EGE.G Idaho

.~-. ------------~-------------------------------------------------------INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE

December 22, 1978 10 •

J. H. Morfitt

hom L. G! Miller;

subJect RAFT RIVER WELL DRILLING SUMMARY - Mlr-51-78

Attached is the Well Drill ing Summary requested by you some time ago. The Summary was delayed until costs ~ere complete on RRGP-4. Costs for well drilling support in some cases were best estimates. In Figure 2, wen cost per k\~(e) are very sensitive to projected fl ows .

. Number 5 well seems to be getting somewhat better and therefore, its cost per kW(e) will drop. I hope this sUlllillary contains the answers to yOUI" questions.

cs .

cc: L. F. Burdge J. H. Ral1lsthaler

I \ ,I \ /I, I I • I j, l, \J ~."

'. EGRG Idaho

INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE

10 J. \oJ. [,10 t'f i tt

I,onl , /~y.:' . / ....... . -:;.- '"

l G t'\111 P" ., .~;:.. '; • 1. . ... 1, .. .... V' , ,

COHHEiHS ON eEl'lENT PLUG AND FlOl;! TEST ,'\T RRGP-5 - Ml r-49-78

Jol:ln Griffith verbally requested a synopsi's of the cement job on RRGP-5 \'/el1 aile! further inforniiltion on the flOl'l test that was con­ducted before the salt incident. Several people have expressed t)wt the measured flow was 'in en-or and rim-/here near- the reponed 1100 gpll1 flol". John requested this information in ordct' to give Cl'l!dence to his n~collll1lendation to multi1eg this well, expecial1y nOI" tha t RRGP-4 has corne up dry,

TIle initial plt1n l'IilS to kill NO.5 wel1 during the running and cementing of tile production casing.- This l'IdS to be done by setting a 100 ft plug betl-Ieen the bottom of the casing and the producing zone. i. e. about 3700 ft. One hundred feet of cement can, in mos t Cilses, be,dri11ed out. The formation is hurder material than the celllent and tIle bi t 1'1i11 stay inside the old hole. If trtis did not hold, the l"ell \'iOulct tllen be backfi11.ed with sand. A very effective methoci ilS I'las done in No.1.

For an unknov<!1 reason, the pl an was changed, 230 sacks (48 barrel s of mixed celllent) \'ien~ pUlllped into the vJell through tubing set at 3720 ft. Hhich Ivould llove cemented 240 ft of hole. This did not shut off the l'Ie11 fur,unknown rCJsons. Instead of backfi11illg with :,and to prevcnt any c1alll<1<jc to tile producin'J f)'<lcture system, 800 mO)'e sacks (16S barTcls of mixed cement) were pumped into the Ivcl1 at tile pt'eviouc, deptl1. T~lis \;1,)$ il successful cement plug tlnd the

'well was killed.

Since the bottOlll or the produc in(J fractur!: zOlle is ·iS40 ft (from sever.)l spinner tests), the celllt:nt I'(1S pumped dovm the well and out into the pI'oducillg fractures. Little cement \'/ould go belm" ,15[10 ft as it ;lcts uS u closed system. Tilcreforc, I·lith 213 bat'rels of3cClllent, the ';Iell was cemen~ed frolll 3735 f~ to 4540 ft ilnd 290 ft of ccment I;las forced out lnto the produclng fractures cementing them closecl out to SOIllt: unknm-m radius.

,'" j I

--.,_ .. . ----.--...... _ .. -._-_. __ ._.- .... -

----------_._----_ ....

J. \oJ. i'lo r fit t Hovcrnber2l,19i'8 Mlr-49-78 Page 2

When they came back to drill out the plu~, the bit could not be ~:ept l'iithin the old hole and drilled a new,leg parilllel to the old leg. Tile !lew leg l'ias drilled to a depth of 4925 ft. Pro­duction from tile new leg is-consideraply less than the original leg. The first test after drilling Leg 8 indicated only about 100 gpm but further testing has indicated the well is developing. FlOI'IS of 300 gpm can be sustained for a period of time.

No one can say fur certain why the second leg d6es not produce similar to the first leg. But with that much cement in the pl~oducing fractures'ilnd the two legs being only 16 ft apat"t in tile pI'oducing zone. I am confident the second leg WilS drilled through the region where most of the fractul"eS were ce;lIented closed ~ee attached figure).

If one Ivas to consider further'drilling on this hole, two factors silould be str'onu1y considered. The fh"st would be the value of il

274"F supply '.-Iell. The value of this l'lell to the povlcr plant could be considerable conSidering the results of No.4 even though the temperature is low, Mixing this water with other wells will lessen the 10w ternperuture effect and I>till reduce the plant efficiency somewhat. It I-Iould provide sufficient flG\'l to allow operation of the plant with over design flow rates and would provide a reserve fluid capacity in the event of a failure of a production WI! 11 .

The second factor is directionally drill,ing a new leg to penetrate tile producing fOl1natioll a ... lay from the cemented fractures. It is illlpossible to pr'edict the distance from the or;'g;nal leg in which cement has penetrated. Possibly some reservoir engineering or

'llydrulo0Y peoplt! could lIIake this estillidte from previous flow dilta. If there is a real need for 274°F water, additional legs could be drilled at a relatively low co~t which should bring the production bclCk to ncar the ori(jinal flow of 1100 gpm.

~"""""jJCU: 1WS:~1"""'" W.'MUSihS --:& .'fia:iiIid&£$&ffij~ '6M+I •• :ga, '.Wtt::.cJa:JLC ...... !lI.NiI!!U1lCC:::fZW!Jt:aua:u~:a2i!5'.J2t!R _'tA!t11"I'XPsaiWitOl j ,

!

/

J .W. i~u r 1 ilL November 21. 1978 ~Ill'- 49 -78 Page 3

There seems to be a lIIi sunders talldi ng as to the fl 01-' capabi 1i ty of No.5 \vell prior to the salt incident. Attached is a sununary of the flO1'/ test along with substantiating information Ivhich supports the 1080. gpm fl 010( measurement taken on .June 10,.1978. The depth of the well at this time was 4505 ft. Using reserve pit fill up during the drilling f~om 4505 ft to 4911 ft or TO on Leg A in­dicated flow rates varied somewhat from 1000 to 2000 gpill.

With No.4 coming up dry in both legs, it is much mo~e important that No.5 be returned to full production by drilling one 6r two more legs at a maximum distance from the original legs. The bottom of the No.5 casing was kept hiyh enough to provide sufficient distance to kick off t\'iO morc legs.

cs

/\ttachments As Stated

cc: lv/a ttachments L. F. Burdge J. H. Ramsthaler

/

<.i"\ t

c... c.!l c.:: c.::

-- ~

o N

I .

+J 4-

(;)

o o

en o.J

.....J

r

/ /...., ... -.< .. 0

\'-~ eo

C1 .::J

.....J

o CO

/ //

: )I ~a

// g / 0

/ q

;¥

"\ cc! o C .- 0 .j...)N U ::J ·0

e c...

+J 4-

0 0 <::" (""")

(

o N

0 N

0 "''1"

0 0..0

0 (l)

0 0

O· N

, .,.,/

At tachmen t t·n r-49-73 P~gc 1

RRGP-5 FLOW CAPABILITY (Before Salt Incident)

Information is available which substantiates the accurately measul'ed flolt's frolll RRGP-5. The rough estimates, impressions, and photographs all reinforce the measured flow. All Qf this is brought together in a synopsi's starting June 1,1978, when the rig twisted off a drill pipe \"lhile ddlling at 4328 ft depth. On June 2,. the wellhead Ivas shut-in waiting for fishing tools.

I\t a depth of 4328 ft on June 5 and 6, after'the fishing job .. las com­pleted; flow tests were run using the mud pits. The two 15-minute tests measured, 172 and 198 gpm. A temperature log measured a maximum do\'mhole temperature of 275°F. We11head pressure had been previously recorded at 40 psi on the night of June 2, and 55 psi after being closed in all n i gil t. ' .

From tIllS information, \"le can conclude that the flow into the vlell bore frolll 1600 ft to 4328 ft I'Jas about 200 gpm and wellhead pressure of 55 psi. Some of this flow I'las probably from the 1600 to' 2000 ft "thief zone. ". There\~ere no water disposal problelils during this portion of the drilling, Percdlation out the bottom of the pit kept the reserve pit water level 10loJ. r·jJkeup water \'las pumped from site 1 up to the rig using the 125 HP 1200 9pm transfer pump. Transfer pumping was done almost half time around the clock while drilling. '

Considerable increase in flow was experienced and they tripped out of the hole to change bits. A bleed-off line was installed on the flow nipple to bypass the large flow of water past the shale shaker directly to the reserve pit. A temperature log again only measured 275°F at the bottom of the hole ..

Tile Hydril1 would not hold the pressure due to the deteriorating rubber 1 iner" and a new Hydri 11 vias ordered. On June 10, a flow 1 ine was set up with an orifice plate and a back pressure valve. Recommended straight pipe sections were used upstream and downstream of the orifice plate. Orientation of the orifice plate was verified upon insertion. A flow test was conducted by two very competent people; Bill Munger, an expet'ienced piping hard\-Iare lIIan; and Virgil Egan, a highly experienced ins trument engi fleer.

·f.?'.;i.ra.t~,;t;l,,· 1t~~i.'atii!fj;:Q .• ~~.!tAIW5Il"~~.~~)ijt\'aQI1!·~ .. ~?l.1.~:?:~JliN.r .. ,~",:",~~'~;"t':, .. --~. -- -.-- _ ... - ........... _ .... ,.-.... -. -_ .... __ .. - .-.--_ .. _-_" --.-... ",. _._., .... _- -- --, . _.-----

;/

".~

Attachment 1-11 1'-49-7'0 ?aue r:

RRGP-5 FLOW CAPABILITY

1\11 instruments ilnd guug(!S used on this test h(1d previously been cul ibr<.ltl:d onsite using a ~Jilllace Tiernan precision pressuY"e gauge and a dead \.,eight tester. Calibration was done under Egan's direction and instruments t a0ged. A 3.0-inch diilllleter orifice plate \.,as first used but flows \vel"C

too high and rubber from Hydrill kept plugging the hole. A 5.443-;nch diameter Daniels 3045S orifice pli!te was insta'lled in the l3-inch flOl'l

line. A 50 psi back pressure was maintained to prevent any chance of two phase flow through the orifice. After flow had nearly stabilized, four readings were taken over a 20-minute period. The volume of water and steam discharging from the flow line was so great that it hit the 0pposite reserve pit bank about 125-150 ft away depOSiting pieces of the l1ydri 11 rubber 1 i ner. Attached are photo(jraphs taken 'dhi 1 e dr"i 11 i n9 priur' to the bleed-off hne installation on June 8,1978.

lynn Nelson conducted a flow test on NO.5 soon after this test. Part of the 550 gpm test was to observe the distance the discharge traveled across the reserve pit. With this flow, the di~charge did not get beyond the 1I1idd1e of the reserve pit. Surface temperatures were about the same for both tests.

\~a ter Back Calculated Tillle Tempera ture Pressure tIP Flow

1630 260°F 50 psi 3.2 psi 1116 gpm

1640 262°F 51 psi 3.0 psi 1080 gpm

1645 263"F 51 psi 3.0 psi 1080 gpm

1650 2G4°F 51 psi 3.0 psi 1080 gpm

The above f1m·, ra tcs Jt'e calculated using the Crane Flow of Fluids (~quaticn

Q = 236 d2 c/ liP 1 p

C \'Ias c.l1culated by tvlO methods, une using the Crane equation for Reynolds Number and plots; and the second using the equation from Fisher and Porters "Flow Meter Orifice Sizing Handbook." The two equations gave values of C within lZ. The above equation is for a standard orifice plate with taps one diameter upstream and one half diameter downstream. Orifice flanges were used in this experiment which could introduce less than 2";, en-or.

,

Attachmen t Hlr-49-78 Page 3

RRGP-5 FLOW CAPA8lLITY

Since the flow had stabilized by 1650 hours, the test was terminated so that the well could be cooled and drilling resumed. This was the be­ginning of a series of serious waSer disposal problems.

Cooler water from the reserve pit and site No. 1 "was pumped into the mud pits and down the well. This lowered the return flO\"I temperature below the flash point. The high water in the pond and the large volume of returning fluid caused the bank under the mud pits to erode. Rock was hauled for scvcral days to build back the bank.

Two pumps were leased" from Colorado Well Servi~e, a pump was borrowed from the Raft River Highway District, a PTO pump and tractor was brought from site No.1, and a 6-inch pump brought from the INEL site. One pump i"Jas used to pump water over to site No.2 through a 6-inch aluminum 1 i ne. " (A second pump was added but the large flow caused the 1 i ne to pa l~t. )

The I"latcr \"-ias checked fo"r sal i ni ty dnd determi ned to be safe for surface vvl disposill on the sugebrush. The additional pumps were then used to pump

over the reserve pi t berm into the sagebrush. The pumps vlere S t; 11 not keeping up with the water. The drillini operation was halted periodically to al"lo~ the pumps to lower the reserve pit level.

:. 'Jf'

A cut was made in the reserve pit berm and a large culvert installed to keep the water level about 3-ft below the top of the berm. This salved the drill site water problem. Even though the water spread out in the safebrush and percolated into the soil, water entered private land a quarter mile to tile south. Trenches \~cre dug in the $o<jebl'ush to slow the flow of water to the private land. Seven days after the flow test, the rig twisted off a drill pipe and drilling 011 this leg was terminoted at. 1'1911 ft.

Photographs were taken during the drilling of RRGP-5 prior to the installation of the bleed-off line on June 8, 1978. This line by-passed the flow across the shale shaker directly into the pond.

--2§-. IIIII! ..... __ .!"D •.. _-_ ..... _.-_ ....... _-•• ""'c. ..... - ... --. -M-... ----...... -.. ""'.!F"!-"" ....... _ ... =::== .... ~._ ... --.• -..• -. - .. ~_==~_:::.~~~ ... ------J ............... -.. ""' ....... -.. -.-_.!!'! .. ~~~_~. ~=

",

Photographs were taken during the drilling of RRGP-5 prior to the installation of the bleed-off line on June 8, 1978. This line by-passed the flow across the shale shaker directly into the pond.

Photographs were taken during the drilling of RRGP-5 prior to the installation of the bleed-off line on June 8, 1978. This line by-passed the flow across the shale shaker directly into the pond.

·"

.F.S$.

Photographs were taken during the drilling of RRGP-5 prior to the installation of the bleed-off line on June 8, 1978. This line by-passed the flow across the shale shaker directly into the pond.

. ... ::: ??;ops~ _~_. ___ ~_JC!iIAIi"':._ _ _ ____ ......... _ •. ____ ..• ___ .:. ••. _ ,_ •• __ ••. _"::--.u:'!:'_._,. ". 4. fY ___ ....... l!L .

I

11-30-78

RAFT RIVER WELL DRILLING SUMt1ARY

L. G. Miller

INTRODUCTION

The drilling of the first well, early in 1975 in Raft River, verified the existence of a geothermal resource with a temperature of about 300°F. The pllot power plant was designed around this and the second well con­sidering a few degrees temperature loss from resource to plant. Specific'ations were prepared for supply and injection system management plan, report GP-124, page 5. The system is to supply 2250 gpm of 290°F low salinity geothermal fluid to the pilot plant and inject 2125 gpm spent fluid into intermediate or deep injection wells, the depth of the injection zone to be deter~ined by testing.

Initial estimates of flow' from the first two wells indicated a need for three production wells and a standby well. Using initial injection tests on No.2, two injection wells would be required with a standby well. As long term, reservoir test data became available, it became apparent that after five years opera'tion of the production and injection wells, their

'I performance would be less than initially estimated. New five year pro­duction and injection estimates have been prepared and are shown in Table L In the Table, No,. 3 well is indi.cated as an injection well but the flow is shown in a production mode and may still be used for production.

SUMMARY OF WEllS DRILLED

RRGE-l

The first well was drilled by REECo (Reynolds Electric and Engineering Company, a subcontractor to the Nevada Operations Office), after Governor Andrus donated $200,000 in State funds to supplement the DOE (ERDA). funds. EG&G (ANC) had no drilling expertise at that time. The fi rst two wells dri 11 ed by REECo were a 1 earn; n9 experi ence for EG&G people. Th~ third well drilled by REECo was then managed by EG&G people. All procurement actions and contracts were also set up and administered by EG&G people.

-----"-,,- .... _ .. _._------- -'-" --,------,~ .. --,--.----" ---_._ .. __ ._.-,---------

~ Raft River Well Drilling Summary L. G. Niller 11-30-78 Page'2

The first ~ell was drilled in such a way that should no resource be en­countered, minimal cost would be expended, i.e. production casing was not run and cemented until drilling was completed and well was found to be a success. This method worked exceedingly well. The bottom hole was backfilled with sand to shut off the resource during the casing and cementing operations.

Casing collapse during cementing was the only major problem encountered. Reaming was required to open the well bore. Production from this well is considered highest of any well drilled. Free flow from the well approaching 600 gpm.

RRGE-2

The second well was drilled in two parts and located along the same fault as No. 1 but further to the northeast. The well was to intercept the Bridge Fault at a greater depth than No.1. The well was drilled with mud until a drill-stern-test (DST) measured temperatures exceeding 280°F. At this point, the casing was run and cemented. The well was drilled to basement rock at 6006 ft depth. During a major part of the next year,"the drill rig set over the hole. Injection and flow tests were conducted during this period. Over 8-million gallons of cold aerated water were injected. "

Drilling was resumed at USGS reconmendation to determine if the quartz­monzonite basement rock was fractured and could produce fluids. No fractures were detected in the quartz-monzonite formation during the extremely hard drilling to.6561 ft.

RRGE-3

The third hole was drilled 9000 ft southeast across the river from the first blo holes. This location was recommended by the USGS as this location would detennine if the resource extended outside the fault zones. This well was planned to have three barefoot legs to increase the production by a calculated 50%. The first leg was drilled to base­n~nt rock. Formation temperature was above 294°F, but the first leg produced little fluid even after stimulation. The second leg was then drilled to the northeast and produced some increase in flow. The third leg was drilled to the north, toward the other production wells. Con­siderable flow was encountered in this leg. Maximum formation temper­ature was 301°F, but total production from the three legs is less than either of the first two wells. Major problem during the drilling of this well was the continued failure of the rubber components in the Dyna-drills during directional drilling.

/

Raft River Well Drill ing SUlIllllary L. G. ~/liller

11-30-78 Page 3

RRGI-4

During the drilling of the first two wells, the intermediate zone from 1600 ft to 3000 ft appeared to have high permeability which could be utilized effectively for intennediate depth injection. A decision was made to drill an intennediate depth injection well for testing formation and interaction with the deep production zone. A location was selected by the USGS for this well with the plan to convert it to a production well after the injection test program. This well was located 2000 ft south of No.1, a location considered to be a prime location for a production well. This location would be at the intersection of the Bridge Fault and the Narrows structure (possibly a fault structure).

A private rig was contracted and the well was drilled to 2900 ft. Cement failure at the casing shoe allowed the bottom two joints of casing to part from the main string causing a "trip in" problem. Maximum tempertaure at this depth was 252°F. Flow tests indicated for­mation permeabil ity was less than predicted but temperature \oJas con­siderably higher at this depth than any of the previous wells.

RRGI-6

NO.6 well was drilled as an intermediate injection well after completion of No.4 initial injection tests. Location of the No.6 and NO.7 injection wells was selected by DOE-lD, even though EG&G people re­comnended other areas. No.3 had already proved that intennediatc and deep formations \vere tight and would make a very poor injection well location. This well was drilled to 3888 ft at 30% less cost than estimated. Prel ililinary injection tests indicated somewhat ti9tlt formation. A recommendation was proposed to DOE-lD to drill the well deeper, i.e. opening up more formation which would reduce injection flump pressure. DOE-ID \'/ould not accept the recommendation and the drill rig was moved to No.5.

RRGP-5

This well was located 3000 ft west of No.1 well. Its location was selected by the USGS as being along the north edge of the Narrows struc­ture. After drilling had commenced, Harry Covington, USGS Field Representative indicated that previous data had been analyzed which pre­dicted a high basement in the region of No.5. If this was true and No.5 was cased to a depth indicated in the Management P1an, we would be casing a hole down to basement rock, a very costly mistake. A decision was illUde with TD concurrence to Olllit cJsiny until L11e resout'ce \</as verifi ed.

/

Raft River Well Drill.ing Summary l. G. Miller 11-30-78 Page 4

A hot wate~ resource of 274°F was encountered at about 4500 ft. Pilot plant use of this temperature water was considered marginal. The well could provide an important backup roll in the event of failure of a higher temperature well or be used to determine power plant . characteristics with flow rates greater than the design. Drilling was resumed with DOE-ID concurrence to basement rock at 4911 ft. No additional hot water sources or higher temperatures were encountered.

At this depth, the hard quartz-monzonite was encountered and a drill pipe twisted off causing several weeks of fishing. Salt water was pumped into the hole interimittantly during the fishing job to keep the well "kil1ed." During this period of fishing, 00E-1D was informed of the salt additions but they did not inform the Sate Water Resources until the salt injection was completed.

After the fishing job. the well was stimulated but initial character­istics did not return. OOE-ID agreed to allow the drill rig to move off No.5 and drill No.7 so that additional testing could be carried out on No.5. The rig returned to complete the casing and cementing, but the two additional legs were not drilled as detailed in the test plant.

RRGI-7

This injection well was located 2300 ft southwest of No.6 and drilled similar to No.6. This well was drilled 40% belovi estimated cost. Initial injection tests indicated the permeability of NO.7 to be less than No.6. EG&G recommended that this well be deepened while rig was over the hole,but the recommendation was not accepted.

During the completion of this well, 00E-10 assumed the management and direction of all drilling activities. Rig was moved back to No.5 for well casing and completion.

, )

,

Raft River Well Drilling Summary L. G. Miller 11-30-78 Page 5

RRGP-5 CASING AND COMPLETION

A cement plug was set below the proposed casing setting depth while the ri 9 was dri1l i ng No.7. Cas i ng was then set and cemen ted to 3400 ft. Cementing failure required two remedial cement jobs. While drilling through the cement plug, hole was deviated out of original channel and a new hole was drilled to TO (4925 ft). Initial flow and temperature runs on the well indicate 100 gpm flow at 265°F maximum at the surface (274°F maximum temperature downhole). Flow measured prior to the salt incident and casing measured 1080 gpm. Most of this flow was attributed to the 4450 to 4500 ft producing zone.

RRGP-4 CASING AND COMPLETION

No.4 was deepened to 3457 ft and 9-5/8 inch casing was run and cemented from TO up to casing hanger at 1512 ft depth. The Manage­ment Plan cal1ed for triple legs to this well. but after the first two legs produced nearly' zero flow, the third leg was not attempted. The first leg was dri1led to 5427 ft, 450 ft into the quartz-monzonite to determine if fractures and production could be located. Neither were intersected. A second leg was drilled to 5115 ft with similar results. Maximum downhole temperature was 288°F at 4900 ft, and bottom hole temperature was 273°F. Rig was removed from well and stacked in anticipation of drill rig use at INEL. Further drilling will be done after a thorough analysis of the present wells and further drilling funds are made available.

TABLE 1 WELL DRILLING SUNMARY

COST (Drilling Cas- Projected

Year ing & logging) FLOWRATE

Dri 11 Drill Mgmt Total Time Name Type ~lax imum After Casing

Well Com- and & Dri 11 Well (Ori 11 ing of of DownHole Wellhead 5 years Size &

No. plete Mtls Support3 CostsS & Testing) Drill er Well Temperature Temperature gpm DEPTH Depth

1975 810 100 910 103 days REECo Prod 286°F 281-265°F 800 5007 ft 13-378/1 to 3624'

2 1976 800 70 870 82 days REECo Prod 291°F 28rF 400 6561 ft 13-3/8" to 4227'

3 1976 650 70 720 63 day-s REECo Inj 300°F 295°F 535 5853 ft2 13-38" to 1385'

5532 ft 5917 ft 9-5/8" to

4255'

4A 1977 305 25 330 26 days Colo Well Inj 252°F 2840 ft 13-3/8/1to 1820'

45 1978 830 1 30 885 1 45 days Colo Well Prod 238°r 232°F 30 to 1004 5427 ft 2 9-5/8" to 5115 ft 3457 '

5 1978 1140 60 1200 89 days Colo Well Prod 276°;:- . 265°F 400 to 6004 4925 ft

G 1378 325 35 360 25 days Co 1 a \~e 11 inj 16G li F 3888 ft .13-3/8" to 1698'

? ]]78 275 35 310 21 days Colo Well Inj 172°F 3858 ft 13-3/2" to 2044'

Includes cost of 4A.

2 - Multilegged wells.

3 - Estimated. 4 - Very preliminary data. 5 - tlationwije well costs tlave escalated 25 to 40;: per year. /1-30-78

L~M

) , ,

\ ,

-200

160

t 12D

,.....-...."

~ 80 e -+' 6 u 40

~

~

Ih-30 -78 L6 N

-~

.. ,.

ORIGINAL COST ESTIMATE

)( "'- ')(. x.). COST OF NO. 5 WHEN DOE ASSUMED MANAGEMENT

::l±1 )of )( )t

:iiZ

.:tJ:4

:tl:4A *G #3 ±t'7

F19 ure 1. Raft R. ve'f Well Costvn.::-.:,EGC.G Idaho, Inc. --

.. , I·_

p~-, \\ !.~ ,-' )

I ~" ~!Vv #4

IDAHO NATIONAL l\ ~~GINEERING ~:ATORY

1500 r--

1'000-

~~

~ .s "3

~5DO- t-

-P-(I)

0 (.)

--~

>

/

11-30-78 J ii1'1

=#l. I

--$740 kWle)

:#2

$1405 , kWl(e-)

!taBS 0 ___ .,..-------. k\}/~):'

'#3' ,t$80G

kW(e}'

E~ U~t- 2. Raft R,ver- \vi e.11 Cost.

n v~EGc..G Idaho, Inc.

--------,,--- - -- -'" - -----"-~----.. -.----------- ------------"._----._---------

l .' :.

Ceothsrmal. RG80UZ'aS8 Council., TRANSACTIONS, Vol.. 1 May 1977

THE RAFT RIVER WELLS AND RESERVOIR PERFORMANCE

J, F, Kunze L. G. Miller R. C. Stoker

EG&G Idaho, Inc.

ABSTRACT

The three successful deep wells in Raf.t River have tapped a 300°F reservoir, The wells are artesian, but their use dictates pumping to. achieve the maximum production rates, Well performance and production rates over many years indicate about 2 MW(e) per well USing the binary cycle is pre­dicted. and this at only 12% thermal efficiency. Use for non-electric direct heat represents 16 MW/we11 over trye long term. Drilling technique and methods of determining the resource presence so as not to case it off have been the keys to getting the maximum production from these wells, Three channels in the bottom of the third well increased its production 5 times compared to one channe 1.

