MRCSP Phase I Geologic Characterization Report - Midwest ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

132 CHARACTERIZATION OF GEOLOGIC SEQUESTRATION OPPORTUNITIES IN THE <strong>MRCSP</strong> REGION geography of Pennsylvanian strata in Michigan, and established a southwestward paleo-sediment transport direction of predominantly fluvial to deltaic sediments. In a detailed study of subsurface data, Vugrinovich (1984) established lithostratigraphy, structure, and isopach thickness relationships, and interpreted depositional environments for Pennsylvanian strata in the central basin area. Recently, Westjohn and Weaver (1998) characterized the areal distribution and lithology of the Saginaw aquifer and confining units (composite Saginaw and Grand River Formations) on the basis of an extensive subsurface study of well logs. NATURE OF LOWER AND UPPER CONTACTS General stratigraphic relationships in the Michigan basin, based on subsurface studies, indicate a major unconformity (the base Absaroka unconformity) underlies Pennsylvanian-age rocks in most areas of the basin, and that another unconformity of probable composite origin occurs at the top of the Pennsylvanian section (Ells, 1979). However, Westjohn and Weaver (1998) and Vugrinovich (1984) suggested that the sandstone-dominated lithofacies at the base of the Pennsylvanian section (the Parma Sandstone of some workers) may interfinger and constitute facies equivalents of the Mississippian-age Bayport Limestone in the central Michigan basin, thus obscuring this regional unconformity contact in places. Jurassic rocks overlie portions of the Pennsylvanian section (mostly in the western basin area); however, lithofacies in the Jurassic “red beds” section appear similar to the highly variable lithofacies of the underlying Pennsylvanian, making the pick between these formations problematic in places. LITHOLOGY AND COAL THICKNESS RELATIONSHIPS The description of the lithologic variability in the Saginaw Formation is based on current stratigraphic schemes used in Michigan (see above discussion). The lithology of the entire Pennsylvanian section is best considered here because this is the interval mapped for this project. Wanless and Shideler (1975) described a gross lithologic subdivision for the Pennsylvanian section in Michigan. “Unit A” (Parma Sandstone and lower portions of the Saginaw Formation of other workers) consists of up to 550 feet of mainly clastics with minor amounts of coals, limestones, and evaporites. The coal occurs in beds generally less than three feet thick, but locally, beds as thick as eight feet thick are reported (Vugrinovich, 1984). Total net coal thickness is typically less than seven feet in this interval. “Unit A” is overlain by “Unit B” (Wanless and Shideler, 1975), an interval of fine-grained clastics with predominantly dark carbonaceous mudstone, minor coal, and limestone (Upper Saginaw Formation and Verne Limestone Member of other workers). Coal is present mainly in the eastern part of the basin in this interval (Wanless and Shideler, 1975). This unit is interpreted as the updip portion of a prograding fluvial deltaic succession with paleosediment transport to the southwest. “Unit B” ranges from zero to185 feet in thickness and has an antithetic thickness relationship to the underlying “Unit A” and the overlying “Unit C.” Coal beds are generally less than three feet in thickness with a composite thickness of less than seven feet. “Unit C” (Wanless and Shideler, 1975; Grand River Formation of others) is a predominantly coarse-grained clastics unit with lesser amounts of mudstones, limestones, gypsums, and minor coals. The coal is irregularly distributed and is generally less than three feet in composite thickness in this unit. DISCUSSION OF DEPTH AND THICKNESS RANGES Extensive truncation and deformation of the Pennsylvanian bedrock surface (subcrop) occurred prior to and during Pleistocene glaciation in many areas of the Michigan basin. Thus, the Saginaw rocks lie at relatively shallow depths directly below the Pleistocene deposits (maximum depth of 310 feet above sea level to a high of 880 feet above sea level—Figure A16-1). Although thickness relationships of the Saginaw/Pennsylvanian section are strongly controlled by the basin-centered subcrop surface, it is also influenced by primary depositional controls resulting from the facies relationships and intra-formational unconformities, with resultant complex isopach relationships formed in probable stacked fluvial-deltaic depocenters (Ells, 1979). The Saginaw, in general, ranges in thickness from zero at the subcrop to more than 650 feet thick in the central Michigan basin (Figures A16-1 and A16-2). Considering the lithologic complexity of the rocks, a lack of consistency in stratigraphic nomenclature, and the lack of core and outcrop data, the formation tops and isopach thicknesses used for the Saginaw Formation in this study (Figure A16-2) most likely represent a composite thickness of the Pennsylvanian strata in the basin. Maximum composite coal bed thickness for the entire Pennsylvanian section is probably less than 12 to15 feet. This thickness may be present only in places in the southern and eastern portions of the study area. A maximum of five percent coal in the entire Pennsylvanian section is a conservative estimate. DEPOSITIONAL ENVIRONMENTS/ PALEOGEOGRAPHY/TECTONISM The Pennsylvanian strata of Michigan were deposited during a period of generally southwestward sediment transport in non-marine, marginal-marine, and open-marine environments. Progradational fluvial and deltaic depositional systems produced variable lithofacies and thicknesses of sediments that periodically contained marine incursions represented by laterally persistent marine limestone and shale units. Pre-Pennsylvanian paleotopography was rather irregular due to moderate pre-Pennsylvanian tectonic warping, which is best illustrated by the relief on the Howell anticline, a major structural feature in the area. This structure is represented by a reentrant in the structure and isopach maps in the southeast corner of the subcrop area (Figures A16-1 and A16-2). The thickness of the Saginaw ranges from approximately 44 feet to more than 380 feet over a distance of approximately ten miles in this area (Wanless and Shideler, 1975). With time, these topographic undulations become obscured by infilling sediments, thus indicating a general tectonic quiescence that persisted during the remainder of Pennsylvanian time. Facies and isopach thickness relationships were apparently influenced by eustatic fluctuations that resulted in transgressive and regressive stratigraphic relationships. SUITABILITY AS A CO 2 INJECTION TARGET OR SEAL UNIT The Saginaw Formation and other Pennsylvanian strata in the Michigan basin are of interest to the <strong>MRCSP</strong> because the unminable coal beds and, possibly, the organic-rich shales may be sequestration targets, even though most are at shallow depths (less than 1000 feet) in the Michigan basin. The maximum thickness of the Pennsylvanian section mapped is between 600 and 700 feet but less than five percent of this thickness consists of coal. Maximum coal thickness reported in any one section is probably less than 12 to15 feet (Vugrinovich, 1984).
