Laserfiche WebLink
• Calculated friction loss in the 41/2-in. tubing, as a function of injection rate, was <br /> added. (Friction loss in the 7-in. casing during the injection test was negligible, <br /> so no adjustment was made for it.) <br /> • A correction of 11.9 psi was added to account for the difference in gravity head <br /> resulting from the density difference between the 15,000 ppm TDS water injected <br /> during the test and the nominal 2,000 ppm TDS water expected during <br /> commercial operation. <br /> The resulting curve is plotted in Figure 9.2, and indicates an expected wellhead pressure <br /> of about 265 prig at the nominal design injection rate of 150 gpm. <br /> 10.0 CONFINING LAYER LEAKOFF TEST <br /> On May 10, 1993, after cementing 7-in. casing in the Nortonville shale (the confining <br /> layer) and drilling out two feet below the casing shoe, a water shutoff(WSO) test was performed <br /> to confirm cement integrity at the casing shoe. Following the WSO test, a formation leakoff <br /> test was done with the intent of establishing a limiting pressure for injection to avoid formation <br /> breakdown in the confining layer. Both tests were done using conventional drillstem test (DST) <br /> tools. Downhole pressure data from a DST recorder are used in the following analyses and are <br /> included in Halliburton's report in Appendix E. <br /> The WSO test results were completely normal and demonstrated satisfactory isolation at <br /> the 7-in. casing shoe. The test is reported in Halliburton's report in Appendix E. <br /> After the WSO test, the DST packer was unset, and a leakoff test was performed by <br /> pumping through the tubing head valves. The pressure was increased in increments of <br /> Mesquite Group, Inc. -31 <br />