Three deep geothermal wells have been drilled in the upper Raft River Valley of Southern Idaho. The wells are producing moderately hot waters from nominally 3DO°F reservoirs, of which there appear to be two distinctly different types. The one reservoir is characterized as low salinity, 1250 ppm. The other reservoir has considerably higher salinity, 4000 ppm. Each reservoir ~o~ gives silica and Na/K/Ca geochemicalt l } thermometer indices differing by about 15°C, consistent with each index, the high value applying to the higher salinity reservoir. The geothermometry on the surface "seeps" in the area (shallow wells delivering neal' boiling water) gave indica­ted reservoir temperatures 5 to 10°C lower than the actual temperatures of the reservoirs tapped, and 15 to 30°C less than indices derived from water extracted directly from the reservoir. Nevertheless, the relative nearness of the geochemistry predictions to actual temperatures in the reservoir is considered a major sU9c~sS of the current empirical formulas. t2 }

177

<II ... >-

Q 400 ... Q) --0

en

~300 E ::I ';: ;§l ·s t:r w E 200 0 ...

IJ..

Q) 0 c:: C1> ... ~ 100 !: Cl

Q) ... ::l-<II

'" Q) ... a.

I f f I I

I I

1 I

I

I I

I I

I

I / /

I I I

I I

1/ / I

// I ------/.1 ---I

j/

Continuous Flow Rate in gallons/min

RRGE#I RRGE#2 RRGE#3

Figure 1. above,shows the productivity indices of each of the wells, based on extrapGlations to ten years of steady state production conditions using the Theis Equation. The well cross sections are shown in Figure 2 on the following page.

This work was sponsored by the Energy Research and Development Administration

·-

RRGE NO.1 RRGE NO.2 RRGE NO.3 , 3915'

I

o----.~~======~~

1000-

2000-

I-w w u.

3000-

::t:

...... rFAULT I-a..

...... ZONE w 4000-_ '~ 0

"' ...... , 5000- "

6000-

This data indicates that. with pumping for a net 800 ft drawdown in the well after 10 years should produce 2200 gallons per minute from the three wells, enough for 6 MW with an efficient binary cycle. This requires use of downhole pumps set at about 1200 ft. Credit is taken for the 400 ft positive artesian head on the wells in their shutdown hot condition.

Of particular significance is the drilling technique used on all three wells. Water was used as the drilling fluid on all three wells in the producing region, but even so confirmation of a production zone was slow

7317' I

ALLUVIUM .RECENT

RAFT RIVER FM

TERTIARY

SALT LAKE FM

MpAMORP~SE£ Q Z SHIST ON ELBA QUARTZITE

PRE -CAMBRIAM QUARTZ A t MONZONITE C

feet). The second and third branch provided significantly enhanced production, giving a

. net kH of nearly 10,000 millidarcy feet, for only a 20% increase in well costs compared to the single branch well,

(1) USGS Clrcul.r 726 - Assessment of Geothermal Resources of the United States-l 975

(2) (a) Procedure for Estimating the Temperature of a Hot-Water Com­ponent in a Mixed Water by Using a Plot of Dissolved Silica Versus Er.thalpy to develop due to the flushed cold water In

formation near the well bore. A weighted mud column would have made detection of the reservoirs extremely difficult. The third well was planned for multipl~ branches . beginning just below the caslng: ~he ma~n branch proved extremely disappolntlng, wlth very low kH values (less than 2000 mill idarcy

(b)

by: A. H. Truesdell and R. O. Fournier

GeOChemical Indicators' of Subsurface Temperature Part I: Basic Assumptions by: R. O. Fournier, D. E. White

dnd A. H. Truesdell

178

, .. ~ :i

GcoChormaZ i?caOI.l.J'OC8 COlQlail. TRkl5ACTIOI1S, Vol. 2 JuZy 1978

THE MULTI-PURPOSE GEOTHERMAL TEST AND EXPERIMENTAL ACTIVITIES AT RAFT RIVER, IDAHO

Robert N. Chappell DOE- 10

John L. Griffith DOE-Io

Wayne R. Knowles DOE-ID

Robert J •. Schultz EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Department of Energy Idaho Falls. Idaho 83401

SUMMARY

The largest variety of geothermal tests and experi­mental activities at any single location in the world are underway or developing at a remote geothermal test site in south-central Idaho. The majority of the DOE sponsored research conducted by scientists from the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (principally EG&G Idaho employees) is devoted to investigating many uses of moderate temperature hydrothermal resources. The work also includes a significant environmental base-1; ne and 1 ong- term effects program; .resource discovery, production, control and disposal; fluid handling techniques from downhole pump to the miles of buried surface lines moving fluidS between the production wells and the experimental facilities.

Work was initiated at the Raft River Test site in 1973 when the Raft River Electric Coop hired a geologist to investigate the geothermal resource which was manifested through a variety of 200 to 500 foot irrigation wells which had been drilled over a large section of the valley and had produced near boiling water for many years. A small group of farmers representing the Coop visited the DOE/ INEL Idaho Office and arrangements were made for the Geothermal Guidance Committee to visit Raft River in August 1973. DOE sponsored work was first funded in December 1973 and 1974 was spent with a team from the U. S. Geological Survey and scien­tists from the INEL performing extensive geophysi­cal exploration in the upper portions of the va 11 ey. I n January 1975 deep dri 11 i ng for geo­thermal water began near the narrows, a site just six miles north of the Utah border. The valley has Tetonic features characteristic of both the Snake River Plain volcanic rift zones with which it intersects and the older sedimentary charac­teristics of the Salt Lake - Old Lake Bonneville formati ons.

The site selected for the first exploratory drilling was approximately between two irrigation wells which have been producing boiling water from the 400 foot level for about 40 years. These shallow wells had been drilled for agricultural purposes and evidently had intersected faults along the edge of the valley. The geochemistry of wells predicted maximum reservoir temperatures between 140 to 150°C.

83

The scientists involved in this geothermal effort concluded that the Raft River reservoir charac­teristics would be ideal to determine the lower level of temperature for hydrothermal resources which may be utilized to produce economical electric energy and alsO would provide an excel­lent source of fluid to be used to conduct direct use experiments. In addition, the remote valley was essentially unmolested by any man-made develop­ments with only a few farms and ranches in the area, which was advantageous for measuring envi­ronmental baseline conditions and the impact of geothermal development.

Now, four years later, the site contains a total of 17 geothermal wells. Every well drilled to date has encountered geothermal fluids -- even wells drilled exclusively for monitoring purposes unexpectedly have been producing geothermal fluids. Four of the wells drilled to about the 4,000 to 5,000 foot level are being used to produce the fluid, three wells drilled (or currently being completed) are being used as injection wells and five wells are being used to monitor the effects on the reservoir of producing and injecting fluids.

The test and experimental programs which are being conducted include facilities for testing advanced heat exchangers, a corrosion/deposition mobile test trailer, data collecting equipment and general laboratories. Figure 1. is a list of the activities at Raft River.

A large number of experiments have evolved from the requirements to produce and handle the geo­thermal fluids. These experiments have provided new insights on a variety of problems such as the use of transite pipe for transporting geothermal fluid. Tests indicate successful use of transite pipe for 150°C geothermal fluids at 1/2 the cost of steel lines. These lines have inherent expan­sion capability in the joints and can be buried for reduced heat loss. Another cost savings was realized with the use of polyurethane insulation on above ground steel pipe, as well as on the buried transite. The heat loss with 2" poly­urethane insulation on a 10" transite pipe flow­ing 1,000 gpm is less than 1°C per mile of line. This becomes extremely important in using moderate temperature geothermal fluid for producing elec­trical energy where one degree loss in the

GRIFFITH

transportation lines results in about one percent loss in plant efficiency. Another significant experiment in fluid handling was the use of sub­mersible pumps. The submersible pumps have been found to be reliable for 150°C. with low salinity fluids. Cost of procuring and installing sub­mersible pumps is about half the cost of lineshaft pumps and they are generally available for delivery in less time. .

A large portion of the testing at Raft River is aimed towards the economic production of electri­city from the moderate-temperature resource. The electrical power-related facilities now under development or on-line are a 60-kW binary test power plant, a SOO-kW direct contact pilot plant. a 5 MW(e) geothermal pilot power plant, and a second advanced 5 MW(e) power p1ant. The 60-kW binary unit is now on-line and has been operating successfully for several months. The first 5 MW(e) pilot power plant is now scheduled for full­power operations in early 1980. In addition to the electrical power facilities, a comprehensive testing program is being undertaken for utili­zation of the moderate temperature resource in direct applications.

The direct applications program is divided into three elements: the beneficial uses element. the hardware systems element. and. the heat dissi­pation/soil warming element. Since most of the known moderate-temperature geothermal resources of the United States are located in areas which frequently experience water shortages, the bene­ficial use of hydrothermal fluids, after energy extraction, may enhance the competitive economic position of geothermal energy. Geothermal water is being applied on a 2S-acre agricultural plot at Raft River by sprinkler and flood irrigation to field crops of alfalfa, barley, and sugar beets. Results are being compared with control crops watered from existing shallow irrigation wells and from the Raft River. Analyses are being made of comparative yields. nutritional value. accumulation of fluorides and heavy metals, salt tolerance, and changes in soil chemistry. In the aquaculture facility at Raft River, channel catfish, tilapia, and freshwater shrimp are being cultured in a grow-out cycle in which the species are reared to marketable size in geothermal water. A subsequent phase of the work will study the reproduction and spawning phase of the species' life cycle. The three culture species will be evaluated for growth rates and biomass accumulation of minerals and fluoride. An intensive aquaculture program has the poten­tial to economically produce high-quality protein on a year-round basis in temperature-controlled geothermal fluids. Future expansion of the direct applications of geothermal energy may, in some cases, depend upon advanced concepts in refrigeration, in heat exchangers. and also modi­fication of industrial processes to operate at lower temperatures. Figure 2. is a partial list of the current Raft River experiments.

At the Raft River Test Site. work is being under­taken on a variety of projects aimed at develop-j ng technology whi ch will enhance the poss i bil i ty

84

GRIFFITH of geothermal energy usage.

° Lithium bromide refrigeration units and ammonia absorption refrigeration/deep cooling units will be operated at the site using 140°C to 150°C fluids.

° Fluidized bed drying techniques USing geother­mal heat are undergoing tests with potato waste products, sugar beet pulp drying. grain drying, and alfalfa drying.

o Low-temperature heat exchangers are being tested to evaluate their use in domestic and commercial space heating.

A more unique series of tests being conducted at Raft River involve heat dissipation directly to the soil through soil warming using an underground cooling grid. Cooling low temperature geothermal power plants with conventional cooling towers would use three to ten times the amount of water needed for a high temperature fossil fired plant. This. of course, is inherent in the thermodynamics of heat engines. At Raft River heat is being dissipated into the top five to six feet of soil under tree and field crops. The objective is first to determine the economics of heat dissi­pation into the soil and second to determine the enhancement of plant growth as a result of the warmer soil. Success of this experiment will have far-reaching effects in arid parts of the world where hydrothermal reservoirs are often located •

As one can see, the Raft River facility is truly a multi-purpose facility. The attached summary details the current through 1984 test plans, including the number of engineering and direct applications experiments on-line.

NEW WELLS DRILLED

OP£RAIICXlAL PRODUCTIOil WELlS

OPERATlOilAl IIUECTlOil WEllS

IiiltnoR WELLS

ENGINEERING DEVELOPI£NT EXPERIIE~TS

DIRECT APPlICATlIlII EXPERII£NTS

OP£RATlIlIIAI. I'QIO SYSTEIIS

Figure 1.

10

24 27

10 10 10 10

35 35 30 28

10

22

'", ("

, . GRIFFITH

Figure 2.

PRINCIPAL EXPERIMENTS AT RAFT RIVER

Soil Cooling Soil Heating Agriculture Aquaculture Agri cu1 ture Fluidized Bed Drying Gas Air Conditioning Component Testing Tube & Shell Heat Exchanger Direct Contact Heat Exchanger 60-kW Turbine-Generator Envi ronmenta 1 Reservoir Engineering Heat Dissipation (Pond Cooling) Supply Well Mixing Tests Injection Testing Aerated Geothermal Water Corrosion Cooling Tower Chemistry of Brine as Makeup Water Sulfide Oxygen Scavenge Test Asbestos Cement Pipe Downhole Pump· Test 500-kW Turbine-Generator Direct Contact

85

Geothermal Resources Council, TRANSACTIONS, Vol. 2 July 1978

DRILLING AND DIRECTIONAL DRILLING A MODERATE-TEMPERATURE GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE

L. G. Miller. S. M. Prestwich. and R. W. Gou~d

EG&G IDAHO, INC. IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401

I NTRODUCTI ON

The high cost of geothermal well drilling has caused great concern in the geothermal com­munity, because of the direct relationship of well cost to power-on-line costs. The utiliza­tion of large quantities of moderate-temperature geothermal fluids (3000 F" or 1500 C) for electric power productit,r at the Raft River, Idaho Geo­thermal Project creates even larger concerns about well costs. Various techniques were used during the exploration and drilling of the pre­sent wells. to improve resource detection and we 11 producti on. These techni ques wi'l1 be uti] i­zed in all future drilling at Raft River.

Some resources have been overl~oked because of the use of standard drilling methods. Each type resource will require unique techniques for detection and enhancement. The lower the temper­ature of the resource. the more difficult it will be to detect. Dry steam and high-temperature water-dominated resources are rare anomolies. Moderate-temperature resources, however, should be quite abundant throughout the \~est. It is necessary to detect such resources, enhance the production or injection capabilities of each well, and at the same time increase well lifetimes in order to keep moderate-temperature resources com­petitive with other forms of energy.

Three production and two injection wells have been drilled in the Raft River Valley, with an additional production and an injection well to be completed in the summer of 1978. This paper describes the techniques used in the drill­ing and testing of these high-fluid-volume vlells.

Exploratory Drilling'

During the exploratory phase, only the sur­face casing was run and cemented; if no resource was found, the cost invested in the dry well would then have been as small as practical. Below the casing, the well was drilled with water, rather than mud. This prevented the plugging' of permeable producing zones and fractures and kept the fluid column as light as possible. so that geothermal water could enter the hole. Air or foam would lighten the column even more, but these measures have not been necessary at Raft River. Water drilling may not be a necessity

455

with very high-temperature resources, but is the only recommended method for medium temperatures and lower artesian pressures. Care must be exer­cised in the use of water drilling.

After drilling and locating the resource, the well can, in many cases, be completed by cooling with injected cold water and by cementing in the production casing. This control method did not work at Raft River. A very permeable zone between 1600 and 2400 ft (490 to 730 m) accepted the hot water from the reservoir and all injected cold water. The well could not be "killed" with this method. An alternate method, that of filling the lower portion of the hole with sand, was very successful and resulted in effective control prior to casing the well during well camp 1 et i on. Sand was then dri 11 ed out to complete the well.

Cost again became a major factor for deSign of RRGE-3. Two major areas of well cost are casing and cementing. Casing calculations deter­mined that over a 30-year production period, a 1000-gallon-per-minute well, with 9-5/8 in. (24.45 cm) production casing, would be more eco­nomical (including the cost of pump operation and the increased pressure drop in the casing) than a well with 13-3/8-in. (34 cm) production casing. The length of the production casing was reduced by hanging it from the bottom of the surface cas­ing (at 1200 ft); thereby lowering the total well cost. Utilizing a Basch-Ross liner hanger with circulating ports allowed crews to squeeze cement from the top of the hung production string in the event of remedial cementing. This reduced the very costly perforating squeeze cementing and saved more than 50%. The use of this technique has been considered acceptable by the State for such moderate-temperature (low-pressure) wells.

Also because of costs, much time and planning have been devoted to cementing techniques. Per­lite and silica cements have been used, and stage cementing tried--all with less than desirable results. We are still attempting to find a cement and technique which will be effective for Raft River hole conditions. This year, two different cements are to be used' in the wells, so that the application and long-term retrogression of two cements can be compared.

MILLER, et al

Multiple-Leg Wells

Well RRGE-3 became an experiment in well stimulation to reduce well costs by directionally drilling open-hole legs through the production zone below the casing. This increased production for a minor increase in well cost. The first leg was drilled westwardly to a depth of 5853 G.L., with disappointing production results. Analysis showed an apparent laCK of prodUCing fractures, so the decision was made to drill two additional legs. in hopes of encountering production frac­tures. Leg B was drilled northeastwardly to a depth of 4432 ft (1351 m); Leg C, northwesterly to a depth of 5917 ft (1803.5 m). Production in­creased by 500% with the completion of the third leg.

Although we were unable to prove what would happen in a homogeneous prodUCing layer, our cal­culations for the Raft River reservoir imply that an extra leg that gets as far away as 400 ft (122 m) will increase the cost 20%, while increas­

'ing production 50%.

A second multiple-leg production well, RRGP-5, will be drilled this June. Injection Well RRGI-4·will be deepened and completed as a multi­ple-leg production well in October.

Where formations are tlght. or where forma­tion plugging is a problem. producing well life time and well operating pressures can be improved by using multiple-leg wells. Formation plugging in wells with two phase then is apparently most likely to occur near the well bore. By direction­ally drilling multiple legs, penetrating the in­jection zone, the rate of plugging should be proportionately reduced.

456

'.

· - .

SUMMARIES

I \

I t p '1

THI RD WORKSHOP

GEOTHERMAL RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

December 14 - 16, 1977

.. ":1" " .~ . .}

" ,t" , '

, "

" ' ).

"

UPDATE ON THE RAFT RIVER GEOTHERMAL RESERVOIR

\;

J."F. Kunze - EG&G Idaho, Inc. R. C. Stoker- EG&G Idaho, Inc. C. A. Allen - Allied Chemical Co.

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory* Idaho Falls. Idaho 83401

, ABSTRACT

1:'Since the last ~onference. a fourth well has been drilled to an inter-: ;n:ediate 'depth and tested as a production \'/ell, with plans to use this well ., in the long term for injection of fluids into the strata above the pro-.: :; duction strata., The third, triple legged well has been fully pump tested, " and the recovery of the second well from an injection well back to production

,~ ; status has revealed very interesting data on the reservoir conditions around . ' that we 11. i ,.

Both interference testing and geochemistry analysis shows that the third , well is producing from a different aquifer from that supplying the No.2 'well. There is an effective barrier, yet uni~entified as to structure,

making pressure communication between these aquifers quite negligible. These -resu1ts have led to significantly different models for the aquifer system than those previously believed to apply.

E 4-WELL SYSTEM

The Raft River G~othermal Program now has 3 deep 'production wells, with pro­ducing zones between 3750 and 6000 ft. An intermediate de~th well was recent1y drilled for injection testing into the zone between 1850 and 2S00 fL Figure 1 shows the location of the wells with respect to the major faults Tn the region. Figure 2 shows cross sections of each well. Additional de­tails on these wells may be found in Reference 1 (last year's conference).

PRODUCTION TESTING

RRGE-l

This well has been used as a production well for the last 18 months, with greater than 95% capacity factor. It has been supplying fluids for a variety of heat exchanger tests, corrosion coupon tests, and water for several direct heat utilization experiments. F10\'/ rates were deliberately throttled to supply only the fluids essential for these tests (150 to 300 gallons/minute (0 to 20 liters/sec), all using the artesian head. Pressures of 100 psig minimum have been maintained in tlll ilctlt exchanger and coupon testing to prevent off-gasing and entry of air into these systems.

if This work has been performed under contract to the U.S. Department of 'Energy, Division of Geothermal Energy,and Idaho Operations Office.

-1-

~'

"

, :

/1 r :t I

I! :j' .:: .

I ' ;1 it I , il'

". ". ' ..... 1 ,j I .......... '1,1,

. , i '" '1'1' 'ill

: :i \ ,111 : til' I!! I ~ ~ i I

[':; [ " I I! ,~ ;

! ,. t t ~

!:' J' i; J

i I: i

'I " 'I i;' : I: .;.. : ~

it. It ,r ,," " I ' : I, , \ ;, 'I, ' , ' 1: ': I ; ~' ;; : , {'

II!

, {

I ~ ! "

Ii '! ~

, If,! . f ~.

, 'I : : I ~ : I :1 :

~;;-. -:5000-

'./: . .-;.;.!

RRGI NO.4 ELEIl 4S3S'

, >

Fi gurc 2

RRGE NO, 2 ELEv. 4845'

. ,

Figure 1

GEOCHEM ICAl MAP Gt AREA

RAFT RIVER RESERv'OI8.

- TRANSFER PIPELINE

~ TEST AGRICULTURAL P\..075

'H+fApparent Fau1ts (of surface)

'j-: CHDJICAL AI-JALYSIS CODE. TDS 1852 SHALLOW

!!.?2 DE EP

CI/504 31 CIS .5 CIS

S, 2.8 J I,~ PPIT'·

RRGE NO. 3 ELEV. 4860'

OAT I.1M'!!.-______ -1r.:: r:-£-RECE NT-.

.• /' -____ ALLUVIUI-I

--

'::. -2000

'/ :5000 ...... --" -~ -4000-

. ',"; -4000 ~ ~ ~

,,-

-.; SHIST ZONE t" ;"'KO C .. -___ ,~:r-KO·S·

ff& ------.......... ~t~ =~-ooo.:--· ~~: ____ A OJARTZITE l ~:::~f~~ TO ~ .' ~ ---.. \ _"1, _

~l.. .~ _ ::.... -', __ ',_,1-: . :.-5OC'O :!l2,...,-. .'.' - --..... "'-_. . .. ,1-::. :.:

I./.WIR 8 ~ IU ''; . "' .. :::.-----. - I --- td;::· ~ ",,-0"'::- r=:rt{ 1 • • OUf,RT Z ---- -'- I""''; \" & = o.,_"~ -r. ", I-ICNZCNIT'E ________ ____ "?!, " .. AlIII-..a<:TICN CO' ~ 0..0-, -_ ••• ~ ,," ,", '. ", . ,.,j fl/' 'j TO ~)532 B = < ..... -- y , , -6000 ----.... "~ ri" N !:>O E 13 '\.(' RPtaIII WII.l.,..LJI .. \111ft ! I,. __ r ., ''icl

~ :;;:... " " TO 58:;3 f} - GOOO ;-D ..... :', N BOW G \1,'

,. -2 KM TO 5917 'r:' N60w ZZ'l<4-

I !

,I ' I r,"; { . ~

T~- well performance data during the 18 months has shown no decrease in lctivity vs pressure, if anything a slight increase. The drawdown

.,lIce the start of the long term 'operation is so far, on the time logarithmic scale. Short term fluctuations in flow (and hence pressure) have occurred as demanded by the variety of experiments, and are the pre­dominant variable change.

The apparent productivity curve for this well is as shown in Figure 3. It is the most productive we11 in the reservoir. The chemistry of the fluids hav'e remained essentially the same as after the first thorough flmv testing,

,2-1/2 years ago. Dissolved solids are 1550 ppm (mg/liter). Temperature has shown no change during this ·period. At these low flow rates, with the large· '13-3/8 in. casing, the temperature loss in the well bore is only approxi­mately 12~C (22°F). At the nominal design flow rate of 1200 gal/min (80 liters/sec) planned for this well with a pump in place, temperature loss shou1d be reduced by nearly a factor of 4. production zone temperatures have held at 147°C (296°F).

RRGE-2

No significant flow testing during, the last 12 months.

J RRGE-3

t A submersible pump was installed in this well at the 800 ft (244 01) leve1.

'Pump testing at 500 to 600 gal/min (90 l/sec) have been conducted for '~¢riods of several weeks to a month in duration. These have been at

,tant flow, using the Thies asymptotic semilogarithmic approach to ~u,ain transmissivity and permeability thickness factors. Except for some possible early time effects before encountering a nearby boundary, the Thies analysis shows excellent linearly (semi log plot), giving a T = 850 t 100 gal/day ft and kH - 8000 t 1000 millidarcy-ft.

Pressure communication does not appear to occur, at least unambiguously over a two week period, withRRGE-2, 7000 ft away, as measured with a quartz transducer with ±O.Ol psi sensitivity. Somewhat less umbiguous indication of pressure communication has been' observed with the intermediate depth RRGI-4, 5000 ft away. The chemi stry of the RRGE-3 we 11 has been generally consistent throughout 1-1/2 years of limited testing (because of difficuHy in disposing of the water) at 4150. ppm (mg/liter).

RRGI-4

This well was completed in May 1977, to be used for injection testing of the feasibility of disposing of water into the intermediate depth aquifer. It has 13-3/8 in. casing to 1835 ft, and is barefoot from there to its total present depth of 2840 ft. The relatively permeable section appears to ex­tend from the casing bottom to about 2500 ft.* Though the well accepted * When drilling out the shoe, the lower two sections, of casing (80 ft total)

dropped off and are wedged between 1895 and 1975 ft, effectively blocking out the formation in this region.

-3-

~ . ..

'1 !!;1 : : II' i ~ , 'I' : . i ~

I 'I ' t ,i ,iI'

'. I : ! '~; ~ '". '" I .!

...... ,,', ll' ...... I 1. "I';! ill I ~ . 1, . ~ 1 ; I 'q , \ .!1'

. 'II ,'" : ,!! 'i;: !IT

i! I ; :.; !' ',! .j, , , ,:\ :,-'

,I I : ~ : ;; :,

, \! I'; !

I I :1. I

't . J.

I ; i ' II' I ~. ~~ _

I : 1"

, l

ilt ~ i Ii j". I;

; I h liT : I ' , t

'ected water quite readily, the pro-~.ction testing (thel'/ell has a hot .. artesian head of about 40 psig at 250°F); _ gave a transmissivity of 1600 ± 200 gal/;4°"r­day ft. This value is not much differ- ,t ent frolT! RRGE-2. The well has about-2300 ppm (mg/liter) solids coming from f:300-

the producing region. It has slight ~ pressure cOrTllluni cati on wi th RRGE-3 ~ ~ quite noticeable communication with th€~ 2 USGS No. 3 we 11 (1300 ft deep, 2200 n 200 -

ft away). and no detectable comnunica- u, . tion to date with RRGE-l or 2. :;

GEOCHEm STRY

c, o.

:~ 100 ()

I I

I } I I

I " I I

J / I

I / I ? I I

1/ / I

/,/ /,' The chemistry of the waters produced

from the th ree deep we 11 s and the !~ :""1 .J_L . ..J.-1 I I I

500 , I

1000

nnr.( n I KI{C[ /1 ? l(llcE /1 ,~

RRU#4

Crank (400 ft or 122m) and BLM (500 ft or 152m) we 11 s has shown that the ' chemical species in these wells seem to be originating from two quite different systems. Th~ one has chem­istry similar to RRGE-3 (4150 ppm), the other similar to RRGE-2 (1250 ppm). RRGE-l, the BLM, and the Crank wells

'ear to be mi stu res 0 f these two .. tems, as shown in Table 1. In that

Tab 1 e .. X represents the fract; ona 1 contr;bu~ion from the system representative of RRGE-2.

