Interrelations of the petrophysical, sedimentological and microstructural propertiesof the Oolithe Blanche Formation (Bathonian, saline aquifer of the Paris Basin)

Lisa Casteleyn a,!, Philippe Robion a, Pierre-Yves Collin b,c, Beatriz Menéndez a, Christian David a,Guy Desaubliaux d, Nathalie Fernandes d, Rémi Dreux d, Guillaume Badiner e,Etienne Brosse f, Christophe Rigollet ea Université de Cergy-Pontoise, Géosciences et Environnement Cergy, 5 mail Gay Lussac, Neuville/Oise, 95031 Cergy-Pontoise cedex, Franceb UPMC Univ. Paris 06, UMR 7193, ISTeP, Case 117, 4 place Jussieu, F-75252, Paris cedex 05, Francec CNRS, UMR 7193, ISTeP, Case 117, 4 place Jussieu, F-75252, Paris cedex 05, Franced GdFSuez, 361 av. Président Wilson, 93211 Saint-Denis La Plaine, Francee BRGM, 3 avenue C. Guillemin, BP 36009, 45060 Orleans cedex 2, Francef IFP, 1 and 4 av. de Bois-Préau, 92852 Rueil-Malmaison cedex, France

a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 21 April 2010Received in revised form 19 July 2010Accepted 22 July 2010Available online 30 July 2010

Editor: B. Jones

Keywords:PorosityPermeabilityMercury porosityOolithCO2 storage

The Paris Basin seems a suitable location for CO2 capture and storage given both the amount of CO2 producedand the availability of depleted !elds and deep saline aquifers. This study investigates the petrophysicalproperties in relation to the sedimentary and diagenetic environment of the Oolithe Blanche Formation(Middle Jurassic), a deep saline aquifer considered a potential candidate for CO2 storage. Because of thescarcity of core data in the Paris Basin, our investigation was based on the study of !eld analogues in thesouth-east part of the Paris Basin. The Oolithe Blanche Formation (Bathonian) is 70–80 m thick. Eighteenoriented blocks were collected from three outcrops selected for the different sedimentological faciesidenti!ed in the formation. Their petrophysical properties were measured: porosity, pore size distributionderived from mercury injection tests, permeability and capillary imbibition parameters. The sedimentary anddiagenetic facies were de!ned by using optical microscopy coupled with image analysis on thin sections andSEM. The Oolithe Blanche Formation is composed of oolitic and bioclastic limestones, deposited in a shallowmarine setting. Three main sedimentological facies were de!ned: the oolitic shoal facies, the tide dominatedfacies and the prograding oolitic facies. They exhibit subtle variations in composition and in the distribution ofcarbonate textures. Porosity, measured using the water saturation triple weight method, ranges from 6% to34%. Permeability values are low, between 0.1 mD and 9 mD. The data from mercury intrusion porosimetryshow that the distribution of the pore throat diameter is either unimodal (microporosity only) or bimodal(macro- and microporosity). Microporosity is intraparticle (intraooid) and macroporosity is interparticle andis related to dolo–dedolomitization. Variations of petrophysical parameters can be explained by themicrostructure. Now, these latter results calibrated by studying !eld analogues must be extended toborehole data and core data to optimize our knowledge of the deep saline aquifer of the Oolithe BlancheFormation. Without such investigations, it will be impossible to estimate the suitability of this deep salineaquifer for CO2 storage.

© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

A number of industrialized countries including France have madecommitments to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions fourfold by2050. This highly ambitious objective can only be achieved byimplementing several complementary measures and actions includingthe geological storage of CO2 (Holloway, 2005). In France several billion

tonnes of CO2 (1–7 GtCO2, depending on assumptions and scenarios)might be stored in this way in the next !ve decades.

The geological reservoirs that are naturally best suited to accom-modate a large in"ow of CO2 are porous and permeable sedimentscontaining either unusable brine or hydrocarbons (and the associatedwater). In France, more speci!cally, the deep saline aquifers provide thelargest potential reservoir. The storage capacity estimate of the deepsaline aquifers of the Paris Basin, i.e. the Oolithe Blanche Formation(4 GtCO2) is based on the geometry of the strata in the areas suitable forgeological storage of CO2, on mean porosity values and on a ‘storageef!ciency’ factor (2–6%of the porous volumedependingonwhether thegas injected is trapped or not — see Holloway et al., 1996).

Sedimentary Geology 230 (2010) 123–138

! Corresponding author.E-mail address: lisa.casteleyn@u-cergy.fr (L. Casteleyn).

0037-0738/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.sedgeo.2010.07.003

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sedimentary Geology

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /sedgeo

However, storage capacity estimates have, for carbonate aquifersin particular, overlooked the complexity of parameters involvedduring and after CO2 injection (for details see Bachu et al., 2007, p.431) and have often resulted in an overestimation of storagecapacities (Bradshaw et al., 2007; Kopp et al., 2009a,b). The OolitheBlanche Formation of the Paris Basin is no exception. Although itslarge pore volumes seem to offer large storage capacities, theformation exhibits very heterogeneous hydraulic properties bothvertically and laterally. At the end, probably only a small fraction ofthe formation provides permeable units suitable for storage. Only newdata can better constrain the variations within this formation and themodels (Brosse et al., 2010; Vidal-Gilbert et al., 2009).

Moreover, the carbonate formations containing reservoirs and/oraquifers are invariably extremely heterogeneous (e.g. Moore, 2001).Largevariations inpermeability values are commonplace (0.1–2000 mDfor St Louis limestone (Qi et al., 2007) or 5–4000 mD for the LowerTriassic Rogenstein (Palermo et al., 2008; Table 1)). This heterogeneitydepends (1) on the range of sedimentological characteristics (facies,textures) of the carbonates and (2) on the diversity and complexity ofthe diagenetic changes that affect carbonates from the time ofdeposition and throughout burial. Consequently, it is often dif!cult tounderstand and even more dif!cult to predict the distribution ofpetrophysical properties in these formations (Anselmetti and Eberli,1993; Ehrenberg et al., 2006a,b; Baechle et al., 2008).

Statistical analysis of the Oolithe Blanche formation petrophysicalproperties proves that this formation has widely ranging reservoirproperties (!, K) for grain-dominated limestone (dominant grain-stone and packstone textures; Lion et al., 2004). In addition, thisheterogeneity is expressed at very different scales ranging from lessthan a metre or so as observed in outcrop, to a kilometre and more asshown by geothermal tests (Delmas et al., 2010).

This study aims therefore to determine the relationships betweenthe petrophysical, sedimentological and microstructural properties ofthe Bathonian Oolithe Blanche Formation. The tasks here are (1) tospecify the heterogeneity recognized in the Oolithe Blanche Forma-tion and to characterize them in terms of sedimentology, diagenesisand petrophysics (porosity, permeability and capillarity), and (2) tode!ne and classify the facies with reservoir potential (rock types) onthe basis of the parameters de!ned in the study. To this end, the studyinitially relies on a survey of !eld analogues in outcrops.

2. Geological settings and sampling

In the Paris Basin one of the candidates for geological storage ofCO2 is the Oolithe Blanche Formation. This saline aquifer dates fromthe Bathonian (Middle Jurassic) and is locally a hydrocarbon reservoir.It is present at depths of more than 1000 m in the centre of the ParisBasin and can be observed in outcrops on the basin edges. With sub-surface data being so scarce, the formation was initially studied fromthese outcrops focused in Burgundy in the south-east (Fig. 1). This!eld analogue was chosen for the quality of outcrops in quarries andbecause the petrophysical data (porosity/permeability) measured areof the same order of magnitude as those recognized in boreholes inthe basin centre.

Our study involved samples from three quarries operated byRocamat near to the villages of Massangis, Ravières and Bierry-les-Belles-Fontaines (Fig. 1, sites A, B and C respectively). These threequarries together cover the entire formation. The base of theformation crops out in the quarry at Bierry-les-Belles-Fontaines andthe top occurs in the Ravières and Massangis quarries.

