Water Conservation and Allocation Guideline for Oilfield ... · 2 Water Conservation and Allocation Guideline for Oilfield Injection 2006 This document provides direction for regulatory

WATER CONSERVATION AND ALLOCATION GUIDELINEfor Oilf ield Injection

2006

water for life

Oilfield Injection GUIDELINE FIN 4/19/06 11:23 PM Page i

Oilfield Injection GUIDELINE FIN 4/19/06 11:23 PM Page ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIntroduction .....................................................................................2Guideline Purpose and Objectives .....................................................3Guideline Format ..............................................................................4

PART A – OUTCOMES1.0 OVERVIEW .....................................................................................51.1 SUSTAINABLE REOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

(SREM) SYSTEM OUTCOMES...........................................................6

PART B – POLICY2.0 POLICY DIRECTION.........................................................................82.1 OPERATIONAL POLICY ....................................................................8

Area of Applicability of the Guideline..........................................8 Quantity Limitations......................................................................8Cumulative Effects .........................................................................9Water-short and Potentially Water-short Areas............................9Terms of the Licence ......................................................................9Renewal Applications ....................................................................9Water Conservation Incentives ...................................................10Application Exemptions...............................................................10Economic Evaluations ..................................................................11

PART C – IMPLEMENTATION AND DELIVERY3.0 OVERVIEW ...................................................................................123.1 APPLICATION “DECISION TREE”...................................................12

Step 1 – Initial ER Evaluation......................................................13Step 2 – ER Projects Using Saline Water Sources.......................13Step 3 – Risk Assessment ............................................................13Step 4 – Tiered Technical, Economic and

Environmental Evaluation.............................................13Step 5 – Water Act Licence Application.......................................14Step 6 – Public Notice and Public Review..................................14Step 7 – Licence Decision............................................................15Step 8 – Environmental Appeals Board ......................................15Step 9 – ER Scheme Approval.....................................................16

3.2 TIERED TECHNICAL, ECONOMIC ANDENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION......................................................163.2.1 Risk-based Tier Selection Guide .........................................173.2.2 Tier Evaluation Criteria .......................................................19

Tier 1 – Evaluation Criteria................................................ 20Tier 2 – Evaluation Criteria .................................................21Tier 3 – Evaluation Criteria .................................................23

3.2.3 Selecting Alternative Water Sources and ER Methods..........................................................................27• Possible Water Sources ...................................................28• Pipelines and Shared Water Sources ..............................28• Procedures for Identifying and Evaluating

Saline Aquifers ................................................................29• Non-Water Fluids and Methods.....................................30• Recycling Options...........................................................30• Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Sources ................31• Offset Water Sources ......................................................31• Water From Coalbed Methane Projects.........................31

3.2.4 Economic Aspects ................................................................31• Screening Level Review..................................................31• Authorization for Expenditure (AFE) Review ...............32• Licence Renewals and Economic Evaluation.................33

3.2.5 Cumulative Effects...............................................................343.2.6 Environmental Net Effects...................................................34

• Screening Level Review..................................................35• Environmental Evaluation Level Review.......................35• Net Effects Considerations .............................................36

3.2.7 Water Supply Offsets...........................................................363.2.8 Water-Short Areas................................................................37

3.3 QUALIFICATIONS OF PERSONNEL....................................................39

PART D – MONITORING AND REPORTING4.0 IMPROVED REPORTING AND MONITORING INFORMATION .......404.1 PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND PROGRAM EVALUATION DATA ...404.2 STATE OF ENVIRONMENT INDICATOR ...........................................43

PART E – ADAPTATION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REVIEW5.0 WATER EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITY OBJECTIVES ................445.1 2007-2008 PROGRAM REVIEW ........................................................44

PART F – COMPLEMENTARY ACTIONS6.0 WATER CONSERVATION ................................................................456.1 RESEARCH INITIATIVES .................................................................456.2 ALBERTA WATER COUNCIL ...........................................................45

APPENDICESAPPENDIX A – CONTACTS ..............................................................47APPENDIX B – WATER-SHORT AREAS .............................................49APPENDIX C – INFORMATION SOURCES.........................................53APPENDIX D – SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ..........................................54APPENDIX E – EVALUATION OF PROJECT SCALE ...........................55APPENDIX F – GLOSSARY ..............................................................56

contents:

Oilfield Injection GUIDELINE FIN 4/19/06 11:23 PM Page 1

2 Water Conservation and Allocation Guideline for Oilfield Injection 2006

This document provides direction for regulatoryagencies and developers where the use of non-salinewater resources may be essential to an EnhancedRecovery (ER) Scheme.

The Guideline uses a systems approach to achievespecific environmental outcomes that support theWater Conservation and Allocation Policy for OilfieldInjection and the goals of Water for Life: Alberta’sStrategy for Sustainability.

This Guideline applies to ER Schemes in Alberta thatuse non-saline water as a water source, including:

• Licence renewal applications for projectsalready operating and licensed to use non-salinewater resources.

• New licence applications for oilfield injection useof non-saline water.

Holders of permanent licences (issued under theWater Resources Act) are encouraged to cooperatewith the intent of the Water Conservation andAllocation Policy for Oilfield Injection and the goals ofWater for Life: Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability.

Alberta Environment will approach all holders ofpermanent licences to request a voluntary review oftheir licence, prior to 2008, using this Guideline as apoint of reference.

introduction:

Water Conservation and Allocation Guideline for Oilfield Injection (2006)

The purpose of this guideline is to support the conservation and management of water and to prevent excess use of water during enhanced recovery of hydrocarbon resources.

The glossary in Appendix F defines technical terms and acronyms.


guideline purpose and objectives:This Guideline provides information regarding:

• Recommended water conservation practices inthe design and operation of ER projects.

• Application requirements to obtain a Water Actlicence for the use of non-saline water resources.

Regulatory procedures and application steps areoutlined in Part C of the Guideline.

Overall objectives of the Guideline:

1. WATER CONSERVATION – to minimize the use ofnon-saline water use while limiting stranding ofoil resources, including:

• Eliminating (on a case-by-case basis) the useof non-saline water in ER projects wherereasonable and feasible alternatives exist.

• Identifying water-short areas, where themaximum effort must be made to findalternatives to non-saline water.

• Reducing the use of non-saline water forexisting ER projects through periodic re-evaluation of alternatives and continuousimprovement efforts.

2. REGULATORY CONSISTENCY – to provide informationto operators, regulators and the public regardingfeasible options and recommended approaches toreducing non-saline water use.

3. RIGOROUS TECHNICAL EVALUATION – to provideguidance for technical evaluations, industrypractices and regulatory decisions.

4. ADAPTABILITY – to enable regulatory discretion andadaptation to local and regional circumstances(environmental and geological variability).

5. IMPROVED PRACTICES – to encourage waterconservation, continuous improvement, sharedresponsibility and the use of flexible tools toreduce non-saline water use, including actions to:

• Increase productivity of non-saline wateruse by implementing recycling, reuse andtertiary ER methods to maximize the amountof oil recovered for each barrel of non-salinewater used.

• Protect the aquatic ecosystem, non-salinegroundwater resources and other waterusers through water conservation, adaptivemanagement and adoption of environmentalstewardship measures.

3Water Conservation and Allocation Guideline for Oilfield Injection 2006



The Guideline is divided into six topics ranging frombroad water management concepts to the specificsteps required in preparing an application for awater use licence.

PART A – Outcomes and environmental managementfor oilfield injection water use in the context ofWater for Life: Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability.

PART B – The Policy for the allocation of water foroilfield injection, and the operational policy tomaintain a consistent approach to water allocation.

PART C – Regulatory procedures (Policyimplementation and delivery), including theregulatory process “decision tree” and water licenceapplication requirements.

PART D – Monitoring and reporting requirements toimprove evaluation of water use practices.

PART E – Initiatives to review and update the Policyand Guideline (2007-2008).

PART F – Complementary (non-regulatory) initiativesto address water conservation and researchinitiatives as recommended by the AdvisoryCommittee on Water Use Practice and Policy.

guideline format:



A1.0 OVERVIEW

Outcomes for environmental managementinclude:

• Broad outcomes for society

• Policy and sectoral outcomes

• Place-based and project specific outcomes

Environmental outcomes form the basis for“sustainable resource and environmentalmanagement systems” including policyobjectives, regulatory procedures, monitoringand reporting requirements, continuousimprovement efforts and other actions thatwill support environmental outcomes.

Figure 1 shows the hierarchy of environmentalmanagement tools and outcomes relevant tooilfield injection. The management tools andoutcomes used for oilfield injection projectscan be categorized as follows:

1. Water for Life goals and Government ofAlberta policy

2. Environmental policy and outcomes(Alberta Environment)

3. Place-based and site-specific objectives

Water for Life and Government of Alberta policy

Societal outcomes, such as reliable qualitywater supplies for a sustainable economy, arediscussed in Water for Life: Alberta’s Strategy for

Sustainability1. The strategy defines threeoutcomes for society in managing of ourwater resources:

• Reliable quality water supplies for asustainable economy.

• Healthy Aquatic Ecosystems.

• Safe, Secure Drinking Water Supplies.

Environmental policy and outcomes (Alberta Environment)

Policy-based outcomes and goals specific to theoilfield injection sector are discussed in theAdvisory Committee on Water Use Practice andPolicy Final Report (August 2004) and the WaterConservation and Allocation Policy for OilfieldInjection (2006). The Sustainable Resource andEnvironmental Management System, outlinedin Section 1.1 (and Appendix D), establishesspecific outcomes for oilfield injection thatsupport the societal outcomes established inthe water strategy.

Place-based and site-specific objectives

Outcomes and goals specific to basins acrossAlberta are discussed in individual watermanagement plans. Water Act licences may alsospecify targets and conservation measures tomeet specific objectives for a particular project.

part – outcomes:

1 Water for Life: Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability is available at: www.waterforlife.gov.ab.ca


1.1 SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE ANDENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTSYSTEM OUTCOMES

The Sustainable Resource and EnvironmentalManagement System (SREM) for OilfieldInjection (Figure 2) sets outcomes and targetsfor the 2004-2007 period including:

• Reliable quality water supplies for asustainable economy.

• Reduction or elimination (on a case-by-casebasis) of non-saline water use.

• Improved productivity and efficiency ofwater use.

• Conservation and protection of non-salineaquifers and aquatic ecosystems.

• Improved partnership and researchinitiatives.

This Guideline outlines regulatory proceduresto achieve these outcomes.

ER project operators and applicants for wateruse licences need to be familiar with the broadobjectives and outcomes described in thissection in order to fulfill their responsibilitiesfor the wise use of water in Alberta.

Figure 1.Outcome Hierarchy

ENVIRONMENTAL

MEDIA(AIR/LAND/WATER)

ACTIVITY (INDUSTRIAL,AGRICULTURAL, OIL & GAS, ETC.)

ACTIVITY COMPONENTS (EMISSIONS,WATER USE, WASTE MANAGEMENT, ETC.)

SOCIETAL

The direct management of lower level outcomes helps achieve higher-level

outcomes that cannot be managed directly.

Perf

orm

ance

Mea

sure

s(e

nvir

onm

enta

l m

anag

emen

t tar

gets

)

Perf

orm

ance

Ass

essm

ent

Polic

y In

tegr

atio

n

Inte

grat

ed a

cros

s ea

ch le

vel t

o en

sure

that

outc

omes

in th

e ne

xt le

vel a

re a

chie

ved.

Env

ironm

enta

l Ind

icat

ors

(env

iron

men

tal q

ualit

y ta

rget

s)



Figure 2.Sustainable Resource and Environmental Management System for Oilfield Injection

OUTCOMES

ADAPT/CONTINUOUSLY IMPROVE POLICY – GUIDELINES – TARGETS

IMPLEMENTATION AND DELIVERYMONITOR, EVALUATE AND REPORT

INTEGRATED/COORDINATED INFORMATION SYSTEMSCOLLECTIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY ACTIONS

RELIABLE QUALITY WATER SUPPLIES FOR A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY • Reduction/elimination of non-saline water use. • Conservation and protection of non-saline aquifers and aquatic ecosystems. • Improved productivity and efficiency of water use. • Improved Partnership and Research initiatives.

• Alberta Water Council (AWC) will evaluate economic instruments and guide sectoral conservation plan development • Evaluate performance and establish conservation targets (productivity and efficiency, overall use) • System performance (program evaluation)

• Integrated policy and guidelines (cross government) • Advisory Committee on Water Use Practice and Policy (ACWUPP) recommendations • Productivity and Efficiency targets (AWC-Industry) • Identify role of watershed councils and conservation objectives

• Improved digital reporting (projects/watershed/province) • Evaluate and report water conservation progress in 2007

• Implement ACWUPP schedule (Table 1) • Review all existing allocations/projects • Implement watershed management plans/conservation objectives • Improve knowledge management system




2.0 POLICY DIRECTION

The Water Conservation and Allocation Policy forOilfield Injection document provides directionregarding oilfield injection regulation andwater conservation. Water for Life: Alberta’sStrategy for Sustainability provides additionalguidance on water conservation objectives thatapplies to this Guideline. The AdvisoryCommittee on Water Use Practice and Policy FinalReport provides specific recommendations anda schedule for changes to current practices andprocedures in the enhanced recovery sector.

2.1 OPERATIONAL POLICY

Applying the Guideline

This Guideline applies across Alberta,including both agricultural (White Area/PrivateLand) and non-agricultural (Green Area/Publicor Crown Land) regions.

The specific requirements of this Guideline,and provisions of the Water Conservation andAllocation Policy for Oilfield Injection, may vary insome areas of the province, based on existingor future watershed management plans, orApproved Water Management Plans. Theseplans provide direction regarding waterallocation, conservation objectives, and relatedwater management issues.

