78
eCORP Stimulation Technologies, LLC (ecorpStim) Pure Propane (PPS) and Non-Flammable Propane (NFP) Stimulation of Shale Presented by John Francis Thrash, CEO October 9 th 2014 Paris, France
eCORP Stimulation Technologies, LLC (ecorpStim) Pure Propane (PPS) and Non-Flammable Propane (NFP) Stimulation of Shale Presented by John Francis Thrash, CEO October 9th 2014 Paris, France
Overview Water Based Hydraulic Fracturing (HF) – Today, commonly employed formulations for hydraulically fracturing source rocks include the use of massive quantities of water in mixture with a variety of chemical additives combined with various proppant materials which are injected under high pressure into the rock formations. After stimulation there is an attempt to recover the water, chemicals and dissolved reservoir content from the newly established fracture system in the rock.
Perceived Risks – All of these basic features of the process, as routinely practiced today, are sometimes associated with real and potential environmental and safety hazards as well as variable performance outcomes in certain instances.
Infrastructure Limitations – This standard technology can present profound logistical challenges in a number of the newly evolving basins around the planet where there maybe water and infrastructure limitations, extremely cold climes or other conditions not previously routinely encountered in the North American shale experience.
Pure Propane Stimulation (PPS) – A simple binary system of propane, butane or similar lightweight hydrocarbon, used in combination with man-made proppants of specifically designed dimensions and densities. The list of routinely encountered impacts associated with water-based HF obviated by PPS is very nearly complete.
Flammability – Although propane is the third most frequent component of natural gas, and used in over 120 million households in Europe, the primary concern associated with its use in shale stimulation is flammability. This presentation discusses the science and techniques for safely utilizing PPS to stimulate production from shale source rocks, including the Non-Flammable Propane Stimulation (NFP) option and other safety features of the mechanical system, layout and operating protocols. Economics – The economics of these systems are discussed, in particular, when propane can be self-supplied by the operator once initial production has commenced.
Background Who is eCORP International, LLC
Background Who is eCORP International, LLC ? eCORP is Headquartered in Houston, Texas with Offices Located in
London, Paris, Madrid, Zurich and Sofia, Bulgaria
eCORP companies have been in business since 1978 eCORP has Closed Billions of USD in Successful Transactions &
Developments
eCORP is a Privately Held Vertically Integrated Energy Company whose Primary Experiences Include: Exploration & Production: Conventional and Unconventional Natural Gas Storage and Pipelines Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Specialized Field Services Natural Gas Fired Power Generation
Seeks to be First Mover, Innovative & Environmentally Sound A Recognized as a Green/Low Environmental Impact Developer A Developer of Novel and Successful Technical Solutions
Organizing Principles of eCORP – Safety and Environmental Care Impeccable Safety Record in All Operations Since Inception Zero Incidents with Propane (LPG) Operations for 35 Years
Commitment to Environmentally Sensitive Development Practices Surface Aesthetics, Noise/Light Abatement, Infrastructure Impacts
Extensive Proactive Community Engagement Maximize Cultural and Economic Benefit for the Community
Strive to Exceed Industry and Regulatory Standards Innovate/Adapt Technology to Address Challenging Geologic and
Reservoir Conditions while Maintaining Meticulous Environmental Care and Concern
Today eCORP continues developments via positive interactions with regulators, legislatures, communities, NGO, virtually all stakeholders, in venues such as North America, and in such challenging states as New York, and in closed markets such as Mexico, as well as in Europe.
History Relevant to Pure Propane Stimulation Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Propane and Butane EOR Projects – Approx. 450 Well Development
in Three Counties in South Texas
Miscible and Immiscible CO2 EOR Projects Bio-Polymer EOR Project with Pfizer Oil Field Products
Largest Independent in EOR in Texas 1978 – 1988
Perfect Safety Record with Propane and Butane EOR
Trouble Free Operation of Propane / Butane Recycling
Natural Gas Storage and Pipelines eCORP has been involved in Approximately 20% of New Storage
Capacity Additions in the United States since Deregulation beginning in 1985
SalternativesTM Technology (horizontal well drilling and completion IP) and the Stuart Storage Facility, Stuart, Oklahoma 1991 – 2001 First All Horizontal Well Storage Development Propane Stimulation / Clean-up of Storage Wells
Stagecoach Storage Facility 2002 – 2005
Nearest Storage to NYC / New England Gas Market Most Productive Wells Drilled in the Lower 48 States American Institute of Architecture (AIA) Award Winning /
Environmental Design
Located Near Town of Owego New York State
Exploration & Production: Unconventional
eCORP Resource Partners I, LP was the 7th Largest Non-Barnett US Shale Acreage Holder 2006 – 2008
Pioneer in US Shale: Example: Early 200,000 Acre Play in the Core
of Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania beginning in 2005
Closest Shale Well to New York City
eCORP Holds a Substantial Shale Acreage Position in Western Europe (> 1 Million Net Acreages) 2009 to Present
Specialized Field Services
ecorpStim (www.ecorpstim.com) Launch of Pure Propane Stimulation (PPS) for Shale 2011
