Dye(Logging(Method - Groundwater Conferenceag-groundwater.org/files/252360.pdf · Sample%Depth...
3
Optimizing Crop Yield Through Selective Groundwater Extraction Avoiding High Elemental Concentration Improve Yield and Save Valued Viticulture Land Presented By: Noah Heller, MS PG (CA 5792) 50 Tiburon Street, Suite 7, San Rafael, CA 94901 415.302.7354 / [email protected] 2 TCE, PCE, Nitrates Arsenic, Nitrate, Mn, Fe, Bacteria, PCE Arsenic & Nitrate, Uranium, TDS PCE, TCE, Nitrates, Manganese Nitrates, Manganese, Boron Arsenic, Flouride 2005$2016: BESST Selective Groundwater Extraction Database Drought Vs. Groundwater As, Nitrate, TDS, Uranium, NaCl, TCE, PCE, Perchlorate, Fe, Mn, Bacteria = 1 – 10 Production Wells Profiled by BESST Hex Chrome, Arsenic, Uranium Nitrates, Arsenic, TDS, Boron • 700 Municipal Production Wells Profiled Since 2005 • Largest Stratified, Dissolved Aqueous Phase Chemistry Data Base in California for Production Wells Dynamic flow contribution (%) vs depth (ft bgs) 60 0 0.7 4 10 7 5 4 0.5 3 3 2 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 PWL9357 3579359 3659375 3759385 3859395 3959430 4309455 4559465 4659475 4759485 4859495 4959519 ft bgs 0.55 0.67 0.60 0.49 0.55 0.56 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 3309357 3659385 3859430 4309465 4659485 4859519 Boron Concentration mg/l Well 5S / 200 GPM Paso Robles Vineyard Well Profiling to Improve Grape Yield 4 318 ft 10.25” Casing ID 540 ft 560 ft 300 ft Pump Column: 5” Chemical Mass Balance Analysis: Iron 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 above 310 310X318 318X340 340X360 360X380 380X420 420X460 460X500 below 500 2400 1086 2053 720 178 412 407 519 1400 µg/L Sampling Intervals (ft. bgs) Dynamic Chemistry Profile: DriesbachZHilltop 2/18/10 260 GPM Iron (Fe) Fe GPM µg/L GPM µg/L Sample Depth Interval Cumulative Flow Lab Results Incremental Flow Calculated Mass Concentration by Zone 310 above 310 0.73 2400 0.73 2400 318 310-318 68.41 1100 67.68 1086 318 318-340 191.59 1100 79.78 2053 340 340-360 111.80 420 10.16 720 360 360-380 101.64 390 16.11 178 380 380-420 85.53 430 30.61 412 420 420-460 54.92 440 42.32 407 460 460-500 12.60 550 12.16 519 500 Below 500 0.44 1400 0.44 1400 Spigot 1 Composite 260.00 560 Spigot 2 Composite 260.00 430 Lettuce Production Quality Affected By Iron Dynamic Flow Profile Under Steady State DrawZDown Fluorometer Flow From Well To Fluorometer Flow From Fluorometer To Waste 1,900 GPM 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 Dye Injection Shot Points Ft. Below Ground Surface Water Sampling Spool Dye Injection Spool Explanation of Dye Injection Process For Dynamic Flow Profiling In Production Wells Cumulative Flow Slices (CFS) 5 Dye Logging Method Dynamic Flow Profile Under Steady State DrawZDown Fluorometer Flow From Well To Fluorometer Flow From Fluorometer To Waste 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 Dye Injection Shot Points Ft. Below Ground Surface When we subtract Q2 from Q1, we get the incremental flow (IF or GPM) contribution between the two measured injection points Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Cumulative Flow Q 1 =V 1 xA 1 V 1 = (d 1 Xd 2 )/(t 1 Xt 2 ) A1= r 2 Cumulative Flow Can Be Defined As No Flow Contribution No Flow Contribution Incremental Flow Can Be Defined As Q 1 –Q 2 Explanation of Basic Flow Calculations When Using Dye Injection Process GPM Distribution 6
Transcript of Dye(Logging(Method - Groundwater Conferenceag-groundwater.org/files/252360.pdf · Sample%Depth...
Optimizing)Crop)Yield)Through)Selective)Groundwater)Extraction
Avoiding)High)Elemental)Concentration)Improve)Yield)and)Save)Valued)Viticulture)Land
Presented(By:(Noah(Heller,(MS(PG((CA(5792)50(Tiburon(Street,(Suite(7,(San(Rafael,(CA((94901415.302.7354(/([email protected]
2
TCE,%PCE,%NitratesArsenic,)Nitrate,)Mn,)Fe,)Bacteria,)PCE
Arsenic(&(Nitrate,(Uranium,(TDS
PCE,)TCE,)Nitrates,)Manganese
Nitrates,))Manganese,)BoronArsenic,)Flouride
2005$2016:(BESST(Selective(Groundwater(Extraction(Database
Drought
Vs.
