Class II Underground Injection Control Wells and Potential

Resulting Seismic Activity in Proximity to U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers Dams

CE 497
Undergraduate Research

Prepared for:
John D. Quaranta, Ph.D., P.E.

Submitted by:
Clay Mancuso

December 6, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................................... II
LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................III
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................. IV
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Aim & Scope ........................................................................................................................................................... 2

CHAPTER 2: REGULATORY AUTHORITY .........................................................................2

2.1 West Virginia .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Ohio.......................................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Pennsylvania ........................................................................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 3: UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL WELLS....................................5

3.1 Byproduct Disposal Techniques............................................................................................................................ 8
3.2 Class II UIC Wells .................................................................................................................................................. 9
3.2.1 UIC Class II Well Site Locations ................................................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER 4: SEISMICITY AND DAMS ...............................................................................13

4.1 Significant Seismic Occurrences ......................................................................................................................... 15
4.1.1 Rocky Mountain Arsenal Earthquakes ........................................................................................................... 15
4.1.2 Youngstown Earthquakes ............................................................................................................................... 15
4.2 USACE Dams in WV, OH, and PA .................................................................................................................... 18

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE ...............................20

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................22

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 Cross-Section of Well (Penn State, 2013)......................................................................7
Figure 3.2 Class II Wells (EPA 2012) ...........................................................................................11
Figure 3.2.2: Brine Disposal and Marcellus Wells in Appalachian Basin (Skoff & Billman,
2013). .............................................................................................................................................13
Figure 4.1.2 Map of Ohio Earthquakes (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, n.d.) ...............16
Figure 4.2 Class II Wells and Dams in West Virginia (WVDEP, 2013 (1); WV GIS, 2013).......19

ii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 EPA Classes of Wells (EPA, 2012).................................................................................3
Table 3.1 Wastewater management from Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania in 2011 (barrels)
(Hammer & VanBriesen, 2012).......................................................................................................9
Table 3.2 Inventory of Class II Wells (EPA, 2013) ......................................................................13
Table 4.1 Historically felt seismic events (NRC, 2013)................................................................15
Table 4.1.2 Seismic events in Youngstown Ohio Recorded by the Ohio Seismic Network
(ODNR, 2012) ...............................................................................................................................18

iii

ABSTRACT
Clay Mancuso

Class II injection wells are used to dispose of the byproduct resulting from the process of
hydraulic fracturing. The byproduct is injected into subsurface areas that are confined from
underground drinking water sources. The pore pressure increases as the fluid is injected into the
underground formation. The injection pressure, volume, and duration of injection affect the rate
of change of the pore pressure. The process of injecting fluids has the ability to cause the pore
pressure to reach a high enough point that it can cause the slip resistance of faults to be
compromised. The decreased slip resistance can cause faults to mobilize, leading to earthquakes.
These induced seismic events cause an increase in stress to the structure of dams, especially
dams that are not designed to handle the stresses generated from earthquakes. As dams age, the
materials which make up the dam, such as concrete, degrade and decrease their ability to
withstand stress. Most of the dams under control of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are
considered high hazard dams because at least one human life loss is likely if the dam fails.
Injection wells that generate seismic activity in proximity to dams could lead to the failure of
dam structures.

iv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
New technological developments in shale gas extraction have resulted in an increase in domestic
natural gas production. Previously uneconomical production techniques are now becoming
viable because of a high demand for energy and the United States dependence on foreign oil.
As a result of the new developments in shale gas, the United States is expected to increase
natural gas production by 44 percent from 2011 to 2040. Current production is around 23 trillion
cubic feet and is projected to reach 33.1 trillion in 2040 (U.S Energy Information Association,
2012). Shale gas is natural gas between shale formations that can be found in shale plays,
which are areas with high concentrations of natural gas that contain similar geological
characteristics. The Marcellus Shale formation lies beneath multiple states in the Appalachian
area. The shale continues from southern West Virginia to southwestern New York. The
Marcellus shale play can be found predominately in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. The
Department of Energys 2012 Annual Energy Outlook claims the Marcellus Shale has 140,565
billion cubic feet of technically recoverable resources, making it the largest shale play in the U.S.
(U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2012).
Hydraulic fracturing is the process used in oil and gas well development where water, sand, and
chemicals are pumped into the well under pressure causing fractures in the rock. The fractures
stimulate the flow of oil and gas making wells more productive. After a well is fractured, the
millions of gallons of water used during the hydraulic fracturing process must return to the
surface before oil and gas can freely flow through the wellbore and thus begin production. The
water that returns to the surface is different in composition than it was when it was pumped into
the well. The returning fluid is mostly brine water but it includes heavy metals, naturally
occurring radioactive materials, volatile organic compounds, and other dissolved solids that were
part of the formation. The return fluid can be recycled and used for another hydraulic fracture or
the fluid must properly be disposed. Under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an
Underground Injection Control (UIC) well can be used to dispose of the fluid. The well allows
fluids to be placed deep underground into rock formations. Class II wells are for fluids
associated with oil and natural gas production; therefore, waste disposal of brine is done via
Class II wells.
It has long been known that the injection of fluids deep into the subsurface can result in seismic
activity. In 1951, the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) published a Report to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency titled Earthquake Hazard Associated with Deep Well
Injection. The report found that the increased pore pressure caused by fluid injection can trigger
earthquakes. The report contains cases of injection-induced seismicity and why they believe
injection is causing the earthquakes (Nicholson & Wesson, 1951). As the number of injection
wells has continued to rise, so have the occurrences of seismic activity resulting from the
injection of fluids. There have been notable occurrences of seismic activity in the Marcellus
1

