X

Track changes made to this page

If you find this page useful and would like to be notified of changes made to this page, start by inputting your email below.



Privacy policy
Close this window

powered by ChangeDetection

Difference between revisions of "34-155-21447"

m
 
m
Line 3: Line 3:
 
{| class="wikitable welldetails" width="95%"
 
{| class="wikitable welldetails" width="95%"
 
| Well ID: 34-155-21447
 
| Well ID: 34-155-21447
−
| style="height=100%; align=center" rowspan="15" | {{#display_map: 41.2440341088, -80.6411466465 | width=100% | height=100% }}
+
| style="height=100%; align=center" rowspan="15" | {{#display_map: 41.24403411, -80.64114665 | width=100% | height=100% }}  
 
|-
 
|-
−
| County:
+
| County: [[Trumbull County, Ohio|Trumbull]]
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Municipality:
+
| Municipality:  
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Operator Name:
+
| Operator Name: [[KLEESE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCS]]
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Well Pad ID:
+
| Well Pad ID:  
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Farm/Lease Name:
+
| Farm/Lease Name:  
 
|-
 
|-
−
| First Permit Date:
+
| First Permit Date:  
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Last Permit Date:
+
| Last Permit Date:  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Spud Date: 1980-09-22
 
| Spud Date: 1980-09-22
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Unconventional:
+
| Unconventional: No
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Horizontal:
+
| Configuration: Vertical
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Producing: No
+
| Well Status: Active Injection
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Violations: 0
 
| Violations: 0
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Latitude: 41.2440341088
+
| Latitude: 41.24403411
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Longitude: -80.6411466465
+
| Longitude: -80.64114665
 
|-
 
|-
 
|}
 
|}
Line 43: Line 43:
 
!scope="col" | OIL QUANTITY
 
!scope="col" | OIL QUANTITY
 
!scope="col" | OIL PRODUCTION DAYS
 
!scope="col" | OIL PRODUCTION DAYS
−
|}
 
−
== Waste Data ==
 
−
{| class="wikitable sortable" width="95%"
 
−
!scope="col" | PERIOD
 
−
!scope="col" | TYPE
 
−
!scope="col" | QUANTITY
 
−
!scope="col" | UNITS
 
−
!scope="col" | DISPOSAL METHOD
 
−
!scope="col" | WASTE FACILITY PERMIT ID
 
−
!scope="col" | WASTE FACILITY NAME
 
−
!scope="col" | FACILITY CITY
 
−
!scope="col" | FACILITY STATE
 
−
|}
 
−
== Inspection Data ==
 
−
{| class="wikitable sortable" width="95%"
 
−
!scope="col" | INSPECTION ID
 
−
!scope="col" | DATE
 
−
!scope="col" | DESCRIPTION
 
−
!scope="col" | COMMENT
 
−
!scope="col" | VIOLATION ID
 
−
!scope="col" | VIOLATION CODE
 
−
!scope="col" | VIOLATION_COMMENT
 
 
|-
 
|-
−
| -1169592239
+
| 1984-0
−
| 2013-08-20
+
| style="text-align:right;" | 4900.0
−
|
+
|
−
| There were no violations at the time of my inspection.
+
|
−
|
+
|
−
|
+
| style="text-align:right;" | 18.0
−
|
+
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| 1985-0
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 6621.0
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 77.0
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| 1986-0
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 5756.0
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 0.0
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| 1987-0
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 4346.0
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 84.0
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| 1988-0
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 3688.0
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 38.0
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| 1989-0
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 3202.0
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 24.0
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| 1990-0
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 3118.0
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 0.0
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| 1992-0
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 53.0
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 0.0
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| 1993-0
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 0.0
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|  
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 20.0
 +
|  
 +
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 +
| 2002-0
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 4816.0
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 31.0
 +
|
 
|-
 
|-
−
| -1285992113
 
−
| 2013-04-04
 
−
|
 
−
| My inspection of the injection facility and well found no violations.  The pump was operating at the time pressures were gauged.
 
