Envireau I4/ater

6 DISPOSAL METHOD
The proposal at the Ebberston Moor Field is to inject produced waters to the Triassic Shenuood Sandstone
formation rather than injection to the Permian Kirkham Abbey Formation.
6.1 EngineeringMethod
Water injection to the Shenvood Sandstone will be through a well completed through the injection zone either
with a perforated cemented liner or into open hole. The injection zone may target the full thickness of the
sandstone, depending on the exact nature ofthe sandstone formation encountered.
6.2 IniectionPressures
lnjection will be achieved by low pressure injection from surface; the hydrostatic pressure
of the water column
will assist the water injection with only limited additional pressure added from pumping.
No high pressure injection is foreseen since the injectivity of the injection well should be sufficient to provide the
required rates of injection. During the life of the injection well, accumulation of fines may lead to a higher driving
pressure being required to maintain injection rates however, injection pressure will be designed to be below
fracturing pressure.
6.3 Injection Rates and Volumes
The proposed rates and volumes of injection for the initial development phase of the Ebberston Moor Field are
presented in Table 8 below.
Table 8 Proposed lnjection Rates & Volumes
Assuming that the totalvolumes (for both phases) are injected into sandstone with a porosity of L0%; and the
water forms a spherical bubble, the radius of the bubble for the total volume would be in the order of 240m
(480m diameter). lf it is assumed that the porosity is L%, then the radius increases to 520m (1040m diameter).
The act of injection will result in displacement of the formation water, with a theoretical zone of influence in the
region of 1km. The effects of the displacement will be controlled by the elastic storage of the formation. Assuming
this to be 1 x LO-s m3/m3 then head effects would be expected to propagate up to 5200m from the injection point.
Given the fact that the injection well at EB-A is 40 km from the outcrop where the Sherwood Sandstone contains
usefulgroundwater, then no effect will be seen in the outcrop area.
6.4 Iniection Water Composition and Iniection Additives
The disposal water at Ebberston Moor may contain small quantities of the chemical additives detailed in Section
5.3 and will have a resultant composition similar to that presented in Section 5.4.
Ref: P:\Third Energt Ebberston Moor (1484)\Reporting\Report v7.6
Rev: I0/02/2014 2:45 PM
Up to 1900 5.BB million 9.25 Phase 1 & 2
1900 3.47 million s.00 Phase 2
1600 increasing to 1900 during
the final year
2.41million 4.25 Phase 1
Average Daily Injection (m3/day) Total Injection Volume (m3) Duration (years) Development Phase
Page 25 of4l
Envireau llater
7 CONCEPTUAL MODEL
The conceptual model presented below relates to this risk assessment, as opposed to the full hydrogeological
situation from surface to depth. lt has therefore, by necessity been simplified when compared to the geology. The
conceptual model is illustrated on Figure 13 (a,b,c) and the principalcomponents of the conceptual modelare:
o
The vertical hydrostratigraphic units
-
namely:
o The geology above the Oxford Clay (Layer 1)
o The geology from the base of the Mercia Mudstone to the Oxford Clay (Layer 2)
o The Sherwood Sandstone (Layer 3)
o The Zechstein (Permian)
/
Carboniferous (Layer 4)

The lateralvariation in geology, controlled by dip and east west faulting.
a
Recharge to the Sherwood Sandstone formation is limited to the outcrop and subcrop areas in Vale of
York
/
Mowbray. Recharge to the geology above the Oxford Clay is limited to the outcrop on the North
Yorkshire Moors.
Hydraulic properties of the layers have been defined by literature search, but broadly Layer 1 can be
taken as having useful hydraulic conductivity and storage; Layer 2 is poorly permeable (very low hydraulic
conductivity) and has limited useful storage; Layer 3 has useful hydraulic conductivity and storage; and
Layer 4 has limited hydraulic conductivity and storage, and poorly permeable clay and mudstone
horizons effectively hydraulically separate the Permian (Layer 4) from the overlying Triassic water bearing
formation.
Differences in water quality between the water bearing formations have been defined by literature
search and confirmed in the case of Layer 4, from sampling and analysis at Knapton.
The change in salinity of the formation water in the Sherwood Sandstone is illustrated by an arbitrary line
on Figure 13c. This line denotes a change from what we describe as groundwater to formation water.
