Post on 31-Mar-2018
transcript
Carbonates in Ontario - Porous medium, double porosity,
or karst aquifers?
Steve Worthington Worthington Groundwater
Presentation to IAH, Toronto
November 12, 2013
Topics
1) Case study: source area for the pathogenic bacteria at Walkerton
2) Preferential flow in other carbonate aquifers in southern Ontario. Is the Walkerton aquifer unusual?
3) How, where, and when dissolution occurs
4) Conclusions
1) Case study: Source area for the pathogenic
bacteria at Walkerton
Michigan basin carbonate rocks
Worthington et al. (2012)
MississippianDevonianSilurianOrdovician
0 100 km
W
LakeHuron
LakeMichigan
Lake Superior
LakeErie
LakeOntario
NY
Ontario
PAOH
MI
WI
MI
IL
IN
Locations in Ontario
W WalkertonC CambridgeS Smithville
C S
Carbonates are widespread in S Ontario
Water supply from 3 wells
Rainfall at Walkerton - 130 mm
“The Walkerton Tragedy”
Worthington et al. (2002)
Chair of Walkerton Inquiry
- Justice O'Connor
Walkerton Tragedy - basic facts
P Municipal water supply contaminated by pathogenic bacteria. P Town of 5000
P Seven deaths
P 2300 illnesses (some chronic)
P chlorination inadequate
Walkerton - drawdown from pumping test at two wells
3.1
3.4
7.1
16.14.0
3.0
>1.4
4
3
4
0 200 m
Well 7
Well 6Spring
B
Well 9
Drawdown (m)RoadsStreams
Looks like porous medium response
Worthington et al., 2012
Walkerton - response to pumping
1.0E-4 0.001 0.01 0.10.01
0.1
1.
10.
Time, t/r2 (min/m2)
Cor
rect
edD
ispl
acem
ent(
m)
Response at Well 7 to pumping at Well 9 Fits Theis curve Looks like porous medium response
Worthington et al., 2012
Gamma/ flow meter logs at Walkerton
Gamma log for
depth correlation.
Flow meter show inflows to wells are concentrated on a few
bedding planes
9 horizons in Well 6 5 horizons in Well 7
average spacing ~10 m
Worthington et al., 2012
Inflow to wells in sand and carbonates
Interpretation of flow in carbonates
Hydraulic conductivity of the matrix
• No data from Walkerton • Good packer test data from dolostone at Smithville
(Novakowski et al., 1999) • Unfractured intervals • Geometric mean K = 10-8 m/s • 4 orders of magnitude less than K from pumping tests • Almost all flow is through fractures / channels
Similar to other carbonates aquifer
0.01 0.1 1
1
10-6
10-8
Hyd
raul
ic c
ondu
ctivi
ty (
m/s
)
Porosity
10-10
10-12
10-4
10-2
matrix
channeland
fracture
0.0001 0.001
JK S
P C
C
M2
S
JP K
M1
M1
M2D
D
S = Silurian at Smithville Worthington and Ford (2009)
Solutionally-enlarged fractures
are continuous
Positive feedback process - most dissolution occurs where the fractures are largest and there is most flow
Note: not to scale fracture spacing 5m maximum aperture 5cm
Worthington and Ford (2009) after Dreybrodt et al. (2005)
recharge
recharge
Interpretation of flow in unconfined carbonate aquifers
Travel time calculation for Walkerton (and for wellhead protection areas)
T = L ne K i T time L length ne effective porosity K hydraulic conductivity i hydraulic gradient
Travel time calculation for Walkerton (and for wellhead protection areas)
T = L ne two unknowns K i T time L length ne effective porosity K hydraulic conductivity i hydraulic gradient
How to estimate effective porosity
A) K and orthogonal fracture sets B) Storage from pumping tests C) Fracture apertures from downhole video D) MODFLOW and tracer test velocity
Method A - Model to calculate effective porosity
Hydraulic gradient andgroundwater flow
Fracturespacing
(1/N)
Aperture(b)
cubic law K = ρgNb3 / 12 b = (6Kµ / ρgN)1/3 horizontal flow for 2 fracture sets ne = 3bN for 3 fracture sets
Worthington et al., 2012
Walkerton - fracture aperture/spacing
modified from Worthington et al., 2012
Gamma/ flow meter logs at Walkerton
Gamma log for
depth correlation.
