PS
Quantifying CO2 Storage Efficiency of Geologic Depositional Environments*
Roland Okwen1, Charles Monson1, Yaghoob Lasemi1, and Nathan Grigsby1
Search and Discovery Article #80419 (2014)**
Posted November 3, 2014
*Adapted from poster presentation given at AAPG 43rd Eastern Section Meeting, London, Ontario, Canada, September 27-30, 2014
**Datapages©2014 Serial rights given by author. For all other rights contact author directly.
1
Illinois State Geological Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL ([email protected])
Abstract
Storage efficiency (E), the ratio of the injected volume of CO2 to the accessible pore volume, quantifies CO2 storage potential in a reservoir. Storage
efficiency is used to make storage resource assessments and to determine distribution of the CO2 at geological carbon storage sites. A single range of E is
typically applied to all depositional environments. This work is intended to improve site selection and screening processes by using numerical modeling
to quantify E ranges for eight depositional environments, namely deltaic, shelf clastic, reef and non-reef shelf carbonate, strandplain, fluvial deltaic,
fluvial-alluvial, and turbidite. Depositional environments were interpreted from core and geophysical log data, and geologic models were developed based
on selected Illinois Basin formations. For example, three unique models for non-reef shelf carbonates were created based on the Mississippian Ste.
Genevieve Limestone, the Devonian Geneva Dolomite, and the Silurian Moccasin Springs Formation at Johnsonville, Miletus, and Tilden Fields,
respectively. At Johnsonville, the Ste. Genevieve contains northeast-southwest trending, elongated oolite shoals and microcrystalline dolomite layers
which both form reservoirs. The Geneva at Miletus consists of a regional high-porosity interval with secondary porosity formed through dolomitization
and dissolution, possibly enhanced on paleotopographic highs over Silurian reefs. At Tilden, the reservoir is a coral and stromatoporoid reef body in the
Moccasin Springs. However, the models were designed to be representative of the different depositional environments and not of any particular field.
Features in cratonic and non-cratonic basins differ in scale but exhibit similar reservoir characteristics, allowing comparisons between depositional
environments in the Illinois Basin and other United States basins. Geologic and petrophysical data from these fields were used as constraints in the
development of geocellular models, which were upscaled for flow simulations. Geologic structures such as domes were removed from the geocellular
models because they influence fluid movement and limit lateral flow of CO2, significantly increasing E regardless of the depositional environment.
Reservoir simulation of CO2 storage in the different depositional environments is ongoing. Preliminary simulation results predict that baseline E can be
increased using operational injection and well completion techniques optimized for CO2 storage.
Roland Okwen, Charles Monson, Yaghoob Lasemi, and Nathan Grigsby
Illinois State Geological Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Geologic Models: Reefs and Shelf Carbonates
CO2Z[VYHNLLɉJPLUJ`,·[OLYH[PVVM[OLPUQLJ[LK]VS\TLVMÅ\PK[V[OLHJJLZZPISLWVYL]VS\TL·
WYV]PKLZHTLHUZ[VX\HU[PM`Z[VYHNLYLZV\YJL;OPZZ[\K`\ZLZU\TLYPJHSTVKLSPUN[VX\HU[PM`,MVY
eight depositional environments.
࠮ .LVSVNPJTVKLSZ^LYLKLZPNULK[VYLWYLZLU[KPɈLYLU[KLWVZP[PVUHSLU]PYVUTLU[Z-PN\YLHUKUV[
ZWLJPÄJÄLSKZ4VKLSZ^LYLKL]LSVWLKIHZLKVUZLSLJ[LK0SSPUVPZ)HZPUMVYTH[PVUZI\[ÄLSKZWLJPÄJ
results (such as uncharacteristically high porosity and permeability) were adjusted when necessary to
make the models more broadly representative of each depositional environment.
Prodedure
࠮ A seven-step process (Figure 1) was used to identify and characterize depositional environments and
JOHYHJ[LYPaL[OLPYZ[VYHNLLɉJPLUJ`
࠮ The Formation Selection, Conceptual Geologic Model, and Geocellular Model stages were
iterative and rigorous to validate that the resulting static reservoir model was representative of the
depositional environment.
Figure 1. Flow chart of the processes involved
PULZ[PTH[PVUVMZ[VYHNLLɉJPLUJ`MVYLHJO
depositional environment.
