Ordovician-Cambrian Units: Hierarchical Evaluation of Geologic Carbon Storage Resource Estimates
The Indiana Geological and Water Survey (IGWS) led subtask 1.1 to assess the regional distribution and estimate the storage capacity of Ordovician-Cambrian stratigraphic units located within the partnership region. A comprehensive data set of wireline logs and petrophysical information was used to generate these interpretations. These data include core analysis for porosity and permeability, mercury injection capillary pressure (MICP), and existing well data including location and stratigraphic information. This report includes storage resource estimates (SREs) for three potential storage reservoirs(limestone and dolostone from the Upper Ordovician Trenton Limestone/Black River Group and equivalent units, the Middle Ordovician St. Peter Sandstone, and primary target reservoir rocks of the Lower Ordovician and Upper Cambrian Knox Supergroup and equivalent units) calculated using six methodologies: (1) a fixed value of porosity of 10 percent in all units evaluated; (2) a unique average porosity (per well) from wireline-derived porosity (neutron, sonic, and/or density porosity for each unit); (3) porosity values from core analysis; (4) a depth-dependent porosity model (Knox Supergroup only); (5) porosity based on a model based on petrophysical facies; and (6) SREs using National Energy Technology Laboratory’s CO2 Storage prospeCtive Resource Estimation Excel aNalysis (CO2-SCREEN beta V2). All methods used the same values for thickness for each unit. However, the areal extent of each assessment was limited by the data available for each method. Estimated volumes were calculated in 1-by-1 kilometer grid cells and summarized as county and total stratigraphic unit volumes. The resultant SREs mass are displayed using boxplots, which allow for comparing data statistics (mean values and variability) between methods. Differences observed in SRE results from the six methods are mainly attributable to differences in the data and conceptual models used to interpret or estimate porosity in each method. Based on this systematic variability between methods, it is inferred that methods 1, 4, and 6 are best used for regional-scale reconnaissance estimates of storage capacity while methods 2, 3, and 5 are more appropriate for local scales where more data is required. All estimates are data-density dependent and different methods require different amounts of data for reasonable assessments. ArcMap 10.5.1 software was used to portray SREs to help visualize spatial variance of estimates for each methodology, and more importantly, to highlight those areas having the greatest total storage potential estimates.