See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260907786

Packer Testing Program Design and Management

Conference Paper · August 2013

CITATIONS READS
0 376

2 authors, including:

Brian Titone
Orogen HydroGeo LLC
4 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Brian Titone on 19 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Golden CO; USA “Reliable Mine Water Technology” IMWA 2013

Packer Testing Program Design and Management

Eric E. Swanson¹ and Brian C. Titone²

¹AquaLithos Consulting, Principal Consultant, 5360 Cole Circle, Arvada, CO 80002 [email protected]
²Orogen HydroGeo, Principal Consultant, 6232 Kilmer Loop #203, Golden, CO 80403
[email protected]

Abstract Hydraulic testing using wireline deployed water-inflated packers is becoming a com-
mon practice for groundwater characterization at mining sites. Packers, designed for diamond
drilling, allow for faster, deeper, and more accurate types of testing conducted concurrently
with existing coring programs. Designing and managing these testing programs requires plan-
ning, flexibility, and consideration of available methods and equipment options. This presen-
tation explores and provides critical examination of advantages and disadvantages of the fol-
lowing options: 1) single or straddle packer testing, 2) injection, shut-in, withdrawal or falling
head techniques, 3) discrete interval or cumulative testing, and discusses design consideration
for planning a testing program.

Keywords IMWA 2013, packer testing, hydrogeology, Lugeon, wire-line packer system

Introduction “do more with less.” Wireline hydraulic packer

Characterizing groundwater flow systems in a testing embodies this by facilitating discrete
modern hard rock mining environment is a interval hydrogeological data acquisition as a
complex and challenging task. The hydrogeol- programmatical addition to existing or
ogy of many mineral deposits typically com- planned core drilling programs.
prises complex lithology and alteration zones
which can be dominated by multiple fracture Methods
sets acting as flow barriers or conduits. Many Basic packer testing techniques are discussed
mining projects are located in complex geolog- in Nielsen (1991). Unlike traditional pumping
ical environments and are pushing depth lim- tests, packer testing generates a series of dis-
its below the capabilities of traditional field crete interval permeability values along the
methods. As the economic, engineering and length of a borehole, which typically decrease
environmental constraints of mine design be- with depth. Defining the relationship between
come increasingly restrictive, the demand for permeability and depth in a statistically mean-
advanced types of testing to supporting these ingful manner allows this relationship to be
designs increases. Increasingly, mine designs projected across the site to support mine de-
are now including pore water pressure decay watering and refilling, impacts assessment,
determinations, advanced dewatering tech- and groundwater or geotechnical modeling ef-
niques, and modes of integrating sustainable forts.
environmental practices as required by regu- Core drilling programs are one of the prin-
latory agencies, lending entities, and as best ciple means of collecting a variety of data
management practices at the corporate level. types at deeper depths in a modern mining
The costs, time and resources budgeted to gen- operation. Packer testing during core drilling
erate advanced mine design data sets are also operations can be performed with a variety of
limited. This current environment necessi- different equipment types. Optimized for core
tates innovative tools and field techniques that drilling, wireline hydraulic packers deploy

