### 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 50Sep-10Oct-10Nov-10Dec-10Jan-11Feb-11Mar-11Apr-11May-11Jun-11Jul-11Aug-11Sep-11Oct-11Nov-11Dec-11Jan-12Feb-12Mar-12Apr-12May-12Jun-12Jul-12Aug-12Sep-12Oct-12Nov-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 3 rd 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

25User Interface Overflow/Pressure Protection Tank Levels

Measurement Alarms Pressures Motor/Valve Controls

Shut Down Wireless Communications 

### SCADA COMMUNICATION

26

### SWD S

! 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