Comparison of class II injection well area of review requirements with area of evaluation for

103 Pages·2017·3.13 MB·English

by  Yashesh Jitendra Panchal

SScchhoollaarrss'' MMiinnee
Masters Theses Student Theses and Dissertations
Spring 2013
CCoommppaarriissoonn ooff ccllaassss IIII iinnjjeeccttiioonn wweellll aarreeaa ooff rreevviieeww rreeqquuiirreemmeennttss
wwiitthh aarreeaa ooff eevvaalluuaattiioonn ffoorr hhyyddrraauulliiccaallllyy ffrraaccttuurreedd wweellllss
Yashesh Jitendra Panchal
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses
Part of the Petroleum Engineering Commons
DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt::
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Panchal, Yashesh Jitendra, "Comparison of class II injection well area of review requirements with area of
evaluation for hydraulically fractured wells" (2013). Masters Theses. 5367.
https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses/5367
This thesis is brought to you by Scholars' Mine, a service of the Missouri S&T Library and Learning Resources. This
work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the
permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected].

COMPARISON OF CLASS II INJECTION WELL AREA OF REVIEW
REQUIREMENTS WITH AREA OF EVALUATION FOR HYDRAULICALLY
FRACTURED WELLS

by

YASHESH JITENDRA PANCHAL

A THESIS

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the

MISSOURI UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

2013

Approved by

Dr. Shari Dunn-Norman, Advisor
Dr. Ralph Flori
Dr. Runar Nygaard
 2013
YASHESH PANCHAL
All Rights Reserved
iii
ABSTRACT
Since 2010 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been proposing
plans to study, and has now initiated research regarding the potential impact of hydraulic
fracturing processes on drinking water sources. Their work refers to an ‘Area of
Evaluation’ around a hydraulically fractured well, inferring that the wells immediately
around hydraulic fractured wells should be studied, to evaluate the conditions of these
wells and their potential to contaminate overlying USDWs.
Class II injection wells must have a minimum ¼ mile radius area of review to
determine the condition of wells surrounding the proposed injection well. All wells
within this AOR are evaluated, although wells that intersect the zone of injection are of
greatest interest.
This study examines publically available micro seismic data for multi-stage
hydraulic fractured horizontal wells in various shale plays. A ¼ mile AOE is inscribed
on each stage the microseismic to determine if all microseismic events fall within this
criteria. The study also investigates current state practices with respect to AOE.
Results of this study indicate that most wells have hydraulically fractures that fit
within current ¼ mile AOR criteria. While this may not be the only aspect to consider
with respect to these types of wells, it is a good starting point for additional study.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This thesis would not have been possible without the help and support of my
advisor Dr. Shari Dunn-Norman. I thank her for accepting me as one of her graduate
students, being so patient and pushing me to be a better engineer.
I am thankful to my committee members Dr. Runar Naygaard and Dr. Ralph Flori
for providing their timely guidance.
I am thankful to all the Oil and Gas State Regulatory Board for providing the data
regarding the practice followed in their respective states.
I am grateful to my friends Anuroop, Siddharth, Ananth, Vibhuti, Aditi Mishra,
Palak, Sachin, Sahil and Soham for motivating me and creating a fun environment around
me that helped me release my tension at times. I would also like to thank Aditi Sharma,
Deepak and Ishan for being with me when I needed support.
I am grateful to my friends back home in India, Harshit, Apurv, Darshan, Chintan,
Sagar, Nishtih, Yatri, Miten, Mansi, Fenil, Poojan, Komal, Priyank and Suril for
constantly forcing me to concentrate on my research work. This thesis would not have
been possible without the continuous support of my friends. I would like to thank
Apoorva, because of whom I am in United States and pursuing my higher education.
It was a pleasent experience to work in the University library. I would thank the
Staff of library to encourage me. Special thanks to Dawn Mick, Dan, Scott, Marsha, June
and all fellow students working in library.
And finally I would like to acknowledge the trust and support of my PARENTS and
my FAMILY members.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ........................................................................................... viii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi
NOMENCLATURE ......................................................................................................... xii
SECTION
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
2. AREA OF REVIEW (AOR) ...................................................................................... 3
2.1. FUNDAMENTALS OF CLASS II INJECTION/DISPOSAL WELLS .............3
2.2. CONCEPT OF AREA OF REVIEW (AOR) ..................................................... 9
2.3. AREA OF REVIEW VARIANCE ................................................................... 16
3. METHODOLOGY. .................................................................................................. 17
4. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING. ............................................................................... 19
4.1. BASIC OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING...................................................... 19
4.2. HORIZONTAL FRACTURING ...................................................................... 22
4.3.HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FLUID ............................................................. 23
4.4. FRACTURE ORIENTATION.......................................................................... 23
4.5. PRESSURE ANALYSIS OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURE ............................. 28
5. FRACTURE DIAGNOSTICS ................................................................................. 31
5.1. INDUCTION LOGS ......................................................................................... 31
5.2. TILTMETER .................................................................................................... 33
vi
5.2.1. Surface Tiltmeter .................................................................................... 34
5.2.2. Working of Surface Tiltmeter ................................................................ 35
5.2.3. Downhole Tiltmeter ............................................................................... 36
5.3. MICROSEISMIC MAPPING ........................................................................... 38
5.4. SUMMARY OF FRACTURE DIAGNOSTIC TECHNOLOGIES AND
