Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />quar~8~ the gypsum within the reservoir area. <br /> <br />Briefly stated, the result of these borings, field examinations <br /> <br />and the literature research was to establish that: <br /> <br />1. In extent the evaporite underlies no more than one-third of <br /> <br />the reservoir area. <br /> <br />2. In some areas the evaporite is exposed and will be in direct <br /> <br />contact with the reservoir. In other areas it is covered <br /> <br />with overburden ranging from a few feet up to as much as <br /> <br />470 feet, as indicated by one hole. The average depth of <br /> <br />overburden would be between 50 and 100 feet. The explanation <br /> <br />of the 470 feet of overburden in one localized area has been <br /> <br />described by various geologists as being due to glaciation; <br /> <br />progressive solution of part of the surface of the evaporite <br /> <br />and concurrent filling in with gravel; or evidence of rela- <br /> <br />tively recent, upward movement of the salt plug. Regardless <br /> <br />of its origin this hole is underlain by impervious Belden <br /> <br />shale and has a high static water level. <br /> <br />3. Hole No.2, drilled 649 feet deep, encountered brecciated <br /> <br />rock at depth and exhibited drill water losses while drill- <br /> <br />ing. However, ultimate static levels were at stream level <br /> <br />or above. A check hole (2-C) 25 feet away drilled to check <br /> <br />Hole No.2, encountered only firm rock and no drilling water <br /> <br />losses. Hole No. 2 has been interpreted as, (a) penetrating <br /> <br />a deep sink hole that has been filled in with collapse breccia; <br /> <br />(b) encountering a fault zone containing angular conglomerate <br /> <br />- 11 - <br />