Shale area. In Youngstown, Ohio, twelve earthquakes from 2.1 to 4.0 Magnitudes occurred in
2012 and 2013, at a site where an injection well began disposing of fluids in 2011. The area had
no previous occurrence of recorded seismic activity.
1.1 Background
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers controls 649 dams in the United States and Puerto Rico.
Many of the dams they are responsible for have surpassed their designed service life. The aging
processes of dams cause integrity to be compromised as a result of the continuous physical and
environmental conditions which are imposed on them. Many dams in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
West Virginia were not designed to undergo significant seismic activity since these areas have
not previously experienced a substantial number of high magnitude earthquakes. Degraded dams
that are not designed to handle seismic activity could experience catastrophic failure if an
earthquake of significant magnitude occurs in proximity to a dam. The proximity of
underground injection wells to dam structures is an important facet to explore in order to
determine if dams are at a high risk of failure due to seismicity induced by injection wells.
1.2 Aim & Scope
This research investigates Class II UIC wells used for disposal of hydraulic fracturing
byproducts such as flowback wastewater and produced water. Injection of fluids into subsurface
geology can result in seismic events. The locations of USACE dams in proximity to Class II
UIC wells and other pertinent topics are explored to provide further insight into the possibility of
seismic impacts on USACE dams that could result in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
CHAPTER 2: REGULATORY AUTHORITY
In 1974, the United States Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), requiring the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop minimum standards for Underground
Injection Control (UIC) operations. The standards were meant to protect public underground
sources of drinking water (USDWs) from contaminants in the injection well fluids. The EPA
regulates the permitting, construction, operation, and closure of injection wells that are used for
fluid disposal underground. The UIC program regulates the placement of fluid underground.
Federal UIC regulations are contained within Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Parts
144-148. These parts set the standard for program requirements as made by the SDWA,
technical standards for each class of injection well, and state program information (EPA, 2012).
Those wishing to use an underground injection well must apply for a permit through the EPA
and verify that they will not be contaminating an USDW. The intended well use determines
what classification it is to be regulated by. There are six classifications of wells defined by the
EPA. Class II wells are intended to be used for enhanced production of oil and gas or disposal of
waste produced from the production of oil and gas. Table 2.1 defines the EPAs six categories of
wells.

Table 2.1 EPA Classes of Wells (EPA, 2012)

Classes
Use
Class I
Inject hazardous wastes, industrial non-hazardous liquids, and municipal
wastewater beneath the lowermost USDW.
Class II Inject brines and other fluids associated with oil and gas production, and
hydrocarbons for storage.
Class III Inject fluids associated with solution mining of minerals beneath the
lowermost USDW.
Class IV Inject hazardous or radioactive wastes into or above USDWs. These wells are
banned unless authorized under a federal or state ground water remediation
project.
Class V All injection wells not included in Classes I-IV. In general, Class V wells
inject non-hazardous fluids into or above USDWs and are typically shallow,
on site disposal systems. However, there are some deep Class V wells that
inject below USDWs.
Class VI Inject Carbon Dioxide (CO2) for long-term storage, also known as Geologic
Sequestration of CO2.
The regulations for Class II wells in the EPA UIC program are as follows: Class II Well use is
defined in Table 2.1. Class II wells must be positioned in a location such that the formation into
which injection is performed is separate from any USDW. A confining zone that does not have
any known open faults or fractures must separate the injection area from the USDW (40 CFR
146.22(a)). The well must be cased and cemented at areas where the well goes through aquifers
during the development and construction of the well. This is done to inhibit the flow of fluids
being injected from moving into USDWs. The well must be designed in a way such that it will
continue to prevent the flow of fluids for the entire expected life of the well (40 CFR
146.22)(b)). The following information is required to be determined, calculated, and reported for
all new Class II wells: (1) fluid pressure; (2) estimated fracture pressure; (3) physical and
chemical characteristics of the injection zone (40 CFR 146.22(g)). The maximum injection
pressure must be calculated to determine a pressure which will not initiate new fractures or make
existing fractures larger in confining zones between USDWs. The injection pressure must not
exceed the calculated maximum. The injection pressure is not allowed to be high enough to
force injection or formation fluids into USDWs (40 CFR 146.23(a)(1)). There is a great deal of
information that needs to be considered before authorizing Class II wells. Geological data on
injection and confining zone information must be considered among many other properties of the
injection site. The data should include lithological descriptions, geological name, thickness, and
depth (40 CFR 146.24(a)(5)).
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 changed the way UIC programs are regulated by the SDWA.
Section 322 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended section 1421(d) of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300 h(d)) to read as follows:

(1) UNDERGROUND INJECTION - The term underground injection(A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection; and
(B) excludes
i.) the underground injection of natural gas for the purpose of storage; and
ii.) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels)
pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal
production activities (H.R. 6 322, 2005)
This amendment removed the EPAs regulatory authority power from hydraulic fracturing,
except when diesel fuel is used. Under the SWDA, states have the option for requesting primacy
for Class II wells under sections 1422 or 1425 (EPA, 2012). States must have regulatory
programs that meet or exceed the federal programs minimum requirements in order to receive
primacy. States can elect to create their own state program or allow the EPA to implement a
program.
2.1 West Virginia
West Virginia has its own Underground Injection Control Program. West Virginia Department
of Environmental Protection regulates the program. The requirements meet the standard of those
set by the EPA. Information regarding the UIC program in West Virginia can be found in
Chapter 22 Environmental Resources of the states Code. Article 6 of the Code is the Office of
Oil and Gas section, which regulates the UIC program. The WV UIC Permit Package supplies
much of the information and regulations for UIC wells in West Virginia. Certain information
must be provided like the geological target depth, estimated depth of the completed well,
estimated reservoir fracture pressure, maximum proposed injection operations, detailed
information of materials to be injected (including additives), and specifications for cathodic
protection and other corrosion control. The permit also requires the driller to supply
specifications regarding the casing and tubing used. West Virginia does have a maximum
injection pressure. The maximum bottom-hole injection pressure (MBHIP) is not to exceed 0.8
psi/ft gradient. To calculate the MBHIP, 0.8 is multiplied by the upper zone perforation depth
(WVDEP, 2013). The regulations found in the permit package are very similar to those required
by the EPA. Only two states that are required to notify landowners of hydraulic fracturing, West
Virginia is one of them. West Virginia is the only state which requires companies to notify
residents of nearby water wells (McFeeley, 2012).
2.2 Ohio
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division (ODNR) Oil and Gas division has had
primacy for its Underground Injection Control program since 1983. The types of Class II
disposal wells found in Ohio are conventional brine injection wells, annular disposal wells, and
enhanced oil recovery injection wells (McFeeley, 2012). The ODNR provides their UIC laws
and regulations on their website oilandgas.ohiodnrgov. The laws and regulations are very
4

transparent and easy to find. Ohio and West Virginia are similar in that they require full
disclosure of the geological formations that the well traverses. Ohio is the only state that
requires disclosure of the fluids and gasses found within the formation. Ohio also requires
companies to monitor and report water quality of nearby water sources (McFeeley, 2012).
2.3 Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania does not have primacy over its UIC program. The regulations in the state are those
set by the EPA. Pennsylvania falls under Region 3 the Mid-Atlantic Water region. This region
consists of Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West
Virginia. Although the EPA directly implements the UIC program, Pennsylvania does have
additional regulations that must be followed which are determined by the state.
CHAPTER 3: UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL WELLS
Conventional drilling was used for many years prior to the development of unconventional
drilling techniques such as hydraulic fracturing. Conventional drilling is used when gas in a
porous source rock is able to migrate to areas of lower pressure. As the gas moves to areas of
lower pressure, it reaches an impermeable rock unit which stops the migration of the gas. The
gas from the source rock builds up in this area, creating a reservoir (Paleontological Research
Institution, 2012). A reservoir is the location where gas exists in porous rock that allows for the
extraction of oil and gas. For extraction, a well bore is drilled to the reservoir and the flow of
natural gas begins until the pressure in the reservoir is reduced to hydrostatic pressure (National
Research Council, 2013). Other methods are then performed such as secondary recovery to get
the remaining gas out of the reservoir. This technique of drilling is very common and has been
used for many years.
Seismic activity has been reported to be caused by primary production wells at 38 sites
worldwide despite the large number of conventional wells that exist. This is a small number
proportionally compared to seismic activity caused by unconventional wells. The seismic events
are caused by a decrease in pore pressure as the gas flows to the surface through the well bore.
The events are more likely if fluids are not injected into the formation where the gas was
removed to return the pore pressure to its previous state. The difference in pore pressure can
cause a change in the state of stress of surrounding formations. If faults are nearby when the
stress state changes, a seismic event could result (National Research Council, 2013).
Secondary recovery is used to extract the remaining oil and gas from the formation that did not
come to the surface from the first drilling operation. Secondary recovery is performed by
injecting water horizontally through the shale formation, thereby forcing oil and gas toward a
production well. The production well then extracts the oil and gas that has been collected near
the well, forced to it by waterflooding. Secondary Recovery techniques like waterflooding are
known to cause seismic events. Injecting large amounts of water can cause an increase in pore

pressure and has been found to be related to seismic events at 27 seismic worldwide (National
Research Council, 2013).
Unconventional drilling is used when there are large reservoirs of oil and gas within shale
formations, but unlike conventional drilling, the reserves have not migrated to porous rock and
still remain in the source rock. To extract the oil and gas from these tight formations, hydraulic
fracturing is used to create pathways for the oil and gas to flow to the wellbore and up to the
surface. Hydraulic fracturing involves injecting high volumes of water containing proppants
(granular substances) and additives (chemicals to aid in the fluid properties) into a production
well. In hydraulic fracturing, a vertical well is drilled to depths of 5,000-9,000 feet in the
Marcellus Shale formation. The well bore is then curved and continues out horizontally for up to
10,000 feet. Afterwards, the well bore is loaded with a perforating gun, starting at the furthest
distance into the wellbore. The charges are detonated to create fractures in the shale layers.
After the charges are detonated, the section is blocked off and the perforating gun is used on the
next section, moving inward toward the start of the well. This process can be performed up to
400 times for one well bore. Figure 3.1 shows a cross-section of a hydraulic fracturing well into
the Marcellus Shale formation. The EPA regulates the construction of horizontal wells. Casings
are used to protect groundwater from contamination that could be caused by well.