The line has been located based on the literature search and can be conceptualised as an isochlor (a line
of equal salinity
[or
more accurately chloride concentrationl).
When combined, the various aspects of the conceptual model produce a system with no transfer of water
vertically between the permeable Layers 1 and 3, either upward or downward. This is achieved by the low
permeability and thickness of Layer 2 and low vertical hydraulic conductivity of Layer 4. The effectiveness of the
hydraulic separation is demonstrated by the marked difference in water quality between Layers 1 and 3, where
the sandstone is at depth.
The quality of the sandstone water at depth demonstrates that circulation of recharge into the Sherwood
Sandstone is limited to near the outcrop/subcrop areas, with very little deep circulation occurring. Evidence
published in the literature from isotope and ionic ratio analysis (Section 3.4.3.2 and 5.5) indicates that the NaCl in
the sandstone water is mineral rather than sea water based. The significant down dip distance of the EB-A site
effectively isolates it volumetrically from the aquifer zone.
Ref P:\Third Energ Ebberston Moor (l 484)\Reporting\Report v7.6
Rev: I0/02/2014 2:45 PM
o
Page 26 of4l
Envireou Water
8 RISKASSESSMENT
This assessment considers the dispsal of produced waters only and does not consider the risks associated with
the physicalconstruction phase of an injection well into the Shenrood Sandstone formation.
8.1 AssessmentMethodologr
DEFRI(s GL lll contains generic guidelines for the assessment and management of environmental risks. GL lll
outlines a staged approach to risk assessment and the document is intended to guide regulatory staff in
Government and its agencies, as well as those carrying out assessments, to reach a decision on managing
environmental risk.
A hydrogeological risk assessment for the proposed disposal of produced waters to the Shenrood Sandstone
formation at Ebberston Moor has been carried out in accordance with GL lll using the Source-Pathway-Receptor
(S-P-R) methodology described in the Environment Agenqy's Hl Environmental Risk Assessment framework
-
Annex J (Groundwater). Where S-P-R linkages have been identified, the sensitivity of the receptor, magnitude of
impact and significance of effect has been considered in order to assess potential risks.
8.1.1 ReceptorSensitivity
The sensitivity of water resource receptors is based on their status and considered resource value, as described in
Table 9 below.
Table 9 Receptor Sensitivity
A water resource desated or directly linked to a SSSI.
hincipal aquifer providing potable water to a small population
A river desated as being of Good status or with a target of Good
status orpotential underthe WFD
A water body used for national sporting events such as regatts or
sailing events
EC designated Cyprinid fishery
a
a
a
a
a Water resource with a high
quality and rarity at a national or
regional level and limited
potential for substitution.
High
A water resource making up a vital component of an SAC or SPA
underthe EC Habitats Directive
A water body achieving a status of 'High status or potential' under the
WFD
Princal aquifer providing potable water to a large population
EC designated Satrnonid fishery
a
a
a
a Water resource with an
importance and rarity at an
intemational level with limited
potential for substitution.
VeryHigh
Ref P)Thrd Energt Ebberston Moor (1484)\Reporting\Report v7.6
Rev: 10/02/2014 2:45 PM
Page 27 of4l
Erwreau Water
A non 'main' river or steafri or other water body without significant
ecological habitat
a Water resotrce with a low
qual and rarity at a local scale.
[w
o
Secondary aquifer providing potable water to a small population
o
An aquifer providing abstaction water for agricultural and industial
rse
Water resource with a high
qualrty and rarity at a local
scale; or Water resource with a
medium qualrty and rarity at a
regional or national scale.
Medium
8.1,2 Magnihrdeoflmpact
The magitude of a potential impact on a receptor depends on the nature and eltent of the proposed
development, and is independent of the sensitivity of the wter resource, as described in Table 10.
Table 10 Magnitude of lmpact
Physical impact to a water resource, but no sigrificant reductior/
increase in quality, productivity or biodivers
No significant impact on the economic value ofthe feature
No increase in floodrisk a
a
a Resul in an impact on attibute
but of insignificant magnitude to
affect use and/or integity.
VeryLow
Measurable changes in attibutg but of limited size and/orproportion
o Resulg in minor impact to
attibutes.
Iw
Loss /gain in productivity of a fishery.
