IADC/SPE 151453

Colorado Drill Cuttings Injection Pilot Results

Kenneth R. Kunze, SPE, ExxonMobil Development Company, Edgar E. Romero, SPE, Imperial Oil Resources,
Steven Duck, SPE, ExxonMobil Production Company (formerly with ExxonMobil Development Company)

Copyright 2012, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2012 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in San Diego, California, USA, 6–8 March 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not
been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any
part of this paper without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract
From December 2007 through April 2011, the operator conducted a two-phase drill cuttings injection pilot at the Piceance
Field in Western Colorado in an effort to reduce the environmental footprint of drilling operations. This was the first
subsurface injection of drill cuttings in Colorado and utilized a lost circulation zone in the Wasatch G formation as the
injection interval.

The first phase of the pilot was to assess the technical feasibility and formation response to injection. During this phase,
water-based mud and drill cuttings from four wells were injected into a fifth well that was temporarily suspended at the
intermediate casing and perforated in the Wasatch G formation. Over 40,000 bbl of fluid were injected under vacuum
conditions with confirmed confinement to the target zone.

Based on the injection results, the pilot progressed to a second phase to assess the logistical requirements of transporting
cuttings from multiple drilling locations to a central processing and injection site. The injection well selected had
experienced lost returns in the Wasatch G when originally drilled and was completed as a dedicated injector. The pilot
processed cuttings from three active rigs, and demonstrated capacity to process cuttings from over six rigs.

The operator proved injection as a technically feasible option for drilling waste disposal during full-field development at
Piceance.

Introduction
Piceance Creek Unit
The Piceance Creek Unit (PCU) is located in Rio Blanco County of northwestern Colorado, over a structure known as the
Piceance Basin. The field was discovered in 1929 and up until 1998, the majority of production was conventional gas from
the Wasatch A and G formations above 6,000 ft from an anticlinal structure within the basin. These formations are now
nearly depleted to as low as 2 to 3 lbm/gal equivalent. The Mesaverde group (a deeper non-conventional tight gas sand) was
discovered in 1979. After several years of appraisal drilling, development drilling began in 2005.

Drilling is conducted from multi-well pads, each comprising nine to ten wells, with basic water-based drilling fluids. The
“S” turn trajectories typically have horizontal departures of 1,000 to 2,000 ft to accommodate the required hydraulic fracture
stimulations.

Drilling Challenges
When drilling to the deeper Mesaverde group, severe lost returns and compressive borehole failure are common challenges.
The intermediate 9⅞-in. section is generally the most troublesome for lost returns, which predictably occur at the top of the
Wasatch G formation near 5,500 ft TVD.

The loss of drilling fluid contributes to the drilling challenge because it is not possible to maintain the fluid gradient
necessary to preserve wellbore stability. Large cavings are routine, occasionally resulting in stuck pipe. The application of
2 IADC/SPE 151453

lost circulation material (LCM) and engineered fracture closure stress methods have improved the situation but the greatest
contributor to the improvement in borehole quality has been continuous reduction in time to drill the section.

While the Wasatch G loss zone presents drilling challenges, it also provided an opportunity with regard to drilling cuttings
and mud disposal (Fig. 1).

Fig.1- Cross section of Piceance Field basin showing lost circulation horizon.

Disposal of Drilling Waste

Historically, drilling wastes at PCU have been disposed in lined pits on location, in compliance with Colorado E&P waste
management regulations. Revised regulations have made this disposal approach more restrictive, creating an opportunity to
consider alternative solutions. Subsurface injection of drill cuttings was among these and the Wasatch G formation was
selected as an ideal injection zone. In addition to the reduction in cuttings transportation, subsurface injections allows for
smaller waste pits, thus reducing pad footprint.

Objectives of Pilot Project

The first phase of the injection pilot (December 2007-March 2008) was limited to injecting drill cuttings from a single pad
site into the central well in a five-well row. The objectives were to assess the grindability of the cuttings and to determine the
injection behavior of the Wasatch G formation and its ability to contain the waste. This first phase injected approximately
42,000 bbl of slurry and fluid. Surface holes were pre-drilled on the pad, thus only intermediate and production cuttings were
processed.