Depositional Environment
࠮ Facies and depositional environments for the selected formations were interpreted from cores and
geophysical logs.
࠮ 4VKLSZMVY[^VKPɈLYLU[[`WLZVMKLWVZP[PVUHSLU]PYVUTLU[Z·YLLMHUKZOLSMJHYIVUH[LVVPK
NYHPUZ[VULZHUKKVSVTP[L·HYLJVTWHYLKOLYLHZPSS\Z[YH[PVUZVMV\YTL[OVKVSVN`
Shelf Carbonate-Dolomite (Miletus Field)
General Geocellular Development
:[VYHNL,ɉJPLUJ`*HSJ\SH[PVUZ
࠮ 4PSL[\Z6PS-PLSKSPLZVUHUHU[PJSPUHSZ[Y\J[\YL^P[OHZ[LLWLHZ[ÅHURHUKSVJHSPaLKHYJ\H[LNLVTL[Y`
^OPJOTH`YLÅLJ[HU\UKLYS`PUNH[VSSSPRLYLLM-PN\YL
࠮ Geologic models and digital well log and core data were used to develop geocellular models.
࠮ :[VYHNLLɉJPLUJ`PZJHSJ\SH[LK\ZPUN[OLMVSSV^PUNLX\H[PVU!
࠮ The Geneva is a vuggy and sucrosic dolomite which is brecciated and has enhanced porosity and
permeability due to postdepositional dolomitization and dissolution of fossils (example of correlative
formation shown in Figure 5).
࠮ The Geneva play is similar to the Ordovician Red River play in the Williston Basin and the Mississippian
Madison Group of the Rocky Mountain and Northern Great Plains regions.
Figure 4. Structure map on top of the Devonian Geneva
Dolomite at Miletus Field.
࠮ ;OL:PS\YPHU4VJJHZPU:WYPUNZ-VYTH[PVUH[;PSKLU-PLSK^HZ[OLIHZPZVM[OL9LLMTVKLS-PN\YL
࠮ :OLSM*HYIVUH[LTVKLSZ^LYLIHZLKVU[^VVPSÄLSKZ![OL+L]VUPHU.LUL]H+VSVTP[LH[4PSL[\Z
Field, which produces from a vuggy, sucrosic dolomite (Figures 4 and 5), and the Mississippian Ste.
Genevieve Formation at Johnsonville Field, which produces from ooid grainstones and dolomites
࠮ Structural maps and isopachs were used to delineate top and bottom of each reservoir.
E=
࠮ 4HYRLYILKZ^LYL\ZLK[VKLÄULHZ[YH[PNYHWOPJKH[\THUKYLTV]L[OLPUÅ\LUJLVMNLVSVNPJ
Z[Y\J[\YLZZ\JOHZKVTLZPUVYKLY[VPZVSH[L[OLLɈLJ[VM[OLKLWVZP[PVUHSLU]PYVUTLU[VU,
VCO
2
࠮ *VYLKH[H^LYL\ZLK[VJYLH[LWVYVZP[`[VWLYTLHIPSP[`[YHUZMVYTLX\H[PVUZMVYLHJOTVKLSL_HTWSL
shown in Figure 8). In all cases the transform was selected using available data and geologists’
expectations based on reservoir characteristics found in similar reservoirs.
࠮ The realization most representative of the depositional environment was upscaled and used in
reservoir simulations (Figures 9, 10, and 11).
:[VYHNL,ɉJPLUJ`5VYTHSPaH[PVU
࠮ (YHUNLVMZ[VYHNLLɉJPLUJPLZMVYLHJOKLWVZP[PVUHSLU]PYVUTLU[TVKLS^HZKL[LYTPULKMYVT
CO2PUQLJ[PVUZPT\SH[PVUZH[Ä]LKPɈLYLU[]LY[PJHS^LSSSVJH[PVUZ\ZPUN[OYLLTL[OVKZVMLZ[PTH[PUN
࠮ ;OLZ[VYHNLLɉJPLUJ`VMMVYTH[PVUZPZKLWLUKLU[VUYLSH[P]LWLYTLHIPSP[`HUKLUKWVPU[ZH[\YH[PVUZ
–
As a result, the estimated E for each depositional environment was normalized using Sg , the average
CO2ZH[\YH[PVU^P[OPU[OLWS\TL\ZPUN!
pore volume.
