SPE 86605
Management of Sour Gas by Underground Injection – Assessment, Challenges
and Recommendations
Ahmed S. Abou-Sayed, SPE, Advantek International Corporation; Karim Zaki, SPE, Advantek International Corp.; Chris
Summers, Advantek International Corp.
Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at The Seventh SPE International Conference on
Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production held in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 29–31 March 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Many of the world’s Mega-fields (> 1 billion barrels of
reserves) contain sour gas, a blend of natural gas and hydrogen
sulfide (H2S), either alone or in combination with carbon
dioxide (CO2). H2S gas is extremely toxic, the combination
of H2S and CO2 (Acid Gas - AG), can be highly corrosive, the
elemental sulphur reacts with water to form acid rain, and CO2
is now recognized as a significant green house gas. Where
there is a demand for the natural gas, and capacity to separate
the components, the H2S and CO2 can be separated out.
However, these components must be managed in a cost-effect
way and according to regulatory requirements to maximize
recovery of hydrocarbons and minimize AG safety and
environmental impacts. To date, the CO2 components have
typically been vented to the atmosphere, and sulphur has been
produced for industrial uses. Novel step changes are needed
to handle the large sour gas volumes to be produced by the
mega-fields under development in the Caspian Sea and Middle
East regions.
Underground injection and sequestration of E&P
associated streams (such as produced water, drill cuttings
slurries, and production/completion return fluids) have been
practiced for many years by the industry; sour gas injection is
a relatively new technology. This paper reviews comparative
economic and risk analyses of various H2S management
options available to developing middle East and Caspian
fields, considering: the impact on recovery (including rate,
ultimate total volume, engineering capacity), the health and
safety risks, impact on environment, reputation consequences,
implementation (including construction and operation
complexity), and regulatory Issues (based on current North
American standards, recent judicial actions, and Kyoto
Protocols). Emphasis is given to H2S gas injection in
improved oil recovery (IOR) projects/schemes because:
• It is an environmentally sound solution that manages both
H2S and other green house gases.
• It provides for permanent, reliable storage and eliminates
current taxation (in foreign countries) or future liability
associated with emissions and/or surface storage of
sulphur. For example, one operator in the Caspian Sea
was recently fined several million dollars US because of
sulphur storage above ground.
• Compared with other options, H2S injection can reduce
acid production, dust generation and avoid adverse impact
on agriculture and aquaculture, thus it improve the
operator's image and reputation with local community.
• It is the easiest sulphur-handling method to implement, as
it uses established technologies, without requiring
sulphur-separation plant and equipment.
• H2S mixture has better sweeping efficiency than CO2 or
sweet gas alone, therefore H2S injection may increase
recoverable hydrocarbon in an EOR or IOR schemes.
• It has the opportunity for favorable economics, both in
terms of operating cost (lower energy, no storage
operations) and by improving production through use in
IOR schemes.
Introduction
Recent activities in the Caspian Sea and the Middle East
deal with reservoirs that typically contain oil, water and high
concentrations of sour gas. The successful production of the
oil will require careful management of surface resources (land,
water, and power), subsurface resources (hydrocarbons), and
E&P associated streams (produced water, non-saleable
products, and other wastes). To meet regulatory requirements
and satisfy public expectations on waste emissions, the key
elements of a robust associated stream management strategy
should achieve the following principles:
(a) Maintain the integrity of safety in the operations by
minimizing the risks to human health and
environmental damage (PROTECT)
(b) Maximize value of the development through informed
choices (PRESERVE)
(c) Convert waste into resource (REUSE/RECYCLE)
(d) Minimize the production of waste (REDUCE)
For example, countries enveloping the the Caspian Sea
(Kazakhstan and others) are in transition toward a free market
2 SPE 86605
in energy and encouraging foreign investment, but at present
there is far less demand for gas than the expected large
volumes of associated sour gas to be produced from the Mega
Fields in the area (Tengiz, Uzen, Karachaganak, and
Kashagan, etc.). Except for Karachaganak, these fields are not
connected to national gas marketing pipeline infrastructure, so
the bulk of the associated gas is used at field locations for
local power or reinjected for reservoir pressure maintenance.
The composition of both the associated and solution gas
from these Caspian fields contains up to 20% H2S and upward
of 5% CO2. Despite the small percentage of gas processing,
the excess H2S resulting from gas and liquids separation is
expected to generate some 15,000-20,000 tonnes of sulphur
per day in Kazhakstan alone. At Tengiz field, separated H2S
is converted to solid sulphur and stored in surface
accumulations. Uzen’s development is being held up, waiting
on an export pipeline system to China, for processing there.
Kashagan Development may produce thousands of tonnes of
sulphur per day during field plateau. Other Caspian-area
discoveries are also reported to contain H2S, requiring a
regional management strategy.
There is currently no local sulphur-consuming industrial
demand in the Caspian area. Furthermore, there is a
worldwide market glut of sulphur (from the mega-fields of the
Middle East and from Canadian gas fields). The current
global supply of sulphur, at approximately 64.5 Million
Tonnes per year, exceeds the current worldwide yearly
consumption of 62 Million Tonnes. This oversupply is only
expected to widen and could reach an overwhelming excess of
more than 14 Million Tonnes by 20121. The oil industry, then,
is faced with being the major and only player in the sulphur
production business. Mined sulphur supplies have dwindled to
leass that 15% of the current demand.