Key GasFrac Personnel Join ecorpStim 2012
Preliminary Field Testing of PPS 2012
Non-Flammable Propane Stimulation (NFP) Launched in 2013
Formation of the ecorpStim R&D Consortium 2014
eCORP subsidiary eCOREx founded 2011 Provides Minimal Discharge Micro-hole Coring Drilling for Rapid
Inexpensive Evaluation of Hydrocarbon Reservoirs with Minimal Environmental Footprint and Impacts
Summary of Key eCORP History Relative the ecorpStim Proposition Long History and Operating Experience with Propane (LPG)
Stimulation in a Variety of Reservoir Settings
Perfect Safety Record with Propane (LPG) Stimulation Employed in eCORP Projects of All Kinds
Commitment to Innovation for the Preservation of the Environment
Extensive and Varied Shale Experience Internationally
Strong Track Record of Commercial Successes in Applying New Technologies
Safety + Environmental Care + Propane History + Shale Experience
= PPS and NFP
Challenges in the Stimulation of Shale Reservoirs
Challenges in the Stimulation of Shale Reservoirs How can we get the Maximum Rates and Recoveries from Extremely Low
Permeability Reservoirs? Low Recovery Factors
How can we get the Maximum Effective Fracture Length from the Stimulation Process? How do we Manage High Capillary Pressure Reservoirs
How do we Contend with Historically Low Frac-Water Recoveries (~20%) How
can we Insure the Mechanical Fluid is Compatible with the Shale and Formation Fluids? Easily Damaged Reservoirs – Swelling Clays, Imbibition, Water Blockage, etc. Changes in the Strength of the Rock Facies?
How will we Minimize the Environmental Impact?
Water Usage Disposal of Fracturing Fluids/Waste Streams Venting/Flaring
How will we Achieve Safe Operations?
In Search of the “Perfect” Fluid?
Reservoir Performance Non-Damaging (Water Blocks/Imbibition, Clay Swelling, Softening
Formation, Scale, Emulsions, Gel Damage) Create the Required Fracture Geometry Effective Proppant Transport Only Proppant Remains in the Fracture 100% Fluid Recovery 100% Fracture Volume Contributes to Production
Environmental & Economic Performance No Chemicals Required to Modify the Mechanical Fluid All Fluids Recovered are Marketable or Recyclable Sustainability and Natural Substances) Eliminate Water Usage, Disposal Needs, & CO2 Venting
Operationally Safe Injury and Accident Free Execution
Consider LPG Past Use in Reservoir Stimulation
A 100% Compatible Stimulation Fluid
Morris Muskat, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, July 1953
“Laboratory experiments have demonstrated that complete removal of oil from a porous medium can readily be obtained by displacing it with the liquefied petroleum gases, propane, and butanes…”
Koch & Slobod, SPE 714, Oct 1956
“Miscible phase displacement oil has been an intriguing idea because the elimination of capillary effects in the reservoir leads to 100% recovery in the areas contacted by the miscible displacing phase.”
Roger Sessions, SPE 341, Jan 1963
“A number of laboratory tests with Slaughter crude indicates small propane slugs would efficiently displace 100% of the oil contacted in a sand packed column.”
Henderson, et. al., Petroleum Transactions 3501, Vol. 198, 1953
“A laboratory investigation of oil displacement from porous media by a liquefied petroleum gas.”
Thrash & Thrash, Oil World, Oct 1985
“Gaseous propane brings new life to field.”
Challenges with Today’s LPG Gel Technology
Challenges with Today’s LPG Gel Technology Source: Frac Focus Job Start Date 11-8-13; Zavala, County TX
Challenges with Today’s LPG Gel Technology Cont. Source: Frac Focus Job Start Date 11-8-13; Zavala, County TX
Gel Residues Left Behind Chemical Interactions Barium or Strontium Sulfate Scales Un-reacted Phosphates Impact on Refinery Catalysis Proppant Transport – Thermal Thinning of Fluids Downhole Aromatics Injected as Dispersants Safety Record
Summary Comparison of Key Features - PPS vs. LPG Gel Frac
Process Fundamentals PPS LPG Gel Fracturing
Chemicals Added to Propane Zero Many Reactive Species
Use of Petroleum Distillates (Aromatics) Zero Numerous
Fluid Costs (Other than Propane) Zero Chemicals + Storage + Combining Both Components Expense
Issues at Refinery Zero Catalysis Poisoning Due to Free Phosphorus
Residue Left in the Formation Zero Yes
Negative Interactions with Formation Water Zero Yes / Insoluble Scale
Viscosity Low (<1 cp) High on Surface Only (~300 cp) Low at Bottom Hole Temp (<10’s cp)
Proppant Transport Above / Below Ground High / High High / Low
Mechanical Fundamentals
ecorpStim LPG Gel Fracturing
Pumpable Proppant Volume No Limit 200,000 lbs Maximum
Frac Pump Emissions Zero Diesel Engine Emissions
Ignition Points in Hot Zone Zero Significant Including Prime Mover Engines
Fully Automated & Remote Operational Control
Yes
No
Pure Propane (without Gel) is a Compelling Answer
Pure Propane (without Gel) is a Compelling Answer LPG is Non-Damaging to the Formation and Reservoir Fluids No Clay Swelling/Interactions No Scale No Softening of the Formation Fracture Facies No Damage
Low Surface Tension and Viscosity 10 Times Less Surface Tension than Water Capillary Threshold Pressures are 10x Less with Propane 8 Times Less Viscosity than Water Non-Wetting Fluid in Most Reservoirs No Negative Relative Perm Effects
Soluble with the Gas or Oil (Can Precipitate Asphaltenes) Mixes with Natural Gas Causing Propane to Vaporize 1st Contact Miscible with Most Crude Oils
Consider Regain Permeability Studies Canadian Institute of Mining Metallurgy & Petroleum 2009
“Indicates that LPG Frac fluid (#6) reaches 100% regain permeability in Montney shale at the lowest pressure exceeding the performance of 95% N2 (#2), 50/50 Light Oil/CO2 (#3), and 80% N2 (#11). Water regain perm of 20% - 40%.”