The second phase of the pilot was implemented October 2010 through March 2011. The purpose of the second phase was to
evaluate and overcome the logistical challenges of transporting drill cuttings from several field locations to a central process
and injection facility. This phase had the following goals:

1. Demonstrate the capability and requirements to inject cuttings from all hole sections, including surface sections.
2. Establish injection well capability for increased slurry volume.
3. Determine how many well sites can be supported by a single injection facility.
4. Gather data to forecast operability constraints for a full field application.
IADC/SPE 151453 3

Regulatory Approval
The pilot was the first drilling waste injection in Colorado. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC)
and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regulatory authorities were both part of the approval process and were provided
detailed descriptions of the process, injection wells, and logistical plans. Both phases of the injection project conformed to
the EPA Underground Injection Control (UIC) regulations for Class II oilfield injection wells.

The following conditions for downhole injection were followed:

1. The wells were completed with tubing and packer. Annulus injection was not permitted.
2. A cement bond log was evaluated prior to perforating to ensure the target zone was isolated above and below.
3. The fracture pressure in the target zone was determined by conducting leakoff testing.
4. Mechanical integrity tests on the tubing annulus were performed.
5. A maximum surface injection pressure was specified on the basis of the fracture gradient of the confining strata.
6. The maximum allowable injection volume was specified on the basis of formation thickness and porosity for a
maximum injection radius of 660 ft.
7. Logs from the injection well and offset wells were provided so the Colorado Water Resources Board could assure
that the injectors were safely remote from underground sources of drinking water (USDW). Aquifers in the area
extend down to around 1,000 ft TVD, thus the Wasatch G at 5,500 ft TVD was suitably distant.
8. A tracer survey was utilized in the first well to determine if injected fluids were migrating out of zone.

The second phase involved transporting of cuttings from various federal land drill sites; therefore, permission was obtained
from the BLM. This required descriptions of routes, travel distances, and frequency of loads.

Phase 1: Single Site Injection

From December 2007 through March 2008, the operator conducted the first phase of the pilot. The pilot test was conducted
at a drilling pad on the northern edge of the PCU anticline. Experience with offsets demonstrated this location would
experience severe losses in the Wasatch G. The purpose was to address the following technical aspects:

1. Could the formation cuttings be dispersed and slurrified using hard-faced centrifugal pump impellers?
2. Could cuttings injection into the Wasatch G lost circulation zone proceed without broaching the overlying confining
zone?

Injection took place down the wellbore of a new well temporarily suspended at the intermediate casing, perforated, and
equipped with tubing and packer. Approximately 42,000 bbl of cuttings slurry, drilling fluid, and produced water flushes
were injected. Maximum pump pressure rarely exceeded 1,000 psi, which was due entirely to perforation and tubing friction,
as pressure quickly dropped to zero upon shut-in. A tracer survey indicated the injected material was confined to the depleted
strata.

Temporary Injection Well

The central well (G3) was selected to be the injector for this first phase because it would be readily accessible during drilling
of the four adjacent wells. Well G3 was drilled to the intermediate (7 in.) casing shoe setting depth at ~9,000 ft MD, about
100 ft TVD into the Williams Fork 500 formation and suspended (Fig. 2). A stage cementing tool was installed in the 7"
casing string above the Wasatch G to ensure good cement coverage above the injection zone.
4 IADC/SPE 151453

Fig. 2—Temporary injection well schematic.

After cementing, the stage cementing tool was drilled out and a scraper was run prior to a cement bond log (CBL). The CBL
log indicated good cement coverage above and below the proposed injection zone and top of cement at 3,100 ft, well above
the surface casing shoe at ~3,500 ft MD. The gamma log indicated a ~10-ft sand within the Wasatch G at ~ 5,500 ft MD,
precisely where total mud losses occurred during drilling. This interval was perforated at 6 shots/ft.

An injectivity test at 1, 3, and 6 bbl/min was conducted with 8.9 lbm/gal mud immediately following perforating. After an
initial perforation breakdown at 620 psi at 1 bbl/min, injection proceeded between 300 and 700 psi at rates of 1 to 6 bbl/min.
Pressure quickly dropped to zero upon shut-in at each rate. This indicated that fracture closure stress was below 8.9 lbm/gal
equivalent.

Having confirmed injectivity, the well was completed with a 5,000 psi injection tree, 3½-in. tubing, and a packer set at
~5,500 ft MD. A wireline entry guide was installed to facilitate tracer logging. The well was approved for injection service
after a mechanical integrity test of the tubing by casing annulus was performed to 1,800 psi. The maximum allowable
surface injection pressure was limited to the tested value.

