Modelling of Groundwater Dynamics and the Impact of Groundwater

Extraction at Tazerbo Well field

Salem Elsakran
Aujalah Site Manager, Man-Made River Project, , P.O. Box 9468.641, Benghazi,
Libya, sakrann2002@yahoo.com

Abstract

Tazerbo well field lies on an uplifted area that forms the boundaries between
Sirt and Kufra basins. Test wells revealed about 2000 m of Palaeozoic and
Mesozoic sediments overlie the Basement. Wellfield data shows the existence
of a 4-layers aquifer system: surface, intermediate, main and deep, with thick
aquitards separating them. Northward dipping strata & groundwater flow
direction, thick aquitards separations and the flow restrictions in the northern
part of the deep aquifers are responsible for the artesian conditions and the
high head differences in the aquifer horizons. The intermediate and main
aquifers (producing horizons) of the wellfield are suffering at the present from
the cone effect of drawdown at their centres. The short period of pumping
against which the Transient calibrations were performed provided some
limitations to the calibration process. The maximum computed drawdown of the
Intermediate and Main aquifers at the end of scenario 4 (50 years and 1,000,000
m3/day) are successively 45m and 157m. Simulated drawdown shows that, it is
vital to reconsider the distribution of the operating wells, the flow rates, and the
pumps submergence levels.

Introduction
Tazerbo well field is one of the Great Man-Made River Project (phase 1) wellfields.
The wellfield as shown in figure 1 lies about 800 km south of the coast. The wellfield
consists of 108 production wells, aligned in 3 parallel east west lines and more than 98
exploratory and piezometric wells. At the present the well field producing approximately
490,000 m3/day and is planned to produce 1,000,000 m3/day in the future. Kufra basin,
from which Tazerbo groundwater is extracted is one of four main ground water reserves
of good to very good quality fossil water, that exist in the middle and south of the country
as shown in Figure 2. High drawdown has been noticed in the centre of the wellfield due
to limited pumpage (Max: 500,000 m3/day). This study is intended to use the newly
emerged construction and operation data to develop a modular three dimensional finite
difference groundwater numerical model. Processing Modflow for Windows (PMWIN)
has been used to input the hydraulic parameters, make the simulations and analyse the
results. The aim of the model is to evaluate the impact of the ongoing and intended
increase of ground water production and to give an independent appraisal of the reliability
and development of groundwater supply for the existing Tazerbo (GMRA) Well Field.
This study contains both steady and transient calibration, and 5 operation scenarios.

------------------
Published in: Water Resources of Libya (2015). Oun, k. M., Hafi, Z. B., Salloum, F. M. And
Sadeg, S. A. (eds.), © Earth Science Society of Libya (ESSL), 297-312

297
 50 000 1 000 00 15 000 0 200 000 2 500 00 30 000 0 350 000 4 000 00
31 000 00 310 000 0
S1,S2,.......New Piezome tric Sites
TE1, TE2,...Old piezometric sites
30 500 00 Jaba l Al H ARUJ Viledge 305 000 0
(Pr eca mbria n) Track-Poles
Ja lo-Alkufra Uplift
as pha lt road Asphalt road
30 000 00 Hall road 300 000 0
Grea t Sand S ea Line
Lege nd

29 500 00 295 000 0

Ja ba l Alha wi ash
The Study Ar ea(M odelled)
(Pal eozoi c)
Gre at Sa nd Se a
29 000 00 290 000 0
LTM(M)

S1

28 500 00 Ta ze rbo TE 6 285 000 0

S2 S6
S 13
..................S ............
......4 S7
S3 TE
......2..........S5
.................... TE 5
...................................
28 000 00 TE 1 280 000 0
TE TE
TE94 Zee ghn
S1 43
TE8 S1 0
Jabal az Zalmah uplift
S 12
S8 TE7 S9 Bizee ma
27 500 00 275 000 0
(Abandoned)
S 11
J abal Niggy
(P re cambr ian)
27 000 00 Gre at Sa nd Sea 270 000 0
Ribia nah

50 000 1 000 00 15 000 0 200 000 2 500 00 30 000 0 350 000 4 000 00

LTM (m)

Fig 1. Location and layout map of the study area.