Detailed sedimentological studies of this formation have led to itbeing subdivided into three main facies depending on processes ofdeposition (Fig. 2): a tide dominated facies, a high-energy oolitic shoalfacies and a prograding oolitic (shoal edge) facies. Each facies iscomposed of three main elements: ooids, pellets and bioclasts. Ooidsare spherical components made up of circular laminae of micritearound a cortex (nucleus that may be a sand grain or a bioclast). Theystand apart from pellets in that pellets are also roughly circular andmade of micrite but with no particular internal structure. The main

Fig. 1. Simpli!ed geologicalmap of the study area (from the 1:1000000 geological map ofFrance as amended). Locations of the three quarries. Site A: Massangis; Site B: Ravières;Site C: Bierry-les-Belles-Fontaines.

Table 1Summary of porosity, permeability and imbibition coef!cient data for some oolitic limestones.

Limestone Porosity (%) Permeability (mD) Imbibition parameter (g/m!!s!0.5) References

Lower Triassic Rogenstein 20–30 5–4000 – Palermo et al. (2008)Savonnières 38.2 – 69.5 Roels et al. (2000)Neocomian oolitic limestone 15.7 0.01–0.03 – Ghabezloo et al. (2009)Lavoux 23.5 – – Sterpenich et al. (2009)Andstrude (Oolithe Blanche formation) 19.9 0.65 – Lion et al. (2004)Rodessa 7–14 – – Keith and Pittman (1983)St Louis 3–20 0.1–2000 – Qi et al. (2007)Oolithe Blanche Formation 17 1.4 76.9 this study

124 L. Casteleyn et al. / Sedimentary Geology 230 (2010) 123–138

bioclasts observed are echinoderms, lamellibranchia, brachiopods,gastropods, foraminifers. Each carbonate textures are mainly grain-stones. Each sample throughout the study was systematicallyidenti!ed in terms of facies and location.

More speci!cally, Bierry-les-Belles-Fontaines quarry (site C) islocated in the Yonne département near the towns of Montbard andAvallon. This quarry exhibits the !rst 20 m of the Oolithe Blancheformation (Fig. 3), which is 80 m thick in the region (Mégnien, 1970).The lowest 4 m of the quarry exposes the underlying Marnes àPholadomies Formation and 2 m of transition facies. These strata arenot studied here. All three facies are visible in this quarry. Ninesamples were collected (Fig. 3): four from the prograding oolitic facies(BY01, BY02, BY10 and BY11) plus one from the transition faciesassociated with the prograding oolitic facies (BY03), two from theoolitic shoal facies (BY04 and BY05) and two from the tide dominatedfacies (BY08 and BY09).

The quarry of St-Nicolas de Ravières is in the Yonne départe-ment between Ravières and Montbard (site B, Fig. 1). It exhibitsthe top 50 m of the Oolithe Blanche Formation plus the overlyingCalcaire de Comblanchien Formation (Fig. 3). The tide dominatedfacies and oolitic shoal facies are both exposed in this quarry. Foursamples were collected (Fig. 3): one from the oolitic shoal facies(RAV01) and three from the tide dominated facies (RAV02, RAV04and RAV05). A sample was also collected from the Longchamp deRavières quarry, located 1 km to the north, from the progradingoolitic facies (RAV03).

The Massangis quarry (Yonne) is one of six ‘Massangis Quarries’(site A, Fig. 1). This series allows us to observe the upper part of theOolithe Blanche Formation (Fig. 3). Only the prograding oolitic faciescrops out, four samples of which were collected (MA01–MA04).

Eighteen cubic blocks of roughly 30 cm square were studied: threefrom the oolitic shoal facies, !ve from the tide dominated facies and tenfrom the prograding oolitic facies. A total of 176 plugs were cored fromthe set of blocks.

3. Methodology

The petrophysical properties, porosity and "uid "ow rates ofthe Oolithe Blanche Formation were measured on cylindricalsamples cored from oriented blocks collected from the quarries.Each block was squared off and the cores were drilled from threefaces perpendicular to one another: two parallel and oneperpendicular to the bedding. Two cylinder sizes were drilled:25 mm in diameter by 22.5 mm in length and 40 mm in diameterby 80 mm in length.

Two methods were used to investigate porosity: water porosi-metry and mercury porosimetry. Fluid "ow properties were also

studied through imbibition and permeability experiments. The resultswere then compared and contrasted with a microstructural exami-nation under an optical microscope and a scanning electronmicroscope (SEM).

3.1. Microstructural study

The microstructural study consists in identifying and quantifyingthe different components of the rocks: components (nature, quanti-!cation), orthochem (micrite or sparite, quanti!cation) and porespace (types, location, arrangement). The observations were made onthin sections under the optical microscope and scanning electronmicroscope (SEM). Microstructures were quanti!ed using JMicroVi-sion software allowing us to extract the percentages of variouscomponents present: quantity of orthochem and quantity of macro-porosity on the thin sections.

To characterize porosity we used Lønøy's (2006) classi!cation,which is in turn based on the classi!cation of Choquette and Pray(1970) and of Lucia (1983, 1995, 1999). Lønøy de!nes two types ofporosity: interparticle (pores between components) and intrapar-ticle (pores within components). Three classes were de!ned foreach type of porosity based on mean pore size: microporosity(b1 "m), mesoporosity (1–10 "m) and macroporosity (N10 "m).Microporosity and mesoporosity are quanti!ed by subtractingmacroporosity from total porosity (obtained experimentally by thetriple weight method).

3.2. Water porosity

Water porosity data were obtained by the triple weight method(Norme NF EN 1936, 2007) giving the volume of connected pores inthe 22.5 mm length and 25 mm diameter cylinders cut in threeperpendicular directions from the sample blocks. Each sample wasoven dried at 60 °C for 12 h and then saturated with distilled water.For this experiment, we measured the dry weight (wdry) after ovendrying, the saturated weight in water after impregnation (wsat) andthe apparent weight of the sample immersed in water (wimm).Porosity is obtained from the formula:

! =Vpores

Vsample=

wsat!wdry

wsat!wimm

where Vpores is the pore volume and Vsample the sample volume.

Fig. 2. Block diagram of the distribution of the three main facies de!ned in the study.

125L. Casteleyn et al. / Sedimentary Geology 230 (2010) 123–138

Fig. 3. Stratigraphy and logs of the quarries under study. Distribution of the three facies under study. Sample locations.

126 L. Casteleyn et al. / Sedimentary Geology 230 (2010) 123–138

3.3. Mercury porosity

Mercury porosimetry is a method used to determine the pore-throat size to interconnected pores. This destructive test consists ininjecting a non-wetting "uid (mercury) into a sample subjected to avacuum by applying increasing pressure so as to investigate the eversmaller pore throat sizes. The diameter of the pore throats is thenderived from Washburn's equation (1921):

P =2# j cos$ j

R

where P is the pressure required for mercury to enter into a pore withaperture radius R, # the surface tension coef!cient (0.485 N/m formercury) and $ the angle of contact between mercury and the solid(130° for this case). An Autopore IV 9500 porosimeter was used in thisstudy. It can generate pressures from 3"10!3 to 200 MPa, providingaccess to pores with throat diameters of 0.03 to 360 "m.

The mercury porosimetry results are presented in the form ofplots of cumulated intrusion of mercury within the sample versuspore-throat size (calculated from Washburn's formula from themercury pressure). It is considered that this experiment tells usabove all about pore-throat sizes and not about the actual poresizes.