−
|
 
−
|
 
−
|
 
 
|-
 
|-
 +
| 2003-0
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 4133.0
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 0.0
 +
|
 
|-
 
|-
−
| -1386193687
 
−
| 2014-06-13
 
−
|
 
−
| An inspection of the well and injection facility found no violations.
 
−
|
 
−
|
 
−
|
 
 
|-
 
|-
 +
| 2004-0
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 2837.0
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 0.0
 +
|
 
|-
 
|-
−
| -1505133869
 
−
| 2012-05-30
 
−
|
 
−
| My inspection of this well site found no violations.  The service rig was swabbing the well.
 
−
|
 
−
|
 
−
|
 
 
|-
 
|-
 +
| 2005-0
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 3069.0
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 0.0
 +
|
 
|-
 
|-
−
| -1662058809
 
−
| 2012-11-20
 
−
|
 
−
| My inspection of the injection facility and well found no violations.  The pump was operating, while the pressures were gauged.
 
−
|
 
−
|
 
−
|
 
 
|-
 
|-
 +
| 2006-0
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 2168.0
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 61.0
 +
|
 
|-
 
|-
−
| -1718351808
 
−
| 2012-06-05
 
−
|
 
−
| My inspection of this well site found that the service rig was drilling out the second squeeze plug.
 
−
|
 
−
|
 
−
|
 
 
|-
 
|-
 +
| 2007-0
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 1752.0
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 0.0
 +
|
 
|-
 
|-
−
| -1977848345
 
−
| 2011-10-17
 
−
|
 
−
| A mechanical integrity test was performed on the well.  1200 PSI was placed on the tubing/casing annulus.  There was no decline in pressure observed during the 15 minute test period.
 
−
|
 
−
|
 
−
|
 
 
|-
 
|-
 +
| 2008-0
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 3540.0
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 49.0
 +
|
 
|-
 
|-
−
| -2007932862
 
−
| 2012-06-06
 
−
|
 
−
| I performed a mechanical integrity test with 1095 psi. on the annulus for 15 minutes without pressure loss - test passed.
 
−
|
 
−
|
 
−
|
 
 
|-
 
|-
 +
| 2010-0
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 2462.0
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 0.0
 +
|
 
|-
 
|-
−
| -777143255
 
−
| 2012-07-03
 
−
|
 
−
| My inspection of the well site found no violations at the time.
 
−
|
 
−
|
 
−
|
 
 
|-
 
|-
 +
| 2011-0
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 1516.0
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
| style="text-align:right;" | 0.0
 +
|
 
|-
 
|-
−
| -930312009
+
|}
−
| 2013-10-10
+
For data sources see<ref>{{cite web
−
|
+
| title = Ohio Department of Natural Resources RBDMS
−
| There were no violations at the time of inspection.
+
| publisher = [http://oilandgas.ohiodnr.gov/]
−
|
+
| date = 2015-06-19
−
|
+
| url = http://wellwiki.org/wiki/Ohio_Oil_and_Gas_Data_Sources#Production
−
|
+
| accessdate = 2015-06-20 }}</ref>
 +
== Inspection Data ==
 +
{| class="wikitable sortable" width="95%"
 +
!scope="col" | INSPECTION ID
 +
!scope="col" | DATE
 +
!scope="col" | DESCRIPTION
 +
!scope="col" | COMMENT
 +
!scope="col" | VIOLATION ID
 +
!scope="col" | VIOLATION CODE
 +
!scope="col" | VIOLATION COMMENT
 +
|-
 +
| -1114437577
 +
| 2014-09-04
 +
|  
 +
| An inspection of the well and injection facility found no violations.
 +
|  
 +
|  
 +
|  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
| 1129130094
 
| 1129130094
 
| 2012-05-31
 
| 2012-05-31
−
|
+
|  
 
| My inspection of this well site found that the service rig was running tubing into the well.
 
