Oxford. University Press. Carter, R.D., and C.W. Tracy. 1960. âAn 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
(
