Geothermal Potential of Deep Sedimentary Basins in the United States* Tom Anderson1 Search and Discovery Article #30290 (2013)** Posted October 29, 2013

*Adapted from an oral presentation given at AAPG Rocky Mountain Section Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah, September 22-24, 2013 **AAPG©2013 Serial rights given by author. For all other rights contact author directly. 1

Senior Advisor, Energy & Geoscience Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 (www.egi.utah.edu)

Abstract Geothermal energy development has a promising future as part of a broad energy supply mix to meet growing demand in the United States and globally. Currently developed hydrothermal systems are a significant energy source, but these systems have limited geographic extent. Research is underway, including ongoing pilot projects, to evaluate the potential for EGS, or Engineered Geothermal Systems, to drill into hot crystalline rock, and create fractured reservoirs suitable for water injection and production cycles. However, a challenge to the economics of these systems is the drilling and fracturing cost. Co-production of geothermal energy associated with oil operations has been demonstrated successfully at Teapot Dome, where produced water is of sufficient quantity and adequate temperature to generate electricity with binary/hybrid systems. However, this approach has yet to be embraced by the oil industry. A potential new path toward expanded geothermal energy production is to use known porous and permeable reservoir rocks in appropriate sedimentary basins, where those packages of rocks have sufficient temperature, thickness, porosity, and permeability, existing at depths that are not so great that drilling costs make the potential system uneconomic. This presentation describes a DOE-funded project to identify, screen, and model these potential systems, incorporating geology, engineering, and economic modeling disciplines. From a geologic perspective, 17 basins in the western U.S. have been examined. Stratigraphic columns were compiled, including unit depths and thicknesses, along with thermal profiles. Target reservoir sections at appropriate depths and temperatures have been evaluated with respect to porosity and permeability, primarily from available core data, supplemented with wire-line log analysis. For screening purposes, thresholds of < 4 km depth and > 125 °C temperatures were applied to meet economic targets. Results indicate that many of those basins should be excluded, for example, the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming has favorable porous and permeable reservoir rocks and good temperatures for geothermal energy production, but these occur at nearly 6 km, too deep for economic drilling costs. The temperature at the 4 km threshold is only 100-110 °C, in the marginal range for binary geothermal power systems. Based on this work, basins meeting the criteria are the Williston, Denver, Great Basin, Fort Worth, Sacramento, Gulf Coast, and Imperial Valley.

References Cited Crowell, A.M., A.T. Oschner, and W. Gosnold, 2012, Correcting bottom-hole temperatures in the Denver Basin: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, v. 36, p. 201-206. Ehrenberg, S.N., and P.H. Nadeau, 2005, Sandstone vs. carbonate petroleum reservoirs: A global perspective on porosity-depth and porositypermeability relationships: AAPG Bulletin, v. 89/4, p. 435-445. Hills, J.M., 1984. Sedimentation, tectonism, and hydrocarbon generation in Delaware Basin, west Texas and southeastern New Mexico: AAPG Bulletin, v. 68/3, p. 250-267; U. S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-36; 1996. Hovorka, S.D., M.L. Romero, R.H. Treviño, A.G. Warne, W.A. Ambrose, P.R. Knox, and T.A. Tremblay, 2000, Technical summary: optimal geological environments for carbon dioxide disposal in brine-bearing formations (aquifers) in the United States: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, final report prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, under contract no. DE-AC26-98FT40417, 232 p. GCCC Digital Publication Series #00-01. Johnson, K.S., 1989, Geological evolution of the Anadarko basin, in K.S. Johnson, (ed.), Anadarko Basin Symposium, 1988: Oklahoma Geological Survey Circular 90, p. 3–12. Kirby, S.M., 2012, Summary of compiled permeability with depth measurements for basin fill, igneous, carbonate, and siliciclastic rocks in the Great Basin and adjoining regions: Utah Geological Survey Open-File Report, 11 p. plus data tables. McLaughlin, F., and Y. Ganshin, 2010, Wyoming State Geological Survey, in K.E. Clarey, T. Bartos, D. Copeland, L.L. Hallberg, M.L. Clark, and M.L. Thompson, (eds.), Green River Basin Water Plan II – Groundwater Study: Wyoming Water Development Commission and Wyoming State Geological Survey, 486 p Nelson, P.H., and J.E. Kibler, 2003, A Catalog of Porosity and Permeability from Core Plugs in Siliciclastic Rocks: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-420, 75 p. Porro, C., A. Esposito, C. Augustine, and B. Roberts, 2012, An Estimate of the Geothermal Energy Resource in the Major Sedimentary Basins in the United States: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, v. 36, p. 1359-1369. Websites Cited Anderson, T.C., L.A. Johnson, and E.D. Walker, 2009, Oil Production Waste Stream: A Source of Electrical Power: Renewable Energy World North America, November 2009. Online article. Web accessed October 21, 2013.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/01/oil-production-waste-stream-a-source-of-electrical-power Idaho National Laboratory, 2005, Map of Estimated Temperatures at 4 Kilometers, Temperature data provided by Southern Methodist University Geothermal Laboratory: Web accessed October 21, 2013. http://www.smu.edu/geothermal. Tester, J.W., et al., 2006, The Future of Geothermal Energy, MIT Report: Chair for Panel Members: Brian J. Anderson, Anthony S. Batchelor, David D. Blackwell, Ronald DiPippo, Elisabeth M. Drake, John Garnish, Bill Livesay, Michal C. Moore, Kenneth Nichols, Susan Petty, M. Nafi Toksoz, and Ralph W. Veatch, Jr., 372 p. Web accessed October 21, 2013. http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf

Geothermal Potential of Deep Sedimentary Basins in the United States Tom C. Anderson Energy & Geoscience Institute University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, U.S.A.

Introduction • Currently developed hydrothermal systems are a significant energy source, but these systems have limited geographic extent. • Research is underway to evaluate the potential for EGS to drill into hot crystalline rock and create fractured reservoirs suitable for water injection and production cycles. However, a challenge to the economics of these systems is the drilling and fracturing cost. • “Co-production” of geothermal energy associated with oil operations has been demonstrated successfully at Teapot Dome*. However, this approach has yet to be embraced by the oil industry. A potential new path toward expanded geothermal energy production is to use known porous and permeable reservoir rocks in appropriate sedimentary basins, where those packages of rocks have sufficient temperature, thickness, porosity, and permeability, existing at depths that are not so great that drilling costs make the potential system uneconomic. *Anderson,T.C., L.A. Johnson, and E.D.Walker, 2009, Oil Production Waste Stream: A Source of Electrical Power: Renewable Energy World North America, November 2009

Sediment Thickness in the Continental U.S. and Temperature at 4 km Depth Where to start – previous maps on sedimentary basins Tester, Jefferson W., et al, 2006, The Future of Geothermal Energy, MIT Report; http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_ of_geothermal_energy.pdf