Key Risks
There are many risks associated with developing a sour gas
field in a remote location in the Middle East or Central Asia
regions. For the purposes of this assessment, we have
assumed that gas prodcurion will exceed local/regional
demands and that sour gas injection schemes are existing as
part of thew over field’s development plans. Hence, we would
only consider relative changes in risks associated with
handling the excess sour gas or the separated acid gas. These
risks are addressed in detail in the option discussion (section
3), and include:
• Integrating acid gas injection (AGI) with other operations
• Fire or explosion from incremental equipment
• Human reaction to H2S exposure (toxicity)
• Environmental impact resulting from H2S Leakage
• Leakage through incremental plant and equipment
• Leakage through rotating equipment
• Operational inexperience
• Quality of emergency equipment
• Start up and operating injection equipment
• Reservoir Souring
• Break out of injection zone (only if fractures are created)
1
Source Sulphur Institute, DC, USA, presentation at the SPE ATW,
Stresa, Italy, November, 2003
Sulphur Management Options in Offshore Fields
A typical Caspian Sea development utilizes the majority of the
associated gas for reinjection while a smaller percentage of the
associated gas shipped onshore for processing into fuel and
sales gas. Onshore, the associated gas is sweetened and the
residual acid gas must be managed. The separated H2S may
be converted to solid material and stored onshore (above or
below ground), and the separated CO2 is vented to the
atmosphere. Alternatively, the acid gas may be disposed by
injection into a disposal zone or disposal well, which
sequesters the CO2 as well. Or, the acid gas may be mixed
with the associated gas reinjection stream to supplement the
reservoir management program. The current analysis shows
the highly valuable advantages of this last option over the
other choices for H2S management.
Production Stream
Main Separators
Sour Liquid Sour Gas Sour Gas
Injection
Onshore Plant
Sweet Liquid Sweet Gas Acid Gas
CO2
Vented
100% Solid Sulphur 0% Solid Sulphur
Production, 0% H2S Production, 100%
Injection H2S injection
SS: Surface
storage of
SDI: Downhole
inject Sulphur
AGD: Disposal
well inject Acid
AGI: inject Acid
Gas for
Sulphur Slurry Gas Incremental
H2S Management Options
Figure 1: Schematic Flow Diagram, Options for Managing
Acid Gas Components and By-produxts
Four options were analyzed and compared for managing H2S
extracted from the raw-gas sweetening process:
• Solid Generation (Base Case):
This is the base case for comparison purposes. In this case
the produced gas is separated offshore at Production Central
Stations and a fixed amount of gas is sent onshore for export
to market or to insure an adequate power supply for the plants
and facilities. Gas composition was assumed to be 75% sweet
natural gas, 20% H2S and 5% CO2. The acid gas components
are treated as waste: the CO2 is vented and the H2S is
converted to solid sulphur blocks and stored above ground.
1. Solid Storage & Disposal at end of the
operating contract (SS):
The base case assumes all unsold sulphur is turned over to
the Host Country at the end of production. However, recent
regulatory enforcement by foreign Souvreigns (e.g., Tengiz
field at Kazakhstan) resulted in large fines and taxes being
levied on the operator for continuous surface storage of very
visible, very large piles of sulphur. It is likely that leaving the
sulphur at the storage location may not be acceptable to the
host government or nearby communities. In this option the
sulphur is disposed at the end of field life by being grinded,
slurrified and injected below ground. Incremental
SPE 86605 3

development costs come from disposal wells, slurrification Middle East regions are expected to depress the price for
facilities, and from the operating cost of the disposal injectors. produced sulphur during the next decades of development and
2. Solid Disposal by Injection (SDI): possibly over the full life of some of these developments.
Acid gas converted to CO2 and elemental sulphur. CO2 is Managing the sulphur will require operators to invest in
vented; sulphur is slurrified and disposed by injection similar developing new competencies and new markets/uses for the
to Drill Cutting Injection (DCI) in an appropriate subsurface product. The relative economic value of this option is the
disposal zone. In this option the long-term storage cost of the lowest of the four, primarily due to provision for OPEX and
solid sulphur is eliminated and the sulphur is assumed to be foreign country taxation laws and potential fines.
injected as it is produced. The injection scheme occurs over a
longer period of time and requires fewer injector wells than
the previous case.
1. Acid Gas Sequestration and Disposal (AGD):
Concentrated acid gas is injected into an appropriate
disposal reservoir. This option eliminates the need for the
costly sulphur recovery units and minimizes the number of
wells needed for disposal, but makes no use of the energy or
chemistry in the disposed products.
2. Acid Gas Injected (AGI):
Concentrated acid gas is returned to the producing
reservoir as part of an EOR scheme. The incremental benefits
are referred to as Incremental EOR (IOR). All the H2S and
CO2 acid gas is injected back into the formation. As with
option 3, this case avoids costly capital investment. This
option also offers additional upside over the gas sequestration
option by improving miscible sweep properties and increasing Figure 2: Trend in Sulphur price and supply
ultimate recovery.
