bbl
• Marcellus = 4 to 20 US$/bbl
Note: Does not include brine for clay stabilization
3. Type of water treatments
1. Current water cycle—hyd.fracture
4. Recycle approaches to handle variability

12. Water Recycling
5. Technical concerns for water reuse 6. An integrated approach
• Effective water treatments
• Fluid formulation (high TDS)
• Effective biocide
• Effective logistical engineering
• Multiple technologies applied
7. Recycle and reuse
8. Benefits

13. Water Recycling

14. Sources of Water: Neuquén Basin
Sources of water
• Fresh water, rivers, lakes, and water wells
• Used for conventional reservoirs development
Neuquina Basin (unconventional)
• Primary sources of water are rivers, Limay, Neuquén, and
Colorado).
• Other sources are lakes, such as Cerro Colorado and
Pellegrini.
• Groundwater sources, wells with low salinity (< 5,000 TDS),
need a permit from regulatory authorities and water is not
suitable for human consumption or farm landing.

15. Sources of Water: Neuquén Basin
Type of fresh water
• Limay, Neuquén, and Colorado rivers
• Water wells (different fields)
Water requirements
• Normally used in fracturing fluids
Area South South South West West West West East East
GroupofWells C C D D H H H S X
Type Water River (Limay) River (Limay) River (Nqn) River (Nqn) Well#1 Well#2 Well#3 River (Colorado) River (Colorado)
Specificgravity 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.003
pH 6 to8 7.71 7.44 8.11 8.03 9.14 8.73 8.71 7.77 7.56
Resistiviy(ohms-cm) 59.551 17.346 3.525 1.012 3.331 2.450 2.618 0.633 0.785
Temperatura(°C) 15 to40 24.4 24.5 21.0 20.7 20.6 19.9 20.4 22.9 23.2
Carbonate (mgL) <600 0 0 0 0 0 7.2 14.4 0 0
Bicarbonate (mgL) <600 67.1 54.9 158.7 268.5 278.2 244.1 258.7 585.8 561.3
Chloride (mgL) <30,000 2.0 10.0 620.2 80.0 348.1 428.2 372.2 1,450.6 1,660.1
Sulfate (mgL) <500 7.5 155.0 50.0 85.0 475.0 650.0 625.0 1,750.0 1,750.0
Calcium (mgL) 50 to250 1.6 48.1 34.7 83.4 8.0 1.6 0.0 1,002.0 1,202.4
Magnesium (mgL) 10 to100 2.0 9.7 8.1 17.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 170.2 170.2
Barium (mgL) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strontium (mgL) 0.02 0.02 1.3 1.2 n/a n/a n/a 10.08 11.40
TotalIron(mgL) 1 to20 0.12 0.17 0.20 0.10 0.17 0.07 0.05 0.23 0.38
Aluminum (mgL) 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020
Boron(mgL) 0 to20 0.0 0.0 0.2 10.9 n/a n/a n/a 0.30 0.30
Potassium (mgL) 100 to500 0.0 0.0 2.6 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.5 15.0
Sodium (mgL) 2,000 to5,000 24.7 27.8 427.7 51.7 546.5 682.1 646.7 504.3 408.9
TDS(mgL) <50,000 105 306 1,302 599 1,657 2,014 1,918 5,486 5,769
TSS(mgL) <50 2.5 2.6 5.6 0.3 30.0 16.0 7.5 4.8 0.4
Water
Requirements
Water characteristics
• Underground water sources have
higher values in terms of pH,
sulphates, TDS, total suspended
solids (TSS), chlorides,
bicarbonates, and sodium.

16. Vaca Muerta (hyd. fracturing) Tight reservoirs (hyd. fracturing)
• Hybrid (SW-LG-XL or SW-XL) or 100%SW
• (J)—no use of FR but used scale inhibitor if
needed to use LG or XL (is a 20ppt
CMHPG-Zr)
• (G)—no use of clay stabilizer
• Mostly XL fluid used (is a 20 ppt guar-borate)
• Hybrid (SW-LG-XL or SW-XL) or 100% XL
• Some operators use CMHPG-Zr fluid
Type of Treatments: Unconventional

17. Unconventional Water Logistic
Storage systems
• Mobile fracturing tanks (80 m3)—B
• Circular tanks (1000 to 5500 m3)—A
• Pits or dams
– Small (15 000 m3)—C
– Large (35 000 m3)—D
Water handling
• Trucks
• Piping system (tubing or aluminum pipe)
from 300 m to 1.5 Km—C
• Centrifugal pumps (40 to 60 bbl/min) A–B
Exploratory wells
• Mobile fracturing tanks and trucks
(Cuyana and GSJ basins)
(from SPE-174118)