Groundwater
As,)Nitrate,))TDS,)Uranium,)NaCl,)TCE,)PCE,)Perchlorate,)Fe,)Mn,)Bacteria
="1"– 10"Production"Wells"Profiled"by"BESST
Hex)Chrome,)Arsenic,)Uranium
Nitrates,)Arsenic,)TDS,)Boron
• 700)Municipal)Production)Wells)Profiled)Since)2005
• Largest)Stratified,)Dissolved)Aqueous)Phase)Chemistry)Data)Base)in)California)for)Production)Wells
Dynamic"flow"contribution"
(%)"vs"depth"(ft"bgs)
60
0
0
0
0.5
0.7
4
10
7
5
4
0.5
3
3
2
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
PWL9357
3579359
3599361
3619363
3639365
3659375
3759385
3859395
3959430
4309455
4559465
4659475
4759485
4859495
4959519
ft"bgs
0.55
0.97
0.67
0.60
0.49
0.55
0.56
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
3309357
3579365
3659385
3859430
4309465
4659485
4859519
Boron)Concentrationmg/l
Well)5S)/)200)GPM
Paso)Robles)Vineyard)Well
Profiling)to)Improve)Grape)Yield
4
318(ft
10.25”(Casing(ID
540(ft(
560(ft(
300(ft(
Pump(Column:(5”
Chemical(Mass(Balance(Analysis:((Iron
0( 500( 1000( 1500( 2000( 2500(
above(310310X318318X340340X360360X380380X420420X460460X500
below(500
2400(1086(
2053(720(
178(412(407(519(
1400(
µg/L
Sampling)Intervals)(ft.)bgs)
Dynamic)Chemistry)Profile:)DriesbachZHilltop2/18/10)))))))260)GPM
Iron((Fe)
Fe GPM µg/L GPM µg/L
Sample%Depth Interval Cumulative%Flow Lab%Results Incremental%FlowCalculated%Mass%%Concentration%by%Zone
310 above 310 0.73 2400 0.73 2400%318 310-318 68.41 1100 67.68 1086%318 318-340 191.59 1100 79.78 2053%340 340-360 111.80 420 10.16 720%360 360-380 101.64 390 16.11 178%380 380-420 85.53 430 30.61 412%420 420-460 54.92 440 42.32 407%460 460-500 12.60 550 12.16 519%500 Below 500 0.44 1400 0.44 1400%
Spigot 1 Composite 260.00 560Spigot 2 Composite 260.00 430
Lettuce)Production)Quality)Affected)By)Iron
Dynamic)Flow)Profile)Under)Steady)State)
DrawZDown
Fluorometer
Flow(From(Well(To(Fluorometer
Flow(From(Fluorometer(To(Waste
1,900)GPM
406080100120140160180200220240260280300320340360380400
Dye)Injection)Shot)Points
Ft.)Below)Ground)Surface
Water(Sampling(Spool
Dye(Injection(Spool
Explanation(of(Dye(Injection(Process(For(Dynamic(Flow(Profiling(In(Production(Wells
Cumulative(Flow(Slices((CFS)
5
Dye(Logging(Method
Dynamic)Flow)Profile)Under)Steady)State)
DrawZDown
Fluorometer
Flow(From(Well(To(Fluorometer
Flow(From(Fluorometer(To(Waste
406080100120140160180200220240260280300320340360380400
Dye)Injection)Shot)Points
Ft.)Below)Ground)Surface
When)we)subtract)Q2 from)Q1,)we)get)the)incremental)flow)(IF)or)GPM))contribution)between)the)two)measured)injection)points
Q1Q2Q3Q4Q5Q6Q7Q8Q9Q10Q11Q12Q13Q14Q15Q16Q17
Cumulative)Flow
Q1 =(V1 x(A(1V(1=((d1Xd2)/(t1Xt2)
A1)=) r2
Cumulative(Flow(Can(Be(Defined(As
No(Flow(Contribution
No(Flow(Contribution
Incremental(Flow(Can(Be(Defined(As
Q1 – Q2
Explanation(of(Basic(Flow(Calculations(When(Using(Dye(Injection(ProcessGPM(
Distribution
6
Dynamic)Groundwater)Sampling)Under)Steady)State)DrawZDown
406080100120140160180200220240260280300320340360380400
Groundwater)Sampling)Points
Ft.)Below)Ground)Surface
Ca1Ca2Ca3Ca4Ca5Ca6Ca7Ca8Ca9Ca10Ca11Ca12Ca13Ca14Ca15Ca16Ca17
