`Latest insights in shale gas technology and

`Latest insights in shale gas technology and

Latest insights in shale gas technology and
environmental impacts
Jan ter Heege
TNO Petroleum Geosciences, the Netherlands
EERA Shale Gas JP Knowledge Sharing Event, Krakow, 03.12.2015
Part of this presentation is based on research performed in the
M4ShaleGas project. This project has received funding from the
European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
under grant agreement No 640715
Shale gas research and development
economics
resource estimates
characterization
sweet spots
smart development
safe production
public perception
regulations
networks
Recent US developments
Decline in US natural gas price drives technology
development for efficient shale gas production
OECD/IEA 2014
Recent US developments
Higher gas production per rig and focus on sweet
spots compensate for decreasing number of rigs
Example Marcellus shale:
IEA 2015
Strong decrease in number of gas rigs
 tough business service companies
Increasing gas production per rig 
technological development (efficient
production as well as sweet spot focus)
Decrease in overall gas production 
some effects of lower gas prize
IEA 2015
Lack of infrastructure (pipelines, gas
treatment plants) main limiting factor for
Marcellus gas production
Future outlook: LNG export (gas price )
Current status Europe
Shale gas production in Europe largely on hold
with unsure potential for economic production
UK: 4 wells, supportive
government – expects
20-40 (fracced) wells in
next 5 years
DK: 1 exploration
well – abandoned in
2/2015
NL: licenses not
continued - no
commercial shale gas
in next 5 years.
PL: over 60 wells,
continuing efforts
- economic shale
gas production
unsure.
FR: ban on
commercial
hydraulic fracturing
ES: several new
exploration permits.
Court overruled
regional ban.
LIT: no new shale
tender round.
Chevron pulled
out previous one
DE: proposed law to
allow fracking under
tight restrictions after
moratorium of 4 years
RM: lifted ban on
fraccing in 2013,
few wells.
Shale gas research and development
economics
resource estimates
characterization
sweet spots
smart development
safe production
public perception
regulations
networks
Resource estimates
Technically recoverable shale gas reserves in
Europe could approach that of US (EIA estimates)
Sources: Energy Economic Developments in Europe (EC 2014) based on analysis
by the Energy Information Administration (EIA 2011, 2013)
Resource estimates
Strong need for updated resource estimates EU as
geological basis current estimates is questionable
?
EIA 2011
Resource estimates
Main uncertainties in current resource estimates
EU are in gas saturation and recovery factors
Expected Ultimate
Recovery
(EUR, Reserves)
Field
development
Economically
recoverable
(ERR)
Current research estimates (EIA):
Determination of total GIIP (= Free Gas + Adsorbed Gas):
GIIPfree = A x T x tot x Sgas x Fe
GIIPads = A x T x Vads
Technically Recoverable Resources: TRR = Rf x GIIPtot
Exploration drilling
Monte Carlo simulations using probability density functions
Technically recoverable
(TRR)
for input parameters
Geological analysis
Range of input parameters (e.g., Sgas, Rf) are mainly from
Total Gas Volume (GIP)
US analogues with questionable relevance to EU shales
Resource estimates
European Unconventional oil and gas assessment
by members of EuroGeoSurveys (EUOGA project)
The EC’s EUOGA project:
Data compilation of European shales
Consistent pan-European data sets
Common resource assessment
methodology
Dissemination of results using GIS
database and website
Coordinated by GEUS & TNO
Kickoff with country overview on
December 7th 2015
Shale gas research and development
economics
resource estimates
characterization
sweet spots
smart development
safe production
public perception
regulations
networks
Sweet spot identification
Sweet spots US shales need good potential for
hydrocarbon generation, storage & flow stimulation
Barnett
(Browning et al. 2013)
Marcellus
Bakken
Haynesville
Sweet spot identification
Key performance indicators based on reservoir
