(GP/GT) for Additional Water Supply in the Lower Rio Grande

More documents

Recommendations

Info

J. McNutt & Associates, Inc. McAllen Ranch Well Analysis November, 1993 IIWJ .'.~, ẸilISlm '.. R .... --1II1II'" ', .. ~ .(~",~._ 'Na ... '. i' .. , .•. ·.·%t~ Mtml" ~'\.II' "!I>iI"\]'.' ,w, '•.; '~m"'''''!I'·~·~!'II-··,.""···"",,g''·''''~:.:iJ:t;..£~~' "~""",,,:' , il.!;;i;~,~,i¢~*1,!'!;,irr:i~!iii'::·i:':,.:;,."''''''·.'.40lJO·";.·,:,.:,,, " .... ~~()7·",:,';J,::·,., ••.. !.···, .. ·:·!2~1.::,,!! .• ,;··;· .. ,."',,..•..••, ,.',., 5,.'1"',",'",.:,\," ','..,130 CF-2 4080 5614 582 11 260 3 CF-3 4080 8422 873 16 390 5 _ . '_.... ,_g_..\t __ .. olrl ..... t.t., .. "''''''~.''' .. ,.,... ' ........., " . 'M!iII'" ."IIB'""•.. .... _., . ... .~. .'. ." .. i,~,!f .. e,,~,.~'" .. _, ..... ~"l,,,u"' •. _ ... f.l\_ ..... ,._./J:L .. ~ .... ,..:rl,, ~ .. ' ; -tUlllllr"--'-~''''''1mlr'l''1!l~'''~' ~ ..\. "ff"DEer ·:~~~'«~ijZnt.,"} ·:"'·.·1,,·
APPENDIX G 4 DEC 1993 TO: MR. KLEBER DENNY Terra Associates, Inc. Houston, Texas FM: EUGENE R. REAHL Ionics, Inc. 5455 Garden Grove Blvd Suite 321 Westminster, CA 92683 cc: EPG, JWArnold, R. Johnson, £ile tel: 713-993-0333 £ax: 713-993-0743 tel: 714-893-1545 £ax: 714-892-1592 SUB: PRELIMINARY EDR / RO COSTS & PERFORMANCE STUDY REF: State o£ Texas Water Development Board Grant Ionics M-10 (TX) Reviewed your water data £or GROUP 1 thru GROUP 4 conditions. We used the "mean" water analysis £or each group for the EDR vs RO comparisons. We also used the range o£ feedwater pH's £or each group and then took the average (high + low) / 2 plus about 20% £or our calculations. We used 24 degrees C as the £eed temp in all cases. (1) Per our discussion, rough data indicates GROUP 1 thru GROUP 4 waters contain levels o£ Boron (above 1.4 ppm) which will cause severe problems £or £ruits, plants, and other growing things. Although Bo causes problems £or plants, you and I can drink same up to 45 ppm with no problem!! EDR does not remove boron at normal pH. RO requires elevated pH, as well, £or e££ective reduction. As discussed, we've ignored boron removal in this study. Keep in mind though, i£ Bo reduction is required, both EDR and RO could reduce same by having the £eed water pH raised to 8.5 - 9.5. This requires a presoftening system installation (either lime or lime-soda clarification or softening RO membranes) - so that 2nd phase EDR or RO system will not su££er catastrophic membrane scaling due to high pH. (2) Since you asked £or high water recovery to minimize brine disposal via injection wells - this was our overriding objective in the study. The RO design pushed water recovery to a limit of 180 to ~ ppm Si02 in the brine £or GROUP 1 thru GROUP 3. For GROUP 4 (be .use Si02 is low), we used 85% as a normal upper limit. Due to the level o£ Calcium and Bicarbonate in the "mean" water analysis £or each GROUP, RO requires the £eeding of sulfuric acid to £eedwater in each case, to control the level of CaC03 scaling in RO brine.