Conibution / reduction of a significant proportion of the effluent in a
receiving river, but insufficient to change its WFD classification
Reduction / incree in the economic value ofthe feature
o
a
a Resuls in impact on integrity of
attibute or loss
.of
part of
attibute.
Medium
lss ofEU desated Salmonid fishery
Change in WFD clsification ofawaterbody
Compromise employment source
Ioss offlood storage/increased flood risk
Pollution of potable source of abstaction
a
a
a
a
a Results in a major change to
atibutes.
Hieh
ffi
MIE
Ref, P:lThird Energ Ebberston Moor (l 4&4)lReportingt'Report v7.6
Rar 10/02/20142:45 PM
Page 28 of4l
Envireau ll'ater
8.1.3 Significance of Effect
The significance of the potential effect is derived by combining the assessments of both the sensitivity of the
water resource and the magnitude of the impact in a simple matrix, as presented in Table 11 below. Effects which
are assessed to be major or moderate are considered to be significanf whilst those that are minor or negligible
are not significant.
Table 11 Significance of Effect
8.2 Hazardldentication
The conceptual model presented in Section 7 suggests that injection of produced water containing small
quantities of hydrocarbons and additives to the Shenruood Sandstone formation represents a potential hazard, as
summarised in Table 12 below.
Table 12 Source-Pathway-Receptor Linkage (lnjection of Produced Water to Shennood Sandstone)
Negligible Negligible Minor Moderate4inor
Neglible Minor Moderate/I4inor Moderate
Minor Moderate4inor Moderate Major4oderate
Moderate/lr4inor Moderate Major/lvloderate Major
Yes The Shenvood
Sandstone aquifer at
outcrop (wholesome,
lowsalin
groundwater)
Migration ofproduced
water from the point of
injection through the
Shenrood Sandstone
formation to the
outcrop area
Yes Groundwater bearing
formations above the
Li and any public or
private water supplies
targeting them; surface
waters
Failure ofwell casing
and migration of
produced water
through groundwater
Injection well targeting
Shenpood Sandstone
formation at Ebberston
Moor
@B-A
wellsitQ
Produced water
containing
hydrocarbons and
i4jection additives
Ref, P lThird Energ Ebberston Moor (l 484)\Reporting\Report v7.6
Rev: 10/022014 2:45 PM
Page 29 of4l
Envireau llater
The two S-P-R linkages above are also shown in the risk assessment summary in Table 13, which shows that whilst
there is a potential pathway between the injection well and groundwater receptors, the likelihood of occurrence
is low and negligible respectively because:
Approximately 750m of low permeability formations provide a vertical separation between the point of
injection and the nearest groundwater supplies.
The lateral distance between the point of injection and the feather edge of the Triassic Sandstone where
the formation provides potable water is in excess of 40km. Significant geological faulting between the
injection point and the outcrop area will limit lateral movement. lnjection displacement of formation
water over the lifetime of the scheme is in the region of lkm, with pressure effects limited to less than
5.2km.
Consequently, the only plausible S-P-R linkage would be due to a failure of the'injection well casing due to
inadequate construction and migration of produced waters into groundwater and surface water systems local to
the EB-A wellsite.
8.3 ReceptorSensitivity
Table 12 shows the potential receptors to the produced water hazard will be local to the EB-A wellsite and
comprise the formations containing groundwater above the Lias that might be targeted for public or private
water suppliet or which may provide base flow to streams and rivers.
The sensitivity of the identified receptors is considered in the risk assessment summary in Table 13. The most
significant groundwater receptor is the Principal Corallian aquifer, which is assessed as having a very high
sensitivity. The Secondary aquifers that exist between the Corallian and the Lias are assessed as having a medium
sensitivity.
Groundwater from the Principal and Secondary aquifer systems may be utilised for water supply and is also likely
to support base flow to a number of surface water features (streams and rivers). For the purpose of this
assessment, the sensitivity of those receptors is conservatively considered to be the same as that of the aquifer
systems themselves.
8.4 Magnitudeof Impact
The magnitude of the impact on the identified receptors is considered in the risk assessment summary in Table
13. lf produced water entered either the Principal Corallian aquifer or any of the Secondary aquifer systemg the
magnitude of the mpact would be high.