LICENSING/RENEWALS:

Quantity LimitationsGroundwater

An applicant that proposes to use non-salinegroundwater for underground (oilfield)injection will be restricted to a maximum ofone-half of the long-term yield of a givenaquifer in the immediate vicinity of the watersource well. This will be accomplished bylimiting drawdown in the production aquifer,as measured in an observation well at adistance of 150 metres from the productionwell, to 35 per cent during the first year ofoperation and no more than 50 per cent overthe life of the project.

Surface Water

Quantities of surface water available forlicensing may be limited by requirements forconservation objectives, environmental flows,approved water management plans, Crownreservations, trans-boundary apportionmentagreements, previous licences or other factors.Water management plans and approved watermanagement plans may restrict the use ofwater for oilfield injection or require place-based conditional requirements in licences(contingency measures, minimum flowrestrictions, etc.).

Bpart – policy:


Cumulative Effects

Applicants must evaluate the combined effectsof their proposed water use and the water useof other water diversions (surface water andgroundwater) in the area.

The evaluation must determine thecumulative effects on the aquatic environmentand existing water users that will result fromall diversions within the geographical areawhere the applicant’s water use will add asignificant incremental impact.

Cumulative effects assessments are discussedin Section 3.2.5.

Water-short and Potentially-water-short Areas

Applicants must maximize efforts to replacenon-saline water use in water-short areas of Alberta.

Water-short areas occur where naturalconditions and/or development pressures limitthe availability of surface water andgroundwater for future sustainabledevelopment and the protection of the aquaticenvironment. Water-short areas are identifiedon an interim water-short areas map, orthrough assessment of water-short andpotentially-water-short areas in individualwater management plans.

Water-short areas are discussed in Section3.2.8 and in Appendix B.

Risk-based Assessment

Applicants must assess environmental risksaccording to a three-tier classification system.The assessment includes a requirement forevaluation of water conservation options in all projects (throughout the province) andplanning for replacement of non-saline watersources in water-short areas.

Terms of the Licence (new and renewal)

If the Director decides to issue a licence, theterm will be for a two-year period. Uponapplication for renewal, if the Director allowsthe renewal, the licence will be issued for aterm of five years.

Water Act term licences to continue projectspreviously issued water diversion “temporarypermissions” (under the Water Resources Act)will be issued for a five-year term, or for theremaining project life, if less than five years.This applies to temporary permissions issuedbefore January 1, 1999 and expiring onDecember 31, 2006.

Under the Water (Ministerial) Regulation, AENVApprovals Managers (or “Directors”) maychange the renewal term.

The applicable term recommended by thisGuideline will be reviewed during the 2007-2008 program review and may be changed atthat time.

Renewal Applications

Licence holders must apply for renewal asspecified in the Water Act. This Guidelinesets the minimum requirements for arenewal application. The Director mayrequire further information.

Allocations may be reduced at renewal.Licence holders will be consulted whenallocation reductions are being considered.Conditions of the licence will also be takeninto consideration.

New terms and conditions of the renewallicence may be established if the Directorconsiders it appropriate.




A review of alternate water source availabilityand progress towards reduction of the use ofnon-saline water will be required as anessential component of each five-year termrenewal application.

Water Conservation Incentives andApplication Exceptions

Recognizing that water conservation is anongoing effort, and many ER projects havealready initiated water conservation measures,reduced evaluation may be allowed forrenewal of ER projects that are alreadyconserving water.

Projects that have demonstrated significantprogress towards meeting Water for Lifeconservation goals in the previous five-yearperiod may apply for a licence renewalbased on a concise economic andenvironmental evaluation (see sections 3.2.4 and 3.2.6).

It is expected further water conservationmeasures will proceed in the subsequentrenewal period if the review showsadditional water conservation gains arereasonable and practical.

This water conservation incentive applies tothe following projects (renewals):

• Tier 12 licence renewals for ER projectswhich have reduced their non-saline waterrequirements by more than 30 per cent(relative to actual use in the previous term).

• Tier 1 licence renewals for ER projectswhich have increased resource productivityand efficiency3 by more than 30 per cent(relative to productivity and efficiency inthe previous term).

• Tier 2 ER projects that are not in “water-short4 ” or “potentially-water-short” areas(see Figure 10, Appendix B), are at thediscretion of the AENV Director. Projectsmust have reduced their non-saline waterrequirements, or increased resourceefficiency, by more than 30 per cent (relativeto the actual use in the previous term).

NOTE: Licence renewal applicants must stillconsider new saline water sources or otheralternatives in the vicinity that havebecome available during the previous term.

The Approvals Manager (or “Director”)responsible for evaluating a licence renewalapplication may, on a case-by-case basis,consider historical water conservationimprovements (more than five years in thepast) when determining the level ofassessment required. In some cases, the mostfeasible water conservation measures mayhave been implemented under previous waterconservation initiatives. However, in allcircumstances, a review of changingconditions and options over time is warranted.

Application Exemptions in SpecialCircumstances

Section 3.2.4 discusses limited circumstancesin which a rigorous economic evaluation isnot useful in making appropriate watermanagement decisions. Technical evaluationcriteria may also be reduced in somecircumstances, at the discretion of the AENV“Designated Director” (Approvals Manager).

2 Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects are described in section 3.2.2 of this guideline.3 “Resource productivity and efficiency” is the volume of water use relative to the volume of oil (hydrocarbons) produced.4 “Water-short” areas are described in Appendix B.


Exemption to evaluation requirements mayoccur under the following circumstances:

• Licences for ongoing schemes with aremaining life expectancy of less than fiveyears. Licences will be issued for a reducedterm (the remaining project life) with non-renewal conditions.

• Licences for new ER pilot-type projectsthat require relatively small volumes ofnon-saline water for a short (two to four-year) period5.

NOTE: Although a rigorous economic andtechnical evaluation is not expected forthese “exempt” projects, it is expected theoperator will still use saline sources orother alternatives if available.

With the exception of the general guidance inthis section on Water ConservationIncentives and Application Exceptions, it isessential that environmental impacts ofprojects be addressed in every application fora water diversion licence. The AENV Directormay request additional information, if needed,to evaluate any licence or renewal application.

Licence Conditions

The Director will include terms andconditions in the licence to satisfy the intentof the Water Conservation and Allocation Policyfor Oilfield Injection and the Water Act.

Terms and conditions of the licence (includingallocation) may be set when the licence isrenewed at the initial two-year expiry, or atany subsequent five-year term renewal (undersections 59, 60 and 61 of the Water Act).Amendments to licence conditions may occurat other times in accordance with the WaterAct (s. 54).

Economic Evaluations

All new applications must includeinformation on the economic aspects of thealternative water source options. As indicatedin the Tier Evaluation Criteria (section 3.2.2)either a Screening Level Review or anAuthorization For Expenditure (AFE) LevelReview will be required.

Economic costs must be balanced againstenvironmental impacts and the benefits ofwater conservation efforts. Although it is ageneral objective to achieve maximum waterconservation without stranding oil and gasresources in Alberta, stranding may occur insome water-short areas.

Circumstances in which economicconsiderations may limit ER development(in combination with water shortages ormajor environmental risks) are discussed inSection 3.2.2.

5 The scale of pilot-type projects varies, but projects are expected, typically, to use less than 1,000 m3/d for application of this provision.




3.0 OVERVIEW

Essential Regulatory Steps

The essential steps for “authorization” of anyER scheme include:

• Technical Evaluation by Industry (ERScheme and alternate water source or non-water technology)

• Industry Application to AENV for non-saline water licence.

• AENV application review and Licencedecision (includes EUB, Industry and publicstakeholder consultation).

• EUB Decision and Authorization of ERScheme, after AENV issues a licence.

3.1 REGULATORY PROCESS “DECISION TREE”

Figure 3 shows the regulatory process,outlining the different pathways anapplication may follow. The decision treeoutlines the steps needed to complete anapplication, and obtain a Water Act licence.

Cpart – implementation and delivery:

Figure 3.Application Regulatory Process

1

4

5

6 7

8

3

2

9

AENV PROCESSEUB PROCESS

ImplementLicense

Condition

PotentialAppeal to

EAB

Non-salineRequired

Re-evaluateAlternatives

EUBassistance asappropriate

Directly AffectedPersons

PublicDecisionNotice

LicenseDecision

AENVLicense

Application

RiskAssessment

Tier 1Tier 2Tier 3

TechnicalEconomicEvaluation

Yes

YesYes

No

No

Public Announcement(Opportunity for

Statements of Concern)

Salineor other

available source

New ER Project

No

Implement ER

ERScheme

Approved


Please refer to EUB Directive 65, or contactthe EUB, for further information on EUBrequirements for approval of ER Schemes.

Step 1 – Initial ER Evaluation

Industry will evaluate new ER projectsbased on economic and technical feasibility.The identification and selection ofalternatives to non-saline water use isdiscussed in Section 3.2.3.

Step 2 – ER Projects Using Saline Water Sources

The regulatory process is shortened if projectevaluation indicates that only saline water isneeded. An ER application to the EUB is stillrequired, however a Water Act application isnot needed (the use of saline water resourcesis exempt from Water Act licensingrequirements).

An EUB Approval is not required for salinewater use, however an Approval is requiredfrom the EUB for overall operation of the ERproject. Further information regarding the EUBapproval process is available from the EUB(EUB Directive 65).

If non-saline water is not needed at the ERproject then steps 3-8 are not applicable to theproject (see Figure 3), and AENV is notinvolved in the regulatory process.

Step 3 – Risk Assessment

The risk-based Tier selection process forevaluating non-saline water options is describedin Section 3.2. This evaluation will assist inassessing alternatives in high-risk areas.

Applicants should initially review projectengineering options and regulatory

requirements (including EUB directives, theWater Act, AENV policy, Water ManagementPlans, Water for Life: Alberta’s Strategy forSustainability and other relevant governmentinformation). A list of regulatory documentsrelevant to water conservation and sustainabledevelopment is provided in Appendix C.

Step 4 – Tiered Technical, Economic andEnvironmental Evaluation

The application to AENV must contain adetailed environmental, engineering andeconomic assessment of alternatives. Waterconservation options must be assessed tominimize the use of non-saline waterthroughout the project life. Assessment ofalternatives to minimize non-saline water use inthe project’s initial term must also be assessed.

Reports must also be prepared detailing theinvestigations and results with respect to theavailability of non-saline water and thepotential impacts of the proposed water use.Application reports must evaluate impacts onthe aquatic environment, local existing watersupplies, local water users, and cumulativeeffects on the watershed resulting from theproject. Applications for licensing the use ofnon-saline groundwater must be accompaniedby a report prepared in compliance withAENV’s Groundwater Evaluation Guideline (2003)6.

TIER SELECTION DECISIONS

The AENV Director will ultimately evaluatethe environmental and economic criteria (withEUB assistance, if requested) and select therelevant “Tier” with requirements appropriateto each project (step 7). The Director willadvise the applicant if additional informationis required during the licence review.

6 Groundwater Evaluation Guideline (2003) www.gov.ab.ca/env/water/Legislation/Guidelines/GroundwaterEvaluation.pdf




It is the responsibility of applicants to evaluateprojects and prepare an application based onan assessment of the environmental risksassociated with the project. Applicants shouldverify the level of technical, economic andenvironmental evaluation to be conducted,based on the risk assessment, in order toprovide the necessary information forregulatory decisions. Initial consultation withAENV staff is recommended during this step.

Evaluating of risks, and determiningappropriate Tier level (1, 2 or 3) for a projectmust be carried out for each application,including renewal applications. Changes in Tierlevel may occur over the life of the project.

Step 5 – Water Act Licence Application

An application must be made to an AENVregional office if non-saline water resources areneeded to begin an ER project, or to continuenon-saline water use at the term renewal of aWater Act licence. Contact information and amap of AENV administrative regions is shownin Appendix A.

The application must include:

• An application form with project andlicensee information7.

• A description of the project and water useanticipated throughout the project life.

• A technical assessment of the feasibility ofalternatives to non-saline water use.

• A review of alternate water sourceavailability, and progress towards reductionof the use of non-saline water for eachfive-year term renewal application.

• An economic assessment of the options forwater use at the project, and assessment ofnon-water ER options.

• An environmental net effects assessment.

• A report describing the proposed non-saline water source, the naturalvariability and supply constraints of thesource, and the existing use of the watersource. Applications for groundwater usemust include a report completed incompliance with the GroundwaterEvaluation Guideline8.

• An evaluation of the cumulative effects ofthe proposed water use and the water useof other water diversions in the area.

• An evaluation of environmental impactsand mitigation plans consistent with thescale of the project and the extent ofpotential impacts.

Further direction regarding informationrequired for applications is provided in Section3.2. Applicants are advised to consult withAENV staff during preparation of applications.

Step 6 – Public Notice and Public Review

The Water Act requires public notice be givenfor new applications and term-renewalapplications, as a minimum requirement.

A newspaper advertisement is prepared byAENV staff and must be published by theapplicant to inform water users who might bedirectly affected by the project. Individuals,corporations or groups who may be directlyaffected by the project have an opportunity torespond to the advertisement, and providewritten “statements of concern” to Alberta

7 Application forms are available at: www.gov.ab.ca/env/water/legislation/Approvals_Licences/WAApplication.doc.8 The Groundwater Evaluation Guideline is available at: www.gov.ab.ca/env/water/Legislation/Guidelines/GroundwaterEvaluation.pdf.



Environment. The Director may also requireother forms of public notice be provided.

The Director may require that a publicreview9 be conducted for renewal applicationsor licence transfers (including opportunity fordirect input from members of the public). TheDirector will inform the applicant of thespecific review requirements if a public reviewis expected.

