Using Geophysical Well Log Analysis and Geostatistics to Map
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
USING GEOPHYSICAL WELL LOG ANALYSIS AND GEOSTATISTICS TO MAP GROUNDWATER TDS DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE FRUITVALE AND ROSEDALE RANCH OIL FIELDS, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA A Thesis Presented to the faculty of the Department of Geology California State University, Sacramento Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Geology by Michael J. Stephens SUMMER 2017 USING GEOPHYSICAL WELL LOG ANALYSIS AND GEOSTATISTICS TO MAP GROUNDWATER TDS DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE FRUITVALE AND ROSEDALE RANCH OIL FIELDS, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA A Thesis by Michael J. Stephens Approved by: __________________________________, Committee Chair Dr. David Shimabukuro __________________________________, Second Reader Dr. Steven Skinner __________________________________, Third Reader Dr. Jan Gillespie ____________________________ Date ii Student: Michael J. Stephens I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis. __________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________ Dr. Kevin Cornwell Date Department of Geology iii Abstract of USING GEOPHYSICAL WELL LOG ANALYSIS AND GEOSTATISTICS TO MAP GROUNDWATER TDS DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE FRUITVALE AND ROSEDALE RANCH OIL FIELDS, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA by Michael J. Stephens With the recent drought in California, a greater demand has been placed on groundwater resources. Publicly-available data indicate that produced water from oil and gas extraction in California is commonly being injected into the subsurface for disposal at relatively shallow depths in some oil fields. This may conflict with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Safe Drinking Water Act and California Senate Bill 4. These measures protect groundwater containing < 10,000 ppm total dissolved solids (TDS), also defined as underground sources of drinking water (USDW). Groundwater TDS maps are needed to identify and protect the USDW because there is no current survey of the USDW boundary. Direct measurements of groundwater TDS are not common, which necessitates using alternative methods to quantify TDS. This study uses the resistivity-porosity (RP) method to calculate TDS from resistivity, porosity, and iv temperature measurements recorded in borehole geophysical data. We use existing measured geochemical data to guide proper parameterization of the petrophysical equations by examining comparisons with the ground truth data. The RP method is only accurate within clean, wet sand intervals. Hydrocarbons and shale, if present, distort the TDS calculations, rendering inaccurate results. Due to the large number of wells needing to be analyzed, an algorithm was coded in Python to process digitized geophysical well data to identify clean sand intervals where TDS calculations are more accurate. The RP-derived TDS data were fed into a 3D geostatistical kriging model to create an interpolated volume model of TDS. The model is validated by comparing the predicted TDS values to the measured TDS data. The average error is 11%, with a correlation of R2 = 0.97. The model was used to visualize a cross section throughout the Fruitvale and Rosedale Ranch oil fields in the San Joaquin Basin of California. Groundwater TDS in the area varies significantly. The 10,000 ppm TDS boundary is at ~3,500 ft in Rosedale Ranch and deepens to the southeast in Fruitvale to ~4,500 ft. According to the data, several factors including depth, stratigraphy, faults, and fresh water recharge control the TDS distribution. Within the Rosedale Ranch area, Miocene normal faults and a low-permeable clay layer isolates aquifers from fresh water recharge from the Kern River. Stratigraphic control seems to dominate the TDS structure in the area between the fields. The groundwater in the Fruitvale area is flushed by recharge from the Kern River. v This study provides a realistic and effective approach to quantify formation water TDS with available data as well as a better understanding of the controls on groundwater TDS, which can assist future mapping efforts and lead to better information for water resources managers. __________________________________, Committee Chair Dr. David Shimabukuro ____________________________ Date vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As these things are never the result of a single person’s work, I’d like to recognize those that have supported me throughout the development of this thesis. First and foremost, my deepest appreciation to Dr. Dave Shimabukuro for providing guidance throughout my graduate career. The time and energy he spent working on this project with me is immeasurable. To Dr. Steve Skinner who taught me programming. His course and guidance enabled me to take on this project. Thank you to Dr. Jan Gillespie for her advice and guidance throughout this project - her knowledge of California geology was essential in making my thesis a success. Finally, many thanks to Will Chang for serving as an informal advisor for much of this project and for sharing his knowledge of geostatistics which aided in the completion of my thesis. Thank you to the California State Water Resources Control Board and the U.S. Geological Survey for providing funding for this project. They have been valuable sources of scientific knowledge and collaboration, and I am grateful for the opportunity to work with these organizations. As this research was aided by copious data, I am grateful to the Water Resources Group at CSUS that spent countless hours collecting and quality checking data used in this study. Thank you to my parents, Bob and Linda, who have always supported me and encouraged me to continue my education. They have personally demonstrated the value of education. Lastly, thank you to my wife, Sarah, who inspires me to follow my passions regardless of the challenges that may arise. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ............................................................................................................. xi INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 7 Regional Geology ............................................................................................. 7 Local Geology ................................................................................................... 9 Production History .......................................................................................... 14 Hydrology ....................................................................................................... 17 METHODS…. .............................................................................................................18 Available TDS Data ........................................................................................ 18 Petrophysical Equations .................................................................................. 21 Porosity Model ................................................................................................ 25 Temperature Model ......................................................................................... 28 TDS Calculations ............................................................................................ 30 Geostatistics .................................................................................................... 35 Exploratory Data Analysis and Transformation ................................. 37 The Variogram .................................................................................... 39 Kriging System ................................................................................... 41 Stratigraphic Data ........................................................................................... 43 Fault Data ........................................................................................................ 43 viii RESULTS & DISCUSSION....................................................................................... 45 Groundwater TDS Distribution....................................................................... 45 Model Validation ............................................................................................ 52 Geostatistical Model Validation ......................................................... 52 RP-Calculations Validation ................................................................ 55 Potential Controls on TDS Structure .............................................................. 63 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................... 71 Appendix A. Resistivity-porosity derived TDS values ............................................ 72 Appendix B. Example code for TDS calculations .................................................... 82 References .................................................................................................................. 87 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figures Page 1. Wastewater injection depth in California ......................................................... 2 2. Map of the San Joaquin Valley ......................................................................... 4 3. Map of the study area .......................................................................................