| My inspection of this well site found that the service rig was running tubing into the well.
−
|
+
|
−
|
+
|
−
|
+
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| -1169592239
 +
| 2013-08-20
 +
|
 +
| There were no violations at the time of my inspection.
 +
|  
 +
|  
 +
|  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
| 1280284175
 
| 1280284175
 
| 2012-05-14
 
| 2012-05-14
−
|
+
|  
 
| My inspection of this well site found no violations at the time.  The 4-1/2 inch casing was perforated to accommodate a cement squeeze job.
 
| My inspection of this well site found no violations at the time.  The 4-1/2 inch casing was perforated to accommodate a cement squeeze job.
−
|
+
|  
−
|
+
|  
−
|
+
|  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
| 1284569202
 
| 1284569202
 
| 2014-03-17
 
| 2014-03-17
−
|
+
|  
 
| The gauge on the annulus was broken.  My inspection of the well found no violations at the time.
 
| The gauge on the annulus was broken.  My inspection of the well found no violations at the time.
−
|
+
|
−
|
+
|
−
|
+
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| -1285566546
 +
| 2014-12-29
 +
|
 +
| The injection well and surface facility were inspected.  There were no violations found at the time.
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| -1285992113
 +
| 2013-04-04
 +
|
 +
| My inspection of the injection facility and well found no violations.  The pump was operating at the time pressures were gauged.
 +
|  
 +
|  
 +
|  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
| 1315508910
 
| 1315508910
 
| 2011-08-18
 
| 2011-08-18
−
|
+
|  
 
| The owner has applied to convert the well to saltwater injection.  The well site was inspected as part of a field review.  There are no water wells or bodies of water within close proximity to the proposed site.  The inspection found no additional site sp
 
| The owner has applied to convert the well to saltwater injection.  The well site was inspected as part of a field review.  There are no water wells or bodies of water within close proximity to the proposed site.  The inspection found no additional site sp
−
|
+
|  
−
|
+
|  
−
|
+
|  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
| 1318863575
 
| 1318863575
 
| 2011-10-03
 
| 2011-10-03
−
|
+
|  
−
| On 9/22/11, Kleese Development perforated this old Clinton production well with 40 shots from 4949' to 5000'. Combined with the 15 original perforations from 4954' to 4996', when the well was completed 1980, there are a total of 55 perforations in the Clinton interval. On 9/23/11, the well was refraced in anticipation of converting this to a salt water disposal well. Approximately 3/4 of the way through the job (130,000 gallons out of 174,835 gallons used), the well started flowing oil out of the annulus between the 4.5" production casing and the 8-5/8" surface casing. According to reports from onsite witnesses, the annular flow rate never approached the frac injection rate. After the initial kick, the annular flow became sporadic until it ultimately stopped. Upon learning of the annular flow, Columbus requested a segmented bond log and a radioactive tracer test to verify the integrity of the 4.5" casing and the primary cement job. On 10/3/11, Matt Kleese (owner/representative), Tom Wood (consultant), Phoenix Well Service (cased hole tools), Core Laboratories (radioactive ceramic beads), Petroset Cementing Service (pump truck) and Steve Ochs (ODNR) were on site to complete the required tasks. The first action was to run a gamma ray log with collar locator to correct for depth along with a cement bond log to confirm cement integrity. Cement bond to the pipe and to the formation was good. The well will go on vacuum when left standing, so the decision was made to leave the gamma ray tool down hole to trace the bead movement. Core Laboratories placed a predetermined number of ceramic beads containing Scandium 46 inside the 4.5" casing. The beads were displaced with brine and the gamma ray tool identified their location between 4310' and 4450'. The beads were over displaced twice more and were ultimately forced through the perforations. There was no indication that the beads were moving uphole behind the casing. Based on the cement bond log and the tracer test, it does not appear that there was any casing or cement integrity loss during the frac job. The show of oil may be attributed to an uncemented uphole formation (Oriskany et. al.).
+
| On 9/22/11, Kleese Development perforated this old Clinton production well with 40 shots from 4949' to 5000'. Combined with the 15 original perforations from 4954' to 4996', when the well was completed 1980, there are a total of 55 perforations in the Clinton interval. On 9/23/11, the well was refraced in anticipation of converting this to a salt water disposal well. Approximately 3/4 of the way through the job (130,000 gallons out of 174,835 gallons used), the well started flowing oil out of the annulus between the 4.5 production casing and the 8-5/8 surface casing. According to reports from onsite witnesses, the annular flow rate never approached the frac injection rate. After the initial kick, the annular flow became sporadic until it ultimately stopped. Upon learning of the annular flow, Columbus requested a segmented bond log and a radioactive tracer test to verify the integrity of the 4.5 casing and the primary cement job. On 10/3/11, Matt Kleese (owner/representative), Tom Wood (consultant), Phoenix Well Service (cased hole tools), Core Laboratories (radioactive ceramic beads), Petroset Cementing Service (pump truck) and Steve Ochs (ODNR) were on site to complete the required tasks. The first action was to run a gamma ray log with collar locator to correct for depth along with a cement bond log to confirm cement integrity. Cement bond to the pipe and to the formation was good. The well will go on vacuum when left standing, so the decision was made to leave the gamma ray tool down hole to trace the bead movement. Core Laboratories placed a predetermined number of ceramic beads containing Scandium 46 inside the 4.5 casing. The beads were displaced with brine and the gamma ray tool identified their location between 4310' and 4450'. The beads were over displaced twice more and were ultimately forced through the perforations. There was no indication that the beads were moving uphole behind the casing. Based on the cement bond log and the tracer test, it does not appear that there was any casing or cement integrity loss during the frac job. The show of oil may be attributed to an uncemented uphole formation (Oriskany et. al.).
−
|
+
|  
−
|
+
|  
−
|
+
|  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
| 1323204839
 
