Laserfiche WebLink
Comparing the results of the displacement test to the slice volume <br />model from the seismic data provides the following results: <br />Gas Cap Displacement Seismic Model Percent <br />Interface Gallons ~ Gallons Difference <br />1719 121, 262 134, 700 11,1 <br />1724 212,572 192,624 -9.4% <br />6. Conclusions <br />The Downhole Seismic Profiling provided more information about <br />the cavity than expected. Enough information was obtained to profile <br />the entire cavity. There was uncertainty if enough information would be <br />available to profile the lower half of the cavity. <br />The slice volume calculated from the shape interpreted from the <br />downhole seismic model compares very favorably with the historical <br />production data. The slice volume model was 6% greater than the <br />historical production. <br />The slice volume model compares very favorably with the <br />displacement volumes. The total displaced gallons were 9.4% greater <br />than the volume predicted by the slice volume model. <br />Cavity growth rates in high grade mineralized zones located <br />nearest the injection of high temperature water exceeded the average <br />growth rate of the cavity. AS 28-21 was operated by injecting hot water <br />into the bottom of the cavity for over 90% of its operating life. This resulted <br />in a cavity diameter exceeding 300' at the Greeno and TI mineralized <br />zones in the cavity, It is anticipated that injection into the top of the <br />cavity would result in similar results along the Love Bed mineralization of <br />the cavity, <br />NSA worked through several issues during the downhole seismic <br />profiling including: <br />1. Reliability of shot initiation <br />2. Deterioration of geophone performance <br />3. Filtering "borehole effect" seismic signals <br />