Hydrogeology

Previous studies concluded that the structural development controlled by a series of

land movements continued since the Cambrian, this accompanied by marine incursions
and regressions. The first, where marine conditions prevailed until the upper Devonian. A
short transgression period occurred in Carboniferous, followed by a long period of
erosion (up to the basement). This erosion started as a result of the major uplift that
occurred northwest of Kufra Basin and known as Tibisty-Sirt uplift; as a result the early
Palaeozoic strata mostly eroded, delivering most of the material from which the Nubian
Sand Stone was formed, which lies uncomformably over the Devonian strata. A major
tectonic movement occurred in the late Mesozoic, causing the formations of Jabal Al
Akhder and Jabal Nafussa, which associated with downward movements and sea
transgression leading to the present day water reserves configurations.
Kufra Basin is bounded by Tibisti Mountains to the south west, Jabal Arknu-Al'
Awanate uplift to the south east, Jabal Alhawiash (Palaeozoic) to the north-east and
Tibisti Al Haruj uplift to the east. The Drilling data (Completed 1999), were used to draw
a number of cross sections of the modelled area as shown in figures 4, 6, and 9; the
locations of those cross sections are shown in figure 3.The cross sections show that the
basement is high at the eastern, western and southern boundaries and basement is low in
the middle of the study area, where the basement highs in the east and south is marking

298
the Jabal Al Haruj and Tibisti-Alharuj uplift foot and in the west marking the Palaeozoic
outcrops of Jabal Alhawiash.

3
1

2
0

2
2

2
2

E
E

E
E
Me
d ite
Tunisia rra
n ian
Se Green Mountain
a

Hamada Basin

Egypt
Galo
Algeria
Murzug Basin
Sarir Basin
N27
Study Area
N26

Tazerbo Wellfield
N25
N24
Kufra Basin

Nijer Chad

Sudan

0 250 500 KM

Fig 2. Skech of the major groundwater systems in Libya (modified from MMRP 1995).

Basement low in the middle is marking the centre of Sirt Basin (Callenscio Trough).The
cross sections also show that the basement is high under the northern part of the wellfield
area and low northward, where Jabal Az Zalmah and the northern block faulting
mentioned by previous studies at this location are marking the boundaries between Kufra
and Sirt Basins. Recent well field drilling shows non-marine Mesozoic sediment in most
of the modelled area. The north-south cross sections as shown in figures 9 show that, as
we go North toward Sirt basin there is a clear wedging out and cut off of the Surface
(Eocene-Pleistocene) and Intermediate (Lower–Upper Devonian) aquifers.
Bellini et a1. (1987), had access to the data of the Exp oil well (Al-NC-34) at Jabal
Dalma, which is located 150 km east of the wellfield as shown in figure 5. Palaeozoic
rocks outcrop at the Northern extremity of the Kufra Basin (north of the modelled area)
and dip gently to the southeast (Fisk 1983). Evidently groundwater in the modelled area
moves through these rocks, toward the northern Sirt Basin. As shown in the cross-
sections in figure 6, the aquifer system at Tazerbo well field contains a surface aquifer (33
to 70m), intermediate aquifer (42 to 92m), Upper main aquifer (300 to 676m) and deep
main aquifer (491 to 850).
The aquifer system spreads all over the modelling area with thick confining beds mainly
silt stone aquitards separating them. Water level contour maps of the aquifer system, as
shown in figures 8 and 11 also indicate a north to slightly north eastward flow direction.
The difference in hydraulic heads, which exceeds 90 meters between the deep Devonian
aquifers (3rd and 4th) and the shallow Eocene-Pleistocene aquifers (1st and 2nd), increases
as we approach Sirt Basin, indicating the presence of flow restrictions in the deep aquifers

299
between Kufra and Sirt Basin, which represented in the model by low hydraulic
conductivity. Radiometric dating (Wright 1981) shows that the bulk of ground water is
prehistoric placement (5000 years in shallow aquifers to 34,000 years in deeper aquifers).
Most of the discharge would come from fossil water. The artesian condition at the
northern side of the study area, is probably responsible for the vertical

Fig 3. Locations of cross-sections.