Injection Equipment
The equipment was of the widespread “Arco Method” concept (Malachosky and Lantero 1990), comprising a slurrification
skid with shaker deck, two 75-bbl dispersing tanks, two 75-Hp electric driven centrifugal pumps with hard facing and a 30-
Hp transfer pump. The classifying shakers were fitted with 60 mesh screens (250 microns), and the pumps were sufficient to
disperse all cuttings from the 9⅞- and 6⅛-in. hole sections.

The injection equipment was rated at 30 tons of cuttings per hr, which was more than adequate for a 9⅞-in. bit drilling at an
average rate of 75 ft/hr (8.9 tons/hr) and an instantaneous rate of 200 ft/hr (24 tons/hr) even allowing for three-fold volume
enlargement. The 14¾-in. surface holes had been pre-drilled, therefore, their dispersion characteristics had to be evaluated in
the second phase of the project.

A series of augers collected cuttings from the shaker and centrifuge discharges and transported them to the slurrification unit
(Fig. 3). The original shaker trough was left in place between the unit and the rig. When LCM was rejected by the
classification shaker, it was directed down a diverter gate and transported to the cuttings trough via an auger. This rejected
material was disposed of in the approved pits via the conventional method.
IADC/SPE 151453 5

Fig. 3—The cuttings collection system with shakers on left and slurrification unit on right.

Results
Over 42,000 bbl were injected, comprising 9,500 bbl slurry, 31,000 bbl of produced water flushes, and 1,700 bbl of drilling
fluid. Maximum pump pressure rarely exceeded 1,000 psi and was due primarily to perforation and tubing friction as pressure
quickly dropped to zero upon shut-in. Over 38,000 bbl of produced water was utilized in the flushes and slurry preparation.

A Scandium 46 tracer survey was run near the end of the program. Fifty bbl of traced slurry were slightly overdisplaced
through the perforations. A gamma log indicated that the injected material was confined to the depleted strata (Fig. 4).

Top Wasatch G

Figure 4: Scandium tracer survey indicating confinement to Wasatch G injection zone.

The injection tree, 3½-in. tubing string, and packer were removed following the injection. Cement squeezes and a casing
patch were run to seal the injection perforation. A 5¾-in. production hole was drilled to TD and the well was readied for
completion. This approach to recovering a cuttings injection well was previously used by the operator offshore in the North
6 IADC/SPE 151453

Sea (Kunze and Skorve, 2000). The encouraging results from this initial trial and the desire to reduce the cost of injection per
well led to the second phase, during which multiple wells were supported by a central injection facility.

Phase 2: Centralized Injection Location

Well Description
The pad chosen for the second phase had a suitable injector well candidate at the site. Extensive lost returns in the Wasatch G
formation of the intermediate hole of this well were experienced, halting forward progress, and the well was temporarily
abandoned.

The operator decided to convert the well into a Wasatch G injector. The well was reentered, sidetracked through a window in
the surface casing, and drilled 200 ft below the top of the Wasatch G, about 118 ft into the loss zone. A complete well sketch
is shown in Fig. 5. The well was cased and completed for injection service with 3½-in. tubing and a packer. The well was
perforated from 5,580 to 5,595 ft (6 spf, 0.20-in. entry hole diameter), acidized, and injection tested. After the test, it was
determined the well had to be re-perforated from 5,610 to 5,630 ft and from 5,650 to 5,660 ft (6 spf, 0.59-in. perforation entry
hole) to completely cover the depth where complete losses started during drilling, ~5,615-ft MD. After a final acid job,
injectivity was consistent with expectations.

16" Conductor
150'MD

DV Tool

Milled Window

Sidetrack 2
EZSV Cem ent Retainer approx 3,800' MD

10-3/4" approx 4,000'MD

Plug

3 1/2" 9.3# Benoit BTS-8 tubing

Packer approx 5,500 ft MD

DV Tool
EOT approx 5,525 ft MD
Top of Was. G approx 5,600 ft MD
Perforations  ~ 5,600 ‐ 5700 ft MD
ST2 TD approx 5,750 ft MD
7" Hydril 521, 26ppf, P-110

Fig. 5—Drill cuttings injection well conversion.