Wolkersdorfer, Brown & Figueroa (Editors) 73

IMWA 2013 “Reliable Mine Water Technology” Golden CO; USA

through the drill rods without inflation lines ements are used and separated by a series of
or cables, are removed using the rig’s wireline, extension pipes that allow both packers to be
and operate using the rigs water pump. Wire- inflated. Testing is performed on the interval
line hydraulic packers are also inflated with between the two packer elements by injection
water, which greatly increases the depth capa- or withdrawal (Fig. 1). Typically, straddle packer
bilities over systems that require compressed systems are used to characterize discrete inter-
gasses to inflate. vals at the completion of a borehole by run-
Single Element Testing Typical packer tests ning a series of tests across selected zones of
are conducted using a single packer element. interest in the borehole, or across the entire
The testing interval using a single packer sys- borehole length in a series of sequential tests.
tem is bounded by the bottom of the borehole One major risk is having unstable holes col-
and the packer seated just below the drill bit lapse on the lower packer causing equipment
above the bottom of the hole. To conduct the to be damaged or stuck.
test the packer is lowered and inflated, water is Cumulative Testing Single packer tests per-
either injected or withdrawn from the interval formed at borehole completion are termed
while flow rates and pressures are recorded, “cumulative tests”, and are performed by plac-
the packer deflated and removed, and then ing the packer at various depths either starting
drilling of the next interval commences. This at the top or bottom of the borehole. Cumula-
process is repeated until the entire borehole is tive tests always use the bottom of the bore-
tested in a series of discrete tests. Limitations hole as the lower boundary of the test interval
to this method include the need to test imme- and the packer as the upper boundary. Since
diately after the drilling a targeted test interval, the test intervals are a series of overlapping
which requires the packer testing team to zones, these tests are not considered discrete
standby while drilling takes place. This is also and resulting data must be mathematically
called “concurrent testing” as it is conducted processed to determine unique permeability
during the drilling process. values and remove the overlap effect. The
Double Element Testing Wireline packer major limitation to this approach is that zones
systems can also be deployed as a double or of higher permeability at depth can mask the
straddle packer system where two inflatable el- permeability determinations for the upper

Injection Withdrawl Falling Head Straddle*

Flow Rate

Injection

Pressure
Depth to Water

Withdrawl

Time
Depth to Water

Falling Head

Time
* Straddle packer configuration can be used with any testing method

Fig. 1. Example of testing types and data results

74 Wolkersdorfer, Brown & Figueroa (Editors)

Golden CO; USA “Reliable Mine Water Technology” IMWA 2013

tests. Cumulative tests performed at hole com- ging response can occur which can lead to an
pletion and are sequential unlike concurrent underestimate of the permeability. Before
tests which requires less standby time. starting injection testing, the borehole is usu-
ally flushed with clean water for a period of
Types of Hydraulic Tests time to remove drill fluids from the testing in-
The main types of hydraulic tests performed terval. Both pressure and fluid flow rates are
with the packer are: 1) injection or Lugeon, 2) measured at the surface during the test on reg-
withdrawal or airlift, 3) shut-in, and 4) falling ular intervals; however, downhole pressure
head (Fig. 1). Each of these tests has the same transducers can be used to accurately deter-
net goal of determining permeability; how- mine true interval pressures and increase ac-
ever, the type of test to be performed is de- curacy. Advantages of injection testing are that
pendent on the estimated permeability, equip- the tests can be performed and analyzed rela-
ment availability and logistics, and data tively quickly, and require relatively basic
objectives. Each type of test has advantages packer testing equipment. These types of tests
and disadvantages, accuracy limitations, and are limited in accuracy by the upper and lower
time constraints. The decision on what type of values of the test interval transmissivity. In
test to perform can be made in the planning lower transmissivity intervals, accuracy is re-
stages or as a situational decision by the field duced due to potential system leakage and the
team. A conservative approach is to design a inability to accurately measure very low flow
program that has the capabilities and flexibil- rates. In higher transmissivity intervals, accu-
ity to perform all types of tests; however, this racy is constrained by frictional loss across the
can be logistically challenging and expensive. packer, and the inability to build sufficient
An expedient approach is to assume testing testing pressures. In situations where high in-
will be performed via a single method, al- terval transmissivities limit injection testing
though this may sacrifice data quality. accuracy, the test interval can be shortened or
Injection Testing Injection tests are the the type of testing can be changed to with-
most commonly conducted type of packer drawal tests.
test. These tests are performed by injecting Withdrawal Tests Withdrawal tests with
water at a constant pressure and recording the the packer system consist of rapidly removing
flow rate. If several pressure steps are used, the and measuring water from the test interval for
procedure is termed a Lugeon test (Lugeon a period of time and then observing the result-
1933). Varying the pressure over several steps ing recovery of the interval water level to near
is relatively simple and adds a qualitative un- static conditions. This type of test is per-
derstanding of the downhole conditions, par- formed in intervals that have transmissivities
ticularly in a fracture flow setting. The pres- that are too high for injection testing, such as
sures used during an injection or Lugeon test open fracture zones, or highly fractured zones
must be high enough to induce flow, but low in the shallow portions of a borehole. This
enough to ensure that hydraulic fracturing or method is also called an airlift test when the
dilation of existing fractures (hydro-jacking) method of water removal is compressed air.
does not occur, as this artificially increases the This type of test is essentially a rising head test
formation permeability. Typically, hydrofrac- because the analysis involves observing head
turing or hydro-jacking does not occur in recovery data after fluid removal is completed.
deeper tests, but may be a major limitation in One advantage of withdrawal tests is that they
shallow, fragile or soft formation conditions. can be completed in borehole fluids other than
Furthermore, if testing is performed in bore- water, such as bentonitic mud, polymers and
holes filled with cuttings or drill fluids such as brine, as the method removes these fluids dur-
polymer or bentonite drill muds, a rapid plug- ing the test. In situations where a heavy mud

