dampierland-leveque shelf northwest canning basin arealeveque shelf must therefore rely on migrated...

Dampierland-Leveque ShelfNorthwest Canning Basin Area

Carbon Dioxide Storage ReviewLynton Spencer

February 2005

CO2CRC Report Number: RPT05-0002

Dampierland-Leveque Shelf Northwest Canning Basin Area

Carbon Dioxide Storage Review

February 2005

Lynton SpencerCO2CRC Report Number: RPT05-0002

Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC)

GPO Box 463Level 3, 24 Marcus Clarke StreetCANBERRA ACT 2601Phone: +61 2 6200 3366Fax: +61 2 6230 0448Email: [email protected]: www.co2crc.com.au

Reference: Spencer, L. K, 2005. Dampierland-Leveque Shelf; Northwest Canning Basin Area; Carbon Dioxide Storage Review Febuary 2005. CRC for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Canberra. CO2CRC Report Number RPT05-0002.

© CO2CRC 2005

Unless otherwise specifi ed, the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC) retains copyright over this publication through its commercial arm, Innovative Carbon Technologies Pty Ltd. You must not reproduce, distribute, publish, copy, transfer or commercially exploit any information contained in this publication that would be an infringement of any copyright, patent, trademark, design or other intellectual property right.

Requests and inquiries concerning copyright should be addressed to the Communication Manager, CO2CRC, GPO Box 463, CANBERRA, ACT, 2601. Telephone: +61 2 6200 3366.

v

ContentsExecutive Summary ...............................................................................................................................................1

1. Storage Requirements in the Browse Basin area ............................................................................................3

2. Leveque Shelf — Base Cretaceous Migration Dissolution Prospect .............................................................3

2.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................3

2.2 Introduction (Refer to Figures 1, 2 & 3) ....................................................................................................................4

2.3 Structure (Refer to Figure 3 — Contours TWT Base Cretaceous) .............................................................................5

2.4 Reservoir Quality (Refer to Figures 4 & 5 — Isopach TWT Callovian to Base K and Tables) ...............................5

2.5 Indicative Storage Volume Estimates ........................................................................................................7

3. Leveque Shelf — Carbine Stratigraphic Ponded-Turbidite Prospect ..........................................................8

3.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................8

3.2 Introduction (Refer to Figure 6) .................................................................................................................................8

3.3. Reservoir Quality ......................................................................................................................................9

3.4 Indicative Storage Volume Estimates ........................................................................................................9

4. King Sound — Permo-Carboniferous Migration Dissolution Prospect .....................................................10

4.1 Background (Refer to Figure 1) ...............................................................................................................................10

4.2 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................10

4.3 Regional Seals (Refer to Figures 7, 8 & 9) ..............................................................................................................11

4.3.1 Noonkanbah Formation: (Early Permian) ...................................................................................11

4.3.2 Blina Shale (Early Triassic- Scythian) ..........................................................................................11

5. Reservoirs ........................................................................................................................................................12

5.1 Poole Sandstone .......................................................................................................................................12

5.2 Other Reservoirs ......................................................................................................................................13

6. Indicative Storage Volume Estimates ............................................................................................................13

7. General Canning Basin Summary ..................................................................................................................14

8. References .........................................................................................................................................................15

Figures ...................................................................................................................................................................16

vi

FiguresFigure 1. Location Map of the Leveque Shelf. ......................................................................................................16

Figure 2. Browse Basin Stratigraphic and Petroleum Systems Chart. .................................................................17

Figure 3. The potential injection area on the Leveque Shelf. ................................................................................18

Figure 4. Regional seismic line across the Leveque Shelf. ...................................................................................19

Figure 5. Late Jurassic sediment thickness on the Leveque Shelf. ........................................................................20

Figure 6. Isopach map of the Carbine ponded turbidite prospect. .......................................................................21

Figure 7. Canning Basin: Stratigraphic Chart. ....................................................................................................22

TablesTable 1. Carbon Dioxide Volumes in the Browse Basin Gas Fields. ......................................................................3

Table 2. Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous intersections in exploration wells on the Leveque shelf. ................6

Table 3. Indicative carbon dioxide storage volumes for the Late Jurassic ESSCI on the Leveque shelf. ..............7

Table 4. Indicative carbon dioxide storage volumes for the Carbine ponded turbidite ESSCI. .............................9

Table 5. Noonkanbah Formation intersections in explorations wells in the King Sound area. ...........................11

Table 6. Blina Shale intersections in exploration wells in the King Sound area. .................................................12

Table 7. Poole Sandstone intersections in exploration wells in the King Sound area. .........................................13

Table 8. Indicative carbon dioxide storage volumes for the Poole Sandstone ESSCI. .........................................14

Figure 8. Geological cross sections over two exploration prospects in the King Sound area. .............................23

Figure 9. Regional cross-section of the Dampierland Peninsula. ........................................................................24

1

Executive SummaryThis review examines the carbon dioxide storage potential of the Leveque Shelf, onshore Dampierland Peninsula and north-western onshore Canning Basin. This area was not given adequate attention during the fi rst GEODISC assessment. The aim of this report is to establish (or otherwise) that there is reasonable geological evidence for adequate low risk carbon dioxide storage volumes to exist; suffi cient at least, to justify further work.