Pure Propane (without Gel) is a Compelling Answer Cont. Environmental Benefits
No Water No Chemical Additives – Biocides, Polymers, Surfactants Non-Toxic Non-Carcinogenic No Waste Streams No Seismicity from Long Term Water Injection/Disposal Recoverable & Recyclable Smaller Volumes for Equivalent Effective Fracture Lengths
o Less Trucking o Less Emissions o Less Disturbance o Smaller Footprint
Pure Propane (without Gel) is a Compelling Answer Cont. Safety Reasons > 100 Year of History of Handling Propane Established Industry Recommended Practices Well Established Safe Infrastructure Exists Today Disperses at Ambient Temperature and Pressure Low Flammability Rating = Ignition Only > 940 degrees F
versus Gasoline Ignition Temperature <500 degrees F
Propane Use in Europe 120 Million Households/Businesses Using LPG in Europe 30.6 Million Tons Per Year 200 Million Cylinders Located in Homes and Businesses 9 000 Road Tankers Permitted to Drive European Roadways
Source : AEGPL Technical Commission
PPS is Amenable to Safe Application in the Oil Patch
eCORP Next Generation Propane Stimulation Spread Layout
Intrinsically Safe All Electric Drive Compression & Mechanicals
Benefits of eCORP All Electric Power Spread
Safety Explosion Proof Motors vs. Diesel Engines &Transmissions Elimination of Engines Ignition Points Remaining Ignition Points Removed from “Hot Zone”
Operational/Economical Considerations Greater Control of Pump Rate Micro-Sec Kickouts & Ability to Soft Start Improved Reliability – Less Moving Parts Longer Life of Pumping Equipment Elimination of Engine and Line Pulsations Lower Maintenance Ability to Operate in Extreme Cold Weather Real Time Diagnostics – Leads to Predictive Maintenance Reduced Human Interface to Execute a Job Remote Control and Ease of Automation Reduced Cost of HP on Location
Benefits of eCORP All Electric Power Spread Cont. Sustainable Operations with Grid Power
Completely Eliminate Emissions from Pumping Equipment Eliminate Noise Associated from the Pumps Reduced Traffic to Location Horsepower Loads Reduced by 50% Dramatically Reduce Location Footprint
ecorpStim Innovative Safety Enhancement Collaborations Define Critical Challenge Identify Similar Circumstances Encountered in other Disciplines Investigate and Adapt Non- O&G Sector Industries Sources
Military (Propulsion, Material Science, Safety) Automotive (Mobile Air Conditioning, Light Weight Parts) Refining (Safety Sensors, Spill Proof Connectors) Shipping (Material Logistics) Railroad (Propulsion) Construction/Cement (Specialized Pumps) Agriculture (Grain Dust Collectors) Fire Protection (Low Toxicity and Low Residue Extinguishers) Plastics Molding (Fillers and Lightweight Additives) Medical (Anesthesia, Propellants & Drug Delivery Systems)
Non-Flammable Propane via Heptafluoropropane
Members of the ecorpStim Safety and Environmental R&D Consortium Rice University (USA) – to advance the optimization of non-flammable
propane chemistry, manufacturing, operations and cost. The fundamental components being investigated include:
Process engineering – Reduce Cost of HFP Commercial effects of HFP purity Advanced field separation and recycling – Complete Re-Capture Life of Project
Energy Safety Research Institute at Swansea University (UK) – The enlarged research group builds upon the work completed to date to extend and amplify their applied research in safety and environmental performance for shale gas development using HFP as a stimulation fluid replacing fresh water used in hydro-fracing. The focus of this partnership is the comprehensive study and design of the safety aspects of achieving an environmentally and socially acceptable technology for oil and gas production from shales. The key subject areas of collaborative study include:
The capture, recycling and loss prevention of injected HFP The chemistry and material science for systems associated with the use of
HFP.
