MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4240984359 · doi:10.2523/59119-ms

Environmental Management, Cost Management, and Asset Management for High-Volume Oil Field Waste Injection Projects

2000· article· en· W4240984359 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Bruno, Alex Reed, Susanne Olmstead

Notice bibliographique

RevueProceedings of IADC/SPE Drilling Conference · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueDrilling and Well Engineering
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCitationAsset managementProject managementOil fieldComputer scienceLibrary scienceEngineeringBusinessManagementPetroleum engineeringEconomicsFinance

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Environmental Management, Cost Management, and Asset Management for High-Volume Oil Field Waste Injection Projects Michael Bruno; Michael Bruno Terralog Technologies Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Alex Reed; Alex Reed Terralog Technologies Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Susanne Olmstead Susanne Olmstead Terralog Technologies Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 2000. Paper Number: SPE-59119-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/59119-MS Published: February 23 2000 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Bruno, Michael, Reed, Alex, and Susanne Olmstead. "Environmental Management, Cost Management, and Asset Management for High-Volume Oil Field Waste Injection Projects." Paper presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 2000. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/59119-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition Search Advanced Search AbstractOngoing exploration and production activity, combined with increased regulatory requirements, are increasing the volume and costs associated with disposal of oil field wastes, including produced oily sands and tank bottoms, drilling mud and cuttings, crude contaminated surface soils, and naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM). A cost-effective and environmentally sound disposal option is to re-inject waste material into the subsurface into non-productive and/or depleted zones under controlled fracture conditions.High volume injection projects often involve annual injection exceeding several hundred thousand barrels of waste for several years. The critical engineering management goals for such operations are to:Maintain waste containment in the target formation (environmental management);Sustain long-term injectivity with minimum equipment repairs and well work overs (cost management); andMaximize formation storage capacity and well life (asset management).More than five years experience operating, analyzing, and managing large volume waste injection projects in the US and Canada has enabled Terralog to develop specific design, monitoring, and operating strategies to achieve these goals. Target injection formations must be selected with appropriate overlying barrier and absorption zones. Offset well completions must be carefully examined. The injection well completion should be appropriately designed to take into account high formation stresses and potential movement. Continuous monitoring and analysis must be performed to evaluate varying formation properties, injectivity, stress conditions, and fracture orientation and height growth. Finally, through continuous monitoring and analysis of formation response, injection parameters and properties (such as solids concentration, density, flow rate, shut-in time, etc...) can be adjusted in order to maintain containment, reduce operating costs, and optimize long-term injectivity.IntroductionDeep well injection of exploration and production wastes provides significant environmental and economic advantages over traditional landfill disposal for oilfield wastes. These include:Improved protection for surface and groundwater;Little impairment of surface land use;Reduced long-term liability risk to waste generator;Reduced transportation and disposal costs.The use of deep well injection, therefore, has expanded significantly in recent years1–5. For example, large-scale E&P waste injection operations have been ongoing in Canada (Srinivasan et al, 1997), Alaska (Schmidt et al, 1998), California (Hainey et al, 1997), and Louisiana (Baker et al, 1999).Large-volume injection, which may involve several hundred thousand barrels or more of waste material injected annually over several years, must be performed in relatively high porosity sands at fracture conditions. In spite of increased use of this technology, however, the mechanics of massive slurry injection into soft formations remain poorly understood, and there are few guidelines available to industry to optimize and manage this process. In some instances injection zones have filled or pressurized prematurely; well casings have been sheared by excessive formation movement; and in extreme instances waste material has broken out of zone and to the surface.To help improve industry practices, Terralog Technologies is currently engaged in a two-year research project, supported in part by the Canadian and US Departments of Energy, to develop and test improved fracture injection disposal techniques and diagnostic tools. This effort involves extensive field data assembly and analysis, model development, and field verification. Keywords: upstream oil & gas, waste injection project, bruno, formation response, enterprise performance management, drillstem/well testing, operation, injection project, tti 6, disposal Subjects: Hydraulic Fracturing, Formation Evaluation & Management, Drillstem/well testing This content is only available via PDF. 2000. IADC/SPE Drilling Conference You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,895
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,186
Écart entre enseignants0,178 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations6
Publié2000
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueProceedings of IADC/SPE Drilling ConferenceMême sujetDrilling and Well EngineeringTravaux en français237 207