NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING AND APPLIED GEOPHYSICS TPG 4140 - NATURAL GAS

Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

Udoh Richard Richard, Fabiana Rotelli, Egor Shevchenko, Andrea Spelta, Nikola Sretenovic

Trondheim, November 2011

Abstract This report is written as a result of the work carried out by student group in the Natural Gas class. The overall goal of the project was to give the students an opportunity to go into greater detail in one theme within natural gas, and also to give the students more experience in writing a technical report, with direct feed-back from a professor.

The main purpose of the Project is to write about challenges related to water produced in coal bed methane (CBM). To address these issues, the group studied CBM production first to create a good starting point for the work performed. Afterwards, the group continued working on in-depth reading of materials on water produced in CBM, methods involved in extraction of CBM, water quality and water treatment.

The Group also examined technologies involved in these processes. Particularly, the discussion went on new approaches that could be used in the future, new opportunities in gas production and water purification.

TPG4140 Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

ii

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 2 CBM Phenomena ....................................................................................................................... 2 3 Coal Bed Methane Extraction................................................................................................... 4 3.1 CBM Extraction Principles ............................................................................................. 4 3.2 Drilling Aspects ................................................................................................................ 5 4 Water Contamination ................................................................................................................. 7 4.1 Composition of CBM Water ........................................................................................... 7 4.2 Quality of CBM Water ..................................................................................................... 8 5 Water Treatment....................................................................................................................... 10 5.1 Ion Exchange ................................................................................................................. 11 5.2 Reverse Osmosis .......................................................................................................... 12 5.3 Freeze Separation Process ......................................................................................... 13 5.4 Treatment and Disposal Costs .................................................................................... 13 6 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 14 7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 16 8 References ................................................................................................................................ 17 9 Tables......................................................................................................................................... 20 10 Figures ..................................................................................................................................... 24

1 Introduction

Considerable amounts of natural gas have accumulated in different geologic environments other than a conventional petroleum trap. This gas is termed unconventional. Unconventional reservoirs are tight (relatively impermeable) sandstones, low-permeability carbonates, shales, and coal bed methane (CBM). Unconventional gas world map distribution is shown in Figure 1.1.

CBM represents a significant new source for natural gas production. It is one of the best examples of how technology can impact on the understanding and subsequent development of a natural gas resource. Gas has been known to exist in coal seams since the beginning of the coal mining industry, but only since 1989 an important gas production has been realized. Over the past decades the increased need for natural gas has caused an increase in the exploration and production of CBM resources.

The former Soviet Union, Canada, China, Australia and the United States have the largest CBM resources (reserves throughout the world are shown in the Table 1.1). Worldwide resources have been estimated in 143 trillion cubic metres, but just 1 trillion cubic metres have been recovered so far. (World Coal association)

The United States has shown how much methane from coal bed can be significant as a gas resource, reaching 7% of the total national production. In Canada the expoiltation has been slower, but, thanks to new technologies, is expected to increase. Presently, cumulative CBM production (more than 0.5 trillion m 3) in the US accounts for about 70 % of the worlds total cumulative production; the remainder is mainly from Australia, Canada, and India (SciTopics, 2008). Figure 1.2 shows annual coalbed methane production in the United States, rising from 91 Bcf in 1989 to 1966 Bcf in 2009. (American Geosciences Institute, 2011)

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

2 CBM Phenomena

During coalification, large amounts of methane-rich gas are produced and accumulated within the coal on internal surfaces. Because coal has such a large internal surface area, it can store remarkably large quantities of methane; six or seven times as much gas as a conventional natural gas reservoir of equivalent rock volume can hold. In addition, much of the coal, and thus much of the methane, lies at low depths, making wells easy to drill and inexpensive to complete.

Methane is mainly stored within the coal by a mechanism called adsorption. This means that methane is bound to the internal surface of the pores in a near-liquid state. Fractures within the coal can also contain methane or can be saturated with water. The adsorption capacity is usually between 100 and 800 SCF/ton for most coal seams of USA.