8.5 Signicance of Effect
The signifcance of effect is also considered in the risk assessment summary in Table 13. Based on the
methodology presented in Section 8.1, it follows that there could be a major effect if produced water entered the
Principal Corallian aquifer and a moderate effect if Secondary aquifer systems were affected.
Ref P:\Third Energt Ebberston Moor (1484)\Reporting\Report v7.6
Rev: I0/02D014 2:45 PM
a
a
Page
j0
of4l
Envireau ll'ater
8.5.1 EmbeddedMitigation
Construction of the injection well will be controlled by The Offshore lnstallations and Wells (Design and
Construction, etc.) Regulations 1996, which in summary places obligations on the welt-operator to:
Regulation 13:
Ensure that a well is designed, modified, commissioned, constructed, equipped, operated, maintained,
suspended and abandoned such that there is no unplanned escape offluids from the well and that the
risks to the health and safety of person from it or anything in i or in strata to which it is connected, are
as low as is reasonably practicable.
Regulation 18:
To make and put into effect arrangements in writing for independent examination by a competent
person before the design of the well is commenced. This independent examination is intended to provide
the Well-Operator that the well is designed and constructed properly and is maintained adequately.
Specific emphasis is given to the impartiality and independence of those responsible for carrying out
independent examinations.
The regulations ensure the protection of the environment and persons through careful design. Following a
number of internal reviews, the operations are reviewed by an independent competent third party. This process
ensures that the well is designed and planned to the highest standards.
As shown in the risk summary table in Table 13, for the purpose of this assessment it is assumed that the injection
well will be constructed in accordance with standard best practice and these regulatory requirements.
Consequently, the aquifer systems above the Lias will be cased, grouted and sealed before the well is progressed
into the Shenruood Sandstone where saline formation water will be encountered.
.
8.5.2 AdditionalMitigation
The injection pressures required to achieve successful injection of produced water nto the Shenood Sandstone
will be low and it is envisaged that the hydrostatic head of the produced water column will provide a sufficient
driving force.
lnjection pressures will be controlled to ensure they do not exceed the fracturing pressure of the formation,
which will provide additional mitigation. Consequentl as shown in the risk assessment summary table in Table
13, the resultant significance of effect is considered to be negligible.
Ref P )Third Energt Ebberston Moor (l 484)\Reporting\Report v7.6
Rev: 10/02/2014 2:45 PM
Page 3l of4l
I
ErnireauWater
Table 13 tnjection of Pnoduced Water- RiskAssessmentsummary
Ref: P :llhird hergt Ebberstot Mot ( I 484)lReponng@pol v7.6
Rev: 10/022014 2:45 PM
ril
hoduced
wEr
iecion
well
Mgration of
produced vafr
to the oJtqtop
afea
Faihne of well
*iog; migrion
of produced
wafr lbrough
groundwer
Sheruood
Sandstone
aquifer (
outcrop)
Secondary
aquifers
Principal
Corallian
aquifer
Yes
Yes
Yes
Negligible
VeryIow
Verylow
VeryHigh
High
Verl'High
High
Medirm
High
Major
Moderate
l"fajor
Dismce from
ortclop, naral
geological seing
and relatively
low volume of
injection rerroves
pafiway
Best practice in
well consrction
re,moves paftrway
Conrolled
iqiection
pressure
Nolmpact
Negligible
H
H
w
@
@
ru @
@
w
w
r4
ffi
ffi
Page 32 of4l
Envireau lTater
9 ALTERNATIVETECHNOTOGIES
9,1 BestAvailableTechnique
The water disposal technology described in this assessment is unique, in that it involves the injection of produced
water into a geological formation at a higher stratigraphic level than the producing unit. As such, it is important
that the technology is checked to ensure that it is the Best Available Technique (BAT). As a unique technology its
status wth respect to BAT has been derived using an approach based on that described by the Nuclear lndustry
Safety Directors Forum document titled 'Best Available Techniques (BAT) for the Management of the Generation
and Disposal of Radioactive Wastes - A Nuclear lndustry Code of Practice', published in December 2010. This
document provides a robust overview of the definition of BAT, in an industry where risk management is
paramount.
ldentification and implementation of BAT implies a balanced
judgement
of the benefit derived from a measure
and the cost or effort of its introduction. There is no single 'right way' to identifo BAT; although it is accepted that
all studies will be based on information, verified where practicable, and documented for transparency. BAT may
be established by reference to previous studies, or as an independent comparison of detriments and benefits. The
general rule is that the level of effort expended to identifu and implement BAT should be proportionate to the
scale of the issue to be resolved. ln many cases, studies will be constrained by one or more factors, depending
upon the assessment context. A number of assumptions may also be required, particularly where long timescales
are considered. lt is important that the process, and any underpinning constraints or assumptions, must be
documented and
justified.
