Drill Cuttings Injection: A Review of Major Operations and Technical Issues

Abstract

TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. AbstractSince its first use about 15 years ago, drill cuttings injection has grown to become a routine operation performed around the world. This rapid development is due to increasingly stringent environmental regulations and improved costs compared to alternative disposal options. The regulations for overboard discharge of cuttings started with limitations on oilbased muds and has now expanded to include synthetic muds as well. The economics of injection operations have improved as the industry has gained experience with the technology, with added benefits from the economies of scale offered by large capacity injection facilities.The two critical engineering questions that must be answered for injection applications are: (1) where does the waste go and (2) how much can we safely inject into a well? These questions require integration of a variety of environmental, technical and economic factors that are important for each particular injection operation. The geometry of hydraulic fractures created during solids injection is one of the key issues in most operations. This coupling between solids injection and fracturing is the focus of this paper.

Fluid Injection Experiments in 2D Porous Media

“…While such hydraulic fracturing simulators augmented with guidelines from the best field practices have been applied robustly in practice, legitimacy of the LEFM-based models for soft formations has been in doubt (Smith et al 2004). Similar issues also exist in other applications such as drill cuttings reinjection and high-rate waterflooding (Hustedt et al 2008;Keck 2002).…”

Coupled discrete element modeling of fluid injection into dense granular media

“…[3] In engineering practices, subsurface fluid injection has been widely employed for applications such as grouting for ground improvement to reduce the liquefaction potential of cohesionless soils, to raise the ground elevation, or to compensate the volume loss due to ground surface settlement [Mitchell and Katti, 1981;Au et al, 2003;Woodward, 2005;Germanovich and Murdoch, 2010]; construction of permeable reactive barriers for soil remediation [Hocking, 1996]; injection of carbon dioxide for geological storage [Bachu, 2000;Hovorka et al, 2004;Lucier et al, 2006] or for enhanced oil or coalbed methane recovery [Orr Jr. and Taber, 1984;Blunt et al, 1993;White et al, 2005]; subsurface disposal of liquid or slurrified solid waste such as drill cuttings [Moschovidis et al, 1998;Schmidt et al, 1999;Keck, 2002;Clark et al, 2005;Guo et al, 2007;Tsang et al, 2008]; and hydraulic fracturing and waterflooding for hydrocarbon recovery [Ayoub et al, 1992;Morales and Marcinew, 1993;Economides and Nolte, 2000;Hustedt et al, 2008;Khodaverdian et al, 2010]. Although the engineering objectives vary in this list of applications, they share a common operation procedure in that clean fluid and/or slurry is injected into the subsurface via a circular wellbore over a certain interval.…”

“…[6] However, questions remain on whether the mechanism of tensile fracturing is applicable in the unconsolidated formations with weak or no cementation and high permeability [Keck, 2002;Smith et al, 2004]. Using the concept of energy release rate, the condition of fracture initiation and propagation, central to the fracture mechanics theory, can be stated as the fracture extends if the energy release rate reaches a critical value [Irwin, 1957].…”

Overview of Environmental Management by Drill Cutting Re-Injection Through Hydraulic Fracturing in Upstream Oil and Gas Industry

“…The thickness of the Aghajari formation provides an appropriate barrier to upward growth of DCRI at the Mishan formation through a dedicated injection well. A dedicated injection well is more typical of longer-term, permanent injection operations and is more common onshore (Keck, 2002). It is simulated that a large amount of drilling waste can be safely injected to Mishan formation.…”