However there are many technological and environmental problems regarding the production of methane from coal. In coal beds water quantity is very large and it permeates the beds. To produce methane from coal beds, water must be drained lowering the pressure so that methane can flow out of the coal. Average daily water production per CBM well from subbituminous coal is higher (60 m 3) than from bituminous coal (14 m3) (Creedy, et al, 2001 mentioned in SciTopics, 2008). Ratio of daily water and gas production per CBM well in subbituminous coal is about 1:95 m3 and in bituminous coal is about 1:585 m 3 (SciTopics, 2008). This water, which is commonly saline but in some areas can be potable, must be arranged in an environmentally acceptable way.

CBM produced waters differ from conventional oil and gas produced waters in their composition and their potential impact on environment. Usually in conventional oil and gas fields water is re-injected in order to enhance recovery. Instead water produced from coal beds could be used for many different purposes as shown in Figure 2.1. Sometimes water is re-injected into subsurface rock formations. In some other cases, the water is allowed to flow into surficial drainages or is put into evaporation pools. In cold regions, it is possible to freeze the water in the winter, save the salts and use them independently of the water.
TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

The water utilizing choice depends greatly on its composition. Important composition data to know are TDS (total dissolved solids), pH, concentrations of dissolved metals and radium, and the type and amounts of dissolved organic constituents. In general, CBM produced water is characterized by elevated levels of sodium, barium, bicarbonates and iron. The concentrations of each of these constituents depend on many different factors such as coal seam depth, peat metabolism processes, aquifer recharge and others.

In some cases the constituents require treatment prior to beneficial use. The cost of this treatment varies from a few cents per barrel to more than a dollar per barrel and can increase a lot the total cost of gas production. That could even lead to rejection of a resource development.

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

3 Coal Bed Methane Extraction

3.1 CBM Extraction Principles In some coal beds, naturally occurring water pressure holds methane that is one of the main constituents of natural gas that is joint to the coal surfaces and inside the coal. In coal bed methane well, pumping water from the coal beds drops this pressure (the ground water does not escape naturally), enabling the discharge of methane from the coal for extraction and use as an energy source. Water driven from coal beds throughout this process, CBM produced water, is succeeded through combination of treatment, removal, storage, or use subject to compliance with regulations.

For the methane adsorbed in the coal extraction, water must be pumped out of coal seams to lower the water pressure and permit the methane to desorb, coalesce, and bubble into the pumped water. When the coal seam becomes de-pressurized, methane is adsorbed into the solid coal matrix and gets released. To economically recover methane reserves, wells are drilled into the coal seam, then seam gets dewatered, and after that the methane is extracted from the seam, compressed and distributed to the market. The reduction of the water pressure by pumping water from the well is the main objective, because it permits methane to desorb from the coal and flow as a gas up the well to the surface. (Keith, et al., 2003)

Figure 3.1-a is illustrating main characteristics of CBM well with the black brick-like pattern as a coal deposit between two sandstone units, the blue shading characterizes water that is existing in the coal deposit. Methane gas (notice white dots and white shading) is adsorbed to the surfaces of the coal along fractures or is adsorbed to walls in the micro pore structures of the coal matrix. Water trapped in the coal by overlying and underlying sedimentary rock (sandstones in figure 3.1-a) maintains the water in the coal under pressure, that maintains the methane adsorbed gas in the coal. A pump near the bottom of the wellbore hole penetrating the coal deposit is pumping water from the coal, and reducing water pressure to allow methane to desorb and flow up the well bore. Water and methane flow through different pipes to the surface. (National Research Council)

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

The operator must make sure that the pump jack (illustrated in Figure 3.1-b) is not working too long during the process of dewatering. If the water level is pumped too low it might allow the gas to go up the tubing into the water line, causing the "gassy" well. Goal is to allow gas to flow up the casing and into the pipeline (instead to go to water), where it can be transported to the compressor station and sent to market. Gas is usually recovered in a water-gas separator at the surface after it goes up the tubing, but pumping water and gas is not efficient and can originate wear and tear of the pump and also its breakdown.

