Solution
10 wells completed with Fishbones systems were processed for comparison with conventional well stimulation techniques. The selected wells represent a range of regions across both onshore and offshore environments. Scope 1 emissions were assessed for each comparison case, referring to direct emissions from sources owned or controlled by a company. In line with the GHG Protocol, diesel consumption is identified as the primary source of emissions across the different completion techniques. Therefore, GHG (CO2) emissions are calculated based on diesel consumption of equipment used in operations, for example:
- Installation and/or rig operation (on well / DP)
- Equipment operation: High Pressure Stimulation units, wireline unit
- Vessel operation: Stimulation vessel, support vessel
Results
Deployment of Fishbones stimulation techniques significantly reduced CO2 emissions in each of the 10 wells considered.
- CO2 emissions reductions ranged from 55% to 98%, in favour of Fishbones completion techniques.
- Most significant emissions reductions were seen in Fishbones Drilling vs Propped Fracturing cases (offshore).
The result is a cumulative emissions reduction of approximately 1,512 tonnes of CO2 over the 10 wells considered.
An impact table is provided to illustrate the relative impact of the stimulation techniques in a way that can be appreciated by both the public and industry professionals.
| Fishbones Stimulation Techniques (10 wells) | Alternative | Stimulation Techniques (10 wells) |
|---|---|---|
| Diesel Utilisation (Tonnes) | 29.5 | 506.5 |
| CO2 Emissions (Tonnes) | 93.4 | 1,605.6 |