Health, Safety and Environmental aspects
Industry Experience with Proposed Options Based on research carried out in the US and Canada there is
no evidence of significant health risk of poisoning associated
All four of these options will require the use of innovative or
with elemental sulphur. Any toxicity risks are due to the
relatively-new technologies, but each has been demonstrated
presence of gases such as H2S and the oxides of sulphur. The
in some way by analogy, small-scale trials, or in a limited
safety risks associated with elemental sulphur concern fire and
number of operating cases. There are only two documented
the consequences of fire. Mixtures of dust suspended in air
examples of contained storage of solid sulphur. One is an
are easily ignited at all ambient temperatures by sparks or
experimental storage of small volumes by Syncrude Ltd. in
static if oxygen is present above 8%. Lower Explosive Limit
Canada in 1999. The other is the unsanctioned storage of
(LEL) for sulphur dust is 35 g/m3.
sulphur by Tengiz ChevOil, prosecuted in 2002. Down hole
Surface storage of elemental sulphur is expected to have
injection of slurrified sulphur is analogous to slurrified drill
a negative environmental impact, due in particular to
cuttings. Over 50 successful acid gas disposal projects have
acidification of rain run-off and surface water reservoirs. The
occurred in Canada. Some projects inject gases into deep
process can produce an acidity pH less than 1.0, which poses a
aquifers although a number are based around injection into oil
risk of severe chemical burns on contact. Land take and visual
and gas reservoirs. The first such application was carried out
impact from the volume of anticipated sulphur blocks is large
by Chevron Canada at the Acheson Field in Alberta. This case
and the long-term affect of exposure to sulphuric acid will
has now been joined by a number of other similar projects (see
have negative public perception.
Appendix). Acid gas reinjection has been employed at
Well Construction Issues
Weyburn field, Canada since 1998, where PanCanadian
There are no well construction issues, since the sulphur is not
estimates increased recovery by an incremental 15% of initial
returned to wells for injection in this option. There are
oil in place. In 2000, Abu Dhabi Oil Company Ltd. (Japan)
significant construction issues around the location, logistics
reported injection of sour gas had significantly enhanced oil
and costs of constructing the sulphur blocks, which are are
recovery from Umm Al-Anbar and Neewat Al-Ghalan Fields.
usually around 125m x 500m x 12m tall and weighing 1.5 M
tonnes each. The weight-bearing characteristics of the ground
Option Analysis
in some desert locations in the regions of concern will not
1. Base Case and Solid Storage (SS) Option: withstand loading without reinforcement. Requirements for
Optimizing Recovery and Project Value reclamation of the land when/if the blocks are removed from
The unique objective of this option is to preserve the storage are typically poorly defined during field development,
accessibility of sulphur for later commercial purposes. therefore de-commissioning issues are open-ended and long
Although historically, sulphur has been viewed as an asset, the term liabilities are extremely risky.
low growth in demand, the production of large quantities of Regulatory Issues
sulphur from existing and future oil and gas projects, and the Many of the countries in the region do not currently define
remoteness of the production source in the Caspian and allowable techniques for surface storage of sulphur, and have
4 SPE 86605
levied large tax penalties (e.g., the Tengiz ChevOil field) for
surface storage of sulphur. It is anticipated that acquiring
regulatory approval to conduct large scale storage will be very
difficult, may become costly to the projects, and could
potentially delay the overall development plans.
Implementation Action Plan
In order to implement this option, the operator would need to:
• Consult with host govenemt and other stakeholders to
establish expectations and common understanding of how
tax/fines regulations will be applied
• Define the exit strategy and waste abandonment policy
• Seek regulations concerning fire protection and site layout
• Maximize efforts to develop a market for sulphur
These recommendations depend on influencing host
governments that sometimes may be “evolving”; they will be
difficult to achieve, and are vulnerable to future reversals.
The concerns regarding logistics, cost, and exposure to future
changes in government and public acceptance should be
seriously considered before selecting this option. The
requirement to invest in market development may be viewed
as an opportunity to expand an operator’s core competencies,
or as a distraction from the objectives to expedite oil
development, and has significant downside risk to the major
stakeholders’ reputations. All three of the other options
reviewed here provide improvements over surface storage.
2. Solid Disposal by Injection (SDI) Option:
Drilling mud and cuttings disposal by injection has been an
established technology for a decade. Since surface storage of
sulphur has severely negative economics and long term
exposure, the possibility of subsurface disposal of slurry made
of the solidified sulphur was proposed.
Optimizing Recovery and Project Value
Disposal of the solidified sulphur slurry will require dedicated
disposal wells be drilled; the volume of material is far larger
than the capacity of annular space in producing wells. Even
using dedicated wells, sulphur production will fill a typical
disposal well in just few years. This option therefore has no
impact on production rate or ultimate recovery of the oil. It
risks adding complexity to drilling operations for development
and may become unfeasible for huge Sulphur volumes.
A significant share of the option’s cost is for drilling
enough wells to keep pace with the sulphur production.