Previous work on carbon dioxide storage has established that seal integrity is the major factor that must be assessed and risked. Other factors are secondary to this.

The general principals are, if possible, to:

• avoid areas with defi nite fault displacement though the seal facies;

• have clear paleogeographic reasons for the assessment of regional seal continuity; and,

• have clear paleogeographic reasons for the assessment of regional seal effectiveness.

Other seal criteria that are helpful for lower risk long term storage include:

• stacked regional or sub-regional seals are considered favourable based on the concept that injection should occur beneath the deepest seal, with the other seals acting as either baffl es to migration or secondary backup in case the carbon dioxide does leak through the deeper seal;

• semi-consolidated seals are better than lithifi ed seals as there is a better chance they will be self sealing to faults; and,

• structural dips at the reservoir seal interface of less than 2 degrees are best, as in this situation the migration rate is slowest.

At this point in time three main options appear as possible storage sites for the volumes of carbon dioxide considered, either singularly or in combination; all are effectively offshore,

• Leveque Shelf: Base Cretaceous migration dissolution prospect; Late Jurassic to early Cretaceous reservoirs beneath the Cretaceous regional seal.

• Leveque Shelf: Carbine stratigraphic ponded turbidite prospect; intra Cretaceous within regional seal

• King Sound: Permo-Carboniferous migration dissolution prospect; sealed by Permo-Triassic.

Onshore options do exist, but there is insuffi cient time and available data to assess their likely potential. There are several very large anticlines in the Fitzroy Trough that are within 200 km of Point Leveque; Grant Range, Fraser River, and Yulleroo etc. These features are very large and it is likely that any one of them could be an adequate storage option. These features were drilled early in the exploration of the Canning Basin and so the data in the WCR is not of particularly good quality; lack of regionally signifi cant seal facies, poor reservoir quality and major faulting appear to be the most signifi cant risk factors requiring more work to clarify than time permits.

2

Interpretation of the geological data suggest that:

• adequate carbon dioxide storage volumes are likely to be present;

• good quality reservoirs at acceptable depths are present; and,

• good regional seals exist.

This review cannot guarantee that effective storage site(s) exist in this area, but it has established that additional work is warranted and/or required to fully assess the area.

It has not been established that the reviewed storage options are economically or technically feasible.

3

1. Storage Requirements in the Browse Basin AreaLarge volumes of carbon dioxide rich gas reserves have been found in the Browse Basin. On the basis of published data the current storage requirement for petroleum fi eld derived carbon dioxide is ~2.5 – 4.0 TCF; see Table 1 below. Other unpublished sources suggest these fi gures are conservative. It is probable that carbon dioxide generated from processing this fi eld gas to sales gas quality, pumping, injection, refrigeration etc will raise these fi gures further.

Table 1. Carbon Dioxide Volumes in the Browse Basin Gas Fields.

FIELD CO2 RRG TCF Recoverable CO2 TCF Source

% Most

Likely

Upside Most

Likely

Upside

Crux 10.60 1.37 1.37 0.14 0.14 GA from NT DBIRD

Gorgonicthys/Ichthys 10.00 4.07 6.01 0.41 0.60 GA from DoIR

Scott Reef 9.00 12.90 23.00 1.16 2.07 Longley et al, 2001

Brecknock 7.00 7.40 11.30 0.52 0.79 Longley et al, 2001

Brecknock South 7.00 2.97 3.97 0.21 0.28 GA from DoIR

Total Recoverable CO2 2.44 3.88

NB: The Crux CO2 % is estimated from recombined DST data. Karen Earl from Geoscience Australia kindly provide the estimates for Crux,

Gorgonicthys/etc and Brecknock South.

2. Leveque Shelf — Base Cretaceous Migration Dissolution Prospect

2.1 BackgroundThe Browse Basin comprises the Barcoo (southern) and Caswell (northern) Sub-basins. These sub-basins are probably separated by a deep-crustal structural feature, called the Koolan Transfer (Benson et al 2004, their fi gure 8); this feature appears to be associated, and on trend with, the northern margin of the Fitzroy Trough (Figure 3).

