PB85-185916 EPA/600/2-85/034 April 1985 ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS GOVERNING GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION FROM UNDERGROUND INJECTION OR DISPOSAL OF SALT WATER IN KANSAS AND TEXAS by Linda Aller Rhonda G. Hakundy and David M. Nielsen National Water Well Association Worthington, Ohio 43085 Cooperative Agreement CR-809353 Project Officer Jerry T. Thornhill Applications and Assistance Branch Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory Ada, Oklahoma 74820 This study was conducted in cooperation with East Central University Environmental Research Institute Ada, Oklahoma 74820 ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ADA, OKLAHOMA 74820 REPRODUCED BY INFORMATION SERVICE u.s. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SPRINGFiElD, VA. 22161 NATlONAL TECHNICAL (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing) TECHNICAL REPORT DATA 1. EPA/600/2-85/034 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS GOVERNING GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION FROM UNDERGROUND INJECTION OR DISPOSAL OF SALT WATER IN KANSAS AND TEXAS 7. AUTHOR(S) 1. REPORT NO. 2 3. RECPB85~ ACfsS59 r'b LAS 5. REPORT DATE April 1985 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. Linda Aller. Rhonda G. Hakundy and David M. Nielsen 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO. National Water Well Association 500 West Wilson Bridge Road Worthington. OH 43085 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS CBPC1A 11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO. CR-809353 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ada. OK 74820 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Final 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE EPA/600/15 EPA Project Officer: 16. ABSTRACT Jerry T. Thornhill, FTS 743-2310 This document describes in detail the UIC programs relating to Class II wells that have been developed in the states of Texas and Kansas. The UIC program regulations. the individual agency administrative procedures and the methods of handling groundwater contamination incidents resulting from the injection or disposal of salt water are discussed. In addition. several case studies of contamination caused by Class II wells are detailed. 17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS DESCRIPTORS b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. a. COSATI Field/Group 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS (TlJis Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES RELEASE TO PUBLIC EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION 15 OBSOLETE 20. SECURITY CLASS (This page) UNCLASSIFIED 86 22. PRICE UNCLASSIFIED i DISCLAIMER Although the research described in this report has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency through Cooperative Agreement CR-809353 to East Central University Environmental Research Institute, it has not been subjected to the agency's peer and policy review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the agency and no official endorsement should be inferred. ii FOREWORD The Environmental Protection Agency was established to coordinate administration of the major Federal programs designed to protect the quality of our environment. An important part of the Agency's effort involves the search for information about environmental problems, management techniques and new technologies through which optimum use of the Nation's land and water resources can be assured and the threat pollution poses to the welfare of the American people can be minimized. EPA's Office of Research and Development conducts this search through a nationwide network of research facilities. As one of these facilities, the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory is the Agency's center of expertise for investigation of the soil and subsurface environment. Personnel at the laboratory are responsible for management of research programs to: (a) determine the fate, transport and transformation rates of pollutants in the soil, the unsaturated zone and the saturated zones of the subsurface environment; (b) define the processes to be used in characterizing the soil and subsurface environment as a receptor of pollutants; (c) develop techniques for predicting the effect of pollutants on ground water, soil and indigenous organisms; and (d) define and demonstrate the applicability and limitations of using natural processes, indigenous to the soil and subsurface environment, for the protection of this resource. This report contributes to that knowledge which is essential in order for EPA to establish and enforce pollution control standards which are reasonable, cost effective and provide adequate environmental protection for the American public. ~ tI?11dI Clinton W. Hall Director Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory iii PREFACE Enforcement of Regulations Governing Ground Water Contamination from Underground Injection or bisaosal of Salt Water in kansas and Texas has been developed under the gui ance of East Central University Environmental Research Institute in conjunction with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for use by all of those involved in efforts to implement state Underground Injection Control (UIC) Programs. The report provides a concise description of regulations, administrative procedures and reported ground water contamination incidents in two states with a large number of Class II wells. For those concerned with implementation of a UIC program and with protecting ground water, this document may be helpful as a ready summary of different ways to administrate a UIC program and methods for investigating ground water contamination by injection operations. Finally, this manual partially fulfills a mandate contained in the Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L. 93-523) requiring the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to "oo. carry out a study of methods of underground injection which do not result in the degradation of underground drinking water sources." iv ABSTRACT The Underground injection or disposal of salt water produced with oil and gas is regulated as a result of the enactment of the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Act requires the EPA to develop minimum standards to assist the states in establishing effective programs to protect underground sources of drinking water from contamination resulting from the subsurface emplacement of fluids through well injection. Nearly half of the salt water produced with oil and gas operations in the United States is generated in the states of Texas and Kansas; much of this is either reinjected into the subsurface in enhanced recovery operations or disposed of through subsurface injection in wells designated as Class II wells by UIC program criteria. In the state of Texas, primary enforcement responsibility for UIC program regulations, specifically those pertaining to Class II wells, has been assumed by the Texas Railroad Commission. In the state of Kansas, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) and the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) have