Page 1 and 2:
KLEBER J. DENNY, INC. 312 Grandview
Page 3 and 4:
KLEBER J. DENNY, INC. 312 Grandview
Page 5 and 6:
FINAL REPORT ON TEXAS WATER DEVELOP
Page 7 and 8:
REPORT ON TASK NO. I: CO-LOCATION S
Page 9 and 10:
1-2 1. GP/GT Fairways Information p
Page 12 and 13:
o s:: 011= m ,; .. f ; iI '& ri i'
Page 14 and 15:
Table S Selected Formation Water An
Page 16 and 17:
average depth of 10,033 feet, avera
Page 18 and 19:
high, the sands are not thick enoug
Page 20 and 21:
included distributary channel or de
Page 22 and 23:
the eastern part of the study area,
Page 24 and 25:
to coastal barrier sandstone on the
Page 26 and 27:
within Reservoir Area B, the sand a
Page 28 and 29:
Papadopulos, S. S., 1975, The Energ
Page 30 and 31:
FLUID PROPERTIES Gas Gas Water Sol'
Page 32 and 33:
only reason for selecting that limi
Page 34 and 35:
Hidalgo Co. , , , ,, , ,, , ,,, , ,
Page 36 and 37:
§ 8 10,116' ;;;- - ... : 10,695' F
Page 38 and 39:
-r- ~~ '1- • r- ~~ .... . ~ 0 0 0
Page 40 and 41:
MARK SAND (MINIMUM) Geo2 Fluid Prod
Page 42 and 43:
BOND SAND (MINIMUM) Geo2 Fluid Prod
Page 44 and 45:
EAST SAND (MINIMUM) Geo2 Fluid Prod
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
EAST SAND (MAXIMUM) Geo2 Fluid Prod
Page 52 and 53:
MARK SAND (MINIMUM) 1 5 Year Cumula
Page 54 and 55:
BOND SAND (MINIMUM) 1 5 Year Cumula
Page 56 and 57:
EAST SAND (MINIMUM) 1 5 Year Cumula
Page 58 and 59:
jpH~j·:/·3,000 mgi1 TOS Sli,;,lly
Page 60 and 61:
average depth of 10,033 feet, avera
Page 62 and 63:
high, the sands are not thick enoug
Page 64 and 65:
included distributary channel or de
Page 66 and 67:
the eastern part of the study area,
Page 68 and 69:
to coastal barrier sandstone on the
Page 70 and 71:
Within Reservoir Area B, the sand a
Page 72 and 73:
Papadopulos, S. S., 1975, The Energ
Page 74 and 75:
FLUID PROPERTIES Gas Gas Water Sol'
Page 76 and 77:
only reason for selecting that limi
Page 78 and 79:
Matrix of Locations!') and Descript
Page 80 and 81:
• , l L , ,, , ,, , , ,, ,, , ,,
Page 82 and 83:
"i 8 10,116' II =1 -- ~ ~ -- iii: 1
Page 84 and 85:
-I- 0; 0 0 .f: 0 -. - . '-I- - . r-
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
EAST SAND (MINIMUM) Geo2 Fluid Prod
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
EAST SAND (MAXIMUM) Geo2 Fluid Prod
Page 98 and 99:
MARK SAND (MINIMUM) 1 5 Year Cumula
Page 100 and 101:
BOND SAND (MINIMUM) 1 5 Year Cumula
Page 102 and 103:
.,,'" - •• 0. _. ___ _ EAST SAN
Page 104 and 105:
STARR COUNTY I -i'J- ~ 10 b .......
Page 106 and 107:
Net Sand Depth Thickness Sand Sand
Page 108 and 109:
TABLE 5 TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOA
Page 110 and 111:
ill-2 This process review is especi
Page 112 and 113:
m-4 There are some built-in limitat
Page 114 and 115:
ill-7 It is not surprising, therefo
Page 116 and 117:
,,,,-,';8 .. - .. ~ Pretreatment Pr
Page 118 and 119:
lli-9 Comparative Assumed Input Inr
Page 120 and 121:
PRO-FORMA CALCULATIONS FOR REVERSE
Page 122 and 123:
STEAM VENT EJECTOR • PRESSURE RED
Page 124 and 125:
STEAM VENT EJECTOR I :> :>:> LfTl:>
Page 126 and 127:
ID-16 a) The separate seawater inta
Page 128 and 129:
1lI-18 Data for the injection flow
Page 130 and 131:
lli-20 (8) Thermal content of fluid
Page 132 and 133:
ill-22 The primary environmental co
Page 134 and 135:
ill-24 III. B-2 BRINE DISPOSAL VIA
Page 136 and 137:
1lI-26 to 10 centipoise if it is he
Page 138 and 139:
1II-28 1lI.B-S&6 BYPRODUCT SALTS RE
Page 140 and 141:
II I-3~ BRINES mOlAl( DlCAtlYDlAI!
