development of subsurface brine disposal framework · pdf filedevelopment of subsurface brine...

Brine Disposal Framework

PIOGA 2015, Neeraj Gupta, Battelle 1

Development of Subsurface Brine Disposal Framework in the Northern Appalachian Basin

July 29, 2015; PIOGA presentation

U.S. DOE/NETL

Joel Sminchak([email protected], 614-424-7392)

Neeraj Gupta([email protected], 614-424-3820)

Battelle, Columbus, Ohio

• Client: RPSEA/DOE-NETL (2011 Unconventional11122-73)

• Award Date: 4/1/2013

• Period of Performance: 2.5 years from 4/1/2013 to 10/31/2015

• Contract Type: Cooperative Agreement with 22% cost share

• Project team: Battelle, KY, OH, PA, WV Geological Surveys NSI Tech.

Project Overview

U.S. DOE/NETL



Outline

1. Project Overview

2. Background

3. Geo/Class 2 Data Collection and Review

4. Data Analysis and interpretation

5. Geocellular Model Development

6. Local-scale injection simulations

7. Source-Sink Analysis

8. Development of Products for Operators

9. Conclusions/Future Work

• Objective- Provide an understanding of the geology and operational history for Class 2 brine disposal in the Appalachian Basin to support safe, reliable, and environmentally responsible brine disposal in the region.

Injection Test/Data Analysis

Operational Data

Reservoir Simulations

Geotechnical TestsGeological Analysis

Project Overview



Project Overview- Health & Safety

• No direct brine injection was performed under this project.

• We did work with operators to monitor wellhead pressure with continuous loggers.

• Main hazards were high pressure fluids, so appropriate lock-out-tag-out procedures were followed during instrument installation.

Background- Demand for Brine Disposal

• Growth in shale gas has resulted in increased demand for larger-scale Class II brine disposal wells.

• Geologic/regulatory constraints in other states leading to commercial-scale facilities in western Appalachian basin, especially in eastern Ohio.

• The geologic and reservoir parameters of injection zones poorly understood -planned assessment is required to meet long-term demand.

• Concerns about potentially low injectivity, fracture pressure constraints, and induced seismicity.



Background – Study Area

• Study area includes Eastern Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

• Research focused on Class II brine disposal wells. Class II EOR wells were not investigated.

Class II EOR Wells

Background – Geology

• Diverse range of injection zones are present in the Appalachian Basin.

‘Big Injun’

Bradford

‘Newburg’-Lockport Oriskany

‘Clinton’-Medina

Rose Run

Trempealeau-Copper RidgeMt. Simon



Background – Geology

• Injection zones reflect regional geology with younger zones more prevalent into the basin in WV, PA, and KY.

(bas

ed o

n d

eep

est

inje

ctio

n i

nte

rval

)

Class 2 Operational Data

• Class 2 UIC brine disposal monthly operational data was obtained from UIC programs for 2008-2012:

• Data was tabulated from permit reports and evaluated with statistics, graphs, and maps based injection formations, depths, locations.

• We looked at 2008-2012 time period and 2012.

• As of ~August 2013, records showed approximately 324 Class II brine disposal wells with active permits in the study area.

State Class II Status Regulatory AgencyKentucky Regional Implementation USEPA Region 4 UIC ProgramOhio State Primacy Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources Division of Oil & GasPennsylvania Regional Implementation USEPA Region 3 UIC ProgramWest Virginia State Primacy West Virginia Dept. of Env. Protection Office of Oil & Gas

Class II Injection Wells E. KY OH PA WV TotalActive Brine Disposal Wells 30 211 7 76 324Inactive/Abandoned Brine Disposal Wells 15 461 14 44 534EOR Wellsa ~1,200 ~1,700 ~1,800 ~650 ~5,400

a. Source: USEPA Class II survey data




• Survey data show brine disposal volumes doubled from 2008-2012.


Statistic 2012 Total

Volume (BBL/well)

2012 Avg. Monthly Volume

(BBL/mo)

2012 Avg. Wellhead

Pressure (psi) Count >0 218 218 174 Max 766,596 120,976 2,384 Mean 80,620 7,061 628 Median 32,015 2,668 543 STD 122,317 12,293 480

• The status of Class II brine disposal wells is highly variable.

• Data should not be considered a definitive list of Class II wells. This information is maintained by state or regional EPA UIC programs and changes frequently.

• We generally focused on monthly injection rates, volumes, days active, and wellhead pressures as reported. Some data was not listed in records.




• Many existing Class II brine disposal wells from the 1980s were used initial disposal (most of these wells were related to Clinton development in Ohio).

• More wells have recently been installed to meet demand for brine disposal.

App

roxi

mat

e#

Brin

eD

ispo

salW

ells

Dril

led


• Over 30 new Class II brine disposal well permits since 2012 in the Appalachian Basin, including 5 in Pennsylvania.

• This research focuses on 2008-2012 since that operational data was available at the time we collected data from UIC programs.



• Summary of Class 2 Brine Disposal Total Injection Volume in 2012 by Deepest Injection Formation.

• Data may reflect well activity more than injection capacity/performance.


