CONTRACTOR REPORT r~$-82~2.~2/1017~~ 5 t-f Unlimited ... · 9.0 x 10-9 m2/s and a far-field transmissivity of 1.3 x 10-9 m2/s. GTFM was used to simulate the flow rates of ground water

CONTRACTOR REPORT

SAND89 - 7067 Unlimited Release UC-721

r~$-82~2.~2/1017~~ 5 CJ t-f I ~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111111 11111111111111111111111 8232-21/070179

1111111111111111111111 111111111 III~IIIIIIIIII~IIII/lllmllllllllllllll 00000001 ----- - -- -----

Analysis of the Fluid-Pressure Responses of the Rustler Formation at H-16 to the Construction of the Air-Intake Shaft at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Site

John D. Avis, George J. Saulnier, Jr. INTERA Inc. 6850 Austin Center Blvd., Suite 300 Austin, TX 78731

Prepared by Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550 for the United States Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC04-76DP00789

Printed March 1990

/ v

Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United States Department of Energy by Sandia Corporation. NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, any agency thereof or any of their contractors or subcontractors. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government, any agency thereof or any of their contractors.

Printed in the United States of America. This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy.

Available to DOE and DOE contractors from Office of Scientific and Technical Information PO Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Prices available from (615) 576-8401, FTS 626-8401

Available to the public from National Technical Information Service US Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Rd Springfield, VA 22161

NTIS price codes Printed copy: A09 Microfiche copy: AOI

SAND89-7067 Unlimited Release Printed March 1990

Distribution Category UC-721

ANALYSIS OF THE FLUID·PRESSURE RESPONSES OF THE RUSTLER FORMATION AT H·16

TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AIR· INTAKE SHAFT AT THE WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT (WIPP) SITE*

John D. Avis and George J. Saulnier, Jr. INTERA Inc.

6850 Austin Center Blvd., Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78731

ABSTRACT

The construction of the air-intake shaft (AIS) at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site in 1987 and 1988 initiated fluid-pressure responses which were used to estimate the hydrologic properties of the Cu1ebra Dolomite, Magenta Dolomite, and Forty-niner Members of the Rustler Formation. F1uidpressure responses were monitored with downhole transducers at observationwell H-16, about 17 meters (m) northwest of the AIS, and water-level responses were observed and measured in observation wells H-1, ERDA-9, and WIPP-2l, the closest observation wells to the AIS.

The AIS pilot hole, with a 0.25-m diameter, was drilled to a depth of 650 m and reamed to a diameter of 0.37 m. The pilot hole remained open and draining to the underground facility for about three months. The pilot hole was then upreamed (raise bored) to a 6.17-m diameter shaft from the underground facility to land surface. The pilot hole was drilled and reamed using a bentonite-mud-based brine as a drilling fluid. During the construction period, the fluid-pressure responses of the the Cu1ebra dolomite were also affected by grouting and sealing of the Rustler Formation in the waste-handling shaft (WHS), by a mu1tipad/tracer test at the H-11 hydropad in the southern WIPP site, and by water-quality sampling at WIPP-19 and H-15.

The well-test simulator GTFM was used to analyze the fluid-pressure responses of the Culebra and Magenta dolomites and the Forty-niner claystone. The AIS was modeled as a test well with a zero-wel1borepressure boundary condition. H-16 was modeled as an observation well. The pilot-hole drilling/reaming period was modeled as a we11bore-history period and was simulated separately for each unit whose fluid-pressure responses

* The work described in this report was done for Sandia National Laboratories under Contract No. 32-1025.

were analyzed. A cement-invasion skin was used in simulating the Culebra dolomite's drilling/reaming period. A mud-filter-cake skin was used to create reduced we llbore pres sures in s imula ting the pilot - ho le drilling/reaming periods of the Magenta dolomite and Forty-niner claystone.

The estimated Culebra transmissivity ranged from l. 3 x 10- 7 to 6.6 x 10- 7 m2/s. The most representative transmissivity of the Culebra between H-16 and the AlS was estimated to be 6.6 x 10- 7 m2/s. This estimate was obtained by calibrating the simulation of the Culebra's H-16 fluid-pressure response to a measurement of the flow rate from the Culebra to the AlS made 133 days after the upreaming of the Culebra. The transmissivity of the Culebra between the AlS and observation-wells H-l, ERDA-9, and WlPP-2l was estimated to range from 1 x 10- 6 m2/s to 1 x 10- 7 m2/s.

Radial formation-heterogeneity boundaries were employed to simulate the H-16 fluid-pressure responses in the Magenta dolomite and the Forty-niner claystone. The formation-heterogeneity boundary for the Magenta dolomite was estimated to be 40 m from the AlS with a near-field transmissivity of 8.0 x 10- 8 m2/s and a far-field transmissivity of 3.5 x 10- 8 m2/s. The formation-heterogeneity boundary for the Forty-niner claystone was also estimated to be 40 m from the AlS with a near-field transmissivity of 9.0 x 10- 9 m2/s and a far-field transmissivity of 1.3 x 10- 9 m2/s.

GTFM was used to simulate the flow rates of ground water draining from the Culebra dolomite, the Magenta dolomite, and the Forty-niner claystone to the open AlS. The simulated Culebra flow rate on the day of the water-ring measurement in the AlS was 0.058 L/s and is in excellent agreement with the measured rate ·of 0.056 L/s indicating an acceptable model calibration. One hundred days after upreaming, the simulated Culebra flow-rate was 0.06 L/s, the simulated Magenta flow rate was 0.007 L/s, and the simulated Fortyniner flow rate was 0.0004 L/s. The simulated Forty-niner flow-rate curve indicated a transition to the less -permeable, far- field system after 15 days.

it

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.2 Objectives

CONTENTS

1-1

1-1

1-2

2.0 MONITORING SYSTEMS .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-1

2.1 H-16 Mu1tipacker Monitoring System ............................... 2-2

2.2 Observation Wells 2-3

3.0 AIR-INTAKE SHAFT CONSTRUCTION HISTORy ............................... 3-1

3.1 Pilot Hole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-1

3.1.1 Drilling ..................................................... 3-2

3.1.2 Reaming ...................................................... 3 - 3

3.2 Upreaming of the Air-Intake Shaft ................................ 3-4

4.0 OTHER HYDROLOGIC ACTIVITIES AFFECTING HYDROLOGIC RESPONSES .......... 4-1

4.1 Aquifer Testing .................................................. 4-1

4.2 Water-Quality Sampling ........................................... 4-2

4.3 Grouting in the Waste-Handling Shaft

5.0 INTERPRETATION METHODOLOGY

5.1 GTFM Well-Test Simulator

4-2

5-1

5-1

5.2 Drilling-Period We11bore Boundary Conditions ..................... 5-5

5.2.1 Mud-Related Uncertainties .................................... 5-8

5.2.2

5.2.3

Flow Reduction

Filter-Cake Skin

5.3 We11bore Boundary Conditions After Penetration of the

5-8

5-10

Underground Facility ............................................. 5 -12

5.4 Formation Heterogeneities ....................................... .

5.4.1 Cement·· Invas ion Skin ........................................ .

5.4.2 Radial Heterogeneity Boundaries ............................. .

5.5 Diffusivity Relationship

iii

5-12

5-12

5-13

5-14

CONTENTS (cont.)

6.0 ESTIMATION OF TRANSMISSIVITIES 6-1

6.1 Cu1ebra Dolomite ................................................. 6-2

6.1.1 Simulation Results

6.1.2 Discussion of Simulation Results ............................ .

6.2 Magenta Dolomite ................................................ .


6.2.2 Discussion of Simulation Results ............................ .

6.3 Forty-Niner Claystone ........................................... .


6.3.2 Discussion of Simulation Results

6-5

6-8

6-10

6-11

6-15

6-16

6-19

6-22

7.0 POTENTIAL LEAKAGE INTO THE AIR-INTAKE SHAFT ........................ 7-1

8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUS IONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8-1

8.1 General .......................................................... 8-1

8.2 Summary of Transmissivities ........................... '" ........ 8-4

8.2.1 Cu1ebra Dolomite ............................................... 8-4

8.2.2

8.2.3

Magenta Dolomite ................................... '" ... '" ... 8-5

Forty-Niner Claystone ........................................ 8-6

8.3 Conclusions 8-7

9.0 REFERENCES ......................................................... 9-1

APPENDIX A: Specified and Simulated We11bore Pressures and Simulated and

Observed Formation Fluid Pressures for the Drilling/Reaming

Periods of the Simulations of the H-16 Fluid-Pressure Responses

of the Cu1ebra Dolomite, the Magenta Dolomite, and the Forty-

Niner Claystone .............................................. A-l

iv

FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Locations of the·Air-Intake Shaft and Other Underground

Access Shafts Relative to the WIPP-Site Observation-Well

Network ...................................................... 1-3

Figure 1.2 Schematic Illustration of the WIPP-Site Underground-Access

Shafts and the Underground Facility ......................... ,. 1-4

Figure 1.3 Generalized Stratigraphy of the Formations Encountered by the

Shafts at the WIPP Site ...................................... 1-5

Figure 2.1 Schematic Illustration of the Multipacker Completion Tool

Installed in Observation-Well H-16 ........................... 2-4

Figure 3.1 Schematic Illustration of the Time Sequence of the Various

Phases of the Construction History of the AIS ................ 3-5

Figure 3.2 Schematic Illustration of the Different Segments of the

Drilling/Reaming History of the AIS Pilot Hole ............... 3-6

Figure 5.1 Fluid-Pressure Response for the Forty-Niner Claystone at H-16

During the Drilling/Reaming Period ........................... 5-16

Figure 5.2 Fluid-Pressure Response for the Magenta Dolomite at H-16


Figure 5.3 Fluid-Pressure Response for the Culebra Dolomite at H-16


Figure 5.4 Filter-Cake-Skin Simulation Pressure at the Skin/Formation

Interface .................................................... 5-19

Figure 5.5 Filter-Cake-Skin Simulation Pressure at Radius of

Observation-Well H-16 ........................................ 5-20

Figure 6.1 Observed Fluid-Pressure Responses of the Five Members of the

Rustler Formation at Observation-Well H-16 During the

Construction of the AIS ...................................... 6-23

v

FIGURES (cont.)

Figure 6.2 Fluid-Pressure Response of the Culebra Dolomite Observed

at Observation-Well H-16 During the Construction of

the AIS ...................................................... 6-24

Figure 6.3 Fluid-Pressure Responses of the Culebra Dolomite Measured at

Observation-Wells H-l, ERDA-9, and WIPP-2l During the

Construction of the AIS

Figure 6.4 Fluid-Pressure Response of the Culebra Dolomite Observed at

Observation-Well H-16 During the Drilling/Reaming Period of

6-25

the Construction of the AIS ...................... , ........... 6-26

Figure 6.5 Simulated and Observed Fluid-Pressure Responses for the Culebra

Dolomite at H-16 Without Using a Cement-Invasion Skin ........ 6-27


Dolomite at H-l, ERDA-9, and WIPP-2l Using the H-16 Best-Match

Simulation Without Using a Cement-Invasion Skin .............. 6-29


Dolomite at H-16 Using a Cement-Invasion Skin ................ 6-30


Dolomite at H-l, ERDA-9, and WIPP-2l Using the H-16 Best-Match

Simulation Using a Cement-Invasion Skin ...................... 6-31


Dolomite at H-16Matching the Culebra-to-AIS Flow Rate Using a

Cement-Invasion Skin ......................................... 6-32


Dolomite at H-l, ERDA-9, and WIPP-21 Using the H-16 Best-Match

Simulation Matching the Culebra-to-AIS Flow Rate Using a Cement-

Invasion Skin ................................................ 6-33


Dolomite at H-16 Matching the H-l Fluid-Pressure Response Using

a Cement-Invasion Skin ....................................... 6-34

vi

FIGURES (cont.)

Figure 6.12 Simulated and Observed Fluid-Pressure Responses for the Cu1ebra

Dolomite at H-1, ERDA-9, and WIPP-21 Matching the H-1

Fluid-Pressure Response Using a Cement-Invasion Skin ......... 6-35


Dolomite at H-16 Showing Sensitivity to the Use of a Cement-

Invasion Skin ................................................ 6-36

Figure 6.14 Post-Upreaming Simulated and Observed Flow Rates from the

Culebra Dolomite to the AIS Using Four Values of

Transmissivity ............................................... 6-37

Figure 6.15 Fluid-Pressure Response of the Magenta Dolomite Observed at

Observation-Well H-16 During the Construction of the AIS 6-38

Figure 6.16 Fluid-Pressure Response of the Magenta Dolomite Observed at

Obsexvation-Well H-16 During the Drilling/Reaming Period of the

Construction of the AIS ...................................... 6 - 39

Figure 6.17 Simulation of the Magenta Dolomite Fluid-Pressure Response at

H-16 During the Construction of the AIS Using a Homogeneous-

Formation Characterization ................................... 6-40


H-16 During the Construction of the AIS Using a Formation-

Heterogeneity Boundary ....................................... 6-41



Heterogeneity Boundary and Showing Sensitivity to Ti ......... 6-42



Heterogeneity Boundary and Showing Sensitivity to To ......... 6-43



Heterogeneity Boundary and Showing Sensitivity to rb ......... 6-44

Figure 6.22 Semi-log Plot of the Fluid-Pressure Response of the Magenta

Dolomite at H-16 Showing Sensitivity to Ti, To. and rb During

the Post-Reaming Draining Period ............................. 6-45

vii

FIGURES (cont.)

Figure 6.23 Simulation of the Magenta Dolomite Fluid-Pressure Response

at H-16 Using a Homogeneous-Formation Characterization and

Showing Sensitivity of Tf to Ti and To of the Best-Match

Heterogeneous Characterization ............................... 6-46

Figure 6.24 Fluid-Pressure Response of the Forty-Niner Claystone

Observed at Observation-Well H-16 During the Construction of

the AIS ...................................................... 6-47

Figure 6.25 Fluid-Pressure Response of the Forty-Niner Claystone Observed

at Observation-Well H-16 During the Drilling/Reaming Period

of the Construction of the AIS ............................... 6-48

Figure 6.26 Simulation of the Forty-Niner Claystone Fluid-Pressure Response

at H-16 During the Construction of the AIS Using a Homogeneous-

Formation Characterization ................................... 6-49


at H-16 During the Construction of the AIS Using a Formation-

Heterogeneity Boundary ....................................... 6-50



Heterogeneity Boundary and Showing Sensitivity to Ti ......... 6-51



Heterogeneity Boundary and Showing Sensitivity to To ......... 6-52



Heterogeneity Boundary and Showing Sensitivity to rb ......... 6-53

Figure 6.31 Semi-log Plot of the Fluid-Pressure Response of the Forty-Niner

Claystone at H-16 Showing Sensitivity to Ti, To, and rb During

the Post-Reaming Draining Period ............................. 6-55

viii

FIGURES (cont.)

Figure 6.32 Simulation of the Forty-Niner Claystone Fluid-Pressure

Response at H-16 Using a Homogeneous-Formation Characterization

and Showing Sensitivity of Tf to Ti and To of the Best-Match

Heterogeneous Characterization ............................... 6-S6

Figure 7.1 Calculated Flow Rate to the AIS Versus Time Since Upreaming

for the Culebra and Magenta Dolomites and the Forty-Niner

Claystone ...................................... ,............. 7 - 3

Figure A.l Specified and Simulated Wellbore Pressures and Simulated and

Observed Formation Fluid Pressures for the Culebra Dolomite

Drilling/Reaming Period Without a Cement-Invasion Skin and

Matching H-16 Fluid-Pressure Response ........................ A-3

Figure A.2 Specified and Simulated Wellbore Pressures and Simulated and


Drilling/Reaming Period Using a Cement-Invasion Skin ......... A-4



Drilling/Reaming Period With a Cement-Invasion Skin and

Matching the Culebra-to-AIS Flow Rate ........................ A-S



Drilling/Reaming Period with a Cement-Invasion Skin and Matching

the Observation-Well Responses

Figure A.S Specified and Simulated Wellbore Pressures and Simulated and



A-6

Using a Tf = 1.3 x 10- 7 m2/s ................................. A-7




Using a Tf = 6.6 x 10- 7 m2/s ................................. A-8

ix

FIGURES (cont.)


Observed Formation Fluid Pressures for the Magenta Dolomite

Drilling/Reaming Period Using a Homogeneous-Formation

Characterization



Drilling/Reaming Period Using a Formation-Heterogeneity

A-9

Boundary ..................................................... A-10

Figure A.9 Specified and Simulated We1lbore Pressures and Simulated and


Drilling/Reaming Period Using a Formation-Heterogeneity Boundary

and Ti = 2.5 x 10- 8 m2/s ..................................... A-ll




Boundary and Ti = 2.5 x 10- 7 m2/s ............................ A-12




Boundary and To = 1.3 x 10- 8 m2/s ............................ A-13




Boundary and To = 1.3 x 10- 7 m2/s ........................... A-14




Boundary and rb = 20 m ....................................... A-15




Boundary and rb = 80 m ....................................... A-16

x

FIGURES (cont.)



Drilling/Reaming Period Without a Formation-Heterogeneity

Boundary and Tf = B.O x 10-B m2/s ............................ A-17



Drilling/Reaming Period Without a Formation-Heterogeneity

Boundary and Tf = 4.0 x 10- B m2/s ............................ A-IB


Observed Formation Fluid Pressures for the Forty-Niner Claystone

Drilling/Reaming Period Using a Homogeneous-Formation

Characterization A-19

Figure A.1B Specified and Simulated Wellbore Pressures and Simulated and



Boundary ..................................................... A- 20




and Ti = 3.0 x 10- 9 m2/s ..................................... A-21




and Ti = 3.0 x 10- B m2/s ..................................... A-22




and To = 5.0 x 10- 10 m2/s .................................... A-23




and To = 5.0 x 10- 9 m2/s ..................................... A-24

xi

FIGURES (cont.)




and rb = 20 m A-25




and ~ = 80 m A-26



Drilling/Reaming Period Without a Formation-Heterogeneity Boundary

and Tf = 9.0 x 10- 9 m2/s ..................................... A-27



Drilling/Reaming Period Without a Formation-Heterogeneity Boundary

and Tf = 1. 5 x 10- 9 m2/s ..................................... A-28

xii

Table 1.1

Table 5.1

Table 5.2

Table 5.3

Table 6.1

Table 6.2

Table 6.3

Table 7.1

Table 8.1

Table 8.2

TABLES

Nomerlclature and Abbreviations for Parameters and Terms Used

in the Text and on Figures and Tables ........................ 1-6

Depths and Thicknesses of the Rustler Units Analyzed

at H-16 ...................................................... 5-21

Calculated Rustler-Unit Mud Overpressures for Simulation of

the Drilling Periods of the AIS Pilot Hole ................... 5-22

Parameters for Simulations Including Filter-Cake Skin ........ 5-23

Values and Durations of Wellbore Pressures Used for Fixed

Pressure Wellbore Boundary Conditions During Simulation of

the Culebra Dolomite Drilling/Reaming Period ................. 6-57

Values and Durations of Wellbore Pressures Used for Fixed-

Pressure Wellbore Boundary Conditions During Simulation of the

Magenta Dolomite Drilling/Reaming Period ..................... 6-58

Values and Durations of Wellbore Pressures Used for Fixed-

Pressure Wellbore Boundary Conditions During Simulation of

the Forty-Niner Claystone Drilling/Reaming Period ............ 6-60

Calculated Flow Rates from the Units of the Rustler Formation

to the AIS on 1987 Calendar Day 667 .......................... 7-4

Summary of the Transmissivities Determined from the Analysis

of the Fluid-Pressure Responses of the Culebra Dolomite,

Magenta Dolomite, and the Forty-Niner Claystone .............. 8-8

Calculated Transmissivities for a Range of Storativities Using

the Diffusivities from the Results of the Analyses Presented

in this Report ............................................... 8 - 9

xiii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The decision to construct a fourth underground-access shaft, the air

intake shaft (AIS), at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site

(Figures 1.1 and 1.2) provided a unique opportunity to observe closely

the effect of a large point-discharge feature on the hydrology of the

five members of the Rustler Formation near the center of the WIPP site.

Figure 1.3 shows the generalized stratigraphy of the geologic units

encountered by the AIS and the other WIPP-site shafts. The hydrogeologic

influences of the other three shafts at the center of the WIPP site, the

waste-handling shaft (WHS) , the construction and salt-handling shaft

(C&SH), and the exhaust shaft (EXS) , have been analyzed in earlier

reports (Stevens and Beyeler, 1985; Haug and others, 1987; and LaVenue

and others, 1988). However, because of the limited data base available

for those reports the Rustle~' s hydrologic properties were determined

wi th a moderate degree of uncertainty. Observation-well H-16

(Figure 1.1) was drilled four months before the AIS pilot hole and is

located 16.97 meters (m) northwest of the AIS. H-lQ was equipped with a

multipacker completion tool with downhole pressure transducers to monitor

the formation-pressure changes in the five members of the Rustler

Formation during the drilling and upreaming (raise boring) of the AIS.

The combination of detailed fluid-pressure data from H-16, water-level

measurements at 3 of the Culebra dolomite observation wells near the

center of the WIPP site, and the construction history of the AIS and its

pilot hole provided an ideal setting to obtain estimates of the

transmissivi ty and formation pressure of the members of the Rustler

Formation.

1-1

1.2 Objectives

The fluid-pressure and water-level responses to construction of the AIS

were analyzed with the well-test simulator GTFM (Pickens and others,

1987). Because the source of the pressure changes, the AIS pilot hole

and shaft, was an uncontrolled hydrologic drain on the affected units,

the observation wells' responses were simulated using a fixed-pressure

boundary condition at the AIS. The drilling period was essentially a

series of constant-pressure inj ections to the Rustler and the draining

periods were atmospheric-pressure discharge periods with no control on

the quantity of discharge and no means of measuring the discharge during

most of the open period. The fixed-pressure boundary condition at the

point of discharge meant that the simulation of the effects of the

shaft's construction was governed by the diffusivity relationship in

which transmissivity and storativity are interrelated, as discussed in

detail in Section 5.0, thus preventing completely independent estimates

of these hydrologic parameters. Table 1.1 presents the nomenclature and

abbreviations used throughout this report and on figures and tables.

The objectives of the analysis of the effects of the construction of the

AIS on the fluid pressure of the Rustler Formation were to:

o estimate the transmissivity of the members of the Rustler Formation

from H-16 and observation-well responses to the construction of the

AIS; and

o estimate the potential leakage rate of ground water into the AIS under

the observed open-hole conditions.

1-2

~~ z z 55 Uu

~ is 8.J

0302,° L--'N-"E,-,:W;;=M'O'E~X",IC",O'---->.--'-' _____ -LL-1

TEXAS f---,-L~-I'9 mi.

~ 1~ ,'5 km.

WP-25 0

WP-26 0

OWP-29

UNDERGROUND SHAFTS A T CENTER OF WIPP SITE

Co,,'ructlon ood -25m r~p-21 H-16 16 97m SoIt-H(c~~5 ShoH

O,J_----\:)--1905m-r

AIr-Intake Shaft

.... 240m

Erllaust Shaft (EXS)

