Brine Disposal Reservoirs 

in the Appalachian Basin: 

Injection Performance 

and Geological Properties

Joel Sminchak, John Miller, and Neeraj Gupta

Battelle, Columbus, Ohio

Ground Water Protection Council 2015 Annual UIC Meeting

February 9-11, 2015 Austin, Texas
Outline

1. Project Overview/Background

2. Geological/Class 2 Operational 

Data Collection

3. Reservoir Analysis

4. Injection Performance Analysis

5. Local-scale Analysis of injection 

zones

6. Local-scale injection simulations 

7. Conclusions/Future Work
• Project funded by RPSEA/DOE-NETL under their 2011 

Unconventional Onshore Program (contract 11122-73)

• Period of Performance: 2 years from 4/1/2013 to 3/31/2015

• Project team: Battelle, KY, OH, PA, WV Geological Surveys 

NSI Tech.

• Material reflects team contributions!

Project Overview

U.S. DOE/NETL
• This material was prepared by Battelle as an account of work sponsored by the 

Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA). Neither members of 

RPSEA, the National Energy Technology Laboratory, the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Battelle, nor any person acting on behalf of any of the entities:

• MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT 

TO ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, OR USEFULNESS OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN 

THIS DOCUMENT, OR THAT THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, OR 

PROCESS DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT INFRINGE PRIVATELY OWNED 

RIGHTS, OR

• ASSUMES ANY LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF, OR FOR ANY AND ALL 

DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE USE OF, ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, OR 

PROCESS DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.

• THIS IS A SUMMARY REPORT. THE DATA, CALCULATIONS, INFORMATION, CONCLUSIONS, 

AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS REPORTED HEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

• REFERENCE TO TRADE NAMES OR SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS, COMMODITIES, 

OR SERVICES IN THIS REPORT DOES NOT REPRESENT OR CONSTITUTE AN 

ENDORSEMENT, RECOMMENDATION, OR FAVORING BY RPSEA OR ITS CONTRACTORS 

OF THE SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, COMMODITY, OR SERVICE.

Project Overview: Disclaimer
• Objective- Provide an understanding of the geology and 

operational history for Class 2 brine disposal in the 

Appalachian Basin to support safe, reliable, and 

environmentally responsible brine disposal in the region.

Injection Test/Data Analysis

Operational Data

Reservoir Simulations

Geotechnical Tests Geological Analysis

Project Overview
Background- Demand for Brine Disposal

• Growth in shale gas = increased 

demand for Class II brine disposal.

• Geologic/regulatory constraints in 

other states leading to commercialscale facilities in western Appalachian 

basin, especially in eastern Ohio.

• The geologic and reservoir parameters 

of injection zones poorly understood -

planned assessment is required to 

meet long-term demand.

• Concerns about potentially low 

injectivity, fracture pressure 

constraints, and induced seismicity.
Background – Study Area

• Study area includes 

Eastern Kentucky, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, and West 

Virginia.
Background – Class 2 UIC Wells

• Note: Class 2 UIC includes both brine disposal wells and EOR wells. 

This project addresses brine disposal wells only.
• Source areas are most intense along Marcellus trend.

• Few disposal wells near the most intense well density.

Background- Brine Disposal Sources
Background – Geology

• Diverse range of injection 

zones are present in the 

Appalachian Basin.

• Injection spread from 

Mississippian age 

sandstones to Cambrian 

Basal sands.

‘Big Injun’

Bradford

‘Newburg’-

Lockport Oriskany

‘Clinton’-

Medina Rose Run

Trempealeau-Copper Ridge Mt. Simon
Background – Geology

• Injection 

zones reflect 

regional 

geology with 

younger 

zones more 

prevalent into 

the basin in 

WV, PA, and 

KY.

(based on deepest 

injection interval)
Class 2 Operational Data

• Class 2 UIC brine disposal monthly operational data was obtained 

from UIC programs for 2008-2012:

• Data was tabulated from permit reports and evaluated with statistics, 

graphs, and maps based injection formations, depths, locations.