Wolkersdorfer, Brown & Figueroa (Editors) 75

IMWA 2013 “Reliable Mine Water Technology” Golden CO; USA

has been used and significant borehole skin Shut-in Tests In intervals with very low per-
conditions occur, withdrawal tests may be the meability or artesian conditions, shut-in type
best method, even in moderate or low perme- tests can be useful. A shut-in test is performed
ability intervals. However, airlift tests can by pressurizing the testing zone, activating
cause borehole instability because of the re- downhole or up-hole shut-in valve, and then
moval of bentonite from the borehole walls. monitoring the pressure decay using an up-
Since these tests require the analysis of a water hole gauge or a downhole transducer. Since
level recovery curve, higher accuracy results this test is essentially a zero flow test, it can re-
are obtained when recovery is greater than move accuracy error related to low flow meas-
90 % of static conditions which can take signif- urements obtained in injection tests and from
icant time. Logistically, airlift withdrawal tests borehole storage effects. As with withdrawal
also require more resources such as a high ca- tests, shut-in tests require more time to com-
pacity air compressor, airlift discharge heads, plete and are thus more expensive considering
downhole air pipe, and transducers. However, drill rig standby rates. Although these tests by-
since high permeability zone data is usually pass flow measurement related error, they can
important project data, such measures are also be affected by apparatus leakage error,
generally warranted. particularly if an uphole shut in system is
Falling Head Tests Falling head tests are used. Typically, the range of permeabilities
performed in a packer isolated interval by quantified by this method is below that of con-
charging the rods with water and measuring cern at most mining operations; however
the resulting water level decline until a near- quantification of extremely low permeabilities
static condition is observed. This test is typi- may be required for some project objectives.
cally done immediately after the injection test. New equipment has allowed Shut-in tests to be
These tests are the most simple of all types of done easier and with more accuracy than ever
packer tests in terms of equipment, as only a before (Adams and Richards 2012).
packer, pressure transducer or water level
probe is required. However, in low transmis- Testing Program Design
sivity conditions, falling head tests can take a Data Objectives Detailed planning for a packer
significant amount of time to complete, which testing program is probably the most impor-
requires drill rig standby expenses. Addition- tant and cost-effective activity. Table 1 shows
ally, it may not be possible to run a falling head some guidelines for packer program design.
test in zones with a naturally high interval The primary consideration in performing a
water level, as there may not be enough room packer testing program is having detailed data
in the rods to induce sufficient driving head objectives and a clear end goal for the pro-
for a good-quality falling head test. Finally, gram, which surprisingly, is often overlooked.
falling head tests through drill mud and cut- If the packer testing campaign is in support of
tings may induce a plugging response that a groundwater or geotechnical model for ex-
could result in an underestimate of the perme- ample, then a preliminary model using histor-
ability of that zone. In high transmissivity con- ically available data should be constructed in
ditions, a falling head test may not work effi- order to refine and optimize the overall pro-
ciently due to the inability to rapidly vent air gram objectives. The data objectives should be
from the drill rods as water is initially placed. defined by the modeling team and the end
Falling head data can also be gathered after an users of the data. Data objectives include items
injection test as a back-up or secondary means such as assessment of the data density needs,
of analysis, as the drill rods are already charged including both vertical and horizontal distri-
with water and data acquisition is simple if a butions of tests. In an ideal program, the data
downhole transducer has been deployed. needs drive the location, depths, type and