Figure 3.1 Cross-Section of Well (Penn State, 2013)

After the fractures are created in the shale from perforation guns, the process of hydraulic
fracturing begins, and high volumes of water are pumped into the well. The fracturing fluid
(consisting of additives and proppants) is pumped under pressure into the well and flows into the
fractures caused by the perforations. The fracturing fluids continue to expand the perforations
and the proppant (usually sand) keeps the fractures open in the formation. Hydraulic fracturing
in Marcellus Shale uses about 4.5 million gallons of water per well (Susquehanna River Basin
Commission). After the fractures are lengthened from the water pressure, the water returns to
the surface as flowback. In Marcellus Shale drilling operations, it is estimated that only 20-35%
of the fracturing fluid returns to the surface according to URS Corporation (2011). According to
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (2011), water recovery is from
9% to 35% for horizontal Marcellus wells. Most of the flowback returns to the surface in the
first week of the initial fracturing process. The flowback is similar in composition to the initial
fracturing fluid but can also have a change in composition due to compounds contained within
the formation. Flowback can continue to return from the well for up to about four weeks.
7

Produced water also returns through the well. Produced water is water that is naturally occurring
in the Marcellus Shale formation that is brought to the surface with the natural gas. Flowback
water in the formation is absorbed and eventually becomes produced water.
3.1 Byproduct Disposal Techniques
Flowback water returns at a very high rate in initially, and decreases significantly with time. In
the first 4 days nearly 60% of the total flowback occurs. The daily flowback rate then decreases
to 2-5% for tor the next 2 weeks (URS Corporation, 2011). Flowback water is similar in
composition to the drilling fluid; however, it changes during its use, losing some chemicals
through dilution during the process, while picking up naturally occurring formation water.
Although the formation water is mostly brine due to the geological makeup of the Marcellus
Shale, it also includes heavy metals, naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and other dissolved solids. Heavy metals found in the Marcellus
Shale include lead, arsenic, barium, chromium, magnesium, manganese, strontium, and uranium.
Some of these heavy metals can cause adverse health effects due to exposure. NORM usually
consists of radium that was formed in the Marcellus Shale from clay and organic material.
Radium also poses several adverse health effects and should be treated with care when handling
and disposing (URS Corporation, 2011). The composition of the flowback can be hazardous to
humans and animals, making the disposal of the wastewater an important process in oil and gas
production.
Wastewater is temporarily stored before disposal. Depending on state regulations, the
wastewater can be stored in pits lined with plastic barriers or in above-ground storage tanks.
Storage tanks are preferred from an environmental standpoint as they are less likely to leak or be
poorly constructed. They also keep the wastewater from evaporating. Table 3.1 provides a
summary for the disposal options currently being used for wastewater from Marcellus Shale in
Pennsylvania. The wastewater being stored on a site has several post-use handling options. It
can undergo on-site treatment and be reused in well development. This practice is becoming
increasingly more common. If it is not reused after it is treated on-site, it is transported and
reused for other applications (such as roadway pre-wetting or deicing) or discharged. If the
water is not treated on-site, it is transported to a treatment facility or it is disposed of through
underground injection wells (Class II Wells). Underground injection is an increasingly popular
practice because publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) do not have the ability to reduce the
dissolved solids found in wastewater from the Marcellus Shale. Underground injection wells
require less treatment since the wastewater is placed underground. Industrial treatment plants are
increasing in use as opposed to publicly owned treatment works. Industrial treatment plants use
many of the same processes as POTWs, but they also include coagulation and precipitation
techniques to remove dissolved solids. Their discharges can still contain high levels of
pollutants. After water is treated at an industrial treatment plant, it is reused, then discharged to a
surface water body, or discharged to sewers for treatment by POTWs (Hammer & VanBriesen,
2012).
8

Table 3.1 Wastewater management from Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania in 2011 (barrels)
(Hammer & VanBriesen, 2012)

3.2 Class II UIC Wells

An injection well is defined by the EPA Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program as a
bored, drilled, or driven shaft, or dug hole that is deeper than it is wide; an improved sinkhole; or
a subsurface fluid distribution system (EPA, 2012). There are six different types of wells that
the EPA recognizes. The construction of an injection well depends on its type and intended use.
Injection wells are used for many things such as storage of CO2, waste disposal, enhancing oil
production, mining, and salt-water intrusion.
Class II wells are associated with oil and natural gas production. There are three types of Class II
wells. They can be used for enhanced-recovery, disposal, or hydrocarbon storage. When used as
an enhanced recovery well, brine, water, steam, polymers, carbon dioxide, or a combination of
fluids and gases are injection into formations to recover residual oil and sometime natural gas
(EPA 2012). The fluid or gas injected maintains the reservoir pressures and decreases the
viscosity of the extractable oil allowing the hydrocarbons to be driven toward the production
well. The pressure and volume of the injected fluid or gas is typically controlled to avoid
increasing the pore pressure of the reservoir above the reservoirs initial pore pressure (National
Research Council, 2013). When a well is hydraulically fractured, a form of enhanced recovery, it
is considered a Class II well. Nearly 80 percent of Class II wells are enhanced recovery wells
(EPA 2012).
Disposal Wells represent the second type of Class II wells. Disposal wells are used to inject
brines and other fluids that return to the surface during the production of oil and gas. The brine
and other fluids are processed and separated from the oil and gas. After this process has taken
9

place, fluid is injected into the same formation that it came out of using a Class II disposal well.
The fluid injected will stay in the formation it is injected into without migrating to other
formations if the well is constructed according to state and federal regulations and the fluid is
disposed according to the regulations (Paleontological Research Institution, 2012). Disposal
wells represent about 20% of the Class II wells (EPA, 2012). Figure 3.2 shows the geological
depth and formations fluids are injected into. The well on the left is a brine disposal well used
when injections are between confining formations, and below underground sources of drinking
water. The well in the middle is an enhanced recovery well that increases production for the
production well on the right. The enhanced recovery well is injected directly into the formation
where the hydrocarbons are found, between confining formations, and below underground
sources of drinking water.
Hydrocarbon Storage wells are another type of Class II wells. Liquid hydrocarbons are injected
into formations underground as part of the United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The
reserve has the capacity of 727-million-barrels, which is owned by the government as emergency
crude oil. The reserves have been used after they were completed in 2009. In 2011, 30.59
million barrels were sold due to the long-term interruptions in global supplies due to unrest in
Libya (USDOE, 2013). There are over 100 Class II hydrocarbon storage wells in the United
States (EPA, 2012).