• We looked at 2008-2012 time period and 2012.

• As of ~August 2013, records showed approximately 324 Class II 

brine disposal wells with active permits in the study area.

State Class II Status Regulatory Agency

Kentucky Regional Implementation USEPA Region 4 UIC Program

Ohio State Primacy Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources Division of Oil & Gas

Pennsylvania Regional Implementation USEPA Region 3 UIC Program

West Virginia State Primacy West Virginia Dept. of Env. Protection Office of Oil & Gas

Class II Injection Wells E. KY OH PA WV Total

Active Brine Disposal Wells 30 211 7 76 324

Inactive/Abandoned Brine Disposal Wells 15 461 14 44 534

EOR Wellsa ~1,200 ~1,700 ~1,800 ~650 ~5,400

a. Source: USEPA Class II survey data
Class 2 Operational Data

• Survey data show brine disposal volumes doubled from 2008-2012.
Class 2 Operational Data

Statistic

2012 Total 

Volume

(BBL/well)

2012 Avg. 

Monthly Volume 

(BBL/mo)

2012 Avg. 

Wellhead 

Pressure (psi)

Count >0 218 218 174

Max 766,596 120,976 2,384

Mean 80,620 7,061 628

Median 32,015 2,668 543

STD 122,317 12,293 480

• We generally focused on monthly injection rates, volumes, days 

active, and wellhead pressures as reported.

• The status of Class II brine disposal wells is highly variable. Data 

should not be considered a definitive list of Class II wells. This 

information is maintained by state or regional EPA UIC programs and 

changes frequently.
Class 2 Operational Data

• Many existing Class II 

brine disposal wells 

from the 1980s were 

used initial disposal 

(most of these wells 

were related to ‘Clinton’ 

development in Ohio).

• More wells have 

recently been installed 

to meet demand for 

brine disposal.
Class 2 Operational Data

• This research focuses on 

2008-2012 since that 

operational data was 

available at the time we 

collected data from UIC 

programs.

• Over 30 new Class II 

brine disposal well 

permits since 2012 in the 

Appalachian Basin, 

including 5 in 

Pennsylvania.
• Summary of Class 2 Brine Disposal Total Injection Volume in 2012 by 

Deepest Injection Formation.

• Data may reflect well activity more than injection capacity/performance.

Class 2 Operational Data

2012 Well Count 2012 Total 

Injection Volume
Class 2 Operational Data

• Summary of Class 2 Brine Disposal Total Injection Volume in 2012 by 

Deepest Injection Formation.

• Data may reflect well activity more than injection capacity/performance.

2012 Average

Injection Rate

(bbl/month)

2012 Average

Wellhead Injection

Pressure (psi)
Operational Data- Field Operations Monitoring

Objective

• Monitor wellhead pressure/flow for existing Class 2 Brine 

disposal wells to estimate reservoir properties for injection 

zones in the Appalachian Basin.

Methods

• Provide wellhead loggers to operators during routine 

operation/injection cycles.

• Complete pressure falloff/buildup analysis to estimate 

reservoir properties.

• Data also provided better understanding of operational 

cycles in relation to reservoir properties.
‘Clinton’-Medina

-Five Silurian ‘Clinton’-Medina wells monitored.

-4 Wells run continuously at high pressure and rate, showing no falloff.

-1 well had limited injection testing (~50 minutes step rate injection and 

well went on vacuum) made analysis uncertain. Best guess analysis = 

17 mD across 160 ft. 

Well 1

Well 2

Well 3

Well 4

Well 5 Well Test
Lockport - ‘Newburg’

-Injection cycles monitored on Newburg 

Class 2 injection well

-Well showed several pressure fall off 

cycles.

-Analysis suggests ~5 mD across 94 ft. 
Knox (Rose Run-Copper Rdg)

-Injection cycles monitored on a Knox (Rose 

Run-Copper Ridge) injection well

-Well showed several pressure fall off cycles.