Economics for both onshore and offshore location of disposal
wells may impact decisions. Because the investment in wells
is still incremental to the capital investment for sulphur
extraction/recovery units (SRU’s), this option has a negative
NPV for onshore or offshore disposal wells. However, the
relative economic value is better than for long-term surface
storage, by avoiding taxation and abondonment liability.
Health, Safety and Environmental aspects
Subsurface Sulphur disposal by injection offers significant
reduction in environmental impact. The fire risks from
sulphur dust are the same as the surface storage option due to
continuous production of solid sulphur, but long term
sulphuric acid exposure is greatly reduced, or eliminated,
when contrasted with surface storage. Compared to surface
storage, safety and environmental benefits include:
+ No need for incineration.
+ No surface sulphuric acid run-offs. No acid rain potential
+ Eliminates the visual impact of storage
A few of the negative impacts of sulphur storage are also
associated with this option:
- No reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.
- The deeply buried sulphur may acidify and the interaction
with the underground rocks might have impact on the
long term integrity of the sealing layers. This, however, is
less likely to happen since shales (with large clay
contents) are generally selected as seal zones.
Well Construction Issues
Most solid disposal wells are designed to receive mud and
cuttings only during the drilling phase of a development, and
are typically kept open for a period of months. In this option,
disposal wells may take years to fill the needs of the field and
a long term drilling program must be available to continuously
provide injection capacity over the life of field production.
Long term operation of the slurry injectors will require
planning for:
• Disposal zone rock/caprock-acid gas interactions
• Very tight specifications and control on cementing
operations for integrity assurance
• Well abandonment: assuring and monitoring long-term
integrity of the sealed wells.
Regulatory Issues
Permitting requirements in Canada for H2S gas injection wells
are very similar to drill cuttings injection wells. Injecting
solid sulphur poses lower initial health and safety risks than
H2S, but has the same risks of long term corrosion and
leaking, as sour gas disposal. In all cases, the operator must
demonstrate: hydraulic isolation of zones, injection
substantially below the lowest useable ground water,
appropriate tubing and casing for pressure and chemistry,
pressure testing on tubing and casing cements, and
regular monitoring.
3. Acid Gas Sequestration and Disposal (AGD) Option:
This option eliminates the Sulphur extraction process and
manages the acid gas by direct disposal underground. Target
zones for H2S or CO2 disposal are typically composed of
either carbonates or sandstones, well below any zones
containing usable ground water.
Optimizing Recovery and Project Value
The ability to inject acid gas in MegaFields will depend on the
availability of one or more suitable disposal zones with no
hydrocarbon potential that could accommodate annual
injection capacity of approximately several billion m3 per
field. This option appears to have no impact on the
production rate or ultimate recovery of any given field.
Disposal of gas is anticipated to be more efficient than
disposal of the solid slurry, as few wells may be necessary to
keep pace with production. Experience has shown even where
the acid gas will initially dissolve into the connate water, the
saturation gradient can increase around the near wellbore
region in the zone and inhibit miscibility over time.
Economics for location of disposal wells, must be reviewed.
By avoiding the SRU’s capital investment, the relative
economic value would be better the sulphur disposal options.
SPE 86605
Health, Safety and Environmental aspects
Incremental health and safety risks from a large scale H2S re-
injection project include:
- Incremental high pressure, high temperature equipment
- Corrosion potential of the concentrated acid gas
- Security of operations with the impending safety risks of
handling high volumes of high pressure H2S
Potential mitigations of such risks appear in the Appendix.
Subsurface acid gas injection offers the opportunity for
nearly zero environmental impact. The only sulphur dioxide
and carbon dioxide emissions will be from sweetening plants,
as all H2S downstream of the plant is contained in pipelines or
underground layers. Compared to surface storage, safety and
environmental benefits include:
+ less hydrogen sulphide and carbon dioxide emissions
+ No need for incineration.
+ No surface sulphuric acid run-offs. No acid rain potential
+ No dust generation (reduced fire hazard)
+ Eliminates the visual impact of storage
+ Potential capturing & disposal of CO2 from power plants.
Well Construction Issues
Long term operation of the AG injectors requires planning for:
• Disposal zone rock/caprock-acid gas interactions
• Well abandonment: assuring and monitoring for long-
term integrity
Regulatory Issues
Permit requirements in Canada for H2S gas injection wells are
very similar to drill cuttings injectors, and must demonstrate:
hydraulic isolation of zones, injection substantially below the
lowest useable ground water, appropriate tubing and casing for
pressure and chemistry, pressure testing on tubing and casing
cements, and regular monitoring.
4. Acid Gas Injected for EOR (AGI) Option:
Optimizing Recovery and Project Value
Enhanced recovery schemes utilizing gas injection have
shown that sour gas injection (gas with H2S and or CO2)
performs consistently better than sweet gas injection. The
improved performance is related to the increased viscosity and
higher density of the injected sour gas. This gas mixture leads
to more effective voidage replacement, and better sweep
efficiency. Ultimate recovery of the oil is expected to be
enhanced even a field already utilizing reinjection of most of
the associated gas already. The improvement benefit is even
greater for fields that reinject a smaller percentage of the
associated gas (greater compositional change).