Page 142 and 143:
1II-32 2. Generally speaking, the s
Page 144 and 145:
III-34 1. Group 1 through Group 4 w
Page 146 and 147:
1II-36 Based on this comparative da
Page 148 and 149:
In-38 Section UlD - Pro-Forma Econo
Page 150 and 151:
II I -40 Exhibit InD-2 Assumed Inpu
Page 152 and 153:
111-42 EXHIBIT llID-4 PRO-FORMA CAL
Page 154 and 155:
Appendices
Page 156 and 157:
Appendix A Preliminary Estimates of
Page 158 and 159:
APPENDIX B
Page 160 and 161:
-------- ThIs Underground Injection
Page 162 and 163:
Federal Requirements - -"-J;' ... -
Page 164 and 165:
Chapter II Summary of Injection Con
Page 166 and 167:
.. ' a surface owner b. offset oper
Page 168 and 169:
I. Special "Down Hole" Swvcys speci
Page 170 and 171:
FLOWCHART: INJECTION/DISPOSAL WELL
Page 172 and 173:
the applicant can show. by computat
Page 174 and 175:
Criteria lor Determining the Adequa
Page 176 and 177:
.I MODULAR POWER PLANTS FOR GEOPRES
Page 178 and 179:
FIGURE 2 BINARY POWER MODULE··: .
Page 180 and 181:
TABLE 1 GEOPRESSURED PLANT APPROXIM
Page 182 and 183:
EGG-EP-8839 September 1991 Idaho Na
Page 184 and 185:
EGG-EP-9839 Distribution Category:
Page 186 and 187:
ACKNOWLEDGMENT Work supported by th
Page 188 and 189:
APPENDIX A--SEATTLE TIMES EDITORIAL
Page 190 and 191:
THE FEASIBILITY OF APPLYING GEOPRES
Page 192 and 193:
University, January 10, 1990 with 6
Page 194 and 195:
OF 35 50 100 150 200 250 300 I I I
Page 196 and 197:
Desalination Plant Supply Well \ er
Page 198 and 199:
for an extensive chicken hatching/r
Page 200 and 201:
THE GEOPRESSURED RESOURCE Geopressu
Page 202 and 203:
Production Co. has leased 4000 acre
Page 204 and 205:
p' , ~"\ ,0 .~~ ~~ 'i ~ __ =:-~ 'l.
Page 206 and 207:
Desalination Desalination is a prov
Page 208 and 209:
--- r/< N N EIII ... IK:ltI' 011 ,,
Page 210 and 211:
Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin V
Page 212 and 213:
Gas Use and Sales Gas contained in
Page 214 and 215:
Sulfur Fraschtng Sulfur can be reco
Page 216 and 217:
Coal Desulfurization and Preparatio
Page 218 and 219:
films. Today, nearly half of the br
Page 220 and 221:
Waste gases Chlorinator Chlorine Di
Page 222 and 223:
POTENTIAL AGRICULTURE/AQUACULTURE A
Page 224 and 225:
The University of Southwestern loui
Page 226 and 227:
Snapping turtles are important comp
Page 228 and 229:
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS This sectio
Page 230 and 231:
economic techniques because cash fl
Page 232 and 233:
Assuming a geopressured well can pr
Page 234 and 235:
Table 3. Agriculture/aquaculture fi
Page 236 and 237:
Circular Tank 90' Diam. 80'F Bypass
Page 238 and 239:
Potable water for agriculture and a
Page 240 and 241:
DESALINATION/AGRICULTURE/AQUACULTUR
Page 242 and 243:
REFERENCES Carlson, R. A., P. H. Po
Page 244 and 245:
APPENDIX A SEATTLE TIMES EDITORIAL
Page 246 and 247:
APPENDIX B HEATING REQUIREMENTS FOR
Page 248 and 249:
temperature and the heat gain curve
Page 250 and 251:
Thermal Refuge Heating Requirements
Page 252 and 253:
APPENDIX C INTEGRATED APPLICATIONS
Page 254 and 255:
ANALYSIS OF WELL: Large Volume. Mod
Page 256 and 257:
ANALYSIS OF WELL: large Volume, Mod
Page 258 and 259:
ANALYSIS OF ~ELL: Large Volume. MOd
Page 260 and 261:
APPENDIX D PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY
Page 262 and 263:
DES/ON • CONS(JI..TlNO • F',..,
Page 264 and 265:
Des/oN • CONS
Page 266 and 267:
Des/ON • CONS(.Jl..rINQ • F,A.S
Page 268 and 269:
RED EWALD,lnc. 10,000 GALLON RACEWA
Page 270 and 271:
",CUND F:;:SH C;LTURE TANKS ~.:::~
Page 272 and 273:
~c:!~ ?:~:~.~ ?.I'n~ -: 1'DS-; mS-!