3.4. Capillary imbibition

The imbibition coef!cient of a rock re"ects the ability of water torise within the rock. The experiment consists in placing the base ofsample on a source of distilled water (wet paper) and examining howthe sample gains mass, that is, how water rises with time. Theimbibition process can be divided into two stages. In the !rst stage thefront of water in the sample moves towards the opposite face of thesample. The rise of water is governed by forces of capillarity andviscosity. The second stage begins when the water front reaches thetop of the sample, with the water continuing to !ll the rock butthrough diffusionmechanisms. The imbibition coef!cient is de!ned asthe slope of the !rst stage of the experiment in a plot of sample weightgain versus the square root of time (Norme NF EN 1925, 1999).Capillary imbibition is widely used as a complement to thepermeability test (Benavente et al., 2007; Cueto et al., 2009; Roels etal., 2000). The experiments were conducted on the 40 mm diameterand 80 mm long cylinders. For the samples from Bierry-les-Belles-Fontaines quarry (site C) we used smaller cylinders (25 mm indiameter by 22.5 mm in length) so as to determine the in"uence ofsample size on results.

3.5. Permeability

Permeability characterizes a rock's capacity for a "uid, heredistilled water, to cross through it. Measurements were made in atriaxial press where the sample is subjected to a con!ning pressureand the water to a pore pressure. An effective pressure of 0.5 MPa wasused (con!ning pressure 1 MPa and "uid pressure 0.5 MPa). Perme-ability is calculated from thewater "ow rate through the sample usingDarcy's equation:

k =%QLAdp

where k is permeability (in m! or in Darcy, 1 D=0.987·10!12m!), !the viscosity of distilled water (10!3Pa s), Q the "ow rate (m3s!1), L(m) and A (m!) the length and cross sectional area of the sample anddp the "uid pressure difference across the sample (Pa). The

experiments were conducted on plugs of 40 mm in diameter by80 mm in length. Most of the results were obtained for samples thatwere perpendicular to bedding.

4. Results

Table 2 summarizes the results of themicrostructural analysis of thevarious components in the samples investigated while mean petro-physical results per block are summarized in Table 3. The whole resultsof porosity and capillary imbibition parameter are presented inAppendices A and B respectively. Mean porosity (on each block) inthe Oolithe Blanche Formation in our study is 17% (&!=3.7%) with amean permeability of 1.4 mD and a standard deviation of 2.6 mD. Theseresults are consistent with those of Lion et al. (2004) for an Andstrudelimestone (oolithic limestone from Bierry-les-Belles-Fontaines quarry)who record amean porosity of 19.9% and permeability of 0.45–0.65 mD(Table 1).

4.1. Microstructural results

Three types of components are identi!ed: ooids, pellets andbioclasts (Table 2). Ooids and pellets, which are made of micrite, arethe microporous components. The non-microporous microcompo-nents — bioclasts (echinoderms, lamellibranchia, brachiopods,gastropods, foraminifers) — are lumped in a single category. Twotypes of orthochems are identi!ed: either a matrix composed of amicrite which is a set of calcite microcrystals (b4 "m), or a cementcomposedof sparite formedby calcite phenocrystalsmeasuringN10 "m.The arrangement of the various components and orthochems isdescribed for each facies.

4.1.1. Oolitic shoal faciesAll three types of component are present in the oolitic shoal facies

(Fig. 4). Two types of grain arrangement are observed: either thecomponents have no particular pattern within the sample (e.g. sampleBY04, Fig. 4a), or they are arranged in laminae (sample RAV01, Fig. 4band c). These differences are directly related to the depositional process.This is why component quanti!cation differs with the arrangement.Samples with no particular structure contain more bioclasts. Even so, itshould be noticed that the thin sections of sample RAV01 cut throughmore ooid laminae than bioclast laminae. There is therefore a local effect

Table 2Summary quanti!cations for the microstructural study for each sample (Site A:Massangis; Site B: Ravières and Site C: Bierry-les-Belles-Fontaines). Components werequanti!ed by counting on thin sections and the cement by determining its surface area.Microstructures were analysed using JMicroVision software. Oolitic shoal for ooliticshoal facies, Tide for tide dominated facies and Prograding for prograding oolitic facies.

Sample Facies Quarry(site)

Element quanti!cation(%)

Cementquantity(% per area)

Cementtype

Oolith Pellet Bioclast

BY05 Oolitic shoal C 21.6 53.6 24.8 16.2 SpariteBY04 Oolitic shoal C 24.3 33.8 41.8 20.4 SpariteRAV01 Oolitic shoal B 66.3 25.9 7.8 16.6 SpariteBY08 Tide C 71.1 22.6 6.2 14.6 SpariteBY09 Tide C 50.9 36.6 12.4 15.6 SpariteRAV04 Tide B 57.4 29.5 13.0 12.4 SpariteRAV05 Tide B 28.8 41.8 29.4 14.4 SpariteRAV02 Tide B 49.6 18.5 31.9 23.2 SpariteBY03 Prograding C 52.7 26.4 20.9 8.0 SpariteBY11 Prograding C 32.2 48.6 19.2 6.3 SpariteBY01 Prograding C 37.9 41.3 20.8 7.9 SpariteBY10 Prograding C 35.3 44.4 20.3 7.6 SpariteBY02 Prograding C 21.5 55.2 23.3 – MicriteRAV03 Prograding B – – – – SpariteMA04 Prograding A 15.0 57.7 27.4 2.2 SpariteMA03 Prograding A 41.6 37.4 21.1 10.8 SpariteMA02 Prograding A 46.8 35.9 17.3 5.7 SpariteMA01 Prograding A 33.7 38.0 28.3 1.3 Micrite

127L. Casteleyn et al. / Sedimentary Geology 230 (2010) 123–138

because of the position of the sample taken for making the thin section.The orthochem is a sparite cement with no pores (Fig. 4d) and whosequantity varies little among our samples: 16–20% (Table 2). Two type ofcement locationcanbeobservedasa result of different sedimentologicalcompaction. In some samples, compaction is weak so components arenot in contact. Space between elements is !lled with sparite we calledhomogeneous because of its homogeneous visual distribution (Fig. 4band e). On the other hand, samples show heterogeneous cementdistribution resulting from a stronger compaction, earlier than thecement precipitation and characterized by contacts between compo-nents (Fig. 4a and f). The samples do not exhibit any macro- ormesopores. Porosity is located in the ooids alone. SEM images show thatthese intraparticles micropores are distributed homogeneouslythroughout the ooid (Fig. 4e and f). It is also strongly controlled by theextent of ooid laminae.

4.1.2. Tide dominated faciesThe tide dominated facies also includes all three types of

component — ooids, pellets and bioclasts — but in differentproportions to the oolitic shoal facies. Samples from this faciesexhibit the fewest bioclasts with abundance values ranging largelybetween 6.2 to 31.9% (Table 2). In some samples, ooids are seen to beinterlocked and, at greater magni!cation, have a thin fringe ofsparite cement that separates them preventing contact betweengrains (Fig. 5a). The orthochem is a non porous sparite. The quantityof cement ranges from 12.4% to 23.2% among samples (Table 2). As inthe oolitic shoal facies, compaction varies and is characterized, in thinsection observations, by different cement distribution. We observedhomogeneous distribution (weak compaction) which preventscontact among components (Fig. 5b and c) or heterogeneousdistribution (stronger compaction) which allows contact betweencomponents (Fig. 5d and e). The tide dominated facies displays nomacro- or mesopores. Porosity is intraparticle microporositylocalized homogeneously in the ooids and is clearly visible by SEM(Fig. 5c and e).

4.1.3. Prograding oolitic faciesIn the prograding oolitic facies, all three types of components are

present with a great homogeneity in their quanti!cation: ooids andpellets account for about 80% in most samples, the remainder beingbioclasts (Table 2 and Fig. 6a). Two types of orthochems are found.

Two samples (BY02 and MA01) display a micritic matrix (Fig. 6b andc) but most samples have sparite cement. Compaction is stronger inthis facies than in the two others. Cement accounts for less than 10%in most cases (2.2%–10.8%, Table 2) and two samples, BY02 andRAV03, were not suitable to quanti!cation because of their loworthochem accounts. The high compaction rate in the progradingoolitic facies is one of the characteristics by which it differs from theother two facies.

