Putting CO2 Well Blowouts Into Perspective: A Study of the Incidence, Impact, and Perception of Loss of Well

Control

Sean Porse, Sarah Wade

IEAGHG Social Science Research Network Workshop

January 15, 2014

Calgary, Alberta

Overview

• Rationale for study

• Study background and methods

• Challenges in completing the study

• Preliminary results

• Initial conclusions

• Interesting social science questions

Rationale for Study

• Media coverage of CO2 blowout raises concerns

• In attempting to develop a response, found lack of information but presence of “scary facts”– Lack of clear response within our community– Dearth of publicly available data, limits data availability to most

acute occurrences

• Gut sense that this is routine and rare, confirmed informally

• Need for response brought home by official comment in project permit process

Media Coverage Summer 2013

• Mid June 2013 – A CO2 leak detected near Delhi, Louisiana, source unknown

• Late June 2013 - “Residents frustrated with not being in the know” [about the leak]

• July 2013 – [Company] “Pays $662,500 Fine After 2011 Oil Well Blowout, But Problems Continue”

• July 2013 – “Out of Control Oil Leaks at Canadian Tar Sands Site”

Blowouts: the stuff of “Nightmares”

Gas and oil well blowouts are the stuff of legend in Texas. But in Pennsylvania, a state with little modern experience with wells, a surge in drilling has some residents on edge. The thought of a geyser of fire erupting in an otherwise peaceful pasture can sound like a nightmare.

Blowout Data Scarcity

• International OGP data – offshore only, very low rates, but no context

• CA study (steam EOR) – 1/3,100 wells during well activity – 1/98,000 for PA’d wells, 1/130,000 idle wells

• 2 Academic papers assert CO2 well blowouts likely to be an increasing concern over time (Skinner, 2003; Duncan, 2008)

Later in 2013….

Study Background

• Well blowouts: Uncontrolled flow of well fluid and/or formation fluids from the wellbore to the surface or into lower-pressure subsurface zones

USEPA, 2013

Study Methods

• Identify relevant literature resources from academia, industry, government on:– Terminology use

– Risk profiles associated with different oil and gas activities

– Well Blowout occurrence frequencies

– Media coverage of well blowouts

– Social science papers

• Gather consistent data on the incidence and effects of oil and gas well blowouts

• Calculate incident rates based on well populations in respective U.S. states or regions

(Surprising) Study Challenges

• Oil company reticence to support this kind of study

• No real interest in the answer – a rhetorical question from opponents, a bit of an operational black eye for operators

• Lack of data quantity, quality, and consistency across surveyed states

• Adapted goal: Discuss the significant challenges in collecting comprehensive and consistent data from a variety of sources

State Online Records? Incident Reports?

Texas Yes, extensiveYes, extensive summarized data

including field, location, and date

WyomingYes, General permit

recordsNo, would probably need to go

through public request

Oklahoma

Yes, but they are in an outdated online

format Possibly, but cannot get access

Colorado YesYes, but unspecific; no CO2 leak

complaints found

New Mexico YesFull records for well blowouts are

available

Michigan NoNeed to work through USEPA, or

operators

Mississippi No No written records available

Montana Yes Need to know specific API # etc.

Louisana Yes SONRIS database contains full records

Data Survey Results

Texas Well Data Source

Texas Data Analysis Initial Results

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

15000

18000

21000

24000

27000

Drilling Activity Injection/DisposalPermits (Total)

Active CO2Injection Wells

Completed Wells Recompletions Plugged Wells

Nu

mb

er

of

Well

s

Well Type Population Counts, 1998-2011

District 3

District 8

District 8A

Texas Data Analysis Initial Results

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

Nu

mb

er

of

Blo

wo

uts

Well Blowouts by Type, 1998-2011

District 3

District 8

District 8A

District 3 District 8 District 8ADrilling 0.241% 0.122% 0.070%Completion 0.070% 0.011% 0.041%

Workover 0.104% 0.132% 0.370%Production/Operation 0.146% 0.002% 0.044%Injection 0.000% 0.035% 0.000%Shut inPlugging 0.034% 0.008% 0.015%Abandoned 0.901% 0.000% 0.000%

Texas Well Blowout Incidence, % of total well populations

District 3 District 8 District 8ADrilling 1:414 1:817 1:1419Completion 1:1516 1:9041 1:2457Workover 1:940 1:756 1:269Production/Operation 1:684 1:48779 1:2261Injection 0 1:2852 0Shut inPlugging 1:2919 1:12546 1:6613Abandoned 1:100 0 0

Texas Well Blowout Incidence, odds

TX and CA Data Comparison

• California: Jordan and Benson (2009)– California District 4: Steam EOR Injection Well Survey

District 3 District 8 District 8A CA District 4Drilling 1:414 1:817 1:1419 1:1900Completion 1:1516 1:9041 1:2457Workover 1:940 1:756 1:269 1:1700Production/Operation 1:684 1:48779 1:2261 1:18000Injection 0 1:2852 0 1:9500Shut in 1:120000Plugging 1:2919 1:12546 1:6613 1:150000Abandoned 1:100 0 0 1:3400

Initial Conclusions

• Risk profiles for oil and gas wells evolve with stages of operation

– During routine operations – very low risk; during well workovers, increased but still low risk

– Options for mitigating risk available

• This is not a problem that should waylay projects

• Terminology is challenging

Social Science Questions

• How much of a concern will arise over CO2blowouts? Will it have a material impact on timing, cost, project deployment?

• Are incident data a compelling counter-argument? (How much risk is acceptable?)

• Do incident data move the dread/familiarity scale?

• What are the appropriate methods for sharing this data?

Next Steps

• Continue synthesizing Texas blowout data by accessing RRC paper records

• Well blowout terminology comparison

• Abstract submission to GHGT-12

Acknowledgements

• Texas Railroad Commission: Dave Hill, Olin Macnamara

• Texas Bureau of Economic Geology: Sue Hovorka