Page 274 and 275:
* Texas A uaculture Association * A
Page 276 and 277:
-----------------------------------
Page 278 and 279:
RED EWALD. Ute. -- Round Fish Cultu
Page 280 and 281:
PORTABLE MODULAR FISH HATCHERY SYST
Page 282 and 283:
B & J Water- Well Ser-vice 419 East
Page 284 and 285:
APPENDIX F COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE
Page 286 and 287:
BffiLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET for repor
Page 288 and 289:
factors, utility costs, cash flow,
Page 290 and 291:
afforded by low electridty rates al
Page 292 and 293:
PRODUCTION LOSSES: With any type of
Page 294 and 295:
deposits. minimum monthly customer
Page 296 and 297:
conservative figure. This rate is u
Page 298 and 299:
Other Capital Equipment YlETAL BUIL
Page 300:
SECTION 3a. ~OTE 1 :-"-:ET CASH l1'
Page 303 and 304:
TABLE 8·25. ASSl.;;-'1PT!O:\'S FOR
Page 305 and 306:
TABLE B·26. GRED;HOUSE C.u>IT AL C
Page 307 and 308:
.1 ~I ~ · ~ · ~ .. · · ~ ~ " -
Page 309 and 310:
APPENDIX E
Page 311 and 312:
Assumed Efficiency = 0.90 Constant
Page 313 and 314:
EVALUATION OF AUTO DESALINATION As
Page 315 and 316:
A review of the data for the wellhe
Page 317 and 318:
J. McNutt & Associates, Inc. McAlle
Page 319 and 320:
DownHole SAT(tm) SURFACE WATER DEPO
Page 321 and 322:
DownHole SAT(tm) SURFACE WATER CHEM
Page 323 and 324:
DownHole SAT(tm) SURFACE WATER MOME
Page 325 and 326: en C 0 09'8 -- += "0 c 0 U "0 X (])
Page 327 and 328: (/) c o += x -- (]) D -c 5 c u - D
Page 329 and 330: Degree of Supersaturation (E-01 ) 0
Page 331 and 332: (/) c - 0 (]) -- += > D (]) c -.J 0
Page 333 and 334: (/) c - 0 (]) 09'8 += -- > '"0 (])
Page 335 and 336: (/) c 0 - 09'8 -- :f= (]) -0 c > (]
Page 337 and 338: (/) c 0 09'8 -- =t= - C > 0 (]) U -
Page 339 and 340: C/) c 0 - 09'8 += (]) .- D c (]) >
Page 341 and 342: en - Cl) > Cl) C ..J o += C "'0 --
Page 343 and 344: APPENDIX G
Page 345 and 346: McPJlen Ranch, 7 t :> W:lter Recove
Page 347 and 348: c ~ (J) 09'8 0 (J) (]J 0 (1) U C2::
Page 349 and 350: McAJlen Ranch, 75'10 WJter Recovery
Page 351 and 352: IVlcPJlen I-
Page 353 and 354: c CJ) CJ) (]) ~ 0 U 0 X w & ~ ~ -m
Page 355 and 356: J) rJ) (1) u x W 09'8 ~o .. ..c. o
Page 357 and 358: c ~ 0 09'8 U) 0 U) (]) CJ.) ~ U ~ X
Page 359 and 360: McAJlen Ranch, 7510 W:1ter Recovery
Page 361 and 362: c ~ - 09'8 0 (]) 0 > Q) (]) -V ..J
Page 363 and 364: c ~ o
Page 365 and 366: c ~ 09"8 0 - (]) 0 > (]) (]) 0::: .
Page 367 and 368: c ~ 09'8 0 - 0 Cl) (1) > ~ Cl) ~ ..
Page 369 and 370: c ~ - 09'8 0 C]) 0 > (]) C]) v --1
Page 371 and 372: c ~ o (]) y - (l.) > (l.) ..J C o .
Page 373 and 374: 00'8 ... .c U c -8 c (l) - ~ 5 - x
Page 375: c ~ X 0 Q.) u (}) -0 ""V - C ~ ~ c
Page 379 and 380: PRELIMINARY EDR/RO COSTS & PERFORMA
Page 381 and 382: GROUP 1 CONDITIONS 195,000 gpd bypa
Page 383 and 384: CASE 3 CONDITIONS 214,000 gpd bypas
Page 385 and 386: BUDGET CAPITAL COST REVIEW ---costs
Page 387 and 388: 0H16D REVIEW OP O~11 COSTS .'.(1) -
Page 389 and 390: From: CANYON n,DUSTRIES, INC. 206 5
show all

(GP/GT) for Additional Water Supply in the Lower Rio Grande

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?