COOilOvOVS How Rule ;.1

,Fi gure 3 - Well productivity v~, drawdown after constant: flow for 10 yr period. Note: Wells 1,2,3 have a positive (artesian) head of 150 psig \'Ihen at hot"equili­brium." The 4th,well has an art,~sian head of 40 ps;g.

It thus appears that the most chemical laden waters and those with the highest . indicated reservoir temperatures are upwelling in the region of RRGE-3 and , the Crank well, and leaking into the area near RRGE-l and the BLM well. Muc!:

purer waters are apparently feeding RRGE-2 (.to the northeast) and leaking ,into the BLM and RRGE-l areas. RRGI-4, for the little it has flol'led, also . seems to be composed of both waters.

CONCLUSIOi~S

,The long hypothesized model of the geothermal heat source being located away from the immediate area, with the hot waters being fed into the region of

'the wells via the "narrows" structure to the southwest, is not supported . by the geochemical analysis. Instead, it would seem that another model ,would be that of a hot plate effect under much of the valley, with a localized

" ,:somewhat hotter, poorly convective regi on near RRGE-3. ,

-t> l"

-4-

I ;; Ii

• ' •• I i !

!II' , .

! '

,j , . , 1

Ii' , . ! •

;'; j : i . " I : ';! ~ I. '

-:.1' !

: :1

" .

! f . I: : '

. I! 'I r

i I' j

'I , " 'I:

TAGL[ I

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS AND MIXI~G FRACTIONS

IN THE RAFT RIVER WELLS

RRGE-2 RRGE-l BL~l Crank RRGE-3

rDS 1267 1560 '

.898

1640

.870

3720

.143

4130

° : . .xm : Apparent . Reservo; r ,", Temperature

$;°2 Na/K/Ca

155°C

180°C '--

"',' It does appear that a b'arrier of some type exi!::ts between RRGE-3 and the other --_, ,'two deep wells, restricting both pressure and flow communication, isolating the

,,:two systems with quite distinctly different chemistry. " ,

'. Finally. the longer term test has not shown any major boundary restrictions or . ' '.dth significant regions of highly channelled flow (none isotropic). Based

J these tentative conclusions and the information presented in Ref. 1, one can conclude the following about the known reservoir, that ""ithin a mile

. of the exi sti ng ,three we 11 s. '

Minimum area of Known reservoir ~ 5 sq mi. (2)

Geotherma 1 Aquifer Capacity - 300,000 acre-ft. wi th effecti ve poros i ty 0 f ~ 0.15.

Near surface aquifer probably contains, . 12 million acre fZ) and sees annual precipitation of

200,000 acre ft

Geothermal ,aquifer heat content (known reservoir only, heat above 2SQoF only) = 160 ~lW-Centuries Ta'DoLit 20 Miol-Centuries net electrical output with bi nary-i sobutane conversion sys tem.

REFERENCE

1. ,D. Goldman, J. F. Kunze, L. G. Miller, R. C. Stoker, "Studies on the 3-Well Reservoir System in Raft River, 2nd Workshop on Geothermal Re­servoir Engineering. Stanford University 1976.

-5.

---,------,. __ . - - -.

i I

,i i

l i I

i l

i, I'

i ,it! r ·1 j

'I: I; I I

, .. _------- ~

,

· ·r·

.'

I I

2. Geothermal R&D Project Report for October 1976 to March 1977, TREE-1134, EG&G Idaho, Inc.

3. E. H. Walker, L. C. Dutcher, S. O. Decker, and K. L. Dyer, The Raft River Basin, Water Intermountain Bulletin No. 19, State Department of Water Resources (1970).

. ...... .

, I!

. i ;:

! '. ,I.

'i i I

" ,;! , ;

i,

, ;

FORM EG&G-S54

(Rev. 9-76)

Idaho

INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE

dale

to

September 15, 1976

J. F. Kunze Off; ce ~.

trom R. C. Stoker-4~. ~~ subject RESERVOIR ENGINEERING SEMINAR SUMMARY - RCSt-25-76

A Raft River reservoir engineering seminar was held on May 21, 1976 at the Salt Lake City Airport Hawk1s Nest Room. Those in attendance were as follows: I

Steve Oriele, USGS, Denv~r Harry Covington, USGS, Denver Frank Trai ner, USGS, t1enlo Park t~anual Nathenson, USGS, Menlo Park Dave Nichols, USGS, Sacramento Jerry Crosthwaite, USGS, Boise Ken Dunn. Idaho Dept. of Water Resources Dale Ralston, Idaho Bureau of t4ines and Geology Roy Mink, Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology John Griffith, ERDA-Idaho Jim Cotter, ERDA-Nevada Gary Sandquist, University of Utah Steve Swanson, University of Utah Paul Witherspoon, LBL (Berkeley) T. N. Narisimhan, LBL (Berkeley) John Auten, REECo Fred Huckabee, REECo Arfon Jones; Terra Tek Jay Kunze, INEL Lowell t4iller, INEL Dennis Goldman, INEL Bill Kettenacker, INEL Jim Lofthouse, INEL Susan Prestwich, INEL Roger Stoker, INEL

Current work status and available data were presented by various people connected with the project and are summarized below. Open discussions were held in conjunction with the presentations and the resultant recommendations or observations concerning further work at Raft River are included under B. Summary and Future Plans on page 7.

A. Presentations

1. Well Status and Future Plans - Kunze

A short summary of the project and the experience acquired in drilling the three production wells was presented and discussed. Site locations were pointed out (Attachment 1) and a temperture profile of RRGE-2 (Attachment 2) was discussed in detail. This particular profile was taken after approximately eight million gallons of cool water had been pumped down the well and exhibits the temperature recovery after limited flow from the well. r

The configuration and relationship of the three legs drilled in RRGE-3 were displayed (Attachment 3) and the temperature logs (Attachment 4) taken before production casing was installed were discussed. The flow tests and electric logs conducted prior to setting casing were shown to confirm the casing setting depth of 4,237 feet. Temperature logs (Attachment 5) and profil es (Attachment 6) from the 1 eg IIA II were presented and discussed. The poor"flow ( ~ 80 gpm) and geysering action from RRGE-3A were pointed out. The geysering action operated on a 9 1/2 minute cycle; 3 1/2 minutes of flow at ~ 220 gpm and 6 minutes of no flow. A summary of drilling and testing RRGE-3 A and B is shown in Attachment 7.

NOTE: After all three legs were completed in RRGE-3, flow rates of 800 gpm (cold) and a bottom hole temperature of 298°F were recorded.

The chemical water analysis of all three wells was presented (Attachment 8) and the near term testing plan (Attachment 9)'. was reviewed.

2. Production and Reinjection Performance Data - Miller

A SUmma,ry of well producti on and rei njection characteri sties were presented. This included the early time cool water high production rates followed by lower hot water flow rates characterized by choking due to flashing steam within the wellbore. It also included more detailed information about RRGE-2 temperature recovery following the

injection of cold water' (eight million gallons). See Attachment 2.

The transfer line between RRGE-l and -2 was discussed and tne one . proposed between RRGE-l and -3 was outlined (Attachment 10). The

favorable experience gained from the downhole pump employed at Raft River was discussed. The relatively minor modification to the lower pump motor seal should solve the problem of water leakage that was experienced in the lower motor. The total pump assembly was satisfactory except for the water leakage and there was no evidence of corrosion or erosion. The pump operated for about two weeks running time and delivered flows up to 1800 gpm from RRpE-l.

3. Lithology, Cover and Permeability Data - Stoker

The structural 'controls around all three wells were explained, through cross sections, as determined from USGS data (Attachment 11, 12, and 13).

The lithology of all three \'Ie11s (Attachment 14) was presented and discussed in detail. Actual core samples were examined and the presence of extensive fracturing was noted to be associated with the production zones. Specific core permeabilittes were presented from each of the three wells. These permeabilities were measured under "in situ'" simulated conditions by Terr Tek and represent values as much as 10 to 100 times lower than if measured under atmospheric conditions. See Attachment 15.

It was reiterated that the RRGE-3 (leg HAil hole) was a very poor producer (80 gpm free flow and geysering) drilled through limited fracture zones. Leg "B" was drilled through more permeable fracture zones and production increased to 250 gpm. Leg IIC II encountered extensive fracturing and a total cold flow rate of 800 gpm. In all three wells, the production zones have been located in the highly permeaqle fracture zones.

The gneisic fabric of the quartz monzonite in the upper portion indicates that the rock under\'1ent a crushing action probably due to differential flow during emplacement (protoclastic). Th~ alteration of the biotite and plagioclase indicates a high degree of late stage hydrothermal activities.

The phyllitic schist of the metamorphased zone occurring directly above the quartz monzonite is indicative of regional (widespread) metamorph; sm (rock recrystcill i zatton). The parent rock was obviously an argillaceous (clay) sediment. The metamorphism is probably not a result of the quartz monzonite emplacement but ratherl a widespread regional feature that occurred after the quartz monzonite emplacement.

4. Down-Hole Pressure Response and Interpretation - Witherspoon

The testing and monitoring procedure employed during the interference testing of RRGE-l and RRGE-2 was re-viewed and explained. A series of three drawdown tests were conducted in RRGE-l and RRGE-2 during September and October, 1975 and shown in Attachment 16.

The acquired data was presented as follows: a •. Computation of reservoir characteristics for RRGE-2, Attachment 17. b. Pressure response at RRGE-2, Attachment 18. c. Computation of reservoir characteristics between RRGE-1 and RRGE-2,

Attachment 19. d. Lunar attraction effects in Raft River reservoir, Attachment 20. e. Pressure response at RRGE-1, Attachment 21.

The interpretation of the interference testing was summarized as foll ows: a. The Raft River reservoir is apparently very large. b. The reservoir shows boundaries that must be located and defined

through further testing. c. The reservoir shows high permeability and Kh factors. Compared

Raft River (Kh = 228,000 md ft) with East Mesa reservoir (Kh = 30,000 md ft, at best).

d. Further extensive reservoir testing should be accomplished

involving additional wells for more detailed, precise and extensive

information based on better data. e. The reservoir appears to be adequate to support a 10 MW power

plant or greater based on this limited data.

Similar interference tests were conducted in the E~st Mesa area of California involving th~ee weJls rather than just the two wells as in Raft River. The test results show a superior performance by the Raft River reservoir although the data is more limited and not as preci see

5. USGS Summaries

a. Raft River Groundwater - Nichols The model depicting the groundwater situation in Raft River was review and explained. Two cases were presented based on two different values of transmissivity. The first case (high trans­missivity) requires an average annual net recharge and discharge of about 61.500 acre-feet. A vailable data states two different total available recharge rates; 42,130 acre-feet estimated by Walker and others (1960) and 74,930. acre-feet of Nace and others (1961). The net flux is given as a solution with this model not the total recharge and discharge. Hm'lever, the total recharge and discharge will be greater ~han the net flux.

The computer model had 350 grid points for finite differential modeling, on a one mile spacing grid. It has predicted a maximum decline of 82 feet in the water table over a five year period if pumped at an additional rate of 19,000 gpm. This assumes a cOlnsumptive use of the water with no recharge or reuse as a means of providing once through cooling for a 10 MW plant. Although non-recharge of cooling water ;s not contemplated, the information provides base line predictive data.

From available data. it was determined that the water table has declined as much as 20 feet from 1952 to 1965 due to irrigation water consumption.

b. Raft River Valley Temperature Profiles - Nathenson Several wells and holes have been monitored for temperature profiles

r ':

by Urban and Diment of the USGS, Sacramento. This data was reviewed and is shown in Attachments 22 through 32.

Indications are that. for the shallow depths, the temperature profiles increase with depth toward the Narrows (southwest portion of the valley). I.D. No.4 and 5 both display a temperature reversal within the first 200 feet of depth.

c. Near-Surface Aquifer Measurements and Analysis - Crojsthwaite The new-surface aquifer investigations being conducted were reviewed. 0/018 is being pursued as a means of determining the Raft River ~echarge and the Goose Creek as the discharge areas.

d. Raft River Lithology - Covington In general, the area consists of gravels down to about 2,000 feet. The faul t zone \'/as encountered at 4,050 feet and caprock (siltstone) at ", 4,500 feet in RRGE-l. The rock types were all encountered 50 to 200 feet deeper in RRGE-2 than RRGE-l. There is good correlation between the two wells.

6. Permeabi 1 i ty r~easurements - Jones

The core samples from RRGE-l and -2 have been measured for permeabilities under "i n situ ll conditions (temperature and pressure). These resul ts are a factor of 10 or more less than the results obtained under atmospheric conditions. Generally, the results obtained from the production zones of the wells have been above average. Moreover, the rocks exhibit high permeability values when fractures are included in the test sections.

7. Groundwater ~~easurement - Ralston

Data was presented which reflects on the groundwater system'in Raft River. Transmissivity (T) factors are on the order of 100,000 - 200,000 gpd/ft. The storage coefficient (S) is about 0.001 and the leakage coefficient is 0.4 to 0.5. These factors apply to the valley proper while the area above the Narrows is a little lower in transmissivity values but about the same for storage and leakage coefficients.

8. INEL Raft River Reseroivr Computer Code - Kettenacker I

This presentation was deferred due to time limitations and is presented here as Attachment 33 (Letter WCK-4-76).

B. Summary and Future Plans

Several consensus recommendations concerning future planning were made by the seminar participants and are summarized below:

1. Flow RRGE-3 for long period (~ 30 days); monitor RRGE-l amd -2 with the quartz crystal surface pressure instruments and RRGE-3 with the downhole pressure probe.

2. Repeat the three well test as above but flow RRGE-2.

3. Repeat the three well test as in 1. above but flow RRGE-l.

4. Conduct reinjection tests and monitor with the quartz crystal probe and surface instrumentation.

5. No reinjection well should be drilled at this time by REECo. REECo should demobilize and move out as soon as possible considering current

budget,restraints.

nn

6. All three holes should be tested thoroughly and all plausible tests shoul d be pursued for research reasons and to defi ne the reservoi r characteristics and boundaries •.

7. The reservoir appears to be limited by fracturing and faulting. That is:

a. Permeability is reduced away from the fractured zones. b. There are localized zones, even around known faults, that lack the

fracturing to transmit the existing geothermal fluids into the well bore. This fact is exemplified by the lack of production in RRGE-3A.

c. Near veri cal fracturing occurs in the area and appears to be associated with the major faulting. This fracturing is responsible for good pro.duction rates where it has been penetrated.

8. Development of the geother~al resource should be pursued as rapidly as possible.

cc: SDGill i ard DGoldman WWHickman WCKettenacker JHLofthouse

tooI::BMi 11 er SJPrestwich

I

oJ

- o· •

" . ~,.

Attachment 1

- ------_._._--

I

" /I

\1 b' ,\ \\ II \I ~ ........

~ \I

u.. o (/) w a::: =:>

'I~ c:t: a::: w 0....

E5 to-

UJ --l o ::I:: Z ;:3c: o Q

'., :::E: =:> :::: -

.', ." ;,

J i -,

.. : ....• ' .

Z40

Attachment 2

):> c+ c+ III ()

§f CD ::s c+ w

"A" TD 5853 1 GL

N 65 W 6-3/40

400

!1i'

:il

4937 1

RRGE-3

I ,

5145 1

4731 ~

I(O"B" 4549~ /! I~OI1C" 4402'

KO"A" 4336 1

N87W 5-3/40

"BI1 TO 5532 1 GL N 31 E 140

100

200

100

Vertical Hole

100

... • ' ., ':'~'. 1. : ':-:":':"~::';'f. .. /' i':·;.; •.•

RRGE-3 Temperature Logs"Before'Casin9~~:;'<"::~ , ':,' :'-:';.'" "'~';'!.': ... ~ ,',; ~ .:,,,.:~,)!,;::,~~ .. : .. " .

'. ,.(TeII.lperatur.e::~F) i::':':::;;/~~(;:': !~.~ i"~> ;Y?';:f :'. '. ';:::l;·~·:~~~~·)·f~_~:

o

.... ,

', .. :"

',';

Attachment 4

::z::

- --'or -- _ ... _

225 o

4200

4400 1 •

: ~ I ; . . .

250

4600 .. ~ .... -.-- ...... .'/,. l . . I .-

'. . I . .'

4800

5000

5200

l , , 1 ,

.. I .

i

I I

. I I I ,

5400 I, . . !

·1 ..

. l I' i

5600 . I .

. : I ' I . I I i '.

5.800 I . I ..'

L __ "

1 :

; :,

300

I

I I ... _ ... : ,., j I

I :

. . I I

.. , .. - . i

!~ i ._.

"""" I I

.. i I

, ~

~I""-' ~

TO 5853

Attachment 5

-.-'

- ;f

RRGE 3-A

DRESSER ATLAS

TEMPERATURE LOGS .. r '.:.':

Run 1 5l1/76 After Dril1inJ. Completed Logging @ 0400

I,·

Well Flowing ~ 30 gpm Since 0130 BHT 2850F

Run 2 5/3/76 3 Days Later After 7 Hr. Airlift logging @ 0830, Finish @ 1600

I Well Open Not Flowing, Flow Started 1730 Hrs. BHT 2950 F

1000

3000

4000

5000

r-______ ~--------1~0~0~OF------_r------~2;00~O~F------~------~3~000F

-

..

.-":-. -. -

Midnight 4-30-76 to 5-1-76 Open but not flowing ~

1700 hours 4-30-76 Shut in

1800 hours 4-30-76

'. I> Return logging up

RRGE-3A - April 30 - May 1, 1976 Attachment 6

.'1 r

'/

Ores er Atlas 5-2 76

4236 267 F' 47 gpm

I

Began gging at Oe30,

f nished at ; 1300 hrs

.'

I .. 'J

-- RRGE-3

SUflflV\RY OF DRILLING AND TESTING

SPUDDED IN ON MARCH 28

SURFACE CASING CEMENTED TO 1383 FT ON APRIL 1

DEPTH OF 4241 FT REACHED ON APRIL 16

3 DAYS OF FLOW TESTING AND LOGGING

CASING CEMENTING JOB COMPLETED, SECOND STAGE WORKING FROM

- -- -:;;';.-"

TOP, ON APRIL 21 .. ~

FIRST LEG COMPLETED TO 5853 FT DEPTH ON APRIL 30 IN WESTERLY DIRECTION . OFFSET 363 FT FROM WELLHEAD, WEST, 2° NORTH

OFFSET 212 FT FROM KICKOFF POINT AT 4318 FT

BEGAN DYNADRILLING SECOND LEG KICKOF~ AT 4531 FT ON MAY 7

BOTTOM HOLE (5853 FT) TEMPERATURE ON 'MAY 3. 295°F . '

TEMPERATURE AT 4550 FT ON MAY 3 AND MAY 6, 286°F

TEMPERATURE AT 2000 FT ON MAY 6, 240°F

AS A RE-INJECTION HOLE, 1200 GPM REQUIRED 480 PSIG~AT THE WELLHEAD (HOT WATER VISCOSITY) ----

AFTER DRILLING SECOND LEG TO 5530 FT IN NORTHEASTERLY DIRECTION

WELL HEAD PRESSURE COLD: 30 SPI

FLOW" WHEN COLD: APPROXlMA.TELY 250 GPM

Attachment 7

, t

, TABLE I .. '

I

Sample . Depth ;remperature Pressure SiOz Na K Ca cr Geochemical Thermometers (OC)

Well fI !i (ft.) (OC) (psi) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t HC03':::' Si02 Na-K-Ca

3 3313 73 8 58 805 23 116 1480 107 132 . 3 3806 106 25 90 1790 43 280 3310 40.6 130 129

3 3986 112 8 92 1940 45 293 4210 32.5 131 131

3 4214 99 23 99 1940 46 283 3540 32.5 129 131

3 5700 60 0 56 430 21 75 770 47 66 113

2* 108 30 150 484 40 49 829 29 160 182 )::. c+ 1* 137 45 c+ 150 126 523 37 52 850 149 175 III () ::T

~ Crank III 1065 35 135 142 142 :::l c+ co BLM 107 550 19 55 1139 83 140 140

Irrigation 45 96 water for

:.1 . .'

* Data from most recent sampling was used.

t As Jlg/ml CaC03'

. "

· NEAR TERI1 TESTING PLAN - .- -.;;.--

JUnE 1 - 15

FLOv~ TEST No.3; WITH DOWNHOLE INSTRLMENTATION

IN NO. 1 AND NO.2; EACH OF THOSE SHlIT-IN

Jur ~E 15 - JULY 8

FLOW TEST NO. 2 AND DISPOSE OF WATER IN AREA .'

JUNE 15 - DURATION

FLOW NO. 1 FOR ENGINEERING TESTING

JUIlE 20 - (IF POSSIBLE OR THEREABOUTS)

DOtLNHOLE PUl'-1P I NSTAW-A TI ON I N NO. 3

JULY 6

BEGIN REMOVING DRILL RIG IF NO ·FUNDS FOR

REINJECTION HOLE

JFK:S-21-76

Attachment 9

II

=========~I II II

==:;;:=========== II II II \I 1\ II

II /I If===::;==== II .

===~! II II II II II II II II

j--; ..:""-' .'

f:

~ < .:' • ~- "" :

;"'. "1_

~~-

"".R y/ ~

~ --1 ;r:. M-M-III () ::T 3 CD ~ M-

--' --'

1 1 1 o 5000 10,000

Scole tn Feel / ~'*' 13

ANC -c -6304

o'~ 23 1000' 2000'

):. 3000,1 ------M-M-

4000'1 P.l ---..--() ::r 5000' 3

6000' (D :::l M-

N

3

-................ -............

Basement

Narrows Structure

--, ROCk

SECTION A-A

, '.' 'r~ 'f'

lJo,s e'lJe",

ANC- B-6302

y

-\

\

Attachment 13

~-------.

CD I

CD

Z () ;:. u w (/)

1· i.'

I '~C ;'/, il~ n' ,~,

,tt, t, f,.

}: ;~l

j' . . t~

;,\1 HH j-. ,I,j

;"~.' ~1 '

J :1 1 , ~.

I, i ~ (,

" f \

\ '\ , 't' , , )

L:

"'\, ~ ::

. /.-:' I.{ t

,.1. ....

1 Y.<~{,

i:'·,P. , :':"; ~ . 'il- (. '0\ r';~ \·t·.'~

,;fr{~' ;~:(;, . . t '~';':' ,

'. ~:II

:P c+

I­W W l!..

c+ I III I-9-0.. 3 W ro 0 :::I c+

',p,

RRGE NO. 3 ELEV. 4860'

Ii RGt. NO. I ELEV. 4835 '

___ -re,;,:., 3915' ~ DATUM 7317' F::r O

.. '

RRGE NO.2 ELEV. 4845 '

· . i:~:j)

J~~;~ I'"~ .... ..... :t~: .... "

,.,. ..... ',' '.'.,! '.:'~ . :. " . .. .

ALLUVIUM

RAFT RIVER FM

· .. · . · .

-1000

1000- '~~EW~-tOO==O ==i: --_

I ' ~1 .::====i::=i==-.,~~,/ ,,/// d,o

,.,.

/.t,,*" {

2000-

3000-

.u " / -",II f ..

, , / . //. /

11·,,/

,o. ;: "?;,'f.

--

' .. , .!...!~

, -, . .n -/,

:::;'.;' ::;: ',o,o

f /

{(~-3000 o:::~

'~~~ -I KM ~/

...... f,JI

SALT LAKE FM :::·1-2000 .'.,.,. " "

/·v" ,;.;-,. .. ;1.

.. .. ~~}3000

./ .... /'"

RECENT

-j

fTl ::u -t i> ::u -<

l'~

,,o/ /~ .. //

://,( hi

4000-

llilliQ

TO 4989 ItB'J Tuff 3'12J Ryolrre c::::J Sondsl"'" ~Shole E;;B Sillsl"". I!D2J Shisl E2Zl Quartz;l. ~ Quartz Monzonite ~ Conglomerato

Mica p Pyril.

Gypsum 8 Cor ••

26

~; ~ > > l'l /

;y/~~ ", . ,H ..

.::--. --:':<1-6000 ..

METAMORPHOSED QTZ­SHIST ZONE

QUARTZ MONZONITE

RRGE 31 I::::: 25 . 'V

'-----+---' ~ - 2 K M

~-;1~tfr'~:::~::~ ",":~ .

','1(": " ' . . Jtf" ~ ~, .'

TO 6543 rY'~' nt-~

r~ , rL .,' .; .. ,,"1

'Iltl'~ .-.. • ii, ~ t. ,\\' . .r fI 1

" 1'.~. .,:-, ~: .~~ -~ .

TO 5853 w= - 6000 N 80W 6 314°

TO 5917 "e" N60W 22 3//

\J ::u fTl , (") }>

s: ID ::u }> z

~~W'l~~, "IN ... ,mn.r·" ..- .. ,~,',"~i;tl1 .... ·~1 7'1'

.~,,,.:.,, ..

RRGE WELL CORE PERMEABILITIES ..... -' .. Permeab i1 ity , "

" Well Depth , KB (Mi 11 i darci es) - -.~~, "

. " RRGE-l 4,227' .003 ... 04 (cap)

, " RRGE .. 1 4,506' 5.0

" "

RRGE-2 4,372' 0.0022 (cap)

RRGE-3 2,807 1 .25

RRGE-3 3,365 1 lower .04

:! 3.365' upper >35. (",100)

"

Attachment 15

-- ~-. -

Rock Type

Si 1 tstone

Tuffaceous Siltstone'

Shale II

Sandstone

Tuff

Tuff

.' ; ..... j ..... ,.

, '; :;'. (~

, . " .

:", .

,', . ;.~. • ~ • '.' • t .•

" .. .'.

'. ,j,. I: .•.• :.:: •• :.' .

. . "'~: .. ,'

.; ,:...:! '. "",t

):> IT IT jlJ ("l ::r 3 ro :::s IT

-' (J)

Test No,

1

2

3

Duration Desc ri p ti on Hours

Short Term Test 15 on RRGE #2

Long Term Test 615-1/2 on RRGE #2

Short Term Test 30 on RRGE III

Table I

Drawdovm Tests

Production Well No. Flow Rate

gpm

RRGE #2 210

RRGE #2 400

RRGE #1 26

-_ .. - ~~-.--.-.- --

Pressure Gage in Maximum Pressure drop He 11 No. Depth. feet We 11 No. lip, psi

RRGE #2 5200 RRGE #2 39

RRGE #1 1000 RRGE #1 3.6

RRGE #1 4700 RRGE #1 1.1

- _ .. _--------- -----_ ......... - -_._ .... - -----------_ .. _ .. _ .. - - .... -

~ :::-::---::-=-:....: =-

"

TABLE II

Characteristics of Reservoir as Deduced from Drawdown Measurements on RRGE-2 While Flowing RRGE-2

Transr.1issivitv (gpd/ft2 at 2;6°F)

kH md-feet

Storage Coefficient

S

~CH (Porosity x Compressibility x Thickness)

Drawdown Data

Jacob IS f1ethod (Asymptote Solt:ltion)

4,667

44,134

-2 1 .134 x 10 ; rw = 1 foot

Thei s t~ethod

4,696

44,442

1.09xlO-2

rw = 1 foot

2.82 x 10-2 ft/psi; 2.71 x 10-2 ft/psi; r = 1 foot r = 1 foot w w

Attachment 17

Recovery Data

Asymptote Solution

4,718

44,623

·---------.. -----', '"'t ..... ~~ -"~.""1'~~:)'4'fIn39'~'::"~~':"_!-"/.'!<t;'i1""'''\~4<''' ';"~'.:~."'''''''' • ...:')'"..i.~ .. , ..

