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)