{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02304303625889529, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014910199932226365, 'mean_word_length': 5.15, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Delaware Basin Case History Details Economic Benefit of Water-Recycling Program

This article, written by JPT Technology Editor Chris Carpenter, contains highlights of paper SPE 204166, “Turning Produced Water Into an Asset: A Delaware Basin Case History,” by Dustin Aro, SPE, and Steven Fowler, SPE, Precision Petroleum Solutions, prepared for the 2021 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition, held virtually 4–6 May. The paper has not been peer reviewed.
 Well completion operations are affected by freshwater procurement costs starting at approximately $0.75/bbl. Regardless of final fracturing design, water consumption during fracturing operations typically exceeds 500,000 bbl, or $375,000 per well at the time of writing. Significant value exists for recycling produced water by an on-lease pit that can be used for future fracturing operations. The case history outlined in the complete paper explores a multiwell sectional development in the Delaware Basin by a small operator that reduced drilling and completion costs, along with lease operating expenses, by turning undesirable produced water into an asset.
 
 
 Because the Delaware Basin straddles two states, it is important to understand the guidelines and processes of pursuing produced-water recycling operations in Texas as opposed to New Mexico. The operations discussed were executed and managed on the Texas side. While contractor familiarity can be beneficial during the planning stages, the operator also must be well-versed in applicable regulations. It is advisable to consult with legal counsel regarding liability should an unplanned discharge event occur.
 
 
 
 Before the beginning of initial completions operations, three freshwater wells were drilled on-lease with the intention of use for fracturing operations. The flow rate from the three wells was insufficient to keep up with fracturing operations by an aboveground storage tank (AST). A large-volume fracturing pit was not constructed. The initial completion on Well 1, targeting the Wolfcamp C bench, was executed primarily with fresh water sourced from a third-party pit that was transferred to a nearby AST. During production, Well 1 maintained a high water cut (greater than 90%) and produced a significant amount of water over time.
 Additional infrastructure would be required to fully exploit the existing freshwater wells as a source for future completions activity. Operator break-even treatment costs have been determined to be the most favorable when using a centralized pipeline water-management program. A pit would act as a centralized gathering point with temporary pipeline infrastructure for water-transfer purposes.
 An internal economic analysis was undertaken to determine construction costs for a pit that could accommodate 500,000 bbl or 1,000,000 bbl of fresh water. The option of constructing a pit that could handle produced water also was included for comparison.
