10 ways to prevent flow to surface

What's the likelihood of your thermal scheme having a flow-to-surface event? No one wants one of these. How do you prove to the regulator that you're taking reasonable efforts to prevent it?

Without AppIntel, how to you keep abreast of your competitors' regulatory battles?

How do you succeed with the regulator without reinventing the wheel?

How do you leverage others' regulatory successes and failures for your own properties?

One operator has identified subsurface geological faults within his thermal bitumen scheme. These faults are conducting steam out of his formation and into other strata. Hoping to avoid flow-to-surface problems experienced by other operators, he has implemented a plan to detect, prevent and respond to steam out-of-formation events.

Help yourself to the pertinent application pages through our self-serve, secure check out.

Leveraging your competitors' regulatory battles

Would you like to have the same regulatory approval as your competitor? When I ask this question, most operators say . "No. We want better!"

How do you know your competitor's approval without reviewing her applications and approvals?

AppIntel is the quickest and easiest way to find the regulatory approvals on monitoring wells or  maximum operating pressure  or  abandon non-thermal wells. Just type it in AppIntel's natural language search bar.

Mitigating flow-to-surface

As you know, one operator's field was the intense scrutiny of the regulator because of flow-to-surface events. It attracted at least three studies costing over $1 million.

In the end, the operator wasn't charged. The regulator decided that the operator had not done anything against the law. The operator had lived up to his commitments with the regulator.

Can you prove that you are living up to your regulatory commitments?

If you don't yet have a compliance index, you're behind the industry. Several other operators already have one.

A compliance index is a database of all the commitments you're made to the regulator in applications and supplemental information requests. If the regulator pursues you, a compliance index can show them that your operations are within the bounds they've set.

Proven completes these indexes for the industry. Because we have all the regulatory documents, we can quickly create your compliance commitment database.

Regulatory applications related to flow to surface

Here are ten applications and approvals related to flow to surface. It's not an exhaustive list. But through them you can see how other operators are dealing with the issue.

1. The regulator decides this operator is not at fault

Primrose had five reported locations where bitumen emulsion flowed to surface. The flows were not restricted to old wellbores but also seeped through poor cap rock seal due to natural and induced fractures. Mostly the AER blames salt dissolution under the bitumen formation for weakening upper strata.

In their briefing to the media, the AER said that CNR had been operating within their approval limits and the company has not been charged. However, injection restrictions were placed on some areas of Primrose.

2. Where do you need lower MOP?

If there are areas in a scheme that demand lower injection pressures, it stands to reason that there are likely areas where a higher steaming pressure is justified.

That's how one operator viewed the MOP problem.

3. Managing MOP

Soon after the AER's announcement of their study and decision about flow to surface, this operator decided to increase maximum operation pressure. He discusses differing pressures in several risk zones.

Surface heaves in steam operations are a given -- the AER doesn't seem concerned with that phenomenon.

4. A geological assessment of flow to surface

After the AER's recent decisions regarding steaming and flow to surface, this operator has proposed a steam strategy -- and the regulator approved it. As expected, the strategy involves risk assessment of existing and abandoned wells. But in addition it considers geology, steam volumes and schedule, surveillance reaction protocols and remediation of high risk wells. Surveillance includes monitoring wells at several formations of decreasing depth.

5. The regulator decides this operator is not at fault

One operator proposed carefully increasing operating pressure in some areas of his thermal scheme. He proposed several mitigation strategies including surveillance wells. This use of observation wells is starting to grow in the industry.

6. Using seismic technology to detect potential problems

The operator of this huff and puff project is using passive seismic systems to monitor casing failures. He hopes to identify any possible failures early to prevent flow to surface.

He includes a discussion of his technical and economic review to decide which pads should be monitored with passive seismic.

7. Using the Formation Expansion Index

The industry wants to know: How do you prevent flow to surface associated with surface uplift. The application contains a discussion of FEI (Formation Expansion Index) as a predictive indicator of when surface uplift might occur. It discusses the interplay of this with an associated gas cap.

Great reading for those who want to avoid such a flow.

8. Flow to surface behind pipe

How do you evaluate the risk of flow to surface behind pipe? This application breaks down risk assessment into geological factors and wellbore factors. Both are discussed in detail.

A plan to gently steam taking these risks into account includes his steam schedule and wellhead injection pressures. He also discusses the early detection any trouble signs.

9. Disposal wells are more difficult to get approved

New regulations make it harder than ever to get disposal and injection approved. The AER now requires applicants review every abandoned well near a new disposal/injector well. The AER wants applicants to ensure that each well has been properly abandoned. This regulatory fall out is partly due to the flow-to-surface problems at Primrose.

The new "checking abandonment" rule caught one applicant by surprise.

10. Disposal wells are more difficult to get approved

If you're wondering what you need to submit in support for a maximum well head injection pressure (MWHIP) increase, you'll want to look at this application. More than any other regulatory document, it traces the AER's process in determining maximum well head injection pressure from a step rate test.

MWHIP became a very big issue over the last few years when oil came bubbling to the surface in the cold lake area. Since that time, the march toward stiffer regulation of MWHIP has been steady.

We've given you ten applications and approvals that refer to flow to surface and its impact on the regulatory landscape. But as a bonus, here's one more. My cockney friend would be cheery if I told you that this one is legs-eleven.

11. Flow to surface has shifted the regulatory paradigm

One operator's application for a new thermal scheme was met with a request for information about cap rock faulting. The regulator requested 3-D seismic interpretation and other evidence.

Such a burden of evidence would not likely have been requested 5 years ago. But, because of recent flow to surface problems, the regulator has become extra sensitive to such issues.

Tags: Seismic, Thermal, Compliance, Heavy Oil

Granger Low   22 Apr 2017

AI lets you do more with less

Cheapest, biggest and most current source of oil and gas breaking information

LLM more trendy than LNG?

Large Language Model for oil and gas

AppIntel AI: Work smarter, not harder

Those that can't see the value of a car should walk

Early solvent in heavy oil experiment

Partially upgrade bitumen in-situ