Discharge of methane depends on the original water pressure in the coal, the physical capacity of the coal to hold and release water, and the extent to which coals may be hydraulically associated to neighboring geological formations, and that can be done by removing certain amount of water from coalbed. (Keith, et al., 2003)

Water production records show that the volume of water driven from separate CBM wells generally decreases exponentially with time, corresponding to increase in the rate of methane production. Operator-controlled water production rates reduce exponentially over time while methane production increases ahead of moving into decline stage as shown in figure 3.2. Once gas flow is achieved, the operator gradually reduces the water production rate until the gas production rate is maximized.

Usually, water pumping can discontinue after 10 to 20 years of original pumping, while methane production may remain. CBM produced water is not returned to the coal seams from which it originated, because doing so would hinder additional methane recovery, unlike conventional oil and gas fields where produced water is reinjected to formation. Because of this other choices are considered with respect to storage, removal, or for use of the CBM produced water.

3.2 Drilling Aspects To extract the gas, a steel-encased well is drilled into the coal seam (100 1500 meters below ground). As the pressure within the coal seam decays due to natural production or the driving of water from the coal bed, both gas and produced water come to the surface through the tubing. Afterwards the gas gets directed to a
TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

compressor post and into natural gas pipelines. The produced water is either re injected into isolated formations, released into waterways, used for irrigation, or sent to evaporation pools. (Wikipedia)

Drilling can be done by traditional vertical wells, or by horizontal and multi-lateral completion technology that can dramatically boost recovery rates and reduce surface footprints, as shown in Figure 3.3. Generally speaking horizontal and multi-lateral completion technology eliminates hundreds of thousands of vertical wells. Two primary technology needs are: improved under-balanced horizontal and multi-lateral drilling methods and more cost effective methods of drilling and guidance of horizontal wells. (Regent energy Group)

The most limiting factor for production in coals from seams with low to average permeability is anisotropic permeability, even though permeability is often low in only one orientation. Underbalanced drilled multi-laterals may open the borderline permeability with minimal to no formation damage. (Wikipedia)

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

4 Water Contamination

4.1 Composition of CBM Water CBM water inherently contains high amounts of sodium ( bicarbonate ), chloride , and

ions, and is thus alkaline in nature. It requires a considerable

amount of acid (hydrochloric acid) to neutralize it. Suspended solids, iron, silica and barium could also be present. Trace constituents include arsenic (As), selenium (Se), copper (Cu), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), molybdenum(Mo), chromium(Cr),

mercury(Hg), and zinc (Zn).

The bicarbonates can easily combine with calcium and magnesium to produce calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate precipitates respectively. As a result the amount of and ions is limited in CBM water. The formation of sulphide is also favored in coal seams.

gas or precipitates from sulphate

Saline CBM water has a high amount of total dissolved solids (TDS), which is about 170000mg/L, compared to that of fresh CBM water 200mg/L. Average water composition for some US basins is presented in Table 4.1. Potable water has a recommended TDS limit of 500mg/L, and that for beneficial use is 1000-2000mg/L. Factors responsible for variation in TDS level in CBM water include: coal beds depth; the composition of the rocks surrounding the coal beds; reaction time of the rock and water; source of CBM water (Rice, 2000).

The choice of what to do with CBM water depends largely on the composition of the water (quality). It is either disposed of or used for beneficial purpose. Surface discharge is a common method of disposing CBM water. Depending on the quality of the CBM water, surface discharge could be done directly (no treatment) or after being treated to meet discharge specifications. Injection into a suitable subsurface formation is considered if the cost of treatment is high. CBM water could be used for irrigation, wetlands and to supplement water supplies if little or no treatment is required for it to meet specifications under Federal and State regulations. (Rice,

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

2000). Surface impoundments could also be done, where produced water is held until it evaporates or infiltrates into the subsurface. (Council, 2010) Different disposal methods have their own benefits and impacts that are covered in Table 4.2.

