HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRC-2021-008561 - 0901a06880ec04faEnergy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Blvd. Suite 600
Lakewood, CO, US, 80228
303 974 2140
www.energyfuels.com ENERGY FUELS
2z)-1--(20s.56/
as e Md 1yrìIent and Radiation Control June 16, 2021
!UN g 2021
VIA E-MAIL AND EXPRESS DELIVERY
Mr. Doug Hansen
Director
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820
Dear Mr. Hansen;
Re: State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit ("the Permit") No. UGW370004 White Mesa
Uranium Mill — As-Built Report Pursuant to Part I.F.6 of the Permit
This letter transmits the As-Built Report for Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.'s ("EFRI's") perched
groundwater monitoring wells TWN-20 and TWN-21.
TWN-20 and TWN-21 were installed the week of April 19, 2021. Both TWN-20 and TWN-21 were installed
with the approval of the State of Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC).
TWN-20 was installed prirnarily to attempt to bound nitrate exceeding 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L) at TWN-7
and TWN-21 was installed primarily to provide more detail regarding perched water levels and flow directions
in this portion of the site.
The enclosed As-Built Report includes the items required for As-Built Reports in the Permit Part I.F.6, and is
being submitted for TWN-20 and TWN-21.
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or require any further information.
Yours very truly,
Soz41_d
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC.
Kathy Weinel
Quality Assurance Manager
David Frydenlund
'erry Slade
Garrin Palmer
Scott Bakken
Logan Shumway
Stewart Smith (HGC)
HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC.
Environmental Science & Technology
INSTALLATION AND HYDRAULIC TESTING OF
PERCHED MONITORING WELLS TWN-20 AND TWN-21
WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
NEAR BLANDING, UTAH
(AS-BUILT REPORT)
June 16, 2021
Prepared for:
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC
225 Union Blvd., Suite 600
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
Prepared by:
HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC.
51 West Wetmore Road, Suite 101
Tucson, Arizona 85705
(520) 293-1500
Project Number 7180000.00-01.0
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring WellsTWN-20 and TWN-21,
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TWN_2021\report\TWN20_21_instal.doc
June 16, 2021
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
2. DRILLING AND CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................ 3
2.1 Drilling and Logging Procedures ............................................................................ 3
2.2 Construction ............................................................................................................ 3
2.3 Development ........................................................................................................... 4
3. HYDRAULIC TESTING ................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Testing Procedures .................................................................................................. 5
3.2 Hydraulic Test Data Analysis ................................................................................. 5
4. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................. 9
5. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 11
6. LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................. 13
TABLES
1 Well Survey Data
2 Slug Test Parameters
3 Slug Test Results
FIGURES
1 Locations of New Nitrate Wells Showing Kriged 4th Quarter, 2020 Water Levels and
Nitrate Plume Boundary
2 TWN-20 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
3 TWN-21 As-Built Well Construction Schematic
4 Comparison of Raw Displacement Data and Displacement Data Corrected for a
Background Trend at TWN-20.
APPENDICES
A Lithologic Logs
B Well Development Field Sheets
C Slug Test Plots
D Slug Test Data
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring WellsTWN-20 and TWN-21,
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TWN_2021\report\TWN20_21_instal.doc
June 16, 2021
ii
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring WellsTWN-20 and TWN-21,
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TWN_2021\report\TWN20_21_instal.doc
June 16, 2021
1
1. INTRODUCTION
This report describes the installation, development, and hydraulic testing of perched monitoring
wells TWN-20 and TWN-21 at the White Mesa Uranium Mill (the “Mill” or the “site”) near
Blanding, Utah. TWN-20 was installed immediately west-southwest (and downgradient) of
TWN-7; and TWN-21 was installed west-southwest of TWN-20, as shown on Figure 1. TWN-20
and TWN-21 were positioned to provide additional detail regarding nitrate concentrations and
perched water levels to the west-southwest of TWN-7.
