Regional modeling of Class II wastewater injection wells, Appalachian Basin Tom Sparks, Energy and Minerals Section Kentucky Geological Survey Annual Seminar.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
EPA’s Underground Injection Control Program
Advertisements

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Figure 1: High-level workflow for the assessment of potential interaction of CO 2 geological storage with other basin resources,
Lydia Cumming, MRCSP Outreach Coordinator, Battelle MRCSP Outreach Program DOE/NETL Cooperative Agreement # DE-FC26-0NT
FutureGen in Kentucky A slide show explaining a KGS preliminary assessment of geologic sequestration potential for future power plants in.
TTI Regulatory and Permitting Issues For Geologic Sequestration of CO2 Presentation to the West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership September.
TTI CO2 Sequestration in Geologic Formations Terralog Technologies USA, Inc. BP Hydrogen Energy CO2 Project.
Bill Leith Senior Science Advisor for Earthquake and Geologic Hazards U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey.
Hydraulic Fracturing under Senate Bill 4. Senate Bill 4 - Approved September 20, Requires a permit to conduct a well stimulation treatment, such.
Primary funding is provided by The SPE Foundation through member donations and a contribution from Offshore Europe The Society is grateful to those companies.
Geologic Structure and Seismic Analysis
Environmental Regulation and Hydraulic Fracturing in California
CWAG 2010 WATER LAW CONFERENCE The Broadmoor Colorado Springs, Colorado April 29 – 30, 2010.
Induced Seismicity Houston Bar Association Environmental Law Section Houston, Texas January 21, 2015 Mark K. Boling Executive Vice President and President,
Addressing Climate Change through Carbon Capture and Geological Sequestration in Michigan Dave Barnes We Can Do It Here! 2009 Mid-America Regulatory Conference.
The Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Presentation for the Radionuclide Webcast August 4, pm.
It’s not my Fracking Problem! Regulations, Liability, and the Process of Hydraulic Fracturing Katie Heath November 30, 2010.
CO 2 Sequestration Options for California Larry Myer WESTCARB Technical Director California Energy Commission (916) ; ETAAC.
Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus Shale Formation Why regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act is needed.
1 Carbon Capture and Storage, CCS CCS is various methods for capturing and permanently storing anthropogenic CO 2 that would otherwise contribute to global.
Unconventional Gas: Shale Gas Shale Gas  Unconventional gas (hydrocarbons) found in subsurface shale formations  Replacement to coal, oil, and natural.
1 Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Rules.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Mineral Resources Management (DMRM) Emergency Management Association Of Ohio- Spring Directors Seminar.
Kathy Metropulos Division of Drinking and Ground Waters Protecting your aquifer: What to consider when drilling oil and gas wells.
EOR: Promesa Incumplida o un Gran Futuro?
Analogs for Fault-controlled Ordovician Dolomite Reservoirs, Appalachian Basin: Geological and geophysical characterization of Central Kentucky outcrops.
Presented to: By: Date: Federal Aviation Administration Environmental Requirements For Extraction of Gas & Oil on Airport Property 35 th Annual Airports.
The Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program
Developing Green Stormwater Design Solutions For UIC Compliance Presented by: Adam Zucker PE, CWRE 819 SE Morrison Street ● Suite 310 ● Portland, Oregon.
Hydraulic Fracturing or “Fracking”. Natural Gas: Clean Energy? Natural gas power plants produce: half as much CO 2 (greenhouse gas) less than a third.
EPA's Regulatory Approach : Climate Mitigation via Sequestration of CO2: by Rob Ferri (EPA - Underground Injection Control) This presentation has not been.
Update on EPA Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Activities: Presentation at the KDHE Geology Section’s Fall 2012 Seminar David Garrett, Environmental.
Global Energy Security Forum Miami, Florida March 26, 2013 Mark K. Boling President HYDRAULIC FRACTURING OPERATIONS: SEPARATING FACT FROM FICTION.
The Multi-State Shale Research Collaborative By Michael Wood and Mark Price.
Professor Peter Styles Keele University United Kingdom.
Analysis of the Devonian Shale in Kentucky for Potential CO 2 Sequestration and Enhanced Natural Gas Production Brandon C. Nuttall, James A. Drahovzal,
 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 101: What Every Representative, Environmentalist, Regulator, Reporter, Investor, University Researcher, Neighbor and Engineer Should.
Monte Markley, P.G. SCS Aquaterra. What to do when you need to dispose of high volume fluids? One way is to drill a disposal well.
OVERVIEW OF OIL & GAS EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT and STATE REGULATION OVERVIEW OF OIL & GAS EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT and STATE REGULATION February 18, 2012.
RCS Partnerships Annual Meeting Pittsburg December 2007 Gulf Coast Stacked Storage SECARB Phase II Test #1 Susan Hovorka, Tip Meckel, JP Nicot, Fred Wang,
ARKANSAS ENVIRONMENTAL FEDERATION GHG EMMISSIONS TRADING CONFERENCE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MARCH 2006 Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.
Southwest CO 2 Sequestration Partnership: Field Demonstrations of CO 2 Sequestration Exploring Carbon Science and Technology Options Western Regional Air.
Ch WAC Geologic Sequestration of Carbon dioxide John Stormon Hydrogeologist Washington Department of Ecology Seattle, WA October.
SOURCE WATER PROTECTION IN KARST SHENANDOAH VALLEY WATER CONFERENCE OCTOBER 28, 2008 WINCHESTER,VIRGINIA.
“Perspectives on Montana’s Petroleum Industry” MREA-MPA-MONTAX “Bridges to the Future” Conference October 15, 2009 Dave Ballard President Ballard Petroleum.
TTI Regulatory and Permitting Issues For Geologic and Terrestrial Sequestration of CO2 Presentation to the West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership.
Northern Great Plains Water Consortium (NGPWC) Bakken Water Opportunities Assessment Water Resource Opportunities Meeting Bismarck, ND December 10, 2009.
Shale Gas Extraction Wastewater Issues Panel Discussion August 2, 2011 Irving, TX EPA/RIVPA 27 th Annual Pretreatment Workshop Jan Marie Pickrel US EPA,
Hydraulic Fracturing in the Ohio River Basin. –Conventional vs. nonconventional (continuous) Overview of Hydraulic Fracturing.
Bulgarian Geology and Mining Ministry of Environment and Water.
Hydraulic Fracturing Tom Carr, Lauren Dynes, and Pete Strader.
Understanding the SWD Market in the Bakken Shale Play, North Dakota Authors: J. Daniel Arthur, P.E., SPEC; Bobbi Lorengo, EIT; Alex Zyskin.
M idcontinent I nteractive D igital C arbon A tlas and R elational Data B ase James A. Drahovzal, Lawrence H. Wickstrom, Timothy R.Carr, John A. Rupp,
Developing U.S. Shale Gas and Oil Resources: Problems and Prospects for the Next Decade Peter D. Blair, Executive Director NRC Division on Engineering.
Dave Harris Energy and Minerals Section May 13, 2016
Texas Economy IV April 21, Texas Oil Production.
Assessing baseline groundwater chemistry for the Berea sandstone and Rogersville shale play area, eastern Kentucky Kentucky Geological Survey, University.
John James Tintera, PG #325 Texas Alliance of Energy Producers Injection Well Regulatory Update April, 2016.
Political Backdrop As non-geologists and seeming without Professional Geology consultation individuals make the following types of comments: "We have a.
Hydraulic Fracturing: Technological Advances David R. Mica Executive Director Florida Petroleum Council
Coal Impoundment Location and Warning System
Appalachian storage Hub (ASH) project
Appalachian storage Hub (ASH) project
Appalachian storage Hub (ASH) project
Appalachian storage Hub (ASH) project
Prioritizing Fossil Fuel Production over Drinking Water
“There’s a problem? Says who?”
Regulating Injection and Fracking In Oil & Gas Operations
An Overview of the Current OCD Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Heather Riley, Director New Mexico Oil Conservation Division.
Texas Disposal Well Rules And Seismicity Leslie Savage, P.G.
Dave Harris Energy and Minerals Section May 13, 2016
Presentation transcript:

Regional modeling of Class II wastewater injection wells, Appalachian Basin Tom Sparks, Energy and Minerals Section Kentucky Geological Survey Annual Seminar May 13, 2016 KGS Well Sample and Core Library

Outline of presentation Class II brine disposal and injection wells (definition, types, purposes) EPA Region 4 (UIC Program, FOIA requests, access to data, primacy issues) Map service of disposal and injection wells in Kentucky (online database, statewide numbers, locations) Brine disposal framework project – Battelle Forthcoming: Newly released injection volumes (March 2016), currently under evaluation

Motivation for study Develop baseline data for identifying and tracking brine disposal in Kentucky by location and geologic context Distinguish between saltwater disposal (SWD) and enhanced recovery injection (ERI) wells  Disposal causes a mass balance addition to reservoir  Enhanced injection is overall mass balance neutral Distinction between disposal and injection wells important for analyzing potential for induced seismicity (next talk)

What are Class II injection wells? Inject fluids associated with oil and gas production into underground porous formations – wastewater, brines (salt water), steam, CO 2, flowback fluids (frack fluids) Protect underground sources of drinking water (USDW) Two types of Class II wells:  Type D for permanent disposal for brines (SWD)  Type R for injection into existing reservoir for increased recovery of hydrocarbons (80%) 2 billion gallons brine injected every day in US 180,000 Class II wells in US (3,000 in KY) Service wells (SWD, ERI, EOR, SRI, TRI, GI, waterflood) Source: Injection Partners LP