Members of the ecorpStim Safety and Environmental R&D Consortium Cont. The Université Joseph Fourier (FR)
Seismic analysis, risk analysis, release of toxic elements by anoxic shale type systems
Baylor College of Medicine (USA) evaluating and furthering developments
in delivery of ecorpStim’s non-water, chemical-free stimulation technologies, with the goal of making them environmentally sustainable and safe to humans.
Glass Technology Services (UK) – furthering ecorpStim’s goals of
advancing proprietary concepts for the use of silica, the raw material with which glass is made, in the environmentally sustainable development of shale hydrocarbon production. One such patent pending technology involves the novel combination of two components only – a stimulation fluid (heptafluoropropane) and a proppant (mesoporous silica) – both of which are approved in different forms of medical treatments.
Airbus Defence & Space (FR) – Monitoring / Satellite assessment of mm altimetric changes, surface temperature & aerosol concentration, gravimetric reservoir estimates.
Access to data from:
• Landsat 8 OLI - Vegetation Changes • Landsat 8 (Thermal InfraRed Sensor) - Surface Temperature • Sentinel 1 (Synthetic Aperture Radar) – mm Land Height
Non-Flammable Propane Stimulation (NFP) with Heptafluoropropane (HFP)
HFP Comparison with Propane and n-Butane
Non-Flammable Propane Stimulation (NFP) with Heptafluoropropane (HFP) Cont.
NFP Suppresses 100% of the Industrial Risks Associated with the Use of Regular Propane: Flammability risk Explosion risk
NFP Strengthens the Security System as it is Applied to All
Stages of the Operation Chain: On roads, during transport of the stimulation fluid in trucks On the exploration/exploitation platform for the stimulation
operation On site or in a warehouse, for storage of the fluid Sites will not be submitted to SEVESO classification
Non-Flammable Propane Stimulation (NFP) with Heptafluoropropane (HFP) Cont.
NFP Excels in Every Defining Category of Chemical and Physical Properties that Dictate Performance as a Stimulation Fluid in Shale Reservoirs: Low surface tension (1/10 that of water) NFP is very efficient in proppant transport and placement:
specific gravity is one and a half times that of water A wide variety of proppants (sand, ceramics…) may be
utilized with NFP NFP can be recovered, just like pure propane NFP is easily separable from other components of natural gas
coming out of the well (especially propane and butane, NFP’s closest molecular analogs).
Non-Flammable Propane Stimulation (NFP) with Heptafluoropropane (HFP) Cont.
NFP is Safe for Human Health and the Environment Non-toxic Non-carcinogenic Non-Mutagenic Non-irritating Zero ozone depleting potential If Released above Ground, it Dissipates as a Gas
HFP Safety Fully Demonstrated and Widely Used: As the Propellant in Inhalers for Children and Adults As a fire extinguishing agent for use in human environments
such as homes, offices, work places and schools Fire Extinguisher for Formula One Racing Exclusively Exceedingly Thermally Stable, Inert and Non-Reactive
Non-Flammable Propane Stimulation (NFP) with Heptafluoropropane (HFP) Cont.
HFP has High Global Warming Potential & Very High Expense NFP was Developed to Replace Chlorofluorocarbons in Order to
Protect the Ozone Layer in which it is Effective However NFP using HFP Cannot Contribute in to Global
Warming in any Significant Way Any NFP Process that would Release HFP to the Atmosphere
would be Ruinously Uneconomic and Thus Discontinued
Inescapable Economic Condition is the Ultimate Safety Guarantee Imposed upon the NFP (HFP) Proposal
Relative to HFP Global Warming Potential
Comparison of PPS (and NFP) Efficiency with Water and Gelled Stimulation Systems
Effective Fracture Length
Propped Fracture Length
Reservoir Inflow No Fracture Inflow
Damage Created by Imbibition/Relative Perm Effects, Clay Swelling and Reducing Shale Strength in the Near Fracture Area Results in Shorter Effective Fracture Length and Lower Recoveries
Volume of Frac Fluid Recovered is Proportional to the Effective Frac Length/Height(Based on Shell’s Work by Gdanski)
Water Based Fracturing Systems
Top View
Side View
Pumping Frac Height
Un‐Propped Area
The Reality – Gel Propane Fracturing Systems
Side View
Effective Length Un‐Propped LengthPumping Fracture Length
Fractured Area
Propped Area
Superior Early Production Followed by Rapid Declines Shorter Effective Lengths Leading to Lower Cumulative Production Poor Proppant Transport and Gel Residue Issues Wasted Energy, Resources and Expense to Create Excessive Non-Productive Fracture Area
Damaged Length
Reservoir InflowEffective Fracture LengthPropped Fracture Length
No Damage Created in the Near Wellbore, Fracture, or in the Reservoir Dual Stimulation is Achieved via 1) the Created Fracture and 2) Improved Relative Perm in the
Near Wellbore Area due to Propane Miscibility
Propane as a Stimulation Fluid
Side View
Top View
Fracture Geometry as a Function of Fluid Viscosity
Fracture Geometry as a Function of Fluid Viscosity
• Viscous Fluids have Demonstrated a Great Likelihood to Create Relatively Planar Fractures• Thinner Fluids Such as Slickwater have Shown via Microseismic to Create a More Complex
Fracturing Network• But How Effective is a More Complex Fracturing Network in Contributing to Long Term
Production?• Are Today’s Proppants Effectively Being Placed and Propping Any Fracturing Complexity?• Can ecorpStim Proppants Be a More Effective Solution?