jointly assumed primary enforcement responsibility. Each of these two states has developed an effective program to deal with salt water injection and disposal wells; each of the agencies in these two states administers and enforces UIC program regulations differently. This document describes in detail the UIC programs relating to Class II wells that have been developed in the states of Texas and Kansas. The UIC program regulations, the individual agency administrative procedures and the methods of handling ground-water contamination incidents resulting from the injection or disposal of salt water are discussed. In addition, several case studies of contamination caused by Class II wells are detailed. This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Cooperative Agreement No. CR-809353 by the National Water Well Association under the sponsorship of the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma and in cooperation with East Central University Environmental Research Institute, Ada, Oklahoma. This report covers a period from December, 1981, to December, 1984, and work was completed as of December, 1984. v CONTENTS Disclaimer Foreword Preface Abstract o o o o o o o Figures Tables ooooo Acknowledgements 1. 2. 3. o o oo .... ........... ? . . . .. o o oo ii ;i i ;v v o o o o oo o viii . . .. ix o o o o oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo x 1 6 7 7 7 11 12 15 28 22 22 22 24 25 27 29 4. Introduction o o o o o o o o o Conclusions/Recommendations o o o o o o o o Underground Injection in Kansas o o o o o o o o o Agency responsibilities. o o o . o o o . o o o o . History of salt water disposal regulations o o Summary of regulations o o o o o o o o o Rules and regulations. o o o o o o o o o Administrative procedures. o o o o o o o o o Contamination incidents by salt water disposal wells Underground Injection in Texas ooooo Agency responsibilities. o o o o o o o o o o o History of salt water disposal regulations Summary of regulations o o o o o o o o o o o o Regulatory and permitting procedures for Class II, wells Administrative procedures o o o o o o o o o o o o Contamination incidents by salt water disposal wells Appendices A. B. C. D. Application forms used by KCC in the administration of the Kansas UIC program o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Forms used by KCC and KDHE to investigate salt water contamination o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o . o o o o 43 F. G. Eo Forms used by the Texas Railroad Commission in the administration of the Texas UIC program . o o o Form used by the UIC staff to record complaints about salt water injection or disposal wells oooo Texas statewide rule 8 - water protection Texas statewide rule 9 - disposal wells. Texas statewide rule 46 - fluid injection into productive reservoirs ooooooo.ooooooooooooo 47 49 .. 62 63 68 72 Preceding page blank vii FIGURES Number Map of Kansas showing location of district offices 2 3 8 17 23 Stiff diagram used for brine fingerprinting District map of Oil and Gas Division, Texas Railroad Commission. oo o ooooooooo Application form for salt water disposal wells in the state of Kansas o o o o o o o o . o o o . o . o o o . Application form for enhanced recovery wells in the state of Kansas oooooooooooooooooo A-l 43 A-2 B-1 B-2 C-l C-2 45 47 48 49 51 53 55 Form used by KCC field investigator to detail salt water disposal well problem ? ???????????????????? Form used by KDHE field investigator to detail salt water contamination Application to dispose of oil and gas waste by injection into a porous formation not productive of oil or gas o Annular disposal/injection well monitoring report ????????????????????????? C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7 D-l Oil well potential test, completion or recompletion report and log. . . . . . . . ....o...o..o..... Gas well back pressure test, completion or recompletion report and log o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Application to inject fluid into a reservoir productive of oil or gas ....?????????? ???? ????? 57 59 60 62 Injection well data form Fresh water data form ????? ???? Administrative form used by the UIC program to record complaints . . ????????????????????????? viii TABLES Number Disposal of produced salt water, 1963 2 3 4 Part of Table I setting minimum depths for the protection o o o o of usable and fresh water in Kansas Part of Table II setting minimum depths for salt water disposal in Kansas. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Ground and surface water contamination incidents related to class II wells investigated by KDHE and/or KCC between 1979 - 1982 5 3 9 10 oooooooooooooooooooo Ii o o 19 Summary of wells plugged by the commission where the problem was attributed to a disposal or injection well, 1967 through 1975 oo.ooooooooooo Synopsis of complaints of alleged contamination by underground injection, January, 1979 through June, 1980 Summary of complaints involving injection/disposal wells, January, 1982 through December, 1982 o o o o o o o o o o o 30 6 37 41 7 ix I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge the staffs of the Kansas Corporation Commission, Wichita, Kansas, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Topeka, Kansas and the Texas Railroad Commission, Austin, Texas for their patience and assistance in the preparation of this document. Without their helpful support, the writing of this document would not have been possible. x SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE This report has been prepared to provide a concise description of regulations. administrative procedures and methods for dealing with ground water contamination incidents in two states with a large number of Class II injection wells. The report may also provide information to industry representatives, government officials and others to help them understand the potential problems associated with underground injection through Class II wells, and provide examples of how two state programs have been designed to deal with such problems. Although this report details the administration of regulations in the States of Texas and Kansas. different regulatory and administrative systems developed in other states may prove equally as effective in dealing with similar problems. This report is intended to be informative rather than prescriptive in nature. Impetus for the report was provided by passage of Public Law 93-523 (The Safe Drinking Water Act). which requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop minimum requirements for the establishment of effective state programs to protect underground sources of drinking water from the subsurface emplacement of fluids through well injection. Additionally. the Act states that these requirements not impede the re-injection of brine or other fluids used in secondary or tertiary recovery unless drinking water sources would be endangered (Federal Register. June 24. 