Both TWN-20 and TWN-21 were installed with the approval of the State of Utah Division of
Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC). TWN-20 was installed primarily to
attempt to bound nitrate exceeding 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L) at TWN-7 (approximately 16
mg/L in the first quarter of 2021). TWN-21 was installed primarily to provide more detail
regarding perched water levels and flow directions in this portion of the site.
Both wells were installed during the week of April 19, 2021. Development consisted of surging
and bailing between May 7 and May 13, 2021 followed by overpumping between May 14 and
May 20, 2021. Multiple surging/bailing and overpumping events were required in order to
remove the proper volumes of water. Hydraulic testing of both wells consisted of slug tests
conducted during the week of May 24, 2021.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring WellsTWN-20 and TWN-21,
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TWN_2021\report\TWN20_21_instal.doc
June 16, 2021
2
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring WellsTWN-20 and TWN-21,
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TWN_2021\report\TWN20_21_instal.doc
June 16, 2021
3
2. DRILLING AND CONSTRUCTION
Well installation procedures were similar to those used previously at the site for the construction
of other perched zone wells (Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. [HGC], 2005), except that borings were
cored from approximately 10 feet below land surface (ft bls) to total depth before reaming to
accommodate 4-inch diameter well casings. Drilling and construction were performed by
UCOLO Drilling, LLC, and borings logged by Mr. D. Kapostasy, an employee of Energy Fuels
(USA) Corporation (EFRI). As-built diagrams for the well construction, based primarily on
information provided by Mr. Kapostasy, are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The depths to water
(below land surface) shown in the as-built diagrams were based on water level measurements
taken just prior to development. New wells were surveyed by a State of Utah licensed surveyor
and the location and elevation data are provided in Table 1.
2.1 Drilling and Logging Procedures
All borings were cored then reamed by air rotary. Core samples were collected and placed in
labelled cardboard core boxes, each accommodating approximately 20 feet of core. Lithologic
logs were prepared and copies of the lithologic logs submitted by Mr. Kapostasy are provided in
Appendix A.
Prior to coring, an 11-inch diameter tricone bit was used to construct borings of sufficient
diameter to install 8-inch-diameter, Schedule 80 poly vinyl chloride (PVC) surface (conductor)
casings. Both surface casings extended to depths of approximately 8 ½ feet below land surface.
Once the surface casings were in place, the boreholes were cored using 3 ¾ inch diameter (2 ¼ -
inch inner diameter [ID]) polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) core bits, then reamed by air
rotary (and foam as needed) using 6¾-inch diameter PDC bits. Both boreholes penetrated the
Dakota Sandstone and the Burro Canyon Formation and terminated in the Brushy Basin Member
of the Morrison Formation.
2.2 Construction
Both wells were constructed using 4-inch diameter, Schedule 40, flush-threaded PVC casing and
0.02-slot, factory-slotted PVC screen. Colorado Silica Sand was used as a filter pack and
installed to depths of approximately 6 to 9 feet above the screened intervals. The annular spaces
above each filter pack were sealed with hydrated bentonite chips. Well casings were fitted with
4- inch PVC caps to keep foreign objects out of the wells and lockable steel security casings
were installed to protect the wells.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring WellsTWN-20 and TWN-21,
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TWN_2021\report\TWN20_21_instal.doc
June 16, 2021
4
2.3 Development
As discussed in Section 1, wells were developed by surging and bailing followed by
overpumping. Development records are provided in Appendix B. Multiple surging/bailing and
overpumping events were required in order to remove the proper volumes of water due to the
low productivities of the wells.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring WellsTWN-20 and TWN-21,
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TWN_2021\report\TWN20_21_instal.doc
June 16, 2021
5
3. HYDRAULIC TESTING
Hydraulic testing consisted of slug tests conducted by HGC personnel using a methodology
similar to that described in HGC (2005).
