P-15 was bailed on four occasions in March and April <strong>1987</strong> (Section 3.17) to develop the hydraulic connection between the perforated casing and the formation. In May <strong>1987</strong>, two falling-head slug tests <strong>of</strong> the Culebra were performed. The first was initiated on May 16, and the second began on May 19. A semilog plot <strong>of</strong> the data from the first test is presented in Figure 5-67, along with the best-fit typecurve match. This match provides a transmissivity estimate <strong>of</strong> 0.090 ft*/day (Table 5-3). The semilog plot <strong>of</strong> the data from the second test (Figure 5-68) shows a fit to the same type cuwe, but with a slightly different time match. The transmissivity estimate from this match is 0.092 ft2/day (Table 5-3). These values are in excellent agreement, and are only slightly higher than the transmissivity value <strong>of</strong> 0.07 ft2/day reported by Mercer (1983) for the Culebra at P-15. 5.2.2.17 P-17. Mercer (1 983) reported the transmissivity <strong>of</strong> the Culebra at P-17 to be 1.0 ftYday, based on a slug test conducted by the USGS. P-17 was retested in November 1986 after the hydraulic head and fluid density <strong>of</strong> the Culebra at that location proved difficult to simulate with the existing data in an areal modeling exercise (Haug et al., <strong>1987</strong>). To verify the transmissivity <strong>of</strong> the Culebra at P-17, two falling-head slug tests were performed. The first test was initiated on November 20, 1986, and lasted nearly 22 hr, by which time 99% <strong>of</strong> the induced pressure differential had dissipated. Figure 5-69 shows a semilog plot <strong>of</strong> the falling-head slug-test data, along with the best-fit type curve. This fit provides a transmissivity estimate <strong>of</strong> 1 .O ftzlday (Table 5-3), which is the same value reported by Mercer (1983). The second test was begun on November 24, 1986, and lasted about 19 hr. A semilog plot <strong>of</strong> the data from the second test and the best-fit type-curve match are shown in Figure 5-70. The type-curve match for the second test is very similar to that used for the first test, and provides a second transmissivity estimate <strong>of</strong> 1 .O ft2/day (Table 5-3). The slight difference between the test data and the type curve at early time is probably due to the packer used in the test (Figure 3-19) continuing to deflate, and thus changing the wellbore volume, during the first few minutes <strong>of</strong> the test. The fluid-pressure data collected during the P-17 slug tests are reported in Stensrud et al. (<strong>1987</strong>). 5.2.2.18 P-18. Mercer (1983) reported the transmissivity <strong>of</strong> the Culebra at P-18 to be 0.001 ft*/day based on a bailing test conducted by the USGS in 1977 (Mercer and Orr, 1979). This estimate <strong>of</strong> transmissivity was uncertain, however, because <strong>of</strong> the low degree <strong>of</strong> recovery obtained during the test. To evaluate the possibility that the low apparent transmissivity might be related to a poor hydraulic connection between the well and the formation, the Culebra interval in P-18 was reperforated (Section 3.18), a PIP was set in the well on 2.375-inch tubing to decrease the wellbore volume in communication with the Culebra, the tubing was bailed on two occasions to develop the well, and a rising-head slug test was performed. The tubing was bailed for the last time on August 26, <strong>1987</strong>, lowering the Culebra water level from about 543 ft to about 842 ft deep (Stensrud et al., 1988). On September 10, <strong>1987</strong>, the water level had recovered to a depth <strong>of</strong> about 734 ft, and a minipacker with a feedthrough plug and attached pressure transducer was installed and inflated in the tubing at a depth <strong>of</strong> about 781 ft (Figure 3-20). The fluid-pressure buildup beneath the minipacker in response to the bailing was monitored with a transducer until November 6,<strong>1987</strong>, by which time the pressure recovery had slowed to an erratic rate <strong>of</strong> about 0.1 psi/day. A rising-head slug test was initiated on November 6, <strong>1987</strong> by deflating the minipacker and removing it from the tubing, after which the rise in the P-18 water level was monitored for several months. The fluid-pressure and waterlevel data collected during the development and testing <strong>of</strong> P-18 will be reported in Stensrud et al. (in preparation). The pretest stabilized formation pressure and the initial slug-test pressure at P-18 were measured by the transducer attached to the feedthrough plug in the minipacker in the tubing. These pressures were converted to water levels to allow interpretation <strong>of</strong> the water levels measured during the slug test. When the tubing was bailed on August 26,<strong>1987</strong>, the fluid removed had a specific gravity <strong>of</strong> about 1.05. 96
p' pi = 23.70 psig = 60.46 psis t = 1.85 hr 10-3 10-2 10' 100 10' 102 ELAPSED TIME, hours Figure 5-67. P-1 SICulebra Slug-Test #1 Plot 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 t MATCH PARAMETERS P' Pi a P t = 24.50 psig = 68.05 psig = 10-2 =1 = 1.80 hr = 0.0831 11 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 10-3 1 0 2 10' 100 10' 102 ELAPSED TIME, hours Figure 5-68. P-l5/Culebra Slug-Test X2 Plot 97
- 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 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