~ ~-..,.,- -. "' .. - .. _,-...-,_.--_.-

",~ .. C_~_''''~' \' "-~-'''"'''''"--'', ' . • .... -.-,c~

\",\ .

\\ ~ ..

DRAWDOWN DATA FROM RAFT RIVER TEST AT f1'RGE NO 2 . . . \

Fig. 7

( 91 f2/75 TO 9/13/75)

~o Iii iii iii I iii iii iii.

:P 40 c-t c-t III n ::r 3 Cl> :::s ~ 30 c-t

-' Z Xl 8

~ 20 a:: 0

to

0' iii iiii "1 '" •• ,'

10 100 1000 10.000

PUMPING TIME. SEes

TA~LE III

Results from Flowing RRGE-2 and Measuring Pressure in RRGE-1

Preliminary Test

SP.pt. 14 to Sept. 17, 1975

The; s Curve. f4a tch; nq Procedure

kH. md feet 2.25 x 105

~CH, ft/psi5.74 x 10-4 (Porosity x Compressibility x Thickness)

Transmissi-bil ity 2.37 x 104

gpd/ft at 296°F

Storage 2.31 x 10-4 Coefficient

S

"

-------"_.-. "'"

Asymptotic Solu. (Jacob's r1ethod)

2.22 x 105

5.39 x 10-4

4 2.34 x 10

2.16 x 10-4

Attachment 19

I

Long Duration Test

Sept. 20 to Oct. 16, 1975

Theis Curve Matching Procedure

1.19 x 10-3

2.41 x 104

4.78 x 10-4

Asymptotic Solu. (Jacob I s Method)

2.28 x 105

9.38 x 10-4

2.37 x 104

3.77 x 10-4

Fig. 8

EFFECT OF LUNAR ATTRACTiON ON WATER PRESSURE IN GEOTHERMAL RESERVOIR, RAFT RIVER VALLEY, IDAHO

en ·~L573 (50.1 en E 0

~

Q) "-,.. :J

~-O.I en 572 ---en Q) "- Water pressure variation 0- ,

"- 571 Q) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 0 0 0 0 0

:t:> 3: 0 N N 0 N 0 N M-

.) M-Al (") ::r 3 ID ::J M-

'" 0 en o O.lr en Ol 0-

E 0 ~

~-0.11 en 572 en Water pressure variation Q) "-0-

"- 571 Q) - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ·0 8 0 0 0 0 s: N 0 N N 0 N 0

.:'.//~ .. : .. ~ .

):> c+ . c+ III n :T 3 CD ::l c+

N -'

fig. 9

DRAW DOWN DATA FROM RAFT RIVER TEST AT R R G E NO.1 (9/20 TO (0/12)

U) a.

Z ~ 0 0 ~ ct a: 0

5 -.r-------~~--~--_?--,_~_r~~r_------~r_--~--~--,__T~_T~i~j

4

:3

2

o ' • • • •

10 100

PUMPING TIME I HRS

II

1000

--- .. -- -~-~ _. ----~-.-.~-.-- ..... ------------.-- --------_._---.. --- ----- -._-----......... -- --.--.---~-~ ....... ----... --..... _ .. .----_._--.... _----

i; T.O. 'fA lPS

r--r __________________ ~/.{_-I--------

Attachment 22

.. ---- ..... ..:: .... ,~.:.~~~

1 i

(

o ::)

8 \:.> ';t ~:

0" -r-

I ' ----.-, ---·r-··-·····--,. --- -r'-'- ""- ·--,.·----,·7"""---r-·-··-·-;--···-·I-···· .. _.. . !

i ' 1-;

I ! ,-, I I

j"

i

I I I , ! I i

/0 IE) 20

P r--·---.-.1.-:--------,-

•

1-" j

----1 -

•

. -•

I

I • •

i I

-l ..... '---"- ...

1:--..... jeo·· .... --.. - ... -...... -.. , ...... 0" , •••. - •.••••• -.-•••• - •• - - .•

- . ) . ! ! •. 1 t

-;'\ i .-...... II - ·'--1 .--.,. ,I. --- I i·-; -I... I : I -,- , • : J I,

-L.C=:~I :::-:-.~-:::- ·--i·~=~I~~~~l~·~:.~:jl=>~ .-1---·II···~-~-~I-·-J:·~·--·-r~···· .,,-,: .. -.. . - - ,.-. ..-;---. , • I I I -!.·· .. ·Il ,--1.-.... 1 ...•

1

., " , I ; l~iCO' - i i r·:::-;--. --··-·;--:--·-jl-;:·-rt,..., /: 1 :

~:" . . ... - , I _ I I I , ... :'0 I---~! '.'"Y\ ' -~~ .. I .... -...j ! ... -:'\-: 'I I I" .j i : t.... ,-

t .; i';~ ! If'\.' i f-~ -~tJtJ . __ .. -: ---' t-.. -._-.. I-~ i ' • I

i ' !. I .

!

r-. 6CO , 1-, -" .

I I -----T --"

.i , I

7~O

____ . __ . __________ .. ___ . _ . __ .• __ ..... _. _.v _____ . _ ... _. ___ .~ __ ! ! 1 I ! .

----;-----';-.-----. ---1------:--, ~.-!.---_:_-.---..-;\-.----:-- ...

'I 1 I·· j I ! i· .. . i .. . ..: .. ! I 1 • ----:----I,-·-··-1-······-·!-·----;-· -.-. ':"- .-.. -.--- . i .• . ! .. '1 I .:' i !

. I' 1 • • , : ! ._ ... - - --0. _.~_ ..... __ ~ __ .~.

!

11, oC::~oOGI2 1975"" ! I .--.~ ... - __ ... I ..•.. -.-.: •••. ---: ..•..•.. : .•.• __ .

! ' i ; l..

I --~-T' ·-:~l

.. ~----:-.- -~ .' ._,

I I

1 I

I ·1

, \' -·~COL.--~--'------I----~i-' ----------..... - ---- ... - .. !

i I' I

5 T" p... [;.1) I:../.-I- \..1 s). t-.

~_---''--_--'. _______ ---'-____ --'-l ___ .. ~ __ ~ .. _._-'-___ _ Attachment 23

('-

'.J .:

...:. .. -

o .. __ .. _._, __ .....:;5:::..:0~ ____ _

I __ ~~~~o~ __ ~ __________ ~?O -----

I

) -... -.-.-I

• I . . - .. ~

•

I '~'-"IIGii15'

(r /..0 ('if 11116)

lOco'

2 ()(){) .--.---- :. .. . .. - . I ._ I ., ----.. --,-

. I ---~--.--! - ... :--.------.--1--.--.---, 1 , .. ;_..... I . 1 ' I" -. -- •• ' -.: • I

T~- t:-~ , 'c ' ~i:- +-::1-:+ ___ T~ -' -_. : . ,.,.1 .:..' I , ." I ..... 1.. . . -,- . j • -~~ .. --·-l-.. -·~ ~_I_i __ ll!~~1 . i "'l'~ 1--·-····· ~-I!-:--· !." - . I '~;-I'" I ,--'-'-- : .. -------,- 1'-;' i" 1--

-----'--r'" ---'''1---''-- -. - !-! i I

. -- ~- .------~-.-- ----: . . _-___ .-"--.- .. _ J . I ;---- -.-- -------- -'.

I ,

___ .. _ J .

. '·i: j i /JI} ,;/-. ..,. A Wat-.J;.,.

i I , , ., I

.!

, I , I

----------j-.----.-- -- -' . ; T-- .. _----. -------;--.- .-. -- i -- .. - .. ,--------\------- ---. -- .. , I

I I

Attachment 24

!

• •

o. -'

. -.~ 0 • < , .

r I I . ~ 8 \" ii' I I: i : I 'I . : ;:j . I .: . I I' I I" 71 ' , . : '(" c) ;

r. ; ..... -:.- ....... \ '--"', ... Ein?Ps./t/J-TU!<.IS_ .. '- :... _._ ! 1 ~ • I , ! 1,

I; I to I~ Zo z..S- 30 35 f" '/ca~--------------------------------------·~ I I

I ! i

. . , [

~~ · · · \ ~

e • . I \' I •

I \ " 0.

-"---'-j _"~4 ____ .' .-.-- ,eo.- •. _.:._ - '; -

• I • ! . : 6. I

.... . "'--"-'1' '--.-.-. - •••

• ! i '0. : I· .. I ·'.1·· . I •

i : ••

.-- -1--- ...... ,

. !

i \ ! •••

1 ............ J. ! ! ·0... ! . 1~·J.2·~'?~O ----. --.. :-~-i·--:-.·~·~·,---:----l-·. --"7·~-.1-·' - .·------·--1--... -;--.--.- .. I..l....i~ ... ~--.I'·-·I·-'~--; _1 .. _I~ .... I~···.- .. i· ! I·· .. i ~Ti~; .. : .. :-;- ----, _.1 .. : .--.. i-!-,·i->-!-~~.J+-· -1·:·;\ +--'-~h:" .... 1 ....... -:-

1

1 ;r:' .i/·-.; ,-:,":'-j --=-__ .I..I-_, ... _' .. _h .. _._ .. __ I,_I ____ I _____ .. J_!._L ___ ~ ... --.• I .... - .. I .................... _". ":": I. - .. --I++·H···· .. h_:_'\:~ ·--..!·~ .. ;-~l-;·I- 1. ... -:-:·1--:··-:· ... 1 '---'1 .. ______ :'.L ... c,. 1--: -:.: .. ,r..AA .' - :.... ~2_1 _.-~ : - _.L.:..:_'_: _.~ .. ____ ._!... . .:". I . __ 1-__ '_' .: v(..if./ _:.. ! . ,; , " _ I 1 0• I . . i I. I -.:. ~ ; . .. _ -. .. .- _. I - ~. I •• • - • 1 • - - •• I

·jt1;.---· -,-·-----i---··-- -----j-.!, ;---_._ .. 1 .. -: --1--'''':·-" •••••• :

I' , !--~. i ... --.. ': ':'-~I ,-,.... I' ".:' !" ••••• . ......., . . ... . ,... 1 .• , I· "'_'!'_jh' ! .. j. !. . I· •• ,. I

P-· --- 600 f--~-'--'1----1'----'-i---:-"" - eo .. -r .. ·----··· .. · ."' . .':,... ,;

. . i

, •.• 1.,.

. . . . '.

f-__ t,7'.flA ... ___ . __ -;.-' . --.---1--.. ---.--+--------,- e •. _____ . __

VV :- ~ i ....

--_.-0----_. __ _ , _' ... : : __ : i .

,------800 . . I •.

~t_t~~:. L':~~

, ... i - .. Iii \. --··~-l-:---I---i---·I--r-r \.

-.~.--- ..... ,-.-- .... .. _---- . -.. --j-.-----.----- .. ·r-.... - -- ... -.. --. " \ \

)~ . J"'hl/VhAY '''7' i --- ..... - - .... -! .. -- ... - --- 1-- -.. .. i

! . . . · · · · · · · · · · · 1 I I

~-'90a··~: ------~I_. ____ ~!--~ ___ I~~--~--__ --~----\~ /1 1 ! i j

: I RttF~ R.lv~ll X D, I

\ I I Attachment 25

, II, . I ' . . ....

/

o . ,

'"' " '.' ';.' I'~

"

- , :-.:

,'.

r':---'--~--~---r---------

11.>.1:, !' RhFTr R'VJl~ 1-----, -----,--.-.---.- ...... :'

;

I,D,: I . I'" '''', , ,

/~ :rItN~ fiA-Y

! /p. Yh P S.RA-"" U J<.tS

10 2.0 10

~()

So

'1--"-'

60 o -------------~------~,-----~----.-----::

I 1' .. ··- '! I

o .... --- - I i ••

• • • • . . I /tlO I ,. _0> ...

[,- 'I \. I" . \

'i ~ "

I 2 .: , i···.', , ' _.--- .. t'O .... --~.-, -"T-"'-'-"\' ----i····---··-, " ..... ,,"- -. ,,-:-.. - ... -, . ..' I'" I " I. 'Go ' 1 ': I ,

. f _Ll_ ,'.,,-~, ".-:·_-~·_J_ .. '!'I;'· '. ~'-"~(l' .:: :I-~': ~-1 -IJ'·~'-··i·:,.,J ~,~.;,;~" .~~: -... " _, ., -i·~., ., .. 1_ ... ,. _ .,-1-.. __ ... :, ---:--,.-"

I : I

· .. ···--1-..

.. I' t::-Tf-+L ;"~--"l"r-~-l-: I'=---T +~i': ro._._ , .• : ':-;-"1· -.... j .. -., ·~-I~·-:.-::: 1--· ,:tr=!§~'~~--::c ·.-If-f.'IF'! _:\\1 -.-.• -: .---_~ i -_. . --.--~

1+····_,·1 .. _,-L_ .. ~~; .. ::":. 'I' .' ."- -"1·'-1-' "'+'i' r~··,...I-,,· ... 00 I· I 1-< (I , • . .. 'I' " .. I - .-.1. ..

I ':

I.. "liJ'l L-.. · .. ··-TVO' I . I i I

~-5'tJo

I'~~.J:~.:.· i· ... r- ! .. I':' .. ; I i' - '·-600

---'---

i . I

---'-.-t

. I . -. 0 ••

I •• i ' . , I " I eo

-·-i----·~ .. ·-·· .... t--- -",- ..... -.......... . , . : ••.. .

o . . . . . . .. . . -.,----;------.--..00:--- -.-..•• ~. --_._-._.'--._. -.--I I -••

i"IT'i'; ··1··· I'" "'0 I I' . I 0

0 --1---~- ··'T-:----···- ~ 0 •• ;

I : I 0. j! .•••

0.

"0 ".

0.

0. I:'l~' ~ l :.~·:.:L I.~ . -·-· .. L .', I, I I L---'7t'O,--t. · ____________ i __ _

I ' I , I I ,

I ' Attachment 26

! , I

·1

'j

---i

I ___ .I , I I

N

III

,. ... U

.­O· ~3 0" -N

XX

~~

j::; '1'

t .t ~ ....... !..,

{\ : l '.'\ ..... ...", } ... ~- ;~' >-: : ....

II

• ~

;'') I ;', '~ " . • ' • :.t I,. ,L_ ..

Attachment 27

/j;.' V

.~ .. ,: 1 "'.,'.

/'

(

- , .¢ ~ .

" "

,

-----1----.-:...-------~-.:.:"- ~. 1 ' i :-'--1--'--- :-l ~~ --... _--_.-.- --.--.. -;"--

: -, ! - i ! - "

-1------;--- - i -, ----r-- -"i

'--+---- ~ r---r---:-:---t-......:.-.---l'-l.i __.J!

-'--+---'-.

I , ,- i ---,- ----·---i_---·---- '-------'r-:-+---,'-,:- --,-r---l

. : ! : _, ' . I

-i -!-j -- , .. --- -i '-r--~ -.

" II ~ ~ .......

.-~-

, ! l . I

I-I

.-. !--_._.

!: .

i I -:---/\-- ~ : _ \.,,: ' ::l' I;~

~l f'(\

~I .W\

._1 i -- I

! I ~ I • .. I

, I ! I

I i - ,- - 1

, ,

r--~-iii I

--'- +-----i-----:----I- i I ' 1 - --1---+-__ -I ,I i-

! · \..,., .,! 'I:' I' i"~, i ,-:- .. I ' i C'J\! ;: ;'!-() Ii, lii"j C i i : I -: 1.O

1

-:, ' ; , I : , : , I' : ; , -, i-' - I-_ ,; -, I : i ! I I : I.,! I

, I Ii, I! I I , ! ' I, i : ' I ' : i: : ~..:..L.i'-' - '1 - I , I : I Iii I' ,i I ,i " I

-" --! --, .'. !._- _ •..

I ' . I

: : ' I

Attachment 22

'I J;_~,

, ;-'1

. - .- ;

1 , i

--I i I

I , ·-1·· ------1

"- '\ ",

. "L:_L;......:.:i.::.:: .. :.:.:_j,:~~ :_,_,_,'_, !:....~_._ .. _·;~~l::...::'!~_J:.~::":":..:.;j.::;.;;:~;.J..:;":::..:.;.:L ._:":.' .. i:::.~.;:L' :.:;:;, !.:. • • . ".,., "ft

~ ., .' .., . .

\;:::;: :::t::·::::~h~:~t~: ::::: :'rj('fi-p;':~)~'j~j~~:ei~:+=-~!~b}'(;i'oi,': '£ l' \ ........ :..... .......... ,: :":1' :/9:. c. ~.;"~;:r ~/z...: j:- '!::. I' ···· .. ·-i·· ....... "... I.JI

L. ... ...... ... .. ........ ". !. j. , !

Attachment 29

:. . i ; ; : i i : : . ; ; ~ j : : i ' : : ! ' i : ! ~.... I,

i ,

I.

.. !

... _j

I'"" . . ' ,

, , o

r-----I : .' I ~ , • I I;

I····· . j .. -

!._I j .

--r~--------.-:--' ~~.-. -----.... ,.,;._. __ .---;""""--- . ---I I

.Ts";"p ~Af;.TU;fl,.[;. i ~C) IS Z'O 2£"

I

I I ". '" .. - .. - ..... I'

S' IC! I~' .r-------~--.. -\-\-.~----------------------------'-~'

'. "

/ r-" . :;;v

1----, -' I .

i r··.· .. --30~ I I ,

l. _.

\ -'. .,

' .. ' \.~

r----.---.!-....... -'"-- .-~---. t ._-- . 1_ -.- ----~---.- •• _. i--'"- -. I ••.

J .~ I ...

" ._--_._---:--_._-_._----- -----:, .. _._._-.. ,- ._._---_.- .. ".-. ---.- .. _--" .. , '\ .

. . , .. ..•. \ . " .--., .. -.. \ SO:.DC

i I I \' rv I IJ J"""A ;.,.... ,

1

":"\ ·/":)V ---. -'--;-. --.-, ----I --.--.... -.--\--.-- i •. -.t{;!;r. -~--.- -: ,... i .' .. , :i: 'l'"~-''' ;-;-"1-" : ", i'. " . ,. I! j 'll. '" ---........ -.. - .: ,"" ... I', ' i ': I

.~~t}(;~±i:~-=-:::I ±c-Ttt:.t=f±i:;=~i:,~:=i\:=:f-j ..... ~ iT!: ::-'--- - -~~ :tn:1600 .. -'::-;.C-:~. hf!=:E].:p:: ,CT:L .. , \~_ .. - ·~-t .'-~' :'; T_' --' -r-' _-:_~_ ~~ i::~ -V~=:::·: .---, i-I I·T.:·=L:~~.::.; __ l~' j .. ' I' \ I -.i.: I : ~ . i

.j I .• 1·--,. ~I-'~- .-. .-~. """:-'-1- - ... _.-. I . ..,"\

LQ._.~hrA __ ,,_·1 .---'. -----i.---~.-.-\--r. __ ... _._. __ . __ . ___ .;_ l'/::JV - -----r : " \. . -' Ii' " :

-. I \ I! \

'\ [--·--100· L t---------l----·--· .. :·-·---··-~·-···--l- \--;-----.. ---'----.-

I .... i'" : : --l"" . . ..l-:~~-:.-----.. L_...l--.. ·'\: __ . I \-:.-.... -; .. -.. . .... --.-\----- .. " I I ! \ "1'---I I \ \'-' /05"0 .----.. -.. --.: .---.. -_ ... -.-- .. , ... - ... "-"-'--- -- ," \\_ ... -.-.,--,: J \

\ ... :.-... \ .. :.:. ··· .. 7 F~8f!.uhl1.r i/9~'. ! I :.1. ! \ ! .. , : i ': I · \: 1----1200 ·---·'---!-·--·---·--·--~I·---+_!· -: ---I--~-·~~--

I I ." I . I I \. I

I Ri VE.;""

Attachment 30

--.! ,

! --; , i

'-1

--.-..-J I ! ;

, . i

I i , ,

Ii, I

\

1 I ! i .. ,

I

•. J .i

·1

.1.

,() I~.J

I~ ~ I

~

i

.~

! ,~ ~

lj l.ci

o It\!. ,

I .. , ... j ... !. ... ,' .... :.:'" 1 ; ~ , ~ !

I ,: i : i : I . Iii

: I

---.------.----.----.-----------.-.-----------:'1 . J

! !

: !

. ! I :

i L ,

- 1--'· .1. ... ! .

I ,

~'

j : ~~' '-' ----- -----

~~-

! ::,.. . ... : ....... :... L ..... i..... ;. :'i' .... ! .: ... \ ...

I .! : ~:'

. ..'.

! ...... j, \ 1

\. j···+·-t·_-i

\i i i'l '0 I i I 0 .g , I

- 1

-':-1 .. :.-~:

.. :. ~J _1.1

i ··;-··f

I .. L j •.•••• J ... :. .. J .... ,.1 .:'.:. .I .... : , .. , I .... j ._, .. _,

Attachment 31

(

I',.

~I.IIfP61fAIURE (~) OI:·r.I!)_....:.iii~......:;~.....;.~~--::5D::;;;....-...:'::;.;;()~_7;;;,;.'9;;..........::;IXJ.;;....,' ~"::.;;'()_...:IM~_.;:.;:;IHJ.;;., _...;;.lll;;;.1) __ ...:/.;.;::;~;,;;;,D;".' _/:;.,:;j~~j

'.00

I

/1/ 1 ' /." l~.~

p~ ~ " '"

1

., ,

... ! : " , I":

,I,

, , ,

•... l

~ .......

j"

R lt~6:"./ 1~::Oc"t:lN&" "7S" '

, , ............ _.",... .-. ".

, "

I'!'

Attachment 32

"

, '

-- -. ,

'" I • .• _ •. l, •.•

: f' '\,.,\ .. . ::: .. l.o;. ;

, ' 1 ••••

... :! " !

, I

.. 1.:

., jl'" ,

I I !'

i ..

,':'/ j :

, i

,:.

: ..

: , , !. \'

I ' .j : ..

,

, ",

1·····

I" ;,;

, , • I' ~-"-

!oj

i';

l'~:S? i . : .. ! : ~ . ~~

: 1: 7 7; " " '~~ _. !';"T:-r , ;Ti~-:'

.! ":-P;~T : ~: 1 •• ;"

"' l; .•. , .....

: : 1 ;.!

r \

June 26, 1976

J. F. Kunze UPD

Interoffice Correspondence

RESERVOIR ENGINEERING SEMINAR - SALT LAKE CITY - 5/21/76 - WCK-4-76

Because of time limitations at the SLC Reservoir Engineering Seminar, the ANC Therma1 Analysis Branch reservoir engineering effort was not discussed. This effort has resulted in the development of a computer code to predict the long term pressure response of the Raft River Geothermal Reservoir and the long term temperature response of each of the wells. This computer code uses a modified heat-transfer code (SHIDA-3G) \'Ihich employs a finite-difference solutior:l scheme.

Currently the code is able to match, with reasonable success, the test data taken at Raft River wells 1 & 2 using aquifer properties that· are virtually unchanged from those determined by Dr. Paul Witherspoon. However, aquifer siz~' and boundary locations are not know.n at this time thus making input boundary conditions to the computer code somewhat of a guessing game. Since the computer code now uses a very large aquifer model (8 miles X 10 miles), the boundary conditions have not as yet caused problems in matching the test data since test data ;s not of long enough duration to show significant effects

. from boundaries. Computer code predictions for times greater than 2 months will peed accurate definition of aquifer boundaries.

FigureslA-1E show the test data taken during the long term flow test of 9/75 to 10/75 and the corresponding computer predictions. Figure lA is the actual flow rate for the flow test while a constant 415 gpm flow rate (not shown) was used for the computer predictions. The test data shm'm .in Figure 1D \oJas corrected to remove the sinusoidal tidal effects by taking only those data points approximate1y mid-\vay betvJeen the peaks and troughs. Figures 2A-2C show the test data for the pump test conducted during the early part of 1976 along with the computer predictions of this test. For this test prediction a constant 900 gpm flow rate was used in the computer model. Instrumentation on this test was not accurate enough to detect noticeable tidal effects and therefore no alteration of the test data was needed. Figure 3 shmoJs a typical computer predicted well head temperature response curve resulting from flow initiation in an initially undisturbed well. This type of curve has no real test data counterp2<I't since undistul'bedwel1s are hard to come by at Raft River. Continuous flow from the wells to supply the various ongoing experi-ments at Raft River keep tile wells relatively hot all the time.

Attachment 33

J. F. Kunze June 26, 1976 \~CK-4-76 Page 2

The nature and location of the Raft River Geothermal Reservo'ir boundaries must be determined if meaningful long term pressure response predictions of the reservoir are to be made,with confidence.' These boundaries, at least with respect to the first 3 wells, could be found with long term testing of the 3 "Jells as outlined by Drs. Hitherspoon and Narasimhan at the seminar. This would involve flow testing each well at 200 gpm to 400 gpm for approximately one month and monitoring all "jells during each test. This type of flow test is essential in defining the reservoir boundaries since geological data alone cannot accurately determine them. Accurate long term reservoir pressure response prediction using the computer code developed by Aerojet's Thermal Ana lysi s Branch is dependent upon the abil ity to defi ne the boundaries.

W. C. Kettenacker Thermal Analysis

jr

Attachments: As stated

cc: w/attachments, 'DGoldman WCKettenacker ECLemmon JLLiebenthal LGMill er NEPace RCStoker JHJhitbeck

______________ ..... _. '_n p

I '

rc.. \ I "P."" hOi " ...... I§" J(>e·;;(.otSf. l%l6. OI.SShA~-'-;TI

RRGE #2 FLO\V RATE I I 12CO .4)

--.-: c.. c..::: -~ ..... ~ ~

~ o r;:

1100·0

10c0'0

000 -0

eoo -0

7ro ·0

£00·0

:y,)() • 0

.roo. 0

~·o

200 '0

100' 0

'-J

-

I I I I -

;

I , f- l-.