Fourteen wells have been drilled on or adjacent to the Leveque Shelf; all have been dry with the possible exception of Arquebus 1 (Table 3). The following comments are based mainly on the results of these wells and the regional overview of Blevin et al 1998.

4

2.2 Introduction (Refer to Figures 1, 2 & 3)

There is good evidence for a regionally effective seal across much of the Leveque-Adele Shelf; an area that was not signifi cantly affected by Miocene compression, implying an absence of recent tectonically induced closure.

The sedimentary section on the Leveque Shelf is mainly post Late Jurassic age, with the Cretaceous section being predominantly a seal facies at a distance of approximately 50-100 km offshore (mainly semi-lithifi ed to unconsolidated claystones and marls); The main seal section is the Jamieson Formation (Aptian to Turonian), although other parts of the Cretaceous section can also be effective seals. The basal section – Late Jurassic and earliest Cretaceous is the main reservoir facies of interest; although there are younger reservoir units present.

It is possible to defi ne an area acceptable for injection based on the following criteria (Figure 3)

• A zone 50 km either side of a direct track from Brecknock Field to landfall at Cape Leveque on the Dampierland Peninsula, which is considered the probable pipeline route for the purposes of this assessment.

• Water depth < 200 m.

• O’Brien et al (2000) have established that the fi rst order control of gas seepage locations (in the Caswell Sub-basin to the north) is related to the thickness of the main regional Cretaceous seal (~Jamieson Formation – BB12 see Figure 2 for nomenclature). In general, gas seeps are seen 10-15 km seaward of the zero edge of this seal, or where the seal thins substantially over basement highs. However, oil seeps tend to occur at the zero edge of the seal; the oil, being less mobile than the gas, is retained beneath the seal even though seal effi ciency is reducing shoreward, both by thinning and the increasing infl uence of sandy facies in this direction. There is no reason to believe that the same principles will not apply on the Leveque Shelf. On this basis, the safe shoreward limit for carbon dioxide migration beneath the regional seal is here defi ned as 15 km seaward of the seismically defi nable zero edge of the regional seal facies; zero edge of BB12 isopach.

• Parts of the deeper Cretaceous section over the Leveque Shelf have been established as mature, but ineffective source rocks (very poor to negligible expulsion effi ciency). Hydrocarbon exploration on the Leveque Shelf must therefore rely on migrated hydrocarbon from deeper, Barcoo or Caswell Sub-basin, mature source rocks.

• The Barcoo Sub-basin is a rift basin. During the Late Tertiary the eastern basin-margin, normal bounding fault, underwent reverse reactivation. This reactivation created the Lombardina-Lynher trend of anticlines, as well as inducing signifi cant faulting through the Cretaceous seal section (Figure 4). Otherwise the Cretaceous section over the Leveque shelf is practically unfaulted. From a hydrocarbon exploration viewpoint, these faults provide the only realistic pathway for hydrocarbons to migrate, from deeper potentially mature source rocks, into the shallower reservoirs. Reservoirs with geologically realistic connection to these faults are localised to the area immediately adjacent, and/or juxtaposed to, the fault planes. As an example Arquebus 1, on the Lombardina-Lynher trend, is the only well in the Barcoo Sub-basin which may have an oil column, although this is speculative (Haston & Farrelly, 1993). To broadly minimise the risk to hydrocarbon exploration, the area up dip from the Lombardina-Lynher fault is excluded from consideration for potential injection locations; on the inference that this area is the most likely to have oil that has migrated via the Lombardina-Lynher fault. As it turns out, the south-western edge of this zone is nearly coincident with the edge of the 50 km zone from the direct Brecknock Field to landfall track.

5

• The Koolan Transfer zone demarks the boundary between the Caswell and Barcoo Sub-Basins. This feature is related to Proterozoic fault trends in the Kimberley Block. It has likely served as a sediment transport pathway into the Caswell and Barcoo Sub-basins; at Adele Island 1 which is over this zone, the entire Cretaceous section is silty and sandy, where as, in all other wells the Cretaceous is dominantly a seal facies. To lessen this risk to regional seal integrity a 15 km zone southwest of the Koolan Transfer zone is excluded from consideration for potential injection sites.

Applying these criteria defi nes an area of approximately 85 km * 80 km on the Leveque Shelf, at a median distance of 150 km from the coast, which is potentially acceptable for carbon dioxide injection (Figure 3).

2.3 Structure (Refer to Figure 3 — Contours TWT Base Cretaceous)

Mapping shows a regional dip slope up on to a near shore culmination, coincident with an approximate east west drainage cell axis from Cape Leveque into the offshore (Figure 3 drainage cell axis).

