APPENDIX G
Straddle Packer Testing Analysis
John Kozuskanich and Morgan Schauerte10/16/2009
CONTENTS1. BOREHOLE HISTORY ............................................................................................................................... .. 1
2. BOREHOLE CAMERA OBSERVATIONS....................................................................................................... 2
3. HYDRAULIC TESTING METHODS............................................................................................................... 2
4. RESULTS............................................................................................................................... ..................... 4
APPENDIX A: Borehole Log BH5.................................................................................................................... 6
APPENDIX B: Borehole Camera Observations............................................................................................. 10
APPENDIX C: Hydraulic Testing Data........................................................................................................... 12
1
1. BOREHOLE HISTORYMonitoring borehole MW5 was originally cored by G.E.T. Drilling on September 18, 2006. The boreholelog (BH5, Appendix A) indicates the coring equipment used was CME 55, HQ core, and SS. The logindicates there is “above grade piezometer stickup and casing and no screen”. Lithology and fracturelocations and remarks were made on BH5 presumably based on core interpretation by a representativefrom MALROZ.
The borehole was inspected prior to hydraulic testing by members of Intera Engineering (MichaelMelaney) and Queen’s University (John Kozuskanich and Morgan Schauerte). Figure 1 is a picture takenof the borehole on September 15, 2009. The borehole had an unexpected 3” dia. inner metal casing andan additional 2” PVC riser within the outer 4” dia. casing visible at surface.
Figure 1: Original MW5 completion prior to the reaming of the borehole to remove the 2” dia. PVC riserand cement inside of the 3” dia. casing.
The 2” PVC standpipe and grout seal to the 3” dia. inner metal casing wer subsequently reamed out ofthe borehole during October 5 7, 2009 (sub contracted by Intera Engineering). The purpose and lengthof 2” dia. PVC used in the original completion remains unresolved. However, we estimate it likely only
4” dia.steel casing
2” dia.PVC riser
pressuretransducer
cementseal
3” dia.steel casing
2
ran to the bottom of the 3” dia. casing (roughly 6.6 m) based on the small amount of PVC shavings notedon the ground around the borehole and sitting at the bottom of the well.
2. BOREHOLE CAMERA OBSERVATIONSA submersible borehole camera was inserted into the borehole on Thursday, October 8, 2009. Thepurpose of this work was to verify that the reaming of the borehole had adequately removed the PVCpipe and grout down to the inner surface of the 3 “ dia. casing, and that the borehole was adequate forhydraulic testing. Some remnants of concrete were noted on the walls of the casing. In general, theborehole walls were in fair condition (rough in some places). It was also noted that the diameter of theborehole was 3”, not 4” as was originally thought. The notes from the borehole camera work are shownin Figure 2 along with the original observations from BH5. All features are reported with respect toground surface (mbgs = metres below ground surface, ftbgs = feet below ground surface). The boreholecamera observations are also summarized in table format in Appendix B.
3. HYDRAULIC TESTING METHODSHydraulic testing of MW5 was conducted on October 8 9, 2009. Constant head testing was the originalproposed method on a 3 m testing interval. However, this was abandoned because the assembly wasnot able to be inserted into the well safely without getting caught on the sides of the borehole(endangering the inflation lines, packer bladders and pressure transducer connection). The method waschanged to slug testing with slug volumes ranging between 5 and 10 L. The hydraulic head wasmonitored and recorded in real time during each test with a pressure transducer (100 psi DRUK) anddata logger.
Slug tests were analyzed using the Hvorslev (1951) method. The time hydraulic head curves werecorrected for the case when the head had not quite stabilized prior to the injection of the slug using anextrapolation of the shut in data (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Baseline correction method for slug tests conducted prior to the stabilization of the shut inhead. The unstablizaed shut in curve (a) is extrapolated in time (b). The difference between theextrapolated curve and the baseline (c) is the correction factor that is added to the slug response curve.This adjusts the final dataset (d) to represent the hydraulic response of the test interval to slug only.
3
Figure 2: MW5 borehole lithology and core analysis (MALROZ), borehole camera observations(Kozuskanich and Schauerte) and hydraulic testing results. The casing stickup above ground surfaceis 0.652 m (not shown on diagram). The total transmissivity of the borehole is approximately 2x10 5
m2/s.
4
A whole open hole slug test was also performed to compare to the total T calculated by discrete intervalslug testing.
Two different packer configurations were used (Table 1, Figure 4).
Table 1: Packer assembly configurations used to hydraulically test MW5.