1"'. - -,/ -

I .

o . O!= j I i I 1-' • , • • . o 00 100 J50 200 Z50 300 350 400 450 000 ~ GOO ~ 700 700 000

Time (Hours)

'\

. TEST DATA FROM 9/75 TO 10/75 - TIME 0 :: 2230 HRS ON 9/20/75

------~ Fi!:ure lA - Test Data flow Rate from RRGE 112 - Flow Test of 9/75 to 10/75.

'""0 ::£: ):> III (J rt to 7" M­ID I PI

+:>on --' I ::T

"-13 o 0'1 ID -t. ::J

rt I.D

--~ ..... -~ ~ 0

"0 !:: c::l I-.

0

\

irV' is "",. 1916 JOe<ot:l&o~/II'. issto. blS9Vlwra-.;1I

RRGE #2 DRA1VDO\VN

120' 0

110'0

100' 0 - I--

GO '0

eo· 0

~ -----.r

.---: //

,/ I ,

70' 0

00' 0 I I

50 ·0

40·0

I r I , i

30 ·0

\ ro ·0

10·0 I \ I 1 I i

\ ~ I :

0-0 ii' I , • • I " •. o 00 100 100 200 25Q 300 300 400 "eo eoo 0iN 600 coo 100 i::'lO too Time (Houra)

1

TEST DATA FROM 9/75 TO 10/75 - TIME 0 = 2230 HRS ON 9/20/75 _J Figure 1B - Test Data Drawdown in RRGE#2 with Flow Rate of Figure lA.

-0 ::E:: ~ PJ n c

1.0 A CD 1 •. ~r

NI :' ........ =

o 0'1 c:' -f) -.. \D

r·­I

:v..,' . .:.' yoJ;,. -'. '9" J{'~.;;C.C!6r. BSZo. (i1~9" ... e- 4.11

RRGE #2 DRA\VDO\VN 120' 0

He·o

ICO' 0

ro '0

00' 0

[ 70' 0 -a l:

eo '0

0 "'C:1

50 '0 It Cl s.-o 40 '0

30 '0

20 '0

10' I)

0'0 0 00 100 150 roo ~ 300 350 400 450 WO ~ 600 ~ 700 7W 600

Time (Hours)

FLOW IS .\ CONSTANT 415 GPM FRml RRGE #2 LOCATED AT FIELD NODE 2109

~-------------------Figure lC - Computer Predicted Drawdown in RRGE #2 with a 415 GPM Constant Flow

Rate .(This graph to match Figure lB.).

'\

~

-0::::):> llJr>rt !DAM­CD'C!J

+:>0 W I ;::r

'-J3 o 0) CD -t) ::J

rl­ID

\ I

j' . .'.'''~ :~ ,r-oo •

I I i

RRGE #1 DRAVIDO'VN

I

-.... ~ --... );: 0 ~ ~ IiJ J..

Q

~.f'>

6')

,,-~

n .c·o V

~, ~ -~ 3·5

3'0 1\. ,/

~ I \... ,-/ "

i

2'5

2'0

I' ~

"'-./

"-

I

'V~; I , /" I .

i ,/ r-

/

l' 0 I /

I . / / ,

0-5

/1 0-0,. I I ,--- • • ••••...

o 00 100 JM 200 250 300 ~ 400 450 000 £SO 000 eM 700 100 COO Time (Hours)

- --

I

CORRECTED TEST DATA FROM 9/75 TO 10/75 - TIME 0 = 2230 HRS ON 9/20/75J

Figure 1D - Test Data Drawdown in RRGE #1 with Flow Rate of Figure lA in RRGE #2 (Corrected to eliminate tidal effects),

,,:::C~ III n rl­to A rl­(J) I 01

~"'" () *"" J :::; "'-.13 o (J) (J)

-t, :J rl-

to

~,

r"\1~ 4

I ! !

.*;j,,;.'" Y1:Jt .... ,. III" JOi·.,.:.oar. I>~O.or~~ ... i\-,-[ ••• 11

RRGE ill DRA1VD01VN 0·0

:i-~ f---

5-0

I 4-~

4-0

-- 3-~ K:

f-- V ~ V ~/

V ~ ~

c 3'0 ~ 0

"C1 2-5 ~ G:I Lo

Q 2-0

v / -

/ /

V ,. 6

l// • - 0

/ O·~

/ o . 0 ,... i I ,---.-- I I • • • - -

o 00 leo 150 200 2eO 300 350 -100 400 eo<> MO 600 650 700 700 600 Time (Hours)

-FLOW::: 415 GPM FROM RRGE #2 AT NODE 2109 - RRGE #1 AT NODE 2067

\

I

-o:O::C> PI (lrt

lO Art (l) I PI

.J::>O 01 I ::r

'-J fll o 0\3 -n ::l

rt j \D

+-__________________________________________ ~--------------------------------------------------------J

Figure lE - co~puter Predicted Drawdown in RRGE #1 with a 415 GPM Constant -Flow Rate in RRGE #2 (This graph to match Figure 10).

.. __ ._---- ....... .. , ..... ........, ..

jU·;<Caora' , I~Uo. im9~"'(lI--.:T1 I" · ,'.'U , ... ,I ""'""., RRGE #1 FLO'Y RATE

l~'O

1100-0

8000' 0

G(.O 00

....,.' 000'0 ..... ...e:. c.. t.-' 7C3 • 0 -~

c; cro·O c.::: t:: t-oo • 0 o

-&: ~·o

~·o

too ·0

100 '0

I

''"'- t-::,.

'--'

--

o . 0 -t i I I I i r- I , • • , .

o 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 SO 00 100 110 lZO 130 140 lro 150 Time (Hours)

TEST DATA FROM PUMP TEST OF 2/2/76 TIME 0 :::: 1135 HRS ON 2/2/76

Figure 2A _ Test Data Flow Rate in RRGE #1 - Pump Test of 2/76 .

')

.. __ .. __ • ______________ 0

-o:;:::~ PJ n C" to A r' (DIP,

.j:::.("',

0'1 I =­'-l?

o 0'1 Ci:> -ta ==

("1

\D

.~ .. ~: 1 ,~~~ •. ..!. 'V1\.';'" Mr • • ~7'

RRGE #1 DRA1VD01fI'J

160·0

165' 0 I I i--

,:')0 • 0

135 • 0

j

I I

' t--'~

I

.------r--1 /' I

7 I ,

120 . 0 - -! -~ 105 . 0 '-

::.: :.- 00 -0 ... I "

-r--0

'"0 -it: 75 ·0 c:: :...

Q I . ._-

60·0

45 ·0

30 '0

I " \ r I

~ I ~ I

,-I

"-'"

15' 0 ~

I I I I

1-

0·0 I I I • • • • .

o 10 ro 30 40 eo 60 7f) to to 100" 110

"Time (Hour3) lOW 1:3;) 1-10 IU) liN

TEST DATA FROM PUMP TEST OF 2/2/76 - TIME 0 = 1135 }IRS ON '2/2/76

Figure 2B -'. Test Data Drawdown'in RRGE #1 with Flm'l Rate of Figure 2Ao

•• _ "'. • ••••• ' •••.. ,.,.~ ...... , • • , .... ,_ ............ -._ .. ~ ........ ~"".., .... ~'I'"" .. · .. ,..,....,.,.,·A ."":,,,,~,""'''~'''fW'''''',!'''''!1~T-1'·1If'\'·~~' ..,~n~,:,"~4·1"

-, eo

"'0 :E: ::"" PJ (") (""' to 7' r­fl) I Co:

.p.r '-J , :" ....., :" o ()) (".., -I) -'

r· \0

., .... ~ .... Jj,..ai' ... ft¢U'l:a.~

r .. -::f-, -·(ir, • .:1 .• ~- ' .. AI (.6 ""I. 1"'6 MI·..c'C~f. I~SCO. OI$YLA VCR -1.-11

I I RRGE #1 DRA\VD01VN

I ,ro·o

~ -s:::: ): 0 -'" Jl: c= L.

0

165' 0

1~ -0 I

(-J35 ,0

I

12t> • 0 I ; I

to!) - 0 !

go. 0

7~' 0 , eo -0 I

I I

40-0 I

30 '0

I

15 - 0 I~ o ·0 i I I --, • I • • , • • .

o 10 20 30 40 50 eo 70 60 00 100 110 lro _ 130 140 100 180

Time (Hours)

FLOW IS A CONSTANT 900 GPM FROM RRGE #1 LOCATED AT FIELD NODE 2067

Figure 2C - Computer Predicted Orawdown in ~RGE #1 with a 900 GPM Constant Flow Rate (This graph to match Figure 2B).

\

-,

-o::;::tc-01 n r-~ to Ar' m I ~

.f>.n co I :;:-

"= o 0'1 ro -t, ==

(4-\0

I 1

I ~ ,1 I' :1 a

i ! ~ I,

11

-.

/." ~

rr: .:--t.ir.i"~- II' iJ6 ""I, 1'1>' )()I).t<C'C4U~. h~o. 6l,YVl vCA .~11

RRGE #1 WELL ;HEAD TE~APERATURE

...... C&. -tr.l ~ ;::,

~ ~ t:J n. -, ... ~ t:.l t-

~J'J - 0

~-o

11~ -0

~ V-

// 22l'O

20J -0 / V'

17:),0

l~ ·0

I£:) ·0

100 -0

7:) • 0

/ ..

I I I -I

00·0

25 '0

-0'0 I I ., I • • • • • . - -o 0 • lZ50 • 25CO - 3nO • 5:X)O - GUlO • 7SGO . 57:) 1 l' 120 1- 250 1 • 3T.i 1 • 000 1 - tz31' T'v-O I' G75 2

Time (Hours)

FLOW IS A CONSTANT 900 GPM FROM RRGE #1 LOCATED AT FIELD NODE 2067

figure 3 - Computer Predicted Well Head Temperature from Undisturbed Well (Results taken from computer run to generate figure 2C).

.-\

J

. !.

-o:E::l:­Illn..." c.o 7" ("1-

Cl>'1ll -1'-0

c.o I :::r '-13

o m Cl> -t) :::l

("1-c.o

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM

Subsidence

Surveys of historical subsidence in the Raft River Valley (lofgren, 1975) determined that as much ~s 0.9 m of subsidence had occurred ·in the lower R~ft

River Valley as a result of irrigation pumping. In June 1975, 169

points on a 400 m grid were established and tied into the USGS grid for the

purpose of checking elevations in the geothermal development area. In 1975

and 1976, two sets of levels were run on a 2.4 km square in the center of the

original grid and closed in segments. In October 1977 and June 1978, 59

elevation points were surveyed over an area encompassing the five wells drilled

or lo~ated at that time. With the exception of five points, the changes in

elevation from the 1975 survey were within the expected error of the level

runs. Three of the five points are in cultivated fields and may have been

disturbed. To date, there is no indication of any settlement; however, none of the geothermal wells have been tested at high fluid volumes over a long period of time.

At the current time, the production wells are clustered on the northwest side of the Raft River, while the injection wells are located 1.5 to 2.5 km to the southeast. Long-term production. and injection during the operation of various facilities, including the 5 MW power plant, may result in signifi­cant hydrologic changes because of this "polarization" of well locations with

respect to known fault structures. Because the geothermal resource is not

a closed system, pressure changes are not necessarily confined to the source

aquifer(s). In some ~reas, t~ese pressure changes may be transmitted to

shallower aquifers of unconfined sedim~nts.

As long-term production and injection tests are conducted on the geo­

thermal wells in Raft River, several specific elevation surveys will be made and the data will be correlated with changes in water level or artesian

pressure in monitor wells (see pages 21 through 29).

14

/

Water Quality

The water quality monitoring program can be divided into four parts:

1) routine field monitoring of irrigation wells and the Raft River, 2)

detailed sampling of geothermal wells, 3) independent semi-annual sampling

of shallow groundw~ter and surface water supplies, and ~) the injection

well monitoring efforts. The injection monitoring is detailed in the followin9 section.

Using field laboratory facilities in Raft River, weekly analyses nre

perfor~ed on samples from five water sources near the geothermal development

area. The data are used to provide a "warning signal" if significant changes occur in these water sources. Analyses include pH, fluoride, chloride, calcium carbon~te, alkalinity, and conductivity. The mean and

standard deviations for these components for each water source are shown in Table IV. In general, the variances in the data collected so far are within expected values. The Raft River shows some of the widest fluctuations as a result of spring runoff, low summer flows, and irrigation return flows.

Detailed analyses of fluids produced from the geothermal wells are conducted during flow tests. The results are used to determine potential

environmental consequences of utilizing the fluids in various experiments and tests, to determine fluid "incompatibilities" and corrosion-scal in0

potential, and to provide input to theories on the source(s) and extent of

the geothermal resource. The curr~ntly available analyses of the seven deep

geothermal wells drilled in Raft River valley are shown in Table V. There

has been relatively little sampling of RRGI-7 because the well is not arte­

sian at the wellhead. Therefore, the results shown may not be entirely indi­cative of the composition of the fluids at depth.

The Idaho Department of Water Resources conducts semi-annual surveys of

irrigation wells and the Raft River to provide independent information on the quality of water in these sources. To date, eight surveys have been

completed. The quality of the Raft River exhibits significant seasonal

15

Crank -x s

BlM -x

s

-x

s

RRGE-l -x

s

Raft River -x

s

-x - mean

Water Quality -

Condo

5684

632

3100

360

2550 430

2100

180

1200

400

£!:!.

7.88

0.28

7.57

0.26

7.5 0.2

7.79

0.45

7.86

0.4

S - standard deviation

TABLE IV Raft River Water Sources

16

F

7.06

.83

7.66

1. 11

5.0 1 . '45

5.92

1..1

0.9(')

0.26

Cl

1790

129

850

80

630 170

574

76

236

170

CaCO 3_

300

16

140

40

300 40

159

34

300

50

Alk.

26

9

45

33

130 50

89

16

144

67

\-.

TABLE V

Available Chemical Analyses of Raft River Geother~al Water (in mg/l unless otherwise noted)

RRGE-l RRGE-2 RRGE-3 RRGP-4 RRGP-5 RRGI-6 RRGI-7

Ca 53.5 35.3 193 150 40 157 315

K 31. 3 33.4 97.2 28

Li 1.5 1.2 3. 1 3. 1

Mg 2.4 0.6 0.6 0.2 1.6

Na 445 416 1185 1525 2,100 '--J

5i 57 61 74 51 67 39

5r 1.6 1.0 6.7 6.5

C1 776 708 2170 2575 900 3,150 4,085

F 6.3 8.3 4.6 4.5 8.4 8.5 5.0

HeO;." 64 41 44 24 37 26

NO; <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 =

5 0.3

.5°4 60 54 53 61 64

pH 8.4 7.6 7.3 7.4 8. 1 7.3

Conduct; vity 3370 2740" 9530 7280 2150 10,500 12,000 (Ilmhos/cm)

TDS 1560 1270 " 4130 4470

variation but varies only slightly by location. The quality of irrigation

wells, which generally produce from the 30-150 m depth, varies significantly

with location and depth. The quality of water in shallow «40 m) wells

approximates that of the Raft River in most locations. Deeper wells west of the geothermal development and to the north toward Malta produce rela­

tively good quality water (specific conductance averages 1400 ~mhos).

Within 3-5 km of the geothermal development, irrigation wells show the

influence of the geothermal resource: temperatures increase by approximately

10°C, silica content increases, and overall water quality decreases (specific

conductance averages 3000 ~mhos).

Selected results from the 1978 surveys are compared to previous surveys

in Figure 7. The 1978 yalues are within the expected range of natural fluctuations for the wells shown, all of .which are near the geothermal development. One irrigation well 7 t~ n;rthwest of tbe development has shown significant changes in water quality during the past three years (Table VI). The conductivity of this well more than doubled between August 1975 and August 1977. Most of this was due to an increase in chlorirle. with calcium, magnesium, sodium, and s~lfate also showing significant in­creases. Nearby wells did not show similar fluctuations during the same period, indicating that geothermal development was probably not the CRuse.

Subsequent chemical analyses of water from that well and nearby domestic

and irrigation wells have not yielded an explanation for the fluctuations.

Between June 18, 1978, and June 29, 1978, a total of 90 MT of salt

(NaCl) were used to "kill" RRGP-5 during fishing operations for lost drill pipe. Additionally, 30 MT of NaCl were dumped directly into the reserve

pits. Of the total amount of 120 MT salt used, an estimated 5 MT·were re­moved from the hydrologic system. Because the well was only cased to 460 m,

concern arose that shallow and intermediate depth aquifers could be contami-' nated, either as a result of seepage from the reserve pit or by seepage into

thief zones in the uncased section of the borehole. Depth-dependent changes

in the conductivity of RRGP-S provided a model of groundwater flow in and

around the well. Estimates (McAtee, TREE-1295, 1978) indicate that at least 16 MT of salt entered the aquifer at a depth of 490 m.

18

( '" b l ( .. ,'" ) ( -. -~·-\~q)l· ~:7 :'J""17 '5.~1 1 )I),., t,,;> ·1J)·.~ ":'(~I 1:)~'\'''i'' ":J'1' $!;I '1.).>o.\""~.2 :;)"I';! "':t;1

1 :11:lli':"'li:h;J~:8'n iFii,' r!j:l:II;ll:r:'I;i~ T"\F :,TIT rT'l il:1:1j :;: if.': ~~Flrli'·iF~m:~liffirijlllllW' III!I:I TTffllllTrj11II'iTfffili a ~!:; '::".L ,; 1·;" !I,:j:i

l, j~l; :11: : 1,1 .!:l I: !1!~11 )!: \.:! ,"Ili ;! : ;1;11;:1': li;;,:" ii 4 I: 11,~lj!t, I JI IllH

