Post on 20-Mar-2018
transcript
1
Methods & Advancements in Hydraulic Fracturing Technologies as Applied to In-Situ Biological and Chemical Remediation
Vincent E. Barlock P.G . &
John Fontana P.G.
Hydraulic Fracturing
(hydrofracturing/fractuirng/fracing)
– A Down-Hole Process by which the
Existing Subsurface Lithologies, Porosity,
or Fracture Network is Artificially
Enhanced (Fractured) by the Injection of
Fluids, Air, or Steam Under Very High
Pressure
– Was Originally Developed for the Oil and
Gas Industry. Initial concept as far back as
1929.
O&G Well Heads Equipped for Hydraulic Fracturing.Technology undertaken at depths between 2,000 and 20,000 feet bgs.
3
O&G Depths: typically >2,000 ft
4
Massive Infrastructure Needs
5
The Up-Side of Hydraulic Fracturing to Environmental Remediation
• Enhanced Injection of Remedial Fluids/Solids
• Enhanced Recovery of Impacted Fluids
• Enhanced Porosity and Storage to improve
remediation success
• Enhanced Radius-Of-Influence
• Decreased Capital Cost & Long-Term O&M
Costs
Temporal Changes in Hydraulic Fracturing• The Technology has been taken to shallow depths
(i.e. 150 to 4 feet bgs) and effectively implemented
for remediation since the mid-1980s.
• 1980-1990: Simple single fractures; horizontal;
limited volumes, limited R.O.I monitoring.
• 1990-2000: D.O.E & D.O.D- funded grants for
Multiple fractures per boring; larger volumes;
horizontal and vertical; enhanced R.O.I monitoring.
• 2000- 2010: Diversity of Proppants; Fracturing in of
Pure remedial compounds; 3D modeling of
fractures; Emplaced in more difficult geology
7
8
UST Sites Refineries
So - What Sites are Being Hydraulic Fractured ?
9
D.O.D & NASAFacilities
(D.F.C, P.C.D, R.A)
Solid Waste FacilitiesMilitary and Private
Industrial /CommercialFacilities
10
Pueblo Chemical DepotPueblo, CO.
•2.4 Million
Gallons of EVO
injected
•~ 600Points
11
• THE REAL QUESTIONS ARE:
• WHAT is the Ultimate Purpose(s) of the Fractures? Both Short- and Long-term.
• WHAT Method of Fracture Emplacement is Best Suited to Meet This Purpose? And
• WHAT Are the Key Factors Affecting the Method Selected?
• Effective Implementation And Successful
Remediation Is Directly Related To Strategic
Targeting Of Fractures Under Ideal Site Conditions
• Host Rock, Depth of Impact, Vertical &
Horizontal Extent of Impact, and Contaminant
Mass must be known.
So How Does One Proceed ?
HOWEVER THIS IS RARELY THE CASE
12
(1) HYDRO GEOLOGY
•Tightness (i.e., low “K” of the lithologic units);
• Lithologic heterogeneity:
• Shale, siltstone/claystone, limestone, etc.
• Cohesiveness of unconsolidated soils; plasticity;
• Degree of cementation/induration;
• Flow direction & Magnitude
(2) PROXIMITY TO STRUCTURE•Anthropomorphic (bldgs., pools, utilities)
•Geologic (faults, antiforms/synforms, joints/fractures)
(3) CAN YOU MAINTAIN YOUR SEAL DURING
FRACTURING?
Key Factors Affecting Hydraulic Fracturing Method Selection
13
Key Factors That Adversely Affect Fracturing Method Selection
• Where and how are the impacts distributed in the
subsurface (i.e., COCs in discrete intervals or large
smear zones) ??
• Very shallow 2-10 feet vs: 10 -100 ft
• COC Distribution (Spotty or massive)
• Conflicting reports and questionable data;
• Poor logging/sampling techniques; incorrect soil/rock
classifications;
• Difficult geology: fractured bedrock; massive or
heterogeneous soils
SO Which Method Is It ??
