Composition, porosity, and reservoir potential of the Middle Jurassic Kashafrud Formation, northeast Iran

Poursoltani, Mehdi Reza; Gibling, Martin R.

doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2010.11.004

Cited by 39 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…During deposition of the synrift Kashafrud-Baysun formations (Middle Jurassic), a marine environment was established to the east-south-east of the basin (Brunet et al, 2017;Poursoltani & Gibling, 2011;Poursoltani, Moussavi-Harami, & Gibling, 2007;Ulmishek, 2004). Then, a carbonate platform formed during the Late Jurassic, where a semicircular barrier reef complex formed on the eastern and central parts of the basin (from Chardzhou to the west and south-west; see fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facies analyses and depositional setting of the Lower Cretaceous Shurijeh–Shatlyk formations in the Kopeh Dagh–Amu Darya Basin (Iran and Turkmenistan)

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Lower Cretaceous siliciclastic fluvial to shallow marine Shurijeh-Shatlyk formations together form one of the main reservoir successions in the Kopeh Dagh-Amu Darya Basin (NE Iran, Turkmenistan, and north of Afghanistan). Sedimentary facies and thickness changes in the Shurijeh-Shatlyk formations show complex variations throughout the basin, which highlight the importance of understanding the controlling factors on facies distribution and depositional setting for future hydrocarbon exploration. Integration of 3D seismic data, 13 boreholes, and five surface stratigraphic sections led to identification of lithofacies and facies associations. The results allow subdivision of this siliciclastic succession into four stratigraphic units (A, B, C, and D). Our study indicates that base-level changes interacted with palaeotopography inherited from Middle Jurassic basin rifting, Upper Jurassic carbonate reefs/patch reef distributions, and reactivation of the deep basin faults, to control the Shurijeh-Shatlyk depositional setting and sedimentary facies distribution. Our findings show that the Aghdarband and Badkhyz-Maimana palaeo-highs affected the Kopeh Dagh-Amu Darya Basin throughout deposition of the Shurijeh-Shatlyk formations. Allogeneic processes and active tectonics, related to the Valanginian Late Cimmerian Orogeny, caused a base-level fall, exposure of Upper Jurassic carbonate sediments, and deposition of a carbonate pebbly conglomerate unit in the western part of the study area. This base-level fall led to the deposition of thick evaporites in the western area and conglomerate in the eastern parts of the Kopeh Dagh. Due to a Hauterivian sea-/ base-level rise, several deltas formed in the basin, which form the main reservoir zone in the Murgab Depression and Khangiran Field in Turkmenistan and Iran.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facies analyses and depositional setting of the Lower Cretaceous Shurijeh–Shatlyk formations in the Kopeh Dagh–Amu Darya Basin (Iran and Turkmenistan)

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies with convincing petrographic evidence of the dissolution of carbonate cements in buried sandstones have been published. Review of these works suggests that most of the extensive dissolutions were related to deep hot fluids (Taylor 1996;Taylor et al 2010) and cold meteoric fresh water (Bouch et al 2006;Cavazza et al 2009;Khidir and Catuneanu 2003;Poursoltani and Gibling 2011;Yuan et al 2017;Zaid 2012), while organic CO 2 leaching resulting in very limited dissolution (Lu et al 2011;Weedman et al 1996).…”

Section: Papers With Convincing Petrographic Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Convincing petrographic evidence of carbonate dissolution in sandstones with meteoric freshwater incursion was provided by some studies. The isotopic composition of the car-bonate cements or the burial history of the rocks suggests that the dissolutions were induced by meteoric freshwater during the early eodiagenetic stage or the uplift telodiagenetic stage (Bouch et al 2006;Cavazza et al 2009;Khidir and Catuneanu 2003;Poursoltani and Gibling 2011;Yuan et al 2017;Zaid 2012). For example, Khidir and Catuneanu (2003) presented convincing SEM photomicrographs to show the dissolution of carbonate cements in the Scollard sandstones outcrop.…”

Section: Papers With Convincing Petrographic Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