18. Unconventional Water Logistic
Multi-Horizontal Well Pad - (B)
• 3 Hztal wells and 33 frac stages
• Completion time: 11 days
• Water volumen: 60,000m3
• Storage capacity: 5,500m3
Primary System (A)
• New Water Well #2 (1,000 m3/D)
• Storage capacity: 16,000 m3
• Distance: 1.5 Km
• 8 inch aluminum pipe and centrifugal pumps
Alternative System (C)
• Water Well #1 (1,300 m3/D)
• Storage capacity: 18,000 m3 (two water
storage)
• Distance: 800 m to 2.3 Km – (Ww#1 = 4.5
Km)
• 8 inch aluminum pipe and centrifugal pumps
• 4 ½ inch tubing from Ww#1
(from SPE-174119)

19. No Traditional Waters: Flowback and Produced Water
Area West South South South South South East West West West West
Group of Wells D D D D A C G H H H H
Sub-Group D#1a D#2a D#3a D#3b A#1a C#1a G#1a H#7a H#1a H#2a H#3a
Reservoir Tight Tight Tight Tight Shale Shale Shale Shale Shale Shale Shale
Type Water FB FB FB FB PROD FB PROD PROD FB FB FB
Specificgravity 1.042 1.018 1.060 1.060 1.130 1.045 1.065 1.136 1.074 1.123 1.143
pH 6.38 6.69 6.00 5.98 5.62 6.35 5.74 6.48 6.74 5.06 5.25
Resistiviy (ohms-cm) 0.109 0.176 0.026 0.024 n/a 0.082 0.074 0.026 0.067 0.030 0.023
Temperatura(°C) 21.1 21.2 21.6 21.6 n/a 20.8 21.2 20.2 26.0 23.0 24.0
Carbonate (mgL) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bicarbonate (mgL) 353.9 2,257.7 109.8 85.4 257.3 610.2 195.3 146.4 1,196.0 131.8 107.4
Chloride (mgL) 30,011.9 15,005.9 118,546.8 126,049.8 86,837.6 37,014.8 58,022.9 118,546.8 67,026.5 106,041.9 131,051.8
Sulfate (mgL) 370.0 420.0 40.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 235.0 0.0 10.0 262.5 137.5
Calcium (mgL) 3,206.4 1,402.8 13,306.6 15,711.4 15,967.9 6,012.0 15,230.4 21,643.0 7,134.2 23,406.7 17,955.8
Magnesium (mgL) 1,264.6 413.4 1,459.2 1,167.4 4,902.9 1,264.6 729.6 2,140.2 1,702.4 3,988.5 2,723.8
Barium (mgL) 0 0 0 0 725 100 0 800 800 0 0
Strontium (mgL) 270.0 0.3 948.0 840.0 n/a n/a 702.0 2,078.0 n/a 2,120.0 4,210.0
Total Iron (mgL) 118.50 194.00 26.50 21.75 38.00 56.25 21.50 21.25 575.00 243.75 6.50
Aluminum (mgL) 0.002 0.002 0.020 0.020 n/a 0.050 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020
Boron (mgL) 7.8 2.0 10.2 8.4 n/a 7.7 21.3 29.8 24.2 10.4 17.2
Potassium (mgL) 535.0 0.0 1,015.0 1,028.8 2,150.5 0.0 750.0 2,750.0 250.0 998.0 2,130.0
Sodium (mgL) 13,149.7 8,381.8 57,821.5 60,450.3 27,250.3 14,590.7 18,178.5 45,234.5 32,225.5 34,489.0 59,261.3
TDS (mgL) 49,010 28,076 192,325 204,550 138,129 58,187 93,363 190,562 110,920 171,682 217,584
TSS (mgL) 569.2 27.7 84.0 119.0 n/a 666.0 356.5 714.5 163.0 310.4 235.6
Untreated Water Type Treated Water
Area West East East West West West
Group of wells H J S H H H
Subgroup T-H#1a T-J#1a T-S#1a T-H#2c T-H#7a T-H#4b
Reservoir Shale Shale Shale Shale Shale Shale
Type water FB FB FB FB PRO FB
Treated method I II II III IV filtered
Specific gravity 1.060 1.094 1.160 1.070 1.125 1.060
pH 7.84 5.87 8.00 7.32 9.12 6.38
Resistivity (ohms-cm) 0.075 0.049 0.028 0.047 n/a 0.046
Temperature (°C) 19.5 21.1 21.9 18.1 n/a 21.8
Carbonate (mgL) 0 0 36 0 66.5 0.0
Bicarbonate (mgL) 219.7 170.9 1,073.9 244.1 0.0 268.5
Chloride (mgL) 59,523.5 85,033.6 121,548.0 61,524.3 104,687.0 67,526.7
Sulfate (mgL) 0.0 325.0 130.0 6,375.0 5.0 80.0
Calcium (mgL) 6,332.6 14,909.8 28,216.3 3,206.4 155.0 16,354.6
Magnesium (mgL) 729.0 1,167.4 155.7 1,945.6 857.0 1,264.6
Barium (mgL) 110 0 0 0 874 0
Strontium (mgL) 1,400.0 1,080.00 7,550.00 177.00 1,846.0 2,960.0
Total iron (mgL) 0.45 11.00 5.50 2.60 1.32 18.25
Aluminum (mgL) 0.020 0.002 0.020 0.002 0.920 0.020
Boron (mgL) 12.0 13.7 1.5 8.2 22.8 63.0
Potassium (mgL) 16.0 1,945.0 4,390.0 253.1 2,066.0 1,497.5
Sodium (mgL) 29,984.4 34,054.7 46,580.6 35,389.8 47,182.0 21,242.7
TDS (mgL) 96,916 137,617 197,746 108,940 172,097 108,251
TSS (mgL) 4.4 34.6 16.0 4.3 10.1 98.0
Table 4—Physical and chemical results for four samples of flowback and produced water.
Treated
• Treatment methods: I to III, chemical coagulation, flocculation, and separation; IV,
electrocoagulation, pH adjustment, weir tank separation, and multimedia filtration, the
last sample was only filtered .
• Treatment effect: reduction of iron and TSS