Direct Push or Packers, or a Combination ?
14
15
•DPT Method Best for Emplacement of
Fractures in Unconsolidated Materials
Courtesy of Foremost
16
Conceptualized DPT Emplaced Bionets ™/Fractures at a UST Site
•Courtesy V. Barlock / Paul Willet
DPT - Dual WallDPT Points with Ground Monitoring
Courteous of Foremost
EPA & Foremost 1995 Introduced Fracturing at the Denver Federal Center
•EPA & Others emplaced
multiple hydraulic fractures at
the Center to remediate
groundwater impacts.
• The DFC was the Site of the
first enhanced in-situ
bioremediation system utilizing
hydraulic fracturing with Isolite
as both the proppant and pre-
inoculated carrier of indigenous
microbes and nutrients.
• In 2009 Sites at the DFC
were again hydraulically
fractured using DPT methods.
18Courtesy USGS
DFC – 2009
Fracturing and KMnO4
Injections Via DPT methods:
(Mactec/Vista GeoScience)
• 217 Fractures
completed in Denver
Formation
•Approximately 300K
Gallons of Potassium
Permanganate Injected
•
19
Packers w H.S.A Drilling Typically Best for Bedrock, & Semi-Consoldated Soil
20•Typical Bedrock Sandstone in Denver Formation
•Courtesy TAM International
Packer Method - Equipment• Drills
– Hollow-Stem- Auger
– Rotary
• Mud
• Air
– Dual DPT/H.S.A
• Pumps
• Progressive Cavity
• Double Diaphragm
• Piston
• Mixers
• Hoppers
• Augers
21
22
Various In-Situ Injection/Fracture Rigs
90% of Fracture Rigs in U.S. Today Emplace Fractures Using Guar-gum as Breaking Fluid and Carrier
23
•Courtesy Foremost
Hydraulic Kerfing. Is it Required?
24
25
Straddle-Packer Technology for Fracture and Proppant Emplacement
•Video & Animation Courtesy: Mr. Paul Willett
26
Advances in Hydraulic Fracture Remediation
• Bionets ™ and Fractures for Enhanced Injection /
Extraction
• PROPPANTS:
– Permanent: Proppant stays in the fracture and is not
degraded over time
• (i.e., porous ceramics; silica sands; synthetics)
– Temporary: Proppant degrades over time
• (i.e., chitin, solid oxidants [i.e., K MnO4])
• FRACTURE MONITORING
– Survey and Rods for Radius of Influence (R.O.I)
– Enhanced Real-time 3D modeling for R.O.I
Direct Advances
27
• BIOREMEDIATION
• (Bio-stimulation & Bio-augmentation via fractures)
• Pre-inoculated support matrices using commercially available
inoculums
• Emplacement of Bio-augmented Reactive Lenses/Fractures or
Reactive Columns
• Enhance and “Sustain” bioactivity with primary organic
nutrient formulation injections via either DPT of hydraulic
fractures
Direct Advances in Hydraulic Fracture Remediation (cont.)