“Statements of concern” must be consideredby AENV and the applicant during theapplication review. Applicants should beprepared to provide additional information anddocumentation to local residents. Applicantresponses to “statements of concern” includemeetings with individual residents or groups of residents, and/or written communications(information letters, etc.). The applicant canincorporate modifications to a project into theapplication that satisfy local concerns and theneeds of the project.

AENV staff will provide information toapplicants and members of the public duringpublic consultation, on request.

Step 7 – Licence Decision

The AENV Director will review theapplication submitted in accordance with the Water Conservation and Allocation Policy for Oilfield Injection Purposes, relevantGuidelines, Water Management Plans, and the Water Act. The Director may request the assistance of the EUB in the review ofalternate sources.

The Director may request additionalinformation from applicants, and may meetwith the applicant to clarify information orthe tier selection for the project.

The Director will decide whether a licencewill be issued or not, and will determine theterms and conditions for any licence issued.

If the project requires that an EIA beconducted, a decision on issuing a Water Actlicence will not be finalized until a “publicinterest” decision is made by the EUB. Theregulatory process used in evaluation of EIAsis separate from the process described in thisguideline. The specific terms of reference ofan EIA (developed individually for eachproject EIA) specify the environmentalevaluation required by AENV. Furtherinformation on EIA procedures is available atwww.gov.ab.ca/env/protenf/assessment/index.

Step 8 – Environmental Appeals Board

The Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) is anindependent board established by theGovernment of Alberta to hear appeals, asmandated by the Environmental Protection andEnhancement Act and the Water Act.

The EAB does not become involved in theregulatory process unless a “directly affectedperson,” or the applicant, files an appealwithin 30 days of a Water Act licence beingissued or rejected.

Applicants may appeal the rejection of alicence application, licence conditionsimposed, or other matters regarding thelicence to the board, after the licence decisionhas been finalized and a “notice of decision”has been issued.

Further information regarding EAB proceduresis available directly from the EAB10.

9 Appendix D of the Administrative Guideline for Transferring Water Allocations contains an example of public review requirements.www.gov.ab.ca/env/water/legislation/Guidelines/Transfer_Guidelines.pdf

10 EAB contact information is provided in Appendix A.



Step 9 – ER Scheme Approval

The final step in the regulatory process isApproval of the ER scheme by the EUB. ERschemes may be modified during projectoperations by re-applying to the EUB.

3.2 TIERED TECHNICAL, ECONOMIC ANDENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONREQUIRED FOR LICENCE APPLICATIONSAND RENEWAL APPLICATIONS

Risk Based Categories and RegionalConsiderations

A key aspect of the Guideline is identificationof three categories (or “Tiers”) of increasinglyintensive requirements for investigation ofalternate ER fluids or ER methods. A morerigorous evaluation is required for Tier 2 andTier 3 projects, depending on the degree ofwater shortage and development pressure inthe area. This place-based categorizationincludes technical, social, environmental andeconomic criteria.

In general terms, the Tiers can be described as:

TIER 1: Small-scale projects in isolated areas ofthe province. The areas should have minimalwater shortage or development pressure issues.

TIER 2: Large-scale projects, including thermalER projects, in any area of the province, andall small projects in areas with developmentand water allocation pressures (i.e. potentiallywater short areas).

TIER 3: All projects in river basins or aquifersystems with a history of water shortages andexisting (or predicted) water allocationlimitations (i.e. water-short areas).

A detailed description of the Tier evaluationcriteria is provided in Section 3.2.2.

To assure the three goals of Water for Life areprotected, the applicant must follow the riskbased process to select the appropriate Tier forthe proposed project evaluation.


3

1

3.2.1 RISK BASED TIER SELECTION GUIDE

Step 1 – Risk Based Tier Selection –

Assess how the project/application will impactwater resources

Major Impact

Safe, Secure Drinking Water Supply

• Measurable supplyeffects up to 10 km

• Community-levelsupply constraints

• Multiple cumulativeeffects

• Measurable permanenteffect

• Instream flow needsnot met

• Extensive developmentpressure

• Many competitors forsupply

• Measurable supplyeffects up to 1 km

• Localized supplyconstraints (withprovision for alternatesupplies)

• Few cumulative effects

• Measurable reversibleeffect

• Instream flow needsnot met at certain (non-critical) times of theyear

• Aquatic ecosystemremains healthy andproductive

• Moderate developmentpressure

• Few competitors forsupply

Minor Impact

• Measurable supplyeffects up to 0.5 km

• Negligible supplyconstraints

• Minor cumulativeeffect

• Minor measurableeffect

• Instream flow needsalways met

• Minimal developmentpressure

• Little competition forsupply

Healthy Aquatic Ecosystems

Reliable Quality Water Supplies for aSustainable Economy

2Moderate Impact

Water for Life Goals:





Assess the probability of selected impact(s)

ARemote

• Practically impossible

• Occurrence of 1 in 100years or less

• Conceivable, but veryunusual

• Occurrence between 1to 10 in 100 years

• Would happen often

• More than 10occurrences in 100years

BUnlikely

CLikely

In assessing the appropriate impact andprobability ratings, the applicant will providereasons that support the ratings selected forthe proposed project. The criteria specified inthe probability rating tables are intended to

differentiate levels of impact and probabilityin broad terms that represent generallyaccepted criteria. The applicant’s specificinformation will provide supporting reasonsfor the rating selection.


Information regarding water supply availabilityshould be reviewed with the risk assessment.Water Management Plans may includeassessments of current and future water supplyavailability. Appendix B includes anassessment of “water-short” and “potentially-water-short” areas, including information onnatural and administrative restrictions onavailable water supply. AENV regional officescan provide additional information.

The responsible AENV Director will review theapplicant’s impact and probability assessmentand supporting reasoning (during applicationreview) to confirm the Tier level selected.


Complete a Licence Application for theSelected Tier Level

A water allocation licence application willprovide the information requested in thefollowing Tier criteria tables. Each tablecontains additional guidance for the applicant.

3.2.2 TIER EVALUATION CRITERIA

This section specifies the information that willbe provided in the application for each of thethree Tiers. In addition, the Director mustconsider all of the requirements specified inSection 51 of the Water Act. The Director mayrequire additional information to supportdecisions regarding the application.

Tier 23 [Major]

Impa

ctR

atin

g

Tier 3* Tier 3

Tier 12 [Moderate] Tier 2 Tier 2

Tier 11 [Minor] Tier 1 Tier 1

A [Remote] B [Unlikely]

Probability Rating

C [Likely]

* Applicants may apply with Tier 2 criteria if a site-specific risk assessment indicatesthat a Tier 2 classification is appropriate.


Plot the impact and probability ratings todetermine the Tier level




Conservation and wise use of water.Goal:

TIER 1

General Requirements A description of the ways the proposed project is maximizing water recycling.

Project Scale11 Typically an allocation should be less than 450 m3/d.

Typical Projects • Smaller-scale ER projects in the “Green Area” of Alberta.

• Minimal water shortage, cumulative effects or development pressure issues.

• Projects in “not regionally water-short” areas based on the interim “water-short areas” map, unless a site-specific evaluation indicates a Tier 2classification is appropriate.

Technical Aspects – Provide information on:Evaluation of technical Saline sources (see 3.2.3 for further details)alternatives to non-saline • Rigorous evaluation and testing of saline sources within a minimum 5 km radius.water use • Review well logs and conduct flow tests as appropriate.

• Review availability of produced water (including sources from other areaoperators).

• Water recycling is the expected industry practice/norm in all cases.• Seek saline produced water for all or partial needs• Document alternatives that were considered.

Economic Aspects Provide screening level economic information, as described in the economicssection (3.2.4), for all technical options considered.

Water conservation measures, such as pipeline construction and drilling of newsaline water source wells may entail additional costs relative to the lowest costnon-saline water source option.

Net Environmental Provide screening level information of the positive and negative environmentalEffect Aspects aspects, as described in section 3.2.6, for all technical options considered.

11 Figure 12 (Appendix E) shows the range of project water uses, based on 2001 data. Approximately 80 per cent of applications are expected touse Tier 1 criteria.

Explanatory Notes – Tier 1

Where special circumstances indicate thatimpacts may be significant, the AENV Director

responsible for the review of the project maydecide a Tier 2 classification is appropriate.


Reduced non-saline water use for ER, increased availability of non-saline waterto enable economic growth, and protection of the aquatic environment.Goal:

TIER 2

General Requirements A description of the ways this proposed project is maximizing water recycling.

Project Scale12 The use of Tier 2 criteria is typically appropriate for projects using more than 450m3/d.

Larger isolated projects may be considered Tier 1 at the discretion of the Directorin some circumstances (i.e. abundant natural runoff, minimal developmentpressure, undeveloped area, “minor” environmental risks)13.

Typical Projects • Large ER and in-situ projects, and all projects in developed areas.• Potential water shortage, cumulative effects or development pressure issues.• All projects in “potentially water-short” areas based on the interim “water-short

areas” map. • Direct competing water users.

Technical Aspects – As in Tier 1 as well as:Evaluation of technical • Increased search to minimum 10 km radius for saline water.alternatives to non-saline • Evaluate water from other sources (other industry, wastewater, Natural Gas inwater use Coal water, etc.).

• Consider innovative water conservation options (non-saline off-sets14, adaptivemanagement, contingencies).

• Evaluate non-water alternatives.

Economic Aspects Provide screening level economic information, as described in the economicssection 3.2.4, for all technical options considered. A detailed (AFE level15) reviewshould be conducted for the preferred option, and may be requested by the AENVDirector for other options under consideration.

Water conservation measures, such as pipeline construction and drilling of newsaline water source wells may entail additional costs relative to the lowest costnon-saline water source option.

Net Environmental Provide screening level information of the positive and negative environmentalEffect Aspects aspects, as described in section 3.2.6, for all technical options considered.

12 Figure 12 (Appendix E) demonstrates that approximately 20 per cent of all licensed ER projects would be classified as Tier 2 (or Tier 3)projects, based on project scale. These larger scale projects (Tier 2 criteria) accounted for over 80 per cent of non-saline water volumesinjected in 2001.

13 All projects diverting more than 1,000 m3/d for sustained periods (1 year or more) should use Tier 2 criteria.14 Water conservation offsets are discussed in Section 3.2.7.15 An “Authorization for Expenditure” (AFE) economic review is a rigorous evaluation of all aspects of a project through the project life, using

accounting standards and methods accepted in the oil and gas industry for investment decisions.




Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs)

Commercial scale thermal ER projects require aformal environmental impact assessment (EIA)and a “public interest” decision by the EUB.

Typically, thermal ER projects that require anEIA fall within the Tier 2 classification usedin this Guideline, however the evaluationrequirements set out in this document arenot directly applicable to projects thatconduct an EIA.

EIA evaluation requirements are setindividually in a Terms of Reference specificto each project and site. An EIA Terms ofReference has priority over the evaluationcriteria in this document, when an assessmentof water supply issues is included in the EIATerms of Reference.

Further information on EIA procedures isavailable online at www.gov.ab.ca/env/protenf/assessment/index.html.


Large-scale Tier 2 projects may have impactson the aquatic environment such as drawdownin aquifer water levels over a large area,decreases in stream flow during low flowseasons, or other local or cumulative effects.Smaller scale projects may have local impactson the aquatic environment and/or cumulativeimpacts that need to be considered. Theseimpacts need to be weighed against theeconomic costs of other ER options.

In some circumstances, the potentialenvironmental impacts of alternatives mayalso be significant (e.g. air emissions, landfillof water treatment waste). Theseenvironmental risks need to be consideredagainst the benefits of the proposed waterconservation measures in an “environmentalnet effects” review. Environmental net effectsare discussed in Section 3.2.6.

In “potentially water-short” areas of theinterim “water-short areas” map (Figure 6),discretion should be used as to whether theproject is classified as Tier 2 or Tier 3. Wherespecial circumstances indicate that impactsmay be significant, the AENV Directorresponsible for the review of the project maydecide a Tier 3 classification is appropriate.

All projects in these “potentially-water-short”areas should consider ongoing action to reducenon-saline water use over time if there is anyfeasible alternative to non-saline water use.



16 Stranded oil resources are reserves that cannot be produced by application of existing ER technology due to economic, environmental orother factors. Production would be deferred until economic constraints decrease or new technologies are feasible.

17 Conjunctive use implies that a single (or combination) of sources may be used during most of a project’s life but a separate source mayprovide alternate water supplies under some circumstances (project start-up, drought, etc.).

Reduction with the intent to replace all non-saline water use with othermethods (where the change has an environmental benefit).Goal:

TIER 3

General Requirements A description of the ways this proposed project is maximizing water recycling.Ongoing efforts to minimize impacts on the aquatic environment and other waterusers. Ongoing efforts to replace non-saline water use with alternatives.

Project Scale Existing or potential water shortages and associated environmental impact are theprime criteria for a Tier 3 classification. Project scale is a secondary consideration,but may determine whether an allocation can be made (depending on wateravailability, cumulative effects, etc.).

Project scale may affect the risk-based Tier selection process in “potentially-water-short” areas. Larger projects may have major environmental risks (Tier 3)compared to moderate risks (Tier 2) from a smaller project at the same location.

In some circumstances, project scale may limit economically feasible options thatwould replace non-saline water.

Where project scale is a limiting factor, consideration should be given to thesocietal benefits of water conservation versus the economic hardships of strandingoil resources16.

Typical Projects ER projects in areas with existing or historical water deficiency, and existing orprobable allocation restrictions.

All projects in “water-short” areas based on the interim “water-short areas” map.

Technical Aspects – As in Tier 1 and 2, and in addition:Evaluation of technical • Increased search to a minimum 15 km radius.alternatives to non-saline • Rigorous evaluation and testing of saline sources.water use • Extensive and on-going search for new alternative water sources.

