CASE STUDY: 

DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION AND 

OPERATION OF AN EFFECTIVE WATER 

TRANSFER SYSTEM IN THE 

MISSISSIPPI LIME 

GALYN BLACK 

PROJECT MANAGER 
MISSISSIPPI LIME WATER TRANSFER 

SYSTEM 

Chesapeake Water Transfer System (WTS) 

and Disposal at a Glance 

Design Considerations 

Implementation 

Operation 

2 
WATER TRANSFER SYSTEM AND SWD

STATISTICS 

! 26 active CHK operated Salt 

Water Disposal (SWD) wells 

accepting 365,000 BWPD 

! 403 miles water transfer 

system piping installed 

! 275 miles electrical 

distribution system installed 

! 350 producers currently piped 

through water transfer system 

(347,000 BWPD) 

3 
WATER TRANSFER SYSTEM AND SWD

STATISTICS 

! City of Norman, about same 

! Evaporation from 5.7 sections 

of corn 

! 35 bbl of water need to make 

1 bbl of beer ∴ 10,000 bbl of 

beer per day equivalent 

! 870 bbl to make one car ∴

400 cars per day 

4 
WATER TRANSFER SYSTEM AND SWD

STATISTICS 

! % Piped: 41% May ’12 95% May ‘13 

0"

50,000"

100,000"

150,000"

200,000"

250,000"

300,000"

350,000"

Avg$Mbbl/day$

Trucked$vs.$Piped$7$Mar$2012$7$May$2013$

truck"

pipe"
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 

Leasehold 

Contiguity 

•Smaller 

individual 

systems 

•Interconnected systems 

Reservoir 

Forecast

•Development 

plan vs. pipe 

diameter and 

SWD spacing 

•WOR 

dynamic IP 

and decline 

Market 

Support 

•Construction 

crews and 

experience 

•ROW 

•Materials 

6 
LEASEHOLD CONTIGUITY 

! Smaller Individual Systems 

› Less controls and system 

dynamics 

› Less complex gathering 

system operational 

challenges 

› Less collateral risk from 

remote exigencies 

› More SWDs 

7 
LEASEHOLD CONTIGUITY 

! Interconnected Systems 

› Receptive Arbuckle allows 

for large gathering area to 

reduce SWD footprint 

› Better opportunity for 

reuse 

› More flexible operations – 

valves at 2-3 mi spacing 

› Elevation and direction of 

flow important (250’ 

across one township) 

8 
RESERVOIR FORECAST 

! 42% of CHK bwpd made by 1.5% of wells (Dec ‘12) 

› Very high IPs 

› If matrix dominated perm, then slow declines 

! Development Plan vs. Pipe diameter and SWD 

spacing 

› Aerial variance of WOR for IP and decline 

› # wells per unit and decline per successive well in 

unit 

› SWD spacing based on 7” tubing 

› Pipe diameter to allow 100% redundancy 

− Then start looping and adding SWDs as needed 

9 
MARKET SUPPORT 

! Construction crews availability and experience 

! ROW 

› Agents, Survey Crews and Landowners 

! Material choice 

› Fiberspar, HDPE (poly), Soluforce, Polyflow, Coated 

Steel, Fiberglass 

› Higher flows and transfer distances tended toward 

fiberglass and poly for larger diameters 

› Understand temperature profile through facilities, 

lateral and trunk 

› Hydrocarbon derate

10 
MARKET SUPPORT

! Material Choice 

› Fiberglass 8” 500psi 

− Operating Pressures held to 325psi for cyclical 

loading, transients at 500psi 

− AWWA analysis for Buckling Pressure and 

Deflection: 200 to 300% safety factor 

› High Density Polyethylene 12” DR6 and DR7 

(~325psi and 270psi with temperature derate) 

− High IPs = high temps: ~130° at well head 

− With large orders, can get sufficient supply of 

DR5 

11 
IMPLEMENTATION 

Route Initiation 

•Free Market 

•ROW 

acquisitions 

•ROW + 

engineering + 

•constructability 

•Route selection 

Survey 

Permission / 

Environmental 

•Route selection 

process 

•Preliminary 

survey plats 

•Historical ROW 

metrics 

Construction / 

Commission 

•Peak completion 

rates 

•Quality Control 

vs. Quality 

Assurance 

•Metering and 

Valving

•BMPs 

12 
ROUTE INITIATION 

! No Forced Pooling and No Surface Damage Act 

! Total ROW Acquisitions 

› Water – 530 miles

› Electrical – 441 miles

! ROW, Engineering and Constructability Concurrence 

! Route Selection Process 

› Leasehold and Drilling Schedule Review 

› Topography – 

− Coordination with pad site development 

13 
SURVEY PERMISSION AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 

! Route Selection Process 

› Land owner preference 

− Boundary edges 

− Best to have all ROW documents on hand for 

survey permission 

› Environmental Review 

− Cultural Resources and Endangered Species 

− Waters of US (tributaries, herbaceous and 

forested wetlands) 