Proppants (Permanent)
• Silica Sand
• (Most Widely use
Proppant)No. 10/20 mesh
– (Ne ~25-32%)
28
29
Example of an Emplaced Sand Fracture/BioNet ™
•EPA Site: (Foremost Solutions)
Proppants (Permanent)• Isolite – Porous Ceramic
– 1 gram = 55 ft 2 surface
area
– Can house up to 100M
microbes
– 0.5-2 mm (Ne ~ 54-62%)
30
Emplaced Isolite Fracture/Bionet ™EPA Site: (Foremost Solutions)
31
Proppants (Permanent)
32
• Various Resin-coated
Silica Beads
– (Ne ~32%)
– Reduced Friction &
Enhanced flow
Proppants (Temporary)
33
•Courtesy EPA
• IRON
• Zero Valent Iron
Proppants (Temporary)
• Chitin (Polysaccharide)
• A class of carbohydrates, such as starch and cellulose
34
•Courtesy EPA
Proppants (Temporary)
• Solid Oxidants (Potassium
Permanganate- KMnO4)
35
•Courtesy EPA
•Courtesy Carus Chemicals
Fracture Monitoring Advances
Past:Visual Inspection of Tilt-
Rods to measure ground
displacement
36
Current:
Survey & Rod
To measure ground
displacement (Pre & Post)
37
Advances in R.O.I Monitoring
Real-Time:Sensitive Tilt Meters for
Monitoring Ground
Deformation in Real Time
(Mid 1990’s to Current)
38
Advances in R.O.I Injection Monitoring Technology
•Conventional Bi-axial •Future Wireless
• Very Sensitive • Quickly Deployed•Courtesy Slope Indicator Inc.,
39
Characteristic Temporal Injection / Hydraulic Fracture Tilt Meter Responses
Monitoring Advances In Fracture / Bionet ™ Imaging
40
•Accurate GIS Mapping
of Monitoring Array
• 3D Plots of Inferred
Fracture Morphology
and ROI.
41
Indirect Advances
•Enhanced Vertical Profiling to Target Fracture:
– MEMBRANE INTERFACE PROBE (MIP)
– (Example Presented)
– Fiber optic & Laser detection
– PDBs / Permeable membrane technology
– Heat-pulse or electromagnetic boreholeflow meters
•Fracture/ Bionet ™ Mapping/Delineation
•Tilt meters
•Conventional and new wireless tech.
•Electrical Resistance Mapping
Membrane Interface Probe
42
• Real-time In the field modifications to
proposed fracture locations and
depths.
43
Initial MIP investigation 2008
• Initial Location of Source
(PCE)
44
• Clays (CL) and Silts (ML)
• Bedrock surface w/
DNAPL
• Aquifer (SP/SW)
Enhanced MIP investigation 2009. Can Now Strategically Target Fractures/Injections
45
•The Smoking Gun!!
(PCE neutralization
tanks )
• Located the
Vertical Conduit to
Bedrock surface
w/ DNAPL
• Initial Location of
Source (PCE)
•Courtesy Columbia Technologies
Resistivity Monitoring
46
47
1980’s 2010
Typical No. of Fractures per Boring 1 1 to 5
Casings per Boring 1 1 to 4
Sand Injected (lbs) 500-2000 500-40,000
Delta Storage Created / Fracture (ft3) 5 to 20 5 to 400
Average range in R.O.I (ft) 5 to 45 5 to 175
Porosity / Yield Increase
(Order-of Magnitude) 1 to 1.5 1 to 3
Time to Emplace Fracture (days) 1 to 4 0.5 to 1
Temporal Changes in 3 Decades of Hydraulic Emplacement
Performance
Conclusions:
48
• Hydraulic Fracturing Via DPT and Conventional Packer Methods
is becoming the most-widely accepted means of in-situ remediation
for Sites constrained by low permeability soils and elaborate
infrastructure.
• Hydraulic Fracturing and Enhanced Pressure Injections
significantly improves the distribution of remedial solutions and
contact time with contaminants, and accelerates the clean-up
period, dramatically reducing costs $$$.
• Advances in monitoring the distribution of hydraulic fractures and
viscous fluids has refined characterization of R.O.I and reduced the
need for physical confirmation.
49
Figure, Animation, and Photo Acknowledgements
Vincent E. Barlock P.G . &
John Fontana P.G.
Seth Hunt
Paul Willett
WebSite
50
Thank YouFor More Information Contact us at:
Vincent E. Barlock P.G . &
John V. Fontana P.G.
www.vistageoscience.com
Seth Hunt
www.foremostsolutions.com
Ron Bell, Geophysicists
www.IGSdenver.com
International Geophysical
Services LLC (HGI)