Idaho National Laboratory, 2005, Map of Estimated Temperatures at 4 Kilometers, Temperature data provided by Southern Methodist University Geothermal Laboratory; http://www.smu.edu/geothermal

An Interesting Parallel: CO2 Sequestration Screening Study Formations common to this study and mine: Arbuckle Group, OK Basin and Range sandstone and carbonates Frio Formation, TX Lyons Sandstone , DJ Basin Madison Group, Williston

Basins

Formations

Tuscaloosa Group, Gulf Coast Woodbine Formation, TX

Objective: identify “optimal geological environments for carbon dioxide disposal in brine-bearing formations in the United States”. Many CO2 geologic sequestration targets have similarities to deep sedimentary basin geothermal flow units: porosity, areal extent, thickness, volume, depth, continuity, and permeability to flow. Other common parameters include drilling cost effects on economics and reservoir isolation from potable aquifers. Hovorka, S. D., Romero, M. L., Treviño, R. H., Warne, A. G., Ambrose, W. A., Knox, P. R., and Tremblay, T. A., 2000, Technical summary: optimal geological environments for carbon dioxide disposal in brine-bearing formations (aquifers) in the United States: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, final report prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, under contract no. DEAC26-98FT40417, 232 p. GCCC Digital Publication Series #00-01.

Basins Studied • • • • • • • • •

Anadarko Bighorn Delaware/Permian Denver (DenverJulesburg) Fort Worth Great Basin Green River Gulf Coast Hanna (including Laramie and Shirley)

• Imperial Valley (or Salton Trough) • Powder River • Raton • Sacramento • San Joaquin • Uinta/Piceance • Williston • Wind River Eastern basins don’t have the heat

Total Heat in Place for Basins Studied (from Porro, et al 2012) A recent project completed by National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) staff has contributed significantly to the effort to evaluate and screen deep sedimentary basins for geothermal potential. Their study consisted of 15 of the 17 basins I studied (they did not include the Gulf Coast region and the Imperial Valley).

However: • Their areal extent for the Great Basin covered Nevada only and it apparently focused on basin fill sediments rather than Paleozoic reservoirs • They didn’t consider quantitative porosity and permeability or specific potential target reservoirs – so I added these characteristics Porro, Colleen, A. Esposito, C. Augustine, and B. Roberts, 2012, An Estimate of the Geothermal Energy Resource in the Major Sedimentary Basins in the United States; Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 36.

Sedimentary Basin Volume vs.Temperature and Depth for Basins Studied

Hot enough T but deep

Lower T and deep

Hot enough T, depth OK

Threshold lines and annotation overlaid on graphic by present author

The extended abstract (Porro et al, 2012) from their GRC presentation shows an innovative method for illustrating sedimentary volume, depth, and temperatures for all basins they studied. For current study screening purposes, thresholds of < 4 km depth and > 125 °C temperatures were applied to meet economic targets, and these lines and annotation are overlaid on the Porro et al diagram.

Porro, Colleen, A. Esposito, C. Augustine, and B. Roberts, 2012, An Estimate of the Geothermal Energy Resource in the Major Sedimentary Basins in the United States; Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 36.

Doesn’t Make the Grade: Bighorn Basin Structure and Temperatures Results from the Porro et al study indicate that many of the basins should be excluded, for example, the Bighorn Basin has good temperatures for geothermal energy production, but these occur at over 5 km, assumed too deep for economic drilling costs. The temperature at the 4 km threshold is only 100110 °C, in the barely marginal range for binary power systems. Porro, Colleen, A. Esposito, C. Augustine, and B. Roberts, 2012, An Estimate of the Geothermal Energy Resource in the Major Sedimentary Basins in the United States; Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 36.

Denver Basin Structure Map with Temperatures Porro, Colleen, A. Esposito, C. Augustine, and B. Roberts, 2012, An Estimate of the Geothermal Energy Resource in the Major Sedimentary Basins in the United States; Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 36.

The Denver Basin has mid-range potential and should be further evaluated. Recent bottom-hole temperature (BHT) corrected data analysis by Crowell et al (2012) indicates the Denver Basin Dakota Group has better temperatures than previously thought (Porro et al).

Crowell, Anna M., Aaron T. Ochsner, and Will Gosnold., 2012, Correcting bottomhole temperatures in the Denver Basin: Colorado and Nebraska, GRC Trans., 36, 201-206.

Stratigraphic Columns – Sources

Hills J.M., 1984. "Sedimentation, tectonism, and hydrocarbon generation in Delaware basin, west Texas and southeastern New Mexico."American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 68(3), p. 250-267; U. S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-36; 1996

Example Geologic Cross Sections Fred McLaughlin and Yuriy Ganshin, Wyoming State Geological Survey, in Clarey, Keith E., T. Bartos, D. Copeland, L. L. Hallberg, M. L. Clark, and M. L. Thompson, 2010, Green River Basin Water Plan II – Groundwater study: Wyoming Water Development Commission and Wyoming State Geological Survey.

Greater Green River Basin

Anadarko Basin Johnson, K. S., 1989, Geological evolution of the Anadarko basin, in K. S. Johnson, ed., Anadarko basin symposium, 1988: Oklahoma Geological Survey Circular 90, p. 3–12.

Denver Basin Stratigraphic Column Period Tertiary Cretaceous

Formation (Group) Castle Rock Dawson Denver Arapahoe Laramie Fox Hills Pierre Niobrara Codell Carlile Greenhorn Graneros/ "D" SS Mowry Muddy "J" SS Skull Creek Plainview/Dakota Lytle/Lakota Jurassic Morrison Ralston Creek Entrada Triassic Jelm Permian Lykins Lyons Ingleside Pennsylvanian Fountain Mississippian Guernsey Cambrian Flathead

Thickness (ft) Depth (ft) Porosity % Perm. md Lithology Conglomerate 400 SS, Sh 1,200 SS, Sh 1,000 1,200 SS 600 2,200 SS 150 2,800 SS 200 2,950 Sh, SS 6,000 3,150 Sh, LS 350 9,150 SS 20 9,500 Sh 100 9,520 LS 300 9,620 Sh 200 9,920 Sh 200 10,120 SS 500 10,320 Sh 200 10,820 SS 200 11,020 SS 100 11,220 Sh, SS, LS 250 11,320 Sh, LS, SS 100 11,570 Sh, SS 150 11,670 SS 150 11,820 SS 650 11,970 SS 130 12,620 15 45 Dol 330 12,750 19 100 SS 1,200 13,080 14,280 SS 14,280

Temp. °C HC Zones

CBM CBM 100-110 110-120 120-130 120-130 120-130 120-130 120-130 120-130 130-140 130-140 130-140 130-140 130-140 130-140 140-150 140-150 140-150 140-150 140-150