• The gradient at the base Cretaceous is approximately 1.5 degrees; carbon dioxide migration away from an injection site should not be exceptionally rapid.

• The Leveque High is a basement feature over which the Jurassic reservoir section is thin or absent. The Leveque High also occurs near the 800 mSS contour on the base of the Cretaceous seal; this is the depth that roughly corresponds to the carbon dioxide supercritical to gas phase transition. It is generally thought that this is the minimum depth to which carbon dioxide should be allowed to migrate.

• The Leveque High has been tested by Leveque 1 and Psepotus 1. Both wells were dry.

2.4 Reservoir Quality (Refer to Figures 4 & 5 — Isopach TWT Callovian to Base K and Tables)

The reservoirs of interest are in the base Cretaceous and upper Jurassic. Potential reservoir thicknesses are based the isopach mapping; 50 msec TWT equates to approximately 75 m.

The basal reservoir units appear to be very thin or absent over the Leveque and Albert High (Table 2).

In Leveque 1, the section immediately above basement suffered lost circulation with no returns. There is speculation on the cause of this, with suggestions of cavernous limestone and basement gravel lags; the last being favoured on a regional basis with a speculated Jurassic age. At Psepotus 1 it is unclear from available information whether reservoir or basement was encountered beneath the seal.

6

Table 2. Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous intersections in exploration wells on the Leveque shelf.

Well KB WD(m) Top

K

Top Jr Base

Jr

K

(Thk)

Jr

(Thk)

Cretaceous

Section

Jurassic Section Estimated

Reservoir

Porosity Por%

Adele

Island 1

7 -4 160 614 785 454 171 Very sandy section

overlain by lime-

stone

Non seal; section all

sandy

Early Jr Absent

Arquebus 1 18 192 918 2429 3200 1511 771 Good Cretaceous

seal facies

Lynher - Lombardina

trend; possible by-

passed pay

6-12%

Carbine 1 0 0 ? Not drilled to base-

ment

Not penetrated

Kambara 1 25 47 47 397 655 350 258 Non seal facies

very sandy

Early Jr absent, over-

lies Permian

Good reservoir

quality inferred

Lacepede 1 9 68 303 1204 1998 901 794 lower Cretceous

sst good por perm.

Upper Seal

overlies Permian;

good por-perm

Leveque 1 9 87 388 844 895 456 103 Good Cretaceous

/upper Jurassic seal

facies

13m Possibly con-

glomerate/cavernous

lmst Dev-LJr???

Lower section lost

circulation

Lombardina

1

30 145 976 2308 2805 1332 ~500+ Good Cretaceous

/upper Jurassic seal

facies

Residual hydrocar-

bons??

5-9%

Lynher 1 9 67 489 1336 2426 846 1091 Good Cretaceous

seal facies

Lynher - Lombardina

trend; dry hole

19-23%

Minjin 1 33 21 54 442 745 388 303 Non seal facies

very sandy

Good reservoir facies probably high

Perindi 1 21 23 44 470 828 426 358 Non seal facies

very sandy

Good reservoir facies probably high

Psepotus 1 22 49 520 1080 1080 560 0 Good Cretaceous

seal facies

No fi nal WCR avail-

able at GA (drilled

1998)

20m may be present

appears Absent, un-

clear from WCR

Sheherazade

1

22 179 1067 2301 2564 1234 ~260+ Good Cretaceous

seal facies

Lynher - Lombardina

trend; dry hole; good

reservoir

19-22%

Trochus 1 22 69 410 1210 1622 800 ~400+ Good Cretaceous

seal facies

Lynher - Lombardina

trend; dry hole; good

reservoir

22.80%

Wamac 1 10 85 357 1325 1964 968 639 lower Cretceous

sst good por perm.

Upper Seal

Good reservoir facies 20-30%

Porosity variriation in the reservoirs beneath the regional seal appears to be depth dependant in part. According to Maung et al (1992, Figure 8) porosity in the Jurassic section in this area can be expected to be between 5-20% decreasing with depth. On the basis of current, rather poor knowledge, it appears likely that reservoir porosity can be expected to be above 10% updip of Carbine 1 well location. At Trochus 1 reservoir permeability, estimated from RFT, ranges from 94-1132 mD. It is unlikely that permeability would be so poor as to create critical injection problems.

7

2.5 Indicative Storage Volume EstimatesBased on the above information it is possible to make a very basic estimate of the area likely to be affected by carbon dioxide storage for the volumes considered. For injection at a site near or downdip of Carbine 1 and, using fairly conservative parameters, a simplistic model would result in the carbon dioxide occupying an area of 20 km diameter.

Table 3. Indicative carbon dioxide storage volumes for the Late Jurassic ESSCI on the Leveque shelf.