• Investigation of non-water alternatives.• Consideration of innovative water conservation options (non-saline off-sets,

contingencies). • Evaluation of complex infrastructure and operational requirements (conjunctive

use capability17).• Consideration of operational adaptive management and environmental

stewardship plans (anticipate temporal variations in water availability).




Large-scale Tier 3 projects may have impactson the aquatic environment such as drawdownin aquifer water levels over a large area,decreases in stream flow at low flow seasons,or other local or cumulative effects. Smallerscale projects may also have local impacts onthe aquatic environment and cumulativeimpacts that need to be considered.

All Tier 3 projects have the potential toexacerbate existing and potential stresses onthe aquatic environment at a local or basinscale. Consideration must be given to impactson the aquatic environment during seasonalreductions in precipitation and runoff(environmental flow requirements).

In some circumstances, the potentialenvironmental impacts of alternatives mayalso be significant (e.g. pipeline spills of salinewater, landfill of water treatment wastes).These environmental risks need to beconsidered with the benefits of the proposedwater conservation measures in an“environmental net effects” analysis. In mostcircumstances, it is likely there is an overallnet benefit to water conservation measures inTier 3 areas, however the environmental neteffects may vary between options.

All projects in “water-short” areas based onthe interim “water-short areas” map should be

considered Tier 3 projects unless the a site-specific evaluation indicates that a Tier 2classification is appropriate. In somecircumstances, the AENV Director may decidethat a Tier 2 classification is sufficient basedon the potential environmental risks of theproject (e.g. small scale, minor impacts, locally abundant water availability), and on the information needed to make watermanagement decisions on issuing the licence.Applicants are advised to consult with AENVstaff before proceeding with an evaluationbased on “Tier 2” criteria in a “water-short”area (Figures 4a, 4b).

“Water-short Areas” in Tier 3

Identifying of water-short areas is essential tothe regulatory process for Tier 3 projects.Appendix B provides definitions, criteria forevaluation of water-short areas in Alberta, andan interim map.

Water Management Plans and Approved WaterManagement Plans that identify water-shortareas may vary the criteria for identification of“water-short” and “potentially-water-short”areas within specified basins. Detailedevaluations of water-short areas in watermanagement plans or approved watermanagement plans have priority over the maps provided in Appendix B.

TIER 3 ~ CONTINUED

Economic Aspects Detailed economic review of all options (AFE level) as described in the economicssection (3.2.4).

Water conservation measures include long-term actions to replace non-saline watersupplies. Cost estimates of ongoing water conservation efforts and alternativesupply development should be included in the evaluation.

Net Environmental Full review and comparison of environmental benefits and impacts of the options.Effect Aspects Use topics in the guidelines on net environmental effects for guidance (Section 3.2.6).


St. MaryRiver Basin

Waterton-BellyRiver BasinKilometer

Michichi Creek Basin(west branch)Hansman Lake (Basin)

Deadfish and Berry Creek Basins

Highwood River Basin

Little Bow River Basinabove Twin Valley Reservoir

Mosquito Creek Basin

Willow Creek Basin

Little Bow River Basinbelow Travers Reservoir

Many Island Lake Basinand Mackay-BoxelderCreek Basin

Bullshead, Ross and GrosVentre Creeks Basins

Lodge, Battle andMiddle Creeks Basins

Pakowki Lake Basin

Milk River Basin30 0 30 60

Water-short – considered either ìexceptionally dry ” or the area / watershed has been closed to most or all new water applications. Basins that are specifically listed have administrative restrictions.

Potentially Water-short – considered either relatively dry or the area / waterwatershed has a generally high level of allocations compared to natural supply.

Not Regionally Water-short – (water-short areas may be present locally).

This map is intended to flag areas where water supply may be of concern.When depicting regional conditions as shown above, the actual local conditions may vary.

Assessment Criteria

Lethbridge

MedicineHat

CALGARY

Drumheller

RedDeer

WetaskiwinCamrose

Banff

RANGE

TOWNSHIP

FIF

TH M

ER

IDIA

N

FO

UR

TH M

ER

IDIA

NFigure 4a.Interim Map of Water-Short Areas in Southern AlbertaWatershort Areas Assessment (2006) : Detail for Southern Alberta

Figures 4a and 4b show detailed maps of the“water-short and “potentially-water-short”areas in Alberta. These maps can be used byapplicants as a basis for classification ofprojects as Tier 2 or Tier 3, in conjunctionwith other factors discussed in this Section.

Appendix B describes the basis for identifyingwater-short areas that is used on the Interim water-short areas maps, and discusses factors that can beconsidered in establishing water-short areas duringwater management planning (at the watershed oraquifer scale).




St. MaryRiver Basin

Waterton-BellyRiver BasinKilometer

Michichi Creek Basin(west branch)Hansman Lake (Basin)

Deadfish and Berry Creek Basins

Highwood River Basin

Little Bow River Basinabove Twin Valley Reservoir

Mosquito Creek Basin

Willow Creek Basin

Little Bow River Basinbelow Travers Reservoir

Many Island Lake Basinand Mackay-BoxelderCreek Basin

Bullshead, Ross and GrosVentre Creeks Basins

Lodge, Battle andMiddle Creeks Basins

Pakowki Lake Basin

Milk River Basin30 0 30 60

Water-short – considered either “exceptionally dry” or the area / watershed has been closed to most or all new water applications. Basins that are specifically listed have administrative restrictions.

Potentially Water-short – considered either relatively dry or the area / waterwatershed has a generally high level of allocations compared to natural supply.



Assessment Criteria

Lethbridge

MedicineHat

CALGARY

Drumheller

RedDeer

WetaskiwinCamrose

Banff

RANGE

TOWNSHIP

FIF

TH M

ER

IDIA

N

FO

UR

TH M

ER

IDIA

N

Figure 4a.Interim Map of Water-Short Areas in Southern AlbertaWatershort Areas Assessment (2006) : Detail for Southern Alberta


New Projects in Water-Short Areas

New projects within “water-short areas” thatpropose to use non-saline water mustdemonstrate that every feasible option hasbeen evaluated and only non-saline waterresource use will prevent stranding oilresources. It is a general objective to replace allnon-saline water use in water-short areas withother ER fluids.

In some water-short areas, new allocationscannot be issued due to administrativerestrictions, and major impacts on aquifers orthe aquatic ecosystem may occur in areas withlow natural runoff. These (or other) factorsmay prevent a new licence being issued foroilfield injection in “water-short” areas.

In circumstances where no feasible alternativeexists, consideration should be given todelaying ER projects until new technology oralternative water sources are available. This isparticularly applicable to projects where majorimpacts are predicted during the riskassessment process (Section 3.2.1). In somecircumstances, it may be feasible to proceedwith a new ER scheme using non-saline wateron an intermittent-injection basis (i.e. onlywhen above average natural precipitation orseasonal run-off occurs).

In all cases where new oilfield injectionprojects are proposed for “water-short” areas,environmental risks need to be carefullyweighed against economic benefits of theproject. The consequences of not proceedingwith the project must be considered as one ofthe options.

Existing Projects in Water-Short Areas

Ongoing efforts, to reduce and eliminate non-saline water use is essential to any ER project.Project plans should also include“environmental stewardship” measures tominimize water use during low flow seasonsand drought periods. This might includeinjection reductions, conjunctive use of low-yield alternative supplies, or other stewardshipmeasures during times when severe watershortages occur due to drought conditions.

Geographical variations in water managementcriteria may occur as a result of WaterManagement Plans, Approved WaterManagement Plans, or the requirements ofindividual licences in “water-short” areas (Tier3 projects). Water management plans mayestablish basin or watershed scalerequirements for water use, emphasizingwater conservation and initiatives to replacenon-saline water with other fluids.

3.2.3 SELECTING ALTERNATIVE WATERSOURCES AND ER METHODS(ALL APPLICATIONS)The level of alternative water sourceevaluation required will vary according to thedegree of potential impacts on the aquaticenvironment, non-saline aquifers, other wateruses, and the complexity of options evaluated.In “water-short”18 areas, maximum effortsmust be made to evaluate and implementsaline water sources or other ER methods,including ongoing efforts to eliminate the useof non-saline water sources.

18 Water short areas occur where natural conditions and/or development pressures are likely to limit the availability of surface water andgroundwater for future sustainable development and the protection of the aquatic environment. (See Section 3.2.8).




Evaluating the technical requirements,environmental impacts, socioeconomic factorsand economic costs and benefits of variousoptions is a complex task. In many cases,evaluation of potential sources may lead tothe use of more than one source, eithercontinuously or conjunctively19.

The following list provides some of thepossible sources that should be consideredduring evaluation of an enhanced recoveryproject, approximately in the order ofenvironmental preference. Environmentalimpacts and other relevant factors need to beevaluated for each project individually.

Possible Water Sources

1. Produced water

2. Saline groundwater

3. Non-water fluids and methods

4. Recycling options

5. Industrial wastewater

6. Municipal Wastewater

7. Potential offset water supplies

8. Water from coalbed methane (Natural Gas in Coal) projects

Pipelines and Shared Water Sources

Existing saline water pipelines in the vicinityof a project may be an effective option forconventional ER water floods in areas with along history of oil production. Maps ofexisting pipelines are available from the EUB.

Industry proponents of ER schemes areexpected to evaluate potential produced watersupplies that are accessible to the project, withan emphasis on using produced water that isdisposed of. Proponents are expected toidentify and investigate the availability ofproduced water from all wells that mightprovide saline water to the new project.

Proponents must investigate the waterchemistry of potential saline sources toestablish compatibility information, includingcompatibility of water with existing reservoirfluids (water and hydrocarbons) and thereservoir matrix. Identifying water treatmentoptions and costs is important in evaluatingboth saline and non-saline water sources.

Industry operators must cooperate inminimizing the use of non-saline water forER. In many areas of new and ongoing ERdevelopment, excess saline water pipelinecapacity exists and extensive produced waterdisposal occurs. Proponents need to negotiatereasonable compensation for the use ofexisting infrastructure. If reasonable access toexcess supplies cannot be agreed betweenindustrial operators, the EUB may be able toassist in facilitating additional discussions.

19 Conjunctive use implies that a single (or combination of) source(s) may be used during most of a project’s life, but a separate source mayprovide alternate water supplies under some circumstances (project start-up, drought etc.).


Figure 5 shows a “decision tree” foroptimizing the ER fluid selection process.

Procedures for Identifying and EvaluatingSaline Aquifers

Saline ground water sources, includingproduced water from ongoing production andsaline water source wells not part of an existinghydrocarbon production operation, are themost feasible alternative to the use of non-saline water in many ER projects in Alberta.

Evaluation of saline aquifers as an alternativeto using non-saline water sources includesthe following:

• Identification of existing and future watersupplies in the vicinity of the project,from existing primary production andfrom ER schemes that have excessproduced water capacity.

• Identification of saline aquifers (down-holegeophysical logs and drill stem tests) inexisting production or exploration wells.Mapping of the extent and permeability/porosity of saline zones is essential.

• Evaluation of potential water chemistryand formation compatibility issues. Insome circumstances, water treatmentoptions will need to be evaluated (i.e.hardness or silica in water to be used forsteam generation in thermal ER).

• Perforation and drill stem tests or pumptests of saline zones in suspended orabandoned wells near the project injectionwells, or near saline water pipelinesaccessible to the project.

• Drilling, completion and pump testing ofnew wells as saline water source wells.

The Water Act exempts the use of saline waterfrom licensing requirements. An applicationfor this use is not required.

Figure 5.Alternate water sources and ER methods

ExistingWater

Information

WaterManagement

Plans

Identify ERopportuntiy and assess

non-water options

Saline

Saline Surface Water

SalineGroundwater

ShallowNon-Saline

Groundwater

“Tertiary” FluidsDeeper

Non-SalineGroundwater

Final Water Source = A + B + C + D + E + F

ER Application to EUB

Non-Saline

Determine water quality

andquantity needs

Water Source

SELECTION

AENV DiversionPermit

Required

WaterRequired

C F

B E

A D




NOTE: Discharge of saline water to surface isprohibited under EUB and AENV regulations.Pump testing of high capacity wells requiressignificant on-site water storage. Stagedtesting is usually needed - with preliminaryshort-term tests prior to pipeline construction,followed by long-term sustainability pumptests after initiation of the ER scheme.

Alberta Environment’s Groundwater EvaluationGuideline20 provides general guidance forevaluation of aquifers.

NOTE: the licence application requirements in theGroundwater Evaluation Guideline are notapplicable to saline aquifers.

The extent of evaluation appropriate to eachproject increases with the size of the project,project duration, potential environmental andhuman impacts, and the degree of watershortage or limitations in water supply. TheTiered allocation framework (section 3.2.2)provides guidance regarding appropriateevaluation effort. Discretion is needed inapplying the framework recommendations toindividual projects. Applicants should consultwith EUB and AENV staff during the design ofan evaluation program (contact information isprovided in Appendix A).

Saline water sources may provide all or aportion of the water needs of an ER scheme,depending on the well yields(s), saline aquifersustainability and the availability of otheralternatives. In some circumstances,conjunctive use of saline groundwater andnon-saline water sources may be the bestalternative. Combinations of saline and non-saline water supplies may also be the best option during periods when climatic

variability reduces the availability of non-saline groundwater or surface water.

Non-water Fluids and Methods

Options for consideration in selecting non-water alternatives include:

• Hydrocarbon solvents

• Carbon dioxide

• Polymer agents to reduce flow inpermeable zones

• Air injection (thermal ER projects)

• Other innovative methods to reducehydrocarbon viscosity or control fluid flowwithin the reservoir.

Recycling Options

Options for recycling produced water include:

• Water from Existing ER schemes.