Pore space within this facies displays greater diversity. Three typesof pore are found. Except for sample BY02, which is going to bediscussed at the end of the paragraph, macropores are observed invarying proportions in all samples and always within the cement. Oneparticular feature of the macropores are their angular shape, which ischaracteristic of dolomitization followed by dedolomitization (Fig. 6cand d). The macropores that are present in the cement are thereforecharacterized as interparticle macroporosity. Micropores are present inall samples regardless of facies and invariably occur within the ooids(except BY02 which contain only mesopores). It is therefore intrapar-ticle porosity. In the prograding oolitic facies, two arrangements ofintraparticle microporosity are observed. The !rst is that already seenin the other facies where micropores are homogenous throughout theooid (Fig. 6e). The second instance, observed in samples fromMassangis quarry (Site A), is micropores localized in the outer laminaeof the ooids (Fig. 6d). The third pore type observed is mesopore whichis only present in BY02 sample (Fig. 6f). From amicrostructural point ofview, this sample is very distinctive because it is the only one where nomicropores are observed in ooids and one of the two samples whichcontains a micritic matrix. BY02 contains only mesopores locatedwithin the micrite matrix so it is intraparticle porosity. Mesopores are,as macropores, related to dolo/dedolomitization processes but theseprocesses are not completely done. Fig. 6g shows a dolomite crystal indedolomitization process.

4.2. Characterization of the porous medium

Characterization of the porous medium takes into account theporosity to water data (volume of interconnected voids), porosity tomercury (pore-throat size) and the data from the thin section imageanalysis by which the spatial arrangement of pores is characterizedand macroporosity determined. Microporosity is obtained by sub-tracting macroporosity obtained by image analysis from total

Table 3Summary of the various petrophysical results for each sample (Site A: Massangis; Site B: Ravières and Site C: Bierry-les-Belles-Fontaines). N is the number of plugs bored from eachblock. Total porosity is obtained by the triple weight method, macroporosity by image analysis quanti!cation on thin sections and microporosity by subtracting macroporosity fromtotal porosity. Mesoporosity is for sample BY02 only and related to thin section observation (nomicro- andmacropores) mesoporosity is determined as the total porosity. Pore throatdiameter is obtained by mercury porosimetry. Oolitic shoal for oolitic shoal facies, Tide for tide dominated facies and Prograding for prograding oolitic facies.

Sample Facies Quarry(site)

N Porosity Pore sizediameter("m)

Permeability(mD)

Capillary imbibitionparameter(g/m!!s!1/2)Total porosity

(%)Microporosity(%)

Mesoporosity(%)

Macroporosity(%)

BY05 Oolitic shoal C 8 11.6 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 " 0 47.7BY04 Oolitic shoal C 11 16.6 16.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.8 94.3RAV01 Oolitic shoal B 9 16.3 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.068 51.8BY08 Tide C 12 16.8 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.109 82.1BY09 Tide C 12 18.5 18.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.098 51.1RAV04 Tide B 9 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.16 68.2RAV05 Tide B 8 16.5 16.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.11 72.4RAV02 Tide B 9 16.8 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.11 57.7BY03 Prograding C 10 18.1 14.8 0.0 3.3 0.5 0.23 119.0BY11 Prograding C 10 21.1 18.1 0.0 3.0 0.7 0.68 112.5BY01 Prograding C 10 19.1 17.8 0.0 1.3 0.5 8.94 111.0BY10 Prograding C 12 23.4 19.5 0.0 4.0 0.8 2 119.1BY02 Prograding C 12 17.5 0.0 17.5 0.0 4/0.3 7.61 72.5RAV03 Prograding B 9 22.8 21.6 0.0 1.2 0.6 1 158.4MA04 Prograding A 9 8.8 3.9 0.0 4.9 0.2 0.06 27.3MA03 Prograding A 9 13.1 11.9 0.0 1.2 0.3 0.07 38.1MA02 Prograding A 8 12.7 10.4 0.0 2.4 0.2 0.03 23.6MA01 Prograding A 9 15.8 7.5 0.0 8.2 25/0.25 0.065 7.0

128 L. Casteleyn et al. / Sedimentary Geology 230 (2010) 123–138

porosity. The porosity results are presented for each facies in Table 3and in Appendix A.

The oolitic shoal facies has the lowest porosity values with a meanvalue of 14.8% (&!=2.8%). Mercury porosimetry (Fig. 7a) reveals thatthis facies has just one family of small pore-throats ranging from 0.35to 0.6 "m. Microstructural study shows that all the pores are withinthe ooids (intraparticle microporosity) (Fig. 4e and f): it is deducedfrom this that the pore throat diameters given by mercuryporosimetry correspond to the intra-ooid microporosity.

In the tide dominated facies porosity is slightly greater with a meanvalue of 17.7% (&!=1.5%). Mercury porosimetry reveals just a singlefamily of pores with little size variation among samples, 0.3–0.4 "m(Fig. 7b). Porosity in this facies is similar to that in the oolitic shoalfacies with intraparticle microporosity localized in the ooids (Fig. 5c).

In the prograding oolitic facies mean porosity is 17.2% (&!=4.7%)with greater dispersion (between 8% and 22%) than in the precedingfacies. Mercury porosimetry also reveals this dispersion if comparedwith the curves for the other facies (Table 3). Fig. 7c shows the pore-

Fig. 4. Photos of thin sections of oolitic shoal facies. (a) Sample BY04-X. The components are unsorted and the sparite cement is heterogeneously distributed. (b) and (c) SampleRAV01-X photo and explanatory diagram of the various components in the thin section (bioclasts in white, ooids and pellets in grey). The components are arranged in laminae andthe sparite is homogeneous within the thin section. (d) SEM photo of non porous sparite orthochem in contact with microporous ooids (sample MA02). (e) SEM photo of sampleRAV01-X. Sparite cement is homogeneous and the components are not in contact. (f) SEM photo of sample BY04-Z. The sparite cement is heterogeneous and the components are incontact with each other. (e) and (f) Homogeneous intraparticle porosity within the ooids.

129L. Casteleyn et al. / Sedimentary Geology 230 (2010) 123–138

throat size for ooid micropores but with a wider range: 0.25 "m forthe Massangis quarry (site A) whereas the samples from Ravièresand Bierry-les-Belles-Fontaines (sites B and C) vary from 0.5 to0.9 "m. Two samples contain two pore families: BY02 and MA01 fromBierry-les-Belles-Fontaines (site C) and Massangis (site A), respec-tively. The curve for BY02 indicates a main family around 4 "m anda smaller second one at 0.3 "m. The !rst family is associated withthe mesopores observed during the microstructural study and thesecond with slight micropores within the ooids (none observed inthin section) and/or the micritic matrix. The MA01 sample has onefamily around 25 "m and a second corresponding to the ooid

micropores around 0.25 "m. The !rst family corresponds to themacropores that are clearly discerned within the facies. It will beobserved that only this sample reveals this family in mercuryporosimetry. This implies that the macropores in the other samplesare connected to the pore network by ooid micropores alone (Fig. 6g).

4.3. Characterization of !uid motion

Both the permeability and capillarity results are presented as afunction of porosity on Figs. 8 and 9 respectively and in Appendix B.The permeability values measured are less than 10 mD and

Fig. 5. Photos of thin sections of the tide dominated facies. (a) Sample BY08-X, the ooids are interlocked but there is a thin layer of sparite cement between them. (b) Sample BY09-X,all three types of component are present: ooids, pellets and bioclasts. They exhibit no special arrangement. The sparite cement is homogeneously distributed over the thin section.(c) SEM photo of sample RAV02-X, the sparite cement is homogeneous and there is intraparticle microporosity located homogenously within the ooids. (d) Sample RAV04-X, thecomponents exhibit no particular pattern and the sparite cement is heterogeneously distributed. (e) SEM photo of sample BY08-X, the sparite cement is located heterogeneously andooid intraparticle microporosity is homogeneous.