OWP-28

H-6

O'M'-JO

OWP-lJ

O'M'-12

OAEC-7

H-5(

H-180 01'01"-18

~~~~-19 ~-21

r----- WIPP-Site Boundary

OP-14 H-20 OERDA-90 H-15

H-1 OH-3

OH-14 000E-1

o D- 268 <L-P_--C1:::.S--,.,c:-;--,-----0-H---1-1---.J uH-4

°CB-1 OP-17 OH-17

OH-12

OH-7

OP-18

o H-10

(Al5) wo"._1~51~mr-Handling

Shoft o ERDA-10

t (VoH5) 122m

-395m

H-l

0---155m-

Drown by ABW

Checked by G.S.

Revisions

H09700R876

h (ROA-9

Dote

Date

Date

-15m

1/15/90

1/15/90

1/15/90

I ~t1L1\ Technologies

N

I OH-9

o ENGLE

8 Km

0r:::;;_~~_1"2~=-;;;.!J~""""I,,-=:::35 mi. A-o 2 4

SCALE

6 OH-8

Locations of the Air-Intake Shaft and Other Underground-Access Shafts Relative to the

WIPP-Site Observation-Well Network

Figure 1.1

1-3

Drown by ABW

Checked by G.S.

Revisions G.S.

H09700R876

Air-Intake Shaft

C & SH

C & SH Shaft

(Depth - 658 mol

Dote 1/12/89

Dote 1/12/89

Dote 6/6189

1/4/89

I NTER~ Technologies

All Shafts Li ned Above Keyways

Exhaust Shaft 3

Ilr~-i!\-o~.jjj..,, ___ Unlined Below Keys

NOT TO SCALE

NOTES:

1. Previously known as exploratory shaft.

2. Previously known as ventilation shaft.

3. Exhaust shaft not part of SPDV.

Schematic Illustration of the WIPP-Site Underground-Access Shafts and the

Underground Facility

Figure 1.2

1-4

GENERALIZED STRATIGRAPHY OF WIPP-SITE SHAFTS

DEPTH DUNE SAND

(METERS)- -AND CALICHE -GATUNA AND - .-

- - DOCKUM - -. - -- . -- -- .-- -- .-- -- .-- -

- --- -- --- -

- --- -- -- -- --

164 - _. -FORTY-NINER

182 - - MAGENTA

~~: = ~~ = TAMARISK 222 - - CULEBRA

r+-:-+-:-+-:-+-:-+- UNNAMED LOWER

w ~(/)

«0 ~w

>-m Wo :s:w wo:: o

Z 0::0 ~i= f-« (/):2 ::>0:: 0::0

257 - """"==='==9 _.....:M'-=-'E=M'-=-'B""E=R-'---____ .---.

1

LL

409 -

526 -

VACA TRIST[ SANDSTONE

MB 126

WIPP FACILITY

0::0:: WW a... CD 0... 2 ::>w

2

f-O:: f-W ::>m Z2 uw 22

0::0:: WW :;s:CD 0 2 ...Jw

2

z 0 -f-« :2 0:: 0 LL

0 0 « -.J « (/)

l 655 - '---------' - LEVEL _____ --L-~

Drawn by ABW Dote 1/24/89

D r=-=-=l. l::....=....::: • D ., ~ ~

Q + + + +

+ •

EXPLANA TION

SAND AND SANDSTONE

MUDSTONE AND SILTSTONE

ANHYDRITE/GYPSUM

HALITE

DOLOMITE

- -.f.--+-+

+-+- .. +-+-+

CLAYSTONE

HALITIC CLAYSTONE

GYPSUM/HALITE/POL YHALITE

1. All Rocks Below Dockum are Permian in Age.

2. All Levels are Measured from Collar at 1039 Meters amsl.

3. MB = Marker Bed.

Modified from Bechtel National, Inc. (1985)

Checked by G.S. Revisions G.S.

Dote 1/25/89

Dote 6/6189 Generalized Stratigraphy of the Formations

Encountered by the Shafts at the WIPP Site H09700R876 1/25/89

I f'frtIL,\ Technologies Figure 1.3

1-5

AIS C&SH EXS

- Air-Intake Shaft - Construction and Salt-Handling Shaft - Exhaust Shaft

WHS - Waste-Handling Shaft D - Diffusivity ft - Foot Ks - Skin Hydraulic Conductivity L - Liter m - Meter MPa - Megapascal Ps - Reduced Wellbore Pressure psi = Pounds per square inch ~ - Radius to Formation Boundary S ~ Storativity s = Second T - Transmissivity Tf - Formation Transmissivity Ti - Formation Transmissivity Inside Radial

Heterogeneity Boundary To - Formation Transmissivity Outside Radial

Heterogeneity Boundary X - Observed Data

Date Drawn by ~----~--------~~----------~Nomenclature and Abbreviations for Parameters

Checked by Date ~--------------~~----------~and Terms Used in the Text and on Figures

Revisions Date

I N"rtIL'\ Technologies Table 1.1 LlVJJVVI:\..U V

1-6

2.0 MONITORING SYSTEMS

The drilling of the AIS pilot hole and the upreaming of the AIS caused

fluid-pressure changes in the members of the Rustler Formation. The most

important observation well was H-16 which was drilled specifically to

observe and monitor the effects of the construction of the AIS on the

permeable members of the Rustler.

Water-level responses were also observed in other Culebra dolomite

observation wells around the center of the WIPP site. The closest Magenta

dolomite observation wells, at H-l and at the H-2 hydropad, did not appear

to respond to the AIS construction, apparently because of the lower

permeability of the Magenta relative to the Culebra.

Pressure transducers in the other shafts at the WIPP site were potentially

capable of monitoring the AIS construction. However, the transducers in

the WHS and the C&SH shaft were out of service during this period due to

the extensive grouting operations in the WHS and due to a complete overhaul

of the instrumentation in the C&SH shaft because of salt corrosion and

haulage damage. The transducers in the EXS were potentially able to

monitor the AIS construction. However, because the WHS lies between the

AIS and the EXS, the EXS fluid-pressure responses during the important

early period of the AIS construction were dominated by the grouting

activity in the WHS. Fluid-pressure data from the EXS were therefore not

analyzed.

The following sections describe the H-16 monitoring system and the

observation wells. Note that in this discussion and throughout this

report, especially on plots and tables, time will be referenced by the date

of occurrence and by the 1987 Calendar Day or the number of days counted

consecutively from January 1, 1987.

2-1

2.1 H-16 Mu1tipacker Monitorin~ System

Borehole H-16 was drilled in July and August 1987. The center of the

borehole was located 16.97 m northwest of the center of the AIS and was

installed to monitor the fluid pressures in the five members of the

Rustler Formation during the construction of the AIS. As described in

Stensrud and others (1988a), H-16 was drilled and cased to the lower

Dewey Lake Red Beds at a depth of 142.95 m below ground surface (BGS) ,

then extended open hole to a depth of 259.35 m BGS, about 2.74 m into the

upper Salado Formation. Each of the five members of the Rustler was

hydraulically tested during the drilling of H-16. The data collected

during the testing at H-16 are presented in Stensrud and others (1988a)

and interpretations of those tests are found in Beauheim (1987a).

In late August 1987, well H-16 was equipped with a multipacker completion

tool manufactured by Baker Service Tools (BST) , Houston, Texas (Figure

2.1). The device includes 5 fluid-inflatable packers which isolate the 5

members of the Rustler Formation, and 5 downhole pressure transducers

(see Stensrud and others, 1988a) which monitor the fluid pressures in

those isolated intervals. The data collected by the transducers are

transmitted by a data-link cable to a surface recorder and stored on

magnetic tape. The original data are recorded in pounds per square inch

(psi) and are adjusted to the temperature at the depths of the

transducers using correction curves supplied by the manufacturer. The

data and the correction curves are periodically published in hydrologic

data reports (Stensrud and others, 1988a, 1988b, 1989). Note that the

transducers do not share a common reference elevation datum.

2-2

2.2 Observation Wells

Hydrologic responses to the construction of the AIS were observed in

observation wells near the center of the WIPP site. The data and data

collection methods for these and other WIPP-site observation wells are

presented in Stensrud and others (1988a, 1988b, 1989). The data show

that only the Culebra observation wells within 1.25 km of the AIS, H-l,

H-2a, H-2b2, ERDA-9, WIPP-18, WIPP-19, WIPP-2l, and WIPP-22, showed

significant water-level responses to the presence of the AIS. Because

other hydrologically significant activities were concurrent with the

construction of the AIS, as described in Section 4.0, data from some of

these observation wells could not be analyzed.

Observation wells H-l, ERDA- 9, and WIPP- 21 were sufficiently isolated

from other hydrologic influences to provide data which could be used to

analyze the effect of the AIS on the Culebra dolomite. However, the

early-time responses in these wells could not be used because they were

affected by grouting operations in the WHS and only the post

drilling/reaming and post-upreaming periods were used for analysis. The

data collected at H-l, ERDA-9, and WIPP-2l are water levels measured with

electric water-level sounders. These data were converted to pressure in

MPa at the center of the Culebra intervals using the best available data

for borehole-fluid density in these wells as presented in Cauffman and

others (1990, Appendix F).

2-3

Inflation ~~~~~~~rliI

,---=--,-_1_03~8.39 m amsl"""\ Ibro39.00 m

I Packer 1 \ System F ~~~~~~~~:D~A:S~i~n~B~L~D~G~.~B~~49~

__ L=-a=-n,-,d'---..::S=-ur=-f=-ac::e:...::E:::le:.:v~a~tio::::n::.;I;0~3~9~.2~5~m~a~m~s~I __ ~ III 1 68 WlPP Site -, .~m .---2.43 x 2.43 m ellar 5.49 m HOLOCENE DEPOSITS -,. ,

Drawn by S, c. Checked by G.S.

Revisions ABW

H09700R876

11.27 m GATUNA FORMATION \j i . \ 1225-inch(.31 m} Hole 15 DCCKUM GROUP {" . \ 10.75-inch(.27 m) 40 Ib/ft

.84 m I: Conductor Casing

t " 10.97 m

DEWEY LAKE RED BEDS

F,~.f---- 9.625-inch(.24 m) Reamed Borehole

1I11tl'-ttlHH'I--- Packer-Inflation lines

!-+---7-inch(.18 m) 23 Ib/ft Well Casing

HiHt+I---- 2.375-inch(.06 m} Tubing

IlIlf .. :;J.--- Transducer Cables

IIlIr"'---142.95 m 162.12 m ------,---------1

oc ~~M!~~~~16~3t·5~I~m~~ 1i5 ANHYDRITE/ 164.76 mPacker #5 :::; GYPSUM Transducer #5 ~ 171.48 m _______ ~IIII SIN 2472 oc 167.06 m ~ CLA Y(STONE)

6::1 174.89 m --:~;;~-1~~I~~~~~t2:: ~ 175.42 m

ANHYDRITE/ 176.68 m Packer #4 o GYPSUM Transducer #4 u.. SIN 2475

-179.89 m MAGENTA 178.98 m

DOLOMITE T 187.63 m _-=M~E~M~BE~R~_--1111

~~ ~~~~~~~19~3f·6~7~m2 ~ Iff 194.92 m Packer #3

::E w ::E

'" III ;;: ..:

ANHYDRITE/ GYPSUM

~ 206.50 m -------11

"iII'-------- Transducer #3 SIN 2474 197.24 m

~ CLAYSTONE

C1oystoo.. ~~1~2~IO~.~3~4~m~:~~~~:~~~~l~~~~~-;; Siltstoo., ____ 213.24 m GYPSUM 210.59 m $ondstone 211.84 m Packer #2

214.12 m CUlEBRA Transducer #2

220.80 m DOLOMITE MEMBER SIN 2105

T CL STO 214.15 m

223.50 m =~~A~Y~~N=E~==~~~~~~~~~~~ '" 223.74 m 1i5 226.28 m GYPSUM 224.99 mPacker #1 ~ f--l-~=-:~;--:--:---- Transducer #1 ::E HALlTIC ~ 800 psi SIN 2174 '" CLAYSTONE/ I"-. Shear-Pin Plug 227.29 m

\!:' HALITE/GYPSUM I "227.84 m

'3 237.04 m ----------l o w :::; ~ SILTSTONE/ z CLAYSTONE ::>

1 255.76 m 256.49 m -'-____ -'G"""~' ... ""m!L~~oI1!!!!'t~.IP.C!:oI!!!lM<i!'!"'!!.':a~._l

1--6.125-inch('16 m) Open Hole

SALADO FORMATION '-----'---- Total Depth 259.35 m

All Depths in Meters Below Ground Surface Not To Scale

Date 1/4/89

Date 1/11/89 Schematic Illustration of the Multipacker Completion

Tool Installed in Observation-Well H-16 Date 6/23/89

(after Beauheim, 1987a) 1/4/89

I N'rtILI\ Technologies Figure 2.1

2-4

3.0 AIR-INTAKE SHAFT CONSTRUCTION HISTORY

Construction of the AIS consisted of drilling and reaming a pilot hole and

upreaming the shaft. The 0.25-m pilot hole was drilled using a bentonite

mud-based brine drilling fluid through the Dewey Lake Red Beds and the

Rustler and Salado Formations to a depth of 635 m, immediately above the

WIPP-site underground facility. With the pilot hole remaining full of

drilling fluid, the initial pilot hole was reamed to a 0.37-m diameter to

the same depth. The reamed 0.37-m pilot hole was then extended into the

underground facility, a depth of 655 m, and drained of drilling fluid. The

pilot hole provided a guide for the introduction of 0.35-m drill pipe which

controlled and raised a 6.l7-m diameter upreaming bit which raise bored the

AIS from the underground facility to ground surface. No drilling fluid was

used during upreaming. Following geologic mapping, the shaft was finished

with a concrete liner to a final inside diameter of 5.9 m.

The following sections present descriptions of each of the phases of the

AIS construction history, highlighting activities of hydrologic interest

which affected the fluid-pressure responses of the members of the Rustler

Formation analyzed in Section 6.0 (Figure 3.1). Construction information

was developed from the daily drilling reports (DDR) of CAP-STAR Drilling,

Inc. (the drilling contractor), discussions with Dana Downes of Frontier

Kemper, Inc. (the supervisor of construction operations), and Table 1.4,

Part D of Stensrud and others (1988b).

3.1 Pilot Hole

The following subsections describe the principal events of the

drilling/reaming history of the AIS pilot hole with particular attention

to events affecting the formation fluid pressures of the members of the

Rustler Formation. Figure 3.2 schematically illustrates the events of

the drilling/reaming period.

3-1

3.1.1 Drilling

The drilling of the 0.25 -m pilot hole began on December 5, 1987

(Calendar Day 339) using conventional rotary drilling methods and a

bentonite-based brine drilling mud as a circulating medium. The actual

mud weight was not recorded in the DDR on a daily basis. However, on

January 13, 1988 (Calendar Day 378) the DDR indicated that the drilling

fluid weighed 9.8 pounds per gallon (1174.44 kilograms/cubic meter

[kg/m3]) with a viscosity of 28 centipoises and a pH of 8. Subsequent

discussions with Frontier-Kemper and CAP-STAR have not uncovered any

additional information concerning the drilling fluid's parameters.

Therefore, the January 13, 1988, mud parameters were assumed to be in

effect throughout the drilling period.

Drilling of the initial stages of the pilot hole proceeded slowly due

to administrative delays concerning the safety of the drilling location

and technical delays caused by caving in the Gatufta Formation.

Drilling penetrated the Forty-niner and Magenta Members of the Rustler

on December 11 and 12, 1987 (Calendar Days 345 and 346). On December

12 (Calendar Day 346), after finding the borehole was slightly

deviated, CAP-STAR began reaming the upper part of the borehole to a

0.37-m diameter in an attempt to correct the deviation. From December

12 to 20 (Calendar Day 354) the pilot hole was reamed to a depth of

92.97 m BGS. Operations were halted until December 26 (Calendar Day

360) when the borehole was cemented from 190 to 130 m BGS in a further

attempt to correct borehole deviation. The borehole was flushed and

cleaned of drill cuttings and the drilling fluid was circulated until

preparations for cementing were completed.

3-2

The pilot hole was reentered on December 27 (Calendar Day 361) and the

cement and formations below 130 m BGS were redrilled in conformance

with deviation standards to a 0.25-m diameter. The Forty-niner and

Magenta Members were redrilled on December 29 and 30 (Calendar Days 363

and 364), respectively. The Culebra dolomite was penetrated on

January I, 1988 (Calendar Day 366). Drilling continued to 262 m BGS to

the upper part of the Salado Formation on January 3 (Calendar Day 368),

when excessive borehole deviation was again detected. The borehole was

cemented from 262 to 195 m BGS on January 6 (Calendar Day 371). On

January 7 (Calendar Day 372), the cemented interval was redrilled at a

0.25-m diameter to try to correct the deviation. The Culebra was

redrilled on January 8 and 9 (Calendar Days 373 and 374), and drilling

continued through the remainder of the Rustler and into the Salado.

Drilling to the total depth of the O. 25-m pilot hole at 635 m BGS

continued until January 30 (Calendar Day 395) with a short interruption

on January 16 and 17 (Calendar Days 381 and 382) when the Salado

Formation was cemented from 367 to 305 m BGS to correct excessive

borehole deviation.

3.1.2 Reaming

The 0.25-m borehole was reamed to a 0.37-m diameter from 91.5 to 655 m

BGS from January 31 to February 7, 1988 (Calendar Days 396 to 403) with

a full column of brine-based drilling mUd. The pilot hole penetrated

the WIPP underground facility on Calendar Day 403. The Forty-niner and

Magenta were reamed on February 1 (Calendar Day 397) and the Culebra

dolomite was reamed on February 2 (Calendar Day 398). The drilling

fluid was pumped from the pilot hole just before penetration of the

underground facility. The pilot hole remained open and the Culebra and

Magenta were draining to the pilot hole and later to the upreamed shaft

from 2330 hours on February 7 (Calendar Day 403) until the time of this

report.

3-3

3.2 Upreaming of the Air-Intake Shaft

Upreaming of the AIS began on May 1, 1988 (Calendar Day 487) after

2-1/2 months of preparatory work on the foundation for the AIS collar and

installation of the drill pipe for the 6.17 -m diameter upreaming tool.

Before installing the drill pipe, a 13-7/8-inch (0.35 m) drill bit was

used to clear hole obstructions at 80 m and 226 m BGS. The obstruction

at the 226-m depth, 5.2 m below the Cu1ebra, was cleared on April 7, 1988

(Calendar Day 463) using compressed air as a circulation medium. The

cleaning operation caused a slight offset in the H-16 fluid-pressure data

for the Cu1ebra but did not disturb the overall pressure trend.

The members of the Rustler Formation isolated in H-16 were encountered by

the upreaming tool from June 16 to 28 (Calendar Days 533 to 545).

Specifically, the Cu1ebra was upreamed on June 17 (Calendar Day 534), the

Magenta on June 23 (Calendar Day 540), and the Forty-niner claystone on

June 26 (Calendar Day 543). After upreaming of the Rustler, upreaming

slowed considerably in the Dewey Lake Red Beds. Due to construction

delays, the AIS upreaming was not completed until August 24, 1988

(Calendar Day 602). Throughout and after the upreaming period, the

Rustler members remained open and draining to the AIS.

3-4

DRILLING / REAMING PERIOD

Penetration of WIPP-Site Underground Facility 649 meters Below Ground Surface

~ Dec. 1 , 1987 Dec. 5, 1987 Jan. 1 , 1988 Feb. 1, 1988 Feb. 7, 1988

I ~I Drilling O.25-m-diameter Pilot Hole Hole reamed to 628.5 m from Ground Surface to O.37-m-diameter

r Forty-Niner Penetration 12/11/87 First M, Magenta Penetration 12/12/87

C, Culebra Penetration 12/31/87

OPEN-BOREHOLE PERIOD

Feb. 8, 1988 Mar. 1 , 1988 April 1, 1988 May 1, 1988

I I I

I Construction of Foundation for Upreaming Rig

UPREAMING PERIOD

August 23, May 1 , 1988 June 1 , 1988 July 1 , 1988 August 1, 1988 1988

I I I I I C M F

Upreaming Pilot Hole to 6.17-m Diameter from Underground Facility to Ground Surface

C, Upreaming Culebra June 16, 1988 M, Upreaming Magenta June 21, 1988 F, Upreaming Forty-Niner June 25, 1988

Drawn by ABW Date 2/9/89

Checked by G. S. Date 2/9/89 Schematic Illustration of the Time Sequence of the Revisions Date Various Phases of the Construction History

H09700R876 2/9/89 of the AIS

I NrtIl.,\ Technologies Figure 3.1

3-5

GROUND SURFACE 1039.25 masl

~ 83m w

DEWEY LAKE u « ......

RED BEDS LL

Cement '-.... ~:~:~ cr:: ::> .. ' iJ)

F>' .: 0 • ... 0· z .,' . ::> o· '0 ~ 164 0 ' .. . o· FORTY-NINER MEMBER ....... 182

cr:: .................. :: .. : :, .. W;~:, ~19:2~':~ ::::::.::::.:,:: MAGENTA DOLOMITt"··'::::' z 0

-~"j96m·:·· 189 cr::o ~ w- 3:

I I .... ' v Cement TAMARISK MEMBER -,f-

0 f-« ... 215 iJ):2 -' . ........ .......... , .. ... , .... :I:lRA 0 MITt: . ........... " . w ',0' 222 ::>cr:: CD -.' . UNNAMED LOWER cr::O

"" r--- .. i..J... iJ) ~ ""

.. MEMBER cr:: I - ~L259m- 259 w u 1O f-

W

"" I I

w 0 :2

U w

302m ~ 0

"" L.() ~ . '. SALADO I

z z .~.! v Cement f-« « FORMATION

0. ....., ....., : .. <10, W

.. ·0 t 0 f ~" .... ,. 367m

L.() 1O ~ ~

z z « «

FM FMC C ....., .....,

FMC PENETRADON OF UNDERGROUND FAOUTY

U CEMENT I I I CEMENT I CE~ENT II I DRILLING j REAMING 1'( DRILLlNCl 1 DRILLING 1 I REAMING RUSTLER UNITS DRAINING I j t6 ,It 12 2U7 2

1910 ~1 J J U ,~ t~ it \ 7 218

I DECEMBER 1987 ·1· JANUARY 1988 ·1· FEBRUARY 1988 ·1 NOTE: F M C Indicate days when drilling

or reaming penetrated the Forty-Niner (F), Magenta (M), or Culebro (C).

INTtlt.'\ Schematic Illustration of the Different Segments of the Figure 3.2 Technologies Drilling/Reaming History of the AIS Pilot Hole

H09700R876 ABW 3/2/89

4.0 OTHER HYDROLOGIC ACTIVITIES AFFECTING HYDROLOGIC RESPONSES

Water-level and fluid-pressure responses from over 50 observation wells and

shafts in the WIPP- si te observation-well network were recorded from

December 1987 to December 1988. During that time, hydrologically related

activities other than the AIS construction affected the members of the

Rustler Formation. A compilation of all such activities can be found in

Stensrud and others (1988a, 1988b, and 1989). The following sections

describe those activities that may have affected the area near the center

of the WIPP site during construction of the AIS.

4.1 Aquifer Testing

The major aquifer test conducted during the construction of the AIS was

the H-l1 multipad/tracer test (Stensrud and others, 1989). During this

test, well H-llbl was pumped at a relatively constant rate of 0.38 liters

per second (Lis) from May 5 to July 7, 1988 (Calendar Days 491 to 554).

Water-level responses to the H-ll mu1tipad/tracer test were recorded at

10 observation wells in addition to the fluid-pressure responses recorded

at H-llb2, H-llb3, and H-llb4 at the H-ll hydropad. H-l, ERDA-9, and

wells at the H-2 hydropad potentially could have responded to the H-ll

mu1tipad/tracer test, but the presence of the AIS dominated water-level

responses at these locations during the test.

Well development and a 3-day pumping test of the Culebra dolomite were

performed at H-18, located about 1.5 km northwest of the AIS, from

February 26 to March 14, 1988 (Calendar Days 422 to 439). The H-18

pumping test was followed by three weeks of pumping for water-quality

sampling as described in Section 4.2. The pumping at H-18 was observed

at DOE-2, WIPP-13, P-14, and the H-6 hydropad. No evidence of the H-18

pumping was detected at H-2, H-1, ERDA-9, and WIPP-21.

4-1

4.2 Water-Ouality Sampling

Water-quality sampling of the Culebra dolomite as part of the WIPP site's

Water Quality Sampling Program (Colton and Morse, 1985) was conducted at

WIPP-19, H-18, H-14, H-15, and DOE-2 during the period analyzed for this

report. The wells were pumped with an air-lift pump at pumping rates of

0.003 to 0.03 Lis. Responses to these pumping episodes were measured in

some nearby wells, but the influence of these exercises was limited.

The water-quality pumping at WIPP-19 from January 26 to February 12, 1988

(Calendar Days 391 to 408) was observed distinctly at WIPP-18 and

WIPP-22, but its effects could not be distinguished from drawdown induced

by AIS construction at other nearby wells such as WIPP-2l (Stensrud and

others, 1988b).

Water-quality sampling at H-15 was performed on January 7 to 13 and

October 25 to November 7, 1988. The January sampling was not observed at

nearby wells due to the dominating influence of activities in the AIS.

However, the August sampling exercise appears to have affected water

levels in ERDA-9 and H-l (see Section 6.0).

4.3 Grouting in the Waste-Handling Shaft

Grouting in the WIPP-site shafts affected the fluid pressure of the

Culebra dolomite as noted during pressure grouting in the exhaust shaft

from July through December 1986. Examination of grouting reports

indicated that drilling the grout- inj ection boreholes, which included

opening the shaft- instrumentation sleeves (Bechtel, 1985; Saulnier,

1987a) to prevent their being sealed by the grout, caused fluid-pressure

decreases in the more permeable members of the Rustler such as the

Culebra. These pressure decreases were observed at nearby observation

well WIPP-2l and in the EXS (Stensrud and others, 1987; Saulnier and

others, 1987).

4-2

The WHS was constructed as a 5.79-m-diameter shaft between November 1983

and August 1984 (Bechtel, 1985). Special grouting methods were employed

to seal the Culebra and Magenta dolomites. However, continued seepage

was observed from the Culebra as well as from the other Rustler units

(Saulnier, 1987a; Deshler and McKinney, 1988). In October 1987, an

extensive grouting and sealing program was initiated to stop leakage from

all members of the Rustler Formation in the WHS. The grouting procedures

involved drilling annular rings of 16 boreholes, 0.05 m in diameter,

through the WHS liner from 1.5 to 3 m apart vertically, and 0.6 minto

the formations in contact with the liner. Class C cement followed by a

chemical grout was then injected through these boreholes at pressures as

high as 4.8 MPa to seal the liner-to-formation contact, any shrinkage

cracks that may have developed in the liner itself, and to seal any

incompletely sealed construction joints (Deshler and McKinney, 1988).

Drilling and grouting of the Magenta, Culebra, and Forty-niner Members of

the Rustler Formation occurred according to the following schedule:

UNIT DRILLING GROUTING GROUT DATE (Calendar DATE (Calendar

Day) Day)

Culebra 12/15/87(349) 12/18/87(352) Cement

12/19/87(353) 02/07/88(403) Chemical

02/13/88(409) 02/14/88(410) Chemical

Magenta 12/29/87(363) 01/09/88(374) 01/21/88(386)

01/22/88(387) Cement 01/24/88(389) Cement

01/26/88(391) 01/27/88(392) Chemical 01/28/88(393) Chemical 02/14/88(410) Chemical

4-3

UNIT

Forty-niner

DRILLING DATE (Calendar

Day)

01/21/88(386)

02/13/88(409) .

GROUTING DATE (Calendar

Day)

01/21/88(386) 01/22/88(387) 01/26/88(391) 01/28/88(393)

02/14/88(410)

GROUT

Cement Cement

Chemical

Chemical

The decline in the Culebra fluid press.ure in H-16 from December 19, 1987

to January I, 1988 (Calendar Days 353 to 366) appears to have been caused

by the drilling of the chemical-grout holes in the Culebra interval of

the WHS liner. (Plots of the Culebra' s fluid-pressure response during

this time period are included in Section 6.0 of this report.) These

grout holes remained open and draining until they were sealed on

February 7, 1988 (Calendar Day 403). Similar fluid-pressure decreases

were not noted for the Magenta or the Forty-niner because their grout

holes were drilled and sealed on successive or near-successive days after

the start of the drilling of the AIS pilot hole, apparently allowing

insufficient time for any pressure decrease to be transmitted to the

observation wells.

4-4

5.0 INTERPRETATION METHODOLOGY

A consistent interpretation methodology was applied to ~he analysis of the

fluid-pressure- response data from the Forty-niner claystone, Magenta

dolomite, and Culebra dolomite in H-16. A well-test simulator was used to

simulate the response of each individual unit to stresses induced by the

events occurring during drilling of the pilot hole and upreaming of the

AIS. Simulation results for different formation parameters were compared

graphically to pressures measured in observation wells. Parameters

providing the best simulation of observed pressures in H-16 and water-level

responses from other observation wells were assumed to be representative of

the unit being analyzed. The Culebra simulations were also compared to a

single measurement of the flow rate from the Culebra to the AIS.

5.1 GTFM Well-Test Simulator

The GTFM well-test simulator (Pickens .and others, 1987) was used for all

interpretations. GTFM is a numeric simulator which models the response

of a radial-flow regime to boundary conditions applied at a well located

at the center of the flow system. Simulation results consist of

calculated fluid-pressure responses at radial distances from the well

corresponding to the locations of the observation wells, and of

calculated fluid pressure, flow rate, and production volume in the well

itself. A description of GTFM can be found in Pickens and others (1987).

Application of GTFM to the simulation of pulse testing in low

permeability formations is described in Saulnier and Avis (1988).

Assumptions inherent in the formulation of GTFM and capabilities of the

model relevant to the AIS simulations are described below.

5-1

GTFM assumes that the hydrogeologic unit subject to analysis is

horizontal, of constant thickness, and bounded above and below by

impermeable layers. For the AlS simulations, formation thicknesses and

formation depth were assumed identical to those described for H-16 in

Beauheim (1987a) and are given in Table 5.1. Although both formation

thicknesses and elevations vary over the WlPP site and surrounding area,

variability in the immediate vicinity of the AlS is assumed to be

minimal. Therefore, given the proximity of H-16 to the AlS, interval

thickness values derived from H-16 are considered to be representative.

Differences in formation thickness and elevation at the more distant