Oil/Gas Oil Oil/Gas

Oil/Gas Oil/Gas Oil/Gas Oil/Gas

Oil/Gas

Sedimentary Basin Stratigraphic Columns Anadarko

Period Tertiary Cretacesous Permian

Formation/Group Ogalla Dakota Elk City Cloud Chief Whitehorse El Reno Hennessey

Chase Council Grove Admire Pennsylvanian Wabaunsee Shawnee Douglas Lansing Kansas City Marmaton Cherokee Atoka Morrow Mississippian Springer Chester Meramac Osage Devonian Woodford Silurian Hunton Ordovician Sylvan Viola Simpson Arbuckle Cambrian

Reagan

Lithology SS SS Gypsum SS, Sh SS, Sh SS, Sh, Evaporites LS Sh, LS Sh Sh LS LS LS, Sh LS, Sh LS Sh, SS Sh Sh, SS Sh, SS Sh, LS, Dol LS LS Sh LS, Dol Sh LS SS, Dol, Sh Dol & interbedded LS SS

Bighorn

Thickness Depth (ft) Porosity % Perm. md 30 30 50 80 170 250 300 550 390 940 600 1,540 400 1,940 150 325 225 500 350 1,000 3,200 300 3,000 3,800 4,300 3,750 1,700 300 1,000 300 750 1,000 2,000 600 1,350 7,600

2,090 2,415 2,640 3,140 3,490 4,490 7,690 7,990 10,990 14,790 19,090 22,840 24,540 24,840 25,840 26,140 26,890 27,890 29,890 30,490 31,840 39,440

15

39,440

Great Basin

100

Lithology Thickness (ft) Depth (ft) Porosity % Perm. md Temp. °C HC Zones Lithology Thickness Depth (ft) Porosity % Perm. md Temp. °C HC Zones Period Formation/Group Conglomerate 400 Cretaceous Fredericksburg LS 400 0 SS, Sh 1,200 Trinity SS 300 400 SS, Sh 1,000 1,200 Permian WichitaCBM Dol 600 700 SS 600 2,200 Pennsylvanian Cisco LS, SS 800 1300 Gas/Oil SS 150 2,800 CanyonCBM LS, Sh 1000 2100 Oil SS 200 2,950 Strawn LS, SS 1600 3100 Oil/Gas Sh, SS 6,000 3,150 100-110 Bend Oil/Gas LS, SS, Sh 2000 4700 Gas/Oil Sh, LS 350 9,150 110-120 MarbleOil Falls LS 350 6700 100-110 Oil SS 20 9,500 BarnettOil/Gas (includes Sh, LS 700 7050 110-120 Gas/Oil Mississippian120-130 Sh 100 9,520 120-130 Forestburg & LS 300 9,620 120-130 Chappel LS) Sh 200 9,920 Ordovician 120-130 Viola Oil/Gas LS 120 7750 120-130 Oil Sh 200 10,120 120-130 Simpson LS, SS, Sh 100 7870 120-130 SS 500 10,320 120-130 Oil/Gas Ellenburger Dol 1500 7970 15 50 130-140 Oil Sh 200 10,820 130-140 Cambrian Wilberns LS, Dol 400 9470 140-150 SS 200 11,020 130-140 Riley Oil/Gas Ss, Ls 300 9870 140-150 SS 100 11,220 130-140 HickoryOil/Gas SS 200 10170 140-150 Sh, SS, LS 250 11,320 130-140 Sh, LS, SS 100 11,570 130-140 Sh, SS 150 11,670 130-140 SS 150 11,820 140-150 SS 650 11,970 140-150 SS 130 12,620 15 45 140-150 Oil/Gas Dol 330 12,750 19 100 140-150 100-110 Period Formation/Group Lithology Thickness Depth (ft) Porosity % Perm. md Temp. °C HC Zones SS 1,200 13,080 140-150 100-110 Tertiary White River SS, LS 300 14,280 110-120 Wasatch SS, Sh 2,300 300 SS 14,280 110-120 Fort Union SS, Sh 1,100 2,600 Coal/CBM 110-120 Cretaceous Lance SS, Sh 1,000 3,700 Oil 110-120 Fox Hills SS 500 4,700 120-130 x Lewis Sh 2,200 5,200 120-130 Mesaverde SS 2,000 7,400 Oil Period Formation/Group Lithology Thickness Depth (ft) Porosity % Perm. md Temp. °C HC Zones Cody/Steele/ Sh, SS 2,500 9,400 14 20 Oil Tertiary Hanna SS, Sh 18,000 Gas, coal Shannon Pierre, Ferris SS, Sh 2,000 18,000 100-150 Niobrara LS, Sh 500 11,900 Oil Cretaceous Medicine Bow SS, Sh 6,000 20,000 150-180 Carlile Sh 300 12,400 Fox Hills SS 200 26,000 180-190 Porosity % Perm. md Temp. °C HC Zones Frontier SS, Sh 700 12,700 100-110 Oil, Gas Lewis Sh 2,100 26,200 190-200 OilMowry Sh 350 13,400 100-110 Oil Mesaverde SS, Sh 2,600 28,300 200-220 OilMuddy SS 50 13,750 24 10 100-110 Oil Steele SS, Sh 2,000 30,900 >220 OilThermopolis 25 400 Gas/Oil Sh 100 13,800 100-110 Niobrara Sh 400 32,900 >220 19.5 2.5 Gas Dakota Group Sh, SS 225 13,900 11 25 100-110 Oil, Gas Frontier Sh 300 33,300 >220 OilMorrison 31 600 Oil Sh, SS 200 14,125 110-120 Mowry Sh 200 33,600 >220 Gas/Oil Jurassic Sundance SS, Sh, LS 330 14,325 110-120 Oil Muddy SS 100 33,800 >220 OilGypsum Spring 100-120 Gas/Oil Evap, Sh 150 14,655 110-120 Thermopolis Sh, 150 33,900 >220 Triassic Chugwater SS, Sh 675 14,805 110-120 Bentonite 28.5 100 120-140 Gas/Oil Permian Goose Egg Sh, LS 380 15,480 120-130 Oil SS 100 34,050 >220 OilTensleep/Leo/ Cloverly 140-180 Pennsylvanian SS, Dol 500 15,860 11 20 120-130 Oil Jurassic Morrison SS, Sh 150 34,150 >220 180-200 Gas/Oil Minnelusa Sundance SS, Sh, LS 150 34,300 >220 OilAmsden Sh, SS, LS 200 16,360 120-130 Triassic Chugwater SS, Sh 400 34,450 >220 200-220 Gas/Oil Mississippian Madison LS 600 16,560 17.5 30 130-140 Permian Goose Egg Sh, LS, 200 34,850 >220 220-240 Gas/Oil Devonian Jefferson Sh, SS, Dol 100 17,160 130-140 gypsum 240-260 Gas/Oil Ordovician Bighorn Dol 300 17,260 130-140 SS 300 35,050 11 20 Cambrian >220 OilGallatin Pennsylvanian Tensleep 28 100 240-260 Gas/Oil LS 160 17,560 130-140 Amsden Sh, SS,LS 200 35,350 >220 Gros Ventre SS, Sh, LS 690 17,720 140-150 LS, Dol 500 35,550 >220 260-280 Gas Mississippian Madison Flathead SS 450 18,410 140-150 Cambrian Flathead SS 150 36,050 >220 260-280 260-280 Gas/Oil 25 180 260-280 Gas/Oil