• Produced water from other primaryproduction wells in the same field.

• Enhanced water recycling at thermal ERprojects (from water treatment andboiler reject streams that wouldotherwise be disposed through deep well disposal operations).

All projects are expected to maximize therecycling of produced water in order toconserve and prevent wasting of non-salinewater supplies. Produced water recycling isalso needed to minimize the volumes of waterdisposed through deep well disposal operations.

20 Groundwater Evaluation Guideline, AENV, 2003 www.gov.ab.ca/env/water/Legislation/Guidelines/GroundwaterEvaluation.pdf.


The EUB has established recyclingrequirements for thermal ER projects (IL-89-5)and regulates the disposal of produced waterthrough Guide 51. Further information isprovided in Appendix C for the EUBregulatory documents (C.3 EUB Guidelines).

Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Sources

In some circumstances, environmentalimprovements can be achieved by suitabletreatment and use of industrial and municipaleffluent. It is possible that a lesser degree oftreatment is needed to make industrial andmunicipal effluent suitable for injection in ERprojects than is needed to treat these effluentsfor return to surface water bodies.

Offset Water Sources

For some projects, it may be feasible to offsetthe environmental impacts of a proposedwater diversion by improving water storagecapabilities or providing alternatives to theexisting water use at another project in thearea. This is further discussed in section 3.2.7.

Water From Coalbed Methane (Natural Gasin Coal) Projects

Recent increases in the development ofshallow gas resources in coal beds mayprovide new potential sources of saline ormarginally non-saline water. Considerationneeds to be given to water quality, sustainableyields, and aquifer and aquatic ecosystemimpacts of coalbed methane water sources ona case-by-case basis.

The regulatory process for diversion of non-saline water for coalbed methane productionhas not been finalized. Applicants consideringthis option should consult with AENV staffduring the development of their alternativesources evaluation program.

3.2.4 ECONOMIC ASPECTS

All new applications must include informationon economic aspects of the alternative watersource options. As indicated in the TierEvaluation Criteria (section 3.2.2), either aScreening Level Review or an AFE LevelReview will be required.

Screening Level Review

The screening level analysis must enable areasonable comparison of economic costs andwater conservation benefits for all of theoptions considered.

A screening level review must be provided foreach technical alternative considered (seesection 3.2.2). The review must include:

• Evaluation and exploration costs

• The capital cost of construction

• The annual operating and maintenance cost(e.g. water treatment, recycling, pipelineaccess and transport, power costs, etc.).

The review must also assess the overall waterand hydrocarbon budget (“resourceproductivity”) of the project, includingassessment of productivity variations betweentechnical alternatives (if significantly different).The productivity assessment must include:

• The overall water volume needed throughoutthe project life and the volumes of non-salinewater needed. Volumes of non-water fluids(CO2, etc.) should also be assessed.

• The overall hydrocarbon reserves (provenand probable) and total estimatedproduction from the project.

• An estimate of the project duration andschedule of water injection.




• An estimate of volumes of hydrocarbonproduced versus volumes of non-salinewater used through the project life (i.e.resource productivity trends).

Qualitative Evaluation of Alternatives

For proposed projects where a screening levelreview is selected, the applicant willsummarize the results of the technicalalternatives, economic information andenvironmental information in a table similarto the example below.

Alternative 1 $XXXX $YYYYYY ZZZZZ



Economic Information

Technical Alternative

CapitalCosts

AnnualOperating Expense

Environmental Information

Authorization for Expenditure (AFE) Level Review

The applicant will conduct a rigorous analysisof the project to determine the economicimpact or opportunity each water alternativeconsidered will have on the overall project.The usual AFE standards used in the oil andgas industry are expected.

This Guideline does not mandate an arbitrarymethodology. However it does require ameaningful economic analysis that supportsan effective decision by the AENV Director. Itis recommended that the applicant consult

with AENV/EUB staff regarding the economicanalysis approach prior to proceeding with adetailed review.

The following information will be providedby the applicant for the economic analysis ofeach water alternative:

1) An evaluation of the net present value(NPV). This will be a before-tax analysis.

2) The commodity price forecasts used inevaluations of ER projects that require non-saline water must be the most recentlypublished by Chenery Dobson Resource



Management21 (or an equivalent datasource as agreed by AENV and EUB). Theforecast used for oil/bitumen and naturalgas liquids will be the average nominallarge firms’ ”consulting price” FOBEdmonton in C$/BBL.

3) Information to support calculation ofremaining reserves and to establish theproduction forecast.

4) A detailed breakdown of capital andoperating costs (e.g. power costs, watertreatment costs) for each of the alternatives.

5) Information on the long-term inflation rate.This will be based on the Consumer PriceIndex forecast, which is available inDobson’s Survey.

6) Information on the discount rate. This willbe equal to the prime lending rate of theAlberta Treasury Branch on loans payable inCanadian dollars plus three per cent basedon the preceding month that the evaluationis conducted. The discount rate will bereviewed periodically by the EUB and willbe revised if the capital costs for the oil andgas industry change significantly.

7) Only incremental revenue, minus netroyalties, from oil and gas that wouldotherwise not be recovered by primaryproduction will be included in theeconomic evaluation.

The applicant should highlight the followingaspects to support project planning and thewater diversion licence application:

1) Economic evaluation to compare the NPVof the ER scheme (over the project life) ofeach feasible alternative.

2) Detailed analysis of the costs for eachfeasible alternative, including the cost ofenvironmental stewardship, contingencymeasures and conservation methods thatwould be implemented during the projectlife. This will assist in selecting the bestcombination of water sources and ERmethods for the project.

Should an operator determine that non-salinewater use is the preferred option, acomprehensive economic report must besubmitted. The report must incorporate thepreceding information and provide sufficientdetail to allow the results to be verified.

Economic costs must be balanced againstenvironmental impacts and the benefits ofwater conservation efforts. It is a generalobjective to achieve maximum waterconservation without stranding oil and gasresources in Alberta. However, some projectsclassified as “Tier 3” may be deferred (oilresources “stranded”) as a result of water supplylimitations, major environmental risks or projecteconomic constraints. It is anticipated thatfuture technology (and oil price fluctuations)may make some ER projects economicallyfeasible that are not currently competitive withother investment opportunities.

Licence Renewals and Economic Evaluation

All renewals must include applicable economicevaluation information, as new applicationswould. Licence renewal applications shouldrefer to any initial applications made underthis Guideline and provide an assessment ofalternative water conservation options for thenext term of the licence.

21 The forecasts are available in Dobson's publication: Survey of Hydrocarbon Price Forecasts Utilized by Canadian Petroleum Consultants and CanadianBanks, which is updated semi-annually and available at a nominal cost per publication. The publication is also available in the EUB Library.



Applications without Economic Evaluation

There are a limited number of circumstancesin which an economic evaluation will not helpmake water management decisions. Theseinclude short term “pilot type projects” thatare used by industry to evaluate the economicand technical limitations of a potential ERproject, and projects in the final year(s) ofoperation where it would not be reasonable tomake new capital investments.

NOTE: Although economic evaluation information isnot usually required for these “exempt”projects, it is expected the operator will stilluse saline sources, if available.

It also is the general guidance of this documentthat projects that have already made significantwater conservation investments, and achievedresults that support Water for Life objectives,may be granted relief from detailed economicevaluations during licence renewals at thediscretion of the Director.

These exemptions are discussed in Part B(Section 2.1) of this document.

NOTE: The AENV Director responsible for issuingWater Act licences may require additionalinformation for any licence application (WA s. 51).

3.2.5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

An evaluation of the impacts of surface water or groundwater evaluation on the local environment and other water users isessential to any application to use non-salinewater resources.

The evaluation must determine the cumulativeeffects on the aquatic environment andexisting water users that will result from alldiversions within the geographical area wherethe applicant’s water use will have an impact.

In areas where many new ER projects areunder development consideration must begiven to the long-term consequences on thewatershed, aquifer or basin. This assessmentincludes (but is not limited to):

• a quantitative evaluation of cumulativeeffects for proposed projects (if informationis publicly available) and present and futurewater use at existing projects.

• an evaluation of future water supplyavailability in comparison to allocationtrends in the watershed, aquifer or basin.

The extent of time and geographical area of thecumulative effects assessment depends on thescale of the project and the specific interactionsof that project and other projects in the area. Itis recommended that applicants consult withAENV staff regarding the evaluation ofcumulative effects for individual applications.

3.2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL NET EFFECTSEVALUATION

The comparison of overall environmental risksand benefits of alternative water sources is thebasis for an environmental net effects analysis.

In some cases, the use of an alternativetechnology or alternative water source mayresult in more environmental impacts than theuse of non-saline water. This circumstancemay arise in any project or geographic area,but is most likely to occur in Tier 1 cases.

By switching to saline water use for theintended project, it is expected there will beadditional energy requirements for obtainingthe saline water, resulting in higher projectemissions. In addition, there will likely beincreased land disturbance for saline pipelines,additional waste products and associatedenvironmental footprint to safely dispose ofthese products.


In the evaluation of net environmental effects,it is necessary to consider these negativeaspects and weigh them against the positivebenefits of reduced non-saline water use. Itmay be that in a Tier 3 case, the best choicewould be to proceed with developing salinewater supplies, with acknowledgement of theother negative impacts. In a Tier 1 case, it maybe best to proceed using non-saline water.

For example, in an area of the province wherenon-saline water is readily available (Tier 1)and where the aquatic ecosystem, supplies fordrinking water, and supplies for a sustainableeconomy are not stressed, the environmentalimpacts of using non-saline water are likelysmall. In contrast, the same water use in awater-short area (Tier 3) may cause additionalcumulative impacts to aquatic organisms andadditional water allocations may not beavailable because licensed water use limitshave been reached.

“Screening” Level Review

In many cases, a simple comparison of thepositive and negative environmental aspects foreach technical alternative considered willprovide enough environmental information tosupport a water allocation decision. A screeninglevel review will provide, for each technicalalternative considered, a brief response to eachquestion in the “Net Effects Considerations”below. The applicant may address additionaltopics as circumstances warrant or whererequested to do so by the Director.

“Environmental Evaluation” Level Review

An environmental evaluation level reviewrequires a thorough review of theenvironmental effects of the alternatives whenconsidering complex circumstancessurrounding the project.

A review will provide, for each technicalalternative considered, a detailed response toeach of the questions asked as example topicsin the listing below. The project applicant andthe AENV Director may address additionaltopics as circumstances warrant.

A formal Environmental Impact Assessment,mandated by the Environmental Protection andEnhancement Act, requires a separate Terms ofReference for each assessment designed toaddress the environmental issues of that project,including water management issues, and is notcovered by this Guideline. Further informationis available from the AENV website22, or bycontacting AENV regional offices.

Net Effects Considerations

The following questions are examples oftopics to consider during an environmental neteffects analysis:

• Will the use of alternative technology resultin the generation of a larger environmentalfootprint?

• Will the use of alternative technology resultin additional energy expenditure creating:

■ Additional greenhouse gas emissions?

■ A decline in overall project efficiencyand productivity?

22 A document describing the environmental assessment process is available online: www.gov.ab.ca/env/protenf/assessment/pub/EAProcessGuide.pdf.




• Will there be additional waste disposalrequiring additional landfill capacity?

• Will there be additional liquid wasterequiring additional disposal well capacity?

• Will there be additional negative gasemissions (NOx, SOx, H2S)?

• Will the project require additional landclearing:

■ Of agricultural, wetlands, forestedareas?

• Will there be additional habitatdisturbance?

• Are there risks from using an alternativewater supply?

• Is the alternative water hazardous (e.g.H2S, corrosive)?

• Will the alternative water supply change asweet oil supply into a sour supply?

While these additional project impacts may bedifficult to compare directly to environmentalbenefits from using less non-saline water, it isnecessary to consider both the advantages andpotential disadvantages of alternatives.

3.2.7 WATER SUPPLY OFFSETS

Water supply offsets are innovative watersupply improvement or replacement optionsat other projects that can mitigate the impactsof oilfield injection use of non-saline water. Insome circumstances, providing alternatives tothe use of non-saline water may beimpractical at one site within a watershed, butreadily available at another location.

The offsets should be located as close aspossible to the ER project and should not havenegative environmental impacts on waterusers, water supply, the aquatic environment,or non-saline aquifers at the project site.Water conservation measures are nottransferable as offsets between ER projects(maximum feasible water conservation isexpected at all projects).

When considering cumulative effects,reduction in consumptive use of anotherexisting licence may be considered as a waterconservation benefit provided by a new orrenewed ER project. The applicant mustdemonstrate an overall reduction in waterconsumption in the watershed throughfinancial or other initiatives that have a realbenefit of water conservation. The proposedoffsets must not lead to water supplyhardships in another watershed or aquifer, oradversely affect the water diversion prioritiesof existing water users.

Innovative offset opportunities that returnuseable water to a watershed will beconsidered in the water allocation decision.Offset opportunities that increase basinstorage or replace uses of high-quality watersupplies with saline or effluent sources mayincrease the available water supply for allusers. Offsets may mitigate cumulative effectson the aquatic environment in areas whereoverall water availability is stressed (“water-short” and “potentially-water-short” areas).


3.2.8 WATER-SHORT AREAS

Water-short areas identify parts of Albertawhere water availability is crucial to anyevaluation of the use of non-saline water foroilfield injection projects.

Appendix B describes the basis for identifying“water-short and “potentially-water-short”areas in Alberta and provides an interim mapof water-short areas in the province based onanalysis of runoff and allocation in sub-basins.The basis for mapping “water-short” and“potentially-water-short” areas is shown onFigure 11 of Appendix B.

Additional analysis is needed at the watershedscale to identify local water-short andpotentially-water-short areas. This level ofanalysis is a component of WatershedManagement Planning and will be addressedin future phases of water management plansfor Alberta watersheds.