.. ".j .... , .... ," I· .. · ·'··1" .. 1 .. ·• ........ t, .-" ., ... , .• ,"'" ., ...... ·.',·I··,·U··I'I .....• , '.,j .• '·'""1"·1.. I·'.···t'; 1::::.::::J::_lb,: :;:: ::!i,l:!! :l;I,:j' :::j ::i~ ::!!t:l~l :.!::!!! :';11 ij;; [tilt!:l; :~:~j:l\llt~! tl'[: :.!!! ;1\! li!l ~!d ••• 'j'" 1'··· t· ., j ••• I.,. •• I •• ,. j"" i·, , !~ ., ... I. I 1 , ,,-, l 0' ... ; II, ~: , .. ,' .. l' ,I,:: I. ~. ~ ttl '~i ..... t· r"':' ~.j. ~ ""'t~-t~,t-:, .... ,~to, t i r';'

~~~~., ,: ':::1':: 1 j l~:i Ill11 'illlili! ':,1 1

it' 1::;1 1 i;~ li i1111!1 ;:'1: ;:i; :T;"j~7:-III';Il1 :):'i 'jj' ;'t'i ';l;j'-r''''1 j;:t ;I'l i • ., I ' , " . .: ~J " "I' .," " , I!! . , I' ,··1 ' 'i I." 1I11 " ... I , , , I " ,,: I" . "I' "I I ' I i I" I, I I"" ! I,' "I, 111' ,II ". I " I ' '" 1 I I , I 'I j 'I j", ,I , ',I / / ,. ,I t I, , I 1 1 I, ; tit I I I I' I, I I t I I ~ , • I I 'L" t " I ' I I , 1 I i'l ,

F:Y~ ~~i~~ 'C rm! Tri ;:TI i~j~il:~iq ~~n llli ~+}~ F;~j;r ~ nlj 1m i~H : ~j; ; \\il:<j fHi Hilj~l~~ ii'll ~~j- ~rtt #if ¥L~ Uf

\

. ".1::; ':/:':\,,"'; :: :::: I':; 1: :., :1' i: 111;;,; 1'1'1 ,I:: t~;: :: fl' I' I 1:1 p'; :::: .~ I ;.::'; i I::: I ;j::; ;:t: : r:-; ;'''f' ;:nI1'+7': !:itt ~t'~t1

.!,.;, ,I " \'\ ]' I'., I •• I " I t l' 't" t '\ ' t I '1'1'" I •• I ~ I! j 11" II, 'I!' I II 1 It' I '1" , '1 J,j 1. /1. j ,\,1 ... j 1" ~ I" I ITt, t I ~~!~"::;I:'-';!': "~_.!~1~,;",:,~ :'';It..!~~I:':~~ .!':"1 !!:':C ~Jl. w..,. ~L..l L!' ~ . ..!-: I:'L L::1:'~.j,": !,:L:'1~_:~ ~L:_l /1, W..lli-!.L~..! !J~~ 1l+~ :"'1-'1' , -l ., ""1' 'I' "'\ ;"1 t' 'l,r'l ',' III! '1" '1 1

' ,: II ··n "II " Illlj"11 "I'l ,.j J'l'l rim ..-tillll'1 "'"'I' 1.1" ,., .•.. \l-"{\",,, ..• ' ""I"" ... I', ""I', "1'11 .,' ,,, 'I II, ",., II" "" I' 1 '''1 t~II'. ,. fI • 'f'! '::::::; i. :.: ~", j~ " I: I: ::!: ::'. !:, 1 It: .11! t~ ~ ... I 1: \1 :!;! I: l! ! I. j T 1 j , :! :!! j , :; i!; I ; t I q, • r~.;.!; f'rt j Lt~, ~I;:'-'I"I';: .: ::;:1:;:: :·I;;I·:;:-I·:[·;I·~r: I::; :-fj, ;::r.r~;j; 11;;111 ;:.1.:!.l.l :tt, ::~iltt1-'I'++ ,tt:'!l:;:-: :in trq·ttJ:tf:T-h'J -;:r'_'j m

r', I!~; [Ii ~; 'I :~:,. : ~ ,,): I::: I : I:'!. :;' :';; I: ,I' .:.; ~ :!: II'I,! 'II, 1'" ·~I" ..:..!..:..:. I:!, '1: I I, i; ; 111 1 fj: lih T, Iii'"I "i : h H·I ,

..... 1 •• _ •••.. , .. - ····1·· .. · ····:1··'·· . '1 ..•..• 1 ..•... , "" "', "Iii .jl II ..... r-!.j .... "" ... 1 'rr! j .. '1 ... ·M ,...I~ "'1 c. ~ I' : ; : :1 : ." :', ~: :: : i I: !:I I, i ii' ii, ; i: : Ii I ',i ill :jr.'1 ,:; i I : i i ! I ;1 ! :1 ii',' I ill III i i: il ; : iii ; I,ll, i i 1,1 i : i 'II: I' ill i i

l i, ! I . '1"1 I! !llH il Ll Ii jl i '1'1,1,1 ~ '~" ""1' ",. I'll I 11 1 I i,~J.! ···'LI .. " I It t t! I 11 .I, I 11 1+,1111" .-t I !Lo:z

,::;:: :::: " :1: 1::: .~;:; i ill il~ W~ll'l"f'i1 : ;:j:lill i:: i]l ~r:-q : :;: li;1: :: ["~i i'P !ij i 11!ii q; l1w1 :~1il*~ f# f;:fi ffitf.f.lrt 11-.j:l {til l:~:~;:-'~·I·:':~l .. :~~ .~::. __ 1; ;.d 1:: ~.!! ~1~, ...... ~ ;!l.!.rm 'j'l -t..: ' '~'.d lL,. .. '·-1' .:.-,-·t"~l; p-~nl.. ~ H-i.-:lt:~ 4:+.:.1.~!...J 4 a .... ~ ... , , .. .. ,,,.. ., il' I" '" 'fl'" I'" '''I ,'I I ' . , Ii, "I I' . \ .. I "' II' U· " " ." I I: I • Ii I If" t ,. I' '1"-' H' I" "" "tl : : : : I : ~ :~' : I: !::; 1 :!:' :::: :! I 1 : I !: : 11 ! '11, '1' i I ~ ,; 11 I I j I I ! I: 'I I 'II III I,' I ; 1 r, ti': I III ~ ! j 1 I~ 1 1 tl ,1 U :Hs: ~::: >: .~:;; I;;;; :8 ;;;; ~1f·::: ~ ;1 1

; ~1*f ';,~ :~1: ;~~; ~ , ': ;l~; ~::; ~;~ ,,' ~j . itr~~. ~ ... ~;., 'I~ ~Itl ~Jl' "",'" " .... ".j·,.lj., .. ""'I"" ""j".,mtiJ if.; "t'}!I]' "'" '-II "11 ,\11

~·'l,r.1\ ,H.lml W+J.j 1iJI~Ti+t%I*tm' . ',,' . 1'·· .. 1 "'1 '" , ... " .. "'1 ',. "'';' j Lin " , Ij' I' 'j, ],1 ''''I' ItTl. ". "PUi' W l :.:;,.,:. :'.:,';1: ;;·i ';~I ::1: ;::; ;11';1;:;'1 i:i··,·,'I', ;'11'1 I'! I nl'11 illl('i '1-'1' ' :I';I~ "11:P,'l-IIICill"ll" +Ijt!·\ I~ tiH T. ! !!ii~:;"1 . :1:::: ;:i: ilil"li'H,jjl :. illl:. ·;'1 ,i! 'i"ll!;il I I I ,Ii :. II II III' Iii 11>+ i rm'1 J.l' .II 41'.1 tto' l-w:l ~-.: "':"::1' Ic •. t.:.;';':. "L~I' 'J.: Lll '. ' !' I, I :.!"w. ~~~LWlmtt',,,!-~ H+rfl.l.4 '+Tl+ ,. . II :;, I I l!..!- .. t • ·I,1i-~, . -r.: :ililt . .?f,

l:::i I::. ::;11,:,:1::;:[,::: :1:1 ::To'I: diT :1"lj' :ii l !!!:: :i"':I'!) Hili Iii' Iljl ',,!'\ iii 1111t' Iltll!ll! .!·iJ-ll 'HHJ~'fi::H:L; !lH '~AI ~;;!i;:;: ':~: !':!I!;\; ::!l !!:l :: ~ ~l:!! 1: i !llli Itt: III :1 i iLl 1: 1; .It! ,I I~ 'tl fiL, r'-r 1tT 1~ !t~.(ti MIt +i-l .... I .... , ... , .......... I ..... 1. 1'. I ,. '1' '1" IT 1-1"~1 L. '1~1 T" .ftl

' t" r' .. I ,'"~ .. , .... r· oj. -· ... 1·~"· '1'" f!

"'! ",, •• ", •• , '1' I •• ". (, "I' ( f I I' f , 'I . t' I I' '1 ,'I I 'I, II' " I J, 11 'Ill'! ' 1"111 I 'III ."--'-1 j " I' .. ,. .., ..;. , ' , . " 'I I I' II ' ""1 III' If' 'i\' 'I" I il I ",", I' 11' , I . I' I' '" II ; , '''11 r ,," .... " " , : ., 'I' I'll ' I~ I I" . • " 'I' , , ,.,. ,"" 1'1" I' I ,. ,t' ,., tHH"'" '" ":':.iJc .~.: ~!:.:.!.:.;.:.: .. ~.;.r.:..:J.~ ll •. -++ .!..:.lJ.':'l.l4. ." I II' , I·, I ", LlJ.l. ' 'I i~+".l.lJ. I I' ',. 1-""" . '~ ') : :.:: : .... :: :: ;.: i::.; I.:;! 1.:1:J .j :!.~, '.:':: 1.1' 1 [ '11; l·q ~Hl i 11' l'tH':J : 11Ifl':iffij~ i~I;~.· :: ,.llIJ j; 'F.:::' il++ 4+;. :":.!J. . -1 ~ It ;q~ ~g~J. ;; ............... ,. ..... ,I.!"."'!. ,LI··I'i" I "",' 'q~.' r,l + lj • .f. • Ijl~ .. j., .... ,',..,,.., '·'N-rt- ':1: ...... ,....... ~.+........ . () ":'j:'" ,.;.I.,~ "~l .,1.:'; :'" ,!t·jl.l!, i ''tlwm'~(' i-'- , .. j j-tLu~ l.t-it!.l:i ·ttti~"·~"·-1'1~'~++.-,...i -[f;~'1""""--' I"t\ :-;;-;,:::: ;:':;'f;~"l' 1':;1; 1t~~r ""11f in:' rrr:-"rjTl ·;j.i [;111 'l·"rTf '"I;; '+IJI 1,1"7 l,i :'"1-1; ·Itttl,·rt·it· :tt+ttTn- mI" ., H ,i T:H:r "'1.1 <: ·• .. 1 .... ""j"" .,." J'I; ·!i·U!·,I' ti"I, .. , H' .. I I 1;, I. LlI' I· ,,!f ''I,' , i; LH :I~l! ·~Iri ;. Ie· =I-.t4h IF' .-T=i: :::: : :;::'1 ,I:::! ;·n::;:.l .1!.J:1Tt~l.i ;:..n! q~I +.ii :'j~4 f1 .:,~. t~+,~q+-H l,l! I j~" .q P Ii.t ·tl. L .l..I-i., _l:T * -.' .. ,-rt; i4± "r t .:::.,.:. I.:: :':. :.::'::: .. :t;::. ~.Lt :1 ·h;;;., '.~;.. ~;.;J: '~.:~ L:: . .;.1:;:1. 4·1 1.1 • .j:t. f.if..J '; .:itt 1:..:3 ,.:+.i' d.r 1'Et+ ':±tilmi . r.:r:r-+{t'-'l·' .;J: +ltf :T ., "··'1'· .... ", .. '.'-'" .. , '·1,,.., ·~mt;·':': 'J' ."."Ij;~ ,····~:::.mrtT.:tII< ++1 H't,i-j,· t.!~ It·.t::H ~.;" ~." \:1:l1.; riH·t±!:r -rH+Hi+tI-t· ';~+fflll ~.' -'+if ? .:;::.: .:-:::' :.: :"-:f.':!~T: ~:Lz.:11~-·1. +++' .J-.+:l '1:14:;-~~I~t -rt:j:'t-1m:g· TITIW~4" :~tffif- ...:w ~ r--r:- -+-4. +;.L'! .'1 ................ ~-l.t+t-H -1~'7T ':1I$~- "'f-,"

,.,., ..... ," ..... "., rrr.j ", .,., ,." ",'" "'jP·"-:-j.+f·" Wl" r ·I'~I"'I·IIJIIIr:r:;Jr.I·f.F.iFil···r··· ti+·l·t·~ ·'L·.tm1r. 0 • • '" ' , ., • t ' I 1 t ••• It LJ .•• ' -•• - 1 t t • I', I] '[' I" I: 'I :. t' ". 11.11 '" II . j ~ .. 4 U1l-' t ... 't!. 8 I it it. ; w· tj' 1 t ""

,.1 ••••• " 0"'("" '.~" ~,t,l, '!" ,~" "' ol.o-! L f' Itt" ~~ t of, '. f- t- ·t.:t~ ~ 1-,- •. ~t- 1"'1' Ij" -t'""'T"1' ~ 'r'" -1-;_ " 'T' -..; .......... t"".,.~ 0 " .... " ... ". ,+, ... ·1'" H' "....,. ,.,." • '·1 ' .. ' '."'. I L. ! ".' ~ t.' r! '·1, i'·'· '" 1-, " ... ,'. h, +" .,. •. ;+ .I

_.)"""" .. , ...... , ..... '·!'ll·i'jT'7.· '."jl'" ~ .. , "fll j '" !4.fJI·11t~ "~I" "~i· "I' J.+·'l"····.l:)'4 '"-, ±tt:+-j "l·"" ::'1-l:=r:t :;:; I;;:: ::::; :.: i :1';:; : L; i .J, 'j';:! :; j; iPI [ffid. ! 'f Hjj 1 i il\11" i. . ~ j:w: ii .• : 1

1J-1- ej-i~ ~~ll .t):tT mli';:{. nt:i :;:f.t1:!

~::~::r:-:~':t~::;7.~ +=~.: *:I-::';~'::~';- i+~ +:.1~ .;r-!7+i1m' It i* h4:~-H+H:~A+Trri~~· ,+ ~~~, :-~.~ ~~, E~ :~~, ~ -+ r-...... , .... l. .•.• , .• ', .,-; ··!·,·1 ;"'1"" ···-ii'l.0 ;.)' .,1- ••• ,.1 r-' qv l;~:t I.; ' n!.l'!.' H·8 :i;j' t1,.II·LHi +i:!.J ;.'·':;:jj.t 'i1j; t 3:il:qttl

,':7 :.:; :: :~'I :'::: !; :::-~.: :~::: ,~,;:' ~ : ;T,";i·r: : ,~,t ;'1 ;; I :- :1 .. , ~ -:; '~.-:~ rr r.:l ~; tl~++l : U : .. ~':t1.!1~ ,t .~~":p.: .p.-;::' -,:t=rt· ,+1~ ~~~ ,~~:;- "-r: :"-h .~~' :t+ttl

I"::'!":'\:::'I,:;: ';:li:~:':I::l:!:::i :1.;':Jji ::1" I'f: :jlj·~t!i 'j1i .t;: iii:':": i'i'l lj1j 1'trnifBt,rtU ,i+t ',l=\:::tl-tIT '-+-111ttt ';::1':;: ::::,:::1 ::::i:ji; ::::I';:i,':::I'::1 ::i!!:!;;- ~lr: Iii' III tit I r11i Ill: J.!. ;jj.11' Htll:tb:ltrjt ilUI:!11 D-r: r111 :i::;:::: '~::;:~-: :t,:j::j'; :iiil;-l;i :;~~Ii~;i :lr'll i1 il \tt'llfii :!11111~: ! -1; rfl111ji \' \1 If I: i111 iill ~I-tl ::\!1~rt:; .+1.

111,'

. "I,,, ... I. . .•. ,' , •.. ,,1 1.1 .. ,.,1 "I' '" !\ l' ··1 ,." jJ" jj.. II tl '", "II 1 U: I ':Jj I 1'+' "11-1 .!..!J II'" lj L t l

Q$'c:k:l ......... ~

\,...--'

G7:'h71;:: :,',:.:. i:'; :j: 'L';; ;J'~;~;I ;~;; 1;;; I: ~,; : ;~:~; '1~1; 't';:: ;;lj'; ;t' ;11~1't; ;11~i~1 ;~~ :; ;1 '111-1 t+-r;I~~+>r-~~~~l;;-Iw:m~' '1:;~~ Iffi~~' ~~i;fl I;~:~·t .... · ... "IT"'J "-, ql+-~.*-fl -1/'" .. '-'T 1h.1 -t H ..... 'I"!tj. .. :rr ' 'j ,_i~ql,1 1"1rj Ht 1--" .-~ 1+1 .... .,.-.; ..... .L:n'" '·~-· .. ·-l-· ...... ~ .-.. _, .. - --~h::.1" --- 'h "-IW,"h-4:1i:tti! t::±b- .,..,. ,1 1 , ~~~l *~ .. -- _ .. ...l...I ~ ...-- .. r :': :f::' {:~r~:: ::~: fl,:: :'i:I-;;;lifi!n f!t1Im~!:: ;-illl · Fl ~I :m~ Ii tJ1TliW'7j=Jrf-tii T~ii rt7~L1:nt #h'W a ~~IDf$I:tt! Tffi

t :-7::'I::::~:1 ::-'~':I' ~~~I :~~Ti -,::: ~ ~~iIL)L-,:th: ;:i i~~ ';1'.;9':1; I;' tTl: I :, :1 1;; i'III' :,Ij! I; Ilj'I" 1'1'-:1+ 111m;; ~,T:: I :1' (III i !l! -JI.;.:.,.!,,: EI~; ~1~~'!nTIi~; it' II ftPij.ttR!·"., .,,, . "...." .. '.~'" . , ,,, , W-!'I . I '1 I'," "I, +; I, 1·+!1 'c' ~+t1 ':":":':--:'.;~:".4:...:.--J . .: .. : -~~:"':''':'::...!....!...: ~:....: .. ' .. .1. .!.~~._1" .:..!..:. \. I 41 " .1, ~If' l..L..! HH!.m1 ~_ :'rr ilh ~7 ttL

t .... I ......... "l'~"1"'-' ...... '''jj'''l J:rt:I'H ,.p ..... · ...... 1 "<-+J • ·-,,·J·lt 1:t:i11Ttt7-"1" t.t:::ru ~~~ ++c-l+U:t ."+c,.., ,

t

·: .. ; .. I'· ;:: :::: ::n '", :ii' I::, :1;, 17': "1' 'j' ;'l";'1 -'-11::1 ,1 11 tlt~'l' '11" :;:j1·\· i i' 11 Hi: j·l.i+tl'jt ..... :;' ttl: '" I' . , " .... ..,.! ... , , ... ". 'I .1, .. , I ";.:l!.;. ,I~: I-! Ll 'll1 .!..ili ,. 'm ., .... 'H-!+!: -1 h ,. n ,L, I "tl ~ :7'::' ~:':I ::: -,-::: l:~-:·:~:-;-' :7"I'I:~::' ~';l'~r:'; tr.t'jiF ~·T1r·", :<:7,! 1;1' ,j., I'll' fG>j 'j"~ 7 • mill'] tttt ~l1-j ]ili'If"\':n

;':::.':.! : .. ':l: ::':1,::1 ;~, Ili:I:::l,II!; il!1!,~.J lil'1 11:! iimtJ'1 w-jl j1i'1.1. [.II',: 1:1' -:'''fi-i+H:!±i'- ".1 IL ~j:l . ...:..: ~~.: ~ ~I 1 .:.±~_ ~..:~ j.':":';~ ~L:.!~_:..t.!,_~_ .:~ .:.L.! w.+-4 ~-rl-p_t!J J I .. ~~ .. J.:' 1\1 I !l:J 111 .. J - t ........... - ~ - L~_ - ::::::!J: ~1.

'!:::. 'I':: Ij":: 1 ,_.: I'::: i:::: r:: ::.,: i::';: ::f!: ;::11.;1': 11 Ii:' i 11'4'I:r 1 l~~lt:~H i:l1 tt'tj'1 LtF: 11 tt' EL:t:iit±! Inti ~~t+I' .;t::..:. rill ::.; .:,: ... ,; :::;;.;;: ::i:ll;:il':l~':iI:I:!, li;il 11,1":[tW,':ltn, l'jIM"I,' I'ld "tt' 'm} :+;~~ti 'j' II If·;-;,'':r \ ...... , ... "j' .............. -.... , .. : .... 1 .. '.1 .... 1 .,.". '''rI 1lj ttl"" '''1 .W •. I r" I .. · l~ .1.t..l .•. L..... • - ... -1 .-.., ,.t .... / ./.

1

: .. :11:::: :::: :l[: :~:i;ti::;~:;!i'JHj:·;~;.lWA!1i!;flili'IUllll;lc liL !.I j1j q!~! ;!11 lilj.'lli '.pl. ±ltlJUl -T+ ~l~~I'i~JI HHI' T ..:.:..:...:......:..:....:...: ;...:..:.:J..:..~..:.:.. ~' :.:l~·' -~ :.1~. ~ , .... ..!. •• rl • ., t .4 iT .• I ~ , ! mi' il .fJ h . ~J +H 1+. -!"-t-I ~: .. ~--++ -~r-I -, ~tt

· ··1·· .. ·' ............ , . f,' H~;'ijj;j' " -, n' ,. m' ·f·:d· -'~'iffit 'Tidl' 1 t + "'-1#1" 'It.~h+++fi~.''''''''''· I :!.1~mg" r::::=' :-;.:4:r!: ~:;:!~;:; ·,:!rl!:-l.1 r;111~ .. 11 :-rl"-~1"~ :~j j("~~ -:t~:n!Tl ~-.:Irtr.'-4.: ~ ,l.J~ illn:if:fj~ .l.i~f..l-I-I-~'~H-+-"'+ H+ ~ :. ~it-:r ' :~:.J:.::: :: I: ' ; :.L: :J:I r:.;l i.:':"U !~F +tll Ii l. ".Lrr~;.l-l. 'UI .1 , ., 1 , ,H··I " t . 1 t' r. un +I·t I';' H 1-{~i1 tit Hii .,~~.,.t ~ ~"d:± ~}U[; ~i.JJLJ:nIJJ~~ EtWil iii] ·!lli !.lilJ!llq~~t lw1J!J!!WI!1J!..lW llilWJHUlIU~!dJi!.llliIJ1{jl±llJ. fffttmi ... ·1 ....... 'J .... , ... " ,." .... , .... "I' " •.. ''M,I'"' ,. ";' Ill' r' ". t· n '1'JI il .. " l;l,iTi-'Q' H •• .. 1 Bf] -'it ·' .. FEP±i't ~-"!7 "j, .'" ,4" I'" 'I"]"" ··1·

ll ...... I' 1.

1.,-jl rt-o.l-:l-hl- tit{ Lr 144~j'l .. ,. tt'· 'n ill .... +.1. -If-UJ .~.L~-Bnt~ .I.~ ... , ... , ........ ,. "I," '1"'1 "'1,'; "I"'l~' 'tt· "111""" .,., I Irl1'j I ;""'-1 ,-'- ·tl-'----" ''':'''r~''' '"T~ , ,! I " .• I' I I' I, •• t· •• t, I! l' : I" ! •. j -Ii i II • ft 'I L:.I ~ili :"'L· i I; .1 "LL:"' I L.l...l..L: ........ ~. ",4 I "1- ti I-r '..6.1., 1 'H j "t--~, (~,,,, : .... II'''; :.:: ,': :;~ -:: - ;; ',"', :~, '1'/1':- ':-'11' ;~I~II'"~' I r i r'l ~"l ' 7, iT7 ·I~ l' 171" -;-111 • 1 I· -'1-t7 jl'll \ j j'I' ntr] , '" ,III I I ';:"r" • " •• , It,. ! , j , • , I " I 'I , I,!. ! I • I'" I, 'I I·, ill] 'III " I' IJ II II I' ! j jIll l lJ 1 'II lliL', ll' , , ,;::;:::'. l:::i::~.: 'I;: :.::.: ::::'-il~j :'lq ~1;; .~:~ .,~l ':'t1!l+J.jj '+1" :.:,1 j Jl 1'-11 tltl H~ L l-ll '1.']:11 +~.r -I; "'~ nH J-.... --."~ .. --~'".;..,..,..,.r_.u..~-- -"+'-.... ~h-'-- H:': '-I ~.~+H.-H'+'~I++-i-rH-4+H+H-++i-Tr-~r"-'i.J..l-+-M~77 ::;:1';::; ::::1:::: ;:';1:':':~ :-11:j';'I:: :1111::':"1 ;";;',-:; 1 tltfl±if':~ff,·r.tiJ;. T'~l:lt-i·:t+hlffi' ffimI' P;±t tfmim": -:::J±m' t.t:i;Ji:t!±-'-j.;-;':: '1" .. ,' "'11"1' , .. "1, "n I ;, ";1 '" "Ii "1 U1Im·. "jf 'II "I" ttl j. • fIT I' l' '1 .. 'j .... ~T~:··.·" · . !,j "I 11'111

111,. lill ,.,' I" I'i ' " nt .. , t.!.:!; ~.'jt t I I~ I, ~ '11t1i+Tt1 t,t H t- '~+r '··;-J-til1

:~:;'i:r:; ;::T:f! r;[JiTi] 'j'lllrl1'I:' iiTi l,ll ij':ri if1i I\!I I Tr ItT 111!ltmil'~I~I'lfiIL;lllmull , 111!lllll ;11 111lwmrfT · ... , .. '" 'J . . .. "" I LL • " " I ", 1 U.1-++ I , '" J.. I . !l. it j .. II. iii 1 HHM' jJ .1 .j il 1.11 t· ~t~, '1 I.,~ .. , '''' .... I'· ... ,. ',.' , .. , .... 'H' J. , •. } + !IH ..>, .. ".'.j "'1 ... .;, .. !,., ... , '11' ,"" r"-{11iT tl ~ l ..... 1 . .,.,."tj:'-[=;._ ~:-'I~;::-':-:' :'7j'~I:-~:41-;4'~T;-!'nl";~ir-:n· .lj-4 :1" ·:ii 7i ... "1-' I mt 't-r" 'Hl1l11[' I'lt .,~ 1"'-1++!t ·.N:i ·m~t. ,·'t rl-1~n: "j' "" , •• , •• ,. 'I'! "'ltl"I' 1"1 'l"·j 1 ·r ... · I .• " -" "IrJ.-O ·~'t··1 t·" 1m I 1 rllii·I';'11 ... ··!.ffi- H-T .~ -:tj; .. t-- i 1+-' l' II" " ............. 1"·.· " ! .'.' ~,. " • '.1 "'.' ",' ti""'. .'1, ,i' t "1+ n. ~ht··'·j ·11-1 ·'.1 , .. , .•. +J "?

:1::1::1::1;::: ::~~I':::jl!iii ilifiiiii qn1irfiTlil1jiJF'j1lTtJlli p,J in; !lip :rr'~1 iill IT~II'I'! i!llj~1 jill liil iilllilif

;;;: :; J::: ;::;. !~~:I:; i: Ii;': j i;;:~ ;'1 f': ii'[ l+; H ~-u i H'I'I ,·til'· ,·dd·1 rj ~L1II' 1 h !..H'· 11'"1' I'jh j nil 74t rd'j!' 11# -l~ml ~7i: ,hit I ill~

:;::i":; :: ... : . "':1:::; ;~:.li·;: l " I::, 1;:11': " '1.11 II!]I] I J: '1~: ,,! il,~ I!j~ 'f 1,'1!11;'t'j i.J.L n II~; T ·,-,1 ~:~:,:.;": .:;:': :.~.I:~:~l!~~: :.:!;":':'!:.!.J.':J.~;.!.: ~ll" 1 ,.I !1l, ··_u.:..:' ~.'l :.:..tl,~...: ~.' .. ,. ,,, 1, 11--l';'~"1 ~ljH.!2. ' . .!.!.J.£:.:..: '" . , " .. 'I 1""]""1'" tl" ""j' "t.,., '1"m1'riT'111,1'1"1' "II '1'111[1111:] lT1111'" 1'1 II'J 1"/+-:'1"'1\'

\

"i'::;':";:: ,: ':!,;~: !i~J! 'Jil ill! ,Iill !:":!lll II: 111/11: ,It 1111/1111' :!;j II 'ljl ,*l'IL tIlt ('111:1' I I; , I' : ; :: .:. !;,:: : II; :: !'; I! Ii' 11,: I ~ II: : 'ill' j I ; I·· iill' I J i lUu': l'lJ :. , : : t : I! ! t'" ,: 1. ! 1 !.. 'I.!Ji'." ': !!.' l.: ~ ,,1.1, ''', 'I'" I'" ii" "II '1" "I' ,I" 1111]' \ .. ,. ,II U' 1 lUll , " I", I II 'I' 11'1 I'll 'Ill .11 / rill '1111'" 1 ' i "I"" t, t I! 11'" I I' J 1 I 1 I I I' , 'I 'I' I" 'I II' III I ! I I 1 ! I I" 'I I II . !.!, ' ·,1 ".. . , .,' I' , . II 'I '1' . '11" I 'II "'1 I' III' I , I,' 11'11' '. "" I, , "I' I '" , " '" l~., ~~... .• ~ ~ 1:..1...!..!..: J_ .. !~!,_!: ~LL! ... :! .. ':'UlJllJ 11 1.1- _.1_L.ll '~..l~L J _~i :""1..1. I' t t. '1 1\ 'I'll ,I,

"

. ,

'\

" \.

TABLE VI

Water Quality - Irrigation Well 145 27E 32bddl (in mg/l unless otherwise noted)

8/75 6/77 9/77 8/78

Ca 206 542 363 287

K 10 13 10 278

Li 0.16 0.21 0.23 0.26

t4g 37 103 68 4

f'.) Na 193 378 254 575 C)

Si02 49 51 38 44

Cl 525 1402 966 1266

F 0.72 0.61 0.47 0.58

HCO; 278 352 301 341

S04 111 408 194 322

Conductivity 2250 (JJmhos/cm)

5300 3500 4750

· ~

)

Seventeen domestic and irrigation wells were sampled up to three times

weekly, beginning five days after the salt was first used. These samples

were analyzed in Lhe field for conductiv1tYi chloride, and sodium. Trends in these water quality parameters during the sampling period were compared

to baseline conditions. To date, none of the data show any indication of salt contamination.

Monitor Wells

As geothermal development progressed in Raft River, it became apparent

that there is hydraulic communication between the geothermal system(s) ane!

the shallower aquifers that have been developed for irrigation and domestic

water supplies. Because of this natural communication, there is some con­

cern that the development of the geothermal resources in the valley may ad­

versely affect the chemical quality or supply of water in the shallower aquifers.

Historically, declining water levels in the shallower aquifers indicated that recharge to these aquifers was not adequate to meet demand (Walker ~ a1.). As a result, the State closed the basin to further water resource development. Currently, the geothermal system is included in that closure.

In November 1977 an aquifer monitoring program was initiated and seven monitor wells drilled. The objectives of this monitoring program are: 1)

to evaluate the natural communication between aquifers, 2) to provide infor­

mation to be used by the State in deciding lf the geothermal system should

be excluded from the closure of the basin, and 3) to quantify the effects of

production and injection of geothermal fluids on shallow aquifers.

The monitor wells were drilled to varying depths in the

and were located around the injection well field (Figure 8).

were selected on the"assumption that injection of geothermal

shallower aquifers

Their locations fluids at

depths of 600 m to 1000 m, not deeper production, would have the qreatest

potential for adversely affecting shallower aquifers. The construction,

temperature logs, and initial water quality for the monitor wells are sho~'n

21

--j

; I

,

I 22

__ J

L 1. ,.

,:,

,.~<{;; " :.

,,' "Ii: I •. f

" "I't':;', ',.'~.: .71~ :~ '(?1!Pf.

MW-3" I (153m) iii

-\

~

19

..

MW-4 I MW-5J -(~ ·(152m)

.USGS-2 .AAGl-6/ til MW-6 .RH3E-3

(\7~9111)

l. \25

I~ .'90

(244m)\ iM (1176m) (311m) 7fOr-... I

30

MW-7 Legend: , . %\~

/(152m) \.'1"

~t $ C. Geolhermal Wells ~ • Monllor Wells

~.( ..p\~ .. Irrigalion Wells \"0"" well deplhs shown in parenlhe ses

,. U

I ~ .' "----------JT----+-----+\~J~ ~ I I I i km,

corU<l'Gr inlerval-l0m •

I)r.e ~ su>4 OJ>

O~~'

F"~~

~

'r

/

in Figures 9 and 10 and in Table VII. MW-l;s the deepest of the wells, with a total depth of 399 m. Three of the wells are 150 m deep, corresponding to the deepest irrigation.well in the vicinity. The temperature profiles indi­cate that MW-3 and MW-4 have similar thermal characteristics, as do MW-S, MW-6,. and MW-7 as a group. MW-l and MW-2 have the highest thermal gradients, indicating the greatest influence from the deeper geothermal system.

MW-l and MW-2 were equipped with pressure transducers to monitor injec­tion tests on RRGI-4 during the spring of 1978. In addition, water levels, wellhead pressures, and/or artesian flow rates were monitored on fourteen other wells: the USGS-3 corehole (434 m), the BLM flDwing well (126 mJ, the BLM offset well (i22 m), the Crook greenhouse well (165 m), seven irriga­tion wells, the USGS-4 corehole (77 m), and two USGS auger holes (11 and 26 m) The last three wells are upgradient, hydrologically, from the geothermal development and were used to monitor natural fluctuations of the water table.

During the period from March 21, 1978, to June 10, 1978, a total of 12,800 m3 of water was injected into RRGI-4 at rates ranging from 16 l/s to 51 lis. The longest test lasted for 13,300 minutes, during which the injec­tion rate was 44 l/s. A pressure response was seen in MW-l and USGS-3 during each of the injection tests (Figure 11). During the longest test, pressure increases of 34 kPa and 97 kPa were seen in MW-l and USGS-3, respectively. The water level in the BLM offset well rose over 1 m during the same period. The responses at USGS-3 and the BLM offset well were much larger than expected and indicate that the intermediate-depth aquifer system is heterogenous and/or anisotropic. The response of USGS-3 to injection was also much larger than the well 'sresponse to seasonal hydrologic changes or to past geothermal activity (Figure 12). Comparison of well logs and well locations wjth known

. fault systems indicates that USGS-3 and RRGI-4 penetrate the same fracture system, while MW-l penetrates unfractured rock adjacent to the fracture system (Niemi and Nelson, 1978).

Water samples were taken from each of the monitor wells before and after the i nj ect i on tests and from the flow; ng BLM and Cr60k we 11 s duri ng the. tests. No change ;n water quality was detected.

23

"~-.:"~-........... .-.......--,.-....

f

" j ~~~\N 1

1(106 !<Pa)

~..--:--.----'

,~ ::;>':1 3';'" , ,'.t~

' .. . , ;:~: ,A,

: ... -,

MV:2

To 174 m

24

'" I

MW3 (15111)

To 153 m

MW4

(401)

=-. ~~

.:: ~ ,'., '\" . ,

" . ,,'

..... \ ,', ~ -:.:\:~,

;;t:; ',x"u '!..;~

$. :":-:5 ~".-:

To 305 m

MWS (20 m)

.:...;.:; -r'''-;

.~':-i. '/-'

!.>:. .' ~.: To 152 m

1,\W6

121 m)

.:~~?

-:-L •• :':'.'::'

~~ ~~. .....

..... ,,1-', •

:..L..::

~-::.~::

.....

\ .... .. :.' ····II .. ~· -'.: .~ .. :

To 311 m

i

MWl

(23 m)

'.:'

!;"" " . " :~ :. "., .-: ;~ '-:-

::. :-: To 152 m

-\

Legend

F'~~1 Shut,in pressures or deplhs 10 waler are shown in parenlheses

• ' J'

100

.c 150 a. CIl a

200

:150

300 10

, Temperature profileS' Raft River monitor wells

20 1

30 Temperature (0 C)

Bottom Hole Tempernturo Q MW-2 106°C 0 MW-3 71°C 0 MW-4 98°C 0 MW-S 29° <> MW-6 44°C 0 MW-7 34°C

25

at al at ' at, at al

\7t'M 162 m 305 m 146 m 293 m 152 m

'" 0'\

Ca

Fe

K

li

Mg

Na

Sia2 NH+

4 -C1

coj -F

HCO;

NO;

S04

pH

Conducti vity (~mhos/cm)

TOS

MW-l MW-2

193 118

0.3 0.5

31 25

3.8 2.6

0.36 0.6

2,060 1400

78 86

1.4 0.08

3,590 1640

<1 <0. 1

2.7 5.6

25 28

0.6 0.02

68 60

8.1 7.5

11 ,200 5740

6,330 3200

TABLE VII Initial Water Quality - Monitor ~Iells

(in mg/l unless otherwise noted)

MW-3 M~I-4 MW-5 MW-6

173 189 164 193

7.6 12.8 5.7 0.3

54 25 20 58

2.9 3.4 2.5 2.6

4.0 -- -- --1290 1390 210 .1230

97 74 59 36

0.62 1.7 <0.05 --

2410 2440 610 2380

-- <1 -- <1

5. 1 6.2 0.5 3.7

50 40 -- --

0.09 0.09 0.4 --

50 43 . 44 63

7.6 7.9 7.8 9.8

6100 7700 2000 7020

4350 4000 1240 4660

." 4>.-.

',",

MW-7 USGS-3 BLM Crook I s

102 60 42 108

7.6 -- <0.1 O. 1

13 16 21 . 30

1.1 2. 1 1.5 2.5

23 0.3 0.2 0.4

340 1090 570 1170

39 62 82 91

0.06 -- 0.4 0.3

650 1870 890 1770

-- 0 <1 <1

1.0 4.9 6.7 5.6

104 50 35 33

2.9 -- 0.5 0.9

28 62 55 49 .

7.8 8.1 7.7 8.1

2250 6600 3200 6000