-Analysis suggests 3 mD across 124 ft. 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

8/26/148/27/148/28/148/29/148/30/148/31/14

9/1/149/2/149/3/149/4/149/5/149/6/149/7/149/8/149/9/14

9/10/149/11/149/12/14

Injection Rate (BPM)

Pressure (psi)

Line Pressue Injection Rate

2 3 4 5

Chapin #7 Straight-Line Plot (cycle 5 fall-off)

2650

2700

2750

2800

2850

2900

2950

3000

3050

p (psi(a))

1017 3 1016 3 1015 3 1014 3 1013 3 1012 3 1011 3 1010 3 109 3 108 3 107 3 106 3 105 3 104 3 103 3 102 3 101 3 1.0

Superposition Radial Time ( t) (h)

pdata pi

Analysis 1

(kh/)t 746.54 mdft/cP

kh 413.5585 md.ft

w 0.5540 cP

h 124.000 ft

k 3.3351 m d

s' -6.536

p* 2660.2 psi(a) pwfo 3206.4 psi(a)
Local scale analysis of Injection Zones

• Local scale geological analysis of injection zones completed for 7 

areas to define distribution of formations in relation to operational 

history. 
Local scale analysis of Injection Zones

Elliott

Morgan

3-

00 - 15

-2

0

05

50

- 250

05 -2

250

200

052

0

-

2

0

-

51-

0 1-

0

150

100

05

0

05-

- 50

- 100

- 150

- 150

003-

0 4-

05 -3

054-

05-

- 676

-35- 546

- 1, 099 - 160

-122

-68- 181

-157

FEET

0 11,857 Any Raster Log IS PRESENT

Any Digital Log IS PRESENT

PETROLEUM RESOURCES

GILLUM, ALBERT

G1A

16063001600000

87598

ISON, SAMUEL M

ISON, SAMUEL M

1

16063000780000

30889

PETERS OIL & GAS CO

PETERS, PAUL J

1

16063000850000

36167

FANNIN, ROY & HOMER

GILLIAM, JESSE K

2

16063004950000

77974

CARSON ASSOCIATES, INC

HAY, MARTIN (TRACT1)

3

16127007730000

36131

RELIANCE OIL CORP

SPARKS, NOAH

3

16127000670000

11573

RELIANCE OIL CORP

SPARKS, NOAH

2

16127000680000

11572

ABARTA OIL & GAS CO, INC WARD, J ET AL

1 SWD

16127029200000

139274

High Bridge Gp

Elliott

KY

Borden Fm

Elliott

KY

Berea Ss

Elliott

KY

Weir Sd

Elliott

KY

Berea Ss

Lawrence

KY

Borden Fm

Lawrence

KY

Borden Fm

Lawrence

KY

Ohio Sh

Lawrence

KY

Borden Fm

Stray Weir

1st Weir

2nd Weir 600 700 800 900 800 900 1000 1100 600 700 800 900

Rel

Depth(ft)

Rel

Depth(ft)

-100 -100

0 0

100 100

200 200

300 300

400 400

500 500

600 600

• Example: Weir sandstone in Eastern 

Kentucky.

• Tabular sandstone used for local 

disposal.

• Injection on downdip monocline with 

sealing fault.
Local scale analysis of Injection Zones

• Example: Lockport-Newburg in NE Ohio.

• Most injection in the Lockport targeted carbonate buildups.

• Reefal trends in the Lockport will aid in predicting zones with potentially 

high porosity

• .
Local scale analysis of Injection Zones

• Example: 

Upper 

Devonian 

Bradford in PA.

• Thin, 

discontinuous 

sands with 

limited injection 

potential.

W E
Local scale analysis of Injection Zones

• Example: Big Injun Sandstone in central WV.

• Injection may be influenced by local structures.
Reservoir Performance Analysis

• Results of the geological analysis and operational data were 

evaluated for indicators of reservoir performance.

