Laserfiche WebLink
.lane 20, 2000 Page 3 <br />' 7. Magnetics <br />8. Tiltmeters ~ <br />' 2.2 Possible Methods <br />Review of available technologies suggests volumetric analysis, 3D seismic techniques, or <br />' exploration coring are capable of determining the cavern configuration a[ reasonable resolutions. <br />The ability of magnetotellurics techniques to successfully characterize the caverns is questionable. <br />Cross-hole seismic and vertical seismic profiling methods are also appropriate options ifdownhole <br />equipment tolerant ofhigh temperatures can be found or configurations using pre-production orpost- <br />' production (cooled down) wells can be used. Magnetic methods and tiltmetcrs are unlikely to <br />provide the necessary resolution (Table 1). <br />1 <br /> Table 1. Summary of Candidate Tech nologies <br /> <br />' P <br />bili R <br /> roba <br />ty esolution <br /> Technology of Success (ft) Cost <br />' Magnetotellurics Medium 10 to 100 ? $10,000 to $15,000/cavern <br />' Magnetics Low =100 Resolution too low <br />n <br /> 3D Seismic High 20 to 30 = $180,000/ mi <br /> Cross-hole Seismic Medium 10 to 20 >_ $100,000/cavern <br /> Vertical Seismic Profiling Medium 10 to 20 = $120,000/cavern <br />' Tiltmeters Low =100 Resolution too low <br /> >;xploration Coring High 20 to 40 $60,000 to $100,000/hole <br /> Volumetric Aualysis High =10 (assuming $10,000 to $15,000/cavern <br /> lateral isotropy) <br /> <br /> 2.3 Preferred Methods <br />' Prior to Conmtercial Opernlions: <br /> Characterization ofthe test wells would best be accomplish ed by volumetric analysis. The <br />' test wells are currently expected to be no larger than 40 ft in diameter, making cavity boundary <br /> definition by 3D seismic techniques difficult. <br /> <br /> <br /> Agapito Associates, Inc. <br />