10

Figure 3.2 Class II Wells (EPA 2012)

11

3.2.1 UIC Class II Well Site Locations

Class II wells used for brine disposal are becoming increasingly more important particularly in
the Marcellus Shale where production is projected to increase significantly over the next 30
years, with sustained production continuing after. The complex issue of disposing flowback and
produced water is being confronted by the use of Class II wells to store the disposal water.
Determining where to inject the fluid into the subsurface requires significant consideration of
multiple factors. The factors that must be addressed are geological standards, land use standards,
and operations standards. Class II wells can be developed solely for the purpose of brine
disposal. Existing wells can also be converted to injection wells where additional criteria must
be satisfied.
Geology is the first criteria that must be established when determining the location for injection
wells or converting existing wells. When determining if an existing well is capable of being
converted to an injection well, the ability for the well to receive the injected fluid must be
assessed. The existing well can be used for an injection well if the reservoir the well is
constructed into is depleted. The reservoir is depleted when wells have successful production. A
well can also be converted if there is a porous zone within the depth that is capable of absorbing
the injected fluid. If the well is a dry hole, it must be analyzed to determine if there are open
fracture systems within the formation that will allow the fluid to flow into (Arthur, Dutnell, &
Cornue, 2009). An area of review must also be conducted to identify active, temporarily
abandoned, and plugged oil and gas wells that are present in the same formation the potential
injection well will be constructed into. Private and public water sources must also be identified
and the well should be constructed in a different location or in a way that inhibits the flow of
injected fluids into the water source. Property title work must be performed as part of the land
use standards. If the operator is the owner of the property, the disposal well can be constructed
on the land in any area allowable by regulations. If the surface rights are not owned by the
operator, the operator must work with the landowner to establish an agreement before the
permitting process can be performed. Oil and gas lease agreements can contain language
granting rights to the operator to convert production wells to injection wells. Operations
standards must consider the operations of the injection well. Ideally, the well is near existing
operations that provide an efficient manner of disposing fluid from wells producing water or near
the site of future wells that will have significant flowback. The well location must provide
access for the vehicles transporting the brine waste (Arthur et al., 2009).
There are over 5,000 Class II wells in OH, PA, and WV collectively. Table 3.2 represents the
number of wells in each state. Of all Class II Wells, only a fraction is used for brine disposal.
Figure 3.2 shows the location of brine disposal and drilled Marcellus wells in the Appalachian
basin.

12

Table 3.2 Inventory of Class II Wells (EPA, 2013)

Inventory of Class II Wells as of (3/12/13)
State
Number of Class II Wells
OH
2,455
PA
1,862
WV
759
Total
5,076

Figure 3.2.2: Brine Disposal and Marcellus Wells in Appalachian Basin (Skoff
& Billman, 2013).
CHAPTER 4: SEISMICITY AND DAMS
It has long been understood that injection of fluids into the subsurface can potentially induce
earthquakes. In 1951, the United States Geological Survey prepared in cooperation with the
EPA, Earthquake Hazard Associated with Deep Well Injection A Report to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, (Nicholson & Wesson, 1951). Scientists have been aware of
the potential increased pore pressure caused by injection fluid, which can trigger earthquakes.
Microearthqaukes (magnitude (M) <2) occur as a routine part of the hydraulic fracturing. The
largest earthquake caused by hydraulic fracturing was magnitude 3.6, which is too small to pose

13

a serious threat. It is the process of disposal injections that pose a threat because of their ability
to induce large magnitude earthquakes (Ellsworth, W., 2013).
The number of earthquakes with magnitude of M > 3 was averaging about 21 events/year from
1967 to 2000. Since 2000, the number of earthquakes per year has increased. It is believed that
human influence is part of the contribution to the increase. More than 300 earthquakes occurred
between 2010 and 2012. The year with the greatest increase was 2011, which 188 M > 3
earthquakes were recorded. Earthquakes are expected to occur along plate boundaries where
elastic strain energy is released through the form of earthquakes. When fluid is injected, shear
stress levels of the plates are at similar levels with the strength limit of the crust. The fluid
causes changes in pore pressure and stress levels that affect fault stability and result in induced
earthquakes (Ellsworth, 2013).
When fluids are injected, the pore pressure and state of stress of the subsurface change. Stress
can be ignored when considering the causation of earthquakes by fluid injection. It is the pore
pressure that increases in the joints and faults that attribute to the seismicity. The increased pore
pressure causes a reduction of the slip resistance of faults increasing the potential probability of
an earthquake (NRC, 2013). Brine is often disposed in a previous well where a reservoir of oil
or gas has been extracted. This void in the formation causes a decrease in pore pressure. When
the fluid is disposed into the reservoir, the pore pressure increases from the point of injection.
As the fluid finds a pathway in the formation and through porous rock, the pore pressure
increases to its original state before the well was developed and oil or gas extracted. For an
earthquake to be induced, the pore pressure increase caused by fluid injection must be higher
than the pore pressure of the reservoir pre-development and extraction. Factors that affect the
rate of increase of pore pressure are the injection rate, the volume of the fluid injected, and the
characteristics of the formation and rock within the target zone.
Seismic events have been found to be a result of many different energy technologies from
hydraulic fracturing to vapor-dominated geothermal energy; however, it is wastewater disposal
wells that are of the greatest concern. As shown in table 4.1, Wastewater disposal wells have
caused more than 7 M 4 events. Earthquakes of Magnitude 4.0 4.9 have a typical maximum
modified Mercalli intensity of IV-V. According to the Mercalli scale, earthquakes of these
magnitudes are felt by nearly everybody, awaken many at night, dishes and windows can easily
break, and unstable objects may be overturned (USGS, 2013). An event of Magnitude 2 is
usually only felt by a few under favorable conditions. They can go unnoticed by humans, only to
be determined by seismic measuring stations.