| 1323204839
 
| 2011-11-30
 
| 2011-11-30
−
|
+
|  
 
| The flow line was pressure tested at 1660 PSI.  There was no loss in pressure during 15 minute period.
 
| The flow line was pressure tested at 1660 PSI.  There was no loss in pressure during 15 minute period.
−
|
+
|  
−
|
+
|  
−
|
+
|  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
| 1383765000
 
| 1383765000
 
| 2013-10-09
 
| 2013-10-09
−
|
+
|  
 
| My inspection of the surface facility found no violations.
 
| My inspection of the surface facility found no violations.
−
|
+
|
−
|
+
|
−
|
+
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| -1386193687
 +
| 2014-06-13
 +
|
 +
| An inspection of the well and injection facility found no violations.
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| -1505133869
 +
| 2012-05-30
 +
|
 +
| My inspection of this well site found no violations.  The service rig was swabbing the well.
 +
|  
 +
|  
 +
|  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
| 1538281688
 
| 1538281688
 
| 2012-08-16
 
| 2012-08-16
−
|
+
|  
 
| My inspection of the well site and injection facility found no violations.  The pump was operating at the time.
 
| My inspection of the well site and injection facility found no violations.  The pump was operating at the time.
−
|
+
|
−
|
+
|
−
|
+
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| -1662058809
 +
| 2012-11-20
 +
|
 +
| My inspection of the injection facility and well found no violations.  The pump was operating, while the pressures were gauged.
 +
|  
 +
|  
 +
|  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
| 1670306468
 
| 1670306468
 
| 2012-05-12
 
| 2012-05-12
−
|
+
|  
 
| My inspection of this well site found no violations at the time.  New 4-1/2 inch casing was ran into the well on a casing patch.  The casing was pressure tested and it did not hold.
 
| My inspection of this well site found no violations at the time.  New 4-1/2 inch casing was ran into the well on a casing patch.  The casing was pressure tested and it did not hold.
−
|
+
|
−
|
+
|
−
|
+
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| -1718351808
 +
| 2012-06-05
 +
|
 +
| My inspection of this well site found that the service rig was drilling out the second squeeze plug.
 +
|  
 +
|  
 +
|  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
| 1887452881
 
| 1887452881
 
| 2014-01-15
 
| 2014-01-15
−
|
+
|  
 
| My inspection of the injection facility found no violations.
 