4.2 Quality of CBM Water Parameters of great concern when discussing the quality of CBM water include: total dissolved solids (TDS), electrical conductivity (EC), and sodium adsorption ratio (SAR an expression of the concentration of sodium, relative to the concentration of calcium and magnesium). SAR is defined as:

Rice et al, (2000) examined water samples from 47 CBM wells in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming (PRB), and EC values found, ranged from 470-3020 and

SAR values from 5.7 to 32. Another test was also conducted from 13 CBM wells in the PRB by Bartos and Ogle (2002). The range of results obtained were; EC: 6654180 , TDS: 382-2720mg/L and SAR: 6-26. (Resources, 2005). CBM water

though, is said to have a better quality when compared with water produced from conventional oil and gas wells, as shown in the Table 4.3.

Water quality measurements for TDS and EC in CBM waters can affect possible disposal or use options. High TDS level can adversely affect the use of water for drinking, as drinking water standards for TDS levels are set at 500 mg/L for humans and 2000 mg/L for livestock. The commonest of water quality issue with CBM discharge and use in Wyoming has been about SAR and potential effects of high SAR water on irrigated croplands, though SAR, salinity (EC or TDS) and soil type are inter-related in how irrigation water can affect soil permeability and plant growth. The recommended limits for SAR levels for sensitive as well as tolerant plant-soil combinations range from 2 for high clay soils to 8 for any soil type.

Whole Effluent Toxicity test (WET test) is a test commonly carried out with CBM water on aquatic life in the water receiving the effluent. This test is done to determine the effect of CBM water on aquatic life. The duration of the test varies depending on
TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

the specie to be tested. It is a 48-hour static test using daphnia magna (water flea), and a 96-hour static test using pimephales promelas (fathead minnow). If more than half of the species used to conduct the test dies, then the effluent is said to be toxic. (Welch, 2009)

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

5 Water Treatment

In order to achieve water qualities suitable for beneficial use or to comply with discharge requirements numerous treatment technology are nowadays available for CBM produced water. The choice of CBM water treatment technology depends on several factors such as: 1. quantity and quality of produced water; 2. specifications regarding the discharged water; 3. possible uses for treated water; 4. possibility of transportation and/or storage of water before and after treatment.

These factors and the related costs determine which process has to be chosen for each CBM basin. For example in the Powder River Basin (Southeast Montana and northeast Wyoming in the United States of America) low salinity and other dissolved constituents concentrations together with high production rate have increased the interest towards water treatment for beneficial use rather than disposal. However most of the treatments are used in order to meet environmental requirements for surface discharge.

Sodium adsorption ratio and salinity (measured as electrical conductivity) are the constituents of the produced water, which receive the most of the attention. Other constituents that could be treated are fluoride, barium, ammonia and bicarbonate.

Currently available water treatment technologies give the possibility to achieve almost any water quality requirements without considering the initial quality and quantity of the produced water. Of course, depending on the technology, the costs may vary a lot. The main technologies nowadays commercially available to meet the specifications regarding these constituents are: a) ion exchange; b) reverse osmosis; c) freeze/Thaw Evaporation.

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

10

5.1 Ion Exchange The main aim of ion exchange process is to reduce the SAR in the sodium concentration of produced water. The idea behind the process is capturing and replacing sodium with another cation, reducing in this way SAR. This is realized by means of a specific resin, which is able to capture a specific ion and release other ions with the same charge. The adsorption curve depends obviously on the resin composition and on the type of ion that has to be removed.

Three different commercial processes are nowadays being used: Higgins Loop CCIX Technology modified by Exterran Water Management Services, Drake system and the Eco-Tec RecoPur System. Higgins Loop is the most widely used technology.

Higgins Loop basically consists of a large bed of adsorbent resin beads that can remove sodium and other positive ion such as calcium, potassium and magnesium from the water (see Figure 5.1). Additional unit can be added for removing fluoride, ammonia, barium and heavy metals and nitrates.

The Higgins Loop is operated with a continuous countercurrent ion exchange contactor for liquid phase separation of ionic components. The contactor is built as a vertical cylindrical loop containing a packed bed of resin divided into four zones by butterfly or "loop" valves. These operating zones are: adsorption, regeneration, backwashing and pulsing. They behave like four separate vessels.

