Beauheim 1987 - Waste Isolation Pilot Plant - U.S. Department of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The wellbore storage coefficient is calculated from a rearrangement of Eq (A-4): 0.000295 kht C= fltD/CD (A-1 1) Finally, if estimates of porosity and total-system compressibility are available, the skin factor can be calculated from the value of the CDe2s curve selected and Eq (A-3): s = 0.5 Pn C De2s 0.8936C/tbc, hr,2 1 (A-12) A.1.2 Double-Porosity Log-Log Analysis Double-porosity media have two porosity sets that differ in terms of storage volume and permeability. Typically, the two porosity sets are (1) a fracture network with higher permeability and lower storage, and (2) the primary porosity of the rock matrix with lower permeability and higher storage (Gringarten, 1984). During a hydraulic test, these two porosity sets respond differently. With high-quality test data, the hydraulic parameters of both porosity sets can be quantified. During a hydraulic test in a double-porosity medium, the fracture system responds first. Initially, most of the water pumped comes from the fractures, and the pressure in the fractures drops accordingly. With time, the matrix begins to supply water to the fractures, causing the fracture pressure to stabilize and the matrix pressure to decrease. As the pressures in the fractures and matrix equalize, both systems produce water to the well. The total-system response is then observed for the balance of the test. The initial fracture response and the final total-system response both follow the single-porosity type curves described above. By simultaneously fitting the fracture response and the total-system response to two different CDe2scurves, fracture-system and total-system properties can be derived. Information on the matrix, and additional information on the fracture system, can be obtained by interpretation of the data from the transition period when the matrix begins to produce to the fractures. Two different sets of type curves can be used to try to fit the transition-period data. Transition-period data are affected by the nature, or degree, of interconnection between the matrix and the fractures. Warren and Root (1963) published the first line-source solution for well tests in double-porosity systems. They assumed that flow from the matrix to the fractures (interporosity flow) occurred under pseudosteady-state conditions; that is. that the flow between the matrix and the fractures was directly proportional to the average head difference between those two systems. Other authors, such as Kazemi (1969) and de Swaan (1976). derived solutions using the diffusivity equation to govern interporosity flow. These are known as transient interporosity flow solutions. Mavor and Cinco-Ley (1979) added wellbore storage and skin to the double-porosity solution, but still used pseudosteady-state interporosity flow. Bourdet and Gringarten (1980) modified Mavor and Cinco-Ley’s (1979) theory to include transient interporosity flow, and generated type curves for double-porosity systems with both pseudosteady-state and transient interporosity flow. 150
Pseudosteady-state and transient interporosity flow represent two extremes; all intermediate behaviors are also possible. Gringarten (1984), however, states that the majority of tests he has seen exhibit pseudosteadystate interporosity flow behavior. In recent years, Gringarten (1 984,1986) has suggested that the terms "restricted" and "unrestricted" interporosity flow replace the terms i pseudosteady-state" and "transient" interporosity flow. He believes that all interporosity flow is transient in €he sense that it is governed by the diffusivity equation. But in the case where the fractures possess a positive skin (caused. for example, by secondary mineralization on the fracture surfaces) similar to a wellbore skin that restricts the flow from the matrix to the fractures, theobserved behavior is similar to that described by €he pseudosteady-state formulation (Moench, 1984; Cinco-Ley et al., 1985). "Transient" interporosity flow is observed when there are no such restrictions. Hence, the terms "restricted" and "unrestricted" more accurately describe conditions than do the terms "pseudosteady-state" and "transient." The recent terminology of Gringarten is followed in this report. Restricted Interporosity Flow Warren and Root (1963) defined two parameters to aid in characterizing double-porosity behavior. These are the storativity ratio, w, and the interporosity flow coefficient A. The storativity ratio is defined as: (A-13) where: 4, = ratio of the pore volume in the system to the total-system volume V = the ratio of the total volume of one system to the bulk volume Ct = total compressibility of the system with subscripts: f = fracture system m = matrix. The interporosity flow coefficient is defined as: A = arW2 k,- k f (A-14) where a is a shape factor characteristic of the geometry of the system and other terms are as defined above. The shape factor, a, is defined as: 4n (n+2) a= (A-15) E2 151
Page 1 and 2:
SANDIA REPORT SAND87 -0039 UC - 70
Page 3 and 4:
SAND87-0039 Unlimited Release Print
Page 5:
a transmissivity of about 7 x 10-2
Page 8 and 9:
5 . TEST OBJECTIVES AND INTERPRETAT
Page 10 and 11:
3-18 3-19 3-20 3-21 3-22 3-23 3-24
Page 12 and 13:
5-35 H-l5/Culebra Drillstem and Slu
Page 14 and 15:
5-78 5-79 5-80 5-81 5-82 5-83 5-84
Page 16 and 17:
A-2 A-3 A4 A-5 A-6 Single-Porosity
Page 18 and 19:
'H-6 o DOE-2 OHIPP-13 OAIPP 12 OH-1
Page 20 and 21:
WlPP site. The aggregate thickness
Page 22 and 23:
deep. The gamma-ray log used to gui
Page 24 and 25:
3347.11 ft \ - -12.25-inch HOLE -8.