3.1 Testing Procedures
The slugs used for the tests (described in HGC, 2002) consisted of sealed, pea-gravel-filled,
schedule 80 PVC pipe. The slug used in TWN-20 was approximately three feet long and
displaced approximately 3/4 gallons of water; the (narrower) slug used in TW4-21 was
approximately 4 feet long and displaced approximately ½ gallon of water. A Level TrollJ 0-30
pounds per square inch absolute (psia) data logger was used for the tests. The Level Troll was
deployed below the static water column of the tested wells and used to measure changes in water
level during the tests. A 0-30 psia Baro-TrollJ was used to measure barometric pressure and
was placed in a protected environment near the wells for the duration of the testing.
Automatically logged water level data were collected at 2-second intervals and barometric data
at 5-minute intervals.
Prior to each test, the static water level was measured by hand using an electric water level meter
and recorded in the field notebook. The data loggers were then lowered to a depth of
approximately ten feet below the static water level in each well and background pressure
readings were collected for approximately 15 to 30 minutes prior to beginning each test. The
purpose of collecting the background data was to allow correction for any detected water level
trends.
Once background data were collected, the slug and electric water level meter sensor were
suspended in the tested well just above the static water level. Each test commenced by lowering
the slug to a depth of approximately two feet below the static water level over a period of a few
seconds and taking water level readings by hand as soon as possible afterwards. Hand-collected
data recorded in the field notebook were obtained more frequently near the start of the tests when
water levels were changing more rapidly, then less frequently as the rate of water level change
diminished. Upon completion of each test, automatically logged data were checked and backed
up on the hard drive of a laptop computer.
3.2 Hydraulic Test Data Analysis
Data from each test were analyzed using AQTESOLVTM (HydroSOLVE, 2000), a computer
program developed and marketed by HydroSOLVE, Inc. In preparing the automatically logged
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring WellsTWN-20 and TWN-21,
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TWN_2021\report\TWN20_21_instal.doc
June 16, 2021
6
data for analysis, the raw data were converted to displacements and the total number of records
was reduced. All data collected in the first 20 seconds were retained, then every 2nd, then 3rd,
then 4th, etc. record was retained for analysis. For example, if the first 20 records were retained
(40 seconds of data at 2-second intervals), the next records to be retained would be the 22nd, the
25th, the 29th, the 34th, etc.
Pre-test water level data in TWN-20 were affected by a linear background trend that was
subtracted out of the automatically-logged slug test data. Figure 4 compares raw and corrected
displacement data for TWN-20. No corrections were judged necessary for the automatically-
logged TWN-21 slug test data.
Data were analyzed using two solution methods: the KGS unconfined method (Hyder et al.,
1994) and the Bouwer-Rice unconfined method (Bouwer and Rice, 1976). When filter pack
porosities were required by the analytical method, a value of 30 percent was used. The saturated
thicknesses were taken to be the difference between the depth of the static water level measured
just prior to each test and the depth to the Brushy Basin Member contact as defined in the drilling
logs (Table 2; Appendix A). The static water levels were below the tops of the screened intervals
in both wells and the saturated thicknesses were taken to be the effective screen lengths.
The KGS solution allows estimation of both specific storage and hydraulic conductivity, while
the Bouwer-Rice solution allows estimation of only the hydraulic conductivity. The Bouwer-
Rice solution is valid only when a straight line is identifiable on a plot of the log of displacement
versus time (indicating that flow is nearly steady), and is insensitive to both storage and the
specified initial water level rise. Generally, only the later time data are interpretable using
Bouwer-Rice.
The KGS solution accounts for non-steady flow and storage, is sensitive to the specified initial
water level rise, and generally allows a fit to both early- and late-time data. Both KGS and
Bouwer-Rice solutions were used for comparison. Automatically logged and hand-collected data
were analyzed separately using both solution methods. The hand-collected data therefore served
as an independent data set and a check on the accuracy of the automatically logged data.