VP, type
Where VCO2, and Vp, type represent storage volume of CO2 injected and available pore volume respectively.
࠮ +H[HMYVTKPNP[HS^LSSSVNZ^LYL\ZLK[VJYLH[L]HYPVNYHTZHUKJVUKP[PVUZLX\LU[PHS.H\ZZPHU
simulations, in order to create porosity distributions for each depositional environment.
Results
࠮ Three approaches (Figure 12 and Table 3) were adopted to estimate Vp, type!J`SPUKLYJ\IVPKHUKJ\IL
࠮ ,PZL_WLJ[LK[VPUJYLHZLPUP[PHSS`HUKWSH[LH\V]LY[PTL;OLÄYZ[KLYP]H[P]LVM,K,K[PZHSZV
expected to approach zero as E plateaus (Figure 13).
࠮ Simulations were conducted using both stratigraphic and structural models (Figures 14, 16, and 18).
10.0
9.0
࠮ Statistics for the upscaled shelf carbonate and reef geocellular models are shown in Table 2.
࠮ The size of some models was increased so that E could stabilize and be estimated.
1,000
Barrier/Shoal
g
La
Reservoir Simulations
oo
Platform Margin
n
Storage Efficiency Calculations
Ge
Interpretation of Results
-PN\YL;OL1LɈLYZVU]PSSL3PTLZ[VULMYVT
:JV[[8\HYY`PU0UKPHUH:L`SLYL[HS
;OL1LɈLYZVU]PSSLPZLX\P]HSLU[[V[OL.LUL]H
Dolomite. The fossil allochems (e.g. corals and
IY`VaVHUZHYLHI\UKHU[HUKKP]LYZLPUKPJH[PUN
deposition within a normal marine environment,
I\[\USPRL[OL.LUL]H[OL1LɈLYZVU]PSSLOHZUV[
ILLUHS[LYLKI`KVSVTP[PaH[PVUHUKKPZZVS\[PVU
Open Marine
y
nt l
Sl
op
in
a
gR
mp
Coral Patch Reef
De
ep
nc
Vi
n
en
es
Ba
sin
100
10
-PN\YL.LULYHSPaLKKLWVZP[PVUHSTVKLSVMHZOLSMJHYIVUH[L^P[OYLLMZTVKPÄLKMYVT3HZLTP
2009, and Lasemi et al., 2010).
࠮ -LH[\YLZPUJYH[VUPJHUKUVUJYH[VUPJIHZPUZKPɈLYPUZJHSLI\[L_OPIP[ZPTPSHYYLZLY]VPYJOHYHJ[LYPZ[PJZ
allowing comparisons between depositional environments in the Illinois Basin (the Basin) and other
Reef (Tilden Field)
࠮ Tilden Oil Field (Figure 3) is part of a pinnacle reef bank trend along the platform margin in southern
United States basins (Table 1).
Illinois and into Indiana, and is similar to productive Silurian pinnacle reefs in the Michigan Basin.
Table 1: Examples of formations in US basins with similar depositional environments.
Depositional Environment
US Basin formations
Deltaic
Benoist (Illinois Basin)
Frontier (Rocky Mountain basins)
Shelf Clastic
Shelf Carbonate
Cypress (Illinois Basin)
Tapeats (Colorado Plateau)
Hamilton and Martinez (Sacramento Valley Basin)
࠮ *YVZZZLJ[PVUZHJYVZZ[OLÄLSKPUKPJH[L[OH[[OLYLLMZ[Y\J[\YLZJOHUNLSH[LYHSS`[VKLLWLYTHYPULPU[LY
reef facies.
࠮ ;OLJSLHUJHYIVUH[LMHJPLZPUWYVK\J[P]LHYLHZVM[OLÄLSKPZTHPUS`JVTWVZLKVMJVYHSHUK
stromatoporoid buildups.