14

Table 4.1 Historically felt seismic events (NRC, 2013)

Energy
Technology

Number of
Projects

Wastewater
Disposal
Wells

Approximately
30,000

Number
of Felt
Induced
Events
9

Maximum
Magnitude
of Felt
Events
4.8

Number
of Events
M 4.0
7

Net
Reservoir
Pressure
Change
Addition

Mechanism
for
Induced
Seismicity
Pore
Pressure
Increase

Location
of M 2.0
Events
AR, CO,
OH

4.1 Significant Seismic Occurrences

The growing concern of earthquakes induced by deep well injection has caused scientist to
review the limited data from previous earthquakes in an effort to make a connection between the
injection process and the earthquakes. Since earthquakes are a natural process and result of the
geologic principles of the earth it is hard to determine if the correlation between earthquakes and
injection wells implies causation. The areas of greatest interest for review are areas that have
previously experienced little to no seismic activity prior to the development of injection wells.
Scientists and researchers are studying these cases to get a better understanding of how the
injection wells affect geological formations and potential faults.
4.1.1 Rocky Mountain Arsenal Earthquakes
In 1961, the US Army drilled a well on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, which was about 6 miles
northeast of downtown Denver. The well was drilled to a depth of 12,045 feet and was
constructed to be used as an injection well to dispose of chemical fluid wastes. Injection began
in March 1962 and continued until September 1963. The average injection rate during this time
period was 181,000 gallons per day. For almost a year the well remained inactive. In August
1964, disposal resumed by way of gravity flow at a rate of 65,800 gallons per day. In April 1965
the waste was injected again at a rate of 148,000 gallons per day until injection was ceased in
February 1966. Between April 1962 and August 1967, a seismograph station located in Bergen
Park, Colorado recorded over 1,500 earthquakes. Although there was a slight amount of seismic
activity prior to the development of the injection well, the rate and magnitude of earthquake
occurrences increased significantly. Research conducted on the deep injection well by the
United States Geological Survey found that most of the earthquakes epicenter occurred within 5
miles of the injection well. The depths of the earthquakes were found to occur mostly within the
formation that the fluid was injected into. Earthquakes of significant magnitude were part of the
1,500 earthquakes, with three being greater or equal to M 4.5. Analysis of the earthquakes at
Rocky Mountain Arsenal showed that the increase in pressure of the existing fluid in the
formation caused the earthquakes by lowering the frictional resistance of formations along the
fault system (NRC, 2013).
4.1.2 Youngstown Earthquakes
In Youngstown, Ohio there were twelve recorded earthquakes that ranged from 2.1 to 4.0
magnitude. The first occurrence of these earthquakes started in March 2011. Although
monitoring of earthquakes in Ohio before 2000 was not as accurate as todays standards, there
15

was no recorded earthquake activity with epicenters near Youngstown before the first occurrence
in 2011. Figure 4.1.2 shows earthquake occurrences in Ohio. Youngstown is located in
Mahoning County. It can be found on the map at 415N, 8038W. Although Mahoning
Country residents have felt three other earthquakes within the past 25 years from nearby faults,
there were none in the County prior to 2011. Youngstown is not on a known fault.

Figure 4.1.2 Map of Ohio Earthquakes (Ohio Department of Natural Resources,

n.d.)
The Northstar 1 Class II deep injection well was drilled 200 feet into its target rock formation to
a total depth of 9,184 feet (ODNR, 2012). The maximum allowable injection pressure for the
Northstar 1 was 1,890 psi. This pressure is the standard starting maximum pressure for injection
wells per Ohio regulations. Ohio allows the operator to request the Ohio Department of Natural
16

Resources Division of Oil and Gas Resource Management (DOGRM) to review and adjust the
maximum allowable injection pressure based on the actual specific gravity of the fluid being
injected. The DOGRM allowed the pressure to be increased to 2,250 psi effective March 16,
2011. Table 4.1.2 lists the seismic events in Youngstown, Ohio. The first earthquake was
recorded on March 17, 2011, the day after DOGRM granted a pressure increase; however, the
operator did not begin injecting above 1850 psi until March 19, 2011. The operator requested a
second review of the injection pressure and on May 3, 2011 and DOGRM increased the
maximum allowable surface injection pressure to 2,500 psi. On December 30, 2011 the injection
well was voluntarily shut down. Up until the well injection was ceased 495,622 of barrels were
injected into the Northstar 1 well (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2012). The Ohio
Department of Natural Resources was unable to conclude weather the injections caused the
earthquakes and determined more information will be needed to have a better understanding of
what happened. In their report they concluded that certain circumstances must be met in order to
induce an earthquake. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources was unable to conclude
whether the injections caused the earthquakes and determined more information would be
needed to have a better understanding of what happened. In their report they concluded that
certain circumstances must be met in order to induce an earthquake. The circumstances stated in
the Preliminary Report on the Northstar 1 Class II Injection Well and the Seismic Events in the
Youngstown, Ohio, Area (2012) were as follows:
1. A fault must already exist within the crystalline basement rock;
2. That fault must already be in a near-failure state of stress;
3. An injection well must be drilled deep enough and near enough to the fault and have a
path of communication to the fault; and
4. The injection well must inject a sufficient quantity of fluids at a high enough pressure
and for an adequate period of time to cause failure, or movement, along that fault (or
system of faults). (ODNR, 2012)
Ohio is recommending there be made reforms of their Class II deep injection well program based
on the information they have gained through their reports. The reforms focus on reviewing
existing geologic data for known faults and potentially conducting seismic surveys for specific
well site locations. They are also looking at how injection pressures should be more closely
monitored.