In the adsorption zone water meets strong acid cation resin where sodium ions are exchanged for hydrogen ions. Treated water then goes out of the loop. In the lower section of the Higgins Loop regeneration of the resin takes place through either hydrochloric or sulfuric acid. As a result a small spent brine stream is produced.

Regenerated resin is rinsed with water before entering again the adsorption zone to remove acid from its pores. When resin in the upper layer of the adsorption zone becomes overloaded with sodium, the flows to the Higgins Loop are temporarily interrupted. This permits progression of the resin bed (pulsing) through the loop in the opposite way of liquid flow. Liquid flows starts again after resin pulsing is over.

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

11

This process can diminish sodium adsorption ratio up to 98 percent and lower the total dissolved solid and bicarbonate concentration, producing a waste brine. Commercial capacity available nowadays is 35,000 barrels per day per unit. The quantity of sodium removed depends on numerous factors such as: resin-to-water ratio, water flow rate and frequency of resin reconditioning. Brine can be disposed by deep-well injection.

The Drake system is a variant of the previous process developed for the treatment of sodium bicarbonate-rich water. This process uses a different fluid-bed that produces low sodium concentration minimizing the amount of brine. Brine can be dried to produce sodium sulfate, which has a commercial value. This can reduce the brine volume up to 96 percent. Capacity of this kind of system is about 8,500 barrels per day. The environmental footprint of this kind of plan is greater than for a Higgins Loop system, bur the energy consumption may be lower.

The Eco-Tec RecoPur system uses two or three compressed resin beds in order to achieve simultaneous removal of cation and anion. In this way SAR and conductivity values can be reduced with a high processing capacity (up to 36,000 barrels per day). In this case the environmental footprint is smaller, but this kind of process is not still commercially available.

5.2 Reverse Osmosis Reverse osmosis is basically a pressurized filtration process. Filtration is achieved by making water under pressure passing to a semi-permeable membrane. Constituents that have to be removed remains on the pressurized side of the membrane and almost pure water is obtained on the other side. Reverse osmosis can remove 95 to 99 percent of sodium, magnesium, calcium, barium, silica, sulfates, chlorides, nitrates and total organic carbon. Energy input is relevant and it increases with the salinity of the water and reduction in membrane pore size.

Membrane needs regular maintenance and has to be replaced periodically. The waste concentrate forming on the membrane has therefore to be disposed. The most common way for this disposal is deep-well injection. Fouling of the membrane is another problem. Pretreatment of feed water is therefore necessary.
TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

12

Reverse osmosis is operated always above the freezing point between 10 and 30 F, where membranes are more efficient. Reverse osmosis can have a high productive capacity up to 72,000 barrels per day.

5.3 Freeze Separation Process This process comes from the management of conventional oil and gas produced water. It basically takes advantage of the fact that water containing salts freezes at a lower temperature than pure water. In this way, freezing produced water below 0C, ice crystal of relative pure water can be obtained, while the dissolved salt concentration in the unfrozen water increases. At the end the brine can be drained.

The Freeze/Thaw Evaporation process is slightly different. Produced water is stored in a holding pond until the air temperature goes a little bit below freezing point. Then the water is pumped to a freezing pad where relative pure ice crystals are collected and the resulting brine can be drained. The ice crystal can be melted, providing a source of pure water. The volume of salt-rich water is much smaller than the initial one, so it can be disposed of where permitted. Of course this kind of process is possible only in those environments where low temperatures are reached for a sufficient number of days.

5.4 Treatment and Disposal Costs Costs for treatment and disposal are difficult to be estimated because they depend on many variables: the kind of treatment required, the water production volumes, water transport distance and price of natural gas are just some of the factors that influence these costs. Table 5.1 shows an overview of treatment and disposal costs for Coalbed methane produced water from several sources. Another factor affecting the costs is that produced water tends to diminish through time.

Also the cost of infrastructure associated to the treatment plant plays an important role in the decision making process about what kind of treatment has to be chosen. Additionally ancillary costs (such as transportation and pipelines) should be taken into consideration.