! Preliminary Survey Plats 

14 
ROW PERFORMANCE METRICS 

15 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

50 

Sep-10 

Oct-10 

Nov-10 

Dec-10 

Jan-11 

Feb-11 

Mar-11 

Apr-11 

May-11 

Jun-11 

Jul-11 

Aug-11 

Sep-11 

Oct-11 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Jan-12 

Feb-12 

Mar-12 

Apr-12 

May-12 

Jun-12 

Jul-12 

Aug-12 

Sep-12 

Oct-12 

Nov-12 

Months 

WTS Miles 

EDS/Mile 

Agents 
CONSTRUCTION AND COMMISSIONING 

! Peak Construction Rates 

per Month 

› 41.5 miles of pipeline 

› 28 miles of power line 

› 2 SWDs 

› 56 wells put on line 

16 
CONSTRUCTION AND COMMISSIONING 

17 

! WTS Crews at Peak: 23 

Total 

› 9 trunk line 

› 3 pump station 

› 3 telemetry 

› 5 Survey 

› 3 ROW (7 agents each)
CONSTRUCTION AND COMMISSIONING 

! Quality Control vs. Quality Assurance 

! Metering and Valving

! BMPs 

› Full time inspection for all construction activity 

(including 3rd Party line crossings) 

− 1 inspector per autonomous crew 

− Contractor meetings with corporate leadership to 

review HSE performance

18 
CONSTRUCTION AND COMMISSIONING 

› 500’ minimum bend radius for all 8” FG pipe 

− Quick calculator tools developed for initial field 

analysis 

− Contractor submission of vertical and horizontal 

curves for review and approval 

› Clean fill with gravel or smaller up to 2’ above FG

› Tight fit centralizers with supplemental tape 

bracketing for horizontal directional bores 

› 500 psi Hydrotest for FG 

19 
CONSTRUCTION AND COMMMISSIONING

› 445 psi Hydrotest for DR6 

poly 

› 3 full time line locate 

technicians 

− Tracer wire and caution 

tape 

− 900 locate requests 

per month 

− Locate requests must 

have only one 

contractor and scope 

on each request

20 
CONSTRUCTION AND COMMMISSIONING

› MScope surveys ahead of all trenching operations

− 2 abandoned lines found so far since 

implementation 

› Pump Stations 

− Programming to eliminate any competition 

between the valve controls and pump drive 

− LOTO procedures for any pump stations not in 

service 

› Avoid turning on new wells late in day 

21 
OPERATION 

System 

Model 

•Hydraulic 

analysis using 

Synergy Model 

•Leak detection 

SCADA 

•Wireless 

communication 

SWD 

•Prolific Arbuckle 

•Wellbore design 

•Facility 

efficiency 

•Retreatment 

interval 

•Pumps assist 

22 
SYSTEM MODEL 

! Hydraulic Analysis using Synergy Model 

› Supports Future Design Optimization 

− Maximize Operational Flexibility 

− Coordination with Reservoir on Production 

Volumes 

› Aids in Operational Troubleshooting 

− Identify abnormal conditions (blocked valve, etc.) 

− Assists locating pipe restrictions 

–Paraffin or scale buildup, air pockets

23 
SYSTEM MODEL 

SYNERGY ANALYSIS 
SYSTEM MODEL 

! Leak Detection 

› Mass Balance Reviews 

› Pressure Analysis 

› Visual by Pedestrian or Aerial 

› Other Technologies 

25 
User Interface 

Overflow/Pressure 

Protection 

Tank 

Levels 

Measurement 

Alarms 

Pressures Motor/Valve 

Controls 

Shut Down 

Wireless 

Communications 

 SCADA COMMUNICATION 

26 
 SWDS 

! Very prolific for saltwater disposal – recent peak 

injection volume of 55,000 BWPD on vacuum 

! Wellbore design 

! Facility efficiency 

› Stokes law + actual hydraulic efficiency 

! Retreatment interval varies by area and # stages 

! Pumps assist available as needed 

› Typically less than 250psi 

! Low injection pressures – low operating cost 

27 
CASE STUDY: 

DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION AND 

OPERATION OF AN EFFECTIVE WATER 

TRANSFER SYSTEM IN THE 

MISSISSIPPI LIME 

GALYN BLACK 

PROJECT MANAGER