moni toring locations, ERDA- 9, WlPP - 21, and H-l, will introduce

uncertainty as to the accuracy of simulation results at the corresponding

radii. All intervals of concern are bounded above and below by low

permeability anhydrite beds with little or no production potential

(Beauheim, 1987a). Mapping in the WHS and EXS did not indicate any

leakage from these anhydrite units (Holt and Powers, 1984, 1986) and

these units were assumed to have had little impact on the observed fluid

pressure responses.

GTFM simulates a formation of finite radial extent centered on a finite

radius well. The well is assumed to be the only source of hydraulic

stress applied to the unit being analyzed. For the AlS simulations, the

well consisted initially of the pilot hole, and after upreaming, the AlS.

The radial extent of the formation was set at 10,000 m, large enough to

preclude external boundary conditions from having any effects on the

simulation results. The single-hydraulic-stress assumption is obviously

not representative of the entire modeled area. For example, drilling and

grouting operations in the WHS and hydraulic tests on other wells in the

monitoring system appear to have affected water levels and observed

pressures in the observation wells, including H-16. However, the AlS was

the closest and most significant stress on the portion of the formation

which includes the H-16 monitoring well. Within this area, the effects

of any other stress events were assumed to have only minimal impact on

5-2

the H-16 pressure response. Water-level responses at observation-wells

H-1, ERDA-9, and WIPP-21 were apparently more significantly affected by

non-AIS hydraulic stresses, particularly those due to drilling and

grouting operations in the WHS.

Boundary conditions at the external boundary can be either fixed pressure

or zero flow. The potential effects of external boundary conditions were

minimized by using a large formation radius. Fixed-pressure boundary

conditions were used in all simulations. Fluid pressures (corrected to

the center of the water-bearing interval under consideration) measured at

H-16 before the pilot-hole drilling intercepted the intervals (and

applied stress to the units) were used as initial formation pressures.

GTFM assumes that formation-fluid properties are constant. The only

formation-fluid property required for the AIS simulations was fluid

density. A value of 1020 kg/m3 (see Cauffman and others, 1990) was

assumed to be representative of formation-fluid density for all three

units of interest within the modeled area.

GTFM allows the interval being analyzed to contain a single radially

centered heterogeneity. The boundary of the heterogeneity is specified

at some distance from the we11bore, thus allowing the tested formation to

be represented by two zones with different hydraulic properties; an inner

zone comprising the portion of the formation between the we11bore and the

heterogeneity boundary, and an outer zone which includes the portion of

the formation between the heterogeneity boundary and the external

boundary of the modeled system. Formation properties such as

transmissivity and storativity are assumed to be constant in each radial

zone, but may be different between zones. Heterogeneities are most

frequently used to model skin zones where, due to the effects of

drilling, properties in the formation immediately surrounding the well

are assumed to differ from those of the remainder of the formation.

5-3

However, heterogeneities may be placed at much larger radii, allowing

simulation of the effects of larger-scale differences in formation

properties. Both of these approaches were used in the AIS simulations.

A skin zone was applied to portions of the Culebra simulations in order

to simulate the effects of cement invasion, while larger-scale

heterogeneities were used to simulate the fluid-pressure responses of the

Forty-niner and Magenta units.

As a numeric model, GTFM can simulate well tests with complex wellbore

boundary conditions. Testing periods are subdivided into a number of

discrete time intervals, known as sequences, which are distinguished by

differing wellbore boundary conditions, due to either the type or value

of the boundary conditions. Wellbore boundary conditions used in the AIS

simulations consisted primarily of specified pressure corresponding to

calculated mud overpressure during the pilot-hole drilling, and zero

pressure after penetration of the underground facility by the pilot hole.

A limited number of short-duration, specified-flow boundary conditions

were also applied during the drilling period to simulate: a) the

interval's fluid-pressure responses when the pilot hole was cemented to

aid in reorienting the hole; and b) the apparent reduction in flow from

the units caused by settling of drilling mud in the borehole which may

have blocked the formations. Wellbore boundary conditions are discussed

in greater detail in Sections 5.2 and 5.3. '

GTFM simulations are usually conducted with a constant wellbore radius.

H~wever, three wellbore radii were used for the AIS simulations. The

intervals whose responses were analyzed in this report were initially

penetrated by a 9-7/8-inch (0.25 m) diameter drilling bit. Shortly

before penetration of the underground facility, the pilot hole was reamed

to a diameter of 0.37 m. Subsequently, the intervals were upreamed to a

6.17 -m diameter. The effects of the different wellbore radii were

simulated by subdividing the entire period of interest into three

different sub-simulations corresponding to the times of the different

5-4

we11bore radii. For each sub-simulation performed, the pressure

distributions over the radial extent of the modeled flow regime were

adjusted to reflect the geometry of the subsequent sub-simulation. These

adjusted pressure distributions were then used as initial conditions for

the next sub-simulation.

5.2 Drilling-Period We11Bore Boundary Conditions

As described in the following paragraphs, the actual we11bore boundary

conditions in effect during the simulation periods corresponding to the

drilling phase of the AIS construction were not known exactly. The

principal areas of uncertainty were: 1) the degree to which the

formation overpressure from the column of drilling fluid above the

formation was reduced by mud-fi1ter-cake skin; and 2) the lengths of time

the formations were exposed to full-borehole mud pressure; i.e., before

the effects of filter-cake skin affected the formations overpressured

condition. Therefore, the approach used in the AIS simulations was to

vary the reduced formation overpressures due to filter-cake skin

arbi trari1y, and to vary the durations of time periods with fu11-

borehole-mud pressure (Section 5.2.2). These parameters were varied

until a satisfactory match to the H-16 fluid-pressure responses was

achieved. This approach was taken to increase the reliability of the

simulations for the period following penetration of the pilot hole into

the repository horizon, when the post-penetration we11bore boundary

conditions under open and draining conditions were known with much

greater certainty.

During the period from the initial interception of the intervals of

interest by the pilot hole until penetration of the underground facility,

we11bore boundary conditions show considerable complexity.

sequence of events common to all intervals was as follows:

5-5

The basic

1) initial interception - the time when the 9-7/8-inch (0.25-m)

drill bit used for drilling the pilot hole intersected the

centers of the intervals.

2) cementing - two cementing operations were performed to allow

correction of excessive deviation of the pilot hole. The

first occurred on December 26, 1987 (Calendar Day 360), when

the hole was cemented from 190 to 93 m, affecting only the

Forty-niner and Magenta units. The second cementation

occurred January 6, 1988 (Calendar Day 371) when the hole

was cemented from 259 to 195 m BGS, which affected only the

Culebra.

3) second unit interception - the time, after the cementation

events, when the pilot hole intercepted the centers of the

intervals for the second time.

4) reaming - the time at which the l4-3/4-inch (0.37-m) reaming

bit intersected the center of the intervals.

5) final penetration - the penetration of the pilot hole into

the WIPP-site underground facility on February 7, 1988

(Calendar Day 403).

Unit interception times for events I, 3, and 4 were calculated based

on hole-penetration data given in the pilot-hole DDR. Ideally, the

wellbore boundary conditions for the periods between subsequent

events would be described as follows:

5-6

Sequence 1, drilling - a fixed pressure corresponding to the

calculated pressure at formation center due to an annulus filled

with drilling mud. The pressure at formation center due to the

mud filled annulus was in excess of actual formation pressure (see

for example Stensrud, 1988a, 1988b) and is referred to as mud

overpressure. Mud-overpressure values were calculated using a mud

density of 1174 kg/m3 , as noted in the DDR for January 13, 1988

(Calendar Day 378), and a depth equivalent to the center of the

interval. Calculated mud overpressures for each of the three

intervals analyzed are given in Table 5.2.

Sequence 2, cementation - specified flow at a flow rate of zero.

Well diameter of 0.25 m.

Sequence 3, drilling - same conditions as Sequence 1.

Sequence 4, reaming - fixed pressure using the same parameters as

Sequence 1 and a well diameter of 0.37 m.

The actual types and values of the boundary conditions used in the

simulations of the intervals' responses were affected by the true mud

weight and height of the column of drilling fluid, by the amount of

decrease in flow from the borehole to the formation due to settling of

drilling mud in the borehole during periods when circulation was

interrupted, and by the thickness and character of the build-up of mud

filter cake on the face of the wellbore. The following subsections

describe the techniques used to compensate for the effects of these

factors.

5-7

5.2.1 Mud-Related Uncertainties

The pilot hole was assumed to be constantly full of mud during drilling

periods. This assumption is somewhat unrealistic considering that

installing and removing the drill string during bit changes and other

operations probably affected the mud level. In addition, this

assumption postulated that no mud was lost to the formations during

periods when drilling operations were suspended. Variations in mud

levels could have caused changes in mud overpressure at the int~rva1s,

which in turn would have affected the fluid-pressure responses at the

observation wells.

A second mud-related uncertainty is the actual density of the drilling

fluid used during drilling. Changes in drilling-fluid density due to

variations in the amount and/or quality of makeup water and loss or

gain of formation fluid can affect the fluid-pressure response of the

formation. The DDR for the AIS pilot hole includes very few notations

about the properties of the drilling fluid.

5.2.2 Flow Reduction

The measured formation-fluid pressures for the Forty-niner and Magenta

intervals at H-16 (Figures 5.1 and 5.2) show periods where the fluid

pressure responses appear to have been affected by events consistent

with an apparent loss of flow from the borehole to these intervals.

The timing of the onset of these events is coincident with periods when

pilot-hole drilling operations were suspended. Mud solids may have

settled in the borehole when drilling-fluid circulation stopped. The

settled solids may have partially occluded the formation causing

reduced flow from the borehole to the intervals, thus allowing the

interval fluid pressure to decrease toward formation pressure.

5-8

For the Magenta interval, flow reduction appears to have occurred over

a nine-day period starting on December 13, 1987 (Calendar Day 347).

During this period, drilling operations were suspended for safety

reasons from December 13 until December 16 (Calendar Days 347 to 350).

Drilling operations resumed with the reaming of the upper portion of

the pilot hole to a depth of 93 m on December 20 (Calendar Day 354).

Drilling of the O. 25-m pilot hole resumed on December 22 (Calendar

Day 356) and mud circulation was restored over the entire depth of the

pilot hole.

The H-16 fluid-pressure data indicate that flow to the Magenta was not

restored to the interval during the first abbreviated reaming

operation. The lack of circulation affecting the Magenta probably

occurred because this reaming took place only in the upper portion of

the pilot hole.

The H-16 fluid-pressure data for the Forty-niner interval (Figure 5.1)

indicate a flow reduction similar to that observed for the Magenta.

However, complete loss of flow to the Forty-niner apparently did not

occur until some time after the resumption of reaming on December 16

(Calendar Day 347). The delay in developing reduced flow was probably

because the Forty-niner claystone lies 5 m above the Magenta and the

fillup of drilling solids may have taken longer to reach this interval.

The actual reduced flow rates for the Magenta or Forty-niner intervals

could not determined. Therefore, the reduced-flow-rate periods were

assumed to result in complete flow loss and were simulated as

specified-flow boundary conditions with a zero flow rate.

5-9

5.2.3 Filter-Cake Skin

The H-16 fluid-pressure responses for all three units analyzed

indicates the probable development of filter-cake skins, or the buildup

of a layer of mud solids on the intervals' borehole faces, which

created a flow impedance at the wellbore. The relatively flat fluid

pressure responses for the H-16 Magenta and Culebra (Figures 5.2 and

5.3) intervals over the period from January 6 until February 1, 1988

(Calendar Days 371 to 397) can be interpreted as the result of some

mechanism substantially impeding flow into the intervals from the

wellbore. Similarly, the almost linear rate of fluid-pressure increase

in the Forty-niner interval over the same period (Figure 5.1) can be

attributed to less severe flow impedance.

Filter-cake-skin development is well understood qualitatively. One of

the reasons for using clay-based muds is to promote formation of such

skins, and thus prevent loss of drilling fluids to permeable

formations. However, quantifying filter-cake skin parameters such as

thickness and permeability, and estimating the rate of accumulation of

the filter cake are difficult because of their dependence on drilling

procedures and mud and formation properties (Krueger, 1986; Holditch

and others, 1983). There are few quantitative data available on the

actual dimensions of these filter-cake skins, primarily because the

impact of filter-cake skins is not severe in conventional hydraulic

testing where pretest well-development procedures are used to remove or

ameliorate the effects of the filter-cake skins.

The simulation of the proposed filter-cake skins was difficult

primarily because of the lack of justifiable parameters for specifying

the skins. Also, because GTFM can only simulate a single

heterogeneity, simulating the filter-cake skin as a heterogeneity would

have precluded the simulation of other, and potentially more

significant, formation heterogeneities. As an alternative approach,

5-10

the reduced formation-to-wellbore permeability of the filter-cake skins

was assumed to cause a constant pressure drop across the skins making

them appear to the formation as a fixed-pressure boundary condition

with wellbore pressure significantly less than the mud overpressure but

greater than the formation pressure.

The reduced-wellbore-pressure approach was validated by performing a

number of scoping simulations with GTFM. The results of these

simulations are shown in Figures 5.4 and 5.5. The formation and well

geometry parameters used for the scoping simulations are given in

Table 5.3. Figure 5.4 illustrates the simulated fluid-pressure

response at the skin/formation interface to an applied wellbore

pressure of 2.498 MPa, 1.618 MPa above the assumed formation pressure

of 0.88 MPa, for a range of skin hydraulic conductivities. Figure 5.4

shows that the wellbore pressure transmitted to the formation is

relatively constant. Figure 5.5 illustrates the differences in fluid

pressure responses, at a radial distance equivalent to the distance

between the pilot hole and observation-well H-16, between simulations

performed using a skin heterogeneity and those performed using reduced

wellbore pressures. The reduced pressures selected for the comparison

simulations were based on the skin/formation interface pressures from

Figure 5.4 at a time equal to 1 day. Figure 5.5 demonstrates that

reduced mud overpressures can produce reliable and defensible results

when simulating the impact of filter-cake skins.

Most periods when the formations of interest were exposed to mud

overpressures were simulated using two or more sequences. The initial

sequence had a relatively short duration and simulated the period

before the build-up of a significant filter-cake skin, when full mud

pressure was applied to the formation,

boundary condition. For subsequent

as a fixed-pressure wellbore

sequences, reduced wellbore

pressures were applied to simulate the effect of filter-cake skins on

formation fluid pressures.

5-11

5.3 Wellbore Boundary Conditions After Penetration of the Underground

Facility

After penetration of the pilot hole into the WIPP-site underground

facility, the complete wellbore was exposed to atmospheric pressure.

Wellbore boundary conditions for all interval- analyzed during this

period used a fixed wellbore pressure of 0 MPa.

Fil ter - cake skins that developed on the intervals' faces before

penetration of the WIPP-site underground facility were assumed to be

removed as soon as the formations' flow directions reversed, because the

removal of the drilling fluid from the pilot hole allowed the members of

the Rustler to drain into the open hole or the AIS after upreaming.

5.4 Formation Heterogeneities

5.4.1 Cement-Invasion Skin

Following cementation of the Culebra interval on January 5, 1987

(Calendar Day 370), the fluid-pressure response of the Culebra in H-16,

when compared to the fluid-pressure response after upreaming of the

shaft, indicates a flow-reduction condition similar to that caused by a

damage or skin zone (Figure 5.3). This condition persisted after the

pilot hole was reamed and drained of drilling fluid after penetration

of the underground facility. To simulate the Culebra's fluid-pressure

response after cementation, a radially-oriented cement- invasion skin

was added to the Culebra for the post-cementation drilling and reaming

periods and for the draining of the Culebra before upreaming

intercepted the Culebra. The vuggy and fractured nature of the Culebra

dolomite enhances its permeability and probably allowed relatively easy

penetration of the cement grout into the formation.

5-12

The cement-invasion skin zone was assumed to be a radial zone with a

finite thickness having a permanent reduced permeability due to the

presence of cement in the formation. The cement was assumed to be

responsible for the formation's slower response times and relatively

higher pressures during the post-cementation drilling and reaming

periods.

The simulations accounted for the cement-invasion skin by specifying a

radial zone with an assigned permeability lower than that of the rest

of the formation. In contrast to the use of reduced-we11bore-pressure

boundary conditions to simulate the effect of filter-cake skins as

described in Section 5.2.3, GTFM treated the cement-invasion skin as a

formation heterogeneity. The thickness and permeability of the cement

invasion-skin heterogeneity were determined in an iterative manner by

varying these parameters until a suitable match of observed and

simulated data for the Cu1ebra' s drilling and reaming periods was

achieved. Detailed descriptions of the use of the cement-invasion skin

in the analysis of the Cu1ebra fluid-pressure response to the

construction of the AIS accompanies the discussion of the Cu1ebra

simulations in Section 6.1

5.4.2 Radial Heterogeneity Boundaries

The H-16 fluid-pressure responses of the Magenta dolomite and the

Forty-niner claystone indicated that these units behaved as

heterogeneous formations. The formation heterogeneities were assumed

to correspond to zones of differing permeability within the formations.

The radial-flow model employed by GTFM dictates that formation

heterogeneities can only be included as radial boundaries at specified

distances from the pumping, injection, or, in the case of the AIS,

draining well. The direction to and physical character of the actual

boundaries must be derived from hydrogeologic and structural data.

5-13

The simulation of the H-16 fluid-pressure responses of the Magenta and

Forty-niner included specified formation transmissivities for inner

(near-field) and outer (far-field) zones radially oriented about the

AIS. The distances to the radial boundaries for both units and the

inner and outer transmissivities were determined empirically by varying

these parameters until achieving satisfactory matches of observed and

simulated data. Detailed descriptions of the use of the radia1-

heterogeneity boundaries used in the analysis of the Magenta and Forty

niner fluid-pressure responses to the construction of the AIS

accompanies the discussions of their simulations in Sections 6.2 and

6.3, respectively.

5.5 Diffusivity Relationship

As mentioned previously, with the exception of several short-duration

zero-flow boundary conditions, fixed-pressure boundary conditions were

applied at the wellbore the majority of the time. As a result of the

fixed-pressure boundary condition and the radial flow system simulated by

GTFM, unique formation responses at observation wells are a function of

the value of formation diffusivity, which is defined as:

D -T

S

where: D

T

S

(5-1)

diffusivity [L2 t -1]

transmissivity [L2 t -1]

storativity [ ]

Therefore, simulated interval responses cannot be used to provide

completely independent estimates of transmissivity and storativity.

Rather, the parameters are lumped, thus providing a single term to

characterize the individual intervals.

5-14

The approach used in the AIS simulations was to fix storativity at a

value assumed to be representative of the units analyzed. These data

were based on values determined by analyzing the results of previous

tests conducted at the WIPP site (Beauheim, 1987a, 1987b; Gonzalez, 1983;

Mercer, 1983; and Saulnier, 1987b) and a review of published estimates of

the intervals' rock and fluid properties (Touloukian and others, 1981).

After fixing the storativity, transmissivity was varied over appropriate

ranges until satisfactory simulations were achieved. Simulation of the

fluid-pressure responses of the Magenta and Forty-niner used formation

heterogeneity boundaries at various radii. Utilizing these boundaries,

those parameters or parameter combinations which produced the closest

matches between simulated and observed observation-well fluid-pressure

responses were determined to be most characteristic of the intervals

being simulated.

Interval transmissivities were calculated for the selected fixed

storativities and the upper and lower limits of storativity assumed to be

representative of the intervals whose fluid-pressure responses were

analyzed (see Section 8.1). Upper- and lower-transmissivity limits were

calculated from equation 5-1 and were not independently simulated.

5-15

1.3

-

-

0.9 -

-

0.7

~ xx x )«x

x

~ lEXX

FIRST PENETRATION

x

x X

x x x x ~ 9: x V x

x

OF FORTY-NINER 9:x~ x

\;: "xx 1 x X X X X >001«

DRILLING

I I

PENETRATION OF UNDERGROUND

FACILITY

REAMING

DRILLING I I I

325 3~5 3~5 DAYS)

405

Drawn by J.D. A. Date 1/16/89

Checked by G. S. Date 1/17/89

Revisions Date

H09700R876 1/19/89

I NrtIL'\ Technologies

(1987 CALENDAR

FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSE FOR THE FORTY-NINER CLAYSTONE AT H-16 DURING THE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

Figure 5.1

5-16

~

0 0-. 2

'-....../

W et:: =:J U) U) w et::

1.4

-

1.2 -

-

x

>« x

xx

x x

X

-"" ](X >«x !>Ix x ~ "£xxxxx xx ~ ->of ~xx ~ \~ x

x

x

x

>OC X PENETRATION OF x >«\

x

X

x x x x

UNDERGROUND FACILITY

x

>

0-. 1.0 - FIRST PENETRATION ~

>« >«

X><

0.8

Drawn by J.D. A.

Checked by G. S.

Revisions

H09700R876

OF MAGENTA x

\

x

~ x xx><

x

xxx xx xx>< -

I I

325

Date 1/16/89

Date 1/17/89

~ate

1/19/89

CEMENTATION

III REAMING

DRILLING DRILLING I t I I I I I I I

345 365 385 405

TIME (1987 CALENDAR DAYS)

FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSE FOR THE MAGENTA DOLOMITE AT H-16 DURING THE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

I NrtILl\ Technologies Figure 5.2

5-17

1.2

-

W 0:::: 1.0 -=:J (J) (J) W

X l!K

/<\ x~

FIRST PENETRATION OF CULEBRA

x

x

x

x

x

x

0:::: 0.-

_ ~x x \"''' \

>Xx,,: x


FACILITY x

x

x x x

0.8 350

Drawn by J.D. A.

Checked by G. S.

Revisions

H09700R876

CEMENTATION

DRILLING III I I I

370

DRILLING

I 390


Date 1/16/89

x

~ REAMING

I t I I

Date 1/17/89 FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSE FOR THE CULEBRA DOLOMITE AT H-16 DURING THE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

Date

1/19/89

I NrtIl.'\ Technologies Figure 5.3

5-18

2.4

2.2

2.0 /""'0..

0 0.-:2

1.8 '--../

w 0::: => 1.6 (J) (J) W 0::: 0.- 1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

Drawn by J.D.A.

Checked by G. S.

Revisions ABW

H09700R876

Ks=SKIN PERMEABILITY

Ks= 1 .OE -09 m/s\

Ks=3.0E-10 m/s"

Ks=1.0E-10

Ks=6.0E-11 m/sl

10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10

TIME (OAYS)

THE SIMULATED PRESSURES AT THE SKIN/FORMATION INTERFACE ARE RELATIVELY CONSTANT OVER THE PERIOD OF INTEREST INDICATING THAT A SPECIFIED, REDUCED WELlBORE PRESSURE CAN BE USED TO SIMULATE THE EFFECT OF A FILTER-CAKE SKIN.

Qate 1/16/69

Oate 1/17/89

Date 6/23/89

1/19/89

FILTER-CAKE-SKIN SIMULATION PRESSURE AT THE SKIN/FORMATION INTERFACE

I NrtILl\ Technologies Figure 5.4

5-19

1.4

~

1.2 0 0... 2

'--..../

W 0::::: => (f) (f) W 0::::: 0...

1.0

0.8

0.01

Drawn by J.D.A. Date

Checked by G.S. Date

Revisions ABW Date

H09700R876

/,

/;

/, ./

0.1

./

/

./ ./

./ ./

./

Ks=1.0E-9 m/s / Ps=2.18 MPa '-... y

8 8

8 ~ a /-

;j /. ./

./ ./

1

TIME (DAYS)

'-... /' Ks=3.0E-ll m/s ~ Ps=1.76 MPa '-

./ ./

./

!7 Ks=1.0E-l0 m/s Ps= 1 .34 MPa '"

Ks=3.0E-ll m/s Ps=1.05 MPa

10

- Ks= SKIN PERMEABILITY --- Ps= REDUCED WELLBORE PRESSURE TO

SIMULATE THE PRESENCE OF A MUD-FILTER-CAKE SKIN

1/16/89

./

1/17189 FILTER-CAKE-SKIN SIMULATION PRESSURE AT RADIUS OF OBSERVATION-WELL H-16

6/23/89

1119/89

I NTER..,\ Technologies Figure 5.5

5-20

INTERVAL

Forty-Niner Magenta Culebra Claystone Dolomite Dolomite

Depth [meters]

Top 171.480 179.893 214.122 Bottom 174.894 187.635 220.797 Center 173 .187 183.764 217.460

Thickness [meters] 3.414 7.742 6.675

Drawn by Date Depths and Thicknesses of the Rustler Units

Checked by Date Analyzed at H-16 Revisions Date

I NrtIL'\ Technologies I Table 5.1

H09700R876 5-21

Depth to Interval Mud Overpressure Center

[meters] [MPa]

Interval

Forty-Niner 173.187 1.9895 Magenta 183.764 2.1110 Culebra 2l7.460 2.4980

Drawn by Date Calculated Rustler-Unit Mud Overpressures for

Checked by Date Simulation of the Drilling Periods of the AIS-Revisions Date Pilot-Hole

I ~t.R.." Technologies Table 5.2

H09700R876 5-22

FILTER-CAKE SKIN SIMULATION PARAMETERS

Formation Parameters

Formation transmissivity Formation storativity

Skin Parameters

Radial thickness of skin Skin-zone storativity Skin hydraulic conductivity

Value #1 Value #2 Value #3 Value #4 Value #5

Other Parameters

Test-interval length Test-interval radius Wellbore pressure Static formation pressure Fluid density

Calculated Skin Factor

Case #1 Case #2 Case #3 Case #4 Case #5