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region 4, Atlanta, GA Primary enforcement authority for Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, permitting & regulation Primacy for Kentucky’s Class I-VI wells Data, documents, detailed information available through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) web site Kentucky applied for primacy of Class II wells, Nov. 10, 2015, application currently USEPA Washington, approval expected later this year

EPA Forms and Data Administrative & Operations Data Review, approve locations, issue UIC permits Form (Well Monitoring Report) used by operators for reporting pressure & volume Periodic laboratory analysis (pH, TDS, s.g.) FOIA document (what they distribute) Database spreadsheet or PDF document  EPA-ID, company, well name & no., status, lat-lon, intervals, formation

KGS map products from FOIA documents March 2013: published ‘Class I waste- disposal wells and Class II brine- injection wells in Kentucky,’ KGS Map and Chart 204, ser. 12 December 2014: online map service, updated inclusion of 2,900 ERI wells: Available on KGS Online Maps Home Sparks, Harris, and Bowersox, 2013; KGS Map and Chart 204, ser ArcGIS Map service of EPA permitted Class I industrial waste- disposal wells, Class II brine- disposal (SWD) and enhanced- recovery injection (ERI) wells

Map service of disposal and injection wells Berea Ss Weir sd Corn., Knox Gp Ft. Payne-Knox Gp Penn-Miss. Ss & Ls (Illinois Basin) Layers: 11 Class I wells 152 Class II SWD wells 2,939 Class II ERI wells Faults O&G Fields Layers: 11 Class I wells 152 Class II SWD wells 2,939 Class II ERI wells Faults O&G Fields Big Lime

Map service of disposal and injection wells Big Sinking waterflood, LCKP, BGSX (344CORN) Service includes: Legends Tables Popups Metadata Links to KGS DB

Brine Disposal Framework – Battelle, KGS, others Development of Subsurface Brine Disposal Framework in the Northern Appalachian Basin Increased demands for disposal wells due to recent rise in shale-gas activity & production Manager: Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA), Unconventional Resources Subcontractor: Battelle Memorial Institute State Surveys of Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania Tom Sparks, Marty Parris, KGS 2-year project (Apr 2013 – Oct 2015)

Develop an assessment of brine disposal in the Northern Appalachian Basin region based on information from state agencies and disposal and production companies Develop a geologic framework of injection zones, performance parameters, operational issues, and operational data. Complete reservoir evaluations through simulations for injectivity, pressure buildup, geomechanical constraints Evaluate disposal based on demand, storage capacity, and costs Guidance to developers, producers, agencies, and stakeholders Brine Disposal – objectives PA KY OH WV

Data collection and review – compile data, 5-year injection history (2008–2012), laboratory and injectivity analysis Perform geomechanical testing of 9 selected key formations Geocellular model development – shallow to deep zones (4) Local-scale injection simulations of selected wells in model Source-Sink analysis – compare field prod. vs. injection vol. Development of products for operators (reports, tables, etc.) Brine Disposal Framework – major tasks

Supplied three whole-core samples for rock mechanics (compressive, acoustic, and tensile strength testing) from KGS No. 1 Hanson Aggregates, Carter County, KY Rose Run 3,313’ Copper Ridge 3,790’ Mount Simon 4,686’ Compiled lists of Class II brine disposal wells with administration data, and operational injection data (pressures, volumes) for all active SWD in EKY 30 active brine injection wells in KY Northern Appalachian Basin Operational monthly volumes complied for 21 wells Battelle ran various geocellular models and injection simulations through injection formations as provided by each state survey Kentucky case study – Weir sands, Isonville Fld, Elliott Co. Created map and cross-section through area for model Brine Disposal Framework – KGS contribution

Brine Disposal Framework – Final Report SWD wells with active permits Aug. 2013, OH (211), WV (76), eastern KY (30), PA (7) Monthly operational data (volumes, pressure) compiled from 200 SWD wells for 2008–2012 Injection increased from 9.2 MMBBL in 2008 to 17.6 MMBBL by 2012, mostly to shale gas activity, est. 20 MMBBL in 2013 Brine injected into a variety of 10 porous zones (shallow Pennsylvanian Weir to deep Cambrian Mt. Simon, Basal sandstones) Suggest 9,984 barrels brine disposed per BCF gas Long-term demand for brine disposal for Marcellus-Utica may be 706–2,290 MMBBL “Depleted oil-gas reservoirs and deep saline formations offer very large capacity for brine disposal.” (p. 381)

Thank you! See You in Lexington ES-AAPG 2016 Sept , Scan QR code to save the date