1980). For purposes of the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. injection wells were classified into five categories as follows: (a) Class I wells are (1) those used by generators of hazardous waste or owners or operators of hazardous waste management facilities to inject hazardous waste beneath the lowermost formation containing. within one quarter (1/4) mile of the well bore. an underground source of drinking water; (2) other industrial and municipal disposal wells which inject fluids beneath the lowermost formation containing. within one quarter (1/4) mile of the well bore. an underground source of drinking water; (b) Class II wells are wells which inject fluids (1) which are brought to the surface in connection with conventional oil or natural gas production and may be commingled with waste waters from gas plants which are an integral part of production operations. unless these waters are classified as a hazardous waste at the time of injection. (2) for enhanced recovery of oil and natural gas. and (3) for storage of hydrocarbons which are liquid at standard temperature and pressure; (c) Class III wells inject for the purpose of extraction of minerals including: (1) mining of sulfur by the Frasch Process. (2) in situ production of uranium or other metals. and (3) solution mining of salts or potash; (d) Class IV wells include disposal wells used by hazardous and radioactive waste generators and disposal site operators to dispose of hazardous waste or radioactive waste (1) into a formation which within one-quarter mile contains an underground source of drinking water. (2) above a formation which within one-quarter mile contains an underground source of drinking water, and (3) which cannot be classified under (1) or (2); Class V wells includes injection wells not covered by the four other classes (Federal Register, May 19,1981). Recognizing that there are many different ways that similar UIC regulations can be administered in each state. this document attempts to detail the efforts of both Kansas and Texas. This document neither endorses nor criticizes the adminstrative procedures. but simply details them for possible use by other states with similar implementation responsib1ities. In addition, reported incidents of ground-water contamination by salt water injection wells and the method of handling complaints are described. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF PROBLEM Since 1859, when the first oil well was drilled at Titusville, Pennsylvania, the disposal of salt water has been an environmental problem. In the early days of oil production, brine disposal was often an uncontrolled discharge to a stream or ditch (EPA, 1977). Practices such as this led to environmental contamination which went unchecked until the late 1920's when industry began to internally develop production practices and techniques which recognized the impact on water resources (IOCC, 1966). In the succeeding years, studies of the proper disposal of oil field brines were made by regulators charged with protecting surface and ground-water supplies and by companies faced with the problem of disposing of salt water, and the basis for today's regulatory framework was established. The amount of salt water produced each year illustrates the magnitude of the salt water disposal problem and the importance of employing an environmentally safe disposal method. The Research Committee of the Interstate Oil Compact Commission conducted a study to attempt to determine the volume of salt water which was produced and the methods of disposal of the salt water. The study provided an estimate of 23,560,121 barrels per day or 8.599.441,165 barrels per year of salt water were produced from oil fields in 1963 (IOCC, 1966). Of that volume, almost half of the salt water in the United States was produced in the states of Kansas and Texas. Table 1 shows a tabulation of the data for Kansas and Texas. This study shows that during 1963, salt water disposal methods included injection for both disposal and waterf100d, discharge to unlined pits. impervious pits, streams and rivers and disposal by other miscellaneous methods. Ground and surface-water contamination from oil field salt water disposal practices, primarily from surface discharges and unlined pits, are well-documented in the literature (Fryberger, 1972; Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 1975; Pettyjohn, 1971; Payne, 1966). As a result, the present disposal of salt water produced with oil or gas is principally by underground injection. It is estimated that there are approximately 140,000 Class II wells in use across the United States. Class II wells are generally associated with four activities: (1) to maintain underground pressures which would otherwise be reduced by virtue of the production of oil and/or gas; (2) cycling or recycling, to introduce residue gas into a formation after 1iquifiab1e hydrocarbons have been extracted from gas produced from the formation; (3) secondary recovery operations, to introduce 2 TABLE 1. DISPOSAL OF PRODUCED SALT WATER, 1963 (IOCC, 1966) (BARRELS PER DAY) ._-_.~----~-~---~----------~----~----~~~-~------??-------~~----Streams -~ -~- Volumes Produced 800,000 1,800 2,736,755 1,472,954 4,200,000 INJECTION For Water Flood For Disposal Only Impervious Pits Unlined Pits 9,600 1,262,719 and Rivers Other Methods KANSAS 5,011,400 w TEXAS 6,127,671 615,566 39,677* *unaccounted a fluid to decrease the viscosity of oil, reduce its surface tension, lower its specific gravity, and/or to drive oil into producing wells, resulting in greater production of oil, and (4) tertiary recovery operations to introduce chemicals or energy as required for displacement and for the control of flow rate and flow pattern in the reservoir (Railroad Commission of Texas, 1983). Ground-water contamination incidents due to injection operations are not well documented in the literature. This is often the case because alleged contamination incidents are most commonly investigated by state personnel who do not routinely publish information in the literature, although some reports are available in an open file. In other instances, the source of the contamination may only be inferred and not officially documented. Problems with injection wells are more easily documented in cases where injection operations cause direct evidence of contamination through surface expression such as flow through improperly plugged or abandoned wells. One of the most illustrative examples of problems associated with injection in an area containing abandoned wells that were improperly plugged is cited by Hopkins (1963). In east-central Kentucky, a pressurized injection well was located about 200 feet away from a gas well used for domestic fuel. Upon initiation of injection operations, the gas furnace in the living room of the farmhouse spouted brine. After injection was stopped, the flow ceased. In developing background data for this report, representatives of state agencies involved with the administration of regulations pertaining to salt water injection and disposal were contacted. Copies of regulations, forms and pUblished information on ground-water contamination relating to salt water injection wells were obtained. Visits were made to the appropriate state agencies to interview agency personnel about administration and enforcement of the regulations and the handling of complaints. Files pertaining to possible ground-water contamination by injection wells were either manually searched by the authors (Kansas) or compiled by the state personnel (Texas). Kansas records were searched for the period January, 1979 to December, 1982. Information from the state of Texas was obtained for: (1) January 1967 to December 1975, (2) January 1979 to June 1980, and (3) January 1982 to December 1982. ORGANIZATION This document contains four sections, five subsections and four supporting appendices. Section 3 contains information on the state of Kansas; Section 4 on the state of Texas. The sections have been divided to provide an easy reference of state responsiblities and regulations and to detail the information on contamination by salt water injection wells during the study period for each state. 