Drawn by Date

Checked by Date

Revisions Date


H09700R876

1. 30003E-07 9.99998E-06

10.0 9.99998E-06

1. 00000E-09 3.00000E-10 1.00000E-10 6.00000E-ll 3.00000E-ll

6.675 125 2.4980 0.8800

1020.00

Ks [m/sec]

1.00000E-09 3.00000E-10 1. 00000E-10 6.00000E-ll 3.00000E-ll

[m2/s] [ ]

[mm] [ ]

[m/s] [m/s] [m/s] [m/s] [m/s]

[m] [mm]

[MPa] [MPal

[kg/m ]

Skin Factor [ ]

1. 42l909E+00 4.919273E+00 1. 491174E+Ol 2.490421E+Ol 4.988538E+Ol

Parameters for Simulations Including FilterCake Skin

Table 5.3

5-23

6.0 ESTIMATION OF TRANSMISSIVITIES

The transmissivities of members of the Rustler Formation were estimated by

comparing simulation results from the GTFM well-test simulator to: the

observed fluid-pressure responses of those members in H-16; water-level

responses in observation wells H-1, WIPP-21, and ERDA-9 completed to the

Cu1ebra dolomite near the AIS; and a single flow-rate measurement from the

Cu1ebra dolomite to the AIS after upreaming the AIS.

The drilling of the AIS pilot hole included periods of drilling,

cementation, and reaming which provided a rather complex drilling history

(see Sections 3.0 and 5.2). Transmissivities were estimated with GTFM

after including the most important elements of the drilling history as they

were reflected in the fluid-pressure responses at H-16. Figure 6.1 shows

the H-16 fluid-pressure responses for all members of the Rustler isolated

in the H-16 borehole during the drilling/reaming of the pilot hole and the

upreaming of the AIS. These responses were used to develop the GTFM test

sequences used to simulate the responses of the Cu1ebra dolomite, the

Magenta dolomite, and the Forty-niner claystone. The simulations were

performed for a range of transmissivity values indicating the order of

magnitude and variability of formation transmissivity.

Figure 6.1 also shows that the fluid-pressure responses of the Tamarisk and

unnamed lower members of the Rustler were not suitable for analysis to

estimate their transmissivities. The unnamed lower member fluid pressure

did not appear to respond to the construction of' the AIS. The large and

sudden pressure decrease shown on Figure 6.1 on Calendar Day 650 was due to

a slug-withdrawal test of the unnamed lower member designed to establish

whether or not its pressure transducer was operating properly. The f1uid

pressure data from the Tamarisk Member show continued adjustment with no

identified trend during the pre-AIS period. Because the data did not

appear to approach a stable pre-AIS formation pressure, they could not be

used with confidence to estimate the Tamarisk's hydraulic parameters.

6·-1

The following sections will describe the GTFM simulation and analysis of

the fluid-pressure responses of the Culebra dolomite, the Magenta dolomite,

and the Forty-niner claystone. The simulations will be compared to their

H-16 fluid-pressure responses and the responses of other observation wells

near the WIPP site. As discussed in Section 5.5, the boundary conditions

applicable to the simulations resulted in the treatment of transmissivity

and storativi ty parameters as the combined parameter diffusivity.

Published estimates of formation hydraulic properties for the WIPP site

show that there is much less variability in storativity than in

transmissivi ty. Therefore, to determine representative values of

transmissivity, a fixed storativity value of 1 x 10- 5 , consistent with the

published literature on testing at the WIPP site (Gonzalez, 1983; Mercer,

1983; Beauheim, 1987b; LaVenue and others, 1988), was used for all

simulations. In the summary of results presented in Section 8.0, the

transmissivities are calculated for a range of storativities assumed to be

representative of the intervals studied. Refer to Table 1.1 for the

nomenclature used for the simulation parameters in the text and on the

figures and tables.

6.1 Culebra Dolomite

The Culebra dolomite's fluid-pressure response to the construction of the

AIS was simulated using the methodology described in Section 5.2.. The

analysis was based on the fluid-pressure response of the Culebra as

measured in H-16 (Figure 6.2). Because of the complex history of the

drilling and reaming of the pilot hole, more weight was given to the

fluid-pressure data observed after the pilot hole penetrated the

underground facility. The GTFM simulations of the Culebra dolomite's

fluid-pressure response were compared to the observed fluid-pressure

response at H-16, water levels measured at observation wells H-1, ERDA-9,

and WIPP-21 (Figure 6.3), and a single flow-rate measurement of 0.056 Lis

from the Culebra to the AIS measured on October 28, 1988 (Calendar

Day 667) (R. Deshler, IT Corporation, written communication, December

6-2

1988). The flow-rate measurement may be somewhat uncertain because some

of the following factors may have affected the measurement: evaporation

in the AIS was not taken into consideration; the water ring may not have

captured all the flow from the Cu1ebra; and small amounts of water from

grouting operations higher in the AIS and from a leaking water connection

on the AIS conveyance system may have contributed to the measured flow

rate. In spite of the potential inaccuracies, the estimate of 0.056 L/s

is considered good and was corroborated by an informal INTERA estimate of

0.063 L/s made during an AIS inspection on October 26, 1988 (Calendar

Day 665) (Saulnier, INTERA Inc. internal memorandum, October 28, 1988).

Six simulations were used to analyze the Cu1ebra dolomite's f1uid

pressure response. The simulations are distinguished by differences in

the simulation's formation transmissivity and by the inclusion or non

inclusion of a cement-invasion skin immediately surrounding the pilot

hole as described in Section 5.4. The simulations indicate the range of

variability in transmissivity and sensitivity to use of the cement

invasion-skin heterogeneity.

As discussed in Section 5.2, the actual we11bore boundary conditions

during the pilot-hole drilling and reaming phases were uncertain.

Simulation of this period required assumed we11bore pressures and flow

rates to account for the events which occurred during the

drilling/reaming period and to approximate the effect of filter-cake skin

at the we1lbore-formation interface. Using an iterative approach, the

boundary conditions which provided the best simulation of the H-16 fluid

pressure data observed during this period were assumed to be

representative of the formation's hydrologic conditions.

6-3

The simulation period for the Culebra was divided into six discrete time

segments (Figure 6.2), the first four of which cover the drilling/reaming

phase (Figures A.l to A. 6, Appendix A). The observed H-16 formation

fluid pressures for the drilling/reaming phase are shown in Figure 6.4.

Segments 1, 3, and 4 were simulated with fixed- wellbore-pressure

boundary conditions. As discussed in Section 5.2.3, the effect of a

filter-cake skin was simulated, when necessary, by subdividing the

drilling and reaming periods and applying reduced pressures to simulate

the effects of the assumed filter-cake skin. The period durations and

reduced pressures applied for each segment of the Culebra dolomite

simulation are given in Table 6.1. Figures A.l through A.6, Appendix A,

show the prescribed and simulated wellbore pressures

drilling/reaming period for each of the Culebra simulations.

during the

(Note that

for the period after cementation when the Culebra was isolated from the

pilot hole, the formation's fluid~pressure response was simulated using a

specified-flow boundary condition with a flow rate of 0.0 L/s to simulate

the effects of flow loss due to cementation.)

After the drilling period, the period when the Culebra was open and

draining through the pilot hole and/or the AIS to the underground

facility was simulated using fixed-pressure wellbore boundary conditions

with a value of 0.0 MPa, corresponding to atmospheric pressure. The well

diameters used in the simulations were 0.25 m for the pilot hole, 0.37 m

for the reaming period, and 6.17 m for the post-upreaming period 6.

All Culebra simulations assumed a static formation pressure of 0.88 MPa

before the start of the simulations. This value was based on the Culebra

fluid pressure in H-16 (Figure 6.4) immediately before the initial

interception of the interval by the pilot hole.

6-4


The Cu1ebra simulations are described as follows:

Simulation 1 - Matching The H-16 Fluid-Pressure Response, No Cement

Invasion-Skin Zone

Because of the complex borehole history before penetration of the

underground facility, the first Cu1ebra simulation was intended to

provide an initial transmissivity estimate by matching the H-16 f1uid

pressure data during the period between penetration of the underground

facility and interception of the Cu1ebra by the upreaming of the AlS.

The simulation was conducted using homogeneous formation properties

with a formation transmissivity of 2.6 x 10- 8 m2/s. The simulated

formation pressures at the radii of H-16 and the other observation

wells are shown in Figures 6.5 and 6.6, respectively. The simulated

flow rate for Calendar Day 667 was 0.0031 L/s. Figure 6.5 shows that

the simulated fluid-pressure response during the period before

upreaming agrees .with the observed H-16 response, but that the

simulated response after upreaming does not agree. Figure 6.6 shows

that the simulations of the observation-well responses are poor.

Simulation 2 - Matching The H-16 Fluid-Pressure Response With A Cement

Invasion-Skin Zone

The first simulation indicated a need for increased formation

transmissivity. However, an increase in transmissivity, while

maintaining homogeneous formation parameters, adversely affected the

match to the H-16 data during the post-penetration/pre-upreaming

period. To account for this apparent difference in formation

transmissivity, a heterogeneity in the form of a reduced-permeability

skin zone surrounding the pilot hole caused by cement invasion after

cementation of the Culebra interval (see Section 3.1.1) was added to

6-5

the post-penetration/pre-upreaming period to restrict the formation's

fluid-pressure response. The DDR for January 8, 1988 reports "cement

and sand" in the cuttings during the period when the Cu1ebra unit was

redri11ed following cementation, indicating that the Cu1ebra was

probably in contact with, and may have been invaded by, cement.

The second simulation included a cement-invasion-skin heterogeneity

during the period from redri11ing following cementation until Cu1ebra

interception by the AIS upreaming. The skin zone was a radial

heterogeneity with a radius of 0.24 m from the borehole center and a

transmissivity of 3.0 x 10- 9 m2/s. The formation transmissivity used

in the simu~tion was 1.3 x 10- 7 m2/s, almost 2 orders of magnitude

higher. This combination of parameters yielded a calculated skin

factor of 3.64 during the drilling phase and 1. 44 during the period

between pilot hole reaming and AIS upreaming. The skin factor

quantifies the pressure difference between the borehole and the

formation across a thin skin zone at the borehole-formation interface.

The 'skin factor indicates the degree of damage (positive skin factor)

or improvement (negative skin factor) at the borehole - formation

interface. The choice of skin- zone parameters was based on those

parameter combinations that provided the best match to the H-16 f1uid

pressure data. Simulation results for formation fluid pressures at the

radius of H-16 and the other observation wells are shown in Figures 6.7

and 6.8. Figure 6.7 shows that the simulation results closely match

the H-16 fluid-pressure response. However, although the simulated

responses at the observation wells was improved compared to the first

simulation (Figure 6.6), Figure 6.8 indicates that a further increase

in formation transmissivity was required to match data from those wells

adequately.

The simulated flow rate for Calendar Day 667 was 0.013 L/s,

significantly less than the measured flow rate of 0.056 L/s, a further

indication that an increase in formation transmissivity was needed.

6-6

Simulation 3 - Matching the Culebra.-to-AIS Flow Rate Using a Cement

Invasion-Skin Zone

The third simulation attempted to match the flow rate from the Cu1ebra

to the AIS of 0.056 Lis measured on Calendar Day 667. A cement

invasion-heterogeneity was included in the simulation to provide an

acceptable match to the H-16 f1uid-pressure-response data for the post

penetration/pre-upreaming period. The calibrated simulation parameters

were a formation transmissivity of 6.6 x 10- 7 m2/s, a skin-zone

transmissivity of 6.0 x 10- 9 m2/s, and a skin-zone radius of 0.48 m.

The calculated skin factor was 10.26 for the drilling period and 4.05

for the post-reaming period. The simulations are presented in Figures

6.9 and 6.10. Figure 6.10 indicates reasonable agreement with the

general character of the observed data for wells ERDA-9 and WIPP-21,

but relatively poor agreement with the observed data for H-l. The

calculated flow rate at Calendar Day 667 was 0.058 Lis, which compares

favorably with the measured value of 0.056 Lis.

Simulation 4 - Matching Observation-Well Data Using a Cement-Invasion

Skin Zone

The fourth simulation included a cement- invasion skin, and used a

formation transmissivity midway between those used for simulations 2

and 3. This simulation was intended to provide a more reasonable match

to the water -level response in H-1 and to provide additional

sensitivity to the range of formation transmissivities needed to match

the WIPP-21 and ERDA-9 data. The simu1'ation used a formation

transmissivity of 2.6 x 10- 7 m2/s and assumed a cement-invasion-skin

zone with a radius of 0.48 m and a transmissivity of 3.5 x 10- 9 m2/s.

The calculated skin factors were 6.72 and 2.65 for the drilling period

and the period following pilot-hole reaming, respectively. Simulated

and observed fluid-pressure and water-level responses for these

simulations are presented in Figures 6.11 and 6.12. The Cu1ebra flow

rate to the AIS for this simulation was 0.025 Lis for Calendar Day 667,

a little more than half that calculated for simulation 3.

6-7

Simulations 5 and 6 - Sensitivity of H-l6 Fluid-Pressure Response to

Cement-Invasion-Skin Zone

Figure 6.13 shows the results of two simulations using the formation

transmissivities from simulations 2 and 3 (1.3 x 10- 7 m2/s and

6.6 x 10- 7 m2/s, respectively) without including a cement-invasion-skin

zone. The simulations show the sensitivity of the simulated fluid-

pressure response of the Culebra in H-16 to the use of a cement-

invasion-skin zone. The cement- invasion-skin zone has relatively

little impact on the simulated results for the period after upreaming.

The primary effect of adding the cement-invasion-skin zone was to

retard the formation response during the period when the Culebra was

draining to the pilot hole and improve the overall match to the

observed fluid-pressure response.


Assuming a storativity of 1 x 10- 5 , the estimated Culebra

transmissivities and the principal assumptions for the simulations

presented above can be summarized as follows:

ESTIMATED CULEBRA TRANSMISSIVITY

2.6 x 10- 8 m2js

1.3 x 10- 7 m2/s

6.6 x 10- 7 m2/s

2.6 x 10- 7 m2/s

6-8

SIMULATION ASSUMPTIONS

Match to H-16 Fluid-Pressure Response

Homogeneous Properties,

No Cement-Invasion-Skin Zone

Match to H-16 Fluid-Pressure Response,


Match to the Culebra to AIS Flow Rate


Match to H-l Water-Level Response


The estimated values of formation transmissivities from the four

calibration simulations range from 2.6 x 10- 8 m2/s to 6.6 x 10- 7 m2/s.

The lower value determined from the first simulation is considered

unrepresentative due to the inadequate match of the simulation results

to the post-upreaming fluid-pressure data from H-16, the water-level

responses at the observation wells, and the underestimate of flow to

the AIS. A revised range of estimated transmissivities for the Culebra

is therefore 1. 3 x 10- 7 m2/s to 6.6 x 10- 7 m2/s. The value of

6.6 x 10- 7 m2/s appears to be the most representative of the Culebra

between the AIS and H-16, between the AIS and ERDA-9, and between the

AIS and YIPP - 21. Simulation 3, which used this value, has the bes t

match to the H-16 and observation-well data, and Simulation 3 provided

the best estimate of the flow rate from the Culebra to the AIS. A

transmissivity value of 2.6 x 10- 7 m2/s for the Culebra appears to

provide the best approximation of the H-l response. It should be

noted, however, that the simulations of the observation-well responses

are less certain because other hydrologically-related influences (see

Section 4.0) affecting the observation-well water-level responses, such

as the WHS grouting, water-quality sampling, and the H-ll

multipad/tracer test, were not included in this analysis.

Figure 6.14 shows simulated flow rates from the Culebra to the AIS for

the four principal simulations for the period after upreaming. The

shapes of the flow-rate curves are similar, with the differences in the

magnitudes of the rates being relative to the differences in simulated

formation transmissivities.

6-9

6.2 Magenta Dolomite

The analysis of the fluid-pressure response of the Magenta dolomite in

H-16 (Figure 6.15) was performed using a methodology similar to that

described in Section 6.1.1 for the Cu1ebra dolomite. The H-16 fluid

pressure response (Figure 6.15) was the only observed data with which to

compare the simulated results. No measurements of the flow from the

Magenta to the AIS were available to use for simulation calibration.

Personnel mapping the geology in the AIS reported one O.9-m and one 1.5-m

"damp" zone in the Magenta interval (R. Holt and R. Williams,

International Technologies, personal communication, October 26, 1988).

As was noted in the analysis of the Cu1ebra dolomite (Section 6.1), the

complexity of the drilling/reaming period meant that the simulation

results were best judged by comparing the simulated fluid-pressure

response, at a radius equivalent to the distance between the AIS and

H-16, to the observed fluid-pressure data from H-16 after the pilot hole

penetrated the underground facility because borehole conditions were

known with the most certainty during this period.

We11bore boundary conditions for the Magenta dolomite simulations were

specified in a similar manner as discussed for the Cu1ebra dolomite. The

simulation period for the Magenta was divided into eight discrete time

segments (Figure 6.15), the first six of which covered the

drilling/reaming phase (Figures A.7 to A.16, Appendix A). Segments 1, 3,

5, and 6 were simulated with fixed-we11bore-pressure boundary conditions.

Where required, the effects of a filter-cake skin (see Section 5.2.3)

were simulated by subdividing the segments into two or more periods and,

where necessary, reduced pressures were applied to simulate the effects

of the assumed filter-cake skin. The period durations· and reduced

pressures applied for segments 1, 3, 5, and 6 of each simulation are

given in Table 6.2. Table 6.2 shows that the assumed filter-cake skin

was not required for some segments of some of the sens i ti vi ty

simulations. For these segments, the H-16 pressure response during the

drilling/reaming phase was either reproduced satisfactorily with full mud

6-10

pressure or could not be reproduced. Specified flow boundary conditions,

with a flow rate of 0.0 L/s were applied for segments 2 and 4 to simulate

the effects of flow loss due to mud settling and cementation,

respectively.

The observed H-16 fluid pressures for the Magenta during the

drilling/reaming phase are shown in Figure 6.16. Figures A.7 through

A. 16, Appendix A, show the prescribed (segments 1, 3, 5, and 6) and

simulated (segments 2 and 4) we11bore pressures for the drilling/reaming

period for each of the Magenta simulations and the simulated formation

fluid pressure at H-16 for the drilling/reaming period.

A static formation pressure of 0.928 MPa was used as the initial

condition for the Magenta dolomite simulations. This value was based on

the Magenta's fluid pressure in H-16 before the initial interception of

the interval by the pilot hole. The pressure measured at H-16 before

drilling the pilot hole is constant, indicating that the selected

formation pressure is representative of the interval.


Ten simulations of the Magenta's fluid-pressure response in H-16 were

conducted. Two simulations, with and without formation-heterogeneity

boundaries, compare the simulated data to the Magenta's observed H-16

fluid-pressure response. Eight simulations were performed to show the

simulations' sensitivity to formation heterogeneity.

6-11

The Magenta simulations are described as follows:

Simulation 1 - Match to the H-16 Fluid-Pressure Response,

Homogeneous Formation

The first simulation (Figure 6.17) shows the best match to the H-16

fluid-pressure response using homogeneous formation properties and a

formation transmissivity of 2.5 x 10- 6 m2/s. Although the match

appears adequate for the late portion of the post-reaming/pre-upreaming

period and only slightly underestimates the post-upreaming period, the

match was unacceptable for the early and middle portions of the post

reaming and post-upreaming periods when the pilot hole or the AIS was

open and the Magenta was draining. Additionally, the simulated flow

rate from the Magenta to the AIS on Calendar Day 667 was 0.21 L/s, four

times higher than the O. 056-L/s flow rate measured for the Culebra

interval (see Section 6.1). This simulated flow rate is inconsistent

with the geologist's report of only "damp" zones in the Magenta in the

AIS (R. Holt and R. Williams, International Technologies, personal

communication, October 26, 1988) an indication that the transmissivity

of the Magenta interval is probably considerably lower than that of the

Culebra.

The H-16 fluid-pressure response of the Magenta, unlike that of the

Culebra interval, did not appear as if a cement- invasion skin was

affecting the Magenta's H-16 response because of the simulation's good

late-time matches to both the pilot-hole and AIS draining periods.

Moreover, the shape of the H-16 fluid-pressure-response curve for the

post-drilling/reaming period was consistent with that expected for a

heterogeneous formation, indicating the need to simulate the Magenta's

response as the result of a heterogeneous formation with a hydrologic

boundary at some distance from the AIS.

6-12


Heterogeneous Formation

For the second simulation. the Magenta was divided into two radial

zones with different transmissivities separated by a hydrologic

boundary. The inner zone included the portion of the formation between

the wellbore and the heterogeneity boundary. The outer zone consisted

of the portion of the formation between the heterogeneity boundary and

the external boundary of the modeled system. The three parameters

which define the heterogeneity are: Ti. the inner-zone transmissivity;

To. the outer-zone transmissivity; and rb. the radius to the boundary

between the two zones.

The Magenta's fluid-pressure response was simulated with a Ti of

8.0 x 10- 8 m2/s. a To of 4.0 x 10- 8 m2/s. and an rb of 40 m.

Figure 6.18 shows that the match to the H-16 fluid-pressure response is

very good over the entire duration of the pilot-hole draining period

and the early-time period after the Magenta was intersected by

upreaming. and acceptable over the mid- and late-time portions of the

post-upreaming period. Furthermore. the simulated flow rate of

0.0063 L/s for Calendar Day 667 is more consistent with the reported

"damp" zones in the Magenta.

After achieving a reasonable match to the Magenta's fluid-pressure

response using a formation-heterogeneity boundary. sensitivity

simulations were performed to provide an indication of the ranges of

Ti. To. and rb. Following is a discussion of these simulations.

numbers 3 through 10.

6-13

Simulations 3 through 8 - Sensitivity of the Heterogeneity Parameters

of the Simulation of the Magenta's H-16 Fluid-Pressure Response

Six simulations were performed to assess the sensitivity of the Magenta

simulation using a formation-heterogeneity boundary. For each

simulation, one of the three heterogeneity parameters was changed while

the remaining two parameters were the same as the values used in

simulation 2. For To and Ti, values approximately ± one half an order

of magnitude of the calibration values were used for sensitivity, while

~ was increased and decreased by a factor of two. Simulations 3 and 4

used Ti's of 2.5 x 10- 8 m2/s and 2.5 x 10- 7 m2/s, respectively;

simulations 5 and 6 used To's of 1.3 x 10- 8 m2/s and 1.3 x 10- 7 m2/s,

respectively; and simulations 7 and 8 used rb' s of 20 and 80 m,

respectively. The results of the sensitivity simulations are presented

in Figures 6.19 through 6.22. Figures 6.19, 6.20, and 6.21 show the

simulated results for simulations 3 and 4, 5 and 6, and 7 and 8,

respectively, for the entire simulation period. Figure 6.22 shows

semi-log plots which compare the results of the sensitivity simulations

with the best-match simulation for the period between penetration of

the underground facility and Magenta interception by upreaming. Figure

6.22 illustrates explicitly the two-transmissivity nature of the

heterogeneous formation response. The early-time magnitude of the

simulated fluid-pressure response at H-16 is largely dependent on the

inner-zone transmissivity (Figure 6. 22a). Although there are

differences in the magnitude of the simulation's late-time fluid

pressure response, Figure 6.22a shows that the shape of the late-time

curve is similar for all values of Ti. In contrast, Figure 6. 22b

illustrates that the value of To primarily affects the simulation of

the late-time fluid-pressure response while having very little impact

on the early- time behavior. Figure 6. 22c shows that changing the

radius of the heterogeneity boundary primarily affects the time of the

transition between inner- and outer-zone-dominated fluid-pressure

responses.

6-14

Simulations 9 and 10 - Homogeneous-Formation Characterization Showing

S ens it i vi ty to T i and To of the Bes t -Ha tch He terogeneous

Characterization

Simulations 9 and 10 show the Magenta's simulated fluid-pressure

response using a homogeneous-formation characterization with formation

transmissivities equal to the inner- and outer-zone transmissivities of

the best-match heterogeneous simulation. Figure 6.23 shows the

simulated fluid-pressure responses at H-16 for a homogeneous formation

with transmissivities equal to 8.0 x 10- 8 m2/s and 4.0 x 10- 8 m2/s.


Simulation 1 indicated that the portion of the Magenta dolomite

responding to the influence of the pilot hole/AIS does not exhibit

behavior consistent with homogeneous formation properties. Therefore,

heterogeneous-formation parameters were used in simulation 2 in an

attempt to describe the assumed heterogeneity. However, the

description is probably not unique, and simulation of the pilot hole

drilling/AIS upreaming using models with other geometries, such as a

two-dimensional cartesian flow regime, could result in different

descriptions of the formation properties. Indeed, this is likely the

case as the formation heterogeneities simulated in the heterogeneous

simulations assume radial symmetry. The likelihood of radial symmetry

in formation transmissivity is remote. Furthermore, the abrupt spatial

change in properties used in the GTFM simulations, where the

transmissivity decreases by a factor of two at a discrete boundary, is

also unlikely.

6-15

The physical basis for a formation-heterogeneity boundary in the

Magenta is not immediately evident. Only a limited number of test

wells are completed to the Magenta and extensive aquifer testing of

this unit has not been performed (Mercer, 1983). While core samples

from the Magenta indicate a rather uniform geologic character to this