For example, in a field where a large percentage of the
associated gas is reinjected, the operator may take the acid gas
by-product from the sweetening plant and mix it back into the
injection stream. This will raise both the H2S concentration of
the injection gas the total injected volume. Since the injection
equipment will have already been designed to handle the
corrosive effects of H2S no incremental costs for injection
equipment would be expected. The estimated capital
expenditure for this option would be substantially lower than
the other Sulphur management options examined. This option
may offer the greatest relative economic value, depending on
oil price and incremental volume production.
5
Health, Safety and Environmental aspects
Subsurface acid gas injection offers the opportunity for nearly
zero environmental impact. Injection into the reservoir offers
all the safety and environmental benefits as sequestration by
disposal (AGD), with the additional benefits:
+ Preserves sulphur gas in original, uncontaminated form,
should market develop
+ Provides Higher assurance of 100% containment with no
risk to groundwater
Well Construction Issues
The design and operation of the necessary higher rate injection
wells is not discussed as part of this study, however the
modest (on a percentage basis) incremental volume and H2S
concentration should not create additional challenges for
injection well design.
A few dedicated injection wells are required early in the
drilling, which could impact the schedule for drilling the
production wells, and hence the ramp-up of the field’s
production rate. The use of horizontal, high-angle and multi-
lateral wells with fracturing as injectors can also provide
economic benefits to acid gas injection schemes by increasing
the completion length while minimizing well numbers. Due to
the higher density of the gas, vertical segregation should be
less than for injection schemes using only CO2 (where vertical
injection intervals are preferred).
Regulatory Issues
For the acid gas disposal application, regulators may require
discussions on technical issues such as evaluation of alternate
methods and the potential incremental oil production if this
gas is used for EOR operations. In addition, the operator must
demonstrate the geologic and reservoir engineering capacity of
the disposal formation, likelihood for gas to escape the
reservoir, the potential migration path(s) of the gas, any
chemical reaction of this mixture in the disposal formation,
bottom hole and surface well equipment that would be
utilized, and emergency response planning. None of these
issues would change significantly by reinjecting the extra AG
with the raw gas beyond the raw gas injection case.
Implementation Action Plan
Injection of AG for EOR appears to be the most attractive
option, based on economics, operational risk, and upside
potential for H2S management. Permit preparation for the
implementation of such options in regions with high AG
productions and no Sulphur market requires tasks to further
quantify the specific reputation and economic benefits, e.g.,:
• Gather empirical data and best practices about short
and/or long-term environmental impact of current
worldwide sour gas injection projects;
• Conduct pilots for assessment of H2S gas interaction with
fluids and rocks in the target reservoir. Also assess H2S
gas interaction with the fluids and rocks of the nearest
overlying porous zone, to evaluate potential consequences
of break out and gas migration.
• Generate injection operating parameters and
well specifications.
• Eliminate erroneous fears and enhance the local
awareness, through information campaigns, of the actual
6 SPE 86605
hazards related with H2S and elemental sulphur, and of
the benefits of complete subsurface recycling of H2S gas;
• Conduct simulation evaluation to assess the uncertainty
range on incremental oil production associated with full
H2S injection at the target volume of gas injection
schemes; and
• Plan and conduct baseline Haz-ID and Haz-Op assurance
plans and a health survey to define the occurrence,
mitigation and remediation of all operational
risks involved.
Economic Evaluation of Acid Gas Disposal Options
Economic analysis could be performed to determine the net
present value for each option. An example is presented here
for a model case in the Cspian region that assume 75% of the
produced gas is immediately injected back into the formation,
and the remaining 25% is separated into sweet gas and acid
gas components. Factors defining the uncertainties of the
economic outcome were identified through thirty five different
permutations of the options (scenarios). These scenarios have
been evaluated to compare various storage methods, varying
locations of separation and disposal, and varying commercial
factors such as taxes, costs, and oil price.
There are uncertainties regarding the range of value for
each option. These uncertainties can be reduced through
further analysis of potential reservoir performance, and facility
optimization. The range of value associated with the use of
H2S in EOR schemes is clearly superior to the surface storage
option, even considering the uncertainty ranges. Figure 3
illustrates the sensitivity of value to some of the significant
uncertainties, comparing the base case with the EOR option.
Base Case
Most Likely NPV7 difference between Base
Uncertainty
Case and AGI Option
Breakthrough
Facility Uptime
OPEX
Oil Price
Number of Injectors
Enhanced Oil Recovery Factor
Sulphur Storage Location
Delay Start of Sulphur Disposal
Figure 3: Sensitivity of Differential Economic Value to
Uncertainties
Conclusion
Mega Fields with huge AG production such as those in the
Caspian and Middle East regions contain high concentrations
of sour gas. Successful hydrocarbon development will
therefore require careful management of the associated natural
gas, H2S, and CO2 products. To meet regulatory requirements
and satisfy public expectations on sulphur emission, some
form of sulphur emission reduction is essential. The key
elements of a sulphur management strategy are based on a
three pronged approach:
• Minimizing the production of waste sulphur at source by
injecting gas into the reservoir, including all the H2S
produced in association with oil production; thus
preserving the sulphur resource for future use.