4 1 REFERENCES EPA, 1977, The Report to Congress: Waste Disposal Practices and Their Affects on Ground Water; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publication EPA-PB-265081, 512 pp. Federal Register, vol. 45, no. 123, June 24,1980, pp. 24272-42512. Federal Register, vol. 46, no. 96, May 19,1981, pp. 27333-27339. Fryberger, J.S. 1972, Rehabilitation of a Brine-Polluted Aquifer; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pUblication EPA-R2-72-014, 61 pp. Hopkins, Herbert T., 1963, The Effect of Oilfield Brine on the Potable Ground Water in the Upper Big Pitman Creek Basin, Kentucky; Kentucky Geological Survey, Report of Investigation 4: Series X, 36 pp. Interstate Oil Compact Commission, 1966, Water Problems Associated with Oil Production in the United States: Interstate Oil Compact Commission, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 88 pp. Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 1975, Salt Water Detection in the Cimmarron Terrace, Oklahoma; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publication EPA-660/374-033, 166 pp. Payne, Roy D., 1966, Salt Water Pollution Problems in Texas; Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 18, pp. 1401-1407. Pettyjohn, Wayne A., 1971. Water Pollution by Oil-field Brines and Related Industrial Waste in Ohio; The Ohio Journal of Science, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 257269. Railroad Commission of Texas, 1983, Underground Injection Control, 35 pp. 5 SECTION 2 CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS As part of the regulatory process, both the states of Kansas and Texas promulgated statewide rules to ensure that Class II (salt water injection and disposal) wells would be operated without endangering the ground-water resources of the state. Although the mandate of ground-water protection is the same for both states, the provisions contained within the rules and the administrative procedures are different. The rules have been tailored to address differing geologic conditions in each state. Administratively, the enforcement of the UIC program for Class II wells has been jointly assumed by two state agencies in Kansas and one agency in Texas. Both states have attempted to integrate new provisions into existing rules and administrative authorities. A variety of enforcement options for rule violations are available in both states. Similar enforcement actions such as the ability to immediately shut in a well for serious violations, to revoke an operating permit or producer's license or to seek remedies through the courts are used in both Kansas and Texas. In the state of Kansas, a maximum fine of $10,000 a day for every offense can be levied. In Texas, additional penalties such as pipeline severance can be imposed. This penalty in Texas has historically proven effective in enforcement of the rules of the Texas Railroad Commission. In Kansas, the $10,000 fine is a relatively new enforcement tool, and its effectiveness as a deterrent against violations has yet to be tested. Regulatory agencies in the states of Kansas and Texas maintain field staff who perform routine inspections of injection operations and respond to complaints about alleged violations or actual contamination resulting from injection or disposal of salt water. A search of state records for selected periods indicated that ground water contamination problems were most frequently identified through complaints of salt water in a water well or identification of flowing abandoned wells. Lab analysis for chloride content in water wells and pressure testing of nearby injection wells are the most common methods used to investigate the causes or sources of ground-water contamination. Although extensive field work may be conducted, few investigations lead to positive identification of a source of contamination. Investigations are frequently complicated by the proximity of abandoned salt water pits and currently operating injection wells, the cost of many of the investigative methods necessary for determining mechanical integrity, flow paths in the subsurface, and the logistics of working with industry to determine what is happening in an area without endangering the production of oil or gas. The two states both have a well plugging fund which was established to help remediate problems with improperly plugged or unplugged abandoned wells where a legally responsible party cannot be identified or where a legally responsible party does not have the assets to correct the problem. The state funds are used only as a final option where no other sources or funds are available and where there is a recognized problem with the well. 6 SECTION 3 UNDERGROUND INJECTION IN KANSAS AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES The Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program in the state of Kansas is jointly administered by the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). KDHE has been given statutory (legislative) authority to regulate all wastes in the state. Therefore t KDHE must enforce Section 1422 of the Safe Drinking Water Act t which gives the state primary enforcement responsibility over the UIC Program. However t it is the responsibility of KCC to enforce Section 1425 of the Act which pertains strictly to Class II wells. This gives KCC the power to permit and t when necessarYt to plug salt water injection wells. In fact t KCC has primary control over Class II wells t while KDHE's concerns are with environmental pollution related to salt water disposal. In addition to sharing regulatory responsibilities for Class II wells t KCC and KDHE also maintain six joint district offices. The offices are located in Dodge CitYt Wichita t Chanute t Topeka t Salina t and Hays (Figure I). All rules and regulations in the state pertaining to fluid injection must be reviewed by a ten member board. The board consists of one member each from KCC t KDHE t Division Water Resources t Kansas Geological SurveYt Kansas Water Office, three organizations representing the oil and gas industrYt a representative of water management districts t and one public representative. In addition to considering regu1ations t the board reviews minimum standards for water protection, and disposal/injection practices. The board has developed a table which states the minimum depths necessary to protect ground water in the State. A portion of that table is shown in Table 2. These depths are determined by county and further subdivided by township where necessary. The board has also developed a similar list for the allowable depths of brine injection. (Table 3). HISTORY OF SALT WATER DISPOSAL REGULATIONS Oil was first discovered in Kansas in 1860 when two or three wells were drilled near Paola. The Civil War stopped development t however t and it was about 30 years before new wells were drilled (Latta 1963). The first big oil play was 1914 when the El Dorado Field was discovered in Butler County. However t it was not until 1920 that production of oil and gas exceeded 50 million barrels per year (Jewett 1979). The production of oil and gas also led to the production of salt water. During the early years of production t neither the operators nor the landowners gave any thought to the brine produced with oil. 7 ~_. i DON""''''''' ~O" :::Hf'ffNNI , IAWlINS o mCAWI NotTON T'HIUI'!1 o SMIIM . JfWfll " " ru'U( NEBRASKA -----,??