properties used to indicate shale prospectivity
Hydrocarbon generation
Performance indicator 1 (PIg):
𝑃𝐼𝑔 =
𝑅0 − 𝑅0𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑅0𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑅0𝑚𝑖𝑛
R0 - Vitrinite reflectance
Hydrocarbon storage
Performance indicator 2 (PIs):
𝑃𝐼𝑠 =
𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑆𝐶𝑡𝑜𝑡 − 𝑆𝐶𝑡𝑜𝑡
𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑆𝐶𝑡𝑜𝑡
− 𝑆𝐶𝑡𝑜𝑡
SC – Storage capacity
Mean performance indicator (PImean):
𝑃𝐼𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛
Efficient flow stimulation
Performance indicator 3 (PIf):
𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝐵𝐼𝑑𝑦𝑛 − 𝐵𝐼𝑑𝑦𝑛
1 𝐵𝐼𝑚𝑖𝑛 − 𝐵𝐼𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑃𝐼𝑓 =
+ 𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑚𝑖𝑛
2 𝐵𝐼𝑚𝑖𝑛
− 𝐵𝐼𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝐵𝐼𝑑𝑦𝑛 − 𝐵𝐼𝑑𝑦𝑛
BI – Brittleness Index
3
= −1
arithmetic mean of 3 PI’s
𝑃𝐼𝑔 + 𝑃𝐼𝑠−1 + 𝑃𝐼𝑓−1
Sweet spot identification
The mean performance indicator is mapped across
a shale basin to indicate sweet spot locations
Ter Heege et al. 2015
Shale gas research and development
economics
resource estimates
characterization
sweet spots
smart development
safe production
public perception
regulations
networks
Smart development
Synergies between hydraulic fracturing & alternative
drilling techniques (radial, fishbone wells)
Main aspects:
Fishbone wells
(100’s of holes 10-20 m long)
Relatively cheap
Fishbones.as
Strongly increase contact
with the reservoir
High redundancy
Hydraulic fracturing
(10-20 stages 100’s m long)
Public resistance
Less control on dimensions
More stable?
148 24m-long laterals
kx~0.1mD, kz~0.001mD
300 12m-long laterals
Horizontal well only
Smart development
Hydraulic fracturing can be optimized using stress
shadows around fractures & perforation locations
stress shadows
Simultaneous or sequential stimulation (modified after Nagel et al. 2013)
Interference fracturing using
stress shadow effects
(Pierce and Bunge 2015)
Smart development
Hydraulic fracturing can be optimized (fracture
complexity) by varying injection rates
Simulation (DDM) of the interaction between hydraulic and
natural fractures at different flow conditions (Zhang et al. 2015)
Changes in fracture complexity during cyclic injection in two
horizontal wells (Urbancic et al. 2014)
Shale gas research and development
economics
resource estimates
characterization
sweet spots
smart development
safe production
public perception
regulations
networks
Safe production
Top 5 concerns US
surface impacts
(Environmental Defense Fund):
wells
faults &
induced
seismicity
fraccing
1. General safety: Traffic &
transport around well site
2. Methane emissions
3. Improper drilling, completion,
operation or abandonment of
wells
4. Surface spills and leaks
5. Produced water disposal
Modified from Althous et al. 2012 & EERA Shale gas JP
Others:
Changing landscape (wildlife,
biotopes)
Availability water resources
Induced seismicity: Hydraulic
fracturing & waste water injection
Safe production
Measuring, Monitoring, Mitigating, Managing the
Environmental Impact of Shale Gas
10-country
Consortium
Safe production
Growing concern induced seismicity high volume
hydraulic fracturing and waste water disposal
Waste water disposal: Mw = 5.7 (2011)
Prague, Oklahoma
(Keranen et al. 2014)
Hydraulic fracturing: ML = 4.4 (Mw = 3.9, 2014)
Fox creek, Duvernay Shale, Canada
(Schultz et al. 2015)
Safe production
Injection volume is a key factor controlling
earthquake magnitudes (mitigation options)
Safe production
Seismic hazard (damage) is controlled by peak
ground acceleration rather than EQ magnitudes
natural seismicity!
Giardini et al. 2013 (EC SHARE project)
Safe production
Microseismic monitoring is crucial for optimum
production as well as mitigating subsurface risks
De Pater & Baisch 2011
Microseismic monitoring of
hydraulic fracturing in the
Preese Hall -1 well (top) and
historical seismicity (right) in
the Blackpool region
British
Geological
Survey
2011
Thank you for your attention
Green River
Formation,
Colorado,
USA
Photo:
Susanne
Nelskamp
(TNO)