Beauheim 1987 - Waste Isolation Pilot Plant - U.S. Department of ...
Beauheim 1987 - Waste Isolation Pilot Plant - U.S. Department of ...
Beauheim 1987 - Waste Isolation Pilot Plant - U.S. Department of ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Considering that all other pumping tests at wells<br />
where the Culebra has a transmissivity greater than<br />
about 1 ftZ/day have shown double-porosity effects<br />
and negative skins caused by fracturing (e.g.. DOE-1,<br />
DOE-2, H-3, H-8, H-11 , WIPP-13), the relatively high<br />
transmissivity, positive skin, and single-porosity<br />
behavior indicated for the Engle well appear<br />
anomalous. One possible explanation for this<br />
apparent anomaly is that although the well has been<br />
pumped for years by a windmill, the low-volume<br />
windmill pump may never have stressed the aquifer<br />
enough to develop the well properly, Le., to clean out<br />
the fractures. The positive skin factor obtained from<br />
this test provides an indication <strong>of</strong> wellbore damage<br />
consistent with this argument. DOE-2 provides an<br />
example, albeit extreme, <strong>of</strong> this phenomenon. Until it<br />
was acidized and developed, hydraulic responses to<br />
testing at DOE-2 showed only single-porosity<br />
behavior with a positive skin (<strong>Beauheim</strong>, 1986).<br />
While Engle does not display the extreme conditions<br />
shown by DOE-2 before acidization, its apparent<br />
single-porosity behavior and positive skin may,<br />
nevertheless, be related more to wellbore and nearwellbore<br />
conditions than to the true nature <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Culebra at this location.<br />
5.2.3 Tamarisk Member. The Tamarisk Member <strong>of</strong><br />
the Rustler Formation was tested in wells H-14 and<br />
H-16. The purposes <strong>of</strong> the Tamarisk testing were to:<br />
1) define the hydraulic head <strong>of</strong> the unit; and 2)<br />
measure the transmissivity <strong>of</strong> the unit. Information<br />
on the hydraulic head <strong>of</strong> the Tamarisk is needed to<br />
evaluate potential directions <strong>of</strong> vertical movement <strong>of</strong><br />
groundwater between the Rustler members. The<br />
transmissivity <strong>of</strong> the Tamarisk is a parameter needed<br />
for vertical cross-sectional or three-dimensional<br />
modeling <strong>of</strong> groundwater flow in the Rustler. The<br />
claystone/mudstone/siltstone portion <strong>of</strong> the Tamarisk<br />
(referred to hereafter simply as the claystone) is<br />
believed to be more permeable than the<br />
anhydrite/gypsum sections, and therefore easier to<br />
test. Consequently, tests were attempted only on<br />
the claystone portion <strong>of</strong> the Tamarisk at H-14 and<br />
H-16.<br />
5.2.3.1 H-14. At H-14, the Tamarisk claystone<br />
extends from about 517 to 525 ft deep (Figure 3-6).<br />
The initial test was performed over an interval from<br />
the base <strong>of</strong> a packer at a depth <strong>of</strong> 494.5 ft to the then-<br />
bottom <strong>of</strong> the hole 533 ft deep. Thus, the test interval<br />
included the 8-ftthickness <strong>of</strong> claystone, and 30.5 ft <strong>of</strong><br />
overlying and underlying anhydrite and gypsum.<br />
Descriptions <strong>of</strong> the test instrumentation and the test<br />
data are contained in Stensrud et al. (1 987).<br />
Testing began on October 7, 1986, by setting the<br />
packer, swabbing the tubing to decrease the<br />
pressure in the test interval, and closing the shut-in<br />
tool to isolate the test interval and allow the testinterval<br />
pressure to recover and equilibrate at the<br />
existing static formation pressure. The pressure<br />
response observed during the testing is shown in<br />
Figure 5-82. After being shut in for nearly 37 hr, the<br />
fluid pressure in the Tamarisk claystone test interval<br />
had still not stabilized, but was rising at an everdecreasing<br />
rate. The pressure in the wellbore above<br />
the packer, in contrast, was dropping as fluid was<br />
apparently entering the exposed Magenta and Fortyniner<br />
Members. Because the Tamarisk pressure had<br />
not stabilized, and did not appear likely to stabilize<br />
for several days or weeks, no drillstem tests were<br />
performed.<br />
To verify that the observed response during the shutin<br />
period was representative <strong>of</strong> the Tamarisk<br />
claystone and not caused by a tool malfunction, the<br />
packer was deflated and the DST tool was reset 8 ft<br />
deeper in the hole on October 9, 1986. After<br />
swabbing and shutting in the new test interval, a<br />
pressure buildup similar to that observed at the<br />
previous depth was measured for 4.5 hr<br />
(Figure 5-82). At this point, we concluded that the<br />
permeability <strong>of</strong> the Tamarisk at H-14 is too low to<br />
allow testing on the time scale <strong>of</strong> a few days, and<br />
abandoned the effort.<br />
No conclusions about the static formation pressure <strong>of</strong><br />
the Tamarisk can be drawn from the observed<br />
pressure buildups, because we have no way <strong>of</strong><br />
evaluating the role played by the overpressure skin<br />
that was probably created during drilling.<br />
Subsequent testing <strong>of</strong> the Magenta and Forty-niner<br />
Members, discussed below, revealed fluid-pressure<br />
buildups to be significantly affected by overpressure<br />
skins.<br />
5.2.3.2 H-16. At H-16, the Tamarisk claystone<br />
extends from 677.5 to 690.1 ft deep (Figure 3-8). The<br />
108