THEIR LIMITATIONS ................................................................................... 40
6. MICROSEISMIC MAPPING .................................................................................. 41
6.1. MICROSEISMIC EVENT ............................................................................... 42
6.2. MICROSEISMIC EVENT DETECTION ........................................................ 43
6.2.1. Threshold Triggering .............................................................................. 43
6.2.2. STA/LTA Ratio ...................................................................................... 45
6.3. WAVEFORM ................................................................................................... 46
6.3.1. P Waves...................................................................................................46
6.3.2. S Waves...................................................................................................47
6.3.3. Moveout...................................................................................................47
6.3.4. Use of P and S Waves in Event Location................................................48
6.3.4.1 Event location using P and S waves ...........................................48
6.3.4.2 Orientation using hodogram analysis..........................................49
6.4. MOMENT MAGNITUDE................................................................................ 49
6.5. UNCERTAINTIES IN LOCATING MICROSEISMIC EVENTS .................. 51
6.5.1. Travel Time of P and S Waves ............................................................... 51
6.5.2. Velocity Model ....................................................................................... 53
6.5.3. Distance Effects ...................................................................................... 54
6.5.4. Effect of Location of Observation Well ................................................. 55
vii
6.6. INTERPRETATION OF MICROSEISMIC DATA ........................................ 57
7. ANALYSIS OF HYDRAULICALLY FRACTURED WELL DATA .................... 59
7.1. AREA OF EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .............................................. 59
7.2. CASE STUDIES ............................................................................................... 63
7.2.1. Case 1 ..................................................................................................... 63
7.2.2. Case 2 ..................................................................................................... 64
7.2.3. Case 3 ..................................................................................................... 65
7.2.4. Case 4 ..................................................................................................... 66
7.2.5. Case 5 ..................................................................................................... 68
7.2.6. Case 6 ..................................................................................................... 69
7.2.7. Case 7 ..................................................................................................... 70
7.2.8. Case 8 ..................................................................................................... 72
7.2.9. Case 9 ..................................................................................................... 73
7.2.10. Case 10 ................................................................................................. 74
7.3. EXAMPLE OF FORMATION THAT ARE OUTSIDE UNITED STATES .. 75
7.3.1. Case 1 ..................................................................................................... 75
7.3.2. Case 2 ..................................................................................................... 76
7.3.3. Case 3 ..................................................................................................... 77
7.3.4. Case 4 ..................................................................................................... 78
7.3.5. Case 5 ..................................................................................................... 79
8. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK............................................................... 83
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 84
VITA ................................................................................................................................ 88
viii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
2.1. Classification of class II injection wells ...................................................................... 4
2.2. Class II injection facts .................................................................................................. 6
2.3. Texas RRC well construction packer rules for class II injection ................................. 7
2.4. Texas RRC cementing guide for class II injection ...................................................... 7
2.5. Example of well construction standard ........................................................................ 8
2.6. AOR showing one producing well (solid dot) and one abandoned well ................... 10
2.7. Potential USDW contamination from wells surrounding the class II injection well . 11
3.1. Barnett Shale fracture height growth compared with USDW ................................... 18
4.1. Surface preparation before the start of fracturing ...................................................... 19
4.2. Hydraulic fracturing process ...................................................................................... 21
4.3. Horizontal drilling ...................................................................................................... 22
4.4. State of stress ............................................................................................................. 24
4.5. Transverse and longitudinal fractures ........................................................................ 26
4.6. Nolte Smith interpretation guide ................................................................................ 29
5.1. Resistivity log showing change in resistivity at a certain depth ................................ 32
5.2. Principal of functioning of tiltmeter .......................................................................... 34
5.3. A typical tiltmeter site outfitted with radio telemetry for long term fracture
modeling .................................................................................................................... 35
5.4. Downhole tiltmeter installation.................................................................................. 37
5.5. Comparing downhole and surface tiltmeter ............................................................... 38
5.6. Microseismic event and function ............................................................................... 39