formation, Snyder (1985) describes patterns of halite dissolution in

the Rustler Formation which may have led to fracturing of the Magenta.

Areal differences in fracturing of the formation, such as could develop

in response to halite dissolution, could result in heterogeneity in the

areal distribution of the formation's hydrogeologic properties. This

heterogeneity could affect its fluid-pressure response to major

hydraulic stresses.

Notwithstanding the preceding discussion, the high sensitivity of

simulated formation response to changes in the heterogeneity properties

indicates that formation transmissivities used in the heterogeneous

formation-characterization simulations give a reasonable approximation

of effective formation properties for the Magenta dolomite near the

AIS. Therefore, the inner- and outer-zone transmissivities of

8.0 x 10- 8 m2/s and 4.0 x 10- 8 m2/s are considered representative of

the effective transmissivities for the Magenta dolomite in that area.

6.3 Forty-Niner Claystone

The analysis of the H-16 fluid-pressure response of the Forty-niner

Member of the Rustler Formation in H-16 was performed with the same

procedures used to analyze the Magenta dolomite's response (see Section

6.2). Although the entire Forty-niner was monitored in H-16, the fluid

pressure response was assumed to be derived from the Forty-niner

claystone unit (see Beauheim, 1987a for Forty-niner drill-stem-test

results) . The basic methodology for all simulations is described in

Section 5.2 with certain modifications as described in the following

paragraphs.

6-16

The H-16 fluid-pressure response (Figure 6.24) was the only observed data

with which to compare the simulated results. No flow-rate measurements

were made from the Forty-niner at the AIS. Geologic mapping of the

Forty-niner interval in the AIS indicated only that the unit was "moist"

(R. Ho 1 t and R. Williams, International Technologies, personal

communication, October 26, 1988). As was the case for the Cu1ebra and

Magenta dolomites, because of the complex drilling/reaming-period

history, the Forty-niner's simulated fluid-pressure response at a radius

equivalent to the distance between the AIS and H-16 was compared to the

observed fluid-pressure response in H-16 primarily for the period after

penetration of the underground facility by the pilot hole.

Unlike that of the more permeable Cu1ebra and Magenta dolomites, the

Forty-niner claystone's H-16 fluid-pressure response to events in the AIS

was often delayed by periods of a day or more. For example, according to

the DDR, the Forty-niner interval was penetrated on December 11, 1987

(Calendar Day 345) while the observed H-16 formation fluid pressure did

not definitively deviate from the constant pre-drilling pressure until

Calendar Day 347. Consequently, a direct connection between an event

described in the DDR and the Forty-niner's resulting H-16 fluid-pressure

response was sometimes difficult to establish. Therefore, the DDR was

used to determine segment durations and the Forty-niner's H-16 f1uid

pressure response was used only to corroborate the timing of events.

Preliminary simulations indicated that the Forty-niner interval exhibited

similar but more extreme heterogeneous behavior than that previously

described for the Magenta dolomite. Consequently, the simulation

approach for the Forty-niner claystone was identical to that performed

for the Magenta dolomite. We11bore boundary conditions for the Forty

niner claystone simulations were specified in a similar manner as

discussed for the Cu1ebra dolomite in Section 6.1.1. Like the Magenta

6-17

dolomite, the simulation period for the Forty-niner claystone was divided

into eight discrete time segments (Figure 6.24), the first six of which

covered the drilling/reaming phase (Figures A.17 to A. 26, Appendix A).

The observed H-16 fluid-pressure response for the drilling/reaming period

covered the first six segments as shown on Figure 6.25. Segments 1, 3,

5, and 6 of the drilling/reaming period were simulated with fixed

we11bore-pressure boundary conditions. As discussed in Section 6.2.1 for

the Magenta simulations, some of the simulations did not require the use

of filter-cake skin to reproduce the H-16 pressure response. The period

durations and reduced pressures applied for segments 1, 3, 5, and 6 of

each simulation of the drilling/reaming period are given in Table 6.3.

Specified- flow boundary conditions with a flow rate of 0.0 L/s were

applied for segments 2 and 4 to simulate the effects of flow loss due to

mud settling and cementation, respectively. Figures A.17 through A.26

display the prescribed (segments 1, 3, 5, and 6) and simulated (segments

2 and 4) we11bore pressures for each of the Forty-niner claystone

simulations and the simulated formation fluid pressure at H-16 for the

drilling/reaming period. (Note that when the Forty-niner was isolated

from the borehole during cementation, the formation's fluid-pressure

response was simulated with a specified 0.0 L/s boundary condition

simulating flow loss from the lower pressured borehole.)

The Forty-niner' s formation fluid pressure observed at H-16 before the

start of the drilling of the pilot hole was 0.796 Mpa (Figure 6.25).

This pressure was used as the static formation pressure for the Forty

niner claystone simulations. This pressure was observed during the pre

construction period, indicating that the selected formation pressure was

representative of the interval.

6-18


Ten simulations of the Forty-niner claystone's fluid-pressure response

in H-16 were conducted. Two simulations evaluated the need for a

formation-heterogeneity boundary and eight simulations evaluated the

sensitivity of the results to the formation-heterogeneity parameters.

The Forty-niner claystone simulations are described as follows.


Homogeneous Formation

The goal of the first simulation was to match the Forty-niner's H-16

fluid-pressure response using homogeneous formation properties. A

simulated transmissivity of 4.0 x 10- 7 m2/s resulted in the best match

as shown in Figure 6.26. The match offers a very poor fit to all

portions of the observed H-16 fluid-pressure response except for the

very late-time portion of the post-interception/pre-upreaming period.

The simulated flow rate from the Forty-niner to the AIS on Calendar Day

667 was 0.033 L/s, just slightly lower than the measured flow rate for

the Culebra interval, and inconsistent with the geologist's report that

the Forty-niner interval was only "moist".

Like the first simulation of the Magenta dolomite's fluid-pressure

response in H-16 (Section 6.2.1), the results of the Forty-niner

simulation indicated that the Forty-niner claystone interval was

exhibiting a fluid-pressure response characteristic of a strongly

heterogeneous formation.

6-19


Heterogeneous Formation

The second Forty-niner simulation assumed a formation-heterogeneity

boundary and the Forty-niner was modeled with two radial zones having

different transmissivities. The inner zone included the portion of the

formation between the we11bore and the heterogeneity boundary. The

outer zone consisted of the portion of the formation between the

heterogeneity boundary and the external boundary of the modeled system.

The heterogeneous-formation simulation was performed with a Ti of 9.0 x

10- 9 m2/s, a To of 1.5 x 10- 9 m2/s, and an ~ of 40 m. Results of the

simulation are shown in Figure 6.27. The match to the H-16 fluid-

pressure response is very good over the entire duration of the pi1ot

hole draining period and is acceptable for the period after

intersection of the interval by upreaming. The simulated flow rate of

5.5 x 10- 4 L/s for Calendar Day 667 is consistent with the "moist"

interval noted during geologic mapping.

After achieving a reasonable match to the Forty-niner claystone's

fluid-pressure response using a formation-heterogeneity boundary,

sensitivity simulations were performed to provide an indication of the

ranges of Ti, To, and rb. Following is a discussion of these

simulations, numbers 3 through 10.

Simulations 3 through 8 - Sensitivity of the Heterogeneity Parameters

of the Simulation of the Forty-Niner's H-16 Fluid-Pressure Response

Six simulations were performed to assess the sensitivity of the Forty

niner simulation using a formation-heterogeneity boundary. For each

simulation, one of the three heterogeneity parameters was changed while

the remaining two parameters were the same as the values used in

simulation 2. The following parameter values were used for the

6-20

respective simulations: simulation 3, Ti - 3.0 x 10- 9 m2/s; simulation

4, Ti - 3.0 x 10- 8 m2/s; simulation 5, To - 5.0 x 10- 10 m2/s;

simulation 6, To - 5.0 x 10- 9 m2/s; simulation 7, r'b - 20 m; and

simulation 8, r'b - 80 m. Simulation results are shown on Figures 6.28

through 6.31. Figures 6.28, 6.29, and 6.30 show the simulated results

for simulations 3 and 4, 5 and 6, and 7 and 8, respectively, for the

entire simulation period. Figure 6.31 contains semi-log plots

comparing the results of the sensitivity simulations with the best

match simulation for the period between penetration of the underground

faci1i ty and the interception of the Forty-niner interval during

upreaming. In general, the heterogeneous sensitivity simulations for

the Forty-niner interval show results similar to those of the

corresponding Magenta dolomite simulations. For simulations 3, 6, and

8, the H-16 fluid-pressure response during the drilling/reaming period

could not be matched, and therefore the results for the period after

penetration of the underground facility are not directly comparable.

However, the shape of the simulated f1uid-pressure-response curve

yields results similar to the Magenta dolomite simulations. Due to the

more extreme permeability contrast between the inner and outer zones,

the Forty-niner heterogeneous best-match simulation shows more

sensitivity to the heterogeneity parameters than did the Magenta best

match simulation.

Simulations 9 and 10 - Homogeneous-Formation Characterization Showing

Sensitivity to Ti and To of the Best-Match Heterogeneous

Characterization

Simulations 9 and 10 illustrate the Forty-niner's fluid-pressure

response using a homogeneous-formation characterization with formation

transmissivities of 9.0 x 10- 9 m2/s and 1.5 x 10- 9 m2/s, the inner-zone

and outer-zone transmissivities of the best-match heterogeneous

6-21

characterization, respectively. Results of these simulations are shown

on Figure 6.32. Even though full-borehole mud pressure was applied for

the entire duration of each fixed-pressure segment of the

drilling/reaming period, the observed formation-fluid pressure at H-16

could not be matched. This provides further indication of the

heterogeneous nature of the Forty-niner interval.


The poor matches of all simulations using a homogeneous-formation

characterization, and the sensitivity of the simulation results to

variance in the parameters defining the heterogeneities, provide

conclusive evidence of heterogeneous behavior of the Forty-niner

claystone. The accuracy of the assumed heterogeneity geometry is

subj ect to the same uncertainties discussed in Section 6.2.2 for the

Magenta dolomite. However, as for the Magenta dolomite simulations,

the formation transmissivities used in the heterogeneous-formation

characterization simulations probably provide a reasonable

approximation of effective formation properties for the Forty-niner

claystone. The inner-zone and outer-zone transmissivities of

9.0 x 10- 9 m2/s and 1.5 x 10- 9 m2/s, respectively, can therefore be

considered representative of effective transmissivities of the Forty

niner claystone in the area near the AlS.

As discussed in Section 6.2.2, the physical basis for the existence of

a radial formation-heterogeneity boundary in the Forty-niner is not

readily apparent. The fluid-pressure response of the Forty-niner

suggests that a type of heterogeneity may exist in the Forty-niner.

The heterogeneity could be the result of areal differences in the

sedimentary fabric of the Forty-niner claystone.

6-22

1.50

------.. 1.00 0 0... 2 '---"

w 0::: ~ (f) (f) w 0::: 0...

0.50

0.00 200

+++++ unnamed lower member xxxxx Culebra /::;/::;/::;/::;/::; Tamarisk 00000 Magenta 00000 Forty-Niner

300 400 500 600 TIME (1987 CALENDAR DAYS)

700

TIME 0 JANUARY 1. 1987

Drawn by J.D.A. Date 2/27/89

Checked by G. S . Date 2/27/89

Revisions Date

H09700R876 2/27/89

I NrtILl\ Technologies

OBSERVED FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSES OF THE FIVE MEMBERS OF THE RUSTLER FORMATION AT OBSERVATION-WELL H-16 DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AIS

Figure 6.1

6-23

1.4 Time Segments Used in Simulations

- 112131r' I

6

1.2 -

-

,,~ 1.0 -

..--.... J"o\<~\

x x 0 f 0... 1 :2

'-..-/ 0.8 -W 0:::: -:J (/) (/) 0.6 -w 0:::: 0... -

0.4 -

-

0.2 -

-

0.0

325

t FIRST

PENETRATION OF CULEBRA

xxxxxxxxxxx~x~

x X

x

PENETRATION OF UNDERGROUND FACILITY

l ~l/:XXXx )( x xx x xx >X

1 I DRI LLI NGI I POST REAMING

I POST UPREAMING

REAMING DIAM.=O.37m DIAM.=6.17m

I I I I I I I

sis I

5~5 I

6~5 I

375 425 475 675 TIME ( 1987 CALENDAR DAYS)

TIME 0 = JANUARY 1. 1987

Drawn by J.D.A. Dote 2/27/89

Checked by i3. S . Date 2/27/89

Revisions ABW Date 6/23/89

H09700R876 2/27/89

I N"rtIL'\ Technologies

FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSE OF THE CULEBRA DOLOMITE OBSERVED AT OBSERVATION-WELL H-16 DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AIS

I Figure 6.2

6-24

H-1 0.95 -.----------------~~~--------------------~

,.-.... o

0..

0.90 -

2S 0.85 -

w 0::: ::::J (j) (j)

~ 0.80 -0..

0.75 -

0.70 .325

I 375 4i5 4+5 5i5 5+5 5i5


TIME 0 = JANUARY 1, 1987

575

ERDA-9 0.95 -,------------------~--~~----------------_,

0.90 -

-

~ "20.85 - ! 0.. xX

r\ f 'i<

x

j 1<, x

x >x x x

.2 x x

w S 0.80 -(j) (j) W 0::: 0..

0.75 -

0.70 -

x ><x ~

x I( x

x

~ x x x x x

0.55 I J. 325 .375 4i5 4+5 5i5 5+5 5i5



675

Drown by J.D.A. Checked by G.S.

Revisions G.S.

H09700R876

Dote

Dote

Dote

0.95 J

0.90 -

"20.85 -0.. .2

w S 0.80 -(j) (j) w er:: 0..

0.75 -

0.70 -

I !

WIPP-21

xX

* x

0.65 -+---.--.---T,.......+jl-l..----.---r-I-.---.-I-.---,-I-r--,-I-r-I-I .325 375 425 475 525 575 625 575


2/27/89

2/27/89

616189

2/27/89

I TIME 0 = JANUARY ,\, 1987

I FLUID-PRES~URE RESPONSES OF THE CULEBRA DOLOMITE MEASURED Nf OBSERVATION-WELLS H-l, ERDA-9, AND WIPP-21 DUFING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AIS

I NTEIl .. 1\ Technologies Figure 6.3

6-25

1.2

-

~

0 0.-2 '---"

w cr::: 1.0 -=> (}) (}) w cr::: 0.-

1<x

-

DRILLING

0.8 I

350

REPOSITORY PENETRATION

INITIAL PENETRATION

CEMENTATION

x

x

x

\: ~x :.:~ REPENETRATION

CEMENTATION

I tl I

370

DRILLING

I

REAMING

~ x

x

x

x

x x x x

~ REAMI NG

I t I I

TIME (1987 3~0

CALENDAR DAYS)

Drawn by J . D. A .

Checked by G . S .

Revisions

H09700R876


Date 2/27/89

Dote 2/27/89

Date

2/27/89

FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSE OF THE CULEBRA DOLOMITE OBSERVED AT OBSERVATION-WELL H-16 DURING THE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AIS

I NrtIL'\ Technologies Figure 6.4

6-26

........... o

0... 2

1.4

-

1.2 -

-

1.0 -

-

'--'" 0.8 -W FIRST 0:::: => (J)

- ·PENETRATION OF CUlEBRA

(J) 0.6 -w 0:::: 0... -

0.4 -

-

CULEBRA SIMULATION #1

TI = 2.6E-08 m2/s S = 1.0E-05 X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

x xxxx~x~ -...,

~

0.2 -

PENETRATION OF UNDERGROfND FACILITY

'\.~~lI(XXX-X--x-x--xx-x-x--x--"'*,~

-

I 0.0

325

DRllll NGI I REAMING

I I I

375

POST REAMING

DIAM.=O.37m

POST UPREAMING

DIAM.=6.17m

I r 1 r I I I I I 625

I

425 475 525 575 675





Revisions Date

H09700R876 2/27/89

I f'lrt..Jt.1\ Technologies

SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSES FOR THE CULEBRA DOLOMITE AT H-16 WITHOUT USING A CEMENT -INVASION SKIN

Figure 6.5

6-27

----... o

0..

0.95

0.90 -

:2 0.85 -'-.../

W 0::: :::) (j) (j)

-

w 0.80 -0::: 0..

-

0.75 -

0.70 I.!. 325 375

H-1

Tf = 2.6E-08 m2/s S = 1.0E-05 X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

I I II I I I

425 475 525 575 625 675



0.95

0.90 -


ERDA-9

7 x


0' 0.85 -0..

j*"x x x

XX

:2

w S 0.80 -(j) (j) W 0::: 0..

0.75 -

0.70 -

-

0.65

325

x x x

x *x

'" x * x

x

x

{

4~5 4j5 5~S 5+5 6~S TIME (1987 CALENDAR DAYS)


675

Drawn by J.D.A.

Checked by G.S.

ReVisions G.S.

H09700R876

0.95

-

0.90 -

0' 0.85 -0.. :2

w S 0.80 -(j) (j) W 0::: 0..

0.75 -

0.70 -

0.65 325

WIPP-21


x

x x x x

\: '\: ~~

3jS 4i5 4+5 S~S 5j5 6is TIME (1987 CALENDAR DAYS)

675

T1ME 0 = JANUARY 1, 1987

Date 2/27/89

Date 2/27/89

Date 6116/89

2/27/89

SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FLUID~PRESSURE RESPONSES FOR THE CULEBRA, DOLOMITE AT H-l, ERDA-9, AND WIPP-21 USING THE H-16 BEST-MATCH SIMULATION WITHOUT USING A CEMENT -INVASION SKIN

1 NliR_1\ Technologies Figure 6.6

6-29

1.4

-

1.2 -

-

1.0 - ~ ~

~

o 0.. 2

_~I~

'--../ 0.8 - t W FIRST 0::: =::J (f)

- PENETRATION

(f) 0.6 -w 0::: 0.. -

0.4 -

OF CULEBRA



- PENETRATION OF

0.2 -

-

I 0.0

325

UNOERGRO!"O FACILITY

DRI LUNGI REAMING I I

POST UPREAMING DIAM.=O.37m DIAM.=6.17m

POST REAMI NG

I I I I I I I I I I

425 475 525 575 625

TIME (1987 CALENDAR DAYS) 675



Checked by G . S . Dote 2/27/89

Revisions Dote

H09700R876 2/27/89

I N1IILI\ Technologies

SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSES FOR THE CULEBRA DOLOMITE AT H-16 USING A CEMENT-INVASION SKIN

Figure 6.7

6-30

.---... o

0...

0.95

~

0.90 -

::::2: 0.85 -'--/

W 0::: ~ (j) (j)

W 0.80 -0::: 0...

0.75 -

0.70

325

I'x l ,

x '" x '"

H-1

Tr = 1.3E-07 m2/s S = 1.0E-05 X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

I 375 4~5 4~5 5~5 5~5 6~5



675

0.95

0.90 -


ERDA -9

x

x x

Tr = 1.3E-07 m2/s

S = 1.0E-05 X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

~ 0.85 - I~ x x

0... ::::2: '--/

W 0::: ~ (j) (j) W 0::: 0...

xX x

x X

X *x

'" x !( 0.80 - x

x

x x ~

0.75 -

0.70 -

~ x x x x x

'\

'x~xx

0.65 -+-~I-~ I-~I-I~~-~ I~~I---'---"--I-'I-~I--r--~

325 375 425 475 525 575 625 675



Drown by J.D.A.

Checked by G.S.

Revisions G.S.

H09700R876

Date

Dote

Date

0.95

~

0.90 -

~ 0.85 -0... ::::2:

W

5 0.80 -(j)

~ ~ 0::: 0...

0.75 -

0.70 -

0.65

325

xX ')f

x x x

WIPP-21

Tr = 1.3E-07 m2/s S = 1.0E-05 X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

x x x x x x

'%. \x

~xx

. 1 I 1 I I' -T I

425 475 525 575 625



2/27/89

2/27/89

6/6/89

2/27/89

SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FLUID-pr~ESSURE RESPONSES FOR THE CULEBRA DOLOMITE AT H-l, ERDA-9, AND WIPP-21 USING THE ~ -16 BEST-MATCH SIIv1ULMIOI\j USING A CEMENT-INVASION SKI~~

I NTER~ Technologies I

Figure 6.8

6-31

,--..... o

0... 2

1.4

-

1.2 -

-

1.0 -

-

'-...-/0.8 -w

~

-'"~ t


Tf = 6.6E-07 m 2js S = 1.0E-05 X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

0:::: ~ (f)

- PENETRATION FIRST ~

OF CULEBRA

(f) 0.6 -w 0:::: 0... -

0.4 -

-

0.2 -

-

0.0 325

I

'''''''X'~~X::XX0X'XXX)(j(X~X~XxC":7x:-C:x=>9<>O<~XXj_

PENETRATION OF

UNDERGROUND FACILITY x x xx x xx X><

DRI LLiNGI

REAMING

1 I I

POST UPREAMING

DIAM.=O.37m DIAM.=6.17m

POST REAMI NG

1 I I I I I I I I I

425 475 525 575 625





Revisions Dote

H09700R876 2/27/89

INitILl\ Technologies

SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSES FOR THE CULEBRA DOLOMITE AT H-16 MATCHING THE CULEBRA-TO-AIS FLOW RATE USING A CEMENT -INVASION SKIN

Figure 6.9

6-32

o CL

0.95

0.90

:2 0.85 '--"

W 0:: =:) (j) (j)

~ 0.80 CL

0.75

0.70 325

H-1

Tf 6.6E-07 m2/s S = 1.0E-05 X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

~x~ 'k x

" "'~xx

375 425 475 525 575 625



0.95

0.90

~0.85 CL :2 '--"

W 0:: 0.80 =:) (j) (j) W a:::: CL

0.75

0.70

0.65 675

j*>< xX

325

x x x x

x >Kx

'" x

* x x

x x

'):


ERDA -9


~ x x x x x

375 425 475 525 575 625


0.95

0.90

~ 0.85 CL :2

w S 0.80 (j) (j) W 0:: CL

0.75

0.70

0.65

x ,i"'x

325

x x x

x

WIPP-21


x x

x x x

\;

'~.

375 425 475 525 575 625


TIME 0 = JANUARY 1, 1987 TIME 0 = JANUARY i, 1987 ~

I----Dr_aW_"_by __ J_._D_. A_._-+_D_at_e_2_'_2 _7 '_8_9-1S I M U LATED AN D OBSERVED FLU I D - PR ES SU R E RESPONSES FOR Checked by G.S. Date 2'27'89 THE CULEBRA DOLOMITE AT H-l, ERDA-9, AND WIPP-21

1-----------+---------1USING THE H-16 BEST-MATCH SIMULATION MATCHING THE Revisions G.S. Date 6'6'89 CULEBRA-TO-A!IS FLOW RATE USING A CEMENT -INVASION

I----H-O-9-7-0-0-R-8-7-6---+---2-'-27-'-8-9-iSKIN

I NTiR_" Technologies Figure 6.10

6-33

1.4

-

1.2 -

-

1.0 -

w FIRST


Tf = 2.6E-07 m2 js S = 1.0E-05 X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

0:::: ~ (/)

_ PENETRATION

~ 0.6 -0:::: 0... -

0.4 -

-

0.2 -

-

0.0 325

OF CULEBRA

I


~*xxxx x x xx x xx X'<

t DRILLINGI I REAMING

I I I

375

POST REAMING

DIAM.=O.37m

POST UPREAMING

DIAM.=6.17m

I I I I I I i'l I

425 475 525 575 625 675



Drown by J.D.A. Date 2/27/89


Revisions Date

H09700R876 2/27/89

I'Nr~ Technologies

SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSES FOR THE CULEBRA DOLOMITE AT H-16 MATCHING THE H-1 FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSE USING A CEMENT-INVASION SKIN

Figure 6.11

6-34

H-1 0.95 -r----------------~~~--------------------~

o 0..

0.90

:2 0.85 '-.../

w n:: =:=J IJ) IJ)

~ 0.80 0..

0.75

0.70

325

x

'~l

Tf 2.6E -07 m2/s S = 1.0E-05 X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

375 425 475 525 575 625



675

0.95

0.90

0 0 .85 0.. :2 '-.../

W n:: 0.80 =:=J IJ) IJ) w n:: 0..

0.75

0.70

0.65

t~ xX

x X

x x

x


ERDA-9

x x x X

*x ~

* x

1< x

'x ~x

Tf = 2.6E-07 m2/s S = 1.0E-05 X OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

x x x x x

1: ~X

325 375 425 475 525 575 625



Drown by J.D.A.

Checked by G. S.

Revisions G.S.

H09700R876

0.95

0.90

0 0 .85 0.. :2 '-.../

W

5 0.80 IJ) IJ) w n:: 0..

0.75

0.70

0.65 675

Date 2/27/139

Dote 2/27/89

Date 6/6/89

2/27/89

I N1I.R~ Technologies

() WIPP-21


x/'§ x x x

,x x

X , X x

325

x x ~ x x

xX ~

'ix

'X""" x x x x x x

\;

'~.

375 425 475 525 575 625



SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSES FOR THE CU~EBRA DOLOMITE AT H-1, ERDA-9, AND WIPP-21 MATCHING THE H-l FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSE USING A CEMENT -INVASION SKIN

Figure 6.12

6-35

1.4

1.2

1.0

~

0 £l. ::<

0.8 w ~

:::J Ul Ul 0.6 w ~ £l.

0.4

0.2

FIRST PENETRATION

OF CUlEBRA



~XXXXXXXxxxxx~xxxx x

T, = 1.3E-07 m2/s S = 1.0E-05 x = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

))( x xx x x x xx

0.0 -i----,----,r----,----,----,----,----,----,----,-----,----.----,----,---~

375 DRllll NGI

425 475 525 575 625 675

REAMING I I

TIME (1987 CALENDAR fAYS) POST REAMING DIAM.=O.37m POST UPREAMING DIAM.=6.17m

1.4 -.-----------------------------------------------------------------------,

1.2


T, = 6.6E-07 m2/s S = 1.0E-05

1.0

~


X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

0 £l. ::<

0.8 w ~

:::J Ul Ul

0.6 w ~ (L

0.4

0.2

0.0

325

FIRST PENETRATION OF CUlEBRA

375 425

TIME 0 JANUARY 1, 1987



Revisions Date

H09700R876 2/27/89

~xxxxxxxxxxxx~xxxx x x x

475 525


)l( x xx x x x xx

575 625

SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSES FOR THE CULEBRA DOLOMITE AT H-16 SHOWING SENSITIVITY TO THE USE OF A CEMENT-INVASION SKIN

675

I NrtIl.'\ Technologies Figure 6.13

6-36

0.1

r-.... (j)

~ '--""

W I-<t: 0.01 0:::

3: 0 -..l LL

0.001

0.0001

1 -= : ----

-

~ Match to Measured AIS Flow Rate -=1 ~~ ________ ~ = =~Match to H-l Observation-Well ~ =~------------____________ ~R~e~s£P~o~n:s~e~_ ~~ ~H-16 Fluid-Pressure Response =1 ~ with Cement-Invasion Skin

= ~H -1 6 FI u id - Pressure Response Withou t - Cement-Invasion Skin

-= : ---- * - Culebra to AIS Flow Rate 0.056 Lis.

Measured October 28, 1988 -

I I I I 1111I II I 11111I I I I 11111I I I I I 11111 I I

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

TIME SINCE UPREAMING (DAYS)

T!ME 0 = JANUARY 1, 1987



Revisions Date

H09700R876 2/27/89

I N1I.R .. 1\ Technologies

POST -UPREAMING SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FLOW RATES FROM THE CULEBRA DOLOMITE TO THE AIS USING FOUR VALUES OF TRANSMISSIVITY

I Figure 6.14

6-37

1.4 3 1----- 7 ----~I----- 8 -----; 1112114/-5 -161 ~ - Ti me Segments Used in Si mulati ons

1.2 - ~: x ~ x

! \X x - x

x 11 ~

1.0 -~

0 -

~ST 0... :2 '-......-/0.8 -

PENETRATION W

OF MAGENTA 0:::: - , ~ (J) (J) 0.6 -w 0:::: 0... -

0.4 -

- PENETRATION OF

0.2 -

- I DRI LlI NGI REAMING

0.0 I I

330 380 I

FACILITY

POST REAM I NG

DIAM.=O.37m

I I I I I 430 480 530

I

XXx

POST UPREAMING

DIAM.=6.17m

TIME (1987 CALENDAR

5~0 I

DAYS)


Drawn by J . D. A . Date 2/27/89 Checked by G. S. Date 2/27/89


H09700R876 2/27/89

I NrtlL'\ Technologies

FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSE OF THE MAGENTA DOLOMITE OBSERVED AT OBSERVATION-WELL H-16 DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AIS'

Figure 6.15

6-38

1.4

-

~ 1.2 -0 0..-:2: '--./

W 0::: -=> (f) (f) W 0::: 0..-

FLOW REDUCTION

t I xf-:x I ~xxx

CEMENTATION:Z x

xx

xx

x x

x x

• x

:& x X<\

x

x x x x x


FACILITY

x

x

x

x

x

>

> >

X< xx+- REPENETRATION 1.0 - FIRST PENETRATION x

x OF MAGENTA x

x

'" x »«Xxxx~ CIRCULATION RESTORED

x x x xx x~

-CEMENTATION

III REAMING

I DRI LLI NG DRILLING I t I 0.8 I I I I I I

325 345 365 3~5 405

Drawn by J.D.A.

Checked by G. S .

Revisions

H09700R876



Date 2/27/89

Date 2/27/89

Date

2/27/89

FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSE OF THE MAGENTA DOLOMITE OBSERVED AT OBSERVATION-WELL H-16 DURING THE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AIS

I NTIlt..'\ Technologies Figure 6.16

6-39

MAGENTA SIMULATION #1 1.4

-

&J~ Tf = 2.5E-06 m2js S - 1 .OE -05 -X - OBSERVED DATA 1.2 - :.~

-- - SIMULATION -

-

-----... o

0....

2S FIRST 0.8 - PENETRATI ON

W 0::: :=J !J)

-

!J) 0.6 -w 0::: 0.... -

0.4 -

-

0.2 -

-

0.0

OF MAGENTA

I DRI LLI NG/\ REAMI NG

I I 330 380

I

PENETRATION OF UNDERGROUND FACI LlTY

POST REAMING DIAM.= O.37m

:«x xx x xx-/'

POST UPREAMING DIAM.=6.17m

I I I I I I I I I I

430 480 530 580 630





Revisions Date

H09700R876 2/27/89


SIMULATION OF THE MAGENTA DOLOMITE FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSE AT H-16 DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AIS USING A HOMOGENEOUS-FORMATION CHARACTERIZATION

Figure 6.17

6-40

o 0... :2

1.4

-

1.2 -

-

'-----' O. 8 -W 0:::: => (f)

-

~ 0.6 -0:::: 0... -

0.4 -

-

0.2 -

MAGENTA SIMULATION #2

x

FIRST PENETRATION OF MAGENTA

~.

PENETRATION OF

UNDERGROUND FACILITY

~

T; = 8.0E-08 mJs To = 4.0E-08 m /s S = 1.0E-05 rb = 40 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

xoxxxx )oX x xx x xx >2'

- I DRILLINGI I POST REAMING I POST UPREAMING REAMING 01 AM.= O.37m DIAM.= 6.17m

0.0

Drawn by J.D.A.

Checked by G. S .

Revisions

H09700R876

330 I 3~0 I 4jO I 4~0 I 5jO I 5~0 I 6jO I



Dote 2/27/89

Dote 2/27/89

Dote

2/27/89

SIMULATION OF THE MAGENTA DOLOMITE FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSE AT H-16 DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AIS USING A FORMATION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY

I NrtIL'\ Technologies Figure 6.18

6-41

1.4

1.2

1.0

~

0 0.. :::;:

O.B ~

w IY: :J (f) (f)

0.6 w IY: 0..

0.4

0.2

0.0

1.4

1.2

1.0

~

0 0.. :::;:

0.8 ~

w IY: :J (f) (f)

0.6 w IY: 0..

0.4

0.2

MAGENTA SIMULATION #3 ~ LOWER VALUE OF T j

~~I!\WI PENETRATION OF Ti = 2.5E -08 m2j s To = 4.0E-08 m Is S = 1.0E-05

330

I


380

DRI LLI NGI REAMING


UNDERGROUND FACILITY rb = 40 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

"!ic~xxx xx x x x xX

430 480 530 580 630 I


POST REAMI NG DIAM.= O.37m I POST UPREAMING DIAM.= 6.17m

MAGENTA SIMULATION #4 HIGHER VALUE OF T j


Ti = 2.5E-07 m2/s To = 4.0E-08 m Is S = 1.0E-05 rb = 40 m


-------- "!ic~xxx><xxx Xl!: X xx x x x xX

0.0 -+----.----,,----,----.----,----,----,-----.----.----,----,----,,----.--~

330 380 430



Checked by G . S . Date 2/27/89

Revisions Date

H09700R876 2/27/89


480 530 580 630