• Converting the H2S into a resource for increasing oil
recovery by enhancing the efficiency of the sweep. The
mechanical and chemical properties of the sweep gas are
improved by increasing its H2S content, improving project
economics
• Minimizing the risk to people’s health, damage to the
environment and maintaining the integrity of the safety of
the operations by minimizing the unnecessary tansport
and handling of H2S and/or sulphur.
Acid Gas Injection for Improved Oil Recovery is a
superior strategy, which is more economical than other
sulphur management options, is consistent with the ideals of
sustainable development and demonstrates how H2S
management can add value as a driver for improved recovery
factor and better oil sweep in the reservoir.
A comprehensive compilation of risk profiles, mitigation
strategies and remediation guidelines for acid gas management
AGI Option
options is detailed in Appendices 1 and 2. The profiles
address both strength and weakness of each option. Care
should be taken to provide detailed inventory of field and
country-specific additional economic, and operations risks that
are not included in the Appendx before final implementation
plan is adopted.
SPE 86605 7

APPENDIX 1 Acid Gas Sequestration/Disposal (AGD)

Risk Strength Weakness
Risk Profiles for H2S Management Options Handling • H2S at high pressure
Surface Storage of Solid Sulphur (SS) H2S • Leakage of H2S gas
Risk Strength Weakness more likely
Handling • H2S at lower • Same caution needed • Safety, training &
H2S pressures in terms of safety, evacuation
(exposure • Leakage of training & evacuation Offshore • Proximity to
to toxic H2S gas less for leakage handling personnel not
substance) likely • Material selection involved with process
(corrosion) • Placement of
Handling • Less volatile • Creation of dust comingl. with RGI
Sulphur than H2S particles • Spacing on
• Chemically reactive hubs/satellites
with water Aquifer • Injectivity • Seal integrity
• Cost of sulphur Selection increase • Aquifer souring
recovery units corrode • Environmental
Sulphur • Taxation formation restrictions
Storage • Lifetime maintenance • Governmental
(logistics) • Future changes in restrictions
environmental laws • Injectivity decline,
stimulation
Solid Disposal by Injection (SDI) Injection • Injector down time
Risk Strength Weakness Process • Corrosion resistant
Handling • H2S at lower • Same amount of materials
H2S pressures caution needed in
• Leakage of terms of safety, Acid Gas Injected for EOR (AGI)
H2S gas less training & evacuation Risk Strength Weakness
likely for leakage Handling H2S • H2S at high
• Specialty tubulars / pressure
materials selection • Leakage of H2S
(corrosion) gas more likely
• Safety, training &
Handling • Less volatile • Creation of dust evacuation
Sulphur than H2S particles Offshore • Proximity to
• Cost of sulphur handling personnel not
recovery units involved with
Handling • Human process
slurrified • Material • Placement of
sulphur • Process commingling with
Aquifer • Seal integrity RGI
Selection • Environmental • Spacing on
restrictions hubs/satellites
• Governmental Injection • Sweep • Injector down
restrictions Performance • Injectivity time
• Injectivity decline, increase • Bridging
stimulation corrode • Injectivity decline,
Injection • Injector down time formation stimulation
Process • Incremental
increase in
production
8 SPE 86605

APPENDIX 2 2. All individuals will be required to demonstrate

proficiency in donning equipment and recognizing
Risk: AGI Integration with other operations appropriate emergency response before entry into facility.
Mitigation: 3. Personnel assigned to the AGI area must complete
y Preliminary and detailed HAZOPS training drills at least once per month.
Remediation: • Building and Site Access:
y None 1. Require everyone entering the AGI site to wear an
electronic personal H2S monitor.
Risk: AGI Operations 2. Utilize card key system to help track personnel
Mitigation: movement and/or log access at AGI area and buildings.
• Preliminary and detailed HAZOPS 3. Install plastic chain chest high with signs between AGI
• Benchmark chemical industry & current AGI Boundary and existing facilities.
designer/operators 4. Require notification of control room personnel for entry
• Workshops/reviews into the AGI facility boundary and buildings.
• Operability review 5. Do not lock AGI buildings. Install card reader at
• Well design study building entrance with control room alarm in the event
• Construction readiness review entry is accomplished without card.
• Flare capacity review 6. Utilize CCTV to monitor general AGI area and
inside buildings.
• Technical design cold eyes review Constructability review
Remediation: • O&M Practices:
y AGI facilities must be clearly segregated if different 1. Develop written Operating & Maintenance procedures
operating practices are adopted for all intrusive/non intrusive activities that do not require
permit. All other procedures require a Permit To Work
Risk: Fire (PTW) approved by the Operations Foreman before
Mitigation: beginning work.
y Fire protection review 2. Require O&M procedures to meet or exceed
y Fire training drills Competency Assurance System standard for operated
Remediation: facilities.
y Fire protection guidelines Remediation:
• Breathing Air:
Risk: Human reaction to H2S Exposure 1) Require working personnel entering the AGI facility to:
Mitigation: a. Carry (ready to don) escape pack with at least 10
y None minute nominal escape time
Remediation: b. Before entering a building:
y None i) Have at least one “standby” person in the area that is
designated to rescue.
