Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T01:49:36.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Thermodynamics and Geochemistry of Ca, Sr, Ba, and Ra Sulfates in Some Deep Brines From the Palo Duro Basin, Texas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

Daniel Melchior ,
Donald Langmuir ,
Pamela S. Z. Rogers  and
Norman Hubbard
Daniel Melchior
Affiliation:
The Earth Technology Corporation, 3777 Long Beach Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90807
Donald Langmuir
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry/Geochemistry, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO 80401
Pamela S. Z. Rogers
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratories, INC-7 MS J514, Los Alamos, NM 87545
Norman Hubbard
Affiliation:
Battelle Memorial Institute, 505 King Avenue, Columbus, OH 43201
Get access

Abstract

The work reported here involved application of the ion-interaction approach of Pitzer [1] [2] to model the activities of some major and minor cations and major anions in deep brine systems at elevated temperatures and pressures.

The solubilities of anhydrite (CaS04), gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O), celestite (SrS04), barite (BaS04), and radium sulfate (RaSO4) in brines from the Wolfcamp Formation and granite wash facies, Palo Duro Basin, Texas, were modeled using ion-interaction equations. Waters with ionic strengths ranging from 2.89 to 4.76 m, and temperatures and pressures up to 40°C and 130 bars were sampled from five horizons in three wells, at depths between 970 and 1,670 meters. Theoretical solubility products as a function of temperature and pressure were obtained for comparison with ion activity products computed using ion-interaction theory. The effect of temperature on model calculations was found to reside almost entirely in the Debye-Hückel AΦ parameter, which accordingly was corrected for brine temperatures [3].

Modeling results indicated that all five brines are saturated with respect to anhydrite and celestite, and three of the five with respect to barite. Saturation may result from hydrologic connection with adjacent overlying evaporite units, or increased Ca, Sr and Ba concentrations caused by their desorption from clays. Radium concentrations, which range from 10-11.3 to 10-12.7 m, are not controlled by RaSO4 solubility or adsorption, but probably by solid solution in other sulfate minerals in these low pH (4.4 – 6.3) high calcium (0.18 – 0.52 m) brines [4] [5].

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 44: Symposium N – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management VIII , 1984 , 483
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1985

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

1. Pitzer, K.S., J. Phys. Chem., 77, 268–277, 1973.Google Scholar
2. Pitzer, K.S., In Activity Coefficients in Electrolyte Solutions. Vol. I (ed. Pytkowicz, R.M.) CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, 157–208, 1979.Google Scholar
3. Pitzer, K. S., Roy, R. N. and Silvester, L. F., J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 99, 4930–4936, 1977.Google Scholar
4. Langmuir, D. and Riese, A. C., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 49, in press, 1985.Google Scholar
5. Langmuir, D. and Melchior, D. C., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 49, in press, 1985.Google Scholar
6. Harvie, C. E. and Weare, J. H., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 44, 981–997, 1980.Google Scholar
7. Bassett, R. L. and Griffin, J. A., Texas Bur. Econ. Geol. Circ. 82–7, Univ. of Texas, Austin. 146–159, 1982.Google Scholar
8. Rogers, P. S. Z., Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Univ. of California, Berkeley. 1981.Google Scholar
9. Melchior, D. C., Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Colorado School of Mines, Golden. 1984.Google Scholar
10. Hubbard, N., Laul, J. C. and Perkins, R., In 7th Intl. Symp. on the Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management. Nov. 14–17. Boston MA, 1983.Google Scholar
11. Chessmore, R., Personal Communication. Bendix Field Engineering Corp., Box 1569, Grand Junction, CO, 1983.Google Scholar
12. Bassett, R. L. and Bentley, M. E., J. Hydrol. 59, 331–372, 1982.Google Scholar
13. Bassett, R. L. and Bentley, M. E., Texas Bur. Econ. Geol. Report of Investigations 130, 59 pp., 1983.Google Scholar
14. Fukui, L. M., Petrographic report. Prepared for Battelle Memorial Inst. and U. S. Dept. of Energy, Oct. 14, 1983.Google Scholar
15. Kushnir, J., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 46, 433–446, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Bair, E. S., O'Donnell, T. P. and Picking, L. W., Tech. Report BMI/ONWI/SUB/84/E512–05000-T4. Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation. Battelle Memorial Inst., Columbus, OH. 172 pp, 1984.Google Scholar
17. Carpenter, A. B., Okla. Geol. Survey Circ. 79, 60–77, 1978.Google Scholar
18. Land, L. S. and Prezbindowski, D. R., J. Hydrol. 54, 51–74, 1981.Google Scholar
19. Zaikowski, A., Kosanke, B. J., and Hubbard, N., In 7th Intl. Symp. on the Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management. Nov. 14–17. Boston MA, 1983.Google Scholar
20. Zaikowski, A., Kosanke, B. J. and Hubbard, N., (abs.) EOS Trans. AGU 65 (16), 214, 1984.Google Scholar
21. Knauth, L. P. and Hubbard, N., (abs.) Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstr. with Programs, 561, 1984.Google Scholar
22. Riese, A. C., Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, 1982.Google Scholar
23. Hubbard, N. and Laul, J. C., (abs.) Geol. Amer. Abstr. with Programs, 561, 1984.Google Scholar