SIMULATION OF THE MAGENTA DOLOMITE FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSE AT H-16 DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AIS USING A FORMATION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY AND SHOWING SENSITIVITY TO Ti

Figure 6.19

6-42

1.4

l.2

l.0

~

0 a.. :::; ~ 0.8

FIRST w n::: PENETRATION ~ (f) OF MAGENTA (f) w 0.6 n::: a..

0.4

0.2

0.0

330 380

I DRILLING/ REAMING

1.4

l.2

l.0

~

0 a.. :::;

0.8 ~

FIRST w n::: PENETRATION ~ (f) OF MAGENTA (f) w 0.6 n::: a..

0.4

0.2

MAGENTA SIMULATION #5 LOWER VALUE OF To


430 480 530 I


T; = 8.0E-08 mfs To = 1.3E-08 m /s S = 1.0E-05 rb = 40 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

580 630

POST REAMING DIAM.=O.37m I POST UPREAMING DIAM.=6.17m

MAGENTA SIMULATION #6 HIGHER VALUE OF To

PENETRATION OF UNDERGROUND FACI LlTY

T; = 8.0E-08 m2/s To = 1.3E -07 m /s S = 1.0E-05 rb = 40 m


l!X~xxx X>« X xx x xx xX

0.0 -+----,----,,----r----.----,----,----,,----r----r----,----,----,-----r--~

.3.30 380 4.30




Revisions Date

H09700R876 2/27/89


480 530 580 630


SIMULATION OF THE MAGENTA DOLOMITE FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSE AT H-16 DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AIS USING A FORMATION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY AND SHOWING SENSITIVITY TO To

Figure 6.20

6-43

~

o 0... :::;;

1.4

1.2

1.0

~ O.B w a:: ::> Vl

t3 0.6 a:: 0...

0.4

0.2


MAGENTA SIMULATION #7 ~ LOWER VALUE OF rb

PENETRATION OF UNDERGROUND FACILITY T, = 8.0E-08 m2js

To = 4.0E -08 m /s S = 1.0E-05 rb = 20 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

xx x x x xX

0.0 -+----.----.-----.----.----.----.----.-----.----.----.----.----.----,,--~

1.4

1.2

1.0

~

0 0...

~ O.B w a:: ::> Vl Vl 0.6· w a:: 0...

0.4

0.2

.3.30

I .380

DRILLI NG/ REAMING


4.30 4BO 5.30 5BO 6.30

I TIME (1987 CALENDAR DAYS)

POST REAMING DIAM.= O.37m I POST UPREAMING DIAM.=6.17m

MAGENTA SIMULATION #8 HIGHER VALUE OF rb


T, = 8.0E-08 m2js To = 4.0E -08 m /s S = 1.0E-05 rb = 80 m


0.0 -+----.----.-----.----.----.----.----.-----.----.----.----.----.----,,--~

330 .3BO 430


Drown by J.D.A. Dote 2/27/89

Checked by G. S . Dote 2/27/89

Revisions Dote

H09700R876 2/27/89

I f'frtIL'\ Technologies

4BO 530 580 630


SIMULATION OF THE MAGENTA DOLOMITE FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSE AT H-16 DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AIS USING A FORMATION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY AND SHOWING SENSITIVITY TO rb

Figure 6.21

6-44

o ~

::2'

1.4

1.2

1.0

'--./ 0.8 w n:::: =:J IJ)

~ 0.6 n:::: ~

0.4

0.2

0.01

x

0.1

a

To = 4.0E-08 m2/s S = 1.0E-05 rb = 40 m

T; = 8.0E-08

/' T; = 2.5E-07

10 100

ELAPSED TIME IN DAYS FROM PENETRATION OF THE UNDERGROUND FACILITY

b 1.4 -,------------------------------------------~

o ~

::2'

1.2

1.0

'--./ 0.8 w n:::: =:J IJ)

~ 0.6 n:::: ~

0.4

0.2

T; = 8.0E-08 m2/s S = 1.0E-05 rb = 40 m

/' To 1.3E-08

0.0 -+---,......,~~. I I I ITT~"""" I I I III I I I nTT-rr---

0.01 1 10 100


Drawn by J.D.A.

Checked by G. S.

Revisions

H09700R876

c 1.4 -,-----------+-------------------------------,

1.2

1.0

0 ~

::2' '--./ 0.8 w n:::: =:J IJ) IJ) w 0.6 n:::: ~

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.01

Date 2/ 27/ 8 9

Date 2/27/89

Date

2/27/89

x

0.1

T; = 8.0E-08 m2js To = 4.0E-08 m /s S = 1.0E-05

rb 40

rb 20

m

-'''''-TT Til I I I I I I III

10 100

ELAPSED TIME IN DAYS FFWM PENETRATION OF THE UNDERGROUND FACILITY

SEMI-LOq PLOT OF THE FLUID·-PRESSURE RESPONSE OF THE MAGENTA DOLOMITE AT H···16 SHOWING SENSITIVITY TO T;, To, AND rb DURING THE POST -REAMING DRAINING· PERIOD

I NTIIL '\ Technologies Figure 6.22

6-45

1.4

1.2

1.0

~

0 a... :::;

0.8 ~

w ~

::J Vl Vl 0.6 w ~ a...

0.4

0.2

0.0


MAGENTA SIMULATION #9 Tf=T, OF BEST MATCH

HETEROGENEOUS SIMULATION

PENETRATION OF UNDERGROUND FACI L1TY

T, = 8.0E-08 m1/s S = 1.0E-05 X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

~~xxx Xi)« x xx x xx xX

330 380 430 480 530 580 630

DRILLING/ I


REAMING 1.4

POST REAMING DIAM.=O.37m I POST UPREAMING DIAM.=6.17m

1.2

1.0

0' a... :::;

0.8 w ~

::J Vl Vl 0.6 w ~

a...

0.4

0.2


MAGENTA SIMULATION #10 Tf=To OF BEST MATCH

HETEROGENEOUS SIMULATION



~~>OO¢(xxx »oK X xx x xx xX

0.0 -+----.-----,----r----,----,----,----,,----r----.----,----,-----,----.--~

330 380 430


Drawn by J.D.A. Oate 2/27/89


Revisions Date

H09700R876 2/27/89

I NrtIl..'\ Technologies

480 530 580 630

TIME (i 987 CALENDAR DAYS)

SIMULATION OF THE MAGENTA DOLOMITE FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSE AT H-16 USING A HOMOGENEOUS-FORMATION CHARACTERIZATION AND SHOWING SENSITIVITY OF Tf TO T; AND To OF THE BEST -MATCH HETEROGENEOUS CHARACTERIZATION

Figure 6.23

6-46

1 4

~2~;;~r--- 7-----+1--8------i Y i TIme Segments Used In Simulations

1.2 -

-

~* ~

~ \ ~ - x

1.0 -

i 0.8-J( W - FIRST §5 PENETRATION

(f) 0.6 - OF (f) FORTY-NINER W 0:::: -D...

0.4 -

- PENETRATION OF

0.2 -UNOERGROfO FACILITY

Xx X xx xx ~

-

I DRILLINGI I REAMING

POST REAMING

DIAM.=O.37m

POST UPREAMI NG

01 AM.= 6.17m 0.0 I I I I I I I I I I \

330 380 430 480 530 580 TIME (1987 CALENDAR DAYS)


Drawn by J.O.A. Date 2/27/89

2/2 71 8 9 FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSE OF THE FORTY -NINER CLAYSTONE

I-Ch_ec_k_ed---..:bY_G_.S_. __ -+-Dat_e ___ ---I OBSERVED AT OBSERVATION-WELL H-16 DURING THE Revisions ABW Date 6/23/89 CONSTRUCTION OF THE AIS ~-------+-----~

H09700R876 2/27/89

I Nr'tIL'\ Technologies Figure 6.24

6-47

1.3

-

~ 1.1 -0

~ x x

CEMENTATION

~

0..-:2 '----/

W cr:: -=:l (f) (f) w cr:: 0..-

x PENETRATION -: \ # OF UNDERGROUND x >sz.. FACILITY

FLOW REDUCTION ~

~ x REPENETRATION

0.9 -FIRST I I x PENETRATION OF FORTY-NINER ~ x

\ X* "xx Xl _ X+- CIRCULATION RESTORED

x XXXX)¢I§¢(

CEMENTATION

I t I REAMING

I DRILLING DRILLING I 0.7 I I I

3~5 I

3~5 I

325 345 405 TIME (1987 CALENDAR DAYS)




Revisions Date

H09700R876 2/27/89

I N'rtIL'\ Technologies

FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSE OF THE FORTY-NINER CLAYSTONE OBSERVED AT OBSERVATION-WELL H-16 DURING THE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AIS

Figure 6.25

6-48

1.2

1.0

..-----.... o

Q. 2 0.8 '---"'

W 0::::: ~ (J)0.6 (J) w 0::::: Q.

0.4

0.2

0.0

FORTY-NINER SIMULATION #1

FORTY-NI NER

T S X


~ I DRILLINGI I

REAMING POST REAMI NG

DIAM.=O.37m

4.0E-07 m2/s 1 .OE -05 OBSERVED DATA SIMULATION

Xx X xx xx


330 380 430 480 530 580 630

Drawn by J.D.A.

Checked by G. S .

Revisions

H09700R876



Date 2/27/89

Date 2/27/89

Date

2/27/89

SIMULATION OF THE FORTY-NINER CLAYSTONE FLUIDPRESSURE RESPONSE AT H-16 DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AIS USING A HOMOGENEOUS-FORMATION CHARACTERIZATION

I N"rtIL'\ Technologies Figure 6.26

6-49

1.2

1.0

~

o D-:2 0.8 '--'"

W 0::::: ::::J (J) 0.6 (J) w 0::::: D-

0.4

0.2

0.0

Drawn by J.D.A.

Checked by G. S .

Revisions

H09700R876


"-FIRST PENETRATION

OF FORTY-NINER

PENETRATION OF

UNDERGROUND FACI LlTY

~

Tj = 9.0E-09 m2/s To = 1.5E-09 m /s S = 1.0E-05 rb 40 m X OBSERVED DATA

= SIMULATION

x" x x xx)¢(

DRILLINGI I POST REAMING REAMING DIAM.=O.37m


330 380 430 480 530 580 630



Date 2/27/89

Date 2/27/89

Date

2/27/89

SIMULATION OF THE FORTY-NINER CLAYSTONE FLUIDPRESSURE RESPONSE AT H-16 DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AIS USING A FORMATION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY

I N1IILI\ Technologies Figure 6.27

6-50

1.2

1.0

0 Q., 0.6 ::::< ~

w 0:: => Vl 0.6 Vl w 0:: Q.,

0.4

0.2

0.0

1.2

1.0

-----0 Q., 0.8 ::::< ~

w 0:: => Vl 0.6 Vl w 0:: Q.,

0.4

0.2

0.0

FIRST PENETRATION

OF FORTY -NI NER

330 380

I DRILLINGI REAMING

PENETRATION

OF FORTY-NINER

330 380


~ LOWER VALUE OF T;

PE NETRATION OF UNDERGROUND FACILITY

Ti = 3.0E -09 m/s To = 1.5E-09 m /s S = 1.0E-05 rb = 40 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

** * * * ** *

430 480 530 I 580 630

TIME (1987 CALENDAR DAYS) POST REAMING DIAM.=O.37m IpOST UPREAMING DIAM.=6.17m

FORTY-NINER SIMULATION #4 HIGHER VALuE OF T;

Ti = 3.0[-08 m2/s To = 1.5E-09 m /s S = 1.0[-05 rb = 40 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

** *' *' *' ** *

430 480 530 580 630



Drawn by J . D. A. Dote 2/27/89


Revisions Dote

H09700R876 2/27/89


SIMULATION OF THE FORTY-NINER CLAYSTONE FLUIDPRESSURE RESPONSE AT H-16 DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AIS USING A FORMATION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY AND SHOWING SENSITIVITY TO Tj

Figure 6.28

6-51

1.2

1.0

~

0 CL O.B :::;: ~

w a::: ::> (/) 0.6 (/) w a::: CL

0.4

0.2

0.0

1.2

1.0

~

0 CL 0.8 :::;: ~

w a::: ::> (/) 0.6 (/) w a::: CL

0.4

0.2

0.0

FIRST PENETRATION

OF FORTY-NINER

330 380

I DRI LLI NG/ REAMING

FIRST PENETRATION

OF FORTY-NINER

330 380


~ LOWER VALUE OF To

PENETRATION OF UNDERGROUND FACI LITY

T; = 9.0E-09 m2/s To = 5.0E-10 m /s S = 1.OE-05 fb = 40 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

Xx x x x xx x

430 480 530 580 630 I


POST REAMING DIAM.=O.37m IpOST UPREAMING DIAM.=6.17m

FORTY-NINER SIMULATION #6 HIGHER VALUE OF To

T; = 9.0E-09 m2/s To = 5.0E-09 m /s S = 1.0E-05 fb = 40 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

Xx x x x xx x

430 480 530 580 630





Revisions Dote

H09700R876 2/27/89


SIMULATION OF THE FORTY-NINER CLAYSTONE FLUIDPRESSURE RESPONSE AT H-16 DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AIS USING A FORMATION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY AND SHOWING SENSITIVITY TO To

Figure 6.29

6-52

1.2

1.0

~

o CL 0.8 :::;; ~

w 0:: :J ~ 0.6 w a: CL

0.4

0.2

FIRST PENETRATION

OF FORTY-NINER

FORTY-NINER SIMULATION #7 LOWER VALUE OF r b


T; = 9.0E-09 m2js To = 1.5E-09 m /s S = 1.OE-OS rb = 20 m


Xx x x X >0< X

0.0 ~----,-----,----.----.----.----,-----,----,----.----.----.----,----,---~

330 430 480 530 I 580 630

I 380

DRI LLI NGI REAMI NG



FORTY-NINER SIMULATION #8 1.2

1.0

o CL 0.8 :::;; ~

w a: :J ~ 0.6 w a: CL

0.4

0.2

0.0

330

FIRST PENETRATION

OF FORTY -NI NER

380 430




Revisions Date

H09700R876 2/27/89

I NrtILl\ Technologies

OF rb

480 530

T; = 9.0E-09 m2js To = 1.SE-09 m /s S = 1.0E-OS rb = 80 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

Xx x X x xx x

580 630


SIMULATION OF THE FORTY-NINER CLAYSTONE FLUIDPRESSURE RESPONSE AT H-16 DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AIS USING A FORMATION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY AND SHOWING SENSITIVITY TO fb

Figure 6.30

6-53

1.4 -,-________ --=a'----_________ --,

o o~

::;:;

1.2

1.0

'---' 0.8 w a: ::J Ul t3 0.6 a: (l

0.4

0.2

Ti I. 2

3.0E-08 m /5

Ti

To = 1.5E-09 m2/s S = 1.0E-05 rb = 40 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

/ 30E-09 m /5

0.0 - I I I I I

0.01 0.1 10 100


o (l ::;:;

1.4

1.2

1.0

'---' 0.8 w a: ::J Ul t3 0.6 a: (l

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.01

b

x_

To = ;(5E-09 m2/s

To = 5.0E-09 m2/s/

Ti == 9.0E-09 m2/s S == 1.0E-05 rb == 40 m X == OBSERVED DATA - == SIMULATION

111 IIIIIII I IIIIIIII IIIIII

0.1 1 10 100


Drawn by J.O.A.

Checked by G.S.

Revisions

H09700R876

C 1.4 -r--------~--------~~------------------~

,.---.. o (l ::;:;

1.2

1.0

'-.-/ 0.8 w a: ::J Ul t3 0.6 a: (l

0.4

0.2

80 ml

Ti == 9.0E-09 m2/s To == 15E-09 m /s S == 10E-05 X == OBSERVED DATA

SIMULATION

0.0 -+---'--'''TTTT"Tr---'-''rTTTTi'-rTTTrt III I I I IlTfTi

0.01

Date 2/27/89

Date 2/27/89

Date

2/27/89

0.1 1 10 100


SEMI-LOG PLOT OF THE FLUID-PRESSUf~E RESPONSE OF THE FORTY-NINER CLAYSTONE AT H-16 SHOWING SENSITIVITY TO Ti, To, AND rb DURING THE POST -REAMING DRAINING PERIOD

I NTER ... I\ Technologies Figure 6.31

6-55

~

0 0-:::. ~

w 0:: :::> Vl Vl w 0:: 0-

~

0 0-:::. ~

w 0:: :::> Vl Vl w 0:: 0-

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

330

I 1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

FIRST PENETRATION

OF FORTY-NINER

380

DRILLINGI


430 480 530 I

T, = 9.0E-09 m2/s S = 1.0E-05 X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMCLATION

xxx xXxxx

580 630

REAMING TIME (1987 CALENDAR DAYS)


FORTY-NINER SIMULATION #10 .A Tf=To OF BEST MATCH

~# _\' HETEROGENEOUS SIMULATION

"

1'-.t PENETRATION OF ~ UNDERGROUND FACILITY x

'x

FIRST PENETRATION

OF FORTY-NINER

T, = 1.5E-09 mIls S = 1.0E-05 X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

Xx x x x xx x

0.0 -t--.---,--.---,--r---.---r---.---.----,----.----,-----,_---'

330 380 430 480 530 580 630



Drawn by J.D.A. D<rte 2/27/89 SIMULATION OF THE FORTY-NINER CLAYSTONE FLUIDPRESSURE RESPONSE AT H-16 USING A HOMOGENEOUSFORMATION CHARACTERIZATION AND SHOWING SENSITIVITY OF T, TO T; AND To OF THE BEST -MATCH HETEROGENEOUS CHARACTERIZATION

Checked by G. S. D<rte 2/27/89

Revisions ABW D<rte 6/23/89

H09700R876 2/27/89

I NTER .. I\ Technologies Figure 6.32

6-56

Simulation Transmissivity Time at Time at Reduced Number Full Mud Reduced Pressure

Overpressure Pressure [m2/s] [hour] [hour] [MPa]

Segment 1 - initial penetration to cementing Total duration - 113.448 hours

1) Tf - 2.6E-08, no cement skin 16.432 97.016 1. 550

2) Tf - 1. 3E-07, cement skiLl 6.432 107.016 1. 380 3) Tf - 6.6E-07, cement skin 3.000 110.448 1.310 4) Tf - 2.6E-07, cement skin 1.000 112.448 1.240

5) Tf - 1. 3E-07 , no cement skin 6.432 107.016 1. 380 6) Tf - 6.6E-07, no cement skin 1.000 112.448 1.240

Segment 3 - post-cement penetration to reaming Total duration - 576.432 hours

1) Tf - 2.6E-08, no cement skin 29.776 546.656 1.500

2) Tf - 1.3E-07, cement skin 19.776 556.656 1. 550 3) Tf - 6.6E-07, cement skin 19.776 556.656 1. 690 4) Tf - 2.6E-07, cement skin 19.776 556.656 1. 760

5) Tf = 1.3E-07, no cement skin 9.776 566.656 1. 370 6) Tf = 6.6E-07, no cement skin 1. 776 574.656 1. 310

Segment 4 - reaming to underground facility penetration Total duration = 141.84 hours

1) Tf - 2.6E-08,

2) Tf = 1.3E-07, 3) Tf = 6.6E-07, 4) Tf - 2.6E-07,

5) Tf - 1.3E-07, 6) Tf = 6.6E-07,

Drown by Dote

Checked by Dote

Revisions Date

I NrtILI\ Technologies

no cement skin 4.800 137.040 1.450

cement skin 4.800 137.040 1.450 cement skin 4.800 137.040 1. 510 cement skin 4.800 137.040 1. 520

no cement skin 1.800 140.040 1.280 no cement skin 2.800 139.040 1.350

Values and Durations of We11bore Pressures Used for Fixed-Pressure We11bore Boundary Conditions During Simulation of the Cu1ebra Do1omi te Drilling/Reaming Period

1 Table 6.1

6-57

Simulation Number

Time at Full Mud Overpressure

[hour]

Time at Reduced Pressure

[hour]

Segment 1 - initial penetration to flow reduction Total duration - 40.0BO hours

Formation-Characterization Simulations 1) Homogeneous O.OBO 2) Heterogenous 22.000

Heterogeneity-Parameter-Sensitivity Simulations 3) Ti - 2.sE-OB m2/s 40.0BO 4) Ti - 2.sE-07 m2/s 5.000 5) To - 1.3E-OB m2/s 22.000 6) To - 1.3E-07 m2/s 40.0BO 7) ~ - 20 m 12.000 B) rb - BO m 40.0BO

40.000 lB.OBO

0.000 35.0BO 1B.OBO 0.000

2B.OBO 0.000

Homogeneous Characterization Showing Heterogeneity Simulation Parameters

Sensitivity to

9) Tf - B.OE-OB m2/s 40.0BO 10) Tf - 4.0E-OB m2/s 40.0BO

Segment 3 - circulation restoration to cementing Total duration - 63.000 hours

Formation-Characterization Simulations 1) Homogeneous 0.500 2) Heterogeneous lB.2s0

Heterogeneity-Parameter-Sensitivity Simulations 3) Ti - 2.5E-OB m2/s 63.000 4) Ti - 2.5E-07 m2/s 3.000 5) To - 1.3E-OB m2/s B.250 6) To - 1.3E-07 m2/s lB.2s0 7) ~ - 20 m B.250 B) ~ - BO m lB.250

0.000 0.000

62.500 44.750

0.000 60.000 54.750 44.750 54.750 44.750


Sensitivyt to

9) Tf - B.OE-OB m2/s 23.250 10) Tf = 4.0E-OB m2/s 63.000

39.750 0.000

Reduced Pressure

[MPa]

1.600 2.000

n/a 1.600 1.900 n/a 1.BOO n/a

n/a n/a

1.500 1. 700

n/a 1.400 1.500 1. 950 1.500 1.BOO

1.900 n/a

Drawn by

Checked by

Revisions

Date

Dote

Dote

Values and Durations of Wellbore Pressures Used for Fixed-Pressure Wellbore Boundary Conditions During Simulation of the Magenta Dolomite Drilling/Reaming Period

I tfrtILl\ Technologies 1 Table 6.2

6-58

Simulation Number

Time at Full Mud Overpressure

[hour]

Times at Reduced Pressure

[hour]

Segment 5 - re-penetration to reaming interception Total duration - 799.536 hours

Formation-Characterization Simulations 1) Homogeneous 1.536 2) Heterogeneous 60.000

124.000 674.000 104.712 634.824

Heterogeneity-Parameter-Sensitivity Simulations 3) Ti - 2.5E-08 m2/s 284.712 4) Ti - 2.5E-07 m2/s 4.000 160.712

5) To - 1.3E-08 m2/s 12.000 116.712 6) To - l. 3E-07 m2/s 164.712 7) rb - 20 m 12.000 152.712 8) rb - 80 m 116.712


9) Tf - 8.0E-08 m2/s 140.712 10) Tf - 4.0E-08 m2/s 236.712

Sensitivity to

514.824 634.824 670.824 634.824 634.824 682.824

658.824 562.824

Reduced Pressure

(MPa]

l. 700 l. 520 l. 800 l. 520

l. 950 l. 450 l. 330 l. 600 l.400

l. 850 l. 700 l. 500

1.600

l. 720 1.850

Segment 6 - reaming interception to underground facility penetration Total duration - 154.656 hours

Formation Characterization Simulations 1) Homogeneous 0.656 2) Heterogeneous 19.992

Parameter-Sensitivity Simulations 3) Ti - 2.5E-08 m2/s 154.656 4) Ti - 2.5E-07 m2/s 3.992 5) To = 1.3E-08 m2/s 15.992 6) To - 1.3E-07 m2/s 67.992 7) rb - 20 m 10.992 8) ~ = 80 m 31.992


9) Tf - 8.0E-08 m2/s 43.992 10) Tf - 4.0E-08 m2/s 67.992

Sensitivity to

154.000 134.664

0.000 150.664 138.664 .86.664 143.664 122.664

110.664 86.664

l. 700 l. 750

n/a 1.450 l. 520 2.000 l. 650 1.800

1.900 2.000

Drawn by

Checked by

Revisions

Date

Date

Date

Wellbore Pressures and Durations used for Fixed Pressure Well-bore Boundary Conditions During Simulation of Magenta Dolomite Drilling/Reaming Period

I NrtIL'\ Technologies Table 6.2 (cont.)

6-59

Simulation Number

Time at Full Mud Time at Reduced Overpressure

[hour] Pressure

[hour]

Segment 1 - initial penetration to flow reduction Total duration - 48.000 hour

Calibration Simulations 1) Homogeneous 2) Heterogeneous

0.250 24.000

Heterogeneity Parameter Sensitivity Simulations 3) Ti - 3.0E-09 m2/s 48.000 4) Ti - 3.0E-08 m2/s 4.000 5) To = 5.0E-10 m2/s 24.000 6) To - 5.0E-09 m2/s 24.000 7) rb - 20 m 10.000 8) rb - 80 m 48.000

47.750 24.000

0.000 44.000 24.000 24.000 38.000 0.000

Homogeneous Characterization Showing Sensitivity to Heterogeneity Simulation Parameters

9) Tf - 9.0E-09 m2/s 48.000 10) Tf = 1.5E-09 m2/s 48.000

Segment 3 - circulation restoration to cementing Total duration ~ 90.000 hour

Calibration Simulations 1) Homogeneous 2) Heterogeneous

2.000 90.000

Heterogeneity Parameter Sensitivity Simulations 3) Ti = 3.0E-09 m2/s 90.000 4) Ti = 3.0E-08 m2/s 20.000 5) To = 5.0E-10 m2/s 90.000 6) To = 5.0E-09 m2/s 90.000 7) rb = 20 m 90.000 8) rb = 80 m 90.000

0.000 0.000

88.000 0.000

0.000 70.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000


9) Tf - 9.0E-09 m2/s 90.000 10) Tf = 1.5E-09 m2/s 90.000

0.000 0.000

Reduced Pressure

[MPa]

1.000 1.600

n/a 1.300 1.600 1.600 1.300 n/a

n/a n/a

1.450 n/a

n/a l. 700 n/a n/a n/a n/a

n/a n/a

Drawn by

Checked by

Revisions

Date

Date

Date

Values and Durations of Wellbore Pressures Used for Fixed-Pressure Wellbore Boundary Conditions Durin~ Simulation of the Forty-Niner Claystone Dril11ng/Reaming Period

I NTI.R..,\ Technologies Table 6.3

6-60

Simulation Number

Time at Full Mud Time at Reduced Reduced Pressure

[MPa] Overpressure

[hour] Pressure

[hour]

Segment 5 - re-penetration to reaming interception Total duration - 806.232 hour


801. 000 650.000

Heterogeneity-Parameter-Sensitivity Simulations 3) Ti - 3.0E-09 m2/s 806.232 0.000 4) Ti - 3.0E-08 m2/s 16.232 790.000 5) To - 5.0E-10 m2/s 98.232 708.000 6) To - 5.0E-09 m2/s 806.232 0.000 7) ~ - 20 m 26.232 780.000 8) ~ - 80 m 896.232 0.000


9) Tf - 9.0E-09 m2/s 806.232 10) Tf - 1.5E-09 m2/s 806.232

0.000 0.000

1.670 1. 780

n/a 1. 330 1.650

n/a 1.500

n/a

n/a n/a

Segment 6 - reaming interception to underground facility penetration Total duration - 157.776 hour


155.000 140.000

Heterogeneity-Parameter-Sensitivity Simulations 3) Ti - 3. OE-09 m2/s 157.776 0.000 4) Ti - 3.0E-08 m2/s 1.776 156.000 5) To - 5.0E-10 m2/s 17.776 140.000 6) To - 5.0E-09 m2/s 157.776 0.000 7) ~ - 20 m 4.776 153.000 8) ~ - 80 m 157.776 0.000


9) Tf - 9.0E-09 m2/s 157.776 10) Tf - 1.5E-09 m2/s 157.776

0.000 0.000

1. 700 1. 750

n/a 1.300 1. 600 n/a

1.450 n/a

n/a n/a

Drawn by

Checked by

Revisions

Date

Date

Date

Values and Durations of We1lbore Pressures Used for Fixed-Pressure Wellbore Boundary Conditions Durin~ Simulation of the Forty-Niner Claystone Dri11~ng/Reaming Period

I NTER~ Technologies Table 6.3 (cont.)

6-61

7.0 POTENTIAL LEAKAGE INTO THE AIR-INTAKE SHAFT

GTFM was used to calculate the flow rate to the AIS for each of the three

members of the Rustler whose fluid-pressure responses were analyzed in this

report. Figure 7.1 is a log-log plot of the simulated flow rate from these

members to the AIS versus time since the interval was intercepted by the

up reaming of the AIS for the following simulations: the flow rate from the

Cu1ebra for the best-match simulation with a cement-invasion-skin zone for

the period before upreaming; the flow rate from the Cu1ebra for the best

match simulation with a cement- invasion-skin zone and calibrated to the

single measured flow rate from the Cu1ebra to the AIS after upreaming; the

flow rate from the Magenta for the best-match simulation using a formation

heterogeneity boundary; and the flow rate from the Forty-niner claystone

for the best-match simulation using a formation-heterogeneity boundary.

Also shown on the figure is the measured flow-rate of 0.056 Lis. Note that

the time scale on Figure 7.1 is elapsed time in days since interception by

the upreaming of the AIS, which occurred on different days for each of the

formations.

Assuming that the transmissivity used for the best-match simulation

calibrated to the single measured flow rate is the most representative for

the Cu1ebra, then the order-of magnitude differences in flow-rate estimates

for all the units, as shown on Figure 7.1, are consistent with the

published estimates of transmissivities for these units from observation

well H-16 (Beauheim, 1987a). As an additional comparison, Haug and others

(1987) and LaVenue and others (1988) estimated a s~eady-state water inflow

from the Cu1ebra to a single model grid block representing a composite open

shaft (comprising the open, unsealed time periods of the WHS, C&SH shaft,

and EXS) of 0.085 Lis.

7-1

Figure 7.1 also shows that after about 15 days of drainage, the Forty-niner

claystone flow rate begins to decrease at a higher rate, indicating

transition of the controlling flow regime from the higher permeability

inner or near-field zone to the lower permeability outer or far-field zone.

This transition is more obvious for the Forty-niner than for the Magenta

because the Forty-niner's permeability contrast between the inner and outer

zones is greater than that of the Magenta. However, the derivative of the

flow rate versus time shows a similar transition for the Magenta.

Table 7.1 provides a summary of simulated flow rates on Calendar Day 667

for the four simulations whose estimated flow rates are plotted on Figure

7.1. Table 7.1 also includes two calculations of total combined inflow to

the AIS from all three units analyzed. The first calculation is based on

the best-match simulation with a cement- invasion skin, and the second

calculation is based on the best-match simulation with a cement-invasion

skin and calibrated to the single flow-rate measurement. Using the highest

estimated inflow rates for each unit, and considering the consistent flow

rate decline indicated on Figure 7.1, total estimated inflow from the

Rustler Formation to the unsealed AIS would be less than 0.065 Lis.

7-2

0.1

...--... (f)

3-'-..../

W I-<t 0.01 0::::

S 0 -.J LL

0.001

0.0001

0.01

Drawn by J.D.A.

Checked by G.S.

Revisions ABW

H09700R876

Culebra - Best Match to H-16 Fluid-Pressure Response and Calibrated to Culebra -to-AIS Flow Rate

Culebra - Best Match to H-16 Fluid-Pressure Response with Cement Invasion Skin

Magenta

Forty-Niner

* - Culebra to AIS Flow Rate 0.056 Lis. Measured October 28. 1988

0.1 1 10 100 TIME SINCE UPREAMING (DAYS)

Date 3/15/89

Date 3/15/89

Date 6/23/89

3/15/89

CALCULATED FLOW RATE TO THE AIS VERSUS TIME SINCE UPREAMING FOR THE CULEBRA AND MAGENTA DOLOMITES AND THE FORTY-NINER CLAYSTONE

I NTIR ... " Technologies Figure 7.1

7-3

Rustler Unit

Culebra

Culebra

Magenta

Forty-Niner

Simulation

Best Match to H-16 Fluid-Pressure Response with Cement-Invasion Skin

Best Match to H-16 Fluid-Pressure Response with Cement-Invasion Skin and Calibrated to the Culebra for Culebra to AIS Flow-Rate Measurement

Heterogeneous-Formation Characterization

Heterogeneous-Formation Characterization

Total Rustler Flow Rate Using the Culebra Best-Match Simulation of the H-16 Fluid-Pressure Response with a Cement-Invasion Skin

Total Rustler Flow Rate Using the Culebra Best-Match Simulation of the H-16 Fluid-Pressure Response with a Cement-Invasion Skin and Calibrated to the Culebra to AIS Flow-Rate Measurement

Date

Flow rate [Lis]

1.3E-2

5.8E-2

6.4E-3

5.5E-4

1. 9E- 2

6.5E-2

Drawn by

Checked by

Revisions

Date

Date

Calculated Flow Rates From the Units of the Rustler Formation to the AIS on Calendar Day 667

I NltIL'\ Technologies Table 7.1

7-4

8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

8.1 General

The effect of the construction of a fourth underground-access shaft, the

AIS, at the WIPP site on the hydrology of the Rustler Formation was

analyzed using the Rustler's fluid-pressure responses at observation-well

H-16, water-level responses at observation wells H-l, ERDA-9, and

WIPP-2l, and a single measurement of the flow rate from the Culebra

dolomite to the AIS. Well H-16 was drilled approximately 17 m northwest

of the AIS and is equipped with a mUltipacker completion tool which

monitors the formation fluid pressure of five packer-isolated members of

the Rustler Formation using downhole pressure transducers. The formation

fluid pressures of the isolated units were recorded before and during the

drilling of the 0.2S-m pilot hole for the AIS, the reaming of the pilot

hole to 0.37-m diameter, and the upreaming (raise boring) of the pilot

hole to a 6.17 -m diameter. The responses of three of the Rustler

members, the Cu1ebra dolomite, the Magenta dolomite, and the Forty-niner,

were analyzed to provide estimates of the hydraulic parameters of these

units near the center of the WIPP site. Fluid-pressure data from the

Tamarisk Member were not analyzed because they did not indicate that the

formation had achieved a stable formation pressure or was proceeding on a

definable trend before the construction of the AIS. The unnamed lower

member did not appear to respond to the construction of the AIS.

Transmissivity estimates for the three Rustler members were obtained

primarily by analyzing their H-16 fluid-pressure responses, as well as

other available response and flow-rate data using the well-test simulator

GTFM. The analysis required separate consideration of the

drilling/reaming period when the pilot hole was filled with drilling

8-1

fluid and the post-reaming/pre-upreaming period when the pilot hole had

penetrated the WIPP-site underground facility and all units were open and

draining to the pilot hole and/or shaft and subject to a zero-wellbore

pressure boundary condition.

The fluid-pressure data for the drilling/reaming period were influenced

by a complex sequence of drilling operations which were affected by

excessive borehole deviation and the use of a bentonite-mud-based-brine

drilling fluid. Drilling the O.25-m-diameter pilot hole included three

periods when borehole intervals, including the units analyzed, were

cemented and redrilled using directional-drilling techniques. In

addition, a drilling-mud-related filter-cake skin appeared to have

developed on the borehole walls of the more permeable units encountered

by the pilot hole during drilling and reaming. The drilling/reaming

periods were analyzed using primarily fixed-pressure wellbore boundary

conditions which corresponded to calculated mud overpressures and reduced

pressures representing the effect of the apparent filter-cake skins. In