Packer Assembly 1 Packer Assembly 2Test Interval Length (m) 1.44 1.51Diameter of standpipe 1.25” (0.03175 m) 2” (0.0508 m)
4. RESULTSThe vertical profile of borehole transmissivity in MW5 is shown in Figure 2. A summary of the analysis isshown in Appendix C. The raw data and Hvorslev analysis details for each test interval can be found infile: Lansdowne Hydraulic Testing MW5 October 2009.xlsx. The total T of the borehole estimated bysumming the packer test results is approximately 2x10 5 m2/s.
The whole hole slug test data can also be found in file: Lansdowne Hydraulic Testing MW5 October2009.xlsx. The total test length is approximately 31.5 m (38.5 mbgs total depth – 7 mbgs static waterlevel). The total T of the borehole using this method is estimated to be approximately 8x10 6 m2/s.
Note: the location fracture that maintains the head of the well ~7 mbgs remains unresolved. Thefractures in the sandstone all showed lower shut in heads compared to the static water level. Theremay be another high head fracture above the last interval tested (#44) and below the bottom of thecasing. A fracture was not noted in this zone using the borehole camera or in the core log. Water mayalso be short circuiting into the well via a poor casing seal.
5
Figure 4: Straddle packer configurations used for slug testing in Lansdowne atMW5: 1) straddle packer configuration with a test interval length of 1.44 m andthe slug introduced into the interval via a 2” dia. PVC riser, and 2) straddle packerconfiguration with a test interval length of 1.51 m and the slug introduced into theinterval via a 1.25” dia. PVC riser.
6
APPENDIX A: Borehole Log BH5
7
8
9
10
APPENDIX B: Borehole Camera Observations
11
Feature Description Legend:1) Fracture: a single fracture, 2) Fracture Zone: a series of closely spaced fractures or a large opening in the borehole wall, 3) SubverticalFracture: a single fracture that appears to intersect the borehole on an angle, 4) Subvertical Fracture/Vein: a single subvertical fracture orquartz in filled vein, 5) Poor Quality of Rock Zone: a zone of borehole where the diameter increase significantly and the rock surface is rough.
Casing stickup = 0.652 mags (metres above grond surface), 2.139 ftags (feet above ground surface).
fbtoc ftbgs mbtoc mbgs fbtoc ftbgs mbtoc mbgs
0.0 2.1 0.00 0.65 25.4 23.3 7.74 7.09 casing25.4 23.3 7.74 7.09 27.4 25.3 8.35 7.70 fracture zone25.4 23.3 7.75 7.13 25.4 23.3 7.75 7.13 static water level29.8 27.7 9.08 8.43 29.8 27.7 9.08 8.43 fracture32.2 30.1 9.81 9.16 32.3 30.2 9.85 9.19 fracture zone32.9 30.8 10.03 9.38 32.9 30.8 10.03 9.38 fracture34.5 32.4 10.52 9.86 34.5 32.4 10.52 9.86 large fracture38.4 36.3 11.70 11.05 38.4 36.3 11.70 11.05 fracture39.4 37.3 12.01 11.36 39.7 37.6 12.10 11.45 fracture zone46.5 44.4 14.17 13.52 46.5 44.4 14.17 13.52 fracture47.5 45.4 14.48 13.83 47.6 45.5 14.51 13.86 fracture zone48.9 46.8 14.90 14.25 49.9 47.8 15.21 14.56 fracture zone57.7 55.6 17.59 16.93 57.7 55.6 17.59 16.93 fracture58.7 56.6 17.89 17.24 58.7 56.6 17.89 17.24 sub vertical fracture?61.2 59.1 18.65 18.00 61.2 59.1 18.65 18.00 fracture62.1 60.0 18.93 18.28 62.1 60.0 18.93 18.28 fracture64.5 62.4 19.66 19.01 64.5 62.4 19.66 19.01 fracture65.8 63.7 20.06 19.40 65.8 63.7 20.06 19.40 fracture66.4 64.3 20.24 19.59 66.7 64.6 20.33 19.68 fracture