Example ESSCI

Trap Style Base Cretaceous-migration dissolution

Top Formation Depth 1250 mKB

Base Formation Depth 2500 mKB

Water Depth 100 m

Temperature Gradient from Regional 35 deg/km

Area 300 km2

Radius for above area 10 km

Reservoir Thickness 10 m

Porosity 10 %

Irreducible Water Saturation 20 %

Net to Gross 100 %

Trap Geometry Multiplier 1 from chart

Water Bottom Temperature 15 C

Top Formation Temperature 55.25 C

Base Formation Temperature 99.00 C

Top Formation Pressure 1911 psia

Base Formation Pressure 3822 psia

Average Expansion Factor 319 ratio

Pore Volume m3 240,000,000 m3

Reservoir Capacity 2,700,978,310,332 MMSCF

Estimated Reservoir CO2 Capacity 2.7010 TCF

8

3. Leveque Shelf — Carbine Stratigraphic Ponded-Turbidite Prospect

3.1 BackgroundThe Carbine prospect occurs on the Leveque Shelf adjacent to the Barcoo Sub-basin. It is a ponded-turbidite, closest in conception to the Caswell fan complex ESSCI, described in the original GEODISC Stage 1 Basins report (UEI 3). As a type of stratigraphic trap, ponded-turbidites are similar in conception to detached tubidite fans; however, the emplacement mechanism is different. Note that the Caswell Fan Complex is slightly younger than the Carbine Prospect.

Since the GEODISC Stage 1 report was compiled, the Carbine prospect has been delineated and drilled; in 2001. The well was dry, but post drilling examination reveals the prospect to have good to excellent potential for carbon dioxide storage. The following is based on the description by Benson et al (2004).

3.2 Introduction (Refer to Figure 6)

The Carbine prospect is an elongate sand lens, a stratigraphic trap, interpreted to be base and top sealed by Cretaceous age, shelf edge to slope marls and claystones. The reservoir occurs at or near the boundary of BB13 and BB14; near the Kecamp seismic horizon (Figure 2). Base seal is the argillaceous limestones and marls of the Fenelon, Gibson and Woolaston Formations and the top seal is a minimum of 150 m of marine marls; the Borde Marl. The ponded-turbidite is approximately 12 km long and 4 km wide. A maximum thickness of 100 m is estimated based on Benson et al 2004, Figure 11, p. 278.

Benson et al (2004), suggest that top seal failure or lack of connection to source is the main reason the well was dry. However, on the balance of probability, the well was dry primarily due to lack of connection to an active source or secondary migration pathway. Based on available data, the trap does not appear to be breached by signifi cant faults and all current indications are, from seismic and paleogeographic considerations, that this reservoir is effectively sealed.

If this reservoir were to be fi lled with CO2, then the effective column height would be approximately 300 m (the top

at 1200 mSS and the base at 1500 mSS). This is a substantial gas column. There is limited data on seal capacities in this area; although Benson et al 2004 (p. 276), state that the regional seal capacity of Late Cretaceous marls and shales is signifi cant. It may prove to be that, because of seal capacity limitations, the prospect could only be partially fi lled.

No hydrocarbons were discovered at Carbine 1, nor where there any shows. There are no obvious pathways to active source rocks and the surrounding facies are interpreted to be ineffective source rocks. AVO analysis suggests there is no updip gas potential at the Carbine prospect (Benson et al 2004, p. 276)

9

3.3. Reservoir Quality“Carbine-1 penetrated a 77 m thick section of high quality, 100% net to gross sandstone” (Benson et al 2004, p. 269). This sandstone is described as a “medium grained, well sorted, turbidite ...with excellent reservoir characteristics” (Benson et al 2004, p. 276). Regional porosity versus depth plots suggests that porosities to 35% are common at the depth range of the Carbine prospect.

Although there is limited specifi c data currently on open fi le from Carbine 1, the sandstone reservoir is described as being of high quality, 100% net to gross and with excellent reservoir characteristics and is up to 100 m thick. The permeability is therefore expected to be good.

Target depth is relatively shallow; between 1200 and 1500 meters below sea-level. The slope of the trap is approximately 1.5 degrees which suggests migration rates away from the injection site should be moderate.

There is no mention of overpressuring. However, because the reservoir is probably completely sealed, it will be necessary to produce and dispose of the water that would be displaced by the injection of CO

2.

3.4 Indicative Storage Volume EstimatesThe fi gures in Table 4 are indicative for the ponded-turbidite prospect; based on fairly conservative reservoir characteristics.

Table 4. Indicative carbon dioxide storage volumes for the Carbine ponded turbidite ESSCI.