----r----"'f'----11---~__ r. . .__,-- __ --r -----r:---W"H'NG'ON . .'H." i i i NfMAH" '.OWN. I I ..------------r------ T ----' , : I . . I I I . . i, I ' . ;a I . I I " ~. "'! ,_. ~ . , tb. I' ~.,. 0 Co . G) ~ 1 i . , 1 ' . - ' __ .... <. ! ! i - ._ 'ClAY _.".-.._. rp",W"o . o"" ! '_~_~_._.~ I 0 L __ :--:,J ClOUD I I 1 I O".W. ""CH~fII ~ 1~d/4:-.~-? . ~ ~ r-';'CHOSON -<.' ~ 'ON i j i ! : , . t-?_?_?_?-?r-?-?-?_?...l?_?-?_?_?ir ?_?_?_? ...I' '-'-'-'--r'-' I "'.....11 . . ..,.... ! 'Hfll.," o G"H... ! '00" i OSlOlNl I : ! ! ! ! I I . ':'0' I . I . I . I . I tlNCOlN . i !WOIIH : I ! ! I i 1-: ?_?_?_?-? .....?_?_?_?_?T?L.?_?_?_?. . 1 ' . .j - - - - - -i.I T -?_?-?_?r ?-?_?-?-,_?_?_?_1 , IOG.N . GOV' , '''GO ... I-r;:~~ON ~L._._.._, i i ...... T,oo v.',~'7"'_ o~'.' IJqnsa$i o. _._.~i ! ;... . . _._ -:1 ' . .D ' 1 ",.WN" hlvl!'rj o o OPEKA' I I i W"'UN'" W."." u, o . 'USSfll I ! IT! . o "'''ON I -'-'-"L ! : , i i j ~----! -'r:' - - --4 ~ .""N'ONi , ...... i 1-._._. . ..,.... .j DOUGLA' ! JOMN'ON : ;r;..~~;;-. '-',.,.._._.-J'_._.-1'--4---1 rc,.......... c. r;"N""" .. ,..., I II:: r I . lYON OrO '_'_'_'. CIIA" I ,s ---:- c>" ...r C' . S1 I ; . , ::::> I0 ! . .." I (J) (J) (Xl ~0........I -....o-._._.-..._._.~.- '""'Ico.m i I I , 8 i-?_?_?_~? ! ! 'HAYS ! I!./ ! i .: -$q,oky ,HI/ l-9 l'sr i . flI'WOllH ! SALINA o I G'-'-'- .....?_?_?r?_?..... ? '-'-'- I?_?_?_?_?1 '_._._._.~. ) -? ' . . ' r. 'U'" o " " " ! W'CII"o o Plugging report indicated 108' of 8 5/8" set and cemented w/90 sacks cement. RRC determined there was no surface pipe in well. SWO from 203'-600'. SWO well deepened in 1964 to 2000+ feet. Contamination in 1968 caused by hole in casing which allowed salt water to be pumped into the zone from 200' to 300'. Knox Irrigation Well x Stephens ? 1969 - 1959 w .... Cost: $2206.40 TO 3509' 15 BPO salt water - 53,150 ppm cl. Well is offset of Unit Waterflood. Nearest injection well about 1800' South. Stephens 1969 ? 1969 - x 1921 Cost: $1,147.45. TO 3182. Originally plugged 1923. Hole full of mud and left 106' of 8 1/4" and 230' of 12 1/2" pipe in well. Adjacent well used as a disposal well but quit when leaking well was discovered. Throckmorton 1969 x - 1922 Cost: $953.45 TO 827' - leaking 10 BPO salt water. 350' injection well 600' NE of leaking well. Coleman Wood Land damage x 1969 1969 Ground water Land damage 1926 Cost: $817.60. Well offsetting a waterflood of a 400' sand x x 1925 Cost: $2,518.63 - leaking salt water 32,000 ppm cl TO 4991 originally plugged 1954. Offset lease SWO well has casing leak @ 200' which is contributing to problem. - 1951 TABLE 5. (continued) Knox 1970 Land damage x x 1957 w N Originally plugged 1957 TO 2400' - Form 4 indicates that 100' of surface pipe had been set and cemented with 40 sacks of cement. They al so reported that a cement plug was placed at the surface; however. we were able to run a string line to a depth of about 110'. so evidently this plug was not set. Two water injection systems in the area could be causing the well to leak. Disposal well seems to be the most likely source for the problem. A tracer survey revealed a hole in the pipe at a depth of 1800'. The two wells are 3000' apart. Knox 1970 Land damage Cost: $1676.50 - TO 1795 leaking 20-30 BPD salt water. Waterflood on adjoining lease 800' south of leaking well shut down in September. Presently injecting 100 BPD into well #10 about 1600' SE of leaking well. 1970 - x 1962 Well apparently started flowing Cooke salt water in 1961. There have been a number of breakouts in the past (1965-67) as a result of overcharged conditions in this area. Pressure on this well was measured @ 115 psi after it had been shut in 11 days. Injection from about 700-800 psi. Throckmorton Land damage - x ? Cost: $847.74 TO 4156 SWD well about 3/4 mile south of leaking well. 1970 Land damage x - 1961 TABLE 5. (continued) Cost: $1,216.23 - Injection project 1/2 mile away Haskell 1970 land damage x x ? TO 2350 - Cost: $1325.50 reportedly plugged with mud in 1960. Salt water leaking from hole in pipe just below steel cap. 75,700 ppm c1. SWO may have been the source of the leakage. Had hole in pipe at 1800 1 in 1969. Knox 1970 Ground water Stephens 1970 Gonzal es Creek x - 1960 Cost: $1185.48 ~O 3100' - well plugged by RRC in 1968. Began leaking again 5 BPO salt water, shallow zone charged by a bradenhead injection several years ago. Stephens 1970 Pecan Creek - 1921 w w Cost: $169.50 - TO 418. Several shallow disposal wells ranged in depth from 100-490' leaking well flowing salt water 88,000 ppm cl. Crane 1971 x - 1948 Cost: $2434.04. TO 2478. Water flow from the well is quite variable, ranging from no flow to an estimated 300 BPO. 142,000 ppm c1. Howard land damage - x 1934 Cost: $9560.04 - TO 2960' originally plugged 1947. leaking 75-100 BPO salt water 113,000 ppm c1. 1971 land damage large fresh water tank Mitchell 1971 land damage - x 1937 Cost: $3046.87 - wells standing open. A waterflood 4500' Sf of leak may be contributing. x 1965 TABLE 5. (continued) TO 1250 - leaking salt water 11.500 ppm. The leakage is apparently being caused by waterflood operations. Plugging report indicates that it was plugged with mud. Cooke Land damage . 