0.1
0
5
10
15
20
Strandplain
Reef
Racine (Illinois Basin)
Cisco-Canyon (Permian Basin)
Structural
23–43
100
120
140
160
180
Shelf Clastic
Sandstone
17–41
20–52
18–26
Shelf Carbonate
Limestone
Dolomite
9.5–26
7.5–19
10–28
9.0–19
5.3–7.7
0.0–20
Fluvial Deltaic
Sandstone
36–52
36–51
Strandplain
Sandstone
16–32
30–43
34–88*
Reef
Limestone
14–53
13–56
5.7 –7.1
Fluvial and Alluvial
Sandstone
11–52
17–58
12–55
200
-PN\YL:[VYHNLLɉJPLUJ`HZHM\UJ[PVUVM
time for the reef depositional environment using
the cube pore volume estimation method. For
[OPZL_HTWSLZ[Y\J[\YLOHKUVLɈLJ[VU,
0.0–4.8
0.0–1.9
*Large structure, low dip angle, and thick reservoir
25
Table 5: Normalized CO2]VS\TL[YPJLɉJPLUJ`YHURPUNI`KLWVZP[PVUHSLU]PYVUTLU[.
Reef
Shelf Carbonate—Ooid Grainstones (Johnsonville Field)
࠮ The majority of the Johnsonville Oil Field production is from the Mississippian Ste. Genevieve Formation.
࠮ The primary Ste. Genevieve reservoir bodies are ooid grainstones (Figures 6 and 7) believed to be similar
[V[OVZLJ\YYLU[S`MVYTPUNVU[OL)HOHTH)HURZ:[YH[PNYHWOPJ[YHWWPUNVMÅ\PKZPU[OLZLNYHPUZ[VULZPZ
Dolomite (Shelf Carbonate)
Parameter
+LÄUP[PVU
Applications
VCO2
Reservoir pore volume contacted by
CO2
Area and pore space
5.0
Vp, cube
Pore volume of cube
Area of review
Pore volume of rectangular cuboid
Area of review
-PN\YL 7VYVZP[`KPZ[YPI\[PVUVM[OLZ[Y\J[\YHSSLM[HUKZ[YH[PNYHWOPJYPNO[YLLM
geocellular models (foreground corner removed to reveal internal distribution).
The models match the conceptual geologic model and capture the two dome
Z[Y\J[\YLZPU[LYWYL[LKHZWPUUHJSLYLLMZHUKJVTWHY[TLU[HSPaLK]LY`WVYV\Z
HUKWLYTLHISLaVULZVM]HY`PUNSH[LYHSHUK]LY[PJHSL_[LU[
less than 0.4 km (0.25 mi) wide, 3.2 km (2 mi) long, and 3.0 m (10 ft) thick, but often occur in subparallel
swarms and may coalesce to form thicker or broader reservoir bodies (Figure 6).
࠮ Dolomitization can occur at the base of the shoals and in the interbar mudstones (lower image). These
dolomite reservoirs (Figure 7) have high porosity and permeability, but tend to be more localized than
Dolomite (Shelf Carbonate)
Vp, cylinder
Pore volume of cylinder
Pore space utilization over time
1
Reef
Fluvial and
Alluvial
Shelf
Carbonate
–
Area of review
Edynamic
–
Pore space utilization over time
9
4
5
6
7
8
Conclusions
Stratigraphic model
Structural model
-PN\YL,_[LU[VM[OL*62 plume in the stratigraphic (right) and
Z[Y\J[\YHSSLM[VVPKNYHPUZ[VULTVKLSZH[KH`Z[VWHUKKH`Z
IV[[VT:[VYHNLLɉJPLUJPLZYHUNLKMYVT MVY[OLZ[YH[PNYHWOPJ
TVKLSHUKMVY[OLZ[Y\J[\YHS
10
3
3.0
0
Estatic
2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
-PN\YL:[VYHNLLɉJPLUJ`HZHM\UJ[PVUVM
time for dolomite shelf carbonate using the
cube pore volume estimation method. For this
L_HTWSLZ[Y\J[\YLOHK]LY`ZSPNO[LɈLJ[VU,
࠮ :[VYHNLLɉJPLUJ`,VYHUNLZMYVT[VMVYLPNO[KPɈLYLU[HUK\UPX\LKLWVZP[PVUHS
environment models.
