My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE117028
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
200000
>
PERMFILE117028
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:12:47 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 3:07:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982056
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Section_Exhibit Name
EXHIBIT 38 ESTIMATION OF SALT LOAD FROM SPOIL MATERIAL BASED ON DRILL SAMPLES
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 determined by measuring the area under the curves in Figs. 1 and 2, <br />2 and those curves not included in Fig. 2, converting the values to <br />3 workable units, and weighting each value by its percentage of the total <br />q dry sieved amount. This gives the total salt but does not indicate <br />5 what fraction it came from because of the lack of complete particle <br />6 size separation by the dry sieving process. Wet sieving separates the <br />7 material more thoroughly than dry sieving and thus can establish the <br />8 contribution to the < 0.5 mm fraction which was coming from the other <br />y sizes that were not separated by dry sieving. If the part of each <br />LO fraction attributed to < 0.5 mm material is summed for all sizes as <br />11 measured by wet sieving and weighted for its percentage of the total <br />L2 material and assumed to contribute salts at the same rate as the <br />i <br />lg measured < 0.5 mm fraction then this can be compared to the total salts <br />from all sizes of dry sieved material. This will determine the <br />contribution to the total salts attributed to the < 0.5 mm material. <br />In the case of the Williams Fork material the < 0.5 mm fraction from <br />the vet sieve process contributed 107 percent of that summed from all <br />Lg sizes for the dry sieved process. This means that essentially all the <br />lg salts came from the < 0.5 mm fraction. Therefore considering the <br />ZO variablity of material in the field it would appear that for shale <br />tl derived materials such as Williams Fork the greater than 0.5 mm <br />Z2 material can be neglected except in terms of its contribution to [he <br />t3 total volume it occupies. <br />t4 For the Glenrock material the contribution calculated from the < <br />t5 0.5 mm fraction alone was 72 Z of the total dissolved salts and came <br />rg from 68 Z of the total material. Thus for the Glenrock material all <br />;q size fractions contributed about equally per unit weight to the total <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.