addition, specified zero-flow boundary conditions were applied for short

periods to simulate the effects of cementation (which affected all units)

and apparent flow-reduction due to the settling of the fine particles in

the bentonite-mud-based drilling fluid (which affected the Magenta

dolomi te and Forty-niner claystone only). Zero-wellbore-pressure

boundary conditions, corresponding to formation exposure to atmospheric

pressure, were applied to the three units analyzed after the pilot hole

penetrated the WIPP-site underground facility.

The combination of predominantly fixed-wellbore-pressure boundary

conditions and the radial-flow system modeled by GTFM resulted in

simulated formation fluid-pressure responses as a function of formation

diffusivity or transmissivity divided by the storativity. Based on the

available literature on hydrologic tests at the WIPP site (Beauheim,

8-2

1987a, 1987b; Gonzalez, 1983; Mercer, 1983; and Saulnier, 1987b), the

transmissivity of the units analyzed appears to be more variable than the

storativity. Therefore, the approach used for the AlS simulations was to

fix storativity at a representative value for the unit analyzed, and to

use the simulation results to estimate transmissivity. The

transmissivity values which provided the closest match between the

observed and simulated fluid-pressure data were assumed to be

characteristic of the formations being analyzed. Transmissivity

estimates for the three units analyzed are discussed in Section 8.2.

The analysis of the Culebra dolomite's H-16 fluid-pressure response to

the construction of the AlS included fluid-pressure-response simulations

which indicated the presence of a heterogeneity corresponding to a

postulated cement- invasion skin assumed to be caused by cementation

operations during the pilot-hole drilling period.

The analysis of the H-16 fluid-pressure responses of the Magenta and

Forty-niner provided evidence of heterogeneity in these formations. The

heterogeneities were best characterized by considering that the Magenta

and Forty-niner contained near-field and far-field permeability zones

characterized by different transmissivities. A sensitivity analysis of

the simulation results with respect to the parameters characterizing the

heterogeneity, the inner-zone (near-field) transmissivity, the outer-zone

(far-field) transmissivity, and the radius of the heterogeneity boundary,

provided a degree of confidence in the estimated parameter values for the

assumed heterogeneity geometry.

The results of the simulations of the H-16 fluid-pressure responses were

used to estimate the inflow to the AlS from the Cu1ebra and Magenta

dolomites and the Forty-niner claystone. The simulations indicated that

the Culebra provided the majority of the inflow to the AlS, a conclusion

8-3

corroborated by observations in the AIS during geologic mapping. Inflow

from the Magenta dolomite was estimated to be one order of magnitude less

than that from the Culebra, and the inflow from the Forty-niner claystone

was estimated to be one order of magnitude less than inflow from the

Magenta.

8.2 Summary of Transmissivities

Table 8.1 summarizes the results of the analyses of the H-16 fluid

pressure responses of the Culebra and Magenta dolomites and the Forty

niner claystone. All transmissivity values were estimated assuming a

storativity of 1 x 10- 5 .

8.2.1 Culebra Dolomite

Figures 6.7 to 6.12 indicate that the best match between observed and

simulated data for the Culebra dolomite was achieved using a cement

invasion skin and a formation transmissivity ranging from

l.3 x 10- 7 m2/s (0.12 ft 2/day) to 6.6 x 10- 7 m2/s (0.62 ft 2/day).

However, the estimated transmissivity obtained using the single

measurement of the flow rate from the Culebra to the AIS as a

calibration point was 6.6 x 10- 7 m2/s (0.62 ft 2/day), a value

considered to be the most representative of the Culebra' s

transmissivity between the AIS and H-16, and between the AIS and

observation-wells ERDA-9 and WIPP-21. Beauheim (1987a) analyzed the

Culebra's fluid-pressure responses to drill-stem and slug tests in H-16

and reports a range of transmissivity of 9.13 x 10- 7 m2/s (0.85

ft 2/day) to 7.42 x 10- 7 m2/s (0.69 ft2/day). The transmissivity data

from Beauheim (1987a) and the transmissivity values in Table 8.1

indicate that the near-field transmissivity of the Cu1ebra dolomite in

the vicinity of the underground-access shafts is probably between

1 x 10- 7 and 1 x 10- 6 m2/s (0.093 to 0.93 ft 2/day). All the

simulations overestimated the drawdown (i.e., fluid-pressure response)

8-4

for the post-upreaming period during which all the units were open and

draining to the AlS. This lack of correspondence may be due to the

influences of other activities at the WlPP site, most probably due to

pressure recovery from grouting and sealing operations in the WHS, and

possible lesser influences from water-quality sampling in nearby wells

and recovery from the H-ll multipad/tracer test (see Section 4.0).

Table 8.2 shows the Culebra transmissivity ranges for a range of

Culebra storativities from 1 x 10- 6 to 1 x 10-4 using diffusivities

calculated from the results of the analyses presented in this report.

These diffusivi ties are of the same order of magnitude as the

diffusivities used by Stevens and Beyeler (1985) (4.6 x 10- 2 to

9.3 x 10- 2 m2/s) to model the Culebra responses at the H-l and H-3

hydropads during the construction of the C&SH shaft.

8.2.2 Magenta Dolomite

The results of the analyses and simulation of the Magenta dolomite's

H-16 fluid-pressure responses, Figures 6.17 and 6.18, indicate that the

Magenta dolomite is a heterogeneous formation. The inner- and outer

zone transmis s i vi ties were es tima ted to be 8.0 x 10 - 8 m2/s

(0.074 ft 2/day) and 4.0 x 10- 8 m2/s (0.033 ft 2/day), respectively, and

the heterogeneity boundary between the inner and outer zones was

located at a radial distance of 40 m from the center of the AlS. The

Magenta was not involved in any other testing or sampling activities

during the time its fluid-pressure response was analyzed. However,

part of the Magenta's response may have been affected by grouting

operations in the WHS.

Beauheim (1987a) analyzed drill-stem and slug tests of the Magenta in

H-16 and estimated the transmissivity to be 3.01 x 10- 8 m2/s

(0.028 ft2/day) and 2.58 x 10- 8 m2/sec (0.024 ft2/day), respectively.

Because of the potential non-uniqueness of the assumed heterogeneity

geometry, the best-match inner-zone and outer-zone transmissivities

provide only estimates of the range of effective formation

8-5

transmissivities for the Magenta dolomite. Table 8.2 shows the

possible range in estimated Magenta transmissivity for a representative

range of storativity of 1 x 10- 6 to 1 x 10-4 using diffusivities

calculated from the results of the analyses presented in this report.

As with the Culebra results, the Magenta diffusivities are of the same

order of magnitude as those presented in Stevens and Beyeler (1985)

(2.8 x 10- 3 m2/s).

8.2.3 Forty-Niner Claystone

The results of the analyses and simulation of the Forty-niner

claystone's H-16 fluid-pressure responses, Figures 6.26 and 6.27,

indicate that the Forty-niner is a strongly heterogeneous formation,

with a stronger transmissivity contrast than observed for the Magenta

dolomite (see Section 8.2.2). The inner-zone and outer-zone

transmissivities were estimated to be 9.0 x 10- 9 m2 /s

(8.4 x 10- 3 ft 2/day) and l.5 x 10- 9 m2/s (l.4 x 10- 3 ft 2/day),

respectively, and the heterogeneity boundary between the inner and

outer zones was located at a radial distance of 40 m from the center of

the AlS. Beauheim (1987a) analyzed pulse, slug, and drill-stem tests

in H-16 and estimated that the transmissivity of the Forty-niner

claystone ranges from 2.4 x 10-10 m2/s (2.2 x 10- 4 ft 2/day) from the

analysis of a pulse test, to 6.0 x 10- 9 m2/s (5.6 x 10- 3 ft 2/day) from

the analysis of a drill-stem test. As noted in Section 8.2.2 for the

Magenta dolomite, the potential non-uniqueness of the assumed

heterogeneity geometry means that the best-match inner-zone and outer

zone transmissivities for the Forty-niner provide estimates of the

range of its effective formation transmissivities. Table 8.2 shows the

possible range in estimated Forty-niner transmissivity for a

representative range of storativity of 1 x 10- 6 to 1 x 10-4 .

8-6

8.3 Conclusions

The results of the analysis of the H-16 fluid-pressure responses to the

construction of the AIS indicate:

o in the area between the AIS and H-16, the transmissivity of the

Culebra dolomite is approximately one order of magnitude greater

than the transmissivity of the Magenta dolomite, and the Magenta

transmis s i vi ty is one order of magnitude greater than the

transmissivity of the Forty-niner claystone;

o the cementing of the AIS pilot hole to correct excessive borehole

deviation during the drilling period created a cement-invasion skin

in the Culebra dolomite but not in the Magenta dolomite or Forty

niner claystone; cement invasion of the Culebra dolomite was

probably facilitated by its higher permeability and the vuggy,

fractured character of the dolomite which may have allowed easier

penetration of the formation by the cement grout;

o the water-level responses of Culebra observation wells H-l, ERDA-9,

and WIPP- 21 were affected by other hydrologic and construction

activities at the WIPP site, and the analyses of those responses

provided a general indication of the range of formation

transmissivity;

o the analysis of the fluid-pressure responses of the Magenta dolomite

and Forty-niner claystone indicated that both units behave as

heterogeneous formations in the vicinity of the AIS; and

o the estimated long-term flow rate from all of the Rustler units to

the unsealed AIS is less than 0.065 Lis.

8-7

GEOLOGIC UNIT APPLICABLE TRANSMISSIVITY STORATIVITY AREA (m2/s) (ft2/day)

CULEBRA DOLOMITE AIS to H-16 6.6E-7 6.2E-l lE-5 AIS to H-l 6.6E-7 6.2E-l lE-5 AIS to ERDA-9 2.6E-7 2.4E-l lE-5 AIS to WIPP-21 6.6E-7 6.2E-2 lE-5

MAGENTA DOLOMITE AIS to H-16 8.0E-8 7.4E-2 lE-5 >40 m from AIS 4.0E-8 3.7E-2 lE-5

FORTY-NINER AIS to H-16 9.0E-9 8.4E-3 lE-5 CLAYSTONE >40 m from AIS l. 5E-9 l. 4E- 3 lE-5

Drawn by Date Swrunary of the Transmissivities Determined Checked by Date From the Analls is of the Fluid- Pressure Revisions Date

Responses of t e Culebra Dolomite, Magenta Dolomite, and Forty-Niner Claystone

I NltIL'\ Technologies Table 8.1

H09700R876 8-8

DIFFUSIVITY* STORATIVITY TRANSMISSIVITY (TIS) (S) (T) [m js] [ ] [m2js]

CULEBRA 6.6E-02 1. OE-04 6.6E-06 1. OE-OS* 6.6E-07* 2.0E-OS 1. 3E-06 1.0E-06 6.6E-08

2.6E-02 1. OE-04 2.6E-06 1. OE-OS* 2.6E-07* 2.0E-OS S.2E-07 1. OE-06 2.6E-08

1. 3E-02 1.0E-04 1. 3E-06 1. OE-OS* 1.3E-07* 2.0E-OS 2.6E-07 1. OE-06 1. 3E-08

MAGENTA 8.0E-03 1. OE-04 8.0E-07 1. OE-OS* 8.0E-08* 2.0E-OS 1. 6E-07 1. OE-06 8.0E-09

4.0E-03 1. OE-04 4.0E-07 1. OE-OS* 4.0E-08* 2.0E-OS 8.0E-08 1.0E-06 4.0E-09

FORTY-NINER 9.0E-04 1. OE-04 9.0E-08 1.0E-OS* 9.0E-09* 2.0E-OS 1. 8E-08 1. OE-06 9.0E-1O

1. SE-04 1. OE-04 1. SE-08 1. OE-OS* 1. SE-09* 2.0E-05 3.0E-09 1.OE-06 1.SE-1O

* Values Determined From Simulations and Presented on Table 8.1.

Date Drawn by Calculated Transmissivities for a Range of

I-Ch_ec_ke_d_b_y ____ --+-D_o_te ___ --I Storativities Using the Diffusivities From the Results of the Analyses Presented in

~------~-----~ this Report Revisions Date

I Nrt.Il.'\ Technologies Table 8.2

H09700R876 8-9

9.0 REFERENCES

Beauheim, R.L., 1987a. Interpretations of Single-Well Hydraulic Tests

Conducted at and near the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Site,

1983-1987. Sandia National Laboratories, SAND87-0039, 169 pp.

Beauheim, R.L., 1987b. Analysis of Pumping Tests of the Culebra Dolomite

Conducted at the H-3 Hydropad at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)

Site. Sandia National Laboratories, SAND86-23ll, 169 pp.

Bechtel National Inc., 1985. Quarterly Geotechnical Field Data Report.

U. S. Department of Energy, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Office,

Carlsbad, New Mexico, DOE-WIPP-2l8.

Cauffman, T. L., A.M. LaVenue, and J. P. McCord, 1990. Ground-Water Flow

Modeling of the Culebra Dolomite: Volume II - Data Base. Sandia

National Laboratories, Contractor Report SAND89-7068/2.

Colton, 1.D. and J. Morse, 1985. Water Quality Sampling Plan. U.S.

Department of Energy, WIPP-DOE-2l5.

Deshler, R. and R. McKinney, 1988. Construction and Water Inflow Histories

for the Shafts at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. IT Corporation,

February 1988, 14 pp.

Gonzalez, D.D., 1983. Hydrogeochemical Parameters of Fluid-Bearing Zones

in the Rustler and Bell Canyon Formations: Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

(WIPP) Southeastern New Mexico (SENM). Sandia National Laboratories,

SAND83-02l0, 37 pp.

9-1

Haug, A., V.A. Kelley, A.M. LaVenue, and J.F. Pickens, 1987. Modeling of

Ground-Water Flow in the Culebra Dolomite at the Waste Isolation Pilot

Plant (WIPP) Site: Interim Report.

Contractor Report SAND86-7l67.

Sandia National Laboratories,

Holditch, S.A., W.J. Lee, D.E. Lancaster, and T.B. Davis, 1983. Effect of

Mud Filtrate Invasion on Apparent Productivity in Drillstem Tests in

Low-Permeability Gas Formations.

Vol. 35, No.2, p. 299-305.

Journal of Petroleum Technology,

Holt, R.M. and D. W. Powers, 1984. Geotechnical Activities in the Waste

Handling Shaft, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Proj ect,

Southeastern New Mexico. U.S. DOE, WTSD-TME-038.

Holt, R.M. and D.W. Powers, 1986. Geotechnical Activities in the Exhaust

Shaft. U.S. Department of Energy, DOE-WIPP-86-008.

Krueger, R.F., 1986. An Overview of Formation Damage and Well Productivity

in Oilfield Operations.

No.2, p. 131-152.

Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 38,

LaVenue, A.M., A. Haug, and V.A. Kelley, 1988. Numerical Simulation of

Ground-Water Flow in the Culebra Dolomite at the Waste Isolation Pilot

Plant (WIPP) Site: Second Interim Report. Sandia National

Laboratories, Contractor Report SAND88-7002.

Mercer, J. W., 1983. Geohydrology of the Proposed Waste Isolation Pilot

Plant Site, Los Medanos Area, Southeastern New Mexico. U.S. Geological

Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 83-4016, 113 pp.

9-2

Pickens, J.F., G.E. Grisak, J.D. Avis, D.W. Belanger, and M. Thury, 1987.

Analysis and Interpretation of Borehole Hydraulic Tests in Deep

Boreholes: Principles, Model Development, and Applications. Water

Resources Research, Vol. 23, No.7, p. 1341-1375.

Saulnier, G.J., Jr., 1987a. Appendix F., Review and Chronology of Known

Information of Ground-Water Leakage into the Shafts at the WIPP Site in

Modeling of Ground-Water Flow in the Cu1ebra Dolomite at the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Site: Interim Report, By Haug, A. and

others, Sandia National Laboratories, Contractor Report SAND86-7167.

Saulnier, G.J., Jr., 1987b. Analysis of Pumping Tests of the Cu1ebra

Dolomite Conducted at the H-ll Hydropad at the Waste Isolation Pilot

Plant (WIPP) Site. Sandia National Laboratories, Contractor Report

SAND87-7124.

Saulnier, G.J., Jr., G.A. Freeze, and W.A. Stensrud, 1987. WIPP Hydrology

Program Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Southeastern New Mexico.

Hydrologic Data Report #4. Sandia National Laboratories, Contractor

Report SAND86-7166.

Saulnier, G.J., Jr., and J.D. Avis, 1988. Interpretation of Hydraulic

Tests Conducted in the Waste-Handling Shaft at the Waste Isolation

Pilot Plant (WIPP) Site. Sandia National Laboratories, Contractor

Report SAND88-7001.

Snyder, R. P., 1985. Dissolution of Halite and Gypsum, and Hydration of

Anhydrite to Gypsum, Rustler Formation in the Vicinity of the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant, Southeastern New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 85-229, 11 p.

9-3

Stensrud, W.A., M.A. Bame, K.D. Lantz, A.M. LaVenue, J.B. Palmer, and G.J.

Saulnier, Jr., 1987. WIPP Hydrology Program, Waste Isolation Pilot

Plant, Southeastern New Mexico, Hydrologic Data Report #5. Sandia

National Laboratories, Contractor Report SAND87-7125.

Stensrud, W.A., M.A. Bame, K.D. Lantz, T.L. Cauffman, J.B. Palmer, and G.J.

Saulnier, Jr., 1988a. WIPP Hydrology Program, Waste Isolation Pilot

Plant Southeastern New Mexico, Hydrologic Data Report #6. Sandia


Stensrud, W.A., M.A. Bame, K.D. Lantz, J.B. Palmer, and G.J. Saulnier, Jr.

198 8b. WIPP Hydrology Program, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

Southeastern New Mexico, Hydrologic Data Report #7. Sandia National

Laboratories, Contractor Report SAND88-7014.

Stensrud, W.A., M.A. Bame, K.D. Lantz, J.B. Palmer, and G.J. Saulnier, Jr.,

1990, in preparation. WIPP Hydrology Program, Waste Isolation Pilot

Plant Southeastern New Mexico, Hydrologic Data Report #8.


Sandia

Stevens, K. and W. Beye1er, 1985. Determination of Diffusivities in the

Rustler Formation from Exploratory-Shaft Construction at the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant in Southeastern New Mexico. U. S. Geological

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 85-4020, 32 pp.

Tou1oukian, Y.S., W.R. Judd, and R.F. Roy, 1981. Physical Properties of

Rocks and Minerals. McGraw-Hi11/Cindas Data Series on Material

Properties, Y.S. Tou1oukian and C.Y. Ho, Editors, Volume 11-2, 548 p.

9-4

APPENDIX A:

SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED

AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE

DRILLING/REAMING PERIODS OF THE SIMULATIONS OF THE

H-16 FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSES OF THE CULEBRA DOLOMITE,

THE MAGENTA DOLOMITE, AND THE FORTY-NINER CLAYSTONE

A-l

CULEBRA SI MULATION ;; 1 2.8

- SIMULATED. AND SPECIFIEDT WELLBORE PRESSURES DURING DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

-

-2.4 -

-

-

~ -0

(L 2.0 -:::;;:

~

-w (Y -::::> (f) (f) -w (Y 1.6 -(L

-

-

-1.2 -

-

--

0.8

350

1.2

T, S

= 2.6E-08 m2/s = 1.0E-05

I

.-(Lt-2* I 31"------+1- 4y - ~

I 370

Time Segments Used in Simulation

I I 390


I

SIMULATED H-16 PRESSURE DURING THE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

~

0 (L :::;;: ~

w (Y

::::> (f) (f) w (Y (L

-

1.0 -

-

0.8

350


'Xx x x

\





H09700R876 2/23/89

I Nrt.R..,\ Technologies

x

~x )(X x'x

x

x

x

I I I

370


SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE CULEBRA DOLOMITE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD WITHOUT A CEMENT-INVASION SKIN AND MATCHING H-16 FLUID-PRESSURE RESPONSE

Figure A.1

A-3

x x x x

~

2.B CULEBRA SIMULATION #2

- SIMULATED* AND SPECIFIEDt WELLBORE PRESSURES

--

2.4 -

--

~ -0

a.. 2.0 -:::;

~

-w a:: -::::> (f) (f) -w a:: 1.6 -a..

--

-1.2 -

-

--

O.B

350

T, S

= 1.3E-07 m2/s = 1.0E-05

r

DURING DRILLINGIREAMING PERIOD

~1~2*1 3~-----------1~-4~

I 370

I


I 390


I

1.2 -.------------------------------________________________________________ ~

SIMULATED H-16 PRESSURE DURING THE DRILLINGIREAMING PERIOD

-

w ~ 1.0 -(f) (f) w a:: a..

O.B

-


I

350

TIME o = JANUARY 1. 1987

Drawn by JoDoAo Date 2/23/89

Checked by GoS. Date 2/23/89


H09700R876 2123/89

I N"rt.R.'\ Technologies

I I I I 370 390


SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE CULEBRA DOLOMITE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD USING A CEMENT-INVASION SKIN

Figure A.2

A-4

CULEBRA SIMULATION #3 2.8

- SIMULATED* AND SPECIFIEDt WELLBORE PRESSURES DURING DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

--

2.4 -

--

~ -0

0... 2.0 -:::;:

~

-w 0:: -:::> (fl (fl -w 0:: 1.6 -0...

--

-1.2 -

--

-0.8

350

1.2

T, = 6.6E-07 m2/s S = 1.0E-05

I

~1~2*1 3T-----------I~-4~

I



I


-

w rs 1.0 -(fl (fl w 0:: 0...

0.8

-


I

350





H09700R876 2/23/89

I Nrtll.'\ Technologies

I I


SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE CULEBRA DOLOMITE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD WITH A CEMENT -INVASION SKIN AND MATCHING THE CULEBRA-TO-AIS FLOW RATE

1 Figure A.3

A-5

2.8

--

CULEBRA SI MULATION /I 4

SIMULATED. AND SPECIFIED t WELLBORE PRESSURES DURING DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

-2.4 -

Tr = 2.6E-07 m 2/s S = 1.0E-05

,--142. I 3 t -----+I- 4Y TIme Segments Used

in Simulation --

~ -0

0.. 2.0 -:::;; -

w ~ -::l (/) (/) -w ~ 1.6 -0..

-

-

-

1.2 -

---

0.8

350

1.2

-

~

0 0.. :::;; ~

w ~ 1.0 -::l (/) (/) W ~

0..

-

'Xx

I I I 370



Tr = 2.6E-D7 m 2/s

x x

S = 1.0E-05 X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

X XlO!(XX

Xx

I

0.8 -r---------,Ir---------~I----------,-I---------.-I--------~I----~

350



Checked by G.S. Date 2/23/89


H09700R876 2/23/89

I Nlt.R...'\ Technologies

370 390


SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE CULEBRA DOLOMITE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD WITH A CEMENT-INVASION SKIN AND MATCHING THE OBSERVATION-WELL RESPONSES

I Figure AA

A-6

CULEBRA SIMULATION #5 2.8

- SIMULATED. AND SPECIFIEDt WELLBORE PRESSURES DURING DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

-

-2.4 -

--

~ -0

Q 2.0 -:::;:

~

-w 0:': -:::> If) If) -W 0:': 1.6 -Q

--

-1.2 -

-

-

-

0.8

.350

1.2

Tf = 1.3E-07 m2/s S = 1.0E-05

I

~1~2*1 3T----------rl--4~

I

TIme Segments Used in Simulation


I


-

w CS 1.0 -If) If) w 0:': Q

Tf = 1.3E-07 m2/s S = 10E-05 X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

'Xx x x

-

0.8 I

.350





H09700R876 2/23/89

I N1IIl.,\ Technologies

)~ x

I .370

I


I

SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE CULEBRA DOLOMITE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD WITHOUT A CEM~NT -INVASION SKIN AND USING A Tf == 1.3 X 10- m2/s

Figure A.5

A-7

2.8

--

CULEBRA SIMULATION #6 SIMULATED. AND SPECIFIEDt WELLBORE PRESSURES

DURING DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

T, = 6.6E-07 m2js S = 1.0E-05

r-1t-r2·' 3T----------~1 --4~ -

2.4 -

--

~ -0

0.. 2.0 -:::<

~

-w a::: -::> Ul Ul -w a::: 1.6 -0..

-

--

1.2 -

-

--

0.8

350 I I

370 I



I

1.2 -,----------------------------------____________________________________ ~

SIMULATED H-16 PRESSURE DURING THE

~

0 0.. :::< ~

w a::: ::> Ul Ul w a::: 0..

-

1.0 -

-

0.8

350

'Xx

T, = 6.6E-07 m2js S = 1.0E-05 X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

I


Drawn by J,D.A. Date 2/23/89



H09700R876 2/23/89

I NTIR..,\ Technologies

DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

I I I I

370 390


SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE CULEBRA DOLOMITE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD WITHOUT A CEM~NT -INVASION SKIN AND USING A Tf = 6.6 X 10- m2/s

I Figure A.6

A-a

x x ~

2.8

---

2.4 -


SIMULATED* AND SPECIFIEDt WELLBORE PRESSURES DURING DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

T, = 2.5E-06 m'/s S = 1.0E-05 1 t Time Segments Used in Simulation

-~ 2~31-4*'~1-----st------+I- 6 t-1

-~ -0 CL 2.0 -:::;: ~

-w 0::: :J -if) if) -w 0::: CL

1.6 -

-

--

1.2 -

-

--

0.8 I I I I I I

325 345 385


1.4 SIMULATED H-16 PRESSURE DURING THE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

-

~ 1.2 -o

CL :::;: ~

w 0::: ::::> if) if) W 0::: CL

-

1.0 -

-

0.8

325

x


x x x x

I I 345

x


Orawn by J.D.A. Date 2/23/89



H09700R876 2/23/89

I N'rt.R...'\ Technologies

~~ x

Ix x x x

I I I 365


I I

385

SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE MAGENTA DOLOMITE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD USING A HOMOGENEOUS-FORMATION CHARACTERIZATION

Figure A.7

A-9

405

405

MAGENTA SIMULATION #2 2.8 -,--------------------------------------------------------------------------,

SIMULATED'" AND SPECIFIEDT WELLBORE PRESSURES DURING DRILLINGIREAMING PERIOD

2.4

T; = 8.0E-08 m2/s To = 4.0E-08 m /5 5 = 1.0E-05 1 t Time Segments Used in Simulation r. = 40 m

~ 2"'-----j31-4""~1-----st-----__+_ 6 t~ ~

0 (L

2.0 ::::;: ~

W 0:: :;) (Il Ul w 0:: 1.6 (L

1.2

0.8 -+---------.--------.--------.---------.--------.--------.---------.--------4 325

1.4

~ 1.2

0 (L ::::;: ~

W 0:: :;) Ul Ul w 0:: (L

1.0

345 365 385



T; = 8.0E-08 m2/s To = 4.0E-08 m /5 S = 1.0E-05 rb = 40 m


x x x X x x

405

0.8 -+---------.--------,--------.---------.--------,--------.---------,--------4 325 345



Checked by G. S. Dote 2/23/89

Revisions AS W Dote 6/23/89

H09700R876 2/23/89

I Nrt.R..'\ Technologies

.365 .385


SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE MAGENTA DOLOMITE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD USING A FORMATION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY

Figure A.S

A-10

405

2.8

2.4


SIMULATED'" AND SPECIFIEDt WELLBORE PRESSURES

Ti = 2.5E-08 m2/s To = 4.0E-08 m /5 S = 1.OE-05 rb = 40 m 1 t



I+-2~ 31- 4"'--+1-----st-----_+_ 6 t-i ~

0 !L

2.0 2 ~

w n: => (J) (J) w n: 1.6 !L

1.2

0.8 ~--------_,--------._------_,--------_,--------._------_,--------_.------__I

325 345 365 385 405


1.4 -,--------------------------------------------------------------------------,

~ 1.2

0 !L 2 ~

w n: => (J) (J) w n: !L

1.0


Ti = 2.5E-08 m2/s To = 4.0E-08 m /5 S = 1.0E-05 rb = 40 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

x x x x x x

-r )¢(~xxxx x

x

0.8 -f--------_,--------._------_,---------r--------.-------_,--------_,------~

325 345



Checked by G.S. Dote 2/23/89

Revisions ABW Dote 6/23/89

H09700R876 2/23/89


365 385


SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE MAGENTA DOLOMITE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD USING A FORMAIION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY AND Ti == 2.5 X 10- m2/s

Figure A.9

A-ll

405

2.8

---

2.4 -


SIMULATED* AND SPECIFIEDt WELLBORE PRESSURES

T; = 2.SE-07 m2/s To = 4.0E-08 m /s S = 1.0E-OS rb = 40 m 1 t



- ~ 2*--13t}-4*--+-1-----st------+I- 6 t--1 -

~ -0

CL 2.0 -2-

-w 0:: -;:) (f) (f) -w 0:: 1.E -CL

-- ~ I -

1.2 -

-- ~ ~ -

0.8 I I I

3~5 I

3~5 I

345 405 325


1.4 -,------------------------------------__________________________________ ~


~

0 CL L ~

w 0:: ;:) (f) (f) w 0:: CL

-

1.2 -

-

1.0 -

-

0.8

325

T; = 2.SE-07 m2/s To = 4.0E-08 m /s S = 1.0E-OS rb = 40 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

xxx xx xx>

I I 345





H09700R876 2/23/89

I N'rtILl\ Technologies

-~ xxxx

~XXX

I I I


SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE MAGENTA DOLOMITE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD USING A FORMAJION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY AND T; = 2.5 X 10- m2/s

Figure A.10

A-12

405

2.8

2.4


SIMULATED* AND SPECIFIEDi' WELLBORE PRESSURES

T; = 8.0E-08 m2/s To = 1.3E-08 m /5 S = 1.0E-05 r. = 40 m 1 t



1+2~3tt-4*·-t-I-----5t------+- 6 t-i ~

0 a.. 2.0 :::. ~

w 0:: :;) U1 U1 W 0:: 1.6 a..

1.2

0.8 -+--------,--------.--------.--------.--------.--------.--------.-------~

325 345 365 385 405


1.4 -,----------------------------------------------------------------------, SIMULATED H-16 PRESSURE DURING THE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

T; = 8.0E-08 m2/s To = 1.3E-08 m /5

1.2 0

a.. :::. ~

w 0:: :;) U1 U1 w 0:: a..

1.0

0.8

325

S = 1.0E-05 r. = 40 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

xxx xx xX>l

.345


IKawn by J.D.A. Date 2/23/89



H09700R876 2/23/89

I N"rtIL 1\ Technologies

xx

.365 .385


SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE MAGENTA DOLOMITE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD USING A FORMATION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY AND To = 1 . .3 X 10-8 m2/s

Figure A.11

A-13

405

2.8

---

2.4 -


SIMULATED* AND SPECIFIEDt WELLBORE PRESSURES

T; = 8.0E-08 m2/s To = 1.3E-07 m /s S = 1.0E-05 fb = 40 m 1 t



- H- 2*--131]- 4*-t-1 ----st------;Ir- 6 t-1 -

,..... -0 a.. 2.0 -2- ~

-

1 -w

a:: -::> (/) (/) -w a:: 1.6 -a..

--

-1.2 -

-

-

-

0.8

325 I

I 3~S I I

405


1.4 -,--------------------------------------------__________________________ ,


-

,..... 1.2 -0

a.. ::;: ~

w a:: -::> (/) (/) w a:: a..

1.0 -

x -

0.8

325

T; = 8.0E-08 m2/s To = 1.3E-07 m /s S = 1.0E-05 fb = 40 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