20. No Traditional Waters: Clay Inhibition
Tight-CST Ratio Tight-XRD
Type Group Wells Subgrup
Percentage
(%)
TDS
(mg/L)
Clay Stabilizer
(gpt)
DI — — 100 0 1.4
Produced H H#7a. 100 190,562 No
*Clay stabilizer = quaternary ammonium salt
Table 5—Water evaluated in tight and shale formation .
Capillary Suction Time:
Shale formations are more sensitive than the tight
formations (higher % clay). Testing performed and
compared to traditional clay stabilizer used.
No traditional water showed a higher inhibition
capacity than traditional stabilizer.

21. No Traditional Waters: Fracturing Fluid
• Recent, studies and development of fracturing fluids using no traditional waters
(several authors)
• A new CMHPG-metallic fluid was developed at laboratory conditions. This fluid can
be formulated using a blend of water or 100% nontraditional water treated or only
filtered, and has a very good proppant transport capacity and less residue than
traditional guar-borate fluid currently used.
• This fluid was tested at different BHT 120, 150, and 220°F, typical condition for tight
and shale reservoirs in Argentina. Test No. Water
TDS
(mg/L)
Type Test
BHT
(°F)
Gel Load
(ppt)
1 South Zone—D#3a filtered 192,325 Stabilitiy 150 25
2 South Zone—D#3a filtered 192,325 Stabilitiy 150 30
3 South Zone—D#3a filtered 192,325 Break 150 25
4 West Zone—T-H#4b 108,250 Stabilitiy 220 25
5 West Zone—T-H#4b 108,250 Stabilitiy 220 30
6 West Zone—T-H#4b 108,250 Break 220 30
*For more details about water, refer to Tables 3, 4, and 6. Sample D#3a was filtered in the laboratory.
System Water Type Fields/Wells
Percentage
(%)
TDS
(mg/L)
20-ppt Guar.borate Fresh water B#a 100 2,014
20-ppt CMHPG-Zr Blend B#a+F#1 50:50 70,542
20-ppt CMHPG-Zr Treated B#4T 100 108,940
Table 8—Formulations of two sets of XL gel tested.
Note: From SPE-174118, SPE-174119

22. No Traditional Waters: (Damage, pH and TSS)
Damage by pH effect Damage by TSS effect
(from SPE-174118, SPE-174119)

23. Conclusions
• Flowback and produced water have high levels of TDS, TSS, Ca, Mg, Fe, and B.
Treatment methods used reduced TSS and Fe, but it is possible to use only filtered
water.
• Treat the water “just enough” and adjust fluid chemistry; insignificant reduction of waste
• Nontraditional waters evaluated
‒ There is no need not use a clay stabilizer.
‒ It needs to be filtered (high content of TSS can impact negatively in proppant pack).
‒ High pH fracture fluid produces flocculent or insoluble components (negative
impact).
• A new fracture fluid can be formulated using a blend of water or 100% nontraditional
water treated or only filtered, and have a very good proppant transport capacity and less
residue than traditional guar-borate fluid currently used.

24. Conclusions (continued)
• Reduces water cost
‒ Acquisition + transfer + transfer to disposal + disposal
• Minimize fresh water consumption
• Water reuse is a key factor for sustainable unconventional
developments.

25. • Bonapace, J.C., Giglio, M., Moggia, J., a.et al. 2012. Water Conservation: Reducing
Fresh Water Consumption by Using Produced Water for Base Fluid in Hydraulic
Fracturing - Case Histories in Argentina. Presented at the SPE Latin America and
Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conferences, Mexico, Mexico City, 16-18 April.
SPE-151819-MS.
• Bonapace, J.C., Alric, F., Angeloni, a.et al. 2015. Water Management: What We Have
Learned and What We Need to Consider for Developing a Shale Play in Argentina.
Presented at the SPE Latin America and Caribbean Health, Safety, Environment and
Sustainability Conference, Colombia, Bogota, 7–8 July. SPE-174118-MS.
• Bonapace, J.C. 2015. Water Management for Tight and Shale Reservoir: A Review of
What Has Been Learned and What Should Be Considered for Development in
Argentina. Presented at the SPE Latin America and Caribbean Health, Safety,
Environment and Sustainability Conference, Colombia, Bogota, 7–8 July. SPE-
174119-MS.
References

26. THANKS
QUESTIONS?