Project to Develop 

Flowback Water Reuse Guidelines 

for Hydraulic Fracturing Operations 

Keith Minnich 

Talisman Energy, Inc. 

20 March 2012 
2 

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) 

Guiding Principles for Hydraulic Fracturing 

8 September 2011 News Release 

This presentation will focus on a 

project which supports the reuse of 

hydraulic fracturing fluid flowback and 

finishes with a case study.
3 

Recycling of Flowback has Multiple 

Cost and Environmental Benefits 

• Reduces demand for fresh water 

• Reduces produced water disposal 

• Reduces truck traffic related to water movement 

• 50% flowback on a 20,000 m3 frac would require ~ 300 truck trips 

for disposal

• Ideally reduces overall production costs – multiple 

economies (disposal, trucking, water savings) 
4 

Reuse is not Limited by 

Water Treatment Technology 

Water treatment technology 

can deliver treated produced 

water: 

• Free of suspended solids 

• Free of organics 

• Free of color 

• Free of dissolved salt 

.......but not free of cost. 

Is this quality really needed for 

reusing flowback ? 

Rigzone, Monday, 16 August 2010
5 

Experience has Shown that Near-Fresh-Quality 

Water is Not Always a Requirement for Fracturing 

• Options exist for saline-tolerant 

chemical additives 

• Reports of fracturing with 

> 75,000 ppm Total Dissolved 

Solids Water 

Friction Reducer Source: Schlumberger Water Services 

Good enough for fracturing 

in some cases 
6 

Benefits to Industry from a Reuse Guidance Tool 

Operators, Service Providers, Water Treatment Providers 

would all benefit from an objective methodology to answer 

the questions: 

• What water specification is required for the hydraulic 

fracture fluid? 

• What are the options to condition the water to meet 

that specification? 

• Chemical additives 

• Physical/chemical water treatment processes 
7 

A CAPP Project was Initiated in 2011 to Provide a 

Methodology for Reusing Flowback 

• Conducted by Schlumberger/MI SWACO with Alberta and 

British Columbia funding 

• Peer Reviewed: 

• Alberta Innovates Technology Futures 

• British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission 

• British Columbia Science and Community Environmental 

Knowledge Fund 

• Industry 

• All results available to the public in early 2012 
8 

Hydraulic Fracture Fluid Reuse Manual 

• Three Volumes and Decision Tree Poster 

• Volume I – Introduction to Hydraulic Fracturing and Background 

Information for Reuse 

• Volume II - Reuse Guidance Manual and Decision Tree 

• Part 1 – Source and Flowback Fluid Blend Compatibility 

• Part 2 – Formation and Blend Fluid Compatibility and Fracture Fluid 

Selection 

• Part 3 - Flowback Handling 

• Volume III – Case Studies 

• Montney, Horn River, and Cardium 
9 

Why this Guidance Document is a Step Forward 

A structured decision process, in the 

form of a Decision Tree and Manual, 

which includes the following: 

• Guidance for use of field data and scale 

saturation index prediction software for 

blended fresh, flowback, and formation 

water 

• Options for addressing specific water 

quality issues 

• Sensitivity of the hydraulic fracture fluids 

to various constituents 

• A concept for evaluation of the impact of 

additives in flowback on the new 

hydraulic fluid. 
10 

Fresh, Flowback, and 

Formation Fluid Compatibility 

• Requires sequential analysis of flowback from: 

• Fresh only hydraulic fracture treatments 

• Blend of fresh and reused flowback hydraulic fracture 

treatments 

• Traditional tools used to evaluate compatibility include: 

• Scale saturation index software 

• Mixing tests to identify precipitation 

• Scale loop testing (e.g. PMAC System for evaluation of 

scaling tendency and inhibitor performance) 