Table 2 summarizes test parameters and Table 3 and Appendix C provide the results of the
analyses. Appendix C contains plots generated by AQTESOLVJ that show the quality of fit
between measured and simulated displacements, and reproduce the parameters used in each
analysis. Appendix D provides both raw and corrected displacement data. Estimates of hydraulic
conductivity range from approximately 1.06 x 10-5 centimeters per second (cm/s) to 3 x 10-5
cm/s using automatically logged data, and from approximately 1.65 x 10-5 cm/s to 4.59 x 10-5
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring WellsTWN-20 and TWN-21,
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TWN_2021\report\TWN20_21_instal.doc
June 16, 2021
7
cm/s using hand-collected data. Estimates are within the range previously measured at the site
(approximately 2 x 10-8 cm/s to 0.014 cm/s).
In general, there is good agreement between estimates obtained from the two solution methods
and between estimates obtained from automatically logged and hand-collected data. All
estimates for TWN-20 are within a factor of 2.5; and all estimates for TWN-21 are within a
factor of two. Although there was generally good agreement between the KGS and Bouwer-Rice
results, because the KGS solution accounts for non-steady flow and aquifer storage, the results
obtained using KGS are considered more representative than those obtained using Bouwer-Rice.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring WellsTWN-20 and TWN-21,
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TWN_2021\report\TWN20_21_instal.doc
June 16, 2021
8
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring WellsTWN-20 and TWN-21,
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TWN_2021\report\TWN20_21_instal.doc
June 16, 2021
9
4. CONCLUSIONS
Procedures for the installation, hydraulic testing, and development at new perched monitoring
wells TW4-40 and TW4-41 (Figure 1) are generally similar to those used previously at the site
for the construction, testing, and development of other perched zone wells except that borings
were cored from approximately 10 feet below land surface (ft bls) to total depth before reaming
to accommodate 4-inch diameter well casings.
Automatically logged and hand-collected slug test data from new wells were analyzed using
KGS and Bouwer-Rice analytical solutions. Estimates of hydraulic conductivity range from
approximately 1.06 x 10-5 cm/s to 3 x 10-5 cm/s using automatically logged data, and from
approximately 1.65 x 10-5 cm/s to 4.59 x 10-5 cm/s using hand-collected data. Estimates are
within the range previously measured at the site (approximately 2 x 10-8 cm/s to 0.014 cm/s).
In general, there is good agreement between estimates obtained from the two solution methods
and between estimates obtained from All estimates for TWN-20 are within a factor of 2.5; and
all estimates for TWN-21 are within a factor of two. Although there was generally good
agreement between the KGS and Bouwer-Rice results, because the KGS solution accounts for
non-steady flow and aquifer storage, the results obtained using KGS are considered more
representative than those obtained using Bouwer-Rice.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring WellsTWN-20 and TWN-21,
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TWN_2021\report\TWN20_21_instal.doc
June 16, 2021
10
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring WellsTWN-20 and TWN-21,
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TWN_2021\report\TWN20_21_instal.doc
June 16, 2021
11
5. REFERENCES
Bouwer, H. and R.C. Rice. 1976. A Slug-Test method for Determining Hydraulic Conductivity
of Unconfined Aquifers with Completely or Partially Penetrating Wells. Water Resources
Research, Vol. 12, No. 3, Pp. 423-428.
Hyder, Z, J.J. Butler, Jr. C.D. McElwee, and W. Liu. 1994. Slug Tests in Partially Penetrating
Wells. Water Resources Research, Vol. 30, No. 11, Pp. 2945-2957.
Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. (HGC). 2002. Hydraulic Testing at the White Mesa Uranium Mill Near
Blanding, Utah During July 2002. Submitted to International Uranium Corporation.
August 22, 2002.
HGC. 2005. Perched Monitoring Well Installation and Testing at the White Mesa Uranium Mill,
April through June 2005. Submitted to International Uranium Corporation.
August 3, 2005.
HGC. 2010. Hydraulic Testing of TW4-4, TW4-6 and TW4-26. White Mesa Uranium
Mill. July 2010.