130 L. Casteleyn et al. / Sedimentary Geology 230 (2010) 123–138

Fig. 6. Thin section photographs of the prograding oolitic facies. (a) Sample BY03-X, the three types of component are present: ooids, pellets and bioclasts. They exhibit no specialpattern but there are more ooids and pellets than bioclasts. (b) Sample BY02-Y with a micrite matrix. (c) Sample MA01-Z, substantial, angular shaped macroporosity. (d) SEM photoof sample MA02 showing angular macroporosity and heterogeneously distributed microporosity in the ooids (around edges only). (e) SEM photo of sample BY01-Y showingmacroporosity and homogeneous microporosity within ooids. (f) SEM photo of sample BY02 showing mesoporosity in the matrix and the low microporosity in the ooids. Note therhomboedric shape of certain pores, resulting of processes of dedolomitization (g) Photo of sample BY01 showing a section of a macropore connected to the pore network viamicropores within the ooids. (h) SEM photo of sample BY02 showing a dolomite crystal in dedolomitization process.

131L. Casteleyn et al. / Sedimentary Geology 230 (2010) 123–138

average around 1.4 mD with some dispersion (Table 3). Widedispersion in permeability values is commonplace for oolitic lime-stones (Qi et al., 2007; Palermo et al., 2008). Lion et al. (2004) whoworked on the Andstrude limestone (limestone of the OolitheBlanche Formation from Bierry-les-Belles-Fontaines quarry) report

similar permeability values to this study, ranging from 0.45–0.65(Table 1). The values of the imbibition coef!cients (Table 3) rangewidely (7–158 g m!2s!1/2).

In Table 3 the general trend indicates that the permeability and theimbibition coef!cient are positively correlated with porosity, whichcan be found on the plots of permeability (Fig. 8) and imbibition(Fig. 9). Furthermore, each facies have different range of imbibitionand permeability values. While prograding oolitic facies and ooliticshoal facies are wide, tide dominated is more clustered.

The three samples collected from the oolitic shoal facies havehighly varied permeability and imbibition coef!cient values.Permeabilities range from 2.8 mD to almost zero (sample BY05which is not positioned in Fig. 8). The imbibition coef!cient valuesvary with means per block from 35 up to 100 g m!2 s!1/2. It ischaracteristic of this facies that it has a wide range of permeabilityand imbibition coef!cient values but a low range of porosity values,these extending from 16 to 20% for an imbibition coef!cient range of40 to 100 g m!2 s!1/2 (Fig. 9).

The tide dominated facies has a much narrower range of perme-abilities, from 0.1 to 0.16 mD (!ve samples studied). Similar behaviouris found for imbibition, with mean values from 47 to 84 g m!2s!1/2.These values are almost always lower than those for the oolitic shoalfacies for a given porosity value.

The prograding oolitic facies exhibits the widest range of measure-ments. It has the highest (8.94 mD for sample BY01) and some of thelowest (0.03 mD for sample MA02) permeability values. Thisdichotomy, like the porosity results, is related to the distribution ofthe micropores within ooids: relative high permeability (up to0.2 mD) when micropores are homogeneous throughout the ooidand low permeability when micropores are localized in the outerlaminae of the ooids. It is interesting to note that behaviours are alsorelated to the place of sampling: high permeability and homogeneousmicropores for sites B (Ravières) and C (Bierry-Les-Fontaines) andlow permeability associated to micropores in the outer laminae forsite A (Massangis). This heterogeneity is found in the imbibitioncoef!cients too. The dual behaviour observed for the permeabilityresults occurs again: low values for Massangis (site A, imbibitioncoef!cient: 24 g m!2s!1/2) and much higher values for Ravières andBierry-les-Belles-Fontaines (sites B and C, imbibition coef!cient:115.42 g m!2s!1/2). Although the number of samples measured isvery different (18 permeability measurements and 101 imbibitionmeasurements) the trends are very similar for the two methods. Our

Fig. 7. Mercury porosimetry: cumulative curves of mercury intrusion depending on porethroat diameter. (a) oolitic shoal facies, (b) tide dominated facies, (c) progradingoolitic facies.

Fig. 8. Permeability as a function of porosity.

132 L. Casteleyn et al. / Sedimentary Geology 230 (2010) 123–138

!ndings clearly bring out the connection between permeability andimbibition. Both methods characterize "uid motion and reveal thatimbibition seems to be good proxy for permeability. No statisticalanalysis were perform because of the few permeability data butBenavente et al. (2007) and Cueto et al. (2009) show such correlationfor, respectively, some building rocks and fractured dolostones.

As we saw before, the plot permeability as a function of porosityshows that permeability increases with porosity. Nevertheless, threesamples are not following the same trend and show better permeabilitydata: BY04 (oolitic shoal facies), BY01 and BY02 (prograding oolitic facies).The reason for such high values for BY04 and BY01 is the high degree ofconnectivity between microporous components (ooids and pellets)observed in thin section. On the other hand, BY02has a high permeabilitybecause of its porous micritic matrix with numerous mesopores.

5. Discussion

The detailed study of the relationship betweenmicrostructure andpetrophysical properties of the Oolithe Blanche Formation indicates astrong control by microstructures. This is revealed by signi!cantdifferences of "ow properties not only between each facies but alsowithin the same facies, as with the prograding oolitic facies wherevariations of one or two orders of magnitude can be measured. Threemajor microstructural parameters in"uence permeability and imbi-bition: porosity size, i.e. micro-, meso- and macroporosity, the natureof the orthochem (sparite or micrite) and the compaction rate whichin"uence the repartition and the !nal quantity of cement, and thedistribution of micropores in the ooid grains.

The three types of pores space observed, micro-, meso- andmacropores, are expressed differently in each facies. While the ooliticshoal facies and tide dominated facies exhibit micropores alone, theprograding oolitic facies is muchmore heterogeneous, displaying all threetypesof pores. Similarly,whereasmicropores arepresentwithin theooidsregardless of the facies, macropores are always located in the cement.Mesopores are found in a single sample (BY02),within themicritematrix.In the prograding oolitic facies, the mercury porosimetry data shows onlytwo samples with a family pore throat size upper than 1 "m: BY02 andMA01. We didn't observe macropores in BY02 thin section, onlymesopores which correspond to this second pore throat size family. Allthe others samples present macropores but only MA01 porosimetry datashow them. Mercury porosimetry data tells us pore apertures sizes andnot sizes of the pores themselves. A macropore may be connected to the

pore network by micropores alone. In this event, the macropore familywill not be identi!ed by mercury porosimetry because the macropore!lling volumewill be ascribed to the diameter of themicropores allowingaccess to themacropores. For this reason, we can say thatmacropores areconnected to the micropore network in some samples, corresponding tothe high values of total porosity without necessarily improving the "owproperties (e.g. BY11 21.1% porosity and 0.68 mD).

The second parameter that seems to in"uence "ow properties is thedegree of interconnectedness among ooids. This is mainly controlled bythe nature of the orthochem (sparite ormicrite) and by the compactionrate which is characterized in thin section by the quantity and therepartition of the cement. Micritic matrix is microporous and allowsgood "ow properties. But in most samples, the orthochem is sparitecement. In those cases it is the compaction rate which in"uences "owproperties allowing or not a good connection between the porouscomponents: ooids and pellets (Fig. 5c and d). Likewise, greaterquantities of non porous bioclasts than ooids or recrystallization fringesbetween grains act as barriers to "uids (Figs. 4a and 5a).