Overall, the following principles should also be taken into account:
o
sustainabledevelopment;
o
waste hierarchy and waste form;
o
the precautionary principle; and
the proximity principle. a
This chapter sets out and documents the identification,and
justification
of the BAT for the disposal of produced
water at Ebberston Moor.
9.2 TechnologyOptions
The following technology options have been considered:
o
lnjection of produced water into the hyper saline Sherwood Sandstone formation;
o
lnstalling an injection well at Ebberston Moor to target the Kirkham Abbey production formation;
. o
lnstalling an injection well at Ebberston Moor to target the deeper Carboniferous strata;
o
lnstalling a pipeline to transport produced water back to KG$ from where it would be transported out to
the existing injection well in the Vale of Pickering; and
o
Disposalvia municipal sewage treatment works and discharge to surface water.
Ref: PlThird Energt Ebberston Moor (1484)\Reporting\Report v7.6
Rev: 10/02/2014 2:45 PM
Page 33 of4l
Envireau llater
The following sections describe the key components of the options wth respect to a scoring matri& which is
presented as Table 13. The scoring matrx is discussed in detail in Section 9.3.
9.2.1. Iniectionto Sherwood Sandstone Formation (Base Case)
The proposed disposal route is to the Sherwood Sandstone formation. This route has the following primary
benefits:
o
Engineering practicality as the technique is a proven, wellestablished technique offshore;
o
While a high cost option, the less deep injection level means that wellconstructon is lower;
o
Low environmental risk (see above);
o Low sustainability score, based on low energy use; and
o
Low precautionary principalscore based on robust risk analysis.
This route has the following primary dis-benefits:
o
Moderateregulatoracceptability.
9,2.2 Iniectionto Production Formation (IGF) -
Ebberston Moor
The current injection of produced water in the Vale of Pickering field results in recirculation of fluids from the
injection well, whereby the fluid travels through the fracture network within the KAF to the production well. This
results in 'watering-offl whereby high liquid rates are produced from the production well, resulting in further
processing of fluids at surface and lower overall gas recovery rates, thus limiting the commercial viability of the
Ebberston Moor Field. lt is a condition of the licence issued to Third Energy by the UK Government (DECC) that
recovery of hydrocarbons must be maximised.
lf a new injection well is installed within the boundaries of the Ebberston Moor field, then it is fully expected that
the same historic issues relating to recirculation of fluids will be observed. This leads to a high Production lmpact
score.
lf a KAF injection well was constructed at Ebberston Moor, then it would most likely be constructed as far away
from the production well as possible. Assuming an injection well was constructed on the furthest boundary of the
gas field, this would mean a produced water pipeline of around 10km in length would be required to transport
produced water from the production site to the disposal site.
The deeper injection well (relative to the base case) increases the cost score.
As an accepted and permitted disposal route, this option has a low regulator acceptability icore.
The produced water pipeline increases the environmental risk score (see
g.2.41.
9.2.3 Iniection to sub Permian Strata
-
Ebberston Moor
lnjection into the sub-Permian Strata
oses
engineering challenges, primarily due to the low permeability
(injeaivity) of these formations. Below the limestones of the Permian, the strata become dominated by clay rock
(shale) and indurated sandstone. lnjection into these formations is unlikely to be possible at low pressures and is.
Ref P:\Third Energt Ebberston Moor (1484)Weporting\Report v7.6
Rev: 10/022014 2:45 PM
Page
j4
of4l
Envireau Water
likely to require pressures
that signfcantly increase the risk of fracturing. lf this were to occur, while it would not
be likely to increase the environmental risk, it would increase the production ris( via movement of water back to
the production horizon.
Costs increase over the base case due to the increased depth of injection.
