Hydrogeophysical Methods for Analyzing Aquifer Storage and Recovery Systems

U.S. Geological Survey, Denver Federal Center, MS964, Denver, CO 80225, USA.
Ground Water (Impact Factor: 1.95). 02/2010; 49(2):250-69. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2010.00676.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Hydrogeophysical methods are presented that support the siting and monitoring of aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) systems. These methods are presented as numerical simulations in the context of a proposed ASR experiment in Kuwait, although the techniques are applicable to numerous ASR projects. Bulk geophysical properties are calculated directly from ASR flow and solute transport simulations using standard petrophysical relationships and are used to simulate the dynamic geophysical response to ASR. This strategy provides a quantitative framework for determining site-specific geophysical methods and data acquisition geometries that can provide the most useful information about the ASR implementation. An axisymmetric, coupled fluid flow and solute transport model simulates injection, storage, and withdrawal of fresh water (salinity ∼500 ppm) into the Dammam aquifer, a tertiary carbonate formation with native salinity approximately 6000 ppm. Sensitivity of the flow simulations to the correlation length of aquifer heterogeneity, aquifer dispersivity, and hydraulic permeability of the confining layer are investigated. The geophysical response using electrical resistivity, time-domain electromagnetic (TEM), and seismic methods is computed at regular intervals during the ASR simulation to investigate the sensitivity of these different techniques to changes in subsurface properties. For the electrical and electromagnetic methods, fluid electric conductivity is derived from the modeled salinity and is combined with an assumed porosity model to compute a bulk electrical resistivity structure. The seismic response is computed from the porosity model and changes in effective stress due to fluid pressure variations during injection/recovery, while changes in fluid properties are introduced through Gassmann fluid substitution.

Download full-text


Available from: Jonathan Ajo-Franklin, Aug 19, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Information generated from geophysical, geochemical and hydrogeological data has been used in assessing the groundwater resource potential, quality and usability and in mapping flow directions within the shallow subsurface of the Mamfe Embayment, Cross River State, Nigeria. The electrical resistivity technique in which the Schlumberger’s vertical electrical sounding field procedure has been adopted was the geophysical method employed; lithology logs from drilling records, discharge rates, static water level information were the hydrogeological information utilized, while the geochemical techniques involve analyses of water samples. Apparent resistances were measured using different resistivity meters including OYO McOhm (model 2115), ABEM terrameter (SAS300B and SAS1000 models) and IGIS (SSP-ATS-MRP model) with maximum current electrode separation reaching 1 km in some communities. Geological information was used as control in the modelling and interpretation of all geophysical data. The physico-chemical parameters of the water samples from the different water sources in the area were determined using different analytical techniques and in some cases, by in situ direct measurement of some parameters. Measured values of electrical conductivity, static water level, available aquifer discharge information and calculated SAR and %Na were integrated into the geophysical and hydrogeological results. The shallow subsurface of the area is segmented into four hydrogeological provinces [crystalline basement province (CBP), Cross River Plain Province (CRPP), Nkporo-Afikpo Shales Province (NASP) and alluvial/buried river province (ABRP) with localized groundwater flow patterns]. Results indicated that the alluvial (discharge rate of 3.83 L/s), fractured sandstone (discharge rate of 2.43 L/s) and basement (discharge rate of 1.80 L/s) aquifers are more yielding than the aquifers in areas covered with deformed shales (discharge rate of 0.62 L/s) and siltstone aquifers (discharge rate of 0.97 L/s). The aquifer horizons are inhomogeneous and anisotropic with topography and lithology exerting significant influence on groundwater flow direction. However, there appears to be some high yielding aquifers at depths greater than 100 m in the CRPP areas although researches on their distribution are still ongoing. Precipitation is the major source of recharge and the water is enriched with Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, ${\text{HCO}}_{ 3}^{ - }$ , Cl−, ${\text{SO}}_{ 4}^{2 - }$ and ${\text{NO}}_{ 3}^{ - }$ throughout the year. Graphical analyses of hydrochemical data using Piper and Stiff diagrams show that Ca–(Mg)–CO3–HCO3 is the dominant water facies. Results from EC, SAR and %Na show that the water is fresh and belongs to the good-to-excellent class and is, therefore, suitable for domestic, agricultural and industrial use.
    Environmental Earth Sciences 10/2013; 70(3). DOI:10.1007/s12665-013-2232-3 · 1.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Managed aquifer recharge (MAR) has potential for addressing deficits in water supplies worldwide. It is also widely used for preventing saltwater intrusion, maintaining the groundwater table, and augmenting ecological stream flows, among many other beneficial environmental applications. However, field MAR sites have experienced arsenic mobilization from aquifer formation minerals due to induced changes in groundwater chemistry. To address this environmental concern, it is crucial to understand the potential sources and sinks impacting arsenic mobilization. This paper outlines important mineral-water interactions that can occur at MAR sites. Detailed information on minerals of concern, physiochemical processes for arsenic mobilization or attenuation, and the potential impact of microbial activity and hydrology on these processes is provided. Based on these mineral-water interactions, guidelines for predicting arsenic mobility are presented, and recommendations are made concerning MAR site monitoring. The review emphasizes important aspects in correlating interfacial reactions to reactive transport modeling and elucidating future challenges, a first step toward developing safer and more sustainable MAR operations.
    Journal of Environmental Monitoring 06/2012; 14(7):1772-88. DOI:10.1039/c2em30323j · 2.11 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Geoelectrical techniques are widely used to monitor groundwater processes, while surprisingly few studies have considered audio (AMT) and radio (RMT) magnetotellurics for such purposes. In this numerical investigation, we analyze to what extent inversion results based on AMT and RMT monitoring data can be improved by (1) time-lapse difference inversion; (2) incorporation of statistical information about the expected model update (i.e., the model regularization is based on a geostatistical model); (3) using alternative model norms to quantify temporal changes (i.e., approximations of l1 and Cauchy norms using iteratively reweighted least-squares), (4) constraining model updates to predefined ranges (i.e., using Lagrange Multipliers to only allow either increases or decreases of electrical resistivity with respect to background conditions). To do so, we consider a simple illustrative model and a more realistic test case related to seawater intrusion. The results are encouraging and show significant improvements when using time-lapse difference inversion with non l2 model norms. Artifacts that may arise when imposing compactness of regions with temporal changes can be suppressed through inequality constraints to yield models without oscillations outside the true region of temporal changes. Based on these results, we recommend approximate l1-norm solutions as they can resolve both sharp and smooth interfaces within the same model.
    Journal of Applied Geophysics 09/2012; 84:29–38. DOI:10.1016/j.jappgeo.2012.05.012 · 1.30 Impact Factor
Show more