Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

Environmental Geosciences

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Kirschner, J. P. Articles by Barnes, D. A. GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Geological sequestration capacity of the Dundee Limestone, Michigan Basin, United States

¹ Department of Geosciences and Michigan Geological Repository for Research and Education (MGRRE), Western Michigan University, 1903 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008; j3kirsch{at}wmich.edu
² Department of Geosciences and Michigan Geological Repository for Research and Education (MGRRE), Western Michigan University, 1903 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008dave.barnes{at}wmich.edu

Josh Kirschner holds an M.S. degree in geology from Western Michigan University. His research interests include subsurface geology, carbon sequestration, and tectonics and geodynamics. He is currently a geologist at Devon Energy.

David Barnes is a professor of geosciences and a research scientist at the Michigan Geological Repository for Research and Education at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan. He received his Ph.D. from U.C. Santa Barbara in 1982 with emphasis in sedimentary geology. He worked for SOHIO Petroleum Company in the early 1980s and has been at Western Michigan University since 1986.

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.