As an accepted and permitted disposal route, this option has a low regulator acceptability score.
9.2.4 Injection to Production Formation (KAF)
- Vale of
pickering
lf the existing injection well in the Vale of Pickering is used as a disposal route for produced waters originating
from production wells at Ebberston Moor, this will further diminish the productivity
of the existing wells in the
Vale of Pickering, thus limiting the commercial viability of the Vale of Pickering Fields. tt is a condition of the
licence issued to Third Energy by the UK Government (DECC) that recovery of hydrocarbons must be maximised.
ln order to utilise existing injection wells in the Vale of Pickering, a pipeline will need to be installed to transport
produced water from Ebberston Moor to KGS. The pipeline would be around L0km in length and would follow a
relatively direct route, subject to landowner agreement.
The construction of a pipeline for produced water would introduce a number or environmental risks, as
presented in Table 14 below. The risks illustrated in Table i.0 represent the situation after taking appropriate
mitigation measures. lt is not the intention of this report to undertake a detailed risk analysis of pipeline
construction, but to recognise that risks remain after construction, and during the operation of a pipeline.
Table 14 water Related Risks Associated with a
produced
water
pipeline
The most significant risk associated with a produced water pipelines is the potential for disturbance and pollution
of the hghly sensitive Scarborough SpZ.
Figure 1.2 illustrates the extent to which pipelines could infringe on the Scarborough SPZ. Approximately 3km of
the pipeline to Knapton would cross the SPZ, whilst a pipeline to an injection well in the Ebberston Moor Field
(located
as far as possible from production wells) would cross up to 10km of the SPZ. Conversely, an injection well
targeting the Sherwood Sandstone would be constructed at the same site as the production well (EB-A) and
would therefore totally remove the need for a produced water pipeline crossing the SPZ. Based on this, the
environmental risk score has been increased for the pipeline options.
Ref P:\Third Energt Ebberston Moor (14]4)Weporting\Report v7.6
Rev: I0/02/2014 2:45 PM
Moderate Moderate High
Pipeline leakage and pollution of DTWPAs and SPZs
Low Low High
Pollution & disturbance of DTWPAs and SPZs during
pipeline construction
Low Low High
Disturbance of wetland ecosystems
Risk Likelihood Consequence
Hazard
Page 35 of4l
Envireau Water
9.3 ScoringMatrix
Table 15 presents a scoring matrix which evaluates the BAT criteria. The matrix looks at each of the criteria
presented in Section 9.1 together with other important factors. The only aspect that is missing is "waste hierarchy
& waste form". The waste hierarchy is summarised in the embedded figure below.
Prefened Environmentl Opton
Use BATto ensure
wasteis not
generated
unnecessadly
Waslecreatcd:
UseBATto ensure
waste discharges are
minimised
Liquld
Waste discharged:
UseBATto
minimise impads
Least Prefened Environmental Opton
Within the context of the produced water, the water has to be produced. lt is a part of the process of extracting
gas. The high salinity of the water means that it has no practical re-use or options for recycling, other than in th
development of new gas wells, which isn't the intention within the context of this proposal. Energy recovery is not
applicable in this case and therefore disposal is the only option. Size reduction is not applicable.
Table 15 provides a relative scoring system that has been adjusted by a simple weighting. Cost has been reduced
in significance, as while it is important it is not an overriding factor. The most important factors are environmental
risk and production impact. The former because this is what is being protected and the latter because loss in
production will result in failure of the company and goes against the requirements of the DECC licence conditions.
The matrix has been designed so that a low number gives the best option.
9.4 Summary
The scoring matrix identifies in a systematic way that the Sherwood Sandstone formation disposal route is BAT
Given that the overall disposal is low risk (Section 8) Envireau Water consider that this qualitative BAT assessment
is appropriate and meets the requirements of the BAT guidelines referenced above.