Carbine Prospect

Trap Style Stratigraphic - Ponded Turbidite



Water Depth 81 m



Area 48 km2


Porosity 17.7 %


Net to Gross 95 %









MegaTonnes 137 Megatonnes


10

4. King Sound — Permo-Carboniferous Migration Dissolution Prospect

4.1 Background (Refer to Figure 1)

The general area of the Dampierland Peninsula and south into the Canning Basin is geologically underlain by the Pender Embayment, Moogana Terrace and Fitzroy Trough. The Pender Embayment is the north-western continuation of the Lennard Shelf. It extends beneath King Sound, the Dampierland Peninsula and offshore, as part of the Leveque Shelf.

4.2 IntroductionThe geology of this area is moderately complex and numerous reservoirs that could have carbon dioxide storage potential are present (Figure 7). However, it has proved diffi cult to fi nd potentially workable options in this area. There are several diffi culties, the most signifi cant is that the area is complexly faulted and structured. In the earlier GEODISC study the stratigraphic section was divided into three Megasequences (I-III). Only the youngest of these, Megasequence III, is suffi ciently shallow to be relatively free of the other major problem of the Canning Basin area, an unpredictable porosity loss due to diagenisis. Unfortunately, Megasequence III is also a major ground water resource.

The Canning Basin is one of Australia’s biggest artesian basins. Regional considerations suggest that all clastic reservoirs above the base of the Permo-Carboniferous Grant Group (base Megasequence III; see GEODISC UEI 74) are likely to be fl ushed by fresh water. In the area under consideration, at West Kora 1, salinities in the Grant Formation have been calculated at 1500-2600 ppm NaClequ which is fresh.

King Sound is the only offshore location where there is a signifi cant section of Megasequence III. The following observations suggest that this area has the highest potential for fi nding a workable storage site (Figures 8 and 9).

• Megasequence III dips to the south and likely thins and subcrops King Sound to the north.

• There are two signifi cant regional seal facies; the Blina Shale and Noonkanbah Formation.

• Through-seal faulting may not be signifi cant in this area, particularly north of the Pinnacle fault, though this is not fi rmly established.

• Megasequence III section does not appear to be signifi cantly structured in this area.

• Because the reservoir section probably subcrops King Sound there is a potential for this section to be fl ushed or partially fl ushed by saline water.

• Being offshore, seismic surveys are more easily conducted.

• The section of interest is shallower than 2000 mSS.

11

4.3 Regional Seals (Refer to Figures 7, 8 & 9)

Because seal effectiveness is critical, the WCRs were reviewed to confi rm that regionally effective seals are likely to be present. The results are tabulated and discussed below.

4.3.1 Noonkanbah Formation (Early Permian)The Noonkanbah Formation is a regional marine argillaceous siltstone and shale seal facies. It locally has thin sandstones that are isolated from the regional ground water system; these may also be potential storage locations. In the southern King Sound area the formation is thought to thicken from 300 to 500 meters towards the south.

The Noonkanbah Formation appears to be a potentially effective regional seal across the central eastern Dampierland Peninsular, King Sound and western Derby – Point Torment area and into the western central Fitzroy Trough.

Table 5. Noonkanbah Formation intersections in explorations wells in the King Sound area.

Well TopSS BaseSS Thk(m) Lithology

Booran 1 672.7 563.3 540.0 Slst & shale with fossiiferous limestone below 940

Curringa 1 577.6 344.4 339.0 Slst>lmst>clyst>sst

Fraser River 1 Absent Absent Absent

Jum Jum 1 1013.4 531.6 435.0 Slst with minor limestone, slst is carb>arg>glaucon

Kambara 1 630.0 179.0 154.0 Lmst>sst>slst and minor shale, upper section eroded in L. Triassic to E. Triassic

Kora 1 637.6 360.4 346.0 Slst with sst and mnr lmst

Minjin 1 712.0 77.0 44.0 Slst medium to dark gry, the top section is eroded off.

Moogana 1 881.6 236.4 198.0 Slst mnr lmst and rare sst

Pender 1 Absent Absent Absent

Perindi 1 Absent Absent Absent eroded off crest but present on fl anks

Point Torment 1 542.6 351.4 334.0 Claystone>slst>sst

Puratte 1 982.8 452.7 419.5 ??

Tappers Inlet 1 618.7 411.5 389.2 Shales soft to fi rm with slsts and lmsts

West Kora 1 609.9 367.1 352.0 Siltstone green grey; very micaceous and argillaceous.

4.3.2 Blina Shale (Early Triassic- Scythian)The Blina Shale is absent in the near-offshore wells of the Leveque Shelf. Onshore, from Moogana 1, it thickens and becomes more argillaceous to the east. It appears to be unconsolidated and so is very likely to make an effective seal. Interpretation suggests the unit will be between 250 – 300 m thick beneath the southern King Sound area. It could act as a secondary seal to the Nookanbah Formation in this area.