1972 Young 1972 ? x - x 1935 TO 4050 - Cost $1338.21 flowing salt water 5-10 BPO. Originally plugged with mud. Annulus salt water disposal from 354'-2302' from April 1961 Feb. 1971. Young 1972 Land damage - 1950 w ~ Cost: $660.83 - seeping mud and salt water. Well is located about 3500' south of a $WO well. Howard 1972 'x x 1941 Cost: $871.25 - TO 2801' Injection of water at about 600 lbs. pressure may be contributing to the leak. Navarro Jack 1973 1973 Land damage 1958 Cost: $942.00 TO 1025 - leaking Land damage Surface and probably aquifer. Ci ty water wells 190-345' - not contaminated (9/73) 1 or more x ? Cost: $2952 - plugged 9/73 Flowing 500-800 bbls/day. Injection well 5500' from plugged well - not believed a problem 9/73 broke out (at injection well) on 11/30/73 flowing salt water and oil. 12/7/73 one of City wells went salty (150 ppm to 500 ppm) - 1936 (dri lled) 1941 (plugged) I, TABLE 5. (continued) Cost: $857.80 - TD 1020 - leaking 1/2 BPD apparently due to water injection on offset lease. Shacke1fo rd Land damage x 1973 Haskell Land damage 1974 x 1949 Cost: $96,041.46 - TD 5796 originally plugged 1954, replugged 1973 - salt water 10-15 BPD 24,900 ppm cl. Cooke Water well and trinity aquifer and surface 1974 3 1954 - 1956 w 1TI Cost: ? - plugged 3/74 - Salt water broke out in and around 60' water well - also mud and salt water appeared in vicinity of a dry hole 200' NW of water well. Base of fresh water 1300' (Trinity Sand). Found tubing leak in 2 of injection well s. Nearby 500' water well not now contaminated. Wichita 1974 Surface Cost: $1891 - plugged 1/75 1 or more Surface x 1953 1/29/75 mud and water forced way into house through cement slab of house. Flow decreased when injection stopped. Shackelford 1975 lIarri s 1975 1941 (Drilled) 1948 (Plugged w/mud only) Surface and probably ground water 3 Cost: $7,694 Plugged: 8/75 Flows salt water - Another old well leaked SW & abandoned 8/74 (near disposal well) 1 disposal well is WDS-38, permitted 4/68 3 disposal wells 3100'; 2700'; &2150' - Report connects flow from well w/injection rate of all three injection wells - 1920 I ----------- ----- plugging procedures in accordance with the rules at the time the well was plugged. A review of Table 5 indicates that land damage accounts for over 60 percent of the areas which were contaminated, while ground-water contamination was confirmed in only four of the cases and suspected in another two cases. Flowing abandoned wells provided the best documentation of ground-water contamination which could be linked to injection operations. Information for more recent years was obtained based on complaints and showed similar results. Table 6 contains a description of the complaint and findings for the period January 1979 through June 1980. Of the 31 complaints in which contamination problems were attributed to underground injection, eleven were found linked to abandoned wells which flowed at the surface and which could be associated with nearby injection operations. According to available information, no reports of ground-water contamination resulting from complaints about saline water in a water well were directly attributed to injection operations. Table 7 contains a summary of the information available for 1982. Of the 220 complaints received which alleged problems due to injection or disposal wells, there were 12 incidents of breakouts through abandoned or improperly plugged wells, 59 confirmed cases of surface problems and 149 cases where no pollution or damage occurred. The Commission further concluded that during 1982 no contamination of ground water was confirmed or documented. To better understand the difficulty in positively documenting ground-water contamination from injection operations, the following two case histories serve to illustrate the procedures and perseverence necessary to attempt to document a proble"," Case #1 Complaints from occupants of two farmhouses approximately one mile apart relating to increased chlorides and iron in well water were received by the Commission at approximately the same time. The houses were located in Sutton County in a sparsely populated area near a fairly new oil field which had been developed around 1959. The complainants indicated that they had never experienced any problems before. A quick reconnaissance of the area revealed that one field to the north of the houses was under waterflood and was producing at approximately 2700 feet. Another operator west of the houses had 4 producing wells and one disposal well. The water wells were developed in approximately 35 feet of alluvium at a depth of approximately 85 feet. The investigation began with a trial and error process to check the condition of wells in the area. Testing began with a braden head pressure test using fresh water. By testing the wells, one injection well was found to have holes in the tubing and the tubing was replaced; another well had a leak in the long string at 1400 feet which was subsequently repaired. Neither of these wells could be directly implicated as the source of the problem. An additional gas well located to the southwest of the houses was also checked for leaks. A leak in the casing two feet below the ground was found and subsequently repaired, but again, could not be confirmed as the source of the problem. Fluorescein dye was also used to try to confirm a source, but to date, no source of groundwater contamination has been documented despite an intensive field effort. 36 I TABLE 6. SYNOPSIS OF COMPLAINTS OF ALLEGED CONTAMINATION BY UNDERGROUND INJECTION, JANUARY, 1979 THROUGH JUNE, 1980 DATE RECEIVED COUNTY Archer Young Montague COMPLAINT 1/79 Breakout of abandoned well. Well replugged with State funds. Contributed to salt water injection programs on slirrounding leases. Complaint of two SWD* wells equipped with 4 1/2" casing only. apparent relative pollution problem. No 2/79 3/79 Water well contamination which complaining party believed contributable to nearby SWD well. Conclusion: No apparent violation re: SWD well. Contamination of well apparently due to coliform bacteria infiltration and high concentration of manganese in aquifer. Breakout of abandoned well. Well replugged by operator of adjacent lease. Breakout contributed to increased salt water injection on this lease. Complaint of stock pond contamination due to tubing or packer failure in SWI** well. Tubing replaced, problem resolved. ' Concern that newly completed SWD well would cause problems with nearby city water wells. Inspection revealed well properly equipped. Lab analyses of water samples revealed no contamination of city wells. No further complaints to date. Breakout of 3 abandoned wells. Wells reentered and replugged by operator of waterflood on adjacent lease. Breakout occurred as injection program expanded. Casing leak in SWD well resulting in salt water flowing to the ground surface. Well repaired, problem resolved. Complaint that revealed water replugged with flowing + 1000 contributed to newly drilled shallow well was salty. Inspection well had been 'drilled adjacent to abandoned well State funds September 4, 1973. Abandoned well was bbl/day salt water prior to replugging. Breakout SWI programs on surrounding leases. 3/79 Cooke W "'-l 3/79 Wise Archer 4/79 4/79 Wichita 4/79 Jack Young 5/79 TABLE 6.