West (C) EAST (D)

600
400
200 Surface Aquifer (1st)
0 Intermediat Aq (2nd)
AMSL Elevation (m)

-200
Main aquifer(3rd)
-400
-600
-800
-1000
Deep Aquifer 4rth
-1200
-1400
Basement
254113
152500
167500
182500
196750
206953
217096
226358
238010
246312

261915
269716
277518
287219
300919
313619
324819
337019
350519
365519
380519
397250

East (m) LTM

Fig 4. West to East(C-D) cross-secion.

300
flow from the deep aquifers to the shallower aquifers, where the difference in heads,
exceeding 90 meters in some locations.

LITHO
FORMATI THICK ENVIRONM
MY AGE DESCRIPTION
ON NESS ENT
LOGY
Quartz sandstone, rarely slightly feldspathic,
CRETACEOUS

CONTINENTAL
TRIASSIC TO
MESOZOIC

MESOZOIC
ranging from light brown to reddish brown,
fine to course-grained, locally
conglomeratic, less cemented (argillaceous,
siliceous and knolinilic cement) .
235 CONTINENT
175
AL Quartz sandstone, siliceous, slightly
CONTINENTAL

TASSILIAN
feldspathic, yellow-brownish to light grey,
POST very fine-and fine grained.
PERMIAN

255
CARBONIF

CONTINENT Quartz sandstone (absence of feldspars)

EROUS

DALMA

AL ranging from reddish-brownish to yellow-

500
LOCALLY brown, fine-to course grained.
350 MARINE
Quartz sandstone, locally feldspathic,
MIDDLE-

BINEM
LATE

SHALLOW ranging from yellowish to light brown, fine to

DEVONIAN

MARINE coarse-grained, mostly thin bedded.

387
Quartz sandstone (absence of feldspars)
TADRART
OUAN
KASA
PALEOZOIC

CONTINENT varicolored, fine-to course grained.

EARLY
AL
408
DELTAIC Conglomerate, hard, cross-bedded quartz
TO
TANEZZUFT

LATE 150 sandstone, siltstone and some gray to

SILURIAN

ACACUS

EPICONTIN
ENTAL purple clay and clay stone.
MARINE - Shale varicolored, silty, with lenses of
EARLY 130 GLACIAL
438 MARINE limestone and chert modules.
sandstone, yellowish, reddish and purple,
CAMBRIAN ORDOVICIAN

MEMOUNIAT

CONTINENTAL (MAINLY
FLUVIATILE) LOCALLY

v fine to coarse-grained quartz generally

MARINE
500

505 slightly cemented, cross bedded, with

HASSAOUN

interbeddings of varicolored siltstone and

A

590 argillite, of very hard violet-brown ironstone.

BASEME
PRECAMBRIAN
NT

Fig 5. Stratigraphic succession, 150 km south of the Tazerbo wellfield (modified from
Bellini et., 1987).

Previous Modelling Study

The original Ahmed (1979) regional models assumed a simple continuity of Tazerbo
aquifer with the Post-Eocene aquifer system of Sirt basin. Ahmed (1980) made a regional
model using U.S.G.S model MODFLOW for both Kufra and sirt Basins; he assumed a
single layer aquifer with a specific yield of 0.05 (unconfined). Later Ahmed (1981)
carried out another modelling study at Sarir and Tazerbo, which was modified in 1984
assuming 2-layer aquifer with an aquitard separation. Fisk (1983) used a finite element
model AQUIFEM, which combined part of Sarir and part of Tazerbo and assumed a
single layer system. A more detailed modelling study by Brown Root (1992) used

301
AQUIFEM-N finite element model, they pumped 108 wells steadily for 50 years with
1,000,000 m3/day; the resultant drawdown was in the range of 53 to 100 m.
Brown Root model assuming a multilayer aquifer system (3 layers), but in fact Tazerbo
well field has a fourth confined deep layer, which play a role in addition to the 3 modelled
layers. The fourth layer which has not been modelled has penetrated only in one location,
which is PZ1D, at which the head difference between the fourth layer and the overlaying
1st layer exceeds 90 meters. However, GMRA and B/R model did not use any transient
calibration because there was no pumping at that time.