| My inspection of the injection facility found no violations.
−
|
+
|
−
|
+
|
−
|
+
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| -1977848345
 +
| 2011-10-17
 +
|
 +
| A mechanical integrity test was performed on the well.  1200 PSI was placed on the tubing/casing annulus.  There was no decline in pressure observed during the 15 minute test period.
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| -2007932862
 +
| 2012-06-06
 +
|
 +
| I performed a mechanical integrity test with 1095 psi. on the annulus for 15 minutes without pressure loss - test passed.
 +
|  
 +
|  
 +
|  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
| 2047182234
 
| 2047182234
 
| 2013-05-14
 
| 2013-05-14
−
|
+
|  
−
| I completed a salt water injection well inspection with ODNR Inspector Steve Ochs.  My inspection found the tubing had 900 psi and the 4.5" had 740 psi.  The well was surrounded by a locked board-on-board fence with the proper identification sign.  The injection facility was in good operating condition with no water or oil surrounding the diked tanks.
+
| I completed a salt water injection well inspection with ODNR Inspector Steve Ochs.  My inspection found the tubing had 900 psi and the 4.5 had 740 psi.  The well was surrounded by a locked board-on-board fence with the proper identification sign.  The injection facility was in good operating condition with no water or oil surrounding the diked tanks.
−
|
+
|
−
|
+
|
−
|
+
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| 2106522316
 +
| 2015-04-10
 +
|
 +
| Complaint# 4989, Marty Cisine. I was on site to witness the pressure test on the flow line. The company pressured the flow line to 1350 psi and then shut-in the flow line. I monitored the pressure for 15 minutes. There was no loss of pressure. The injection of fluid was then allowed to proceed.
 +
|  
 +
|  
 +
|  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
| 225210968
 
| 225210968
 
| 2012-06-19
 
| 2012-06-19
−
|
+
|  
 
| My inspection found no violations at the wellhead or at the brine tank battery.  The pump was running at the time of the inspection.
 
| My inspection found no violations at the wellhead or at the brine tank battery.  The pump was running at the time of the inspection.
−
|
+
|  
−
|
+
|  
−
|
+
|  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
| 352594200
 
| 352594200
 
| 2012-05-29
 
| 2012-05-29
−
|
+
|  
 
| My inspection of this well site found the well was no longer gassing or flowing as reported.  The well owner was waiting for a wire line truck.
 
| My inspection of this well site found the well was no longer gassing or flowing as reported.  The well owner was waiting for a wire line truck.
−
|
+
|
−
|
+
|
−
|
+
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| 511231327
 +
| 2014-07-25
 +
|
 +
| There were no violations at the time of inspection.
 +
|  
 +
|  
 +
|  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
| 658051310
 
| 658051310
 
| 2011-12-29
 
| 2011-12-29
−
|
+
|  
 
| The excavation for the tank battery was underway.  Site conditions were approved.
 
| The excavation for the tank battery was underway.  Site conditions were approved.
−
|
+
|
−
|
+
|
−
|
+
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| -777143255
 +
| 2012-07-03
 +
|
 +
| My inspection of the well site found no violations at the time.
 +
|  
 +
|  
 +
|  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
| 82305708
 
| 82305708
 
| 2011-10-13
 
| 2011-10-13
−
|
+
|  
 
| The installation of the packer was witnessed.
 
| The installation of the packer was witnessed.
−
|
+
|
−
|
+
|
−
|
+
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| -823867379
 +
| 2015-01-15
 +
|
 +
| The injection well and surface facility were inspected.  There were no violations found at the time.
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|-
 +
| -930312009
 +
| 2013-10-10
 +
|
 +
| There were no violations at the time of inspection.
 +
|  
 +
|  
 +
|  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
|-
 
| 937472490
 
| 937472490
 
| 2013-05-14
 
| 2013-05-14
−
|
+
|  
 
| My inspection of the well and surface facility found no violations.
 