X‐Linked Slickwater
Comparison of Barnett Shale Initial X-Linked Stimulation toSlickwater ReFrac, from SPE 95565
Fracturing with propane and heptafluoropropane
• How do these gases behave?– Experimental and computational studies– Need to be able to investigate the differences between fluids
Compaction zone around fracturesGas fractures
Porous/deformable medium
Gas pressure as a function of time
Pressure drop = growth in fracture branch
Fracture Modeling with a Low Viscosity Fluid
Model Parameters• Newtonian Fluid = .144 cP
(lower limit of FracPro) • Job Volume
– 133,000 gals of Propane– 200,000 gals of 100 mesh
• Pump Rate = 20 BPM• Max Prop Conc = 3 PPG• Perf Depth = 13,500’• Young’s Modulus = 6x106 psi• Poisson’s Ratio = .3• Permeability = 10
nanodarcies
Simulated Geometry• Propped Half Length = 1090’• Propped Height = 283’• Max Pumping Width = .66” • Avg Pumping Width = .32”• Avg Prop Conc = .41 lb/ft2
• Fcd = 699 Source: Modeling Provided by ACB Energy
Time (min)
Surf Pressure (psi) Slurry Rate (bpm)Net Pressure (psi)
0.0 112.0 224.0 336.0 448.0 560.0 0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Impact of Viscosity on Net Pressure (and Width)
• Modeled 3 Successive Identical Pump‐In Varying only Fluid Viscosity
– 1st Fluid – Saltwater– 2nd Fluid – Linear 40# Gel– 3rd Fluid – X‐linked 40# Gel
• Net Pressure Developed Varied Slightly Among All 3 Injections
– 19 psi increase over Linear Gel from Saltwater – 90 psi increase over X‐Linked Fluid from
Saltwater (12% Increase)• Width at the Perfs Showed Minimal Changes
as it is Proportional to Net Pressure (Pnet) in PKN Model (.395” to .445”)
2 1
• Net Pressure were in the 700‐800 psi Range Due to a High Critical Stress Intensity Factor (KIc ).
• Previous Years Low KIc Values were Used Resulting in Narrower Fracture Widths and thus Sensitive to Viscosity ( =70 psi)
• Field Experiments have Validated Low Viscous Fluids Can Create Sufficient Width to Place Proppant (Waterfrac Treatments)
Time (min)
Frac Length (ft) Net Pressure (psi)Average Width (in) Width at Perfs (in)Slurry Rate (bpm) Surf Pressure (psi)Total Frac Ht. (ft)
0.0 122.0 244.0 366.0 488.0 610.0 0
100
200
300
400
500
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
0.0
40.00
80.00
120.0
160.0
200.0
Source: Modeling Provided by ACB Energy
Source: Schubarth Inc.
Impact of Fracture Length and Number of Stages
31
21
064.4
to
wfif
cktB
PPhLq
krct it2948
Source: Schubarth Inc.
Effective Fracture Length
Propped Fracture Length
Reservoir Inflow No Fracture Inflow
Damage Created by Imbibition/Relative Perm Effects, Clay Swelling and Reducing Shale Strength in the Near Fracture Area Results in Shorter Effective Fracture Length and Lower Recoveries
Volume of Frac Fluid Recovered is Proportional to the Effective Frac Length/Height(Based on Shell’s Work by Gdanski)
Water Based Fracturing Systems
Top View
Side View
Reservoir InflowEffective Fracture LengthPropped Fracture Length
No Damage Created in the Near Wellbore, Fracture, or in the Reservoir Dual Stimulation is Achieved via 1) the Created Fracture and 2) Improved Relative Perm in the
Near Wellbore Area due to Propane Miscibility
Propane as a Stimulation Fluid
Side View
Top View
Impact of Fracture Length and Number of Stages
5 -100’ Effective
Frac Length
5 - 200’ Created Frac
Length
Top View
Impact of Fracture Length and Number of StagesAcceleration vs. Incremental
10 X100’ Effective Frac
Length w/Water
Top View
5 X100’ Effective
Frac Lengthw/Water
Impact of Fracture Length and Number of StagesAcceleration vs. Incremental
10 X100’ Effective Frac
Length w/Water
Area of Incremental Recovery
Due to Larger
Effective Length
Top View5 X 200’ Effective Frac Length w/LPG
Identifying the Optimal Combination of Fracturing Variables ‐ Terranaut Simulator
• Terranaut Simulator Couples Fracturing, Reservoir, and Economic Modeling into a Single Multivariable Modeling Tool
• Evaluates 100’s of Various Completion/Fracturing and Reservoir Scenarios Simultaneously
• Identifies the Optimal Combinations Providing the Most Favorable Economics
Source: Schubarth Inc.