Cumulative)Concentration
Ca1 =((Q1C1 – Q2C2)/(Q1XQ2)
Average(Cumulative(Contaminant(Concentration(Can(Be(Defined(As
No(Contaminant(Contribution
No(Contaminant(Contribution
Incremental(Average(Contaminant(Concentration(between(two(imaginary(flow(planes(within(the(well(can(
be(expressed
Water(Sampling(Spool
Dye(Injection(Spool
Well(Vent(Tube
Explanation(of(Basic(Mass(Balance(Calculations
7 8
Central"Valley"CaliforniaArsenic"Reduction"at"Food"Processing"Facilities
Pump(Column(10”
Dynamic)Flow)Contribution)Profile
Dynamic)Flow)Profile
10%((((((((((((20%(((((((((((((30%((((((((((((40(%(((((((((((50%
Percent(of(Total((%)
500’
655(ft(
Clay
Pumping)Rate: 849(GPM(((Pumping)Water)Level: 340’
960’X1010’
1200ft(
Clay
Sand(&(Clay
655’X715’
890X830
745’X785’
11.4%
1.6%
11.4%
31.6%
21.8%Clay
Sand(&(Clay
Clay
Sand(and(Clay
Brown(Clay
900(ft(
660(ft(
730(ft(
870(ft(
930(ft(
1020(ft(
1150(ft
1210(ft(
570(ft(
1075(ft(
1190(ft(
960(ft(
1010(ft(
715ft(
745(ft(
785(ft(
825(ft(
870(ft(
890(ft(
920(ft(
650(ft(
Blue(Clay
22.1%
1075’X1190’
825’X870’
9
500(ft
16(”(Casing(ID
Pump%Column:%10”
16”(Casing(ID
1075(ft(
1190(ft(
960(ft(
1010(ft(
655(ft(
715ft(745(ft(
785(ft(825(ft(
870(ft(890(ft(
920(ft(
Chemical(Mass(Balance(Analysis:((Arsenic(
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00
655-715
745-785
825-870
890-920
960-1010
1075-1125
below 1125
0.00
10.00
29.31
23.00
44.10
12.00
12.00
97.03
187.99
268.26
13.73
96.64
70.87
114.48
µg/L
Sampling)Intervales)(ft.)bgs)
Dynamic"Chemical"Profile:""849"GPMArsenic
10
11
Predicted Arsenic Discharge Average
Sample%Depth
Screen%Interval
Cumulative%Flow%Per%Screen%Interval
Incremental%Flow%Per%Screen%Interval
Measured%Concentration%(From%Lab) CnQn
CnQn9Cn+1Qn+1 Incremental%Flow%
Mass%Balance%Incremental%Concentration
6006559715 470.00 97.00 19.50 16555.5% 11.5% 97.00 0.12% 11.57307459785 373.00 188.00 22.00 16544.0% 1880.0% 188.00 10.00% 18808058259870 0.00 0.00 0.00 14664.0% 7856.0% 0.00 0.00% 08808909920 0.00 0.00 0.00 6808.0% 322.0% 0.00 0.00% 094096091010 0.00 0.00 0.00 6486.0% 4266.0% 0.00 0.00% 01055107591190 185.00 185.00 12.00 2220.0% 2220.0% 185.00 12.00% 2220
470.00 GPM55% of%849%GPM
Spigot%1 Cumulative 470.00 8.75 4111.5 8.75Spigot%2 Cumulative 470.00 8.75
Estimated(Arsenic(Distribution(By(Screen(IntervalBlocking(Off(3rd,(4th and(5th Screen(From(Top(Of(Well
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% 120.00% 140.00% 160.00% 180.00% 200.00%
655971574597858259870890992096091010107591190
0.12%10.00%
0.00%0.00%0.00%
12.00%
97.00188.00
0.000.000.00
185.00
As"ug/l
Screen""Interval"(ft."bgs)
Dynamic"Arsenic"Profile:"Well"26849"GPM"""""""
StraddleZPacker)Test)Scenario)
• Production(blocked(from(the(3rd,(4th and(5th screens.(Production(loss(estimated(to(be(about(45%.
• Packer(test((performed(to(confirm(decrease(arsenic
12
Feasibility(Test(Strategies—Goal:(Produce(Less(Arsenic(and(Minimize(Production(Loss
13
23
19
1311
10
12
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
Arsenic(Reduction(Profile:(From(Straddle(Packer(System680(GPM(=(75%(of(Original( Production( Rate((850(GPM
