Post-frac Flowback Analysis 

and Reuse Implications

OOGA SPE Fall Technical Meeting Dec 7, 2011

John W Cramer, PE

Superior Well Services
Shale Frac Sequential 

Flowback Analyses and Reuse 

Implications

EPA Technical Workshop, March 30, 2011

Matt Blauch

Superior Well Services
The Ideal Engineered Reuse Solution 

Should Be...

• Able to Reduce 

Environmental Risk

• Effective for Fracturing

• Practical & Economic

• Able to Provide 

microbiological Control

• Non-Damaging to 

Production 

What is needed for reuse?

Sequential Flowback Analyses

Multiple Ion Trend

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 Constituent (ppm)

Flowback (barrels)

Iron Trend

2500 bbls 5000 bbls 14000 bbls
Sequential Flowback Analysis

• Collect a water sample 

every 500 bbl of flowback

• Analyze key constituents 

over time

• Provides trends for 

impurities of concern

• Confirms efficacy of frac

fluid design

• Calculates necessary 

changes to fluid design 

for subsequent wells

Ref: US EPA Workshop, March 2011
Importance of Sequential 

Flowback Analyses

• Insight of impurities over time and 

volume of flowback

• Playbook for necessary blending and/or 

remediation strategies for safe reuse

• Gives the operator intelligence of how 

best to manage water

• Optimizes frac fluid design in 

subsequent work in that geography

• Informs public that we do know what is 

coming back over time

Ref: US EPA Workshop, March 2011
Total Dissolved Constituents by Region

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)

Flowback (bbls)

NW Marcellus

SW Bakken

NW Bakken

E Marcellus

Haynesville/Bossier

Permian

SW Marcellus

Ref: SPE 125740, Blauch, et.al. 2009 
Flowback and Frac Waters Data Set

• 235 Frac Water Sources

• 524 Flowback Samples

• 25 Sequential Flowback Studies
Distribution of Marcellus Sequential 

Flowback Studies

Susquehanna

Potter

Jefferson

Armstrong

Allegheny

Butler

Westmoreland

Fayette Washington
R2 = 0.9954

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000

Chloride (mg/L)

TDS (mg/L)

Chloride Content vs Total Dissolved Solids

In Marcellus Formation
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Constituent (mg/L)

Flowback (bbls)

Barium Sulfate 

Barium & Sulfate Trend

In Marcellus Formation
0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

125,000

150,000

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)

Flowback (bbls)

Susquehanna Jefferson

Armstrong Fayette

TDS Content vs. Marcellus Flowback
Distribution of Marcellus Sequential 

Flowback Studies

Susquehanna

Potter

Jefferson

Armstrong

Allegheny

Butler

Westmoreland

Fayette Washington
0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

Total Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3)

Flowback (bbls)

Susquehanna Jefferson

Armstrong Fayette

Hardness vs Marcellus Flowback Volume by Region
0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

Barium (mg/L)

Flowback (bbls)

Susquehanna Jefferson

Armstrong Fayette

Barium Content vs Marcellus Flowback
0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

-80.5 -80.0 -79.5 -79.0 -78.5 -78.0 -77.5

Calcium Content (mg/L)

GPS (Longitude)

Calcium Content of Flowback @ 7,500bbl 

West East
Post-Frac Water Load Recovery

39.5 40.0 40.5 41.0 41.5 42.0

-10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

-80.5 -79.5 -78.5 -77.5

GPS (Latitude)

Load recovery (%)

GPS (Longitude)

Longitude Latitude

West East

North South
Marcellus Well Sites – Fluid Pumped 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

417 418 419 421 422 423 425 426 427 428 219 225 287 304 340 352

Fluid Pumped (bbls)

Project Number (well site)
Marcellus Well Sites – Load Recovery(%)

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

417 418 419 421 422 423 425 426 427 428 219 225 287 304 340 352

Percent Fluid Recovery (bbls)

Project Number (well site)
0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

125,000

150,000

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)

Flowback (bbls)

Susquehanna Jefferson Armstrong Fayette Texas(1) Texas(2)

TDS Content 

Haynesville vs Marcellus Flowback
What is needed for reuse?

Geochemical Controls

• Sophisticated Geochemical Scale Modeling Simulator

• Specific to Downhole Conditions

DownHole SAT Rx

INJECTION WATER CHEMISTRY INPUT
Bad things can happen if we ignore water chemistry

• Fluid design chemistry must 

consider water chemistry

• Certain fluid designs aren't 

effective in stressed water

• Hardness on guar hydration

• Chlorides with cationic FR

• You don't want to discover 

that there is a problem in 

the blender tub!
The correct frac fluid additives will 

consider all base fluid properties

• The Correct Frac Fluid 

Design Chemistry

• Brine Tolerant Friction 

Reducer Chemistry

• Scale, Iron, and 

Microbiological 

Considerations

• Compatible With the 

Formation

SWSI / KWS

Core Flow Analyzer
Understand the Variables

• Frac fluids / treated 

water compatibility

• Detailed water 

analyses

• Fluid design 

performance 

confirmation

• Scale modeling 

determinations 
Fluid Design Considerations

• Non-damaging to formation

• Thermally stable

• Regain perm

• Non-emulsifying

• Environmentally responsible

• Non-persistent

• Safe to handle

• Chemical compatibility / synergy

• Soluble in brines

• Maximize well IP
Considerations for 

Effective Water Reuse

• Prefrac water analyses

• Proper frac fluid design

• FR studies

• Geochemical modeling

• Comprehensive microbiological 

evaluations

• Sequential flowback studies 
Conclusions

• Shale Frac Sequential Flowback Analysis have 

become important to HVHR fracturing in the 

Marcellus shale

• Variations in flowback geochemistry are observed 

both spatially and volumetrically

• Predictive analysis tools such as geochemical scale 

modeling and geochemical simulation play an 

important role in water reuse and treatment design

• Functional performance testing of flowback water 

for reuse is recommended 
Acknowledgements

• Thanks to:

– OOGA / SPE for the opportunity to present

– Superior Well Services and Nabors

– Kroff Well Services

• Paul Rey, Dave Grottenthaler and Dave Kern
Geologic Hypotheses for Flowback Chemistry

Marcellus Paleogeography

Ref: SPE 125740, Blauch, et.al. 2009 

Figure after Lash, 2009
Deep Basinal Hypersaline Fluids

Oriskany Waters Across Pennsylvania

Ref: SPE 125740, Blauch, et.al. 2009 
Hypothesis Testing –

Core Analysis

Cation Bulk Core Salt Scraping

Ba 1% 2%

Ca 40% 42%

Fe 46% 5%

K 4% 7%

Mg 6% 3%

Na 2% 40%

Sr 1% 1%

Total 100% 100%

Ref: SPE 125740, Blauch, et.al. 2009 
Hypothesis Testing – Drilled Cuttings 

Analysis
Hypothesis Testing Diagnostic Tool –

Piper Analysis

Ca

2+

Mg

2+

Na

+ + K+ CO32- + HCO3-

SO4

2-

Cl

-

SO4

2- + Cl

-

Ca

2+ + Mg

2+

EXPLANATION

Marcellus Flowback Water

Dead Sea Geochemistry

Oriskany Geochemistry

5638.1

341586.6

Early Flowback

Late Flowback

Typical 

Freshwater

Mixing line

Reused 

Frac Water

Mixing line

Ref: SPE 125740, Blauch, et.al. 2009