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

13

6 Discussion

The most expensive process in extraction is drilling. In order to reduce costs new way of thinking must be employed, and instead of drilling hundreds and thousands of vertical wells, we believe that new technologies must be utilized. First, to start considering drilling horizontal and multilateral wells, and secondly practice underbalanced drilling.

Water treatment of water produced in CBM recovery can be a rather expensive process as well. In order to be more flexible in addressing technological issues we should investigate new prospects and available technologies. Those are zeolites application and phytoremediation (currently being studied, but commercial application is not yet available). By introduction of these technologies into the process, one could probably see significant reduction of cost and also improved recovery.

Zeolites are natural alumino-silicates (similar to clays) with a high superficial adsorption capacity due to their high number of pores. The idea behind using zeolites to purify produced water is the same as in the ion exchange ion systems: dissolved substances within produced water accumulate on zeolites, which then have to regenerated.

Studies by Zhao el al. (2008, 2009) have shown how zeolites can be used to reduce the concentration of sodium and salinity in produced water. The process consists in using a natural sodium-rich zeolite that initially exchanges sodium for calcium within the treatment water, obtaining a calcium-rich mineral. Sodium-rich produced water is then forced to pass through the zeolite, resulting in a reverse process of sodium removal. Research has been made regarding the use of zeolites, but no commercial process using these minerals is currently available for coal bed methane water treatment. Potential industrial application is the next step to be improved, and it could contribute to CBM production.

A new kind of treatment called phytoremediation has been recently considered by coal bed methane industry in order to absorb and remove salt (essentially sodium)

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

14

from coal bed methane produced water in agricultural landscape (Bauder, 2008). This kind of process consists in using growing plants that can degrade or stabilize organic contaminants by operating as filters, traps or agents for sequestration.

Phytoremediation typically involves the use of constructed or natural wetlands. Wetlands basically filter water and can accumulate carbon in organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorous, suspended matter and some bacteria. In spite of this, wetlands are not able to remove salts or sodium.

Barnes at al. (2002) discovered that wetlands of the Mkuze Wetland System in northern KwaZulu-Natal worked as a sink for calcium, potassium and silicon but not for magnesium and sodium. As a consequence, sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) of superficial groundwater increased with time (Bauder et al., 2008).

Other studies led to similar results, showing that natural or constructed wetlands did not affect salinity of coal bed methane produced water. Probably thats the reason that no commercial use of this process is known by now, as for the zeolites.

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

15

7 Conclusion

Though CBM water is analysed to be better than produced water from conventional wells in terms of quality, it still requires some level of treatment before it could be discharged or used beneficially. The composition of the water plays a vital role in the decision making of what and what not to do with the CBM water. It could serve a lot of purposes if the contaminants, for example sodium, chlorine, etcetera, are minimised to meet standard specifications.

Technologies available nowadays permit almost to reach any water quality specification, regardless the initial condition of the produced water. Many factors such as costs, quantities of produced water and the possibility of transport and storage influence the choice on which technology has to be used in order to meet a desired water quality.

The main treatment is ion exchange whose aim is to reduce sodium and bicarbonate concentrations. The idea behind this process is capturing and replacing sodium with another cation, reducing in this way SAR. This is realized by means of a specific resin, which is able to capture a specific ion and release other ions with the same charge.

The most significant cost related to treatment of produced water is the disposal of waste brine. Even when water is meant to be used for beneficial purpose, the cost of realization of such use may go beyond any economic profit.

