Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
From: Bill CainsTo: Objections; Ted BowmanSubject: Objection to Docket 137A-2015-12Date: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 5:36:04 PM
Bowman & Cains Exploration LLC as offset operator objects to the application ofAlpha Oilfield Water Services, LLC for a permit to commercially dispose of oil and gasproduction fluids.
Bowman & Cains representatives will be present at the hearing in Little Rock on Dec.8, 2015 and will offer exhibits and statements in this opposition.
SincerelyWilliam T. CainsManaging Partner
JERRY L. CANFIELD, P.A.THOMAS A. DAILY, P.A.WYMAN R. WADE, JR., P.A.DOUGLAS M. CARSON, P.A.C. MICHAEL DAILY, P.A. † !COLBY T. ROE, P.A.MICHAEL A. LAFRENIER
† Also Licensed in Oklahoma! Also Licensed in Wyoming & North Dakota
DAILY & WOODSA PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
KMW BUILDING58 SOUTH SIXTH STREET
P.O. BOX 1446FORT SMITH, AR 72902
TELEPHONE (479) 782-0361FAX (479) 782-6160
______________www.dailywoods.com
Writer’s Direct Dial No. (479) 242-3968Writer’s E-mail Address: [email protected]
JAMES E. WESTROBERT R. BRIGGS, P.A. †
OF COUNSEL_______-----------
HARRY P. DAILY (1886-1965)JOHN P. WOODS (1886-1976)JOHN S. DAILY (1912-1987)
BEN CORE (1924-2007)
Via Email and Regular Mail
December 3, 2015
Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission301 Natural Resources Drive, Suite 102Little Rock, AR 72205
Re: Salt Water Disposal Well, Section 2, Township 8 North, Range 19 West, PopeCounty, Arkansas
Commissioners:
XTO Energy Inc. hereby restates its objection with respect to the proposed salt waterdisposal well application of Alpha Oilfield Water Services, LLC, for a proposed salt waterdisposal well to be located in Section 2, Township 8 North, Range 19 West in MorelandField, Pope County, Arkansas.
1. The Applicant proposes to inject into Casey Sandstone and Paul Barton Formation.Geologic control indicates that neither the Casey Sandstone nor Paul Barton Formation hassufficient porosity or permeability to enable such injection. In other words, neither of theseformations will take the water which the applicant proposes to inject. If the applicant ispermitted to try injection into these formations, whatever water is pumped in will gosomeplace other than the targeted formations, most likely adjacent productive sandstones.
2. The applicant proposes to inject up to 20,000 barrels per day of fluid. Clearly, thatwill not be possible. In fact, at a previous hearing, the applicant indicated that it reallyintended to inject 5,000 to 10,000 barrels of fluid, per day. If the applicant attempts to inject5,000 to 10,000 barrels of fluid, per day, using its proposed surface injection pressure, thewell’s bottom hole pressure will be raised above the fracture gradient resulting in a likelyescape of injected fluids from confinement.
3. Attached are exhibits which XTO intends to introduce in opposition to theApplication.
4. Please note the appearance of Thomas A. Daily, of Daily & Woods, P.L.L.C., P.O.Box 1446, Fort Smith, AR 72902-1446, on behalf of XTO Energy Inc.
Very truly yours,
Thomas A. Dailyjmt
00
02-
0002-
0002-
0002-
-200
0
- 1950
- 1
950- 1950
05
91-
-1
900
0091--
1900
- 1900 -2
05
0
0502-0502-
0502-
05
02-
0002-
- 2050- 2100- 2150
- 2150- 2200
- 2200
- 2150
- 22
-2
150
0012-
0012-0012-
-2
10
0
0591-
10 11
234
9
33 34 35
SG
SG
SG
B
B'A
A'
H EAKIN 2
0-1,954
KINDER 1-2
0NPL-2,001
CHRONISTER 3
0
0
-1,894
NORDIN 1-2
0-2,122
BAKER 1-10 1
NPL-1,881
M TURNER 1
NPL-1,900
M E BARTON 1
-1,945
PITTS UNIT 1
R L BARTON 1
NL
L B CHRONISTER 1
-1,881
VIRDEN 1-4
0NPL-1,921
SCHEIBLE 1-4
0NPL-2,089
SIMPSON 2
-2,051
BURRIS 1-10
0NPL-1,884
CHRONISTER 2
0
0
-2,087
V CAMMIE 9-3
0
0
-1,955
CHRONISTER 5
NPL-1,865
CHRONISTER 4
NPL-1,982
ROBERTS 6-2
0NPL-2,060
ROBERTS 5-2
-2,142
RAINWATER `A` 20
-1,998
HICKEY 2-34
0NPL-2,032
KINDER 4-2KINDER 4-2
0NPL-2,010
C VIRDEN 9-2
0
0
-2,142
TAYLOR 1-34 SWD
