Share This Article:

Improved Water Use Estimates for Drilling and Hydrualic Fracturing in Northeastern Colorado

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:904KB) PP. 1262-1267
DOI: 10.4236/jwarp.2013.512135    4,654 Downloads   6,166 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

The development of unconventional resources in tight shales has stimulated considerable growth of oil and gas production in Northeastern Colorado, but has led to concerns about added demands on the region’s strained water resources. Northeastern Colorado’s semi-arid environment, population growth, competing water demands and uncertainty about drilling and hydraulic fracturing water requirements have resulted in scrutiny and conflict surrounding water use for tight shales. This study collects water use data from wells in Northeastern Colorado to improve water estimates and to better understand important contributing factors. Most water resource studies use estimates for the number of future wells to predict water demands. This study shows that the number of hydraulic fracturing stages is a better measure of the future water demands for horizontal wells. Vertical wells use significantly less water than horizontal wells and will be less prevalent in the future.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

S. Goodwin, K. Carlson, B. Bai, L. Rein, K. Knox and C. Douglas, "Improved Water Use Estimates for Drilling and Hydrualic Fracturing in Northeastern Colorado," Journal of Water Resource and Protection, Vol. 5 No. 12, 2013, pp. 1262-1267. doi: 10.4236/jwarp.2013.512135.

References

[1] Colorado Water Conservation Board, Camp Dresser and McKee Inc., Harvey Economics, “State of Colorado 2050 Municipal and Industrial Water Use Projections, Tech. rep.,” 2010.
[2] Colorado River Basin Roundtable and Yampa/White River Basin Roundtable Colorado Water Conservation Board, “Energy Development Water Needs Assessment Phase ii, Tech. rep.,” 2011.
[3] J. Fisher and F. Ackerman, “The Water-Energy Nexus in the Western United States: Projections to 2100, Tech. rep.,” Stockholm Environment Institute, 2011.
[4] United States Government Accountability Office, “Energy-Water Nexus: Improvements to Federal Water Use Data Would Increase Understanding of Trends in Power Plant Water Use, Tech. rep.,” 2009.
[5] Colorado Water Conservation Board, “Colorado’s Water Supply Future: State Water Supply Initiative 2010, Tech. rep.,” 2011.
[6] S. Tellinghuisen, “Water Conservation = Energy Conservation, Tech. rep.,” Western Resource Advocates, 2009.
[7] Colorado, Yampa, and White River Basin Roundtables Energy Subcommittee, “Energy Development Water Needs Assessment (Phase 1 Report), Tech. rep.,” 2008.
[8] M. E. Mantell, “Deep Shale Natural Gas and Water Use, Part Two: Abundant, Affordable, and Still Water Efficient, Tech. rep.,” Chesapeake Energy Corporation, 2010.
[9] Secretary of Energy Advisory Board US Department of Energy, “Shale Gas Production Subcommittee Second Ninety Day Report, Tech. rep.,” 2011.
[10] WellView, Peloton Computer Enterprises Ltd., Houston, Texas.
[11] M. Stephens, “Edf Statistics for Goodness of Fit and Some Comparisons,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 69, No. 347, 1974, pp. 730-737.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1974.10480196
[12] Z. Sidák, “Rectangular Confidence Regions for the Means of Multivariate Normal Distributions,” Journal of American Statistical Association, Vol. 62, No. 318, 1967, pp. 626-633.
[13] “ArcGIS Spatial Analyst Toolbox, Vol. Release 10,” Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, 2011.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.