x x x x x >0-

I I 345

x

1


Orawn by J.D.A. Oate 2/23/89



H09700R876 2/23/89

I Nr~ Technologies

xxxx *: x

~ x )(

x

~

I I I


SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE MAGENTA DOLOMITE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD USING A FORMA~ION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY AND To = 1.3 X 10- m2/s

Figure A.12

A-14

405

2.8

---

2.4 -


SIMULATED. AND SPECIFIEDT WELLBORE PRESSURES

T; = 8.0E-08 m2/s To = 4.0E-08 m /5 S = 1.0E-05 fb = 20 m 1 t



- H-2~3tt-4*'~I-----5t------I- 6 t-i -

~ -0 Q.

2.0 -:::;: ~

-w Ct: -::;) Ul Ul -W Ct: 1.6 -Q.

--

-1.2 -

--

-

0.8

325

1.4

I I 345

- I

I I I

365


I 385

I

405


~ 1.2

0 Q. :::;: ~

w Ct: ::;) Ul Ul W Ct: Q.

1.0

0.8

325

T; = 8.0E-08 m2/s To = 4.0E-08 m /5 S = 1.0E-05 fb = 20 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

x x x x x x

345





H09700R876 2/23/89

I NTEIL,\ Technologies

365 385


SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE MAGENTA DOLOMITE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD USING A FORMATION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY AND fb = 20 m

405

Figure A.13

A-I5

~

0 a.. ::::; ~

w a::: => Ul Ul w a::: a..

~

0 a.. ::::; ~

w a::: => Ul Ul w a::: a..

2.8 -,-___________ :.:.:M.:..;A:::G:::E.:..:Nc..:.T.:..:A--'S:::.;�:..:.:M~U~L:!.A.:..:.T...:..:IO:::.;N'_!....._'#'__'8~ __________ ---,

SIMULATED'" AND SPECIFIEDT WELLBORE PRESSURES

2.4

2.0

1.6

1.2

T; = 8.0E-08 m2/s To = 4.0E-08 m /s S = 1.0E-05 rb = 80 m


1t Time Segments Used in Simulation

~2*--13tt-4··~I-----5t------I- st-1

0.8 -+--------.--------.--------.---____ -,-________ .-______ -,-________ .-______ ~ 325

1.4

1.2

1.0

345 365 385



T; = 8.0E-08 m2/s To = 4.0E-08 m /s S = 1.0E-05 rb = 80 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

x x x x x x

405

0.8 -+--------.--------,---------.-------~--------~------~--------.-------~

325 345 365 385 405



Drawn by J.D.A. Date 2/23/89 SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE MAGENTA DOLOMlTE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD USING A FORMATION-HETEROGENEITY' BOUNDARY AND



H09700R876 2/23/89 rb = 80 m

I NTER..,\ Technologies Figure A.14

A-16

2.8

2.4


SIMULATED'" AND SPECIFIEDt WELLBORE PRESSURES DURING DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

T, = 8.0E-08 m2/s S = 1.0E-05 1 t

nme Segments Used in Sjmulation

~ 2~ 31- 4"'---t-I----- st--------t- 6 t-i ,....... 0

0.. 2.0 6 w (Y ::> if) if) w (Y 1.6 0..

1.2

0.8 -+---------r--------.--------.---------r--------.--------,---------r------~

325 345 365 385 405



T, = 8.0E-08 m2/s S 1.0E-05 X OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

,....... 1.2 0

0.. L

x ~

w (Y ::> if) if) w (Y 0..

1.0

x x x x X X

0.8

325 .345





H09700R876 2/23/89

I NltIL'\ Technologies

.365 .385 405


SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE MAGENTA DOLOMITE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD WITHOUT A FOR~ATION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY AND Tf = 8.0 X 10- m2/s

Figure A.15

A-17

2.8

2.4


SIMULATED'" AND SPECIFIED1" WELLBORE PRESSURES DURING DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

TI = 4.0E-08 m2/s S = 1.0E-05 1 t


I+-2~ 3 tt 4 "'-+-I -----5 t-------t- 6 t-i ~

0 Q..

2.0 2

w a::: :::> If) If) w a::: 1.6 Q..

1.2

0.8

325

1.4

1.2 0

Q.. 2 ~

w a::: :::> If) If) w a::: Q..

1.0

x

345 365 385



TI = 4.0E-08 m2/s S 1.0E-05 X OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

x x

x x x x x

405

0.8 -+--------~--------._-------,--------~--------._------_,--------_.------~

325 345





H09700R876 2/23/89

INitIL'\ Technologies

365 385


SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE MAGENTA DOLOMITE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD WITHOUT A FORk1ATION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY AND TI = 4.0 X 10- m2/s

405

Figure A.16

A-iS


-2.3 -

SIMULATED. AND SPECIFIED t WELLBORE PRESSURES DURING DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

-

-

Tf = 4.0E-07 m2/s S = 1.0E-05


t4-2*--t3tt4*1 st-----t-I 6 t-i -

0' 1.9 -

D- -:::;; ~

-w ~ -::J If) If) 1.5 -w 0:: D- -

-

-1.1-

---

0.7

325

1.3

I I 345

I 3!5 I


I 385

I


-

~ 1.1 -o

D-:::;; ~

W 0:: ::J If) If) w ~

D-

-

0.9 -

-

0.7


x x x x x

I

x

325





H09700R876 2/23/89

I NTER_I\ Technologies

x~ x

I I I I

365


SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE FORTY-NINER CLAYSTONE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD USING A HOMOGENEOUS-FORMATION CHARACTERIZATION

I Figure A.17

A-19

405

405

2.3


SIMULATED· AND SPECIFIED t WELLBOREPRESSURES Ti = 9.0E-09 rn,s To = 1.SE-09 m /s S = 1.0E-OS


rb = 40 m TIme Segments Used in Simulation

H-2*----t3tt4*1 st-------jf- 6 t-i

,-.... 1.9 o

CL :::;;: ~

w ~

::J Ul Ul 1.5 w ~ CL

1.1

0.7 -+--------,--------,--------.--------, ________ ,-______ -. ________ .-______ ~ 325 345 365 385 405


1.3 -,----------------------------------__ ~ ________________________________ ,


Ti = 9.0E-09 m2/s

1.1 0

·CL :::;;: ~

w ~

::J Ul Ul w ~ CL

0.9

To = 1.SE-09 m /s S = 1.0E-OS rb = 40 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

x x x x x

x x x

l\A x

0.7 -+--------,--------,--------.--------,--------,-______ -. ________ .-______ ~ 325 345





H09700R876 2/23/89

I N'rtIL'\ Technologies

365 385


SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE FORTY-NINER CLAYSTONE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD USING A FORMATION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY

405

Figure A.18

A-20

-

2.3 -

-


SIMULATED* AND SPECIFIED t WELLBORE PRESSURES T; = 3.0E-09 m2/s DURING DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD To = 1.5E -09 m /5 S = 1.0E-05

- rb = 40 m TIme Segments Used in Simulation

H-2*--t 3tt 4 *-+1------ 5 t ---------ll- 6 t-i - - -

~ 1.9 -

0 (L -~ ~

-w n::: -::::> if) if) 1.5 -w n::: (L -

--

1.1 -

-

- ~ \ -

0.7

325 I I I

3~5 I

3~5 I

345 '405


1.3 SIMULATED H-16 PRESSURE DURING THE DRILLINGIREAMING PERIOD

T; = 3.0E-09 m2/s To = 1.5E-09 m /5

- = S 1.0E-05 rb = 40 m xxx

xxX ,""xx X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

~ 1.1 -

0 (L

~ ~

w n::: -::::> if) if) w n::: (L

0.9 -

,*x

'* -~ x x x x x

0.7 I I

325 345



Checked by G.S. Dote 2/23/89

Revisions ABW Dote 6/23/89

H09700R876 2/23/89

I ~tILl\ Technologies

x xxx"?-

xx

IXxXXX

~ xxx ~ )(Xx«-

>OX x x

x x V x

x x

x

x

I

3~5 I I I

385


SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE FORTY-NINER CLAYSTONE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD USING A FOR~ATlgN-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY AND T; = 3.0 X 10 - m /s

Figure A.19

A-21

405

-

2.3 -

-

--

~ 1.9 -

0 0.. -::;:

-w (Y -::J (f) (f) 1.5 -w (Y

0.. --

1.1 -

-

--

0.7

325


SIMULATED* AND SPECIFIED t WELLBORE PRESSURES DURING DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

T; = 3.0E-08 m2/s To = 1.5E-09 m /5 S = 1.0E-05 rb = 40 m


ri-2*~3tt4·1 st

I

'--

I 345 I 3~5 I


I

405

1.3 -,----------------------------------------______________________________ ~


T; = 3.0E-08 m2/s To = 1.5E-09 m /5

w (Y

::J (f) (f)

.w (Y

0..

-

-

0.9 -

S = 1.0E-05 rb = 40 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

x x x x x

x

x x

x

x

~

x x

V

x x xx

0.7 ~------.-I-----,-I----'I------'I------~I------'I------,-I----~

325 345 365 385 405





H09700R876 2/23/89

I NTIIL,\ Technologies


SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE FORTY-NINER CLAYSTONE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD USING A FOR~ATlqN-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY AND Tj = 3.0 X 10 - m /s

I Figure A.20

A-22


SIMULATED* AND SPECIFIED t WELLBORE PRESSURES DURING DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

2.3 T; = 9.0E-09 m2/s To = 5.0E-l0 m /s S = 1.0E-05 rb = 40 m

Time Segments Used in SimUlation

~2*--t3tt4*1 5 t _____ 1- 6 t -i ----. 1.9 o

D-:::;;: ~

w IY: :::> U1 U1 1.5 w IY: D-

1.1

0.7

1.3

325 345 365 385

TIME (1·987 CALENDAR DAYS)


T; = 9.0E-09 m2/s To = 5.0E-l0 m /s S = 1.0E-05

~ 1.1

0 D-:::;;:

w IY: :::> U1 U1 W IY: D-

0.9

0.7

Drawn by

Checked by

Revisions

rb = 40 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

x x x x x

325 345


J.D.A. Date 2/23/89

G.S. Date 2/23/89

ABW Date 6/23/89

H09700R876 2/23/89

I NTER .. '\ Technologies

365 385


SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE FORTY-NINER CLAYSTONE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD USING A FORMATI<;iN-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY AND To = 5.0 X 10- 0 m /s

Figure A.21

A-23

405

405

-

2.3 -

-


SIMULATED* AND SPECIFIED t WELLBORE PRESSURES

T; = 9.0E-09 mis To = 5.0E-09 m /s S = 1.0E-05



- H-2*--t3tt4*1 st I 6t -1 rb = 40 m

- -

~ 1.9' -

0 D- -L ~ -w IX -:::> Ul Ul 1.5 -w IX D- -

-

-

1.1 -

-

-

~ \

-

0.7

325 I

315 I I I I I

365 385 405


1.3 -,--------------------------------------------------____________________ ,


T; = 9.0E-09 m2js To = 5.0E-09 m /s

- S = 1.0E-05 rb = 40 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

~ 1.1 -

0 (L

L ~

W IX -::::> Ul Ul W IX (L

0.9 -

'* '* x -K x x x x x

0.7 I 315 325


Drawn by J. D. A. Date 2/23/89

Checked by G. S . Date 2123/89


H09700R876 2/23/89

I Nrtlt.'\ Technologies

xxx xX" >«x X

x xxx-/'

xx

IXxXXX

.it!' xxx ~:oE:XX«

>OX x x

x ~ V X

X

x

I I I I I

365 385


SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE FORTY-NINER CLAYSTONE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD USING A FOR~ATION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY AND To = 5.0 X 10- m2/s

Figure A.22

A-24

405

-2.3 -

---

~ 1.9 -

0 0.. -:::< ~ -w a:: -~ (j) (j) 1.5 -w a:: 0.. -

-

-

1.1 -

--

-

0.7

.325

1 . .3

-

~ 1.1 -o

0.. :::< ~

w a:: ~ (j) (j) w a:: 0..

-

0.9 -

0.7

.325


SIMULATED. AND SPECIFIEDt WELLBORE PRESSURES DURING DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

T; = 9.0E-09 mjs To = 1.5E -09 m /5 S = 1.0E-05 rb = 20 m


ti-2·---t 3 tt 4 * I 5 t--------il!- 6 t--f

I

r--

I I 365


I


T; = 9.0E-09 m2js To = 1.5E-09 m /s S = 1.0E-05 rb = 20 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

x x X X X

I

x Xx

x X

v

I 3~5 I


I


Drawn by J.D.A. Date 2/23/89 SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE FORTY-NINER CLAYSTONE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD USING A FORMATION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY AND rb = 20 m



H09700R876 2/23/89

405

405

I N'rtIL,\ Technologies Figure A.23

A-25


- SIMULATED. AND SPECIFIED t WELLBORE PRESSURES

2.3 -DURING DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

-

-

T; = 9.0E-09 m':js To = 1.5E-09 m /s S = 1.0E-05 rb = 80 m


~ 2*--t 3tt 4 * I 5 t---------1It-- 6 t-i - -

~ 1.9 -

0 0... -::;; ~

-w n:: -::J Vl Vl 1.5 -w n:: 0... -

-

-

1.1 -

-

- ~ \

-

0.7 I I I I I I I

325 345 365 385 405


1.3 -,----------------------------------------------------------------------~ SIMULATED H-16 PRESSURE DURING THE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

T; = 9.0E-09 m2js To = 1.5E-09 m /s S = 1.0E-05 -rb = 80 m X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMUUlTION

~ 1.1-o

0... ::;; ~

w n:: -::J Vl Vl W n:: 0...

0.9 -

-~

0.7

325

x x x x x

I I 345

jf:x jf: x





H09700R876 2/23/89

I NTEfLI\ Technologies

x

x

x x

tV x

I I I

365


I 385

I

SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE FORTY-NINER CLAYSTONE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD USING A FORMATION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY AND rb = 80 m

Figure A.24

A-26

405

-

2.3 -

-


SIMULATED· AND SPECIFIED t WELlBORE PRESSURES DURING DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

-

T,= 9.0E-09 m2/s S = 1.0E-05


H-2·--t at14 ·:..j.I----- 5 t-------i/- 6 t-l - - ~

~ 1.9 -

0 a.. -:::;: ~ -w cr -:::l (/) (/) 1.5 -w cr a.. -

-

-

1.1 -

-

- ~ \

-0.7

325 405

I

315 I I I I I

365 385



T, = 9.0E-09 m2/s S = 1.0E-05

- X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION xxx

xxX ,""xx

~ 1.1 -

0 a.. :::;: ~

w cr -:::l (/) (/) w cr a..

0.9 -

,*X

'* -foe x x x x x x

0.7 I

315 325

. TIME 0 = JANUARY 1, 1987




H09700R876 2/23/89

I NrtIl.,\ Technologies

X

xxxE xx

IXXXXX

.;:r. xxx #" ><:xX«

>OX x x

x >< V x

x x

x

I I I I I

365 385


SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE FORTY-NINER CLAYSTONE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD WITHOUT A FORf1ATION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY AND T, = 9.0 X 10-9 m /s

Figure A.25

A-27

405

-

2.3 -


SIMULATED* AND SPECIFIEDt WELLBORE PRESSURES DURING DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD

-

-

Tf = 1.SE-09 m2/s Time Segments Used in Simulation

S = 1.0E-OS H-2*----t3tt4"'1 st I 6t -i -

0-1.9 -

0.. -::::. ~ -w (Y -:J Vl Vl 1.5 -w (Y 0.. -

--

1.1 -

---

0.7

325

1.3

-

~ 1.1-o

0.. ::::.

w (Y ::J Vl Vl w (Y 0..

-

0.9 -

- -

~ \ I I I

3~5 I

3~5 I

345


SIMULATED H-16 PRESSURE DURING THE DRILLING/REAMiNG PERIOD

Tf = 1.SE-09 m2/s S = 1.0E-OS X = OBSERVED DATA - = SIMULATION

x x x x x

405

0.7 ~------I~----~I------~I------~I------~I-----~I-----~I----~

325 345 365 385 405





H09700R876 2/23/89



SPECIFIED AND SIMULATED WELLBORE PRESSURES AND SIMULATED AND OBSERVED FORMATION FLUID PRESSURES FOR THE FORTY-NINER CLAYSTONE DRILLING/REAMING PERIOD WITHOUT A FORf1ATION-HETEROGENEITY BOUNDARY AND Tf = 1.5 X 10-9 m/s

Figure A.26

A-28

DISTRIBUTION:

U. S. Department of Energy (5) Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

Management Office of Geological Repositories Forrestal Building Washington, DC 20585

Deputy Director, RW-2 Associate Director, RW-10

Office of Program Administration and Resources Management

Associate Director, RW-20 Office of Facilities Siting and

Development Associate Director, RW-30

Office of Systems Integration and Regulations

Associate Director, RW-40 Office of External Relations and

Policy

U. S. Department of Energy (3) Albuquerque Operations Office P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185

B. G. Twining J. E. Bickel R. Marquez, Director

Public Affairs Division

U. S. Department of Energy / AL Attn: National Atomic Museum Librarian P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185

U. S. Department of Energy (9) WIPP Project Office (Carlsbad) P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221

A. Hunt (4) T. Lukow V. Daub (2) R. Batra J. Carr

U. S. Department of Energy Research & Waste Management Division P.O. Box E Oak Ridge, TN 37831

W. R. Bibb, Director

U. S. Department of Energy Richland Operations Office Nuclear Fuel Cycle & Production

Division P.O. Box 500 Richland, WA 99352

R.E.Gerton

U. S. Department of Energy (5) Office of Defense Waste and

Transportation Management WaShington, DC 20545

T. B. Hindman ---- DP-12 C. H. George ----- DP-124 M. Duff ---------- DP-123 A. Follett ------- DP-122 J. Mather -------- DP-123

U. S. Department of Energy (2) Idaho Operations Office Fuel Processing and Waste

Management Division 785 DOE Place Idaho Falls, ID 83402

U. S. Department of Energy (4) Savannah River Operations Office Waste Management Project Office P.O. Box A Aiken, SC 29802

S. Cowan W. J. Brumley J. R. Covell D. Fulmer

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation Programs (ANR460) Washington, DC 20460

D. J. Egan, Jr. M. Cotton

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (4) Division of Waste Management Mail Stop 623SS Washington, DC 20555

M. Bell H. Miller J.Philip NRC Library

U. S. Geological Survey Branch of Regional Geology MS913, Box 25046 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225

R. Snyder

U. S. Geological Survey (2) Water Resources Division Suite 200 4501 Indian School, NE Albuquerque, NM 87110

C. Peters

New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (3)

Environmental Evaluation Group 7007 Wyoming Blvd., NE, Suite F-2 Albuquerque, NM 87109

R. H. Neill, Director

NM Department of Energy & Minerals P.O. Box 2770 Santa Fe, NM 87501

K. laPlante, Librarian

New Mexico State Engineers Office District II, 909 E. Second P.O. Box 1717 Roswell, NM 88201

A. Mason

U. S. Geological Survey Conservation Division P.O. Box 1857 Roswell, NM 88201

W. Melton

2

New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources (2)

Socorro, NM 87801 F. E. Kottolowski, Director J. Hawley

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories (6)

Battelle Boulevard Richland, WA 99352

D. J. Bradley J. Relyea R. E. Westerman S. Bates H. C. BUrkholder L. Pederson

Bechtel Inc. (2) P.O. Box 3965 45-11-B34 San Francisco, CA 94119

E. Weber H. Taylor

Westinghouse Electric Corporation (8) P.O. Box 2078 Carlsbad, NM 88221

Library A. L. Trego W. P. POirer W. R. Chiquelin V. F. Likar R. F. Kehrman K. Broberg R. F. Cook

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (4) BoxY Oak Ridge, TN 37830

R. E. Blanko E. Bondietti C. Claiborne G. H. Jenks

INTERA Inc. (17) 6580 Austin Center Blvd., #300 Austin, TX 78731

G. E. Grisak J. F. Pickens G. J. Saulnier (5) J. L. Lolcama A. Haug J. D. Avis (5) M. Reeves T. L. Cauffman Library

INTERA Inc. (4) P.O. Box 2123 Carlsbad, NM 88221

W. A. Stensrud P. S. Domski R. Roberts J. B. Palmer

IT Corporation (2) P.O. Box 2078 Carlsbad, NM 88221

D. Deal

IT Corporation (4) 5301 Central Ave., NE Suite 700 Albuquerque, NM ,87108

R. F. McKinney M. E. Crawley R. M. Holt J. Myers

REjSPEC, Inc. (5) P.O. Box 725 Rapid City, SD 57709

L. L. Van Sambeek T. Pfeifle G. Callahan J. L. Ratigan J. D. Osnes

REjSPEC, Inc. (2) P.O. Box 14984 Albuquerque, NM 87191

W. E. Coons P. F. Gnirk

S-Cubed (3) P.O. Box 1620 La Jolla, CA 92038

E. Peterson P. Lagus K. Lie

University of Arizona Department of Nuclear Engineering Tucson, AZ 85721

J. G. McCray

University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Geology and Geophysics 1215 W. Dayton St. Madison, WI 53706

M. P. Anderson

The Pennsylvania State University Materials Research Laboratory University Park, PA 16802

D.Roy

Texas A&M University Center of Tectonophysics College Station, TX 77840

J. Handin

University of Texas at EI Paso Department of Geological Sciences EI Paso, TX 79968

D. W. Powers

University of New Mexico (3) Geology Department Albuquerque, NM 87131

D. G. Brookins M. Campana Library

3

New Mexico Tech (3) Department of Geoscience Socorro, NM 87801

J. Wilson F. Phillips C.S.Chen

Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne,IL 60439

D. Hambeley

Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM 87545

B. Erdal, CNC-11

Brookhaven National Laboratory Associated Universities, Inc. Upton, NY 11973

P. W. Levy, Senior Scientist

National Academy of Sciences, WIPP Panel:

4

Dr. Charles Fairhurst, Chairman Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering University of Minnesota 500 Pillsbury Dr., SE Minneapolis, MN 55455

Dr. Frank L. Parker Department of Environmental and

Water Resources Engineering Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN 37235

Dr. John O. Blomeke Route 3 Sandy Shore Drive Lenoir City, TN 37771

Dr. John D. Bredehoeft Western Region Hydrologist Water Resources Division U. S. Geological Survey 345 Middlefield Road Menlo Park, CA 94025

Dr. Karl P. Cohen 928 N. California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303

Dr. Fred M. Ernsberger 250 Old Mill Road Pittsburgh, PA 15238

Dr. Rodney C. Ewing Department of Geology University of New Mexico 200 Yale, NE Albuquerque, NM 87131

Dr. George M. Hornberger Department of Environmental Sciences Clark Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22903

Dr. D'Arcy A. Shock 233 Virginia Ponca City, OK 74601

Dr. Christopher G. Whipple Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303

Dr. Peter B. Meyers, Staff Director National Academy of Sciences Committee on Radioactive Waste

Management 2101 Constitution Avenue Washington, DC 20418

Ina Alterman National Academy of Sciences Board on Radioactive Waste

Management GF462 2101 Constitution Avenue Washington, DC 20418

Hobbs Public Library 509 N. Ship Street Hobbs, NM 88248

M. Lewis, Librarian

New Mexico Tech Martin Speere Memorial Library Campus Street Socorro, NM 87810

New Mexico State Library P.O. Box 1629 Santa Fe, NM 87503

I. Vollenhofer

Zimmerman Library University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131

Z. Vivian

WIPP Public Reading Room Atomic Museum Kirtland East AFB Albuquerque, NM 87185

G. Schreiner

WIPP Public Reading Room Carlsbad Municipal Library 101 S. Halagueno St. Carlsbad, NM 88220

L. Hubbard, Head Librarian

British Nuclear Fuels, PLC Risley, Warrington, Cheshire WA3 6AS 1002607 GREAT BRITAIN

D. R. Knowles

Institut fOr Tieflagerung (4) Theodor-Heuss Strasse 4 D-3300 Braunschweig FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

K.Kuhn

Bundesanstalt fOr Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (3)

Postfach 510153 D-3000 Hannover 51 FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

M. Langer P. Vogel K. Schelkes

Hahn-Meitner Institut fOr Kernforschung

Glienicker Strasse 100 100 Berlin 39 FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

W. Lutze

Bundesministerium fOr Forschung und Technologie

Postfach 200 706 D-5300 Bonn 2 FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Rolf-Peter Randl

Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt

Postfach 33 45 D-3300 Braunschweig FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

P. Brenneke

Kernforschung Karlsruhe Postfach 3640 D-7500 Karlsruhe FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

K. D. Closs

Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute Tokaii~uri, Naka-Gun I baraki-Ken 319-11, JAPAN

Shingo Tashiro

Svensk Karnbransleforsorjning AB Project KBS Karnbranslesakerhet Box 5864 S-102 48 Stockholm, SWEDEN

F. Karlsson

Svensk Karnbranslehantering AB (2) Box 5864 S-102 48 Stockholm, SWEDEN

A. Strom K.-E. Almen

5

Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. (4) Whiteshell Nuclear Research

Establishment Pinewa, Manitoba, CANADA ROE 1LO

P.Haywood J. Tait C. C. Davison D. Stevenson

Studiecentrum Voor Kernenergie Centre D'Energie Nucleaire SCK/CEN Boeratang 200 B-2400 Mol, BELGIUM

A Bonne

Ontario Hydro Research Lab (2) 800 Kipling Avenue Toronto, Ontario, CANADA M8Z 5S4

D. K. Mukerjee A T. Jakubick

Centre D'Etudes Nucleaires De La Vallee Rhone

CEN/ /yALRHO S.D.H.A. BP 171 30205 Bagnols-Sur-Ceze, FRANCE

C. Sombret

OECD Nuclear Energy Agency Division of Radiation Protection

and Waste Management 38, Boulevard Suchet 75016 Paris, FRANCE

J-P Olivier

Netherlands Energy Research Foundation ECN (2)

3 Westerduinweg P.O. Box 1 1755 ZG Petten, THE NETHERLANDS

T. Deboer, Mgr. L. H. Vons

6

Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieuhygiene (2)

Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9 P.O. Box 1 3720 BA Bilthoven, THE NETHERLANDS

P. Glasbergen S. M. Hassanizadeh

Nationale Genossenschaft fur die Lagerung Radioaktiver Abfiille (3)

Parkstrasse 23 CH-5401 Baden, SWITZERLAND

P. Hufschmied C. McCombie M. Thury

Sveriges Geologiska AB Pusterviksgatan 2 S-41301 Goteborg, SWEDEN

A Winberg

Environment Canada National Water Research Institute Canada Centre for I nland Lakes 867 Lakeshore Road P.O. Box 5050 Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6 CANADA

K. S. Novakowski

Energy, Mines and Resources Canada Geological Survey of Canada 601 Booth St. Ottawa, Ontario K1 A OE8 CANADA

D. Boyle

Technical Research Center of Finland Nuclear Engineering Laboratory P.O. Box 169 SF-00181 Helsinki, FINLAND

V. Taivassalo

Gartner-Lee Limited 140 Renfrew Drive Markham, Ontario L3R 6B3 CANADA

K. G. Kennedy

University of British Columbia Department of Geological Sciences Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1 W5 CANADA

R. A. Freeze

ANDRA 31 Rue de la Federation 75015 Paris, FRANCE

D. Alexandre, Deputy Director

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Building 2001 Ecological Sciences Information

Center P.O. Box X Oak Ridge, TN 37830

C. S. Fore

Princeton University Department of Civil Engineering

Princeton, NJ 08504 G. Pinder

Rockwell International Rocky Flats Plant Golden, CO 80401

C. E. Wickland

National Ground Water Information Center

6375 Riverside Drive Dublin, OH 43017

J. Bix

University of California (3) Lawrence W. Berkeley Laboratory Berkeley, CA 94720

P. A. Witherspoon J. C. S. Long S. M. Benson

Kansas Geological Survey University of Kansas 1930 Constant Avenue, Campus West Lawrence, KS 66046

J. Butler

Roswell Public Library 301 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Roswell, NM 88201

N. Langston

U. S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division

521 W. Seneca St. Ithaca, NY 14850

R. M. Yager

U. S. Geological Survey (2) Water Resources Division 345 Middlefield Rd. Menlo Park, CA 94025

P. Hsieh A. F. Moench

Texas A&M University Department of Geology College Station, TX 77843

P. A. Domenico

Pannell Library New Mexico Junior College Lovington Highway

Hobbs, NM 88240 R. Hill

Government Publications Dept. General Library University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131

Savannah River Laboratory (6) Aiken, SC 29801

N. Bibler E. L. Albenisius M. J. Plodinec G. G. Wicks C. Jantzen J. A. Stone

Savannah River Plant Building 704-S Aiken, SC 29808

R. G. Baxter

7

Arthur D. Little, Inc. Acorn Park Cambridge, MA 01240-2390

C. R. Hadlock

University of Arizona Department of Hydrology Tucson, AZ 85721

S. P. Neuman

S. S. Papadopulos and Assoc., Inc. 12596 W. Bayaud Ave., Suite 290 Lakewood, CO 80228

J. W. Anthony

Golder Associates 4104 148th Avenue NE Redmond, WA 98052

T. W. Doe

Scientific Software-Intercomp 1801 California, 2nd Floor Denver, CO 80202

J. M. Sofia

SAIC 10260 Campus Point Drive San Diego, CA 92121

H. R. Pratt

SAIC Suite 1250 160 Spear St. San Francisco, CA 94105

M. B. Gross

SAIC 101 Convention Center Dr. Las Vegas, NV 89109

G. Dymmel

Thomas Brannigan Library 106 W. Hadley St. Las Cruces, NM 88001

D. Dresp, Head Librarian

8

Emcon Associates 1921 Ringwood Avenue San Jose, CA 95131

F. W. Fenzel

L. Lehman and Associates, Inc. 1103 W. Burnsville Parkway Suite 209 Minneapolis, MN 55337

L. Lehman

Sandia Internal:

1510 J. W. Nunziato 6342 K. Brinster 1511 D. F. McTigue 6342 M. G. Marietta 1520 C. W. Peterson 6342 R. P. Rechard 1521 R. D. Krieg 6343 T. M. Schultheis 1521 H. S. Morgan 6344 E. D. Gorham 3141 S. A. Landenberger (5) 6344 R. L. Beauheim (5) 3151 W. I. Klein (3) 6344 P. B. Davies 3154-1 C. L. Ward, for DOEjOSTI (8) 6344 S. J. Finley 6000 D. L. Hartley 6344 A. L. Jensen 6200 V. L. Dugan 6344 A. M. LaVenue 6232 W. R. Wawersik 6344 R. Z. Lawson 6233 T. M. Gerlach 6344 M. D. Siegel 6253 D. A. Northrup 6344 S. W. Webb 6253 N. R. Warpinski 6345 A. R. Lappin 6300 R. W. Lynch 6345 L. H. Brush 6310 T. O. Hunter 6345 K. L. Robinson 6311 A. L. Stevens 6346 J. R. Tillerson 6312 F. W. Bingham 6416 E. J. Bonano 6313 T. E. Blejwas 9300 J. E. Powell 6315 L. E. Shephard 9310 J. D. Plimpton 6316 R. P. Sandoval 9320 M. J. Navratil 6317 S. Sinnock 9325 R. L. Rutter 6340 W. D. Weart 9325 J. T. Mcllmoyle 6340 S. Y. Pickering 9330 J. O. Kennedy 6341 R. C. Lincoln 9333 O. L. Burchett 6341 R. L. Hunter 9333 J. W. Mercer 6341 Sandia WIPP Central Files (5) 9335 P. D. Seward

(700HIND) 8524 J. A. Wackerly (SNLL Library) 6342 D. R. Anderson

'" u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1990-773'118/20046 9

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111

8232-2/070179

1111111111/11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111II

00000001 ----- - - - - - -- ~ ------ -----

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

8232-2/070179

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

· 00000001 -- ---- -- ----- --------

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

· 8232-2/070179

· 111111111/11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 .

00000001 -

Documents

CONTRACTOR REPORT r~$-82~2.~2/1017~~ 5 t-f Unlimited ... · 9.0 x 10-9 m2/s and a far-field transmissivity of 1.3 x 10-9 m2/s. GTFM was used to simulate the flow rates of ground water