US Class II Underground Injection Wells: Injection and Seismicity Operational Risk Factors
- L. H. Capper (CAP Resources) | M. C. Lee (EnergyMakers Advisory Group)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, 4-6 October , Lexington, Kentucky, USA
- Publication Date
- Document Type
- Conference Paper
- 2017. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 5 Reservoir Desciption & Dynamics, 7 Management and Information, 2 Well completion, 7.2 Risk Management and Decision-Making, 5.4.1 Waterflooding, 5.4 Improved and Enhanced Recovery, 7.2.1 Risk, Uncertainty and Risk Assessment
- Seismicity, Formation Pressurization, Risk Management, Underground Injection Control UIC, Saltwater Disposal Wells
- 2 in the last 30 days
- 61 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 8.50|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 25.00|
Management of produced water from conventional plays and shale and tight oil and gas plays is driving subtle yet potentially consequential changes in certain regions and Underground Injection Control (UIC) formations.
UIC operation topics of interest include induced seismicity (from UIC injection, extraction, or unknown/anomolous activity), formation pressurization from years of UIC injection, and reallocation of produced water from originating "tight" producing formations to more receptive conventional, depleted, or waterflooded formations, resulting in formation pressure changes. Early signs of diminished formation health or threats to operations continuity can include:
Barely felt (low magnitude) induced and anomolous earthsquakes - which nonetheless are a cause of significant concern to the public – and by extension, landowners, stakeholders, and regulators.
Reduced formation injectivity – suggesting that injection rates should be "dialed back", or that injection pump pressures be increased, or that water be transported further to more receptive injection formations.
If encountered, stresses can contribute to cost overruns, impairment to operations schedules, additional oversite to assure regulatory compliance, reduced public goodwill, and potentially, impairment of industry’s social license to operate.
Through analysis of publicly available UIC operations data and well completion data, we evaluate methods which might help to qualitatively assess UIC issues with macro, regional, local and subsurface formation perspectives. The methods discussed may provide operators with a consistent simple methodology to qualitatively identify those assets and UIC formations with higher potential relative risk which may warrant more detailed exploration and possible risk mitigation.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||11|
Rubinstein, J. L., and A. B. Mahani (2015). Myths and Facts on Wastewater Injection, Hydraulic Fracturing, Enhanced Oil Recovery, and Induced Seismicity, Seismol. Res. Lett. 84, doi: 10.1785/220150067
Hornbach, M. J., H. R. DeShon, W. L. Ellsworth, B. W. Stump, C. Hayward, C. Frohlich, H. R. Oldham, J. E. Olson, M. B. Magnani, C. Brokaw, and J. H. Luetgert, 2015, Causal factors for seismicity near Azle, Texas: Nature Communications, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7728.