美国密歇根盆地邓迪石灰岩的地质封存能力

Q2 Earth and Planetary Sciences
Joshua P. Kirschner, D. Barnes
{"title":"美国密歇根盆地邓迪石灰岩的地质封存能力","authors":"Joshua P. Kirschner, D. Barnes","doi":"10.1306/EG.04240909007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Several Middle Devonian formations in the Michigan Basin are potential targets for geological sequestration of CO2, including the Dundee Limestone and the Rogers City Limestone. The Rogers City and Dundee limestones are disparate carbonate formations but are typically combined in subsurface nomenclature as the Dundee Limestone because they are difficult to differentiate in some areas. In much of the basin, however, the Rogers City and Dundee can be differentiated using wireline logs. Subdivision of the two formations was first accomplished in outcrop and is also straightforward in core on the basis of starkly different lithologic properties. Subsurface subdivision is especially important for reservoir characterization and/or geological sequestration studies because the Rogers City and Dundee differ in lithology, thickness, and reservoir properties. Regional geological sequestration capacity estimates for the undifferentiated Dundee Limestone obscure the relative contributions of the Rogers City and Dundee and oversimplify known geological heterogeneity. When evaluated separately using wireline logs supported by limited conventional core studies and porosity and permeability data, the Rogers City is clearly demonstrated to be only a local sequestration target with an estimated geological sequestration capacity of 0.13 Gt. In contrast, storage capacity in the Dundee is estimated at 1.88 Gt. This analysis indicates that the Dundee is a more laterally extensive, regional sequestration target compared to the Rogers City. Individual geological sequestration capacity estimates for the Rogers City and Dundee reflect differences in reservoir properties for the two units and are therefore more geologically defensible than estimates for the undifferentiated Dundee Limestone.","PeriodicalId":11706,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Geosciences","volume":"16 1","pages":"127-138"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Geological sequestration capacity of the Dundee Limestone, Michigan Basin, United States\",\"authors\":\"Joshua P. Kirschner, D. Barnes\",\"doi\":\"10.1306/EG.04240909007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Several Middle Devonian formations in the Michigan Basin are potential targets for geological sequestration of CO2, including the Dundee Limestone and the Rogers City Limestone. The Rogers City and Dundee limestones are disparate carbonate formations but are typically combined in subsurface nomenclature as the Dundee Limestone because they are difficult to differentiate in some areas. In much of the basin, however, the Rogers City and Dundee can be differentiated using wireline logs. Subdivision of the two formations was first accomplished in outcrop and is also straightforward in core on the basis of starkly different lithologic properties. Subsurface subdivision is especially important for reservoir characterization and/or geological sequestration studies because the Rogers City and Dundee differ in lithology, thickness, and reservoir properties. Regional geological sequestration capacity estimates for the undifferentiated Dundee Limestone obscure the relative contributions of the Rogers City and Dundee and oversimplify known geological heterogeneity. When evaluated separately using wireline logs supported by limited conventional core studies and porosity and permeability data, the Rogers City is clearly demonstrated to be only a local sequestration target with an estimated geological sequestration capacity of 0.13 Gt. In contrast, storage capacity in the Dundee is estimated at 1.88 Gt. This analysis indicates that the Dundee is a more laterally extensive, regional sequestration target compared to the Rogers City. Individual geological sequestration capacity estimates for the Rogers City and Dundee reflect differences in reservoir properties for the two units and are therefore more geologically defensible than estimates for the undifferentiated Dundee Limestone.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11706,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Geosciences\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"127-138\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Geosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1306/EG.04240909007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Earth and Planetary Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Geosciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1306/EG.04240909007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Earth and Planetary Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

密歇根盆地的几个中泥盆世地层是二氧化碳地质封存的潜在目标,包括邓迪石灰岩和罗杰斯城市石灰岩。罗杰斯城灰岩和邓迪灰岩是不同的碳酸盐岩地层,但由于在某些地区难以区分,因此通常在地下命名为邓迪灰岩。然而,在盆地的大部分地区,可以使用电缆测井来区分Rogers City和Dundee。首先在露头完成了两个地层的细分,在岩心中也很容易根据截然不同的岩性特征进行细分。由于Rogers City和Dundee在岩性、厚度和储层性质上存在差异,因此地下细分对于储层表征和/或地质封存研究尤为重要。对未分化的邓迪石灰岩的区域地质封存能力估计模糊了罗杰斯城和邓迪石灰岩的相对贡献,并过度简化了已知的地质非均质性。当使用有限的常规岩心研究和孔隙度和渗透率数据支持的电缆测井资料进行单独评估时,罗杰斯城显然只是一个局部封存目标,估计地质封存能力为0.13 Gt。相比之下,邓迪的储存能力估计为1.88 Gt。这一分析表明,与罗杰斯城相比,邓迪是一个更横向广泛的区域性封存目标。罗杰斯城和邓迪的单独地质封存能力估计反映了两个单元储层性质的差异,因此在地质上比未区分的邓迪石灰岩的估计更可靠。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Geological sequestration capacity of the Dundee Limestone, Michigan Basin, United States
Several Middle Devonian formations in the Michigan Basin are potential targets for geological sequestration of CO2, including the Dundee Limestone and the Rogers City Limestone. The Rogers City and Dundee limestones are disparate carbonate formations but are typically combined in subsurface nomenclature as the Dundee Limestone because they are difficult to differentiate in some areas. In much of the basin, however, the Rogers City and Dundee can be differentiated using wireline logs. Subdivision of the two formations was first accomplished in outcrop and is also straightforward in core on the basis of starkly different lithologic properties. Subsurface subdivision is especially important for reservoir characterization and/or geological sequestration studies because the Rogers City and Dundee differ in lithology, thickness, and reservoir properties. Regional geological sequestration capacity estimates for the undifferentiated Dundee Limestone obscure the relative contributions of the Rogers City and Dundee and oversimplify known geological heterogeneity. When evaluated separately using wireline logs supported by limited conventional core studies and porosity and permeability data, the Rogers City is clearly demonstrated to be only a local sequestration target with an estimated geological sequestration capacity of 0.13 Gt. In contrast, storage capacity in the Dundee is estimated at 1.88 Gt. This analysis indicates that the Dundee is a more laterally extensive, regional sequestration target compared to the Rogers City. Individual geological sequestration capacity estimates for the Rogers City and Dundee reflect differences in reservoir properties for the two units and are therefore more geologically defensible than estimates for the undifferentiated Dundee Limestone.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Geosciences
Environmental Geosciences Earth and Planetary Sciences-Earth and Planetary Sciences (all)
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信