The Blina Shale appears to have potential as a primary seal. However, at these shallower depths storage of carbon dioxide would be in the vapour or gas phase. The reservoir would be the underlying Liveringa Sandstone. This reservoir is not included in the volumetric estimates in Table 7, so there is potential for additional storage volumes

12

Table 6. Blina Shale intersections in exploration wells in the King Sound area.

Well TopSS BaseSS Thk(m) Lithology

Booran 1 232.0 501.0 269.0 Soft sticky multicoloured shales, minor siltstones and sandstones

Curringa 1 Absent Absent Absent


Jum Jum 1 618.0 822.0 204.0 Described as soft light grey claystone and fi ssile shale, but again the basal section is sand-

ier

Kambara 1 Absent Absent Absent

Kora 1 26.0 488.0 462.0 Soft grey claystone, and medium grey subfi ssile siltstone and shale with minor sandstone.

Minjin 1 Absent Absent Absent

Moogana 1 597.0 675.0 78.0 More sandstone than shale, although the lower section grades into claystones and shales.


Perindi 1 Absent Absent Absent

Point

Torment 1

6.0 398.0 392.0 Massive very soft claystone and siltstone, with minor sandstones

Puratte 1 516.0 751.0 235.0 Predominantly claystone grading to shale with depth, minor siltstones and glauconitic

sandstones.

Tappers

Inlet 1

Absent Absent Absent

West Kora 1 25.0 439.9 414.9 Siltstone, shale and minor sandstone

5. Reservoirs

5.1 Poole SandstoneThe uppermost potential reservoir in this area is the regionally extensive Poole Sandstone that occurs immediately beneath the Noonkanbah Formation. This sandstone is interpreted as a transgressive shallow marine reworking of the underlying Grant Formation, which formed in association with sea level rise, consequent to glacial retreat, at the end of the Carbonifeous. The basal section of the Poole Sandstone is often a limestone facies; the Nura Nura Member but commonly the uppermost 20-30 m is a coarsening upward sandstone section. Generally the sandstone is friable with good to excellent reservoir characteristics inferred (porosities range 15-29% where they have been calculated).

13

Table 7. Poole Sandstone intersections in exploration wells in the King Sound area.

Well TopSS BaseSS T Tkh(m) Lithology

Booran 1 1212.7 1284.7 72.0 25 m upper sst vfg - fg loose or calcite cemented. Porosity from tight to 20%

Curringa 1 916.6 965.6 49.0 26 m upper sst minor lmst and slst


Jum Jum 1 1448.4 1507.4 59.0 Upper sst section vfg - vcg but dominantly mg. Poor visually porosity

Kambara 1 784.0 827.0 43.0 Minor coarsening upward sst, mostly mudstone, slst/lmst

Kora 1 983.6 1083.6 100.0 sst fraible to cemented f-cg also minor lmst

Minjin 1 756.0 794.0 38.0 No sst, interpreted deep water equivalent; see Perindi 1 & Kambara 1.

Moogana 1 1079.6 1120.6 41.0 upper sst section vfg - mg coarsening upward unconsolidated 17-29% porosity


Perindi 1 Absent Absent Absent upper Sst absent slst/clyst/lmst/mnr sst the top has been eroded

Point Torment 1 876.6 966.6 90.0 sst m-cg fair to poor visual porosity; inferred excellent porosity and good perm.

Puratte 1 1402.3 1470.3 68.0 sst f-mg visual porosity poor - good

Tappers Inlet 1 1008.0 1008.0 0.0 Poole possibly absent but underlain by Grant which has thick section of upper sst.

West Kora 1 961.9 1008.9 47.0 sst coarsening-up fg-cg calcite cmnt in lith section; some uncons 15-21% porosity

There are numerous other potential target sands but the Poole Sandstone is the shallowest regional reservoir that occurs at appropriate depths. There is suffi cient information about this unit to infer that good reservoir characteristics are likely across the area. The Poole Sandstone is most likely a regional groundwater aquifer. However, the unit extends offshore beneath King Sound and there may be storage options in this location where, it is speculated, formation water could prove to be saline. South of Point Torment the Poole Sandstone occurs at depths of >900 mSS, deep enough for carbon dioxide to be in the supercritical phase. Beneath southern King Sound the Poole Sandstone is thought to be between 60-70 m thick and to most likely have good reservoir characteristics, at least in the upper sandstone section.