HydroSOLVE, Inc. 2000. AQTESOLV for Windows. User=s Guide.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring WellsTWN-20 and TWN-21,
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TWN_2021\report\TWN20_21_instal.doc
June 16, 2021
12
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring WellsTWN-20 and TWN-21,
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TWN_2021\report\TWN20_21_instal.doc
June 16, 2021
13
6. LIMITATIONS
The information and conclusions presented in this report are based upon the scope of services
and information obtained through the performance of the services, as agreed upon by HGC and
the party for whom this report was originally prepared. Results of any investigations, tests, or
findings presented in this report apply solely to conditions existing at the time HGC’s
investigative work was performed and are inherently based on and limited to the available data
and the extent of the investigation activities. No representation, warranty, or guarantee, express
or implied, is intended or given. HGC makes no representation as to the accuracy or
completeness of any information provided by other parties not under contract to HGC to the
extent that HGC relied upon that information. This report is expressly for the sole and exclusive
use of the party for whom this report was originally prepared and for the particular purpose that
it was intended. Reuse of this report, or any portion thereof, for other than its intended purpose,
or if modified, or if used by third parties, shall be at the sole risk of the user.
Installation and Hydraulic Testing of Perched Monitoring WellsTWN-20 and TWN-21,
White Mesa Uranium Mill (As-Built Report)
H:\718000\TWN_2021\report\TWN20_21_instal.doc
June 16, 2021
14
TABLES
TABLE 1
Well Survey Data
Northing1 Easting1 Top of Casing Ground2
(feet) (feet) (feet amsl) (feet amsl)
TWN-20 10166455.1 2218392.0 5642.46 5640.46
TWN-21 10165968.2 2217619.7 5635.08 5633.16
Notes:
amsl = above mean sea level
1 = state plane coordinates
2 = ground elevation approximate
Well
H:\718000\TWN_2021\report\TWN20_21_tables.xls: T 1
TABLE 2
Slug Test Parameters
Depth to Depth to Depth to Top Depth to Base Saturated Thickness
Well Brushy Basin Water of Screen of Screen Above Brushy Basin
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
TWN-20 94.8 76.01 55.3 95.5 18.8
TWN-21 105.9 77.43 65.5 105.7 28.5
Note: All depths are in feet below land surface
H:\718000\TWN_2021\report\TWN20_21_tables.xls: T 2
TABLE 3
Slug Test Results
Bouwer-Rice Bouwer-Rice
Test Saturated
Thickness (ft)
K
(cm/s)
Ss
(1/ft)
K
(cm/s)
K
(cm/s)
Ss
(1/ft)
K
(cm/s)
TWN-20 18.8 1.06E-05 5.74E-04 1.07E-05 1.65E-05 2.10E-04 2.22E-05
TWN-21 28.5 2.80E-05 9.82E-04 3.00E-05 2.97E-05 1.39E-03 4.59E-05
Notes:
NA = not analyzed
Bouwer-Rice = Unconfined Bouwer-Rice solution method in Aqtesolve™
cm/s = centimeters per second
ft = feet
K = hydraulic conductivity
KGS = Unconfined KGS solution method in Aqtesolve™
Ss= specific storage
Automatically Logged Data Hand Collected Data
KGS KGS
H:\718000\TWN_2021\report\TWN20_21_tables.xls: T 3
FIGURES
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.
CHEM, INC.
GEO
HYDRO
Approved DateDate File Name FigureAuthor
TWN-20
AS-BUILT WELL CONSTRUCTION SCHEMATIC
SJS 04/29/21 7180290A 2JAA04/29/21
CHEM, INC.
GEO
HYDRO
Approved DateDate File Name FigureAuthor
TWN-21
AS-BUILT WELL CONSTRUCTION SCHEMATIC
SJS 04/29/21 7180290A 3JAA04/29/21
H:\718000\TWN_2021\report\Fig4_TWN20displ.xlsx: Fig 4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
t
n
t
(
f
e
e
t
)
Elapsed Time (minutes)
uncorrected
corrected
COMPARISON OF RAW DISPLACEMENT DATA AND
DISPLACEMENT DATA CORRECTED FOR A
BACKGROUND TREND AT TWN-20
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.Approved FigureDateAuthorDate File Name
SJS 6/14/21 4Figure 46/14/21SJS
APPENDIX A
LITHOLOGIC LOGS
APPENDIX B
WELL DEVELOPMENT FIELD SHEETS
APPENIDX C
SLUG TEST PLOTS
0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000.
