Characterization of the Madison Formation, SW Wyoming: First steps in creating a model for carbon sequestration

Geoffrey Thyne, Mark Tomasso, David Budd, Sharon Bywater-Reyes and Brian Reyes

Why do we need to put it anywhere?

Carbon (Dioxide) Emissions

Current increase comes from burning Fossil Fuels Increase in atmosphere is linked to climate changes There will be a Tax on carbon emissions

Carbon Capture and Sequestration

Technology Options for Stabilization
The Stabilisation Wedge
Emission trajectory BAU

Emission trajectory to achieve 500ppm

1 GtC Slices of the Stabilisation Wedge

Where will we need to put it?

North American CO2 Sources

Why do we need a model?

Carbon sequestration models will be required for screening, scoping and permitting of storage facilities. The model requires a geologic framework including stratigraphic, structural and petrophysical data. The primary source for this data are petroleum wells in the study area. Information comes from public sources (WYOGCC, UGSS, WYGS, scientific literature.

Madison Formation Lithostratigraphy

Platform carbonate Early dolomitization six 3rd order sequences Paleozoic section contains CO2, CH4, H2S and He

Study Area

Moxa Arch mile long north-south trending anticline Late Cretaceous uplift to create structure Extensive trap for hydrocarbons (mostly gas) in Mesozoic and Cenozoic sections Paleozoic section contains CO2, CH4, H2S and He Zone of interest is Mississippian Madison Formation

Madison Formation Lithostratigraphy

Literature Review Facies controlled petrophysics with dolomite having better reservoir quality Most good reservoir quality confined to lower two sequences

Core information
Detailed descriptions of the four cores. Recognize several facies (karst breccia, micrite, wackestone, packstone, grainstone). Samples for thin sections, XRD, whole rock chemistry and stable isotopes. Correlate with petrophysical data.

Core information
Primarily dolomitic rock. Thin limestone layers near top of sequences. Fractures in limestones and dolomite with multiple orientations. Karstic only at top of Madison.

Primary petrophysical information

There are 95 wells that penetrate the Madison Formation in the study area Most have geophysical logs Four wells have core Ten wells have standard petrophysical data, 1 foot intervals (porosity, Kx, Ky and Kz, oil and water saturation, density and mineralogy) Two wells have both petrophysical data and core

 Core-based data show:

Facies dependent por-perm

Facies control on porosity and permeability

Petrophysical data from core

Well information
Core-based data show:
Porosity with normal distribution skewed toward lower end Permeability with lognormal distribution

This is the primary data to populate model grid

Petrophysical data from cores

Well information
Core-based data show:
Porosity log Permeability relationship for samples with higher porosity Porosity-permeability relationship is very poor with wide range of permeability for lower porosity samples

Core descriptions and thin sections show fracture-controlled permeability in lower porosity rocks

Potential bias in the petrophysical data

Petrophysical data comes form core. Represents small portion of total formation. Limited sampling of facies. Ten wells have petrophysical data, but from only two locations. One location is in gas cap, one is not.

Dolomite petrophysics by location

CO2 versus no CO2

Average porosity = 1.5 Average porosity in gas cap = 12.6 Average porosity outside gas cap = 7.33

Calcite petrophysics by location

CO2 versus no CO2

Average porosity in gas cap = 2.3 Average porosity outside gas cap = 7.2

Potential bias in the petrophysical data

Petrophysical data comes form core. Represents small portion of total formation. Limited sampling of facies. Ten wells have petrophysical data, but from only two locations. One location is in gas cap, one is not.

Well with core-based petrophysical data have limited sampling of facies

Note position of cores with petrophysical data

Extending the data

Extend petrophysical database (n = 2,671) by calculating logbased porosity for nine wells (n = 11,959). Use sonic logs to reconstruct bulk density where necessary (Gardner et al. 1974), and bulk density logs to calculate porosity (Schlumberger 1972). Calibrate relationship by comparing log-based and measured posoity Used calculated values every 0.5 feet to generate porosity for wells with logs.

Core based porosity

Petrophysical data
core versus log

Petrophysical data
log-based shows no location bias

Modified log-based petrophysical basis

Good reservoir intervals are in third and fourth sequences. Still facies controlled. High porosity zones extend over 10s miles. Trimodal porosity distribution? Three classes in formation. <4%, Mean = 2%, 45% of all porosity values. 4 12%, Mean = 7.5%, 16.5% of all porosity values. >12%, Mean = 14%, 37.7% of all porosity values.

Permeability Isotrophy
Use core based samples with Kh and Kv
N = 985 <4%, n = 470, mean log Kh/Kv = 0.88 4 12%, n = 362 mean log Kh/Kv = 0.77 >12%, n = 153, Mean log Kh/Kv = 0.52

Conclusions
Core based petrophysical data is available to characterize the Madison in the study area. Core-based petrophysical data is somewhat biased by location of cores. Not representative of target entire formation. Can extend the data using geophysical logs. Extended data shows different stratigraphic distribution of reservoir quality than previous work in eastern Wyoming. Petrophysical properties in model will have to be modified.

Questions