࠮ -S\]PHS+LS[HPJOHZ[OLOPNOLZ[Z[VYHNLLɉJPLUJ`HUK:OLSM*HYIVUH[LOHZ[OLSV^LZ[
࠮ 7YLZLUJLVMZ[Y\J[\YLOHKUVLɈLJ[VUZVTLTVKLSZHUKHSTVZ[KV\ISLK[OLZ[VYHNLLɉJPLUJ`MVY
one depositional model.
8
7
6
dE
ʜ#t
dt
dE
dt
5
E 4

ʘ dEdt dt
3
Ooid Grainstone (Shelf Carbonate)
2
References
6.0
E
1
Seyler, B., J. P. Grube, and Z. Lasemi. 2003. ;OL6YPNPUVM7YVSPÄJ9LZLY]VPYZPU[OL.LUL]H+VSVTP[L4PKKSL+L]VUPHU
>LZ[*LU[YHS0SSPUVPZ)HZPU0SSPUVPZ7L[YVSL\T*OHTWHPNU!0SSPUVPZ:[H[L.LVSVNPJHS:\Y]L`
5.0
0
0
5
10
15
20
t
Figure 13. Conceptual representation of changes in E as a function of time.
-PN\YL5L[PZVWHJOTHWVMHUVVPKNYHPUZ[VULSH`LY
(Fredonia Member, Mississippian Ste. Genevieve
Formation) at Johnsonville Consolidated Field
EV Ranking
Deltaic Turbidite Shelf Clastic Strandplain
2.0
Time (year)
࠮ Ste. Genevieve ooid shoals are generally oriented either northeast-southwest (tidal channels
perpendicular to paleoshoreline) or northwest-southeast (barrier bars along shoreline). They are generally
Fluvial
Deltaic
4.0
1.0
caused by the interbar muds which encompass the clean oolite packstones at the heart of the thicker
shoals.
Depositional
Environment
6.0
Vp, cuboid
Time (years)
Upper Mt. Simon (Illinois Basin)
Fleming Group (Gulf of Mexico Basin)
Pottsville, Parkwood, and Hartselle (Black Warrior Basin)
80
% Change
LɈLJ[VMNLVSVNPJZ[Y\J[\YL
Sandstone
Porosity (%)
࠮ The Ste. Genevieve marine ooid grainstones are similar to parts of the Cretaceous on the Gulf Coast and
Jurassic in the U.S. Eastern and Central Gulf of Mexico.
Ste. Genevieve (Illinois Basin)
Naco and Martin (Colorado Plateau)
Knox (Illinois and Michigan Basins)
Arbuckle (Ozark Plateau)
60
Deltaic
EV (%)
0.01
;HISL!+LZJYPW[PVUVMWHYHTL[LYZPUZ[VYHNLLɉJPLUJ`JHSJ\SH[PVU
ooid grainstones.
40
3P[OVSVN`
Time (year)
1
Pinnacle Reef
࠮ :[VYHNLLɉJPLUJ`JHSJ\SH[PVUZ^LYLIHZLKVUKPɈLYLU[PUQLJ[PVU^LSSWSHJLTLU[ZJLUHYPVZHUK[OYLL
KPɈLYLU[WVYL]VS\TL[`WLZL_WYLZZLKHZYHUNLZVMLɉJPLUJ`
20
Depositional
Environment
Stratigraphic
23–41
Stratigraphic model
Structural model
0
-PN\YL,_[LU[VM[OL*62 plume in the structural (left) and stratigraphic
YPNO[YLLMTVKLSZH[`LHYZ[VWHUK`LHYZIV[[VT:[VYHNL
LɉJPLUJPLZYHUNLKMYVTMVY[OLZ[YH[PNYHWOPJTVKLSHUK
for the structural.
SE
Dolomitizing Fluid Direction
4.0
1.0
Storage Efficiency (%)
ea
5.0
3.0
0.0
Storage Efficiency (%)
ar
Storage Efficiency (%)
nd
Permeability (mD)
Restricted Marine
7.0
6.0
2.0
-PN\YL+PɈLYLU[TL[OVKZ\ZLK[V
LZ[PTH[L[OLH]HPSHISLWVYLHYLH=WMVY
JHSJ\SH[PUNZ[VYHNLLɉJPLUJ`>HYTLY
colors indicate higher CO2 saturation and
blue indicates water.