zone67.5 65.4 20.57 19.92 67.9 65.8 20.70 20.04 fracture zone68.8 66.7 20.97 20.32 68.8 66.7 20.97 20.32 fracture69.9 67.8 21.31 20.65 69.9 67.8 21.31 20.65 fracture70.4 68.3 21.46 20.81 70.4 68.3 21.46 20.81 fracture72 69.9 21.95 21.29 72.6 70.5 22.13 21.48 fracture zone73.5 71.4 22.40 21.75 73.9 71.8 22.52 21.87 subvertical fracture75.9 73.8 23.13 22.48 77.6 75.5 23.65 23.00 poor quality of rock zone81.4 79.3 24.81 24.16 81.4 79.3 24.81 24.16 fracture86.1 84.0 26.24 25.59 86.1 84.0 26.24 25.59 fracture95.8 93.7 29.20 28.55 95.8 93.7 29.20 28.55 subvertical fracture97.2 95.1 29.63 28.97 97.2 95.1 29.63 28.97 subvertical fracture98.5 96.4 30.02 29.37 98.5 96.4 30.02 29.37 fracture101.3 99.2 30.88 30.22 101.3 99.2 30.88 30.22 fracture102.4 100.3 31.21 30.56 102.4 100.3 31.21 30.56 large fracture105.9 103.8 32.28 31.63 105.9 103.8 32.28 31.63 subvertical fracture/vein108.9 106.8 33.19 32.54 108.9 106.8 33.19 32.54 subvertical fracture/vein109.6 107.5 33.41 32.75 109.6 107.5 33.41 32.75 subvertical fracture/vein117.2 115.1 35.72 35.07 117.2 115.1 35.72 35.07 fracture117.8 115.7 35.91 35.25 117.8 115.7 35.91 35.25 subvertical fracture/vein120.4 118.3 36.70 36.05 120.4 118.3 36.70 36.05 fracture126.4 124.3 38.53 37.87 126.4 124.3 38.53 37.87 bottom of borehole
Top of Feature Bottom of FeatureFeature Description
File: BH5 Lansdowne Borehole Camera Observations Oct 8 2009.xlsx
12
APPENDIX C: Hydraulic Testing Data
13
Hydraulic Testing Results – MW5
Date
Test#
top(m
btoc)
bottom
(mbtoc)
top(m
bgs)
bottom
(mbgs)
length
(m)
Infla
tion
Time
Slug
Time
Slug
Volum
e(L)
Packer
Assem
bly
Tran
smissivity
(m2 /s)
logT(m
2 /s)
16Oct
0944
8.88
410
.394
8.23
29.74
21.51
14:35
14:38
32
5.E06
5.3
190
16Oct
0943
10.394
11.904
9.74
211
.252
1.51
14:21
14:28
32
2.E06
5.7
145
16Oct
0942
11.904
13.414
11.252
12.762
1.51
14:06
13:14
32
1.E05
4.9
268
slug
1used
,overlapswith
4116
Oct
0941
12.714
14.224
12.062
13.572
1.51
13:42
13:44
22
5.E08
7.3
4116
Oct
0940
14.224
15.734
13.572
15.082
1.51
13:08
13:29
22
1.E06
5.9
124
16Oct
0939
15.734
17.244
15.082
16.592
1.51
12:48
12:51
22
7.E08
7.2
469Oct
0921
17.244
18.684
16.592
18.032
1.44
13:59
14:03
51
2.E07
6.8
629Oct
0920
18.684
20.124
18.032
19.472
1.44
13:44
13:46
51
7.E08
7.2
469Oct
0919
20.124
21.564
19.472
20.912
1.44
13:22
13:30
51
1.E06
6.0
111
9Oct
0918
21.564
23.004
20.912
22.352
1.44
13:06
13:07
51
2.E07
6.8
629Oct
0917
23.004
24.444
22.352
23.792
1.44
12:52
12:53
51
2.E07
6.7
669Oct
0916
24.444
25.884
23.792
25.232
1.44
12:38
12:39
51
1.E07
6.9
559Oct
0915
25.884
27.324
25.232
26.672
1.44
12:23
12:25
51
1.E07
7.0
539Oct
0914
27.324
28.764
26.672
28.112
1.44
12:06
12:08
51
2.E07
6.7
679Oct
0913
28.764
30.204
28.112
29.552
1.44
11:52
11:54
51
1.E07
7.0
539Oct
0912
30.204
31.644
29.552
30.992
1.44
11:36
11:38
51
3.E07
6.5
749Oct
0911
31.644
33.084
30.992
32.432
1.44
11:17
11:24
51
9.E07
6.0
107
9Oct
0910
33.084
34.524
32.432
33.872
1.44
11:02
11:04
51
3.E08
7.6
338Oct
092
34.524
35.964
33.872
35.312
1.44
16:48
16:59
51
1.E07
7.0
528Oct
091
35.964
37.404
35.312
36.752
1.44
16:19
16:26
51
3.E07
6.5
7516
Oct
0938
37.404
39.152
36.752
38.5
1.74
811
:25
11:27
22
2.E07
6.7
65on
lytoppacker
16Oct
0936
7.65
239
.152
738
.531
.510
:49
108.E06
5.1
226
who
leho
leslugNotes
TestInterval
TestDetails
Results
SingleFracture
Equivalent
(microns)