1380 3360 1700 3300 -_._.- .... -

;&1 '. : .. i

J.

5-; -!~

I . I

i .. \ :=-..., -' I

I i I !

i !=~ .. I

I

_'=- __ - '-~r ; I '" .- '-1 ~~~~t . ~

.;.

... i <>-l

~­:15 I~ i

VI i ~l

i

... > ••

. . .

~ y > , ~ , ~ x ~

:: x < • ~ . . . " . ~~ :. ~ ~

i· • --'II' ,_._

"­~

":, ..

c '0 I. ___ .. _.\.

:

..

.,. .,.

··'I~ C). tl

I====~J

'\ . ". ~ 2...

- \ I

----~.~

.. .~ ':: ,..

s ;:

., t·-·

.:

<:;

" ; . ·~v-

,.J I

I.

/ {

Injection tests in RRGI-6 and RRGI-7 will begin in early 1979. The monitor wells. nearby irrigation wells. and USGS wells will be monitored for changes in water quality, pressure, or water level. RRGI-4. MW-1, MW-2, and USGS-3 wi'~ be used to monitor production tests later this year. All wells will be monitored during hydrofracturing and well stimulation tests planned for mid-1979. Upon completion of initial resource testing

in early 1980, a report on the results and initial conclusions from monitoring injection and production tests will be issued.

29

( \

(

" i J

';'. ','

'j"':' t l~ "'''',

'F:;' >0, 1 " ,

. : ~

' .. ,

::, .. , .

~~ , "

.

. ~ .

,

"

: .

. . .

i '0"0

. .

. . , . :. ,.,-: ;,' ~ ,:

",

'I;::

" ' .... I'

,

I,

" !

f'" I > t,

, ,

!) <\I \J.

.1

~

-, g

'j

,'/\ J 'O, .. /'

.~ (j

:\"l

" " -4< -~

~ (\

"" ,'r;~/ r"

. ~.

; I

, I'

\ \ '\

.'

"

, .

"

"

" ' .

----r----.... ----,--~.-1- ~ i ~ ~ 8 \~ ..

28

.'

,

.. II,. ,,~

oi-{ .i ~

" i •

" V i ~ :

I~ ,tt I I

1: . i t . . l~ I I

1

.. _- "---'-1' ----. " ~ ~

~ I>i .,

I I

~ ".

~ t·' V r" '-

A--r'j

~ J W .~

\ ( 'r

January 31, 1976

F. H. Tingey Rogers

neroJet nuclear Company Interoffice Correspondence

MILESTONE-la, RESERVOIR ANALYSIS - Kun-47-76

Completion of Milestone 10 specified a preliminary draft report be available and with review sign-off by the end of January. .

The attachments, I believe, satisfy this milestone, as document~d under this letter transmittal. The final version of this report will be prepared as soon as this program' office ha~n able to fully integrate the contributions just recently received from Lawretlce Berkeley Lab, with our own report material.

Jf~i~r Advanced Programs

rp

Attachments

cc: RCStoker LGMi11er File

.-

Kun-47-76 January 31, 1976

ATTACHMENTS

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Outline of Final Report with summary material for each section including detailed Background and Summary Information.

Draft Report by Dr. Paul A Witherspoon and Dr. T. N. Narasimhan, edited by R. C. Stoker.

Letters documenting flow characteristics under pumped conditions.

Preliminary Report prepared by Dr. Paul A Wi.therspoon for the October 17, 1975 Senate Hearings in Idaho Falls.

Completion Report, "Raft River Geothermal Exploratory Hole No.1 (RRGE-l)," October 1975, 100-10062, NVO-41 0-30, Reynolds. El ectri ca 1 and Engi neer; ng Company, Inc.

.-

Attachment 1

PRELIMINARY DRAFT REPORT

ADVANCED PROGRAMS

A COLLECTION OF WFORMATION ON THE

RAFT RIVER GEOTHERMAL AREA

RESERVOIR POTENTIAL FOR PILOT PLAi~T AND SUBSEQUENT

DEMONSTRATION PLANT DEVELOPMENT

Prepared by:

R. C. Stoker J. F. Kunze

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

With Contributions from:

P. A. Witherspoon T. N. Narashimhan

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

Reviewed and Approved:

'. I .' / ~' 7 / ·-1·,1/ (,,?<

/", t ""l /' II ·t> r-:'.< '--L. G. Ml11er. Manager Geothermal Field Operations

) 1'7 ''''/ J /.-.

/., !.I { K<. L ... \.oj '-:, / / ~:' / .7,/... ~ IS." F .'''Ku~ze. Manager i '

'Advanced Programs

RAFT RIVER VAllEY RESERVOIR ENGWEERING REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The Raft River Valley of Southcentral Idaho appears to be one of the most promising areas in the United States for near surface economically recover­able geothermal energy. As a typical site of the Western States, this area was selected in 1973 by the Idaho National Engineering laboratory (mEL) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as a prime location for the possible estab­lishment of a medium temperature-low salinity geothermal research and develop­ment power plant project. The geological, geophysical and shallow well infor­mation gathered by the USGS, indicated that the Raft Rivm~ Valley is a complex fault-controlled feature typical of the Basin and Range Physiographic Province. It appears to be one of the promising areas in the United States for near sur­face; economically recoverable geothermal energy, typical of the many such areas. and hence appropriate for the siting of the pilot-demonstration facility.

The correct interpretation of geothermal reservoir characteristics is of utmost importance if the reservoir is to be efficiently utilized in the sUP80rt of a nominal 10 MW(e) net, pilot plant. The plant requirements of 300 F water at 5,000 gpm flow, dictate that four or five wells will be necessary, all 10g;cial1y and judical1y located such that the reservoir can sustain the 'flows and temperature over a long (>20 year) period of time. In addition, the water must be reinjected into the reservoir at the appropriate depth and location to maintain reservoir fluid pressures with a minimum 10ng­term delerious effect. on the producing well temperatures.

Drilling was completed on the first two wells in the spring of 1975. The wells afforded the opportunity to gather data on the reservoir character­istics. This report describes the tests conducted, the data gathered, the analysis and the conclusions reached concerning the reservoir.

2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Two geothermal wells have been drilled in the Raft River Valley in winter­spri ng 1975. These reached a depth suffi ci ent to ta8 und i1 uted geoti1erma 1 water of the expected reservoir temperature (nominally 300 F). Both wells delivered· substantial artesian flow of 600 to 900 gpm once completed and cased. (The first well delivered 1400 gpm before ooler waters were cased out). The wells have, over the subsequent 6 to 9 months, received an extensive variety of flow testing and pressure monitoring, both for production and reinjection purposes. From the results of these tests, the characteristics of the reservoir between and surround­ing them have been deduced.

In brief, the following stateme~ are appropriate:

1.

2.

Both wells are successful producers of water of the desired tempera­ture.

Pumping of the wells yields approximately the flow increase expected (onca equilibrium is obtained), based on the standard pressure drop law for flow with frictional losses. This is partly due to the high effective permeability of the reservoir (see 3 below} •

. "

3. Both ~h~ dimensionless storage coefficient and the transmissivity coefflClent, for the basic two-dimensional reservoir diffusion theory model, are quite encouraging for a reservoir expected to yield flow sufficient to operate a pilot plant (5000 gpm from 1 to 2 square mile area), and even a demonstration plant (25,OOO gpm from 4 to 8 square mile region).

4. The total dimensions of the IIreservoirll cannot be established from just two wells. But the three week drawdown test indicated but a few reflecting boundaries, and no apparent total reservoir enclosure limit from that test period.

5. The longevity of the reservoir has been estimated from the reservoir parameters, based on reinjection within a mile of the producing wells. Lifetimes of. nearly a century. with only a few degrees degradation of the production well temperatures seem likely.

6. From the testing to date, neith~r well has shown evidence of degrada­tion. If anything, artesian flow and shut-in pressures have increased.

7. Neither well has been designed specifically for reinjection. Pressure and pumping power requirements to use these wells for reinjection are higher than antiCipated, and future wells must be considered, designe~ specifically for reinjection.

In summary, the evidence is very convincing that production of 5,000 gpm can be obtained from 4 to 5 wells, 2 to 3 more than the present e~cellent producers. It appears that the success of future wells drilled near the present faults, and within a one mile radius of the present wells, are virtually certain to be excellent producers. The chance of success of obtaining about 20 producing wells for the 50 MW demonstration plant cannot be estimated with certainty from the present two wells. However, there is no data to date to indicate that problems are to be anticipat.ed in obtaining 20 producing wells.

3.0 WELL SITING

The sites for two deep geothermal exploratory wells were selected primarily on the geological and geophysical data available for the Raft River area. The first site, RRGE-l, was selected such that the well would encounter the projected intersection of the Narrows Structure and the Bridge Fault at depth. The second site, RRGE-2 was selected to encounter the Bridge Fault at depth but be close enough to the Narrows Structure so that production would be influenced by this feature.

4.0 WELL DRILLING

4.1 RRGE-l

RRGE-l was drilled to a total depth of 4989 feet during January, February, and March, 1975. Details of the drilling are included in a Completion Report. The well was completed as a successful production well .

. -

/ 4.2 RRGE-2

RRGE-2 was drilled to a total depth of 5988 feet during April, May, and June, 1975. The well will be deepened by 500 feet during March 1976. It is already a successful production well.

5.0 FLOW TESTING

Both RRGE-l and RRGE-2 have undergone extensive flow testing dur;n9 active dril1in~ and over extended periods of time (5 weeks at 200-400 gpm). RRGE-l discharges approximately 650 gpm under artesian conditions and RRGE-l approximately 800 gpm.

A downhole temperature recorder was run in RRGE-2 several times under flow asd static ohutin conditions. Maximum temperatures in RRGE-l and RRGE-2 is 294 F and 297 F, respectively.

6.0 WELL LOGGING

Several standard,and special well logs were run in both wells and include temperature caliper, natural gamma, compensated neutron formation density, dual induction-laterology, spontaneous potential, dipmeter, compensated gamma density, sonic televiewer and flowmeter. The logging interpretation agrees to a large extent with the 'lithology of the sections and the geophysical data of the area.

7.0 DRAWDOWN PRESSURE TESTING

Drawdown tests were conducted in September and October on each individual well and with one well producing while the pressure change was observed in the other.

Following nearly two weeks of steady flowing from RRGE-2, the pressure in RRGE-l dropped approximately 1-2/3 psig compared to its initial downhole pressure of '2003 psi. The interpreted results indicate high effective permeability and substantial storage coefficients.

It should be noted the tidal effect pressure changes are being observed with the pressure monitoring instrumentation. This phenomenon has magnitude (peak-to-peak) of typically 0.1 psi and occasionally as large as 0.2 psi. The observed tides correspond exactly to those predicted for "land-tides" created by the sun and moon in this area.

8.0 PUMPING TEST

Under pumped conditions, the No.1 well performed about as expected, with reference to the artesian fJow conditions. Flow is 650 gpm with an artesian head of 175 8si. With a pump operating with additional drawdown of 550 ft of water Cat 290 F}, an additional 220 psi head ;s developed. The flow increased to 980 gpm steady state. Approximately the increase expected for a highly permeable reservoir with "infinite" boundaries.

9.0 RESERVOIR SYSTEM

Based on the data gathered to date, it appears that the m~jority of geothermal water originates in the Almo Basin (the valley immediately west of the Raft River Valley). A larger portion of this water (78%) apparently flows underground through the Narrows and feeds a large and permeable reservoir underlying much of the southern portion of the Raft River Valley. Only about 22% of the annual precipitation in the Almo Basin can be accounted for by the observed surface runoff. Further investigation is continuing to affirm this concept of the total system.

Attachment 2

Raft River Valley Reservoir Testino - P. A. Witherspoon, and T. N. Narasimhan, Edited by R. C. Stoker

A seri es of three drawdown tests \lJere conducted in RRGE-' and RRGE-2 during September and October as shown in Table 1. The instrument used to record the pressure changes was a highly accurate device employing a quartz crystal downhole and a frequency recorder on the surface. The IUEL lo~ning truck was used to lower and retrieve the tool from the two VJe 11 s .

A coordinated effort involv;np INEl and the University of California lawrence Berkeley laboratory (Dr. Paul A. Witherspoon and T. N. Narasimhan) was accomplished during the testing. Analysis and interpretation of the data was accomplished by Witherspoon and Narasimhan.

The computation of permeability and storaqe coefficient result in the following data for RRGE-2.

--_~._. ...6:.N

-~ --

TABLE 1

Duration Production Pressure Gage in Maximum Pressure drop Test No. Description Hours . Well No. Flow Rate Well No. Oepth9 feet We 11 No. Ap. psi gpm

1 Short Term Test l'JI,. RRGE #2 210 RRGE #2 5200 RRGE #2 39 on RRGE #2

., 2 long Term Test 615-1/2 RRGE #2 400 RRGE #1 1000 RRGE #1 3.6

on RRGE #2

3 Short Term Test 30 RRGE 111 26 RRGE #1 4700· RRGE #1 1.1 on RRGE #1

----- L ________ '-------~-- ... --.-- - - --- --- - - - -- - - -- -- - ---- -- -- - - ------------ --

Transmissivity (gpd/ft2 at 296°F)

kH md-feet

Storage Coefficient

5

0cH (Porosity x Compressibility x Thickness)

Dra\<Jdo\'Jn Data

,Jacob IS t1ethod The; s t1ethod (Asymptote Solution)

4,667

44,134

1.134 x 10-2; r = 1 foot w

-----

4,696

44,442

1 -2 .09 x 10 ; r\'J = 1 foot

Recovery Data

Asymptote 501 ution

4,718

44.623

2.82 x 10-2 ft/psi; 2.71 x 10-2 ft/psi/ r w =' 1 foot r w = 1 foot

The analysis of the RRGE-2 drawdown data reveal the following:

Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

1. The semilog plot (Jacob's plot), Figure 7, of drawdown data; ndi cates the presence of ~ than ~ barri er boundary, as evidenced by the three distinct straight line segments. The ~P10 intercepts of these straight line segments are:

o to 800 seconds

800 to 20,000 seconds

20,000 to 46,000 seconds

~Pl0 = 4.75 psi/cycle

~P10 = 11.3 psi/cycle

6P10 = 20 psi/cycle

5

40

"'. r ~

~

Z3 3: o Q 3; « a:: 20 Q

10

o , .

DRAWDOWN DATA FROM RAFT RIVER TEST AT R R G EW

2

.(9/12/75 TO 9/13/75)

... ~~~7

i j I j iii i i j

10 100 1000 10,000

PUMPING . T!ME , SEes .-..:.~.~~ ... ~ ~: ... ~'

If line 2 were controlled by only one boundary, it

should have a 6P,0 equal to 2 x 6P10 of line 1 = 2 x 4.75 = 9.50 psi/cycle. The fact that the 6Pl0 of line 2 is found to be greater than 9.50 psi/ cycle, sU9gests that the pressure drop beyond 800 seconds is controlled by more than one barrier boundary.

2. The log-log plot (Figure 8) of drawdown data also indicates the presence of more than one barrier boundary_ It;s seen from the plot that the data beyond 800 seconds departs from the Theis Curv~ and

cuts across th~ type curves for :i = 50 rr and ri = 20 rr This fact also suggests the presence of more than one boundary barrier with the first image well about 50 effective radii away from the pumped well.

3.' The calculation of the distance to the boundary depends on rw in the case of this test. Using the JacobDs Plot, the following results have been obtained:

Assumed Effective rw, ft (radius of wel1bore)

3

5

r;:, ft (distance to image well )

23.5 70.5

117.5

Distance to boundary·

(1/2 (jf)

11 .75

35.25 58.75

The analysis of buildup data taken during the drawdown testing reveal the following:

1. The log-log plot (Figure 8) does not reveal any unit slope or half slope se9ments. This indicates neither well bore storage !!2!:. 1 arge fractures have influenced the buildup data.

(

kll, rod feet

o cH, ft/psi (Porosity x Compressibil ity x Thickness)

Transmissibility gpd/ft at 296°F ,

Storage Coefficient S

Preliminary Test Long Duration Test Sept. 20 to· Oct 16, 1975 Sept. 14 to Sept. 17, 1975

Theis Curve t1atching Procedure

2.25 x 105

5.74 x 10-4

2.37 x 104

2.31 x 10 -4

Asymptotic Solu. Theis Curve Asymptotic Solu. (Jacob's Method) Matching (Jacob's Method)

Procedure

2.22. x 10 5 2.28 x 105 2.28 x 105

5.39 x 10-4 1.19 x 10-3 9.38 x 10-4

2.34 x 104 2.41 x 104 2.37 x 104

2.16 x 10-4 4.78 x 10-4 3.77 x 10-4

r-

100_ DRAWDOWN DATA FROM RAFT RIVER TEST AT R R G E ** 2

"

en a. .. z

10.0

.:= 10 o . o 3:: <C a::: o

0.1

Po=To= 1.0 t:l

..

GO

10

(9/12/75 TO 9/13/75)

. Figure 13

100 . 1000

PUMPING TIME, SEeS

-,

CURVE

10, 000

1 I

The analysis of the RRGE-l drawdown data reveal the following:

1. The numbers for the permeability of the reservoir are fairly consistent. The average permeability character­istic appears to be:

kh = 2.25 x 105 md feet =23,700 gpd/ft at 296°F

2. The preliminary test and the long duration test give the same order of numbers individually for Sand 0cH but the preliminary test gives Sand 0cH values only about 50% of those yeilded by the long duration test. This inconsistancy is probably a result of the flow varying between 400 and 900 gpm during the early ~art of the long dUration test.

The analysis of the RRGE-l drawdown data reveal the foll ow; n9:

1. The total duration of production during the preliminary test was about 70 hours. Neither the Jacob's Plot or Theis Plot of'this test indicate the effects of any barrier boundary close to RRGE-l.

2. The Theis (log-log) Plot, FiQure 9, of the long dUration test data shows clear evidence of barrier boundary effects commencing from about 80 hours. Comparison with barrier boundary type curves indicate that the radius to the image well from the observation well (RRGE-l) is between 2 and 5 times the distance rr (4000 feet) to the real producing well (RRGE-2). The comparison also shows that the observed data qradual1y shifts towards and cuts across the type curve for ri = 2rr. This suggests that there is possibly ~ than ~ barrier boundary influencing the pressure drawdown.

1.0 "

'1 .~

(J) ..l 0-

z 0.1-:1 ~ 0 0 ~ ::( .. )

0.01

DRAWDOWN DATA FROM RAFT RIVER TEST AT R R G E .;d:,

j-

j.

10

("\ , .

(9/20 TO tO/12l

-Figure 9

Po =T 0= 1.0 8

100

OBSERVATION

1wm

L FLOWING

WELL

In" "

"X

en a..

.. z 3: o a 3 <{ a::: o

5

4

3

2

a

DRAWDOWN DATA FROM RAFT RIVER TEST AT R R G E #1

(9/20 TO 10/12)

Figure 10

., .. . . 10 100 1000

PUMPING TIME, HRS

3. The Jacob's (semi-log) Plot, Figure 10, of the long duration' test data also shown the effects of barrier boundaries. The first boundary manifests itself as a change in straight line slope after about 80 hours. The slope of this line ;s 3.58 psi/log cycle, whereas the slope of the reservoir itself is 1.75 psi/log cycle. The fact that the ratio (3.58/1.75) is greater than 2 suggests that there is more than one boundary present. If only one boundary were present. the slope of line 2 should be twice that of line 1. The straight line plot also indicates the effect of more boundaries after 400 hours.

4. Calculations based on the Jacob's Plot data, show that the image well is located about 10,600 feet (2 miles) from RRGE-l. However, with only two wells it is not possible to,fix the location of the image well as to direction and hence not possible to fix the location of the boundary.

The calculated parameters based on the short term test conducted in RRGE-l are as fol'lows: ,.

~

kh = 115.000 md feet T = 12,300 gpd/ft at 296°F

10-4 . 0cH = 22 x ft/pS1 S = 8.1 x 10 -4

During the pressure testing, a slowly flucuating pressure variation was noted in the data. This was traced to lunial attrac­tion effects and is shown in Figure 11. The fact that lunar effects are exhibited by the reservoir indicate the reservoir ;s rather large and has high permeability.

I

I

I

I

U)

00.1 en E 0

~-o.l

"

U) got E 0

~-o.lr

Figure 11

'~J-573 Grav~ariation" ....

(» l>... :J ~ 1--572 (» l>... Water pressure variation 0.

l>... 571 (» 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 -t- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

~ 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N

SEPT 28 SEPT 29 SEPT 30 OCT I

U)

0. ....

(» l>... :J V ......., ......,

\J '--Gravity variation

U) 572 U)

Water p~re v~riation7 (» l>... a.. l>... -571 Q)

0 0 0 0 ..- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 N 0 N 0 N .0 N 0

OCT 2 OCT 3 OCT 4 OCT5

EFFECT OF LUNAR ATTRACTION ON WATER PRESSURE IN GEOTHERMAL RESERVOIR, RAFT RIVER VALLEY, IDAHO

'/ t""\ , ~:- I ') 0'7' r"- It

1 l

December 24, 1975

L. G. t-1i11 er Rogers 326

Attachment 3

Interoffice Correspondence

RRGF 1/1 SUPPLY PU!,jp INSTALLATION - PROJECT NO. 82801-008, 552 -- HLG-23-75

The dOVIn hol e supply pumping system install ation at RRGF lil \'laS compl eted November 22, 1975. The installation procedure, exact location of the down­hole equipment, and the check out tests are described in this document.

The vlell \-Ias shut-in with the installation of a t·lodel ilKS" packer suppl ied by the Baker Oil Tool Company. The packer was set at 850 feet belo\'1 grade level in the 13-3/8 inch well casing. The installation was accomplished with an electric 1 ine' unit by Schlumbergcr, Incorporated. The packer installa,tion I-las preceGded by a casing collar log and a gauge ring and junk basket run. This insured that the packer setting location was between casing collars and the casing V!aS free from debris that might prevent the packer insertion.

The existin~l casing head SP901, and master valve was rEmoved and replaced \'!ith I1KI" Brevlster Vlell head Company components. The ne~'l \';'e11 head ehl',; stmas tree includes a new casing head with a guide bushing and secondary packing assembly to insure complete environmental protection for the upper aquifers and the well. The environmental expansion spool contains the primary packing assembly and allO\'!s up' to 30-inciles of production casing grm'ith. A 12-inch through­conduit master valve completes the basic Christmas tree assembly.

The down hole supply pump system is comprised of three basic components. These are the 4-1/2 inch stinger, the Reda pump, and the 8-5/8 inch production tubinQ. The 4-1/2 inch stinger was installed in nominal 30 feet joints totaling 179.62 ft. The first section of the stinger \','as slotted to permit flo\! through the packer and into the annulus above the packer (Ref: Dwg. #406514).

The stinger is attached to the pump motor with a 4-1/2" x 2-1/211 swage. The pump is suspended from a hanger spool on the Christmas tree assembly. Fifteen joints of 8-5/8 inch casing tota1ing 609.98 feet \,las installed locating the pump inlet at 623.06 feet below the master valve flange. The stinger penetra­tion through the production packer is 6.19 feet.