• More detailed ‘relative injectivity index’ analysis was completed for 

monthly operational data for indicators of reservoir performance. 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

Porosity-Ft

Barrels

CLINTON

LOCKPORT

Formation

Average Monthly Injection vs Porosity-Ft
Reservoir Performance Analysis

• ‘Relative injectivity index’ analysis provided more qualitative indicator 

of injection performance over time for 24 wells.

• (Injectivity Index = Injection Rate/Delta Pressure)

Example- Lockport-‘Newburg’ Injection 

Well (10+ years of operational data shows 

decrease in injectivity index)

Example- Mount Simon/Basal Sandstone 

Well (10+ years of operational data shows 

steady injectivity index)
Geocellular Model Development

• Geocellular models developed for key injection zones to provide 

basis for injection simulations.

‘Clinton’-Medina

Knox-Basal Sand

Lockport-Newburg

Weir Sandstone
Injection Simulations

Objective- Simulate brine injection process to assess pressure buildup 

and fluid migration effects.

Methods- Run variable density flow simulations based on local 

geocellular models for injection zones in App. Bsn. (Weir, ClintonMedina, Newburg, Knox-Basal SS).

Weir SS

Knox-Basal SS ‘Clinton’-Medina

Lockport-Newburg
Weir Sandstone

-Model based on Weir injection well in W. Appalachian basin.

-78 BBL/day injection rate 10 yrs

-Anticline structure with sealing fault

VE = 10X

VE = 10X

Simulated Salinity, 125,000 ppm injection fluid 

at 3650 days X 78 BBL/day

Simulated Pressure (Max Delta P = 355 psi)
Clinton-Medina

Simulated Salinity, 125,000 ppm injection fluid at 3650 days X 1250 BBL/day

Simulated Pressure (max delta P = >1500 psi)

-Model based on composite data from 4 wells in central App.Bas.

-Formation salinity set at 150,000 mg/L, Injection rate = 1250 bbl/day for 

10 years (based on nearby wells typical rates).
Knox to Basal Cambrian Sandstone

Simulated Pressure Max Pressure Buildup = ~497 PSI

• Permeability assigned based on NMR log est. permeability by layer.

• Well screened from Copper Ridge-Rome.

• Low density (125,000 ppm) and high density (250,000 ppm) injection 

simulated @ 450 bbl/day for 10 years.

Simulated Salinity, 250,000 ppm injection fluid at 3650 days X 450 BBL/day
Lockport Dolomite 

“Newburg” At time = 0 yrs

At time = 5 yrs

of injection

At time = 10 yrs

of injection

At time = 25 yrs after 

end of injection

• Simulated salinity profile 

through time.

• 10 years injection, 15 yrs

post-injection.

• 10 years injection @ 300 bbl/day.

• Formation salinity 278,000 ppm, 

injection 200,000 ppm.
Conclusion/Future Work

1. Existing brine disposal framework reflects historical oil & gas 

developments in the Northern Appalachian Basin. Since 2003, 

unconventional shale gas production has increased demand for 

Class 2 brine disposal, including more fluid related to well 

treatment/flowback along with produced water.

2. There are a wide variety of injection zones used for Class 2 brine 

disposal in the N. Appalachian Basin, and they vary in character, 

distribution, and injection potential.

3. Historical operational data provides useful information on safe 

operating ranges for brine injection wells (monthly injection rates, 

injection pressures) which will be useful for operators. However, 

sometimes data merely reflects well activity.
Conclusion/Future Work

5. Integrating geologic data with operational data proved challenging, 

and many wells only provided indicators of reservoir performance.

6. Field monitoring of injection operations was used for pressurefalloff analysis, which indicated moderate reservoir permeability 

which may be a limiting factor on injectivity.

7. Local scale analysis of injection zones provided a better 

understanding of the subsurface geological features, which appear 

to affect injection performance over times.

8. Reservoir simulations show estimated pressure and variable 

density effects of injection are present mostly near the injection 

well. There appears to be little additional brine migration related to 

variable density effects after injection stops.
The End. Thanks!