The distribution of micropores in ooid grains also in"uencesreservoir properties. The microstructural study reveals two types ofmicropore texture within the ooid: distribution is either homogenousacross the grain or it is localized on the grain edge. The plot presentedin Fig. 10 is permeability as a function of microporosity. BY02 isnot represented because it contains no or a few microporosity.Two behaviours are observed according to the quantity and thedistribution of microporosity. The !rst one is for samples with lowpermeability (b0.1 mD). In this case, microporosity is lower than 12%and micropores are localized in the outer laminae. The secondbehaviour is observed when microporosity is higher. In this case,micropores are homogeneous within ooids and permeability is better(N0.1 mD). Only one sample doesn't !t with this trend, RAV01 fromthe oolitic shoal facies where the permeability is controlled by itslow rate of compaction which does not allow contact between grains.The result is that microporosity controls the "ow properties in theOolithe Blanche Formation. The "uids in the samples with microporeslocalized in the outer laminae must travel a longer path to cross anooid than in the case of homogeneous micropores.

An interesting point is that Lønøy (2006) found that patchydistributions of porosity have no effect on the permeability compare

Fig. 10. Permeability as a function of microporosity. Two behaviours are observed. The!rst one is for samples with low permeability which contain few microporosity andmicropores localised in the outer laminae. The second one is for sample with higherpermeability and microporosity. These samples have homogeneous distribution ofmicropores inside ooids.

Fig. 9. Imbibition coef!cients as a function of porosity.

133L. Casteleyn et al. / Sedimentary Geology 230 (2010) 123–138

with a uniform distribution. Lønøy interprets this result by puttingforward the similar pore-throat size. In the case of the OolitheBlanche Formation, the main parameter is not only the distribution ofmicropores inside ooids but also the degree of connectivity betweenmicroporous components.

These observations were used to develop several sketch maps ofpore networks combining the three foregoing parameters so as tosummarize the microstructural data and petrophysical properties ofthe Oolithe Blanche formation. Two facies appear to be homogeneous:the oolitic shoal facies and the tide dominated facies. The microstruc-tures are similar and show that the depositional mechanisms weresimilar: only the size of macrostructures differs. Accordingly two porenetwork sketch maps explain the behaviour of these two facies. Theprograding oolitic facies differs both in the nature of its orthochem andin the distribution of micropores. This is why three sketch maps weredeveloped to capture the behaviour of this facies.

5.1. Oolitic shoal facies and tide dominated facies

These two facies display more homogeneity in the petrophysicaldata and microstructures than the prograding oolitic facies. Theirmean porosity values (block means) are similar: 14.8% for theoolitic shoal facies and 17.7% for the tide dominated facies. Even so,there are wide variations in their permeability values which rangefrom 2.8 mD to almost zero. Thin section study indicates that thesefacies have varying amounts of components but that their sparitecement is invariably greater than 10% with two types of spatialdistribution: homogenous and heterogeneous indicating differentcompaction rate. After the study of the different data, two mainbehaviours are found within the oolitic shoal facies and tidedominated facies. These behaviours are synthesized in Fig. 11(models A and B). The two sketch maps show these facies are made

up of ooids, pellets and bioclasts with a homogeneous interparticlemicroporosity within the ooids. Sketch map a differs in having aslightly lower compaction characterizing by a larger amount ofcement but above all in the spatial distribution of this cementbeing homogenous within the section. This low compaction of therock means that the porous components (ooids and pellets) areseldom in contact, thus impeding "uid "ow within the rock. Sketchmap b shows a higher compaction (heterogeneous distribution ofcement within the thin section) and consequently good contactamong components. However, "uid motion is no better in thismodel since there are few contacts between ooids (or pellets).There is a large quantity of bioclasts and so there are manycontacts between ooids and non-porous bioclasts. Some ooids doseem, though, to be interlocked, but there is a thin sparite cementfringe between them creating a barrier.

Accordingly "uids within these facies circulate less readily despitetheir substantial homogeneous microporosity. These facies arenot suitable to CO2 storage because of likely dif!culties with injection,despite their comparatively good storage capacity (percentageporosity).

5.2. Prograding oolitic facies

Unlike the previous two facies, the prograding oolitic facies is highlyvariable in terms of microstructure and petrophysical properties.Microstructurally, it is the only facies with both types of orthochems:micritematrix or sparite cement (the other facies having sparite cementalone). Moreover, all three porosity classes occur; macroporosity in allsamples (except BY02), mesoporosity in the micrite matrix andinterparticle microporosity in the ooids (and pellets). The origin of themicroporosity is still to be studied but it can be said already that themacro- and mesopores arise from dolomitization/dedolomitizationsince the jagged shapes of the macropores are typical of dolostone

Fig. 11. Pore network sketchmaps summarizing the variousmicrostructures observed in the samples of the Oolithe Blanche Formation. Sketchmaps [a] and [b] show the two types ofmicrostructure observed in the tide dominated facies and oolitic shoal facies. In both models the orthochem is sparite and non porous. There are intraparticle micropores within theooids. The low permeability of these facies is explained in [a] by a low compaction rate characterize by a large quantity of sparite cement preventing contact between ooids and in [b]by the presence of bioclasts (non porous as made of calcite) that act as barriers to "uids. Sketch maps [c]–[e] correspond to prograding oolitic facies and are arranged from most toleast permeable. [c] The highest permeability is associated with microporous micrite matrix and well connected mesopores. The ooids are slightly porous. [d] This sketch map (andthe following ones) has non porous sparite cement. Porosity is intraparticle macroporosity and interparticle microporosity. Micropores are located within the ooids and ishomogeneous. [e] This sketch map represents the least permeable samples of the prograding oolitic facies. It is similar to [d] (macropores and micropores) except for the location ofmicropores which here is non homogeneous in the ooids but circular and located in the !nal laminae. Accordingly total porosity is lower.

134 L. Casteleyn et al. / Sedimentary Geology 230 (2010) 123–138

rhombohedra. One of the features of this macropores is that they areconnected to theporenetworkvia theooidmicropores alone.Moreover,the spatial distribution of the micropores within the ooids is variable: itis homogeneous in the laminae or else it is located around the edgesonly. The amount of microporosity is directly related to its localization:this is high when it is located in all the laminae and low when it iscircular only. The high compaction of the rock, observed in thin sectionby the small amount of orthochem (less than 10%) is an asset for goodreservoir properties because the components are in clear contact witheach other allowing for greater "ow.

The location of micropores is very well correlated with the reservoirproperties of this facies. The most permeable samples are those withhomogeneous and plentiful micropores whereas the least permeablesamplesare thosewith lowmicroporosity localizedaroundtheooidedges.

All of this information has been synthesized on different porenetwork sketch maps, proposed to meet the various criteria (Fig. 11;sketch maps c, d and e). These three sketch maps are ranked byincreasing order of permeability. The !rst sketchmap (c) is for sampleswith substantial micrite matrix (type BY02). These samples are verypermeable despite low intraparticle micropores in the ooids. Fluids cancirculate in the microporous micrite matrix and in the mesopores thatare very well interconnected. Sketch maps d and e are fairly similar interms of quanti!cation of components and cement. The biggestdifference is !nally in the spatial distribution of micropores, the morepermeable model having homogenous micropores whereas in thesecond, micropores are located on the ooid edges.

The study shows that it is the quantity and distribution of themicroporosity that best governs "uid motion and is the mostimportant reservoir property of the prograding oolitic facies. TheOolithe Blanche Formation is a microporous reservoir, with theprograding oolitic facies exhibiting erratic reservoir properties. In thewhole data set, only four sample show permeability higher than 1 mDand among those three of them are prograding oolitic samples.Furthermore, this facies exhibit the lowest permeability values.Consequently, in case of CO2 storage, it will be necessary to betterconstrain the behaviour of this facies in in situ conditions.

6. Conclusion

Outcrops of the Oolithe Blanche Formation have been studied tobetter constrain the deep reservoir properties located at the centre of theParis Basin in order to estimate the potential for geological storage ofCO2. Special attention is therefore paid to porosity and permeability.Permeabilitymeasurement is a lengthyprocess and sowas coupledwitha study of imbibition coef!cients so as to obtain more data. Both thesefactors are related to "uid motion within the rock. Even if there is nodirect connection between permeability and imbibition coef!cients ourresults showthe two concordwell. These results are in a goodagreementwith those presented by Benavente et al. (2007) and Cueto et al. (2009).