Optimization ‐ Less Frac Stages Can Result in More Production and Greater Value
• Over Stimulating (Frac Stages Interfering with each other) is a Waste of Money and Degrades Project Economics
• Achieving the Longest Maximum Economic Effective Frac Length is Critical to Attaining Higher Recovery Factors and Returns in Low Permeability Reservoirs
Current Optimized Delta
Frac Stages 13 6 7 Less Stages
Effective Frac Length (ft) 120 240 120 ft
Longer
Well Cost ($MM) 6.1 5.2 $900K Less
Cumulative Gas (BCF) 4 4.2 200 MMCF
Higher
Return on Investment (%) 148 182 34%
Higher ROI
NPV ($MM) 2.9 4.3 $1.4 MMMore
Source: Schubarth Inc.
Specialized Proppant Transport Design
Specialized Proppant Transport Design
• Stokes Law
• Key Factors – Proppant Size Varies as a Square– Fluid Viscosity– Density Difference between the Frac Fluid and Proppant– Stokes Law Does not Incorporate Dynamic Effects Such as Turbulence, Hindered
Settling, Wall Effects, Saltation,… Which all Benefits Proppant Transport
• Challenge– Reducing Grain Size Reduces Proppant Conductivity
Vertical Settling Rate =
where,g – Acceleration due to gravityρ – Densityd – Proppant diameterμ – Fluid viscosity
Pure PropaneTransport Suspension Velocity
Stokes Equation (Vertical Sections)
Vs =(rhop-rhof)*g*Diap2/18*v
valuesrhop = specific gravity of particle table (for rhop between 0.50 to 3.0)rhof = specific gravity of fluid 0.51 pure propaneDiap = Diameter of particle (cm) table (for Diap between 20 to 100 microns)v = fluid viscosity (g/cm-s) 0.0011 pure propaneg = acceleration of gravity (cm/sec2) 980.6651 centimeter / second = 0.03281 feet / second1 centimeter = 10000 microns
Specific Gravity of Particle (rhop)0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
20 0 0.0016 0.0032 0.0048 0.0064 0.0081 0.0097 0.0113 0.0129 0.0146 0.016230 0 0.0035 0.0072 0.0108 0.0145 0.0181 0.0218 0.0254 0.0291 0.0328 0.036440 0 0.0062 0.0127 0.0192 0.0257 0.0322 0.0387 0.0452 0.0517 0.0582 0.064750 0 0.0097 0.0199 0.0301 0.0402 0.0504 0.0605 0.0707 0.0808 0.0910 0.101260 0 0.0140 0.0287 0.0433 0.0579 0.0725 0.0872 0.1018 0.1164 0.1310 0.145770 0 0.0191 0.0390 0.0589 0.0788 0.0987 0.1186 0.1385 0.1584 0.1784 0.198380 0 0.0250 0.0510 0.0770 0.1030 0.1290 0.1550 0.1810 0.2070 0.2330 0.259090 0 0.0316 0.0645 0.0974 0.1303 0.1632 0.1961 0.2290 0.2619 0.2948 0.3277100 0 0.0390 0.0796 0.1202 0.1609 0.2015 0.2421 0.2827 0.3234 0.3640 0.4046
Dia
met
er o
f Par
ticle
(m
icro
ns)
Suspension Velocity (ft/s)
Pure PropaneTransport Suspension Velocity
Durand Equation (Horizontal Sections)http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/tr2000263/tr2000263.html
vt = F[2g(s-1)D] ½ (dp/D)1/6 values
F = constant between .4 and 1.5 1.5s = rhop/rhofrhof = specific gravity of fluid 0.51 pure propanerhop = specific gravity of particle table (for rhop between 0.50 to 3.0)D = pipe diameter (in) 6.0D = pipe diameter (cm) 15.24dp = particle diameter (cm) table (for dp between 20 to 100 microns)g = acceleration of gravity (cm/sec2) 980.665
0.03281 feet / second1 centimeter = 10000 microns
Specific Gravity of Particle (rhop)0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
20 0 1.3157 1.8800 2.3104 2.6723 2.9907 3.2784 3.5428 3.7887 4.0197 4.238130 0 1.4077 2.0115 2.4719 2.8591 3.1998 3.5076 3.7904 4.0536 4.3007 4.534340 0 1.4769 2.1103 2.5933 2.9995 3.3570 3.6799 3.9766 4.2527 4.5119 4.757150 0 1.5328 2.1902 2.6916 3.1132 3.4842 3.8193 4.1273 4.4138 4.6829 4.937360 0 1.5801 2.2578 2.7746 3.2093 3.5917 3.9371 4.2546 4.5500 4.8274 5.089670 0 1.6213 2.3166 2.8468 3.2928 3.6852 4.0396 4.3654 4.6684 4.9530 5.222180 0 1.6577 2.3687 2.9109 3.3669 3.7681 4.1305 4.4636 4.7735 5.0645 5.339690 0 1.6906 2.4156 2.9686 3.4336 3.8428 4.2124 4.5521 4.8681 5.1649 5.4455100 0 1.7205 2.4584 3.0212 3.4945 3.9109 4.2870 4.6327 4.9544 5.2564 5.5419