Risk: Leakage ii)In the unlikely circumstances that a second person is
Mitigation: unavailable, an individual may enter a building
• Gas dispersion modeling under supplied air (hose line or 30 minute pack)
c. Under all circumstances, the control room must be
• Take into account varying wind changes
notified and made aware of all individuals and their
• Concentrate studies on liquid/dense phase locations
whereabouts when entering the AGI facility.
• Reaction time calculation
d. Individuals either provide rescue capability for one
• Determine where populations are located another or when working alone, wear BA in AGI facility.
• Move high pressure compressors further away 2) Require escape pack to also be carried (ready to don)
Remediation: at well-site unless well has been safed out with CO2 and
• Inside building detection shut in.
• Outside Building detection 3) Require breathing air for all intrusive activities until
• One building for each compressor proven safe, then convert to #1 if applicable.
• Locate safe havens 4) Require all visitors, if allowed into AGI area, to carry
• Shut down philosophy hood type escape units as a minimum.
• Emergency Response
Risk: Leakage Human Risk 1) Emergency response and rescue procedures will be in
Mitigation: place to rescue a downed individual.
• Safety integrity Level assignment • Emergency response scenarios will be modified to reflect
• Reaction to H2S exposure study new facilities and risks.
• Training:
1. All individuals on site (employees, contractors, visitors)
will receive training and orientation.
SPE 86605 9

Risk: Leakage through compressors a. Minimize isolatable inventories of acid gas

Mitigation: b. Minimize small bore connections
• Compressor Design Considerations: c. Design strategy for isolation and de-pressure
1. Capable of Compressing CO2 4. Metallurgy
a. Maintenance will include CO2 purge through system. 5. Machinery applications
b. Start up on CO2 to validate containment. 6. Pipeline
2. Barrel Compressor Design 7. Elastomers
a. Limited sealing surfaces. Remediation:
b. Maintenance by removal to shop (limits exposure inside • None
building).
3. Back to Back Compressor Design. Risk: Leakage through equipment
a. Minimizes load on mechanical seals. Mitigation:
b. Dual o-ring/gasket design (triple seal) on each head with • Consider shell & tube exchangers especially for
sniffer ports. liquid/dense phase
4. Utilize John Crane 28XP tandem dry gas seal with • Minimize instrumentation
intermediate labyrinth. • Eliminate chiller/level control complexities by using acid
a. Two seals with intermediate “seal” to limit flow of gas if gas compressors to deliver higher pressure feed to injection
primary seal fails. wells
b. Seal reference pressure is 2nd stage suction which Remediation:
minimizes sealing requirements. • None
c. Utilizing CO2 as dry gas seal supply.
i. Redundant sources ensures supply. Risk: Leakage through equipment handling liquid & dense
ii. Eliminates need for methane in building. phase
5. Robust instrumentation design to monitor seal integrity. Mitigation:
a. Critical instruments have triple redundancy with 2 out of • Minimize liquid/dense phase equipment
3 voting. • Multiple smaller containment units for liquid/dense phase
6. Extensive vibration monitoring equipment. Depressurized to flare system containment units
7. CCC Anti-Surge control system to minimize potential Remediation:
for surge or damage.
• None
8. Full machinery audit completed to verify design.
9. Full load/full pressure performance test on both HP/LP
Risk: Leakage through pipelines
compressors.
Mitigation:
Remediation:
• Minimize length of pipe
• Stand by compressors to divert load
• Minimize small bore piping
• Small bore piping review
Risk: Leakage through connections
Mitigation: • Pipeline Considerations
1. Brittle fracture due to cryogenic nature of high pressure
• Test connections
acid gas when de-pressured.
• Minimize connections
2. Fracture mechanics methodology
• Avoid additional piping connections required for better
a. Determined critical flaw size for injection line
instrumentation b. Set allowable within limits of NDE detection
Remediation: 3. Conservative design basis
• None a. External impact resistance
b. Wall thickness
Risk: Leakage through corrosion c. Low temperature carbon steel
Mitigation: 4. QA/QC
• Metallurgy studies a. 100% UT inspection of pipe during manufacture
• Materials b. 100% PWHT and x-ray during construction
1. Bench Mark Learning 5. Mechanical integrity baseline survey of pipeline with
a. Small bore piping was usually heavier schedule than smart pig
required for pressure service Remediation:
b. Flanges were minimized • Minimize released inventory
c. Flange ratings and type (RF vs. RTJ) were based on • Ability to block sections
pressure and not toxicity.