Green River

Temp. °C

Period HC Zones Tertiary Cretaceous

Formation (Group) Castle Rock Dawson Denver Arapahoe Laramie Fox Hills Pierre Niobrara Codell Carlile x Greenhorn Graneros/ "D" SS x Mowry Muddy "J" SS x Skull Creek Plainview/Dakota x Lytle/Lakota Morrison x Jurassic Ralston Creek Entrada Triassic Jelm Permian Lykins Lyons x Ingleside x Pennsylvanian Fountain Mississippian Guernsey Cambrian Flathead

Gulf Coast

Raton

Sacramento

Powder River

Hanna

Period Formation/Group Lithology Thickness Depth (ft) Porosity % Perm. md Temp. °C HC Zones Period Formation/Group Lithology Thickness Depth (ft) Formation/Group Lithology Thickness Depth (ft) Porosity % Perm.Tertiary md Temp. °CBridger SS 2,300 Tertiary Goliad/Willis SS 2,000 Basalts (various) volcanic 300 300 Green River SS, Sh 4,000 2,300 Oil shale Lagarto/Fleming Clay 1,500 2,000 Wasatch SS, Sh 3,200 6,300 Gas Cong, SS, Sh 6000 6300 Tertiary Basin Fill Frio SS 1,500 3,500 SS, Sh 3,000 9,500 Gas Volcanics (various)volcanic 500 6800 100-110 Fort Union Vicksburg LS 500 5,000 SS, Sh 1,000 12,500 Gas Cretaceous North Horn Cong, LS 1500 8300 110-120 Lance Jackson Clays, SS 1,200 5,500 Fox Hills SS 500 13,500 Jurassic Entrada SS 500 8800 120-130 Yegua 1,000 6,700 Cretaceous Mesaverde SS, Sh 7,000 14,000 Oil, Gas Claiborne Group Ss, Clay, 2,000 7,700 Arapien Sh 500 9300 130-140 Baxter (Hilliard) Sh 4,100 21,000 Gas Quartzite Twin Creek LS 200 9500 140-150 Frontier Sh, SS, Bento 1,600 25,100 120-130 Oil, Gas Wilcox SS, Sh 4,000 9,700 Navajo SS 1500 11000 150-160 Mowry Sh 500 26,700 130-140 Oil Midway LS, Sh 1,500 13,700 Triassic Chinle Sh 200 11200 160-170 Muddy SS 50 27,200 140-150 Oil Cretaceous Navarro, Olmos, SS, Sh 2,200 15,200 Moenkopi SS, Sh 1000 12200 170-180 Thermopolis Sh 200 27,250 140-150 Escondido SS 200 27,450 14 40 140-150 Oil Permian Arcturus Group LS 880 13080 180-190 Dakota Taylor/San Miguel Clays 2,000 17,400 SS 100 27,650 140-150 Pennsylvanian Ely Ls LS 1000 14080 190-200 Cloverly Austin Chalk 1,300 19,400 Jurassic 200-210 Morrison LS, SS, Sh 325 27,750 140-150 Mississippian Chainman Sh Sh 1000 15080 Eagle Ford Sh 500 20,700 SS, LS 3,000 28,075 140-150 Joana LS LS 200 15280 210-220 Sundance Woodbine, SS 400 21,200 Gypsum Spring Evap 600 31,075 160-170 Devonian Pilot Sh Sh 300 15580 >220 Tuscaloosa Nugget SS 500 31,675 160-170 Oil Buda LS 100 21,600 Guilmette LS 750 16330 >220 Triassic Chugwater SS, Sh 2,800 32,175 160-170 Del Rio Clays 100 21,700 Simonson Dol 550 16880 10 75 >220 Dinwoody SS 120 34,975 190-200 Georgetown LS 100 21,800 Sevy Dol 710 17590 10 75Permian >220 Phosphoria Carbonates 300 35,095 190-200 Oil Edwards, LS 800 21,900 Silurian Formation/Group Laketown Dol Thickness Depth 250 (ft) 17840 Tensleep (Weber) SS 400 35,395 15 70 200-210 Oil Period Lithology Porosity % 10Perm. md 75Pennsylvanian Temp. °C>220 HC Zones Fredericksburg Ely Springs Alluvium, LS 1500 19340 10 75 >220 Amsden Inter-bedde 250 35,795 200-210 Oil RecentOrdovician Glen Rose LS 500 22,700 260-280 Gas/Oil Mississippian SS 70 36,045 200-210 Oil basalt Quartzite 30 Eureka Quartzite 170 19510 >220 Darwin Pearsall LS, SS 100 23,200 280-300 Gas/Oil LS 1,000 36,115 200-210 Oil, Gas Miocene Devils Pogonip Hole* Congl LS 25 1100 30 20610 >220 Madison Period Gas/Oil Formation/Group Sligo LS 2,000 23,300 280-300 Devonian>220 Darby SS 380 37,115 210-220 Oligocene SS CambrianFarisita* Chisholm Congl, LS 200 55 20810 Tertiary Alluvium Hosston/Travis SS 1,550 25,300 12 9 300-320 Gas/Oil Ordovician Bighorn Dol 300 37,495 210-220 Oil, Gas Eocene Huerfano* Sh, Clyst Howell LS 160 55 20970 >220 Duchesne River Peak Cambrian Gallatin LS 300 37,795 210-220 Cuchara* SS, Clyst 55 Pioche Sh, sltst 440 21410 >220 Jurassic Cotton Valley Sh, LS 1,400 26,850 12.5 25 300-320 Gas Uinta Gros Ventre Inter-bedde 700 38,095 210-220 Paleocene Poison Canyon Congl, SS, Green River Buckner Evap 1,500 28,250 320-340 Gas/Oil Prospect Mtn Quartzite 3000 24410 >220 SS 200 38,795 210-220 Oil Sltst, Sh 1,000 55 Gas Flathead Colton/ Wasatch Smackover LS 850 29,750 340-360 Gas/Oil Paleocene/ Raton SS, Sltst, 1,500 1,055 Oil, Gas, Flagstaff/ Fort Louann Salt Evap 30,600 coal, CBM Cretaceous Sh, coal, Union Triassic Eagle Mills SS, Slt, Congl North Horn Intrusive Upper Vermejo Sh, Sltst, 360 2,555 Oil, Gas, Cretaceous Price River/ Paleozoic Ouachita Cretaceous SS, coal coal, CBM Mesaverde Trinidad SS 255 2,915 7 0.01 Oil, Gas Mancos (including Pierre Sh, Sltst 1,500 3,170 Oil, Gas Castlegate, BlackNiobrara Sh, LS 560 4,670 8 Oil hawk, Emery, and Benton SS, Sh, LS 380 5,230 Gas Ferron SS) Lower Dakota SS, Congl 100 5,610 15 20 Period Oil, Gas Formation/Group Lithology Thickness Depth (ft) Porosity % Perm. md Temp. °C HC Zones Frontier-Mowry Cretaceous SS, Sh Tertiary Mehrten SS, Sh 1,000 Dakota-Cedar Mtn Purgatoire SS, Congl 100 5,710 8 Valley Springs SS, Sh 1,000 1,000 Jurassic Morrison SS,Sh Markley SS 600 2,000 Stump/ Curtis Jurassic Morrison Sh, LS, 150 5,810 7.5 Lithology Thickness Depth (ft) Porosity % Perm. md Temp. °C HC Zones Period Formation/Group Nortonville Sh 400 2,600 Entrada Sltst, Tertiary Tulare SS 2,900 35 700 Domengine SS 400 3,000 Gas Twin Creek/ gypsum, SS San Joaquin Sh 2,300 2,900 Capay Sh 400 3,400 Carmel Ralston Creek Sh, LS, 30 5,960 Etchegoin Sh 5,000 5,200 Mokelumme River SS 1,800 3,800 ~30 ~500 Gas Nugget Sltst, Monterey Sh 2,700 10,200 32 800 Oil Cretaceous H&T Sh 250 5,600 Triassic Chinle/ gypsum, SS (Reef Ridge, Starkey SS, Sh 1,000 5,850 Gas Shinarump Entrada Sh, LS, 40 5,990 16 2 Oil, Winters Gas McClure, Santa SS 3,000 6,850 ~25 ~100 100-110 Gas Thaynes/ Sltst, Margarita110-120 SS) Sacramento Sh 700 9,850 Moenkopi gypsum, SS Temblor/Zilch 1,600 12,900 100-110 Forbes/Kione SS, Sh 1,050 10,550 ~20 ~50 120-130SS Gas Permian Weber & Park City Triassic Dockum (Chinle) SS, Shs, LS 1,000 6,030 6 100-110 Vaqueros130-140SS 700 14,500 14.5 30 110-120 Dobbins Sh 375 11,600 Gas Pennsylvanian Lower Weber Permian Bernal Sltst, Sh, 150 7,030 110-120 Leda 260 15,200 120-130 Oil Guinda SS 200 11,975 ~15 ~6 130-140SS Gas Morgan/Minturn Tumey 130-140Sh 1,200 15,460 130-140 Oil San Andreas LS 150 7,180 110-120 Funks Sh 300 12,175 RoundValley Kreyenhagen 1,200 16,660 140-150 Oil Glorieta Tight SS 275 7,330 3.3 110-120 Sites SS 300 12,475 130-140Sh Mississippian Manning Canyon Domengine 950 17,860 150-160 Oil Yeso Sltst, Sh, 500 7,605 120-130 Yolo Sh 300 12,775 140-150SS Doughnut/ Lodo 1,500 18,810 160-170 SS, Dol, Venado SS 300 13,075 140-150Sh, SS Humbug Cretaceous Moreno Sh 700 20,310 170-180 Gas gypsum Deseret Panoche Sh 3,000 21,010 180-190 Permian/Penn Sangre de Cristo LS, arkose, 6,500 8,105 5.2 130-140 Gas Madison/ sylvanian Formation Congl Leadville Pennsylvanian Madera Arkose, LS 700 14,605 140-160 Maxfield *Absent in the Northern Raton Basin. 15,305 s from log data (Table 3) Cambrian Ophir/Dotsero Period