Class 2 Operational Data• Summary of Class 2 Brine Disposal Total Injection Volume in 2012 by

Deepest Injection Formation.

• Data may reflect well activity more than injection capacity/performance.

Dee

pest

Inje

ctio

nF

orm

atio

n



Operational Data• General review of produced water indicates wide variety of salinity for

disposal fluids run into Class 2 injection wells.

Operational Data- Field Operations Monitoring

Objective

• Monitor wellhead pressure/flow for existing Class 2 Brine disposal wells to estimate reservoir properties for injection zones in the Appalachian Basin.

Methods

• Provide wellhead loggers to operators during routine operation/injection cycles.

• Complete pressure falloff/buildup analysis to estimate reservoir properties.

• Data also provided better understanding of operational cycles in relation to reservoir properties.



Clinton-Medina

-Four Clinton-Medina wells monitored 1 week each

-Wells run continuously at high pressure and rate, showing no falloff.

-Therefore, analysis was not possible.

Well 1

Well 2

Well 3 Well 4(shut-in)

Newburg

-Injection cycles monitored on Newburg Class 2 injection well

-Well showed several pressure fall off cycles.

-Analysis suggests ~5 mD across 94 ft.



Knox

-Injection cycles monitored on a Knox (Rose Run-Copper Ridge) injection well

-Well showed several pressure fall off cycles.

-Analysis suggests 3 mD across 124 ft.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

8/26/14

8/27/14

8/28/14

8/29/14

8/30/14

8/31/14

9/1/14

9/2/14

9/3/14

9/4/14

9/5/14

9/6/14

9/7/14

9/8/14

9/9/14

9/10/14

9/11/14

9/12/14

Injection Rate (BPM)

Pressure (psi)

Line Pressue Injection Rate

2 3 4 5

2650

2700

2750

2800

2850

2900

2950

3000

3050

p (

psi(

a))

1.010110210310410510610710810910101011101210131014101510161017 33333333333333333

Superposition Radial Time (t) (h)

pdata

pi

Analysis 1

(kh/)t 746.54 mdft/cPkh 413.5585 md.ftw 0.5540 cPh 124.000 ftk 3.3351 mds' -6.536p* 2660.2 psi(a)pwfo 3206.4 psi(a)

Geologic Characterization• Maps were developed for key injection zones.

1. Structure on Precambrian2. Thickness of Cambrian basal ss3. Structure on Cambrian basal ss4. Structure on Copper Ridge Dol5. Structure and subcrop of Rose Run Ss6. Thickness of Rose Run Ss7. Structure on Knox

8. Structure on “Clinton” ss9. Thickness of “Clinton” ss10. Structure on Lockport Dol11. Thickness of Lockport Dol12. Structure on Oriskany Ss13. Thickness of Oriskany Ss14. Structure on Dev shale/Berea Ss15. Thickness of Dev Shale



Geologic Characterization• Systematic review of available geophysical logs was completed to

evaluate injection zone properties. The initial log data set included 688 Raster Tiff Images and 26 digital Las files.

• Gross and net thickness, average porosity, and porosity-feet estimates for each injection zone were calculated.

Reservoir Performance Analysis• Results of the geological analysis and operational data were

evaluated for indicators of reservoir performance.

• More detailed ‘relative injectivity index’ analysis was completed for monthly operational data for indicators of reservoir performance.

14121086420

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

Porosity-Ft

Bar

rels

CLINTONLOCKPORT

Formation

Average Monthly Injection vs Porosity-Ft



Local scale analysis of Injection Zones• Local scale geological analysis of injection zones completed for 7

areas to define distribution of formations in relation to operational history.

Local scale analysis of Injection Zones

• Example: Upper Devonian Bradford in PA.

• Thin, discontinuous sands with limited injection potential.

W E



Geocellular Model Development• Geocellular models developed for key injection zones to provide

basis for injection simulations.

‘Clinton’-Medina

Knox-Basal Sand

Lockport-Newburg

Weir Sandstone

Injection SimulationsObjective- Simulate brine injection process to assess pressure buildup and fluid migration effects.

Methods- Run variable density flow simulations based on local geocellular models for injection zones in App. Bsn. (Weir, Clinton-Medina, Newburg, Knox-Basal SS).

Weir SS

Knox-Basal SS ‘Clinton’-Medina

Lockport-Newburg



Weir Sandstone-Model based on Weir injection well in W. Appalachian basin.

-78 BBL/day injection rate 10 yrs

-Anticline structure with sealing fault

VE = 10X

VE = 10X

Simulated Salinity, 125,000 ppm injection fluid at 3650 days X 78 BBL/day

Simulated Pressure (Max Delta P = 355 psi)

Lockport Dolomite “Newburg” At time = 0 yrs

At time = 5 yrsof injection

At time = 10 yrsof injection

At time = 25 yrs after end of injection

• Simulated salinity profile through time.

• 10 years injection, 15 yrspost-injection.

• 10 years injection @ 300 bbl/day.

• Formation salinity 278,000 ppm, injection 200,000 ppm.



Geomechanical Analysis

• Geomechanical analysis completed for 3 locations (green) where advanced geophysical (sonic, image) logs available.