-PN\YL(WSV[VMWVYVZP[`_H_PZ]ZWLYTLHIPSP[``H_PZ
KH[HMYVTJVYLHUHS`ZPZYLWVY[ZMYVT1VOUZVU]PSSL-PLSK
;OLLX\H[PVUKLÄUPUN[OLSPUL^HZ\ZLK[V[YHUZMVYT
ZPT\SH[LKWVYVZP[`]HS\LZ[VWLYTLHIPSP[`=LY`OPNO
WLYTLHIPSP[`]HS\LZ^LYLZ\ZWLJ[LK[VIL[OLYLZ\S[VM
fractured plugs, so a line was imposed to create the
KLZPYLKWLYTLHIPSP[`¶WVYVZP[`YLSH[PVUZOPW
10,000
Conceptual Geologic Model
La
;HISL!;OL]VS\TL[YPJKPZWSHJLTLU[LɉJPLUJ`,V MVYLHJOKLWVZP[PVUHSLU]PYVUTLU[PZSPZ[LKILSV^
ranging from 7.5% at the lowest to 53% at the highest.
8.0
(Figures 6 and 7).
NW
࠮ The depositional environments have been ranked based on the estimated EV (Table 5). Fluvial deltaic
depositional environment has the highest predicted EV while shelf carbonate has the least.
Reef
model size.
Validate
Geocellular or Static Models
¶
࠮ To estimate E, the values of E= in Table 4 are multiplied by the Sg of the formation.
࠮ 4VKLSWYLKPJ[Z[OLZ[VYHNLLɉJPLUJ`WYVÄSLZMVY[OLYLLMHUKZOLSMJHYIVUH[LMVYTH[PVUZ
(Figures 15, 17, and 19).
࠮ :[VYHNLLɉJPLUJ`VMHZPT\SH[PVUZJLUHYPVPZKL[LYTPULK^OLU,Z[HIPSPaLZ
࠮ ;OL[PTLPU[LY]HSK\YPUN^OPJO,Z[HIPSPaLZPZKPɈLYLU[MVYLHJOTVKLSIHZLKVU[OLWLYTLHIPSP[`HUK
E
Sg
࠮ ;OLUVYTHSPaLKLɉJPLUJ`PZLX\P]HSLU[[V]VS\TL[YPJKPZWSHJLTLU[LɉJPLUJ`E=).
(Figures 14, 16, and 18).
Formation Selection
Validate
Ev =
࠮ Models show CO2 plume distribution over time for the reef and shelf carbonate models
Storage Efficiency (%)
Introduction
4.0
3HZLTP@ H¸*HYIVUH[L:LX\LUJL:[YH[PNYHWO`HUK9LZLY]VPY+L]LSVWTLU[!;OL4PKKSL:PS\YPHU9HJPUL-VYTH[PVUPU
the Sangamon Arch, West-Central Illinois.” AAPG Eastern Section Meeting Program and Abstracts!¶
3.0
2.0
1.0
Stratigraphic model
Structural model
0.0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Lasemi, Y. 2009b. “Oil Potential seen in Silurian Reef-Related Reservoirs in Illinois Sangamon Arch.” Oil and Gas Journal 107
!¶
Time (year)
Fluvial Deltaic
Bridgeport (Illinois Basin)
Domengine (Sacramento Valley Basin)
Fleming Group (Gulf Coast Basin)
Fluvial and Alluvial
Lower Mt. Simon (Illinois Basin)
Tuscaloosa (Gulf Coast Basin)
Stockton and Passaic (Newark Basin)
Turbidite
Carper (Illinois Basin)
Puente (Los Angeles Basin)
-PN\YL7VYVZP[`KPZ[YPI\[PVUVM[OLZ[Y\J[\YHSSLM[HUKZ[YH[PNYHWOPJ
(right) dolomite shelf carbonate geocellular models (foreground corner
removed to reveal internal distribution). The model contains widespread
TVKLYH[LWVYVZP[`NYLLU
Ooid Grainstone (Shelf Carbonate)
Figure 3. Structure contour map of two Silurian reef structures in Tilden Field, showing close to 30.5 m
(100 ft) of closure.
-PN\YL6VPKNYHPUZ[VULZ[VWPTHNLMVYT[OLWYPTHY`:[L
.LUL]PL]LYLZLY]VPYIVKPLZ^P[OZLJVUKHY`WYVK\J[PVUMYVT
dolomites (lower image).