Fort Worth

Denver

Delaware/Permian

Temp. °C HC Zones Period Formation/Group Lithology Thickness Depth (ft) Porosity % Perm. md Temp. °C HC Zones Lithology Thickness Depth (ft) Porosity % Perm. md Period Formation/Group Tertiary Willwood SS, Sh, 2,000 Cretaceous LS 0-90 90 Fredericksburg Carbonates Trinity SS 30 120 Ft. Union SS 6,000 2,000 Gas Triassic SS 250 370 Santa Rosa Cretaceous Lance Ss, Sh 1,000 8,000 Gas/Oil Redbeds, Permian 400 770 Dewey Lake Meeteetse Coal 1,000 9,000 Gas Anhydrite Mesaverde SS, Sh 1,100 10,000 100 870 Rustler Gas/Oil Halite Cody Sh 2,000 11,100 Salado Gas/Oil Halite, 1000 1870 Frontier SS, Sh, 600 13,100 100-110 Gas/Oil Anhydrite Gas Bentonite Anhydrite 1870 Castile Gas Mowry Sh 365 13,700 110-120 Gas/Oil Anhydrite, Bell Canyon 1400 3270 24 40 Muddy SS 300 14,065 110-120 Gas/Oil SS, Sh, Dol Thermopolis Sh 560 14,365 120-130 Cherry Canyon Dol, Sh, SS, 1800 5070 Cloverly SS 350 14,925 120-130 Gas/Oil Anhydrite (San Andres) Jurassic Morrison LS, SS, Sh 200 15,275 130-140 Brushy Canyon Dol-Sandy 100 5170 Gas/Oil Sundance Sh, SS 365 15,475 130-140 (San Andres) Gas/Oil Gypsum Spring Evap 200 15,840 140-150 Bone Spring Dol, SS, Sh, 2500 7670 100-120 Gas/Oil Triassic Chugwater Sh, LS 1,000 16,040 140-150 Anhydrite 120-140 Gas/Oil Permian Park City (PhosphoCarbonates 150 17,040 150-160 LS, Dol 1500 9170 WolfcampOil 140-180 Gas/Oil Pennsylvanian Tensleep SS 200 17,190 16.6 Pennsylvanian 100 150-160 Oil Cisco LS, SS 1250 10420 180-220 Gas/Oil Amsden Inter280 17,390 150-160 Canyon LS, Sh 10420 220-240 Gas/Oil bedded LS, Strawn LS, SS 750 11170 240-250 Gas/Oil Sh, SS Bend LS, SS, Sh 1250 12420 250-260 Mississppian Madison LS 750 17,670 160-170 Morrow Oil LS, SS, Sh 1100 13520 250-260 Oil/Gas Devonian Three Forks Sh, Dol 200 18,420 Mississippian 160-170 LS, Sh 800 14320 260-270 Oil/Gas Ordovician Bighorn Dol 365 18,620 160-170 Devonian Woodford Sh 700 15020 270-280 Cambrian Gallatin LS 400 18,985 170-180 Dol, Chert 1200 16220 280-290 Gros Ventre Inter700 19,385 170-180 Silurian Fusselman Dol, Chert 15 16235 290-300 Oil/Gas bedded LS, Ordovician Montoya Dol, Chert 400 16635 300-320 Oil/Gas Sh, SS Simpson LS, SS, Sh 200 16835 Flathead SS 150 20,085 170-180 Ellenburger Dol 400 17235 15 50 320-380 Cambrian SS 17235 380-400

