Analysis and interpretation of borehole hydraulic tests in deep boreholes: Principles, model development, and applications

A review of the literature on hydraulic testing and interpretive methods, particularly in low-permeability media, indicates a need for a comprehensive hydraulic testing interpretive capability. Physical limitations on boreholes, such as caving and erosion during continued drilling, as well as the high costs associated with deep-hole rigs and testing equipment, often necessitate testing under nonideal conditions with respect to antecedent pressures and temperatures. In these situations, which are common in the high-level nuclear waste programs throughout the world, the interpretive requirements include the ability to quantitatively account for thermally induced pressure responses and borehole pressure history (resulting in a time-dependent pressure profile around the borehole) as well as equipment compliance effects in low-permeability intervals. A numerical model was developed to provide the capability to handle these antecedent conditions. Sensitivity studies and practical applications are provided to illustrate the importance of thermal effects and antecedent pressure history. It is demonstrated theoretically and with examples from the Swiss (Nationale Genossenschaft fur die Lagerung radioaktiver Abfalle) regional hydrogeologic characterization program that pressure changes (expressed as hydraulic head) of the order of tens to hundreds of meters can result from 1° to 2°C temperature variations during shut-in (packer isolated) tests in low-permeability formations. Misinterpreted formation pressures and hydraulic conductivity can also result from inaccurate antecedent pressure history. Interpretation of representative formation properties and pressures requires that antecedent pressure information and test period temperature data be included as an integral part of the hydraulic test analyses.

[1]  R. W. Nelson,et al.  Considerations of a nonhomogeneous fluid in the deep groundwater flow system at Hanford , 1988 .

[2]  N. Donnelly,et al.  Results of hydraulic tests at Gibson Dome No. 1, Elk Ridge No. 1, and E. J. Kubat boreholes, Paradox Basin, Utah , 1984 .

[3]  N. C. Finley,et al.  SWIFT self-teaching curriculum. Illustrative problems to supplement the user's manual for the Sandia Waste-Isolation Flow and Transport model (SWIFT) , 1981 .

[4]  F. Spane,et al.  Effects of drilling fluid invasion on hydraulic characterization of low-permeability basalt horizons: A field evaluation , 1985 .

[5]  C. Neuzil On conducting the modified ‘Slug’ test in tight formations , 1982 .

[6]  John D. Bredehoeft,et al.  A method for determining the hydraulic properties of tight formations , 1980 .

[7]  E. Peterson,et al.  Operation of a guarded straddle packer system , 1983 .

[8]  S. Lohman,et al.  Ground-Water Hydraulics , 1972 .

[9]  H. K. Kesavan,et al.  The graph-theoretic field model—I. Modelling and formulations , 1979 .

[10]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Pressure testing of fractured rocks - a methodology employing three-dimensional cross-hole tests , 1983 .

[11]  C. Forster,et al.  Laboratory assessment of the use of borehole pressure transients to measure the permeability of fractured rock masses , 1980 .

[12]  P. Hsieh,et al.  Comment on “Evaluation of Slug Tests in Wells Containing a Finite‐Thickness Skin” by C. R. Faust and J. W. Mercer , 1985 .

[13]  S. B. Pahwa,et al.  Risk methodology for geologic disposal of radioactive waste: The Sandia Waste Isolation Flow and Transport (SWIFT) model , 1978 .

[14]  J. D. Bredehoeft,et al.  Response of a finite-diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water. Paper No. H-21 , 1966 .

[15]  J. W. Mercer,et al.  Evaluation of Slug Tests in Wells Containing a Finite-Thickness Skin , 1984 .

[16]  Alain C. Gringarten,et al.  A COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT SKIN AND WELLBORE STORAGE TYPE-CURVES FOR EARLY-TIME TRANSIENT ANALYSIS , 1979 .