(contlnued) 6/79 Wichita Brackish water flowing into newly constructed stock pond. Complaintant believed nearby SWI well causing problem. Inspection revealed no apparent malfunction in SWI wells. Pond dug adjacent to irrigation ditch containing brackish water. This was concluded to be most probable cause of contamination. Complaint of salt water being injected down annulus of producing well. Situation rectified through pipeline severance. No apparent pollution problem. Tubing failure on SWI well on lease resulted in salt water flowing to the ground surface. Tubing replaced, area cleaned. Breakout of abandoned well. Replugged with State funds. Breakout contributed to increased secondary recovery operations in area. No particular SWI well found to be defective. Breakout of abandoned well. When nearby SWI well was shut in, flow from breakout ceased. SWI well recompleted, no further problems. Vegetative kill areas which ranch foreman felt was caused by nearby SWI wells. Inspection of wells revealed no apparent malfunction. Kill areas concluded to be due to abandoned pit localities upslope. Breakout of unidentified abandoned well in the community cemetery. Re-entered and replugged with State funds. Contributable to large waterflood operations to the north and west. Viewing the number of abandoned poorly plugged or unplugged wells in the cemetery and in the area, and the scope of secondary recovery operations in the area, this type problem ?can be expected to occur again at any time. Breakout of abandoned well. Well replugged with State funds. Contributable to workover of SWI wells on adjacent lease. Water well contamination which complainant felt was due to SWI wells on nearby lease. Tests showed no apparent malfunction of SWI wells. Area residents stated that this particular aquifer had been high in salt for ~ 30 years. Breakout of abandoned well on adjacent lease. Operator of adjacent lease reentered and replugged leaking well. Contributed to SWI well recently completed nearby in same lone. 9/79 Knox 10/79 Archer Archer 11/79 11/19 Archer Clay co w :.. 12/19 12/19 Wichita 1/80 Knox Clay 2/80 2/80 Archer TABLE 6.(contlnued) 3/80 Young Young Salt water flowing to ground surface due to tubing failure in SWI well. Tubing repaired. problem resolved. Seepage of brackish water near city. City feared contamination of nearby fresh water wells. Tests of nearby SWI wells revealed no apparent problems. Recent inspection revealed seep area has dried up. Appears to be contributab1e to abandoned pit locality nearby. Salt water flowing to the ground surface as the result of tubing failure. Tubing replaced, problem resolved. Salt water breakout. Well No.5 on adjacent lease was found to be equipped for SWI through 5 1/2" casing only. No.5 shut in, breakout ceased. Dug cellar in yard. pit filled with salt water. Found that cellar pit had been dug ~ 50 yards from prior.breakout locality. Breakout of abandoned well resulted in salt water filling fresh water pond. SWD well shut in and breakout ceased. Tubing leak and casing leak repaired, contaminated pond currently being pumped out. Complaint of salty water seep near property. Complainant felt nearby SWD well was causing problem. Test of SWD well revealed no apparent problem. Seep area surrounded by old salt scald areas. Apparently contributable to leaching of ground salts. Packer failure in No.4 SWI well on adjacent lease resulted in salt water flowing to the ground surface. Packer replaced, problem resolved. Breakout of abandoned well. breakout ceased. Tubing leak 1n nearby SWD well repaired. Pit dug while constructing grain elevator filled with brackish water. owner blamed nearby SWD well. Test of well revealed no apparent malfunction. Low chloride content of seep water led to conclusion of high ground water table. Substantiated by later reports and inquiries. 3/80 4/80 Archer Clay 4/80 4/80 Knox Archer W ~ 4/80 5/80 Wichita 5/80 Jack 5/80 Archer Wichita 5/80 TABLE 6.(conlinued) 6/80 Clay leakage from nearby SWD well resulted in salt water flowing to the ground surface and contaminated stock pond. SWD well to be plugged, contaminants currently being removed from affected pond. Complaint of salt water surfacing around SWD wells. Found to be result of tubing failure. Tubing replaced, problem rectified. 7/80 Cooke *salt water disposal **salt water injection a ~ ----- TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINTS INVOLVING INJECTION/DISPOSAL WELLS, JANUARY, 1982 THROUGH DECEMBER, 1982* PROBLEM OR FINDING **Salt water surface breakouts through unpl ugged or improperly pl ugged abandoned well s Salt water spills Injection/disposal wellhead leaks Flowline leaks Salt water in pits or firewall Salt water in waterway, drainageway, or di tches Bleed-off water to land surface Injection/disposal well pump leaks Salt water seeps immediately adjacent to injection/disposal well Salt water tank leak or overflow No damage or no pollution NUMBER OF WELLS 12 4 1 30 11 3 1 2 2 5 149 TOTAL 220 *No contamination of ground water was confirmed or documented. **These abandoned wells were plugged or re-plugged with state funds when a responsible operator could not be located. 41 Case #2 When a salt water breakout occurred in Limestone County, the breakout appeared to be definitely caused by injection well operations. The breakout occurred approximately 1800 feet away from a production and injection well which were located only 200 feet from each other. The field had been developed in the 1920's and production was from a depth of approximately 2900 feet. Well records showed two unidentifiable map symbols in the vicinity of the breakout. Testing of the quality of the breakout fluid and fluid being injected through the injection well indicated that the two were of approximately the same quality. The breakout was a source of particular problem because it was flowing into a lake which served as the source for a public water supply. The problem with documenting the source of the breakout was complicated when it was discovered that the breakout was on the opposite side of a fault from the production/injection wells. The injection well was shut in to determine if the breakout would stop. The flow was somewhat reduced, but did not stop. It was then thought that a nearby quarry may be contributing to the problem. In the interim, the operator of the disposal well volunteered to have 390 barrels of salt water a day hauled away from the breakout to help ease the urgency of the problem. The breakout site was found to be an abandoned unplugged borehole which was sUbsequently plugged with State funds. Additional cases of suspected problems, but unconfirmed documentation may thus make compilations of figures such as those found in Tables 5, 6, and 7 misleading because they do not convey the magnitude of the problem, only the documentation that a problem exists. 42 .f I APPENDIX A APPLICATION FORMS USED BY KCC IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE KANSAS UIC PROGRAM. To: STATE CORPOIlATIOII COIIlISSIOII COIISERVATIOII DIVISIOII - UIC SECTIOII 200 COlORADO lI:lIIY IlUIL.OIHG wICHITA, 1CAN5AS 67202 APPLlCATIOII FOR IIl:ECTIOII Ell DISPOSALDEHHAHCED OATE IlIoIIIt 110., _ ___.Swc.__,T_ _S.R_ _'/E feet ,... M/S _tion 11ne feet ,... '/E _tion 11ne L:;;;'" -....nptt_ 1IZLL 110. IlECD~yD _ Operator License ,' Operator: ~ress _I _ 1M.. _ , Field _0 _ _ _ County, _ eontlct ""rson _ , Deepest usable ..ter for..t1on Phone~,:...=?:::..:~:;:;;:;;;;:;;;;.;;; Depth 'e.t to zone bottOOl Old Well Being convertedD-IY Drilled Well D , e l l to be drllledD IIochdnlcal Integrity Test COIIIPI.t.d YES_NO_ DATE Fleldolan observing or ICheduled, tested/Scheduled _ Test results enclosecsD Not ilPPUelbleD Surface elevo _ _'eet. well Total Oepth_ _'eet, Plug INck depth_ _ 'eet IH:ECTIlIl FOIlMTIOII lI:SCRIPTIOII na.. top/bott... perf/open hoi. _ _/ _ _/ _ _ _ LIST 1. Z. (F depth to feet feet ---'at at to ':LLS SlI'PLYlNG SALT MTER (use extra sheet If needed) LEASE LEASE LEASE OPERATOR .~ lI:SCRIPTIOII WELL IDENT , l. 4. ~o 6. 7. 80 PRODUCING FilIM'TIlIl 1Z. STRATA a:PTH _ _to feet TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS _ _ _ _ _~"9/l J. 4. S. 6. 