Page 26 and 27:
~ 3409.6 n __ - - HOLOCENE DEPOSITS
Page 28 and 29:
Ylf M (t -1wt 5 n nch REAMED BOREHO
Page 30 and 31:
3418.96 n 7.875-inch REAMED BOREHOL
Page 32 and 33:
2.375-inch TUBING 4.5-inch. 9.5 Ibl
Page 34 and 35:
WELL CASING 2.375-inch TUBING TEST-
Page 36 and 37:
1.5-Inch GALVANIZED PIPE WELL CASIN
Page 38 and 39:
I I I I PRE-TEST STATIC PRESSURE i/
Page 40 and 41:
(or areal extent) of the aquifer on
Page 42 and 43:
:7001 J EQUILIBRATION / r.. .......
Page 44 and 45:
Once straddle tests proved impossib
Page 46 and 47:
1300 c - J PRE-TEST PRESSURE IN TES
Page 48 and 49:
- < a m L: * m 3 L a I Start Date:
Page 50 and 51:
uildups were caused by the natural
Page 52 and 53:
TABLE 5-1 EFFECTIVE DST FLOW RATES
Page 54 and 55:
TABLE 5-2 SUMMARY OF NON-CULEBRA SI
Page 56 and 57:
simulation shown, however, uses a t
Page 58 and 59:
1 .o 0.9 0.8 p' = 79.08 paig pi = 6
Page 60 and 61:
~ ~~ TABLE 5-3 SUMMARY OF CULEBRA S
Page 62 and 63:
Two factors raised questions about
Page 64 and 65:
102 I I 1 1 1 W K 3 v) v) W K n v)
Page 66 and 67:
5.2.2.21 below) and DOE-2 (Beauheim
Page 68 and 69:
..A 225 - PRESSURE ABOVE TEST INTER
Page 70 and 71:
10' n ui K 3 v) v) W a n v) v) 100
Page 72 and 73:
10' MATCH PARAMETERS O n w a 3 v) v
Page 74 and 75:
..CI__._._..__....__.I 5.2.2.6 H-15
Page 76 and 77:
8.0 1 I I I MATCH PARAMETERS AP 1.0
Page 78 and 79:
- 200 150 5 - EQUILIBRATION \Feu 'S
Page 80 and 81:
4.0 1 I 1 1 3.0 I n 2.0 1 .o 0.0 0.
Page 82 and 83:
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0
Page 84 and 85:
3.0 .hl c El2 2.0 . v n I P 1 .o MA
Page 86 and 87:
EI€3- 0.9 "O I OOATA - TYPE CURVE
Page 88 and 89:
4.0 I I I 3.0 MATCH PARAMETERS AP =
Page 90 and 91:
1 .o 0.9 0.8 0.7 1 MATCH PARAMETERS
Page 92 and 93:
1 .o 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0 2 0.5 I 0.4
Page 94 and 95:
1.0, 0 I 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 MA
Page 96 and 97:
P-15 was bailed on four occasions i
Page 98 and 99:
1 .o 0.9 0.8 - p’ = 78.93 prig p,
Page 100 and 101: Two type-curve matches are shown wi
Page 102 and 103: 0 5 I ELAPSED TIME. hours Figure 5-
Page 104 and 105: 10’ 1 I I I n a w 5 100 v) v) W a
Page 106 and 107: MATCH PARAMETERS -ip 10 PSI 150 t 1
Page 108 and 109: Considering that all other pumping
Page 110 and 111: I ,EQUILIBRATION BUILDUP Elapsed Ti
Page 112 and 113: 0 9. w 10’ K =a 100 v) v) W a n v
Page 114 and 115: 10’ I I I a J P 100 v) v) W a n v
Page 116 and 117: ~ ~. SLUG t i /- i 3 Start Date 07
Page 118 and 119: Figure 5-94 is a log-log plot of th
Page 120 and 121: was followed by a 92-minute FBU. Th
Page 122 and 123: 10’ 1 1 1 1 a n w’ a = 100 v) v
Page 124 and 125: and anhydrite, and were not conside
Page 126 and 127: 4.0 MATCH PARAMETERS .A. L. 21% 3.0
Page 128 and 129: Estimates of the static formation p
Page 130 and 131: 10’ n w 2 100 v) v) w a P v) v) w
Page 132 and 133: OWIPP-28. 70 OWIPP-27.650 OWIPP-30.
Page 134 and 135: to Nash Draw where no halite is pre
Page 136 and 137: observations regarding the potentia
Page 138 and 139: 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Single-w
Page 140 and 141: REFERENCES Bachman, G.O. 1984. Regi
Page 142 and 143: INTERA Technologies, Inc. 1986. WlP
Page 144 and 145: Stensrud, W.A.; Bame, M.A.; Lantr,
Page 146 and 147: (A-4)
Page 148 and 149: distinct value of Coe2s. Pressure-d
Page 152 and 153: where: n = number of normal sets of
Page 154 and 155: (A-21) and for spherical blocks the
Page 156 and 157: where: tp* = Vfq, V = total flow pr
Page 158 and 159: Figure A-5. Semilog Slug-Test Type
Page 160 and 161: A.4 INTERPRET WELL-TEST INTERPRETAT
Page 162 and 163: DISTRIBUTION: U. S. Department of E
Page 164 and 165: INTERA Technologies, Inc. (9) 6580
Page 166 and 167: WlPP Public Reading Room Carlsbad M
Page 168 and 169: Nationale Genossenschaft fur die La
show all

Beauheim 1987 - Waste Isolation Pilot Plant - U.S. Department of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?