Research Papers: Petroleum Engineering

A New Technique to Predict In Situ Stress Increment Due to Biowaste Slurry Injection Into a Sandstone Formation

[+] Author and Article Information
Sherif M. Kholy

Advantek Waste Management Services,
11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite #190,
Houston, TX 77042
e-mail: skholy@advantekinternational.com

Ahmed G. Almetwally

Advantek Waste Management Services,
11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite #190,
Houston, TX 77042
e-mail: agalal@advantekinternational.com

Ibrahim M. Mohamed

Advantek Waste Management Services,
11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite #190,
Houston, TX 77042
e-mail: imohamed@advantekinternational.com

Mehdi Loloi

Advantek Waste Management Services,
11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite #190,
Houston, TX 77042
e-mail: mehdi@advantekinternational.com

Ahmed Abou-Sayed

Advantek Waste Management Services,
11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite #190,
Houston, TX 77042
e-mail: asa@advantekinternational.com

Omar Abou-Sayed

Advantek Waste Management Services,
11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite #190,
Houston, TX 77042
e-mail: omar@advantekinternational.com

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Petroleum Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received February 26, 2018; final manuscript received September 17, 2018; published online October 12, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Ray (Zhenhua) Rui.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 140(12), 122905 (Oct 12, 2018) (9 pages) Paper No: JERT-18-1159; doi: 10.1115/1.4041542 History: Received February 26, 2018; Revised September 17, 2018