7. 8, liquid Injection Rate: or cal Injection Rat.: Injection Pressure: 11. . .... bbl/day, IIln_,_ _ bbl/day lef/day, N1n II:f/daY, Type IJI/ 91 1 _ " ' " - " p a l g , .... ~. t LI TIIOtOCY fro. Injection Zone up to Ulabl. ..to.. polg. p.l, Eotl. . ted ....1_ ..,. InJecti... preloure FOIII U-l Figure A-1. Application form for salt water disposal wells In the state of Kansas. 43 Malle and Addresses of those receiving copies of this application and attachlllents: OffSET OPERATOR' S AND LANDOWNERS CORRECT NAME HAILING AllORESS A notice of this application was placed in the following general circulation newspaper: Paper Mallle, Address Date of issue, Page of notice, _ _ I hereby certify that the statellents herein are true and correct to the best of knowledge and belief: II)' Applicant or DUly AuthoriZed Agent Subscribed and sworn to before lie this~ .day of ,19_ _o Nota ry PUblic My Co.ission E.pires INSTRUCTIONS 1. Attach plat ..ap showing subject well and all known, oU and gas wells abandoned,being drilled, and dry holes within 1/2 ..ile, giving nalle of operator, landowner, and all leases and wells to be connected to the system. Attach Drillers log (for.. ACO-1). Conservation Division. Appropriate Surety IIUst be on fUe with 2. 3. fill in schematic drawing of subsurface facUities including: Size, setting depth, anoount of cement used, Measured or calculated tops of celleRt of surface. interJWediate (if any) and production casing; size and setting depth of tubing; type and setting depth of packer; geological zone of injection showIng top and bottOM of tnj'ection interval. The original and 1 copy of application and attac"'ts shall be IIilUed to the State Corporation Co....ission; Deliver 1 copy of application to landowner on. whose land injection well is located and to each operator of the producing leasehold within 112 mUe of the well. Approval of this application, if granted, is valid only as long as there' is no substantial change in the operation set forth in the application. A substantial operation change requires the approval of a new application. 4. 5. 6. FH:ESS I .., 1...... 111.'11 l~'llllll. Hlil(?k. and SIIt"\""1 : i 1'\1""'" dC'llrlt or !lltH'f 11Il.! nll1 14 ClImpltllOn or fl"'t"lImplrllclfl datI' PSI PSI I:\STRUCTIONS: File an or1!(lnaJ and one copy ofthecompleted FormW-2ln the appropriate RRC IlIstrlct Officewllhin 30 da~'s after mmpletin/< a well and wtthin 10 days after a potential tesl. If an operator does not properly report the rt'SlIltS of a potenlial test wtthln the lO-day period. the effective date of the allowable assl/ pr~~:rlbni In~, 91 143. TtX8s Natural Htw>uITC"$COOt. that IamaulhorlzM1 10 makr IhIS"pon.lhat this rl'pon was prt'paff"d ~. II'M" fir undfor my SUPf'f'1Slun and chR"C'tlon. and thai dala and r.ts 5lalt'd Itwo",ln it"' truro t'Onttl. and C"om~tt. 10 Itwo bPsl or rnr knowltdllt Tltwor~non / Sumbtr / day Dalr 1M yt'ar Stanatuf"f' Figure C-3. 011 well potential test, completion or recompletlon report and log. 53 SH'TION II 24 T\'Pf' uf Complf'lIun DATA ON WZU- COMPLP:T10N AND LOG INa< Aequlrm on _ . } --T 12::~:-:"''''r-m-'-1 -o..,l:-)r,..'II,-----J)-~=T,..t:--,--Ic:?t":H-?'?-lI-:,..T,..'--,-1l l nf'f"I>>rIlIIl~ O 01 Pltl~ ftat'k 0 Olhf"r 0 Plu. Rat'k or 21) ~I!IH"t' 01 InlNlIlllll In Ilrtll tlu .......'f"11 ...?a~ 1IIt'd III ~amf' 1 I I I _.':' ' ' --,-:1''"' ::-:" Hulf' :17 !-.xIC'pllnll W.Uf'rlll~l"llt1n .__. ( i\~!-. \1 _ J I'n-(~n~l) '?rRlII 27 ~llmhC'r 01 pruchwln~ wrlls un 'hi,. lraY Ul 1111'" lIf"lri (ff"!'of"f'\'mrl Inl'lUttln2 Ihl,; INf'1I 21'4 TlIliiJ numbf'1 uf aut's In lhl'" 1r4l!"of' I s"tll Walf"f IJI... pc,.... tl P"mlll I'FH~1n ~ll ~ I).IIC' f'Iu~ lia('k (lfotoprnln,l{. WnrkO\'f'r or 1>rlllln2 ()prraI11m... I.. " ,111"11 III 'JII,?.I""'?llIl 1 1 ~.,.,.._,_::_c:::__:_.,.,..----,__---.,..-..L-,..,..-_:___:_,...,,:_------_,,__-_I Olh"r Cumrnt"f)('f"d :,1 CUmplf"IM ,-----1'!-.U~tl'I :'ofll I:SO IJISII?I,?tllllllf'f1 hV:Fldll 1 'hdflllldulOIllun ''''flnn W 0,,?, D Hlllt?... ; ----. I f-("I"III11WH.I,111t1ll "I rl,WI~ 1-t,1111l1,ld {"lIIll1l .... "llll!-, Jof" I,ll, ----CrT..-"IIA~llt'I _.D L1.!t I'll "IIA""" t'" I.. \o\,..IllIlulllph?' IIl11pl"lllIIl' I "I II m"IIIII'" l'll11plt'lillll 11 ..1 all f1?.... o........ 11 llolnw" I. \1;1'11, .mel 11111 ..?.1""'? "r(;;I .. Il>~o l,A!-'ll)llf 11111 (): \\'!-.I.I Flt-:UI" HESEU\'lHH II (Ill. I.EASE -I ; ?all l'llt?r.... II .. -~-;;'-,l?,'~"\? t "hit ]lnllt,,, i 1"..1 I [,",j.. .. C"I" C,! 11\ I \.tuw .. 1 IJnill~lo:-',-.-."-,,-.,,-,,-,, -+--------------------f------+l---fl----- .. ~.Il/'IIt.:\:tl,I."I' I . \II.I.11I"d 1< t .__n_..l~~~-=--=----= ==-==1. --==?---If----=-~~i_Q'.:., CAS[NG RECORD IRf'pon AU SUings ~ in WrUl -\~I'(,:-.llr. -????--'A~-:?~~:~I-I:;~I-? I MI?I.ns?IAc,E r()(JI.f)~J"Ill. I r"t?I'EIf''':'?1()I':''.;'C?E~1r:~TI""'tk'" -1:::~--II-II'()r (',\1r:~1 "'I.llm~ \111 , ~ I II II -.-----~~----+_-----------t----_.-----+_---------_+___....._~l -----_.- ?--?,-----:::T<::-lI,..,----r----~I::-'-."-"-m---'---S.u.k'-,~(.,..? o.-"->r-.,,~---ir-- I.l:\EU JU.COH.I) .-_. - --o -------t--------+ -r---- ----. ~Ii I'rnrllllllllo! IlIlrl"\ Iwplh ---------+----------+----------+----_._-_.. _---+-_._------+-------_. ------- ---------------------- -_. -----------------------------_._-_. Figure C-3. (continued) 54 RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS Type or print only 413-047 all and Gas DIvision I"'~ No Form G-l Rev. 4/1/83 42. 7. JUU Dtslnc'l No Gas Well Back Pressure Test. Completion or Recompletion Report. and Log I FIELD NAMt; la~ JM"f NHC ftf'f'ords or Wllde'all 12. U:A.Co)~ NAMfo: !I, Wi'll No c:c:=c-:-::=:-:-:-:::::-:::--;--.,----::----,----L.-------,.----- - - - - - :, Ol't:RATOH"S NAME lfo:xac-tJy a.IIi ~hown on Form 1'-5. Oraanll'.alilln Krponl NHe Oprrawf Nil. -t At)J)H:ESS , l.u("Cltlon (Sfo('llflll. Hh.x?k. and Sun..-yl ! - - - - wi'll - - - .. lit> 10 1"011111\" HI JI l"I'lMI~'ollllhIJt ISb. llllll.lll'nlt?nllal Ul:;lanN' and dlm'tlon lfl nran-sl lown Itl this c'nulll;.' 0 D D D fl If lIpt'rdlOr ha. . chanJtfd wuhln la.'\l 60 do,ays. . n,IOM" (nl'Tnf'r 0pt-ralnr 1:1 Plpr Lint" {'onnf'('lIun 12. If WIlrk,IlW'f or m:Iu."" AIWO fOrmPr (ltid lwllh n'M'rYnlr)" Gas 11) (lr nlllra!W" on "'I':I.JJ .. tU?:.o.;f-:RVOIH: I I GAS I() fir I Oil. U':ASt: " I Ga."i-G I I OU-O I I Wfo:l.l. o W"IIn-Plrc111lllv 1f':"I'I,111I In rt'fllilrk!' compwllon" 32 If mulllp~ romplt'llon. list all fl'5trYOlr narrlf'!\ or Gas 10 No" FlELD .. RESERVOIR komp~uons In thl~ ~III 0 36 V .. 0 No and 011 l...t'aM' GAS 10 or 1 011-0 WELL OIL LEASE? Gas-G . Of of L ' ? I I - e ' - - - - - 33" lnl,.,,-aJ ... ; HUIM\" o ("abhI Tnol~ 1'\.101... Orlllf"d ! 34 NalTlf' of Drllll~ ContnlC'tor , CASING RU:ORD (Report All Strlnga Set in Weill 35 Is ("t'ml'nlln~ AJrlll.l\11 AlIu('hl?d' 0 CASING SIZE ''!"t?s 0 So WI'. FT. DEPTH SET MULTISTAGE TOOL DEP'TH TIPE .. AMOUNT CEMENT (sacksl HOLE SIZE TOPor CEMENT i 1 Sl.l:H.H.Y \'01. ("\I ft I 31 S'" L[NER RECORD I TOP I I 3!l I I I Packf'r Sf't Bouam I I I SaC'ks CttMnt I I I S" dutct,on Irom , lnt'.rt'$l pasl 0"1(1' Of lOIll") 9 WEll ~.' SIZE I SETTING DEPTH SACKS CEMfNI rop Of CEMfNI WEll CASING 4NO TUBING lOP D?TERMINEO Bl HOLE SIZE r.SING W[I(,HT . . . .?!'? .... t'