76 Wolkersdorfer, Brown & Figueroa (Editors)

Golden CO; USA “Reliable Mine Water Technology” IMWA 2013

ƴʕŸȯɥŸȄƺɗ [ȓȭȓɥŸɥȓȶȯɗ
[ȶȄȓɗɥȓƪŸȧŸȯƴȶɏƺɓŸɥȓȶȯŸȧɗȓȭɏȧȓƪȓɥʜŸȧȧȶʖɗɒʂȓƪȤƺɓɥƺɗɥȓȯȄ ȶɥɥȶȭȶǍɥƺɗɥȓȯɥƺɓʕŸȧƪȶȯɗɥɓŸȓȯƺƴƨʜƨȶɓƺȐȶȧƺƨŸɗƺ
!ȶȯǍȓȄʂɓŸɥȓȶȯ ‹ȓȯȄȧƺ,ȧƺȭƺȯɥ
[ȶȯȄƺɓɥƺɗɥȓȯȄȓȯɥƺɓʕŸȧɗɏȶɗɗȓƨȧƺҺȯȶɥȧȓȭȓɥƺƴƨʜɗɏŸƪƺɓ ‡ƺɒʂȓɓƺɗȧƺɗɗŸƪƪʂɓŸɥƺƪʂȭʂȧŸɥȓʕƺȭƺɥȐȶƴɗȓǍɥƺɗɥȓȯȄŸɥ
ɏȓɏƺ
‚ŸƪȤƺɓ

ƨȶɓƺȐȶȧƺƪȶȭɏȧƺɥȓȶȯ
ȧȧȶʖɗƴȓɗƪɓƺɥƺʬȶȯƺɥƺɗɥɗŸǍɥƺɓƨȶɓƺȐȶȧƺƪȶȭɏȧƺɥȓȶȯ [ȶȄȓɗɥȓƪŸȧȧʜŸȯƴȶɏƺɓŸɥȓȶȯŸȧȧʜƪȶȭɏȧƺʛңɗȧȶʖƺɓȶɏƺɓŸɥȓȶȯҺ
'ȶʂƨȧƺ !ŸȯƨƺƴȶȯƺŸɥŸȯʜɥȭƺʖȐȓȧƺɓȓȄȓɗȶȯɥȐƺȐȶȧƺ ɓƺɒʂȓɓƺɗŸƴƴȓȶȯŸȧƪɓƺʖɥɓŸȓȯȓȯȄŸȯƴƺʛɏƺɓȓƺȯƪƺ
,ȧƺȭƺȯɥ ˜ȯƺƪƺɗɗŸɓʜǍȶɓɥƺɗɥȓȯȄƪȶȯƪʂɓƺȯɥʖȓɥȐƴɓȓȧȧȓȯȄ
!ȶȯɥɓȶȧȶǍƨȶɥɥȶȭɥƺɗɥȓȯɥƺɓʕŸȧɏȧŸƪƺȭƺȯɥ
’ƺɗɥȓȯȄȓȯɥƺɓʕŸȧȧȓȭȓɥƺƴƨʜŸʕŸȓȧŸƨȧƺɗɏŸƪƺɓɏȓɏƺɗƺȄȭƺȯɥɗ
aȶɗɥŸƪƪʂɓŸɥƺŸȯƴɓƺȧȓŸƨȧƺȭƺɥȐȶƴ ’ƺɗɥȓȯȄɥȓȭȓȯȄƴȓƪɥŸɥƺƴƨʜƴɓȓȧȧȓȯȄɏɓȶȄɓƺɗɗ
!ȶȯƪʂɓƺȯɥ
‹ƪȐƺƴʂȧȓȯȄ