0
0
-1,985
BARNETT 2-33
F/O
RAINWATER /A/ 1
0
0
-1,975
CARPENTER 1-35
3-2,147
BARNETT 10
-2,238
E SIMPSON 4-1
0-2,024
KINDER 2-10
0
-1,972
C VIRDEN 9-1
0
0
-2,049
C A RAINWATER 1
H EAKIN UNIT 1
-1,984
J A EAKIN UNIT 1
-2,105
FEET
0 2,204
PETRA 12/3/2015 10:05:07 AM
A A’
CASEYCASEY
Perf interval:2749-2837 TVD
B B’
CASEY CASEY
Perfinterval:2749-2837
- 2800 - 2800
0082-
00
82-
- 2850
-2850
0582-0582-
-2
850
0572-
- 27 5 0
0572-0082- 0582-
0582-
- 2900
00
92-
0092-0092-
00
92-
- 2950
- 2950
92-
0092-0092-
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
55
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
50
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
5
0
5
0
0
10 11
234
9
33 34 35
SG
SG
SG
B
B'A
A'
H EAKIN 2
6
0-2,806 KINDER 1-2
3
0
-2,864
CHRONISTER 3
0
0-2,780
NORDIN 1-2
3
0-2,954
BAKER 1-10 1
0
0-2,774
M TURNER 1
NPL-2,787
M E BARTON 1
-2,814
TURNER MINNIE 1PITTS UNIT 1
R L BARTON 1
-2,839
L B CHRONISTER 1
NPL
-2,749VIRDEN 1-4
0
0-2,755
SCHEIBLE 1-4
0-2,954 SIMPSON 2
0-2,898
BURRIS 1-10
0
0-2,761
CHRONISTER 2
2
0-2,734
V CAMMIE 9-3
0
0-2,812
CHRONISTER 5
7
0-2,728
CHRONISTER 4
8
0-2,889ROBERTS 6-2
NPL-2,852
ROBERTS 5-2
RAINWATER `A` 2
7
0-2,871
HICKEY 2-34
4
0-2,933
KINDER 4-2KINDER 4-2
3NPL
-2,876
C VIRDEN 9-2
9
0-3,006
TAYLOR 1-34 SWD
3
0-2,848
BARNETT 2-33
0-2,876
RAINWATER /A/ 1
0
0-2,827
CARPENTER 1-35
-2,886
BARNETT 1
F/O
E SIMPSON 4-1
7-2,926
KINDER 2-1
NDE
C VIRDEN 9-1
9
0-2,975
C A RAINWATER 1
NPL
H EAKIN UNIT 1
-2,833
J A EAKIN UNIT 1
BAKER 1-10
FEET
0 2,204
PETRA 12/2/2015 11:15:47 AM
A A’
Perfinterval3599-3657
B B’
Perfinterval3599-3657
WHITMAR EXPLH EAKIN 2
T8N R19W S2808
HURSTHURST
27
60
27
80
28
00
28
20
28
40
HURST
HS=400
PETRA 12/2/2015 4:28:12 PM (EAKIN 2 HURST TYPE LOG.CST)
SEECOGLORY HILL 1-10C
T9N R26W S10793
HURSTHURST
33
80
34
00
34
20
34
40
HURST
HS=400
PETRA 12/2/2015 3:54:09 PM (HURST TYPE LOG.CSP)
WHITMAR EXPLH EAKIN 2
T8N R19W S2808
PAUL_BARTONPAUL_BARTON
36
00
36
20
36
40
36
60
36
80
37
00
PAUL_BARTON
HS=400
PETRA 12/3/2015 1:48:03 PM (EAKIN 2 PAUL BARTON TYPE LOG.CSP)
XTOVERBISCIO 1-5T8N R20W S5
491
PAUL_BARTONPAUL_BARTON53
80
54
00
54
20
54
40
PAUL_BARTON
HS=400
PETRA 12/3/2015 10:59:07 AM (PAUL BARTON TYPE LOG.CST)
BHP and Pressure Gradient Calculations
• BottomHole Pressure(BHP)@2,749’= Psurface + Phyd – Pfric
– As the injection rate goes down,the friction pressure goes downwhich results in a higher BHP witha constant surface injectionpressure
• Pressure Gradient @ 2749’ =BHP/2749’ [psi/ft]
LegendPsurface = Proposed surface injectionpressurePhyd = Hydrostatic weight of injectionfluid columnPfric = Pressure loss in pipe due to friction
0
113
226
339
452
566
679
792
905
1018
1131
1243.88
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Dep
th,f
t
Pressure, psi
Hydrostatic Pressure
Phyd = (0.433 psi/ft) * (1.045 sp. gr.) * Depth to Injection Formation
= (0.433 psi/ft)*(1.045 sp. gr.)*(2,749’)= 1,243.88 psi
0 2 6 1220
3143
5874
92
111
133
156
181
208
236
266
298
331
365
402
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
Fric
tio
nP
ress
ure
,psi
Injection Rate, BWPD
Friction Pressure Curve(Hazen-Williams)
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
PSI
/FT
Injection Rate, BWPD
Fluid Gradient
Pressure Gradient (Casey)
Pressure Gradient (Paul Barton)
Frac Gradient
MSIP = 1,048 psig
687 688 692 697705
714726
738753
769
787
806
827
850
874
899
926
954
984
1,016
1,048
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1,000
1,050
1,100
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
Max
Surf
ace
Inje
ctio
nP
ress
ure
,psi
g
Injection Rate, BWPD
Max Surface Injection Pressure at Different Injection Rates
Injection Rate, BWPDMaximum Surface
Injection Pressure, psig
0 687
1,000 688
2,000 692
3,000 697
4,000 705
5,000 714
6,000 726
7,000 738
8,000 753
9,000 769
10,000 787
11,000 806
12,000 827
13,000 850
14,000 874
15,000 899
16,000 926
17,000 954
18,000 984
19,000 1,016
20,000 1,048