• Geochemical modelling 
11 

Options for Water Conditioning 

Table A is based on water 

conditioning by chemical 

addition 

Table B is based on water 

conditioning by physical/

chemical treatment 
12 

Fracture Fluid Sensitivity Tables 

• Five different types of 

hydraulic fracture fluids 

• Important water quality 

parameters are identified 

• Allowable range for each 

parameter is listed 

• Potential problems when 

parameters are outside of 

range are listed 

• Remedial options are 

presented 
13 

The Concentration of Additives through Reuse 

ReusedFlowback

Fresh

20,000 m^3,Fresh

0 m^3,Flowback Well 1 10,000 m^3,Flowback

Additive 6,000 liters,Additive 3,000 liters,Additive

liters/m^3

0.3 10,000 m^3,Fresh

10,000 m^3,Flowback Well 2 10,000 m^3,Flowback

9,000 liters,Additive 4,500 liters,Additive

HF Fluid 10,000 m^3,Fresh

HF = HydraulicFractureFluid 10,000 m^3,Flowback Well 3 10,000 m^3,Flowback

HF 20,000 m^3HF per well 10,500 liters,Additive 5,250 liters,Additive

r 50% Flowback Recovery(or Reuse),%

FB = HF x r m^3,Flowback 10,000 m^3,Fresh

F = HF - FB m^3,Fresh 10,000 m^3,Flowback Well 4 10,000 m^3,Flowback

= HF x (1 - r) 11,250 liters,Additive 5,625 liters,Additive

DR 0.3 DosingRate as liters/(m^3HF)

Dosed = DR x HF liters of Additive dosed intoHF 10,000 m^3,Fresh

10,000 m^3,Flowback Well 5 10,000 m^3,Flowback

Cycled up concentration of Additive 11,625 liters,Additive 5,813 liters,Additive

is a combination of Reused andDosedAdditive

 1 

 (1 - % Reused Flowback in Blend) 

Concentration Factor does not depend on dosing rate, only on % Reuse 

Steady State Concentration Factor = 
14 

The Concentration of Additives through Reuse 
15 

Sensitivity to Concentration Factor 

as a Result of Successive Reuse 

More work is required to understand the impact of reused additives. 

Hydraulic

Fracture

Fluid Type

Suggested

Concentration

Factor

Threshold Requiring

Additional

Investigation

Additive or Additive Residuals

which can impact fresh Fracture

Fluid

Remedial Options

Slickwater Fluids 2 Friction Reducer Breaker

Linear Gels 2 Polymer Breaker

Field Tests

Required Borate

Disposal of Flowback or

Physical/Chemical Water

Treatment for Dissolved

Solids

2 Polymer Breaker

Field Tests

Required

Buffers

Disposal of Flowback or

Physical/Chemical Water

Treatment for Dissolved

Solids

Cross Link Fluids
16 

Case Study: Potential Calcite and Barite Scaling 

Data from 

sequential 

flowback analysis 

shows presence 

of both dissolved 

sulfate and 

barium in 

formation. 

How should 

barite scaling be 

controlled? 

Should barium be 

removed before 

reuse? 
17 

Case Study: Potential Calcite and Barite Scaling 

Software shows 

potential for: 

• Calcite scale 

formation 

• Barite scale 

formation 

As % of flowback in hydraulic fracture 

fluid increases so does the calculated 

scaling potential. 
18 

Sequential Flowback Analysis Provides Data for 

Evaluating Barite Management Options 

Investigation into the 

potential impact of 

barium in reused 

flowback. 

Barium in reused 

flowback had no 

apparent impact on 

sulfate concentration 

in this example. 
19 

PMAC Scale Loop Testing Investigation into 

Barite and Calcite Scaling 

• Cation brine 

• 4000 ppm Ca+2 

• 850 - 1250 ppm Ba+2 

• 1000 ppm Sr+2

• Anion brine 

• 100 - 500 ppm SO4

-2

• 600 ppm HCO3

-

• Total TDS = 65,000 balanced with NaCl 

• pH = 6.4 

• Conditions = 80 0C; 10,000, 20,000 kPa 
20 

PMAC Testing for Simulated Brine 

100 ppm SO4

-2, 850 ppm Ba+2 

600 ppm CO3

-2, 4000 ppm Ca+2 

Scale formation 

evident after 

200 minutes of 

run time 
21 

PMAC Testing for Inhibitor Selection and Dosing 

Conclusion: 

Down hole scale 

formation can be 

managed with 

scale inhibitor 

and barium 

removal is not 

required 
22 

Summary 

The Decision Tree and Guidance Manual provide a consistent and 

systematic methodology to evaluate: 

• Water specifications for a particular hydraulic fracture fluid 

• Water conditioning by chemical addition 

• Water conditioning by physical/chemical treatment 

• When to consider alternative fracture fluid additives 

Operators and service providers can select cost effective solutions 

with the least environment impact. Water treatment companies will 

have better insight into the needs of the industry.