Flow meter show inflows to wells are concentrated on a few
bedding planes
9 horizons in Well 6 5 horizons in Well 7
average spacing ~10 m
Worthington et al., 2012
Walkerton - fracture aperture/spacing
Worthington et al., 2012
Velocities from cubic law 100
0
20
40
60
80
Velo
city
(m
/day
)
Channel aperture (mm)0.01 0.1 1 10
0.00
1
0.00
3
0.01
Rapid velocities from very modest apertures
Method B - early time storage for double porosity aquifer
Kruseman and de Ridder, 1994 s=drawdown, t=time
Walkerton - K and S from pumping test
Worthington et al., 2012
Method C - downhole video
Golder Associates, 2000
Where 50% of the flow enters Well 6
Well 7 test well - Walkerton
•Almost all flow from just a few bedding planes
• These are channels
Natural gamma (cps)0 200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
5%
<5%
55%
25%15%
Figure- Worthington et al., 2012; Photos - Golder Associates, 2000
Method C - effective porosity from video
Worthington et al., 2012
Travel time calculation for Walkerton
T = L ne two unknowns K i estimates 2.5% or 0.1% T time L length ne effective porosity K hydraulic conductivity i hydraulic gradient
Method D - tracer testing (Well 9 eosin injection)
photo by Steve Worthington 95 m from Well 7 (pumping well)
Well 6 - tracer injection (sodium fluorescein)
photo by Steve Worthington 354 m from Well 7 (pumping well)
Determination of mass of tracer to inject
Equations based on results of 272 tracer tests
Worthington and Smart, 2013
Tracer recoveries at Well 7
Distance: 95 m
Distance: 354 m
modified from Worthington et al., 2001
Walkerton 3-day travel times from MODFLOW
282
283
284
285
285
0 200 m
3-day particle trackwith n =2.5%tracer test vectorhead (m asl)roadcreek
e
Well 9
Well 6
Well 7
282
283
284
285
285
284
0 200 m
284
282
283
Well 9
Well 6
Well 7
284
3-day particle trackwith n =0.05%tracer test vectorhead (m asl)roadcreek
e
Effective porosity 2.5% - original model
Effective porosity 0.05% - model calibrated to tracer test from Well 6
Worthington et al., 2012
Method D - MODFLOW and tracer tests
Worthington et al., 2012
Predictions at Walkerton Inquiry
Worthington et al., 2012
2) Preferential flow in other carbonate aquifers in southern Ontario
- Is the Walkerton aquifer unusual?
Small channels in dolostone (horizontal view) clearly solutionally-enlarged bedding planes
video (apertures 2-5 mm) televiewer (aperture 5 cm) Worthington (2008) and McFarland (2010)
Groundwater velocities in carbonates in S. Ontario
Worthington et al., 2012
Tracer tests at Walkerton are in centre of distribution So they are typical of Ontario carbonate aquifers
3) How, where, and when dissolution occurs
How dissolution occurs
limestone + carbon dioxide + water ↔ calcium + bicarbonate (dissolved) (dissolved)
CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O ↔ Ca + 2HCO3
Limestone dissolved if equation proceeds to the right
Precipitation (e.g. stalactites) if equation moves to left
CO2 in atmosphere 394 ppm
CO2 in soil air 1000 - 100,000 ppm
Saturation with respect to calcite
Lab studies starting with Berner and
Morse (1974)
- most dissolution close to bedrock surface, which produces a weathered zone
- dissolution deeper in bedrock created network of solutionally-enlarged fractures
- results in high K aquifer
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Solut
ion r
ate /
Init
ial r
ate
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1Ca / Ca (equilibrium)
Berner
Herman
Plummer
Svensson
Eisenlohr
Fracture dissolution - time to onset of turbulent flow
where:
T - time
a - initial fracture aperture
L - distance
i - hydraulic gradient
Dreybrodt, 1990
T = 0.033 L1.25 a-2.8 i-1.3 (years)
Importance of recharge type
• Percolation recharge
• Sinking stream recharge
Where percolation recharge then many small channels
c =0.98c ; t=100,000 yin eqB
Worthington and Ford (2009) after Dreybrodt et al. (2005)
Small channels in dolostone (horizontal view) - clearly solutionally-enlarged fractures
video (apertures 2-5 mm) televiewer (aperture 5 cm) Worthington (2008) and McFarland (2010)
Where sinking streams recharge then large channels + small channels
c =0; t=16,700 yinA
Worthington and Ford (2009) after Dreybrodt et al. (2005)
Sinking stream at Nexus Cave, Hamilton
Photo: Steve Worthington
Substantial dissolution - Large flux of water - Water is undersaturated wrt calcite
Nexus Cave (Hamilton)
WindowEntrance
Exploration ends at this point, butwater-filled passage (sump) continues.