North South
M G
600
400
Surface Aquifer (1st)
200
Intermediat Aq (2nd)
AMSL Elevation (m)

0
-200
-400 Main aquifer(3rd)
-600
-800
-1000
Deep Aquifer(4rth)
-1200
BASEMENT
-1400
-1600
2892731

2878193

2863655

2834829

2824580

2818620

2804182

2796166

2788249

2780483

2772316

2763900

2755783

2744000

2728600

2713000
2849117

2811660

Northern LTM Coordinates (m)

Fig 6. North to South (M to G) cross-section, Tazerbo well field.

Modelling Data
The analysis of pump-tests during pumping and recovery provided valuable information
about the aquifer transmissivity. Cumulative Distribution Function Curve has been drawn
for pumping test transmissivity data, as shown in figures 7. The pumping curve shows
that transmissivity ranges from 5953 m2/day (10% exceedance) to 331 m2/day (90%
exceedance), with median 3663 m2/day.
Storage coefficients of Tazerbo aquifer system show a little variation in the area of the
south and the middle of Tazerbo aquifers, which is manly, located in Kufra basin, and it is
higher in the north; toward Sirt Basin. The average Storativity in the middle and south as
derived from the pump testing analysis during pumping is 0.00014 and during recovery is
0.000214. The average Storativity in the north as derived from the pump testing analysis
during pumping is 0.0054 and during recovery is 0.0023. Fair to good match between the
Laboratory results of the hydraulic parameters and the calibrated hydraulic parameters of
this model were found. The aquifer system in this modelling study is complex this
provided some difficulty when relating water level data to the different model layers.
However with detailed investigations of the water level behaviour, head differences and

302
geology, a good representation of the water level has been achieved for the four layers of
the aquifer system as shown in the figures 8.

100%
90%
80% ، 5953
70%
Probability %

60%
3663
50%
40%
30% 2367
20%
10%
331
0%
0 5000 10000 15000
Transmissivity (M2/DAY)
Fig 7. Cumulative distribution function curve for transmissivity (pumping).

2900000

2880000

2860000

2840000
North (m) LTM

2820000

2800000

2780000

2760000

2740000

2720000

2700000
150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000

First Aquifer East (m) LTM

Third Aquifer

Fig 8. Initial head (m.a.m.s.l) of the 1st aquifer and main Aquifer (3rd).

303
 Model Design and Calibration:
Tazerbo well field contains surface, intermediate, main and deep aquifer with mainly
thick confining beds dominantly silt stone aquitards separating them. Bizema Lake in the
south of the modelled area is considered as a vertical water flow from the deep aquifer to
the surface through vertical conductive zones. Geometrical raw data drawn from the well
final reports has been used to draw many cross sections, as part of the modelling
conceptualisation. The N-S and E-W cross sec as shown in figures 4, 6, 9 matching
exactly the actual model layers levels, which are slightly modified to contain most of the
model hydrogeological features of the aquifers in the study area. Fig 9 represent the
conceptual model of this modelling study.The cut off of the northern parts of the first and
second aquitards represented in the model by low vertical leakage (VCONT). The thick
aquitards in other locations of the model layers also represented by relatively high values
of leakage factors (VCONT). In the main and deep aquifers, relatively low vertical
leakages have been assigned to represent the aquitards in the areas of probable fault
planes and unconformities surfaces in the transition zones between Kufra and Sirt basins

