Laserfiche WebLink
All of these components need to be considered when analyzing <br />a company's produced water disposal costs. Once capital costs <br />are amortized, and gathering considered, total disposal costs <br />can vary widely - from about $0.12 / bbl in SE New Mexico to <br />more than $5.00 / bbl in the Green River or Wind River Basins <br />in Wyoming. <br />Water volumes can vary widely between regions and can have <br />an impact on economics of disposal options. The New Mexico <br />Oil Conservation Division (NMOCD) reports that produced wa- <br />ter is estimated to be 653 million barrels in 2005. This includes <br />water from East Indian Basin where one well can produce 3,000 <br />bbls / day of water, but only costs about $0.17 / bbl for disposal. <br />This low disposal cost is a result of the tremendous investment <br />in disposal infrastructure made by operators to accommodate <br />the larger volumes of water produced per well in this region. <br />MYCO Industries, Inc. operates five wells east of Carlsbad, <br />NM that produce a total of about 120bb1 /day of water. With no <br />disposal gathering infrastructure available, disposal costs for <br />these wells run $2.70 /bbl. This price is a combination of hourly <br />trucking rates to haul produced water to a commercial site and <br />a disposal fee of $0.50/barrel to actually dispose of the water. <br />Also worth considering is the fact that the cost of converting a <br />dry hole is not going to change just because there is less water <br />available for disposal. <br />Technological and Logistical Hurdles <br />Wyoming and New Mexico produce similar quantities of water, <br />but volumes vary widely between regions. For example, pro- <br />duced water volume from coal bed methane(CBM) production <br />in the Powder River Basin(PRB) is about 1.5 million barrels <br />per day from about 15,000 wells, or an average of 100 bbls /day/ <br />well. The gas production from the area is about 900 mmcfd. <br />These figures indicate that, for each mcf of gas produced, there <br />is also 12/3 bbl of water produced. Conversely, in the Green <br />River Basin (GRB) in Southwest Wyoming, there is an average <br />of only about one -tenth of a bbl of water produced per mcf of <br />gas. The high volume of water produced in the PRB - more <br />than 16 times the volume produced in the GRB - has raised <br />many controversial questions about producing gas from the <br />PRB. <br />Produced water quality will present technological hurdles. <br />Produced water quality varies as widely as quantity from <br />area to area and has a tremendous impact on treatment op- <br />tions available. Table 1 presents a brief summary of typical <br />produced waters encountered in the oil field, illustrating the <br />challenge related to treatment. <br />Treatment Technologies <br />Five years ago, Yates Petroleum knew nothing about water <br />treatment technologies. After considerable time and money, <br />we've moved along that learning curve. There is still a lot <br />to learn and a way to go before we are treating meaningful <br />volumes of water, but we believe that we are at the forefront <br />of New Mexico producers who see the value to the state, our <br />industry, and our company in pursuing produced water treat- <br />ment options. <br />Four different types of technical solutions have evolved in <br />the oil and gas produced water treatment arena: membranes, <br />evaporative technologies, ion exchange, and thermal com- <br />pression. <br />-Thermal compression requires expensive pressure vessels, <br />and the operator must still dispose of a concentrate stream. It <br />does not appear to be as economic as other technologies. <br />•It appears the key to any membrane technology will be pre- <br />treatment. Conventional reverse osmosis (RO) membranes <br />are easily fouled by bacteria, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, <br />and other suspended solids such as calcium sulfates. <br />•Ion exchange treatment techniques have become the applica- <br />tion of choice in the Powder River Basin where water quali- <br />ties are fairly good with the exception of elevated sodium <br />levels. <br />Evaporative technologies have evolved from using simple <br />misters dependent on ambient conditions to more sophisti- <br />cated systems that recover much of the latent heat of vapor- <br />ization. <br />All units <br />mg/L <br />Pecos River <br />Disposal Well <br />Well 1 <br />Well 2 <br />Well 3 <br />Well 4 <br />Well 5 <br />States <br />NM <br />NM <br />NM <br />WY <br />WY <br />NM <br />NM <br />Bicarbonates <br />127 <br />705 <br />488 <br />3,318 <br />1,680 <br />39 <br />464 <br />Hardness (CaCO3) <br />n/a <br />n/a <br />11,000 <br />n/a <br />n/a <br />88,000 <br />15,000 <br />Arsenic <br />0.082 <br />0.078 <br />n/a <br />n/a <br />0.036 <br />n/a <br />n/a <br />Calcium <br />620 <br />582 <br />3,600 <br />404 <br />70 <br />30,000 <br />5,200 <br />Chlorides <br />2,020 <br />3,100 <br />48,000 <br />n/a <br />9,360 <br />182,000 <br />80,000 <br />Sodium <br />1,064 <br />12,010 <br />27,261 <br />444 <br />6,250 <br />78,398 <br />45,591 <br />Sulfates <br />2,040 <br />11,160 <br />1 1,800 <br />1212 <br />14 <br />600 <br />400 <br />TDS <br />6,350 <br />18,070 <br />181,629 <br />15,977 <br />115,700 <br />1294,167 <br />132,135 <br />