Integrating evaluation of groundwater andsurface water resources at the watershed scalehas particular challenges. In somecircumstances, a deep non-saline aquifer mayprovide a water source that has reducedimpact on the water resources and aquatic ecosystem relative to use of surface water. In

other circumstances, the use of groundwaterresources may reduce the basin storagecomponent where a watershed already has alow surface storage capacity.

Groundwater resource evaluations arerequired on a case-by-case basis until a morecomplete understanding of groundwater andsurface water interactions is available. Theinterim mapping of water-short andpotentially-water-short areas combines waterallocations for groundwater and surface water.

The interim water-short areas map shown inFigure 6 is a basis for identifying Tier 3 areas.Areas identified as “water-short” should beevaluated using Tier 3 criteria unless a detailedlocal or watershed scale analysis indicates thata less rigorous classification (Tier 1 or Tier 2)is available for that area (at the discretion ofthe Director).

Areas identified as “potentially water-short”on the interim map may be considered as Tier2 projects in most circumstances, with theDirector’s discretion as to whether individualprojects should be classified as Tier 3, basedon the assessment of environmental risk andfuture water demand in the area.




Figure 6.Overview of water-short areas.Watershort Areas Assessment (2006)

60 0 60 120Milk Basin

Pakowki Basin

South SaskatchewanBasin

SoundingBasin

BattleBasin

BeaverBasin

AthabascaBasin

HayBasin

High Level

FortChipewyan

FortMcMurray

Peace River

Grande Prairie

EDMONTONLloydminster

CamroseWetaskiwinJasper

RedDeer

Drumheller

Lethbridge

CALGARY

Banff

PeaceBasin

NorthSaskatchewan

Basin

Red DeerBasin

BowBasin

OldmanBasin

Water-short – considered either “exceptionally dry” or the area / watershed has been closed to most or all new water applications.

Potentially Water-short – considered either relatively dry or the area / watershed has a generally high level of allocations compared to natural supply.



Assessment Criteria

Kilometers

Medicine Hat


3.3 QUALIFICATIONS OF PERSONNEL

Applications for use of non-saline waterresources must meet the followingrequirements:

• Evaluation of saline water sources andproduced water sources will be carried outby professional geologists or reservoirengineers with experience in the area,aquifers and formations being investigated.Reports must be signed and stamped(APEGGA).

• Experienced and qualified hydrologists willcarry out evaluation of potential surfacewater sources. Reports must be signed andstamped (APEGGA).

• Evaluation of potential non-salinegroundwater sources will be carried out byexperienced and qualified hydrogeologistsin accordance with the GroundwaterEvaluation Guideline (2003). Reports mustbe signed and stamped (APEGGA).

• Comparison of economic costs will becarried out according to generally acceptedaccounting principles, by qualified andexperienced personnel. Cost estimates willbe detailed, defensible and based on recentactual costs for similar work. Economicevaluations (including cost parameters)should be auditable. Economic evaluationreports must be signed and stamped by amember of APEGGA who is familiar withAFE economic analysis, or by an accreditedaccounting professional.




4.0 IMPROVED REPORTING ANDMONITORING INFORMATION

Reporting of information by project operators(in compliance with licence conditions) -including water use, and monitoring data willbe made readily available to members of thepublic. AENV will provide “state of theenvironment” information to the public,including information regarding oilfieldinjection uses of water.

• Technical reports (licence applicationsupporting documents) and water use datafor both non-saline and saline water will beavailable on the AENV Approvals Viewer23

or from AENV regional offices.

• Non-saline and saline water useinformation that is reported to AENV willbe publicly available on a watershed/basinbasis with “state of the environmentreporting” by AENV. The AENV web-siteprovides provincial-scale information onoilfield injection water use trends in an“environmental pressure” State of TheEnvironment Report24.

• Digital reporting of water use andenvironmental monitoring will be initiatedto improve accessibility of oilfieldinjection data.

Monitoring and Reporting – LicenceConditions

Monitoring and reporting requirements areestablished for each Water Act licence issued,as a condition of the licence.

The monitoring and reporting conditions maybe updated at the renewal of a term licence,and also may be amended within the licenceterm, at the discretion of the Director, inaccordance with Section 54(1) of the Water Act.

4.1 PERFORMANCE MEASURES ANDPROGRAM EVALUATION DATA

Performance measures are quantitative “tools”or “criteria” that assess the achievement ofspecific outcomes. A summary of performancemeasures to assess the outcomes for oilfieldinjection is provided in the following table.

These performance measures are a componentof a comprehensive review of oilfield injectionpolicy and conservation practices to beconducted in 2007-2008.

Dpart – monitoring and reporting:

23 AENV Approvals viewer: www.gov.ab.ca/env/water/ApprovalViewer.html.24 www.gov.ab.ca/env/soe/water_indicators/29_oilfield_inj.html.


Performance MeasureSREM25 Outcome

Reduction/elimination ofnon-saline water use.

Improved productivityand efficiency of wateruse.

Conservation andprotection of non-salineaquifers and aquaticecosystems.

Improved Partnership andResearch initiatives.

Thermal and conventional ER separately, by basin

1. Per cent allocation reduction between 2005 and 2007.

2. Per cent non-saline water use reduction (surface water, groundwater) between2005 and 2007.

3. Per cent increase in use of saline groundwater between 2005 and 2007.

4. Per cent increase in use of alternate (non-water) ER methods (per cent increasein ER oil production using alternate methods).

Thermal and conventional ER separately

1. Resource productivity (ER cubic metres of oil/bitumen per cubic metre of nonsaline water). A trend line is desirable.

1. Reduction in water use in water-short and potentially water-short areas(oilfield injection, other consumptive uses).

2. Stakeholder Assessment Process.

3. Qualitative assessment of progress in stewardship, data, knowledgemanagement, overall results.

4. Reductions in allocation and water use for permanent licences.

1. Qualitative documentation (and evaluation) of partnership and researchinitiatives.

2. Stakeholder assessment process.

3. Qualitative evaluation by WPACs and AWC.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO ASSESS OILFIELD INJECTION

OUTCOMES:


25 SREM: Sustainable Resource and Environmental Management as described on page 6.



Figures 7 and 8 show trends in the use of saline andnon-saline groundwater for oilfield injection overtime. These trends help measure progress inreduction/elimination of non-saline water use foroilfield injection. Changes in the volumes of saline

and non-saline water used between 2004 and 2007are a performance measure for evaluating thesuccess of the Water Conservation and Allocation Policyfor Oilfield Injection.

Figure 7. Total fresh, saline groundwater and surface water use for conventional enhanced oil recovery in Alberta, 1977-2004

0

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2004

0

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mill

ion

cu

bic

met

res

Saline GW Surface Fresh GW Total

Figure 8. Total fresh, saline groundwater and surface water use for thermal enhanced recovery in Alberta, 1977-2004

0

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2004

5

10

30

20

25

30

Mill

ion

cu

bic

met

res

Saline GW Surface Fresh GW Total


4.2 STATE OF ENVIRONMENT INDICATOR –WATER USED FOR OILFIELD INJECTIONPURPOSES

Another measure of achieving outcomesproposed for management of oilfield injection isthe total water used for oilfield injection. Thisindicator is prepared by AENV annually andpublished on-line26.

The indicator provides a trend of water used forconventional enhanced recovery and thermalenhanced recovery as a measure ofenvironmental pressure on water resources.

Figure 9 shows the trend of the State of theEnvironment indicator to 2004.

26 www.gov.ab.ca/env/soe/water_indicators/29_oilfield_inj.html.

Figure 9. Source water use over time

0

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

Data Source: EUB Water Source Tables (EUB 2005)

2006

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Inje

ctio

n V

olu

mes

(m

illio

ns

of

m3 )

Total of All Sources (All) Total of “Fresh” Sources (Blue) Surface Water (Fresh) Non-Saline Groundwater Saline Groundwater




5.0 WATER EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITYOBJECTIVES

The “water efficiency and productivity”objectives in Water for Life: Alberta’s Strategy forSustainability provide context for establishingtargets for underground injection. The AlbertaWater Council will provide an approach towater efficiency and productivity planning tobe used by Watershed planning and AdvisoryCouncils (WPACs) in watershed planning.

In consultation with stakeholders, WPACs willevaluate and recommend Sectoral WaterConservation Targets, which will beincorporated into Water Management plans.

It is essential that government agencies andindustry collect data in the 2005-2007 periodto assist WPACs in evaluating waterconservation, productivity and efficiency inoilfield injection projects. Since productivityand efficiency targets can result in an increasein water use in areas where there are manynew projects, industry must work with theWPACs to establish meaningful conservationtargets for the future.

5.1 2007-2008 PROGRAM REVIEW

The effectiveness of the water conservationmeasures implemented during 2005-2007 willbe assessed during a 2007-2008 program reviewconducted by AENV. The Policy, Guideline,regulatory delivery, and the overallenvironmental management system for oilfieldinjection may change following the review.

Epart – adaptation & management System Review


6.0 WATER CONSERVATION

The water conservation measures outlined inthis Guideline are part of a broader effort toconserve water resources in Alberta.

New efforts to develop improved enhancedrecovery methods and practices in the oilindustry will form an important component ofthis overall initiative. These efforts includeindustry research and development initiatives,joint industry-government research programs,and government initiatives to developeffective environmental management systems,including the use of flexible regulatory toolsand incentives, where possible.

Industry-government cooperation to achievethe water conservation objectives in Water forLife: Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability isessential. This includes participation in thework of the Alberta Water Council, WaterManagement Plan development, WatershedPlanning Advisory Councils, local community-industry cooperative associations, regionalenvironmental initiatives, and government-industry partnerships to address specific issues.

6.1 RESEARCH INITIATIVES

Industry participants who are pursuinginnovative enhanced recovery opportunities orresearch projects can contact AENV or theAlberta Energy Research Institute. Otherprograms lead by industry groups such asCAPP, PTAC and CONRAD are activelyengaged in the development of improved ERmethods in Alberta.

6.2 ALBERTA WATER COUNCIL

The Alberta Water Council has an importantrole in recommending changes to watermanagement in Alberta, under the Water forLife strategy. The Council will evaluate thevalue of water in Alberta’s economy, reviewthe use of economic instruments in watermanagement, and provide advice to theGovernment of Alberta on other vital issuesrelevant to the management and regulation ofwater resources in the province.

Additional information on the activities of theAlberta Water Council is available on-line at:www.waterforlife.gov.ab.ca

Fpart – complementary actions




ap

pe

nd

ice

sappendix

Appendix A – Contacts

Appendix B – Water-short Areas

Appendix C – Information Sources

Appendix D – Sustainable Resource Environmental Management System For Oilfield Injection

Appendix E – Evaluation of Project Scale

Appendix F – Glossary



APPENDIX A – CONTACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD

Environmental Appeals Board 306 Peace Hills Trust Tower 10011 – 109 Street Edmonton, Alberta Canada T5J 3S8

Tel: 780.427.6207 Fax: 780.427.4693 Web: www.gov.ab.ca/eab E-Mail:[email protected]

ALBERTA ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD

EUB CONTACTS

Main SwitchboardCalgary Office640 – 5 Avenue SW Calgary, AlbertaCanada T2P 3G4

Tel: 403.297.8311

APPLICATIONS HELP LINES

Facilities Applications (Guide 56)Tel: 403.297.4369E-Mail: [email protected]

Resources Applications (Guide 65)Tel: 403.297.6957

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT

INFORMATION CENTRE

Main Floor9820 – 106 Street Edmonton, Alberta Canada T5K 2J6

Tel: 780.427.2700 Fax: 780.422.4086 Email: [email protected]

ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT

Main Floor, Petroleum Plaza South Tower 9915 – 108 Street Edmonton, Alberta Canada T5K 2G8

Web: www.environment.gov.ab.ca



Regional Offices

Northern Region Peace River Bag 900 - 5, Provincial Building 9621 – 96 Avenue Peace River, Alberta T8S 1T4 T: (780) 624-6167F: (780) 624-6335

Edmonton Twin Atria 111, 4999 – 98 Avenue Edmonton, Alberta T6B 2X3 T: (780) 427-7617 F: (780) 427-7824 Central Region Spruce GroveSuite 1, 250 Diamond Avenue Spruce Grove, Alberta T7X 4C7 T: (780) 960-8600 F: (780) 960-8605 Red Deer 304, Provincial Building 4920 – 51 Street Red Deer, Alberta T4N 6K8 T: (403) 340-7052 F: (403) 340-5022

Southern Region Calgary Deerfoot Square Building2938 – 11 Street NECalgary, Alberta T2E 7L7 T: (403) 297-7602 F: (403) 297-6069 Lethbridge 2nd Floor, Provincial Building 200 – 5 Avenue South Lethbridge, Alberta T1J 4L1 T: (403) 381-5322 F: (403) 382-4428

High Level

FortChipewyan

FortMcMurray

Peace River

GrandePrairie

EDMONTON

LacLa Biche

Wainwright

SlaveLake

Jasper

RedDeer

Drumheller

Lethbridge

MedicineHat

CALGARY

RockyMountain

House

Hinton

Edson

Figure 10.Alberta Environment – Regional Contacts

NORTHERNONOR

CENTRALCENTTRALLT

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITYOE WOOD BUFFALO

M.D. 17

M.D. 124

M.D. 87

COUNTY 19

COUNTY 21

COUNTY24COUNTY

27

WOODLANDSCOUNTY

COUNTY11

COUNTY7

LAKELAND COUNTY

COUNTY12

WESTLOCKCOUNTY

STURGEONCOUNTY

LAMONTCOUNTY

BEAVERCOUNTY

LEDUCCOUNTY

COUNTY 10

PONOKA COUNTY

LACOMBE COUNTY

RED DEER COUNTY

MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY

KNEEHILLCOUNTY

STARLANDCOUNTY

CLEARWATERCOUNTY

COUNTY6

FLAGSTAFFCOUNTY

COUNTY18

M.D. 61

M.D. 52

M.D. 9

M.D. 8M.D. 44

M.D.34

SPECIALAREA 4

SPECIALAREA 3

SPECIALAREA 2

COUNTY4

M.D.31

M.D.66

M.D.26

M.D. 9

CARDSTONCOUNTY

COUNTY 5

M.D. OFTABER

COUNTY 8

CYPRESSCOUNTYVULCAN COUNTY

COUNTY OF

LETHBRIDGE

M.D.4

WHEATLANDCOUNTY

M.D. 71

STRATHCONACOUNTY

SMOKY LAKECOUNTY

M.D. 131

M.D. 21

M.D. 136

M.D. 130

COUNTY 1

M.D. 16

M.D. 25

M.D. 12

YELLOWHEAD COUNTY

MUNICIPALITY OF

M.D.OF

BIG LAKES

SADDLES HILLSCOUNTY

BIRCH HILLSCOUNTY

M.D.135

M.D.133

M.D. 23

M.D. 22

M.D. 24


APPENDIX B – WATER-SHORT AREAS

GENERAL

A water-short area is defined as an area (e.g. basin,sub-basin, watershed, aquifer extent) where thecumulative human demand for water meets orexceeds the average natural capability of the sourceor area to reasonably supply the present or the futureneeds of water users and the aquatic environment.