APPENDIX A: PENNSYLVANIAN COAL BEDS IN THE MICHIGAN BASIN 133 EXPLANATION 30 ft contours Mean sea elevation (feet) 880 310 550 490 430 430 550 670 790 880 20 10 0 20 40 Miles 20 10 0 20 40 60 Kilometers ³ Figure A16-1.—Structure contour map drawn on the top of the Saginaw Formation.
Page 1 and 2:
Characterization of Geologic Seques
Page 3 and 4:
ABOUT THE MRCSP The Midwest Regiona
Page 5 and 6:
CONTENTS About the MRCSP ..........
Page 7 and 8:
CONTENTS Figure A14-2.—Structure
Page 9 and 10:
1 CHARACTERIZATION OF GEOLOGIC SEQU
Page 11 and 12:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3 (a minimum
Page 13 and 14:
INTRODUCTION TO THE MRCSP REGION’
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROCEDURES, DATA S
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
OIL, GAS, AND GAS STORAGE FIELDS 27
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
CO 2-SEQUESTRATION STORAGE CAPACITY
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
CONCLUSIONS AND REGIONAL ASSESSMENT
Page 55 and 56:
REFERENCES CITED 47 National Confer
Page 57 and 58:
49 APPENDIX A Geologic Summaries of
Page 59 and 60:
APPENDIX A: PRECAMBRIAN UNCONFORMIT
Page 61 and 62:
APPENDIX A: CAMBRIAN BASAL SANDSTON
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
APPENDIX A: BASAL SANDSTONES TO TOP
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
APPENDIX A: UPPER CAMBRIAN ROSE RUN
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
APPENDIX A: KNOX TO LOWER SILURIAN
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
N T R APPENDIX A: KNOX TO LOWER SIL
Page 89 and 90: APPENDIX A: MIDDLE ORDOVICIAN ST. P
Page 91 and 92: -6000 -8000 APPENDIX A: MIDDLE ORDO
Page 93 and 94: APPENDIX A: LOWER SILURIAN MEDINA G
Page 101 and 102: APPENDIX A: NIAGARAN/LOCKPORT THROU
Page 103 and 104: APPENDIX A: NIAGARAN/LOCKPORT THROU
Page 105 and 106: A APPENDIX A: NIAGARAN/LOCKPORT THR
Page 107 and 108: APPENDIX A: MIDDLE SILURIAN NIAGARA
Page 109 and 110: -3000 APPENDIX A: MIDDLE SILURIAN N
Page 111 and 112: APPENDIX A: LOWER DEVONIAN MANDATA
Page 113 and 114: APPENDIX A: LOWER DEVONIAN ORISKANY
Page 121 and 122: APPENDIX A: LOWER DEVONIAN SYLVANIA
Page 123 and 124: -2000 APPENDIX A: LOWER DEVONIAN SY
Page 125 and 126: 25 APPENDIX A: LOWER/MIDDLE DEVONIA
Page 127 and 128: APPENDIX A: DEVONIAN ORGANIC-RICH S
Page 135 and 136: ( ( ( ( APPENDIX A: PENNSYLVANIAN C
Page 137 and 138: APPENDIX A: PENNSYLVANIAN COAL BEDS
Page 139: APPENDIX A: PENNSYLVANIAN COAL BEDS
Page 143 and 144: APPENDIX A: LOWER CRETACEOUS WASTE
Page 151 and 152: APPENDIX A: REFERENCES CITED 143 Sa
Page 153 and 154: APPENDIX A: REFERENCES CITED 145 an
Page 155 and 156: APPENDIX A: REFERENCES CITED 147 lo
Page 157 and 158: APPENDIX A: REFERENCES CITED 149 Pa
Page 159 and 160: APPENDIX A: REFERENCES CITED 151 Th
show all

MRCSP Phase I Geologic Characterization Report - Midwest ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?