| My inspection of the well and surface facility found no violations.
−
|
+
|  
−
|
+
|  
−
|
+
|  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|}
 
|}
 +
For data sources see<ref>{{cite web
 +
| title = Ohio Department of Natural Resources RBDMS
 +
| publisher = [http://oilandgas.ohiodnr.gov/]
 +
| date = 2015-06-19
 +
| url = http://wellwiki.org/wiki/Ohio_Oil_and_Gas_Data_Sources#Inspection
 +
| accessdate = 2015-06-20 }}</ref>
 +
== References ==
 +
{{reflist}}
 
__NOEDITSECTION__
 
__NOEDITSECTION__
 
[[Category:Wells]]
 
[[Category:Wells]]

Revision as of 01:03, 15 July 2015

Well Details

Well ID: 34-155-21447
Loading map...
County: Trumbull
Municipality:
Operator Name: KLEESE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCS
Well Pad ID:
Farm/Lease Name:
First Permit Date:
Last Permit Date:
Spud Date: 1980-09-22
Unconventional: No
Configuration: Vertical
Well Status: Active Injection
Violations: 0
Latitude: 41.24403411
Longitude: -80.64114665

Production Data

PERIOD GAS QUANTITY GAS PRODUCTION DAYS CONDENSATE QUANTITY CONDENSATE PRODUCTION DAYS OIL QUANTITY OIL PRODUCTION DAYS
1984-0 4900.0 18.0
1985-0 6621.0 77.0
1986-0 5756.0 0.0
1987-0 4346.0 84.0
1988-0 3688.0 38.0
1989-0 3202.0 24.0
1990-0 3118.0 0.0
1992-0 53.0 0.0
1993-0 0.0 20.0
2002-0 4816.0 31.0
2003-0 4133.0 0.0
2004-0 2837.0 0.0
2005-0 3069.0 0.0
2006-0 2168.0 61.0
2007-0 1752.0 0.0
2008-0 3540.0 49.0
2010-0 2462.0 0.0
2011-0 1516.0 0.0

For data sources see[1]