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

16

8 References

1. ALL Consulting (2003). Handbook on Coal Bed Methane Produced Water: Management and Beneficial Use Alternatives. Tulsa, Oklahoma. 2. American Geosciences Institute, 2011. Environmental Issues Related to Coalbed Methane Production http://www.agiweb.org/environment/earthnotes/note.html?PublicID=7 (22/11/2011) 3. Barnes, K., W. Ellery, and A. Kindness. 2002. A preliminary analysis of water chemistry of the Mkuze Wetland System, KwaZulu-Natal: A mass balance approach. Water S.A. 28(1):1-12. 4. Bauder, J.W. 2008. Evaluation of Phytoremediation of Coal Bed Methane Produced Water and Waters of Quality Similar to that Associated with Coal Bed Methane Reserves of the Powder River Basin, Montana and Wyoming. DOE Award No. DE-FG26-01BC15166. Prepared for National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. 5. Council, National Research. 2010. Management and Effects of CBM Produced Water in the Western United States, Washington, D.C. 6. Cynthia A. Rice. 2000. Water Produced with Coal Bed Methane. 7. Drake Water Technologies, Inc. Coal Bed Methane (CBM) / Coal Seam Gas (CSG) Water Treatment. http://www.drakewater.com/CBM.html (15/10/2011) 8. Dubas, G., Mallory, D. 2010. Assessment of Water Quality Impacts from Coal Bed Methane Produced water discharge in Purgatoire River Water Shed, Metro State College of Denver, Fall 2010. 9. Eco-Tec Inc. 2007. RecoPur CBM Water Treatment System. http://www.eco-tec.com/products/coal_bed_methane.php (15/10/2011)

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

17

10. Keith, K., Bauder, J. and Wheaton, J.. Wheaton J. Frequently asked questions. Coal Bed Methane (CBM). Montana State University-Bozeman, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (2003) 11. Kuipers, J.R. et al. 2004. Coal Bed Methane-Produced Water: Management Options for Sustainable Development. 12. Natural Gas.org website. Unconventional Natural Gas Resources. http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/unconvent_ng_resource.asp (15/10/2011) 13. National Petroleum Council (2007). Unconventional gas subgroup of the technology, task group of the NPC committee on global oil and gas. 14. National Research Council (U.S.), Committee on Management and Effects of Coalbed Methane Development and Produced Water in the Western United States. 2010. Management and effects of coalbed methane produced water in the western United States. The National Academies Press. 15. Pack West consulting partners. Global Shale Potential. http://www.pacwestcp.com/ (10/10/2011) 16. Regent Energy Group Ltd.. Coal Bed Methane. http://www.regentenergygroup.com/ (12/10/2011) 17. Resources, the Ruckelshaus Institute of Environment and Natural Resources. 2005. Water Production from Coal Bed Methane Development in Wyoming, University of Wyoming. 18. SciTopics, 2008. Coalbed Methane: Gas of the Past, Present, and Future http://www.scitopics.com/Coalbed_Methane_Gas_of_the_Past_Present_and_ Future.html (22/11/2011) 19. U.S. Department of Energy. National Energy Technology Laboratory http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies (12/10/2011) 20. USGS, science for a changing world. Water Produced with Coal-Bed Methane. http://www.usgs.gov/ (10/09/2011)

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

18

21. Welch James. 2009 Drilling and Production, Oil and Gas Journal. 22. Wikipedia on Coal Bed Methane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalbed_methane (12/10/2011) 23. Zhao, H., G.F. Vance, G.K. Ganjegunte, and M.A. Urynowicz. 2008. Use of zeolites for treating natural gas co-produced waters in Wyoming, USA. Desalinization 228:263-276. 24. World Coal association website. Coal Bed Methane. http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/coal-seam-methane/coal-bed-methane/ (14/11/2011)

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

19

9 Tables

Table 1.1 Resources of Coal Bed Methane (IEA CCC 2005)

Estimated CBM Resource Base (trillion cubic metres) Canada 17 to 92 Russia 17 to 80 China 30 to 35 Australia 8 to 14 USA 4 to 11 Country

Table 4.1 Concentrations of selected components in CBM water from three fields in the Ferron CBM area, Utah, and from 47 wells in Wyoming. USGS (1, Rice 1999; 2, Rice 2000)

Uinta Basin (Ferron CBM, Utah) 1 mg/L Field Buzzard Bench Drunkards Wash Helper State Helper State TDS Cl HCO3 Br/Cl 8500 5500 0.0063 0.0032 0.0013 0.0013

11000 2300 8900 2500

26000 14000 5200 26000 14000 5200

Powder River Basin (Wyoming) 2 g/L CBM DWS Arsenic <3 50 Manganese g/L CBM DWS 32 < Barium Chromium 620 <2 2000 100 Mercury Selenium 0.3 <2 2 50 50

TDS total dissolved solids; DWS drinking water standards.