-PN\YL7VYVZP[`KPZ[YPI\[PVUVM[OLZ[Y\J[\YHSSLM[HUKZ[YH[PNYHWOPJ
(right) ooid geocellular models (foreground corner removed to reveal
PU[LYUHSKPZ[YPI\[PVU;OLTVKLSJVU[HPUZJVTWHY[TLU[HSPaLKOPNOS`
porous and permeable reservoirs (representing elongated oolite shoals)
within impermeable limestone and dolomite (blue).
-PN\YL :[VYHNLLɉJPLUJ`HZHM\UJ[PVU
of time for the limestone shelf carbonate
depositional environment using the cube pore
]VS\TLLZ[PTH[PVUTL[OVK-VY[OPZL_HTWSL
Z[Y\J[\YLOHKUVLɈLJ[VU,
Properties of the Reef and Shelf Carbonate Geocellular Models
;HISL!:[H[PZ[PJZMVY[OLKPTLUZPVUZHUKWL[YVWO`ZPJHSWYVWLY[PLZMVYLHJO
geocellular model.
Model
Shelf Carbonate
(Dolomite)
Shelf Carbonate
(Limestone)
Reef
Gridcells in x-direction
215
65
36
Gridcells in y-direction
350
70
44
Gridcells in z-direction
23
23
57
ɣ_M[ɣ_$ɣ`
100
200
200
ɣaM[
3
3
3
Area (ft2)
7.53 x 108
1.82 x 108
6.34 x 107
Total gridcells
1.73 x 106
1.05 x 105
9.03 x 104
Total volume (ft3)
5.19 x 1010
1.26 x 1010
1.08 x 1010
Number of active cells
1.21 x 106
3.82 x 104
4.54 x 104
Total active volume (ft3)
3.63 x 1010
4.58 x 109
5.45 x 109
Depth (min/max) (ft)
3,197/3,911
2,516/2,730
1,626/1,913
Porosity (min/max/mean)
0/0.27/0.14
0.05/0.25/0.12
0/0.20/0.03
0.02/5,772/211
0/1,041.62/2.35
Permeability (min/max/mean) (mD) 0.0/1,717/13.3
3HZLTP@ J¸(7YVTPULU[<UJVUMVYTHISL)V\UKHY`^P[OPU[OL<WWLY5PHNHYHU9HJPUL-VYTH[PVU!9LJVYKVMH4HQVY
Middle Silurian Tectono-Eustatic Event in the Sangamon Arch, West-Central Illinois.” Abstract. GSA Abstracts with Programs
!
Lasemi, Y., B. Seyler, Z. Lasemi, and Z. A. Khorasgani. 2010. :LKPTLU[VSVN`HUK9LZLY]VPY*OHYHJ[LYPaH[PVUVM[OL:PS\YPHU
+LWVZP[ZPU[OL4[(\I\YU;YLUKVM[OL:HUNHTVU(YJO>LZ[*LU[YHS0SSPUVPZ*PYJ\SHY*OHTWHPNU!0SSPUVPZ:[H[L
Geological Survey.
Acknowledgements
-PN\YL,_[LU[VM[OL*62 plume in the stratigraphic (left) and structural
YPNO[VVPKNYHPUZ[VULTVKLSZH[KH`Z[VWHUKKH`ZIV[[VT
:[VYHNLLɉJPLUJPLZYHUNLKMYVT MVY[OLZ[YH[PNYHWOPJTVKLSHUK
MVY[OLZ[Y\J[\YHS
Please visit ^^^JVZPURLɉJPLUJ`VYN for more information.
;OPZWYVQLJ[+,-, PZM\UKLKI`[OL<:+LWHY[TLU[VM,ULYN`[OYV\NO[OL5H[PVUHS,ULYN`;LJOUVSVN`
3HIVYH[VY`5,;3;OYV\NOH\UP]LYZP[`NYHU[WYVNYHT3HUKTHYR:VM[^HYL^HZ\ZLKMVY[OLYLZLY]VPYHUKNLVSVNPJ
TVKLSPUN7OV[VTPJYVNYHWOZI`1HYLK-YLPI\YN0:.: