Acid Gas Injection in US

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283908671
Acid Gas Injection in the United States
Conference Paper · May 2006
CITATIONS READS
0 150
1 author:
Ken Klewicki
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
6 PUBLICATIONS 202 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Ken Klewicki on 16 November 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
J. Kenneth Klewicki1, Bruce Kobelski2,

Anhar Karimjee3, and Chi Ho Sham4
1
The Cadmus Group, 1600 Wilson Blvd. Ste. 500, Arlington VA, 22209; Voice: 703-247-6162; Fax 703-
247-6062; email kklewicki@cadmusgroup.com
2
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460; Voice 202-564-3888; Fax 202-564-3756; email
kobelski.bruce@epa.gov
3
Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Washington, DC 20460; Voice 202-343-9260; Fax 202-343-2202; email karimjee.anhar@epa.gov
4
The Cadmus Group, 57 Water Street, Watertown, MA 02742; Voice 617-673-7156; Fax 617-673-7001;
email csham@cadmusgroup.com
FIFTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION - DOE/NETL

May 8 - 11, 2006
DOE/NETL May 8-11 2006 CCS Conference Paper # 140
1.0 Background
To meet natural gas transportation and market specifications, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide
(CO2), and other gaseous impurities, collectively known as “acid gas,” must be removed from produced,
impure natural gas. In the past, generally these gases were removed from the gas stream and then flared to
the atmosphere. However, hydrogen sulfide, when flared to the atmosphere, produces sulfur dioxide
which contributes to air quality problems and acid deposition. Tighter regulations in many countries now
ban the flaring of hydrogen sulfide for all but the smallest natural gas processing plants. Another option to
manage the hydrogen sulfide is to remove it from the hydrocarbons and convert it to elemental sulfur that
can be sold as a raw chemical for manufacturing processes. A recent drop in global sulfur prices,
however, has made this option less attractive (Bachu et al., 2003). Therefore, a number of natural gas
plants have turned to acid gas injection as a means of disposing of hydrogen sulfide and related gases.
Acid gas injection has been practiced in Canada since 1989, and data on acid gas projects may
provide relevant information for carbon dioxide sequestration. The general properties of acid gas
injection and carbon dioxide streams for sequestration are similar. In both cases, the gases are mixtures
containing carbon dioxide with other gases and water vapor, and therefore can have a wide range of
properties, which must be calculated for each individual case. Although the physical properties of acid
gas cannot be directly applied to CO2 sequestration, the methods of calculating the properties will be the
same. Therefore, models derived for calculation of acid gas properties can be used to calculate properties
for carbon dioxide mixtures as well.
This paper describes acid gas injection operations, identifies existing acid gas injection sites in
Canada and the United States, provides an overview of permitting requirements, and discusses the
applicability of acid gas injection as an analogue for CO2 storage.
Although acid gas injection has been employed in the United States for some time, little has been
published on the operations in the United States. This paper investigated the operations within the United
States and Canada to determine if any lessons could be drawn for application to CO2 sequestration
projects. Regulations were also investigated and compared to determine what considerations might be
required for permitting CO2 sequestration projects and to determine if there are any regulatory gaps.
1.1 Description of Acid Gas
The first step in the acid gas injection process is separation of the gaseous impurities that
constitute acid gas from the hydrocarbon product stream. This is generally done by contacting the
hydrocarbon gas stream with an amine solution. The hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide impurities are
adsorbed into the amine solution and then desorbed to isolate these acid gas constituents. At this point,
the acid gas is at a slight vacuum and high temperature, and is usually saturated with water from the
adsorption/desorption process.
The resulting acid gas is a mixture of primarily hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide with trace
amounts of water, light hydrocarbons (methane, ethane, and propane) and nitrogen. The composition can
range widely from 2 percent hydrogen sulfide and 98 percent carbon dioxide to about 85 percent
hydrogen sulfide and 15 percent carbon dioxide (Bachu and Gunter, 2004). Because it is a mixture, the
properties of acid gas are highly variable and dependent on the concentration of the components.
Properties, such as density and viscosity of the gas, can be calculated using equations of state and
Page 2 of 20
experimental data. There are also computer programs available which can calculate physical properties of
the gas (Carroll, 2002).
1.2 Description of Injection Process
There are similarities in the equipment involved for acid gas injection and CO2 sequestration
projects. In both cases, the gas is first removed and concentrated from a production stream and then
compressed and sent through a pipeline for injection through a well. Therefore, the types of equipment
and design procedures for the two processes will be similar. Knowledge gained in the design of
compressors and injection wells for acid gas should be directly applicable to CO2 sequestration projects.
After being separated from the hydrocarbon product gas stream, the acid gas is compressed,
commonly with a four-stage compressor, and delivered through a pipeline to the injection site. Hydrogen
sulfide and carbon dioxide can react with water at certain pressure and temperature conditions to form
hydrates, a solid substance which can clog the pipeline. Keeping the temperature above 35 degrees
Celsius will generally avoid hydrate formation (Bachu and Gunter, 2004). Methanol can also be added to
prevent hydrate formation or to dissolve hydrates that have formed (Ng et al., 1999).
Converted oil and gas production wells are often used as injection wells. Conversion of
production wells for injection typically involves emplacement of an L80 or J55 tubing (in accordance to
National Association of Corrosion Engineers [NACE] standards and with corrosion protection coating)
into the existing well casing (Bachu and Gunter, 2004; IEA, 2003). The gas should be compressed to a
high enough pressure to enable injection that overcomes the static pressure of the reservoir and to account
for pressure losses due to porosity in the formation targeted for injection, damage to the formation(s)
caused by the drilling, friction, and pressure drop across the injection well perforations. Pressure,
however, should be kept below the fracture pressure of the confining geologic barrier (caprock) to avoid
fracturing the caprock and allowing the acid gas to leak out of the injection zone. Because the injection
pressure and temperature can frequently be near the critical pressure and temperature of the gases, the
calculations associated with gas properties can often be complex. Information regarding gas properties is
necessary for calculating the pressure required to inject the acid gas into the subsurface formations.
Because water in acid gas can cause it to be highly corrosive, each step of the process from
separation to compression to transport to injection should incorporate measures to control corrosion. The
gas compression process is often configured in a way to remove water between the stages of compression
(Ng et al. 1999) to render the acid gas mixture less corrosive. Carbon steel that is resistant to corrosion
(e.g., meeting NACE MR0175 standards), as part of an appropriate corrosion inhibition program, is
typically needed for the compressor cylinders, aerial cooler lines, pipelines, and other components
exposed to corrosive acid gas and condensed water mixture. Sometimes, to further address the
problematic corrosive nature of the gas/water mixture, a separate dehydration step is added before
injection.
If the acid gas undergoes an unanticipated phase change during injection, the compressors may
not be adequate to achieve the desired injection rates. Also, phase changes can create other problems in
the system. Liquid condensing in the compressors can cause problems with compressor operation and also
lead to increased corrosion. It is advantageous to inject the acid gas in a liquid or supercritical state to
maximize the amount of gas that can be stored as well as to moderate pressure increases in the targeted
formation due to injection. With the acid gas at the appropriate pressure and physical state and the
Page 3 of 20
injection well properly completed, the gas is then injected into the targeted formation.
In some cases brine is produced in oil and gas production as well as acid gas. Some companies
will dispose of both the brine and acid gas in the same well. Although injecting acid gas in liquid form is
much more corrosive than injecting dry gas, the density of the liquid form is higher and therefore the
same amount of acid gas can be disposed of at the same pressure.
1.3 Description of the Target Formations
The geologic formations targeted for acid injection most commonly are depleted oil or gas fields,
depleted salt caverns, or saline aquifers. Saline aquifers and depleted oil and gas reservoirs are also likely
candidates for CO2 geosequestration. Much of the research and criteria on the lithology required for acid
gas confinement can be applied to CO2 sequestration projects. For example, research on fracture pressures
of various formations will be useful in planning CO2 sequestration projects and guidelines on maximum
injection pressures for acid gas projects can be directly applied to CO2 sequestration projects. Criteria for
proper sealing and abandonment of wells can also be applied to CO2 sequestration projects. In some
cases, research done on existing wells in various reservoirs for acid gas injection facilities may be used to
select appropriate sites for CO2 sequestration.
Perhaps the most similar aspect between acid gas injection and CO2 sequestration is that they both
are intended for the long term isolation of a waste or commodity in a deep geologic reservoir. For acid
gas injection (i.e., disposal) to be successful, the targeted reservoir should be able to contain acid gas
indefinitely, which requires a confining layer or caprock that is impermeable to the injected gas. The
caprock should extend across the entire reservoir and be effectively free of faults or fractures that would
compromise the caprock and create conduits for leakage. Fractures can be induced if injection pressure
exceeds the fracture pressure of the caprock (Hawkes et al., 2005). Active production wells in the
reservoir and improperly abandoned wells can also potentially become conduits that allow the acid gas to
leak into overlying formations, aquifers, or even into the atmosphere. Consideration should also be made
for injection induced migration of fluid in the reservoir that might eventually lead to migration to an area
with poorer caprock qualities or into active oil and gas fields or an underground source of drinking water
(USDW).
Over the long term, interactions between the injected acid gas and the fluids and rocks in the
reservoir should be considered. Dissolution of the gas into the existing formation fluids will affect
whether the spread of the acid gas plume is largely in a horizontal direction (flowing with formation
fluids) or is dominated by buoyancy forces and has a significant vertical component (acting more as a less
dense gas within fluids) (Bachu et al., 2003; Michael and Haug, 2005). In addition to the density of the
formation fluid, the relative buoyancy of the injected acid gas depends on the injection rate and the
permeability of the formation. If the acid gas is less dense than the formation fluid and there is low
permeability and a high injection rate, the acid gas plume will spread more quickly in the vertical
direction until it reaches the caprock and begins to spread horizontally. If the acid gas is denser than the
formation fluid and injection rates are low and permeability is high, the plume will primarily spread
horizontally (Bachu et al. 2004). Chemical interactions with reservoir fluids and rocks can lead to
reactions which may help or hinder the injection process. Dissolution of the gas into reservoir fluids and
subsequent reactions to form ionic compounds can lead to ionic trapping of the gas (Gunter et al., 2004).
Further, reaction of the gas components with the fluids and surrounding rocks may also cause minerals to
dissolve or precipitate. This can change the porosity and/or permeability of the reservoir. If precipitation
Page 4 of 20
causes a decrease in porosity near the well, this can negatively affect injectivity, resulting in diminished
reservoir storage capacity. Precipitation away from the well bore, however, can lead to a more stable
sequestration as components of the gas may become trapped in rocks (Gunter et al., 2004; Buschkuehle,
2004). Information on the chemical reactions that are likely to occur can be obtained by performing
experiments on cuttings from the well drilling. The chemical reaction parameters obtained from these
experiments can then be used to model likely reactions in the reservoir.
Tools used to contribute to ensuring long term storage of acid gas such as reservoir geochemical
and pressure modeling and testing well bore integrity can be directly applied to CO2 sequestration
projects. Essentially the same types of geologic studies of reservoirs done for potential acid gas injection
sites can also be applied to CO2 sequestration projects.
1.4 Comparison of Acid Gas Injection and CO2 Sequestration
Carbon dioxide sequestration and acid gas injection both serve as ways to sequester carbon
dioxide in underground reservoirs (in the case of acid gas injection, the carbon dioxide also contains
hydrogen sulfide). As noted above, the two processes share some significant similarities, including the
equipment used and the deep geologic reservoirs that are suitable for both acid gas injection and carbon
dioxide sequestration.
There are some important differences between acid gas injection and CO2 sequestration. Among
these are the magnitude of the operations and the composition of the gas being injected.
The sizes of current acid gas injection projects are much smaller than those anticipated for CO2
sequestration. Currently all 42 sites in Canada inject a total of 450 kilotons/yr of acid gas. Current
estimates are that CO2 sequestration projects will need to inject 3.5 gigatons/yr just to obtain 1/7th of the
reduction in carbon dioxide emissions necessary to stabilize global carbon levels (Wilson, 2004). On a
practical level, this means that CO2 sequestration projects will require much larger and/or greater numbers
of reservoirs. Therefore, issues such as identifying other production or abandoned wells in the area of
review and safeguarding existing oil and gas fields and USDWs will be much more important with CO2
sequestration than with acid gas injection. Although the overall level of acid gas injection does not
approach the amount anticipated for commercial-scale CO2 geosequestration, some individual acid gas
wells are similar in size to those being contemplated for CO2 sequestration. The recently completed
LaBarge acid gas injection wells are only slightly smaller than the wells being used for the Weyburn
sequestration project. (Although the Weyburn facility is only a demonstration-scale CO2 sequestration
project, it illustrates the similar scales of acid gas injection and CO2 sequestration projects.) Thus,
information on equipment and wells for acid gas injection, rather than target formations, would be most
applicable to CO2 sequestration.
The other major difference between acid gas injection and carbon dioxide sequestration is the
composition of the injected gas. Acid gas is obtained from underground commercial hydrocarbon
reservoirs which are anoxic; therefore, there are high levels of reduced sulfur in the form of hydrogen
sulfide. Generally, the gas used for carbon dioxide sequestration projects will be a much purer gas and
will be largely carbon dioxide. Current amine absorption techniques can produce a gas that is 99.7 percent
carbon dioxide (Thomas, 2005) and which thermodynamically can be treated as a pure gas.
Thermodynamic data for predicting properties of pure carbon dioxide are well known because of the
extensive use of carbon dioxide in enhanced oil recovery techniques for over 30 years. In this aspect, CO2
Page 5 of 20
sequestration projects may be, from a chemical composition perspective, simpler than acid gas injection.
Newer absorption techniques, proposed to get around the high costs and corrosivity of amine absorption,
can produce less pure gas with impurities such as hydrogen sulfide, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, oxygen,
and nitrogen. For carbon dioxide with hydrogen sulfide impurities, thermodynamic properties used in acid
gas injection could be applied. Other impurities would need to be treated as mixtures and thermodynamic
data and experiments would be required to predict the properties for injection. Models would also be
required to predict the interaction between the gas and geologic formations.
2.0 Current Acid Gas Injection Sites
2.1 Information Gathering
Information on acid gas injection was collected through a literature review and data inquiries to
States and EPA Regions. Based on the Final Report of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
(IOGCC) CO2 Geological Sequestration Task Force (IOGCC, 2005), acid gas is injected into deep saline
aquifers and depleted oil or natural gas reservoirs at close to 20 sites in Michigan, New Mexico, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming. In addition, literature searches revealed other acid gas
injection activities in Utah.
For the States identified by IOGCC, a set of questions were sent to the agencies that are
responsible for overseeing the acid gas injection practices (e.g., Class II Underground Injection Control
[UIC] programs). The following questions were asked:
• How many wells are involved in acid gas injection?

• How much acid gas has been injected?
• What are the known compositions of acid gas, injection rates, location and depth of wells,
well status and injection formations?
• What is the primary purpose of the acid gas injection (disposal or enhanced oil recovery
[EOR])?
• What are the requirements for acid gas injection?
Three States and one EPA Region (i.e., North Dakota, Texas, Wyoming, and EPA Region 5 for
Michigan) responded to the questions, at least in part. New Mexico is still collecting information on acid gas
injection practices. The responses and information available varied widely.
North Dakota and Michigan both had a small number of wells and were able to provide well permit
conditions, gas composition, and injection rates.
Texas provided data from their database of all disposal wells which injected substances containing
hydrogen sulfide. The data included annual gas and liquid injection volumes and permit conditions.
Gas compositions were not included. The Texas wells were divided into three categories, disposal in
non-productive formations, disposal into productive formations, and EOR. For the purposes of this
paper, EOR wells were not included and only wells which injected a gas component in the 2004 -
2005 period were included. Some Texas wells were identified as injecting both gas and liquid. It
was not clear whether these were injecting liquid and gas mixed together or if the well switched back
and forth between gas injection and liquid injection.
Page 6 of 20
Wyoming provided a summary sheet and electronic access to their permits. Data available included
permitted injection pressures, monthly injection volumes, formations, depths, and in some cases gas
composition. Many wells disposed of both gas and liquid. Wells disposing of liquid alone and wells
that were not active in 2004 - 2005 were not included in this analysis.
2.2 United States Results
Based on the information reviewed, there are currently at least 30 sites disposing of gas
containing hydrogen sulfide in seven States (Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Texas, and Michigan). Exhibit 1 presents the characteristics of sites injecting acid gas in the United
States. (Each site may contain multiple wells, for which data are shown.) The wells included in this
analysis are those which have been listed by the State as being active injection wells and have injected
gas waste in the last two years. There are many other wells which are inactive or abandoned. Many of the
wells listed in Exhibit 1 also inject wastewater, such as produced brine, pumped from oil or gas wells.
Most of the known sites inject into the aquifer underlying gas and oil fields or into depleted oil or gas
fields.
Exhibit 1. Characteristics of Acid Gas Injection Sites in the United States
Gas Maximum
Maximum Composition Injection
Injection (%H2S / Injection Pressure
Site Rate (m3/d) %CO2) Depth (m) Type of Reservoir (kPa)
Beaver Creek, MI 236 76/10 1,176 - Detroit River Group 7,100

1,219
Dolce, NM NA NA NA NA NA
Lea County, NM 365 NA 2,652 - Bone Spring Formation 19,400

2,774
McKenzie Co., ND 210 55/40 1,628 - Inyan Kara NA

1,633
Burke Co., ND 21 50/42 1,945 - Mission Canyon NA

1,978
Dumas, TX 12,000 27/71.5 955 - 1,048 Non-productive gas NA

field, Granite Wash
formation
Pampa TX 5,600 NA 1,778 - Water underlying 13,800

1,823 unproductive gas field,
Dolomite formation
Garza Co., TX – 18,400 NA 1,478 - NA 16,650

Garza 1,570
Page 7 of 20
Gas Maximum
Garza Co., TX - 2,800 NA 948 - 1,007 San Andres 10,443
Huntley East #51
Garza Co., TX - 2,800 NA 963 - 1,001 San Andres 10,443

Huntley East #43
Garza Co, TX - 2,800 NA 951 - 1,015 San Andres 10,443

Huntley East #50
Garza Co., TX - 2,800 (gas) NA 949 - 1,001 San Andres 10,443

Huntley East #19 320 (liquid)
Garza Co., TX - 2,800 (gas) NA 960 - 1,005 San Andres 10,443

Huntley East #62 320 (liquid)
Garza Co., TX - 2,800 (gas) NA 949 - 998 San Andres 10,443

Huntley East #20W 320 (liquid)
Sneed Plant, TX 42,000 NA 1,067 - Granite Wash 9,064

1,280
Schafer Ranch, TX 5,600 NA 1,753 - Arbuckle 13,890

1,812
Reagan Co., TX 17,000 NA 630 - 649 Queen 7,170
Upton Co., TX - #21R 283,000 NA 1,494 - Midcross Devonian 20,785

1,707 Unit
Upton Co., TX - #32 283,000 NA 1,494 - Midcross Devonian 20,785

1,707 Unit
Navarro Co., TX 33,980 NA 2,820 - Burnett Sloan Unit 20,785

2,850
Crockett Co., TX 283,000 NA 1,502 - South Cross Unit 16,993

1,646
Dawson Co., TX - 84,950 (gas) NA 1,492 - Welch Unit 16,649

South Welch #1002W 160 (liquid) 1,527



Page 8 of 20
Gas Maximum





Kent Co., TX - Salt 1,900 NA 1,875 - Salt Creek Unit 32,507

Creek #C746W (liquid) 2,073
850,000
(gas)







Creek #H73W (liquid) 2,073
850,000
(gas)

850,000
(gas)
Page 9 of 20
Gas Maximum
Creek #C751W (liquid) 2,073
850,000
(gas)

Creek #C216WH (liquid) 2,042
850,000
(gas)

Creek #F212W (liquid) 2,073
850,000
(gas)

850,000
(gas)

Creek #F224W (liquid) 2,073
850,000
(gas)

850,000
(gas)

850,000
(gas)

850,000
(gas)

Creek #E43W (liquid) 2,057
566,000
(gas)
Page 10 of 20
Gas Maximum
Creek #G214W (liquid) 2,042
85,000 (gas)

Creek #G218W (liquid) 2,088
850,000
(gas)

Creek #R13W (liquid) 2,073
850,000
(gas)
Andrews Co., TX - 200 (liquid) NA 1,234 - Goldsmith San Andres 23,081

Goldsmith #335A 94,400 (gas) 1,341 Unit
Andrews Co., TX - 200 (liquid) NA 1,234 - Goldsmith San Andres 23,081

Goldsmith #339W 94,400 (gas) 1,341 Unit
Crane Co., TX - 950 (liquid) NA 1,801 - Sand Hills Unit 12,167

Waddell #1 141,600 2,064
(gas)
Scurry Co., TX - 2,400 NA 1,936 - Kelly-Snyder 19,062

Sacroc #73-03 (liquid) 2,210
850,000
(gas)
Moab, UT 40,200 32/NA 2,724 - Saline aquifer 7,700

2,799 underlying oil & gas
field
LaBarge - 3-14, WY 2,265,400 65/35 5,237 - Phosphoria, dolomite 38,022

5,420 formation, below
gas/water contact
LaBarge - 2-18, WY 2,265,400 65/35 5,221 - Madison 38,022

5,410
Manderson - 32-19I, 160 NA 2,017 - Curtis 13,201

WY 2,020
Big Sand Draw, WY 7,080 NA 1,654 - Chugwater 6,996

1,661
Page 11 of 20
Gas Maximum
Brady #5, WY 339,800 9/89 3,533 - Entrada, sandstone 34,575
3,577 aquifer underlying gas
reservoir
Brady #8, WY 339,800 9/89 3,579 - Entrada, sandstone 34,575

3,640 aquifer underlying gas
reservoir
Frisby South - 58,000 NA 3,332 - Phosphoria, sandstone 17,338

HiLand, WY 3,348 aquifer
Hamilton Dome - 14,160 (gas) 4/64 988 - 1,113 Madison 1,480

U76, WY 480 (liquid)
Muskrat - Federal, 5,660 76/13 1,223 - Frontier, depleted 6,996

WY 1,231 sandstone reservoir
Pitchfork, WY 4,770 NA 1,585 Madison carbonate 5,272

(liquid) reservoir below
14,160 (gas) oil/water contact
Pretty Water Creek, 169,900 NA 2,106 - Phosphoria, sandstone 20,785

WY (gas) 2,141
8 (liquid)
Salt Creek, WY 8,500 10/90 969 - 972 Sundance depleted oil 8,375
sand reservoir
Sources: Jones et al., 2004; Whatley, 2000; Oil and Gas Journal, 2005; Railroad Commission of Texas, 2001
Note: NA = not available
2.3 Comparison with Canadian Sites
Acid gas injection in Canada began in 1989. As a result, Canadian acid gas injection wells are
much more fully characterized than those in the U.S. As of 2005, 42 operations have been approved in
Canada to inject acid gas into geological formations. (See Appendix 1.) Injection rates range from 2,000
to 900,000 m3/yr with total acid gas injection at about 480,000 tons/yr (Bachu and Gunter, 2004). Of
these operations, three combine the acid gas with water for injection, seven inject acid gas that has not
been dehydrated, and the remaining inject dehydrated acid gas. Twenty-nine of the operations inject into
formations composed of primarily carbonate rocks, while 19 inject into sandstone formations. Both types
of injection formations are generally overlain by a shale confining layer. Twenty-six of the sites are saline
aquifers, 17 sites are depleted oil and gas reservoirs, and four are the aquifer underlying a depleted oil or
gas reservoir (Bachu and Gunter, 2004). Exhibit 2 displays a comparison of parameters for Canadian and
American acid gas injection wells.
Page 12 of 20
Exhibit 2. Comparison of Canadian and U.S. Acid Gas Injection Sites
Injection Injection Rate Injection Gas Composition

Depth (m) (m3/d) Pressure (kPa) (%H2S/%CO2)
Canada
Average 1,744 93,200 19,313 42/52
Min - Max 705 – 2,918 2,800 –900,000 5,915 – 111,292 1/31 – 85/15
United States
Average 1,813 313,410 19,848 40/53
Min - Max 630 – 3,640 21 – 2,265,400 1,480 – 34,575 4/64 – 76/13
In general, the Canadian sites show a wider range of injection depths, injection pressures, and gas
compositions although the averages are similar. It is noted that acid gas injection in the United States is
quickly bypassing Canadian operations in quantities and rates. The newly opened site in LaBarge, Wyoming
is by far the largest acid gas injection facility in North America—it has been recently permitted to inject more
than twice the volume of any other facility in North America. Currently it has yet to operate at rates
approaching its permitted capacity. If the two LaBarge wells were removed from the United States inventory,
then the average injection capacity of the Canadian wells is larger than that of the United States.
3.0 Current Acid Gas Injection Permitting Requirements
3.1 United States Regulations
In the United States, acid gas injection operations are conducted pursuant to UIC program
regulations. Acid gas injection wells are classified as UIC Class II injection wells (wells associated with
the oil and gas production). As noted above, acid gas injection takes place in seven States (Wyoming,
Utah, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, and Michigan). With the exception of Michigan, all
of these States hold primacy (primary enforcement authority) for Class II well operations in their
respective States. In Michigan, EPA implements the UIC program and permits acid gas injection wells
under the Class II program.
Regulation of acid gas injection is variable and differs by State. In all of the states that
responded, acid gas injection wells are regulated as Class II wells. The general UIC requirements for
Class II wells are as follows:
Permitting: reviews of permit applications should consider injectate properties, reservoir

properties (fracture pressure), wells in the Area of Review, well logs, and site maps.
Operating: pressures are not allowed to exceed the fracture pressure of the formation.
Monitoring: operators typically must monitor injection pressure, flow rate, and volume; fluid
composition; and annulus pressure and annulus liquid loss.
Page 13 of 20
Mechanical Integrity Testing (MIT): conducted every five years, or every two years if the well is
not in use. MIT is also required if any mechanical changes are made to the well such as changes
in the packer or tubing.
Closure: wells are required to have a plan for plugging and abandoning the well and must do so
no later than two years after well operation ceases.
States may adjust some of these requirements, as described below.
North Dakota requires monitoring of pressures and flows according to oil industry standards. For
some wells, North Dakota has changed MIT frequency to as often as annually because of unusual
conditions.
In Texas, acid gas injection must also meet Rule 36 requirements as non-refinery oil and gas
facilities that handle hydrogen sulfide. This Rule requires modeling of potential gas leaks and
posted warnings within an area of defined radius as well as notifying landowners in the area that
may be affected. Texas regulations also require hydrogen sulfide monitoring and an emergency
plan in the event of a release of hydrogen sulfide.
Wyoming requires analysis of the reservoir fluid into which the acid gas will be injected. If it
contains water with a total dissolved solid (TDS) concentration less than 10,000 mg/L it must be
proven that the aquifer cannot be used for potable uses. Generally the presence of hydrocarbons
in the water is accepted as proof that the water will not be used for potable uses.
Other Federal and State regulations may apply to facilities handling hydrogen sulfide. If the acid gas is
transported over distances by pipeline, pipeline safety regulations may apply. Other regulations on the
handling of hazardous materials may also apply.
3.2 Comparison with Canadian Regulations
In Canada, most injection wells are governed by the Oil and Gas Conservation Act and permit
applications are submitted pursuant to Alberta Energy Utilities Board (AEUB) Directive 065 (AEUB,
2004). Acid gas injection is specifically addressed in Section 4.2 of Directive 065 (Bachu and Gunter,
2004). The regulation is similar to the United States Class II UIC regulations, but there are some
differences. In general, the Canadian regulations require more information for permitting than do the
corresponding U.S. regulations. For example U.S. regulations do not require explicit calculation of gas
properties such as density and viscosity, as the Canadian regulations do. Although well operators will
likely have to calculate these values to design the wells, U.S. Class II regulations do not require it. The
Canadian regulations also require analysis of the interaction of the injected gas with the formation and a
prediction of migration. These elements are not required by the U.S. regulations on the whole, although in
some cases a state may ask for such information in order to demonstrate non-endangerment of USDWs or
active petroleum fields.
Monitoring requirements in the Canadian and U.S. regulations are very similar. U.S. regulations
do not require reporting of cumulative masses injected, however.
Page 14 of 20
4.0 Conclusions and Next Steps
Overall, acid gas injection is a good analogue for carbon dioxide sequestration projects. Although
the main purpose of acid gas injection is disposal of hydrogen sulfide, it does in fact sequester carbon
dioxide in underground reservoirs along with the hydrogen sulfide. The equipment used, and therefore the
design considerations, for the two processes are very similar. For example, corrosion studies on acid gas
injection wells would be useful for determining corrosion in CO2 sequestration wells. Very few
systematic studies have been published concerning corrosion in acid gas injection wells. Cooperation
between industry, State, and Federal agencies could provide useful information on this and other aspects
of well design. In addition, the deep geologic reservoirs used for acid gas injection are also being
considered for carbon dioxide sequestration. Therefore, much of the work done on studying and modeling
gas containment and integrity of confining layers for acid gas injection will be applicable to CO2
sequestration as well.
The main areas in which carbon dioxide sequestration will depart from acid gas injection are the
scale of the projects and the composition of the gases. Carbon dioxide sequestration will require much
larger storage reservoirs which may require increased effort both to ensure that nearby existing (or future)
oil and gas fields are not compromised, and to identify locations (and conditions) of other wells,
producing and abandoned, that could contribute to leakage of the carbon dioxide from the storage
reservoir. The properties of the gases injected will also differ between carbon dioxide sequestration and
acid gas injection so information regarding acid gas only partly contributes to carbon dioxide injection
storage. Thermodynamic and experimental data will be required for the specific mixtures of gases to be
injected for carbon dioxide sequestration. This may require additional thermodynamic experiments to be
conducted on these gas mixtures to determine properties such as density, viscosity, and conductivity.
Continued modeling and experimental work on the interactions between the injected carbon dioxide
mixture and geological formations in which they are contained will also be needed. Cooperation between
local agencies and industry will also help to study existing plume migration, improve migration models
and determine if any leaks from target formations have occurred.
Several possibilities exist for follow-on research to better understand how well acid gas injection
serves as a regulatory analogue for CO2 sequestration.
More detailed review of selected U.S. and Canadian acid gas sites that inject gas with the highest
carbon dioxide component (e.g., U.S. site in Dumas, TX; Canadian sites # 581, 1189, 1734, 1971, etc.)
may yield useful insight to the process of geologic sequestration. Additional information on U.S. sites
would also be helpful. For example, gas composition is difficult to obtain for many of the wells; even
though the information is recorded, it is not organized in any useful form. Temperature and pressure both
within the formation and at the point of injection would help to determine the mass of carbon dioxide
injected. Much of this information can be obtained by industry and the States in order to design and
permit these wells. A cooperative effort could enable this information to be put to the best use.
Work will also need to be done to develop a scientifically-sound regulatory framework to

properly oversee carbon dioxide sequestration. While criteria and guidelines do exist, and acid gas
operations have been successfully overseen for a considerable time, there is no unified or agreed upon set
of regulations. With the anticipated scope of commercial-scale CO2 sequestration, many projects will
cross jurisdictional boundaries so a national and even international set of standards will be necessary to
effectively manage these projects and to ensure their safety and effectiveness.
Page 15 of 20
5.0 References
Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB). 1994. Guide 51: Injection and Disposal Wells. Well
Classifications, Completion, Logging and Testing Requirements. On the web at:
http://www.eub.gov.ab.ca/bbs/products/guides/g51.pdf
Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB). 2004. Directive 065: Resources Application for
Conventional Oil and Gas Reservoirs. On the web at
http://www.eub.gov.ab.ca/BBS/requirements/directives/directive065.htm
Bachu, S., J.J. Adams, K. Michael, and B.E. Buschkuehle. 2003. Acid Gas Injection in the
Alberta Basin: a Commercial-Scale Analogue for CO2 Geological Sequestration in Sedimentary
Basins. In Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference on Carbon Dioxide Sequestration (CD-
ROM)
Bachu, S. and W.D. Gunter. 2004. Overview of Acid-Gas Injection Operations in Western
Canada. In Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies. Volume 1: Peer-Reviewed Papers and Plenary Presentations.
Bachu, S., J.M. Nordbotten, and M.A. Celia. 2004. “Evaluation of the Spread of Acid-Gas
Plumes injected in Deep Saline Aquifers in Western Canada as an Analogue for CO2 Injection
into Continental Sedimentary Basins.” Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. Volume 1: Peer-Reviewed Papers and Plenary
Presentations.
Buschkuehle, B.E. 2004. Geological Trapping of Acid Gas Injected Underground in Western
Canada. In Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies, Volume II: Non-Peer Reviewed Papers.
Carroll, J.J. 2002. Phase Equilibria Relevant to Acid Gas Injection Part 1: Non-Aqueous Phase
Behavior. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 41 (6), 2002
Gunter, W.D., A. Pratt, B.E. Buschkuehle, and E.H. Perkins. 2004. Acid Gas Injection in the
Nisku Q Carbonate Reservoir: Geochemical Reactions as a Result of the Injection of an H2S-CO2
Waste Stream. In Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies. Volume 1: Peer-Reviewed Papers and Plenary Presentations.
Hawkes, C., S. Bachu, K. Haug, and A. Thompson. 2005. Analysis of In-Situ Stress Regime in
the Alberta Basin, Canada, for Performance Assessment of CO2 Geological Sequestration Sites.
Fourth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture and Sequestration DOE/NETL May 2-5, 2005.
International Energy Agency (IEA) Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. 2003. Acid Gas Injection:
A Study of Existing Operations. Phase I Final Report. Report Number PH4/18, April 2003.
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC). 2005. IOGCC CO2 Geological
Sequestration Task Force, A Regulatory Framework for Carbon Capture and Geological
Storage.
Page 16 of 20
Jones, S.G., D.R. Rosa, and J.E. Johnson. 2004. Acid-gas Design Requires Numerous
Considerations. Oil and Gas Journal, March 8, 2004.
Michael, K., and K. Haug. 2005. Hydrodynamic Trapping of Injected Acid Gas in the Alberta
Basin, Western Canada. In Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas
Control Technologies. Volume 1: Peer-Reviewed Papers and Plenary Presentations
Ng, H., J.J. Carroll, and J. Maddocks. 1999. Impact of Thermophysical Properties Research on
Acid Gas Injection Process Design. Presented at the 1999 Gas Processors Association
Convention in Nashville, TN.
Oil and Gas Journal 2005. LaBarge Plant Acid-gas Injection Due. Oil and Gas Journal, Feb 7,
2005.
Railroad Commission of Texas, Oil and Gas Division 2001. The Application of Oneok Field
Services Company for Authority Pursuant to Statewide Rule 36 to Inject Hydrogen Sulphide Gas
into Its Schafer Ranch Lease Well No. 1D, Into the Arbuckle Formation in the Panhandle Carson
County Field Area, Carson County, Texas. Oil and Gas Docket No. 10-0227776.
Sikora, R., S. Wong, W.D. Gunter, E. Wichert, and M. McCulloch. 2004. Economic and
Emission Accounting For Acid-Gas Injection Projects - An Example from Keyspan Brazeau
River, Alberta, Canada. In Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas
Control Technologies. Volume 1: Peer-Reviewed Papers and Plenary Presentations.
Thomas, D.C. 2005. Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep Geologic Formations - Results
from the CO2 Capture Project: Capture and Separation of Carbon Dioxide from Combustion
Sources. Elsevier. New York. Volume 1.
Whatley, L. 2000. Acid-gas Injection Proves Economic. Oil and Gas Journal, May 22, 2000.
Wilson, E.J. 2004. Managing the Risks of Geologic Carbon Sequestration: A Regulatory and
Legal Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Page 17 of 20
Appendix 1. Characteristics of Canadian Acid Gas Injection Sites
Gas
Maximum Composition
Injection Rate (%H2S / Injection Depth Formation
Site (m3/d) %CO2) (m) Type of Reservoir Pressure (kPa)
Quartz/Sandstone Gas
312 27,000 75/25 1,552 - 1,556 Reservoir 15,200
320 60,000 66/32 1,905 - 1,942 Sandstone Aquifer 16,700
449 30,000 75/15 2,715 - 2,918 Limestone Aquifer 27,000
Sandstone Oil
625 58,000 42/57 1,422 - 1,439 Reservoir 10,245
718 6,000 1/31 705 - 981 Limestone Aquifer 5,915
Sandstone Oil
997 4,200 34/44 1,391 - 1,401 Reservoir 12,800
Dolostone Oil
1034 12,000 63/31 2,677 - 2,695 Reservoir 28,588
Sandstone Oil and Gas

1189 40,000 4/95 1,541 - 1,562 Reservoir 12,135
Dolostone Oil
1242 2,800 67/29 1,745 - 1,840 Reservoir 17,982
Dolostone Oil
1396 18,000 52/45 1,927 - 2,058 Reservoir 20,317
Quart/Arenite Gas
1489 5,000 41/57 1,355 - 1,390 Reservoir 13,035
1510 210,000 30/70 1493 - ? Dolostone Aquifer 15,000
Limestone Gas
1522 210,000 30/70 1,317 - 1,385 Reservoir 13,394
Carbonate Oil and Gas

1563 160,000 38/61 1,478 - 1,585 Reservoir 14,479
1734 35,000 13/87 1,200 - ? Dolostone Aquifer NA

Page 18 of 20
Gas
Maximum Composition
1895 65,000 64/34 1,110 - 1,166 Dolostone Aquifer 11,164
1971 11,000 25/75 1,167 - ? Limestone Aquifer 8,900
Dolostone Limestone
2081 40,000 48/50 1,958 - ? Aquifer 15,700
Carbonate Water
2469 NA 50/50 NA Reservoir NA
2573 45,000 17/70 1,341 - 1,453 Dolostone Aquifer NA
2719 42,000 49/51 2,036 - 2,118 Siliclastic Aquifer 20,000
3084 25,000 25/72 2,010 - 2,090 Limestone Aquifer NA
3195 28,000 17/82 1,880 - 1,934 Dolostone Aquifer NA
3465 NA 13/60 913 - 984 Clastics Aquifer NA
Sandstone Oil
3581 12,000 30/70 809 - 838 Reservoir NA
Sandstone Oil and Gas

3651 130,000 2/98 NA Reservoir 11,500
Carbonate Water
3968 340,000 85/15 3,386 - 3,478 Reservoir 35,860
4058 114,000 50/48 1,487 - 1,535 Oil Reservoir NA
Carbonate Gas
4174 900,000 81/15 2,633 - 2,815 Reservoir 32,145
Page 19 of 20
Gas
Maximum Composition
Carbonate Oil
4248 69,000 40/60 2,164 - 2,196 Reservoir NA
Dolostone Gas
4489 228,000 54/38 1,297 - 1,355 Reservoir 11,154
Sandstone Gas
4512 15,000 59/41 2,443 - 2,456 Reservoir 23,133
4680 22,500 37/63 950 - 1,025 Carbonate Aquifer NA
Source: IEA 2003
Page 20 of 20
View publication stats

Acid Gas Injection in US

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acid Gas Injection in US

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

Acid Gas Injection in the United States

Conference Paper · May 2006

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Acid Gas Injection in the United States

J. Kenneth Klewicki1, Bruce Kobelski2,

FIFTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION - DOE/NETL

1.1 Description of Acid Gas

1.2 Description of Injection Process

1.3 Description of the Target Formations

1.4 Comparison of Acid Gas Injection and CO2 Sequestration

2.0 Current Acid Gas Injection Sites

2.1 Information Gathering

• How many wells are involved in acid gas injection?

2.2 United States Results

Exhibit 1. Characteristics of Acid Gas Injection Sites in the United States

Beaver Creek, MI 236 76/10 1,176 - Detroit River Group 7,100

Lea County, NM 365 NA 2,652 - Bone Spring Formation 19,400

McKenzie Co., ND 210 55/40 1,628 - Inyan Kara NA

Burke Co., ND 21 50/42 1,945 - Mission Canyon NA

Dumas, TX 12,000 27/71.5 955 - 1,048 Non-productive gas NA

Pampa TX 5,600 NA 1,778 - Water underlying 13,800

Garza Co., TX – 18,400 NA 1,478 - NA 16,650

Garza Co., TX - 2,800 NA 963 - 1,001 San Andres 10,443

Garza Co, TX - 2,800 NA 951 - 1,015 San Andres 10,443

Garza Co., TX - 2,800 (gas) NA 949 - 1,001 San Andres 10,443

Garza Co., TX - 2,800 (gas) NA 960 - 1,005 San Andres 10,443

Garza Co., TX - 2,800 (gas) NA 949 - 998 San Andres 10,443

Sneed Plant, TX 42,000 NA 1,067 - Granite Wash 9,064

Schafer Ranch, TX 5,600 NA 1,753 - Arbuckle 13,890

Reagan Co., TX 17,000 NA 630 - 649 Queen 7,170

Upton Co., TX - #21R 283,000 NA 1,494 - Midcross Devonian 20,785

Upton Co., TX - #32 283,000 NA 1,494 - Midcross Devonian 20,785

Navarro Co., TX 33,980 NA 2,820 - Burnett Sloan Unit 20,785

Crockett Co., TX 283,000 NA 1,502 - South Cross Unit 16,993

Dawson Co., TX - 84,950 (gas) NA 1,492 - Welch Unit 16,649

Dawson Co., TX - 84,950 (gas) NA 1,494 - Welch Unit 16,649

Dawson Co., TX - 84,950 (gas) NA 1,494 - Welch Unit 16,649

Dawson Co., TX - 84,950 (gas) NA 1,491 - Welch Unit 16,649

Dawson Co., TX - 84,950 (gas) NA 1,491 - Welch Unit 16,649

Dawson Co., TX - 84,950 (gas) NA 1,494 - Welch Unit 16,649

Dawson Co., TX - 84,950 (gas) NA 1,490 - Welch Unit 16,649

Dawson Co., TX - 84,950 (gas) NA 1,494 - Welch Unit 16,649

Dawson Co., TX - 84,950 (gas) NA 1,495 - Welch Unit 16,649

Kent Co., TX - Salt 1,900 NA 1,875 - Salt Creek Unit 32,507

Dawson Co., TX - 84,950 (gas) NA 1,487 - Welch Unit 16,649

Dawson Co., TX - 84,950 (gas) NA 1,485 - Welch Unit 16,649

Dawson Co., TX - 84,950 (gas) NA 1,491 - Welch Unit 16,649

Dawson Co., TX - 84,950 (gas) NA 1,488 - Welch Unit 16,649

Dawson Co., TX - 84,950 (gas) NA 1,481 - Welch Unit 16,649

Dawson Co., TX - 84,950 (gas) NA 1,494 - Welch Unit 16,649

Kent Co., TX - Salt 1,900 NA 1,875 - Salt Creek Unit 31,817

Kent Co., TX - Salt 1,900 NA 1,875 - Salt Creek Unit 31,817

Kent Co., TX - Salt 1,900 NA 1,920 - Salt Creek Unit 34,575

Kent Co., TX - Salt 1,900 NA 1,875 - Salt Creek Unit 31,817

Kent Co., TX - Salt 1,900 NA 1,875 - Salt Creek Unit 31,817

Kent Co., TX - Salt 1,900 NA 1,875 - Salt Creek Unit 31,817

Kent Co., TX - Salt 1,900 NA 1,875 - Salt Creek Unit 31,817

Kent Co., TX - Salt 1,900 NA 1,875 - Salt Creek Unit 31,817

Kent Co., TX - Salt 1,900 NA 1,875 - Salt Creek Unit 31,817

Kent Co., TX - Salt 1,590 NA 1,875 - Salt Creek Unit 31,817

Kent Co., TX - Salt 1,900 NA 1,875 - Salt Creek Unit 31,817

Permitting: reviews of permit applications should consider injectate properties, reservoir