This study has shown that the porosity of the formation is essentiallyheld within microporous ooids. Some samples have macropores butthese seem to be generally unrelated to "uid motion. Mesopores areobserved in one speci!c sample, BY02, where they have a wellcontribution to the high permeability value. The arrangement andamount of micropores is very important. The most permeable samplesare those with the greatest microporosity and a very homogenousdistribution in the ooids. By contrast, porosity in samples that are notvery permeable is lower and localized around the ooid edges.

Porosity, and microporosity in particular, is not the onlyinformation to consider when explaining permeability values. Wehave seen that the quantity of compaction is also important because itcharacterize connection between microporous elements. It is thecompaction that puts the ooids more or less into contact and sofacilitates or impedes the motion of "uids between components. Inparticular, two samples which show high permeability values (BY01

and BY04 from prograding oolitic and oolitic shoal facies respectively)are characterized by a very good connectivity between components.

As concerns the storage potential within this formation, we haveseen that the prograding oolitic facies is the most promising, because ofits better reservoir properties than the other two facies de!ned in thisstudy. However, there are wide disparities within the prograding ooliticfacies related to variations in porosity and pore spacedistributionwithinthe ooids. The different behaviours are related to the facies de!ned inthe study, suggesting a possible control of the petrophysical propertiesby the initial sedimentological processes. However, the petrophysicalproperties observed also sometimes display discrimination by thelocation of sample collection, hence the hypothesis that petrophysicalpropertiesmay also be controlled by diagenesis. Themain characteristicneeded for storage is the distribution of micropores inside ooids linkedto a good connectivity of microporous components.

More generally, this study shows the value of an integrated approachto understanding reservoirs, based on comparing and contrastingpetrophysical data studied alongside sedimentological and diageneticdata and supplemented by microstructural data. This type of approachshould make it possible to determine and explain the differentpetrophysical behaviours that directly control "uidmotion in a reservoir.

Acknowledgements

This work could not have been done without the cooperation ofRocamat and more especially of Mr Gilles Jouillerot, who allowed usaccess to working quarries. The study received funding from GdF Suez(UPMC –GdF Suez research agreement).We thank E. Puech, A. Lethiers,F. Delbès and Jean-Christian Colombier for their technical assistance andMuriel Lesueur, YasinMakhlou!, Aurore Hertout and Louis Zinsmeister,UPMC and UCP students, for their helpwith laboratorywork. This paperbene!ted from the constructive reviews of F. Jerry Lucia and Jeff Lukasik.

Appendix A

Water porosity measurements on the whole data set. Oolitic shoalfor oolitic shoal facies, Tide for tide dominated facies and Prograding forprograding oolitic facies.

Sample Facies Porosity (%)

BY05 Xa Oolitic shoal 12.38Xb 12.61Ya 11.83Yb 12.00Yc 11.64Yd 11.54Za 11.49Zb 9.66

BY04 Xa Oolitic shoal 16.91Xb 16.42Xc 16.55Xd 16.43Ya 17.28Yb 16.85Yc 16.11Yd 16.89Za 16.65Zb 16.26Zc 16.48

RAV01 Xa Oolitic shoal 18.68Xb 16.64Xc 16.95Ya 14.29Yb 12.91Yc 12.76Za 17.05Zb 18.37Zc 18.61

(continued on next page)

135L. Casteleyn et al. / Sedimentary Geology 230 (2010) 123–138

(continued)

Sample Facies Porosity (%)

BY08 Xa Tide 15.90Xb 15.84Xc 16.07Xd 16.78Ya 17.35Yb 17.61Yc 17.76Yd 18.04Za 12.76Zb 17.22Zc 17.74Zd 18.23

BY09 Xa Tide 18.33Xb 17.97Xc 18.17Xd 18.78Ya 17.64Yb 18.17Yc 18.76Yd 18.65Za 19.98Zb 18.15Zc 17.64Zd 19.48

RAV04 Xa Tide 23.72Xb 22.06Xc 21.78Ya 16.70Yb 18.13Za 16.42Zb 26.86Zc 21.02X 26.78Z 23.82

RAV05 Xa Tide 16.73Xb 16.76Ya 16.59Yb 15.98Yc 15.90Za 17.07Y 19.35Z 19.13

RAV02 Xa Tide 16.59Xb 16.08Xc 15.56Ya 16.35Yc 16.65Za 18.54Zb 18.07Zc 16.92Y 23.09Z 22.25

BY03 Xa Prograding 18.90Xb 18.31Xc 18.32Xd 18.75Ya 18.98Yb 17.81Yc 17.70Za 18.88Zb 16.94Zc 16.63

BY11 Xa Prograding 27.59Xb 22.03Xc 19.63Xd 19.73Ya 19.64Yb 19.66Yc 18.92Za 19.70Zb 21.81Zc 22.28

BY01 Xa Prograding 18.56Xb 19.31Xc 19.03Ya 19.08Yb 18.24

Appendix A (continued) (continued)

Sample Facies Porosity (%)

Yc 18.76Za 18.74Zb 19.25Zc 19.45Zd 20.55

BY10 Xa Prograding 21.21Xb 21.35Xc 27.18Xd 32.27Ya 24.32Yb 22.13Yc 21.93Yd 21.70Za 21.77Zb 24.81Zc 20.72Zd 21.45

BY02 Xa Prograding 24.60Xb 14.98Xc 13.69Xd 14.16Ya 13.14Yb 13.59Yc 14.86Yd 14.68Za 17.54Zb 22.28Zc 23.43Zd 23.21

RAV03 Xa Prograding 23.56Xb 23.47Xc 23.61Ya 20.72Yb 23.64Yc 23.21Za 21.65Zb 23.11Zc 22.55X 27.63Z 28.09

MA04 Xb Prograding 10.58Xc 8.52Ya 7.75Yb 6.14Yc 9.06Za 15.71Zb 10.56Zc 14.76Y 14.15Z 15.43

MA03 Xa Prograding 13.02Xb 14.01Xc 13.18Ya 12.54Za 13.44Zb 12.83Zc 12.46X 16.32Z 16.14

MA02 Xa Prograding 12.01Xb 12.92Xc 12.87Yb 13.09Yc 12.71Zb 12.84X 17.00Z 16.64

MA01 Xa Prograding 15.94Xc 14.72Ya 20.79Yb 17.61Yc 15.40Za 15.54Zb 17.61Zc 8.45X 21.00Z 13.13

Appendix A (continued)

BY01

136 L. Casteleyn et al. / Sedimentary Geology 230 (2010) 123–138

Appendix B

Capillary imbibition measurements on the whole data set. Ooliticshoal for oolitic shoal facies. Tide for tide dominated facies and Progradingfor prograding oolitic facies.

References

Anselmetti, F.S., Eberli, G.P., 1993. Controls on sonic velocity in carbonates. Pure andApplied Geophysics 141 (2–4), 287–323.

Bachu, S., Bonijoly, D., Bradshaw, J., Buruss, R., Holloway, S., Christensen, N.P.,Mathiassen, O.M., 2007. CO2 storage capacity estimation: methodology and gaps.International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 1, 430–443.

Baechle, G.T., Colpaert, A., Eberli, G.P., Weger, R.J., 2008. Effects of microporosity onsonic velocity in carbonate rocks. The Leading Edge 27 (8), 1012–1018.

Benavente, D., Cueto, N., Martinez-Martinez, J., Garcia-del-Cura, M.A., Canaveras, J.C.,2007. The in"uence of petrophysical properties on the salt weathering of porousbuilding rocks. Environmental Geology 52, 197–206.

Bradshaw, J., Bachu, S., Bonijoly, D., Burruss, R., Holloway, S., Christensen, N.P.,Mathiassen, O.M., 2007. CO2 storage capacity estimation: issues and developmentof standards. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 1, 62–68.