IADC/SPE 151453 7

Injection Fracture Modeling

Fracture modeling was performed to determine the possible extent of fracture growth. In order to obtain the most
conservative estimate of vertical and horizontal fracture growth, it was assumed that a single fracture would accept all the
injected waste. A volume of 750,000 bbl was chosen on the anticipation that this could be injected over the life of the larger,
second phase; however, field development strategy limited the actual injection volume to 135,000 bbl. The simulation
predicted that the injected material would not broach the arresting zone above the Wasatch G.

This case assumed continuous propagation of a single fracture, but in practice, there were multiple shut-in times. Full scale
field tests (Moschovidis, 2000) have shown that intermittent injection promotes multiple fractures that limit fracture
extension.

Based on the prevailing maximum stress direction, the injection fracture was not expected to intersect any of the existing
wellbores (Fig. 6). However, to confirm this, all of the 10-3/4 X 7-in. offset annuli, including the one of the injection well,
were monitored with pressure gauges at a monitoring pressure of 50 to 100 psi. During injection periods, none of the offset
annuli at the injection site demonstrated any pressure response.

Fig. 6-Drill site offset well spider plot showing maximum stress direction.

Equipment Layout and Winterization

The operator chose a concept that was purpose-built for a central processing location. The dispersing method was the “Arco
Method” using hard-faced impellers with two process unit tanks of 330 bbl each. A shaker was mounted above one tank to
remove material that would not disperse, such as LCM. About 10% of the cuttings processed consisted of LCM and/or
surface hole rock that was too hard to disperse. Fig. 7 shows a schematic of the tanks as they were designed. In practice, the
tanks were not offset but were side-by-side to accommodate the available space (Fig. 8). The entire installation consisting of
processing unit, cement pumps, tool storage, and pill tanks was enclosed by a tent with a 64 X 68-ft footprint, surrounded by
a berm designed to contain any spills (Fig. 9). The tent was heated with hot air blowers that could maintain a temperature
above 60o F during sub-freezing conditions.
8 IADC/SPE 151453

Courtesy of Halliburton

Fig. 7—Schematic of cuttings processing tanks.

Fig. 8—Cuttings processing tanks. Upper view shows slurry line from storage holding tanks.
IADC/SPE 151453 9

Fig. 9—Winterized tent structure over processing equipment (at left).

Cuttings Storage, Transportation and Processing

During initial startup, drill cuttings that fell from the solids control collection trough (three-sided tank) were deposited by a
front-end loader into roll-on, roll-off cuttings transportation boxes for shipping to the injection site. However, these boxes
proved to be prone to leaks due to an unreliable gate seal and were retired from service. Vacuum trucks were successfully
used instead. Added cost was compensated for with a spill-free operation, higher volumes per trip, and added flexibility in the
pick-up and discharge of cuttings. These vacuum trucks proved to be a more economical option, compared to cuttings boxes,
when utilized near their maximum capacity. This required the deployment of additional storage boxes for cuttings at the rig
sites to hold the material until the truck was ready for pick up. Steam lines (Fig. 10) were installed in the base of these boxes
to prevent cuttings from freezing during winter weather.

Fig. 10—Top view diagram of rig site cuttings storage bin with steam heating lines.

Drill cuttings were transported to the cuttings processing site and discharged directly into the course processing tank (Figs. 7
and 8) using the pumping capabilities of the vacuum trucks. Additional storage was provided by two 3-sided, ~250 bbl steel
troughs or boxes, shown schematically in the diagram of Fig. 11. Two submersible slurry pumps transferred the wet cuttings
from the receiving troughs to the course processing tank. These receiving boxes were used only when necessary.
10 IADC/SPE 151453

Fig. 11—Schematic of cuttings receiving and processing circuit.

Once in the coarse processing tank (Fig. 11, 03), the cuttings were slurrified with produced water using centrifugal dispersing
pumps (05). These pumps were equipped with hard faced impellers designed for dispersing the cuttings and forming a slurry
that was pumped over a classifying shaker (06). Material that passed through the screens was directed to a fines processing
tank (04) where it was examined to verify the slurry properties (e.g., density, viscosity etc.) were acceptable. Viscosifier was
added as necessary. Material that was rejected by the shaker (06) was returned to the coarse tank (03) for reprocessing.
About 10% of the cuttings processed could not be dispersed, mainly due to the large amount of LCM used during drilling.
During the pilot, it was necessary to improve the wear resistance of the unit. To accomplish this, pump housings were
upgraded, schedule 80 pipe was substituted, and jet lines were redesigned.