‡ƺɒʂȓɓƺɗȧƺŸɗɥŸȭȶʂȯɥȶǍƴƺȧŸʜȶǍƴɓȓȧȧȓȯȄȶɏƺɓŸɥȓȶȯɗ ‹ȓȄȯȓǍȓƪŸȯɥɗɥŸȯƴƨʜǍȶɓƪɓƺʖƨƺɥʖƺƺȯɥƺɗɥɗ
ʖȓɥȐ'ɓȓȧȧȓȯȄ ‹ȧȶʖɗƴȶʖȯƴɓȓȧȧȓȯȄȶɏƺɓŸɥȓȶȯɗ
‡ƺɒʂȓɓƺɗȧƺɗɗƪɓƺʖƺʛɏƺɓɥȓɗƺ
cȶɥƺɗɥȓȯȄƪɓƺʖƴʂɓȓȯȄƴɓȓȧȧȓȯȄңȭȶƨȓȧȓʬƺɥȶɓȓȄŸǍɥƺɓ ‹ȓȯȄȧƺƺȧƺȭƺȯɥƪȶȭɏȧƺɥȓȶȯɥƺɗɥȓȯȄȭʂɗɥƨƺƴȶȯƺ
!ȶȭɏȧƺɥȓȶȯȶǍ ƨȶɓƺȐȶȧƺƪȶȭɏȧƺɥȓȶȯ ƪʂȭʂȧŸɥȓʕƺȧʜҺȧȶʖƺɓŸƪƪʂɓŸƪʜ
’ƺɗɥ‹

ȶɓƺȐȶȧƺ 'ȓɗƪɓƺɥƺɥƺɗɥȓȯȄɓƺɒʂȓɓƺɗʂɗƺȶǍƴȶʂƨȧƺƺȧƺȭƺȯɥɏŸƪȤƺɓ
?ȧƺʛȓƨȧƺɗƪȐƺƴʂȧȓȯȄŸȯƴȭȓȯȓȭȓʬƺɗɥƺɗɥȓȯȄƪɓƺʖɥȓȭƺȶȯɓȓȄ
ƺɒʂȓɏȭƺȯɥ
‹ȓȭɏȧƺɗɥɥʜɏƺȶǍɥƺɗɥɥȶɏƺɓǍȶɓȭ ‚ȧʂȄȄȓȯȄɓƺɗɏȶȯɗƺȓǍɥƺɗɥȓȯȄɥȐɓȶʂȄȐƴɓȓȧȧȭʂƴҶŸƴƴȓɥȓʕƺɗ
Jȯȡƺƪɥȓȶȯȶɓ ‹ʂɏɏȧȓƺɗƨȶɥȐɒʂŸȯɥȓɥŸɥȓʕƺŸȯƴɒʂŸȧȓɥŸɥȓʕƺ
ƪƪʂɓŸƪʜȓɗȧȓȭȓɥƺƴǍȶɓʕƺɓʜȐȓȄȐŸȯƴʕƺɓʜȧȶʖɥɓŸȯɗȭȓɗɗȓʕȓɥʜ
[ʂȄƺȶȯ ȐʜƴɓȶȄƺȶȧȶȄȓƪŸȧƴŸɥŸ
ɥƺɗɥȓȯɥƺɓʕŸȧɗ
’ƺɗɥȓɗɒʂȓƪȤȧʜɏƺɓǍȶɓȭƺƴŸȯƴɓƺɒʂȓɓƺɗȧƺɗɗƺɒʂȓɏȭƺȯɥ
’ƺɗɥȓȯȄ

GȓȄȐƺɓŸƪƪʂɓŸƪʜȓȯȐȓȄȐɥɓŸȯɗȭȓɗɗȓʕɥʜɥƺɗɥȓȯɥƺɓʕŸȧɗ ‡ƺɒʂȓɓƺɗȭȶɓƺɥȓȭƺɥȶɗƺɥҺʂɏŸȯƴɓʂȯ
¬ȓɥȐƴɓŸʖŸȧ [ȶȄȓɗɥȓƪŸȧȧʜƪȶȭɏȧƺʛҺɓƺɒʂȓɓƺɗŸȓɓƪȶȭɏɓƺɗɗȶɓŸȯƴȶɥȐƺɓ
!ŸȯƨƺɏƺɓǍȶɓȭƺƴɥȐɓȶʂȄȐȐƺŸʕʜƴɓȓȧȧȭʂƴ
ƺɒʂȓɏȭƺȯɥ
ȶǍ’
’ʜɏƺɗȶ