Brosse, E., Badinier, G., Blanchard, F., Caspard, E., Collin, P.Y., et al., 2010. Selection andcharacterization of geological sites able to host a pilot-scale CO2 storage in the ParisBasin (PICOREF). Oil and Gas Science and Technology 65 (3), 375–403.

Choquette, P.W., Pray, L.C., 1970. Geologic nomenclature and classi!cation of porosityin sedimentary carbonates. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin54 (2), 207–250.

Cueto, N., Benavente, D., Martinez-Martinez, J., Garcia-del-Cura, M.A., 2009. Rock fabric,pore geometry and mineralogy effects on water transport in fractured dolostones.Engineering Geology 107, 1–15.

Delmas, J., Brosse, E., Houel, E., 2010. Petrophysical properties of the Middle Jurassiccarbonates in the PICOREF sector (South Champagne, Paris Basin, France). Oil andGas Science and Technology 65 (3), 405–434.

Ehrenberg, S.N., Eberli, G.P., Baechle, G., 2006a. Porosity–permeability relationships inMiocene carbonate platforms and slopes seaward of the Great Barrier Reef,Australia (ODP Leg 194, Marion Plateau). Sedimentology 53 (6), 1289–1318.

Ehrenberg, S.N., Eberli, G.P., Keramati, M., Moalemi, S.A., 2006b. Porosity–permeabilityrelationships in interlayered limestone–dolostone reservoirs. American Associa-tion of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 90 (1), 91–114.

Ghabezloo, S., Sulem, J., Guédon, S., Martineau, F., 2009. Effective stress law for thepermeability of a limestone. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and MiningSciences 46, 297–306.

Holloway, S., 2005. Underground sequestration of carbon dioxide — a viablegreenhouse gas mitigation option. Energy 30, 2318–2333.

Holloway, S., Heederik, J.P., Van Der Meer, L.G.H., Czernichowski-Lauriol, I., Harrison, R.,Lindeberg, E., Summer!eld, J.R., Rochelle, C., Schwartzkopf, T., Kaarstad, O., Berger,B., 1996. The underground disposal of CO2. E.U. Non-Nuclear Energy (Joule)Programme, Final Report of the Joule II Project N. CT92-0031. 355 pp.

Keith, B.D., Pittman, E.D., 1983. Bimodal porosity in oolitic reservoir — effect onproductivity and log response, Rodessa Limestone (Lower Cretaceous), East TexasBasin. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 67 (9), 1391–1399.

Kopp, A., Class, H., Helmig, R., 2009a. Investigations on CO2 storage capacity in salineaquifers — Part 1: Dimensional analysis of "ow processes and reservoircharacteristics. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 3, 263–276.

Kopp, A., Class, H., Helmig, R., 2009b. Investigations on CO2 storage capacity in salineaquifers — Part 2: Estimation of storage capacity coef!cients. International Journalof Greenhouse Gas Control 3, 277–287.

Lion, M., Ledésert, B., Skoczylas, F., Recourt, P., Dubois, T., 2004. How doesmicropetrography help us to understand the permeability and poromechanicalbehaviour of a rock? Terra Nova 16, 351–357.

Sample Facies Capillary imbibition parameter(g/m!2 s!0.5)

BY05 Xb Oolitic shoal 42.29Ya 42.02Yb 42.06Yc 41.13Za 27.36Zb 18.17X 59.85

BY04 Xc Oolitic shoal 90.8Ya 93.61Yb 95.11Yc 84.99Za 90.35Zb 80.78Zc 84.62Y 116.23Z 83.85

RAV01 X Oolitic shoal 51.75BY08 Xb Tide 73.68

Xc 69.72Ya 72.49Yb 80.52Yc 75.98Zb 106.14Zc 79.67Zd 81.99Z 84.11

BY09 Xb Tide 51.05Xd 62.42Ya 60.51Yb 57.58Yc 54.9Yd 53.77Za 57.44Zb 44.08Zc 41.25Zd 60.59Z 47.76

RAV04 X Tide 90.28Z 54.54

RAV05 Y Tide 72.96Z 63.45

RAV02 Y Tide 57.34Z 58.01

BY03 Xa Prograding 123.65Ya 115.69Yb 98.23Za 117.34Zb 81.3Y 132.95Z 128.49

BY11 Z Prograding 112.52BY01 Xb Prograding 94.97

Yb 100.73Yc 94.729Za 97.67Zb 104.4Zc 105.38Y 126.35Z 118.15

BY10 Xa Prograding 110.93Xc 158.07Ya 140.75Yb 129.54Yc 112.93Yd 115.12Za 106.28Zb 130.16Zc 94.51

(continued)

Sample Facies Capillary imbibition parameter(g/m!2 s!0.5)

Zd 93.01BY02 Xa Prograding 113.32

Xc 32.68Ya 31.39Yb 39.59Yc 64.36Za 56.59Zb 101.86Zc 103.69Zd 71.66Y 70.97Z 82.5

RAV03 X Prograding 160.91Z 155.92

MA04 Y Prograding 24.36Z 30.22

MA03 X Prograding 39.29Z 37

MA02 X Prograding 25.03Z 22.14

MA01 X Prograding 7.31Z 6.71

BY01

Appendix B (continued)

137L. Casteleyn et al. / Sedimentary Geology 230 (2010) 123–138

Lønøy, A., 2006. Making sense of carbonate pore systems. AAPB Bulletin 90, 1381–1405.Lucia, F.J., 1983. Petrophysical parameters estimated from visual description of

carbonates rocks: a !eld classi!cation of carbonate pore space. Journal of PetroleumTechnology 216, 221–224.

Lucia, F.J., 1995. Rock-fabric/petrophysical classi!cation of carbonate pore space forreservoir characterization. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin79, 1275–1300.

Lucia, F.J., 1999. Carbonate reservoir characterization. Berlin, Springer-Verlag. 226 p.Mégnien, C., 1970. Carte géologique de Noyers 1/50000 et notice explicative. Bureau de

Recherche Géologique et Minière Editeur, Orléans, France.Moore, C.H., 2001. Carbonate reservoirs. Porosity evolution and diagenesis in a sequence

stratigraphic framework. Developments in Sedimentology 55 Elsevier, 444 pp.Norme NF EN 1925, 1999. Méthodes d'essai pour pierres naturelles. Détermination

du coef!cient d'absorption d'eau par capillarité (indice de classement: B10613).Ed AFNOR.

Norme NF EN 1936, 2007. Méthodes d'essai des pierres naturelles. Détermination desmasses volumiques réelle et apparente et desporosités ouvertes et totales. . EdAFNOR.

Palermo, D., Aigner, T., Geluk, M., Poeppelreiter, M., Pipping, K., 2008. Reservoirpotential of lacustrine mixed carbonate/siliciclastic gas reservoir: theLower Triassic Rogenstein in the Netherlands. Journal of Petroleum Geology 31(1), 61–95.

Qi, L., Carr, T.R., Goldstein, R.H., 2007. Geostatistical three-dimensional modelling ofoolite shoals, St Louis Limestone, southwest Kansas. American Association ofPetroleum Geologists Bulletin 91 (1), 69–96.

Roels, S., Carmeliet, J., Hens, H., Elsen, J., 2000. Microscopic analysis of imbibitionprocesses in oolitic limestone. Geophysical Research Letters 27 (21), 3533–3536.

Sterpenich, J., Sausse, J., Pironon, J., Géhin, A., Hubert, G., Perfetti, E., Grgic, D., 2009.Experimental ageing of oolitic limestones under CO2 storage conditions —petrographical and chemical evidence. Chemical Geology 265, 99–112.

Vidal-Gilbert, S., Nauroy, J.F., Brosse, E., 2009. 3D geomechanical modelling for CO2

geologic storage in the Dogger carbonates of the Paris Basin. International Journalof Greenhouse Gas Control 3, 288–299.

Washburn, E.W., 1921. Note on a method of determining the distribution of pore sizesin a porous material. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 7, 115–116.

138 L. Casteleyn et al. / Sedimentary Geology 230 (2010) 123–138