SecondEntrance
Main Entrance
First Entrance(swallet)
Nexus Creek
speleothemsamples
shaft(inside cave)
Ngrid
Nm
agnetic
N e x u s
D r y
V a l l e y
Shallow quarryOutline of blind valleyStream channel (surface)
Cave passage (inferred)Cave passage (surveyed)
Doline, depressionIsolated soil pipe
Thin overburden (< 1.0 m thick)Cave entrance, grike
LEGEND
Surveyed from 1999 to 2001 toBCRA Grade 5D by M. Buck,G. Warchol and N. Pietroiusti.Drafted by M. Buck, March 2001.Revised January 2002. Magneticdeclination is 11.8°W of grid north.Surveyed length: 324 metresEstimated length: 344 metres
Nexus CaveStoney Creek, Ontario
0 10 20 30 40 50
metres
Photo by Marcus Buck
Solutionally-enlarged fractures
are continuous
Positive feedback process - most dissolution occurs where the fractures are largest and there is most flow
Worthington and Ford (2009) after Dreybrodt et al. (2005)
Timescale for channel enlargement
- fast – 16,000 years
- slow - 100,000 years
- flow through Ontario carbonates for millions of years so plenty of time
Worthington and Ford (2009) after Dreybrodt et al. (2005)
General relationship between K and TDS
F = fresh water (<500 mg/L TDS, high K = substantial groundwater flow and dissolution B = brackish (500 - 5000 mg/L TDS, lower K = moderate flow and dissolution S = saline (>5000 mg/L TDS, even lower K = little flow or dissolution
modified from Worthington, 2011
Water-yielding capabilities
based on specific capacity data from Ontario water well database
Singer et al., 2003
4) Conclusions
Do carbonates behave as porous media? Yes, for flow (but not for transport)
1.0E-4 0.001 0.01 0.10.01
0.1
1.
10.
Time, t/r2 (min/m2)C
orre
cted
Dis
plac
emen
t(m
)
Worthington et al., 2012
3.1
3.4
7.1
16.14.0
3.0
>1.4
4
3
4
0 200 m
Well 7
Well 6Spring
B
Well 9
Drawdown (m)RoadsStreams
Do carbonates behave as double porosity aquifers? Yes, needed to understand transport.
Hydraulic gradient andgroundwater flow
Fracturespacing
(1/N)
Aperture(b)
Worthington et al., 2012
In practice, use MODFLOW with low effective porosity
Are Ontario carbonate aquifers karstic?
It depends on one's definition
There is no consensus
Definition of "karst aquifer" in Freeze and Cherry (1979) works well
References
Dreybrodt, W., 1990. The role of dissolution kinetics in the development of karst aquifers in limestone: a model simulation of karst evolution. Journal of Geology, 98, no. 5, 639-655.
Dreybrodt, W., Gabrovšek, F., and Romanov, D., 2005, Processes of speleogenesis: a modeling approach. Karst Research Institute at ZRC SAZU, Postojna – Ljubljana, 376 p.
Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry, 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 604 p. Golder Associates, 2000. Interim report on hydrogeological assessment, well integrity testing, geophysical surveys and land use
inventory, bacteriological impacts, Walkerton town wells, Municipality of Brockton, County of Bruce, Ontario, 351 p. (Walkerton Inquiry Exhibit 258).
Kruseman, G.P., and de Ridder, N.A., 1994. Analysis and evaluation of pumping test data. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Wageningen, Netherlands, Publication 47, 377 p.
McFarland, S., 2010. Witness statement, Proposed Nelson Aggregate Co. Quarry Extension, Burlington Associates. Golder Associates report 021-1238.
Novakowski, N., P. Lapcevic, G. Bickerton, J. Voralek, L. Zanini and C. Talbot, 1999, The development of a conceptual model for contaminant transport in the dolostone underlying Smithville, Ontario. National Water Research Institute, Burlingon, Ontario, 98 p.
Singer, S.N., Cheng, C.K., and Scafe, M.G., 2003. The hydrogeology of southern Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 200 p.
Worthington, S.R.H., 2008. Karst investigations at the proposed St Marys Flamborough Quarry. In: AECOM Canada Ltd., 2009, Hydrogeological Level 2 report, St Marys Flamborough Quarry.
Worthington, S.R.H., 2011. Karst assessment. OPG's Deep Geologic Repository for low and intermediate level waste. Nuclear Waste Management Organization report DGR-TR-2011-22.
Worthington, S.R.H., and D.C. Ford, 2009, Self-organized permeability in carbonate aquifers. Ground Water, 47, no. 3, 326-336. Worthington, S.R.H., Smart, C.C., Ruland, W., 2001, Karst Hydrogeological Investigations at Walkerton. Addendum report, 27 p.
Submitted to the Walkerton Inquiry, November 2001. Worthington, S.R.H., Smart, C.C., and Ruland, W.W., 2002, Assessment of groundwater velocities to the municipal wells at
Walkerton, Proceedings of the 2002 Joint annual conference of the Canadian Geotechnical Society and the Canadian Chapter of the International Association of Hydrogeologists, Niagara Falls, Ontario, p. 1081-1086.
Worthington, S.R.H., Smart, C.C., Ruland, W., 2012, Effective porosity of a carbonate aquifer with bacterial contamination: Walkerton, Ontario, Canada. Journal of Hydrology, 464-465, 517-527.
Worthington, S.R.H., and Smart, C.C., 2013, Determination of tracer mass for effective groundwater tracer tests. Carbonates and Evaporites. In press.