0.
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\TWN_2021\SlugTests\Aqtesolv\twn20.aqt
Date: 06/08/21 Time: 11:06:23
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: EFRI
Test Well: TWN-20
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 18.8 ft
WELL DATA (twn-20)
Initial Displacement: 0.71 ft Static Water Column Height: 18.8 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 18.8 ft Screen Length: 18.8 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 1.055E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.0005742 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 60. 120. 180. 240. 300.
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\TWN_2021\SlugTests\Aqtesolv\twn20BR.aqt
Date: 06/08/21 Time: 11:07:07
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: EFRI
Test Well: TWN-20
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 18.8 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn-20)
Initial Displacement: 0.71 ft Static Water Column Height: 21.5 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 21.5 ft Screen Length: 21.5 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 1.073E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.3742 ft
0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000.
0.
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\TWN_2021\SlugTests\Aqtesolv\twn20h.aqt
Date: 06/08/21 Time: 11:07:28
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: EFRI
Test Well: TWN-20
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 18.8 ft
WELL DATA (twn-20)
Initial Displacement: 0.7 ft Static Water Column Height: 18.8 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 18.8 ft Screen Length: 18.8 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 1.646E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.0002101 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 60. 120. 180. 240. 300.
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\TWN_2021\SlugTests\Aqtesolv\twn20hBR.aqt
Date: 06/08/21 Time: 11:07:46
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: EFRI
Test Well: TWN-20
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 18.8 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn-20)
Initial Displacement: 0.71 ft Static Water Column Height: 18.8 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 18.8 ft Screen Length: 18.8 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 2.219E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.5444 ft
0.1 1. 10. 100.
0.
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\TWN_2021\SlugTests\Aqtesolv\twn21.aqt
Date: 06/08/21 Time: 11:08:05
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: EFRI
Test Well: TWN-21
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 28.5 ft
WELL DATA (twn-21)
Initial Displacement: 0.49 ft Static Water Column Height: 28.5 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 28.5 ft Screen Length: 28.5 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 2.796E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.0009818 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 20. 40. 60. 80.
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\TWN_2021\SlugTests\Aqtesolv\twn21BR.aqt
Date: 06/08/21 Time: 11:08:27
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: EFRI
Test Well: TWN-21
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 28.5 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn-21)
Initial Displacement: 0.47 ft Static Water Column Height: 28.5 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 28.5 ft Screen Length: 28.5 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 3.002E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.2073 ft
0.1 1. 10. 100.
0.
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\TWN_2021\SlugTests\Aqtesolv\twn21h.aqt
Date: 06/08/21 Time: 11:08:48
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: EFRI
Test Well: TWN-21
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 28.5 ft
WELL DATA (twn-21)
Initial Displacement: 0.49 ft Static Water Column Height: 28.5 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 28.5 ft Screen Length: 28.5 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model
Kr = 2.969E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.001395 ft-1
Kz/Kr = 0.1
0. 16. 32. 48. 64. 80.
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (min)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: H:\718000\TWN_2021\SlugTests\Aqtesolv\twn21hBR.aqt
Date: 06/08/21 Time: 11:09:09
PROJECT INFORMATION
Company: HGC
Client: EFRI
Test Well: TWN-21
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 28.5 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA (twn-21)
Initial Displacement: 0.49 ft Static Water Column Height: 28.5 ft
Total Well Penetration Depth: 28.5 ft Screen Length: 28.5 ft
Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft
Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice
K = 4.594E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.2488 ft
APPENDIX D
SLUG TEST DATA