Ref P:\Thrd Energt Ebberston Moor (1484)\ReportingWeport v7.6
Rev: 10/02/2014 3:37 PM
Reduce lmpact through Chemical
and Phyrical Form
Gas
Solid
I
;,,
Rgg.t--$9
r--t; -. .: !.i.': r':,i.. -.:
Re-use
Reduce
Avoid
Page 36 of4l
ErwireauWater
Tablel5 BATScodngMatrix
VoP
=Vale
of Pckerng
EM=Ebberston Mr
Ref, P:\Ihrd herg Ebberxtot Mr (14&l)lReportinglRept v7.6
Rar 10/022014 3:37 PM
Discharge to $xce watr
Pline to VoP and inject o KAF
Injection into srb Permian Str
@M
site)
Injection into I(AF
@M
si)
Discharge to uface uater
fnjection into Shntrood Smdstone
Pline o VoP ad tuect to KAF
Injection into srb Permian Stn (EM
site)
iectionintoKAF@M)
Injection ino Sherwood Sdstone
3
5
I
J
3
3
5
8
J
3
5
5
3.5
5
2.5
t0
IE
l0
7
l0
5
l5
7.5
1.5
7.5
1.5
10
5
I
5
I
0
l5
6
15
0
0
t0
4
10
0
8
J
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I0
5
I
I
I
l0
5
I
I
I
5
5
I
I
I
5
5
I
I
I
5
5
I
I
5
5
5
I
I
5
5l
50.5
23
34.5
l5
5l
48
24
32
t7
Page 37 of4l
Envireau lVater
10
fusTrFrcATIoN
FoR IN|ECTION TO THE SHERWOOD SANDSTONE
Based on the risk assessment provided in Section 8 and the BAT analysis in Section 9, the alternative methods of
water disposal involve technologies which will:
o
Reduce productivity and the rates ofgas recovery
o
Limit the commercial viability of gas production from the Ebberston Moor Field
o
lntroduce significant environmental risk
By comparison, the proposed method of water disposal by injection to the Sherwood Sandstone will:
o
Maximise productivity and the rates of gas recovery
o
Maximise the commercialviability of gas production from the Ebberston Moor Field
o
Minimise environmental risl most significantly because there is no requirement for a pipeline to
transport produced water across the Scarborough SPZ
It is therefore considered that in this particular casd, the disposal of produced water to the Sherwood Sandstone
represents both the BAT and the BPEO.
Ref P:\Third Energt Ebberston Moor (1484)\Reportng\Report v7.6
Rev: 10/02/20142:45 PM
Page
j8
of4l
Envireau ll'ater
LI SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
The technical analysis and risk assessment presented above demonstrates that fundamentally and crucially, there
is no (or essentially no) environmental risk associated with properly designed and managed disposal. This is based
on clear hydraulic and geochemical
separation of the water bearing formations of the Trassic and the aquifers of
the shallow groundwater
system of the Upper Jurassic. The conceptual hydrogeological model underpinning this
assessment has been discussed and agreed in principle with the local Environment Agency Groundwater &
Contaminated Land team.
Comparison of the North Sea salinity with the main constituents of the produced water from the KAF and the
Shenvood Sandstone formation water show that the KAF water is approximately two times more saline than the
Shenood Sandstone formation water. However, this is within the context of both waters having total dissolved
solids concentration (TDS) n excess of 18Q000mg/1. Both waters show significant amounts of naturally occurring
hydrocarbons, with the produced water showing more, as would be expected. The produced water and
Shenruood Sandstone formation water are 10 and 5 times more saline than the North Sea, respectively. On this
basis, and in line with UKIAG guidance the Shenvood Sandstone formation water has no resource value.
Therefore the formation water, into which disposalwilltake place can be defined as:
o
Permanentlyunsuitable
o
Deep and isolated
o
Of no resource value
On this basis the WFD, GWDD and UK regulations which cascade from them, allow disposal.
The design and management of the disposal well (borehole) will utilise standard oil and gas field practices wh
respect to casing setting and grouting,
curing and testing to ensure full protection of the shallow aquifers and
groundwater system.
Envireau Water
03 December20LS
Ref P:\Third Energt Ebberston Moor (1484)\Reporting\Report v7.6
Rev: 10/022014 2:45 PM
Page 39 of4l
Envireau Water
L2 BIBLIOGRAPHY
The following documents have been used as reference material in the compilation of this technical assessment
(Bolded titles referto the relevant Regulations, Directives, Guidelines and UKAG documents):
Allen, D. J., et al (L9971, The physical properties of major aquifers in England and Wales. BGS Tech. Rep.
WD/97
/34.
Environment Agency R&D publc. 8.
