SANDIA REPORT Hydraulic Testing of Salado ...

29 downloads 0 Views 11MB Size Report
Oxford. University Press. Carter, R.D., and C.W. Tracy. 1960. “An Improved .... National. Ground. Water. Information. Center. Attn: J. Bix. 6375 Riverside. Dr.
SANDIA REPORT SAND92-0533 l UC-721 Unlimited Release Printed December 1993

Hydraulic Testing of Salado Formation Evaporites at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Site: Second Interpretive Report 8616216

Richard L. Beauheim, Randall M. Roberts, Timothy F. Dale, Michael D. Fort, Wayne A. Stensrud Prepared by Sandia Natlonal Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, for the United States Department of Energy under Contract DE-ACD4-Q4AL85000

California

94550

‘I I

SF2900Q(8-81)

SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES TECHNICAL LIBRARY

Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United States Department of Energy by Sandia Corporation. NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an aaencv of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government-nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or im lied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, campPeteness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus., product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infrmge privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, any agency thereof or any of their contractors or subcontractors. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government, any agency thereof or any of their contractors.

Printed in the United States of America. This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from Office

of Scientific

and Technical

Information

PO Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Prices available from (615) 576-8401, FTS 6266401 Available to the public from National Technical Information Service US Department of Commerce

5285Port Royal Rd

Springfield, VA 22161 NTIS price codes

Printed copy: Al2

Microfiche copy: A01

SAND92-0533 Unlimited Release Printed November 1993

HYDRAULIC TESTING OF SALADO AT THE WASTE ISOLATION SECOND

Distribution Category UC-721

FORMATION EVAPORITES PILOT PLANT SITE:

INTERPRETIVE

REPORT

Richard L. Beauheim Geohydrology Department Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185-1324 Randall M. Roberts, Timothy F. Dale, Michael D. Fort, and Wayne A. Stensrud INTERA Inc. 6850 Austin Center Boulevard, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78731

ABSTRACT

Pressure-pulse, constant-pressure flow, and pressure-buildup tests have been performed in bedded evaporites of the Salado Formation at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WlPP) site to evaluate the hydraulic properties controlling brine flow through the Salado. Transmissivities ranging from about 7 x 10-15to 5 x 10-l3 m²/s have been interpreted from six sequences of tests conducted on five stratigraphic intervals within 15 m of the WIPP underground excavations. The corresponding vertically averaged hydraulic conductivities of the intervals range from about 1 x 10-14to 2 x 10-12 m/s (permeabilities of 2 x 10-21 to 3 x 10-19 m²). Storativities of the tested intervals range from about 1 x l0-8 to 2 x 10-6,and values of specific storage range from 9 x 10-8to 1 x 10-5m¯¹. Pore pressures in eight stratigraphic intervals range from about 2.5 to 12.5 MPa, and appear to be affected by stress relief around the excavations. Anhydrite interbeds appear to be one or more orders of magnitude more permeable than the surrounding halite, primarily because of subhorizontal bedding-plane fractures present in the anhydrites. Interpretations of the tests revealed no apparent hydrologic boundaries within the radii of influence of the tests, which were calculated to range from about 2 to 20 m from the test holes. An assumption of Darcy flow through the evaporites is thought to be a reasonable interpretive approach because Darcy-flow models are able to replicate the flow and pressure behavior observed during entire testing sequences involving different types of tests performed with different hydraulic gradients.

The authors wish to thank Jeff Palmer, Paul Domski, and Lee Jensen for their efforts in fielding the tests discussed in this report. We would also like to thank Peter Davies, John Pickens, John Stormont, and Ray Ostensen for their helpful review comments. Jeff Palmer’s assistance with figure preparation is greatly appreciated.

TABLE

1. INTRODUCTION

.........

OF CONTENTS

........ ..

........ .... ....... ... . 1

2. GEOLOGIC SETTING AND LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

. ..

3. TESTING EQUIPMENT ........................... 3.1 Multipacker Test Tool ...................... 3.2 Data-Acquisition System .................... 3.3 Pressure Transducers ...................... 3.4 Thermocouples ........................... 3.5 Linear Variable-Differential Transformers ........ 3.6 Differential-Pressure-Transmitter Panel .......... 3.7 Gas-Brine Separation and Measurement System ... 3.8 Packer-Pressure-Maintenance System .......... 3.9 Compliance-Testing Equipment ...............

..

..

..

.

..

.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

.

.

..

..

..

...

..

..

..

..

...

.

..

..

..

...

..

..

..

..

...

..

..

..

..

..

.

..

..

...

.

4. TESTING PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . .. . ......... 4.1 Compliance Testing 4.2 Hydraulic Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Pressure-Pulse Testing . . . . . 4.2.2 Constant-Pressure Flow Testing 4.2.3 Pressure-Buildup Testing .

..

5. TEST LOCATIONS AND BOREHOLES ........... 5.1 Room L4 ........................... 1 ............... 5.2 Room7ofWastePanel 5.3 Core-Storage Library ...................

................

......

................

......

................

......

..

.

6. INTERPRETATION METHODOLOGY AND OBJECTIVES ....................... 6.1 Interpretive Methods ............................................ 6.1 .l Analytical Method for Pressure-Pulse Tests ....................... 6.1.2 Analytical Methods for Constant-Pressure Flow Tests ................ 6.1.3 Analytical Methods for Pressure-Buildup Tests ..................... 6.1.4 Numerical Methods ........................................ 6.2 Assumptions Used in Test Analysis ................................. 6.3 Material Properties and Experimental Parameters Used in Test Interpretations 6.3.1 Material Properties ........................................ 6.3.2 Experimental Parameters ....................................

... III

11 11 11 15 15 15 16 16 20 20

..

..

25 25 29 30 31 31

41 41 41 43 45 48 50 53 54 54

7. ESTIMATION 7.1

7.1.1

7.1.2

7.1.3

7.1.4

7.1.5

PROPERTIES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...65

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...65

L4P51-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...65 7.1.1.1

Test Zone

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...68

7.1.1.2

Guard Zone

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...68

L4P51-B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...70 7.1.2.1

Test Zone

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

7.1.2.2

Guard Zone

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...80

L4P52-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...80 7.1.3.1

Test Zone

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

7.1.3.2

Guard Zone

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...89

S1P71-B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...89 7.1.4.1

Test Zone

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...89

7.1.4.2

Guard Zone

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...94

S1P72-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...95 7.1.5.1

Test Zone

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

7.1.5.2

Guard Zone

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...100

7.1.6

S1P73-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...104

7.1.7

S1P73-B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...104

7.1.8

7.2

OF HYDRAULIC

Individual Test Interpretations..

7.1.7.1

Test Zone

7.1.7.2

Guard Zone

SCPO1-A

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...117

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...117

7.1.8.1

Test Zone

7.1.8.2

Guard Zone

Discussion 7.2.1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...106

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...119 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...129

of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...130

Effects of Disturbed-Rock 7.2.1.1

Relationship

Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...130

Between Hydraulic

From an Excavation 7.2.1.2

Relationship

Between Formation

7.2.2

Evaluation

ofTestsof

of Evaporiie

8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Pore Pressure and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...132

the Same Strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Flow Regime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...135

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...139

8.1

Resuhs of Testing

8.2

Future Testing Plans and Considerations

8.3

Conclusions

9. REFERENCES

and Distance

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...131

Distance From an Excavation 7.2.1.3 Comparison

Conductivity

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...139 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...141

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...142

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...143

iv

APPENDIX

A:

Stratigraphic

APPENDIX

B:

Derivation

APPENDIXC: APPENDIX

Modeling

Units (Map Units) Near the WIPP Facility Horizon of Analytical

Solutions

Study of Slanted Boreholes

D: Plots of Test- and Guard-Zone Simulations

Interpretation

. . . . . . . . . . . . 157

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...171

Compressibility

Functions

Used in GTFM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..203

APPENDIX

E:

Plots of Test- and Guard-Zone

APPENDIX

F:

Plots of Packer Pressures

APPENDIX

G: Two-Phase

Evaluation

Testing Sequence APPENDIX

for Hydraulic-Test

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

H: Theory and Verification

Temperatures

During Test Sequences

During Test Sequences

of the Test-Zone SlP72-A

Pressure Responses

During

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...219

for STAB, the SWIFT II Transmissibility

for Angled Boreholes

. . . . . . . . . 207

., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Generator

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .241

Figures

1-1

Location of the WIPP site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...2

2-1

WIPPsite

2-2

Detailed stratigraphy

2-3

Schematic

3-1

Typical configuration

3-2

Detail of test- and guard-zone

3-3

Schematic

3-4

Differential-pressure-transmitterpanel

3-5

Gas-brine

3-6

Packer-pressure-maintenancesystem

3-7

Movement

3-8

Cross-section borehole

stratigraphic

column

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...6

neartheWIPP

underground

of typical WIPP underground

rooms showing

of themultipacker

illustration

separation

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...7 stratigraphic

positions

test tool used for hydraulic testing

sections of the multipacker

of the data-acquisition

system

test tool

. . . . . . ...8

. . . . . . . . . . . 12

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...17

and measurement

of the sliding-end

facility

system

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...18

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...21

sub in the guard zone during packer inflation

view of the stainless-steel

compliance-testing

chamber

. . . . . . . . . . . 22

in

P4P30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...23

4-1

Zone pressures for compliance

4-2

Packer pressures for compliance

4-3

Zone temperatures

4-4

Radial-LVDT data for compliance

4-5

Axial-LVDT data for compliance

4-6

Typical permeability-testing

5-1

Map of the WIPP underground

5-2

Schematic

illustration

of boreholes

L4P51 and L4P52 in Room L4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5-3

Schematic

illustration

of boreholes

S1 P71, S1 P72, and S1 P73 in Room 7 of Waste

test COMP 16, multipacker

test tool #5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

test COMP 16, multipacker

for compliance

test tool #5

test COMP 16, multipacker test COMP 16, multipacker

test COMP 16, multipacker

sequence

. . . . . . . . . . . . 27

test tool #5 test tool #5

test tool #5

. . . . . . . . . . . 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...30

facility showing test locations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Panel l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...38 54

Schematic

6-1

Type curves forpressure-pulse

6-2

Type curve forradial

6-3

Pressure and pressurederivative

64

Comparison

and skin

illustration

SCPO1 in the core-storage

tests

library

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...42

constant-pressure

flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...44

type curves for wells with wellbore

storage

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...46 of observed

using aconstant 6-5

of borehole

Comparison

test-zone

of test-zone

and compliance

SCPO1-A pressure buildup with simulated

testing

compressibility

buildup

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...57

compressibilities

observed during L4P52-A testing

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...60

vi

6-6

Comparison

of test-zone

cornpliancetesting 6-7

Comparison

and guard-zone

compressibilities

during

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...61

of test-zone compressibility

versus time function

to SCPO1-A data and function derived from compliance 6-8

Pressure recovery following

6-9

Fluid production

7-1

Test-tool configuration

7-2

Test- and guard-zone

7-3

Guard-zone

7-4

Cumulative withdrawal

observed

a pulse withdrawal

during a constant-pressure

sequence

pressures during L4P51 -A testing.

pressures during L4P51 -A constant-pressure brine production

testing

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

from the compliance

withdrawal

for permeability-testing

derived by fitting

during L4P51 -A guard-zone

chamber

from the compliance

. . . . . . . . . 63 chamber

. . . 64

L4P51 -A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 withdrawal

test.

. . . . . . . . . . . . 69

constant-pressure

test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...70

7-5

Test-tool configuration

for permeability-testing

7-6

Test- and guard-zone

7-7

Cumulative

7-8

Log-log plot of interpret/2

7-9

Homer plot of interpret/2

7-10

Linear-linear

pressures during L4P51 -B testing

brine production

tests

L4P51 -B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

during L4P51 -B constant-pressure simulation

simulation

plot of interpret/2

pressure-buildup

sequence

withdrawal

of L4P51 -B pressure-buildup of L4P51 -B pressure-buildup

simulation

test

test

. . . . . . . . 73

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

of L4P51 -B constant-pressure

flow and

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...76

7-11

Semilog plot of GTFM simulation

of L4P51 -B pulse-withdrawal

test #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

7-12

Semilog plot of GTFM simulation

of L4P51 -B pulse-withdrawal

test #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

7-13

Linear-linear

7-14

Homer plot of GTFM simulation

7-15

Linear-linear

7-16

Test-tool

7-17

Test- and guard-zone

7-18

Cumulative

7-19

Homer plot of interpret/2

7-20

Log-log plot of interpret/2

7-21

Linear-linear

plot of GTFM simulation

constant-pressure

withdrawal

of L4P51 -B pressure-buildup

tests

L4P52-A

simulation simulation

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

withdrawal

of L4P52-A pressure-buildup

test

. . . . . ...83

test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

of L4P52-A pressure-buildup

simulation

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

during L4P52-A constant-pressure

test

of L4P52-A constant-pressure

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 flow and

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...85

7-22

Semilog plot of GTFM simulation

7-23

Linear-linear

of L4P52-A pulse-withdrawal

plot of GTFM simulation

constant-pressure

sequence

pressures during L4P52-A testing

plot of interpret/2

pressure-buildup

test

of entire L4P51 -B testing sequence

for permeability-testing

brine production

during L4P51 -B

test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...78

plot of GTFM simulation

configuration

of brine production

withdrawal

of brine production

test

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

during L4P52-A

test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...87

7-24

Homer plot of GTFM simulation

of L4P52-A pressure-buildup

7-25

Linear-linear

7-26

Test-tool configuration

7-27

Test- and guard-zone

7-28

Semilog plot of GTFM simulations

plot of GTFM simulation

sequence

pressures during S1P71-B testing

7-29

Semilog plot of GTFM simulation Linear-linear

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

S1 P71 -B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

of S1 P71 -B pulse-withdrawal of S1 P71 -B pulse-withdrawal

plot of GTFM simulations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

of entire L4P52-A testing sequence

for permeability-testing

7-30

test

test #1 . . . . . . . . . . . ...93 test #2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

of entire S1 P71 -B testing sequence vii

. . . . . . . . . . . . 94

7-31

Test-tool configuration

7-32

Test- andguard-zone

7-33

Cumulative test #l

7-34

7-35

7-36

brine production

testing

during S1 P72-A test-zone

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...95

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 constant-pressure

withdrawal

gas production

during SlP72-A

test-zone

constant-pressure

withdrawal

brine production

during SlP72-A

test-zone

constant-pressure

withdrawal

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...98

Cumulative test #2

pressures during SlP72-A

SlP72-A

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...98

Cumulative test #2

sequence

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...97

Cumulative test #l

forpermeability-testing

gas production

during SlP72-A

test-zone

constant-pressure

withdrawal

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...99

7-37

Semilog plot of GTFM simulationof

7-38

Hornerplot

7-39

Linear-linear

SlP72-A

of GTFM simulationof

SlP72-A

plot of GTFM simulation

configuration

guard-zone guard-zone

of entire SlP72-A

7-40

Test-tool

7-41

Test- and guard-zone

for permeability-testing

sequence

7-42

Test-tool

743

Test- and guard-zone

7-44

Cumulative

7-45

Semilog type-curve

matchto

7-46

Log-log type-curve

match to flow rates during SlP73-B

pressures during SlP73-Atesting

configuration

for permeability-testing

sequence

pressures during SlP73-B

brine production

during SlP73-B SlP73-B

testing

pulse-withdrawal pressure recovery guard-zone SlP73-A

. . . . . . . 102

. . . . . . . . . . 103

testing sequence

. . . 103

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 SlP73-B

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

constant-pressure

pulse-withdrawal

test

withdrawal

test#2

test

. . . . . . . 108

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

constant-pressure

withdrawal

test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...110 7-47

Log-logplotoflnterpret/2simulation

7-48

Hornerplot

7-49

Linear-linear

oflnterpret/2

of SlP73-B

simulation

plot of interpret/2

pressure-buildup

of SlP73-B

simulation

pressure-buildup

test

pressure-buildup

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

of S1 P73-B constant-pressure

flow and

test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..I12

7-50

Semilog

plot of GTFM simulation

of S1 P73-B pulse-withdrawal

test #I

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

7-51

Semilog plot of GTFM simulation

of. S1 P73-B pulse-withdrawal

test #2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

7-52

Linear-linear

plot of GTFM simulation

constant-pressure

withdrawal

of brine production

test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...114

7-53

Horner plot of GTFM simulation

7-54

Linear-linear

of S1 P73-B pressure-buildup

7-55

Homer plot of S1 P73-B guard-zone

plot of GTFM simulations

test

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

of entire S1 P73-B testing sequence

shut-in pressure buildup

for permeability-testing

. . . . . . . . . . . 116

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

7-56

Test-tool

7-57

Test- and guard-zone

7-58

Cumulative

brine production

during SCPO1-A constant-pressure

withdrawal

test #1

. . . . 121

7-59

Cumulative

brine production

during SCPO1-A constant-pressure

withdrawal

test #2

. . . . 122

7-60

Log-log type-curve test #2

configuration

during S1 P73-B

sequence

SCPO1 -A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

pressures during SCPO1-A testing

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

match to flow rates during SCPO1-A constant-pressure

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ..... ...122

7-61

Log-log plot of interpret/2

7-62

Horner plot of interpret/2

7-63

withdrawal

Linear-linear

simulation simulation

plot of interpret/2

pressure-buildup

tests #2

of SCPO1 -A pressure-buildup of SCPO1-A pressure-buildup

simulation

test #2

. . . . . . . . . . 124

test #2 . . . . . . . . . . . 124

of SCPO1-A constant-pressure

flow and

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...125 ...

Vlll

744

Semilog plot of GTFM simulation

of SCPO1-A pulse-withdrawal

test #1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

7-65

Semilog plot of GTFM simulation

of SCPO1-A pulse-withdrawal

test #2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

7-66

Linear-linear

plot of GTFM simulation

constant-pressure

withdrawal

of brine production

during SCPO1 -A

tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...127

7-67

Homer plot of GTFM simulation

of SCPO1-A pressure-buildup

test #1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

7-68

Homer plot of GTFM simulation

of SCPO1-A pressure-buildup

test #2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

7-69

Linear-linear

7-70

Interpreted

plot of GTFM simulation average hydraulic

tested intervals 7-71

Interpreted

7-72

Interpreted

conductiviiies

. . . . . . . . . . . 129

versus distances from excavations

to the

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...131

formation

tested intervals

of entire SCPO1-A testing sequence

pore pressures versus distances from excavations

to the

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...133

formation

pore pressures versus depth in boreholes

ix

L4P51 and S1 P71.

. . . . 134

5-1

Summary

of Test-Configuration

information

6-1

Material Properties

6-2

Summary

of Test-Zone

7-1

Summary

of Test-interpretation

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...66

7-2

Summary

of Constant-Pressure

Flow Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...71

Used in Test interpretations and Guard-Zone

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...35

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...55

Compressibility

Information

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ...58

1. INTRODUCTION This report presents tests

conducted

Salado

interpretations

in bedded

Formation

Isolation

site in southeastern WIPP

research

is a U.S.

have affected

of the

through

hydraulic

properties

and/or

formation pore pressures in the surrounding

mid-

rock; and

Pilot Plant (WIPP)

New Mexico

(Figure

Department

and development

demonstrate

evaporates

from mid-1989

1992 at the Waste

The

of hydraulic

of

facility

1-1).

Energy

designed

safe disposal of transuranic

from the nation’s defense programs.

To provide data to allow evaluation



mechanisms

to

controlling

of the

brine flow through

evaporates.

wastes

The WIPP

a continuation

of the work

disposal horizon is located in the lower portion of

described by Beauheim et al. (1991).

That report

the Permian

presented preliminary

Salado

tests discussed

Formation.

Austin,

Texas,

The hydraulic

in this report were performed

the kViPP underground

facility

by INTERA

under the technical

Sandia National Laboratories,

This report represents

pulse tests completed

of

1990.

Salado estimates

testing

is

being to

Formation

performed

provide

of the hydraulic

properties

brine flow through

the Salado

of the tests are:

To

determine

storativities intervals

of

different

in the Salado

zone

stratigraphic around

determine

within different

stratigraphic

Salado Formation

pore

pressures

intewals

in the

To-determine

the radii of influence

within a

pressure-pulse

tests provide

properties

of the

remedy

these

To

problems,

the testing program was expanded

tested.

include

constant-pressure

buildup

testing.

(the

and

Constant-pressure of transmissivity

recove~

pressureflow tests

independent

pressure

flow test is terminated) on

both

a

provide

Conjunctive

of pulse, flow, and buildup of formation

after

test-zone

and transmissivity.

allows determination

to

Pressure-buildup

of fluid

information

direct

flow

compressibility.

compressibility

of the

aggregate

contained

on the storage

constant-pressure

around the facility;

the

being

analysis ●

Second,

of test-zone

formation

of

et al.

transmissivity

medium

tests To

of

a borehole, which is not always well

provide estimates

the WIPP facility;



in

with pressure-

by Beauheim

estimation

of everything

no information

and

Formation

knowledge

defined.

The

transmissivities

requires

test

controlling

Formation.

First,

compressibility

quantitative

specific objectives



in the

(1991).

borehole

1988 and Februaty

associated

pulse tests were identified

New

Mexico.

Hydraulic

Two problems

of pressure-

in nine isolated

intervals between September

Inc.,

direction

Albuquerque,

in

interpretations

tests also

storativity.

tests in order to define the scales at which the

interpreted

properties

This report discusses testing completed

are

representative;

May 1990 and July 1992. reported



To determine excavation

how and to what distance(s)

herein

constant-pressure tests

effects around the WIPP facility

1

consists

The hydraulic of

between testing

pressure-pulse,

flow, and/or pressure-buildup

of five stratigraphic

intervals at locations

t I / I I I / I i I ! I I

New Mexico

WIPP \

/’

‘\ ‘.

‘. ‘.

‘. ‘.

i .

o

15mi

I’J-s+

o

10

20 km TRI.6330-3-5

Figure 1-1.

Location of the WIPP site.

2

within

15 m of the WIPP

stratigraphic

excavations.

clay seams).

in different

also performed

Tests

connected

but

the

intervals

intervals

by fractures

evaluated

in six

hydraulic-test

an assumption boreholes.

of cylindrical

In reality,

boreholes considered

could

apparently

result

components.

and/or roof-bolt holes to

the room below, and could not be pressurized.

in

hydraulic-test

analyses

presented

in this

elliptical

Modeling

and

vertical

studies were performed, the effects

of borehole

depletion

anhydrite

layer exhibiting

permeability

evaporates,

flow

through

low-

and that the transient

3

and in this

Modeling studies were also performed to develop

describes

flow

(slant) on the test interpretations,

pressure

adequately

to

bedding, which

orientation

attempt

law

flow

to determine

report and in the report of Beauheim et al. (1991) that Darcy’s

also

in this report were drilled at

were performed

under assumptions

by the

therefore,

report.

are

three of the six

the results of these studies are included The

elastic

analyses

acute angles to the subhorizontal

in one of the

were

The

vertical

containing

or nonlinearly

in light of the data provided

included

tests.

during the tests were

of the rock. These assumptions

testing.

all but one of

by pressure-buildup

interbeds were attempted

boreholes,

tests

observed

by inelastic

deformation

flow tests were

in six intervals,

of two stratigraphic

anhydrite

intetvals

Constant-pressure

which were followed

not affected

(with associated

Eight sets of pressure-pulse

completed

boreholes.

fluid pressures

intervals tested included halite (both

pure and impure) and anhydrite

were

The

an

understanding

observed

while

two-phase

to

of the

testing behavior.

an

2. GEOLOGIC

SETTING AND LOCAL STRATIGRAPHY

The WIPP site is located in the northern part of the Delaware Basin in southeastern WI PP-site

geologic

concentrated

investigations

on the

upper

description

New Mexico.

seven

covers centered

Salado, stratigraphic

have formations

a 41.2-m

description

interval

approximately

midpoint delineates

These are, in ascending

order, the Bell Canyon

the units are composed

Formation,

the Castile

Formation,

the Salado

are

Formation,

the Rustler

Formation,

the Dewey

differing clay and polyhalite

Gatuita

the Dockum

Formation

formations

(Figure

Group,

2-1).

are of Permian

and the

units lacking

All of these

age, except

identified

for the

principally

integer

The majority of

primarily

by H (pure

of halite, and

on the

halite),

AH (argillaceous

Gatur7a, which is a Quarternary deposit.

respect to the base of the sequence,

part of the Salado Formation depth

of 655

Salado

m below

Formation

at the WIPP

ground

and

surface.

is approximately

polyhalite.

The

Salado

anhydrite,

largely

of interspersed also

polyhalite,

siltstone.

Many of these interbeds are traceable

over most of the Delaware

Basin.

clay,

45 of the continuous

andlor

interbeds

polyhalite

144, increasing horizon

(the

underground

downward. stratigraphic

excavations)

in

underground

of the

Beds

interbeds

referencing.

of the WI PP excavations designated

Thinner

of the more

have also

(e.g., anhydrite

The

interbeds

138 and 139.

and a number

clay seams

halite

sequence.

been given

“a”, clay B) to These units are

shown on Figure 2-2. The stratigraphic

Beds”,

For

with

positions

respect

to the

map units are shown in Figure 2-3.

The testing and guard-zone

The WIPP

in this report were carried out in Marker Bed 138,

facility of

lies between

section

the

Marker

monitoring

Bed 139, anhydrites

map unit O, polyhalitic

Marker

of the

the

vicinity

of

facility,

adapted

from

is shown

in Figure

(1989)

present

a

discussed

“a”, “b”, and “c”,

halite 4, argillaceous

2-2.

detailed

facility

The halitic units described

Salado

the

halite

are not encountered

WIPP

by Deal et al. (1989)

by all boreholes,

however.

Deal et al.

As shown in detailed geologic

maps of drift and

Deal et al.

room

the underground

description

units that correlate throughout

of the underground

B.

Beds” from 100 to

location

(1989),

stratigraphic

clay

1 (clay J), and halite 2.

stratigraphic

Formation

and

of the units are anhydrite

facilitate consistent

Beds 138 and 139.

A typical

“c”

base

letter designations

and

anhydrite

as “Marker

these “Marker

the

continuous

Jones et al.

(1960) designated

and numbered

anhydrite

contains

which was

is the fourth argillaceous

such as Marker

of

of

AH4

remainder

clay

interbeds

anhydrite

unit above

The

600-m thick

site, and is composed

halite, with minor amounts

example,

at an approximate

that unit’s position with

defined as the halite unit immediately

underlying

lies in the lower

are

halite) prefixes, followed

by a number representing

facility

of

The halite

designations

Dockum Group, which is of Triassic age, and the

The WIPP underground

basis

contents.

map-unit

halite), or PH (polyhalitic

arbitrarily

the This

16 “map units” numbered

O to 15 and 23 other map units.

differentiated

the

at

of the excavations.

typically found in that part of the Delaware Basin.

Lake Red Beds,

of

(Appendix

A).

ribs (walls)

throughout

of

facility

(e.g.,

Westinghouse,

most

halitic

map

units

syndepositional

The

5

are

dissolution

1989,

locally pits

1990),

the

crosscut

by

(Powers

and

System Recent Quaternary

Series

Group

Recent

Member

Surficial Deposits Mescalero

Pleistocene

Caliche

Gatufia Dockum

Triassic

Formation

Undivided Dewey Lake Red Beds Forty-niner Magenta

Dolomite

Tamarisk Culebra c m o

Dolomite

unnamed

2

c .-m E % L

Castile

c m “z = : l-u 5

.-E m E 3

Bell Canyon

s g Cherry Canyon

g 5 n

Brushy Canyon

TIW6330-89-5

Figure 2-1.

WIPP site stratigraphic

6

column.

-—.—A.————— v

21.61 21.21

~.

ANI’IYDRIIE(MB- 137)

EL x—

~

x-— —xx—_

>0.12 19.29

I?,&? 16.83

.$,, _ _ x_x - .,,;, ,:.$ x _ _-

14.17 13.05

11,58

-

UNIT PH-7)

Cuy

UNIT PH-6)

N

ARGILLACEOUS HALITE (MAP UNIT AH-4)

CLAY u-2

K -“. :

- ,,,.,.;.! .

-------------------

_ -

I.-x-1--



ANHYDRITE

~

x-

10

(MAp

POLYHALITIC HALITE (MAp

x —-x—g

-x x--: -------

15 —

HALITf

(MAP UNIT H-9)

.

x

15.55

pOLyHALITlc

HALIT[

(MAP

UNIT H-8)

x

CIAY M-1 POLY14ALlTl\~yLI~ (MAP UNIT PH-5)

ARGILLACEOUS HALITE (MAP UNIT AH-3)

HALITE (MAP UNIT H-7)

9.18 8.96 UNIT At{-Z) 7.62 UNIT AH-1)

EXPLANATION x

o

2.29 2.07

> 6

-x -HALITE (MAP UNIT 13) — xxx x ... . x ‘$$’$ POLYHALITIC HALITE (MAP x

H

— I

~

(MAPUNIT

-HALITE

---k x

.,!$, -.!$$“’”

HALIT[

x

UNIT 12)

N



HALITE

ANHYDRIT[

POLJWL:TIC

to)

ACCESSORY

(MAP UNIT 9)

HALITE (MA: UUAI:

----:-:-:-:x

ROCK TYPE

❑ ❑

CONSTITUENTS

POLYHALITE

El

%%::%,.,

5)

-

y, _ x

‘--

ARclLLAccous HALITC (MAp UNIT 4) HALITE (MAP UNIT 3) ARGILLACEOUS HALITE (MAP UNIT 2) HALITE (MAP uNIT 1) HALITE (MAP UNIT O)

LITHOLOGIC e-SHARP

CONTACTS

GRADATIONAL

OIFFUSE

x-



Hxxx

pOLyHALITIC

HALITE (MAp UNIT PH-4)

x w..,.-

7,7t

1=1--

NOTES:

ANHYDRIT[

8.57

x

x

10



-

XTx

10.97

(MB-139) CLAY E HALITE (t4AP UNIT H-4) pOLyHAuTIC

?x_x-x

%

x :

‘-

x_xx ~,,,,, x xxx_ -—

HALITE (MAP UNIT PH-3)

LOCALLY FROM THOSE SHOWN.

CLAY o HALITE (MAP UNIT H-3) pOLyHALITIC

HALITE (MAp

UNIT pH-2)

— F==L it

1 x

15

— 16.25 16.3!

‘xx-:x x x.,,, x

m

HALITE (MAp

uNIT H-2)

POLYHALITIC HALITE (MAP UNIT PH-1) ANHYORITE “C”

x

~TE

j

2. DESCRIPTIONS OF UNITS ARE BASED ON COREHOLE DATA, SHAFT MAPPING ANO VISUAL INSPECTION OF EXPOSURES IN UNDERGROUND ORIFTS AND ROOMS.

-x

Figure 2-2.

CLAY B

ADAPTEO FROM OEAL ET AL, (1989)

(MAP UNIT H-1)

Detailed stratigraphy

near theWIPP

7

underground

facility.

SALADO

‘>4JtYs H-6

s’k’-’kL>>\\_l:l:.. — — — —

3 –K —— AM-; —-

---

RCY AMiYDRmf



J

AI-1

—’!

UNCXRMIN

BY CLAY SE,W,

OISTbNCCS FROM CLAY G (MET[RS)

POLWIALITE.

L..

.

.

.

A

.

.

.

t

CLEAR COARSELY CRYST.UUNE



— —

—-— — —

——— —

CIAY

———

———

J. OR ARCIILACEOUS

———

HMITC.

———

———

———

———

———

OR 1 2Scfn RKIOISH-BROWN CIAY SEAM, AND SCATKR[D CUY BRVXS.

— —

n

——

—.

——

CLSAR TO UOOCRATE REOOISH-BROWN

II 10



—.



6.40

——— ——

.—— ——————————————

.—

\\ ‘H-

7.01

——

CLEAR 70 GRAYISH OIVNGE-PINK HAUTE, TRACE OF OISPCRSfCJ POLYWALITE ANO IN-ERCRYSTALLINE CLAY

7

5.09 4.82

GRAY C(AY SEW LOCALLY WllW ANNYORITE.

CLEAR 10 MOOEIMTE RCODISH-EIROWN t+Wlf. TRACE TO SOMf POLYWMT[ MO TIWX OF CLAY.

12

7.62

MNITE

———

!3



9.17 8.96

MN7KfR BED 138. >

. .._...

CLEAR TO CFUWSH ORANGE-PINK I+UITE, TRACE POLYNAJIE NO OISCO~lNUOUS CLAY STRINGIRS.



10.36

——— \\\\\\\\\v ‘>–~~,~–~–_” — — — — ——— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —.—

15

–l-

LITHOLOGY

— — — — — — ARGILLACEOUSHAIIIE, BROWNTO GRCY CLAY UP TO 5%. — _—_—_—_

H-5



FORMATION

CLEAR TO R[OOIS14-ORANC1HALITE, TIWX

——

— ——

-1

-

3.51

WM?E,

“’’’i:%”

CLEAR TO wOCIV.TE REOOISH-BROW?4 IWJT1. TRACE TO sow POLYHALrE MD 01SC0N71NU0US CLAY STRINGERS. ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —

\\\\\’

2.29 2.07

——————

1.68

CLLAR TO GRAYISHORMCE - PINK HAUTE 9

fflINURITrb\

JG - ~ 7 —



\

\

\

UNOLRLAJNEN CLAY C \

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

Y

6



\

\

\

\

\ .

\

.—

——

CLVJ7 TO REOOISH-0FW4G[

——

——

—-

-f

4

— ——

-

-0.67

——.

-2.13

CLEAR HMJTE TRACE N?CILLACEOUS M4TCRlAL — —

——

——

——



-2,74

——. TOP OF

-3.47

CLEAJ? TO REDDISH- BROWN ARGILLMXOUS HMIII WITH DISCONTINUOUS CLAY PfflTINCS IN uPPER HMF.

TYPICAL

— 3

0.06 0.00

\ .

t(ALmf, TRACf POLYHALITE

.————————————————-r

— 5



\

CLEAR TO uOOER4TE RCDDISH-BROWN TO MEDIUM CRAY HAUTE, TRACE POLW4AIJTEAND SOL4ECW’Y STRINGERS —— —— —— —— ——

4. O-M

HIGH

WASTE–STORAGE

CLEAJ?TO RIOOISH-ORANC[ I+UJTC TFACE POLYHAMIE.

O-GE Rwo.

ROOM

2

-4.18 -4.27 -4.42

r . L

REODISH-ORANGE MALITE,TR%X POLYWTE

RIOOISH-BROWN TO BLUISH-GRAY ARGILLACEOUSl’@lJTf. 0

\

/

J

CLEAR 10 REDDISH-0RM4CZ ANO REDDISH-BRDwN W4JTE. AQCILIACfDuS IN uPPf R PART, TRACC POLYHALITE.

1

–6.71 –7.71 –8.60 –9.51 –10.97 –11.52 –13.01 –14.42 –1625 –16.31 -20.03

Figure 2-3.

Schematic

of typical WIPP underground

8

rooms showing stratigraphic

positions.

Hassinger,

rather than on sedimentological

1985). These pits range in depth and

width from a few centimeters and may completely

of the sedimentology They

The pits are typically

filled by relatively pure, coarsely crystalline

provide

commonly

halite.

by Deal et al. (1989) were defined on

variable

both

(at a local

halitic

consistent

map

differences

and/or color and polyhalite

that are apparent

in macroscopic

in

content

laterally

vertically,

as they are the products

episodes

of dissolution

large areal scale.

examination,

9

Salado

processes. distributions

the basis of relatively clay content

alteration

and Iithofacies

the

Iithofacies

found within the Salado, and discuss

textures

above,

Formation.

of

units

mentioned

designated

of the Salado

descriptions

syndepositional As

Holt

and Powers (1990) present a detailed discussion

to a few meters,

crosscut one or several map

units at any given location.

differences.

are highly scale)

and

of repeated

and alteration

over

a

3. TESTING EQUIPMENT The

following

equipment program

sections

used

in

briefly

the

includes

systems,

thermocouples,

linear

transformers,

and

measure

the

Stensrud

Each multipacker

transducers,

and

equipment

are

for

More

used

presented

National

only,

and

does

products

not

to

created during packer inflation

in

from

the

isolated

imply

Test Tool

packers

outside

mounted

and oriented

in 4-inch

diameter

with

the packers’

materials.

of

inflatable

natural

(10.2-cm)

O. D.

set of ports

(0.32-cm)

monitored

diameter

Packer-inflation with

transducers

lines.

testing

have

or its extension

and anchored

floor or wall using 61-cm-long a set of radially

to

measure

tool

is

borehole

movement

radially

below the test-interval

one axially

oriented

LVDT

during the

oriented

are located

3-2) to measure

LVDTS

packer,

is mounted

and

at the

test tool (Figure

tool movement

relative

to the

bottom of the hole during testing.

For using a

3.2 Data-Acquisition

onto the

A computer-controlled

to the

rock bolts. oriented

Three

test

variable-differential

bottom end of the multipacker

of 2-inch (5.08-cm)

steel which is clamped

period.

of each

linear

with

fixed

elastic

boreholes.

section

(LVDTS)

The packer elements

diameter

test-intefval

and test-tool

and

cross made of 1-m lengths

other tests,

are

transformers

rubber

some tests, the test tool was restrained

mandrel

third

by

to measure temperatures

deformation

0.84-m seal lengths when inflated

square tubular

me

O. D.

end of the test tool.

have 0.92-m-long

composed

(0. D.)

on a 4.83-cm

ends toward the bottom-hole

approximately

withdrawal

(0.48-cm)

attached to the packer-inflation

equipped

synthetic

during

test tool designed for this testing

9.5-cm

elements

pressures

and to vent fluid

in the test and guard zones.

sliding-end,

The packers

tubing.

Type E thermocouples

l%e

mandrel

intervals

provides access for l/8-inch

by Sandia

program, shown on Figures 3-1 and 3-2, has two

inflatable

A second set

lengths of 3/16-inch

pressures

The multipacker

which are

These two sets of ports are accessed

stainless-steel

Laboratories.

3.1 Multipacker

from the test

mounted outside of the boreholes.

tests.

of specific

pressures

One set of

of ports is used to dissipate “squeeze”

The use of brand names in this report is

identification

test zone and

and guard zones to the transducers,

et al. (1992).

endorsement

used to

test tool is equipped with three

ports is used to transmit

continuous NOTE:

was

the guard zone between the packers.

equipment

methods

buildup

sets of ports to the bottom-hole

gas and brine

of each.

of the testing

procedures

calibrate

tools,

variable-differential

to separate

to pressure

restrain the tool.

The

test

pressure

the production

descriptions

the

in response

a differential-pressure-transmitter

panel, and a system

detailed

facility.

multipacker

data-acquisition

the

permeability-testing

in the WIPP underground

equipment

and

describe

(DAS) monitors

For

records

tapered

jaws or slips that tighten on the test-tool mandrel

consists

as the tool attempts

computer

to move out of the borehole 11

data-acquisition

the progress

pressure,

deformation

System

data

of each test and

temperature, (Figure

of an IBM for system

system

and

borehole-

3-3).

Each

Model

50 desktop

PSi2 control

DAS

and data storage,



GU

PORT

ION

LINE

G END

ORT

Figure 3-1.

Typical configuration

of the multipacker

12

test tool used for hydraulic

testing.

GUARD–ZONE–PACKER

ELEMENT

R=4.754

cm TT 0.56

m w z o

236.0

cm

STEEL

INFLATION

R= O.238 VENT/l

N

STAINLESS–

o w

TUBING

cm

NJ ECTION

PORTS

AND

+ 0.15

m

4 0.25

m

2 0

TRANSDUCER/THERMOCOUPLE ACCESS R=2.413

cm 3

-L————L

B TEST–ZONE–PACKER

ELEMENT

R=4.754

cm

R=4.413

cm

RADIAL

LVDTS y

L

~ 0.33 -7

~

:

m LVDT

f

HOUSING

~ L k

AXIAL VENT/l

LVDT

NJECTION

HOUSING

PORTS

:

i 0.41

m

0.18

m

AND

TRANSDUCER/THERMOCOUPLE ACCESS AXIAL

LVDT

PLUNGER

AXIAL

:\

R=2.238

cm

R=l

cm

LVDT

:

J

HOUSING

796

PLUNGER

--

4 ~10

m

s

NOTE: TEST-ZONE

Figure 3-2.

AND

GUARO–

ZONE

Detail of test- and guard-zone

13

PACKER

ELEMENTS~O.92

m

sections of the multipacker

LONG

test tool.

ELECTRONICS DIFFERENTIAL– PRESSURE– TRANSMITTER OUTLETS

DT 1

DT2

o---o

PRESSURE- r

0—--0

0—0

LVDT OUTLETS

IBM 5+–INCH

0—0

~

II IBM

THERMOCOUPLE OUTLETS

PS/2

COMPUTER

1

044

4

1

1

--1

E L ENCLOSURE

,

00

--l

KEPCO I

00

00

POWER I

(

00

r-h

Schematic

VOLT

SWITCH

I



BREAKER BOX



TRANSFORMER

o

Q_

@@

BATTERY RACK I

Figure 3-3.

VAC

—— MINI–POWER CENTER

@@

110

SURGE-SUPPRESSOR POWER STRIP

4

UPS)

@e



SUPPLY I

I

UNINTERRUPTIBLE POWER SUPPLY

0 0 o o o

THERMO-SNAP

I

@e

I

I

L DAS

DISK DRIVE

! 480 VOLTS

illustration

14

of the data-acquisition

system.

and

a

Hewlett

Packard

Acquisition/Control supplies

switch

Unit

to

thermocouples, and

voltmeter

3497A

containing:

excite

read

the

channels;

measure

transducers,

power

the

output

and LVDTS.

outputs at user-specified

acquired,

5.25-inch

they

are

the

on an auxiliary

Real-time

The

transducers

used

of the test-zone

in the other boreholes

significant

readings

digits

are considered

the pressure

or

listing of the data

derived

data are also possible.

data.

in

improved

Small errors in the third of the

transducer

to have

effects on interpretations

printer and screen and/or printer

plots of the accumulated

to 0.11 MPa.

L4P51-B increased

or fourth

the

hard disk and on either 3.5-inch diskettes.

errors of

borehole

slightly during the tests.

of the

on

in boreholes

used for testing

during testing

As data

both

testing

the error in the transducer

accuracies

time intewals

stored

during

about 0.04 MPa by the ends of the tests, while

The

software allows sampling

used

S1 P71 and S1 P73 to have maximum

digit

from

ranging from 15 seconds to 24 hours.

computer’s

transducers

transducers,

and a 5-1/2

thermocouples,

data-acquisition

are

Data-

and LVDTS; a signal scanner to

to

sensors’

(HP)

insignificant

of transmissivities

The sensitivity

from the calibration

from

coefficients

of the transducers

used during the permeability

testing discussed

this

in Stensrud

report

are

tabulated

in

et al.

(1992).

3.3

Pressure Transducers

Pressures packers

are monitored

strain-gage monitor

3.4 Thermocouples

in the test and guard zones and in the

The

Druck

PDCR-830

transducers

pressure

pressures

MPa).

with

rated

to

are

mounted

thermocouples

used to monitor temperatures

within the test and

guard zones during the permeability

from O to 2000 psi (O to 13.8

transducers

Type E Chromel-Constantan

thermocouples

on

instrument

panels outside the boreholes and are

connected

to the isolated zones and the packers

thermocouples

are reported

within

“C

O.D. stainless-steel

sheathed

*

0.06

in

Inmnel

by the

mandrels

Sandia National Laboratories.

stated accuracy

The

manufacturer’s

of the transducers

The

600.

manufacturer,

Industries.

3-2).

The

to be accurate

tubing which passes into and through the packer (Figure

tests.

are 1/8 inch (0.32 cm) in diameter

and

through 3/1 6-inch (0.48-cm)

are

are

The thermocouples

to ARI

are calibrated

by

is * 0.1 ‘Yoof

full scale, or ~ 2 psi (0.014 MPa).

3.5 Linear Variable-Differential Transformers

Transducers

are calibrated

before and after each

installation

of a multipacker

test tool according to

procedures

described

their accuracies

magnitude

of transducer

within

calibrations

pressure *

observed calibrations

0.02

during

over the pressure

the

showed

accurate

The

tests. that

drift

and differential

movement (Bechtel,

shut-in,

to

beds

between 1986).

in

the

halite

and

Measurable

withdrawal

15

test interval Axial

diameter) could

in a

raise the

movement

of the

test tool can be caused by changes

in packer-inflation

the

in borehole

in the hole.

multipacker

post-test

change

fluid-filled

pressure

ranges

caused

drifts

facility exhibit closure, deformation,

anhydrite

a-millimeter

that the test-

were

and

borehole closure (on the order of a few tenths-of-

in this report,

showed

transducers MPa

the

drift during the testing

For the tests discussed

the pre-test zone

and to evaluate

rooms,

boreholes,

underground

in Stensrud et al. (1992) to

determine

periods.

Open

pressure,

pressure

buildup or

in the isolated

intervals,

and hole

elongation

resulting

excavations. with

from creep

closure

distance

(Westinghouse,

from

to elongate.

which, in low-permeability pressure

borehole

interval.

LVDTS

are

separation, multipacker

response

test-inteival

(Figures

3-1

LVDTS can each measure An axially

LVDT

on

Trans-Tek of

the

exerted

on two

the column, difference,

in fluid-column

motion

discusses

working

are

Jensen

in detail the design,

calibration,

inside

and

the

maintained

Panel

measured panel

(DPT)

transmitter columns.

of

Rosemount

To maintain

nitrogen-gas reservoir

Fluid volumes produced during constant-pressure

consists

voltage

output

(Figure

34).

a

differential-pressure

and

injection/withdrawal

Alphaline

test,

The

constant-pressure

column

pressure,

is connected Before

designated

(and

to a the

is set to the designated

test

sometimes

column

the

testing,

During a constant-pressure

fluid

is

column

constant

resewoir.

pressure

pressure.

using a differential-

flow tests, the pressure

near

injection/withdrawal

3.6 Differential-Pressure-

panel

the

(a change to a linear

injection/withdrawal under

conditions.

pressure-transmitter

volume),

During constant-pressure

(1990)

use of the LVDTS.

flow tests were

the

corresponds

As

to be linear within * 0.5?40 ranges.

Transmitter

The

pressure, is equal to the

height

proportionally.

their

is the

pressure.

the fluid level in the column changes

tool

in

over

of a sensing

On the other side of the

or differential

changes

responses

sides

in the

pressure exerted by the fluid in the column.

along the borehole axis

The LVDT

the difference

plus the ambient

change

of 10 cm.

voltage

is the pressure exerted by the fluid in

(Figures 3-1 and 3-2). This LVDT has a range of

reported by Trans-Tek

As fluid from

On one side of the diaphragm

diaphragm

Model

test

3-4).

Lexan-

are taken by the DAS from the

ambient test pressure.

the

These

3-2).

l/2-inch

(6.35-mm)

(Figure

The DPT measures

pressure

a range of motion of

bottom

measures tool movement

of

manometer

diaphragm.

1200

radial borehole

and

mounted

the

DPT.

Model 241

part

(2.54-cm),

and a l/4-inch

measurements

isolated

with

l-inch

the test zone enters and fills a column,

volume,

an

mounted,

test tool to measure

deformation

245

in

Three Trans-Tek

the

column

media, can affect the

radially on

steel columns,

Axial movement

of the test tool can change the test-zone

(10. 16-cm),

columns:

(1.27-cm), and 3/8-inch (0.95-cm) O.D. stainless-

an excavation

1990), causing boreholes drilled

from an excavation

0.5 cm.

4-inch

The rate of rock creep decreases

increasing

observed

The DPT panel includes five cylindrical

of the

withdrawal

gas)

enters

a

from the test zone, but little

change in the gas pressure in the column occurs due to the buffering capacity of the gas reservoir.

Model 1151 DP

DPTs are used in the VMPP permeability-testing program.

The DPTs are calibrated

cm of water

(O-9.8 kPa).

stated accuracy calibrated hysteresis,

3.7 Gas-Brine

from O to 100

Measurement

The manufacturer’s

flow tests

span, including the combined effects of and

and

System

Fluid volumes produced during constant-pressure

of the DPTs is * 0.2% of the

repeatability,

Separation

in borehole

S1 P72 were

using the gas-brine separation

independent

linearity.

system

16

shown

in

Figure

measured

and measurement 3-5.

The

system

BACK–PRESSURE VENT VALVE -k PRESSURE–RELIEF

VALVE

\ GAS SUPPLY

PRESSURE VALVE TOP MANIFOLD

DPT VALVE

c

~UMN VA

/Es

8/

LOCKING MANOMETER -1

P .

/

VALVE

VENT --/ VALVE

/

)PT GAS LINE

WITHDRiWAL VALVE FROM ZONE

1 -INCH :OLUMN

/

I–INCH COLUMN

l/2– INCH COLUMN I/

3/8– INCH COLUMN

TRANSDUCER VALVE

, \

[

BLEEDER

a

LOCKING MANOMETER VALVE

l-m

DPT FLUID LINE

l/4-lNcH MANOMETER

f

.

ti\

8

L4!M!i4

BOTTOM

INJECTION VALVE ~

Figure 34.

DISC.+ARGE

/] VES

MANIFOLD

VALVE

Differential-pressure-transmitterpanel.

17

FROM FLUID RESERVOIR \

FILL

.,

VALVE

d

\

3/1 6“ S.S. TUBING ~ /-

4–L

PYREX

GAS

RESERVOIR

/ 300–mL

GAS–BRINE

SEPARATOR

INVERTED ~ GRADUATED CYLINDER

1

\



TYGON-’ MANOM



~— -. — — — — .— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

— –

GAS VACUUM

INLET

TUBE

(0) } ~ VACUUM–CONTROL VALVE

I

VACUUM



6-L



BRINE

PUMP

1

k

w

BRINE

DRAIN VALVE

I

NOTE:

OPERATING VALVE

FLUID VESSEL

LEVELS WERE

DETERMINE

ZONE VENT LINE

Figure 3-5.

Gas-brine

separation

18

and measurement

system

(

PYREX VESSEL

COLLECTION VESSEL =

(

IN

6–L

uSED

GAS

PYREX TO

VOLUME.

consisted

of a l-gallon

brine-collection

vessel

tubing manometer, brine separator, resewoir) vessel,

(3.785-L)

stainless-steel

brine again covered the end of the vent line, and

coupled

with

the process would repeat.

a tygon-

a 300-mL stainless-steel a 4-L graduated

inverted

cylinder

in a water-filled

and a vacuum

pump.

gas(gas

The volume

6-L Pyrex

collection

Brine and gas

of brine that flowed into the brine-

vessel over a given period of time was

calculated

from changes

in the height

of the

flowing from the test zone through the zone vent

brine in the manometer.

line were collected in the 1-gallon brine-collection

collection

vessel

vessel

correlation

between a change in the height of the

and in the gas reservoir,

The 300-mL gas-brine from flowing

separator

respectively.

prevented brine

before

the

brine in the manometer

into the 6-L Pyrex vessel where it

volume

could not be measured.

vessel.

manually flow tests were

of the brine-

test

provided

a

and the corresponding

of brine that had flowed

collection

The S1 P72 constant-pressure

Calibration

into the brine-

Manometer

readings

were

entered in the test log book and were

not recorded by the DAS.

performed with the flow line open to atmospheric pressure at the surface.

However, the pressure

in the test zone did not remain constant

The volume of gas produced

during

over several hours during the constant-pressure

these tests, but cycled between about 0.05 MPa

flow

and about

reservoir,

varied

0.08 MPa.

because

produced traveled separation test-zone

during from

The test-zone

both

brine

and

the flow test.

the test

zone

and measurement

vertically

volume

of the

continuous

of gas flow.

using

developed pressure

0.09

the

gas

direct

To calculate

system

the total

and the

separation

and

a correlation

was

change

in test

zone

during each cycle and the volume Total gas production

constant-pressure

in the test zone (0.05 -

gas-brine

between

gas produced.

rotation)

above the lowest point in the test zone.

Given the low pressures

the

preventing

measurement

The downhole

on test-tool

exceeded

gas flow, several gas-flow cycles were measured directly

system through the

between

tests

measurement

to the gas-brine

vent line (Figure 3-5).

m (depending

were

Brine and gas

end of the vent line was located and 0.18

pressure gas

from the test zone

by multiplying

of

during each

flow test was then determined

the pressure

change during each

0.08 MPa), the gas in the test zone was probably

cycle as recorded by the DAS by the correlation

present as a separate phase and collected at the

coefficient.

This correlation

the following

manner.

top of the test zone above the brine.

When the

was developed

in

Gas flowing from the test

brine level in the test zone was high enough to

zone first entered the gas-brine

separator.

From

cover the end of the vent line, the flow of brine

there the gas flowed

3/1 6-inch

(4.76-

and gas from the formation

mm) stainless-steel

into the test zone

increase gas-brine

The gas pressure until enough separation

would continue

brine had flowed and measurement

tubing into the gas resewoir

which was inverted in a 6-L Pyrex vessel partially

would cause the gas pressure above the brine to increase.

through

filled with water (Figure

to

3-5).

A vacuum

pump

was used before each flow cycle to decrease the

to the

pressure in the gas reservoir,

system

causing the water

to cause the brine level to fall below the bottom

to rise in the gas reservoir.

of the vent line.

gas resewoir displaced the water and the volume

gas-brine decreasing

The gas would then vent to the

separation

and measurement

system,

of

the gas pressure in the test zone until

gas

calculated 19

produced

during

Gas flowing into the

each

cycle

was

from the volume of water displaced.

Two corrections

were made to the gas volumes

directly

measured

flowing

into the 1-gallon

during

each

volume

in the gas reservoir.

cycle

measured

volume

reservoir

vessel

and/or

losses

in smaller

the

from the

gas

pressure

in the

gas

Pickens

pressure depending

movement

in response

responses

3-5). The remaining

low-permeability

volume of gas was adjusted

volume

it

would

occupy

at

Equipment

to packer

intervals

media.

movement

inflation

and

can affect pressure in boreholes

Figure

in

3-7 illustrates

due to packer

inflation

can cause the packer element to displace fluid in intervals,

causing

changes

in pressure.

Changes in the shape, volume, or position of the

System

test tool which affect pressure

testing

steadily

sequences,

isolation

declined

potentially

L4P52,

(Figure

a

jeopardizing

during testing.

filled approximately pressurized pressure. the

desired

A l-gallon

in

nearly

pressure

and the control

tank

was

closed

steel

packer

in the cylinder valve between

when

in

casing

was

allowing

the pressures

placed

in the packer and in the cylinder

to equilibrate.

fluctuations

the packer was opened,

nitrogen

20

differentiate

simulate

zero permeability.

were

test-tool-related

a

pressure The casing

borehole

with

The casing

was

to minimize

and associated

outlined

O. D. stainless-

in boreholes.

in a borehole

facility

pressure-tested

(11.43-cm)

observed to

compliance

tests

formation-related

(Figure 3-8).

in the cylinder served to increase

and

To for the

to procedures

from

intended

effectively

and

sealed

to

during

of compliance

Compliance

of 4.5-inch

responses

the

responses compliance.

in the underground

4.1.

phenomena

was achieved, the cylinder

Section

sections

as

test tool, preinstallation

conducted

cylinder was

The control valve between the cylinder nitrogen

the magnitude

on all test tools according

to the guard-

to the desired

to

tests were conducted

half-full with water and then

with nitrogen

referred

multipacker

pressure-maintenance

343) was attached

are

evaluate

the

For testing

zone packer to hold the packer pressure constant

testing

during some

of test and/or guard zones.

borehole

system

The

(see Figure

Packer-Pressure-Maintenance

Packer pressures

and

thereafter

in packer pressure occurred

or withdrawal

in isolated

how packer

pressure.

isolated

in

packer

et al. (1987) have shown that test-tool

gas reservoir and in the 6-L Pyrex vessel (Figure

3.8

volume

3.9 Compliance-Testing

fluid injection

atmospheric

packer changes

the

F-3).

on the relative positions of the water levels in the

the

from

than would have otherwise

at the end of each cycle was usually

reflect

in

of fluid

system.

of gas at the end of each

above or below atmospheric

to

in the packer/cylinder

changes

resulted

into the gas

This volume was subtracted

Also,

Subsequent

a corresponding

then flowed

reservoir.

cycle.

Brine

brine-collection

displaced

of gas which

the compressibility

temperature

pressure

changes

PRESSURE

VENT VALVEJ — l-GAL, WHITEY SAMPLE CYLINDER

PRESSURE-RELIEF VALVE

1

NITROGEN TANK

— NITROGEN

FLUID

. F &

C.ONTROL VALVE

TO PACKER

??%3%?

Figure 3-6.

Packer-pressure-maintenancesystem.

21

BEFORE

INFLATION

—. \ ——_ ‘1

——— — -

INFIATION

INJECTION LINE ——— ———

Ll=

PACKER)

INFIATION LINE ——_ — ——

SLIOING

END

J

‘3/16 –INcH (0.48 STAINLESS-STEEL

AFTER

SLIDING END MOVES ALONG

LINE

(TEST-ZONE

cm) O.D TUBING

INFLATION

.— _ _ —— \ r

OF TEST–ZONE PACKER BOREHOLE WHEN INFLATED

lNFbITION LINE (TEST-ZONE PACKER)

u

Figure 3-7.

Movement

of the sliding-end

m

I

‘L’D’NG END

sub in the guard zone during packer inflation.

22

\

COMPLIANCE ●

PACKER



TOOL



FACTORS DEFORMATION

MOVEMENT

GAS ENTRAPMENT IN ZONES

MOVEMENT OF SLIDING END DURING INFLATION

NOTE: ‘AXIAL

Figure 3-8.

NOT

TO SCALE

LVDT

Cross-section

view of the stainless-steel

23

compliance-testing

chamber

in borehole

P4P30.

4. TESTING PROCEDURES The multipacker

test tools are used to conduct

testing

hydraulic

in boreholes

3.8) before being installed

tests

underground

excavations.

formations volume

drilled

from

the

In low-permeability

such as the Salado,

or temperature

changes

Compliance

in the

of the test-zone

chamber

in a compliance-test

in the test borehole.

testing quantifies the response of the

test tool to the types and magnitudes

fluid

changes

(Section

anticipated

during

hydraulic

testing.

is completed,

the test

and/or the test tool can affect observed pressure

After compliance

responses,

in Pickens et al. (1987).

tool is installed in the test borehole.

In addition, pressure changes in isolated sections

testing sequence is then performed,

of boreholes in low-permeability

a shut-in pressure buildup followed by one or two

as described

physical movement

media can cause

of the test tool.

pressure-pulse

Pressures in

tests

test intervals may also be affected by changes in

constant-pressure

packer-inflation

test.

pressures,

when a pulse injection

and vice versa,

as

testing

of pressure

in

consisting

some

cases

of

a

flow test followed by a buildup

Compliance-

and hydraulic-testing

dures are discussed

in a test zone increases

and

A hydraulic

proce-

below.

the forces acting against the outside of the testzone

packer,

causing

the

packer-inflation

4.1 Compliance

pressure to increase.

Compliance Changes

in the volume and pressure of the test-

Testing

tests are performed

tool before the tool is installed in a test borehole.

zone fluid that are not due to the formation’s

The purposes of the compliance

hydraulic

establish

response

but instead to changes in the

position of the test tool or deformation tool or borehole “compliance”.

are included

hydraulic

tests

conductivities and/or

pressure of

and

Test-tool-related

simulated

“compliance

test-tool

during

by subjecting test

and/or compensate

as

designed;

responses

to packer

the inflated packers. test tools installed

with

in test chambers

borehole.

The compliance

can be empirically

stainless

steel well casing

responses. provide pressure

to

The

the

DAS

installing

data to understand changes

The multipacker

test tool to be used for hydraulic

starting with the test-zone are inflated

to between

which the pressures undergoes

the

test

are

tool

chambers sealed

in a

consist of

at one end.

and record

the

testing.

The test tool’s packers are sequentially

resulting

during actual hydraulic testing.

in any borehole

tests, the

These

from compliance

testing

isolated by

instruments

is used to monitor

results of the compliance

and ap-

in the same manner

hydraulic properties.

obsetving

are

evaluate

inflation

all monitoring

when

and

(2)

For compliance

employed

the testing equipment

and fittings

and

incorrect

conditions

tests”

in

and that all seals

plied pressure pulses in the intewals

hydraulic

formation-related

compliance

pressure

resulting

with

result

of the formation’s

estimated

performing

formations

actual

changes

estimates

under the term

less than 10-12 m/s can obscure

dominate

pressure

assembled

changes

testing are to (1 )

that the test tools have been properly

of the test

Pickens et al. (1987) showed that

compliance-related

for each test

hours for evidence

compliance

mance. 25

Packer

packer. 8 and

inflated,

Both packers 10 MPa,

are monitored

for 24 to 48

of leaks or improper pressures

after

usually

perfor-

decrease

during

this period

packer-element entrapped other

due to the elasticity

matefial,

of the

increased

air that may have been

phenomena.

The peak pressure quickly dissipated

After

monitoring

this pressure decline for the initial 24-

to 48-hour

period, packer-inflation

usually increased for an additional

pressures

MPa

and

then

compliance

are

slowly

test-tool

24 to 48 hours.

Figure

string 4-1

After the Ieak-checldpacker-pressure-adjustment

pressure

periods, the test zone is subjected

The

to a pressure-

and axial

also

shows

guard-zone

behavior

responses

injections

of both the test and guard zones are for evidence

of leaks,

packer-pressure

responses

are also

After evaluation

of test-zone

integrity

packer(s)

evaluate

in a zone

pressures

the test-

are increased

and guard-zone

and/or decreased

series of step pressure-injection withdrawal and

in a

similar

The pulse

the system.

slightly

As the

the adjacent

causing

its internal

The packer(s)

away from the zone being

which can cause the pressure in the

adjacent

zone

to rise slightly.

his

increase

can in turn be transmitted

pressure to another

packer.

and/or pressure-

pulses to provide a range of test-zone

packer-pressure

changes During

displayed

is increased,

is compressed,

pressurized, instances,

zone

into the test and guard zones caused

also deforms

the integrity of the guard zone.

In some

pressure

pressure to increase (Figure 4-2).

is followed to

guard

from O MPa to 5 MPa.

pressure changes throughout

monitored.

the same procedure

the

on Day 227 when the

and the

associated

is completed,

movement.

to that of the test zone.

pressure

to

through the entire

test-tool that

was increased

injection pulse of at least 3.5 MPa. The pressure

due

effects, such as packer readjustment

as stresses were redistributed

to 8 to 10 MPa and monitored

to about 4

decreased

received a pulse injection

then monitored

O MPa to 7 MPa

on Day 223 by injecting a small quantity of brine.

during inflation going into solution, and

compliance-related

from approximately

in

responses

neighboring

the

to

pressure

Figure 4-3 shows the temperatures

and

packers.

the test

and guard

volume

of fluid

testing.

Temperatures

zones

withdrawals,

the

zones

measured

during

in

compliance

were stable

throughout

released during each pressure drop is measured

the testing period except for short-lived

to provide data with which to evaluate test-tool or

in the

system compressibility.

pulse injections.

Figures 4-1 to 4-5 display the results of a typical

Figures 4-4 and 4-5 show the LVDT responses

compliance-test

during

pressures

sequence.

4-2 shows

the pressures

guard-zone

packers;

temperatures 4+

shows

LVDTS; movement

Figure 4-1 shows the

in the test and guard zones;

Figure

in the test-zone

and

and

Figure

4-5

shows

4-4)

diameter 0.04

mm

4-1 to 4-5, the pressure

during

the

of the test chamber.

relative

LVDTS’ orientations

on Figures

in the test zone

following

The

that

the

increase calculated

increase test depicted

tests.

the

in the test zone

of the radial

of the axial LVDT.

During the compliance

show

temperature

radial test

LVDTS

chamber’s

increased

pulse

the

by about

injection.

This

increase is consistent with the predicted diameter

in the test and guard zones; Figure movement

compliance

(Figure

Figure 4-3 shows the fluid

the relative

guard-zone

increases

in

by integrating

was

LVDTS. 26

from the material

Note that because

of the

(see Section 3.5), the actual

diameter

must

the responses

Figure

properties

be

estimated

of all three radial

4-5 shows that the axial LVDT

8

I

I

i

I

I

I

I

c .._

6

Test-Zone Pulse Injection

1“

4

2

0 I : -. -l L-

-—

I

I

-2 222

223

Figure 4-1.

12

Packer Inflation

224

Zone pressures

I

I

I

I

225 Time (1989

for compliance

I

226 Calendar

I 227 Days)

I

I

228

229

test COMP 16, multipacker

I

I

Guard Zone

230

test tool #5.

I

I

I

10 -

8 -

6 -

4 -

,.

-- Packer Inflation

[“”



_

2 c m 222

Figure 4-2.

I

I

223

224

Packer pressures

I

I

225 Time (1989

for compliance

27

226 Calendar

I

227 Days)

Test-Zone Guard-Zone

Packer Packer

I

I

228

229

test COMP 16, multipacker

1

test tool #5.

1 230

29.5

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

228

229

29.0

28.5

‘,.

r

Packer

Inflation

28.0

27.5 222

Figure 4-3.

I

I

223

224

Zone temperatures

0.04

I

225 Time (1989

for compliance

I

I

226 Calendar

227 Days)

test COMP 16, multipacker

I

I

I

L

0.02

I

,.+ ---LVDT R-~97 ,:,.

LVDT R-07 I

l–.

0.00

test tool #5.

I

Packer Inflation

230

:

LVDT R-06_

\ _ Test-Zone

-0.02

-

ii “+=.

“ _--_:----p_..

Guard-Zone Pulse Injection

‘“’se ‘n’ect’on

~

T’

-0.04

)

-

-0.06 [ 222

Figure 4-4.

I

I

223

224

Radial-LVDT

I

1

225 226 Time (1 989 Calendar

data for compliance

28

I

227 Days)

I

I

228

229

test COMP 16, multi packer test tool #5,

230

0.08

1

—1

“~

L

0.06 -

0.04

-

0.02

-

0.00

I

:,

~

I

1

222

Figure 4-5.

Axial-LVDT

was compressed” (shortened) packer was inflated,

response

is

lengthened forced

due

of the packer

pulse injection

data for compliance

when the test-zone

pressure

probably

I

declined. to

some

element.

the test tool upward

testing chamber.

discharges

elastic

test tool #5.

are filled after a test

and the packers are inflated

by

from a vent line located at the top of

the isolated interval.

the

pressure

in the compliance-

The guard-zone

boreholes

230

injecting brine through an injection line until brine

in the test zone, the axial LVDT

as the increase in test-zone

I

229

test COMP 16, multipacker

tool is installed

This

During

227 Days)

Upward-drilled

as

I

228

I

225 226 Time (1 989 Calendar

but tended to lengthen

the test-zone-packer response

I

224

223

The brine used is collected

from boreholes

in the WIPP underground

and, therefore,

should

equilibrium

with the Salado

1991). A multipacker

pulse injection

already

facility

be in chemical

strata (Deal et al.,

test tool is installed in each

did not have the same effect on the axial LVDT

test borehole as soon after drilling as possible to

response.

present

minimize

for

non-shut-in

conditions.

sequentially

inflated

complete compliance

Stensrud plots

and

et

tabulated

tests performed

tests analyzed

al.

(1992) data

the

before the hydraulic

pretest

Hydraulic

A hydraulic-testing drilling

of a nominal

borehole. with

brine

sequence 4-inch

Downward-drilled shortly

after

begins

with

packer-inflation

the

diameter

for

boreholes

are filled

compliance-related

reductions

inflation

of greater

drilling

is completed.

29

24

to

48

pressures

hours

11 MPa,

The packers

pump.

The

are monitored

(10.2-cm)

after

are

using a positive-

pressure-intensifier pressures

under

packers

packer.

with fresh water

displacement

Testing

histoy

The

to approximately

starting with the lower-most

in this report.

are inflated

4.2

borehole

closely

inflation. in the than

If

packer-

3 MPa are

obsetved,

the

increased

to

additional

packer-inflation 11

decreases

in packer

packer-inflation stability,

and

After

obsewed

4.2.1

are

for

an

pressures

occur

approach

Papadopulos test

and the

they equilibrate in the vicinity

in the two zones with the formation

of the borehole.

increase

in

fluids

pore pressure

After the rate of

into the formation

PULSE ~, INJICTION

shortly

after

,

// //

/’

/’

L TIME

OBSERVEO IN

‘.\

‘.

. .

. .

-—

Figure 4-6.

Typical

permeability-testing

30

may

not

be in

with the rock; they

the hydraulic closure

—: r i,

I

.

that

of

a process

and they conditions the

WIPP

facility when brine may be flowing

\ 11 1, 1, 1, 1! I 1, 1

,’”

Salado

they do not force

by hydrofracture;

represent

,.

----- .. . .

the

the formation,

underground

begins.

IDEAL BEHAVIOR FOR CONSTANT TEST-ZONF COMPRCSS181LITY \

for

tests

open existing fractures or

expected

testing

interval.

do not overpressurize

more closely

4-8), hydraulic

and

which could potentially

the pressure-remvery

curve appears to be on an

test

testing because:

create new fractures

trend (Figure

a

chosen

pressure increase in the test zone decreases and

asymptotic

by Bredehoeft

complete chemical equilibrium

as

Pressure-

rather than pulse-injection

generally

permeability

to shut in the test and guard

Once the test and guard zones are shut

in, the pressures

as described

performed

were

vent

TESTING.

(1980) is the first type of hydraulic

Pulse-withdrawal

relative

valves on the test- and guard-zone

PRESSURE-PULSE

pulse testing

the initial transient

pressures

lines are closed zones.

MPa

24 hours.

pressures

sequence.

horn

the

host

rock

underpressurized

towards

the

relatively

test is to be conducted.

in this report were all withdrawal

rooms.

conducted Pulse-withdrawal

tests are initiated

in a test or

at constant

As a constant-pressure

allowing

increase

desired

to flow from the zone

fraction

dissipated.

of the

shut-in

until the

pressure

has

shut in the zone.

the valve is then closed to The volume of fluid released

as

and recorded.

analysis.

withdrawal,

the

pressure

and

monitored

the formation

with

the

DAS.

pressure has recovered

the pulse

pore

pressure

After

the

flow

data

is

4.2.3

zone’s

Pressure-buildup

its pre-

the

pressure

representative

the observed

are reproducible

of formation

and are

responses.

zone.

generally

tests were performed

pressure buildup occurred determine

by low permeability. also performed Section

when little

in a shut-in interval to

or

test was

in the L4P51 -B guard zone (see

7.1.2.2)

test tool.

was

in the formation

A pulse-injection

to evaluate

Pulse-injection

the integrity

of the

tests are initiated

by

injecting brine until the desired pressure increase has been achieved. the reequilibration formation

4.2.2

of the zone’s pressure and the is monitored.

CONSTANT-PRESSURE

TESTING.

Constant-pressure

performed

after

pressure-pulse pressure

The zone is then shut in and

pore pressure

pressure

test

tests

recovery

is complete

in the zone to be tested

constant.

FLOW

flow

from

are a

and the fluid is relatively

The test zone is opened to one of the

columns on the DPT panel (Section 3.6) which is pressurized

have

testing

been

test

zone

is

after

collected

for

A

to the constant pressure at which the

TESTING.

consists after

of monitoring terminating

flow test and shutting pressure-buildup

to provide adequate

whether the lack of pressurization

caused by low pore pressure

is

is also

The

3.7.

test

last longer than the preceding

permeability Pulse-injection

mlumn gas

in the test

recovefy

test

responses

the

PRESSURE-BUILDUP

pulse value, the test is usually repeated (Figure

pressure

Section

by shutting

4-6)

that

in

the

zone’s

to approximately

assurance

0.2

zone pressures.

If free

DPT.

in

constant-pressure

to provide

between

flow test proceeds,

volume

by the

terminated

is measured

of the

fluid

described

adequate

reequilibration

in

measured

from the vent line during each pulse withdrawal Following

pressures

produced, it is captured and its volume measured

After the desired pressure decrease

has been achieved,

tests, and were

and 3 MPa below the pretest

guard zone by opening the zone’s vent valve and fluid

The flow tests discussed

data for analysis.

systems,

buildup

periods

should flow test In lowbetween

two and ten times as long as the preceding periods preferred.

are

often

required,

and

are

a

in the

flow

always

5. TEST LOCATIONS AND BOREHOLES Figure

5-1 shows

boreholes

drilled

hydraulic-testing drilled area,

the

Boreholes

in the experimental

different

Salado

chosen

to

affect

stratigraphic

intewals,

of the

discussed

provide

and

to

report

were

in

The multipacker

inflation

and pressure

in Section

3.1 to

in response to packer

buildup

in the guard and

test zones.

similar

provide

The

facility.

to the formation

as described

reduce test-tool movement

to

Core samples were recovered from 95 percent of

a

of data from a wide

underground

in this

to the collars

(Figure

in

collar was grouted

test tools were then bolted or otherwise anchored

or not the ages of

permeability

distribution

access

I.D., 20-inch (51-cm) long, steel

the top of each of the holes.

Borehole

Iithologies

whether

excavations

borehole

have been

area.

Formation

2-3), to investigate

representative

5-inch (12.7-cm)

area, the operations

and the waste-storage are

of all of the

to date for the underground program.

locations

area

locations

the drilled

tests

performed

in

lengths

of the test boreholes.

Iithologies, fracturing,

penetration

occurrences

in

noted

boreholes L4P51, L4P52, S1 P71, S1 P72, S1 P73,

recorded

on core

and SCPO1.

Stensrud

et al. (1992).

each

sample

The

times, and fluid borehole

logs

were

presented

The

by

Iithologies

are

referenced to the standard WI PP map units listed In some

instances,

holes

are deepened

in Appendix

and

A.

additional testing is performed after testing of the initial

borehole

completed. sequence

configuration

In such performed

a case,

has

Descriptions

the first testing

in a borehole

is given an

“A suffix, as in L4P51 -A, and subsequent sequences

been

testing

of

individual

boreholes

summary

of the

5.1

Note that the “A” testing

Room

was reported

in Beauheim

(Westinghouse,

et al. (1991).

L4 was

10.1 m wide, All of the boreholes

were cored and/or drilled to

a

(10.2-cm)

nominal

4-inch

used

below.

A

information

for

in Table 5-1.

to remove

circulation

medium

drill cuttings

When visible

quantities

encountered

in

association

air

during

with

layers, brine saturated

February

3.7 m high,

and 59.7

L4P51 was drilled and cored vertically

5-2) from October

1989

Days

(Calendar

290

and

291 ).

was drilled to allow testing halite,

halite, and clay D during test sequence

and/or

Marker

with respect to

Bed

enmuntered

139

(including

18 to 19,

clay

polyhalitic L4P51-A. E)

of the room, and clay D was encountered

assembly

for a test tool, a

33

was

from 1.50 to 2.36 m below the floor

4.55 to 4.57 m deep (Figure 5-2).

drill bits were used. To

The

of Marker

conventional,

provide an anchoring

of

m long.

sodium chloride was used as the drilling fluid and non-coring

1989

1990) to nominal dimensions

Bed 139 and the underlying

brine were clay

in

the room (Figure

borehole

from the holes.

of formation

excavated

downward to a depth of 4.75 m below the floor of

to allow

In most cases, compressed

as the

Borehole

The

diameter.

were cored, when possible,

sample recovery.

anhydrite

are presented

and

Room L4

L4P51 (test zone only) and S1 P71

drilling

locations

configuration

each test is presented

for boreholes

was

drilling

are given “B”, “C”, etc. suffixes, as in

L4P51-B and L4P51-C.

boreholes

the

from

-

-

1379 m (4523 ft) Room L4

RF m

w[ul~

Room cl

Salt-Handlina

“g’’k%rTFiPsha -

Opm:ps

Room Dimensions (lOm Wx4m Hx91~L) \ Panel 8

Panel 7 Wastsk Sto;o:e Penel 6

Panel 5

wj” >=1 ‘ha” R;:l --%% B .+“’w””” ---------3

,ld~ I I m m 0-0m m rII II II II II II II II II II II II II II lldl -------JIJIJIJld ------ l-- lmlmlom lmnn Uuu .=-------= -----II 11-11-11II II l? II II II II II II II 1: 1, II II II II II II II 1, 1, t141Jld ld14141--J -J.-----------11-1.II 1; -----------.--41-J0O-Im m I-It-l m r --l; -lr II II II II II II II 1, II II II II II II II II 1, II I14141J141JIJL-4-J b-------------11-1,11 1, ___________--Jl-J. I 1-11 -11-11-11-11-1 r -- ~-11II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II I 1, IIAIJIJ1414141--:1-J-b---------------.

~

~%i

Panel 1 “’”4

1950 Drift -----------. ,1 - t - ● ,-, ,-, ,-, ,-,,-, , ,0 1’ II II II II II II II III Panel 2 -,:--I 1’I-,IIL,IIL,IIL,IIL,L, -t r ------------II -IL---..--------. - ; 1-- ~1-11 -11-11-11-11-1 I ,1 t, ,, ,, ,1 ,, ,, ,, Panel 3 ,1 1, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, L--ILILILILILILII -7r-------------::_______ -; 0--11-10-11-11-11-11-11 ,1 1, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, Panel 4 ,1 1, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,! L_lLILILILILILll --------------

=lr

1

TRW330-129-5 Figure 5-1.

Map of the WIPP underground

34

facility showing test locations.

Table 5-1. Summary of Test-Configuration

Hole

Orientation

Radius (cm)

Information

Fluid Volume (cm’)

Isolated Interval (m) .,

guard

2927

1.45-2.49

test

4532

8.63-10.06

guard

2906

6.75-7.79

H-2

test

3403

4.14-5.56

11 (anhydrite 9 (halite)

guard

2201

2.27-3.32

9 (halite), 8 (anhydrite 7 (halite)

test

4418

8.70-10.15

guard

2813

6.82-7.87

PH-1, anhydrite I I H-2

Zone

Map Units Tested

1

I

L4P51 -A

vertical down

L4P51 -B

vertical down !I 5.340 I vertical down I 5.340

L4P52-A

up 500

5.297

I

5.163

S1P71-B vertical down I 5.296 S1 P72-A

S1 P73-A

S1 P73-B

SCPO1-A

I PH-4, MB139, clay E, HA I PH-1, anhydrite “c”, clay B, H-1

‘a”), 10 (halite),

“b”),

“c”, clay B, H-1

down 320

I 5.265

test

5009

4.01-6.05

I PH-4, MB139, clay E, H-4

down 32°

I 5.265

guard

2522

2.15-3.18

test

3964

3.38-4.80

10 (halite), PH-4 I 12 (polyhalitic halite), 11 (anhydrite “a”), 10 (halite), 9 (halite)

guard

2599

0.85-2.49

test

3868

9.92-11.32

guard

2637

8.04-9.09

test

8734

10.68-15.39

guard

2454

8.80-9.85

vertical up

vertical up

=---l-down 13°

down 13°

5.269

I 5.253

15.197 5.197

35

9 (halite), 8 (anhydrite 7 (halite)

“b”),

I H-6, MB138, clay K, AH-2 H-5, AH-1 (clay J), 15 (halite) I I PH-4, MB139, H-4 I PH-4

1

~ i ml

I#

ROOM L4

I

AD.C9 L

Lvra

L4P51 1.50

PLAN

1!

I

1-L [1

(NOT TO SCALE)

—10.154 -ROOM SCHEMATIC

\\\\\\\\uu\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ CLAY H I

I

48.77

16.15

13.37

ANHYDRITE “a”

VIEW

4

N. 1420

CROSS

SECTION

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

ORIFT

~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

4.26 4.21 4.02

,=

CLAY G

m%+=––––––-–

3.66

1

\

T-k ROOM

lL

1

L4

m

‘Y

\ 1

Y \ \

1.50

m

2.36

m

4.55 4.57 4.75

m

Y

4P51 -A

mrl--

D—\

-B

ANHYDRITE

~—~—————

Schematic

5 METERS

illustration

9.62 . 9.72

5

,,

Figure 5-2.

m

~

“C”~

B~-

m

OEPTHS BELOW ROOM FLOOR

o

EAST

CLAY

0.79

ROOM FLOOR J

i

~

Y

\\\\\\\\\\\\ CLAY E

CLAY

m m

BOREHOLE L4P52 REFERENCE POINT

m

~;g

2.04 2.01

)

1.5 m —

m

VERTICAL DISTANCES ABOVE L4P52 REFERENCE POINT

ANHYORITEl”b”

t-3.57

m m

of boreholes

———lo.06m

L4P51 and L4P52 in Room L4.

m m

L4P51 was deepened (Calendar

on October

Borehole

Days 274 and 275) to 10.06 m below

the floor of Room L4. testing

1 and 2, 1990

of anhydrite

sequence

The deepening

7 at an angle

of 580 from

vertical on December

12 and 13, 1989 (Calendar

“c” and clay B during test

Days 346 and 347).

The hole was drilled to a

Anhydrite

“c”

from 9.62 to 9.72 m deep.

directly underlies

east rib of Room

into the

allowed

L4P51-B.

encountered

S1 P72 was drilled downward

anhydrite

was

total length of 6.05 m, and encountered

Clay B

Bed 139 from 4.40 to 6.00 m along

“c” and is only about

Marker its length

(Figure 5-3).

0.005 m thick at L4P51. Borehole S1 P73 was drilled vertically upward into Borehole

L4P52 was drilled

1991 (Calendar

on April

Days 91 and 92).

1 and 2,

the back (roof) of Room 7 on December

The hole was

21,

1990 (Calendar

10 and

Days 344 and 355) to a

drilled into the upper part of the west rib of Room

length of 4.80 m. Anhydrite

L4 at an angle 40° below vertical to a distance of

from 1.84 to 1.90 m along the hole (including

5.56 m (Figure 5-2). The borehole was drilled to

0.003

allow testing of anhydrites

“a” and “b’ during test

encountered

sequence

Anhydrite

was

attempted

from 2.62 to 2.66 m along the hole

sequence

L4P52-A.

encountered

“b’

m of clay

G)

from

and

3.94

testing

“b’ was encountered

anhydrite to

of these

length of 11.32 m on Januafy

“a”

encountered

(Calendar

(including

5.25

to

5.50

m

encountered

0.005 m of clay H).

Days

14

and

7 of Waste

March

1988 to nominal

dimensions

wide,

4.1

and

m

(Westinghouse, drilled vertically

Panel

high, 1989).

1 was excavated

Borehole

downward

7 (Figure 5-3) on November Day

315)

to a depth

S1 P71-A testing sequence et al.

(1991)

deepened

was

deepened test

m S1P71

long

The core-storage

was

m.

the

m

After

hole

library.

was

encountered

encountered

anhydrite

10.89 to

Library west of the West

4.1

m

high,

1990).

and Figure

45.7

170

54

in

of 7.9

m

long

shows

the

SCPO1 in the core-storage

The borehole was drilled downward

(S 45° ~

and inclined

into

770 from vertical.

The

hole was drilled from March 26 to 30, 1990 to a total depth of 15.39 m.

“c” was

encountered

from 9.75 to 9.80 m below the floor

of Room 7 and an additional

hole

the south rib of the room angled 450 to the west

Days 201 to 205). The hole was

S1 P71-B.

Bed 138 from

libra~

location of borehole

to allow testing of anhydrite “c” during

sequence

wide,

(Westinghouse,

the

July 20 and 24,

Anhydrite

The

drift at South 400 (Figure 5-1) was excavated

reported in Beauheim

completed,

15).

April and May 1989 to nominal dimensions

10, 1988 (Calendar

to 10.15 m between

1989 (Calendar

5.3 Core-Storage

into the floor of Room

of 4.56

14 and 15, 1991

in

of 10.1 m

91.4

to a

11.03 m (Figure 5-3).

Room 7 of Waste Panel 1

Room

(testing

clay K from 10.86 to 10.89 m along

its length and Marker

5.2

was After

S1 P73-A), the hole was extended

up to 0.01 m of clay G) and anhydrite from

“a” m.

anhydrites

(including was

4.09

from

hole (Figure 5-4).

layer was

from 9.48 to 9.51 m (Figure 5-3).

37

Marker

Bed 139 was

10.50 to 14.78 m along the

S1P72

SI P73 3.43 /

PLAN VIEW

‘1P71

1.50

64.38

62.60 I--lo.lo

59.60

(NOT To SCALE) 1 ‘ooa SCHEMATIC CROSS SECTION —— . < x

MARKER BED 138~ CLAY K-

——

——

rm-

11.32 11.03 ‘1O.86

m m m

DISTANCES ABOVE ROOM CEILING slP’. - ,—B

ANHYDRITE “a”= CLAY HANHYDRITE “b”= CLAY GROOM CEILING— f ROOM 7

—— —.— . —— E_ —— —— l-f--l x? 3.73m

ROOM FLOOR

%;

1.40

BOREHOLE S1P72 REFERENCE POINT 5.,3 ~

1.50

6“ oo&

;,--oi S1P72

“&

2.33 m

2.25

4.56

I

3.18 3.21 ——

m

——

——

m m

-t’

S1P71-B DEPTHS BELOW ROOM FLOOR

VERTICAL DEPTHS BELOW S1P72 REFERENCE POINT

EAST

WEST

1

+F&-l-l&==ETER

9.75 m 9.80 m 10.15m——————

Figure 5-3.

Schematic

———J—J

illustration

of boreholes

SlP71,

Panel 1.

38

SlP72and

SlP73

in Room 7 ofWaste

PLAN VIEW

b

kl===N.1 IT

CORE-STORAGE

T

IBRARY

E

E

m I-

o -i -t —N-

Ih *

-L W. 90 DRIFT

SCHEMATIC

(NOT

CROSS

To sCALE)

SECTION

cORE-sTORAGE “BRARy~

DEPTHS BELOW SCPO1 REFERENCE POINT

‘~

‘ETERS Figure 5-4.

Schematic

illustration

NORTHEAST

SOUTHWEST

of borehole SCPOl

39

inthecore-storage

libray

40

6.

INTERPRETATION

METHODOLOGY

AND OBJECTIVES

Both analytical and numerical methods were used

analytical

to interpret the hydraulic

in this

Papadopulos

of the

tests can be interpreted

report.

tests discussed

These methods and the objectives

interpretations

are

discussed

Section 6.2 summarizes underlying

in Section

Section

experimental

parameters

test interpretations

as a function

6.3

the values of material properties

Lehman

and

Pressure-buildup

storage

and how those values were

those of Gringarten

et al. (1979).

Methods

of hydraulic

can

tests is essentially

flow

by Jacob

wells with wellbore

presented

inverse problem.

Constant-pressure

using type curves based

needed as input in the

Interpretive

and

an

During a hydraulic test, one or

and

tests can be

using standard analytical solutions for

the derivations

Interpretation

Bredehoeft

of time developed

(1952).

interpreted

determined.

6.1

by

(1960).

on an analytical solution for the decay in flow rate

the major assumptions

the test interpretations.

discusses

6,1.

solution

of the analytical

in Appendix

also

and skin, such as

be

Details about solutions

are

B. All three types of tests

interpreted

simulations.

Brief

application

of the analytical

using

numerical

discussions solutions

the

and about

more known stresses are applied to the system

the numerical

being studied, and the responses

tests discussed in this report are presented below.

are measured.

Interpretation

of inferring the properties measured

responses.

properties

cannot

As noted

by Gringarten

increasing applied

the

a unique

and

types

provides

conditions, solutions

PULSE

of stresses

an increase

in

a

the

variety number

of of

different viable

TESTS.

the

test

response

cuwes

testing

techniques, checking

providing and

Both analytical used.

interpretation

of a shut-in pressure

and numerical

Pressure-pulse

“shut-in” interpreted

or

“modified”

interval

pulse (Appendix

to construct

using

to an B), and

a family of type

to be used for pulse-test

interpretation

(Figure 6-1 ). Each type curve represents a plot of

alternative

x-axis

pressure change, H/H.

a linear y-axis for a specific

in this report

the opportunity

cross-validation

and Papadopulos

one lumped parameter, i3, on a logarithmic

The three types of tests discussed

of

solution to describe

versus the normalized

to

types

METHOD FOR PRESSUREBredehoeft

used that solution

or

can be greatly reduced.

are amenable

different

(1980) derived an analytical

instantaneous

gained from the measured responses.

for

the

the

are also presented.

6.1.1 ANALYTICAL

test.

however,

By solving the inverse problem simultaneously iteratively

of

used to interpret

set of

from a single

et al. (1979),

objectives

interpretations

of the system from its

be inferred

number

The

of the test consists

Typically,

to a system

information

of the system

techniques

about

on

value of a second

lumped parameter, a, where o and /3 are given by:

different for cross-

among methods

rrr,2S

a=Vwc,t

results. can be

(6-1 )

pw g

tests (also referred to as slug

tests)

using type curves developed

can

be

B=

from an

41

rrTt Vwc,z/)w

(6-2) g

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 To ().5 > 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

,..4

,.-1

,.-2

,.-3

102

10

1

B

Figure 6-1. Type curves for pressure-pulse

where:

H

axis.

= change from pretest pressure at

If the analysis is to be performed

the data plot is placed

time t, M/LT2 HO

= pulse change in pressure, M/LT2

and translated

r,

= radius of well, L

the x-axes

s=

storativiiy,

T=

transmissivii,

tests.

match

dimensionless

in the x direction,

overlapping,

between

plot

while keeping

until the best possible

the data and one of the type

curves is obtained.

L2/1

manually,

over the type-curve

In this position,

an arbitrary

t

= time since pressure pulse, T

match

Vw

= volume

values oft and Bare read from the data and type-

of water

within

shut-in

curve

interval or test zone, L3 Ce

= compressibility

of

P.

= density of water, M/L’

test

point

plots,

procedure

zone,

is chosen

and the corresponding

respectively.

The curve-matching

can also be carried out on a computer.

LT2/M

9=

gravitational

acceleration,

The transmissivii

L/T’

calculated

(~

of the tested

from the following

interval

rearrangement

is of

Pulse-test data are plotted as elapsed time (t)on

Eq. 6-2, using the t and /3 values from the match

a logarithmic

point:

x-axis versus H/HO on a linear y-

42

by wellbore-storage ~=vwcupwgf3

(6-3)

information

flr Using

petroleum

consistent

on formation

and

provide

properties.

Atso, as can

test-zone

for dimensionally

units, Eq. 6-3 can be written as: VWC.JJ$

(6-4)

compressibility

proportional

error

Interpretation

of constant-pressure

pressure-buildup

nt

results

knowledge

in interpreted

tests

does

of test-zone

in

k

= permeability,

h

= test-interval

thickness,

= fluid viscosity,

P

in

useful

L2

transmissivity. flow tests and

not

depend

compressibility.

obtaining

transmissivity

L

rough

on

Despite tests are

estimates

of

in a relatively short period of time

that can then be used to design

M/LT

of

linearly

their limitations, however, pressure-pulse where:

little

be seen from Eq. 6-3, error in the estimation

terminology

kh =

effects

more definitive

tests. and other symbols are as defined above. ANALYTICAL

6.1.2 Pressure-pulse

tests are conducted

METHODS

CONSTANT-PRESSURE

because they

FOR

FLOW TESTS.

represent the fastest, simplest technique available

and Lehman

to

solution to interpret constant-pressure

flow tests

in the field of groundwater

(Appendix

estimate

media.

transmissivity

Equipment

in

low-permeability

requirements

and,

hence,

costs are small relative to other types of tests.

B).

However, of the tests discussed

1980;

pressure-pulse

in this report, the

to analytic interpretation.

In the petroleum Uraiet

Economides

tests are the tests least amenable

(1952) provided

Jacob

Ramey,

than

dimensionless

antecedent

buildup

conditions

pressure-pulse antecedent

tests,

non-ideal

have more of an effect on

test responses.

conditions

interpretation considered

and

Such non-ideal

in fact precluded

1981),

Test

data

tests

in this report.

are then

and

by a type versus

on a log-log

qD,

Ehlig-

Jacob

time, f~, plotted

flow rate,

graph

(Figure

6-2).

elapsed

flow time, t, versus flow rate, q, on a

similarly scaled graph.

analytic

of many of the pressure-pulse

1980;

Lehman’s (1952) solution is represented

Because pressure-pulse

curve of dimensionless

flow

(e.g., Fetkovich,

Raghavan,

tests involve less of a stress on the tested system do

hydrology

literature

and and

the first analytical

plotted

as

The data can be matched

to the type curve manually

by placing

the data

plot on top of the type-curve

plot, and shifting the

data plot, keeping both sets of axes parallel, until from a pressure-

the data

overlie

pulse test also tends to be less definitive than that

possible.

The cuwe-ftiing

derived from a constant-pressure

carried out on a computer.

The transmissivity

pressure-buildup radii

interpreted

test.

of influence

Therefore,

flow

or buildup

changes in permeability

than

are

Pressure responses in low-permeability

the

cuwe

as much

procedure

as

can also be

Pulse tests have smaller Once a match is obtained,

tests.

selected

pulse tests may be more sensitive to

drilling-induced borehole

than

flow test or a

the type

other

types

and the coordinates

around a

read on both plots.

of tests.

product calculated

observed during pulse tests media may also be dominated

43

an arbitraty

point is

of that point are

The permeability-thickness

(transmissivity)

of the tested

from the following

equation:

interval is

102

-

1

1 1 1 11111

1

I 1 1 1111[

I

1 I

1 1 1 1111

1

1 1 1 11111

1

1 1 1 11111

1

I 1 8 11111

1

1 1 1 11111

1

1 1 11

1 I ! 1 11111

1

1 1 1 11111

1

1 1 1 11111

1

t ! 1 11111

1

1 [ 181111

I

1 1 1 111L

1

n G

10

:

w 3 0 II fn (n a) 1

? 0 .— (/Y c

? .— n

,.-1

1

I

t 111111

,.-4

111111

,.-3

,.-2

,.-1

103

102

Dimensionless

Flow

Figure 6-2. Type curves for radial constant-pressure

flow.

deviate from the type curve. kh =

‘p 2WJ.%-PJ

(6-5)

104

Tim~O(t~)

the flow test

Once the effects of

reach the boundary,

a constant-

pressure (or increased permeability) where:

k

=

permeability,

boundary will

cause the flow rate to stabilize, and a no-flow (or

L2

boundary

will cause the

q=

flow rate at match point on data

flow rate to decrease more rapidly than predicted

plot, L3/1

by the type curve.

qD

=

L

permeability)

test-interval

P=

thickness,

decreased

h=

fluid viscosity,

M/LT

dimensionless

flow rate at match

Uncertainty transmissivity

point on type curve PI

=

pti

.

initial

pressure

or inaccuracy

before

curves

poor

constant

at which well

of a type-cuwe

(non-uniqueness)

match typically

data become available. boundaries

constant-pressure

primarily

between the data and the type curve.

flowed, M/LT2

If hydraulic

arises

began, M/LT2 pressure

definition

are encountered

transmissivity

during

duration

flow testing, flow-rate data will

44

of

from matching of constant-pressure

flow data to type

flow

in the estimation

increases.

of the match

decreases A

Definition

improves as more

Therefore,

generally

from

secondary

uncertainty

in

as the test source

of

uncertainty

in

uncertainty

transmissivity

acting as a line source, with no weilbore or skin. Gringarten

in the driving pressure differential (see

Eq. 6-5).

When a constant-pressure

only one in a sequence initial pressure

before flow begins

throughout

the formation

began.

distribution

solution when

they devised a new set of type curves for flow-

tests, the

(D,) may be

and

buildup-test

interpretation

Each type cuwe

pressure that existed

(Appendix

is characterized

versus t~C~

value of C~e2 and is plotted as

a

on a log-log graph (Figure 6-3), where:

transient

pressure

B).

by a distinct

before the sequence of

When

storage

et al. (1979) included wellbore

storage and skin in their analytical

flow test is

of hydraulic

different from the stabilized

tests

is

estimation

pD

already exists within a formation at the

start of a constant-pressure

CD =

flow test, the driving

If this additional

transient

is ignored, the transmissivity

=

s

in addition to that caused by the flow

test itself.

wellbore-storage

coefficient

pressure differential will include another transient component

dimensionless

component

estimate may be in

dimensionless

wellbore

skin

P.

=

dimensionless

pressure change

tD

=

dimensionless

elapsed time

error by a factor not greater than the percentage difference

between

the

pressure

Test data are plotted

difference

as pressure

change,

Ap,

between the actual initial pressure and the flowing

versus elapsed flow time, t, on a log-log graph of

pressure and the pressure difference between the

the same scale as the type curves.

pre-test

be matched to a type curve manually by placing

stabilized

pressure

and

the

flowing

The data can

pressure. However, transient pressure conditions

the data plot on top of the type-cuwe

existing at the start of a constant-pressure

shifting the data plot, keeping

test may also affect flow

the quality

between

the

data

because

the analytical

and solution

flow

of the match

the

type

both sets of axes

parallel, until the best match possible is obtained

curve,

underlying

plot and

between

the data and one of the type curves.

After a match

the

is obtained,

an arbitrary

point is

type curve assumes stabilized pressure conditions

selected

at the start of the test.

read on both plots.

Using the ordinate values for

the

(the

Again, the significance

this problem correlates with the magnitude

of

of the

and the coordinates

match

point

of that point are

pressure

the

difference between the assumed and actual initial

permeability-thickness

pressure differentials.

the tested interval is calculated from the following

from

Estimation of transmissivity

constant-pressure

independent

flow

tests

is entirely

of test-zone compressibility

those tests do not involve transient

PRESSURE-BUILDUP

kh . .— q~ PD 2n Ap

in

the

fields

petroleum

of

groundwater

reservoir engineering

k

=

permeability,

h

=

test-interval

Many authors in

q

=

flow rate, L3/1

hydrology

P

=

fluid viscosity,

Ap

=

pressure change, M/LT2

period.

(1935), Cooper

The early

and Jacob

(1951) considered

and

have studied the

buildup of pressure in a well following rate flow

(6-6)

FOR

METHODS

TESTS.

L’ thickness,

L

M/LT

a constant-

studies

of Theis

The wellbore-storage

(1946), and Homer

only the behavior

of

because

pressures

where: ANALYTICAL

(transmissivity)

equation:

the test zone.

6.1.3

product

match),

calculated

of a well

coefficient

from the abscissa values of the match

point (the time match) as: 45

(C) can then be

I

I

r

1

I

1

,

1

1

4

r

I

I

I

r

1

A

1060 .

PRESSURE TVPECURVES PRESSURE-DERIVATIVE TYPECURVES

1040 1020 1010 ,04

101 -

102

\\

@-

~loo

100 –

0

z a ,

10-1( ‘1 10-1

1 1

1

I

,

1

,

,

100

I

4

,

,

I

t

I

1

I

1o~

1 (33

102

101

DIMENSIONLESSTIME GROUP,~ co

Figure 6-3.

Pressure and pressurederiiative

type cuwes for wells with wellbore

effective ~ .

2J7kht

(6-7)

well bore

radius

storage and skin.

(rc) by the following

equation:

fl(wcl) (6-9)

r. =rw e-’ The apparent wellbore

skin (s) can be calculated

using the value of C~e* for the type curve that

Although

matched the data and the value of CD determined

was developed

from the following

well

equation:

CD=

c 2mpc, hrz

(6-8)

the solution

producing

@

= porosity,

c,

= total system compressibility,

rw

= wellbore

for the drawdown at a constant

extended

to analysis

following

a constant-rate

linear superposition the continuing

where:

of Gringarten

drawdown

response following

LT2/M

by subdividing

radius, L

flow

response rate,

it can

of a be

pressure

buildup

period

through

of the buildup

can be further extended

dimensionless

of the

et al. (1979)

response.

response

on

The solution

to apply to the buildup

a constant-pressure

the constant-pressure

flow test flow period

into a number of shorter periods having constant, Note that calculation knowledge (equivalent density).

of the porosity-compressibility to specific Eartougher

but different, rates and using linear superposition

of the skin value requires

storage

divided

product

to combine

by fluid

This approach Economides

(1977) relates skin to an 46

the effects of all of the flow periods. was verified theoretically (1979).

by Ehlig-

The analytical is

solution of Gringarten

included

in

interpretation

the

code

analytical

solutions

Gringarten

et al.

analytical

solutions

fractured

systems,

heterogeneous well

partially

a

pressurederivative by Bourdet

These

are

permeable

the

pressure flow and buildup tests.

Fifth, we wanted

information

tested

on

whether

the

stratum

as infinite (on the scale of fully confined

or leaky, and

medium or a double-porosity

or only The

layer.

derivative

know

medium.

Estimation of transmissivity tests is independent

analysis techniques developed

The pressure

to

of the constant-

as a single-porosity

as

et al. (1989) are also included

interpret/2.

wanted

radius of influence

behaved hydraulically

radially

horizontal

we

testing) or bounded,

systems,

systems,

Fourth,

approximate

include

and leaky systems,

that

penetrate

testing.

system considered

bounded

as for wells

Scientific includes

for double-porosity

systems,

pore pressure in the tested stratum at the time of

also

(1979).

Third, we wanted to define the stabilized

well-test-

for systems other

than the infinite single-porosity by

by

interpret/2

Software-l ntercomp. numerous

interpret/2

developed

tests.

et al. (1979)

in

Instead

a

compressibility

serves

of

from pressure-buildup

of test-zone

needing

a

compressibility.

value

of

test-zone

as model input, log-log analysis of

role by providing insight into the nature

pressure-buildup

tests provides an estimate of the

of the system being tested, such as the presence

wellbore-storage

coefficient

(or absence)

test-zone compressibility

diagnostic

of hydraulic

boundaries,

leakage, or double-porosity

fractures,

selection

of an appropriate

model.

Once

particular

well

model

is selected

within

and

interpret/2,

system

the code

and pressurederivative (Figure

6-3).

data.

generates

regression

Simultaneous

type

type-cutve

pressure

data

provides

much

matching

to pressure

data alone.

log-log

type-curve

automated interpret/2

and

Horner

plots

pressure-versus-time particularly which

definitive

provides

(1951)

matching

to

results

plots.

by extrapolating a

data

and

plots

the

final

ft

to the

data

by

given by different authors as some multiple of the

to

parameter

group

(kt/@pcJ’A.

Earfougher

(1977) defines the radius of drainage

For

instance,

of a test, using S1 units, as:

are

rd = 1.786

t

=

I

kt — @per

test duration,

(6-10)

T

test and

First, we wanted to

other

parameters

Oliver (1990) examined

of the tested interval.

are

as defined

storage

contributed

to the permeability

well test.

He found

to the test-zone made during pulse 47

above.

how the properties

formation

measurements

infinite

than

Second, we wanted an estimate of the wellbore-

compressibility

to

on the nature of the

model

towards

of each pressure-buildup

to compare

plot

The radius of influence of a flow or buildup test is

where:

coefficient

the late-time

linear-linear

Homer

determine the transmissivity

is

interpret/2.

to semilog

the pressure

had five principal objectives.

Horner

Information

is stabilizing.

The interpretation

pore pressure

system tested comes from the pressurederivative

matching,

simple

time.

and the shut-in test-zone

Stabilized

on

of the

data

In addition

matching

and

useful in defining

a system

and

trend

recovety

allow

curves

pressurederivative

more

also

pressure

pressure

techniques

of the ft between

as output.

readily determined

a

type curves for that model

Built-in

optimization

volume)

effects, which aids in

(the product

at different radial distances

that

ffiy

of a

from a well

interpreted

from a

percent

of the

permeability between

information

r

=

0.67

and

(kt/@~c)%,

was

(kt/@flcJ%

less than

came

from

(kt/@pcJ%.

Both Earlougher

(19!30) ignored wellbore

the

and

one

information

formulations.

from

r

=

percent

beyond

r

different

region

=

2.34

interpret/2

boundaty two

of the model.

boundary

specific

uses

the radius of influence

limitation encountered

when interpreting

conditions

basis, depending

are indicated

pressure A

conditions

Selection

test data show boundary

of

effects

METHODS.

of the

of

either fixed pressure or zero flow at the external

storage and skin in their

NUMERICAL

remainder

GTFM can be used with assigned

well tests.

6.1.4

of the

of the

These factors would tend to reduce

Eq. 6-10 to calculate

those

formation.

1.35

(1977) and Oliver

the radius of influence of a test.

from

major

between the

is made

on a test-

on whether

or not the

effects.

If no boundary

by the test data, a fixed-

boundary

condition

distance from the borehole

is specified

such that the type of

boundary has no effect on the calculated

hydraulic

pressure

tests with analytical solutions is that actual pretest

response

conditions

specified distance

is verified by ensuring that the

that

pressure

in the

node

For this reason,

pressure

boundary

do not entirely

bounda~

conditions

match

and initial conditions

undertie the analytical

solutions.

a

capable

numerical

complex

model

pretest

bounda~

borehole

conditions

of

@raph

~heoretic

Pickens

et al.,

1987),

simulates

of a single-phase,

discretized

flow system.

the

center

The problem

by dividing the radial-flow

a series

of concentric

borehole,

with each ring represented

A constant multiplicative the

spacing

distance

between

from

simulations

the

formation

with

may have single

also

zone

tests,

test-zone

as from

formation

flow

tests.

The

responses

variations

test-equipment-

in the

selected radial distances

in

to

cumulative estimated

The skin zone may have properties

48

the

borehole

changes in the test and/or test-zone

production hydraulic

and

from the borehole.

model can also calculate formation

and may

are

The model can

pressure

changes

tests

The model output consists of simulated

pressure

Formations

borehole-

consecutive

from temperature

as well

volume.

boundary

specified

specified

of

formation-induced

simulate the presence of a “skin” zone adjacent to the borehole.

(inner)

in the simulations.

incorporate

resulting

increasing

include a single radially centered heterogeneity

wellbore

effects

incorporated

by a node.

with vertically

porosity,

has

conditions,

cumulative

on the

250 radial

or double

by the test

as part of the

rates, and slug-injection/withdrawal

system into

in this report,

properties.

In cases

which can be used to simulate pulse-

pressure

The model assumes that the

hydraulic

over

to the boundary

selected and f~ed

injection/withdrawal

is

For the

model

conditions

of the

(borehole).

has a constant thickness

homogeneous

The

applied

domain

centered

nodes

fiied-

test interpretation.

~odel;

factor is used to increase

origin

presented

nodes were used.

rings

the

node does not change

effects are indicated

are parameters

model

to

of the

hydraulic

conditions

at the

adjacent

data, the type of and distance

onedimensional,

radial-flow regime to boundary located

Held

The adequacy

of the test simulation.

where boundary

and variable

The numerical

GTFM

modeled

the duration

with

was also used to interpret

chosen,

at a borehole

dealing

history

the Salado hydraulic tests.

response

the idealized

in the borehole.

at a

at The

flow rates and

based on the formation’s

properties.

The primary

input parameters

the formation’s conductivity,

hydraulic

properties

parameters),

(density, compressibility, coefficient),

test-zone

fluid

if used, skin properties

(radius, length,

and

all of the input parameters

specific

storage).

compressibility

assigned

as discussed

Different combinations are then

investigated

observed

below

in Section

6.3.2.

by creating comparing

pressure

combination.

The graphical

individual

sequence.

and

tests

or

of

pressures

in

the

formation

of

or ftiing GTFM

be

used,

pressure-recovery

periods

constant-pressure

flow tests. Model output during

pulse sequences

consists

entire

testing

to

procedure

be

however,

is entirely

and pulse withdrawals; periods

of transient

and formation,

of

within to

GTFM.

a

test

or

accomplished distance

perform

testing

to the external effects

defining

into

sequences.

by the

apparent

during

which

from

in the model

pressure at the end as the criterion

a best-fti

for

A one-percent

simulation

is readily

plots and would ordinarily

to try to achieve a better fit.

borehole

in the model are referred

A complete

to as history

History sequences were

appropriate

used to represent:

the

induce the analyst to alter the model parameters

wellbore

pressures are prescribed sequences.

is

in this report, a change of

established

in simulation

This

decreasing

boundary

the radius of influence.

deviation

in effect during those time

Sequences

pressures

alter the test simulation.

For the tests discussed

in this report,

called

are differentiated

periods.

following

as well as

sequence.

by successively

until boundary

with a particular

presented

intervals,

conditions

and (3)

GTFM can be used to define a radius of influence

evaluations

the individual testing periods were subdivided

Sequences

individual

(recovery)

of a test was

boundary

following

one percent in the simulated

time

Pulse sequences

(1) periods immediately

pressure-buildup

simulation.

discrete

are

log-log plots

considered

associated

For the interpretations

equilibrating,

the

pulse injections

studies to obtain an estimate

of the uncertainty

and

can

are available

parameter-sensitivity

are

zone

comparisons

That is, no goodness-of-ft

can

test

of the actual formation

The matching

algorithms

pore pressures.

each

flow rates.

subjective.

Model

consists of flow

after test zones were shut in for the first time; (2)

pressure

parameters.

sequences

for

the

are

history

referred to as pulse sequences.

in both the test zone

estimates

flow tests.

during which a test zone is shut in,

responses that most closely match the observed responses

for

were used to represent:

The parameters yielding the simulated

representative

the

and (3) test-zone

constant-pressure

specified

surrounding

the simulated

responses

involve linear-linear, semilog, and/or of

a matrix

during

Sequences

of the hydraulic propefiies

values and graphically and

and

pressures

pressures;

formation and transient formation

are fixed. Values for determined

test-zone

affected

rates between the test zone and the surrounding

except

are

observed

pressures,

output during history sequences

hydraulic (and skin) properties

and test-zone compressibility

packer

such as

are taken directly from the DAS records.

For test

interpretation,

in

The pressures

and,

(radial thickness, hydraulic

conductivity,

for the formation’s

changes

properties

contained fluid volume, and compressibility),

the period

(2) time periods when external factors,

and thermal-expansion

parameters

during

between drilling and initial shut-in of the test zone;

(hydraulic

pore pressure, and specific storage

or its constituent

test-zone

(often zero, or atmospheric)

to GTFM include

description boundary

of the

conditions,

methodology, and governing

equations of GTFM can be found in Pickens et al.

(1) the pressure in a test zone 49

(1987).

GTFM was verified

results to analytical

its

environments,

solutions for pulse tests, slug

tests, constant-pressure flow-rate

by comparing

pumping

flow tests, and constant-

compelling

tests (Pickens et al., 1987).

6.2 Assumptions

Used in Test

“Darcy

floti

Other

or

usually refer to a flow system in which

the

rate

hydraulic

gradient.

linear

observation

known

as Darcy’s

used in hydraulic-test

the flow

found

systematic

assume

in

studies

Darcy’s

ranges of hydraulic

Darcy’s

conductivities

Data from

the order of 10< m/s.

of

(1927)

between

performed

of information

performed an

discussed

permeability determinations

of hydraulic

could

hydraulic

gradients

determinations

of hydraulic

than 1010 m/s

involved

and 1,000,000. Darcy’s situations

law

He concluded remains

where

to

hydraulic

find

be

between

atmospheric

less than one, as are commonly

conditions,

both

existed

was

high

and

not

but in

hydraulic

where

high

in borehole

SCPO1 in a test zone

pressure.

A

12-MPa

at

pressure

differential over a distance of 10.7 m corresponds

demonstrated

Pressure differentials

4 MPa were typically

between 1 and

induced for each pressure-

pulse test, creating high pressure gradients in the

low-

immediate

no

vicinities

Hydraulic

less

reported

with

in this report working

in

hypothesis

are much

interpretations

found in natural

50

Under

cannot

assumed

resulted

boreholes.

Salado

evaporites

these

conditions,

be considered

interpretation

hypothesis.

test

et al. (1991) are generally

1011 m/s.

Nevertheless,

100

the of

by Beauheim

Darcian behavior

less

of

conductiviiies

less than

that the validity of

gradients

report

lying only 10.7 to 15.4 m from an excavation

In addition, all

conductivities

gradients

in this

where

already

was measured

review

conducted

less than one.

by

to a hydraulic gradient of about 94 (m of brine per

conductivities

than 104 m/s from experiments

and charged

For example, a shut-in pressure of nearty 12 MPa

on

gradients

to flow through He

of the

interactions

hydraulic gradients were created during the tests.

between

a comprehensive

media.

causes

effects in very small

under low-gradient

environment

gradients

conditions.

pertaining

gradients

to flow caused

or surface-tension

m distance). Neuzil (1986) performed

Possible

include electrical

and resistance

The testing

of

1.9 and 19, that Darcy’s law is not valid

under those high-gradient

1982) have

pores.

this

Davis et al.

with hydraulic

gradients

capillarity

support

conductiviiies

Conversely,

no flow occurs.

clay particles

law.

1962;

media with small pores below

between polarized water molecules

the

(1992) adduce evidence from Darcy’s (1856) own experiments,

(e.g., SwaRzendruber,

that there may be threshold

threshold

over wide

law over a range of gradients

0.0009 and 0.05 for hydraulic

which

the

and hydraulic

Stearns

valid

law.

of the validity

Darcy’s law have not been performed

gradients.

researchers

for low-permeability

analyses to

of groundwater

proportionality

However,

to

by Darcy (1856) formed

basis for what is today

describe

proportional

The empirical

this proportionality

Most equations

evidence that Darcy’s law is M

suggested

“Darcian

behavior”

is linearly

are

he could find no

Pascal, 1981; Remson and Gorelick,

expressions

flow

conductiviiies

However,

under those conditions.

Analysis The

and hydraulic

less than 10-9 m/s.

a given.

of the tests discussed Darcian

The extent in

is discussed

behavior to which

acceptable in Section 7.2.2.

as a this test

In analyzing report,

each of the tests discussed

radius of a circle with the same perimeter as the

in this

ellipse, and calculating

we assumed that the only factor causing

transient

pressure

and flow responses

pressure disequilibrium surrounding

induced

Transient

sequence. ongoing excavations,

by

excavations,

responses

creep

of

by dilation

other deformation

caused

halite

processes,

the

averaging

towards

the

intermediate

changes

in hydraulic

pressures

during

However,

because

performed

around

cause

excavations

years old, residual

gave

and that the axisthe

recommend

refinement of the axis-averaging

were

an effective circular borehole

the

I

pore

1 + 1/ Cos%w + }sinzow

sequences. tests were all

h

responses

due to

effects were assumed to be occurring

k,

=

vertical permeability

on time scales much longer than the hydraulic

k,

=

horizontal

processes

not affecting

where:

An inability to simulate an entire adequately

of vertical

responses.

to horizontal

also

assumed

borehole through

our initial working model

cylindrical

flow

a continuous

towards

method of calculating

radii

slanted

of

this report

were drilled

at acute angles to the

transmissivity,

passing

through

considered

a

horizontal

as an equivalent

simplify test interpretation. (1981) compared

cylindrical

borehole

plane

circular

can

opening

That

storativity.

test has no effect on the interpreted but does

affect

In the definition

the

interpreted

of dimensionless

be

(see Eq. B-22 in Appendix B), storativiiy

to

compressibility-thickness

Kuc(ik and Brigham

product)

time

(porosity-

appears

with

the borehole radius squared in the denominator.

several methods of determining

effective circular radii of elliptical openings.

report.

the

The value for borehole radius used in analyzing a

The elliptical opening

inclined

in this

for

circular radius.

hydraulic

an

used

in

vertical flow components. by

presented

effective circular

was

which k, goes to zero, and results in a maximum

porous medium.

bedding, which may have resulted in elliptical and

created

holes

the axis-

method represents the limiting case of Eq. 6-11 in

the

In reality, three of the six boreholes considered

permeability,

averaging

interpretations For all tests considered,

(radial) permeability

in the absence of prior knowfedge about the ratio

might indicate that

affecting the observed

slant from vertical

the hydraulic-

such as these that are not included in

GTFM ~

1

(6-11)

borehole

testing sequence

following

radius (rW’):

=

test responses.

and

that were several

transient

tests and, therefore,

at

method to define

Ow

excavation

results

Abbaszadeh

and late time. (1990)

best

These

and/or

testing

the hydraulic

method

method gave the

progressive

properties

long

led to the greatest

at early time,

Hegeman

related to the rock

could

results

around

in the test interpretations.

if acting,

best

of the rock, or by any

mechanisms

method

They concluded

errors, that the perimeter-based

by

response to the presence of the excavations not considered

that the area-based

by the testing

redistribution

stress

the same area as the ellipse.

was the

between the borehole and

formation

the radius of a circle with

Thus, any combination

They

squared

examined averaging elliptical axes, calculating the

having the same product

identical well behavior.

51

of storativity

and radius will result in

Error in the estimation

of

one term, therefore, in the estimation uncertainty

translates

in the exact effective

estimation

of storativity

inherently

less

distance

fraction

than

in which

between

the

an anisotropy

borehole

inclined

the uncertainty

an

isotropic

permeability

tests is

estimation

examined

the

horizontal

slanted

hole

permeable

fully

layer

in the

less and

of the

late-time

pseudo-radial-flow

phase

effects

As

of

upper and lower boundaries. pressure

response

constant-rate phases:

flow an

transition

an

in a slanted

hole during

period

through

early-time

goes

radial-flow

During

phase, data plotted

the

a

of tests

intervals.

As

for

appropriate

radial-flow

is the

interpretations conducted

in

present in the in all GTFM

equivalent by

the

test

6-12,

the

approximation

of the tested strata.

anisotropy sections

vertical

Eq.

vertical

on the anisotropy

Evidence

the

the holes as if they were

shown of

obsenmd

which

The actual fluid volumes

depends

a

pseudo-radial-

early-time

in this report

reasonableness

three

phase,

the

involving

vertical

hole.

approximation,

simulations

as

less from

slanted test intervals were specified

impermeable

(such

horizontal

phase

in a vertical

holes treated

vertical.

a

They found that the

phase, and a late-time

phase.

the case

penetrated

with

to

the first radial-flow

observed

a

as

relative

hole differs

slanted

flow

decreases

permeability,

flow and buildup tests. They considered a

Thus,

system.

makes

inclined only 23°

in a slanted

presented

which

vertical

from

borehole inclination on pressure responses during

in

from

in

holes is a small fraction

(1975)

77”

of 0.01

of that radius,

only phase

et al.

ratio

SCPO1) behave like a borehole

distance.

Cinco

instance,

radius of any

from single-hole

reliable

tests

into error

Because

of the other.

hole may be a significant

multihole

directly

is discussed

of

Chapter

in the

7 for

each

relevant test.

as pressure versus log time

define a straight line having a slope proportional to

the

(vertical)

formation

permeability-thickness

multiplied

the late-time pseudo-radial-flow is proportional

Ow’ represents compensates

for

the

borehole

presence

between vertical and horizontal borehole

O: = tan-’

By

Eq.

6-12,

permeability

as

the

ratio decreases,

around

slanted

those

observed

of anisotropy The

holes

become

around

vertical

similar

holes.

axes.

thicknesses of the tested by averaging

To evaluate the potential

with these geometrical

numerical

modeling

The

studies

used

idealized

interpretation were

studies the

errors

idealizations,

were

performed.

finitedifference

code

in three dimensions.

geometries

used

were also modeled,

compared

dimensional

responses

more

thicknesses

as

SWIW II (Reeves et al., 1986) to model hydraulic

vertical-to-horizontal pressure

intervals

having

testing in slanted boreholes

(6-12)

tan tlw

sections

associated

These

[r 1 ~

cylindrical

elliptical

slant is given by:

k,

treated

strata, and effective radii calculated

slant that

permeability.

of the tests conducted the test

holes

equal to the vertical

just as if the hole were vertical. an apparent

In summary, interpretations in slanted vertical

phase, this slope

only to the permeability-thickness

of the formation,

apparent

of the

by the factor cos (lw’. During

to those

simulations.

from

insignificant

For

52

effects

on

test

and the results the fully three-

The general conclusions

of the study are that: 1) slant angles to

for

test

results

s 15° have for

any

magnitude

of anisotropy;

30°, idealized behavior

vertical

geometries

well for any

the

slant

>45°,

behavior

vertical-to-horizontal

match

magnitude

and 3) at slant angles match

2) at slant angles

up to

therefore, pressures

the slant

geometries

well as long

permeability

over

represent the

the average

entire

tested

pore

intervals.

Treating these average pressures as if they were

of anisotropy;

vertical

probably

uniformly

distributed

thicknesses

as the

ratio is s 0.1.

over the tested

is not expected

1- to 2-m

to lead to significant

errors in test interpretation.

Full details of the modeling studies are presented in Appendix

C, and their application

test interpretations

is discussed

to individual

Other assumptions

in the appropriate

specific to the interpretation

individual tests are discussed in Section 7.1 under

sections of Chapter 7.

the headings of the individual tests.

Another assumption

6.3

made for test interpretation

was that the pore pressure was static (constant longitudinally

in each test horizon

to

the

borehole

invariant before drilling began. limited

number

of

holes

that

under the floor and in the roof of an

excavation

are less than the pressures under and

over the

ribs

The

(walls).

resulting

and/or

excavations.

These gradients

over

time

longer

hydraulic tests. the hydraulic relatively

scales

horizon,

those

of

tests may be superimposed

static

pressure

field.

distribution

over time within

our initial assumption

began.

data on pressure distributions twodimensional

modeling

atmospheric longitudinal

pressure pressure the

to

the

gradients

test

brine.

system

excavations

at

should

present.

The pressures observed during testing,

modulus,

being tested, and the viscosity, of

the

and thermaltest-zone

elastic

and

moduli,

and

are used to calculate

the

and are combined

Brine viscosity

(cJ

used

in

with brine density

is required to convert

conductivity

and permeability.

coefficient

the effects of variations in test-zone

temperatures

on test-zone

test

expansion

zones,

such

thermal-expansion

53

in GTFM.

of other materials present as

is neglected

coefficients

pressures

stainless-steel

tool

because the thermal-

of these materials are all

more than an order of magnitude

be

of brine is used

to incorporate

components,

the test

toward

solids

compressibility

The thermal-expansion

to

intervals

methods.

modulus, and Poisson’s

Porosity,

between hydraulic

intervals,

through

must be

to calculate the specific storage of the formation

on the

excavations

parameters

the interpretive

density,

coefficient

for GTFM.

become available,

of

material

bulk modulus,

(drained

The thermal expansion proximity

of

moduli

in the

number

include the porosity and elastic

interpret/2,

was

test interpretations.

Considering

vary among

a

These properties

total

As more

evaluate the influence of this assumption

The specific properties and parameters

brine compressibility

a tested

may be performed

specified.

formation

that a single constant pressure existed throughout a tested horizon when testing

and experimental

expansion

of the

in modeling

properties

compressibility,

case,

definition

GTFM,

ratio) of the Iithology(ies)

the

on a

In any

or

shear modulus, Young’s

Thus, the pressure responses to

lacking reliable twodimensional pressure

flow to the

appear to persist

than

Used in

solutions

required

pressure

gradients may reflect an increase in pore volume above and below excavations

Parameters

To interpret hydraulic tests using either analytical

the

pressures

and

Test Interpretations

axis)

Evidence from a

indicates

Material Properties Experimental

with time), and radially and

(parallel

of

coefficient

lower than the of

brine.

Experimental

parameters

interpretation

include

important

each

test

compressibility

test

Therefore,

of

estimated

the radius and length

each test zone, the volume within

in

zone,

of everything

the

brine compressibility

is now

to be 2.7 x 1010 Pa-l, with a range of

uncertainty

of water contained and

Salado

from 2.5 x 1010 to 2.9 x 10-10 Pa-l.

aggregate

The reduction

in the estimated

each

compressibility

also resulted in a slight reduction

within

test

value

of brine

in estimated values of specific storage comparaf

zone.

to those used by Beauheim 6.3.1

MATERIAL

values

of the material

PROPERTIES.

test interpretation

necessary

for

uncertainty

estimated

to

Table 6-1.

can be reliably

within an order of magnitude

case values

Most of the

properties

values of its constituent

experimental

parameters

several orders of magnitude.

range over

However,

rather

than

as

a

EXPERIMENTAL

and ranges

of

are given in

borehole

include

and

compressibility

fixed

ranges are used only to

PARAMETERS.

The

needed

test

parameters

interpretation

because

specific storage is treated as a f~ing parameter in simulations

Base-

or less. For a given 6.3.2

parameter, the calculated

storage

for halite and anhydrite

rock type, estimates of specific storage based on

GTFM

of specific

et al. (1991).

test

the

zone

for

dimensions and

the

of each test zone.

a test zone is determined

of

the

test-specific The radius of

from the radial-LVDT

provide an initial focus for the GTFM simulations.

measurements

Beauheim

the packers are inflated, and the test zone is shut

et al.

(1991)

values and ranges input parameters, selection.

presented

base-case

in.

of values for the necessary along with rationales

These parameters

for their

made after a test tool is installed,

Test-zone

length

is determined

position of a test tool in a borehole, dimensions

and their values are

volume

shown in Table 6-1.

of the test-tool

of water

contained

includes the water contained The only parameter

whose

range differ from that given by Beauheim (1991)

is

brine

compressibility. brine

Based

calculated

from the dimensions

concentration,

gas saturation, and compressibility (1977), Beauheim

(1991) estimated

that the brine used in Salado

hydraulic

had a compressibility

testing

10’0 Pa-l, and performed a range

from

McTigue

et

calculation

et al.

(1991)

calculated

conditions

the

is

of the hole and volume

of

Beauheim et al. (1991) discuss the

of test-zone volume in greater detail.

permeability

sensitivity studies using

The volume

displacement

Test-zone compressibility

of 3.1 x

2.9 x 10-10 to 3.3 x 10-10 Pa-l. al.

of the hole.

and the known

the test tool.

a test zone

in injection and vent

on

tubing,

The

the test zone and valves

outside

dissolved-solids

knowing the

within

positioned

between

in Eariougher

between

the

components.

et al.

correlations

published

lines (tubing)

base-case value and

from

testing because,

zone, the test-zone

is an important factor in

performed

under

given the volume compressibility

shut-in of a test

governs

the

compressibilities

of six Salado brine samples from

pressure change resulting from the flow of a given

acoustic-velocity

measurements

amount of fluid into or out of the test zone.

‘C.

performed

at 25

ideal

Their values ranged from 2.40 x 1010 to 2.50

x 10-10 Paul.

As discussed

(1991), the compressibility

by Beauheim

system,

characterized

by

a

invariant test-zone volume completely

et al.

homogeneous

of brine saturated with

fluid, the test-zone

pressurefilled with a

compressibility

nitrogen could be as much as ten percent higher

would

than the compressibility

However, in real systems test-zone compressibility

of brine without

gas. 54

be equal to that

In an

of the test-zone

fluid.

Table 6-1.

Material Properties

Used in Test Interpretations*

Material

Parameter

Base-Case Value

halite

porosity

0.01

Young’s

modulus

Poisson’s

anhydrite

ratio

0.25

0.001-0.03 20.7 -36.5

GPa

0.17-0.31

drained bulk modulus

20.7 GPa

15.0 -21.7

GPa

solids modulus

23.4 GPa

22.8 -24.0

GPa

shear modulus

12.4 GPa

8.1 -15.6

specific storage

9.0 x 10”8 m-[

porosity

0.01

Young’s

modulus

Poisson’s

Salado brine

31.0 GPa

Range of Uncertainty

75.1 GPa

ratio

0.35

GPa

2.8 X 10-83.5 x 10-7 m“’ 0.001-0.03 59.0 -78.9

GPa

0.31 -0.42

drained bulk modulus

83.4 GPa

68.1 -85.0

GPa

shear modulus

27.8 GPa

21.4 -30.4

GPa

specific storage

1.3 x 10”7 m-’

density

1220 kg/m3

compressibility (gas saturated)

2.7 x 10”’0 Pa”’

2.5 X 10102.9 x 10-10Pa”’

viscosity

1.6 Cp

--

4.6 X 10”4 “C-l

--

thermal-expansion coefficient *Data and rationales in Beauheim et al. (1991)

55

9.7 x 10-82.3 x 10-7 m“’ 1200-1250

kg/m3

represents

the aggregate

compressibility

report

of the

include

fluid in a test zone and everything with which that

factors

fluid is in contact.

The fluid is in contact with the

coefficient.

metal components

of the test tool, injection and

vent tubing,

one or two packers,

these items deform test-zone

in response which

pressure,

makes

higher than the compressibility

brine

Test

alone.

further

indicate

pressure

and test-simulation

that test-zone

dependent

too

in a single

sixth

compressibil”~

factor, to

slowly

creep

affect

and was therefore

closure, test-zone

not included

Whenever fluid was injected into or removed from a test zone, the volume of fluid and the resulting

of

change

results

compressibility

in test-zone

pressure

were

From these data, the test-zone

is

was calculated

and may have a transient

measured.

compressibility

using:

~_lvw m

Neuzil (1 982) observed

test-zone

in

in

component.

a factor

due to the first fiie

the calculations.

test-zone

compressibility

The

compressibility

All of

to changes

listed above

occurs

the borehole

wall, and, in some cases, a free gas phase.

the effects

(6-13)

V,ZAP

compressibilities

of six larger than water compressibility

during pressure-pulse He evaluated responsible

the possible for

compressibilities compliance

testing of the Pierre Shale.

the

factors that could

observed

and

high

concluded

and air entrapment

most important

influences.

transmissivity

and

proportional

also emphasized

Because

assuming

that

be

compressibility.

would

vu

= test-zone volume = volume of brine

AP

=

change

in test-zone

pressure

due to withdrawal/injection

directly Neuzil

than

equal

compressibility

withdrawn/injected

Data collected from shut-in tests performed

of measuring

rather

test-zone

interpreted

compressibility,

compressibility

=

test-tool

are

test-zone

C,Z

Vw

test-zone

that

the importance

it

be

were probably the

storativiiy

to test-zone

where:

Salado indicate that test-zone

simply to

fluid

Hsieh et al. (1983) also reporl

The

in the

compressibility pressure

is

buildups

pressure

dependent.

obsemd

after shut in are not characteristic

of

ideal shut-in buildups.

Figure 6-4 shows pressure

test-zone compressibilities

a factor of five greater

data collected

testing

than water compressibility

and relate the higher

with an idealized

test-zone compressibilitiesto

test-tool compliance.

discussed buildup

Six factors that could contribute compressibilities were

identified

Beauheim

et al. (1991).

and

These include:

test-tool-component

borehole-wall

described

4) test-zone-packer

entrapped

gas or gas generated

deformation;

compressibilities

calculated

Two

2)

As

could be caused by a varying test-zone that

methods

decreased

were

instantaneous

5)

used

component

various pressures.

with

increasing

and

Test-zone

measured

change

for the tests in this

withdrawal 56

in

measure

of compressibility

the at

from the test zone

in a graduated

pressure was

to

In the first method, a discrete

volume of brine was withdrawn

in the test zone;

and 6) creep closure of the borehole.

buildup.

by

3) axial test-tool

movement;

in SCPO1 -A along

pressure

pressure.

1) non-

compressibility;

compressibility;

shut-in

in Beauheim et al. (1991), the non-ideal

compressibility

in the Salado permeability-testing

program

packer

to high test-zone

during

corresponding

measured

The

cylinder.

using

to a

the

pressure

13 ,

11

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

140

150

160

1u

L

0-

:

5

(n g n

3

1

0

l-l

i“

/ @“

~o ~c9

Shut In

Oc

comoooo

I

-1 t 80

90

Figure 6-4.

I

100

I

110 Time (1990

and

compressibility

was

then

120 Calendar

rapidly

130 Days)

test-zone

compressibility

over

and,

instantaneous

using Eq. 6-13. This method gives the

average

I

Comparison of observed SCPO1-A pressure buildup with simulated buildup using a constant test-zone compressibility,

transducer calculated

I

therefore,

capture

component

only

the

of compressibility.

the

particular pressure range used in the calculation.

Compressibility

In the second

have been made using data from tests performed

injected

method,

brine was continuously

into the test zone using a DPT panel

in the stainless-steel

(Section 3.6). The volume injected was measured by the

DPT and

change

was

transducer.

the

corresponding

measured

using

computing

the

is calculated

numerical

derivative

measured volume-versus-pressure

This

this derivative

technique

representation

gives

measuring

a

more

method.

compressibility

in

actual

pressure

calculated

pressure

constant-pressure

compliance-test

boreholes.

chamber

Compressibilities

using data from pulse withdrawals withdrawals

permeability-testing

by first

depressurization

of

completed

the

utilizing both methods

performed

sequences

and

during and

steps performed after testing was

are presented

in Table 6-2.

curve and then

by the test-zone

of compressibility

than the discrete-volume for

and

When using the continuous-injection

method, the compressibility

dividing

a

calculations

Figure

volume.

continuous

compressibilities

versus pressure

a similar

Both methods are

6-5

test-zone

57

calculated

test-zone

for L4P52-A testing and also for

test tool installed in the stainless-steel

compliance-test

performed

shows

chamber.

compressibility

This figure shows that decreases

as pressure

Table 6-2. Summary

of Test-Zone and Guard-Zone .

Compressibility

Test Sequence

Zone

Event

Initial Pressure (MPa)

Final Pressure (MPa)

Volume Produced (cm’)

Zone Fluid Volume (cm’)

L4P51 -A

guard

CPW

0.235

0.207

40

L4P51 -B

test

Pwl

4.750

3.663

test

PW2

4.829

test

CPW

guard

Information

Zone Compressibility (Pa-’)

Gas Observations

2927

4.88 X 10“7

not observable

6.2

4532

1.26 X 10-9

no record

2.784

12.0

4532

1.29 X 10-9

none

4.978

3.345

6.8

4532

9.19 x 10’0

Pwl

2.300

1.256

5.4

2908

1.78 X 10”9

none

guard

PW2

3.152

1.983

5.6

2908

1.65 X 10-9

none

guard

PI

3.249

4.469

6.9

2908

1.94 x 10”9

not observable

test

Pw

6.187

4.888

15.8

3403

3.57 x 10”9

in solution

test

CPW

6.162

3.957

18.1

3403

2.41 X 10”9

not observable

test

DP1

0.829

0.710

9.7

3403

2.40 X 104

none

test

DP2

0.710

0.497

24.6

3403

3.39 x 10-8

in solution

test

DP3

0.499

0.389

22.4

3403

5.98 X 10-8

in solution

test

DP1

3.898

2.596

6.8

4418

1.18 x10-9

no record

test

DP2

1.679

0.338

8.6

4418

1.45 x 10-9

no record

guard

DP1

4.120

2.804

155

2813

4.19X

in solution

guard

DP2

2.830

1.436

405

2813

1.03 x 10“7

free gas

test

Pwl

1.184

0.832

1379.6

5009

7.82 X 10”7

in solution

test

PW2

1.211

0.038

3085

5009

5.25 X 10-7

free gas

test

CPW2

0.912

0.670

975

5009

8.04 X 10“7

free gas

test

DP

0.677

0.665

46

5009

7.65 X 10-7

in solution

guard

DP1

3.175

2.243

5

2522

2.13x109

in solution

guard

DP2

2.377

1.475

5.25

2522

2.31 X 10-9

in solution

guard

DP3

1.656

0.667

5.5

2522

2.21 x 10-9

in solution

guard

DP4

1.392

0.039

9.5

2522

2.78 X 10”9

in solution

test

Pwl

4.070

3.158

4.1

3868

1.16 x10-9

no record

test

PW2

4.163

3.147

9.4

3868

2.39 X 10-9

none

test

CPW

4.237

2.892

10.4

3868

2.00 x 109

not observable

1

L4P52-A

S1P71-B

S1 P72-A

S1 P73-B

10-8

not observable

Table 6-2. Summary

of Test-Zone and Guard-Zone

Gas Observations

Event

Initial Pressure (MPa)

Final Pressure (MPa)

S1 P73-B

test

DP1

2.913

2.099

11.9

3868

3.78 X 10”9

none

test

DP2

2.133

1.417

15.8

3868

5.71 x 10-9

none

test

DP3

1.484

0.858

35.2

3868

1.01 x 108

none

test

DP4

0.876

0.261

95.1

3868

4.00 x 10”8

in solution

guard

Pw

2.098

1.405

57

2637

3.12 X 10”8

free gas

guard

DP1

1.640

1.044

100

2637

6.36 X 10-8

in solution

guard

DP2

1.058

0.385

395

2637

2.23 X 10-7

in solution

guard

DP3

0.401

-0.040

865

2637

7.44 x 10”7

in solution

test

Pwl

10.860

8.833

46

8734

2.60 X 10”9

in solution

test

PW2

11.130

7.009

76

8734

2.11 x 10-9

no record

test

CPW1

11.032

8.458

38.1

8734

1.69 X 10”’

not observable

test

CPW2

11.381

8.260

32.7

8734

1.12 x 10-9

not observable

test

DP1

11.818

8.419

42

8734

1.41 x 10-9

in solution

test

DP2

8.882

4.292

57

8734

1.42 X 10”9

in solution

test

DP3

5.155

0.133

121

8734

2.76 X 10-9

in solution

guard

DP1

2.260

1.472

32

2454

1.65 X 10”8

in solution

guard

DP2

1.478

0.775

75

2454

4.35 x 10”8

in solution

guard

DP3

0.775

0.121

500

2454

3.12 X 10”7

in solution

withdrawal

59

Zone Compressibility (Pa-’)

(Continued)

Zone

Key: CPW = constant-pressure PW = pulse withdrawal PI = pulse injection DP = depressurization

Zone Fluid Volume (cm’)

Information

Test Sequence

SCPO1-A

Volume Produced (cm’)

Compressibility

10
3.5

6.0 X 10’3

8.0 X 10m

1,25x

10”’

5.12

>4.2

1.06

..

..

0.08

Skin Factor

>3.25

0.03

6.4x

Pore Preeaure

1.4X 10’4

1.8x

102’

9.2 X 10”

..

0.15

4.08

-.

none

4

0 0

0.06

X10’*

-

PW2

type cuNe

3.7 x 10 ‘3

4.9x

-

0.17

2.2 x 10’2

2.9

CPW

type curve

1.3X 10’3

1.8x10m

-

0.17

7.6 X 10’3

1.1 x 10’9

-

PB

interpret/2

3.7 x 10’3

4.9x

-

0.17

2.2 x 10’2

2.9 X 10’0

-

4.29

-0.08

2

all

GTFM

3.7 x 10”3

4.9 x lom

1.7 x 108

0.17

2.2 x 10’2

2.9x

1.OX 105

4.37

none

3

SI

Homer

-0.62

5

CPW2 typecuNe PB2

Keynr

6.4x

..

--

0.10

Formation

(M?a)

1.04

guard

S1P71-B

-

5.1 x lo~’

Average specific

interpret/2

10”N

lom

10’0

2s5

1.05

4.3 x 10’3 3.8

X 10’3

5.8 X 10m

-

0.98

4.5 x 10’3

6.0 X 10m

-

5.1 x lo~

-

0.96

4.0 x 10’3

5.3 x Iom

-

12.40

none 5,5 x 10’3 7.4 x lom 1.95X 107 12.55 7.1 x lo~ 1.9 x 10” Stl 0.86 GTFM 5.3 x 10’3 .. . . . -. ., , -. .. . , —, .— –. A“, ., ———..-— . ———.—---- . ..> L-I___ . .. ---= pressure+mllaup test; 31 = srrut-m pressure txulaup; rw = pulse-wmorawal IesI; w-w = consIanI-pressure wnrwrawal LeSl

12

L4P51–A TEST–TOOL CONFIGURATION

BOREHOLE: L4P51 TEST TOOL: #3

BOREHOLE

DATE: 10/23/89 DEPTH OF HOLE: 4.75m.

STRATIGRAPHY

MAP UNIT O - HALITE WITH

ISOLATED

BLEBS OF GRAY CIAY

— x x– — x -x-

POLYHALITIC HALITE 4 – POLYHALITIC HALITE WITH MINOR INTERCRYSTALLINE GRAY CIAY

MARKER BED 139 – ANHYORITE

/ ~~y /

E

HALITE 4 – HALITE, WITH ISOIATED BLEBS OF GRAY CLAY

–CIAY

— -x x—

PARTING

POLYHALITIC HALITE 3 – POLYHALITIC HALITE, FINE TO COARSELY CRYSTALLINE WITH VARIABLE AMOUNTS OF INTERCRYSTALLINE GRAY CIAY

i x —

— x —

x x ~

CLAY

D

HALITE 3 – HALITE WITH MINOR INTERCRYSTALLINE ‘ GRAY CLAY NOTE:

MEASUREMENTS ●

Figure 7-1.

IN METERS FROM FLOOR BEFORE PACKER INFLATION.

ESTIMATEO POSITION AFTER PACKER INFIATION.

Test-tool

configuration

for permeability-testing

67

sequence

L4P51-A.

5-r

1

1

I 1 I 1

1

1

I

1

1

1

i

1

1

I

I

1

1

1

1

I

1

1

1

1

I

1

I

1

!

1

I 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

I

I

1

I

1

J

Test L4P51–A, Room L4 Borehole Oriented Vetticolly Down Test Zone 3.33 – 4.75 m, PH–4, Cla D, H–3 Guard Zone 1.45-2.49 m, Morker ~d 139

4 -

m

3 -

p

2 -

3 (n (n p

1

a-

0 -1

–1 I 290

1

1

1

1

1

I

1

1

1

1

1

320

I

1

1

350

Figure 7-2.

1 I 1 ! 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 -1 470 380 410 440 500 530 Time (1 989 Calendar Days) 1

1

Test- and guard-zone

pressures

during L4P51 -A testing.

guard zone from March 1, 1990 (1989 Calendar

7.1.1.2

Day 425) to June 4, 1990 (1989 Calendar

zone

520).

A discussion

of that flow testis

Day

presented

below.

was

(Calendar

about Test

withdrawal initiated

Zone.

when

pulse-

the

20, 1989 (Calendar test-zone

from

subsequent

pressure

about

MPa on Februaty

2.30

2.24

Day 418).

to

pressure

decreased

Calendar

second

test in the L4P51 -A test zone was

on December

354),

The

1.14

MPa.

Calendar

The

by removing

Day 425), the

pressure in the test zone had decreased MPa.

During

between

to about

the flow test in the guard

zone, the L4P51 -A test-zone

minutes,

pressure

22, 1990 (1989

pressure oscillated

about 2.23 and 2.27 MPa (Figure 7-2).

in on October

injection

the

was then reduced

the

Within

pressure

had

The guard-zone

to about 0.13 MPa

VVlhin a few hours of

the guard-zone

at about 0.32 MPa.

zone pressure then decreased pulse-withdrawal

testing

constant-pressure

withdrawal

pressure

performed

a total of 190 cm3 of brine from the

had stabilized

guard

was

guard-zone

to about 1.22 MPa.

the brine withdrawal,

Calendar

1989

after shut in, increasing

guard zone in two steps.

the

guard

27,

pressure to about 4.25 MPa.

was

By the start of the constant-

1, 1990 (1989

30 minutes

decreased

pressure flow test in the L4P51-A guard zone on March

A pulse

Day

buildup reached a peak of

shut

The L4P51-A

Day 300), eight days after drilling was

guard-zone 24

Zone.

first

mmpleted.

7.1.1.1

2.26

Guard

zone Day was

The guard-

slowly during the

in the test zone.

March

1,

425)

when

the

0.24

A

test was initiated in

on

about

pressure

MPa.

1990

(1989

guard-zone The test was

terminated

95 days later on June 4, 1990 (1989

Calendar

was high enough

Day 520).

line, the flow of brine and gas from the formation into

The

back

pressure

maintained

at

in the

guard

in

about

constant-pressure

to cover the end of the vent

the

DPT

panel

was

0.076

MPa

during

the

withdrawal

zone,

pressure

did

guard

zone

would

cause

the

above the brine to increase.

gas

The gas

pressure would continue to increase until enough

test. The pressure

however,

the

brine had flowed to the DPT panel to cause the

not remain

brine level to fall below the bottom of the vent

constant

during the flow test, but instead cycled

line. The gas would then vent to the DPT panel,

between

about -0.01 MPa (as measured

decreasing

at the

the gas pressure

in the guard zone

control

panel in the drift) and about 0.07 MPa

until brine again covered the end of the vent line,

(Figure

7-3).

and the process would repeat.

because

both

The guard-zone brine

during the flow test.

and

pressure

gas

were

varied

produced

Brine and gas traveled from

the guard zone to the DPT panel through guard-zone

vent line.

The downhole

The gas flowing from the guard zone displaced

the

brine

end of the

in the guard-zone

measurement

vent line was located 0.432 m above the bottom

disrupting

of the

several attempts

1.04-m

long

guard

zone

Given the low back pressure (0.076

MPa),

probably

brine.

7-1).

in the DPT panel

as

a separate

phase

line and in the the

DPT

panel, After

measurements.

to separate

gas and brine.

and

brine

at the top of the guard zone above the

When the brine

brine-flow

in

gas and brine, the

DPT panel was modified to provide separation

the gas in the guard zone was

present

collected

(Figure

vent

columns

and

measurement

level in the guard zone

measurements

The new design

gas

at

columns,

the

top

separated of

allowing

the

of the

DPT

uninterrupted

of brine production.

However,

0.12

0.10

0.00

25

435

Figure 7-3.

445

Guard-zone

455 Time

pressures

465 (1 989

475 485 495 Calendar Days)

during L4P51-A constant-pressure

69

505

withdrawal

515

test.

525

gas-flow this

measurements

system

continuous

and

brine

production

with

was

primarily

not

measurement

system

was developed to

The gas-brine separation discussed

address

the

for subsequent

3.7

7.1.2

L4P51-B.

discussed

1 and 2, 1990 (Calendar The hole was deepened

testing of anhydrite

“c” and clay B.

Figure 7-4 shows the brine flow measured during

shows the configuration

the flow test.

for the L4P51-B

A total of about 717 cm3 of brine

(Table

7-2).

during Because

rates were affected not

measured,

interpretations

the

95-day

flow

the obsewed

period

analytical

or

the

because

test

reliable

thickness

quantitative

Figure 7-5

The L4P51 -B guard

from 6.75 to 7.79 m below the only a portion of

The test zone extended

halite

polyhalitic

to allow

1,

the lower 0.99 m of

the

of anhydrite

from 8.63 to

combined

O.10-m

“c” and clay B, and the

upper 0.34 m of halite 1.

of a buildup test is possible without

flow-rate

flow test

no

testing.

10.06 m deep and included

of the flow test were attempted. test was performed following

interpretation

halite 2.

Days

of the test tool in L4P51

floor of Room L4 and included

numerical

No pressure-buildup flow

zone extended

brine flow

by gas flow rates that were

no

flow tests performed

Borehole L4P51 was deepened

L4 on October 274 and 275).

produced

better

from 4.75 m to 10.06 m below the floor of Room

above.

was

allowing

in other boreholes.

of the L4P51-A

problems

exercise,

and

in Section

after completion

as a learning

preparation

due to the pressure cycling occurring

in the guard zone.

testing

were not possible

in the

data.

L4P51 -B testing in the test zone consisted

The constant-pressure

L4P51-A

guard

800 ~ , 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I

1

1

zone

1 1 1

T

served

1

1 I

Test L4P51 –A, Room L4 Borehole Oriented Vertically Down Guord Zone 1.45– 2.49 m, Marker

I

6-day open-borehole

1 I

Bed

1

1

I 1 1

1

1

I

1

1

I

1

of a

period, an initial pressure-

I 1 1

I

1

I

1

1

1

I

I 1 1 1 Id

139

0 .—

-0

?

m .— 4 0 E 2

1 525 Time

Figure 7-4.

Cumulative

brine production

(1 989

Calendar

Days)

during L4P51-A guard zone constant-pressure

70

withdrawal

test.

Table 7-2. Summary of Constant-Pressure

Test

Stratum

I

L4P51-A L4P51-B

#1

L4P51-B

#2

L4P52-A

0.20

I

anhydrite

“c”

anhydrite

“c”

44.9

,

2.21

53.1

I

37

,

165.5

I

MB139

1.10

7.0

10,350 (brine) 124,400 (gas)

S1 P72-A #2

MB139

0.84

27.0

22,oOO (brine) 274,400 (gas)

MB138 I I

buildup

period,

constant-pressure

withdrawal

withdrawal

test.

test was interrupted

panel.

five days later.

zone consisted initial

of a 6day

tests,

The guard-zone

and

a

was shut in on October

period,

testing was terminated

leak was found in the guard-zone

The

initiated

on November

test. when a

leak was discovered The

test

the L4P51-B

and guard-zone

were adjusted respectively,

resumed

Day

pulse-withdrawal

test was

17, 1990 (Calendar withdrawal

Day

test was Day

the next day when a

in the flow-control on March

19, 1991

panel. (1990

until May 3,

in Figure

7-6.

1991 (1990 Calendar Day 488), producing a total

pressure

data

of 37 cm3 of brine over that 45-day period (Table 7-2).

The test-zone

by adding 0.103 and 0.083 MPa,

MPa

before

7-6 and

27, 1990 (Calendar

Day 443) and continued

figures

in Figure

was

437), but was terminated

Calendar

test-zone

Day

test

initiated on March 13, 1991 (1990 Calendar

injection panel.

are shown

8, 1990 (Calendar

pulse-withdrawal

on December

The pressures in the test and guard zones during testing

first

351 ). A constant-pressure

pulse-

and one pulse-injection

The test zone in L4P51-B

281).

initiated

period,

two

Test Zone.

331 ) and the second

in the guard

open-borehole

pressure-buildup

withdrawal

7.1.2.1

The test was

Testing

344.6

a

after one day due

282.2

10.1

tests,

The constant-pressure

to a leak in the injection restarted

test,

I I

12.0

3.12

pulse-withdrawal

133

9.9 I I

2.57

MB139

two

pressure-buildup

1.39 I I

MB139

SCPO1-A #2

shown

18

S1 P72-A #l

SCPO1-A #1

The

717

I

0.9

1.22

, I

Total Flow (cm’)

95

I

1.60-2.25

anhydrite”a”

S1 P73-B

an

Duration (days)

(f$~a)

MB139

, I

Flow Test Data

subsequent

to the values recorded

by the DAS

the

pressure

flow

test

was about 4.98 began,

and

was

reduced to about 3.77 MPa for the duration the test.

Figure

for

production

plotted as a function

of time during

this test.

The pressure-buildup

test began on

the

measuring

elevation points

and the midpoints

differences of the pressure of the hydrologic

between

the

transducers

May

units tested.

71

3, 1991

7-7 shows

(1990

Calendar

cumulative

of

and reported by Stensrud et al. (1992) to account

Day 488)

brine

and

L4P51 –B TEST–TOOL CONFIGURATION

BOREHOLE: L4P51 TEST TOOL: #3 DATE: 10/03/90 DEPTH OF HOLE: 10.06m.

0.894

r—l— -

0.279

BOREHOLE

“’00’1r“””o

!

GuARD–ZONE PACKER #3041.12



5.595



‘= ’EEL4p’1-AcO FOR

4,75



5.15



6.20



6.37



xx —

‘“75

“ —

$ N a &
U,\’l T 9 - +LITE, COA?SE CCLORLESS, WI:ITC ANHYORITE STRINGERS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT

r5?

I

AY4YJ?ITE CIAYG

b 10

CIITHCK

MAP UNIT 7 - HALITE, FINE TO MCOIUM, COLORLESS TO 13R0wN. POOULA? MIJCOY HALITE wAF 2hl T 6 - A.4LITE. U.COIUM TO FINC. COLORLESS TO ORARGE, LOCALLY POLYHALITIC

( ) VERTICALLY PROJECiCO OEPTHS . CSTIMATEO POSITION AFTER PACKER

7-16.

Figure

7

1

1 1

1

1

I

I

Test-tool

1

1

I

1

)W

INFLATION

I

configuration

1

1

I

1

1

1

1 I

Xil

.

for permeability-testing

1

1 1

1 I

1

1

1

1

I

I

1

sequence

1 1

I

–1 100

1

1

1

1

1

I

1

1

1

1

Test L4P52–A, Room L4 Borehole Oriented U word 40° from Vertical Test Zone 4.14 – ! .56 m, Anhydrite ‘o’ Guord Zone 2.27 - 3.32 m, Anhydrite ‘b’ ond

I

1

I

1

I

150

1

Clay

1

1

G ~

1;

I

,’~lj’ 1

I

L4P52-A.

E!3Y5_l: I

1 1

1

I

200

Figure 7-17.

1

1 1

1 I

1

1

250 Time

1

1 I

1

1 I

300 (1 991

Test- and guard-zone

1

I

1

1

t

1 I

1

1

1 1

I

350 400 450 Calendar Days)

500

pressures during L4P52-A testing. 81

550

600

the guard

zone

maintaining

because

pressure

of recurring problems

in the guard-zone

(Appendix

F, Figure F-3). On November

(Calendar

Day 305),

test-zone increased

1,1991 and

pressures

to 10.6 MPa.

(1991 Calendar

packer

both the guard-zone

packer-inflation

On January

guard-zone inflation

3.8)

packer

pressure

was

15, 1992

to

attached

maintain

at a constant

column

Test Zone. test

zone

consisted

borehole

period

(Calendar

Day 92) to April

lasting

from

the

The compressibility

packer-

was

depressurized

evaluated

both

during

testing

Calculations

the

withdrawal

initiation

of

constant-pressure

April

2,

1991

depressurization of

pulse

withdrawal

tests

The

testing.

compressibility

values

calculated

from

exhibited

an inverse relationship

November

(1991

26, 1991 (Calendar

Day

in the L4P52-A

testing

sequence

with respect to

are

shown

pressure

rose smoothly

1, 1992

(1991

balance

using

of the

test,

in Figure

The

the

Day 366). pressure

pressure 7-18.

withdrawal

A total

produced

the

test-zone

For the

the

test

cylindrical

fluctuated

zone

test are shown

in Figure

fluid

166 cm3 of brine was (Table

being

fractures.

7-2). 82

was

borehole

considered

examination

test

depressurization

analyzed

from

using

an

as described

in

anhydrite

“a” to the

borehole was assumed to be horizontal

constant-

53day

were

geometry

Flow

6.2.

the

of about

during

from

compressibilities

the discrete

tests

The assumption

data

Test-zone

from these data over given pressure

L4P52-A

Section

a clear trend.

fluid-production

from O to 6 MPa

data from

idealized

7-17.

is The

pressure increased

pressures

test, the test-zone

the

compressibility

events.

only until about January

Calendar

procedure was

ranges were slightly lower than those calculated

Day 269) to

The

events

at the end of testing to provide a

6-6).

calculated

test lasting

test zone during

During the pressure-buildup

without

(Figure

Day

Day 322), and a

578).

these

measure of test-zone

as test-zone

test lasting until July 31, 1992

Calendar

obsewed

withdrawal

18, 1991 (Calendar

pressure-buildup

continuous

on June

Day 177), a pulse-withdrawal

217), a constant-pressure from September

depressurized

5, 1991 (Calendar

test-zone

ranged from 2.41 x 10-9 to 5.98 x 104 Pa-l and

shut-in

also performed

on August

and during

of

Days

test initiated

and

of the system at the conclusion

pressure (Table 6-2). A separate

26, 1991 (Calendar

of test-zone

the

open

period beginning

after

in the

period from May 24 to June 26, 1991 (Calendar

period, a third shut-in

and

data collected at

an

104 to 177), a 40-minute

test zone

were made using the pressure-

of

second

0.54

me-removed

Days 102 to 142), a 2a

in the test

change-versus-volu

12, 1991 (Calendar

period,

1991

to about

of the L4P52-A

testing was complete.

Day 102), an initial shut-in period from April 12 to May 22, 1991 (Calendar

lowered

28,

was restored by injecting brine into the test zone.

value of about

The testing sequence

October

Day 301 ), the pressure

compressibility

L4P52-A

day

on

the

While

MPa. The design constant pressure of 3.87 MPa

7.5 MPa.

7.1.3.1

draining

test.

fluid

to

the

withdrawal

zone was inadvertently

Day 380), during the pressure-

(Section

the constant-pressure

(Calendar

were

buildup test in the test zone, a gas-buffered reservoir

The DPT column was drained four times during

modeled

as

only, and a

vertical

with a radius of 5.951 cm.

of horizontal flow to the borehole reasonable

of anhydrite produced

only

because

video

“a” in L4P52

showed

from

bedding-plane

5

I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I Test L4P52–A, Room L~ Borehole Oriented 50” Upword from Horizontal Test Zone 4.14 - 5.56 m, Anhydrite ‘o’ - Simulated Borehole Rodius = 5.951 c

1

1

I

.

1

1

1

I

1

1

I

_

1

‘-!

a)’ L

3 (n m

a’

;3

Motch Pyrometers: = 1.719 P9 b/cD = 0.208 = 1.0 MPa Ap = 1.0 doy t C~e2” = 850 Analysis T co P s ri

Results: = 9.1 x lq-” m2/s (kh = 19.8 cm /MPa (Cti = = 6.50 MPa = 0.37 =16m

= 1.2 x l_Q-20 paq;) 6.74 x 10

s

0

I

1

o

L

!-

7-19.

Homer

1

I

plot of interpret/2

simulation

1

1

1

1

I

4

3 Time

of L4P52-A

1 1 1 1 I I 11I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1I 1 Test L4P52-A, Room L4 Borehole Oriented 50° Upward from Harizantal Test Zone 4.14 - 5.56 m, Anhydrite ‘a’ Simuloted Borehole Radius = 5.951 cm

I

!

2 Superposition

1 Dimensionless

Figure

1

1

1

1

pressure-buildup

1 1 1 1 1r

1

test.

I

1

1

1 1 1 u

m o

:

10-’

-c

(-l a) L

? 8 ;10

-21

-

,.-l

I /

Results: 9.1 x Iq-” m2/s (kh 19,8 cm /MPa (Cti = 6.50 MPo 0.37 16 m

00000 ❑ 0000

Figure

I

Pressure Derivative Simulations

1

1

1

1

1 1 1 1I

1

1

!

1 1 1 1 1I

1

1

[

1991

7-20.

322.46215

1 1 1 I 1I

1

1

1

I

102

1

tO=

= 1.2 x 1Q-zo m’) 6.74 x 10Pa-f)

Elapsed

Build;;

Log-log plot of interpret/2

Time

simulation

84

103

(days)

of L4P52-A pressure-buildup

1 1 1 1

test.

175 ~lrlll,

-

“;150

1,11,

,,,

l,,,,

,,,

,,,

,,,

,,,

,,,

,,,

,,,,,

,,,

,,,

,,,

,,,

,,,,,

Test L4P52-A, Room L4 Borehole Oriented U word 40° from Verticol Test Zone 4.14L!% m, Anhydrite ‘o Simulated Borehole Radius 5.951 cm

u

125

~

.— u u ;

100

& : .— h ~50> .— u

75 -

:25E so

I 11 265

270

Figure 7-18.

Analytical the

275

Cumulative

Interpretations.

L4P52-A

recovered

more

285 Time

Attempts

295 300 Calendar

to match

data

with

rapidly

at

early

time

22 days of the test (after Calendar to determine

310

Because

cm3iday.

zone pressure

type

the

than

315

fluctuating

Day 239),

of fluctuations

linear-linear

in the test-

a

test,

definitive

of the test was difficult between data

dimensionless

what formation

test.

during the final seven months of

The transition

the first

11 325

320

withdrawal

pressure-buildup

interpretation

Also, the pressure

trend became erratic after approximately

305 Days)

during L4P52-A constant-pressure

because the pressure

by the type curves.

making it impossible

290 (1991

brine production

pulse-withdrawal

cuwes were unsuccessful

predicted

280

is

Homer plot,

the “good” more

to obtain.

data and the

evident

so the strategy

adopted

interpretation

No type-curve

to the “good” data on the dimensionless

data from the constant-pressure because

of excessive

attempts

at

accumulated-brine erratic

data

noise

calculating

flow

withdrawal in the data. rates

from

test

to which

no definitive

All

match obtained

data having dimensionless

was

of the pressure-buildup

divided

having

into

constant

five rates

separate ranging

pressures

The

less than

type-cume Using

the constant-pressure

are shown in Figure 7-19.

1.2 were not used during the fitting procedure.

the

dimensionless For analysis

Homer

Homer plot and the best

the

match could be obtained.

interpret/2,

for

was to obtain the best fit possible

plot. The dimensionless

data (Figure 7-1 8) resulted in

a

plot than on a log-log or

pore pressure the recovety was trending toward. analysis could be performed of the

on

test using

withdrawal flow from

parameters Homer

derived

match,

from

the

the fit obtained

between log-log pressure and pressurederivative

test

type

periods

280 to 2.4

and the

pressure-buildup

shown in Figure 7-20.

The linear-linear

shown

83

cuwes

in

Figure

7-21.

data

is

match is

In all cases,

the

7.0

1 1 1 I

6,5

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I Test L4P52-A, Room L4 Borehole Oriented 50” Upward from Horizontal Test Zone 4.14 – 5.56 m, Anhydrite ‘a’ Simulated Barehole Radius = 5.951 cm

~

L

1

I

I

1

1

1

I

1

1

I

1

I

1

1

1

I

: Z5.5 a) L 3 : 5.0

Match

Paramete

orJ

00000

00

6.0

,rs:

o 8 MPa day

f o-

Analysis T

Results: = 9.1 x 1q-” m2/s (kh = 19.8 cm /MPo (Cti = = 6.50 MPo = 0.37 =16m

c

4.5

P“ s ri

4,0

0000

= 1.2 x 1Q-20 _q3) 6.74 x 10Po )

aooooo =

7=.

d.d

tl –20 to=

1

I

1

1

1

1

1

30 1991

Figure 7-21.

269.34016

1

time,

pressures

the

1

plot

I

Since

of interpret/2

1

1

1

1

I

1

1

i

1

180 Flow

1

the observed

data well for

simulations

of L4P52-A

predict

x 104), the radius of influence

higher

pressure

withdrawal

were a transmissivity

testing was preceded

10-14 m2/s (permeability-thickness

compressibility wellbore

of

product of 1.2

5.82

to x

a positive

wellbore

of the actual wellbore

effect is commonly poorly connected formation system

a

of

GTFM

to the permeable 1977).

compressibility

of

and

of 2.6

of the constant-

and

The

by a 10day

tests

a

period during

as

a

A

in

skin

sequence

was also used to represent

radius.

test.

Temperatures

measured

test zone during the monitoring in Figure E-2 of Appendix

portion of the

Assuming

pressures.

a total

smoothed representation used

1.15 x 10-9 Pa-l

85

as

input

to

by

history the test-

zone pressure during the constant-pressure

This

when

or affected

changes

packer

in the

specified-pressure

As described

radius is only

pressure.

as were other periods

the test zone was depressurized

of 0.37

L4P52-A

period was included

simulations

history sequence,

caused by the wellbore being

(Earlougher,

1

flow

estimate

Interpretations.

This open-borehole

19.8

test-zone

10-9 Pa-l),

implies that the effective wellbore 69 percent

1

330

which the borehole was at atmospheric

of 6.50

coefficient

skin of 0.37 (Table 7-1).

by Eq. 6-9,

of 9.1 x

pore pressure

(corresponding

1

was about 16 m.

Homer

cm31MPa

1

and pressure-buildup

Numerical

a wellbore-storage

1

constant-pressure

derived from the dimensionless

MPa,

I

280

(days)

The parameters

x 1020 m3), a formation

1

(derived from a GTFM storativity

After

than those obsetved.

analysis

1

1

230

Began

simulation

I

tests.

about the first 40 days of the buildup test. that

1

130

Time

pressure-buildup

match

1

80

Linear-linear

simulations

I

1

flow

in the L4P52-A period are shown

E. Also shown is the of the temperature

GTFM

to

data

compensate

the

simulated

fluctuations.

pressures

for

The specified

the

temperature

parameters

the L4P52-A GTFM simulations

Figure 7-22 shows a semilog

used in

GTFM

were a borehole

radius of 5.951 cm and a test-zone

simulation

withdrawal

fluid volume

observed when

of 3403 cm3.

at simulating

the L4P52-A

data.

tests

the

simulation

a higher

were unsatisfactory.

test-zone

withdrawal

was varied as a function of pressure

during the simulations from

the

testing

values (Table

compressibility simulations

using a function

determined 6-2).

during

The

-versus-time

function

first

after

the

1 1 1 1 1 11(1

1

1

1 1 1 1111

1

to be trending

into

of

production test

could

The observed caused,

the

test

during not

initial

be flow

in part, by packer

zone

and

borehole

in test-zone

pressure.

Flow rates during the latter part of the test, when

is shown in Figure D-1 of Appendix

I

of the

closure after the decrease

D.

6.4

days

by GTFM.

expansion

used in the

the

during the constant-pressure

rates were probably

test-zone-

matches

than the observed

test. The obsewed two

matched

derived

and

final

the

pulse-

Figure 7-23 shows the GTFM simulation

the brine production

pressibility

appears

pressure

compressibility com-

L4P52-A

The simulation

using a single value of test-zone Therefore,

the

data well until near the end of the test

towards Initial attempts

test.

of

plot of the best-fit

1 r

1 I 1111

test

1

1

tool

1 1 I 1111

and

1

borehole

1

had completely

1 1 11111

T

1

1 I 1 II

L

L4P52–A, Room L4 Borehole Oriented U word 40” from Verticol Tw+t Zone 4.14%56 m, Anhydrite ~ Simuloted Borehole Rodius 5.951 cm Test

6.2

o 0

/

6.0

T = S M

= =

8.5 X 10-’4 2.6 X 10+ 8.75 MPo

mz/s

(kh

=

1.1

x

10-m

7’

m’)

EEl

5.2 5.0

0

o 0

4.8

1 1 I 111111

t

1

,.-3

,0-4

~=

1991

t 1 1 1111

!

1

,0-2

217.3413

Figure 7-22.

1

Semilog

1 1 1 1111

1

1

1 1 4 1111

10-’

Elapsed

Time

plot of GTFM simulation

86

1

1

t

1 1 1 1111

1

1

(days)

of L4P52-A pulse-withdrawal

1 1 111

102

10

test.

175 ~,

I

1 1 I

I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I

1 1 1 I

1 I

I

1 I

1 1 I

1 I

1 1 I

1 1 1 1 I

1 1 1 1 )

Doto Simulation

00000

Test L4P52-A, Room L4 Eorehole Oriented Unward 40° from Vertical Test Zone- 414 – ‘5.56 ‘m, Simulated Borehole Radius 5.951 ‘cm T = S = P, =

Instontoneous

u

Figure

Production

J

LVDT

b-l + “

‘VDT# ‘-++ LVDT

# R–17



‘CLAY K, GRAY ARGILLACEOUS HALITE 2 - ARGILLACEOUS HALITE, PODULAR, FINE TO COARSELY CRYSTALLINE, COLORLESS TO BROWN, BROWN CIAY, CORE IS VERY ARGILLACEOUS FROM 10.2m TO CONTACT WITH CUY K

10.662

H 10.585 10.512

# R–15

E

I

1--1 9.928



9.30

HALITE 5 – HALITE, MEOIUM CRYSTALLINE, COLORLESS, TRACE ANHYDRITE

9.017

8.765

8.70

— —

8.639 8.609

J_

— — —

8.053

8.04”



8.15

ARGILLACEOUS HALITE 1 (CLAY J) – ARGILLACEOUS HALITE, POOULAR, FINE TO COARSELY CRYSTALLINE, COLORLESS TO BROWN

— MAP UNIT 15 – HALITE, FINE TO MEDIUM CRYSTALLINE, COLORLESS; WHITE PLANAR AN HYDRITE IAMINAE SCAllERED THROUGHOUT

GUARD–ZONE PACKER #3041.11 7.149

697 6.96 6.95 TOOL

INHYDRITE, GRAY >xlllll~ — — ,CIAY 1, 8ROWN



TOP

L

Figure 7-42.

DATE: 01/17/91 OEPTH OF HOLE:

Test-tool

MAP UNITS 13 AND 14 – HALITE, COARSELY CRYSTALLINE, GRAY TO ORANGE. MAP UNIT 12 – HALITE, MEDIUM CRYSTALLINE, COLORLESS TRACE OF POLYHALITE

4.80 (SEE

FIGURE

7-40

FOR REMAINOER

OF Description)

000

J~ BOREHOLE:S1P73 TEST TOOL: #4





5.30

ROOM





E

NOTE: 11.32

configuration

*

m.

MEASUREMENTS

for permeability-testing

107

IN

METERS

FROM

CEILING BEFORE PACKER INFIATION. ESTIMATED POSITION AFTER PACKER

sequence

SlP73-B.

ROOM INFLATION.

5

1 1 1 1 I

I

1 1 [

1 I

I

1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I

1 1 !

1 1 I 1 1 I

1 1

4 n 2 >3



p ; m2 o & Test S1P73–B, Waste Panel 1, Roam 7 Barehale Oriented Vertically Up

o

40

10

Figure

,

100

70 Time

743.

Test-

(1991

and guard-zone

11111111

pressures

C50

during

138

190

160

S1 P73-B

111’1’1

Test S1 P73–B, Waste Panel 1, Raam 7 Borehole Oriented Vertically Up Test Zane 9.92 – 11.32 m, Marker Bed

E —

130 Days)

Calendar

testing.

‘1’1’

and

Clay

-1

K

t

~1 127

I

1

128

I

129

1

I

1

Time

Figure 744.

Cumulative

I

1

131

130

brine production

I

132 (1991

1

I

133 Calendar

t

I

134 Days)

I

I

135

1

I

136

during S1 P73-B test zone constant-pressure

108

1

1

1

137

withdrawal

I

138

test.

changing

less rapidly

than just before had a longer test-zone

just before

duration

pulse

than the first test. immediately

withdrawal

4.163

MPa,

and was

about

0.002

MPa/day.

decreased

test

(1980). Assuming a test-zone compressibility

the first test, and the second test

pressure

second

the second

was

The

before

the

performed

was

increasing

2.39 x 10-9 Pa-l (Table 6-2), the type-cuwe provides a transmissivity m2/s (permeability-thickness

pressure

constant-pressure

increasing

superimposed

pressure on the

linear correction applied

To compensate trend

pulse-test

factor of -0.0017

to the pulse-test

for

that

was

response,

a

withdrawal

test

data from the second are

plotted

as

The

at the

pulse-

normalized

flow

decreased

related

borehole

compliance.

more This

to test-tool

When

the

and

test-zone

pressure

was decreased

to start the constant-

pressure

flow

test-tool

should

the type curves of Bredehoeft

brine from

and Papadopulos

time

is probably

radius

in Figure

the first

behavior

Also shown is the best match obtained to one of

time

After approximately

by the type curve.

have

elapsed

by Jacob

rapidly than predicted

should

versus

flow tests developed

rate at early

7-45.

pressure

type curve for

4 hr of the test, the data fit the type cutve well.

start of the test.

The compensated

test to the radial-flow

and Lehman (1952).

MPa/day was

data beginning

flOW-

rate data from the S 1P73-B constant-pressure withdrawal

the

product of 5.0 x 10-20

Figure 7-46 shows the best-fit match of the

pressure to 3.147 MPa.

MPa.

of 3.7 x 10-’3

m3; Table 7-1).

At the end of the test 49 days later, the test-zone was 4.239

match

at a rate of

The pulse withdrawal

the test-zone

estimate

of

test,

the

expanded

slightly

have decreased

components and

the

slightly,

the hole in addition

hole

driving

to that

being

1.0 Test S1 P73– B, Waste Panel 1, Raam 7 Borehole Oriented Vertically Up Test Zane 9.92 – 11.32 m, Marker Bed

0.9

138

and

Clay

K

0.8

0.7 0.6 Match

r“ 0,5

PI

>

Parameters: =

3.147

MPa

0.4

0.3 Analysis

Results:

0.2

0.1

correction

Pressure

of

–0.001

7

MPo/day

applied

to

data

0.0 ,.-2

,.-4

1

10-’

to =

1991

78;4?1;3

Figure 7-45.

Elapsed

Semilog type-cufve

Time

match to S1 P73-B pulse-withdrawal

109

10

(days)

test #2.

102

104 t

1

1

1

I

1

1 I 1 II

1

1

1 1 I I I

1

I

1 I

1

1 1 1 II

1

1

1

1 1 1 1 II

1

1

1 I

1 11 ~

Test S1 P73-B, Waste Panel 1, Room 7 Borehole Oriented Vertically Up Test Zone 9.92 – 11.32 m, Morker Bed

138

ond

Cloy

K

o

4

7-%103

3’ *< “E Match Parameters: q, = 1.0 t.j = 1.0 = 8.0 cma/day q

~loz

&

:

10

1

1

=

Figure 7-46.

t t 11

II

1991

in the

1

1

(kh

I

=

1.8

1 1 1 1 II

x 10-20

I

from

radial-flow

1

0:

m’)

1 ! 1 1 1 II

Elapsed

test

type

curve

a transmissivity

zone

should

The

system

of 1.3 x 10-13

compressibility

withdrawal

of

8.37

testing was preceded

cm3/day.

The best fit obtained and pressure-derivative

the pressure-buildup

data

27,400

to

between

is shown

8.14

log-log

type cuwes

and

This

in Figure

open-borehole

GTFM

initially shutting

parameters:

of 1.7

and pressure-buildup

The

by a 6day

match is shown provided

period

simulations

sequence.

the same estimated

Pa-l

of the constanttests

as

The pressure

was a

S1 P73-B

period during

which the borehole was at atmospheric

7-47. The best Homer match is shown in Figure All of these matches

estimate

Interpretations.

748,

and the best linear-linear

103

was about 2 m.

rates

from

x

a total

test

constant

ranging

of 19.9

test-zone

Assuming

(derived from a GTFM storativity

test using

withdrawal

a

of

10-9 Pa-l), and a slightly

x 104), the radius of influence

of the pressure-buildup

7-49.

pore pressure coefficient

of 5.14x

test.

product

to

(corresponding

Numerical

in Figure

withdrawal

cm31MPa

was divided into 34 separate flow periods having

pressure

10

negative wellbore skin of-0.08.

7-46

product of 1.7 x 10-20

the constant-pressure

1 1 1 11

4.29 MPa, a wellbore-storage

compressibility

to the

in Figure

1

I

(days)

pressure

interpret/2,

1

of 4.9 x 10-20 m3), a formation

have

m3; Table 7-1).

For analysis

1 1 I 1 II

of 3.7x 10-13mzki (permeability-thickness

should have match

estimate

m2/s (permeability-thickness

1

1

Flow Time

After a few hours,

shown

1

match to flow rates during S1 P73-B constant-pressure

brine production

the formation.

1

,.-1

with the new pressure, at which time

all of the continued

provides

m2/s

127.39’6:;3

from the formation.

equilibrated

o

Results: 1.3 X 10-13

Log-log type-curve

materials

come

t

o

,.-2

t,

the

?::4dY;.

Analysis T =

1,.-4 I

produced

z

pressure.

included

in the

specified-pressure

buildup observed

in the test zone on January

after 21,

1991 (Calendar Day 21) exhibited increasing-rate

a transmissivity

behavior

110

(Figure

743)

indicative

of pressure-

a) > .— -#

10

I

1

!

1

1 1 11I

[

1

1 1 r 1 1I

1

Test S1 P73– B, Waste Panel 1, Room 7 Borehole Oriented Verbcolly Up Test Zone 9.92 11.32 m, Morker Bed

c1 > .—

138,

1

Cloy

1

1

1 1 I I 1I

1

I

1

1 1 1 1 L

K

L

2 -0

s 0

1

Match

Parameters:

n :

3 =

PI

2.96

MPo

az

o ,f)-z ,“

,0-2

Figure

3

102

10

t,=

I

1991137.31979’0



7-47.

Log-log

1

1

1

I

Elapsed

Buildu’p Time

plot of interpret/2

1

I

1

Test S1 P73–B, Waste Ponel 1, Barehole Oriented Vertically Up Test Zane 9.92 – 11.32 m Marker Bed 138, Cloy K

1

1

I

Roam

simulation

1

of S1 P73-B

1

I

(days)

I

1

1

pressure-buildup

1

1

I

1

test.

1

7

-“””7

i Motch

Parameters:

P:/co : ::~%po Ap = 1;O day t C~e2’ An;lysis c P“ s= ri

n

VI

1

1

“o

1

I

1

Figure

7-48.

Homer

1

1

1

1

I

1

1

=

6.89

1

Results: m2\s (kh = 3.7 x Iq-” = 19.9 cm /MPa (CM = = 4.29 MPa –0.08 =2m

1

1

I

2

3

Dimensionless

Superposition

plot of interpret/2

simulation

111

1

1

1

1

= 4.9 x 1Q-zo m’) 5.14 x 10PO-l)

,1

I

1

1

1

Time

of S1 P73-B

pressure-buildup

1

5

4

test.

4.5

(

8

1

1

1

I

1

I

1

1

I

1

1

1

I

1

1

Test S1 P73TB, Waste Panel 1, Borehole Oriented Vertically Up Test Zone 9.92 – 11.32 m Morker Bed 138, Clay K

()

1

1

1

I

Room

1

I

1

I

1

1

1

I

1

I

1

1

I

1

1

1

1

1

1

i

I

1

1

1

1

7

4.0

Motch

Parameters:

=

1.0

s=

3.0

MPo

–0.08

=;

r 1

.c.d

1

1

1

–lo

I

1

1

1

Figure 7-49.

1991

Linear-linear

plot

pressure-buildup

et

al.,

1991).

suggests nonlinear

1

1

Because

1

I

20

Since

Flow

1

1

I

1

1

30 Began

simulation

40

50

60

(days)

of S1 P73-B

flow

constant-pressure

and

test.

fluctuations.

(Beauheim

compliance

testing

compressibility

at low test-zone

I

of interpret/2

compressibility

that test-zone

1

Time

127.39583

test-zone

1

10

o

tO =

dependent

I

t

pressures

The specified

parameters

the S1 P73-B GTFM simulations radius of 5.253

is most (Section

used in

were a test-zone

cm and a test-zone

fluid volume

of 3868 cm3.

6.3.2), the early portion of the shut-in period was simulated The

using a specified-pressure

test-zone

(Appendix

F,

packer-inflation Figure

F-7)

Februaty

8, 1991 (Calendar

increase

in the test-zone

zone

pressure

packer-inflation

was

Figure 7-50 shows a semilog

sequence. pressure increased

GTFM

on

response

to this

test.

The testincrease

compared

to the

A test-zone

Pa-’ was specified

in

compressibility

of 1.16 x 109

for this test based

collected during the pulse withdrawal

pressure was related to test-tool

The fitted

parameters

and was also treated as a specified-

3.7 x 10“13m2/s (permeability-thickness

pressure

sequence

5.0 x 10-20 m3), a storativity

Temperatures

measured

the

in the S1 P73-B

zone during the monitoring Figure

E-5

of Appendix

smoothed

representation

used

input

as

simulated

to

E.

test

is the

of the temperature

data

for

formation

(Table 6-2). of

product of

of 1.7 x 10+, and a

pore pressure of 4.37 MPa (Table 7-1).

period are shown in shown

GTFM

pressures

simulations.

on data

were a transmissivity

compliance

in

observed

pressures for the first S1 P73-B pulse-withdrawal

Day 39), causing an pressure.

simulation

plot of the best-fit

Also

to compensate the

Figure 7-51 shows a semilog GTFM simulation

the

the second

temperature

test-zone

112

plot of the best-fit

and the observed pressures for

pulse-withdrawal

compressibility

test.

Although

a

of 2.39x 10-9 Pa-l was

4.2

I

1

1

1 I I {111

1

1

I

1 1 1111

1

1 1 1 1 Ill

1

Test S1 P73:B, Waste Panel 1, Room 7 Borehale Oriented Vertically Up Test Zone 9.92 – 11.32 m, Morker Bed T = s = p, = Cm=

3.7 X 10-13 m2/s 1.7 x 10-8 4.37 MPa 1.16 x 10-0 Pa-l

(kh

=

5.0

x

138

10-20

1

1

and

Clay

1 1 1 I Ill

1

1

1 1 1 111[

1

I

I

I 1 1 1q

1

1

1 1 1 1 11

K

m3)

a 0

0

0

0

o

o

0

0

a

oooao

C)ata

Simulation

3.2 1“ 3.0

“ 1 1 1 111Ill

t

\ 1

1 1 1 1 1 Ill

1 1 1 1 Ill

I

,.-2

,.-4 b

=

1991

1

1

Semilog plot of GTFM simulation

=

s = p, =

Ci, =

3.7 X 10-’3 m2/s 1.7 x 10-a 4.37 MPa 1.16 x 10-0 Pa-’

(kh

=

5.0

x

138

10-20

1

1 1 1 I Ill

102

10

(days)

of S1 P73-B pulse-withdrawal

1

Test S1 P73–B, Waste Panel 1, Raom 7 Borehale Oriented Vertically Up Test Zane 9.92 – 11.32 m, Marker Bed

1

1

Time

I

T

1 1 1 1 Ill

10-’

Elapsed

57;5:7;6

Figure 7-50.

4.3

1

and

1

Clay

111111[

T

T

test W.

T

111111[

111

K

m’)

?’

-1

0 a a a a a a a

o

a

a

o M

F 3.1

1 1 1 111 Ill ,.-4

,.-3

1

1

I 1 1 1 Ill

1

1

1 1 1 I Ill

1

1

1 1 1 1 Ill

10-’

b =

Figure

1991

7-51.

78.47153

Semilog

1

1

1 ! 1 ! Ill

,.-2

Elapsed

plot of GTFM

Time

simulation 113

1

I

1 1 1 IL

102

10

1

(days)

of S1 P73-B

pulse-withdrawal

test #12.

calculated

from the second pulse withdrawal,

simulation

using

compressibility

value

of

test-zone

using the compressibility

10-9 Pa”l ) calculated

withdrawal.

The

compressibility

from

the

first

calculated

in the lengths

pressure pulse

decreases withdrawal

were lasted

and the second

minutes.

The additional

second

produced

pulse

Although

from

the

fluid produced

the longer

from

vent period.

used to simulate test were

increased

The fitted

the second

150L

I

3

withdrawal

= = = =

3.7 X 10-’J 1.7 x 10-6 4.37 MPa 1.16 x 10-”

(kh

=

tests.

However,

could not match the flow rates during

test.

The simulation

shown in Figure

may

at the

GTFM

calculated

of the test

total productions

may

have 1

I

138

x 10-m

and

Clay

beyond

to bring the simulated

days of testing.

1

5.0

start

and obsewed

into agreement The observed

been caused,

I

I

after about

in part,

1

Figure 7-52.

Production

m~)

(28.4

cm’)

117

115

15.45347

Linear-linear

-1

/

113 1991

by

K

1

to =

3

initial flow rates

at least

I

what

Pa-’

Instantaneous

11

GTFM

over

I

m2/s

test

added

Test S1 P73-B, Waste Panel 1, Room 7 Borehole Oriented Vertically Up Test Zone 9.92 – 11.32 m, Marker Bed T s p, Cti

withdrawal

7-52 includes 28.4 cm3 of fluid production

of the

1

and observed

the first 2 to 3 days of the cons \ ant-pressure

pulse-withdrawal

I

to match the simulated

simulations

parameters

the same as for the simulation

The fitted parameters

were exactly the same as those used to simulate

to that

compliance

test.

the two pulse-withdrawal

during

relative

flow for the constant-

data for the constant-pressure

1.5

during the first pulse withdrawal

have resulted

required

first

lasted approximately

to the observed

pressure withdrawal

similar

approximately

withdrawal

of 1.7 x 106, and a

pore pressure of 4.37 MPa (Table 7-1).

compared

vent was

produced,

product of 5.0

Figure 7-52 shows the best-fit GTFM simulation

because of differences

the two pulses.

of 3.7

pulse

test-zone

of time the test-zone

minutes

the

x 10-20 m3), a storativity formation

from the second pulse withdrawal

the first pulse withdrawal

test: a transmissivity

x 10-13m2/s (permeability-thickness

(1.16

may have been larger than that calculated

open during

first pulse-withdrawal

did not provide as good a match

as the simulation x

this

the

Time

plot of GTFM

pressure withdrawal

Since

Hole

simulation

test. 114

119 Cored

of brine

121

i 123

(days)

production

during

S1 P73-B

constant-

borehole

closure

pressure

or by

around

after the decrease production

the hole.

in test-zone

from

a skin

compressibility

zone

amount

Flow rates during the latter part

zone

of the test, when the test tool and borehole had completely

adjusted

to the relatively

might

of gas came

was

have

increased

out of solution

depressurized

while the test

for the duration

constant Figure

7-54

observed

shows

pressures

GTFM

simulations

for

entire

the

Figure 7-53 shows a Homer plot of the best-fit

testing

GTFM

1) from fitting to the pulse-withdrawal

buildup test. simulation

for the

S1 P73-B

The fitted parameters

were a transmissivity

mzls (permeability-thickness m3), a storativity pressure

of

compressibility

a

between

pore

is

constant-pressure but is close

higher the

pressure-buildup 4.25

withdrawal

values

pressure

The

test. 1

1

1

of

by

the

the

1

1

1

Test

S1 P73-B,

Test

Zane

1

1

Waste

9.92



The high value of determined

test provides

The

data.

withdrawal

1 1 1 I

of test-

from

the

a good match to

period, but causes the from

the

two

pulse

to occur more slowly than suggested

compressibility

test-zone 1

used.

recoveries

withdrawals

data (Table 6-2),

analysis

is the values

the initial pressure-buildup

and

tests and

The only difference

compressibility

pressure-buildup

of 4.74 x 109 Pa-l

Interpret12

1

the

pulse-withdrawal

to the value by

than

test.

the simulations

test-zone

determined

flow test, and 2) from fitting to

zone compressibility

test-zone

and

S1 P73-B

using the parameters

the pressure-buildup

of 4.2 x 10-9 Paul. This test-zone

from

suggested

of 3.7 x 10-13

and

period

constant-pressure

used in the

of 1.7 x 10+, a formation

compressibility calculated

pressure-

product of 4.9 x 10-20

4.37 MPa,

of the

flow test.

test-zone pressure, were well matched by GTFM.

simulation

if a small

value

determined

and

Panel m,

of

from

r

1, Roam Morker

1

1

test-zone

the

constant-pressure

1 1 1 I

11.32

low

pulse-

flow 1

1

1

tests 1 1

7 Bed

138

and

Clay

K

4.00

p 3.50 3 m Ill -. ~ 3.25

3.00 := 1

2.75

1

1

1

1 1 I 1 I

1

!

1

1 1 1 1 I

1

1

1

tp” +

At

At

Figure 7-53.

Homer plot of GTFM simulation 115

of S1 P73-B pressure-buildup

1

1 1 1 1

10’

102

10

1

1

test.

5

1

1

I

I

1

I

I

1

1

1

1

I

1

I

!

1

1

1

1

I

1

1

r

I

1

1

1

1

I

1

1

I

1

1

1 4

/

4

2 ‘i?

$ 8

3 i { a)

2

L — 3

Test S1 P73– B, Waste Panel 1, Room 7 Borehole Oriented Vertically Up Test Zone 9.92 – 11.32 m, Marker Bed

v 1~

T = s = pf =

:

:1

o

~Hist+Sirn+ 1

–It’

1

1

1

1991

the to

occur

observed.

1

1

I

I

compressibility

throughout

138

10-20

1

1

1

i

I

1

Hole

and final pressure rapidly

than

was

highlight

the

a

I

1

test

the radius of influence

of the S1 P73-B

of transmissivity

products

The early-time to be strongly

tests

~

of

1.3

x

!

I

1

I

I

1

Therefore,

1

1

1 1

180

the transmissivity match

from

and GTFM

the

other

tests.

interpretations

of 1.7 x 10a.

storativity

(expressed

as

for the

pressure,

GTFM provided tests

Using

interpret/2

using

a

this value total

of

system

calculates

a radius of

constant-pressure tests

Both provided

pore

of all of the

storativity

data

as the transmissivity

of formation

simulations

derived

to the flow-rate

not as reliable

and pressure-buildup

a

1

150

estimates

influence

withdrawal

of about

2 m.

The

radius of influence of the entire testing sequence

m2/s

calculated

by

pressure-change

data from the flow test appeared by compliance,

1

compressibility),

of the

provided 10-’3

I

ranging from 4.29 to 4.37 MPa.

provided

interpretation

1

derived

similar

product of 1.7x 10-20 m’).

influenced

Pa-’ Pa-’

not be well matched by either a type curve

interpret/2

of 4.9 x 10-20

test, which

estimate

(permeability-thickness

10-9 10-’

(days)

values

of 3.7 x 10-’3 m2/s

m3) except for the analytical

transmissivity

x x

of entire S1 P73-B testing sequence.

good

flow

1.16 4.20

120 Cored

is probably

of the

and numerical

All of the analytical

1

or GTFM.

criterion,

Summary.

constant-pressure

Doto Cti = Cti =



from the type-curve

sequence.

pressure-change

(permeability-thickness

!

Simulation

1

could

test-zone

to be 3 m.

estimates

K

=1

90 Since

entire S1 P73-B testing sequence

interpretations

andr Clay

m’)

~Hist+

plot of GTFM simulations

quantifying

Using a one-percent calculated

Time

differences

of

GTFM

1

60

initial

importance

x

< 1

more

These

5.0

Simulation

Linear-liner

simulated

=

~

15.45347

Figure 7-54.

(kh

00000

30

to =

buildups

I

m2/s



Iiistary

0

causes

3.7 X 10-’3 1.7 x 10-’ 4.37 MPa

and

116

GTFM

using

criterion

interpret/2

nor GTFM

presence

of significant

was

simulations wellbore

a

one-percent

3 m.

Neither

indicated skin.

the

Vertically

averaged

conductivity

(permeability)

can be calculated assuming

of

hydraulic

infinite

and specific storage

containing

The average

only by the

conductivity

this interval is 2.2 x 10-’2 m/s (permeability

time

(1.0

June

24,

1991

developed

of

test

of 2.9

initiated

(Calendar

was

abandoned was

response observed

axis).

A

in the guard

(Calendar

Day 168).

Day

in the test tool.

interpretation

x 10-19 m2) and the specific storage is 1.0 x 10-5

on the time

test was

zone on June 17, 1991

Marker Bed 138 and

hydraulic

recove~

pulse-withdrawal

for the S1 P73-B test zone by

that fluid was produced

0.1 7-m intewal clay K.

values

175),

On

a

leak

The pulse-withdrawal 9

days

attempted

later.

of the

No

pressure

before the leak occurred.

m-l. 7.1.8 7.1.7.2

Guard

Zone.

in the S1 P73-B shut

in and

(Figure

time

a pressure

7-43).

shown

7-55.

calculated

of the guard

the guard

zone

formation

3.0

The

downward

was

allow

monitored

plot of this buildup

is

from when

pore pressure

extrapolate

of about

1

I

to a

1

I

of 77° from

of Marker

vertical

Bed 139 beneath

to the

library (Figure 5-4). for

SCPO1 -A testing, and indicates

the lengths and

stratigraphic

guard

locations

of the

and

test

SCPO1 was drilled from March 26 to 30,

1990 (Calendar Days 85 to 89) to a total depth of 15.39 m. The test tool was installed

2.55 MPa at

1

testing

zones.

in as the flow-period data

at an angle

SCPO1 was drilled

Figure 7-56 shows the test-tool configuration

zone was cored to when

buildup

Borehole

south rib in the core-storage

superposition

the time

shut

1

zone

was

The Horner

the middle

duration.

buildup

using

was

most of the testing

the guard

A Horner

in Figure was

During

test zone,

SCPO1-A.

1990

I

1

1

(Calendar

95).

1

I

1

I

Day

on April 5,

The

1

1

test

1

I

zone

I /

p“ =

2.5

2.55

Test S1 P73–B, Waste Panel 1, Room Barehale Oriented Vertically Up Guard Zone 8.04 - 9.09 m, AH–1

MPa

tP = Ato=

6.525 1991

7

days 21.5035

. a o 0 0 0 0 a

EEEl

00 00

0 0000 0 0

0.5

0 0 0 000

Ooa 000000

0.0

1

1

t

1

1

1

0 1

a OCJ

I

1

1

a

1

a

1

1

tp

+

At

At

Figure 7-55.

Horner plot of S1 P73-B guard-zone

117

In

1

A

1

100

10

1

shut-in pressure

buildup,

SCPO1 -A TEST-TOOL CONFIGURATION

BOREHOLE: SCPO1 TEST TOOL: #4 DATE: 04/05/90 DEPTH OF HOLE: 15.398

m

\ BOREHOLE

4RD– ZONE ‘ACKER 3041.11

000

/

LVDT # R-03 LVDT #R–02 LVDT # R–08

LVOT #A–02

(8.2:)

\\

““”w”

\ —

o

9.400 —

11 268

,,5,

9.377

. $0 “._ Z

10.50 (2.36)

10,690 —



,ON,--’---’ ‘

NOTE: OISTANCE IN





METERS TO TOP MAP UNITS MEASURED FROM ALONG ANGLEO BOREHOLE BEFORE

Figure 7-56.

——

9531

— 12.145

———

9783 11 179

11.418

——

7653 7.902

8.810 —

~v VOLUME DISPLACEMENT DEvICE

+’

J

Test-tool configuration

(

)

VERTICALLY



ESTIMATED

PROJECTED POSITION

AFTER

for permeability-testing

———

_,,

ANO EIOTTOM OF REFERENCE POINT PACKER INFMTION

1478 , .,

“:’)~

DEPTHS PACKER

INFL4TION.

sequence SCPO1 -A.

xx -

x

x

STRATIGRAPHY

MAP UNIT O - COARSE. COLORLESS, lR& GRAY CUY, POLYHALITIC HALITE 4 – POLYHALITIC HALITE, COARSE TO FINE, ORANGE To COLOR– LESS, TRACE TO MINOR CRAY CLAY MARKER BEO 139 – UNDULATING CONTACT. MICROCRYSTALLINE, ORANGE TO GRAY ANHYORITE ,..’CLAY i ‘ALITE 4

extended

from

10.68

to

15.39

m along

the

transducers

and the centers of the tested units in

borehole and included 4.28 m of Marker Bed 139

the test and guard zones.

and the underlying

guard-zone

underlying

clay

clay E, and 0.51 m of halite 4 E.

The

entire

consisted

of 1.05 m of polyhalitic

overlies

Marker

displacement of the

Bed

zone

halite 4 which

139.

A

to decrease

in the test-zone

(Figure

and reported

fluid

by Stensrud

testing sequence in the test zone consisted

of 12

days under open-borehole

7-56).

pressure-buildup

and two pressure-buildup

against

zones 7-57 presents

pressure

data collected

monitoring (Calendar

On August

1,

and the test-

and guard-zone

packers

and the test tool was rotated

Days

in the test and guard zones, brine was injected

100 to 284).

The

pressure

into the test

in Figure 7-57 and subsequent for the elevation

between the locations of the pressure

1

1

1

I

1

1

1

I

1

1

1

I

1

1

1

I

i

After reinflating

problem in the test

zone.

figures have been compensated

141

tests.

tests,

period of April 10 to October 11, 1990

values presented

differences

withdrawal

to correct a depressurization

by the DAS during the

an initial

pulse-withdrawal

Day 213), the test and guard

were depressurized

the test- and guard-zone

two

two constant-pressure

1990 (Calendar

device.

conditions,

period,

the axial LVDT was slightly

Figure

to the

The

tests,

the top of the volume-displacement

by

et al. (1992).

The test tool was inserted into the borehole until depressed

compensated

were

pressures measured by the pressure transducers

volume-

the overall

interval

and

adding 0.040 and 0.031 MPa, respectively,

device was inserted into the bottom

borehole

volume

guard

pressures

The test-zone

1

1

I

1

1

zone

formation

pore

conducted

in the

1

I

1

1

I

I

1

I

the packers and shutting

to accelerate

pressure.

I

test

I

1

1

The

zone

1

recovery

I

I

1

to

last

tests

consisted

of a

i

I

I

I

I

I

Test SCPO1 -A, Core-Sto(age Libro’ry ‘ Borehole Oriented Oownword 77” from Vertical Test Zone 10.68 – 15.39 m, Marker Bed 139 Guord Zone 8.80 – 9.85 m, PH–4

o ()

2

o 80

I

100

120

Time

Figure 7-57.

180

160

140

(1990

Test- and guard-zone

1

200 Calendar

pressures

119

1

r 1111111,$1111111 220 Days)

240

260

during SCPO1-A testing.

280

300

constant-pressure subsequent sequence

withdrawal

pressure-buildup

test

test.

borehole

conditions,

period,

and

increase

two

in guard-zone

tests.

The

pressure

pressure

from the test zone

leaking

packer

was

between

tests

test tool was

rotated

due

to stop the pressure

This behavior,

observed

after

the

during

first

initiated

the

test, is explained

instead of remaining

leak,

inadvertently

the pressure,

pressure.

and then the guard zone was shut

in.

withdrawal

constant

176),

causing

Day

was

the

increased

nearly

at about

an

constant-pressure

was

The borehole geometry for SCPO1

modified

described assumed

test

according

to

the

shows

in Section 6.2. The test interpretations an

equivalent

cylindrical

from

borehole

the test zone

pressure withdrawal

radius of 14.15 cm.

was

Test Zone. shut

100).

The

in on April

pressure

event correlated the test-zone

second

of the test-zone

from

test was

increased

zone

brine during

test.

and

behavior. increase

seemed

decreased

to the

similar the

The

the 8.1

remained

MPa

until

the

volume

produced

the first

constant-

A total

of about 280

the

test-

was

suspected.

A

of being the cause of behavior

observed

of the second

guard-zone

and

the

pulse-

packers

tool

1, 1990 (Calendar

better test-zone

with a

The test and guard zones and

and

depressurized August

steadily

zone

stages

test.

the decrease

a leak from the test

pressure

the later

for several

was coincident

pressure,

anomalous

withdrawal

on

Because

pressure

the first

test, the test-zone

and fluctuated

guard

Day 192),

test following

leak is suspected

during

Day 168), at which

slightly

test than

rate of pressure

in

test was terminated

withdrawal

rise in guard-zone

the test-

was

rotated

were on

Day 213) to obtain a

packer seal.

thereafter

at a lower rate for the duration

with its earlier

closed,

11, 1990 (Calendar

in the test-zone

on May 30,

pressure increased

decreased

pulse-withdrawal

drop

Day 184). Figure 7-58

days before increasing.

in the test zone from 11.13 to 7.01

The test-zone

it

pressure

The first

initiated

On July

constant-pressure

Day 162) by lowering

until June 17, 1990 (Calendar time

in

10.86 to 8.83 MPa.

June 11, 1990 (Calendar

MPa.

an

Day 150) by lowering

pulse-withdrawal

the pressure

packer, increase

pressure.

test was initiated

1990 (Calendar

Day

Day 125), the

to a corresponding

pulse-withdrawal

8.1

during the pressure-buildup

probably due to a

packer-inflation

pressure

of SCPO1-A

10, 1990 (Calendar

decreased

slip in the position

zone

test zone

On May 5, 1990 (Calendar

test-zone

1990

cm3 of brine was produced during the test (Table 7-2).

7.1.8.1

a rapid was

withdrawal

the cumulative

25,

The pressure

on July 3, 1990 (Calendar

procedure

steadily

to approximately

The slanted test borehole SCPO1 was treated as

constant

June

valve

brine.

interpretation.

test was Day 172).

until a valve was

on

MPa by injecting

for

below.

opened

After

pressure

borehole

pressure

The pressure in the test zone decreased

(Calendar

vertical

the

on June 21, 1990 (Calendar

fluid was injected into the guard zone to increase

equivalent

which is

constant-pressure

The first constant-pressure

to

After

to that

withdrawal

past the test-

zone.

(Figure 7-57).

buildup

the two

probably

and into the guard

similar

of 13 days shut-in

pulse-injection

increased

testing

an initial

pulse-injection

zone

The

in the guard zone consisted

of open

and

of the

The second

consistent

was initiated on August

At the same time, the in the guard

constant-pressure

225) by lowering

zone

11.38 120

to

8.08

withdrawal

test

13, 1990 (Calendar

Day

the test-zone MPa

and

pressure

maintaining

from it at

300

~

I

1

1

1

I

1

1

1

I

I

1

I

1

1

1

I

1

1

1

1

1

I

1

I

I

1

‘: 250 w

1 174

72

176

178 Time

Figure 7-58.

Cumulative

approximately

that pressure

shows

produced total

the

cumulative

7-2).

345

test begun

Day

zone

pressure

Day

248)

235).

was

The

on Figure

to a pulse

guard-zone

increase

injection

7-57

Analytical

and a 23, 1990

second

(Calendar occurred

Interpretations.

calculated

from the two pulse withdrawals,

two constant-pressure data

collected

depressurization the

SCPO1-A

calculated

compressibility

withdrawal during

pressure in

flow

tests

Lehman (1952).

in the

were

for these

The events

the

through

incremental

from

withdrawal

type curve for constantdeveloped

by Jacob

the hole is inclined

The absence of non-radial

subhorizontal

that do not communicate

compressibilities ranged

data from the

and

77° from

flow effects

of the hole (see Figure

C-40) may indicate that flow to the hole occurs

of the test zone at the end of testing.

Figure 7-60 shows

The data match the type curve

well even though

tests, and from

the

as the test-

SCPO1 -A constant-pressure

test to the radial-flow

vertical.

test-zone

test #1.

(Table 6-2).

the best-fit match of the flow-rate

interval.

of

withdrawal

zone pressure decreased

caused by the inclination Values

186

A

produced

performed

1

Days)

x 10-9 to 2.76 x 10-9 Pa-l, increasing

in the test-

5, 1990

184

182

during SCPO1-A constant-pressure

volume

this test.

on August

on September

evident

response

cm3 of brine

Calender

Figure

The flow test was terminated

pressure-buildup (Calendar

brine during

180

(1990

brine production

for 10 days.

from the test zone

of about

(Table

J

Test SCPO1 –A, Core–Storoge Library Borehole Oriented Downword 77° from Verticol - Test Zone 10.68 – 15.39 m, Morker Bed 139

n

7-59

1

121

vertically.

fractures

The match to

the type curve provides a transmissivity

estimate

of4.3 x 10-13m2Ls(permeability-thickness

product

of 5.8 x 10-20m3).

1.12

bedding-plane

400

1

1

I

I

I

1

I

1

I

1

I

1

I

1

I

1

I

1

I

-’

L

m:

Test SCPO1 –A, Core-Storoge Librory Oriented Downword 77° from Verticol - Borehole Test Zone 10.68 – 15.39 m, Morker Bed 139

350

-

:300 0 .— ~

250

m :200

.:

150

m y .— + 0 ~

100

50

-

50

t 225

227

226

228

Time

Figure 7-59.

Cumulative

1

1

(1990

brine production

I

I

1

230

229

231

232

Calendar

233

1

I

1

1

1

I

235

Days)

during SCPO1-A constant-pressure

1 1 1 I

234

1 1 I

1

withdrawal

1

I

1

1

Test SCPO1 -A, Core-Storoge Library Borehole Oriented 13” Downward from Test Zone 10.68 – 15.39 m, Marker

I

test #2.

1 I [

Horizontal Bed 139

0

0

Match qd b q t

Parameters: = 1.0 = 1.0 = 65 cm3/day = 0.302 day = 3.3 MPa

Ap

Analysis T =

Results: 4.3 X 10-”

m2/s

(kh

=

5.8

x

10-20

m3)

EzEl”

1

10,.-2

1

1

1

t

1

1 1 I

I

1

1

1

1 1 1

I

1

1

1

,.-1

b =

Figure 7-60.

1

1990

225.39618

1 1 1 I 1I

10 Elapsed

Flow

Time

{days)

Log-log type-curve match to flow rates during SCPOI -A constant-pressure

122

withdrawal test W.

As discussed completely

above, the SCPO1-A test zone was depressurized

repositioned

twelve

constant-pressure

pressure-buildup

and the test tool was

days

before

the

flow test began.

The best

second

data

is shown

dimensionless

Homer

is shown in Figure 7-63.

the flow test was initiated, the test-zone pressure

provided

was still recovering

transmissivity

a rate of about 0.036 MPa/day. this recovefy with

should

time,

the

superimposed induced

the

steadily was

the

pressure

flow test was a combination the

flow

test

and

depressurization. the post-flow without

Initial attempts

pressure

including

existing

radially

trend

faster

homogeneous

boundary were accelerating simulations

showed

towards a formation

the

the

11.38

earlier

pore

recovefy

pressure.

Eq. 6-9,

proceeding

fractures

compensation remove

component

the pressure been

the

recovery

at

had

the

pressure

MPa

when

This

effect

intersecting

MPa

interpret/2

pressure-trend a

more

pore pressure.

wellbore

is

probably

radius

is

caused

by

the borehole.

Interpretations.

The initial

tests, the pressure fluctuation

the first pressure-buildup increase

on September

fully

248)

flow

test

specified-pressure

began.

were

constant

12-day

period, the two constant-pressure

been

the

12.40

represents

that the effective

withdrawal

had the effect of converting

11.38

any

probably

open-borehole

response to that which would have

obsewed

of

preliminary

without

Numerical

to the pre-flow test depressurization.

This compensation

stabilized

of

value

a

was made to the pressure data to

the

attributable

simulations,

interpret/2

about 1.9 times as large as the actual wellbore

pore pressure of 12.40 MPa,

interpret/2

of

The interpreted wellbore skin of -0.62 implies, by

These

the time the flow test was initiated (1 1.38 MPa). final

the

accurate estimate of the formation

radius.

the

the

compensations

over 1 MPa higher than the test-zone pressure at

For

the

pore pressure

by

The

by

simulations

as if a no-flow

of

pressure-buildup

formation

indicated

10-9 Pa-l), and

Because

to the

to a

does not represent the true formation

indicated

in a

of 1.35x

-0.62.

applied

MPa

simulations

pressure

the recovery.

of

data, the apparent

for the prethe

skin

compensation

from

be expected

system,

of 11.8 cm3/MPa (corresponding

a wellbore

test.

with interpret/2

showed

than would

coefficient

at simulating

any compensation

pressure

recovering

buildup

a

product of 5.1 x 10-20m3), a formation

flow

the

parameters:

10-13 m2/s (permeability-

test-zone compressibility

of recoveries from

of 3.8x

match

All of these matches

estimated

responses

following

is shown

pore pressure of 11.38 MPa, a welibore-storage

nevertheless

recovey

the same

thickness

decreased

constant-pressure

the pressure

at

While the rate of

recovery on

by

Specifically,

have

match

7-61.

in Figure 7-62, and the best linear-linear

At the time

from the depressurization

in Figure

included

test, and the pressure 5, 1990 (Calendar

in GTFM history

test-zone

during

simulations

Day as

sequences.

compressibility

A

of 2.4 x 10-9

Pa-l was initially used in the GTFM simulations, For

the

interpret/2

pressure-buildup

test,

pressure

withdrawal

separate

flow

ranging

from

analysis the test

periods 140

of

the

second

was having

to 29 cm3/day.

but a good fit could not be achieved

second

the

constant-

divided constant

into

13

tests.

Therefore,

a

compressibility -versus-time the simulations.

rates

fitting

The best fit

the

initial

derivative

three test-zone-compressibility

and the compensated 123

test-zone-

function was used for

pressure

decreasing

cumes

varying

The function was developed

obtained between log-log pressure and pressuretype

for each of

compressibility

buildup

with

and then using values

by a the

calculated

10 Test SCPO1 ~A, Core–Storage Library Borehole Oriented 13“ Downward from Horizontal Test Zone 10.68 – 15.39 m, Marker Bed 139 Simuloted Borehole Radius = 14.15 cm

1 -0

‘c 0 Ap t

=

1.0

MPo

w

0 c

2

c-l10-2

B

&lo-J

I

1

1 I

1

I 1 1 II

1

1 1 1 I 1 II

1

1

1

1 1 1 1 1 II

1

1 I

1 1 I II

,.-1

,.-3 t,

=

1990

Figure 7-61.

1

1

Elapsed

235.4:8::2

Log-log plot oflnterpret/2

T

1

1

I

I

I

I

1

1

1

1 1 1 11

10 Buildup

Time’

simulation

of SCPO1-A pressure-buildup

I

1

1

1

1

102

(days)

I

1

1

I

1

I

test #12.

1

1

1

1

1

Test SCPO1–A, Core; Storage Librory Borehale Oriented 13 Oawnword from Horizontal Test Zone 10.68 – 15.39 m, Marker Bed 139 Simuloted Borehole Radius = 14.15 cm

v

Match Pyrometers: = 0.591 PD tD/co = 1.470 = 1.0 MPa Ap = 1.0 day t COe2” = 1.74

/

v o

Figure

1

1

7-62.

1

1

Homer

1

Anc+lysis Results: = 3.8 X lq-’3 m2/s (kh = 11,8 cm/MPa (Cti = c MPa = 11.38 D“ . s –0.62

I

1

1

1

!

I

1

1

1

1

Dimensionless

plot of interpret/2

1

1

Superposition

simulation

124

1

1

I

1

1

1

4

3

2

1

I

= 5.1 x l_Q-20 m3) 1.34 x 10 Pa-’)

I

5

Time

of SCPO1 -A pressure-buildup

1

test #2.

13

12

1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 Test SCPO1 -A, Core–Storoge Librory Borehole Oriented 13° Downward fram Harizantal Test Zone 10.68 – 15.39 m, Morker Bed 139 Simulated Borehole Rodius = 14.15 cm

-

1

1

1

1

I

I

1

I

1

1

1

I

1

1

1

1

I

1

1

I

1

1

1

!

I

1

1

1

I

Q

Match

Parameters:

=

o

1.0

MPo

= 11.38 = –0.62 =5m

s r;

MPo

8 : : =

1

61

I

–lo to=

1

1

I

1

1

1

1

Figure 7-63.

1

1

1

Linear-linear

Since

1

!

I

1

1

1

30 Flow

plot of interpret/2

pressure-buildup

1

20

Time

225.39618

I

1

10

o 1990

I

40

Began

simulation

50

(days)

of SCPO1-A

test-zone compressibility

m3), a storativity

for the remainder of the

period.

used in the simulations

Figure

D-4

measured

of

test-zone-compressibility

Appendix

is presented

D.

pore pressure in

late-time

Temperatures

Appendix

period E.

representation

are shown

Also

shown

in Figure is the

of the temperature

to GTFM

to compensate

pressures

for the temperature

specified

parameters

were a borehole

used

pressure

E-6 of

decrease

data used as the simulated

and

radius of 14.15 cm and a test-

were

a transmissivity

This obsewed

test

zone

leaks

suspected

assume

pressure

simulations

by the test-

were

pressure

pressures

that at

occurred, are similar

they

which

represent the

a

test-zone

pressure forced a break in the seal of the test-

plots of

for the two pulse-withdrawal for

test-zone

10.9 and 10.6 MPa when the first

enough

fit GTFM simulations

parameters

leaking

in the

and these

zone

fitted

pulse-withdrawal

the first pressure-buildup

respectively, to

The

is similar to the decrease

pressures

second

pressure versus elapsed time showing the best-

The

during

approximately

threshold

tests.

in pressure

7-1),

in the obsetved

due to pressure

The

test.

The

in the simulations

7-64 and 7-65 present semilog

data for the second

that occurred

zone fluid volume of 8734 cm3.

Figures

of 12.55 MPa (Table

zone packer into the guard zone.

smoothed

fluctuations.

product of 7.1 x 1020

of 1.9 x 107, and a formation

test show a decrease

in the SCPO1-A test zone during the

monitoring

input

The

and

tests #2.

m2/s (permeability-thickness

function

flow

constant-pressure

at the end of the SCPO1-A testing to define the

testing

I

60

packer

interval.

these

with

communication

125

with

wall, the

This pressure communication

in the increases

of 5.3x 10-13

the borehole

in guard-zone

causing

guard-zone is evident

pressure at the

121

1

1

1

1

I I 1 1111

1

1 1 I 1111

1 I 1 I 111

1

1

I

I

I 1 1111

1

I

1 I I 1111

1

I

[ 1 111

1

1

1 1 ! 1111

1

1

1 1 1 1 Ill

1

1

1 1 1 IL

1

Test SCPO1 –A, Core- Storoge LibraW Borehole Oriented Downward 77” from Vertical Test Zone 10.68 – 15.39 m, Marker Bed 139 Simuloted Borehole Radius 14.15 m

11 n :

5 10

g

m2\s

T = 5.3 X 10~; S=1.9X1O p, = 12.55 MPo

(kh

=

7.1

x 10-20

m’)

: m ~ Q 9

(L

I t 1 111111

81

0 n

0

n n

1

1

1 1 1 }111

I

1 1 I 1 Ill

1

,.-2

,.-4

t

0

=

1990

15:.:9:3

Figure 7-64.

11.5

1 Test

Semilog

plot of GTFM simulation

I I 1 1111

1

SCPO1

Borehole

1

1

–A,

1

1 1 1 1 Ill

Core–Storage

Oriented

Test Zone Simuloted

Time

Downward

10.68 – 15.39 Borehole Rodius

1

102

10

1

10-’

Elapsed

(days)

of SCPO1-A pulse-withdrawal

1

1 1 1 1 Ill

1

1

1 I 1 1111

I

i

test #1.

1 I I Ill

1

1

1 1 1 Ill-

1

1

1 1 1 1 11

LiJbrary

~(yllo

77 from Verticol m, Marker Bed 139 14.15 m

0

10.5

0

o

0 0 0°

/: 0

-

: >

9.5

T = 5.3 X S=1.9X1O p, = 12.55

u ~ : ;

m2/s

10~;

(kh

=

7.1

x

10-zO

m3)

MPa

8.5

ri 7.5 .

(*

6.5

1 1 1 111111

t ,.-4

,.-3

~

=

1990

Figure 7-65.

162.3990

Semilog

I

1

1 1 1 1111

f

1

I 1 1 1111

1

1

1 1 1 1111

,.-1

,.-2

Elapsed

Time

plot of GTFM simulation 126

I

1

1 1 1 1 Ill

1

102

10

(days)

of SCPO1-A pulse-withdrawal

test #2

times zone

corresponding pressure

to the decreases

(Figure

in test-

production

7-57).

the

consistent

constant-pressure

measured Figure

7-66

is a

simulated

plot

and

production

for

withdrawal

tests.

lowered

were

best-fit

GTFM

observed

cumulative

constant-pressure

two

As the test-zone the first

production

31.8 cm3, respectively, volumes

the

the

to initiate

instantaneous

of

volumes

tests,

were observed.

from the zone due to

test-zone

compressibility.

On June 25, 1990

(Calendar

Day 176), four days after starting the withdrawal

returned

to about

not consistent 420

rate

first

for the

late-time

and

second

does

not

However,

the

25.81

flow

cm3/day

rate of 25.83

period

7-67 and 7-68 present

first

SCPO1-A

test

of

with the measured

of the

Homer

test.

plots for

pressure-buildup

tests,

and Figure 7-69 shows the GTFM

simulation

of

sequence.

The radius of influence

the

pressure-change

8.1 MPa (Figure

~ I

I

the fluid-production

(Figure

1 1

1

I

7-58).

entire

criterion,

SCPOI-A

testing

determined

using a one-percent was about 12 m.

1

1

I

1’

I

1

1

1

or’ 80 tO =

Figure 7-66.

of the SCPO1 -A tests

of transmissivity

and

Instantaneous 1

88.51736

Linear-linear

1

numerical

ranging

1

I

1

1

1

I

1

I

1

1

I

I

I

I

1

1

I

(kh

=

7.1

x

10-20

Production 1

I

1

I

from 3.8 x

100 Time

pressure withdrawal

I

Production

(31.8

[ I

1

/1B

cm’)

cm’) I

1

\ 1

110 Since Hole

plot of GTFM

I

1

II

(38.1 i

1

provided

m3)

m

90 1990

analytical

10-13 to 5.3x 10-13 m2/s (permeability-thickness

Instontoneous

I

interpretations

5.3 x 10-’3 m2/s 1.9 x 10-7 12.55 MPa

T= s=

r I

The

Test SCPO1 -A, Core–Storoge Librory Borehole Oriented Oownword 77” from Verticol Test Zone 10.68 – 15.39 m, Morker Bed 139 Simuloted Borehole Rodius 14.15 m

/

/> Id

Summary.

estimates

rate

However,

I

(-)

the

data.

from the GTFM simulations,

For five days after the test zone was

open to the atmosphere, was

was

from 8.2 to 2.7 MPa before the test

zone was 7-57).

production

respectively,

for

period

withdrawal

simulated

the

less than a minute, which resulted in a pressure decrease

of

the inconsistent

Figures

test,

the test zone was open to the atmosphere

analysis

reproduce

cm3/day

These

produced

GTFM

agrees

of 38.1 and

withdrawal

of

for the final three days of production.

constant-pressure

pressure was

and second

first SCPOI -A constant-pressure

The

fluid

with the first two days

simulation

tests. 127

i

!

I

120 Cored

1

1

1

1

[

1

1 >1

130

I

I

1

1

140

1

1

1

150

(days)

of brine production

during

SCPO1-A

constant-

11

1

r

I

I

T 1 1 111

1

1

I

1 1 1 1 1[

1

1

1 1 1 1 1 II

1

1 1 I 1 1 II

1

1

#

1

1 1 I 1 1“

Test SCPO1 –A, Core–Storage l-ibra~ Borehole Oriented Downward 77” from Vertical Test Zane 10.68 – 15.39 m, Morker Bed 139 Simulated Barehale Rodius 14.15 m

i

T= s= PI. t, At.

= = =

m2/s 5.3 x 10:: 1.9 x 10 12.55 MPa 16.3560 days 1990 184.5076

(kh

=

7.1

x

10-m

m’)

1

1

8

1

1 1 1 I

Ill

1

1

I

! 1 1 1 II

10

1

1

10’tn”

I

1 1 1 I II

1

+ At

t

1 1 1 1 I II

1

1

1

1

1 1 1 11

105

104

’03

At

Figure

121

7-67.

1

I

Homer

1 1 1 1 1 II

plot of GTFM

1

I

simulation

1 1 I 1 1 1I

1

of SCPO1 -A pressure-buildup

1

1

1 I I 1 II

1

1

I

I

test ##l.

1 1 1 II

1

1

1

I

1 1 11

Test SCPO1 –A, Care–Storage Libra~ Barehole Oriented Oawnward 77” from Vertical Test Zone 10.68 – 15.39 m, Marker Bed 139 Simulated Barehale Radius 14.15 m 1

T= s= Pf = tp” = Ate =

m2/s 5.3 x 10:: 1.9 x 10 12.55 MPo 13.6880 dOyS 1990 235.4479

(kh

=

7.1

x

10-20

m~)

1

i R

1

1

1 1 1 11

10

“1

‘02tD”

+

At

‘0’

105

104

At

Figure 7-68.

Homer plot of GTFM simulation 128

of SCPOI-A

pressure-buildup

test #2.

14 12 10

2 0 H 1— 1

–7

-o

1

Simulation 1

I

Marker was

~

1

1

1

1

20 40 t. = 1990 88.51736

Figure 7-69.

products

1 1

of 5.1 Bed

estimated

Linear-linear

The as as

Sim

~His+S

1

I

1

80 Since

t 1

I

pore in

MPa

pressure

1

Hist



1

I

1

GTFM of

the

of

withdrawal

influence

for

a

pressure-change

criterion.

nor GTFM simulations significant

wellbore

conductivity

(permeability)

evident,

permeability

indicating

of the anhydrite

Neither

vertical clay

1

1

1

200

180

values

of

hydraulic

and specific

storage

for the SCPO1 -A test zone by

intewal

containing

E.

The

Marker

average

Bed

hydraulic

of this interval is 4.0 x 10-13to 5.5 x

SCPO1-A

no

flow

of the borehole the

Guard

(Calendar

interpret/2

No non-radial

that

I

that flow to the hole was horizontal

and

7.1.8.2

using a one-percent

effects caused by the inclination were

~

1

of 5.3x 10-20to 7.4 x 10-20

tests of about 5

indicated the presence of skin.

1

m2) and the specific storage is 1.95 x 10-7 m-l.

of about 12 m was determined

from the GTFM simulations

1

160

10-’3 m/s (permeability

m. A radius of influence for the entire SCPO1-A testing sequence

I

averaged

conductivity

constant-pressure

and pressure-buildup

1

Vertically

0.96-m

as total

calculates

Simulation 1

of entire SCPO1-A testing sequence.

139 (expressed

1

only and that the flow was produced only by the

of 1.9 x 10-7.

radius

H I

assuming

GTFM provided good simulations

Interpret/2

[

in

simulations.

system compressibility),

1

can be calculated

and

Using this value of storativity

Sim +

1

interpret/2

simulations

all of the tests using a storativity

I

100 120 140 Ho’e Cored (days)

x 10-20 m3) for

MPa

12.55

1

plot of GTFM simulation

formation

12.40

1

60 Time

x 10-20 to 7.1

139.

I

was

The

Zone. shut

in

on

guard April

buildup,

a

pulse

injection

performed

on April 27, 1990 (Calendar

by raising

the pressure

was

0.62

A pressure buildup to 0.98 MPa was then

at which

129

1990

Day 117)

to approximately

observed until July 11, 1990 (Calendar

vertical

is insignificant.

10,

in

Day 100). After 17 days of apparently

pressure

MPa.

zone

time the guard-zone

Day 192),

pressure

started

increasing 7-57).

at a substantially The

attributed

rapid

increase

to leakage

in pressure

After

communication zones,

pressure

test

and

packers were depressurized

tool

was

(Calendar

rotated

Day 213).

on

injected

into the guard

pressure

0.70

to

pressure

1,

The test-zone

zone

7.2

1990

and guard-

pulse

September

injection

to increase

5,

1990

the

observing

conducted

(Calendar

raising the guard-zone 2.95 MPa.

was

Day

a

in the guard zone increased

248)

before removing

end

of

the

compressibility ‘ and

3.12

x

testing

the pressure

were

underground

excavations

pressure decreases

relating

sought

to establish and hydraulic

the pressure

SCPO1-A

guard

interpretations pressure

zone,

could

changes

not provide

behavior

observed

7.2.1

pore pressure

observed

data could

above

3

compressibi

by

modifying

storativity,

and

lity-versus-pressure

They identified

a number

development, among

properties

based

at that time.

can

those on the

Those factors with the

by this report.

and

also

Other

such as the

be

comparing

in

and

of Darcian flow and the treatment

wells,

of

evaluated

by

interpretations

of

EFFECTS OF DISTURBED-ROCK

Beauheim

et

hypotheses

about the formation

within

al.

(1991)

The small

factors identified

testing

as affecting

the true

occurring

The for

at

around

which

excavation,

estimated guard-zonefunction.

results

amount

of

excavations

of

at that time to

rock

(1988)

disturbance

in response

to

These factors include the distance a

test

was

conducted

from

an

the size and age of the excavation,

and the orientation

of the test hole with respect

to the excavation.

In general,

(1991 ) 130

the

by Borns and Stormont

the

stress relief.

excavations

might be affected

related

completed

current

of disturbed-rock

underground

They

ZONE.

discussed

properties

a DRZ.

permeability

pore pressure the

the

testing

of the test interpretations,

defendable

be matched

value of formation

MPa

in the

around the hole.

probably

affect

can be re-examined

and how hydraulic

during the tests do

for estimating

formation

transmissivity,

no

be obtained.

any basis

any assumed

but

around

for

to attempt to

obsetved

might

relationships

zones (DRZS) around match

that forms

the

different tests.

from 2.26 to 1.47 MPa, from

were performed

how

from hydraulic

data provided

examining

(Table 6-2).

GTFM simulations

discussed

to DRZ

factors

slanted

1.48 to 0.78 MPa, and from 0.78 to 0.12 MPa, respectively

or by significantly

(DRZ)

interpreted

assumption

Guard-zone determined

(1991)

and relationships

the test tool at the

were

pa-’

al.

limited data available

values of 1.65 x 10S, 4.35 x 104, 1()-7

having test

compressibility.

zone

additional

values

period.

obsewed.

by either

disturbed-rock

aspects determined

et

of factors

by

end of the testing period 36 days later.

compressibility

those

(i.e.,

of Results

the Salado Formation.

on

to 2.96 MPa by the

Guard-zone

than

years

Discussion

parameters

pressure to approximately

After an initial decline,

of several

Beauheim

buildup to only 0.83 MPa in the guard

a

magnitude)

more definitive

might be obtained

reducing the guard-zone

and brine was

After

MPa.

the

of the SCPO1-A guard zone would

higher

durations

guard

of

and the

August

zone packers were then reinflated

zone,

of

These

the test and guard zones and test- and

guard-zone test

the

the

quantification

require pressure responses

packer (Section

observing

between

defendable

transmissivity

was

from the test zone to the

guard zone past the test-zone 7.1.8.1).

Reliable,

higher rate (Figure

found

possible

Beauheim

correlations

et al.

between

increasing

proximity

increasing

permeability

pore

pressure,

Properties

by large

excavations

the

increase

an

to several

appear

of

pore

pressure

age.

permeability when

same

unit

was

excavation,

tested

indicating

they

beneath

hydraulic

the

from

the

discussed

by

A wider variety of test-

is also considered

conductivity

in this report

(from the S1 P72-A guard

zone) to the data base established

important

properties

halite

Compared

hydraulic

by Beauheim

to the other values of

conductivity

shown

on Figure

7-70, the value from the S1 P72-A guard zone

and conditions.

seems anomalously Relationship

Conductivity

and

Excavation.

Figure

average

tests

The current report adds only one value of halite

et al. (1991).

7.2.1.1

distances

the

et al. (1991).

is also an

hydraulic

The tests

beneath

that the position of a test

affecting

greater

than

intetval with respect to an excavation factor

et al. (1991).

in this

than in the previous report.

than when the

directly

at

hole orientations

formation

tested

the rib or pillar of an excavation

Beauheim

both

in this report were, for the most part,

excavations to

discussed

and in Beauheim

conducted

excavations,

higher

of the tests

discussed

more

appears

a unit was

report

complicating

In addition,

and

simulations

formation

disturbance

as excavations lower

and

to be disturbed

than by small

amount

found

excavation

and decreasing

subject

factors.

and

to

hydraulic

Between

Hydraulic

Distance 7-70

From

presents

conductivity

to

an

excavation.

S1 P72-A measurement

an

excavation

a plot of

versus

interval distance from an excavation

proximity

low given that zone’s close

whereas

measurements

test-

by

from G~FM

However,

was made in the rib of an all

the

other

were made in the floor.

Beauheim

et

the

al. (1991),

no

halite

As noted consistent

,.10

I

I

I

I ‘i>

I

I

I

I

,..,7

1

,..11

3

m

/\ .—

2

, ~.,,

-& 89

-a===

10

A ,uY L\

7

1 ,0.13

,0.,4

,015

Figure 7-70.

&+

1

16 +

‘4 15 T

4

I

I

I

I

o

2

4

6 Distance

Interpreted

average

hydraulic

I

1. 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 7, 8. I

10 8 from Excavation

conductivities

tested intervals. 131

9. C2H02 10. SCPO1-A 11. S1P72-A-GZ 12. SOPO1 13. L4P51-A 14. C2H01-B 15. C2H01-B-GZ 16. C2H03

SOPO1-GZ C2H01-A C2H01-C SIP73-B S1P71-A L4P52-A L4P5~-B SIP71-B I

1

12

14

16

(m)

versus

distances

from excavations

to the

correlation

is evident

on Figure

halite hydraulic conductivity excavation.

7-70 between

and distance from an

The lack of a correlation

due, in part, to the fact that halite been tested the

over a great

excavations.

completed

range

with the same

have

impurity

excavation,

may be

and

the

halite

not all been

compositions

mineralogic

contributing

to

relationship

from

A cautionary

note is necessary,

discussing

the

permeability)

or contents.

and

distance

study

apparent

between

involving

different

conductivity

excavations,

combined of core

intervals

distances

with careful

samples,

necessary

to

define

conductivity

is affected

at

probably

halite

on

hydraulic

only

conductivity

Beauheim

et

between

al.

increasing

of

hydraulic

noted

hydraulic

proximity

report

Marker

(1991)

increasing

current

measurements

to

adds

Beauheim

et

of anhydrite

al.

the

(1991).

regardless respect

of distance

ribs

of

observed

excavations

SCPO1-A)

base

The

hydraulic

interval

any

of

and

in

different

different and

locations

Relationship

At

of

Between

and Distance

equilibrium,

pore

From

L4P52-A, into the floor

driven by the difference

rock.

pore pressure

excavations

into the

between distance

anhydrite from

When

atmospheric

floor

to be established is dependent

and hydraulic

condition

and the

The time required

an excavation

pressure

between the

in the formation

in the excavation.

disequilibrium

Higher

an

should reflect steady flow toward the

the mechanical

of

around

excavation far-field

and

Pore

excavation

is opened

8 m

fracture

an Excavation.

pressures

after an excavation

less than

make

of

Formation

appear to occur in the

above

and

difficult.

condition

directly

of

anhydrite

comparisons

conductivities

Pressure

properties

on

of the

is first opened,

is created

between

in the excavation

a the

and the

pore pressure initially present in the surrounding

(C2H01-C and SOPO1-GZ). Thus,

correlation

conductivity

fractures

for this equilibrium

found

of excavations

7.2.1.2

tested,

7-70).

values

conductivity

in the number

The

(C2H02,

1YO of the total

occupying

pressure

(Figure

of

The

data

(L4P51 -B and S1 P71-B).

and

of the total thicknesses

Variations

at

hydraulic

of anhydrite

excavations

(S1 P73-B)

that occupy variable,

with

or 9 m or more

are

are concentrated

then the hydraulic

of

interbeds

and

from or orientation

to an excavation

lowest values

fractures

indicate that

If a single fracture was present

determination

has not been found to

1020 mz) in any

5 x

conductivity

average.

apertures

139,

be lower than about 4 x 10-13m/s (permeability about

average

the fracture would be 100 times higher than the

the

conductivity

values

to

conductivity

Bed

represent

of core specimens

bed thickness,

a correlation

an excavation.

five

conductivity

of

hydraulic

in boreholes

in a given anhydrite,

by nearby excavations.

three

The

Video observations

but small, percentages

hydraulic

(or

homogeneous.

the anhydrites. be

conductivity

are vertically

in bedding-plane

from

when

values assuming that the anhydrites

overall Based

by

in this report and

et al. (1991)

flow and hydraulic

mineralogic

would

how

affected

however,

anhydrite.

values presented

and examination

A detailed

tens of tests of halite and

be

hydraulic

of

conductivity

nonsystematic

an excavation.

orientations

description

could

halite hydraulic

from

strongly

tests

of strata

differences

the

be

position with respect to the excavation.

in Beauheim Therefore,

to

from an

has not as yet

of distances

In addition,

to date

appears to be limited to short distances

hydraulic

an excavation

rock.

This disequilibrium

rock

into

the

excavation,

leads to flow from the causing

pressure in the rock to decrease. 429

the

pore

With time, the

pore pressure in the rock is decreased and greater addition by

distances

from

to the changes

flow,

the

in the

change

stress

instantaneous throughout

(1954) coefficient

rock

change. dependent

process

one arising

rock causes

in

pore

volume

degree

an

pressure

of rock.

is given

processes,

The

mass.

in halite is dependent

time

to some but on

Developing

scales.

of those processes

of

on multiple

from an excavation,

scope of the work discussed

by Skempton’s

is itself a

Thus, the evolution

most of which are affected

understanding

The

by creep, which

process.

by distance

different

may also change during

a

full

is beyond the

in this report.

as some fraction of the stress

The

pore pressures

excavation

in the

change

caused

pore pressures

affected

pore-pressure

deformation

by changing the state of

change

the

caused

pore pressures

also

an

surrounding

in the

elastic,

In

such as halite that is not linearly

time-dependent

of

changes pore pressures stress

the excavation.

in pore pressure

mining

In a medium

to greater

change

in

stress

and, therefore,

have two transient

from the evolution

is a time-

Figure

changes

pressure

in

7-71 presents versus

excavation

components:

discussed

of the flow field

a plot of formation

test-interval

distance

from GTFM simulations

pore

from an

of the tests

both in this report and in Beauheim

et

and one arising from the evolution

of the stress

al. (1991 ). The current report adds four values

field.

components

of halite

Which,

dominates

if either,

of these

the pore-pressure

time and place depends mechanical

properties

14

Beauheim

response at a given

on the hydraulic

many

I

I

other

I

I

pressure

et al. (1991).

the S1 P72-A

and

of the medium.

I

pore

guard halite

I

zone

to the

-m

was

I

25 ,% 24

16 \ 6

@ 15 13

4

‘=

12

5

1 o o

2

Interpreted

17

e~ n

4 Distance

Figure 7-71.

21

“* 8

i, 7

“o-

,8

~ 10

3,4

22~

& ~

,. “

2

%

20

14+

formation

I

I

6

8 from

Excavation

pore pressures

intervals.

133

higher

than

in

1. C2H01-A-GZ 2. S1P71-A-GZ 3. SI P73-A-GZ 4. L4P51-A-GZ 5. SOPO1-GZ 6. C2H01-A 7. S1 P73-A 8. S1 P72-A 9. C2H01-B 10. L4P51-A 11. S1P71-A 12, L4P52-A-GZ 13, S1 P72-A-GZ 14. C2H01-B-GZ 15, SOPO1 16, L4P52-A 17. C2H02-GZ 18, S1 P73-B-GZ 19, L4P51-B-GZ 20. SI P71-B-GZ 21. SIP73-B 22. SIP71-B 23. L4P51-B 24. C2H01-C 25. C2H02 26. SCPO1-A



-

of

intervals at similar or greater

10 8

base

The pore pressure in

26 ‘2

data

I

I

I

10

12

14

16

(m)

versus distances

from excavations

to the tested

distances perhaps

from

an

indicating

excavation less stress

(Figure relief

corner of a room than in the floor. the pressure

7-71),

near the

In contrast,

boreholes

in Figure 7-71, we see that, with the

exceptions

of S1 P72 and C2H01, pore pressures

in test zones are higher than pore pressures

in the S1 P73-B guard zone, which

guard

zones.

was farther

from but directly

above an excava-

hypothesis

tion,

relatively

Conditions

progressively

was

low.

above

This that

are affected

by gravity pulling down

to the reposito~.

and tending

to separate

strata along planes of

pore pressures

such as bedding planes.

two

sets

different The new data on anhydrite nine locations of Beauheim pore pressure excavation qualification. directly and

generally

et al. (1991) of increasing with increasing (Figure

comparable

with

Pore pressures

zone distances

excavations.

from

and

indicating which

major

ages

tend to be lower

than

in other directions

Comparing

pore

tests

have

beneath

the same

at the times

very

width

pressure

are evident

perhaps

Rooms

L4 and 7,

and were

of testing,

Clear

similar,

have

of similar

developed

gradients

at both locations.

at During

from

S1 P72-A

observed

pressures

4.40

testing,

in Marker Bed

to 6.00 m from

n

S1P71, O MPa

o

q

the highest

pressure

139 in the test

Room 7, was

zone,

about

S1P71

E%#L4P51

I 1

3

2 Formahon

Pore Pressure

4

6

5

(MPa) ,.)’,

formation

in

toward

I

k

at

observed

are

12 ~

Interpreted

conducted

and pressure gradients

0,

Figure 7-72.

been

of depth.

holes

ways.

becomes

with closer proximity

plotted as a function

the excavations

between test zones and guard zones in individual

2

Salado

the

from L4P51 and S1 P71, where

that DRZS

have

similar

(S1 P73-A test zone S1 P73-B)

two

supports

Figure 7-72 shows formation

depths,

in the

from an

one

of

The pressures

anhydrite

distance

7-71 ),

above excavations guard

pore pressures

support the observation

the

depressurized

excavations

weakness

observation

in

pore pressures

134

!,!mo

versus depth in boreholes

L4P51 and S1 P71.

1.2

MPa, while the apparent formation

7.2.2

pore pressure

EVALUATION

in the halite guard zone, 2.15 to 3.18 m from

REGIME.

Room 7, was about 4.1 MPa.

hydraulic

Marker

Bed

continually

139 at this

decreasing

flow towards Section

The pressure

location

Marker

7.1.5.1,

atmospheric

is low and

the transmissivity

in

starting

at

successive

is

pressure beneath the floor of Room of

excavation

hence,

pressure

faster

from

differentials

Darcy-flow

were

tests

pressure

et al.

(1991)

noted

in the C2HOI-B

that

the

pore

For instance, the first pulse-withdrawal

test

L4P51 -B

at

had

of about

an

initial

1.09 MPa for

and the initial

pressure

differential

withdrawal

test was about 2.05 MPa (Table 6-2).

test sequences, test

m below Room C2, was about 1 MPa lower than

phase

the

second

hydraulic

room.

initial pressure

that time-dependent

deformation

processes

heterogeneity

in the mechanical

rock

might

cause

coupled

with

vertical

properties of the

localized

changes

in pore

obtained

differentials

differential

appeared to have no influence on the interpreted

the

buildup

pressures.

Strata. were

of the

Two of the tests discussed of the same

same

position

excavations testing.

stratigraphic relative

tests

of similar

These

tests

were

S1 P71 -B tests of anhydrite transmissivities were identical

at the

in the

existence

sized

hydraulic

times

the L4P51-B

“c”.

as

of individual

strata

has

conducted

of

conditions

does

imply

that

7-1 ).

of

The available

data suggest

of

model

adequately

indicate

a low degree

hydraulic

properties

should

natural

that

low-gradient

around

at these

two

gradients

are high,

conditions

that should be applied

similar.

135

the

that a Darcy-flow

near-field

probably

would

conditions.

describe

“c”, and that the history of disturbance was

model

of flow through

anhydrite

locations

model to the

under high-gradient

under

the

hydraulic

tests

Salado

in

of low

hydraulic

were nearly the same (5.21 and 5.’12 MPa; Table results

the

demonstrated.

a Darcy-flow

the

a valid description

These

low

been

provide

heterogeneity

6.2,

Salado

not necessarily

(4.8 x 1014 m2/s and 1.0 x 104, and the formation

all be

properties.

Section

and not

in applying

interpretation

from these tests

in

gradients

Success

and

discussed

pore pressures

respectively)

could

of Darcy flow under conditions

conductivities

of

The interpreted

and storativities

flow tests, and pressure-

using the same hydraulic

However,

in this report

similarly

ages

is, pressure-pulse

Same

interval

to

That

properties.

simulated of Tests

of the

to have no

also

tests, constant-pressure

Comparison

magnitude

appeared

same

The nature of the test performed

for

7.2.1.3

the

a test.

required

re-equilibrate

of each

from

hydraulic

to

For all

effect on the hydraulic properties interpreted

on a time scale shorter than the time flow

for

tests were

using

The

parameters.

pressure

fluid

pulse-

good GTFM simulations

were

that in the guard zone, 2.92 to 4.02 m below the They hypothesized

pressure

about 2.03 and 4.12 MPa, respectively.

test zone, 4.50 to 5.58

for

at individual

the first and second pulse-withdrawal Beauheim

used

locations.

At SCPO1-A, the initial pressure

depressurization.

or not the

and GTFM, different

pressure-pulse

differential

Bed 139 relative to that of the halite in

the S1 P72-A guard zone allows more flow toward the

interpreted

As discussed 139

FLOW

gradient created during a test affected

models such as interpret/2

Bed

and,

whether

of

7 at borehole S1 P71. The higher permeability Marker

To determine

we believe,

because,

the excavation.

in

OF EVAPORITE

flow in the

the WI PP repository but the far-field

where

boundary

to the model

are

Sensitivity

uncertain.

performed the

studies

using a numerical

effects

that

might have

should

different

or

not

in

bounday

conditions

anhydrites

model to determine boundary

situ

definition

boundaries

and

of

behaved

hydraulically

porosity or double-porosity

conditions

on flow to or from the repository

whether

be

tests,

is important.

media.

single-

No hydraulic

were evident during any of the tests

discussed

those

as

in this report.

which

On the scale of the

had calculated

radii

of influence

ranging from about 2 to 20 m, the tested strata behaved as though they were infinite.

Uncertainty

about

independent

of hydraulic

with uncertainty

hydraulic

properties

gradient

in how test-zone

varies during test sequences. (e.g., SCPO1-A), successive

As

are

empirical

basis,

simulations,

considered

to

used

individual

testing

pressure-buildup

D,

the

as shown

properties

(Gringarten,

1984),

stabilization

of pressure

contributing

and good matches

period

addition

existence

to

through

were

were

whether or not hydraulic on the scale strata confined

evidence

of testing;

behaved

to

on

or leaky;

and

determine:

boundaries

magnitude in

the

in this

of halite and/or the matrix

lower

anhydrite

is several

than

that

of the

and

that

longer

from

the

low-permeability

component(s)

of the system.

As discussed

in Section 6.2, slanted holes were

were

the

of the

treatment

vertical

vertical

(1)

is thought

halite

is

136

less

test this

than

an

in the tested

0.1. anisotropy

have yet

accurate

that the ratio of

permeability

information

for

standpoint,

provide

of hydraulic

or anhydrite

Qualitative

fractured

to

to horizontal

intervals

holes

of tests provided

measurements

individual

cylindrical

From a theoretical

interpretation

hydraulically

(3) whether

as

interpretation.

were evident

(2) whether

as if they

permeability

to see a response

relating to the nature of flow

evaporates

discussed

was

using the same

of Darcy flow, other objectives

test interpretations

effect

duration flow and buildup tests would be required

(Figures 7-11 through 7-15).

providing

the

The two effects can

of the anhydrite

of

treated In

to

The absence of these effects may imply

fractures

for

flow

but neither

in any of the tests

orders

tests,

was held constant

begins

permeability

less than an order of

in the

porosity

that the vertical

would,

tempora~

when the leaky bed or matrix

report.

by the imposed

a

ways

pressure derivative)

evident

variations

similar

(or a minimum

to tell apart,

less than

in

causing

bed or fractures.

obtained to the data from each of the test phases

hydraulic

data

be difficult

the

compressibility

buildup

pressure-buildup

behavior

for fractured

and double-porosity

permeable

after

In the case of the L4P51-B

after the initial

Leakage

beds.

initial

be considerably

all of the simulations

Double-porosity a possibility

during

being masked

compressibility

than the anhydrite.

affect

that the

lower permeability

was also considered

imposed

Any potential

in test-zone

beds which are bounded above and

the

period were typically

in transmissivity

most likely to be evident during tests

compressibility

sequences

an order of magnitude.

Leakage was

anhydrite

valid

to

during any of the tests.

below by halite beds having

these

fitted

were also not

of anhydrite

for

a

However,

in Appendix

in test-zone

magnitude.

have

were

not measured.

variations

6.3.2,

responses

considered

was allowed to

but the fact remains

figures

test-zone

parameters

in Section

variations

therefore,

observed

In some instances

compressibility

variations

in the

is associated compressibility

the simulation

discussed

variations

exact

and/or double-porosity

test phases were not entirely identical

because test-zone vary.

being

Leakage

been

is available,

No

direct in either

performed. however,

from observation

of the rock.

method of formation symmetry

of

apparent

stress

halite

within

field.

the

the SCPO1-A

of halite beds and the cubic crystals,

for permeability

horizontally

Considering

no

reason

to differ vertically

a single

is and

bed in an isotropic

Mineralogic

differences

anisotropy stresses

on the multibed

scale.

halite.

in anisotropic

However,

discussed

for

the

in this report,

indication

that

exclusively

horizontal.

anhydrite

flow

through

core

samples

single

halite

Beauheim

in

et al. (1991) estimated

laboratory

test

measurements

properties

that of the S1 P72-A

uncertain

as

interpreted hole

Section

or

Therefore,

7.1.5.2,

whether

we

this

test

pressure-pulse

as

remain

terms

vertical

of

is

horizontal

better

flow

to

an

tests

anhydrite

for

is less equivocal.

anisotropy

as well as examinations

indicate that most of the permeability comes

from

fractures. provide

subhorizontal

No high-angle significant

been obsewed. of

the

report,

was treated as a fitting parameter

vertical

through

of

higher

interpreted equivalent between

in slanted in

terms

vertical

of

of its value.

guard-zone

polyhalitic

halite 4, is 2.1 x 10-7 m-’.

which might

of

m-l estimated

have

of map

prior to testing

values of anhydrite

specific

from the tests discussed

are

well with the estimates

storage

made

despite the fact that the anhydrites increases

uncertain

is almost

estimated

can

The

good

flow

are fractured,

compressibility

extent. All of the interpreted specific

interpreted’

storage

fall

to

an

values of within

the

range of 9.7 x 104 to 2.3 x 10-7 m-l

except for the value of 1.0 x 10-5 m-l from the

be reliably

horizontal

their

The

prior to testing,

which

of the

fractures.

This value

in this report also agree

must be several that

unit O and

(Table 6-1).

than

vertical flow, the tests

the constant-pressure

test

falls within the range of 2.8 x 10a to 3.5 x 10-7

anhydrite

holes.

That value, from the

S1 P72-A

In

holes

by this report.

storage of halite

bedding-plane

anhydrite

the subhorizontal

the absence of significant of anhydrite

in

tests allows more reliable

is provided

matrix, and that flow through anhydrites entirely

(or

the combination

of core all

permeability,

in anhydrite

of magnitude

storage

flow tests with pressure-pulse

Only one value for the specific

available as yet, we believe that the permeability

orders

on specific

specific

because

of

pressure-pulse

of anhydrite

fractures,

permeability

of the fractures

because

layers into

While no direct measurements

matrix

storage as a fixed or

storativity)

definition

in

material

Video examinations

of brine and gas flow from anhydrite boreholes

the

In this

constant-pressure

hydraulic

of

based on

storage.

GTFM simulations

hole.

evidence

values for the

in their GTFM simulations

and pressure-buildup The

in

tests alone provide little information

in terms of radial flow to a slanted in

equivalent

to

to

of those types of rocks (Table 6-1).

specified parameter

or absence of hydraulic anisotropy

in

planned anisotropy

specific storage of halite and anhydrite

the presence

discussed

are

Anisotropic

permeability

unknown.

is

directly.

They then treated specific

be considered

anhydrite

of hydraulic

guard zone which spanned portions of two beds,

must

the

an

Laboratory measurements

the question

anhydrite

in the near field around the repository

could also result

139 and a

type curve (Figure 7-60) provides

address

beds, such as the presence of clay, could create

Bed

radial-flow

on

between

test of Marker

S1 P73-B

to

explanation

match

test of Marker

Bed

138.

The only

that can be given for this high value

is that, because of roof sag directly above Room

flow data from

137

7, the fractures be more

highly

other anhydrite

in Marker Bed 138 at S1 P73 may compressible

than fractures in

layers or in other positions

with

respect to the excavations.

138

8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This report presents tests

mnducted

in bedded

Salado

Formation

1992.

The

Beauheim

interpretations

evaporates

from mid-1989

report

(