How important is carbonate dissolution in buried sandstones: evidences from petrography, porosity, experiments, and geochemical calculations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Burial dissolution of feldspar and carbonate minerals has been proposed to generate large volumes of secondary pores in subsurface reservoirs. Secondary porosity due to feldspar dissolution is ubiquitous in buried sandstones; however, extensive burial dissolution of carbonate minerals in subsurface sandstones is still debatable. In this paper, we first present four types of typical selective dissolution assemblages of feldspars and carbonate minerals developed in different sandstones. Under the constraints of porosity data, water-rock experiments, geochemical calculations of aggressive fluids, diagenetic mass transfer, and a review of publications on mineral dissolution in sandstone reservoirs, we argue that the hypothesis for the creation of significant volumes of secondary porosity by mesodiagenetic carbonate dissolution in subsurface sandstones is in conflict with the limited volume of aggressive fluids in rocks. In addition, no transfer mechanism supports removal of the dissolution products due to the small water volume in the subsurface reservoirs and the low mass concentration gradients in the pore water. Convincing petrographic evidence supports the view that the extensive dissolution of carbonate cements in sandstone rocks is usually associated with a high flux of deep hot fluids provided via fault systems or with meteoric freshwater during the eodiagenesis and telodiagenesis stages. The presumption of extensive mesogenetic dissolution of carbonate cements producing a significant net increase in secondary porosity should be used with careful consideration of the geological background in prediction of sandstone quality.

show abstract

“…Genesis and postdepositional diagenetic processes define the pore structure in carbonate rocks (Moore and Wade, 2013). The intraparticle porosity, high friability, and chemical reactivity of carbonate sediments affect their evolution during burial (Croizé et al, 2013;Moore and Wade, 2013) and leads to features such as dual and occluded porosity ( Figure 1; see also Saner and Sahin, 1999;Poursoltani and Gibling, 2011). Experimental data show that the pore size in carbonates varies by more than 6 orders of magnitude (Nelson, 2009), whereas the permeability varies by approximately 10 orders Figure 1.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Carbonate rocks: Matrix permeability estimation

Cardona

Santamarina

2020

Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carbonate rocks store half of the world's proven oil reserves. Genesis and postdepositional diagenetic processes define the porous network topology and the matrix permeability. This study compiles a database of porosity, specific surface, mercury porosimetry, and permeability values extracted from published sources and complements the database through a focused experimental study. Specific surface and porosity combine to estimate the pore size (D sur). Permeability versus D sur data cluster along a single trend with a slope of 2 in a log-log scale, which is in agreement with the Kozeny-Carman model. Discordant data points correspond to samples with dual porosity or broad pore-size distributions with long tails, where flow channels along larger interconnected pores. Indeed, the detailed analysis of all the porosimetry data in the database shows that permeability correlates best with the pore size D80, that is, the 80th percentile in pore-size distributions. Once again, the best fit is a power function in terms of (D80) 2 , analogous to Kozeny-Carman. The prediction uncertainty using D80 is one order of magnitude and has the same degree of uncertainty as more complex models and analyses. This observation suggests an irreducible uncertainty of one order of magnitude in permeability estimation from index properties such as porosity, mercury porosimetry, and specific surface probably resulting from specimen preparation effects, inherent physical differences in permeation versus invasion, and difficulties in data interpretation. These estimates of permeability are most valuable when specimens are limited to small sizes, such as cuttings.

show abstract

Composition, porosity, and reservoir potential of the Middle Jurassic Kashafrud Formation, northeast Iran

Cited by 39 publications

References 57 publications

Facies analyses and depositional setting of the Lower Cretaceous Shurijeh–Shatlyk formations in the Kopeh Dagh–Amu Darya Basin (Iran and Turkmenistan)

Facies analyses and depositional setting of the Lower Cretaceous Shurijeh–Shatlyk formations in the Kopeh Dagh–Amu Darya Basin (Iran and Turkmenistan)

How important is carbonate dissolution in buried sandstones: evidences from petrography, porosity, experiments, and geochemical calculations

Carbonate rocks: Matrix permeability estimation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About