The classified slurry was pumped from the fines processing tank (04) by a transfer pump to a dual triplex injection pump (08)
and pumped into the injection well. A 5 bbl high viscosity pill (60-90 sec/qt funnel viscosity) was pumped ahead of the slurry
to prevent fingering of the slurry into the water overflush from the previous injection and 100 bbl of water were pumped after
the slurry to overdisplace the wellbore (the tubing and/casing volume was 55bbl). The slurry viscosity was optimized to
obtain properties similar to an unweighted water based drilling fluid: 6-RPM in the 6-9 range and yield point in the 15-25
range to assure sufficient solids carrying capacity. A Fann viscometer became the primary method for measuring viscosity
and replaced the Marsh funnel. When injection pressures started to climb, 1,000 bbl of water or more was pumped at high
injection rates and within pressure restrictions to displace the bank of solids that was likely forming in the near-wellbore
fracture.

Injection History
The 2010-2011 drilling waste pilot project supported three operating rigs at the time of the trial. Generally, one vacuum
truck was sufficient to handle the generated cuttings, with the exception of short time periods when extra trucks were hired
due to high volume (i.e., several rigs simultaneously drilling surface sections). Table 1 shows the total volumes injected in
the PCU 297-13A6 well.

Table 1. Volumes injected in the PCU 297-13A6 well from 10-13-2010 to 03-31-2011.
Volume injected Permit Injection Volume Limit
Cuttings Transported 27,440 bbl N/A
37,282 bbl
Slurry Injected Average properties: N/A
21% retort solids, 11 lbm/gal
Produced Water Injected 78,775 bbl N/A
Solids Injected 7,261 bbl 605,000 bbl
Liquid Injected 127,456 bbl 1,815,000 bbl
Total Volume (S+L) 134,717 bbl 2,420,000 bbl
IADC/SPE 151453 11

The injection site never received enough cuttings to reach its maximum processing capacity due to the number of drilling
operations underway at the time. Although the capacity of the vacuum trucks was 100 bbl, the actual volume carried tended
to be lower (67 bbl/trip average) due to accumulation of solids inside the truck and lack of cuttings available to completely
fill the truck on every trip as shown in Table 2. The operator estimates that only 22% of the installed processing capacity
was utilized on average.

Table 2 – Cuttings Transportation.

Average Peak
Straight vacuum trucks used daily (24hrs/day) 1.05 2.65
Trips per day 5.6 12
Volume per trip using straight vacuum trucks
67 bbl/trip 92 bbl/trip
(Theoretical truck capacity = 100bbl)
Cuttings received per day 373 bbl/day 825 bbl/day
System utilization was calculated based on the estimated system
capacity shown in Table 4
(22% estimated utilization) (49% estimated utilization)

Table 3 summarizes the slurry volumes injected daily and the average parameters observed. The injection rate was limited to
ensure that the injection pressure remained below the approved regulatory limit.

Table 3 – Slurry injection Average Performance.

Average Maximum
Slurry volume injected per day 455 bbl 783 bbl
Ratio of slurry volume injected over cuttings volume
1.32 * -
received
Injection rate
Cleanout water injections were performed to lower the injection 5.36 bbl/min 6.46 bbl/min
pressure
Injection pressure (average during each injection) 464 psi 816 psi
* The volume of water required to prepare the slurry depended on the characteristics of the cuttings processed. In the case of dry
cuttings from pits, this number is as high 3bbl (2 bbl of water added to 1 bbl of cuttings). A ratio of 1.32 indicates the cuttings
contained a high percentage of fluid when transported from the rigs.

Processing Capacity
The injection well consistently allowed injection rates above 5 bbl/min, while staying below the permitted injection pressure.
However, in order to take full advantage of the well’s injection capacity, the addition of a Hammermill would be considered
for future applications. Table 4 displays the estimated maximum capacity of the injection well and equipment as installed.

Table 4 – Cuttings Processing & Injection Capacity of the installed equipment.