!ŸȯƨƺɏƺɓǍȶɓȭƺƴȓȯƪȶȯȡʂȯƪɥȓȶȯʖȓɥȐȓȯȡƺƪɥȓȶȯɥƺɗɥɗ aŸʜ ɥŸȤƺ Ÿ ɗȓȄȯȓǍȓƪŸȯɥ Ÿȭȶʂȯɥ ȶǍ ɥȓȭƺ ɥȶ ƪȶȭɏȧƺɥƺ

?ŸȧȧȓȯȄGƺŸƴ ‡ƺɒʂȓɓƺɗɥȐƺȧƺŸɗɥŸȭȶʂȯɥȶǍƺɒʂȓɏȭƺȯɥ ‡ƺɒʂȓɓƺɗ Ÿ ʂɗƺ ȶǍ Ÿ ƴȶʖȯ Ȑȶȧƺ ɏɓƺɗɗʂɓƺ ɥɓŸȯɗƴʂƪƺɓ
AȶȶƴƨŸƪȤҺʂɏɥƺɗɥȓǍɏʂȭɏȶɓǍȧȶʖȭŸȯȓǍȶȧƴȄƺŸɓǍŸȓȧɗ ‚ȧʂȄȄȓȯȄɓƺɗɏȶȯɗƺȓǍɏƺɓǍȶɓȭƺƴɥȐɓȶʂȄȐƴɓȓȧȧȭʂƴ
AȶȶƴǍȶɓʕƺɓʜȧȶʖɏƺɓȭƺŸƨȓȧȓɥʜȭŸɥƺɓȓŸȧȶɓŸɓɥƺɗȓŸȯȐƺŸƴ
ƪȶȯƴȓɥȓȶȯɗ ‡ƺɒʂȓɓƺɗŸƴȶʖȯȐȶȧƺɗȐʂɥҺȓȯʕŸȧʕƺǍȶɓƨƺɗɥŸƪƪʂɓŸƪʜҦ
‹ȐʂɥҺȓȯ
²ȓƺȧƴɗȭȶɓƺɥʜɏƺɗȶǍƴŸɥŸңȐȓȄȐƺɓŸƪƪʂɓŸƪʜ «ƺɓʜȧȶʖɏƺɓȭƺŸƨȓȧȓɥʜɒʂŸȯɥȓǍȓƪŸɥȓȶȯȭŸʜƨƺʂȯȯƺƪƺɗɗŸɓʜ

Table 1. Program Design ConsiderationsControl

number of tests to be performed; an over- portation; 6) other hydrogeological activities,

abundance of data is an unnecessary expendi- such as well installations, water level monitor-
ture. Similarly, a statistically inconclusive data ing, transducer installations.
set may require retesting – a major setback if There are several different approaches to
drill rigs and key equipment and personnel are executing a packer testing campaign. Typically,
demobilized. Often the data objectives are set packer testing is an activity that is added on to
by a third party, such as a regulatory body, an existing exploration or geotechnical design
third party reviewer, or a stakeholder represen- program, thus certain portions of the cam-
tative; in these cases it is recommended that paign may already be fixed, such as the drilling
all parties come to an agreement on data ob- locations and hole angles. Other times, con-
jective prior to the design of the program and straints such as limited drill rig availability, key
initiation of field activities. staff availability, weather or access issues may
Design Considerations Once the data objec- come into play. Based on these constraints, the
tives for a packer testing program are defined, packer testing program may be designed as a
the packer testing program planning can short but intensive campaign consisting of
begin. Elements to consider are: 1) the type, multiple drill rigs and a large testing crew,
number and capabilities of the drilling equip- other times the program may be a long dura-
ment intended to be used; 2) the depth, loca- tion operation, where sporadic tests and a sin-
tion, inclination and diameter of each bore- gle drill rig are used.
hole to be drilled; 3) timing and scheduling of Generally, the best results occur when
the packer testing; 4) staffing as well as train- packer testing is performed concurrently with
ing plans for the personnel performing the drilling and when using a single packer config-
testing; 5) expectations regarding equipment, uration. Since this type of testing is relatively
including procurement, logistics, and trans- fast, a typical experienced packer testing crew