San Joaquin

Lodore-Tintic/ Sawatch

Uinta/Piceance

Lithology SS, Sh SS Sh Sh, LS SS, Sh Sh, LS

Thickness Depth (ft) Porosity % Perm. md 200 3,000 200 5,000 3,200 6,000 8,200 1,500 14,200 10 1 2,000 15,700

SS, Sh SS

2,500 3,200

17,700 20,200

Sh

5,000

SS, Sh SS, Sh SS, Sh Sh, LS SS LS, Sh

Imperial Valley

Temp. °C

100-120 120-140 140-150

HC Zones

Gas/Oil Gas/Oil Gas

Gas/Oil

23,400

200-220

Gas

350 300 1,100 200 500 650

28,400 28,750 29,050 30,150 30,350 30,850

>220 >220 >220 >220 >220 >220

SS Sh, SS

700 400

31,500 32,200

>220 >220

Sh, LS

1,400

32,600

LS, SS SS LS LS Sh Sh

1,500 1,200 250 300 100 200

34,000 35,500 36,700 36,950 37,250 37,350

LS LS

650 250

37,550 38,200

>220 >220

LS Sh SS, Qtzite

300 50 500

38,450 38,750 38,800

>220 >220 >220

75

>220

12.5

10

>220 >220 >220 >220 >220 >220

Pliocene Miocene

150-160 160-200

18

Period Pleistocene

Oil Period Gas/Oil Gas/OilTertiary

Formation/Group Lithology Alluvium SS, Sh, Slt Brawley/Ocotillo SS, Sh, Slt, Conglomerate Borrego Slt Palm Springs SS Imperial SS, Slt Split Mountain SS, Evap Anza SS Alverson Volcanics

Formation/Group Wind River Indian Meadows Oil Ft Union Oil/Gas Cretaceous Lance Meeteetse Mesaverde Cody Oil Frontier Mowry Muddy Thermopolis Oil Cloverly Oil Jurassic Morrison Sundance Gypsum Spring Triassic Nugget Chugwater Dinwoody Permian Phosphoria Pennsylvanian Tensleep Amsden Mississippian Madison Ordovician Big Horn Cambrian Gallatin Gros Ventre Flathead

Thickness Depth (ft) Porosity % Perm. md 1,000 1,500 1,000

5,600 6,000 3,900 2,700 1,200 700

2,500 8,100 14,100 18,000 20,700 21,900

15 25

Temp. °C

100 250

100-130 130-200 200-280 280-320 320-340 >340

Temp. °C

HC Zones

Wind River Lithology Thickness Depth (ft) Porosity % Perm. md Claystone 5,000 Congl. 5,000 5,000 Sh 4,500 10,000 SS, Sh 3,000 14,500 Coal 2,000 17,500 SS, Sh 300 19,500 Sh 3,000 19,800 Sh, SS 700 22,800 Sh 700 23,500 SS 50 24,200 17.5 0.5 Sh 160 24,250 Sh, SS 125 24,410 LS, SS, Sh 210 24,535 Sh, SS 400 24,745 Evap, Sh 150 25,145 SS 50 25,295 Sh, LS, SS 1,200 25,345 SS 100 26,545 Carbonates 200 26,645 SS 250 26,845 15 70 LS, Sh, SS 200 27,095 LS 500 27,295 Dol 50 27,795 LS 300 27,845 Sh 500 28,145 SS 350 28,645

110-130 130-150 150-170 170-190 190-200 200-210 210-220 210-220 210-220 210-220 210-220 210-220 >220 >220 >220 >220 >220 >220 >220 >220 >220 >220 >220

Gas/Oil Gas/Oil Oil/Gas Oil/Gas Gas/Oil Oil/Gas

Sources, Ages, and Locations of Porosity-Permeability Data Sets No. Authors and Date Geologic Age

Formation Name

Location

Basin / Province

Field

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Aase and others, 1996 Amthor and Okkerman, 1998 Atkinson and others, 1990 Bloch and others, 1990 Bloch, 1991 Bloch and others, 2002 Bourbie and Zinszner, 1985 Bowker and Jackson, 1989 Cant and Ethier, 1984 Castle and Burns, 1998 Cazier and others, 1995 Clark and Reinson, 1990 Corcoran and others, 1994 Cox and others, 1994 Dickinson, 1996 Dolly and Mullarkey, 1996 Dolly and Mullarkey, 1996 Dolly and Mullarkey, 1996 Dolly and Mullarkey, 1996 Dutton and Willis, 1998 Dutton and others, 2003 Ehrenberg, 1990 Estes-Jackson and others, 2001 Ganer, 1985 Gaupp and others, 1993 Grau, 2000 Grigsby and others, 1992 Hall and Link, 1990

Jurassic Permian Permian-Triassic Mississippian Oligocene-Miocene Jurassic Oligocene Permian-Pennsylvanian Early Cretaceous Silurian Oligocene Early Cretaceous Eocene Jurassic Jurassic Pennsylvanian Devonian Early Cretaceous Late Cretaceous Early Cretaceous Permian Middle Jurassic Cretaceous Jurassic Permian Jurassic Paleocene Late Miocene

unnamed formation Slochteren Formation Ivishak Formation Kekiktuk Conglomerate unnamed formation Ile Formation, Fangst Group Fontainebleau Sand Weber Sandstone Falher Member of Spirit River Formation Grimsby Sandstone of Medina Group Mirador Formation Viking Formation Wilcox Group Nugget Sandstone Fulmar Formation, Humber Group Morrow Sandstone Misener Sandstone Muddy Sandstone Frontier Sandstone Fall River Formation Bell Canyon Formation Garn Formation Muddy Formation Cotton Valley Formation Schneverdingen and other formations Brae Formation Wilcox Group Webster Zone, Monterey Formation

North Sea Netherlands Alaska Alaska South China Sea North Sea France Colorado Alberta, Canada Pennsylvania Colombia Alberta, Canada Louisiana Wyoming North Sea Colorado Oklahoma Wyoming Wyoming Wyoming Texas North Sea Wyoming Louisiana Germany United Kingdom Texas California

Central Graben Ula and Gyda fields Permian Basin, North Sea various and unnamed North Slope of Alaska Prudhoe Bay Field North Slope of Alaska Endicott Field unnamed Yacheng Field North Sea Block 6406 Paris Basin, France none Piceance Basin Rangely Field Alberta Deep Basin Elmworth Field Appalachian Basin Cooperstown Field Llanos Basin Foothills Cusiana Field Cretaceous Western Interior Basin Crystal Field Louisiana Gulf Coast Wildsville Field Overthrust Belt Anschutz Ranch East Field Central Graben Puffin Field Las Animas Arch Nee Noche Field Nemaha Uplift Nash Northeast Field Powder River Basin Collums Field La Barge Platform Lincoln Roads Field Powder River Basin Buck Draw Field Delaware Basin East Ford Unit Haltenbanken Area Smorbukk and other fields Wind River Basin Riverton Dome Field North Louisiana Salt Basin Terryville Field North German Basin basin-wide study South Viking Graben East Brae Field Houston Embayment Lake Creek Field Southern San Joaquin Basin Midway-Sunset Field

67 68 69 70

Tillman and Martinsen, 1987 Trevena and Clark, 1986 Wendlandt and Bhuyan,1990 Worden and others, 2000

Late Cretaceous Miocene Cretaceous Oligocene and Miocene

Shannon Sandstone various and unnamed Mesaverde Group unnamed formation

Wyoming Gulf of Thailand Utah South China Sea

Powder River Basin Pattani Basin Book Cliffs Area Nam Con Son Basin

… 70 data sets, 49 basins worldwide

Hartzog Draw Field Baanpot and other fields none various and unnamed

Nelson, Philip H. and Joyce E. Kibler, 2003, A Catalog of Porosity and Permeability from Core Plugs in Siliciclastic Rocks: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-420.