Geomechanical Analysis

• Geomechanical model based on well logs.

• Calibrated to rock core test data from this project.



Geomechanical Analysis• Injection analysis completed

with STIMPLAN to evaluate potential for fracturing at typical operating conditions

Big Injun

‘Clinton’-’Newburg’

Knox (open hole scenario)

Source-Sink Analysis• Operational data show total Class 2 brine injection volumes

increasing to 17.6 million barrels in 2012 for E. KY, OH, PA, WV.

Drilled



• Source areas are most intense along Marcellus trend.

• Few disposal wells near the most intense well density.

Source-Sink Analysis

Source-Sink Analysis• Research by Schmid (2014) indicates >90% of PA operators reuse

or recycle wastewater in their operations.

• New wastewater management approaches appear to be stabilizing wastewater volumes being sent to injection wells. There is still a backlog of wells to be completed and ongoing production at a much greater scale than previously in the region.

Source: Schmid, K., and Schmid, A. 2014. Production and Water Use in Pennsylvania’s Organic Shales. Northeast GSA Meeting, March, 25, 2014.



Source-Sink Analysis• Demand for brine disposal appears to be more directly related to gas

production than wells drilled. It also seems to reflect wastewater management advances (recycle, reuse, treatment).

• Records from 2008-2012 suggest that an average of 9,984 bbl brine are disposed per BCF gas produced in the N. App. Basin.

YearTotal Brine

(BBL)Unc. Wells

Total EqGas* (BCF) BBL/BCF BBL/well

2008 9,228,877 1,031 742 12,436 8,951

2009 10,668,462 1,590 998 10,686 6,710

2010 11,322,206 2,268 1,220 9,284 4,992

2011 16,911,143 2,523 1,619 10,443 6,703

2012 17,639,870 2,193 2,495 7,071 8,044

Avg 13,154,111 1,921 1,415 9,984 7,080

*includes conventional and unconventional production


• Based on 9,984 BBL/BCF, long-term demand for brine disposal related to Marcellus-Utica may be approximately 706-2,290 million BBLs.

USGS Resource Estimates* Utica F95 UticaMean Utica F5 Marcellus F95 Marcellus Mean Marcellus F5

Gas (BCFG) 21,106 38,212 60,932 42,954 84,198 144,145

NGL (MMBNGL) 590 940 1,386 1,554 3,379 6,162

Oil (MMBBO) 75 208 398 --- --- ---Total Equiv. Gas* (BCFG) 23,257 42,153 67,273 47,470 94,017 162,052 Brine Disposal Demand** (BBL brine) 232,000,000 421,000,000 672,000,000 474,000,000 939,000,000 1,618,000,000 *assuming 5,814 cfg per bbl oil and 2907 cfg per bbl nat gas liquids equiv.**based on 9,984 bbl brine per 1 BCF total equiv. gas

Total Unconventional Demand (million BBL brine)

F95 (low) 706 Mean 1,360F5 (high) 2,290

*USGS. 2011. Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Devonian Marcellus Shale of the Appalachian Basin Province, 2011.*USGS. 2012. Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Ordovician Utica Shale of the Appalachian Basin Province, 2012.




• Sink capacity based on depleted oil and gas reservoirs and MRCSP work on deep saline formations.

• Analysis suggests capacity for ~500,000 million BBLs brine disposal in the study area.

• Disposal capacity does not appear to be a limiting factor.

Products Tools for Industry and Stakeholders

• Based on research, several products were developed to aid operators and stakeholders evaluate brine disposal processes in the Appalachian Basin:

Maps, tables, graphs

Well logging guidance for injection zones

Well testing guidance

Summary pamphlet of injection zones

Operational guidance

Wellhead Pressure Estimator(based on depth and flow rate)

Summary Pamphlet



Conclusion/Future Work1. Existing brine disposal framework reflects historical oil & gas

developments in the Northern Appalachian Basin. Since 2003, unconventional shale gas production has increased demand for Class 2 brine disposal, including more fluid related to well treatment/flowback along with produced water.

2. There are a wide variety of injection zones used for Class 2 brine disposal in the N. Appalachian Basin, and they vary in character, distribution, and injection potential.

3. Historical operational data provides useful information on safe operating ranges for brine injection wells (monthly injection rates, injection pressures) which will be useful for operators. However, sometimes data merely reflects well activity.

Conclusion/Future Work5. There is large capacity for brine disposal in depleted oil and gas

formations and deep saline formations in the App. Basin, but capacity is distributed across many rock formations and injection rates can be a limiting factor.

6. Integrating geologic data with operational data proved challenging, and many wells only provided indicators of reservoir performance.

7. Data from 2008-2012 suggest ~9,984 BBL of brine disposed per BCF gas produced in the region. Long-term demand for brine disposal related to Marcellus-Utica may be approximately 706-2,290 million BBLs.

8. Geological maps, tables, cross-sections, and analysis produced under this project summarize the distribution of injection zones and their local scale character.



The End. Thanks!

development of subsurface brine disposal framework · pdf filedevelopment of subsurface brine...

Documents