|
Challenge ID |
OTM:006 |
||||
1 |
Title |
Regulatory verification relation to injection of fracking fluids |
||||
2 |
Theme ID |
ON 3.3: Subsidence monitoring - Reservoir management |
||||
3 |
Originator of Challenge |
Onshore: OTM |
||||
4 |
Challenge Reviewer / initiator |
|
||||
|
General description |
Overview of Challenge |
||||
5 |
What is the nature of the challenge? (What is not adequately addressed at present?) |
It is possible that injected fluids do not reach their targetted destinations, and instead move to non-production targets. If unnecessary loss of water in fracking operations can be identified, large costs could be saved. |
||||
6 |
Thematic information requirements |
1. Obtain detailed topographic information, 13. Monitor ground movement, |
||||
7 |
Nature of the challenge - What effect does this challenge have on operations? |
Cost savings, through reduced water and chemical usage |
||||
8 |
What do you currently do to address this challenge?/ How is this challenge conventionally addressed? |
Downhole tools can track fluid movement to a degree. Tracers in injected fluids can also be used, but these also have their limitations. |
||||
9 |
What kind of solution do you envisage could address this challenge? |
Ground movement satellite imagery could indicate sub-surface movement and infer fluid migration of fracking fluids |
||||
10 |
What is your view on the capability of technology to meet this need? – are you currently using EO tech? If not, why not? |
Fluid migration in the reservoir can be inferred from ground movement data. |
||||
|
Challenge classification |
|
||||
11 |
Lifecycle stage |
Pre license |
Exp. |
Dev. |
Prod. |
Decom. |
Score from impact quantification [1] |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
|
12 |
Climate classification |
NOT CLIMATE SPECIFIC |
||||
13 |
Geographic context/restrictions |
Generic onshore (Unspecified) |
||||
14 |
Topographic classification / Offshore classification |
Generic onshore (Unspecified) |
||||
15 |
Seasonal variations |
Any season |
||||
16 |
Impact Area |
Operational cost reduction |
||||
17 |
Technology Urgency (How quickly does the user need the solution) |
Immediately (0-2 years) |
||||
|
Information requirements |
|
||||
18 |
Update frequency |
daily / weekly /annually (application dependent) |
||||
19 |
Data Currently used |
|
||||
20 |
Spatial resolution |
|
||||
21 |
Thematic accuracy |
|
||||
22 |
Example formats |
GIS Shape file |
||||
23 |
Timeliness |
Within a month |
||||
24 |
Geographic Extent |
Reservoir footprint |
||||
25 |
Existing standards |
No industry standards. TRE have their own internal INSAR standards |
[1] Impact quantification scores: 4 – Critical/ enabling; 3 – Significant/ competitive advantage; 2 – Important but non-essential; 1 – Nice to have; 0 – No impact, need satisfied with existing technology