North South
O P
600
TZ WELLFIELD Surface Aquifer (1st)
400 Aquitard (1st) Eocen Plistocene
PZ8(S,I&D)
200 PZ3(S&D)
pz1s(swl:
Intermediat Aq (2nd) Lower Devonian Tadrart Formation
0
Main aquifer(3rd)
-200
AMSL Elevation (m)

pz1d(swl: Upper Silurian

-400 286.9)
-600 Deep Aquifer(4rth)
Upper Ordovecian
Aquitard (3rd) Lower Silurian
-800 (Memouniat Formation)
-1000
-1200
BASEMENT
-1400
2897577

2883039

2868501

2853963

2839425

2826700

2820740

2814080

2806620

2798871

2790705

2783138

2775072

2766855

2758439

2749200

2733700

2718200

Northern LTM Coordinates (m)

Fig 9. North to South (O to P) cross-section.

Bizema Lake has been considered as basement high and unconformity surfaces or fault
planes cutting deep allowing the vertical movement of water up to the ground surface,
under a strong vertical hydraulic gradient. The lake as shown in the satellite image in
figure 10 is represented in the model by low hydraulic conductivity barriers cutting deep
down to the basement.
It was not easy to represent the big amount of difference in head between the deep 4th
aquifer and the overlaying aquifers, but with choosing the right hydraulic parameters,
mainly the right vertical leakage, a reasonable match between the actual heads and the
simulated ones has been achieved. In this modelling study the modelled area is 500,000
km2, and a block centred grid of 66 columns and 55 rows were designed to suit the
aquifer properties, gradients, availability of field data, boundary conditions and well

304
locations.The columns widths range from 2600 m at the well field area to 5981 at the
boundaries and the rows heights range from 1820 at the wellfield to 5200 at the
boundaries. Layer one has been chosen to be strictly unconfined and the underlying three
layers are strictly confined. Transmissivity is calculated by PMWIN using the specified
horizontal conductivity and layer thicknesses. Storativity and vertical leakance are
specified directly. The tops and bottoms of model layers have been specified for each
model cell as shown in figure 10. IBOUND array has been used to define the no flow
boundaries and the General-Head Boundary package has been used to define the
hydraulic head at the rest of the aquifer boundaries (fig 11)

TE-6D
TE-6S
2850000 TAZ-8
TAZ-7
TAZ-6
TAZ-5 PIZ-6D
TAZ-4
TAZ-3
TAZ-2 PIZ-2D
TAZ-1
TAZ-9

118A
117A
116
115
114
113
112
111
110
109
108
107
106
105
104
103
102
101
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210214
211
212
213
215
217A
216
218A
PIZ-4D EXP7-D
TE-2D
TE-2S
318
317
316
315
314
313
312
311
310
309
308
307
306
305
304
303
302
301
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418 TE-5S
North(m) LTM

PIZ-5D
518
517
516
515
514
513
512
511
510
509
508
507
506
505
504
503
502
501
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
613A
612
614
615
616
617
618
TE-1D
TE-1S
2800000 TE-3S TE-9
PIZ-14I TE-4S

TE-8D
TE-8S
PIZ-10D
PIZ-12D
EXP8-D TE-7S PIZ-9D

2750000

EXP11-D

200000 250000 300000 350000

East (m) LTM

Fig 10. Top of third layer-2D (m.a.m.s.l).

MODFLOW divides the simulation time into (Stress Periods), which are defined by
the user and computes the heads at an appropriate time intervals (Time Steps) using
(Time Steps Multiplier), to allow for the length of time steps to increase in a geometric
progression. MODFLOW computes the initial time step DELT (1) and the further time
steps DELT (2, 3, 4…) using the following equations.

PERLEN (1 −TSMULT )
DELT (1) = ...............(3.1)
1 − TSMULT NSTP

DELT (A + 1) = TSMULT × DELT (A )..............(3.2)

Where PERLEN is the length of a stress period, TSMULT is the time step multiplier,
NSTP is the number of time steps and DELT (A) is the length of time step A in a stress
period. Tazerbo wellfield started operating at 11/3/2004 with one period of shutdown
from 23/1/2005 up to 9/2/2005; the well field then continued operating up to present. The

305
first stress period chosen to be steady, where only one-pump test will be simulated (28
days). Following the first steady period, 18-stress period of water production have been
recognised. Various operational changes have been considered during the design of the
lengths and numbers of those stress periods, as shown in Table 1.
The actual values of initial heads have been specified for each model cell, of the three
top model layers, while the initial head of the fourth layer, which is tapped only at one
location, has been set arbitrarily.