17

Table 4.1.2 Seismic events in Youngstown Ohio Recorded by the Ohio Seismic Network
(ODNR, 2012)

4.2 USACE Dams in WV, OH, and PA

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) owns 649 dams in the U.S. and Puerto
Rico. It is their goal to ensure the safety of the people while dams perform their intended
function such as managing flood risk, hydropower, navigation, and recreation. Nearly 95 percent
of the 649 dams were built more than 30 years ago. Many of the dams were designed for a 50year service life, and 52 percent of the dams have exceeded their design life. The USACE
estimates that 15 million people are at risk from their dams (USACE, n.d.). The goal of the
USACE is to reduce the risk of these dams. They have developed a dam safety program that
prioritizes dams in their portfolio by factors such as level of risk, funding, urgency, etc. This
program allows them to use their resources in an efficient manner and quickly progress in
restoring the safety of the public from hazardous dams.
Figure 4.2 shows the locations of brine disposal injection wells and dams in West Virginia.
Many injection wells are in proximity to dams. The dams in the figure are not all controlled by
the USACE; however they are part of the USACE National Inventory of Dams (NID). Dams are
included in the National Inventory of Dams if they meet one of the following criteria:
1. High hazard classification - loss of one human life is likely if the dam fails,
2. Significant hazard classification - possible loss of human life and likely significant
property or environmental destruction,
3. Equal or exceed 25 feet in height and exceed 15 acre-feet in storage,
4. Equal or exceed 50 acre-feet storage and exceed 6 feet in height. (USACE, n.d.)
18

The dam locations were provided by the West Virginia GIS Technical Center. The Class II
injection well locations were also provided by the West Virginia GIS Technical Center and were
made available by James A. Peterson via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from
the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP).

Figure 4.2 Class II Wells and Dams in West Virginia (WVDEP, 2013 (1); WV
GIS, 2013)
Many dams in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia were constructed in areas that were known
to have little to no previous seismic activity. When the dams were designed and constructed,
seismic activity was not a sector of the design that was heavily investigated. Underground
injection wells may be causing seismic activity in areas that had no previously recorded
earthquakes. A dam failure from seismic activity is possible if the dams were not designed to
19

handle the stresses induced from earthquakes. There is another factor that is important in
determining the ability of a dam to handle seismic activity: the dams physical characteristics. A
study performed by Wang JT, Jin F, and Zhang CH at the Tsingua University in Beijing, China
found that the aging of concrete reduced the seismic safety of arch dams even if the dam was
designed to handle seismic activity. The environment poses different loading processes on the
concrete that cause it to degrade and harm their physical properties. The results from their study
showed that the normal degradation of the concrete over time caused three things to happen:
1. The contraction joint opening releases the tensile arch stress at the upper-middle
portion of the dam. In turn, the load is redistributed and the cantilever tensile stress
rises.
2. The chemical damage deteriorates the concrete modulus and worsens the tensile
cantilever stress on the downstream face; however, the reduction of dynamic
displacement and the joint opening occurs because of the modulus increase of the
chemically degraded region.
3. The coupled chemo-mechanical deterioration of the concrete worsens the stress
distribution of the dam, especially the tensile cantilever stress on the downstream
face. The tensile cantilever stress on the downstream face increases with aging, which
may damage the concrete and cause it to crack. In addition, the displacement and the
joint opening also increase with aging. (Wang, et al., 2011)
The potential damage caused by a failure of a dam from seismic activity is of importance
because of the number of lives that could be lost due to a dam failure. If the human induced
seismic activity occurs within close proximity to high hazard dams that are exceeding their
design life, then the possibility of a catastrophic failure increases.
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
I.) Seismic data near Class II injection wells offers strong evidence for the occurrence of human
induced seismic activity. The ODNR concluded that for a human induced seismic event to occur
via Class II injection, the following criteria must be met:
1. A fault must already exist within the crystalline basement rock;
2. That fault must already be in a near-failure state of stress;
3. An injection well must be drilled deep enough and near enough to the fault and have a
path of communication to the fault; and
4. The injection well must inject a sufficient quantity of fluids at a high enough pressure
and for an adequate period of time to cause failure, or movement, along that fault (or
system of faults). (ODNR, 2012)
II.) As concrete dams age, their physical properties are susceptible to degradation from exposure
to the environment and the continuous loading effects on the dam. The study performed at
Tsingua University found that the normal degradation of concrete had the following effects:
20