Sources, Ages, and Locations of Porosity-Permeability Data Sets* No. Authors and Date 59 47 22 44 61 20 33 49 14 25 28 32 36 38 41 56 57 58 63 8 19 21 67 29 42 64 54 69 60 24

Sneider and others, 1977 Morgan and others, 1977 Dutton and others, 2003 Montgomery, 1997 Spain, 1992 Dolly and Mullarkey, 1996 Keighin and others, 1989 Muller and Coalson, 1989 Corcoran and others, 1994 Ganer, 1985 Grigsby and others, 1992 Hosseini and Hayatdavoudi, 1986 Langford and others, 1990 Luffel and others, 1991 Miller and Groth, 1990 Smith, 1985 Smith, 1985 Smith, 1985 Stricklin, 1999 Bowker and Jackson, 1989 Dolly and Mullarkey, 1996 Dutton and Willis, 1998 Tillman and Martinsen, 1987 Hall and Link, 1990 Miller and others, 1990 Taylor and Soule, 1993 Shade and Hansen, 1992 Wendlandt and Bhuyan,1990 Soeder and Randolph, 1987 Estes-Jackson and others, 2001

Geologic Age Formatio Locatio Basin n n

Field

Pennsylvanian Pennsylvanian Permian Permian Permian Late Cretaceous Late Cretaceous Early Cretaceous Eocene Jurassic Paleocene Cretaceous Oligocene Early Cretaceous Cretaceous mid-Cretaceous mid-Cretaceous mid-Cretaceous Late Cretaceous Permian-Pennsylvanian Early Cretaceous Early Cretaceous Late Cretaceous Late Miocene Pleistocene Oligocene Tertiary-Cretaceous Cretaceous Late Cretaceous Cretaceous

Elk City Field Oregon Basin Field East Ford Unit Red Tank Field Rhoda Walker Field Lincoln Roads Field various fields Henry Field Wildsville Field Terryville Field Lake Creek Field wildcat McAllen Ranch Field four counties in E. Texas Baywood Field Rigolets & Ft. Pike Fields False River Field Judge Digby & False River Double A Wells Field Rangely Field Collums Field Buck Draw Field Hartzog Draw Field Midway-Sunset Field South Belridge Field North Belridge Field Natural Buttes Field none Rulison Field Riverton Dome Field

L & M zones Tensleep Bell Canyon Bone Spring Cherry Canyon Frontier Sand Almond Dakota Wilcox Group Cotton Valley Wilcox Group Tuscaloosa Vicksburg Travis Peak Tuscaloosa Tuscaloosa Tuscaloosa Tuscaloosa Woodbine Weber Sand Muddy Sand Fall River Shannon Sand Monterey Tulare 64-zone Sand Wasatch Mesaverde Mesaverde Muddy Sand

Oklahoma Wyoming Texas New Mexico Texas Wyoming Wyoming Wyoming Louisiana Louisiana Texas Louisiana Texas Texas Louisiana Louisiana Louisiana Louisiana Texas Colorado Wyoming Wyoming Wyoming California California California Utah Utah Colorado Wyoming

Anadarko Basin Big Horn Basin Delaware Basin Delaware Basin Delaware Basin Green River Basin Green River Basin Green River Basin Gulf Coast Gulf Coast Gulf Coast Gulf Coast Gulf Coast Gulf Coast Gulf Coast Gulf Coast Gulf Coast Gulf Coast Gulf Coast Piceance Basin Powder River Basin Powder River Basin Powder River Basin San Joaquin Basin San Joaquin Basin San Joaquin Basin Uinta Basin Uinta/Book Cliffs Uinta/Piceance Basin Wind River Basin

Max. Φ % 24.2 22.5 30.6 20.6 29.5 23.7 22.1 22.2 34.7 16.9 16.0 31.2 20.5 17.2 18.0 22.5 28.8 28.5 22.4 18.2 29.6 13.3 17.7 37.0 40.6 19.1 14.5 23.3 11.5 22.4

Max. K md 524.8 758.8 249.0 19.1 169.8 25.0 44.0 630.9 1990.0 416.9 7.8 193.0 2.9 75.9 316.0 851.1 1258.9 1621.8 1215.0 173.8 56.0 89.1 94.0 1445.0 10000.0 281.8 7.8 1393.6 1.0 4.3

*Subset, sorted by basin, from Nelson, Philip H. and Joyce E. Kibler, 2003, A Catalog of Porosity and Permeability from Core Plugs in Siliciclastic Rocks: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-420.

Plots of Permeability (in md) versus Porosity (in %) For Units in Two Basins

+ average + average

~6 md cutoff

~6 md cutoff

Nelson, Philip H. and Joyce E. Kibler, 2003, A Catalog of Porosity and Permeability from Core Plugs in Siliciclastic Rocks: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-420.

Compilation of Porosity and Permeability Data Representing Basins Studied - 1 Basins Anadarko Bighorn Delaware-Permian

GeoCol 8 4 5

Denver-Julesberg

2

Fort Worth Great Basin Green River

3 6 10

Gulf Coast

6

poor moderate good

= 100

Formation Pennsylvanian L&M Tensleep Bone Spring Bell Canyon Cherry Canyon Lyons Sandstone Lyons Sandstone Ingleside Ellenburger Paleozoic carbonates Frontier Sandstone Almond Dakota Travis Peak Wilcox Group Cotton Valley Tuscaloosa Tuscaloosa Vicksburg Travis Peak Woodbine Edwards carbonate Wilcox sandstone Jackson-Yegua sands Frio fluvial sandstone

Ref* Ave Poro Ave Perm Max Poro Max Perm 59 15.0 100.0 24.2 524.8 47 16.6 100.0 22.5 758.8 44 14.4 2.0 20.6 19.1 22 24.0 40.0 30.6 249.0 61 12.5 10.0 29.5 169.8 CRC 13.0 100.0 18.8 1400.0 CRC 15.0 45.0 18.8 159.0 CRC 19.0 100.0 31.0 1905.0 RRC 15.0 50.0 18.0 100.0 UGS 10.0 75.0 18.0 200.0 20 15.0 0.7 23.7 25.0 33 18.0 10.0 22.1 44.0 49 14.0 40.0 22.2 630.9 69E 9.0 1.0 22.0 300.0 14 28.5 100.0 34.7 1990.0 25 12.5 25.0 16.9 416.9 32 28.0 100.0 31.2 193.0 57 22.0 85.0 28.8 1258.9 36 19.5 2.5 20.5 2.9 38 12.0 9.0 17.2 75.9 63 18.0 100.0 22.4 1215.0 70 25.0 179.0 n/a n/a Other sources: 70 24.0 488.0 n/a n/a USGS Core 70 31.0 604.0 n/a n/a Research Center, 70 25.0 432.0 n/a n/a Texas Railroad

Primary source: Nelson, Philip H. and Joyce E. Kibler, 2003, A Catalog of Porosity and Permeability from Core Plugs in Siliciclastic Rocks: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-420.