Table 1. Stress periods design of the transient simulation.

No of Period
Flow Rate
Operating
Period No From Production (m3) Length Operating Wells
(m3/day)
Wells (days)

11/02/04 10/03/04
101,102,104,105,106,108,1
09,110,111,116,117,102,30
6,309,310.311,312,313,314
10/03/04 01/04/04 6683758.2 9800.23
,315,316,317,501,502,503,
504,505,506,512,516,516,5
17,518

101, 102, 104, 105, 106,

107, 108, 109, 110, 111,
204, 205, 206, 207, 208,
209, 210, 212, 213, 214,
215, 216, 401, 301, 302,
22/09/05 15/10/05 11495672 9800.23
303, 305, 306, 307, 308,
309, 310, 311, 312, 313,
314, 315, 316, 505, 506,
507, 509, 510, 511, 512,
513, 515, 516, 517, 518

11/02/04 15/10/05 135105998 612

These initial heads have been used as Hydraulic head at the boundaries for the General-
Head Boundary package (GHB1).Figures 12 show the initial water levels of the Main
Aquifer (before the actual water extraction began at 11/3/2004).
Horizontal hydraulic conductivity and vertical leakage (VCONT) has been specified
and calibrated for the model layers as shown figure 13, where the transmissivity is
calculated by PMWIN using the specified hydraulic conductivity. Specific yield has been
specified for each model cell of the first unconfined aquifer. Storage coefficient has been
specified for each model cell of the three confined aquifers.
General-Head Boundary package has been used to simulate head-dependent flow
boundaries, where all the boundary cells except those defined as no flow boundaries have
been defined by the values of the GHB hydraulic conductance Cb [L^2/T] and
Hydraulic head hb [L]. The Flow through the general-head boundary Qb [L^3/T] is
calculated by MODFLOW using the following equation:

306
Qb = Cb · (hb - h)………………….. (3.3)

In this study initial water levels have been used in all simulation periods as Hydraulic
head at the boundary and the GHB hydraulic conductance Cb ranged from

Simulated Initial

Fig 11. Initial head (m.a.m.s.l) of main aquifer (3rd).

300 to 700 m2/day has been used in all of the aquifers boundaries except the Main aquifer
(3rd), were a value of 1050 m2/day has been used in all of the boundary cells.
The head at the boundary was kept constant through all of the simulation periods. No
real drawdown has been noticed at the modelled boundaries and there is no expectation of
high drawdown at the boundaries in the future at least during lifetime design of the
wellfield (The Longest Operation Scenario). Well package used to define the pumping
wells during deferent stress periods of the well field as designed in table 8. The same flow
rates of all wells have been used in the model; although in the fact they are slightly
deferent, where minor errors have been accepted. Horizontal-Flow Barrier Package was
used to simulate a localised vertical ground water flow, from the deep aquifer, through
thin low-permeability vertical geologic features, up to the ground surface, forming a small
lake (Bizema), as shown in the satellite image in figure 10. Vertical succession of low
conductivities horizontal-flow barriers situated at the boundaries between adjacent cells
and extend vertically from the 4th layer up to the surface has been considered. A
relatively high value of 0.5 1/day has been used as (Hydraulic Conductivity/Thickness)
for all barriers in the unconfined first aquifer (1st) and 0.5 m/day has been used as
(Transmissivity/Thickness) all barriers in the confined aquifers (2nd, 3rd and 4th). Steady
state calibration of vertical leakages between the aquifers has a major role to represent the
considerable amount of piezometric heads variation with depth. Geometry has not been
greatly modified, which is very well defined by drilling information available, horizontal
hydraulic conductivity, boundaries conditions, vertical leakages and horizontal flow

