Total Organic Carbon, Porosity and Permeability Correlation: A Tool for Carbon Dioxide Storage Potential Evaluation in Irati Formation of the Parana Basin, Brazil

Authors: Richardson M. Abraham-A., Colombo Celso Gaeta Tassinari

Abstract:

The correlation between Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and flow units have been carried out to predict and compare the carbon dioxide (CO₂) storage potential of the shale and carbonate rocks in Irati Formation of the Parana Basin. The equations for permeability (K), reservoir quality index (RQI) and flow zone indicator (FZI) are redefined and engaged to evaluate the flow units in both potential reservoir rocks. Shales show higher values of TOC compared to carbonates, as such,  porosity (Ф) is most likely to be higher in shales compared to carbonates. The increase in Ф corresponds to the increase in K (in both rocks). Nonetheless, at lower values of Ф, K is higher in carbonates compared to shales. This shows that at lower values of TOC in carbonates, Ф is low, yet, K is likely to be high compared to shale. In the same vein, at higher values of TOC in shales, Ф is high, yet, K is expected to be low compared to carbonates.  Overall, the flow unit factors (RQI and FZI) are better in the carbonates compared to the shales. Moreso, within the study location,  there are some portions where the thicknesses of the carbonate units are higher compared to the shale units. Most parts of the carbonate strata in the study location are fractured in situ, hence,  this could provide easy access for the storage of CO₂. Therefore, based on these points and the disparities between the flow units in the evaluated rock types, the carbonate units are expected to show better potentials for the storage of CO₂. The shale units may be considered as potential cap rocks or seals.

Keywords: Total organic carbon, flow units, carbon dioxide storage.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3566273

References:

[1] Caineng Zou, 2012. Unconventional Petroleum Geology in Elsevier, 1st Edition 384 pages.
[2] Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary, Retrieved May 2019 https://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/ Terms/t/toc.aspx.
[3] Yang Y., Kunyu W., Tingshan Z., and Mei X., 2015. Characterization of the Pore System in an Over-Mature Marine Shale Reservoir: A case study of a successful shale gas well in Southern Sichuan Basin, China Petroleum, 1. pp 173 – 186.
[4] Tian D., Nicholas B. H., Korhan A., Cory E. T., and Bren R. N., 2019. The Impact of Composition on Pore Throat Size and Permeability in High Maturity Shales: Middle and Upper Devonian Horn River Group, northeastern British Columbia, Canada. Marine and Petroleum Geology. Vol. 81, pp 220–236.
[5] Feng Y., Zhengfu N., Qing W., Rui Z. and Bernhard M., 2016. Pore structure Characteristics of Lower Silurian Shales in the Southern Sichuan Basin, China: Insights to pore development and gas storage mechanism. International Journal of Coal Geology 156; pp 12–24.
[6] Xue H., Zhou S., Jiang Y., Zhang F, Dong Z., and Guo W., 2018. Effects of Hydration on the Microstructure and Physical Properties of Shale. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 45(6): pp 1146–1153
[7] Richardson M. A and Taioli F., 2018. Hydrocarbon Viability Prediction of Some Selected Reservoirs in Osland Oil and Gas Field, Offshore Niger Delta, Nigeria. Journal of Marine and Petroleum Geology in Elsevier. Vol. 100, pp 195-203.
[8] Electric logs (2019); Porosity and Permeability. Retrieved March 21, 2019, from “Oil on my Shoes ”.http://www.geomore.com/porosity-and-permeability-2/
[9] Tiab D. and Donaldson E. C (2012): Petrophysics: Theory and Practice of Measuring Reservoir Rock and Fluid Transport Properties. Gulf Professional Publishing, Houston Texas. 950 pages.
[10] Schlumberger, 1989. Permeability and Productivity: Log Interpretation Principles and Application, Houston, Schlumberger Education Services. Pp 10-1 to 10-14.
[11] Asquith G. and Krygowski D. (2004): Basic Well Log Analysis. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Methods in Exploration Series: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma, No 16. pp. 12-135.
[12] Carothers J. E., 1968. A Statistical Study of the Formation Factor in Relation to Porosity. The Log Analyst, Vol. 9. pp 38-52.
[13] Asquith, G.B. and Gibson, C.R., 1982. Basic Well Log Analysis for Geologists. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma vol. 66, pp.1-140.
[14] Hilmi S. S. and George V. C., 1999. The Cementation Factor of Archie’s Equation for Shaly Sandstone Reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering Vol. 23. pp 83–93.
[15] Richardson A-A. M. and Taioli F., 2017. Maximising Porosity for Flow Units Evaluation in Sandstone Hydrocarbon Reservoirs (A Case Study of Ritchie’s Block, Offshore Niger Delta) IOSR Journal of Applied Geology and Geophysics (IOSR-JAGG) 5:3 pp 06-16.
[16] Timur, A., 1968. An Investigation of Permeability, Porosity and Residual Water Saturation Relationships for Sandstone Reservoirs. The Log Analyst, Vol. 9 pp 38-52.
[17] Holanda, W., Bergamaschi, S., Santos, A.C., René Rodrigues, R., Bertolino, L.C., 2018. Characterization of the Assistência Member, Irati Formation, Paraná Basin, Brazil: Organic matter and Mineralogy. Journal of Sedimentary Environments,3 (1): pp36-45.
[18] Liu P., Wang X., Horita J., Fang X., Zheng J., Li X. and Meng Q. 2019. Evaluation of Total Organic Carbon Contents in Carbonate Source Rocks by Modified Acid Treatment Method and the Geological Significance of Acid-Soluble Organic Matters. Energy Exploration & Exploitation.Vol. 37(1), pp 219–229.