CONSIDERATIONS AND CRITERIA

The following considerations describe the basis foridentification of water-short and potentially-water-short areas in the Interim Water-short areas mapshown in Figure 11. These criteria may also be usedin the evaluation of water-short and potentiallywater-short areas in individual water managementplans. Additional criteria may be established toaddress specific issues in local or basin-scale areas.

1. Definition of natural supply

For the purpose of assessing surface water, the“natural water supply” should be based on thelong-term average natural flow as determined bythe median annual runoff yield or streamflowvolume for a particular watershed or basin, usinga minimum record length (20 years). Wherenatural flows are not available, they must beestimated using regional streamflow records orby using modelled data. Natural subsurface watersupply is based on the long-term sustainable usedefinition for groundwater.

2. Definition of area

“Water-short” areas must be definable and able to be mapped. For surface waters, the watershedis the logical definition and is simple tocomprehend. Analysis to the sub-basin level is apractical objective. Sensitivity analysis using GISmapping may help establish reasonable interimboundaries. Surface catchment boundaries aresuitable for surficial groundwater resources. For

deeper groundwater, aquifers are the bestrepresentation of source, however mapping anddefining aquifer extents is, at best, a medium tolong-term possibility.

3. Apportionment and Licensing

Areas where 50 per cent of the median annualsurface flow is already allocated could beconsidered short-list candidates for “water-short”status. The reference to median annual flowvolume is to ensure apportionment agreementobligations can be met in all years. Thisdefinition assumes allocations will be used fullyto the maximum licensed amount with no returnflows or recycling, which does not recognize thereality or experience of water management inAlberta to date, however this helps ensure thatresources are not over-allocated.

As well, because of geographic and physio-graphic differences, the inherent risk of beingable to meet licensed supply at a given level ofallocation is not uniform across Alberta, even ifconsistent licensing criteria or limits are applied.The concept of risk implies that choosing toallocate or not, or to designate an area as water-short, may have to incorporate business decisionsas part of criteria.

On an interim basis, it may be possible toestablish a reasonable level of allocation (as a percent of median) that can be applied. However,future refinement, based on a watershedmanagement approach, is needed in order toconsider differences across basins in the naturalvariability of supply, the different types of wateruse and how water is used, reused or returned,the impact of storage and mitigating variability,and individual basin circumstances. Informationon basins already closed or restricted is availablefrom AENV. These basins have undergonerigorous evaluation and are candidates for water-short designation.




4. Environmental and Instream Requirements

Ecological considerations and instream flows areincreasingly important in determining availablesupply. Meeting the environmental needs of theaquatic ecosystem (or, not being able to) is animportant consideration in defining an area aswater-short. In general, defining an area as water-short as a result of environmental/instreamcriteria results from an over allocation of waterintended for human use, where not enoughnatural flow has been left to meet the IFN.

Water conservation objectives are a different Tierof instream objective where historic use beyondrecognized instream needs has already occurred,and the system is managed to maximize (but notnecessarily meet) an instream flow requirement.Note that leaving 50 per cent of flow instream forapportionment purposes also leaves water in thechannel that would help meet environmentalneeds and therefore combined requirementswould not necessarily be 100 per cent.(Conversely, if an IFN were established thatrequired more than 50 per cent of flow to be leftinstream, apportionment requirements would bemet simply by adhering to the IFN.)

5. Growth in demand and future risks

Interim “water-short” areas should be based onthe average natural flow (refer to Item 1,“Definition of natural supply”) plus a reasonablebuffer. The long-term process should includequantitative, risk-based analysis of developmentpressures and variability in water supply (droughtrisk, climate change).

6. Combined use/Conjunctive use

Interim criteria should combine surface waterand groundwater allocations (provincially,licensed groundwater allocation is two per centof all allocated water), and should follow surfacewater boundaries. In future definitions and

refinements, surface and groundwater supplieswithin the same area should be consideredindependently if the ultimate source isestablished to be different – for example, adeeper aquifer system that is independent oflocal surface water recharge and/or extendsbeyond the recognized surface catchmentboundary (refer to Item 2, “Definition of area”).

7. “Naturally water-short” areas

Some areas in Alberta have naturally low runoff(e.g. the Special Areas). For example, in order fora quarter section to generate enough runoff tomeet the statutory household use of 1 acre-foot(1,250 cubic metres), 2 mm of runoff istheoretically required – therefore somewatersheds could be considered “water-short”even prior to any development.

OUTCOMES

In considering the above criteria, areas that arenot “water-short” or “potentially-water-short”should be able to meet:

• Apportionment obligations for surfacerunoff – apportionment obligations aredefined by agreements and are measurableoutcomes.

• Environmental flows of the aquaticecosystem – “environmental flows” is ageneral term that covers instream objectives(IOs) and instream flow needs (IFNs). Theseare defined and measurable outcomes in basinswhere they have been derived and applied.

• Conservation objectives – these may beapplied in basins where it is recognized thatIFNs or other management goals are notachievable with current management realitiesand a conservation objective may be applied asan interim measure with a goal of improvingwater efficiency.



• The full allocations of all surface andgroundwater licences – recognizing that someflexibility in interpretation may be necessaryin order to account for licensees using lessthan their full allocation and providing forreturn flows. Note that in drier years, demandis typically highest (full allocations are morelikely to be exercised) when supplies arelowest. Water Use reporting (to be phased inover future years) should provide thenecessary information to evaluate this further.

• Consistency with Water for Life: Alberta’sStrategy for Sustainability – Albertans identifiedpriorities for water management in Water forLife. Water-short criteria needs to consider thelonger-term vision and evaluate future needs inorder to sustain a healthy aquatic ecosystem,provide a safe and secure drinking watersupply, and ensure reliable quality watersupplies for a sustainable economy.

Please refer to Figure 6 on Page 37, which shows anoverview of water-short and potentially-water-shortareas in Alberta.

Figure 11 outlines the basis for assessment of water-short and potentially-water-short areas based onnatural average runoff and administrative limitations on allocation of water resources.

Please refer to Figure 4a on Page 24 and Figure 4bon Page 25. These detailed maps show water-shortand potentially-water-short areas based on theinterim assessment. Future water management planswill contain more detailed assessments and maps ofwater-short areas within the area of the respectivewater management plan or approved watermanagement plan.



Water-short – Exceptionally Dry (5mm or less of runoff)

Potentially Water-short – (5-10 mm of runoff)

Based on Average (Median) Natural Runoff

Water-short – Closed to most or all new applications.Based on Level of Water Allocation in Major Basin or Sub-basin

Potentially Water-short – (more than 40% of basin supply allocated)

Not Regionally Water-short (water-short areas may be present locally)

Based on Administrative Licensing Restrictions

The Water-Short Areas map is based on two criteria:

1) What is the average natural runoff potential of the watershed or region; and2) Based on available natural supply, which areas or watersheds are approaching (or have reached) their limits for reliable water supply?

The two maps shown represent the individual assessment criteria as outlined above.

Note that in any of the buffer zones or in the areas with no coloring, localized concerns with respect to availability of water may still be present. These maps are not a substitute for individual assessments, but serve as a guide to where increased attention is warranted.

Figure 11.Water Short Areas

Low Natural Runoff Potential Human Use and Administrative Restrictions

High Level

FortChipewyan

FortMcMurray

Peace River

Grande Prairie

EDMONTON

Lloydminster


RedDeer

Drumheller

Lethbridge

Medicine Hat

CALGARY

Banff

High Level

FortChipewyan

FortMcMurray

Peace River

Grande Prairie

EDMONTON

Lloydminster


RedDeer

Drumheller

Lethbridge

Medicine Hat

CALGARY

Banff


APPENDIX C – INFORMATION SOURCES

C.1 GENERAL INFORMATION SOURCES

Alberta Environmentwww.environment.gov.ab.ca

Alberta Energy Utilities Boardwww.eub.gov.ab.ca

C.2 LEGISLATION

WATER ACT (CH W-3, RSA 2000)WATER (MINISTERIAL) REGULATION (REG. 205/98)www.qp.gov.ab.ca

EUB REGISTRATION

ALBERTA ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD ACT

(CH.A-17, RSA 2000)

ENERGY RESOURCES CONVERSATION ACT

(CH E-10, RSA 2000)

OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION ACT

(CH.O-6, RSA 2000)

OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION REGULATIONS

(AR 390/2003)

OIL SANDS CONSERVATIONS ACT

OIL SANDS CONSERVATION REGULATION

(AR 191/2003)www.eub.gov.ab.ca

C.3 EUB GUIDELINES

Guide 23 – Guidelines Respecting an Applicationfor a Commercial Crude Bitumen Recovery andUpgrading Project(EUB, SEPTEMBER 1991)This guideline sets out requirements andprocedures needed to prepare an applicationfor development of a commercial-scale oilsands mine, or in-situ development usingsteam injection.

Guide 51 – Injection and Disposal Wells: WellClassifications, Completion, Logging, and TestingRequirements(EUB, MARCH 1994)This guideline specifies waste classificationrequirements, well construction andmonitoring requirements, and safety measuresregarding the underground disposal of liquidindustrial and oilfield wastes.

Directive 65 – Resources Applications forConventional Oil and Gas Reservoirs(EUB, REVISED JUNE 2003)This guideline specifies procedures andindustry practices required for licensing andoperating conventional oil and gas recoveryoperations in Alberta. This includesapplications for ER Schemes.

IL 89-5 Water Recycle Guidelines and WaterInformation Reporting for In Situ Oil SandsFacilities in Alberta(INFORMATIONAL LETTER, EUB, MAY 1989)This information letter outlines governmentexpectations, objectives and requirements forrecycling water used in steam injection (forrecovery of bitumen from oil sands deposits).




C.4 AENV GUIDELINES

Water Conservation and Allocation Policy forOilfield Injection (2006)(AENV 2006)This Policy encourages water conservation foroilfield injection in Alberta, in conjunctionwith this Guideline, and sets overall policydirection for the use of water in enhancedrecovery operations.

Groundwater Evaluation Guideline(AENV 2003)This technical Guideline specifiesprocedures and practices for evaluating andprotecting groundwater resources. TheGuideline is used in preparation of Water Actapplications (for licences to use non-salinegroundwater in Alberta).

APPENDIX D – SUSTAINABLE RESOURCEENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOROILFIELD INJECTION WATER USE

Water for Life: Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainabilityemphasizes improved leadership in waterconservation as one of the key directions essential toachieving long-term goals of a sustainable future.The strategy states:

“Water conservation, combined with a focus on getting the most production possible from the water that is already allocated, is a fundamental component of any provincial water strategy.

Because citizens, communities, industries andgovernments all share responsibility for the wise use and sustainability of water, and building on the partnership approach all Albertans will need to take responsibility and take actions in the area of water conservation.27 ”

Alberta’s Commitment to Sustainable Resource andEnvironmental Management28 provides directionregarding environmental protection during thedevelopment of natural resources in Alberta.

The “systems approach” adopted in the chart foundon page 7, (Figure 2) emphasize the leadership roleexpected of the oil and gas industry and regulatoryagencies in achieving significant conservation gainswith regard to the use of non-saline water.

27 Water for Life: Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability, Key direction: Water Conservation, page 21.28 Alberta’s Commitment to Sustainable Resource and Environmental Management is available at: www.gov.ab.ca/srd/info/sustainable.pdf


APPENDIX E – EVALUATION OF PROJECTSCALE

The project scale of an enhanced recovery project(the amount of oil produced and water injected) hasan impact on the feasible water conservationmeasures that can be used during the project. Large-scale projects can afford more extensive evaluationand water conservation measures, and have largerenvironmental impacts locally and cumulativelyrelative to small ER projects.

Figures 12 and 13 displays a graphic analysis ofwater allocation and water use in 2001. Thisanalysis demonstrates the numbers of projects, andthe proportion of water use, that may occur in Tier1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 projects in Alberta. In general, itis anticipated that approximately 80 per cent of theER projects are small-scale and will generally beclassified as Tier 1, except in water-short andpotentially-water-short areas of Alberta. Theseprojects account for approximately 20 per cent ofwater use. Large-scale projects (Tier 2 or Tier 3)account for more than 80 per cent of non-salinewater use for oilfield injection in Alberta.

