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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

simulation shown, however, uses a transmissivity of 2.2 x 10-4 ft*/day, and a skin factor of 0.2 (Table 5-2). These values imply a slightly less permeable formation and a slightly more damaged well than were indicated by the FBU analysis. The sharp decline in the pressure derivative at late time in Figure 5-14 was probably caused by what Grisak et al. (1985) term a "pressure skin" on the formation. Pressure skins develop as wells are drilled and as they stand open before testing. As drilling fluid circulates during drilling, it exerts a fluid pressure on the exposed formations corresponding to the weight of the drilling-fluid column in the wellbore. In most formations, this pressure exceeds the ambient formation fluid pressure. As a result, an overpressurized zone (or overpressure skin) develops in the formations around the wellbore. Underpressure skins can also be created if the borehole history includes a period when the pressure exerted by the fluid in the hole is less than that of the adjacent formation(s). The magnitudes and extents of these pressure skins depend on several factors, including the duration and magnitude of the induced pressure differential and the hydraulic properties of the affected formations. Once the formations are isolated from the overpressure or underpressure, the pressure skins begin to dissipate. When hydraulic tests are performed while a pressure skin still exists, however, the test data may be influenced by dissipation of the pressure skin. This is most commonly manifested, in the case of an overpressure skin, by a pressure recovery that appears to be trending towards some specific value representative of the pressure skin until, at late time, the pressure begins to deviate below this trend, often reaching a maximum at a lower value before beginning to decline towards the true formation pressure. In the case of the testing of the unnamed lower member at H-16, the overpressure skin induced by the weight of the drilling fluid during coring and reaming on August 11 and 12,1987 was dissipating during the DST's. One measure of the dissipation is provided by the different static formation pressures indicated by the FBU (Figure 5-13) and SBU (Figure 5-1 5) dimensionless Homer plots. The best- fit simulation to the FBU data indicated that a static formation pressure of 21 3 psia was appropriate, whereas the SBU simulation used a value of 209 psia. The INTERPRET code has no way of correcting for the effects of pressure skins on test data. Inasmuch as the SBU data appear to have been more affected by pressure-skin dissipation than the FBU data, the FBU analysis, with the exception of the static formation pressure estimate, is probably more reliable than the SBU analysis. Additional information on the true static formation pressure and overpressure skin of the unnamed lower member at H-16 is provided by the transducer installed at that horizon as part of the H-16 5-packer completion (Figure 3-8). From August 31, 1987, 4 days after the 5packer installation was completed, until December 7, 1987, the pressure dropped from 203 to 197 psig, where it apparently stabilized. This transducer is located at a depth of 745.7 ft. In a hole containing brine with a specific gravity of 1.2, the corresponding pressure at the midpoint of the unnamed lower member siltstone 808 ft deep is about 229 psig. In contrast, the 209 psia indicated by the data from the DST transducer, which was set 721.3 ft deep, corresponds to a pressure of 254 psia at a depth of 808 ft. This value is reduced to 240 psig when the atmospheric pressure of 14 psia measured by the DST transducer is subtracted. Hence, an additional 11 psi of overpressure skin apparently dissipated between the end of the DST's and December 7,1987. The static formation pressure estimate of 229 psig discussed above, however, may not represent the pressure that would exist in the absence of the WlPP site. Considering the proximity of H-16 to the WlPP shafts, the pressure in the unnamed lower member (and in all other Rustler members) at H-16 may be artificially low and continually changing because of drainage from that member into the shafts. 5.29 Culebra Dolomite Member. The tests of the Culebra Dolomite Member of the Rustler Formation were primarily intended to provide additional transmissivity data on the most permeable waterbearing unit at the WlPP site. Inasmuch as all of the wells in which the Culebra was tested were ultimately left as permanent Culebra completions, obtaining 56
0.15 ._. - 21 2 0.10 . Q I n 0.05 Figure 5-1 5. I + DATA -SIMULATION I I I 0.00 0.0 0.5 1.0 1 .s 2.0 DIMENSIONLESS SUPERPOSITION FUNCTION: FLOW PERIOD 6 H-1 6/Unnamed Lower Member Siltstone Second Buildup Dimensionless Horner Plot with INTERPRET Simulation accurate static formation pressure estimates during testing was not of major concern. At wells H-1, H-~c, H-12, WIPP-12, WIPP-18, WIPP-19, WIPP-21, WIPP- 22, WIPP-30, P-15, P-17, ERDA-9, and Cabin Baby-1, the Culebra was tested by performing falling-head slug tests. Rising-head slug tests were also performed at H-1 and P-18. Drillstem tests and risinghead slug tests were performed in the Culebra at wells H-14, H-15, H-16, H-17, and H-18. Pumping tests of the Culebra were performed at H-8b, DOE-1, and the Engle well. contained in Stensrud et al. (1988). Complete recovery from the induced pressure differential was obtained in each test. Semilog plots of the data from the slug tests, along with the type curves which best fit the data, are shown in Figures 5-16 through 5-19. The type curves used were derived by Cooper et al. (1967) for single-porosity media (see Appendix A). The rising-head slug test (Figure 5-16) provided the highest transmissivity estimate, 1 .O ft*/day (Table 5-3). All three falling-head slug tests provided transmissivity estimates of 0.83 ft2/day (Table 5-3). 5.2.2.1 H-1. Mercer (1983) reported a transmissivity value of 0.07 ft2/day for the Culebra at H-1, based on a bailing test performed shortly after the Culebra interval was perforated in 1977 (Mercer and Orr, 1979). Because this value was significantly lower than the transmissivities measured at other nearby wells such as H-2, H-3, and ERDA-9, H-1 was developed and retested to confirm or modify the published value. Retesting consisted of four slug tests: one risinghead slug test initiated on September 21, 1987 and three falling-head slug tests initiated on September 23, 25, and 28, 1987. All data from these tests are These transmissivity values are in better agreement with those from nearby wells than is the value reported by Mercer (1983). Apparently, the well development before testing (Section 3.1) and more rigorous testing techniques combined to produce more representative results than were obtained from the earlier bailing test. 5.2.2.2 H-4c. Mercer et al. (1981) reported a transmissivity for the Culebra at H-4b as 0.9 ftz/day based on a slug test, while Gonzalez (1983) reported a value of 1.6 ftzfday based on pumping tests. Gonzalez (1983) also reported the possible presence of a recharge boundary affecting the H-4 test data. 57
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 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 150 and 151:
The wellbore storage coefficient is
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?