Wolkersdorfer, Brown & Figueroa (Editors) 77

IMWA 2013 “Reliable Mine Water Technology” Golden CO; USA

can handle two to three drill rigs, moving gear can be exacting work that requires an experi-
between them, and testing as time allows. Oc- enced operator to supervise and troubleshoot
casional delays may occur but these are small issues that junior or inexperienced operators
in comparison to the advantages. Smaller ca- may have trouble managing. Underestimating
pacity drill rigs in under-developed countries this may result in poor data quality as well as
typically average 20 to 40 m of core drilling per potentially long rig standby times and associ-
day, when conditions such as mechanical ated costs.
breakdowns and logistical delays are factored
in. A highly trained packer crew can typically Conclusions
perform two injection tests per shift, or one Recent innovations in packer systems has re-
airlift test. In such a setting, with three operat- duced cost and increased accessibility for ver-
ing drill rigs, it is reasonable to assume that satile, deep testing equipment. Incorporating
testing could take place on 30 m intervals in a wireline hydraulic packer testing program
each borehole. Since one drill rig is usually into a core drilling program is advantageous in
moving, installing casing, under maintenance, that it enables the acquisition of discrete inter-
or drilling in rock that is outside the data ob- val hydraulic testing during exploration, geot-
jectives; it is reasonable to assume that a single echnical, infill or other core drilling opera-
packer kit plus a day and night testing crew tions. Although it does require some
could handle up to three drill rigs. If other ac- additional equipment and personnel, the cost
tivities are required of this crew, such as well advantages of including this type of testing
installation, data analysis, access, equipment into an existing core drilling campaign far out-
and supply sourcing; the maximum number weigh those associated with a standalone, ded-
of rigs drops considerably. icated hydrogeological drilling and testing pro-
Staffing and Scheduling Staffing of packer gram.
testing programs is a key issue requiring care- The types of testing, packer configuration
ful planning. Packer testing can be performed and test scheduling are flexible program de-
by external consultants, specially trained drill sign elements. In designing a packer testing
crews, or by in-house staff after receiving train- program, these elements must be optimized
ing. Some packer testing crews consist of a sin- to both meet the data objectives of the pro-
gle experienced individual, while others crews gram and minimize overall budget. It is impor-
may have two or three inexperienced or junior tant to get the advice of a packer testing expert
people. Typical drilling operations and packer familiar with this type of testing to help design
testing campaigns are a 24/7 continuous oper- a successful program.
ations, so both a day and night crew is usually
required. Crew duration is typically 3 to 5 Acknowledgements
weeks; even the most seasoned field crew Thanks to Brent Johnson of Interralogic for
member become ineffectual after this period manuscript review.
of time. Generally, the most cost effective mix
of personnel for a packer testing campaign is References
a blend of lower cost juniors, some locally Adams J, Roberts R (2012). Advances in hydrogeologic
sourced laborers, and at least one highly expe- testing of mineral exploration boreholes. – In: Mc-
rienced individual that can troubleshoot and Cullough CD, Lund MA, Wyse L: IMWA Symposium.
supervise staff. In many instances, when deal- – p. 357 – 364; Bunbury, Australia.
ing with consultants, it is more efficient to Lugeon M (1933) Barrage et Géologie. Dunod. Paris
have the project manager on-site so that plan- Nielsen DM (1991). Practical Handbook of Ground
ning and logistical difficulties are rapidly re- Water Monitoring, Second Edition. CRC Press 1991.
solved. Packer testing, while simple in concept,

78 Wolkersdorfer, Brown & Figueroa (Editors)

View publication stats