Underground injection of slurry in cycles with shut-in periods allows fracture closure and pressure dissipation which in turn prevents pressure accumulation and injection pressure increase from batch to batch. However, in many cases, the accumulation of solids on the fracture faces slows down the leak off which can delay the fracture closure up to several days. The objective in this study is to develop a new predictive method to monitor the stress increment evolution when well shut-in time between injection batches is not sufficient to allow fracture closure. The new technique predicts the fracture closure pressure from the instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) and the injection formation petrophysical/mechanical properties including porosity, permeability, overburden stress, formation pore pressure, Young's modulus, and Poisson's ratio. Actual injection pressure data from a biosolids injector have been used to validate the new predictive technique. During the early well life, the match between the predicted fracture closure pressure values and those obtained from the G-function analysis was excellent, with an absolute error of less than 1%. In later injection batches, the predicted stress increment profile shows a clear trend consistent with the mechanisms of slurry injection and stress shadow analysis. Furthermore, the work shows that the injection operational parameters such as injection flow rate, injected volume per batch, and the volumetric solids concentration have strong impact on the predicted maximum disposal capacity which is reached when the injection zone in situ stress equalizes the upper barrier stress.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Hanson, M. E. , Anderson, G. D. , and Shaffer, R. J. , 1980, “ Theoretical and Experimental Research on Hydraulic Fracturing,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 102(2), pp. 92–98. [CrossRef]
Mendelsohn, D. A. , 1984, “ A Review of Hydraulic Fracture Modeling—Part I: General Concepts, 2D Models, Motivation for 3D Modeling,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 106(3), pp. 369–376. [CrossRef]
Bautista, J. F. , and Taleghani, A. D. , 2016, “ The State of the Art and Challenges in Geomechanical Modeling of Injector Wells: A Review Paper,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 139(1), p. 012910. [CrossRef]
Kordzi, J. , 1998, “ Class 1 Fracture Slurry Injection: A Summary of the Technology and Recommendation for Implementation,” USEPA, Region 6, Report No. 1.
Vatsa, J. , and Wang, J. Y. , 2013, “ Fracture Height Containment in the Stimulation of Oriskany Formation,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 135(2), p. 022902. [CrossRef]
Wang, W. , and Taleghani, A. D. , 2014, “ Simulating Multizone Fracturing in Vertical Wells,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 136(4), p. 042902. [CrossRef]
Abou-Sayed, A. S. , Andrews, D. E. , and Buhidma, I. M. , 1989, “ Evaluation of Oily Waste Injection Below the Permafrost in Prudhoe Bay Field,” SPE California Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, CA, Apr. 5–7, SPE Paper No. SPE-18757-PA.
Willson, S. M. , Rylance, M. , and Last, N. C. , 1993, “ Fracture Mechanics Issues Relating to Cuttings Re-Injection at Shallow Depth,” SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Feb. 22–25, pp. 23–25, SPE Paper No. SPE/IADC 25756.
Guo, Q. , Abou-Sayed, A. S. , and Engel, H. , 2003, “ Feeling the Pulse of Drill Cuttings Injection Wells-A Case Study of Simulation, Monitoring and Verification in Alaska,” SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, Oct. 5–8, SPE Paper No. SPE-84156-PA.
Schmidt, J. H. , Friar, W. L. , Bill, M. L. , and Cooper, G. D. , 1999, “ Large-Scale Injection of North Slope Drilling Cuttings,” SPE/EPA Exploration and Production Environmental Conference, Austin, TX, Mar. 1–3, SPE Paper No. SPE-52738-MS.
Abou-Sayed, A. S. , Zaki, K. , and Summers, C. , 2004, “ Management of Sour Gas by Underground Injection-Assessment, Challenges, and Recommendations,” SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary, AB, Canada, Mar. 29–31, SPE Paper No. SPE-86605-MS.
Baker, B. D. , Englehardt, J. M. , and Reid, J. D. , 1999, “ Large Scale NORM/NOW Disposal Through Slurry Waste Injection: Data Analysis and Modeling,” SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, Oct. 5–8, SPE Paper No. SPE-56491-MS.
Veil, J. A. , 2003, “ Innovative Technologies for Managing Oil Field Waste,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 125(3), pp. 238–248. [CrossRef]
EPA, 1999, “ Biosolids Generation, Use, and Disposal in the United States,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division, Washington, DC, Report No. EPA 530-R-99-009.
Diaz, L. F. , Savage, G. M. , Trezek, G. J. , and Golueke, C. G. , 1981, “ Biogasification of Municipal Solid Wastes,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 103(2), pp. 180–185. [CrossRef]
Gulyurtlu, I. , Helena Lopes, M. , Abelha, P. , Cabrita, I. , and Oliveira, J. F. , 2005, “ The Study of Partitioning of Heavy Metals During Fluidized Bed Combustion of Sewage Sludge and Coal,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 128(2), pp. 104–110. [CrossRef]
Güell, B. M. , Sandquist, J. , and Sørum, L. , 2012, “ Gasification of Biomass to Second Generation Biofuels: A Review,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 135(1), p. 014001. [CrossRef]
Bruno, M. S. , 2008, “ Keynote Lecture - Slurry Fracture Injection Of Petroleum and Municipal Sanitation Wastes,” Fifth Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium, Tehran, Iran, Nov. 24–26, SPE Paper No. ISRM-ARMS5-2008-004.
Abou-Sayed, A. S. , Guo, Q. , Wang, G. , McLennan, J. D. , and Zaki, K. , 2002, “ Challenges for Monitoring and Verification of Drill Cuttings Reinjection Performance,” SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference, Irving, TX, Oct. 20–23, SPE Paper No. SPE-78186-MS.
Barree, R. D. , Barree, V. L. , and Craig, D. P. , 2009, “ Holistic Fracture Diagnostics: Consistent Interpretation of Prefrac Injection Tests Using Multiple Analysis Methods,” SPE Prod. Oper., 24(3), pp. 396–406.
Nolte, K. G. , 1979, “ Determination of Fracture Parameters From Fracturing Pressure Decline,” SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 23–26, SPE Paper No. SPE-8341-MS.
Mohamed, I. M. , Nasralla, R. A. , Sayed, M. A. , Marongiu-Porcu, M. , and Ehling-Economides, C. A. , 2011, “ Evaluation of After Closure Analysis Techniques for Tight and Shale Gas Formations,” SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, TX, Jan. 24–25, SPE Paper No. SPE-140136-MS.
Kholy, S. M. , Mohamed, I. M. , Loloi, M. , Abou-Sayed, O. , and Abou-Sayed, A. , 2017, “ Development of an Empirical Equation to Predict Hydraulic Fracture Closure Pressure From the Initial Shut-in Pressure After Treatment,” SPE Liquids-Rich Basins Conference—North America Held in Midland, TX, Sept. 13–14, SPE Paper No. SPE-187495-MS.
Horner, D. R. , 1951, “ Pressure Build-Up in Wells,” Third World Petroleum Congress, The Hague, The Netherlands, May 28–June 6, SPE Paper No. WPC-4135.
Elkatatny, S. , 2018, “ Application of Artificial Intelligence Techniques to Estimate the Static Poisson's Ratio Based on Wireline Log Data,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 140(7), p. 072905. [CrossRef]
Canady, W. , 2011, “ A Method for Full-Range Young's Modulus Correction,” SPE North American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, TX, June 14–16, SPE Paper No. SPE-143604-MS.
Eaton, B. A. , 1969, “ Fracture Gradient Prediction and Its Application in Oilfield Operations,” SPE J. Pet. Technol., 21(10), pp. 1353–1360. [CrossRef]
Chang, O. , Kinzel, M. , Dilmore, R. , and Wang, J. , 2018, “ Physics of Proppant Transport Through Hydraulic Fracture Network,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 140(3), p. 032912. [CrossRef]
Mohamed, I. M. , Block, G. , Kholy, S. M. , Abou-Sayed, O. , and Abou-Sayed, A. , 2016, “ Accurate Forecasts of Stress Accumulation During Slurry Injection Operations,” 50th U.S. Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, June 26–29, SPE Paper No. ARMA-2016-365.
Warpinski, N. R. , 2000, “ Analytic Crack Solutions for Tilt Fields Around Hydraulic Fractures,” Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, Report No. SAND2000-0045J.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

G-function analysis for the biosolids injector

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Injection history of the biosolids injector

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Wireline well logs for the biosolids injector

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Injection test falloff data for the biosolids injector

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

log–log diagnostic plot for the biosolids injector

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

G-function analysis for four injection batches in the biosolids injector

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Predicted fracture closure pressure for the biosolids injector

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Stress increment evaluation for different injection intervals

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Mechanical properties' calculations for the biosolids injector

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Pressure and stress estimations for the biosolids injector



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In