Figure 12. Range of project water use 2001

0

Ascending sort of water use (active scheme 2001)No. 1 – No.262

Ascending sort of EOR Scheme water-use (non-saline) EUB data 2001Conventional waterflood projects – 262 schemes reporting

largest project 4,449,949 m3/year

medianNo.131 of 262

450 m3/d TIER 2

No.218of 262

50

100

150

200

250

300

(000’s)

0

Sorted Schemes by size (No.1 – No.262)

MedianProject Scale

450 m3/d TIER 2

18%

5

15

10

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 13. Cumulative water use in 2001, arranged by project scale.




APPENDIX F – GLOSSARY

ACRONYMS

AENV – Alberta EnvironmentAERI – Alberta Energy Research InstituteAFE – Authorization For ExpenditureAPEGGA – Association of Professional Engineers,

Geologists, and Geophysicists of Alberta AWC – Alberta Water CouncilCAPP – Canadian Association of Petroleum ProducersCONRAD – Canadian Oil Sands Network for Research and

Development EPEA – Environmental Protection and Enhancement ActEAB – Environmental Appeals BoardER – Enhanced Recovery (scheme, method)EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment (see

environmental assessment)EUB – Energy and Utilities BoardIFN – Instream-Flow-Needs (see instream flows)NPV – Net Present ValuePTAC – Petroleum Technology Alliance of CanadaSOE – State of the EnvironmentSREM – Sustainable Resource Environmental

Management SystemWPAC – Watershed Planning and Advisory Council

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT – Project management thatplans contingencies and actions to addressuncertainty in environmental impacts, andvariability in environmental conditions. Conjunctiveuse of surface and groundwater, and reduced wateruse in drought periods are examples of adaptivemanagement of water resources.

ALBERTA WATER COUNCIL – A provincial advisorybody including industrial sector representatives,established to provide advice to the Government ofAlberta regarding water issues.

ALLOCATION – When water is permitted to beredirected for a use other than for domesticpurposes, it is referred to as an allocation.Agricultural, industrial and municipal water usersapply to AENV for a licence to use a set allocation ofwater. This water licence outlines the volume, rateand timing of a diversion of water.

APPORTIONMENT AGREEMENT – An inter-provincial orinternational agreement specifying the sharing ofwater resources from trans-boundary sources.Alberta and Saskatchewan share the resources of theNorth and South Saskatchewan Rivers throughapportionment agreements.

APPROVALS MANAGER – An AENV administrativeposition responsible for issuing Water Act licenceswithin a specified area of Alberta.

APPROVED WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – A watermanagement plan that is approved under part 2 ofthe Water Act (RSA 2000, W-3, s. 11).

AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT – (As defined in the WaterAct) The components of the earth related to, living inor located in or on water or the beds or shores of awater body including, but not limited to, all organicand inorganic matter, and living organisms and theirhabitat, including fish habitat, and their interactingnatural systems.

AUTHORIZATION FFOR EXPENDITURE – An economicevaluation standard used in the oil and gas industry(described in Section 3.2.4).

BITUMEN – Best described as a thick, sticky form of crude oil, so heavy and viscous that it will notflow unless it is heated or diluted with lighterhydrocarbons. At room temperature, it is muchlike molasses.

CONSERVATION – includes but is not limited to:

(i) improved efficiency, recycling, reuse orreduction of wastage or losses;

(ii) preservation; and

(iii) protection.

CONTINGENCY MEASURES – Water managementmeasures designed to meet environmental and watersupply needs under adverse conditions (e.g. droughtcontingency measures).


CONJUNCTIVE USE – The use of more than one watersource, systematically, to reduce overallenvironmental impacts. An example is the use ofgroundwater resources during drought periods,replacing the use of surface water sources availableduring periods of abundant surface runoff.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS – The combined effects on theaquatic environment or human developments arisingfrom the combined environmental impacts ofseveral individual projects.

CONSUMPTIVE USE – The balance of water taken froma source that is not entirely or directly returned tothat source. For example, if water is taken from alake to feed cattle, it is considered a consumptiveuse of water. In contrast, hydroelectric powergeneration is a non-consumptive water use.

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT – The process ofachieving long-term desired outcomes throughplan-act-review cycles of technical innovation and adaptation.

DECISION TREE – A process flow diagram describingactions and decisions needed to complete a designprocess or regulatory process (see Figures 3 and 5).

DESIGNATED DIRECTOR – (see Approvals Manager) AnAENV administrator with authority designatedunder the Water Act.

DISCOUNT RATE – A rate used to compare the valueof a dollar received in the future to a dollarreceived today.

DISPOSAL WATER – Produced water from oil, gas andcrude bitumen production that is injected into deepunderground formations approved for disposal bythe EUB.

ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD (EUB) – The EUB is aprovincial quasi-judicial, independent body createdby the Government of Alberta to ensure energyresources are developed responsibly and to ensureoptimum recovery of the province’s oil, gas, andcrude bitumen resources.

ENVIRONMENTAL NET EFFECTS – The comparison ofoverall environmental risks and benefits ofalternative water sources (see Section 3.2.6).

DIRECTLY AFFECTED PERSON – A person whosepersonal interests are affected or potentially affectedby the water diversion proposed in a water licenceapplication. Directly affected persons have specialrights and responsibilities under the terms of theWater Act.

DRAWDOWN – The reduction in water level in awater well when the pump is operating.

ENHANCED RECOVERY (ER) – A process in which asubstance, typically water (saline, non-saline,produced or recycled), is injected into oil reservoirsto increase and maintain the reservoir pressure somore oil can be extracted. The two main types ofenhanced oil recovery are water flooding, in whichwater is pumped into conventional oil fieldreservoirs, and injection of steam into heavy oildeposits. Enhanced oil recovery operations do notinclude oil sands mining operations.

ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD (EAB) – Anindependent board established by the Governmentof Alberta to hear appeals, as mandated by theEnvironmental Protection and Enhancement Act and theWater Act.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT – A formal review of theimpacts of a proposed development project tosupport the goals of environmental protection andsustainable development, as required by theEnvironmental Protection and Enhancement Act.


r

he

inacir

y

terht



ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS – (see “instream needs”)

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP – A “culture ofstewardship” to achieve environmental protection,and sustainable development, with minimalenvironmental impacts.

ER SCHEME APPROVAL – A regulatory approval issuedby the EUB for a conventional or thermal enhancedrecovery project.

GREEN AREA (GREEN ZONE) – The forested lands ofnorthern Alberta and the Eastern Slopes that arenot available for agricultural development, otherthan grazing.

INSTREAM NEEDS/INSTREAM FLOW NEEDS (IFN) –Scientifically determined amount of water, flow rateor water level or water quality required in a river orother body of water to sustain a healthy aquaticenvironment. Comprehensive IFN determinationstypically consider water quantity, water quality,aquatic habitat and aquatic species. Instream needsor IFNs can also be established for other purposes(e.g. to meet human needs such as recreation,navigation, waste assimilation, or aesthetics).

INTERIM WATER-SHORT AREA MAP – (See Appendix B) Amap of areas of Alberta where water is potentiallyin short supply due to low natural precipitation, orincreasing development pressure.

LICENCE CONDITIONS – Requirements of Water Actdiversion licences that specify monitoring andreporting, time and volume specifications ofdiversions, and site specific or project restrictions.

LICENCE RENEWAL – A process specified in the WaterAct for review and continuation of a term waterdiversion licence.

LICENCE TERM – The length of time for which anallocation of water is granted under a Water Actlicence. The term varies for oilfield injection(initially two years, subsequently five yearrenewable terms).

LONG-TERM YIELD – The expected sustainable yield ofa well over a 20 year period (neglecting aquiferrecharge) in accordance with the AENV GroundwaterEvaluation Guideline29

NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV) – The present discountedvalue of expected future cash flows from aninvestment, less cost of the investment. This is doneby assigning monetary values to benefits and costs,discounting future benefits and costs using anappropriate discount rate, and subtracting the sumtotal of discounted costs from the sum total ofdiscounted benefits.

NON-SALINE WATER – Water with less than 4,000mg/L of total dissolved solids. Often referred to asfresh water.

OILFIELD INJECTION – Processes in which water, withor without another injectant (hydrocarbon solvent orCO2), is injected through wells into conventionalhydrocarbon reservoirs to increase or maintain thereservoir pressure so that hydrocarbon recovery isincreased. Oilfield injection also includes processesin which water is injected as steam through well(s)into oilsands deposits or conventional heavy oilpools to lower the viscosity of the crude bitumen soit can flow to a production wellbore.

OFFSETS – Innovative water supply improvement orreplacement options at other projects that canmitigate the impacts of an oilfield injection use ofnon-saline water.

29 www.gov.ab.ca/env/water/Legislation/Guidelines/GroundwaterEvaluation.pdf.



PERMANENT LICENCE – A water diversion licenceissued in perpetuity (no specified term) under theWater Resources Act (i.e. prior to 1999).

PILOT PROJECT – A pre-commercial, small-scaledemonstration project conducted to confirm technicaland economic factors of a proposed resourcedevelopment project.

POTENTIALLY-WATER-SHORT AREA – An area consideredrelatively dry (low natural runoff) or where thewatershed has a high level of allocation compared tonatural supply.

PRODUCED WATER – Water that is produced withhydrocarbons (oil, gas, and crude bitumen) from awell. Produced water is separated from the oil and gasand is measured and reported to the EUB. Producedwater volumes from every oil and gas production wellare included in the EUB Production InjectionDatabase. Also referred to as “Disposal water.”

PRIMARY RECOVERY – Oil flows or is pumped to thesurface from an oil pool without using any injectant.

RECYCLED WATER – Water that is re-used forconventional water flooding (or thermal ER steaminjection) after recovery with hydrocarbons fromproduction wells.

RESOURCE EFFICIENCY – The volume of water usecompared to the volume of oil (hydrocarbons)produced.

SALINE GROUNDWATER – Groundwater that has morethan 4,000 mg/L of total dissolved solids (TDS).

SECONDARY RECOVERY – Also known aswaterflooding, injecting water into the oil pool tomaintain pressure and displace oil.

STATEMENT OF CONCERN – A written objection to aWater Act licence application, made under the WaterAct (RSA-2000, W-3, s.109).

SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

SYSTEM (SREM) – A systems approach to managingenvironmental issues to achieve definedenvironmental outcomes (see Appendix D).

TERTIARY RECOVERY – Includes methods or techniquesused to increase the amount of oil recovered, afterprimary oil recovery (initial flow or pumping) andsecondary recovery (waterflooding). Hydrocarbonmiscible flooding (injection of petroleum solvents),CO2 injection, VAPEX and other advancedtechniques are “tertiary” recovery methods.Secondary and Tertiary recovery are togetherreferred to as “enhanced recovery.”

TIER 1 – The lowest level classification ofenvironmental risk (see Section 3.2).

TIER 2 – The middle Tier of the risk classificationsystem (see Section 3.2).

TIER 3 – The highest risk classification category (seeSection 3.2).

TERM LICENCE – A water diversion licence issuedunder the Water Act for a specified term (two tofive years for ER projects).

WATER CONSERVATION OBJECTIVE – An amount andquality of water needed to meet the objectives forprotection of the aquatic environment, fisheries,tourism and other needs as set out in Part 2 of theWater Act.



WATER FLOODING – A conventional enhancedrecovery process in which water is pumped into a well to maintain the reservoir pressure sohydrocarbon recovery is enhanced. Also referred to as “Secondary Recovery.”

WATERSHED – The area of land that catchesprecipitation and drains into a larger body of water such as a marsh, stream, river or lake.

WHITE AREA (WHITE ZONE) – The settled regions whereagriculture is the most significant land use, includingthe grasslands and parklands of southern and centralregions, and the Peace Country in the north.

WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN – A plan to conserve andmanage water developed under the Water Act (RSA2000, W-3, s. 9).

WATERSHED PLANNING AND ADVISORY COUNCIL – Anadvisory committee established to advise AENV onwater management issues while developing a WaterManagement Plan, and/or to provide advice anddirection during the long-term implementation of aWater Management Plan.

WATER-SHORT AREA – An area where naturalconditions and/or development pressures limit theavailability of surface water and groundwater forfuture sustainable development and protection ofthe aquatic environment. (See Section 3.2.8, andAppendix B).


THIS BOOK IS PRINTED ON 100% POST-

CONSUMER WASTE (PCW), PROCESSED

CHLORINE-FREE (PCF), NO NEW TREES WERE

USED. BY USING THIS PAPER, ALBERTA

ENVIRONMENT SAVED THE FOLLOWING

RESOURCES: 3 TREES, 9,020 LITRES OF

WATER, 3.2 THOUSAND BTUS OF ENERGY,

490 POUNDS OF NET GREENHOUSE

EMISSIONS REDUCED, 1,621 POUNDS OF

WOOD SAVED, 253 POUNDS OF LANDFILL

REDUCED [VALUES WERE DERIVED FROM

INFORMATION PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AT

WWW.OFEE.GOV/RECYCLED/CAL-INDEX.HTM].

Oilfield Injection GUIDELINE FIN 4/19/06 11:24 PM Page iii

ISBN NO. 0-7785-3144-7 PUB NO. I /969

PRINTED IN CANADA ON RECYCLED PAPER | DESIGN BY STONEGRAPHIX |

WAT E R C O N S E R VAT I O N A N DA LLO CAT I O N G U I D E L I N E

for Oilf ield Injection

2006

2006

Oilfield Injection GUIDELINE FIN 4/19/06 11:24 PM Page iv

Documents

Water Conservation and Allocation Guideline for Oilfield ... · 2 Water Conservation and Allocation Guideline for Oilfield Injection 2006 This document provides direction for regulatory