5.2 Other ReservoirsBeneath the Poole Sandstone there are expected to be several other reservoir sands, probably not having the good reservoir characteristics of the Poole Sandstone but of suffi cient quality for injection. These include sandstones of the Laurel, Anderson and Grant Formations. As well, the deeper units may not all be ground water aquifers.

6. Indicative Storage Volume EstimatesUsing Lehmann’s (1986) published maps (Lehmann 1986, Figure 2 and Figure 10) it is possible to make some estimates of carbon dioxide storage parameters. These fi gures suggest that an area of 50 km2 or less, will suffi ce to accept all of the known carbon dioxide from the Browse Basin area. It is worth noting that at the shallower depths, providing there is a low geothermal gradient in the upper section, conditions are such that carbon dioxide could enter the liquid phase.

14

Table 8. Indicative carbon dioxide storage volumes for the Poole Sandstone ESSCI.

Trap Style Pre-Nookanbah -migration dissolution



Water Depth 40 m


Area 50 km2

Radius for above area 4.0 km


Porosity 10 %


Net to Gross 10 %











7. General Canning Basin SummaryThis review could not document all potential storage options, however it is possible that deeper reservoir options will not interfere directly with any signifi cant ground water resources and this should be kept in mind when assessing the total carbon dioxide storage potential of the area.

At this time, the King Sound area has the highest potential for a relatively shallow carbon dioxide storage option, within a sedimentary section that is likely to be only moderately structured and fairly simple to map.

15

8. ReferencesBenson, J.M., Brealey, S.J., Luxton, C.W., Walshe, P.F. & Tupper, N.P., 2004 – Late Cretaceous Ponded Turbidite Systems: A New Stratigraphic Play Fairway in the Browse Basin. APPEA Jrn 2004 pp269-283.

Blevin, J.E., Struckmeyer, H.I.M., Boreham, C., Cathro, D.L., Sayers, J. & Totterdel, J.M., 1998 – Browse Basin High Resolution Study, AGSO Record 1997/38.

Haston, R.B., & Farrelly, J.J. 1993 – Regional Signifi cance of the Arquebus-1 well Browse Basin, North West Shelf, Australia. APEA Jrn 1993, pp28-38.

Longley, I.M., Bradshaw, M., and Hebberger, J., 2001 - Australian Petroleum Provinces of the 21st Century, in Petroleum Provinces of the 21st Century, ed Downey, M., Threet, J., and Morgan, W.. AAPG Memoir 74, pp 287-318.

Lehmann, P.R.,1986 – The Geology and Hydrocarbon Potential of the EP 104 Permit, Northwest Canning Basin, Western Australia. APEA Jrn 1986, pp261-284.

Maung, T.U., Cadman, S. & West, B., 1992 - A Review of the Petroleum Potential of the Browse Basin.

O’Brien, G.W., Lawrence, G., Williams, A., Webster, M., Wilson, D., and Burns, S. 2000 – Using Integrated Remote Sensing Technologies to Evaluate and Characterise Hydrocarbon Migration and Charge Characteristics on the Yampi Shelf, Northwestern Australia: A Methodological Study. APPEA Jrn 2000 pp230-256.

16

Figures

Figure 1. Location Map of the Leveque Shelf.

17

Figure 2. Browse Basin Stratigraphic and Petroleum Systems Chart.

18

Fig

ure

3. T

he p

oten

tial

inje

ctio

n ar

ea o

n th

e L

eveq

ue S

helf

.

19

9819

9419

8619

8219

7819

7419

7019

6619

6219

5819

5419

5019

4619

4219

3819

3419

3019

2619

2219

1819

1419

923

0.00

0

0.25

0

0.50

0

0.75

0

1.00

0

1.25

0

1.50

0

1.75

0

2.00

0

2.25

0

2.50

0

2.75

0

119_

01bb

hr -

1511

9_11

119_

10bb

hr_1

4bb

hr_1

7Li

ne -

Tie

SP

arqu

ebus

_1

Fig

ure

4. R

egio

nal s

eism

ic li

ne a

cros

s th

e L

eveq

ue S

helf

.

20

Fig

ure

5. L

ate

Jura

ssic

sed

imen

t th

ickn

ess

on t

he L

eveq

ue S

helf

.

21

Fig

ure

6. I

sopa

ch m

ap o

f th

e C

arbi

ne p

onde

d tu

rbid

ite

pros

pect

.

22

Fig

ure

7. C

anni

ng B

asin

: St

rati

grap

hic

Cha

rt.

23

Figure 8. Geological cross sections over two exploration prospects in the King Sound area.

24

Fig

ure

9. R

egio

nal c

ross

-sec

tion

of

the

Dam

pier

land

Pen

insu

la.

dampierland-leveque shelf northwest canning basin arealeveque shelf must therefore rely on migrated...

Documents