Advertisement

Hydrogeophysical Characteristics of the Central Nile Delta Aquifer

  • Zenhom E. Salem
  • Abdelazim M. NegmEmail author
  • Abdelaziz Nahrawy
Chapter
Part of the The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry book series (HEC, volume 73)

Abstract

The present study is carried out in Nile Delta aquifer, where the data of electrical resistivity and gamma ray logs of the 34 well ranging in depth between 80 and 140 m were used to calculate the aquifer parameters. It is aimed to estimate the spatial variability of the formation lithology, porosity, permeability, groundwater salinity, and the hydraulic conductivity. Bilqas Formation showed an increase in the thickness, porosity, and water salinity to the north and northeast directions. Permeability and hydraulic conductivity values decrease in the same direction. Bilqas Formation ranges in thickness from 3 m in the southwest direction to 31 m in the northeast direction. The shale content and porosity ranges are 54% to 97% and 21% to 55%, respectively. This layer has low values of permeability (16 × 10−9 to 78 × 10−9 mD) and hydraulic conductivity (<2 × 10−9 cm/s). The water salinity of this layer ranges from 200 mg to 1,600 mg/l.

In Mit Ghamr Formation, average shale content ranges from 4.5 to 22%. Numbers of scattered clay lenses are detected in different places with high intensity in the northeastern direction. Porosity ranges from 19 to 39%. High permeability values are recorded in this formation and ranged from 0.1 × 10−2 to 8.7 × 10−2 mD. The water salinity average values in this aquifer range from 220 mg to 2,100 mg/l. The calculated hydraulic conductivity values for this formation are of range 5.082 × 10−10 to 2.134 × 10−8 cm/s. In this layer, the increase in the shale content, the increase in porosity, decrease in the permeability and hydraulic conductivity, as well as the increase in salinity, are to the northern and northeastern directions.

Keywords

Hydraulic conductivity Nile Delta aquifer Permeability Porosity Water salinity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Tanta University for the financial support offered by the project number “TU-01-12-03” during the course of this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Serra O (1984) Fundamentals of well-log interpretation. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tselentis GA (1985) The processing of geophysical well logs by microcomputers applied to the solution of hydrogeological problems. J Hydrol 80:215–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rubin Y, Hubbard SS (2005) Hydrogeophysics. Water Science and Technology Library Series 50, Springer, Dordrecht, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Winslow AG, Kister LR (1956) Saline-Water Resources of Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1365, 105 pGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paillet FL, Reese RS (2000) Integrating borehole logs and aquifer tests in aquifer characterization. Ground Water 38(5):713–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sloto RA, Goode DJ, Frasch SM (2002) Interpretation of borehole geophysical logs, aquifer-isolation tests, and water quality, supply wells 1 and 2, Willow Grove Naval Air Station/Joint Reserve Base, Horsham Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Water-Resources Investigations Report 2001–4264Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Szabó NP (2013) Shale volume estimation based on the factor analysis of well-logging data. Acta Geophys 59(5):935–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Szabó NP (2015) Hydraulic conductivity explored by factor analysis of borehole geophysical data. Hydrgeol J 23(5):869–882. doi: 10.1007/s10040-015-1235-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Szabó NP, Dobróka M (2013) Float-encoded genetic algorithm used for the inversion processing of well-logging data. In: Michalski A (ed) Global optimization: theory, developments and applications. Mathematics research developments, computational mathematics and analysis series, Nova Science Publishers Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Szabó NP, Dobroka M (2013) Extending the application of a shale volume estimation formula derived from factor analysis of wireline logging data. Math Geosci 45(7):837–850. doi: 10.1007/s11004-013-9449-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Szabó NP, Kormos K, Dobroka M (2015) Evaluation of hydraulic conductivity in shallow groundwater formations: a comparative study of the Csókás’ and Kozeny–Carman model. Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica Hungarica. doi: 10.1007/s40328-015-0105-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Attia MI (1954) Deposits in the Nile valley and the Delta “Geological survey Egypt,” Cairo, vol 12, pp 147–165Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hurst HE (1952) Long-term storage capacity of reservoirs. Trans Am Soc Civil Eng 116:770–808Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kashef AI (1981) The Nile-One River and nine countries. J Hydrol 53:53–71Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kashef AI (1981) Technical and ecological impacts of the High Aswan Dam. J Hydrol 53:73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Said R (1962) The geology of Egypt. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Said R (1993) The Nile River: geology, hydrology, and utilization. Pergamon, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sestini G (1989) Nile Delta; a review of depositional environments and geological history. In: Whateley MKG, Pickering KT (eds) Geological Society Special Publication No. 40, pp 99–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shahin M (1985) Hydrology of the Nile Basin. El Sevier Science Publishers B V, 575 pGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shata AA, El-Fayoumy IF (1970) Remarks on the hydrogeology of the Nile Delta. Proceedings of the Bucharest symposium. DeltasGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Salem ZE (2009) Natural and human impacts on the groundwater under an Egyptian village, central Nile Delta – a case study of Mehallet Menouf. In: 13th international water technology conference (IWTC, 13), vol 3, March 12–15, 2009, Hurghada, Egypt, pp 1397–1414Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sandford KS, Arkell WJ (1939) Paleolithic man and the Nile Faiyum divide Chcago. Univ. Oriental Inst. Pub., I., pp 1–77Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Poupon A, Gaymard R (1970) The evaluation of clay content from logs. Trans., SPWLA 11th Annu. Logging Symp., Pap. GGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dresser A (1982) Well logging and interpretation techniques; the course for home study. Dresser Atlas Division, Dresser Industries, Houston, TX, 350 pGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dresser A (1979) Well log interpretation charts. Dresser Atlas Division, Dresser Industries, Houston, TXGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Archie GE (1942) The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics. Trans AIME 146:54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Person M, Raffensperger JP, Ge S, Garven G (1996) Basin-scale hydrogeologic modeling. Rev Geophys 34:61–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wintsch RP, Christoffersen R, Kronenberg AK (1995) Fluid-rock reaction weakening of fault zones. J Geophys Res 100:13021–13032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moore DE, Morrow CA, Byerlee JD (1982) Use of swelling clays to reduce permeability and its potential application to nuclear waste repository sealing. Geophys Res Lett 9:1009–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Revil A, Cathles LM (1999) Permeability of shaly sands. Water Resour Res 35(3):651–662. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/98WR02700/full CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jorgensen DG (1980) Relationships between basic soil engineering equations and basic ground-water flow equations: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2064, 40 pGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Abu Khatita AM (2011) Assessment of soil and sediment contamination in the middle Nile Delta area (Egypt)-geo-environmental study using combined sedimentological, geophysical and geochemical methodsGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marion D, Nur A, Yin H, Han D (1992) Compressional velocity and porosity in sand-clay mixtures. Geophysics 57:554–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zenhom E. Salem
    • 1
  • Abdelazim M. Negm
    • 2
    Email author
  • Abdelaziz Nahrawy
    • 1
  1. 1.Geology Department, Faculty of ScienceTanta UniversityTantaEgypt
  2. 2.Department of Water and Water Structure Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringZagazig UniversityZagazigEgypt

Personalised recommendations