Application of Groundwater Standards to Regulation - UK Technical Advisory Group on the Water Framework
Directive, Application of GroundwaterStandards to Regulation, March 2011.
Best Available Techniques (BAT) for the Management of the Generation and Disposal of Radioactive Wastes - A
Nuclear lndustry Code of Practice. Nuclear lndustry Safety Directors Forum. lssue 1 December 2010.
Bottrell, S.H., et al (2006) Combined isotopic and modelling approach to determining the source of saline
groundwaters in the Selby Sheruood Sandstone aquifer, UK. Geological Society, London, Special Publications,
v263 pp325-338.
Bricker, S. H., et al (2012) Effects of CO2 injection on shallow groundwater resources: A hypothetical case study in
the Sherwood Sandstone aquifer, UK. lnternationalJournal of Greenhouse Gas Control 11, pp337-348.
British GeologicalSurvey (BGS) 1:50 000 scale sheets:
E027 - Durham
E032 - Barnard Castle
E033 - Stockton
E034 - Guisborough
E035 - Whitby & Scalby (includes part of E044)
E041- Richmond
8042 - Northallerton
E043 - Egton
E051- Masham
E052 - Thirsk
E053 - Pickering
E054 - Scarborough
E055 - Flamborough and Bridlington (includes part of E065)
E062 - Harrogate
E063 - York
E064 - Great Driffield
E070 - Leeds
E071 - Selby
8072 - Beverley
E073 - Hornsea
E078 - Wakefield
8079 - Goole
E080 - Kingston upon Hull
Defining & Reporting on Groundwater Bodies - UK Technical Advisory Group on the Water Framework Directive
V 6.2L1 Mar
/2011.
Final 300312.
Downing, R.4., et al (1985) Cleethorpes No. 1 Geothermal Well
-
a preliminary assessment of the resource,
lnvestigation into the Geothermal Potentialof the UK British Geological Survey.
Ref, P:\Third Energt Ebberston Moor (1484)\Reportng\Report v7.6
Rev: 10/02/20142:45 PM
Page 40 of4l
Envireau lil'ater
Environment Agency, The Refining of the Scarborough Source Protection Zone Delineation in the Corallian
Limestone Aquifer, Environment Agency Report, 2012.
Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.
European Water Framework Directive - DIRECTIVE 2cff,/6O/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official
Journal of the European Communities.
Gale, 1.N., et al (1983). The post Carboniferous rocks of the East Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Basin, lnvestigation of
the Geothermal Potentialof the U British Geologicalsurvey.
Green Leaves lll - Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management: Green Leaves lll. Revised
Departmental Guidance Prepared by Defra and the Collaborative Centre of Excellence in Understanding and
Managing Natural and Environmental Risks, Cranfield University, November 2011.
Groundwater Daughter Directive - DIRECflVE 2006/t].8/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration. Official
Journalof the European Union.
Groundwater Directive - Council Directive 8O/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater
against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances. OfficialJournal of the European Communities.
Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice (GP3), Version 1, Environment Agency, November 2012.
Groundwater Regulations - Groundwater (England
and Wales) Regulations 2009.
H1 Environmental Risk Assessment framework
-
Annex J (Groundwater). Environment Agency, 20L0.
Hem 1985, Study and lnterpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water. USGS Water Supply Paper
2254.
Jones, H. K., et al (2000), The physical properties of minor aquifers in England and Wales. BGS Tech. Rep.
WD/00/04. Environment Agency R&D publc. 68.
tandfilf Directive - Council Directive 1999/3L/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste. Official Journal of the
European Communities.
The Royal Belgian lnstitute of Natural Sciences (www.naturalsciences.be)
Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Position Statement WAT-PS-10-01, Assigning groundwater assessment
criteria for pollutant inputs, Version 2.t, JuneZOLL
Shand, P., et al (2002) Baseline Report Series 1: The Permo-Triassic Sandstones of the Vale of Yorl British
Geological Survey Commissioned Report No. CR/02/102N.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, EPA 816-F-09-@4,
May 2009.
World Health Organisation, Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, Fourth Edition, 2011.
Ref P:\Third Energt Ebberston Moor (1484)\Reporting\Report v7.6
Rev: 10/02/2014 2:45 PM
Page4l of4l