• Ability to bleed off pressure
2. Minimize potential for leaks
a. Seal welding tube to tube sheet
Risk: Leakage through compressors
b. Low emission packed valve instead of o-ring stem seals
Mitigation:
c. ASME UW-L for vessels
• Compressor Design Considerations
3. Mitigate Potential Leaks
1. Barrel Compressor Design
10 SPE 86605

a. Limited sealing surfaces. Risk: Start up injection

b. Dual o-ring/gasket design (triple seal) on each head with Mitigation:
sniffer ports. • Consider completion options to keep AGI injection
c. Maintenance by removal to shop (limits exposure inside pressure as low as practicable
building). • Considering fracturing the well
2. Conventional Plan 54 seal oil system Well Injectivity Test
3. Utilizes John Crane double seals Remediation:
4. Extensive vibration monitoring equipment • None
5. Automated isolation and bleed system which minimizes
inventory of liquid Acid Gas Risk: Long-term injection
6. Partial Machinery audit performed by EMRE and CT to Mitigation:
verify design • Well completion
7. Full String test done. • Injector placement to insure sweep efficiency and near
Remediation: wellbore pressure dissipation
• Stand by compressors to divert load • Considering fracturing the well
• Monitoring
Risk: Leakage through rotating equipment
• Well testing
Mitigation:
• Engineering assessment
• Rotating equipment review
• Guidelines & best practices
Remediation:
Remediation:
• None
• Stimulation
Risk: Leakage through seal integrity (o-rings, etc.)
Risk: Reservoir souring
Mitigation:
Mitigation:
• Elastomer evaluation
• Monitoring
• Elastomer Test Program
• Well testing
• Test surface and subsurface elastomers
• Engineering assessment
• Quantify chemical resistance
• Guidelines & best practices
• Samples aged in simulated process compositions for 10,
Remediation:
20, 45 & 90 day cycles
• None
• Utilize slab and o-ring materials
• Measured modulus, tensile, elongation, and tear strength Risk: Break out of zone (only if fractures are created,
• Tested also for corrosion inhibitor compatibility intentionally or unintentionally)
• Quantify explosive decompression Mitigation:
• Tested chemically aged and un-aged samples (constrained • Monitoring
and unconstrained) • Well testing
• Pressure up • Engineering assessment
• Decompress • Guidelines & best practices
d. Examine every few cycles • Thermal manipulation of stresses to decrease stress within
Remediation: injection zone
• None • Manage pressure to not exceed sealing pressure
Remediation:
Risk: Operational inexperience • Drill new well
Mitigation:
• Training
• Start up on CO2
Remediation:
• None

Risk: Quality of emergency breathing air

Mitigation:
• Assure quality of air in control rooms
Remediation
• None
SPE 86605
References
1. M.A. AlFalahy, J.H. Abou-Kassem, SPE, A. Chakma*,
SPE, M.R. Islam, SPE, UAE University, Al-Ain, UAE,
University of Regina, Canada, Sour Gas Processing,
Disposal, and Utilization as Applied in UAE Reservoirs”
SPE 49504.
2. Harvey, Herbert, Member AIME, University of Missouri-
Rolla Henry, Richard L., Junior Member AIME, Amoco
Production Company, “A Laboratory Investigation of Oil
Recovery by Displacement With Carbon Dioxide and
Hydrogen Sulfide” SPE 6983.
3. P. Egermann, M. Robin, J-M. Lombard, Institut Francais
du Petrole, A. Modavi, M.Z. Kalam, ADCO Abu Dhabi
Company for Onshore Oil Operation,s “ Gas Process
Displacement Efficiency Comparisons on a Carbonate
Reservoir” SPE 81577.
4. Ridha B.C., Gharbi, SPE, Kuwait University, “Neural
Network Prediction Model of Miscible Displacements in
Heterogeneous Reservoirs” SPE 81469.
5. Francois Lallemand, TotalFinaElf, Pau, France, Ari
Minkkinen, IFP, Rueil Malmaison, France, “Processes
Combine to Assist Acid-Gas Handling, Reinjection,”
6. Oil & Gas Journal, Jan. 21, 2002.
7. H.L. Longworth, SPE, G.C. Dunn, M. Semchuck, Alberta
Energy and Utilities Board, “Underground Disposal of
Acid Gas in Alberta, Canada: Regulatory Concerns and
Case Histories” SPE 35584.
11
8. Sylvain Thibeau, SPE, Total; John W. Barker, SPE Total
and Danielle Morel, SPE, Total, “Simulation of Sour Gas
Injection into Low Permaebility Oil Reservoirs” SPE
84362, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
held in Denver, Co. October 5-8 2003.
9. Anne-Christine Aycaguer, Miriam Lev-On, BP Amoco
HSE, Los Angeles, CA, University of California Los
Angeles, Environmental Science and Engineering
Program, Los Angeles, CA, “Reducing Carbon Dioxide
Emissions with Enhanced Oil Recovery Projects: A Life
Cycle Assessment Approach.”
10. Torsten Clemens, Krijn Wit, Shell International E&P
Rijswijk, “CO2 Enhanced Gas Recovery Studied for an
Example Gas Reservoir” SPE 77348.
11. Mamora, D.D., SPE, and Seo, J.G., SPE, Texas A&M U,
“Enhanced Gas Recovery by Carbon Dioxide
Sequestration in Depleted Gas Reservoirs,” SPE 77347,
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, TX. September 29-October 2, 2002
12. H.L. Longworth, SPE, G.C. Dunn, M. Semchuck, Alberta
Energy and Utilities Board, “Underground Disposal of
Acid Gas in Alberta, Canada: Regulatory Concerns and
Case Histories” SPE 35584.