Laserfiche WebLink
~' MINING AND RECLAMATION PLAN <br />^• MT. GUNNISON NO. 1 h1INE <br />f' <br /> <br />October, 1979 <br />Revised March, 1981 <br />Revised August 28, 1981 <br />Revised January 25, 1982 <br />Revised February 5, 1982 <br />A slug test was run on Well SOM-80 from October 14 to 15, 1981. The well was <br />pumped for about 5 minutes at 4 gpm and removed 18.74 gallons of water. All of <br />this water was presumed to be from casing storage. The subsequent recovery rate <br />proved this correct. The pretest depth to water was 90 feet. At the end of <br />pumping, the depth to water was 118.7 feet (drawdown 28.7 feet) and the end of <br />1.19 days (1709 min) the well had still not recovered to the original pretest water <br />level (depth to water 91.7 feet). Recovery data for this test is shown in Table <br />2.8.2.A.3. <br />To analyze the data, four methods were tried. All of the methods must be used <br />with some caution due to the very slow rate of recovery and the water table <br />condition. The methods tried were the Slug Method (Lohman, 1972), Papadopulos, <br />1973, Bouwer, 1976, and the Bailer Method (Skititzke, 1958). All of the methods <br />except the Bailer Method involved curve matching techniques. Unfortunately, <br />when the data was plotted, the resulting curve did not fit any of the methods using <br />i ~ idealized curves. Therefore, the Bailer A7ethod had to be used. <br />In this method: <br />T= V <br />4 s't <br />Where: <br />T = transmissivity <br />s' =residual drawdown <br />t =length of tune since bailing stopped <br />V =volume removed in one bailing cycle <br />2-303a5 <br />n <br />