Maximum Capacity Estimated
Injection Well Capacity 5,400 bbl/day
Assuming 18hrs of slurry injection at 5 bbl/min average This volume of slurry corresponds to approx.
4,100 bbl/day of wet cuttings
Dispersing Equipment Capacity
1,500-2,000 bbl/day
Using centrifugal pumps. The max. capacity was estimated based on actual
Volume of wet cuttings
observed dispersing times.
Cuttings Handling from Trucks to Grinding Equipment 1,500-2,000 bbl/day
Several improvements were made to the receiving tanks throughout the Pilot. Volume of fresh cuttings from rigs

The number of rigs that can be supported by a centralized cuttings injection facility depends on whether cuttings can be
stored either at the rig sites or at the cuttings injection site until they can be processed, as shown in Table 5. The calculations
were done assuming that up to 1,700 bbl of cuttings per day could be processed and the average utilization of the equipment
is 75%. The following conclusions were drawn:

• If no cuttings storage is available, only three to six rigs could be served (depending on drilling performance) and the
system capacity would only be fully utilized during peak cuttings generation.
• If cuttings storage is available, either at the rigs and/or the injection site, the processing equipment could be fed with
as much material as it can handle, hence minimizing the time the grinding equipment is not being utilized. In this
case, the cuttings injection site could handle between eight and 12 rigs (depending on drilling performance).
12 IADC/SPE 151453

• Even if cuttings storage is possible, either at the rigs and/or injection site, only four to five rigs could be handled if
they are all batch drilling surface holes at the same time due to the large volumes of cuttings generated and the lower
grinding efficiency.

Table 5 – Estimation of number of rigs that can be supported with the pilot site as tested.
Assumptions: - A maximum of 1,700 bbl of cuttings can be processed per day
- 75% of the injection capacity is used
- The number of rigs accommodated was estimated using drilling performance in the Piceance field and actual cuttings
volumes measured (12,810’ average well depth, 14 3/4” surface, 9 7/8” intermediate, 6 1/8” production)
Number of Rigs That Can Be Supported
Cuttings Storage at
Hole Sections Being Drilled Average Drilling Peak Drilling
Injection or Rig Sites
Performance Performance
A combination of hole sections (S-I-P)* 12 rigs 8 rigs
YES
All surface holes – worst case 5 rigs 4 rigs
A combination of hole sections (S-I-P) 6 rigs 3 rigs
NO
Only surface holes – worst case 3 rigs 2 rigs

Conclusions
As a result of the combined pilot study, the operator has concluded that:

1. A lost circulation zone, such as the Wasatch G, provides a good candidate for drilling waste injection.
2. Transporting wet cuttings via land is best done with purpose built vacuum trucks or sealed cuttings boxes. Vacuum
trucks offered the greatest flexibility in collecting and discharging cuttings.
3. Temporary cuttings storage at the drilling site provides a buffer during top hole drilling when large cuttings volumes
are generated and guards against interruptions in transport availability.
4. Storage at the processing site in pits or cuttings boxes promotes effective utilization of process capacity by
decoupling it from transportation limitations.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the members of the Piceance Drill Team for encouragement and assistance in the implementation
of this pilot project. Special thanks go to Ron Nasby and drilling operations personnel for their efforts in finding practical
solutions to the challenges that arose during this project. We also wish to acknowledge Baker Hughes and Halliburton staff
who were involved in the design and implementation of the two different stages of this project, and whose field personnel
frequently worked under difficult weather conditions. Final thanks to ExxonMobil Development Company and ExxonMobil
Production Company for permission to publish this paper.

Exxon Mobil Corporation has numerous affiliates, many with names that include ExxonMobil, Exxon, Esso and Mobil. For convenience
and simplicity in this Site, those terms and terms like corporation, company, our, we and its are sometimes used as abbreviated references
to specific affiliates or affiliate groups. Abbreviated references describing global or regional business lines are also sometimes used for
convenience and simplicity. Similarly, ExxonMobil has business relationships with thousands of customers, suppliers, governments, and
others. For convenience and simplicity, words like venture, joint venture, partnership, co-venturer, and partner are used to indicate business
relationships involving common activities and interests, and those words may not indicate precise legal relationships.

References
Kunze, K.R., Skorve, H. 2000. Merits of Suspending the First Platform Well as a Cuttings Injector. SPE 63124 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 1–4 October.
Malachosky, E., Lantero, D.M. 1990. Disposal and Reclamation of Drilling Wastes. US Patent No 4,942,929.
Moschovidis, Z., Steiger, R., Peterson, R., et al. 2000. The Mounds Drill-Cutting Injection Field Experiment: Final Results
and Conclusions. Paper IADC/SPE 59115 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, La, 23 – 25
February.