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

20

Table 4.2 CBM-Produced Water Disposal, Benefits and Impacts (James R. Kuipers, 2004)

Groundwater Reinjection into coal aquifer Dispos al Method Percolation into aquifer

Surface Water

Soils, Native Plants and Agriculture

Other

Direct discharge Injection into aquifer Indirect discharge via groundwater

Crop irrigation Land application disposal

Evaporation To other uses

Improve surface Aquifer Benefit s recharge (shallow and deep aquifer) flows Increase water to downstream users Increased native Constructed wetlands Spring and seep Aquifer depletion Impacts Aquifer contamination dewatering Surface water contamination Surface water flow alteration Increased salinity and sodicity Increased erosion Reduced crop yields Loss of native species plant pasture Increased irrigation water and crop yields

Wildlife and livestock watering Municipal Recreation Industrial Loss of aquatic species Reduced/altere d wildlife habitat Aesthetics Recreation

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

21

Table 4.3 Conventional Oil & Gas vs CBM Produced Water Quality (Gail Dubas and Dwight Mallory, 2010)

Producing Field

TDS(mg/L) MIN MAX

Sodium (mg/L) Median MIN 100 110 MAX

Sodium Adsorption Ratio Median MIN 2.09 5.7 MAX Median

WY Conventional PRB CBM

1003 270

307713 6897 2010 780

115101 2143 800 250

24304 298 32 8.3

CO O&G Wells Raton CBM Wells

1033

346013 12544

128

113657 4337

10

6375

474

175

15235

1910

95

5260

710

2.1

220

69

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

22

Table 5.1 Treatment and Disposal Costs for CBM Produced Water (Council, National Research. 2010. Management and Effects of CBM Produced Water in the Western United States, Washington, D.C.)

Disposal or Treatment Method Fluid-bed resin exchangeDrake Water Technologies Fixed-bed resin exchangeExterran EMIT Technology

Unit Cost/Barr el

Capital Equipment Cost or Access Fee www.pttc.org/newsletter/3qtr2008 $325,000 /v14n3p12.html (accessed February 23, 2010) Reference

$0.12$0.30

$0.15$0.60

www.pttc.org/newsletter/3qtr2008 /v14n3p12.html (accessed February 23, 2010) ALL consulting (2003); J. Boysen, $1,75 million to $2 million BC Technologies, Inc., presentation to the committee, March 30, 2009

$0.24Freeze-Thaw Evaporation $0.32* $0.75$1.00 $<0.01Reverse osmosis $0.10** $0.01$0.03 $200,000 to over $2 million

ALL Consulting (2003) Stewart and Takichi (2007)

* These two costs refer to the freeze-thaw operation and disposal of the concentrated effluent ** Costs include other treatment techniques and waste stream is deep-well reinjected

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

23

10 Figures

Figure 1.1 Unconventional Gas World Map Distribution (PacWest Consulting Partners, 2011)

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

24

Figure 1.2 Annual coalbed methane production in the United States, rising from 91 Bcf in 1989 to 1966 Bcf in 2009 (data from U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, accessed September 19, 2011). (American Geosciences Institute)

Figure 2.1 Possible ways of treating CBM water (http://www.usgs.gov/ 10/09/2011)

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

25

a)

b)

Figure 3.1 a) Illustration of the main features at a producing CBM well (Adapted from Rice and Nuccio 2000); b) Pump jack diagram (Wikipedia)

Figure 3.2 Graphic representation of production curves for typical CBM wells (Nuccio 2000)

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

26

Figure 3.3 Multilateral well in CBM. (Regent energy Group)

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

27

Figure 5.1 Higgins Loop Working Principle (Council, National Research. 2010. Management and Effects of CBM Produced Water in the Western United States, Washington, D.C.)

TPG4140 - Water Produced in Coal Bed Methane Recovery

28