307
barriers have been adjusted until a good match between the simulated and the initially
specified heads has been achieved. Finally simulated heads of the four layers of the
aquifer systems as shown in figure 13, have been saved to be used as initial head for
transient simulation. Transient simulated time is 612 days, including 19 stress periods,
during which the well field produced 135,105,998 m3, as shown in table 1. The
calibration was performed against the available water level data that was measured
manually at deferent time intervals and also against some piezometric hydrographs
recorded by installed data loggers. Although the manually measured water levels were not
taken at regular time intervals, they were distributed evenly over most of the study area.
The data loggers piezometric hydrographs are mainly not accurate because of the defect
happened to them shortly post to their installation time, where only the accurate data
have been used. Although much time was spent in designing the stress periods, some
deflections between the measured and simulated hydrographs have been noticed, that are
probably related to the minor variations of the wells flow rates. Hydraulic parameters
have been specified as observed in the field and adjusted until reasonable match between
the measured and calculated water levels has been attained.

Fig 12. Calibrated hydr-conductivity & vert-Leakage of main aquifer.

Simulated water levels drawdown contours of the main aquifer, at the end of the
transient period, ( figs. 13 and 14 show a good match with the recorded water level
drawdown. Simulated water levels drawdown contours of the surface (1st) and deep
aquifer (4th) at the end of the transient period, show very small responses to the pumping
in the main aquifer (3rd), while the intermediate (2nd) aquifer, which is in direct contact
with pumped main aquifer has higher drawdown responses. However simulated and
observed water level drawdown contours in most of the aquifer system show good mach.

308
 . Operation Scenarios

Five operation scenarios have been used in this modelling study to determine the likely
future drawdown in Tazerbo area. The First objective of those operation scenarios is to
determine the short and long term effect of the existing extraction rate (490,000 m3/day),
when using the existing operating wells distribution, regular
2900000

S1
2880000

2860000 TE6
Tazerbo
t6
t5 t8
t7 S6
t4
t1t9 S2
t3
t2 S13
2840000
....................................
S3 S4 S7
TE2 .................................... Zeeghn TE5
2820000 S5
North (m) LTM

. ..................................
TE1
2800000 TE3 TE9
S14 TE4
TE8
2780000 S10
S12
S8 TE7 S9
2760000 Bizeema

2740000
S11

2720000

2700000
150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000
East (m) LTM
Simulated

Measured

Fig 13. End of transient calibration simulated and observed drawdown (metre below
IWL) of the main aquifer (3rd).

Fig 14. Hydrograph response of PZ3D.

309
distribution of the operating wells in the wellfield and when using the future extraction
rate (1,000,000 m3/day) of the wellfield as shown figure 13. The main characteristics and
the results of the operation scenarios are summarised in table 2

2900000

S1
2880000

2860000 TE6
Tazerbo
t6
t5 t8
t7 S6
t4
t1t9 S2
t3
t2 S13
2840000
....................................
S3 S4 S7
TE2 .................................... Zeeghn TE5
2820000 S5
. ..................................
N(m) LTM

TE1
2800000 TE3 TE9
S14 TE4

TE8
2780000 S10
S12
S8 TE7 S9
2760000 Bizeema

2740000
S11

2720000

2700000
150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000
E (m) LTM

Fig 15. Scenario 4 simulated depth to water (MBG) of the main aquifer.

Table 2. Summary of the operation scenarios results.

Total Time Max Max Max

Total Max
after the last Drawdow Drawdown Drawdow
Simulat Drawdown
period(19) of Discharge n of of n of Main
Scenario No ion of Deep
transient Rate Surface Intermediat (3rd)
Time (4th)
calibration (m3/day) (1st)aquife e (2nd) aquifer
(years) aquifer (m)
(years) r (m) aquifer (m) (m)

