--> Abstract: Controls on Porosity and Permeability Within the Carmel Formation: Implications for Carbon Sequestration, by William G. Payne, Peter S. Mozley, Douglas A. Sprinkel, and Andrew R. Campbell; #90124 (2011)
[First Hit]

Datapages, Inc.Print this page

AAPG ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION
Making the Next Giant Leap in Geosciences
April 10-13, 2011, Houston, Texas, USA

Controls on Previous HitPorosityNext Hit and Permeability Within the Carmel Formation: Implications for Carbon Sequestration

William G. Payne1; Peter S. Mozley1; Douglas A. Sprinkel2; Andrew R. Campbell1

(1) Earth and Environmental Science, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, NM.

(2) Geologic Mapping Program, Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, UT.

Having quality data on Previous HitreservoirNext Hit and seal properties for proposed CO2 injection sites is vital for Previous HitpredictingNext Hit and modeling how CO2 will behave in the subsurface. For a proposed sequestration site at the Gordon Creek field (Carbon County, Utah), the Previous HitreservoirNext Hit for the proposed injection unit is the Navajo Previous HitSandstoneNext Hit, with the Carmel Formation acting as the primary seal. We are investigating the controls on Previous HitporosityNext Hit and permeability in both units, with a specific interest in the sealing behavior of the Carmel Formation using a regional outcrop analog study.

The Carmel is a near-shore assemblage of limestone, siltstone, mudstone, Previous HitsandstoneNext Hit, and gypsum. It changes laterally across Utah, from more carbonate-dominated lithofacies in the west, to more clastic-dominated lithofacies in the east. Because of the lateral changes in lithology, it was necessary to examine outcrops of the Carmel at Mt. Carmel Junction and on the San Rafael Swell; equivalent beds of the Twin Creek-Arapien were also examined at Thistle. The Mt. Carmel Junction site is thought to best represent what is at Gordon Creek field.

Samples collected from the three outcrop locations, as well as subsurface samples from the proposed injection site, were analyzed using a combination of petrography, stable isotope geochemistry, and scanning electron microprobe. From preliminary data, quartz overgrowths and pore-filling calcite cements account for most of the Previous HitporosityNext Hit loss in the Carmel. Relatively high IGVs and a dominance of tangential contacts indicate that compaction was not of great importance in reducing Previous HitporosityNext Hit. Previous HitPorosityNext Hit in the limestone beds in the Carmel is low, because they are dominantly carbonate muds. Some detrital quartz grains in both the limestone and Previous HitsandstoneNext Hit beds were partially replaced by calcite. In the shale and mudstone beds, the only macroscopic Previous HitporosityNext Hit is fracture related. There are multiple mineralized fractures throughout the Carmel (gypsum, calcite) that may be preserved at depth. The fractures are mainly developed in limestone and, to a lesser extent, Previous HitsandstoneNext Hit beds. In a few places they can be seen to extend into adjacent mudstone beds.

The underlying Navajo Previous HitSandstoneNext Hit is an eolian cross-bedded Previous HitsandstoneNext Hit that has relatively high Previous HitporosityTop and permeability. In all study localities, the Navajo is cut by prominent deformation bands that would clearly influence flow in potential reservoirs.