Derivative-assisted evaluation of well yields in a heterogeneous aquifer

Canadian Geotechnical Journal

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 458-469

  Parks, Kevin P ^a   Bentley, Laurence R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Aquifer test; Buried valley aquifer; Derivative; Heterogeneity; Well yield

Indexed keywords

AQUIFERS; HETEROGENEOUS; WELL TESTING; WELLS; YIELD EVALUATION;

AQUIFERS; ENGINEERING GEOLOGY; GRAVEL; NUMERICAL ANALYSIS; PARAMETER ESTIMATION; RADIAL FLOW;

AQUIFER TEST; DERIVATIVE CURVES; DRAWNDOWN DERIVATIVE ANALYSIS; HETEROGENEITY; INFINITE ACTION RADIAL FLOW; PUMPING; TIME DRAWDOWN; WELL YIELD;

WATER WELLS;

EID: 0030153183     PISSN: 00083674     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/t96-067     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Anderson, M.P. 1990. Aquifer heterogeneity - a geological perspective. Proceedings, 5th Canadian-American Conference on Hydrogeology, Banff, Alta., September, pp. 3-22.
2. Bourdet, D., Whittle, T.M., Douglas, A.A., and Picard, Y. 1983. A new set of type-curves simplifies well test analysis. World Oil, May: 95-106.
3. Bourdet, D.J., Ayoub, A., and Picard, Y.M. 1989. Use of pressure derivative in well-test interpretation. Society of Petroleum Engineers Formation Evaluation, June, pp. 293-302.
4. Carlson, V.A., Turner, W.R., and Geiger, K.W. 1969. A gravel and sand aquifer in the Bassano-Gem Region, Alberta. Alberta Research Council, Edmonton, Report 69-4.
5. deMarsily, G. 1986. Quantitative hydrogeology. Academic Press, Toronto.
6. Desbarats, A.J. 1994. Spatial averaging of hydraulic conductivity under radial flow conditions. Mathematical Geology, 26: 1-21.
7. Ehlig-Economides, C. 1988. Use of pressure derivative for diagnosing pressure-transient behaviour. Journal of Petroleum Technology, October: 1280-1282.
8. Geiger, K.W. 1968. Bedrock topography of the Gleichen map-area, Alberta. Alberta Research Council of Alberta, Edmonton, Report 67-2.
9. Karasaki, K., Long, J.C.S., and Witherspoon, P.A. 1988. Analytical models of slug tests. Water Resources Research, 24: 115-126.
10. Kucuk, F.J., and Kabir, S. 1988. Well test interpretation for reservoir with a single linear no-flow barrier. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, pp. 195-221.
11. Kruseman, G.P., and de Ridder, N.A. 1990. Analysis and evaluation of pumping test data. 2nd ed. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
12. Lennox, D.H., Maathuis, H., and Pederson, D. 1988. Region 13, Western Glaciated Plains. In Hydrogeology. Edited by W. Back, J.S. Rosenhein, and P.R. Seaber. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo., The Geology of North America, Vol. O-2.
13. Ostrowski, L.P., and Kloska, M.B. 1989. Use of pressure derivatives in analysis of slug test or DST flow period data. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Paper 18595.
14. Ozoray, G.F., and Lytviak, A.T. 1974. Hydrogeology of the Gleichen Area, Alberta. Alberta Research Council, Edmonton, Report 74-9.
15. Shaver, R.B., and Puse, S.W. 1992. Hydraulic barriers in Pleistocene buried valley aquifers. Ground Water, 30: 21-28.
16. Spane, F.A., Jr., and Wurstner, S.K. 1993. DERIV: A computer program for calculating pressure derivatives for use in hydraulic test analysis. Ground Water, 31: 814-822.
17. Wong, D.W., Harrington, A.G., and Cinco-Ley, H. 1986. Application of the pressure-derivative function in the pressure-transient testing of fractured wells. Society of Petroleum Engineers Formation Evaluation, October, pp. 470-480.