Projecting the Water Footprint Associated with Shale Resource Production: Eagle Ford Shale Case Study.

Production of oil from shale and tight reservoirs accounted for almost 50% of 2016 total U.S. production and is projected to continue growing. The objective of our analysis was to quantify the water outlook for future shale oil development using the Eagle Ford Shale as a case study. We developed a water outlook model that projects water use for hydraulic fracturing (HF) and flowback and produced water (FP) volumes based on expected energy prices; historical oil, natural gas, and water-production decline data per well; projected well spacing; and well economics. The number of wells projected to be drilled in the Eagle Ford through 2045 is almost linearly related to oil price, ranging from 20 000 wells at $30/barrel (bbl) oil to 97 000 wells at $100/bbl oil. Projected FP water volumes range from 20% to 40% of HF across the play. Our base reference oil price of $50/bbl would result in 40 000 additional wells and related HF of 265 × 109 gal and FP of 85 × 109 gal. The presented water outlooks for HF and FP water volumes can be used to assess future water sourcing and wastewater disposal or reuse, and to inform policy discussions.

[1]  B. Scanlon,et al.  Water use for Shale-gas production in Texas, U.S. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[2]  R. Reedy,et al.  Comparison of water use for hydraulic fracturing for unconventional oil and gas versus conventional oil. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[3]  Penelope Morgan,et al.  A predictive model of burn severity based on 20-year satellite-inferred burn severity data in a large southwestern US wilderness area , 2009 .

[4]  Svetlana Ikonnikova,et al.  Well economics across ten tiers in low and high Btu (British thermal unit) areas, Barnett Shale, Texas , 2013 .

[5]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[6]  Frank Male,et al.  The impact of pressure and fluid property variation on well performance of liquid-rich Eagle Ford shale , 2016 .

[7]  Christopher B. Harto,et al.  Water Use and Management in the Bakken Shale Oil Play in North Dakota. , 2016, Environmental science & technology.

[8]  Avner Vengosh,et al.  Water Footprint of Hydraulic Fracturing , 2015 .

[9]  Scott W. Tinker,et al.  Production Scenarios for the Haynesville Shale Play , 2015 .

[10]  R. Reedy,et al.  Source and fate of hydraulic fracturing water in the Barnett Shale: a historical perspective. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[11]  Frank Male,et al.  Managing the Increasing Water Footprint of Hydraulic Fracturing in the Bakken Play, United States. , 2016, Environmental science & technology.

[12]  Scott W. Tinker,et al.  Regional assessment of the Eagle Ford Group of South Texas, USA: Insights from lithology, pore volume, water saturation, organic richness, and productivity correlations , 2016 .

[13]  D. R. Cutler,et al.  Utah State University From the SelectedWorks of , 2017 .

[14]  Scott W. Tinker,et al.  Fayetteville shale-production outlook , 2014 .

[15]  K. Marra,et al.  U.S. Geological Survey 2013 assessment of undiscovered resources in the Bakken and Three Forks Formations of the U.S. Williston Basin Province , 2015 .

[16]  Seth S. Haines,et al.  A framework for assessing water and proppant use and flowback water extraction associated with development of continuous petroleum resources , 2014 .

[17]  Svetlana Ikonnikova,et al.  Factors influencing shale gas production forecasting: Empirical studies of Barnett, Fayetteville, Haynesville, and Marcellus Shale plays , 2015 .