Well Blowouts Into Perspective: a Study of the Incidence, Impact, and Perception of Loss of Well Control

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 Data Survey Results

State Online Records? Incident Reports? Yes, extensive summarized data Texas Yes, extensive including field, location, and date Yes, General permit No, would probably need to go Wyoming records through public request Yes, but they are in an outdated online Oklahoma format Possibly, but cannot get access

Yes, but unspecific; no CO2 leak Colorado Yes complaints found Full records for well blowouts are New Mexico Yes available Need to work through USEPA, or Michigan No operators Mississippi No No written records available Montana Yes Need to know specific API # etc. Louisana Yes SONRIS database contains full records Texas Well Data Source Texas Data Analysis Initial Results

Well Type Population Counts, 1998-2011 27000

24000

21000

18000

15000 District 3

12000 District 8 District 8A

9000 Number of Wells of Number

6000

3000

0 Drilling Activity Injection/Disposal Active CO2 Completed Wells Recompletions Plugged Wells Permits (Total) Injection Wells Texas Data Analysis Initial Results

Well Blowouts by Type, 1998-2011

12 District 3 District 8

Number of Blowouts of Number 9 District 8A

0 Texas Well Blowout Incidence, % of total well populations District 3 District 8 District 8A Drilling 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 in Plugging 0.034% 0.008% 0.015% Abandoned 0.901% 0.000% 0.000%

Texas Well Blowout Incidence, odds

District 3 District 8 District 8A Drilling 1:414 1:817 1:1419 Completion 1:1516 1:9041 1:2457 Workover 1:940 1:756 1:269 Production/Operation 1:684 1:48779 1:2261 Injection 0 1:2852 0 Shut in Plugging 1:2919 1:12546 1:6613 Abandoned 1:100 0 0 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 4 Drilling 1:414 1:817 1:1419 1:1900 Completion 1:1516 1:9041 1:2457 Workover 1:940 1:756 1:269 1:1700 Production/Operation 1:684 1:48779 1:2261 1:18000 Injection 0 1:2852 0 1:9500 Shut in 1:120000 Plugging 1:2919 1:12546 1:6613 1:150000 Abandoned 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 CO2 blowouts? 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