Transient
1.67671 0 Actual 7.50E-03 4.74 48.89 1.9
Simulation

4.22466 2.5 490,000 3.32E-02 12.15 72.77 2.25

1a.(Irregular
Well
1a.(Regular
Well 4.22466 2.5 490,000 2.90E-02 9.54 54.9 2.1
Distribution)
2.(Irregular
Well 26.6767 25 490,000 0.3 15.89 81.35 2.53
Distribution)
3.(All Wells) 4.67671 3 1,000,000 6.70E-02 22.3 127.02 3.03

4.(All Wells) 51.6767 50 1,000,000 1.12 45.97 157.38 4.31

Water Budget:

In this model, there are only three Input/output parameters; those are GHB, Wells and
Storage. Table 3 summarises the simulated amounts and rates of the inflow and the
outflow of those parameters and their contributions to the extracted amount of water. The
GHB percentage of contribution to the extracted amount of water ranges from 0% in the
shortest period (612 day) scenario to 47% in the longest period (52 years scenario). The

310
storage percentage of contributions to the extracted amount of water decreases from
100% in the shortest period (612 day scenario) to 53% in the longest period (52 years
scenario). By simple calculation and as this model predicted, the model domain will lose
steadily without pumping from the storage 49,121 m3/day, will lose around 237,665
m3/day during 612 day of pumping with 500,000 m3/day and will lose around 549,374
m3/day if pumped with around 1,000,000 m3/day for 52 years.

Table 3. Summary of the Model Simulations Water Budgets.

Conclusion
The thick confining aquitards with low vertical leakages, their general northward dip,
and the flow restrictions at the northern part of the deep aquifers, are together the reason
behind the high head differences. This head difference drives the slow vertical leakage
from the deep aquifers to the aquifers overlying them. Of major concern is the predicted
drawdown and total pumping lifts throughout the near future and the 50-years period,
where available pumps are designed with only a maximum head of 115m and relatively

311
limited pumpage caused a drawdown of 48 m. Vertical leakages between the aquifers
had a major role in representing the considerable amount of piezometric heads variation
with depth, where the calibrated vertical leakage of the surface aquifer ranges from 1E-7
to 3.1E-6 1/day, the Intermediate aquifer from 7E-9 to 3.1E-8 1/day, the main aquifer
from 2E-9 to 1E-6 1/day. Simulated and observed water levels drawdown at the end of
the transient period of surface aquifer (1st) and deep aquifer (4th), generally show very
small responses to the pumping in the main aquifer (3rd). Operation scenarios of short-
term period and regular well distribution show considerable reduction in the wellfield
drawdown. The maximum computed drawdown in the Main aquifer (3rd) increased from
48.89m at the end of transient simulation period to 157.38 m at the end of the longest
operation scenario (50 years) with the maximum flow 1,000,000 m3/day. An optimisation
study of the best operating wells distributions will provide less drawdown. It is important
to consider conducting a more regional modelling study, with additional calibration and
optimisation, using the newly emerged data and software’s and better recourses.

References

Ahmed, M. U., 1979. Design of Tazerbo Well field: SARLD Department of Water and
Soil, Tripoli, Libya (unpubl).
Ahmed, M.U., 1981. A Quantitative Model of Kufra and Sarir Basins, Libya, 26th
International Geologic Congress Paris.
Bellini, E. & Giori, I.& Ashuri, O.& Benelli, F., 1991. "Geology of Al Kufrah and Sarir
Basins, Libya", In the Geology of Libya (Salem, M.J., Sbeta, A.M., and Bakbak,
M.R. (Eds.), 6, .2155-2184
Brown and Root, 1992. Tazerbo Groundwater Modelling Study. First Stage Report,
Submitted to the Great Man-Made River Authority (unpubl).
Fisk, E. P., Clyde, G., Jeppson, W. J., DeGroot, P. H., Rao, K. B., and Liu, W., 1983.
Hydrogeologic Evaluation of the Coastal Belt Water Project Sarir and Tazerbo
Wellfields, Libya. Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University,
Logan, Utah, USA.
Wright, 1982. Hydrogeology of the Kufra and Sirte Basins Eastern Libya. Quarterly
Journal of Engineering Geology, Vol. 15, pp 60 -110. The Geological Society,
London, England.

312