Commission, Utah Geological Survey, U.S. Dept of Energy

Compilation of Porosity and Permeability Data Representing Basins Studied - 2 Basins Hanna-Shirley-Laramie Imperial Valley Powder River

GeoCol 2 3 6

Raton

2

Sacramento-San Joaquin

5

Uinta-Piceance

4

Williston

2

Wind River

5

poor moderate good

= 100

Formation Tensleep (from PRB) Palm Springs Muddy Sandstone Fall River (Dakota) Shannon Sandstone Tensleep Madison Trinidad Sandstone Entrada Monterey Tulare 64-zone Sandstone Weber Sandstone Mesaverde Group Wasatch Mesaverde Group Lodgepole Interlake Interlake Red River Red River Muddy Tensleep

Ref* Ave Poro Ave Perm Max Poro Max Perm DOE 11.0 20.0 21.1 296.0 DOE 25.0 250.0 33.0 2100.0 19 24.0 10.0 29.6 56.0 21 11.0 25.0 13.3 89.1 67 14.0 20.0 17.7 94.0 DOE 11.0 20.0 21.1 296.0 PP 17.5 30.0 31.4 390.0 CRC 7.0 1.0 13.5 1.0 CRC 16.0 2.0 n/a n/a 29 32.0 800.0 37.0 1445.0 42 35.0 700.0 40.6 10000.0 64 14.5 30.0 19.1 281.8 8 12.5 10.0 18.2 173.8 60 7.5 0.3 11.5 1.0 54 10.0 1.0 14.5 7.8 69 18.0 75.0 23.3 1393.6 CRC 7.3 0.1 20.0 165.0 CRC 11.5 30.0 16.1 320.0 CRC 10.0 20.0 16.6 220.0 CRC 15.0 10.0 24.7 158.0 CRC 13.0 12.0 21.7 108.0 24 17.5 0.5 22.4 4.3 CRC 15.0 70.0 22.0 1000.0

Primary source: Nelson, Philip H. and Joyce E. Kibler, 2003, A Catalog of Porosity and Permeability from Core Plugs in Siliciclastic Rocks: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-420.

Summary of Permeability Data by Lithologic Unit for the Great Basin Depth (m) Lithologic Unit Great Basin basin fill Great Basin igneous rocks All carbonate rocks All siliciclastic rocks Utah and Great Basin carbonate rocks Utah and Great Basin siliciclastic rocks 1

n1 Median 97 110 253 749 250 1750 588 1999 55 1106 59 1535

Permeability (mD)

Minimum Maximum Median 4.2 686 4467 48.8 2243 100 13.9 7214 41 58.2 5530.9 25 13.9 3792.9 292 100 4774.1 32

Minimum Maximum 0.08 177038 0.00 241387 0.13 1111438 0.26 6054 0.13 1111438 0.26 6054

Number of occurrences

Kirby, Stefan M., 2012, Summary of compiled permeability with depth measurements for basin fill, igneous, carbonate, and siliciclastic rocks in the Great Basin and adjoining regions: Utah Geological Survey Open-File Report, 11 p. plus data tables.

Great Basin as defined by Porro, et al (2012)

Average Permeability vs. Average Porosity for Global Petroleum Reservoirs Gulf-Wilcox Anadarko

Bighorn Gulf-Woodbine

Gulf-Frio

San Joaquin

Imperial Valley Gulf-Jackson-Yegua Gulf-Edwards Gulf-Wilcox

Gulf-Tuscaloosa Uinta DelawareGulf-Tuscaloosa Permian Green River Denver-Ingleside Powder River Williston Carbonates

Data points from Table 2 overlaid and annotated on trends Ehrenberg, S.N., and P.H. Nadeau, 2005, Sandstone vs. carbonate petroleum reservoirs: A global perspective on porosity-depth and porosity-permeability relationships: AAPG Bulletin, v. 89/4, p. 435-445.

Symbolic Representation of Porosity, Permeability, Depth, and Temperature for Sedimentary Basins in the Western U.S. Application of screening thresholds of < 4 km depth and > 125 °C temperatures show the only basins meeting the threshold maximum depth and minimum temperature (solid outlines) are the Williston, Denver, Great Basin, Fort Worth, Sacramento, and Raton Basins, plus the Gulf Coast and Imperial Valley added to Porro et al (2012). As a way to show the combined results, the three parameters of Average Porosity, Average Permeability, and Target Depth/ Temperature criteria are illustrated with different display attributes

Conclusions The following basins have adequate temperatures (>125 °C) within maximum depths (10%) reservoir rocks to be considered for additional evaluation and modeling: The best basins identified are highlighted in bold text in this list • Denver (Great Basin and Gulf Coast). The Imperial Valley is a • Fort Worth special case, since there is existing geothermal development and • Great Basin electrical production that can be expanded upon. • Gulf Coast • Imperial Valley • Raton When considering permeability, based on reservoir data • Sacramento evaluated so far, two basins don’t make the cut of minimum • Williston acceptable permeability (approx. 50-100 md): the Raton and the Williston, thus they are italicized in this list. The Denver Basin has mid-range potential and should be further evaluated. Recent bottom-hole temperature (BHT) corrected data analysis by Crowell et al (2012) indicates the Denver Basin Dakota Group has better temperatures than previously thought. This is expected to be even better in the Paleozoic (Permian) Ingleside Dolomite, which has excellent porosity (19%) and permeability (100 md), is not a known producing hydrocarbon zone, and at a depth of 4 km, temperatures could be at > 180 °C. Crowell, A. M., A. T. Oschner, and W. Gosnold, 2012. Correcting bottom-hole temperatures in the Denver Basin. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 36, p. 201-206.

Acknowledgements

This project was partially supported by a contract from the Geothermal Technologies Program of the United States Dept. of Energy (Award DEEE0005128: “Novel Geothermal Development of Sedimentary Basins in the United States,” Moore, J.N. and Allis, R.G., Principal Investigators). This work built upon and extended the pioneering basin screening work by: Porro, Colleen, A. Esposito, C. Augustine, and B. Roberts, 2012, An Estimate of the Geothermal Energy Resource in the Major Sedimentary Basins in the United States; Geothermal Resources Council Transactions,Vol. 36.

Questions?