25.10.2014 Views

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 ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!