Dia
met
er o
f Par
ticle
(m
icro
ns)
Suspension Velocity (ft/s)
1 centimeter / second =
HeptafluoropropaneTransport Suspension Velocity
Stokes Equation (Vertical Sections)
Vs =(rhop-rhof)*g*Diap2/18*v
valuesrhop = specific gravity of particle table (for rhop between 0.50 to 3.0)rhof = specific gravity of fluid 1.42Diap = Diameter of particle (cm) table (for Diap between 20 to 100 microns)v = fluid viscosity (g/cm-s) 0.0028g = acceleration of gravity (cm/sec2) 980.6651 centimeter / second = 0.03281 feet / second1 centimeter = 10000 microns
Specific Gravity of Particle (rhop)0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
20 0 0 0 0 0.0002 0.0008 0.0015 0.0021 0.0028 0.0034 0.004030 0 0 0 0 0.0005 0.0019 0.0033 0.0048 0.0062 0.0076 0.009140 0 0 0 0 0.0008 0.0034 0.0059 0.0085 0.0110 0.0136 0.016150 0 0 0 0 0.0013 0.0053 0.0093 0.0132 0.0172 0.0212 0.025260 0 0 0 0 0.0018 0.0076 0.0133 0.0191 0.0248 0.0306 0.036370 0 0 0 0 0.0025 0.0103 0.0181 0.0260 0.0338 0.0416 0.049480 0 0 0 0 0.0033 0.0135 0.0237 0.0339 0.0441 0.0543 0.064690 0 0 0 0 0.0041 0.0171 0.0300 0.0429 0.0558 0.0688 0.0817100 0 0 0 0 0.0051 0.0211 0.0370 0.0530 0.0689 0.0849 0.1009
Dia
met
er o
f Par
ticle
(m
icro
ns)
Suspension Velocity (ft/s)
HeptafluoropropaneTransport Suspension Velocity
Durand Equation (Horizontal Sections)http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/tr2000263/tr2000263.html
vt = F[2g(s-1)D] ½ (dp/D)1/6 values
F = constant between .4 and 1.5 1.5s = rhop/rhofrhof = specific gravity of fluid 1.42rhop = specific gravity of particle table (for rhop between 0.50 to 3.0)D = pipe diameter (in) 6.0D = pipe diameter (cm) 15.24dp = particle diameter (cm) table (for dp between 20 to 100 microns)g = acceleration of gravity (cm/sec2) 980.665
0.03281 feet / second1 centimeter = 10000 microns
Specific Gravity of Particle (rhop)0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
20 0 0 0 0 0.4553 0.9246 1.2258 1.4664 1.6727 1.8562 2.023230 0 0 0 0 0.4871 0.9893 1.3115 1.5689 1.7896 1.9860 2.164640 0 0 0 0 0.5110 1.0379 1.3759 1.6460 1.8775 2.0836 2.271050 0 0 0 0 0.5304 1.0772 1.4281 1.7083 1.9487 2.1625 2.357060 0 0 0 0 0.5467 1.1104 1.4721 1.7610 2.0088 2.2292 2.429770 0 0 0 0 0.5610 1.1393 1.5104 1.8069 2.0611 2.2872 2.493080 0 0 0 0 0.5736 1.1650 1.5444 1.8475 2.1075 2.3387 2.549190 0 0 0 0 0.5850 1.1880 1.5750 1.8841 2.1493 2.3851 2.5996100 0 0 0 0 0.5953 1.2091 1.6029 1.9175 2.1873 2.4273 2.6456
Dia
met
er o
f Par
ticle
(m
icro
ns)
Suspension Velocity (ft/s)
1 centimeter / second =
Comparing Settling Rates between Pure LPG and Slickwater
Assumptions:• Pure LPG Density = .54 g/cc• Pure LPG Viscosity = .08 cP• Water Density = 1.0 g/cc• Slickwater Viscosity = 10 cP• No Turbulent Suspension Benefits
ConsideredConclusion:• Effective Proppant Transport can be
Achieved with Lightweight Proppant in Pure LPG
Pure LPG Settling Velocity
Relative to Settling in Slickwater
Slickwater Settling Velocity
Mesh Size Proppant SG ft/s Mesh Size Proppant ft/s175 (81μ) Sand 0.1592 ≈ 20/30 Sand .208 ‐ .104270 (53μ) Sand 0.0965 ≈ 20/40 Sand .208 ‐ .047
270 1 0.0288 ≈ 40/70 Sand .047 ‐ .013270 0.6 0.0038 LPG is Slower 40/70 Sand .047 ‐ .013270 0.54 0.000 No Settling 40/70 Sand .047 ‐ .014
Proppant Dimension Considerations
Why Small Grains Can withstand Higher Loads without Failing
Cubic Packing Yields the Highest Porosity thus Providing the Least Amount of Contact Points for Distributing the Load
For 30 Mesh Particles• Dia = .0232” or 595 microns• Cubic Packing = 1849 grains (432) per in2
For 270 Mesh Particles• Dia = .0021” or 53 microns• Cubic Packing = 226,576 grains (4762) per
in2
• 270 Mesh Particles Provide 122 Times more Contact Points
