Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-r7bls Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-19T18:52:05.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Composition and Stratigraphic Distribution of Materials in the Lower San Andres Salt Unit 4

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

N. Hubbard ,
D. Livingston  and
L. Fukui
N. Hubbard
Affiliation:
Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio 43201
D. Livingston
Affiliation:
Bendix Field Engineering Corp., Grand Junction, Colorado 81502
L. Fukui
Affiliation:
Bendix Field Engineering Corp., Grand Junction, Colorado 81502
Get access

Abstract

The salt bed in depositional cycle 4 of the Permian Lower San Andres Formation, Palo Duro Basin, Deaf Smith County, Texas consists of massive salt interlayered with discrete bands and beds of anhydrite and claystone. The massive salt consists of about 90% halite, with 7% anhydrite and 3% clays disseminated in and among the halite crystals.

The halite in this salt bed contains fluid inclusions filled with a (Na, K, Mg)Cl brine, with an average Mg concentration of about 50,000 mg/liter. The anhydrite in the salt will saturate the brines in CaSO4, which in turn may coat the waste package with anhydrite because of the retrograde solubility of CaSO4. This may increase waste package lifetime to failure by corrosion.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 26: Symposium D – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management VII , 1983 , 405
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Balderman, M. A., Hanley, J. E., and Versluis, S., This Volume.Google Scholar
2. Wahl, J. S., Tittman, J., Johnstone, C. W., and Alger, R. P., Journal of Petroleum Technology 16, 1411–1417 (1964).10.2118/989-PAGoogle Scholar
3. Alger, R. P., Locke, S., Nagel, W. A., and Sherman, H., Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, SPE 3565 1–15 (1971).Google Scholar
3a Scott, H. D., Flaum, C. and Sherman, H., SPE 11146, 1–17 (1982).Google Scholar
4. Stone and Webster Engineering Corp. Preliminary Field Lithology Log – Friemel Well, J.. Sketch No. 13697-GA(B) (1983).Google Scholar
5. Hanford, C. R., Jour. Sed. Petrology 51, 761–778 (1981).Google Scholar
6. Knauth, L. P. and Beeunas, M., In Preparation.Google Scholar
7. Kreitler, C., Beeunas, M. and Knauth, L. P., In Preparation.Google Scholar
8. Fukui, L., Office Of Nuclear Waste Isolation Report (ONWI- – (1983).Google Scholar
9. Carpenter, A. B., Oklahoma Geological Survey Circular 79, 60–77 (1978).Google Scholar
10. Roedder, E., American Minerologist, in press (1984).Google Scholar
11. Fisher, R.S., Geology and Geohydrology of the Palo Duro Basin, Texas Panhandle 1983 Bureau of Economic Geology, The Univ. of Texas at Austin, Geological Circular, in press. (1983)Google Scholar
12. Madgin, U. W. and Swales, D. A., Jour. App. Chem. 6, 482–487 (1956).Google Scholar
12a Marshall, W. L., Slusher, R. and Jones, E. V., Jour. Chem. Engin. Data 9, 187–191 (1964).Google Scholar
12b Bock, E., Canadian Jour. Chem. 39, 1746–1751 (1961).Google Scholar
12c Templeton, C. C. and Rogers, J. C., Jour. Chem. Engin. Data 12, 536–547 (1967).Google Scholar
13. Kinsman, D.J.J., Proc. Second Salt Symposium, pp. 302–326 (1965).Google Scholar
14. Molecke, M. A., Sandia Natl. Lab. Report, SAND 83–0516 (1983).Google Scholar
15. Jones, C., Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation Report (ONWI- ) (1983).Google Scholar
16. Jenks, G. H., Oak Ridge Natl. Lab Reports, ORNL-TM-3717 (1972).Google Scholar