Inspection Data

INSPECTION ID DATE DESCRIPTION COMMENT VIOLATION ID VIOLATION CODE VIOLATION COMMENT
-1114437577 2014-09-04 An inspection of the well and injection facility found no violations.
1129130094 2012-05-31 My inspection of this well site found that the service rig was running tubing into the well.
-1169592239 2013-08-20 There were no violations at the time of my inspection.
1280284175 2012-05-14 My inspection of this well site found no violations at the time. The 4-1/2 inch casing was perforated to accommodate a cement squeeze job.
1284569202 2014-03-17 The gauge on the annulus was broken. My inspection of the well found no violations at the time.
-1285566546 2014-12-29 The injection well and surface facility were inspected. There were no violations found at the time.
-1285992113 2013-04-04 My inspection of the injection facility and well found no violations. The pump was operating at the time pressures were gauged.
1315508910 2011-08-18 The owner has applied to convert the well to saltwater injection. The well site was inspected as part of a field review. There are no water wells or bodies of water within close proximity to the proposed site. The inspection found no additional site sp
1318863575 2011-10-03 On 9/22/11, Kleese Development perforated this old Clinton production well with 40 shots from 4949' to 5000'. Combined with the 15 original perforations from 4954' to 4996', when the well was completed 1980, there are a total of 55 perforations in the Clinton interval. On 9/23/11, the well was refraced in anticipation of converting this to a salt water disposal well. Approximately 3/4 of the way through the job (130,000 gallons out of 174,835 gallons used), the well started flowing oil out of the annulus between the 4.5 production casing and the 8-5/8 surface casing. According to reports from onsite witnesses, the annular flow rate never approached the frac injection rate. After the initial kick, the annular flow became sporadic until it ultimately stopped. Upon learning of the annular flow, Columbus requested a segmented bond log and a radioactive tracer test to verify the integrity of the 4.5 casing and the primary cement job. On 10/3/11, Matt Kleese (owner/representative), Tom Wood (consultant), Phoenix Well Service (cased hole tools), Core Laboratories (radioactive ceramic beads), Petroset Cementing Service (pump truck) and Steve Ochs (ODNR) were on site to complete the required tasks. The first action was to run a gamma ray log with collar locator to correct for depth along with a cement bond log to confirm cement integrity. Cement bond to the pipe and to the formation was good. The well will go on vacuum when left standing, so the decision was made to leave the gamma ray tool down hole to trace the bead movement. Core Laboratories placed a predetermined number of ceramic beads containing Scandium 46 inside the 4.5 casing. The beads were displaced with brine and the gamma ray tool identified their location between 4310' and 4450'. The beads were over displaced twice more and were ultimately forced through the perforations. There was no indication that the beads were moving uphole behind the casing. Based on the cement bond log and the tracer test, it does not appear that there was any casing or cement integrity loss during the frac job. The show of oil may be attributed to an uncemented uphole formation (Oriskany et. al.).
1323204839 2011-11-30 The flow line was pressure tested at 1660 PSI. There was no loss in pressure during 15 minute period.
1383765000 2013-10-09 My inspection of the surface facility found no violations.
-1386193687 2014-06-13 An inspection of the well and injection facility found no violations.
-1505133869 2012-05-30 My inspection of this well site found no violations. The service rig was swabbing the well.
1538281688 2012-08-16 My inspection of the well site and injection facility found no violations. The pump was operating at the time.
-1662058809 2012-11-20 My inspection of the injection facility and well found no violations. The pump was operating, while the pressures were gauged.
1670306468 2012-05-12 My inspection of this well site found no violations at the time. New 4-1/2 inch casing was ran into the well on a casing patch. The casing was pressure tested and it did not hold.
-1718351808 2012-06-05 My inspection of this well site found that the service rig was drilling out the second squeeze plug.
1887452881 2014-01-15 My inspection of the injection facility found no violations.
-1977848345 2011-10-17 A mechanical integrity test was performed on the well. 1200 PSI was placed on the tubing/casing annulus. There was no decline in pressure observed during the 15 minute test period.
-2007932862 2012-06-06 I performed a mechanical integrity test with 1095 psi. on the annulus for 15 minutes without pressure loss - test passed.
2047182234 2013-05-14 I completed a salt water injection well inspection with ODNR Inspector Steve Ochs. My inspection found the tubing had 900 psi and the 4.5 had 740 psi. The well was surrounded by a locked board-on-board fence with the proper identification sign. The injection facility was in good operating condition with no water or oil surrounding the diked tanks.
2106522316 2015-04-10 Complaint# 4989, Marty Cisine. I was on site to witness the pressure test on the flow line. The company pressured the flow line to 1350 psi and then shut-in the flow line. I monitored the pressure for 15 minutes. There was no loss of pressure. The injection of fluid was then allowed to proceed.
225210968 2012-06-19 My inspection found no violations at the wellhead or at the brine tank battery. The pump was running at the time of the inspection.
352594200 2012-05-29 My inspection of this well site found the well was no longer gassing or flowing as reported. The well owner was waiting for a wire line truck.
511231327 2014-07-25 There were no violations at the time of inspection.
658051310 2011-12-29 The excavation for the tank battery was underway. Site conditions were approved.
-777143255 2012-07-03 My inspection of the well site found no violations at the time.
82305708 2011-10-13 The installation of the packer was witnessed.
-823867379 2015-01-15 The injection well and surface facility were inspected. There were no violations found at the time.
-930312009 2013-10-10 There were no violations at the time of inspection.
937472490 2013-05-14 My inspection of the well and surface facility found no violations.

For data sources see[2]

References

  1. ↑ "Ohio Department of Natural Resources RBDMS". [1]. 2015-06-19. Retrieved 2015-06-20. 
  2. ↑ "Ohio Department of Natural Resources RBDMS". [2]. 2015-06-19. Retrieved 2015-06-20. 
Retrieved from "https://wellwiki-prod.cloud.arc.gwu.edu/index.php?title=34-155-21447&oldid=3997775"