Example at 8000 psi Closure • 30 Mesh Particles = 4.3 lbf per grain• 270 Mesh Particles = .035 lbf per grain
Cubic Packing
1”
1”
Bed of Nails Principle
www.fugro.com
Permeability &Tri-Axial Screening at Fugro Mechanics Lab
• Capable of 8 Permeability and 30 Tri-Axial Tests Simultaneously
• Computer Controlled Load Frames and Pressure Pumps
• Multi-Stage / Multi-Direction Tests Performed
• High Confining Stress Capability to 3 MPa
• Un-drained, Drained, Creep, Stress Path & Extension Loading
• Internal Force Measurements
Why Proppants That Did Not Work in the Past Might Work Today
Infinite Conductivity is Achieved as Fcd Approaches 30
Past ReservoirsFormation Perm = .1 md (tight gas)
Frac Lengths = 300 ft
Small Size Proppants Perm = 58 md
Fcd ~ 0 (no effective stimulation)
Minimum Proppant Perm Required for Infinite Conductivity = 100 Darcies (833 md‐ft)!
Today’s Shale ReservoirsFormation Perm = .00005 md (50 nanodarcies)
Frac Lengths = 300 ft
Smaller Size Proppants Perm = 58 md
Proppant Conductivity = .48 md‐ft
BUT Fcd = 30+ Infinite Conductive Fracture (Ideal Fracture Performance)
One Example: High Strength Hollow Glass Bubble
ProductTrue
Density (g/cc)
Isostatic Strength (psi)
Particle Size (microns) Avg. Wall Thickness (microns)10% < 50% < 90% < Max
S60 0.6 10,000 15 30 55 55 1.49
iM16K 0.46 16,000 12 20 30 40 0.72
S60HS 0.6 18,000 11 30 50 60 1.09
iM30K 0.6 28,000 9 16 25 29 0.70
• Non-Crystalline Borosilicate Glass• Softening Temperature 600 °C• Water Resistant• Various Coatings are Available• Current Oil Field Application in
Drilling Fluids and Cements• Primarily Used in Injection Molding
as Filler and Weight Reduction Data and Photos from 3M Advance Materials Division
Conclusions
Pure Propane Stimulation and Non-Flammable Propane could offer a compelling alternative to tradition water-based fracturing methods.
Beneficial Characteristics Should Include:
No water consumption No water disposal or associated seismicity risks No chemicals or additives Fewer trucks and smaller environmental footprint New proppant designs and improved proppant transport in fracture Increased fracture length and more complex fractures Improved relative permeability near wellbore Increased reservoir recoveries
Business Drivers for Fracturing with Propane / NFP
1. Rapidly Achieving Maximum Production Rates
– Minimal to No Clean-Up Period of Non-Hydrocarbon Fluids 2. Reducing Negative Environmental Costs and Exposure
– No Water – Reduced Emissions – Less Truck Traffic
3. Maximizing the Gas Recovery and Achieving it Sooner – Larger Effective Stimulated Reservoir Volumes
4. Greater NPV’s – Larger Drainage Areas, Less Wells, Lower Cost to Find and Develop – Competitive Advantage
Requirements for Success
1. Ensure Safe Operations throughout the Completion Procedure – Building upon 100+ Years of Propane History
2. Job Execution – Fracture Geometry and Proppant Transport – Flawless Pumping Procedures and Operations – Timing of the Completion Phrasing
3. Cost Effective – Successful Capture and Re-Use
Commercialization – The companies expect to deploy their field services and environmentally sound technologies in Europe, and globally, to develop eCORP’s portfolio of E&P assets as well as to provide the services to any and all third parties. IP and patent filings have been completed for the processes, mechanicals and protocols worldwide.
eCORP INTERNATIONAL, LLC
DRILLING (CTD/SHD)eCOREX
OTHER
TECHNOLOGIES
STIMULATION TECHNOLOGY
ecorpStim
eCORP SERVICES
_________________________________ John Francis Thrash – Chairman & CEO eCORP INTERNATIONAL LLC 10000 Memorial Drive Second Floor Houston Texas 77024 Office – 713.520.0993 [email protected] www.ecorpintl.com www.ecorpstim.com