1. The contraction joint opening releases the tensile arch stress at the upper-middle
portion of the dam. In turn, the load is redistributed and the cantilever tensile stress
rises.
2. The chemical damage deteriorates the concrete modulus and worsens the tensile
cantilever stress on the downstream face; however, the reduction of dynamic
displacement and the joint opening occurs because of the modulus increase of the
chemically degraded region.
3. The coupled chemo-mechanical deterioration of the concrete worsens the stress
distribution of the dam, especially the tensile cantilever stress on the downstream
face. The tensile cantilever stress on the downstream face increases with aging, which
may damage the concrete and cause it to crack. In addition, the displacement and the
joint opening also increase with aging. (Wang, et al., 2011)
III.) A significant number of dams that are under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National
Inventory of Dams are within proximity to injection wells as shown in Figure 4.2. Many of these
dams were not designed to handle seismic activity. A large percent of the dams have exceeded
their design life and are susceptible to the negative effects of degradation.
IV.) The potential damage caused by a failure of a dam from seismic activity is of importance
because of the number of lives that could be lost and property that could be damaged due to a
dam failure. If the human induced seismic activity occurs within close proximity to high hazard
dams that are exceeding their design life, then the possibility of a catastrophic failure increases.
More research and investigation is needed on the following subjects to assess the safety of dams
with injection wells in proximity: a safe minimum distance for injection well use relative to
dams, sustainable injection pressures that will not cause a significant increase in pore pressure,
geological standards to prevent fault failures from injection, and dams ability to handle seismic
activity after degradation of the concrete has occurred.

21

REFERENCES
Ellsworth, W. (2013, July 12). Injection - Induced Earthquakes. Science Magazine.
DOI:10.1126/science.1225942
Energy Policy Act of 2005, H.R. 6, 322. 2005.
Hammer, R., & VanBriesen, J. (2012, May). In Frackings Wake: New Rules are Needed to
Protect Our Health and Environment from Contaminated Wastewater. National
Resources Defense Council (NRDC), D:12-05-A.
McFeeley, M. (2012, July) State Hydrualic Fracturing Discolsure Rules and Enforcement.
National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), IB:12-06-A.
National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy
Technologies. (2013). Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies. Washington,
D.C: National Academy Press.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). (2011). Natural Gas
Development Activities and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing. Supplemental Generic
Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter 5.
Nicholson, C. & Wesson, R. (1951). Earthquake Hazard Associated with Deep Well Injection
A Report to the U.S Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin
1951.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. (2013). Class II Brine Injection Wells of Ohio. Retrieved
from http://oilandgas.ohiodnr.gov/portals/oilgas/pdf/ClassII_Wells_Map.pdf
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. (2013). Map of Ohio Earthquakes. Retrieved from
http://ohiodnr.com/downloads/northstar/Fig.20_QuakeMap.pdf
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. (2013). Seismic Events in Youngstown Ohio Recorded
by the Ohio Seismic Network. Retrieved from
http://ohiodnr.com/downloads/northstar/YoungstownTable5.pdf
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. (2012, March). Preliminary Report on the Northstar 1
Class II injection Well and the Seismic Events in the Youngstown, Ohio, Area.
Paleontological Research Institution. (2012, January). Understanding Drilling Technology.
Marcellus Shale, Issue Number 6.
Paleontological Research Institution. (2011, November). Water: Out of the Wells. Marcellus
Shale, Issue Number 8.
22

Penn State Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research. (n.d.). Resources: Maps and Graphics.
Retrieved from http://www.marcellus.psu.edu/resources/maps.php
Skoff, D. & Billman, D. (2013, July 31). Facilitating Shale Play Development in Pennsylvania
Meeting the Need for Nearby Brine Disposal Wells. Search and Discovery Article
#80304.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission. (n.d.). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved From
http://www.srbc.net/programs/natural_gas_development_faq.htm.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. (n.d.). Dam Safety Program Program Activities.
Retrieved from
http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/DamSafetyProgram/ProgramActivities.
aspx
United States Army Corps of Engineers. (n.d.). Crops Map National Inventory of Dams.
Retrieved from http://geo.usace.army.mil/pgis/f?p=397:1:0
United States Energy Information Administration. (2012, December 5). Energy in Brief: What is
Shale Gas and Why is it Important? Retrieved from
http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/about_shale_gas.cfm
United States Energy Information Administration. (2012, June). Annual Energy Outlook 2012.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2012, May 4). Regulation of Hydraulic
Fracturing Under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Retrieved from
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroreg.cfm
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2012, May 9). Class II Wells Oil and
Gas Related Injection Wells (Class II). Retrieved from
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2013, March 12). Classes and Numbers
of Underground Injection Wells. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/uic/wells.htm
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2012, August 2). Classes of Wells.
Retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells.cfm
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2012, May 4). Basic Information about
Injection Wells. Retrieve from
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/basicinformation.cfm
United States Geological Survey (USGS). (2013, January 9). Magnitude / Intensity Comparison.
Earthquake Hazards program. Retrieved from
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/mag_vs_int.php
23

URS Corporation. (2011, March 25). Water Related Issues Associated with Gas Production in
the Marcellus Shale. NYSERDA Contract PO Number 10666.
Wang J T, Jin F, Zhang C H. (2011, March). Seismic safety of arch dams with aging effects. Sci
China Tech Sci, 2011, 54: 522-530, doi: 10.1007/s11431-010-4279-7.
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP). (2013). (1). Class II
Underground Injection Control Well locations [Microsoft Excel file]. Retrieved from
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to James A. Peterson.
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP). (2013). (2). Underground
Injection Control Permit Application Package.
West Virginia GIS Data Clearinghouse. (2013). Dams National Inventory of Dams (NID) for
West Virginia [AutoCAD Shape Source file]. Retrieved from
http://wvgis.wvu.edu/data/dataset.php?ID=127
West Virginia GIS Data Clearinghouse. (2013). West Virginia County Boundaries. [AutoCAD
Shape Source file]. Retrieved from http://wvgis.wvu.edu/data/dataset.php?ID=136

24