The remaining components of the Christmas tree assembly \'/ere 'installed and connected to the flow loop piping completing the supply pump installation (Ref: Dwg. #406494).

L. G. r·~ iller i1LG-23-75 Oecwber 24, 1975 Page 2

The initial checkout test lasted only 30 minutes. The unit a.nd system performed as expEcted; however, the well drew down very rapidly and appeared to drop to approximately 500 ft. below the surface. The flowrate was approximately 1400 gpm. Additional dra\'/do~m studies \·lill be made as pumping tests continue.

, f Il/ // ?r//;6X~~~ \~. l. Godare Special Projects Section Design Engineering Branch

gh

cc: HWCampen (r) S. Cohen JFKunze~ LSt·lasson RSr·kPherson JHNeitzel RWGould (r) RBRinger RDSanders JH:hitbeck

• #

L. G. Hiller Rogers 326

Attachment 3

rleroJet nuclear Compan!:j Interoffice Correspondence

RRGF #1 PUNP AND HELL TEST SU~tr,1ARY THROUGH DECH1BER 24, 1975 - WLG-24-75

Four short-duration tests have been conducted at RRGF #1 to evaluate pump performance and to characterize the well and reservoir. Each test is described in detail, and the data sheets for each is attached.

Test 101

This test was the initial checkout run for the pump and flow loop. The "dead­head" conditions for the pump were established prior to opening the flow control valve. It was determined that the flow control valve was not adequate for throttling the'flow and should be changed. before the next test.

The test lasted only 20 minutes, and no conclusive data was obtained. however, it was noted that the well drawdm'ln was more than anticipated.

Test 102

Prior to starting the pump, an artesian flow test \'Jas conducted to establ ish a head versus flow curve for RRGF #1. This data is presented graphically in Figure 1.

The pump \lias started and the initial flowrate \lIas in excess of 2000 gpm. HO\l/ever, after only 20 minutes, the flow and discharge pressure had dropped drastically. The throttle valve \lIas completely opened and the \lJell could not sustain flolrJS in excess of 1055 gpm.

Test 103 .

The well was 1 eft flowing overnight prior to this test. The average flowrate durin9 this period was 550 gpm and the maximum temperature reached ~as 274 F. The well head pressure was approximately 40 psig.

The initial drawdown occurred very quickly, dropping the water level to 554 feet below the surface in only five minutes. The drawdown seemed to reach semi-stable conditions after five hours of pumping at an average flowrate of 1020 gpm although the trend was still downward. At these conditions, the pump discharge pressure was 60 psig. Assuming this well would stabilize at 1000 gpm, the pump inlet could be lowered to 845 feet to regain the additional discharge pressure.

,-

",. \·ILlI-.~(I-i~

Dr~cmbcr 29, 1975 .pll~Je 2

The 3-il1cl1 side villves l'iCrC opcn~d to bYPilSS I)i'\l~t of t.he flo\:1 in i:l1 eff(1l'L to rC~Ji1in sufficiE:tlt r;PSH lIithout dccreilsit1~; total r'UPlp flO'.WiitC. The \':e:11 did reCOVel" to pl"oduce a pump ciiscllUl'ge pressure of 120 rsig ilt u net flo\':rate fro::1 the \,I~:ll of 520 gr111. These conditions I1WY not: be un ilccurilt~ indication of I'/ell perfOl'lilanCc dUG to the cascading of viator t(1ck into the I/ell.

Test 104

In an attempt to determine the amoul1t of f101': tllat could be pu:nl!ccI fl"Om the v/c11 , steady-state conditions frolll the artesian flo\'! UPV!t1r<J \':f;re studied. The initial floi" condition achieved i'laS 658 gpm. At this flo\'watc, the \";ater lCVE.:l in the well dropped 66 feet.

The flo\\'rate l'/as then inCl"easc:d to apPI"oxillliltcly 740 9pm. TIle I'~atet" 1 evcl drOPPEd to 167 feet before sCll1i-ste:aciy state conditions !\iTC reacheci. P,t 818 (;rl;', the 1 evel· eirol.'ped to 253 fGet, and at 917 gpln tile 1 evel drOI'I1C:!cl to 370 fed ar,d the pump discilUl~~Je presssure \'laS lG2 psig. The \'/c11 could not sustain any flOl':­ra te above 920 gl~rn.

It must be E":l!l[)hasizcd that all point.s in this test \verc: 1l1i1intainr:d for c: vc!"y short time and, ill most CllSeS, there continuE'd to lJe a elOI'jllI'lard trend in the lt/ater level in the v:ell.

The data for tlli s test is shol"iI1 versus dra\'jc!ol,!il in Fi sut"(: 2, al1d il pumr r(;l'fl~rll;:l nee comparison is ShOl'l:l in Figure 3. Tile pump is pr.rfornlin'] uS cx~'cctr.:u, hOi:Q\'Cl",

the v.'ell pCI"for-i11anee seems to be much 1 {:ss th2.n pred icteJ. In add it ion to the lack of capacity, the v:ell is J11ucll cool er th{";ll predicted averi1qin9 cllly Z70()F" There has been no cas'in9 exp~1I1sion detected in any of the above tests.

Recommendations for FUI"thet" Testing

The next logical test must be of longer duration. The well should be pumrrd at approximately 900 gj:m fOl" several days to determille I:!hether or not this flo\,!­l"ate can be mai~tained for a significant length of time. If not, lowel" flow­rates should be examined to find the capacity at which the w~ll can be pumped.

Before this longer test can be made, suitable calibrated instrumentation should be installed to monitor discharge temperature and flow"utes. Rc:cordE:l"S should be avoided unless a controlled atmosphere and recalibration procedures call be maintained: A sketch shol'/ing the location of the instrUlllent1ltion for Tests 101 th~ough 104 is shown in Figure 4.

lJ/ ~i{'f:-H. L. Godare Special Projects Section Design Engineering Branch

gh

Attachmellts - As stated

L. G. 1-j'illcr \'!LG-24 -75 OeccrnLcr 24. 1975 Page 3

LJistribution

cc: *1l1!Cc.nlpcn (r) SCOh011 RliGotlld (I') RBHi'rH1cr JFKunzQ ~ lSr·lassnl1 RSlkPhcl'son GU-li II(;S

Jl-:rleitzc:l RDSanciet's In:hitbccl\

*With Attachment I only

!

E. T.

Q.tlP

QF

PUll

PDT

PH

f!PS11

PPO

TPI

Tro AI':P

OAT/\ Sli/:U Tl:r\;:ljiOLO(~Y

Time, IIRS

Orifice Plate 6P, psid

Flow:ate, gpm

Wellhead Pressure (annulus) p~ig

Ora\'idOl'ln Tube Pressure - psig

liquid Density - lb/ft3

Net Positive Section Head, ft.

Pump DisctlJl"gC Pressure, psig

Pump Inlet Temperature, of

Pump Discharge Temperature, of

Pump Power - a~ps

."

hJ es: ")

/- J Li:

....., S 0 .J ~

~

~I VI :;::>,

[J ) .{ J IJ} ltl! -r 51

~I LL lj

vi I cr: LJ rr: I-I 0::

1 «I

rJ 0 --I .... f v)

I~~ " 1.L. [1)

D::

0 0

0

r

I) ! -,

.U

') :) r ....

f'\ '-u .j

J U lit

l) () '-~

0 0 i;)

0 (J N

o u

--------------------------------- G o ... 9 o

oJ o \t

o

t ;-!

1.1

" --.-, (\.

, '" U , ...oJ

LL

.. '

(\.)

, J rj 'J \'.9

/ G:

.....-{

(J

2 --I J ~l .J ~I LtJ 61 -::> I > ?: .>1

1.1 ~! r~1 0 i O

(XI

D:' I

T-I--

S~ ,j :/ .-l., cf. (JI

o 8 -

() ()

(.{)

.-

:1. 1.1-\i: ~I ~-

[f:

,!-

0 -I~ \ 1 :.:J

~-

.~

f)

o o

o () N

~~ "-

I

U () ,!1 -

0 \..) ~). -

0 () ,,,,.1 .. -

J lJ ()

:-1 () 1.(1

0 0 1.9

o o ':;i

o () N

o o

,.

~~i_

.:"!

,.

'.,

(J : .. J

I...L

.' ..... \

\~J

~

rll,

lP cJ. ':J \9 LL

~

ii, 'i.; I.L u:

~ -2 0 (1 (I ~-

\1 L! w

/ I-...... (!..

I r I q ,

V I

UJ / I d I _.,

f ,-I

<:.:.

5~ I I

(J-

0 / ll-.

I f~ U),

Ci D.-l .:J

Q.

....-, I' \ I III I"

------iiI -:. I' ,L

:J U

'JJ U -! ,:;;

, .....

c..: ."'\ " t.;,

\::.:' 1-1.1

CJ...

/ /

I /

I I I

'.J

N

.'

(l (\ j

3 ~j>\ '1\' lOY; Ie]

.~.

'-

:' ',' -'-

U \~ "j

i I ()

I ,

I \J I

I : (', I I \,

I . \ \, I ':5) j

I I Q

(\

I " ~

(\

IS ~

\) () [.J

(\

o

.. . ,

.

;" t' I

I', . .-

...... " ). ,.

' ...

p,:r

ll) ,/ ~)

0 /" -

U-

~,

e.::-t~, .•

'." '[ "OJ

"J : .... l ) ~

'---' ;

l- , "'-....... I n (_f (L ,

\\, ~ --_. __ ._._----

- '-'--'-'" " " " " '-' . D _________ .. __ " ____ _ --Q. /". ----t"-Q. / ---I: --"

/ I! r)

0 .- -! ~ ;-\ r ,- ! 2~ _ I -L

I I I ], r~ t':4-.. · ._~. __ -J I CL

1_\:1- -_ .. -.} .----._-.1 t \j \"\ \' \ ,., I \ £~ I . " I ~ t ,

I CV)

l.L o (5

~O-- < ~

l~~ ~ _I

.-

1 ~I 1-<C v o

.-l

.. :~

\.1 . -r .-

-----.-'" r 0 R·M (II:. G 56 i R[ V. I 2 • 72 ) " .

" t··:· ,/.' ./ )' (). --,) i / ./ /." .:. .; /.1 --- /

()9DO &-,g .//l1

.220 r ;:., ~ / // (~ 1(')//;_ ". .j/. )'-

.~ ", ! .'~ - ,

.I!>..EJr,(OJET NUCX .... £J\.n COIVXPJ\.NY

. .-::- (, '/ .. , • t... .,'.' " "'j ...

t~/:....;.:..·~l_"..:..):...r:...') '+';";'~'.;..' ..;."_' .,:.0-+_·....;<_:.'_'_/-';::....1-_-_' ";")-"-1--//-'-;' -'f~-:';"<-:-':;" / ? .,-,-::::.:.~..::<;..;." '.....:.(:=-•• _._/-:... •• __...'._-_I ____ +-._( _. '_:' _. :_. + ___ ~: ///:; 0 ,. ... ,,-- /"i (/0 :::-'::- ~ /,. y-;':;~'.3 ::: .... c.. '.' ·)--I----.f-·-·:·-..... -'....;·=-' _+_,_.,_._':-_-j

1-,/;,..:.' /-.:.:..C}_I'.:..../_+...:-:-~.-'· ~:::..-:j_--t-.J./_ .. :.;:.I'}_~i'-· .:... .. J-+ __ ..:.~"--·;_I __ \...:.:'_/:.....· _+=:;_~_., '_I_'? :3 '-: . ..:.' ,_60:._1___..:.(_ • ...:(.;.., -I-----l-:...·· _'_.' .:., .. __ __._. '_1 // L~r .-" /0 ;~ 'J ? .- I! • 2- ~. l I / /:,/ -2 I /

"

/ ,.", ... ',., =--~--l~.~~_'~t~ __ ~~~·~+-~~ __ I_~~ __ l~~ ___ -/~--~/:.--+_---t--~_4------

""7' () ~r-.:...-_./_. '---t-.:../..:,.{:..:,/.....:...:?-' +---~/_(-.. -_1----',~:·~--1 .5,)"' . .3 r, ..:3:....:::;2_..;.,....;1:.__1--..;.(.._· -:,--+-----1-..:...::. / .. :. ' ~--" .,.... . .: () c-; 1/ t) /0/ t.? .,.: l/ 3:? S-Z, 3. 'J. 3 r./, (" (..; :J

.~ .... -...... .'" '\

Z?y/--?-.. J :'5 _.):'/ /./6. ------I---.......;..-+-----!------I----.4------'

I ----1-----\

t------+-----j-----+-----j----.j----.l----I-----I----I-----4-----i

~----~-------4_------4-------1-------~-----I-------il------~

i --1--1------1-1

~--- .. ---_4----- ----1 -----1----- 1----1---- ----+-----11-----1

.-

/

ilTTI\CII~l[IH II rORAI A~I;.:&5_~ tREY. 11·)2) To v!LG-24-75

........ J"- I ~""" __ _

.I~EJR.OJIZ'r NUCI:"EA.lrt COMP,r ... NY

= ".. ="':--=.-=:-.- --=-=".=. -=='==·-"·=·/.,7,;-j~71 ==~-====== ===-~ ":':=,"'=,=~---=="

- ()6. P G) F PW'·[ F' D T (VI It\7'~'{4 P P D "tP ITe D AM P I .. - -- -= === == ==-=--= = .:',,' .. ' . .=00= =:..:=-====.=.== ===.=·1

HRS P'.::.l D (,f'.'v\ PSIG roSiG IbIK. ft PSiC,. or- OF 1\fv1P.S I :~J~, ~l :-:-- () n - .. - - - -. ;;) -:;. i - .::- .~- I ~ - -,-

J

2.0 '.> 0 II, , .. -- /'--"7(.) - -- ,-- .... __ .. 3S-o - ---- ... -" j -' .

.. 2.a :: S-,..., (-) , ""G. '2 () - - -- --- 1':-0 - - 70 I

~oc/o 7 114 ,- 1(21') // .:) - - . , ! - -- -. ("':0 .-, , -.,:)0 (/~ s: "':"/u -::- n ,'J >.J /./. I

I I

I I I I I I - I -I

, I I I , j

t - - I

!

~ -

1 I 1

I "1

~ I

t------~ ' .

. - , --_. __ .- -_._--- I I I

t' I

I I

I

I

" /. -':-, .. 'J I' .... : ,'/0' , ) / ___ -~." .• , ••• ~ I . .. ~ ,/'

(' '~T. o~~~~,_G).~-r-~_~-I-~~ p D~-".=(~;o~'=I~(f~~~~~=' £~~= ~E : __ J;:';£~_ ~i~~~] HR5 P':.d~ (,1',\.\ PSI<=', P~)l(, Ifl{{r3 -ft: PSiC:, vF OF I\MP.S;

! F/! E. E ,C't- p Vt_) '7 ... / .2 .3 " , 5"" .3 '" '" I / '1', '/ 2. '7 0 I -1--=---1 ----1----·+----1-----'l----t---~

_/..;..3._' ...);;..-...::;;ZJ---I_'-,"7...:_~,,-~ --+ ~ 7 0_ --<-/--,-'/_~ !.;;..J_+.....:./: __ : ...:;;1..;;..' ...:;;,::-'--i'----1-----+----I-----f,--,---I-------: ,/ - /,.:./ ~....... /-/'i/S ---I-~-.;;../~~~+_-'~.~~--~':--i:~~~~~.,-'~~-+---~

/.-/? ... , j, S- .:."-:.'.,. I rO 7_ I I) .,~ .. '-­_ .........

/V~.~~--~~,.-l~~::~f-'-:,-)~-_~=·~c--_r-'.-/-f'-·,=,~-t.-----_-! _______ +-___ ~~.;;..~'.....:.~~I·--,-4------~_------i

~~.....:~::.../;;...~..:.:D~l-'-~~-· -'(':;~I //;~ ~~,~ -·:.~-'·-·~--·\-I----_I-----ir_----l--~:-\'-:·.·-·'-.i--·----Sl : / ~ . ., 1') .. " -, -:~ L (,''"l •• '~' r. ") C- /./ '.) C"'Y) I I c,q j 0 r;? // .:;/ "" ~! .~,- .;- __ / V i _,.., ,_ , _v, _ 4_ . ....;. 1. r .-It 'f '.~~ :-I . .......:~.~.),,-l ( .. : I

'--"'/(;(~....;CJ;;.....;.O'___t-C'-','--'-7_+_....;./....;./.:..... 2_-_0---11_";;"':'_' =S""_+----'-Q--"-0--j..,;::S-_i'_, I./_L /0,.:), () ..1 ~- -~, .-' ... -=---1 __ ' 1_' , /t 2 S Sf 7 / tJ :? j .2:.:;-" 6 5 J'Z 1/9 /() r; ·1

I

I ------\------·~----i

I.~----~----!-------!-----~------I-----~------~-----!------{-----_I_----I : 1 r- --l------~----!----t --~...,---1----+-,-_ -._-,.-_-.-I-:~~-_=_--I-_~~-_-_-----I-:-~~~~~:-i------------I

" !

r'-

-~ ... -

:.r;j 0.: -.

5T1I/'!"T 'TIME. ! / ' ... --t:':>" {, , -

AEHOJE'r NUCLEAR COMlP.r ... NY

~l:~L~=z~~ p-1~~1rl~~£~¥~i:.~2:~11~;~] //30 ..). c/ &::'::; Z / _i./:?:::-;::,:> L ,::-'/ r :": :,'0 ,-- ',: '7(J :;.:, I /6 c./ s'- ?,.:, (; ,) P :-' ,:"'/ ~ -;-::. ('~:. :- :. ,~ c:~, , / <~ i~-;:::- -, '"',) I I

,-:t , ,? / -., • .1

(;.") --' () .. ..,~r. .. ,

:' jl,-":"'; /=/. " ;.,..J

170..!-- ,7;' ~ .. -, ... ~, r--, .- .- - )

... ..... -:., ,

/72..0 3- D 75(:) 2.1 -,

/~':J ~. , 0 "'4. 7 /730 ::.-

0 75"'0 .,.J, 2.7 /?yJ' ,7

0 '7 ,:-;) , 2- -7 " --. '- i .... ',' I'

;: (,.

2S' "') ,..-' ... ) \. ii I "/ -,~.

.. , ',' i ~ ~'''f~'', -: "'"

-' '-

2.../ S"' .$-\~;', '2~

"j I t I"'''~ ., '?. , ...) V I •

2../S" ,j(;:', '2,"2-

...., I 7. ,-V -" .... ,,:".- -, ' :. ....

... I I ("".:,", " "2. '-, t,

., .:", .,' -. .

() " f, , , r;: ':) , .:;:y. 2..'2-

(-T'I " 0- , ,< I

.--.~ • I -. .' .. of· I

1-/-;-::-; -, ::\

c!7.)' ....

/-. :.> c/,,:) , -' ,/," ;:. ':1 '; .,. I ---_., t/t-O, Y ----_.

,,/:~,,{,.:, r--' ••• ..1

LIS 7, 'I

" ! -\ w"

'II:" ."'::" ~. . .~." \,

" (-, ~-..

:-:'/0

" "7 n .", .. ~

270 Z. /".:) -:----i

,--) .. '" /

....--, 0 (, f .~ - . ') i

--.------+--------+-----~-------'2, I' :)

f , ' f.

2 to lJ' (,)

., -.,,,...­,';, . ::.

:-:-'i I

, J

Z7CJ

.... - ," >" " •

.,. ' ... ..:.. ,':,

-:--- ,\

,,,, --:. /, r'C' -.', .::;.., /. V ,.-"" S- 2- 70 r' .; .....:..· ______ I~ .. _''''''--'· ':::..; .='-.. j....:-:::...;../.;../·.--:.·-I--.;;..--... --=-::...---\---------I------- __ "-'---"c_, _

! ~ ) 3, s-r 5.1 / J -:' ('1 / :7,5~ <-:!~,;: Z ~~:. }), ,;.. ::.-: -; .~ ~) ~) ':) ,-- --~~~~~--~--~--~~---~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~-----~-1---------1--~-----1-~--~ ' .. ..,.-

,"-'/, :~,' ':""'.r ,//'/ (' , ~ " J _~ rI'r/ c; t--------+--------I-------~-------_+--------l--------,j-----~ ___ ~ / ~. .• ~ - ... ~ / ,..- J . ~, I .... '"I ..... ,/ .'. "..

,~.~-!-~'~~-.~~~/~;-~'~~-!-,~~~--r_-z~~~-t~/-I--(~)_4~.~!,~.-I ~.,~~~'/ !----.--·--I--·-,'-'~)--1-------_+.--~~,~!~~--~-~~--,_~'~~()~~~':~~ __ r_~-/.-'~S--~-' -r~:~/~.7_~~~~~,~ __ ~?~~-~--!~/~~:~'-:;-'-4'~'~~~~~-"~~~~_~~~:~~~'~7._'~(_·1 __ '_'_'_' ~'-'--t,--------~--"--'/--)~---"~ <>0 (/:: t/, r(( .~ 7 ?~; I~'? '.::t', i' 'I. <~.::. /(.. ~ 7_ -7 'J ,.-:! ~--~;~~-~~--~------~------~-~--~~'~-~~~~~---4-~--~~--------~---~--4-~-----

"///0 L/'.c/:;-' 0./7 /2..7

cJ. / :2 c:> 5~? (.) (; ;;:'~ ?_ 7 /0 ('

:.:;c.~-</.;..,:::..3..;..r-+-'y.-:'-,_/=_1':.::::.J-_l~1 t.: ,,) -? '7 -l/ c:-o ..5~ 'l '/ £. d tl~~ 1'./.

..:l ;J 012 C) I..') I L '5'

c:.,7 0

: /; ~,) ~ / .' f. # _ /.: C)

--; . .'

i"- .,.;

\._ . .:'; " ,

;J7, n .;;- () C.'J /Jo ~~I--~~~~~~~---~---r--~---~·----r_--~--~ p'-l I () t"') (') 1\;' .-- i

..l;J I ,I 0 (':"'.) /1'/7

I

~~------~------1--------r------~--------I-------4--------\--------i-------,t--~ - ,----t-----I----~---~ -~-----.,--------t----- ----- -----_41----1

I

....

(

I

I

I

I

I I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I I

I

l I

I

I I

I

I

I I

I

I

I

I

I I

I

I

I I

I

I

I

I

,

(

lAWRENCE BERKELEY LASORA TORY UNIVERSiTY OF CALIFORNIA

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94720 a TEL (415) 843·2740

October 15, 1975

P RIO R I T Y M E S SAG E

Dr. James C. Bresee Division of Geothermal Energy U. S. Energy Research & Development

Administration Washington, D. C. 20545

Dear Jim:

. , /\ " -. ,- '

,;. \" ~ ... ' / 'J

As per your request~ I have prepared the following statement on the Raft River testing program for you to use as you see fit.

RAFT RIVER GEOTHERMAL PROJECT RESERVOIR ASSESSMENT

At the request of Dr. Jay Kunze, Director Raft River Geothermal Pro­ject, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), the Lawrence Berkeley laboratory (LBl) Geothermal Group was asked to provide technical assistance in assessing the size and producing capabilities of the geothermal reservoir at the Raft River Project near Malta, Idaho. Two wells about 4,000 feet apart have been drilled in Section 23-15S-26E of Cassia County and were used in this reservoir assessment work.

The geological and geophysical exploration work performed by the U. S. Geological Survey has revealed that ~ complex fault system is present in the Raft Kiver basin. The locations of the first two wells were selected to intersect these faults and to determine if a geothermal reservoir of signi­ficant size is present. The first well. RRGE #1, was drilled to a depth of 4,618 feet and the second well, RRGE #2, was drilled to a depth of 6,004 feet.

The results were very satisfactory. After the wells were completed and shut in, they had bottom hole temperatures of about 296°F and closed in pressures at the surface of a~out 150 psi (pounds per square inch). The bottom hole pressures at a depth of 5.000 feet were about 2,200 psi. This suggests that the wells have tapped a large body of hot water that is under artesian pressure. controlled by the vast groundwater system of that area. Because of the artesian conditions, each \'Ie11 can flow up to 800 gpm

Dr. James C. Bresee October 15, 1975 Page 2

(gallons per minute) simply by opening it to the atmosphere. This is an indication of a very satisfactory well productivity.

With two successes, the next.obvious step would appear to be to continue drilling more wells. The critical problem, however, is where? One must bear in mind that in planning an efficient power plant, optimum locations for the required number of producing wells have to be determined, and the total development must also provide for appropriately placed reinjection wells. These problems require detailed information on reservoir properties. In view of the fault system that is present. a very critical question is whether the first two wells are producing from the same aquifer or are sep­arated from each other by some barrier. such as a tight fault.

Such questions can only be determined by a flow test wherein hot water is produced from one well and the pressure response is observed at the other. If the two wells have been drilled into a common aquifer, there will be a signal in the form of a pressure drop that can be measured at the observation well. Once the pressure communication is proven, a continuation of the flow test provides data that can be used in determining the reservoir parameters that control well productivity. If any reservoir limits lie beyond the area of the present two wells, such limits may also be detected depending on the duration of the flow test.

Accordingly, it was important to carry out a series of flow tests to gather information on reservoir properties. These tests were set up by LBL in cooperation with INEL and were carried out during September and October, 1975 .. A key piece of equipment was a quartz pressure sensor that could be placed in either wellbore deep underground. This special apparatus was used to measure pressures with a sensitivity of 0.001 pSi. The instrument is so sensitive that the combined gravitational pull of the sun and moon on the earth, which caused pressure changes twice a day of up to 0.2 psi, was clearly evident throughout the test. To our knowledge, this is the first time that such a sensitive pressure gauge has been used in evaluating a geothermal reservoir.

The most important test was to flow RRGE #2 at approximately 400 gpm for 22 days. Pressures were monitored continuously 4,000 feet away in RRGE #1, and by the end of that period, the total pressure drop was about 3.6 psi. An analysiS of the data has given the following results.

The important reservoir parameter that controls flow of water to a well is the product of permeability (k) and aquifer thickness (h). We obtained a value of kh = 210,000 millidarcy-feet, which indicates a very high permea­bility for the reservoir. We do not yet have an accurate measurement of aquifer thickness, but the drilling data suggest several hundred feet. If h is 500 feet, then the reservoir permeability is 420 millidarcies, which is very favorable. t~ater viscosity is also a significant factor in controlling flow. At 296°F and 2,200 psi, the viscosity of the reservoir water is 0.18 centipoise, which means it is five times less viscous than water at ordinary temperatures and thus flows five times more easily through the formation.

Dr. James C. Bresee October 15, 1975 Page 3

Another important reservoir parameter is the ability of the formation to release water from the internal void spaces of the rock when pressures decrease. ~Iaterisa very slightly compressible liquid and the void spaces within the rocks are also deformable when pressures chanSE_ The combined effect of these factors is called the storage coefficient (5). We obtained a value of S = 0.001 per psi drop in pressure, which is a satisfactory result and on the high side for aquifers of this kind. This value means that a sig-

ficant volume of water will come out of storage because of the vast size of the aquifer. This "stored" water simply joins the water moving by virtue of the imposed pressure grddients and augments,the total flow to the producing wens.

Another valuable result is the fact that we detected the presence of at least two barrier boundaries or flow discontinuities. It is not possib1e to determine the location of these boundaries with only two wells, but one of them appears to be located within a few hundred feet of RRGE #2. A more pre­Clse location of these boundaries must be ~ade as soon as possible because this will affect the final selection of sites for the producing wells.

Finally. these tests have enabled us to design conditions for further investigations of this kind. For example. with the reservoir data we now have, we can predict that if a third well is drilled about two miles from the present wells and the flow tests are repeated, the pressure drop at su~h a distance will be about 1 psi, which can easily be measured with the system we have devised. Such a step-out distance to the next well seems appropriate in terms of the problems that must now be faced.

In summary, the recent flow tests have served a very useful purpose. The first two wells have enabled us to determine that a large and productive geothermal reservoir with a high permeability has been discovered. Both wells produce from, a common aquifer but, in view of the complex fault system in this region, it is not surprising that barriers or discontinuities to flow have been detected. Further drilling and testing will be necessary to locate these boundaries more accurately. This should be done as soon as possible because such infcrrnatioii \-/111 be iiGeded ~n selec.ting Optiiiiu!i1 10catiarls fOT jJ}-oducing and reinjection wells.

PAW:mp

cc: J. Hollander J. Kunze K. Mi rk

(l

,,/ / 17/1/~,( ',I

jf:<- v.--, !I, I ~ Uu ' 1,.,) ->F?Y'v

Paul A. Witherspoon, riirector Geothermal Oevelo~ne~t Project lawrence Berkeley Laboratory